A maximal estimate for the non-linear Fourier transform

Throughout, (U2) is used at the scale C^\sharp, i.e. on the box Q(s,16C^\sharp/t), with \varepsilon=\delta, as provided by (?).

1) Suppose \zeta is a zero of E(t,\cdot) in Q(s,8C^\sharp/t) of depth v\leq c-1, and put \beta=A(t,\zeta) as in (Proof). Then \beta\neq0: otherwise {\mathcal D}(t,\zeta,\cdot)\equiv0 by (Proof), while (U2) forces |{\mathcal D}(t,\zeta,z)|\geq|\sin[t(\bar\zeta-z)]|/w-\delta\geq1/(2w) at suitable z. By the conjugated slot identity (the display (Proof) below, whose derivation uses only (U2) and (Proof) and is valid on the present box), |i\beta E(t,z)-\sin[t(z-\zeta)]/w|\leq\delta there. The function \sin[t(z-\zeta)] vanishes exactly at the lattice points z_k=\zeta+k\pi/t, k\in{\mathbb{Z}}, all of depth v, and on the circle |z-z_k|=r/t, r\leq1, its modulus is at least r/2. Taking r=4\delta w (so that r\leq4\delta\eta_0^{-1}\leq1) and applying Rouché’s theorem to i\beta E against \sin[\cdot]/w on that circle, E(t,\cdot) has a zero in each disc B(z_k,4\delta w/t) with z_k\in Q(s,15C^\sharp/t) (so that the discs stay inside the box of (U2)). Since the lattice has step \pi/t and c\geq4\pi, some z_k lies in Q(s,c/(2t)), producing a zero of E(t,\cdot) in Q(s,c/t) of depth at most v+4\delta w\leq c — contradicting t\notin T_0(s,c).

2) Let I={\mathbb R}\cap Q(s,c/t). For real \lambda=p, z=x, (?) gives {\mathcal D}(t,p,x)=\Im\left[E(t,x)\overline{E(t,p)}\right], so (U2) reads

Step 1: the winding of the phase. We claim that there exist x_0,x_1\in I with E(t,x_0)\in(0,\infty) and E(t,x_1)\in-i(0,\infty).

First, E(t,\cdot) has no zeros on {\mathbb R}\cap Q(s,8C^\sharp/t): at a real zero x_* the real entire functions A(t,\cdot) and C(t,\cdot) would vanish simultaneously, making {\mathcal D}(t,x_*,\cdot)\equiv0 by (?), while (U2) gives |{\mathcal D}(t,x_*,z)|\geq\sinh(1)/w-\delta>0 at z=x_*-i/t. We may therefore write E(t,x)=|E(t,x)|\,e^{-i\varphi(x)} on {\mathbb R}\cap Q(s,8C^\sharp/t) with a real-analytic phase \varphi. The phase is strictly increasing: for real x in that interval, the function g(z)={\mathcal D}(t,x,z)-\sin[t(x-z)]/w is analytic and bounded by \delta on the disc B(x,8C^\sharp/t)\subset Q(s,16C^\sharp/t) and vanishes at its center, so |g'(x)|\leq\delta t/(8C^\sharp) by the Schwarz lemma; since {\mathcal D}(t,x,x)=0, (?) gives K(t,x,x)=-\partial_z{\mathcal D}(t,x,z)|_{z=x}/\pi, and the standard identity \pi K(t,x,x)=\varphi'(x)|E(t,x)|^2 for the diagonal of the reproducing kernel (see [dBr]) yields

the phase velocity, weighted by |E|^2, is that of the free exponential.

Next we show that \varphi advances by exactly \pi on each period. Fix p\in I and consider the entire function

which is (?) at real \lambda=p. Since \overline{E(t,z)}=E^\#(t,\bar z), we have \overline{{\mathcal D}(t,p,z)}={\mathcal D}(t,p,\bar z): the zero set of {\mathcal D}(t,p,\cdot) is symmetric with respect to {\mathbb R}. On the real axis {\mathcal D}(t,p,x)=|E(t,x)||E(t,p)|\sin[\varphi(p)-\varphi(x)], so the real zeros of {\mathcal D}(t,p,\cdot) are exactly the points where \varphi\equiv\varphi(p) modulo \pi. On the other hand, (U2) and Rouché’s theorem, applied as in part 1) to {\mathcal D}(t,p,\cdot) against \sin[t(p-z)]/w with r=4\delta w\leq1, show that {\mathcal D}(t,p,\cdot) has exactly one zero, counted with multiplicity, in each disc B(p+k\pi/t,\,4\delta w/t) whose center lies in Q(s,15C^\sharp/t), and no real zeros in Q(s,15C^\sharp/t) outside these discs: at a real point at distance at least 4\delta w/t from the lattice p+\tfrac\pi t{\mathbb{Z}},

Each disc is symmetric with respect to {\mathbb R} and the zero set of {\mathcal D}(t,p,\cdot) is conjugation-invariant, so if the unique zero in a disc were not real it would come with its conjugate, giving two zeros in the disc; hence that zero is real and simple. Denote it by \tau_k:

The increments \varphi(\tau_{k+1})-\varphi(\tau_k) are positive by (?) and are integer multiples of \pi. If some increment were m\pi with m\geq2, the intermediate values \varphi(\tau_k)+\pi,\dots,\varphi(\tau_k)+(m-1)\pi would be attained, by (?) and the intermediate value theorem, at m-1 points of the open interval (\tau_k,\tau_{k+1}) — real zeros of {\mathcal D}(t,p,\cdot) distinct from all the \tau_j, while the \tau_j are the only zeros of {\mathcal D}(t,p,\cdot) in the discs and there are no real zeros outside them. Hence

the phase advances by exactly \pi on each step of the perturbed lattice \{\tau_k\} — \arg E(t,\cdot) can neither lag behind the free exponential e^{-itx} nor outrun it. Since c\geq4\pi, the interval I, of length 2c/t\geq8\pi/t, contains at least five of the points \tau_k, so \varphi increases by at least 4\pi>2\pi along I by (?), and \arg E(t,\cdot)=-\varphi attains on I every value modulo 2\pi. Choose x_0,x_1\in I with E(t,x_0)\in(0,\infty) and E(t,x_1)\in-i(0,\infty); then C(t,x_0)=0 and A(t,x_1)=0, proving the claim.

