.
Thus a point
$p$
is outside
${\sigma}_{w}\left(b\right)$
if and only if for all
$\phi $
with support sufficiently close to
$p$
we have
$\phi \left(b\right)x=0$
for all
$x\in D$
. It follows that if
$b$
happens to be a hyperoperator then
${\sigma}_{w}\left(b\right)=\sigma \left(b\right)$
. In particular, if
$bx=0$
for all
$x\in D$
, then
${\sigma}_{w}\left(b\right)=\sigma \left(0\right)=\left\{0\right\}$
.
Proposition 5.3.
Let
$b=(b,D)$
be a who and let
$f\in \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}({\mathbb{R}}^{n},{\mathbb{R}}^{m})$
. Then
${\sigma}_{w}\left(f\right(b\left)\right)=f\left({\sigma}_{w}\right(b\left)\right).$

Proof.
If
$h\in \mathcal{D}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{m}\right)$
has its support outside
$f\left(\sigma \right(b\left)\right)$
, then
$h\circ f$
vanishes in a neighborhood of
$\sigma \left(b\right)$
so
$(h\circ f)\left(b\right)x=0$
for
$x\in D$
, i.e, by definition,
$h\left(f\right(b\left)\right)x=0$
. This means that
${\sigma}_{w}\left(f\right(b\left)\right)\subset f\left({\sigma}_{w}\right(b\left)\right).$
For the converse inclusion, take any point
$p$
outside
${\sigma}_{w}\left(f\right(b\left)\right)$
and let
$h$
be a function identically equal to
$1$
in a neighborhood of
$p$
and with support outside
${\sigma}_{w}\left(f\right(b\left)\right)$
. Then if
$y\in {f}^{1}\left(p\right)$
we have
$h\circ f$
identically equal to
$1$
in a neighborhood of
$y$
. Hence for any
$\phi $
with support in this neighborhood
$\phi \cdot (h\circ f)=\phi $
. Since
$h$
has support outside
${\sigma}_{w}\left(f\right(b\left)\right)$
we have
$h\circ f\left(b\right)x=h\left(f\right(b\left)\right)x=0$
for
$x\in D$
and so
$\phi \left(b\right)x=\phi \cdot (h\circ f)\left(b\right)x=\phi \left(b\right)h\circ f\left(b\right)x=0$
for
$x\in D$
. Thus
${f}^{1}\left(p\right)\cap {\sigma}_{w}\left(b\right)=\varnothing $
, i.e.
$f\left({\sigma}_{w}\right(b\left)\right)\subset {\sigma}_{w}\left(f\right(b\left)\right)$
. □
Noting that
${\sigma}_{w}\left(b\right)=\sigma \left(b\right)$
when
$b$
is a (strong) hyperoperator we immediately get
Corollary 5.4.
If
$A\in {H}_{\mathcal{D}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)}\left(X\right)$
and
$f\in \mathcal{D}({\mathbb{R}}^{n},{\mathbb{R}}^{m})$
, or
$f\in \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}({\mathbb{R}}^{n},{\mathbb{R}}^{m})$
is proper, then
$\sigma \left(f\right(a\left)\right)=f\left(\sigma \right(a\left)\right).$
Since
${\sigma}_{w}\left({0}_{{D}_{A}}\right)=\sigma \left({0}_{X}\right)=\left\{0\right\}$
we have
Corollary 5.5.
If
$A\in {H}_{\mathcal{D}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)}\left(X\right)$
and
$f\in \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}({\mathbb{R}}^{n},{\mathbb{R}}^{m})$
and
$f\left(a\right)x=0$
for all
$x\in {D}_{A}$
, then
$\sigma \left(a\right)\subset {f}^{1}\left(0\right).$
It is not true in general that
$f\left(\sigma \right(a\left)\right)$
bounded implies that
$f\left(a\right)$
is bounded (if
$f$
is neither proper nor compactly supported). For instance, take
$f\left(\xi \right)=sin{\xi}^{m}$
and
$a\sim \xi $
on
$X={H}^{1}(\mathbb{R})$
. Then
$\leftf\right\le 1$
on
$\sigma \left(a\right)$
but
$f\left(a\right)$
, i.e., multiplication with
$sin{\xi}^{m}$
is not bounded on
$X$
. However we have
Lemma 5.6.
If
$a$
is a hyperoperator,
$f\in \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)$
, and
$b=f\left(a\right)$
is bounded, then
$f\left(\sigma \right(a\left)\right)\subset \sigma \left(f\right(a\left)\right)$
.

Proof.
We know that
$p\circ f\left(a\right)=p\left(b\right)$
for all polynomials. Let
$\phi \in \mathcal{D}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)$
have support outside
$\sigma \left(b\right)$
and take
${p}_{j}$
such that
${p}_{j}\to \phi $
in
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)$
. Then
${p}_{j}\to 0$
uniformly in a neighborhood of
$\sigma \left(b\right)$
; we may even assume that this holds in a complex neighborhood; thus we can conclude that
${p}_{j}\left(b\right)\to 0$
(even though we do not know whether
$b$
admits a smooth functional calculus or not!).
Moreover,
${p}_{j}\circ f\to \phi \circ f$
in
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)$
so
${p}_{j}\circ f\left(a\right)x\to \phi \circ f\left(a\right)x$
for
$x\in D$
. Since
${p}_{j}\circ f\left(a\right)={p}_{j}\left(b\right)\to 0$
we conclude that
$\phi \circ f\left(a\right)=0$
.
From Corollary
5.5 we get
$f\left(\sigma \right(a\left)\right)\subset \{\phi =0\}$
and we conclude that
$f\left(\sigma \right(a\left)\right)\subset \sigma \left(b\right)$
. □
Proposition 5.7.
Assume that
$a=(a,D)$
is a who and that the closure of
${r}_{z}\left(a\right)$
is bounded for each
${r}_{z}\left(\xi \right)$
,
$z\in \mathbb{C}\backslash \mathbb{R}$
. Then
$\overline{a}$
has real spectrum in the usual sense.

Proof.
We first prove that the closure
$b$
of
$r\left(a\right)={r}_{i}\left(a\right)$
is the inverse of
$\overline{a}+i$
. We know that
$(a+i)bx=x=b(a+i)x$
for
$x\in D.$
Suppose that
$x\in Dom(\overline{a}+i)=Dom\left(\overline{a}\right)$
. Then there are
${x}_{j}\in D$
such that
${x}_{j}\to x$
and
$(a+i){x}_{j}\to (\overline{a}+i)x$
. Since
$b$
is bounded we have
$$x\leftarrow {x}_{j}=b(a+i){x}_{j}\to b(\overline{a}+i)x$$
so
$b(\overline{a}+i)x=x$
for
$x\in Dom(\overline{a}+i)$
. Moreover, if
$x$
is arbitrary and
${x}_{j}\in D$
and
${x}_{j}\to x$
, then
$b{x}_{j}\to bx$
and
$(a+i)b{x}_{j}={x}_{j}\to x$
so by definition
$bx$
is in the domain of
$\overline{a}+i$
and
$(\overline{a}+i)bx=x$
. □
6 Representation by pseudoresolvents
We first consider the case
$n=1$
. If
$a$
is an HS operator, then we have the representation 1.2 of
$\phi \left(a\right)$
. For a general
$a\in {H}_{\mathcal{D}(\mathbb{R})}\left(X\right)$
such a representation cannot hold simply because the resolvent is not defined.
We will discuss various ways to obtain formulas that will replace
1.2 .
The simplest way is to use cutoff functions
$\chi $
and define
$${\omega}_{\zeta a}^{\chi}=\chi \left(\xi \right){\omega}_{\zeta \xi}{}_{\xi =a},{\omega}_{\zeta \xi}=d\zeta /(\zeta \xi )2\pi i.$$
Proposition 6.1.
Suppose that
$a\in {H}_{\mathcal{D}(\mathbb{R})}\left(X\right)$
. Then
${\omega}_{\zeta a}^{\chi}$
is holomorphic for
$Im\zeta >0$
and
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel {\omega}_{\zeta a}^{\chi}\parallel =\mathcal{O}\left(\rightIm\zeta {}^{M})\end{array}$$ 
(6.1)

for some
$M$
. If
$\phi \in \mathcal{D}(\mathbb{R})$
and
$supp\phi \subset \subset \{\chi =1\}$
, then
$$\begin{array}{c}\phi \left(a\right)=\int {\omega}_{\zeta a}^{\chi}\wedge \overline{\partial}\stackrel{~}{\phi}\left(\zeta \right).\end{array}$$ 
(6.2)


