$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel \left(\underline{F}\right(0),E(0\left)\right)\parallel {\dot{H}}_{A}^{\frac{n4}{2}}\u2a7d{\varepsilon}_{0},\end{array}$$  (10) 
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel \left(\underline{F}\right(0),E(0\left)\right)\parallel {\dot{H}}_{A}^{k}={M}_{k},\end{array}$$  (11) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel F\parallel {\dot{H}}_{A}^{\frac{n4}{2}}& \u2a7dC{\varepsilon}_{0},\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel F\parallel {\dot{H}}_{A}^{k}& \u2a7dC({M}_{\frac{n4}{2}},\dots ,{M}_{k1}){M}_{k}.\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
^{1 } Of course, this set is overdetermined as the curvature $\underline{F}$ depends completely on the connection $\underline{D}$ . Also, it is perhaps not completely obvious at first that the set $\left(\underline{F}\right(0),\underline{D}(0),E(0\left)\right)$ determined uniquely a solution $(F,D)$ to 3 – 4 . For example, the initial normal derivative ${D}_{0}\left(0\right)$ does not need to be specified. We will show this is the case in the sequel (in particular see Proposition 5.3 ).
^{2 } For odd spatial dimensions, the above discussion needs to be modified somewhat because we will not make an attempt here to define fractional powers of the spaces ${\dot{H}}_{A}^{s}$ . Instead, what one should do is to simply put things in a Coulomb gauge and then use the usual fractional Sobolev spaces. This later approach is what we will take in the sequel, although for sake of concreteness we will only discuss the case of even dimensions. We have opted for the covariant approach in the introduction because it makes stating our main result a bit easier, and has an appealing simplicity. Also, since we shall need many specifics on how Coulomb gauges are constructed in order to create and control our parametrix, we will explain how the Coulomb gauge relates to the Cauchy problem in detail in the following two sections.
Acknowledgements
2 Some Basic Notation
$$\begin{array}{c}0<{\varepsilon}_{0}\ll {\epsilon}_{0}\ll \stackrel{~}{{\epsilon}_{0}}\ll \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}\ll \gamma \ll \delta \ll 1.\end{array}$$  (12) 
3 Some gaugetheoretic preliminaries
$$\begin{array}{c}\langle A,B\rangle =trace\left(A{B}^{*}\right).\end{array}$$  (13) 
$$\begin{array}{c}\langle {g}_{1}^{1}A{h}_{1},{g}_{2}^{1}B{h}_{2}\rangle =\langle {g}_{2}{g}_{1}^{1}A{h}_{1}{h}_{2}^{1},B\rangle ,\end{array}$$  (14) 
$$\begin{array}{c}\langle A,B\rangle ={\sum}_{i,j}{a}_{ij}{\overline{b}}_{ij},\end{array}$$  (15) 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}\parallel gA\parallel & =\parallel A\parallel ,& g& \in O\left(m\right).\end{array}$$  (16) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{c}B=gA{g}^{1}+gd{g}^{1},\end{array}$$  (17) 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}(dA{)}_{ij}& ={\nabla}_{\{i}{A}_{j\}},& (dF{)}_{ijk}& ={\nabla}_{[i}{F}_{jk]},\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{c}\Delta =(d{d}^{*}+{d}^{*}d),\end{array}$$  (18) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}{A}^{df}& ={d}^{*}d{\Delta}^{1}A,\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{cc}{A}^{cf}& =d{d}^{*}{\Delta}^{1}A.\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel B\parallel {L}^{n}\u2a7dC{\epsilon}_{0}.\end{array}$$  (19) 
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel {F}^{A}\parallel {L}^{\frac{n}{2}}\u2a7d{\epsilon}_{0},\end{array}$$  (20) 
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel A\parallel {L}^{n}\u2a7dC{\epsilon}_{0},\end{array}$$  (21) 
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel \stackrel{~}{A}A\parallel {L}^{n}\u2a7d\sqrt{C}{\epsilon}_{0},\end{array}$$  (22) 
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel \stackrel{~}{B}\parallel {L}^{n}\u2a7dC{\epsilon}_{0}.\end{array}$$  (23) 
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel {F}^{A}\parallel {L}^{\frac{n}{2}}\u2a7d\frac{{\epsilon}_{0}}{2},\end{array}$$  (24) 

Proof of Lemma 3.2 .
It suffices to show that
$d+\stackrel{~}{A}$
is gauge equivalent to
$d+\stackrel{~}{B}$
, where
${d}^{*}\stackrel{~}{B}=0$
and with the bound 23 , provided that:
when ${\epsilon}_{0}$ chosen sufficiently small, and where $M$ is some sufficiently large fixed constant which will be determined in a moment, and which will be chosen to be our $C$ in the estimates 21 and 23 (the reason for the notation switch will become clear in a moment). To see this, notice that the smallness condition 22 is gauge invariant because the difference of two connections transforms according to the $Ad\left(G\right)$ action which fixes the Killing form used to compute $\parallel \cdot \parallel {L}^{n}$ . Therefore, we may assume from the start that the original connection $A$ is in the Coulomb gauge with size control 21 . In particular, the connection $d+A$ satisfies the divcurl system:$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel \stackrel{~}{A}\parallel {L}^{n}\u2a7d2\sqrt{M}{\epsilon}_{0},\end{array}$$ (25) $$\begin{array}{cccc}dA& ={F}^{A}[A,A],& {d}^{*}A& =0,\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$
Everything we do now will be based on the Riesz operator bounds:$$\begin{array}{c}A={d}^{*}\Delta ({F}^{A}[A,A\left]\right).\end{array}$$ (26) $$\begin{array}{cc}{\nabla}^{2}{\Delta}^{1}:{L}^{n}& \hookrightarrow {L}^{n},\end{array}$$ (27) $$\begin{array}{cc}\nabla {\Delta}^{1}:{L}^{\frac{n}{2}}& \hookrightarrow {L}^{n}.\end{array}$$ (28) $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$
as long as ${\epsilon}_{0}$ is chosen sufficiently small. In particular, using 22 and some addition and subtraction we have the bound 25 .$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel A\parallel {L}^{n}\u2a7d\sqrt{M}{\epsilon}_{0},\end{array}$$ (29) We now construct by hand the gauge transformation:
with ${d}^{*}\stackrel{~}{B}=0$ . This will be done by constructing the infinitesimal gauge transformation $C={g}^{1}dg$ . A quick calculation shows that this must satisfy the following divcurl system:$$\begin{array}{c}dg=g\stackrel{~}{A}\stackrel{~}{B}g,\end{array}$$ (30) $$\begin{array}{cc}dC& =[C,C],\end{array}$$ (31a) $$\begin{array}{cc}{d}^{*}C& ={d}^{*}\stackrel{~}{A}+[\stackrel{~}{A},C].\end{array}$$ (31b) $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}{C}^{df}& =\frac{{d}^{*}}{\Delta}[C,C],\end{array}$$ (32a) $$\begin{array}{cc}{C}^{cf}& =\frac{d}{\Delta}\left({d}^{*}\stackrel{~}{A}[\stackrel{~}{A},C]\right).\end{array}$$ (32b) $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$
Also, since each iterate belongs pointwise to $\mathfrak{g}$ , the solution does also due to the fact that $\mathfrak{g}$ is a linear (and hence closed) subspace of the matrices $M(m\times m)$ . We now need to show that this $C$ is indeed a solution to the original system 31 . That is, we need to establish the identity:$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel C\parallel {L}^{n}\u2a7d2\cdot \frac{\sqrt{M}}{8}\parallel \stackrel{~}{A}\parallel {L}^{n}\u2a7d\frac{M}{2}{\epsilon}_{0}.\end{array}$$ (33)
Notice that this does not follow algebraically from the form of the integral system 32 , because it is not apriori clear that in fact $d[C,C]=0$ . However, this is the case, which is a consequence of the following apriori estimate for solutions to 32 :$$\begin{array}{c}d{d}^{*}{\Delta}^{1}[C,C]=[C,C].\end{array}$$ (34)
Notice that 33 and 35 taken together immediately imply the identity 34 .$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel d{d}^{*}{\Delta}^{1}[C,C]+[C,C]\parallel {L}^{\frac{n}{2}}\lesssim \parallel C\parallel {L}^{n}\cdot \parallel d{d}^{*}{\Delta}^{1}[C,C]+[C,C]\parallel {L}^{\frac{n}{2}}.\end{array}$$ (35) In order to show 35 , we first use the Hodge Laplacean 18 to write: $$d{d}^{*}{\Delta}^{1}[C,C]+[C,C]={d}^{*}{\Delta}^{1}\left(d[C,C]\right).$$ Next, we compute that:$$\begin{array}{cc}\left(d\right[C,C]{)}_{ijk}& ={\nabla}_{[i}[{C}_{j},{C}_{k]}],\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}& =[{\nabla}_{[i}{C}_{j},{C}_{k]}][{\nabla}_{[i}{C}_{k},{C}_{j]}],\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}& =[{C}_{[i},(dC{)}_{jk]}].\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel d{d}^{*}{\Delta}^{1}[C,C]+[C,C]\parallel {L}^{\frac{n}{2}}& =\parallel {d}^{*}{\Delta}^{1}[C,dC]\parallel {L}^{\frac{n}{2}},\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}& \lesssim \parallel [C,dC]\parallel {L}^{\frac{n}{3}},\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}& \u2a7d\parallel \left[C,\left(d{d}^{*}{\Delta}^{1}\right[C,C]+[C,C\left]\right)\right]\parallel {L}^{\frac{n}{3}}+\parallel \left[C,[C,C]\right]\parallel {L}^{\frac{n}{3}},\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}& \u2a7d2\parallel C\parallel {L}^{n}\cdot \parallel d{d}^{*}{\Delta}^{1}[C,C]+[C,C]\parallel {L}^{\frac{n}{2}}.\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ To wrap things up, we only need to establish the existence of $g$ on line 30 above with ${d}^{*}\stackrel{~}{B}=0$ , and such that we have the size control 23 (with constant $M$ ). Now, by design we have that ${F}^{C}=0$ , so we may integrate the equation: $$dg=gC,$$ with initial conditions $g\left(0\right)=I$ on all of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n}$ . Defining now: $$\stackrel{~}{B}=g\stackrel{~}{A}{g}^{1}+gd{g}^{1},$$ we have that:$$\begin{array}{cc}{d}^{*}\stackrel{~}{B}& ={D}_{i}^{\stackrel{~}{B}}{\stackrel{~}{B}}^{i},\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}& =g{D}_{i}^{\stackrel{~}{A}}\left({g}^{1}{\stackrel{~}{B}}^{i}g\right){g}^{1},\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}& =g{D}_{i}^{\stackrel{~}{A}}({\stackrel{~}{A}}^{i}{C}^{i}){g}^{1},\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}& =g\left({d}^{*}\stackrel{~}{A}+{d}^{*}C[\stackrel{~}{A},C]\right){g}^{1},\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}& =0,\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$
^{3 } Of course this ODE is nonlinear, but in the present context it also satisfies the conservation law $g{g}^{\u2020}=I$ .
4 Some analytic preliminaries
$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{A}\left(\xi \right)={\int}_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n}}{e}^{2\pi ix\cdot \xi}A\left(x\right)dx.\end{array}$$  (36) 
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel {P}_{\mu}A\parallel {L}^{p}\lesssim {\mu}^{n(\frac{1}{q}\frac{1}{p})}\parallel A\parallel {L}^{q},\end{array}$$  (37) 
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel \left({\sum}_{\mu}\right{P}_{\mu}A{}^{2}{)}^{\frac{1}{2}}\parallel {L}^{p}\sim \parallel A\parallel {L}^{p},\end{array}$$  (38) 
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel [A,{P}_{1}]\cdot F\parallel {L}^{p}\lesssim \parallel {\nabla}_{x}A\parallel {L}^{q}\cdot \parallel F\parallel {L}^{r},\end{array}$$  (39) 
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel {\nabla}_{x}^{k}(A\cdot F)\parallel {L}^{p}\lesssim \parallel {\nabla}_{x}^{k}A\parallel {L}^{{q}_{1}}\cdot \parallel F\parallel {L}^{{r}_{1}}+\parallel A\parallel {L}^{{q}_{2}}\cdot \parallel {\nabla}_{x}^{k}F\parallel {L}^{{r}_{2}},\end{array}$$  (40) 
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel A{\parallel}^{2}{\dot{B}}_{2}^{p,(q,s)}={\sum}_{\mu}{\mu}^{2s2n(\frac{1}{q}\frac{1}{p})}\parallel {P}_{\mu}A{\parallel}^{2}{L}^{p},\end{array}$$  (41) 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}{\dot{B}}_{2}^{{p}_{1},(q,s)}& \subseteq {\dot{B}}_{2}^{{p}_{2},(q,s)},& q\u2a7d{p}_{1}\u2a7d{p}_{2}\u2a7d\infty .& \end{array}$$  (42) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}{\dot{B}}_{2}^{p,\left(q,n(\frac{1}{q}\frac{1}{p})\right)}& \subseteq {L}^{p},& 2\u2a7dp<\infty .& \end{array}$$  (43) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}{\dot{B}}_{1}^{\infty ,(q,\frac{n}{q})}& \subseteq {L}^{\infty},& 1\u2a7dq\u2a7d\infty .& \end{array}$$  (44) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{c}{D}_{x}{}^{\sigma}:{\dot{B}}_{2}^{p,(2,{s}_{1})}\cdot {\dot{B}}_{2}^{q,(2,{s}_{2})}\hookrightarrow {\dot{B}}_{1}^{r,(2,{s}_{3})},\end{array}$$  (45) 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}{s}_{3}& ={s}_{1}+{s}_{2}+\sigma \frac{n}{2},& \mathtt{(}\mathtt{s}\mathtt{c}\mathtt{a}\mathtt{l}\mathtt{i}\mathtt{n}\mathtt{g}\mathtt{)},& \end{array}$$  (46) 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}\sigma +\frac{n}{2}{s}_{3}& <n(\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}),& \mathtt{(}\mathtt{H}\mathtt{i}\mathtt{g}\mathtt{h}\times \mathtt{H}\mathtt{i}\mathtt{g}\mathtt{h}\mathtt{)},& \end{array}$$  (47) 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}{s}_{1}& <\frac{n}{2}+min\left\{n\right(\frac{1}{q}\frac{1}{r}),0\},& \mathtt{(}\mathtt{L}\mathtt{o}\mathtt{w}\times \mathtt{H}\mathtt{i}\mathtt{g}\mathtt{h}\mathtt{)},& \end{array}$$  (48) 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}{s}_{2}& <\frac{n}{2}+min\left\{n\right(\frac{1}{p}\frac{1}{r}),0\},& \mathtt{(}\mathtt{H}\mathtt{i}\mathtt{g}\mathtt{h}\times \mathtt{L}\mathtt{o}\mathtt{w}\mathtt{)},& \end{array}$$  (49) 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{1}{r}& \u2a7d\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q},& \mathtt{(}\mathtt{L}\mathtt{e}\mathtt{b}\mathtt{e}\mathtt{s}\mathtt{g}\mathtt{u}\mathtt{e}\mathtt{)}.& \end{array}$$  (50) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{cc}{D}_{x}{}^{\sigma}:{P}_{\bullet \ll \lambda}({\dot{B}}_{2}^{p,(2,{s}_{1})})\cdot {P}_{\lambda}({\dot{B}}_{2}^{q,(2,{s}_{2})})& \hookrightarrow {P}_{\lambda}\left({\dot{B}}_{1}^{r,(2,{s}_{3})}\right),\end{array}$$  (51) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}{D}_{x}{}^{\sigma}:{P}_{\lambda}({\dot{B}}_{2}^{p,(2,{s}_{1})})\cdot {P}_{\lambda}({\dot{B}}_{2}^{q,(2,{s}_{2})})& \hookrightarrow {\left(\frac{\mu}{\lambda}\right)}^{\delta}{P}_{\mu}\left({\dot{B}}_{1}^{r,(2,{s}_{3})}\right),\end{array}$$  (52) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 

Proof of estimate 45 .
The proof is a simple matter of the standard technique of trichotomy. That is, we start with two test matrices
$A$
and
$C$
, and we run a frequency decomposition on the product:
$$A\cdot C={\sum}_{\lambda ,{\mu}_{i}}{P}_{\lambda}\left({P}_{{\mu}_{1}}A\cdot {P}_{{\mu}_{2}}C\right).$$
Setting now:
$$\gamma =min\left\{\frac{n}{2}{s}_{1},\frac{n}{2}{s}_{2},n(\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q})+{s}_{3}\sigma \frac{n}{2},\frac{n}{2}+n(\frac{1}{q}\frac{1}{r}){s}_{1},\frac{n}{2}+n(\frac{1}{p}\frac{1}{r}){s}_{2}\right\},$$
we have from the conditions 47 – 49 that
$0<\gamma $
. To prove 45 it suffices to show that:
$$\begin{array}{cc}& {\sum}_{{\mu}_{1}:{\mu}_{1}\ll {\mu}_{2}\lambda \sim {\mu}_{2}}{\lambda}^{{s}_{3}n(\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{r})\sigma}\parallel {P}_{\lambda}\left({P}_{{\mu}_{1}}A\cdot {P}_{{\mu}_{2}}C\right)\parallel {L}^{r}\lesssim \end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}& {\sum}_{{\mu}_{1}:{\mu}_{1}\ll {\mu}_{2}\lambda \sim {\mu}_{2}}{\left(\frac{{\mu}_{1}}{{\mu}_{2}}\right)}^{\gamma}\parallel {P}_{{\mu}_{1}}A\parallel {\dot{B}}^{p,(2,{s}_{1})}\cdot \parallel {P}_{{\mu}_{2}}C\parallel {\dot{B}}^{q,(2,{s}_{2})},\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}& {\sum}_{{\mu}_{2}:{\mu}_{2}\ll {\mu}_{1}\lambda \sim {\mu}_{1}}{\lambda}^{{s}_{3}n(\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{r})\sigma}\parallel {P}_{\lambda}\left({P}_{{\mu}_{1}}A\cdot {P}_{{\mu}_{2}}C\right)\parallel {L}^{r}\lesssim \end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}& {\sum}_{{\mu}_{2}:{\mu}_{2}\ll {\mu}_{1}\lambda \sim {\mu}_{1}}{\left(\frac{{\mu}_{2}}{{\mu}_{1}}\right)}^{\gamma}\parallel {P}_{{\mu}_{1}}A\parallel {\dot{B}}^{p,(2,{s}_{1})}\cdot \parallel {P}_{{\mu}_{2}}C\parallel {\dot{C}}^{q,(2,{s}_{2})},\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}& {\sum}_{\lambda :{\mu}_{2}\sim {\mu}_{1}\lambda \lesssim {\mu}_{i}}{\lambda}^{{s}_{3}n(\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{r})\sigma}\parallel {P}_{\lambda}\left({P}_{{\mu}_{1}}A\cdot {P}_{{\mu}_{2}}C\right)\parallel {L}^{r}\lesssim \parallel {P}_{{\mu}_{1}}A\parallel {\dot{B}}^{p,(2,{s}_{1})}\cdot \parallel {P}_{{\mu}_{2}}C\parallel {\dot{B}}^{q,(2,{s}_{2})},\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ (53) λ s 3 − n ( 1 2 − 1 r ) − σ ∥ P λ ( P μ 1 A ⋅ P μ 2 C ) ∥ L r ≲ ( λ max { μ i } ) γ ⋅ min { ( μ 1 μ 2 ) γ , ( μ 2 μ 1 ) γ } ⋅ ∥ P μ 1 A ∥ B ˙ p , ( 2 , s 1 ) ⋅ ∥ P μ 2 C ∥ B ˙ q , ( 2 , s 2 ) . $$\text{(L.H.S.)gen\_besov\_fixed\_freq53}\lesssim {\lambda}^{n(\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q})+{s}_{3}\sigma \frac{n}{2}}\parallel {P}_{{\mu}_{1}}A\parallel {L}^{p}\cdot \parallel {P}_{{\mu}_{2}}C\parallel {L}^{q}.$$ Then 53 follows in this case from the definition of $\gamma $ and the fact that ${\mu}_{i}\sim 1$ .The other two cases, which correspond to ${\mu}_{1}\ll {\mu}_{2}$ or vice versa are similar, so it suffices to consider the first. In this case we rescale to ${\mu}_{2}\sim \lambda \sim 1$ . In the case where $r<q$ we set $\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{p}}=\frac{1}{r}\frac{1}{q}$ , and we again use Hölder and Bernstein to estimate:$$\parallel {P}_{\lambda}\left({P}_{{\mu}_{1}}A\cdot {P}_{{\mu}_{2}}C\right)\parallel {L}^{r}\lesssim {\mu}_{1}^{n(\frac{1}{p}\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{p}})}\parallel {P}_{{\mu}_{1}}A\parallel {L}^{p}\cdot \parallel {P}_{{\mu}_{2}}C\parallel {L}^{q}.$$ If it is the case that $q\u2a7dr$ , then we simply estimate: $$\parallel {P}_{\lambda}\left({P}_{{\mu}_{1}}A\cdot {P}_{{\mu}_{2}}C\right)\parallel {L}^{r}\lesssim {\mu}_{1}^{\frac{n}{p}}\parallel {P}_{{\mu}_{1}}A\parallel {L}^{p}\cdot \parallel {P}_{{\mu}_{2}}C\parallel {L}^{q}.$$ In either case, the claim 53 follows from the definition of $\gamma $ . This completes the proof of 45 . □
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel A\parallel {\dot{B}}_{2,10n}^{p,(q,s)}=\parallel \langle {D}_{x}{\rangle}^{10n}A\parallel {\dot{B}}_{2}^{p,(q,s)},\end{array}$$  (54) 
$$\begin{array}{c}\mathcal{\mathcal{R}}(\omega ,\theta )=\{\eta \in {\mathbb{S}}_{\xi}^{n1}\angle (\omega ,\eta )\sim \theta \},\end{array}$$  (55) 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}\left\right(\omega \cdot {\nabla}_{\xi}{)}_{\omega}^{k}{p}_{1}{b}_{\theta}^{\omega}& \lesssim 1,& \left\right({\omega}^{\perp}\cdot {\nabla}_{\xi}{)}^{k}{p}_{1}{b}_{\theta}^{\omega}& \lesssim {\theta}^{k},\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel \omega {\Pi}_{\theta}{P}_{\mu}A\parallel {L}^{p}\lesssim {\mu}^{n(\frac{1}{q}\frac{1}{p})}{\theta}^{(n1)(\frac{1}{q}\frac{1}{p})}\parallel A\parallel {L}^{q}.\end{array}$$  (56) 
$$\begin{array}{c}\left{\nabla}_{\omega}^{k}{b}_{\theta}^{\omega}\right\lesssim {\theta}^{k}.\end{array}$$  (57) 
$$\begin{array}{c}{\nabla}_{\omega}^{k}\omega {\Pi}_{\theta}\approx {\theta}^{k}\omega {\Pi}_{\theta},\end{array}$$  (58) 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}{P}_{\bullet <c}& ={\sum}_{\mu <c}{P}_{\mu},& \omega {\Pi}_{\bullet <c}& ={\sum}_{\theta <c}\omega {\Pi}_{\theta},\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{c}\omega {\overline{\Pi}}^{\left(\sigma \right)}={\sum}_{\mu}\omega {\overline{\Pi}}_{{\mu}^{\sigma}<\bullet}{P}_{\mu}.\end{array}$$  (59) 
5 Gauge construction for the initial data; Reduction to a second order system and the main apriori estimate
5.1 Construction of the initial frame, and the comparison principle
$$\begin{array}{c}\leftd\rightF\left\right\u2a7d\left\underline{D}F\right,\end{array}$$  (60) 
$$\begin{array}{c}\left(\underline{F}\right(0),\underline{D}(0),E(0\left)\right),\end{array}$$  (61) 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}d\underline{A}\left(0\right)+\left[\underline{A}\right(0),\underline{A}(0\left)\right]& =\underline{F}\left(0\right),& {d}^{*}\underline{A}\left(0\right)=0,& \end{array}$$  (62) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel \underline{A}\parallel {L}^{n},\parallel \underline{F}\parallel {\dot{H}}_{A}^{\frac{n4}{2}}& \u2a7d{\epsilon}_{0},\end{array}$$  (63) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel \underline{F}\parallel {\dot{H}}_{A}^{k}& \u2a7d{M}_{k},\end{array}$$  (64) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel \underline{F}\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}& \u2a7dC{\epsilon}_{0},\end{array}$$  (65) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel \underline{A}\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}& \u2a7dC{\epsilon}_{0}.\end{array}$$  (66) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{cc}{C}^{1}({M}_{\frac{n4}{2}},\dots ,{M}_{k1})\parallel G\parallel {H}^{[{k}^{*},k]}& \u2a7d\parallel G\parallel {H}_{A}^{[{k}^{*},k]},\end{array}$$  (67) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}& \u2a7dC({M}_{\frac{n4}{2}},\dots ,{M}_{k1})\parallel G\parallel {H}^{[{k}^{*},k]},\end{array}$$  (68) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{c}{N}_{k}^{1}\parallel \underline{A}\parallel {\dot{H}}^{k}\u2a7d\parallel \underline{F}\parallel {\dot{H}}^{k1}\u2a7d{N}_{k}\parallel \underline{A}\parallel {\dot{H}}^{k},\end{array}$$  (69) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel \underline{F}\parallel {\dot{H}}^{k}& \u2a7dC({M}_{\frac{n4}{2}},\dots ,{M}_{k1}){M}_{k},\end{array}$$  (70) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel \underline{A}\parallel {\dot{H}}^{k+1}& \u2a7dC({M}_{\frac{n4}{2}},\dots ,{M}_{k1}){M}_{k}.\end{array}$$  (71) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 

Proof of Lemma 5.1 .
The proof will be accomplished via a series of inductions. In what follows, we will assume the estimate 69 , whose proof follows from simple analysis of the elliptic system 62 in Besov spaces of the kind ${\dot{B}}_{2}^{p,(2,s)}$ . We will perform many reductions like this in the sequel so we leave this one to the reader.The first step is to prove the critical classical Sobolev 65 . Note that the potential bounds 66 follow from this and 69 . The inductive hypothesis that we make here is that:
for $k=l+m+2\u2a7d\frac{n}{2}$ whenever $0\u2a7dl\u2a7d{l}_{0}$ . Notice that this hypothesis is verified for ${l}_{0}=0$ on account of the assumption 63 and by applying the Kato estimate 60 in conjunction with integer Sobolev embeddings. Notice also that by applying Riesz operator estimates to the elliptic system 62 , and using the product estimate 40 along with Sobolev embeddings we have the bounds:$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel {\nabla}_{x}^{l}{\underline{D}}^{m}\underline{F}\parallel {L}^{\frac{n}{k}}\lesssim {\epsilon}_{0},\end{array}$$ (72) $$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel {\nabla}_{x}^{l+1}\underline{A}\parallel {L}^{\frac{n}{k}}& \lesssim \parallel {\nabla}_{x}^{l}\underline{F}\parallel {L}^{\frac{n}{k}}+\parallel {\nabla}_{x}^{l}\left(\right[\underline{A},\underline{A}\left]\right)\parallel {L}^{\frac{n}{k}},\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}& \lesssim \parallel {\nabla}_{x}^{l}\underline{F}\parallel {L}^{\frac{n}{k}}+\parallel {\nabla}_{x}^{l}\underline{A}\parallel {L}^{\frac{n}{k1}}\cdot \parallel \underline{A}\parallel {L}^{n},\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}& \lesssim \parallel {\nabla}_{x}^{l}\underline{F}\parallel {L}^{\frac{n}{k}}+{\epsilon}_{0}\cdot \parallel {\nabla}_{x}^{l+1}\underline{A}\parallel {L}^{\frac{n}{k}}.\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$
for $k=l+2\u2a7d\frac{n}{2}$ and $l\u2a7d{l}_{0}$ . To show that 72 holds for all $l\u2a7d{l}_{0}+1$ , we start with $l\u2a7d{l}_{0}$ and we compute using 40 and Sobolev embeddings that:$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel {\nabla}_{x}^{l+1}\underline{A}\parallel {L}^{\frac{n}{k}}\lesssim {\epsilon}_{0},\end{array}$$ (73) $$\begin{array}{cc}& \parallel {\nabla}_{x}^{l+1}{\underline{D}}^{m1}\underline{F}\parallel {L}^{\frac{n}{k}},\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}\lesssim & \parallel {\nabla}_{x}^{l}{\underline{D}}^{m}\underline{F}\parallel {L}^{\frac{n}{k}}+\parallel {\nabla}_{x}^{l}\left(\right[\underline{A},{\underline{D}}^{m1}\underline{F}\left]\right)\parallel {L}^{\frac{n}{k}},\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}\lesssim & {\epsilon}_{0}+\parallel {\nabla}_{x}^{l}\underline{A}\parallel {L}^{\frac{n}{l+1}}\cdot \parallel {\underline{D}}^{m1}\underline{F}\parallel {L}^{\frac{n}{kl1}}+\parallel \underline{A}\parallel {L}^{n}\cdot \parallel {\nabla}_{x}^{l}{\underline{D}}^{m1}\underline{F}\parallel {L}^{\frac{n}{k1}},\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}\lesssim & {\epsilon}_{0}+{\epsilon}_{0}\cdot \parallel {\nabla}_{x}^{l+1}{\underline{D}}^{m1}\underline{F}\parallel {L}^{\frac{n}{k}}.\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ We now show 68 . We first deal with the leftmost inequality. Our inductive hypothesis here is that:
where $l+m={k}_{0}$ for ${k}_{0}=k$ or ${k}_{0}={k}^{*}$ , and for all $l\u2a7d{l}_{0}$ . To compute ${\nabla}_{x}^{l+1}{\underline{D}}^{m1}G$ in terms of this, we need to split into cases depending on whether or not $l+1<\frac{n}{2}$ .$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel {\nabla}_{x}^{l}{\underline{D}}^{m}G\parallel {L}^{2}\lesssim C({M}_{\frac{n4}{2}},\dots ,{M}_{k1})\parallel G\parallel {H}_{A}^{[{k}^{*},k]},\end{array}$$ (74) In the former case we compute that:$$\begin{array}{cc}& \parallel {\nabla}_{x}^{l+1}{\underline{D}}^{m1}G\parallel {L}^{2},\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}\lesssim & \parallel {\nabla}_{x}^{l}{\underline{D}}^{m}G\parallel {L}^{2}+\parallel {\nabla}_{x}^{l}\left(\right[\underline{A},{\underline{D}}^{m1}G\left]\right)\parallel {L}^{2},\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}\lesssim & C({M}_{\frac{n4}{2}},\dots ,{M}_{k1})\parallel G\parallel {H}_{A}^{[{k}^{*},k]}+\parallel {\nabla}_{x}^{l}\underline{A}\parallel {L}^{\frac{n}{l+1}}\cdot \parallel {\underline{D}}^{m1}G\parallel {L}^{\frac{2n}{n2l2}}\end{array}$$ (75) $$\begin{array}{cc}& +\parallel \underline{A}\parallel {L}^{n}\cdot \parallel {\nabla}_{x}^{l}{\underline{D}}^{m1}G\parallel {L}^{\frac{2n}{n2}},\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}\lesssim & C({M}_{\frac{n4}{2}},\dots ,{M}_{k1})\parallel G\parallel {H}_{A}^{[{k}^{*},k]}+{\epsilon}_{0}\cdot \parallel {\nabla}_{x}^{l+1}{\underline{D}}^{m1}G\parallel {L}^{2}.\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}& \parallel {\nabla}_{x}^{l+1}{\underline{D}}^{m1}G\parallel {L}^{2},\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}\lesssim & C({M}_{\frac{n4}{2}},\dots ,{M}_{k1})\parallel G\parallel {H}_{A}^{[{k}^{*},k]}+\parallel {\nabla}_{x}^{l}\underline{A}\parallel {L}^{\frac{2n}{n2}}\cdot \parallel {\underline{D}}^{m1}G\parallel {L}^{n}\end{array}$$ (76) $$\begin{array}{cc}& +\parallel \underline{A}\parallel {L}^{n}\cdot \parallel {\nabla}_{x}^{l}{\underline{D}}^{m1}G\parallel {L}^{\frac{2n}{n2}},\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}\lesssim & C({M}_{\frac{n4}{2}},\dots ,{M}_{k1})\parallel G\parallel {H}_{A}^{[{k}^{*},k]}+\parallel {\nabla}_{x}^{l+1}\underline{A}\parallel {L}^{2}\cdot \parallel {\underline{D}}^{\frac{n2}{2}+m1}G\parallel {L}^{2}\end{array}$$ (77) $$\begin{array}{cc}& +{\epsilon}_{0}\cdot \parallel {\nabla}_{x}^{l+1}{\underline{D}}^{m1}G\parallel {L}^{2}.\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ To bound the second term on this line, notice that since $\frac{n}{2}1\u2a7dl$ and we must assume that $1\u2a7dm$ for the induction to make sense, we have the bound ${k}^{*}\u2a7d\frac{n2}{2}+m1\u2a7dk$ . This allows us to bound: $$\parallel {\underline{D}}^{\frac{n2}{2}+m1}G\parallel {L}^{2}\u2a7d\parallel G\parallel {H}_{A}^{[{k}^{*},k]}.$$ Furthermore, by placing all of these calculations within an induction on the value of $k$ itself, and using the bound 69 while noting that $l\u2a7dk1$ we may assume the bound: $$\parallel {\nabla}_{x}^{l+1}\underline{A}\parallel {L}^{2}\lesssim \parallel {\nabla}_{x}^{l}\underline{F}\parallel {L}^{2}\lesssim C({M}_{\frac{n4}{2}},\dots ,{M}_{k1}).$$ This completes our inductive proof of 74 above.
$$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel \left(\underline{F}\right(0),E(0\left)\right)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}& \u2a7d{\stackrel{~}{\epsilon}}_{0},\end{array}$$  (78) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel \underline{A}\left(0\right)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}& \u2a7d{\stackrel{~}{\epsilon}}_{0},\end{array}$$  (79) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel \left(\underline{F}\right(0),E(0\left)\right)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{k}& \u2a7d{\stackrel{~}{M}}_{k},\end{array}$$  (80) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel \underline{A}\left(0\right)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{k+1}& \u2a7d{\stackrel{~}{M}}_{k},\end{array}$$  (81) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{c}\Delta {a}_{0}=[{a}_{i},{\nabla}^{i}{a}_{0}]+[{a}^{i},{E}_{i}].\end{array}$$  (82) 
$$\begin{array}{c}{\dot{a}}_{i}={E}_{i}+{\nabla}_{i}{a}_{0}[{a}_{0},{a}_{i}].\end{array}$$  (83) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel \dot{a}\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}\u2a7d{\stackrel{~}{\epsilon}}_{0},& \end{array}$$  (84) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel \dot{a}\parallel {\dot{H}}^{k}\u2a7d{\stackrel{~}{M}}_{k},& \end{array}$$  (85) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{cccccc}da+[a,a]& =\underline{F},& {d}^{*}a& =0,& {d}^{*}\dot{a}& =0.\end{array}$$  (86) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{cc}{D}^{\beta}{F}_{\alpha \beta}=0,& \end{array}$$  (87a) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}dA+[A,A]=F,& \end{array}$$  (87b) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}{d}^{*}\underline{A}=0,& \end{array}$$  (87c) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}\underline{A}\left(0\right)& =a,& {\partial}_{t}\underline{A}\left(0\right)=\dot{a}.& \end{array}$$  (88) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{c}{\Delta}_{\underline{A}}{A}_{0}=[{A}_{i},{\nabla}_{t}{A}^{i}],\end{array}$$  (89) 
$$\begin{array}{c}{\Delta}_{a}{a}_{0}=[{a}_{i},{\dot{a}}^{i}].\end{array}$$  (90) 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}\parallel \underline{F}\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}& \u2a7d{\stackrel{~}{\epsilon}}_{0},& \parallel \underline{F}\parallel {\dot{H}}^{k}& \u2a7d{\stackrel{~}{M}}_{k},\end{array}$$  (91a) 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}\parallel a\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}& \u2a7d{\stackrel{~}{\epsilon}}_{0},& \parallel \dot{a}\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}& \u2a7d{\stackrel{~}{\epsilon}}_{0},\end{array}$$  (91b) 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}\parallel a\parallel {\dot{H}}^{k}& \u2a7d{\stackrel{~}{M}}_{k1},& \parallel \dot{a}\parallel {\dot{H}}^{k1}& \u2a7d{\stackrel{~}{M}}_{k1},\end{array}$$  (91c) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}\parallel A\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}& \u2a7dC{\stackrel{~}{\epsilon}}_{0},& \parallel {\partial}_{t}A\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}& \u2a7dC{\stackrel{~}{\epsilon}}_{0},\end{array}$$  (92a) 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}\parallel A\parallel {\dot{H}}^{k}& \u2a7d{C}_{k1}{\stackrel{~}{M}}_{k1},& \parallel {\partial}_{t}A\parallel {\dot{H}}^{k1}& \u2a7d{C}_{k1}{\stackrel{~}{M}}_{k1},\end{array}$$  (92b) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
5.2 Local existence in the Coulomb gauge
$$\begin{array}{cccc}\parallel a\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}& \u2a7dC{\stackrel{~}{\epsilon}}_{0},& \parallel \dot{a}\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}& \u2a7dC{\stackrel{~}{\epsilon}}_{0},\end{array}$$  (93) 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}\parallel a\parallel {\dot{H}}^{k}& \u2a7d{C}_{k1}{\stackrel{~}{M}}_{k1},& \parallel \dot{a}\parallel {\dot{H}}^{k1}& \u2a7d{C}_{k1}{\stackrel{~}{M}}_{k1},\end{array}$$  (94) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{cc}{sup}_{0\u2a7dt\u2a7d{T}^{*}}\parallel A\left(t\right)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}& \u2a7d2C{\stackrel{~}{\epsilon}}_{0},\end{array}$$  (95) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}{sup}_{0\u2a7dt\u2a7d{T}^{*}}\parallel {\partial}_{t}A\left(t\right)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}& \u2a7d2C{\stackrel{~}{\epsilon}}_{0},\end{array}$$  (96) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}{sup}_{0\u2a7dt\u2a7d{T}^{*}}\parallel A\left(t\right)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{k}& \u2a7d2{C}_{k1}{\stackrel{~}{M}}_{k1},\end{array}$$  (97) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}{sup}_{0\u2a7dt\u2a7d{T}^{*}}\parallel {\partial}_{t}A\left(t\right)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{k1}& \u2a7d2{C}_{k1}{\stackrel{~}{M}}_{k1}.\end{array}$$  (98) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 

Proof of Proposition 5.3 .
