Transport of low regularity Gaussian measures for the 1d quintic nonlinear Schrödinger equation

Here we assume the statements in Proposition ?, ?. Thus, we invoke \sigma<s-\frac{1}{2} close enough to s-\frac{1}{2} along with the constant C > 0 from this proposition. Next, we observe that for all N \in \mathbb{N}:

Then, it follows from Proposition ?, ? that:

On the other hand, we have that for every u \in H^{\sigma}, \left\lVert \Pi_N^\perp u \right\rVert _{H^{\sigma}} \underset{N\rightarrow \infty}{\longrightarrow} 0 and \left\lVert \Pi_N^\perp \right\rVert _{H^{\sigma} \rightarrow H^{\sigma}} \leq 1. So, using the following general abstract lemma in the inequality above finishes the proof:

Assuming the statements in Proposition ?, ?, the proof goes exactly the same as the proof of Proposition ?, ?.

Let \widetilde{\Phi}_N(t) be the restriction of the truncated flow \Phi_N(t) on the finite-dimensional space E_N, which maps E_N to itself (see Proposition A.12). We factorize \Phi_N(t) as (\widetilde{\Phi}_N(t), e^{it\partial_x^2}) on E_N \times E_N^{\perp}, in the sense that \Phi_N(t)u_0 = \widetilde{\Phi}_N(t) \Pi_N u_0 + e^{it\partial_x^2} \Pi_N^{\perp} u_0 (see again Proposition A.12). Now, we provide a proof in two steps.

Step 1 : Firstly, we show the formula

To do so, we rely on the fact \mathcal B(H^{\sigma}(\mathbb{T})) = \mathcal B(E_N) \otimes \mathcal B(E_N^{\perp})(Indeed, whenever X and Y are two topological separable spaces, we have \mathcal B(X \times Y) = \mathcal B(X) \otimes \mathcal B(Y), where \otimes is the symbol for tensor-product of sigma-algebra). Thanks to that point, if we show that for every A_{low} \in \mathcal B(E_N) and A_{high} \in \mathcal B(E_N^\perp), we have:

then, the property of uniqueness of product measures(Both \prod_{|k| \leq N} d \widehat{u}_k and (e^{it\partial_x^2})_{\#} \mu_{s,N}^{\perp} being \sigma-finite measures.) will ensure that the two measures in (?) coincide on \mathcal B(E_N) \otimes \mathcal B(E_N^{\perp}), that is on \mathcal B(H^{\sigma}(\mathbb{T})). Hence, let us prove (?). Let A_{low} \in \mathcal B(E_N) and A_{high} \in \mathcal B(E_N^\perp). On the one hand, from the factorization of the truncated flow, we have:

so, using the definition of product measures we obtain:

Thus, to prove (?), it remains to show that:

To do so, we recall that on the other hand, \widetilde{\Phi}_N(t) is the flow of the Hamiltonian equation:

on the finite-dimensional space E_N (see Proposition A.12). So the equality (?) follows from the application of Liouville’s theorem, which states that the flow of finite-dimensional Hamiltonian equation preserves the Lebesgue measure. To sum up, we obtained (?). Let us now turn to the second step of the proof:

Step 2 : Secondly, we show the following invariance property:

We recall that the probability measure \mu_{s,N}^{\perp} is the law of the random variable

where the sum converges in the space \mathbb{L}^2(\Omega,H^{\sigma}(\mathbb{T})). Since e^{it\partial_x^2} is a linear isometry on \mathbb{L}^2(\mathbb{T}), we deduce that

where the sum still converges in \mathbb{L}^2(\Omega,H^{\sigma}(\mathbb{T})). Moreover, the Gaussian measures are invariant under rotations, so the family \{e^{-itn^2}g_n \}_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} is still a family of independent standard complex Gaussian measures. Consequently, we obtain that X and e^{it\partial_x^2} \circ X have the same law, and this means that

which is the invariance property of Step 2.

Conclusion : We get the desired result by combining Step 1 and Step 2.

