format: text

text:
# A family of singular oscillatory integral operators and failure of weak amenability

## 1. Weak amenability and $`𝚲(𝙶)`$

Let $`G`$ be a locally compact Hausdorff topological group, equipped with a left-invariant Haar measure, written $`dx`$ or $`dy`$ in integrals. We write $`L^p(G)`$ for the usual Lebesgue space of (equivalence classes of) functions on $`G`$. In this section, the symbol $`\lambda `$ will denote the left regular representation of $`G`$ on $`L^2(G)`$, and $`fg`$ will denote the convolution of functions $`f`$ and $`g`$ on $`G`$.

### 1.1. The Fourier algebra and pointwise multipliers

A matrix coefficient of the left regular representation is a function of the form

$$x\lambda (x)h,k=h(x^1y)\overline{k(y)}𝑑y$$

where $`h`$ and $`k`$ lie in $`L^2(G)`$. The Fourier algebra of $`G`$, denoted by $`A(G)`$, is defined to be the Banach space of all these, that is,

$$A(G)=\{\lambda ()h,k:h,kL^2(G)\}$$

(which is actually a linear space), equipped with the norm

$$\phi _A=inf\{h_2k_2:\phi =\lambda ()h,k\}.$$

The infimum is in fact attained, see . If $`G`$ is abelian, a function in $`A(G)`$ is the Fourier transform of a function in $`L^1(\widehat{G})`$, where $`\widehat{G}`$ is the dual group of $`G`$.

All functions in $`A(G)`$ are continuous and vanish at infinity. The Fourier algebra forms a commutative Banach algebra under pointwise operations, with Gel’fand spectrum $`G`$. It has a unit (the function $`1`$) if and only if $`G`$ is compact. For proofs of these results and for much more information about the Fourier algebra, see the original article by Eymard  or the book by Pier .

The group von Neumann algebra $`VN(G)`$ is defined to be the set of all bounded linear operators on $`L^2(G)`$ commuting with right translations. Suppose that $`fL^1(G)`$. We associate to $`f`$ the left convolution operator $`\lambda [f]`$ on $`L^2(G)`$, defined by

$$\lambda [f]h(x)=_G\lambda (y)h(x)f(y)𝑑y=fh(x).$$

This operator lies in $`VN(G)`$. The function $`f`$ also gives rise to an element of the topological dual space $`A(G)^{}`$ of $`A(G)`$, by integration: one defines $`L_f`$ in $`A(G)^{}`$ to be the linear functional $`\phi _G\phi (x)f(x)𝑑x`$. The association between the operator $`\lambda [f]`$ and the linear functional $`L_f`$ extends to identify the group von Neumann algebra $`VN(G)`$ with the dual space $`A(G)^{}`$. More precisely, for any $`F`$ in $`A(G)^{}`$, there exists a unique $`F^{}`$ in $`VN(G)`$ such that

$$F^{}(h),k=F(\lambda ()h,k)h,kL^2(G).$$

The mapping $`FF^{}`$ is an isometric isomorphism; it also carries the weak-star topology of $`A(G)^{}`$ to the ultraweak topology of $`VN(G)`$. The set $`\{L_f:fL^1(G)\}`$ is weak-star dense in $`A(G)^{}`$ and the set $`\{\lambda [f]:fL^1(G)\}`$ is ultraweakly dense in $`VN(G)`$. The correspondence between $`F`$ and $`F^{}`$ is the unique continuous extension of the map $`\lambda [f]L_f`$. For proofs of these facts, see  or .

On a Lie group $`G`$, $`𝒟(G)A(G)`$, where $`𝒟`$ denotes the space of compactly supported smooth functions. We may think of elements of $`A(G)^{}`$ as distributions on $`G`$, and of elements of $`VN(G)`$ as convolutions by these distributions.

We shall need the notion of a completely bounded operator on a von Neumann algebra. Suppose that $``$ is a von Neumann algebra and $`T:`$ is a continuous linear operator. Let $`^{(n)}`$ be the algebra of $`n\times n`$ matrices with entries in $``$ and let $`I_n`$ be the $`n\times n`$ identity matrix. Define the extension $`TI_n`$ to $`^{(n)}`$ by $`(TI_nF)_{ij}=T(F_{ij})`$. Then $`T`$ is said to be completely bounded if

$$c__T=\underset{n}{sup}TI_n<\mathrm{}.$$

We write $`T_{cb}`$ for the completely bounded operator norm $`c__T`$. Much more about completely bounded operators may be found in .

We define $`MA(G)`$, the space of (pointwise) multipliers of $`A(G)`$, to be the set of all continuous functions $`\phi `$ on $`G`$ such that the pointwise product $`\phi \psi `$ lies in $`A(G)`$ for all $`\psi `$ in $`A(G)`$. A multiplier $`\phi MA(G)`$ may be identified with the multiplication operator $`m_\phi `$ on $`A(G)`$ given by $`m_\phi :\psi \phi \psi `$, and we equip $`MA(G)`$ with the corresponding operator norm.

We also define $`M_0A(G)`$, the space of completely bounded multipliers of $`A(G)`$, also called Herz–Schur multipliers (see, e.g., ), to be the set of all continuous functions $`\phi `$ on $`G`$ such that the adjoint operator $`m_\phi ^{}`$ is completely bounded as an operator on $`VN(G)`$. We define $`\phi _{M_0A(G)}`$ to be the completely bounded operator norm $`m_\phi ^{}_{cb}`$. This space is smaller than $`MA(G)`$, and the norm is larger than the $`MA(G)`$-norm. For further information about these spaces, see the articles by Cowling  and De Cannière and Haagerup ; in particular it is shown in  that $`m_{M_0A(G)}=sup_Hm1_H_{MA(G\times H)}`$ where the supremum is taken over all locally compact groups $`H`$.

Both $`MA(G)`$ and $`M_0A(G)`$ form Banach algebras under pointwise multiplication. We have the inclusions $`A(G)B(G)M_0A(G)MA(G)`$ where $`B(G)`$ is the Fourier–Stieltjes algebra consisting of matrix coefficients of unitary representations. If the group $`G`$ is amenable, i.e., there exists a left invariant mean on $`L^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$, then both of these algebras coincide with the Fourier–Stieltjes algebra $`B(G)`$; in fact the equality $`B(G)=MA(G)`$ is a characterization of amenability, see . In general, these inclusions are proper; in fact, specific examples of functions in $`M_0A(G)`$ arise as matrix coefficients of uniformly bounded representations which need not be equivalent to unitary ones (see , ).

### 1.2. Approximate units

Let $`L`$ be a positive real number. Then $`A(G)`$ is said to have an approximate unit bounded by $`L`$ if there exists a directed set $`I`$ and a net $`\{\phi _i:iI\}`$ of functions in $`A(G)`$ such that

$$\underset{iI}{lim}\psi \phi _i\psi _A=0\psi A(G)$$
$`\mathrm{1.2.1}`$
and

$$\phi _i_ALiI.$$
$`\mathrm{1.2.2}`$
It is known that $`A(G)`$ has an approximate unit bounded by a positive real number $`L`$ if and only if $`A(G)`$ has an approximate unit bounded by $`1`$; this is one of the many equivalent conditions for $`G`$ to be amenable (Leptin , see also Herz ). When $`G`$ is amenable, the existence of the approximate unit implies that

$$\phi _A=\phi _{M_0A}=\phi _{MA}\phi A(G).$$

For more information about amenability, see .

One may weaken the existence criterion on the approximate unit as follows. Given a positive real number $`L`$, we say that $`A(G)`$ has an $`L`$-completely bounded approximate unit, if there exists a net $`\{\phi _i:iI\}`$ of functions in $`A(G)`$ such that (1.2.1) holds and

$$\phi _i_{M_0A}LiI$$
$`\mathrm{1.2.3}`$
We define the number $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)`$ to be the infimum of all the numbers $`L`$ for which there exists an $`L`$-completely bounded approximate unit on $`A(G)`$, with the convention that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)=\mathrm{}`$ if no such approximate unit exists. The group $`G`$ is said to be weakly amenable if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)<\mathrm{}`$.

Finally we say that $`A(G)`$ has an $`L`$-multiplier bounded approximate unit, if there is a net $`\{\phi _i:iI\}`$ of functions in $`A(G)`$ such that (1.2.1) holds and

$$\phi _i_{MA}LiI.$$

A multiplier bounded approximate unit is simply an $`L`$-multiplier bounded approximate unit, for some $`L<\mathrm{}`$.

Clearly $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)[1,\mathrm{}]`$, because $`_{\mathrm{}}_{M_0A(G)}`$, but in every known case, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)`$ is an extended integer. Much of what is known about $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)`$ for locally compact groups is summarized in the following list. For details see the articles by Haagerup , , Cowling , , De Cannière and Haagerup , Cowling and Haagerup , Lemvig Hansen , Bożejko and Picardello , Dorofaeff , .

###### 1.2.1

Suppose that $`G`$, $`G_1`$, and $`G_2`$ are locally compact groups.

(i) If $`G_1`$ is isomorphic to $`G_2`$, then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(G_1)=\mathrm{\Lambda }(G_2)`$.

(ii) If $`K`$ is a compact normal subgroup of $`G`$, then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)=\mathrm{\Lambda }(G/K)`$.

(iii) If $`G_1`$ is a closed subgroup of $`G_2`$, then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(G_1)\mathrm{\Lambda }(G_2)`$, with equality if $`G_2/G_1`$ admits a finite $`G_2`$ invariant measure.

(iv) If $`G`$ is the direct product group $`G_1\times G_2`$, then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)=\mathrm{\Lambda }(G_1)\mathrm{\Lambda }(G_2)`$.

(v) If $`G`$ is discrete and $`Z`$ is a central subgroup of $`G`$, then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)\mathrm{\Lambda }(G/Z)`$.

(vi) If $`G`$ is amenable, then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)=1`$.

(vii) If $`G`$ is a free group, then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)=1`$.

(viii) If $`G`$ is an amalgamated product $`G=_AG_i`$, where each $`G_i`$ is an amenable locally compact group, and $`A`$ is a compact open subgroup of all $`G_i`$, then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)=1`$.

(ix) If $`G`$ is locally isomorphic to $`\text{SO}(1,n)`$ or to $`\text{SU}(1,n)`$, then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)=1`$.

(x) If $`G`$ is locally isomorphic to $`\text{Sp}(1,n)`$, then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)=2n1`$.

(xi) If $`G`$ is locally isomorphic to $`F_{4(20)}`$, then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)=21`$.

(xii) If $`G`$ is a simple Lie group of real rank at least two, then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)=\mathrm{}`$.

For generalizations of these ideas to von Neumann algebras, see Haagerup , , Cowling and Haagerup  and for generalizations to ergodic systems and dynamical systems, see Cowling and Zimmer  and Jolissaint . These ideas are loosely related to Property (T) and the Haagerup Property, which are investigated in detail in the books by Zimmer , by de la Harpe and Valette  and by Chérix, Cowling, Jolissaint, Julg and Valette .

We shall make use of the following results, without further reference.

###### 1.2.2

Suppose that $`H`$ is a closed subgroup of the locally compact group $`G`$, that $`T`$ is a distribution on $`H`$, and that $`\phi `$ is a function on $`G`$. Then:

(i) if $`\phi A(G)`$, then $`\phi |_HA(H)`$ and $`\phi |_H_{A(H)}\phi _{A(G)}`$

(ii) if $`TA(H)^{}`$, then, considered as a distribution on $`G`$, $`TA(G)^{}`$ and $`T_{A(G)^{}}=T_{A(H)^{}}`$

(iii) if $`\phi M_0A(G)`$, then $`\phi |_HM_0A(H)`$ and $`\phi |_H_{M_0A(H)}\phi _{M_0A(G)}`$

(iv) if $`\phi MA(G)`$, then $`\phi |_HMA(H)`$ and $`\phi |_H_{MA(H)}\phi _{MA(G)}`$.

See \[17,  Thm.~1\] and \[8,  Prop.~1.12\] for the proofs.

###### 1.2.3

If $`\{\phi _i:iI\}`$ is an $`L`$-completely bounded approximate unit on $`A(G)`$, then $`\phi _i1`$ uniformly on compact subsets of $`G`$. Conversely, if there exists a net $`\{\phi _i:iI\}`$ of $`A(G)`$-functions such that $`\phi _i_{M_0A(G)}L`$ and $`\phi _i1`$ uniformly on compact sets, then there exists an $`L`$-completely bounded approximate unit of compactly supported $`A(G)`$-functions, $`\{\stackrel{~}{\phi }_j:jJ\}`$ say. If $`G`$ is a Lie group, then we may also assume that $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_j𝒟(G)`$ for all $`j`$ in $`J`$.

This result also holds when “$`L`$-completely bounded” is replaced by “$`L`$-multiplier bounded”.

For the proof, see \[6,  Prop.~1.1\].

###### 1.2.4

Let $`K`$ be a compact normal subgroup of the locally compact group $`G`$.

(i) Let $`mMA(G)`$ and define for $`\stackrel{~}{m}(gK)=_Km(gk)𝑑k`$ (where $`dk`$ is normalized Haar measure). Then $`\stackrel{~}{m}MA(G/K)`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{MA(G/K)}m_{MA(G)}`$.

(ii) The statement (i) remains true for $`MA(G)`$ replaced with $`MA_0(G)`$; moreover the space $`MA_0(G/K)`$ may be isometrically identified with the subspace of functions in $`MA_0(G)`$ which are constants on the cosets of $`K`$ in $`G`$. Furthermore $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(G/K)=\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)`$.

(i) is immediate. For (ii) see \[6,  Prop.~1.3\] (one uses the definition \[6,  (0.3)\] to verify the nontrivial part of (ii)).

###### 1.2.5

Suppose that $`G=SK`$ is a (set) decomposition of $`G`$ as a product of an amenable closed subgroup $`S`$ and a compact subgroup $`K`$, and that $`\nu `$ is normalized Haar measure on $`K`$. Suppose further that $`\stackrel{~}{A}(G)`$ is one of $`A(G)`$ or $`M_0A(G)`$ or $`MA(G)`$. Then for any $`\phi \stackrel{~}{A}(G)`$ the average $`\dot{\phi }`$, defined by

$$\dot{\phi }(x)=_{K\times K}\phi (kxk^{})𝑑\nu (k)𝑑\nu (k^{}),$$

belongs to $`\stackrel{~}{A}(G)`$. Further, $`\dot{\phi }_{\stackrel{~}{A}(G)}\phi _{\stackrel{~}{A}(G)}`$.

For the proof, see \[6,  Prop.~1.6\]. The point of the lemma is that, by averaging, we may assume that any given approximate unit of $`A(G)`$-functions bounded in the $`\stackrel{~}{A}(G)`$-norm is $`K`$-biinvariant, with the same bound. The above lemma also holds if we choose compactly supported smooth functions, and these properties are preserved by averaging.

### What lies ahead

For a connected noncompact simple Lie group $`G`$ with finite center and real rank at least two, the invariant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)`$ takes the value infinity. This result was proved by Haagerup . His proof involves investigating certain semidirect products, namely $`\text{SL}(2,)^2`$ and $`\text{SL}(2,)\text{H}^1`$, where $`\text{H}^1`$ is the Heisenberg group of dimension three. He shows that these semidirect products do not admit multiplier bounded approximate units, and hence deduces that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is infinite for both the semidirect products and then, by structure theory, for any noncompact simple Lie group $`G`$ with finite center and real rank at least two. These semidirect products are the smallest members of two families of semidirect products, for which it turns out to be interesting to calculate $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (see Section 8). The first family is formed with the action of the unique irreducible representation of $`\text{SL}(2,)`$ on $`^n`$. It was shown by Dorofaeff  that all these groups have infinite $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$; this was used to show that that the original hypothesis of finite center in Haagerup’s proof of 1.2.1 (xii) is redundant (). The second family is where $`\text{SL}(2,)`$ acts on the Heisenberg group $`\text{H}^n`$ of dimension $`2n+1`$ by fixing the center and operating on the vector space $`^{2n}`$ by the unique irreducible representation of dimension $`2n`$.

We consider this family of semidirect products and show they do not admit multiplier bounded approximate units; in particular $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\text{SL}(2,)\text{H}^n)=\mathrm{}`$. Given this and earlier results, and some structure theory, it is now possible to compute $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)`$ for any real algebraic Lie group $`G`$, or indeed for any Lie group $`G`$ whose Levi factor has finite center.

###### Main Theorem

Let $`G`$ be a real Lie group with Lie algebra $`𝔤`$, and let $`𝔰𝔯`$ be the Levi decomposition of $`𝔤`$, where $`𝔯`$ is the maximal solvable ideal of $`𝔤`$ and $`𝔰`$ is a semisimple summand, and let $`𝔰_1\mathrm{}𝔰_m`$ be the decomposition of $`𝔰`$ as a sum of simple ideals. Let $`S`$ be a maximal analytic semisimple subgroup of $`G`$ corresponding to $`𝔰`$, and let $`S_i`$ be the subgroup associated to $`𝔰_i`$, where $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$. Suppose that $`S`$ has finite center.

Then $`G`$ is weakly amenable if and only if one of the following two conditions is satisfied for each $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$:

Either

(\*) $`S_i`$ is compact

or

(\**) $`S_i`$ is noncompact, of real rank $`1`$, and the action of $`𝔰_i`$ on $`𝔯`$ is trivial, i.e., $`[𝔰_i,𝔯]=0`$.

If for every $`i\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$, either (\*) or (\**) is satisfied then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)=_{i=1}^m\mathrm{\Lambda }(S_i)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)`$ can be computed by consulting the list (1.2.1).

If for at least one $`i\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$ neither (\*) nor (\**) holds, then $`A(G)`$ does not admit any multiplier bounded approximate unit.

Structure of the paper. The main part of this paper (Sections 2–7) is devoted to the proof that the Fourier algebra of $`\text{SL}(2,)\text{H}^n`$ does not admit multiplier bounded approximate units, and consequently we have $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\text{SL}(2,)\text{H}^n)=\mathrm{}`$. Using a modification of Haagerup’s approach for the case $`n=1`$ , one can reduce matters to the estimation of a singular oscillatory integral operator; this reduction is described in Section 2. The estimation of the integral operator, which is rather nontrivial, is carried out in Sections 3–7. In Section 8 we consider general Lie groups under the assumption that the Levi part has finite center. Here we use facts from the structure theory of Lie groups to show that if for at least one $`i\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$ neither condition (\*) nor condition (\**) in the Theorem holds, then $`G`$ does not admit multiplier bounded approximate units. This will be combined with previously known results to complete the proof of the main theorem.

## 2. A family of semidirect products

Fix a positive integer $`n`$. Throughout this chapter we shall consider the group

$$G_n=\text{SL}(2,)\text{H}^n,$$

where $`\text{SL}(2,)`$ acts on the Heisenberg group $`\text{H}^n`$ by the unique irreducible representation of dimension $`2n`$, fixing the center. We shall reduce the proof that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(G_n)=\mathrm{}`$ to the estimation of a family of singular oscillatory integral operators. The four subsequent sections will then be dedicated to estimating these operators.

### 2.1. The action of $`\text{SL}(2,)`$ on the Heisenberg group

Recall that $`\text{H}^n`$ is a Lie group whose underlying manifold is $`^{2n}\times `$. The group multiplication may be given by the formula

$$(u,t)(u^{},t^{})=(u+u^{},t+t^{}+u^TBu^{}),$$

where the symplectic matrix $`B`$ is defined by

$$B_{ij}=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1)^j\hfill & \text{if }i+j=2n+1\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

We shall write $`\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_{2n}\}`$ for the standard basis of $`^{2n}`$.

