text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

If $`f:`$ then its Fourier transform at $`s`$ is defined as $`\widehat{f}(s)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}e^{isx}f(x)𝑑x`$. The inverse transform is $`f\text{ˇ}(s)=(2\pi )^1_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}e^{isx}f(x)𝑑x`$. In this paper we consider Fourier transforms as Henstock–Kurzweil integrals. This is an integral equivalent to the Denjoy and Perron integrals but with a definition in terms of Riemann sums. We let $`𝒦_A`$ be the Henstock–Kurzweil integrable functions over a set $`A`$, dropping the subscript when $`A=`$. (The symbol $``$ allows set equality.) Then $`𝒦`$ properly contains the union of $`L^1`$ and the Cauchy-Lebesgue integrable functions (i.e., improper Lebesgue integrals). The main points of $`𝒦`$ integration that we use can be found in  and . Several of our results depend on being able to reverse the order of repeated integrals. In the Lebesgue theory this is usually justified with Fubini’s Theorem. For $`𝒦`$ integrals, necessary and sufficient conditions were given in . Lemma 25 in the Appendix gives sufficient conditions that are readily applicable to the cases at hand. Also in the Appendix are some conditions for convergence of rapidly oscillatory integrals (Lemma 23) and an estimate of the integral of a product (Lemma 24).

There is a substantial body of theory relating to Fourier transforms when they are considered as Lebesgue integrals. Necessary and sufficient for existence of $`\widehat{f}`$ on $``$ is that $`fL^1`$. This is because the multipliers for $`L^1`$ are the (essentially) bounded measurable functions and $`|e^{\pm isx}|1`$. The multipliers for $`𝒦`$ are the functions of (essentially) bounded variation. As $`xe^{isx}`$ is not of bounded variation, except for $`s=0`$, we do not have an elegant existence theorem for $`𝒦`$ Fourier integrals. Various existence conditions are given in Proposition 2. Example 3(f) gives a function whose Fourier transform diverges on a countable set. For $`L^1`$ convergence, $`\widehat{f}`$ is uniformly continuous with limit $`0`$ at infinity (the Riemann–Lebesgue lemma). We show below (Example 3(e)) that the Riemann–Lebesgue lemma fails dramatically in $`𝒦`$: $`\widehat{f}`$ can have arbitrarily large point-wise growth. And, $`\widehat{f}`$ need not be continuous. Continuity of $`\widehat{f}`$ is equivalent to quasi-uniform convergence (Theorem 5). Some sufficient conditions for continuity of $`\widehat{f}`$ appear in Proposition 6. Although $`\widehat{f}`$ need not be continuous, when it exists at the endpoints of a compact interval, it exists almost everywhere on that interval and is integrable over that interval. See Proposition 7. As in the $`L^1`$ theory, we have linearity, symmetry, conjugation, translation, modulation, dilation, etc. See formulas (2)–(9) in \[5, p. 117\] and \[2, p. 9\]. We draw attention to the differentiation of Fourier transforms (Proposition 8) and transforms of derivatives (Proposition 9). One of the most important properties of Fourier transforms is their interaction with convolutions. Propositions 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 contain various results on existence of convolutions; estimates using the variation, $`L^1`$ norm and Alexiewicz norm; and the transform and inverse transform of convolutions. Proposition 16 gives a Parseval relation. An inversion theorem is obtained using a summability kernel (Theorem 18). A uniqueness theorem follows as a corollary. The paper concludes with an example of a function $`f`$ for which $`\widehat{f}`$ exists on $``$ but $`\widehat{f}\text{ˇ}`$ exists nowhere.

As Henstock–Kurzweil integrals allow conditional convergence, they make an ideal setting for the Fourier transform. We remark that many of the Fourier integrals appearing in tables such as  diverge as Lebesgue integrals but converge as improper Riemann integrals. Thus, they exist as $`𝒦`$ integrals.

We use the following notation. Let $`A`$ and $`f`$ a real-valued function on $`A`$. The functions of bounded variation over $`A`$ are denoted $`𝒱_A`$ and the variation of function $`f`$ over set $`A`$ is $`V_Af`$. We say a set is in $`𝒱`$ if its characteristic function is in $`𝒱`$. All our results are stated for real-valued functions but the extension to complex-valued functions is immediate. Note that for complex-valued functions, the variation of the real part and the variation of the imaginary part are added. The Alexiewicz norm of $`f𝒦_A`$ is $`f_A=sup_{IA}|_If|`$, the supremum being taken over all intervals $`IA`$. For each of these definitions, the label $`A`$ is omitted when $`A=`$ or it is obvious which set is $`A`$. Whereas indefinite Lebesgue integrals are absolutely continuous ($`AC`$), indefinite Henstock–Kurzweil integrals are $`ACG_{}`$. See  for the definition of $`ACG_{}`$ and the related space $`AC_{}`$. Finally, a convergence theorem that we use throughout is:

###### Theorem 1

Let $`f`$ and $`g_n`$ $`(n)`$ be real-valued functions on $`[a,b]`$. If $`f𝒦`$, $`Vg_nM`$ for all $`n`$, and $`g_ng`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$ then $`_a^bfg_n_a^bfg`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$.

The theorem holds for $`[a,b]\overline{}`$, where $`\overline{}=\{\pm \mathrm{}\}`$ is the extended real line. For a proof see .

## 2 Basic properties

We first tackle the problem of existence. If $`f:`$ then $`\widehat{f}`$ exists as a Lebesgue integral on $``$ if and only if $`fL^1`$. This follows from the fact that $`|e^{\pm isx}|1`$ for all $`s,x`$ and the multipliers for $`L^1`$ are the bounded measurable functions. No such simple necessary and sufficient conditions are known for existence of $`𝒦`$ Fourier integrals. However, we do have the following results.

###### Proposition 2

Let $`f:`$.

1. In order for $`\widehat{f}`$ to exist at some $`s`$ it is necessary that $`f𝒦_{loc}`$.
2. If $`f𝒦_{loc}`$ then $`\widehat{f}`$ exists on $``$ if $`|f|`$ is integrable in a neighbourhood of infinity or if $`f`$ is of bounded variation in a neighbourhood of infinity with limit $`0`$ at infinity.
3. Let $`f𝒦`$. Define $`F_1(x)=_x^{\mathrm{}}f`$ and $`F_2(x)=_{\mathrm{}}^xf`$. Then $`\widehat{f}`$ exists at $`s`$ if and only if both the integrals $`_0^{\mathrm{}}e^{isx}F_1(x)𝑑x`$ and $`_{\mathrm{}}^0e^{isx}F_2(x)𝑑x`$ exist.

Proof: (a) For each $`s`$, the function $`xe^{isx}`$ is of bounded variation on any compact interval.

(b) This follows from the Chartier–Dirichlet convergence test. See .

(c) Let $`T>0`$. Integrate by parts to obtain

$$_0^Te^{isx}f(x)𝑑x=F_1(0)F_1(T)e^{isT}is_0^Te^{isx}F_1(x)𝑑x.$$

Since $`F_1`$ is continuous with limit $`0`$ at infinity, $`_0^{\mathrm{}}e^{isx}f(x)𝑑x`$ exists if and only if $`_0^{\mathrm{}}e^{isx}F_1(x)𝑑x`$ exists. The other part of the proof is similar. $`\mathrm{}`$

Although $`F_1`$ is continuous with limit $`0`$ at infinity, it need not be of bounded variation. So, $`f𝒦`$ does not imply the existence of $`\widehat{f}`$. See Example 3(c) below. Notice that part (b) (with $`𝒦_{loc}`$ replaced by $`L_{loc}^1`$) and part (c) are false for $`L^1`$ convergence of $`\widehat{f}`$.

Titchmarsh  gives several sufficient conditions for existence of conditionally convergent Fourier integrals (§1.10–1.12). However, these all require that $`fL_{loc}^1`$.

When $`fL^1`$ and $`s,h`$, $`\widehat{f}(s+h)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}e^{i(s+h)x}f(x)𝑑x`$. By dominated convergence this tends to $`\widehat{f}(s)`$ as $`sh`$. So, $`\widehat{f}`$ is uniformly continuous on $``$. When $`\widehat{f}`$ exists in $`𝒦`$ in a neighbourhood of $`s`$, the function $`xe^{isx}f(x)`$ is in $`𝒦`$ but the factor $`e^{ihx}`$ is not of bounded variation on $``$ except for $`h=0`$. In general we cannot take the limit $`h0`$ under the integral sign and $`\widehat{f}`$ need not be continuous. And, for $`fL^1`$ and $`s0`$, the change of variables $`xx+\pi /s`$ gives $`\widehat{f}(s)=(1/2)_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}e^{isx}\left[f(x)f(x+\pi /s)\right]𝑑x`$. Writing $`f_y(x)=f(x+y)`$ for $`x,y`$, we have $`|\widehat{f}(s)|(1/2)ff_{\pi /s}_1`$. Continuity of $`f`$ in the $`L^1`$ norm now yields the Riemann–Lebesgue lemma: $`\widehat{f}(s)0`$ as $`|s|\mathrm{}`$. It is true that if $`f𝒦`$ then $`f`$ is continuous in the Alexiewicz norm . However, since the variation of $`xe^{isx}`$ is not uniformly bounded as $`|s|\mathrm{}`$, existence of $`\widehat{f}`$ does not let us conclude that $`\widehat{f}`$ tends to $`0`$ at infinity.

The following examples show some of the differences between $`L^1`$ and $`𝒦`$ Fourier transforms.

###### Example 3

The transforms (a)–(d) appear in . Convergence in (a) is by Lemma 23, (b) is similar, after integrating by parts, and (c) and (f) are Frullani integrals.

(a) If $`f(x)=\mathrm{sgn}(x)|x|^{1/2}`$ then $`f`$ is not in $`𝒦`$ or in any $`L^p`$ space ($`1p\mathrm{}`$) and yet $`\widehat{f}(s)=\sqrt{2\pi }\mathrm{sgn}(s)|s|^{1/2}`$ for $`s0`$. Notice that, even though $`f`$ is odd, $`\widehat{f}`$ does not exist at $`0`$ since $`𝒦`$ convergence does not allow principal value integrals.

(b) Let $`g(x)=e^{ix^2}`$. Then $`\widehat{g}(s)=\sqrt{\pi }e^{i(\pi s^2)/4}`$. In this example, $`\widehat{g}`$ is not of bounded variation at infinity, nor does $`\widehat{g}`$ tend to $`0`$ at infinity, nor is $`\widehat{g}`$ uniformly continuous on $``$. The same can of course be said for $`g`$.

(c) Let $`h(x)=\mathrm{sin}(ax)/|x|`$. Then $`\widehat{h}(s)=i\mathrm{log}|(sa)/(s+a)|`$ for $`sa`$.

(d) Let $`k(x)=x/(x^2+1)`$. Then $`\widehat{k}(s)=i\pi \mathrm{sgn}(s)e^{|s|}`$ for $`s0`$. Note that $`\widehat{k}`$ does not exist at $`0`$, even though its principal value is $`0`$.

(e) Fourier transforms in $`𝒦`$ can have arbitrarily large point-wise growth. Given any sequence $`\{a_n\}`$ of positive real numbers, there is a continuous function $`f`$ on $``$ such that $`\widehat{f}`$ exists on $``$ and $`\widehat{f}(n)a_n`$ for all $`n1`$ .

(f) Let $`\{a_n\}`$ and $`\{b_n\}`$ be sequences in $``$. Define $`f(x)=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}a_n\mathrm{sin}(b_nx)/|x|`$ for $`x0`$ and $`f(0)=0`$. Assume that $`a_n>0`$, $`a_n<\mathrm{}`$ and $`a_n|b_n|<\mathrm{}`$. Then $`f`$ is continuous on $``$, except at the origin, where it has a finite jump discontinuity. Suppose $`s`$ is not in the closure of $`\{b_n,b_n\}_n`$. Then

$`\widehat{f}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_n{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}e^{isx}\mathrm{sin}(b_nx){\displaystyle \frac{dx}{|x|}}`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_n{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\left(\mathrm{cos}\left[(s+b_n)x\right]\mathrm{cos}\left[(sb_n)x\right]\right){\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_n\mathrm{log}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{sb_n}{s+b_n}}\right|.`$ (3)
The reversal of summation and integration in (1) is justified using Corollary 7 in . Hence, $`\widehat{f}`$ exists on $``$, except perhaps on the closure of $`\{b_n,b_n\}_n`$. Note that $`\widehat{f}(0)=0`$.

We will now show $`\widehat{f}`$ diverges at each $`b_k`$ with $`a_kb_k0`$. Let $`T_1,T_2>0`$ and consider

$`{\displaystyle _{T_1}^{T_2}}e^{ib_kx}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_n\mathrm{sin}(b_nx){\displaystyle \frac{dx}{|x|}}`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_n{\displaystyle _{T_1}^{T_2}}e^{ib_kx}\mathrm{sin}(b_nx){\displaystyle \frac{dx}{|x|}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_n{\displaystyle _{T_1}^{T_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\left[(b_k+b_n)x\right]\mathrm{sin}\left[(b_kb_n)x\right]}{2}}i\mathrm{sin}(b_kx)\mathrm{sin}(b_nx){\displaystyle \frac{dx}{|x|}}.`$ (5)
In (4), convergence of $`a_n|b_n|`$ permits reversal of summation and integration. The real part of (5) converges for all $`k1`$, uniformly for $`T_1,T_20`$. Hence, the real part of $`\widehat{f}`$ exists on $``$. The $`k^{th}`$ summand of the imaginary part of (5) is

$$a_k_{T_1}^{T_2}\mathrm{sin}^2(b_kx)\frac{dx}{|x|}=a_k_{T_1|b_k|}^{T_2|b_k|}\mathrm{sin}^2x\frac{dx}{|x|}.$$

This diverges as $`T_1,T_2\mathrm{}`$. Hence, $`\widehat{f}(b_k)`$ does not exist.

If $`\{b_n,b_n\}_n`$ has no limit points then we have an example of a function whose Fourier transform exists everywhere except on a countable set.

Now suppose $`s\{b_n,b_n\}_n`$ but $`s`$ is a limit point of $`\{b_n,b_n\}_n`$. As noticed above, the real part of $`\widehat{f}(s)`$ exists. And, $`|_1^1\mathrm{sin}(sx)\mathrm{sin}(b_nx)𝑑x/|x||2|s|`$. So, $`\widehat{f}(s)`$ exists if and only if

$$\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n_1^T\left(\mathrm{cos}\left[(s+b_n)x\right]\mathrm{cos}\left[(sb_n)x\right]\right)\frac{dx}{x}$$

exists. Suppose $`s0`$ and $`T>1`$. If $`|sb_n|T>1`$ and $`|sb_n|<1`$ then

$`\left|{\displaystyle _1^T}\mathrm{cos}(|sb_n|x){\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}\right|`$ $`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle _{|sb_n|}^{|sb_n|T}}\mathrm{cos}x{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}\right|`$
$`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle _{|sb_n|}^1}\mathrm{cos}x{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}+{\displaystyle _1^{|sb_n|T}}\mathrm{cos}x{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}\right|`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{log}\left(1/|sb_n|\right)+c.`$
The constant $`c`$ is equal to the supremum of $`|_1^t\mathrm{cos}xdx/x|`$ over $`t>1`$. When $`|sb_n|T1`$, we have

$`\left|{\displaystyle _1^T}\mathrm{cos}(|sb_n|x){\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}\right|`$ $`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle _{|sb_n|}^{|sb_n|T}}\mathrm{cos}x{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}\right|`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{log}T`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{log}\left(1/|sb_n|\right).`$
The case for $`|s+b_n|T`$ is similar. It follows that the condition

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n\left|\mathrm{log}\left|\frac{sb_n}{s+b_n}\right|\right|<\mathrm{}$$
(7)
is sufficient for existence of $`\widehat{f}(s)`$.

If $`1/T<|sb_n|<1`$ then, as in (3),

$$_1^T\mathrm{cos}(|sb_n|x)\frac{dx}{x}\mathrm{cos}(1)\mathrm{log}\left(1/|sb_n|\right)c.$$

Therefore,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{1/T<|sb_n|<1}{}}a_n{\displaystyle _1^T}\mathrm{cos}(|sb_n|x){\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{1/T<|sb_n|<1}{}}a_n\left[\mathrm{cos}(1)\mathrm{log}\left(1/|sb_n|\right)c\right].`$
Let $`T\mathrm{}`$, then condition (7) is also necessary for existence of $`\widehat{f}(s)`$. Hence, it is possible for $`\widehat{f}`$ to exist at a finite number of limit points of $`\{b_n,b_n\}_n.`$

Finally, enumerate the rational numbers in $`[0,1]`$ by $`b_1=0,b_2=1/1,b_3=1/2,b_4=1/3,b_5=2/3,b_6=3/3,b_7=1/4`$, etc. Let $`A_m>0`$ such that $`mA_m<\mathrm{}`$. Put $`a_1=0`$ and define $`a_n=A_m`$ for the $`m`$ consecutive values of $`n`$ such that $`b_n=l/m`$ for some $`1lm`$. Let $`s[1,1]`$ and let $`\overline{s}`$ be the distance to the nearest rational number. Then

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n\left|\mathrm{log}\left|\frac{sb_n}{s+b_n}\right|\right|=\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_m\underset{l=1}{\overset{m}{}}\left|\mathrm{log}\left|\frac{sl/m}{s+l/m}\right|\right|\mathrm{log}(2/\overline{s})\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}mA_m.$$

This furnishes an example of a function whose Fourier transform exists on $``$ except for the rational numbers in $`[1,1]`$.$`\mathrm{}`$

Examples 3(a), (c), (d) and (f) show that $`\widehat{f}`$ need not be continuous. However, continuity of $`\widehat{f}`$ is equivalent to quasi-uniform continuity.

###### Definition 4 (Quasi-uniform continuity)

Let $`f:^2`$. If $`F(x):=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}f(x,y)𝑑y`$ exists in a neighbourhood of $`x_0`$ then $`F`$ is quasi-uniformly continuous at $`x_0`$ if for all $`ϵ>0`$ and $`M>0`$ there exist $`m=m(x_0,ϵ,M)M`$ and $`\delta =\delta (x_0,ϵ,M)>0`$ such that if $`|xx_0|<\delta `$ then $`|_{|y|>m}f(x,y)𝑑y|<ϵ`$.

This is a modification of a similar definition for series, originally introduced by Dini. See , page 140.

###### Theorem 5

Let $`f:`$. Then, $`\widehat{f}`$ is continuous at $`s_0`$ if and only if $`\widehat{f}`$ is quasi-uniformly continuous at $`s_0`$.

Proof: For $`m>0`$, let $`F_m(s)=_m^me^{isx}f(x)𝑑x`$. Let $`h`$. Then, $`F_m(s+h)F_m(s)=_m^m[e^{ihx}1]e^{isx}f(x)𝑑x`$. Note that either assumption implies $`xe^{isx}f(x)`$ is in $`𝒦_{loc}`$ for each $`s`$. And, $`V_{[m,m]}[xe^{ihx}1]4m|h|`$. Taking the limit $`h0`$ inside the above integral now shows $`F_m`$ is continuous on $``$ for each $`m>0`$.

Suppose $`\widehat{f}`$ is quasi-uniformly continuous at $`s_0`$. Given $`ϵ>0`$, take $`M>0`$ such that $`|_{|x|>t}e^{is_0x}f(x)𝑑x|<ϵ`$ for all $`t>M`$. From quasi-uniform continuity, we have $`m>M`$ and $`\delta >0`$. Then, for $`|ss_0|<\delta `$,

$`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{|x|>m}{}}\left[e^{isx}e^{is_0x}\right]f(x)𝑑x\right|`$ $``$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{|x|>m}{}}e^{isx}f(x)𝑑x\right|+\left|{\displaystyle \underset{|x|>m}{}}e^{is_0x}f(x)𝑑x\right|`$
$``$ $`2ϵ.`$
It follows that $`\widehat{f}`$ is continuous at $`s_0`$.

Suppose $`\widehat{f}`$ is continuous at $`s_0`$ and we are given $`ϵ>0`$ and $`M>0`$. Since $`\widehat{f}`$ exists at $`s_0`$, there is $`N=N(s_0,ϵ)>0`$ such that $`|_{|x|>m}e^{is_0x}f(x)𝑑x|<ϵ`$ whenever $`m>N`$. Continuity of $`\widehat{f}`$ at $`s_0`$ implies the existence of $`\xi =\xi (s_0,ϵ)>0`$ such that $`|\widehat{f}(s)\widehat{f}(s_0)|<ϵ`$ when $`|ss_0|<\xi `$. And, $`F_m`$ is continuous on $``$. Hence, there exists $`\eta =\eta (s_0,ϵ,m)>0`$ such that when $`|ss_0|<\eta `$ we have $`|F_m(s)F_m(s_0)|<ϵ`$. Let $`m=\mathrm{max}(M,N)`$ and $`\delta =\mathrm{min}(\xi ,\eta )`$. Then for $`|ss_0|<\delta `$ we have

$`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{|x|>m}{}}e^{isx}f(x)𝑑x\right|`$ $``$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{|x|>m}{}}e^{is_0x}f(x)𝑑x\right|+\left|\widehat{f}(s)\widehat{f}(s_0)\right|+\left|F_m(s)F_m(s_0)\right|`$
$`<`$ $`3ϵ.`$
And, $`\widehat{f}`$ is quasi-uniformly continuous at $`s_0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We now present two sufficient conditions for a Fourier transform to be continuous. The first is in the spirit of the Chartier–Dirichlet convergence test and the second is in the spirit of the Abel convergence test. For simplicity, the results are stated for functions on $`[0,\mathrm{})`$. The general case follows easily.

###### Proposition 6

Let $`g`$ and $`h`$ be real-valued functions on $`[0,\mathrm{})`$ where $`g𝒱`$ and $`h𝒦_{\mathrm{loc}}`$. Define $`f=gh`$.

1. Suppose there are positive constants $`M`$, $`\delta `$ and $`K`$ such that, if $`|ss_0|<\delta `$ and $`M_1,M_2>M`$ then $`|_{M_1}^{M_2}e^{isx}h(x)𝑑x|<K`$. If $`g(x)0`$ as $`x\mathrm{}`$ then $`\widehat{f}`$ is continuous at $`s_0`$.
2. Let $`H_s(x)=_0^xe^{ist}f(t)𝑑t`$. If $`\widehat{h}`$ is continuous at $`s_0`$ and there are $`\delta ,K>0`$ such that for all $`x>0`$ and $`|ss_0|<\delta `$ we have $`|H_s(x)|K`$ then $`\widehat{f}`$ is continuous at $`s_0`$.

Proof: Write $`\varphi _s(x)=e^{isx}h(x)`$. With no loss of generality, $`g(\mathrm{})=0`$.

For (a), let $`|ss_0|<\delta `$ and $`M_1,M_2>M`$. Using Lemma 24,

$`\left|{\displaystyle _{M_1}^{M_2}}e^{isx}f(x)𝑑x\right|`$ $``$ $`\left|{\displaystyle _{M_1}^{M_2}}\varphi _s(x)𝑑x\right|\underset{[M_1,M_2]}{inf}|g|+\varphi _s_{[M_1,M_2]}V_{[M_1,M_2]}g`$
$``$ $`K\left[\underset{[M_1,M_2]}{inf}|g|+V_{[M,\mathrm{}]}g\right]`$
$``$ $`0\text{ as }M\mathrm{}.`$
Therefore, $`\widehat{f}`$ exists in a neighbourhood of $`s_0`$. Taking the limit $`M_2\mathrm{}`$ in (2) shows that $`\widehat{f}`$ is quasi-uniformly continuous and hence continuous.

