Topological edge spectrum along curved interfaces

1. We recall that \nu is a fixed parameter. In this first step, we set the values the constants \alpha_\nu and R_\nu. Let C_\nu be given by Proposition 1; we set \alpha_\nu = 300 C_\nu. We now define R_\nu. The quantity R^{12} e^{-\nu R/2} goesto 0 as R goes to infinity. Therefore, there exists R_\nu \geq 4 such that for all R \geq R_\nu,

Fix now R \geq R_\nu (in particular, (Proof) holds); and define

We will prove that {\mathcal G} \cap \Sigma(H_e) is 3\delta-dense within {\mathcal G}, that is, \alpha_\nu \frac{\ln R}{R}-dense within \Sigma(H_e).

2. Let us assume for now that the following statements hold,

and let’s aim for a contradiction. Note that these statements imply that H_e, H_\pm satisfy Assumption 3.

Since \Omega has filling radius at least R, there exists {\textbf{n}} \in {\mathbb Z}^2 such that B_{8r}({\textbf{n}}) \subset \Omega, r = R/8. We now look at (H_e-H_+)({\bm{x}},{\bm{y}}) for {\bm{x}},{\bm{y}} in B_{4r}({\textbf{n}}). Because {\bm{x}}, {\bm{y}} \in \Omega, we have:

where E is the operator defined in Assumption 2. Moreover,

because B_{8r}({\textbf{n}}) = B_R({\textbf{n}}) \subset \Omega. It follows from (2) that

Proposition 1 then yields

We recall that \delta has the value (?). Therefore, since C_\nu \geq 1 and R \geq R_\nu \geq 4,

The last two inequalities are true for R\geq 4. Likewise, because R satisfies (Proof),

Going back to (?), we conclude that

Since bulk conductances are integers (see [EGS05]*Proposition 3 and Remark 1 below), we conclude that \sigma(H_e,\lambda_*) = \sigma(H_+,\lambda_*).

Similarly, we conclude that \sigma(H_e,\lambda_*) = \sigma(H_-,\lambda_*). This cannot be true, since \sigma(H_+,\lambda_*) \neq \sigma(H_-,\lambda_*). We conclude that for each \lambda_* \in {\mathcal G}, one of the statements among (?) must fail. In other words, for all \lambda_* \in {\mathcal G}, there exists some \lambda \in \Sigma(H_e) \cup \Sigma(H_+) \cup \Sigma(H_-) such that |\lambda-\lambda_*| \leq \delta.

It remains to show that \Sigma(H_e) \cap {\mathcal G} is 3\delta-dense within {\mathcal G}. Write {\mathcal G} = (a,b) with b - a>3\delta (otherwise any subset is 3\delta-dense by definition). Let \lambda_* \in (a+\delta,b-\delta) and \lambda \in \Sigma(H_e) \cup \Sigma(H_+) \cup \Sigma(H_-) such that |\lambda-\lambda_*| \leq \delta. In particular, \lambda \in (a,b) = {\mathcal G}, which is a spectral gap of H_\pm, so \lambda \in \Sigma(H_e). Let now \lambda_* \in (a,\mu_*), \mu_* = a+2\delta; since b-a > 3\delta, \mu_* \in (a+\delta,b-\delta) and by the previous step there exists \mu \in \Sigma(H_e) such that |\mu-\mu_*| \leq \delta. In particular, |\mu-\lambda_*| \leq 3\delta. A similar argument works for \lambda_* \in (b-2\delta,b). We conclude that {\mathcal G} \cap \Sigma(H_e) is 3\delta-dense within {\mathcal G}.

1. For simplicity, use the notation P_j = P_\lambda(H_j). Let T be the translation by {\textbf{n}}: T u (\cdot)= u(\cdot - {\textbf{n}}). We have \Lambda_j(\cdot - n_j) = T \Lambda_j(\cdot) T^* and T^* P_\lambda(H) T = P_\lambda(T^* HT). Using these and Proposition 4, as well as the cyclicity of the trace, we obtain

Therefore, by replacing H_j by T^* H_j T, we can simply assume that {\textbf{n}} = 0.

2. Now we write

where T(A_0,A_1,A_2) is the trilinear form

From Lemmas 3.1 and 3.2, we have (for a constant C_\nu depending on \nu only):

Therefore, the triplets (A_0,A_1,A_2) involved in (?) satisfy the assumptions of Proposition 3, with constants

So, we deduce that

This completes the proof of Proposition 1.

Set \alpha = 2^{-5} \nu^4 \delta, so that \alpha \leq \nu and S_\alpha \leq \frac{16\alpha}{\nu^4}\leq \frac{\delta}{2}, see (?). Let \gamma be a contour enclosing \Sigma(H) \cap (-\infty,\lambda), at least \delta-distant from \Sigma(H). For z \in \gamma, we have:

Integrating this over \gamma, we have:

Without loss of generalities, we may assume that |\gamma| \leq 2\pi + 4 \| H \| – see Figure ?

From the bound (?) on \| H \|, we deduce that

We conclude that

This yields (3.1) (with for instance C_\nu =32 \nu^{-4}).

Let \alpha, \gamma be as in the proof of Lemma 3.1. We have:

From (Proof) then (?), and using the bound (?) for |\gamma|:

We split the RHS sum in two parts, depending whether {\bm{x}}', {\bm{y}}' \in B_{4r}(0) or not. When they do, we can use the bound (3.2) on the kernel of H_1-H_2. It yields

where in the last line we used (?).

