arxiv: v3 [math.ca] 2 Nov 2017

Transcription

1 RESTRICTION ESTIMATES USING POLYNOMIAL PARTITIONING II LARRY GUTH arxiv: v3 [math.ca] 2 Nov 2017 Abstract. We imrove the estimates in the restriction roblem in dimension n 4. To do so, we establish a weak version of a k-linear restriction estimate for any k. The exonents in this weak k-linear estimate are shar for all k and n. 1. Introduction This aer gives imroved restriction estimates for the araboloid in high dimensions. Recall that the extension oerator for the araboloid can be written in the form (1.1) Ef(x) := B n 1 e i(x1ω1+...+xn 1ω n 1+x n ω 2) f(ω)dω, where B n 1 denotes the unit ball in R n 1 and x R n. Stein [S] conjectured that the extension oerator should obey the inequality (1.2) Ef L (R n ) f L (B n 1 ) n for all > 2 n 1. We rove new artial results towards this conjecture in dimension n 4. Theorem 1.1. For n 2, the oerator E obeys the estimate (1.2) if (1.3) > 2 3n+1 3n 3 (1.4) > 2 3n+2 3n 2 for n odd. for n even. The best revious estimates for the roblem were roven by Tao [T2] for n = 4 and by Bourgain and the author [BG] for n 5. For n = 4, the conjecture is that (1.2) holds for > Theorem 1.1 gives the range > 2.8, and the best revious estimate was > 3. Asymtotically for large n, the conjecture is that (1.2) holds for bigger than the lower bound 2n n 1 = 2+2n 1 +O(n 2 ). The lower bound for in Theorem 1.1 is n 1 +O(n 2 ), and the lower bound in the best revious estimate was 2+3n 1 +O(n 2 ). The new ingredient of our argument has to do with algebraic structure. Roughly seaking, the argument shows that if Ef L is large, then the region where Ef is large must be organized into thin neighborhoods of low degree algebraic varieties. Exloiting this structure leads to imroved bounds on Ef L. We find this algebraic structure using the tool of olynomial artitioning, which was introduced by Katz and the author in [GK]. Polynomial artitioning was first alied to the restriction roblem in [G], which gave the best current restriction estimate in dimension 3. In this aer we combine that aroach with ideas 1

2 2 LARRY GUTH from [BG]. Besides making incremental rogress on the restriction conjecture, the methods in this aer are related to shar results for some other roblems in the field, which we describe in the next two subsections Related work. In this subsection, we describe two aers which build on this one, and adat the methods to other roblems. In[GHI], Hickman, Iliooulou and the author generalize Theorem 1.1 to the setting of Hormandertye oerators with ositive-definite hase. For this more general class of oerators, the estimates are shar u to the endoint. Hormander-tye oerators with ositive-definite hase can be thought of as small erturbations of the extension oerator E. To formulate this recisely, we first write E in a slightly different form. We define the hase function (1.5) Ψ ar (y,ω) := y 1 ω y n 1 ω n 1 +y n ω 2. We restrict x to a ball of radius R, BR n. For x Bn R, we can write Ef(x) in the form Ef(x) = e irψar( x R,ω) f(ω)dω. B n 1 We think of Ψ ar as a function from B n B n 1 to R. We now consider other hase functions Ψ(y,ω), which are small C erturbations of Ψ ar (y,ω) on B n B n 1. For each such hase function Ψ, and each scale R, we define an oerator (1.6) Tf(x) = e irψ( x R,ω) f(ω)dω. B n 1 Hormanderintroducedthis tyeofoeratorin[h]. Aswesaidabove,oeratorsoftheform(1.6)can be thought of as small erturbations of the extension oerator E. Hormander raised the question whether all such oerators obey the L bounds conjectured to hold for E, and he roved that this is the case when n = 2. But it turns out to be false for all n 3. A counterexamle was found by Wisewell [Wi] (cf. also [BG]). These counterexamles build on a well-known counterexamle of Bourgain from [B1] for a related but slightly different roblem. These counterexamles are surrising because they show that a C small erturbation of the hase function can cause a major change in the behavior of the oerator. In this context, it is reasonable to ask about the best L estimates that hold for all oerators of the form (1.6) the best estimates that are robust to such small erturbations. Hormander [H] answered this question in dimension n = 2, and Lee [L] did so in dimension n = 3. The aer [GHI] does so for all n. It shows that Tf L (B n R ) f L (B n 1 ) for the range of in Theorem 1.1. The counterexamles from [Wi] and [BG] show that, u to the endoint, this is the shar range of in every dimension. In another direction, in [OW], Ou and Wang adat the methods here to the case of the cone. They rove the shar range of restriction estimates for the cone in dimension n 5. Previously, Wolff [W1] roved the shar range of restriction estimates for the cone in dimension n 4.

3 RESTRICTION ESTIMATES USING POLYNOMIAL PARTITIONING II k-linear estimates and k-broad estimates. Multilinear estimates have layed a key role in the recent develoments in restriction theory. Our main new result, which leads to Theorem 1.1, is a weaker version of a k-linear restriction estimate, which we call a k-broad estimate. The exonents in our k-broad estimate are shar for all k. We recall some background on multilinear estimates and then formulate this new result. We begin by recalling the wave acket decomosition. Suose we want to study Ef on a large ball B R R n. We decomose the domain B n 1 into balls θ of radius R 1/2. Then we decomose f in the form f = f θ,v θ,v where f θ,v is suorted in θ and has Fourier transform essentially suorted in a ball around v of radius R 1/2. In the sum, θ ranges over our set of finitely overlaing balls covering B n 1 and v ranges over R 1/2 Z n 1. For each air (θ,v), the restriction of Ef θ,v to B R is essentially suorted on a tube T θ,v with radius R 1/2 and length R. The direction of this tube deends only on θ, and we denote it by G(θ) S n 1. We call Ef θ,v a wave acket. We can now describe multilinear restriction estimates. Given subsets U 1,...,U k B n 1, we say that they are transverse if, for any choice of θ j U j, the directions G(θ 1 ),...,G(θ k ) are quantitatively transverse in the sense that (1.7) G(θ 1 )... G(θ k ) 1. Building on imortant work of Wolff [W1], Tao [T2] roved a shar bilinear estimate for the extension oerator E. Theorem 1.2. (2-linear restriction, [T2]) If U 1,U 2 B n 1 are transverse, and f j is suorted in U j, then (1.8) for 2 n+2 n. 2 Ef j 1/2 j=1 L (B R) R ǫ 2 j=1 f j 1/2 L 2 (B n 1 ) ByanargumentofTao,Vargas,andVega,[TVV],thisbilinearestimateimliesthat Ef L (B R) R ǫ f L (B n 1 ) in the same range 2 n+2 n. The ǫ-removal theorem ([T1]), then imlies Ef L (B R) f L (B n 1 ) for all > 2 n+2 n. A few years after the bilinear results, Bennett, Carbery, and Tao [BCT] roved a shar n-linear estimate for E. Theorem 1.3. (n-linear restriction, [BCT]) If U 1,...,U n B n 1 are transverse, and f j is suorted in U j, then (1.9) for 2 n n 1. n Ef j 1/n j=1 L (B R) R ǫ n j=1 f j 1/n L 2 (B n 1 )

