Long range scattering for nonlinear Schr\"odinger equations with critical homogeneous nonlinearity in three space dimensions
Satoshi Masaki, Hayato Miyazaki, Kota Uriya

TL;DR
This paper investigates the long-range scattering behavior of solutions to three-dimensional nonlinear Schrödinger equations with critical homogeneous nonlinearities, establishing faster convergence rates and proposing a second asymptotic profile.
Contribution
It extends previous two-dimensional results to three dimensions, employing new estimates and operators to analyze the asymptotic behavior of solutions.
Findings
Solutions converge to a prescribed asymptotic profile faster than in lower dimensions.
A candidate for the second asymptotic profile is proposed.
The use of end-point Strichartz estimates and a time-dependent regularizing operator is crucial.
Abstract
In this paper, we consider the final state problem for the nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation with a homogeneous nonlinearity of the critical order which is not necessarily a polynomial. In [10], the first and the second authors consider one- and two-dimensional cases and gave a sufficient condition on the nonlinearity for that the corresponding equation admits a solution that behaves like a free solution with or without a logarithmic phase correction. The present paper is devoted to the study of the three-dimensional case, in which it is required that a solution converges to a given asymptotic profile in a faster rate than in the lower dimensional cases. To obtain the necessary convergence rate, we employ the end-point Strichartz estimate and modify a time-dependent regularizing operator, introduced in [10]. Moreover, we present a candidate of the second asymptotic profile to the…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Long range scattering for nonlinear Schrödinger equations with critical homogeneous nonlinearity in three space dimensions
Satoshi MASAKI
Division of Mathematical Science, Department of Systems Innovation, Graduate School of Engineering Science, Osaka University, Toyonaka, Osaka, 560-8531, Japan
,
Hayato MIYAZAKI
Advanced Science Course, Department of Integrated Science and Technology, National Institute of Technology, Tsuyama College, Tsuyama, Okayama, 708-8509, Japan
and
Kota URIYA
Department of Applied Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Okayama University of Science, Okayama, Okayama, 700-0005, Japan
Abstract.
In this paper, we consider the final state problem for the nonlinear Schrödinger equation with a homogeneous nonlinearity of the critical order which is not necessarily a polynomial. In [MM2], the first and the second authors consider one- and two-dimensional cases and gave a sufficient condition on the nonlinearity for that the corresponding equation admits a solution that behaves like a free solution with or without a logarithmic phase correction. The present paper is devoted to the study of the three-dimensional case, in which it is required that a solution converges to a given asymptotic profile in a faster rate than in the lower dimensional cases. To obtain the necessary convergence rate, we employ the end-point Strichartz estimate and modify a time-dependent regularizing operator, introduced in [MM2]. Moreover, we present a candidate of the second asymptotic profile to the solution.
Key words and phrases:
Nonlinear Schrödinger equations, Scattering
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
35B44, 35Q55, 35P25
1. Introduction
In this paper, we consider large time behavior of solutions to nonlinear Schrödinger equation
[TABLE]
Here, and is a complex-valued unknown function. We suppose that the nonlinearity is homogeneous of degree , that is, satisfies
[TABLE]
for any and . This is the continuation of the previous study in [MM2]. In [MM2], we consider one- and two-dimensional cases and give a sufficient condition on for existence of a modified wave operator, that is, for that (NLS) admits a nontrivial solution which asymptotically behaves like
[TABLE]
as , where is a given final data and is a real constant determined by . We would remark that it is applicable to non-polynomial nonlinearities such as . The aim here is to extend the previous result to the case . Because the exponent becomes small in high dimensions, we face some difficulties such as lack of differentiability of the nonlinearity. As for the nonlinearity , Ginibre-Ozawa [GO] showed that a class of solutions has the asymptotic profile (1.2) with . However, it seems that no other homogeneous nonlinearity is treated so far.
In [MM2], a sufficient condition on the nonlinearity for existence of a modified wave operator is given in terms of the “Fourier coefficients” of the nonlinearity. The crucial step of construction of a modified wave operator is to find an asymptotic behavior that actually takes place. For this part, specifying a resonant part of the nonlinearity, which determines the shape of the asymptotic behavior, is essential. A new ingredient in [MM2] is the expansion of the nonlinearity into an infinite sum via Fourier series expansion. For example, the nonlinearity is written as
[TABLE]
The first gauge-invariant term is the resonant part and the remaining infinite sum is a non-resonant part. It turns out that the possible asymptotic behavior of solutions to (NLS) with is (1.2) with .
Once we find a “right” asymptotic behavior, it is possible to construct a solution around the asymptotic profile. For this, we shall show that the non-resonant part is negligible for large time. Note that the non-resonant part is a sum of “gauge-variant” nonlinearities. Because of the gauge-variant property, the non-resonant part has different phase from the solution itself. The disagreement causes an extra time decay effect (cf. stationary phase) and so the effect of the non-resonant term becomes relatively small for large time. The case where the non-resonant part is a finite sum is previously treated in [ShT, HNST, HWN]. The main technical issue to treat general nonlinearity lies in showing that the non-resonant part which consists of infinitely many term is still acceptable (see [MM2]).
In this paper, we will extend the technique to the three-dimensional case. The argument in [MM2] is not directly applicable. To construct a solution around a given asymptotic profile in three dimensions, it is required that the solution converges to the asymptotic profile faster than in the one- and two-dimensional cases. Since the rate is controlled by the time decay rate of the non-resonant part, we need a good decay property of the non-resonant part. However, lack of differentiability in three-dimensions then disturbs obtaining such fast decay property.
To overcome this difficulty, we modify the argument of [MM2] in two respects. The first one is that we enlarge the function space to construct a solution by employing the end-point Strichartz estimate. This enable us to reduce the necessary condition on the rate of convergence of the solution. We notice that the end-point Strichartz estimate is peculiar to the space of dimensions other than two (see [KT]). The second respect is to improve the estimate for the high frequency part of the non-resonant part, which yields a better decay rate of the solution. However, we still assume that the given final data has very small low-frequency part. We remark that if a final data has a non-negligible low-frequency part then there appear other kinds of asymptotic behavior (see [HN02, HN04, HN11, HN15, N, NS]).
In order to present the main result, let us briefly recall the decomposition of the nonlinearity in [MM2]. We identify a homogeneous nonlinearity and -periodic function as follows. A homogeneous nonlinearity is written as
[TABLE]
We then introduce a -periodic function by . Conversely, for a given -periodic function , we can construct a homogeneous nonlinearity by if and if . Since is -periodic function, it holds, at least formally, that , where
[TABLE]
Remark that the expansion gives us
[TABLE]
1.1. Main results
Set for or . Let , . The weighted Sobolev space on is defined by . Let us simply write . We denote by the Lipschitz norm of .
Throughout the paper, we suppose the following:
Assumption 1.1**.**
Assume that is a homogeneous nonlinearity of degree such that a corresponding -periodic function satisfies , , and
[TABLE]
for some , where is given in (1.5). In particular, is Lipschitz continuous.
Theorem 1.2** (Existence and uniqueness).**
Suppose that the nonlinearity satisfies Assumption 1.1 for . Fix so that . Then, there exists such that for any satisfying there exists and a solution of (NLS) which satisfies
[TABLE]
for any , where
[TABLE]
The solution is unique in the following sense: If solves (NLS) and satisfies (1.7) for some and then .
The following theorem describes the asymptotic behavior more precisely.
Theorem 1.3** (Asymptotic behavior).**
Under the same assumption as in Theorem 1.2, the solution given in Theorem 1.2 satisfies
[TABLE]
for any , where
[TABLE]
In the -topology, is small: For any ,
[TABLE]
In the -topology, it holds that
[TABLE]
for any , where
[TABLE]
Remark 1.4*.*
A straightforward estimate shows . However, we do not have a lower bound of so far. If this estimate is sharp then and are true second asymptotic profiles of the solution in -topology. On the other hand, if (and so ) is small also in -topology, then the asymptotics (1.9) holds with , which means the asymptotic behavior of is the same as that in the case .
Remark 1.5*.*
In the case , our estimate (1.9) is an improvement of that in [GO]. More precisely, it improves possible range of and includes the endpoint case .
Remark 1.6*.*
Under suitable additional assumptions such as , we have in , where is a homogeneous nonlinearity such that the corresponding Fourier coefficients are . The asymptotic profile is a natural extension of those used in [MTT, ShT].