Proof.
By Lemma 2.1
${\omega}_{za}^{\chi}$
is strongly holomorphic in
$\mathbb{C}\backslash \mathbb{R}$
. Since
$A$
has finite order on
$K\supset \supset supp\chi $
,
$A\left(\psi \right)$
only depends on a finite number of derivatives of
$\psi $
if
$\text{supp}\psi \subset K$
and so we get 6.1 . If
$${\phi}_{\epsilon}\left(\xi \right)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}{\int}_{Im\zeta >\epsilon}\frac{\chi \left(\xi \right)d\zeta}{\zeta \xi}\wedge \overline{\partial}\stackrel{~}{\phi}\left(\zeta \right),$$
it is readily checked, for instance by approximating by Riemann sums, that
$$\begin{array}{c}{\phi}_{\epsilon}\left(a\right)={\int}_{Im\zeta >\epsilon}{\omega}_{\zeta a}^{\chi}\wedge \overline{\partial}\stackrel{~}{\phi}\left(\zeta \right).\end{array}$$ 
(6.3)

Moreover,
${\phi}_{\epsilon}\to \phi \chi =\phi $
in
$\mathcal{D}(\mathbb{R})$
, and hence
${\phi}_{\epsilon}\left(a\right)\to \phi \left(a\right)$
. Because of 6.1 it follows that the right hand side of 6.2 is absolutely convergent and equal to the limit of the right hand side of 6.3 . □
Proposition 6.2.
Each
${\omega}_{za}^{\chi}$
has a holomorphic continuation to the set
$\mathbb{C}\backslash \sigma \left(a\right)$
; more precisely,
$\mathbb{C}\backslash \sigma \left(a\right)$
is precisely the set where all
${\omega}_{\zeta a}^{\chi}$
are strongly holomorphic.

Proof.
The first statement is proved analogously to Lemma 2.1 . If
$x\in \mathbb{R}\backslash \sigma \left(a\right)$
, let
$\stackrel{~}{\chi}$
be a cutoff function that is equal to
$\chi $
in a neighborhood of
$\sigma \left(a\right)$
and zero in a neighborhood of
$x$
. Then
${\omega}_{za}^{\chi}=A(\stackrel{~}{\chi}/(z\xi \left)\right)$
and imitating the proof of Lemma 2.1 we see that
${\omega}_{za}^{\chi}$
is strongly holomorphic close to
$x$
. For the converse, assume
$\phi $
has its support where
${\omega}_{\zeta a}^{\chi}$
is holomorphic and
$\chi $
identically
$1$
in a neighborhood of
$supp\phi $
. Then by Proposition 6.1 ,
$$A\left(\phi \right)=\int {\omega}_{za}^{\chi}\wedge \overline{\partial}\stackrel{~}{\phi}\left(z\right)=\int \overline{\partial}\left(\stackrel{~}{\phi}\right(z\left){\omega}_{za}^{\chi}\right)=0$$
by Stokes' theorem and thus we are done. □
The advantage with the usual representation 1.2 is of course that a priori we only have to compute
$\phi \left(a\right)$
for
$\phi \left(\xi \right)=1/(\zeta \xi )$
. For the general hyperoperator we must insert various functions
$\chi $
as well.
However, if we impose growth restrictions on
$\left[a\right]$
, one single formula will do. In Section 7 we will consider the case with polynomial growth restrictions.
If
$a$
is a hyperoperator or even just a who, then for each
$x\in D$
, the resolvent
${\omega}_{\zeta a}x$
is holomorphic outside the compact set
${\sigma}_{x}\left(a\right)\subset \mathbb{R}$
, and from 4.1 we have that
$\left{\omega}_{\zeta a}x\right\le CIm\zeta {}^{M}$
. With a similar argument as above we therefore have the representation
$$\phi \left(a\right)x=\int {\omega}_{\zeta a}x\wedge \overline{\partial}\stackrel{~}{\phi}\left(\zeta \right),\phi \in \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}(\mathbb{R}).$$
Recall that
$\mathcal{G}(\mathbb{R})$
is the algebra of functions on
$\widehat{\mathbb{R}}$
that are holomorphic in a complex neighborhood of
$\infty $
. Convergence in
$\mathcal{G}(\mathbb{R})$
of a sequence
${f}_{j}$
means that
${f}_{j}$
converges in
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}\left(\widehat{\mathbb{R}}\right)$
and moreover, that all
${f}_{j}$
are holomorphic in a fixed complex neighborhood of
$\infty $
and converge uniformly on compacts in this neighborhood.
Theorem 6.3.
A hyperoperator
$A\in {H}_{\mathcal{D}(\mathbb{R})}\left(X\right)$
corresponds to an HS operator if and only if
$A:\mathcal{D}(\mathbb{R})\to \mathcal{\mathcal{L}}\left(X\right)$
has a multiplicative continuous extension to a mapping
$\mathcal{G}(\mathbb{R})\to \mathcal{\mathcal{L}}\left(X\right)$
.
This result was more or less proved in [3] ; one part is contained in the proof of Proposition
$7.2$
in [3] and the other part is stated in Proposition
$11.4$
in the same paper, but for the reader's convenience we supply a proof here.

Proof.
First we notice that such an extension of
$A$
must be unique if it exists at all. In fact, for any
$\psi \in \mathcal{G}(\mathbb{R})$
and
$x\in {D}_{A}$
we have
$A\left(\psi \chi \right)x=\psi \left(a\right)x$
if
$\chi $
is chosen so that
$A\left(\chi \right)x=x$
. On the other hand if
$\hat{A}$
is a multiplicative extension of
$A$
we get
$\hat{A}\left(\psi \right)x=\hat{A}\left(\psi \right)A\left(\chi \right)x=A\left(\psi \chi \right)x$
Hence
$\hat{A}\left(\psi \right)$
coincides with
$\psi \left(a\right)$
on
${D}_{A}$
and since
${D}_{A}$
is dense and
$\hat{A}\left(\psi \right)$
is bounded this uniquely determines
$\hat{A}\left(\psi \right)$
. Here
$a$
denotes the who associated to
$A$
. For the “only if ”part we first assume that (the closure of )
$a$
is an HS operator, cf., Proposition 4.5 . Then the action of
$A$
is given by 1.2 and we want to extend this formula to any function
$f$
in
$\mathcal{G}(\mathbb{R})$
.
Let
$F$
be the holomorphic extension to a complex neighborhood
$O$
of
$\infty $
, and let
$\chi $
be a cutoff function in
$\mathbb{R}$
that is equal to
$1$
in a neighborhood of
$K=\mathbb{R}\backslash (\mathbb{R}\cap O)$
. One can find an almost holomorphic extension
$\stackrel{~}{\chi}$
which is
$0$
in a complex neighborhood of
$\infty $
and
$1$
in a complex neighborhood of
$K$
. Then
$\stackrel{~}{f}=(1\stackrel{~}{\chi})F+\stackrel{~}{\chi f}$
is an almost holomorphic extension of
$f$
to a complex neighborhood of
$\widehat{\mathbb{R}}$
in
$\widehat{\mathbb{C}}$
which is holomorphic in a neighborhood of
$\infty $
. Let
$\psi $
be a function identically equal to
$1$
in a neighborhood of
$\widehat{\mathbb{R}}$
in
$\widehat{\mathbb{C}}$
and with support in a slightly larger neighborhood avoiding the point
$i$
. Then
$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int \frac{ai}{\zeta i}\frac{d\zeta}{\zeta a}\wedge \overline{\partial}\left(\stackrel{~}{f}\psi \right(\zeta \left)\right)\end{array}$$ 
(6.4)