4 4 LARRY GUTH This theorem is imortant and remarkable in art because it involves the shar exonent for the n restriction roblem: > 2 n 1. The aer [BG] gives a technique to exloit multilinear restriction estimates in order to get imroved estimates on the original restriction roblem. Since then, multilinear restriction has had many alications, including the striking recent work of Bourgain and Demeter on decouling (see [BD] and many followu aers). Given this 2-linear estimate and this n-linear estimate, it is natural to try to rove a k-linear estimate for all 2 k n which would include these two estimates as secial cases. Here is what looks to me like the natural conjecture, which I first learned from Jonathan Bennett. Conjecture 1.4. (k-linear restriction) If U 1,...,U k B n 1 are transverse, and f j is suorted in U j, then (1.10) k Ef j 1/k j=1 for (k,n) := 2 n+k n+k 2. L (B R) R ǫ k j=1 f j 1/k L 2 (B n 1 ) Having the full range of k-linear estimates available would imrove the results from [BG]. Combining Conjecture 1.4 with the method from [BG] would give Ef L f L for exactly the range of in Theorem 1.1. For3 k n 1,Conjecture1.4isoen. In[Be]and[Be2], Bejenarurovesmultilinearestimates for certain curved hyersurfaces, but not including the araboloid. The surfaces he considers are foliated by (k 1)-lanes and they are curved in the transverse directions in an aroriate sense. The main new result of this aer is a weak version of Conjecture 1.4, which we call a k-broad restriction inequality. To motivate this inequality, let us recall the aroach from [BG] for deducing linear estimates from multilinear ones. We decomose B n 1 into balls τ of radius K 1, where K is a large constant. This decomosition is much coarser than the decomosition into balls θ of radius R 1/2. We write f = τ f τ where f τ is suorted in τ. Next we subdivide BR n into much smaller balls. In [BG], we used balls of radius K, but it will be slightly more convenient here to use balls of radius K 2. For each B R, we consider B Ef K τ for each τ. We say that τ contributes significantly to B 2 K 2 if Ef τ K 10n Ef. We let S() denote the set of τ which contribute significantly to. Now we break the balls into two classes. We label a ball as k-transverse if there are k significant τ s which are k-transverse in the sense above. We label a ball as k-non-transverse otherwise. A k-linear restriction estimate gives a good bound for the integral of Ef over the union of all of the k- transverse balls. The aer [BG] then gives an inductive argument to control the contribution from the k-non-transverse balls. This inductive argument can be described most cleanly using the language of decouling. Building on [BG], Bourgain roved a decouling theorem in [B4] which imlies that for each k-nontransverse ball, Ef 2 L () τ S() Ef τ 2 L ()

5 RESTRICTION ESTIMATES USING POLYNOMIAL PARTITIONING II 5 foracertainrangeofwhichcoverstheexonentswestudy. Forak-non-transverseball, allthe significant τ have direction G(τ) within K 1 of some (k 1)-lane. In articular S() K k 2. Using this bound and Holder s inequality we get (1.11) Ef K α Ef τ. τ S(B B K 2) K 2 with α = (K k 2 ) 2 2, which is otimal. Summing this inequality over all the k-non-transverse balls gives Ef K α Ef τ. k-non-transverse balls τ B R The right-hand side may then be controlled by induction on scales. To make this strategy work, we do not need a full k-linear bound. The decouling estimate that we used to control the k-non-transverse balls alies whenever the significant τ for a ball all have directions G(τ) lying within the O(K 1 )-neighborhood of O(1) (k 1)-lanes. We call such a ball k-narrow. To get the argument to work, we only need to bound Ef over the remaining balls the k-broad balls. Here is a little notation so that we can state our k-broad bound recisely. We let G(τ) = θ τ G(θ). The set G(τ) S n 1 is a sherical ca with radius K 1, reresenting the ossible directions of wave ackets in Ef τ. If V R n is a subsace, then we write Angle(G(τ),V) for the smallest angle between any non-zero vectors v V and v G(τ). For each ball B R, we consider B Ef K τ for every τ. To define the k-broad norm, we discount the contributions of f 2 τ with G(τ) lying near to a few (k 1)-lanes, and we record the largest remaining contribution. More formally, for a arameter A, we define (1.12) µ Ef () := min V 1,...,V A (k 1)-subsaces of R n We can now define the k-broad art of Ef L (B R) by: ( max τ:angle(g(τ),v a)>k 1 for all a (1.13) Ef := µ BL k,a (BR) Ef (). B R Our main new result is an estimate for this k-broad norm. Ef τ ) Theorem 1.5. For any 2 k n, and any ǫ > 0, there is a large constant A so that the following holds (for any value of K):. (1.14) Ef BL k,a (BR) K,ǫ R ǫ f L2 (B n 1 ), for (k,n) = 2 n+k n+k 2. The range of in Theorem 1.5 is shar for all k and n. Using the method from [BG] outlined above, Theorem 1.5 imlies the restriction estimate Theorem 1.1.

