This paper develops Littlewood-Paley theory for matrix-weighted function spaces, providing characterizations and equivalences with Sobolev spaces and wavelet coefficients, extending harmonic analysis tools to matrix weights.
Contribution
It introduces new matrix-weighted function spaces and establishes Littlewood-Paley characterizations, connecting them with Sobolev spaces and wavelet transforms.
Findings
01
Equivalence of $L^p(W)$ and $ ext{F}^{0 2}_p(W)$ for $1<p<
$
02
Identification of $F^{k 2}_p(W)$ with matrix-weighted Sobolev spaces
03
Characterization of spaces via wavelet and $$-transform coefficients
Abstract
We define the vector-valued, matrix-weighted function spaces F˙pαq(W) (homogeneous) and Fpαq(W) (inhomogeneous) on Rn, for α∈R, 0<p<∞, 0<q≤∞, with the matrix weight W belonging to the Ap class. For 1<p<∞, we show that Lp(W)=F˙p02(W), and, for k∈N, that Fpk2(W) coincides with the matrix-weighted Sobolev space Lkp(W), thereby obtaining Littlewood-Paley characterizations of Lp(W) and Lkp(W). We show that a vector-valued function belongs to F˙pαq(W) if and only if its wavelet or φ-transform coefficients belong to an associated sequence space f˙pαq(W). We also characterize these spaces in terms of reducing operators associated to W.
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Full text
Littlewood-Paley Theory for
Matrix-Weighted Function Spaces
Michael Frazier
Mathematics Department, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee 37922
We define the vector-valued, matrix-weighted function spaces F˙pαq(W) (homogeneous) and Fpαq(W) (inhomogeneous) on Rn, for α∈R, 0<p<∞, 0<q≤∞, with the matrix weight W belonging to the Ap class. For 1<p<∞, we show that Lp(W)=F˙p02(W), and, for k∈N, that Fpk2(W) coincides with the matrix-weighted Sobolev space Lkp(W), thereby obtaining Littlewood-Paley characterizations of Lp(W) and Lkp(W). We show that a vector-valued function belongs to F˙pαq(W) if and only if its wavelet or φ-transform coefficients belong to an associated sequence space f˙pαq(W). We also characterize these spaces in terms of reducing operators associated to W.
Littlewood-Paley theory originated with the development of certain auxiliary integral expressions used in the study of analytic functions and Fourier series (see e.g., [29], [28], and [13] for background). This theory was extended to Rn by Stein and others ([27], [1]) and these auxiliary expressions were found to be useful in studying function spaces. In the 1970s a systematic approach to function spaces using variants of the classical Littlewood-Paley expressions was developed by Peetre, Triebel, and others (see e.g., [32] for more information). In particular, most standard function spaces other than L1 or L∞ fit into two scales of spaces, the Besov and Triebel-Lizorkin spaces, which are defined via expressions of Littlewood-Paley type. This theory meshed perfectly with wavelet theory to provide characterizations of the function spaces in these two scales in terms of the magnitudes of wavelet coefficients (see e.g., [21] or [13]).
The theory of (scalar) Ap weights originated in Muckenhoupt [22] and Hunt, Muckenhoupt, and Wheeden [17]. Much of the Littlewood-Paley theory extends to the case of (scalar) weighted function spaces (see [12, §10] ). Matrix weights were developed in the 1990s, starting with [31] and [23]. Matrix-weighted Besov spaces were defined and developed in [26], [24], [25], and [14]. For recent developments on matrix weights see [7], [6]; for an application of matrix weights to elliptic systems see [18].
Our goal is to adapt Littlewood-Paley theory to matrix-weighted Triebel-Lizorkin spaces, which we will see includes the matrix-weighted Lp and Sobolev spaces, when the weight belongs to the matrix Ap class. In particular, we obtain characterizations of these spaces in terms of the magnitudes of wavelet coefficients.
To state results, we first need some notation. The side length of any cube Q⊆Rn is denoted by ℓ(Q). For j∈Z and k=(k1,k2,…,kn)∈Zn, let Qj,k=Πi=1n[2−jki,2−j(ki+1)] be the dyadic cube of side length ℓ(Qj,k)=2−j and “lower left corner” xQ=2−jk. Let D={Qj,k}j∈Z,k∈Zn denote the collection of all dyadic cubes in Rn, and let Dj={Q∈D:ℓ(Q)=2−j}.
Let S denote Schwartz space, let S′ be its dual, and let P be the class of the polynomials, all on Rn. We fix a positive integer m and consider vector-valued functions f=(f1,...,fm)T on Rn. Generally we require that each component fi belongs to S′/P, the space of tempered distributions modulo polynomials; in that case we write f∈S′/P. We will consider sequences s={sQ}Q∈D, where for each Q∈D, sQ=((sQ)1,(sQ)2,…,(sQ)m)T∈Cm.
We say that a function φ:Rn→C is admissible, and we write φ∈A, if
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
For j∈Z, let φj(x)=2jnφ(2jx). We define convolution of the scalar function φj with f componentwise: φj∗f=(φj∗f1,...,φj∗fm)T. A matrix weight W is a map on Rn such that W(x) is a non-negative definite m×m matrix for each x∈Rn, where W is a.e. invertible and the entries of W are measurable functions on Rn.
For definitions (i)-(iv) below, we suppose α∈R, 0<p<∞, 0<q≤∞,φ∈A, and W is a matrix weight.
(i) The Triebel-Lizorkin space F˙pαq(W) is the set
of all f∈S′/P(Rn) such that
[TABLE]
(ii) The discrete Triebel-Lizorkin space f˙pαq(W) is the set
of all sequences s={sQ}Q∈D such that
[TABLE]
Suppose that for each Q∈D, AQ is an m×m non-negative definite matrix.
(iii) The {AQ}- Triebel-Lizorkin space F˙pαq({AQ}) is the set
of all f∈S′/P(Rn) such that
[TABLE]
(iv) The {AQ}-discrete Triebel-Lizorkin space f˙pαq({AQ}) is the set
of all sequences s={sQ}Q∈D such that
[TABLE]
In all cases, when q=∞, the ℓq quasi-norm is replaced with the supremum. Note that if we set tQ=∣AQsQ∣ and t={tQ}Q∈Q, then
[TABLE]
where f˙pαq is the usual scalar, unweighted discrete Triebel-Lizorkin space. This fact will sometimes allow us to deduce results for the matrix-weighted spaces from the corresponding scalar, unweighted results, such as in Theorem 2.6 below.
Our goal is to prove equivalences of these spaces, when s={sQ}Q∈Q is the sequence of φ-transform coefficients of f (and similarly, for wavelet coefficients), and {AQ}Q∈Q is a sequence of reducing operators of order p for a matrix weight W∈Ap, defined as follows.
Given any matrix weight W and 0<p<∞, there exists (see e.g., [15, Proposition 1.2] for p>1 and [14, p. 1237] for 0<p≤1) a sequence {AQ}Q∈D of positive definite m×m matrices such that
[TABLE]
with positive constants c1,c2 independent of y∈Cm and Q∈D. In this case, we call {AQ} a sequence of reducing operators of order p for W.
The matrix A2 class was first defined in [31], and Ap, for other p∈(1,∞), in [23]. We use the following characterization, proved in [26]:
W∈Ap(Rn) (1<p<∞) if and only if
[TABLE]
where ∥⋅∥ is the operator norm of the matrix, p′=p/(p−1) is the conjugate index of p, and the supremum is taken over all cubes Q⊂Rn. For 0<p≤1, we use the definition from [14]: W∈Ap if
[TABLE]
Since φj(x)=2jnφ(2jx), we have φj(ξ)=φ^(2−jξ). For φ∈A, let ψ^=∑j∈Z∣φj∣2φ^. Then ψ∈A, and we have ∑j∈Zφj(ξ)ψj(ξ)=1 for all ξ=0. For Q=Qj,k, we define
[TABLE]
and similarly for ψQ. Recall that S′/P is the dual of S0={g∈S:Dαg^(0)=0 for all multi-indices α}, see e.g., [32, p. 237]. We use the notation ⟨f,g⟩ to denote a pairing which is linear in f and conjugate linear in g; when this pairing is between a distribution f and a test function g, then ⟨f,g⟩=f(g). Then we have the “φ-transform” identity f=∑Q∈D⟨f,φQ⟩ψQ, with convergence in L2 if f∈L2, convergence in S if f∈S0, and convergence in S′/P if f∈S′ (see [10], [11], or [2], Theorem 2.4 for details about the φ-transform). For vector-valued functions f, we define ⟨f,g⟩=(⟨f1,g⟩,⋯,⟨fm,g⟩)T. Then we have
[TABLE]
with convergence as noted above, in each component.
The notation ∥z∥X≈∥z∥Y, for quasi-normed spaces X and Y, will always mean that the quasi-norms are equivalent: X=Y as sets, and there exist positive constants c1,c2 independent of z such that c1∥z∥X≤∥z∥Y≤c2∥z∥X for all z.
We now state the results of this paper. The main statement is the following theorem, connecting matrix-weighted Triebel-Lizorkin spaces with their discrete or sequence space analogs.