Firstly, we decompose \mu_s as:

(see (?), (?), (?) and (?), (?)). Then, thanks to a general feature for the transport of density measure, we have :

where we used in the third line the invariance property from Proposition 5.1. Hence, the first statement of Proposition 5.3 is proven. To achieve the proof, we rewrite the term inside the exponential thanks to the definition of the modified energy (?) and the identity (?), (?):

which is the desired rewriting.

Let t \in \mathbb{R}. Relying on Corollary 6.4, it suffices to prove that for every compact set K of H^{\sigma}(\mathbb{T}), we have:

Fix K a compact of H^{\sigma}(\mathbb{T}).
We invoke two real numbers \sigma_1 and \sigma_2 such that \sigma < \sigma_1 < \sigma_2 < s -\frac{1}{2}. Moreover, we invoke for k \in \mathbb{N}:

the closed centered ball in H^{\sigma_2}(\mathbb{T}) of radius k. Note that B^{H^{\sigma_2}}_k is compact in H^{\sigma_1}(\mathbb{T}) because \sigma_1 < \sigma_2. To establish (Proof), it suffices to prove that for all k \in \mathbb{N}:

Indeed, if we do so, we will obtain that:

Besides, since \mu_s(H^{\sigma}(\mathbb{T}) \setminus H^{\sigma_2}(\mathbb{T})) = 0, we have:

and,

Hence, if we prove (Proof), then we will obtain (Proof), and the proof will be complete. Thus, we now move on to the proof of (Proof). Let k\in \mathbb{N} and denote K_2 := K \cap B^{H^{\sigma_2}}_k.

– Firstly, we prove that:

Since K_2 is compact in H^{\sigma}(\mathbb{T}), we obtain from Proposition 6.5 that:

Let \varepsilon >0. Thanks to Corollary A.11, we invoke N_0 \in \mathbb{N} such that:

where B^{H^{\sigma}}_{\varepsilon} is the closed centered ball in H^{\sigma}(\mathbb{T}) of radius \varepsilon. As a consequence, we have:

Plugging this into (?), (?), we obtain:

Since \varepsilon>0 is arbitrary, we deduce that(Since \Phi(-t) K_2 is closed in H^{\sigma}(\mathbb{T}), we have \bigcap_{\varepsilon > 0}(\Phi(-t)(K_2) + B^{H^{\sigma}}_{\varepsilon}) = \Phi(-t) K_2):

So we have proven (?).

– Secondly, we prove that:

Let us first observe that K_2 is compact in H^{\sigma_1}(\mathbb{T}) : if \{ u_n\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}} \in K_2^\mathbb{N} is a sequence in K_2 = K \cap B^{H^{\sigma_2}}_k, then, from the compactness of B^{H^{\sigma_2}}_k in H^{\sigma_1}(\mathbb{T}) (because \sigma_1 < \sigma_2), there exists a subsequence \{ u_{n_j}\}_{j \in \mathbb{N}} and an element u \in B^{H^{\sigma_2}}_k such that:

In particular, we have \left\lVert u_{n_j}-u \right\rVert _{H^{\sigma}} \underset{j \rightarrow \infty}{\longrightarrow} 0 because \sigma < \sigma_1. Since K is closed in H^{\sigma}(\mathbb{T}), it implies that u \in K. Then u \in K \cap B^{H^{\sigma_2}}_k, and K_2 is compact in H^{\sigma_1}(\mathbb{T}).

Now, let \varepsilon >0. Thanks to Corollary A.11, and the fact that K_2 is compact in H^{\sigma_1}(\mathbb{T}) , we are able to invoke N_1 \in \mathbb{N} such that:

where B^{H^{\sigma_1}}_{\varepsilon} is the closed centered ball in H^{\sigma_1}(\mathbb{T}) of radius \varepsilon. It is now important to notice that K_2 + B^{H^{\sigma_1}}_{\varepsilon} is compact in H^{\sigma}(\mathbb{T}). It follows from the fact that both K_2 and B^{H^{\sigma_1}}_{\varepsilon} are compact in H^{\sigma}(\mathbb{T}). As a consequence, we obtain from Proposition 6.5 that for N \geq N_1:

Since \varepsilon >0 is arbitrary, we obtain that:

So we have proven (?). This completes the proof of Proposition 6.1.