The proof will be reduced to the standard procedure of energy estimates and Sobolev embeddings. Since we are assuming that the initial data has enough smoothness to cover
${L}^{\infty}$
, this is more or less trivial. We start by plugging 87b directly into 87a . After an application of the gauge condition
${d}^{*}\underline{A}=0$
this yields a general second order system of equations which we write as:
To split this into a hyperbolicelliptic system, we decompose the set of equations 99 into its spatial and temporal parts, and apply the Leray projection: $$\mathcal{P}=\frac{{d}^{*}d}{\Delta}=\left(I{\nabla}_{x}\frac{(div)}{\Delta}\right),$$ to the resulting spatial equation. After some rearrangement of the elliptic equation this yields the coupled system:$$\begin{array}{c}\square {A}_{\beta}={\partial}_{\beta}{\partial}_{t}{A}_{0}+[{\partial}_{t}{A}_{0},{A}_{\beta}][{A}_{\alpha},{\partial}^{\alpha}{A}_{\beta}][{A}^{\alpha},{F}_{\alpha \beta}].\end{array}$$ (99) $$\begin{array}{cc}\square {A}_{i}& =\mathcal{P}\left([{\partial}_{t}{A}_{0},{A}_{i}][{A}_{\alpha},{\partial}^{\alpha}{A}_{i}][{A}^{\alpha},{F}_{\alpha i}]\right),\end{array}$$ (100a) $$\begin{array}{cc}\Delta {A}_{0}& =[{A}_{i},{\partial}^{i}{A}_{0}]+[{A}^{i},{F}_{0i}].\end{array}$$ (100b) $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ Having now produced a local solution to the system 100 with the desired properties, we have shown the conclusion of Proposition 5.3 once we show that the spatial potentials which solve 100a are in fact solutions to the spatial portion of the original second order equation 99 . This will be shown through our general strategy of coming up with a quantity which yields a critical elliptic bootstrapping estimate which will force it to be zero. This time, the desired quantity turns out to be related to the conservation of electric charge for the YangMills equations. We first write the spatial portion of the nonlinearity on the right hand side of 99 as a vector:
We would like to show that the equations 100 force $(I\mathcal{P})\mathcal{N}=0$ . We compute that: $$(I\mathcal{P})\mathcal{N}={\nabla}_{x}{\Delta}^{1}\left({\partial}_{t}\Delta {A}_{0}{\partial}^{i}{\partial}^{\alpha}[{A}_{\alpha},{A}_{i}]{\partial}^{i}[{A}^{\alpha},{F}_{\alpha i}]\right).$$ Now, using the equation 100 to compute ${\partial}_{t}\Delta {A}_{0}$ , this last line becomes:$$\begin{array}{c}{\mathcal{N}}_{i}={\partial}_{i}{\partial}_{t}{A}_{0}+[{\partial}_{t}{A}_{0},{A}_{i}][{A}_{\alpha},{\partial}^{\alpha}{A}_{i}][{A}^{\alpha},{F}_{\alpha i}].\end{array}$$ (101) $$\begin{array}{cc}(I\mathcal{P})\mathcal{N}& ={\nabla}_{x}{\Delta}^{1}\left({\partial}^{\beta}{\partial}^{\alpha}[{A}_{\alpha},{A}_{\beta}]{\partial}^{\beta}[{A}^{\alpha},{F}_{\alpha \beta}]\right),\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}& ={\nabla}_{x}{\Delta}^{1}{\partial}^{\beta}[{A}^{\alpha},{F}_{\alpha \beta}].\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}{\partial}^{\beta}[{A}^{\alpha},{F}_{\alpha \beta}]& =\frac{1}{2}\left[\right(dA{)}^{\alpha \beta},{F}_{\alpha \beta}]+[{A}^{\alpha},{\partial}^{\beta}{F}_{\alpha \beta}],\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}& =\frac{1}{2}\left[[{A}^{\alpha},{A}^{\beta}],{F}_{\alpha \beta}\right]\left[{A}^{\alpha},[{A}^{\beta},{F}_{\alpha \beta}]\right]+[{A}^{\alpha},{D}^{\beta}{F}_{\alpha \beta}],\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}& =[{A}^{\alpha},{D}^{\beta}{F}_{\alpha \beta}].\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$
Finally, from the form of 101 and the already established estimates 95 – 98 as well as the boundedness properties of the operator $(1\mathcal{P})$ we have that: $$\parallel (I\mathcal{P})\mathcal{N}\left(t\right)\parallel {L}^{\frac{n}{3}}<\infty ,$$ for all times $t\in [0,{T}^{*}]$ . However, from the smallness bound 95 , the identity 102 , and a Sobolev embedding we also have the fixed time bound:$$\begin{array}{c}(I\mathcal{P})\mathcal{N}={\nabla}_{x}{\Delta}^{1}[{A}^{i},(I\mathcal{P}{)}_{i}\mathcal{N}].\end{array}$$ (102) $$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel (I\mathcal{P})\mathcal{N}\parallel {L}^{\frac{n}{3}}& \lesssim \parallel [{A}^{i},(1\mathcal{P}{)}_{i}\mathcal{N}]\parallel {L}^{\frac{n}{4}},\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}& \u2a7d\parallel A\parallel {L}^{n}\cdot \parallel (I\mathcal{P})\mathcal{N}\parallel {L}^{\frac{n}{3}},\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}& \lesssim {\stackrel{~}{\epsilon}}_{0}\cdot \parallel (I\mathcal{P})\mathcal{N}\parallel {L}^{\frac{n}{3}}.\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$
5.3 The second order curvature equation and the main apriori estimate
$$\begin{array}{cc}Weakcontroloftheconnection& \u27f9Improvedcontrolofthecurvature,\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{cc}& \u27f9Improvedcontroloftheconnection,\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{cc}& \u27f9Weakcontroloftheconnectionforlongertimes.\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{cc}0& ={D}^{\gamma}({D}_{\alpha}{F}_{\beta \gamma}+{D}_{\gamma}{F}_{\alpha \beta}+{D}_{\beta}{F}_{\gamma \alpha}),\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{cc}& ={\square}_{A}{F}_{\alpha \beta}+[{F}_{\alpha}^{\gamma},{F}_{\beta \gamma}]+[{F}_{\beta}^{\gamma},{F}_{\gamma \alpha}],\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{cc}& ={\square}_{A}{F}_{\alpha \beta}2[{F}_{\alpha \gamma},{F}_{\beta}^{\gamma}].\end{array}$$  (103) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{c}{\partial}_{t}{A}_{0}={\Delta}^{1}{\partial}^{i}([{A}_{i},{\partial}_{t}{A}_{0}]+[{A}_{0},{\partial}_{t}{A}_{i}]+[{A}^{\alpha},{F}_{i\alpha}\left]\right).\end{array}$$  (104) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}{\square}_{A}{F}_{\alpha \beta}& =2[{F}_{\alpha \gamma},{F}_{\beta}^{\gamma}],\end{array}$$  (105a) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}dA+[A,A]& =F,\end{array}$$  (105b) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}{d}^{*}\underline{A}& =0,\end{array}$$  (105c) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}\square {A}_{i}& =\mathcal{P}\left([{\partial}_{t}{A}_{0},{A}_{i}][{A}_{\alpha},{\partial}^{\alpha}{A}_{i}][{A}^{\alpha},{F}_{\alpha i}]\right),\end{array}$$  (105d) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}\Delta {A}_{0}& ={\partial}^{i}[{A}_{0},{A}_{i}]+[{A}^{i},{F}_{0i}],\end{array}$$  (105e) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}\Delta \left({\partial}_{t}{A}_{0}\right)& ={\partial}^{i}\left([{A}_{i},({\partial}_{t}{A}_{0}\left)\right]+[{A}_{0},{\partial}_{t}{A}_{i}]+[{A}^{\alpha},{F}_{i\alpha}]\right).\end{array}$$  (105f ) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}\parallel F\left(0\right)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}& \u2a7d{\stackrel{~}{\epsilon}}_{0},& \parallel {\partial}_{t}F\left(0\right)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}& \u2a7dL{\stackrel{~}{\epsilon}}_{0},\end{array}$$  (106) 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}\parallel F\left(0\right)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{k}& \u2a7d{\stackrel{~}{M}}_{k},& \parallel {\partial}_{t}F\left(0\right)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{k1}& \u2a7d{L}_{k}{\stackrel{~}{M}}_{k}.\end{array}$$  (107) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}{sup}_{0\u2a7dt\u2a7d{T}^{*}}\parallel \underline{A}\left(t\right)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}& \u2a7d2NC{\stackrel{~}{\epsilon}}_{0},& {sup}_{0\u2a7dt\u2a7d{T}^{*}}\parallel {\partial}_{t}\underline{A}\left(t\right)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}& \u2a7d2NC{\stackrel{~}{\epsilon}}_{0},\end{array}$$  (108) 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}{sup}_{0\u2a7dt\u2a7d{T}^{*}}\parallel F\left(t\right)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}& \u2a7d2NC{\stackrel{~}{\epsilon}}_{0},& {sup}_{0\u2a7dt\u2a7d{T}^{*}}\parallel {\partial}_{t}F\left(t\right)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}& \u2a7d2NC{\stackrel{~}{\epsilon}}_{0},\end{array}$$  (109) 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}{sup}_{0\u2a7dt\u2a7d{T}^{*}}\parallel \underline{A}\left(t\right)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{k}& <\infty ,& {sup}_{0\u2a7dt\u2a7d{T}^{*}}\parallel {\partial}_{t}\underline{A}\left(t\right)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{k1}& <\infty ,\end{array}$$  (110) 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}{sup}_{0\u2a7dt\u2a7d{T}^{*}}\parallel F\left(t\right)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{k}& <\infty ,& {sup}_{0\u2a7dt\u2a7d{T}^{*}}\parallel {\partial}_{t}F\left(t\right)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{k1}& <\infty ,\end{array}$$  (111) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}{sup}_{0\u2a7dt\u2a7d{T}^{*}}\parallel F\left(t\right)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}& \u2a7d{N}^{1}C{\stackrel{~}{\epsilon}}_{0},& {sup}_{0\u2a7dt\u2a7d{T}^{*}}\parallel {\partial}_{t}F\left(t\right)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}& \u2a7d{N}^{1}C{\stackrel{~}{\epsilon}}_{0},\end{array}$$  (112) 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}{sup}_{0\u2a7dt\u2a7d{T}^{*}}\parallel F\left(t\right)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{k}& \u2a7d{N}_{k}^{1}{C}_{k}{\stackrel{~}{M}}_{k},& {sup}_{0\u2a7dt\u2a7d{T}^{*}}\parallel {\partial}_{t}F\left(t\right)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{k1}& \u2a7d{N}_{k}^{1}{C}_{k}{\stackrel{~}{M}}_{k}.\end{array}$$  (113) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 

Proof that Theorem 5.4 and Proposition 5.3 together imply Theorem 5.2 .
The proof here is more or less straightforward and will be largely left to the reader. Everything relies on two sets of estimates. The first has to do with showing that the initial data bounds 91a – 91c imply the initial control assumed in 106 – 107 . This is just a matter of bounding the time derivatives
${\partial}_{t}F$
, and is why we have included the set of auxiliary constants
$L,{L}_{k}$
. Using now the field equations 3 – 4 (we have not included them in the system 105 , but we may assume they hold), we have the general schematic identity at time
$t=0$
:
where we have generically set $a=({a}_{0},\{{a}_{i}\left\}\right)$ . Therefore, to establish the control 106 – 107 , we only need to prove the estimates:$$\begin{array}{c}{\partial}_{t}F\left(0\right)={\nabla}_{x}F\left(0\right)+[a,F(0\left)\right],\end{array}$$ (114) $$\begin{array}{cccc}\parallel [a,F(0\left)\right]\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}& \lesssim {\stackrel{~}{\epsilon}}_{0},& \parallel [a,F(0\left)\right]\parallel {\dot{H}}^{k1}& \lesssim {\stackrel{~}{M}}_{k},\end{array}$$ (115) $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ The second set of estimates we need to prove here has to do with the relationship between the later time norms 108 – 113 and the ones 95 – 98 contained in the proof of the local existence proposition. Since our global regularity proof is by iteration of this latter result, we need to first show that the weak control 95 – 98 implies the bootstrapping assumption 108 – 111 . This assertion is trivial for norms involving the potentials 108 and 110 , as well as the larger norms 111 just by applying the definition of curvature. Therefore, we only need to see that 95 – 96 implies the bounds 109 . We first establish the desired bounds for the undifferentiated term $F$ .For the spatial curvature and potentials $(\underline{F},\underline{A})$ , this is just the comparison principle form line 69 , and we can assume that the constants $N,{N}_{k}$ are large enough to cover that case. To deal with potentials involving time derivatives of $\underline{A}$ or the temporal potential ${A}_{0}$ we have the following general calculation:$$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel F\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}& \u2a7d\parallel dA\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}+\parallel [A,A]\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n4}{2}},\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}& \lesssim \parallel A\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}+\parallel A{\parallel}^{2}{\dot{H}}^{\frac{n2}{2}},\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ The final thing we need to do here is to show that the improved bounds 112 – 113 imply the assumed estimates of the local existence theorem 93 – 94 . This is again a comparison estimate either identical or similar to 69 . Note that we only need to bound the spatial portion of the potentials $\left\{{A}_{\alpha}\right\}$ and their time derivatives. The undifferentiated terms can be bounded directly by 69 because we may assume that the constant ${\stackrel{~}{\epsilon}}_{0}$ on line 112 is small enough that the critical estimate 63 holds.
^{4 } Strictly speaking, this is not entirely true. This can be seen from the fact that if one looks at the localized commutator $[{\square}_{A},\mathcal{P}]{P}_{\lambda}$ , where the connection $\left\{{A}_{\alpha}\right\}$ is assumed to be of much lower frequency than $\lambda $ , then this is essentially a “derivative falls on low” interaction which can be handled with the available Strichartz estimates in $5\u2a7dn$ dimensions. We have elected instead to follow a formulation of the YM system which is based on the curvature because of its conceptual appeal. However, in lower dimensions, it may be best to work directly with the connection $\left\{{A}_{\alpha}\right\}$ , in part to help mitigate bad $High\times High\Rightarrow Low$ frequency interactions which come from the quadratic term on the right hand side of 103 .
