\section{Introduction}
\setcounter{equation}{0}

The Green's function plays a central role in the study of functions of one complex variable or of two real variables. But while its natural generalization to functions of more real variables is as the fundamental solution of the Laplacian, its natural generalization to functions of several complex variables is rather as a fundamental
solution of the complex Monge-Amp\`ere equation.
For our purposes, we shall consider the following broad definition.
Let $M$ be an $n$-dimensional compact K\"ahler manifold with smooth boundary $\partial M$, and let $\omega$ be a smooth non-negative closed $(1,1)$-form on $M$.
Let $PSH(M,\omega)$ the space of plurisubharmonic functions with respect to
$\omega$, i.e., $f\in PSH(M,\omega)$ if and only if $f$ is upper semi-continuous, and $\omega+{i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial} f\geq 0$ on $X$ in the sense of currents.
Let $\{p_1,\cdots,p_N\}$ be $N$ distinct points on $M$. Then a pluricomplex Green's function $G(z;p_1,\cdots,p_N)$ with poles at the points $p_j$
is a function in $PSH(M,\omega)$, bounded from above on $M$, and
bounded on any compact subset of $\bar M\setminus\{p_1,\cdots,p_N\}$,
which satisfies the equation
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{MA}
(\omega+{i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial} G)^n=0
\ \ {\rm on}\ M\setminus\{p_1,\cdots,p_N\}
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
in the sense of pluripotential theory.
In this paper, we mostly restrict ourselves to the case $\partial M\not=\emptyset$, in which case we also impose the Dirichlet condition
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Dirichlet}
{\rm lim}_{z\to\partial M}G(z;p_1,\cdots,p_N)=0.
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}

\medskip
We note that the above conditions imply that $(\omega+{i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial} G)^n$
is a linear combination of Dirac measures supported at the poles $p_j$. Indeed,
the non-linear expression $(\omega+{i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial} G)^n$ is well-defined
by the Bedford-Taylor construction \cite{BT} as an $(n,n)$ non-negative current away from the unbounded locus of $G$ (i.e., the complement in $M$ of the largest open set where $G$ is locally bounded). Since the unbounded locus consists only of isolated points, and hence is included in compact subsets of a finite union
of Stein neighborhoods, the expression $(\omega+{i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial} G)^n$
can again be defined as a non-negative $(n,n)$ current near these points
by the constructions of Demailly \cite{D} and Sibony \cite{Si}.

\medskip
It has been known for a long-time that the pluricomplex Green's function is not unique, even in the case of a simple pole $p$ \cite{BT}, and that its singularities near $p$ are not unique either. This is in marked contrast with the real Monge-Amp\`ere equation, where the convex solution
in the sense of Alexandrov on a convex domain $\Omega$ of the equation ${\rm det}\,D^2u=c\,\delta_0, \ \ u_{\partial\Omega}=0$ with $0\in\Omega\subset{\bf R}^n$, $c>0$, is unique. The graph of $u$ is in this case
just an inverted cone, with boundary given by the boundary of $\Omega$, and vertex a point on the $u$ axis, determined by the constant $c$. In particular, the singularities of $u$ at $0$ are determined by $\partial \Omega$ and $c$. This difference between the real and the complex case can be partly attributed to the fact that the condition of convexity in the real case is much more stringent than the condition of plurisubharmonicity.

\medskip
The pluricomplex Green's function has been extensively studied over the years, using many different methods. It is not possible for us to provide a full list of references, but we shall try and indicate along some of the works closest in spirit to the present paper. One notable such example is the work of B. Guan \cite{Gb}, using PDE methods. There, building on the estimates of Yau \cite{Y78} and Caffarelli, Kohn, Nirenberg, and Spruck \cite{CKNS}, he established the existence and $C^{1,1}$ regularity of the pluricomplex Green's function for strongly pseudoconvex domains in ${\bf C}^n$, with prescribed singularity $\,{\rm log}\,\,|z-p|^2$ at the pole. The $C^{1,1}$ regularity was also obtained by Blocki \cite{B00}. The methods of Guan extend to a singularity of the form $\,{\rm log}\,\,\sum_{j=1}^n|f_j(z)|^2$, as long as the
$f_j(z)$ are holomorphic functions with only $p$ as their common zero, and are globally defined on the domain.

\medskip
The present paper has two goals. One goal is to establish the existence of pluricomplex Green's functions with singularities at multi poles $p_j$, $1\leq j\leq N$, given by arbitrary local analytic functions. The other is to begin developing a geometric/analytic approach to Monge-Amp\`ere equations with measures on the right-hand side, where the singularities of the solution arise from blow-up constructions. Since blow-ups typically lead to degenerate K\"ahler forms, an essential tool in our approach is the recent existence theorems for the Dirichlet problem for complex Monge-Amp\`ere equations with degenerate background form established in \cite{PS09}.

\bigskip
{\bf Acknowledgements}:
The first author would like to express his profound gratitude to Professor Elias M. Stein for his teachings over the years, beginning with the time when the first author was an undergraduate at Princeton. Both authors would like to thank Professor Stein for the privilege of having worked with him. They would like to dedicate this paper to him, on the occasion of the conference celebrating his 80th birthday.

\section{The Main Results}
\setcounter{equation}{0}

Henceforth, $(M,\omega)$ will be a compact complex manifold of dimension $n$, with non-empty smooth boundary $\partial M$. Let $N$ be an arbitrary positive integer, and let $p_1,\cdots,p_N$ be $N$ distinct (interior) points in $M$. Our main result is the following:

\begin{theorem}
\label{1}
Let $\omega$ be a K\"ahler form on $\bar M$, and
for each $1\leq m\leq N$, let $f_{jm}(z)$, $1\leq j\leq n$, be $n$ holomorphic functions defined in a neighborhood of $p_m$, with $p_m$ as their only common zero in this neighborhood. Then there exists a constant $\varepsilon_0>0$ so that for all constants $0<\varepsilon_m<\varepsilon_0$, $1\leq m\leq N$,
there exists a unique function $G(z;p_1,\cdots, p_N)\in PSH(M,\omega)\cap C^\alpha(\bar M\setminus\{p_1,\cdots,p_N\})$, which satisfies the equation
(\ref{MA}), the boundary condition (\ref{Dirichlet}), and the following asymptotics near each pole $p_m$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{asymptotics}
G(z;p_1,\cdots,p_N)
=
\varepsilon_m\,{\rm log}\,(\sum_{j=1}^n|f_{jm}(z)|^2)+O(1).
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
Here $\alpha$ is any constant satisfying $0<\alpha<1$.
\end{theorem}

\medskip

In general, it is not possible to choose $\varepsilon_0$ to be arbitrary.
 In fact, if $\delta>0$ is given, then it is easy to construct $(M,\omega)$ and $p\in M$,
and local holomorphic functions $f_1,...,f_n$, for which the maximal $\varepsilon_0$ is
less than $\delta$. For example, let $M=X\times D$ where $(X,\omega)$ is a compact
{K\"ahler\ } manifold with unit volume, and $D\subseteq{\bf C}$ is the unit disk. Let $p=(x,0)\in X\times \{0\}$ and
choose local coordinates $z_1,...,z_n$ on $X$ centered at $x$. Suppose
$G$ is a Greens function on $M$ with singularity $\varepsilon\,{\rm log}\, (|w|^2+|z_1|^{2k}+\cdots +|z_n|^{2k})$, where $w$ is a coordinate on ${\bf C}$, centered at $0\in{\bf C}$. Then
$G(0,z_1,...,z_n)\in PSH(X,\omega)$ has Lelong number $\varepsilon k$ so, by a result
of Demailly \cite{D},
its Monge-Amp\`ere mass is at least $\varepsilon k$. Thus $\varepsilon \leq {1\over k}$.

\medskip
However, the restriction on $\varepsilon_0$ can be removed for
strongly pseudoconvex manifolds, i.e., manifolds $M$ admitting a $C^2$ function $\rho$ with $\partial M=\{\rho=0\}$, and $i{\partial\bar\partial}\rho>0$.
In this case, we have the following solution of the Dirichlet problem:

\medskip

\begin{theorem}
\label{stronglypseudoconvex}
Let  $\omega$ be a non-negative smooth $(1,1)$-form
on $\bar M$. Let $f_{jm}$, $1\leq j\leq n$, $1\leq m\leq N$
be as in the previous theorem.
Assume that $M$ is strongly pseudoconvex.
Then for any function $\varphi_b\in C^2(\partial M)$,
and any constant $\varepsilon_m>0$, $1\leq m\leq N$,
there exists
a unique function $G(z;p_1,\cdots, p_N)\in PSH(M,\omega)\cap C^\alpha(\bar M\setminus\{p_1,\cdots,p_N\})$,
which satisfies the equation
(\ref{MA}), the asymptotics (\ref{asymptotics}) near each pole $p_m$,
and the Dirichlet boundary condition
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm lim}_{z\to \partial M}G(z;p_1,\cdots,p_N)=\varphi_b.
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
Again $\alpha$ is any constant satisfying $0<\alpha<1$.
\end{theorem}

\medskip
Theorem \ref{stronglypseudoconvex} is closest to earlier results of B. Guan \cite{Gb}, Blocki \cite{B00}, and Lempert \cite{L}. The regularity properties of the pluricomplex Green's function are much more precise in these earlier works \cite{Gb}, \cite{B00}, and \cite{L}, but we gain here in generality, including the property that local holomorphic singularities can be assigned arbitrarily. We shall make use of this latter fact
in the construction of new geodesic rays in the space of K\"ahler potentials
(see section \S 5).

\medskip

In general, the case of K\"ahler manifolds with boundary is quite different from the case of K\"ahler manifolds without boundary. Nevertheless,
the idea used in the proof of Theorem 1 may also be used to yield results
for singular Monge-Amp\`ere equations on compact manifolds without boundary.
The simplest example is the following:

\medskip

\begin{theorem}\label{2} Let $(X,\omega)$ be a compact {K\"ahler\ } manifold with unit volume. Let $p\in X$, let
$f\in C^\infty(X)$ be positive, and assume $\int_X f\omega^n=1$.
Let $\delta_p$ be the Dirac measure concentrated at~$p$.
Then for $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small, there exists a unique
$\varphi\in PSH(X,\omega)\cap C^{1,\alpha}(X\backslash\{p\})$  satisfying $\varphi = \varepsilon\,{\rm log}\, |z|^2 + C^{1,\alpha}(X)$ near $z=p$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
(\omega+{i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial}\varphi)^n\ = \ (1-\varepsilon)f\omega^n+\varepsilon\delta_p
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

\medskip
As Coman-Guedj  \cite{CG} have shown, there are examples of {K\"ahler\ } manifolds for
which $\varepsilon$ must be strictly smaller than one.

\medskip
We observe that the equation $(\omega+{i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial} \varphi)^n=\mu$
on a compact K\"ahler manifold without boundary has been solved by Berman,
Boucksom, Guedj, and Zeriahi \cite{BEGZ}, when $\mu$
is a measure which does not charge pluripolar sets. The important case of measures $\mu$ which charge pluripolar sets remains open. A general result is that of Ahag et al. \cite{ACCH}, who show that, on a hyperconvex domain in ${\bf C}^n$, a non-negative measure is a complex Monge-Amp\`ere measure if it is dominated by a Monge-Amp\`ere measure. The regularity
and precise singularities of the solutions are however still obscure at this moment.
Theorem \ref{2} provides another example of the solvability of a Monge-Amp\`ere equation with measures charging pluripolar sets.
In fact, it can be seen from its proof in section \S 4 that more general formulations are possible, with the singularity $p$ replaced by the complex variety
$Z=\{s_1(z)=\cdots=s_k(z)=0\}$, $1\leq k<n$,
where the $s_\alpha(z)$ are sections of a holomorphic vector bundles satisfying some non-degeneracy conditions.

A related and important problem is to provide flexible characterizations of
the unbounded functions for which the Monge-Amp\`ere measure is well-defined
(see e.g. Cegrell \cite{C} and Blocki \cite{B04}).

\section{Proof of Theorems \ref{1} and \ref{stronglypseudoconvex}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}

In this section we give the proof of Theorems \ref{1} and \ref{stronglypseudoconvex}. It will be seen that the argument does not depend
essentially on $N$, so we set $N=1$ and drop the index $m$
to lighten the notation.
The bulk of the work is the proof of Theorem \ref{1},
and we can just indicate at the end the easy modifications for
for Theorem \ref{stronglypseudoconvex}. The key lemmas are the following:

\medskip

\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma1}
Denote by $(M,p,f)$ the data consisting of the K\"ahler manifold $(M,\omega)$, the point
$p$, and the given local holomorphic functions $f_j(z)$,
$1\leq\alpha\leq n$ with $p$ as their only common zero. Then there exists a complex manifold $X'=X'(M,p,f)$ and a holomorphic map
$\pi': X'\rightarrow M$ sending $\partial X'$ to $\partial M$, with the following properties:

{\rm (i)} There is a closed, non-negative $(1,1)$-form $\Omega'$ on $X'$
an effective divisor $E'$, and an $\varepsilon>0$ with
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega'-\varepsilon{ i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial} \,{\rm log}\, h_{E'}>0
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
for some smooth metric $h_{E'}$ on $O(-E')$.

{\rm (ii)} The restriction $\pi=\pi'|_{\bar X'\backslash E'}$ is a biholomorphism $\pi:\bar X'\setminus E'
\to \bar M\setminus p$ with
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Omegaprime}
\pi_*\Omega'
=
\omega+\varepsilon {i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial} (\psi(z)\,\,{\rm log}\, \sum_{j=1}^n|f_j(z)|^2 + 1-\psi(z))
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
where $\psi(z)$ is a function which is $1$ in a neighborhood of $p$,
and which is compactly supported in another such neighborhood.
\end{lemma}

\medskip

\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma2}
Let $X'$ be a complex manifold with smooth boundary
of dimension $n$, equipped with a non-negative closed form $\Omega'$, with $\Omega'-\varepsilon{i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial}\,{\rm log}\, h_{E'}>0$ for some effective divisor $E'$ supported away from $\partial M$
some smooth metric $h_{E'}$ on $O(-E')$, and some $\varepsilon>0$. Then there exists a unique function $\Phi\in PSH(X',\Omega')\cap L^\infty(X')\cap C^\alpha(\bar X'\setminus E')$ which solves the Dirichlet problem
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{HCMA}
(\Omega'+{i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial} \Phi)^n=0
\ \ {\rm on}\ X',
\qquad
\Phi_{\partial X'}=0.
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
Here $\alpha$ is any constant satisfying $0<\alpha<1$.
\end{lemma}

\medskip
The theorem follows readily from the two lemmas. Let $\Phi$ be the function
given by Lemma \ref{lemma2} applied to the complex manifold $X'=X'(M,p,f)$ and the non-negative form
$\Omega'$ of (\ref{Omegaprime}).
Then  $(\Omega'+{i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial}\Phi)^n=0$ on $X'$.
Set $\varphi=\Phi\circ \pi$.
Since $\pi$ is a biholomorphism between $X'\setminus E'$ and $M\setminus p$,
this implies $(\pi_*\Omega'+{i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial}\phi)^n$ on $M\backslash p$, i.e.
\begin{eqnarray}
0=
(\omega+{i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial} (\varepsilon[\psi(z)\,\,{\rm log}\, \sum_{j=1}^n|f_j(z)|^2+
(1-\psi(z))]+\varphi(z)))^n.
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
We can now set
\begin{eqnarray}
G(z;p)=\varepsilon [\psi(z)\,\,{\rm log}\, \sum_{j=1}^n|f_j(z)|^2+(1-\psi(z))]+\varphi(z)-\varepsilon.
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
Clearly it satisfies the equation $(\omega+{i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial} G)^n=0$
on $M\setminus p$, vanishes on $\partial M$, and has the desired asymptotics near $p$. It is $\omega$-plurisubharmonic on $M\setminus p$, and bounded from above. Thus it extends to an $\omega$-plurisubharmonic function on $M$. This shows that $G(z;p)$ satisfies all the desired properties, and the existence part of the theorem is proved.
\v
To prove the uniqueness, let $\tilde G\in PSH(M,\omega)$ satisfy (\ref{MA}),
(\ref{Dirichlet}) and (\ref{asymptotics}). Let
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde\Phi = \tilde G-\varepsilon [\psi(z)\,\,{\rm log}\, \sum_{j=1}^n|f_j(z)|^2+(1-\psi(z))]
+\varepsilon
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
Then $\tilde\Phi\in PSH(\Omega', X'\backslash E')\cap C^\alpha(X'\backslash E')$. Since it is bounded, it extends to a function, which by abuse of notation,
will be denoted
$\tilde\Phi\in PSH(\Omega', X')\cap C^\alpha(X'\backslash E')\cap L^\infty(X)$.
Moreover, $(\Omega'+{i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial}\Phi')^n=0$. This is certainly true on
$X'\backslash E'$ and, since $\Phi'$ is bounded, is true on all of $X'$.
By Lemma 2, we have $\tilde\Phi=\Phi$ and hence, $\tilde G=G$.