Step 2: slot evaluation. Evaluating (U2) at the real slots \lambda=x_0 and \lambda=x_1 (where {\mathcal D}(t,x_0,z)=-A(t,x_0)C(t,z) and {\mathcal D}(t,x_1,z)=C(t,x_1)A(t,z)) gives, with r_0=A(t,x_0), r_1=C(t,x_1) and x_2:=x_1-\pi/(2t),

on Q(s,16C^\sharp/t), while (?) at (x,p)=(x_0,x_1) gives r_0r_1w=|\cos[t(x_0-x_2)]|\pm\delta w. Hence

i.e., after normalization, r_0wE(t,z)=\rho\cos(\theta-\alpha_1)-i\sin\theta\pm K\delta w(1+\rho) with \theta=t(z-x_0)+\pi/2-type real coordinates, \rho=r_0/r_1 and \alpha_1=t(x_0-x_2) modulo 2\pi. The bracket equals \tfrac12e^{i\theta}\left(\rho e^{-i\alpha_1}-1\right)+\tfrac12e^{-i\theta}\left(\rho e^{i\alpha_1}+1\right), so with the mismatch \varepsilon_m:=|\rho e^{-i\alpha_1}-1| it has zeros precisely on the lattice \left\{\theta:\ e^{2i\theta}=-\frac{\rho e^{i\alpha_1}+1}{\rho e^{-i\alpha_1}-1}\right\}, whose depth is \frac12\log\frac{|\rho e^{i\alpha_1}+1|}{\varepsilon_m}=\frac12\log\frac{2\pm\varepsilon_m}{\varepsilon_m}. If \varepsilon_m\geq K(\delta w+e^{-2v_{\min}}) with K large, these zeros lie at depth smaller than v_{\min}-1. If that depth does not exceed 8C^\sharp-1, the Rouché transfer of part 1) (run against the two-exponential model, whose modulus on circles of radius \varepsilon_m/4 around its zeros exceeds c\,\varepsilon_m, above the error level K\delta w) forces zeros of E(t,\cdot) of depth smaller than v_{\min} in Q(s,8C^\sharp/t) — a contradiction with the definition of v_{\min}. If instead the depth \tfrac12\log\frac{2+\varepsilon_m}{\varepsilon_m} exceeds 8C^\sharp-1, then \varepsilon_m\leq2e^2e^{-16C^\sharp}\leq K\delta^{16} by the choice of K_9, and the conclusion below holds directly. Hence \varepsilon_m\leq K(\delta w+e^{-2v_{\min}}), and then \rho=1\pm K\varepsilon_m, r_0r_1w=1\pm K(\delta w+\varepsilon_m), r_0=(1\pm K\varepsilon_m)/\sqrt w, and the bracket is e^{-i\theta}\pm K\varepsilon_m: unwinding the normalizations, E(t,x)=\alpha e^{-itx}/\sqrt w\pm K(\delta+e^{-2v_{\min}})\eta_0^{-1} on I for a unimodular \alpha, which is 2). For the final claim, if no zeros of depth \leq(C^\sharp-C)/2 are present, then e^{-2v_{\min}}\leq e^{-(C^\sharp-C)}\leq\delta by the choice of K_9. The Dirichlet family is treated identically.

Since E=A-iC vanishes at \zeta, A(\zeta)=iC(\zeta)=\beta and E^\#(\zeta)=A(\zeta)+iC(\zeta)=\beta+\beta=2\beta. Since A,C are real entire, \bar A(t,\zeta)=\overline{A(t,\zeta)}=\bar\beta and \bar C(t,\zeta)=\overline{C(t,\zeta)}=i\bar\beta, so by (?),

Evaluating (Proof) at z=\zeta gives {\mathcal D}(t,\zeta,\zeta)=i\bar\beta\cdot2\beta=2i|\beta|^2, while \sin[t(\bar\zeta-\zeta)]=\sin[2iv]=i\sinh[2v]. Condition (U2) at \lambda=z=\zeta\in Q(s,16C/t) therefore gives

which is (1) after multiplying by w(s)\leq\eta_0^{-1} (see (?)). If v\geq\underline{v}_{\delta}, then \sinh[2v]\geq\delta^{1/2} by (?), and the additive error \delta w(s) is at most \delta^{1/2}\eta_0^{-1}\sinh[2v], which gives (1). The Dirichlet case is identical, with \tilde E=B-iD and the second half of (U2).

By (U2) at \lambda=\zeta and (Proof),

Taking complex conjugates, replacing \bar z by z (the box is invariant under conjugation) and using \overline{E^\#(t,\bar z)}=E(t,z) and \overline{\sin[t(\bar\zeta-\bar z)]}=\sin[t(\zeta-z)], we obtain

By (1) (here v\geq\underline{v}_{\delta} is used), \frac1{|\beta|}=(1\pm\delta^{1/2}\eta_0^{-1})\sqrt{\frac{2w}{\sinh[2v]}}=(1\pm\delta^{1/2}\eta_0^{-1})\,\gamma(v)\sqrt w. Dividing (Proof) by i\beta and putting \alpha=-i\bar\beta/|\beta|, we get, on Q(s,8C/t),

Since |t\,\Im(z-\zeta)|\leq16C on Q(s,8C/t), \left|\sin[t(z-\zeta)]\right|\leq e^{16C}, so replacing (1\pm\delta^{1/2}\eta_0^{-1}) by 1 changes the model by at most \delta^{1/2}\eta_0^{-1}\,\gamma(v)e^{16C}/\sqrt w\leq\delta^{1/2}\,e^{16C}\eta_0^{-3/2}\gamma(v); together with \sqrt w\leq\eta_0^{-1/2} from (?) this gives (2). The Dirichlet case is identical, using \cos[t(z-\tilde\zeta)]=\sin[t(z-\tilde\zeta_0)+\pi/2]\cdot(\pm1) with the sign absorbed into \tilde\alpha.

Note that \epsilon_{\min(c,c')}\geq\max\left(\epsilon_c,\epsilon_{c'}\right); we may assume \epsilon_{\min(c,c')}\eta_0^{-1/2}\leq1, the claim being trivial otherwise. Insert the models of Proposition 1, 2) into (?) at the point x=s:

and it remains to multiply by \sqrt{w\tilde w}\leq1.