This follows from the general fact that finite measures on Polish spaces are regular.

Let A \in \mathcal B(H^{\sigma}(\mathbb{T})). Let us prove that \mu(A) = \nu(A). Let \varepsilon > 0. From the inner regularity of \mu (see Proposition 6.3), we invoke a compact set K of H^{\sigma}(\mathbb{T}) such that K \subset A and \mu(A) - \varepsilon \leq \mu(K). Thus,

Since \varepsilon >0 is arbitrary, we conclude that \mu(A) \leq \nu(A). By interchanging the roles of \mu and \nu, we obtain the converse inequality.

Let t\in \mathbb{R}. Recall that G_{s,N}(t,.) and G_s(t,.) are respectively defined in (?) and (?). We prove separately that:

and,

Indeed, if we do so, we will obtain that:

Then, since the exponential is continuous, this will lead to the result. In order not to repeat the same argument, and since (a) is similar to (b) and a little bit easier, we will only prove (b). Then, let K \subset H^{\sigma}(\mathbb{T}) be a compact set. Then,

On the one hand, from the continuity of \Phi: \mathbb{R} \times H^{\sigma} \rightarrow H^{\sigma}, the set \{\Phi(\tau)u; \hspace{0.1cm} \tau \in [0,t], u \in K\} is compact. Combining this with the fact that Q_{s,N} \underset{N}{\longrightarrow} Q_s uniformly on compact sets (see Proposition ?, ?) yields:

On the other hand, using (?), (?) from Proposition ?, ? we can invoke a constant C_s>0 independent of N such that:

Besides, from the Cauchy theory, there exists a constant C>0 independent of N such that:

(see Proposition A.5). And, from Proposition A.10, we also have:

Using these two facts in (?), (?), (?) yields:

Finally, coming back to (?), we conclude that:

This completes the proof.

Here, we assume the statements in Lemma ?, ? and Lemma 11.2.
–We start by proving the first statement in Proposition 7.4. Lemma ?, ? shows that F:=\1_{\{ \mathcal C(u) \leq R \} } R_{s,N}(u) : H^{\sigma}(\mathbb{T}) \longrightarrow \mathbb{C} satisfies the assumptions of Lemma 11.2 (with \nu = \mu_s). Then, applying Lemma 11.2, we obtain that there exist \delta = \delta(s,R) > 0 and C_1(s,R) > 0 such that :

A fortiori we have,

Thanks to the fact that \frac{1}{\beta} > 1, we deduce from the above inequality that for every p\in [1,+\infty) :

for a certain constant C(s,R,p)>0.
–As a consequence, we are now able to prove the second statement of Proposition 7.4, that is:

Firstly, we know from Proposition ?, ? that we have the pointwise convergence:

Consequently, from the continuity of the exponential, we also have the pointwise convergence:

In particular, \1_{\{ \mathcal C(u) \leq R \} } e^{-R_{s,N}(u)} converges to \1_{\{ \mathcal C(u) \leq R \} } e^{-R_s(u)} in measure. In addition, for a fixed q\in(1,+\infty), we just proved that the functions \1_{\{ \mathcal C(u) \leq R \} } e^{-R_{s,N}(u)} are uniformly bounded in \mathbb{L}^q(d\mu_s) (with respect to N \in \mathbb{N}). Then, (using the same argument as the one from the proof of Proposition ?, ?) we can conclude that \1_{\{ \mathcal C(u) \leq R \} } e^{-R_{s,N}(u)} converges to \1_{\{ \mathcal C(u) \leq R \} } e^{-R_s(u)} in \mathbb{L}^p(d\mu_s) for any p\in [1,q); and since q \in (1,+\infty) is arbitrary, the convergence holds for any p\in[1,+\infty). This completes the proof of Proposition 7.4.

Let N \in \mathbb{N} \cup \{ \infty \}. We start by applying a general feature for the transport of density measures:

Next, thanks to Proposition 5.3 and 6.1, along with the facts that \Phi_N(t)^{-1}=\Phi_N(-t) and that \mathcal C is conserved by the flows, we obtain:

which completes the proof.