provides the desired extension. In fact, if
$f$
has compact support then
$\stackrel{~}{f}\psi $
is an almost holomorphic extension of
$f$
with compact support avoiding
$i$
. It follows by Stokes' theorem that formula 6.4 yields the same operator as 1.2 . Moreover 6.4 is continuous and multiplicative on
$\mathcal{G}(\mathbb{R})$
. This is perhaps most easily seen by pulling back to the unit circle
$\mathbb{T}$
. The Cayley transform
$b=C\left(a\right)$
, cf., 2.1 , is a bounded operator with spectrum contained in the unit circle
$\mathbb{T}$
, and
$$\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int \frac{ai}{\zeta i}\frac{d\zeta}{\zeta a}\wedge \overline{\partial}\left(\stackrel{~}{f}\psi \right(\zeta \left)\right)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int \frac{dw}{wb}\wedge \overline{\partial}\left(\stackrel{~}{f}\psi \right({C}^{1}\left(w\right)\left)\right).$$
The right hand side is a continuous extension of the holomorphic functional calculus for
$b$
to the space of smooth functions on
$\mathbb{T}$
which are analytic in a neighborhood of
$1$
since
$\parallel (wb{)}^{1}\parallel $
has tempered growth in
$\mathbb{T}\backslash \left\{1\right\}$
. Since the analytic functions are dense in this space, the multiplicativity follows automatically.
Conversely, assuming that
$A$
is a hyperoperator that admits an extension to
$\mathcal{G}(\mathbb{R})$
, we want to prove that
$\overline{a}$
is an HS operator. Since
$A$
now operates on all
${r}_{z}\left(\xi \right)=1/(z\xi )$
it follows from Proposition 5.7 that
$\overline{a}$
has spectrum in
$\mathbb{R}$
in the usual sense. Clearly then
${r}_{z}\left(a\right)dz/2\pi i$
is the resolvent of
$\overline{a}$
. Given a compact
$K\subset \mathbb{R}$
take
$\chi $
and
$\stackrel{~}{\chi}$
as above.
As
$A$
has finite order
$m$
on
${K}^{\prime}=\text{supp}\chi $
it follows that
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel \frac{\chi \left(a\right)}{za}\parallel \le {C}_{K}Imz{}^{(m+1)}\end{array}$$ 
(6.5)

for any
$z\in \mathbb{C}\backslash \mathbb{R}$
. For
$z$
in a small neighborhood of
$K$
, the functions
$${g}_{z}\left(\xi \right)=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\chi}\left(z\right)\chi \left(\xi \right)}{z\xi}.$$
are uniformly bounded in
$\mathcal{G}(\mathbb{R})$
, and by 6.5 so are
$\parallel {g}_{z}\left(a\right)\parallel =\parallel A\left({g}_{z}\right)\parallel $
.
Thus
1.1 follows by the triangle inequality. □
Remark 3.
Let
$a\in {H}_{\mathcal{D}(\mathbb{C})}\left(X\right)$
. Then we can define
${\omega}_{\zeta a}^{\chi}$
as a
$\mathcal{\mathcal{L}}\left(X\right)$
valued distribution (
$(1,0)$
current) in
$\mathbb{C}$
by
$$\begin{array}{c}{\omega}_{\zeta a}^{\chi}.\psi d\overline{\zeta}=\frac{1}{2\pi i}{\int}_{\zeta}\frac{\chi \left(\xi \right)\psi \left(\zeta \right)d\zeta \wedge d\overline{\zeta}}{\zeta \xi}{}_{\xi =a},\psi \in \mathcal{D}(\mathbb{C}).\end{array}$$ 
(6.6)

If we apply to
$\overline{\partial}\psi $
we get
${\omega}_{\zeta a}^{\chi}.\overline{\partial}\psi =\chi \left(\xi \right)\psi \left(\xi \right){}_{\xi =a}=\chi \left(a\right)\psi \left(a\right).$
Thus
$\overline{\partial}{\omega}_{\zeta a}^{\chi}=\chi \left[a\right].$
If in fact
$a\in {H}_{\mathcal{D}(\mathbb{R})}\left(X\right)$
and we choose
$\psi =\stackrel{~}{\phi}$
in 6.6 , then we can move
$a$
inside the integral and thus get back 6.2 . However, in general it is not possible to put
$a$
inside the integral. □
If we want an absolutely convergent integral representation for
$\phi \left(a\right)$
when
$a\in {H}_{\mathcal{D}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)}\left(X\right)$
we can use the BochnerMartinelli form
$${\omega}_{\xi}=b\left(\xi \right)\wedge \left(\overline{\partial}b\right(\xi ){)}^{n1},b(\xi )=\frac{\sum {\overline{\xi}}_{j}d{\xi}_{j}}{2\pi i\xi {}^{2}},$$
and define
${\omega}_{\zeta a}^{\chi}=\chi \left(\xi \right){\omega}_{\zeta \xi}{}_{\xi =a}.$
Then
${\omega}_{\zeta a}$
is
$\overline{\partial}$
closed in
${\mathbb{C}}^{n}\backslash {\mathbb{R}}^{n}$
and the analogue of Proposition 6.1 holds. Proposition 6.2 also has a generalization to the
${\mathbb{R}}^{n}$
case;
${\mathbb{C}}^{n}\backslash \sigma \left(a\right)$
is precisely the set where
${\omega}_{za}^{\chi}$
is strongly
$\overline{\partial}$
closed. If we consider a hyperoperator
$a\in {H}_{\mathcal{D}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{2n}\right)}\left(X\right)$
as an element in
$a\in {H}_{\mathcal{D}\left({\mathbb{C}}^{n}\right)}\left(X\right)$
, the analog of Remark 3 also holds.
Tensor products of hyperoperators can also be defined by integral formulas. Assume that
${A}_{1},\dots ,{A}_{m}$
are in
${H}_{\mathcal{D}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{{n}_{j}}\right)}$
but not necessarily commuting. Then we can form the tensor product
$A={A}_{1}\otimes \cdots \otimes {A}_{m}$
, and obtain a linear continuous, though not multiplicative, operator
$\mathcal{D}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)\to \mathcal{\mathcal{L}}\left(X\right)$
, where
$n={n}_{1}+\cdots +{n}_{m}$
. For
$\phi \in \mathcal{D}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)$
we can find an almost holomorphic extension
$\stackrel{~}{\phi}$
such that 2.5 holds. In [
3]
this is only proved when all
${n}_{j}=1$
but the general case follows along the same lines. Then
$$\begin{array}{c}({A}_{1}\otimes \cdots \otimes {A}_{m})\left(\phi \right)=\int {\omega}_{{\zeta}_{1}{a}_{1}}^{{\chi}_{1}}\wedge \dots \wedge {\omega}_{{\zeta}_{m}{a}_{m}}^{{\chi}_{m}}\wedge {\overline{\partial}}_{{\zeta}_{m}}\cdots {\overline{\partial}}_{{\zeta}_{1}}\stackrel{~}{\phi}\left(\zeta \right),\end{array}$$ 
(6.7)

