format: text

text:
# Technical Remarks and Comments on the UV/IR-Mixing Problem of a Noncommutative Scalar Quantum Field Theory

## 1 Introduction

In the first part of the present paper we discuss different possibilities to cure the UV/IR-mixing of a scalar noncommutative quantum field theory at the one-loop level. Especially, we investigate the idea of resummation proposed in the literature . In the second part we give some ideas how to import this method onto gauge theories.
In order to describe the noncommutative scalar quantum field theory one generalizes the usual concepts of quantum mechanics, which are defined by the following commutation relation , ,

$$[\widehat{X}_\mu ,\widehat{P}_\nu ]=i\delta _{\mu \nu },[\widehat{X}_\mu ,\widehat{X}_\nu ]=[\widehat{P}_\nu ,\widehat{P}_\nu ]=0,(\mathrm{}=1)$$
(1)
where $`\widehat{X}_\nu `$ and $`\widehat{P}_\nu `$ are the hermitian position and momentum operators, respectively.
However, there is no evidence that these concepts are sufficient at very short distance, implying the following natural generalization

$$[\widehat{X}_\mu ,\widehat{X}_\nu ]=i\theta _{\mu \nu },$$
(2)
with the deformation parameter $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ being an antisymmetric constant matrix of dimension \[length\]2. In order to maintain Lorentz symmetry, the existence of such a constant antisymmetric tensor makes necessary a modification of the Lorentz transformation . To construct the perturbative field theory formulation we will use ordinary fields and not operator-valued objects. One has the so-called Moyal-Weyl correspondence defined by

$$\widehat{\varphi }(\widehat{X})\varphi (x),$$
(3)
where $`\widehat{\varphi }(\widehat{X})`$ is the operator valued functional and $`\varphi (x)`$ is the usual scalar field depending on ordinary (commuting) Euclidean coordinates $`x_\mu `$. The correspondence is given by

$`\widehat{\varphi }(\widehat{X})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}e^{ik\widehat{X}}\varphi (k)},`$
$`\varphi (k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4xe^{ikx}\varphi x}.`$ (4)
Here $`k`$ and $`x`$ are commutative, real variables. With the help of the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff-formula one finds

$`\widehat{\varphi }_1(\widehat{X})\widehat{\varphi }_2(\widehat{X})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{ip\widehat{X}}e^{iq\widehat{X}}\varphi _1(p)\varphi _2(q)}`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}e^{i(p+q)\widehat{X}\frac{i}{2}\theta _{\mu \nu }p_\mu q_\nu }\varphi _1(p)\varphi _2(q)}.`$
Now one can define the Moyal (or star)-product,

$$\widehat{\varphi }_1(\widehat{X})\widehat{\varphi }_2(\widehat{X})\left(\varphi _1\varphi _2\right)(x),$$
(6)
which is defined as ,

$$\left(\varphi _1\varphi _2\right)(x):=\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}d^4y\varphi _1(x+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{k})\varphi _2(x+y)e^{iky},\stackrel{~}{k}_\mu =\theta _{\mu \nu }k_\nu .$$
(7)
With the star-product one is able to define the noncommutative scalar self-interacting classical action in a four-dimensional Euclidean space,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}[\varphi ]=d^4x\left(\frac{1}{2}\left(_\mu \varphi (x)_\mu \varphi (x)+m^2\varphi ^2(x)\right)+\frac{g^2}{4!}\varphi \varphi \varphi \varphi (x)\right).$$
(8)
Note that the quadratic part of the action (8) remains unchanged compared to the commutative theory. Only the interaction term is modified and therefore the corresponding Feynman-rules for the interaction vertices are changed by additional phase factors. In perturbation theory, the interplay of these phase factors produces two different types of graphs leading to planar and non-planar contributions. These are distinguished by their behaviour with respect to the ultra-violet (UV)-region. The planar graphs show the desired effects expected from naive power counting and known from commutative theory. The planar divergent radiative corrections can therefore be discussed in the framework of the usual renormalization procedure. The second class of graphs, the non-planar ones, show an ugly nonlocal behaviour. The a priori divergent contributions are regularized by the phase factors. Thus, the non-planar graphs are UV-finite, but instead develop a new singularity for small external momenta (if one discusses one-loop self-energy corrections). This artefact is the so called UV/IR-mixing problem of noncommutative quantum field theories . The present work rediscusses this UV/IR-problem within the framework of the resummed theory  for a scalar $`\varphi ^4`$ theory and presents the idea of a resummation of gauge field models.

## 2 Review of the traditional approach

In order to understand the UV/IR-mixing in the framework of a resummed theory it is useful to show how the UV/IR-problem enters the game , . The action (8) induces the following one-loop Feynman integral describing the first order quantum correction to the two point function

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }=\frac{g^2}{6}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{k^2+m^2}\left(2+\mathrm{cos}(k\stackrel{~}{p})\right),\stackrel{~}{p}_\mu =\theta _{\mu \nu }k_\nu ,$$
(9)
where we have used the non-resummed propagator for the scalar field,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(k)=\frac{1}{k^2+m^2},$$
(10)
and the corresponding Feynman rule for the noncommutative interaction vertex . This integral splits up in a planar contribution (leading to the usual mass renormalization),

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_p=\frac{g^2}{3}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{k^2+m^2},$$
(11)
and a non-planar contribution,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{np}=\frac{g^2}{6}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{k^2+m^2}e^{ik\stackrel{~}{p}}.$$
(12)
With the usual techniques using Schwinger parametrization one gets for the non-planar expression after Gaussian integration

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{np}=\frac{g^2}{6}\frac{\pi ^2}{(2\pi )^4}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\alpha }{\alpha ^2}e^{\alpha m^2\frac{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}{4\alpha }},$$
(13)
where $`\stackrel{~}{p}^2`$ acts as regulator. With $`_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\alpha }{\alpha ^2}\mathrm{exp}(u\alpha v/(4\alpha ))=4\sqrt{(u/v)}K_1(\sqrt{uv})`$ for positive real part of $`u`$ and $`v`$ we find

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{np}=\frac{g^2}{6}\frac{\pi ^2}{(2\pi )^4}4\sqrt{\frac{m^2}{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}}K_1\left(\sqrt{m^2\stackrel{~}{p}^2}\right).$$
(14)
With the expansion of the modified Bessel function $`K_1(x)=\frac{1}{x}+\frac{x}{4}(2\gamma 12\mathrm{ln}2)+\frac{x}{2}\mathrm{ln}x+𝒪(x^3)`$ we find for small $`\stackrel{~}{p}^2`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{np}=\frac{g^2}{24\pi ^2}\left(\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}+\frac{m^2}{4}\mathrm{ln}(m^2\stackrel{~}{p}^2)+\mathrm{}\right),$$
(15)
where the dots stand for the terms remaining finite for $`\stackrel{~}{p}^20`$. Thus, as suggested in the introduction, in the non-planar section of noncommutative field theory the original UV-divergence of the commutative theory has been regularized by the momentum dependend cut-off $`\stackrel{~}{p}^2`$. In the commutative limit $`\theta _{\mu \nu }=\stackrel{~}{p}^2=0`$ the divergence reappears. Unfortunately, even the regularized divergence causes troubles: The first term on the right hand side of (15) gives rise to severe IR-singularities when inserted into higher order loop integrals $`d^4p`$. This miraculous conservation of misery is called UV/IR-mixing of divergences. After performing the ordinary mass renormalization (treating the planar correction) $`M^2=m^2+\delta m^2`$ the effective two point action to first order is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\varphi (p)\varphi (p)\left(p^2+M^2+\frac{g^2}{24\pi ^2}\left(\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}+\frac{M^2}{4}\mathrm{ln}(M^2\stackrel{~}{p}^2)+\mathrm{}\right)\right)}.`$ (16)
Now, in order to eliminate the UV/IR-mixing, one has to handle the horrible nonlocal $`1/\stackrel{~}{p}^2`$ term. In  a field redefinition has been tried. Here we present another approach, a resummation procedure coming from quantum field theory at finite temperature and imported on noncommutative field theories by .

## 3 The resummation theory revisited

The recipe to cure the UV/IR-mixing (at one-loop order) via resummation is given by adding and subtracting to the classical action (8) the term ,

$$\frac{g^2}{24\pi ^2}d^4x\frac{1}{2}\varphi (x)\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{}^2}\varphi (x),$$
(17)
implying that one has now the following tree level action,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{(0)}[\varphi ]=d^4x\left(\frac{1}{2}\left(_\mu \varphi (x)_\mu \varphi (x)+m^2\varphi ^2(x)\varphi (x)\frac{\stackrel{~}{c}}{\stackrel{~}{}^2}\varphi (x)+\varphi (x)\frac{\stackrel{~}{c}}{\stackrel{~}{}^2}\varphi (x)\right)+\frac{g^2}{4!}\varphi \varphi \varphi \varphi (x)\right),$$
(18)
with $`\stackrel{~}{c}=\frac{g^2}{24\pi ^2}`$. The idea is to treat one of the two cancelling terms as modification of the propagator and the other as a two-point vertex function. Doing loop-expansion, this leads to a mixing of orders in the coupling constant $`g^2`$ (which is exactly the desired effect of the resummation procedure), but non-perturbatively the theory remains the same. The process of resummation allows in principle two possibilities for the resummed propagators,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (k)=\frac{1}{k^2+m^2\pm \frac{\stackrel{~}{c}}{\stackrel{~}{k}^2}}.$$
(19)
As argued in  the negative sign corresponds to unphysical tachyonic poles. Therefore it seems natural that only the positive sign is meaningful. However, aiming at further calculations concerning gauge theory, we want to stay as general as possible.
Now one can compute the one-loop quantum correction with the resummed propagator,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pm =\frac{g^2}{6}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{k^2+m^2\pm \frac{\stackrel{~}{c}}{\stackrel{~}{k}^2}}(2+\mathrm{cos}(k\stackrel{~}{p}))=\frac{g^2}{6}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{\stackrel{~}{k}^2}{k^2\stackrel{~}{k}^2+m^2\stackrel{~}{k}^2\pm \stackrel{~}{c}}(2+e^{ik\stackrel{~}{p}}).$$
(20)
In the UV-region the integral (20) has the same structure as for the non-resummed theory. Thus, we expect a quite similar result, with a quadratically divergent contribution from the planar graph and a finite but nonlocal $`\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}`$-contribution from the non-planar graph. This will be verified by explicit calculation.
In order to get a Gaussian integral after Schwinger parametrization we have to expand (20) into partial fractions. Unfortunately, the term $`k^2\stackrel{~}{k}^2`$ causes troubles unless $`\stackrel{~}{k}^2k^2`$. Since $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ can always be transformed into a block matrix

$`\theta _{\mu \nu }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \theta _{12}& 0& 0\\ \theta _{12}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \theta _{34}\\ 0& 0& \theta _{34}& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (25)
we see that $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ has only two degrees of freedom. By eliminating one degree of freedom, thus using the choice $`\theta _{12}=\theta _{34}=:\theta `$, we find $`(\theta ^2)_{\mu \nu }=\theta ^2\mathrm{𝟙}_{4\times 4}`$. At least for this special choice we can calculate

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{k^2}{(k^2)^2+m^2k^2\pm \frac{\stackrel{~}{c}}{\theta ^2}}(2+e^{ik\stackrel{~}{p}})}`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{k^2}{2u}\left(\frac{1}{k^2+\frac{m^2}{2}+u}\frac{1}{k^2+\frac{m^2}{2}u}\right)(2+e^{ik\stackrel{~}{p}})}.`$
Here the (possibly complex) quantity $`u=\sqrt{\frac{m^4}{4}\frac{\stackrel{~}{c}}{\theta ^2}}`$. Now we can use formulae (44), (45) from the appendix (if $`u`$ is real, we introduce a convergence factor $`b0`$ by hand) and obtain for the non-planar part

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{np\pm }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{24\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2u}}(({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}+u)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{m^2}{2}+u}{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}}}K_1\left(\sqrt{({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}+u)\stackrel{~}{p}^2}\right)`$ (27)
$`({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}u)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{m^2}{2}u}{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}}}K_1\left(\sqrt{({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}u)\stackrel{~}{p}^2}\right)).`$
For $`\stackrel{~}{c}=0u=\frac{m^2}{2}`$ this yields exactly the result (15). With the expansion of the modified Bessel function we find for the $`(\stackrel{~}{p}^20)`$-divergent part

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{np\pm }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{24\pi ^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8u}}({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}+u)^2\mathrm{ln}(({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}+u)\stackrel{~}{p}^2)`$ (28)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8u}}({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}u)^2\mathrm{ln}(({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}u)\stackrel{~}{p}^2)+\mathrm{}),`$
where the dots denote the terms finite for $`\stackrel{~}{p}^20`$. The logarithmic term is harmless, but we have to keep an eye on the $`\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}`$ term. We find that this term is invariant with respect to the choice of sign in (19). Therefore it is cancelled by the counterterm in the action only if we choose the positive sign in (19), so the counterterm reads

$$\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }=+d^4x\varphi (x)\frac{\stackrel{~}{c}}{\stackrel{~}{}^2}\varphi (x)$$
(29)
(note that $`\stackrel{~}{}^2\stackrel{~}{k}^2)`$. The result of the planar part is obtained by multiplying (27) by 2 and taking the limes $`\stackrel{~}{p}0`$.

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{p\pm }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{12\pi ^2}}\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}}{lim}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8u}}({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}+u)^2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\frac{m^2}{2}+u}}\right)`$ (30)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8u}}({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}u)^2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\frac{m^2}{2}u}}\right)+\mathrm{}),`$
where again the finite terms are ignored. Thus, also in resummed field theory the planar one-loop correction of the two-point function can be absorbed in an ordinary mass renormalization of the theory.

## 4 Resummation in $`U(1)`$-noncommutative YM-theory?

In this section we try to sketch the idea of a resummation procedure for a gauge field model with BRS-symmetry . We begin with a pure $`U(1)`$-noncommutative Yang-Mills (NCYM)-theory, which is described in Euclidean space at the classical level by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{INV}^{(0)}=\frac{1}{4}d^4xF_{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu },$$
(31)
where the field strength $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is

$$F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu ig[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]_M,[A,B]_M:=ABBA.$$
(32)
The enclosure of fermions can be done in the usual way , . Scalar matter fields are treated in . In order to allow a meaningful perturbation theory one has to use the BRS-quantization procedure , which implies the introduction of ghost fields $`c,\overline{c}`$ and a multiplier field $`B`$ for the gauge fixing. One has the total action

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{INV}^{(0)}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{gf}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{matter}`$ (33)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle d^4xF_{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }}+{\displaystyle d^4x(gB_\mu A_\mu +\frac{\alpha }{2}BB\overline{c}_\mu D_\mu c)}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{matter},`$
where $`D_\mu :=_\mu ig[A_\mu ,.]_M`$. The corresponding BRS-transformation is given by

$`sA_\mu =D_\mu c,`$ $`sc=icc,`$
$`s\overline{c}=B,`$ $`sB=0.`$ (34)
Doing now perturbation theory at the one-loop level (including all contributions coming from the gluon, ghost, fermion etc. fields) one obtains the following problematic contribution to the vacuum polarization of the photon ,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }(k)=\beta \frac{\stackrel{~}{k}_\mu \stackrel{~}{k}_\nu }{(\stackrel{~}{k}^2)^2}$$
(35)
(with $`\beta `$ some numerical constant of order $`g^2`$), which represents the non-planar one-loop contribution. This is the well-known UV/IR-mixing term for non-supersymmetric NCYM-models. It is singular for $`k_\mu 0`$. The corresponding term for resummation would be

$$\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }=\beta \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}A_\mu (k)A_\nu (k)\frac{\stackrel{~}{k}_\mu \stackrel{~}{k}_\nu }{(\stackrel{~}{k}^2)^2}.$$
(36)
As observed in  it is gauge-invariant with respect to an infinitesimal Abelian gauge transformation, $`\delta A_\mu =_\mu \lambda `$. But this is not the full story, one has to respect also BRS-invariance (34). In order to transform (36) in a BRS-invariant quantity we first define

$$\stackrel{~}{F}:=\theta _{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu },\stackrel{~}{D}_\mu :=\theta _{\mu \nu }D_\nu .$$
(37)
The idea is to replace (36) by (written in Euclidean coordinate space)

$$\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{INV}=+\frac{\beta }{4}d^4x\stackrel{~}{F}\frac{1}{(\stackrel{~}{D}^2)^2}\stackrel{~}{F}.$$
(38)
Of course, $`\frac{1}{(\stackrel{~}{D}^2)^2}`$ is meant as power series in the gauge field $`A_\mu `$, so we obtain an infinite set of nonlocal vertices (however, to each order in the gauge coupling $`g`$ only a finite number of these vertices contribute). To lowest order in $`A_\mu `$ (36) and (38) are identical. Indeed, it is easy to show that $`\frac{1}{(\stackrel{~}{D}^2)^2}X`$ transforms covariantly if $`X`$ does. For $`X=\stackrel{~}{F}`$ one has

$$\delta _\lambda \stackrel{~}{F}=i[\lambda ,\stackrel{~}{F}]_M\delta _\lambda (\frac{1}{(\stackrel{~}{D}^2)^2}\stackrel{~}{F})=i[\lambda ,\frac{1}{(\stackrel{~}{D}^2)^2}\stackrel{~}{F}]_M,$$
(39)
implying that (38) is BRS-invariant. In order to get a resummed gauge field model one generalizes now the calculation of the last section. The resummed action reads

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4x({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }+gB_\mu A_\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}BB\overline{c}_\mu D_\mu c`$ (40)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{4}}\stackrel{~}{F}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\stackrel{~}{D}^2)^2}}\stackrel{~}{F}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{4}}\stackrel{~}{F}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\stackrel{~}{D}^2)^2}}\stackrel{~}{F})+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{matter}`$
A similar ansatz for the solution of an analogous problem in high temperature QCD can be found in . Taking only the bilinear part of (40) one can calculate the resummed U(1)-gauge field propagator as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu \pm }(k)=\frac{1}{k^2}\left(g_{\mu \nu }(1\alpha )\frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{k^2}2\beta \frac{\stackrel{~}{k}_\mu \stackrel{~}{k}_\nu }{(\stackrel{~}{k}^2)^2(k^2\pm \frac{2\beta }{\stackrel{~}{k}^2})}\right).$$
(41)
The upper sign corresponds to the inclusion of the positive $`\beta `$-term in (40) in the propagator (treating the negative $`\beta `$-term as counterterm). One observes that the new term in the resummed propagator is independent of the gauge parameter $`\alpha `$. Moreover, it is transversal due to $`k_\mu \stackrel{~}{k}_\mu =0`$. The correct sign must be checked by explicit one-loop calculations . Note that the resummation procedure for gauge theories involves also a resummation of the vertices due to the non-bilinear parts in the resummed term in (40).

## 5 Conclusion

In this short note we have reinvestigated the resummation procedure for scalar noncommutative quantum field theory. We have discussed the two possibilities of sign combination in the resummed action (18). It was verified by one-loop calculations that only

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_+(k)=\frac{1}{k^2+m^2+\frac{\stackrel{~}{c}}{\stackrel{~}{k}^2}}$$
(42)
is useful in order to compensate the IR-singularity of $`\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{k}^2}`$. Encouraged by works in thermal quantum field theory ,  we have proposed a generalization for gauge field models. However, one has to stress that the relevant calculations have still to be done .

## 6 Acknowledgements

We would like to thank M. Wickenhauser, R. Wulkenhaar and H. Grosse for helpful discussion concerning the tremendous difficulties with integrals.

## Appendix A Integrals

First we need the complex Euclidean Gauss integral ($`\alpha `$ real)

$`{\displaystyle d^4ke^{\pm i\alpha k^2+ik\stackrel{~}{p}}}={\displaystyle d^4ke^{\pm i\alpha (k\pm \frac{\stackrel{~}{p}}{2\alpha })^2\frac{i\stackrel{~}{p}^2}{4\alpha }}}=`$
$`=\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}{\displaystyle d^4k^{}e^{(\epsilon i\alpha )k^2\frac{i\stackrel{~}{p}^2}{4\alpha }}}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{\alpha ^2}}e^{\frac{i\stackrel{~}{p}^2}{4\alpha }}.`$ (43)
With this we get for real $`b>0,a`$ real,

$`{\displaystyle d^4k\frac{k^2}{k^2+a\pm ib}e^{ik\stackrel{~}{p}}}=`$
$`={\displaystyle d^4k(\pm i)_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\alpha (\pm i\frac{}{\alpha }+a\pm ib)e^{\pm i\alpha (k^2+a\pm ib)+ik\stackrel{~}{p}}}`$
$`=\pm i{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\alpha (\pm i{\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha }}+a\pm ib)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{\alpha ^2}}e^{\frac{i\stackrel{~}{p}^2}{4\alpha }\pm i\alpha (a\pm ib)}\right)`$
$`=(\pm i)\pi ^2(a\pm ib)\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha }{\alpha ^2}}e^{\frac{\epsilon \pm i\stackrel{~}{p}^2}{4\alpha }(bia)\alpha }.`$ (44)
Here we use $`_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\alpha }{\alpha ^2}\mathrm{exp}(u\alpha v/(4\alpha ))=4(\sqrt{u}/\sqrt{v})K_1(\sqrt{uv})`$ for positive real part of $`u`$ and $`v`$ and find

$`=(\sqrt{\pm i})^24\pi ^2(a\pm ib){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{bia}}{\sqrt{\pm i\stackrel{~}{p}^2}}}K_1\left(\sqrt{\pm i\stackrel{~}{p}^2(bia)}\right)`$
$`=4\pi ^2(a\pm ib)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{a\pm ib}{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}}}K_1\left(\sqrt{(a\pm ib)\stackrel{~}{p}^2}\right).`$ (45)
Of course one has to be careful with respect to the sign of the roots, thus one should check the result (45) for special cases (e. g. $`a>0,b0`$) via ordinary (non-complex) Schwinger parametrization.


text:
# On boundary values for rectifiable curves of a generalization of the Cauchy-type integral related to the Helmholtz operator in ℝ²

## 1. A generalization of holomorphy in $`^2`$.

### 1.1.

Given a domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ consider a $`^3`$-valued function $`𝒇:\mathrm{\Omega }^3`$. Let $`𝒊_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}𝒊_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}𝒊_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ be a canonical basis in $`^3`$, then any $`𝒇`$ is of the form $`𝒇=f_1𝒊_\mathrm{𝟏}+f_2𝒊_\mathrm{𝟐}+f_3𝒊_\mathrm{𝟑}`$; moreover, we let $`^2`$ be a real linear space with the basis $`𝒊_\mathrm{𝟏},𝒊_\mathrm{𝟐}`$. Of course, here $`f_1,f_2,f_3`$ are complex-valued functions in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`𝒇^2:=|f_1|^2+|f_2|^2+|f_3|^2`$.

### 1.2.

In this paper we are interested in those vector-functions $`𝒇`$ which are solutions of the following system:

(1)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}div𝒇=0,\hfill & \\ 𝒓𝒐𝒕𝒇=\alpha 𝒇,\hfill & \end{array}$$

where $`\alpha `$ is a given complex number and for $`𝒛:=x𝒊_\mathrm{𝟏}+y𝒊_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{\Omega }`$

$`div𝒇`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_1}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{f_2}{y}},`$
$`𝒓𝒐𝒕𝒇`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_3}{y}}𝒊_\mathrm{𝟏}{\displaystyle \frac{f_3}{x}}𝒊_\mathrm{𝟐}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_2}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_1}{y}}\right)𝒊_\mathrm{𝟑}.`$
Solutions of the system (1) are natural generalizations of the notion of a solenoidal and irrotational vector field which corresponds to $`\alpha =0`$. There are many papers about both the case $`\alpha =0`$ and $`\alpha \{0\}`$, see for instance \[GR\], \[KS\], \[RS\]. Note that the system (1) can be naturally considered in a domain of $`^3`$ but since the two–dimensional case has its essential peculiarities, we present here the latter one, and the former will be done elsewhere.

### 1.3.

But it appears that there are deep mathematical reasons to consider a more general system, namely, the following one:

(2)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}div𝒇=\alpha f_0,\hfill & \\ 𝒓𝒐𝒕𝒇+\alpha 𝒇=𝒈𝒓𝒂𝒅f_0,\hfill & \end{array}$$

where $`f_0`$ is a $``$-valued function and $`𝒈𝒓𝒂𝒅f_0:={\displaystyle \frac{f_0}{x}}𝒊_\mathrm{𝟏}+{\displaystyle \frac{f_0}{y}}𝒊_\mathrm{𝟐}.`$ Thus we shall be working with pairs $`:=(f_0,𝒇)`$ with norm $`^2:=|f_0|^2+𝒇^2`$ and satisfying (2) from where certain conclusions will be made for vector–functions satisfying (1).

### 1.4.

Let $`H_n^{(p)}`$ be the Hankel functions of the kind $`p\{1,2\}`$ and of order $`n\{0,1,2\}`$ (see \[GR\]), introduce the following notation:

$$K_{\alpha ,0}(𝒛):=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1)^p\frac{i\alpha }{4}H_0^{(p)}(\alpha 𝒛),\hfill & \text{if }\alpha 0,\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{if }\alpha =0,\hfill \end{array}$$

$$𝑲_\alpha (𝒛):=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1)^p\frac{i\alpha }{4}H_1^{(p)}(\alpha 𝒛)\frac{𝒛}{𝒛},\hfill & \text{if }\alpha 0,\hfill \\ \frac{𝒛}{2\pi 𝒛^2},\hfill & \text{if }\alpha =0,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`𝒛^2\{(0;0)\}`$, $`i`$ is the complex imaginary unit in $``$, and

(3)
$$p=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & \text{if }Im(\alpha )>0\text{ or }\alpha >0,\hfill \\ 2,\hfill & \text{if }Im(\alpha )<0\text{ or }\alpha <0.\hfill \end{array}$$

Now the following pair:

(4)
$$K_\alpha (𝒛):=(K_{\alpha ,0}(𝒛),𝑲_\alpha (𝒛))$$

will play the role, in a sense, of the Cauchy kernel for the system (2). It generates an analog of the Cauchy-type integral for a continuous pair $`=(f_0,𝒇)`$, $`f_0:\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`𝒇:\mathrm{\Gamma }^3`$; by the formulas: if $`𝜻:=\xi 𝒊_\mathrm{𝟏}+\eta 𝒊_\mathrm{𝟐}`$, $`𝝈:=d\eta 𝒊_\mathrm{𝟏}d\xi 𝒊_\mathrm{𝟐}`$, and if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a closed rectifiable Jordan curve which is the boundary of a bounded domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }^+:=\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}:=^2(\mathrm{\Omega }^+\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is its complement; then we define the pair

(5)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha [](𝒛):=(\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha ,0}[](𝒛),𝚽_\alpha [](𝒛)),𝒛^2\mathrm{\Gamma },$$

with

(6)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha ,0}[](𝒛):=& \underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}(<𝑲_\alpha (𝜻𝒛),𝝈>f_0(𝜻)+\hfill \\ & +<[𝑲_\alpha (𝜻𝒛),𝝈]+K_{\alpha ,0}(𝜻𝒛)𝝈,𝒇(𝜻)>),\hfill \end{array}$$

(7)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝚽_\alpha [](𝒛):=\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}& ([[𝑲_\alpha (𝜻𝒛),𝝈]+K_{\alpha ,0}(𝜻𝒛)𝝈,𝒇(𝜻)].\hfill \\ \hfill .& <𝑲_\alpha (𝜻𝒛),𝝈>𝒇(𝜻)+.\hfill \\ \hfill .& +f_0(𝜻)([𝑲_\alpha (𝜻𝒛),𝝈]+K_{\alpha ,0}(𝜻𝒛)𝝈)),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`<,>`$ and $`[,]`$ denote, respectively, the scalar and the vector products in $`^3`$, i.e., for $`\{𝒂,𝒃\}`$, $`𝒂=_{k=1}^3a_k𝒊_𝒌`$, $`𝒃=_{k=1}^3b_k𝒊_𝒌`$, $`<𝒂,𝒃>:=_{k=1}^3a_kb_k`$;

$$[𝒂,𝒃]:=\left|\begin{array}{ccc}𝒊_\mathrm{𝟏}& 𝒊_\mathrm{𝟐}& 𝒊_\mathrm{𝟑}\\ a_1& a_2& a_3\\ b_1& b_2& b_3\end{array}\right|.$$

We shall write $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^+[f]`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{}[f]`$ for the respective restrictions of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha [f]`$ onto $`\mathrm{\Omega }^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$.

### 1.5.

If, in particular, the scalar component of the pair $``$ is identically zero, $`=\{0;𝒇\}`$, this does not mean, in general, that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha []`$ is vector-valued, which follows directly from (6). Thus, thinking of an analog of the Cauchy-type integral for the system (1) as a purely vectorial object, we must exclude the scalar component of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha []`$ in the following sense. Let $`C(\mathrm{\Gamma };^3)`$ be the complex linear space of all $`^3`$-valued continuous vector–functions $`𝒇`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, introduce

(8)
$$(\mathrm{\Gamma };^3):=C(\mathrm{\Gamma };^3)\{𝒇:\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}<[𝑲_\alpha (𝜻𝒛),𝝈]+K_{\alpha ,0}(𝜻𝒛)𝝈,𝒇(𝜻)>=0,𝒛\mathrm{\Gamma }\}.$$

Now, for $`𝒇(\mathrm{\Gamma };^3)`$, the analog of the Cauchy-type integral for the system (1) is given by the formula

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝚽_\alpha [𝒇](𝒛):=\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}& ([[𝑲_\alpha (𝜻𝒛),𝝈]+K_{\alpha ,0}(𝜻𝒛)𝝈,𝒇(𝜻)].\hfill \\ \hfill .& <𝑲_\alpha (𝜻𝒛),𝝈>𝒇(𝜻)).\hfill \end{array}$$

One may check up that now $`𝚽_\alpha [𝒇]`$ is a solution to (1).

###### Theorem 1.6 (Analogue of N. A. Davydov theorem (see \[D\]) for the system (2)).

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a closed rectifiable Jordan curve, $`f_0:\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`𝐟:\mathrm{\Gamma }^3`$ be continuous functions, $`:=(f_0,𝐟)`$, and let the integral

(9)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha [](𝒕):=\underset{\delta 0}{lim}\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{𝒕,\delta }}{}K_\alpha (𝜻𝒕)𝝈(𝜻)(𝒕),𝒕\mathrm{\Gamma },$$

where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{𝐭,\delta }:=\{𝛇\mathrm{\Gamma }:𝛇𝐭\delta \}`$, exist uniformly with respect to $`𝐭\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Then there exists the pair of integrals

$$F_\alpha [](𝒕):=(F_{\alpha ,0}[](𝒕),𝑭_\alpha [](𝒕)),𝒕\mathrm{\Gamma },$$

where

(10)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill F_{\alpha ,0}[](𝒕):=\underset{\delta 0}{lim}\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{𝒕,\delta }}{}& (𝑲_\alpha (𝜻𝒕),𝝈(f_0(𝜻)f_0(𝒕)).+\hfill \\ \hfill +& <[𝑲_\alpha (𝜻𝒕),𝝈]+K_{\alpha ,0}(𝜻𝒕)𝝈,(𝒇(𝜻)𝒇(𝒕))>),\hfill \end{array}$$

(11)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝑭_\alpha [](𝒕):=\underset{\delta 0}{lim}\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{𝒕,\delta }}{}& ([[𝑲_\alpha (𝜻𝒕),𝝈]+K_{\alpha ,0}(𝜻𝒕)𝝈,(𝒇(𝜻)𝒇(𝒕))]\hfill \\ \hfill & 𝑲_\alpha (𝜻𝒕),𝝈\left(𝒇(𝜻)𝒇(𝒕)\right)+\hfill \\ \hfill +& .(f_0(𝜻)f_0(𝒕))([𝑲_\alpha (𝜻𝒕),𝝈]+K_{\alpha ,0}(𝜻𝒕)𝝈));\hfill \end{array}$$

moreover, the functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^\pm []`$ extend continuously onto $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the following analogues of the Sokhotski-Plemelj formulas hold:

(12)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha ,0}^+[](𝒕)& =(I_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma },0}(𝒕)+1)f_0(𝒕)𝑰_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }}(𝒕),𝒇(𝒕)+F_{\alpha ,0}[](𝒕),𝒕\mathrm{\Gamma },\hfill \\ \hfill 𝚽_\alpha ^+[](𝒕)& =[𝑰_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }}(𝒕),𝒇(𝒕)]+(I_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma },0}(𝒕)+1)𝒇(𝒕)+f_0(𝒕)𝑰_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }}(𝒕)+𝑭_\alpha [](𝒕),𝒕\mathrm{\Gamma },\hfill \end{array}$$

(13)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha ,0}^{}[](𝒕)& =I_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma },0}(𝒕)f_0(𝒕)𝑰_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }}(𝒕),𝒇(𝒕)+F_{\alpha ,0}[](𝒕),𝒕\mathrm{\Gamma },\hfill \\ \hfill 𝚽_\alpha ^{}[](𝒕)& =[𝑰_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }}(𝒕),𝒇(𝒕)]+I_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma },0}(𝒕)𝒇(𝒕)+f_0(𝒕)𝑰_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }}(𝒕)+𝑭_\alpha [](𝒕),𝒕\mathrm{\Gamma },\hfill \end{array}$$

where the following notation is used:

$$I_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma },0}(𝒕):=\alpha \underset{\mathrm{\Omega }^+}{}K_{\alpha ,0}(𝜻𝒕)𝑑\xi 𝑑\eta ,$$

$$𝑰_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }}(𝒕):=\alpha \underset{\mathrm{\Omega }^+}{}𝑲_\alpha (𝜻𝒕)𝑑\xi 𝑑\eta ,$$

and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^\pm [](𝐭):=\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }^\pm 𝐳𝐭}{lim}\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha [](𝐳)`$.

The proof will be given after some preparatory work which is of an independent interest.

###### Corollary 1.7 (Analogue of N. A. Davydov theorem for the system (1)).

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a closed rectifiable Jordan curve, $`𝐟(\mathrm{\Gamma };^3)`$, and let the integral

(14)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha [𝒇](𝒕):=\underset{\delta 0}{lim}\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{𝒕,\delta }}{}K_\alpha (𝜻𝒕)𝝈𝒇(𝜻)𝒇(𝒕)$$

exist uniformly with respect to $`𝐭\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Then there exists the integral

(15)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝑭_\alpha \left[𝒇\right](𝒕):=\underset{\delta 0}{lim}\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{𝒕,\delta }}{}(& [[𝑲_\alpha (𝜻𝒕),𝝈]+K_{\alpha ,0}(𝜻𝒕)𝝈,\left(𝒇(𝜻)𝒇(𝒕)\right)].\hfill \\ & .𝑲_\alpha (𝜻𝒕),𝝈(𝒇(𝜻)𝒇(𝒕)));\hfill \end{array}$$

moreover, the functions $`𝚽_\alpha ^\pm \left[𝐟\right](𝐳)`$ extend continuously onto $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the following analogues of the Sokhotski-Plemelj formulas hold:

(16)
$$𝚽_\alpha ^+\left[𝒇\right](𝒕)=[𝑰_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }}(𝒕),𝒇(𝒕)]+(I_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma },0}(𝒕)+1)𝒇(𝒕)+𝑭_\alpha \left[𝒇\right](𝒕),𝒕\mathrm{\Gamma },$$

(17)
$$𝚽_\alpha ^{}\left[𝒇\right](𝒕)=[𝑰_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }}(𝒕),𝒇(𝒕)]+I_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma },0}(𝒕)𝒇(𝒕)+𝑭_\alpha \left[𝒇\right](𝒕),𝒕\mathrm{\Gamma },$$

where $`𝚽_\alpha ^\pm \left[𝐟\right](𝐭):=\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }^\pm 𝐳𝐭}{lim}𝚽_\alpha \left[𝐟\right](𝐳)`$.

## 2. Quaternions and quaternion-valued $`\alpha `$-hyperholomorphic <br>functions in $`^2`$

### 2.1.

We shall denote, as usual, by $`=()`$ and $`()`$ the sets of real and complex quaternions, i.e., each quaternion is of the form

$$a=\underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}a_k𝒊_𝒌$$

with $`\{a_k\}`$ for real quaternions and $`\{a_k\}`$ for complex quaternions; $`𝒊_0=1`$ stands for the unit and $`𝒊_1,𝒊_2,𝒊_3`$ stand for imaginary units; the complex numbers imaginary unit in $``$ will be denoted by $`i`$. $``$ has the structure of a real non-commutative, associative algebra without zero divisors. $`()`$ is a complex non-commutative, associative algebra with zero divisors.

For a complex quaternion $`a=\underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}a_k𝒊_k`$ its quaternionic conjugate is defined by $`\overline{a}:=a_0\underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}a_k𝒊_k`$. The module of a quaternion $`a`$ coincides with its Euclidean norm : $`|a|=a_^8`$. In particular, for $`a`$ we have $`|a|=a_^4`$ and besides $`|a|^2=a\overline{a}=\overline{a}a`$ while for a complex quaternion $`|a|^2a\overline{a}`$. What is more, for $`a,b`$ from $``$ there holds: $`|ab|=|a||b|`$ which is extremely important working with real quaternions. For complex quaternions the situation is different.

###### Lemma 2.2.

$`|ab|\sqrt{2}|a||b|`$ for all $`a,b()`$.

###### Proof.

Let

$$a:=\underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}a_k𝒊_k,a_k:=\alpha _k+i\lambda _k,\alpha _k,\lambda _k,$$

$$b:=\underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}b_k𝒊_k,b_k:=\beta _k+i\gamma _k,\beta _k,\gamma _k.$$

We have $`a=a^{}+ia^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`b=b^{}+ib^{\prime \prime }`$, where $`a^{},a^{\prime \prime },b^{},b^{\prime \prime }`$ are real quaternions. Since

$$|a|^2=\underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}(\alpha _k^2+\lambda _k^2)=|a^{}|^2+|a^{\prime \prime }|^2,|b|^2=\underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}(\beta _k^2+\gamma _k^2)=|b^{}|^2+|b^{\prime \prime }|^2,$$

then

$$(|a||b|)^2=|a^{}|^2|b^{}|^2+|a^{}|^2|b^{\prime \prime }|^2+|a^{\prime \prime }|^2|b^{}|^2+|a^{\prime \prime }|^2|b^{\prime \prime }|^2.$$

Therefore

(18)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill |ab|^2& =|a^{}b^{}a^{\prime \prime }b^{\prime \prime }+i(a^{}b^{\prime \prime }+a^{\prime \prime }b^{})|^2=|a^{}b^{}a^{\prime \prime }b^{\prime \prime }|^2+|a^{}b^{\prime \prime }+a^{\prime \prime }b^{}|^2=\hfill \\ & =\overline{(a^{}b^{}a^{\prime \prime }b^{\prime \prime })}(a^{}b^{}a^{\prime \prime }b^{\prime \prime })+\overline{(a^{}b^{\prime \prime }+a^{\prime \prime }b^{})}(a^{}b^{\prime \prime }+a^{\prime \prime }b^{})=\hfill \\ & =(\overline{a^{}b^{}}\overline{a^{\prime \prime }b^{\prime \prime }})(a^{}b^{}a^{\prime \prime }b^{\prime \prime })+(\overline{a^{}b^{\prime \prime }}+\overline{a^{\prime \prime }b^{}})(a^{}b^{\prime \prime }+a^{\prime \prime }b^{})=(|a||b|)^2+d,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`d=\overline{a^{}b^{\prime \prime }}a^{\prime \prime }b^{}+\overline{a^{\prime \prime }b^{}}a^{}b^{\prime \prime }\overline{a^{}b^{}}a^{\prime \prime }b^{\prime \prime }\overline{a^{\prime \prime }b^{\prime \prime }}a^{}b^{},`$ and

(19)
$$|d|2|a^{}b^{}||a^{\prime \prime }b^{\prime \prime }|+2|a^{}b^{\prime \prime }||a^{\prime \prime }b^{}|(|a||b|)^2.$$

Combining (18) and (19), we obtain the assertion of Lemma. ∎

### 2.3.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a domain in the plane $`^2`$, we consider $`()`$-valued functions defined in the domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. On the bi-$`()`$-module $`C^2(\mathrm{\Omega };())`$ there introduced the two-dimensional Helmholtz operator with a wave number $`\lambda `$:

$${}_{\lambda }{}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }:=\mathrm{\Delta }_^2+^\lambda M,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_^2=_1^2+_2^2`$, $`_k=\frac{}{x_k}`$ and for $`a()`$ we denote $`{}_{}{}^{\lambda }M`$ the operator of the multiplication by $`\lambda `$ on the left-hand side, analogously for $`M^\lambda `$. The operators $`\overline{}:=_1+i_2`$ and $`:=_1i_2`$ determine, respectively, classes of holomorphic and anti-holomorphic functions of the complex variable, and the following factorization holds:

$$\overline{}=\overline{}=\mathrm{\Delta }_^2.$$

Consider the following partial differential operators with quaternionic coefficients:

$${}_{st}{}^{}:=𝒊_1_1+𝒊_2_2;_{st}\overline{}:=\overline{𝒊_1}_1+\overline{𝒊_2}_2;$$

$$_{st}:=_1M^{𝒊_1}+_2M^{𝒊_2};\overline{}_{st}:=_1M^{\overline{𝒊_1}}+_2M^{\overline{𝒊_2}}.$$

The following equalities can be easily verified:

$$_{st}\overline{}_{st}=\overline{}_{st}_{st}=\mathrm{\Delta }_^2=_{st}_{st}\overline{}=_{st}\overline{}_{st},$$

which mean that

$${}_{st}{}^{}_{}^{2}=_{st}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }_^2.$$

For $`\alpha `$ to be a complex square root of $`\lambda `$, i.e. $`\alpha ^2=\lambda `$, set

$${}_{\alpha }{}^{}:=_{st}+^\alpha M;_\alpha :=_{st}+M^\alpha .$$

Then we have the following factorizations of the Helmholtz operator:

$${}_{\lambda }{}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }=_\alpha _\alpha =_\alpha _\alpha =_\alpha _\alpha =_\alpha _\alpha .$$

In analogy with the usual notion of a holomorphic function, consider the following definition of $`\alpha `$-hyperholomorphic functions in $`^2`$.

###### Definition 2.4 (\[ST1\]).

Let $`fC^1(\mathrm{\Omega },())`$, $`f`$ is called $`\alpha `$-hyperholomorphic if $`{}_{\alpha }{}^{}f0`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

Of course, more exactly such functions should be called, for instance, left-$`\alpha `$-hyperholomorphic because there is a ”symmetric” definition for $`_\alpha `$, as well as for $`{}_{\alpha }{}^{}\overline{}`$ and $`\overline{}_\alpha `$. We shall deal with the above case only.

Such a definition for $`\alpha `$-hyperholomorphic functions was introduced in \[ST1\] both for complex and quaternionic values of $`\alpha `$, and some essential properties were established there. Main integral formulas for $`\alpha `$-hyperholomorphic functions were constructed in \[ST2\]. All proofs and details can be found in these papers, see also \[KS, Appendix 4\]. Some developments of the topic are presented in \[RS\] and \[GSS\]. One can find much more relevant bibliographical references in all these papers.

### 2.5.

In what follows we shall be in need of some properties of the Hankel functions $`H_n^{(p)}(t)`$, $`t`$, (see \[GR\]) which we concentrate in this section for the reader’s convenience. The following equalities are valid:

(20)
$$\frac{d}{dt}H_1^{(p)}(t)=\frac{1}{2}\left(H_0^{(p)}(t)H_2^{(p)}(t)\right),$$

(21)
$$\frac{d}{dt}H_0^{(p)}(t)=H_1^{(p)}(t),$$

(22)
$$tH_2^{(p)}(t)=2H_1^{(p)}(t)tH_0^{(p)}(t),$$

and the following series expansions of the Hankel functions $`H_0^{(p)}(t)`$ and $`H_1^{(p)}(t)`$ hold:

(23)
$$H_0^{(p)}(t)=\left(1(1)^p\frac{2i}{\pi }(\mathrm{log}\frac{t}{2}+𝑪)\right)\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^kt^{2k}}{2^{2k}(k!)^2}+\frac{2i}{\pi }\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^{k+p}t^{2k}}{2^{2k}(k!)^2}\underset{m=1}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{1}{m},$$

(24)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill H_1^{(p)}(t)=& \left(1(1)^p\frac{2i}{\pi }(\mathrm{log}\frac{t}{2}+𝑪)\right)\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^kt^{2k+1}}{2^{2k+1}k!(k+1)!}+(1)^p\left(\frac{2i}{\pi t}+\frac{it}{2\pi }\right)+\hfill \\ & +\frac{i}{\pi }\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^{k+p}t^{2k+1}}{2^{2k+1}k!(k+1)!}\left(\underset{m=1}{\overset{k+1}{}}\frac{1}{m}+\underset{m=1}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{1}{m}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`𝑪`$ is the Euler constant.

## 3. Quaternionic generalization of the Cauchy-type integral

### 3.1.

Given $`\alpha `$ and real quaternions $`z:=x𝒊_1+y𝒊_2`$, $`\zeta :=\xi 𝒊_1+\eta 𝒊_2`$ thinkable as points of the Euclidean space $`^2`$ equipped with the additional structure of quaternionic multiplication; introduce the notation:

$$\theta _\alpha (z):=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1)^p\frac{i}{4}H_0^{(p)}(\alpha |z|),\hfill & \text{if }\alpha 0,\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2\pi }\mathrm{log}|z|,\hfill & \text{if }\alpha =0,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`p`$ depends on $`\alpha `$ by the formula (3). It is a well known fact (see e.g. \[V\]) that the function $`\theta _\alpha `$ is the fundamental solution of the Helmholtz operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha ^2}:=\mathrm{\Delta }_^2+^{\alpha ^2}M`$, written down for all values of $`\alpha `$.

The $`\alpha `$-hyperholomorphic Cauchy kernel, i.e., the fundamental solution to operators $`{}_{\alpha }{}^{}`$ and $`_\alpha `$, is defined as

$$K_\alpha (z):=_\alpha [\theta _\alpha ](z)=_\alpha [\theta _\alpha ](z).$$

Hence one has explicitly:

(25)
$$K_\alpha (z)=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1)^p\frac{i\alpha }{4}\left(H_1^{(p)}(\alpha |z|)\frac{z}{|z|}+H_0^{(p)}(\alpha |z|)\right),\hfill & \text{if }\alpha 0,\hfill \\ \frac{z}{2\pi |z|^2},\hfill & \text{if }\alpha =0.\hfill \end{array}$$

Now, for a continuous function $`f:\mathrm{\Gamma }()`$ and $`\sigma :=d\eta 𝒊_1d\xi 𝒊_2`$ the Cauchy-type integral of $`f`$ is given by the formula

(26)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha [f](z):=_\mathrm{\Gamma }K_\alpha (\zeta z)\sigma f(\zeta ),z^2\mathrm{\Gamma };$$

as in the previous section here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a closed rectifiable Jordan curve.

###### Theorem 3.2.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a closed rectifiable Jordan curve, $`f:\mathrm{\Gamma }()`$ be a continuous function, and let the integral

(27)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha [f](t):=\underset{\delta 0}{lim}\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{t,\delta }}{}|K_\alpha (\zeta t)||\sigma ||f(\zeta )f(t)|,t\mathrm{\Gamma },$$

where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{t,\delta }:=\{\zeta \mathrm{\Gamma }:|\zeta t|\delta \}`$, exist uniformly with respect to $`t\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Then there exists the integral

(28)
$$F_\alpha [f](t):=\underset{\delta 0}{lim}\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{t,\delta }}{}K_\alpha (\zeta t)\sigma (f(\zeta )f(t)),t\mathrm{\Gamma };$$

moreover, the functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^\pm [f]`$ extend continuously onto $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and the following analogues of the Sokhotski-Plemelj formulas hold:

(29)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^+[f](t)=(I_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }}(t)+1)f(t)+F_\alpha [f](t),t\mathrm{\Gamma },$$

(30)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{}[f](t)=I_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }}(t)f(t)+F_\alpha [f](t),t\mathrm{\Gamma },$$

where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^\pm [f](t):=\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }^\pm zt}{lim}\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha [f](z)`$, and

$$I_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }}(t):=\alpha \underset{\mathrm{\Omega }^+}{}K_\alpha (\zeta t)𝑑\xi 𝑑\eta .$$

The proof is based on several lemmas which are of interest by themselves.

###### Lemma 3.3.

The limit (28) exists uniformly with respect to $`t\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`F_\alpha [f]`$ is a continuous function on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

###### Lemma 3.4.

(31)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha [1](z)=\{\begin{array}{cc}I_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }}(z)+1,\hfill & z\mathrm{\Omega }^+,\hfill \\ I_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }}(z),\hfill & z\mathrm{\Omega }^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Lemma 3.5.

$`I_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ is a continuous function in $`^2`$.

## 4. Proof of the results of Section 3.

###### 4.1. Proof of Lemma 3.3.

Denote

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha (\delta ,t):=\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{t,\delta }}{}|K_\alpha (\zeta t)||\sigma ||f(\zeta )f(t)|.$$

$$F_\alpha (\delta ,t):=\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{t,\delta }}{}K_\alpha (\zeta t)\sigma (f(\zeta )f(t)).$$

We have $`F_\alpha (\delta ,t)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}(F_{\alpha ,k}^{(1)}(\delta ,t)+iF_{\alpha ,k}^{(2)}(\delta ,t))𝒊_k`$, where $`F_{\alpha ,k}^{(1)}`$ and $`F_{\alpha ,k}^{(2)}`$ are real-valued functions.

Under conditions of Theorem 3.2 the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha (\delta ,t)`$ tends to the finite limit $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha (t)`$, when $`\delta 0`$, uniformly with respect to $`t\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Using the criterion of uniform convergence for the integral and Lemma 2.2, we get that for $`\epsilon >0\delta (\epsilon )>0t\mathrm{\Gamma }:`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0<\delta _1& <\delta _2<\delta (\epsilon )\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha (\delta _1,t)\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha (\delta _2,t)=\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{t,\delta _2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{t,\delta _1}}{}|K_\alpha (\zeta t)||\sigma ||f(\zeta )f(t)|<\epsilon \hfill \\ & \left|F_\alpha (\delta _1,t)F_\alpha (\delta _2,t)\right|=\left|\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{t,\delta _2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{t,\delta _1}}{}K_\alpha (\zeta t)\sigma (f(\zeta )f(t))\right|\hfill \\ & 2\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{t,\delta _2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{t,\delta _1}}{}|K_\alpha (\zeta t)||\sigma ||f(\zeta )f(t)|<2\epsilon \hfill \end{array}$$

(32)
$$\left|F_{\alpha ,k}^{(j)}(\delta _1,t)F_{\alpha ,k}^{(j)}(\delta _2,t)\right|<2\epsilon (j=1,2;k=0,\mathrm{},3).$$

Therefore for each fixed $`t\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ there exist limits

$$F_{\alpha ,k}^{(j)}(t):=\underset{\delta 0}{lim}F_{\alpha ,k}^{(j)}(\delta ,t)(j=1,2;k=0,\mathrm{},3)$$

and consequently there exists

(33)
$$F_\alpha [f](t)=\underset{\delta 0}{lim}F_\alpha (\delta ,t).$$

Proceeding to the limit as $`\delta _10`$ in inequality (32) we obtain that for $`\epsilon >0\delta (\epsilon )>0t\mathrm{\Gamma }`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0<\delta <\delta (\epsilon )& \left|F_{\alpha ,k}^{(j)}(\delta ,t)F_{\alpha ,k}^{(j)}(t)\right|2\epsilon (j=1,2;k=0,\mathrm{},3)\hfill \\ & \left|F_\alpha (\delta ,t)F_\alpha [f](t)\right|4\sqrt{2}\epsilon ,\hfill \end{array}$$

and this is all. ∎

###### 4.2. Proof of Lemma 3.4.

Let $`\alpha 0`$. We have

(34)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha [1](z)=\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}K_\alpha (\zeta z)\sigma =(1)^{p1}\frac{i}{4}\alpha (𝒊_1+I_2𝒊_3I_3),$$

where

$`I_1=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{H_1^{(p)}(\alpha |\zeta z|)}{|\zeta z|}}\left((\xi x)d\eta (\eta y)d\xi \right),`$
$`I_2=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{H_1^{(p)}(\alpha |\zeta z|)}{|\zeta z|}}\left((\xi x)d\xi +(\eta y)d\eta \right),`$
$`I_3=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}}H_0^{(p)}(\alpha |\zeta z|)(d\eta 𝒊_1d\xi 𝒊_2).`$
Let $`z\mathrm{\Omega }^+`$, let $`\rho >0`$ be such that $`B(z,\rho ):=\{\zeta :|\zeta z|\rho \}`$ is contained in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^+`$, and let $`\gamma _\rho `$ be the boundary of $`B(z,\rho )`$.

Using the Green formula and the equalities (20), (22) we get:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma _\rho }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{H_1^{(p)}(\alpha |\zeta z|)}{|\zeta z|}}\left((\xi x)d\eta (\eta y)d\xi \right)=`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Omega }^+B(z,\rho )}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{H_1^{(p)}(\alpha |\zeta z|)}{|\zeta z|}}(\xi x)\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{}{\eta }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{H_1^{(p)}(\alpha |\zeta z|)}{|\zeta z|}}(\eta y)\right)\right)𝑑\xi 𝑑\eta =`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Omega }^+B(z,\rho )}{}}\left(\alpha H_0^{(p)}(\alpha |\zeta z|)\alpha H_2^{(p)}(\alpha |\zeta z|)+2{\displaystyle \frac{H_1^{(p)}(\alpha |\zeta z|)}{|\zeta z|}}\right)𝑑\xi 𝑑\eta =`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Omega }^+B(z,\rho )}{}}\alpha H_0^{(p)}(\alpha |\zeta z|)𝑑\xi 𝑑\eta ,`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma _\rho }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{H_1^{(p)}(\alpha |\zeta z|)}{|\zeta z|}}\left((\xi x)d\eta (\eta y)d\xi \right)=`$ $`2\pi \rho H_1^{(p)}(\alpha \rho )=`$
$`=`$ $`(1)^p{\displaystyle \frac{4i}{\alpha }}+o(1)\text{as}\rho 0.`$
Hence

(35)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill I_1& =\underset{\rho 0}{lim}\left(\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma _\rho }{}+\underset{\gamma _\rho }{}\right)\frac{H_1^{(p)}(\alpha |\zeta z|)}{|\zeta z|}((\xi x)d\eta (\eta y)d\xi )=\hfill \\ & =\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }^+}{}\alpha H_0^{(p)}(\alpha |\zeta z|)𝑑\xi 𝑑\eta +(1)^p\frac{4i}{\alpha }.\hfill \end{array}$$

Furthermore,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma _\rho }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{H_1^{(p)}(\alpha |\zeta z|)}{|\zeta z|}}\left((\xi x)d\xi +(\eta y)d\eta \right)=`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Omega }^+B(z,\rho )}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{H_1^{(p)}(\alpha |\zeta z|)}{|\zeta z|}}(\eta y)\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{\eta }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{H_1^{(p)}(\alpha |\zeta z|)}{|\zeta z|}}(\xi x)\right)\right)𝑑\xi 𝑑\eta =`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Omega }^+B(z,\rho )}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{|\zeta z|}}({\displaystyle \frac{H_1^{(p)}(\alpha |\zeta z|)}{|\zeta z|}})\left({\displaystyle \frac{|\zeta z|}{\xi }}(\eta y){\displaystyle \frac{|\zeta z|}{\eta }}(\xi x)\right)𝑑\xi 𝑑\eta =`$
$`=0,`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma _\rho }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{H_1^{(p)}(\alpha |\zeta z|)}{|\zeta z|}}\left((\xi x)d\xi +(\eta y)d\eta \right)=0`$
and, consequently,

(36)
$$I_2=0.$$

Analogously, using the equality (21), we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma _\rho }{}}`$ $`H_0^{(p)}(\alpha |\zeta z|)(d\eta 𝒊_1d\xi 𝒊_2)=`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Omega }^+B(z,\rho )}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{H_0^{(p)}(\alpha |\zeta z|)}{\xi }}𝒊_1+{\displaystyle \frac{H_0^{(p)}(\alpha |\zeta z|)}{\eta }}𝒊_2\right)𝑑\xi 𝑑\eta =`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Omega }^+B(z,\rho )}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha H_1^{(p)}(\alpha |\zeta z|)}{|\zeta z|}}(\zeta z)𝑑\xi 𝑑\eta ,`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma _\rho }{}}H_0^{(p)}(\alpha |\zeta z|)(d\eta 𝒊_1d\xi 𝒊_2)=0`$
and

(37)
$$I_3=\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }^+}{}\frac{\alpha H_1^{(p)}(\alpha |\zeta z|)}{|\zeta z|}(\zeta z)𝑑\xi 𝑑\eta .$$

Thus, from (34) – (37) we have

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha [1](z)=1`$ $`+(1)^{p1}{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha ^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Omega }^+}{}}(H_0^{(p)}(\alpha |\zeta z|)+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{H_1^{(p)}(\alpha |\zeta z|)}{|\zeta z|}}(\zeta z))d\xi d\eta =I_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }}(z)+1.`$
Let now $`\alpha =0`$. We have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Phi }_0[1](z)& =\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}K_0(\zeta z)\sigma =\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}\frac{\zeta z}{|\zeta z|^2}\sigma =\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}\frac{(\xi x)d\eta (\eta y)d\xi }{|\zeta z|^2}+\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}\frac{(\xi x)d\xi +(\eta y)d\eta }{|\zeta z|^2}𝒊_3.\hfill \end{array}$$

Going on along the same way as in the computation of the integrals $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$, and using the Green formula, we obtain that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0[1](z)=1`$.