Remark 1.7*.*
Our theorem can be applied to . The corresponding periodic function is and so
[TABLE]
In particular, as . See Appendix A for the details.
Remark 1.8*.*
Theorem 1.2 implies that when satisfies Assumption 1.1 and , (NLS) admits a nontrivial solution which has the asymptotic profile
[TABLE]
Notice that this is nothing but the asymptotic behavior of the linear solution , and so that our theorem implies that the equation admits an asymptotic free solution in this case. The nonlinearity is such an example (See Appendix A).
1.2. Strategy and Improvements
Let us briefly outline the proof of Theorems 1.2 and 1.3. The strategy is the same spirit as in [MM2]. By the decomposition (1.6) and by Assumption 1.1, we write
[TABLE]
Denote
[TABLE]
corresponds to the resonant part and to the non-resonant part. We then introduce a formulation in [HWN] (see also [HNST, ShT, HN06]). Let . Introduce a multiplication operator and a dilation operator by
[TABLE]
They are isometries on . Then, is written as with
[TABLE]
Note that . We regard the equation (NLS) as
[TABLE]
where . A computation shows that it is rewritten as the following integral equation;
[TABLE]
where external terms are defined by
[TABLE]
with
[TABLE]
(see [HWN] for the details).
For , , and , we define a complete metric space
[TABLE]
It is easy to see that if , , and . When the asymptotic profile is suitably chosen, we can construct a solution in for some . The appropriateness can be stated as the existence of such that
[TABLE]
where and are given in (1.18) and (1.19), respectively. The solvability of (1.17) under this assumption will be discussed in Section 3. Then, it will turn out that we need to choose .
Remark 1.9*.*
The condition for is in dimensions (see [MM2]), and so the above condition is a natural extension.
Remark 1.10*.*
An improvement lies in the definition of -norm. In the previous paper [MM2], the norm has one more term
[TABLE]
where if and if are admissible pairs. In the three-dimensional case, we are able to remove this kind of auxiliary norm by means of the endpoint Strichartz estimate. Theorem 1.3 suggests that the exponent for which (1.21) can be bounded actually depends on the choice of .
The main step of the proof of main theorems is the following.
Proposition 1.11**.**
Let . Assume that for some . For any , there exists a constant such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
holds for all , where is given in (1.10).
The first estimate shows that (1.20) holds for . We then obtain Theorem 1.2. The second estimate is a main step of the proof of (1.9). Combining some other estimates on , we obtain Theorem 1.3.
The main technical part lies in the estimate of . We briefly recall previous results to explain how to handle the term. In [HNST], Hayashi, Naumkin, Shimomura, and Tonegawa introduced an argument to show the time decay of the non-resonant part by means of integration by parts. The decay comes from the fact that the phase of the non-resonant part is different from that of the linear part. Their method however requires higher differentiability of the nonlinearity. In order to reduce the required differentiability of the nonlinearity, Hayashi, Naumkin, and Wang [HWN] employ a time-dependent smoothing operator (essentially a cutoff to the low-frequency part) and apply the integration by parts only to the low-frequency part. In [MM2], the frequency cutoff is chosen dependently also on the “Fourier mode” to treat an infinite Fourier series expansion of the nonlinearity.
The time decay estimates of the high-frequency part in [HWN, MM2] are based on the fact that the regularizing operator converges to the identity operator as time goes to infinity. So, the only way to improve the estimate would seem to “lessen” the high-frequency part by modifying the regularizing operator so that it converges in a faster rate. However, if we do so, then the estimate for the low-frequency part becomes worse. The loss may not be recovered by refining the estimate on the low-frequency part because such a refinement requires differentiability more than that nonlinearities satisfying (1.1) possess.
To resolve the difficulty, we improve the estimate for the high-frequency part in another way. We work with a regularizing operator which has a flatness property. This enable us to use a regularizing operator even milder than that used in [HWN, MM2]. For the details, see Remark 2.2. As a result, it reduces the required differentiability of the nonlinearity. The idea is also applicable to the two-dimensional case and improves the previous result in [MM2]. However, we do not pursue it here.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we summarize useful estimates. The improve estimate for regularizing operator is discussed here. Section 3 is devoted to the proof of main theorems in an abstract form. Then, it will turn out that our main result is a consequence of Proposition 1.11. Finally, we prove Proposition 1.11 in Section 4.
2. Preliminaries
2.1. An estimate for regularizing operator
To obtain time decay property of the non-resonant part , we improve an estimate for the high-frequency part. In this subsection, we consider general space dimensions . We denote the homogeneous Sobolev space on by . Let . We introduce a regularizing operator by
[TABLE]
We have an equivalent expression
[TABLE]
The following is an improvement of [MM2] by using a kind of isotropic property of near the origin.
Lemma 2.1** (Boundedness of ).**
Take and set as in (2.1). Let and . Assume if . For any and , the followings hold.
- (i)
* is a bounded linear operator on and satisfies . Further, commutes with . In particular, is a bounded linear operator on and satisfies .* 2. (ii)
* is a bounded linear operator from to with norm*
[TABLE]
Proof.
The first item is obvious. Let us prove the second. We consider the case and , the other case is the same as in [HWN]. It suffices to show the case . By assumption , we have
[TABLE]
For , one sees from the equivalent expression that
[TABLE]
Remark that
[TABLE]
for . By these estimates,
[TABLE]
The proof is completed. ∎
Remark 2.2*.*
It is the property that allows us to take in Lemma 2.1 (ii). The property implies that the corresponding cutoff operator is a “flat” cutoff. It was not used in [HWN, MM2] and so is restricted to . If , the time decay for the high-frequency part, which is given with , is not sufficient. To recover the lack of decay, the operator of the form was used with . This makes the estimate of the high-frequency part better but that of the low-frequency part worse, in view of the time decay rate and order in . In particular, the low-frequency part generated by the operator is considerably large and so it causes some loss in the integration-by-parts procedure.
Remark 2.3*.*
It is easy to see that if satisfies in the neighborhood of the origin, we have no upper bound on in Lemma 2.1.
2.2. Fractional chain rule of homogeneous functions of order
Let us collect useful estimates on the estimate of the nonlinearity satisfying (1.1). In view of the expansion (1.6), we consider nonlinearity of the form . To this end, we introduce a Lipschitz norm . For a multi-index , define . Put with and . For a function , we define
[TABLE]
If and , then we write .
Lemma 2.4**.**
* for some and for any .*
Proof.
Set . By definition of the Lipschitz norm,
[TABLE]
Obviously, the first term is bounded. In what follows, we estimate the second term. The third term is handled similarly.
Introduce by
[TABLE]
To estimate the second term, it suffices to consider the case . Indeed, if then
[TABLE]
otherwise, denoting and in the phase amplitude form and , we have
[TABLE]
where . Let to be chosen later. Using the elemental inequality , we have
[TABLE]
for any . Let us consider tha case . By the Taylor expansion, if is sufficiently small then for any , which implies . Hence,
[TABLE]
for any , where we have used . Thus, combining the above estimates, we see that
[TABLE]
This completes the proof. ∎
We recall the fractional chain rule in [MR1419319, Theorem 5.3.4.1] (see also [MS]).
Lemma 2.5**.**
Suppose that and . Let . Then, there exists a positive constant depending on and such that
[TABLE]
holds for any .
2.3. Estimates on nonlinearity
We give some specific estimates on and by using the tools established in the preceding subsection.
Lemma 2.6**.**
Let . Let and define as in (1.16). Then,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for any .
Proof.
Let us prove the first estimate. Since the estimate is trivial, we estimate norm. Fix and let for simplicity. Let . Note that is a -Hölder functions with norm because
[TABLE]
It holds that
[TABLE]
where is a -Hölder continuous function. We only estimate the second term since the first term is treated in a similar way. It follows that
[TABLE]
Obviously, the second term is bounded by . By [MR2318286, Proposition A.1],
[TABLE]
where . Hence, the the third term is bounded by . Since is -Hölder, the same argument shows that the first term is bounded by , which completes the proof of the first estimate.
Let us show the second. Let be chosen later. By interpolation inequality, Hölder’s inequality, Lemma 2.5 and Lemma 2.4, we have
[TABLE]
as long as , where . Choose so small that . Then the second estimate is a consequence of the first. ∎
The following estimate is shown as in [MM2].
Lemma 2.7**.**
*Let be as in (1.16). Then, it holds that *
[TABLE]
for any and .