if the support of
$\phi $
is contained in the set where
${\chi}_{1}\otimes \cdots \otimes {\chi}_{m}=1$
.
To see this, first notice that the integral makes sense in view of the assumption
2.5 and the estimates 6.1 of
${\omega}_{{\zeta}_{j}{a}_{j}}^{{\chi}_{j}}$
. Since 6.7 clearly holds for
$\phi $
of the form
$\phi ={\phi}_{1}\otimes \cdots \otimes {\phi}_{m}$
, the general case follows by continuity. One can also prove directly that 6.7 is independent of the choice of special almost analytic extension
$\stackrel{~}{\phi}$
along the lines in [
3]
, and then use this as the definition of the tensor product.
Remark 4.
We can also generalize Theorem 6.3 to several variables, and we illustrate by considering a hyperoperator
$A\in {H}_{\mathcal{D}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{2}\right)}\left(X\right)$
. First we define
$\mathcal{G}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{2}\right)$
as the union (direct limit) of the spaces
${\mathcal{G}}_{U}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{2}\right)$
,
$U$
a complex neighborhood of
$\infty $
in
$\widehat{\mathbb{C}}$
, defined as all smooth functions
$f$
on
$\widehat{\mathbb{R}}\times \widehat{\mathbb{R}}$
which are holomorphic on
$U\times U$
and such that
$x\mapsto f(x,y)$
is holomorphic in
$U$
for any
$y$
and
$y\mapsto f(x,y)$
is holomorphic in
$U$
for any
$x$
. A sequence
${f}_{j}$
in
$\mathcal{G}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{2}\right)$
converges if all
${f}_{j}$
are in some fixed
${\mathcal{G}}_{U}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{2}\right)$
and converges in
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}\left(\right(\widehat{\mathbb{R}}\cup U)\times (\widehat{\mathbb{R}}\cup U\left)\right)$
. The analog of Theorem 6.3 is:
$A$
has a continuous extension to
$\mathcal{G}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{2}\right)$
if and only if the closures of
${a}_{j}=A\left({\pi}_{j}\right)$
,
$j=1,2$
, are of HS type and commute strongly, i.e., their resolvents commute. Notice however that this condition highly depends on the choice of coordinates on
${\mathbb{R}}^{2}$
, whereas the notion of general hyperoperator is coordinate invariant. □
7 Temperate hyperoperators
We say that
$A\in {H}_{\mathcal{D}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)}\left(X\right)$
is temperate,
$A\in {H}_{\mathcal{S}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)}\left(X\right)$
, if it extends to a (necessarily multiplicative) mapping
$\mathcal{S}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)\to \mathcal{\mathcal{L}}\left(X\right)$
.
Since
$\mathcal{D}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)$
is dense in
$\mathcal{S}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)$
it follows that a continuous multiplicative map
$\mathcal{S}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)\to \mathcal{\mathcal{L}}\left(X\right)$
satisfies
$\left(i\right)$
and
$\left(ii\right)$
in Definition 1 if and only if it holds with
$\mathcal{D}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)$
replaced by
$\mathcal{S}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)$
(but the corresponding dense domain may be larger).
For standard functional analysis reasons it follows that for any temperate
$A$
there is an integer
$M$
such that
$$\begin{array}{c}\leftA\right(\phi \left)\right\le C{\sum}_{\left\alpha \right,\left\beta \right\le M}{sup}_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n}}\left{\xi}^{\beta}{\partial}^{\alpha}\phi \right,\end{array}$$ 
(7.1)

which in particular means that
$A\left(\phi \right)$
is defined for
$\phi $
such that its derivatives up to order
$M$
as least have decay like
$1/\xi {}^{M}$
.
Example 5.
Let
$X$
be the set of functions
$\phi \left(\xi \right)$
on
$\mathbb{R}$
with norm
$\parallel \phi \parallel ={\sum}_{\ell}\parallel \phi {\parallel}_{{C}^{\ell}({K}_{\ell +1}\backslash int{K}_{\ell 1})}$
. Then multiplication with
$\xi (2+sin{\xi}^{3})$
is a hyperoperator that is not temperate. □
The multiplication hyperoperator
$f\left(\xi \right)=\xi (2+sin{\xi}^{3})$
on
${H}^{1}(\mathbb{R})$
from Example 2 is a tempered hyperoperator, which has no ordinary resolvent. Notice, though, that
$$\frac{i+\zeta}{i+f\left(\xi \right)}\frac{1}{\zeta f\left(\xi \right)}$$
is bounded for all
$\zeta \in \mathbb{C}\backslash \mathbb{R}$
. More generally, if
$A\in {H}_{\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R})}\left(X\right)$
and
$m$
is a large enough integer we can define, in view of 7.1 ,
$${\omega}_{\zeta a}^{m}={\left(\frac{i+\zeta}{i+\xi}\right)}^{m}{\omega}_{\zeta \xi}{}_{\xi =a},$$
for
$\zeta \in \mathbb{C}\backslash \mathbb{R}$
. If
$A\in {H}_{\mathcal{S}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)}\left(X\right)$
we can take instead
$${\omega}_{\zeta a}^{m}={\left(\frac{1+\zeta \cdot \xi}{1+\xi {}^{2}}\right)}^{m}{\omega}_{\zeta \xi}{}_{\xi =a}.$$
for
$\zeta \in {\mathbb{C}}^{n}\backslash {\mathbb{R}}^{n}$
.
Proposition 7.1.
The form
${\omega}_{\zeta a}^{m}$
is
$\overline{\partial}$
closed in
${\mathbb{C}}^{n}\backslash {\mathbb{R}}^{n}$
and admits a
$\overline{\partial}$
closed extension to
$\mathbb{C}\backslash \sigma \left(a\right)$
. Moreover, if
$\phi \in \mathcal{S}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)$
and
$\stackrel{~}{\phi}$
is an appropriate almost holomorphic extension, then
$$\begin{array}{c}A\left(\phi \right)=\int {\omega}_{\zeta a}^{m}\wedge \overline{\partial}\stackrel{~}{\phi}.\end{array}$$ 
(7.2)

This means, cf., Remark 3 , that
$\overline{\partial}{\omega}_{\zeta a}^{m}=\left[a\right]$
. Moreover, if
${\omega}_{\zeta a}^{m}$
has a
$\overline{\partial}$
closed extension to
${\mathbb{C}}^{n}\backslash F$
, then
$\sigma \left(a\right)\subset F$
.

Sketch of proof.
First notice that
$${sup}_{\xi \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n}}\left{\xi}^{\beta}{\partial}_{\xi}^{\alpha}{\omega}_{\zeta \xi}^{m}\right\le C\frac{(1+\zeta {)}^{m}}{Im\zeta {}^{2n1+\left\alpha \right}}$$
if just
$\left\beta \right<m$
. If
$A$
satisfies 7.1 , therefore
${\omega}_{\zeta a}^{m}$
is welldefined if
$m\ge M$
, and
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel {\omega}_{\zeta a}^{m}\parallel \le C\frac{(1+\zeta {)}^{m}}{Im\zeta {}^{2n1+\left\alpha \right}}.\end{array}$$ 
(7.3)

Given
$\phi \in \mathcal{S}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)$
we let
$$\stackrel{~}{\phi}\left(\zeta \right)={\int}_{t}{e}^{it\cdot \zeta}\hat{\phi}\left(t\right)\chi \left(\sqrt{1+t{}^{2}}Im\zeta \right),$$
where
$\chi \left(s\right)$
smooth, supported in the unit ball in
${\mathbb{R}}^{n}$
and identically
$1$
in a neighborhood of the origin. One easily checks that
$\stackrel{~}{\phi}\left(\zeta \right)$
is smooth, and equal to
$\phi $
on
${\mathbb{R}}^{n}$
, and that moreover,
$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{\partial}\stackrel{~}{\phi}\left(\zeta \right)={\mathcal{O}}_{{M}_{1},{M}_{2}}\left(\rightIm\zeta {}^{{M}_{1}}(1+\zeta \left{)}^{{M}_{2}}\right),{M}_{1},{M}_{2}>0.\end{array}$$ 
(7.4)

In view of 7.3 , therefore, the integral in 7.2 is welldefined. Moreover, from 7.4 it is easily seen that
$\int {\omega}_{\zeta \xi}\wedge \overline{\partial}\stackrel{~}{\phi}\left(\zeta \right)=\phi \left(\xi \right),$
and replacing
$\stackrel{~}{\phi}\left(\zeta \right)$
by
$$\stackrel{~}{\phi}\left(\zeta \right){\left(\frac{1+\zeta \cdot \xi}{1+\xi {}^{2}}\right)}^{m}$$
which satisfies a similar estimate, we get that
$$\int {\omega}_{\zeta \xi}^{m}\wedge \overline{\partial}\stackrel{~}{\phi}\left(\zeta \right)=\phi \left(\xi \right).$$
One then proves 7.2 along the same lines as Proposition 6.1 . □
For tempered hyperoperators the theory for tempered distributions is at our disposal. We will use this to prove a new form of Stone's theorem. We first recall a simple known variant.
Example 6.
If
$v\in {C}^{1}({\mathbb{R}}^{n},\mathcal{\mathcal{L}}(X\left)\right)$
and
$$\begin{array}{c}v(t+s)=v\left(t\right)v\left(s\right),v\left(0\right)={e}_{X},\end{array}$$ 
(7.5)