Suppose first that \tilde E(t,\cdot) has a zero in Q(s,8C/t), and let \tilde\zeta_0 be one nearest to x_0. By Lemma 2 for the Dirichlet family and Rouché’s theorem, the zeros of \tilde E in Q(s,8C/t) lie within K\vartheta\eta_0^{-1/2}/t of the zero set of the cosine model (near each of its zeros the model has modulus at least c_1\gamma(\tilde v)\,r/\sqrt{\tilde w} on the circle of radius r/t, which exceeds the error \vartheta\gamma(\tilde v) once r\geq K\vartheta\eta_0^{-1/2}), and the model’s consecutive zeros are spaced by \pi/t; hence t|\Re\tilde\zeta_0-x_0|\leq\pi/2+1 for \delta\leq\delta_0. That \tilde\zeta_0 in fact lies in Q(s,2c/t) will follow a posteriori: its real part satisfies |\Re\tilde\zeta_0-s|\leq(\pi/2+1)/t+c/t\leq2c/t since c\geq C\geq4\pi, and its depth is comparable to v\leq c by (?), which is proved below using only \tilde\zeta_0\in Q(s,8C/t).

By (?) evaluated at z=\zeta (where E(\zeta)=0) and at z=\tilde\zeta_0 (where \tilde E(\tilde\zeta_0)=0),

By Lemma 1, |E^\#(t,\zeta)|=2|\beta|=(1\pm\delta)\sqrt{2\sinh[2v]/w} and |\tilde E^\#(t,\tilde\zeta_0)|=(1\pm\delta)\sqrt{2\sinh[2\tilde v]/\tilde w}, so (?) gives

On the other hand, evaluating the representations of Lemma 2 of each family at the zero of the other family, with \delta_p as in the statement and \nu:=\tilde v-v: since t(\zeta-\tilde\zeta)=-\delta_p+i\nu and t(\tilde\zeta_0-\zeta)=\delta_p+\pi/2-i\nu, and \sin(\delta_p+\pi/2-i\nu)=\cos(\delta_p-i\nu), both evaluations produce the quantity |\cos(\delta_p-i\nu)|, |\cos(\delta_p-i\nu)|^2=\cos^2\delta_p+\sinh^2\nu:

Comparing with (?) and writing R:=\sinh[2\tilde v]/\sinh[2v]=\gamma^2(v)/\gamma^2(\tilde v), we obtain the two relations

where the additive terms come from the errors \vartheta\gamma(\tilde v), \vartheta\gamma(v) of the cross-evaluations, divided by the model amplitudes. We may assume R\geq1, exchanging the roles of the two families in the derivation otherwise. Comparing the two relations and dividing by w\tilde w\geq\eta_0^2,

which first shows R\leq K (if R\geq2, the right-hand side is dominated by K\vartheta\eta_0^{-3}R^{3/2}, whence R\leq K(\vartheta\eta_0^{-3})^2+K, and \delta_0 makes this \leq K), and then, with R bounded,

hence (?); since |\log R|\geq2|\nu|, also \sinh^2\nu\leq K\vartheta\eta_0^{-3}, and then \cos^2\delta_p=w\tilde w\pm K\vartheta\eta_0^{-3}, which is (?).

It remains to exclude the case when \tilde E has no zeros in Q(s,8C/t). In that case Proposition 1, 2) with c=8C provides the exponential model for \tilde E on {\mathbb R}\cap Q(s,8C/t), with the error \epsilon_{8C}=K_{11}(\delta+e^{-2(8C-1)})\eta_0^{-1}, while Lemma 2 provides the sine model for E. Insert both into (?) on the interval {\mathbb R}\cap Q(s,c/t): with \theta=t(x-x_0),

The second term in the bracket does not depend on x, while the first is a harmonic of frequency 2t whose contribution to \Im\left(E\bar{\tilde E}\right) has amplitude

(recall \sqrt{w\tilde w}\leq1 and v\leq4C, so e^{-v}\geq e^{-4C}; adjust c_2 accordingly). As x runs over {\mathbb R}\cap Q(s,c/t), an interval of length at least 2C/t>8\pi/t, the harmonic sweeps full periods, so \Im\left(E\bar{\tilde E}\right) would fluctuate by at least \gamma(v)e^{-4C}, while it is identically 1 and the error terms fluctuate by at most K\left(\vartheta+\epsilon_{8C}\,e^{4C}\right)\gamma(v)\eta_0^{-1/2}: both the main amplitude and the errors carry the factor \gamma(v), so the comparison is uniform in the depth. For \vartheta\leq c_2e^{-4C}\eta_0^{1/2} and \epsilon_{8C}\leq c_2e^{-8C}\eta_0^{1/2} — the first holds for \delta\leq\delta_0(C,\eta_0) small enough, and the second for such \delta together with C\geq C_1(\eta_0), which makes e^{-16C+2}\eta_0^{-1}\leq e^{-8C}\eta_0^{1/2} once K_{12} is chosen large enough — this is a contradiction. Hence \tilde E has zeros in Q(s,4C/t), and the nearest one lies in Q(s,2c/t) as shown above.

The exchanged version is proved by the same argument with the two families swapped.

Let p\in J(s), so that in (?) E^\#=\bar E and \tilde E^\#=\bar{\tilde E}. Write

By Lemmas 2 and 4, at each endpoint with presence,

where \alpha_k,\tilde\alpha_k are unimodular constants and

here the Dirichlet depth has been replaced by v_k using (?), which perturbs the depth by |\nu_k|\leq K(\vartheta\eta_0^{-3})^{1/2} and hence the factor \gamma(\tilde v_k)\cos[\cdot+i\tilde v_k] by at most K(\vartheta\eta_0^{-3})^{1/2}e^{4C}\gamma(v_k) (the derivatives of the model in the depth are bounded by e^{4C} times its amplitude on the box), and the Dirichlet center has been written as \Re\zeta_k+\delta_k/t_k. If t_2 is in the free case, (Proof) holds at t_2 with S_2, C_2, \gamma(v_2) replaced by ie^{-i\theta_2}, e^{-i(\theta_2-\delta_2)}, 1, where \theta_2=t_2(p-x_2) with an arbitrary reference point x_2 (absorbed into the unimodular constants), by Proposition 1, 2) and the definition of \delta_2; the error terms of (Proof) at the far endpoint are then O\left(\vartheta'+\epsilon_{2C}\right) in place of O(\vartheta')\gamma(v_2), and (?) below holds with \vartheta' replaced by \vartheta'+K\epsilon_{2C} and \gamma(v_2) by 1. Below the two cases are treated together, the free case corresponding to v_2=\infty.

Multiplying the relations (Proof) and inserting them into (?), we obtain

where \chi_2'=\alpha_1\tilde\alpha_2 and \chi_1'=\alpha_2\tilde\alpha_1 are unimodular constants, on which no assumption is made, and R(p), the sum of the products containing at least one error term of (Proof), satisfies, since |S_k|,|C_k|\leq\cosh v_k\leq e^{4C} on J(s),

Write B(p):=\chi_2'C_2S_1-\chi_1'S_2C_1 and expand the four factors into exponentials,

Then B is a trigonometric polynomial in p with the four frequencies \mp(t_1+t_2), \pm(t_1-t_2):

The identities

together with |\cos\delta_k|=\sqrt\eta+O(\vartheta\eta_0^{-4}) from (?) (and |\cos\delta_2|=\sqrt\eta+O(\epsilon_{2C}\eta_0^{-1/2}) from Lemma 3 in the free case), give a dichotomy: either |b_1|\geq\sqrt\eta/2, or

Since the coefficient of B multiplying b_1 carries the factor e^{v_1+v_2}\geq e^{|\nu|}, and those multiplying b_2, b_3 carry e^{\nu} and e^{-\nu}, in either case the largest of the four coefficients of B is at least \frac{\sqrt\eta}{8}\,e^{|\nu|} in absolute value, once \delta\leq\delta_0(C,\eta_0) and C\geq C_1(\eta_0) make the O(\vartheta\eta_0^{-4})- and O(\epsilon_{2C}\eta_0^{-1/2})-terms smaller than \sqrt\eta/4; for the latter, K_{11}e^{-4C+2}\eta_0^{-3/2}\leq\eta_0/4 once K_{12} is large enough, and the \delta-part of \epsilon_c is absorbed into \delta_0.

The pairwise gaps of the four frequencies are 2t_1, 2t_2, 2(t_1+t_2) and 2(t_2-t_1), all at least t_1=t_2/2. Since \left|\int_Ie^{i\omega p}\,dp\right|\leq2/\omega for every interval I, and |J(s)|=2C/t, the mean over J(s) of each cross product of two distinct harmonics is at most 2/C times the product of the moduli of their coefficients; hence, with c_1,\dots,c_4 denoting the coefficients of B,

for C\geq16; in the free case the terms containing e^{-v_2} are absent and the same dichotomy applies to b_1, b_2 alone, with the same conclusion in the limiting normalization. For the supremum, each |b_j|\leq2, so

since \min(v_1,v_2)\leq v_1\leq2C; hence \sup_J|B|^2\leq8\cosh[2\nu]\,e^{8C}.

By (?) and (?), since \gamma^2(v_1)\gamma^2(v_2)=4/S,

For \delta\leq\delta_0(C,\eta_0) small enough the error term changes the mean and the supremum of |B|^2 by relative amounts less than \tfrac12 (for the mean, use \vartheta'e^{4C}\eta_0^{-1/2}\leq\sqrt\eta/2^5). In the free case the error carries the factor e^{v_1} while the guaranteed coefficient of B may be as small as \tfrac{\sqrt\eta}4e^{-v_1}, so the required smallness reads K\left(\vartheta'+\epsilon_{2C}\right)e^{2v_1}\eta_0^{-1/2}\leq\sqrt\eta/2^5: since v_1\leq C in the free case, the \vartheta'-part follows from \delta\leq\delta_0, and the \epsilon_c-part from C\geq C_1(\eta_0) — KK_{11}e^{-4C+2}\eta_0^{-3/2}e^{2C}\leq\eta_0/2^5 once K_{12} is large enough. Thus (5) follows.

Finally, the subset of J(s) where |b_{t\rightarrow2t}|^2\geq\frac12\langle|b_{t\rightarrow2t}|^2\rangle has measure at least

and on that subset, since

\sinh[2v_1]\leq2v_1e^{2v_1} and v_1\leq2C,

(in the free case e^{-2v_1}/(2^{10}\sinh[2v_1])\geq e^{-8C}/(2^{11}v_1), with the same conclusion), whence \log|a_{t\rightarrow2t}|=\frac12\log(1+|b_{t\rightarrow2t}|^2)\geq\Phi(v_1,C).

Denote the set on the left-hand side by S_t. For s\in S_t the near-endpoint depth satisfies v_1\leq v, so by Lemma 5 and the monotonicity of \Phi in its first argument, \log|a_{t\rightarrow2t}|\geq\Phi(v,C) on a subset of J(s) of measure at least 2^{-14}\eta_0^2e^{-8C}|J(s)|. Choose a cover of S_t by intervals J(s_i), s_i\in S_t, of multiplicity at most 2. Summing over the cover and using \log|a_{t\rightarrow2t}|\geq0 on {\mathbb R} together with (?),

which is (2).

Let {\mathcal E}(t,z)=e^{itz}E(t,z) and \tilde{\mathcal E}(t,z)=e^{itz}\tilde E(t,z), so that a=({\mathcal E}+i\tilde{\mathcal E})/2 and b=({\mathcal E}-i\tilde{\mathcal E})/2 by (?). By (?), \partial_t{\mathcal E}=f e^{itz}E^\#. At a real spectral point z=s we have E^\#(t,s)=\overline{E(t,s)}, and therefore e^{ist}E^\#(t,s)=e^{2ist}\overline{{\mathcal E}(t,s)}, so that

Hence

Since |a|^2-|b|^2\equiv 1 on {\mathbb R}, |a|\geq\max(1,|b|), and therefore for a.e. t

Integrating from t_1 to t_2 we obtain (6).

If t\in[2^n,2^{n+1}) then |\log|a(t,s)|-\log|a(2^n,s)||\leq M_n\leq M by Lemma 6. If t\in(0,1) then, since a(0,\cdot)\equiv 1, Lemma 6 gives \log|a(t,s)|\leq \int_0^t|f|\leq\int_0^1 |f|\leq \|f\|_{L^2((0,1))}.

