1. Introduction
The main task of the present paper is to determine the boundedness of the following bilinear oscillatory operators along parabola
with β > 1 or β < 0. The main result is as follows.
Theorem 1.1. Assume β is real number such that β < 0 or β > 1. We have
for
and the constant $C_{\beta, r, p, q}\lt\infty$ depending only on $\beta, p, q$ and r.
In [Reference Fan and Li4], Fan and Li proved that T β is bounded from $L^\infty\times L^2$ to L 2 with $\beta\lt-1$. In the same paper, the authors raised an open question to set up the $L^p\times L^q\to L^r$ boundedness for T β with $(p,q,r)$ satisfying Equation (1.2) for β < 0. In this paper, we give a confirm answer to this question. T β is an oscillatory form of the bilinear Hilbert transform along the parabola, which is defined as
for f and g in the Schwartz class $\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R})$ whose boundedness was obtained by Li [Reference Li11] and Li and Xiao [Reference Li and Xiao12]. Our main interest is to explore how the oscillatory term ${\rm e}^{i|\xi|^\beta}$ effects the boundedness of the operator. To make the idea clear, we start with the well-known bilinear Hilbert transform
By Fourier transform, the bilinear Hilbert transform can be written (informly) as
Here sgn(x) denotes the Sign function. The line $\xi=\eta$, the set of the critical points of sgn $(\xi-\eta)$, is called the resonance set. We say that the functions f resonates with g on the resonance set. If we have some suitable decay estimate away from the line, the bilinear Hilbert transform is almost a product of f and g. We could obtain the boundedness of the bilinear Hilbert transform. However, this problem becomes very subtle since the line $\xi=\eta$ is modulation-invariant. This is the main obstacle to obtain the boundedness of the bilinear Hilbert transform. The boundedness of such bilinear transform was conjectured by Calderón and motivated by the study of the Cauchy integrals on Lipschitz curves. In the 1990s, this conjecture was verified by Lacey and Thiele in a breakthrough pair of papers [Reference Lacey and Thiele9, Reference Lacey and Thiele10]. In their works, a systematic and delicate method was developed, inspired by the famous works of Carleson [Reference Carleson1] and Fefferman [Reference Fefferman5], which is nowadays referred as the method of time–frequency analysis. Over the past two decades, this method has emerged as a powerful analytic tool to handle problems that are related to multilinear analysis.
We write (informally) the multiplier of $H_{t^2}$ as
The extra curvature of t 2 breaks down the modulation invariant of the operators. The tools in oscillatory integral such as van der Corput’s lemma and method of stationary phase work well. Along this direction, there are plenty of literatures studying how the curvature of a general curve effects the boundedness of bilinear Hilbert transform along a general curve (replacing the parabola t 2 by a general curve γ). We refer the readers to the recent paper [Reference Li and Yu13] and the references in it.
The multiplier of the bilinear oscillatory integral T β can be written (informally) as
Except the curvature of t 2, the oscillatory term ${\rm e}^{i|t|^\beta}$ also effects the distribution of the singular points. Thus, there is the competition between t 2 and ${\rm e}^{i|t|^\beta}$. As one may find out in § 2, β < 0 affects when $|t|\lt1$ and β > 0 places a rule for $|t|\gt1$. The main contribution of this paper is to elaborate the competition. For this reason, we need to consider different cases carefully.
The bilinear oscillatory integrals studied in this paper are the combination of the bilinear Hilbert transform along curve $H_{t^2}$ and the oscillatory operators
These operators are excluded in Cardelón–Zygmund type operators (see [Reference Fefferman and Stein6, 7, Reference Sjölin15, Reference Wainger16]). Moreover, for the case β > 1, let us assume for a moment β = 3. We believe our result may share some light on the boundedness of the trilinear Hilbert transform:
but we do not pursue this issue in this paper.
2. Strategy of the proof
In this section, we explain the strategy of the proof. We split the bilinear operator T β into two parts:
and
It is sufficient to prove that they map $L^p\times L^q$ to L r under the condition (1.2). When $|t|\leq 1$, the term ${\rm e}^{i|t|^{\beta}}$ behaves like 1 if β > 0, and when $|t|\geq1$, ${\rm e}^{i|t|^\beta}\sim 1$ if β < 0. Hence, we compare them with
and
respectively. Their sum is the bilinear Hilbert transform
From Li [Reference Li11] and Li and Xiao [Reference Li and Xiao12], we know that $H,$ $H_{\leq 1}$ and $H_{\geq1}$ are $L^p\times L^q$ to L r bounded for $p, q, r$ satisfying Equation (1.2).