6 6 LARRY GUTH We should mention that BL k,a is not literally a norm, but it has some similar roerties, which is why we use the norm notation. In articular, BL k,a obeys the following weak version of the triangle inequality: if f = g +h, then (1.15) Ef BL k,a (BR) Eg BL k,a/2 (BR) + Eh BL k,a/2 (BR). The reason for introducing the arameter A is to use this version of the triangle inequality. If we choose A(ǫ) very large, then we can effectively use the triangle inequality O ǫ (1) times during our roof, and so BL k,a behaves almost like a norm. We were not able to rove Conjecture 1.4, and the main issue is that in the true k-linear setting, we do not have a substitute for this triangle inequality Examles. To hel digest Theorem 1.5, we describe a coule examles. These examles show that the range of exonents in Theorem 1.5 is shar. In one examle, the wave ackets Ef θ,v concentrate in the R 1/2 -neighborhood of a k-lane. We denote this neighborhood by W. Each wave acket Ef θ,v has Ef θ,v (x) 1 on the tube T θ,v, and raidly decaying outside T θ,v. It is not hard to arrange that each oint in the slab W lies in many wave ackets T θ,v, ointing in many directions within the k-lane. For each ball in the slab, only a tiny fraction of the wave ackets through this ball lie near to any (k 1)-lane. In this scenario, Ef BL k,a (BR) Ef L (B R). We can also arrange that Ef(x) 2 θ,v Ef θ,v(x) 2 at most oints x by relacing f θ,v by ±f θ,v with indeendent random sings. We can distribute the wave ackets evenly so that Ef(x) is roughly constant on the slab. Moreover, by a standard orthogonality argument Ef L2 (B R) R 1/2 f L 2. Therefore, we get Ef BL k,a (BR) R 1/2 Ef L (B R) R 1/2 W f L 2 Ef L 2 (B R) Since W R k R (1/2)(n k), a short calculation shows that the ratio Ef L (B R)/ f L 2 is bounded for (k,n) and blows u for < (k,n). But there are also more comlicated shar examles, coming from low degree algebraic varieties. This tye of examle was first ointed out to me by Josh Zahl. For instance, consider the quadric hyersurface Z R 4 defined by (x 1 /R) 2 +(x 2 /R) 2 (x 3 /R) 2 (x 4 /R) 2 = 1. Each oint of Z lies in a 1-arameter family of lines in Z. The union of the lines through a given oint form a 2-dimensional cone. For examle, the oint (R,0,0,0) lies in the cone defined by x 1 = R;(x 2 /R) 2 (x 3 /R) 2 (x 4 /R) 2 = 0. If we take the R 1/2 -neighborhoods of lines in Z, we can find many tubes in the R 1/2 -neighborhood of Z. We can now build an examle like the one above using wave ackets concentrated in the R 1/2 -neighborhood of Z. For each ball in this neighborhood, the wave ackets through fill out a 2-dimensional cone, and very few of them lie near any 2-dimensional lane. Therefore, Ef BL 3,A (BR) Ef L (B R). The rest of the discussion in the lanar slab examle alies here also, and so we see that this examle is shar for Theorem 1.5 in dimension 4 with k = 3. For larger n, there are more variations on this examle. The dimension of the variety Z in these examles is k. The degree of Z may be larger than 2, although in the known examles it is always bounded by C(n). Similar examles aly to Conjecture 1.4.

7 RESTRICTION ESTIMATES USING POLYNOMIAL PARTITIONING II 7 These examles hel to suggest that algebraic varieties could be relevant to Theorem 1.5. Polynomial artitioning is a tool that hels us to find and exloit the tye of algebraic structure in these examles. If we run through the roof of Theorem 1.5 on this tye of examle, the argument will find the variety Z. The new difficulty in this aer, comared with [G], is that it is harder to find a k-dimensional variety for small k then it is to find a hyersurface. In the next section, we will describe the olynomial artitioning rocess and give a sense of the issues involved A direction for further imrovement. The aer [G] alies olynomial artitioning to the restriction roblem in 3 dimensions. It roves an estimate which is stronger than Theorem 1.1, namely Ef L (R 3 ) f L for > This estimate relies on one additional ingredient: an estimate forhowmany differentθ canbe reresentedbywaveacketst θ,v in the R 1/2 -neighborhood of a low degree variety Z. In the 3-dimensional case, recall that there are R balls θ B 2, each with radius R 1/2. Let Θ(Z) denote the set of θ so that at least one wave acket T θ,v is contained in the R 1/2 -neighborhood of Z. Lemma 3.6 of [G] roves that if Z is a 2-dimensional variety in R 3 of degree 1, then Θ(Z) ǫ R 1/2+ǫ. (If Z is a 2-lane, then Θ(Z) R 1/2, and so the result says that the examle of a lane is nearly the worst ossible.) When Ef L is large, the olynomial artitioning method locates algebraic ieces that contribute most of Ef L. The bound for Θ(Z) gives a stronger estimate for the contribution of each such iece in terms of f L or f L. Note that for Hormander-tye oerators of ositive definite hase in 3 dimensions, the estimate Tf L (B 3 R ) R ǫ f L (B 2 ) is false for all < 10/3. To rove the bound Ef L f L for all > 3.25, the argument from [G] has to distinguish E from more general Hormander-tye oerators of ositive-definite hase. The bound on Θ(Z) is the ste that does this. In the Hormander case, Tf θ,v is concentrated on a curved tube. And in the counterexamle from [Wi] or [BG], there is a low-degree variety Z whose R 1/2 -neighborhood contains one such curved tube for every θ. I have not been able to rove a good bound for Θ(Z) in higher dimensions. Such a bound would lead to further imrovements in the restriction exonents in high dimensions. We will discuss this issue more in the final section of the aer. Acknowledgements. I was suorted by a Simons Investigator Award during this work. I would also like to thank Marina Iliooulou and Jongchon Kim for helful comments on a draft of the aer. 2. Sketch of the roof In this section, we sketch the roof of the k-broad estimate, Theorem 1.5. We actually give two sketches. The first sketch aims to show the main ideas of the argument. The second sketch brings into lay more of the technical issues, and it rovides a detailed outline of the argument in the aer. The roof begins with a wave acket decomosition. We decomose the domain B n 1 into balls θ of radius R 1/2. We then decomose the function f : B n 1 C as f = θ,v where f θ,v is suorted on θ and the Fourier transform of f θ,v is essentially suorted on a ball of radius R 1/2 around v. In the sum, v ranges over R 1/2 Z n 1. On B R, Ef θ,v is essentially suorted f θ,v,

8 8 LARRY GUTH onatube T θ,v ofradiusr 1/2 andlength R. In addition, the functions f θ,v areessentiallyorthogonal. In articular, we have (2.1) f 2 L 2 θ,v f θ,v 2 L 2. Our goal is to rove that (2.2) Ef BL k,a (BR) C(ǫ)R ǫ f L 2 for = (k,n) := 2(n+k) n+k 2. The roof will be by induction. So we assume that (2.2) holds for balls of smaller radii, and in lower dimension. Recall that Ef BL k,a (BR) = B R µ Ef (), where µ Ef () was defined in (1.12). We can extend µ Ef to be a measure on B R, making it a constant multile of the Lebesgue measure on each. In articular µ Ef (B R ) = Ef BL (BR). k,a We now introduce olynomial artitioning. We let D be a large constant that we can choose later. For a olynomial P on R n, we write Z(P) for the zero set of P. By Theorem 1.4 in [G], there is a (non-zero) olynomial P of degree at most D on R n, so that R n \Z(P) is a disjoint union of D n oen cells O i, and the measures µ Ef (O i ) are all equal. Next we consider how the wave ackets Ef θ,v interact with this artition. We note that a line can cross Z(P) at most D times, and so a line can enter at most D +1 of the D n cells O i. The tube T θ,v can still enter many or all cells O i, but it can only enetrate deely into D + 1 cells. To make this recise, we define W to be the R 1/2 -neighborhood of Z(P), and we define O i to be O i \W. If a tube T θ,v enters O i, then the axis of T θ,v must enter O i, and so we get (2.3) Each tube T θ,v enters at most D +1 cells O i. We now have µ Ef (B R ) = i µ Ef (O i )+µ Ef(W). We say that we are in the cellular case when the contribution of the cells dominates and in the algebraic case when the contribution of W dominates. If we are in the cellular case, then there must be D n cells O i so that (2.4) Ef BL k,a (BR) Dn µ Ef (O i). Next we study Ef on each of these cells O i. We define f i by (2.5) f i := θ,v:t θ,v O i f θ,v.