For (b), since $`g𝒱`$ we have $`lim_x\mathrm{}g(x)=c`$. Writing $`f=h(gc)+ch`$ we need only consider $`|_M^{\mathrm{}}\varphi _s(gc)|\varphi _s_{[M,\mathrm{})}V_{[M,\mathrm{})}(gc)`$. By our assumption, $`\varphi _s_{[M,\mathrm{})}2K`$ for $`|ss_0|<\delta `$. And, $`V_{[M,\mathrm{})}(gc)0`$ as $`M\mathrm{}`$.$`\mathrm{}`$

Although $`\widehat{f}`$ need not be continuous, when it exists at the endpoints of a compact interval it is integrable over the interval.

###### Proposition 7

Let $`[a,b]`$ be a compact interval. If $`\widehat{f}`$ exists at $`a`$ and $`b`$ then $`\widehat{f}`$ exists almost everywhere on $`(a,b)`$, $`\widehat{f}`$ is integrable over $`(a,b)`$ and $`_a^b\widehat{f}=i_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}f(x)[e^{ibx}e^{iax}]𝑑x/x`$.

Proof: The integral $`I:=i_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}f(x)\left[e^{ibx}e^{iax}\right]\frac{dx}{x}`$ exists since $`xf(x)e^{ibx}/x`$ and $`xf(x)e^{iax}/x`$ are integrable over $`(1,1)`$ and $`x\left[e^{ibx}e^{iax}\right]/x`$ is of bounded variation on $`[1,1]`$. And,

$$I=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}f(x)e^{ibx}_a^be^{i(sb)x}𝑑s𝑑x=_a^b_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}f(x)e^{isx}𝑑x𝑑s=_a^b\widehat{f}.$$

Hence, $`\widehat{f}`$ exists almost everywhere on $`(a,b)`$ and is integrable over $`(a,b)`$. Lemma 25(a) justifies the reversal of $`x`$ and $`s`$ integration.$`\mathrm{}`$

The usual algebraic properties of linearity, symmetry, conjugation, translation, modulation, dilation, etc., familiar from the $`L^1`$ theory, continue to hold for $`𝒦`$ Fourier transforms. See formulas (2)–(9) in \[5, p. 117\] and \[2, p. 9\]. The proofs are elementary. There are also differentiation results analogous to the $`L^1`$ case (pages 117 and 17, respectively, of the previous references).

###### Proposition 8 (Frequency differentiation)

Suppose $`\widehat{f}`$ exists on the compact interval $`[\alpha ,\beta ]`$. Define $`g(x)=xf(x)`$ and suppose $`g𝒦`$. Then $`\widehat{f}^{}=i\widehat{g}`$ almost everywhere on $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$. In particular, $`\widehat{f}^{}(s)=i\widehat{g}(s)`$ for all $`s(\alpha ,\beta )`$ such that $`\frac{d}{ds}_\alpha ^s\widehat{g}=\widehat{g}(s)`$.

Proof: The necessary and sufficient condition that allows differentiation under the integral, $`\widehat{f}^{}(s)=i_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}e^{isx}xf(x)𝑑x`$, for almost all $`s(\alpha ,\beta )`$ is that

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}_a^be^{isx}xf(x)𝑑s𝑑x=_a^b_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}e^{isx}xf(x)𝑑x𝑑s$$
(9)
for all $`[a,b][\alpha ,\beta ]`$. See \[13, Theorem 4\]. We have $`g𝒦`$, $`|e^{isx}|1`$ and $`V_I[xe^{isx}]2|I||s|`$ for a compact interval $`I`$. The left member of (9) is $`i[\widehat{f}(b)\widehat{f}(a)]`$. Hence, by Lemma 25(a), (9) holds, and $`\widehat{f}^{}(s)=i\widehat{g}(s)`$ for almost all $`s(\alpha ,\beta )`$. Examining the proof of \[13, Theorem 4\], we see that we get equality $`\widehat{f}^{}(s)=i\widehat{g}(s)`$ when $`\frac{d}{ds}_\alpha ^s\widehat{g}=\widehat{g}(s)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

There are similar results for $`n`$-fold differentiation when the function $`xx^nf(x)`$ is in $`𝒦`$ for a positive integer $`n`$.

###### Proposition 9 (Time differentiation)

1. If $`fACG_{}()`$ and $`f(x)0`$ as $`|x|\mathrm{}`$ then for each $`s0`$, both $`\widehat{f}(s)`$ and $`\widehat{f}^{}(s)`$ fail to exist or $`\widehat{f}^{}(s)=is\widehat{f}(s)`$.
2. Suppose $`fACG_{}()`$ and $`f,f^{}𝒦`$. Then for each $`s0`$, either both $`\widehat{f}(s)`$ and $`\widehat{f}^{}(s)`$ fail to exist or $`\widehat{f}^{}(s)=is\widehat{f}(s)`$.

Proof: (a) Let $`M_1,M_2>0`$. Integrate by parts to get

$$_{M_1}^{M_2}e^{isx}f^{}(x)𝑑x=e^{isM_2}f(M_2)e^{isM_1}f(M_1)+is_{M_1}^{M_2}e^{isx}f(x)𝑑x.$$

Now take the limits $`M_1,M_2\mathrm{}`$.

(b) Consider $`_x^{\mathrm{}}f^{}=_M^{\mathrm{}}f^{}+f(M)f(x)`$ for $`x,M`$. Since $`f^{}𝒦`$, the limits as $`|x|\mathrm{}`$ exist. Hence, $`f`$ has a limit at infinity. But, $`f𝒦`$ so this limit must be $`0`$ and we have reduction to case (a). $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 Convolution

If $`f`$ and $`g`$ are real-valued functions on $``$ then their convolution is $`fg(x)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}f(xt)g(t)𝑑t`$. The following proposition gives the basic properties of convolution.

###### Proposition 10

Let $`f`$ and $`g`$ be real-valued functions on $``$. Define $`f_x:`$ by $`f_x(y)=f(x+y)`$ for $`x,y`$. For interval $`I=[\alpha ,\beta ]`$ and $`y`$, define $`Iy=[\alpha y,\beta y]`$.

1. If $`fg`$ exists at $`x`$ then $`fg(x)=gf(x)`$.
2. If $`f𝒦`$, $`g𝒱`$ and $`hL^1`$ then $`(fg)h=f(gh)`$ on $``$.
3. Let $`f𝒦`$. Suppose that for each compact interval $`I`$ there are constants $`K_I`$ and $`M_I`$ such that $`|g||h|(z)K_I`$ for all $`zI`$ and the function $`yh(y)V_{Iy}g`$ is in $`L^1`$. If $`f(gh)`$ exists at $`x`$ then $`(fg)h(x)=f(gh)(x)`$.
4. $`(fg)_x=f_xg=fg_x`$ wherever any one of these convolutions exists.
5. $`\mathrm{supp}(fg)\{x+y:x\mathrm{supp}(f),y\mathrm{supp}(g)\}`$.

Proof: For (a), (d) and (e), the $`L^1`$ proofs hold without change. See \[6, Proposition 8.6\]. To prove (b), write

$`(fg)h(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}fg(xy)h(y)𝑑y`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}f(xyz)g(z)𝑑zh(y)𝑑y`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}f(xz)g(zy)h(y)𝑑y𝑑z`$
$`=`$ $`f(gh)(x).`$
Lemma 25(b) allows us to change the order of $`y`$ and $`z`$ integration. The proof of (c) is similar but now we use Lemma 25(a). $`\mathrm{}`$

The next proposition gives some sufficient conditions for existence of the convolution and some point-wise estimates.

###### Proposition 11

1. Let $`f𝒦`$ and $`g𝒱`$. Then $`fg`$ exists on $``$ and $`|fg(x)|f[inf|g|+Vg]`$ for all $`x`$.
2. Let $`f𝒦_{loc}`$ and $`g𝒱`$ with the support of $`g`$ in the compact interval $`[a,b]`$. Then $`fg`$ exists on $``$ and $`|fg(x)||_{xb}^{xa}f|inf_{[a,b]}|g|+f_{[xa,xb]}V_{[a,b]}g`$.

Proof: (a) Using Lemma 24,

$`|fg(x)|`$ $`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}f(xt)g(t)𝑑t\right|`$
$``$ $`\left|{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}f\right|inf|g|+fVg`$
$``$ $`f\left[inf|g|+Vg\right].`$
(b) Now,

$`|fg(x)|`$ $`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle _a^b}f(xt)g(t)𝑑t\right|`$
$``$ $`\left|{\displaystyle _{xb}^{xa}}f\right|\underset{[a,b]}{inf}|g|+f_{[xb,xa]}V_{[a,b]}g.\mathrm{}`$
These conditions are sufficient but not necessary for existence of the convolution. Also, if $`f,g𝒦`$ then $`fg`$ need not exist at any point.

###### Example 12

1. Let $`f(x)=\mathrm{log}|x|\mathrm{sin}(x)`$ and $`g(x)=|x|^\alpha `$, where $`0<\alpha <1`$. Then $`f`$ and $`g`$ do not have compact support and are not in $`𝒦`$, $`𝒱`$ or $`L^p`$ ($`1p\mathrm{}`$). And yet $`fg`$ exists on $``$.
2. Let $`f(x)=\mathrm{sin}(x)/|x|^{1/2}`$ and $`g(x)=(\mathrm{sin}(x)+\mathrm{cos}(x))/|x|^{1/2}`$. Then $`f,g𝒦`$ but $`fg`$ exists nowhere. $`\mathrm{}`$

When $`f𝒦`$ and $`gL^1𝒱`$ then $`fg`$ exists on $``$ and we can estimate it in the Alexiewicz norm.

###### Proposition 13

Let $`f𝒦`$ and $`gL^1𝒱`$. Then $`fg`$ exists on $``$ and $`fgfg_1`$.

Proof: Existence comes from Proposition 11. Let $`\mathrm{}a<b\mathrm{}`$. Using Lemma 25(a), we can interchange the repeated integrals,

$`{\displaystyle _a^b}fg𝑑x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _a^b}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}f(xt)g(t)𝑑t𝑑x`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}g(t){\displaystyle _a^b}f(xt)𝑑x𝑑t.`$ (11)
And,

$`\left|{\displaystyle _a^b}fg𝑑x\right|`$ $``$ $`g_1\underset{t}{sup}\left|{\displaystyle _a^b}f(xt)𝑑x\right|`$
$`=`$ $`g_1\underset{t}{sup}\left|{\displaystyle _{at}^{bt}}f\right|`$
$``$ $`fg_1.\mathrm{}`$
Under suitable conditions on $`f`$ and $`g`$, we have the usual interactions between convolution and Fourier transformation and inversion.

###### Proposition 14

If $`\widehat{f}`$ exists at $`s`$ and $`gL^1𝒱`$ then $`\widehat{fg}(s)=\widehat{f}(s)\widehat{g}(s)`$.

Proof: We have

$`\widehat{fg}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}e^{isx}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\left[e^{ist}f(t)\right]\left[e^{ist}g(xt)\right]𝑑t𝑑x`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}e^{ist}f(t){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}e^{is(xt)}g(xt)𝑑x𝑑t`$
$`=`$ $`\widehat{f}(s)\widehat{g}(s).`$
The interchange of integrals is validated by Lemma 25(a), since

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}V_{[a,b]}\left[te^{is(xt)}g(xt)\right]𝑑x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}V_{[xb,xa]}\left[te^{ist}g(t)\right]𝑑x`$
$``$ $`2|s|(ba)g_1+2(ba)Vg.\mathrm{}`$
###### Proposition 15

If $`f`$ and $`g`$ are in $`𝒦_{loc}`$ such that $`\widehat{f}`$ exists almost everywhere, $`\widehat{g}L^1`$, $`ss\widehat{g}(s)`$ is in $`L^1`$ and $`\widehat{g}\text{ˇ}=g`$ almost everywhere then $`fg=(\widehat{f}\widehat{g})\text{ˇ}`$ on $``$.

Proof: Let $`x`$. Then $`\widehat{g}(xt)`$ exists for almost all $`t`$. And,

$`fg(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}f(t){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}e^{is(xt)}\widehat{g}(s)𝑑s𝑑t`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}e^{isx}\widehat{g}(s){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}e^{ist}f(t)𝑑t𝑑s`$
$`=`$ $`\widehat{f}\widehat{g})\text{ˇ}(x).`$
Suppose $`\widehat{f}`$ exists at $`s_0`$. Then $`V_I[te^{is(xt)}e^{is_0t}\widehat{g}(s)]2|\widehat{g}(s)||ss_0||I|`$ and the reversal of $`s`$ and $`t`$ integration order is by Lemma 25(a). $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Inversion

A well-known inversion theorem states that if $`\widehat{f}`$ and $`\widehat{f}\text{ˇ}`$ are in $`L^1`$ then $`f=\widehat{f}\text{ˇ}`$ almost everywhere. These are rather restrictive conditions as both $`f`$ and $`\widehat{f}`$ must be continuous (almost everywhere) and vanish at infinity. In Example 3(a) and (b), $`\widehat{f}`$ is a multiple of $`f`$ and $`\widehat{g}`$ is a multiple of $`g`$ so we certainly have $`f=\widehat{f}\text{ˇ}`$ and $`g=\widehat{g}\text{ˇ}`$ almost everywhere and yet none of these integrals exists in $`L^1`$. However, they do exist in $`𝒦`$. And, we have a similar inversion theorem in $`𝒦`$. First we need the following Parseval relation.

###### Proposition 16

Let $`\psi `$ and $`\varphi `$ be real-valued functions on $``$. Suppose $`\widehat{\psi }`$ exists at some $`s_0`$. Suppose $`\varphi L^1`$ and the function $`ss\varphi (s)`$ is also in $`L^1`$. If $`_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\psi \widehat{\varphi }`$ exists, then $`\widehat{\psi }`$ exists almost everywhere and $`_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\psi \widehat{\varphi }=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\widehat{\psi }\varphi `$.

Proof: Let $`f(x)=\psi (x)e^{is_0x}`$ and $`g(x,y)=e^{i(s_0y)x}\varphi (y)`$. A simple computation shows $`V_{[a,b]}g(,y)=O((ba)y\varphi (y))`$ as $`|y|\mathrm{}`$. The conditions of Lemma 25(a) are satisfied. $`\mathrm{}`$

Now we have the inversion theorem. The proof uses the method of summability kernels. Using Proposition 16, one inserts a summability kernel in the inversion integral. There is a parameter $`z=x+iy`$ that is sent to $`x_0`$, yielding inversion at $`x_0`$. We can actually let $`zx_0`$ in the upper complex plane, provided the approach is non-tangential. This is analogous to the Fatou theorem for boundary values of harmonic functions. Define the upper half plane by $`\mathrm{\Pi }_+=\{z=x+iy:x,y>0\}`$. We identify $`\mathrm{\Pi }_+`$ with $``$. For $`x_0\mathrm{\Pi }_+`$, we say $`zx_0`$ non-tangentially in $`\mathrm{\Pi }_+`$ if $`z\mathrm{\Pi }_+`$ and $`zx_0`$ such that $`|xx_0|/yC`$ for some $`C>0`$.

###### Definition 17 (Summability kernel)

A summability kernel is a function $`\mathrm{\Theta }:`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Theta }L^1AC`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }(0)=1`$, $`ss\mathrm{\Theta }(s)`$ is in $`L^1`$, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}L^1𝒱`$, $`_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}=2\pi `$, $`ss\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}(s)`$ is in $`L^1`$, and $`xV_{[x,\mathrm{})}\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ and $`xV_{(\mathrm{},x]}\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ are $`O(1/x)`$ as $`x\mathrm{}`$.

###### Theorem 18 (Inversion)

Let $`f:`$ such that $`\widehat{f}`$ exists almost everywhere. Define $`F(x)=_{x_0}^xf`$ for $`x_0`$. If $`F^{}(x_0)=f(x_0)`$ and $`f=\widehat{f}\text{ˇ}`$ exists at $`x_0`$ then $`f(x_0)=\widehat{f}\text{ˇ}(x_0)`$. If $`\widehat{f}\text{ˇ}`$ exists almost everywhere then $`f=\widehat{f}\text{ˇ}`$ almost everywhere.

Proof: Let $`z=x+iy`$ for $`x`$ and $`y>0`$. Define $`\varphi _z:`$ by $`\varphi _z(s)=\mathrm{\Theta }(ys)e^{isx}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is a summability kernel. Then $`\widehat{\varphi }_z(t)=\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}((tx)/y)/y`$. And,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\varphi _z(s)\widehat{f}(s)𝑑s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\widehat{\varphi }_z(t)f(t)𝑑t`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi y}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}((tx)/y)f(t)𝑑t.`$ (13)
The inversion theorem now follows, provided we can prove the following.

1. The conditions of Proposition 16 are satisfied so that (12) is valid.
2. As $`zx_0`$ non-tangentially in $`\mathrm{\Pi }_+`$, the left side of (12) becomes $`\widehat{f}\text{ˇ}(x_0)`$.
3. As $`zx_0`$ non-tangentially in $`\mathrm{\Pi }_+`$, (13) becomes $`f(x_0)`$.

I. In Proposition 16, let $`\psi =f`$ and $`\varphi =\varphi _z`$. We have existence of $`\widehat{f}`$ at some $`s_0`$. And, $`\varphi _z`$ and $`ss\varphi _z(s)`$ are in $`L^1`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and $`ss\mathrm{\Theta }(s)`$ are in $`L^1`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Theta }L^1`$, $`\widehat{\varphi _z}`$ is continuous with limit $`0`$ at infinity. So, if $`\widehat{\varphi _z}`$ is of bounded variation at infinity, the integral $`_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}f\widehat{\varphi _z}`$ will exist. It suffices to have $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ of bounded variation at infinity. Proposition 16 now applies.

II. Write the left side of (12) as $`(2\pi )^1_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\left[\mathrm{\Theta }(ys)e^{is(xx_0)}\right]\left[e^{isx_0}\widehat{f}(s)\right]𝑑s`$. The function $`se^{isx_0}\widehat{f}(s)`$ is in $`𝒦`$. And, we have $`V[s\mathrm{\Theta }(ys)e^{is(xx_0)}]2V\mathrm{\Theta }+2\mathrm{\Theta }_1|xx_0|/y`$. So, for non-tangential approach, this function is of bounded variation, uniformly as $`zx_0`$. This allows us to take the limit inside the integral on the left side of (12), yielding $`\widehat{f}\text{ˇ}(x_0)`$.

III. Let $`\delta >0`$. Write

$$\frac{1}{y}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}\left(\frac{tx}{y}\right)f(t)𝑑t=\frac{1}{y}\underset{|tx|<\delta }{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}\left(\frac{tx}{y}\right)f(t)𝑑t+\frac{1}{y}\underset{|tx|>\delta }{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}\left(\frac{tx}{y}\right)f(t)𝑑t.$$
(14)
Consider the last integral in (14). There is $`s_0`$ such that $`te^{is_0t}f(t)`$ is in $`𝒦`$. Now,

$$V_{[x+\delta ,\mathrm{})}\left[t\frac{1}{y}\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}\left(\frac{tx}{y}\right)e^{is_0t}\right]\frac{2}{y}V_{[\delta /y,\mathrm{})}\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}+2|s_0|\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_1.$$

With our assumptions on $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$, this last expression is bounded as $`zx_0`$. And, when $`\mathrm{\Theta }L^1`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }AC_{loc}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{}L^1`$ then $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}(t)=o(1/t)`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$ \[2, page 20\]. The same applies on the interval $`(\mathrm{},x\delta ]`$. Hence, taking the limit $`zx_0`$ inside the integral yields $`0`$ for each fixed $`\delta >0`$.

Treat the first integral on the right side of (14) as follows. Because $`\frac{1}{2\pi y}_{x\delta }^{x+\delta }\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}((tx)/y)𝑑t=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\delta /y}^{\delta /y}\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}(t)𝑑t1`$ as $`y0^+`$, we can assume $`f(x_0)=0`$ (otherwise replace $`f()`$ with $`f()f(x_0)`$). Let $`F(t)=_{x_0}^tf`$. We have $`F^{}(x_0)=f(x_0)=0`$. And, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}(s)=o(1/s)`$ as $`|s|\mathrm{}`$. Given $`ϵ>0`$, we can take $`0<\delta <1`$ small enough such that $`|F(x_0+t)|ϵ|t|`$ and $`|\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}(1/t)|ϵ|t|`$ for all $`0<|t|2\delta `$. Without loss of generality, assume $`xx_0`$. Take $`|zx_0|\delta `$ with $`|xx_0|/yC`$ for some constant $`C>0`$. Integrate by parts,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y}}{\displaystyle _{x\delta }^{x+\delta }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{tx}{y}}\right)f(t)𝑑t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y}}\left[\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{y}}\right)F(x+\delta )\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{y}}\right)F(x\delta )\right]`$ (15)
$`J_1J_2J_3,`$
where $`J_1=y^2_{x\delta }^{x_0}\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}((tx)/y)F(t)𝑑t`$, $`J_2=y^2_{x_0}^x\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}((tx)/y)F(t)𝑑t`$, $`J_3=y^2_x^{x+\delta }\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}((tx)/y)F(t)𝑑t`$. Note that if $`0<y\delta ^2`$ then $`y/\delta \delta `$ and $`|x\pm \delta x_0|<2\delta `$ so $`|\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}(\pm \delta /y)F(x\pm \delta )|/y2ϵ^2`$.

Estimate $`J_1`$ by writing

$`|J_1|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y^2}}{\displaystyle _{x\delta }^{x_0}}(x_0t)\left|\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{tx}{y}}\right)\right|\left|{\displaystyle \frac{F(t)}{x_0t}}\right|𝑑t`$ (16)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{y}}{\displaystyle _{\delta /y}^{(x_0x)/y}}(x_0xyt)\left|\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}(t)\right|𝑑t`$
$``$ $`ϵCV\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}+ϵ{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}|t|\left|\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}(t)\right|𝑑t.`$
Similarly,

$$|J_3|ϵCV\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}+ϵ_0^{\mathrm{}}t\left|\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}(t)\right|𝑑t.$$
(17)
For $`J_2`$ we have

$`|J_2|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y}}\underset{x_0tx}{sup}|F(t)|{\displaystyle _{(x_0x)/y}^0}\left|\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}(t)\right|𝑑t`$ (18)
$``$ $`ϵCV\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}.`$
Putting (16), (18) and (17) into (15) now shows that the first integral on the right side of (14) goes to $`0`$ as $`zx_0`$ non-tangentially. This completes the proof of part III. Since, $`F^{}=f`$ almost everywhere, the proof of the theorem is now complete. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 19

In place of the condition $`tt\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}(t)`$ is in $`L^1`$ we can demand that $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ is increasing on $`(\mathrm{},0)`$ and decreasing on $`(0,\mathrm{})`$. The proof of III. then follows with minor changes. The condition that $`\mathrm{\Theta }AC`$ can also be weakened.

###### Remark 20

The most commonly used summability kernels are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Theta }_1(x)=(1|x|)\chi _{[1,1]}(x)\hfill & \widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_1(s)=\left[\frac{\mathrm{sin}(s/2)}{s/2}\right]^2\hfill & \text{ Cesàro–Fejér}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Theta }_2(x)=e^{|x|}\hfill & \widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_2(s)=\frac{2}{1+s^2}\hfill & \text{ Abel–Poisson}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Theta }_3(x)=e^{x^2}\hfill & \widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_3(s)=\sqrt{\pi }e^{(s/2)^2}\hfill & \text{ Gauss–Weierstrass}.\hfill \end{array}$$

The Abel and Gauss kernels are summability kernels according to Definition 17, while the Cesàro kernel does not satisfy this definition.

