Extrapolation of compactness on weighted mixed Lebesgue spaces

Fix q>1. By Theorem 2.1, we have that (?) implies that, for every w\in A_q(\mathbb R^{n+m}),

Let now fix v\in A_q(\mathbb R^m) and let us consider the function

and similarly define F by replacing g with f. Then, for every u\in A_q(\mathbb R^n), we clearly have that u\otimes v\in A_q(\mathbb R^{n+m}) with [u\otimes v]_{A_{q}}\le [u]_{A_{q}}[ v]_{A_{q}}, and hence

where \Phi_{q,[v]_{A_{q}}}([u]_{A_{q}})= \phi_q([u]_{A_{q}}[ v]_{A_{q}}) is an increasing function of [u]_{A_{q}}. Using Theorem 2.1, we conclude that for every 1<p<\infty there exists an increasing function \Psi_{p} depending on \Phi_{q,[v]_{A_{q}}} such that for every u\in A_p(\mathbb R^n),

Observe that \Psi_{p}([u]_{A_{p}}) is really a function \psi_{p,q}([u]_{A_p}, [v]_{A_q}) and the result follows.

By the classical result of Fefferman-Stein (?) for any 0<p,\delta<\infty, any w\in A_{\infty}(\mathbb R^{n+m})

Now, let v\in A_{\infty}(\mathbb R^m). As before, define the function

and similarly define F by

Observing that for every u\in A_{\infty}(\mathbb R^n) and v\in A_{\infty}(\mathbb R^m) we clearly have that u\otimes v\in A_{\infty}(\mathbb R^{n+m}). Moreover, if we denote by Q_n cubes in \mathbb R^n and similarly Q_m, then

and hence, we have that

Using Theorem 2.3, we conclude that, for every v\in A_{\infty}(\mathbb R^m) and every u\in A_{\infty}(\mathbb R^n),

concluding the proof of the corollary.

By the compact extrapolation result in [cst:cst] we immediately get that for all 1<p<\infty,

is uniformly compact with respect to A_{p}(\mathbb R^{n+m}).

Let us now fix K\ge 1, p, q>1 and u\in A_{p} and v\in A_q such that \max( [u]_{A_p}, [v]_{A_q})\le K. We need to verify the three conditions in Definition 3.3. We will see that they follow by applying three times Theorem 2.4.

For (1), let \|f\|_{L^p(L^q w)}\le 1. Then,

if we use (f,g)= (f,T(f)) in Theorem 2.4.

For (2), since for every K>0 and every \varepsilon>0 there exists R>0 such that

whenever [w]_{A_{p_0}}\le K, then by Theorem 2.4 with

for every u and v so that \max( [u]_{A_p}, [v]_{A_q})\le K, there exists R>0 so that

and the result follows.

Similarly, for (3) we use the extrapolation theorem with

Let d:=n+m. To prove that C_b: L^p_uL^q_v \longrightarrow L^p_uL^q_v is compact whenever u\in A_p(\mathbb R^n) and v\in A_q(\mathbb R^m), we will use the extrapolation Theorem 3.6 with exponent p_0=2, namely we have to prove that

is uniformly compact with respect to w\in A_{2}(\mathbb R^d).

We shall follow the proof of [cc:cc] checking all the details that remains open in our setting.

Step 1: Let us approximate b \in CMO by functions b_j \in C^\infty_c. By a result in [p:p], we have that, for w\in A_2(\mathbb R^d),

where |b\|_* is the BMO norm. Therefore,

and C_{b_j} \to C_b uniformly on [w]_{A_{2}(\mathbb R^d)}\le K, with K a fixed and arbitrary constant. So it is enough to verify that the C_{b_j} are uniformly compact.

Step 2: Next, for each j the operators C_{b_j} are then approximated by C^\eta_{b_j} which is the commutator obtained by replacing the kernel \mathcal{K} of T by a smooth truncated version \mathcal{K}^\eta, where \eta is an appropriate parameter. The authors of [cc:cc] show that

from which it follows that Cb^\eta_j \to Cb_j in the uniform sense as \eta \to 0.

Step 3: For a fixed b and \eta, it is then needed to prove the compactness of C_b^\eta. To this end, we will use the version of the Fréchet-Kolmogorov result in Theorem 3.1. Condition (1) is uniformly satisfied by the already mentioned estimates on the commutator. To verify (2) and (3), Clop and Cruz separate the quantities in questions into several terms. They obtained several pointwise estimates ultimately controlled by M and T_* (the maximal truncated singular integral), see [cc:cc, p.98]. These terms clearly produce uniform estimates with respect to A_{2}(\mathbb R^d).

Finally there are some terms which are dominated by expressions that can be controlled (up to constants) by

where B_0 is a fixed ball centered at the origin of radius R_0, which we can take bigger than 1, and B_x is a set depending on x but with size |B_x| \approx h where |h| \to 0; and

with R>R_0 fixed, R\to \infty; see [cc:cc, pp.99-100]. We need to show that these terms, which obviously tend to zero when h\to 0 in (?) and R\to \infty in (?), do so uniformly on [w]_{A_2}, whenever [w]_{A_2}\le K with K any fixed number.

Estimates for (?): Note that by Hölder’s inequality we get that, for any r>1,

To control (?), we shall choose r_1>1 and r_2>1 appropriately and estimate

and

To estimate I in (?), and using that w\in A_2 implies w^{-1}\in A_2 with same A_2 constant, we can choose q= 2-\varepsilon with

by the precise openness property of the A_2 class of weights (see (?) and (?)). It follows that with r_1=\frac{q'}{q}>1,

Now, fixed K and [w|_{A_2}\le K, it can be check that

and hence

which tends to zero as |h| \to 0, uniformly on [w]_{A_2}\le K.

We now estimate II in (?). Setting R_1 equal to the radius of 3B_0,

Let q be the exponent from the precise openness property as above. Then, by standard properties of the A_p class of weights (see (?)) we have that for any pair of balls B_1\subset B_2, that

and we can continue with

since q<2.

Now, taking r_2 = 1+\frac{1}{2^{d+1}[w]_{A_2}-1} \leq r_{w^{-1}} from the precise reverse Hölder property (?), we have as in (?)

and we can use again (?) and [w^{-1}]_{A_2}=[w]_{A_2} to obtain

So all together we obtain that, for some constant C_K,

which again tends to zero uniformly in [w]_{A_2}\le K as |h| \to 0.

Estimate for (?):

We have, as before, that since q<2,

Also, for the first factor in (?) we use again (?),

So combining all the estimates, (?) is controlled up to a constant by

which tends to zero uniformly on [w]_{A_2}\le K as R\to \infty.