Hoeffding decomposition in $H^1$ spaces
Maciej Rzeszut, Micha{\l} Wojciechowski

TL;DR
This paper investigates the boundedness of projection operators in various Hardy spaces, extending known results to endpoint cases in $H^1$ spaces and martingale Hardy spaces, with implications for harmonic analysis.
Contribution
It proves boundedness of projections in $H^1$ and martingale Hardy spaces, extending Bourgain and Kwapień's results to endpoint and analytic function settings.
Findings
Boundedness of $P_{ ext{leq } m}$ in $H^1( ext{D}^ ext{infty})$
Boundedness of $P_{ ext{leq } 2}$ in martingale Hardy spaces
Introduction of a multiple indexed martingale Hardy space containing $H^1( ext{D}^ extinfty)$
Abstract
The well known result of Bourgain and Kwapie\'n states that the projection onto the subspace of the Hilbert space spanned by functions dependent on at most variables is bounded in with norm for . We will be concerned with two kinds of endpoint estimates. We prove that is bounded on the space of functions in analytic in each variable. We also prove that is bounded on the martingale Hardy space associated with a natural double-indexed filtration and, more generally, we exhibit a multiple indexed martingale Hardy space which contains as a subspace and is bounded on it.
Peer Reviews
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.
Hoeffding decomposition in spaces
Maciej Rzeszut
Institute of Mathematics of Polish Academy of Sciences
Śniadeckich 8
00-656 Warszawa
and
Michał Wojciechowski
Institute of Mathematics of Polish Academy of Sciences
Śniadeckich 8
00-656 Warszawa
Abstract.
The well known result of Bourgain and Kwapień states that the projection onto the subspace of the Hilbert space spanned by functions dependent on at most variables is bounded in with norm for . We will be concerned with two kinds of endpoint estimates. We prove that is bounded on the space of functions in analytic in each variable. We also prove that is bounded on the martingale Hardy space associated with a natural double-indexed filtration and, more generally, we exhibit a multiple indexed martingale Hardy space which contains as a subspace and is bounded on it.
Key words and phrases:
Hardy spaces, Hoeffding decomposition, martingale inequalities, decoupling
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
30H10, 60G42
Contents
1. Introduction
The Rademacher functions generate a well studied subspace of , which we identify with . In particular by Khintchine inequality
[TABLE]
for , and is complemented in for but not for . We will index the Walsh system by finite subsets of , i.e.
[TABLE]
The number is called the mutiplicity of . Analogous problems for Walsh functions of finite multiplicity have been resolved independently by Bonami [2] and Kiener [15]. Namely, the inequality
[TABLE]
holds true, and the orthogonal projection onto is bounded if and only if . Some lower estimates for are also known, see [14] or [22] for a detailed discussion on this subject.
In [5], Bourgain generalized these results to a setting in which is replaced with an arbitrary probability space . To be more precise, let be the infinite product space. Any can be decomposed in a unique way into a series
[TABLE]
where is mean zero in each of its arguments. Thus, and defined by
[TABLE]
are mutually orthogonal orthogonal projections. In the case of , the image of is just the one-dimensional space spanned by , so the above definition of coincides for with the projection onto Walsh functions of multiplicity . In [5] Bourgain proved that for ,
[TABLE]
which is a direct generalization of (1.3). Moreover, he proved that is bounded on if and only if , with norm smaller than where and .
It turns out that the projections have a well established probabilistic interpretation. In [16], Kwapień connected them to the notion of Hoeffding decomposition, which originated from Hoeffding’s work [13]. More precisely, elements of the image of are what is called generalized canonical -statistics and the decomposition plays a crucial role in the proofs of many theorems concerning -statistics. For more information, we refer the reader to [18]. Kwapień provided a shorter proof of Bourgain’s result about boundedness of , with a better constant .