###### Corollary 21

Let $`f:`$. Then $`f=0`$ almost everywhere if and only if $`\widehat{f}=0`$ almost everywhere.

Proof: If $`f=0`$ almost everywhere then $`\widehat{f}=0`$ on $``$. If $`\widehat{f}=0`$ almost everywhere then $`\widehat{f}`$ exists almost everywhere and $`\widehat{f}\text{ˇ}`$ exists almost everywhere. Therefore, by the Theorem, $`\widehat{f}\text{ˇ}=f=0`$, almost everywhere. $`\mathrm{}`$

Note that the inversion theorem applies to Example 3(a)-(d). The condition that $`\widehat{f}\text{ˇ}`$ exists almost everywhere cannot be dropped. The following example shows that existence of $`\widehat{f}`$ on $``$ does not guarantee existence of $`\widehat{f}\text{ˇ}`$ at any point in $``$.

###### Example 22

Let $`f(x)=x^\alpha e^{ix^\nu }`$ for $`x0`$ and $`f(x)=0`$ for $`x<0`$. Using the method of Lemma 23 we see that $`\widehat{f}`$ exists on $``$ for $`1<\alpha <\nu 1`$. And,

$`\widehat{f}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}x^\alpha e^{i[x^\nu sx]}𝑑x`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`s^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\alpha +1}{\nu 1}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}x^\alpha e^{ip[x^\nu x]}𝑑x\left(p=s^{\nu /(\nu 1)}\right).`$
Write $`\varphi (x)=x^\nu x`$. If $`\nu >1`$ then $`\varphi `$ has a minimum at $`x_0:=\nu ^{1/(\nu 1)}`$. The method of stationary phase  shows that

$$\widehat{f}(s)\sqrt{\frac{2\pi }{\nu (\nu 1)}}e^{i\pi /4}x_0^{\alpha (\nu 2)/2}e^{i\varphi (x_0)s^{\nu /(\nu 1)}}s^{\frac{2\alpha +2\nu }{2(\nu 1)}}$$

as $`s\mathrm{}`$. Let $`\nu >2`$. It now follows from Lemma 23 that when $`\nu /2\alpha <\nu 1`$, $`\widehat{f}`$ exists on $``$ and $`\widehat{f}\text{ˇ}`$ diverges at each point of $``$. Note that $`f𝒦`$ but neither $`f`$ nor $`\widehat{f}`$ is in any $`L^p`$ space ($`1p\mathrm{}`$). $`\mathrm{}`$

## 5 Appendix

###### Lemma 23

If $`\gamma >0`$ and $`\delta `$ then

1. $`_0^1e^{ix^\gamma }x^\delta 𝑑x`$ exists in $`𝒦`$ if and only if $`\gamma +\delta +1>0`$. The integral exists in $`L^1`$ if and only if $`\delta >1`$.
2. $`_1^{\mathrm{}}e^{ix^\gamma }x^\delta 𝑑x`$ exists in $`𝒦`$ if and only if $`\gamma >\delta +1`$. The integral exists in $`L^1`$ if and only if $`\delta <1`$.

Proof: In (a), integrate by parts to get

$$_0^1e^{ix^\gamma }x^\delta 𝑑x=\frac{i}{\gamma }\left[e^i\underset{x0^+}{lim}e^{ix^\gamma }x^{\gamma +\delta +1}\right]\frac{i(\gamma +\delta +1)}{\gamma }_0^1e^{ix^\gamma }x^{\gamma +\delta }𝑑x.$$

The limit exists if and only if $`\gamma +\delta +1>0`$, the last integral then converging absolutely. Case (b) is similar. For $`L^1`$ convergence, we simply take the absolute value of each integrand. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 24

Let $`[a,b]\overline{}`$ and let $`f𝒦_{[a,b]}`$ and $`g𝒱_{[a,b]}`$. Then

$$\left|_a^bfg\right|\left|_a^bf\right|\underset{[a,b]}{inf}|g|+f_{[a,b]}V_{[a,b]}g.$$

Proof: Given $`ϵ>0`$, take $`c[a,b]`$ such that $`|g(c)|ϵ+inf_{[a,b]}|g|`$. Integrate by parts:

$`{\displaystyle _a^b}fg`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _a^c}fg+{\displaystyle _c^b}fg`$
$`=`$ $`g(c){\displaystyle _a^b}f{\displaystyle _a^c}\left({\displaystyle _a^x}f\right)𝑑g(x)+{\displaystyle _c^b}\left({\displaystyle _x^b}f\right)𝑑g(x).`$
And,

$`\left|{\displaystyle _a^b}fg\right|`$ $``$ $`\left[ϵ+\underset{[a,b]}{inf}|g|\right]\left|{\displaystyle _a^b}f\right|+\underset{axc}{sup}\left|{\displaystyle _a^x}f\right|V_{[a,c]}g+\underset{cxb}{sup}\left|{\displaystyle _x^b}f\right|V_{[c,b]}g`$
$``$ $`\left[ϵ+\underset{[a,b]}{inf}|g|\right]\left|{\displaystyle _a^b}f\right|+f_{[a,b]}V_{[a,b]}g.\mathrm{}`$
This lemma is an extension of inequalities proved in  and  (Theorem 45, page 36). Changing $`g`$ on a set of measure $`0`$, such as a singleton, does not affect the integral of $`fg`$ but can make the infimum of $`|g|`$ equal to zero. However, this reduction in $`inf|g|`$ is reflected by a corresponding increase in $`Vg`$. This redundancy can be eliminated by replacing $`g`$ with its normalised version, i.e., for each $`x[a,b)`$ replace $`g(x)`$ with $`lim_{tx+}g(t)`$ and redefine $`g(b)=0`$. Then the inequality becomes $`\left|_a^bfg\right|f_{[a,b]}V_{[a,b]}g`$.

The following lemma on interchange of iterated integrals is an extension of Theorem 57 on page 58 of .

###### Lemma 25

Let $`f𝒦`$ and let $`g:^2`$. Let $``$ denote the measurable subsets of $``$. For each $`(A,B)𝒱\times `$, define the iterated integrals

$`I_1(A,B)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{xA}}{\displaystyle _{yB}}f(x)g(x,y)𝑑y𝑑x`$
$`I_2(A,B)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{yB}}{\displaystyle _{xA}}f(x)g(x,y)𝑑x𝑑y.`$
1. Assume that for each compact interval $`I`$ there are constants $`M_I>0`$ and $`K_I>0`$ such that $`_{}V_Ig(,y)𝑑yM_I`$ and, for all $`xI`$, $`g(x,)_1K_I`$. If $`I_1`$ exists on $`\times `$ then $`I_2`$ exists on $`𝒱\times `$ and $`I_1=I_2`$ on $`𝒱\times `$.
2. Assume there exist $`M,GL^1`$ such that, for almost all $`y`$, $`Vg(,y)M(y)`$ and, for all $`x`$, $`|g(x,y)|G(y)`$. Then $`I_1=I_2`$ on $`𝒱\times `$.

Proof: (a) Let $``$ be the open intervals in $``$. First prove $`I_1=I_2`$ on $`\times `$. Fix $`(a,b)`$ and $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ in $`I`$. For $`\mathrm{}<a<t<\mathrm{}`$, define

$$H_a(t)=I_2((a,t),(\alpha ,\beta ))=_\alpha ^\beta _a^tf(x)g(x,y)𝑑x𝑑y.$$
(20)
We will establish the equality of $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$ by appealing to the necessary and sufficient conditions for interchanging repeated integrals \[13, Corollary 6\]. For this, we need to show that $`H_a`$ is in $`ACG_{}`$ and that we can differentiate under the integral sign in (20). Let $`F(x)=_{\mathrm{}}^xf`$. Integrate by parts,

$$H_a(t)=\left[F(t)F(a)\right]_\alpha ^\beta g(t,y)𝑑y_\alpha ^\beta _a^t\left[F(x)F(a)\right]d_1g(x,y)𝑑y.$$
(21)
The integrator of the Riemann–Stieltjes integral over $`x[a,t]`$ is denoted $`d_1g(x,y)`$. Now, by Lemma 24, $`|H_a(t)|f[K_{[a,b]}+M_{[a,b]}]`$, and $`I_2(A,B)`$ exists for all $`A,B`$ with $`A`$ bounded.

We have $`FACG_{}()`$. So, there are $`E_n`$ such that $`=E_n`$ and $`F`$ is $`AC_{}`$ on each $`E_n`$, i.e., for each $`n1`$, given $`ϵ>0`$, there is $`\delta >0`$ such that if $`(s_i,t_i)`$ are disjoint with $`s_i,t_iE_n`$ and $`|s_it_i|<\delta `$ then $`f_{(s_i,t_i)}<ϵ`$. Fix $`n1`$ with $`E_n`$, $`ϵ`$ and $`\delta `$ as above. Suppose $`(\sigma _i,\tau _i)`$ are disjoint with $`\sigma _i,\tau _iE_n`$ and $`|\sigma _i\tau _i|<\delta `$. With no loss of generality, we may assume $`E_n`$ is a subset of a compact interval $`[c,d]`$. Then

$$\underset{[p,q][\sigma _i,\tau _i]}{sup}\left|H_a(p)H_a(q)\right|f_{[\sigma _i,\tau _i]}\left[K_{[c,d]}+M_{[c,d]}\right].$$

It follows that $`H_aACG_{}()`$.

Now show that we can differentiate under the integral sign to compute $`H_a^{}(t)`$. Let $`0<|h|<1`$ and $`t`$ such that $`F^{}(t)=f(t)`$. Then

$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{h}}{\displaystyle _t^{t+h}}f(x)g(x,y)𝑑x\right|`$ $``$ $`\underset{0<|h|<1}{sup}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{F(t+h)F(t)}{h}}\right||g(t,y)|`$
$`+\underset{0<|h|<1}{sup}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{h}}\right|f_{[t|h|,t+|h|]}V_{[t1,t+1]}g(,y).`$
It now follows from dominated convergence that $`H_a^{}(t)=f(t)_\alpha ^\beta g(t,y)𝑑y`$ for almost all $`t`$. And, by \[13, Corollary 6\], $`I_1(A,B)=I_2(A,B)`$ for all $`A,B`$ with $`A`$ bounded.

By assumption, $`I_1(,)`$ exists. For $`a`$,

$`{\displaystyle _a^{\mathrm{}}}f(x){\displaystyle _\alpha ^\beta }g(x,y)𝑑y𝑑x`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _a^t}f(x){\displaystyle _\alpha ^\beta }g(x,y)𝑑y𝑑x`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _\alpha ^\beta }{\displaystyle _a^t}f(x)g(x,y)𝑑x𝑑y`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}H_a(t).`$
Similarly, $`\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}H_a(t)`$ exists. Therefore, $`H_{\mathrm{}}`$ is continuous on $`\overline{}`$ and hence in $`ACG_{}(\overline{})`$. It follows from \[13, Corollary 6\] that $`I_1(A,B)=I_2(A,B)`$ for all $`A,B`$.

We have equality of $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$ on $`𝒱\times `$ upon replacing $`f`$ with $`f\chi _A`$ and $`g(x,)`$ with $`g(x,)\chi _B`$ where $`A𝒱`$ and $`B`$.

(b) This is similar to part (a), but now the conditions on $`g`$ ensure the existence of $`I_2`$ on $`\times `$. As in (a), $`H_aACG_{}()`$. To show $`H_a`$ is continuous on $`\overline{}`$, note that $`|_\alpha ^\beta _a^tf(x)g(x,y)𝑑x𝑑y|f(G_1+M_1)`$ and $`lim_t\mathrm{}_a^tf(x)g(x,y)𝑑x`$ exists for almost all $`y`$. Whence, $`lim_t\mathrm{}H_a(t)`$ exists and $`H_{\mathrm{}}`$ is continuous on $`\overline{}`$. Using \[13, Corollary 6\], we now have equality of $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$ on $`\times `$ and hence on $`𝒱\times `$.$`\mathrm{}`$


format: text

text:
# Non-isotopic Symplectic Tori in the Same Homology Class

## 1. Introduction

In a fixed homology class of a complex surface, there are at most finitely many complex curves up to smooth isotopy. In contrast, there exist examples of homology classes in symplectic $`4`$-manifolds that are represented by infinitely many non-isotopic connected symplectic surfaces. In \[FS3\] Fintushel and Stern proved that $`q[F]H_2(X;)`$ is such a class provided that $`q4`$ is an even integer and $`F`$ is a symplectic $`c`$-embedded torus, i.e. a homologically nontrivial torus of self-intersection $`0`$ with first homology generated by two circles which bound disks of self-intersection $`1`$ in $`X`$, in a simply-connected symplectic $`4`$-manifold $`X`$ (e.g. we can take $`X`$ to be an elliptic surface $`E(n)`$ and $`F`$ to be a regular fiber). In this paper we generalize their result by constructing infinitely many non-isotopic symplectic tori in $`q[F]H_2(X;)`$ for each $`q3`$ (even or odd) in case when $`F`$ is an essentially embedded (cf. Definition 9) symplectic torus in a symplectic $`4`$-manifold $`X`$ satisfying $`[F]^2=0`$ and $`H^1(X\nu (F);)=0`$. Moreover, as a consequence of our calculation, it will be apparent that no two of these tori are equivalent under the action of Diff$`(X)`$, the group of self-diffeomorphisms of $`X`$. In some special cases our result can be slightly improved to include $`2[F]`$ as in the following theorem.

###### Theorem 1.

For any pair of integers $`n1`$ and $`q2`$, there exists an infinite family of mutually non-isotopic symplectic tori representing the homology class $`q[F]`$ of an elliptic surface $`E(n)`$, where $`[F]`$ is the homology class of the fiber.

It should be noted that in \[V2\], Vidussi has constructed such families for every positive multiple of the fiber class in $`E(n)`$ provided that $`n3`$. However, it still remains an interesting open problem to construct infinite families of non-isotopic symplectic tori in the fiber class $`[F]`$ of $`E(1)`$ and $`E(2)`$. We should also note that our construction can be carried out for a more general class of 4-manifolds than those in \[V2\].

In all of the above examples, families of braids are used to construct symplectic tori and Seiberg-Witten theory is used to distinguish them. The family of braids we use in this paper are, in some sense, the simplest possible and this allowed us not only to calculate the Seiberg-Witten invariants of the corresponding $`4`$-manifolds completely, but also to reprove and extend the results in \[FS3\] and \[V2\] (except for the case of fiber class itself in $`E(n)`$ for $`n3`$). From our construction, it will be apparent that any other collection of reasonably complicated braids will also give rise to many more new examples of non-isotopic symplectic tori.

In the next section we construct a family of tori, $`\{T_{p,q}\}_{p,q2}`$ , in $`T^2\times D^2`$ which could be identified with a regular tubular neighborhood of a torus of self-intersection $`0`$ in a $`4`$-manifold. Then we show how these tori could be symplectically embedded in $`E(n)`$. In Section 3 we calculate the Seiberg-Witten invariants of symplectic $`4`$-manifolds obtained as the fiber sum of $`E(n)`$ and $`E(r)`$ along $`T_{p,q}E(n)`$ and a fiber in $`E(r)`$. As a consequence of these computations we prove Theorem 1. In Section 4 we explain how Theorem 1 could be generalized to a larger class of $`4`$-manifolds (see Theorem 12).

## 2. Braid Construction

We first construct an infinite family of non-isotopic symplectic tori $`\{T_{p,q}\}_{p,q2}`$ representing $`q[F]`$ in $`E(1)`$, and show that these remain non-isotopic after fiber-summing with $`E(n1)`$. I.e. we will construct an infinite family of tori that embed non-isotopically into $`E(n)`$ for any $`n1`$.

Even though we are unable to show that $`T_{1,q}`$ is not isotopic to any torus in $`\{T_{p,q}|p2\}`$ in general, we will still include it in our construction and computations for the sake of completeness. For any pair of integers $`p1`$ and $`q2`$, consider the $`q`$-strand braid $`B_{p,q}`$ in Figure 1. The closed braid $`\widehat{B}_{p,q}`$ is the ‘simplest’ knot in $`S^3`$ with $`(2p1)`$ crossings, which is usually denoted by $`(2p1)_1`$ in the literature (see e.g. \[BZ\] or \[Ro\]).

Let $`L_{p,q}`$ denote the two-component link in $`S^3`$ which is the union of the closed braid $`\widehat{B}_{p,q}`$ and its axis $`A`$. See Figure 2 for a picture of $`L_{2,4}`$.

Next we review the generalization of the link surgery construction of Fintushel and Stern \[FS2\] by Vidussi \[V1\]. For an $`m`$-component link $`L`$, choose a homology basis of simple curves $`\{\alpha _i,\beta _i\}_{i=1}^m`$ such that the intersection of $`\alpha _i`$ and $`\beta _i`$ is 1 in the boundary of the link exterior. We define the link surgery manifold

$$E(n_1,\mathrm{},n_m)_L:=[\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}E(n_i)\nu F_i]\underset{F_i\times D^2=(S^1\times \alpha _i)\times \beta _i}{}[S^1\times (S^3\nu L)],$$

where $`\nu `$ denotes the tubular neighborhoods. Here, the gluing diffeomorphisms between the boundary 3-tori identify the torus fiber $`F_i`$ of $`E(n_i)`$ with $`S^1\times \alpha _i`$, and act as complex conjugation on the last remaining $`S^1`$ factor. Strictly speaking, our gluing construction depends on our choice of basis $`\{\alpha _i,\beta _i\}`$, but we will suppress this dependence in our notation.

As before let $`A`$ denote the unknot which is the axis of the closed braid $`\widehat{B}_{p,q}`$. Choose the homology basis $`(\alpha _1,\beta _1)=(\mu (A),\lambda (A))`$ for the complement $`(S^3\nu A)`$, where $`\mu `$ and $`\lambda `$ denote the meridian and longitude, respectively.

###### Lemma 2.

$`E(1)_A=E(1)`$.

###### Proof.

Note that the exterior of the unknot $`(S^3\nu A)`$ is diffeomorphic to a solid torus $`S^1\times D^2`$. Hence there is a diffeomorphism between the tubular neighborhood of a regular fiber $`\nu F=T^2\times D^2`$ and the Cartesian product $`[S^1\times (S^3\nu A)]`$. ∎

Now consider $`\widehat{B}_{p,q}`$ as a knot inside the solid torus $`(S^3\nu A)`$. Define $`T_{p,q}:=S^1\times \widehat{B}_{p,q}`$, which is a torus embedded in $`[S^1\times (S^3\nu A)]\nu FE(1)_A`$.

###### Lemma 3.

The torus $`T_{p,q}E(1)`$ is a symplectic submanifold and represents the homology class $`q[F]`$.

###### Proof.

First note that $`\widehat{B}_{p,q}`$ is homologous to $`q\mu (A)`$ in $`H_1(S^3\nu A)`$. Since the fiber $`F`$ is identified with $`S^1\times \mu (A)`$ in $`E(1)_A`$ , the torus $`T_{p,q}`$ is homologous to $`qF`$ in $`E(1)_A=E(1)`$. To show that $`T_{p,q}`$ is symplectic, we can proceed as in \[FS3\] and \[V2\]. The key step is once again verifying that the knot $`\widehat{B}_{p,q}(S^3\nu A)(S^1\times D^2)`$ is transverse to the disks $`\{\mathrm{pt}.\}\times D^2`$. ∎

Next we show that the torus $`T_{p,q}`$ can be embedded in $`E(n)`$ for any $`n1`$. For $`n2`$, we can write $`E(n)`$ as the fiber sum,

(1)
$$E(n)=E(1)_A\mathrm{\#}_{F_1^{}=F_2}E(n1)=[E(1)_A\nu F_1^{}]\underset{F_1^{}\times D^2=F_2\times D^2}{}[E(n1)\nu F_2],$$

where $`F_1^{}`$ is a regular torus fiber lying outside $`[S^1\times (S^3\nu A)]`$. We immediately see that $`T_{p,q}`$ can be embedded into the first fiber summand and hence into $`E(n)`$. Without causing too much confusion, we will continue to denote this embedded torus in $`E(n)`$ by $`T_{p,q}`$. Note that Lemma 3 continues to hold for the torus $`T_{p,q}E(n)`$.

Since the torus $`T_{p,q}E(n)`$ has self-intersection zero, we can form the fiber sum,

(2)
$$E(n)\mathrm{\#}_{T_{p,q}=F}E(r):=[E(n)\nu T_{p,q}]\underset{T_{p,q}\times D^2=F\times D^2}{}[E(r)\nu F].$$

The gluing diffeomorphism $`\phi `$ identifies $`T_{p,q}`$ with $`F`$ and acts as complex conjugation on the $`D^2`$ factor. Note that when $`n2`$ there is a canonical framing of $`T_{p,q}`$ in $`E(n)`$ that is inherited from a fixed framing of $`T_{p,q}`$ in $`E(1)`$ by our fiber sum description (1). We remark that the gluing formula in \[Pa\] cannot be used to compute the Seiberg-Witten invariant of the fiber sum (2), since the triple $`([E(n)\nu T_{p,q}],[E(r)\nu F],\phi )`$ is not admissible in the sense of Definition 8 in \[Pa\]. However, the key observation is that this fiber sum can be expressed as a link surgery manifold.

###### Lemma 4.

$`E(n)\mathrm{\#}_{T_{p,q}=F}E(r)=E(n,r)_{L_{p,q}}`$.

###### Proof.

For the construction of $`E(n,r)_{L_{p,q}}`$, we choose the homology basis $`(\alpha _1,\beta _1)=(\mu (A),\lambda (A))`$, and $`(\alpha _2,\beta _2)=(\lambda (\widehat{B}_{p,q}),\mu (\widehat{B}_{p,q}))`$. The identification with the fiber sum is now immediate. ∎

## 3. Seiberg-Witten Invariants

To prove Theorem 1, we need to show that the family of tori $`\{T_{p,q}\}_{p2}`$ we constructed are mutually non-isotopic for fixed $`q`$. It is enough to show that the corresponding family of 4-manifolds $`\{E(n,1)_{L_{p,q}}\}_{p2}`$ are mutually non-diffeomorphic, since any isotopy between the tori $`\{T_{p,q}\}`$ will translate into diffeomorphism between corresponding 4-manifolds $`\{E(n,1)_{L_{p,q}}\}`$. We shall compute their Seiberg-Witten invariants to show that $`\{E(n,1)_{L_{p,q}}\}`$ are mutually non-diffeomorphic.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_{p,q}}(x,t)`$ denote the Alexander polynomial of the link $`L_{p,q}`$, where the variable $`x`$ corresponds to the axis $`A`$.

###### Lemma 5.

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_{p,2}}(x,t)=1+xt^{2p1},`$ and when $`q3,`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_{p,q}}(x,t)=1+x^{q1}t^{2p+q3}+xt^2\left(\frac{1+t^{2p3}}{1+t}\right)\left(\frac{1(xt)^{q2}}{1xt}\right).$$

###### Proof.

The braid group on $`q`$ strands is generated by the elementary braid transpositions $`\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _{q1}`$, where $`\sigma _i`$ denotes the crossing of the $`(i+1)`$st strand over the $`i`$th. Note that

$$B_{p,q}=\sigma _{q1}\sigma _{q2}\mathrm{}\sigma _2\sigma _1^{2p1}.$$

By Theorem 1 in \[Mo\], we have

(3)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_{p,q}}(x,t)=det\left(IxC_{q1}^{(q1)}C_{q2}^{(q1)}\mathrm{}C_2^{(q1)}(C_1^{(q1)})^{2p1}\right),$$

where $`C_i^{(q1)}`$ denotes the following $`(q1)\times (q1)`$ matrix which differs from the identity matrix $`I`$ only in the three places shown on the $`i`$th row.

$$C_i^{(q1)}:=(\begin{array}{ccccccc}1& & & & & & \\ & \mathrm{}& & & & & \\ & & 1& & & & \\ & & t& t& 1& & \\ & & & & 1& & \\ & & & & & \mathrm{}& \\ & & & & & & 1\end{array})\begin{array}{c}\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \hfill .\end{array}$$

When $`i=1`$ or $`i=q1`$, the matrix is truncated appropriately to give two non-zero entries in row $`i`$.

