Asymptotic polynomial approximation in the Bloch space

Step 1: Dual reformulation of sets of rigidity:

Note that if the set \mathcal{L}_A(X') is empty, then Khrushchev’s lemma implies that A satisfies the SA-property wrt X, and hence \mathcal{P}_A(X) cannot be irreducible. Now suppose that the set \mathcal{L}_A(X') is non-empty and we shall in fact argue that it must be dense in L^1(A). Note that since X was assumed to be M_z-invariant, a straightforward computation of its formal transpose in X' reveals that M_z ': X' \to X'. Furthermore, a routine computation involving Cauchy kernels shows that

whenever h\in L^1(\partial\mathbb{D}), hence we conclude that \mathcal{L}_A(X') is invariant under the operation h \mapsto \overline{\zeta}h(\zeta). Now if the non-empty set \mathcal{L}_A(X') is not dense in L^1(A), then there exists an element f\in L^\infty(A) which annihilates it, thus

for any h \in \mathcal{L}_A(X'). According to the F. and M. Riesz Theorem, f \overline{h}1_{A} must agree with the boundary values of an H^1-function, but since A does not have full Lebesgue measure on \partial\mathbb{D}, we conclude that f\overline{h}=0 on A. Since h\neq 0 dm-a.e on A, we are forced to conclude that f=0 identically as an element in L^\infty(A), which is absurd and \mathcal{L}_A(X') is therefore dense in L^1(A). Now let (Q_n)_n be a sequence of analytic polynomials with the property that Q_n \to 0 in X and Q_n \to f weak-star in L^\infty(A). Then, for any h \in L^1(A) with the property that C(h) \in X', we have

Now since \mathcal{L}_A(X') was dense in L^1(A), we conclude that f=0 on A, hence A is a set of rigidity for X.

Step 2: Density of \mathcal{K}_A(X'): We primarily note that since X is M_z-invariant, an simple computation of the transpose of M_z implies that the Cauchy dual X' is M'_z-invariant. This means that \mathcal{K}_A(X') regarded as a subset of C(L^1) is M_z '-invariant. Now suppose that \mathcal{K}_A(X') is not dense in C(L^1), then according to ? there exists a non-trivial inner function \Theta such that

This implies that for any h \in L^1(A) with C(h) \in X' satisfies

By the F. and M. Riesz Theorem, \Theta\overline{h} agrees with the boundary values of an H^1-function, but since h vanishes off the set A (a set of positive Lebesgue measure) and \@ifstar{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}}{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}*}}{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}}{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}*}*}{\Theta} =1 dm-a.e on \partial\mathbb{D}, we conclude that h \equiv 0 for any h \in L^1(A) with C(h) \in X'. But this implies that \mathcal{K}_A(X') =\{0\}, which according to Khrushchev’s Lemma implies that A satisfies the SA-property wrt X, contradicting the initial assumption that \mathcal{P}_A(X) was irreducible. We therefore conclude that \mathcal{K}_A(X') = C(L^1) and the proof is complete.

Since the statement is phrased modulo sets of Lebesgue measure zero, and sets of full Lebesgue measure are always sets of rigidity for X, we may assume that 0<|E|<1.

Step 1: Constructing sets of rigidity:

Consider the quantity

We shall for a moment assume that the above set is non-empty. First we note that it is straightforward to verify that if A_1, A_2 are both sets of rigidity for X, then so is their union A_1 \cup A_2. We may therefore pick a chain of subsets A_N \subseteq A_{N+1} of E with the property that \@ifstar{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}}{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}*}}{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}}{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}*}*}{A_N} increase up to \iota(X,E). Setting A := \cup_N A_N we see that \@ifstar{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}}{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}*}}{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}}{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}*}*}{A} = \iota(X,E) and it remains to verify that \mathcal{P}_A(X) is irreducible. To this end, let \{Q_n\}_n be analytic polynomials which converge to (0,f) in X \oplus L^\infty(A). Now since each \mathcal{P}_{A_N}(X) is irreducible it follows that f = 0 on each A_N. But since \{A_N\}_N is an exhaustion of A we get that 1_{A_N} f \to 1_A f pointwise on \partial\mathbb{D}, thus f=0 on A and \mathcal{P}_A(X) is therefore irreducible.

