arXiv:1403.3731v1 [math.SP] 15 Mar 2014

arXiv:1403.3731v1 [math.SP] 15 Mar 2014

FOR HIGHER-ORDER KREIN LAPLACIANS ON OPEN SETS

FRITZ GESZTESY, ARI LAPTEV, MARIUS MITREA, AND SELIM SUKHTAIEV

Abstract. For an abritray nonempty, open bounded set Ω⊂Rⁿ,n∈N, we consider the minimally defined higher-order Laplacian (−∆)^m

C0^∞(Ω),m∈N, and its Krein–von Neumann extensionAK,Ω,minL²(Ω). WithN(λ, AK,Ω,m), λ >0, denoting the eigenvalue counting function corresponding to the strictly positive eigenvalues ofAK,Ω,m, we derive the bound

N(λ, AK,Ω,m)6(2π)⁻ⁿ|Ω|λ^n/(2m)min

α>0

α⁻¹

ˆ

Rn

α− |ξ|^4m+|ξ|^2m

+dⁿξ

.

This bound remains valid for unbounded domains Ω⊂Rⁿof finite volume, finite width, and such that ˚W^2m(Ω) embeds compactly intoL²(Ω).

The proof relies on variational considerations and exploits the fundamental link between the Krein–von Neumann extension and an underlying (abstract) buckling problem.

1. Introduction

To set the stage, suppose thatSis a densely defined, symmetric, closed operator with nonzero deficiency indices in a separable complex Hilbert spaceHthat satisfies S >εIH for some ε >0. (1.1) Then, according to M. Krein’s celebrated 1947 paper [34], among all nonnegative self-adjoint extensions ofS, there exist two distinguished ones,SF, the Friedrichs extension ofSandSK, the Krein–von Neumann extension ofS, which are, respec- tively, the largest and smallest such extension (in the sense of quadratic forms). In particular, a nonnegative self-adjoint operatorSe is a self-adjoint extension ofS if and only if Sesatisfies

SK 6Se6SF (1.2)

(again, in the sense of quadratic forms).

An abstract version of [25, Proposition 1], presented in [6], describing the fol- lowing intimate connection between the nonzero eigenvalues of SK, and a suitable abstract buckling problem, can be summarized as follows:

There exists 06=vλ∈dom(SK) satisfying SKvλ=λvλ, λ6= 0, (1.3)

Date: March 18, 2014.

2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 35J25, 35J40, 35P15; Secondary 35P05, 46E35, 47A10, 47F05.

Key words and phrases. Krein Laplacian, eigenvalues, spectral analysis, Weyl asymptotics, buckling problem.

Work of M. M. was partially supported by the Simons Foundation Grant # 281566 and by a University of Missouri Research Leave grant.

Mathematical Results in Quantum Mechanics, QMath12 Proceedings, P. Exner, W. K¨onig, and H. Neidhardt (eds), World Scientific, Singapore, to appear.

1

if and only if

there exists a 06=uλ∈dom(S^∗S) such that S^∗Suλ=λSuλ, (1.4) and the solutions vλ of (1.3) are in one-to-one correspondence with the solutions uλof (1.4) given by the pair of formulas

uλ= (SF)⁻¹SKvλ, vλ=λ⁻¹Suλ. (1.5) As briefly recalled in Section 2, (1.4) represents an abstract buckling problem. The latter has been the key in all attempts to date in proving Weyl-type asymptotics for eigenvalues of SK whenS represents an elliptic partial differential operator in L²(Ω). In fact, it is convenient to go one step further and replace the abstract buckling eigenvalue problem (1.4) by the variational formulation,

there existsuλ∈dom(S)\{0} such that

a(w, uλ) =λb(w, uλ) for allw∈dom(S), (1.6) where the symmetric formsaand bin Hare defined by

a(f, g) := (Sf, Sg)H, f, g∈dom(a) := dom(S), (1.7) b(f, g) := (f, Sg)H, f, g∈dom(b) := dom(S). (1.8) In the present context of higher-order Krein Laplacians, the role of S will be played by the closure of the minimally defined operator inL²(Ω),

Amin,Ω,m:= (−∆)^m, dom(Amin,Ω,m) :=C₀^∞(Ω). (1.9) Under the assumption that∅ 6= Ω⊂Rⁿ has finite width, this closure,Amin,Ω,m, is denoted byAΩ,m and explicitly given by

AΩ,m= (−∆)^m, dom(AΩ,m) = ˚W^2m(Ω). (1.10) The Krein–von Neumann and Friedrichs extension ofAΩ,mwill then be denoted by AK,Ω,m andAF,Ω,m, respectively.

IfAK,Ω,mhas purely discrete spectrum in (0,∞), let{λK,Ω,j}j∈N⊂(0,∞) be the strictly positive eigenvalues ofAK,Ω,menumerated in nondecreasing order, counting multiplicity, and let

N(λ, AK,Ω,m) := #{j∈N|0< λK,Ω,j< λ}, λ >0, (1.11) be the (strictly positive) eigenvalue distribution function forAK,Ω,m. The function N(·, AK,Ω,m) is the principal object of this note. Similarly,N(λ, AF,Ω,m),λ >0, denotes the eigenvalue counting function forAF,Ω,m.

In Section 2 we recall the basic abstract facts on the Friedrichs extension, SF

and the Krein–von Neumann extensionSK of a strictly positive, closed, symmetric operatorS in a complex, separable Hilbert spaceHand describe the intimate link between the Krein–von Neumann extension and an underlying abstract buckling problem. Section 3 then focuses on the concrete case of higher-order Laplacians (−∆)^m, m ∈ N, on appropriate open, finite volume subsets Ω ⊂ Rⁿ (without imposing any constraints on Ω in the case where Ω is bounded) and derives the bound

N(λ, AK,Ω,m)6(2π)⁻ⁿ|Ω|λ^n/(2m)min

α>0

α⁻¹

ˆ

Rⁿ

α− |ξ|^4m+|ξ|^2m

+dⁿξ

, λ >0. (1.12)

We remark that the power law behaviorλ^n/(2m)coincides with the one in the known Weyl asymptotic behavior. This in itself is not surprising as it is a priori known that

N(λ, AK,Ω,m)6N(λ, AF,Ω,m), λ >0, (1.13) andN(λ, AF,Ω,m) is known to have the power law behaviorλ^n/(2m)(cf. (4.3), due to [35], which in turn extends the corresponding result in [37] in the case m= 1).

Rather than using known estimates forN(·, AF,Ω,m) (cf., e.g., [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [19], [20], [28], [29], [35], [38], [37], [41], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [52]), we will use the one-to-one correspondence of nonzero eigenvalues of AK,Ω,m with the eigenvalues of its underlying buckling problem (cf. (1.3)–(1.5)) and estimate the eigenvalue counting function for the latter in Section 3. Numerical results in Section 4 suggest the superiority of the buckling problem based bound (1.12) over the known estimates forN(·, AF,Ω,m) (cf. (4.3) and Table 4.1). Elementary analytical considerations confirm this also in the cases m= 1 and 1 6n64 (cf.

(4.11)–(4.16)).

Since Weyl asymptotics for N(·, AK,Ω,m) andN(·, AF,Ω,m) are not considered in this paper we just refer to the monographs [36] and [49], but note that very detailed bibliographies on this subject appeared in [5] and [7]. At any rate, the best known result on Weyl asymptotics for N(·, AK,Ω,m) to date is proven for bounded Lipschitz domains [8], whereas the estimate (1.12) assumes no regularity of Ω at all.

We conclude this introduction by summarizing the notation used in this paper.

Throughout this paper, the symbol H is reserved to denote a separable complex Hilbert space with (·,·)Hthe scalar product inH(linear in the second argument), and IH the identity operator inH. Next, let T be a linear operator mapping (a subspace of) a Banach space into another, with dom(T) and ran(T) denoting the domain and range ofT. The closure of a closable operatorS is denoted byS. The kernel (null space) ofT is denoted by ker(T). The spectrum, point spectrum (i.e., the set of eigenvalues), discrete spectrum, essential spectrum, and resolvent set of a closed linear operator inHwill be denoted byσ(·),σp(·),σd(·),σess(·), andρ(·), respectively. The symbol s-lim abbreviates the limit in the strong (i.e., pointwise) operator topology (we also use this symbol to describe strong limits inH).

The Banach spaces of bounded and compact linear operators onHare denoted by B(H) andB∞(H), respectively. Similarly, the Schatten–von Neumann (trace) ideals will subsequently be denoted by Bp(H), p ∈ (0,∞). In addition, U1∔U2

denotes the direct sum of the subspacesU1 andU2 of a Banach spaceX.

The symbolL²(Ω), with Ω⊆Rⁿ open,n∈N\{1}, is a shortcut forL²(Ω, dⁿx), whenever the n-dimensional Lebesgue measure is understood. For brevity, the identity operator in L²(Ω) will typically be denoted by IΩ. The symbol D(Ω) is reserved for the set of test functions C₀^∞(Ω) on Ω, equipped with the standard inductive limit topology, andD^′(Ω) represents its dual space, the set of distributions in Ω. In addition, #(M) abbreviates the cardinality of the setM. In addition, we define N₀ :=N∪ {0}, so that Nⁿ₀ becomes the collection of all multi-indices with n components. As is customary, for each α = (α1, ..., αn) ∈ Nⁿ₀ we denote by

|α|:=α1+· · ·+αn the length ofα, and setα! :=α1!· · ·αn!.

Moreover,A≈B signifies the existence of a finite constantC>1, independent of the main parameters entering the quantitiesA, B, such thatC⁻¹A6B6CA.

Finally, a notational comment: For obvious reasons, which have their roots in quantum mechanical applications, we will, with a slight abuse of notation, dub the expression−∆ =−Pn

j=1∂_j²(rather than ∆) as the “Laplacian” in this paper.

2. Basic Facts on the Krein–von Neumann extension and the Associated Abstract Buckling Problem

In this preparatory section we recall the basic facts on the Krein–von Neumann extension of a strictly positive operatorS in a complex, separable Hilbert spaceH and its associated abstract buckling problem as discussed in [5, 6]. For an extensive survey of this circle of ideas and an exhaustive list of references as well as pertinent historical comments we refer to [7].

To set the stage, we denote by S a linear, densely defined, symmetric (i.e., S ⊆ S^∗), and closed operator in H throughout this section. We recall that S is called nonnegative provided (f, Sf)H > 0 for all f ∈ dom(S). The operator S is called strictly positive, if for some ε > 0 one has (f, Sf)H > εkfk²_H for all f ∈ dom(S); one then writes S > εIH. Next, we recall that two nonnegative, self-adjoint operatorsA, B inHsatisfyA6B (in the sense of forms) if

dom B^1/2

⊂dom A^1/2

(2.1) and

A^1/2f, A^1/2f

H6 B^1/2f, B^1/2f

H, f ∈dom B^1/2

. (2.2)

We also recall ([18, Section I.6], [30, Theorem VI.2.21]) that for A and B both self-adjoint and nonnegative inHone has

06A6B if and only if (B+aIH)⁻¹6(A+aIH)⁻¹ for all a >0. (2.3) Moreover, we note the useful fact that ker(A) = ker(A^1/2).

The following is a fundamental result to be found in M. Krein’s celebrated 1947 paper [34] (cf. also Theorems 2 and 5–7 in the English summary on page 492):

Theorem 2.1. Assume that S is a densely defined, closed, nonnegative operator in H. Then, among all nonnegative self-adjoint extensions of S, there exist two distinguished ones,SK andSF, which are, respectively, the smallest and largest such extension (in the sense of (2.1)–(2.2)). Furthermore, a nonnegative self-adjoint operator Seis a self-adjoint extension of S if and only ifSesatisfies

SK 6Se6SF. (2.4)

In particular, (2.4) determines SK andSF uniquely. In addition, ifS >εIH for someε >0, one hasSF >εIH, and

dom(SF) = dom(S)∔(SF)⁻¹ker(S^∗), (2.5)

dom(SK) = dom(S)∔ker(S^∗), (2.6)

dom(S^∗) = dom(S)∔(SF)⁻¹ker(S^∗)∔ker(S^∗)

= dom(SF)∔ker(S^∗), (2.7)

and

ker(SK) = ker (SK)^1/2

= ker(S^∗) = ran(S)^⊥. (2.8)

One calls SK the Krein–von Neumann extension of S and SF the Friedrichs extensionofS. We also recall that

SF =S^∗|_dom(S^∗_)∩dom((SF)^1/2₎. (2.9) Furthermore, ifS >εIH then (2.6) implies

ker(SK) = ker (SK)^1/2

= ker(S^∗) = ran(S)^⊥. (2.10) For abstract results regarding the parametrization of all nonnegative self-adjoint extensions of a given strictly positive, densely defined, symmetric operator we refer the reader to Krein [34], Viˇsik [51], Birman [9], Grubb [23, 24], subsequent expo- sitions due to Alonso and Simon [4], Faris [18, Sect. 15], and [26, Sect. 13.2], [50, Ch. 13], and Derkach and Malamud [16, 39], see also [22, Theorem 9.2].