Theorem 1.1**.**
Suppose α∈R,0<p<∞,0<q≤∞,φ∈A,W∈Ap(Rn), and {AQ}Q∈D is a sequence of reducing operators of order p for W. For f∈S′/P, let s={sQ}Q∈D, where sQ=⟨f,φQ⟩. Then if any of ∥f∥F˙pαq(W), ∥f∥F˙pαq({AQ}), ∥s∥f˙pαq(W), or ∥s∥f˙pαq({AQ}) is finite, then so are the other three, with
[TABLE]
Also, F˙pαq(W) and F˙pαq({AQ}) are independent of the choice of φ∈A, in the sense that different choices yield equivalent quasi-norms.
The next statement is an adaptation of Theorem 1.1 to expansions based on wavelets instead of the φ-transform. We start by recalling wavelets. A wavelet basis is an orthonormal basis for L2(Rn) of the form {ψQ(i)}Q∈D,1≤i≤2n−1, where {ψ(i)}i=12n−1 are the generators of the wavelet basis, and ψQ(i)(x)=∣Q∣−1/2ψ(i)((x−xQ)/ℓ(Q)), similarly to (1.6). For W∈Ap, we obtain a characterization of F˙pαq(W) in terms of the wavelet coefficients, for wavelets with appropriate properties.
Theorem 1.2**.**
Suppose α∈R,0<p<∞,0<q≤∞, and W∈Ap(Rn). Suppose that for some sufficiently large positive numbers N0,R, and S (depending on p,q,α,n, and W), the generators {ψ(i)}1≤i≤2n−1 of a wavelet basis satisfy ∫Rnxγψ(i)(x)dx=0 for all multi-indices γ with ∣γ∣≤N0, and ∣Dγψ(i)(x)∣≤C(1+∣x∣)−R for all ∣γ∣≤S. Then
[TABLE]
Examples of wavelets with the properties in Theorem 1.2 are Meyer’s wavelets (see [20] and [19]) and Daubechies’ DN wavelets for sufficiently large N ([8]).
As in the unweighted case, the spaces Lp(W) (defined as the set of measurable f such that ∥f∥Lp(W)p=∫Rn∣W1/p(x)f(x)∣pdx<∞), are contained in the scale of Triebel-Lizorkin spaces.
Theorem 1.3**.**
Suppose 1<p<∞ and W∈Ap(Rn). Then F˙p02(W)=Lp(W), with equivalent norms.
The interpretation of the equality F˙p02(W)=Lp(W) is that if f∈Lp(W), then the equivalence class of f in S′/P belongs to F˙p02(W), and any equivalence class in F˙p02(W) has a unique representative belonging to Lp(W).
In [23, Theorem 15.1], Nazarov and Treil (see also [33]) prove that for n=1,W∈Ap, and a sufficiently nice wavelet system (as in Theorem 1.2),
[TABLE]
Assuming this result, Theorem 1.3 for n=1 follows from Theorem 1.2 and Theorem 3.1 below.
As in the classical case, there are inhomogeneous analogues, denoted Fpαq(W), of the homogeneous spaces F˙pαq(W). For the inhomogeneous spaces, the terms involving φj∗f for j<1 are replaced by a single term Φ∗f. The corresponding sequence elements sQ are indexed by cubes Q with ℓ(Q)≤1 only. These inhomogeneous spaces are spaces of tempered distributions rather than tempered distributions modulo polynomials. The theory for the inhomogeneous spaces is entirely analogous to the theory in the homogeneous case. In particular, we will see that Fp02(W)≈Lp(W) for 1<p<∞. One advantage of the inhomogeneous spaces is that they include the Sobolev spaces for 1<p<∞, defined in the matrix-weighted case as follows.
For β=(β1,…,βn) a multi-index (so βi∈Z with βi≥0 for all i), let ∣β∣=∑i=1nβi and let Dβ=∂1β1⋯∂nβn. For f∈S′(Rn), let Dβf=(Dβf1,…,Dβfm). For k∈N,1<p<∞, and W a matrix weight, define the matrix-weighted Sobolev space Lkp(W) to be the set of all f∈S′(Rn) such that
[TABLE]
Proposition 1.4**.**
Suppose k∈N,1<p<∞, and W∈Ap(Rn). Then Lkp(W)=Fpk2(W), with equivalent norms.
The paper is organized as follows: we prove the equivalence between the averaging spaces F˙pαq({AQ}) and f˙pαq({AQ}) in Theorem 2.3; this is be done by variations on the methods used for the scalar theory and is discussed in Section 2. The equivalences between the weighted spaces and averaged spaces, in both the function case and the sequence case, are stated and proved in Theorem 3.1; the proofs involve some less familiar techniques, which are discussed in Section 3. Theorem 1.1 follows from Theorems 2.3 and 3.1. Theorem 1.2 follows from Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 2.10. Theorem 1.3 is proved in Section 4. We define and discuss the inhomogeneous spaces Fpαq(W) in Section 5. Finally, the equivalence with Sobolev spaces (Proposition 1.4) is proved in Section 6.
Acknowledgments. We thank Fedor Nazarov, who provided us with the formulation and proof of Theorem 3.7. S.R. was partially supported by the NSF-DMS CAREER grant # 1151618/1929029.
2. Equivalence of the averaging spaces
We show that the equivalence of the averaging spaces F˙pαq({AQ}) and f˙pαq({AQ}) holds under just the strong doubling assumption on {AQ}, defined as follows (see [25, Definition 1.3]).
Definition 2.1**.**
Let {AQ}Q∈D be a sequence of nonnegative-definite matrices and let β,p>0. We say that {AQ} is strongly doubling of order (β,p) if there exists c>0 such that
[TABLE]
for all Q,P∈D. We say {AQ} is weakly doubling of order r>0 if there exists c>0 such that
[TABLE]
for all k,ℓ∈Zn and all j∈Z.
A strongly doubling sequence of order (β,p) is weakly doubling of order r=β/p, because (2.2) is just the restriction of (2.1) to the case when ℓ(P)=ℓ(Q).
A matrix weight W is called a doubling matrix weight of orderp>0 if the scalar measures wy(x)=∣W1/p(x)y∣p, for y∈Cm, are uniformly doubling: there exists c>0 such that for all cubes Q⊆Rn and all y∈Cm,
∫2Qwy(x)dx≤c∫Qwy(x)dx, where 2Q is the cube concentric with Q, having twice the side length of Q. If c=2β is the smallest constant for which this inequality holds, we say that β is the doubling exponent of W. If W∈Ap, then W is a doubling matrix weight (for 0<p≤1, see [14], Lemma 2.1; for p>1, this fact follows because the scalar weights wy are uniformly in the scalar Ap class ([33], Lemma 5.3), and hence, are uniformly doubling, [30, p. 196]).
The following lemma explains the connection between doubling weights W and doubling sequences {AQ}.
Lemma 2.2**.**
Let W be a doubling matrix weight of order p>0 with doubling exponent β and suppose {AQ}Q∈D is a sequence of reducing operators of order p for W. Then {AQ} is strongly doubling of order (β,p).
Proof.
For y∈Cm, let wy(x)=∣W1/p(x)y∣p. Fix P,Q∈D and let j be the smallest nonnegative integer such that Q⊆2jP. Then
[TABLE]
By the doubling property,
[TABLE]
Therefore,
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Substituting y=AP−1z for arbitrary z and applying (2.3) yields the conclusion.
∎
Theorem 2.3**.**
Let 0<p<∞, 0<q≤∞, α∈R and φ∈A. Suppose {AQ}Q∈D is a strongly doubling sequence of order (β,p) of non-negative definite matrices, and f∈S′/P. Then
[TABLE]
Moreover, F˙pαq({AQ}) is independent of the choice of φ∈A, in the sense that the spaces defined for two such φ are the same, with equivalent quasi-norms.
One direction of Theorem 2.3 is based on the following variation of the classical techniques involving the sampling theorem for functions of exponential type, as in, for example, [10, p. 781].
Theorem 2.4**.**
Let φ∈A. Let φ~(x)=φ(−x). Suppose {AQ}Q∈D is a weakly doubling sequence (of any order r>0) of non-negative definite matrices. Then for 0<p<∞, 0<q≤∞, and α∈R, there exists c depending on α,p,q,r,φ and the constant in (2.2) such that for all f∈S′/P(Rn),
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let γ∈S satisfy γ^(ξ)=1 for ∣ξ∣≤2 and suppγ^⊆{ξ∈Rn:∣ξ∣<π}. Let γj(x)=2jnγ(2jx). Then γ^j(ξ)=γ^(2−jξ). Hence, for any g=(g1,g2,…,gm)T with suppg^i⊆{ξ∈Rn:∣ξ∣≤2j} for 1≤i≤m, we have g=g∗γj. By [13, Lemma 6.10], we have the identity
[TABLE]
We apply this identity with g(t)=φj∗f(t+2−jy), for an arbitrary y∈Rn, to obtain
[TABLE]
We take w∈Q00 and let t=2−jk−2−jy+2−jw, to obtain
[TABLE]
for k∈Zn. Hence,
[TABLE]
For w,y∈Q00, we have ∣γ(k−y+w−ℓ)∣≤cR(1+∣k−ℓ∣)−R, for any R>0. Pick A with 0<A≤1 such that p/A>1 and q/A>1. Then by equation (2.7),
where in the last step we used the disjointness of the cubes Qjk for k∈Zn to take the exponent q/A outside the sum on k.