1) By the exchanged version of Lemma 4 with c=C, \tilde E(t,\cdot) has no zeros in Q(s,C/t): a zero of \tilde E there would produce a zero of E in Q(s,2C/t). Hence the exponential models of Proposition 1, 2) apply to both families, at c=2C and c=C respectively, and at the point s, with \epsilon_C of (?),

Writing x=w^{-1/2}, y=\tilde w^{-1/2} and using (?),

Since e^{2A}=\frac14(x^2+y^2+2)\geq\frac18(x+y)^2 and x+y\geq2 by (?), the relative deviation is at most 8\epsilon_C (we may assume \epsilon_C\leq1: otherwise the claim is weaker than \omega\leq1), so |u(t,s)-A(s)|\leq8\epsilon_C=8K_{11}\left(\delta+e^{-2(C-1)}\right)\eta_0^{-1}\leq\omega for K_4\geq8e^2K_{11}; the threshold \delta_1, together with C\geq C_1(\eta_0) after enlarging K_{12} if needed, guarantees \omega\leq1.

2) Let \zeta be a zero of the smallest depth v. By Lemma 2, using |\sin[t(s-\zeta)]|\leq\cosh v and \gamma(v)\cosh v=\sqrt{\coth v}, and \gamma(v)\leq\sqrt{\coth v},

By Lemma 4 with c=2C, \tilde E has a matched zero of depth \tilde v with \sinh[2\tilde v]=(1\pm K_6\vartheta\eta_0^{-3})\sinh[2v]; since the relative sensitivity of \coth^2 with respect to \sinh[2\cdot] is at most 2, \coth\tilde v\leq(1+K\vartheta\eta_0^{-3})\coth v, and the Dirichlet part of Lemma 2 gives

Inserting the two bounds into (?), using \coth v\geq1 and absorbing the cross terms by (?) as in part 1),

and \coth v\leq1+1/v gives the statement, with \omega absorbing K\vartheta\eta_0^{-3}\leq K K_5\delta^{1/2} e^{16C}\eta_0^{-9/2}.

3) We use the bound |\sin(\theta+iv)|\geq\sinh v at real \theta, \gamma(v)\sinh v=\sqrt{\tanh v}, \gamma^2(v)\sinh v=1/\cosh v\leq1, and the elementary inequality (\max(0,p-q))^2\geq p^2-2pq: by Lemma 2,

and similarly for \tilde E with \tanh\tilde v\geq(1-K\vartheta\eta_0^{-3})\tanh v. Hence, by (?) and \tanh v\leq1,

Since e^{2A}\geq1 and \tanh v\geq\eta_0, the subtracted term is at most K\vartheta\eta_0^{-4}\tanh v\,e^{2A}, and

after enlarging K_4.

Write x_0=\Re\zeta(t_2), W={\mathbb R}\cap Q(s,16C/t_1), \int=\int_{t_1}^{t_2}|f|, and let \beta_i=\beta(t_i) be the normalizations of Lemma 1 at \zeta(t_i). By (Proof), which holds at every depth, for p\in W and i=1,2,

Four applications of (Proof) and of the value rigidity |\Delta\log|E(\tau,x)||\leq\int (Remark 1) give the claim. First, at p=x_0 and i=2, since |\sin[t_2(x_0-\zeta(t_2))]|=\sinh v(t_2),

Second, at p=x_0 and i=1, since |\sin[t_1(x_0-\zeta(t_1))]|\geq\sinh v(t_1),

Third, taking p=p^*, the point of W where |\sin[t_2(p-\zeta(t_2))]| is maximal (that maximum lies in [1,\cosh1] since v(t_2)\leq1 and W is longer than the period), |\beta_2|\sup_W|E(t_2,\cdot)|\geq|\beta_2||E(t_2,p^*)|\geq(1-\delta w)/w\geq1/(2w); and similarly, at i=1, |\beta_1|\sup_W|E(t_1,\cdot)|\leq(\cosh 1+\delta w)/w\leq3/w. Since the value rigidity gives \sup_W|E(t_2,\cdot)|\leq e^{\int}\sup_W|E(t_1,\cdot)| pointwise on W, the last two bounds yield |\beta_2|/|\beta_1|\geq\tfrac16e^{-\int}. Finally, the rigidity at the fixed point x_0 gives |E(t_2,x_0)|\geq e^{-\int}|E(t_1,x_0)|, and chaining the four displays,

which is (8) after w\leq\eta_0^{-1}.

Let s belong to the set in (?) and let t^\flat=t^\flat(s)\geq T_* be the first time at which (s,t) is \delta-shallow; by the choice of T_\delta and continuity, t^\flat is well defined, and at t^\flat some zero \zeta^0 of E(t^\flat,\cdot) or of \tilde E(t^\flat,\cdot) in Q(s,16C/t^\flat) has depth exactly \underline{v}_{\delta}, while for t<t^\flat no zero of either family in Q(s,16C/t) has depth below \underline{v}_{\delta}. We treat the case of a zero of E; the Dirichlet case is identical — the argument below uses only the pattern (Proof) and the value rigidity, both of which hold for the Dirichlet family, and its conclusion, a zero of \tilde E(t_1,\cdot) in Q(s,2C/t_1) of depth between \underline{v}_{\delta} and v^\sharp, is converted into a zero of E(t_1,\cdot) in Q(s,4C/t_1) of comparable depth by the exchanged version of Lemma 4 (the pair (s,t_1) is not \delta-shallow since t_1<t^\flat, and the depths match by (?)); Proposition 2 is then applied with 2v^\sharp in place of v^\sharp.