Remark 2.8*.*
The function is of the form
[TABLE]
where satisfies for . Therefore, we can estimate its -norm by an explicit calculation. Then, the estimate follows from an interpolation as in [MM2]. It is possible to estimate this term in a similar way to Lemma 2.6. This improves the assumption on into but the order of becomes worse. This is the reason why we apply an interpolation argument to this term, as in [MM2]. The full regularity is required in this step.
3. Construction of a solution around given asymptotic profile
In this section, we solve an equation of the form
[TABLE]
where is a given asymptotic profile of the form (1.8) and is an external term. Remark that our equation (1.17) is of the form.
Proposition 3.1**.**
Suppose that is Lipschitz continuous. Let and let be as in (1.8). There exists a constant such that if and if an external term satisfies for some , , and , then (3.1) admits a unique solution in for some . Moreover, for any function , admissible pair , and , the solution satisfies
[TABLE]
The proposition shows that the conclusion of Theorem 1.2 follows from the estimate (1.20), which is true for in view of Proposition 1.11. Indeed, for each , we can construct a solution on which satisfies (1.7) for this , by using the proposition. Uniqueness property of the proposition then show these solution coincide each other. Hence, with a help of the standard well-posedness theory in , the solution exists in an interval independent of , say , and satisfies (1.7) for any . The estimate (1.9) in Theorem 1.3 follows from corresponding estimate on given in Proposition 1.11.
Lemma 3.2**.**
Suppose that is Lipschitz continuous. Let and let be as in (1.8). If then it holds that
[TABLE]
for any with and .
Remark 3.3*.*
The constant in the estimate of the above lemma can be taken independent of , provided .
Proof.
The estimate is the same as in [HNST, HWN, ShT] except for using the endpoint Strichartz’ estimate. Let us first decompose , where
[TABLE]
and is a characteristic function on . Since is Lipschitz, it follows from [MM2, Appendix A] that
[TABLE]
Since , we estimate by the endpoint Strichartz estimate as follows:
[TABLE]
For estimate of , we use . Then,
[TABLE]
as long as . This completes the proof. ∎
Proof of Proposition 3.1.
Let
[TABLE]
By Lemma 3.2 and by assumption, we have
[TABLE]
for any with and . We next see that
[TABLE]
for any with and . Indeed, by the integral equation of (NLS), we see that
[TABLE]
One finds
[TABLE]
Motivated by the calculation, we introduce a decomposition of into two parts depending on whether or not. The rest of the proof is similar to that of Lemma 3.2.
Choose so small that
[TABLE]
Choose . By the assumption , we can choose such that . It then follows from (3.3) and (3.4) that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for any , which shows is a contraction mapping. Thus, we obtain a unique solution to (3.1).
Take and an admissible pair . Then, as in Lemma 3.2, we deduce from the Strichartz estimate that
[TABLE]
for any . This shows the latter statement. ∎
4. Proof of main results
In this section, we prove main theorems by showing Proposition 1.11. Let us first recall an estimate in [HWN, Lemma 2.1] which shows is harmless.
Lemma 4.1**.**
Let . For any , there exists a constant such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
hold for all .
Hence, we concentrate on the treatment of in what follow. As for this term, we have the following.
Proposition 4.2**.**
Let . Assume that for some . Let and be as in (1.10) and (1.13), respectively. For any , there exists a constant such that
[TABLE]
holds for all . Moreover, is small in in such a sense that
[TABLE]
for . Furthermore, is approximated by in : There exists such that
[TABLE]
for .
The estimates (4.1) and (4.2) complete the proof of Proposition 1.11. The estimates (4.2) and (4.3) imply (1.11) and (1.12), respectively. Hence, Theorems 1.2 and 1.3 both follow from the above proposition.
4.1. Integration by parts and extraction of the main part
Without loss of generality, we may suppose that . Using with , we obtain
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Let and set as in (2.1). Remark that . We decompose into low frequency part and high frequency part,
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
As for the high frequency part , we have the following.
Lemma 4.3**.**
Fix . There exists a constant such that
[TABLE]
for any .
Proof.