In the case of $`z\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ the proof of (31) is simplified because of the continuity of the kernel $`K_\alpha `$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }^+`$. ∎

###### 4.3. Proof of Lemma 3.5.

Making use of the series expansions of the Hankel functions (23), (24) we obtain:

(38)
$$I_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }}(z)=\frac{i\alpha }{8}\left((1)^{p1}I_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(1)}(z)+\frac{2i}{\pi }I_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(2)}(z)+(1)^p\frac{4i}{\pi }I_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(3)}(z)\right),$$

where

$`I_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(1)}(z):=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Omega }^+}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\alpha ^{2k+1}|\zeta z|^{2k}(a_{k,p}+b_{k,p}\alpha (\zeta z))d\xi d\eta ,`$
$`I_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(2)}(z):=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Omega }^+}{}}\mathrm{log}|\zeta z|{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^k{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{2k+1}|\zeta z|^{2k}}{2^{2k}k!(k+1)!}}(2(k+1)+\alpha (\zeta z))d\xi d\eta ,`$
$`I_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(3)}(z):=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Omega }^+}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta z}{|\zeta z|^2}}𝑑\xi 𝑑\eta ,`$
and $`a_{k,p}`$, $`b_{k,p}`$ are complex coefficients.

The continuity of $`I_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(1)}`$ follows from the continuity of the integrand.

Let us prove the continuity of $`I_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(3)}`$. For an arbitrary $`z`$ and a measurable $`E`$ set

$$I_E(z):=\underset{E}{}\frac{\zeta z}{|\zeta z|^2}𝑑\xi 𝑑\eta .$$

Let us fix any point $`z_0`$. For an arbitrary $`z`$ we have

$`I_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(3)}(z_0)I_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(3)}(z)`$ $`=I_{\mathrm{\Omega }^+B(z_0,\rho )}(z_0)+I_{(\mathrm{\Omega }^+B(z_0,\rho ))B(z,\rho )}(z_0)+`$
$`+I_{\mathrm{\Omega }^+(B(z,\rho )B(z_0,\rho ))}(z_0)I_{\mathrm{\Omega }^+B(z_0,\rho )}(z)`$
$`I_{(\mathrm{\Omega }^+B(z_0,\rho ))B(z,\rho )}(z)I_{\mathrm{\Omega }^+(B(z,\rho )B(z_0,\rho ))}(z).`$
Fix an arbitrary $`\epsilon >0`$. Since $`|I_{EB(z_1,\rho )}(z_2)|16\rho `$ for an arbitrary $`\rho >0`$, $`z_1`$, $`z_2`$, $`E`$, there exists $`\rho (\epsilon )>0`$ such that $`|I_{EB(z_1,\rho )}(z_2)|\frac{\epsilon }{6}`$. Therefore

$`\left|I_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(3)}(z_0)I_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(3)}(z)\right|`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\epsilon }{3}}+|I_{\mathrm{\Omega }^+(B(z,\rho )B(z_0,\rho ))}(z_0)I_{\mathrm{\Omega }^+(B(z,\rho )B(z_0,\rho ))}(z)|`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\epsilon }{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi }}|z_0z|{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Omega }^+(B(z,\rho )B(z_0,\rho ))}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\xi d\eta }{|\zeta z_0||\zeta z|}}.`$
Under the condition $`|z_0z|<\frac{\rho (\epsilon )}{2}`$ we get:

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }^+(B(z,\rho )B(z_0,\rho ))}{}\frac{d\xi d\eta }{|\zeta z_0||\zeta z|}4\pi \mathrm{log}\frac{d}{\rho (\epsilon )},$$

where $`d=\underset{t\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{max}}|z_0t|`$. By choosing $`|z_0z|<\mathrm{min}\{\frac{\rho (\epsilon )}{2};\epsilon \left(48\mathrm{log}\frac{d}{\rho (\epsilon )}\right)^1\}`$ we obtain

$$\left|I_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(3)}(z_0)I_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(3)}(z)\right|<\epsilon .$$

To prove the continuity of $`I_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(2)}(z)`$ fix any point $`z_0`$. For any $`z`$ denote $`\delta :=|zz_0|`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1^+:=B(z_0,3\delta )\mathrm{\Omega }^+`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^+:=\mathrm{\Omega }^+\mathrm{\Omega }_1^+`$.

Denote

$$R(\zeta ,z):=\mathrm{log}|\zeta z|\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^k\frac{\alpha ^{2k+1}|\zeta z|^{2k}}{2^{2k}k!(k+1)!}(2(k+1)+\alpha (\zeta z)).$$

Then

$`|I_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(2)}(z)I_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(2)}(z_0)|`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Omega }_1^+}{}}R(\zeta ,z_0)𝑑\xi 𝑑\eta \right|+\left|{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Omega }_1^+}{}}R(\zeta ,z)𝑑\xi 𝑑\eta \right|+`$
$`+`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Omega }_2^+}{}}(R(\zeta ,z)R(\zeta ,z_0))d\xi d\eta \right|=:I_4+I_5+I_6,`$
and setting $`4\delta <1`$ we get

$`I_4`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Omega }_1^+}{}}|\mathrm{log}|\zeta z_0||{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\alpha |^{2k+1}|\zeta z_0|^{2k}}{2^{2k}k!(k+1)!}}(2(k+1)+|\alpha ||\zeta z_0|)d\xi d\eta `$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\alpha |^{2k+1}|3\delta |^{2k}}{2^{2k}k!(k+1)!}}(2(k+1)+|\alpha |3\delta )2\pi {\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{3\delta }{}}}\rho \mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}d\rho =o(1)as\delta 0,`$
$`I_5`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Omega }_1^+}{}}|\mathrm{log}|\zeta z||{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\alpha |^{2k+1}|\zeta z|^{2k}}{2^{2k}k!(k+1)!}}(2(k+1)+|\alpha ||\zeta z|)d\xi d\eta `$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\alpha |^{2k+1}|4\delta |^{2k}}{2^{2k}k!(k+1)!}}(2(k+1)+|\alpha |4\delta )2\pi {\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{4\delta }{}}}\rho \mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}d\rho =o(1)as\delta 0.`$
$`I_6`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Omega }_2^+}{}}|\mathrm{log}|\zeta z|\mathrm{log}|\zeta z_0||{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\alpha |^{2k+1}|\zeta z|^{2k}}{2^{2k}k!(k+1)!}}\times `$
$`\times (2(k+1)+|\alpha ||\zeta z|)d\xi d\eta +`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Omega }_2^+}{}}|\mathrm{log}|\zeta z_0||{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\alpha |^{2k+1}}{2^{2k}k!(k+1)!}}|(\zeta z)^{2k}(\zeta z_0)^{2k}|\times `$
$`\times \left|2(k+1)+\alpha (\zeta z)\right|d\xi d\eta +`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Omega }_2^+}{}}|\mathrm{log}|\zeta z_0||{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\alpha |^{2k+1}}{2^{2k}k!(k+1)!}}|(\zeta z_0)^{2k}||\alpha ||z_0z|𝑑\xi 𝑑\eta .`$
Using the inequalities

$$\left|\mathrm{log}\frac{|\zeta z|}{|\zeta z_0|}\right|<\frac{2\delta }{|\zeta z_0|},\zeta \mathrm{\Omega }_2^+,$$

$$\left|(\zeta z)^{2k}(\zeta z_0)^{2k}\right|2k\left(C(\mathrm{\Gamma },z_0)\right)^{2k1}\delta ,\zeta \mathrm{\Omega }_2^+,$$

we have

$$I_6C(\mathrm{\Gamma },z_0,\alpha )\delta ,$$

where $`C()`$ denotes a constant depending only on the parameters in the parenthesis. ∎

###### 4.4. Proof of Theorem 3.2.

Let us prove (29) (the relation (30) is proved similarly). We consider a sequence $`z_n\mathrm{\Omega }^+`$, $`z_nt\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and denote by $`\zeta _n`$ the nearest to $`z_n`$ point of the curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Applying formula (31) we have that

(39)
$$\begin{array}{cc}& |\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha [f](z_n)(I_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }}(t)+1)f(t)F_\alpha [f](t)|=\hfill \\ \hfill =& |\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha [f](z_n)\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha [f(\zeta _n)](z_n)+\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha [f(\zeta _n)](z_n)F_\alpha [f](\zeta _n)+F_\alpha [f](\zeta _n)\hfill \\ & (I_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }}(t)+1)f(t)F_\alpha [f](t)|M_1+M_2,\hfill \end{array}$$

where

$`M_1=`$ $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha [ff(\zeta _n)](z_n)F_\alpha [f](\zeta _n)|,`$
$`M_2=`$ $`|(I_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }}(z_n)+1)f(\zeta _n)+F_\alpha [f](\zeta _n)(I_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }}(t)+1)f(t)F_\alpha [f](t)|.`$
Let $`\alpha 0`$. On the basis of relations (23) – (25) we have the representation

(40)
$$K_\alpha (z)=S_\alpha (z)+\phi _\alpha (z),$$

where $`\phi _\alpha (z)`$ is a continuous function in $``$ and

$$S_\alpha (z):=\frac{1}{2\pi }\left(\frac{z}{|z|^2}+\alpha \mathrm{log}|z|\right).$$

Then

$`M_1`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}}S_\alpha (\zeta z_n)\sigma (f(\zeta )f(\zeta _n)){\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}}S_\alpha (\zeta \zeta _n)\sigma (f(\zeta )f(\zeta _n))\right|+`$
$`+`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}}\phi _\alpha (\zeta z_n)\sigma (f(\zeta )f(\zeta _n)){\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}}\phi _\alpha (\zeta \zeta _n)\sigma (f(\zeta )f(\zeta _n))\right|=:`$
$`=:`$ $`M_3+M_4.`$
By virtue of continuity of the functions $`F_\alpha [f]`$ (Lemma 3.3), $`I_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ (Lemma 3.5), $`\phi _\alpha `$ and $`f`$ we get that $`M_20`$ and $`M_40`$, when $`z_nt`$.

Let us fix an arbitrary $`\epsilon >0`$. For any given $`\delta >0`$ we have

(41)
$$M_3M_5+M_6+M_7,$$

where

$`M_5=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\zeta _n,\delta }}{}}S_\alpha (\zeta \zeta _n)\sigma (f(\zeta )f(\zeta _n))\right|,`$
$`M_6=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\zeta _n,\delta }}{}}S_\alpha (\zeta z_n)\sigma (f(\zeta )f(\zeta _n))\right|,`$
$`M_7=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\zeta _n,\delta }}{}}\left(S_\alpha (\zeta z_n)S_\alpha (\zeta \zeta _n)\right)\sigma (f(\zeta )f(\zeta _n))\right|.`$
By virtue of the equality (40) it follows from the uniform existence of $`F_\alpha [f]`$ (Lemma 3.3) that for all sufficiently small $`\delta `$ and for all $`\zeta _n\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the inequality $`M_5<\frac{\epsilon }{3}`$ is valid.

Let us estimate $`M_6`$. For any $`\delta >0`$ let us take $`z_n`$ near to $`t`$ so that $`|\zeta _nz_n|<\frac{\delta }{3}`$. We have

(42)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill M_6& \left|\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\zeta _n,3|\zeta _nz_n|}}{}S_\alpha (\zeta z_n)\sigma (f(\zeta )f(\zeta _n))\right|+\hfill \\ \hfill +& |\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\zeta _n,\delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\zeta _n,3|\zeta _nz_n|}}{}S_\alpha (\zeta z_n)\sigma (f(\zeta )f(\zeta _n))|=:M_8+M_9.\hfill \end{array}$$

Let us estimate $`M_8`$. Using the inequalities $`|\zeta \zeta _n|3|\zeta z_n|<4\delta `$, we obtain for sufficiently small $`\delta <\frac{3}{4}`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{|S_\alpha (\zeta z_n)|}{|S_\alpha (\zeta \zeta _n)|}=& \frac{\left|\frac{\zeta z_n}{|\zeta z_n|^2}+\alpha \mathrm{log}|\zeta z_n|\right|}{\left|\frac{\zeta \zeta _n}{|\zeta \zeta _n|^2}+\alpha \mathrm{log}|\zeta \zeta _n|\right|}\hfill \\ \hfill & \frac{\frac{3}{|\zeta \zeta _n|}+|\alpha ||\mathrm{log}|\zeta \zeta _n||+|\alpha |\mathrm{log}3}{\frac{1}{|\zeta \zeta _n|}|\alpha ||\mathrm{log}|\zeta \zeta _n||}4,\hfill \end{array}$$

(43)
$$|S_\alpha (\zeta z_n)|=|S_\alpha (\zeta \zeta _n)|\frac{|S_\alpha (\zeta z_n)|}{|S_\alpha (\zeta \zeta _n)|}4|S_\alpha (\zeta \zeta _n)|.$$

Due to the uniform existence of the integral (27) and the equality (40) it follows from (43) that for all sufficiently small $`\delta `$ and for all $`|\zeta _nz_n|<\frac{\delta }{3}`$

(44)
$$M_84\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\zeta _n,3|\zeta _nz_n|}}{}|S_\alpha \left(\zeta \zeta _n\right)||\sigma ||f(\zeta )f(\zeta _n)|<\frac{\epsilon }{6}.$$

Let us estimate $`M_9`$. We get

(45)
$$|S_\alpha (\zeta z_n)||S_\alpha (\zeta \zeta _n)|+|S_\alpha (\zeta z_n)S_\alpha (\zeta \zeta _n)|.$$

As long as $`|z_n\zeta _n|\frac{1}{2}|\zeta z_n|`$, $`3|\zeta _nz_n|<|\zeta \zeta _n|\delta <\frac{3}{4}`$ and $`\frac{1}{|\zeta \zeta _n|}2\pi |S_\alpha (\zeta \zeta _n)|`$ we have

(46)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill |S_\alpha (\zeta z_n)& S_\alpha (\zeta \zeta _n)|\hfill \\ \hfill & \frac{1}{2\pi }\left|\frac{\zeta z_n}{|\zeta z_n|^2}\frac{\zeta \zeta _n}{|\zeta \zeta _n|^2}\right|+\frac{|\alpha |}{2\pi }\left|\mathrm{log}\frac{|\zeta z_n|}{|\zeta \zeta _n|}\right|=\hfill \\ \hfill =& \frac{|z_n\zeta _n|}{2\pi |\zeta z_n||\zeta \zeta _n|}+\frac{|\alpha |}{2\pi }\left|\mathrm{log}\frac{|\zeta z_n|}{|\zeta \zeta _n|}\right|\hfill \\ \hfill & \frac{1}{4\pi |\zeta \zeta _n|}+\frac{|\alpha |}{2\pi }\mathrm{log}\frac{3}{2}\frac{1+|\alpha |}{4\pi |\zeta \zeta _n|}\frac{1+|\alpha |}{2}|S_\alpha (\zeta \zeta _n)|.\hfill \end{array}$$

From (45), (46) we get

(47)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill M_9& \frac{3+|\alpha |}{2}\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\zeta _n,\delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\zeta _n,3|\zeta _nz_n|}}{}|S_\alpha (\zeta z_n)||\sigma ||f(\zeta )f(\zeta _n)|<\frac{\epsilon }{6}\hfill \end{array}$$

for sufficiently small $`\delta `$ and for $`|\zeta _nz_n|<\frac{\delta }{3}`$.

So we have from (42), (44, (47) that $`M_6<\frac{\epsilon }{3}`$.

In order to estimate $`M_7`$ fix any $`\delta `$ satisfying all the conditions stated above and take $`z_n`$ near $`t`$ so that $`|\zeta _nz_n|\frac{\delta }{3}`$.

We have $`\delta <|\zeta \zeta _n|`$, $`\frac{2}{3}\delta <|\zeta z_n|`$. Therefore

(48)
$$\frac{|z_n\zeta _n|}{|\zeta z_n||\zeta \zeta _n|}\frac{3}{2\delta ^2}|z_n\zeta _n|,$$

and by Lagrange’s theorem

$$\left|\mathrm{log}\frac{|\zeta z_n|}{|\zeta \zeta _n|}\right|=\frac{1}{\mu }||\zeta z_n||\zeta \zeta _n||\frac{3}{2\delta }|z_n\zeta _n|,$$

where $`\mu `$ lies between $`|\zeta z_n|`$ and $`|\zeta \zeta _n|`$. That is why using the relation (46), we get

$$|S_\alpha (\zeta z_n)S_\alpha (\zeta \zeta _n)|3\frac{1+|\alpha |\delta }{4\pi \delta ^2}|z_n\zeta _n|,$$

and taking into account the boundedness of the function $`f`$, we obtain for the above fixed $`\delta `$ and for $`z_n`$ sufficiently near to $`t`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill M_7& \underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\zeta _n,\delta }}{}|S_\alpha (\zeta z_n)S_\alpha (\zeta \zeta _n)||\sigma ||f(\zeta )f(\zeta _n)|\hfill \\ \hfill & \frac{1+|\alpha |\delta }{2\delta ^2}l(\mathrm{\Gamma })\underset{t\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{max}}|f(t)||\zeta _nz_n|<\frac{\epsilon }{3},\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`l(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ denotes the length of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Thus, we have $`M_3<\epsilon `$ and, consequently, the relation (29) is proved.

The continuity of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^\pm [f]`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ follows now from Lemmas 3.3 and 3.5. This completes the proof of Theorem 3.2. ∎

## 5. Proof of main results

### 5.1.

We identify a complex quaternion $`a=_{k=0}^3a_k𝒊_k`$ with the scalar-vector pair $`(a_0,𝒂)`$, where $`𝒂=_{k=1}^3a_k𝒊_k`$ is a vector of the complex linear space $`^3`$ with the canonical basis $`𝒊_1`$, $`𝒊_2`$, $`𝒊_3`$. Then a quaternionic function $`f=_{k=0}^3f_k𝒊_k`$ is interpretable as a pair $`=(f_0,𝒇)`$, operator $`_\alpha `$ as a pair $`(M^\alpha ,_{st}\mathbf{})`$, where $`{}_{st}{}^{}\mathbf{}:=_1𝒊_1+_2𝒊_2`$. Using the vectorial representation of the multiplication of any complex quaternions $`a=(a_0,𝒂)`$ and $`b=(b_0,𝒃)`$ (see \[KS\], p. 24):

(49)
$$ab=(a_0b_0<𝒂,𝒃>,[𝒂,𝒃]+a_0𝒃+b_0𝒂),$$

we obtain

$$_\alpha f=(\alpha f_0div𝒇,𝒓𝒐𝒕𝒇+\alpha 𝒇+𝒈𝒓𝒂𝒅f_0),$$

reducing to the system (2) as the vector form of Definition 2.4 of an $`\alpha `$-hyperholomorphic function.

###### 5.2. Proof of Theorem 1.6.

The representation (4) follows from the formula (25) and we obtain (5) from (26) by using the equality (49). Combining the vector form of the functions $`F_\alpha `$, $`I_{\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^\pm `$ in Theorem 3.2 with the equality (49), we arrive at Theorem 1.6 as a vector reformulation of Theorem 3.2. ∎

###### 5.3. Proof of Corollary 1.7.

Applying Theorem 1.6 to the pair $`=(0,𝒇)`$, we obtain the desired conclusion. Because of the condition $`𝒇(\mathrm{\Gamma };^3)`$ the Cauchy-type integral $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha []`$ is purely vectorial and therefore its boundary values $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^\pm []`$ are also purely vectorial. ∎

## Acknowledgments

The first-named author was supported in part by INTAS-99-00089 and by CONACYT project.

The second-named author was partially supported by CONACYT projects as well as by Insituto Politécnico Nacional in the framework of COFAA and CGPI programs.