text:
# Generalised Hilbert Numerators II

## 1. Introduction

The ring $`K[X]`$ of formal polynomials was used by Halter-Koch  to study polynomial functions on modules. The author used it to study initial ideals of generic ideals of the same type, for instance generated by a quadratic and a cubic generic form, but in ever more variables . In brief, it is the largest $``$-graded subring of the power series ring $`K[[X]]`$ on a countable set $`X`$ of indeterminates. There are *truncation maps* $`\rho _n:K[X]K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$, and inclusion maps going the other way, which relate ideals in $`K[X]`$ with sequences $`(I_n)_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ of ideals, where $`I_n`$ is an ideal in $`K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$, and where $`I_{n+1}`$ maps to $`I_n`$ under the map

$$K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n+1}]\frac{K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n+1}]}{(x_{n+1})}K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n].$$

As an example, choose positive integers $`d_1,\mathrm{},d_r`$, and let for each positive integer $`n`$ $`f_1^{(n)},\mathrm{},f_r^{(n)}`$ be forms in $`n`$ variables of degree $`d_1`$ to $`d_r`$. Suppose furthermore that $`f_{\mathrm{}}^{(n+1)}f_{\mathrm{}}^{(n)}`$ is divisible by $`x_{n+1}`$, and that the coefficients of the forms are choosen randomly. Let $`I_n=(f_1^{(n)},\mathrm{},f_r^{(n)})`$, and let $`>`$ the the lexicographic term order on the various polynomial rings. Then the initial ideals $`\mathrm{in}(I_n)`$ will converge to a monomial ideal in infinitely many indeterminates, as $`n\mathrm{}`$, and this monomial ideal is the lex-initial ideal of $`I=(f_1,\mathrm{},f_r)K[X]`$, where $`f_{\mathrm{}}=limf_{\mathrm{}}^{(n)}`$ . In this case, we have that for $`nr`$, the Hilbert series of $`\frac{K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]}{I_n}`$ is $`(1t)^n_{j=1}^r(1t^{d_j})`$.

For arbitrary homogeneous, finitely generated ideals $`IK[X]`$, we conjecture that

$$(1t)^nH(\frac{K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]}{\rho _n\left(I\right)};t)$$

is eventually constant, where $`H(\frac{K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]}{\rho _n\left(I\right)};t)`$ denotes the Hilbert series of $`\frac{K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]}{\rho _n\left(I\right)}`$. What we have in fact proved  is that for all homogeneous ideal which are countably generated and which have but finitely many minimal generators of each total degree (we call such an ideal *locally finitely generated*), the polynomials

$$(1t)^nH(\frac{K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]}{\rho _n\left(I\right)};t)p(t)[[t]],$$

we call the power series $`p(t)`$ the *generalised Hilbert numerator* of $`I`$. The outstanding question is thus whether for finitely generated ideals, $`p(t)`$ is always a polynomial.

In this article, we first show that for monomial ideals in $`K[X]`$, the polynomial ring on countably many indeterminates, the usual methods of calculating multigraded Hilbert series can be used, and that this Hilbert series can always be written $`\frac{p(X)}{_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}(1x_i)}`$. We call $`p(X)`$ the $`[X]`$-multigraded Hilbert numerator of the ideal. For a locally finitely generated ideal in $`K[X]`$, we form its initial ideal, contract it to a monomial ideal in $`K[X]`$, calculate the $`[X]`$-multigraded Hilbert numerator of that, then collapse the grading to a $``$-grading to get the $``$-graded Hilbert numerator. Apart from providing a more attractive proof of the existence of Hilbert numerators, this methodology yields immediately $`^r`$-graded Hilbert numerators for $`^r`$-graded locally finitely generated ideals of $`K[X]`$.

We give exact (although opaque) descriptions of the set of all $`[X]`$-graded Hilbert numerators of monomial ideals, and the set of all $``$-graded Hilbert numerators of locally finitely generated ideals of $`K[X]`$. The latter result can be described briefly as follows: the set of *all polynomial* $``$-graded Hilbert numerators is the set of sufficiently high iterated differences of admissible $`H`$-vectors (in the sense of Macaulays characterisation of admissible Hilbert functions of finitely generated algebras), and the set of *all* $``$-graded Hilbert numerators is the closure in $`[[t]]`$ of the previous set.

## 2. Notation

Let $`,,^+`$ denote the set of integers, non-negative integers, and positive integers, respectively. For any set $`A`$ and any positive integer $`k`$, we denote by $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{A}{k}\right)`$ the set of $`k`$-subsets of $`A`$, by $`[A]`$ the free abelian monoid on $`A`$, and by $`[A]_k`$ the subset of monomials of total degree $`k`$. If $`m[A]_k`$ we write $`|m|=k`$.

If $`B`$ is another set, then $`B^A`$ denotes the set of all functions $`AB`$. If $`A`$ is pointed, that is, has an extinguished zero element (for instance, $`[A]`$ is pointed), then $`B^{(A)}`$ denotes the set of all finitely supported maps $`AB`$.

If $`K`$ is a commutative ring, then $`K^{[A]}`$ becomes a commutative $`K`$-algebra under component-wise addition and multiplication of scalars, and with multiplication given by the *convolution product*

$$f\times g(m)=\underset{t|m}{}f(t)g(m/t).$$
(1)
We denote this ring by $`K[[A]]`$. The set $`B^{([A])}`$ is a subring, which we denote by $`K[A]`$.

## 3. Rings of formal power series and formal polynomials in countably many indeterminates

Let $`K`$ be a field of containing the rational numbers, and let $`X=\{x_1,x_2,x_3,\mathrm{}\}`$ be a set of indeterminates. Form the large power series ring $`K[[X]]`$ and the polynomial ring $`K[X]`$ as above. For $`K[[X]]f=_{m[X]}c_mm`$ we define

$$Supp(f)=\left\{m\text{ }c_m0\right\}$$
(2)
If $`t[X]`$, we define

$$[t]f=c_t.$$
(3)
The ring $`K[X]`$ is $`[X]`$-graded, and in particular $``$-graded, whereas $`K[[X]]`$ is not. The largest $`[X]`$-graded subring of $`K[[X]]`$ is $`K[X]`$, whereas the largest $``$-graded subring is the ring $`K[X]`$ generated by all *bounded elements*: an element $`fK[[X]]`$ is bounded if

$$|f|:=sup(\{|m|\text{ }mSupp(f)\})<\mathrm{}.$$

Another way of putting this is the following.

###### Definition 3.1.

We define the *total-degree* filtration on $`K[[X]]`$ and its various subrings by

$$𝒯^dK[[X]]=\{fK[[X]]\text{ }|f|d\}$$
(4)
For $`K[[X]]f=_{m[X]}c_mm`$, we put

$$𝒯^df=\underset{\begin{array}{c}m[X]\\ |m|d\end{array}}{}c_mm$$
(5)
Then $`K[X]=_{d0}𝒯^dK[[X]]`$.

It is shown in  that $`K[X]`$ is also the maximal subring of $`K[[X]]`$ with the following property: given any multiplicative total order $`>`$ on $`[X]`$ whose restriction to $`[X]_1`$ is order-isomorphic to $`\omega `$ (such a $`>`$ will be called a *term order* on $`[X]`$), the support of any non-constant element $`f`$ contains a maximal element $`\mathrm{in}_>(f)`$. Putting $`\mathrm{in}_>(1)=0`$, $`\mathrm{in}_>(0)=\mathrm{}`$, we can regard

$$\mathrm{in}_>:K[X][X]\{\mathrm{}\}$$

as a $`[X]`$-valuation, which induces a $`[X]`$-filtration of $`K[X]`$ by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝔉^{<m}K[X]& =\left\{fK[X]\mathrm{in}_>(f)<m\right\}\hfill \\ \hfill 𝔉^mK[X]& =\left\{fK[X]\mathrm{in}_>(f)m\right\}\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
We then have a canonical map

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill K[X]& \mathrm{gr}(K[X])=\underset{m[X]}{}\frac{𝔉^mK[X]}{𝔉^{<m}K[X]}K[X]\hfill \\ \hfill f& \mathrm{in}_>(f)\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
This map sends an ideal $`IK[X]`$ to its *initial ideal*

$$\mathrm{in}_>(I)=K[X]\left\{\mathrm{in}_>(f)\text{ }fI\right\}$$
(8)
which is a *monomial ideal*, that is, generated by monomials. We note that

1. Every monomial ideal is its own initial ideal,
2. Extension and contraction of ideals gives a bijection between monomial ideals in $`K[X]`$, $`K[X]`$ and $`K[[X]]`$,
3. Monomial ideals in $`K[X]`$, $`K[X]`$ or $`K[[X]]`$ correspond bijectively to monoid ideals in $`[X]`$.

Because of this identification, we shall say that a monoid ideal has a certain property whenever the corresponding monomial ideal has.

###### Theorem 3.2 (Snellman ).

For a $``$-graded ideal $`IK[X]`$, the following are equivalent:

1. $`I`$ is generated by a *locally finite* set, that is a set

$$F=\underset{d=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}F_i,i:F_iK[X]_i,i:\mathrm{\#}F_i<\mathrm{}$$
(9)
2. For each positive integer $`d`$,

$$dim_K\left(\frac{I_d}{_{i=1}^{d1}K[X]_iI_{di}}\right)<\mathrm{}$$
(10)

We call such ideals *locally finitely generated* (lfg). By our previous remark, we can talk about lfg monoid ideals, as well.

###### Theorem 3.3 (Snellman ).

Let $`>`$ be a term-order on $`[X]`$, and $`IK[X]`$ a homogeneous ideal. Then $`I`$ is lfg if and only if $`\mathrm{in}_>(I)`$ is.

### 3.1. Inverse limits

We shall need to relate elements in $`K[X]`$ with their *truncations* in $`K[X_n]`$. The necessary machinery is as follows.

For any positive integer $`n`$, we put $`X_n=\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$, and let $`[X_n]`$ be the free abelian monoid on $`X_n`$. We define the polynomial ring $`K[X_n]`$ and the power series ring $`K[[X_n]]`$ as above. For $`i<j`$ there is a commutative diagram of $`K`$-multilinear maps

(11)
with the horisontal arrows given by inclusions, and the remaining ones given by (restrictions of) the truncation maps

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \rho _n:[X]& [X_n]\{0\}\hfill \\ \hfill m& \{\begin{array}{cc}m\hfill & m[X_n]\hfill \\ 0\hfill & m[X_n]\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \hfill \rho _n:K[[X]]& K[[X_n]]\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{m[X]}{}c_mm& \underset{m[X]}{}c_m\rho _n\left(m\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
With respect to these inverse systems, we have that $`\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}K[[X_n]]K[[X]]`$, whereas

$$K[X]K[X]\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}K[X_n]K[[X]].$$

In fact,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}K[X_n]& =\{fK[[X]]n:\rho _n\left(f\right)K[X_n]\}\hfill \\ \hfill K[X]& =\left\{f\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}K[X_n]f\text{ is bounded }\right\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
Furthermore, the ring $`\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}K[X_n]`$ is endowed with a natural topology, the inverse limit topology (where all $`K[X_n]`$ are discrete), and the ring $`K[X]`$ is a dense subring. The topology on $`K[X]`$ can be characterised by giving the closure of an arbitrary subset $`AK[X]`$:

$$\overline{A}=\{fK[X]\text{ }n:\rho _n\left(f\right)\rho _n\left(A\right)\}.$$
(14)
It was proved in  that with respect to this topology, lfg ideals in $`K[X]`$ are closed. It was also proved that the closed monomial ideals are precisely the lfg monomial ideals.

### 3.2. Topologies on the set of ideals of $`K[X]`$, and a “continuity” result

###### Definition 3.4.

Let $`,𝔠,𝔥,𝔩,𝔪`$ denote the following sets of ideals in $`K[X]`$: all ideals, closed ideals, homogeneous ideals, lfg ideals, monomial ideals. We will also use combinations of letters to denote intersections, for instance

$$𝔩𝔪=𝔩𝔪$$

denotes the lfg monomial ideals.

###### Proposition 3.5.

1. The function

$$d(I,J)=2^n,n=\mathrm{max}\left\{n\text{ }\rho _n\left(I\right)=\rho _n\left(J\right)\right\}$$
(15)
gives a metric on $`𝔠`$.
2. The function

$$\widehat{d}(I,J)=2^d,d=\mathrm{max}\left\{d\text{ }𝒯^dI=𝒯^dJ\right\}$$
(16)
gives a metric on $`𝔥`$.
3. Define a convergence structure on $`𝔪`$ by dictating that $`I_n\stackrel{}{}I𝔪`$ if and only if,

$$m[X]:N(m)^+:n>N(m):mImI_n$$
(17)
Then the corresponding topology is weaker than both the previous topologies.