When $\beta \geq 1$, by Taylor’s formula,
The boundedness of $T_{\beta, \leq1}$ is reduced to set up the boundedness of
under condition (1.2).
When β < 0, we use Taylor’s formula again,
We decompose $\frac{1}{t}=\sum_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}\rho_j(t)$, where $\rho: {\mathbb R}\to {\mathbb R}$ is a non-negative smooth bump function supported on $[-3, -1]\cup [1, 3]$ and $\rho_j(t)=2^j\rho(2^jt)$. It is sufficient to set up the uniform boundedness of
Li and Xiao [Reference Li and Xiao12] have already set up the following bilinear estimates.
Lemma 2.1. For every p, q and r satisfying Equation (1.2), we have
with a bound uniform in $j\in {\mathbb Z}$.
Using Equations (2.2) and (2.3) and Lemma 2.1, we can obtain the following result.
Proposition 2.1. For every p, q and r satisfying Equation (1.2), we have
and
Proof. The β > 1 case is clear. We only give the proof for β < 0. According to Equation (2.3), we have
By the triangle inequality, when $r\geq1$, we have
When $\frac{1}{2}\lt r\lt1$, we have
By Lemma 2.1 and noticing that β < 0, we can finish the proof.
We now consider the following bilinear operators:
and
In this step, the cancellation of the Hilbert kernel $p.v.\frac{1}{t}$ will not play a role. One can as well replace it by $\frac{1}{|t|}$ and prove the same bounds. Under this consideration, we define for any $j\ge1$
and
As a corollary of Lemma 2.1, we have
Theorem 2.1. Let β < 0 or β > 1, $r\geq\frac{1}{2}$, $p\ge1,\ q\ge1$, with $\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}=\frac{1}{r}$, there is a constant C independent of j and the coefficients of $p,\ q$, such that
Notice that
and
The main aim of this paper becomes to set up the following result.
Proposition 2.2. For every p, q and r satisfying Equation (1.2), β > 1 or β < 0, we have
with a constant depending only on β, p, q and r.
To prove Proposition 2.2, it is sufficient to show that
Noticing the uniform estimate (2.6), we can further reduce our aim to set up the following estimate.
Theorem 2.2. Suppose β > 1 or β < 0 and $j\geq 1$, there exists ϵ > 0 such that
Let us take β > 1, for example, and rewrite
with
The main idea is to obtain a suitable decay estimate of the bilinear multiplier $m_j(\xi,\eta)$, in which the critical points of the phase function
in the support of ρ play the crucial role. Thus, depending on the sizes of $2^{(1-\beta)j}\xi$ and $2^{(2-\beta)j}\eta$, the following decompositions will be natural.
Let $\Phi: {\mathbb R}\to {\mathbb R}$ be a Schwartz function such that $\widehat{\Phi}$ is a non-negative bump function supported on $[-3, -1]\cup [1, 3]$ and satisfies
For a function $f: {\mathbb R}\to {\mathbb R}$, we define
and
For fixed $j\geq 1$, we decompose
with
It equals to
Let C β be a large positive integer depending only on β. Define
We will consider several cases according to where m and mʹ take values from. The construction of the proof is stated in the following table.
In § 3, § 4, § 5, § 6 and § 7, for technical reasons, we need the condition β ≠ 2. As we pointed out, the curvature of the curve t 2 and the oscillatory term ${\rm e}^{i|\xi|^\beta}$ are used to isolate the critical points in the frequency space. But if β = 2, this isolation disappears. However, this case can be reduced to the $H_{t^2}$.
where $g_e(x)={\rm e}^{ix}g(x)$ and $\|g_e\|_p=\|g\|_p$. The boundedness of $H_{t^2}$ was already known.
3. The case of $m\in \Lambda_1$ or $m^{\prime}\in \Lambda_1$: contribution from extremely low frequencies
In the section, we consider the case of $m\in \Lambda_1$ or $m^{\prime} \in \Lambda_1$. We take $m\in\Lambda_1$ as an example. The other case can be handled similarly.
We write
By Fourier transform, it equals to
By Taylor’s formula,
Fix an $n\in\mathbb{N}$,
where $\phi(t)=2^{2j-\beta j}\eta t^2+|t|^{\beta}.$ Since
by van der Corput’s lemma, we have
By Hölder’s inequality, it is easy to obtain
We finish the proof of the case $m\in \Lambda_1$.