9 RESTRICTION ESTIMATES USING POLYNOMIAL PARTITIONING II 9 Since Ef θ,v is essentially suorted on T θ,v, we see that Ef i is almostequal to Ef on O i. Therefore, µ Efi (O i ) µ Ef(O i ). Now we study the µ Ef i (O i ) using induction since f i involves fewer wave acketsthan f, it is a simlerobject, and soit makessenseto assumeby induction that our theorem holds for f i. This leads to the following bound: (2.6) µ Ef (O i ) µ Ef i (O i ) Ef i BL k,a (BR) [C(ǫ)Rǫ ] f i L 2. Next we analyze f i L 2. By the orthogonality of the f θ,v, we have f i 2 L 2 i i f θ,v 2 L # cells O 2 i so that T θ,v O i f θ,v 2 L 2. θ,v:t θ,v O i θ,v By (2.3), each tube T θ,v enters D cells O i, and so we get f i 2 L D f 2 θ,v 2 L 2 D f 2 L 2. i θ,v Since there are D n cells O i that obey (2.4), we see that most of them must also obey (2.7) f i 2 L 2 D1 n f 2 L 2. Combining this bound with (2.4) and our inductive assumtion (2.6), we get Ef BL k,a (BR) [CD n+(1 n) 2 ] [C(ǫ)R ǫ ] f L 2. In this equation, the constant C is the imlicit constant from the various s. It does not deend on D. The induction closes as long as the term in brackets is 1. Since we can choose the constant D, we can arrange that the induction closes as long as the exonent of D is negative. Given our value of, we can check that the exonent of D is 0, and the induction closes. Now we turn to the algebraic case. In this case, the measure µ Ef is concentrated in W the R 1/2 -neighborhood of Z(P) - a degree D algebraic variety of dimension n 1. There are two tyes of wave ackets that contribute to µ Ef on W, which we describe roughly as follows: Tangential wave ackets: wave ackets that are essentially contained in W. For these wave ackets, the direction of the tube T θ,v is (nearly) tangent to Z = Z(P). Transverse wave ackets: wave ackets that cut across W. We first discuss the case that the tangential wave ackets dominate. To simlify the exosition, let usimagineforthe moment thatthe varietyz isahyerlane, sow isalanarslabofdimensions R 1/2 R... R. We can also imagine that f has the form f = f θ,v, where all the tubes T θ,v are contained in W. We study this case using induction on the dimension. In the tangential algebraic case, the behavior of Ef on the hyerlane Z can be controlled by alying Theorem 1.5 in dimension n 1. Here is one way to set this u. There is a standard L 2 estimate giving (2.8) Ef L 2 (B R) R 1/2 f L 2. It is not hard to reduce Theorem 1.5 to the case that Ef L2 (B R) R 1/2 f L 2, and so we can think of Theorem 1.5 in the equivalent form

10 10 LARRY GUTH Ef BL k,a (BR) R 1/2+ǫ Ef L 2 (B R). We can aly Theorem 1.5 in dimension n 1 to study Ef on Z, and we get the estimate Ef BL (k,n 1) k,a (Z B R 1/2+ǫ R) Ef L 2 (Z B R). Now (k,n 1) > (k,n) =. Interolating between this estimate and the L 2 estimate (2.8), we get a bound of the form Ef BL k,a (Z BR) R 1/2+e+ǫ Ef L 2 (Z B R), for = (k,n), where e is an exonent deending on k,n. The same estimate holds not just for Z but for any translate of Z in the slab W. These estimates control the behavior of Ef in the directions tangent to Z. To get a good estimate in the tangential algebraic case, we also have to control the behavior of Ef in the direction transverse to Z. We will show that there is a direction transverse to the hyerlane Z so that Ef(x) is morally constant as we move x in this direction for distance R 1/2. We call this behavior a transverse equidistribution estimate. It imlies that Ef 2 L 2 (B R) Ef 2 L 2 (W) R1/2 Ef 2 L 2 (Z B R), and Ef BL k,a (BR) Ef BL k,a (W) R1/2 Ef BL k,a (Z BR). Using these estimates, we can control Ef BL k,a (BR) by induction on the dimension: Ef BL k,a (BR) Ef BL k,a (W) R1/2 Ef BL k,a (Z BR) R 1/2 R ( 1/2+e+ǫ) Ef L 2 (Z B R) R1/2 R ( 1/2+e+ǫ)( R 1/2 Ef 2 L 2 (B R)) /2. There are a lot of messy owers of R in this comutation. But lugging in = (k,n) and working out the exonent, one gets Ef BL k,a (BR) R 1/2+ǫ Ef L 2 (B R) R ǫ f L 2, which closes n+k the induction in the tangential algebraic case. The exonent = (k,n) = 2 n+k 2 is exactly the exonent needed to make the owers of R work out in this comutation. Next we sketch the reason for this transverse equidistribution. From the definition of E, we see that Ef θ,v has Fourier transform suorted in a ball of radius R 1/2 around ξ(θ) = (ω θ,1,...,ω θ,n 1, ω θ 2 ), where ω θ denotes the center of θ. We know that all the wave ackets Ef θ,v in Ef are suorted in tubes T θ,v W. This situation restricts the directions G(θ), which in turn restricts the frequencies ξ(θ). The connection between G(θ) and ξ(θ) is simlest for a slightly different oerator - the extension oerator for the shere. In that case, G(θ) = ξ(θ). Since the tubes T θ,v all lie in W, the directions G(θ) all lie in the R 1/2 -neighborhood of the subsace V R n arallel to Z. Therefore, the frequencies ξ(θ) all lie in the R 1/2 -neighborhood of V also. So the Fourier transform of Ef is suorted in the R 1/2 -neighborhood of V. If l denotes a line erendicular to V (or to Z), then the restriction of Ef to l has Fourier transform suorted in a ball of radius R 1/2. Therefore, Ef is morally constant as we move along the line l for distances R 1/2.

11 RESTRICTION ESTIMATES USING POLYNOMIAL PARTITIONING II 11 For the extension oerator for the araboloid, the situation is similar but a touch messier. We know that the directions G(θ) all lie in the R 1/2 -neighborhood of the lane V. A short calculation shows that the frequencies ξ(θ) all lie in the R 1/2 -neighborhood of an affine hyerlane V. The hyerlanev is not equal tov, but the angle betweenv and V is fairlysmall. Ifliserendicular to the lane V, then it still follows that Ef is morally constant as we move along l for distances R 1/2. The line l is no longer exactly erendicular to the original lane Z, but it is still quantitatively transverse to Z, and this is good enough for our alication. In this sketch, we assumed that Z is a hyerlane. But in the real roof we cannot assume this. We have to set u the induction on dimension in a different way, taking into account the ossibility that Z is curved. We exlain this in the next subsection. Finally, it can haen that the transverse wave ackets dominate. In this last case, µ Ef (W) dominates µ Ef (B R ), but the wave ackets transverseto W make the main contribution to µ Ef (W). In this case, we can imagine that f = f θ,v where each tube T θ,v is transverse to W. Recall that the number of times a line can cross the hyersurface Z is D 1. Similarly, we will rove that the number of times a tube T θ,v can cross the surface W is 1. In this case, we subdivide the ball B R into smaller balls B j with radius ρ R. A tube T θ,v enters (R/ρ) 1 of these balls. But because of the discussion above, a tube T θ,v can cross W transversely in 1 balls B j. We define T j,trans := {(θ,v) T θ,v crosses W transversely in B j }, f j,trans := (θ,v) T j,trans f θ,v. Since a tube T θ,v can cross W transversely in 1 balls B j, each (θ,v) belongs to 1 sets T j,trans. Therefore, (2.9) f j,trans 2 L 2 f 2 L 2. j Since we assumed that all the wave ackets in f intersect W transversely, Ef j,trans is essentially equal to Ef on W B j. Therefore, µ Ef (W B j ) µ Efj,trans (B j ). Since we are in the algebraic case, and since we assumed that all the tubes T θ,v intersect W transversely, we have (2.10) µ Ef (B R ) µ Ef (W) j µ Ef (W B j ) j µ Efj,trans (B j ). By induction on the radius, we can assume that µ Efj (B j ) [C(ǫ)ρ ǫ ] f j,trans L 2. Plugging this bound into (2.10) and then alying (2.9), we get Ef BL k,a (BR) [C(ǫ)ρǫ ] j f j,trans L 2.

12 12 LARRY GUTH Since > 2, we get j f j,trans L 2 ( j f j,trans 2 L 2 ) /2 f L 2. Therefore, we have Ef BL k,a (BR) [C(ǫ)ρǫ ] f L 2. Since (R/ρ) is large, Cρ ǫ < R ǫ, and so this closes the induction in the transverse algebraic case Studying wave ackets tangent to a variety. In the receding sketch, we considered the secial case that the variety Z is a hyerlane. In this secial situation, the tangential algebraic case reduces to the original theorem in dimension n 1. In the full roof we need to consider curved varieties Z, and so we have to do the induction on the dimension in a different way. If Z is an m-dimensional variety in R n, then we say that the tube T θ,v is α-tangent to Z in B R if the following two conditions hold: Distance condition: T θ,v N αr (Z) B R. Angle condition: If z Z N αr (T θ,v ), then Angle(T z Z,G(θ)) α. For each dimension m, we will choose an angle α m slightly larger than R 1/2, and then we define T Z := {(θ,v) : T θ,v is α m -tangent to Z in B R }. Our main technical result is Proosition 8.1. It says that if Z is an m-dimensional variety of controlled degree, and if f = (θ,v) T Z f θ,v, then (for a range of exonents 2), Ef BL k,a (BR) M f L 2, where M is a fairly comlicated exression which deends on the arameters of the setu, including the exonent, the radius R, the dimension m, the value of A, etc. The roof of Proosition 8.1 is by induction on the dimension m. The base of the induction is the case m = k 1. In this case, Ef BL k,a (BR) is negligibly small. To see this, consider a small ball. The function Ef is essentially suorted in N R 1/2(Z) B R, so we can assume N R 1/2(Z) B R. Because of the angle condition, all the wave ackets T θ,v T Z that ass through have direction G(θ) within a small angle of an (k 1)-lane the lane T z Z for a oint z Z near to and so the ball makes a negligible contribution to Ef BL. This k,a rovides the base of the induction. The roof of Proosition 8.1 follows the rough outline of our first sketch. We again use olynomial artitioning. Under the hyotheses of the roosition, we know that Ef is essentially suorted in N R 1/2(Z) for a given m-dimensional variety Z. We want to find a olynomial P so that Z(P) cuts N R 1/2(Z) into smaller cells. To do this, we choose new orthogonal coordinates y 1,...,y n so that the rojection of Z to the (y 1,...,y m )-lane is non-degenerate on a significant ortion of Z. Then we let P be a olynomial in y 1,...,y m. In this case, Z(P) intersects Z transversely(at least on a significant ortion of Z), and this makes the olynomial artitioning work. Essentially everything works as in the first sketch, excet that because P deends on only m variables, the number of cells O i is only D m. This will affect the final exonents, but the method of the argument is the same. If µ Ef is concentrated on the cells O i, then we can rove the desired bounds by induction. Otherwise, µ Ef is concentrated in the R 1/2 -neighborhood of a lower-dimensional variety Y = Z Z(P).

13 RESTRICTION ESTIMATES USING POLYNOMIAL PARTITIONING II 13 Now we turn to this algebraic case. In the algebraic case, there is a lower-dimensional variety Y, with DegY DegZ, so that µ Ef (N R 1/2(Y) B R ) µ Ef (B R ) µ Ef (N R 1/2(Z) B R ). There are two tyes of wave ackets that contribute to µ Ef on N R 1/2(Y) B R : tangential wave ackets, which lie in N R 1/2(Y) and run tangent to Y, and transverse wave ackets, which cut across N R 1/2(Y). (Recall that all the wave ackets are tangent to Z by hyothesis.) In our current setu, if all the wave ackets are tangent to Y, then we get the desired estimate just by induction on the dimension m. However, there may be a mix of transverse and tangential wave ackets. If we let f tang be the sum of the tangential wave ackets and f trans be the sum of the transverse wave ackets, then the quasi-triangle inequality for BL k,a (1.15) gives Ef BL k,a (BR) Ef tang BL k,a/2 (BR) + Ef trans BL k,a/2 (BR). This is the ste in the roof where we need to use the quasi-triangle inequality. We can handle the tangential terms by induction on the dimension, and now we turn to the transverse terms. As in the last sketch, we decomose B R = j B j, where each ball B j has radius ρ R. We define f j,trans as above to be the sum of wave ackets that intersect N R 1/2(Y) transversely in B j. As in the revious sketch, geometric arguments show that a tube T θ,v can intersect N R 1/2(Y) transversely in 1 balls B j, and so f j,trans 2 L 2 f 2 L 2. j Next we want to study Ef j,trans BL k,a/2 (Bj) by using induction on the radius. This ste is more comlicated than in the revious sketch. We know that f is concentrated on wave ackets that are tangent to Z on B R, and we need to use that information. We exand Ef j,trans into wave ackets on the ball B j. Since B j has radius ρ, each wave acket is essentially suorted on a tube of radius ρ 1/2 and length ρ in B j. When we examine this wave acket decomosition, it is not exactly true that all the wave ackets are tangent to Z in B j in fact, something better is true. The wave ackets of f j,trans on B j all lie in N R 1/2(Z) B j, but they don t necessarily lie in N ρ 1/2(Z) B j. We cover N R 1/2(Z) B j with disjoint translates of N ρ 1/2(Z) B j : N R 1/2(Z) B j = b N ρ 1/2(Z +b) B j. Now it turns out that each wave acket of f j,trans lies in one of these translates. We let f j,trans,b be the sum of the wave ackets that lie in N ρ 1/2 (Z+b) B j. Now we have f j,trans = b f j,trans,b, and Ef j,trans BL k,a/2 (Bj) b Ef j,trans BL k,a/2 (N ρ 1/2 (Z+b) B j) b Ef j,trans,b BL k,a/2 (Bj). The wave ackets of Ef j,trans,b are tangent to the m-dimensional variety Z+b on B j. Therefore, we can study Ef j,trans,b BL k,a/2 (Bj) by induction on the radius: we can assume that Ef j,trans,b BL k,a/2 (Bj) M(ρ,A/2) f j,trans,b L 2.

14 14 LARRY GUTH (Here we write M(ρ,A/2) because M deends on the radius (which is ρ) and because we have A/2 in lace of A.) Putting together what we have learned so far in the transverse algebraic case, we have Ef BL k,a (BR) j Ef j,trans BL k,a/2 (Bj) j,b Ef j,trans,b BL k,a/2 (Bj) M(ρ,A/2) j,b f j,trans,b L 2. To get our final bound, it remains to control j,b f j,trans,b L 2. Since each wave acket of f j,trans lies in exactly one f j,trans,b, it is easy to check that f j,trans 2 L 2 b f j,trans,b 2 L 2. We also already know that j f j,trans 2 L 2 f 2 L 2. And so we see that f j,trans,b L 2 j,b ( max j,b f j,trans,b 2 L 2 ) f 2 L 2. The last ingredient of the roof is an estimate for max j,b f j,trans,b L 2, which has to do with transverse equidistribution. Recall that since f is concentrated on wave ackets in T Z, Ef is equidistributed in directions transverse to Z. Recall that N R 1/2(Z) B j is covered by thinner ( ) n m. R neighborhoods N ρ 1/2(Z + b) B j. The number of these thinner neighborhoods is 1/2 ρ 1/2 Because of transverse equidistribution, each of these neighborhoods receives an even share of the L 2 norm of Ef j,trans. In other words, for each b, Ef j,trans 2 L 2 (N ρ 1/2(Z+b) B j) ( R 1/2 ρ 1/2 ) (n m) Ef j,trans 2 L 2 (N R 1/2(Z) B j). Using this inequality, we rove the desired estimate for f j,trans,b L 2: (2.11) f j,trans,b 2 L 2 ( R 1/2 ρ 1/2 ) (n m) ( ) R f j,trans 2 1/2 (n m) L f 2 2 ρ 1/2 L Outline of the aer. Wecarryout the roofoftheorem1.5oversections 3-8oftheaer. Section 3 reviews some standard facts about wave ackets. Section 4 roves some basic roerties of the broad norms BL k,a. Section 5 contains tools from algebraic geometry (and differential geometry) that we will use to study the geometry of the algebraic varieties that aear in the roofs. Section 6 roves the first transverse equidistribution estimate. For any ball B(y,ρ) R n, there is a wave acket decomosition for Ef on the ball B(y,ρ). Section 7 is about the relationshi between the original wave acket decomosition on the ball B R and the wave acket decomosition adated to a smaller ball B(y,ρ) B R. This lets us state and rove a second version of the transverse equidistribution estimate, corresonding to (2.11) above. With the background and tools from these sections, we rove Theorem 1.5 in Section 8. Following [BG], Section 9 exlains how k-broad estimates imly regular L estimates of the form Ef L f L. This argument finishes the roof of Theorem 1.1. Section 10 is an aendix which hels to kee track of the arameters. Unfortunately, there are quite a few arameters in the aer various δ s, R, K, A, etc. The aendix lists all the arameters and how they relate to each other. Section 11 discusses further directions and oen roblems.

15 RESTRICTION ESTIMATES USING POLYNOMIAL PARTITIONING II Basic setu with wave ackets Let f be a function on B n 1. We first break u f into ieces f θ,v that are localized in both osition and frequency. Cover B n 1 by finitely overlaing balls θ of radius R 1/2. Let ψ θ be a smooth artition of unity adated to this cover, and write f = θ ψ θf. Next we break u ψ θ f according to frequency. Cover R n 1 by finitely overlaing balls of radius R 1+δ 2, centered at vectors v R 1+δ 2 Z n 1. Let η v be a smooth artition of unity adated to this cover. We can now write f = θ,v (η v (ψ θ f) ) = θ,v η v (ψ θf). Note that η v(x) is raidly decaying for x R 1 δ 2. Choose smooth functions ψθ so that ψ θ is suorted on θ, but ψ θ is 1 on a small neighborhood of the suort of ψ θ. A bit more recisely, we would like ψ θ = 1 on a cr 1/2 neighborhood of the suort of ψ θ for a small constant c > 0. Now we define Because of the raid decay of η v, f θ,v := ψ θ [η v (ψ θ f)]. Therefore, we see that f θ,v η v (ψ θ f) L RaDec(R) f L 2. f = f θ,v +Err, where Err L RaDec(R) f L 2. θ,v Terms of the form RaDec(R) f L 2 are negligibly small in terms of all of our estimates. These raidly decaying errors will occur from time to time during our arguments. The functions f θ,v are aroximately orthogonal. For any set T of airs (θ,v), we have (3.1) (θ,v) T f θ,v 2 L 2 (θ,v) T f θ,v 2 L 2. The decomosition f = θ,v f θ,v is useful in this roblem because Ef θ,v is localized in sace. For each (θ,v), there is a corresonding tube T θ,v, where Ef θ,v is essentially suorted. Let ω θ denote the center of θ. We define T θ,v by (3.2) T θ,v := {(x,x n ) B R so that x +2x n ω θ +v R 1/2+δ }. Lemma 3.1. If x B R \T θ,v, then Ef θ,v (x) RaDec(R) f L 2. We sketch the roof by stationary hase. We note that (e ivω f θ,v ) has Fourier transform essentially suorted in B R 1/2+δ/2. Therefore, we have max e ivω f θ,v R (n 1)δ 2 Avgθ e ivω f θ,v. θ

