Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstra
t. To study the existen
e and regularity, even just partial regularity (smoothness ex-
ept for a
losed ex
eptional set of some measure or
apa
ity zero) for higher order (nonlinear)
ellipti
equations (systems), we intend to develop a nonlinear potential analysis on Morrey
spa
es, fra
tional Riesz potentials, fra
tional maximal fun
tions, and Morrey
apa
ities of two
dierent types.
1. Introdu
tion
As early as 1938, C.B. Morrey had introdu
ed an Lp -growth
ondition on the gradient
of solutions of
ertain partial dierential equations (PDE's) in two spa
e dimension that
insured their
ontinuity in their domain of existen
e. This
ondition, whi
h now bares
his name, has be
ome a well known and highly useful tool for studying existen
e and
regularity, even just partial regularity (smoothness ex
ept for a
losed ex
eptional set of
some measure or
apa
ity zero) for single higher order ellipti
equations (e.g. biharmoni
equation) or se
ond order nonlinear ellipti
systems.
Sin
e su
h solutions
an usually be represented as a potential { perhaps as a Riesz
or modied Riesz potential of their derivatives { it is
lear that a systemati
study of
potentials of fun
tions that satisfy Morrey's
ondition would be of interest in PDE resear
h,
the purpose of thisp note (motivated by the su
essp of the study of potentials of fun
tions
that belong to L , the so
alled nonlinear or L potential theory) is to begin su
h an
investigation. Some of the elements are already in the literature, espe
ially beginning with
the early systemati
work of G. Stampa
hia [S℄ and S. Campanato [C℄ in the mid 1960's;
see also [P℄. A lemma that has also been of some use (Lemma 4.3 below, taken from [A1℄)
is a version of the
lassi
al Sobolev Embedding Theorem for Morrey
lass potentials rather
than the usual Lebesgue
lass potentials.
1991 Mathemati
s Subje
t Classi
ation: Primary 42A16, 46E30, 47B38.
Key words and phrases: Nonlinear potentials, Morrey spa
es, Morrey
apa
ities, CSI.
Typeset by AMS-TEX
1
2 D.R. ADAMS AND J. XIAO
Here, we intend to develop some of the analogues of the Lp -potential theory in
luding:
(i) a study of the pre-dual spa
e of a Morrey spa
e; (ii) a study of the equivalen
e of
the Riesz potential of a Borel measure versus the fra
tional maximal fun
tion of the same
measure, now in the Morrey norm; and (iii) to begin to develop a theory of
apa
ities that
is naturally asso
iated with the potentials of fun
tions from a Morrey spa
e or from its
pre-dual spa
e.
There is prior work on pre-dual spa
es for a xed Morrey spa
e Lp; , due to C.T. Zorko
[Z℄, the Z q; spa
e, and E.A. Kalita [K℄, the spa
e K q;. In this note, we produ
e a third
spa
e, H q;, pre-dual to Lp; and then we demonstrate that all three predual spa
es
oin
ide
(with equivalent norms); Theorem 3.3. Furthermore, it is this versatility of pre-dual spa
es
that really fa
ilitates all the
al
ulations involving the
apa
ities of Se
tions 5, 6 and 7.
The equivalen
e of the Morrey norms of the Riesz potential of a Borel measure and
the fra
tional maximal fun
tion of the same measure is an extension of an earlier result of
Mu
kenhoupt-Wheeden [MuW℄; see Theorem 4.2 below. The 1974 M-W result
orresponds
to = n in our result. It is the equivalen
e for < n that allows us to estimate the
apa
ity C (; H q;) on a ball B (x; r) from below as the radius r tends to zero; Theorem
6.4. Here we nd an analogue of the Wol potential from the standard Lp -theory; see also
[AH, p. 110℄.
The theory of
apa
ities for potentials of fun
tions of either the Morrey spa
e Lp; or its
pre-dual H q;, q = p=(p 1); p > 1, is developed in Se
tions 5 and 6 below; see denitions
for C (; Lp;) in Se
tion 5 and C (; H q;) in Se
tion 6. We note here that one is based
on a dual spa
e, Lp;, and the other on a spa
e, H q;, not ne
essarily a dual spa
e. If we
represent the rst by a general symbol C (; X ) and the se
ond by C (; X ), we now propose
to
lassify
apa
ities like C (; X ) as type I
apa
ities, and C (; X ) as type II
apa
ities.
Note that if the spa
e X is re
exive, then C (; X ) will be both of type I and type II.
Moreover,1
a standard
apa
ity
1
in
lassi
al potential theory
an nbe
onsidered as type I, with
X = L M; where L =the set of all Radon measures on R with nite total variation,
and M = the set of all Radon measures (lo
ally nite regular signed Borel measures) on R n .
The
orresponding type II
apa
ity is rather uninteresting (based loosely on X = L1 ).
Further, we show below (Theorem 5.1 and Corollary 6.2) that C (; X ) Cap(; X ), and
C (; X ) Cap(; X ), denoting \having the same null sets". Here Cap represents the
usual \dual
apa
ity" { it is usually based on the potentials of measures in M.
Finally, we investigate
apa
ity strong-type inequalities (CSI) for our
apa
ities
C (; H q;) and C (; Lp;). We get a very strong version for the type I
ase (Theorem
7.4) but no CSIp for the type II
ase (Example 5.4). Note that the CSI for C (; Lp),
the standard L -Riesz
apa
ity (see [AH℄), is intermediate between these two extreme
situations. Putting everything into Choquet-Lorentz notation (Remark 5.6), the rst
ase
is I H q; L(q;1)(C (; H q;)), whenever 0 < < < n and = < q < 1; the se
ond is
I Lp; 6 L(p;
) (C (; Lp;)) for ; 2 (0; n), 1 < p < =, and any 0 <
< 1.
