format: text

text:
# Theorem 1

THE MACROSCOPICAL SOUND OF TORI

by Constantin Vernicos

Abstract

Take a torus with a Riemannian metric. Lift the metric on its universal cover. You get a distance which in turn yields balls. On these balls you can look at the Laplacian. Focus on the spectrum for the Dirichlet or Neumann problem. We describe the asymptotic behaviour of the eigenvalues as the radius of the balls goes to infinity, and characterise the flat tori using the tools of homogenisation our conclusion being that ”Macroscopically, one can hear the shape of a flat torus”. We also show how in the two dimensional case we can recover earlier results by D. Burago and S. Ivanov on the asymptotic volume.

Key-words : Spectrum of the laplacian, Tori, Homogenisation, Stable norm, Asymptotic volume.Classification : 53C24, 58C40, 74Q99
1 Introduction and claims

Let $`(T^n,g)`$ be a riemannian Torus, lift its metric on its universal cover and use it to define first a distance, then the metric’s balls. The first thing one can observe is the volume of these balls as a function of their radius, indeed as the distance obtained arises from a compact quotient it is equivalent to an euclidean distance hence the volume of these balls is equivalent to the euclidean volume of an euclidean ball i.e. proportional to the radius of the ball to the power of $`n`$ (the dimension of our Torus).

We are thus naturally led to wonder what happens if one looks at the following riemanniann function on the balls ($`B_g(\rho )`$ is the ball of radius $`\rho `$)

$$\frac{\mathrm{Vol}_g\left(B_g(\rho )\right)}{\rho ^n}\mathrm{as}\rho +\mathrm{}.$$

If it is not very surprising that it converges to some constant for this limit can be seen as a mean value due to the periodicity of the metric (see for example Pansu \[Pan82\] and a slightly different and more analytical proof in this paper section 2.3), it is quite remarkable that this constant, called asymptotic volume, is bounded from below by the constant arising from the flat tori and furthermore that the case of equality caracterises the flat tori as D. Burago and S. Ivanov showed in \[BI95\].

The study of the balls of large radii on the universal cover of tori (and more generally of a nilmanifold) is what we call here the macroscopical geometry. Indeed in our case the universal cover is a real vector space, where some lattices acts by translation (in the more general case of nilmanifolds one should consider a left action). Should one focus on the point of this lattice endowed with the distance arising from the torus, one gets an invariant metric on the lattice. Now if one looks at this lattice from a galaxy far, far away, one won’t be able to distinguish the lattice from the whole universal cover. Thus it is understandable that for this observer the distance obtained on the universal cover seems invariant by all translations (for general nilmanifolds one gets a left invariant distance).

In the case of tori this ”seen from a far away galaxy” distance is a norm, called the stable norm and was first defined by Federer in Homology. It is some kind of mean value of the metric. This asymptotic behaviour was generalized and prooved by P. Pansu for all nilmanifold \[Pan82\] and precised by D. Burago \[Bur92\] for Tori. Since then the stable normed appeared in many other works : for surfaces and the links with Aubry-Mather theory in D. Massart’s works, one can also find it in the weak KAM theory of A. Fathi. It is also worth mentionning the crucial role it plays in the proof by D. Burago and S. Ivanov \[BI94\] of the Hopf conjecture concerning tori without conjugate points. Here in part 2 we show, for the case of tori, how one recovers the stable norm using Homogenisation’s tools.

There is another interesting geometric invariant attached to the balls and linked with the volume, the spectrum of the laplacian. Indeed if one knows the spectrum one knows the volume thanks to Weyl’s asymptotic formula. Here again one easily sees, comparing with the euclidean case, that the eigenvalues converge to zero with a $`1/\rho ^2`$ speed ($`\rho `$ being the radius). If one can expect a convergence when rescaled, it is quite surprising that as a limit we obtain the spectrum of an euclidean and not a finsler metric, indeed the behaviour is described by the following theorem which is one of the aims of this paper :

###### Theorem 1

Let $`(T^n,g)`$ be a Riemannian Torus, $`B_g(\rho )`$ the induced metric ball on its universal cover and $`\lambda _i\left(B_g(\rho )\right)`$ the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ eigenvalue of the Laplacian for the Dirichlet (resp. Neumann) problem.

There exists an elliptic operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}`$, which is the Laplacian of some Euclidean metric on $`R^n`$, such that if $`\lambda _i^{\mathrm{}}`$ is its $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ eigenvalue for the Dirichlet (resp. Neumann) problem on the stable’s norm unit ball then

$$\underset{\rho +\mathrm{}}{lim}\rho ^2\lambda _i\left(B_g(\rho )\right)=\lambda _i^{\mathrm{}}$$

The section 4 is devoted to the proof of this theorem and section 3 introduces the analytical background : Homogenisation and various convergence fairly known by the specialist of homogenisation but adapted here to our purpose, as it becomes after some re-spelling of the problem made in section 2.4. From this theorem we can deduce the following one which is some kind of “à la” Burago-Ivanov macroscopical rigidity and which inspired the abstract :

###### Theorem 2

Let $`(T^n,g)`$ be a Riemannian Torus, $`B_g(\rho )`$ the induced metric ball on its universal cover and $`\lambda _1\left(B_g(\rho )\right)`$ the first eigenvalue of the Laplacian for the Dirichlet problem. Then

(a) $`\underset{\rho +\mathrm{}}{lim}\rho ^2\lambda _1\left(B_g(\rho )\right)=\lambda _1^{\mathrm{}}\lambda _{e,n}`$

(b) equality holds if, and only if, the torus is flat

where $`\lambda _{e,n}`$ is the first eigenvalue of the Euclidean Laplacian on the Euclidean unit ball.

The proof which is done in section 6, involves some kind of transplantation for the inequality mixed with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-convergence for the equality. For a better understanding of what happens we briefly give some informations related to the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-convergence and adapt it to our purpose in section 5, following the general ideas of K. Kuwae and T. Shioya in \[KS\] (who in turn generalized U. Mosco’s paper \[Mos94\]), this section being completed by the proof of section 8.

As the macroscopical spectrum involved rises from an euclidean metric, we can use the Faber-Krahn inequality to obtain a new inequality regarding the asymptotic volume, this is done in section 7.1 :

###### Proposition 3

Let $`(T^n,g)`$ be a Riemannian Torus, $`B_g(\rho )`$ the geodesic balls of radius $`\rho `$ centred on a fixed point and $`\mathrm{Vol}_g\left(B_g(\rho )\right)`$ their Riemannian volume induced on the universal cover, writing

$$\mathrm{Asvol}(g)=\underset{\rho \mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{Vol}_g\left(B_g(\rho )\right)}{\rho ^n}$$

then

1. $`\mathrm{Asvol}(g)\frac{\mathrm{Vol}_g\left(T^n\right)}{\mathrm{Vol}_{\mathrm{Al}}\left(T^n\right)}\omega _n`$

2. In case of equality, the torus is flat.

Where $`\omega _n`$ is the unit Euclidean ball’s Euclidean volume, and $`\mathrm{Vol}_{\mathrm{Al}}(T^n)`$ is the volume of the albanese Torus.

A surprising facts arises because this new inequality involves a constant which happened to be at the heart of the isosystolic inequality of two dimensional tori (see J. Lafontaine \[Laf74\]), hence we obtain an alternate proof of the asymptotic volume’s lower boundedness in dimension two,

###### Corollary

Let $`(T^2,g)`$ be a $`2`$-dimensional torus then :

1. $`\mathrm{Asvol}(g)\pi `$

2. In case of equality, the torus is flat.

It is worth mentionning that the case of equality in the previous claims relies on theorem 32, which states that the stable norm coincides with the Albanese metric if and only if the torus is flat, and whose proof do not depend on the work of D. Burago and S. Ivanov \[BI95\], thus we actually get an alternate proof of their theorem in the $`2`$-dimensional case.

We also give a kind of generalised Faber-Krahn inequality for normed finite dimensional vector spaces, which implies that we cannot distinguish the euclidean’s ones among them using the first generalised eigenvalue of the Dirichlet laplacian (see lemma 35 and its corollary):

###### Theorem 4. (Faber-Krahn inequality for norms)

Let $`D`$ be a domain of $`R^n`$, with the norm $`||||`$ and a measure $`\mu `$ invariant by translation. Let $`D^{}`$ be the norm’s ball with same measure as $`D`$, then

$$\lambda _1(D^{},||||)\lambda _1(D,||||)$$

We finally explain in section 7.2 how is our work related to works focused on the long time asymptotics of the heat kernel (see \[KS00\], \[DZ00\], \[ZKON79\]) and finally in section 7.3 we state how theorem 1 transposes to all graded nilmanifolds (subject which should be widely extended in a forthcoming article).

I would like to thanks my advisor Gérard Besson for his good advice and Y. Colin de Verdière who lead me to the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-convergence which happened to be the adapted tool, as I hope to convince the reader, for the macroscopical geometry.

2 Stable Norm and Homogenisation

In this section we show how the stable norm, the Gromov-Haussdorff convergence and the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-convergence of the homogenisation theory are linked and finish by re-spelling our goal. In what follows, $`B_g(\rho )`$ will be the metric ball of radius $`\rho `$ on the universal cover of a torus with the lifted metric. We first begin by two definitions.

2.1 Convergences

We recall the definition of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-convergence in a metric space :

###### Definition 5

Let $`(X,d)`$ be a metrics space. We say that a sequence of function $`(F_j)`$ from $`X`$ to $`\overline{R}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-converges to a function $`F:X\overline{R}`$ if and only if for all $`xX`$ we have

1. for all converging sequence $`(x_j)`$ to $`x`$

$$F(x)\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}F_j(x_j);$$

2. there exists a sequence $`(x_j)`$ converging to $`x`$ such that

$$F(x)=\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}F_j(x_j).$$

We now introduce the Gromov-Hausdorff measured convergence in the space $``$ of compact metric and measured spaces $`(X,d,m)`$ modulo isometries. First if $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are in $``$ then an application $`\varphi :XY`$ is called an $`ϵ`$-Hausdorff approximation if and only if we have

(1.) the $`ϵ`$-neighbourhood of $`\varphi (X)`$ in $`Y`$ is $`Y`$;

(2.) for all $`x,yX`$ we have

$$\left|d(x,y)d(\varphi (x),\varphi (y))\right|ϵ.$$

We write $`C^0(X)`$ for the space of continues functions from $`X`$ to $`R`$ and $`𝒜`$ will be a partially directed space.

###### Definition 6

We say that a net $`(X_\alpha ,d_\alpha ,m_\alpha )_{\alpha 𝒜}`$ of spaces in $``$ converges to $`(X,d,m)`$ for the Gromov-Hausdorff measured topology if, and only if there exists a net of positive real numbers $`(\epsilon _\alpha )_{\alpha 𝒜}`$ decreasing to $`0`$ and $`m_\alpha `$ measurable $`\epsilon _\alpha `$-Hausdorff approximations $`f_\alpha :X_\alpha X`$ such that $`(f_\alpha )_{}(m_\alpha )`$ converges vaguely to $`m`$ i.e.

$$_{X_\alpha }uf_\alpha 𝑑m_\alpha _Xu𝑑muC^0(X).$$

2.2 The stable norm

Let $`(T^n,g)`$ a Riemannian torus. We will call rescaled metrics the metrics $`g_\rho =(1/\rho ^2)(\delta _\rho )^{}g`$ and their lifts on the universal cover. We will also write $`\delta _\rho `$ for the homothetie of scale $`\rho `$.

In the $`80`$’s P. Pansu showed that the distance induced on $`R^n`$ as a universal cover of a torus, behaved asymptotically like the distance induced by a norm. In the $`90`$’s D. Burago showed a similar result for periodic metrics on $`R^n`$. It is that norm which is called the stable norm. To be more precise let us write $`f_1(x)=d_g(0,x)`$ the distance from the origin to $`x`$ and $`f_\rho (x)=d_g(0,\delta _\rho (x))/\rho `$, then P. Pansu’s result says that there exist a norm $`||.||_{\mathrm{}}`$ such that for all $`xR^n`$

$$\underset{\rho \mathrm{}}{lim}f_\rho (x)=x_{\mathrm{}}$$

and Burago’s says that there exists a constant $`C`$ such that for all $`xR^n`$

$$\left|f_\rho (x)x_{\mathrm{}}\right|\frac{C}{\rho }$$

in other words, Pansu’s results is a simple convergence and Burago’s is a uniform convergence result.

There is another proof of the simple convergence of the sequence $`(f_\rho )`$ as $`\rho `$ goes to infinity, using homogenisation’s tools.

###### Theorem 7

Let $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ the induced metric on $`R^n`$ as a universal cover of a Riemannian Torus $`(T^n,g)`$, then there exists a norm $`||.||_{\mathrm{}}`$ such that

1. for every bounded open $`IR`$ the sequence of functional on $`W^{1,2}(I;R^n)`$

$$E_\rho (u)=_I\stackrel{~}{g}_{(\delta _\rho u(t))}(u^{}(t),u^{}(t))𝑑t$$

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-converge for the $`L^2`$ norm toward the functional

$$E_{\mathrm{}}(u)=_Iu^{}(t)_{\mathrm{}}^2𝑑t;$$

2. the norm satisfies

$$\xi _{\mathrm{}}=\underset{t+\mathrm{}}{lim}inf\{\frac{1}{t}_0^t\stackrel{~}{g}_{(u+\xi \tau )}(u^{}+\xi ,u^{}+\xi )𝑑\tau :uW_0^{1,2}(]0,t[;R^n)\}.$$
$`(1)`$
Furthermore if $`f_\rho (x)=d_g(0,\rho x)/\rho `$ then for all $`xR^n`$

$$\underset{\rho +\mathrm{}}{lim}f_\rho (x)=x_{\mathrm{}}$$

Proof. We use the Proposition 16.1 page 142 of A. Braides and A. Desfranceschi . It gives us the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-convergence of the sequence of functional $`(E_\rho )`$ toward a functional $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$ such that

$$E_{\mathrm{}}(u)=_I\phi \left(u^{}(t)\right)𝑑t$$

with $`\phi `$ convex and satisfying the asymptotic formula (1). It remains to show that $`\phi `$ is the square of a norm.

Homogeneity : Using the asymptotic formula (1) we easily get $`\phi (0)=0`$ and by a change of variables $`\phi (\lambda x)=\lambda ^2\phi (x)`$.

Separation : Let us point that

1. The minimum of the energy of a path between $`0`$ and $`t\xi `$ in an Euclidean space is attained for the straight line. Thus if we put into the asymptotic formula (1) an Euclidean metric, we get the same metric.