Let t_1 be the largest grid point with t_1\leq t^\flat/16; it exists, since t_0=T/32\leq T_*/16\leq t^\flat/16. We claim that E(t_1,\cdot) has a zero in Q(s,2C/t_1) of depth between \underline{v}_{\delta} and v^\sharp:=\underline{v}_{\delta} e^{K_6''(M'+C+1)}. Indeed, write x_0=\Re\zeta^0\in Q(s,16C/t^\flat); then t_1|x_0-s|\leq(t_1/t^\flat)\cdot16C\leq C. The interval (t_1,t^\flat) spans at most five octaves, at most one of which may intersect (0,1), so the mass \int_{t_1}^{t^\flat}|f| is at most 5M+M'\leq K(M'+1). If E(t_1,\cdot) had no zeros in Q(s,8C/t_1), Proposition 1, 2) with c=8C would give |E(t_1,x_0)|\geq1/\sqrt w-\epsilon_{8C}\geq\tfrac12\sqrt{\eta_0} (the term e^{-16C+2}\eta_0^{-1} of \epsilon_{8C} is at most \tfrac14\sqrt{\eta_0} by C\geq C_1(\eta_0), and the term K_{11}\delta\eta_0^{-1} by \delta\leq\delta_5), while the pattern (Proof) at t^\flat (at p=x_0, where |\sin[t^\flat(x_0-\zeta^0)]|=\sinh\underline{v}_{\delta}) together with (1) gives |E(t^\flat,x_0)|\leq K\sqrt{(\underline{v}_{\delta}+\delta\eta_0^{-1})\eta_0^{-1}}, whence, by the value rigidity, |E(t_1,x_0)|\leq e^{K(M'+1)}|E(t^\flat,x_0)| — a contradiction for \delta\leq\delta_5. Hence E(t_1,\cdot) has zeros in Q(s,8C/t_1). Let \zeta' be one nearest to x_0, v' its depth and \beta' its normalization (1). By (Proof) at t_1,

using |\beta'|\leq K\sqrt{(\sinh[2v']+\delta\eta_0^{-1})/w} from (1) and w\leq\eta_0^{-1}. Since |\sin(\theta+iv)|^2=\sin^2\theta+\sinh^2v for real \theta,v, the left-hand side dominates both \sinh v' and |\sin[t_1(x_0-\Re\zeta')]|, and the display first gives \sinh v'\leq K e^{K(M'+1)}\eta_0^{-2}\underline{v}_{\delta} (absorbing the \delta-terms for \delta\leq\delta_5), and then, returning to it with the depth bound in hand, |\sin[t_1(x_0-\Re\zeta')]|\leq Ke^{K(M'+1)}\eta_0^{-2}\underline{v}_{\delta} as well, so that x_0 lies within Ke^{K(M'+1)}\eta_0^{-2}\underline{v}_{\delta}/t_1 of the real part of a zero of the pattern, and hence of a zero of E(t_1,\cdot). Since C\geq C_1(\eta_0), the powers of \eta_0^{-1} are absorbed into e^{KC}, and both the distance t_1|x_0-\Re\zeta'| and the depth v' are at most \underline{v}_{\delta} e^{K_6''(M'+C+1)}=v^\sharp; in particular \zeta'\in Q(s,2C/t_1), and, since t_1<t^\flat, its depth is at least \underline{v}_{\delta}.

Thus every s of the set in (?) exhibits, at some grid point t_1\geq T^\sharp (t_1\geq t^\flat/32\geq T_*/32=T^\sharp), the event of Proposition 2 with v=v^\sharp (or v=2v^\sharp in the Dirichlet case); the pairs (s,t_1) and (s,2t_1) are not \delta-shallow since 2t_1\leq t^\flat/8<t^\flat. Summing (2) over the grid points t_j\geq T^\sharp and using (?),

Finally,

for \delta\leq\delta_5(C,\eta_0,M'), which gives (?); the graded version is the same estimate with the first-entry threshold \underline{v}_{\delta} replaced by v.

Set C=C(\eta_0,\lambda) as in (?), \rho=\min(\lambda,1)/8, and

with a small absolute constant c. Then 2\omega\leq3\min(\lambda,1)/8: the \delta-term of 2\omega is 2K_4\delta^{1/2}e^{16C}\eta_0^{-6}\leq2K_4c^{1/2}\min(\lambda,1)\leq\min(\lambda,1)/4 for c small, and the \delta-independent term is 2K_4e^{-2C}\eta_0^{-1}\leq2K_4e^{-2C_0-2K_{13}}\left(\eta_0\min(\lambda,1)\right)^{2K_{13}}\eta_0^{-1}\leq\min(\lambda,1)/8 by the choice of K_{13}. Hence

so the set in (1) is contained in the set of (?) taken at the level \lambda/2. Since \log(1/\delta)\geq\lambda, the second term of (?) is at most the first (with \|f\|^2_{L^2((T^\sharp,\infty))}\leq\|f\|^2_{L^2((T/32,\infty))}), and

with an absolute N, by (?). Collecting the factors gives (1).

Fix \eta_0 and \lambda\in(0,1]. By Theorem 1, letting T\rightarrow\infty and recalling that the sets {\mathcal{R}}(T,\eta_0,\lambda) increase to a set of full measure in \{\min(w,\tilde w)\geq\eta_0\}, we conclude that for a.e. s in the latter set, \limsup_{t\rightarrow\infty}|u(t,s)-A(s)|\leq\lambda. Taking countable sequences \lambda\downarrow0 and then \eta_0\downarrow0 (recall that \min(w,\tilde w)>0 a.e.), we obtain the convergence.

Let \varepsilon_1\in(0,\tfrac14] be an auxiliary accuracy, to be chosen at the end, and assume (M1)–(M3) with \varepsilon_0\leq\varepsilon_1^4/(K_{18}(1+C)); note \sqrt{\varepsilon_0}\leq\varepsilon_1. For \lambda\in{\mathbb{C}} put

Step 1: uniform bound on the box Q(s,C_t/t) for boundary \lambda. Let \lambda\in\partial Q(s,C_t/t). The function F_\lambda=e^{itz}G\,\Delta_\lambda lies in the Smirnov class of {\mathbb{C}}_+ with

by Lemma 14, hence F_\lambda\in H^2({\mathbb{C}}_+) with that norm bound. On the line \Im z=C_t/t, |F_\lambda(z)|^2\leq\frac{t}{\pi C_t}\|F_\lambda\|^2_{H^2}, |e^{itz}|=e^{-C_t}, and on the top edge of Q(s,C_t/t) the outer function satisfies |G|^2\geq(1-K\varepsilon_1)w(s) (by (M1) at the cone point, as in Lemma 12). Hence, on the top edge,

Let \Delta_\lambda' be the reflection of \Delta_\lambda provided by Lemma 11 2). Since |\Delta_\lambda'|=|\Delta_\lambda| on {\mathbb R}, the function e^{itz}G\Delta_\lambda' is again in H^2 with the same norm, so the top-edge bound holds for \Delta_\lambda' as well; by Lemma 11 1), e^{ty'}|\Delta_\lambda'(x+iy')| is non-decreasing in y', so for every z in the closed upper half of Q(s,C_t/t),