\medskip

Thus it suffices to establish Lemma \ref{lemma1} and Lemma~\ref{lemma2}.
We begin with the proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma1}, which we break into several steps. Some of these are well-known, but we did not find the version that we needed in the literature, so we have provided a complete derivation.

\subsection{Blow-ups of complex manifolds}

We start by recalling the construction
of the blow-up of a complex manifold along a smooth
submanifold and some of its basic
properties.

\medskip

Let $W$ be a complex manifold of dimension $n$, and let $Z\subset W$ be a submanifold of dimension $d<n$. Let $N=TW_{\vert_Z}/TZ$ be the normal bundle of $Z$ and let $E={\bf P}(N)$. Let
\begin{eqnarray}
W'=(W\setminus Z)\cup E
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
and define $\pi: W'\rightarrow W$ by extending the map $\pi:E\rightarrow Z$ to be the
identity map on $W\backslash Z$. The set $W'$ has a natural complex
structure for which $\pi: W'\rightarrow W$ is a holomorphic map:
The complex structure on $W'$ is defined as follows:

\medskip
First, we require that
$W\backslash Z\subseteq W'$ is an open set and the inclusion $W\backslash Z\rightarrow W'$
is holomorphic.
\v
Next, we let $U_\alpha$ be a collection of coordinate balls in $W$ such that $Z\subseteq \cup_\alpha U_\alpha$ and such that
$U_\alpha\cap Z = \{(x^\alpha,y^\alpha)\in U_\alpha: y^\alpha=0\}$. On $U_\alpha\cap U_\beta$
we have $z^\beta=\phi^\beta_\alpha(z^\alpha)$ with $\phi^\beta_\alpha: U_{\alpha\beta}\rightarrow U_{\beta\alpha}$ a biholomorphic
function between open subsets of ${\bf C}^n$. The derivative $D\phi^\beta_\alpha
=\left(\matrix{D_{11} & D_{12}\cr D_{21} & D_{22}\cr}\right)$
is an invertible $n\times n$ matrix, where $D_{11}$ has size $d\times d$,
and $D_{22}$ has size $(n-d)\times (n-d)$.
\v
Note that $D_{22}(p)$ is invertible
if $p\in U_\alpha\cap Z=\{z^\alpha\in U_\alpha: y^\alpha=0\}$. In fact, $D_{22}$ is the isomorphism of the normal bundle of
$\{y^\alpha=0\}\subseteq U_{\alpha\beta}$ to
the normal bundle of
$\{y^\beta=0\}\subseteq U_{\beta\alpha}$ induced by the biholomorphic map $\phi^\beta_\alpha$.
Let us spell out this point in more detail. We can write
\begin{eqnarray}
y^\beta_i= A^j_iy^\alpha_j, \ \ 1\leq i,j\leq n-d,
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
for certain (non-unique) holomorphic functions $A^l_k$ on $U_{\alpha\beta}$.
This follows from the fact that $\phi^\beta_\alpha$ takes the $x^\alpha$-axis (i.e.
the set $\{y^\alpha=0\}$) to
the $x^\beta$-axis
(i.e.
the set $\{y^\beta=0\}$). Then
$D_{22}(p) = (A^j_i(p))$ is an invertible matrix.

\v
Define a complex manifold $U_\alpha'$ as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
U_\alpha'=\{(z,t): z\in U_\alpha, t\in{\bf P}^{n-d-1}: y_it_j=t_iy_j,
1\leq i,j\leq n-d\}
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
Let $f_\alpha: U_\alpha'\rightarrow \pi^{-1}(U_\alpha)\subseteq W'$ be the bijective map
\begin{eqnarray}
(z,t)\mapsto \cases{ z & if $y\not=0$ \cr
t_1{\partial\over \partial y_1}+\cdots + t_{n-d}{\partial\over y_{n-d}} & if $y=0$
}
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
We wish to use the maps $f_\alpha$ to give $W'$ a complex structure.
To do this, we must show that the change of coordinate maps
$f^\beta_\alpha=f_\beta^{-1}\circ f_\alpha: U_{\alpha\beta}'\rightarrow U_{\beta\alpha}'$ are holomorphic.
\v
We proceed as follows: $f^\beta_\alpha(z^\alpha,t^\alpha)=(z^\beta,t^\beta)$
where $z^\beta=\phi^\beta_\alpha(z^\alpha)$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
{t^\beta_j\over t^\beta_i}={y^\beta_j\over y^\beta_i}= {A^k_jy^\alpha_k\over A^k_iy^\alpha_k}=
{A^k_jt^\alpha_k\over A^k_it^\alpha_k}
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
If $y^\beta_i\not= 0$ for some $i$, then the first equality implies that
$t^\beta_i\not=0$ so we can take $t^\beta_i=1$ and $t^\beta_j={y^\beta_j\over y^\beta_i}$,
which is holomorphic.
\v
If $y^\beta_i=0$ for all $i$ then we make use of the fact that $D_{22}$ is
invertible on $Z$ so there exists $i$ such that $A^k_it^\alpha_k\not=0$.
We take $t^\beta_i=1$ and $t^\beta_j={A^k_jy^\alpha_k\over A^k_iy^\alpha_k}$
which is holomorphic. Thus we see that $W'$ is a complex manifold.

\v
Now let $\pi:W'\rightarrow W$ be as above. Let $p\in E$ and $q=\pi(p)$. Then the discussion
above shows that there exists a coordinate neighborhood $\Omega$ of $p\in W'$ and
coordinates $(\zeta_0,....,\zeta_d, \theta_1,...,\theta_{n-d-1})$ centered at
$p$ with the following properties:
\v
1) $\zeta_i=z_i\circ\pi$ for some coordinate
functions $z_j$ on $W$
\v
2) $E\cap\Omega=\{\zeta_0=0\}$.
\v
3) $(\theta_1|_E,...,\theta_{n-d-1}|_E)$ is a set of local coordinates
of $\pi^{-1}(p)$ centered at $p\in E$.
\v
4) If $p\in U_\alpha'$ then $\zeta_0| y^\alpha_j$ for all $j$ and
$y_{j_0}^\alpha/\zeta_0$ is nowhere vanishing for some $j_0$.
\v
The last condition says that $E\cap\Omega=\{y^\alpha_{j_0}=0\}$.

\v

This blow-up process can be iterated: If $Z'\subseteq W'$ is a smooth subvariety then
we can construct $W''=BL(Z',W')$ and we have maps $W''\rightarrow W'\rightarrow W$. We
say that $W''$ is an iterated blow-up.
\v
If $\pi:W'\rightarrow W$ is an iterated blow-up, the exceptional divisor is by definition
the smallest effective divisor $E\subseteq W'$ such that $W'\backslash E \rightarrow W\backslash \pi(E)$
is an isomorphism.

\subsection{Analytic spaces}

\medskip
Let $X$ be a set. We say that $X$ is an analytic space if there is a complex manifold $W$ (called an ambient manifold)
with $X\subset W$ and satisfying the following property: for every $p\in X$,
there is an open set $p\in U\subset W$ and functions $f_1,\cdots,f_r:U\to {\bf C}$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
U\cap X=\{w\in W;\, f_1(w)=\cdots=f_r(w)=0\}.
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
We denote by $X_{reg}$ the subset of $X$ where $X$ is locally a complex manifold, and by $X_{sing}$ its complement in $X$. A K\"ahler metric on $X$ is by definition a K\"ahler metric on $X_{reg}$ which is the restriction of a K\"ahler metric on an ambient manifold $W$.

\medskip
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemmaX}
Let $(M,p,f)$ be a data consisting of a complex manifold $M$,
a point $p\in M$, and local holomorphic functions $f_1(z),\cdots,f_n(z)$
defined in a neighborhood of $p$, and with $p$ as their only common zero.
Then we can associate to this data an analytic space
$X=X(M,p,f)$ with the following properties:

{\rm (i)} There is a biholomorphism between $X\setminus X_0$ and $M\setminus p$, for some subset $X_0$ of $X$ which is biholomorphically equivalent to ${\bf CP}^{n-1}$.

{\rm (ii)} Let $\psi(z)$ be a cut-off function which is $1$ in a coordinate chart around
$p$ in $M$, and $0$ outside another such chart. Then for all $\delta$ small enough, the pull-back to
$X\setminus X_0$ of the form $\omega_\delta$ defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{omegadelta}
\omega_\delta=\omega+\delta{i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial} (\psi(z)\,{\rm log}\, \sum_{j=1}^n|f_j(z)|^2+1-\psi(z))
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
defined on $M\setminus p$ extends to a K\"ahler form on $X$.

\end{lemma}

\medskip
{\it Proof of Lemma \ref{lemmaX}}: Given the data $(M,p,f)$, let $U$ be a coordinate neighborhood centered at $p$ in $M$,
define a space $V$ by
\begin{eqnarray}
V=\{(z_1,...,z_n),(y_1,...,y_n)\in U\times {\bf CP}^{n-1}: y_if_j(z)=y_jf_i(z)\}
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
and let $\pi: V\rightarrow U$ be the projection. We then define
$X=X(M,p,f)$ by
\begin{eqnarray}
X= (M\backslash \{p\}\cup V)/\sim
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
where, for $m\in M$ and $v\in V$
we say $m\sim v$ if $\pi(v)=m$. Note that the fiber $X_0$
of $V$ above the point $p$ is the entire projective space ${\bf CP}^{n-1}$.
We claim that $X$ is an analytic space.
\v
To show that $X$ is an analytic space, we must
find a complex manifold $W$ such that $X\subseteq W$ and such that $X$ is locally defined
by the simultaneous vanishing of a finite collection of holomorphic functions.
\v
Let $B\subseteq{\bf C}^n$ be a small open ball centered at the origin and
let $Z\subseteq U\times {\bf C}^n$ be the smooth manifold
\begin{eqnarray}
Z=\{(z,\xi): z\in U, \xi\in B: f_1(z)-\xi_1=\cdots=f_n(z)-\xi_n=0\}
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
If $B$ is sufficiently small, then the image of the map $Z\rightarrow U$
is compactly supported in $U$. Thus $Z\subseteq M\times B$
is a smooth submanifold whose image, when projected to $M$, lies in
a relatively compact subset of $U$. Finally, let $W=BL(Z, M\times B)$.
Thus $W$ is locally defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
W=\{(z,\xi,y)\in U\times B\times {\bf CP}^{n-1}: y_i(f_j(z)-\xi_j)=y_j(f_i(z)-\xi_i)\}
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
Then $W$ is a smooth manifold and $X\subseteq W$ is  defined by $\xi_1=\cdots=\xi_n=0$. This shows $X$ is an analytic space.
\v
We can define a {K\"ahler\ } metric on $X$ as follows. Let $\omega$ be a {K\"ahler\ } metric on $M$.
Extend $\omega$ to a {K\"ahler\ } metric on $M\times B$. Choose $\psi
\in C^\infty(U)$ with
the property that $\psi$ equals one in a neighborhood $p$ and
${\rm support}(\psi)\subseteq U$
is compact. Then the composition of the map
$U\times B\rightarrow U$ with $\psi$ is a smooth function on $U\times B$ which,
by abuse of notation, is again denoted $\psi$. By ${\rm support}(\psi)\subseteq U$
to be a sufficiently large compact set, we may assume $\psi=1$ on $Z$.
Let
\begin{equation}\label{metric} \omega_\delta = \omega + i{\delta\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial}[(1-\psi)+\psi\,{\rm log}\,  ( \sum |f_j(z)-\xi_j|^2)\
\ee
on $W\backslash E = (M\times B)\backslash Z$ and
let
\begin{equation}\label{metric1} \omega_\delta\ = \ \omega\ + \ \delta({i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial}\,{\rm log}\, |y|^2)\ = \ \omega + \delta\omega_{\rm FS}
\ee
on the open neighborhood $\{\psi=1\}^o$ of $E$   (i.e., the interior
of the closed set  $\{\psi=1 \}$). Here $\omega_{\rm FS}$
is the Fubini-Study metric on ${\bf P}{\bf C}^{n-1}$.
The two definitions are consistent, and define
$\omega_\delta$, a smooth $(1,1)$ form on $W$. Since $\omega+\delta\omega_{\rm FS}>0$ in a
fixed (independent of $\delta$) neighborhood of $E$, we find that $\omega_\delta>0$
on all of $W$
for $\delta$ sufficiently small. Thus $\omega_\delta$
is a {K\"ahler\ } metric on $W$ and its restriction to $X$ is a {K\"ahler\ } metric on $X$.
The proof of Lemma~\ref{lemmaX} is complete.