2. Let $`g`$ and $`h`$ be two metrics such that for all $`s`$ and $`\xi `$

$$g_s(\xi ,\xi )h_s(\xi ,\xi )$$

then for all $`uW_0^{1,2}(]0,t[;R^n)`$ we get

$$\frac{1}{t}_0^tg_{(u+\xi \tau )}(u^{}+\xi ,u^{}+\xi )𝑑\tau \frac{1}{t}_0^th_{(u+\xi \tau )}(u^{}+\xi ,u^{}+\xi )𝑑\tau $$

thus taking the infimum for $`u`$ and taking the limit as $`t`$ goes to infinity we get

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\underset{t+\mathrm{}}{lim}inf\{\frac{1}{t}_0^tg_{(u+\xi \tau )}(u^{}+\xi ,u^{}+\xi )𝑑\tau :uW_0^{1,2}(]0,t[;R^n)\}\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }\underset{t+\mathrm{}}{lim}inf\{\frac{1}{t}_0^th_{(u+\xi \tau )}(u^{}+\xi ,u^{}+\xi )d\tau :uW_0^{1,2}(]0,t[;R^n)\}.(2)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

Now let us also remark that $`g`$ being periodic, there exists two strictly positive constants $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ such that

$$\alpha |\xi |^2g_s(\xi ,\xi )\beta |\xi |^2$$

now applying the three remarks we get

$$\alpha |\xi |^2\phi (\xi )\beta |\xi |^2$$

thus $`\phi (\xi )=0`$ if and only if $`\xi =0`$.

Triangle inequality :  First note that

$$\{\xi R^n\phi (\xi )1\}=\{\xi R^n\sqrt{\phi (\xi )}1\}=S_n$$

It follows that if $`\sqrt{\phi }(\xi )=1=\phi (\xi )`$ and $`\sqrt{\phi }(\eta )=1=\phi (\eta )`$ then for all $`0\lambda 1`$ by the convexity of $`\phi `$

$$\phi (\lambda \xi +(1\lambda )\eta )\lambda \phi (\xi )+(1\lambda )\phi (\eta )=1$$

so

$$\sqrt{\phi }(\lambda \xi +(1\lambda )\eta )1.$$

Thus for all non null $`x`$, $`y`$

$$\sqrt{\phi }\left(\lambda \frac{x}{\sqrt{\phi }(x)}+(1\lambda )\frac{y}{\sqrt{\phi }(y)}\right)1$$

now taking $`\lambda =\sqrt{\phi }(x)/\left(\sqrt{\phi }(x)+\sqrt{\phi }(y)\right)`$ and using $`\sqrt{\phi }`$ homogeneity we finally get the triangle inequality and we are able to conclude that $`||||_{\mathrm{}}=\sqrt{\phi }()`$ is a norm.

The final assertion comes from the fact that $`\xi _{\mathrm{}}^2`$ is the limit of the energies’ infimum along the paths between $`0`$ and $`\xi `$ for the rescaled metrics $`(1/t^2)(\delta _t^{})g`$, which are attained along the geodesics. o

This theorem easily induces the following assertion.

###### Corollary 8

For all $`x`$ and $`yR^n`$ we have

$$\underset{\rho +\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{d_g(\rho x,\rho y)}{\rho }=xy_{\mathrm{}}$$

From now on we will write $`d_\rho (x,y)=d_g(\rho x,\rho y)/\rho `$, and we are now going to see what can be deduced for the balls $`B_g(\rho )`$ in terms of Gromov-Haussdorff convergence.

2.3 Gromov-Hausdorff convergence of metric balls

We will write $`\mu _g`$ (resp. $`\mu _\rho `$) the measure induced by $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ (resp. $`g_\rho `$). $`\mu _{\mathrm{}}`$ will be the measure of Lebesgue such that for a fundamental domain $`D_f`$ we have $`\mu _{\mathrm{}}(D_f)=\mu _g(D_f)`$. Finally let

$$B_\rho (R)=\left\{xR^n\right|d_\rho (0,x)R\}=\frac{1}{\rho }B_g(R\rho ),$$

and

$$B_{\mathrm{}}(R)=\left\{xR^n\right|x_{\mathrm{}}R\}.$$

###### Theorem 9

The net of measured metric spaces $`(B_\rho (1),d_\rho ,\mu _\rho )`$ converges in the Gromov-Hausdorff measured topology to $`(B_{\mathrm{}}(1),||||_{\mathrm{}},\mu _{\mathrm{}})`$ as $`\rho `$ goes to infinity.

Proof. Let us choose an $`ϵ>0`$. We first show that the identity is an $`ϵ`$-approximation if $`\rho `$ is large enough. It suffice to show that there is a finite family of points $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)`$ such that its $`ϵ`$-neighbourhood in $`(B_{\mathrm{}}(1),d_{\mathrm{}})`$ and, for $`\rho `$ large enough, in $`(B_\rho (1),d_\rho )`$ is respectively $`B_{\mathrm{}}(1)`$ and $`B_\rho (1)`$ and such that for all $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},N`$ we have

$$\left|x_ix_j_{\mathrm{}}d_\rho (x_i,x_j)\right|ϵ$$

Let $`r>0`$ and let $`(\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _N)`$ be all the images of $`0`$ by the action of $`Z^n`$, such that for $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, $`\gamma _iB_{\mathrm{}}(r)`$. Then we take for $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, $`x_i=\gamma _i/r`$. Let us remark that for $`\rho `$ large enough these points will all be in $`B_\rho (1)`$.

Now let us point out that, because of the invariance by the $`Z^n`$ action, there are two constants $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ such that for all $`x`$ and $`yR^n`$ we have

$$\alpha xy_{\mathrm{}}d_g(x,y)\beta xy_{\mathrm{}};$$

thus for every $`xB_{\mathrm{}}(1)`$ take the closest point $`x_i`$ (thus $`\gamma _i`$ is the closest point of $`Z^n0`$ from $`rx`$) then there is a constant $`C`$ (the diameter of the fundamental domain) such that

$$xx_i_{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{\alpha r}d_g(rx,\gamma _i)\frac{1}{\alpha r}C$$

we also get

$$d_\rho (x,x_i)\frac{\beta }{\alpha r}C$$

thus, for $`r`$ large enough $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)`$ is an $`ϵ`$-neighbourhood of $`(B_{\mathrm{}}(1),||||_{\mathrm{}})`$. Furthermore if $`\rho `$ is large enough it is also an $`ϵ`$-neighbourhood of $`(B_\rho (1),d_\rho )`$ and by corollary 6

$$\left|x_ix_j_{\mathrm{}}d_\rho (x_i,x_j)\right|ϵ.$$

Now let us take a continuous function from $`B_{\mathrm{}}(1)`$ to $`R`$. Let $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_k`$ and $`\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _l`$ in the orbit of $`0`$ by the $`Z^n`$ action such that $`\zeta _j+DB_{\mathrm{}}(\rho )\mathrm{}`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{}l`$ and

$$\underset{i}{}z_i+D_fB_{\mathrm{}}(\rho )\underset{k}{}\zeta _k+D_f$$

(where we took all $`z_i`$ such that $`z_i+D_fB_{\mathrm{}}(\rho )`$) then we get

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\underset{i}{}\underset{\rho xz_i+D_f}{inf}f(x)\mu _{\mathrm{}}(D_f)\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }_{B_{\mathrm{}}(\rho )}f(x/\rho )𝑑\mu _g(x)\underset{j}{}\underset{\rho x(\zeta _j+D_f)B_{\mathrm{}}(\rho )}{sup}f(x)\mu _{\mathrm{}}(D_f)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

now dividing by $`\rho ^n`$ we find

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\underset{i}{}\underset{x\frac{1}{\rho }(z_i+D_f)}{inf}f(x)\mu _{\mathrm{}}\left((1/\rho )D_f\right)\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }_{B_{\mathrm{}}(1)}f𝑑\mu _\rho (x)\underset{j}{}\underset{x\frac{1}{\rho }(\zeta _j+D_f)B_{\mathrm{}}(1)}{sup}f(x)\mu _{\mathrm{}}\left((1/\rho )D_f\right)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

The middle term is surrounded by two sums of Riemann, which converges to $`_{B_{\mathrm{}}(1)}f𝑑\mu _{\mathrm{}}`$, thus it also converges. To conclude, notice that the net of characteristic function $`\chi _{B_\rho (1)}`$ converges simply to $`\chi _{B_{\mathrm{}}(1)}`$ inside of $`B_{\mathrm{}}(1)`$. o

2.4 What shall we finally study ?

As we said we are now going to focus on the spectrum of the balls $`B_g(\rho )`$. As we allready mentioned we know that the eigenvalues are converging to zero with a $`1/\rho ^2`$ speed. Hence we want to find a precise equivalent.

For this let introduce $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho `$ the laplacian associated to the rescaled metrics $`g_\rho =1/\rho ^2(\delta _\rho )^{}g`$, and for any function $`f`$ from $`B_g(\rho )`$ to $`R`$ lets associate a function $`f_\rho `$ on $`B_\rho (1)`$ by $`f_\rho (x)=f(\rho x)`$. Then it is an easy calculation to see that for any $`xB_\rho (1)`$ :

$$\rho ^2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }f\right)(\rho x)=\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho f_\rho \right)(x)$$

hence the eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho `$ on $`B_\rho (1)`$ are exactly the eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on $`B_g(\rho )`$ multiplied by $`\rho ^2`$ and our problems becomes the study of the spectrum of the laplacian $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho `$ on $`B_\rho (1)`$. In the light of what precedes we would like to show that there is some operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}`$ acting on $`B_{\mathrm{}}(1)`$ such that, in some sense, the net of laplacian $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho )`$ converges towards $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}`$ such that the spectra also converge to the spectrum of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}`$. The following section aims at giving a precise meaning to this.

3 Convergence of spectral nets

This section adapts to our purpose some notion of convergences well known for a fixed Hilbert space.

3.1 Convergence on a net of Hilbert spaces

Let $`(X_\alpha ,d_\alpha ,m_\alpha )_{\alpha 𝒜}`$, where $`𝒜`$ is a partially ordered set, be a net of compact measured metric spaces converging in the Gromov-Hausdorff measured topology to $`(X_{\mathrm{}},d_{\mathrm{}},m_{\mathrm{}})`$. We will write $`L_\alpha ^2=L^2(X_\alpha ,m_\alpha )`$ (resp. $`L_{\mathrm{}}^2(X_{\mathrm{}},m_{\mathrm{}})`$) for the square integrable function spaces. Their respective scalar product will be $`,_\alpha `$ (resp. $`,_{\mathrm{}}`$) and $`||||_\alpha `$ (resp. $`||||_{\mathrm{}}`$).

Furthermore we suppose that in every $`L_\alpha ^2`$ the continuous functions form a dense subset.

###### Definition 10

We say that a net $`(u_\alpha )_{\alpha 𝒜}`$ of functions $`u_\alpha L_\alpha ^2`$ strongly converges to $`uL_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ if there exists a net $`(v_\beta )_\beta C^0(X_{\mathrm{}})`$ converging to $`u`$ in $`L_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ such that

$$\underset{\beta }{lim}\underset{\alpha }{lim\; sup}f_\alpha ^{}v_\beta u_\alpha _\alpha =0;$$

where $`(f_\alpha )`$ is the net of Hausdorff approximations. We will also talk of strong convergence in $`^2`$.

###### Definition 11

We say that a net $`(u_\alpha )_{\alpha 𝒜}`$ of functions $`u_\alpha L_\alpha ^2`$ weakly converges to $`uL_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ if and only if for every net $`(v_\alpha )_{\alpha 𝒜}`$ strongly converging to $`vL_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ we have

$$\underset{\alpha }{lim}u_\alpha ,v_\alpha _\alpha =u,v_{\mathrm{}}$$
$`(3)`$
We will also talk of weak convergence in $`^2`$.

The following lemmas justifies those two definitions

###### Lemma 12

Let $`(u_\alpha )_{\alpha 𝒜}`$ be a net of functions $`u_\alpha L_\alpha ^2`$. If $`(u_\alpha _\alpha )`$ is uniformly bounded, then there exists a weakly converging subnet.

Proof. Let $`(\varphi _k)_{kN}`$ be a complete orthonormal basis of $`L_{\mathrm{}}^2`$. Using the density of continuous functions in $`L_{\mathrm{}}^2`$, for each $`k`$ we can retrieve a net of continuous functions $`(\phi _{k,\beta })_\beta `$ strongly converging to $`\varphi _k`$ in $`L_{\mathrm{}}^2`$. Replacing by a subnet of $`𝒜`$ and $``$ if necessarily, we can assume that the following limit exists

$$\underset{\beta }{lim}\underset{\alpha }{lim}u_\alpha ,f_\alpha ^{}\phi _{1,\beta }_\alpha =a_1\overline{R}$$

and from the uniform bound hypothesis it follows that $`a_1R`$. Repeating this procedure we can assume that for every $`kN`$ the following limit exists

$$\underset{\beta }{lim}\underset{\alpha }{lim}u_\alpha ,f_\alpha ^{}\phi _{k,\beta }_\alpha =a_kR.$$

Let us fix an integer $`N`$. For any $`ϵ>0`$ there is a $`\beta _ϵ`$ such that

$$\left|\phi _{k,\beta },\phi _{l,\beta }_{\mathrm{}}\delta _{kl}\right|<ϵ$$

for any $`\beta \beta _ϵ`$ and $`k,l=1,\mathrm{},N`$. Moreover for any $`\beta \beta _ϵ`$ there is an $`\alpha _{ϵ,\beta }𝒜`$ such that

$$\left|f_\alpha ^{}\phi _{k,\beta },f_\alpha ^{}\phi _{l,\beta }_\alpha \delta _{kl}\right|<2ϵ$$

for any $`\alpha \alpha _{ϵ,\beta }`$ and $`k,l=1,\mathrm{},N`$. Let $`L_{\alpha ,\beta }=\mathrm{Vect}\{f_\alpha ^{}\phi _{k,\beta }k=1,\mathrm{},N\}`$ and $`P_{\alpha ,\beta }:L_\alpha ^2L_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ be the projection to the linear subspace $`L_{\alpha ,\beta }L_\alpha ^2`$ we have

$$\left|\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left|u_\alpha ,f_\alpha ^{}\phi _{k,\beta }_\alpha \right|^2P_{\alpha ,\beta }u_\alpha _\alpha ^2\right|\theta _N(ϵ)$$

for every $`\alpha \alpha _{ϵ,\beta }`$ and $`\beta \beta _ϵ`$, where $`\theta _N`$ is a function depending only of $`N`$ such that $`lim_{ϵ0}\theta _N(ϵ)=0`$. This implies for every $`N`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}|a_k|^2& =\underset{\beta }{lim}\underset{\alpha }{lim}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left|u_\alpha ,f_\alpha ^{}\phi _{k,\beta }_\alpha \right|^2=\underset{\beta }{lim}\underset{\alpha }{lim}P_{\alpha ,\beta }u_\alpha _\alpha ^2\hfill \\ & \underset{\alpha }{lim\; sup}u_\alpha _\alpha ^2<\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}$$

thus

$$u=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}a_k\varphi _kL_{\mathrm{}}^2.$$

We shall prove that some subnet of $`(u_\alpha )_\alpha `$ weakly converges to $`u`$. Take any $`vL_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ and set $`b_k=v,\varphi _k_{\mathrm{}}`$. By the properties of the strong convergence it is enough to show $`(3)`$ for a well chosen net. Let $`v_\beta ^N=_{k=1}^Nb_k\phi _{k,\beta }`$. By construction $`v_\beta ^N𝒞^0`$ and $`lim_N\mathrm{}lim_\beta v_\beta ^N=v`$ strongly. We have

$$\underset{\beta }{lim}\underset{\alpha }{lim}u_\alpha ,f_\alpha ^{}v_\beta ^N_\alpha =\underset{\beta }{lim}\underset{\alpha }{lim}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}b_ku_\alpha ,f_\alpha ^{}\phi _{k,\beta }_\alpha =\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}a_kb_k$$

which tends to $`u,v_{\mathrm{}}`$ as $`N\mathrm{}`$. Thus, there exists a net of integers $`(N_\beta )_\beta `$ tending to $`+\mathrm{}`$ such that $`v_\beta ^{N_\beta }`$ strongly converges to $`v`$ and

$$\underset{\beta }{lim}\underset{\alpha }{lim}u_\alpha ,f_\alpha ^{}v_\beta ^{N_\beta }_\alpha =u,v_{\mathrm{}}.$$

o

###### Lemma 13

Let $`(u_\alpha )_{\alpha 𝒜}`$ be a weakly converging net to $`uL_{\mathrm{}}^2`$. Then

$$\underset{\alpha }{sup}u_\alpha _\alpha <\mathrm{}\mathrm{𝚊𝚗𝚍}u_{\mathrm{}}\underset{\alpha }{lim\; inf}u_\alpha _\alpha .$$

Furthermore, the net strongly converges if and only if

$$u_{\mathrm{}}=\underset{\alpha }{lim}u_\alpha _\alpha .$$

Proof. Let suppose that the $`(u_\alpha )`$ is weakly converging and $`sup_\alpha u_\alpha _\alpha =+\mathrm{}`$. We can extract a sequence such that $`u_{\alpha _k}_{\alpha _k}>k`$. Setting

$$v_k=\frac{1}{k}\frac{u_{\alpha _k}}{u_{\alpha _k}_{\alpha _k}}$$

one has $`v_k_{\alpha _k}=1/k0`$ thus $`v_k`$ strongly converges to $`0`$, which implies

$$u_{\alpha _k},v_k_{\alpha _k}u,0_{\mathrm{}}=0$$

but we also have

$$u_{\alpha _k},v_k_{\alpha _k}=\frac{1}{k}u_{\alpha _k}_{\alpha _k}1$$

this is a contradiction and thus we obtain $`sup_\alpha u_\alpha _\alpha <\mathrm{}`$.

Let $`(w_\alpha )_\alpha `$ be a strongly converging net to $`u`$, then

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \underset{\alpha }{lim\; inf}u_\alpha w_\alpha _\alpha ^2\hfill \\ & =\underset{\alpha }{lim\; inf}\left(u_\alpha _\alpha ^2+w_\alpha _\alpha ^22u_\alpha ,w_\alpha _\alpha \right)\hfill \\ & =\underset{\alpha }{lim\; inf}u_\alpha _\alpha ^2u_{\mathrm{}}^2\hfill \end{array}$$

The final claim comes from the properties of the strong convergence and the following equality

$$u_\alpha w_\alpha _\alpha ^2=u_\alpha _\alpha ^2+w_\alpha _\alpha ^22u_\alpha ,w_\alpha _\alpha .$$

o

3.2 Convergence of bounded operators

Let $`(L_\alpha ^2)`$ bet the set of linear bounded operators acting on $`L_\alpha ^2`$ and $`||||__\alpha `$ their norm (for $`\alpha 𝒜\mathrm{}`$). Let $`B_{\mathrm{}}(L_{\mathrm{}}^2)`$ and $`B_\alpha (L_\alpha ^2)`$ for every $`\alpha 𝒜`$.

###### Theorem and Definition 14

Let $`u,vL_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ and $`(u_\alpha )_{\alpha 𝒜}`$, $`(v_\alpha )_{\alpha 𝒜}`$ two nets such that $`u_\alpha ,v_\alpha L_\alpha ^2`$. We say that the net of operators $`(B_\alpha )_{\alpha 𝒜}`$ strongly (resp. weakly, compactly) converges to $`B`$ if $`B_\alpha u_\alpha Bu`$ strongly (resp. weakly, strongly) for every net $`(u_\alpha )`$ strongly (resp. weakly, weakly) converging to $`u`$

$$\underset{\alpha }{lim}B_\alpha u_\alpha ,v_\alpha _\alpha =Bu,v_{\mathrm{}}$$
$`(4)`$
for every $`(u_\alpha )`$, $`(v_\alpha )`$, $`u`$ and $`v`$ such that $`u_\alpha u`$ strongly (resp. weakly, weakly) and $`v_\alpha v`$ weakly (resp. strongly, weakly).

Proof. The equivalence comes from the definition of the weak convergence and the fact that a net $`(u_\alpha )`$ strongly converges to $`u`$ if and only if $`u_\alpha ,v_\alpha _\alpha u,v_{\mathrm{}}`$ for every net $`(v_\alpha )_\alpha `$ weakly converging to $`vL_{\mathrm{}}^2`$. The ”if” part is straightforward, for the ”only if” we see that for every net $`(v_\alpha )`$ strongly converging to $`v`$ we have $`u_\alpha ,v_\alpha _\alpha u,v_{\mathrm{}}`$, which implies the weak convergence of the net $`(u_\alpha )`$. Using now the hypothesis we get the convergence of the net $`u_\alpha _\alpha `$ and thus the strong convergence of $`(u_\alpha )`$ by lemma 13. o

###### Proposition 15

Let $`(B_\alpha )`$ be a strongly converging net to $`B`$ then

$$\underset{\alpha }{lim\; inf}B_\alpha __\alpha B_{_{\mathrm{}}}$$

and if the convergence is compact then it is an equality and $`B`$ is a compact operator as is its adjoint $`B^{}`$.

Proof. Let $`ϵ>0`$, there is $`u_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ such that $`u_{\mathrm{}}=1`$ and $`Bu_{\mathrm{}}>B_{_{\mathrm{}}}ϵ`$. Take $`(u_\alpha )_\alpha `$ a net converging strongly to $`u`$. Then $`u_\alpha _\alpha 1`$, furthermore the strong convergence of $`(B_\alpha )`$ implies that $`B_\alpha u_\alpha _\alpha Bu_{\mathrm{}}`$ thus

$$\underset{\alpha }{lim\; inf}B_\alpha __\alpha \underset{\alpha }{lim\; inf}\frac{B_\alpha u_\alpha _\alpha }{u_\alpha _\alpha }=Bu_{\mathrm{}}>B_{_{\mathrm{}}}ϵ.$$

Let suppose now that the convergence is compact. Take a net $`(u_\alpha )`$ such that $`u_\alpha _\alpha =1`$ and

$$\underset{\alpha }{lim}\left|B_\alpha __\alpha B_\alpha u_\alpha _\alpha \right|=0$$

extracting a subnet if necessary we can suppose that the net $`(u_\alpha )`$ weakly converges to $`u`$. By lemma 13 we have $`u_{\mathrm{}}1`$, furthermore the compact convergence implies the strong convergence of $`B_\alpha u_\alpha `$ to $`Bu`$ thus

$$B_{_{\mathrm{}}}\frac{Bu_{\mathrm{}}}{u_{\mathrm{}}}Bu_{\mathrm{}}=\underset{\alpha }{lim}B_\alpha u_\alpha _\alpha =\underset{\alpha }{lim}B_\alpha __\alpha $$

Now let us prove that in the latest case, $`B`$ is compact. Let $`(v_\beta )_\beta `$ a net weakly converging to $`v`$ in $`_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ then

$$u,Bv_\beta _{\mathrm{}}=B^{}u,v_\beta _{\mathrm{}}B^{}u,v_{\mathrm{}}=u,Bv_{\mathrm{}}$$

thus $`Bv_\beta `$ weakly converges to $`Bv`$. For every $`\beta `$ let $`(u_{\alpha ,\beta })`$ be a strongly converging net such that $`lim_\alpha u_{\alpha ,\beta }=v_\beta `$. For every $`\beta `$ the compact convergence of $`(B_\alpha )`$ implies the strong convergence of $`B_\alpha u_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ to $`Bv_\beta `$. Now let us take a net of positive numbers such that $`lim_\beta ϵ(\beta )=0`$, then there is $`\alpha (\beta )`$ such that for every $`\alpha \alpha (\beta )`$ we have

$$\left|B_\alpha u_{\alpha ,\beta }_\alpha Bv_\beta _{\mathrm{}}\right|ϵ(\beta ).$$

Set $`w_\beta =u_{\alpha (\beta ),\beta }`$ then $`lim_\beta w_\beta =v`$ weakly and by the compact convergence we obtain the strong convergence of $`(B_{\alpha (\beta )}w_\beta )_\beta `$ to $`Bv`$ but

$$\underset{\beta }{lim}\left|B_{\alpha (\beta )}w_\beta _{\alpha (\beta )}Bv_\beta _{\mathrm{}}\right|=0$$

which implies $`Bv_\beta _{\mathrm{}}Bv_{\mathrm{}}`$. We can conclude using lemma 13. o

3.3 Convergence of spectral structures

Here we see $`L_\alpha ^2`$ as a Hilbert space. Then $`A_\alpha `$ and $`A`$ will be self-adjoint operators, $`E_\alpha `$ and $`E`$ their respective spectral measure and $`R_\mu `$, $`R`$ their resolvents for $`\mu `$ in the resolvent space. We want to study the links between the convergence of $`(A_\alpha )`$, $`(E_\alpha )`$ and $`(R_\mu ^\alpha )`$. The following theorem says that it is the same

###### Theorem 16

Let $`(A_\alpha )`$ and $`A`$ be self-adjoint operators $`E_\alpha `$, $`E`$ their spectral measures and $`R_\mu ^\alpha `$, $`R_\mu `$ their resolvents for $`\mu `$ in the resolvent space, then the following assertions are equivalent

1. $`R_\mu ^\alpha R_\mu `$ strongly (resp. compactly) for $`\mu `$ outside the union of the spectra of $`A_\alpha `$ and $`A`$.

2. $`\phi (A_\alpha )\phi (A)`$ strongly (resp. compactly) for every continuous function, with compact support $`\phi :RC`$

3. $`\phi _\alpha (A_\alpha )\phi (A)`$ strongly (resp. compactly) for every net $`\{\phi _\alpha :RC\}`$ of continuous functions vanishing at infinity and uniformly converging to $`\phi `$ a continuous function vanishing at infinity.

4. $`E_\alpha (]\lambda ,\mu ])E(]\lambda ,\mu ])`$ strongly (resp. compactly) for every pair of real numbers outside the spectrum of $`A`$.

5. $`E_\alpha u_\alpha ,v_\alpha _\alpha Eu,v_{\mathrm{}}`$ vaguely for every net of vectors $`(u_\alpha )_{\alpha 𝒜}`$ and $`(v_\alpha )_{\alpha 𝒜}`$ such that $`u_\alpha u`$ strongly (resp. weakly) and $`v_\alpha v`$ weakly.

Let us recall that a quadratic form $`𝒬`$ on a complex (resp. real) Hilbert space $``$ comes from a sesquilinear (resp. bilinear) form, positive and symmetric $`:D()\times D()C`$ (resp. $`R`$) where $`D(E)`$ is a linear subspace and $`𝒬(u)=(u,u)`$. Notice that $`_1(u,v)=u,v_{}+(u,v)`$ for every $`u`$ and $`vD()`$ is also a sesquilinear (resp. bilinear), symmetric and positive form. Thus $`((D(),_1)`$ is a pre-Hilbert space. We say that $`𝒬`$ is closed if and only if $`((D(),_1)`$ is a Hilbert space. In what follows, we will not distinguish $`𝒬`$ and the functional $``$ defined by $`(u)=𝒬(u)`$ on $`D()`$ and $`(u)=\mathrm{}`$ on $`\backslash D()`$. In this context, $`𝒬`$ is closed if and only if $``$ is lower semi-continuous as a function $`:\overline{R}`$.

###### Definition 17

Let $`(_\alpha )`$ be a net of closed quadratic forms, where $`_\alpha `$ is a closed quadratic form on $`L_\alpha ^2`$ for every $`\alpha 𝒜`$. We will say that this net is asymptotically compact if and only if for every net $`(v_\alpha )_{\alpha 𝒜}`$ such that

$$\underset{\alpha }{lim\; sup}_\alpha (v_\alpha )+v_\alpha _\alpha ^2<\mathrm{}$$

there is a strongly converging sub-net.

Now a spectral structure on a Hilbert space $``$ over $`C`$ (resp. $`R`$) is a family

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{A,,E,(T_t),(R_\zeta )\}$$

where $`A`$ is a self-adjoint operator seen as the infinitesimal generator of the densely defined quadratic form $``$ (such that $`D()=D(\sqrt{A})`$ and $`(u,v)=\sqrt{A}u,\sqrt{A}v_{}`$ for every $`u`$ and $`v`$ in $`D(`$) ), $`E`$ is its spectral measure, $`(T_t)_{t0}`$ is a one parameter semi-group of strongly continuous contractions ($`T_t=e^{tA}`$, $`t0`$) and $`R_\zeta `$ is a strongly continuous resolvent ($`R_\zeta =(\zeta A)^1`$ for $`\zeta \rho (A)`$, where $`\rho (A)`$ is the resolvent set of $`A`$). In what follows we will study a family of spectral structures $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha `$ on $`L_\alpha ^2`$, thus we will have

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha =\{A_\alpha ,_\alpha ,E_\alpha ,(T_t^\alpha ),(R_\zeta ^\alpha )\}$$

###### Definition 18

Let $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha )_{\alpha 𝒜}`$ be a net with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha `$ a spectral structure on $`L_\alpha ^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ a spectral structure on $`L_{\mathrm{}}^2`$, we will say that the net $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha )_\alpha `$ strongly (resp. compactly) converges to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ if and only if one of the conditions of theorem 16 is satisfied.

###### Proposition 19

Let $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha )_{\alpha 𝒜}`$ of spectral structures strongly converging to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ then for any net $`(v_\alpha )_\alpha `$ weakly converging to $`v`$ we have

$$(v)\underset{\alpha }{lim\; inf}_\alpha (v_\alpha )$$

Furthermore, if the net $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha )_{\alpha 𝒜}`$ converges compactly, then the net of quadratic forms $`(_\alpha )_\alpha `$ is asymptotically compact.

Proof. Assume that the net of resolvents $`(R_\lambda ^\alpha )`$ is strongly convergent and write

$$a_\alpha ^\lambda (u,v)=\lambda u\lambda R_\lambda ^\alpha u,v_\alpha $$

(the Deny-Yosida approximation of bilinear form associated to $`_\alpha `$), then the net $`(a_\alpha ^\lambda (u,u))`$ converges to $`_\alpha (u)`$ increasing when $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ (see Mosco \[Mos94\] 1.(i)). From the assumption it easy to see that for $`(u_\alpha )`$ and $`(v_\alpha )`$ converging strongly to $`u`$ and weakly to $`v`$ respectively

$$\underset{\alpha }{lim}a_\alpha ^\lambda (u_\alpha ,v_\alpha )=\lambda u\lambda R_\lambda u,v_{\mathrm{}}=a^\lambda (u,v)$$

we recall that (see Dal Maso \[Mas93\] proposition 12.12)

$$a^\lambda (u,u)a^\lambda (v,v)+2\lambda v\lambda R_\lambda v,uv_{\mathrm{}}$$

hence for any net $`v_\alpha `$ weakly converging to $`u`$ and $`w_\alpha `$ a strongly converging net to $`u`$ we have

$$_\alpha (v_\alpha )a_\alpha ^\lambda (v_\alpha ,v_\alpha )a_\alpha ^\lambda (w_\alpha ,w_\alpha )+2\lambda w_\alpha \lambda R_\lambda ^\alpha w_\alpha ,v_\alpha w_\alpha $$

thus $`lim\; inf_\alpha _\alpha (v_\alpha )a^\lambda (u,u)`$ for any $`\lambda <0`$, now taking $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ we can conclude that $`lim\; inf_\alpha _\alpha (v_\alpha )(u)`$.

Now assume that $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha )`$ compactly converges and let $`(u_\alpha )_{\alpha 𝒜}`$ be a net such that

$$\underset{\alpha }{sup}\left(_\alpha (u_\alpha )+u_\alpha _\alpha ^2\right)M<\mathrm{}.$$

Taking a sub-net if necessary we can suppose that $`(u_\alpha )_\alpha `$ weakly converges to $`u`$. Let $`\rho >0`$ be out of $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$’s spectrum. As

$$_{]\rho ,\mathrm{}[}dE_\alpha u_\alpha ,u_\alpha _\alpha \frac{1}{\rho }_{]\rho ,\mathrm{}[}\lambda dE_\alpha (\lambda )u_\alpha ,u_\alpha _\alpha \frac{_\alpha (u_\alpha )}{\rho }\frac{M}{\rho }$$

we have

$$u_\alpha _\alpha ^2_{[0,\rho ]}dE_\alpha u_\alpha ,u_\alpha _\alpha +\frac{M}{\rho }$$

and the compact convergence implies $`lim_\alpha _{[0,\rho ]}dE_\alpha u_\alpha ,u_\alpha _\alpha =_{[0,\rho ]}dEu,u_{\mathrm{}}`$ hence

$$\underset{\alpha }{lim\; sup}u_\alpha _\alpha ^2_{[0,\rho ]}dEu,u_{\mathrm{}}+\frac{M}{\rho }u_{\mathrm{}}^2+\frac{M}{\rho }$$

and taking $`\rho \mathrm{}`$ we get

$$\underset{\alpha }{lim\; sup}u_\alpha _\alpha ^2u_{\mathrm{}}^2$$

finally we deduce the strongly convergence of the net $`(u_\alpha )`$ using lemma 13. o

The main reason we introduced all these convergences is the following theorem, the proof of which we postpone to avoid drowning the reader in too many technical details.

###### Theorem 20

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ compactly and suppose that all resolvents $`R_\zeta ^\alpha `$ are compact. Let $`\lambda _k`$ (resp. $`\lambda _k^\alpha `$) be the $`k^{\mathrm{th}}`$ eigenvalue of $`A`$ (resp. $`A_\alpha `$) with multiplicity. We take $`\lambda _k=+\mathrm{}`$ if $`k>dimL_{\mathrm{}}^2+1`$ when $`dimL_{\mathrm{}}^2<\mathrm{}`$ and $`\lambda _k^\alpha =+\mathrm{}`$ if $`k>dimL_\alpha ^2+1`$ when $`dimL_\alpha ^2<\mathrm{}`$. Then for every $`k`$

$$\underset{\alpha }{lim}\lambda _k^\alpha =\lambda _k$$

Furthermore let $`\{\phi _k^\alpha k=1,\mathrm{},dimL_\alpha ^2\}`$ be an orthonormal bases of $`L_\alpha ^2`$ such that $`\phi _k^\alpha `$ is an eigenfunction of $`A_\alpha `$ for $`\lambda _k^\alpha `$. Then there is a sub-net such that for all $`kdimL_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ the net $`(\phi _k^\alpha )_\alpha `$ strongly converges to the eigenfunction $`\phi _k`$ of $`A`$ for the eigenvalue $`\lambda _k`$, and such that the family $`\{\phi _kk=1,\mathrm{},dimL_\alpha ^2\}`$ is an orthonormal basis of $`L_{\mathrm{}}^2`$.

4 Proof of Theorem 1

4.1 Homogenisation of the Laplacian

In this section we are going to built the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}`$ of theorem 1. we remind the reader that $`D_f`$ is a fundamental domain, we then begin by taking $`\chi ^i`$ as the unique periodic solution (up to an additive constant) of

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^i=\mathrm{\Delta }x_i\mathrm{on}D_f$$

The operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}`$ is then defined by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}f=\frac{1}{\mathrm{Vol}(g)}\left(_{D_f}g^{ij}g^{ik}\frac{\chi ^j}{y_k}d\mu _g\right)\frac{^2f}{x_ix_j}$$
$`(5)`$
Now let us write $`\eta _j(x)=\chi ^j(x)x_j`$ the induced harmonic function and

$$q^{ij}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{Vol}(g)}\left(_{D_f}g^{ij}g^{ik}\frac{\chi ^j}{y_k}d\mu _g\right)$$

we can notice that the $`d\eta _i`$ are harmonic $`1`$-forms on the torus. It is not difficult now to show that

###### Proposition 21

Let $`,_2`$ be the scalar product induced on $`1`$-forms by the Riemannian metric $`g`$. Then

$$q^{ij}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{Vol}(g)}d\eta _i,d\eta _j_2=q^{ji}$$

thus $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}`$ is an elliptic operator.

In fact we can say more, $`(q^{ij})`$ induces a scalar product on harmonic $`1`$-forms (whose norm will be written $`||||_2`$) and then to $`H^1(T,R)`$. Indeed, as mentioned earlier, we can see the $`(d\eta _i)`$ as $`1`$-forms over the torus. Being a free family they can be seen as a basis of $`H^1(T,R)`$ (Hodge’s theorem). Thus by duality this yields also a scalar product $`(q_{ij})`$ over $`H_1(T,R)`$ (whose induced norm will be written $`||||_2^{}`$). The question naturally arising is to know the link between this norm and the stable norm. To see this we have to go back on $`H^1(T,R)`$. Indeed the stable norm is the dual of the norm obtained by quotient of the sup norm on $`1`$-forms (see Pansu \[Pan99\] lemma 17), which we write $`||||_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$, and the norm $`||||_2`$ comes from the normalised $`L^2`$ norm. Thus mixing the Hölder inequality and the Hodge-de Rham theorem we get :

###### Proposition 22

For every $`1`$-form $`\alpha `$ we have

$$\alpha _2\alpha _{\mathrm{}}^{}$$

thus by duality, for every $`\gamma H_1(T,R)`$ we have

$$\gamma _{\mathrm{}}\gamma _2^{}$$

in other words the unit ball of $`||||_2^{}`$ is included in $`B_{\mathrm{}}(1)`$.

To finish this section, let us remark that the manifold $`H_1(T,R)/H_1(T,Z)`$ with the flat metric induced by $`||||_2^{}`$ is usually called the Jacobi manifold or the Albanese torus of $`(T,g)`$.

4.2 Asymptotic compactness

Let us now define the various functional spaces involved. For $`\rho \overline{R}`$, $`L^2(B_\rho (1),d\mu _\rho )`$ will be the space of square integrable functions over the ball $`B_\rho (1)`$, which is a Hilbert space with the scalar product

$$(u,v)_\rho =_{B_\rho (1)}uv𝑑\mu _\rho $$

whose norm will be $`||_\rho `$. $`H_{\rho ,0}^1\left(B_\rho (1)\right)`$ will be the closure of $`C^{\mathrm{}}\left(B_\rho (1)\right)`$ functions with compact support, in $`H_\rho ^1\left(B_\rho (1)\right)`$ for the norm $`||||_\rho `$ defined by

$$||v||_\rho ^2=|v|_\rho ^2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left|\frac{v}{x_i}\right|_\rho ^2$$

and with

$$H_\rho ^1\left(B_\rho (1)\right)=\left\{v\right|v,\frac{v}{x_1},\mathrm{},\frac{v}{x_n}L^2(B_\rho (1),d\mu _\rho )\}$$

For all that follows, $`V_\rho `$ will be a closed sub-space such that

$$H_{\rho ,0}^1\left(B_\rho (1)\right)V_\rho H_\rho ^1\left(B_\rho (1)\right)$$

Thus we can define a spectral structure on $`L_\rho ^2`$ by expanding the Laplacian defined on $`V_\rho `$ on $`L_\rho ^2`$. If $`V_\rho =H_{\rho ,0}^1\left(B_\rho (1)\right)`$ we deal with the Dirichlet problem, and if $`V_\rho =H_\rho ^1\left(B_\rho (1)\right)`$ we then deal with the Neumann problem. We then put the following norm on $`V_\rho `$ :

$$v_{\rho ,0}^2=|v|_\rho ^2+(v,\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho v)_\rho $$

we then have

###### Lemma 23

Let $`(u_\rho )_\rho `$ be a net with $`u_\rho V_\rho `$ for every $`\rho `$, if there is a constant $`C`$ such that for all $`\rho >0`$ we have

$$u_\rho _{\rho ,0}C$$

then there is a strongly converging sub-net in $`^2`$.

Proof. Let $`B=_\rho B_\rho (1)`$ we are going to show that the strong convergence in $`L^2(B,\mu _{\mathrm{}})`$ implies the strong convergence in $`^2`$. Then the compact embedding of $`H_{\mathrm{}}^1\left(B\right)`$ in $`L^2(B,\mu _{\mathrm{}})`$ will conclude the proof.

Let us first notice that the periodicity gives the existence of two constant $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ such that

$$\alpha |v|_{\mathrm{}}|v|_\rho \beta |v|_{\mathrm{}}.$$

Let us start by taking a net $`(u_\rho )`$ strongly converging in $`L^2(B,\mu _{\mathrm{}})`$ to $`u_{\mathrm{}}`$ we also assume $`u_\rho V_\rho `$ for every $`\rho `$, because it is all we need. Now let $`c_pC_0^{\mathrm{}}\left(B_{\mathrm{}}(1)\right)`$ be a sequence of functions strongly converging to $`u_{\mathrm{}}`$ and take $`p`$ large enough for the support of $`u_p`$ to be in $`B_\rho (1)`$. We have

$$|c_pu_\rho |_\rho \beta |c_pu_{\mathrm{}}|_{\mathrm{}}+\beta |u_{\mathrm{}}u_\rho |_{\mathrm{}}$$

now let $`\epsilon >0`$ then for $`p`$ large enough $`\beta |c_pu_{\mathrm{}}|_{\mathrm{}}\epsilon `$. We fix $`p`$ large enough and take $`\rho `$ large enough for the second term to converge to 0.

Now to conclude observe that from the assumptions the net $`(u_\rho )`$ is bounded in $`H_{\mathrm{}}^1\left(B\right)`$, hence using the compact embedding of $`H_{\mathrm{}}^1\left(B\right)`$ in $`L^2(B,\mu _{\mathrm{}})`$ we can extract a strongly converging net in $`L^2(B,\mu _{\mathrm{}})`$ and by what we just did in $`^2`$. o

4.3 Compact convergence of the resolvents

Let $`\lambda >0`$ and $`G_\lambda ^\rho `$ be the operator from $`L_\rho ^2`$ to $`V_\rho L_\rho ^2`$ such that

$$a_\lambda ^\rho (G_\lambda ^\rho f,\varphi )=(f,\varphi )_\rho \varphi V_\rho .$$
$`(6)`$
where

$$a_\lambda ^\rho (u,v)=_{B_\rho (1)}g_\rho ^{ij}_iu_jvd\mu _\rho +\lambda (u,v)_\rho $$

We want to show that the net of operators $`(G_\lambda ^\rho )`$ converges compactly to $`G_\lambda `$ the operator corresponding to the homogenised problem:

$$a_\lambda ^{\mathrm{}}(G_\lambda f,\varphi )=(f,\varphi )_{\mathrm{}}\varphi V_{\mathrm{}}$$
$`(7)`$
with $`(f,\varphi )_{\mathrm{}}=_{B_{\mathrm{}}(1)}f\varphi 𝑑\mu _{\mathrm{}}`$ and

$$a_\lambda ^{\mathrm{}}(u,v)=_{B_{\mathrm{}}(1)}q^{ij}_iu_jvd\mu _{\mathrm{}}+\lambda (u,v)_{\mathrm{}}$$

in other word we want to show the following theorem

###### Theorem 24

For every $`\lambda <0`$, the net of resolvents $`(R_\lambda ^\rho )_\rho `$ of the Laplacian $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho )`$ converges compactly to $`R_\lambda ^{\mathrm{}}`$, the resolvent of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}`$ from the homogenised problem. Thus the net $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\rho )`$ compactly converges to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$.

Proof. This comes from the fact that $`R_\lambda ^\rho =G_\lambda ^\rho `$ and $`R_\lambda ^{\mathrm{}}=G_\lambda `$.

First step :

Let $`f_\rho `$ be a weakly convergent net to $`f`$ in $`^2`$, thus from 13 this net is uniformly bounded in $`^2`$ and in $`V_\rho ^{}`$, the dual space of $`V_\rho `$.

Let $`f_\rho V_\rho `$ then by (6) we have :

$$\alpha G_\lambda ^\rho f_\rho _{\rho ,0}^2(f_\rho ,G_\lambda ^\rho f_\rho )_\rho Kf_\rho _{V_\rho ^{}}G_\lambda ^\rho f_\rho _{\rho ,0}$$

thus

$$G_\lambda ^\rho f_\rho _{\rho ,0}Cf_\rho _{V_\rho ^{}}$$

the net $`(G_\lambda ^\rho f_\rho )`$ being uniformly bounded for the norms $`||||_{\rho ,0}`$, using lemma 12 there is a subnet strongly converging in $`^2`$. i.e.

$$u_\rho =G_\lambda ^\rho f_\rho u_\lambda ^{}\mathrm{strongly}\mathrm{in}^2$$
$`(8)`$
Furthermore $`P_\rho =(g_\rho ^{ij})G_\lambda ^\rho f_\rho `$ is also bounded in $`^2`$ thus there is a subnet of the net $`P_\rho `$ weakly converging in $`^2`$ to $`P_\lambda ^{}L_{\mathrm{}}^2`$. For any $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}L_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ let $`\varphi _\rho `$ be a strongly converging net to $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ in $`^2`$ then

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _{B_\rho (1)}P_\rho \varphi _\rho d\mu _\rho +\lambda (G_\lambda ^\rho f_\rho ,\varphi _\rho )_\rho & =(f_\rho ,\varphi _\rho )_\rho \hfill \\ \hfill _{B_{\mathrm{}}(1)}P_\lambda ^{}\varphi _{\mathrm{}}d\mu _{\mathrm{}}+\lambda (u_\lambda ^{},\varphi _{\mathrm{}})_{\mathrm{}}& =(f,\varphi _{\mathrm{}})_{\mathrm{}}.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(9)`$
Thus it is enough to show that $`P_\lambda ^{}=\left(q^{ij}\right)u_\lambda ^{}`$ on $`B_{\mathrm{}}(1)`$ because it induces $`u_\lambda ^{}=G_\lambda f`$.

Second step :

We first take $`\chi ^k(y)`$ (see 4.1) such that $`(\chi ^k)=0`$ and we define

$$w_\rho (x)=x_k\frac{1}{\rho }\chi ^k(\rho x)$$
$`(10)`$
for every $`k=1,\mathrm{},d_1`$. Then

$$w_\rho x_k\mathrm{strongly}\mathrm{in}^2.$$
$`(11)`$
an by construction of $`\chi ^k`$ (see 4.1) we have

$$_i\left(F(g_\rho ,X)g_\rho ^{ij}_jw_\rho \right)=0\mathrm{on}B_\rho (1).$$
$`(12)`$
We multiply this equation by a test function $`\varphi V_\rho `$ and after an integration we get

$$_{B_\rho (1)}g_\rho ^{ij}_jw_\rho _i\varphi d\mu _\rho =0$$
$`(13)`$
Let $`\phi C_0^{\mathrm{}}(B_{\mathrm{}}(1))`$ (notice that for $`\rho `$ large enough the support of $`\phi `$ will be in $`B_\rho (1)`$ ) and $`\varphi =\phi w_\rho `$ which we put into the equation (6) and into the equation (13) we put $`\varphi =\phi u_\rho `$ (see (8)), and then we subtract the results

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }_{B_\rho (1)}g_\rho ^{ij}\left(_ju_\rho _i\phi w_\rho _jw_\rho _i\phi u_\rho \right)𝑑\mu _\rho \text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }=_{B_\rho (1)}f_\rho w_\rho \phi 𝑑\mu _\rho \lambda _{B_\rho (1)}\phi u_\rho w_\rho 𝑑\mu _\rho (14)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

Now let $`\rho \mathrm{}`$ in (14), all terms converge because they are product of one strongly converging net and one weakly converging net in $`^2`$. More precisely

— $`P_\rho `$ defined $`P_{\rho ,i}=g_\rho ^{ij}_ju_\rho `$ weakly converges to $`P_\lambda ^{}`$ in $`^2`$ following (9);

— $`_i\phi w_\rho `$ strongly converges to $`_i\phi x_k`$ in $`^2`$ from (11)

— $`g_\rho ^{ij}_iw_\rho `$ is $`D_f/\rho `$-periodic and weakly converges in $`^2`$ towards its mean value

$$q^{jk}=\left(g^{ij}(y)\left(\delta _{ik}_i\chi ^k(y)\right)\right)$$

— $`_j\phi u_\rho `$ strongly converges to $`_j\phi u_\lambda ^{}`$ by (8), because $`\phi `$ has compact support.

— Now for the right side, $`w_\rho `$ strongly converges as $`u_\rho `$ does and $`f_\rho `$ weakly converges to $`f`$.

To summarise (14) converges to (we write $`P_{\lambda ,i}^{}`$ the coordinates of $`P_\lambda ^{}`$)

$$_{B_{\mathrm{}}(1)}\left(P_{\lambda ,j}^{}x_kq^{jk}u_\lambda ^{}\right)_j\phi d\mu _{\mathrm{}}=_{B_{\mathrm{}}(1)}fx_k\phi 𝑑\mu _{\mathrm{}}\lambda _{B_{\mathrm{}}(1)}\phi u_\lambda ^{}x_k𝑑\mu _{\mathrm{}}$$
$`(15)`$
furthermore if we put into equation (9), $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}=\phi x_k`$ it gives

$$_{B_{\mathrm{}}(1)}fx_k\phi 𝑑\mu _{\mathrm{}}\lambda _{B_{\mathrm{}}(1)}\phi u_\lambda ^{}x_k𝑑\mu _{\mathrm{}}=_{B_{\mathrm{}}(1)}P_{\lambda ,j}^{}_j(\phi x_k)d\mu _{\mathrm{}}$$
$`(16)`$
and by mixing (15) and (16) we get for every $`\phi 𝒞_c^{\mathrm{}}(B_{\mathrm{}}(1))`$ the following equality :

$$_{B_{\mathrm{}}(1)}\left(P_{\lambda ,j}^{}x_kq^{jk}u^{}\right)_j\phi d\mu _{\mathrm{}}=_{B_{\mathrm{}}(1)}P_{\lambda ,j}^{}_j(\phi x_k)d\mu _{\mathrm{}}$$

which in terms of distribution can be translated into :

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{d_1}{}}_j\left(P_{\lambda ,j}^{}x_kq^{jk}u_\lambda ^{}\right)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{d_1}{}}_jP_j^{}x_kP_{\lambda ,k}^{}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{d_1}{}}q^{jk}_ju_\lambda ^{}$$

which allow us to conclude that $`u_\lambda ^{}=G_\lambda f`$. o

It is now easy to finish the proof of theorem 1, it comes from theorem 24 and theorem 20.

5 $`𝚪`$-convergence of quadratic forms

5.1 $`𝚪`$ and Mosco-convergence of quadratic forms

We are now going to give a definition of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-convergence adapted to our problem.

###### Definition 25. ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-convergence)

We say that a net $`\{F_\alpha :L_\alpha ^2\overline{R}\}_{\alpha 𝒜}`$ of functions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-converges to $`F:L_{\mathrm{}}^2\overline{R}`$ if and only if the following assertions are satisfied :

(F1) For any net $`(u_\alpha )_{\alpha 𝒜}L_\alpha ^2`$ strongly converging to $`uL_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ in $`^2`$ we have

$$F(u)\underset{\alpha }{lim\; inf}F_\alpha (u_\alpha );$$

(F2) For every $`uL_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ there is a net $`(u_\alpha )_{\alpha 𝒜}L_\alpha ^2`$ strongly converging to $`u`$ in $`^2`$ such that

$$F(u)=\underset{\alpha }{lim}F_\alpha (u_\alpha ).$$

Remark. This is slightly different from the definition 5, which is the usual one. By taking $`F_\alpha `$ infinite outside of $`L_\alpha ^2`$ in $`^2`$ we get back (in some way) the usual definition (see the introduction of \[Mas93\]).

Let us summarise some properties satisfied by this convergence.

###### Lemma 26

(a) Let $`\{F_\alpha :L_\alpha ^2\overline{R}\}_{\alpha 𝒜}`$ be a net of functions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-converging to a function $`F:L_{\mathrm{}}^2\overline{R}`$, then $`F`$ is lower semi-continuous.

(b) Let $`(_\alpha )_{\alpha 𝒜}`$ be a net of quadratic forms $`_\alpha `$ on $`L_\alpha ^2`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-converging to a function $`F:L_{\mathrm{}}^2\overline{R}`$, then $`F`$ can be identified with a quadratic form on $`L_{\mathrm{}}^2`$.

There is also the following result, concerning compactness

###### Theorem 27

From every net $`(_\alpha )_{\alpha 𝒜}`$ of quadratic forms $`_\alpha `$ on $`L_\alpha ^2`$ we can extract a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-converging subnet, whose limit is a quadratic form on $`L_{\mathrm{}}^2`$.

Remark. This theorem is true for a wider variety of functions, with some restrictions on $`\{L_\alpha ^2\}_{\nu 𝒜}`$. Of course the limit in that case is not always a quadratic form. Here it is lemma 26 which gives information on the limit.

###### Definition 28. (Mosco topology)

We say that a net $`(_\alpha )_{\alpha 𝒜}`$ of quadratic forms $`_\alpha `$ on $`L_\alpha ^2`$ Mosco-converges to the quadratic form $``$ on $`L_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ if condition (F2) of definition 25 and (F1’) are satisfied:

(F1’) For any $`(u_\alpha )_{\alpha 𝒜},u_\alpha L_\alpha ^2`$ weakly converging net to $`uL_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ in $`^2`$ we have

$$(u)\underset{\alpha }{lim\; inf}_\alpha (u_\alpha )$$

The induced topology is called the Mosco topology.

It is obvious that the Mosco-convergence induces the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-convergence, thus this topology is stronger. Let us now define one last convergence :

###### Definition 29. (Compact $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-convergence)

We say that a net $`(_\alpha )_{\alpha 𝒜}`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-converges compactly to $``$ if $`_a`$ in the Mosco topology an if $`(_a)_{a𝒜}`$ is asymptotically compact.

Let us precise how the Mosco and the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ topologies are linked :

###### Lemma 30

Let us suppose $`(_\alpha )_{\alpha 𝒜}`$ asymptotically compact then $`(_\alpha )_{\alpha 𝒜}`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-converges to $``$ is and only if $`(_\alpha )_{\alpha 𝒜}`$ Mosco-converges to $``$.

Proof. We just need to show that the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-convergence implies the condition $`(F1^{})`$ from definition 28. We proceed ad absurdum and suppose that there is a weakly converging net $`(u_\alpha )`$ such that $`lim\; inf_\alpha _\alpha (u_\alpha )<(u)`$. Taking a subnet if necessarily we can suppose $`lim_\alpha (u_\alpha )<(u)`$ thus we also have $`lim\; sup_\alpha _\alpha (u_\alpha )+u_\alpha _\alpha ^2<+\mathrm{}`$. The asymptotic compactness is obviously inherited by a subnet thus we can extract a strongly converging subnet $`u_{\alpha (\beta )}`$. The $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-convergence being also inherited by a subnet of $`_\alpha `$ we finally get

$$lim_\alpha (u_\alpha )=\underset{\beta }{lim}_{\alpha (\beta )}(u_{\alpha (\beta )})(u)$$

which is absurd. o

5.2 $`𝚪`$-convergence and spectral structures

The following theorem explains how are related the convergence of spectral structures and the Mosco-convergence.

###### Theorem 31

Let $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha )`$ be a net of spectral structures on $`(L_\alpha ^2)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ a spectral structure on $`L_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ strongly (resp. compactly) if and only if $`_\alpha `$ Mosco-converges (resp. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-converges compactly) to $``$.

Proof. We are going to prove the equivalence between the strong (resp. compact) convergence of resolvents and the Mosco-convergence (resp. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-convergence compact) of the energies.

Let us begin by assuming the Mosco-convergence of the net $`(_\alpha )`$. We need to show that for every $`zL_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ and any net $`(z_\alpha )`$ strongly converging to $`z`$ the net $`u_\alpha =R_\lambda ^\alpha z_\alpha `$ strongly converges to $`u=R_\lambda z`$. First let us notice that the vector $`u`$ is the unique minimiser of

$$v(v)\lambda v_{\mathrm{}}^22z,v_{\mathrm{}}$$

we can characterise the same way $`u_\alpha `$ for every $`\alpha `$.

As an operator of $`L_\alpha ^2`$, $`R_\lambda ^\alpha `$ is bounded by $`\lambda ^1`$. Thus the net $`(u_\alpha )`$ is bounded and we can extract a weakly converging sub-net, still written $`(u_\alpha )`$, with limit $`\stackrel{~}{u}`$. Now from condition (F2) for every $`vL_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ there is a net strongly converging to it such that $`lim_\alpha _\alpha (v_\alpha )=(v)`$. But for every $`\alpha `$

$$_\alpha (u_\alpha )\lambda u_\alpha _\alpha ^22z_\alpha ,u_\alpha _\alpha _\alpha (v_\alpha )\lambda v_\alpha _\alpha ^22z_\alpha ,v_\alpha _\alpha $$
$`(17)`$
thus taking the limit in $`\alpha 𝒜`$ we get thanks to condition (F1’) of definition28 and the fact that for any weakly convergent net $`\stackrel{~}{u}_{\mathrm{}}lim\; inf_\alpha u_\alpha _\alpha `$ (remember that $`\lambda <0`$)

$$(\stackrel{~}{u})\lambda \stackrel{~}{u}_{\mathrm{}}^22z,\stackrel{~}{u}_{\mathrm{}}(v)\lambda v_{\mathrm{}}^22z,v_{\mathrm{}}$$

which implies $`\stackrel{~}{u}=R_\lambda z`$. Due to $`u`$’s unicity, we conclude that $`(u_\alpha )`$ weakly converges to $`u`$. Let us prove that $`u_\alpha _\alpha `$ converges to $`u_{\mathrm{}}`$. In that aim take a strongly convergent net $`v_\alpha `$ to $`v`$ such that $`lim_\alpha _\alpha (v_\alpha )=(u)`$, and take a new look at inequality (17) :

$$_\alpha (u_\alpha )\lambda u_\alpha +z_\alpha /\lambda _\alpha ^2_\alpha (v_\alpha )\lambda v_\alpha +z_\alpha /\lambda _\alpha ^2$$

using (F1’) once again we find

$$(v)\lambda \underset{\alpha }{lim\; sup}u_\alpha +z_\alpha /\lambda _\alpha ^2(v)\lambda u+z/\lambda _{\mathrm{}}^2$$

thus $`u_\alpha +z_\alpha /\lambda _\alpha ^2u+z/\lambda _{\mathrm{}}^2`$ which implies the strong convergence of $`(u_\alpha +z_\alpha /\lambda )_\alpha `$ and the strong convergence of $`(z_\alpha )`$ induces the strong convergence of $`(u_\alpha )`$.

We shall now study the compact $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-convergence. Let us take a weakly convergent net $`w_\alpha `$ to $`w`$ and let $`u_\alpha =R_\lambda ^\alpha w_\alpha `$, then the net $`u_\alpha `$ is still bounded. Swapping $`z_\alpha `$ with $`w_\alpha `$ in (17) we get that $`lim\; sup_\alpha _\alpha (u_\alpha )`$ is bounded, and thanks to the asymptotic compactness we can extract a strongly convergent sub-net with $`\stackrel{~}{u}`$ its limit. Putting this in (17), with $`z_\alpha =v_\alpha `$ where $`(v_\alpha )`$ a strongly converging net to $`v`$ we get

$$(\stackrel{~}{u})\lambda \stackrel{~}{u}^22w,\stackrel{~}{u}(v)\lambda v^22w,v$$

thus $`\stackrel{~}{u}=R_\lambda w`$. Once again, thanks to unicity, we conclude that $`R_\lambda ^\alpha w_\alpha `$ strongly converges to $`R_\lambda w`$.

Reciprocally assume that for every $`\lambda <0`$ the net $`R_\lambda ^\alpha `$ strongly converges to $`R_\lambda `$. In what follows $`(u_\alpha )`$ will be a strong convergent net to $`u`$.

Condition (F1’) : already done, see proposition 19.

Condition (F2) : Extract a sub-net $`\lambda _\alpha \mathrm{}`$ such that

$$(u,u)\underset{\lambda }{lim}\underset{\alpha }{lim}a_\alpha ^\lambda (u_\alpha ,u_\alpha )\underset{\alpha }{lim}a_\alpha ^{\lambda _\alpha }(u_\alpha ,u_\alpha )$$

take $`w_\alpha =\lambda _\alpha R_{\lambda _\alpha }^\alpha u_\alpha `$ for every $`\alpha `$ and notice that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a_\alpha ^\lambda (u_\alpha ,u_\alpha )=& \lambda u_\alpha \lambda R_\lambda ^\alpha u_\alpha ,u_\alpha _\alpha \lambda u_\alpha \lambda R_\lambda ^\alpha u_\alpha ,\lambda R_\lambda ^\alpha u_\alpha _\alpha \hfill \\ & +\lambda u_\alpha \lambda R_\lambda ^\alpha u_\alpha ,\lambda R_\lambda ^\alpha u_\alpha _\alpha \hfill \\ \hfill =& \lambda u_\alpha \lambda R_\lambda ^\alpha u_\alpha ^2+\lambda ^2u_\alpha \lambda R_\lambda ^\alpha u_\alpha ,R_\lambda ^\alpha u_\alpha _\alpha \hfill \\ \hfill =& \lambda u_\alpha \lambda R_\lambda ^\alpha u_\alpha ^2+_\alpha (\lambda R_\lambda ^\alpha u_\alpha )\hfill \end{array}$$

indeed if $`a_\alpha `$ is the bilinear form corresponding to $`_\alpha `$ then $`R_\lambda ^\alpha u_\alpha `$ can be seen as the sole element such that

$$a_\alpha (R_\lambda ^\alpha u_\alpha ,v_\alpha )\lambda R_\lambda ^\alpha u_\alpha ,v_\alpha _\alpha =u_\alpha ,v_\alpha _\alpha ,v_\alpha D(_\alpha )$$

hence

$$a_\alpha ^{\lambda _\alpha }(u_\alpha ,u_\alpha )=_\alpha (w_\alpha ,w_\alpha )\lambda _\alpha u_\alpha w_\alpha ^2$$

which implies $`w_\alpha u`$ strongly in $`^2`$ and

$$(u,u)\underset{\alpha +\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}_\alpha (w_\alpha ,w_\alpha )$$

For the compact convergence case it suffices to prove the asymptotic compactness, but it has already been done in the proof of proposition 19. o

6 Proof of Theorem 2

The convergence of the eigenvalue is given by theorem 1. Hence it remains to bound the asymptotic $`\lambda _1`$ (i.e. the limit) and characterise the equality. The proof we propose consists in finding an upper bound of $`\lambda _1\left(B_g(\rho )\right)`$ for every $`\rho `$ using a function depending of the distance from the centre of the ball. We then use the simple convergence of the distances $`(d_\rho )`$ to the stable norm as seen in section 2.2 and the measure part of theorem 9.

Proof. Let $`f`$ be a continuous function from $`R`$ to $`R`$ and define

$`\begin{array}{ccc}f_\rho :B_\rho (1)& & R\\ x& & f\left(d_\rho (0,x)\right)\end{array}`$

and $`f_{\mathrm{}}(x)=f\left(x_{\mathrm{}}\right)`$ on $`B_{\mathrm{}}(1)`$. We want to show that (remember that $`\delta _\rho (x)=\rho x`$)

$$f_\rho \chi _{B_g(\rho )}\delta _\rho 𝑑\mu _\rho \underset{\rho \mathrm{}}{}_{B_{\mathrm{}}(1)}f_{\mathrm{}}𝑑\mu _{\mathrm{}}$$
$`(18)`$
To obtain this we are going to cut the difference in three pieces i.e. :

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill |f_\rho \chi _{B_g(\rho )}\delta _\rho d\mu _\rho & _{B_{\mathrm{}}(1)}f_{\mathrm{}}𝑑\mu _{\mathrm{}}|\hfill & \\ & \left|f_\rho \left(\chi _{B_g(\rho )}\delta _\rho \chi _{B_{\mathrm{}}(1)}\right)𝑑\mu _\rho \right|\hfill & (19)\hfill \\ & +\left|_{B_{\mathrm{}}(1)}\left(f_\rho f_{\mathrm{}}\right)𝑑\mu _\rho \right|\hfill & (20)\hfill \\ & +\left|_{B_{\mathrm{}}(1)}f_{\mathrm{}}𝑑\mu _\rho _{B_{\mathrm{}}(1)}f_{\mathrm{}}𝑑\mu _{\mathrm{}}\right|\hfill & (21)\hfill \end{array}$$

Now it suffices to notice that

1) the part (19) goes to $`0`$ because inside we have the product of $`\chi _{B_g(\rho )}\delta _\rho \chi _{B_{\mathrm{}}(1)}`$, which is easily seen to simply converge to $`0`$ thanks to 8, with bounded terms compactly supported.

2) Same reason but here it is $`f_\rho f_{\mathrm{}}`$ which simply converges to $`0`$,

3) Finally the convergence to $`0`$ of (21) is due once again to the measure part of theorem 9.

As a conclusion we have (18). Injecting now $`f_\rho `$ into the Raleigh’s quotient we get :

$$\rho ^2\lambda _g\left(B_g(\rho )\right)\frac{{\displaystyle \left((f^{})_\rho \right)^2\chi _{B_g(\rho )}\delta _\rho 𝑑\mu _\rho }}{{\displaystyle (f_\rho )^2\chi _{B_g(\rho )}\delta _\rho 𝑑\mu _\rho }}$$

we apply (18) to obtain

$$\underset{\rho \mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\rho ^2\lambda _g\left(B_g(\rho )\right)\frac{{\displaystyle _{B_{\mathrm{}}(1)}}\left((f^{})_{\mathrm{}}\right)^2𝑑\mu _{\mathrm{}}}{{\displaystyle _{B_{\mathrm{}}(1)}}f_{\mathrm{}}^2𝑑\mu _{\mathrm{}}}$$

and now taking for $`f`$ the right function (i.e. the solution of the differential equation $`f^{\prime \prime }+\frac{n1}{x}f^{}(x)+\lambda _{e,n}f=0`$) we can conclude.

Let us now study the equality case. Take again the function $`f`$ which gives the eigenfunction of the Euclidean Laplacian on the Euclidean unit ball (i.e. the solution of $`f^{\prime \prime }+\frac{n1}{x}f^{}(x)+\lambda _{e,n}f=0`$) and normalise it. The $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-convergence theory allows to say, taking $`_\rho `$ and $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ as the energies of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}`$ on the balls $`B_\rho (1)`$ and $`B_{\mathrm{}}(1)`$ respectively for the adapted measures and thanks to proposition 19 and 1

$$_{\mathrm{}}(f_{\mathrm{}})\underset{\rho \mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}_\rho (f_\rho )\underset{\rho \mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}_\rho (f_\rho )\lambda _{e,n}$$
$`(22)`$
Now from the equality assumption we have

$$\lambda _{e,n}_{\mathrm{}}(f_{\mathrm{}}),$$
$`(23)`$
thus (22) and (23) imply equality which in turn imply that $`f_{\mathrm{}}`$ is an eigenfunction for the first eigenvalue . Hence $`f_{\mathrm{}}`$ is smooth (at least in a neighbourhood of zero).

Now from the study of Bessel’s function (see. bow, §103 à §105)) we see that taking $`p=(n2)/2`$ we have $`f(x)=x^pJ_p\left(\sqrt{\lambda _e}x\right)`$ with $`J_p`$ an analytic function defined by (see F. Bowman \[Bow58\] §84)

$$J_p(x)=\frac{x^p}{2^p\mathrm{\Gamma }(p+1)}\left(1\frac{x^2}{22n+2}+\frac{x^4}{242n+22n+4}+\mathrm{}\right)$$

thus $`f`$ has the following shape

$$f(x)=\frac{\lambda _e^p}{2^p\mathrm{\Gamma }(p+1)}\left(1\frac{x^2\lambda _e}{22n+2}+\frac{x^4\lambda _e^2}{242n+22n+4}+\mathrm{}\right)$$

in other words $`f`$ has the following asymptotic expansion $`1+\alpha _1x^2+\alpha _2x^4+\mathrm{}`$ (up to a multiplicative constant), now notice that the function $`1+\alpha _1x+\alpha _2x^2+\mathrm{}`$ admits an inverse $`gC^{\mathrm{}}`$ in a neighbourhood of zero, which implies that $`gf_{\mathrm{}}(x)=cstx_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ is $`C^2`$ in a neighbourhood of zero, thus the stable norm comes from a scalar products, which means that it is Euclidean.

In fact we have some more informations. Indeed in order for $`f_{\mathrm{}}`$ to be an eigenfunction, the norme of the differential of the stable norm with respect to the albanese metric (the scalar product giving the laplacian $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}`$) must be almost everywhere equal to one (a simple computation using the fact that the stable norm is euclidean and the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality). Which implies that the unit ball of the albanese metric must be inside the unit ball of the stable norm. Now the maximum principle and the monotony with respect to inclusion of the eigenvalues implies that equality holds if and only if the stable norm and the Albanese metric coincides. The stable norm being the Albanese metric we can now use the theorem 32 to conclude. o

###### Theorem 32

Let $`(T^n,g)`$ be a torus, its stable norm coincides with the Albanese metric if and only if the torus is flat.

Proof. Let us take a base $`\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _n`$ of Harmonic one forms, any function $`\alpha `$ and any $`2`$-form $`\beta `$. We shall write $`(,)_g`$ pointwise scalar product induced by $`g`$ on forms ($`||||_g`$ the associated norm) and $`,_g`$ the integral scalar product normalized by the volume. Then by Hodge’s theorem

$$\eta _i_{\mathrm{}}^2=\underset{\alpha ,\beta }{inf}\underset{xT^n}{sup}\eta _i_g^2+d\alpha _g^2+\delta \beta _g^2\underset{xT^n}{sup}\eta _i_g^2$$

and

$$\eta _i,\eta _i_g=\frac{1}{\mathrm{Vol}_g(T^n)}_{T^n}\eta _i_g^2𝑑\mathrm{vol}_g\underset{xT^n}{sup}\eta _i_g^2$$

the case of equality implies that $`\eta _i,\eta _i_g=(\eta _i,\eta _i)_g(x)`$ for all $`xT^n`$. Now it suffices to see that the metric $`g`$ can be written in the following way :

$$\underset{i,j}{}\lambda _{ij}\eta _i\eta _j=g$$

where $`\eta _i\eta _j=1/2(\eta _i\eta _j+\eta _j\eta _i)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=(\lambda _{ij})`$ is the matrice such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1=\left(\eta _i,\eta _j_g\right)`$. Now taking local $`f_i`$ such that $`df_i=\eta _i`$ then the function $`F(x)=(f_1(x),\mathrm{},f_n(x))`$ is an isometry between a open set of $`T^n`$ and an eucliean space, thus the torus is flat. o

7 Related topics

In that section we come back to the asymptotic volume, proving in the meantime a generalised Faber-Krahn inequality. Then we explain what can be deduces from our work for the heat kernel and how it is related to other’s work. We finally state how theorem 1 passes to graded nilmanifolds.

7.1 Asymptotic volume of tori

7.1.1 Generalised Faber-Krahn inequality

We need some more definitions

###### Definition 33

For a rectifiable submanifold $`N`$ of $`R^n`$ (we can think of it of finite adapted Hausdorff measure) we will write $`I(N)`$ the associated integral current. For an integral current $`C`$, $`M(C)`$ will be its mass as defined par H. Federer (see \[Fed69\] for example).

###### Definition 34

Let $`R^n`$, with the norm $`||||`$ ($`||||_{}`$ will be the dual norm), we define

$$\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Omega },||||)=\underset{f}{inf}\frac{{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}df_{}^2𝑑\mu }{{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}f^2𝑑\mu }$$

where $`\mu `$ is the Lebesgue measure on $`R^n`$, and the infimum is taken over all lipschitz functions vanishing on the border.

The following lemma holds,

###### Lemma 35. (Faber-Krahn inequality for norms)

Let $`D`$ be a domain of $`R^n`$, with the norm $`||||`$ and a measure $`\mu `$ invariant by translation. Let $`D^{}`$ be the norm’s ball with same measure as $`D`$, then

$$\lambda _1(D^{},||||)\lambda _1(D,||||)$$
$`(24)`$
the equality case implying that $`D`$ is a norm’s ball.

Proof. We need two ingredients for this proof. The first is an isoperimetric inequality, which is given by a result of Brunn (see a proof by M. Gromov in \[MS86\]). The second is a co-area formula, which can be found in Federer \[Fed69\] p. 438.