We claim that for any locally integrable function h,
[TABLE]
where M is the Hardy-Littlewood maximal function, if we choose A(R−r)>2n, which we may. Assuming inequality (2.9) momentarily, and applying it above with h=Q∈Dj∑(2jα∣AQφj∗f∣χQ)A, we obtain
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Applying the Fefferman-Stein vector-valued maximal inequality ([9]) with indices p/A,q/A>1, we remove M and untangle the indices to obtain
(2.5).
It remains to prove (2.9). For a fixed x, let Qjk be the dyadic cube of length 2−j containing x. Let Bℓ be the smallest ball containing x and the cube Qjℓ. The radius of Bℓ is equivalent to 2−j(1+∣k−ℓ∣). Hence,
Finally, (2.6) follows from (2.5) because ∣Qjk∣−1/2⟨f,φ~Qjk⟩=φj∗f(xQjk), so
[TABLE]
which is obviously dominated by the left side of (2.5).
∎
Heading toward an estimate converse to (2.6), we first introduce almost diagonal matrices.
Definition 2.5**.**
Let 0<p<∞,0<q≤∞,α∈R, and β>0. A matrix B={bQP}Q,P∈D is almost diagonal, written B∈adpα,q(β), if there exists C>0 such that ∣bQP∣≤CωQP for all Q,P∈D, where
[TABLE]
for some α1>−α−2n+pβ−n+min(1,p,q)n,α2>α+2n+pn, and R>min(1,p,q)n+pβ.
A matrix B={bQP}Q,P∈D acts on a sequence s={sQ}Q∈D by matrix multiplication in each component: Bs=t={tQ}Q∈D, where tQ=∑P∈QbQPsP, if that series converges absolutely for all Q. The following result can be reduced to the classical case using (1.4).
Theorem 2.6**.**
Let 0<p<∞,0<q≤∞, α∈R, and β>0. Suppose {AQ}Q∈D is a sequence of non-negative definite matrices, which is strongly doubling of order (β,p) for some β>0. Suppose B∈adpα,q(β). Then B defines a bounded operator on f˙pαq({AQ}).
Proof.
Define t=Bs as above, for s∈f˙pαq({AQ}), and B={bQP}Q,P∈D. To employ (1.4), define a scalar sequence tA={tA,Q}Q∈D, where tA,Q=∣AQtQ∣, and similarly define sA. Then ∥t∥f˙pαq({AQ})=∥tA∥f˙pαq and similarly for s, where f˙pαq is the scalar, unweighted space as in [12]. Let γQP=ωQP∥AQAP−1∥. Then
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
That is, if G={γQP}, then tA,Q≤C(G(sA))Q for each Q∈D. By (2.1), γQP satisfies the scalar, unweighted almost diagonality condition (3.1) in [12]. Thus, by Theorem 3.3 in [12], G is bounded on f˙pαq. Therefore,
[TABLE]
∎
We need the notion of smooth molecules, as in [12] or [24, Section 5]. Unlike the case of φQ or ψQ in (1.6), the notation mQ in the following definition is not meant to imply that each mQ is obtained from a fixed m by translation and dilation; here, Q is merely an index.
Definition 2.7**.**
Let 0<δ≤1, M>0 and N,K∈Z. We say {mQ}Q∈D is a family of smooth
(N,K,M,δ)-molecules if there exists ϵ>0 and C>0 such that, for all Q∈D,
It is understood that (M1) is void if N<0 and (M3), (M4) are void if K<0.
We need the following estimates from [12, Appendix B].
Lemma 2.8**.**
Suppose φ∈A and {mQ}Q∈D is a family of smooth (N,K,M,δ)-molecules. Then there exists c>0 such that
(i): for all P∈D with ℓ(P)=2−k≥2−j, we have
[TABLE]
and
(ii): for all P∈D with ℓ(P)=2−k≤2−j, we have
[TABLE]
Theorem 2.9**.**
Let 0<p<∞, 0<q≤∞, α∈R. Suppose {AQ}Q∈D is a strongly doubling sequence of order (β,p) of non-negative definite matrices. Suppose N∈Z, K∈Z, M>0 and δ∈(0,1] satisfy N>−α+pβ−n+min(1,p,q)n−n−1,K+δ>α+pn, and M>min(1,p,q)n+pβ. Suppose {mQ}Q∈D is a family of smooth (N,K,M,δ)-molecules. Suppose s={sQ}Q∈D∈f˙pαq({AQ}). Then f=∑Q∈DsQmQ∈F˙pαq({AQ}) and
[TABLE]
In particular, for φ∈A, we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
For Q∈Dj, let gQ=∣Q∣1/2∣AQφj∗∑P∈DsPmP∣, so that
[TABLE]
Note that for any P,Q∈D and x∈Q,
[TABLE]
Hence, by Lemma 2.8, ∣Q∣1/2∣φj∗mP(x)∣≤CωQP, for all x∈Q, where ωQP is as in Definition 2.5. Therefore,
[TABLE]
Let G and sA be defined as in the proof of Theorem 2.6. Then G is bounded on the scalar, unweighted space f˙pαq. Substituting gQχQ≤C(G(sA))QχQ above gives
[TABLE]
Then (2.12) follows since f=∑Q∈D⟨f,φQ⟩ψQ by (1.7), and {ψQ}Q∈D is a family of smooth (N,KM,δ) molecules for any possible N,K,M, and δ.
∎
Proof of Theorem 2.3.
We first prove the independence of the spaces on the choice of test function φ∈A. Suppose φ,γ∈A. For the duration of this proof, we label spaces defined by φ as F˙pαq({AQ},φ), and similarly for γ. We can select ψ,τ∈A such that ∑j∈Zφj(ξ)ψj(ξ)=1 and ∑j∈Zγj(ξ)τj(ξ)=1 for all ξ=0. Define s~={s~Q}Q∈D by s~Q=⟨f,φ~Q⟩ and t={tQ}Q∈D by tQ=⟨f,γQ⟩. We have ∥f∥F˙pαq({AQ},γ)≤C∥t∥f˙pαq({AQ}) by (2.12) with γ in place of φ. Notice that ∑j∈Zψ~j(ξ)φ~j(ξ)=∑j∈Zφj(ξ)ψj(ξ)=1 for all ξ=0. So, applying (1.7) with φ,ψ, and f replaced by ψ~,φ~, and γQ, respectively, we have γQ=∑P∈D⟨γQ,ψ~P⟩φ~P. Note that γQ∈S0, so ∑P∈D⟨γQ,ψ~P⟩φ~P converges in S. Therefore, since f∈S′/P(Rn),
[TABLE]
Notice that, for ℓ(Q)=2−j, ⟨γQ,ψ~P⟩=∣Q∣1/2γj∗ψP(xQ). Since {ψQ}Q∈D is a family of smooth (N,K,M,δ)-molecules for all possible N,K,M, and δ, Lemma 2.8 implies that the matrix B={bQP}Q,P∈D defined by bQP=⟨γQ,ψ~P⟩ is almost diagonal, i.e., B∈adpα,q(β), for all possible α,q,p, and β. By Theorem 2.6, B is bounded on f˙pαq({AQ}). Thus,
[TABLE]
where the last step is by Theorem 2.4. Hence, we have ∥f∥F˙pαq({AQ},γ)≤C∥f∥F˙pαq({AQ},φ), which implies equivalence by interchanging γ and φ.
To prove (2.4), first apply Theorem 2.4 with φ replaced by φ~ to obtain ∥{⟨f,φQ⟩}∥f˙pαq({AQ})≤c∥f∥F˙pαq({AQ},φ~). For φ∈A, we have φ~∈A, so we have just proved that the last norm is equivalent to the one with φ in place of φ~. Then applying (2.12) completes the proof.
□
Theorem 2.10**.**
Let 0<p<∞, 0<q≤∞, and α∈R. Suppose {AQ}Q∈Q is a strongly doubling sequence of order (β,p) of non-negative definite matrices. Suppose that for some sufficiently large positive numbers N0,R, and S (depending on p,q,α,n, and β), the generators {ψ(i)}1≤i≤2n−1 of a wavelet basis satisfy ∫Rnxγψ(i)(x)dx=0 for all multi-indices γ with ∣γ∣≤N0 and ∣Dγψ(i)(x)∣≤C(1+∣x∣)−R for all ∣γ∣≤S. Then
[TABLE]
Proof.
