6
$\begingroup$

I already asked this question here on MSE, didn't get an answer, and I'm still stuck with it.


Suppose I have a smooth function $\psi$ from $\mathbb{R}^n$ to $\mathbb{C}$, for which I know that $$ \sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}^n}\left||x|^k\Delta^{p}\psi(x)\right|<\infty $$ for all $k,p\in\mathbb{N}_0$. Is this already sufficient for $\psi$ to be a Schwartz function?


I have tried fooling around with the Fourier transform, the problem seems to be however, that I am not able to control terms of the form $$ |x|D^p(|x|^{2k}\hat{\psi}) $$In particular, it doesn't seem to be possible to adapt the proof, that the Fourier transform is an isomorphism of Schwartz spaces, or I'm just too dumb to see it. I also tried to apply a vast number of different inequalities, but I didn't find anything that fits my problem. I didn't find a counterexample either.

Background: I have a Schrödinger resolvent, i.e. a solution $\psi$ of the equation $$ (-\Delta+V-\lambda)\psi=\varphi $$ where $-\Delta+V$ is e.s.a. on an appropiate kernel, $\varphi$ is Schwartz and $V$ is $C^\infty$ and slowly growing. Using semigroup estimates, I managed to prove that $\psi$ is polynomially bounded, rearranging the equation gives me that $\Delta\psi$ is polynomially bounded.

Any help in form of proofs, proof ideas or possible counterexamples would be greatly appreciated.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ For Schwartz, I also need polynomial boundedness in all derivatives. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Dec 15 '15 at 19:45
  • $\begingroup$ Right, I was asleep. $\endgroup$ – Christian Remling Dec 15 '15 at 19:47
  • $\begingroup$ Essentially, this is about controlling $\nabla\psi$ in terms of $\psi,\Delta\psi$ so en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riesz_transform should be useful. $\endgroup$ – Christian Remling Dec 15 '15 at 20:14
  • $\begingroup$ @ChristianRemling Thank you for your suggestion! I actually tried some Sobolev-Type inequalities, but so far I didn't stumble over the Riez transform. The problem with the Sobolev-Type inequalities was usually, that I pay too much when passing to the sup. Riez transform looks useful in that regard. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Dec 15 '15 at 20:42
1
$\begingroup$

I think the bound is sufficient to prove that $u$ is a Schwartz function.

Your assumption implies that $x^\alpha \Delta^p u$ is in $L^2$ for all $\alpha,k$. Thus for the Fourier transform $v$ of $u$ we have that $D^\alpha(|x|^{2p}v)$ is in $L^2$ for all $\alpha,p$. Take $\alpha=0$: we get that $|x|^{2p}v$ is in $L^2$ for all $p$. Now take $\alpha=(1,0,...,0)$: we have $|x|^{2p}\partial_1v+2p|x|^{2p-2}x_1v$ is in $L^2$ for all $p$, which by the previous step implies $|x|^{2p}\partial_1v$ is in $L^2$ for all $p$. And so on. Finally you get that $|x|^{2p}D^\alpha v$ is in $L^2$ for all $\alpha,p$ thus $v$ is Schwartz.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Why is $x_1|x|^{2p-2}v$ polynomially bounded? $\endgroup$ – Daniel Dec 16 '15 at 15:41
  • $\begingroup$ I meant bounded, sorry $\endgroup$ – Daniel Dec 16 '15 at 15:47
  • $\begingroup$ It is bounded by $(|x|^{2p}+|x|^{2p-2})|v|$ which is in $L^2$. What is your doubt? $\endgroup$ – Piero D'Ancona Dec 16 '15 at 16:37
  • $\begingroup$ Hm, I actually didn't write what I meant, and I am not sure anymore whether what I meant is right :D I'll check as soon as I am home. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Dec 16 '15 at 18:55
  • $\begingroup$ Yeah, sadly what I actually meant seems to be right. I already tried something like this, the problem here is the "and so on"-part - in the induction step, I will get terms like $\partial_i|x|^{2p}D^\alpha v$ or similar (In my original attempt, I got the $|x|D^\alpha|x|^{2p} v$ from the question, as I came from the other side), and I have not figured out how to control them. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Dec 16 '15 at 20:59

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.