4. The case of $m, m^{\prime}\in \Lambda_3$
In this section, we consider the case $m,m^{\prime}\in\Lambda_3$. Without loss of generality, we assume that $m=m^{\prime}=0$. The main result of this section is the following decay estimate.
Proposition 4.1. For $\beta\gt1,j\geq 0$, we have
for some ϵ > 0 depending only on β.
Proof. By rescaling, it is sufficient to prove
where $f=P_{\beta j} f$ and $g=P_{(\beta-1)j}g$.
Using the standard localization argument, we can localize the integrals into small intervals. More precisely, for fixed $j\geq1$, we split $\mathbb{R}$ into disjoint intervals $\cup_{i}I_i$ with $I_i=[i2^j,(i+1)2^j),i\in{\mathbb Z}$. We set
where χ is the characteristic function. For $\forall x\in I_i,\ \text{and}\ |t|\leq1$, if $|x-t|\in I_{i^{\prime}} $, then we have $|i-i^{\prime}|\lt2$. Similarly, if $|x-2^jt|\in I_{i^{\prime\prime}} $, we also have $|i-i^{\prime\prime}|\lt2$.
By Cauchy-Schwarz, it is sufficient to prove
By Fourier transform, it equals to show that
By Hölder’s inequality, the left hand side of Equation (4.1) can be bounded by
Here, since $supp \hat{g}\subset \{|\eta|\sim 2^{(\beta-1)j}\}$, we have $\|\widehat{g}\|_1\lesssim2^{(\beta-1)j/2}\|\widehat{g}\|_2$. We consider the following term
where $\phi(t)=2^{-\beta j}t\xi+2^{j-\beta j}t^2\eta+|t|^\beta$ for $|\xi|\sim 2^{\beta j}, |\eta|\sim 2^{(\beta-1)j}$. Since β ≠ 2, for any fixed ξ and η, $\phi^{\prime}(t)$ and $\phi^{\prime\prime}(t)$ cannot be zero at the same point. By van der Corput’s lemma and the method of stationary phase, we obtain
Since β > 1, we can finish the proof.
5. The cases where phase functions admit no critical points
In this section, we study several cases. In these cases, the corresponding phase function does not admit any critical point. These cases are $(m\in \Lambda_2, m^{\prime}\in \Lambda_2)$, $(m\in \Lambda_2, m^{\prime}\in \Lambda_4)$, $(m\in \Lambda_4, m^{\prime}\in \Lambda_2)$, $(m\in \Lambda_3, m^{\prime}\in \Lambda_4)$ and $(m\in \Lambda_4, m^{\prime}\in \Lambda_3)$. The proofs for all these cases are similar. We only present the proof of the case $m\in \Lambda_3, m^{\prime}\in \Lambda_4$.
Without loss of generality, we take m = 0. By the triangle inequality, it is sufficient to prove that
Let $\tilde{m}_j$ be defined by
where
Then the fact that $m^{\prime}\gt C_\beta$ gives
By integration by parts, for every large integer M, it holds that
It is straightforward to check that
is a Coifman–Meyer multiplier, see [Reference Coifman and Meyer2] and [Reference Coifman and Meyer3]. This finishes the proof of the desired Equation (5.1).
6. The case of $m\in \Lambda_2, m^{\prime}\in \Lambda_3$
We assume again that $m^{\prime}=0$. Recall that $-\beta j\le m\le -C_{\beta}$. We will show the following:
Proposition 6.1. It holds that
for some ϵ > 0 depending only on β and $-\beta j\le m\le -C_{\beta}$.
When Equation (6.1) is true, by Cauchy–Schwarz, we have
with $M_{j,\beta}=\{m\in {\mathbb Z}; -\beta j\leq m\leq -C_\beta\}$ and
hold for j large enough. By taking $\epsilon_1\ll \epsilon$, we obtain our aim.
Proof of Proposition 6.1
By rescaling, it is sufficient to prove
where $f=P_{m} f$ and $g=P_{(\beta-1)j}g$ with $0\le m\le \beta j-C_{\beta}$.
By the localization argument above, it equals to set up
By turning to the Fourier side and the duality, we need to show
This will be finished in several subsections.
6.1. The case of $0\lt m\le (\beta-1)j-C_\beta$
To prove Equation (6.2), it is equivalent to prove
for f and g whose frequencies support on $[-3, -1]\cup [1, 3]$.
We set the phase function
Let t 0 denote the critical point of it. By the method of stationary phase, it is enough to prove
Changing the variables
the left hand side is comparable to
Here
By Hölder’s inequality, it is sufficient to prove
We expand the left hand side as
Changing the variables
we obtain
where
Let us denote
and
To proceed, we will use the following Hörmander’s oscillatory integral estimates.
Lemma 6.1. [Reference Hörmander8, Reference Phong and Stein14]
Let $a: {\mathbb R}^2\to {\mathbb R}$ be an amplitude supported on $[0, 1]^2$ with $\|a\|_{C^4}\lesssim 1$. Let $\Psi: {\mathbb R}^2\to {\mathbb R}$ be a phase function with
Then
for smooth functions f and g.
Proof of Lemma 6.1
Let us denote
It is equivalent to set up
with f supported in $[0,1]$. We rewrite
where
By Taylor’s formula, we have
Since
integration by parts shows that
We obtain
We now use Hölder’s inequality to obtain
Therefore, we finish the proof.
Lemma 6.2. Under the above notation, we have
and
for every $j\gg 1$.
Proof of Lemma 6.2
We assume that $t_0\gt0$, and when $t_0\lt0$, the proof is similar. Because $t_0(u,v)$ is the critical point of the phase function $\phi_{u, v}(t)$,
Thus, we have
and
By the chain rule, we have
and
By a direct calculation,
Hence,
The relation between v and t 0 is given by
Here we used the fact that β ≠ 2.
By an implicit function calculation,
Therefore,
Hence,
We notice that
where $2^{m-\beta j}\ll1$. According to the above equation, we have
When β ≠ 3, we have $(6.7)\approx 1$. When β = 3, we have $(6.6)\approx 2^{2m-5 j}$. By the mean value theorem, we have
for some $\theta\in[0,1]$. Therefore, Equation (6.4) can be proved. To prove Equations(6.5), it suffices to prove that
and
Both are straightforward to check. Therefore, Equation (6.5) is true.
To bound Equation (6.3), we write it as
for some τ 0 will be decided soon. The former term can be bounded by
For the latter term, when β ≠ 3, we bound it by
Choosing $\tau_0=2^{-\frac{\beta j}{3}+\frac{1}{3}j}$ will finish the proof.
When β = 3, for the latter term, we bound it by
Choosing $\tau_0=2^{-\frac{1}{3}m+\frac{1}{3}j}$ will finish the proof.
6.2. The case of $ (\beta-1)j-C_{\beta}\le m\le (\beta -1)j+C_\beta$
For convenience, we assume that $m=(\beta-1)j$. To prove Equation (6.2), it is equivalent to prove
for all functions f and g whose frequencies support on $[-3, -1]\cup [1, 3]$. Denote
Let t 0 denote the critical point of it. By the same argument as in last subsection, we face to estimate
where
Let us denote
and
Lemma 6.3. Under the above notation, we have
and
for every $j\gg 1$.
Proof of Lemma 6.3
As the same argument in § 6.2, we have
Hence,
The relation between v and t 0 is given by
Here we also used the fact that β ≠ 2. Let
We have
and
When β ≠ 3, we have (6.11) $\approx 1$. When β = 3, we have (6.11) $\approx 2^{- j}$. Equations (6.9) and (6.10) can be proved by the mean value theorem.
To estimate Equation (6.8), as before, we decompose it as
with τ 0 being given soon. The former term can be bounded by
For the latter term, when β ≠ 3, we bound it by
We can finish the proof by setting $\tau_0=2^{-\frac{(\beta-1)j}{3}}$.
When β = 3, we bound it by
We set $\tau_0=2^{-\frac{j}{3}}$ and finish this proof.
6.3. The case of $ (\beta-1)j+C_{\beta}\le m\le \beta j-C_\beta$
As before, we need to set up
for f and g whose frequencies support on $[-3, -1]\cup [1, 3]$. Let t 0 denote the critical point of
By the same argument, we need to estimate
with $b=2^{(\beta-1)j-m}$. Let
and
We can finish the estimate of Equation (6.12) with the following.
Lemma 6.4. Under the above notation and the assumption that β > 1, we have
for every $j\gg 1$. Moreover,
Proof of Lemma 6.4
By a direct calculation, we have
Hence,
The relation between v and t 0 is given by
We obtain
Here we used the fact that β ≠ 2.
By a implicit function calculation, we obtain
Therefore, we have
and
When β ≠ 3, we have (6.15) $\approx 1$. When β = 3, we have (6.15) $\approx 2^{m-3 j}$. We can finish Equations (6.13) and (6.14) in the same way as above.