We shall now describe the action of $`\text{SL}(2,)`$ on $`^{2n}`$ by the irreducible representation $`\pi _{2n}`$ of dimension $`2n`$ which is unique up to isomorphism (see, e.g., \[22,  p.~107\]). For $`j=1,\mathrm{},2n`$, let

$$\alpha _j=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n1}{j1}\right)^{1/2}.$$

We identify $`^{2n}`$ with the space $`_{2n}`$ of homogeneous polynomials in two variables of degree $`2n1`$ by associating $`(u_1,\mathrm{},u_{2n})`$ with the polynomial

$$P:(x,y)\underset{j=1}{\overset{2n}{}}\alpha _ju_jx^{2nj}y^{j1},$$
$`\mathrm{2.1.1}`$
and define the action of $`A`$ in $`\text{SL}(2,)`$ by

$$\pi _{2n}(A)P(x,y)=P((x,y)A)=P(ax+cy,bx+dy)(x,y)^2,$$

where $`A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)`$ (see ). If $`P`$ is as in (2.1.1), then a computation shows that

$$\pi _{2n}(A)P(x,y)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n}{}}\left[Z(A)u\right]_i\alpha _ix^{2ni}y^{i1},$$

where the $`2n\times 2n`$ matrix $`Z(A)`$ is given by

$$\left(Z(A)\right)_{ij}=\underset{l=0}{\overset{2n}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j1}{l}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2nj}{2nil}\right)\alpha _i^1\alpha _ja^{2nil}b^lc^{i+lj}d^{jl1}$$
$`\mathrm{2.1.2}`$
(see ). Here we use the standard convention that $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{l}\right)=0`$ if $`l`$ is negative or $`l>k`$.

In order to extend the action on $`^{2n}`$ to an action on $`\text{H}^n`$ we need to show that the action on $`^{2n}`$ is symplectic.

###### Lemma 2.1.1

The map $`Z`$ is a symplectic action on $`^{2n}`$, i.e.,

$$Z(A)^TBZ(A)=B$$
$`\mathrm{2.1.3}`$
for each $`A\text{SL}(2,)`$. Define $`\overline{Z}(A):\text{H}^n\text{H}^n`$ by

$$\overline{Z}(A)(u,t)=(Z(A)u,t);$$

then $`\overline{Z}(A)`$ is an automorphism of $`\text{H}^n`$ and $`\overline{Z}`$ is an action of $`\text{SL}(2,)`$ on $`\text{H}^n`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

Recall that $`\alpha _j=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n1}{j1}\right)^{1/2}`$. From (2.1.2) and our choice of $`\alpha `$ one checks that

$$Z(A^T)=Z(A)^T.$$

Observe also that

$$B=Z(J)\text{where}J=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$

For any $`A`$ in $`\text{SL}(2,)`$, a direct matrix calculation shows $`A^TJA=J`$ and so

$$Z(A)^TBZ(A)=Z(A)^TZ(J)Z(A)=Z(A^TJA)=Z(J)$$

and therefore (2.1.3) holds. The fact that $`\overline{Z}(A)`$ is an automorphism of $`\text{H}^n`$ follows immediately from (2.1.3); hence $`\overline{Z}`$ is an action on $`\text{H}^n`$. ∎

We may now describe the semidirect product group $`G_n`$. As a manifold, this is $`\text{SL}(2,)\times ^{2n}\times `$. The product in $`G_n`$ is defined by

$$(A,u,t)(A^{},u^{},t^{})=(AA^{},u+Z(A)u^{},t+t^{}+u^TBZ(A)u^{})$$

and the inverse is given by

$$(A,u,t)^1=(A^1,Z(A^1)u,t),$$
$`\mathrm{2.1.4}`$
for all $`(A,u,t)`$ and $`(A^{},u^{},t^{})`$ in $`G_n`$. The closed subgroups $`\{(I,u,t):u^{2n},t\}`$ (where $`I`$ is the identity of $`\text{SL}(2,)`$) and $`\{(A,0,0):A\text{SL}(2,)\}`$ may be identified with $`\text{H}^n`$ and $`\text{SL}(2,)`$. Given $`(A^{},u,t)`$ and $`(A,0,0)`$ in $`G_n`$, it follows that

$$(A,0,0)(A^{},u,t)(A,0,0)^1=(AA^{}A^1,Z(A)u,t),$$

which shows that $`\text{H}^n`$ is normalized by $`\text{SL}(2,)`$.

There are several important subgroups and elements of $`G_n`$ which we now identify. We denote by $`K`$ the compact subgroup $`\text{SO}(2,)`$ of $`\text{SL}(2,)`$, considered as a subgroup of $`G_n`$. For $`b`$ in $``$, we define

$$k_b^\pm =\pm \beta (b)^1\left(\begin{array}{cc}b/2& 1\\ 1& b/2\end{array}\right),n_b=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& b\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),\text{and}h_b=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \beta (b)\\ \beta (b)^1& 0\end{array}\right),$$

where $`\beta (b)=(1+b^2/4)^{1/2}`$. Then $`k_b^\pm K`$. We write $`N`$ for the nilpotent subgroup $`\{n_b:b\}`$. For future purposes, we observe the following lemma.

###### Lemma 2.1.2

For all $`b`$ in $``$, we have

$`k_b^+n_bk_b^{}`$ $`=n_b,`$ $`\mathrm{2.1.5}`$
$`n_{b/2}k_b^+n_{b/2}`$ $`=h_b.`$
Further,

$$Z(h_b)(u_ne_n+u_{n+1}e_{n+1})=(1)^n(\beta (b)^1u_ne_{n+1}\beta (b)u_{n+1}e_n).$$

Finally,

$$\left(Z(n_b)\right)_{ij}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\alpha _i^1\alpha _j\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j1}{ji}\right)b^{ji}\hfill & \text{if }j>i\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{if }j=i\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if }j<i\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\mathrm{2.1.6}`$
and, in particular, $`Z(n_b)_{n,n+1}=nb.`$

###### Demonstration Proof

These are all straightforward computations which will be omitted. ∎

### 2.2. Two nilpotent subgroups

We write $`G`$ for $`G_n`$, and $`H`$ for the subgroup of $`G`$ of all elements of the form $`(n_b,u,t)`$, where $`b`$ and $`u^{2n}`$. Let $`V_k`$ denote the subspace $`\mathrm{span}\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_k\}`$ of $`^{2n}`$ (when $`k=1,\mathrm{},2n`$). Since $`N`$ is a subgroup of $`\text{SL}(2,)`$ and the matrix $`Z(n_b)`$ is upper triangular for all $`b`$ in $``$, this subspace is invariant under all the maps $`Z(n_b)`$, and the subset of $`G`$ of all elements of the form $`(n_b,v,t)`$, where $`b`$ and $`vV_k`$, is a subgroup of $`H`$. We write $`H_0`$ for the subgroup of $`G`$ obtained in this way when $`k=n+1`$.

We need to understand the behavior of the restrictions of $`K`$-bi-invariant functions on $`G`$ to $`H`$. It follows from formula (2.1.4) that

$$(k_b^+,0,0)(n_b,u,t)(k_b^{},0,0)=(n_b,Z(k_b^+)u,t).$$
$`\mathrm{2.2.1}`$
We define the diffeomorphism $`\mathrm{\Omega }:HH`$ by the formula

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(n_b,u,t)=(n_b,Z(k_b^+)u,t).$$
$`\mathrm{2.2.2}`$
###### Lemma 2.2.1

If $`\phi 𝒟(G)`$ and $`\phi `$ is $`K`$-bi-invariant, then $`\phi |_H\mathrm{\Omega }=\phi |_H`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

Since $`\phi `$ is $`K`$-bi-invariant, we have

$$\phi (n_b,u,t)=\phi \left((k_b^+,0,0)(n_b,u,t)(k_b^{},0,0)\right)$$

for all $`(n_b,u,t)`$ in $`H`$ and the assertion follows from formulae (2.2.1) and (2.2.2). ∎

### 2.3. Some distributions on $`𝙷_\mathrm{𝟶}`$

We will define a family of distributions on $`H_0`$, using two iterated principal value integrals. To clarify the sense in which these are to be interpreted, and because it will be useful later, we first discuss certain principal value integrals on $`^2`$. For Schwartz functions $`\psi 𝒮(^2)`$, let

$`D(\psi )`$ $`=\text{p.v.}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi (s_1,s_2)}{s_2^2s_1^2}𝑑s_1𝑑s_2}`$ $`\mathrm{2.3.1}`$
$`=\underset{ϵ0+}{lim}\underset{\delta 0+}{lim}{\displaystyle _{|s_2|>ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2s_2}}\left({\displaystyle _{|s_2+s_1|>\delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi (s_1,s_2)}{s_2+s_1}}𝑑s_1+{\displaystyle _{|s_2s_1|>\delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi (s_1,s_2)}{s_2s_1}}𝑑s_1\right)𝑑s_2.`$
It is routine to show that $`D`$ is a tempered distribution. We shall also need a modification $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ defined by

$$\stackrel{~}{D}(\psi )=D(\stackrel{~}{\psi })\text{ where }\stackrel{~}{\psi }(y_1,y_2)=\psi (y_2,y_1).$$
$`\mathrm{2.3.2}`$
The distributions $`D`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ satisfy

$$D(\psi )+\stackrel{~}{D}(\psi )=\pi ^2\psi (0,0)$$
$`\mathrm{2.3.3}`$
for all Schwartz functions; this fact was used by Haagerup  and called the failure of Fubini’s theorem, since it can be rewritten in the form

$$\text{p.v.}\frac{\psi (s_1,s_2)}{s_2^2s_1^2}\left(ds_1ds_2ds_2ds_1\right)=\pi ^2\psi (0,0).$$

The verification of formula (2.3.3) can be found in ; it relies on a Fourier transform calculation and the fact that $`D(e^{i,\tau })`$ is equal to $`\pi ^2`$ if $`\tau _1^2>\tau _2^2`$ and to $`0`$ if $`\tau _1^2<\tau _2^2`$.

For fixed $`b`$, define $`Q_b:^2H_0G`$ by

$$Q_b(s_1,s_2)=(n_b,Z(n_{b/2})(s_1e_n+s_2\beta (b)^1e_{n+1}),0)$$
$`\mathrm{2.3.4}`$
where, as before, $`\beta (b)=(1+b^2/4)^{1/2}`$. For a test function $`\varphi 𝒟(G)`$, let $`Q_b^{}\varphi `$ be the pullback of $`\varphi `$ to $`^2`$ defined (as usual) by $`Q_b^{}\varphi (s_1,s_2)=\varphi (Q_b(s_1,s_2))`$. We now define the distribution $`D_R`$ on $`G`$, for all $`R`$ in $`^+`$, by the formula

$$D_R(\varphi )=_R^RD(Q_b^{}\varphi )\frac{db}{\beta (b)}$$
$`\mathrm{2.3.5}`$
We may view $`D_R`$ as a distribution on $`H`$ or on $`G`$, with support in $`H_0`$, if we wish.

###### Lemma 2.3.1

Suppose that $`\phi 𝒟(G)`$ and $`\phi `$ is $`K`$-bi-invariant. Then

$$D_R(\phi )=\frac{\pi ^2}{2}_R^R\frac{\phi (n_b,0,0)}{(1+b^2/4)^{1/2}}𝑑b.$$
$`\mathrm{2.3.6}`$
In particular, if $`\{\phi _n\}_n`$ is a sequence of $`K`$-bi-invariant $`𝒟(G)`$-functions, and $`\phi _n1`$ uniformly on compact subsets of $`G`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$, then

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}D_R(\phi _n)=2\pi ^2\mathrm{sinh}^1(R/2).$$
$`\mathrm{2.3.7}`$
Both formulae remain valid if $`D_R`$ is considered as a distribution on $`H`$ or $`H_0`$ and applied to restrictions of $`K`$-bi-invariant functions to $`H`$ or $`H_0`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

Recall from Lemma 2.2.1 that if $`\phi 𝒟(G)`$ and $`\phi `$ is $`K`$-bi-invariant, then $`\phi |_H=\phi |_H\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Now we compute for arbitrary $`\varphi 𝒟(G)`$

$`\varphi \mathrm{\Omega }(Q_b(s_1,s_2))`$ $`=\varphi (n_b,Z(k_b^+)Z(n_{b/2})(s_1e_n+s_2\beta (b)^1e_{n+1}),0)`$
$`=\varphi (n_b,Z(n_{b/2})Z(h_b)(s_1e_n+s_2\beta (b)^1e_{n+1}),0)`$
$`=\varphi (n_b,Z(n_{b/2})(1)^n(\beta (b)^1s_1e_{n+1}s_2e_n),0).`$
Here we have used the definition of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`Q_b`$, and the relation $`k_b^+n_{b/2}=n_{b/2}h_b`$ (which follows from formula (2.1.5)). Since $`D`$ is even on $`^2`$, it follows that

$$D(Q_b^{}(\varphi \mathrm{\Omega }))=\stackrel{~}{D}(Q_b^{}\varphi ),$$

and therefore, since $`\beta `$ is even,

$$D_R(\varphi \mathrm{\Omega })=_R^R\stackrel{~}{D}(Q_b^{}\varphi )\beta (b)^1𝑑b.$$
$`\mathrm{2.3.8}`$
Now we assume that $`\phi `$ is $`K`$-bi-invariant and use (2.3.3). Then

$`D_R(\phi )`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _R^R}\left(D(Q_b^{}\phi )+\stackrel{~}{D}(Q_b^{}\phi )\right)\beta (b)^1𝑑b`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{2}}{\displaystyle _R^R}Q_b^{}\phi (0,0)\beta (b)^1𝑑b`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{2}}{\displaystyle _R^R}\phi (n_b,0,0)\beta (b)^1𝑑b,`$
as required.

The formula (2.3.7) follows by passing to the limit and evaluating the integral.

The last assertion follows from our computation, since $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ maps the subset of $`G`$ (or of $`H`$ or $`H_0`$) consisting of all $`(n_b,s_1e_n+s_2e_{n+1},0)`$ into itself. ∎

### 2.4. Failure of weak amenability

We are now in a position to reduce the question of the weak amenability of $`G`$ to a question of boundedness of the operators $`\lambda [D_R]`$ of convolution with $`D_R`$.

###### Proposition 2.4.1

Suppose that $`\lambda [D_R]`$ lies in $`VN(H_0)`$, and that $`\lambda [D_R]=o(\mathrm{log}R)`$ as $`R\mathrm{}`$. Then $`G`$ is not weakly amenable, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)=\mathrm{}`$, and further, there does not exist a multiplier bounded approximate unit on $`G`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

If $`G`$ were weakly amenable, then there would exist $`L`$ in $`[1,\mathrm{})`$ and a sequence $`\{\phi _n:n\}`$ of $`𝒟(G)`$-functions such that $`\phi _n_{M_0A}L`$ for all $`n`$ in $``$ and $`\phi _n1`$, uniformly on compact subsets of $`G`$, as $`n\mathrm{}`$. By averaging if necessary, we could suppose that all the functions $`\phi _n`$ were $`K`$-bi-invariant; see (1.2.5). A fortiori, for some $`L`$ in $`^+`$, there would be a sequence $`\{\phi _n:n\}`$ of $`K`$-bi-invariant $`𝒟(G)`$-functions satisfying the conditions $`\phi _n_{MA}L`$ and $`\phi _n1`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$. The same would be true if there existed a multiplier bounded approximate unit on $`G`$.

Consider the sequence $`\{D_R(\phi _n|_{H_0}):n\}`$. Since $`H_0`$ is amenable, $`A(H_0)`$ has an approximate unit, whence

$$\phi _n|_{H_0}_A=\phi _n|_{H_0}_{MA}\phi _n_{MA}L.$$
$`\mathrm{2.4.1}`$
Thus

$$\left|D_R(\phi _n|_{H_0})\right|\lambda [D_R]_{VN}\phi _n|_{H_0}_AL\lambda [D_R]_{VN}=o(\mathrm{log}R).$$

However, by (2.3.7)

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\left|D_R(\phi _n|_{H_0})\right|=2\pi ^2\mathrm{log}(\frac{R}{2}+\sqrt{\frac{R^2}{4}+1}).$$

The last two formulae are contradictory, so the original hypothesis of the weak amenability of $`G`$ must be incorrect. ∎

Most of this paper is dedicated to verifying the hypothesis of Proposition 2.4.1; more precisely, we shall obtain the estimate

$$\lambda [D_R]_{VN(H_0)}=O(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}R)\text{ as }R\mathrm{}\text{.}$$
$`\mathrm{2.4.2}`$
To do this, we will use Fourier analysis on $`H_0`$ to study the distributions $`D_R`$ when acting on $`A(H_0)`$. The first stage in this process is to find a family of unitary representations $`\{\pi _{\eta ,\zeta }:\eta ,\zeta V_n\}`$ of $`H_0`$; we then describe the Plancherel formula for this group. It is a consequence of the Plancherel formula that $`\lambda [D_R]_{VN}`$ is equal to the supremum of the operator norms $`\pi _{\eta ,\zeta }[D_R]`$ as $`\eta `$ and $`\zeta `$ vary. We shall then identify the operators $`\pi _{\eta ,\zeta }[D_R]`$ as singular oscillatory integral operators, which will be estimated in Sections 3–7.

### 2.5. Representations of the group $`𝙷_\mathrm{𝟶}`$

To simplify notation, from now on we write $`(b,u,t)`$ instead of $`(n_b,u,t)`$, and $`P(b)`$ instead of $`Z(n_b)`$, see (2.1.6). Then the group law may be rewritten in the form

$$(b,u,t)(b^{},u^{},t^{})=(b+b^{},u+P(b)u^{},t+t^{}+u^TBP(b)u^{})$$

and

$$(b,u,t)^1=(b,P(b)u,t),$$

for all $`(b,u,t)`$ and $`(b^{},u^{},t^{})`$ in $`H_0`$. From formula (2.1.3), it follows that $`P(b)^TBP(b)=B`$, so

$`(b,u,t)^1(b^{},u^{},0)`$ $`=(b^{}b,P(b)(u^{}u),tu^TBu^{})`$ $`\mathrm{2.5.1}`$
$`=(b^{}b,P(b)(u^{}u),t+(1)^n(u_nu_{n+1}^{}u_{n+1}u_n^{})).`$
It is easy to see that the subgroup $`H_1`$ of $`H_0`$, given by

$$H_1=\{(0,w,s):wV_n,s\},$$

is normal in $`H_0`$ and abelian. Let $`𝔖`$ be the subset $`\{(c,ve_{n+1},0)H_0:c,v\}`$ of $`H_0`$. As a set, we may identify $`𝔖`$ with $`^2`$. Any element $`h`$ of $`H_0`$ may be expressed uniquely in the form $`\sigma h_1`$, where $`\sigma 𝔖`$ and $`h_1H_1`$. Indeed, if $`c`$, $`s`$, $`t`$, and $`v`$ are in $``$, while $`wV_n`$ and $`uV_{n+1}`$, then

$$(c,ve_{n+1},0)(0,w,s)=(c,ve_{n+1}+P(c)w,s+ve_{n+1}^TBP(c)w),$$

so

$$\begin{array}{c}(c,ve_{n+1},0)(0,w,s)=(b,u,t)\text{if and only if}\\ c=b,v=u_{n+1},w=P(b)\mathrm{Proj}_{V_n}u,\text{and}s=t(1)^nu_{n+1}u_n,\end{array}$$
$`\mathrm{2.5.2}`$
where $`\mathrm{Proj}_V`$ denotes the standard orthogonal projection onto the subspace $`V`$ of $`^{2n}`$. As a consequence, we also note the integration formula

$$_{H_0}F(y)𝑑y=_{H_1}_𝔖F(\sigma z)𝑑\sigma 𝑑z.$$
$`\mathrm{2.5.3}`$
We define the characters $`\chi _{\eta ,\zeta }`$ of $`H_1`$ by the formula

$$\chi _{\eta ,\zeta }(0,w,s)=\mathrm{exp}(i(1)^n\eta s+i\zeta ,w),$$
$`\mathrm{2.5.4}`$
where $`\eta `$ and $`\zeta V_n^{}`$, and induce the character $`\chi _{\eta ,\zeta }`$ from $`H_1`$ to $`H_0`$. The induced representation $`\pi _{\eta ,\zeta }`$ acts on the Hilbert space $`_{\eta ,\zeta }`$ of all complex-valued functions $`\xi `$ on $`H_0`$ such that

$$\xi ((b,u,t)(0,w,s))=\chi _{\eta ,\zeta }(0,w,s)\xi (b,u,t)(0,w,s)H_1(b,u,t)H_0,$$

and

$$\left(|\xi (c,ve_{n+1},0)|^2𝑑c𝑑v\right)^{1/2}<\mathrm{}.$$

We equip this space with the norm equal to the left hand side of this inequality. As $`H_0=𝔖H_1`$, each function in $`_{\eta ,\zeta }`$ is determined by its restriction to $`𝔖`$, and so this really is a norm on $`_{\eta ,\zeta }`$, modulo the usual issues of identification of functions which differ on null sets. Clearly $`_{\eta ,\zeta }`$ can be identified with $`L^2(𝔖)`$.