We would like to thank S.M. Elery and R. Hurri-Syrjanen for their typing assistan
e.
2. Morrey Spa
es
2.1. Denition. Let 1 < p < 1, 0 n, and f 2 Lplo
(R n ). Then we shall say that f
NONLINEAR POTENTIAL ANALYSIS ON MORREY SPACES AND THEIR CAPACITIES 3
Here and hen
eforth, (d1) , 0 < d n, denotes the d-dimensional Hausdor
apa
ity,
that is, X
(d1) (E ) = inf rjd ;
where the inmum is taken over all
ountable
overings of E R n by open balls of radius
rj .
The following is a new
hara
terization of the Morrey spa
e:
2.3. Theorem. Let 1 < p < 1 and 0 < < n. Then
Z 1=p
kf kLp; = sup jf j ! ;
p (2.1)
! Rn
where the supremum is taken over all nonnegative fun
tions ! on R n with
k!kL (n1) 1:
1 ( ) (2.2)
4 D.R. ADAMS AND J. XIAO
for k!kL (n1 ) 1. Consequently, the right-hand side of (2.1) is not greater than the
1 ( )
Then Z
k!0kL (n1) = r0 n d(n1) = 1:
( )
B(x ;r )
1
0 0
sin
e if g 2 H q;, then take ! su
h that RRn jgjq !1 q < 1. Then it follows that jgj! 1=p is
nite almost everywhere. This implies that g must be zero a.e. ! is zero. Thus,
hf; gi kf kLp; kgkH q; :
In parti
ular, every fun
tion f 2 Lp; indu
es a bounded linear fun
tional on H q;.
Conversely, suppose L isn a bounded linear fun
tional on H q; with theq norm kLk < 1.
Fix a ball B (x0; r0) R . If g is supported in B (x0; r0) and f 2 L (B (x0; r0)) (the
q -Lebesgue integrable spa
e on B (x0 ; r0 )), then
Z !1=q
kgkH q; = inf
!
jgjq !1 q :
B(x0 ;r0 )
Z !1=q
kgkH q; r0( n)(1 q) jgjq :
B(x0 ;r0 )
Hen
e L indu
es a bounded linear fun
tional on Lq (B (x0; r0)), and a
ts with some fun
tion
f B 2 Lp (B (x0; r0 )). By taking Bj = B (0; j ), j = 1; 2; 3; :::, we have f Bj = f BjR on Bj , so +1
we get a single fun
tion f on R n that is lo
ally in Lp, and su
h that L(g) = Rn fg when
g 2 H q; with support in some ball of R n . If g = 1B(x ;r ) jf jp f 1 then 0 0
Z Z !1=q
jL(g)j = jf jp kLk r0( n)(1 q) jf j(p 1)q :
B(x0 ;r0 ) B(x0 ;r0 )
The spa
e Z q; is dened by the set of all fun
tions f on R n with the norm
n X o
kf kZ q; = inf kf
k gkl : f = 1
k ak < 1;
k
where ak is a (q; n )-atom and kf
k gk = Pk j
k j < 1, and the inmum is takenn over
all possible atomi
de
ompositions of f . Additionally, we say that a fun
tion a on R is an
(q; n )-atom provided that a is supported on a ball B R n and satises
kakq 1 ; 1=p + 1=q = 1:
jB j(n )=(np)
Se
ond, in 1998, E.A. Kalita obtained another des
ription of the predual spa
e of a
Morrey spa
e as follows.
3.2 Theorem [K, Theorem 1℄. Let p 2 (1; 1), 1=p + 1=q = 1 and 2 (0; n). Then R a
predual spa
e of Lp; is K q; in the following sense: if g 2 Lp; and f 2 K q; , then Rn fg
is an element of (K q;) . Moreover, for any L 2 (K q; ) , there exists g 2 Lp; su
h that
Z
L(f ) = fg; f 2 K q;:
Rn
and where the inmum is taken over all 2 M+ (R n++1 ) (the
lass of all nonnegative Radon
measures on the upper half spa
e Rn++1 = f(x; r) : x 2 R n ; r > 0g) with normalization
(R n++1 ) = 1. Here and afterwards, 1E is the
hara
teristi
fun
tion of the set E .
Note that throughout we will often use the notation A B to denote
omparability of
the quantities, i.e., there are two nite positive
onstants
1 and
2 (independent of A and
B ) satisfying
1 B A
2 B . Similarly, we say that A & B resp. A . B if only the rst
inequality resp. the se
ond inequality holds.
Therefore, a very natural question arises: What is the relationship between those three
predual spa
es? Below is the answer.
3.3 Theorem. Let q = p=(p 1), p 2 (1; 1) and 2 (0; n). Then Z q; = K q; = H q;
with
k kZ q; k kK q; k kH q; : (3.1)
NONLINEAR POTENTIAL ANALYSIS ON MORREY SPACES AND THEIR CAPACITIES 7
Proof. In what follows, we always make the following
onvention: 1=p +1=q = 1, p 2 (1; 1)
and 2 (0; n).
We prove Theorem 3.3 by verifying
K q; H q; Z q; K q; :
Step 1. K q; H q;R.
Note that if !(x) = jy xj<r r (n ) d(y; r) where is as above, then by the Corollary
to Proposition 1 in [A3℄, it follows that
Z Z
k!kL (n1) .
1 ( )
n+1
r (n ) 1R (jx
1 y j < r)d(n1) (x)d (y; r) . 1:
R+ R n +
Here and hereafter, `(J ) denotes the edge length of a
ube J of sides parallel to the axes
of R n .
Now, we x k 2 Z and
onsider S the
olle
tion I of all dyadi
ubes I in R whi
h are
n
unions of thePJj;k , namely I = fJj;k : Jj;kP
I g. Note that I need not be one of the
Jj;k . Sin
e j `(Jj;k ) n < 1, we have j `(Jj;k )n < 1;
onsequently the unions of
the Jj;k
annot form arbitrarily large dyadi
ubes, so ea
h Jj;k must be in
luded in some
maximal S dyadi
S
ube I 2 I . Enumerate these maximal
ubes as a sequen
e fIm;k gm=1 .
1
Then j Jj;k = m Im;k and the interiors of any two Im;k 's are disjoint. Noti
ing
8 D.R. ADAMS AND J. XIAO
X
`(Im;k )n `(Jj;k )n
Jj;k Im;k
as well as 0 < < n, we nd that X
`(Im;k )n `(Jj;k )n :
Jj;k Im;k
Be
ause ea
h Jj;k is
ontained in a unique Im;k , we have
X X X X
`(Im;k )n `(Jj;k )n = `(Im;k )n ;
m m Jj;k Im;k m
and X
`(Ij;k )n < 2(n1) (Ek ):
j
S
Sin
e R n = k Ek , it follows that R
n = Sk;j Ij;k . Upon dening
[
j;k = Ij;k n Il;k+1 ;
l
we see Rn = [j;k j;k , and with this, we obtain f = Pj;k
j;k aj;k , where
Z 1=q
j;k = `(Ij;k ) (n )=p jf jq
j;k
and Z 1=q
aj;k = f 1j;k `(Ij;k ) (n )=p jf jq :
j;k
It is easy to
he
k that ea
h aj;k is a (q; n )-atom. To prove that f 2 Z q;, it remains to
verify that f
j;k g is l1 -summable. For this, noting the following two fa
ts: k!kL (n1) 1 1 ( )
and !(x) 2k+1 as x 2 j;k (in fa
t, x 2 j;k implies x 2= Sl Ij;k+1, then x 2= Ek+1 and
hen
e !(x) 2k+1), we apply Holder's inequality to get
X Z 1=q
kf
j;k gkl .
1 `(Ij;k )(n )=p 2k=p jf jq !1 q
j;k j;k
X 1=p X Z 1=q
. 2k `(I j;k )n jf j!1 q
j;k j;k j;k
Z
X X 1=p X 1=q
. 2k `(Ij;k ) n jf j!1 q
k j j;k j;k
X 1=p X Z 1=q
. 2k (n1) (Ek ) jf j!1 q
k j;k j;k
Z 1=q
. k!k1L=p( 1 )
1 ( )
n
jf j! 1 q
n R
. kf kH q; :
NONLINEAR POTENTIAL ANALYSIS ON MORREY SPACES AND THEIR CAPACITIES 9
Consequently,
kf kZ q; . kf kH q; ; f 2 Z q;: (3.3)
Step 3. Z q; K q;.
Suppose that f 2 Z q;. So f = Pi
j aj with f
j g 2 l1 and ea
h aj is a (q; n )-atom.
Assume that xj and rj are the
enter and radius of the support ball Bj of aj , respe
tively.
Dene the following two fun
tions:
Aj (x) = maxfrj ; jx xj jg;
and
1 X j
j jrj
! (x) = kf
j gkl n + ; > 0:
j Aj (x)
1
It is
lear that !
an be written as that integral form required for the denition of K q;.
A further appli
ation of Holder's inequality implies
X
(
n ) q 1 X 1 ja jq :
jf jq j
j jrj Aj
j
j j rj Ajn + q j
j j
Thus
Z X Z
jf jq !1 q q
kf
j gkl1 1 j
j jrj (q 1) Aj(n +)(q 1) ja jq
j
Rn j Rn
X Z
= kf
j gklq1 1 j
j jrj (q 1) Aj(n +)(q 1) ja jq
j
j Bj
X Z
q
kf
j gkl1 1 (
j
j jrj n )(q 1) jaj jq
j Rn
X
. kf
j gklq1 1 j
j jrj(n )(q 1)rj (n )(q 1)
j
q
. kf
j gkl1 :
That is to say,
kf kK q; . kf kZ q; ; f 2 Z q;: (3.4)
Clearly, (3.1) is a dire
t
onsequen
e of (3.2), (3.3) and (3.4).
P
3.4 Remark. Note that kf kL ( 1 ) < 1 if and only if f = j
j aj where f
j g 2 l1 and
1 ( )
n
aj is a (1; n )-atom. Here a fun
tion a on R n is
alled (1; n )-atom if the support
of a is
ontained in a ball B R n and kak1 jB j(n )=n .
On the one hand, if f has su
h a de
omposition, then the sublinearity of the Choquet
integral with respe
t to dyadi
Hausdor
apa
ity (
f. [A3℄) yields
Z X X Z
kf kL (n1)
1 ( ) j
j kaj jd(n1) . j
j j jaj jd(n1) . kf
j gkl : 1
Rn j j R n
10 D.R. ADAMS AND J. XIAO
But, one should observe that f is not ne
essarily in the spa
e L1((n1) ) sin
e those
(1; n )-atoms may not be (n1) -quasi-
ontinuous, see also [A3, p. 123℄. This la
k of
quasi-
ontinuity, however, does not hinder the appli
ations of the atomi
de
omposition. If
we want to restore the quasi-
ontinuity
P of atoms, we
an modify the
onstru
tion above,
and obtain the majorization jf j j j
j kaj j, whi
h for most purposes is a satisfa
tory
substitute.
Conversely, suppose kf kL (n1 ) < 1. Using the argument for Theorem 3.3, we
onsider
1 ( )
4. Riesz Potentials and Maximal Fun
tions with Fra
tional Orders
Re
all that I and M denote the fra
tional Riesz potential and the fra
tional
maximal fun
tion asso
iated with a nonnegative measure on R , respe
tively. That is,
n
Z
I (x) = jx y j n d(y ); 0 n;
R n
and
M (x) = sup r n B (x; r) ; 0 n:
r>0
It is evident that I M due to the estimate
r n B (x; r) I (x);
for x 2 R n and r > 0. However, if d(y) = jyj dy and x = 0 then the reverse inequality is
false. In view of this, the Morrey norm equivalen
e of I # and M is quite 1surprising.
To do so, let us use the Feerman-Stein sharp fun
tion F of a fun
tion F 2 Llo
(R n ):
Z
F # (x) = sup jQj 1 jF (y) FQ jdy (4.1)
Q3x Q
where the supremum is taken over all \
oordinate"
ubes Q
ontaining x, and FQ denotes
the integral average of F over Q.
NONLINEAR POTENTIAL ANALYSIS ON MORREY SPACES AND THEIR CAPACITIES 11
4.1 Lemma. Let 2 [0; n℄ and let be a nonnegative measure with
ompa
t support on
R n and for whi
h I 2 L1lo
(R n ). Then:
Proof. (i) For this
omparability, see also [A2, Theorem 2.2℄ or [A1, Propositions 3.3 and
3.4℄.
(ii) For t > 0, let s = 2 n 1 t and M (t) = jfx 2 Q : I (x) > tgj. Then an appli
ation
of the C-Z (Calderon-Zygmund) de
omposition theorem to Q, t and I gives Q = P t [ Qt
and P t \ Qt = ; with the following three properties:
1) Qt = S1k=1 Qtk , where Qt1 ; Qt2; ::: are
ubes of whi
h two dierent elements have disjoint
interiors;
2) I (x) t a.e. x 2 P t ;
3) t < jQtk j 1 RQtk I < 2n t for any Qtk 2 fQtk g.
It is worth remarking that for t and s we may
hoose two C-Z de
ompositions su
h that
every
ube of the C-Z de
omposition asso
iated with t is
ontained in a
ube of the C-Z
de
omposition asso
iated with s.
Let F1 be the family of
ubes Qsj of the C-Z de
omposition asso
iated with s su
h that
Qsj fx 2 Q : (I )# (x) > 2 1 tg (4.2)
and F2 the family of the remaining
ubes of the C-Z de
omposition asso
iated with s.
Now, if Q0 2 F2 then there is x 2 Q0 su
h that (I )# (x) 2 1 t and by the denition
of (I )# , one has
Z
0
jQ j 1 j0 I (I )Q0 j 2 1 t (4.3)
Q
and Z
(I )Q0 = jQ0j 1 I 2n s = 2 1 t: (4.4)
Q0
For the
ubes Qtk Q0 from the C-Z de
omposition asso
iated with t, we use the third
12 D.R. ADAMS AND J. XIAO
Consequently, X
jQtk j < jQ0 j:
Qtk Q0
Thus, X X X
jQtk j < jQ0j M (s) = M (2 n 1 t):
Q0 2F2 Qtk Q0 Q0 2F2
So
X X X
M (t) = + jQtk j
Q0 2F1 Q0 2F2 Qtk Q0
M (2 n 1 t) + jfx 2 Q : (I )
# (x) > 2 1 tgj: (4.5)
This (4.5)
on
ludes the proof.
4.2 Theorem. Let 1 < p < 1 and 0 ; n. If is a nonnegative measure on R n
then
kI kLp; kMkLp; : (4.6)
Proof. From Lemma 4.1 (i) as well as the estimate I M , we need only to prove
kI kLp; . k(I )# kLp; : (4.7)
NONLINEAR POTENTIAL ANALYSIS ON MORREY SPACES AND THEIR CAPACITIES 13
We rst suppose that has
ompa
t support. Then (4.7) is a
onsequen
e of Lemma
4.1 (ii). In fa
t, by Lemma 4.1 (ii) we have that for any
ube Q R n ,
Z
p
Z 1
I = jfx 2 Q : I (x) > tgjdtp
Q 0Z
1 Z 1
M (2 n 1 t)dtp + jfx 2 Q : (I )# (x) > 2 1 tgjdtp
0 Z 1 0 Z 1
= 2 p( n+1) 1
M (t)dt + (2 )
p p jfx 2 Q : (I )# (x) > tgjdtp
Z0 Z0
= 2p(n+1) I + (2 1 )p (I )# p :
p
Q Q
If = 2 1 p(n+1) , then
Z Z
p
2 1 I 2p(2+p(n+1)) (I )# p : (4.8)
Q Q
Given a ball B (x; r)
entered at x 2 R n and with radiuspr, we may nd two
ubes Q1
and Q2 whi
h have the
enter x and the side lengths 2r= n and 2r respe
tively. This,
together with (4.8) and the denition of kkLp; , dedu
es that (4.7) is true for the measure
with
ompa
t support on R n .
If does not have
ompa
t support, we let j be the restri
tion of to the ball B (0; j )
(with radius j about the origin 0) for j = 1; 2; :::. By (4.7) for j , we have
kI j kLp; . kMkLp; (4.9)
for all j , with the
onstant in (4.9) that does not depend on j . The inequality (4.7) for the
general now follows from (4.9) and monotone
onvergen
e.
Of
ourse, Lemma 4.1 and the argument for Theorem 4.2 may infer
kI kLp kMkLp (4.10)
whi
h is the theorem of B. Mu
kenhoupt and R. L. Wheeden. For a proof of (4.10) using
the so-
alled \good inequality", see also [AH, pp. 72-73℄.
4.3 Lemma [A1, Theorem 3.1℄. If 0 n, 0 < n, 1 < p < = and p~ = p=( p),
then
kI f kLp; . kf kLp; :
~
Note that in
ase = 0 of Corollary 4.4 (ii) is well-known; see for example [CFr, Theorem
1℄.
5. Morrey Type II Capa
ities
To begin with, we dene the Morrey type II
apa
ity. For a set E R n , 2 [0; n℄,
2 (0; n), and p 2 (1; 1), let
C (E ; Lp;) = inf kf kpLp; : f 0 & I f 1E
be the Morrey
apa
ity of E . It is not hard to see that Cn (; Lp;) is a monotone,
ountably
subadditive set fun
tion on the
lass of all subsets of R whi
h vanishes on the empty set.
Furthermore, it is an outer
apa
ity in the sense that
C(E ; Lp;) = inf C (G; Lp;)
where the inmum is over all open sets G E .
The dual to a Morrey Type II
apa
ity is denoted Cap (). Due to Theorem 3.3 we bring
K (as the predual of Lp; , q = p=(p 1), p > 1) into play to dene the dual
apa
ity.
q;
For E R n let
Cap (E ; H q;) = sup (E ) : 2 M+ (E ) & kI kK q; 1 ;
where M+ (E ) denotes those Radon measures that are nonnegative and have their support
in E .
Meanwhile, we
onsider then
orresponding weighted Riesz
apa
ity: For E R n and a
nonnegative fun
tion ! on R , let
! (E ) = inf kf kp
R;p : f 0 & I f 1
;
L (!)
p E
where Z
kf kLp(!) = n jf jp!:
p
R
The following theorem reveals the relationship between these three
apa
ities.
NONLINEAR POTENTIAL ANALYSIS ON MORREY SPACES AND THEIR CAPACITIES 15
5.1 Theorem. Let 2 [0; n℄, 2 (0; n), 1 < p < 1 and q = p=(p 1). Then
C (E ; Lp;) = Cap (E ; H q;) p = sup R!;p
(E ); E R n ; (5.1)
Now it turns out from the denition of k kK q; that the right-hand-side of (5.4) is equal
to
inf inf kI kLq (! q=p) = inf kI kK q; = Cap (E ; K q;) 1: (5.5)
Also noting that if is taken as the Dira
measure
on
entrated at x 2 E then
Z
I (g! 1=p)d I (g! 1=p)(x); x 2 E:
Rn
we apply lower semi-
ontinuity to obtain an xE 2 E su
h that
I (g! 1=p)(x) I (g! 1=p)(xE ); x 2 E:
Thus !
g! 1=p
I (x) 1; x 2 E:
I (g! 1=p)(xE )
Consequently
k g! 1=p kpLp;
C (E ; L )
p; p :
I (g! 1=p)(xE )
This, together with (5.5) and (5.2), infers
Z Z
inf inf I (g! 1=p)d C (E ; Lp;)1=p sup g! 1=p h ;
Rn h Rn
where the supremum is taken over all h with khkK q; 1. But the right-hand-side above
does not ex
eed
sup kgkLp kh! 1=p kLq :
h
Sin
e we are
onsidering h with the
ondition
Z 1=q
khkK q; = inf jhjq !1 q 1;
R n
we
an take any su
h so that kh! 1=p kLq 1 + for any > 0. Hen
e
sup kgkLp kh! 1=p kLq kgkLp (1 + ):
h
Thus Z
inf inf I (g! 1=p)d C(E ; Lp;)1=p kgkLp (1 + ):
Rn
The inequality 1
Cap (E ; H q;) C (E ; Lp;)1=p 1 (5.6)
NONLINEAR POTENTIAL ANALYSIS ON MORREY SPACES AND THEIR CAPACITIES 17
follows right away upon using (5.4), taking supremum over g with kgkLp 1 and noti
ing
that > 0 is arbitrary. Also observe that the order of the two inmums over (; ) is not
an issue be
ause the integrand is jointly
onvex in these two arguments. Clearly, (5.6) is
just the other half of what we desire.
For the se
ond equality in (5.1), we again use the Minimax Theorem (quoted before),
but this time write Z Z
sup inf n Ifd = inf sup n I fd; (5.7)
f R f R
where now the supremum ranges over all f 2 Lp (! ) with
Z
kf kpLp(! ) = jf jp! 1;
Rn
while the inmum is over all 2 M+ (E ) with kk1 = 1.
Taking the inmum over both sides of (5.7) with respe
t to all 2 M+ (R n++1 ) satisfying
kk1 = 1, we again see that the right-hand-side of (5.7) then be
omes
1
inf inf kI kLq (! q=p) = inf kI kK q; = Cap (E ; H q;) ;
where again we have taken advantage of the
onvexity of kI kLq (! q=p) with respe
t to
(; ) to inter
hange the two inmums. Meanwhile, the left-hand-side of (5.7) be
omes
1=p 1=p
inf R!;p (E ) = sup
R!;p (E ) :
This follows from the standard Meyers format; see page 274 in [Me℄. Therefore, the proof
of (5.1) is
omplete.
The above theorem enables us to estimate the Morrey
apa
ity of a ball in R n . First we
need:
5.2. Remark. Re
all that 1E stands for the
hara
teristi
fun
tion of a set E . Then
1B(x ;r ) of the ball B (x0; r0) R n is given by
0 0
r>0 0 0
=
r0
18 D.R. ADAMS AND J. XIAO
Consequently
C (B (x; r); Lp;) & r p :
Clearly, the
ountable subadditivity of C (; Lp;) yields (5.9).
Moreover, using Theorem 5.3 we
an obtain a lo
al isoperimetri
-type inequality atta
hed
to the Morrey
apa
ity.
5.4 Theorem. Let 2 [0; n℄, 2 (0; n), r 2 (0; 1) and p~ = p=( p) with 1 < p < =.
Then
jE j( p)= . rp(n )=p~C (E ; Lp;); E B (x; r) R n : (5.10)
Proof. We x the set E B (x; r) in the denition of C (E ; Lp;). By Holder's inequality
we have that if I f 1 onZE then Z 1=p~
jE j jI f j jI f jp~ jE j1 1=p~:
E E
This, together with the boundedness of I sending Lp; to Lp~; (see also [A1, Theorem
3.1℄), yields
Z 1=p~
jE j( p)=(p) jI f jp~
E
Z 1=p~
jI f jp~
B(x;r)
Z 1=p~
= r(n )=p~ r n jI f jp~
B(x;r)
r (n )=p~ kI f kLp;
~
We are done.
We
lose this se
tion by showing that there exists no strong type inequality for the
potentials of Morrey fun
tions:
5.5 Example. Let ; 2 (0; n),
2 (0; 1) and 1 < p < =. There is a fun
tion f 2 Lp;
su
h that Z 1
=p dt
C fx 2 R n : I f (x) tg; Lp; tp = 1: (5.11)
0 t
Proof. The example is simple: set
f (y ) = jy j =p 1B(0;1) (y )
for those and p assumed above. Then it is easy to see that kf kLp; < 1. Next noti
e
that Z
I f (x) = jx yj njyj =p dy = jxj =p 1 + O(1) ; jxj ! 0:
B(0;1)
Thus there are
onstants r0,
1 and
2 su
h that
1 jxj =p I (x)
2 jxj =p ; jxj < r0 :
But (5.11) holds be
ause
C fx 2 R n : jxj < r0 & jxj =p tg; Lp; t p ; t ! 1:
So if we use the Choquet-Lorentz notation, then we have a fun
tion f 2 Lp; for whi
h
I f 62 L(p;
) C (; Lp;) ; 8
< 1:
Note that we trivially have
I f 2 L(p;1) C (; Lp;) :
5.6 Remark. Here by the Choquet-Lorentz notation in relation to the
apa
ity C , u 2
L(p;
) (C ) means
Z 1
=p dt
tp C fx 2 R n : ju(x)j tg < 1;
< 1;
0 t
and
sup
t>0
tp C fx 2 R n : ju(x)j tg < 1;
= 1:
It is worth remarking the following fa
ts: First, when = n, we have
p 1=p
Z 1
kI f kL p;p .
( ) C fx 2 R : I f (x) tg; L dt
n p . kf kL p;p
( )
0
where L(p;p) = Lp , and L(p ;p) is a Lorentz spa
e on R n with p = np=(n p). Se
ond, if
2 (0; n), then
kI f kLp; . () . kf kLp; ;
~
where again p~ = p=( p). It appears that there is no Choquet spa
e norm for I f
to insert in (), i.e., no
apa
itary strongtype inequality (CSI) for the Riesz potentials of
fun
tions in a Morrey spa
e with respe
t to the Morrey type II
apa
ity: C(; Lp;).
20 D.R. ADAMS AND J. XIAO
Also, let
Cap (K ; Lp;) = sup (K ) : 2 M+ (K ) & kI kLp; 1 :
In an obvious manner, these two
apa
ities are extended to the general set E R n .
6.2 Corollary. Let ; 2 (0; n), 1 < p < 1 and q = p=(p 1). Then
q
C (E ; H ) Cap (E ; L ) ;
q; p; E Rn : (6.2)
(4.6) and estimate the quantity on the right-hand-side of (4.6). Applying Fubini's theorem
and the simple inequality:
p dt 1=p
Z 1
M (x) . t B (x; t)
n ; x 2 Rn ;
0 t
we get !
Z 1 Z p
dt
kMkpLp; . sup r n tp( n) B (x; t) dx : (6.5)
x 2Rn;r>00 0 B(x ;r) t 0
Sin
e B (x; t) B (y; 2t) whenever jx yj < t, we have the following estimate on the
inside integral of the right-hand-side of (6.4): !
Z Z Z
p p 1
B (x; t) dx = B (x; t) d(y ) dx
B(x0 ;r) B(x0 ;r) B(x;t)
ZZ p 1
= B (x; t) dxd(y )
Z
jx x0 j<r;jx yj<t
p 1
B (y; 2t) jB (x0; r) \ B (y; t)jd(y)
Rn
:= INT(x0 ; r; t):
We put this ba
k into (6.5) and get Z Z
r 1
dt
kM kpLp; . sup r n + tp( n) INT(x0 ; r; t) :
x 2R ;r>0
n 00 r t
Looking at the rst integral,
Z r
we nd
dt
sup r n INT(x0; r; t) t
x0 2R ;r>0
n 0
Z r Z
p 1 dt
. sup r n tp( n) tn B (y; 2t) d(y )
nx0 2R ;r>0 0 Rn t
Z 1 Z
dt p 1
. tn+p( n) t n
B (y; 2t) d(y )
0 Rn t
Z Z 1
p 1 dt
. n tp( n)+ B (y; t) d(y ):
R 0 t
Meanwhile, looking at theZ se
ond integral, we have
1 dt
sup r n INT( x0 ; r; t)
t
x0 2R ;r>0
n r
Z 1 Z p 1
dt
. sup r n tp( n) tn B (y; 2t) d(y )
nx0 2R ;r>0 r Rn t
Z 1 Z p 1
dt
. tp( n)+ B (y; 2t) d(y )
0 Rn t
Z Z 1 p 1 dt
. tp( n)+ B (y; 2t) d(y ):
Rn 0 t
24 D.R. ADAMS AND J. XIAO
Therefore Z
kMkpLp; . (y )d(y );
W;p; (6.6)
Rn
where the homogeneous Wol potential for the
apa
ity Cap (; Lp;) is:
Z 1 p 1 dt
(y ) =
W;p; tp( n)+ B (y; 2t) : (6.7)
0 t
Now to get the lower bound in (6.4), we estimate (6.7) from above (and hen
e Rgenerate
an upper estimation of kI kLp; ). To do so, we break up the integral in (6.7) as 0r + Rr1
(where we are estimating Cap(B (x0; r); Lp;)), take d(x) = 1B(x ;r) dx, and get 0
Z r Z r
dt
f g . tp( n)+ tn(p 1)
t
rp+ n ; p > n ;
0 0
and Z 1 Z 1 dt
f g . tp( n)+ rn(p 1)
t
rp+ n ; p > n :
r r
To get the lower bound in (6.4), we repla
e the measure above by =
r (+=p)
with an appropriate
onstant
> 0. This, together with (6.6), (6.7) and (4.6), a
hieves
kI kLp; 1 and then yields the lower estimate in (6.4).
Next we give the upper bound in (6.3). If f = 1B(x ;r) , then I f (x)
r for a
onstant
> 0 when x 2 B (x0; r). Thus we need to
al
ulate k1B(x ;r) (
r) 1 kZ q; . To
0
1B(x ;r) (
r) 1 = 1B(x ;r)jB (x0; r)j( pn)=(pn) jB (x0; r)j ( pn)=(pn) (
r) 1 :
0 0
Sin
e 1B(x ;r) jB (x0; r)j( pn)=(pn) is a (q; n )-atom, one has
0
We denote by L1 (Cap (; Lp;)) the
lass of all Radon measures (i.e., lo
ally nite
regular signed Borel measures) on R n obeying
kkL1p;; = supn Capj(jK(K; L) p;) < 1;
K R
where the supremum is taken over1
all
ompa
t sets K R n , and againp;jj is the total vari-
ation measure of . Also, let L (Cap(; L ))
onsist of all Cap (; L ) quasi-
ontinuous
p;
fun
tions f on R n (
f. [A4℄), for whi
h
Z
kf kLp;; = n jf jdCap ; Lp;
1
ZR1
= Cap fx 2 R n : jf (x)j tg; Lp;dt < 1: (7.1)
0
The intermediate term is
alled the Choquet integral with respe
t to Cap ; Lp;.
7.1 Theorem. Let 2 [0; n℄, 2 (0; n) and p 2 (1; 1). The the pairing
Z
hf; i = n fd
R
realizes the dual of L1 (Cap (; Lp;)) as equivalent to the spa
e L1 (Cap (; Lp;)).
Proof. It is not hard to see that ea
h 2 L1 (Cap (; Lp;)) indu
es a bounded linear
fun
tional on L1(Cap (; Lp;)). In fa
t, for su
h a , whenever f 2 L1(Cap (; Lp;)), we
have
Z 1
jhf; ij jj(fx 2 R n : jf (x)j tg)dt
0 Z 1
kkL1p;; Cap fx 2 R n : jf (x)j tg; Lp; dt
0
= kkL1p;; kf kL1p;; :
For the
onverse, sin
e C0(R n ) (the
lass of all
ontinuous fun
tions with
ompa
t
support on R n ) is
ontained in L1 (Cap (; Lp; )), every bounded linear fun
tional L on
L1 (Cap (; Lp; )) with nite operator norm kLk is given by
Z
fd; f 2 C0 (R n );
n R
for some Radon measure on R n . However for any g 2 C0 (R n ), we have
Z Z
n gd
jj sup
d : 2 C0 (R n ) & j j jgj
R Rnn o
kLk sup k kLp;; : 2 C0 1 (R n ) & j j jgj
kLk kgkLp;; : 1
26 D.R. ADAMS AND J. XIAO
Proof. Theorem 7.1 implies that the
anoni
al map of L1(Cap (; Lp;)) into the se
ond
dual has the quasi-norm
Z n Z o
jujdCap (; L ) sup
p;
ud : 2 L1 (Cap (; Lp;))+ & kkL1p;; 1
Rn R n
for any u 2 L1 (Cap(; Lp;)). For a nonnegative lower semi-
ontinuous f , we approxi-
matenfrom below by a sequen
e fj g C0 (R n )+ (the
lass of all nonnegative fun
tions in
C0 (R )), j % f as j ! 1. Then
Z nZ o
j dCap (; Lp;) = sup j d : 2 L1 (Cap (; Lp;))+ & kkL1p;; 1
Rn Rn
nZ o
sup fd : 2 L1 (Cap (; Lp;))+ & kkL1p;; 1 :
Rn
It is
lear that
Cap fx 2 R n : j tg; Lp;) ! Cap fx 2 R n : f tg; Lp;);
as j ! 1. Consequently, it follows that
kf kLp;;1
nZ o
. sup n
fd : 2 L1 (Cap (; Lp;))+
& 1
kkL1p;;
n ZR 1 o
. sup fx 2 R n : f (x) tg dt : 2 L1 (Cap (; Lp; ))+ & kkL1p;; 1
0
. kf kLp;; 1
7.3 Theorem. Let 2 [0; n℄, 2 (0; n), p 2 (1; 1) and q = p=(p 1). Then for any
2 C0 (R n )+ ,
R;q;() . kkqL1p;; : (7.3)
Proof. For 2 C0 (R n )+ and > 0, set
(x) + ; x 2 supp;
(x) =
0; otherwise:
Then Theorem 6.1 applies to and gives
R;q;()
R;q;( )
nZ o
+
sup n d : 2 M (supp ) & kI kLp; 1
R
nZ 1 o
sup fx 2 R n : (x) tg dt : 2 M+ (supp ) & kI kLp; 1
0
Z 1
. Cap fx 2 R n : (x) tg; Lp;dt
Z0
dCap ; Lp;
n
ZR
. dCap (; Lp;) + Cap (supp; Lp; ):
Rn
So, the result follows.
However, in order to establish the reversed inequality of (7.3), we rst derive an estimate
for the Hardy-Littlewood maximal operator M0(f ) of a fun
tion f with (7.1).
7.4 Theorem. Let 0 < < < n; 1 < p < =( ), and q = p=(p 1). Then for any
f 2 H q; , Z
M0 (I f )dCap (; Lp;) . kf kH q; : (7.4)
Rn
In parti
ular,
I H q; L(q;1)(C (; H q;)): (7.5)
Proof. Without loss of generality, we
an assume f 0. Then M0 (I f ) . I f . So
Z
M0 (I f )d . kf kH q; kI kLp; :
Rn
Hen
e due to Corollary 7.2, it suÆ
es to prove that
Z
(I )p . rn ; B (x; r) R n (7.6)
B(x;r)
28 D.R. ADAMS AND J. XIAO
. kkL1p;; rn =p :
The estimation (7.6) follows from [A1, Theorem 5.1℄ with d = dx = Lebesgue n-measure.
The result there is
kI kL;
. kkL ; 1
under the
onditions: 0 < < = + =p and = =( ). Re
all that kI kL;
<1
if and only if I belongs to the weak-Morrey spa
e L : ;
sup
t>0
t B (x; r) \ fx 2 R n : I (x) tg . rn :
Clearly, L Lp;p= when p < . Thus = + =p gives
;
This result
orresponds ni
ely to Theorem A resp. Theorem B in [A3℄ on the Choquet
integrals with respe
t to Hausdor
apa
ity.
NONLINEAR POTENTIAL ANALYSIS ON MORREY SPACES AND THEIR CAPACITIES 29
Referen
es
[A1℄ D.R. Adams, A note on Riesz potentials, Duke Math. J., 42 (1975), 765-778.
[A2℄ D.R. Adams, Le
tures on Lp-Potential Theory, Department of Mathemati
s, University
of Umea2, 1981.
[A3℄ D.R. Adams, A note on Choquet integral with respe
t to Hausdor
apa
ity, in \Fun
-
tion Spa
es and Appli
ations," Lund 1986, Le
ture Notes in Math. 1302, Springer-Verlag,
1988, pp. 115-124.
[A4℄ D.R. Adams, Choquet integrals in potential theory, Publi
a
ions Matematiques 42
(1998), 3-66.
[AH℄ D.R. Adams and L.I. Hedberg, Fun
tion Spa
es and Potential Theory, A Series of
Comprehensive Studies in Math. 314, Springer-Verlag, 1996.
[C℄ S. Campanato, Proprieta di in
lusione per spazi di Morrey, Ri
er
he Mat. 12 (1963),
67-86.
[CFr℄ F. Chiarenza and M. Fras
a, Morrey spa
es and Hardy-Littlewood maximal fun
tion,
Rend. Mat. Appl. 3/4(1988), 273-279.
[K℄ E. A. Kalita, Dual Morrey spa
es, Doklady Math. 58(1998), 85-87.
[Me℄ N. G. Meyers, A theory of
apa
ities for potentials of fun
tions in Lebesgue spa
es,
Math. S
and. 26(1970), 255-292.
[MuW℄ B. Mu
kenhoupt and R. L. Wheeden, Weighted norm inequalities for fra
tional
integrals, Trans. Amer. Math. So
. 192(1974), 261-274.
[P℄ J. Peetre, On the theory of Lp; spa
es, J. Fun
t. Anal. 4 (1969), 71-87.
[S℄ G. Stampa
hia, The spa
es Lp; and H p; and interpolation, Ann. S
uola Norm. Sup.
Pisa 19 (1965), 443-462.
[Z℄ C.T. Zorko, Morrey spa
e, Pro
. Amer. Math. So
. 98(1986), 586-592.