4
$\begingroup$

The Caffarelli-Kohn-Nirenberg inequalities are a set of inequalities generalizing the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities and are of the form $$\||x|^\gamma u\|_{L^p} \leq C\||x|^\alpha \nabla u\|_{L^q}^a \||x|^\beta u\|_{L^r}^{1-a},$$ for any $u \in C_c^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)$ (there are constraints on all the parameters I won't mention here).

I am interested in whether similar such inequalities are known (or known to be false) for non-radial weights of a specified form (the encouragingly named paper Hardy and Caffarelli-Kohn-Nirenberg Inequalities with Nonradial Weights does not seem to answer this question; they consider a different class of weights). In particular, I am interested in the question of whether any inequalities of the following form hold. For $u \in C_c^\infty(\mathbb{R}^2)$, $$\||x|^\gamma u\|_{L^p} \leq C(\||x_2|^\alpha \partial_{x_1} u\|_{L^2} + \||x_1|^\alpha \partial_{x_2} u\|_{L^2})^a\||x|^\beta u\|_{L^r}^{1-a}.$$ I really only care about the case where $\alpha \in (0,1)$ and $\gamma \leq 0, \beta \geq 0$. This problem arises in trying to get estimates on certain degenerate parabolic equations.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Your inequalities scale wrong if you multiply $u$ by a constant. There should be some powers on the norms. I have an idea as to how one might try to handle your case but I'd like to see what exactly you need without obvious misprints first ;-) $\endgroup$
    – fedja
    Commented Aug 1, 2023 at 19:34
  • $\begingroup$ @fedja Fixed the powers, thanks for pointing out the misprint. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 1, 2023 at 20:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ OK, Keefer, then I think I know how to get a family of inequalities of the kind you want, though there will be only a narrow window of admissible parameters when $\alpha$ gets close to $1$ (for small $\alpha$ you have more leeway). It's going to be a somewhat long story, however: we'll not be able to use some ready results (or, at least, I don't know the literature well enough to do that) but will reprove all steps almost from scratch, so be patient with me if it takes me some time to type all the details :-) $\endgroup$
    – fedja
    Commented Aug 2, 2023 at 4:30
  • $\begingroup$ @fedja sounds great. Looking forward to hearing what you figure out. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 2, 2023 at 12:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Enjoy! I corrected the most outrageous typos, but, most likely, haven't caught them all, so if something looks incongruous, don't break your head over it for too long, just ask if it, indeed, was typed as intended. And, of course, feel free to ask questions if something is unclear in general. $\endgroup$
    – fedja
    Commented Aug 2, 2023 at 17:52

1 Answer 1

8
$\begingroup$

I'll try to keep your notation except for three things: I prefer to have all parameters non-negative not to get confused myself, I'd rather have $z=(x,y)\in\mathbb R^2$ coordinates on the plane to avoid typing too many subscripts, and I'll replace $L^r$ by $L^q$ because $r$ is too handy for other things like the distance to the origin, etc., so we'll be interested in the inequalities $$ \| |z|^{-\gamma}u\|_{L^p}\le C(\| |y|^\alpha u_x\|_{L^2}+\| |x|^\alpha u_y\|_{L^2})^a\||z|^\beta u\|_{L^q}^{1-a}\,. $$ Note that we can split the plane into $4$ coordinate quadrants and deal with each quadrant separately, so I'll restrict the proof to the first quadrant.

Our first task will be to establish the one-dimensional inequality $$ \int_0^\infty r^{2\alpha-1}|v(r)|^2\,dr\le \frac 1{\alpha^2}\int_0^\infty r^{2\alpha+1}|v'(r)|^2\,dr $$ for smooth compactly supported $v$ on $[0,+\infty)$ (we do not require $v(0)$ to be $0$, but we require $v$ to vanish outside a bounded interval).

This is equivalent to the $1/\alpha$ norm bound for the linear integral operator with the kernel $K(r,\rho)r^{\alpha-\frac 12}\rho^{-\alpha-\frac 12}\chi_{\{\rho>r\}}$ in $L^2([0,+\infty),dr)$, which follows from the Shur test with $\varphi(t)=\psi(t)=t^{-1/2}$ on $[0,\infty)$.

Applying this to the function $v(r)=u(re^{i\theta})$ with fixed $\theta\in [\frac \pi 9, \frac{4\pi}9]$, say, we conclude that $$ \int_0^\infty |r^\alpha u(re^{i\theta})/r|^2\,r\,dr\le \frac{1}{\alpha^2}\int_0^\infty |r^\alpha \nabla u(re^{i\theta})|^2\,r\,dr\,. $$

However, in the angle $A=\{re^{i\theta}:r>0, \theta\in [\frac \pi 9, \frac{4\pi}9]\}$, we have $r^\alpha|\nabla u|$ comparable to $x^\alpha|u_y|+y^\alpha |u_x|$, so we see that we can integrate with respect to $\theta$ now and, switching back from polar to Cartesian, add $\||z|^{-1}u\|_{ L^2( A ) }$ to the first factor on the RHS of our desired inequality without changing anything.

Now we can localize to $D_r=\{z: x,y\le 2r, \max(x,y)\ge r\}=[0,r]\times [r,2r]\cup [r,2r]\times [0,r]\cup[r,2r]\times [r,2r]=Q_1\cup Q_2\cup Q_3$.

We shall first get our estimates in the case $r=1$. What we shall be interested in at this moment is finding the range of $s>0$ for which $$ \| u\|^2_{L^s(D_1)}\le C\left[\int_{D_1} (|x^\alpha u_y|^2+|y^{\alpha}u_x|^2)+\int_{Q_3}|u|^2\right] $$ (note that $Q_3\subset A$).

First of all, using the standard 1-dimensional inequality $\int_0^2 |v(x)|^2\,dx \le C\left(\int_0^2 |v'(x)|\,dx+\int_1^2 |v(x)|^2\,dx\right)$ with $v(x)=u(x,y)$, $1\le y\le 2$, we see that the quantity on the right dominates the integral $\int_{Q_1}|u|^2$. Similarly, considering the vertical lines, we can estimate $\int_{Q_2}|u|^2$. Thus we can replace the integral of $|u|^2$ over $Q_3$ on the RHS by that over $D_1$.

Observe next that when $\min(x,y)$ is separated from $0$, the first integral is essentially the same as that of $|\nabla u|^2$, so in that region we can use the classical Sobolev's embedding to conclude that any $s>0$ would work for that part. Thus, we need to take care of the regions near the axes only.

Let now $x\in[0,1], y\in[1,2]$. For every $c\in\mathbb R$ such that the curve $\Gamma_c=\{(x+\xi, y+c\xi^{\alpha+1}):0\le\xi\le 1\}$ is contained in $D_1$ and every $t\in[\frac 12,1]$, we can write $$ |u(x,y)|=\left|u(x+t, y+ct^{\alpha+1})-\int_0^t \frac d{d\xi}u(x+\xi,y+c\xi^{\alpha+1})\,d\xi\right| \\ \le \int_0^1[|u_x|+(\alpha+1)x^\alpha |u_y|](x+\xi,y+c\xi^{\alpha+1})\,d\xi +|u(x+t,y+ct^{\alpha+1})|\,. $$ Integrating over $c\in[1-y,2-y], t\in[\frac 12,1]$ with respect to $dt\,dc$ and using that $d\xi\, d(c\xi^{\alpha+1})=\xi^{\alpha+1}\,d\xi\,dc$, we conclude that in $Q_1$ we have $$ |u|\le C\left([(|u_x|+x^{\alpha}|u_y|)\chi_{D_1}]*K+\int_{D_1}|u|\right) $$ where $K(\xi,\eta)=\frac 1{|\xi|^{\alpha+1}}\chi_{\{-1<\xi<0, |\eta|\le |\xi|^{\alpha+1}\}}$.

The integral term is a constant controlled by $\left(\int_{D_1}|u|^2\right)^{1/2}$, so we just need to figure out for which $s$ the convolution acts from $L^2(D_1)$ to $L^s(D_1)$. Let $0\le g\in L^2(D_1)$, $\|g\|_{L^2(D_1)}=1$. Let $T>1$. We will estimate the measure of the subset of $D_1$ on which $g*K>T$ . To this end, we'll take $\delta\in(0,1)$ and split $$ K=K\chi_{\{-\delta<\xi<0\}}+K\chi_{\{\xi<-\delta\}}=K_\delta+K^\delta\,. $$ Note that $$ \int |K^\delta|^2=\int_{-1}^{-\delta}\frac 2{|\xi|^{\alpha+1}}\,d\xi\le \frac 2\alpha \delta^{-\alpha}\, $$ so, choosing $\delta=\left(\frac 8\alpha T^{-2}\right)^{1/\alpha}$ and using Cauchy-Schwarz, we conclude that $\|g*K^{\delta}\|_{L^\infty}\le\frac T2$. On the other hand, $\|K_\delta\|_{L^1}=2\delta$, so $\|g*K_\delta\|_{L^2}\le 2\delta$ and the measure of the set where $g*K_\delta>\frac T2$ is at most $4\delta^2/(T/2)^2\le C T^{-2-\frac 4{\alpha}}$, which means that the convolution operator in question acts from $L^2(D_1)$ to $L^s(D_1)$ at least for $s<2+\frac 4\alpha$. With some more effort, we can get the endpoint result $s=2+\frac 4\alpha$ too but it won't matter because there will be another, stronger, restriction on $s$ coming from your desire to keep $\beta,\gamma\ge 0$.

The upshot so far is that we have the inequality $$ \int_{D_1} |u|^s\le C\left[\int_{D_1}(|x^\alpha u_y|^2+|y^\alpha u_x|^2)+\int_{D_1\cap A}||z|^{\alpha}(u/|z|)|^2\right]^{s/2} $$ (I introduced the extra power of $|z|$ on $u$ to have the same scaling with respect to dilations on both 3 terms; in $D_1$ that factor is almost constant). Now, plugging in $U(z)=u(rz)$ instead of $U$ and making the change of variables carefully, we arrive at $$ r^{-2}\int_{D_r}|u|^s\le C\left(r^{-2\alpha}\left[\int_{D_r}(|x^\alpha u_y|^2+|y^\alpha u_x|^2)+\int_{D_r\cap A}||z|^{\alpha}(u/|z|)|^2\right]\right)^{s/2}\,, $$ i.e., $$ \int_{D_r}|u|^s\le r^{2-\alpha s} J_r^{s/2} $$ where $\sum_{r=2^k; k\in\mathbb Z} J_r\le C\|x^\alpha |u_y|+y^{\alpha}|u_x|\|_{L^2}^2$,.

If we now choose any $\tau\in[0,1]$, we can use Holder to write $$ \int_{D_r} |u|^{\tau s+(1-\tau) q}\le \left[\int_{D_r}|u|^s\right]^\tau\left[\int_{D_r}|u|^q\right]^{1-\tau}\le r^{(2-\alpha s)\tau}J_r^{\tau s/2}\left[\int_{D_r}|u|^q\right]^{1-\tau}\,. $$

Now set $p=\tau s+(1-\tau) q$ and choose $\beta,\gamma\ge 0$ so that $$ \gamma p+\beta q(1-\tau)=(2-\alpha s)\tau $$ (which will require $2-\alpha s\ge 0$, i. e., a stronger restriction than we had before). Then we can rewrite this as $$ \int_{D_r} ||z|^{-\gamma}u|^p\le J_r^{\tau s/2}\left(\int_{D_r} ||z|^\beta u|^q \right)^{1-\tau} $$ whence, adding these inequalities up and using $$ \sum_r J_r^{\tau s/2} I_r^{1-\tau}\le\left(\sum_r J_r^{s/2}\right)^\tau \left(\sum_r I_r\right)^{1-\tau}\le \left(\sum_r J_r\right)^{\tau s/2} \left(\sum_r I_r\right)^{1-\tau} $$ for $s\ge 2$, we finally obtain $$ \||z|^{-\gamma} u\|_{L^p}\le \|x^\alpha |u_y|+y^\alpha |u_x|\|_{L^2}^a\||z|^\beta u\|_{L^q}^{1-a} $$ with $a=\tau s/p$.

The last thing is to comb everything up to get some decent form of our parametric representations. We have $$ p=\tau s+(1-\tau) q \\ \gamma p+\beta q(1-\tau)=(2-\alpha s)\tau \\ a=\tau s/p \\ \tau\in[0,1] \\ s\in [2,\tfrac 2\alpha] $$ which, after some algebra, finally turns into (unless I've made a stupid error) $$ \frac {a\alpha}2\le \frac 1p-\frac{1-a}q\le \frac a2 \\ \gamma+(1-a)\beta=2(\tfrac 1p-\tfrac{1-a}q)-a\alpha\,. \\ p,q>0, a\in[0,1], \gamma,\beta\ge 0 $$ Whether this range is sufficient for your purposes is for you to figure out. If yes, great. If no, just post what values you'd like to have (though I don't think the range can be extended, so in that case I'll try to construct a counterexample).

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Looks amazing! I just did the numerology and it seems to cover all the cases I'm interested in. I'm still working through the proof at the moment. I submitted an edit fixing 3 typos (but it has to be approved since I don't have enough reputation). The first I'm confused about is the line "add $\| |z|^{-1} u\|_{L^2(A)}$ to the first factor on the RHS of our desired inequality without changing anything." I'm generally a bit confused on what you are working toward at that point of the proof, so a bit more explanation there would be very helpful. Thanks! $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 2, 2023 at 19:37
  • $\begingroup$ I finished reading the proof, everything makes sense! I still don't really understand what you're saying with the remark I asked about in the previous comment though, so a clarification would still be much appreciated. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 2, 2023 at 23:13
  • $\begingroup$ @KeeferRowan At that point I'm aiming to localize to the diadic "rings" $D_r$, but, since $u$ is not supported on any of them, one would have no hope for a localized bound unless you control some average of $u$ over some part of $D_r$ together with derivatives (otherwise constant functions give trivial counterexamples), so I'm throwing in the integral expression of $u$ itself ($\int_A |z|^\alpha(u/|z|)^2$) that is dominated by the full integral with derivatives globally and then chop it together with the derivative integral. $\endgroup$
    – fedja
    Commented Aug 2, 2023 at 23:14
  • $\begingroup$ @KeeferRowan And yeah, thanks for the edits! Now, I hope, the typos are really few. $\endgroup$
    – fedja
    Commented Aug 2, 2023 at 23:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @KeeferRowan "Let me know if you post this in a note somewhere else" That is highly unlikely, but OK, if that happens, I'll inform you (the only situation when that can happen is if I need it as a lemma myself and I'm not much into PDE lately)... $\endgroup$
    – fedja
    Commented Aug 2, 2023 at 23:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .