In absolute terms, I don't think your question is too difficult. However the focus of this site seems to be drifting ever further towards questions from elementary/introductory courses, so a question based on results from a research article is put at a great disadvantage. There are fewer users able to actually answer the question, and the time it spends on the front page is much less than a basic calculus question (since these get multiple answers, each bumping them to the front page). At the same time in the reputation economy of Math Stack Exchange there is little incentive to answer advanced questions: they generally take more time and effort to answer, and at the same time receive much less attention/votes.
As the asker you have to do more to increase the chances of getting an answer. This might include offering a bounty, although the added attention gained by posting this meta question might make that unnecessary. Most importantly, your question must be extremely clear, focused and concise. Don't make the reader wade through a lot of stuff to finally arrive at the question. Include the information you think might be necessary to answer the question in the question itself, and don't waste space with extraneous things.
After a cursory look at the question, I have a few observations.
- While you mention the article and its authors, you do not make it easy for people to find it. A direct DOI link to it would probably help out.
- Your numbering of the theorems does not match the numbering of the results from the paper, again perhaps making it more difficult for users to digest. Telling people where they can find these results in the paper may again help out.
- You appear to be asking for proofs of two separate results from that paper. IMHO this should mean two separate questions.
- The included proof of your Theorem 1 seems to be utterly superfluous to the question. Similarly, I think, with the statement of Theorem 2.
- Your Theorems 3 and 4 — which you are asking for proofs of — are properties III and II, respectively, from the paper (p.181). I note that both are given a reference, so have you looked up this reference?
In my opinion, your question(s) should really have the form of
I've been reading Article Title by author(s) (link), and am having difficulty proving some of the results stated therein without proof. I am looking for a proof of the following, which is Statement A on p.###:
Statement of the result.
Now I'll explain some of the notation/concepts in this statement. ...
In your case you might also have to explain why the reference (which you should also name and link to if possible) also doesn't help you out.