then
$v\left(t\right)={e}^{ia\cdot t}$
, for the commuting tuple
${a}_{k}=(\partial v/\partial {t}_{k})\left(0\right)/i$
in
$\mathcal{\mathcal{L}}\left(X\right)$
. If in addition
$\leftv\right(t\left)\right=\mathcal{O}\left(\rightt{}^{m})$
, when
$\leftt\right\to \infty $
, then
$\sigma \left(a\right)\subset {\mathbb{R}}^{n}$
.
If we only assume that
$v\left(t\right)$
is continuous and satisfies 7.5 , then the conclusion is not true. (For instance, if
$n=1$
and
$a$
is multiplication with
$\xi $
on
${L}^{2}\left({\mathbb{R}}_{\xi}\right)$
, then
$v\left(t\right)={e}^{iat}$
is multiplication by
${e}^{i\xi t}$
and thus a bounded operator, but
${v}^{\prime}\left(0\right)$
is not bounded.) However,
$v$
is generated by a hyperoperator
$A\in {H}_{\mathcal{S}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)}\left(X\right)$
, i.e.,
$v\left(t\right)=expia\cdot t$
.
In fact, assume that
$v\left(t\right)$
is continuous in the weak sense that
$v\left(t\right)x$
is continuous for each
$x\in X$
. It then follows from the BanachSteinhaus theorem that
$\parallel v\left(t\right)\parallel $
is uniformly bounded on compact sets. Therefore,
$v.\phi ={\int}_{t}v\left(t\right)\phi \left(t\right)dt$
is a bounded operator for each
$\phi \in \mathcal{S}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)$
. Moreover, the condition
$v\left(0\right)={e}_{X}$
implies that
$\cap Kerv\left(\phi \right)=\left\{0\right\}$
and
$\cup Imv\left(\phi \right)$
is dense. In fact, let
${\phi}_{j}\to {\delta}_{0}$
. Then
$v\left({\phi}_{j}\right)x\to x$
since
$\phi \mapsto v\left(\phi \right)x$
is continuous and we easily see that
$\cap Kerv\left(\phi \right)=\left\{0\right\}$
and that
$\cup Imv\left(\phi \right)$
is dense. The existence of the generator
$A$
now follows from Proposition 7.2 below. □
Let
$A$
be a tempered hyperoperator and let
$D={\cup}_{\phi \in \mathcal{S}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)}ImA\left(\phi \right).$
If
$f\in \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)$
is a multiplier on
$\mathcal{S}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)$
, i.e.,
$f\mathcal{S}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)\subset \mathcal{S}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)$
, we can define
$f\left(a\right)x$
for
$x\in D$
as
$A\left(f\phi \right)y$
if
$x=A\left(\phi \right)y$
. To see that this is welldefined, assume that also
$x=A\left({\phi}^{\prime}\right){y}^{\prime}$
. By the multiplicativity, we then have that
$A\left({\chi}_{N}f\phi \right)y=A\left({\chi}_{N}f{\phi}^{\prime}\right){y}^{\prime}$
since
${\chi}_{N}f$
is in
$\mathcal{S}$
. When
$N\to \infty $
,
${\chi}_{N}f\phi \to f\phi $
in
$\mathcal{S}$
, and hence
$A\left(f\phi \right)y=A\left(f{\phi}^{\prime}\right){y}^{\prime}$
. It is readily checked that
$f\left(a\right)$
maps
$D\to D$
and that
$\left(fg\right)\left(a\right)x=f\left(a\right)g\left(a\right)x$
.
Observe that
$f\left(\xi \right)=exp(i\xi \cdot t)$
is a multiplier on
$\mathcal{S}$
, so
$exp(ia\cdot t)x$
is defined for all
$x\in D$
. Moreover,
$x=A\left(\phi \right)y$
so
$exp(ia\cdot t)x=A\left(\phi \right(\xi )exp(i\xi \cdot t\left)\right)y$
, and therefore 7.1 implies that
$$\begin{array}{c}\left{e}^{ia\cdot t}x\right\le {C}_{x}t{}^{M}.\end{array}$$ 
(7.6)

We claim that
$$\begin{array}{c}A\left(\hat{\psi}\right)x={\int}_{t}\psi \left(t\right){e}^{ia\cdot t}xdt,\psi \in \mathcal{S},x\in D.\end{array}$$ 
(7.7)

In fact, the integral is convergent in view of 7.6 and it is easy to see that it is equal to
$A\left(\hat{\psi}\right)x$
since
${\int}_{\leftt\right<R}\psi \left(t\right){e}^{i\xi \cdot t}dt\to \hat{\psi}\left(\xi \right)$
in
$\mathcal{S}$
. In particular, the integral in 7.7 has a continuous extension to
$X$
. Since
$A$
is in
${\mathcal{S}}^{\prime}$
it has a Fourier transform
$\hat{A}$
, defined by
$\hat{A}\left(\psi \right)=A\left(\hat{\psi}\right)$
, and thus we have the suggestive formula
$\hat{A}\left(t\right)=exp(ia\cdot t)$
. If we let
$v\left(t\right)=exp(ia\cdot t)=\hat{A}\left(t\right)$
then clearly
$v(t+s)x=v\left(t\right)v\left(s\right)x$
for
$x\in D.$
Moreover, clearly
$v$
defined by
$v.\psi =\hat{\psi}\left(a\right)$
satisfies
$$\begin{array}{c}{\int}_{s}{\int}_{t}v(t+s)\phi \left(t\right)\psi \left(s\right)={\int}_{t}v\left(t\right)\phi \left(t\right){\int}_{s}v\left(s\right)\psi \left(s\right),\phi ,\psi \in \mathcal{S}\end{array}$$ 
(7.8)

and
$$\begin{array}{c}\cap Kerv\left(\phi \right)=\left\{0\right\},\cup Imv\left(\phi \right)=Ddense.\end{array}$$ 
(7.9)

We have the following variant of Stone's theorem.
Proposition 7.2.
Assume that
$v:\mathcal{S}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)\to \mathcal{\mathcal{L}}\left(X\right)$
is linear, and continuous in the sense that for fixed
$x\in X$
,
$v.{\phi}_{j}x\to 0$
whenever
${\phi}_{j}\to 0$
in
$\mathcal{S}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)$
. Moreover, assume that
$v\left(t\right)$
is group of operators in the sense of 7.8 and
$v\left(0\right)={e}_{X}$
in the sense of 7.9 . Then
$v$
is generated by a hyperoperator
$A\in {H}_{\mathcal{S}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)}\left(X\right)$
in the sense that
$v\left(t\right)x$
is smooth for
$x\in {D}_{A}$
and
$(\partial v/\partial {t}_{k})\left(0\right)x=i{a}_{k}x$
.

Proof.
Define
$A\left(\phi \right)=v.\hat{\phi}$
. By the BanachSteinhaus theorem the pointwise continuity of
$v$
implies strong continuity and so
$A$
is a continuous map
$\mathcal{S}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)\to \mathcal{\mathcal{L}}\left(X\right)$
. Moreover, the weak multiplicativity of
$v$
implies that
$v(\phi *\psi )=v\left(\phi \right)v\left(\psi \right)$
and hence
$$A\left(\phi \psi \right)=v\left(\widehat{\phi \psi}\right)=v(\hat{\phi}*\hat{\psi})=v\left(\hat{\phi}\right)v\left(\hat{\psi}\right)=A\left(\phi \right)A\left(\psi \right).$$
Since the Fourier transform is an isomorphism of
$\mathcal{S}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)$
we get that
$\cap KerA\left(\phi \right)=\left\{0\right\}$
and
$\cup ImA\left(\phi \right)=D$
is dense. Thus
$A$
is a tempered hyperoperator. For
$x\in D$
we can define
$u\left(t\right)x={e}^{iat}x$
and since
$A$
satisfies an estimate like 7.1 it is easy to see that
$\leftu\right(t\left)x\right\le Ct{}^{M}$
and so
$u\left(t\right)x$
defines an element in
${\mathcal{S}}^{\prime}({\mathbb{R}}^{n},X)$
. We also see that
$t\mapsto u\left(t\right)x$
is in
${C}^{1}$
(even in
${C}^{\infty}$
) and
${u}^{\prime}\left(t\right)x=iax$
. In fact, if
$\phi \in \mathcal{S}$
then
$\phi \left(\xi \right)({e}^{i\xi t}1)/t\to i\xi \phi \left(\xi \right)$
in
$\mathcal{S}$
as
$t\to 0$
, and hence if
$x=A\left(\phi \right)y$
we get
$$\frac{{e}^{iat}{e}_{X}}{t}x=\frac{\phi \left(a\right){e}^{iat}\phi \left(a\right)}{t}y\to ia\phi \left(a\right)y=iax.$$
We finally check that
$u\left(t\right)x=v\left(t\right)x$
as tempered distributions. If, as before,
$x=A\left(\phi \right)y$
, then for any
$\psi \in \mathcal{S}$
we have
$$\begin{array}{ccc}{\int}_{t}\psi \left(t\right)u\left(t\right)x& =& {\int}_{t}\psi \left(t\right){A}_{\xi}\left(\phi \right(\xi \left){e}^{i\xi t}\right)y={A}_{\xi}\left(\phi \right(\xi \left){\int}_{t}\psi \right(t\left){e}^{i\xi t}\right)y\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& {A}_{\xi}\left(\phi \right(\xi \left)\hat{\psi}\right(\xi \left)\right)y=A\left(\hat{\psi}\right)x={\int}_{t}\psi \left(t\right)v\left(t\right)x.\end{array}$$  
□
8 Operators with ultradifferentiable functional calculus
Let
$h\left(t\right)=H\left(\rightt\left\right)$
where
$H\left(0\right)=0$
and
$H$
increasing and concave on
$[0,\infty )$
. Then
$h$
is subadditive. We also assume that
${lim}_{\leftt\right\to \infty}h\left(t\right)/\leftt\right=0$
and that
$$\begin{array}{c}{limsup}_{\leftt\right\to \infty}\frac{log(1+t\left\right)}{h\left(t\right)}=0.\end{array}$$ 
(8.1)