The statement for $`q=2`$ case is obvious. We are going to prove the case $`q3`$ by induction on $`q`$. The main step of this induction is proving that $`D_{p,q}=xtD_{p,q1}`$, where $`D_{p,q}:=\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_{p,q+1}}(x,t)\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_{p,q}}(x,t)`$. Then we prove that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_{p,3}}(x,t)=1+x^2t^{2p}+xt^2\left(\frac{1+t^{2p3}}{1+t}\right)`$ and this implies $`D_{p,2}=xt^2(1t+t^2\mathrm{}t^{2p3})+x^2t^{2p}`$ and hence $`D_{p,q}=x^{q1}t^q(1t+t^2\mathrm{}t^{2p3})+x^qt^{2p+q2}`$. Finally, by using the induction assumption and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_{p,q+1}}(x,t)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_{p,q}}(x,t)+D_{p,q}`$ we finish the proof of the lemma.

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_{p,q+1}}(x,t)=det(Ix\mathrm{\Gamma }_{p,q+1})`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{p,q+1}:=C_q^{(q)}C_{q1}^{(q)}\mathrm{}C_2^{(q)}(C_1^{(q)})^{2p1}`$. Note that

$$C_i^{(q)}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}& & & 0\\ & C_i^{(q1)}& & \mathrm{}\\ & & & 0\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$

for $`i\{1,2,\mathrm{},q2\},`$ so we must have

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{p,q+1}`$ $`=`$ $`C_q^{(q)}C_{q1}^{(q)}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}& & & 0\\ & C_{q1}^{(q1)}& & \mathrm{}\\ & & & 0\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 1\end{array}\right)^\begin{array}{c}1\hfill \end{array}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}& & & 0\\ & \mathrm{\Gamma }_{p,q}& & \mathrm{}\\ & & & 0\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& & & \\ & \mathrm{}& & \\ & & 1& 1\\ & & t& 0\end{array}\right)(\begin{array}{cccc}& & & 0\\ & \mathrm{\Gamma }_{p,q}& & \mathrm{}\\ & & & 0\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 1\end{array})\begin{array}{c}\\ \\ \\ \hfill .\end{array}`$
Hence it follows that

(6)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{p,q+1}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}& 0\\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_{p,q}& \mathrm{}\\ & 0\\ & 1\\ t(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{p,q})_{(q1,)}& 0\end{array}\right)$$

and

$$Ix\mathrm{\Gamma }_{p,q+1}=(\begin{array}{cc}& 0\\ Ix\mathrm{\Gamma }_{p,q}& \mathrm{}\\ & 0\\ & x\\ xt(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{p,q})_{(q1,)}& 1\end{array})\begin{array}{c}\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \hfill ,\end{array}$$

where $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{p,q})_{(q1,)}`$ denotes the last row of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{p,q}`$. When we calculate the determinant of the matrix $`Ix\mathrm{\Gamma }_{p,q+1}`$ by expanding along its last column we get the following equality:

(7)
$$det(Ix\mathrm{\Gamma }_{p,q+1})=det(Ix\mathrm{\Gamma }_{p,q})(x)t\left[det(Ix\mathrm{\Gamma }_{p,q})det(Ix\mathrm{\Gamma }_{p,q1})\right].$$

To prove the above equality, observe that all but the last row of the minor of the matrix $`Ix\mathrm{\Gamma }_{p,q+1}`$ corresponding to the entry $`x`$ in the last column are the same as the rows of $`Ix\mathrm{\Gamma }_{p,q}`$, and the last row of the minor is $`t`$ times the last row of $`Ix\mathrm{\Gamma }_{p,q}`$ except for the last entry. In the minor, this entry is $`0`$, whereas in $`Ix\mathrm{\Gamma }_{p,q}`$ this entry is $`1`$ (since Equation (6) shows that the last diagonal entry of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{p,q}`$ is $`0`$)111Strictly speaking, the last diagonal entry of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{p,q}`$ is $`0`$, only if $`q4`$. Nevertheless, for $`q=3`$, Equation (7) could be confirmed by a direct calculation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_{p,4}}(x,t)`$ along the same lines as the calculation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_{p,3}}(x,t)`$.. This observation is why the determinant of the minor corresponding to $`x`$ is $`t`$ times the difference between the determinant of $`Ix\mathrm{\Gamma }_{p,q}`$ and the determinant of the minor of $`Ix\mathrm{\Gamma }_{p,q}`$ obtained by deleting the last row and the last column (and this minor is nothing but $`Ix\mathrm{\Gamma }_{p,q1}`$).

$`D_{p,q}=xtD_{p,q1}`$ now follows trivially from Equation (7). The next step is to calculate $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_{p,3}}(x,t)`$. By Equation (3), we have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_{p,3}}(x,t)=det[\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)x\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ t& t\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}t& 1\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)^{2p1}]\begin{array}{c}\\ .\hfill \end{array}$$

An easy induction argument shows that

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}t& 1\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)^{2p1}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}t^{2p1}& \frac{1+t^{2p1}}{1+t}\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$

and then an explicit calculation gives $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_{p,3}}(x,t)=1+x^2t^{2p}+xt^2\left(\frac{1+t^{2p3}}{1+t}\right)`$. As we discussed before, to finish the proof one only needs to check that

$`1`$ $`+`$ $`x^{q1}t^{2p+q3}+xt^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+t^{2p3}}{1+t}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1(xt)^{q2}}{1xt}}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`x^{q1}t^q(1t+t^2\mathrm{}t^{2p3})+x^qt^{2p+q2}`$
$$=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}+x^qt^{2p+q2}+xt^2\left(\frac{1+t^{2p3}}{1+t}\right)(\frac{1(xt)^{q1}}{1xt})\begin{array}{c}\\ .\hfill \end{array}\mathit{}$$

Recall that the Seiberg-Witten invariant $`\overline{SW}_X`$ of a 4-manifold $`X`$ (with $`b_2^+(X)>1`$) can be thought of as an element of the group ring of $`H_2(X;)`$, i.e. $`\overline{SW}_X[H_2(X;)]`$. If we write $`\overline{SW}_X=_ga_gg`$, then we say that $`gH_2(X;)`$ is a Seiberg-Witten *basic class* of $`X`$ if $`a_g0`$.

###### Lemma 6.

Let $`\iota :[S^1\times (S^3\nu L_{p,q})]E(n,r)_{L_{p,q}}`$ be the inclusion map. Let $`\xi :=\iota _{}[S^1\times \mu (A)],`$ $`\tau :=\iota _{}[S^1\times \mu (\widehat{B}_{p,q})]H_2(E(n,r)_{L_{p,q}};).`$ If $`p2`$ and $`q3`$, then the Seiberg-Witten invariant of $`E(n,r)_{L_{p,q}}`$ is

$`\overline{SW}_{E(n,r)_{L_{p,q}}}`$ $`=`$ $`(\xi ^1\xi )^{n1}(\xi ^q\xi ^q)^{r1}[\xi ^{(q1)}\tau ^{(2p+q3)}+\xi ^{q1}\tau ^{2p+q3}`$
$`+`$ $`\left(\tau ^{(2p4)}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{2p4}{}}}(\tau ^2)^i\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{q3}{}}}(\xi \tau )^{(q3)+2j}\right)].`$
When $`p=1`$ and $`q2`$, we have

$$\overline{SW}_{E(n,r)_{L_{1,q}}}=(\xi ^1\xi )^{n1}(\xi ^q\xi ^q)^{r1}\left[\underset{j=1}{\overset{q2}{}}(\xi \tau )^{(q3)+2j}\right].$$

When $`q=2`$ and $`p1`$, we have

$$\overline{SW}_{E(n,r)_{L_{p,2}}}=(\xi ^1\xi )^{n1}(\xi ^2\xi ^2)^{r1}\left[\xi ^1\tau ^{(2p1)}+\xi \tau ^{2p1}\right].$$

###### Proof.

Recall from \[FS1\] that $`\overline{SW}_{E(n)}=([F]^1[F])^{n2}`$. From the formulas in \[Pa\] and \[T2\], we know that

$$\overline{SW}_{E(n)\nu F}=([F]^1[F])\overline{SW}_{E(n)}=([F]^1[F])^{n1}$$

From the formulas in \[FS2\] and \[T2\], we conclude that

$$\overline{SW}_{E(n,r)_{L_{p,q}}}=\overline{SW}_{E(n)\nu F_1}\overline{SW}_{E(r)\nu F_2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_{p,q}}^{sym}(\xi ^2,\tau ^2).$$

We also need to identify $`[F_1]`$ with $`\xi `$ and $`[F_2]`$ with $`\xi ^q`$. This last identification is really necessary since we specifically chose to have $`\alpha _2=\lambda (\widehat{B}_{p,q})=q\mu (A)=q\alpha _1H_1(S^3\nu L_{p,q})`$ in the proof of Lemma 4. Hence we must have $`[S^1\times \alpha _2]=q[S^1\times \alpha _1]H_2(S^1\times (S^3\nu L_{p,q}))`$. Finally we note that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_{p,q}}^{sym}(x,t)=x^{\frac{q1}{2}}t^{\frac{2p+q3}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_{p,q}}(x,t),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_{p,q}}(x,t)`$ is presented as in Lemma 5. The rest of the proof is an easy exercise which we shall leave to the reader. ∎

###### Corollary 7.

For fixed $`q3`$ and $`n1`$, the $`4`$-manifolds $`\{E(n,1)_{L_{p,q}}\}_{p2}`$ are mutually non-diffeomorphic.

###### Proof.

We note that the total number of the $`SW`$ basic classes are invariant under any diffeomorphism. As a consequence of Lemma 6, the total number of basic classes of our $`4`$-manifolds depend on $`p`$. In fact, for $`q3`$ and $`p2`$, the total number of basic classes of $`E(n,1)_{L_{p,q}}`$ is $`(2n+2q6)p+(qn4n4q+12)`$. One could check the validity of this formula by the following elementary argument which occupies the rest of the proof.

We first recall that the homology classes $`\xi `$ and $`\tau `$ are linearly independent in $`H_2(E(n,r)_{L_{p,q}})`$ by Proposition 3.2 in \[MT\]. Let $`N_{n,p,q}`$ be the number of basic classes of $`E(n,1)_{L_{p,q}}`$. Then $`N_{n,p,q}`$ is the number of nonzero coefficients of

$`\overline{SW}_{E(n,1)_{L_{p,q}}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}(1)^k\left(\begin{array}{c}n1\\ k\end{array}\right)\xi ^{n2k1}\right][\xi ^{(q1)}\tau ^{(2p+q3)}+\xi ^{q1}\tau ^{2p+q3}`$
$`+`$ $`\left(\tau ^{(2p4)}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{2p4}{}}}(\tau ^2)^i\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{q3}{}}}(\xi \tau )^{(q3)+2j}\right)]`$
$`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}(1)^k\left(\begin{array}{c}n1\\ k\end{array}\right)(\xi ^{n2kq}\tau ^{32pq}+\xi ^{n+q2k2}\tau ^{2p+q3})\right]`$
$`+`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{2p4}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{q3}{}}}(1)^{i+k}\left(\begin{array}{c}n1\\ k\end{array}\right)\xi ^{n+2j+22kq}\tau ^{2i+2j+72pq}\right].`$
Note that, if $`n+2j+22kq=n+2j^{}+22k^{}q`$ and $`2i+2j+72pq=2i^{}+2j^{}+72pq`$, then $`i+k=i^{}+k^{}`$ hence $`N_{n,p,q}2n`$ is equal to the number of elements in the set

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }:=\{(jk,i+j)|\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}i2p4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}jq3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}kn1\}.$$

On the other hand, the number of elements in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is

$$\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Lambda }=\left((2p4)+1\right)\left((q3)+1\right)\left((n1)+1\right)(2p4)(q3)(n1).$$

To see this, consider the linear map $`\rho :^3^2`$ given by $`\rho (x,y,z)=(yz,x+y)`$. The kernel of $`\rho `$ is the line generated by the vector $`(1,1,1)`$. Hence $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is equal to the number of lines in $`^3`$ that are parallel to the vector $`(1,1,1)`$ and meet an integer point in the rectangular parallelepiped

$$𝒫:=\{(x,y,z)|\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}x2p4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}yq3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}zn1\}.$$

We see easily that the set of such lines is parameterized by the integer points on the three sides of $`𝒫`$ lying on the $`xy`$-plane, $`xz`$-plane, and the plane $`x=2p4`$. The number of integer points on these three sides of $`𝒫`$ is equal to the total number of integer points in $`𝒫`$ minus the number of integer points in a smaller parallelepiped of dimensions one less. See Figure 3.