With the above estimates, we can finish the estimate of Equation (6.12) in the same way.
The former term can be bounded by
For the latter term, when β ≠ 3, we bound it by
We can finish our proof by setting $\tau_0=\frac{-2m+\beta j-j}{3}$. The proof for the case β = 3 is more or less the same; for the latter term, we bound it by
We can finish the proof by setting $\tau_0=2^{-m+\frac{5j}{3}}$.
7. The cases of $(m\in \Lambda_3, m^{\prime}\in \Lambda_2)$ and $(m\in \Lambda_4, m^{\prime}\in \Lambda_4)$
In this section, we show the case $(m\in \Lambda_3, m^{\prime}\in \Lambda_2)$. The proof of the case $(m\in \Lambda_4, m^{\prime}\in \Lambda_4)$ is almost the same and will be left out. As before, it is sufficient to show (after a rescaling) that
where $f=P_{\beta j} f$ and $g=P_{m^{\prime}+\beta j-j}g$ with $-j\le m^{\prime}\le (\beta-1)j-C_{\beta}$. By the localization argument as above, it equals to show
By Fourier transform,
By scaling,
for f and g whose frequencies support on $[-3, -1]\cup [1, 3]$.
Let t 0 denote the critical point of the phase function
Changing the variables,
the left hand side of Equation (7.1) becomes
Denote
and
By the same argument as before, it is sufficient to prove
Lemma 7.1. With the same notation, we have
and
for every $j\gg 1$.
The proof of the lemma is exactly the same as in the last section; we omit the proof. With this lemma, we can obtain Equation (7.2) in the same way as before.
8. The case of β < 0
According to Equation (2.5), in this section, we will consider the operator
where β < 0 and $j\geq 1$.
As before, we decompose the frequencies of f and g and estimate
Define
where C β is a large positive integer that depends only on β. Similarly, depending on which set m belongs to and which set mʹ belongs to, we have 16 cases. These cases will be considered in § 9–§ 13.
9. The case of $m\in \Omega_1$ or $m^{\prime}\in\Omega_1$
In this case, the situation is similar as in § 3. When m is extremely small, the function $P_{-\beta j+j+m}f(x-2^{-j}t)$ is essentially the same as $P_{-\beta j+j+m}f(x)$. Therefore, $T_{j, m, m^{\prime}}(f, g)$ can be viewed as a product. We write
Turning to the Fourier side, we face
By Taylor’s formula, we have
Fix $n\in\mathbb{N}$, we consider the term
with $\phi_{\xi,\eta}(t)=2^{-2j+ \beta j}\eta t^2+|t|^{\beta}.$
Noticing that $|\phi^{\prime\prime\prime}_{\xi,\eta}(t)|\gtrsim1$, by van der Corput’s lemma, we have
We sum up according to $n\in\mathbb N$ and by Hölder’s inequality,
We finish the proof of the case $m\in \Omega_1$. The case $m^{\prime}\in\Omega_1$ can be estimated in the same way.
10. The case of $m, m^{\prime}\in \Omega_3$
In this section, without loss of generality, we assume that $m=m^{\prime}=0$.
Proposition 10.1. For β < 0, it holds that
for some ϵ > 0 depending only on β.
Proof. By rescaling, it suffices to prove
where $f=P_{-\beta j} f$ and $g=P_{(-\beta+1)j}g$.
By the localization argument as above, it is sufficient to set up
Turning to the Fourier side and applying duality, it equals to show that
By scaling, it can be rewritten as
for f and g whose frequencies support on $[-3, -1]\cup [1, 3]$.
By the method of stationary phase, it is enough to prove
Here
and t 0 is the critical point of it. By applying change of variables and denoting $ b=2^{-j}, $ it is sufficient to show that
We expand the left hand side as
By changing the variables
we obtain
Let us denote
and
Lemma 10.1. With the above notation, we have
and
As in last section, we omit the proof of the lemma. It can be proved in the same way. With this lemma, Equation (10.1) can be proved easily.
11. The cases where phase functions admit no critical points
This section contains several cases $(m\in \Omega_2, m^{\prime}\in \Omega_2)$, $(m\in \Omega_2, m^{\prime}\in \Omega_4)$, $(m\in \Omega_4, m^{\prime}\in \Omega_2)$, $(m\in \Omega_3, m^{\prime}\in \Omega_4)$ and $(m\in \Omega_4, m^{\prime}\in \Omega_3)$. The proofs for all these cases are similar. We only present the proof of the case $m\in \Omega_3, m^{\prime}\in \Omega_4$.