If N0≥N, S≥K+δ, and R>max(M,N+1+n), then {ψQ,i}Q∈D is a family of smooth (N,K,M,δ) molecules for each i, so the estimate ∥f∥F˙pαq({AQ})≤c∑i=12n−1∥{⟨f,ψQ(i)⟩}Q∈D∥f˙pαq({AQ}) follows from Theorem 2.9 and the wavelet identity f=∑Q,i⟨f,ψQ(i)⟩ψQ(i). The proof of the converse estimate is similar to the proof of Theorem 2.3. For each i, define s(i)={sQ(i)}Q∈D by sQ(i)=⟨f,ψQ(i)⟩. Using (1.7), we have
[TABLE]
where B(i)={bQP(i)}Q,P∈D is defined by bQP(i)=⟨ψQ(i),φP⟩ and s={sQ}Q∈D is defined by sQ=⟨f,ψQ⟩. Since ψ∈A, Theorem 2.3 gives the equivalence ∥s∥f˙pαq({AQ})≈∥f∥F˙pαq({AQ}). We claim that for N0,R, and S sufficiently large, B(i)∈adpα,q(β), and thus, B(i) is bounded on f˙pαq({AQ}) by Theorem 2.6. Assuming this claim, we have
[TABLE]
yielding (2.13). To show that B(i)∈adpα,q(β), note that for ℓ(P)=2−j, we have bQP(i)=2−jn/2φ~j∗ψQ(i)(xP). Applying Lemma 2.8 with P replaced by Q and φ~∈A in place of φ, we see that B(i)∈adpα,q(β) if {ψQ(i)}Q∈D is a family of smooth (N,K,M,δ)-molecules for some N>N1=α−1+n/p,K+δ>S1=−α+min(1,p,q)n−n+pβ−n, and M>M1=min(1,p,q)n+pβ, which in turn holds if ψ(i) satisfies the conditions in the statement of the theorem for N0>N1,S>S1, and R>R1.
∎
3. Equivalence of the averaging and non-averaging spaces
Although the results in Section 2 required only the strong doubling condition on {AQ}, we now assume the Ap condition on W to obtain the equivalence between the weighted sequence and function spaces and their averaged counterparts, as follows.
Theorem 3.1**.**
Suppose 0<p<∞,0<q≤∞,α∈R and φ∈A. Suppose W∈Ap, and {AQ}Q∈Q is a sequence of reducing operators of order p for W.
Then for any sequence s={sQ}Q∈D,
[TABLE]
and, for any f∈S′/P,
[TABLE]
We build up to the proof of Theorem 3.1 by first discussing some of the consequences of the Ap condition. We will use the following results from [15], pp. 207-8 and p. 210; see [4] for p=2.
Lemma 3.2**.**
Suppose 1<p<∞,p′=p/(p−1),W∈Ap, and {AQ}Q∈D is a sequence of reducing operators of order p for W. Then there exists δ>0 (depending on W) and constants Cr>0 such that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
We need the following analogue of Lemma 3.2 for 0<p≤1.
Lemma 3.3**.**
Suppose 0<p≤1,W∈Ap, and {AQ}Q∈D is a sequence of reducing operators of order p for W. Then
We use the fact that ∥B∥≤cm∑i=1m∣Bei∣ for any m×m matrix B, where {ei}i=1m are the standard unit Euclidean basis vectors in Cm. To prove (3.4), note that for a.e. x∈Q we have
To prove (3.2), the assumption W∈Ap implies that for all y∈Cm, the scalar weights wy(x)=∣W1/p(x)y∣p are uniformly in A1, by [14], Lemma 2.1. Hence (see e.g., [16], Theorem 9.2.2), they satisfy a uniform reverse Hölder condition: there exists γ>0 such that
[TABLE]
with c independent of y and Q. Applying (3.5) with y=AQ−1ei,
with equivalence constants independent of Q and y, by [14], Lemma 5.4. Recall that ∥AB∥=∥BA∥ for any self-adjoint A and B. Therefore, for P,Q∈D with P⊆Q, we have
Thus, supP∈D:x∈P⊆Q∥W1/p(x)AP−1∥≤c∥W1/p(x)AQ−1∥ a.e., so (3.3) follows from (3.2).
∎
Theorem 3.4**.**
Suppose α∈R,0<p<∞,0<q≤∞,W∈Ap, and {AQ}Q∈D is a sequence of reducing operators of order p for W. Then there exists c>0 such that for all s={sQ}Q∈Q,
Thus, ∣Q∖EQ∣≤∣Q∣/2, so ∣EQ∣≥∣Q∣/2.
By [12, Proposition 2.7] and the inequality ∣AQsQ∣≤∥AQW−1/p∥∣W1/psQ∣,
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
∎
If we assume that W∈Ap, the proof of Theorem 2.4 can be modified slightly to estimate ∥{⟨f,φ~Q⟩}Q∈Q∥f˙pαq({AQ}) by ∥f∥F˙pαq(W).
Theorem 3.5**.**
Suppose 0<p<∞,0<q≤∞,α∈R,φ∈A, and W∈Ap. Suppose {AQ}Q∈Q is sequence of reducing operators of order p for W. Then there exists c>0 such that for all f∈F˙pαq(W),
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let φ∈A be the test function in the definition of F˙pαq({AQ}) and F˙pαq(W). Let φ~(x)=φ(−x). We will show
[TABLE]
Then (3.7) follows from this estimate and (2.12) with φ replaced by φ~∈A, noting that W∈Ap implies that any sequence of reducing operators {AQ}Q∈Q of order p for W is strongly doubling of order (β,p) for some β>0, by Lemma 2.2.
In particular, {AQ} is weakly doubling of some order r>0. Therefore, we have the estimate (2.8), obtained in the proof of Theorem 2.4, where A∈(0,1] can be taken arbitrarily small and R can be taken arbitrarily large, depending on A if necessary.
For 0<p≤1, we obtain
[TABLE]
by applying (3.4). Substituting this estimate on the right side of (2.8),
[TABLE]
Proceeding as in the proof of Theorem 2.4, letting h=2jαW1/pφj∗fA in (2.9), we obtain (3.8).
For 1<p<∞, we apply Hölder’s inequality with exponents t=p′/(p′−A) and t′=p′/A, where p′=p/(p−1), to obtain, for Q=Qjℓ,
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
by (3.1), which is exactly why we need W∈Ap. From (2.8) we obtain
[TABLE]
Applying Hölder’s inequality with indices t and t′ gives
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
for R sufficiently large. Now the proof proceeds as for 0<p≤1, except with A replaced by At. We note that by decreasing A if necessary, we can guarantee that t=p′/(p′−A) is sufficiently close to 1 that we still have p/(At)>1 and q/(At)>1. This allows us to use the Fefferman-Stein vector-valued maximal inequality as before to obtain (3.8).
∎
The inequalities converse to those in Theorems 3.4 and 3.5 require some preparatory lemmas.
Lemma 3.6**.**
Suppose α={αj}j∈Z is a sequence of non-negative measurable functions on Rn such that
[TABLE]
Then, for any sequence {gj}j∈Z of functions on Rn such that for every j∈Z, gj is constant on each dyadic cube Q with ℓ(Q)=2−j, we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let βj(x)=supj′∈Z:j′≥jαj′(x), for all j∈Z. Then
[TABLE]
for every j∈Z. We will prove
[TABLE]
which implies (3.9). Note that βj+1≤βj for all j∈Z.
To prove (3.11), we assume gj≥0 for all j∈Z. We also assume that there exists N>0 such that gj=0 for all j<−N. To see this reduction, suppose we have (3.11) under this extra assumption. Then for general {gj}j∈Z, let gj(N)=gj if j≥−N and gj(N)=0 if j<−N. Then supj∈Zβjgj(N)(x) is nondecreasing in N and converges to supj∈Zβjgj(x) for each x as N→∞. Applying the monotone convergence theorem to both sides of the inequality ∥supj∈Z(βjgj(N))∥L1≤∥α∥C∥supj∈Zgj(N)∥L1 yields (3.11). We also assume that gj+1≥gj for all j∈Z. If the result is known in this case, then for general {gj}j∈Z, we let hj=supj′∈Z:j′≤jgj′, so that the sequence {hj}j∈Z is nondecreasing, and still satisfies the condition that hj is constant on dyadic cubes of side length 2−j. Then
[TABLE]
We will show that
[TABLE]
by induction on ℓ starting with ℓ=−N. Then letting ℓ→∞ and applying the monotone convergence theorem completes the proof. The case ℓ=−N is easy; writing g−N=∑k∈Znc−N,kχQ−N,k, where each c−N,k is a non-negative constant, we have
Now we assume (3.12) for ℓ. To prove it for ℓ+1, note that because the gj’s are nondecreasing and constant on dyadic cubes of side length 2−j, we can write
[TABLE]
where each dℓ+1,k is a non-negative constant. Hence,
[TABLE]
because the βj are nonincreasing. Therefore,
[TABLE]
Consequently,
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
by (3.10) and the induction hypothesis. This completes the induction step and hence the proof.
∎
For 0<p,q≤∞, we define the space Lp(ℓq) to consist of all sequences {fj}j∈Z of scalar-valued measurable functions on Rn such that
[TABLE]
We define Ej, the averaging operator at level j, acting on a locally integrable function f on Rn, by
[TABLE]
Theorem 3.7**.**
(Nazarov) Suppose {γj}j∈Z is a sequence of non-negative measurable functions on Rn.
(i) Suppose 0<q≤p<∞, and {γj}j∈Z satisfies
[TABLE]
for some c,δ>0, independent of j∈Z. Then there exists c>0 such that for any sequence {fj}j∈Z of measurable functions on Rn,
[TABLE]
If 1≤p<∞, we also have
[TABLE]
(ii) Suppose 1<p<∞,1≤q≤∞, and {γj}j∈Z satisfies
[TABLE]
for some δ>0. Then there exists c>0 such that for any sequence {fj}j∈Z of measurable functions on Rn,
[TABLE]
Proof.