6 Proof of the Main Bootstrapping Estimate
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel {P}_{\lambda}A\parallel S{L}^{P}={sup}_{\theta \lesssim 1}{\left({\sum}_{\phi :{\omega}_{0}\in {\Gamma}_{\phi}}{\parallel}^{{\omega}_{0}}{\Pi}_{\theta}{P}_{\lambda}A{\parallel}^{2}{L}^{p}\right)}^{\frac{1}{2}},\end{array}$$  (116) 
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel A\parallel S{\dot{B}}_{2}^{p,(q,s)}={\left({\sum}_{\lambda}{\lambda}^{2s2n(\frac{1}{q}\frac{1}{p})}\parallel {P}_{\lambda}A{\parallel}^{2}S{L}^{p}\right)}^{\frac{1}{2}}.\end{array}$$  (117) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel A\parallel {\dot{Z}}^{s}& =\parallel A\parallel {L}_{t}^{2}\left({\dot{B}}_{2}^{\frac{2(n1)}{n3},(2,s+\frac{1}{2})}\right)[0,{T}^{*}],\end{array}$$  (118) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel A\parallel S{\dot{Z}}^{s}& =\parallel A\parallel {L}_{t}^{2}\left(S{\dot{B}}_{2}^{\frac{2(n1)}{n3},(2,s+\frac{1}{2})}\right)[0,{T}^{*}].\end{array}$$  (119) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{cc}{\dot{X}}^{s}& ={L}^{\infty}[0,{T}^{*}]\left({\dot{H}}^{s}\right)\cap S{\dot{Z}}^{s},\end{array}$$  (120) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}{\dot{Y}}^{s}& ={L}^{\infty}[0,{T}^{*}]\left({\dot{H}}^{s}\right)\cap {\dot{Z}}^{s}.\end{array}$$  (121) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
6.1 Proof of the Critical Bootstrapping Estimate
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel F\left(0\right)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}+\parallel {\partial}_{t}F\left(0\right)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}\u2a7dL{\epsilon}_{0}.\end{array}$$  (122) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}{sup}_{0\u2a7dt\u2a7d{T}^{*}}\parallel (\underline{A},{\partial}_{t}\underline{A})\left(t\right)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}\times {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}& \u2a7d2NC{\epsilon}_{0},\end{array}$$  (123) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel F\parallel {\dot{X}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}\times {\partial}_{t}^{1}\left({\dot{X}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}\right)& \u2a7d2NC{\epsilon}_{0},\end{array}$$  (124) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel F\parallel {\dot{X}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}\times {\partial}_{t}^{1}\left({\dot{X}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}\right)\u2a7d{N}^{1}C{\epsilon}_{0}.\end{array}$$  (125) 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}{\stackrel{~}{\underline{A}}}_{0}& =0& \mathtt{(}\mathtt{T}\mathtt{e}\mathtt{m}\mathtt{p}\mathtt{o}\mathtt{r}\mathtt{a}\mathtt{l}\mathtt{G}\mathtt{a}\mathtt{u}\mathtt{g}\mathtt{e}\mathtt{)},& \end{array}$$  (126a) 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}{d}^{*}\stackrel{~}{\underline{A}}& =0& \mathtt{(}\mathtt{C}\mathtt{o}\mathtt{u}\mathtt{l}\mathtt{o}\mathtt{m}\mathtt{b}\mathtt{G}\mathtt{a}\mathtt{u}\mathtt{g}\mathtt{e}\mathtt{)},& \end{array}$$  (126b) 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}{P}_{\left\xi \right\ll \left\tau \right}\left(\stackrel{~}{\underline{A}}\right)& =0& \mathtt{(}\mathtt{S}\mathtt{p}\mathtt{a}\mathtt{c}\mathtt{e}\mathtt{}\mathtt{t}\mathtt{i}\mathtt{m}\mathtt{e}\mathtt{f}\mathtt{r}\mathtt{e}\mathtt{q}\mathtt{u}\mathtt{e}\mathtt{n}\mathtt{c}\mathtt{y}\mathtt{l}\mathtt{o}\mathtt{c}\mathtt{a}\mathtt{l}\mathtt{i}\mathtt{z}\mathtt{a}\mathtt{t}\mathtt{i}\mathtt{o}\mathtt{n}\mathtt{)},& \end{array}$$  (126c) 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}\parallel \stackrel{~}{\underline{A}}\parallel {\dot{X}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}& \u2a7d\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}& \mathtt{(}\mathtt{S}\mathtt{p}\mathtt{a}\mathtt{c}\mathtt{e}\mathtt{}\mathtt{t}\mathtt{i}\mathtt{m}\mathtt{e}\mathtt{e}\mathtt{s}\mathtt{t}\mathtt{i}\mathtt{m}\mathtt{a}\mathtt{t}\mathtt{e}\mathtt{)},& \end{array}$$  (126d) 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}\square \stackrel{~}{\underline{A}}& =\stackrel{~}{\mathcal{P}}\left(\right[B,H\left]\right)& \mathtt{(}\mathtt{S}\mathtt{t}\mathtt{r}\mathtt{u}\mathtt{c}\mathtt{t}\mathtt{u}\mathtt{r}\mathtt{e}\mathtt{e}\mathtt{q}\mathtt{u}\mathtt{a}\mathtt{t}\mathtt{i}\mathtt{o}\mathtt{n}\mathtt{)},& \end{array}$$  (126e) 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}\parallel (B,H)\parallel {\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}\times {\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}& \u2a7d\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}& \mathtt{(}\mathtt{S}\mathtt{t}\mathtt{r}\mathtt{u}\mathtt{c}\mathtt{t}\mathtt{u}\mathtt{r}\mathtt{e}\mathtt{e}\mathtt{s}\mathtt{t}\mathtt{i}\mathtt{m}\mathtt{a}\mathtt{t}\mathtt{e}\mathtt{s}\mathtt{)},& \end{array}$$  (126f ) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}{sup}_{{T}^{*}\u2a7dt\u2a7d{T}^{*}}\parallel \stackrel{~}{\underline{A}}\left(t\right)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{k}& <\infty ,& \frac{n2}{2}<k,& \end{array}$$  (127) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{c}{\square}_{\stackrel{~}{\underline{A}}}F=G,\end{array}$$  (128) 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}F\left(0\right)& =f,& {\partial}_{t}F\left(0\right)=\dot{f}.& \end{array}$$  (129) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel F\parallel {\dot{X}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}\times {\partial}_{t}^{1}\left({\dot{X}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}\right)\lesssim \parallel (f,\dot{f})\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}\times {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}+\parallel G\parallel {L}^{1}\left({\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}\right).\end{array}$$  (130) 

Proof of Proposition 6.1 .
The proof requires another bootstrapping argument. This will be done on subintervals
$[0,{T}^{**}]\subseteq [0,{T}^{*}]$
. Using the initial bounds 122 and the general smoothness assumption 111 we may assume that for
${T}^{**}\ll 1$
we have the estimate 124 . Therefore, it suffices to prove that 124 implies 125 on all subintervals
$[0,{T}^{**}]$
. But this is just the same as proving Proposition 6.1 itself since
${T}^{*}$
is arbitrary. The proof will be accomplished in a series of steps. Our first goal will be to derive ${\dot{X}}^{s}$ and ${\dot{Z}}^{s}$ type bounds for the connection $d+A$ . We will then split this connection into a sum of two pieces $d+\stackrel{~}{A}+\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{A}}$ , where the potentials $\stackrel{~}{A}$ satisfy the criteria of Theorem 6.2 and the remainder term $\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{A}}$ obeys the better ${L}^{1}\left({L}^{\infty}\right)$ spacetime estimate. This is enough to be able to write the equation 105a schematically as:
One is then in a position where Theorem 6.2 can be applied directly, and we only need to choose our constant $C$ depending on $L,N$ and the constant which appears on line 130 . The key thing is that the dangerous term $[\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{A}},\nabla F]$ can safely be put in ${L}^{1}\left({\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}\right)$ using the improved spacetime estimate for $\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{A}}$ and the energy estimate for $F$ . Throughout the proof we will use the usual splitting $\left\{{A}_{\alpha}\right\}=({A}_{0},\underline{A})$ of $d+A$ into its temporal and spatial components.$$\begin{array}{c}{\square}_{\stackrel{~}{A}}F=[\nabla \stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{A}},F]+[\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{A}},\nabla F]+\left[\stackrel{~}{A},[\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{A}},F]\right]+\left[\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{A}},[\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{A}},F]\right]+[F,F].\end{array}$$ (131) 
$\bullet $
${\dot{X}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}$
estimates for
$\left\{{\underline{A}}_{i}\right\}$
Here we write
$\underline{F}$
for the spatial components of the field strength and use the Hodge system 105b – 105c to write schematically:
As a preliminary first step, we will show that the potentials $\left\{{\underline{A}}_{i}\right\}$ can be estimated in ${\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}$ with bounds comparable to $NC{\epsilon}_{0}$ . Now, it is not too difficult to see directly from the definition that: $${\nabla}_{x}{\Delta}^{1}:{\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}\hookrightarrow {\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}.$$ Next, notice that we have the bilinear estimate:$$\begin{array}{c}\underline{A}={\nabla}_{x}{\Delta}^{1}(\underline{F}+[\underline{A},\underline{A}\left]\right).\end{array}$$ (132)
which follows integrating the bound 45 . Note that in this case, the range restrictions 46 – 50 are easily satisfied. Therefore, using the critical bounds 123 as well as the general smoothness criteria 110 (so that in particular we may assume the ${\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}$ norm of $\left\{{\underline{A}}_{i}\right\}$ is finite) we see we may absorb the quadratic term on the right hand side of 132 onto the left in the desired estimates.$$\begin{array}{c}{\nabla}_{x}{\Delta}^{1}:{L}^{\infty}\left({\dot{H}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}\right)\cdot {\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}\hookrightarrow {\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n2}{2}},\end{array}$$ (133) Our task is now to show the more restrictive ${\dot{X}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}$ estimates for the potentials $\left\{{\underline{A}}_{i}\right\}$ . Again from the definition, it is not hard to see that we have the embedding:$${\nabla}_{x}{\Delta}^{1}:{\dot{X}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}\hookrightarrow {\dot{X}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}.$$ Therefore, keeping in mind the ${\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}$ bounds just proved, we see that is suffices to be able to show the bilinear estimate:
The main issue here is, of course, to be able to include the angular square sum structure. This turns out to be very simple. Notice first that by orthogonality and the general nesting 42 we have the inclusion (on any finite time interval $[0,{T}^{*}]$ ): $${L}^{\infty}\left({\dot{H}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}\right)\cap {L}^{2}\left({\dot{H}}^{\frac{n1}{2}}\right)\subseteq {\dot{X}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}.$$ Therefore, to conclude 134 we see that it suffices to be able to show the set of bilinear estimates:$$\begin{array}{c}{\nabla}_{x}{\Delta}^{1}:{\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}\cdot {\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}\hookrightarrow {\dot{X}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}.\end{array}$$ (134) $$\begin{array}{cc}{\nabla}_{x}{\Delta}^{1}:{\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}\cdot {\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}\hookrightarrow {L}^{\infty}\left({\dot{H}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}\right),& \end{array}$$ (135) $$\begin{array}{cc}{\nabla}_{x}{\Delta}^{1}:{\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}\cdot {\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}\hookrightarrow {L}^{2}\left({\dot{H}}^{\frac{n1}{2}}\right).& \end{array}$$ (136) $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}{\nabla}_{x}{\Delta}^{1}:{P}_{\bullet \ll \lambda}\left({L}^{2}\left({\dot{B}}_{2}^{\frac{2(n1)}{n3},(2,\frac{n1}{2})}\right)\right)\cdot {P}_{\lambda}\left({L}^{\infty}\left({\dot{H}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}\right)\right)& \hookrightarrow {P}_{\lambda}\left({L}^{2}\left({\dot{H}}^{\frac{n1}{2}}\right)\right).\end{array}$$ (137) $$\begin{array}{cc}{\nabla}_{x}{\Delta}^{1}:{P}_{\lambda}\left({L}^{2}\left({\dot{B}}_{2}^{\frac{2(n1)}{n3},(2,\frac{n1}{2})}\right)\right)\cdot {P}_{\lambda}\left({L}^{\infty}\left({\dot{H}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}\right)\right)& \hookrightarrow {\left(\frac{\mu}{\lambda}\right)}^{\delta}{P}_{\mu}\left({L}^{2}\left({\dot{H}}^{\frac{n1}{2}}\right)\right),\end{array}$$ (138) $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$\bullet $
${\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}\times {\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}$
bounds for the pair
$({A}_{0},{\partial}_{t}{A}_{0})$
Our first step here is to deal with the variable
${A}_{0}$
. We integrate equation 105e and write it schematically as:
The desired estimate now follows by constructing ${A}_{0}$ from scratch by iteration, using the already established estimates and bilinear embedding 133 and the following:$$\begin{array}{c}{A}_{0}={\Delta}^{1}\left({\nabla}_{x}\right[{A}_{0},\underline{A}]+[\underline{A},F\left]\right).\end{array}$$ (139)
This last embedding follows in turn from the pair of estimates:$$\begin{array}{c}{\Delta}^{1}:{\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}\cdot {\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}\hookrightarrow {\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}.\end{array}$$ (140) $$\begin{array}{cc}{\Delta}^{1}:{L}^{\infty}\left({\dot{H}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}\right)\cdot {L}^{\infty}\left({\dot{H}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}\right)& \hookrightarrow {L}^{\infty}\left({\dot{H}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}\right),\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}{\Delta}^{1}:{L}^{2}\left({\dot{B}}_{2}^{\frac{2(n1)}{n3},(2,\frac{n1}{2})}\right)\cdot {L}^{\infty}\left({\dot{H}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}\right)& \hookrightarrow {L}^{2}\left({\dot{B}}_{2}^{\frac{2(n1)}{n3},(2,\frac{n1}{2})}\right).\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ To establish the ${\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}$ bound for ${\partial}_{t}{A}_{0}$ , we can use the equation 105f to treat it as a separate variable. In that equation we have quantities of the form ${\partial}_{t}\underline{A}$ . We can use the curvature equation 105b to swap this for spatial derivatives as follows:
This allows us to write schematically:$$\begin{array}{c}{\partial}_{t}\underline{A}={\nabla}_{x}{A}_{0}[{A}_{0},\underline{A}]+F.\end{array}$$ (141)
where $A$ now denotes any of the full set of potentials $\left\{{A}_{\alpha}\right\}$ which we have estimated in the space ${\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}$ . We may now iterate the equation 142 in the space ${\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}$ to constructively obtain the desired bounds using the bilinear embedding: $${\nabla}_{x}{\Delta}^{1}:{\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}\cdot {\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}\hookrightarrow {\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}.$$ which follows from differentiating 140 above. Notice that the needed inclusion $[A,A]\hookrightarrow {\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}$ follows, for instance, from differentiating the embedding 133 .$$\begin{array}{c}\left({\partial}_{t}{A}_{0}\right)={\nabla}_{x}{\Delta}^{1}\left([A,({\partial}_{t}{A}_{0}\left)\right]+[A,{\nabla}_{x}A]+\left[A,[A,A]\right]+[A,F]\right),\end{array}$$ (142) 
$\bullet $
Splitting the spatial potentials Our next goal is to split the spatial potentials
$\left\{{\underline{A}}_{i}\right\}$
into a sum of two pieces which are each more easily managed. This will be done using the “structure” equation 105d . Using the formula 141 to get rid of terms of the form
${\partial}_{t}\underline{A}$
on the right hand side of this equation, and using the various
${\dot{Y}}^{s}$
space embeddings we have just shown (on the time interval
$[0,{T}^{*}]$
), we may write this equation in the schematic form:
where the quantities $(B,H)$ obey the estimate: $$\parallel (B,H)\parallel {\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}\times {\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}\lesssim NC{\epsilon}_{0},$$ where the implicit constant in the above inequality comes from the estimates just shown. Using Duhamel's principle and (sharp) time cutoffs, we now extend 143 to all possible times. This is done simply by writing:$$\begin{array}{c}\square \underline{A}=\mathcal{P}\left(\right[B,H\left]\right),\end{array}$$ (143)
where ${\underline{A}}^{\left(0\right)}$ denotes to propagation of $\left(\underline{A}\left(0\right),{\partial}_{t}\underline{A}\left(0\right)\right)$ as a solution to the free scalar wave equation. Also, here ${\chi}_{[0,{T}^{*}]}$ denotes the indicator function of the time interval $[0,{T}^{*}]$ . This implies that we have the condition:$$\begin{array}{c}\underline{A}\left(t\right)={\underline{A}}^{\left(0\right)}\left(t\right)+{\int}_{0}^{t}\frac{sin\left(\right(ts\left)\sqrt{\Delta}\right)}{\sqrt{\Delta}}\mathcal{P}\left(\right[B,H\left]\right)\left(s\right)\cdot {\chi}_{[0,{T}^{*}]}\left(s\right)ds,\end{array}$$ (144) $$\begin{array}{cccccc}\square \underline{A}\left(t\right)& =0,& t& <0,& {T}^{*}& <t.\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel \left(\underline{A}\left(0\right),{\partial}_{t}\underline{A}\left(0\right)\right)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}\times {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}& \u2a7dNC{\epsilon}_{0},\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel \left(\underline{A}\left({T}^{*}\right),{\partial}_{t}\underline{A}\left({T}^{*}\right)\right)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}\times {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}& \u2a7dNC{\epsilon}_{0}.\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ Our next step to introduce the space–time frequency cutoff ${S}_{\left\tau \right\lesssim \left\xi \right}$ , which cuts off smoothly on the region $\left\tau \right\lesssim \left\xi \right$ . That is, the compound multipliers ${P}_{\lambda}{S}_{\left\tau \right\lesssim \left\xi \right}$ all have ${L}^{1}$ kernels with uniform bounds. We denote by ${S}_{\left\xi \right\ll \left\tau \right}=I{S}_{\left\tau \right\lesssim \left\xi \right}$ . Our decomposition of $\left\{{\underline{A}}_{i}\right\}$ is now given by the formula:$$\begin{array}{cccc}\stackrel{~}{\underline{A}}& ={S}_{\left\tau \right\lesssim \left\xi \right}\underline{A},& \stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{\underline{A}}}& ={S}_{\left\xi \right\ll \left\tau \right}\underline{A}.\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ Finally, we would like to prove two fixed frequency multiplier estimates which will be useful in the sequel when dealing with the two sets of potentials $\left\{\stackrel{~}{{\underline{A}}_{i}}\right\}$ and $\left\{\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{{\underline{A}}_{i}}}\right\}$ . The first is:$$\begin{array}{cccc}\parallel {\partial}_{t}{P}_{\lambda}{S}_{\left\tau \right\lesssim \left\xi \right}A\parallel {L}^{p}\lesssim & \lambda \parallel A\parallel {L}^{p}& 1\u2a7dp\u2a7d\infty .& \end{array}$$ (145) $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ The second fixed frequency multiplier bound that will be of use shortly is the space–time estimate:
Here $\Xi $ is the multiplier with symbol $\Xi (\tau ,\xi )={\tau}^{2}\xi {}^{2}$ . To prove this, we employ a family of LittlewoodPaley spacetime cutoffs which we denote by ${S}_{\mu}$ . By this we mean that the spacetime frequency support of these is supported where $\left\tau \right+\left\xi \right\sim \mu $ . As usual, these are all chosen so as to have uniform ${L}^{1}$ bounds on their convolution kernels. Using the support restrictions of the ${S}_{\left\xi \right\ll \left\tau \right}$ multiplier, we have the formula: $${P}_{\lambda}{S}_{\left\xi \right\ll \left\tau \right}A={\sum}_{\mu :\lambda \lesssim \mu}{P}_{\lambda}{S}_{\mu}{S}_{\left\xi \right\ll \left\tau \right}A.$$ Therefore, by dyadic summing and the boundedness of the multiplier ${P}_{\lambda}$ , to prove 146 it suffices to be able to show that: $$\parallel {\Xi}^{1}{S}_{\left\xi \right\ll \left\tau \right}{S}_{\mu}A\parallel {L}^{q}\left({L}^{p}\right)\lesssim {\mu}^{2}\parallel A\parallel {L}^{q}\left({L}^{p}\right).$$ This last bound follows easily from rescaling to frequency $\mu =1$ and the appropriate differential bounds on the symbol of ${\Xi}^{1}{S}_{\left\xi \right\ll \left\tau \right}$ which we leave to the reader.$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel {\Xi}^{1}{P}_{\lambda}{S}_{\left\xi \right\ll \left\tau \right}A\parallel {L}^{q}\left({L}^{p}\right)\lesssim {\lambda}^{2}\parallel A\parallel {L}^{q}\left({L}^{p}\right).\end{array}$$ (146) 
$\bullet $
${L}^{1}\left({L}^{\infty}\right)$
bounds for the potentials
$\left\{{\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{A}}}_{\alpha}\right\}=({A}_{0},\{\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{\underline{A}}}\left\}\right)$
Our goal here is to show the
${\ell}^{1}$
type Besov estimate:
By repeatedly using the estimate 146 , we have that the multiplier ${\Xi}^{1}\Delta {S}_{\left\xi \right\ll \left\tau \right}$ is bounded on the space ${L}^{1}\left({\dot{B}}_{1}^{\infty ,(2,\frac{n}{2})}\right)$ . Furthermore, from all of the estimates we have shown above, and by distributing the derivative in the first term on the right hand side of 139 , we see that the right hand side of the schematics 139 and 143 are equivalent. Therefore, we have the following heuristic schematic for the potentials $\left\{{\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{A}}}_{\alpha}\right\}$ : $$\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{A}}={\Delta}^{1}\left(\right[B,H\left]\right),$$ where the pair $(B,H)$ enjoys the bounds: $$\parallel (B,H)\parallel {\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}\times {\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}\lesssim NC{\epsilon}_{0}.$$ The bound 147 now follows from the bilinear estimate: $${\Delta}^{1}:{\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}\cdot {\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}\hookrightarrow {L}^{1}\left({\dot{B}}_{1}^{\infty ,(2,\frac{n}{2})}\right).$$ This in turn follows from the product estimate: $${\Delta}^{1}:{L}^{2}\left({\dot{B}}_{2}^{\frac{2(n1)}{n3},(2,\frac{n1}{2})}\right)\cdot {L}^{2}\left({\dot{B}}_{2}^{\frac{2(n1)}{n3},(2,\frac{n3}{2})}\right)\hookrightarrow {L}^{1}\left({\dot{B}}_{1}^{\infty ,(2,\frac{n}{2})}\right).$$ This last estimate follows at once from 45 . The check on the conditions 46 – 50 is left to the reader.$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel ({A}_{0},\{\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{\underline{A}}}\left\}\right)\parallel {L}^{1}\left({\dot{B}}_{1}^{\infty ,(2,\frac{n}{2})}\right)\lesssim NC{\epsilon}_{0}.\end{array}$$ (147) 
$\bullet $
Improving the curvature This is the final part of the proof of Proposition 6.1 . Recalling the schematic 131 and using the Strichartz estimates 130 , our goal here is to show the following four bounds:
$$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel [\nabla \stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{A}},F]\parallel {L}^{1}\left({\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}\right)& \lesssim {N}^{2}{C}^{2}{\epsilon}_{0}^{2},\end{array}$$ (148) $$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel [\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{A}},\nabla F]\parallel {L}^{1}\left({\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}\right)& \lesssim {N}^{2}{C}^{2}{\epsilon}_{0}^{2},\end{array}$$ (149) $$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel \left[\stackrel{~}{A},[\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{A}},F]\right]\parallel {L}^{1}\left({\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}\right)& \lesssim {N}^{2}{C}^{2}{\epsilon}_{0}^{2},\end{array}$$ (150) $$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel \left[\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{A}},[\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{A}},F]\right]\parallel {L}^{1}\left({\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}\right)& \lesssim {N}^{2}{C}^{2}{\epsilon}_{0}^{2},\end{array}$$ (151) $$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel [F,F]\parallel {L}^{1}\left({\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}\right)& \lesssim {N}^{2}{C}^{2}{\epsilon}_{0}^{2}.\end{array}$$ (152) $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ To prove these bounds, first notice that the estimates 148 and 150 – 152 are essentially identical. This follows from the equivalence (in terms of ${\dot{Y}}^{s}$ spaces) $\nabla \stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{A}}\approx F$ . We also have the equivalences $[\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{A}}]\approx F$ and $[\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{A}},\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{A}}]\approx F$ . These are given by the inclusion:
This is easily demonstrated, as we have already mentioned, by differentiating the inclusion 133 and using the boundedness of ${\nabla}_{x}^{2}{\Delta}^{1}$ on the various ${\dot{Y}}^{s}$ component spaces. Therefore, to prove 148 and 150 – 152 we only need to know that:$$\begin{array}{c}{\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}\cdot {\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}\subseteq {\dot{Y}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}.\end{array}$$ (153)
This is yet again a consequence of our general Besov calculus 45 , and we leave the various additions to the reader.$$\begin{array}{c}{L}^{2}\left({\dot{B}}_{2}^{\frac{2(n1)}{n3},(2,\frac{n3}{2})}\right)\cdot {L}^{2}\left({\dot{B}}_{2}^{\frac{2(n1)}{n3},(2,\frac{n3}{2})}\right)\hookrightarrow {L}^{1}\left({\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}\right).\end{array}$$ (154) Our final task here is to prove the estimate 149 . This needs to be frequency decomposed using a trichotomy. Specifically, we have the following set of fixed frequency estimates in the three cases (note that in the first two estimates below the square summing needs to be done inside the time integral):$$\begin{array}{cc}{P}_{\bullet \ll \lambda}\left({L}^{1}\left({\dot{B}}_{1}^{\infty ,(n,\frac{n}{2})}\right)\right)\cdot {P}_{\lambda}\left({L}^{\infty}\left({\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}\right)\right)& \hookrightarrow {P}_{\lambda}\left({L}^{1}\left({\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}\right)\right),\end{array}$$ (155) $$\begin{array}{cc}{P}_{\lambda}\left({L}^{2}({\dot{B}}_{2}^{\frac{2(n1)}{n3},(2,\frac{n1}{2})}\right)\cdot {P}_{\bullet \ll \lambda}\left({L}^{2}\left({\dot{B}}_{2}^{\frac{2(n1)}{n3},(2,\frac{n3}{2})}\right)\right)& \hookrightarrow {P}_{\lambda}\left({L}^{1}\left({\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}\right)\right),\end{array}$$ (156) $$\begin{array}{cc}{P}_{\lambda}\left({L}^{2}({\dot{B}}_{2}^{\frac{2(n1)}{n3},(2,\frac{n1}{2})}\right)\cdot {P}_{\lambda}\left({L}^{2}\left({\dot{B}}_{2}^{\frac{2(n1)}{n3},(2,\frac{n3}{2})}\right)\right)& \hookrightarrow {\left(\frac{\mu}{\lambda}\right)}^{\delta}{P}_{\mu}\left({L}^{1}\left({\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}\right)\right),\end{array}$$ (157) $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$
7 Reduction to Approximate HalfWave Operators
$$\begin{array}{c}{P}_{\lambda \lesssim \bullet}(\underline{A}\bullet \ll \lambda )=0,\end{array}$$  (158) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel {W}_{s}^{\lambda}({f}_{\lambda},{g}_{\lambda})\parallel {\dot{X}}^{0}\times {\partial}_{t}^{1}\left({\dot{X}}^{1}\right)& \lesssim {E}^{\frac{1}{2}}({f}_{\lambda},{g}_{\lambda}),\end{array}$$  (159a) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel {W}_{s}^{\lambda}({f}_{\lambda},{g}_{\lambda})\left(s\right){f}_{\lambda}\parallel {L}^{2}& \lesssim {\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}}^{\frac{1}{2}}{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}({f}_{\lambda},{g}_{\lambda}),\end{array}$$  (159b) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel {\partial}_{t}{W}_{s}^{\lambda}({f}_{\lambda},{g}_{\lambda})\left(s\right){g}_{\lambda}\parallel {L}^{2}& \lesssim \lambda {\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}}^{\frac{1}{2}}{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}({f}_{\lambda},{g}_{\lambda}),\end{array}$$  (159c) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel {\square}_{\underline{A}\bullet \ll \lambda}{W}_{s}^{\lambda}({f}_{\lambda},{g}_{\lambda})\parallel {L}^{1}\left({L}^{2}\right)& \lesssim \lambda \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}({f}_{\lambda},{g}_{\lambda}).\end{array}$$  (159d) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 

Proof that Proposition 7.1 implies Theorem 6.2 .
The first step here is to reduce the estimate 130 to the case where
$G\equiv 0$
. This is done in the usual way via Duhamel's principle. We define the true propagation operator
${U}_{s}\left(t\right)$
via the formulas:
$$\begin{array}{cccc}{U}_{s}\left(s\right)(f,g)& =f,& {\partial}_{t}{U}_{s}\left(s\right)(f,g)& =g,\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$
solves the problem 128 – 129 . In particular, by Minkowski's triangle inequality we easily have that: $$\parallel {\int}_{0}^{t}{U}_{s}\left(t\right)(0,G(s\left)\right)ds\parallel {\dot{X}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}\times {\partial}_{t}^{1}\left({\dot{X}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}\right)\u2a7d{\int}_{0}^{\infty}\parallel {U}_{s}(0,G(s\left)\right)\parallel {\dot{X}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}\times {\partial}_{t}^{1}\left({\dot{X}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}\right)ds.$$ Therefore, we are trying to show:$$\begin{array}{c}F\left(t\right)={U}_{0}\left(t\right)(f,\dot{f})+{\int}_{0}^{t}{U}_{s}\left(t\right)(0,G(s\left)\right)ds,\end{array}$$ (160)
for any pair of functions $(f,g)$ and any initial time $s$ . Since it is easy to see that the conditions 126 are translation invariant, it suffices to show this estimates for $s=0$ .$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel {U}_{s}(f,g)\parallel {\dot{X}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}\times {\partial}_{t}^{1}\left({\dot{X}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}\right)\u2a7dC\parallel (f,g)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}\times {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}},\end{array}$$ (161) The estimate 161 will be shown using a bootstrapping procedure. This will be done inside of the compact intervals $[0,{T}^{*}]$ . What we will do is to first assume that 161 is true for all $0\u2a7ds\u2a7d{T}^{*}$ on all time intervals of the form $[0,s]$ and $[s,{T}^{*}]$ , where the constant on the left hand side of 161 is replaced by $2C$ . Our goal is then to improve the constant by proving the desired bound 161 on the time subintervals of $[0,{T}^{*}]$ . Once this is accomplished, we can easily extend the bound 161 $$ to all subintervals of a slightly larger time interval $[0,{T}^{*}+\gamma ]$ , where the constant $0<\gamma \ll 1$ is determined by the bound 127 . This is provided by the usual local existence theory based on energy and ${L}^{\infty}$ estimates. Once this is done, the bootstrapping closes. Notice again that, by using the local existence theory and the bound 127 , we may begin the argument for some very small time interval $[0,\gamma ]$ .We are now assuming that 161 holds on our time interval $[0,{T}^{*}]$ with constant $2C$ which we will decide on in a moment. We are working with a solution:
where the connection $d+\underline{A}$ satisfies 126 , and where we have the initial data:$$\begin{array}{c}{\square}_{\underline{A}}F=0,\end{array}$$ (162) $$\begin{array}{cccc}F\left(0\right)& =f,& {\partial}_{t}F\left(0\right)=g.& \end{array}$$ (163) $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}f& ={\sum}_{\lambda}{P}_{\lambda}\left(f\right)={\sum}_{\lambda}{f}_{\lambda},\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}g& ={\sum}_{\lambda}{P}_{\lambda}\left(g\right)={\sum}_{\lambda}{g}_{\lambda},\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$
To do this, we use the Duhamel formula 160 to express everything in terms of the operators ${U}_{s}\left(t\right)$ : $$F\left(t\right)\stackrel{~}{F}\left(t\right)={U}_{0}\left(t\right)\left(f\stackrel{~}{F}\left(0\right),g{\partial}_{t}\stackrel{~}{F}\left(0\right)\right){\int}_{0}^{t}{U}_{s}\left(t\right)\left(0,{\square}_{\underline{A}}\stackrel{~}{F}\left(s\right)\right)ds.$$ By combining the assumed estimate 161 and the approximation bounds 159b – 159c , we have that: $$\parallel {U}_{0}\left(f\stackrel{~}{F}\left(0\right),g{\partial}_{t}\stackrel{~}{F}\left(0\right)\right)\parallel {\dot{X}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}\times {\partial}_{t}^{1}\left({\dot{X}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}\right)\lesssim C{\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}}^{\frac{1}{2}}\parallel (f,g)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}\times {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}.$$ Therefore, by using Minkowski's triangle inequality and again using the bootstrapping assumption 161 , we see that in order to conclude 164 we only need to show the following remainder estimate on the time interval $[0,{T}^{*}]$ :$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel F\stackrel{~}{F}\parallel {\dot{X}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}\times {\partial}_{t}^{1}\left({\dot{X}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}\right)\u2a7d\frac{1}{2}C\parallel (f,g)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}\times {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}.\end{array}$$ (164)
To show the estimate 165 , we use a family of frequency cutoffs: $$I={P}_{\bullet \ll \lambda}+{P}_{\lambda \lesssim \bullet},$$ for each scale $\lambda $ such that they all have ${L}^{1}$ kernels with uniform bounds, and such that the cutoff ${P}_{\bullet \ll \lambda}$ is consistent with the definition of $d+\underline{A}\bullet \ll \lambda $ in the statement of Proposition 7.1 . This allows us to schematically write:$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel {\square}_{\underline{A}}\stackrel{~}{F}\parallel {L}^{1}\left({\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}\right)\lesssim C\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}\parallel (f,g)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}\times {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}.\end{array}$$ (165) (166) □ A ̲ F ~ = ∑ λ ( □ A ̲ ∙ ≪ λ F ~ λ + [ ∇ x A ̲ λ ≲ ∙ , F ~ λ ] + [ A ̲ λ ≲ ∙ , ∇ x F ~ λ ] + [ [ A ̲ ∙ ≪ λ , A ̲ λ ≲ ∙ ] , F ~ λ ] + [ [ A ̲ λ ≲ ∙ , A ̲ λ ≲ ∙ ] , F ~ λ ] ) . $$\begin{array}{cc}{\sum}_{\lambda}\parallel [{\nabla}_{x}\underline{A}\lambda \lesssim \bullet ,{\stackrel{~}{F}}_{\lambda}]\parallel {L}^{1}\left({\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}\right)\lesssim \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}\parallel (f,g)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}\times {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}},& \end{array}$$ (167) $$\begin{array}{cc}{\sum}_{\lambda}\parallel [\underline{A}\lambda \lesssim \bullet ,{\nabla}_{x}{\stackrel{~}{F}}_{\lambda}]\parallel {L}^{1}\left({\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}\right)\lesssim \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}\parallel (f,g)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}\times {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}},& \end{array}$$ (168) $$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel {\sum}_{\lambda}\left[[\underline{A}\bullet \ll \lambda ,\underline{A}\lambda \lesssim \bullet ],{\stackrel{~}{F}}_{\lambda}\right]\parallel {L}^{1}\left({\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}\right)\lesssim \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}\parallel (f,g)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}\times {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}},& \end{array}$$ (169) $$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel {\sum}_{\lambda}\left[[\underline{A}\lambda \lesssim \bullet ,\underline{A}\lambda \lesssim \bullet ],{\stackrel{~}{F}}_{\lambda}\right]\parallel {L}^{1}\left({\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}\right)\lesssim \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}\parallel (f,g)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}\times {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}.& \end{array}$$ (170) $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$
which follows at once from the fixed frequency estimate 53 which helps to generate the general estimate 45 . Notice that the proof of the second estimate 168 above is very similar to what we have just done. In fact, there is more room because the derivative is on the low frequency term. We leave the details to the reader.$$\begin{array}{c}{P}_{\mu}\left({L}^{2}\left({\dot{B}}_{2}^{\frac{2(n1)}{n3},(2,\frac{n3}{2})}\right)\right)\cdot {P}_{\lambda}\left({L}^{2}\left({\dot{B}}_{2}^{\frac{2(n1)}{n3},(2,\frac{n3}{2})}\right)\right)\hookrightarrow {\left(\frac{\lambda}{\mu}\right)}^{\delta}{L}^{1}\left({\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}\right),\end{array}$$ (171) It remains to prove the two estimates 169 – 170 . Since these follow from essentially identical reasoning, we concentrate on proving the second of these estimates. This one in fact requires a bit more work than the fist because it has more frequency overlap. Applying a trichotomy to the product, we see that it suffices to be able to show the following three estimates:$$\begin{array}{cc}& {\int}_{0}^{{T}^{*}}{\left({\sum}_{\lambda}{\left({\sum}_{\mu :\mu \ll \lambda}\parallel \left[{P}_{\mu}\left(\right[\underline{A}\lambda \lesssim \bullet ,\underline{A}\lambda \lesssim \bullet \left]\right),{\stackrel{~}{F}}_{\lambda}\right]\left(s\right)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}\right)}^{2}\right)}^{\frac{1}{2}}ds\end{array}$$ (172) $$\begin{array}{cc}& \lesssim \parallel \underline{A}{\parallel}^{2}{\dot{X}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}\cdot \parallel (f,g)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}\times {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}},\end{array}$$ (173) $$\begin{array}{cc}& {\int}_{0}^{{T}^{*}}{\left({\sum}_{\mu}{\left({\sum}_{\lambda :\lambda \ll \mu}\parallel \left[{P}_{\mu}\left(\right[\underline{A}\lambda \lesssim \bullet ,\underline{A}\lambda \lesssim \bullet \left]\right),{\stackrel{~}{F}}_{\lambda}\right]\left(s\right)\parallel {L}^{1}\left({\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}\right)\right)}^{2}\right)}^{\frac{1}{2}}ds\end{array}$$ (174) $$\begin{array}{cc}& \lesssim \parallel \underline{A}{\parallel}^{2}{\dot{X}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}\cdot \parallel (f,g)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}\times {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}},\end{array}$$ (175) $$\begin{array}{cc}& {\sum}_{\lambda ,\mu :\lambda \sim \mu}\parallel \left[{P}_{\mu}\left(\right[\underline{A}\lambda \lesssim \bullet ,\underline{A}\lambda \lesssim \bullet \left]\right),{\stackrel{~}{F}}_{\lambda}\right]\parallel {L}^{1}\left({\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}\right)\end{array}$$ (176) $$\begin{array}{cc}& \lesssim \parallel \underline{A}{\parallel}^{2}{\dot{X}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}\cdot \parallel (f,g)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n4}{2}}\times {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}.\end{array}$$ (177) $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ $$\parallel \left[{P}_{\mu}\left(\right[\underline{A}\lambda \lesssim \bullet ,\underline{A}\lambda \lesssim \bullet \left]\right),{\stackrel{~}{F}}_{\lambda}\right]\left(s\right)\parallel {\dot{H}}^{\frac{n6}{2}}\lesssim {min}_{\pm}{\left(\frac{\lambda}{\mu}\right)}^{\pm \delta}\parallel {P}_{\mu}\left(\right[\underline{A}\lambda \lesssim \bullet ,\underline{A}\lambda \lesssim \bullet \left]\right)\left(s\right)\parallel {\dot{B}}^{\frac{2(n1)}{n3},(2,\frac{n3}{2})}\cdot \parallel {\stackrel{~}{F}}_{\lambda}\left(s\right)\parallel {\dot{B}}^{\frac{2(n1)}{n3},(2,\frac{n3}{2})},$$where $\delta $ is the same constant from estimate 171 . Indeed, this last line follows from the nontime integrated version of that estimate. Applying Young's inequality to this, integrating in time and applying CauchySchwartz, using the parametrix bound 159a , the product embedding 153 , and the fact that for each fixed value of $\lambda $ the multipliers ${P}_{\bullet \ll \lambda}$ and ${P}_{\lambda \lesssim \bullet}$ are bounded on the ${\dot{X}}^{s}$ spaces we arrive at the desired pair of estimates.It remains for us to prove the last estimate 177 above. After another application of the embedding 154 and a CauchySchwartz, followed by the parametrix estimate 159a , we are left with showing the bound: $${\left({\sum}_{\lambda ,\mu :\lambda \sim \mu}\parallel [{P}_{\mu}\left(\right[\underline{A}\lambda \lesssim \bullet ,\underline{A}\lambda \lesssim \bullet \left]\right){\parallel}^{2}{L}^{2}\left({\dot{B}}^{\frac{2(n1)}{n3},(2,\frac{n3}{2})}\right)\right)}^{\frac{1}{2}}\lesssim \parallel \underline{A}{\parallel}^{2}{\dot{X}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}.$$ This last estimate follows from applying a further trichotomy, and then using Young's inequality after reduction to the various fixed frequency versions of the product estimate 153 which are provided by the general fixed frequency estimates 51 – 51 . We leave the details to the diligent reader. This completes the proof of our reduction of Theorem 6.2 to Proposition 7.1 . □
$$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel \left({P}_{1}{\Phi}^{\pm}\left(\widehat{f}\right),{\Phi}^{\pm}\left(\widehat{f}\right)\right)\parallel {\dot{X}}^{0}\times {L}_{x}^{2}& \lesssim \parallel \widehat{f}\parallel {L}_{\xi}^{2},\end{array}$$  (178a) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel {\nabla}_{x}{\Phi}^{\pm}\left(\widehat{f}\right)\parallel {L}_{t}^{2}\left({L}_{x}^{\frac{2(n1)}{n3}}\right)& \lesssim \parallel \widehat{f}\parallel {L}_{\xi}^{2},\end{array}$$  (178b) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel {\partial}_{t}{P}_{1}{\Phi}^{\pm}\left(\widehat{f}\right)\mp {P}_{1}{\Phi}^{\pm}\left(2\pi i\right\xi \left\widehat{f}\right)\parallel {\dot{X}}^{0}& \lesssim \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}\parallel \widehat{f}\parallel {L}_{\xi}^{2},\end{array}$$  (178c) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel {\Phi}^{\pm}\left(0\right)\left(\left(2\pi \right\xi \left{)}^{\alpha}\right({\Phi}^{\pm}\left(0\right){)}^{*}\right)g(\Delta {)}^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}{P}_{1}(g)\parallel {L}_{x}^{2}& \lesssim {\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}}^{\frac{1}{2}}\parallel g\parallel {L}_{x}^{2},\end{array}$$  (178d) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel {\square}_{\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1}{\Phi}^{\pm}\left(\widehat{f}\right)\parallel {L}_{t}^{1}\left({L}_{x}^{2}\right)& \lesssim \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}\parallel \widehat{f}\parallel {L}_{\xi}^{2}.\end{array}$$  (178e) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 

Proof that Proposition 7.2 implies Proposition 7.1 .
