ScalingStacks

Proof. [054B]

Original official author HTML, exact retained edition. Historical TeX conversion verdicts remain unchanged. Cited-edition alignment and mathematical self-containment are not assessed.

Complete original source context Β· Original author HTML

Proof.

First, we prove (5.152). Both the upper bound and lower bound estimates can be proved in the similar way:

Ψ♭⁑(Ξ²,Ξ±,y)\displaystyle\Tri(\beta,\alpha,y) =eyΓ⁑(Ξ±βˆ’Ξ²)β€‹βˆ«0∞ey​t​tΞ±βˆ’Ξ²βˆ’1​(1+t)Ξ²βˆ’1​𝑑t\displaystyle=\frac{e^{y}}{\Gamma(\fa-\fb)}\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{yt}t^{\fa-\fb-1}(1+t)^{\fb-1}dt
≀eyΓ⁑(Ξ±βˆ’Ξ²)β‹…βˆ«0∞ey​t​tΞ±βˆ’Ξ²βˆ’1​𝑑t\displaystyle\leq\frac{e^{y}}{\Gamma(\fa-\fb)}\cdot\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{yt}t^{\fa-\fb-1}dt
=eyβ‹…(βˆ’y)Ξ²βˆ’Ξ±Ξ“β‘(Ξ±βˆ’Ξ²)β‹…βˆ«0∞eβˆ’u​uΞ±βˆ’Ξ²βˆ’1​𝑑u\displaystyle=\frac{e^{y}\cdot(-y)^{\beta-\alpha}}{\Gamma(\fa-\fb)}\cdot\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-u}u^{\fa-\fb-1}du
(5.154) =eyβ‹…(βˆ’y)Ξ²βˆ’Ξ±.\displaystyle=e^{y}\cdot(-y)^{\beta-\alpha}.

Similarly,

Ψ♭⁑(Ξ²,Ξ±,y)\displaystyle\Tri(\fb,\fa,y) β‰₯eyΓ⁑(Ξ±βˆ’Ξ²)β€‹βˆ«01ey​t​tΞ±βˆ’Ξ²βˆ’1​(1+t)Ξ²βˆ’1​𝑑t\displaystyle\geq\frac{e^{y}}{\Gamma(\fa-\fb)}\int_{0}^{1}e^{yt}t^{\fa-\fb-1}(1+t)^{\fb-1}dt
β‰₯Cnβ‹…ey∫01ey​ttΞ±βˆ’Ξ²βˆ’1dt\displaystyle\geq C_{n}\cdot e^{y}\int_{0}^{1}e^{yt}t^{\fa-\fb-1}dt
(5.155) β‰₯Cnβ‹…eyβ‹…(βˆ’y)Ξ²βˆ’Ξ±.\displaystyle\geq C_{n}\cdot e^{y}\cdot(-y)^{\fb-\fa}.

Next, we prove the upper bound estimate for Ξ¦β™―\Ku. Notice in the proof of Lemma 5.9 we do not need the condition Q≀1Q\leq 1 for the upper bound on Ξ¦β™―\Ku. So we have

(5.156) Φ♯⁑(Ξ²,Ξ±,y)≀Cn⋅Γ⁑(Ξ±)Γ⁑(Ξ±βˆ’Ξ²)β‹…(βˆ’y)1βˆ’2​α4β‹…ey+G⁑(u0).\Ku(\beta,\alpha,y)\leq C_{n}\cdot\frac{\Gamma(\alpha)}{\Gamma(\alpha-\beta)}\cdot(-y)^{\frac{1-2\alpha}{4}}\cdot e^{y+G(u_{0})}.

To prove (5.153), we need an upper bound estimate for ey+G⁑(u0)e^{y+G(u_{0})}. This follows from elementary computations. In fact,

ey+G⁑(u0)=eyβˆ’u02+2β€‹βˆ’y​u0β‹…(u0)2​Q+Ξ³n≀Cnβ‹…eyβˆ’u02+2β€‹βˆ’y​u0β‹…(βˆ’y)Q+Ξ³n2.e^{y+G(u_{0})}=e^{y-u_{0}^{2}+2\sqrt{-y}u_{0}}\cdot(u_{0})^{2Q+\gamma_{n}}\\ \leq C_{n}\cdot e^{y-u_{0}^{2}+2\sqrt{-y}u_{0}}\cdot(-y)^{Q+\frac{\gamma_{n}}{2}}.

Notice that u0u_{0} satisfies G′​(u0)=0G^{\prime}(u_{0})=0, i.e.,

(5.157) u02βˆ’βˆ’yβ‹…u0βˆ’2​Q+Ξ³n2=0,u_{0}^{2}-\sqrt{-y}\cdot u_{0}-\frac{2Q+\gamma_{n}}{2}=0,

so we have

(5.158) ey+G⁑(u0)≀Cnβ‹…ey+βˆ’y​u0β‹…(βˆ’y)Q+Ξ³n2.e^{y+G(u_{0})}\leq C_{n}\cdot e^{y+\sqrt{-y}u_{0}}\cdot(-y)^{Q+\frac{\gamma_{n}}{2}}.

By (5.115), it is straightforward that

(5.159) y+βˆ’y​u0=y2​(1βˆ’1+4​Q+2​γnβˆ’y)=2​Q+Ξ³n1+1+4​Q+2​γnβˆ’y∈[Cnβˆ’1,Cn],\displaystyle y+\sqrt{-y}u_{0}=\frac{y}{2}\Big(1-\sqrt{1+\frac{4Q+2\gamma_{n}}{-y}}\Big)=\frac{2Q+\gamma_{n}}{1+\sqrt{1+\frac{4Q+2\gamma_{n}}{-y}}}\in[C_{n}^{-1},C_{n}],

for some dimensional constant Cn>0C_{n}>0. Therefore,

(5.160) ey+G⁑(u0)≀Cn​(βˆ’y)Q+14+12​n,\displaystyle e^{y+G(u_{0})}\leq C_{n}(-y)^{Q+\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{2n}},

and hence

(5.161) Φ♯⁑(Ξ²,Ξ±,y)≀Cn​(βˆ’y)Q+1n=Cn​(βˆ’y)βˆ’Ξ².\displaystyle\Ku(\fb,\fa,y)\leq C_{n}(-y)^{Q+\frac{1}{n}}=C_{n}(-y)^{-\beta}.

This completes the proof. ∎

Original mathematics by the credited authors. Source-backed reader collection; mathematical self-containment is not assessed.