When now restricting to {\bm{x}}' or {\bm{y}}' \in B_{4r}(0)^c, we note that for {\bm{x}}, {\bm{y}} \in B_{2r}(0) either |{\bm{x}} - {\bm{x}}'| \geq 2r or |{\bm{y}} - {\bm{y}}'| \geq 2r. Thus, we have

In the last line, we applied (?). So, heading back to (Proof) and using the value \alpha = 2^{-5} \nu^4 \delta from the proof of Lemma 3.1, we obtain

This yields (3.2) (with C_\nu = 2^{35}\nu^{-20} – we made no attempts to minimize this constant).

1. By a scaling argument, we can assume that C=1. We first control the kernel of B:

where B_j = [A_j,\Lambda_j]. We control the kernels of A_0, B_1, B_2 using assumption (i) and (3.3). It yields:

Thus |B({\bm{x}},{\bm{w}})| decays exponentially, hence B is trace-class; moreover

2. We now split the sum in (Proof) in two pieces: |{\bm{x}}| \geq r and |{\bm{x}}| \leq r. Thanks to (?) and (?), we have

We focus below on |{\bm{x}}| \leq r.

3. If k=0 in (ii), then we split the sum in (Proof) according to |{\bm{y}}| \geq 2r and |{\bm{y}}| \leq 2r. In the former case, |{\bm{x}}-{\bm{y}}| \geq r. Therefore, when |{\bm{x}}| \leq r, \ |{\bm{y}}| \geq 2r, we deduce that

If now |{\bm{y}}| \leq 2r (and |{\bm{x}}| \leq r \leq 2r), then we can use (ii). Interpolating with (i) gives, for |{\bm{x}}| \leq r, \ |{\bm{y}}| \leq 2r:

Summing the bounds (?) and (?) produces:

where we used (?) and (?) to get

4. We now work on k=1. We split the sum in {\bm{y}}, {\bm{z}} \in B_{2r}(0) and {\bm{y}} or {\bm{z}} outside B_{2r}(0). In the latter case, either |{\bm{x}}-{\bm{y}}| \geq r or |{\bm{z}}-{\bm{x}}| \geq r. So either

In either case, we recover the bound (?). In the former case, we can use (3.3), and recover (?). Since (?) and (?) lead to (?), we obtain this bound here as well.

5. The case k=2 follows the same path as k=0 . This completes the proof.

The kernel of [A, \Lambda_1] is

We note that |\Lambda_1({\bm{y}}) - \Lambda_1({\bm{x}})| = 0 if x_1, y_1 are both positive or both negative; and it is at most 1 otherwise, that is if x_1y_1 \leq 0. Therefore, we have the bound

Whenever x_1y_1 \leq 0, we have

It follows that

This completes the proof of (3.3). To prove (3.3), we recall that |\Lambda_1({\bm{y}}) - \Lambda_1({\bm{x}})| \leq 1; hence \big| [A, \Lambda_1]({\bm{x}}, {\bm{y}}) \big| \leq \varepsilon. It suffices then to interpolate this bound with (3.3).

(1) We have

By (Proof),

Since \1_\Omega H_+ \1_{\Omega^c}(x,y) = \1_\Omega(x) H_+(x,y) \1_{\Omega^c}(y) = 0 if |x - y| > 2, we have E satisfies (2); thus, H_e satisfies Assumption 2.

(2) Recall that since \lambda(\xi) never vanish, H_+ is invertible. Thus

To show H_e is invertible, it is enough to show \Vert 2H_+^{-1} \1_{\Omega^c} S\1_{{\Omega^c}}\Vert <1. Since \|S\| \leq 6s,

Thus when s<\rho_0 L^{-1}, \rho_0 = 6^{-3}C_0^{-3}, we have \Vert 2H_+^{-1} \1_{{\Omega^c}}S\1_{\Omega^c}\Vert <1. Thus H_e is invertible.

(1) From (?) and s \in (0,1], we have

Moreover,

Thus \omega(\xi) and \eta(\xi) cannot vanish simultaneously and \sqrt{(2\eta(\xi))^2 + |\omega(\xi)|^2} never vanishes. By continuity, \sqrt{(2\eta(\xi))^2 + |\omega(\xi)|^2} \geq \lambda_0 for some \lambda_0>0. This proves (1) by going back to (Proof).

(2) We first write down \omega as a function valued in {\mathbb R}^2 instead of {\mathbb C}:

With this notation,

As a result, for any u = (u_1, u_2)^T,

Assume for any n, there is \xi_n\neq \xi_\pm^*\in [-\pi, \pi]^2 such that

By compactness of [-\pi, \pi]^2, there exists a subsequence of \xi_n that converges to some \xi_\infty. From (?) and d(\xi_n, \{\xi_\pm^*\}) \leq 4\pi, we deduce |\omega(\xi_\infty)| = 0 hence \xi_\infty is either \xi^*_+ or \xi_-^*. As a result, as n \rightarrow \infty,

We get a contradiction. Thus there is some \mu_0>0 such that |\omega(\xi)|\geq \mu_0|\xi - \xi_\pm^*|.

Recall that \omega^{-1}(0) = \{\xi^*_+, \xi^*_-\}. Since eigenvalues of \hat{H}_+^{-1}(\xi) are \pm\frac{1}{\lambda(\xi)}, for any \delta>0, we have

thanks to Plancherel’s formula \Vert \hat{u}\Vert_{L^2([-\pi, \pi]^2)} = 2\pi\Vert u\Vert_{\ell^2({\mathbb Z}^2)}. If \operatorname{Supp}(u) \subset {\mathbb Z} \times [-L, L], then

Thus we have

where we use the Plancherel’s formula on n_1-coordinates only for the last line. Combining with the earlier estimates, we get

In particular, taking \delta = \left(\frac{\pi\lambda_0^2s^2}{4\mu_0L}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}, we get

This completes the proof.