Let us decribe the main results of this paper, which give certain endpoint estimates for . One of them (Theorem 4.5 in the text) is obtained by restricting the domain of . For exact definition of , see Section 2.
Theorem A**.**
* is bounded on the subspace of consisting of functions analytic in each variable.*
We also find a norm stronger than and weaker than (), in which is bounded. The detailed construction is described in Section 5.2.
Theorem B**.**
For any , there is a partition of the family of finite subsets of into such that the norm
[TABLE]
is between and all () and is bounded in this norm.
It is worth noting that Theorem A translates directly to the space of Dirichlet series, i.e. the closure of polynomials of the form in the norm
[TABLE]
The Bohr lift, dating back to [1], is the map
[TABLE]
where for having the prime number factorization . It is an isometry between and the space of Dirichlet series. Thus, our result is equivalent to the fact that the projection from onto
[TABLE]
is bounded. For a more detailed exposition of Dirichlet series and their relation to polydisc Hardy spaces, see [23].
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we introduce necessary notation and definitions. In Section 3, we provide a new simple proof of the historic boundedness result. The proof of the estimate is done by means of a combinatorial identity expressing in terms of tensor products of . In Section 4, we show that the same argument carries over with little modification showing boundedness of on . In Section 5.1, we define, purely in terms of square functions and not referring to analyticity, a multiple indexed martingale Hardy space of functions on that admits a bounded action of . It turns out that if , there is a subspace of , much bigger than , on which the norm is equivalent to norm. The arguments rely heavily on square function theorem for Hardy martingales and decoupling inequality of Zinn. We present two proofs of the latter in Section 6.
Acknowledgements
The results of this paper are taken from my doctoral thesis [25]. I am grateful to my advisors: Fedor Nazarov and Michał Wojciechowski for their mentorship and support, especially their unending willingness to discuss my research.
2. Preliminaries
Probability spaces and conditional expectations. In all of the text, will be a probability space. We will equip sets of the form , where is an at most countable index set, with the product measure defined on . In case we are only concerned with the cardinality of , we will write , where is a natural number or . By the natural filtration on we mean the filtration , where is generated by the coordinate projection and denote . In general, for a subset of the index set, will be the sigma algebra generated by the coordinate projection and . In more explicit terms, measurability with respect to is equivalent to being dependent only on variables with indices belonging to and the conditional expectation operator integrates away the dependence on all other variables, so that the formulas
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
are satisfied (with the convention that sequences indexed by and are merged in a natural way into a sequence indexed by ). It will often be convenient to identify a function defined on with an -measurable function . In order to save space, we will often write instead of whenever the measure is implied by context.
Tensor products. Let . For , we will denote by the function on satisfying
[TABLE]
Because of separation of variables, we have . This way we actually define an injection of the algebraic tensor product into , the image of which is dense.
Let be subspaces (by a subspace we always mean a closed linear subspace) of . By we will denote the subspace of spanned by functions of the form , where , and the norm is inherited from (care has to be taken, as is not determined solely by as Banach spaces, but rather by the particular way they are embedded in ). If are bounded operators, then we can define an operator by the formula
[TABLE]
and easily check that the property
[TABLE]
is satisfied. Indeed, , and any operator of the form has norm bounded by , because .
Fourier transform. Let be the interval equipped with addition modulo and normalized Lebesgue measure . We will be exclusively dealing with Fourier transforms of functions on or some power of . Since the group dual to is , the dual group to the product is the direct sum (i.e., integer-valued sequences that are eventually 0), on which we define the Fourier transform by
[TABLE]
Hardy spaces of martingales and analytic functions. By we denote the unit disk in the complex plane. We can identify with the unit circle by the map . For , the space is defined as the space of functions analytic in the polydisc such that the norm
[TABLE]
is finite. It is well-known [12] that such a function has an a.e. radial limit on the distinguished boundary and can be recovered from by convolution with a Poisson kernel. This sets a one-to-one correspondence between and the space
[TABLE]
We also can define in the same manner as in (2.8), but care has to be taken, since these functions are can no longer be extended analytically to in general (hence the shorthand , which we will sometimes use, is an abuse of notation). Later we will use two more spaces, namely (also called Hardy martingales) and , which we will define as follows.
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
In the space we allow characters of the form , where and for all .
Now we recall the definition of a martingale Hardy space and some related inequalities. A standard reference in this matter is [11]. Let be an arbitrary filtration on a probability space , where is generated by . We denote , , for , and define the square function and maximal function of respectively by
[TABLE]
This allows us to define the martingale Hardy space.
Definition 2.1**.**
The space is a function space on with the norm
[TABLE]
We will make use of three following classical martingale inequalities.
Theorem 2.2** (Burkholder, Gundy [8] for ; Davis [9] for ).**
For ,
[TABLE]
Theorem 2.3** (Burkholder [7]).**
For ,
[TABLE]
Theorem 2.4** (Stein [4]).**
For and an arbitrary sequence ,
[TABLE]
Definition 2.5**.**
A martingale atom is a function of the form
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Theorem 2.6**.**
Let be of mean [math]. Then there are atoms and scalars such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Theorem 2.7** (Fefferman).**
The dual space to is , where
[TABLE]
where the duality is given by .
Vector-valued inequalities. For a Banach space , by we denote the Bochner space of strongly measurable -valued random variables equipped with the norm
[TABLE]
(or, equivalently, the closed span of functions of the form , where and , in the norm). For an operator between subspaces of and and a linear operator we can define and the algebraic tensor product by , but this construction does not necessarlily produce a bounded operator on the closure. The main tool for obtaining vector-vlaued extensions of inequalities will be the following lemma, which for being singletons is due to Marcinkiewicz and Zygmund [20] (in this case can be replaced with ).
Lemma 2.8**.**
Let for , be a Hilbert space and be bounded. Then , where is treated as a subspace of , is bounded with norm .
Proof.
Without loss of generality, is finite-dimensional, say for some finite . Let , so that . Let also for be Rademacher variables. Then, applying -valued Khintchine inequality,
[TABLE]
∎
Hoeffding decomposition. Now we define the main object of our interest. In order to avoid technicalities with convergence in strong operator topology, we will work in a finite product of (all the results extend automatically to by density). We will see in a moment that any function can be decomposed in a unique way as
[TABLE]
where depends only on and is of mean [math] with respect to each of (equivalently, is -measurable and is orthogonal to all -measurable functions for ). This decomposition has been studied in [5], [16]. In particular, are pairwise orthogonal orthogonal projections. Let
[TABLE]
and be the range of . It is known [5], [16] that is bounded on , , with norm independent on , but this is not true for .
One of the possible ways to prove the existence of the above decomposition in is as follows. First we define the subspace
[TABLE]
for each . The sequence of subspaces is increasing, so by putting
[TABLE]
we obtain a decomposition
[TABLE]
into an orthogonal direct sum of . We will denote the orthogonal projection onto by .
A more explicit formula for can be obtained. For , let
[TABLE]
where and are understood to act on , and let be the range of the projection . It is easy to see that
[TABLE]
and, since the subspaces are mutually orthogonal,
[TABLE]
Moreover
[TABLE]
and consequently
[TABLE]
Decoupling inequalities. We are going to present a special case of a theorem of J. Zinn [27], which will be one of the most important tools.
Theorem 2.9** (Zinn).**
For , let be a function on . Then
[TABLE]
We will provide two new proofs of the above in Section 6. Below, we state two corollaries obtained by iterating Zinn’s inequality.
Corollary 2.10**.**
For , let . Denote by . Then
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let be defined by for and [math] otherwise. Then, by Theorem 2.9 applied for functions ,
[TABLE]
Analogously, by setting as fixed, and applying Theorem 2.9 with reversed order of variables (which we can do, because we are dealing with finite sums),
[TABLE]
as desired.∎
Corollary 2.11**.**
For all such that , let be an -measurable function on . Then, treating each as a function on ,
[TABLE]
where are variables in .
Proof.
Let us fix and for each define a function on by the formula
[TABLE]
Then, for fixed ,
[TABLE]
Here, plays the role of and (2.48) is an application of Theorem 2.9 to functions . Integrating the resulting inequality with respect to , we get
[TABLE]
which by induction from to proves (2.44). ∎
3. Boundedness of on
The main motivation for this part is the following theorem, proved by Bourgain with and by Kwapień with , where .
Theorem 3.1** ([5], [16]).**
* is bounded on for , with norm .*
We will present a proof that yields \|P_{1}:L^{p}\,\rotatebox[origin={c}]{90.0}{\circlearrowleft}\|<\infty and c_{p}=\mathrm{e}\|P_{1}:L^{p}\,\rotatebox[origin={c}]{90.0}{\circlearrowleft}\|.
Proof.
Without loss of generality, we may assume that we are working in . Indeed, by (2.33) and (2.37), preserves , which can be canonically identified with . Since the sequence is increasing and its sum is dense in , all we need to prove is
[TABLE]
is bounded. The boundedness of is essentially a known result [6], but we provide a proof for the sake of completeness. Let be the natural filtration and be the natural reversed filtration, i.e. . By (2.32) and (2.37) we see that
[TABLE]
By mutual orthogonality of ’s
[TABLE]
Applying Theorem 2.3, (3.3) and Theorem 2.4, we obtain
[TABLE]
We will now proceed by induction. Suppose that (3.1) is satisfied with in the place of . Let and define an operator acting on by
[TABLE]
Utilising (2.37) we get
[TABLE]
By (2.31),
[TABLE]
Putting the last four equations together, we get
[TABLE]
However, by (3.8) and the induction hypothesis,
[TABLE]
Let denote . By the Stirling formula,
[TABLE]
Thus
[TABLE]
Finally, by (3.16), (3.19) and (3.24),
[TABLE]
∎
We prvide a short proof of a fact taken from [6] that Theorem 3.1 can not be, extended to or , which motivates the next section.
Proposition 3.2**.**
If is not a single atom, then for is not bounded on or .
Proof.
It is enough to consider , because ’s are self-adjoint. Let be such that , and . Then . For we have
[TABLE]
which is not dominated by . To prove the unboundedness of for , we simply notice that
[TABLE]
∎
4. Boundedness of on
The projection can be described even more explicitly in the case . Indeed, if is supported on the set , then
[TABLE]
Thus
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
In particular, preserves the space .
In order to adapt the proof of Theorem 3.1 to the case, we will need a replacement for the argument proving that is bounded. The role of the combination of Burkholder-Gundy and Doob inequalities will be played by the following theorem, which can be found in [3].
Theorem 4.1** (Bourgain).**
For , there is an equivalence of norms
[TABLE]
where is the natural filtration on .
For later use, we note the Hilbert space valued extension.
Corollary 4.2**.**
Let be a Hilbert space. For , there is an equivalence of norms
[TABLE]
where is the natural filtration on .
Proof.
Theorem 4.1 gives a map
[TABLE]
which is an isomorphism onto the subspace of consisting of functions such that is a -th martingale difference and is analytic in the -th variable, defined by
[TABLE]
Thus, applying Lemma 2.8 with being a singleton, , as above (and then the same for ) we get
[TABLE]
∎
The role of the Stein martingale inequality will be played by the following simple observation.
Corollary 4.3**.**
For any sequence adapted to the natural filtration on ,
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let be a sequence of functions on defined by
[TABLE]
Applying Theorem 2.9 and conditional expectation with respect to the second of two sets of variables,
[TABLE]
∎
By conditioning with respect to the first set of variables, we obtain the inequality
[TABLE]
due to Lepingle [19].