The function \Delta_\lambda^\#(z)=\overline{\Delta_\lambda(\bar z)} has the same modulus on {\mathbb R} and the argument applied to it bounds |\Delta_\lambda| on the lower half of the box. Since \text{\rm Sinc}(1,iC_t,iC_t)\leq e^{2C_t} and C_t\leq48C,

Step 2: interior \lambda. Let now \lambda\in Q(s,C'/t) and z\in\partial Q(s,C_t/t). By the Hermitian symmetry of the kernels, |\Delta_\lambda(z)|=|\Delta_z(\lambda)|, and (?) applies to \Delta_z at the interior point \lambda. Thus (?) holds for |\Delta_\lambda| on \partial Q(s,C_t/t), and since \Delta_\lambda is entire in z, the Cauchy integral over \partial Q(s,C_t/t) (contour length \leq KC/t, distance to Q(s,C'/t) at least C'/t) extends it, with an absolute constant, to all z\in Q(s,C'/t).

Step 3: conclusion. For \lambda,z\in Q(s,C'/t)=Q(s,16C/t), |\bar\lambda-z|\leq64C/t, so

Given the target accuracy \varepsilon of (U2), choose \varepsilon_1=\varepsilon^2w^2(s)e^{-2K_{20}C} (and at most \tfrac14); then the right-hand side is at most \varepsilon, and the hypothesis used above, \varepsilon_0\leq\varepsilon_1^4/(K_{18}(1+C)), is provided by (2) with K_8 large enough (the powers of w(s) are absorbed by the factor \min(w,\tilde w,1)^{8} in (2); we do not optimize the exponents). This proves (U2), and the same argument applies to the Dirichlet family, completing the proof.

The first limit holds at a.e. point since \log w\in L^1(\Pi): this is the standard consequence of the weak-type bound for the non-tangential maximal function and the density of continuous functions ([G], Ch. I). The second is the same statement for |G-G(s)|^2: a.e. s is an L^2(\Pi)-Lebesgue point of G in the non-tangential sense. The third is the non-tangential differentiation theorem for the Poisson-finite measure \mu=w\,m+\mu_{\rm sing}. The last claim follows since 50C/t\rightarrow0 as t\rightarrow\infty.

Since |\sin[t(x-\bar w_0)]|^2=|\sin[t(x-x_0)+ih]|^2\leq\cosh^2h and \text{\rm Sinc}(t,w_0,w_0)=\frac{t\sinh2h}{2\pi h},

Now h\coth h\leq h+1 and (x-x_0)^2+((h+1)/t)^2\leq4\left[(x-x_0)^2+(h/t)^2\right] (because h+1\leq2h), so

1) Write the Cartwright representation F=d z^ne^{ikz}\lim_R\prod_{|a_j|<R}(1-z/a_j)=dz^ne^{ikz}G_0(z) (see [dBr]). All a_j lie in \bar{\mathbb{C}}_-, so each factor |1-z/a_j|, as well as |z|^n, is a non-decreasing function of y=\Im z on y\geq0 for fixed x; hence so is |z^nG_0(x+iy)|. It remains to check k\leq t. In {\mathbb{C}}_+, G_0=Oe^{ilz} with O outer, and l\leq0 since |G_0(iy)| is non-decreasing while \log|O(iy)|=o(y) (as \log|F|\in L^1(\Pi) for Cartwright functions). Since G_0 has no zeros in {\mathbb{C}}_+, G_0^\#=OBe^{ilz} in {\mathbb{C}}_+ for a Blaschke product B, and e^{itz}F^\#=\bar d z^nOBe^{i(t-k+l)z}\in H^2({\mathbb{C}}_+) forces t-k+l\geq0, i.e. k\leq t+l\leq t. Therefore e^{ty}|F(x+iy)|=|d|\,e^{(t-k)y}\,|z^nG_0(x+iy)| is non-decreasing in y.

2) The zeros of F in {\mathbb{C}}_+ satisfy the Blaschke condition (Cartwright class), so the product converges; the poles of the product cancel the zeros of F, making F' entire, with |F'|=|F| on {\mathbb R} (hence F'\in L^2({\mathbb R})), |F'|\geq|F| in {\mathbb{C}}_+ (each factor has modulus \geq1 there), and the exponential type is unchanged since the product is bounded in each half-plane away from the zeros. Thus F'\in\text{\rm PW}_t, and by construction it has no zeros in {\mathbb{C}}_+.

3) If F had a zero a\in{\mathbb{C}}_+, then F_1=F\cdot\frac{z-\bar a}{z-a}\in\text{\rm PW}_t satisfies |F_1|=|F| on {\mathbb R} and |F_1(\lambda)|>|F(\lambda)|, contradicting maximality; so F is zero-free in {\mathbb{C}}_+. Moreover, if k>0 in the representation of part 1), then F_2=e^{-ikz}F satisfies F_2\in\text{\rm PW}_t (by the computation of part 1), using t+l\geq k>0), |F_2|=|F| on {\mathbb R} and |F_2(\lambda)|=e^{k\Im\lambda}|F(\lambda)|>|F(\lambda)|; hence k\leq0\leq t and part 1) applies.

After a translation, \sigma=0; multiplying G by a unimodular constant we may take G(0)=\sqrt{w(0)}>0. Let F\in\text{\rm PW}_t, \|F\|_\mu\leq1, maximize |F(\lambda)|, so that K(t,\lambda,\lambda)=|F(\lambda)|^2; by Lemma 11, F has no zeros in {\mathbb{C}}_+ and e^{ty'}|F(x+iy')| is non-decreasing in y'. Put

Since \mu\geq w\,dm as measures, \|FG\|_{L^2({\mathbb R})}\leq\|F\|_\mu\leq1, and therefore

For real x,

so the integral in (Proof) equals \text{\rm Sinc}(t,\lambda,\lambda)^{-1/2}(I-II) with

by Cauchy’s formula, since e^{itz}FG\in H^2\cdot N^+ with square-summable boundary values, hence in H^1-Smirnov sense integrable, and \lambda\in{\mathbb{C}}_+; and

To estimate II, note that

because e^{itz}F^\#G is in the Smirnov class of {\mathbb{C}}_+ with square-summable boundary values and \bar\lambda\in{\mathbb{C}}_-. Hence, for any D\geq1,

Since G(0) is real, |G_0'|\leq2|G-G(0)| on {\mathbb R}. For II_b, Cauchy–Schwarz with \|FG_0'\|_2\leq2 gives

For II_a, Cauchy–Schwarz gives

where we used |x-\lambda|^{-2}=\frac{\pi t}{y}P_\lambda(x) and \lambda\in\Gamma_0 at height y/t.

The local norm of F is estimated through the outer function. For |x'|\leq Dy/t, by (?) with a=1/t, b=(y+1)/t,

Since \|e^{itz}FG\|_{H^2}\leq1, we have \|(FG)(\cdot+i/t)\|_{L^2}\leq e, and by the monotonicity of e^{ty'}|F|, |F(x)|\leq e\,|F(x+i/t)| pointwise; hence

Combining, and writing \text{\rm Sinc}=\text{\rm Sinc}(t,\lambda,\lambda)=\frac{t\sinh2y}{2\pi y},

Choose D=K'/\varepsilon^2 with K' absolute so large that the middle term is at most \varepsilon (recall y\geq1). Then KD^2(1+y){\mathcal M}_{(y+1)/t}\log w(0)\leq K K'^2\varepsilon^{-4}(1+y)\cdot\frac{\varepsilon^4}{K_{16}(1+y)}\leq\log2 for K_{16} large, and by (12) the last term is at most 2K\sqrt{\varepsilon^2/(K_{16}\sinh2)}\leq\varepsilon for K_{16} large. Finally, \lambda\in\Gamma_0 at height y/t\leq(y+1)/t gives |G(\lambda)|\geq\sqrt{w(0)}\,e^{-{\mathcal M}_{(y+1)/t}\log w(0)}\geq(1-\varepsilon)\sqrt{w(0)}. Altogether \sqrt{w(0)}|F(\lambda)|\leq\frac{1+2\varepsilon}{1-\varepsilon}\,\text{\rm Sinc}^{1/2}, and squaring gives the claim.

Consider G; the other quantities are treated by the same argument. For x with 2b<|x-s|<3b and z\in\Gamma_x, \Im z\leq b,

Split the integral over \{|\cdot-s|>4b\} and \{|\cdot-s|\leq4b\}. On the far part, |\cdot-\Re z|\geq\frac12|\cdot-s| and \Im z\leq b, so P_z\leq KP_{s+i5b} there and the far part is at most K{\mathcal M}^2_{5b}G(s). The near part is at most K times the Hardy–Littlewood maximal function at x of g:=|G-G(s)|^2\raisebox{\depth}{\(\chi\)}_{[s-4b,s+4b]}; since P_{s+i5b}\geq c/b on [s-4b,s+4b], \|g\|_1\leq Kb\,{\mathcal M}^2_{5b}G(s), and by the weak-type (1,1) inequality Mg(x)\leq K{\mathcal M}^2_{5b}G(s) outside a set of measure \leq b/100. Finally, the average of |G(x)-G(s)|^2 over \{2b<|x-s|<3b\} is at most K{\mathcal M}^2_{5b}G(s) (again since P_{s+i5b}\geq c/b there), so by Chebyshev’s inequality |G(x)-G(s)|^2\leq K{\mathcal M}^2_{5b}G(s) outside a set of measure \leq b/100. Combining, the required bound holds for all x outside a set of measure \leq b/50 per side. Running the same argument for |\log w-\log w(s)| (which also yields the last displayed claim) and for the measure \mu\raisebox{\depth}{\(\chi\)}_{[s-4b,s+4b]} (whose mass is at most Kb\,M_{5b}\mu(s)), and removing all exceptional sets, leaves a symmetric set S of admissible shifts with |S|\geq b/10.

The norm bound. By the symmetry K(t,\bar z,\bar z)=K(t,z,z) it suffices to take z\in\partial Q\cap\bar{\mathbb{C}}_+. Such z lies either on the top edge, where z\in\bar\Gamma_s at height C_t/t, or on a lateral edge, where z lies on the vertical segment over \sigma_+ or \sigma_-; in the latter case with y=t\Im z\geq1 the point is in \bar\Gamma_{\sigma_\pm} and Lemma 12 applies at the base point \sigma_\pm (its hypotheses hold by Lemma 13 and \varepsilon_0\leq\varepsilon^4/(K_{18}(1+C)), since 1+y\leq1+48C); for y<1, if F is the maximizer at z_1=\Re z+i/t, monotonicity (Lemma 11) gives |F(z)|\leq e|F(z_1)| while \text{\rm Sinc}(t,z,z)\geq c\,\text{\rm Sinc}(t,z_1,z_1), so the bound at height 1 transfers with an absolute loss. On the lateral edges the density at the base point is exchanged for w(s) with a multiplicative loss of at most e^{|\log w(\sigma_\pm)-\log w(s)|}\leq1+K\varepsilon_0 by Lemma 13. Finally \text{\rm Sinc}(t,z,z)\leq\text{\rm Sinc}(1,iC_t,iC_t)t on \partial Q(s,C_t/t) since \text{\rm Sinc}(1,iy,iy) increases in y.

The L^2(\mu)-bound. Since \text{\rm Sinc}(t,z,\cdot)\in\text{\rm PW}_t and K reproduces on \text{\rm PW}_t,

We claim that

Write \phi=|\text{\rm Sinc}(t,z,\cdot)|^2/\text{\rm Sinc}(t,z,z), so \int\phi\,dm=1 and, by Lemma 10 applied at the base point of z (with h=\max(t\Im z,1)), \phi\leq8P_{z'} for a point z' lying in the truncated cone of s or of \sigma_\pm. Decompose d\mu=w(s)dm+(w-w(s))dm+d\mu_{\rm sing}. The first part contributes exactly w(s) to \int\phi\,d\mu. For the second, by Cauchy–Schwarz and |w-w(s)|\leq|G-G(s)|\left(|G|+|G(s)|\right),

since \int P_{z'}|G|^2dm\leq P\mu(z')\leq K w(s) and {\mathcal M}^2-quantities at the base points are \leq K\varepsilon_0w(s) by Lemma 13. For the singular part,

using (M3) transported by Lemma 13 together with the bound on \int P_{z'}|w-w(s)|\,dm just obtained. Summing the three parts and multiplying back by \text{\rm Sinc}(t,z,z) gives (?). Inserting (?) and the norm bound into the expansion,