Step 2: The subset satisfying the SA-property:

Set S := E \setminus A in case A is non-trivial and S=E in case A is the empty set, and it remains to verify that S satisfies the SA-property wrt X. Arguing by duality using ?, suppose the exists an element h \in L^1(S) such that C(h) is a non-trivial element in X'. Now if S_0 denotes a carrier set for h, then it follows from ? that \mathcal{P}_{S_0}(X) is irreducible. But then \mathcal{P}_{A \cup S_0}(X) is also irreducible, which contradictions the maximality of A, since \@ifstar{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}}{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}*}}{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}}{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}*}*}{A} + \@ifstar{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}}{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}*}}{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}}{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}*}*}{S_0} = \@ifstar{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}}{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}*}}{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}}{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}*}*}{A \cup S_0} > \iota(X,E). We therefore conclude that S satisfies the SA-property wrt X.

Step 3: Verifying the Chaumat-type decomposition: Note since \mathcal{P}_A(X) was proved to be irreducible, we may \mathcal{P}_E(X) regarded as a closed subspace of \mathcal{P}_A(X) \oplus L^\infty(S), hence it remains to prove the reverse containment. Let \ell \in \mathcal{P}_E(X)^\perp be an element in the annihilator of \mathcal{P}_E(X) \subseteq X \oplus L^\infty(E), regarded as a subspace of (X \oplus L^\infty(E) )' \cong X' \oplus L^1(E). Then \ell = (f,h) \in X' \oplus L^1(E) and we seek the annihilator for which the carrier set of h has maximal Lebesgue measure.

Note that elements (f,h) \in \mathcal{P}_E(X)^\perp satisfy the property that

where f_n are the Taylor coefficients of f and \widehat{h}(n) are the Fourier coefficients of h. This implies that -f = C(h) with h\in L^1(E) and is a non-trivial element in X', whenever f is. Now since A\subseteq E was the subset for which \@ifstar{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}}{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}*}}{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}}{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}*}*}{A} was maximal and \mathcal{P}_A(X) irreducible, it follows by ? that there exists an element h\in L^1(A) with h\neq 0 dm-a.e on A and C(h) \in X' \setminus \{0\}, and no carrier set of an element h \in L^1(E) with (f,h) \in \mathcal{P}_E(X)^{\perp} can exceed A. This implies that any \mathcal{P}_E(X)^{\perp} \subseteq \mathcal{P}_A(X)^{\perp} \oplus \{0\} (actually equality), where the later expression is regarded as a subspace of X' \oplus L^1(A) \oplus L^1(S). Taking pre-annihilators (c.f. Ch. 4.7 in [rudin1973functional]), we arrive at \mathcal{P}_E(X) \supseteq \mathcal{P}_A(X) \oplus L^\infty(S). This completes the proof.

As an immediate consequence of ?, it only remains to establish the claims on conformal invariance of the SA-sets and the sets of rigidity. To this end, let E be a Lebesgue measurable set E\subseteq \partial\mathbb{D} which is the carrier set of an element h \in L^1(\partial\mathbb{D}) with C(h) \in W^1_a(w) \neq \{0\}. We primarily note that the Cauchy transform of the translate h_t(\zeta) := h(e^{-it}\zeta) is carried on the translated set E+t = \{e^{it} \zeta: \zeta \in E \} and again belongs to W^1_a(w). According to ?, we conclude that sets for rigidity are invariant under rotations. Next, we fix a number \lambda \in \mathbb{D} and consider the automorphism on \mathbb{D}, defined by

and recall that \phi_\lambda \circ \phi_\lambda (z)= z. Using a change a variable and carrying out some basic algebraic manipulations, we can show that