We begin with (3.14). Let t=p/q≥1, and let t′ be the conjugate index to t. Observe that Ej(fj) is constant on any Q∈Dj; we denote that constant value by (Ej(fj))Q. Then
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
We use Hölder’s inequality with exponents t1=p(1+δ)/q=t(1+δ)>t and t1′=t1/(t1−1) to obtain, for Q∈Dj,
[TABLE]
by (3.13) and because (∣Q∣1∫Q∣g∣t1′)1/t1′≤(M(∣g∣t1′))1/t1′(x) for all x∈Q. Substituting above gives
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Noting that t1′<t′, and applying the boundedness of the maximal operator on Lt′/t1′, we have (M(∣g∣t1′))1/t1′Lt′≤c∥g∥Lt′. Recalling that t=p/q, we obtain
[TABLE]
as desired.
We now consider (3.15). It will follow from (3.14) for q=1 and the claim:
[TABLE]
for 1≤p<∞.
To prove (3.18), we can assume, by the monotone convergence theorem, that all but finitely many fj are identically [math]. Of course we can assume that each fj∈Lp(Rn), hence, Ej(fj)∈Lp(Rn). We use the elementary inequality
[TABLE]
To prove (3.19), note that for any finitely non-zero sequence of non-negative numbers {aj}j∈Z,
The operator taking {fj}j∈Z to {γjEj(fj)}j∈Z is linear. By (3.20), it is bounded on Lp(ℓ∞). By (3.15), which holds because (3.13) is weaker than (3.16), this operator is bounded on Lp(ℓ1). Hence, by complex interpolation (see e.g. [3], Theorem 5.12), it is bounded on Lp(ℓq) for 1≤q≤∞, which gives (3.17).
∎
Corollary 3.8**.**
Suppose 0<p<∞,0<q≤∞,W∈Ap(Rn), and let {AQ}Q∈D be a sequence of reducing operators of order p for W. For j∈Z, let
[TABLE]
Then there exists c>0 such that for any sequence {fj}j∈Z of measurable functions on Rn,
[TABLE]
Proof.
Suppose first that 0<q≤p<∞. Then (3.13) holds for some δ>0 by (3.2) and Lemma 3.3. Then (3.21) follows from case (i) of Theorem 3.7. If 1<p<∞,1≤q≤∞, then (3.16) holds by (3.3) and Lemma 3.3. Replacing fj by Ej(fj) in (3.17), and noting that Ej2=Ej, we obtain (3.21) in this case.
It remains to prove (3.21) for 0<p≤1, p<q≤∞. Pick A>0 sufficiently small that p/A>1 (and hence, q/A>1). Then
Thus, applying (3.17) with p,q replaced by p/A,q/A>1,γj replaced by γjA, and fj replaced by ∣Ej(fj)∣A, noting that Ej(∣Ej(fj)∣A)=∣Ej(fj)∣A, we obtain
[TABLE]
as desired.
∎
Corollary 3.9**.**
Suppose α∈R,0<p<∞,0<q≤∞,W∈Ap(Rn), and {AQ}Q∈D is a sequence of reducing operators of order p for W.
Then for any sequence s={sQ}Q∈D,
[TABLE]
and, for any f∈S′/P,
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let {γj}j∈Z be as in Corollary 3.8. For s={sQ}Q∈D, define fj=∑Q∈Dj∣Q∣−α/n−1/2∣AQsQ∣χQ. Note that fj is constant on each Q∈Dj, hence, Ej(fj)=fj. Also define gj=∑Q∈Dj∣Q∣−α/n−1/2∣W1/psQ∣χQ for j∈Z. Observe that
To prove (3.23), define hj(x)=2jα∣W1/p(x)φj∗f(x)∣ and kj=∑Q∈Dj∣Q∣−α/n(supx∈Q∣AQφj∗f(x)∣)χQ for j∈Z. Each kj is constant on cubes Q∈Dj. Then
Theorem 3.4, Theorem 3.5, and Corollary 3.9 yield Theorem 3.1.
We make a few remarks about completeness of the spaces we are considering. If we assume each AQ is invertible, then f˙pαq({AQ}) is complete, as follows. If s(n)={sQ(n)}Q∈D is a Cauchy sequence in f˙pαq({AQ}), then {AQsQ(n)} is Cauchy in Cm, hence so is sQ(n). Therefore, sQ(n) converges to some sQ. Letting s={sQ}Q∈D, then Fatou’s lemma shows that s∈f˙pαq({AQ}) and s(n) converges to s in f˙pαq({AQ}). If W∈Ap and we let {AQ}Q∈D be a sequence of reducing operators for W, then the first equivalence in Theorem 3.1 shows that f˙pαq(W) is complete. It follows then from Theorem 1.2 that for W∈Ap, F˙pαq(W) is complete. Indeed, a Cauchy sequence fn in F˙pαq(W) has wavelet coefficients, which are Cauchy, and thus, converge in f˙pαq(W). If we let f have the wavelet coefficients of the limit sequence, then f∈F˙pαq(W) and fn converges to f in F˙pαq(W). Finally, if {AQ} is a sequence of reducing operators for some W∈Ap, then Theorem 1.1 implies that F˙pαq({AQ}) is complete.
4. Equivalence of F˙p02(W) and Lp(W), 1<p<∞
One way to prove the classical unweighted Littlewood-Paley characterization of Lp(Rn) is to demonstrate the boundedness of appropriate Calderón-Zygmund operators whose kernels take values in B(H1,H2), the bounded linear transformations from one Hilbert space to another. This approach originated in [1], and was explicated in [28], Ch. II.5 and IV.1 and [30], Ch. 6.3-4. The boundedness of standard (i.e., scalar valued) Calderón-Zygmund operators on Lp(w), where w is a scalar Ap weight, was proved by Hunt, Muckenhoupt, and Wheeden in [17] in one dimension, and by Coifman and Fefferman in general in [5]. The boundedness of Calderón-Zygmund operators on Lp(W), where W is a matrix Ap weight, was proved by Christ and Goldberg in [4] for p=2 and by Goldberg in [15]. Goldberg’s proof is an adaptation to the matrix-weight context of Coifman and Fefferman’s argument. Theorem 1.3 will be proved by adapting the proof in [15] to the case of kernels with values in B(H1,H2), thus, going from Calderón-Zygmund to Littlewood-Paley theory in the matrix-weight setting just as in [1] classically. We begin with some unweighted results that we will require.
Define
[TABLE]
where ∥w∥ℓm2(Z)=(∑j∣wj∣2)1/2.
For each x∈Rn∖{0}, define K(x)∈B(Cm,ℓm2(Z)) by
[TABLE]
for φ satisfying (1.1) and (1.2). We interpret K as the kernel of a convolution operator T, where the integration is carried out on each component: for f:Rn→Cm, define
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Let ∣K(x)∣ denote the operator norm of K(x) in B(Cm,ℓm2(Z)). Then
[TABLE]
by letting k∈Z be such that 2−k<∣x∣≤2−k+1, breaking the sum on j at −k, using the estimate ∣φj(x)∣≤Cφ2jn for j≤−k, the estimate ∣φj(x)∣≤Cφ2jn(2j∣x∣)−n−1 for j>−k, and summing the resulting geometric series. Hence, K satisfies the usual Calderón-Zygmund size estimate.
Using (1.1) and (1.2), Plancherel’s theorem easily shows that T is L2-bounded, i.e., ∥Tf∥L2(Rn)≤Cφ∥∣f∣∥L2(Rn). The next step is to prove that T is weak-type 1-1:
[TABLE]
This is done, following the now standard approach, as in [28], Chapter II.2-3, by applying the Calderón-Zygmund decomposition at height α to the scalar function ∣f∣, obtaining disjoint cubes {Qk}k. Define g=f on F=Rn∖∪kQk and let g be the average of f on each Qk. Let b=f−g. Then g∈L2(Rn), and the appropriate weak-type inequality for g follows from the L2-boundedness of T and Chebychev’s inequality.
We use the cancellation on Qk of each component of bk, the restriction of b to Qk, to subtract within each integral defining φj∗bk. The estimate needed then is that for all y∈Qk,
[TABLE]
where yk is the center of Qk. To prove (4.3), for each j we apply the mean-value theorem and a standard geometric estimate to obtain
[TABLE]
Then we apply the imbedding of ℓ1 into ℓ2, and break the sum on j at k, where ∣x−yk∣≈2−k, similarly to the proof of (4.1). Replacing 1+2j∣x−yk∣ by 1 for j<k and by 2j∣x−yk∣ for j≥k and evaluating the resulting geometric series yields
Next we need the weak type 1-1 estimate for the maximal operator. For ϵ>0, let φj,ϵ(x)=φj(x)χ{x:∣x∣>ϵ}. For each x∈Rn∖{0}, define Kϵ(x)∈B(Cm,ℓm2(Z)) by Kϵ(x)z={φj,ϵ(x)z}j∈Z, for φ satisfying (1.1) and (1.2). Then the corresponding operator is Tϵ, which takes f to the vector function
Tϵf={φj,ϵ∗f}j∈Z. Define ∣Tϵf(x)∣ and ∥Tϵf∥Lp(Rn) as for T above. The maximal operator is
[TABLE]
We will need to know that T∗ is weak-type 1-1:
[TABLE]
For the proof of (4.5), we follow [30, pp. 34-35]. As in [30], (4.5) follows from the inequality
[TABLE]
for all x∈Rn,r>0, and f∈Lloc1(Rn), where M is the Hardy-Littlewood maximal operator. To prove (4.6) at a point x, let f1=fχB(x,ϵ) and f2=f−f1. Note that Tϵf(x)=Tf2(x).
