Let now
${U}_{\alpha}{U}_{0}\sim \left\{{v}_{n}\right\}$
. Each function
${v}_{n}$
satisfies the homogeneous equation 3.2 and belongs to
$\mathcal{W}(\mathbb{R})$
and hence,
${v}_{n}\left(x\right)={C}_{n}{\eta}_{n}(x;\Lambda )$
. The coefficients
${C}_{n}$
are determined by the matching conditions for
${U}_{\alpha}$
. Since in view of 6.2
$$\begin{array}{c}(n+1/2{)}^{1/4}{C}_{n}={v}_{n}(0)={u}_{\alpha ,n}(0){u}_{0,n}(0)={u}_{\alpha ,n}(0)(2{\zeta}_{n}(\Lambda )(n+1/2{)}^{1/4}{)}^{1}{J}_{n}\end{array}$$ 
(6.3)

and the derivative
${u}_{0,n}^{\prime}$
is continuous at
$x=0$
, we get
$${u}_{\alpha ,n}^{\prime}(0+){u}_{\alpha ,n}^{\prime}(0)={v}_{n}^{\prime}(0+){v}_{n}^{\prime}(0)=2{\zeta}_{n}(\Lambda )(n+1/2{)}^{1/4}{C}_{n}=(n+1/2{)}^{1/4}{J}_{n}2{\zeta}_{n}(\Lambda ){u}_{\alpha ,n}\left(0\right).$$
It is convenient for us to denote
$${X}_{n}=(n+1/2{)}^{1/4}{u}_{\alpha ,n}(0),$$
then
$${u}_{\alpha ,n}^{\prime}(0+){u}_{\alpha ,n}^{\prime}(0)=(n+1/2{)}^{1/4}{J}_{n}2{\zeta}_{n}(\Lambda \left)\right(n+1/2{)}^{1/4}{X}_{n}$$
and the matching conditions 2.2 reduce to
$$\mu \left((n+1/2{)}^{1/4}{J}_{n}2{\zeta}_{n}(\Lambda \left)\right(n+1/2{)}^{1/4}{X}_{n}\right)=(n+1{)}^{1/2}(n+3/2{)}^{1/4}{X}_{n+1}+{n}^{1/2}(n1/2{)}^{1/4}{X}_{n1},$$
or
$${d}_{n+1}{X}_{n+1}+2\mu {y}_{n}(\Lambda ){X}_{n}+{d}_{n}{X}_{n1}=\mu \left({f}_{n},{\eta}_{n}(.;\overline{\Lambda})\right).$$
This is the nonhomogeneous counterpart of the recurrence system 3.9 .
It can be rewritten in terms of the matrix
$\mathcal{J}(\Lambda ;\mu )$
introduced in 3.11 :
$$\begin{array}{c}\mathcal{J}(\Lambda ;\mu )X=\mu \left({f}_{n},{\eta}_{n}(.;\overline{\Lambda})\right),X=\left\{{X}_{n}\right\}.\end{array}$$ 
(6.4)

6.2 Basic formula
For
$\Lambda /\in \mathbb{R}$
consider the operator
$$\begin{array}{c}\mathbf{T}(\Lambda ):{\ell}^{2}\left({\mathbb{N}}_{0}\right)\to \u210c,\mathbf{T}(\Lambda )\left\{{X}_{n}\right\}\sim \left\{{X}_{n}{\eta}_{n}\right(.;\Lambda \left)\right\},\end{array}$$ 
(6.5)

by 3.6 it is bounded and has bounded inverse. Its adjoint acts from
$\u210c$
to
${\ell}^{2}$
as
$$\mathbf{T}(\Lambda {)}^{*}F=\left\{{\int}_{\mathbb{R}}{f}_{n}\left(x\right){\eta}_{n}(x;\overline{\Lambda})dx\right\},F\sim \{{f}_{n}\}.$$
Substituting
$\overline{\Lambda}$
for
$\Lambda $
, we obtain that
$$\mathbf{T}(\overline{\Lambda}{)}^{*}F=\left\{\left({f}_{n},{\eta}_{n}(.;\Lambda )\right)\right\}.$$
Both operatorvalued functions
$\mathbf{T}(\Lambda )$
and
$\mathbf{T}(\overline{\Lambda}{)}^{*}$
are analytic in
${\mathbb{C}}_{\pm}$
.
Now we are in a position to present the basic formula which relates the operator
${\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha}$
to the Jacobi matrix
$\mathcal{J}(\Lambda ;\mu ),\mu =\sqrt{2}/\alpha $
.
Theorem 6.1.
Let
$\alpha >0,\mu =\sqrt{2}/\alpha $
and
$\Lambda /\in \mathbb{R}$
. Then
$$\begin{array}{c}({\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha}\Lambda {)}^{1}({\mathbf{A}}_{0}\Lambda {)}^{1}=\mathbf{T}(\Lambda )\left(\mu \mathcal{J}(\Lambda ;\mu {)}^{1}(2Y(\Lambda ){)}^{1}\right)\mathbf{T}(\overline{\Lambda}{)}^{*}.\end{array}$$ 
(6.6)


Proof.
By 6.1 and 6.3 , we have
${C}_{n}={X}_{n}\left(2{y}_{n}\right(\Lambda ){)}^{1}\left({f}_{n},{\eta}_{n}(.;\overline{\Lambda})\right)$
, or
$$\left\{{C}_{n}\right\}=X(2Y(\Lambda ){)}^{1}\mathbf{T}(\overline{\Lambda}{)}^{*},$$
whence
$${U}_{\alpha}{U}_{0}\sim \left\{{v}_{n}\right\}=\mathbf{T}(\Lambda )\left\{{C}_{n}\right\}.$$
We also find from 6.4 that
$X=\mu \mathcal{J}(\Lambda ;\mu {)}^{1}\mathbf{T}(\overline{\Lambda}{)}^{*}$
. The desired equality 6.6 is an immediate consequence of the three last equations. □
7 Proof of Theorem 5.1 :
$E<1/2$
7.1 Absolutely continuous spectrum and jump of the bordered resolvent.
Let
$\Omega \subset \mathbb{C}$
be a domain, symmetric with respect to the real axis and containing an interval
$I\subset \mathbb{R}$
. Let
$\mathbf{Z}(\Lambda )$
be an operatorvalued function which is analytic in
$\Omega \cap {\mathbb{C}}_{+}$
and in
$\Omega \cap {\mathbb{C}}_{}$
. Its jump at a point
$E\in I$
is defined as
$$\left[\mathbf{Z}\right]\left(E\right):={\left[\mathbf{Z}(\Lambda )\right]}_{\Lambda \to E+i0}=\left(s\right)\text{}{lim}_{\Lambda \to E+i0}\left(\mathbf{Z}(\Lambda )\mathbf{Z}\left(\overline{\Lambda}\right)\right)\left(\text{nontangential limit}\right),$$
provided that the (strong) limit does exist.
One of the ways to investigate the absolutely continuous spectrum of a selfadjoint operator
$\mathbf{A}$
consists in studying the jump of its ”bordered resolvent”
${\mathbf{Z}}_{\mathbf{G}}(\Lambda ):={\mathbf{G}}^{*}(\mathbf{A}\Lambda {)}^{1}\mathbf{G}$
. Here
$\mathbf{G}$
is an appropriate bounded operator. It is well known that for any
$\mathbf{A}$
and any
$\mathbf{G}\in {\mathfrak{S}}_{2}$
the nontangential limits of the bordered resolvent
${\mathbf{Z}}_{\mathbf{G}}(\Lambda )$
as
$\Lambda \to E\pm i0$
exist a.e. and belong to
${\mathfrak{S}}_{1}$
, see e.g. [
1]
. Hence, the jump also exists a.e. (with respect to the Lebesgue measure). For a given operator
$\mathbf{A}$
the jump of its bordered resolvent may exist also for a wider class of borderings.
The following statement of a rather general nature plays the key role in our analysis. Its proof is given in Appendix B.
Theorem 7.1.
Let
$\mathbf{A}$
be a selfadjoint operator in a separable Hilbert space
$\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}$
and
$\Delta \subset \mathbb{R}$
a given Borelian subset.
Let
$\mathbf{G}$
be a bounded operator with the dense range, such that the operator
$$\begin{array}{c}{\mathbf{V}}_{\mathbf{A},\mathbf{G}}\left(E\right)=\left(s\right)\text{}{lim}_{\Lambda \to E+i0}{\mathbf{G}}^{*}\left((\mathbf{A}\Lambda {)}^{1}(\mathbf{A}\overline{\Lambda}{)}^{1}\right)\mathbf{G}\end{array}$$ 
(7.1)

is welldefined a.e. on
$\Delta $
. Then
$$\begin{array}{c}{\mathfrak{m}}_{a.c.}(E;\mathbf{A})=rank{\mathbf{V}}_{\mathbf{A},\mathbf{G}}\left(E\right)\text{a.e. on}\Delta .\end{array}$$ 
(7.2)