By Strichartz’ estimate, it suffices to bound . By using Lemma 2.1 (ii) and Lemma 2.6, we have
[TABLE]
for any . ∎
Next, we consider the low-frequency part. By the factorization of , we see that
[TABLE]
Again by factorization of , we have
[TABLE]
for (see [HWN]). Therefore, we further compute
[TABLE]
Now, we have for , where
[TABLE]
Further,
[TABLE]
Therefore, an integration by parts gives us
[TABLE]
Combining (4.5), (4.6), and (4.8), we reach to
[TABLE]
It will turn out that the term contains the main part and that and are remainder terms.
4.2. Estimate of reminders
Let us estimate and defined in in (4.9). The following estimate is crucial.
Lemma 4.4**.**
Let and . Let and set as in (2.1). Then, it holds for any and that
[TABLE]
Lemma 4.4 is proved in [MM2] if . Although the proof for is essentially the same, we give it for self-containedness.
Proof of Lemma 4.4.
We set , which yields for any . Then we have for any and for all .
By the triangle inequality,
[TABLE]
For any , one sees from Sobolev embedding and Lemma 2.1 (i) that
[TABLE]
By definition of , we are able to choose so that
[TABLE]
By Lemma 2.1 (ii), we estimate
[TABLE]
for any and . Taking and so that , we obtain desired estimate for . Finally, we have
[TABLE]
These estimates yield
[TABLE]
This completes the proof. ∎
Let us now give the estimate on and .
Lemma 4.5**.**
There exists such that
[TABLE]
for any .
Proof.
By Strichartz’ estimate, the identity , and Lemma 4.4, we compute
[TABLE]
We estimate . We introduce the regularizing operators () by (2.1) with
[TABLE]
Remark that . We then have an identity
[TABLE]
Since and of the form (2.1), the estimate (4.10) is valid also for these regularizing operators. Then, mimicking the estimate of , we have
[TABLE]
for . By (4.11), (4.12), Lemmas 2.6 and 2.7, and the estimates
[TABLE]
we obtain the desired estimate. ∎
4.3. Estimates on the main contribution
We estimate in (4.9). Recall that
[TABLE]
With the following proposition, we obtain (4.1).
Proposition 4.6**.**
There exists such that
[TABLE]
*holds for any . *
Proof.
We further break up as
[TABLE]
A computation shows that . Since , we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Hence, we have -estimate. Similarly, by estimate of the Schrödinger group, the Hölder estimate, Sobolev embedding, and Lemma 2.1 (i), we have
[TABLE]
for any . By definition of , we are able to choose so that
[TABLE]
By Hölder’s inequality and Lemma 2.1 (ii), we obtain
[TABLE]
This competes the proof. ∎
We are in a position to finish the proof of Proposition 4.2.
Proof of Proposition 4.2.
It suffices to establish (4.2) and (4.3). The estimate (4.2) follows from
[TABLE]
The right hand side is in the proof of Lemma 4.4.
Finally, we prove (4.3). Since
[TABLE]
where . Since for any and , we see from Sobolev embedding that
[TABLE]
Hence, we have the desired estimate. ∎
We finally give an outline to obtain the asymptotics of in Remark 1.6. Note that
[TABLE]
As ,
[TABLE]
By for any , is small if . Further, since ,
[TABLE]
as for suitable . We omit the detail.
Appendix A A calculation of Fourier coefficients
In this appendix, we demonstrate an explicit formula of Fourier coefficients of the function . This contains our example in Remark 1.7.
Proposition A.1**.**
Let be not an odd integer. Let
[TABLE]
for . Then, for even and
[TABLE]
for odd . In particular, as .
Proof.
for even is obvious. For odd , by the symmetry we have
[TABLE]
Let for . We first show that there exists a constant such that
[TABLE]
for . By integration by parts,
[TABLE]
Hence, we obtain the recurrence relation . This shows (A.2) because the right hand side satisfies the same relation. Further, since
[TABLE]
we have , which shows (A.3) together with (A.2). The last assertion easily follows by means of the Stirling formula. ∎
A similar argument shows the following
Proposition A.2**.**
Let be not an odd integer. Let
[TABLE]
for . Then, for even and
[TABLE]
for odd . In particular, as .
Proof.
for even is obvious. For odd , by the symmetry we have
[TABLE]
Let for . We have the recurrence relation
[TABLE]
since
[TABLE]
Together with , we obtain the result as in the previous case. ∎
Acknowledgments. S.M. is partially supported by Sumitomo Foundation, Basic Science Research Projects No. 161145 and by JSPS, Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) 17K14219.
References