We first observe that for x∈B(x,ϵ/2) and y∈B(x,ϵ), we have ∑j∈Z∣φj(x−y)−φj(x−y)∣≤∣y−x∣n+1Cϵ, by the same argument as for (4.4). Let Ak=B(x,2kϵ)∖B(x,2k−1ϵ) for k≥1. Then
[TABLE]
With this estimate and (4.2), the rest of the proof of (4.6) is just as in [30]. Hence, we have (4.5).
Now let
[TABLE]
i.e., W1/p acts on each component φj∗f. Note that ∥W1/pTf∥Lp(ℓ2)=∥f∥F˙p0,2(W).
Theorem 4.1**.**
Suppose 1<p<∞,φ satisfies (1.1) and (1.2), and W∈Ap. If f∈Lp(W), then f∈F˙p0,2(W) with
[TABLE]
where C depends only on p,φ, and W.
Since our proof follows [15] line-for-line with only a few changes necessary to deal with the Hilbert-space valued kernel involved, we only describe the modifications needed, referring to [15] as much as possible. For ϵ>0, define
[TABLE]
Define the associated maximal operator
[TABLE]
The essence of the proof of Theorem 4.1 is the relative distributional inequality in equation (19) of Proposition 4.1 of [15]; we only require the case q=p of that result.
We apply the covering lemma in [15], p. 212, to the set E defined for our T, reducing (19) in [15] to its local version for each cube Q in the covering; i.e., (20) in [15]. We select x and B=B(x,3\mboxdiam(Q)) as in [15]. We obtain a point y∈Q such that
[TABLE]
(which is what is intended on p. 213, line 3 of [15]), where VB is the reducing operator for B and Mw and Mw′ are as in [15], equations (13) and (14). We let f1=fχB and f2=fχBc. The proof of the appropriate distributional inequality for f1 depends only on the facts (i): T∗ commutes with constant matrices, which is true for our T∗ as well, since it is true for each component φj,ϵ∗f of Tϵf, and (ii): T∗ is weak-type 1-1, which is (4.5) above in our case. Therefore, we obtain the estimate (21) in [15].
For f2, we require the estimate
[TABLE]
for x∈Q and ϵ>0 (compare to [30, p. 208]). To obtain (4.9), we have
[TABLE]
where E1={y∈Bc:∣x−y∣>ϵ,∣x−y∣>ϵ}, E2={y∈Bc:∣x−y∣≤ϵ,∣x−y∣>ϵ}, and
E3={y∈Bc:∣x−y∣>ϵ,∣x−y∣≤ϵ}. On the complement of ∪i=13Ei, the integrand is [math]. The integral over E1 is dominated by CM(∣f∣)(y), by the same argument that established (4.7). For y∈E2, we have φj,ϵ(x−y)=0 and ∣x−y∣≈∣x−y∣≈∣y−y∣≈ϵ. Thus, using (4.1), the integral over E2 above is bounded by
[TABLE]
The integral over E3 satisfies the same estimate by symmetry. Hence, (4.9) holds. Replacing f with VBf, commuting VB and Tϵ, and applying the triangle inequality, we obtain
[TABLE]
Let ϵ′=max(ϵ,3ℓ(Q)) and note that Tϵf2(x)=Tϵ′f(x). This allows us to conclude estimate (22) in [15]. The remainder of the proof is the same as in [15], establishing (19) of [15].
In the standard way (see [30], §3.5), the boundedness of Mw and Mw′ ([15], §3) and the relative distributional inequality, applied for f∈C0∞(Rn), which then satisfies (W1/pT)∗f∈Lp(Rn), lead to the inequality
[TABLE]
for f∈C0∞(Rn). For general Calderón-Zygmund operators, one has only ∣Tf(x)∣≤T∗f(x)+c∣f(x)∣, but because of the explicit nature of our operator and the trivial observation that limϵ→0+φj,ϵ∗f=φj∗f, Fatou’s lemma yields the simpler conclusion ∣W1/pTf(x)∣≤(W1/pT)∗f(x). Since
[TABLE]
we obtain (4.8) for f∈C0∞(Rn), and a routine density argument as in [15], p. 215 yields the result for all f∈Lp(W).
Suppose 1<p<∞,φ∈A, and W∈Ap. If f∈F˙p0,2(W), then f∈Lp(W) and
[TABLE]
where C depends only on p,φ, and W.
Since F˙p0,2(W) is an equivalence class of tempered distributions modulo polynomials, Theorem 4.2 is interpreted as follows: given f∈F˙p0,2(W), there is a unique element of the equivalence class of f that belongs to Lp(W).
The proof of Theorem 4.2 uses duality. It is elementary that the dual of Lp(W) is Lp′(W−p′/p) in the sense that
for each g∈Lp′(W−p′/p), the mapping Tg:Lp(W)→C defined by
[TABLE]
defines a bounded linear functional on Lp(W) with operator norm equal to ∥g∥Lp′(W−p′/p), and every bounded linear functional on Lp(W) is of this form, where ⟨f(x),g(x)⟩=∑i=1mfi(x)gi(x) is the usual dot product of vectors in Cm. Applying this result to W−p′/p shows that the dual of Lp′(W−p′/p) is Lp(W) under the same pairing.
We will consider ψ satisfying the same conditions as φ in (1.1) and (1.2). For j∈Z, let ψj(x)=2jnψ(2jx).
For each j∈Z and x∈Rn, let gj(x) be a vector of length m, and assume that each component of gj is a measurable function on Rn. Define G={gj}j∈Z. Define LWp(ℓ2) to be the set of all G={gj}j∈Z such that
[TABLE]
Let S be the operator taking G to the vector function S(G) on Rn defined by
[TABLE]
Lemma 4.3**.**
Suppose 1<p<∞, and W∈Ap. If G={gj}j∈Z∈LWp(ℓ2), then S(G)=∑j∈Zψj∗gj∈Lp(W) with
[TABLE]
where C depends only on p,φ, and W.
Proof.
Let ψ~(x)=ψ(−x), and for each j∈Z, let ψ~j(x)=2jnψ~(2jx). Suppose G={gj}j∈Z∈LWp(ℓ2) and h∈Lp′(W−p′/p). Since W−1/p is self-adjoint,
[TABLE]
Bringing absolute values inside the integral and the sum on j, using the previous identity, then the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality first for ⟨,⟩, then for the sum on j, and finally, Hölder’s inequality with indices p and p′ yields
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
where F˙p′0,2(W−p′/p) is defined with respect to ψ~, which satisfies the conditions on φ in (1.1) and (1.2). Note that W−p′/p∈Ap′, since W∈Ap. Hence, by Theorem 4.1,
[TABLE]
By duality, then,
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
∎
To prove Theorem 4.2, given admissible φ, we define ψ by ψ^=∑j∈Z∣φj∣2φ^.
Then ψ satisfies the conditions on φ in (1.1) and (1.2) (this is where the non-degeneracy condition (1.3) is needed), and we have ∑j∈Zψj(ξ)φj(ξ)=1 for all ξ=0. Roughly, then, the discrete Calderón formula f=∑j∈Zψj∗φj∗f=S(T(f)) implies
[TABLE]
We detail the convergence issues involved to justify this conclusion as follows.
Proof of Theorem 4.2.
Let f∈F˙p0,2(W). For a positive integer N, define
FN=∑j=−NNψj∗φj∗f.
Applying Lemma 4.3 with gj=φj∗f for ∣j∣≤N and gj=0 for ∣j∣>N gives
[TABLE]
Hence, FN∈Lp(W) for each N. Using the fact that the supports of ψ^j and ψ^k overlap only for ∣j−k∣≤1, it is not difficult to see that FN converges to f in F˙p0,2(W) norm.
Using Lemma 4.3 again and the dominated convergence theorem, we see that FN is Cauchy in Lp(W). Therefore, FN converges in Lp(W) to some H∈Lp(W). From the imbedding of Lp(W) into F˙p0,2(W) (Theorem 4.1), it follows that H∈F˙p0,2(W) and FN converges in H in F˙p0,2(W). But we know that FN converges in f in F˙p0,2(W). Hence, H=f, so f∈Lp(W) and FN converges to f in Lp(W). Now we take the limit as N→∞ in (4.10) to obtain ∥f∥Lp(W)≤C∥f∥F˙p02(W).
□
5. Inhomogeneous spaces
As in the unweighted case, there are useful inhomogeneous versions of the spaces under consideration. The relation between the homogeneous and inhomogeneous spaces is familiar, as in [12], Section 12, or [24], Section 11. We choose Φ∈S(Rn) such that supp Φ^⊆{ξ∈Rn:∣ξ∣≤2} and ∣Φ^(ξ)∣≥c>0 for ∣ξ∣≤5/3. If Φ satisfies these two conditions and φ∈A, we say (Φ,φ)∈A+. If (Φ,φ)∈A+ we can find (Ψ,ψ)∈A+ such that
[TABLE]
For Q=Q0,k, for k∈Zn, define ΨQ(x)=Φ(x−k), and similarly for Ψ (which is consistent with (1.6)). Then the following inhomogeneous φ-transform identity holds:
[TABLE]
where, as usual, the inner product ⟨f,ΦQ⟩ is defined componentwise. In this case, we have convergence of (5.1) in L2 if f∈L2, in S if f∈S, and in S′ if f∈S′ (which means that each component of f belongs to L2,S, or S′, respectively). We note that we don’t have to work modulo polynomials because Φ(0)=0.