Without loss of generality, we assume m = 0. As in § 5, we consider the multiplier $m_j(\xi,\eta)$, which is given by
By integration by parts, for every large integer M, it holds that
With this estimate, we can finish the proof by the same argument as in § 5.
12. The case of $m\in{\Omega_2,\ m^{\prime}\in{\Omega_3}}$
Without loss of generality, we assume that $m^{\prime}=0$. We need to show that
where $f=P_{m-\beta j} f$ and $g=P_{(-\beta+1)j}g$ with $\beta j\le m\le -C_{\beta}$. By Hölder’s inequality, the left hand side of Equation (12.1) can be bounded by
Here, because $supp\hat{f}\subset \{\xi:|\xi|\sim2^{m-\beta j}\}$, we have the fact that $\|\widehat{f}\|_1\lesssim2^{(m-\beta j)/2}\|\widehat{f}\|_2$.
We note that
with $\phi_{\xi,\eta}(t)=2^{\beta j}t\xi+2^{\beta j-j}t^2\eta+|t|^\beta$. Since $ 2^{\beta j}\leq|2^{\beta j}\xi|\leq2^{-C_\beta},\ |\eta|\sim 2^{(-\beta+1 )j}$, $\phi^{\prime}_{\xi,\eta}(t)$ and $\phi^{\prime\prime}_{\xi,\eta}(t)$ cannot be zero at same point. By van der Corput’s lemma, we obtain
Notice that β < 0, it is enough to obtain the expected estimate.
13. The cases of $m\in{\Omega_3,\ m^{\prime}\in{\Omega_2}} $ and $m\in \Omega_4,\ m\in\Omega_4$
In this section, we consider the case $(m\in{\Omega_3,\ m^{\prime}\in{\Omega_2}} )$. The proof of ( $m\in \Omega_4,\ m\in\Omega_4$) is similar and will be left out. Without loss of generality, we assume m = 0. By the same argument as in § 7, we need to show
where $f=P_{-\beta j} f$ and $g=P_{m^{\prime}-\beta j+j}g$. We will consider two cases.
13.1. $\beta j\lt m^{\prime}\leqslant-j$
It is equivalent to show
for f and g whose frequencies support on $[-3, -1]\cup [1, 3]$. By the method of stationary phase, it is enough to prove that
Here t 0 is the critical point of
By changing the variables and setting $ b=2^{m'+j}, $ it is sufficient to prove that
We expand the left hand side,
By changing variables
we obtain
Let us denote
and
We can also set up the following key estimates as before.
Lemma 13.1. Under the above notation and the assumption that β < 0, we have
Moreover,
Proof of Lemma 13.1
By a direct calculation, we have
Hence,
The relation between v and t 0 is given by
We obtain
A simple calculation shows that
On the other side, we have
Therefore, we have
Hence,
Equation (13.3) follows from the mean value theorem. Equation (13.4) can also be proved in the same way.
We estimate Equation (13.2) in the same way as before.
The former term can be bounded by
For the latter term, when β < 0, we bound it by
We can finish the proof by setting $\tau_0=2^{\frac{\beta j}{3}-\frac{m^{\prime}}{3}+\frac{j}{3}}$.
13.2. $-j\lt{m^{\prime}}\lt-C_\beta$
As before, we need to set up
for f and g whose frequencies support on $[-3, -1]\cup [1, 3]$. By the method of stationary phase, it is enough to prove that
As before, t 0 is the critical point of
By changing the variables and taking $ b=2^{-m^{\prime}-j}$, it is sufficient to prove that
We expand the left hand side and change the variables to obtain
Let us denote
and
Lemma 13.2. With these notation, we have
and
Proof of Lemma 13.2
By a direct calculation, we have
Hence,
The relation between v and t 0 is given by
A simple calculation shows that
By an implicit function calculation, we obtain
Equation (13.7) can be proved as before. Equation (13.8) will also be proved in the same way.
We then write
The former term can be bounded by
For the latter term is bounded by
We can finish the proof by setting $\tau_0=2^\frac{\beta j-3m^{\prime}-j}{3}$.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Shaoming Guo for valuable and encouraging discussions about this paper.
Funding statement
Junfeng Li is supported by NSFC (grant number 12071052) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. Guoliang Li is supported by Nature Science Fundation of China (NSFC) (grant number 12271232).