Let us collect a basic assumption which will be imposed in the rest of this section.

Hypothesis 2.2. Suppose thatS is a densely defined, symmetric, closed operator with nonzero deficiency indices inH that satisfiesS>εIH for someε >0.

For subsequent purposes we note that under Hypothesis 2.2, one has dim ker(S^∗−zIH)

= dim ker(S^∗)

, z∈C\[ε,∞). (2.11) We recall that two self-adjoint extensions S1 and S2 of S are called relatively prime (ordisjoint) if dom(S1)∩dom(S2) = dom(S). The following result will play a role later on (cf., e.g., [5, Lemma 2.8] for an elementary proof):

Lemma 2.3. Suppose Hypothesis 2.2. Then the Friedrichs extension SF and the Krein–von Neumann extensionSK ofS are relatively prime, that is,

dom(SF)∩dom(SK) = dom(S). (2.12) Next, we consider a self-adjoint operatorT in Hwhich is bounded from below, that is,T >αIH for someα∈R. We denote by{ET(λ)}λ∈Rthe family of strongly right-continuous spectral projections ofT, and introduce for−∞6a < b, as usual,

ET (a, b)

=ET(b−)−ET(a) and ET(b−) = s-lim

ε↓0 ET(b−ε). (2.13) In addition, we set

µT,j := inf

λ∈Rdim(ran(ET((−∞, λ))))>j , j∈N. (2.14) Then, for fixedk∈N, either:

(i) µT,k is the kth eigenvalue of T counting multiplicity below the bottom of the essential spectrum,σess(T), ofT,

or,

(ii)µT,k is the bottom of the essential spectrum ofT, µT,k= inf

λ∈Rλ∈σess(T) , (2.15) and in that case µT,k+ℓ = µT,k, ℓ ∈ N, and there are at most k−1 eigenvalues (counting multiplicity) ofT belowµT,k.

We now record a basic result of M. Krein [34] with an extension due to Alonso and Simon [4] and some additional results recently derived in [6]. For this purpose we introduce thereduced Krein–von Neumann operatorSbK in the Hilbert space

Hb:= ker(S^∗)⊥

= ker(SK)⊥

(2.16)

by

SbK:=P(ker(SK))^⊥SK|(ker(SK))^⊥, dom(SbK) = domSK∩H,b (2.17) where P(ker(SK))^⊥ denotes the orthogonal projection onto (ker(SK))^⊥. One then obtains

SbK

−1

=P(ker(SK))^⊥(SF)⁻¹|_(ker(SK))^⊥, (2.18) a relation due to Krein [34, Theorem 26] (see also [39, Corollary 5]).

Theorem 2.4. Suppose Hypothesis 2.2. Then

ε6µSF,j6µ_SbK,j, j∈N. (2.19) In particular, if the Friedrichs extension SF of S has purely discrete spectrum, then, except possibly for λ = 0, the Krein–von Neumann extension SK of S also has purely discrete spectrum in(0,∞), that is,

σess(SF) =∅ implies σess(SK)⊆ {0}. (2.20) In addition, if p ∈ (0,∞], then (SF −z0IH)⁻¹ ∈ Bp(H) for some z0 ∈ C\[ε,∞) implies

(SK−zIH)⁻¹

(ker(SK))^⊥ ∈ Bp Hb

for allz∈C\[ε,∞). (2.21) In fact, the ℓ^p(N)-based trace ideal Bp(H) resp., Bp Hb

of B(H) resp., B Hb can be replaced by any two-sided symmetrically normed ideal ofB(H) resp.,B Hb

. We note that (2.20) is a classical result of Krein [34]. Apparently, (2.19) in the context of infinite deficiency indices was first proven by Alonso and Simon [4] by a somewhat different method. Relation (2.21) was proved in [6].

Assuming that SF has purelly discrete spectra, let {λK,j}j∈N ⊂(0,∞) be the strictly positive eigenvalues of SK enumerated in nondecreasing order, counting multiplicity, and let

N(λ, SK) := #{j∈N|0< λK,j < λ}, λ >0, (2.22) be the eigenvalue distribution function for SK. Similarly, let {λF,j}j∈N ⊂(0,∞) denote the eigenvalues of SF, again enumerated in nondecreasing order, counting multiplicity, and by

N(λ, SF) := #{j∈N|λF,j < λ}, λ >0, (2.23) the corresponding eigenvalue counting function for SF. Then inequality (2.19) implies

N(λ, SK)6N(λ, SF), λ >0. (2.24) In particular, any estimate for the eigenvalue counting function for the Friedrichs extension SF, in turn, yields one for the Krein–von Neumann extension SK (fo- cusing on strictly positive eigenvalues of SK according to (2.22)). While this is a viable approach to estimate the eigenvalue counting function (2.22) for SK, we will proceed along a different route in Section 3 and directly exploit the one-to-one corrspondence between strictly positive eigenvalues ofSKand the eigenvalues of its underlying abstract buckling problem to be described next.

To describe the abstract buckling problem naturally associated with the Krein–

von Neumann extension as described in [6], we start by introducing an abstract version of [25, Proposition 1] (see [6] for a proof):

Lemma 2.5. Assume Hypothesis 2.2 and let λ∈C\{0}. Then there exists some f ∈dom(SK)\{0} with

SKf =λf (2.25)

if and only if there exists w∈dom(S^∗S)\{0}such that

S^∗Sw=λSw. (2.26)

In fact, the solutionsf of (2.25)are in one-to-one correspondence with the solutions wof (2.26) as evidenced by the formulas

w= (SF)⁻¹SKf, (2.27)

f =λ⁻¹Sw. (2.28)

Of course, since SK>0 is self-adjoint, anyλ∈C\{0}in (2.25)and (2.26)neces- sarily satisfiesλ∈(0,∞).

It is the linear pencil eigenvalue problemS^∗Sw=λSwin (2.26) that we call the abstract buckling problemassociated with the Krein–von Neumann extensionSK of S.