The action of the unitary representation $`\pi _{\eta ,\zeta }`$ on a function $`\xi `$ in $`_{\eta ,\zeta }`$ is defined by the formula

$$\pi _{\eta ,\zeta }(b,u,t)\xi (b^{},u^{},t^{})=\xi \left((b,u,t)^1(b^{},u^{},t^{})\right).$$

In particular, using formulae (2.5.1) and (2.5.2) and we see that

$`\pi _{\eta ,\zeta }(b,u,t)\xi (c,ve_{n+1},0)`$ $`=\xi \left((b,u,t)^1(c,ve_{n+1},0)\right)`$
$`=\xi (cb,P(b)(ve_{n+1}u),t+(1)^nu_nv)`$
$`=\xi \left((cb,(vu_{n+1})e_{n+1},0)(0,w,s)\right),`$
where $`(0,w,s)`$ in $`H_1`$ is defined by

$`w`$ $`=P(bc)\mathrm{Proj}_{V_n}P(b)(ve_{n+1}u)`$
$`=P(bc)\left[P(b)(ve_{n+1}u)(vu_{n+1})e_{n+1}\right]`$
$`=P(c)(ve_{n+1}u)+P(bc)(u_{n+1}v)e_{n+1},`$
and since $`P(b)_{n,n+1}=nb`$ by Lemma 2.1.2,

$`s`$ $`=t+(1)^nu_nv(1)^n(vu_{n+1})(P(b)_{n,n+1}(vu_{n+1})u_n)`$
$`=t+(1)^n\left(nb(vu_{n+1})^2+u_n(2vu_{n+1})\right).`$
In conclusion,

$`\pi _{\eta ,\zeta }(b,u,t)\xi (c,ve_{n+1},0)`$ $`\mathrm{2.5.5}`$
$`=\xi (cb,(vu_{n+1})e_{n+1},0)`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left(i\eta \left[(1)^{n+1}t+nb(vu_{n+1})^2+u_n(2vu_{n+1})\right]\right)`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left(i\zeta ,P(c)(ve_{n+1}u)+P(bc)(u_{n+1}v)e_{n+1}\right).`$
The elements of $`𝔖`$ act by translations (here we think of $`𝔖`$ as $`^2`$), combined with multiplications, while the action of the elements of $`H_1`$ is as follows:

$$\begin{array}{c}\pi _{\eta ,\zeta }(0,w,t)\xi (c,ve_{n+1},0)\\ =\xi (c,ve_{n+1},0)\mathrm{exp}(i\eta [(1)^{n+1}t+2w_nv]i\zeta ,P(c)w).\end{array}$$

Finally we extend the representation $`\pi _{\eta ,\zeta }`$ to functions $`f`$ in $`L^1(H_0)`$. For each $`\eta `$ in $``$ and $`\zeta `$ in $`V_n^{}`$, we associate an operator $`\pi _{\eta ,\zeta }[f]`$ on $`L^2(𝔖)`$ in the usual way by the formula

$$\pi _{\eta ,\zeta }[f]\xi (\sigma )=_{H_0}f(x)\pi _{\eta ,\zeta }(x)\xi (\sigma )𝑑x.$$
$`\mathrm{2.5.6}`$
This formula extends by continuity to define a Fourier transform of certain distributions on $`H_0`$.

### 2.6 A Plancherel formula

In what follows we shall write $`\chi `$ for $`\chi _{\eta ,\zeta }`$ and $`_\chi `$ for $`_{\eta ,\zeta }`$; we also denote by $`d\chi `$ the measure $`(2\pi )^{n1}d\eta d\zeta `$ on the dual space $`\widehat{H}_1`$.

For $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ in $`𝒟(H_0)`$ and $`\chi `$ in $`\widehat{H}_1`$, define the function $`\mathrm{\Xi }_\chi `$ on $`H_0`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Xi }_\chi (x)=_{H_1}\mathrm{\Xi }(xz)\overline{\chi }(z)𝑑z.$$
$`\mathrm{2.6.1}`$
We note that

###### Lemma 2.6.1

For all $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ in $`𝒟(H_0)`$, the function $`\mathrm{\Xi }_\chi `$ belongs to the Hilbert space $`_\chi `$. Further

$$\mathrm{\Xi }_{L^2(H_0)}=\left(_{\widehat{H}_1}\mathrm{\Xi }_\chi __\chi ^2𝑑\chi \right)^{1/2}$$

and the map $`\mathrm{\Xi }(\chi \mathrm{\Xi }_\chi )`$ extends to an isometric bijection of $`L^2(H_0)`$ to $`L^2(\widehat{H}_1,)`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

For $`\mathrm{\Xi }𝒟(H_0)`$ and $`\chi \widehat{H}_1`$, we compute:

$`\mathrm{\Xi }_\chi (xz^{})`$ $`={\displaystyle _{H_1}}\mathrm{\Xi }(xz^{}z)\overline{\chi }(z)𝑑z={\displaystyle _{H_1}}\mathrm{\Xi }(xz)\overline{\chi }(z_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}z)𝑑z`$
$`=\chi (z^{}){\displaystyle _{H_1}}\mathrm{\Xi }(xz)\overline{\chi }(z)𝑑z=\chi (z^{})\mathrm{\Xi }_\chi (x),`$
so that $`\mathrm{\Xi }_\chi `$ has the required covariance property. Further as $`\sigma `$ varies over $`𝔖`$, the function $`\mathrm{\Xi }_\chi (\sigma )`$ varies smoothly, and as a function on $`𝔖`$ it has compact support, contained in $`\mathrm{supp}(\mathrm{\Xi })H_1𝔖`$. Moreover by the Plancherel theorem for $`H_1`$, and Fubini’s theorem,

$`{\displaystyle _{\widehat{H}_1}}\mathrm{\Xi }_\chi __\chi ^2𝑑\chi `$ $`={\displaystyle _{\widehat{H}_1}}{\displaystyle _𝔖}|\mathrm{\Xi }_\chi (\sigma )|^2𝑑\sigma 𝑑\chi ={\displaystyle _𝔖}{\displaystyle _{\widehat{H}_1}}|\mathrm{\Xi }_\chi (\sigma )|^2𝑑\chi 𝑑\sigma `$
$`={\displaystyle _𝔖}{\displaystyle _{H_1}}|\mathrm{\Xi }(\sigma z)|^2𝑑z𝑑\sigma ={\displaystyle _{H_0}}|\mathrm{\Xi }(y)|^2𝑑y.`$
The extension to $`L^2(H_0)`$ is straightforward.∎

###### Lemma 2.6.2

Suppose that $`D`$ is a distribution in $`H_0`$ and suppose that the operator norm on $`L^2(_\chi )`$ satisfies $`\pi _\chi [D]A`$ for all $`\chi \widehat{H}_1`$. Then $`\lambda [D]`$ is in $`VN(H_0)`$ and $`\lambda [D]_{VN}A`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

We shall assume that $`D`$ is given by integration against a $`𝒟(H_0)`$ function $`k`$; the general case follows by a regularization argument. Now let $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be in $`L^2(H_0)`$. Then

$`\lambda [k]\mathrm{\Xi },\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`={\displaystyle _{H_0}}{\displaystyle _{H_0}}k(x)\mathrm{\Xi }(x^1y)\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(y)𝑑y𝑑x`$
$`={\displaystyle _{H_0}}{\displaystyle _𝔖}{\displaystyle _{H_1}}k(x)\mathrm{\Xi }(x^1\sigma z)\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\sigma z)𝑑z𝑑\sigma 𝑑x`$
$`={\displaystyle _{H_0}}{\displaystyle _𝔖}{\displaystyle _{\widehat{H}_1}}k(x)\mathrm{\Xi }_\chi (x^1\sigma )\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\chi (\sigma )}𝑑\chi 𝑑\sigma 𝑑x`$
$`={\displaystyle _{\widehat{H}_1}}{\displaystyle _𝔖}{\displaystyle _{H_0}}k(x)\mathrm{\Xi }_\chi (x^1\sigma )\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\chi (\sigma )}𝑑x𝑑\sigma 𝑑\chi `$
$`={\displaystyle _{\widehat{H}_1}}{\displaystyle _𝔖}\pi _\chi [k]\mathrm{\Xi }_\chi (\sigma )\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\chi (\sigma )}𝑑\sigma 𝑑\chi `$
$`={\displaystyle _{\widehat{H}_1}}\pi _\chi [k]\mathrm{\Xi }_\chi ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_\chi __\chi 𝑑\chi ,`$
where we used (2.5.3), the Plancherel theorem on the abelian group $`H_1`$, Fubini’s theorem and the definitions of $`\pi _\chi (f)`$ and $`_\chi `$. From the hypothesis and the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality it follows that

$`\left|\lambda [k]\mathrm{\Xi },\mathrm{\Gamma }\right|`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\widehat{H}_1}}|\pi _\chi [k]\mathrm{\Xi }_\chi ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_\chi __\chi |𝑑\chi `$
$`{\displaystyle _{\widehat{H}_1}}A\mathrm{\Xi }_\chi __\chi \mathrm{\Gamma }_\chi __\chi 𝑑\chi `$
$`A\left({\displaystyle _{\widehat{H}_1}}\mathrm{\Xi }_\chi __\chi ^2𝑑\chi \right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle _{\widehat{H}_1}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\chi __\chi ^2𝑑\chi \right)^{1/2}`$
$`=A\mathrm{\Xi }_{L^2(H_0)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L^2(H_0)},`$
by Lemma 2.6.1. Taking the supremum over all $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with norm $`1`$ shows that $`\lambda [k]_{VN}A`$. ∎

### 2.7. The oscillatory singular integral operators $`\pi _{\eta ,\zeta }[𝙳_𝚁]`$

We now compute the operator-valued Fourier transform of the distributions $`D_R`$. We change notation slightly, and for $`\xi `$ in $`_{\eta ,\zeta }`$, we write $`\xi (c,v)`$ instead of $`\xi (c,ve_{n+1},0)`$. We also set

$$q(b)=n^1\zeta ,P(b)e_{n+1},$$
$`\mathrm{2.7.1}`$
and write $`_q`$ for the operator on $`L^2(𝔖)`$ of pointwise multiplication by the function $`(c,v)\mathrm{exp}(invq(c))`$. Observe that

$`q^{}(b)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{}{b}}n^1\zeta ,{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}}P(b)_{i,n+1}e_i`$
$`=n^1{\displaystyle \frac{}{b}}\zeta ,{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{n+1i}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n1}{n}}\right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n1}{i1}}\right)^{1/2}b^{n+1i}e_i`$
$`=\zeta ,{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n1}{ni}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n1}{n1}}\right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n1}{i1}}\right)^{1/2}b^{ni}e_i`$
$`=\zeta ,{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}P(b)_{in}e_i=\zeta ,P(b)e_n.`$
Then, rewriting formula (2.5.5) we have shown that

$`\pi _{\eta ,\zeta }(b,u,t)\xi (c,v)`$
$`=\xi (cb,vu_{n+1})\mathrm{exp}\left(i\eta \left[(1)^{n+1}t+nb(vu_{n+1})^2+u_n(2vu_{n+1})\right]\right)`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left(i\zeta ,P(c)(ve_{n+1}u)+P(bc)(u_{n+1}v)e_{n+1}\right).`$
Thus

$`\pi _{\eta ,\zeta }(b,P(b/2)(u_ne_n+u_{n+1}e_{n+1}),0)\xi (c,v)`$
$`=\xi (cb,vu_{n+1})\mathrm{exp}\left(i\eta \left[nb(vu_{n+1})^2+(u_n+u_{n+1}nb/2)(2vu_{n+1})\right]\right)`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left(i\zeta ,P(c)(ve_{n+1}P(b/2)(u_ne_n+u_{n+1}e_{n+1}))+P(bc)(u_{n+1}v)e_{n+1}\right)`$
$`=\xi (cb,vu_{n+1})\mathrm{exp}\left(i\eta \left[nb(v^2vu_{n+1}+u_{n+1}^2/2)+u_n(2vu_{n+1})\right]\right)`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left(i\left[nvq(c)u_nq^{}(b/2c)nu_{n+1}q(b/2c)+n(u_{n+1}v)q(bc)\right]\right),`$
and so

$`\pi _{\eta ,\zeta }[D_R]\xi (c,v)`$
$`={\displaystyle _R^R}\text{p.v.}{\displaystyle \pi _{\eta ,\zeta }(b,P(b/2)(u_ne_n+\frac{u_{n+1}}{\beta (b)}e_{n+1}),0)\xi (c,v)\frac{1}{u_{n+1}^2u_n^2}𝑑u_n𝑑u_{n+1}\frac{db}{\beta (b)}}`$
$`={\displaystyle _R^R}\text{p.v.}{\displaystyle \pi _{\eta ,\zeta }(b,P(b/2)(u_ne_n+u_{n+1}e_{n+1}),0)\xi (c,v)\frac{1}{\beta (b)^2u_{n+1}^2u_n^2}𝑑u_n𝑑u_{n+1}𝑑b}`$
$`={\displaystyle _R^R}\text{p.v.}{\displaystyle \xi (cb,vu_{n+1})\mathrm{exp}\left(i\eta \left[nb(v^2vu_{n+1}+u_{n+1}^2/2)+u_n(2vu_{n+1})\right]\right)}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left(i\left[nvq(c)+n(u_{n+1}v)q(bc)u_nq^{}(b/2c)nu_{n+1}q(b/2c)\right]\right)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta (b)^2u_{n+1}^2u_n^2}}du_ndu_{n+1}db,`$
and consequently

$`_q^1\pi _{\eta ,\zeta }[D_R]_q\xi (c,v)`$
$`={\displaystyle _R^R}\text{p.v.}{\displaystyle \xi (cb,vu_{n+1})\mathrm{exp}\left(iu_nq^{}(b/2c)+i\eta u_n(2vu_{n+1})\right)}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left(i\left[n\eta b(v^2vu_{n+1}+u_{n+1}^2/2)nu_{n+1}q(b/2c)\right]\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta (b)^2u_{n+1}^2u_n^2}}du_ndu_{n+1}db.`$
We can calculate the innermost integral exactly: indeed

$`\text{p.v.}{\displaystyle \mathrm{exp}(i\lambda z)\frac{dz}{w^2z^2}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2w}}\text{p.v.}{\displaystyle \mathrm{exp}(i\lambda z)\left[\frac{1}{z+w}\frac{1}{zw}\right]𝑑z}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(i\lambda w)\mathrm{exp}(i\lambda w)}{2w}}\text{p.v.}{\displaystyle \mathrm{exp}(i\lambda z)\frac{dz}{z}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{sign}(\lambda )\mathrm{sin}(\lambda w)}{w}}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{sin}(|\lambda |w)}{w}}.`$
We deduce that

$`_q^1\pi _{\eta ,\zeta }[D_R]_q\xi (c,v)`$ $`\mathrm{2.7.2}`$
$`=\pi {\displaystyle _R^R}\text{p.v.}{\displaystyle \xi (cb,vu_{n+1})\mathrm{sin}\left(\beta (b)u_{n+1}|(\eta (2vu_{n+1})q^{}(b/2c))|\right)}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left(in\left[\eta b(v^2vu_{n+1}+u_{n+1}^2/2)u_{n+1}q(b/2c)\right]\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta (b)u_{n+1}}}du_{n+1}db`$
Since the sine term vanishes when $`u_{n+1}`$ vanishes, the principal value of the inner integral is the usual integral.

### 2.8 Equivalent formulation of the oscillatory integrals

In (2.7.2), we make the change of variables $`y_1=cb`$, $`y_2=vu_{n+1}`$, $`x_1=c`$, and $`x_2=v`$, and set $`p(t)=2q(t/2)`$ (so that $`p^{}(t)=q^{}(t/2)`$). Then

$`_q\pi _{\eta ,\zeta }[D_R]_q^1f(x_1,x_2)`$ $`\mathrm{2.8.1}`$
$`=\pi {\displaystyle _^2}f(y_1,y_2)\mathrm{sin}\left(\beta (x_1y_1)(x_2y_2)|\eta (x_2+y_2)+p^{}(x_1+y_1)|\right)`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{in}{2}}\left[\eta (x_1y_1)(x_2^2+y_2^2)(x_2y_2)p(x_1+y_1)\right]\right){\displaystyle \frac{\chi _{[R,R]}(x_1y_1)}{\beta (x_1y_1)(x_2y_2)}}dy_1dy_2.`$
Now if $`\eta 0`$, one can conjugate with a dilation in the second variable by a factor of $`|\eta |^{1/2}`$, to reduce to the case where $`\eta =\pm 1`$. Further, changing the sign of $`\eta `$ and of the polynomial $`p`$ has the effect of changing the kernel to its complex conjugate, and a kernel operator is bounded on $`L^2`$ if and only if the operator with conjugate kernel is. In short, to establish the uniform boundedness of the operators $`\pi _{\eta ,\zeta }[D_R]`$, as $`(\eta ,\zeta )`$ varies over $`\times V_n`$, we may suppose that $`\eta `$ is equal to $`1`$.

## 3. The oscillatory integral

###### Demonstration Notation

From now on, fix a positive integer $`n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in $`(1/2,\mathrm{})`$. Let $`p`$ be a real polynomial of degree at most $`n`$. An admissible constant means a constant which depends only on $`n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We write $`AB`$ if $`ACB`$ and $`C`$ is an admissible constant in this sense. All “constants” $`C`$ below will be admissible, and may vary from place to place.

Define the functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }:^2`$ and $`\theta :^2`$ by the formulae

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)`$ $`=(x_1y_1)(x_2^2+y_2^2)(x_2y_2)p(x_1+y_1)`$ $`3.1`$$`3.2`$
$`\theta (x,y)`$ $`=\beta (x_1y_1)|x_2+y_2+p^{}(x_1+y_1)|(x_2y_2);`$
further, recall that

$$\beta (t)=(1+t^2/4)^{1/2}.$$

Suppose $`\mathrm{min}\{1,n/2\}|\gamma |\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (the relevant value of $`\gamma `$ will be $`n/2`$). For $`R>0`$, we define the family of singular oscillatory integral operators $`𝒪^R`$ by

$$𝒪^Rf(x)=\frac{e^{i\gamma \mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)}\mathrm{sin}\theta (x,y)}{\beta (x_1y_1)(x_2y_2)}\chi _{[R,R]}(x_1y_1)f(y_1,y_2)𝑑y_1𝑑y_2$$
$`3.3`$
for all $`f`$ in $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}(^2)`$. We shall see easily that $`𝒪^R_{L^2L^2}=O(\mathrm{log}R)`$ as $`R\mathrm{}`$ (this follows from Lemma 3.3 below). However, we have the following result.

###### Theorem 3.0

Suppose that $`\mathrm{min}\{1,n/2\}|\gamma |\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`R100`$. Then the operator $`𝒪^R`$ extends to a bounded operator on $`L^2(^2)`$, and

$$𝒪^R_{L^2(^2)L^2(^2)}C_{n,\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}(10+R),$$

where $`C_{n,\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ is admissible. If $`n=1`$, then this estimate may be improved to $`𝒪^R=O(1)`$.

It is conceivable that the bound $`𝒪^R=O(1)`$ holds in the general case, but this has not been proved so far. For our application, the assertion of the Theorem is (more than) enough.

###### Corollary 3.1

(i) $`sup_{\eta ,\zeta }\pi _{\eta ,\zeta }[D_R]_{_{\eta ,\zeta }_{\eta ,\zeta }}\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{log}(10+R))`$.

(ii) $`\lambda [D_R]_{VN(H_0)}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}(10+R)`$.

(iii) The Fourier algebra of $`\text{SL}(2,)\text{H}^n`$ does not admit multiplier bounded approximate units.

###### Demonstration Proof

By the results of Subsection 2.8, it suffices to prove (i) with $`\eta =1`$, but then formula (2.8.1) shows that the statement is implied by Theorem 3.0. The calculations in Section 2.7 together with Lemma 2.6.2 show that (i) implies (ii), and (ii) implies (iii), by Proposition 2.4.1.

###### Remark Remarks

(i) The assumption $`\mathrm{min}\{1,n/2\}|\gamma |\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in Theorem 3.0 can be replaced by $`1/2|\gamma |\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. However the proof for the case where $`|\gamma |=1/2`$ and $`n2`$ turns out to be substantially more complicated. Fortunately this case is irrelevant for our application.

(ii) There are many results concerning singular oscillatory integral operators with kernels of the form $`k(xy)e^{iP(x,y)}`$, where $`P`$ is a polynomial. If $`k`$ is a standard Calderón–Zygmund kernel, the oscillatory variants are $`L^p`$ bounded ($`1<p<\mathrm{}`$), see Ricci and Stein . If $`k`$ is a multiparameter Calderón–Zygmund kernel the technique in , which uses induction on the degree of the polynomial, no longer applies. In fact the $`L^2`$ boundedness may then hold or fail depending on the properties of the polynomial $`P`$; see, e.g., , where a complete characterization of boundedness is obtained for the special case where $`P(x,y)=q(xy)`$ and $`q`$ is a polynomial of two variables.

No theory for general polynomials is currently available. Moreover, our operator is not included in the general class of operators just discussed, because of the positivity of $`\beta `$. Our proof of Theorem 3.0 relies on a subtle global cancellation property of the distribution $`D`$ defined in (2.3.1) and the noncommutativity of the convolution structure.

(iii) It is instructive to examine the analogue of $`\lambda [D_R]`$ in the commutative setting, where we identify $`H_0`$ as a set with $`^{n+3}`$, writing $`(b,u,t)`$ for $`(n_b,u,t)`$, and replace the matrix $`Z(b)`$ by the identity throughout. Thus define $`q_b:^2^{n+3}`$ by $`q_b(s_1,s_2)=(b,s_1e_n+s_2\beta (b)^1e_{n+1},0)`$ and define a distribution by $`𝔇_R(\varphi )=_R^RD(q_b^{}\varphi )\beta (b)^1𝑑b`$. Denote by $`𝒞_Rf`$ the convolution $`𝔇_R_Ef`$ on $`^{n+3}`$; here $`_E`$ refers to the standard commutative convolution in Euclidean space. The operator $`𝒞_R`$ is bounded on $`L^2(^{n+3})`$; however there is a lower bound for the operator norm of the form $`𝒞_Rc\mathrm{log}R`$ as $`R\mathrm{}`$. This can be quickly seen by applying the partial Fourier transform $`_{n+2}`$ in the $`(u,t)`$-variables. Indeed for fixed $`(\xi ,\tau )^{n+1}\times `$ let $`𝒞_R^{\xi ,\tau }`$ be the operator on $`L^2()`$ of convolution with $`_{n+2}[𝔇_R](,\xi ,\tau )`$; then the operator norm of $`𝒞_R`$ is equal to $`sup_{\xi ,\tau }𝒞_R^{\xi ,\tau }_{L^2()L^2()}`$. A quick calculation using the formula for the Fourier transform of $`D`$ mentioned in §2.3 shows that $`𝒞_R^{\xi ,\tau }\mathrm{log}R`$ and in particular

$$𝒞_R^{\xi ,\tau }g(b)=\pi ^2_R^Rg(bc)\frac{dc}{\beta (c)}\text{ if }\xi _{n+1}^2\xi _n^2.$$

Testing $`𝒞_R^{\xi ,\tau }`$ on $`g=\chi _{[R,R]}`$ implies that $`𝒞_R^{\xi ,\tau }c\mathrm{log}R`$ if $`|\xi _{n+1}||\xi _n|`$ and the asserted lower bound on $`𝒞_R`$ is proved. Thus the better bound of Corollary 3.1 indicates a strictly noncommutative phenomenon.

### A first decomposition

In view of the product type singularity of the kernel it is natural to introduce a dyadic decomposition in the variables $`x_2y_2`$ and $`x_1y_1`$ (if the latter is large). For this let $`\eta _0`$ be a smooth nonnegative even function on the real line so that $`\eta _0(s)=1`$ if $`|s|1/2`$ and $`\eta _0(s)=0`$ if $`|s|3/4`$. We also assume that $`\eta _0^{}`$ has only a finite number of sign changes. Let

$$\eta (s)=\eta _0(s/2)\eta _0(s)$$

so that $`\eta `$ is supported in $`[1/2,3/2][3/2,1/2]`$. For pairs of integers $`j=(j_1,j_2)^2`$, with $`j_1>0`$ let

$$\chi _j(x)=\chi _{1,j_1}(x_1)\chi _{2,j_2}(x_2)=\frac{2^{j_1}}{\beta (x_1)}\eta (2^{j_1}x_1)\frac{2^{j_2}}{x_2}\eta (2^{j_2}x_2).$$
$`3.4`$
In particular $`\chi _j`$ has the cancellation property

$$\chi _j(x_1,x_2)𝑑x_2=0\text{ for all }x_1.$$

It will sometimes be useful (see Section 4 below) to use the cut-off function

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j(x)=\chi _j(x)\mathrm{sign}(x_2),$$
$`3.5`$
together with the relation

$$\chi _j(xy)\mathrm{sin}(\theta (x,y))=\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j(xy)\mathrm{sin}(|\theta (x,y)|),$$
$`3.6`$
which follows from the evenness of the function $`tt^1\mathrm{sin}(At)`$ and the positivity of $`\beta `$.

Let

$$T_j(x,y)=2^{j_1j_2}\chi _j(xy)e^{i\gamma \mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)}\mathrm{sin}\theta (x,y);$$
$`3.7`$
then we wish to estimate the $`L^2`$ operator norm of

$$\frac{𝒯^Rf(x)=}{10<j_1\mathrm{log}Rj_2T_j(x,y)f(y)dy.}$$
$`3.8`$
### Preliminary estimates

We shall now verify that the operator norm of $`𝒪^R𝒯^R`$ is uniformly bounded. To this end, we consider, for fixed $`(x_1,y_1)`$, the operator $`^{x_1,y_1}`$ acting on functions in $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}()`$, which has the distribution kernel

$$B^{x_1,y_1}(x_2,y_2)=e^{i\gamma \mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)}\mathrm{sin}\theta (x,y)(x_2y_2)^1.$$
$`3.9`$
###### Lemma 3.2

For each $`(x_1,y_1)`$ the operator $`^{x_1,y_1}`$ extends to a bounded operator on $`L^2()`$ with norm bounded independently of $`(x_1,y_1)`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

For $`ϵ,ϵ^{}\{\pm 1\}`$, define

$$E_{x_1y_1}^ϵ=\{(s,t):ϵ(s+t+p^{}(x_1+y_1))0\}.$$

One computes that

$$2i^{x_1,y_1}g(s)=\underset{ϵ^{}=\pm 1}{}\underset{ϵ=\pm 1}{}ϵ^{}e^{i\rho _ϵ(s)}\chi _{E_{x_1,y_1}^ϵ}(s,t)g(t)e^{i\sigma _ϵ(t)}\frac{dt}{st},$$

where

$`\rho _ϵ(s)`$ $`\rho _{ϵ,x_1,y_1}(s)=(x_1y_1)s^2sp(x_1+y_1)+ϵ\beta (x_1y_1)(s^2+p^{}(x_1+y_1)s)`$
$`\sigma _ϵ(t)`$ $`\sigma _{ϵ,x_1,y_1}(t)=(x_1y_1)t^2+tp(x_1+y_1)ϵ\beta (x_1y_1)(t^2+p^{}(x_1+y_1)t).`$
The uniform boundedness of $`^{x_1y_1}`$ on $`L^2()`$ follows from the boundedness of Hilbert transforms and Hilbert integrals.∎

###### Lemma 3.3

Let $``$ be an operator bounded on $`L^2()`$, with nonnegative kernel $`k(s,t)`$. Let

$$𝒮f(x)=k(x_1,y_1)|^{x_1,y_1}[f(y_1,)](x_2)|𝑑y_1.$$

Then $`𝒮`$ is bounded on $`L^2(^2)`$ with operator norm $`_{L^2()L^2()}`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

By Lemma 3.2 we have $`^{x_1,y_1}C_0`$ and therefore

$`𝒮f`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \left(k(x_1,y_1)^{x_1y_1}[f(y_1,)]𝑑y_1\right)^2𝑑x_1}\right)^{1/2}`$
$`C_0\left({\displaystyle \left(k(x_1,y_1)\left(|f(y_1,x_2)|^2𝑑x_2\right)^{1/2}𝑑y_1\right)^2𝑑x_1}\right)^{1/2},`$
and the result follows from the assumed $`L^2`$ boundedness of the operator $``$ acting on the function $`y_1f(y_1,)_{L^2()}`$. ∎

###### Lemma 3.4

The operator $`𝒪^R𝒯^R`$ is bounded on $`L^2(^2)`$ with an admissible operator norm uniformly in $`R`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

Let $`E_R=[40,40][R/4,4R][4R,R/4]`$ and $`k_R(s)=\chi _{E_R}(s)\beta (s)^1`$. Observe that the $`L^1()`$ norm of $`k_R`$ is uniformly bounded in $`R`$. Note that

$$|𝒪^Rf(x)𝒯^Rf(x)|k_R(x_1y_1)\left|^{x_1y_1}[f(y_1,)](x_2)\right|𝑑y_1$$

so that the assertion follows from Lemma 3.3.∎

By Lemma 3.4 it suffices to show the bound

$$𝒯^R=O(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}R)$$
$`3.10`$
for large $`R`$. The next four sections will be devoted to the proof of (3.10). The argument relies on a crucial cancellation property for the affine case, where $`p(x)=ax+b`$, for which one obtains the bound $`𝒯^R=O(1)`$. This will be carried out in Section 4. The general case involves an approximation by operators which share the properties of the affine case; for various remainder terms one uses the oscillatory properties of the phase function and Hilbert integral arguments. The basic decomposition describing the remainder terms and relevant orthogonality arguments is introduced in Section 5; here we state several propositions containing estimates for the constituents in the basic decomposition and deduce the main estimate (3.10). Section 6 contains a few auxiliary facts and Section 7 contains the proof of the propositions.

## 4. Boundedness for affine polynomials

Let $`I`$ be a set of pairs $`(j_1,j_2)`$ with the property that $`j_1,j_2`$ and $`j_110`$. Define

$$𝒯f(x)=\underset{j=(j_1,j_2)I}{}2^{j_1j_2}e^{i\gamma \mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)}\mathrm{sin}\theta (x,y)\chi _j(xy)f(y)𝑑y$$
$`4.1`$
###### Theorem 4.1

Assume that $`\alpha _0,\alpha _1`$, and that

$$p(s)=\alpha _1s+\alpha _0.$$

Suppose that $`1/2|\gamma |\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Then the operator $`𝒯`$ extends to a bounded operator on $`L^2(^2)`$, and

$$𝒯C_\mathrm{\Gamma },$$

where $`C_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ does not depend on $`I`$, $`\alpha _0`$, or $`\alpha _1`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

We have now

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)`$ $`=(x_1y_1)(x_2^2+y_2^2)(x_2y_2)(\alpha _1(x_1+y_1)+\alpha _0)`$ $`4.2`$
$`\theta (x,y)`$ $`=\beta (x_1y_1)|x_2+y_2+\alpha _1|(x_2y_2)`$
and, setting $`A(x)=\frac{\alpha _1^2}{2}x_12\alpha _1x_1x_2\alpha _0x_2`$, we compute that

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x_1,x_2\frac{\alpha _1}{2},y_1,y_2\frac{\alpha _1}{2})=(x_1y_1)(x_2^2+y_2^2)+A(x)A(y);$$

moreover

$$\theta (x_1,x_2\frac{\alpha _1}{2},y_1,y_2\frac{\alpha _1}{2})=\beta (x_1y_1)|x_2+y_2|(x_2y_2).$$

From (4.1) and (4.2), we see that we can reduce matters to the case where $`p=0`$, after a translation in the $`x_2`$ variable and a conjugation with a multiplication operator of norm $`1`$. Therefore we shall now work with (4.2) where $`\alpha _0=\alpha _1=0`$, and consider the integral operator $`𝒦`$ with kernel

$$K=\underset{jI}{}K_j,$$

where

$$K_j(x,y)=2^{j_1j_2}e^{i\gamma (x_2^2+y_2^2)(x_1y_1)}\mathrm{sin}(\beta (x_1y_1)|x_2^2y_2^2|)\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j(xy);$$

see formula (3.6). For $`\xi _1`$, let

$$S_{\xi _1}g(x_2)=\underset{j_2}{}g(y_2)h(\xi _1,x_2,y_2,j_2)2^{j_2}𝑑y_2,$$

where

$$h(\xi _1,x_2,y_2,j_2)=\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{2,j_2}(x_2y_2)\underset{j_1:(j_1,j_2)I}{}h_{j_1}(\xi _1,x_2,y_2),$$

with

$$h_{j_1}(\xi _1,x_2,y_2)=2^{j_1}e^{i\sigma \gamma (x_2^2+y_2^2)i\sigma \xi _1}\mathrm{sin}(\beta (\sigma )|x_2^2y_2^2|)\chi _{1,j_1}(\sigma )𝑑\sigma .$$

Then

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒯f}(\xi _1,x_2)=S_{\xi _1}[\stackrel{~}{f}(\xi _1,)](x_2),$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ denotes the Fourier transform of $`f`$ with respect to the first variable. Thus it suffices to fix $`\xi _1`$ and show that $`S_{\xi _1}`$ is bounded on $`L^2()`$ uniformly in $`\xi _1`$.

###### Lemma 4.2

(i) There is a constant $`C`$ so that

$$|h(\xi _1,x_2,y_2,j_2)|C$$
$`4.3`$
for all $`\xi _1`$, $`x_2`$, $`y_2`$, $`j_2`$. Moreover

$$h(\xi _1,x_2,y_2,j_2)=0\text{ if }|x_2y_2|[2^{j_22},2^{j_2+2}].$$
$`4.4`$
(ii) For each $`j_1`$

$$|h_{j_1}(\xi _1,x_2,y_2)|2^{j_1}|x_2^2y_2^2|.$$
$`4.5`$
(iii) Suppose that $`|\xi _1\gamma (x_2^2+y_2^2)|2|x_2^2y_2^2|`$. Then

$$|h_{j_1}(\xi _1,x_2,y_2)|C_N(2^{j_1}|\xi _1\gamma (x_2^2+y_2^2)|)^N.$$
$`4.6`$
###### Demonstration Proof

The assertion (ii) follows immediately from the inequality $`|\mathrm{sin}\alpha ||\alpha |`$. Moreover (4.4) is immediate from the definitions. In what follows we shall use simple properties of $`\beta `$ stated in (6.1), (6.2) below.

We now prove the uniform boundedness of $`h`$. Since $`\chi _{1,j_1}`$ is an even function,

$`h_{j_1}(\xi _1,x_2,y_2)`$ $`=2^{j_1+1}{\displaystyle _{\sigma >0}}\mathrm{cos}(\sigma (\xi _1\gamma (x_2^2+y_2^2)))\mathrm{sin}(\beta (\sigma )|x_2^2y_2^2|)\chi _{1,j_1}(\sigma )𝑑\sigma `$
$`=h_{j_1}^+(\xi _1,x_2,y_2)h_{j_1}^{}(\xi _1,x_2,y_2),`$
where

$$h_{j_1}^\pm (\xi _1,x_2,y_2)=2^{j_1}_{\sigma >0}\mathrm{sin}(\varphi ^\pm (\sigma ;\xi _1,x_2,y_2))\chi _{1,j_1}(\sigma )𝑑\sigma ,$$

with

$$\varphi ^\pm (\sigma ;\xi _1,x_2,y_2)=\sigma (\xi _1\gamma (x_2^2+y_2^2))\pm \beta (\sigma )|x_2^2y_2^2|.$$

Observe that

$`(\varphi ^\pm )^{}(\sigma )`$ $`=\xi _1\gamma (x_2^2+y_2^2)\pm \beta ^{}(\sigma )|x_2^2y_2^2|`$
$`(\varphi ^\pm )^{\prime \prime }(\sigma )`$ $`=\pm \beta ^{\prime \prime }(\sigma )|x_2^2y_2^2|,`$
so that

$$|(\varphi ^\pm )^{\prime \prime }(\sigma )|2^{3j_1}|x_2^2y_2^2|$$

in the support of $`\chi _{1,j_1}`$ (see (6.1) below). Using van der Corput’s Lemma (\[33,  p.~334\]), we obtain the inequality

$$|h_{j_1}^\pm (\xi _1,x_2,y_2)|C2^{j_1/2}|x_2^2y_2^2|^{1/2}.$$
$`4.7`$
Now since $`\sigma >0`$, we have in view of (6.2.1) below

$$\mathrm{sin}\varphi ^\pm (\sigma )=\mathrm{sin}\left(\sigma (\xi _1\gamma (x_2^2+y_2^2)\pm \frac{1}{2}|x_2^2y_2^2|)\right)+O(|x_2^2y_2^2|/\sigma ),$$

so that

$`h_{j_1}^\pm (\xi _1,x_2,y_2)`$ $`=2^{j_1}{\displaystyle _{\sigma >0}}\mathrm{sin}\left(\sigma (\xi _1\gamma (x_2^2+y_2^2)\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|x_2^2y_2^2|)\right)\chi _{1,j_1}(\sigma )𝑑\sigma `$ $`4.8`$
$`+r_{j_1}^\pm (\xi _1,x_2,y_2),`$
where the error terms $`r_{j_1}^\pm `$ satisfy the estimate

$$|r_{j_1}^\pm (\xi _1,x_2,y_2)|2^{j_1}|x_2^2y_2^2|.$$
$`4.9`$
Concerning the integral in (4.8), observe that

$$\left|\underset{j_1}{}_{\sigma >0}\mathrm{sin}(A\sigma )2^{j_1}\chi _{1,j_1}(\sigma )𝑑\sigma \right|C,$$
$`4.10`$
where the sum is over any finite set $``$ consisting of positive $`j_1`$; the constant $`C`$ can be chosen independently of $``$ and of $`A`$. To see this we use the inequality $`|\mathrm{sin}\alpha ||\alpha |`$ for the terms with $`A2^{j_1}1`$ and integration by parts for the terms with $`A2^{j_1}>1`$. From (4.10),

$$\left|\underset{j_1}{}\left(h_{j_1}^\pm (\xi _1,x_2,y_2)r_{j_1}^\pm (\xi _1,x_2,y_2)\right)\right|C,$$
$`4.11`$
where $``$ is again any set of positive indices and the bound is uniform in $`\xi _1,x_2,y_2,j_2`$.

Now an application of formulae (4.7), (4.8), (4.9) and (4.11) shows that $`h`$ is uniformly bounded. Finally, the estimate (iii) follows by integration by parts, using the lower bound

$$|(\varphi ^\pm )^{}(\sigma )|\frac{1}{2}|\xi _1\gamma (x_2^2+y_2^2)|,$$

in the present case of assertion (iii), see formula (6.2.2) below. Moreover, if $`\nu 2`$, then

$$|_\sigma ^\nu \varphi ^\pm (\sigma )|=|\beta ^{(\nu )}(\sigma )||x_2^2y_2^2|(1+|\sigma |)^{|\nu |1}|x_2^2y_2^2|,$$

which is an acceptable upper bound in (iii). ∎

In what follows, $`\xi _1`$ will be fixed, and we shall not always indicate the dependence of the operators on $`\xi _1`$. For $`M`$, let

$$𝒮_{j_2}^Mg(x_2)=\eta (2^Mx_2)2^{j_2}g(y_2)h(\xi _1,x_2,y_2,j_2)𝑑y_2.$$

Let $`C_0`$ be an integer with $`2^{C_0100}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We split

$$\frac{𝒮_{\xi _1}=𝒮+}{(j_2,M)Mj_2+C_0𝒮_{j_2}^M.}$$

It is easy to see using the uniform boundedness of $`h`$ and the definition of the cut-off functions that

$$\frac{}{(j_2,M)Mj_2+C_0|𝒮_{j_2}^Mg(x_2)|_{|x_2|2^{C_0+2}|x_2y_2|}\frac{|g(y_2)|}{|x_2y_2|}dy_2.}$$
$`4.12`$
The integral on the right hand side in (4.12) is a standard Hilbert integral and therefore defines a bounded operator on $`L^2()`$ (see \[32,  p.~271\]).