Corollary 7.2.
Let the assumptions of Theorem 7.1 be fulfilled for an interval
$\Delta \subseteq \mathbb{R}$
. If
$rank{\mathbf{V}}_{\mathbf{A},\mathbf{G}}\left(E\right)>0$
a.e. on
$\Delta $
, then
$\Delta \subset {\sigma}_{a.c.}(\mathbf{A})$
, and if
$rank{\mathbf{V}}_{\mathbf{A},\mathbf{G}}\left(E\right)=0$
a.e. on
$\Delta $
, then
${\sigma}_{a.c.}(\mathbf{A})\cap \Delta =\varnothing $
.
7.2 Bordered resolvent of the operator
${\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha}$
Along with the operator
${Y}_{0}=\mathcal{D}\{n+1/2\}$
acting in
${\ell}^{2}$
, let us define
${\mathfrak{Y}}_{0}=\mathbf{I}\otimes {Y}_{0}$
. The latter operator acts in the space
$\u210c$
interpreted as the tensor product
${\ell}^{2}\otimes {L}^{2}(\mathbb{R})$
, cf. Section 2 . The powers
${Y}_{0}^{\gamma},\gamma >0$
are compact operators in
${\ell}^{2}$
, while the powers
${\mathfrak{Y}}_{0}^{\gamma}$
are only bounded operators. If
$U\sim \left\{{u}_{n}\right\}\in \u210c$
, then
${\mathfrak{Y}}_{0}^{\gamma}U\sim \left\{\right(n+1/2{)}^{\gamma}{u}_{n}\}$
. Note that
$$\begin{array}{c}{\mathfrak{Y}}^{\gamma}\mathbf{T}(\Lambda )=\mathbf{T}(\Lambda ){Y}^{\gamma},\mathbf{T}(\overline{\Lambda}{)}^{*}{\mathfrak{Y}}^{\gamma}={Y}^{\gamma}\mathbf{T}(\overline{\Lambda}{)}^{*}.\end{array}$$ 
(7.3)

We shall show that the boundary limits of the bordered resolvent
${\mathbf{G}}^{*}({\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha}\Lambda {)}^{1}\mathbf{G}$
do exist if we take
$\mathbf{G}={\mathfrak{Y}}_{0}^{\gamma}$
with
$\gamma >1/4$
, though
$\mathbf{G}$
is noncompact, and even the operator
${Y}_{0}^{\gamma}$
lies in
${\mathfrak{S}}_{2}$
only if
$\gamma >1/2$
.
Let us consider the operatorvalued functions
$$\begin{array}{c}{\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}(\Lambda ;\mu )={\mathfrak{Y}}_{0}^{\gamma}({\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha}\Lambda {)}^{1}{\mathfrak{Y}}_{0}^{\gamma},\alpha =\sqrt{2}/\mu ,\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}}(\Lambda ;\mu )={Y}_{0}^{\gamma}\mathcal{J}(\Lambda ;\mu {)}^{1}{Y}_{0}^{\gamma},\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{0,\gamma}}(\Lambda ;\mu )={Y}_{0}^{\gamma}\left({\mathcal{J}}_{0}\right(\mu )\mu \Lambda {)}^{1}{Y}_{0}^{\gamma}.\end{array}$$ 
(7.4)

In 7.4
${\mathcal{J}}_{0}\left(\mu \right)$
is the Jacobi matrix introduced in 3.12 .
By
6.6 and 7.3 ,
$${\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}(\Lambda ;\mu )={\mathfrak{Y}}_{0}^{\gamma}({\mathbf{A}}_{0}\Lambda {)}^{1}{\mathfrak{Y}}_{0}^{\gamma}+\mathbf{T}(\Lambda )\left(\mu \stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}}(\Lambda ;\mu ){Y}_{0}^{\gamma}(2Y(\Lambda ){)}^{1}{Y}_{0}^{\gamma}\right)\mathbf{T}(\overline{\Lambda}{)}^{*}.$$
The jumps at a point
$E\in \mathbb{R}$
of all but one terms in the righthand side are evidently equal to zero, provided that
$E<1/2$
, and we get, at least formally,
$$\begin{array}{c}{\left[{\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}(\Lambda ;\mu )\right]}_{\Lambda \to E+i0}=\mu \mathbf{T}\left(E\right){\left[\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}}(\Lambda ;\mu )\right]}_{\Lambda \to E+i0}\mathbf{T}(E{)}^{*},E<1/2.\end{array}$$ 
(7.5)

Taking into account the equalities 3.13 and 3.14 , it is natural to expect that the jumps
$\left[\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}}(.;\mu )\right]\left(E\right)$
and
$\left[\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{0,\gamma}}(.;\mu )\right]\left(E\right)$
are close to each other. Together with 7.5 , this would allow us to express the quantity
$\left[{\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}(.;\mu )\right]\left(E\right)$
through
$\left[\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{0,\gamma}}(.;\mu )\right]\left(E\right)$
, which makes it possible to use Theorem 7.1 . Now we proceed to the successive realization of this program.
We start with the following lemma.
Lemma 7.3.
Let
$\mu >0$
,
$\Lambda \ne \overline{\Lambda}\in \mathbb{C}$
and
$\gamma >1/4$
. Then
$\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}}(\Lambda ;\mu )\in {\mathfrak{S}}_{1}$
. Besides, the strong nontangential limits
$\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}}(E\pm i0;\mu )$
exist for almost all
$E<1/2$
.
The same results are valid for
$\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{0,\gamma}}(\Lambda ;\mu )$
.

Proof.
For definiteness, we consider
$\Lambda \in {\mathbb{C}}_{+}$
. The operatorvalued function
$\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}}(\Lambda ;\mu )$
is analytic in
$\Lambda $
in the halfplane
${\mathbb{C}}_{+}$
. Since
$Im\mathcal{J}(\Lambda ;\mu )\le 0$
, we conclude that
$Im\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}}(\Lambda ;\mu )\ge 0$
, i.e. the values of this function are dissipative operators. By a result due to S.Naboko, see [10] , Remark (1) to Theorem 2.2, any such function admits the representation
$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}}(\Lambda ;\mu )=A+B\Lambda +{R}^{*}(I+\Lambda \mathcal{\mathcal{L}})(\mathcal{\mathcal{L}}\Lambda {)}^{1}R,\end{array}$$ 
(7.6)

where
$\mathcal{\mathcal{L}}$
is a selfadjoint operator in an auxiliary Hilbert space
${\u210c}_{0}$
,
$A={A}^{*}$
and
$B={B}^{*}\ge 0$
are bounded operators in
${\ell}^{2}$
, and
$R$
is a bounded operator from
${\ell}^{2}$
to
${\u210c}_{0}$
. It immediately follows from 3.15 that in this representation
$B=0$
. The operators
$\mathcal{\mathcal{L}},A$
and
$R$
may depend on
$\mu $
but we do not reflect this dependence in our notations.
Taking in
7.6
$\Lambda =i$
, we find that
$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}}(i;\mu )=A+i{R}^{*}R.\end{array}$$ 
(7.7)

Further, let us show that for any
$\gamma >0$
one has
$\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}}(i;\mu )\in {\mathfrak{S}}_{2}$
. To this end, consider the inverse matrix
$\left\{{G}_{n,k}\right\}:=\mathcal{J}(i;\mu {)}^{1}$
. This matrix can be expressed through the solutions of the homogeneous system 3.9 for
$\Lambda =i$
. Namely, it is symmetric (i.e.
${G}_{n,k}={G}_{k,n}$
) and its entries for
$k\ge n$
are
$${G}_{n,k}=C{g}^{\left(1\right)}\left(k\right){g}^{\left(2\right)}\left(n\right)$$
where
$C$
is a constant,
$\left\{{g}^{\left(1\right)}\right(k\left)\right\}$
is the decaying solution of the system, and
$\left\{{g}^{\left(2\right)}\right(n\left)\right\}$
is some other solution, a certain linear combination of two basic solutions. The matrix
$\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}}(i;\mu )$
has the entries
$$(n+1/2{)}^{\gamma}{G}_{n,k}(k+1/2{)}^{\gamma},$$
and the standard calculation shows that
$\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}}(i;\mu )\in {\mathfrak{S}}_{2}$
for any
$\gamma >0$
and an arbitrary
$\mu >0$
. This immediately yields that
$\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}}(i;\mu )\in {\mathfrak{S}}_{1}$
, provided that
$\gamma >1/4$
.
Now we conclude from
7.7 that
$R\in {\mathfrak{S}}_{2}$
. Hence,
$\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}}(\Lambda ;\mu )\in {\mathfrak{S}}_{1}$
for all
$\Lambda \in {\mathbb{C}}_{+}$
. Besides, by a result of [
1]
, Lemma 2.4, this implies the existence a.e. of the nontangential strong limits of the bordered resolvent
${R}^{*}(\mathcal{\mathcal{L}}\Lambda {)}^{1}R$
. The equality 7.6 shows that such limits do exist also for the operatorvalued function
$\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}}(\Lambda ;\mu )$
.
For the operatorvalued function
$\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{0,\gamma}}$
the proof is simpler, since we need not the representation 7.6 . Otherwise, the argument remains the same. □
As a result of Lemma 7.3 , the equality 7.5 is justified.
7.3 Jumps of
$\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}}$
and of
$\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{0,\gamma}}$
.
A subset
$\Delta \subset (\infty ,1/2)$
of full measure can be selected, such that both these jumps are welldefined for
$E\in \Delta $
. According to the Hilbert identity and using the equality 3.13 , we find that
$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}}(\Lambda ;\mu )\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{0,\gamma}}(\Lambda ;\mu )={Y}_{0}^{\gamma}\left(\mathcal{J}(\Lambda ;\mu {)}^{1}({\mathcal{J}}_{0}\left(\mu \right)\mu \Lambda {)}^{1}\right){Y}_{0}^{\gamma}={Y}_{0}^{\gamma}\mathcal{J}(\Lambda ;\mu {)}^{1}\Psi (\Lambda ;\mu \left)\right({\mathcal{J}}_{0}\left(\mu \right)\mu \Lambda {)}^{1}{Y}_{0}^{\gamma}=\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}}(\Lambda ;\mu )\Phi (\Lambda ;\mu )\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{0,\gamma}}(\Lambda ;\mu )\end{array}$$ 
(7.8)

where
$$\begin{array}{c}\Phi (\Lambda ;\mu )={Y}_{0}^{\gamma}\Psi (\Lambda ;\mu ){Y}_{0}^{\gamma}.\end{array}$$ 
(7.9)

More exactly,
$\Phi (\Lambda ;\mu )$
is the extension by continuity of this operator, defined originally on the set
$Ran{Y}_{0}^{\gamma}$
.
The calculations below are carried through for a fixed value of
$\mu $
, and we drop this parameter from our notations. It follows from 3.14 that for
$\gamma <1/2$
the operatorvalued function
$\Phi (\cdot )$
is analytic in
${\mathbb{C}}_{\pm}$
and its values are compact operators in
${\ell}^{2}$
. Below we always assume
$1/4<\gamma <1/2$
, then both operatorvalued functions
$\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}}(\Lambda )$
and
$\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{0,\gamma}}(\Lambda )$
have boundary limits as
$\Lambda \to E\pm i0$
a.e. on
$(\infty ,1/2)$
.
The equality
7.8 and the similar equality for
$\overline{\Lambda}$
imply that
$$\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{0,\gamma}}(\Lambda )\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{0,\gamma}}\left(\overline{\Lambda}\right)=\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}}(\Lambda )\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}}\left(\overline{\Lambda}\right)+\left(\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}}(\Lambda )\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}}\left(\overline{\Lambda}\right)\right)\Phi (\Lambda )\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{0,\gamma}}(\Lambda )+\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}}\left(\overline{\Lambda}\right)\left(\Phi (\Lambda )\Phi \left(\overline{\Lambda}\right)\right)\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{0,\gamma}}(\Lambda )+\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}}\left(\overline{\Lambda}\right)\Phi \left(\overline{\Lambda}\right)\left(\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{0,\gamma}}(\Lambda )\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{0,\gamma}}\left(\overline{\Lambda}\right)\right).$$
Letting
$\Lambda \to E+i0$
nontangentially, we obtain for a.e.
$E<1/2$
:
$$\begin{array}{c}\left[\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{0,\gamma}}\right]\left(E\right)=\left[\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}}\right]\left(E\right)+\left[\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}}\right]\left(E\right)\Phi \left(E\right)\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{0,\gamma}}(E+i0)+\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}}(Ei0)\Phi \left(E\right)\left[\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{0,\gamma}}\right]\left(E\right).\end{array}$$ 
(7.10)

Let us consider the operatorvalued functions
$$\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{}\text{(7.11)}& {\mathcal{G}}_{+}(\Lambda )=I+\Phi (\Lambda )\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{0,\gamma}}(\Lambda ),\Lambda \in {\mathbb{C}}_{+},{\mathcal{G}}_{}(\Lambda )=I\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}}(\Lambda )\Phi (\Lambda ),\Lambda \in {\mathbb{C}}_{}.\end{array}\end{array}$$ 
(7.12)

The function
${\mathcal{G}}_{+}(\Lambda )$
can be represented in a different way: using the definitions 7.9 and 7.4 , we find that
$$\begin{array}{c}{\mathcal{G}}_{+}(\Lambda )=I+{Y}_{0}^{\gamma}\left(\mathcal{J}(\Lambda )({\mathcal{J}}_{0}\mu \Lambda )\right){Y}_{0}^{\gamma}{Y}_{0}^{\gamma}({\mathcal{J}}_{0}\mu \Lambda {)}^{1}{Y}_{0}^{\gamma}={Y}_{0}^{\gamma}\mathcal{J}(\Lambda \left)\right({\mathcal{J}}_{0}\mu \Lambda {)}^{1}{Y}_{0}^{\gamma}.\end{array}$$ 
(7.13)

This calculation shows also that the righthand side in 7.13 is welldefined as a bounded operator in
${\ell}^{2}$
. For the ”minus” sign, it is more convenient to deal with the adjoint operator, and we get
$$\begin{array}{c}{\mathcal{G}}_{}(\Lambda {)}^{*}={Y}_{0}^{\gamma}({\mathcal{J}}_{0}\mu \overline{\Lambda})\mathcal{J}(\overline{\Lambda}{)}^{1}{Y}_{0}^{\gamma}.\end{array}$$ 
(7.14)

It follows from the definitions 7.11 and 7.12 and from compactness of
$\Phi (\Lambda )$
that the functions
${\mathcal{G}}_{\pm}(\Lambda )$
are analytic in
${\mathbb{C}}_{\pm}$
respectively, and for each
$\Lambda \in {\mathbb{C}}_{\pm}$
the operator
${\mathcal{G}}_{\pm}(\Lambda )I$
is compact. Hence, the image of
${\mathcal{G}}_{\pm}(\Lambda )$
is a closed subset in
${\ell}^{2}$
.
Now, we need the following Lemma.
Lemma 7.4.
For any
$\Lambda \in {\mathbb{C}}_{\pm}$
the operator
${\mathcal{G}}_{\pm}(\Lambda )$
has bounded inverse.

Proof.
Throughout the proof,
$(.,.)$
stands for the scalar product in
${\ell}^{2}$
.
By
7.13 , we have for any
$f\in {\ell}^{2}$
and any
$g\in Dom{Y}_{0}^{\gamma}$
:
$$\begin{array}{c}\left({\mathcal{G}}_{+}(\Lambda )f,g\right)=\left(\mathcal{J}(\Lambda )({\mathcal{J}}_{0}\mu \Lambda {)}^{1}{Y}_{0}^{\gamma}f,{Y}_{0}^{\gamma}g\right).\end{array}$$ 
(7.15)

Suppose that
$f\in Ker{\mathcal{G}}_{+}(\Lambda )$
for some
$f\ne 0$
and
$\Lambda \in {\mathbb{C}}_{+}$
. Since
$Ran{Y}_{0}^{\gamma}={\ell}^{2}$
, we conclude from 7.15 that then
$Ker\mathcal{J}(\Lambda )$
is nontrivial which contradicts the dissipativity of
$\mathcal{J}(\Lambda )$
.
In a similar way, we derive from
7.14 that for
$f\in Dom{Y}_{0}^{\gamma}$
and any
$g\in {\ell}^{2}$
$$\left({\mathcal{G}}_{}(\Lambda )f,g\right)=\left({Y}_{0}^{\gamma}f,({\mathcal{J}}_{0}\mu \overline{\Lambda})\mathcal{J}(\overline{\Lambda}{)}^{1}{Y}_{0}^{\gamma}g\right).$$
Suppose that
$Ran{\mathcal{G}}_{}(\Lambda )\ne {\ell}^{2}$
for some
$\Lambda \in {\mathbb{C}}_{}$
. Then there exists an element
$g\in {\ell}^{2}$
, such that
$\left({\mathcal{G}}_{}(\Lambda )f,g\right)=0$
for all
$f\in {\ell}^{2}$
. This would imply
$$({\mathcal{J}}_{0}\mu \overline{\Lambda})\mathcal{J}(\overline{\Lambda}{)}^{1}{Y}_{0}^{\gamma}g=0.$$
However, for
$g\ne 0$
this is impossible, since
$\mathcal{J}(\overline{\Lambda}{)}^{1}$
and
${Y}_{0}^{\gamma}$
are inverse operators and hence, have trivial kernels. Further,
$Ker({\mathcal{J}}_{0}\mu \overline{\Lambda})=\left\{0\right\}$
for
$\Lambda /\in \mathbb{R}$
, since the operator
${\mathcal{J}}_{0}$
is selfadjoint. □
Now we use the following statement, see [
9]
.
Proposition 7.5.
Let
$\mathcal{X}\in {\mathbb{C}}_{\pm}$
be a domain, such that
$\overline{\mathcal{X}}\cap \mathbb{R}$
contains an interval
$\Delta $
. Let
$\mathcal{G}(\Lambda )$
be an analytic operatorvalued function in
$\mathcal{X}$
, such that
$\mathcal{G}(\Lambda )I$
are compact operators in a Hilbert space
$\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}$
. Suppose that for almost all
$E\in \Delta $
the function
$\mathcal{G}$
is nontangentially bounded at
$E$
and has a strong nontangential limit
$\mathcal{G}(E+i0)$
, such that
$\mathcal{G}(E+i0)I\in {\mathfrak{S}}_{\infty}$
.
Suppose also that for at least one point
${\Lambda}_{0}\in {\mathbb{C}}_{+}$
the operator
$\mathcal{G}\left({\Lambda}_{0}\right)$
has bounded inverse.
Then for almost all
$E\in \Delta $
the operator
$\mathcal{G}(E+i0)$
has bounded inverse.
It follows from Lemmas 7.3 and 7.4 that the assumptions of Proposition are fulfilled for the operatorvalued functions
${\mathcal{G}}_{\mp}(\Lambda )$
defined in 7.11 and 7.12 . This allows us to conclude from 7.5 and 7.10 that for a.e.
$E<1/2$
$$\begin{array}{c}\left[{\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}\right]\left(E\right)=\mathbf{T}\left(E\right){\mathcal{G}}_{}(Ei0)\left[\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{0,\gamma}}\right]\left(E\right){\left({\mathcal{G}}_{+}(E+i0)\right)}^{1}\mathbf{T}(E{)}^{*}.\end{array}$$ 
(7.16)

The equalities 7.5 and 7.16 yield that
$$rank\left[{\mathbf{Z}}_{\gamma}\right]\left(E\right)=rank\left[\stackrel{~}{{\mathbf{Z}}_{0,\gamma}}\right]\left(E\right),a.e.E<1/2.$$
According to Theorem 7.1 , it follows that
$${\mathfrak{m}}_{a.c.}(E;{\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha})={\mathfrak{m}}_{a.c.}(E;{\mathcal{J}}_{0}(\mu \left)\right)a.e.\text{on}(\infty ,1/2).$$
Since
${\mathfrak{m}}_{a.c.}(E;{\mathbf{A}}_{0})=0$
for
$E<1/2$
, the equality 1.4 for such
$E$
is justified.
Now, we conclude from Corollary
7.2 that for
$\alpha <\sqrt{2}$
the operator
${\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha}$
has no a.c. spectrum below the point
$1/2$
. For
$\alpha >\sqrt{2}$
we have
$(\infty ,1/2)\subset {\sigma}_{a.c.}\left({\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha}\right)$
, and
$[0,1/2)\subset {\sigma}_{a.c.}\left({\mathbf{A}}_{\sqrt{2}}\right)$
.
8 Proof of Theorem 5.1 :
$E\ge 1/2$
The proof extends to
$\lambda >1/2$
with the help of a simple technical trick. It is based on the passage to the subspace
${\u210c}_{m}={\ell}^{2}({\mathbb{N}}_{m},{L}^{2}(\mathbb{R}\left)\right)$
, with
$m$
large enough. Here
${\mathbb{N}}_{m}=\{m,m+1,\dots \}$
, so that, in particular,
${\mathbb{N}}_{1}=\mathbb{N}$
. The subspace
${\u210c}_{m}$
is not invariant for the operator
${\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha}$
, however it is invariant for an appropriate operator
${\widehat{\mathbf{A}}}_{\alpha}^{\left(m\right)}$
, that can be obtained from
${\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha}$
by the perturbation of its resolvent by a finite rank operator.
For the operator
${\widehat{\mathbf{A}}}_{\alpha}^{\left(m\right)}$
the scheme developed in Section 7 works for
$E<m+1/2$
, and return to the original operator
${\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha}$
does not change the absolutely continuous spectrum and its multiplicity function.
8.1 Operators
${\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha}^{\left(m\right)}$
and
${\widehat{\mathbf{A}}}_{\alpha}^{\left(m\right)}$
.
Denote
${\mathbb{N}}_{m}=\{m,m+1,\dots \}$
, so that, in particular,
${\mathbb{N}}_{1}=\mathbb{N}$
. Let us define an operator
${\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha}^{\left(m\right)}$
, acting in the space
${\u210c}_{m}={\ell}^{2}({\mathbb{N}}_{m},{L}^{2}(\mathbb{R}\left)\right)$
.
Namely, its domain
${\mathcal{D}}_{\alpha}^{\left(m\right)}$
consists of the elements
$U\sim \{{u}_{n}{\}}_{n\ge m}$
, such that each component
${u}_{n}$
lies in
$\mathcal{W}(\mathbb{R})$
(see 3.3 ), the matching conditions
$${u}_{n}^{\prime}(0+){u}_{n}^{\prime}(0)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{m+1}{u}_{m+1}\left(0\right),& n=m,\\ \frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\sqrt{n+1}{u}_{n+1}\left(0\right)+\sqrt{n}{u}_{n1}\left(0\right)\right),& n>m\end{array}$$
are satisfied, and
${\sum}_{n\ge m}\parallel (L+n){u}_{n}{\parallel}^{2}<\infty $
. For
$U\in {\mathcal{D}}_{\alpha}^{\left(m\right)}$
we let
$${\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha}^{\left(m\right)}U\sim \left\{\right(L+n){u}_{n}{\}}_{n\ge m},$$
cf. 2.1 . Evidently,
${\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha}^{\left(0\right)}={\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha}$
. Each operator
${\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha}^{\left(m\right)}$
is selfadjoint, the proof is the same as for
$m=0$
.
Along with
${\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha}^{\left(m\right)}$
, we need also the operators
${\widehat{\mathbf{A}}}_{\alpha}^{\left(m\right)}$
, acting in the original Hilbert space
$\u210c$
. Namely, we let
$$\begin{array}{c}{\widehat{\mathbf{A}}}_{\alpha}^{\left(m\right)}=\left({{\sum}_{n<m}}^{\oplus}(\mathbf{H}+n)\right)\oplus {\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha}^{\left(m\right)}\end{array}$$ 
(8.1)

where
$\mathbf{H}$
is the operator in
${L}^{2}(\mathbb{R})$
, defined in 2.3 . Note that
${\widehat{\mathbf{A}}}_{0}^{\left(m\right)}={\mathbf{A}}_{0}$
for any
$m$
.
Consider also two sequences of Jacobi matrices,
${\mathcal{J}}_{0}^{\left(m\right)}\left(\mu \right)$
and
${\mathcal{J}}^{\left(m\right)}(\Lambda ;\mu )$
.
Each
${\mathcal{J}}_{0}^{\left(m\right)}\left(\mu \right)$
is a submatrix of the matrix
${\mathcal{J}}_{0}\left(\mu \right)$
given by 3.12 , it is obtained from
${\mathcal{J}}_{0}\left(\mu \right)$
by removing its first
$m$
rows and
$m$
columns. The matrix
${\mathcal{J}}^{\left(m\right)}(\Lambda ;\mu )$
is obtained in the same way from the matrix 3.11 .
We also define a sequence
${Y}^{\left(m\right)}(\Lambda )$
of diagonal operators in
${\ell}^{2}\left({\mathbb{N}}_{m}\right)$
, namely
${Y}^{\left(m\right)}(\Lambda )=\mathcal{D}\left\{{y}_{n}\right(\Lambda ){\}}_{n\ge m}$
. It is clear that
$${\mathcal{J}}_{0}^{\left(0\right)}\left(\mu \right)={\mathcal{J}}_{0}\left(\mu \right),{\mathcal{J}}^{\left(0\right)}(\Lambda ;\mu )=\mathcal{J}(\Lambda ;\mu ),{Y}^{\left(0\right)}(\Lambda )=Y(\Lambda ).$$
Let
${\mathbf{T}}^{\left(m\right)}(\Lambda ):{\ell}^{2}\left({\mathbb{N}}_{m}\right)\to {\u210c}_{m}$
be the natural restriction of the operator
$\mathbf{T}(\Lambda )$
defined in 6.5 . The equality
$$\begin{array}{c}({\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha}^{\left(m\right)}\Lambda {)}^{1}({\mathbf{A}}_{0}^{\left(m\right)}\Lambda {)}^{1}={\mathbf{T}}^{\left(m\right)}(\Lambda )\left(\mu {\mathcal{J}}^{\left(m\right)}(\Lambda ;\mu {)}^{1}(2{Y}^{\left(m\right)}(\Lambda ){)}^{1}\right){\mathbf{T}}^{\left(m\right)}(\overline{\Lambda}{)}^{*}\end{array}$$ 
(8.2)

can be justified in the same way as 6.6 . It is important that all the operatorvalued functions appearing in 8.2 are analytic in the domain
${\Omega}_{m}=\mathbb{C}\backslash [m+1/2,\infty )$
. It follows from 8.2 that the operator
$$({\widehat{\mathbf{A}}}_{\alpha}^{\left(m\right)}\Lambda {)}^{1}({\mathbf{A}}_{0}\Lambda {)}^{1}$$
is equal to the orthogonal sum of the null operator acting in the space
${\ell}^{2}\left(\right\{0,\dots ,m1\},{L}^{2}(\mathbb{R}\left)\right)$
and the operator
$${\mathbf{T}}^{\left(m\right)}(\Lambda )\left(\mu {\mathcal{J}}^{\left(m\right)}(\Lambda ;\mu {)}^{1}(2{Y}^{\left(m\right)}(\Lambda ){)}^{1}\right){\mathbf{T}}^{\left(m\right)}(\overline{\Lambda}{)}^{*}$$
The next statement is an immediate consequence of the above reasonings.
Lemma 8.1.
For any
$\alpha >0$
and
$m\in \mathbb{N}$
and for any
$\Lambda /\in [1/2,\infty )$
we have
$$rank\left(({\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha}\Lambda {)}^{1}({\widehat{\mathbf{A}}}_{\alpha}^{\left(m\right)}\Lambda {)}^{1}\right)=m$$
and therefore,
$$\begin{array}{c}{\sigma}_{a.c.}\left({\widehat{\mathbf{A}}}_{\alpha}^{\left(m\right)}\right)={\sigma}_{a.c.}\left({\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha}\right),{\mathfrak{m}}_{a.c.}(E;{\widehat{\mathbf{A}}}_{\alpha}^{\left(m\right)})={\mathfrak{m}}_{a.c.}(E;{\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha})a.e.\end{array}$$ 
(8.3)

Now it is easy to conclude the proof of Theorem 5.1 for
$E\ge 1/2$
.
Take
$m\in \mathbb{N}$
such that
$E<m+1/2$
. Theorem 3.1 evidently applies to the matrices
${\mathcal{J}}_{0}^{\left(m\right)}$
, and the scheme developed in Section 7 works for the operator
${\widehat{\mathbf{A}}}_{\alpha}^{\left(m\right)}$
without any change. One only has to keep in mind that now in the corresponding version of Lemma 7.3 one can take
$E<m+1/2$
. As a result, we obtain that
$${\sigma}_{a.c.}\left({\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha}^{\left(m\right)}\right)={\sigma}_{a.c.}\left({\mathbf{A}}_{0}^{\left(m\right)}\right)\cup {\sigma}_{a.c.}\left({\mathcal{J}}_{0}^{\left(m\right)}\right(\mu \left)\right),{\mathfrak{m}}_{a.c.}(E;{\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha}^{\left(m\right)})={\mathfrak{m}}_{a.c.}(E;{\mathbf{A}}_{0}^{\left(m\right)})+{\mathfrak{m}}_{a.c.}(E;{\mathcal{J}}_{0}^{\left(m\right)}(\mu \left)\right)$$
Taking into account the equalities 8.1 and 8.3 , we arrive at the desired result.
Note that for
$\alpha <\sqrt{2}$
it is easy to prove Theorem 5.1 by means of the quadratic form approach, cf. proof of Theorem 6.2 in [
13]
. However, in the present paper we decided to give a unified exposition for all values of the parameter.
9 Concluding remarks
In the model suggested by Smilansky in [
12]
the operators
${\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha}$
act in the space
${L}^{2}(\Gamma \times \mathbb{R})$
where
$\Gamma $
is a metric graph (in another terminology, a quantum graph). The model is interpreted as “harmonic oscillator, attached to a graph”. In order to describe the setting of this, more general problem, consider first the case when
$\Gamma ={\Gamma}_{m}$
is a star graph with
$m$
bonds, each of infinite length. More precisely,
${\Gamma}_{m}$
is the union of
$m$
halflines
${B}_{1},\dots ,{B}_{m}$
, emanating from the common vertex
$o$
, the root of the tree. Let
$t\in [0,\infty )$
stand for the coordinate along each bond. The value
$t=0$
corresponds to the root
$o$
. Each function
$f$
on
${\Gamma}_{m}$
can be viewed as a family of
$m$
functions
${f}_{j}=f{}_{{B}_{j}}$
defined on
$[0,\infty )$
. If each
${f}_{j}$
has the derivative at
$t=0$
, we set
$$\left[{f}^{\prime}\right]\left(o\right)={\sum}_{j=1}^{m}{f}_{j}^{\prime}\left(0\right).$$
In the case considered, the operator
${\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha}$
in
${L}^{2}({\Gamma}_{m}\times \mathbb{R})$
is defined by the differential expression 1.1 for
$(x,q)\in {B}_{j}\otimes \mathbb{R},j=1,\dots ,m$
and the matching condition
$$\begin{array}{c}\left[{U}_{x}^{\prime}\right(.,q\left)\right]\left(o\right)=\alpha qU(o,q),q\in \mathbb{R}.\end{array}$$ 
(9.1)

The real axis
$\mathbb{R}$
with the marked point
$o=0$
can be identified with the graph
${\Gamma}_{2}$
, and in this case the condition 9.1 turns into 1.2 .
All the results of the present paper extend to the star graphs
${\Gamma}_{m}$
with an arbitrary
$m>0$
, with only minor changes: 1) the equality in 2.4 has to be replaced by
${\mathfrak{m}}_{a.c.}(E;{\mathbf{A}}_{0})=mn$
; 2) the borderline point between the small and the large values of
$\alpha $
is now
$m/\sqrt{2}$
, and the expression for
$\mu $
becomes
$\mu =m(\alpha \sqrt{2}{)}^{1}$
. The equalities 1.3 and 1.4 survive. The proofs basically remain the same, but the technical calculations sometimes become rather lengthy. This was the only reason, why we restricted ourselves to the case
$m=2$
in the main part of this paper.
In a similar way, the case when
$\Gamma $
is a general star graph with
$m$
bonds can be considered. Some of the bonds (say,
${m}_{0}$
where
$0\le {m}_{0}\le m$
) are supposed to be of infinite, and other of finite length. The Dirichlet boundary condition is imposed at the ends of the finite bonds. The point spectrum and the essential spectrum of the operators
${\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha}$
were considered in [
13]
for this case. The a.c. spectrum can be analyzed by means of the same approach as in the present paper, but somewhat more serious changes in the formulations are necessary. They stem from the fact that now in the analog of 2.4 we have
${\mathfrak{m}}_{a.c.}(E;{\mathbf{A}}_{0})={m}_{0}n$
. In particular, if
${m}_{0}=0$
, that is if the graph is compact, then the spectrum of
${\mathbf{A}}_{0}$
is discrete. It remains discrete for
${\mathbf{A}}_{\alpha}$
with
$\alpha <m/\sqrt{2}$
, but its absolutely continuous component fills the whole of
$\mathbb{R}$
for
$\alpha \ge m/\sqrt{2}$
.
The case of an arbitrary metric graph with a finite number of bonds can be also analyzed, but this requires a bit more advanced technical tools. Still, the main ideas remain the same. This material will be presented elsewhere.
A Proof of Theorem 3.1
The proof is based upon the Gilbert – Pearson theory [
4]
of subordinate solutions, or more exactly upon the version of this theory for Jacobi matrices, see [
8]
.
First of all, we have to consider the homogeneous equation
$${\mathcal{J}}_{0}\left(\mu \right)h=zh,$$
or
$$\begin{array}{c}{d}_{n+1}C(n+1)+\left((2n+1)\mu z\right)C\left(n\right)+{d}_{n}C(n1)=0.\end{array}$$ 
(A.1)

This equation is similar to 3.9 , it can be written in the form 3.16 , and moreover, for the coefficients in the decompositions 3.17 we have
$${a}_{0}=2\mu ,{a}_{1}=(\mu +z);{b}_{0}=1,{b}_{1}=1.$$
Comparing this with 3.21 , we conclude that the asymptotic formulas 3.22 apply to the system A.1 if we take
$\Lambda =z/\mu $
.
1. If
$\mu >1$
, the formula 3.22 shows that for any
$E\in \mathbb{R}$
equation A.1 has a subordinate solution. Namely, this is the solution with the sign “
$+$
” in the exponent. It follows that the spectrum of
${\mathcal{J}}_{0}\left(\mu \right)$
is discrete.
It is easy to show that for
$\mu >1$
the matrix
${\mathcal{J}}_{0}\left(\mu \right)$
is positive definite, hence its eigenvalues tend to
$+\infty $
.
2. If
$\mu <1$
, the formula 3.22 shows that for any
$E\in \mathbb{R}$
equation A.1 has no subordinate solution, since
$\left{C}^{\pm}\right(n\left)\right\sim {n}^{1/2}$
.
As for any selfadjoint Jacobi matrix, the spectrum of
${\mathcal{J}}_{0}\left(\mu \right)$
is simple, and the element
${e}_{0}=\{1,0,0\dots {\}}^{\top}$
can be taken as the generating vector. Let
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}$
stand for the spectral measure of the operator
${\mathcal{J}}_{0}\left(\mu \right)$
, then there exists a nonnegative function
$\tau \in {L}^{1}(\mathbb{R})$
such that
$${\left(\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}(\Delta ){e}_{0},{e}_{0}\right)}_{{\ell}^{2}}={\int}_{\Delta}\tau \left(\lambda \right)d\lambda $$
for an arbitrary Borelian set
$\Delta \subset \mathbb{R}$
. Our aim is to show that
$\tau \left(\lambda \right)\ne 0$
a.e. on
$\mathbb{R}$
.
Let
${m}_{\infty}\left(z\right)$
be the Weyl function for the equation
$\mathcal{J}\left(\mu \right)hzh=0$
. It is a Herglotz function, and therefore it has boundary limits
${m}_{\infty}(E+i0)$
for a.e.
$E\in \mathbb{R}$
. It follows from [
8]
, Theorem 1 that
$Imm(E+i0)\ne 0$
a.e. According to the formula (5) from [
8]
$$\left({\mathcal{J}}_{0}\right(\mu )z{)}^{1}{e}_{0},{e}_{0})={\left(\mu z+{d}_{1}{m}_{\infty}\left(z\right)\right)}^{1}.$$
Recall that by 3.10
${d}_{1}=(3/4{)}^{1/4}$
. By the Spectral Theorem,
$$\left({\mathcal{J}}_{0}\right(\mu )z{)}^{1}{e}_{0},{e}_{0})={\int}_{\mathbb{R}}\frac{\tau \left(\lambda \right)d\lambda}{\lambda z}.$$
The last two equalities imply (when
$z=E+i\varepsilon $
and
$\varepsilon \to +0$
) that
$$Im{\left(\mu z+{d}_{1}{m}_{\infty}\left(z\right)\right)}^{1}\to \frac{{d}_{1}Im{m}_{\infty}(E+i0)}{\mu E+{d}_{1}{m}_{\infty}(E+i0){}^{2}}\ne 0.$$
This limit is equal to
$\pi \tau \left(E\right)$
. Therefore,
$\tau \left(E\right)>0$
a.e. which shows that
$\mathfrak{m}(E;{\mathcal{J}}_{0}(\mu \left)\right)=1$
a.e.
3. The matrix
${\mathcal{J}}_{0}\left(1\right)$
is nonnegative, therefore its spectrum lies on
$[0,\infty )$
. The formula 3.22 shows that for
$E>0$
the equation
${\mathcal{J}}_{0}\left(1\right)h=Eh$
has no subordinate solution. The equality
${\mathfrak{m}}_{a.c.}(E;{\mathcal{J}}_{0}(1\left)\right)=1$
a.e.
on
${\mathbb{R}}_{+}$
can be proved in the same way as in the previous case.
This concludes the proof of Theorem
3.1 .
B Proof of Theorem 7.1
B.1 Remarks on the a.c. spectrum and on its multiplicity.
Before giving the proof, we present some remarks of a rather general nature, concerning the notion of a.c. spectrum. We consider this useful because of the dual nature of the a.c. spectrum. Indeed, it combines some features coming from the measure theory with another ones, coming from topology of the real line.
Let
$\mathbf{K}$
be a selfadjoint operator whose spectrum is purely a.c., of multiplicity one. This means that
$\mathbf{K}$
is unitary equivalent to the operator of multiplication,
$u\left(\lambda \right)\mapsto \lambda u\left(\lambda \right)$
, in the space
${L}^{2}(\mathcal{X};d\lambda )$
where
$\mathcal{X}\subset \mathbb{R}$
is some Borelian set and
$d\lambda $
is the Lebesgue measure. The spectrum of
$\mathbf{K}$
is the closure
$\overline{\mathcal{X}}$
of the set
$\mathcal{X}$
, and it may happen that
$meas(\overline{\mathcal{X}}\backslash \mathcal{X})>0$
. For this reason, characterization of the a.c.
spectrum of
$\mathbf{K}$
has to include description of both the set
${\sigma}_{a.c.}(\mathbf{K})$
and the multiplicity function
${\mathfrak{m}}_{a.c.}(\lambda ;\mathbf{K})$
. Say, in the above example
${\sigma}_{a.c.}(\mathbf{K})=\overline{\mathcal{X}}$
and the multiplicity function is equal to one a.e. on
$\mathcal{X}$
and to zero a.e. outside
$\mathcal{X}$
. It is clear, how this extends to the case of spectrum of higher, or of varying multiplicity.
Note that any Borelian set
$\mathcal{X}\subset \mathbb{R}$
, such that
${\mathfrak{m}}_{a.c.}(\lambda ;\mathbf{K})>0$
a.e. on
$\mathcal{X}$
and
${\mathfrak{m}}_{a.c.}(\lambda ;\mathbf{K})=0$
a.e. on
$\mathbb{R}\backslash \mathcal{X}$
, in the book [
15]
is called the core of
${\sigma}_{a.c.}(\mathbf{K})$
.
B.2 Preparatory material.
We need some facts from the general theory of spectral measure.
Let
$\mathbf{A}$
be a selfadjoint operator in a separable Hilbert space
$\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}$
and
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}$
be its spectral measure. For elements
$\phi ,\psi \in \mathcal{\mathscr{H}}$
, we denote by
${\rho}_{\phi ,\psi}$
the scalar complexvalued measure
${\rho}_{\phi ,\psi}(\cdot )=(\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}(\cdot )\phi ,\psi )$
and by
${\rho}_{\phi ,\psi}^{\prime}$
its Radon Nikodym derivative with respect to the Lebesgue measure.
This derivative is defined a.e. on
$\mathbb{R}$
. It is equal to zero if either of the elements
$\phi ,\psi $
is orthogonal to the absolutely continuous subspace of the operator
$\mathbf{A}$
.
For any
$\phi ,\psi \in \mathcal{\mathscr{H}}$
there exists a subset
${\mathcal{X}}_{\phi ,\psi}\subset \mathbb{R}$
of zero Lebesgue measure, such that
$$\begin{array}{c}{lim}_{\Lambda \to E+i0}\left(\right(\mathbf{A}\Lambda {)}^{1}\phi (\mathbf{A}\overline{\Lambda}{)}^{1}\phi ,\psi )=2\pi i{\rho}_{\phi ,\psi}^{\prime}\left(E\right),E/\in {\mathcal{X}}_{\phi ,\psi}.\end{array}$$ 
(B.1)

In such cases we do not use the notation
$\left[\cdot \right]\left(E\right)$
, since the exceptional set
${\mathcal{X}}_{\phi ,\psi}$
depends on the chosen elements. The set
${\mathcal{X}}_{\phi ,\psi}$
can be chosen in such a way that the relation B.1 is satisfied for the pairs
$\{\phi ,\phi \}$
,
$\{\psi ,\psi \}$
and
$\{\phi ,\psi \}$
simultaneously, then it is satisfied also for any pair from the linear hull of the elements
$\phi $
and
$\psi $
.
Suppose now that
$\mathbf{G}$
is a bounded linear operator, such that the jump 7.1 exists a.e. on
$\Delta $
where
$\Delta \subset \mathbb{R}$
is a given Borelian set. This implies that for any pair
$\phi ,\psi \in \mathcal{\mathscr{H}}$
the limit
$${lim}_{\Lambda \to E+i0}\left(\right(\mathbf{A}\Lambda {)}^{1}\mathbf{G}\phi (\mathbf{A}\overline{\Lambda}{)}^{1}\mathbf{G}\phi ,\mathbf{G}\psi )=\left({\mathbf{V}}_{\mathbf{A},\mathbf{G}}\right(E)\phi ,\psi )$$
does exist for
$E/\in {\mathcal{X}}_{\mathbf{G}}$
where
${\mathcal{X}}_{\mathbf{G}}\subset \Delta $
is a set of Lebesgue measure
$0$
. Unlike B.1 , the set
${\mathcal{X}}_{\mathbf{G}}$
does not depend on the choice of
$\phi $
and
$\psi $
.
It follows from
B.1 that necessarily
$$\begin{array}{c}\left({\mathbf{V}}_{\mathbf{A},\mathbf{G}}\right(E)\phi ,\psi )=2\pi i{\rho}_{\mathbf{G}\phi ,\mathbf{G}\psi}^{\prime}\left(E\right)a.e.\text{on}\Delta .\end{array}$$ 
(B.2)

Again, here the exceptional set may depend on
$\phi $
and
$\psi $
. However, it is important that according to our assumption, for
$E/\in {\mathcal{X}}_{\mathbf{G}}$
the expression in the lefthand side of B.2 , and thus the one in the righthand side, is the sesquilinear form of a bounded operator.
Take a dense countable set
$\left\{{\phi}_{n}\right\}$
of elements in
$\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}$
, then there exists a subset
${\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}\subset \Delta $
of the Lebesgue measure
$0$
, such that for
$E\in \Delta \backslash {\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}$
the equality B.2 is satisfied for all pairs
$\{{\phi}_{n},{\phi}_{m}\}$
, and therefore for any
$\phi ,\psi $
from the linear hull
$\mathcal{\mathcal{M}}$
of the system
$\left\{{\phi}_{n}\right\}$
. In other words, there exists a dense linear subspace
$\mathcal{\mathcal{M}}\subset \mathcal{\mathscr{H}}$
, such that B.2 is satisfied for all
$E\in \Delta \backslash {\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}$
and for all
$\phi ,\psi \in \mathcal{\mathcal{M}}$
simultaneously.
B.3 Proof of the theorem.
Taking an appropriate partition of the original set, we may assume that
${\mathfrak{m}}_{a.c.}(E;\mathbf{A})=\nu =const$
a.e. on
$\Delta $
. Suppose first that
$\nu <\infty $
. According to the general theory of spectral measure, see e.g. [
2]
, there is a subspace
${\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}}_{\Delta}\subset \mathcal{\mathscr{H}}$
invariant with respect to
$\mathbf{A}$
, isometric to
${L}^{2}(\Delta ,{\ell}_{\nu}^{2};dx)$
and such that on
${\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}}_{\Delta}$
the operator
$\mathbf{A}$
acts as multiplication by
$x$
. More precisely, let
$\Pi :{\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}}_{\Delta}\to {L}^{2}(\Delta ,{\ell}_{\nu}^{2};dx)$
stand for the above isometry. Extending it by zero to the orthogonal complement of
${\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}}_{\Delta}$
, we obtain a partially isometric operator
${\Pi}^{\circ}:\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}\to {L}^{2}(\Delta ,{\ell}_{\nu}^{2};dx)$
. If
$\phi \in Dom\mathbf{A}\cap {\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}}_{\Delta}$
, then
$\mathbf{A}\phi \in {\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}}_{\Delta}$
and
$$(\Pi \mathbf{A}\phi )\left(x\right)=x(\Pi \phi )\left(x\right).$$
For any
$\phi ,\psi \in {\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}}_{\Delta}$
and any Borelian subset
$\partial \subset \Delta $
we have
$${\rho}_{\phi ,\psi}(\partial )={\int}_{\partial}{\left((\Pi \phi )\left(x\right),(\Pi \psi )\left(x\right)\right)}_{{\ell}_{\nu}^{2}}dx$$
and
$${\rho}_{\phi ,\psi}^{\prime}\left(E\right)={\left((\Pi \phi )\left(E\right),(\Pi \psi )\left(E\right)\right)}_{{\ell}_{\nu}^{2}},a.e.\text{on}\Delta .$$
Moreover,
${\rho}_{\phi ,\psi}^{\prime}\left(E\right)=0$
a.e. on
$\Delta $
, provided that either of the elements
$\phi ,\psi $
is orthogonal to
${\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}}_{\Delta}$
. Now, the formula B.2 and the above remarks imply that there exists a dense linear subset
$\mathcal{\mathcal{M}}\subset \mathcal{\mathscr{H}}$
, such that for all
$\phi ,\psi \in \mathcal{\mathcal{M}}$
the equality
$$\begin{array}{c}\left({\mathbf{V}}_{\mathbf{A},\mathbf{G}}\right(E)\phi ,\psi )=2\pi i{\left(({\Pi}^{\circ}\mathbf{G}\phi )\left(E\right),({\Pi}^{\circ}\mathbf{G}\psi )\left(E\right)\right)}_{{\ell}_{\nu}^{2}}\end{array}$$ 
(B.3)

is satisfied a.e. on
$\Delta $
, and the exceptional subset does not depend on the choice of
$\phi ,\psi $
. The expression in the righthand side is the sesquilinear form of an operator in
${\ell}_{\nu}^{2}$
. Necessarily, its rank does not exceed
$\nu $
. Therefore, the restriction of the operator
${\mathbf{V}}_{\mathbf{A},\mathbf{G}}\left(E\right)$
to
$\mathcal{\mathcal{M}}$
also has rank no greater than
$\nu $
. Since the linear set
$\mathcal{\mathcal{M}}$
is dense in
$\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}$
and the operator
${\mathbf{V}}_{\mathbf{A},\mathbf{G}}\left(E\right)$
is bounded, we find that
$rank{\mathbf{V}}_{\mathbf{A},\mathbf{G}}\left(E\right)\le \nu $
.
In order to obtain the reverse inequality, take elements
${f}_{1},\dots ,{f}_{\nu}\in {\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}}_{\Delta}$
, such that
$$(\Pi {f}_{j})\left(x\right)={\chi}_{\Delta}\left(x\right){e}_{j},j=1,\dots ,\nu $$
where
${\chi}_{\Delta}$
is the characteristic function of the set
$\Delta $
and the vectors
$\left\{{e}_{j}\right\}$
form the natural basis in
${\ell}_{\nu}^{2}$
. Since the range of
$\mathbf{G}$
is assumed dense, we can choose elements
${\phi}_{j}\in \mathcal{\mathscr{H}}$
in such a way that
$$\parallel \mathbf{G}{\phi}_{j}{f}_{j}{\parallel}_{\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}}<\varepsilon ,j=1,\dots ,\nu ,$$
where
$\varepsilon >0$
is arbitrarily small. Then
$${\int}_{\Delta}\parallel ({\Pi}^{\circ}\mathbf{G}{\phi}_{j})\left(x\right){\chi}_{\Delta}\left(x\right){e}_{j}{\parallel}_{{\ell}_{\nu}^{2}}^{2}dx=\parallel {\Pi}^{\circ}(\mathbf{G}{\phi}_{j}{f}_{j}){\parallel}_{\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}}^{2}<{\varepsilon}^{2}.$$
This yields that the vectors
$({\Pi}^{\circ}\mathbf{G}{\phi}_{j})\left(E\right)\in {\ell}_{\nu}^{2}$
are linearly independent for
$E$
lying outside a subset
${\mathcal{X}}_{\varepsilon}$
of a small measure
$\eta \left(\varepsilon \right)$
, and
$\eta \left(\varepsilon \right)\to 0$
as
$\varepsilon \to 0$
. For any
$E\in \Delta \backslash {\mathcal{X}}_{\varepsilon}$
we have
$rank{\mathbf{V}}_{\mathbf{A},\mathbf{G}}\left(E\right)=\nu $
. Letting
$\varepsilon \to 0$
, we conclude from B.3 that
$rank{\mathbf{V}}_{\mathbf{A},\mathbf{G}}=\nu $
a.e. on
$\Delta $
.
The equality
7.2 is justified for any
$\nu <\infty $
. Therefore, it remains valid also if
$\nu =\infty $
.
Acknowledgments. The work on the paper started when S.N. visited the Weizmann Institute in November – December of 2003. The visit was supported in part by the Department of Mathematics, and in part by the Einstein center for theoretical physics. S.N. takes this opportunity to express his gratitude to the Institute for its hospitality and financial support.
M.S. acknowledges partial financial support of the network SPECT of the ESF. References

M.Sh. Birman and S.B. Entina, Stationary approach in abstract scattering theory (Russian) Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. 31, no. 2 (1967), 401–430. English translation in: Math. USSR Izvestija 1, no. 1 (1967), 391–420.

M.Sh. Birman and M. Solomyak, Spectral theory of selfadjoint operators in Hilbert space. D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht, 1987.

S.N. Elaydi, An introduction to difference equations, Springer, New York, 1999.

D.J. Gilbert and D.B. Pearson, On subordinacy and analysis of the spectrum of onedimensional Schrdinger operators, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 128 (1987), no. 1, 30–56.

I.C. Gohberg and M.G. Krein, Introduction to the theory of linear nonselfadjoint operators in Hilbert space. Izdat. “Nauka”, Moscow 1965 448 pp. English translation: Amer. Math. Soc., Providence (1969).

J. Janas and S.N. Naboko, Spectral Analysis of Selfadjoint Jacobi matrices with Periodically Modulated Entries, J. Funct. Anal. 191 (2002), no. 2, 318–342.

T. Kato, Perturbation theory for linear operators, Springer, Berlin, 1966.

S. Khan and D.B. Pearson, Subordinacy and spectral theory for infinite matrices, Helv. Phys. Acta 65 (1992), no. 4, 505–527.

S.N. Naboko, Conditions for the existence of wave operators in the nonselfadjoint case, Wave propagation. Scattering theory, Topics in Mathematical Physics 12 (1987) (Russian), 127–149. English translation in: AMS Traslations, Series 2, vol. 157 (1993), 132–155.

S.N. Naboko,Uniqueness theorems for operatorvalued functions with positive imaginary part, and the singular spectrum in the selfadjoint Friedrichs model, Arkiv. Math. 25 (1987), 116–140.

M. Reed and B. Simon, Methods of modern mathematical physics. I. Functional analysis, Academic Press, New YorkLondon, 1972.

U. Smilansky, Irreversible quantum graphs, Waves in Random Media, 14 (2004), 143 – 153.

M. Solomyak, On a differential operator appearing in the theory of irreversible quantum graphs, Waves in Random Media 14 (2004), 173 – 185.

M. Solomyak, On the discrete spectrum of a family of differential operators, Functional alalysis and its applications, 38 (2004), 217223.

D.R. Yafaev, Mathematical scattering theory. General theory, Translations of Mathematical Monographs. 105. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 1992.
Department of Mathematical Physics, St.Petersburg State University, St. Petergoff 198904 St. Peterburg, Russia Email address : naboko@snoopy.phys.spbu.ru Department of Mathematics, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel Email address : michail.solomyak@weizmann.ac.il