###### Proof.

1. It is clear the $`d(I,J)=d(J,I)0`$. Since $`I,J`$ are closed, $`d(I,J)=0`$ if and only if $`I=J`$. If $`A,B,C`$ are closed ideals, and if $`d(A,B)2^n`$, $`d(B,C)2^n`$, then $`\rho _n\left(A\right)=\rho _n\left(B\right)=\rho _n\left(C\right)`$, hence $`d(A,C)2^n`$. Thus the triangle inequality holds.
2. Obvious.
3. Let $`m[X_v]_d`$, let $`I,I_1,I_2,I_3,\mathrm{}`$ be monomial ideals, and suppose that either $`d(I_n,I)0`$ or $`\widehat{d}(I_n,I)0`$. In the first case, there is an $`N(v)`$ such that $`\rho _v\left(I_n\right)=\rho _v\left(I\right)`$ whenever $`nN(v)`$: since $`mIm\rho _v\left(I\right)`$, and similarly for $`I_n`$, it follows that $`mI`$ if and only if $`mI_n`$ for $`nN(v)`$. In the second case, there is an $`\widehat{N}(d)`$ such that $`𝒯^dI_n=𝒯^dI`$ whenever $`n\widehat{N}(d)`$: since $`mIm𝒯^dI`$, and similarly for $`I_n`$, it follows that $`mI`$ if and only if $`mI_n`$ for $`n\widehat{N}(d)`$.

###### Theorem 3.6.

Let $`>`$ be a term-order on $`[X]`$. Then the map

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{in}_>:𝔩& 𝔩𝔪\hfill \\ \hfill I& \mathrm{in}_>(I)\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
is continuous with respect to the $`\widehat{d}`$-metric. If $`>`$ is the degree-reverse lexicographic term order, then

$$n:\rho _n\left(\mathrm{in}_>(I)\right)=\mathrm{in}_>(\rho _n\left(I\right))$$
(19)
from which it follows that (18) is continuous with respect to the $`d`$-metric.

###### Proof.

Using the results of , it is straight-forward to show that if $`I,J`$ are lfg ideals such that $`𝒯^dI=𝒯^dJ`$, then for any term-order $`>`$, $`𝒯^d\mathrm{in}_>(I)=𝒯^d\mathrm{in}_>(J)`$. Hence the first result follows.

It is immediate that the identity (19) implies continuity of (18). For all term orders, the LHS of (19) is included in the RHS, so we need to prove that the reverse inclusion holds for the degree-reverse lexicographic term order. Let $`fI`$ be homogeneous of degree $`d`$; then the monomials in $`Supp(f)`$ are ordered as follows: first the ones in $`[X_1]_dSupp(f)`$, if any, then the ones in $`([X_2]_d[X_1]_d)Supp(f)`$, and so on. Let $`m=\mathrm{in}(f)`$, then $`\mathrm{in}(\rho _n\left(f\right))=m`$ for $`n`$ sufficiently large, and $`0`$ otherwise. In the same way, $`\rho _n\left(m\right)=m`$ for sufficiently large $`n`$, and $`0`$ otherwise. So $`\mathrm{RHS}\mathrm{in}(\rho _n\left(f\right))=\rho _n\left(\mathrm{in}(f)\right)\mathrm{LHS}`$. ∎

The following result is a key one: it is what will allow us to define Hilbert numerators of lfg ideals by passing to their initial ideals.

###### Theorem 3.7 (Snellman ).

If $`I`$ is a lfg ideal, and $`>`$ is a term-order on $`[X]`$, then

$$\widehat{d}(\mathrm{in}_>(\rho _n\left(I\right))^e,\mathrm{in}_>(I))0\text{ as }n\mathrm{}.$$
(20)
## 4. Monoid ideals and arithmetic on $`[[X]]`$

### 4.1. Topologies on $`[[X]]`$

Unless otherwise stated, we henceforth assume that $`[[X]]=^{[X]}`$ is given the product topology. With this topology, $`f_nf`$ if for all $`m[X]`$, there is an $`N(m)`$ so that for $`nN(m)`$, $`[m]f=m[f_n]`$. An infinite sum $`_nf_n`$ is convergent if and only if each monomial $`m[X]`$ occurs in but finitely many of the sets $`Supp(f_n)`$.

We can also topologise $`[[X]]`$ by means of the total degree filtration: a sequence $`(f_n)_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`f_nf`$ if and only if

$$d:N(d)^+:v>N(d):m[X]_d:[m]f_v=[m]f.$$

This is a stronger topology than the previous one. We shall use it in particular for the study of the subring $`𝒮`$, to be defined later. For later use, we note the following:

###### Lemma 4.1.

The total degree filtration topology on $`[[X]]`$ gives a linear topology, and hence additiv translation with arbitrary elements, and multiplicative translation with invertible elements, are closed mappings.

###### Proof.

We put

$$J_d=\{0\}\left\{f[[X]]\text{ }Supp(f)_{v=d}[X]_v\right\}.$$

Then the $`J_d`$’s are clopen ideals which form a fundamental system of neighbourhoods of zero.

It follows  that for any subset $`A[[X]]`$, the closure is given by

$$\overline{A}=_{d=1}^{\mathrm{}}(A+J_d).$$

Hence if $`h[[X]]`$ and $`A[[X]]`$, then

$$\overline{h+A}=_{d=1}^{\mathrm{}}(h+A+J_d)=h+_{d=1}^{\mathrm{}}(A+J_d)=h+\overline{A},$$

where the crucial inclusion $`_{d=1}^{\mathrm{}}(h+A+J_d)h+_{d=1}^{\mathrm{}}(A+J_d)`$ is proved as follows. If $`fh+A+J_d`$ for all $`d`$, then $`fhA+J_d`$ for all $`d`$, hence $`fh_{d=1}^{\mathrm{}}A+J_d`$, hence $`fh+_{d=1}^{\mathrm{}}A+J_d`$.

If $`h`$ has a multiplicative inverse $`h^1`$, then

$$\overline{hA}=_{d=1}^{\mathrm{}}(hA+J_d)=h_{d=1}^{\mathrm{}}(A+J_d)=h\overline{A};$$

the inclusion $`_{d=1}^{\mathrm{}}(hA+J_d)h_{d=1}^{\mathrm{}}(A+J_d)`$ is proved as follows. Suppose that $`fhA+J_d`$ for all $`d`$, then $`h^1fA+h^1J_dA+J_d`$ for all $`d`$, hence $`h^1f_{d=1}^{\mathrm{}}(A+J_d)`$, hence $`fh_{d=1}^{\mathrm{}}(A+J_d)`$. ∎

### 4.2. The ring of number-theorethic functions

Define $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to be the set of all maps $`^+`$. With component-wise addition and multiplication by scalars, and with the *Dirichlet convolution*

$$fg(n)=\underset{k|n}{}f(k)g(n/k),$$
(21)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ becomes a commutative ring, often referred to as *the ring of number-theoretic functions* . The well-known isomorphism, given by unique factorisation of integers, between the multiplicative monoid $`(^+,)`$ of the positive integers and a denumerable sum of copies of $`(,+)`$, induces an isomorphism

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }& [[X]]\hfill \\ \hfill f& \underset{m=x_1^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}x_n^{\alpha _n}[X]}{}f(p_1^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}p_n^{\alpha _n})m,\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
Define the elements $`\nu ,\mu [[X]]`$ by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu & =\underset{m[X]}{}m\hfill \\ \hfill \mu & =\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1x_i)=1\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}x_i+\underset{i<j}{}x_ix_j\underset{i<j<k}{}x_ix_jx_k+\mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(23)
Then the image of $`\mu `$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the well-known Möbius function, and Möbius inversion can be expressed by the formula

$$\nu \mu =1.$$
(24)
We note that we can write

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu =1+\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\nu _i,& \mu =1+\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mu _i\hfill \\ \hfill \nu _i=\underset{m[X]_i}{}m,& \mu _i=(1)^i\underset{\sigma \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{[X]}{i}\right)}{}\sigma \hfill \end{array}$$
(25)
where $`\nu _i`$ is the $`i`$’th *complete symmetric function*  and $`(1)^i\mu _i`$ is the $`i`$’th *elementary symmetric function*.

### 4.3. Characteristic/generating functions of monoid ideals

#### 4.3.1. Definitions

###### Definition 4.2.

If $`I`$ is a monoid ideal in $`[X]`$ then

$$W(I)=I\left([X]\{1\}\right)I$$
(26)
denote the canonical set of minimal generators of $`I`$. We define

$`\mathrm{char}(I)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{mI}{}}m`$ (27)
$`w(I)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{mW(I)}{}}m`$ (28)
$`q(I)`$ $`=\nu \mathrm{char}(I)`$ (29)
$`p(I)`$ $`=\mu q(I)`$ (30)
We call $`\mathrm{char}(I)`$ the *characteristic function* of $`I`$, $`q(I)`$ the $`[X]`$-graded *Hilbert series* of $`I`$, and $`p(I)`$ the $`[X]`$-graded *Hilbert numerator* of $`I`$.

For a monomial ideal $`J`$ in $`K[X]`$ or $`K[X]`$, we put

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{char}(J)& =\mathrm{char}(J[X])\hfill \\ \hfill w(J)& =w(J[X])\hfill \\ \hfill q(J)& =q(J[X])\hfill \\ \hfill p(J)& =p(J[X]).\hfill \end{array}$$
(31)
Similarly, if $`n`$ is a positive integer, and if $`I`$ is a monoid ideal in $`[X_n]`$, then we put

$`\mathrm{char}^n(I)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{mI}{}}m`$
$`q^n(I)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{m[X_n]I}{}}m`$
$`p^n(I)`$ $`=\rho _n\left(\mu \right)q^n(I).`$
###### Remark 4.3.

$`\mathrm{char}(I)`$ and $`q(I)`$ are the $`[X]`$-graded Hilbert series of $`I`$, regarded as a monomial ideal in $`K[X]`$, and $`\frac{K[X]}{I}`$, respectively. However, the ring $`K[X]`$ is not $`[X]`$-graded, so in order to attach a meaning to $`q(I)`$ for a monomial ideal we regard it as a limit of the Hilbert series of $`\rho _n\left(I\right)`$, that is, as a limit of $`q^n(I)`$.

We note that $`\mathrm{char}(I)`$, $`w(I)`$, $`q(I)`$, and $`p(I)`$ all lie in $`[[X]]`$.

#### 4.3.2. Distributiveness properties

###### Proposition 4.4.

Suppose that $`I,I_1,I_2,I_3,`$ are monomial ideals, and suppose that

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}I_n=I,$$
(32)
and that the sum is convergent with respect to the $`\stackrel{}{}`$ topology. Then

$$\mathrm{char}(I)=\underset{i}{}\mathrm{char}(I_i)\underset{i<j}{}\mathrm{char}(I_iI_j)+\underset{i<j<k}{}\mathrm{char}(I_iI_jI_k)\mathrm{},$$
(33)
and the sum is convergent (with respect to the product topology on $`[[X]]`$).

Putting $`\widehat{p}(I)=p(I)1`$, we also have that

$$\widehat{p}(I)=\underset{i}{}\widehat{p}(I_i)\underset{i<j}{}\widehat{p}(I_iI_j)+\underset{i<j<k}{}\widehat{p}(I_iI_jI_k)\mathrm{},$$
(34)
and this is a convergent sum.

###### Proof.

If we identify monomial ideals with their characteristic functions, and write $``$ for intersections of ideals, and $``$ for sum of ideals, then $``$ and $``$ correspond to component-wise minimum and maximum, and (33) to the identity

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f_i=\underset{i}{}f_i\underset{i<j}{}f_if_j+\mathrm{},$$
(35)
where the sum is component-wise. The LHS of (35) is always defined; for the RHS to be defined, it is necessary and sufficient that

$$m[X]:N(M):n>N(M):f_i(m)=0.$$

If this holds, then denoting by $`S`$ the cardinality of the finite subset $`\left\{j^+\text{ }f_j(m)0\right\}`$, the formula (35) becomes

$$S\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{S}{2}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{S}{3}\right)\mathrm{}=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & S=\mathrm{}\hfill \\ 1\hfill & S\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}$$

a well-know binomial identity.

To prove (34), note that $`\widehat{p}(I_i)=\mu \mathrm{char}(I_i)`$, hence from (35) we get that

$`\widehat{p}(I)`$ $`=\mu \mathrm{char}(I)`$
$`=\mu \left({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{char}(I_i){\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\mathrm{char}(I_iI_j)+{\displaystyle \underset{i<j<k}{}}\mathrm{char}(I_iI_jI_k)\mathrm{}\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(\mu \mathrm{char}(I_i)){\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}(\mu \mathrm{char}(I_iI_j))+\mathrm{}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\widehat{p}(I_i){\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\widehat{p}(I_iI_j)+{\displaystyle \underset{i<j<k}{}}\widehat{p}(I_iI_jI_k)\mathrm{}`$
#### 4.3.3. Inclusion-exclusion for Hilbert numerators

###### Theorem 4.5.

Let $`I[X]`$ be a monoid ideal. If $`\sigma W(I)`$ is finite, let $`\mathrm{𝐥𝐜𝐦}(\sigma )`$ be the least common multiple of the elements in $`\sigma `$, and let $`\mathrm{\#}\sigma `$ be the cardinality of $`\sigma `$. Then

$$p(I)=\underset{\sigma }{}(1)^{(\mathrm{\#}\sigma )}\mathrm{𝐥𝐜𝐦}(\sigma ),$$
(36)
where the sum is over all finite subsets of $`W(I)`$. Alternatively,

$$p(I)=1\underset{mW(I)}{}m+\underset{\sigma \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W(I)}{2}\right)}{}\mathrm{𝐥𝐜𝐦}(\sigma )\underset{\sigma \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W(I)}{3}\right)}{}\mathrm{𝐥𝐜𝐦}(\sigma )+\mathrm{}$$
(37)
###### Proof.

We have that $`I=_{mW(I)}(m)`$, and that $`(m_i)(m_j)=(\mathrm{𝐥𝐜𝐦}(m_i,m_j))`$. Hence the result follows from (34), once we have proved that that $`p((m))=1m`$ for all $`m[X]`$. But $`\mathrm{char}((m))=_{m|t}t`$, hence by Möbius inversion

$$p((m))=1\mu \mathrm{char}((m))=1\mu \left(\underset{m|t}{}t\right)=1\underset{m|t}{}\mu t=1m.$$

#### 4.3.4. Homology methods

###### Lemma 4.6.

Let $`I[X]`$ be a monoid ideal. Then

$$n^+:\rho _n\left(p(I)\right)=p^n(\rho _n\left(I\right))$$
(38)
###### Proof.

$`p^n(\rho _n\left(I\right))`$ $`=\rho _n\left(\mu \right)q^n(\rho _n\left(I\right))`$
$`=\rho _n\left(\mu \right){\displaystyle \underset{m[X_n]\rho _n\left(I\right)}{}}m`$
$`=\rho _n\left(\mu \right)\rho _n\left({\displaystyle \underset{m[X]I}{}}m\right)`$
$`=\rho _n\left(\mu \right)\rho _n\left(q(I)\right)=\rho _n\left(\mu q(I)\right)=\rho _n\left(p(I)\right).`$
Using this lemma, we can immediately extend the various homological methods for getting the multigraded Hilbert series of monoid ideals in $`[X_n]`$ (see ) to work for monoid ideals in $`[X]`$.

We get

###### Theorem 4.7.

Let $`I[X]`$ be a monoid ideal, and let $`m[X]`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_m=\mathrm{\Delta }_m(I)2^{(^+)}`$ be the following simplicial complex:

$$\sigma =\{\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _r\}\mathrm{\Delta }_m\frac{m}{_{i=1}^rx_{\sigma _i}}I.$$
(39)
Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_m`$ is finite, and

$$[m]p(I)=\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\mathrm{\Delta }_m(I))=\underset{F\mathrm{\Delta }_m(I)}{}(1)^{|F|1}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^idimH_i(\mathrm{\Delta }_m,K),$$
(40)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ denotes the the reduced Euler characteristic of an abstract simplicial complex, counting the empty set as a $`1`$-face.

###### Theorem 4.8.

Let $`I[X]`$ be a monoid ideal, let $`W=W(I)`$ be its minimal set of generators, and let $`L_I`$ be the lattice of all finite lcm’s of elements in $`W`$, ordered by divisibility. Let $`\widehat{0}`$ denote the minimal element in $`L_I`$, and let, for $`mL_I`$, $`\mu (\widehat{0},m)`$ denote the value of the Möbius function of the poset $`L_I`$, evaluated on the interval $`[\widehat{0},m]`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\widehat{0},m)`$ denote the abstract simplicial complex of all chains in $`(\widehat{0},m)`$. Then we have:

$$m[X]:[m]p(I)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & mL_I\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\chi }(\mathrm{\Delta }(\widehat{0},m))=\mu (\widehat{0},m)\hfill & mL_I\hfill \end{array}$$
(41)
###### Proof.

It follows from  that $`c_m=0`$ for $`mL_I`$, and that $`c_m=\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\mathrm{\Delta }(0,m))`$ for $`mL_I`$. By , $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\mathrm{\Delta }(0,m))=\mu (\widehat{0},m)`$ whenever $`mL_I`$. ∎

#### 4.3.5. Classifications

###### Proposition 4.9.

Let $`f=_{m[X]}c_mm[[X]]`$. Then $`fp(𝔪)`$ if and only if the following conditions hold:

1. $`m[X]:_{s|m}c_s\{0,1\}`$,
2. If $`_{s|m}c_s=1`$ and $`t|m`$ then $`_{s|t}c_s=1`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`I`$ is a monoid ideal in $`[X]`$, then $`q(I)=\nu \mathrm{char}(I)`$ is the characteristic function of $`I^c=[X]I`$. This is an *order ideal*, that is, if $`mI^c`$ and $`t|m`$, then $`tI^c`$. It follows that the set of $`q(I)`$’s is the set of $`g=_{m[X]}d_mm[[X]]`$ such that

1. $`m[X]:d_m\{0,1\}`$,
2. If $`d_m=1`$ and $`t|m`$ then $`d_t=1`$.

Since $`p(I)=\mu q(I)`$, the result follows by Möbius inversion. ∎

###### Proposition 4.10.

Let $`f=_{m[X]}c_mm[[X]]`$ be the $`[X]`$-graded Hilbert numerator of a monoid ideal. Let $`m=x_1^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}x_n^{\alpha _n}`$. Then

$$\mathrm{abs}(c_m)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n1}{\frac{n1}{2}}\right)$$
(42)
###### Proof.

From Theorem 4.7 we have that $`c_m`$ is the reduced Euler characteristic of some simplicial complex on $`n`$ vertices. Björner and Kalai  showed that the absolute value of the reduced Euler characteristic of a simplicial complex on $`n`$ vertices is $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n1}{\frac{n1}{2}}\right)`$. ∎

###### Corollary 4.11.

Let $`f=_{m[X]}c_mm[[X]]`$ be the $`[X]`$-graded Hilbert numerator of a monoid ideal. Let $`m=x_1^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}x_n^{\alpha _n}`$, and let $`r`$ be the number of $`1in`$ such that $`\alpha _i>0`$. Then

$$\mathrm{abs}(c_m)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r1}{\frac{r1}{2}}\right)$$
(43)
###### Proof.

Let $`\sigma `$ be a permutation of $`X`$. Define $`\sigma (x_1^{a_1}\mathrm{}x_{\mathrm{}}^a_{\mathrm{}})=_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}x_{\sigma (i)}^{a_i}`$, and $`\sigma (_{m[X]}c_mm)=_{m[X]}c_m\sigma (m)`$. We let $`\sigma `$ act on monoid ideals in $`[X]`$ in the obvious way. Then $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ are fix-points for the action of $`\sigma `$ on $`[[X]]`$, and $`\sigma (\mathrm{char}(I))=\mathrm{char}(\sigma (I))`$ for all monoid ideals $`I`$. Hence

$`p(\sigma (I))`$ $`=\mu (\nu \mathrm{char}(\sigma (I)))`$
$`=\mu (\sigma \nu \sigma (\mathrm{char}(I)))`$
$`=\sigma (\mu (\nu \mathrm{char}(I)))`$
$`=\sigma (p(I)).`$
Let $`i_1,\mathrm{},i_r`$ be the support of $`m`$, that is, $`\alpha _{i_1}>0,\mathrm{}\alpha _{i_r}>0`$, and let $`\sigma `$ be a permutation which takes $`i_1`$ to $`1`$, $`i_2`$ to $`2`$, and so on. Then $`\sigma (m)=x_1^{\alpha _{\sigma ^1(1)}}\mathrm{}x_r^{\alpha _{\sigma ^1(r)}}`$, and

$$c_m=[m]f=[\sigma (m)]\sigma (f),$$

hence the result follows by applying Proposition 4.10. ∎

## 5. The subring $`𝒮`$, locally finitely generated ideals, and their generalised Hilbert numerators

For this section, we fix a positive integer $`r`$ and set-partition $`Y`$ of the set of variables: $`X=_{\mathrm{}=1}^rY_{\mathrm{}}`$. There is an associated map $`y:^+\{1,\mathrm{},r\}`$ such that $`x_nY_{y(n)}`$. We denote by $`\mathrm{deg}`$ the associated $`r`$-multi-grading, that is, the monoid homomorphism

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{deg}:[X]& ^r\hfill \\ \hfill x_i& e_{y(i)}\hfill \\ \hfill x_1^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}x_n^{\alpha _n}& \alpha _1\mathrm{deg}(x_1)+\mathrm{}\alpha _n\mathrm{deg}(x_n)\hfill \end{array}$$
(44)
where $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_r`$ are the natural basis elements of $`^r`$. In particular, if $`r=1`$, then $`\mathrm{deg}(m)=|m|`$. Note that, since $`r`$ is finite, $`K[X]`$ is indeed $`^r`$-graded by means of $`\mathrm{deg}`$, even if it is not $`[X]`$-graded. We say that an ideal is $`r`$-homogeneous if it is homogeneous with respect to this grading. Clearly, $`r`$-homogeneous ideals are homogeneous, and all monomial ideals are $`r`$-homogeneous. Furthermore we have:

###### Proposition 5.1.

Let $`I`$ be an ideal of $`K[X]`$. Then the following are equivalent:

1. $`I`$ is $`r`$-homogeneous and lfg,
2. $`I`$ can be generated by $`F=_{\alpha ^r}F_\alpha `$, where each $`F_\alpha `$ is a finite set of $`r`$-homogeneous elements of multi-degree $`\alpha `$.
3. For each $`\alpha ^r`$,

$$dim_K\left(\frac{I_\alpha }{_{\begin{array}{c}\beta +\gamma =\alpha \\ \beta ,\gamma 0\end{array}}K[X]_\beta I_\gamma }\right)<\mathrm{}$$
(45)

###### Proof.

For each total degree $`d`$, there are only finitely many multi-degrees in $`^r`$ of total degree $`d`$. Thus $`(i)`$ and $`(i)`$ are equivalent. The equivalence of $`(ii)`$ and $`(iii)`$ is parallel to Theorem 3.2 and is proved in the same way (see ). ∎

###### Definition 5.2.

Denote by $`𝒮[[X]]`$ the subring consisting of all $`f[[X]]`$ fulfilling the equivalent conditions below:

1. $`f=f_0+f_1+f_2+f_3+\mathrm{}`$ with $`f_i[X]_i`$,
2. $`f(t,t,t,\mathrm{})`$, the substitution of each $`x_i`$ with the new formal indeterminate $`t`$, is defined,
3. $`f=_{\alpha ^r}f_\alpha `$ with $`f_\alpha [X]_\alpha `$,
4. $`f(t_{y(1)},t_{y(2)},t_{y(3)},\mathrm{})`$, the substitution of each $`x_i`$ with the new formal indeterminate $`t_{y(i)}`$, is defined,

Denote the map $`𝒮ff(t_{y(1)},t_{y(2)},t_{y(3)},\mathrm{})[[t_1,\mathrm{},t_r]]`$ by $`=^y`$.

###### Theorem 5.3.

Let $`I[X]`$ be a monoid ideal. Then the following are equivalent:

1. $`p(I)𝒮`$,
2. $`I`$ is lfg,
3. $`w(I)𝒮`$.

###### Proof.

Write

$`w(I)`$ $`=0+w_1+w_2+w_3+\mathrm{},|w_i|=i`$
$`p(I)`$ $`=1+p_1+p_2+p_3+\mathrm{},|p_i|=i.`$
It is immediate that $`I`$ is lfg if and only if $`w(I)𝒮`$, which occurs precisely when every $`w_i`$ is a polynomial. We note that if $`\sigma W(I)`$ has cardinality $`u`$, and the minimal and maximal total degree of elements in $`\sigma `$ is $`c`$ and $`d`$, respectively, then $`c+1|\mathrm{𝐥𝐜𝐦}(\sigma )|ud`$. Clearly, the terms of $`w(I)`$ contributing to $`p_i`$ in (36) have total degree $`i`$.

Hence, if $`I`$ is lfg, so that each $`w_i`$ is a polynomial, then only the various lcm’s of elements in the support of $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_d`$ may contribute to $`p_d`$. The number of elements in the support of $`w_d`$ is thus $`2^{(\mathrm{\#}w_1+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\#}w_d)}<\mathrm{}`$.

Conversely, if $`I`$ is not lfg, suppose that $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_d`$ are polynomials, but that $`w_{d+1}`$ is not. Using (36) we see that $`p_{d+1}`$ receives contribution from a finite number of terms stemming from lcm’s of elements in the support of $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_d`$, and from the non-polynomial $`w_{d+1}`$. Thus $`p_{d+1}`$ is not a polynomial. ∎

###### Corollary 5.4.

Let $`f=_{m[X]}c_mm[[X]]`$. Then $`fp(𝔩𝔪)`$ if and only if the following conditions hold:

1. $`m[X]:_{s|m}c_s\{0,1\}`$ ,
2. If $`_{s|m}c_s=1`$ and $`t|m`$ then $`_{s|t}c_s=1`$,
3. $`f𝒮`$.

###### Proof.

This follows from Proposition 4.9 and Theorem 5.3. ∎

We henceforth regard $`𝒮`$ as a topological ring having the topology given by the total degree filtration. We have that this topology is the same as the one given by any $`r`$-multi degree filtration in the sense that if $`f_nf`$ if for each multi-degree $`\alpha `$, there is an $`N(\alpha )`$ so that $`f_n`$ and $`f`$ agrees in multi-degree $`\alpha `$ whenever $`nN(\alpha )`$: here $`\alpha `$ is with respect to some term-order on $`^r`$ which refines the total-degree partial order. Similarly, the $`\widehat{d}`$-metric on homogeneous ideals gives the same topology as an analogous $`r`$-multigraded metric.

###### Lemma 5.5.

$`𝒮`$ is a closed subset of $`[[X]]`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`f_if`$, where $`f_i𝒮`$. Fix a total degree $`d`$. By the definition of the total degree filtration topology, there exists an $`N`$ such that $`𝒯^df_i=𝒯^df`$ for all $`i>N`$. Since for all $`f_i`$, $`𝒯^df_i`$ is a polynomial, this is true for $`𝒯^f`$, as well. ∎

###### Theorem 5.6.

$`:𝒮[[t_1,\mathrm{},t_r]]`$ is continuous and clopen, when $`Z[[t_1,\mathrm{},t_r]]`$ is given the $`(t_1,\mathrm{},t_r)`$-adic topology.

###### Proof.

We assume for simplicity that $`r=1`$. Suppose that $`f_if`$ in $`𝒮`$. Fix an integer $`d`$, and choose an $`N(d)`$ such that $`f_if\overline{𝔪^d}`$ for $`i>N(d)`$. Thus for $`i>N(d)`$ we have that the $`t^d`$ coefficient of $`(f_i)`$ and $`(f)`$ coincides. This shows that $`(f_i)(f)`$.

To show that this map is clopen, we pick a basic clopen subset $`O_{f,d}=\left\{g𝒮\text{ }𝒯^df=𝒯^dg\right\}`$, where $`d`$ is a positive integer, and $`f𝒮`$. Then $`(O_{f,d})=\left\{h[[t]]\text{ }𝒯^dh=𝒯^d(f)\right\}`$, and this is a basic clopen set of $`[[t]]`$. ∎

###### Lemma 5.7.

The characteristic function is a continuous mapping from the set of lfg monomial ideals, with the $`\widehat{d}`$ metric, to $`𝒮`$. In fact, it is a homeomorphism onto its image.

###### Proof.

Obvious. ∎

###### Lemma 5.8.

The set of characteristic functions of lfg monoid ideals is a closed subset of $`𝒮`$ (and of $`[[X]]`$).

###### Proof.

This follows from the previous Lemma and from Lemma 5.5. ∎

###### Lemma 5.9.

The set $`p(𝔩𝔪)𝒮`$ is closed.

###### Proof.

By the previous Lemma, the set of characteristic functions of lfg monoid ideals is a closed subset of $`[[X]]`$. By Lemma 4.1, the mapping $`f\mu (\nu f)`$ is a closed mapping, hence $`p(𝔩𝔪)`$ is a closed subset of $`[[X]]`$. From Theorem 5.3 we have that $`p(𝔩𝔪)𝒮`$, hence it is closed in there. ∎

We henceforth assume that $`𝔩𝔪`$ have the $`\widehat{d}`$-topology.

###### Proposition 5.10.

Let $`I,I_1,I_2,I_3,`$ be lfg monomial ideals in $`K[X]`$. The following are equivalent:

1. $`\widehat{d}(I_n,I)0`$,
2. $`\mathrm{char}(I_n)\mathrm{char}(I)`$,
3. $`q(I_n)q(I)`$,
4. $`p(I_n)p(I)`$,
5. $`w(I_n)w(I)`$.

Furthermore, if the conditions above are satisfied, then

$$(p(I_n))(p(I)).$$

###### Proof.

By the previous lemma, $`I_nI`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{char}(I_n)\mathrm{char}(I)`$. Since the endomorphism given by multiplication with a fixed element in a topological ring is continuous,

$$\mathrm{char}(I_n)\mathrm{char}(I)q(I_n)q(I)p(I_n)p(I).$$

If $`w(I_n)w(I)`$, then fixing a total degree $`d`$, we get that there exists an $`N(d)`$ such that $`w(I_n)w(I)\widehat{𝔪^d}`$ for $`nN(d)`$. It then follows that $`\mathrm{char}(I_n)\mathrm{char}(I)\widehat{𝔪^d}`$ for $`nN(d)`$. The converse also holds.

The last assertion follows immediately from the fact that $``$ is continuous. ∎

We now recall a theorem by Macaulay, which says that if $`IK[X_n]`$ is a homogeneous ideal, and $`>`$ is a term-order on $`[X_n]`$, then $`\frac{K[X_n]}{I}`$ and $`\frac{K[X_n]}{\mathrm{in}_>(I)}`$ have the same $``$-graded Hilbert series (see for instance ). It is also true that if $`I`$ is $`r`$-multigraded, when $`K[X_n]`$ is $`^r`$-graded using the partition $`YX_n`$, then the above algebras have in fact the same $`^r`$-graded Hilbert series. Using this, and our previous results, we get:

###### Theorem 5.11.

Suppose that $`>`$ is a term-order on $`[X]`$. Let $`IK[X]`$ be a $`r`$-homogeneous lfg ideal, and define $`g_n[t_1,\mathrm{},t_r]`$ by requiring that

$$\frac{g_n}{_{i=1}^n(1t_{y(i)})}$$

is the $`^r`$-graded Hilbert series of

$$\frac{K[X_n]}{\rho _n\left(I\right)}.$$

Then, $`g_n(p(I))`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$, and $`(p(I))[[t_1,\mathrm{},t_r]]`$.

###### Proof.

From Theorem 3.7 we know that

$$\widehat{d}(\mathrm{in}_>(\rho _n\left(I\right))^e,\mathrm{in}_>(I))0.$$

Then Proposition 5.10 gives that

$$p(\mathrm{in}_>(\rho _n\left(I\right))^e)p(\mathrm{in}_>(I)),$$

hence, using Theorem 5.6, we have that

$$(p(\mathrm{in}_>(\rho _n\left(I\right))^e))(p(\mathrm{in}_>(I))).$$

It is clear that

$$p^n(\mathrm{in}_>(\rho _n\left(I\right)))=p(\mathrm{in}_>(\rho _n\left(I\right))^e).$$

As we remarked above, a $`r`$-homogeneous ideal have the same $`^r`$-graded Hilbert series as its initial ideal, so

$$g_n=(p^n(\mathrm{in}_>(\rho _n\left(I\right)))),$$

hence

$$g_n(p(\mathrm{in}_>(I))).$$

In , the result above (for $`r=1`$) was proved through a different route, and the power series $`(p(I))`$ was called the *generalised Hilbert numerator* of $`I`$.

We note two simple corollaries:

###### Corollary 5.12.

If $`I,J`$ are $`r`$-homogeneous lfg ideals of $`K[X]`$, and if $`\rho _n\left(I\right)`$ and $`\rho _n\left(J\right)`$ have the same $`^r`$-graded Hilbert series for all $`n`$, then $`I`$ and $`J`$ have the same $`r`$-graded Hilbert numerator.

###### Corollary 5.13.

If $`I`$ is an $`r`$-homogeneous lfg ideal of $`K[X]`$, and if $`>`$ is a term-order on $`[X]`$, then $`I`$ and $`\mathrm{in}_>(I)`$ have the same $`r`$-graded Hilbert numerator.

In particular, $`(p(𝔩))=(p(𝔩𝔪))`$, that is, all $`r`$-graded Hilbert numerators of lfg ideals can be obtained from lfg monomial ideals.

### 5.1. Polynomial $`r`$-graded Hilbert numerators

###### Definition 5.14.

We put $`𝒯^Y=^1([t_1,\mathrm{},t_r])`$. If $`p(I)𝒯^Y`$ we say that $`I`$ has *polynomial $`r`$-graded Hilbert numerator*.

###### Lemma 5.15.

Suppose that $`Y^{}`$ refines $`Y`$. Denote by $`0`$ the partition $`X=X`$. Then $`[X]𝒯^Y^{}𝒯^Y𝒯^0𝒮.`$

###### Proof.

The inclusions are obvious. To see that the strict ones are indeed strict, consider the following examples: $`_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}(x_1^ix_2^i)𝒯^0[X],`$ $`_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}x_1^i𝒮𝒯^Y.`$

###### Example 5.16.

There are lfg monomial ideals which have Hilbert numerators in $`𝒮𝒯^0`$. Let $`I`$ be generated by $`a_i=x_1x_2x_3\mathrm{}x_{i1}x_i^2`$, for $`i1`$, and $`b_j=x_1x_2x_3\mathrm{}x_{j2}x_j^6`$, for $`j2`$. Put $`p_n=p^n(\rho _n\left(I\right))`$ for $`n>0`$, and define $`p_0=1`$. We claim that

$$p_n=p_{n1}+(1)^nv_n,v_n=(x_{n1}+x_n^4)x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n2}x_n^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(x_i1)$$
(46)
To see this, we first note that $`(x_{n1}+x_n^4)x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n2}x_n^2=a_n+b_n.`$ By induction, we have that $`(x_{n1}+x_n^4)x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n2}x_n^2_{i=1}^{n1}(x_i1)`$ consists of those monomials which can be formed as a lcm of $`\{a_n\}S`$ or of $`\{b_n\}S`$ or of $`\{a_n,b_n\}S`$, where $`S\{a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_{n1},b_2,b_3,\mathrm{},b_{n1}\}`$. Note that monomials $`x_1^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}x_n^{\alpha _n}`$ with $`\alpha _i=\alpha _j=6`$ for $`i<j`$ does not occur. This can be readily explained: every such monomial can be expressed as a lcm in two different ways, by either including or omitting the superfluous generator $`a_i`$.

Hence, it follows that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill p_n& =1+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^iv_i\hfill \\ \hfill limp_n=p& =1+\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^iv_i\hfill \end{array}$$
(47)
We have that $`p𝒮[X]`$. As we shall see, $`p𝒯`$.

Setting each $`x_i=t`$ in (47) we have that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill p(t)& =1t^2+\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^n(t1)^{n1}(t+t^4)t^n\hfill \\ & =1t^2+\frac{t+t^4}{t1}\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^n(t1)^nt^n\hfill \\ & =1t^2+\frac{t+t^4}{t1}\left(\frac{1}{1+t(t1)}1+(t1)t\right)\hfill \\ & =1t^2t^3+t^5\hfill \end{array}$$
(48)
###### Lemma 5.17.

Let $`r=1`$. Let $`d,a_1,\mathrm{},a_d`$ be integers, with $`d>0`$. Then the set of all $`|p(I)|`$, where $`I`$ is finitely generated and generated in degrees $`d`$, and has

$$(p(I))=1+a_1+\mathrm{}a_dt^d+O(t^{d+1}),$$
(49)
is either empty, or has a maximum, which we denote by $`Q_d(a_1,\mathrm{},a_d)`$.

###### Proof.

We claim that there are positive integers $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_d`$ such that if $`I`$ is a finitely generated monomial ideal generated in degrees $`d`$ satisfying (49), then $`(w(I))=w_1t+\mathrm{}w_dt^d`$ with $`w_iu_i`$ for $`1id`$. Assuming the claim, it is clear that the total degree of $`p(I)`$ is $`_{i=1}^diu_i`$, since this is a bound of the lcm of all the generators.

To establish the claim, we note that $`a_1=w_1`$, and assume by induction that we have shown that $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_i`$ exist. We note that the minimal generators which affect $`a_{i+1}`$ are those of degree $`i+1`$, which each contribute with $`1`$, and also $`s`$-tuples $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_s`$ with $`m_{\mathrm{}}W(I)`$, $`|m_{\mathrm{}}|<i+1`$, and with $`|\mathrm{𝐥𝐜𝐦}(m_1,\mathrm{},m_s)|=i+1`$, which each contribute $`(1)^s`$. If we pick $`\lambda _1`$ elements of $`W(I)_1`$, $`\lambda _2`$ elements of $`W(I)_2`$, et cetera, then for the resulting lcm to be of total degree $`i+1`$ it is necessary that $`\lambda _1+\lambda _2+\mathrm{}+\lambda _ii+1`$ and that $`\lambda _{\mathrm{}}<i+1`$ for all $`\mathrm{}`$; thus only finitely many $`\lambda =(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _i)`$ are relevant.

We thus have that

$$a_{i+1}=w_{i+1}+\underset{\lambda }{}(1)^{c(\lambda )}R_\lambda ,$$
(50)
where $`\lambda =(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _i)`$, $`|\lambda |i+1`$, $`0\lambda _{\mathrm{}}<i+1`$ for $`1\mathrm{}ji`$, $`c(\lambda )`$ is the number of non-zero entries in $`\lambda `$. The symbol $`R_\lambda `$ denotes a finite interval $`[0,L]`$ of integers, where $`L`$ is the maximal numbers of lcm’s of $`\lambda _1`$ elements of degree 1, drawn from a set of cardinality $`u_1`$, $`\lambda _2`$ elements of degree 2, drawn from a set of cardinality $`u_2`$, and so on, which have total degree $`i+1`$. For instance, if $`i=1`$ and $`\lambda =(2)`$ then $`L=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{u_1}{2}\right)`$, if $`i=2`$ and $`\lambda =(1,1)`$ then $`L=u_1u_2`$.

These finite intervals are added using interval arithmetic, so that $`[a,b]+[c,d]=[a+c,b+d]`$. We can the deduce that

$$w_{i+1}=a_{i+1}+\underset{\lambda }{}(1)^{c(\lambda )}R_\lambda =[C,D]$$
(51)
for some integers $`C,D`$. Putting $`u_{i+1}=D`$ we have the desired bound. ∎

###### Lemma 5.18.

Let $`r=1`$ and suppose that $`f(t)(p(𝔩))`$, in other words, that $`f(t)`$ is the $``$-graded Hilbert numerator of some lfg ideal. Suppose that $`f(t)=1+a_1t+\mathrm{}+a_dt^d+t^{d+r+1}g(t)`$, with $`r>Q_d(a_1,\mathrm{},a_d)`$. Then $`1+a_1t+\mathrm{}+a_dt^d(p(𝔩))`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`f=(p(I))`$, where $`I`$ is a lfg monomial ideal. Let $`I_d`$ denote the ideal generated by everything in $`I`$ of total degree $`d`$. Since the maximal degree of a lcm of the generators of degree $`d`$ is $`Q_d(a_1,\mathrm{},a_r)`$, it follows from (36) and Lemma 5.17 that $`(p(I_d)=1+a_1t+\mathrm{}+a_dt^d`$. ∎

###### Theorem 5.19.

Let $`r=1`$. If $`I[X]`$ is a lfg monoid ideal with $`p(I)𝒯`$, then there exists a positive integer $`N`$ and a monoid ideal $`J[X_N]`$ so that $`(p(J^e))=(p(I))`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`f=(p(I))=1+a_1t+a_2t^2+\mathrm{}a_dt^d`$, and let $`f_n=(p^n(\rho _n\left(I\right)))`$. Then $`f_nf`$ in $`[[t]]`$, with respect to the $`(t)`$-adic topology. Let $`r>Q_d(a_1,\mathrm{},a_d)`$, and choose $`N`$ such that for $`nN`$, $`f_nf(t^r)`$. Then Lemma 5.18 shows that there is a monoid ideal $`J`$ in $`[X_n]`$ with $`f`$ as its $``$-graded Hilbert numerator. ∎

###### Corollary 5.20.

The set of polynomial $``$-graded Hilbert numerators of lfg ideals in $`K[X]`$ is equal to the set of $``$-graded Hilbert numerators of homogeneous ideals in finitely many variables. This set is dense in the set of all possible $``$-graded Hilbert numerators of lfg ideals.

###### Proof.

From Theorem 5.19 we get that all polynomial $``$-graded Hilbert numerators can be obtained from ideals generated in finitely many variables. To prove the second assertion, we note that if $`I`$ is lfg, $`d>0`$, and $`I_d`$ is the ideal generated by everything in $`I`$ of degree $`d`$, then $`(p(I))(p(I_d))mod(t^{d+1})`$, and since $`I_d`$ is finitely generated, $`p(I)[X]`$ hence $`(p(I))[t]`$. ∎

###### Theorem 5.21.

Let, for every pair of integers $`0<ab`$, $`G_{a,b}`$ denote the set

$$\{(1t)^b(1+a_1t+a_2t^2+a_3t^3+\mathrm{})\text{ }a_1=a,i:0a_{i+1}a_i^{<i>}\},$$

where

$$u^{<d>}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k(d)+1}{d+1}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k(d1)+1}{d}\right)+\mathrm{}+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k(1)+1}{2}\right)$$

when $`u`$ has $`d`$-th Macaulay expansion

$$u=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k(d)}{d}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k(d1)}{d1}\right)+\mathrm{}+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k(1)}{1}\right)$$

(see ). Then the set of polynomial $``$-graded Hilbert numerators is $`_{0<ab}G_{a,b}`$, and the closure of this set in $`[[t]]`$ is exactly the set of $``$-graded Hilbert numerators of lfg ideals in $`K[X]`$.

###### Proof.

It follows from a well-know classification by Macaulay (see \[4, Theorem 4.2.10\]) that the set of (generating functions of) Hilbert functions of homogeneous quotients of polynomial rings with finitely many indeterminates is

$$\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+a_1t+a_2t^2+a_3t^3+\mathrm{}\text{ }i:0a_{i+1}a_i^{<i>}\}.$$

The function $`1+a_1t+a_2t^2+a_3t^3+\mathrm{}`$ can be realised as the Hilbert function of a quotient of $`K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_{a_1}]`$ with a monomial ideal; we are of course free to use more variables, if we so desire. The first part of the theorem is therefore demonstrated.

To prove the second part, we proceeds as follows. We know by Lemma 5.9 that

$$p(𝔩𝔪)=\left\{\mu (\nu \mathrm{char}(I))\text{ }I𝔩𝔪\right\}$$

is a closed subset of $`𝒮`$. We have that $`:𝒮[[t]]`$ is a closed map (Theorem 5.6), hence $`(p(𝔩𝔪))`$ is closed in $`[[t]]`$.

Now, Corollary 5.20 shows that the set of polynomial $``$-graded Hilbert numerators is dense in the set of all $``$-graded Hilbert numerators; since this latter set is closed, the second part of the theorem follows. ∎


format: text

text:
# Fourier Tauberian Theorems and Applications

## 1. Tauberian theorems I: basic estimates

Let $`F`$ be a non-decreasing function on $``$. For the sake of definiteness, we shall always be assuming that

(1.1)
$$F(\tau )=\frac{1}{2}\left[F(\tau +0)+F(\tau 0)\right],\tau .$$

### 1.1. Auxiliary functions

We shall deal with continuous functions $`\rho `$ on $``$ satisfying the following conditions:

1. $`|\rho (\tau )|\mathrm{const}\tau ^{2m2}`$, where $`m>\frac{1}{2}`$;
2. $`c_{\rho ,0}:=\rho (\tau )d\tau =1`$;
3. $`\rho `$ is even;
4. $`\rho 0`$;
5. $`\mathrm{supp}\widehat{\rho }[1,1]`$.

For every $`m`$ the functions $`\rho `$ satisfying (1m)–(5) do exist (see, for example, \[H2\], Section 17.5, or Example 1.1 below).

###### Example 1.1.

Let $`l`$ be a positive integer and

(1.2)
$$\begin{array}{c}\gamma (\tau ):=_{\frac{\pi }{2}}^{\frac{\pi }{2}}(\frac{\tau }{2l}+s)^{2l}\mathrm{sin}^{2l}(\frac{\tau }{2l}+s)ds.\end{array}$$

The function $`\gamma `$ satisfies (3), (5), and

(1.3)
$$c_\gamma ^{}\tau ^{2l}\gamma (\tau )c_\gamma ^+\tau ^{2l}$$

with some positive constants $`c_\gamma ^\pm `$. Indeed, (3) and (1.3) are obvious, and (5) follows from the fact that $`2(2\pi )^{1/2}\tau ^1\mathrm{sin}\tau `$ is the Fourier transform of the characteristic function of the interval $`[1,1]`$. If $`\rho (\tau ):=c_{\gamma ,0}^1\gamma (\tau )`$ then the conditions (2)–(5) are fulfilled and (1m) holds with $`m=l1`$.

We shall always be assuming (1m). Let

$$\rho _{1,1}(\tau ):=\{\begin{array}{cc}_\tau ^{\mathrm{}}\rho (\mu )d\mu ,\hfill & \tau >0,\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \tau =0,\hfill \\ _{\mathrm{}}^\tau \rho (\mu )d\mu ,\hfill & \tau <0,\hfill \end{array}$$

and, if (1m) holds with $`m>0`$,

$$\rho _{1,0}(\tau ):=_\tau ^{\mathrm{}}\mu \rho (\mu )d\mu ,\rho _{1,2}(\tau ):=\{\begin{array}{cc}_\tau ^{\mathrm{}}_\mu ^{\mathrm{}}\rho (\lambda )d\lambda d\mu ,\hfill & \tau 0,\hfill \\ _{\mathrm{}}^\tau _{\mathrm{}}^\mu \rho (\lambda )d\lambda d\mu ,\hfill & \tau 0.\hfill \end{array}$$

One can easily see that

$$\rho _{1,0}(\tau )\mathrm{const}\tau ^{2m},\rho _{1,1}(\tau )\mathrm{const}\tau ^{2m1},\rho _{1,2}(\tau )\mathrm{const}\tau ^{2m}$$

for all $`\tau 0`$. Integrating by parts, we obtain

(1.4)
$$\rho _{1,0}(\tau )=_\tau ^{\mathrm{}}\mu \rho _{1,1}^{}(\mu )d\mu =\rho _{1,2}(\tau )+\tau \rho _{1,1}(\tau ),\tau 0.$$

Denote

$$c_{\rho ,\kappa }:=|\mu |^\kappa \rho (\mu )d\mu ,\kappa (1,2m+1).$$

Under condition (2), by Jensen’s inequality, we have

(1.5)
$$c_{\rho ,r}^\kappa c_{\rho ,\kappa }^r,\kappa r0.$$

If the condition (3) is fulfilled then $`\rho _{1,0}`$ and $`\rho _{1,2}`$ are even continuous functions, $`\rho _{1,1}`$ is an odd function continuous outside the origin and

(1.6)
$$\begin{array}{c}\rho _{1,1}(\pm 0)=\pm \frac{1}{2}c_{\rho ,0},\rho _{1,0}(0)=\rho _{1,2}(0)=\frac{1}{2}c_{\rho ,1}.\end{array}$$

Indeed, the first two equalities in (1.6) are obvious, and the last follows from (1.4).

The condition (4) and (1.4) imply that

(1.7)
$$\begin{array}{cc}0\rho _{1,2}(\tau )\rho _{1,0}(\tau ),\hfill & \hfill \tau 0,\\ 0\rho _{1,k}(\mu )\rho _{1,k}(\tau ),\hfill & \hfill k=0,1,2,\mu \tau 0.\end{array}$$

Let

(1.8)
$$\rho _\delta (\tau ):=\delta \rho (\delta \tau ),\rho _{\delta ,k}(\tau ):=\delta ^{1k}\rho _{1,k}(\delta \tau ),k=0,1,2,$$

where $`\delta `$ is an arbitrary positive number. If (5) is fulfilled then

(1.9)
$$\mathrm{supp}\widehat{\rho }_{\delta ,0}\mathrm{supp}\widehat{\rho }_\delta [\delta ,\delta ].$$

Indeed, these inclusions follow from (1.8) and the fact that $`\rho _{1,0}`$ is the convolution of the functions $`\mu \rho (\mu )`$ and $`\chi _{}(\mu )`$.

### 1.2. Main estimates

If $`f`$ is a piecewise continuous function on $`^1`$, we denote

$`fF(\tau )`$ $`:=`$ $`\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _R^R}f(\tau \mu )F(\mu )d\mu ,`$
$`fF^{}(\tau )`$ $`:=`$ $`\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _{(R,R)}}f(\tau \mu )dF(\mu ),`$
whenever the limits exist. We shall deduce the estimates for $`F(\tau )`$ from the following simple lemma.

###### Lemma 1.2.

Let $`\rho `$ satisfy the conditions (1m)–(3) and $`\rho _{T,1}(\tau s)F(s)0`$ as $`s\pm \mathrm{}`$ for some $`T>0`$ and $`\tau `$. Then $`\rho _{T,1}F^{}(\tau )`$ is well defined if and only if $`\rho _TF(\tau )`$ is well defined, and

(1.10)
$$F(\tau )\rho _TF(\tau )=\rho _{T,1}F^{}(\tau ).$$

###### Proof.

Integrating by parts, we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}_{(R,R)}\rho _{T,1}(\tau \mu )dF(\mu )=_{(R,\tau )}\rho _{T,1}(\tau \mu )dF(\mu )+_{(\tau ,R)}\rho _{T,1}(\tau \mu )dF(\mu )\hfill \\ \hfill =_R^R\rho _T(\tau \mu )F(\mu )d\mu +\rho _{T,1}(+0)F(\tau 0)\rho _{T,1}(0)F(\tau +0)\\ \hfill \rho _{T,1}(\tau +R)F(R+0)+\rho _{T,1}(\tau R)F(R0).\end{array}$$

In view of (1.1), (1.6) and (2), we have

$$\rho _{T,1}(+0)F(\tau 0)\rho _{T,1}(0)F(\tau +0)=F(\tau ).$$

Now the lemma is proved by passing to the limit as $`R\mathrm{}`$. ∎

###### Theorem 1.3.

Let $`\rho `$ satisfy the conditions (1m)–(4) with $`m>0`$. Assume that $`\rho _{\delta ,0}(\tau s)F(s)0`$ as $`s\pm \mathrm{}`$ and $`\rho _{\delta ,0}F^{}(\tau )<\mathrm{}`$ for some $`\delta >0`$ and $`\tau `$. Then $`\rho _TF(\tau )<\mathrm{}`$ and

(1.11)
$$|F(\tau )\rho _TF(\tau )|c_{\rho ,1}^1\delta ^1\rho _{\delta ,0}F^{}(\tau )$$

for all $`T\delta `$.