For α∈R,0<p<∞,0<q≤∞, and W a matrix weight, let Fpαq(W) be the set of all f∈S′(Rn) such that
[TABLE]
If we adopt the convention that ϕj=φj for j≥1, but ϕ0=Φ, then the equivalence
[TABLE]
shows that Fpαq(W) is obtained by substituting Φ for φ0 and then truncating the expression in the quasi-norm.
Let D+={Q∈D:ℓ(Q)≤1}, and suppose {AQ}Q∈D+ is a sequence of non-negative m×m matrices. Let Fpαq({AQ}) be the set
of all f∈S′(Rn) such that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
For a sequence s={sQ}Q∈D+, where sQ∈Cm for each Q∈D+, we define the quasi-norms ∥s∥fpαq(W), for a matrix weight W, and ∥s∥fpαq({AQ}), for a sequence {AQ}Q∈D+ of non-negative definite matrices, by replacing the sum over Q∈D in the definitions of the corresponding homogeneous quasi-norms by the sum over Q∈D+. Alternatively, define the map E taking s={sQ}Q∈D+ to Es={(Es)Q}Q∈D by (Es)Q=sQ if ℓ(Q)≤1, and (Es)Q=0 if ℓ(Q)>1. Then ∥s∥fpαq(W)=∥Es∥f˙pαq(W) and ∥s∥fpαq({AQ})=∥Es∥f˙pαq({AQ}). Then fpαq(W) and fpαq({AQ}) are the set of all sequences s with finite quasi-norm, respectively.
We have the following analogues for the inhomogeneous spaces Fpαq(W) of our results above.
Theorem 5.1**.**
Suppose α∈R,0<p<∞,0<q≤∞,(Φ,φ)∈A+,W∈Ap(Rn), and {AQ}Q∈D is a sequence of reducing operators of order p for W. For f∈S′, let s={sQ}Q∈D+, where sQ=⟨f,ΦQ⟩ if ℓ(Q)=1 and sQ=⟨f,φQ⟩ if ℓ(Q)<1. Then if any of ∥f∥Fpαq(W), ∥f∥Fpαq({AQ}), ∥s∥fpαq(W), or ∥s∥fpαq({AQ}) is finite, then so are the other three, with
[TABLE]
Also, Fpαq(W) and Fpαq({AQ}) are independent of the choice of (Φ,φ)∈A+, in the sense that different choices yield equivalent quasi-norms.
For MRA wavelet systems, that is, those obtained from a multi-resolution analysis, such as Meyer’s wavelets and Daubechies’ DN wavelets, there exists a scaling function, which we call Φ0, such that
[TABLE]
is an orthonormal basis for L2(Rn), where {ψ(i)}i=12n−1 are the wavelet generators.
Theorem 5.2**.**
Suppose α∈R,0<p<∞,0<q≤∞, and W∈Ap(Rn). Suppose that for some sufficiently large positive numbers N0,R, and S (depending on p,q,α,n, and W), the generators {ψ(i)}1≤i≤2n−1 of an MRA wavelet system satisfy ∫Rnxγψ(i)(x)dx=0 for all multi-indices γ with ∣γ∣≤N0, and ∣Dγψ(i)(x)∣≤C(1+∣x∣)−R for all ∣γ∣≤S. Also suppose Φ0 satisfies ∣DγΦ0(x)∣≤C(1+∣x∣)−R for all ∣γ∣≤S. Let sQ(i)=⟨f,ΦQ⟩ if ℓ(Q)=1 and sQ(i)=⟨f,ψQ(i)⟩ if ℓ(Q)<1, and let s(i)={sQ(i)}Q∈D+. Then
[TABLE]
Theorem 5.3**.**
Suppose 1<p<∞ and W∈Ap(Rn). Then Fp02(W)=Lp(W), with equivalent norms.
The proofs of Theorems 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 are virtually the same as for the homogeneous spaces, by replacing φ0 with Φ and restricting to j≥0 and Q∈D+. The only property of φ0 we used, that Φ does not satisfy, is that φ0 has vanishing moments of all orders. However, the vanishing moment property of φ0 was only needed when dealing with Q having ℓ(Q)>1, which we do not consider in the inhomogeneous context. For example, in Theorem 2.4, we only use that φ0 has support in B(0,2), which is satisfied by Φ also. In the inhomogeneous context, almost diagonal matrices are indexed by Q,P∈D+ only, but otherwise their definition is the same. Their boundedness on fpαq({AQ}) follows by applying Theorem 2.6 to Es, defined above. A family of inhomogeneous smooth molecules is defined as before, but only for ℓ(Q)≤1, and molecules mQ for ℓ(Q)=1 are not required to satisfy the vanishing moment condition (M1). For ℓ(P)=1, the estimates in (2.10) for φj∗mP for j≥1 (or for Φ∗mP, replacing φ0∗mP) do not require vanishing moments on mP. Similarly, the estimate (2.11) for j=0 and ℓ(P)<1, but with φ0 replaced by Φ, still hold, because this estimate does not require vanishing moments for Φ. (In general, uses the vanishing moment condition only for the function associated with the smaller cube.) With these observations, the proof of the inhomogeneous analogue of Theorem 2.9 goes through, using (5.1) in place of (1.7) to obtain the inhomogeneous version of (2.12). Similar modifications prove the analogues of Theorems 2.3 and 2.10. We restrict Theorem 3.4 to Es, as above, to obtain its inhomogeneous counterpart. The proof of Theorem 3.5 carries over because it only uses the property of Φ that Φ^ is supported in B(0,2). Corollary 3.8 holds for the inhomogeneous case simply by letting fj be [math] for j<0. In this way, Theorems 5.1 and 5.2 follow.
For Theorem 5.3, we define T by replacing φ0 by Φ and restricting to j≥0. Since Φ(x) satisfies (1.1) and (1.2), we still have the Calderón-Zygmund estimate (4.1) for the corresponding kernel K. The properties of Φ and φ yield the L2 boundedness of T by Plancherel’s theorem. This L2 boundedness and the pointwise estimates are all that is needed for the rest of the Coifman-Fefferman and Goldberg argument, yielding the inhomogeneous version of Theorem 4.1. The duality argument for Lemma 4.3 holds with Z replaced by {j∈Z:j≥0}. Using (5.1) instead of (1.7) then gives the inhomogeneous converse estimate as in Theorem 4.2, completing the proof of Theorem 5.3.
We clarify the relation between the inhomogeneous and homogeneous spaces, at least for α>0 and 1≤p<∞, in Lemma 5.5 below. Its proof is based on the following lemma.
Lemma 5.4**.**
Suppose 1≤p<∞,W∈Ap, and ∣φ(x)∣≤C(1+∣x∣)−(n+1). Let φj(x)=2jnφ(2jx) for j∈Z. If f∈Lp(W), then φj∗f∈Lp(W) and
[TABLE]
for some positive constant C=C(W,φ,p).
Proof.
First suppose p>1. Recall the maximal operator Mw, introduced by Goldberg, defined by
[TABLE]
Goldberg [15, Theorem 3.2] proves that if 1<p<∞ and W is an Ap weight, then Mw is bounded on the unweighted, vector-valued space Lp(Rn) .
Since matrix multiplication commutes with scalar multiplication,
[TABLE]
Let A0(x)=B(x,2−j) and, for k≥1, let Ak(x)=B(x,2k−j)∖B(x,2k−j−1). Then ∣φj(x−y)∣≤c2jn2−k(n+1) on Ak, so
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Hence,
[TABLE]
by the boundedness of Mw.
Now let p=1. Using ∣W(x)f(y)∣=∣W(x)W−1(y)W(y)f(y)∣≤∥W(x)W−1(y)∥∣W(y)f(y)∣ and Fubini’s theorem, we obtain
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Let [W]A1denote the supremum on the left side of (1.5) when p=1. Let {Qi}i=1∞ be an enumeration of the cubes in Rn with sides parallel to the coordinate axes, centers z=(z1,z2,…,zn)∈Qn, and side length ℓ(Qi)∈Q+=Q∩(0,∞). Then there exists a set E⊂Rn such that for all y∈Rn∖E and all i∈N, we have ∣Qi∣1∫Qi∥W(x)W−1(y)∥dx≤[W]A1. Define Ak(y) for k≥0 as above for Ak(x). Then for all y∈Rn∖E,
[TABLE]
For each k, we can find i∈N such that B(y,2k−j)⊆Qi and ∣Qi∣≤c2(k−j)n, with c independent of k and j. Then
[TABLE]
since y∈Qi∖E. Substituting above, we get
[TABLE]
for all y∈E. Hence, ∥φj∗f∥L1(W)≤c∫Rn∣W(y)f(y)∣dy.
∎
Lemma 5.5**.**
Suppose α>0,1≤p<∞,0<q≤∞,W∈Ap(Rn), and f∈S(Rn). Then f∈Fpαq(W) if and only if f∈Lp(W) and f (or the equivalence class mod P of f) belongs to F˙pαq(W), and we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
Substituting the estimate of Lemma 5.4 for the standard inequality ∥φ∗f∥Lp(Rn)≤∥φ∥L1(Rn)∥f∥Lp(Rn), the proof follows exactly as the usual proof, outlined in [13], pp. 42-43, so we omit the details.
∎
6. Equivalence with Sobolev spaces
Many of the basic properties of the spaces F˙pαq(W) can be demonstrated using the results obtained above. In particular, we show how the Riesz potential acts on F˙pαq(W) and also an equivalence of the matrix-weighted Tribel-Lizorkin spaces with the matrix-weighted Sobolev spaces.
For β∈R, the Riesz potential of order β is defined formally as the Fourier multiplier operator Iβ with multiplier ∣ξ∣−β: (Iβf)^(ξ)=∣ξ∣−βf^(ξ). If h∈S(Rn) satisfies Dαh(0)=0 for all multi-indices α, then ∣x∣−βh(x)∈S. Thus, by Fourier transform, Iβ maps S0 to S0. Hence, Iβ is defined on S′/P=(S0)∗ by duality: ⟨Iβf,g⟩=⟨f,Iβg⟩ for f∈S′/P and g∈S0. We then define Iβ on vector-valued f∈S′/P componentwise: Iβf=(Iβf1,…,Iβfm)T.
Proposition 6.1**.**
Suppose α,β∈R,0<p<∞,0<q≤∞, and W∈Ap(Rn). Then Iβ maps F˙pαq(W) to F˙pα+β,q(W) continuously.
Proof.
Let φ∈A be the test function in the definition of F˙pαq(W). Since ∣ξ∣−β is smooth and nonvanishing on the support of φ^, we have Iβφ∈A. Note that φj∗(Iβf)=(Iβφj)∗f, by Fourier transform. Defining the dilates (Iβφ)j(x)=2jn(Iβφ)(2jx) as usual, it follows that Iβφj=2−jβ(Iβφ)j for each j∈Z. Hence,
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
by the fact from Theorem 1.1 that the spaces F˙pαq(W) are independent of the choice of test function φ∈A.
∎
Let ∂ℓ denote the first order distributional partial derivative in the variable xℓ, i.e., ∂ℓf=∂xℓ∂f, for ℓ=1,2,…,n. Let ∂ℓf=(∂ℓf1,…,∂ℓfm)T for f∈S′/P.
Proposition 6.2**.**
Suppose α∈R,0<p<∞,0<q≤∞,W∈Ap(Rn), and f∈S′/P(Rn). Then f∈F˙pαq(W) if and only if ∂ℓf∈F˙pα−1,q(W) for all ℓ=1,2,…,n, and we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
First suppose f∈F˙pαq(W) and let ℓ∈{1,2,…,n}. For φ∈A and ψ∈A as in (1.7), let s={sQ}Q∈D, where sQ=⟨f,ψQ⟩. Define a sequence tℓ={tℓ,Q}Q∈D by
[TABLE]
Let {AQ}Q∈D be a sequence of reducing operators of order p for W. By Theorem 1.1,
for (∂ℓφ)P(x)=∣P∣−1/2(∂ℓφ)((x−xP)/ℓ(P)) (consistent with (1.6)) and bQP=ℓ(P)ℓ(Q)⟨φQ,(∂ℓφ)P⟩. Letting B={bQP}Q,P∈D, and substituting above, we see that
[TABLE]
Therefore, we obtain
[TABLE]
By (1.1), (1.2) and Parseval’s formula, ⟨φQ,(∂ℓφ)P⟩=0 unless 1/2≤ℓ(Q)/ℓ(P)≤2, and in that case,
[TABLE]
Since Schwartz functions have rapidly decaying Fourier transforms, we see that B is almost diagonal, i.e., B∈adpα,q(β), for any possible α,q,p, and β. (Alternatively, one could apply Lemma 2.8.) Since Ap weights are doubling, Lemma 2.2 and Theorem 2.6 show that B acts boundedly on f˙pα,q({AQ}). Thus, we obtain
[TABLE]
where the last equivalence in (6.2) is by Theorem 1.1, since ψ∈A.
Now suppose ∂ℓf∈F˙pα−1,q(W) for all ℓ∈{1,2,…,n}. Applying the first direction, which was just proved, we have ∂ℓ2f∈F˙pα−2,q(W) for all ℓ. Then I−2f=c∑ℓ=1n∂ℓ2f∈F˙pα−2,q(W) and by (6.2)
[TABLE]
Then by Proposition 6.1, f=I2I−2f∈F˙pα,q(W) with ∥f∥F˙pα,q(W)≤c∑ℓ=1n∥∂ℓf∥F˙pα−1,q(W).
∎
Remark 6.3**.**
By iteration, Proposition 6.2 can be generalized to any higher order mixed partial derivative Dβ=∂1β1∂2β2⋅∂nβn with ∑i=1nβi=∣β∣ to obtain, for k∈N,
[TABLE]
The inhomogeneous analogue of Proposition 6.2 is the following.
Proposition 6.4**.**
Suppose α>1,1≤p<∞,0<q≤∞,W∈Ap(Rn), and f∈S′(Rn). Then f∈Fpαq(W) if and only if f∈Lp(W) and ∂ℓf∈Fpα−1,q(W) for all ℓ=1,2,…,n, and we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
First suppose f∈Fpαq(W). By Lemma 5.5, f∈Lp(W) and f∈F˙pαq(W), with (5.2). Let 1≤ℓ≤n. By Proposition 6.2, ∂ℓf∈F˙pα−1,q(W), with ∥∂ℓf∥F˙pα−1,q(W)≤c∥f∥F˙pα,q(W)≤c∥f∥Fpα,q(W). Then
[TABLE]
by Lemma 5.4 with j=0 and φ replaced by ∂ℓΦ∈S. Also,
[TABLE]
Then by definition, ∂ℓf∈Fpα−1,q(W) with ∥∂ℓf∥Fpα−1,q(W)≤c∥f∥Fpαq(W).
Now suppose f∈Lp(W) and ∂ℓf∈Fpα−1,q(W) for all ℓ=1,2,…,n. Since α>1, Lemma 5.5 gives that ∂ℓf∈F˙pα−1,q(W) for each ℓ. By Proposition 6.2, f∈F˙pα,q(W). Since f∈Lp(W), we obtain f∈Fpαq(W) by Lemma 5.5 again. Checking the norm estimates associated with these embeddings gives the other direction of (6.3).
∎
We obtain Proposition 1.4 from Lemma 5.5 and Propositions 6.2 and 6.4.
Proof of Proposition 1.4.
First suppose k=1. By Lemma 5.5, f∈Fp12(W) if and only if f∈Lp(W) and f∈F˙p12(W), with (5.2). By Proposition 6.2, f∈F˙p12(W) if and only if ∂ℓf∈F˙p02(W), with (6.1). By Theorem 1.3, F˙p02(W)=Lp(W) with equivalent norms. Therefore, f∈Fp12(W) if and only if f∈Lp(W) and ∂ℓf∈Lp(W) for ℓ∈{1,2,…,n}, with
[TABLE]
The case of general k now follows easily by induction. Assuming the result for some k≥1, then by Proposition 6.4, f∈Fpk+1,2(W) if and only if f∈Lp(W) and ∂ℓf∈Fpk,2(W) for ℓ=1,…,n. By the inductive assumption, ∂ℓf∈Fpk,2(W) if and only if Dβ∂ℓf∈Lp(W) for all β such that ∣β∣≤k, with appropriate equivalence of norms. This yields the induction step and completes the proof.
□
Bibliography33
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
1[1] A. Benedek, A.-P. Calderón, and R. Panzone, Convolution operators on Banach space valued functions , Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 48 (1962), 356–365. MR 0133653
2[2] Arpád Bényi and Rodolfo H. Torres, The discrete Calderón reproducing formula of Frazier and Jawerth , Functional analysis, harmonic analysis, and image processing: a collection of papers in honor of Björn Jawerth, Contemp. Math., vol. 693, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2017, pp. 79–107. MR 3682606
3[3] Jöran Bergh and Jörgen Löfström, Interpolation spaces. An introduction , Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1976, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, No. 223. MR 0482275
4[4] Michael Christ and Michael Goldberg, Vector A 2 subscript 𝐴 2 A_{2} weights and a Hardy-Littlewood maximal function , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 353 (2001), no. 5, 1995–2002. MR 1813604
5[5] R. R. Coifman and C. Fefferman, Weighted norm inequalities for maximal functions and singular integrals , Studia Math. 51 (1974), 241–250. MR 0358205
6[6] David Cruz-Uribe, Joshua Isralowitz, and Kabe Moen, Two weight bump conditions for matrix weights , Integral Equations Operator Theory 90 (2018), no. 3, Art. 36, 31. MR 3803292
7[7] David Cruz-Uribe, Joshua Isralowitz, Kabe Moen, Sandra Pott, and Israel P. Rivera-Ríos, Weak endpoint bounds for matrix weights , ar Xiv:1905.06436.
8[8] Ingrid Daubechies, Orthonormal bases of compactly supported wavelets , Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 41 (1988), no. 7, 909–996. MR 951745 (90m:42039)