I am new to the theory of pseudo-differential operators on compact manifolds, but I need to use a result related to this theory in a proof I'm working on. The problem is as follows: Let $(M,g)$ be a closed, compact Riemannian manifold. It is clear that $L\_g:=(\Delta\_g + 1)^k$, where $\Delta\_g$ is the Laplace-Beltrami operator for the metric $g$, is an elliptic pseudo-differential operator for all positive real numbers $k$. Does it follow that $L\_g$ is elliptic on $(M,h)$, where $h$ is a metric conformal to $g$? 


This result is easy to prove (in the affirmative) for integral values of $k$, but I am uncomfortable with the sketch of a proof I have for non-integral $k$. Any thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. The main idea that I have to work with is my unproven notion that a symbol for a pseudo-differential operator is independent of the metric, but I having problems proving this idea in the manifold setting. 



ellipticity independent of metric?
Ellipticity of a **given** pseudo-differential operator is a metric independent condition. By a pseudodifferential operator I mean an operator $P: C^\infty(M)\to C^\infty(M)$ satisfying H\"{o}rmander's asymptotic conditions described in Definition 2.1 of 



> 
> L. Hormander: Pseudodifferential operators, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., XVIII(1965), 501-517.
> 
> 
> 


The attribute **given** signifies that we know $Pu$ for any $u\in C^\infty(M)$.


I think the confusion is about how you define the operator $L\_s:=(\Delta\_g+1)^s$. More importantly, the confusion can be traced to the fact that on a manifold the identification of a smooth function with a distribution is **metric dependent**. 


More precisely, on a manifold there are two different types of objects: *generalized functions* (belong to the dual of the space of smooth densities) and *distributions* or *generalized densities* (belong to the dual of the space of smooth functions).


If we fix a volume form on the manifold then we can identify a distribution with a generalized function, but **this identification depends on the choice of volume form**. In the Euclidean case we do not pay much attention to this, because we have a God-given volume form. On manifolds one must be more careful. The kernel of an operator acting on functions is a distribution. (An elegant way out of this is to work with $1/2$-densities.) 


Returning to the concrete case at hand, for $s<0 $ the integral kernel of this $(1+\Delta\_g)^s$ is the *function*


$$K\_s(x,y)=\sum\_k (\lambda\_k+1)^s \Psi\_k(x)\Psi\_k(y),$$


where $(\Psi\_k)$ is a unitary basis of $L^2(M,g)$ consisting of eigenfunction,


$$ \Delta\_g \Psi\_k=\lambda\_k\Psi\_k.$$


If we want to reconstruct the action of $L\_s$ on functions we need to think of $K\_s$ as a *distribution* 


$$L\_su(x) = \int\_M K\_s(x,y) u(y) d V\_g(y) $$


For $s>0$ you set $L\_s=(L\_{-s})^{-1}$. You see that the definition of $L\_s$ depends on $g$. With this definition you do get a pseudo-differential operator which is elliptic.