It results from Cauchy-Schwarz that:

where the constant C(s,R) has changed but still depends only on s and R. Note also that we used (?), (?), (?), (?), (?).

We use the explicit formula for the density from Proposition 7.6, so that we obtain:

where the last equality follows from the definition of a push-forward measure.

Let s>\frac{3}{2}, R>0 and N \in \mathbb{N} \cup \{ \infty \}. Let A \subset H^\sigma(\mathbb{T}) be a Borel set. Using (?), (?), Hölder inequality and the energy estimate from Proposition ?, ?, ?, ?, we obtain :

for all p \in [1,+\infty). It means that the function F(t):=\rho_{s,R,N}(\Phi_N(t)A) satisfies the differential inequality :

Integrating this yields :

Then, using the inequality \textnormal{log}(1+x)\leq x implies :

Now, we choose p:=1+\textnormal{log}(\frac{1}{F(0)}) so that F(0)^{-\frac{1}{p}} = \textnormal{exp}(\frac{\textnormal{log}(F(0))}{\textnormal{log}(F(0))-1}) \leq \textnormal{exp}(1). Hence,

Let us mention the following elementary lemma, whose proof is provided afterwards.

Using Lemma Proof in (Proof) with x=-\textnormal{log}(F(0)) \geq 0 yields :

which is the desired inequality, so the proof is completed.

Let N\in \mathbb{N} \cup \{ \infty \}. Recall that \mu_{s,R} is defined in (?), (?), and observe that we have:

(see also Remark 7.3). Let \alpha \in (0,1). Let us invoke the \beta \in (0,1) and the constant C>0 from Proposition ?, ?. Then, for every q_1 \in (1,\infty):

where in the last inequality we used (?), (?), (?), (?), (?) and Proposition 7.4. Using now Proposition ?, ?, we obtain:

where the constant C>0 depends on s,R,\alpha and q_1 (and also \beta). On the other hand, for every q_2 \in (1,\infty):

where again in the last inequality we used (?), (?), (?), (?), (?) and Proposition 7.4. Then, plugging this into (Proof) yields:

where now, the constant C>0 depends on s,R,\alpha,q_1 and q_2. Finally, since \alpha \in (0,1) and q_1,q_2 \in (1,\infty) are arbitrary, we have that (1-\alpha)(1-\frac{1}{q_1})(1-\frac{1}{q_2}) takes all the values in (0,1). This completes the proof.

Let p \in [1,+\infty) and let us prove that G_{s,N,t} belongs to \mathbb{L}^p(d\mu_{s,R}). To do so, we use Cavalieri’s principle :

We can estimate \mu_{s,R}(G_{s,N,t} > \lambda) as follows :

Here, we can make use of estimate (?), (?) and deduce that for any \alpha \in (0,1), there exists C=C_{s,R,\alpha}>0 such that

So,

(Where C'=\frac{C}{\alpha} still depends only on s,R and \alpha). Plugging this into (Proof) yields

Choosing \alpha \in (0,1) such that p-1-\frac{1}{\alpha}<-1, that is \alpha < \frac{1}{p}, we have that the integral \int_1^{\infty} \lambda^{p-1-1/ \alpha} d\lambda is finite. Hence, denoting by

leads the result.

Let q\in (1,+\infty). From Proposition ?, ? and 6.5, we know that the two following facts hold:

Then – see for example [tzvetkov2008invariant] Remark 3.8 – it implies that for every p \in [1,q), G_{s,N}(t,.) converges in \mathbb{L}^p(d\mu_{s,R}) to G_s(t,.). Since q \in (1,+\infty) is arbitrary, we deduce that this convergence holds for every p \in [1,+\infty).