This is a simple matter, and we explain it briefly. Notice first that it suffices to prove Proposition 7.1 on the scale
$\lambda =1$
because everything in sight is scale invariant. We now let
$({f}_{1},{g}_{1})$
be any pair of unit frequency initial data, and we define the approximate unit frequency wave propagator:
(179) W 0 1 ( f 1 , g 1 ) ( t ) = P 1 ( 1 2 Φ + ( t ) ( Φ + ( 0 ) ) * f 1 + 1 2 Φ − ( t ) ( Φ − ( 0 ) ) * f 1 + Φ + ( t ) ( 1 4 π i  ξ  ( Φ + ( 0 ) ) * ) g 1 − Φ − ( t ) ( 1 4 π i  ξ  ( Φ − ( 0 ) ) * ) g 1 ) . $$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel {\nabla}_{x}\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1\parallel {L}_{t}^{2}\left({L}_{x}^{n1}\right)& \lesssim \parallel \underline{A}\bullet \ll 1\parallel {\dot{X}}^{\frac{n2}{2}},\end{array}$$ (180) $$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel {\nabla}_{x}[\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1,\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1]\parallel {L}_{t}^{1}\left({L}_{x}^{\infty}\right)& \lesssim \parallel \underline{A}\bullet \ll 1{\parallel}^{2}{\dot{X}}^{\frac{n2}{2}}.\end{array}$$ (181) $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$
8 Construction of the half wave operators
$$\begin{array}{cccc}\omega {u}^{+}& =t+\omega \cdot x,& \omega {u}^{}& =t+\omega \cdot x.\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}\omega {L}^{+}& ={\nabla}_{t}+\omega \cdot {\nabla}_{x},& \omega {L}^{}& ={\nabla}_{t}+\omega \cdot {\nabla}_{x}.\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{c}{\square}_{\omega A}\left({e}^{2\pi i\lambda \omega {u}_{\pm}}\widehat{f}\right)={e}^{2\pi i\lambda \omega {u}_{\pm}}\cdot \left(4\pi i\lambda \left[\omega A\left(\omega {L}^{\mp}\right),\widehat{f}\right]+{D}_{\alpha}^{\omega A}\left[\omega {A}^{\alpha},\widehat{f}\right]\right).\end{array}$$  (182) 
$$\begin{array}{cccc}\omega {A}^{+}\left(\omega {L}^{}\right)& =0,& \omega {A}^{}\left(\omega {L}^{+}\right)& =0.\end{array}$$  (183) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{c}{\Phi}^{\pm}\left(\widehat{f}\right)={\int}_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n}}{e}^{2\pi i\lambda \omega {u}^{\pm}}\omega {g}_{\pm}^{1}\widehat{f}\left(\lambda \omega \right)\omega {g}_{\pm}{\chi}_{(\frac{1}{2},2)}\left(\lambda \right){\lambda}^{n1}d\lambda d\omega ,\end{array}$$  (184) 
$$\begin{array}{c}\omega {B}^{\pm}=\omega {g}_{\pm}{\underline{A}}_{\bullet \ll 1}\left(\omega {g}_{\pm}^{1}\right)+\omega {g}_{\pm}d\left(\omega {g}_{\pm}^{1}\right),\end{array}$$  (185) 
$$\begin{array}{c}\omega {L}^{\mp}\omega {B}_{\alpha}^{\pm}={F}^{\omega {B}^{\pm}}(\omega {L}^{\mp},{\partial}_{\alpha}).\end{array}$$  (186) 
$$\begin{array}{c}\square =\omega {L}^{\pm}\omega {L}^{\mp}+{\Delta}_{{\omega}^{\perp}},\end{array}$$  (187) 
$$\begin{array}{c}\omega {B}_{\alpha}^{\pm}=\omega {L}^{\pm}{\Delta}_{{\omega}^{\perp}}^{1}{F}^{\omega {B}^{\pm}}(\omega {L}^{\mp},{\partial}_{\alpha}).\end{array}$$  (188) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}\omega {g}_{\pm}^{1}\omega {B}_{\alpha}^{\pm}\omega {g}_{\pm}& \approx \omega {L}^{\pm}{\Delta}_{{\omega}^{\perp}}^{1}{F}^{{\underline{A}}_{\bullet \ll 1}}(\omega {L}^{\mp},{\partial}_{\alpha}),\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{cc}& \approx ({\underline{A}}_{\bullet \ll 1}{)}_{\alpha}+{\nabla}_{\alpha}\omega {L}^{\pm}{\Delta}_{{\omega}^{\perp}}^{1}{\underline{A}}_{\bullet \ll 1}(\omega {L}^{\mp}).\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{c}\omega {g}_{\pm}^{1}d\left(\omega {g}_{\pm}\right)\approx \omega {\overline{\Pi}}^{(\frac{1}{2}\delta )}{\nabla}_{x}\omega {L}^{\pm}{\Delta}_{{\omega}^{\perp}}^{1}{\underline{A}}_{\bullet \ll 1}\left({\partial}_{\omega}\right).\end{array}$$  (189) 
$$\begin{array}{c}0<\gamma \ll \delta \ll 1,\end{array}$$  (190) 
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel \omega {\overline{\Pi}}^{(\frac{1}{2}\delta )}{\nabla}_{x}\omega {L}^{\pm}{\Delta}_{{\omega}^{\perp}}^{1}\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1\left({\partial}_{\omega}\right)\parallel {L}^{n}\lesssim \mathcal{\mathcal{E}},\end{array}$$  (191) 
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel \omega {\overline{\Pi}}^{(\frac{1}{2}\delta )}{\nabla}_{x}\omega {L}^{\pm}{\Delta}_{{\omega}^{\perp}}^{1}\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1\left({\partial}_{\omega}\right)\parallel {\dot{B}}_{2,10n}^{{p}_{\gamma},(2,\frac{n2}{2})}\lesssim \mathcal{\mathcal{E}},\end{array}$$  (192) 
$$\begin{array}{c}{p}_{\gamma}=\frac{2(n1)}{n32\gamma}.\end{array}$$  (193) 
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel \omega {\Pi}_{\theta}{\nabla}_{x}\omega {L}^{\pm}{\Delta}_{{\omega}^{\perp}}^{1}(\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1{)}_{\mu}({\partial}_{\omega})\parallel {L}^{{p}_{\gamma}}\lesssim {\theta}^{\gamma}{\mu}^{n(\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{{p}_{\gamma}})}\parallel (\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1{)}_{\mu}\parallel {L}^{2}.\end{array}$$  (194) 
$$\begin{array}{c}\omega {\Pi}_{\theta}{\nabla}_{x}\omega {L}^{\pm}{\Delta}_{{\omega}^{\perp}}^{1}{S}_{\left\tau \right\lesssim \left\xi \right}{P}_{\mu}\approx {\theta}^{2}{P}_{\mu},\end{array}$$  (195) 
$$\begin{array}{c}\omega {\Pi}_{\theta}\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1\left({\partial}_{\omega}\right)={\nabla}_{\omega}^{1}\omega {\Pi}_{\theta}/{d}^{*}/\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1\approx \theta \omega {\Pi}_{\theta}/\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1.\end{array}$$  (196) 
$$\begin{array}{c}\omega {\underline{A}}^{\pm}=\omega {\overline{\Pi}}^{(\frac{1}{2}\delta )}{\nabla}_{x}\omega {L}^{\pm}{\Delta}_{{\omega}^{\perp}}^{1}{\underline{A}}_{\bullet \ll 1}\left({\partial}_{\omega}\right).\end{array}$$  (197) 
$$\begin{array}{c}\omega {g}_{\pm}^{1}\omega {B}^{\pm}\omega {g}_{\pm}={\underline{A}}_{\bullet \ll 1}{}^{\omega}{C}^{\pm},\end{array}$$  (198) 
$$\begin{array}{c}\omega {g}_{\pm}^{1}d\left(\omega {g}_{\pm}\right){=}^{\omega}{C}^{\pm}.\end{array}$$  (199) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}(\omega {\underline{C}}^{\pm}{)}^{df}& ={d}^{*}{\Delta}^{1}[\omega {\underline{C}}^{\pm},\omega {\underline{C}}^{\pm}],\end{array}$$  (200a) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}(\omega {\underline{C}}^{\pm}{)}^{cf}& =\omega {\underline{A}}^{\pm}{\nabla}_{x}{\Delta}^{1}[\omega {\underline{A}}^{\pm},\omega {\underline{C}}^{\pm}].\end{array}$$  (200b) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{c}{}^{\omega}{C}_{0}^{\pm}=\omega {A}_{0}^{\pm}{\nabla}_{t}{\Delta}^{1}[\omega {\underline{A}}^{\pm},\omega {\underline{C}}^{\pm}]{d}^{*}{\Delta}^{1}{[}^{\omega}{C}_{0}^{\pm},\omega {\underline{C}}^{\pm}],\end{array}$$  (201) 
$$\begin{array}{c}{}^{\omega}{C}^{\pm}={\nabla}_{t,x}\omega {\overline{\Pi}}^{(\frac{1}{2}\delta )}\omega {L}^{\pm}{\Delta}_{{\omega}^{\perp}}^{1}\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1\left({\partial}_{\omega}\right)+\{QuadraticError\}.\end{array}$$  (202) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}& {\square}_{\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1}{\Phi}^{\pm}\left(\widehat{f}\right)\end{array}$$  (203) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}=& 4\pi i{\int}_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n}}{e}^{2\pi i\lambda \omega {u}^{\pm}}\left[\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1\left(\omega {L}^{\mp}\right){}^{\omega}{C}^{\pm}\left(\omega {L}^{\mp}\right),\omega {g}_{\pm}^{1}\widehat{f}\left(\lambda \omega \right)\omega {g}_{\pm}\right]{\chi}_{({2}^{1},2)}\left(\lambda \right){\lambda}^{n}d\lambda d\omega \end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{cc}& {\int}_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n}}{e}^{2\pi i\lambda \omega {u}^{\pm}}\left[{D}_{\alpha}^{\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1}{\left({}^{\omega}{C}^{\pm}\right)}^{\alpha},\omega {g}_{\pm}^{1}\widehat{f}\left(\lambda \omega \right)\omega {g}_{\pm}\right]{\chi}_{({2}^{1},2)}\left(\lambda \right){\lambda}^{n1}d\lambda d\omega \end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{cc}& +{\int}_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n}}{e}^{2\pi i\lambda \omega {u}^{\pm}}\left[{\underline{A}}^{\alpha}\bullet \ll 1{(}^{\omega}{C}^{\pm}{)}^{\alpha},\left[(\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1{)}_{\alpha}{}^{\omega}{C}_{\alpha}^{\pm},\omega {g}_{\pm}^{1}\widehat{f}(\lambda \omega )\omega {g}_{\pm}\right]\right]{\chi}_{({2}^{1},2)}\left(\lambda \right){\lambda}^{n1}d\lambda d\omega .\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{cc}& \underline{A}\bullet \ll 1\left(\omega {L}^{\mp}\right){}^{\omega}{C}^{\pm}\left(\omega {L}^{\mp}\right),\end{array}$$  (204) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}=& \underline{A}\bullet \ll 1\left({\partial}_{\omega}\right)+\omega {\Pi}^{(\frac{1}{2}\delta )}\omega {L}^{\mp}\omega {L}^{\pm}{\Delta}_{{\omega}^{\perp}}^{1}\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1\left({\partial}_{\omega}\right)+\{\mathit{Q}\mathit{u}\mathit{a}\mathit{d}\mathit{r}\mathit{a}\mathit{t}\mathit{i}\mathit{c}\mathit{E}\mathit{r}\mathit{r}\mathit{o}\mathit{r}\},\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{cc}=& (I\omega {\Pi}^{(\frac{1}{2}\delta )})\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1\left({\partial}_{\omega}\right)+\{\mathit{Q}\mathit{u}\mathit{a}\mathit{d}\mathit{r}\mathit{a}\mathit{t}\mathit{i}\mathit{c}\mathit{E}\mathit{r}\mathit{r}\mathit{o}\mathit{r}\}.\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 

Proof of the error identity 203 .