We let

$$𝒮^M=\underset{j_2<MC_0}{}𝒮_{j_2}^M$$

and the kernel $`S^M(x_2,y_2)`$ is supported where $`2^{M1}|x_2|2^{M+1}`$, $`2^{M2}|y_2|2^{M+2}`$. Therefore the almost orthogonality property

$$𝒮\underset{M}{sup}𝒮^M$$
$`4.13`$
holds. Thus it suffices to prove a uniform estimate for the operators $`𝒮^M`$. We split $`𝒮^M=𝒫^M+(𝒮^M𝒫^M)`$, where

$$𝒫^Mg(x_2)=\underset{j_2<MC_0}{}\eta _0(2^{Mj_2C_0+10}(\xi _12\gamma x_2^2))𝒮_{j_2}^Mg(x_2).$$

We first show that the operators $`𝒫^M`$ are uniformly bounded. Since $`j_2MC_0`$, we observe that the conditions $`|2^{Mj_2C_0+10}(\xi _12\gamma x_2^2))|1`$ and $`2^{M1}|x_2|2^{M+1}`$ imply that $`\xi _1(2\gamma )^1>0`$ and $`\xi _1(2\gamma )^12^{2M}`$, and therefore

$$\left||x_2|(\xi _1/2\gamma )^{1/2}\right|C_1|x_2y_2|.$$

Consequently

$$|𝒫^Mg(x_2)|_{||x_2|(|\xi _1/2\gamma |)^{1/2}|C_1|x_2y_2|}\frac{|g(y_2)|}{|x_2y_2|}𝑑y_2.$$

The right hand side is a sum of two operators, each of them a Hilbert integral operator composed with translation operators. Therefore it defines a bounded operator on $`L^2()`$ and

$$𝒫^M=O(1).$$

Next we consider the operator $`𝒮^M𝒫^M`$ which we split as

$`[𝒮^M𝒫^M]g(x_2)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j_2<MC_0}{}}(1\eta _0(2^{Mj_2C_0+10}(\xi _12\gamma x_2^2)))𝒮_{j_2}^Mg(x_2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{={\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}\eta (2^r(\xi _12\gamma x_2^2)){\displaystyle }}{j_2<rMC_0+10}}`$
$`j_2<MC_0𝒮_{j_2}^Mg(x_2)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}𝒬_r^Mg(x_2),`$
say. Since $`2^{C_0}2^{100}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we have $`|2\gamma (x_2^2y_2^2)|2^{M+j_2+3}|\mathrm{\Gamma }|2^{rC_0+13}|\mathrm{\Gamma }|2^{r10}`$, and hence

$$|\xi _12\gamma y_2^2|=|\xi _12\gamma x_2^2+2\gamma (x_2^2y_2^2)|2^r.$$
$`4.14`$
Thus $`|\xi _12\gamma x_2^2|(2^{r1},2^{r+1})`$, which implies that $`|\xi _12\gamma y_2^2|2^r`$ and we can deduce the almost orthogonality property

$$𝒮^M𝒫^M\underset{r}{sup}𝒬_r^M.$$
$`4.15`$
Now, analogously to (4.14), we also have

$$|\xi _1\gamma (x_2^2+y_2^2)|2^r.$$
$`4.16`$
By Lemma 4.2 (ii) and (iii),

$$|h_{j_1}(\xi _1,x_2,y_2)|\mathrm{min}\{2^{j_1r},2^{j_1+j_2+M}\}$$

if $`|x_2y_2|2^{j_2}`$ and $`|x_2||y_2|2^M`$, and $`|\xi _1\gamma (x_2^2+y_2^2)|2^r2^{M+j_2}`$. Therefore

$$|h(\xi _1,x_2,y_2,j_2)|2^{(M+j_2r)/2},$$

and it follows that

$$𝒬_r^M\underset{M+j_2r}{}2^{(M+j_2r)/2}C.$$

This now implies the uniform boundedness of the operators $`𝒮^M𝒫^M`$. Together with the $`L^2`$ boundedness of $`𝒫^M`$ and the orthogonality property of the operators $`𝒮^M`$ this completes the proof of Theorem 4.1. ∎

## 5. Basic decompositions and outline of the proof for $`𝚗\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟸}`$

We shall now assume that $`n2`$ and that $`p`$ is a nonaffine polynomial of degree $`n`$. Since we are estimating the operator $`𝒯^R`$ we shall assume that sums in $`j`$ are always taken over subsets of $`\{(j_1,j_2):10<j_1\mathrm{log}R\}`$.

We begin by refining the dyadic decomposition from Section 3. Using the cut-off functions $`\eta _0`$ and $`\eta `$ as defined in Section 3 we set

$$a_m(\sigma )=\underset{\nu =2}{\overset{\mathrm{deg}(p)1}{}}\eta _0\left(2^{m+10}\frac{p^{(\nu +1)}(\sigma )}{p^{(\nu )}(\sigma )}\right)$$
$`5.1`$
if $`\mathrm{deg}(p)3`$ and $`a_m(\sigma )=1`$ if $`\mathrm{deg}(p)=2`$. Next,

$$b_m(X_1,X_2)=\eta _0\left(2^{m+10}\frac{p^{\prime \prime }(X_1)}{p^{}(X_1)+X_2}\right).$$
$`5.2`$
Moreover, let

$`h_l(X_1,X_2)`$ $`=\eta _0(2^{l10}(X_2+p^{}(X_1)),`$ $`\mathrm{5.3.1}`$$`\mathrm{5.3.2}`$
$`h_{l,r}(X_1,X_2)`$ $`=\eta (2^{l+r10}(X_2+p^{}(X_1)),`$
so that $`h_l=_{r>0}h_{l,r}`$ a.e.

Now let $`T_j(x,y)`$ be as in (3.7); our basic splitting (assuming $`j_1>10`$) is

$$T_j=H_j+U_j+W_j+\underset{r>0}{}V_j^r,$$
$`5.4`$
where

$`H_j(x,y)`$ $`=T_j(x,y)(1a_{j_1}(x_1+y_1)),`$ $`\mathrm{5.5.1}`$$`\mathrm{5.5.2}`$$`\mathrm{5.5.3}`$$`\mathrm{5.5.4}`$
$`U_j(x,y)`$ $`=T_j(x,y)a_{j_1}(x_1+y_1)(1b_{j_1}(x+y)),`$
$`V_j^r(x,y)`$ $`=T_j(x,y)a_{j_1}(x_1+y_1)b_{j_1}(x+y)h_{j_2,r}(x+y),`$
$`W_j(x,y)`$ $`=T_j(x,y)a_{j_1}(x_1+y_1)b_{j_1}(x+y)(1h_{j_2}(x+y)).`$
Let $`_j`$, $`𝒰_j`$, $`𝒱_j^r`$, $`𝒲_j`$ be the corresponding operators. Let $``$, $`𝒰`$, $`𝒱^r`$, $`𝒲`$ denote the operators $`_j_j`$, $`_j𝒰_j`$, $`_j𝒱_j^r`$, and $`_j𝒲_j`$.

We shall also use the notation

$`u_j(x,y)`$ $`=a_{j_1}(x_1+y_1)(1b_{j_1}(x+y)),`$ $`\mathrm{5.6.1}`$$`\mathrm{5.6.2}`$$`\mathrm{5.6.3}`$
$`v_j^r(x,y)`$ $`=a_{j_1}(x_1+y_1)b_{j_1}(x+y)h_{j_2,r}(x+y),`$
$`w_j(x,y)`$ $`=a_{j_1}(x_1+y_1)b_{j_1}(x+y)(1h_{j_2}(x+y)).`$
###### Proposition 5.1

The operator $``$ is bounded on $`L^2(^2)`$.

###### Proposition 5.2

Let $`𝒰_j^L`$ be the operator with kernel $`U_j^L`$ given by

$$U_j^L(x,y)=U_j(x,y)\eta (2^Lp^{\prime \prime }(2x_1)),$$

and let $`𝒰^L=𝒰_j^L`$. Then

(i)

$$𝒰\underset{L}{sup}𝒰^L.$$
$`5.7`$
(ii)

$$𝒰_j^L\mathrm{min}\{2^{L+2j_1+j_2},2^{(L+2j_1+j_2)/4}\}.$$
$`5.8`$
(iii)

$$(𝒰_j^L)^{}𝒰_k^L+𝒰_j^L(𝒰_k^L)^{}2^{|j_1k_1|/2}.$$
$`5.9`$
###### Proposition 5.3

(i)

$$(𝒱_j^r)^{}𝒱_k^r+𝒱_j^r(𝒱_k^r)^{}2^{r|j_2k_2|/2}.$$
$`5.10`$
(ii)

$$𝒱_j^r\mathrm{min}\{2^{2j_2+j_1r},2^{r/2(2j_2+j_1)/4}\}.$$
$`5.11`$
###### Proposition 5.4

For $`M`$, $`L`$, let $`𝒲_j^{M,L}`$ be the operator with kernel

$$W_j^{M,L}(x,y)=W_j(x,y)\eta (2^M(2x_2+p^{}(2x_1)))\eta (2^Lp^{\prime \prime }(2x_1)),$$
$`5.12`$
and let $`𝒲^{M,L}=_j𝒲_j^{M,L}`$. Then

(i)

$$𝒲\underset{M,L}{sup}𝒲^{M,L}.$$
$`5.13`$
(ii)

$$𝒲_j^{M,L}\mathrm{min}\{2^{M+j_1+j_2},2^{(M+j_1+j_2)/4}\}.$$
$`5.14`$
(iii) The estimate (5.14) also holds if $`W_j^{M,L}(x,y)`$ is replaced by $`W_j^{M,L}(x,y)\rho _j(x,y)`$ where $`\rho _j`$ satisfies $`_x^\alpha \rho _j,_y^\alpha \rho _j=O(2^{j_1|\alpha _1|j_2|\alpha _2|})`$, for $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2\{0,1\}`$.

The previous propositions are enough to obtain a uniform bound on the operators $`𝒰`$ and $`𝒱`$. For $`𝒲`$, an analogue of the crucial orthogonality properties (5.9) and (5.10) is missing, and we shall instead use an approximation by operators treated in Section 4.

###### Proposition 5.5

Suppose that $`m0`$. Fix $`M`$ and $`L`$, and let $`I`$ be a set of integer pairs $`j=(j_1,j_2)`$ satisfying

$$\begin{array}{c}MLm(1+\frac{1}{2n})<j_1MLm\\ L+2j_1+j_20\\ 10j_1<\mathrm{log}R.\end{array}$$
$`5.15`$
Let

$$𝒵^I=\underset{jI}{}𝒲_j^{M,L}.$$

Then $`𝒵^I`$ is bounded on $`L^2(^2)`$ and

$$𝒵^I_{L^2L^2}C,$$
$`5.16`$
where the admissible constant $`C`$ is independent of $`I,L,M,m,R`$.

Taking Propositions 5.1–5.5 for granted, we are now able to give a proof of the main theorem.

###### Demonstration Proof of Theorem 3.1

By the discussion in Section 3 it suffices to prove the estimate (3.10). In view of Proposition 5.1, we have to bound $`𝒰`$, $`𝒱`$ and $`𝒲`$. In order to bound $`𝒰`$, it is sufficient to obtain a uniform bound for the operators $`𝒰^L`$, by (5.7). Let

$$\frac{𝒰^{L,\mathrm{}}=}{L+2j_1+j_2=\mathrm{}𝒰_j^L.}$$

Suppose $`L+2j_1+j_2=\mathrm{}`$, $`L+2k_1+k_2=\mathrm{}`$ and $`|j_1k_1|=s`$; then by (5.8) and (5.9),

$$(𝒰_j^L)^{}𝒰_k^L+𝒰_j^L(𝒰_k^L)^{}\mathrm{min}\{2^2\mathrm{},2^{\mathrm{}/2},2^{s/2}\},$$

and by the Cotlar–Stein Lemma (\[33,  p.~280\]) it follows that

$$𝒰^{L,\mathrm{}}\underset{s=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{min}\{2^{\mathrm{}},2^{\mathrm{}/4},2^{s/4}\}(1+|\mathrm{}|)\mathrm{min}\{2^{\mathrm{}},2^{\mathrm{}/4}\}.$$

Summing over $`\mathrm{}`$ yields the desired uniform bound for $`𝒰^L`$ and thus the boundedness of $`𝒰`$.

The operator $`𝒱^r`$ is handled similarly. Now let $`𝒱^{\mathrm{},r}=_{2j_2+j_1=\mathrm{}}𝒱_j^r`$. From Proposition 5.3, we have

$$(𝒱_j^r)^{}𝒱_k^r+(𝒱_j^r(𝒱_k^r)^{}\mathrm{min}\{2^{2\mathrm{}2r},2^{r\mathrm{}/2},2^{rs/2}\}$$

if $`2j_2+j_1=2k_2+k_1=\mathrm{},|j_2k_2|=s`$, and we obtain from the Cotlar–Stein Lemma that

$$𝒱^{\mathrm{},r}\underset{s0}{}\mathrm{min}\{2^\mathrm{}r,2^{r/2\mathrm{}/4},2^{r/2s/4}\}$$

and thus

$`𝒱`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r>0}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝒱^{\mathrm{},r}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r>0}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}0}{}}2^{|\mathrm{}|r}(1+|\mathrm{}|+r)+{\displaystyle \underset{r>0}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{0\mathrm{}4r}{}}2^{r/2}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{r>0}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}>4r}{}}\left(2^{r/2(\mathrm{}4r)/4}+2^{r/2}2^{r\mathrm{}/4}(\mathrm{}4r)\right),`$
and $`𝒱`$ is easily seen to be bounded on $`L^2`$.

Now we turn to the operator $`𝒲`$. By (5.13) it suffices to obtain a uniform bound for $`𝒲^{M,L}`$. We note that $`𝒲_j^{M,L}=0`$ if $`L+j_1M`$. Therefore by (5.14)

$$\frac{}{\frac{L+2j_1+j_20𝒲_j^{M,L}}{L+2j_1+j_20L+j_1M2^{(M+j_1+j_2)/4}C.}}$$

For sums of terms $`𝒲_j^{M,L}`$ which satisfy $`L+2j_1+j_2<0`$ we use Proposition 5.5. For $`s=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, let

$$I_{s,R}^{M,L}=\{j:ML(\frac{2n+1}{2n})^s<j_1ML(\frac{2n+1}{2n})^{s1},L+2j_1+j_2<0,10<j_1\mathrm{log}(10+R)\}.$$

Then from Proposition 5.5,

$$\frac{}{jI_{s,R}^{M,L}𝒲_j^{M,L}C,}$$

uniformly in $`s`$, $`R`$ and $`M`$, $`L`$. Now for fixed $`M,L,R`$ the sets $`I_{s,R}^{M,L}`$ are nonempty for no more than $`C_0\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}(10+R)`$ choices of $`s`$; here $`C_0`$ is admissible. Summing over $`s`$ we see that $`𝒲^{M,L}=O(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}(10+R))`$, with an admissible constant, and by (5.13) we obtain the same bound for $`𝒲`$. ∎

## 6. Auxiliary Lemmas

We first collect formulae for the derivatives of $`\beta `$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\theta `$.

###### Lemma 6.1

(i)

$$\beta ^{}(s)=\frac{s}{4\beta (s)},\beta ^{\prime \prime }(s)=\frac{1}{4[\beta (s)]^3}$$
$`6.1`$
and

$$\begin{array}{c}\left|\beta (s)\frac{|s|}{2}\right|=\frac{2}{2\beta (s)+|s|}\frac{1}{|s|}\\ \left|\beta ^{}(s)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sign}(s)\right|\frac{4}{4+s^2}.\end{array}$$
$`\mathrm{6.2.1}`$$`\mathrm{6.2.2}`$
(ii) Let $`\mathrm{\Xi }(x,y)=x_2+y_2+p^{}(x_1+y_1)`$. Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Xi }(x,y)0`$. Then

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{x_1}(x,y)`$ $`=2x_2^2(x_2y_2)\mathrm{\Xi }(x,y)`$ $`6.3`$$`6.4`$$`6.5`$$`6.6`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{x_2}(x,y)`$ $`=2x_2(x_1y_1)p(x_1+y_1)`$
$`\theta _{x_1}(x,y)`$ $`=(x_2y_2)\left[\beta ^{}(x_1y_1)|\mathrm{\Xi }(x,y)|+\beta (x_1y_1)p^{\prime \prime }(x_1+y_1)\mathrm{sign}(\mathrm{\Xi }(x,y))\right]`$
$`\theta _{x_2}(x,y)`$ $`=\beta (x_1y_1)(2x_2+p^{}(x_1+y_1))\mathrm{sign}(\mathrm{\Xi }(x,y)).`$
(iii)

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{x_1y_1}(x,y)`$ $`=(x_2y_2)p^{\prime \prime }(x_1+y_1)`$ $`6.7`$$`6.8`$
$`\theta _{x_1y_1}(x,y)`$ $`=(x_2y_2)\left[\beta (x_1y_1)p^{\prime \prime \prime }(x_1+y_1)\mathrm{sign}(\mathrm{\Xi }(x,y))\beta ^{\prime \prime }(x_1y_1)|\mathrm{\Xi }(x,y)|\right].`$
(iv)

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_{x_1y_2}(x,y)=2y_2+p^{}(x_1+y_1)\\ \mathrm{\Psi }_{x_2y_1}(x,y)=(2x_2+p^{}(x_1+y_1)),\end{array}$$
$`6.9`$$`6.10`$
$`\theta _{x_1y_2}(x,y)`$ $`=\beta ^{}(x_1y_1)\left[(x_2y_2)\mathrm{sign}(\mathrm{\Xi })|\mathrm{\Xi }(x,y)|\right]\beta (x_1y_1)p^{\prime \prime }(x_1+y_1)\mathrm{sign}(\mathrm{\Xi })`$ $`6.11`$$`6.12`$
$`=\left[\beta (x_1y_1)p^{\prime \prime }(x_1+y_1)\beta ^{}(x_1y_1)(2y_2+p^{}(x_1+y_1))\right]\mathrm{sign}(\mathrm{\Xi })`$
$`\theta _{x_2y_1}(x,y)`$ $`=\beta ^{}(x_1y_1)\left[(x_2y_2)\mathrm{sign}(\mathrm{\Xi })+|\mathrm{\Xi }(x,y)|\right]+\beta (x_1y_1)p^{\prime \prime }(x_1+y_1)\mathrm{sign}(\mathrm{\Xi })`$
$`=\left[\beta (x_1y_1)p^{\prime \prime }(x_1+y_1)\beta ^{}(x_1y_1)(2x_2+p^{}(x_1+y_1))\right]\mathrm{sign}(\mathrm{\Xi }).`$
(v)

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_{x_2x_2y_1}(x,y)=2\\ \theta _{x_2x_2y_1}(x,y)=2\beta ^{}(x_1y_1)\mathrm{sign}(\mathrm{\Xi })\\ \mathrm{\Psi }_{x_2y_2}(x,y)=0\\ \theta _{x_2y_2}(x,y)=0.\end{array}$$
$`6.13`$$`6.14`$$`6.15`$$`6.16`$
###### Demonstration Proof

These are straightforward computations.∎

We shall now examine the properties of the cut-off functions in (5.1–5.3). For this, the following observations are essential.

###### Lemma 6.2

Let $`P`$ be a polynomial, let $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{deg}(P)`$ and let

$$\alpha _m(\sigma )=\underset{\nu =\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{deg}(P)}{}}\eta _0\left(2^{m+10}\frac{P^{(\nu )}(\sigma )}{P^{(\nu 1)}(\sigma )}\right).$$

(i) Suppose that $`\sigma \mathrm{supp}\alpha _m`$, and $`|\sigma \tau |2^{m+7}`$. Then for $`\nu =\mathrm{},\mathrm{},\mathrm{deg}(P)`$

$$|P^{(\nu )}(\tau )P^{(\nu )}(\sigma )|\frac{1}{5}|P^{(\nu )}(\sigma )|$$
$`6.17`$
and

$$|P^{(\nu )}(\tau )|2^{1(m+4)k}|P^{(\nu k)}(\sigma )|\text{ if }\nu k\mathrm{}.$$
$`6.18`$
(ii) For $`r=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$

$$|\alpha _m^{(r)}(\sigma )|C_r2^{rm}.$$
$`6.19`$
###### Demonstration Proof

(i) If $`\sigma =\tau `$ then a slightly better estimate than (6.18) follows from the definition of $`\alpha _m`$, and then for $`|\sigma \tau |2^{m+7}`$ the estimate (6.18) follows once (6.17) is proved. To see (6.17) suppose that $`\sigma \mathrm{supp}\alpha _m`$, and $`|\sigma \tau |2^{m+7}`$. Then a Taylor expansion yields

$`|P^{(\nu )}(\tau )P^{(\nu )}(\sigma )|`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{deg}(P)\nu }{}}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{P^{(\nu +k)}(\sigma )}{k!}}(\tau \sigma )^k\right|`$
$`|P^{(\nu )}(\sigma )|{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{deg}(P)\nu }{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2^{(m+10)k}2^{(m+7)k}}{k!}}`$
$`(e^{1/8}1)|P^{(\nu )}(\sigma )|`$
and $`e^{1/8}11/5`$.

(ii) follows from multiple applications of the chain rule, and the definition of the cut-off functions.∎

We now set

$$(\stackrel{~}{u}_j,\stackrel{~}{v}_j^r,\stackrel{~}{w}_j)=(u_j\chi _j,v_j^r\chi _j,w_j\chi _j)$$
$`6.20`$
and

$`\stackrel{~}{u}_j^L(x,y)`$ $`=\stackrel{~}{u}_j(x,y)\eta (2^L(p^{\prime \prime }(2x_1)))`$ $`\mathrm{6.21.1}`$$`\mathrm{6.21.2}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{w}_j^{M,L}(x,y)`$ $`=\stackrel{~}{w}_j(x,y)\eta (2^L(p^{\prime \prime }(2x_1)))\eta (2^M(p^{}(2x_1)+2x_2))`$
###### Lemma 6.3

For $`l=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$ the following holds.

(i)

$$|_{x_1}^l\stackrel{~}{u}_j(x,y)|+|_{y_1}^l\stackrel{~}{u}_j(x,y)|C_l2^{lj_1}.$$
$`6.22`$
(ii)

$$|_{x_1}^l\stackrel{~}{u}_j^L(x,y)|+|_{y_1}^l\stackrel{~}{u}_j^L(x,y)|C_l2^{lj_1},\text{for all }j_1;$$
$`6.23`$
(iii) $`\stackrel{~}{w}_j^{M,L}(x,y)=0`$ if either $`Mj_2`$ or $`L+j_1M`$. Moreover

$$|_{x_1}^{l_1}_{x_2}^{l_2}\stackrel{~}{w}_j^{M,L}(x,y)|+|_{y_1}^{l_1}_{y_2}^{l_2}\stackrel{~}{w}_j^{M,L}(x,y)|C_l2^{l_1j_1l_2j_2}.$$
$`6.24`$
(iv) For all $`x_1,x_2,y_1,y_2`$

$$|_{x_2}\stackrel{~}{v}_j^r(x,y)|𝑑x_2+|_{y_2}\stackrel{~}{v}_j^r(x,y)|𝑑y_2C.$$
$`6.25`$
###### Demonstration Proof

These are straightforward computations using the chain rule, Lemma 6.2 and the definition of the cut-off functions. For (6.25), we use the fact that the sign of $`\eta _0^{}`$ changes finitely many times.∎

The next lemma is used to estimate various operators of Hilbert integral type. The argument is closely related to one in .

###### Lemma 6.4

Let $`P`$ be a polynomial of degree $`m`$. Then for $`\rho >0`$

$$_{|st|\rho }\left|1\eta _0(A\frac{P^{}(c_1s+c_2t)}{P(c_1s+c_2t)}\rho )\right|𝑑s𝑑tC\frac{Am^2}{|c_1+c_2|}\rho ^2.$$

###### Demonstration Proof

Let $`\kappa _1<\mathrm{}<\kappa _{\mathrm{}}`$ be the real parts of the zeroes of $`P`$. For $`\nu =1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}1`$, let $`\mu _\nu =(\kappa _\nu +\kappa _{\nu +1})/2`$. Let $`I_1=(\mathrm{},\mu _1)`$, $`I_\nu =(\mu _{\nu 1},\mu _\nu )`$, $`2\nu \mathrm{}1`$, and $`I_{\mathrm{}}=(\mu _\mathrm{}1,\mathrm{})`$. Then

$$\left|\frac{P^{}(\sigma )}{P(\sigma )}\right|\frac{m}{|\sigma \kappa _\nu |},\text{ for }\sigma I_\nu .$$

Therefore the set

$$\{(s,t):|st|\rho ,A\frac{|P^{}(c_1s+c_2t)|}{|P(c_1s+c_2t)|}\rho 1/2\}$$

is contained in

$$\underset{\nu =0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\{(s,t):(c_1s+c_2t)I_\nu ;|c_1s+c_2t\kappa _\nu |2mA\rho ;|st|\rho \}$$

which is easily seen to be of measure $`O(\rho ^2)`$; in particular one may check the asserted dependence on $`c_1,c_2`$.∎

###### Remark Remark

We shall use this lemma just for the regular case where $`(c_1,c_2)=(1,1)`$.

## 7. Proofs of Propositions 5.1-5.5

### 7.1. Proof of Proposition 5.1

We may assume that $`p`$ is a polynomial of degree at least three, since otherwise $`=0`$. For $`2\nu n1`$, let

$$Q_m^\nu (s)=\{t:|st|2^{m+1},2^{m+12}|p^{(\nu +1)}(s+t)||p^{(\nu )}(s+t)|\},$$

and for $`gL^2()`$,

$$_m^\nu g(s)=2^m_{Q_m^\nu (s)}g(t)𝑑t$$

and $`^\nu =_m_m^\nu `$. One can use an argument in  to show that $`^\nu `$ is bounded on $`L^2()`$. Alternatively, we use an almost orthogonality argument based on Lemma 6.4. Specifically, denote by $`k_{lm}(w,z)`$ the kernel of $`(_l^\nu )^{}_m^\nu `$. Since $`((_l^\nu )^{}_m^\nu )^{}=(_m^\nu )^{}_l^\nu `$ we may assume that $`lm`$. Then, for fixed $`z`$,

$$|k_{lm}(w,z)|𝑑w2^{ml}\left|\{(w,s):|sw|2^{l+1},\frac{|p^{(\nu +1)}(s+w)|2^{l+1}}{|p^{(\nu )}(s+w)|}\frac{1}{2}\}\right|2^{lm},$$

by Lemma 6.4, and since also $`|k_{lm}(w,z)|𝑑z=O(1)`$ for all $`w`$ we see from Schur’s test that $`(_l^\nu )^{}_m^\nu =O(2^{|ml|/2})`$. By the symmetry of the operators $`_l^\nu `$, one also gets $`_l^\nu (_m^\nu )^{}=O(2^{|ml|/2})`$ and the Cotlar–Stein Lemma shows the $`L^2`$ boundedness of $`^\nu `$. Now

$$|f(x)|\underset{\nu =2}{\overset{n1}{}}\underset{j_1}{}2^{j_1}_{Q_{j_1}^\nu (x_1)}\left|^{x_1,y_1}[f(y_1,)](x_2)\right|𝑑y_1,$$

where $`^{x_1,y_1}`$ is as in (3.9), and by Lemma 3.3 it follows that $``$ is bounded. ∎

### 7.2. Proof of Proposition 5.2

Part (i) follows from Lemma 6.2 above. Indeed suppose that $`a_{j_1}(x_1+y_1)0`$, $`|x_1y_1|2^{j_1+1}`$ and $`2^{L1}|p^{\prime \prime }(2x_1)|2^{L+1}`$. Then from (6.17)

$$|p^{\prime \prime }(2x_1)p^{\prime \prime }(x_1+y_1)|\frac{1}{5}|p^{\prime \prime }(2x_1)|\frac{4}{5}2^{L1},$$

and similarly $`|p^{\prime \prime }(2y_1)p^{\prime \prime }(2x_1)|\frac{4}{5}2^{L1}`$. Hence if $`(x,y)\mathrm{supp}U_j^L`$ then both $`p^{\prime \prime }(2x_1)`$ and $`p^{\prime \prime }(2y_1)`$ lie in the interval $`(2^{L4},2^{L+2})`$. This clearly implies that the operators $`𝒰^L`$ are almost orthogonal (in fact $`(𝒰^L)^{}𝒰^L^{}=0`$ and $`𝒰^L(𝒰^L^{})^{}=0`$ if $`|LL^{}|10`$).

Assuming that $`L+2j_1+j_20`$, the estimate (5.8) follows from the definition of $`1b_{j_1}`$ and the inequality $`|\mathrm{sin}a||a|`$.

Now assume that $`L+2j_1+j_21`$ and write the sine as the sum of two complex exponentials. Then we have to estimate operators $`_j^{ϵ,L}`$ with kernels

$$R_j^{ϵ,L}(x,y)=2^{j_1j_2}\chi _j(xy)u_j^L(x,y)e^{i\gamma \mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)+ϵ\theta (x,y)},$$
$`\mathrm{7.2.1}`$
where $`ϵ=\pm 1`$ and $`u_j^L(x,y)=u_j(x,y)\eta (2^Lp^{\prime \prime }(2x_1)).`$

Let

$$R_j^{ϵ,L,x_2,y_2}(x_1,y_1)=2^{j_2}R_j^{ϵ,L}(x_1,x_2,y_1,y_2),$$
$`\mathrm{7.2.2}`$
and denote by $`_j^{ϵ,L,x_2,y_2}`$ the corresponding operator acting on functions in $`L^2()`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^ϵ=\gamma \mathrm{\Psi }+ϵ\theta `$. We note that

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_{x_1}(x_1,y_1,x_2,y_2)\mathrm{\Phi }_{x_1}(x_1,z_1,x_2,y_2)|2^{L+j_2}|y_1z_1|.$$

This follows since by (6.7) and (6.17),

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_{x_1y_1}(x_1,\stackrel{~}{z}_1,x_2,y_2)|2^{L+j_2}$$

if $`\stackrel{~}{z}_1`$ is between $`z_1`$ and $`y_1`$. The derivative $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{x_1}(x_1,y_1,x_2,y_2)\mathrm{\Phi }_{x_1}(x_1,z_1,x_2,y_2)`$ has only a bounded number of sign changes and we may use van der Corput’s Lemma to see that the kernel $`K_j(y_1,z_1)`$ of $`(_j^{ϵ,L,x_2,y_2})^{}_j^{ϵ,L,x_2,y_2}`$ satisfies the estimate

$$|K_j(y_1,z_1)|2^{j_1}(1+2^{L+j_2+j_1}|y_1z_1|)^1.$$

Hence it follows from Schur’s test that

$$(_j^{ϵ,L,x_2,y_2})^{}_j^{ϵ,L,x_2,y_2}(L+2j_1+j_2)2^{L2j_1j_2}2^{(L+2j_1+j_2)/2},$$

uniformly in $`x_2,y_2`$. Consequently $`_j^{ϵ,L,x_2,y_2}`$ is bounded on $`L^2()`$, with operator norm of order at most $`2^{(L+2j_1+j_2)/4}`$, and by an averaging argument (see the proof of Lemma 3.3) it follows that

$$_j^{ϵ,L}2^{(L+2j_1+j_2)/4}$$

and also that the same bound holds for $`𝒰_j^L`$.

The orthogonality property (5.9) follows again from the argument in Lemma 6.4. We now give the proof for $`(𝒰_j^L)^{}𝒰_k^L`$, and without loss of generality, we may assume that $`k_1j_1`$.

Let $`K_{jk}(y,z)`$ be the kernel of $`(𝒰_j^L)^{}𝒰_k^L`$; with $`k_1j_1`$. Now for every $`(x_2,z_2)`$, let

$$E_{x_2,z_2}^{k_1}=\{(x_1,z_1):|x_1z_1|2^{k_1+1},|p^{\prime \prime }(x_1+z_1)|2^{k_1100}|p^{}(x_1+z_1)+x_2+z_2|\}.$$

By Lemma 6.4, the measure of $`E_{x_2,z_2}^{k_1}`$ is $`O(2^{2k_1})`$. Therefore

$$|u_j^L(x,y)u_k^L(x,z)\chi _j(xy)\chi _k(xz)|𝑑x_1𝑑z_1_{E_{x_2,z_2}^{k_1}}𝑑x_1𝑑z_12^{2k_1}.$$

This yields

$$\underset{y}{sup}|K_{jk}(y,z)|𝑑z2^{k_1j_1},$$

and together with the obvious estimate

$$\underset{z}{sup}|K_{jk}(y,z)|𝑑yC,$$

this implies that $`(𝒰_j^L)^{}𝒰_k^L=O(2^{(k_1j_1)/2})`$, if $`k_1j_1`$.

For the estimation of $`𝒰_j^L(𝒰_k^L)^{}`$, one uses that also $`|p^{\prime \prime }(2y_1)||p^{\prime \prime }(2x_1)|2^L`$ on the support of the amplitudes (as pointed out above); the argument is then the same as for $`(𝒰_j^L)^{}𝒰_k^L`$. ∎

### 7.3. Proof of Proposition 5.3

We first show the bounds asserted for $`(𝒱_j^r)^{}𝒱_k^r`$ in (5.10). Since $`(𝒱_j^r)^{}𝒱_k^r=(𝒱_k^r)^{}𝒱_j^r`$, it suffices to consider the case where $`k_2j_2`$. Observe that the kernel $`K_{jk}`$ of $`(𝒱_j^r)^{}𝒱_k^r`$ is given by

$$\begin{array}{c}K_{jk}(y,z)=\hfill \\ \hfill 2^{j_1k_1j_2k_2}e^{i(\mathrm{\Psi }(x,z)\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y))}\mathrm{sin}\theta (x,z)\mathrm{sin}\theta (x,y)v_j^r(x,y)v_k^r(x,z)\chi _j(xy)\chi _k(xz)𝑑x.\end{array}$$

For fixed $`x_1`$ and $`z_1`$, we estimate

$`{\displaystyle |v_j^r(x,y)v_k^r(x,z)\chi _j(xy)\chi _k(xz)|𝑑x_2𝑑z_2}`$ $`\mathrm{7.3.1}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle }}{|p^{}(x_1+z_1)+x_2+z_2|2^{k_2+10r}}}`$
$`|x_2z_2|2^{k_2+1}dx_2dz_22^{2k_2r},`$
and therefore

$$|K_{jk}(y,z_1,z_2)|𝑑z_2\mathrm{min}\{2^{j_1},2^{k_1}\}2^{2k_2r}2^{j_1j_2k_1k_2}.$$

Now $`K_{jk}`$ is supported where $`|y_1z_1|\mathrm{max}\{2^{j_1+2},2^{k_1+2}\}`$, and so

$$\underset{y}{sup}|K_{jk}(y,z)|𝑑z2^{k_2j_2r}.$$

If we reverse the role of $`y`$ and $`z`$ in (7.3.1), we have to use the less favorable bound

$`{\displaystyle |v_j^r(x,y)v_k^r(x,z)\chi _j(xy)\chi _k(xz)|𝑑x_2𝑑y_2}`$ $`\mathrm{7.3.2}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle }}{|p^{}(x_1+z_1)+x_2+z_2|2^{k_2+10r}}}`$
$`|x_2y_2|2^{j_2+1}dx_2dy_22^{j_2+k_2r},`$
and we obtain

$$\underset{z}{sup}|K_{jk}(y,z)|𝑑yC2^r.$$

Taking the geometric mean and applying Schur’s test, it follows that

$$(𝒱_j^r)^{}𝒱_k^r=O(2^{r|k_2j_2|/2}).$$
$`\mathrm{7.3.3}`$
By the symmetry of $`𝒱_j^r`$ we obtain the same bound for $`𝒱_j^r(𝒱_k^r)^{}`$.

We now turn to the assertion (ii). To obtain the bound $`𝒱_j^r=O(2^{2j_2+j_1r})`$ we just use Schur’s lemma and invoke the estimate $`|\mathrm{sin}a||a|`$ and the support property of $`h_{j_2,r}`$.

It remains to prove that $`cV_j^r=O(2^{r/2(2j_2+j_1)/4})`$. Take $`ϵ,ϵ^{}\{\pm 1\}`$, and define

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ϵ,ϵ^{}}=\{(x,y):\mathrm{sign}\gamma =ϵ^{}ϵ\mathrm{sign}\beta ^{}(x_1y_1)\mathrm{sign}(x_2+y_2+p^{}(x_1+y_1))\}.$$
$`\mathrm{7.3.4}`$
Let $`\chi _{ϵ,ϵ^{}}`$ be the characteristic function of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ϵ,ϵ^{}}`$, and let

$$V_j^{r,ϵ,ϵ^{}}(x,y)=2^{j_1j_2}\chi _j(xy)e^{i(\gamma \mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)+ϵ\theta (x,y))}v_j^r(x,y)\chi _{ϵ,ϵ^{}}(x,y),$$
$`\mathrm{7.3.5}`$
so that

$$V_j^r=\underset{ϵ,ϵ^{}\{1,1\}}{}\frac{ϵ}{2i}V_j^{r,ϵ,ϵ^{}}.$$

It clearly suffices to prove that

$$𝒱_j^{r,ϵ,ϵ^{}}=O(2^{r/2(2j_2+j_1)/4}).$$
$`\mathrm{7.3.6}`$
The kernel $`K_j(y,z)`$ of $`(𝒱_j^{r,ϵ,ϵ^{}})^{}𝒱_j^{r,ϵ,ϵ^{}}`$ is given by

$$K_j(y,z)=2^{2j_12j_2}_{E(y,z,x_1)}e^{i(\mathrm{\Phi }(x,z)\mathrm{\Phi }(x,y))}v_j^r(x,y)v_j^r(x,z)\chi _j(xy)\chi _j(xz)𝑑x_2𝑑x_1,$$

where

$$E(y,z,x_1)=\{x_2:(x_1,x_2,y)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ϵ,ϵ^{}},(x_1,x_2,z)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ϵ,ϵ^{}}\}.$$

Clearly $`E(y,z,x_1)`$ is the union of no more than $`16`$ intervals. We note that

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_{x_2x_2}(x,z)\mathrm{\Phi }_{x_2x_2}(x,y))||y_1z_1|.$$
$`\mathrm{7.3.7}`$
To see this, apply the mean value theorem and observe that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{x_2x_2y_1}=2`$ and

$$\theta _{x_2x_2y_1}=ϵ^{}ϵ\mathrm{sign}\gamma +o_{j_1},$$

where $`|o_{j_1}|2^{2j_1}`$. Thus, since $`|\gamma |1`$ and $`j_110`$ we see that $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{x_2x_2y_1}|2`$. Hence we can use (7.3.7) to apply van der Corput’s lemma on each of the connected components of $`E(y,z,x_1)`$. Taking into account the bound (6.25), we see that

$$\left|_{E(y,z,x_1)}e^{i(\mathrm{\Phi }(x,z)\mathrm{\Phi }(x,y))}v_j^r(x,y)v_j^r(x,z)\chi _j(xy)\chi _j(xz)𝑑x_2\right|2^r|y_1z_1|^{1/2},$$
$`\mathrm{7.3.8}`$
uniformly in $`x_1`$, $`y_2`$ and $`z_2`$. From (7.3.8), it follows that $`|K_j(y,z)|`$ is dominated by $`2^{rj_12j_2}|y_1z_1|^{1/2}`$, and of course it is supported where $`|y_1z_1|2^{j_1+1}`$, $`|y_2z_2|2^{j_2+1}`$. We apply Schur’s test and deduce that

$$(𝒱_j^{r,ϵ,ϵ^{}})^{}𝒱_j^{r,ϵ,ϵ^{}}2^{r(2j_2+j_1)/2};$$

hence we get the bound (7.3.6) and consequently the bound $`𝒱_j^r2^{r/2(2j_2+j_1)/4}`$.∎

### 7.4. Proof of Proposition 5.4

Part (i) follows in view of the localization of the amplitude. Suppose that $`(x,y)\mathrm{supp}W_j^{M,L}`$ and $`\chi _j(x,y)0`$. Then $`2^{M1}|2x_2+p^{}(2x_1)|2^{M+1}`$ and since $`|p^{}(2y_1)p^{}(2x_1)|2^{j_1+L+2}`$ from Lemma 6.2, we have

$$2y_2+p^{}(2y_1)[2^{M1}2^{j_2+2}2^{j_1+L+2},2^{M+1}+2^{j_2+2}+2^{j_1+L+2}];$$

moreover the quantity $`x_2+y_2+p^{}(x_1+y_1)`$ is also contained in this interval. Since $`j_2M10`$ and $`L+j_1M10`$, we see that

$`2^{M2}`$ $`|x_2+y_2+p^{}(x_1+y_1)|2^{M+2}`$ $`\mathrm{7.4.1}`$$`\mathrm{7.4.2}`$
$`2^{M2}`$ $`|2y_2+p^{}(2y_1)|2^{M+2}.`$
Furthermore $`|x_1y_1|2^{j_1+1}`$, $`2^{L1}|p^{\prime \prime }(2x_1)|2^{L+1}`$, and so Lemma 6.2 yields $`|p^{\prime \prime }(2y_1)||p^{\prime \prime }(2x_1)|2^L`$. Therefore we can conclude that the operators $`𝒲^{M,L}`$ are almost orthogonal; specifically $`(𝒲^{M,L})^{}𝒲^{M^{},L^{}}=0`$ and $`𝒲^{M,L}(𝒲^{M^{},L^{}})^{}=0`$ if either $`|MM^{}|10`$ or $`|LL^{}|10`$. This implies (5.13). If $`M+j_1+j_20`$ the estimate (5.14) follows from the fact that $`\mathrm{sin}a=O(|a|)`$.

We now assume that $`M+j_1+j_20`$. For $`ϵ,ϵ^{}\{\pm 1\}`$, let $`\chi _{ϵ,ϵ^{}}`$ be the characteristic function of the set $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ϵ,ϵ^{}}`$, defined in (7.3.4). Fix $`L,M,ϵ,ϵ^{}`$ and let

$$\omega _j(x,y)\omega _j^{M,L,ϵ,ϵ^{}}(x,y):=\stackrel{~}{w}_j^{M,L}(x,y)\chi _{ϵ,ϵ^{}}(x,y)$$

(see (6.21.2)), and let $`𝒲_j^{M,L,ϵ,ϵ^{}}`$ be the integral operator with kernel

$$W_j^{M,L,ϵ,ϵ^{}}(x,y)=2^{j_1j_2}\omega _j^{M,L,ϵ,ϵ^{}}(x,y)e^{i(\gamma \mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)+ϵ\theta (x,y))}.$$

Multiplication with the characteristic function $`\chi _{ϵ,ϵ^{}}`$ does not introduce additional singularities in view of the localization of the symbol $`w_j`$; in fact, we have the estimates

$$|_x^\alpha _y^\beta \omega _j(x,y)|C_{\alpha ,\beta }2^{j_1(\alpha _1+\beta _1)}2^{j_2(\alpha _2+\beta _2)}.$$
$`\mathrm{7.4.3}`$
The kernel $`K_j(y,z)`$ of $`(𝒲_j^{M,L,ϵ,ϵ^{}})^{}𝒲_j^{M,L,ϵ,ϵ^{}}`$ is given by

$$K_j(y,z)=2^{2j_12j_2}e^{i(\mathrm{\Phi }(x,z)\mathrm{\Phi }(x,y))}\omega _j(x,y)\omega _j(x,z)\chi _j(xy)\chi _j(xz)𝑑x.$$

In view of our assumptions that $`|\gamma |1`$ and $`j_110`$, we see that

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_{x_2y_1}||2x_2+p^{}(x_1+y_1)|2^M,$$

and also that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{x_2y_2}0`$. Hence

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_{x_2}(x,z)\mathrm{\Phi }_{x_2}(x,y)|2^M|y_1z_1|.$$

Applying van der Corput’s Lemma,

$$|K_j(y,z)|2^{j_1j_2}(1+2^{M+j_2}|y_1z_1|)^1,$$

and since $`K_j`$ is supported where $`|y_2z_2|2^{j_2+1}`$, we have

$$\underset{y}{sup}|K_j(y,z)|𝑑z+\underset{z}{sup}|K_j(y,z)|𝑑y(M+j_2+j_1)2^{Mj_2j_1}.$$

By Schur’s test,

$$𝒲_j^{M,L,ϵ,ϵ^{}}(M+j_2+j_1)^{1/2}2^{(M+j_2+j_1)},$$

and this completes the proof of (5.14).

Since we have only used property (7.4.3) our argument proves the assertion (iii) as well.∎

### 7.5. Proof of Proposition 5.5

Fix $`I`$ and let $`𝒵𝒵^I`$. Choose $`\zeta C_0^{\mathrm{}}()`$, supported in $`(1,1)`$ and with the property that $`_\nu \zeta (s\nu )=1`$. Define the operator $`𝒵_\nu 𝒵_\nu ^I`$ with kernel

$$Z_\nu (x,y)=\zeta (2^{L+mM+10}x_1\nu )Z^I(x,y).$$

In view of the localization $`|x_1y_1|2^{MLm+1}`$ we see that the operators $`𝒵_\nu `$ are almost orthogonal; i.e., $`(𝒵_\nu )^{}𝒵_\nu ^{}=0`$ and $`𝒵_\nu (𝒵_\nu ^{})^{}=0`$ if $`|\nu \nu ^{}|100`$. Therefore

$$𝒵\underset{\nu }{sup}𝒵_\nu .$$
$`\mathrm{7.5.1}`$
It hence suffices to prove a uniform estimate for the operators $`𝒵_\nu `$. We wish to approximate the phase functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\theta `$ by affine functions in the first variable.

We may suppose there is a point $`c_\nu `$ such that

$$\eta (2^Lp^{\prime \prime }(2c_\nu ))0\text{ and }|c_\nu 2^{MLm}\nu |2^{MLm9},$$
$`\mathrm{7.5.2}`$
for if not then $`𝒵_\nu 0`$. Define

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu (x,y)=(x_1y_1)(x_2^2+y_2^2)(x_2y_2)p(2c_\nu )(x_2y_2)p^{}(2c_\nu )(x_1+y_12c_\nu )\\ \theta _\nu (x,y)=\beta (x_1y_1)(x_2y_2)|x_2+y_2+p^{}(2c_\nu )|.\end{array}$$

Now $`𝒵_\nu =_{jA}𝒵_{\nu ,j}`$ where in the sum only those $`j_1`$ come up which satisfy

$$ML\frac{2n+1}{2n}m<j_1MLm,$$

and the kernel of $`𝒵_{\nu ,j}`$ is defined by

$$\begin{array}{c}Z_{\nu ,j}(x,y)=2^{j_1j_2}e^{i\gamma \mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)}\mathrm{sin}\theta (x,y)\chi _j(xy)\hfill \\ \hfill \times a_{j_1}(x_1+y_1)b_{j_1}(x+y)\eta (2^Lp^{\prime \prime }(2x_1))\eta (2^M(2x_2+p^{}(2x_1)))\zeta (2^{L+mM+10}x_1\nu ).\end{array}$$
$`\mathrm{7.5.3}`$
Since we assume that $`L+j_1M`$ the function $`b_{j_1}(x+y)`$ can be omitted in (7.5.3); it is equal to $`1`$ on the support of the other cut-off functions. Let

$$z_j^{L,M,\nu }(x,y)=\chi _j(xy)\eta (2^Lp^{\prime \prime }(2x_1))\eta (2^M(2x_2+p^{}(2x_1)))\zeta (2^{L+mM+10}x_1\nu ).$$

We split $`Z_{\nu ,j}(x,y)`$ as $`_{i=1}^3Z_{\nu ,j}^i(x,y)`$, where

$`Z_{\nu ,j}^1(x,y)=2^{j_1j_2}\left(e^{i\gamma \mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)}\mathrm{sin}\theta (x,y)e^{i\gamma \mathrm{\Psi }_\nu (x,y)}\mathrm{sin}\theta _\nu (x,y)\right)z_j^{L,M,\nu }(x,y)a_{j_1}(x_1+y_1),`$ $`\mathrm{7.5.4}`$$`\mathrm{7.5.5}`$$`\mathrm{7.5.6}`$
$`Z_{\nu ,j}^2(x,y)=2^{j_1j_2}e^{i\gamma \mathrm{\Psi }_\nu (x,y)}\mathrm{sin}\theta _\nu (x,y)z_j^{L,M,\nu }(x,y)\left(a_{j_1}(x_1+y_1)1\right),`$
$`Z_{\nu ,j}^3(x,y)=2^{j_1j_2}e^{i\gamma \mathrm{\Psi }_\nu (x,y)}\mathrm{sin}\theta _\nu (x,y)z_j^{L,M,\nu }(x,y),`$
and form operators $`𝒵_\nu ^i=_{jA}𝒵_{\nu ,j}^i`$ where $`𝒵_{\nu ,j}^i`$ has kernel $`Z_{\nu ,j}^i`$.

The operator $`𝒵_\nu ^2`$ is handled by the argument in the proof of Proposition 5.1, with only notational changes.

The operator $`𝒵_\nu ^3`$ represents the main term. Note however that $`𝒵_\nu ^3f(x)=g(x)\stackrel{~}{𝒵}_{\nu ,3}f(x)`$, where $`g`$ is a bounded function, and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}_{\nu ,3}`$ is an operator which is already shown to be bounded by Theorem 4.1. Thus $`𝒵_\nu ^3=O(1)`$.

It remains to estimate the kernel $`Z_{\nu ,j}^1`$. Suppose that $`a_{j_1}(x_1+y_1)z_j^{L,M,\nu }(x,y)0`$. Then

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu (x,y)|`$ $`|p(x_1+y_1)p(2c_\nu )p^{}(2c_\nu )(x_1+y_12c_\nu )||x_2y_2|`$ $`\mathrm{7.5.7}`$
$`|x_2y_2|{\displaystyle \underset{l=2}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|p^{(l)}(2c_\nu )|}{l!}}|x_1+y_12c_\nu |^l`$
$`|x_2y_2|{\displaystyle \underset{l=2}{\overset{n}{}}}\left|{\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{nl}{}}}p^{(l+s))}(2x_1){\displaystyle \frac{(2c_\nu 2x_1)^s}{s!}}\right|{\displaystyle \frac{|x_1+y_12c_\nu |^l}{l!}}`$
$`2^{j_2}{\displaystyle \underset{l=2}{\overset{n}{}}}2^{L(l2)(j_1+10)}2^{(MLm+1)l}`$
$`2^{L+2j_1+j_2}{\displaystyle \underset{l=2}{\overset{n}{}}}2^{(MLm+1j_1)l}`$
$`2^{L+2j_1+j_2+\frac{m}{2}},`$
since we assumed that $`MLmj_1m/2n`$. Similarly

$`|\theta (x,y)\theta _\nu (x,y)|`$ $`\beta (x_1y_1)|x_2y_2||p^{}(2x_1)p^{}(2c_\nu )|`$ $`\mathrm{7.5.8}`$
$`2^{j_1+j_2}{\displaystyle \underset{l=2}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|p^{(l)}(2x_1)|}{(l1)!}}|2x_12c_\nu |^{l1}`$
$`2^{j_1+j_2}{\displaystyle \underset{l=2}{\overset{n}{}}}2^{L(l2)(j_1+10)}2^{(MLm+1)(l1)}`$
$`2^{L+2j_1+j_2+\frac{m}{2}}.`$
Moreover

$$|2x_2+p^{}(2x_1)||2y_2+p^{}(2y_1)|2^M,$$
$`\mathrm{7.5.9}`$
and then

$$|2x_2+p^{}(2c_\nu )||2y_2+p^{}(2c_\nu )|2^M$$
$`\mathrm{7.5.10}`$
because $`j_2M`$ and

$`|p^{}(2x_1)p^{}(2c_\nu )|`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=2}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|p^{(l)}(2c_\nu )|}{(l1)!}}|2x_12c_\nu |^{l1}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=2}{\overset{n}{}}}2^{Lj_1(l2)}2^{(MLm)(l1)}`$
$`2^{L+j_1+\frac{m}{2}+2}2^{M\frac{m}{2}+2}.`$
Similarly $`|p^{}(2y_1)p^{}(2c_\nu )|2^{M\frac{m}{2}+2}`$.

From (7.5.7) and (7.5.8), it follows that

$$\left|e^{i\gamma \mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)}\mathrm{sin}\theta (x,y)e^{i\gamma \mathrm{\Psi }_\nu (x,y)}\mathrm{sin}\theta _\nu (x,y)\right|2^{L+2j_1+j_2+\frac{m}{2}}$$

for the relevant values of $`(x,y)`$ in (7.5.4), and Schur’s test yields

$$𝒵_{\nu ,j}^12^{L+2j_1+j_2+\frac{m}{2}}.$$

By (7.5.9) and (7.5.10), we may apply either Proposition 5.4 with the polynomial $`p`$ or with the affine polynomial $`p(c_\nu )+p^{}(c_\nu )(sc_\nu )`$, and the suitable choice of $`\rho _j`$ in part (iii) of Proposition 5.4. This leads to

$$𝒵_{\nu ,j}^1\mathrm{min}\{2^{(M+j_1+j_2)/4},2^{M+j_1+j_2}\}$$
$`\mathrm{7.5.12}`$
if $`j_1ML`$. We obtain

$$\frac{}{\frac{jIM+j_1+j_2=\mathrm{}𝒵_{\nu ,j}^1}{j_1MLmL+2j_1+j_20M+j_1+j_2=\mathrm{}\mathrm{min}\{2^{L+2j_1+j_2+\frac{m}{2}},2^{(M+j_1+j_2)/4}\}\mathrm{min}\{2^\frac{\mathrm{}}{4},2^{\mathrm{}\frac{m}{2}}\}.}}$$

Summing over $`\mathrm{}`$ demonstrates the boundedness of the operator $`𝒵_\nu ^1`$.

We have shown that $`𝒵_\nu ^I=_{i=1}^3𝒵_\nu ^i`$ is bounded with operator norm uniformly in $`M,L,m,I,\nu `$. The assertion of the theorem now follows from (7.5.1).∎

## 8. Failure of weak amenability for Lie groups

Suppose that $`G`$ is a connected Lie group, with Lie algebra $`𝔤`$. Then $`𝔤`$ decomposes as $`𝔰𝔯`$, where $`𝔰`$ is a semisimple subalgebra and $`𝔯`$ is the maximal solvable ideal of $`𝔤`$. We may write $`𝔰`$ as a sum of simple ideals:

$$𝔰=𝔰_1\mathrm{}𝔰_m.$$
$`8.1`$
Denote by $`R`$, $`S`$ and $`S_i`$ the analytic subgroups of $`G`$ corresponding to $`𝔯`$, $`𝔰`$ and $`𝔰_i`$. Then $`R`$ is closed, but $`S`$ and $`S_i`$ need not be. Further, $`G=SR`$, but this need not be a semidirect product, as $`SR`$ may be nontrivial. To do analysis on $`G`$, we need $`S`$ to be closed and the product $`SR`$ to be semidirect. Our first result enables us to work in this better environment by passing to a finite covering group.

###### Proposition 8.1

Let $`G`$, $`R`$, $`S`$ and $`S_i`$ be as described above, and suppose that $`S`$ has finite center. Then $`G`$ has a finite covering group $`G^{\mathrm{}}`$ which has closed connected subgroups $`R^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`S^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`S_i^{\mathrm{}}`$, whose Lie algebras are $`𝔯`$, $`𝔰`$ and $`𝔰_i`$, such that $`R^{\mathrm{}}`$ is normal and solvable, $`S^{\mathrm{}}`$ is the direct product of the simple Lie groups $`S_i^{\mathrm{}}`$, each of which has finite center, and $`R^{\mathrm{}}S^{\mathrm{}}=\{e\}`$; thus $`G^{\mathrm{}}`$ is the semidirect product $`S^{\mathrm{}}R^{\mathrm{}}`$.

Here $`G^{\mathrm{}}`$ is said to be a finite covering group if $`G`$ is isomorphic to $`G^{\mathrm{}}/Z`$ where $`Z`$ is a finite normal subgroup of $`G^{\mathrm{}}`$.

We leave the proof of Proposition 8.1 until later. Observe that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)=\mathrm{\Lambda }(G^{\mathrm{}})`$, by 1.2.4, (ii); moreover by 1.2.4, (i), $`G^{\mathrm{}}`$ has a multiplier bounded approximate unit if $`G`$ has one. Thus to compute $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)`$, we may and shall henceforth assume that $`G,R,S`$ and $`S_i`$ have the properties of $`G^{\mathrm{}},R^{\mathrm{}},S^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`S_i^{\mathrm{}}`$ in Proposition 8.1.

Now to prove the theorem, observe that if the factors $`S_i`$ making up $`S`$ are all either compact (when $`iI`$, say) or of real rank one and commute with $`R`$ (when $`iJ`$, say) then we may write $`G`$ as a direct product:

$$G=(\underset{iJ}{}S_i)\times \left((\underset{iI}{}S_i)R\right).$$
$`8.2`$
The second factor is amenable, so $`\mathrm{\Lambda }((_{iI}S_i)R)=1`$, and hence

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)=\underset{iJ}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }(S_i)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(S_i),$$
$`8.3`$
by 1.2.1(iv).

On the other hand, if any $`S_i`$, $`iJ`$, is of real rank at least two, then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)\mathrm{\Lambda }(S_i)=+\mathrm{}`$ (see 1.2.1(iii)); moreover the proof in  and  that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(S_i)=\mathrm{}`$ in combination with (1.2.4 (i)) shows that $`S_i`$ and therefore $`G`$ does not have multiplier bounded approximate units.

The remaining case to consider is when there is a factor $`S_i`$ of real rank one which does not centralize $`R`$. The following result contains the structural information needed to reduce to known cases.

###### Proposition 8.2

Suppose that the connected Lie group $`G`$ is a semidirect product of the form $`SR`$, where $`S`$ is closed, connected, semisimple and has finite center, and $`R`$ is closed, connected and solvable, and suppose that a noncompact factor $`S_i`$ of $`S`$ does not centralize $`R`$. Then $`G`$ contains a closed subgroup $`G_0`$ with a compact normal subgroup $`K_0`$ such that $`G_0/K_0`$, or a double cover of $`G_0/K_0`$, is isomorphic to $`\text{SL}(2,)^n`$ (where $`n2`$) or to $`\text{SL}(2,)\text{H}^n`$ (where $`n1`$).

Thus under the assumptions of Proposition 8.2. it follows that $`G_0/K_0`$ does not admit multiplier bounded approximate units, by the calculations of  for the groups $`\text{SL}(2,)^n`$ and of this paper for the groups $`\text{SL}(2,)\text{H}^n`$. Thus by (1.2.1), (iii) and (1.2.4), (i) the group $`G`$ does not have multiplier bounded approximate units and in particular we have $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)=\mathrm{}`$.

It remains to prove Propositions 8.1 and 8.2.

###### Demonstration Proof of Proposition 8.1

To every Lie algebra $`𝔞`$, we may associate a unique connected, simply connected Lie group $`A`$ with Lie algebra $`𝔞`$. Every connected Lie group $`A^{}`$ with Lie algebra $`𝔞`$ is a quotient of $`A`$ by a discrete normal, and hence central, subgroup $`D`$ of $`A`$. For these facts, and much more, about the structure of Lie algebras and Lie groups, see, for instance,  or , . Consequently, we will be interested in the structure of the center of a connected, simply connected Lie group.

Let $`G^{\mathrm{}}`$ be the simply connected covering group of $`G`$, and let $`R^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`S^{\mathrm{}}`$ be the subgroups of $`G^{\mathrm{}}`$ corresponding to $`𝔯`$ and $`𝔰`$. Then $`R^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`S^{\mathrm{}}`$ are both closed in $`G^{\mathrm{}}`$; further, $`R^{\mathrm{}}`$ is normal in $`G^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`S^{\mathrm{}}R^{\mathrm{}}=\{e\}`$, so that $`G^{\mathrm{}}=S^{\mathrm{}}R^{\mathrm{}}`$ (, Thm. 3.18.13). Consequently, the center $`Z(G^{\mathrm{}})`$ of $`G^{\mathrm{}}`$ may be written as a direct product: $`Z(G^{\mathrm{}})=Z_S\times Z_R`$, where $`Z_R`$ is the subgroup of the center $`Z(R^{\mathrm{}})`$ of $`R^{\mathrm{}}`$ of elements which commute with $`S^{\mathrm{}}`$, and $`Z_S`$ is the subgroup of the center $`Z(S^{\mathrm{}})`$ of $`S^{\mathrm{}}`$ of elements commuting with $`R^{\mathrm{}}`$. Let $`S_i^{\mathrm{}}`$ be the subgroup of $`G^{\mathrm{}}`$ corresponding to $`𝔰_i`$. Then $`S_i^{\mathrm{}}`$ is closed in $`S^{\mathrm{}}`$, and hence in $`G^{\mathrm{}}`$; further, $`S_i^{\mathrm{}}`$ is simply connected and normal in $`S^{\mathrm{}}`$, so that $`S^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a direct product of the factors $`S_i^{\mathrm{}}`$, and $`Z(S^{\mathrm{}})`$ is the direct product of the centers $`Z(S_i^{\mathrm{}})`$ of the $`S_i^{\mathrm{}}`$ (, Thm. 3.18.1).

The group $`G`$, being a quotient of $`G^{\mathrm{}}`$, is of the form $`G^{\mathrm{}}/D`$, where $`D`$ is a discrete subgroup of $`Z_S\times Z_R`$. Set

$$D_0=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}[DS_i^{\mathrm{}}]\times [DR^{\mathrm{}}].$$

We need an auxiliary result.

###### Lemma 8.1.1

(i) $`D_0`$ is of finite index in $`D`$.

(ii) Each $`DS_i^{\mathrm{}}`$ is of finite index in the center $`Z(S_i^{\mathrm{}})`$ of $`S_i^{\mathrm{}}`$.

Taking this for granted the group $`G/D_0`$ is a finite covering of $`G/D`$, and has the required properties as it is isomorphic to

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}[S_i^{\mathrm{}}/(DS_i^{\mathrm{}})][R^{\mathrm{}}/(DR^{\mathrm{}})].$$

We take $`S_i^{\mathrm{}}`$ to be $`S_i^{\mathrm{}}/(DS_i^{\mathrm{}})`$ and $`R^{\mathrm{}}`$ to be $`R^{\mathrm{}}/(DR^{\mathrm{}})`$. Then $`R^{\mathrm{}}`$ is closed, normal and solvable, and $`S_i^{\mathrm{}}`$ is closed, simple and have finite center. The center of $`S^{\mathrm{}}`$ is the product of the centers of the groups $`S_i^{\mathrm{}}`$, and is also be finite. Finally, $`S^{\mathrm{}}R^{\mathrm{}}`$ is trivial, where $`S^{\mathrm{}}=_{i=1}^mS_i^{\mathrm{}}`$.

It remains to give the

###### Demonstration Proof of Lemma 8.1.1

First, we claim that $`Z_S`$ is of finite index in $`Z(S^{\mathrm{}})`$. Indeed, the adjoint action $`\mathrm{Ad}_𝔯`$ of $`S^{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`𝔯`$ is a linear representation of $`S^{\mathrm{}}`$, and the image $`\mathrm{Ad}_𝔯S^{\mathrm{}}`$ of $`S^{\mathrm{}}`$ in $`\text{SL}(𝔯)`$ is a closed semisimple subgroup of $`\text{SL}(𝔯)`$; the center $`C`$ of this subgroup is finite \[21,  Prop.~7.9\] Moreover, $`\mathrm{Ad}_𝔯(Z(S^{\mathrm{}}))`$ is contained in $`C`$, so that $`\mathrm{Ad}_𝔯(Z(S^{\mathrm{}}))`$ is finite. The group $`R^{\mathrm{}}`$ is generated by arbitrarily small neighborhoods of the identity, so an element of $`S^{\mathrm{}}`$ centralizes $`R^{\mathrm{}}`$ if and only if it centralizes small neighborhoods of the identity, and hence if and only if it acts trivially on $`𝔯`$ by the adjoint action. Then $`Z_S`$ is the kernel of the adjoint map of $`Z(S^{\mathrm{}})`$ into $`\text{SL}(𝔯)`$. In conclusion, $`\mathrm{Ad}_𝔯(Z(S^{\mathrm{}}))`$ is isomorphic to $`Z(S^{\mathrm{}})/Z_S`$, so $`Z_S`$ is indeed of finite index in $`Z(S^{\mathrm{}})`$.

Next, note that $`DS^{\mathrm{}}=DZ(S^{\mathrm{}})=DZ_S`$, since $`DZ_S\times Z_R`$. We claim that $`DS^{\mathrm{}}`$ is of finite index in $`Z(S^{\mathrm{}})`$. Indeed, $`S`$ is isomorphic to $`S^{\mathrm{}}/DS^{\mathrm{}}`$, and its center is isomorphic to $`Z(S^{\mathrm{}})/DS^{\mathrm{}}`$ (in fact, if $`xS^{\mathrm{}}Z(S^{\mathrm{}})`$, then $`\mathrm{Ad}(x)`$ acts nontrivially on any small neighborhood of the identity in $`S^{\mathrm{}}`$, and hence its image in $`S^{\mathrm{}}/DS^{\mathrm{}}`$ also acts nontrivially on such a neighborhood). By hypothesis, the center of $`S`$ is finite, so $`DS^{\mathrm{}}`$ is of finite index in $`Z(S^{\mathrm{}})`$. Since

$$Z(S_i^{\mathrm{}})/[DS_i^{\mathrm{}}]DZ(S_i^{\mathrm{}})/DDZ(S^{\mathrm{}})/DZ(S^{\mathrm{}})/[DS^{\mathrm{}}],$$

$`DS_i^{\mathrm{}}`$ is of finite index in $`Z(S_i^{\mathrm{}})`$. Now write $`E`$ for $`_{i=1}^m[DS_i^{\mathrm{}}]`$; it follows that $`E`$ is a subgroup of $`Z(S^{\mathrm{}})`$ of finite index which is part (ii) of the lemma.

For part (i) we shall establish that $`E(DR^{\mathrm{}})`$ is of finite index in $`D`$. This also follows from the isomorphism theorems. Since $`Z_S/(DZ_S)Z(S^{\mathrm{}})/(DZ_S)`$ is finite, and $`Z_S/(DZ_S)DZ_S/D`$, there exist $`z_1,z_2,\mathrm{},z_JZ_S`$ such that

$$DZ_S=\underset{j=1}{\overset{J}{}}Dz_j.$$

If $`Dz_jZ_R\mathrm{}`$, take $`r_jDz_jZ_R`$; otherwise take $`r_j=e`$. Then it is easy to check that

$$Dz_jZ_R(DZ_R)r_j.$$

It follows that

$$(DZ_S)Z_R=\underset{j=1}{\overset{J}{}}Dz_jZ_R\underset{j=1}{\overset{J}{}}(DZ_R)r_j,$$

and so $`(DZ_S)Z_R/(DZ_R)`$ is also finite. As $`D`$ is contained in the direct product $`Z_SZ_R`$, it follows that $`DZ_S=Z_S((DZ_S)Z_R)`$, and so

$`D/(DZ_S)(DZ_R)`$ $`DZ_S/(DZ_S)(DZ_R)`$
$`=Z_S((DZ_S)Z_R)/(DZ_S)(DZ_R)`$
$`(Z_S/(DZ_S))((DZ_S)Z_R/DZ_R),`$
which is finite. Thus $`(DZ_S)(DZ_R)`$ is of finite index in $`D`$. Since $`E`$ has finite index in $`DZ_S`$, $`E(DZ_R)`$ is of finite index in $`(DZ_S)(DZ_R)`$, and thus of finite index in $`D`$. This finishes the proof of Lemma 8.1.1 and Proposition 8.1. ∎

###### Demonstration Proof of Proposition 8.2

We recall that $`S_i`$ does not centralize $`R`$ so that $`𝔰_i`$ does not centralize $`𝔯`$. The proof now proceeds by a series of reductions.

First, we cut down the semisimple part. Take a Cartan involution $`\theta `$ of $`𝔰_i`$, so that $`𝔰_i=𝔨𝔭`$, where $`𝔨`$ and $`𝔭`$ are the $`+1`$ and $`1`$ eigenspaces of $`\theta `$, and take a maximal abelian subalgebra $`𝔞`$ of $`𝔭`$. Then the Lie algebra $`𝔰_i`$ decomposes into a sum:

$$𝔰_i=𝔤_0+\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }}{}𝔤_\alpha ,$$

where each $`\alpha `$ is a linear functional on $`𝔞`$, and $`X𝔤_\alpha `$ if and only if $`[H,X]=\alpha (H)X`$ for all $`H𝔞`$. For more on these root decompositions, see, e.g., , . Take a nonzero element $`X`$ in this $`𝔤_\alpha `$, where $`\alpha 0`$. Then $`\mathrm{span}\{X,\theta X,[X,\theta X]\}`$ is a subalgebra $`𝔰_0`$ of $`𝔰_i`$ isomorphic to $`𝔰𝔩(2,)`$, and the corresponding analytic subgroup $`S_0`$ of $`S_i`$ is locally isomorphic to $`\text{SL}(2,)`$, has finite center, does not centralize $`R`$, and is closed in $`S_i`$ and hence in $`S`$ (see \[35,  Lemma~1.1.5.7\]).

Note also that $`S_0/Z(S_0)`$ is isomorphic to a matrix group (\[34,  Thm.~2.13.2\]) and the only matrix groups locally isomorphic are $`SL(2,)`$ and $`PSL(2,)`$ (i.e., $`SL(2,)`$ divided by its center).

Furthermore, $`[𝔰_0,𝔯]0`$; indeed, $`\{X𝔰_i:\mathrm{ad}(X)|_𝔯=0\}`$ is an ideal in $`𝔰_i`$, which is a simple Lie algebra; and hence $`\{X𝔰_i:\mathrm{ad}(X)|_𝔯=0\}=\{0\}`$. The subgroup $`S_0R`$ is closed in $`G`$.

The second reduction cuts down to the nilradical. Let $`N`$ be the maximal connected normal nilpotent subgroup of $`G`$, which is automatically closed, and let $`𝔫`$ be its Lie algebra. Then $`NR`$ and $`𝔫𝔯`$, and moreover, $`[𝔰_0,𝔯]𝔫`$ (see \[34,  Thm.~3.8.3\]). We claim that $`[𝔰_0,𝔫]\{0\}`$. If it were true that $`[𝔰_0,𝔫]=\{0\}`$, then the Jacobi identity would imply that,

$$[[X,Y],Z]=[[X,Z],Y]+[X,[Y,Z]]=0,\text{ }X,Y𝔰_0\text{}Z𝔯\text{,}$$

since the inner commutators of both summands of the middle term of the equality lie in $`𝔫`$, from which it would follow that $`[𝔰_0,𝔯]=\{0\}`$. Thus $`[𝔰_0,𝔫]\{0\}`$. It now suffices to consider $`S_0N`$, which is closed in $`S_0R`$ and hence in $`G`$.

The third reduction allows us to assume that $`N`$ is simply connected. Let $`K`$ be the maximal compact connected central subgroup of $`S_0N`$; it is contained in the nilradical $`N`$. We observe that the nilradical of $`(S_0N)/K`$ is equal to $`S_0(N/K)`$ and we shall show that $`N^{}:=N/K`$ is simply connected.

The center $`Z(N)`$ of $`N`$ is a connected Abelian Lie group \[34,  Cor.~3.6.4\] and thus isomorphic to $`^k\times 𝕋^l`$, for suitable $`k,l`$. We claim that $`𝕋^l`$ is central in $`S_0N`$. Note that then $`𝕋^l`$ is also the maximal compact connected central subgroup of $`G`$ (since any connected central subgroup must be in the nilradical).

We first show that $`𝕋^l`$ is a normal subgroup. For any fixed $`gS_0N`$ the automorphism $`\varphi _g:ngng^1`$ fixes the center; thus $`g𝕋^lg^1`$ is a compact Lie subgroup of $`Z(N)`$ which must be $`𝕋^l`$; thus $`𝕋^l`$ is normal in $`G`$. Consider the map $`g\varphi _g|_{𝕋^l}`$ which takes $`G`$ into the automorphism group of $`𝕋^l`$. This group is discrete and since $`G`$ is connected we see that $`\varphi _g|_{𝕋^l}`$ is the identity, thus $`𝕋^l`$ is central in $`G`$ and thus isomorphic to $`K`$.

We claim that $`N^{}:=N/K`$ is simply connected. Indeed let $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ be the simply connected covering group of $`N`$; it has center $`Z(\stackrel{~}{N})=^{k+l}^l`$ and $`N=\stackrel{~}{N}/^l`$. Now

$$N^{}=N/𝕋^l=(\stackrel{~}{N}/^l)/(^l/^l)\stackrel{~}{N}/^l.$$

But $`N^{}\stackrel{~}{N}/^l`$ is simply connected by \[34,  Thm.~3.18.2\].

In the remaining part of the proof we shall show that $`S_0N^{}(S_0N)/K`$ has a closed subgroup $`G_1`$ which is locally isomorphic to some $`\text{SL}(2,)^n(n2)`$ or some $`\text{SL}(2,)\text{H}^n(n1)`$. The desired subgroup $`G_0`$ of $`G`$ is then the closed subgroup of $`S_0N`$ of elements whose image in $`(S_0N)/K`$ under the canonical projection lies in $`G_1`$, and the appropriate compact subgroup $`K_0`$ is the direct product of $`Z(S_0N)S_0`$ and $`K`$.

In order to proceed we need the following lemma.

###### Lemma 8.2.1

Let $`\pi _n:𝔰𝔩(2,)\mathrm{End}(^n)`$ be the (unique) irreducible representation of $`𝔰𝔩(2,)`$ of dimension $`n`$. The space of bilinear forms $`B:^n\times ^n`$ which satisfy

$$B(\pi _n(U)V,W)+B(V,\pi _n(U)W)=0U𝔰𝔩(2,)V,W^n$$
$`8.4`$
is one-dimensional. These forms are symmetric or skew-symmetric as $`n`$ is odd or even.

###### Demonstration Proof

Let

$`H=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$, $`X=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$, $`Y=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$
that is, the standard basis for $`𝔰𝔩(2,)`$ satisfying the commutation relation $`[X,Y]=H`$, $`[H,X]=2X`$ and $`[H,Y]=2Y`$. It is well known (see for instance \[18,  ch.~III.8\]) that there is a basis $`\{E_0,\mathrm{},E_{n1}\}`$ for $`^n`$ such that

$`\pi _n(H)E_j`$ $`=(n12j)E_j,j=0,\mathrm{},n1`$
$`\pi _n(X)E_j`$ $`=E_{j+1},j=0\mathrm{},n2,\pi _n(X)E_{n1}=0`$
$`\pi _n(Y)E_j`$ $`=j(nj+1)E_{j1},j=1\mathrm{},n1,\pi _n(Y)E_0=0.`$
Let $`B`$ be a bilinear form satisfying (8.4). If $`0i,jn1`$, then

$$0=B(\pi _n(H)E_i,E_j)+B(E_i,\pi _n(H)E_j)=(2n2i2j2)B(E_i,E_j)$$

so that

$$B(E_i,E_j)=0\text{ if }jni1.$$
$`8.5`$
Further, if $`1jn1`$, then

$$B(E_j,E_{nj1})=B(\pi _n(X)E_{j1},E_{nj1})=B(E_{j1},\pi _n(X)E_{nj1})=B(E_{j1},E_{nj}),$$

whence

$$B(E_i,E_{ni1})=(1)^jB(E_0,E_{n1}),1in1,$$

so that $`B`$ is completely determined by $`B(E_0,E_{n1})`$. In particular,

$$B(E_i,E_{ni1})=(1)^{n1}B(E_{ni1},E_i).$$
$`8.6`$
Thus by (8.5) and (8.6), $`B`$ is symmetric if $`n`$ is odd and skew-symmetric if $`n`$ is even. ∎

###### Demonstration Proof of Proposition 8.2, continued

We now consider $`S_0N^{}`$ and we must produce a closed subgroup of $`S_0N^{}`$ locally isomorphic to $`\text{SL}(2,)^n(n2)`$ or to $`\text{SL}(2,)\text{H}^n(n1)`$. Let $`𝔫`$ be the Lie algebra of $`N^{}`$; since $`N^{}`$ is simply connected, the exponential map is a homeomorphism from $`𝔫`$ to $`N^{}`$, and subalgebras of $`𝔫`$ map to closed subgroups of $`N^{}`$.

We define the ascending central series of $`𝔫`$ inductively: let $`𝔫_0`$ be $`\{0\}`$, and if $`j1`$, define $`𝔫_j`$ to be $`\{X𝔫:[X,𝔫]𝔫_{j1}\}`$. Since $`𝔫`$ is nilpotent, there exists a positive integer $`l`$ such that $`𝔫_l=𝔫`$, so

$$\{0\}=𝔫_0𝔫_1\mathrm{}𝔫_l=𝔫.$$

Choose $`j`$ such that $`[𝔰_0,𝔫_{j1}]=\{0\}`$ but $`[𝔰_0,𝔫_j]\{0\}`$. Under the action of the semisimple group $`S_0`$ on $`𝔫`$, the subalgebra $`𝔫_j`$ splits into a sum of irreducible $`\mathrm{Ad}(S_0)`$ modules, not all of which are trivial. Let $`𝔪`$ be a nontrivial summand in this decomposition; then $`[𝔰_0,𝔪]=𝔪`$.

From the Jacobi identity we get

$$[[X,Y],Z]=[[X,Z],Y]+[X,[Y,Z]]=0,\text{ }X𝔰_0,Y𝔪\text{ and }Z𝔫_{j1},$$

since $`[X,Z][𝔰_0,𝔫_{j1}]=\{0\}`$ and $`[X,[Y,Z]][𝔰_0,𝔫_{j1}]=\{0\}`$. It follows that $`[𝔪,𝔫_{j1}]=0`$. In particular, $`[𝔪,𝔪]𝔫_{j1}`$, so $`[𝔪,[𝔪,𝔪]]=\{0\}`$, and $`𝔪+[𝔪,𝔪]`$ is a subalgebra of $`𝔫`$. Given any linear form $`\lambda `$ on $`[𝔪,𝔪]`$, the bilinear form $`B:(V,W)\lambda [V,W]`$ satisfies

$$B(\mathrm{ad}(U)V,W)+B(V,\mathrm{ad}(U)W)=\lambda ([\mathrm{ad}(U)V,W]+[V,\mathrm{ad}(U)W])=\lambda (\mathrm{ad}(U)[V,W])=0$$

for all $`U`$ in $`𝔰𝔩(2,)`$ and all $`V`$ and $`W`$ in $`𝔪`$. Since the space of such bilinear forms is one-dimensional, from Lemma 8.2.1, it follows that $`dim([𝔪,𝔪])1`$ (in particular, if $`dim(𝔪)`$ is odd, then $`[𝔪,𝔪]=\{0\}`$, for the form $`(V,W)\lambda [V,W]`$ is skew-symmetric). Let $`m=\text{dim}(𝔪`$). Then $`\mathrm{exp}(𝔪+[𝔪,𝔪])`$ is isomorphic to $`^m`$ if $`m`$ is odd or $`m`$ is even and $`[𝔪,𝔪]=0`$, and isomorphic to $`H^{m/2}`$ if $`m`$ is even and $`[𝔪,𝔪]0`$. The group $`S_0\mathrm{exp}(𝔪+[𝔪,𝔪])`$ is the required subgroup of $`S_0N^{}`$. ∎