In this subsection, we consider the case so (5.17) reduces to the homogeneous ODE
| (5.30) |
|
|
|
When the equation has trivial solutions given by linear functions. In this subsection we always assume .
As discussed in Section 5.1 under the change of variables given by (5.21) and (5.23), we are lead to study the modified Bessel equation.
| (5.31) |
|
|
|
There are two linearly independent solutions and
called the modified Bessel functions, whose definition is given in Appendix A.
These yield two linearly independent solutions to the original equation (5.17), given by
| (5.32) |
|
|
|
First by the definition of and we can compute its Wronskian
Proof.
Since and satisfy
| (5.34) |
|
|
|
| (5.35) |
|
|
|
This implies that
| (5.36) |
|
|
|
and hence
| (5.37) |
|
|
|
Therefore, is a constant.
Next, we will compute this constant which equals the limit of as .
By definition,
| (5.38) |
|
|
|
Notice that
| (5.39) |
|
|
|
then it is straightforward that
| (5.40) |
|
|
|
This completes the proof.
∎
In our proof of Theorem 5.2, we need uniform estimates (with respect to and ) on and . So in the following, we will prove uniform estimates for and for all .
Notice that, in this subsection we are interested in the case which corresponds to . However, the following formulae and estimates work for general , and we shall need the case in Section 5.3.
We will apply appropriate integral representations of and to study their upper bounds and asymptotic behaviors. The following integral formulae will play a fundamental role in our estimates: Let , then by Lemma A.1, we have
Proof.
In the proof the constant may vary from line to line.
First we prove Item (1).
To start with, we prove the upper bound estimate for the solution
.
Notice that for every , then
| (5.50) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now we prove that, for and ,
| (5.51) |
|
|
|
It is by straightforward computation that
| (5.52) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where . Notice that
| (5.53) |
|
|
|
Moreover, the assumption implies , so it holds that
| (5.54) |
|
|
|
Similarly,
| (5.55) |
|
|
|
Therefore, we have
| (5.56) |
|
|
|
where depends only on .
Next we prove the lower bound estimate for .
The integral representation of can be written as follows,
| (5.57) |
|
|
|
|
We will give lower bound estimates for the above two integrals respectively.
It is straightforward that
| (5.58) |
|
|
|
for some , which implies that
| (5.59) |
|
|
|
The calculations in the last step imply that for ,
| (5.60) |
|
|
|
Therefore,
| (5.61) |
|
|
|
By the same calculations,
| (5.62) |
|
|
|
This completes the proof of (5.47).
To see (5.48) we first assume . We use the integral representation
| (5.63) |
|
|
|
To estimate the second term, we use the integral estimate
| (5.64) |
|
|
|
Next, we estimate the first term of . Since for every ,
| (5.65) |
|
|
|
then
| (5.66) |
|
|
|
|
|
Estimating the right hand side separately, we get
|
|
|
|
|
Therefore,
| (5.67) |
|
|
|
Now we assume . Since is smooth,
we only need to analyze the behavior of as . By the definition of we see if or is a negative integer, . For any , we have
| (5.68) |
|
|
|
Therefore, for any ,
| (5.69) |
|
|
|
Now we prove Item (2). First we observe that by the definition of using power series, when , is positive for all . So the lower bound of for follows just as before. Now we assume .
To get the lower bound on , it suffices to get the lower bound on the first term of (5.63). Suppose , denote , then we divide the integral into two parts
| (5.70) |
|
|
|
Since we get
| (5.71) |
|
|
|
and for the second term we have
| (5.72) |
|
|
|
So we get
| (5.73) |
|
|
|
For the argument is similar.
This completes the proof of Item (1).