The proof is a simple consequence of using gauge transformations in conjunction with the identity 182 . Applying the truncated covariant wave operator, and differentiating under the integral sign, we see that: 203Notice that the equality on the last line follows from: $${\nabla}_{\alpha}\left(\omega {g}_{\pm}^{1}\widehat{f}\omega {g}_{\pm}\right)=\left[\omega {g}_{\pm}^{1}\widehat{f}\omega {g}_{\pm}{,}^{\omega}{C}_{\alpha}^{\pm}\right],$$ which is a consequence of line 199 above, followed by the Jacobi identity:
$$\begin{array}{cc}& {\square}_{\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1}{\Phi}_{f}^{\pm},\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}=& {\int}_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n}}{\square}_{\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1}\left({e}^{2\pi i\lambda \omega {u}^{\pm}}\omega {g}_{\pm}^{1}\widehat{f}\left(\lambda \omega \right)\omega {g}_{\pm}\right){\chi}_{({2}^{1},2)}\left(\lambda \right){\lambda}^{n1}d\lambda d\omega ,\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}=& {\int}_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n}}\omega {g}_{\pm}^{1}{\square}_{\omega {B}^{\pm}}\left({e}^{2\pi i\lambda \omega {u}^{\pm}}\widehat{f}\left(\lambda \omega \right)\right)\omega {g}_{\pm}{\chi}_{({2}^{1},2)}\left(\lambda \right){\lambda}^{n1}d\lambda d\omega ,\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}=& {\int}_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n}}{e}^{2\pi i\lambda \omega {u}_{\pm}}\omega {g}_{\pm}^{1}\left(4\pi i\lambda \left[\omega {B}^{\pm}\left(\omega {L}^{\mp}\right),\widehat{f}\right]+{D}_{\alpha}^{\omega {B}^{\pm}}\left[\omega {{B}^{\pm}}^{\alpha},\widehat{f}\right]\right)\omega {g}_{\pm}{\chi}_{({2}^{1},2)}\left(\lambda \right){\lambda}^{n1}d\lambda d\omega ,\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}=& 4\pi i{\int}_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n}}{e}^{2\pi i\lambda \omega {u}_{\pm}}\left[\omega {g}_{\pm}^{1}\omega {B}^{\pm}\left(\omega {L}^{\mp}\right)\omega {g}_{\pm},\omega {g}_{\pm}^{1}\widehat{f}\omega {g}_{\pm}\right]{\lambda}^{n1}{\chi}_{({2}^{1},2)}\left(\lambda \right)d\lambda d\omega \end{array}$$ (205) $$\begin{array}{cc}& +{\int}_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n}}{e}^{2\pi i\lambda \omega {u}_{\pm}}{D}_{\alpha}^{\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1}\left[\omega {g}_{\pm}^{1}\omega {{B}^{\pm}}^{\alpha}\omega {g}_{\pm},\omega {g}_{\pm}^{1}\widehat{f}\omega {g}_{\pm}\right]{\lambda}^{n1}{\chi}_{({2}^{1},2)}\left(\lambda \right)d\lambda d\omega ,\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}=& 4\pi i{\int}_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n}}{e}^{2\pi i\lambda \omega {u}_{\pm}}\left[\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1\left(\omega {L}^{\mp}\right){}^{\omega}{C}^{\pm}\left(\omega {L}^{\mp}\right),\omega {g}_{\pm}^{1}\widehat{f}\omega {g}_{\pm}\right]{\lambda}^{n1}{\chi}_{({2}^{1},2)}\left(\lambda \right)d\lambda d\omega \end{array}$$ (206) $$\begin{array}{cc}& {\int}_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n}}{e}^{2\pi i\lambda \omega {u}_{\pm}}\left[{\nabla}_{\alpha}{(}^{\omega}{C}^{\pm}{)}^{\alpha},\omega {g}_{\pm}^{1}\widehat{f}\omega {g}_{\pm}\right]{\lambda}^{n1}{\chi}_{({2}^{1},2)}\left(\lambda \right)d\lambda d\omega \end{array}$$ (207) $$\begin{array}{cc}& +{\int}_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n}}{e}^{2\pi i\lambda \omega {u}_{\pm}}\left[(\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1{)}_{\alpha}{}^{\omega}{C}_{\alpha}^{\pm},{\nabla}^{\alpha}\left(\omega {g}_{\pm}^{1}\widehat{f}\omega {g}_{\pm}\right)\right]{\lambda}^{n1}{\chi}_{({2}^{1},2)}\left(\lambda \right)d\lambda d\omega \end{array}$$ (208) $$\begin{array}{cc}& +{\int}_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n}}{e}^{2\pi i\lambda \omega {u}_{\pm}}\left[(\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1{)}^{\alpha},[(\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1{)}_{\alpha}{}^{\omega}{C}_{\alpha}^{\pm},\omega {g}_{\pm}^{1}\widehat{f}\omega {g}_{\pm}]\right]{\lambda}^{n1}{\chi}_{({2}^{1},2)}\left(\lambda \right)d\lambda d\omega \end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}=& (L.H.S.).\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}& \left[(\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1{)}^{\alpha}{(}^{\omega}{C}^{\pm}{)}^{\alpha},[\omega {g}_{\pm}^{1}\widehat{f}\omega {g}_{\pm}{,}^{\omega}{C}_{\alpha}^{\pm}]\right],\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}=& \left[{}^{\omega}{C}_{\alpha}^{\pm},\left[\right(\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1{)}^{\alpha}{(}^{\omega}{C}^{\pm}{)}^{\alpha},\omega {g}_{\pm}^{1}\widehat{f}\omega {g}_{\pm}]\right]\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}& \left[\omega {g}_{\pm}^{1}\widehat{f}\omega {g}_{\pm},{[}^{\omega}{C}_{\alpha}^{\pm},(\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1{)}^{\alpha}{(}^{\omega}{C}^{\pm}{)}^{\alpha}]\right],\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}=& \left[{}^{\omega}{C}_{\alpha}^{\pm},\left[\right(\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1{)}^{\alpha}{(}^{\omega}{C}^{\pm}{)}^{\alpha},\omega {g}_{\pm}^{1}\widehat{f}\omega {g}_{\pm}]\right]\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}& \left[\left[\right(\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1{)}_{\alpha},{(}^{\omega}{C}^{\pm}{)}^{\alpha}],\omega {g}_{\pm}^{1}\widehat{f}\omega {g}_{\pm}]\right].\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$
^{5 } For those who are familiar with this kind of problem, this is precisely a reduction to the famous $Low\times High$ frequency interaction ${\underline{A}}^{\alpha}\bullet \ll 1{\nabla}_{\alpha}{\Phi}_{1}$ .
^{6 } This would end up being the usual a frequency based Hadamard parametrix for the operator ${\square}_{\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1}$ .
^{7 } This is an artifact of the critical nature of the problem.
^{8 } It is very much our philosophy here that this problem is essentially equivalent to wavemaps after a microlocalization.
9 Fixed Time ${L}^{2}$ Estimates for the Parametrix
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel T\left(\widehat{f}\right)\parallel {L}^{2}\lesssim \parallel \widehat{f}\parallel {L}^{2}.\end{array}$$  (209) 
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel T{T}^{*}\left(f\right)\parallel {L}^{2}\lesssim \parallel f\parallel {L}^{2},\end{array}$$  (210) 
$$\begin{array}{c}{K}^{T{T}^{*}}(x,y)={\int}_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n}}{e}^{2\pi i(xy)\cdot \xi}\omega {g}^{1}\left(x\right)\omega g\left(y\right)\left[\bullet \right]\omega {g}^{1}\left(y\right)\omega g\left(x\right)\chi \left(\xi \right)d\xi ,\end{array}$$  (211) 
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel {K}^{T{T}^{*}}\parallel {L}_{y}^{\infty}\left({L}_{x}^{1}\right),\parallel {K}^{T{T}^{*}}\parallel {L}_{x}^{\infty}\left({L}_{y}^{1}\right)\lesssim 1.\end{array}$$  (212) 
$$\begin{array}{c}{\mathcal{D}}_{\sigma}=\left\{\rightxy\sim \sigma \sigma ={2}^{i},i\in \mathbb{N}\}.\end{array}$$  (213) 
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel {K}_{\sigma}^{T{T}^{*}}\parallel {L}_{y}^{\infty}\left({L}_{x}^{1}\right)\lesssim {\sigma}^{\gamma},\end{array}$$  (214) 
$$\begin{array}{c}{K}_{\sigma}^{T{T}^{*}}={\stackrel{~}{K}}_{\sigma}^{T{T}^{*}}+{\mathcal{\mathcal{R}}}_{\sigma}^{T{T}^{*}}.\end{array}$$  (215) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}\left{\stackrel{~}{K}}_{\sigma}^{T{T}^{*}}\right(x,y\left)\right& \lesssim xy{}^{(n+\gamma )},\end{array}$$  (216) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel {\mathcal{\mathcal{R}}}_{\sigma}^{T{T}^{*}}\parallel {L}_{y}^{\infty}\left({L}_{x}^{1}\right)& \lesssim {\sigma}^{\gamma}.\end{array}$$  (217) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\omega {\underline{A}}^{\left(\sigma \right)}}=\omega {\overline{\Pi}}_{{\sigma}^{1+\gamma}<\bullet}\omega {\overline{\Pi}}^{(\frac{1}{2}\delta )}{\nabla}_{x}\omega L{\Delta}_{{\omega}^{\perp}}^{1}\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1\left({\partial}_{\omega}\right),\end{array}$$  (218) 
$$\begin{array}{c}{\stackrel{~}{\omega g}}^{1}d\left(\stackrel{~}{\omega g}\right)=\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}}.\end{array}$$  (219) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}(\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}}{)}^{df}& ={d}^{*}{\Delta}^{1}[\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}},\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}}],\end{array}$$  (220a) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}(\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}}{)}^{cf}& =\stackrel{~}{\omega {\underline{A}}^{\left(\sigma \right)}}{\nabla}_{x}{\Delta}^{1}[\stackrel{~}{\omega {\underline{A}}^{\left(\sigma \right)}},\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}}].\end{array}$$  (220b) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{c}\omega g=\omega h\stackrel{~}{\omega g}.\end{array}$$  (221) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}d\left(\omega h\right)& =d\left(\omega g\right){\stackrel{~}{\omega g}}^{1}+gd\left({\stackrel{~}{\omega g}}^{1}\right),\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{cc}& =\omega h\stackrel{~}{\omega g}\left(\omega \underline{C}\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}}\right){\stackrel{~}{\omega g}}^{1}.\end{array}$$  (222) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}}}=\omega \underline{C}\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}}.\end{array}$$  (223) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}(\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}}}{)}^{df}& ={d}^{*}{\Delta}^{1}\left([\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}},\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}}}]+[\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}}},\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}}]\right),\end{array}$$  (224a) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}(\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}}}{)}^{cf}& =\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{A}}\stackrel{~}{\omega {\underline{A}}^{\left(\sigma \right)}}{\nabla}_{x}{\Delta}^{1}\left([\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{A}}\stackrel{~}{\omega {\underline{A}}^{\left(\sigma \right)}},\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}}]+[\stackrel{~}{\omega {\underline{A}}^{\left(\sigma \right)}},\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}}}]\right),\end{array}$$  (224b) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{c}\omega \underline{A}\stackrel{~}{\omega {\underline{A}}^{\left(\sigma \right)}}=\omega {\overline{\Pi}}_{\bullet \u2a7d{\sigma}^{1+\gamma}}\omega {\overline{\Pi}}^{(\frac{1}{2}\delta )}{\nabla}_{x}\omega L{\Delta}_{{\omega}^{\perp}}^{1}\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1\left({\partial}_{\omega}\right),\end{array}$$  (225) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}\omega {g}^{1}\left(x\right)\omega g\left(y\right)& ={\stackrel{~}{\omega g}}^{1}\left(x\right)\stackrel{~}{\omega g}\left(y\right)+{\stackrel{~}{\omega g}}^{1}\left(x\right)\left(\omega {h}^{1}\left(x\right)\omega h\left(y\right)I\right)\stackrel{~}{\omega g}\left(y\right),\end{array}$$  (226) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}\omega {g}^{1}\left(y\right)\omega g\left(x\right)& ={\stackrel{~}{\omega g}}^{1}\left(y\right)\stackrel{~}{\omega g}\left(x\right)+{\stackrel{~}{\omega g}}^{1}\left(y\right)\left(\omega {h}^{1}\left(y\right)\omega h\left(x\right)I\right)\stackrel{~}{\omega g}\left(x\right).\end{array}$$  (227) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{c}{\stackrel{~}{K}}^{T{T}^{*}}(x,y)={\int}_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n}}{e}^{2\pi i(xy)\cdot \xi}{\stackrel{~}{\omega g}}^{1}\left(x\right)\stackrel{~}{\omega g}\left(y\right)\left[\bullet \right]{\stackrel{~}{\omega g}}^{1}\left(y\right)\stackrel{~}{\omega g}\left(x\right)\chi \left(\xi \right)d\xi ,\end{array}$$  (228) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}{\chi}_{{\mathcal{D}}_{\sigma}}\parallel {\nabla}_{\xi}^{k}\left({\stackrel{~}{\omega g}}^{1}\left(x\right)\stackrel{~}{\omega g}\left(y\right)\right)\parallel \lesssim \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}\cdot {\sigma}^{k(1\gamma )},& \end{array}$$  (229) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}{\chi}_{{\mathcal{D}}_{\sigma}}\parallel {\nabla}_{\xi}^{k}\left({\stackrel{~}{\omega g}}^{1}\left(y\right)\stackrel{~}{\omega g}\left(x\right)\right)\parallel \lesssim \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}\cdot {\sigma}^{k(1\gamma )}.& \end{array}$$  (230) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 
$$\begin{array}{c}\left(\rightts+xy{)}^{\frac{1}{2}}\u2a7dM\u2a7dts+xy.\end{array}$$  (231) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel {\nabla}_{\xi}^{k}\left({\stackrel{~}{\omega g}}^{1}(t,x)\stackrel{~}{\omega g}(s,y)\right)\parallel \lesssim \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}\cdot {M}^{k},& \end{array}$$  (232) 
$$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel {\nabla}_{\xi}^{k}\left({\stackrel{~}{\omega g}}^{1}(s,y)\stackrel{~}{\omega g}(t,x)\right)\parallel \lesssim \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}\cdot {M}^{k}.& \end{array}$$  (233) 
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ 

Proof of the estimates 232 – 233 .
It suffices for us to prove the first bound 232 , as the second follows from virtually identical reasoning. The goal is to reduce this via an ODE bootstrapping type argument to an associated estimate involving the connection
$\left\{\stackrel{~}{{}^{\omega}C}\right\}$
. This associated estimate will then be proved by another bootstrapping argument in certain mixed LebesgueBesov spaces naturally associated with the ODE problem from the first step. The goal of the second bootstrapping will be to reduce things to proving the Besov estimates for the connection
$\{\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1\}$
which appears as the linear term on the right hand side of the Hodge system 220a . Before proceeding, we first make a preliminary reduction on the product ${\stackrel{~}{\omega g}}^{1}(t,x)\stackrel{~}{\omega g}(s,y)$ .We would like be set up as to only have to handle products which involve the same space or same time variables. This is easily accomplished via the product decomposition:
It is clear that if we can produce the bounds 232 for each of the terms on the right hand side of 234 separately, then by the product rule for derivatives we have the estimate 232 for the full term. Since they require slightly different arguments, we will proceed separately for each of these two factors.$$\begin{array}{c}{\stackrel{~}{\omega g}}^{1}(t,x)\stackrel{~}{\omega g}(s,y)={\stackrel{~}{\omega g}}^{1}(t,x)\stackrel{~}{\omega g}(t,y)\cdot {\stackrel{~}{\omega g}}^{1}(t,y)\stackrel{~}{\omega g}(s,y).\end{array}$$ (234) Our first task is to prove the bound 232 for the spatial product ${\stackrel{~}{\omega g}}^{1}(t,x)\stackrel{~}{\omega g}(t,y)$ .This will be done inductively with respect to the value of $k$ . Since we will proceed via a bootstrapping type procedure, we first assume that we can prove the desired bounds over small intervals and then try to use this knowledge to extend things to longer intervals. To do this, we differentiate the product ${\stackrel{~}{\omega g}}^{1}(t,\ell )\stackrel{~}{\omega g}(t,y)$ , where $[y,\ell ]$ is some shorter line segment inside of $[y,x]$ , with respect to the operators $({M}^{1}{\nabla}_{\xi}{)}^{k}$ . This yields the equation:(235) ( M − 1 ∇ ξ ) k ( ω g ~ − 1 ( ℓ ) ω g ~ ( y ) ) = ∑ i = 0 k − 1 ( M − 1 ∇ ξ ) k − i ( ω g ~ − 1 ( ℓ ) ω g ~ ( x 1 ) ) ⋅ ( M − 1 ∇ ξ ) i ( ω g ~ − 1 ( x 1 ) ω g ~ ( y ) ) + ( ω g ~ − 1 ( ℓ ) ω g ~ ( x 1 ) ) ⋅ ( M − 1 ∇ ξ ) k ( ω g ~ − 1 ( x 1 ) ω g ~ ( y ) ) . (236)  ∥ ( M − 1 ∇ ξ ) k ( ω g ~ − 1 ( ℓ ) ω g ~ ( y ) ) ∥ − ∥ ( M − 1 ∇ ξ ) k ( ω g ~ − 1 ( x 1 ) ω g ~ ( y ) ) ∥  ⩽ ∑ i = 0 k − 1 ∥ ( M − 1 ∇ ξ ) k − i ( ω g ~ − 1 ( ℓ ) ω g ~ ( x 1 ) ) ∥ ⋅ ∥ ( M − 1 ∇ ξ ) i ( ω g ~ − 1 ( x 1 ) ω g ~ ( y ) ) ∥ .
where we have the important restriction $1\u2a7dki$ . We do this by using the fact that the gauge equation 219 gives us an explicit realization of the product ${\stackrel{~}{\omega g}}^{1}(\ell )\stackrel{~}{\omega g}\left({x}_{1}\right)$ as an integral over the interval $[{x}_{1},\ell ]$ :$$\begin{array}{c}{lim}_{{x}_{1}\to \ell}{x}_{1}\ell {}^{1}\cdot \parallel ({M}^{1}{\nabla}_{\xi}{)}^{ki}\left({\stackrel{~}{\omega g}}^{1}(\ell )\stackrel{~}{\omega g}\left({x}_{1}\right)\right)\parallel ,\end{array}$$ (237)
Here the $\alpha (\ell )$ index denotes the component of the connection $\left\{\omega \underline{C}\right\}$ in the direction of the line segment $[y,x]$ . Plugging this last expression into the limit 237 and using the fundamental theorem of calculus on the resulting identity we arrive at the simple equation: 237$$\begin{array}{c}{\stackrel{~}{\omega g}}^{1}(\ell )\stackrel{~}{\omega g}\left({x}_{1}\right)={\int}_{{x}_{1}}^{\ell}{\stackrel{~}{\omega g}}^{1}\left({x}_{1}\right)\stackrel{~}{\omega g}\left(s\right){\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}}}_{\alpha (\ell )}\left(s\right)ds+I.\end{array}$$ (238)
Notice that the identity matrix on line 238 drops out because of the condition $1\u2a7dki$ , and that all terms where the derivatives fall on the group elements are zero because when ${x}_{1}=\ell $ these are again just derivatives of the identity matrix $I$ . Now, substituting 239 into the limiting version of 236 we have the differential inequality:$$\begin{array}{c}=\parallel ({M}^{1}{\nabla}_{\xi}{)}^{ki}\left({\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}}}_{\alpha (\ell )}(\ell )\right)\parallel .\end{array}$$ (239) (240)  ∥ ( M − 1 ∇ ξ ) k ( ω g ~ − 1 ( ℓ ) ω g ~ ( y ) ) ∥ ′  ⩽ ∑ i = 0 k − 1 ∥ ( M − 1 ∇ ξ ) k − i ( ω C ̲ ~ α ( ℓ ) ( ℓ ) ) ∥ ⋅ ∥ ( M − 1 ∇ ξ ) i ( ω g ~ − 1 ( ℓ ) ω g ~ ( y ) ) ∥ .
The reason this bound will be possible is that we have taken care to make sure that there is always at least one copy of the operator $\left({M}^{1}{\nabla}_{\xi}\right)$ in each of the above integrals, and it is the presence of the extra factor ${M}^{1}$ in conjunction with the range restriction 231 that will be enough to provide the needed integrability. In fact, using the condition that ${M}^{1}\u2a7dxy{}^{\frac{1}{2}}$ and the CauchySchwartz inequality, we see that it suffices to be able to prove the bound:$$\begin{array}{c}{\sum}_{i=0}^{k1}{\int}_{y}^{x}\parallel ({M}^{1}{\nabla}_{\xi}{)}^{ki}\left({\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}}}_{\alpha (\ell )}(\ell )\right)\parallel d\ell \lesssim \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}.\end{array}$$ (241)
This last integral can now be bounded in terms of energy type estimates once one applies the ${L}^{\infty}\to {L}^{2}$ trace theorem to it. However, because of the various angular degeneracies involved in the potentials $\left\{{\nabla}_{\xi}\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}}\right\}$ , it will be necessary for us to use a more refined “traceBernstein” type inequality. Furthermore, since the connection $\left\{\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}}\right\}$ is only defined implicitly via the Hodge system 220 , it will be necessary for us to prove estimate 242 via a bootstrapping argument in mixed Lebesgue spaces.$$\begin{array}{c}{\sum}_{i=0}^{k1}{\int}_{y}^{x}\parallel ({M}^{1}{\nabla}_{\xi}{)}^{i}{\nabla}_{\xi}\left({\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}}}_{\alpha (\ell )}(\ell )\right){\parallel}^{2}d\ell \lesssim {\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}}^{2}.\end{array}$$ (242) What we will do is to show the following somewhat more restrictive estimate which yields 242 as a consequence:Lemma 9.2. Let the connection $\left\{\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}}\right\}$ be defined via the Hodge system 220 :$$\begin{array}{cc}(\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}}{)}^{df}& ={d}^{*}{\Delta}^{1}[\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}},\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}}],\end{array}$$ (243a) $$\begin{array}{cc}(\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}}{)}^{cf}& =\stackrel{~}{\omega {\underline{A}}^{\left(M\right)}}{\nabla}_{x}{\Delta}^{1}[\stackrel{~}{\omega {\underline{A}}^{\left(M\right)}},\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}}].\end{array}$$ (243b) $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$
Furthermore, the parameter ${M}^{1}$ which lies in the range 231 (although this is not essential). Then the following mixed Lebesgue space estimates of Besov type hold:$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\omega {\underline{A}}^{\left(M\right)}}={\nabla}_{x}\omega {\overline{\Pi}}_{{M}^{1}<\bullet}\omega {\overline{\Pi}}^{(\frac{1}{2}\delta )}\omega L{\Delta}_{{\omega}^{\perp}}^{1}\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1\left({\partial}_{\omega}\right).\end{array}$$ (244) $$\begin{array}{c}{\sum}_{i=0}^{k1}{\sum}_{\mu}\parallel ({M}^{1}{\nabla}_{\xi}{)}^{i}{\nabla}_{\xi}{P}_{\mu}\left(\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}}\right)\parallel {L}_{{\ell}^{\perp}}^{\infty}({L}_{\ell}^{2})\lesssim \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}.\end{array}$$ (245) 
Proof of estimate 245 .
Things will be a bit easier if we prove the following more restrictive estimate:
That 245 is a consequence of 246 is a simple matter applying the Minkowski inequality for mixed Lebesgue spaces and the fact that the weights in 246 are clearly more restrictive. Now, the proof of this second estimate is essentially no more complicated than using the Bernstein inequality in the hyperplane plane ${\mathbb{R}}_{{\ell}^{\perp}}^{n1}$ to turn things into the energy estimate contained in the bootstrapping norm 126d .$$\begin{array}{c}{\sum}_{i=0}^{k1}{\sum}_{\mu}{\mu}^{\gamma}(1+\mu {)}^{n}\parallel ({M}^{1}{\nabla}_{\xi}{)}^{i}{\nabla}_{\xi}{P}_{\mu}\left(\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}}\right)\parallel {L}_{\ell}^{2}\left({L}_{{\ell}^{\perp}}^{\infty}\right)\lesssim \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}.\end{array}$$ (246) To see this, we begin our proof of 246 by first establishing this bound for the reduced Coulomb potentials $\left\{\stackrel{~}{\omega {\underline{A}}^{\left(M\right)}}\right\}$ .We are now trying to prove that:
For each fixed frequency in the above sum, we decompose things into all frequencies corresponding to the ${\mathbb{R}}_{{\ell}^{\perp}}^{n1}$ plane, as well as all possible dyadic angular sectors spread from the $\omega $ (fixed) direction: $${P}_{\mu}={\sum}_{\theta ,\lambda :\lambda \u2a7d\mu}\omega {\Pi}_{\theta}{Q}_{\lambda}{P}_{\mu},$$ where ${Q}_{\lambda}$ is an $(n1)$ dimensional fixed frequency multiplier which is defined in analogy with ${P}_{\lambda}$ . Freezing all frequencies, our goal will be to show the following estimate:$$\begin{array}{c}{\sum}_{j=0,1}{\sum}_{i=0}^{k1}{\sum}_{\mu}{\mu}^{\gamma}(1+\mu {)}^{n}\parallel ({M}^{1}{\nabla}_{\xi}{)}^{i}{\nabla}_{\xi}^{j}{P}_{\mu}\left(\stackrel{~}{\omega {\underline{A}}^{\left(M\right)}}\right)\parallel {L}_{\ell}^{2}\left({L}_{{\ell}^{\perp}}^{\infty}\right)\lesssim \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}.\end{array}$$ (247)
By adding in the weights ${\mu}^{\gamma}(1+\mu {)}^{n}$ , using the fact that the potentials $\left\{\stackrel{~}{\omega {\underline{A}}^{\left(M\right)}}\right\}$ are truncated to frequencies $\mu \ll 1$ , and dyadic summing, the fixed frequency estimate 248 implies 247 with room to spare. To deal with all of the $\xi $ derivatives, notice that we have the following heuristic multipliers bounds:$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel ({M}^{1}{\nabla}_{\xi}{)}^{i}{\nabla}_{\xi}^{j}\omega {\Pi}_{\theta}{Q}_{\lambda}{P}_{\mu}\left(\stackrel{~}{\omega {\underline{A}}^{\left(M\right)}}\right)\parallel {L}_{\ell}^{2}({L}_{{\ell}^{\perp}}^{\infty})\lesssim {\theta}^{\gamma}{\left(\frac{\lambda}{\mu}\right)}^{\gamma}{\mu}^{2\gamma}\cdot \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}.\end{array}$$ (248)
where we are enforcing the notation introduced on line 58 . That is, the left hand side of the above identity satisfies all mixed Lebesgue space bounds as the right hand side with the same constants. Notice that this bound uses the extra Coulomb savings introduced on line 196 above to kill off one power of ${\theta}^{1}$ from the degenerate Laplacean ${\Delta}_{{\omega}^{\perp}}$ . The other power of ${\theta}^{1}$ on the right hand side of 249 comes from the operator ${\nabla}_{\xi}$ which has no smoothing factor of ${M}^{1}$ . This is precisely what one pays for passing from the ${L}^{1}$ integral 241 to the more manageable ${L}^{2}$ integral 242 . Finally, it is important to point out that although we have not emphasized it, the multipliers ${Q}_{\lambda}$ depend on $\omega $ , but the fact that $\lambda \ll \theta $ implies that the multiplier product on the left hand side of 249 is zero prevents the derivatives of ${Q}_{\lambda}$ with respect to $\xi $ from costing more than derivatives of $\omega {\Pi}_{\theta}$ (alternatively, we could have applied the ${Q}_{\lambda}$ multipliers on the outside of the ${\nabla}_{\xi}^{k}$ operators, because differentiation will not change the support of the various multipliers).$$\begin{array}{c}({M}^{1}{\nabla}_{\xi}{)}^{i}{\nabla}_{\xi}^{j}\omega {\Pi}_{\theta}{Q}_{\lambda}{P}_{\mu}\left(\stackrel{~}{\omega {\underline{A}}^{\left(M\right)}}\right)\approx {\theta}^{2}\omega {\Pi}_{\theta}\omega {\overline{\Pi}}^{(\frac{1}{2}\delta )}{Q}_{\lambda}{P}_{\mu}\left(\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1\right),\end{array}$$ (249) Now, to use the Bernstein inequality on the ${\mathbb{R}}_{{\ell}^{\perp}}^{n1}$ plane, we simply note that one has the multiplier identity:
where ${}^{\omega \left\right{\ell}^{\perp}}{B}_{\left(\mu \theta \right)}$ is a (smooth symbol) block type cutoff in the ${\mathbb{R}}_{{\ell}^{\perp}}^{n1}$ frequency plane of dimensions $1\times \left(\mu \theta \right)\times \dots \times \left(\mu \theta \right)$ which has its long side centered along the projection^{9 } of the unit vector $\omega $ onto the ${\mathbb{R}}_{{\ell}^{\perp}}^{n1}$ (frequency) plane. The crucial fact about the geometry of the multiplier 250 is that is has support contained in a box of size $\lambda \times \left(\mu \theta \right)\times \dots \times \left(\mu \theta \right)$ in the ${\mathbb{R}}_{\xi}^{n1}$ (frequency) plane. Using now the identities 249 and 250 , as well as the $n1$ dimensional Bernstein inequality, we see that we may estimate:$$\begin{array}{c}\omega {\Pi}_{\theta}{Q}_{\lambda}{P}_{\mu}{=}^{\omega \left\right{\ell}^{\perp}}{B}_{\left(\mu \theta \right)}\omega {\Pi}_{\theta}{Q}_{\lambda}{P}_{\mu},\end{array}$$ (250) (251) ∥ ( M − 1 ∇ ξ ) i ∇ ξ j ω Π θ Q λ P μ ( ω A ̲ ( M ) ~ ) ∥ L ℓ 2 ( L ℓ ⊥ ∞ ) ≲ θ − 2 ⋅ λ 1 2 ( μ θ ) n − 2 2 ∥ P μ ( A ̲ ∙ ≪ 1 ) ∥ L 2 . It is now our task to use 247 and the Hodge system 243 to pass to the more general estimate 245 . In order to do this, it will be necessary for us to first prove some critical estimates for the potentials $\left\{\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}}\right\}$ . These will then be used as a reference point in certain bilinear estimates involving the space used to define estimate 245 .While we're at it, this will also give us a chance to prove some estimates which will be used many times in the sequel. What we will show is that:$$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel ({M}^{1}{\nabla}_{\xi}{)}^{k}\omega \underline{C}\parallel {\dot{B}}_{2,10n}^{{p}_{\gamma},(2,\frac{n2}{2})}& \lesssim \mathcal{\mathcal{E}},\end{array}$$ (252) $$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel ({M}^{1}{\nabla}_{\xi}{)}^{k}{\nabla}_{t}\omega \underline{C}\parallel {\dot{B}}_{2,10n}^{{p}_{\gamma},(2,\frac{n4}{2})}& \lesssim \mathcal{\mathcal{E}},\end{array}$$ (253) $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel ({M}^{1}{\nabla}_{\xi}{)}^{k}\stackrel{~}{\omega {\underline{A}}^{\left(M\right)}}\parallel {\dot{B}}_{2,10n}^{{p}_{\gamma},(2,\frac{n2}{2})}& \lesssim \mathcal{\mathcal{E}},\end{array}$$ (254) $$\begin{array}{cc}\parallel ({M}^{1}{\nabla}_{\xi}{)}^{k}{\nabla}_{t}\stackrel{~}{\omega {\underline{A}}^{\left(M\right)}}\parallel {\dot{B}}_{2,10n}^{{p}_{\gamma},(2,\frac{n4}{2})}& \lesssim \mathcal{\mathcal{E}},\end{array}$$ (255) $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}{\nabla}_{\xi}^{k}\left(\omega {\Pi}_{\theta}{P}_{\mu}\stackrel{~}{\omega {\underline{A}}^{\left(M\right)}}\right)& \approx {\theta}^{k}\omega {\Pi}_{\theta}\omega {\overline{\Pi}}_{{M}^{1}<\bullet}{P}_{\mu}{\nabla}_{x}\omega L{\Delta}_{{\omega}^{\perp}}^{1}\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1\left({\partial}_{\omega}\right),\end{array}$$ (256) $$\begin{array}{cc}{\nabla}_{\xi}^{k}\left(\omega {\Pi}_{\theta}{P}_{\mu}{\nabla}_{t}\stackrel{~}{\omega {\underline{A}}^{\left(M\right)}}\right)& \approx \mu {\theta}^{k}\omega {\Pi}_{\theta}\omega {\overline{\Pi}}_{{M}^{1}<\bullet}{P}_{\mu}{\nabla}_{x}\omega L{\Delta}_{{\omega}^{\perp}}^{1}\underline{A}\bullet \ll 1\left({\partial}_{\omega}\right),\end{array}$$ (257) $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ We now prove the estimates 252 – 253 by proceeding inductively on the value of $k$ . If $k=0$ the first estimate 252 holds because one can solve the system 243 via Picard iteration in the space ${\dot{B}}_{2,10n}^{{p}_{\gamma},(2,\frac{n2}{2})}$ thanks to the bilinear embedding 45 which furnishes the embedding:
The key thing to point out here is that for $\gamma $ sufficiently small, and in dimensions $6\u2a7dn$ we have the bound ${p}_{\gamma}<n$ , which is all that is needed to satisfy the gap condition 47 in this case. The other conditions of Lemma 4.1 are also easily seen to be satisfied for this set of indices.$$\begin{array}{c}{\nabla}_{x}{\Delta}^{1}:{\dot{B}}_{2,10n}^{{p}_{\gamma},(2,\frac{n2}{2})}\cdot {\dot{B}}_{2,10n}^{{p}_{\gamma},(2,\frac{n2}{2})}\hookrightarrow {\dot{B}}_{2,10n}^{{p}_{\gamma},(2,\frac{n2}{2})}.\end{array}$$ (258) To establish 252 for $0<k$ , we simply differentiate the system 243 $k$ times with respect to the operator $\left({M}^{1}{\nabla}_{\xi}\right)$ . Doing this yields the linearized set of equations:$$\begin{array}{cc}\left({M}^{1}{\nabla}_{\xi}{)}^{k}\right(\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}}{)}^{df}& ={\sum}_{j=0}^{k}{d}^{*}{\Delta}^{1}\left[({M}^{1}{\nabla}_{\xi}{)}^{kj}\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}},({M}^{1}{\nabla}_{\xi}{)}^{j}\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}}\right],\end{array}$$ (259) $$\begin{array}{cc}\left({M}^{1}{\nabla}_{\xi}{)}^{k}\right(\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}}{)}^{cf}& =({M}^{1}{\nabla}_{\xi}{)}^{k}\stackrel{~}{\omega {\underline{A}}^{\left(M\right)}}\end{array}$$ (260) $$\begin{array}{cc}& {\sum}_{j=0}^{k}{\nabla}_{x}{\Delta}^{1}\left[({M}^{1}{\nabla}_{\xi}{)}^{kj}\stackrel{~}{\omega {\underline{A}}^{\left(M\right)}},({M}^{1}{\nabla}_{\xi}{)}^{j}\stackrel{~}{\omega \underline{C}}\right],\end{array}$$ (261) $$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$ To prove the second estimate 253 above, we first apply the time derivative ${\nabla}_{t}$ to both sides of the system 259 – 261 above. The resulting system of equations, which we will not write down, can easily be solved in the derivative critical Besov space ${\dot{B}}_{2,10n}^{{p}_{\gamma},(2,\frac{n4}{2})}$ by again using an induction on $k$ , the already established estimate 255 for the linear term, and the following bilinear Besov estimate which is again a special case of 45 :
Notice that 262 is permissible because for $\gamma $ sufficiently small, we have the condition ${p}_{\gamma}<\frac{2n}{3}$ in dimensions $6\u2a7dn$ which is necessary to get around the gap condition 47 . The other conditions of 45 are easily satisfied for this choice of indices.$$\begin{array}{c}{\nabla}_{x}{\Delta}^{1}:{\dot{B}}_{2,10n}^{{p}_{\gamma},(2,\frac{n2}{2})}\cdot {\dot{B}}_{2,10n}^{{p}_{\gamma},(2,\frac{n4}{2})}\hookrightarrow {\dot{B}}_{2,10n}^{{p}_{\gamma},(2,\frac{n4}{2})}.\end{array}$$ (262) Armed with estimates 247 and 252 , we now move back to the proof of estimate 245 . We set the norm in that latter bound equal to: $$\parallel A\parallel {\mathcal{N}}_{1}^{\gamma ,2,\infty}={\sum}_{\mu}{\mu}^{\gamma}(1+\mu {)}^{n}\parallel {P}_{\mu}(A)\parallel {L}_{\ell}^{2}({L}_{{\ell}^{\perp}}^{\infty}).$$ By differentiating the system 243 with respect to the operators $({M}^{1}{\nabla}_{\xi}{)}^{k}{\nabla}_{\xi}$ , we see that the claim will now follow once we can prove the bilinear Riesz operator bound:
We now let $A$ and $C$ be any two elements of the two spaces on the left hand side of 263 . By applying the trichotomy, we see that it suffices to be able to prove the three estimates:$$\begin{array}{c}{\nabla}_{x}{\Delta}^{1}:{\dot{B}}_{2,10n}^{{p}_{\gamma},(2,\frac{n2}{2})}\cdot {\mathcal{N}}_{1}^{\gamma ,2,\infty}\hookrightarrow {\mathcal{N}}_{1}^{\gamma ,2,\infty}.\end{array}$$ (263) $$\begin{array}{cc}{\sum}_{\lambda ,{\mu}_{i}:{\mu}_{1}\ll {\mu}_{2}\lambda \sim {\mu}_{2}}{\lambda}^{\gamma}(1+\lambda {)}^{n}\parallel {\nabla}_{x}{\Delta}^{1}{P}_{\lambda}\left({P}_{{\mu}_{1}}A\cdot {P}_{{\mu}_{2}}C\right)\parallel {L}_{\ell}^{2}({L}_{{\ell}^{\perp}}^{\infty})& \lesssim \end{array}$$ (264) $$\begin{array}{cc}& \parallel A\parallel {\dot{B}}_{2,10n}^{{p}_{\gamma},(2,\frac{n2}{2})}\cdot \parallel C\parallel {\mathcal{N}}_{1}^{\gamma ,2,\infty},\end{array}$$ (265) $$\begin{array}{c}{\sum}_{\lambda ,{\mu}_{i}:{\mu}_{2}\ll {\mu}_{1}\lambda \sim {\mu}_{1}}{\lambda}^{\gamma}\end{array}$$

Proof of estimate 245 .
Things will be a bit easier if we prove the following more restrictive estimate: