3
$\begingroup$

The title may be inappropriate, and I apologize for that.

I'm writing a reading report on my harmonic analysis course. My topic is the Littlewood-Paley inequality for arbitrary intervals, which was proved in Rubio de Francia, 1985. I found it hard to understand the proof of Lemma 2.3 in that paper, beacuse I've learnt nothing about $A_p$-weights. However, I found that page 8 of Lacey’s paper proves the same lemma using a vector-valued Littlewood–Paley inequality, in a very short space (only two lines are related). So I'm asking about the details of the proof using vector-valued Littlewood–Paley inequality.

Now I restate the main problem here.

For any set $I\in\mathbb R$, we define the operator $\widehat{S_If}=\chi_I\hat f$. For every interval $I$ and $c>0$, we denote by $cI$ the interval with the same center as $I$ and length: $|cI|=c|I|$.

Given disjoint intervals $\{I_k=(a_k,b_k)\}_{k\in\mathbb Z}$, we define that the Whitney decomposition of each $I_k$ consists of $\{I_{k,j}\}_{j\in\mathbb Z}$, where $$I_{k,j}=\begin{cases} \left[a_k+(b_k-a_k)\frac{2^{-j}}3, a_k+(b_k-a_k)\frac{2^{-j+1}}3\right], & j\geq 0,\\ \left[b_k-(b_k-a_k)\frac{2^{j+1}}3, b_k-(b_k-a_k)\frac{2^{j}}3\right], & j\leq -1. \end{cases}$$ Note that $2I_{k,j}\subset I_k$ and $\sum_{k,j}\chi_{2I_{k,j}}(x)\leq 5$ for all $x\in\mathbb R$. We are going to prove that

Theorem (Lemma 2.3 in Rubio de Francia, 1985). Given disjoint intervals $\{I_k\}_{k\in\mathbb Z}$ and its Whitney decomposition as above, then for all $1<p<\infty$ we have
$$\left\|\left(\sum_{k,j\in\mathbb Z}\left|S_{I_{k,j}}f\right|^2\right)^{\frac12}\right\|_p\sim_p\left\|\left(\sum_{k\in\mathbb Z}|S_{I_k}f|^2\right)^{\frac12}\right\|_p,\qquad f\in L^p(\mathbb R).$$

Page 8 of Lacey’s paper sketches the proof of this Theorem, as he said, “by a vector-valued Littlewood-Paley inequality”. But he didn’t say which one the vector-valued LP inequality is.

I have known a kind of vector-valued Littlewood–Paley inequality, which states that $$\left\|\left(\sum_{k,j\in\mathbb Z}\left|S_{\Delta_j}f_k\right|^2\right)^{\frac12}\right\|_p\lesssim_p\left\|\left(\sum_{k\in\mathbb Z}|f_k|^2\right)^{\frac12}\right\|_p,\qquad f\in L^p(\mathbb R),$$ where $\Delta_j=(-2^{j+1},-2^j]\cup[2^j,2^{j+1})$ is the Littlewood–Paley dyadic intervals.

But I don't know how to use this vector-valued Littlewood–Paley inequality to prove the Theorem. I tried to mimic the proof of the above inequality, but I failed since it became very messy.

Maybe this is not the one used in Lacey’s proof. I want to know which one does Lacey use, and how it is used to prove the Theorem.

Any help would be appreciated!

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean by $2I_{k,j} \subset I_k$? (What is $2I_{k,j}$? do you mean fixing the center and doubling the width?) $\endgroup$ Jun 6, 2022 at 15:05
  • $\begingroup$ @WillieWong Yes! I forgot to point that out. Thanks! $\endgroup$
    – Feng
    Jun 6, 2022 at 15:06
  • $\begingroup$ @WillieWong I'm not sure about your meaning. I tried to follow the proof of classcial Littlewood-Paley theorem: first use smoother kernels and then come back to non-smooth kernels. But it failed when I tried to come back to non-smooth kernels. Emm... Would you mind elaborating more? I'm not familiar with this topic. Thanks in advance! $\endgroup$
    – Feng
    Jun 6, 2022 at 15:23
  • $\begingroup$ @WillieWong I’m asking the details of the formula $\|S^\Omega f\|_p \sim \|S^{Well(\Omega)}f\|_p$ in page 8 of Lacey’s paper. I can understand everything in that sketch of proof before this formula. He said in the paper that “by a vector-valued Littlewood-Paley inequality”, and I want to know which one is this inequality, how is it proved and how is it used here. $\endgroup$
    – Feng
    Jun 6, 2022 at 15:46

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

Here you need to apply slightly non-standard Littlewood--Paley inequality. It is well known (however, an exact reference does not come to my mind immediately but I believe any proof of standard L.--P. inequality works equally well in this case) that the Littlewood--Paley inequality holds not only for the intervals $[2^j, 2^{j+1})$ but also for arbitrary lacunary intervals in $\mathbb{R}$, that is, you may take the intervals $[\lambda_k,\lambda_{k+1})$ as long as $\lambda_{k+1}/\lambda_k\ge c > 1$ (or $\lambda_{k+1}/\lambda_k\le c < 1$; and you can also shift and dilate such collection). And the collection $\mathrm{Well}(\Omega)$ is obviously lacunary in such sence (or at least a union of two lacunary collections).

Now, we apply this observation to get: \begin{equation} \|S^\Omega f\|_{L^p} = \Big\| \Big( \sum_{\omega\in\Omega} |S_\omega f|^2 \Big)^{1/2} \Big\|_{L^p}\asymp \Big\| \Big( \sum_{\omega\in\Omega} |S^{\mathrm{Well}(\omega)}S_\omega f|^2 \Big)^{1/2} \Big\|_{L^p} = \Big\| S^{\mathrm{Well}(\Omega)} f \Big\|_{L^p} \ \text{(1)}. \end{equation} The inequality we used here is $$ \Big\| \Big( \sum_{\omega\in\Omega} |S^{\mathrm{Well(\omega)}}f_\omega|^2 \Big)^{1/2} \Big\|_{L^p} \lesssim \Big\| \Big( \sum_{\omega\in\Omega} |f_\omega|^2 \Big)^{1/2} \Big\|_{L^p} $$ for arbitrary functions $f_\omega$ --- this is the kind of vector-valued Littlewood--Paley inequality Lacey (and Rubio de Francia) used. I am not sure that it can be proved easier than by following the path Rubio de Francia mentioned, that is, using the uniform boundedness of operators $S^{\mathrm{Well}(\omega)}$ in $L^2(w)$ for $w\in A_2$. The key observation here is that the collections $\mathrm{Well}(\omega)$ are obtained from one another by some affine transformation so this uniform boundedness is not surprising once you know the boundedness of just one operator, say $S^{\mathrm{Well}([-1/2. 1/2])}$ on $L^2(w)$. The reverse inequality in the middle of formula (1) follows by duality.

Rubio de Francia mentioned the weighted Littlewood--Paley inequality because in general weighted norm inequalities imply vector-valued ones. One of possible references for these things is the book by Rubio de Francia and Garcia-Cuerva "Weighted norm inequalities and related topics" (here you may apply Theorem 6.4 from page 519).

$\endgroup$
8
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It is not clear to me how (2.11) is applied though. Can you clarify? To go from $[-1/2,1/2]$ to arbitrary $\omega$ in $\Omega$, some scaling is involved in the affine transformation. Furthermore, I am not sure about your comment about lacunary intervals: the way $\mathrm{Well}([-1/2,1/2])$ is defined it does not meet your description of something lacunary. $\endgroup$ Jun 6, 2022 at 17:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ And this inequality in turn is not obvious but I believe that this is what Lacey meant by "vector-valued Littlewood--Paley inequality". $\endgroup$ Jun 6, 2022 at 18:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for the new edit. $\endgroup$ Jun 6, 2022 at 18:55
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for the answer! I did realize that I need to use the inequality $$ \Big\| \Big( \sum_{\omega\in\Omega} |S^{\mathrm{Well(\omega)}}f_\omega|^2 \Big)^{1/2} \Big\|_{L^p} \lesssim \Big\| \Big( \sum_{\omega\in\Omega} |f_\omega|^2 \Big)^{1/2} \Big\|_{L^p} $$ and I tried to mimic the proof of the vector-valued LP inequality that I mentioned in OP, which doesn’t involve $A_p$-weights, only involves vector-valued singular integral theory, to prove this inequality. But I failed. After reading your answer, now I’m pretty sure that I need to learn something new! $\endgroup$
    – Feng
    Jun 6, 2022 at 21:29
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ For the passage from weighted estimates to vector valued ones, another (easier on the eyes) reference is RdF's 1980 paper "VECTOR VALUED INEQUALITIES FOR OPERATORS IN $L^p$ SPACES" (Bull. LMS, 1980). It is also very short. $\endgroup$ Jun 7, 2022 at 15:40

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.