Boundedness of differential transforms for Poisson semigroups generated by Bessel operators

Given \omega \in A_p, we choose 1<q<p such that \omega \in A_{p/q}. Then it is well known that, the maximal operators {\mathcal M} and {\mathcal M}_q are bounded on L^p({\mathbb R}_+, \omega dm_\lambda), see [Duo]. On the other hand, since the operators T_N are uniformly bounded in L^p({\mathbb R}_+, \omega dm_\lambda) with \omega \in A_p, we have

Note that the constants C appeared above do not depend on M. Consequently, letting M increase to infinity, we get the proof of the L^p boundedness of the maximal operator T^*. This completes the proof of part (a) of the theorem.

In order to prove (b), we consider the \ell^\infty(\mathbb Z^2)-valued operator \mathcal{T}f(x) = \{ T_N f(x) \}_{N\in \mathbb Z^2}. Since \|\mathcal{T}f(x) \|_{\ell^\infty(\mathbb Z^2)}= T^*f(x), by using (a) we know that the operator \mathcal{T} is bounded from L^p({\mathbb R}_+, \omega dm_\lambda) into L^p_{\ell^\infty(\mathbb Z^2)}(\mathbb{R}_+, \omega dm_\lambda), for every 1<p<\infty and \omega \in A_p. The kernel of the operator \mathcal{T} is given by \mathcal{K}(x) = \{ K_N(x)\} _{N\in \mathbb Z^2}. Therefore, by the vector valued Calderón-Zygmund theory, the operator \mathcal{T} is bounded from L^1(\mathbb{R}_+, \omega dm_\lambda) into weak-L^1_{\ell^\infty(\mathbb Z^2)}(\mathbb{R}_+, \omega dm_\lambda) for \omega \in A_1. Hence, as \|\mathcal{T}f(x) \|_{\ell^\infty(\mathbb Z^2)}= T^*f(x), we get the proof of (b).

For (c), we shall prove that, if f\in BMO(\mathbb R_+, dm_\lambda) and there exists x_0\in \mathbb R_+ such that T^*f(x_0)<\infty, then T^*f(x)<\infty for a.e. x\in {\mathbb R}_+. Set I=I(x_0, 4\left\vertx-x_0\right\vert) with x\neq x_0. And we decompose f to be

Note that T^* is L^p bounded for any 1<p<\infty. Then T^*f_1(x)<\infty, because f_1\in L^p(\mathbb R_+, dm_\lambda), for any 1<p<\infty. And T^* f_3=0, since {\mathcal P}_{a_j}f_3=f_3 for any j\in \mathbb Z. On the other hand by the smoothness properties of the kernel , we have

where 2^k I=I(x_0, 2^{k}\cdot 4|x-x_0|) for any k\in \mathbb N. Hence

and therefore T^*f(x) = \left\VertT_N f(x)\right\Vert_{l^\infty(\mathbb Z^2)} \le C < \infty.

Finally, the estimate (?) can be proved in a parallel way to the proof of part (d) of Theorem 2.4, since \mathcal{T}1(x) = \{T_N1(x)\}= 0(also see [MTX]).

We will prove it only in the case 1<p<\infty. For the cases p=1 and p=\infty, the proof follows by introducing the obvious changes. Since 2r<1, we know that \tilde I\backslash \tilde I_{2r}\neq \emptyset. Let f=f_1+f_2, where f_1=f\chi_{\tilde I_{2r}} and f_2=f(x)\chi_{\tilde I\backslash \tilde I_{2r}}. Then

By Theorem 1.1, we have

We should note that, for any j\in \mathbb Z, by Lemma 2.2,

And for 1< p < \infty and any N=(N_1, N_2), by Hölder’s inequality, (Proof), Fubini’s Theorem and Lemma 2.2 we have

For y\in \tilde I\backslash \tilde I_{2r} and x\in \tilde I_r, we have r\le |x-y|\le 2. Then, we get

Hence,

Let f\in \text{Dom}(\Delta_\lambda). Using the Plancherel theorem for Hankel transform, we have

Since \text{Dom}(\Delta_\lambda) is dense in L^2({\mathbb R}_+, dm_\lambda), T_N extends uniquely to a bounded linear operator on L^2({\mathbb R}_+, dm_\lambda). Then the proof of the theorem is complete.

i) Regarding the size condition for the kernel, we consider it into two cases:

Case 1: x\le 2|x-y|. In this case,

By Lemma 2.2 iii), we have

Case 2: x>2|x-y|. In this case, \displaystyle {x\over 2}\le y\le {3x\over 2} and

By Lemma 2.2 iii), we have

ii)  With a similar argument as above in i), we can get the proof of ii) but by using the estimates in Lemma 2.2 iv). The proof of the proposition is complete.

By Propositions 2.1 and 2.3, we know that the operator T_N is a Calderón-Zygmund operator with standard kernel. Previously, we have remarked that the constants in the L^p boundedness only depend on the initial constant in L^{p_0}(\mathbb{R}_+)(in our case p_0=2), the size constant and smoothness constant of the kernel. Hence the uniform boundedness of the operators T_N in L^p(\mathbb{R}_+, dm_\lambda) spaces is a direct consequence of the vector-valued Calderón-Zygmund theory in homogeneous type space (\mathbb R_+, |\cdot|, dm_\lambda). So, it is bounded on the weighted L_p-spaces for 1<p<\infty, and is of weak type (1,1). Then, we get the proof of (a) and (b).

For (c) and (d), we can prove them as following. The finiteness of T_N for functions in L^\infty({\mathbb R}_+, dm_\lambda) is obvious, since for each N, K_N is an integrable function. On the other hand, if f\in BMO({\mathbb R}_+, dm_\lambda), we can proceed as follows. Let I=I(x_0, r_0) and I^*=2I=I(x_0, 2r_0) with some x_0\in {\mathbb R}_+ and r_0>0. We decompose f to be

where \displaystyle f_{I }={1\over m_\lambda(I(x_0,r_0))}\int_{I(x_0,r_0)}f(y)\ dm_\lambda(y). The function f_1 is integrable, hence T_N f_1(x)<\infty, a.e.\ x\in {\mathbb R}_+. For T_N f_2, we note that, for any x\in I, y\in \{y\in \mathbb R_+: 2^k r_0<|x_0-y|\le 2^{k+1}r_0\} with k\ge 1, |x-y|\sim |y-x_0| and we claim that

In fact, we can prove (Proof) by considering the following two cases:

Case 1: x_0\le 4\cdot 2^{k}r_0. In this case,

So

Case 2: x_0 >4\cdot 2^{k}r_0. In this case,

Since x\in I and y\in \{y\in \mathbb R_+: 2^k r_0<|x_0-y|\le 2^{k+1}r_0\}, x\sim y\sim x_0. And then, we get

Then, for any t>0, by (Proof) we have

So, {\mathcal P}_t f_2(x) is finite for any x\in I and t>0. Since T_N f_2(x) is a finite summation and x_0, r_0 is arbitrary, T_N f_2(x)<\infty a.e. x\in {\mathbb R}_+. Finally we note that T_N f_3(x)\equiv 0, since {\mathcal P}_{a_j} f_3= f_{I} for any j\in \mathbb Z. Hence, T_N f(x)<\infty a.e. x\in {\mathbb R}_+. Then, by Propositions 2.1 and 2.3 we get the proof of part (c) of Theorem 2.4. Since T_N1=0, we can get the conclusion of (d).

We follow closely the ideas in the proof of Proposition 3.2 in [BLMMDT]. We include them here for completeness.

Let \eta_0=a_0, and let us construct \eta_j for positive j as follows(the argument for negative j is analogous). If \rho^2\ge {a_1/ a_0}\ge \rho, define \eta_1=a_1. In the opposite case where a_1/a_0>\rho^2, let \eta_1=\rho a_0. It verifies \rho^2\ge \eta_1/\eta_0=\rho\ge \rho. Further, a_1/\eta_1\ge \rho^2 a_0/\rho a_0=\rho. Again, if a_1/\eta_1\le \rho^2, then \eta_2=a_1. If this is not the case, define \eta_2=\rho^2 a_0\le a_1. By the same calculations as before, \eta_0, \eta_1, \eta_2 are part of a lacunary sequence satisfying (?). To continue the sequence, either \eta_3=a_1 (if a_1/ \eta_2\le \rho^2) or \eta_2=\rho^3\eta_0 (if a_1/\eta_2>\rho^2). Since \rho>1, this process ends at some j_0 such that \eta_{j_0}=a_1. The rest of the elements \eta_j are built in the same way, as the original a_k plus the necessary terms put in between two consecutive a_j to get (?). Let J(j)=\{k:a_{j-1}<\eta_j\le a_j\}, and \omega_k=v_j if k\in J(j). Then

If M=(M_1, M_2) is the number such that \eta_{M_2}=a_{N_2} and \eta_{M_1-1}=a_{N_1-1}, then we get

where \tilde{T}_M is the operator defined in (?) related with sequences \{\eta_k\}_{k\in \mathbb Z}, \{\omega_k\}_{k\in \mathbb Z} and M=(M_1, M_2).

Observe that, for any x_0\in {\mathbb R}_+ and N=(N_1, N_2),

with -M\le N_1<N_2\le M. Then, it suffices to estimate \left\vertT_{m, M} f(x_0)\right\vert for \left\vertm\right\vert\le M with constants independent of x_0, m and M. Denote I_k=I(x_0, a_k) for each k\in \mathbb Z. Let us split f as

Then, we have

For I, by Lemma 3.3 (i) we have

For part II,

(If m=-M, we understand that A_4=0.) It is clear that

For A_2, by the uniform boundedness of T_{N}, we get

For the third term A_3, with z\in I_{m-1}, by the mean value theorem (with \xi:=\theta x_0+(1-\theta)z for certain \theta\in (0,1)) and Proposition 2.3 we have

where I_{2^jm}=I(x_0, 2^ja_m) for any j\ge 1, and we have used that |z-x_0|\le {a_m/ \rho} and |y-\xi|\ge 2^{j-2}a_m when y\in I_{2^jm} \setminus I_{2^{j-1}m}. Then,

For the latest one, A_4, we have

Then, we consider the inner integral appeared in the above inequalities first. Since z\in I_{m-1}, y\in I_m^c and the sequence \{a_j\}_{j\in \mathbb Z} is \rho-lacunary sequence, we have \left\vertz-y\right\vert\sim \left\verty-x_0\right\vert. From this and by Lemma 3.3 (ii), we get

Hence,

Combining the estimates above for A_1, A_2, A_3 and A_4, we get

And then we have

As the constants C appeared above all only depend on \left\Vertv\right\Vert_{l^\infty(\mathbb Z)}, \rho and \lambda, we have proved that

This complete the proof of the theorem.

(i). We consider the following two cases:

Case 1: x\le 2a_m. In this case,

By the mean value theorem and Lemma 2.2 iii), there exists a_j\le \xi_j\le a_{j+1} such that

where we have used \displaystyle \rho\le {a_{j+1}\over a_j}\le \rho^2.

Case 2: x\ge 2a_m. In this case,

Also, by the mean value theorem and Lemma 2.2 iii), there exists a_j\le \xi_j\le a_{j+1} such that

where we have used \displaystyle \rho\le {a_{j+1}\over a_j}\le \rho^2.

Now we shall prove (ii). As in the proof of (i), we can get the desired estimation by considering the following two cases:

Case 1: x\le 2a_{k+1}. In this case,

By the mean value theorem and Lemma 2.2 iii), there exists a_j\le \xi_j\le a_{j+1} such that

Case 2: x\ge 2a_{k+1}\ge 2|x-y|. In this case,

By the mean value theorem and Lemma 2.2 iii), there exists a_j\le \xi_j\le a_{j+1} such that

where we have used that k \ge m.

First, we shall see that if \varphi is a test function, then T_N \varphi(x) converges for all x\in {\mathbb R}_+. In order to prove this, it is enough to see that for any (L,M) with 0<L<M, the series

converge to zero, when L, M\rightarrow +\infty. By the mean value theorem and the \rho-lacunarity of the sequence \{a_j\}_{j\in \mathbb Z}, we have

On the other hand, as the integral of the kernels are zero, we can write

And, then proceeding as in the case A, and by using the fact that \varphi is a test function, we have

On the other hand,

As the set of test functions is dense in L^p(\mathbb{R}_+, dm_\lambda), by Theorem 1.1 we get the a.e. convergence for any function in L^p(\mathbb{R}_+, dm_\lambda). Analogously, since L^p(\mathbb{R}_+) \cap L^p(\mathbb{R}_+, dm_\lambda)) is dense in L^p(\mathbb{R}_+, \omega dm_\lambda), we get the a.e. convergence for functions in L^p(\mathbb{R}_+, \omega dm_\lambda) with 1\le p<\infty. By using the dominated convergence theorem, we can prove the convergence in L^p(\mathbb{R}_+, \omega dm_\lambda) norm for 1<p<\infty, and also in measure.