More specifically, let us write $`G_t=\{x|f(x)|=t\}`$ then on one side we have

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }h\alpha df=_0^{supf}_{G_t}h\alpha _{G_t}𝑑t=_0^{supf}I_{|f|=t}(h\alpha )𝑑t$$

and on the other

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }df_{}𝑑\mu =_0^{supf}M(I_{|f|=t})𝑑t$$
$`(25)`$
(see P. Pansu \[Pan99\]) where $`d\mu `$ is the translation invariant volume form on $`R^n`$ such that the norm’s ball of radius one has measure $`1`$.

Take $`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{|df|^2}}df`$ where $``$ is the Hodge operator on differential forms over $`R^n`$ then we get

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }h𝑑\mu =_0^{supf}_{G_t}h\alpha _{G_t}𝑑t$$

Take now a look at the same equality on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_t=\{x|f(x)|>t\}`$ i.e. :

$$_{\mathrm{\Omega }_t}h𝑑\mu =_t^{supf}_{G_t}h\alpha _{G_t}𝑑t=_t^{supf}I_{|f|=t}(h\alpha )𝑑t$$
$`(26)`$
differentiating each member of equality (26) we get almost everywhere the following equality

$$_{G_t}h\alpha _{G_t}=I_{|f|=t}(h\alpha )$$
$`(27)`$
taking into account (27) and (25) we obtain

$$_{G_t}df_{}\alpha _{G_t}=M(I_{|f|=t})$$
$`(28)`$
applying the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality to the left side of (28) and make the appropriate identification thanks to (27) we finally have

$$\frac{M(I_{|f|=t})^2}{I_{|f|=t}(\alpha )}I_{|f|=t}\left(\left(df_{}\right)^2\alpha \right)$$
$`(29)`$
The function $`f^{}`$ associated to $`f`$ by symmetrisation is lipschitz, thus she satisfies a similar co-area formula. Hence we have for almost all $`t`$

$$I_{|f|=t}(\alpha )=\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{Vol}(\mathrm{\Omega }_t)=\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{Vol}(\mathrm{\Omega }_t^{})=I_{|f^{}|=t}(\alpha ^{})$$
$`(30)`$
now using the Brunn’s isoperimetric inequality (see \[MS86\]) we have

$$M(I_{|f^{}|=t})M(I_{|f|=t})$$
$`(31)`$
injecting (30) and (31) in (29) and noticing that $`df^{}_{}`$ is constant on $`\{|f|=t\}`$, which implies that the equivalent of (29) for $`f^{}`$ is an equality we get (for almost all $`t`$)

$$I_{|f^{}|=t}\left(\left(df^{}_{}\right)^2\alpha ^{}\right)=\frac{M(I_{|f^{}|=t})^2}{I_{|f^{}|=t}(\alpha ^{})}\frac{M(I_{|f|=t})^2}{I_{|f|=t}(\alpha )}I_{|f|=t}\left(\left(df_{}\right)^2\alpha \right)$$
$`(32)`$
Now we sum the extremal terms of (32) to obtain the wanted inequality :

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\left(df^{}_{}\right)^2𝑑v_\mathrm{\Omega }\left(df_{}\right)^2𝑑v$$

which allows us to conclude the proof because

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(f^{})^2𝑑v=_\mathrm{\Omega }(f)^2𝑑v$$

For the equality case, it suffices to see that it implies the equality case in the Brunn’s isoperimetric inequality to conclude. o

Let us notice that this lemma immediately implies

###### Corollary

Let $`D_1`$ the unit ball of the norm $`||||`$ then

$$\lambda _1(D_1)=\lambda _{e,n}$$

thus

$$\lambda _{e,n}\left(\frac{\mu (D_1)}{\mu (D)}\right)^{\frac{2}{n}}\lambda _1(D,||||)$$

where $`\mu `$ is a Haar measure on $`R^n`$.

Proof. The symmetrisation from the previous theorem shows that the minimum of the Rayleigh’s quotient is obtained with functions depending on the distance from the centre of the ball. Hence we are lead to the same calculations as in the Euclidean case. o

7.1.2 Lower bound for the asymptotic volume

We are now going to apply the generalised Faber-Krahn inequality to $`\lambda _{\mathrm{}}`$. In that aim in mind let us notice that $`\lambda _{\mathrm{}}\left(B_{\mathrm{}}(1)\right)=\lambda _1(B_{\mathrm{}}(1),||||_2^{})`$ with the dual norm of $`||||_2^{}`$ defined by

$$\xi _2=\underset{ij}{}q^{ij}\xi _i\xi _j$$

and let us write $`B_{\mathrm{Al}}`$ the unit ball of $`||||_2^{}`$. We now can apply inequality of lemma 35 and more precisely its corollary (32)

$$\lambda _{\mathrm{}}\left(B_{\mathrm{}}(1)\right)\left(\frac{\mu (B_{\mathrm{Al}})}{\mu \left(B_{\mathrm{}}(1)\right)}\right)^{2/n}\lambda _{e,n}$$

where $`\mu `$ is any Haar measure. Now applying theorem we get

$$\left(\frac{\mu (B_{\mathrm{Al}})}{\mu \left(B_{\mathrm{}}(1)\right)}\right)^{2/n}\lambda _{e,n}\lambda _{e,n}$$
$`(33)`$
We finally get the following proposition taking in (33) the Haar measure such that the measure of $`B_{\mathrm{}}(1)`$ is the asymptotic volume (i.e. the measure $`\mu _{\mathrm{}}`$) and transforming the other term in order to make the Albanese’s Torus’s volume appear.

###### Proposition 3

Let $`(T^n,g)`$ be a Riemannian Torus, $`B_g(\rho )`$ the geodesic balls of radius $`\rho `$ centred on a fixed point and $`\mathrm{Vol}_g\left(B_g(\rho )\right)`$ their Riemannian volume induced on the universal cover, writing

$$\mathrm{Asvol}(g)=\underset{\rho \mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{Vol}_g\left(B_g(\rho )\right)}{\rho ^n}$$

then

1. $`\mathrm{Asvol}(g)\frac{\mathrm{Vol}_g\left(T^n\right)}{\mathrm{Vol}_{\mathrm{Al}}\left(T^n\right)}\omega _n`$

2. In case of equality, the torus is flat. Where $`\omega _n`$ is the unit Euclidean ball’s Euclidean volume.

Proof. There remains the equality case to be proved, which can be obtained using either the equality case of the Faber-Krahn inequality, which says that $`B_{\mathrm{}}(1)`$ is an ellipsoid either the equality case of theorem 2 and then we conclude by using theorem 32. o

We still have two remarks concerning this proposition, the first one is included in the following corollary.

###### Corollary

For $`n=2`$ we have

1. $`\mathrm{Asvol}(g)\pi =\omega _2`$

2. In case of equality, the torus is flat.

In other words we obtain the theorem of D. Burago et S. Ivanov on the asymptotic volume of tori in the $`2`$ dimensional case (see \[BI95\]). The second remark is that we can not do better this way. See \[Ver01\] part three for more details.

7.2 Long time asymptotics of the heat kernel

Let $`(T^n,g)`$ be a torus and $`(R^n,\stackrel{~}{g})`$ its universal cover with the lifted metric. We remind the reader that $`g_\rho =(1/\rho ^2)\delta _\rho ^{}\stackrel{~}{g}`$ are the rescaled metrics and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho `$ their Laplacian, here it will be on $`R^n`$.

We are going to study from the homogenisation point of view the long time asymptotic behaviour of the heat kernel i.e. we are interested in the behaviour as $`t`$ goes to infinity of a solution $`u(t,x)`$ of the following problem

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{u}{t}+\mathrm{\Delta }u=0& \mathrm{in}]0,+\mathrm{}[\times R^n\hfill \\ \hfill u(0,x)=u_0(x)& \end{array}$$
$`(34)`$
For a probabilistic insight one could see M. Kotani et T. Sunada \[KS00\].

Let us introduce the rescaled functions

$$u_\rho (t,x)=\rho ^nu(\rho ^2t,\delta _\rho x),\rho >0$$

it is the straightforward that (see. 2.4) $`u`$ is a solution of (34) if and only if $`u_\rho `$ is a solution of

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{u_\rho }{t}+\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho u_\rho =0& \mathrm{in}]0,+\mathrm{}[\times R^n\hfill \\ \hfill u_\rho (0,x)=\rho ^nu_0(\delta _\rho x)& \end{array}$$
$`(35)`$
hence studying $`u(t,)`$ as $`t`$ goes to infinity is the same as studying $`u_\rho (1,)`$ as $`\rho \mathrm{}`$. In other words we are once again lead to the study of the spectral structures $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho )`$ on $`R^n`$. We have

###### Theorem 36

The net of resolvents $`(R_\lambda ^\rho )`$ weakly converges to the resolvent $`(R_\lambda ^{\mathrm{}})`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}`$ in $`L^2(R^n)`$.

Remark. The proof is the same as 24. In fact in that case we would rather talk of G-convergence. We now can apply the theorems from the chapter III of \[ZKON79\] more precisely theorems $`4`$ and $`6`$.

###### Theorem 37.(\[ZKON79\] page 136)

The fundamental solution $`k(t,x,y)`$ of (34) has he following asymptotic expansion

$$k(t,x,y)=k_{\mathrm{}}(t,x,y)+t^{\frac{n}{2}}\theta (t,x,y)$$

where $`k_{\mathrm{}}(t,x,y)`$ is fundamental solution of

$$\frac{u_{\mathrm{}}}{t}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}u_{\mathrm{}}=0\mathrm{in}]0,+\mathrm{}[\times R^n$$
$`(36)`$
and $`\theta (t,x,y)0`$ uniformly as $`t\mathrm{}`$ on $`|x|^2+|y|^2at`$, for any fixed constant $`a>0`$.

Remark. This is slightly weaker that theorem 1 of M. Kotani and T. Sunada in \[KS00\].

###### Theorem 38. (\[ZKON79\] page 138)

Let $`u_0L^1(R^n)L^{\mathrm{}}(R^n)`$. Then $`u(t,x)`$ the solution of(34) has the following asymptotic expansion :

$$u(t,x)=c_0(4\pi t)^{\frac{n}{2}}_{R^n}u_0(y)𝑑y+t^{\frac{n}{2}}\theta (t,x)$$

where $`\theta (t,x)`$ converges uniformly to $`0`$ for $`|x|<R`$ where $`R`$ is a positive constant and $`c_0`$ is the determinant of the matrix associated to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}`$.

That last claim can be precised by

###### Theorem 39. (Duro, Zuazua \[DZ00\])

Let $`u_0L^1(R^n)`$. The sole solution of (34) satisfies for every $`p[1,+\mathrm{}[`$ :

$$t^{n/2(11/p)}u(t)u_{\mathrm{}}(t)_p0,\mathrm{as}t+\mathrm{}$$
$`(37)`$
where $`u_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the unique solution of the homogenised problem (36). For $`n=1`$ and $`n=2`$ (37) is also true for $`p=\mathrm{}`$.

7.3 The macroscopical sound of graded nilmanifolds

In this part we want to emphasise the fact that theorem 1 is still true for graded nilmanifolds, at least for the Dirichlet case, but it involves some sub-riemannian geometry. We just give the statement the details are to be found in \[Ver01\] chapter two.

###### Theorem 40

Let $`(M^n,g)`$ be graded nilmanifold, $`B_g(\rho )`$ the induced Riemannian ball of radius $`\rho `$ on its universal cover and $`\lambda _i\left(B_g(\rho )\right)`$ the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ eigenvalue of the Laplacian on $`B_g(\rho )`$ for the Dirichlet problem.

Then there exists an hypoelliptic operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}`$ (the Kohn Laplacian of a left invariant metric), whose $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ eigenvalue for the Dirichlet problem on the stable ball is $`\lambda _i^{\mathrm{}}`$ and such that

$$\underset{\rho \mathrm{}}{lim}\rho ^2\lambda _i\left(B_g(\rho )\right)=\lambda _i^{\mathrm{}}$$

where the stable ball is the metric ball given by the Carnot-Caratheodory distance found in \[Pan82\] and arising from the stable norm.

8 Proof of theorem 20

Let $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha )`$ be a net of spectral structures and let us focus on the spectra. For a fixed operator $`\sigma ()`$ will be its spectrum. Let us begin with the case of strong convergence.

###### Proposition 41

If $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ strongly, then for any $`\lambda \sigma (A)`$ there is $`\lambda _\alpha \sigma (A_\alpha )`$ such that the net $`(\lambda _\alpha )`$ converges to $`\lambda `$, this is written

$$\sigma (A)\underset{\alpha }{lim}\sigma (A_\alpha )$$

Proof. Let $`\lambda \sigma (A)`$ and $`\epsilon >0`$ and take $`\zeta =\lambda +i\epsilon `$ then :

$$R_\zeta ^\alpha __\alpha =\frac{1}{inf_{\rho \sigma (A_\alpha )}|\zeta \rho |}\mathrm{and}R_\zeta _{_{\mathrm{}}}=\frac{1}{inf_{\rho \sigma (A)}|\zeta \rho |}=\frac{1}{\epsilon }.$$

From the assumption, the net of resolvents strongly converges hence by 15

$$\underset{\alpha }{lim\; sup}\underset{\rho \sigma (A_\alpha )}{inf}|\zeta \rho |\epsilon $$

and as it is true for any $`\epsilon `$, we can conclude. o

###### Lemma 42

For any reals $`a`$,$`b`$ out of the spectra of $`A`$ such that $`\mathrm{}a<b+\mathrm{}`$ then

$$a\frac{(u)}{u_{\mathrm{}}^2}b\mathrm{𝑝𝑜𝑢𝑟}\mathrm{𝑡𝑜𝑢𝑡}uE\left(]a,b]\right)L_{\mathrm{}}^2\{0\}.$$

(where $`E\left(]a,b]\right)=E\left(]a,+\mathrm{}[\right)`$ si $`b=+\mathrm{}`$).

Proof. Let $`a<b`$ two reals out of the spectra of $`A`$ and

$$uE\left(]a,b]\right)L_{\mathrm{}}^2\{0\}.$$

then

$$_{]a,b]}𝑑Eu=E\left(]a,b]\right)u=u=_R𝑑Eu$$

thus $`Eu,u=0`$ on $`R]a,b]`$. Now if $`uD(A)`$,

$$(u)=Au,u=_R\lambda dE(\lambda )u,u=_{]a,b]}\lambda dE(\lambda )u,u$$

and the last term satisfies

$$au_{\mathrm{}}^2=a_{]a,b]}dE(\lambda )u,u_{]a,b]}\lambda dE(\lambda )u,ub_{]a,b]}dE(\lambda )u,u=bu_{\mathrm{}}^2$$

o

For any Borel set $`IR`$ we write $`n(I)=dimE(I)L_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ and $`n_\alpha (I)=dimE_\alpha (I)L_\alpha ^2`$.