Next, we turn to a variational formulation of the correspondence between the inverse of the reduced Krein–von Neumann extensionSbK and the abstract buckling problem in terms of appropriate sesquilinear forms by following [31]–[33] in the el- liptic PDE context. This will then lead to an even stronger connection between the Krein–von Neumann extensionSK ofSand the associated abstract buckling eigen- value problem (2.26), culminating in the unitary equivalence result in Theorem 2.6 below.

Given the operatorS, we introduce the following symmetric forms inH, a(f, g) := (Sf, Sg)H, f, g∈dom(a) := dom(S), (2.29) b(f, g) := (f, Sg)H, f, g∈dom(b) := dom(S). (2.30) ThenSbeing densely defined and closed implies that the sesquilinear formashares these properties, whileS>εIHfrom Hypothesis 2.2 implies thatais bounded from below, that is,

a(f, f)>ε²kfk²_H, f ∈dom(S). (2.31) (The inequality (2.31) follows based on the assumption S > εIH by estimating (Sf, Sg)H= [(S−εIH) +εIH]f,[(S−εIH) +εIH]g

H from below.) Thus, one can introduce the Hilbert space

W:= dom(S),(·,·)W

, (2.32)

with associated scalar product

(f, g)W :=a(f, g) = (Sf, Sg)H, f, g∈dom(S). (2.33) In addition, we note that ιW :W ֒→ H, the embedding operator of W into H, is continuous due toS>εIH. Hence, precise notation would be using

(w1, w2)W =a(ιWw1, ιWw2) = (SιWw1, SιWw2)H, w1, w2∈ W, (2.34) but in the interest of simplicity of notation we will omit the embedding operator ιW in the following.

With the sesquilinear forms a and b and the Hilbert space W as above, given w2 ∈ W, the mapW ∋ w1 7→ (w1, Sw2)H ∈ C is continuous. This allows us to define the operatorT w2as the unique element in W such that

(w1, T w2)W= (w1, Sw2)H for all w1∈ W. (2.35) This implies

a(w1, T w2) = (w1, T w2)W = (w1, Sw2)H=b(w1, w2) (2.36) for allw1, w2∈ W. In addition, the operatorT satisfies

06T =T^∗∈ B(W) and kTk_B(W)6ε⁻¹. (2.37) We will callTtheabstract buckling problem operatorassociated with the Krein–von Neumann extensionSK ofS.

Next, recalling the notation Hb = ker(S^∗)⊥

(cf. (2.16)), we introduce the operator

Sb:W →H,b w7→Sw. (2.38)

Clearly, ran Sb

= ran(S) and sinceS >εIH for someε >0 andS is closed in H, ran(S) is also closed, and hence coincides with ker(S^∗)⊥

. This yields ran Sb

= ran(S) =H.b (2.39)

In fact, it follows thatSb∈ B(W,H) mapsb W unitarily ontoHb (cf. [6]).

Continuing, we briefly recall the polar decomposition ofS,

S =US|S|, (2.40)

where, withε >0 as in Hypothesis 2.2,

|S|= (S^∗S)^1/2>εIH and US ∈ B H,Hb

unitary. (2.41) Then the principal unitary equivalence result proved in [6] reads as follows:

Theorem 2.6. Assume Hypothesis2.2. Then the inverse of the reduced Krein–von Neumann extension SbK in Hb and the abstract buckling problem operator T in W are unitarily equivalent. Specifically,

SbK

−1

=STb Sb−1

. (2.42)

In particular, the nonzero eigenvalues ofSK are reciprocals of the eigenvalues ofT. Moreover, one has

SbK

−1

=US

|S|⁻¹S|S|⁻¹

(US)⁻¹, (2.43)

whereUS ∈ B H,Hb

is the unitary operator in the polar decomposition (2.40)ofS and the operator |S|⁻¹S|S|⁻¹∈ B(H)is self-adjoint and strictly positive inH.

We emphasize that the unitary equivalence in (2.42) is independent of any spec- tral assumptions onSK (such as the spectrum ofSK consists of eigenvalues only) and applies to the restrictions of SK to its pure point, absolutely continuous, and singularly continuous spectral subspaces, respectively.

Equation (2.43) is motivated by rewriting the abstract linear pencil buckling eigenvalue problem (2.26),S^∗Sw=λSw,λ∈C\{0}, in the form

|S|⁻¹Sw= (S^∗S)^−1/2Sw=λ⁻¹(S^∗S)^1/2w=λ⁻¹|S|w (2.44) and hence in the form of a standard eigenvalue problem

|S|⁻¹S|S|⁻¹v=λ⁻¹v, λ∈C\{0}, v:=|S|w. (2.45)

Again, self-adjointness and strict positivity of|S|⁻¹S|S|⁻¹ implyλ∈(0,∞).

We conclude this section with an elementary result recently noted in [8] that relates the nonzero eigenvalues ofSK directly with the sesquilinear formsaandb:

Lemma 2.7 ([8]). Assume Hypothesis 2.2and introduce σp(a,b) :=

λ∈Cthere existsgλ∈dom(S)\{0}

such thata(f, gλ) =λb(f, gλ) for allf ∈dom(S) . (2.46) Then

σp(a,b) =σp(SK)\{0} (2.47) (counting multiplicity), in particular, σp(a,b)⊂(0,∞), and gλ ∈dom(S)\{0} in (2.46)actually satisfies

gλ∈dom(S^∗S), S^∗Sgλ=λSgλ. (2.48) In addition,

λ∈σp(a,b) if and only if λ⁻¹∈σp(T) (2.49) (counting multiplicity). Finally,

T ∈ B∞(W) ⇐⇒ SbK

−1

∈ B∞ Hb

⇐⇒ σess(SK)⊆ {0}, (2.50) and hence,

σp(a,b) =σ(SK)\{0}=σd(SK)\{0} (2.51) if (2.50)holds. In particular, if one ofSF or|S|has purely discrete spectrum(i.e., σess(SF) =∅ orσess(|S|) =∅), then (2.50)and (2.51)hold.

One notices thatf ∈dom(S) in the definition (2.46) ofσp(a,b) can be replaced byf ∈C(S) for any (operator) coreC(S) forS (equivalently, by any form core for the forma).

3. An Upper Bound for the Eigenvalue Counting Function for Higher-Order Krein Laplacians on Bounded Domains

In this section we derive an upper bound for the eigenvalue counting function for higher-order Krein Laplacians on open bounded domains Ω⊂Rⁿ. In fact, we will also permit certain classes of unbounded finite volume domains and no assumptions on the boundary of Ω will be made.

Before introducing the class of constant coefficient partial differential operators inL²(Ω) at hand, we recall a few auxiliary facts to be used in the proof of Theorem 3.7.

Lemma 3.1. Suppose that S is a densely defined, symmetric, closed operator in H. Then |S| and hence S is infinitesimally bounded with respect to S^∗S, more precisely, one has

for allε >0, kSfkB(H)=k|S|fkB(H)6εkS^∗Sfk²_H+ (4ε)⁻¹kfk²_H,

f ∈dom(S^∗S). (3.1) In addition, Sis relatively compact with respect toS^∗S if|S|, or equivalently,S^∗S, has compact resolvent. In particular,

σess(S^∗S−λS) =σess(S^∗S), λ∈R. (3.2)

Proof. Employing the polar decomposition ofS,S =US|S|, whereUS is a partial isometry and|S|= (S^∗S)^1/2 (cf. [30, Sect. VI.2.7]), one obtains

kSfkB(H)=k|S|fkB(H), f ∈dom(S) = dom(|S|), (3.3) and hence the spectral theorem applied to |S|, together with the elementary in- equalityλ6ελ²+ (4ε)⁻¹,ε >0,λ>0, proves inequality (3.1).

The relative compactness assertion then follows from S(S^∗S+IH)⁻¹=h

S |S|²+IH

−1/2i

|S|²+IH

−1/2

∈ B∞(H), (3.4) sinceS |S|²+IH

−1/2

∈ B(H) and |S|²+IH

−1/2

∈ B∞(H).

Given a lower semibounded, self-adjoint operatorT >cTIH inH, we denote by qT its uniquely associated form, that is,

qT(f, g) = |T|^1/2f,sgn(T)|T|^1/2

H, f, g∈dom(q) = dom |T|^1/2

, (3.5) and by {ET(λ)}λ∈R the family of spectral projections ofT. We recall the follow- ing well-known variational characterization of dimensions of spectral projections {ET([cT, µ)),µ > cT.

Lemma 3.2. Assume that cTIH 6T is self-adjoint in H and µ > cT. Suppose thatF ⊂dom |T|^1/2

is a linear subspace such that

qT(f, f)< µkfk²_H, f ∈ F\{0}. (3.6) Then,

dim ran(ET([cT, µ)))

= sup

F ⊂dom(|T|^1/2)

(dim (F)). (3.7) We add the following elementary observation: Let c ∈ R and B > cIH be a self-adjoint operator in H, and introduce the sesquilinear form b in H associated withB via

b(u, v) = (B−cIH)^1/2u,(B−cIH)^1/2v

H+c(u, v)H, u, v∈dom(b) = dom |B|^1/2

. (3.8)

GivenB andb, one introduces the Hilbert spaceHb⊆ Hby Hb= dom |B|^1/2

,(·,·)Hb

,

(u, v)Hb =b(u, v) + (1−c)(u, v)H (3.9)

= (B−cIH)^1/2u,(B−cIH)^1/2v

H+ (u, v)H

= (B+ (1−c)IH)^1/2u,(B+ (1−c)IH)^1/2v

H. One observes that

(B+ (1−c)IH)^1/2: Hb→ H is unitary. (3.10) Lemma 3.3 (see, e.g., [21]). Let H, B, b, and Hb be as in (3.8)–(3.10). Then B has purely discrete spectrum, that is, σess(B) = ∅, if and only if Hb embeds compactly into H.

Next we turn to higher-order Laplacians (−∆)^min L²(Ω) and hence introduce the following set of assumptions on Ω⊂Rⁿ, n∈N.

Hypothesis 3.4. Letn∈N and∅ 6= Ω⊂Rⁿ be open such that:

(i) Ω has finite width ℓ0 ∈ (0,∞), that is, Ω lies between two hyperplanes in Rⁿ which are a distanceℓ0 apart.

(ii) Ωhas finite Euclidean volume (denoted by|Ω|<∞).

(iii)Fixm∈Nand suppose that the Sobolev spaceW˚^2m(Ω)embeds compactly into L²(Ω).

HereW^k(Ω) is defined as usual by W^k(Ω) :=

u∈L²(Ω)|∂^αu∈L^p(Ω),06|α|6k , k∈N₀, (3.11) withα∈Nⁿ₀ and∂^αudenoting weak derivatives ofu. The spaceW^k(Ω) is endowed with the norm

kukk,Ω:= X

06|α|6k

∂^αu²

L²(Ω)

1/2

, u∈W^k(Ω). (3.12) In addition, define

W˚^k(Ω) =C₀^∞(Ω)^W

k(Ω)

, k∈N₀, (3.13)

and note that ˚W^k(Ω) is a closed linear subspace ofW^k(Ω). Hypothesis 3.4 (i) then implies the Poincar´e-type inequality (cf., e.g., [17, p. 242]),

9u9q,Ω6ℓ₀^q−p9u9p,Ω, u∈W˚^p(Ω), q∈N₀, p∈N, q6p, (3.14) where we introduced the abbreviation

9u9k,Ω:= X

|α|=k

∂^αu²_L2(Ω)

1/2

, u∈W^k(Ω), k∈N₀. (3.15) Thus,9u9k,Ω,u∈W^k(Ω), represents an equivalent norm on ˚W^k(Ω).

Necessary and sufficient conditions for Hypothesis 3.4 (iii) to hold in terms of appropriate capacities can be found, for instance, in [2], [3, Ch. 6], [40, Ch. 6].

We note that Hypothesis 3.4 is always satisfied for Ω⊂Rⁿ nonempty, open, and bounded.

We proceed with the following useful identity:

Lemma 3.5. Let k∈Nand assume∅ 6= Ω⊆Rⁿ is open. Then, X

|α|=k

k!

α!

ˆ

Ω

∂^αφ

(x)²dⁿx= ˆ

Ω

∆^kφ

(x)φ(x)dⁿx, φ∈C₀^∞(Ω). (3.16) Proof. Using the fact that supp (φ)⊂Ω and employing the Plancherel identity, one obtains

ˆ

Ω

∆^kφ

(x)φ(x)dⁿx= ˆ

Rⁿ

∆^k

φ(x)φ(x)dⁿx= ˆ

Rⁿ

|ξ|^2kbφ(ξ)²dⁿξ. (3.17) Similarly,

X

|α|=k

k!

α!

ˆ

Ω

∂^αφ

(x)²dⁿx= X

|α|=k

k!

α!

ˆ

Rn

∂^αφ

(x)²dⁿx

= X

|α|=k

k!

α!

ˆ

Rⁿ

ξ^2αbφ(ξ)²dⁿξ.

(3.18)

Since in general,Pⁿ

j=1

xj

N

= X

|α|=N

|α|!

α! x^α, withx:= (x1, ..., xn), by the Multino- mial Theorem, one concludes that

X

|α|=k

k!

α!ξ^2α= Xⁿ

j=1

ξj²

k

=|ξ|^2k, ξ∈Rⁿ. (3.19) Therefore, using (3.17)–(3.19), we may write

X

|α|=k

k!

α!

ˆ

Ω

∂^αφ

(x)²dⁿx= ˆ

Rn

|ξ|^2k|φ(ξ)|b ²dⁿξ= ˆ

Ω

∆^kφ

(x)φ(x)dⁿx, (3.20)

completing the proof of (3.16).

Lemma 3.5 is a key input for the next result.

Theorem 3.6. Assume Hypothesis 3.4 (i) and let m ∈N. Consider the minimal operator

Amin,Ω,m:= (−∆)^m, dom(Amin,Ω,m) :=C₀^∞(Ω), (3.21) inL²(Ω). Then the closure of Amin,Ω,m in L²(Ω)is given by

AΩ,m= (−∆)^m, dom(AΩ,m) = ˚W^2m(Ω). (3.22) In addition,AΩ,mis a strictly positive operator, that is, there exists ε >0such that

AΩ,m>εIΩ. (3.23)

Proof. ClearlyAmin,Ω,m is symmetric and hence closable. Assuming φ∈C₀^∞(Ω), repeatedly integrating by parts and an application of Lemma 3.5 yield,

ˆ

Ω

(−∆)^mφ

(x)²dⁿx= ˆ

Ω

(−∆)^mφ

(x) (−∆)^mφ (x)dⁿx

= ˆ

Ω

(−∆)^2mφ

(x)φ(x)dⁿx

= X

|α|=2m

(2m)!

α!

ˆ

Ω

∂^αφ

(x)²dⁿx. (3.24) By density ofC₀^∞(Ω) in ˚W^2m(Ω), identity (3.24) extends to

ˆ

Ω

(−∆)^mu

(x)²dⁿx= X

|α|=2m

(2m)!

α!

ˆ

Ω

∂^αu

(x)²dⁿx, u∈W˚^2m(Ω).

(3.25) Next, combining the Poincar´e inequality (3.14) with (3.25) implies that for some constantCm,Ω>0,

ˆ

Ω

(−∆)^mu

(x)²dⁿx>Cm,Ω

X

06|β|62m

∂^βu²

L²(Ω)≈ kuk²_m,Ω, u∈W˚^2m(Ω).

(3.26) Finally, consider{fj}j∈N⊂W˚^2m(Ω),f, g∈L²(Ω), such that

j→∞lim kfj−fk_L²_(Ω)= 0 and lim

j→∞

(−∆)^mfj−g

L²(Ω)= 0. (3.27)

Applying (3.26) tou:= (fj−fk)∈W˚^2m(Ω), one infers for somecm,Ω>0, ˆ

Ω

(−∆)^m(fj−fk

(x)²dⁿx>cm,Ωkfj−fkk²_m,Ω, j, k∈N, (3.28) implying that actually,{fj}j∈Nis a Cauchy sequence in ˚W^2m(Ω). By completeness of the latter space one concludes thatf ∈W˚^2m(Ω). Taking arbitraryψ∈C₀^∞(Ω), and introducing the standard distributional pairing,D(Ω)^′h ·,· i_D(Ω), withD(Ω) :=

C₀^∞(Ω) equipped with the usual inductive limit topology, one concludes that (g, ψ)L²(Ω=D(Ω)^′hg, ψi_D(Ω)= lim

j→∞D(Ω)^′

(−∆)^mfj, ψ

D(Ω)

= lim

j→∞

ˆ

Ω

fj(x) (−∆)^mψ

(x)dⁿx= ˆ

Ω

f(x) (−∆)^mψ (x)dⁿx

=D(Ω)^′

(−∆)^mf, ψ

D(Ω). (3.29)

Hence, g = (−∆)^mf, implying closedness of AΩ,m. By the definition of ˚W^2m(Ω) (cf. (3.13)),AΩ,m is the closure ofAmin,Ω,m.

Strict positivity ofAmin,Ω,m, and hence that ofAΩ,m, follows from (3.16) and the Poincar´e-type inequalities (3.14) (choosingj= 0).

In the following we pickm∈Nas in Hypothesis 3.4 (iii) and denote by AK,Ω,m

and AF,Ω,m the Krein and Friedrichs extension of AΩ,m in L²(Ω), respectively.

By Hypothesis 3.4 (iii), dom(AΩ,m) = ˚W^2m(Ω) embeds compactly intoL²(Ω) and hence by Lemma 3.3, the operatorA^∗_Ω,mAΩ,m has purely discrete spectrum, equiv- alently, the resolvent ofA^∗_Ω,mAΩ,m is compact, in particular,

[A^∗_Ω,mAΩ,m]⁻¹∈ B∞ L²(Ω)

, (3.30)

as the form associated with A^∗_Ω,mAΩ,m is given by

aΩ,m(f, g) := (AΩ,mf, AΩ,mg)L²(Ω), f, g∈dom(aΩ,m) := dom(AΩ,m). (3.31) Consequenty, also

|AΩ,m|⁻¹= [A^∗_Ω,mAΩ,m]^−1/2∈ B∞ L²(Ω)

, (3.32)

implying

AbK,Ω,m

−1

∈ B∞ L²(Ω)

(3.33) by (2.43). Thus,

σess(AK,Ω,m)⊆ {0}. (3.34)

Let{λK,Ω,j}j∈N⊂(0,∞) be the strictly positive eigenvalues ofAK,Ω,menumerated in nondecreasing order, counting multiplicity, and let

N(λ, AK,Ω,m) := #{j∈N|0< λK,Ω,j< λ}, λ >0, (3.35) be the eigenvalue distribution function forAK,Ω,m. Recalling the standard notation

x+:= max (0, x), x∈R, (3.36)

thenN(·, AK,Ω,m) permits the following estimate following the approach in [35].

Theorem 3.7. Assume Hypothesis3.4. Then for anyα >0, one has the estimate, N(λ, AK,Ω,m)6(2π)⁻ⁿ|Ω|λ^n/(2m)min

α>0

α⁻¹

ˆ

Rⁿ

α− |ξ|^4m+|ξ|^2m

+dⁿξ

, λ >0. (3.37)

Proof. Following our abstract Section 2, we introduce in addition to the symmetric formaΩ,m in L²(Ω) (cf. (3.31)), the form

bΩ,m(f, g) := (f, AΩ,mg)L²(Ω), f, g∈dom(bΩ,m) := dom(AΩ,m). (3.38) By Lemma 2.7, particularly, by (2.49), one concludes that

N(λ, AK,Ω,m)6max dim

f ∈dom(AΩ,m)aΩ,m(f, f)−λbΩ,m(f, f)<0 , (3.39) by also employing (2.51) and the fact that

aΩ,m(fK,Ω,j, fK,Ω,j))−λbΩ,m(fK,Ω,j, fK,Ω,j) = (λK,Ω,j−λ)kfK,Ω,jk²_L²_(Ω)<0, (3.40) wherefK,Ω,j∈dom(AΩ,m)\{0}aditionally satisfies

fK,Ω,j∈dom(A^∗_Ω,mAΩ,m) and

A^∗_Ω,mAΩ,mfK,Ω,j=λK,Ω,jAΩ,mfK,Ω,j. (3.41) To further analyze (3.39) we now fixλ∈(0,∞) and introduce the auxiliary operator

LΩ,m,λ:=A^∗_Ω,mAΩ,m−λ AΩ,m,

dom(LΩ,m,λ) := dom(A^∗_Ω,mAΩ,m). (3.42) By Lemma 3.1, LΩ,m is self-adjoint, bounded from below, with purely discrete spectrum as its form domain

dom |LΩ,m,λ|^1/2

= dom(AΩ,m) = ˚W^2m(Ω) (3.43) embeds compactly into L²(Ω) by Hypothesis 3.4 (iii) (cf. Lemma 3.3). We will study the auxiliary eigenvalue problem,

LΩ,m,λϕj =µjϕj, ϕj ∈dom(LΩ,m,λ), (3.44) where {ϕj}j∈N represents an orthonormal basis of eigenfunctions in L²(Ω) and for simplicity of notation we repeat the eigenvaluesµj ofLΩ,m according to their multiplicity, assuming ϕj to be linearly independent in the following. Since ϕj ∈ W˚^2m(Ω), we denote by

e ϕj(x) :=

(ϕj(x), x∈Ω,

0, x∈R\Ω, (3.45)

their zero-extension ofϕj to all of Rⁿ and note that

∂^αϕej=∂]^αϕj, 06|α|62m. (3.46) Next, givenµ >0, one estimates

µ⁻¹ X

j∈N µj<µ

(µ−µj)>µ⁻¹ X

j∈N, µj<0, µj<µ

(µ−µj)>µ⁻¹ X

j∈N, µj<0, µj<µ

µ=n−(LΩ,m,λ), (3.47)

where n−(LΩ,m,λ) denotes the number of strictly negative eigenvalues of LΩ,m. Combining, Lemma 3.2 and (3.39) one concludes that

N(λ, AK,Ω,m)6max dim

f ∈dom(Amin,Ω,m)aΩ,m(f, f)−λbΩ,m(f, f)<0

=n−(LΩ,m,λ)6µ⁻¹ X

j∈N µj<µ

(µ−µj) =µ⁻¹X

j∈N

[µ−µj]+, µ >0. (3.48)

Next we focus on estimating the right-hand side of (3.48).

N(λ, AK,Ω,m)6µ⁻¹X

j∈N

(µ−µj)+=µ⁻¹X

j∈N

(ϕj,(µ−µj)ϕj)L²(Ω)

+

=X

j∈N

h

µkϕjk²_L²_(Ω)−(−∆)^mϕj

²

L²(Ω)+λ ϕj,(−∆)^mϕj

L²(Ω)

i

+

=X

j∈N

hµkϕejk²_L²₍Rⁿ)−(−∆)^mϕej

²

L²(Rn)+λ ϕej,(−∆)^mϕej

L²(Rn)

i

+

=X

j∈N

ˆ

Rn

µ− |ξ|^4m−λ|ξ|^2mbeϕ_j(ξ)²dⁿξ

+

6X

j∈N

ˆ

Rn

µ− |ξ|^4m−λ|ξ|^2m

+

beϕ_j(ξ)²dⁿξ

=X

j∈N

ˆ

Rⁿ

µ− |ξ|^4m+λ|ξ|^2m

+

beϕ_j(ξ)²dⁿξ

= ˆ

Rn

µ− |ξ|^4m+λ|ξ|^2m

+

X

j∈N

beϕ_j(ξ)²dⁿξ. (3.49)

Here we used unitarity of the Fourier transform onL²(Rⁿ), the fact that

µ−|ξ|^4m+ λ|ξ|^2m

+has compact support (rendering the integral over a compact subset ofRⁿ), and the monotone convergence theorem in the final step.

Next, one observes that X

j∈N

beϕ_j(ξ)²= (2π)⁻ⁿX

j∈N

e^iξ·,ϕej

L²(Rn)

²= (2π)⁻ⁿX

j∈N

e^iξ·, ϕj

L²(Ω)

²

= (2π)⁻ⁿe^iξ·2

L²(Ω)= (2π)⁻ⁿ|Ω|, (3.50)

employing the fact that{ϕj}j∈Nrepresents an orthonormal basis inL²(Ω).

Combining (3.49) and (3.50), introducing α = λ⁻²µ, changing variables, ξ = λ^1/mη, and minimizing with respect toα >0, proves (3.37).

4. Comparisons With Other Bounds, Weyl Asymptotics, and Some Numerical Results

In our final section we briefly offer a discussion of the bound (3.37) on the eigenvalue counting functionN(λ, AK,Ω,m) supported by some numerical results.

For smooth, bounded domains Ω ⊂ Rⁿ, and smooth lower-order coefficients (not necessarily constant), Weyl asymptotics forN(λ, AK,Ω,m) asλ→ ∞was first derived by Grubb [25],

N(λ, AK,Ω,m) =

λ→∞(2π)⁻ⁿvn|Ω|λ^n/(2m)+O λ^{(n−θ)/(2m)}

, (4.1)

wherevn:=π^n/2/Γ((n+ 2)/2) denotes the Euclidean volume of the unit ball inRⁿ (Γ(·) being the Gamma function, cf. [1, Sect. 6.1]), and

θ:= maxn1

2 −ε , 2m 2m+n−1

o, withε >0 arbitrary. (4.2) We also refer to [42], [43], and more recently, [27], where the authors derive a sharp- ening of the remainder in (4.1) to anyθ <1. In the casem= 1, Weyl asymptotics

forN(λ, AK,Ω,1) was derived in [5] for (bounded) quasi-convex domains, and most recently, in [8] for bounded Lipschitz domains.

The power law behaviorλ^n/(2m)of the estimate (3.37) for general domains gov- erned by Hypothesis 3.4 (no smoothness of Ω being asssumed at all in the case of bounded domains), coincides with that in the known Weyl asymptotics (4.1) and is of course consistent with the abstract estimate (2.24). In this connection we note that Weyl-type asymptotics and estimates forN(λ, AF,Ω,m), and hence upper bounds forN(λ, AK,Ω,m), without regularity assumptions on Ω can be found, for in- stance, in [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [19], [20], [28], [29], [35], [38], [37], [41], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [52]. We mention, in particular, the bound for N(λ, AF,Ω,m) derived in [35] (extending earlier results in [37] in the casem= 1) which reads

N(λ, AF,Ω,m)6(2π)⁻ⁿvn|Ω|λ^n/(2m)[1 + (2m/n)]^n/(2m), λ >0. (4.3) It is illustrative to compare the bound (3.37) with the leading asymptotic Weyl formula (4.1), as well as with the bound in terms of the eigenvalue counting function N(λ, AF,Ω,m) since by (2.24), one has

N(λ, AK,Ω,m)6N(λ, AF,Ω,m), λ >0. (4.4) For simplicity we focus on the special casem= 1. We start by introducing the ratio

rK/W,n :=v⁻¹_n min

α>0

α⁻¹

ˆ

Rⁿ

α− |ξ|⁴+|ξ|²

+dⁿξ

, n∈N, (4.5) of the right-hand side in our buckling problem induced bound (3.37) and the leading- order term in the Weyl-type asymptotics (4.1). Similarly, according to (4.4), we consider the ratio

rF/W,n:= [1 + (2/n)]^n/2, n∈N, (4.6) of the right-hand side in (4.3) induced by the Dirichlet Laplacian and the leading- order term in the Weyl-type asymptotics (4.1). One observes that

n→∞lim rF/W,n =e= 2.71828. . . . (4.7) In addition, we directly computed the ratio of the right-hand sides of equations (3.37) and (4.3), that is,

rK/F,n:=v_n⁻¹min

α>0

α⁻¹

ˆ

Rn

α− |ξ|⁴+|ξ|²

+dⁿξ

[1 + (2/n)]^n/2. (4.8) Employing Wolfram’s Mathematica (http://www.wolfram.com/mathematica/), the following numerical results have been obtained:

rK/W,n rF/W,n rK/F,n

n= 1 1.29 1.73 0.75

n= 2 1.50 2.00 0.75

n= 3 1.66 2.15 0.77

n= 4 1.78 2.25 0.79

n= 20 2.39 2.59 0.92

n= 200 2.68 2.70 0.99

n= 1000 2.71 2.71 0.99

Table 4.1

Thus, our approach estimating N(·, AK,Ω,m) with the help of the buckling problem, numerically, yields better estimates than that obtained from estimating N(·, AF,Ω,m) as in (4.3) and then using (4.4).

We also note that an explicit evaluation of the integral in our bound (3.37) yields α⁻¹

ˆ

Rn

α− |ξ|^4m+|ξ|^2m

+dⁿξ

= nvn

α ˆ ∞

0

rⁿ⁻¹

α−r^4m+r^2m

+dr

= nvn

α ˆ rα

0

rⁿ⁻¹

α−r^4m+r^2m dr

= nvnrⁿ_α α

r^2m_α n+ 2m +α

n− r^4m_α n+ 4m

, m∈N, (4.9)

where

rα=h

1 + (4α+ 1)^1/2

2i1/(2m)

, α >0, m∈N. (4.10) Analytically minimizing the right-hand side of (4.9) with respect toα >0 appears to be a daunting task. However, choosingm= 1 and introducing

fn(α) := 1 vnα

ˆ

Rⁿ

α− |ξ|⁴+|ξ|²

+dⁿξ, α >0, n∈N, (4.11)

gn := [1 + (2/n)]^n/2, n∈N, (4.12)

one verifies, for instance, that the particular choiceα= 3/4 yields that

minα>0f1(α)6f1(3/4) = (5/3)^1/2<3^1/2=g1, (4.13) minα>0f2(α)6f2(3/4) = 3/2<2 =g2, (4.14) minα>0f3(α)6f3(3/4) = (7/5)^3/2<(5/3)^3/2=g3, (4.15) minα>0f4(α)6f4(3/4) = 16/9<9/4 =g4, (4.16) and hence form= 1 one concludes that the right-hand side of our bound (3.37) is strictly less than the right-hand side of (4.3) for 16n64.

Acknowledgments. We are grateful to Sergey Naboko for very helpful discussions.

F.G. and A.L. are indebted to all organizers of QMath12, and particularly, to Pavel Exner, Wolfgang K¨onig, and Hagen Neidhardt, for fostering a very stimulating atmosphere during the conference, leading to this collaboration.

References

[1] M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions, Dover, New York, 1972.

[2] R. A. Adams,Capacity and compact imbeddings, J. Math. Mech.19, 923–929 (1970).

[3] R. A. Adams and J. J. F. Fournier,Sobolev Spaces, second edition, Academic Press, 2003.

[4] A. Alonso and B. Simon,The Birman-Krein-Vishik theory of selfadjoint extensions of semi- bounded operators, J. Operator Th.4, 251–270 (1980); Addenda: 6, 407 (1981).

[5] M. S. Ashbaugh, F. Gesztesy, M. Mitrea, and G. Teschl,Spectral theory for perturbed Krein Laplacians in nonsmooth domains, Adv. Math.223, 1372–1467 (2010).

[6] M. S. Ashbaugh, F. Gesztesy, M. Mitrea, R. Shterenberg, and G. Teschl,The Krein—von Neumann extension and its connection to an abstract buckling problem, Math. Nachr.283, 165–179 (2010).