Let
${\mathcal{A}}_{h}$
be the space of tempered distributions
$f$
on
${\mathbb{R}}^{n}$
such that
$\hat{f}$
is a measure and
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel f{\parallel}_{{\mathcal{A}}_{h}}={\int}_{t}\left\hat{f}\right(t\left)\right{e}^{h\left(t\right)}dt<\infty .\end{array}$$ 
(8.2)

Because of 8.1 ,
${\mathcal{A}}_{h}$
is contained in
${C}^{\infty}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)$
. Clearly
${\mathcal{A}}_{h}$
is a Banach space of functions that is closed under translations, and since
$h$
is subadditive it follows, see e.g., [
2]
, that
${\mathcal{A}}_{h}$
actually is a Banach algebra under pointwise multiplication. These algebras were introduced by Beurling, [
4]
. If
$h\left(t\right)=t{}^{\alpha}$
,
$0<\alpha <1$
, then
${G}_{\alpha}={\cup}_{c>0}{\mathcal{A}}_{ch}$
is the classical Gevrey algebra, see [
11]
. We say that the class
${\mathcal{A}}_{h}$
is nonquasianalytic if for each compact set
$E$
and open neighborhood
$U\supset E$
there is a function
$\chi \in {\mathcal{A}}_{h}$
with support in
$U$
which is identically
$1$
in some neighborhood of
$E$
. We recall the following version of the DenjoyCarleman theorem.
Theorem 8.1.
The class
${\mathcal{A}}_{h}$
is nonquasianalytic if and only if
$$\begin{array}{c}{\int}_{1}^{\infty}\frac{H\left(s\right)ds}{{s}^{2}}<\infty .\end{array}$$ 
(8.3)

Assume now that
$h\left(t\right)=H\left(\rightt\left\right)$
satisfies the condition 8.3 . Let
${B}_{h}$
be the algebra of all functions on
${\mathbb{R}}^{n}$
which are locally in
${\mathcal{A}}_{ch}$
for some
$c>1$
, and let
${B}_{h,0}$
be the subalgebra of functions with compact support.
There is an associated convex decreasing function
$G\left(s\right)={sup}_{t}\left(H\right(t)ts)$
on
$(0,\infty )$
. Let
${H}_{c}\left(s\right)=H\left(cs\right)$
and let
${G}_{c}$
be the corresponding decreasing function.
Proposition 8.2.
A function
$\phi \in {B}_{h}$
if and only if it admits an almost holomorphic extension
$\stackrel{~}{\phi}$
such that for each compact
$K\subset {\mathbb{R}}^{n}$
, for some
$c>1$
we have
$${sup}_{Re\zeta \in K}\left\overline{\partial}\stackrel{~}{\phi}\right{e}^{{g}_{c}(Im\zeta )}<\infty .$$
If
$\phi $
has compact support and
$U$
is a complex neighborhood of
$supp\phi $
we can choose
$\stackrel{~}{\phi}$
with support in
$U$
.
For a proof, see, e.g., [2] . It follows that composition of functions in
${B}_{h}$
stays in
${B}_{h}$
. In a completely analogous way as before we can now define a hyperoperator
$A\in {H}_{{B}_{h,0}}\left(X\right)$
as a continuous multiplicative mapping
${B}_{h,0}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)\to \mathcal{\mathcal{L}}\left(X\right)$
such that
${\cup}_{\phi \in {B}_{h,0}}ImA\left(\phi \right)=D$
is dense and
${\cap}_{\phi \in {B}_{h,0}}KerA\left(\phi \right)=\left\{0\right\}.$
Everything that is done in Sections 3,4, and 5 carry over directly to these ultrahyperoperators; for instance,
$D$
is the set of
$x\in X$
such that
$x=A\left(\chi \right)x$
for some cutoff function
$\chi $
in
${B}_{h}$
.
If
$A\in {H}_{{B}_{h,0}}\left(X\right)$
, then
$\parallel A\left(\phi \right)\parallel \le {C}_{c}{sup}_{{K}_{c}^{\prime}}\phi {}_{{\mathcal{A}}_{ch}}$
for each
$c>1$
. If we define
${\omega}_{\zeta z}^{\chi}=\chi \left(\xi \right){\omega}_{\zeta \xi}{}_{\xi =a}$
it turns out that
$\parallel {\omega}_{\zeta z}^{\chi}\parallel \le {C}_{c}exp{g}_{c}(Im\zeta )$
for each
$c>1$
. If
$supp\phi \subset \{\chi =1\}$
we thus have the representation
$$A\left(\phi \right)=\int {\omega}_{\zeta a}^{\chi}\wedge \overline{\partial}\stackrel{~}{\phi}\left(\zeta \right).$$
9 Invariant subspaces and spectral decomposition
Precisely as for a bounded operator (tuple of commuting bounded operators) that admits a smooth functional calculus, for a hyperoperator
$a$
there is a rich structure of invariant subspaces as well as spectral decompositions.
Proposition 9.1.
Assume that
$A\in {H}_{\mathcal{D}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)}\left(X\right)$
,
$f\in \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}({\mathbb{R}}^{n},{\mathbb{R}}^{m})$
, and let
$${X}^{\prime}=\{x\in {D}_{A};f(a)x=0\}.$$
Then
$Y=\overline{{X}^{\prime}}$
is an
$a$
invariant subspace of
$X$
, and
${a}^{\prime}=a{}_{Y}$
is a hyperoperator. Moreover,
${D}_{{a}^{\prime}}={X}^{\prime}$
and
$$\begin{array}{c}int\{f=0\}\cap \sigma \left(a\right)\subset \sigma \left({a}^{\prime}\right)\subset \{f=0\}\cap \sigma \left(a\right).\end{array}$$ 
(9.1)

If
$\{f=0\}$
contains some open subset of
$\sigma \left(a\right)$
, then
$Y$
has nontrivial vectors.

Proof.
Since
$f\left(a\right)$
and
$\phi \left(a\right)$
commute,
${X}^{\prime}$
and hence
$Y$
are
$a$
invariant.
If
$\phi $
has compact support, then
$\phi \left(a\right)$
is bounded, and hence
$\phi \left({a}^{\prime}\right)$
extends to a bounded operator on
$\overline{{X}^{\prime}}$
. Moreover, the continuity with respect to
$\phi $
is clear. Since
$1\left({a}^{\prime}\right)x=x$
for all
$x\in {X}^{\prime}$
, the properties
$\left(i\right)$
and
$\left(ii\right)$
in Definition 1 are satisfied, so
${a}^{\prime}$
is indeed a hyperoperator on the Banach space
$Y$
.
By definition,
${X}^{\prime}\subset {D}_{a}$
. If
$x\in {D}_{{a}^{\prime}}$
, then
$x=\chi \left({a}^{\prime}\right)x$
for some
$x\in Y$
.
This means that
$x=\chi \left(a\right)x$
and so
$x\in {D}_{a}$
, and moreover
$f\left(a\right)x=0$
.
Thus
${D}_{{a}^{\prime}}={X}^{\prime}$
.
If
$\phi \left(a\right)=0$
for all
$\phi \in \mathcal{D}\left(\omega \right)$
then
$\phi \left({a}^{\prime}\right)=0$
for all such
$\phi $
, and hence
$\sigma \left({a}^{\prime}\right)\subset \sigma \left(a\right)$
. If
$p$
is any point outside
$\{f=0\}$
then
${f}_{j}\left(p\right)\ne 0$
for some
${f}_{j}$
(
$f=({f}_{1},\dots ,{f}_{m})$
). We may assume that
${f}_{j}\left(p\right)=1$
. If
$\omega \ni p$
is small enough,
${f}_{j}1\le 1/2$
in
$\omega $
. For
$\phi \in \mathcal{D}\left(\omega \right)$
we have that
$$\phi \left(a\right)x=\phi \left(a\right)(1{f}_{j}{)}^{N}(a)x=(\phi (1{f}_{j}{)}^{N})\left(a\right)x,x\in {X}^{\prime},$$
and since
$\phi (1{f}_{j}{)}^{N}\to 0$
in
$\mathcal{D}\left(\omega \right)$
when
$N\to \infty $
we can conclude that
$\phi \left(a\right)x=0$
. Thus
$\omega $
is contained in the complement of
$\sigma \left({a}^{\prime}\right)$
and so we have proved the second inclusion in 9.1 To see the first one, take
$p\in int\{f=0\}\cap \sigma \left(a\right)$
and a neighborhood
$\omega $
such that
$p\in \omega \subset \{f=0\}$
.
Since
$\omega $
intersects
$\sigma \left(a\right)$
there exists some
$\phi \in \mathcal{D}\left(\omega \right)$
and
$z\in X$
such that
$x=\phi \left(a\right)z\ne 0$
. However, then
$x\in D$
and
$f\left(a\right)x=\left(f\phi \right)\left(a\right)z=0$
since
$f\phi =0$
, so
$x\in {X}^{\prime}$
. Thus
$\omega $
intersects
$\sigma \left({a}^{\prime}\right)$
. Since
$\omega \ni p$
can be chosen arbitrarily small, we conclude that
$p\in \sigma \left({a}^{\prime}\right)$
. If
$\sigma \left({a}^{\prime}\right)$
is nonempty, then
$Y$
is nontrivial, and so the last statement follows from 9.1 . □
If
$p$
is an isolated point in
$\sigma \left(a\right)$
and
$f=0$
in a neighborhood of
$p$
, then
${X}^{\prime}$
is nontrivial. There are also nontrivial
$a$
invariant subspaces as soon as
$\sigma \left(a\right)$
contains more than one point. Notice that
${a}^{\prime}$
is bounded if
$\{f=0\}\cap \sigma \left(a\right)$
is compact.
It is easy to make spectral decompositions. Let
$A\in {H}_{\mathcal{D}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)}\left(X\right)$
be a hyperoperator and let
$\left\{{\Omega}_{j}\right\}$
be a locally finite open cover of
$\sigma \left(a\right)$
.
Moreover, choose
${\phi}_{j}\in \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)$
such that
${\Omega}_{j}\subset \{{\phi}_{j}=1\}$
, and let
$${X}_{j}=\{x\in {D}_{A};{\phi}_{j}(a)x=x\}.$$
If
${\Omega}_{j}$
is bounded, we can choose
${\phi}_{j}$
in
$\mathcal{D}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)$
and then
${X}_{j}=Ker({e}_{X}A(\phi \left)\right)$
is a closed subspace of
${D}_{A}$
. Then
${X}_{j}$
are
$a$
invariant subspaces,
$\sigma \left(a{}_{{X}_{j}}\right)\subset {\Omega}_{j}\cap \sigma \left(a\right)$
, and
$$\begin{array}{c}{\sum}_{1}^{\infty}{X}_{j}={D}_{A}.\end{array}$$ 
(9.2)

All these statements but the last one follows from Proposition 9.1 . To see 9.2 , choose a smooth partition of unity
${\chi}_{j}$
subordinate to the cover
$\left\{{\Omega}_{j}\right\}$
. Then, since
$\sum {\chi}_{j}=1$
, for each
$x\in {D}_{A}$
we have
$x={\sum}_{1}^{M}{\chi}_{j}\left(a\right)x$
for some
$M$
. However,
$(1{\phi}_{j}){\chi}_{j}=0$
so
${\chi}_{j}\left(a\right)x$
belongs to
${X}_{j}$
. Hence, 9.2 follows.
In general the sum
9.2 is not direct. However, if
$\sigma \left(a\right)$
is a disjoint union of closed sets
${F}_{j}$
, we can find
${\phi}_{j}$
with disjoint supports such that
$\{{\phi}_{j}=1\}$
contain a neighborhood of
${F}_{j}$
. If
$x\in {X}_{j}\cap {X}_{k}$
, then
$x={\phi}_{j}\left(a\right)x={\phi}_{j}\left(a\right){\phi}_{k}\left(a\right)x=\left({\phi}_{j}{\phi}_{k}\right)\left(a\right)x=0$
, and hence we get
$${D}_{A}={\oplus}_{1}^{\infty}{X}_{j}.$$
Example 7.
Let
$A\in {H}_{\mathcal{D}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)}\left(X\right)$
and let
$f\in \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}({\mathbb{R}}^{n},{\mathbb{R}}^{m})$
be a mapping such that
$f\left(a\right)=0$
. From Corollary 5.5 (or 9.1 ) we know that
$\sigma \left(a\right)\subset \{f=0\}$
. Let us also assume that the zero set
$\{f=0\}=\left\{{\alpha}^{j}\right\}$
is discrete. Then we have the decomposition
${D}_{A}={\oplus}_{1}^{\infty}{X}_{j}$
where
$\sigma \left(a{}_{{X}_{j}}\right)=\left\{{\alpha}^{j}\right\}$
. For each
$j$
, let
${g}_{1}^{j},\dots ,{g}_{{\ell}_{j}}^{j}$
be functions in the local ideal generated by
$f$
at
${\alpha}^{j}$
, and let
${Y}_{j}=\{x\in {D}_{A};{g}_{\ell}^{j}(a)x=0,\ell =1,\dots ,{\ell}_{j}\}$
. If
$x\in {X}_{j}$
, then
$x={\phi}_{j}\left(a\right)x$
, and since moreover
${g}_{\ell}^{j}{\phi}_{j}={\sum}_{k}{h}_{k}{f}_{k}{\phi}_{j}$
for some
${h}_{k}$
, it follows that
$x\in {Y}_{j}$
. Thus
${X}_{j}\subset {Y}_{j}$
. Furthermore, if for each
$j$
the common zero set of
${g}_{\ell}^{j}$
is just the point
${\alpha}_{j}$
, then by 9.1 ,
$\sigma (a,{\overline{Y}}_{j})\subset \left\{{\alpha}_{j}\right\}$
. If
$x\in {Y}_{j}\cap {Y}_{i}$
, therefore
${\sigma}_{x}\left(a\right)=\varnothing $
, and hence
$x=0$
since
$a$
is a hyperoperator. It therefore follows that
${X}_{j}={Y}_{j}$
.
If all zeros of
$f$
are of first order, i.e., the local ideal at
${\alpha}^{j}$
is generated by
${\xi}_{i}{\alpha}_{i}^{j}$
,
$i=1,\dots ,n$
, then
${X}_{j}$
is the eigenspace
$${X}_{j}=\{x\in {D}_{A};{a}_{i}x={\alpha}_{i}^{j}x,i=1,\dots ,n\}.$$
If
$A\in {H}_{\mathcal{D}(\mathbb{C})}\left(X\right)$
and
$f$
is holomorphic in a neighborhood of
$\sigma \left(a\right)$
and the zeros
${\alpha}^{j}$
have multiplicities
${r}_{j}$
, then
${X}_{j}=\{x\in {D}_{A};(a{\alpha}_{j}{)}^{{r}_{j}}x=0\}.$
□
The situation in this example appears naturally when we consider homogeneous solutions to an equation like
$f\left(a\right)x=0$
.
Example 8.
Let
${\mathcal{A}}_{h}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)$
be a Beurling algebra, cf., Section 8 , containing cutoff functions, and let
$X$
be the space of inverse Fourier transforms of the dual space
${\mathcal{A}}_{h}^{\prime}$
. Then the tuple of commuting operators
${a}_{j}=i\partial /\partial {\xi}_{j}$
on
$X$
admits an
${\mathcal{A}}_{h}$
functional calculus (since
${\mathcal{A}}_{h}$
is an algebra).
Then
${D}_{a}$
is the space of (inverse) Fourier transforms of elements with compact supports in
${\mathcal{A}}_{h}^{\prime}$
. Notice that
${\mathcal{A}}_{h}^{\prime}$
contains all distributions with compact support, but also some hyperfunctions of infinite order. Let
$f$
be a
${\mathcal{A}}_{h}$
smooth mapping and consider the space
$\{x\in {D}_{a};f(a)=0\}$
.
If
$x$
is the inverse Fourier transform of
$u$
, then
$f\left(t\right)u\left(t\right)=0$
, which means that
$u$
has support on
$Z=\{t\in {\mathbb{R}}^{n};f(t)=0\}$
. It follows that we have the representation
$$\begin{array}{c}x\left(\xi \right)={\int}_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n}}{e}^{i\xi \cdot t}u\left(t\right)dt,\end{array}$$ 
(9.3)

meaning the action of
$u$
on
$t\mapsto expi\xi \cdot t$
. Since
$u$
has support on the set
$Z=\{f=0\}$
,
$x$
is expressed as a combination of exponentials with frequencies in
$Z$
. □
Even if
$f$
is a polynomial, only solutions generated by real frequencies can appear as long as we have restricted to nonquasianalytic classes.
To get an operatortheoretic frame of this kind for the general fundamental principle of Ehrenpreis and Palamodov, [
9]
and [
14]
, one must consider operators that only admit a holomorphic functional calculus.
10 Noncommuting hyperoperators
Assume that
${A}_{1},\dots ,{A}_{m}$
are in
${H}_{\mathcal{D}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{{n}_{j}}\right)}$
but not necessarily commuting.
Then we can form the tensor product
$A={A}_{1}\otimes \cdots \otimes {A}_{m}$
, and obtain a linear continuous, though not multiplicative, operator
$\mathcal{D}\left({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\right)\to \mathcal{\mathcal{L}}\left(X\right)$
, where
$n={n}_{1}+\cdots +{n}_{m}$
. This can also be done explicitly by the formula 6.7 . We also write this operator of course as
$\phi ({a}_{1},\dots ,{a}_{m})$
.
In case when all
${n}_{j}=1$
and
${a}_{j}$
are HS operators, we get back the definition in [
3]
. Now the order of the operators is crucial. Therefore it is convenient to use Feynman notation, see, e.g., [
13]
. Then this operator
$\phi ({a}_{1},\dots ,{a}_{m})$
can be written
$\phi (\stackrel{m}{{a}_{1}},\dots ,\stackrel{1}{{a}_{m}})$
indicating that the operator
${a}_{m}$
is to be applied first, then
${a}_{m1}$
etc and finally
${a}_{1}$
, and the order is reflected by the order of the resolvents. Therefore, if
$b$
is a bounded operator one can easily define for instance
$$\phi (\stackrel{3}{{a}_{1}},\stackrel{1}{{a}_{2}})\stackrel{2}{b}=\int \int \left({\partial}_{{\overline{\zeta}}_{1}}{\partial}_{{\overline{\zeta}}_{2}}\right)\stackrel{~}{\phi}({\zeta}_{1},{\zeta}_{2})\wedge {\omega}_{{\zeta}_{1}{a}_{1}}^{{\chi}_{1}}\wedge b{\omega}_{{\zeta}_{2}{a}_{2}}^{{\chi}_{1}}.$$
Notice that this is not an ordinary composition of
$f(\stackrel{3}{{a}_{1}},\stackrel{1}{{a}_{2}})$
and
$b$
, while for instance
$f(\stackrel{2}{{a}_{1}},\stackrel{1}{{a}_{2}})\stackrel{3}{b}=bf(\stackrel{2}{{a}_{1}},\stackrel{1}{{a}_{2}}).$
References

M. Andersson: (Ultra)differentiable functional calculus and current extension of the resolvent mapping, Ann. Inst. Fourier, 53 (2003), 903–926.

M. Andersson & B. Berndtsson: Nonholomorphic functional calculus for commuting operators with real spectrum, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa, 1 (2002), 925–955.

M. Andersson & J. Sjostrand: Functional caclulus for noncommuting operators with real spectra via an iterated Cauchy formula, J. Functional Anal., 210 (2004), 341–375.

A. Beurling: On quasianalyticity and general distributions, Lecture notes, Stanford (1961).

M. Dimassi & J. Sjostrand: Spectral asymptotics in the semiclassical limit, London Math. Soc. LNS 268, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1999.

B. Droste: Extension of analytic functional calculus mappings and duality by
$\overline{\partial}$
closed forms with growth, Math. Ann. 261, 185200 (1982).

E.M. Dynkin: An operator calculus based on the CauchyGreen formula. (Russian), Investigations on linear operators and the theory of functions, III. Zap. Nauv cn. Sem. Leningrad. Otdel. Mat. Inst. Steklov. (LOMI) 30 (1972), 33–39..

J. Eschmeier & M. Putinar: Spectral Decompositions and Analytic Sheaves, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1996.

Ehrenpreis, Leon: Fourier analysis in several complex variables, Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. XVII WileyInterscience Publishers A Division of John Wiley & Sons, New YorkLondonSydney 1970.

B. Helffer & J. Sjostrand: Equation de Schrödinger avec champ magnétique et équation de Harper, Springer Lecture Notes in Physics 345(1989), 118–197.

L. Hormander: The analysis of linear partial differential operators, I–IV, Grundlehren, Springer, 256, 257, 274, 275, 1983–1985.

E.J. Ionas cu & F.H. Vasilescu: Joint spectral properties for permutable linear transformations, J. Reine Angew. Math., 426 (1992), 23–45.

V.E. Nazaikinskii & V.E. Shatalov & B.Yu. Sternin: Methods of noncommutative analysis, de Gruyter Studies in Math. 22, Berlin, New York 1996.

V.P. Palamodov: Linear differential operators with constant coefficients, Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Band 168 SpringerVerlag, New YorkBerlin 1970.

H. Samuelsson: Multidimensional Cayley transforms and tuples of unbounded operators, Preprint Gothenburg (2004).

S. Sandberg: On nonholomorphic functional calculus for commuting operators, Math. Scand., 93 (2003), 109–135.

K. Schmudgen: On commuting unbounded selfadjoint operators I, Acta Sci. Math. 47, (1984), 131–146.

K. Schmudgen: On commuting unbounded selfadjoint operators III, Manuscripta Math., 54, (1985), 221–247.

K. Schmudgen: On commuting unbounded selfadjoint operators IV, Math. Nachr., 125, (1986), 83–102.

K. Schmudgen & J. Friedrich: On commuting unbounded selfadjoint operators II, J. Integral Equ. and Operator Theory, 7, (1984), 815–867.

J.L. Taylor: A joint spectrum for several commuting operators, J. Funct. Anal. 6 (1970), 172191.

FH Vasilescu: Analytic Functional Calculus and Spectral Decomposition, Kluwer Acad. Publ. (1982).

FH Vasilescu: Joint spectral properties for pairs of permutable selfadjoint transformations, Linear operators in function spaces (Timişoara, 1988), Oper. Theory Adv. Appl., 43, Birkhäuser, Basel, (1990), 313–321.

FH Vasilescu: Quaternionic Cayley transform, J. Funct. Anal., 164, (1999), 134–162.
Department of Mathematics, Chalmers University of Technology and the University of Goteborg, S412 96 GOTEBORG, SWEDEN Email address : matsa@math.chalmers.se