###### Proposition 43

Let $`a<b`$ two reals out of the point spectrum of $`A`$. if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ strongly then

$$\underset{\alpha }{lim\; inf}n_\alpha \left(]a,b]\right)n\left(]a,b]\right)$$

and in particular,

$$\underset{\alpha }{lim\; inf}dimL_\alpha ^2dimL_{\mathrm{}}^2$$

Proof. Lets take an orthonormal base $`\{\phi _kk=1,\mathrm{},n\left(]a,b]\right)\}`$ of $`E\left(]a,b]\right)L_{\mathrm{}}^2`$. Let $`nN`$ a fixed number if $`n\left(]a,b]\right)=\mathrm{}`$ else $`n=n\left(]a,b]\right)`$. Then there are nets $`\phi _k^\alpha L_\alpha ^2`$ for $`k=1,\mathrm{},n`$ such that $`lim_\alpha \phi _k^\alpha =\phi _k`$. As $`E_\alpha \left(]a,b]\right)E\left(]a,b]\right)`$ strongly, taking $`\psi _k^\alpha =E_\alpha \left(]a,b]\right)\phi _k^\alpha `$ we get

$$\underset{\alpha }{lim}\psi _k^\alpha =E\left(]a,b]\right)\phi _k=\phi _k$$

hence

$$\underset{\alpha }{lim}\psi _i^\alpha ,\psi _j^\alpha _\alpha =\phi _i,\phi _j=\delta _{ij}$$

from which we deduce that $`(\psi _k^\alpha )_{k=1,\mathrm{},n}`$ is a free family for $`\alpha `$ large enough and

$$\underset{\alpha }{lim}n_\alpha \left(]a,b]\right)n.$$

which proves the first assertion. For the second it comes from the fact that $`n\left(]a,b]\right)`$ converges to $`dimL_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ as $`a\mathrm{}`$ and $`b+\mathrm{}`$. o

Let us now have a look at the compact convergence case :

###### Theorem 44

If $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ compactly converges, then for any $`a`$,$`b`$ out of the point spectrum of $`A`$ such that $`a<b`$ for $`\alpha `$ large enough we have $`n_\alpha \left(]a,b]\right)=n\left(]a,b]\right)`$. In particular the limit of the sets $`\sigma (A_\alpha )`$ coincides with $`\sigma (A)`$

Proof. The compact convergence implies that the operators $`R_\zeta `$, $`T_t`$ and $`E\left(]\lambda ,\mu ]\right)`$ are compact (see 15) Thus the spectrum of $`A`$ is discrete and $`n\left(]a,b]\right)<\mathrm{}`$ if $`a<b<\mathrm{}`$. Let $`(0)\lambda _1\lambda _2\mathrm{}\lambda _n`$ be the spectrum of $`A`$, where

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}n=0\hfill & \text{if the spectre is empty ,}\hfill \\ nN\hfill & \text{if the spectre is finite and}\hfill \\ n=\mathrm{}\hfill & \text{if the spectre is a sequence converging to infinity.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Step 1 :  Fix $`\epsilon _0`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^\alpha =E\left(]\mathrm{},\lambda _1+\epsilon _0]\right)L_\alpha ^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1=L_{\mathrm{}}^2`$, where $`\lambda _1=\lambda _1+\epsilon _0=\mathrm{}`$ if $`n=0`$. Let

$$\mu _1=\underset{\alpha }{lim\; inf}inf\{_a(u)u_\alpha =1,u\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^\alpha \}$$

lemma 42 allows us to say that $`lim_\alpha n_\alpha \left(]\mathrm{},\mu ]\right)=0`$ for any $`\mu ]\mathrm{},\mu _1[`$. Applying proposition 43 we get $`n\left(]\mathrm{},\mu ]\right)=0`$, in other words for any $`\mu \mu _1`$ then $`\mu \lambda _1`$ thus $`\mu _1\lambda _1`$. Hence if $`\mu _1=+\mathrm{}`$, $`n=0`$ and $`L_\alpha ^2=0`$ for $`\alpha `$ large enough and the theorem is proved in that case.

Suppose that $`\mu _1<+\mathrm{}`$. For $`\alpha `$ large enough we can find unit vectors $`\phi _1^\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_1^\alpha `$ such that $`lim\; inf_\alpha _\alpha (\phi _1^\alpha )=\mu _1`$. From the asymptotic compactness of $`_\alpha `$ we can extract a sub-net $`(\phi _1^\alpha )_{\alpha 𝒜}`$ such that $`\phi _1=lim_\alpha \phi _1^\alpha `$ strongly and thanks to definition 19 $`(\phi _1)\mu _1`$. The strong convergence induces the convergence of the norms hence $`\phi _1=1`$ and

$$\lambda _1=inf\{(u)u=1,u\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\}(\phi _1)\mu _1<+\mathrm{}.$$

As a consequence $`n1`$, $`\lambda _1=\mu _1=(\phi _1)`$ and $`\phi _1`$ is eigenvector of $`A`$ for $`\lambda _1`$.

Furthermore let us notice that as $`E_\alpha \left(]\lambda _1ϵ,\lambda _1+ϵ]\right)E\left(]\lambda _1ϵ,\lambda _1+ϵ]\right)`$ strongly for any $`ϵ>0`$ fixed and $`E\left(]\lambda _1ϵ,\lambda _1+ϵ]\right)E\left(\{\lambda _1\}\right)`$ strongly when $`ϵ0`$ there is a net of positives numbers $`ϵ_1^\alpha 0`$ such that $`E_\alpha \left(]\lambda _1ϵ_1^\alpha ,\lambda _1+ϵ_1^\alpha ]\right)E\left(\{\lambda _1\}\right)`$ strongly. From this we obtain a net

$$\psi _1^\alpha =E_\alpha \left(]\lambda _1ϵ_1^\alpha ,\lambda _1+ϵ_1^\alpha ]\right)\phi _1^\alpha E\left(\{\lambda _1\}\right)\phi _1=\phi _1.$$

Step 2 : Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^\alpha =E\left(]\mathrm{},\lambda _2+\epsilon _0]\right)L_\alpha ^2\phi _1^\alpha ^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2=\phi _1^{}`$ and

$$\mu _2=\underset{\alpha }{lim\; inf}inf\{_a(u)u_\alpha =1,u\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^\alpha \}.$$

Again lemma 42 allows us to say that $`lim_\alpha n_\alpha \left(]\mathrm{},\mu ]\right)=0`$ for any $`\mu \left(]\mu _1,\mu _2[\right)`$ and proposition 43 that $`\mu _2\lambda _2`$. Hence if $`\mu _2=+\mathrm{}`$, we have $`n=1`$ and $`L_\alpha ^2=\psi _1^\alpha `$ for $`\alpha `$ large enough. Assume $`\mu _2<\mathrm{}`$. Take the unitary vectors $`\phi _2^\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_2^\alpha `$ such that $`lim\; inf_\alpha _\alpha (\phi _2^\alpha )=\mu _2`$. Then the same discussion as step 1 gives $`n2`$, $`\lambda _2=\mu _2`$ and the strong convergence of a sub-net of $`(\phi _2^\alpha )`$ to $`\phi _2`$ an eigenvector of $`A`$ for the eigenvalue $`\lambda _2`$. We also find a net $`ϵ_2^\alpha 0`$ such that $`\psi _2^\alpha =E_\alpha \left(]\lambda _2ϵ_2^\alpha ,\lambda _2+ϵ_2^\alpha ]\right)L_\alpha ^2\phi _2`$. Now let us notice that for any $`ϵ>0`$ there is $`\alpha _ϵ𝒜`$ such that for all $`\alpha \alpha _ϵ`$ we have

(1) $`\psi _i^\alpha E_\alpha \left(]\lambda _iϵ,\lambda _i+ϵ]\right)L_\alpha ^2`$ for $`i=1`$,$`2`$ ;

(2) if $`\lambda _1+2ϵ<\lambda _2`$ then

$$E_\alpha \left(]\lambda _1ϵ,\lambda _1+ϵ]\right)L_\alpha ^2=\psi _1^\alpha \mathrm{and}E_\alpha \left(]\lambda _1+ϵ,\lambda _2ϵ]\right)L_\alpha ^2=0.$$

Step 3 : We repeat this procedure. Setting

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^\alpha =E\left(]\mathrm{},\lambda _k+\epsilon _0]\right)L_\alpha ^2\psi _1^\alpha ,\mathrm{},\psi _{k1}^\alpha ^{}$$

we have

$$\lambda _k=\mu _k=\underset{\alpha }{lim\; inf}inf\{_a(u)u_\alpha =1,u\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^\alpha \}$$

for $`kn`$. Let $`k\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and $`ϵ>0`$ be sufficiently small compared with $`k`$. Then, there exists $`\alpha _{k,ϵ}𝒜`$ such that for any $`\alpha \alpha _{k,ϵ}`$,

(1) for each $`\lambda \{\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{k1}\}`$ with $`\lambda <\lambda _k`$,

$$E_\alpha \left(]\lambda ϵ,\lambda +ϵ]\right)L_\alpha ^2=\psi _i^\alpha p_\lambda iq_\lambda ,$$

where $`p_\lambda =\mathrm{min}\{iN\lambda _i=\lambda \}`$ and $`q_\lambda =\mathrm{max}\{iN\lambda _i=\lambda \}`$ ;

(2) for each $`i=1,\mathrm{},k1`$ with $`\lambda _i<\lambda _{i+1}`$,

$$E_\alpha \left(]\lambda _i+ϵ,\lambda _{i+1}ϵ]\right)L_\alpha ^2=\{0\}.$$

Conclusion Let $`a`$,$`bR^+\sigma (A)`$ two given real numbers such that $`a<b`$, then from what precedes we have for $`\alpha `$ large enough

$$E_\alpha \left(]a,b]\right)L_\alpha ^2=\psi _k^\alpha k=1,\mathrm{},n\mathrm{with}a<\lambda _kb.$$

Thus $`n_\alpha \left(]a,b]\right)`$ coincides with the number $`k`$ such that $`a<\lambda _kb`$, in other words $`n\left(]a,b]\right)`$. o

The proof of theorem 20 is the same as above, but defining the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^\alpha `$ with the help of the $`\phi _k^\alpha `$.

References

| \[BD98\] | A. Braides and A. Defranceschi. Homogenization of Multiple Integrals. Oxford Science Publications, 1998. |
| --- | --- |
| \[Ber86\] | P. H. Berard. Spectral Geometry: Direct and Inverse Problems. Number 1207 in Lecture Notes Math. Springer Verlag, 1986. |
| \[BI94\] | D. Burago and S. Ivanov. Riemannian tori without conjugate points are flat. GAFA, 4(3):259–269, 1994. |
| \[BI95\] | D. Burago and S. Ivanov. On asymptotic volume of tori. GAFA, 5(5):800–808, 1995. |
| \[BLP78\] | A. Bensousan, J.-L. Lions, and G. Papanicolaou. Asymptotic analysis for periodic structures. Studies in mathematics and its applications. North Holland, 1978. |
| \[Bow58\] | F. Bowman. Introduction to Bessel Functions. Dover, 1958. |
| \[Bur92\] | D. Burago. Periodic metrics. Advances in soviet mathematics, 9:205–210, 1992. |
| \[Cha94\] | I. Chavel. Riemannian geometry : a modern introduction. Cambridge tracts in mathematics. Cambridge University Press, 1994. |
| \[DZ00\] | G. Duro and E. Zuazua. Large time behavior for convection-diffusion equations in $`R^n`$ with periodic coefficients. Journal of Differential Equation, 167:275–315, 2000. |
| \[Fed69\] | H. Federer. Geometric Measure Theory. Springer Verlag, 1969. |
| \[Fuk90\] | Fukaya. Haussdorff convergence of Riemann manifold and its application. In T. Ochiai, editor, Recent topic in Differential and Analytic Geometry, volume 18-I of Advanced Studies in Pure Mathematics, pages 143–238. 1990. |
| \[GHL90\] | S. Gallot, D. Hulin, and J. Lafontaine. Riemannian geometry. Universitext. Springer-Verlag, second edition, 1990. |
| \[KKO97\] | A. Kasue, H. Kumura, and Y. Ogura. Convergence of heat kernels on a compact manifold. Kyushu J. Math, 51:453–524, 1997. |
| \[KS\] | K. Kuwae and T. Shioya. Convergence of spectral structures: a functional analytic theory and its applications to spectral geometry. prepublication. |
| \[KS00\] | M. Kotani and T. Sunada. Albanese maps and off diagonal long time asymptotics for the heat kernel. Commun. Math. Phys., 209:633–670, 2000. |
| \[Laf74\] | J. Lafontaine. Sur le volume de la variété de jacobi d’une variété riemannienne. C. R. Acad. Sc. Paris, 278:1519–1522, 1974. |
| \[Mas93\] | Dal Maso. An Introduction to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-convergence. Birkhäuser, 1993. |
| \[Mos94\] | U. Mosco. Composite media and asymptotic dirichlet forms. J. Funct. Anal., 123(2):368–421, 1994. |
| \[MS86\] | V. D. Milman and G. Schechtman. Asymptotic Theory of finite dimensional Normed Spaces. Number 1200 in Lecture Notes Math. Springer Verlag, 1986. |
| \[Pan82\] | P. Pansu. Géometrie du groupe de Heisenberg. Thèse de docteur 3ème cycle, Université Paris VII, 1982. |
| \[Pan99\] | P. Pansu. Profil isopérimétrique, métriques périodiques et formes d’équilibre des cristaux. prépublication d’orsay, 1999. |
| \[Rud91\] | W. Rudin. Functional Analysis. International series in Pure and Applied Mathematics. Mc Graw-Hill, second edition, 1991. |
| \[Ver01\] | C. Vernicos. Spectres asymptotiques des nilvariétés graduées. Thèse de doctorat, Université Grenoble I, Joseph Fourier, 2001. |
| \[ZKON79\] | V.V. Zhikov, S.M. Kozlov, O.A. Oleinik, and Kha T’en Ngoan. Averaging and g-convergence of differential operators. Russian Math. Surveys, 34(5):69–147, 1979. |

Constantin Vernicos

Université de Neuchâtel

Institut de Mathématiques

11, rue Emile Argand

2007 Neuchâtel

Switzerland

mail: Constantin.Vernicos@unine.ch