###### Proof.

The identity (1.4) and (4) imply that

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\tau }\left(\frac{\rho _{1,1}(\tau )}{\rho _{1,0}(\tau )}\right)=\frac{\rho (\tau )\left(\tau \rho _{1,1}(\tau )\rho _{1,0}(\tau )\right)}{\left(\rho _{1,0}(\tau )\right)^2}0,\tau >0.$$

Therefore, in view of (2) and (1.6),

$$\frac{|\rho _{1,1}(\tau )|}{\rho _{1,0}(\tau )}\frac{|\rho _{1,1}(+0)|}{\rho _{1,0}(0)}=c_{\rho ,1}^1,\tau >0.$$

Taking into account (3), (1.8) and the second inequality (1.7), we obtain

(1.12)
$$|\rho _{T,1}(\tau )|\frac{\rho _{T,0}(\tau )}{c_{\rho ,1}T}\frac{\rho _{\delta ,0}(\tau )}{c_{\rho ,1}\delta },T\delta >0,\tau .$$

The inequality (1.12) implies that $`\rho `$ and $`F`$ satisfy the conditions of Lemma 1.2 and that $`\rho _TF(\tau )<\mathrm{}`$. Obviously, (1.11) follows from (1.10) and (1.12). ∎

###### Remark 1.4.

If $`T=\delta `$ then the estimate (1.11) can be rewritten in the form

(1.13)
$$\rho _\delta ^+F(\tau )F(\tau )\rho _\delta ^{}F(\tau ),$$

where $`\rho _\delta ^\pm (\tau ):=\rho _\delta (\tau )\pm c_{\rho ,1}^1\delta \tau \rho _\delta (\tau )`$.

###### Remark 1.5.

The inequality (1.11) is not precise in the sense that, apart from some degenerate situations, it never turns into an equality. The crucial point in our proof is the estimate $`|\rho _{T,1}|c_{\rho ,1}^1\delta ^1\rho _{\delta ,0}`$ which implies that $`|\rho _{T,1}F^{}|c_{\rho ,1}^1\delta ^1\rho _{\delta ,0}F^{}(\tau )`$. However, the function $`\rho _{T,1}`$ is negative on one half-line and positive on another, so $`|\rho _{T,1}F^{}|`$ may well admit much a better estimate. Using this observation, one can try to improve our results under additional conditions on the function $`F`$.

###### Theorem 1.6.

Let $`[a,b]`$ be a bounded interval. Assume that the conditions of Theorem 1.3 are fulfilled for every $`\tau [a,b]`$ and that $`\rho _{\delta ,0}F^{}(\tau )`$ is uniformly bounded on $`[a,b]`$. Then

$`T^1\delta ^1f(b)\rho _{\delta ,0}F^{}(b)`$
(1.14) $`{\displaystyle _a^b}f(\tau )\left[F(\tau )\rho _TF(\tau )\right]d\tau `$
$`T^1\delta ^1f(a)\rho _{\delta ,0}F^{}(a)+T^1\delta ^1{\displaystyle _a^b}f^{}(\tau )\rho _{\delta ,0}F^{}(\tau )d\tau `$
for every non-negative non-decreasing function $`fC^1[a,b]`$ and all $`T\delta `$.

###### Proof.

In view of (1.7) and (1.8) we have

(1.15)
$$T\rho _{T,2}(\tau )T^1\rho _{T,0}(\tau )\delta ^1\rho _{\delta ,0}(\tau ),T\delta >0,\tau .$$

This estimates, (1.12) and Lemma 1.2 imply that the functions $`\rho _{T,2}F^{}(\tau )`$, $`|\rho _{T,1}|F^{}(\tau )`$ and $`\rho _TF(\tau )`$ are uniformly bounded on $`[a,b]`$. Since $`\rho _{T,2}^{}(s)=\rho _{T,1}(s)`$ whenever $`s0`$, integrating by parts with respect to $`\tau `$ we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}_a^bf(\tau )\rho _{T,1}(\tau \mu )dF(\mu )d\tau =f(a)\rho _{T,2}(a\mu )dF(\mu )\hfill \\ \hfill f(b)\rho _{T,2}(b\mu )dF(\mu )+_a^bf^{}(\tau )\left(\rho _{T,2}(\tau \mu )dF(\mu )\right)d\tau .\end{array}$$

Now (1.14) follows from Lemma 1.2 and (1.15). ∎

If $`f1`$ then (1.14) turns into

(1.16)
$$\rho _{\delta ,0}F^{}(b)T\delta _a^b\left[F(\mu )\rho _TF(\mu )\right]d\mu \rho _{\delta ,0}F^{}(a).$$

This estimate and the obvious inequalities

(1.17)
$$\epsilon ^1_{\tau \epsilon }^\tau F(\mu )d\mu F(\tau )\epsilon ^1_\tau ^{\tau +\epsilon }F(\mu )d\mu ,\epsilon >0,$$

imply the following corollary.

###### Corollary 1.7.

Under conditions of Theorem 1.6

(1.18) $`F(b)`$ $``$ $`\epsilon ^1{\displaystyle _{b\epsilon }^b}\rho _TF(\mu )d\mu \epsilon ^1T^1\delta ^1\rho _{\delta ,0}F^{}(b),`$
(1.19) $`F(a)`$ $``$ $`\epsilon ^1{\displaystyle _a^{a+\epsilon }}\rho _TF(\mu )d\mu +\epsilon ^1T^1\delta ^1\rho _{\delta ,0}F^{}(a)`$
for all $`\epsilon (0,ba]`$ and $`T\delta `$.

If (4) is fulfilled then $`\rho _TF`$ is a non-decreasing function. Therefore (1.18) and (1.19) imply that

(1.20) $`F(b)`$ $``$ $`\rho _TF(b\epsilon )\epsilon ^1T^1\delta ^1\rho _{\delta ,0}F^{}(b),`$
(1.21) $`F(a)`$ $``$ $`\rho _TF(a+\epsilon )+\epsilon ^1T^1\delta ^1\rho _{\delta ,0}F^{}(a).`$
###### Remark 1.8.

It is clear from the proof that Theorems 1.3 and 1.6 remain valid (with some other constants independent of $`\delta `$ and $`T`$) if we drop the condition (4) and replace $`\rho _{\delta ,0}(\tau )`$ with an arbitrary non-negative function $`\gamma _\delta `$ such that $`|\rho _{T,1}(\tau )|\mathrm{const}\delta ^1\gamma _\delta (\tau )`$ and $`|\rho _{T,2}(\tau )|\mathrm{const}T^1\delta ^1\gamma _\delta (\tau )`$. In particular, one can take $`\gamma _\delta (\tau )=\delta \gamma (\delta \tau )`$, where $`\gamma `$ is the function defined by (1.3) with $`l=m`$.

## 2. Tauberian theorems II: applications

### 2.1. General remarks

From now on we shall be assuming that the function $`F`$ is polynomially bounded. Then the conditions of Theorems 1.3 and 1.6 are fulfilled for all $`\tau ,a,b^1`$ and $`T\delta >0`$ whenever $`\rho `$ satisfies (1m) with a sufficiently large $`m`$.

So far we have not used the condition (5), which is not needed to prove the estimates. However, this condition often appears in applications. It implies that the convolutions $`\rho _TF`$ and $`\rho _{T,0}F^{}`$ are determined by the restrictions of $`\widehat{F}`$ to the interval $`(T,T)`$. If

(2.1)
$$\widehat{F}_0(t)|_{(T,T)}=\widehat{F}(t)|_{(T,T)}$$

then, under condition (5), $`\rho _TF=\rho _TF_0`$ and $`\rho _{\delta ,0}F^{}=\rho _{\delta ,0}F_0^{}`$ for all $`\delta T`$. If $`F_0(\tau )`$ behaves like a linear combination of homogeneous functions for large $`\tau `$ then $`\rho _{\delta ,0}F_0^{}`$ is of lower order than $`\rho _TF_0`$, so it plays the role of an error term in asymptotic formulae.

It is not always possible to find a model function $`F_0`$ satisfying (2.1). However, one can often construct $`\stackrel{~}{F}_0`$ in such a way that the convolutions $`\rho _T(F\stackrel{~}{F}_0)(\tau )`$ and $`\rho _{\delta ,0}(F^{}\stackrel{~}{F}_0^{})(\tau )`$ admit good estimates for large $`\tau `$ (roughly speaking, it happens if the Fourier transforms of $`F`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}_0`$ have similar singularities on the corresponding interval). Then the Tauberian theorems imply estimates with the error term

$$\pm \left(|\rho _T(F\stackrel{~}{F}_0)(\tau )|+|\rho _{\delta ,0}(F^{}\stackrel{~}{F}_0^{})(\tau )|\right).$$

In particular, if $`F`$ is the spectral or counting function of an elliptic partial differential operator with smooth coefficients then (1.11) gives a precise reminder estimate in the Weyl asymptotic formula, and the refined estimates (1.20), (1.21) allow one to obtain the second asymptotic term by letting $`T\mathrm{}`$ (see \[SV\] for details).

In applications to the second order differential operators it is usually more convenient to deal with the cosine Fourier transform of $`F^{}`$. The following elementary observation enables one to apply our results in the case where information on the sine Fourier transform of $`F^{}`$ is not available.

###### Proposition 2.1.

If the cosine Fourier transforms of the derivatives $`F^{}`$ and $`F_0^{}`$ coincide on an interval $`(\delta ,\delta )`$ then the Fourier transforms of the functions $`F(\tau )F(\tau )`$ and $`F_0(\tau )F_0(\tau )`$ coincide on the same interval.

### 2.2. Test functions $`\rho `$

In this subsection we consider a class of functions $`\rho `$ satisfying (1m)–(5) and estimate the constants $`c_{\rho ,\kappa }`$.

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`\zeta C^{m+1}[\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}]`$ be a real-valued even function such that $`\zeta _{L_2}=1`$ and $`\zeta ^{(k)}(\pm \frac{1}{2})=0`$ for $`k=0,1,\mathrm{}m1`$, where $`\zeta ^{(k)}`$ denotes the $`k`$th derivative. If we extend $`\zeta `$ to $``$ by zero then $`\rho :=(\widehat{\zeta })^2`$ satisfies (1m)–(5) and

(2.2)
$$c_{\rho ,2k}=\zeta ^{(k)}_{L_2}^2,k=0,1,\mathrm{},m.$$

###### Proof.

The conditions (3) and (4) are obviously fulfilled; (2), (5) and (2.2) follow from the fact that $`\widehat{\rho }=(2\pi )^{1/2}\zeta \zeta `$. Finally, (1m) holds true because the $`(m+1)`$th derivative of the extended function $`\zeta `$ coincides with a linear combination of an $`L_1`$-function and two $`\delta `$-functions. ∎

The following lemma is a consequence of the uncertainty principle.

###### Lemma 2.3.

If $`\rho `$ is defined as in Lemma 2.2 then

(2.3)
$$\begin{array}{c}c_{\rho ,1}\frac{\pi }{2}.\end{array}$$

###### Proof.

Let $`\mathrm{\Pi }_a`$ be the multiplication operator and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_a`$ be the Fourier multiplier generated by the characteristic function of the interval $`[a,a]`$. Then the Hilbert-Schmidt norm of the operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{a_1}\mathrm{\Pi }_{a_2}`$ acting in $`L_2()`$ is equal to $`\sqrt{2\pi ^1a_1a_2}`$. Therefore

$$2_0^\mu \widehat{\zeta }^2(\tau )d\tau =\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_{1/2}\zeta _{L_2}^2\pi ^1\mu \zeta _{L_2}^2=\pi ^1\mu ,$$

which implies that

$$\begin{array}{c}c_{\rho ,1}=2_0^{\mathrm{}}\mu \widehat{\zeta }^2(\mu )d\mu =2_0^{\mathrm{}}_\mu ^{\mathrm{}}\widehat{\zeta }^2(\tau )d\tau d\mu \hfill \\ \hfill 2_0^\pi _\mu ^{\mathrm{}}\widehat{\zeta }^2(\tau )d\tau d\mu _0^\pi (1\pi ^1\mu )d\mu =\frac{\pi }{2}.\end{array}$$

###### Remark 2.4.

As follows from Nazarov’s theorem (see \[Na\] or \[HJ\]),

$$\begin{array}{c}_\mu ^{\mathrm{}}\widehat{\varphi }^2(\tau )d\tau b_1e^{b_2\mu },\varphi C_0^{\mathrm{}}(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}),\mu 0,\end{array}$$

where $`b_1,b_2>0`$ are some absolute constants. Using the estimates for $`b_1,b_2`$ obtained in \[Na\], one can slightly improve the estimate (2.3).

###### Example 2.5.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_m`$ be the first eigenvalue of the operator $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^{2m}}{\mathrm{d}t^{2m}}}`$ on the interval $`(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})`$ subject to Dirichlet boundary condition, and let $`\zeta _m`$ be the corresponding real even normalized eigenfunction. Denote $`\nu _m:=\left(\stackrel{~}{\nu }_m\right)^{\frac{1}{2m}}`$. If we define $`\rho `$ as in Lemma 2.2 then, in view of (2.2) and (1.5),

(2.4)
$$c_{\rho ,2m}=\nu _m^{2m},c_{\rho ,\kappa }\nu _m^\kappa ,\kappa <2m.$$

The eigenvalues $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_m=\nu _m^{2m}`$ grow very fast as $`m\mathrm{}`$. The following lemma gives a rough estimate for $`\nu _m`$.

###### Lemma 2.6.

We have $`\nu _m2m\sqrt[2m]{3}`$ for all $`m2`$.

###### Proof.

If $`\varphi (t)=\left(\frac{1}{4}t^2\right)^m`$ and $`_{L_2}`$ is the norm in $`L_2(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})`$ then

(2.5)
$$\stackrel{~}{\nu }_m\frac{\varphi ^{(m)}_{L_2}^2}{\varphi _{L_2}^2}=\frac{(4m+1)!(m!)^2}{(2m+1)!(2m)!}2^{2m+1}(2m)!.$$

One can easily see that

$$\frac{2^{2m}(2m)!}{(2m)^{2m}}=\frac{2(m^21)\mathrm{}(m^2(m1)^2)}{m^{2m2}}\frac{2(m^2(m1)^2)}{m^2}\frac{3}{2}.$$

Therefore (2.5) implies the required estimate. ∎

### 2.3. Power like singularities

Assume that $`|F(\tau )|\mathrm{const}(|\tau |+1)^n`$ with a non-negative integer $`n`$ and define

$$\sigma _n:=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & \text{if }n\text{ is odd,}\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & \text{if }n\text{ is even,}\hfill \end{array}m_n:=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{n+1}{2},\hfill & \text{if }n\text{ is odd,}\hfill \\ \frac{n+2}{2},\hfill & \text{if }n\text{ is even,}\hfill \end{array}$$

$$P_n^+(\tau ,\mu ):=\frac{(\tau +\mu )^n+(\tau \mu )^n}{2},P_n^{}(\tau ,\mu ):=\frac{\mu (\tau +\mu )^n\mu (\tau \mu )^n}{2}.$$

Clearly, $`P_n^\pm `$ are homogeneous polynomials in $`(\tau ,\mu )`$ with positive coefficients, which contain only even powers of $`\mu `$.

###### Lemma 2.7.

Let $`\rho `$ be a function satisfying (3), (5) and (1m) with $`m>\frac{n}{2}`$. If $`\mathrm{supp}F(0,+\mathrm{})`$ and the cosine Fourier transform of $`F^{}(\tau )`$ coincides on the interval $`(\delta ,\delta )`$ with the cosine Fourier transform of the function $`n\tau _+^{n1}`$ then

(2.6) $`\rho _\delta F(\tau )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \left[P_n^+(\tau ,\delta ^1\mu )\sigma _n\delta ^n|\mu |^n\right]\rho (\mu )d\mu },`$
(2.7) $`\rho _\delta F(\tau )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle P_n^+(\tau ,\delta ^1\mu )\rho (\mu )d\mu },`$
(2.8) $`\rho _{\delta ,0}F^{}(\tau )`$ $``$ $`\delta ^2{\displaystyle \left[P_n^{}(\tau ,\delta ^1\mu )+\sigma _n\delta ^{n1}|\mu |^{n+1}\right]\rho (\mu )d\mu }`$
for all $`\tau >0`$.

###### Proof.

According to Proposition 2.1, the Fourier transform of $`F(\tau )F(\tau )`$ coincides on the interval $`(\delta ,\delta )`$ with the Fourier transform of

$$\mathrm{sign}\tau |\tau |^n=\left(12\sigma _n\chi _{}(\tau )\right)\tau ^n.$$

Since $`\rho `$ is even, this implies that

$$\begin{array}{c}\rho _\delta F(\tau )=\delta \left(12\sigma _n\chi _{}(\tau \mu )\right)(\tau \mu )^n\rho (\delta \mu )d\mu \hfill \\ \hfill =P_n^+(\tau ,\delta ^1\mu )\rho (\mu )d\mu \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\sigma _n_{\delta \tau }^{\mathrm{}}(\delta ^1\mu \tau )^n\rho (\mu )d\mu ,\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}\rho _{\delta ,0}F^{}(\tau )=\rho _{\delta ,0}^{}F(\tau )=\delta ^3\left(12\sigma _n\chi _{}(\tau \mu )\right)(\tau \mu )^n\mu \rho (\delta \mu )d\mu \hfill \\ \hfill =\delta ^2P_n^{}(\tau ,\delta ^1\mu )\rho (\mu )d\mu +\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\sigma _n\delta _{\delta \tau }^{\mathrm{}}(\delta ^1\mu \tau )^n\mu \rho (\mu )d\mu \end{array}$$

for all $`\tau >0`$. Estimating $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}(\delta ^1\mu \tau )\delta ^1\mu `$ in the integrals on the right hand sides, we arrive at (2.6)–(2.8). ∎

The obvious inequalities

$`\tau ^n+\sigma _n|\nu |^nP_n^+(\tau ,\nu )\tau ^n+n|\nu |(\tau +|\nu |)^{n1},`$
$`P_n^{}(\tau ,\nu )+\sigma _n|\nu |^{n+1}n\nu ^2(\tau +|\nu |)^{n1}`$
and (2.6)–(2.8) imply that, for all $`\tau >0`$,

(2.9) $`0\rho _\delta F(\tau )\tau ^n`$ $``$ $`n\delta ^1{\displaystyle |\mu |(\tau +\delta ^1|\mu |)^{n1}\rho (\mu )d\mu },`$
(2.10) $`\rho _{\delta ,0}F^{}(\tau )`$ $``$ $`n{\displaystyle \mu ^2(\tau +\delta ^1|\mu |)^{n1}\rho (\mu )d\mu }.`$
Note that $`m_n`$ is the minimal positive integer which is greater than $`\frac{n}{2}`$. If $`\rho `$ is defined as in Lemma 2.2 with $`m=m_n`$ then, by (2.2),

(2.11)
$$P_n^\pm (\tau ,\delta ^1\mu )\rho (\mu )d\mu =(P_n^\pm (\tau ,\delta ^1D_t)\zeta ,\zeta )_{L_2}.$$

Applying (2.6)–(2.11) and (1.11) or (1.18), (1.19), one can obtain various estimates for $`F(\tau )`$.

###### Example 2.8.

Let $`n=3`$ and $`\zeta `$ be an arbitrary function satisfying conditions of Lemma 2.2 with $`m=m_n=2`$. If the conditions of Lemma 2.7 are fulfilled then (2.6)–(2.8), (2.11) and (1.19), (1.20) with $`T=\delta `$ imply that

$`F(\tau )`$ $``$ $`\tau ^3{\displaystyle \frac{3\epsilon \tau ^2}{2}}+\epsilon ^2\tau {\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^3}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2\delta ^2}}\left(\tau {\displaystyle \frac{\tau ^2}{\epsilon }}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}}\right)\zeta ^{}_{L_2}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon \delta ^4}}\zeta ^{\prime \prime }_{L_2}^2,`$
$`F(\tau )`$ $``$ $`\tau ^3+{\displaystyle \frac{3\epsilon \tau ^2}{2}}+\epsilon ^2\tau +{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^3}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2\delta ^2}}\left(\tau +{\displaystyle \frac{\tau ^2}{\epsilon }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}}\right)\zeta ^{}_{L_2}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon \delta ^4}}\zeta ^{\prime \prime }_{L_2}^2`$
for all $`\epsilon >0`$ and $`\tau >0`$. Thus, $`F(\tau )`$ lies between the first Dirichlet eigenvalues of ordinary differential operators generated by the quadratic forms on the right hand sides of the above inequalities.

###### Corollary 2.9.

Under conditions of Lemma 2.7

(2.12) $`F(\tau )`$ $``$ $`\tau ^n2\pi ^1\nu _{m_n}^2n\delta ^1(\tau +\delta ^1\nu _{m_n})^{n1},`$
(2.13) $`F(\tau )`$ $``$ $`\tau ^n+(2\pi ^1\nu _{m_n}^2+\nu _{m_n})n\delta ^1(\tau +\delta ^1\nu _{m_n})^{n1}`$
for all $`\tau >0`$.

###### Proof.

If we define $`\rho `$ as in Lemma 2.2 with $`\zeta =\zeta _m`$ (see Example 2.5) then (2.12), (2.13) follow from (1.11) with $`T=\delta `$, (2.9), (2.10), (2.3) and (2.4). ∎

###### Corollary 2.10.

Under conditions of Lemma 2.7

(2.14) $`{\displaystyle _0^{\lambda ^2}}F(\sqrt{\mu })d\mu `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\lambda ^{n+2}}{n+2}}2n\nu _{m_n}^2\delta ^2\lambda (\lambda +\delta ^1\nu _{m_n})^{n1},`$
(2.15) $`{\displaystyle _0^{\lambda ^2}}F(\sqrt{\mu })d\mu `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\lambda ^{n+2}}{n+2}}+(n+1)\nu _{m_n}^2\delta ^2(\lambda +\delta ^1\nu _{m_n})^n`$
for all $`\lambda >0`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`_0^{\lambda ^2}F(\sqrt{\mu })d\mu =2_0^\lambda F(\tau )\tau d\tau `$, Theorem 1.6 with $`T=\delta `$, $`a=0`$, $`b=\lambda `$ and $`f(\tau )=\tau `$ implies

(2.16) $`{\displaystyle _0^{\lambda ^2}}F(\sqrt{\mu })d\mu `$ $``$ $`2{\displaystyle _0^\lambda }\tau \rho _\delta F(\tau )d\tau 2\delta ^2\lambda \rho _{\delta ,0}F^{}(\lambda ),`$
(2.17) $`{\displaystyle _0^{\lambda ^2}}F(\sqrt{\mu })d\mu `$ $``$ $`2{\displaystyle _0^\lambda }\left(\tau \rho _\delta F(\tau )+\delta ^2\rho _{\delta ,0}F^{}(\tau )\right)d\tau .`$
Let $`\rho `$ be defined as in Lemma 2.2 with $`\zeta =\zeta _m`$. Then (2.14) follows from (2.16), (2.9), (2.10) and (2.4). Since $`\tau P_n^+(\tau ,\nu )+P_n^{}(\tau ,\nu )=P_{n+1}^+(\tau ,\nu )`$, the inequality (2.17) and (2.7), (2.8) imply that

$$_0^{\lambda ^2}F(\sqrt{\mu })d\mu 2_0^\lambda \left(P_{n+1}^+(\tau ,\delta ^1\mu )+\sigma _n|\delta ^1\mu |^{n+1}\right)\rho (\mu )d\mu d\tau .$$

Estimating

$$_0^\lambda \left[P_{n+1}^+(\tau ,\nu )+\sigma _n|\nu |^{n+1}\right]d\tau \frac{\lambda ^{n+2}}{n+2}+\frac{n+1}{2}\nu ^2(\lambda +|\nu |)^n$$

with $`\nu =\delta ^1\mu `$ and applying (2.4), we obtain (2.15). ∎

## 3. Applications to the Laplace operator

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }^n`$ be an open domain and $`d(x)`$ be the distance from $`x\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to the boundary $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

### 3.1. Estimates of the spectral function

Consider the Laplacian $`\mathrm{\Delta }_B`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ subject to a self-adjoint boundary condition $`B(x,D_x)u|_\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$, where $`B`$ is a differential operator. Assume that the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_B`$ is non-negative and denote by $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\lambda )`$ its spectral projection corresponding to the interval $`[0,\lambda )`$. Let $`e(x,y;\lambda )`$ be the integral kernel of the operator $`\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }(\lambda 0)+\mathrm{\Pi }(\lambda +0)}{2}`$ (the so-called spectral function). The Sobolev embedding theorem implies that $`e(x,y;\lambda )`$ is a smooth function on $`\mathrm{\Omega }\times \mathrm{\Omega }`$ for each fixed $`\lambda `$ and that $`e(x,x;\lambda )`$ is a non-decreasing polynomially bounded function of $`\lambda `$ for each fixed $`x\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ be the Laplacian on $`^n`$, and $`e_0(x,y;\lambda )`$, $`\stackrel{~}{e}_0(x,y;\lambda )`$, $`\stackrel{~}{e}(x,y;\lambda )`$ be the spectral functions of the operators $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}_0`$, $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_B}`$ respectively. Then