Theorem 4.4**.**
For any , is bounded on .
Proof.
We proceed as in the proof of Theorem 3.1. First, we reduce the problem to the realm. Then we notice that
[TABLE]
which by Corollary 4.3 yields
[TABLE]
∎
Theorem 4.5**.**
* is bounded on with norm , where*
[TABLE]
Proof.
The case is trivial, follows directly from Theorem 4.1 and Theorem 4.4. The induction step is identical to the proof of Theorem 3.1, up to changing to . Alternatively, we can prove the same in a single step. Set
[TABLE]
It is easily seen that for each set of cardinality , appears times in the sum. Therefore
[TABLE]
and since
[TABLE]
we get
[TABLE]
∎
It has to be noted that our proofs of Theorems 3.1 and 4.5 extend naturally to a vector valued case, respectively UMD and AUMD valued. Indeed, Bourgain’s proof of Theorem 2.4, as presented in [22], extends to the UMD valued version, while Theorem 4.1 is just the statement that a one-dimensional space has the AUMD property. In both cases, the induction follows without change. There is also a second direction in which we can generalize. Namely, by looking carefully at the proof of Theorem 4.1, one can see that the only place in which analyticity plays a role is the theorem, which is true for on any compact and connected group with ordered dual [24], which means that we can replace with any such group.
Given that Kwapień’s constant in Theorem 3.1 has the best known asymptotics as a function of for , one can ask about the dependence of \left\|P_{m}:L^{p}\left(\Omega^{\infty}\right)\,\rotatebox[origin={c}]{90.0}{\circlearrowleft}\right\| and \left\|P_{m}:H^{1}\left(\mathbb{D}^{\mathbb{N}}\right)\,\rotatebox[origin={c}]{90.0}{\circlearrowleft}\right\| on .
Proposition 4.6**.**
The inequalities
[TABLE]
for nontrivial and
[TABLE]
where and stand for functions of mean [math], are true. Also,
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let be of mean [math]. Then and
[TABLE]
Indeed, we have because of , hence
[TABLE]
The only way to get a summand in is to have for all and the sum of such summands is the right hand side of (4.32). Taking an which is close to attaining the norm of on a respective space proves (4.29) and (4.30).
In order to see (4.31), assume for the sake of contradiction that is a contraction on . We will test it on functions of the form , where and is a scalar. It is easy to see that
[TABLE]
for . Hence, from the inequality
[TABLE]
we get
[TABLE]
Since any nonnegative function can be approximated by the modulus of an function, (4.35) is true for any nonnegative . In particular, the left hand side attains a local minimum at , so by we infer that
[TABLE]
Now let
[TABLE]
for . This is a continuous function, whose values lie on some curve connecting [math] and (because and ). The condition (4.37) can be rewritten as
[TABLE]
Since was allowed to be any positive function, can be any function with values in , making (4.39) obviously false. ∎
5. Martingale Hardy spaces
5.1. Double indexed martingales
Above we noticed that the boundedness of on follows from the boundedness of on a bigger space . It is temtping to find an abstract martingale inequality responsible for the boundedness of on . We can do this for .
By the natural double-indexed filtration on we will mean the family (note that the inclusion order in the first index is reversed). Let be the martinagle differences with respect to and be the martingale differences with repsect to , where . We define the martingale differences with respect to by
[TABLE]
and an norm for this filtration by
[TABLE]
The definition of double martingale differences coincides with what is considered in [26].
Corollary 5.1**.**
For , there is an equivalence of norms
[TABLE]
where is the natural double-indexed filtration on .
Proof.
For any -valued sequence , we define operators and by
[TABLE]
By Theorem 4.1, is an isomorphism from to itself, uniformly in . By reversing the order of variables, the same can be said about . Thus for any ,
[TABLE]
By averaging the last quantity over all choices of and applying the Khintchine-Kahane inequality twice, we get the desired inequalities. ∎
Theorem 5.2**.**
* is bounded on , for any .*
Proof.
