A sharp three-particle fractional Hardy inequality and an angular Selberg-type identity

Abstract

We establish a sharp three-particle fractional Hardy inequality for the Laplacian of order s∈(0,1) in dimension d≥ 4-2s (Theorem 1.1), involving an explicit intrinsically three-body interaction potential Vs,3. The inequality holds with the optimal two-particle fractional Hardy constant CfH(d,s), which is shown to be sharp relative to the fixed potential Vs,3. This potential Vs,3 strictly dominates the standard pairwise Coulomb-type interaction and captures genuine three-body effects. As a consequence, we derive a nontrivial many-particle fractional Hardy inequality for N≥ 3, and, in the regime N>d+1, obtain an improved Coulomb-type inequality with a strictly larger constant, agreeing in spirit with the results of Hoffmann-Ostenhof et al. [M. Hoffmann-Ostenhof, T. Hoffmann-Ostenhof, A. Laptev, and J. Tidblom, "Many-particle Hardy inequalities", J. Lond. Math. Soc. 77 (2008), no. 2, 99-115] and Lundholm [D. Lundholm, "Geometric extensions of many-particle Hardy inequalities", J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 48 (2015), no. 17, 175203]. The proof relies on a fractional ground-state representation method adapted to three-particle interactions, combined with an explicit evaluation of the resulting nonlocal interaction term. This evaluation is achieved through a new singular integral identity of Selberg-type (Theorem 1.2), extending the three-fold formula of Grafakos-Morpurgo [L. Grafakos and C. Morpurgo, "A Selberg integral formula and applications", Pacific J. Math. 191 (1999), no. 1, 85-94] beyond the radial setting. This identity provides the analytic mechanism underlying the emergence of the three-body potential and may be of independent interest in harmonic analysis.

0

Turn this paper into a full lesson

ArcXiv compiles a staged curriculum from this paper: 8-12 lessons across beginner → advanced, synthesised section guides, visuals, flashcards, a quiz, exercises, and on-demand deep dives per section. Grounded in the abstract, never invented.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion.

Loading comments…