$`\chi _+(\tau )e(x,x;\tau ^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{e}(x,x;\tau ),`$
$`\chi _+(\tau )e_0(x,x;\tau ^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{e}_0(x,x;\tau )=C_n\tau _+^n,`$
where

(3.1)
$$C_n:=(2\pi )^n\mathrm{meas}\{\xi ^n:|\xi |<1\}.$$

By the spectral theorem, the cosine Fourier transform of $`\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\tau }\stackrel{~}{e}(x,y;\tau )`$ coincides with the fundamental solution $`u(x,y;t)`$ of the wave equation in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$,

$$u_{tt}=\mathrm{\Delta }u,Bu|_\mathrm{\Omega }=0,u|_{t=0}=\delta (xy),u_t|_{t=0}=0.$$

Due to the finite speed of propagation, $`u(x,x;t)`$ is equal to $`u_0(x,x;t)`$ whenever $`t(d(x),d(x))`$, where $`u_0(x,y;t)`$ is the fundamental solution of the wave equation in $`^n`$. Thus, the cosine Fourier transforms of the derivatives $`\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\tau }\stackrel{~}{e}_0(x,x;\tau )`$ and $`\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\tau }\stackrel{~}{e}(x,x;\tau )`$ coincide on the time interval $`(d(x),d(x))`$. Applying (2.12)–(2.15) to $`F(\tau )=C_n^1\stackrel{~}{e}(x,x;\tau )`$ we obtain the following corollary.

###### Corollary 3.1.

For every $`x\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and all $`\lambda >0`$ we have

(3.2) $`e(x,x;\lambda )C_n\lambda ^{n/2}{\displaystyle \frac{nC_n\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi ^1\nu _{m_n}^2}{d(x)}}\left(\lambda ^{1/2}+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _{m_n}}{d(x)}}\right)^{n1},`$
(3.3) $`e(x,x;\lambda )C_n\lambda ^{n/2}+{\displaystyle \frac{nC_n(2\pi ^1\nu _{m_n}^2+\nu _{m_n})}{d(x)}}\left(\lambda ^{1/2}+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _{m_n}}{d(x)}}\right)^{n1},`$
(3.4) $`{\displaystyle _0^\lambda }e(x,x;\mu )d\mu {\displaystyle \frac{2C_n\lambda ^{n/2+1}}{n+2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2nC_n\nu _{m_n}^2\lambda ^{1/2}}{(d(x))^2}}\left(\lambda ^{1/2}+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _{m_n}}{d(x)}}\right)^{n1}`$
(3.5) $`{\displaystyle _0^\lambda }e(x,x;\mu )d\mu {\displaystyle \frac{2C_n\lambda ^{n/2+1}}{n+2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(n+1)C_n\nu _{m_n}^2}{(d(x))^2}}\left(\lambda ^{1/2}+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _{m_n}}{d(x)}}\right)^n.`$
### 3.2. Estimates of the counting function of the Dirichlet Laplacian

In this subsection we shall be assuming that $`|\mathrm{\Omega }|<\mathrm{}`$, where $`||`$ denotes the $`n`$-dimensional Lebesgue measure.

Consider the positive operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_D`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_D`$ is the Dirichlet Laplacian in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Let $`N(\lambda )`$ be the number of its eigenvalues lying below $`\lambda `$. The following theorem is due to F. Berezin \[B\].

###### Theorem 3.2.

For all $`\lambda 0`$ we have

(3.6)
$$_0^\lambda N(\mu )d\mu \frac{2}{n+2}C_n|\mathrm{\Omega }|\lambda ^{n/2+1}.$$

This results was reproduced in \[La\]. A. Laptev also noticed that the famous Li–Yau estimate

(3.7)
$$N(\lambda )(1+2/n)^{n/2}C_n|\mathrm{\Omega }|\lambda ^{n/2},\lambda 0,$$

(see \[LY\]) is a one line consequence of (3.6). Indeed, (3.7) can be proved by estimating

(3.8)
$$N(\lambda )(\theta \lambda )^1_0^{\lambda +\theta \lambda }N(\mu )d\mu \frac{2(1+\theta )^{n/2+1}}{(n+2)\theta }C_n|\mathrm{\Omega }|\lambda ^{n/2}$$

and optimizing the choice of $`\theta >0`$.

###### Remark 3.3.

In \[B\] F. Berezin proved an analogue of (3.6) for general operators with constant coefficients subject to Dirichlet boundary condition. In the same way as above, applying the first inequality (3.8) and Berezin’s estimates, one can easily obtain upper bounds for the corresponding counting functions (see \[La\]).

According to the Weyl asymptotic formula

(3.9)
$$N(\lambda )=C_n|\mathrm{\Omega }|\lambda ^{n/2}+o(\lambda ^{n/2}),\lambda +\mathrm{},$$

(in the general case (3.9) was proved in \[BS\]). The coefficient in the right hand side of (3.7) contains an extra factor $`(1+2/n)^{n/2}`$. G. Pólya conjectured \[P\] that (3.7) holds without this factor. However, this remains an open problem.

Given a positive $`\epsilon `$, denote

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon ^\mathrm{b}:=\{x\mathrm{\Omega }:d(x)\epsilon \},\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon ^\mathrm{i}:=\{x\mathrm{\Omega }:d(x)>\epsilon \}.$$

If

(3.10)
$$|\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon ^\mathrm{b}|\mathrm{const}\epsilon ^r,r(0,1],$$

then, using the variational method \[CH\], one can prove that

(3.11)
$$|N(\lambda )C_n|\mathrm{\Omega }|\lambda ^{n/2}|\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{const}\lambda ^{(n1)/2}\mathrm{ln}\lambda ,\hfill & r=1,\hfill \\ \mathrm{const}\lambda ^{(nr)/2},\hfill & r<1.\hfill \end{array}$$

It is well known that in the smooth case

$$N(\lambda )C_n|\mathrm{\Omega }|\lambda ^{n/2}=O(\lambda ^{(n1)/2})$$

(see, for example, \[I1\] or \[SV\]), but it is not clear whether this estimate remains valid for an arbitrary domain satisfying (3.10) with $`r=1`$.

There is a number of papers devoted to estimates of the remainder term in the Weyl formula. In \[BL\] the authors, applying the variational technique, obtain explicit estimates for the constants in (3.11). In order to prove the estimate of $`N(\lambda )`$ from above, they imposed an additional condition on the outer neighbourhood of the boundary $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, but this condition can probably be removed \[Ne\]. In \[Kr\] the author estimated the remainder term with the use of a different technique (similar to that in \[LY\]); his results seem to be less precise than those obtained in \[BL\].

Let

$$N_\epsilon ^\mathrm{b}(\lambda ):=_{\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon ^\mathrm{b}}e(x,x;\lambda )dx,N_\epsilon ^\mathrm{i}(\lambda ):=_{\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon ^\mathrm{i}}e(x,x;\lambda )dx.$$

Then $`N(\lambda )=N_\epsilon ^\mathrm{b}(\lambda )+N_\epsilon ^\mathrm{i}(\lambda )`$ for every $`\epsilon >0`$.

###### Corollary 3.4.

For all $`\lambda >0`$ and $`\epsilon >0`$ we have

(3.12) $`N_\epsilon ^\mathrm{i}(\lambda )C_n|\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon ^\mathrm{i}|\lambda ^{n/2}C_{n,1}(\lambda ^{1/2}+\epsilon ^1\nu _{m_n})^{n1}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon ^\mathrm{i}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}x}{d(x)}},`$
(3.13) $`N_\epsilon ^\mathrm{i}(\lambda )C_n|\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon ^\mathrm{i}|\lambda ^{n/2}+C_{n,2}(\lambda ^{1/2}+\epsilon ^1\nu _{m_n})^{n1}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon ^\mathrm{i}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}x}{d(x)}},`$
(3.14) $`N_\epsilon ^\mathrm{b}(\lambda )C_{n,3}|\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon ^\mathrm{b}|\lambda ^{n/2}+C_{n,4}\lambda ^{1/2}(\lambda ^{1/2}+\epsilon ^1\nu _{m_n})^{n1}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon ^\mathrm{i}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}x}{(d(x))^2}},`$
where

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& C_{n,1}=nC_n\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi ^1\nu _{m_n}^2,\hfill & C_{n,2}=nC_n(2\pi ^1\nu _{m_n}^2+\nu _{m_n}),\hfill \\ & & \\ & C_{n,3}=(1+2/n)^{n/2}C_n,\hfill & C_{n,4}=(1+2/n)^{n/2}n^2C_n\nu _{m_n}^2.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

The inequalities (3.12), (3.13) are proved by straightforward integration of (3.2), (3.3). Theorem 3.2 and (3.4) imply that

(3.15)
$$\begin{array}{c}_0^\lambda N_\epsilon ^\mathrm{b}(\mu )d\mu =_0^\lambda N(\lambda )d\mu _0^\lambda N_\epsilon ^\mathrm{i}(\mu )d\mu \hfill \\ \hfill \frac{2}{n+2}C_n|\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon ^\mathrm{b}|\lambda ^{n/2+1}+2nC_n\nu _{m_n}^2\lambda ^{1/2}\left(\lambda ^{1/2}+\epsilon ^1\nu _{m_n}\right)^{n1}_{\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon ^\mathrm{i}}\frac{\mathrm{d}x}{(d(x))^2}.\end{array}$$

Now, applying the first inequality (3.8) with $`\theta =2/n`$, we arrive at (3.14). ∎

Adding up the inequalities (3.13) and (3.14) we obtain

(3.16)
$$\begin{array}{c}N(\lambda )C_n|\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon ^\mathrm{i}|\lambda ^{n/2}+C_{n,3}|\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon ^\mathrm{b}|\lambda ^{n/2}\hfill \\ \hfill +(\lambda ^{1/2}+\epsilon ^1\nu _{m_n})^{n1}_{\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon ^\mathrm{i}}\frac{C_{n,2}d(x)+C_{n,4}\lambda ^{1/2}}{(d(x))^2}dx,\epsilon >0.\end{array}$$

Since

(3.17)
$$_{\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon ^\mathrm{i}}\frac{\mathrm{d}x}{(d(x))^j}=_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{}}s^j\mathrm{d}(|\mathrm{\Omega }_s^\mathrm{b}|)=j_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{}}s^{j1}|\mathrm{\Omega }_s^\mathrm{b}|ds\epsilon ^j|\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon ^\mathrm{b}|,$$

(3.10) and the inequalities (3.12), (3.16) with $`\epsilon =\lambda ^{1/2}`$ imply (3.11).

By (3.12) and (3.16) we have

$`C_n|\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon ^\mathrm{b}||\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon ^\mathrm{i}|{\displaystyle \frac{C_{n,1}}{\epsilon \lambda ^{1/2}}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _{m_n}}{\epsilon \lambda ^{1/2}}}\right)^{n1}`$
(3.18) $`\lambda ^{n/2}N(\lambda )C_n|\mathrm{\Omega }|`$
$`(C_{n,3}C_n)|\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon ^\mathrm{b}|+|\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon ^\mathrm{i}|\left({\displaystyle \frac{C_{n,2}}{\epsilon \lambda ^{1/2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_{n,4}}{\epsilon ^2\lambda }}\right)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _{m_n}}{\epsilon \lambda ^{1/2}}}\right)^{n1}`$
for all $`\epsilon >0`$. If $`\epsilon \mathrm{}`$ then the second inequality (3.18) turns into (3.7). Since $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon ^\mathrm{b}|0`$ as $`\epsilon 0`$, (3.18) implies (3.9). Moreover, taking $`\epsilon =\lambda ^\kappa `$ with an arbitrary $`\kappa (0,\frac{1}{2})`$, we obtain the Weyl formula with a remainder estimate

$$\lambda ^{n/2}N(\lambda )C_n|\mathrm{\Omega }|=O(|\mathrm{\Omega }_{\lambda ^\kappa }^\mathrm{b}|+\lambda ^{\kappa 1/2}),\lambda +\mathrm{}.$$

###### Remark 3.5.

If the condition (3.10) is fulfilled then integrating (3.4) over $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\lambda ^{1/2}}^\mathrm{i}`$, applying (3.17) and taking into account (3.6), we see that

(3.19)
$$\lambda ^1_0^\lambda N(\mu )d\mu =\frac{2}{n+2}C_n|\mathrm{\Omega }|\lambda ^{n/2}+O(\lambda ^{(nr)/2})$$

for all $`r(0,1]`$.