Without loss of generality, we assume that N_j = N_{(j)}. The idea of the proof is to let free the variables k_{2},...,k_{m} and to freeze the variable k_{1} thanks to the constraint \varepsilon_1 k_1 = \kappa -\varepsilon_2 k_2 -...-\varepsilon_m k_m:

Essentially, we have to consider two cases : when k_{(1)}=k_1, k_{(2)}=k_2 and k_{(1)}=k_1, k_{(2)}=k_3. In any case, we can assume that |k_{(3)}| \leq \frac{1}{2} |k_{(2)}|. Otherwise, using the fact that the constraint k_1-k_2+k_3-k_4+k_5-k_6 = 0 implies that |k_{(2)}| \sim |k_{(1)}|, we would deduce that |k_{(3)}| \sim |k_{(1)}|. Therefore, the a priori bound | \psi_{2s}(\vec{k}) | \lesssim |k_{(1)}|^{2s} would guarantee the desired inequality.

Case 1 : Firstly, we consider the case k_{(1)}=k_1 and k_{(2)}=k_2. We use the mean value theorem :

which is the desired inequality.

Case 2 : Secondly, we consider the case k_{(1)}=k_1 and k_{(2)}=k_3. Since we assume that k_{(3)} \leq \frac{1}{2} |k_{(2)}| = \frac{1}{2} |k_{3}|, we have

Therefore, the a priori bound | \psi_{2s}(\vec{k}) | \lesssim |k_{(1)}|^{2s} guarantees the desired inequality.

We set

and for j \geq 2,

Let us now prove the identity :

Firstly, we expand

Secondly, we integrate with respect to x and t

Then, the formula (Proof) follows from the fact that

Starting now from (Proof) and using the Hölder’s inequality and Theorem 9.5 we get that

We also used the fact that \left\lVert F^{(1)} \right\rVert _{\mathbb{L}^6(\mathbb{T}_t \times \mathbb{T}_x)} = \left\lVert e^{it\kappa}e^{it\partial_x^2}F^{(1)}_0 \right\rVert _{\mathbb{L}^6(\mathbb{T}_t \times \mathbb{T}_x)} = \left\lVert e^{it\partial_x^2}F^{(1)}_0 \right\rVert _{\mathbb{L}^6(\mathbb{T}_t \times \mathbb{T}_x)}.

On the other hand, with the localizations of the sequences \left( f^{(j)}_{k_j}\right)_{k_j \in \mathbb{Z}}, we can write

Coming back to the previous estimate we obtain

which is the desired estimate.

We start by applying Lemma 9.4 :

where we denote

and,

We estimate separately I and II.

• Estimate of I : Removing the constraint \Omega(\vec{k}) \neq 0 and using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality in the k_{(1)},k_{(2)} summations, we get that

which is even better than the desired bound.

• Estimate of II : Firstly, we observe that |\Omega(\vec{k})|\lesssim N_{(1)}^2 so we can write

Secondly, we use Lemma 9.6 that says

Finally, we invoke the well-known estimate

and the combination of those inequalities yields

which is the desired bound. This completes the proof of Lemma 9.7.

From Fernique’s theorem (see for example [kuo2006gaussian], [bogachev1998gaussian]), there exists \alpha>0 such that:

Then, by Markov’s inequality, we obtain the following large deviation estimate:

Combining this estimate with Cavalieri’s principle, we have:

To conclude, we perform \lfloor \frac{m}{2}\rfloor -1 integration by parts on the integral on the right hand side:

For more readability, we perform the proof only for m=3 (and that is the value of m we will use with this lemma). In addition, we assume that \iota_1, \iota_3=1 and \iota_2=-1 (the other cases are similar). Thus, we want to prove that:

We start by expanding the left hand side:

From the independence of the Gaussians g_n, and the fact that for a complex standard Gaussian variable g we have \mathbb{E}[g]=\mathbb{E}[g^2]=\mathbb{E}[g^3]=0, the only non-zero contributions in the sum above is when for each g_{k_j}^{\pm} there exists an g_{l_i}^{\mp}, with the opposite signature, such that k_j = l_i. Hence, the only non-zero contributions are of the form:

Then, we invoke the following set of indices:

so that, coming back to (Proof), we have (for any complex standard Gaussian g):