This proves the formula for $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Now an easy calculation gives

$$N_{n,p,q}=(2n+2q6)p+(qn4n4q+12).\mathit{}$$

It follows that the symplectic tori $`\{T_{p,q}\}_{p2}`$ are non-isotopic in $`E(n)`$, which completes the proof of Theorem 1 for $`q3`$. We should note that since the number of basic classes of $`E(n,1)_{L_{1,q}}`$ is $`qn`$, which is the same as the number of basic classes of $`E(n,1)_{L_{2,q}}`$, the above argument cannot be used to conclude that no torus in $`\{T_{p,q}\}_{p2}`$ is isotopic to $`T_{1,q}`$. It is also insufficient to show that the $`4`$-manifolds $`E(n,1)_{L_{p,2}}`$ are mutually non-diffeomorphic, since the number of their basic classes are independent of $`p`$. Nevertheless, it is possible to prove the following corollary by comparing the divisibilities of certain basic classes of $`E(n,r)_{L_{p,2}}`$.

###### Corollary 8.

There are infinitely many mutually non-isotopic tori in the set of symplectic tori $`\{T_{p,2}\}_{p2}`$ in $`E(n)`$.

###### Proof.

First note that by an easy Mayer-Vietoris argument we can extend the set $`\{\xi ,\tau \}`$ to an integral basis of $`H_2(E(n,r)_{L_{p,q}};)`$ (see \[GS\] pp. 72–74 for the description of a basis of $`H_2([E(n)\nu F];)`$). To distinguish $`T_{p_1,2}`$ and $`T_{p_2,2}`$ in $`E(n)`$ we could choose a suitable $`r`$ and compare the divisibilities of basic classes with Seiberg-Witten invariant $`\pm 1`$ for $`E(n,r)_{L_{p_i,2}}`$. When $`n`$ is odd and $`p_1>p_2>\frac{n1}{2}`$, a comparison of the divisibilities of basic classes for $`E(n,\frac{2p_1+1n}{2})_{L_{p_i,2}}`$ shows that these $`4`$manifolds are not diffeomorphic and hence $`T_{p_1,2}`$ and $`T_{p_2,2}`$ are non-isotopic in $`E(n)`$. In case $`n`$ is even $`r`$ could be chosen as $`2p_1\frac{n}{2}`$ to distinguish $`T_{p_1,2}`$ and $`T_{p_2,2}`$ in $`E(n)`$ for sufficiently large $`p_2<p_1`$. ∎

## 4. Generalization to Other 4-Manifolds

It is not hard to show that our family $`\{T_{p,q}\}`$ embed non-isotopically into a more general class of 4-manifolds than $`E(n)`$. One way to generalize Theorem 1 is to use the formulas in \[FS2\] and show that there is an infinite family of non-isotopic symplectic tori in $`q[F]`$ for $`q3`$ provided that $`F`$ is a $`c`$-embedded symplectic torus of self-intersection $`0`$ in a symplectic $`4`$-manifold (cf. Theorem 5.2 in \[FS3\]). Another way is to utilize the product formulas for Seiberg-Witten invariants given in \[Pa\] and \[T2\] to generalize Theorem 1 to an even larger class of $`4`$-manifolds. The latter will be our approach here. In the rest of this section let $`F`$ denote a 2-torus of self-intersection $`0`$, which is a symplectic submanifold of a symplectic 4-manifold $`X`$. We shall always assume that $`[F]H_2(X;)`$ is a primitive class, i.e. $`[F]m\gamma `$ for some $`\gamma H_2(X;)`$ and $`|m|>1`$. Just as before, we may identify a tubular neighborhood $`\nu F`$ with $`[S^1\times (S^3\nu A)]`$, and we immediately obtain an embedding of the tori $`\{T_{p,q}\}`$ into $`\nu FX`$. It is easy to check that Lemma 3 continues to hold in this more general setting, i.e. $`T_{p,q}X`$ is a symplectic submanifold representing the homology class $`q[F]`$.

To show that the family $`\{T_{p,q}\}`$ are mutually non-isotopic in $`X`$, we need to again show that the corresponding 4-manifolds,

$$X\mathrm{\#}_{\phi _{p,q}}E(r):=[X\nu T_{p,q}]\underset{T_{p,q}\times D^2=F_2\times D^2}{}[E(r)\nu F_2]$$

$$=[X\nu F]\underset{F\times D^2=(S^1\times \alpha _1)\times \beta _1}{}[S^1\times (S^3\nu L_{p,q})]\underset{(S^1\times \alpha _2)\times \beta _2=F_2\times D^2}{}[E(r)\nu F_2],$$

are mutually non-diffeomorphic. Here we once again choose the homology basis $`(\alpha _1,\beta _1)=(\mu (A),\lambda (A))`$, and $`(\alpha _2,\beta _2)=(\lambda (\widehat{B}_{p,q}),\mu (\widehat{B}_{p,q}))`$ when we do link surgery. To compute the Seiberg-Witten invariants, we will need the following definition.

###### Definition 9.

A surface $`FX`$ is said to be *essentially embedded* if there exists a homology class $`\delta H_2(X;)`$ such that $`[F]\delta 0`$.

Note for example that a torus fiber $`F_2E(r)`$ is essentially embedded since we can take $`\delta `$ to be the homology class of a section.

###### Lemma 10.

Suppose $`FX`$ is an essentially embedded $`2`$-torus of self-intersection $`0`$. If $`H^1(X\nu F;)=0`$, then

$$\overline{SW}_{X\mathrm{\#}_{\phi _{p,q}}E(r)}=\overline{SW}_X([F]^1[F])([F]^q[F]^q)^{r1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_{p,q}}^{sym}([F]^2,\tau ^2),$$

where $`\tau :=\iota _{}[S^1\times \mu (\widehat{B}_{p,q})]H_2(X\mathrm{\#}_{\phi _{p,q}}E(r);)`$ is defined as in Lemma 6.

###### Proof.

Corollary 20 in \[Pa\] gives

$$\overline{SW}_{X\nu F}=\overline{SW}_X([F]^1[F]).$$

The rest of the proof goes exactly the same way as in the proof of Lemma 6. Again we need to identify $`[F_2]=q[F]`$ for the same reasons as in the proof of Lemma 6. ∎

###### Corollary 11.

Suppose that $`F`$ is an essentially embedded symplectic $`2`$-torus in a symplectic $`4`$-manifold $`X`$ with $`b_2^+(X)>1`$. Also assume that $`[F]H_2(X;)`$ is primitive, $`[F][F]=0`$, and $`H^1(X\nu F;)=0`$. Then for fixed $`q3`$, there are infinitely many manifolds in the set of symplectic $`4`$-manifolds $`\{X\mathrm{\#}_{\phi _{p,q}}E(1)\}_{p2}`$ that are mutually non-diffeomorphic.

###### Proof.

When $`b_2^+(X)>1`$, we always have $`\overline{SW}_X0`$ by Taubes’ result \[T1\]. Note that the homology classes $`[F]`$ and $`\tau `$ are linearly independent in $`H_2(X\mathrm{\#}_{\phi _{p,q}}E(1))`$ by Proposition 3.2 in \[MT\]. The rest of the proof is an easier analogue of the proof of Corollary 7. We formally set $`\tau =[F]`$, and note that as $`p\mathrm{}`$, the total number of terms in

$$\overline{SW}_{X\mathrm{\#}_{\phi _{p,q}}E(1)}|_{\tau =[F]}=\overline{SW}_X([F]^1[F])\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_{p,q}}^{sym}([F]^2,[F]^2)$$

goes to $`\mathrm{}`$ as well. This immediately implies that the number of $`SW`$ basic classes of $`X\mathrm{\#}_{\phi _{p,q}}E(1)`$ also goes to $`\mathrm{}`$ as $`p\mathrm{}`$. ∎

Now we can readily generalize Theorem 1 to other symplectic pairs $`(X,F)`$ as follows.

###### Theorem 12.

Suppose that $`F`$ is an essentially embedded symplectic $`2`$-torus in a symplectic $`4`$-manifold $`X`$ with $`b_2^+(X)>1`$. Also assume that $`[F]H_2(X;)`$ is primitive, $`[F][F]=0`$, and $`H^1(X\nu F;)=0`$. Then for any integer $`q3`$, there exists an infinite family of mutually non-isotopic symplectic tori representing the homology class $`q[F]`$. ∎

Note that, Corollary 8 cannot be easily generalized, since the divisibilities of basic classes of $`X\mathrm{\#}_{\phi _{p,q}}E(r)`$ depend heavily on $`\overline{SW}_X`$ and $`H_2(X;)`$.

###### Remark 13.

One must take care and define $`\overline{SW}_X:=\overline{SW}_{X,F}^\pm `$ when $`b_2^+(X)=1`$ (see \[FS2\] and \[Pa\]). When $`b_2^+(X)=1`$, it is not automatic that $`\overline{SW}_X`$ is a finite sum and $`\overline{SW}_X0`$ for a symplectic $`X`$. If indeed $`\overline{SW}_X0`$ and is a finite sum, then Theorem 12 will still be valid for such pair $`(X,F)`$. However if $`\overline{SW}_X=0`$ or is an infinite sum, then there seems to be no method currently available to check whether the tori in our family are mutually non-isotopic in $`X`$. Along this line, it has been conjectured that an infinite family of homologous but non-isotopic symplectic tori cannot occur in $`X`$, when $`X`$ is a rational ruled surface with $`c_1^2(X)>0`$. In fact, Sikorav has already proved this conjecture for $`X=^2`$ in \[Si\] and Siebert and Tian announced a proof for $`X=S^2\times S^2`$ and $`X=^2\mathrm{\#}\overline{}^2`$ (see \[ST1\]).

###### Remark 14.

We should also point out that since our proof uses the product formula to calculate the Seiberg-Witten invariants of $`4`$-manifolds obtained by gluing along the boundary of a regular neighborhood of a torus and since such product formulas don’t give the complete picture in case the gluing occurs along higher genus surfaces, we were able to construct infinite families of non-isotopic tori only. In fact, there is an ongoing research to determine the number of symplectic representatives (up to smooth isotopy) in the homology class of symplectic surfaces of higher genus. For example in \[Sm\], by using purely topological techniques, Smith was able to prove that for every odd number $`g3`$ there exists a symplectic $`4`$-manifold $`X_g`$ that contains an infinite family of homologous but non-isotopic connected symplectic surfaces of genus $`g`$. On the other hand, Siebert and Tian announced in \[ST2\] that there is a unique symplectic surface in the homology class of a degree $`d`$ complex curve in $`^2`$ provided that $`d17`$ and similarly in the homology class of a complex curve of bidegree $`(m,n)`$ in a Hirzebruch surface provided that $`m7`$.

### Acknowledgments

The second author would like to thank Ronald Fintushel and Stefano Vidussi for helpful discussions. Some computations in Section 3 were verified with the aid of Maple$`^\mathrm{\circledR }`$ Version 8.