As usual, we reduce the problem to the version. By (3.2),
[TABLE]
Thus
[TABLE]
for . We can assume that (i.e. and for all ), because , being the image of is trivially complemented in the underlying norm and is [math] on . By applying Corollary 2.10,
[TABLE]
as desired.∎
5.2. Multiple indexed martingales
We will make an attempt at generalizing the above for multiple indexed martingales. Suppose there is a family of pairs of finite subsets of some set (finite or not) indexed by some set , such that ( is not a boundary in a topological sense - we use this notation for resemblance with the case where are intervals and are their endpoints). We would like to define operators on by the formula
[TABLE]
where stands for the complement of in . This is supposed to mimic the standard martingale differences when , , , and double martingale differences when , , . The natural condition
[TABLE]
is guaranteed by
[TABLE]
Indeed,
[TABLE]
Hence
[TABLE]
and each appears in the above sum exactly once if and only if the condition (5.19) is satisfied. For a family we may define a norm by the formula
[TABLE]
and ask the following:
- •
Is it true that
[TABLE]
for ?
- •
If yes, is there any interesting example of a set such that (5.26) is true for with ?
- •
For which, if any, is bounded on ?
We are able to answer them in the case when
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
For a finite set , the unique such that , which we will denote by , is
[TABLE]
Theorem 5.3**.**
Let be fixed and be defined by (5.27), (5.28). Then
[TABLE]
*for , where is used as . Moreover, for and nontrivial , the following are equivalent.
(i)
(ii) is bounded on
(iii) is bounded on .*
Proof.
For , we will write , , , to indicate the value of we are currently using. For brevity we will denote by . For , we have . In particular, . Therefore, by definition of the norm and Corollary 2.11,
[TABLE]
Here, we identify an increasing sequence with the set of its elements, write to denote and treat as a function on . From this expression, we immediately see the implication . Indeed, for ,
[TABLE]
which trivializes the inequality . For , we notice that
[TABLE]
and the desired inequality follows from
[TABLE]
The implication follows from (5.30), which we will prove by induction with respect to . For this is just Theorem 4.1. Suppose it is true for some and let . In particular, . By (5.30), which is now the induction hypothesis, and (5.31),
[TABLE]
The last two summands are as they are in the desired expression for instead of and we only have to deal with the first. For any and we have
[TABLE]
Thus, treating as a function on ,
[TABLE]
Let be fixed and , where , act with respect to the variable (so, technically, stands for ). Then
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
For ,
[TABLE]
By (5.40), is in with respect to . Therefore, applying Corollary 4.2 to the vector valued function with fixed , plugging in (5.41), (5.42), (5.47) and using Corollary 2.11, we get
[TABLE]
Integrating the resulting equivalence with respect to and plugging into (5.38), we verify that , which finishes the proof of (5.30).
In order to see that , let us take . For any , the function defined by
[TABLE]
is in . But
[TABLE]
so
[TABLE]
which by Proposition 3.2 can be arbitrarily big.∎
It is worth noting that by repeating the above proof of the equivalence between norm and , one can obtain
[TABLE]
where is defined in a natural way. Moreover, by iterating the inequality for linearly ordered martingales,
[TABLE]
6. Appendix
We present two proofs of Theorem 2.9 different from the original one by Zinn.
Let us recall the non-linear telescoping lemma due to Bourgain and Müller.
Lemma 6.1** ([3], [21]).**
Let , be nonnegative random variables such that
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
Corollary 6.2**.**
Let be independent and set
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
Proof.
The right inequality of (6.4) follows directly from Lemma 6.1, since is an increasing sequence of constants. To prove the other inequality, we see that conditioning with respect to gives
[TABLE]
thus by induction
[TABLE]
which for is the desired inequality.∎
Proof of Theorem 2.9.
In order to prove the inequality in (2.38), we merely perform a slight modification of the proof of Lepingle inequality presented in [3]. Let us denote by . By tensoring against the Rademacher sequence, we may assume that it is a martingale difference sequence. Then the left hand side equals , where and . By Theorem 2.6 it is enough to check the boundedness of the right hand side in the case when is an atom, because we have an a priori bound for finite sums. Let , where satisfies (2.17). Then
[TABLE]
By , the support of for is contained in as well, because
[TABLE]
Thus for we have . Consequently
[TABLE]
because if , then , which by implies . By and (6.8) we have
[TABLE]
Combining (2.17), (6.8), (6.12), (6.13) with the inequality
[TABLE]
and the fact that the projections are mutually orthogonal, we obtain
[TABLE]
We will prove the inequality in (2.38) now. It is clear that it is enough to prove it with only finitely many of nonzero. We define the sequence of functions in inductively by
[TABLE]
For any fixed , this sequence coincides with the sequence defined by (6.3) applied to the independent random variables , so Corollary 6.4 yields the pointwise inequality
[TABLE]
By induction it is obvious that is -measurable. Thus
[TABLE]
In particular, verify the condition (6.1) with respect to and are pointwise increasing, so Lemma 6.1 gives
[TABLE]
Integrating (6.22) with respect to and applying (6.25) we obtain
[TABLE]
∎
Yet another proof of Theorem 2.9.
Without loss of generality, we may assume that has a structure of a compact abelian group with Haar measure, e.g. by embedding in . Just like previously, we also may assume that is a -th martingale difference and notice that the left hand side is just . For we define an operator by
[TABLE]
Since is just a translation of ,
[TABLE]
For , by translation in the variable ,
[TABLE]
Therefore
[TABLE]
We have , because
[TABLE]
By Theorem 2.7, are uniformly bounded on martingale , so
[TABLE]
and thus
[TABLE]
Ultimately, by translating for fixed ,
[TABLE]
∎
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] H. Bohr, Über die Bedeutung der Potenzreihen unendlich vieler Variabeln in der Theorie der Dirichletschen Reihen , Nachr. Akad. Wiss. Göttingen Math.-Phys. Kl. (1913), 441–488.
- 2[2] A. Bonami, Ensembles Λ ( p ) Λ 𝑝 \Lambda(p) dans le dual de D ∞ superscript 𝐷 D^{\infty} , Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble), 18(fasc. 2):193–204 (1969), 1968.
- 3[3] J. Bourgain, Embedding L 1 superscript 𝐿 1 L^{1} in L 1 / H 1 superscript 𝐿 1 superscript 𝐻 1 L^{1}/H^{1} , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 278(2):689–702,1983.
- 4[4] J. Bourgain, Vector valued singular integrals and the H 1 − BMO superscript 𝐻 1 BMO H^{1}-\mathrm{BMO} duality , in Israel seminar on geometrical aspects of functional analysis (1983/84), pages xvi, 23. Tel Aviv Univ., Tel Aviv, 1984.
- 5[5] J. Bourgain, Walsh subspaces of L p superscript 𝐿 𝑝 L^{p} -product spaces , Séminaire Analyse fonctionnelle (dit ”Maurey-Schwartz”) (1979-1980): 1-14.
- 6[6] W. Bryc, S. Kwapień, On the conditional expectations with respect to a sequence of independent σ 𝜎 \sigma -fields , Z. Wahrsch. Verw. Gebiete 46 (1979), 221–225. MR 0516742
- 7[7] D. L. Burkholder, Sharp inequalities for martingales and stochastic integrals , Colloque Paul Lévy, Astéristique 157–158(1988), 75–94.
- 8[8] D. L. Burkholder, R. F. Gundy, Extrapolation and interpolation of quasi-linear operators on martingales , Acta Math. Volume 124 (1970), 249-304.