This concludes the proof since:

and,

We use the convention \Pi_{\infty} = id, u_{\infty} = u and I_{max,\infty}(u_0) = I_{max}(u_0). Let N \in \mathbb{N} \cup \{ \infty \} and t \in I_{max,N}(u_0). Passing to the H^{\sigma}-norm in the Duhamel formula

we get that, for some constant C>0 (only depending on \sigma),

The crucial point of the proof is that \left\lVert u_N(\tau) \right\rVert _{W(\mathbb{T})} is bounded by the H^1(\mathbb{T})-norm of the initial data. Indeed, using the mass and Hamiltonian conservation

where we can choose C'_0 \sim (1 + \left\lVert u \right\rVert _{H^1(\mathbb{T})})^3, because H^1(\mathbb{T}) embeds continuously in \mathbb{L}^6(\mathbb{T}). Now, plugging this bound into (?), (?), we get

where we can choose C_0 \sim (1 + \left\lVert u \right\rVert _{H^1(\mathbb{T})})^{12}. Then, applying Gronwall’s inequality, we obtain

which is the desired bound.

The estimates from Proposition A.5 imply that the H^{\sigma}-norm of both solutions does not blow up in finite time. Therefore, Corollaries A.3 and A.4 lead to the result.

This is a consequence of Proposition A.5. For example we can take

for a certain constant C_{\sigma}>0 only depending on \sigma.

For better readability, we only provide the proof for \Phi(t). Let u,v \in H^{\sigma}(\mathbb{T}). Without loss of generality, we can assume that \left\lVert u \right\rVert_{H^{\sigma}} \leq R and \left\lVert v \right\rVert_{H^{\sigma}} \leq R for some R>0. We invoke \Lambda(R,t)>0 from the Proposition A.7. Firstly, using the Duhamel formula and passing to the H^{\sigma}(\mathbb{T})-norm we get that for all s \leq t

Secondly, the Gronwall’s inequality yields

In particular,

For better readability, we only provide the proof for \Phi. We fix t \in \mathbb{R} and u \in H^{\sigma}(\mathbb{T}) and we show that

We denote F(\tau,v) := |\Phi(\tau)v|^4\Phi(\tau)v. Let us compute the difference \Phi(t+h)(u+\delta u) - \Phi(t)u using the Duhamel formula.

Furthermore, without loss of generality we can assume that t+h \leq t+1 =: T and \left\lVert u+\delta u \right\rVert_{H^{\sigma}} \leq \left\lVert u \right\rVert_{H^{\sigma}} +1 =: R. Now, we invoke \Lambda(R,T)>0 from Proposition A.7. Passing to the H^{\sigma}(\mathbb{T})-norm in the above formula we have

Using the continuity of v \longmapsto \Phi(\tau)v (Proposition A.8) and the dominated convergence theorem, we deduce that the right hand side tends to 0 as h \rightarrow 0 and \delta u \rightarrow 0. So the proof of Proposition A.9 is complete.

First, from the compactness of K, we invoke R>0 such that K \subset B_{R}^{H^{\sigma}}, where B_{R}^{H^{\sigma}} is the closed centered ball of radius R in H^{\sigma}(\mathbb{T}). We then invoke \Lambda(R,T)>0 from Proposition A.7. Now, we set R_1 := 1 + 2\Lambda(R,T) and invoke \delta = \delta(R_1) > 0 the local existence time associated to R_1 from the local theory (Theorem A.1). These parameters ensure that for every N \in \mathbb{N} \cup \{ \infty\} and u_0 \in B_{R}^{H^{\sigma}}, the Duhamel map,

is a contraction, with a universal contraction coefficient 0<\gamma<1 (for example \gamma = \frac{2}{3} as in the proof of Theorem A.1), where \overline{B} _{R_1}(\delta) is the closed centered ball in \mathcal C([-\delta,\delta],H^{\sigma}(\mathbb{T})) of radius R_1.

Step 1: Local-time convergence

Firstly, we prove the local property

Let u_0 \in B_{R}^{H^{\sigma}}. We denote u(t) = \Phi(t)u_0 and u_N(t) = \Phi_N(t)u_0. Since u and u_N are respectively the fixed point of \Gamma_{\infty} and \Gamma_N, we have

Therefore,

Hence, to prove (?), it suffices to show that

Next, for every |t|\leq \delta we have,

So passing to the sup norm we get,

Taking the supremum over u_0 \in K we then obtain,

Besides, based on a classical result in functional analysis (see Lemma Proof), \Pi_N^{\perp} satisfies the key property of converging uniformly to 0 on compact sets as N \rightarrow + \infty. At the same time, the two following sets

are compacts in H^{\sigma}(\mathbb{T}). Indeed, it results from the facts that the map

and the map

are continuous and the fact that the image of a compact set under a continuous map is compact. Now, rewriting (?) we get

And this implies the desired local property (?).

Step 2: Long-time convergence

Secondly, we complete the proof of Proposition A.10 by iterating this local argument. Let m := \lfloor \frac{T}{\delta}\rfloor + 1, and for any integer |k| \leq m, let I_k := [k\delta-\delta,k\delta+\delta]. We show that for any |k| \leq m,

If we do so, the proof of Proposition A.10 will be completed. At this stage, we know that (?) is true when k=0. Now, we assume that (?) is true for some integer |k|\leq m-1 and we show that (?) is still true for every integer |k'| = |k|+1. Also, without loss of generality, we assume that k \geq 0 and k'=k+1. The crucial point here is that since we chose R_1 = 1 + 2\Lambda(R,T), we have that for every N \in \mathbb{N} \cup \{ \infty\} and u_0 \in B_{R}^{H^{\sigma}}, the Duhamel map

is a contraction with a universal contraction coefficient 0<\gamma<1, where t_{k}:= k \delta, u_{\infty}(t_k):=u(t_{k}), and \overline{B} _{R_1}^{(k)}(\delta) is the closed centered ball in \mathcal C([t_k-\delta,t_k+\delta],H^{\sigma}(\mathbb{T})) of radius R_1.

Now, doing the same calculations as in the first step of the proof we obtain,

and,

On the right hand side, the first term :

tends to 0 as N \longrightarrow +\infty by our assumption. And, we handle the remaining term in the same way as in the first part of the proof. Finally (?) is true for all |k|\leq m, so the proof of Proposition A.10 is completed.

Let \varepsilon >0.

• For the first point, we take u_0 \in K and we write

  \Phi_N(t)u_0 = \Phi(t)u_0 + \left( \Phi_N(t)u_0 - \Phi(t)u_0 \right)

  From Proposition A.10, there exists N_0 \in \mathbb{N} such that for all N \geq N_0

  \sup_{|t| \leq T} \sup_{v_0 \in K} \left\lVert \Phi_N(t)v_0 - \Phi(t)v_0 \right\rVert_{H^{\sigma}} \leq \varepsilon

  Thus, for all N \geq N_0, \Phi_N(t)u_0 - \Phi(t)u_0 \in B_{\varepsilon}^{H^{\sigma}} for all |t|\leq T and all u_0 \in K. Coming back to (Proof), it implies that for all N \geq N_0

  \Phi_N(t)u_0 \in \Phi(t)(K) + B_{\varepsilon}^{H^{\sigma}}

  for all u_0 \in K and all |t|\leq T.

• The second point is a consequence of the first one. Let |t|\leq T. From the continuity of the map \Phi(t) (see Proposition A.8) we have that \Phi(t)(K) is a compact subset of H^{\sigma}(\mathbb{T}). So from the first point there exists N_1 \in \mathbb{N} such that for all N\geq N_1

  \Phi_N(-\tau)\left(\Phi(t)(K) \right) \subset \Phi(-\tau)\Phi(t)(K) + B_{\varepsilon}^{H^{\sigma}}

  for all |\tau| \leq T. In particular, for \tau = t we have :

  \Phi_N(-t)\left(\Phi(t)(K) \right) \subset \Phi(-t)\Phi(t)(K) + B_{\varepsilon}^{H^{\sigma}} = K + B_{\varepsilon}^{H^{\sigma}}

  Applying \Phi_N(t) to this we obtain

  \Phi(t)(K) \subset \Phi_N(t) \left( K + B_{\varepsilon}^{H^{\sigma}} \right)

This concludes the proof of Corollary A.11.