In a similar way, this calculation in conjunction with ? implies that sets of rigidity are invariant under compositions with automorphisms \phi_\lambda, for any \lambda\in \mathbb{D}. Since any conformal self-map on \mathbb{D} is a composition of a rotation and automorphism of the form \phi_{\lambda}, we conclude that sets of rigidity for \mathcal{B}_0(w) are conformally invariant. We now turn to the conformal invariance of SA-sets, so let E be an SA-set for \mathcal{B}_0(w) and suppose for sake of obtaining a contradiction, that there exists an automorphism \phi on \mathbb{D} such that \phi(E) is not an SA-set for \mathcal{B}_0(w). According to ?, there exists a subset S \subseteq \phi(E) of positive Lebesgue measure, such that S is a set of rigidity for \mathcal{B}_0(w). But the conformal invariance of sets of rigidity in \mathcal{B}_0(w) implies that \phi^{-1}(S) \subseteq E is also a set of rigidity for \mathcal{B}_0(w). But E was assumed to be an SA-set for \mathcal{B}_0(w) and the restriction principle for SA-sets in ? therefore gives the desired contradiction. The proof is now complete.

Note that whenever f\in \mathcal{B}_0(w), then for any arc I

where Q_I = \{z\in \mathbb{D}: z/|z| \in I, 1-|z| \leq |I| \} denotes the Carleson square associated to I. Now if \int_0^1 w^2(t)/t dt < \infty holds, then \mathcal{B}_0(w) is contained in VMOA (cf. [cauchytransform] for definition) and thus also in the classical Hardy space H^2. One can now finish the proof by appealing to the classical Theorem of Khinchin and Ostrowski (for instance, see [havinbook]), but for the sake of completeness we give a short and simple proof. Suppose E\subset \partial\mathbb{D} is a measurable set and \{Q_n\}_n is a sequence of analytic polynomials with the properties that Q_n \to f in C(E) and Q_n \to 0 in \mathcal{B}_0(w). By the previous argument, Q_n \to 0 in H^2, hence passing to a subsequence if necessary and by means of applying Egoroff’s Theorem, we conclude that f is a H^2-function which vanishes on dm-a.e E. Therefore, whenever condition (2.1) fails, any measurable set of positive Lebesgue measure is a set of rigidity for \mathcal{B}_0(w).

Set G_{\varepsilon,\delta} := 1-F_{\varepsilon, \delta} as above and observe that G_{\varepsilon,\delta}(0)=0 while \@ifstar{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}}{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}*}}{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}}{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}*}*}{G_{\varepsilon,\delta}-1} = \varepsilon off I_{\delta}. Fix a number \eta>0 to be specified in a moment and pick a non-constant inner function \theta_\eta according to ? such that the corresponding composition operator C(\theta_\eta): H^\infty \to \mathcal{B}_0(w) with \@ifstar{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\norm}{\norm*}}{\@ifstar{\norm}{\norm*}*}}{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\norm}{\norm*}}{\@ifstar{\norm}{\norm*}*}*}}{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\norm}{\norm*}}{\@ifstar{\norm}{\norm*}*}}{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\norm}{\norm*}}{\@ifstar{\norm}{\norm*}*}*}*}{C(\theta_\eta)}\leq \eta. Consider the sets E_{\varepsilon, \delta}(\eta)= \partial\mathbb{D} \setminus \theta^{-1}_\eta(I_\delta), which on account of Proposition 9.1.18 in [cauchytransform] and some customary modifications, may be taken to be Borel measurable. Recall that since \theta_\eta(0)=0, Löwner’s lemma ensures that \@ifstar{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}}{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}*}}{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}}{\@ifstar{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}}{\@ifstar{\abs}{\abs*}*}*}*}{E_{\varepsilon, \delta}(\eta)}= 1 -\delta. Now picking \eta = \varepsilon/(1+N(\varepsilon,\delta) ) and applying ?, we get

Given a number 0<\gamma <1, we may pick a sequence \{\delta_j\}_j such that \sum_j \delta_j \leq \gamma. Now set E := \cap_j E_{1/j, \delta_j}(\eta_j) where \eta_j := N(1/j,\delta_j)/j, and note that Löwners lemma again implies that E has measure no smaller than 1-\gamma. Set f_j = C(\theta_{\eta_j})G_{1/j, \delta_j} and observe that \{f_j\}_j are bounded analytic functions in \mathcal{B}_0(w) with f_j \to 0 in \mathcal{B}_0(w) and f_j \to 1 uniformly on E. We shall now need the following lemma, whose proofs follows from a simple approximation argument involving dilations and is therefore omitted.

Continuing where we left off, we may according to ? find a sequence of analytic polynomials \{Q_j\}_j such that Q_j converges to 0 in \mathcal{B}_0(w) and Q_j converges to 1 in L^p(E), for any p>0. The proof now follows by passing to an appropriate subsequence and applying Egoroff’s theorem. It follows that the tuple (0,1) belongs to \mathcal{P}_E(\mathcal{B}_0(w)), which completes the proof.

Note that the equivalence between (i)-(iii) actually follows from ?, hence it remains only to establish the equivalence between (i) and (iv). To this end, suppose E is a set of positive Lebesgue measure, which does not satisfy the SA-property wrt \mathcal{B}_0(w). Then by Khrushchev’s lemma, there exists a function h \in L^1(E) such that its Cauchy transform C(h) is a non-zero element in W^1_a(w). According to ?, the function

defines an element in \mathscr{B}_w(\partial\mathbb{D}). Write h= u +i v, where u, v \in L^1(E) are the real and imaginary parts of h, respectively. Observe that

where P_z denotes the Poisson kernel and Q_z denotes the conjugate kernel. Using standard properties of boundary values, we conclude that

where H denotes the Hilbert transform, which is enough to deduce that (iii) holds. Conversely, suppose there exists a non-trivial pair of real-valued functions u, v \in L^1(E) with the property that

Then u+H(v) is non-constant, otherwise 0= H(u+H(v)) = H(u) -v. According to ?, we have that that C(u+H(v)) belongs to W^1_a(w), and is non-trivial since the sum u + H(v) is assumed to be non-constant and real-valued. Consider the L^1(\partial\mathbb{D})-function h:= u -iv, which is also carried on the set E, and let F:= C(h) denote its Cauchy transform. Note that by a straightforward expansion into Fourier series, we have

This implies that

This means that the real-part of F= C(h) agrees with the real-part of a non-trivial element in W^1_a(w), hence Khrushchev’s lemma implies that E is not an SA-set wrt \mathcal{B}_0(w). Again, if E is a carrier set of either u or v, then E is a also a carrier set of h= u-iv and the claim on sets of rigidity follows from ?.

Actually follows from the fact that the condition (2.6) ensures that the indicator function 1_E belongs to the Besov space B^1 \equiv \mathscr{B}_1, hence an application of ? implies that E cannot be an SA-set for \mathcal{B}_0. Moreover, given a compact set K, we set

and observe that a simply argument involving geometry shows that

Recalling that K has finite Beurling-Carleson entropy if and only if the condition

holds (c.f [ransforddbrdirichlet], Exercise 9.4.1), we conclude that condition (2.6) is satisfied for sets of finite Beurling-Carleson entropy.

Step 1: (ii) implies (i): Suppose that K \subset \partial\mathbb{D} is compact which is not removable for W^1_a. Then there exists a non-constant function F, holomorphic in \mathbb{C} \setminus K, such that

Now let F_0:=F \lvert_{\mathbb{D}} and note that since F_0 \in W^{1}_a(\mathbb{D}), we have according to ? that the radial limit of F_0 belongs to B^1(\partial\mathbb{D}). Observe also that by a simple argument involving subharmonicity, we have that

This implies that F'(\lambda) tends to zero at infinity and F' is holomorphic there, hence so is F. We may therefore consider the holomorphic function F_1 on \mathbb{D}, defined by

A straightforward calculation involving a change of variable shows that

This shows that F_1 belongs to W^1_a(\mathbb{D}), and another application of ? implies that the radial limit of F_1 also belongs to B^1(\partial\mathbb{D}). This implies that we can define the B^1(\partial\mathbb{D})-function

Since F extends holomorphically off K, we must have that h vanishes on \partial\mathbb{D} \setminus K, which proves that h is a B^1(\partial\mathbb{D})-function supported in K.

Step 2: (i) implies (ii):

Let h be a non-trivial function in B^1(\partial\mathbb{D}) supported in K, which we may assume is real-valued. Let Q be a trigonometric polynomial with real-coefficients to be chosen later and note that the product Q(\zeta) h(\zeta) is also an element in B^1(\partial\mathbb{D}), which according to ? implies that its Cauchy transform

is a non-trivial element in W^{1}_a(\mathbb{D}). Observe that C(Q h) extends holomorphically to \mathbb{C} \setminus K, hence in order to show that it belongs to W^1_a(\mathbb{C} \setminus K), it remains to verify that

However, since Qh is real-valued, a simple change of variable z\mapsto 1/\overline{\lambda} and the identity

readily implies that

The idea is now to choose the trigonometric polynomial Q such that C'(Qh)(0)=0. We make the simple ansatz Q(\zeta)= a\zeta + 1 for some a \in \mathbb{R} and seek to solve

If \int_{K}hdm=0, then we set a=0, otherwise a=- \int_K \overline{\zeta}hdm / \int_K h dm. With that particular choice of Q, we have that C(Q h)'(\lambda)/\lambda is holomorphic on \mathbb{D}, hence applying ?, and recalling the expression in (?), we obtain

We therefore conclude that C(Qh) belongs to W^1_a(\mathbb{C} \setminus K). To complete the proof it remains to observe that

in the sense of distributions, where \partial_{\bar{z}}= (\partial_x + i \partial_y)/2, with x,y being the real and imaginary parts of z, respectively, and c_1 \neq 0 is a numerical constant. By the assumption on h, this implies that C(Qh) does not extend holomorphically across the carrier set of h, hence K is not a removable set for W^1_a.

Step 3: Equivalence between (ii) and (iii):

If there exists a non-trivial element g \in B^1(\partial\mathbb{D}) which is supported on K, then evidently

It follows that C_K^\infty(\partial\mathbb{D}) cannot be dense in \lambda_1(\partial\mathbb{D}). Conversely, if C_K^\infty(\partial\mathbb{D}) is not dense in \lambda_1(\partial\mathbb{D}), then it follows by duality between B^1(\partial\mathbb{D}) and \lambda_1(\partial\mathbb{D}) and the Hahn-Banach separation Theorem, that there exists a non-trivial element g\in B^1(\partial\mathbb{D}) such that

holds. We conclude g must vanish dm-a.e off K, hence the claim follows. Note that a similar argument also proves the equivalence to the statement that C_K^\infty(\partial\mathbb{D}) is weak-star dense in \Lambda_1(\partial\mathbb{D}).

Step 4: Negligible \Lambda_1-condenser capacity: This is an immediate consequence of the density of C_K^\infty(\partial\mathbb{D}) is dense in the little-o Zygmund class \lambda_1(\partial\mathbb{D}) and the equivalence between (i) and (iii).

Step 1: K is a set of rigidity for \mathcal{B}_0:

By means of substituting w^A by w and recalling that the w-entropy condition remains unchanged, we may assume that w satisfies the Dini-condition

Let K \subset \partial\mathbb{D} be a set of finite w-entropy and recall that according to ?, we can find an outer function f: \mathbb{D} \to \mathbb{D} such that F := f 1_{\partial\mathbb{D} \setminus K} belongs to C_w(\partial\mathbb{D}). Note that by analyticity, we clearly have

Rearranging this expression, we get

However, since \overline{F(\zeta)\zeta} \in C_w(\partial\mathbb{D}), ? implies that its Cauchy transform C(\overline{\zeta}F) belongs to W^1_a(\mathbb{D}), hence so does the left hand side in (Proof). Consequently, the L^1-function h(\zeta): = 1_{K}(\zeta)\overline{f(\zeta)\zeta} has carrier set K and enjoys the property that C(h)\in W^1_a, which on account of ? shows that K is a set of rigidity for \mathcal{B}_0.

Step 2: Embedding into the Nevanlinna class:

We primarily note that by the Dini assumption on w, we have

To see this, note that

Let \Gamma_K denote a Stolz-Privalov domain associated to K and note that since \Gamma_K is rectifiable, it follows from the F. and M. Riesz Theorem that d\omega_z is mutually absolutely continuous wrt the arc-length measure on \Gamma_K, for each fixed \lambda \in \Gamma_K. Since K has finite w-entropy, we may utilize ? and consider the holomorphic function f_K: \mathbb{D} \to \mathbb{D} and observe that f_K is then absolutely convergent wrt d\omega_\lambda on \partial \Gamma_K. Fix an analytic polynomial Q and note that by subharmonicity and the reproducing property of harmonic measure, we have

To estimate the integral inside the disc \mathbb{D}, we use (Proof) in conjunction with (6.1) to get

On the other hand, we also have

Since these bounds are uniform in \lambda \in \Gamma_K, we actually conclude that the multiplication with f_K extends to a continuous linear operator from \mathcal{P}_K \mathcal{B}_0 into the Hardy space of bounded analytic functions H^\infty(\Gamma_K). This implies that for any element (g,g^*) \in \mathcal{P}_K \mathcal{B}_0, g has finite non-zero non-tangential limit G on \partial \Gamma_K, which by means of possibly enlarging the aperture of each Stolz angle in \Gamma_K, must be an essentially bounded function there and agree with g on \partial \Gamma_K \cap \mathbb{D} and with g^* dm-a.e on the subset K := \partial \Gamma_K \cap \partial\mathbb{D}. In other words, G\in L^\infty(\partial \Gamma_K) with G=g^* dm-a.e on K and G=g on \partial \Gamma_K \cap \mathbb{D}. Now since, d\omega_\lambda is absolutely continuous wrt arc-length measure on \partial \Gamma_K, we have by the reproducing formula that

This gives the improved embedding \mathcal{P}_K \mathcal{B}_0 \hookrightarrow H^\infty(\Omega_K), and completes the proof of the Theorem.

Let w be a majorant with the properties that

but such that

for some number \delta>0. Now let K be set of positive Lebesgue measure on \partial\mathbb{D}, which satisfies the SA-property wrt \mathcal{B}_0(w), whose existence is guaranteed by ? in view of condition (i) above. According to Khrushchev’s lemma, we can pick analytic polynomials (Q_n)_n, which converge to 0 in \mathcal{B}_0(w) and weak-star in L^\infty(K) to 1. At the cost of slightly shrinking the Lebesgue measure of K, passing to an appropriate convex combination of the analytic polynomials (Q_n)s, applying Egoroff’s theorem and appealing to the restriction principles in ?, we may assume that K is compact in \partial\mathbb{D}, and that Q_n converges uniformly to 1 on K. Now by the trivial containment \mathcal{B}_0(w) \subseteq \mathcal{B}_0, we also have that K satisfies the SA-property wrt \mathcal{B}_0. Recall that a straightforward application of the fundamental theorem of calculus in conjunction with condition (ii) on the majorant w above, implies that for any functions f in \mathcal{B}_0(w), the following radial growth condition holds:

However, this means that Q_n also converges to 0 in the growth space \mathcal{G}_{w^{1+\delta}} above (see also the introduction for a formal definition), and uniformly to 1 on K, hence K also satisfies the SA-property wrt \mathcal{G}_{w^{1+\delta}}. According to Khrushchev’s Theorem (see Theorem 3.1 in [khrushchev1978problem]), this implies that K cannot almost contain any set of finite w-entropy.

Let E be a set satisfying the SA-property wrt to \mathcal{B}_0(w) and define the outer function b_w=b:\mathbb{D} \to \mathbb{D} by

Then b is clearly extreme, and according to ?, a function f \in H^2 belongs to \mathcal{H}(b) if and only if there exists f_+ \in L^2(E) such that

But since F=T_{\overline{b}}(f) belongs to \mathcal{H}(b) whenever f does (for instance, apply Fubini’s Theorem and ?), we get that

is an element in \mathcal{H}(b). But E was assumed to satisfy the SA-property wrt \mathcal{B}_0, hence according to ? this is only possible if f_+\equiv 0 and thus f\equiv 0, since T_{\overline{b}} is injective for b outer. This proves that W^1_a(w) \cap \mathcal{H}(b)=\{0\}. To prove the second statement, it suffices to show that every holomorphic function f in \mathbb{D} which satisfies

must necessary belong to W^1_a(w). By means of applying the triangle inequality, it suffices to verify that

for any majorant w. This task is accomplished by first using the monotonicity of w to estimate

For the second part, we utilize the majorant assumption of w, which implies the inequality w(1-r) \leq (1-r)^\alpha n^\alpha w(1/n) for 1-r\geq 1/n, where 0<\alpha <1 is a fixed number. Using this in conjunction with well-known relationship between Euler Beta-functions and asymptotics of Gamma functions, we get