16 16 LARRY GUTH Moreover, taking derivatives, we see that ( ) max k ω e ivω f θ,v (R 1/2+δ/2) k R (n 1) δ 2 Avgθ e ivω f θ,v. θ Let η θ be a smooth bum which is equal to 1 on θ. Since θ has diameter R 1/2, we can estimate the derivatives k η θ R k/2. Now we write Ef θ,v (x) as (3.3) Ef θ,v (x) = [ η θ e i(x ω+x n ω 2 +vω) ] (e ivω f θ,v ). We let Ψ(ω) := x ω +x n ω 2 vω. We note that ω Ψ = x +2x n ω +v. If x B R \T θ,v, then x +2x n ω θ +v = ω Ψ(ω θ ) > R 1/2+δ. We know that x n R, and so for any ω θ, 2x n ω 2x n ω θ R 1/2. Therefore, for any ω θ, ω Ψ(ω) R 1/2+δ. Byalyingintegrationbyartsto(3.3)manytimes, weseethat Ef θ,v (x) RaDec(R) f θ,v L 2 as desired. The tube T θ,v is a cylinder of length R and radius R 1/2+δ. It oints in the direction G(ω θ ), where G(ω) is the unit vector given by G(ω) = ( 2ω 1,..., 2ω n 1,1) ( 2ω 1,..., 2ω n 1,1). For each ω B n 1, we also define a frequency ξ(ω). Based on the formula for Ef, the frequency ξ(ω) is given by We let ξ(θ) denote the image of θ under ξ: ξ(ω) := (ω 1,...,ω n 1, ω 2 ). ξ(θ) := {(ω 1,...,ω n 1, ω 2 ) ω θ}. In a distributional sense, the Fourier transform of Ef θ,v is suorted in ξ(θ). Also, if η R denotes a smooth bum on B R (of height 1), then the Fourier transform of η R Ef θ,v is essentially suorted in N R 1(ξ(θ)). We introduce a little notation. If T α is any set of airs (θ,v), then we say that f is concentrated on wave ackets from T α if f = Also, for any f, and for any set T α, we define (θ,v) T α f θ,v +RaDec(R) f L 2. f α = (θ,v) T α f θ,v.

17 RESTRICTION ESTIMATES USING POLYNOMIAL PARTITIONING II Orthogonality. For any fixed x n, Ef restricted to R n 1 {x n } canbe described as an inverse Fourier transform: Alying Plancherel, we get Ef(x 1,...,x n 1,x n ) = ( e ixn ω 2 f(ω)) (x1,...,x n 1 ). (3.4) Ef L 2 (R n 1 {x n}) = f L 2. We record a coule of simle corollaries of this statement. Lemma 3.2. Proof. B R Ef 2 Ef L 2 (B R) R 1/2 f L 2. R R ( Ef 2 dx )dx n 2R f 2 L 2. B n 1 (R) Lemma 3.3. Suose that f is concentrated on a set of wave ackets T and that for every (θ,v) T, T θ,v (R n 1 {x n }) B n 1 (z 0,r) {x n }. Then (3.5) Ef L 2 (B n 1 (z 0,r) {x n}) = f L 2 +RaDec(R) f L 2. Lemma 3.4. Suose that f is concentrated on a set of wave ackets T and that for every (θ,v) T, T θ,v B(z,r), for some radius r R 1/2+δ. Then (3.6) Ef 2 L 2 (B(z,10r)) r f 2 L 2. Proof. For each x n in the range z n r x n z n + r, and for each (θ,v) T, the intersection T θ,v R n 1 {x n } is contained in B(z,5r). By the last lemma, we see that Ef L2 (B(z,5r) R n 1 {x n}) = f L 2 +RaDec(R) f L 2. Alying Fubini, we get the desired bound. 4. Proerties of the broad norms BL k,a We recall the definition of the k-broad norm BL k,a. Although BL k,a is not literally a norm, it obeys a version of the triangle inequality and a version of Holder s inequality. These nice algebraic features heled to motivate this articular definition. Let B n 1 be a disjoint union of (aroximate) balls τ of radius K 1. For each τ, we define G(τ) to be the image of τ under the direction ma G. If ω τ is the center of τ, then G(τ) is essentially a ball of radius K 1 around G(ω τ ) in S n 1. If V R n is a subsace, then we write Angle(G(τ),V) for the smallest angle between any non-zero vectors v V and v G(τ). For any ball of radius K 2 in B R, we define µ Ef as in (1.12). µ Ef () := min V 1,...,V A (k 1)-subsaces of R n Because this exression is a little long, we abbreviate it as ( max τ:angle(g(τ),v a)>k 1 for all a Ef τ ).

18 18 LARRY GUTH µ Ef () := min V 1,...,V A ( max τ/ V a Ef τ ) We remark that it is convenient to allow A = 0. If A = 0, then we have simly µ Ef () = max τ Ef τ. If U B R is a finite union of balls, then we define Ef L (U) by: (4.1) Ef := µ BL k,a (U) Ef (). U The k-broad norm obeys a weak version of the triangle inequality. Lemma 4.1. Suose that f = g+h and suose that A = A 1 +A 2, where A,A i are non-negative integers. Then Proof. We exand Ef BL k,a (U) Eg BL k,a 1 (U) + Eh BL k,a 2 (U). Ef BL k,a (U) = Now for each ball U, we have ( min V 1,...,V A min V 1,...,V A1 ( max τ/ V a max τ/ V a,1 a A 1 min V 1,...,V A U Ef τ ) min V 1,...,V A Summing over all U, we get ( ( max τ/ V a max τ/ V a [ Eg τ )+ min V A1 +1,...,V A (. Ef τ ). ]) Eg τ + Eh τ max τ/ V a,a 1+1 a A Ef BL k,a (U) Eg BL k,a 1 (U) + Eh BL k,a 2 (U). Eh τ ) The reason that we need a large value of A in Theorem 1.5 is that we will need to use this triangle inequality many times. If A = 1, BL k,1 does not obey a good triangle inequality. But if we start with A a large constant, we can use Lemma 4.1 many times. In effect, BL k,a behaves like a norm as long as we only use the triangle inequality O ǫ (1) times in our argument, and as long as we choose A = A(ǫ) large enough. BL k,a also obeys a version of (a corollary of) Holder s inequality. Lemma 4.2. Suose that 1, 1, 2 < and 0 α 1,α 2 1 obey α 1 +α 2 = 1 and 1 = α α Also suose that A = A 1 +A 2. Then.

19 RESTRICTION ESTIMATES USING POLYNOMIAL PARTITIONING II 19 Proof. The left-hand side is Ef BL k,a (U) Ef α1 BL 1 k,a (U) Ef α2 1 min max V 1,...V A τ/ V a U. BL 2 k,a (U) 2 1 Ef τ. Alying the regular Holder inequality to the inner integral, this exression is min max V 1,...V A τ/ V a U ( ) α1 ( 1 Ef τ 1 We can bring the maximum over τ inside, so the last exression is min V 1,...V A U ( max τ/ V a Ef τ 1 ) α1 ( 1 max τ/ V a Ef τ 2 ) α2 Ef τ 2 ) α Now we cannot bring the minimum inside the arentheses. But we can slit V 1,...,V A into V 1,...,V A1 and V A1+1,...,V A. If we weaken the first condition τ / V 1...V A to τ / V 1,...,V A1, and if we weaken the second condition τ / V 1,...,V A to τ / V A1+1,...,V A, then we see that the last exression is bounded by U ( min V 1,...V A1 max τ/ V a,1 a A 1 Ef τ 1 ) α1 ( 1 min max V A1 +1,...V A τ/ V a,a 1+1 a A Now we aly Holder to the initial sum over U, and we get min max V 1,...V A1 τ/ V a,1 a A 1 U Ef τ 1 α 1 1 min max V A1 +1,...V A τ/ V a,a 1+1 a A U. Ef τ 2 ) α2 Ef τ α 2 2. = Ef α1 BL 1 (U) Ef α2 k,a 1. BL 2 (U) k,a 2 5. Tools from algebraic geometry 5.1. Transverse comlete intersections. Over the course of our argument we will work not just with algebraic hyersurfaces but algebraic varieties of all dimensions. We write Z(P 1,...,P n m ) for the set of common zeroes of the olynomials P 1,...,P n m. Throughout the aer, we will work with a nice class of varieties called transverse comlete intersections. The variety Z(P 1,...,P n m ) is a transverse comlete intersection if (5.1) P 1 (x)... P n m (x) 0 for all x Z(P 1,...,P n m ).

20 20 LARRY GUTH By the imlicit function theorem, a transverse comlete intersection Z(P 1,...,P n m ) is a smooth m-dimensional manifold. Because of Sard s theorem, there are lots of transverse comlete intersections. Here is a lemma making this recise. Lemma 5.1. If P is a olynomial on R n, then for almost every c 0 R, Z(P +c 0 ) is a transverse comlete intersection. More generally, suose that Z(P 1,...,P n m ) is a transverse comlete intersection and that P is another olynomial. Then for almost every c 0 R, Z(P 1,...,P n m,p +c 0 ) is a transverse comlete intersection. Proof. We begin with the first case. We know that P : R n R is a smooth function, and so by Sard s theorem, almost every y R is a regular value for P. But if c 0 is a regular value for P, then P(x) 0 whenever P(x)+c 0 = 0. The general case is similar. We know that Z = Z(P 1,...,P n m ) is a smooth m-dimensional manifold, and P : Z R is a smooth function. By Sard s theorem, almost every y R is a regular value of the ma P : Z R. If x Z and P(x) is a regular value, then dp x 0, where dp : T x Z T P(x) R. In terms of P(x), this means that P 1 (x)... P n m (x) P(x) 0. So if c 0 is a regular value for P : Z R, then Z(P 1,...,P n m,p +c 0 ) is a transverse comlete intersection Polynomial artitioning. Polynomial artitioning is a key tool in our arguments. Our resentation here is a minor variation on the olynomial artitioning result from [GK]. We begin by stating a artitioning result from [G]: Theorem 5.2. (Theorem 1.4 in [G]) Suose that W 0 is a (non-zero) L 1 function on R n. Then for each D there a non-zero olynomial P of degree at most D so that R n \ Z(P) is a union of D n disjoint oen sets O i, and the integrals O i W are all equal. We want to use this result, but we need to ugrade it in a minor way. Because we want all the varieties that aear in our argument to be transverse comlete intersections, we need to be able to erturb P a little bit. In order to understand this issue, we need to review some of the roof of Theorem 5.2. The roof is based on the olynomial ham sandwich theorem, which is due to Stone and Tukey [StTu]. Here is a version of the theorem which is convenient for our uroses: Theorem 5.3. (Polynomial ham sandwich theorem, cf. Corollary 1.2 in [G]) If W 1,...,W N are L 1 -functions on R n, then there exists a non-zero olynomial P of degree C n N 1/n so that for each W j, W j = W j. {P>0} {P<0} Using the olynomial ham sandwich theorem iteratively, we get the following artitioning result. Corollary 5.4. If W 0 is a (non-zero) L 1 -function on R n, then there is a sequence of olynomials Q 1,Q 2,... with DegQ j 2 j/n with the following equidistribution roerty: If S 1, and if σ 1,...,σ S { 1,+1} are any sign conditions, then W = 2 R S W. n Sign(Q s)=σ s for 1 s S

21 RESTRICTION ESTIMATES USING POLYNOMIAL PARTITIONING II 21 We can slightly erturb each Q s by adding a small generic constant: Qs = Q s +c s, where c s R. Using this small erturbation, we will be able to arrange that all the varieties that aear in our arguments are transverse comlete intersections. As long as the constants c s are sufficiently small, we still have the following slightly weaker version of the equidistribution result: if S 1, and if σ 1,...,σ S { 1,+1} are any sign conditions, then 2 R S 1 W W 2 S+1 W. R n n Sign( Q s)=σ s for 1 s S This gives the following olynomial artitioning result, which is designed to allow small erturbations: Theorem 5.5. Suose that W 0 is a (non-zero) L 1 function on R n. Then for any degree D the following holds. There is a sequence of olynomials Q 1,...,Q S with the following roerties. We have DegQ s D and 2 S D n. Let P = S Q s=1 s = S s=1 (Q s +c s ) where c s R. Let O i be the oen sets given by the sign conditions of Q s. There are 2 S D n cells O i and R n \Z(P) = i O i. If the constants c s are sufficiently small, then for every O i, W D n W. O i R n For a generic choice of the constants c s, Lemma 5.1 guarantees that Z( Q s ) is a transverse comlete intersection for each s. This imlies that Z(P) is a finite union of transverse comlete intersections. Similarly, if Z(P 1,...,P n m ) is a transverse comlete intersection, then for a generic choice of the constants c s, Z(P 1,...,P n m, Q s ) will also be a transverse comlete intersection for each s Controlling the tangent lane of a variety. Suose that Z is an m-dimensional transverse comlete intersection. We know that Z is a smooth m-dimensional manifold. We will consider some subsets of Z where the tangent lane obeys certain conditions. We will see that these subsets are in fact subvarieties of Z, and that in generic cases, they are transverse comlete intersections. Let Z = Z(P 1,...,P n m ) be a transverse comlete intersection. Let w Λ m R n. Define Z w by (5.2) Z w := {x Z P 1 (x)... P n m (x) w = 0}. We note that since w is an m-vector, P 1 (x)... P n m (x) w Λ n R n, which we identify with R. Let g w := P 1 (x)... P n m (x) w, aolynomialwithdegreeatmostdegp DegP n m. The set Z w is the algebraic variety Z(P 1,...,P n m,g w ). Lemma 5.6. For almost every w Λ m R n, Z w = Z(P 1,...,P n m,g w ) is a smooth comlete intersection. The roof uses some ideas from differential toology. The book [GP] is a good reference. In articular, the roof here is closely based on the roof of the transversality theorem in Chater 2.3 of [GP]. Proof. Define a smooth function g : Z Λ m R n R by g(x,w) := P 1 (x)... P n m (x) w.