\medskip
For general functions $f_1(z),\cdots,f_n(z)$, the space $X(M,p,f)$ is not smooth. In order to obtain a smooth manifold, we use Hironaka's theorem on resolution of singularities. One version of this theorem is the following:

\medskip
\begin{theorem}
\label{lemmaHironaka}
Let $W$ be a complex manifold and let $X\subset W$ be a complex analytic space. Then there exists an iterated blow up $W'$ of $W$, with corresponding holomorphic map
$\pi:W'\to W$ with the following property: let $E$ be the exceptional divisor, and set
\begin{eqnarray}
X'=\overline{\pi^{-1}(X)\setminus E}.
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
Then $X'$ is a smooth manifold and the map $\pi:X'\to X$ is surjective. Moreover,
\begin{eqnarray}
E'=E\cap X'=\pi^{-1}(X_{sing})
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
is a divisor with normal crossings, and $\pi:X'\setminus E'\to X_{reg}$ is an isomorphism.
\end{theorem}

\subsection{Metrics on blow-ups}

The following is the key property of blow-ups that we need:

\begin{lemma}
\label{lemmaKahler}
Let $W$ be a smooth complex manifold and $Z\subset W$ a smooth submanifold. Let $\pi:W'\to W$ be the blow-up of $W$ with center $Z$, and let $E\subset W$ be the exceptional divisor. If $\omega$ is any K\"ahler metric on $W$, then there exists a hermitian metric $h_E$ on $O(-E)$ so that, for any compact subset $K$ of $W'$,
there exists $\varepsilon_K>0$ with
\begin{eqnarray}
\pi^*\omega-\varepsilon{i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial} \,{\rm log}\, h_E>0
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
for all $0<\varepsilon<\varepsilon_K$.
\end{lemma}

\medskip
\v
{\it Proof of Lemma \ref{lemmaKahler}:}
Let $\{U_\alpha\}\subseteq W'$ be a locally finite collection of coordinate
neighborhoods which cover $Z$, and let $z^\alpha=(x^\alpha,y^\alpha)$
be coordinates on $U_\alpha$ with the property:
$$ U_\alpha\cap Z\ = \ \{y^\alpha=0\}
$$
  Choose $\psi_\alpha\in C^\infty_c(U_\alpha)$
such that $0\leq \psi_\alpha\leq 1$ and $\psi=\sum_{\alpha=1}^r \psi_\alpha =1$ on $Z$.

\v

Let $f$ be a section of
$O(-E)$ over an open set $\Omega$. This means that $f$ is a holomorphic
function on $\Omega$ which vanishes on $E\cap \Omega$.
Let
\begin{eqnarray}
|f|^2_{h_E} = {|f|^2\
\over (1-\psi)+\sum_\alpha\psi_\alpha( |y^\alpha_1|^2+\cdots + |y^\alpha_{n-d}|^2)}
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
Observe that
this makes sense: We may assume that $E\cap\Omega\not=\emptyset$ and that
$\Omega$ is a small open set such that $\psi\circ\pi=1$ on $\Omega$.
Choose coordinates $(\zeta,\theta)$ as in section 13.1. Thus
$\zeta=(\zeta_0,...,\zeta_d)$ and $\theta=(\theta_1,...,\theta_{n-d-1})$. Since $f$
vanishes on $E$ we have $f=g\zeta_0$ for some holomorphic function $g$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
|f|^2_{h_E} = {|f|^2\
\over \sum_\alpha\psi_\alpha( |y^\alpha_1|^2+\cdots + |y^\alpha_{n-d}|^2)} =
{|g|^2\over
\sum_\alpha\psi_\alpha( |y^\alpha_1/\zeta_0|^2+\cdots + |y^\alpha_{n-d}/\zeta_0|^2)
}
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
This shows that $h_E$ is a well defined smooth metric on $O(-E)$.
\v
Next we claim that $(\pi^*\omega-{i\over 2}\varepsilon{\partial\bar\partial}\,{\rm log}\, h_E)(p)>0$ for all $p\in E$ and
 sufficiently small $\varepsilon>0$. To see this, fix $p\in E$.
 If $F(\zeta,\theta)$ is smooth in a neighborhood of $\{p\}$ then
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_i\partial_{\bar j}F=
\left(
\matrix{ A & B\cr
{}^t\bar B & D\cr
}
\right)
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
where $A$ has size $(d+1)\times(d+1)$, $B$ has size $(d+1)\times (n-d-1)$ and
$D$ has size $(n-d-1)\times (n-d-1)$. We see that in these coordinates,
\begin{eqnarray}
\omega(p)  =
\left(
\matrix{ A & 0\cr
0 & 0\cr
}
\right)
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
with $A>0$. Now we write
\begin{eqnarray}
-i{\partial\bar\partial}\,{\rm log}\, h_{E}(p)\ = \
\left(
\matrix{ X & Y\cr
{}^t\bar Y & D\cr
}
\right)
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
Since $\psi$ is independent of $\theta_j$ we have
\begin{eqnarray}
D_{i\bar j}\ = \ {\partial^2\over \partial\theta_j\partial \bar \theta_k}\,{\rm log}\,\sum_\alpha\psi_\alpha(p)( |y^\alpha_1/\zeta_0|^2+\cdots + |y^\alpha_{n-d}/\zeta_0|^2)
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
Finally we observe that $\sum_{i,j=1}^{n-d-1}D_{i\bar j}d\theta_i\wedge d\theta_{\bar j}$ is the pullback of a  Fubini-Study metric
with respect to a holomorphic map whose deriviative has maximal rank.
Thus $D>0$.
\v
The claim now follows from the following  linear algebra fact:

\begin{lemma}
\label{linearalgebra}
Let $A,X$ be $(d+1)\times (d+1)$ hermitian matrices
and  $D$  an $(n-d-1)\times (n-d-1)$ hermitian matrix. Let
$Y$ be a $(d+1)\times (n-d-1)$ matrix. Assume $A>0$ and $D>0$. Then
for $\lambda>0$ sufficiently large we have
\begin{eqnarray}
M(\lambda)\ = \ \lambda \left(
\matrix{ A & 0\cr
0 & 0\cr
}
\right)
+\left(
\matrix{ X & Y\cr
{}^t\bar Y & D\cr
}
\right)\ > \ 0
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
{\it Proof.} We may assume $A$ to be diagonal with positive diagonal entries
$a_0,...,a_{d}$. Then ${\rm det}(M(\lambda)$ is a polynomial of degree $d$, with real coefficients in $\lambda$ whose leading
coefficient is $a_0\cdots a_d>0$. Thus ${\rm det}\,M(\lambda)>0$ for $\lambda>0$ sufficiently
large.
\v
The same argument shows that the determinants of all the square submatrices
of $M(\lambda)$ which are situated in the lower right corner of $M(\lambda)$, also have
positive determinants for $\lambda$ sufficiently large. This proves Lemma
\ref{linearalgebra}.
\v
Since $(\pi^*\omega-{i\over 2}\varepsilon{\partial\bar\partial}\,{\rm log}\, h_E)>0$ on $Z$, we see that there is an open neighborhood
$U$ of $Z\cap K$ on which $(\pi^*\omega-{i\over 2}\varepsilon{\partial\bar\partial}\,{\rm log}\, h_E)>0$ for all sufficiently small $\varepsilon>0$. Choosing
$\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small, we have $(\pi^*\omega-{i\over 2}\varepsilon{\partial\bar\partial}\,{\rm log}\, h_E)>0$ on all of $K$.
This proves Lemma \ref{lemmaKahler}.

\medskip
The resolution of singularities in Hironaka's theorem will usually require an iteration of blow-ups. Thus we need the following generalization of Lemma \ref{lemmaKahler}:

\begin{lemma}
\label{lemmaKahleriterated}
Let $W$ be a compact complex manifold and let $\pi:W'\to W$
be an iterated blow-up of~$W$. Let $E\subset W'$ be the exceptional divisor. If $\omega$ is any K\"ahler metric on $W$, then there exists an effective divisor
$E'$ on $W'$
supported on $E$, and a hermitian metric $h_{E'}$ on $O(-E')$ so that
there exists $\varepsilon>0$ with
\begin{eqnarray}
\pi^*\omega-\varepsilon{i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial} \,{\rm log}\, h_{E'}>0.
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
\end{lemma}

\medskip
{\it Proof of Lemma \ref{lemmaKahleriterated}:} Let $\pi:W'\to W$ be the composition of two blow-ups, $\pi=\pi_2\circ \pi_1$, with $\pi_2:W'=W_2\to W_1$,
$\pi_1=W_1\to W$. Apply Lemma \ref{lemmaKahler} to $\pi_1$ and the K\"ahler metric $\omega$ on $W$. If $E_1$ is the exceptional divisor of $\pi_1$,
we obtain a metric
$h_{E_1}$ in on the line bundle $O(-E_1)$
on $W_1$ with $(\pi_1)^*\omega-\varepsilon_1{i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial} \,{\rm log}\, h_{E_1}>0$ on $W_1$.
Apply next Lemma \ref{lemmaKahler} to $\pi_2$ and the K\"ahler metric
$(\pi_1)^*\omega-\varepsilon_1{i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial} \,{\rm log}\, h_{E_1}$ on $W_1$. We obtain then a metric $h_{E_2}$ on $O(-E_2)$, where $E_2$ is the exceptional divisor of $\pi_2$, with
$\pi_2^*(\pi_1^*\omega-\varepsilon_1{i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial} \,{\rm log}\, h_{E_1})-\varepsilon_2{i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial} \,{\rm log}\, h_{E_2}>0$
on $W_2$.  We can take $\varepsilon_1={1\over n_1}$ and $\varepsilon_2={1\over n_1n2}$ for
$n_1$ and $n_2$ large enough integers. We can then write
\begin{eqnarray}
\pi_2^*(\pi_1^*\omega-\varepsilon_1{i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial} \,{\rm log}\, h_{E_1})-\varepsilon_2{i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial} \,{\rm log}\, h_{E_2}
=
\pi^*\omega-{1\over n_1n_2}
{i\over 2}
{\partial\bar\partial}
\,{\rm log}\, h_{n_2(\pi_2)^*E_1}h_{E_2}
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
so the lemma holds in this case with the line bundle given by
$O(-E_2)\otimes \pi_2^*O (-n_2E_1)$. Clearly the argument extends to any finite number
of blow-ups, and the lemma is proved.

\bigskip

The preceding lemma can be extended to the case of complex analytic sets:

\begin{lemma}
\label{lemmaKahleranalytic}
Let $X$ be a complex analytic set, and $\omega$ a K\"ahler metric on $X$.
Let $\pi:X'\to X$ be a resolution of singularities and $E\subset X'$ the exceptional divisor. Then there is a divisor $E'$ on $X'$, whose support is contained in $E$, a hermitian metric $h_{E'}$ on the line bundle $O(-E')$, and an $\varepsilon>0$
such that
$\pi^*\omega-\varepsilon{i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial}\,{\rm log}\, h_{E'}>0$.
\end{lemma}

\medskip

{\it Proof of Lemma \ref{lemmaKahleranalytic}}: By definition of a K\"ahler metric on $X$, the metric $\omega$ extends to a K\"ahler metric on an ambient space $W$ of $X$.
By definition of resolution of singularities, the map $\pi$ extends to a map $\pi:W'\to W$, with $X'\subset W'$, and $W'$ an iterated blow-up. The metric on the line bundle $O(-E')$ on $W'$ obtained from Lemma \ref{lemmaKahleriterated} applied to $W$ and the K\"ahler form $\omega$
restricts to a metric on the line bundle $O(-E')$ on $X'$ with the desired property.

\bigskip
We can now give the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma1}: We apply Lemma \ref{lemmaX}, to obtain the analytic space $X=X(M,p,f)$ and the K\"ahler form
$\omega_\delta$ with the properties stated there. The space $X$ is only an analytic set, but we can apply
Theorem \ref{lemmaHironaka} to obtain a resolution of singularities $\pi:X'\to X$. We can then apply Lemma \ref{lemmaKahleranalytic} to obtain a line bundle
$O(-E')$ on $X'$
with $\pi^*(\omega_\delta)-\varepsilon{i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial} \,{\rm log}\, h_{E'}>0$ on $X'$.
Set
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega'=\pi^*\omega_\delta.
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
Since the resolution of singularities is a biholomorphism of $X'\setminus E'$ to $X_{reg}$,
and $X_{reg}$ contains (a biholomorphic image of) $M\setminus p$,
the K\"ahler form $\Omega'=\pi^*(\omega_\delta)$
retains the same expression (\ref{omegadelta}) on $M\setminus p$ , and is hence given by
the expression (\ref{Omegaprime}). The proof of Lemma \ref{lemma1} is complete.

\bigskip
It remains only to establish Lemma \ref{lemma2}. In the special case when the background form $\Omega'$ is actually strictly positive,
this has been proved by X.X. Chen \cite{C00} and Blocki
\cite{B09}. But for our purposes, it is essential to allow degeneracies in $\Omega'$,
as such degeneracies arise due to blow-ups.
The full Lemma \ref{lemma2}, allowing for degeneracies,
is actually the main result of
\cite{PS09}, stated there as Theorem 2. The desired solution of the homogeneous complex Monge-Amp\`ere equation (\ref{HCMA}) is obtained as a $C^{\alpha}$ limit
on compact subsets of $X'\setminus E$ of solutions of elliptic equations where the right hand side tends to $0$. The key estimate is the following pointwise
$C^1$ estimate (\cite{PS09}, Theorem 1)
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{C1}
|\nabla \varphi(z)|
\leq C_1 {\rm exp}(C_2\varphi(z))
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
for the solutions of the Dirichlet problem for the equation
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{HCMAa}
(\omega+{i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial} \varphi)^n= F(z,\varphi)\omega^n
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
where $\omega$ is a K\"ahler form on $X'$.
Here $C_1$ and $C_2$ are strictly positive constants which depend only on upper bounds for ${\rm inf}_{X'}\varphi$, ${\rm sup}_{X'\times [{\rm inf}_{X'}\varphi,\infty)}F$,
${\rm sup}_{X'\times [{\rm inf}_{X'}\varphi,\infty)}(|\nabla F^{1\over n}|+|\partial_\varphi F{1\over n}|)$, $\|\varphi\|_{C^1(\partial X')}$ and a lower bound for the holomorphic bisectional curvature of $\omega$. The point of the estimate (\ref{C1}) is that it does not require an upper bound for ${\rm sup}_{X'}\varphi$.
It is used to obtain
the existence of convergent subsequences in $C^{\alpha}(X'\setminus E')$ for any $0<\alpha<1$ of solutions $\varphi$
of the equation (\ref{HCMAa}) which may tend to $+\infty$ along a divisor $E'$.
The proof of (\ref{C1}) makes essential use of a differential inequality for solutions of complex Monge-Amp\`ere equations due to Blocki \cite{B09}. We refer to \cite{PS09} for the complete details. The proof
of the main theorem is complete.

\subsection{The case of strongly pseudoconvex manifolds}

We give now the proof of Theorem \ref{stronglypseudoconvex}.

\medskip
First we observe that the theorem can be reduced to the case of boundary value $0$ and $\omega$ strictly positive. Indeed, for any boundary value $\varphi$, we can pick an extension $\hat\varphi$
of $\varphi$ to $\bar M$ with the property that $i{\partial\bar\partial}\hat\varphi>0$. This can be done by choosing any extension, and adding a large positive multiple of $i{\partial\bar\partial} \rho$.
Next, set $\hat\omega=\omega+{i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial} \hat\varphi$, and $\hat G=G-\hat\varphi$. The equation
(\ref{MA}) can be rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray}
(\omega+{i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial} G)^n=
(\hat\omega+{i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial} \hat G)^n=0\ \ {\rm on}\ \ M\setminus\{p_1,\cdots,p_N\}.
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
So if we can solve this equation for $\hat G\in PSH(M,\omega)$ with boundary value $0$,
then the function $G=\hat G+\hat\varphi\in PSH(M,\hat\omega)$ is a solution of the original problem.

Next, assume that the boundary value is $0$ and the form $\omega$ is strictly positive. We note that the restriction to $\varepsilon_j$ small in the proof of Theorem \ref{1} is just due to the requirement that the form $\omega_\delta$ of (\ref{omegadelta}) be strictly positive. But in the present case, for any $\delta$, it suffices to replace the form
$\omega_\delta$ by the form $\omega_\delta+A(\delta)i{\partial\bar\partial} \rho$ with $A$ large enough,
in order to obtain a form which is strictly positive. The rest of the proof applies verbatim. The proof of Theorem \ref{stronglypseudoconvex} is complete.

\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{2}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}

Let $X'=BL(X,p)$, the blow up of the point $p$, and let
$\pi: X'\rightarrow X$ be the projection map. Choosing, as before,
a cut-off function $\psi$ which is supported in a neighborhood
of the point $p$. Then for $\varepsilon$ sufficiently small,
\begin{eqnarray}
\omega_\varepsilon = \omega + {i\over 2}\varepsilon{\partial\bar\partial}(\psi\,{\rm log}\, |z|^2+(1-\psi))
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
extends to a smooth {K\"ahler\ } metric $\omega'$ on the smooth manifold $X'$.
Consider the equation on $X'$
\begin{eqnarray}
(\omega'+{i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial}\varphi')^n = cf(\pi^*\omega)^n
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
for a function $\varphi'\in PSH(X',\omega')$ with $c$ a normalization constant
so that both sides have the same total volume. This equation can be rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{MA1}
(\omega'+{i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial}\varphi')^n = cF\,(\omega')^n
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
where $F\equiv f{(\pi^*\omega)^n\over(\omega')^n}$ is a smooth non-negative function.
A careful examination of Yau's treatment \cite{Y78}
of equations of the form (\ref{MA1})
shows that a priori upper bounds for $\|\varphi'\|_{C^0(X')}$ and for
$\|\Delta_{\omega'}\varphi'\|_{C^0(X')}$ do not require a strictly positive lower bound for $F$.
Thus the equation (\ref{MA1}) admits a generalized solution
$\varphi\in PSH(X',\omega')\cap C^{1,\alpha}(X')$ for any $0<\alpha<1$.
Restricting to $X'\backslash E$ we get
\begin{eqnarray}
(\omega + {i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial}(\varepsilon(\psi\,{\rm log}\, |z|^2+1-\psi)+\varphi'))^n = cf\,\omega^n
\ \ \hbox{on $X\backslash \{p\}$}
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
Thus, if we let $\varphi = \varepsilon\psi \,{\rm log}\, |z|^2+(1-\psi)+\varphi'$ we get
$$ (\omega + {i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial}\varphi)^n\ = \ \varepsilon\delta_p + cf\omega^n
$$
which implies $c=1-\varepsilon$. The proof of Theorem \ref{2} is complete.
\v
Clearly the proof extends to the cases of local singularities $f_j(z)$,
when the analytic set $X=X(M,p,f)$ is a smooth manifold. It is easy to
formulate conditions on the $f_j(z)$ which would insure this property,
but we leave this to the interested reader.

\section{Geodesics in the space of K\"ahler potentials}
\setcounter{equation}{0}

Let $(X,\omega_0)$ be a compact K\"ahler manifold without boundary. A well-known conjecture of Yau \cite{Y93} is that the existence of a K\"ahler form in the class
$[\omega_0]$  with constant scalar curvature
should be equivalent to the stability of $(X,[\omega_0])$
in the sense of geometric invariant theory. Suitable notions of stability have been
proposed by Tian \cite{T97} and Donaldson \cite{D98, D02} (see also \cite{PS06}
\cite{PSSW} for some other notions of stability, and \cite{PS09a} for a survey).
In particular, in \cite{D98}, Donaldson introduces a notion of stability based on the behavior of the $K$-energy functional of Mabuchi near
infinity along geodesic rays in the space of K\"ahler potentials. Such rays have been constructed from test configurations (see \cite{PS06}\cite{PS07}\cite{CT}\cite{SZ08}\cite{RWN},
and also \cite{AT} in the analytic category, using the Cauchy-Kowalevska theorem).
Here we illustrate Theorem \ref{1} by constructing certain new rays, exploiting the fact that local singularities can be prescribed near infinity.

\medskip
More precisely, the space ${\cal K}$ of K\"ahler potentials is defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal K}=\{\varphi\in C^\infty(X);\omega_\varphi\equiv \omega_0+{i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial}\varphi>0\}.
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
It carries a natural Riemannian structure defined by the $L^2$ norm
on $T_\varphi({\cal K})$ with respect to the volume form $\omega_\varphi^n$.
A path $(-T,0]\ni t\to \varphi(\cdot,t)$ is a geodesic if and only if it satisfies the equation
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{geodesic}
\ddot\varphi-g_{\varphi}^{j\bar k}\partial_j\dot\varphi\partial_{\bar k}\dot\varphi=0.
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
where $g_{\varphi j\bar k}$ is the metric corresponding to the K\"ahler form $\omega_{\varphi}$. A key observation due to Donaldson \cite{D98} and Semmes \cite{Se} is that this equation is equivalent to the homogeneous complex Monge-Amp\`ere equation
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{HCMA2}
(\pi^*\omega_0+{i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial}\Phi)^{n+1}=0
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
on the manifold $M=X\times \{e^{-T}<|w|<1\}$, for the function $\Phi$ defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi(z,w)=\varphi(z, \,{\rm log}\, |w|),
\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
and where $\partial$ is now with respect to both $z$ and $w$. The end points of the geodesic paths in ${\cal K}$ correspond to Dirichlet boundary conditions for the equation
(\ref{HCMA2}) on $M$. Generalized geodesics will correspond to generalized solutions
of the equation (\ref{HCMA2}) in the sense of pluripotential theory, which are invariant under the rotation $w\to e^{i\theta}w$.

\medskip
For the purpose of stability, we are particularly interested in geodesic rays, which correspond to $T=\infty$, and the manifold $M$ is given by $M=X\times D^\times$, with $D^\times=\{0<|w|<1\}$ being the pointed disk. We compactify $M$ into $\hat M=X\times D$, by adjoining the central fiber $X_0=X\times \{0\}$.
Then $\omega+ {i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial} |w|^2$ is a {K\"ahler\ } metric on $M$. Let $p_1,\cdots,p_N\in M$ be any $N$ distinct points
in the central fiber, i.e.,
$\pi(p_\alpha)=0\in{\bf C}$, where $\pi:M\to D$
is the projection on the second factor. For each $\alpha$, let
$U_\alpha$ be a neighborhood of $p_\alpha$ in $X$, and
let $f_{1\alpha}(z,w),\cdots, f_{n+1,\alpha}(z,w)$ be any $n+1$
holomorphic functions on $U_\alpha\times D$, with
the property that their only common zero is at $(p_\alpha,0)$
and with $\sum_{j=1}^n|f_{j\alpha}(z,w)|^2$ invariant under the rotation
$w\to e^{i\theta}w$. Theorem \ref{1} gives then a function
$G(z,w;p_1,\cdots,p_N)$ with the prescribed singularities
(\ref{asymptotics}) and satisfying the equation
$(\omega + {i\over 2}{\partial\bar\partial}(|w|^2+G))^{n+1}=0$
on $X\times D^\times$. We may choose the blow ups
in the proof of Theorem \ref{1} to be equivariant under the above rotation.
The function $G(z,w;p_1,\cdots,p_N)$ must also be invariant under
rotation, so $|w|^2+G$ defines a generalized
geodesic ray in the space of {K\"ahler\ } metrics.
Because of the singularities at $(p_\alpha,0)$, the rays are not trivial
(i.e., $\varphi$ is not constant along the ray).
They are different from those previously obtained in the literature.

\newpage


\section{Introduction}

The most developed part of mathematical statistical physics is the
theory of equilibrium (Gibbs) states on discrete lattices. This science
is based on simple axioms followed by many solved problems, including
very difficult. However, in nonequilibrium statistical physics in
continuous space there are problems not even formalized on the mathematical
level.

One of such examples is the direct electric current (DC). On the macro
level it is described by Ohm's law, and, on the micro level, it is
often presented as the classical system of free or weakly interacting
electrons, each accelerated by the constant external force and impeded
by external media. There is an abundance of such models: the first
such model refers to Drude, 1900, one can find it in any textbook
on condensed matter physics, see for example \cite{AshMer}. Recent
papers deeply investigate possible friction mechanisms, see for example
\cite{bruneau,CapMarPul,Spohn}. Here, on the contrary, we ignore
this friction problem but turn to another fundamental problem.

The question arises where the accelerating force comes from, because
among hundred kilometers of power lines the external force acts only
on some meters of the wire. Here what one can read in the ``Feynman
lectures on physics'' (volume 2, sec. 16-2):

``...The force pushes the electrons along the wire. But why does
this move the galvanometer, which is so far from the force ? Because
when the electrons which feel the magnetic force try to move, they
push - by electric repulsion - the electrons a little farther down
the wire; they, in turn, repel the electrons a little farther on,
and so on for a long distance. An amazing thing. It was so amazing
to Gauss and Weber - who first built a galvanometer - that they tried
to see how far the forces in the wire would go. They strung the wire
all the way across the city...''.

This was written by the famous physicist. However, after that, this
``amazing thing'' was vastly ignored in the literature. Many more
questions arise. For example, why DC moves slowly but its stationary
regime is being established almost immediately. Here we are occupied
with the first one (some results concerning the second problem see
in \cite{Mal_analytic_4}). Namely, we want to demonstrate rigorously
that even on the classical (non-quantum) level there is a mere possibility
that the stationary and space homogeneous flow of charged particles
may exist as a result of self-organization of strongly interacting
(via Coulomb repulsion) system of electrons.

We use only classical nonrelativistic physics - Newtonian dynamics
and Coulomb's law, but also the simplest friction mechanism, ignoring
where this friction mechanism comes from. Rigorous models of strongly
interacting electron systems, interacting also with the ionic lattice,
do not exist now.

\paragraph{The Model}

We consider $N$ point particles $i=1,2,...,N$ initially at the points
\[
0\leq x_{1}(0)<...<x_{N}(0)<L
\]
of the interval $[0,L]\in R$. We assume periodic boundary conditions
that is we consider the circle $S_{L}=[0,L)$ of length $L$. The
trajectories $x_{i}(t)$ are defined by the following system of $N$
equations

\begin{equation}
M\frac{d^{2}x_{i}}{dt^{2}}=-\frac{\partial U}{\partial x_{i}}+gF(x_{i})-a(\frac{dx_{i}}{dt})\label{main_eq}
\end{equation}
The interaction $U$ between the particles is

\[
U(\{x_{i}\})=\sum_{i=1}^{N}V(x_{i+1}-x_{i})
\]
where of course $x_{N+1}=x_{1}$ and
\[
V(x)=V(-x)=\frac{\alpha}{r}>0,r=|x|
\]
The case $\alpha>0$ corresponds to the Coulomb repulsive potential,
that we consider here. Then the repulsive force is
\[
f(r)=-\frac{dV(r)}{dr}=\alpha r^{-2}
\]
It follows that the particles, during the movement, cannot change
their order. $gF(x)$ - an external accelerating force (assumed sufficiently
smooth) with scaling parameter $g>0$. The friction function $a(v)$
is specified below. It defines the loss of kinetic energy via the
interaction with external media.

It is well-known that the solution of the system (\ref{main_eq}),
for any initial conditions, exists and is unique on all time interval
$[0.\infty)$, under sufficiently general assumptions on the functions
$F$ and $a$. However, to get more detailed information about trajectories,
one needs sufficient efforts.

\section{Effective force}

\paragraph{Parameters and constants}

Throughout the paper we are dealing with macro and micro parameters
and (absolute) constants. Absolute constants do not depend on the
parameters of the model.

All our constructions are for $N$ sufficiently large but finite -
one cannot directly perform the limit $N\to\infty$ because there
will be different micro-scales, influencing on the macro-parameters.
Macro-parameters $L$ and $F(x)$ are fixed (do not depend on $N$),
for example we put
\[
C(F,m)=\max_{x}|F^{(m)}(x)|,m=0,1,2,
\]
and put for convenience
\[
C(F,0)=1
\]
Roughly speaking, our first approximation dynamics is
\[
x_{k}(t)=x_{k}(0)+Vt,\frac{dx_{k}(t)}{dt}=V
\]
where $V$ is a macro-parameter (the approximate velocity of particles).

Micro-parameters
\[
M=M^{(N)},g=g^{(N)},\alpha=\alpha^{(N)}
\]
depend on $N$ (they satisfy some conditions defined below), but we
will omit index $(N)$. For example, in some physical situation (in
SI units) approximately
\[
N^{-1}=10^{-10},M=10^{-30},\alpha=10^{-28}
\]
These numbers were some guide for us, but we could not fit them completely
- $g$ had to be assumed smaller than necessary.

\paragraph{Static configurations}

For any particle configuration $(x_{i}=x_{i}^{(N)},v_{i}=v_{i}^{(N)})$
\[
0\leq x_{1}=x_{1}^{(N)}<...<x_{N}=x_{N}^{(N)}<L
\]
the \textbf{effective} force, acting on the particle $i$, is
\[
w_{i}-a(v_{i})
\]
where

\[
w_{i}=w(x_{i-1},x_{i},x_{i+1})=f(x_{i}-x_{i-1})-f(x_{i+1}-x_{i})+gF(x_{i})
\]
The following crucial result depends only on the parameter $C_{\alpha,g}=\alpha^{-1}g$.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma_w}

Assume $C_{\alpha,g}$ fixed or bounded as $N\to\infty$, then for
any sufficiently large $N$ there exists configuration $x_{1}<...<x_{N}$
(assuming zero velocities) such that the effective force is the same
for all $i=1,...,N$, that is there exists $w$ such that
\begin{equation}
f(x_{i}-x_{i-1})-f(x_{i+1}-x_{i})+gF(x_{i})=w_{i}=w,i=1,...,N\label{Equat_constantForce}
\end{equation}
Moreover, for this configuration the following properties hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item uniformly in $i=1,...,N$ as $N\to\infty$
\[
\Delta_{i}=x_{i+1}-x_{i}\sim\frac{L}{N}
\]

\item for any $i$ denote $\Delta_{i}=\Delta(1+\delta_{i}),\Delta_{1}=\Delta$.
Then for all $i$
\[
|\delta_{i}|\leq4\alpha^{-1}gL_{0}\Delta
\]
where $L_{0}$ is the length of the support of $F(x)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}

Proof. Let us call $\psi(x)=gF(x)-w$ the virtual force. Then the
required configuration can be interpreted as a fixed point of $N$
particle system for the external virtual force. The virtual force
is potential iff
\begin{equation}
\int_{S_{L}}\psi(x)dx=g\int_{S_{L}}F(x)dx-Lw=0\label{cycle-1}
\end{equation}
Then the (virtual) potential of the virtual force is
\[
W(x)=-\int_{0}^{x}\psi(x)dx
\]
and a required fixed point exists as a global minimum (in $R^{N}$)
of the potential
\[
U(x_{1},...,x_{N})+\sum_{i=1}^{N}W(x_{i})
\]
If such minimum is not unique, we take anyone.

The effective force $w>0$ can be found from condition (\ref{cycle-1}).
At the same time, summing up the equations (\ref{Equat_constantForce}),
we get
\[
g\sum_{i=1}^{N}F(x_{i})-Nw=0
\]
Thus, the constant effective force equals
\begin{equation}
w=g\frac{1}{L}\int_{S_{L}}F(x)dx=g\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}F(x_{i})\label{cycle-2}
\end{equation}

Assertion 1 of the Lemma was proved in Theorem 1 of \cite{Mal_fixed_3},
see also \cite{Mal_fixed_2}. Now let us prove the assertion 2 of
the lemma. Summing up the equations (\ref{Equat_constantForce}) for
$i=2,...,k$, we get
\[
f(\Delta(1+\delta_{k}))-f(\Delta)=\sum_{i=2}^{k}(gF(x_{i})-w)
\]
or
\[
(1+\delta_{k})^{-2}-1=\alpha^{-1}\Delta^{2}\sum_{i=2}^{k}(gF(x_{i})-w)
\]
Then
\begin{equation}
\delta_{k}=[1+Q_{k}]^{-\frac{1}{2}}-1=\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}a_{m}Q_{k}^{m},Q_{k}=\alpha^{-1}\Delta^{2}\sum_{i=2}^{k}(gF(x_{i})-w)\label{delta_k}
\end{equation}

\begin{equation}
(-1)^{m}a_{m}=\frac{1.3...(2m-1)}{2^{m}m!}=\frac{(2m)!}{(2^{m}m!)^{2}}\sim\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi m}},|a_{m}|\leq1\label{a_m}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
|w|\leq g\frac{L_{0}}{L},\,\,\,|\sum_{i=2}^{k}(gF(x_{i})-w)|\leq(1+\frac{L_{0}}{L})g(k-1)\label{w_estimate}
\end{equation}
It follows that for sufficiently large $N$
\[
|\delta_{k}|\leq\sum_{m=1}(\alpha^{-1}(1+\frac{L_{0}}{L})gL_{0}\Delta)^{m}=\frac{\alpha^{-1}(1+\frac{L_{0}}{L})gL_{0}\Delta}{1-\alpha^{-1}(1+\frac{L_{0}}{L})gL_{0}\Delta}\leq2(1+\frac{L_{0}}{L})\alpha^{-1}gL_{0}\Delta
\]
if $\alpha^{-1}(1+\frac{L_{0}}{L})gL_{0}\Delta\leq\frac{1}{2}$. The
Lemma is proved.

\begin{remark} The assertion 1 of Lemma \ref{lemma_w} says that
the asymptotics of $\Delta_{k}$ does not depend on $F$. We say in
this case that $F$ is not seen on the microscale $N^{-1}$ but only
on the sub-microscale, see \cite{Mal_fixed_2} and \cite{Mal_fixed_3}.
It follows that the density is macro-homogeneous. However, as it is
clear from (\ref{delta_k}) and (\ref{a_m}), on the interval where
$F(x)=0$, the distances between particles slightly increase in the
clock-wise direction.

\end{remark}

\section{Main result - macro-homogeneous dynamics}

For any sufficiently large $N$ we shall prove existence of the dynamics
for $t\in[0,T),T=T(N)\approx N$, which we call \textbf{macro-homogeneous}
on $[0,T)$. That is we shall prove that the following two properties
hold as $N\to\infty$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item (asymptotically homogeneous velocities) There exists constant (one
more macro-parameter) $V>0$ such that uniformly in $i=1,2...,N$
and $t\in[0.T)$ the velocities
\[
v_{i}(t)=v_{i}^{(N)}(t)\to V
\]

\item (asymptotically homogeneous density) uniformly in $t\in[0.T)$, for
any interval $I\subset S_{L}$ the number $N(I,t)$ of particles in
$I$
\[
N(I,t)\sim\frac{|I|}{L}N
\]

\end{enumerate}

\paragraph{Assumptions}

We choose the simplest friction mechanism defined by the function
which is linear in the (micro) vicinity of the macroparameter $V$
\[
a(v)=A_{0}+Av,v\in(V-\Delta,V+\Delta)
\]
where $A_{0}$ and $A>0$ are microparameters, coordinated with macroparameter
$V$ and microparameter $w$ so that
\begin{equation}
a(V)=A_{0}+AV=w>0\label{a_w}
\end{equation}
Concerning the parameters, roughly speaking, there are two assumptions:
$g$ is small enough, in particular $g\ll A$ and
\[
N^{-1}A^{2}\alpha^{-1}\ll M\ll\min(\alpha N^{-1},A)
\]
More exactly, it can be formulated as follows. For any sufficiently
large $N$ and some sufficiently small absolute constant $\rho>0$
\begin{equation}
N^{-1}A^{2}\alpha^{-1}\rho^{-1}<M<\rho\min(\alpha N^{-1}\frac{1}{\ln N},A)\label{cond_main_1}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
C_{A,g}=A^{-1}g\leq\rho N^{-3}\label{cond_main_2}
\end{equation}

In particular, we will use below the first inequality in (\ref{cond_main_1})
more concretely
\begin{equation}
\frac{M\alpha N}{A^{2}}>(16(2\pi)^{2})^{-1}\label{cond_roots}
\end{equation}
The following example shows that these inequalities provide non-empty
and natural domain of parameters
\[
g=N^{-\gamma_{1}},\alpha=N^{-\gamma_{2}}.M=N^{-\gamma_{3}}
\]
with constants $\gamma_{1}>2,\gamma_{2}>0,\gamma_{3}>0$ and such
that
\[
\gamma_{1}>\gamma_{2},1+2\gamma_{1}-\gamma_{2}>\gamma_{3}>\max(1+\gamma_{2},\gamma_{1})
\]
Put also
\begin{equation}
C_{w,g}=w^{-1}g=\frac{L}{C(F,int)},C(F,int)=\int F(x)dx\label{condition_w_g}
\end{equation}

\paragraph{Initial conditions}

We fix the initial configuration for the required dynamics as $v_{i}=V$
and $x_{i}$ are chosen as in Lemma \ref{lemma_w}, that is
\[
x_{k+1}(0)-x_{k}(0)=\Delta_{k},w=\alpha\Delta_{k-1}^{-2}-\alpha\Delta_{k}^{-2}+gF(x_{k}(0))
\]
and it is convenient to choose the coordinate system by $x_{1}(0)=0$.
Thus the initial effective force is zero.

We could choose the initial velocities as
\[
v_{k}(0)=V+u_{k}(0)
\]
where $u_{k}(0)$ could be assumed sufficiently small, but for convenience
we always assume $u_{k}(0)=0$.

\paragraph{Main result}

\begin{theorem}\label{theorem_main}

Assume (\ref{a_w}) and (\ref{cond_main_1})-(\ref{cond_main_2}).
Then for the chosen initial conditions (explicitely defined in the
next section) there exists $\beta>0$, not depending on $N$, such
that the dynamics is macro-homogeneous on the time interval $[0.T),T=T_{N}=\beta N$.

\end{theorem}

\paragraph{Plan of the proof}

Choosing initial configuration $x_{k}(0)$ is a delicate matter. We
did it in the previous section so that the effective forces acting
on each particle are the same at time $0$. This dynamics does not
satisfy the main equations and we derive (in section 4) the equations
for the deviations $y_{k}(t)=x_{k}(t)-x_{k}(0)-Vt$. It is very important
that our choice of the initial conditions allows to exclude the constant
component of the effective force in the equations for $y_{k}(t)$.

We fix the basic linear part of these equations for $y_{k}(t)$ and
solve them (section 5). It is rather straightforward but demands delicate
estimates. The rest linear and nonlinear parts of the equations are
considered as the perturbation and demand some iteration procedure.
The section 6 is devoted to convergence of this procedure and to stability
estimates. To prove this we introduce special Banach space where the
convergence holds, that also demands some nontrivial estimates. There
are many similarities in the estimates - we tried not to repeat them.
Finally, in section 7, we give some remarks and perspective.

In the rigorous proof we tried to be very accurate with micro-parameters,
that is with the parameters depending on $N$. Absolute constants
(we will meet finite number of them) are denoted $c,c_{1},c_{2},...$
and could be easily explicitely written but we did not do this because
of no interest. Also sometimes we denote $C(F)$ a generic macro-constant
depending only on $F$. Starting from section 5 we take $L=1$.

\section{Equations for the deviations}

As the force $F(x)$ is not translation invariant, the dynamics $x_{k}(t)=x_{k}(0)+Vt$.
cannot satisfy equations (\ref{main_eq}). We introduce the deviations
$y_{k}(t)$ and their velocities $u_{k}(t)$ by
\[
x_{k}(t)=x_{k}(0)+Vt+y_{k}(t),y_{k}(0)=0,
\]

\[
v_{k}(t)=\frac{dx_{k}}{dt},u_{k}(t)=\frac{dy_{k}}{dt}=v_{k}(t)-V,y_{k}(t)=\int_{0}^{t}u_{k}(t)dt,
\]
and rewrite the main equations (\ref{main_eq}) as equations for the
deviations

\[
M\frac{d^{2}y_{k}}{dt^{2}}=f(\Delta_{k-1}(0)+y_{k}(t)-y_{k-1}(t))-f(\Delta_{k}(0)+y_{k+1}(t)-y_{k}(t))+
\]

\begin{equation}
+gF(x_{k}(0)+Vt+y_{k}(t))-a(V+u_{k}(t))\label{main_deviations}
\end{equation}

For any function $h(k)$ on the finite cyclic group $\{k:k=1,...N_{L}\}$,
with zero element $N_{L}=0$, introduce the shift operator
\[
(Sh)(k)=h(k+1)
\]
and finite difference operators (discrete derivatives)

\[
\nabla_{k}h(k)=\nabla h(k)=\nabla^{+}h(k)=h(k+1)-h(k),(\nabla^{-}h)(k)=h(k)-h(k-1),
\]
in particular
\[
\nabla y_{k}(t)=y_{k+1}(t)-y_{k}(t)
\]
Sometimes we will use Leibnitz formula for discrete derivatives (concerning
calculus of finite differences see \cite{Mal_fine} and references
to classical papers therein)

\begin{equation}
\nabla(f_{1}...f_{n})=(\nabla f_{1})S(f_{2}...f_{n})+f_{1}\nabla(f_{2}...f_{n})=...=\sum_{m=1}^{n}f_{1}...f_{m-1}(\nabla f_{m})S(f_{m+1}...f_{n})\label{Leibnitz}
\end{equation}
Note that it differs from the standard Leibnitz formula for differentiation
only by shift operators. As we will use it only for estimates from
above, which are always uniform in $k$, the shift operators will
not play role.

Then
\[
f(\Delta_{k-1}(0)+y_{k}(t)-y_{k-1}(t))-f(\Delta_{k}(0)+y_{k+1}(t)-y_{k}(t))=\alpha(-\nabla^{-})(\Delta_{k}(0)+\nabla^{+}y_{k})^{-2}=
\]

\begin{equation}
=\alpha(-\nabla^{-})(\Delta_{k}^{-2}-2\frac{\nabla^{+}y_{k}(t)}{\Delta_{k}^{3}})+L_{3}\label{L_3}
\end{equation}

\[
L_{3}=\alpha(-\nabla^{-})[(\Delta_{k}(0)+\nabla^{+}y_{k})^{-2}-\Delta_{k}^{-2}+2\frac{\nabla^{+}y_{k}(t)}{\Delta_{k}^{3}}]
\]
Formally
\begin{equation}
L_{3}=\alpha(-\nabla^{-})\Delta_{k}^{-2}\sum_{m=2}^{\infty}d_{m}(\frac{\nabla^{+}y_{k}(t)}{\Delta_{k}})^{m},d_{m}=(-1)^{m}(m+1)\label{L_3_series}
\end{equation}
Applying $-\alpha\nabla^{-}$ to the first and second terms in the
right-hand side of (\ref{L_3}), and putting
\[
\delta_{k}^{1}=(1+\delta_{k})^{-3}-1
\]
we have
\[
-\alpha\nabla^{-}\Delta_{k}^{-2}=-\alpha(\Delta_{k}^{-2}-\Delta_{k-1}^{-2}),
\]

\[
\alpha(-\nabla^{-})[-2\Delta_{k}^{-3}\nabla^{+}y_{k}(t)]=2\alpha[\Delta_{k}^{-3}\nabla^{+}y_{k}(t)-\Delta_{k-1}^{-3}\nabla^{+}y_{k-1}(t))]=
\]

\[
=2\alpha\Delta^{-3}[(1+\delta_{k})^{-3}(y_{k+1}-y_{k})-(1+\delta_{k-1})^{-3}(y_{k}-y_{k-1})]=2\alpha\Delta^{-3}[y_{k+1}(t)-2y_{k}(t)+y_{k-1}(t)]+L_{2}
\]
where
\[
L_{2}=2\alpha\Delta^{-3}\nabla^{-}[\delta_{k}^{1}\nabla y_{k}]
\]
Then the main equations become
\[
M\frac{d^{2}y_{k}}{dt^{2}}+A\frac{dy_{k}(t)}{dt}+[\alpha\Delta_{k}^{-2}-\alpha\Delta_{k-1}^{-2}-gF(x_{k}(0))+w]-2\alpha\Delta^{-3}[y_{k+1}-2y_{k}+y_{k-1})]=
\]

\[
=L_{2}+L_{3}+gF(x_{k}(0)+Vt+y_{k}(t))-gF(x_{k}(0))-A\frac{dy_{k}}{dt})
\]
As the first square bracket (that is the ``effective acceleration
force'') is zero, we get the final form of the (differential-difference)
equations

\begin{equation}
M\frac{d^{2}y_{k}}{dt^{2}}+A\frac{dy_{k}(t)}{dt}-2\alpha\Delta^{-3}[y_{k+1}-2y_{k}+y_{k-1})]=L_{1}+L_{2}+L_{3}+g\phi_{k}(t)\label{main_nonlinear}
\end{equation}
where
\[
\phi_{k}(t)=F(x_{k}(0)+Vt)-F(x_{k}(0))
\]

\[
L_{1}=g[F(x_{k}(0)+Vt+y_{k}(t))-F(x_{k}(0)+Vt)]
\]
First of all, we shall study in detail a cut-off system
\begin{equation}
M\frac{d^{2}y_{k}(t)}{dt^{2}}+A\frac{dy_{k}(t)}{dt}-2\alpha\Delta^{-3}[y_{k+1}-2y_{k}+y_{k-1})]=g\phi_{k}(t)\label{zeroLinear}
\end{equation}
which we call the basic linear approximation and consider $L_{i},i=1,2,3$
as perturbation terms. We take them into account in section 6.

\section{Linear stability}

From now on we put $L=1,N=N_{1}$. Denote $y_{k,0}(t)$ the solution
of equations (\ref{zeroLinear}).

\subsection{Fourier transform}

Denote
\begin{equation}
\Phi(h)=\Phi(h)(n)=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^{N}h_{k}\exp(2\pi in\frac{k}{N})\label{fourier}
\end{equation}
the Fourier transform
\[
\Phi:l_{2}(\{\frac{k}{N}:k=1,...,N\})\to l_{2}(\{n=0,1,...,N-1\})
\]
of the function $h=h_{k}$ on $\{\frac{k}{N}:k=1,...,N\}$. The inverse
Fourier transform is
\begin{equation}
h_{k}=\sum_{n}\Phi(h)(n)\exp(-2\pi in\frac{k}{N})\label{inverseFourier}
\end{equation}
Put
\[
\eta(n,t)=\Phi(y_{k,0}(t)),\tilde{\phi}(n,t)=\Phi(\phi_{k}(t))
\]
Multiplying (\ref{zeroLinear}) on $\frac{1}{N}\exp(2\pi in\frac{k}{N})$,
summing in $k$ and dividing by $M$, we get the decoupled equations
for $n=0,1,...,N-1$

\begin{equation}
\frac{d^{2}\eta(n,t)}{dt^{2}}+\frac{A}{M}\frac{d\eta(n,t)}{dt}+\frac{4\alpha}{M}\Delta^{-3}(1-\cos2\pi n\frac{1}{N})\eta(n,t)=M^{-1}g\tilde{\phi}(n,t)\label{fourier_Linearequation}
\end{equation}

The characteristic equation
\[
Q(z)=z^{2}+\frac{A}{M}z+\frac{4\alpha}{M}\Delta^{-3}(1-\cos2\pi n\frac{1}{N})=0
\]
has the roots
\begin{equation}
z_{1,2}(n)=-\frac{A}{2M}(1\pm\sqrt{1-\frac{16M\alpha}{A^{2}\Delta^{3}}(1-\cos2\pi n\frac{1}{N})})\label{z_1_2}
\end{equation}
If
\[
1-\frac{16M\alpha}{A^{2}\Delta^{3}}(1-\cos2\pi n\frac{1}{N})\neq0
\]
then the roots are different and the general solution is
\[
\eta(n,t)=\eta_{1}(n,t)+\eta_{2}(n,t)
\]
where for $l=1,2$
\[
\eta_{l}(n,t)=C_{l}(n)e^{z_{l}t}+\frac{e^{z_{l}t}}{Q'(z_{l})}\int_{0}^{t}e^{-z_{l}t_{1}}M^{-1}g\tilde{\phi}(n,t_{1})dt_{1}=
\]

\begin{equation}
=C_{l}(n)e^{z_{l}t}+\frac{M^{-1}}{2z_{l}+\frac{A}{M}}\int_{0}^{t}e^{z_{l}(t-t_{1})}g\tilde{\phi}(n,t_{1})dt_{1}=C_{l}(n)e^{z_{l}t}+r_{l}(n)g\int_{0}^{t}e^{z_{l}(t-t_{1})}\tilde{\phi}(n,t_{1})dt_{1}\label{eta_0}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
r_{l}(n)=(-1)^{l}\frac{1}{\frac{A}{2}\sqrt{1-\frac{16M\alpha}{A^{2}\Delta^{3}}(1-\cos2\pi n\frac{1}{N})})}\label{r_l}
\end{equation}
As $y_{k}(0)=0$ we have
\[
C_{2}=-C_{1},
\]
Introduce the Fourier transform of $u_{k}(0)$
\[
\eta'(n,0)=\frac{\partial\eta(n,0)}{\partial t}=\sum_{l=1,2}C_{l}(n)z_{l}(n)=C_{1}(n)(z_{1}-z_{2})
\]
It follows
\[
|C_{1}|=|C_{2}|=|\frac{\eta'(n)}{z_{1}-z_{2}}|\leq\frac{M}{A}|\eta'(n,0)|
\]
From now on we assume for simplicity that $u_{k}(0)=0$ for all $k$,
then
\[
C_{1}=C_{2}=0
\]

\subsection{Main ``linear'' lemmas}

If
\[
\frac{16M\alpha}{A^{2}\Delta}(2\pi)^{2}>2
\]
(garantied by the left inequality of (\ref{cond_main_1})) then for
any $n\neq0$ the roots $z_{1,2}(n)$ are complex conjugate.

In the linear case we need only boundedness of $C_{A,g}$ and $C_{\alpha,g}$
and condition (\ref{cond_main_1}). Under these conditions we will
prove

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma_eta-1}

\begin{equation}
|\eta(0,t)|\leq\Delta^{2}(t+1)C_{A,g}(C(F)+4C_{\alpha,g})\label{complex_n_0}
\end{equation}
and for any $n\neq0$
\begin{equation}
|\eta(n,t)|\leq\frac{c}{n}C_{A,g}\sqrt{\frac{M\Delta}{\alpha}}\label{complex_n_neq_0}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}

Proof. We have for $n\neq0$
\[
\Re z_{1}(n)=-\frac{A}{2M},
\]

\[
\eta_{l}(n,t)=r_{l}(n)\int_{0}^{t}e^{z_{l}(t-t_{1})}g\tilde{\phi}(n,t_{1})dt_{1}
\]
As, by the left inequality in (\ref{cond_main_1}), $\frac{M\alpha}{A^{2}\Delta}$
is sufficiently large, and $1-\cos2\pi n\frac{1}{N}>c_{1}(\frac{n}{N})^{2}$
for some $c_{1}>0$ and any $n\neq0$, then for $l=1,2$ from (\ref{r_l})
we have
\[
g|r_{l}(n)|=2C_{A,g}|\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{16M\alpha}{A^{2}\Delta^{3}}(1-\cos2\pi n\frac{1}{N})})}|\leq\frac{2C_{A,g}}{\sqrt{\frac{16M\alpha}{A^{2}\Delta^{3}}(\frac{n}{N})^{2}c_{1}}}
\]
Then
\[
|\eta_{1}(n,t)|\leq\frac{2C_{A,g}}{\sqrt{\frac{16M\alpha}{A^{2}\Delta^{3}}(\frac{n}{N})^{2}c_{1}}}|\int_{0}^{t}e^{z_{1}(t-t_{1})}dt_{1}|=\frac{2C_{A,g}}{\sqrt{\frac{16M\alpha}{A^{2}\Delta^{3}}(\frac{n}{N})^{2}c_{1}}}|\Re z_{1}|^{-1}(1-e^{\Re z_{1}t})\leq
\]

\begin{equation}
\leq c\frac{1}{n}C_{A,g}\sqrt{\frac{M\Delta}{\alpha}}\label{eta_1_n_linear}
\end{equation}
For $n=0$ we have by (\ref{z_1_2}) and (\ref{r_l})
\begin{equation}
z_{1}(0)=-\frac{A}{M},z_{2}(0)=0,|r_{1,2}(0)|=\frac{2}{A}\label{linear_zero_1}
\end{equation}
and we need the following

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma_fi_0}

For $n=0$ we have

\begin{equation}
\sup_{t}|\tilde{\phi}(0,t)|\leq\Delta^{2}C(F,2)+8C(F,1)C_{\alpha,g}\Delta\label{lemma_fi_1}
\end{equation}

\begin{equation}
|\int_{0}^{t}\tilde{\phi}(0,t_{1})dt_{1}|\leq\Delta^{2}(2(t+1)(C_{\alpha,g}+C(F,2))+2C(F,1))\label{lemma_fi_2}
\end{equation}

\end{lemma}

From (\ref{linear_zero_1}) and this lemma we get
\[
|\eta_{1}(0,t)|=g|r_{1}(0)||\Re z_{1}(0)|^{-1}\sup|\tilde{\phi}(0,t)|\leq2C_{A,g}\frac{M}{A}(\Delta^{2}C(F,2)+8C(F,1)C_{\alpha,g}\Delta)\leq
\]

\[
\leq2C_{A,g}(\frac{M}{A}\Delta^{2}C(F,2)+8C(F,1)\Delta^{2})
\]
as $\frac{M}{A}C_{\alpha,g}<\Delta$ by (\ref{cond_main_1}). Also
\[
|\eta_{2}(0,t)|=g|r_{l}(0)\int_{0}^{t}\tilde{\phi}(0,t_{1})dt_{1}\}\leq2C_{A,g}\Delta^{2}(2(t+1)(C_{\alpha,g}+C(F,2))+2C(F,1))
\]

\[
|\eta(0,t)|\leq|\eta_{1}(0,t)|+|\eta_{2}(0,t)|\leq\Delta^{2}(t+1)C_{A,g}(C(F)+4C_{\alpha,g})
\]
where
\[
C(F)=6C(F,2)+24C(F,1)
\]

Now we can prove the following

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma_y_k_0}

Uniformly in $k$
\[
|y_{k,0}(t)|\leq cC_{A,g}\sqrt{\frac{M\Delta}{\alpha}}\ln N+\Delta^{2}(t+1)C_{A,g}(C(F)+4C_{\alpha,g})
\]

\[
|\nabla y_{k,0}(t)|\leq cC_{A,g}\sqrt{\frac{M\Delta}{\alpha}}\ln N,
\]

\[
|\nabla^{2}y_{k+1,0}(t)|\leq cC_{A,g}\sqrt{\frac{M\Delta}{\alpha}}\ln N
\]

\end{lemma}

This is the direct calculation via Fourier transform. We use inverse
Fourier transform (\ref{inverseFourier}), thus we have only to sum
up the terms of Lemma \ref{lemma_eta-1}, this gives
\[
|y_{k,0}(t)|\leq\sum_{n}\sum_{l=1,2}|\eta_{l}(n)|
\]
We see that the main term corresponds to the zero mode. Noting that
\begin{equation}
\Phi(\nabla y_{k,0}(t))=\eta(n,t)(e^{-2\pi i\frac{n}{N}}-1),\Phi(\nabla^{2}y_{k,0}(t))=\eta(n,t)(e^{-2\pi i\frac{n}{N}}-1)^{2}\label{derivatives_Fourier}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
|\nabla y_{k,0}(t)|\leq\sum_{n\neq0}\sum_{l=1,2}|\eta_{l}(n,t)(e^{-2\pi i\frac{n}{N}}-1)|\label{_y_eta_1}
\end{equation}

\begin{equation}
|\nabla^{2}y_{k,0}(t)|\leq\sum_{n\neq0}\sum_{l=1,2}|\eta_{l}(n,t)(e^{-2\pi i\frac{n}{N}}-1)^{2}|\label{y_eta_2}
\end{equation}
We see that for the first and second differences the zero mode vanioshes,
that gives better estimate. The Lemma is proved.

\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lemma_fi_0}}

To prove (\ref{lemma_fi_1}) note that for any $t$ there is $m(1,t)$
such that
\[
x_{m(1,t)}(0)\leq x_{1}(0)+Vt<x_{m(1,t)+1}(0)
\]
and denote
\[
\gamma=x_{1}(0)+Vt-x_{m(1,t)}(0)=Vt-x_{m(1,t)}(0)
\]
Put $m(k,t)=m(1,t)+(k-1)$. Then
\begin{equation}
x_{k}(0)+Vt-x_{m(k,t)}(0)=\gamma+\eta_{k}\label{gamma_plus_feta}
\end{equation}
and uniformly in $k$
\[
|\eta_{k}|\leq8C_{\alpha,g}\Delta
\]
This follows from (\ref{delta_k}) and the evident formulas
\[
x_{k}(0)=x_{1}(0)+\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}\Delta_{i}=\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}\Delta(1+\delta_{i})=(k-1)\Delta+\Delta\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}\delta_{i}
\]

\[
x_{m(k,t)}(0)=x_{m(1,t)}(0)+(k-1)\Delta+\Delta\sum_{i=m(1,t)}^{m(k,t)-1}\delta_{i}
\]

\[
x_{k}(0)+Vt-x_{m(k,t)}(0)=\gamma+\Delta(\sum_{i=m(1,t)}^{m(k,t)-1}\delta_{i}-\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}\delta_{i})
\]
Then we can write
\[
\tilde{\phi}(0,t)=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k}(F(x_{k}(0)+Vt)-F(x_{k}(0))=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k}(F(x_{k}(0)+Vt)-F(x_{m(k,t)}(0))=
\]

\[
=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k}F^{(1)}(x_{m(k,t)}(0)+\theta_{k})(\gamma+\eta_{k})
\]
where $|\theta_{k}|\leq\gamma+|\eta_{k}|$ and we used (\ref{gamma_plus_feta}).
But
\[
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k}F^{(1)}(x_{m(k,t)}(0)+\theta_{k})\to_{N\to\infty}\int_{S_{1}}F^{(1)}(x)dx=0
\]
and moreover
\[
|\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k}F^{(1)}(x_{m(k,t)}(0)+\theta_{k})|\gamma=|\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k}F^{(1)}(x_{m(k,t)}(0)+\theta_{k})-\int_{S_{1}}F^{(1)}(x)dx|\gamma\leq
\]

\[
\leq C(F,2)\Delta\gamma\leq C(F,2)\Delta^{2}
\]

\[
|\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k}F^{(1)}(x_{m(k,t)}(0)+\theta_{k})\eta_{k}|\leq C(F,1)8C_{\alpha,g}\Delta
\]
Finally the bound is
\[
C(F,2)\Delta^{2}+C(F,1)8C_{\alpha,g}\Delta
\]

To prove (\ref{lemma_fi_2}) is more difficult: one should obtain
maximal cancellation by carefully grouping the summation and integration
terms. Denote
\[
b_{m}=\min(\Delta_{m-1},\Delta_{m}),I_{m}=(x_{m}(0)-\frac{b_{m}}{2},x_{m}(0)+\frac{b_{m}}{2})\subset S_{1}
\]
For any pair $(k,m)$ and any $t$ define the set $T(k,m)=T(k,m,t)\subset[0,t]$
as follows: $t_{1}\in T(k,m)$ iff
\[
x_{k}(0)+Vt_{1}\in I_{m},t_{1}\leq t
\]
Note that for given $k$ the sets $T(k,m),m-1,...,N,$ are disjoint,
similarly for given $m$ the sets $T(k,m),k-1,...,N,$ are disjoint.
The set $T(k,m)$ consists of disjoint intervals
\[
J_{i}=J_{i}(k,m),i=1,2,...,\beta=\beta(k,m,t),
\]
enumerated in the order of their hitting (imagine a particle starting
at $x_{k}(0)$ and moving with constant speed $V$), and $\beta=[tV${]}+1
or $\beta=[tV]+2$. All these intervals have length $|J_{i}|=V^{-1}b_{m}$,
except $J_{1}(k,k)$, having length $\frac{1}{2}V^{-1}b_{k}$ (we
call them initial intervals), and, for given $k$, possibly one of
the others (namely $J_{\beta}$, we call them end intervals), which
length can be less than $V^{-1}b_{m}$. We call the intervals $J_{i}(k,m)$,
having length $\frac{b_{m}}{V}$, regular, the others - non-regular.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma_zeroMode_measure}

The sets $T_{1}(k)=[0,t]\setminus\cup_{m}T(k,m),k=1,...,N,$ and $T_{2}(m)=[0,t]\setminus\cup_{k}T(k,m),m=1,...,N,$
have measure less than $2(t+1)C_{\alpha,g}\Delta^{2}$.

\end{lemma}

In fact, from (\ref{delta_k}) it follows that
\[
\delta_{m}-\delta_{m-1}=\sum_{l=1}^{\infty}a_{l}(Q_{m}^{l}-Q_{m-1}^{l})=-\alpha^{-1}\Delta^{2}(gF(x_{m})-w)+\sum_{l=2}^{\infty}a_{l}(Q_{m}^{l}-Q_{m-1}^{l})
\]

\begin{equation}
|\delta_{m}-\delta_{m-1}|\leq2C_{\alpha,g}\Delta^{2}\label{diff_delta_k}
\end{equation}
Then the assertion follows from
\[
|\Delta_{m}-\Delta_{m-1}|=\Delta|\delta_{m}-\delta_{m-1}|\leq2C_{\alpha,g}\Delta^{3},\sum_{m=1}^{N}|\Delta_{m}-\Delta_{m-1}|\leq2C_{\alpha,g}\Delta^{2}
\]

Lemma \ref{lemma_zeroMode_measure} is proved.

We can write
\[
\int_{0}^{t}\tilde{\phi}(0,t_{1})dt_{1}=\int_{0}^{t}dt_{1}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^{N}(F(x_{k}(0)+Vt_{1})-F(x_{k}(0)))=\frac{1}{N}\int_{0}^{t}dt_{1}(\sum_{k=1}^{N}F(x_{k}(0)+Vt_{1})-\sum_{m=1}^{N}F(x_{m}(0)))=
\]

\begin{equation}
=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^{N}(\sum_{m=1}^{N}\sum_{i=1}^{\beta}\int_{J_{i}(k,m)}+\int_{T_{1}(k)})F(x_{k}(0)+Vt_{1})dt_{1}-\frac{1}{N}\sum_{m=1}^{N}tF(x_{m}(0))\label{expansion_integral}
\end{equation}
and for any $m$
\[
tF(x_{m}(0))=F(x_{m}(0))(\sum_{k=1}^{N}\sum_{i=1}^{\beta}|J_{i}(k,m)|+|T_{2}(m)|)
\]
Take one of the regular intervals $J_{0}=J_{i}(k,m)$, then there
exists $t_{0}\in J_{0}$ such that $x_{k}(0)+Vt_{0}=x_{m}(0)$. Expanding
in $V(t_{1}-t_{0})$ we have

\begin{equation}
F(x_{k}(0)+Vt_{1})=F(x_{k}(0)+Vt_{0})+F'(x_{k}(0)+Vt_{0})V(t_{1}-t_{0})+F''(x_{k}(0)+Vt_{0}+\vartheta)V^{2}(t_{1}-t_{0})^{2}\label{expansion_J_0}
\end{equation}
for some $0\leq\vartheta\leq V(t_{1}-t_{0})$. After integration over
$J_{0}$ the linear term in the right-hand side of (\ref{expansion_J_0})
vanishes due to symmetry w. r. t. $t_{0}$, constant terms cancel
with the corresponding terms in the last sum in (\ref{expansion_integral}),
and as a result we get
\[
|\int_{J_{0}}(F(x_{k}(0)+Vt_{1})-F(x_{m}(0)))dt_{1}|\leq C(F,2)\Delta^{3}
\]
The sum of such terms (for given $k$) over $m$ and over all $J_{i}(k,m)$
has the upper bound
\begin{equation}
C(F,2)\Delta^{2}t\label{bound_regular}
\end{equation}
Taking into account the factor $\frac{1}{N}$, we have the same bound
after summation over $k$.

Consider now non-regular intervals, For the initial intervals we write
the expansion similar to (\ref{expansion_J_0}), taking $t_{0}=0$.
Then as above, the constant terms cancel and the linear terms, after
integration give bound $C(F,1)\Delta^{2}$. The end intervals $J_{\beta}$,
if there is some $x_{m}(0)\in J_{\beta}$, are treated similar and
give the same bound. If there are no such $x_{m}(0)\in J_{\beta}$
then we consider the union $J_{\beta-1}\cup J_{\beta}$ and do the
same procedure. As there are not more than $2N$ such intervals, the
bound will not depend on $t$. Namely. this give the bound
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{N}2NC(F,1)\Delta^{2}\label{bound_nonregular}
\end{equation}
Taking all together, namely Lemma \ref{lemma_zeroMode_measure}, (\ref{bound_regular})
and (\ref{bound_nonregular}), we get (\ref{lemma_fi_2}).

\section{Nonlinear integral equations}

We shall prove the Theorem by taking into account linear and non-linear
terms which we skipped in the basic linear approximation (\ref{zeroLinear}).
Remind that we assume for simplicity $u_{k}(0)=0$ and thus $C_{l}(n)-0$.
We consider $L_{j}=L_{j}(k,t)$ as functions of $k$ and $t$, given
$y_{k}(t)$ and denote
\[
H(n,t)==\Phi(y_{k}(t)),\tilde{L}_{j}=\tilde{L}_{j}(n,t)=\Phi(L_{j}(k,t))
\]
(we will write down them explicitely below). Applying Fourier transform
to (\ref{main_nonlinear}) we get the main system of equations in
Fourier form
\[
\frac{d^{2}H(n,t)}{dt^{2}}+\frac{A}{M}\frac{dH(n,t)}{dt}+\frac{4\alpha}{M}\Delta^{-3}(1-\cos2\pi\frac{n}{N})H(n,t)=M^{-1}\tilde{\phi}(n,t)+M^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{3}\tilde{L}_{j}(n,t)
\]
Similarly to (\ref{eta_0}) we get the system of integral equations
for $H(n,t)$

\begin{equation}
H=K(H)+\eta\label{main_nonlinear_Fourier}
\end{equation}
with the non-linear integral operators, acting on $H$,
\[
K=\sum_{j=1}^{3}K_{j},K_{j}=\sum_{l=1,2}K_{j,l},K_{j,l}(H)(n,t)=r_{l}(n)\int_{0}^{t}e^{z_{l}(n)(t-t_{1})}\tilde{L}_{j}(n,t_{1})dt_{1}
\]
and the free term (that we have studied above)
\[
\eta(n,t)=\sum_{l=1,2}r_{l}(n)\int_{0}^{t}e^{z_{l}(n)(t-t_{1})}g\tilde{\phi}(n,t_{1})dt_{1}
\]

Define the Banach space $\mathbf{B}_{T}=\mathbf{B}_{T,N}$ of complex
(continuous in $t$) functions $b=b(n,t)$ on $\{0,1,...,N-1\}\times[0,T]$
with the norm
\[
||b||=\sup_{n,t\in[0,T]}D_{n}|b(n,t)|
\]
where
\[
D_{0}=\frac{1}{\Delta},
\]
and for $n\neq0$

\[
D_{n}=n\sqrt{\frac{\alpha}{M\Delta}}
\]
It follows that for any $n$
\begin{equation}
\sup_{t\in[0,T]}|b(n,t)|\leq||b||D_{n}^{-1}\label{sup_b_n_t}
\end{equation}
and thus for any subset $Q\subset\{0,1,...,N-1\}$
\begin{equation}
\sum_{n\in Q}\sup_{t\in[0,T]}|b(n,t)|\leq||b||\sum_{n\in Q}D_{n}^{-1}\label{sum_sup_b_n_t}
\end{equation}
Note that
\begin{equation}
\sum_{n=1}^{N-1}D_{n}^{-1}\leq c\sqrt{\frac{M\Delta}{\alpha}}\ln N\label{sum_D_minus_1}
\end{equation}
Further on we put for any $0<\beta<1$ not depending on $N$
\[
T=T(\beta)=\beta NC_{A,g}^{-1}\geq c\beta\rho^{-1}N^{3}
\]
We shall prove that Banach fixed point theorem defines the unique
solution in $\mathbf{B}_{T}$.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma_contract}

There exists $\gamma>0$, not depending on $N$ and such that for
any sufficiently large $N$ the ball
\[
D(T,\gamma)=\{H\in\mathbf{B}_{T}:||H||\leq\gamma\}
\]
is invariant with respect to any operator K,$K_{j},K_{j,l}$ and for
any $H_{1},H_{2}\in\mathbf{B}_{T}$ for some $q<1$

\begin{equation}
||K(H_{1})-K(H_{2})||\leq q||H_{1}-H_{2}||\label{contraction_general}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}

In particular, it follows from Lemma \ref{lemma_eta-1}, that $\eta\in D(T,\gamma)$.
It follows that there exists unique solution and we can solve the
equation (\ref{main_nonlinear_Fourier}) by the standard iteration.
We will prove Lemma separately for each $K_{j,l}$ with sufficiently
small $q$'s.

\paragraph{Bounds for $L_{1}$}

Consider two function $y_{k}(t)$ and $z_{k}(t)$ of $k$ and their
Fourier transforms
\[
H_{1}(n,t)=\Phi(y_{k}(t)),H_{2}(n,t)=\Phi(z_{k}(t))
\]
Denote
\[
u_{k}(y_{k})=F(x_{k}(0)+Vt+y_{k})
\]
Using Taylor expansion we have for some $\theta_{k}\in[z_{k},y_{k}],\theta'_{k}\in[0,z_{k}]$
\[
u_{k}(y_{k})-u_{k}(z_{k})=u_{k}(z_{k}+(y_{k}-z_{k}))-u_{k}(z_{k})=u_{k}^{(1)}(z_{k})(y_{k}-z_{k})+\frac{1}{2}u_{k}^{(2)}(z_{k}+\theta_{k})(y_{k}-z_{k})^{2}=
\]

\begin{equation}
=u_{k}^{(1)}(0)(y_{k}-z_{k})+z_{k}u_{k}^{(2)}(\theta'_{k})(y_{k}-z_{k})+\frac{1}{2}u_{k}^{(2)}(z_{k}+\theta_{k})(y_{k}-z_{k})^{2}\label{Taylor_u}
\end{equation}

We shall consider firstly the linear term
\[
u_{k}^{(1)}(0)(y_{k}-z_{k})=F^{(1)}(x_{k}(0)+Vt)(y_{k}-z_{k})
\]
Using the convolution formula
\[
\Phi(g_{1}g_{2},n)=(\Phi(g_{1})\star\Phi(g_{2}))(n)=\sum_{n_{1}}\Phi(g_{1},n-n_{1})\Phi(g_{2},n_{1})=\sum_{n_{1}}\Phi(g_{2},n-n_{1})\Phi(g_{1},n_{1})
\]
we have for $H=H_{1}-H_{2}$

\[
K_{1,l}(H)=gr_{l}(n)\int_{0}^{t}e^{z_{l}(n)(t-t_{1})}\sum_{n_{1}}\chi(n-n_{1},t_{1})H(n_{1},t_{1})dt_{1}
\]
where
\[
\chi(n,t)=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^{N}F^{(1)}(x_{k}(0)+Vt)\exp(2\pi in\frac{k}{N})
\]

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma_hi_}
\begin{equation}
|\chi(0,t)|\leq\Delta C(F,2)\label{bound_hi_0}
\end{equation}
and for any $0<n\leq\frac{N}{2}$
\begin{equation}
|\chi(n,t)|\leq cn^{-1}\label{bound_hi_nonzero}
\end{equation}
Symmetrically for $\frac{N}{2}\leq n<N$.

\end{lemma}

Proof. As for any $t$
\[
\int_{S_{1}}F^{(1)}(x+Vt)dx=0
\]
we have

\[
|\chi(0,t)|=|\chi(0,t)-\int_{S_{1}}F^{(1)}(x+Vt)dx|=|\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^{N}F^{(1)}(x_{k}(0)+Vt)-\int_{S_{1}}F^{(1)}(x+Vt)dx|\leq\frac{1}{N}max|F^{(2)}(x)|
\]

For $n\neq0$ we can use the following summation-by-parts formula
\[
\sum_{k=0}^{N-1}h_{1}(k)\nabla h_{2}(k)=h_{1}(N)h_{2}(N)-h_{1}(0)h_{2}(0)-\sum_{k=0}^{N-1}h_{2}(k+1)\nabla h_{1}(k)
\]
where $h_{1}(N)=h_{1}(0),h_{2}(N)=h_{2}(0)$. Put in our case
\[
h_{1}(k)=F^{(1)}(x_{k}(0)+Vt),h_{2}(k)=\sum_{l=0}^{k-1}\exp(2\pi in\frac{l}{N})=\frac{1-\exp(2\pi in\frac{k}{N})}{1-\exp(2\pi in\frac{1}{N})}
\]
Then
\[
\nabla h_{2}(k)=\exp(2\pi in\frac{k}{N})
\]
If $n<\sigma N$, where for example $\sigma=\frac{1}{4\pi},$ then
\[
\frac{1}{N}|\sum_{k=0}^{N-1}h_{2}(k+1)\nabla h_{1}(k)|\leq\max_{k}|h_{2}(k+1)\nabla h_{1}(k)|\leq c\frac{N}{n}\frac{C(F,1)}{N}
\]
If $\sigma N\leq n\leq\frac{N}{2}$ then similarly
\[
\frac{1}{N}|\sum_{k=0}^{N-1}h_{2}(k+1)\nabla h_{1}(k)|\leq\max_{k}|h_{2}(k+1)\nabla h_{1}(k)|\leq\sup_{\sigma\leq x\leq\frac{1}{2}}(|\frac{2}{1-\exp(2\pi ix)}|)\frac{C(F,1)}{N}=cC(F,1)n^{-1}
\]

To end the proof we shall prove a general assertion which will be
used also in further estimates.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma_hi_general}

If the function $\chi(n,t)$ satisfies the bounds (\ref{bound_hi_0})
and (\ref{bound_hi_nonzero}) then under conditions (\ref{cond_main_1},\ref{cond_main_2})
the operator
\[
K(H)=\sum_{l=1,2}gr_{l}(n)\int_{0}^{t}e^{z_{l}(n)(t-t_{1})}\sum_{n_{1}}\chi(n-n_{1},t_{1})H(n_{1},t_{1})dt_{1}
\]
satisfies the bound (\ref{contraction_general}) with $q$ sufficiently
small.

\end{lemma}

Proof. As in (\ref{eta_0}) we have by definition
\[
||K_{1,l}(H)||\leq\sup_{n,t}D_{n}|gr_{l}(n)\int_{0}^{t}e^{z_{l}(n)(t-t_{1})}\sum_{n_{1}}H(n-n_{1},t_{1})\chi(n_{1},t_{1})dt_{1}|
\]
Firstly, for $l=1$ consider, under $\sup_{n}$, the case $n=0$,
namely
\[
\sup_{t}D_{0}|gr_{l}(0)\int_{0}^{t}e^{z_{l}(0)(t-t_{1})}\sum_{n_{1}}H(-n_{1},t_{1})\chi(n_{1},t_{1})dt_{1}|\leq
\]

\[
\leq\Delta^{-1}g\frac{2}{A}\frac{M}{A}(\sum_{n_{1}\neq0}D_{n_{1}}^{-1}||H||\sup_{t_{1}}|\chi(n_{1},t_{1})|+D_{0}^{-1}||H||\sup_{t_{1}}|\chi(0,t_{1})|)\leq
\]

\[
\leq\Delta^{-1}2C_{A,g}\frac{M}{A}||H||(c\sqrt{\frac{M\Delta}{\alpha}}+C(F,2)\Delta^{2})\leq2C_{A,g}\frac{M}{A}||H||(c\sqrt{\frac{M}{\alpha\Delta}}\ln N+C(F,2)\Delta)
\]
For the case $n\neq0$ we have from (\ref{r_l}), similar to (\ref{eta_1_n_linear}),
\[
n\sqrt{\frac{\alpha}{M\Delta}}\frac{1}{n}\sqrt{\frac{M\Delta}{\alpha}}g\sum_{n_{1}\neq0}D_{n-n_{1}}^{-1}||H||\sup_{t_{1}}|\chi(n_{1},t_{1})|=g||H||\sum_{n_{1}\neq0}D_{n-n_{1}}^{-1}\sup_{t_{1}}|\chi(n_{1},t_{1})|
\]
The sum of the terms with $n_{1}\neq n$ does not exceed $c\sqrt{\frac{M\Delta}{\alpha}}\ln N$,
and the term with $n_{1}=n\neq0$ does not exceed $\frac{c}{n}\Delta.$
Finally we get the bound
\[
c(\sqrt{\frac{M\Delta}{\alpha}}\ln N+\frac{1}{n}\Delta)g||H||
\]
If $l=2$, the case $n\neq0$ is similar to above. For the worst possible
term with $n=0,z_{2}(0)=0$ we have
\[
\sup_{t}D_{0}|gr_{2}(0)||\int_{0}^{t}dt_{1}\sum_{n_{1}}H(-n_{1},t_{1})\chi(n_{1},t_{1})|\leq\Delta^{-1}\frac{2g}{A}t\sum_{n_{1}}\sup_{t}|\chi(-n_{1},t)H(n_{1},t)|\leq
\]

\[
\leq\Delta^{-1}\frac{2g}{A}t\sum_{n_{1}}\sup_{t}|\chi(-n_{1},t)|D_{n_{1}}^{-1}||H||
\]
The term
\[
|\Delta^{-1}\frac{2g}{A}t\sup_{t}|\chi(-0,t)|D_{0}^{-1}||H||\leq2C_{A,g}C(F,2)t\Delta||H||
\]
with $n_{1}=0$ is small as
\[
C_{A,g}\Delta t<c\beta
\]
The sum of the remaining terms (with $n_{1}\neq0$)
\[
|\Delta^{-1}\frac{2g}{A}t\sum_{n_{1}\neq0}\sup_{t}|\chi(-n_{1},t)|D_{n_{1}}^{-1}||H||\leq2C_{A,g}\sum_{n_{1}}\frac{1}{n_{1}^{2}}\sqrt{\frac{M}{\alpha\Delta}}||H||
\]
is small by the right inequality of (\ref{cond_main_1}).

\pagebreak{}

The second (nonlinear) term
\[
z_{k}u_{k}^{(2)}(\theta'_{k})(y_{k}-z_{k})
\]
is intuitively simpler because of the additional small factor $z_{k}$.
Using the Fourier transform $\chi_{1}\star H(n)$ is treated similarly
to the first term, where instead of $\chi(n,t)$ one should take
\[
\chi_{1}(n,t)=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^{N}z_{k}u_{k}^{(2)}(\theta'_{k})\exp(2\pi in\frac{k}{N})=\chi_{2}\star H_{2}
\]
where
\[
\chi_{2}(n,t)=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^{N}u_{k}^{(2)}(\theta'_{k})\exp(2\pi in\frac{k}{N})=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^{N}F^{(2)}(x_{k}(0)+Vt+\theta'_{k})\exp(2\pi in\frac{k}{N})
\]
We will need only the obvious bound
\begin{equation}
|\chi_{2}(n,t)|\leq C(F,2)\label{obvious_hi_2}
\end{equation}
but we can prove more. In fact, we have by (\ref{sum_sup_b_n_t})
and (\ref{sum_D_minus_1})
\begin{equation}
\sup_{t}|y_{k}(t)|\leq\sum_{n}\sup_{t\in[0,T]}|H_{1}(n,t)|\leq||H_{1}||\sum_{n}D_{n}^{-1}\leq||H_{1}||(\Delta+c\sqrt{\frac{M\Delta}{\alpha}}\ln N)\leq c(1+\rho)\Delta\label{y_k_less_Delta}
\end{equation}
as (\ref{cond_main_1}) gives
\begin{equation}
\sqrt{\frac{M\Delta}{\alpha}}\ln N\leq c\rho\Delta\label{upper_bound_theorem}
\end{equation}
The same holds for $|z_{k}|$ and then also
\[
|\theta_{k}|,|\theta'_{k}|\leq c\Delta
\]
This shows that the estimates of Lemma \ref{lemma_hi_} hold also
for $\chi_{2}(n,t)$, with the same proof.

Then by (\ref{sum_sup_b_n_t}) and (\ref{upper_bound_theorem})
\[
|\chi_{1}(n,t)|=|\chi_{2}\star H_{2}|(n,t)\leq C(F,2)\sum_{n}|H_{2}(n,t)|\leq C(F,2)||H_{2}||\sum D_{n}^{-1}
\]
Then using lemma \ref{lemma_hi_general}, we get the result. The third
term in (\ref{Taylor_u}) is treated similarly.

\paragraph{Bounds for $L_{2}$}

We have
\[
L_{2}=2\alpha\Delta^{-3}\nabla^{-}[\delta_{k}^{1}\nabla y_{k}]=2\alpha\Delta^{-3}\delta_{k}^{1}\nabla^{-}\nabla y_{k}+2\alpha\Delta^{-3}(\nabla^{-}\delta_{k}^{1})(S^{-1}\nabla y_{k})
\]

\[
\tilde{L}_{2}(n,t)=2\alpha\Delta^{-3}\zeta_{1,2}\star\Phi(\nabla^{-}\nabla y_{k})+2\alpha\Delta^{-3}\zeta_{1,1}\star\Phi(S^{-1}\nabla y_{k}),
\]
where
\[
\zeta_{1,2}(n)=\Phi(\delta^{1})=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^{N}\delta_{k}^{1}\exp(2\pi in\frac{k}{N}),\zeta_{1,1}(n)=\Phi(\nabla^{-}\delta^{1})
\]
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma_hi_1_1}

For any $n$
\begin{equation}
|\zeta_{1,1}(n)|\leq c\alpha^{-1}g\Delta^{2}\label{bound_hi_1_1}
\end{equation}

\begin{equation}
|\zeta_{1,2}(n)|\leq c\alpha^{-1}g\Delta\label{bound_hi_1_2}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}

This easily follows from Lemma \ref{lemma_w}, series (\ref{delta_k})
and bound (\ref{diff_delta_k}).

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma_hi_2}

For $q=1,2$ the operators
\[
K_{2,l,q}(H)=r_{l}(n)\int_{0}^{t}e^{z_{l}(n)(t-t_{1})}\sum_{n_{1}}(\exp(-2\pi i\frac{n-n_{1}}{N})-1)^{q}H(n-n_{1},t_{1})\zeta_{1,q}(n_{1},t_{1})dt_{1}
\]
satisfy the bounds
\[
||K_{2,l,q}(H)||\leq\alpha^{-1}g\Delta||H||
\]
\end{lemma}

Proof. We shall demonstrate the (straightforward) calculation for
$q=2$. The case $q=1$ is quite similar and even easier (because
of $\Delta^{2}$ factor).

For $l=1$, as in (\ref{eta_0}) we have by definition and by (\ref{derivatives_Fourier})
\[
||K_{2,1,2}(H)||\leq\sup_{n,t}D_{n}|r_{1}(n)\int_{0}^{t}e^{z_{1}(n)(t-t_{1})}\sum_{n_{1}}(\exp(-2\pi i\frac{n-n_{1}}{N})-1)^{2}H(n-n_{1},t_{1})\zeta_{1,2}(n_{1},t_{1})dt_{1}|
\]
Consider, under $\sup_{n}$, first the case $n=0$, namely
\[
\sup_{t}D_{0}|r_{1}(0)\int_{0}^{t}e^{z_{1}(0)(t-t_{1})}\sum_{n_{1}}(\exp(2\pi i\frac{n_{1}}{N})-1)^{2}H(-n_{1},t_{1})\zeta_{1,2}(n_{1},t_{1})dt_{1}|\leq
\]

\[
\leq\Delta^{-1}\frac{2}{A}\frac{M}{A}(\sum_{n_{1}\neq0}D_{n_{1}}^{-1}||H||\sup_{t_{1}}\zeta_{1,2}(n_{1},t_{1})\leq c\frac{1}{A}\frac{M}{A}||H||\alpha^{-1}g\sqrt{\frac{M\Delta}{\alpha}}\ln N
\]

After multiplying on $\alpha\Delta^{-3}$ we get
\[
c\alpha\Delta^{-3}\frac{1}{A}\frac{M}{A}||H||\alpha^{-1}g\sqrt{\frac{M\Delta}{\alpha}}\ln N\leq c\Delta^{-2}C_{A,g}\frac{M}{A}||H||\sqrt{\frac{M}{\alpha\Delta}}\ln N\leq c\rho||H||
\]
For the case $n\neq0$ we have, similar to (\ref{eta_1_n_linear}),
\[
\alpha\Delta^{-3}n\sqrt{\frac{\alpha}{M\Delta}}\frac{1}{n}\sqrt{\frac{M\Delta}{\alpha}}\sum_{n_{1}\neq0}D_{n-n_{1}}^{-1}||H||\sup_{t_{1}}|\zeta_{1,2}(n_{1},t_{1})|\leq
\]
\[
\leq\alpha\Delta^{-3}||H||\Delta cC_{\alpha,g}\Delta\leq cg\Delta^{-1}||H||
\]
Similarly for $l=2$
\[
||K_{2,2,q}(H)||\leq\sup_{n,t}D_{n}|r_{2}(n)\int_{0}^{t}e^{z_{2}(n)(t-t_{1})}\sum_{n_{1}}(\exp(-2\pi i\frac{n-n_{1}}{N})-1)^{2}H(n-n_{1},t_{1})\zeta_{1,2}(n_{1},t_{1})dt_{1}|
\]
The case $n\neq0$ is similar to above. For the worst possible term
with $n=0,z_{2}(0)=0$ we have,noting that the term with $n_{1}=0$
is zero,
\[
\sup_{t}D_{0}|r_{2}(0)||t\sum_{n_{1}}(\exp(2\pi i\frac{n_{1}}{N})-1)^{2}H(-n_{1},t_{1})\zeta_{1,2}(n_{1},t_{1})|\leq\Delta^{-1}\frac{2}{A}t\sum_{n_{1}\neq0}\sup_{t}|\zeta_{1,2}(-n_{1},t)|D_{n_{1}}^{-1}||H||\leq
\]

\begin{equation}
\leq\Delta^{-1}\frac{2}{A}tc\alpha^{-1}g\Delta c\rho\Delta||H||\leq c\rho\frac{1}{A}t\alpha^{-1}g\Delta||H||\label{last_terrm}
\end{equation}
as
\[
\sum_{n_{1}\neq0}D_{n_{1}}^{-1}\leq c\sqrt{\frac{M\Delta}{\alpha}}\ln N\leq c\Delta\sqrt{\frac{M}{\alpha\Delta}}\ln N\leq c\rho\Delta
\]
Finally
\[
\alpha\Delta^{-3}c\rho\frac{1}{A}t\alpha^{-1}g\Delta||H||\leq c\rho t\Delta^{-2}C_{A,g}||H||\leq c\rho\beta||H||
\]
The last bound follows from (\ref{cond_main_2}). The lemma is proved.

\paragraph{Bounds for $L_{3}$}

We shall consider the $m$-th term $L_{3;m}$ of $L_{3}$ in the series
(\ref{L_3_series})
\[
\alpha(-\nabla^{-})\frac{(\nabla^{+}y_{k}(t))^{m}}{\Delta_{k}^{m+2}}=\alpha\frac{1}{\Delta_{k}^{m+2}}(-\nabla^{-})(\nabla^{+}y_{k}(t))^{m}+\alpha(S^{-1}\nabla^{+}y_{k}(t))^{m}(-\nabla^{-})\frac{1}{\Delta_{k}^{m+2}}
\]
The convergence of the series in $m$ will follow from the obtained
bound for $L_{3;m}$. Using the Leibnitz formula (\ref{Leibnitz})
we can rewrite the first term as follows
\[
\alpha\frac{1}{\Delta_{k}^{m+2}}(-\nabla^{-})(\nabla^{+}y_{k}(t))^{m}=-\alpha\frac{1}{\Delta_{k}^{m+2}}\sum_{j=1}^{m}(\nabla^{+}y_{k}(t))^{j}(S^{-1}\nabla^{+}y_{k}(t))^{m-j-1}(\nabla^{-}\nabla^{+}y_{k}(t))
\]
Its Fourier transform will be
\[
\Phi(\alpha\frac{1}{\Delta_{k}^{m+2}}(-\nabla^{-})(\nabla^{+}y_{k}(t))^{m})=\sum_{n_{1}}\zeta_{1}(n-n_{1},t)\Phi(\nabla^{-}\nabla^{+}y_{k}(t))(n)
\]
where
\[
\zeta_{1}(n,t)=\Phi(-\alpha\frac{1}{\Delta_{k}^{m+2}}\sum_{j=1}^{m}(\nabla^{+}y_{k}(t))^{j}(S^{-1}\nabla^{+}y_{k}(t))^{m-j-1})
\]
Using Lemma \ref{lemma_y_k_0}, we have for $m\geq2$
\[
|\zeta_{1}(n,t)|\leq\alpha\Delta^{-m-2}m(cC_{A,g}\sqrt{\frac{M\Delta}{\alpha}}\ln N)^{m-1}\leq\alpha\Delta^{-m-2}m(c\rho\Delta^{4})^{m-1}\leq\alpha\Delta m(c\rho)^{m-1}
\]
Also by (\ref{y_eta_2})
\[
|\nabla^{-}\nabla^{+}y_{k}(t)|\leq\sum_{n\neq0}|H(n,t|\leq\sum_{n\neq0}D_{n}^{-1}||H||\leq c\rho\Delta||H||
\]
Then we have the result similarly to (\ref{last_terrm}). The second
term is treated similarly. It is interesting to note that nonlinear
terms demand less restrictive bound than (\ref{cond_main_2}).

\section{Comments}

There are many problems left.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Most irritating and interesting is however only one: to include the
ionic lattice to the model of strongly interacting electrons. May
be a satisfactory picture can be obtained only on the quantum level.
However on the quantum level it is not clear even how to write down
the Schroedinger equation because the external field $F(x)$ is not
potential on the circle.
\item With our methods we could not prove stability for any time $t\in(0,\infty)$
because of the zero mode problem, that is existence of zero root for
$n=0$. Additional linear term proportional to $y_{k}$ in the basic
equations (\ref{main_deviations}) could easily solve this problem
but I could not obtain this term as a result of realistic interaction
with the ionic lattice.
\item Our assumption concerning smallness of $g$ is too restrictive at
least in two points. Firstly, if $\alpha^{-1}g$ is bounded then the
space scale $N^{-2}$ controls the effective forces acting on the
electrons. If $\alpha$ is smaller than $g$, then this scale will
be in-between $N^{-1}$ and $N^{-2}$, but when it becomes comparable
with the scale $N^{-1}$, then the macroscopic homogeneity will be
lost. In particular, the macro-velocity $V$ may depend on the distance
from the support of the external force.
\item Secondly, the worst perturbation term is the linear term $L_{2}$.
Possibly, more refined techniques allow better estimates. \end{enumerate}