, , , 1-4-05

For

r > 0

let

ℰ (r)

be the space of all (smooth) distributions on

R^{d}

whose Fourier transforms are supported in

{ξ : | ξ | \leq r}

. Also let

ℰ_{o} (r)

be the space of functions in

ℰ (r)

whose Fourier transforms are supported in the annulus

{ξ : r / 2 \leq | ξ | \leq r}

Let us first consider a convolution kernel

K

whose Fourier transform is compactly supported, say

K \in ℰ (1)

. We are concerned with vector valued inequalities involving dilates of

K

, of the form

\begin{matrix} ∥ {(\sum_{k} | r_{k}^{d} K (r_{k} \cdot) * f_{k} |^{q})}^{1 / q} ∥_{p} \leq A ∥ {(\sum_{k} | f_{k} |^{q})}^{1 / q} ∥_{p} . \end{matrix}

(1.1)

An immediate necessary, but not sufficient, condition for 1.1 to hold is that

K \in L^{s}

for all

s \geq p

. This is seen by setting all but one

f_{k}

0

and (after possibly a rescaling) convolving

K

with a Schwartz function whose Fourier transform is equal to

1

on the support of

\hat{K}

. In the case

p > q

we get a further necessary condition:

Theorem 1.1. Suppose

0 < q \leq p < \infty

and let

{r_{k}}_{k = 1}^{\infty}

be a fixed sequence of positive numbers. Suppose that

K \in ℰ (1)

and that 1.1 holds for all choices of

f_{k} \in ℰ (2 r_{k})

with

{f_{k}} \in L^{p} (ℓ^{q})

Then

K \in L^{q}

and there exists a constant

C = C (p, q, d)

so that

\begin{matrix} ∥ K ∥_{q} \leq C (p, q, d) A; \end{matrix}

(1.2)

in particular

C (p, q, d)

does not depend on the choice of the sequence

{r_{k}}

As an application consider the Bochner-Riesz means defined by

\hat{S_{r}^{λ} f} (ξ) = (1 - r^{- 2} | ξ |^{2})_{+}^{λ} \hat{f} (ξ) .

Let

K_{λ}

be the convolution kernel for

S_{1}^{λ}

. From the well known formula for

K_{λ}

([18] ) we know that

K_{λ} \in L^{q}

if and only if

λ > d (1 / q - 1 / 2) - 1 / 2

. Consequently if

q < p < 2

then the operator

{f_{k}} \mapsto {S_{r_{k}}^{λ} f_{k}}

fails to be bounded on

L^{p} (ℓ^{q})

λ \leq d (1 / q - 1 / 2) - 1 / 2

, as well as on the corresponding subspace with the restrictions

f_{k} \in ℰ (2 r_{k})

. This complements the familiar necessary condition

λ > max {d (1 / p - 1 / 2) - 1 / 2, 0}

([18] , [4] ), which is known also to be sufficient for certain

p

; for some refinements and implications to known multiplier theorems see the remark at the end of § 3 below.

We shall prove Theorem 1.1 by a random construction which will be described in the next section. This construction applies also to other situations, in particular to maximal functions which arise in the theory of function spaces. As the most basic such example we consider a maximal operator acting on functions of exponential type, which was introduced by Peetre [9] , following earlier related research by Fefferman and Stein [6] .

For

r > 0

and

σ \geq 0

set

\begin{matrix} M_{σ, r} g (x) = {sup}_{y} \frac{| g (x + y) |}{(1 + r | y |)^{σ}} . \end{matrix}

(1.3)

As shown in [9] one has the majorization

\begin{matrix} M_{σ, r} g (x) ≲ [M_{H L} (| g |^{s})]^{1 / s}, \forall σ \geq d / s, if g \in ℰ (r); \end{matrix}

(1.4)

here

M_{H L}

denotes the Hardy-Littlewood maximal operator. Now by the Fefferman-Stein vector-valued maximal theorem ([5] )

\begin{matrix} ∥ {(\sum_{k} | M_{σ, r_{k}} f_{k} |^{q})}^{1 / q} ∥_{p} ≲ ∥ {(\sum_{k} | f_{k} |^{q})}^{1 / q} ∥_{p}, σ > max {\frac{d}{p}, \frac{d}{q}}, \end{matrix}

(1.5)

provided that

f_{k} \in ℰ (r_{k})

and

{r_{k}}_{k = 1}^{\infty}

is any sequence of positive radii.

It is well known that the condition

σ > d / p

is necessary — again to see this one simply chooses a fixed Schwartz function for

g_{1}

and sets

g_{k} = 0

for

k \geq 2

. Moreover if

r_{k} = 1

for all

k

the inequality clearly fails for all

q \leq p

; this is the same example that disproves an

L^{p} (ℓ^{1})

inequality for the Hardy-Littlewood maximal function [5] . Indeed let

η \in ℰ (1) \cap S

, let

A

be a large positive integer, and let

{x (k)}_{k = 1}^{(2 A + 1)^{d}}

be an enumeration of all integer lattice points in the cube

Q_{A}

of sidelength

A

centered at the origin. Define

f_{k} (x) = η (x - x (k))

1 \leq k \leq (2 A + 1)^{d}

and

f_{k} (x) = 0

otherwise. Then

∥ {f_{k}} ∥_{L^{p} (ℓ^{q})} ≲ A^{d / p}

. Also

M_{σ, 1} f_{k} (x) ≳ (1 + | x - x (k) |)^{- σ}

and a computation shows that

∥ {M_{σ, 1} f_{k}} ∥_{L^{p} (ℓ^{q})} ≳ A^{d / p} log A

σ = d / q

and

≳ A^{d / p + d / q - σ}

σ < d / q

. Thus the condition

σ > max {\frac{d}{p}, \frac{d}{q}}

in 1.5 is sharp if

r_{k} \equiv 1

The preceding example does not immediately apply to cases where the sequence of radii

r_{k}

is sparse (say lacunary), which happens in many of the interesting cases for which 1.5 is used. Nevertheless we show that the condition

σ > d / q

is necessary for 1.5 to hold:

Theorem 1.2. Let

{r_{k}}

be any sequence of radii and suppose that

0 < q \leq p < \infty

. Suppose

σ \leq d / q

. Then there is a positive constant

c (p, q, σ, d)

such that for every

L \in N

there are functions

f_{k} \in ℰ_{o} (r_{k}) \cap L^{p}

, for

k = 1, . . ., L

, so that

\begin{matrix} ∥ {(\sum_{k = 1}^{L} | M_{σ, r_{k}} f_{k} |^{q})}^{1 / q} ∥_{p} \geq c (p, q, σ, d) max {L^{- σ + d / q}, {log}^{1 / q} L} ∥ {(\sum_{k = 1}^{L} | f_{k} |^{q})}^{1 / q} ∥_{p} . \end{matrix}

(1.6)

Note that this lower bound holds for functions in

ℰ_{o} (r_{k})

, not merely in

ℰ (r_{k})

Next we shall state a result on a characterization of Sobolev spaces (or more general Triebel-Lizorkin spaces) by means of pointwise moduli of continuity. For

h \in R^{d}

let

Δ_{h} f (x) = f (x + h) - f (x)

and define higher difference operators inductively by

Δ^{0} f = f

Δ_{h}^{m} f = Δ_{h} (Δ_{h}^{m - 1} f)

m \geq 1

. For suitable classes of functions let

\begin{matrix} D_{m}^{σ, q} f (x) = {(\int_{0}^{1} \frac{{sup}_{| h | \leq t} | Δ_{h}^{m} f (x) |^{q}}{t^{1 + σ q}} d t)}^{1 / q} . \end{matrix}

(1.7)

It is known that if

m > σ

q = 2

, and

1 < p < \infty

one can characterize Sobolev spaces

ℒ_{σ}^{p}

using

D_{m}^{σ, 2}

, namely

∥ f ∥_{ℒ_{σ}^{p}} : = ∥ ℱ^{- 1} [(1 + | \cdot |^{2})^{σ / 2} \hat{f}] ∥_{p} \approx ∥ f ∥_{p} + ∥ D_{m}^{σ, 2} f ∥_{p}

provided that

σ > max {d / p, d / 2}

. This is a special case of a result on Triebel-Lizorkin spaces

F_{σ}^{p q}

([20] , [21] ).

We recall that

F_{σ}^{p q}

is defined by dyadic frequency decompositions; namely if

β_{0} \in ℰ (1)

so that

{\hat{β}}_{0}

is equal to

1

in a neighborhood of the origin, and if

β_{k} = 2^{k d} β_{0} (2^{k} \cdot) - 2^{(k - 1) d} β_{0} (2^{k - 1} \cdot)

for

k \geq 1

then

∥ f ∥_{F_{σ}^{p q}} \approx ∥ {(\sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} 2^{k σ q} | β_{k} * f |^{q})}^{1 / q} ∥_{p};

thus

F_{σ}^{p 2} = ℒ_{σ}^{p}

1 < p < \infty

, by the usual Littlewood-Paley inequalities. Now by [20] , §2.5.10 we have for

m > σ

0 < p < \infty

0 < q \leq \infty

and

σ > max {d / p, d / q}

\begin{matrix} ∥ f ∥_{p} + ∥ D_{m}^{σ, q} f ∥_{p} \approx ∥ f ∥_{F_{σ}^{p q}} . \end{matrix}

(1.8)

Again the condition

σ > d / p

is necessary in 1.8 , but it was apparently open whether for

p > q

the characterization 1.8 could hold without the additional restriction

σ > d / q

(cf.

[21] ). This was pointed out to the second author by Herbert Koch and Winfried Sickel at an Oberwolfach meeting some years ago. We show that the restriction

σ > d / q

is indeed necessary and in the range

d / p < σ \leq d / q

we quantify the failure of 1.8 in terms of the support of the Fourier transform.

Theorem 1.3. Suppose that

0 < σ < m

and

0 < q < p < \infty

. For

r \geq 100

let

A_{p, q, σ} (r) = sup {∥ D_{m}^{σ, q} f ∥_{p} : ∥ f ∥_{F_{σ}^{p q}} \leq 1, f \in ℰ (r)} .

Then

\begin{matrix} A_{p, q, σ} (r) \approx (log r)^{\frac{d}{q} - σ} if d / p < σ < d / q, \end{matrix}

(1.9)

and, for

σ = d / q

\begin{matrix} A_{p, q, d / q} (r) \approx (log log r)^{1 / q} if q \leq 1 . \end{matrix}

(1.10)

Moreover,

\begin{matrix} C^{- 1} (log log r)^{1 / q} \leq A_{p, q, d / q} (r) \leq C log log r if 1 < q < p . \end{matrix}

(1.11)

In 1.9 the notation

a_{1} \approx a_{2}

means that there is a positive constant

C = C (p, q, d, σ, m)

which does not depend on

r

so that

C^{- 1} a_{1} \leq a_{2} \leq C a_{1}

. An application of the Banach-Steinhaus theorem (cf. Theorems 2.5, 2.6 in [12] ) shows that for

σ \leq d / q

there is an

f \in F_{σ}^{p q} (R^{d})

for which

D_{m}^{σ, q} f

does not belong to

L^{p} (R^{d})

(in fact this holds for a class of second category in

F_{σ}^{p q}

Finally we settle an endpoint question about oscillatory multipliers on the

F

-spaces.

Consider the operator given by

\begin{matrix} \hat{T_{γ, b} f} (ξ) = \frac{e^{i | ξ |^{γ}}}{(1 + | ξ |^{2})^{b / 2}} \hat{f} (ξ), \end{matrix}

(1.12)

for

0 < γ < 1

. It is well known that

T_{γ, b}

maps the Besov spaces

B_{α, q}^{p}

into itself if and only

b / γ \geq d | 1 / p - 1 / 2 |

, and by a simple application of Hölder's inequality the same result holds for

F_{α, q}^{p}

with the strict inequality

b / γ > d | 1 / p - 1 / 2 |

. If

1 \leq p \leq q \leq p^{'}

(if

p > 1

), or

p \leq q \leq \infty

p < 1

the endpoint result with

b / γ = d | 1 / p - 1 / 2 |

holds for the

F

-spaces (see [6] , and for more general multiplier theorems [1] , [15] ).

We show that for the endpoint result the restriction on

q

is necessary.

Theorem 1.4. Let

0 < q < p \leq 2

α \in R

and let

0 < γ < 1

b = γ d (1 / p - 1 / 2)

Then for

r \geq 2

\begin{matrix} sup {∥ T_{γ, b} f ∥_{F_{α, q}^{p}} : ∥ f ∥_{F_{α, q}^{p}} \leq 1, f \in ℰ (r)} \approx {(log r)}^{1 / q - 1 / p} \end{matrix}

(1.13)

In § 2 we shall give the basic random construction that underlies the proofs of all the theorems. Theorem 1.1 is proved in § 3 . Theorem 1.2 will be proved in § 4 and a second deterministic proof of the lacunary case will be given in § 5 . Theorem 1.3 will be proved in § 6 and Theorem 1.4 in § 7 .

2 A random construction

For each

n \in {0, 1, 2, \dots}

let

Q (n)

be the set of all dyadic cubes of sidelength

2^{- n}

[0, 1)^{d}

; more specifically all cubes of the form

\prod_{i = 1}^{d} [j_{i} 2^{- n}, (j_{i} + 1) 2^{- n})

where the

j_{i}

are integers,

0 \leq j_{i} < 2^{n}

, for

i = 1, . . ., d

. For any dyadic cube

Q

let

χ_{Q}

denote the characteristic function of

Q

Let

a \in (0, 1)

be a parameter to be specified. Let

Ω

be a probability space with probability measure

μ

, on which there is a family

{θ_{Q, a}}

of independent random variables indexed by the dyadic subcubes of

[0, 1]^{d}

, each of which takes the value

1

with probability

a

and the value

0

with probability

1 - a

. If

B \subset Ω

we denote by

μ (B)

the probability of

B

and the expectation of a function

g

Ω

(i.e. a random variable) is given by the integral

E (g) = \int_{Ω} g (ω) d μ (ω)

In what follows we fix a sequence

{n_{k}}_{k = 0}^{\infty}

of nonnegative integers. We consider random functions

\begin{matrix} h_{k}^{ω, a} (x) = \sum_{Q \in Q (n_{k})} θ_{Q, a} (ω) χ_{Q} (x); \end{matrix}

(2.1)

these are supported on

[0, 1]^{d}

. Note that

h_{k}^{ω, a} (x) \in {0, 1}

for all

x

. The parameter

a

will be mostly fixed (except in §7), and we use the notation

h_{k}^{ω} \equiv h_{k}^{ω, a}

θ_{Q} = θ_{Q, a}

if the value of

a

is clear.

Lemma 2.1. Suppose

p, q \in (0, \infty)

and

0 < a < C_{1} L^{- 1}

. Let

σ > max {d / p, d / q}

Then

\begin{matrix} {(\int_{Ω} ∥ {(\sum_{k = 1}^{L} [M_{σ, 2^{n_{k}}} h_{k}^{ω, a}]^{q})}^{1 / q} ∥_{p}^{p} d μ)}^{1 / q} \leq C (p, q, C_{1}) \end{matrix}

(2.2)

Proof. We first observe that for

r > 0

and every

x \in [0, 1]^{d}

\begin{matrix} \int_{Ω} {(\sum_{k = 1}^{L} | h_{k}^{ω} (x) |^{q})}^{r} d μ = \sum_{n = 0}^{L} (\binom{L}{n}) a^{n} (1 - a)^{L - n} n^{r} . \end{matrix}

(2.3)

To see this let

x \in [0, 1)^{d}

and observe that for each

k

h_{k}^{ω} (x) = θ_{Q} (ω) χ_{Q} (x)

for a single

Q = Q (k, x) \in Q (n_{k})

and thus also

h_{k}^{ω} (x) = [h_{k}^{ω} (x)]^{q}

. One has then

2^{L}

possible events, indexed by all subsets

S \subset {1, 2, \dots, L}

; the event

Ω (S, x)

that

θ_{Q (k, x)} (ω)

equals

1

for all

k \in S

and equals

0

for all

k / \in S

has probability

μ (Ω (S, x)) = a^{card (S)} (1 - a)^{L - card (S)},

by independence. The function

(\sum_{k = 1}^{L} h_{k} (x, ω))^{r}

has value

card (S)^{r}

at such an event.

Lastly the number of subsets

S

having cardinality

n

(\binom{L}{n})

. Thus, for every

x

\begin{matrix} \int_{Ω} {(\sum_{k = 1}^{L} h_{k}^{ω} (x))}^{r} d μ & = \sum_{n = 0}^{L} \sum_{card (S) = n} \int_{Ω (S, x)} {(\sum_{k \in S} h_{k}^{ω} (x))}^{r} d μ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = \sum_{n = 0}^{L} (\binom{L}{n}) a^{n} (1 - a)^{L - n} n^{r} \end{matrix}

(2.4)

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

which gives 2.3 . We set

r = p / q

in 2.3 and let

r_{0}

be the smallest positive integer

\geq p / q

. Then

\sum_{n = 0}^{L} (\binom{L}{n}) a^{n} (1 - a)^{L - n} n^{p / q} \leq \sum_{n = 1}^{\infty} \frac{L^{n}}{n!} a^{n} n^{r_{0}} = (t \frac{d}{d t})^{r_{0}} e^{t} |_{t = L a} \leq C (r_{0}, C_{1}) .

By 2.3 , integration in

x

and Fubini's theorem the last inequality implies

\begin{matrix} {(\int_{Ω} ∥ {(\sum_{k = 1}^{L} | h_{k}^{ω} |^{q})}^{1 / q} ∥_{p}^{p} d μ)}^{1 / p} \leq C (p / q, C_{1}) if L a \leq C_{1} . \end{matrix}

(2.5)

The conclusion of the lemma now follows from 1.5 , but we repeat the derivation since it involves an estimate that will be needed later. Observe that since

h_{k}^{ω}

assumes only the values

1

and

0

and is constant on dyadic cubes of length

2^{- n_{k}}

there is the estimate

\begin{matrix} {sup}_{2^{- n_{k} + l} \leq | y | \leq 2^{- n_{k} + l + 1}} | h_{k}^{ω} (x + y) | \leq C_{s} 2^{l \frac{d}{s}} {(M ([h_{k}^{ω}]^{s}))}^{1 / s} \end{matrix}

(2.6)

for any

s \leq 1

. Consequently

M_{σ, r_{k}} [h_{k}^{ω}] (x) \leq C_{σ} {(M ([h_{k}^{ω}]^{s}))}^{1 / s}

σ > d / s

and the vector Fefferman-Stein inequality [5] can be applied if

p / s > 1

q / s > 1

. Thus the asserted maximal inequality follows from 2.5 . □

An immediate consequence is

Corollary 2.2. Suppose

p, q \in (0, \infty)

σ > max {d / p, d / q}

L \in N

and

0 < a < C_{1} L^{- 1}

Let

η

be a Schwartz function and

η_{k} (x) = 2^{n_{k} d} η (2^{n_{k}} x) .

Denote by

F^{ω}

the random vector-valued function defined by

F_{k}^{ω} (x) = η_{k} * h_{k}^{ω, a} (x)

1 \leq k \leq L

, and

F_{k}^{ω} (x) = 0

k > L

. Then

\begin{matrix} {(\int_{Ω} ∥ F^{ω} ∥_{L^{p} (ℓ^{q})}^{p} d μ)}^{1 / p} \leq \tilde{C} (p, q, C_{1}) \end{matrix}

(2.7)

Remark. The quantity 2.4 is bounded by

C_{r} L a

L^{- 1} \leq a \leq 1

, see a calculation in Bourgain [3] . There is also a corresponding lower bound for

r \geq 1

, in fact there is the identity

\sum_{n = 0}^{L} (\binom{L}{n}) b^{n} (1 - b)^{L - n} n = L b, 0 < b < 1 .

To see this observe that the left hand side is equal to

(1 - b)^{L} t \frac{d}{d t} (1 + t)^{L}

when evaluated at

t = b / (1 - b)

. One also has

(\sum_{n = 0}^{L} (\binom{L}{n}) b^{n} (1 - b)^{L - n} n^{r})^{1 / r} \geq L b

r \geq 1

; this follows from Hölder's inequality since

\sum_{n = 0}^{L} (\binom{L}{n}) b^{n} (1 - b)^{L - n} = 1

3 Proof of Theorem 1.1

For

z \in R^{d}

ℓ \in Z

denote by

Q (ℓ, z)

the family of all cubes of the form

z + Q

, with

Q

any dyadic cube of sidelength

2^{- ℓ}

R^{d}

. We shall use the important Plancherel-Pólya theorem for entire functions of exponential type ([11] , [20] ). It says that there are absolute positive constants

C

m

depending only on

q \in (0, \infty)

and

d

so that for all

ℓ

z

\begin{matrix} C^{- 1} {(\sum_{Q \in Q (ℓ + m, z)} | f (x_{Q}) |^{q})}^{1 / q} \leq 2^{ℓ d / q} ∥ f ∥_{q} \leq C {(\sum_{Q \in Q (ℓ + m, z)} | f ({\tilde{x}}_{Q}) |^{q})}^{1 / q}, f \in ℰ (2^{ℓ}); \end{matrix}

(3.1)

here

x_{Q} \in Q

{\tilde{x}}_{Q} \in Q

and the constants in 3.1 are independent of the specific choices of

x_{Q}

{\tilde{x}}_{Q}

An equivalent formulation is

\begin{matrix} C^{- 1} {(\int {sup}_{| x - y | \leq u 2^{- k}} | f (y) |^{q} d x)}^{1 / q} \leq ∥ f ∥_{q} \leq C {(\int {inf}_{| x - y | \leq u 2^{- k}} | f (y) |^{q} d x)}^{1 / q}, f \in ℰ (2^{k}); \end{matrix}

(3.2)

here

C

and

u \in (0, 1)

depend only on

q

and

d

As the statement of Theorem 1.1 is trivial for

p \leq q

we shall assume

p \geq q

in what follows. If

K \in ℰ (1)

satisfies condition 1.1 with

q \leq p

we shall show that for all

N \in N

\begin{matrix} {(\int_{| x | \leq 2^{N}} {inf}_{| x - y | \leq u} | K (y) |^{q} d x)}^{1 / q} \leq C (q, d, u) A . \end{matrix}

(3.3)

Here we may pass to the limit as

N \to \infty

and then, choosing

u = u (q, d)

sufficiently small, we may apply the second inequality in 3.2 to deduce the assertion of Theorem 1.1 . In what follows we pick an integer

M

so that

2^{- M + d + 1} \leq u < 2^{- M + d + 2}

In order to show 3.3 we may use 1.1 for functions

{f_{k}}_{k = 1}^{L}

indexed by a finite family of radii; we put

L = 2^{N d}

and by a scaling we may assume that

\begin{matrix} r_{k} \geq 2^{10 d + 10 N}, k = 1, . . ., L . \end{matrix}

(3.4)

It will be useful to replace

K

with a kernel which vanishes for

| x | \geq 2^{N + 2}

. Let

ζ

be a

C^{\infty}

function with compact support in

{x : | x | < 4}

which equals

1

for

| x | \leq 2

. Let

ζ_{N} (x) = ζ (2^{- N} x)

and let

K^{N} = K ζ_{N}

. Clearly 3.3 follows from

\begin{matrix} {(\int {inf}_{| x - y | \leq u} | K^{N} (y) |^{q} d x)}^{1 / q} \leq C^{'} (q, d, u) A . \end{matrix}

(3.5)

We first deduce from 1.1 a vector-valued inequality for the dilates of

K^{N}

. We define positive integers

n_{k}

as in the previous section, namely by

\begin{matrix} 2^{n_{k} - M - d - 1} \leq r_{k} < 2^{n_{k} - M - d} . \end{matrix}

(3.6)

With these specifications on

r_{k}

n_{k}

we prove

Lemma 3.1. Suppose that

q \leq p

and that 1.1 and 3.4 hold. Set

K_{k}^{N} (x) = r_{k}^{d} K^{N} (r_{k} x)

a = L^{- 1} = 2^{- N d}

and define

h_{k}^{ω} \equiv h_{k}^{ω, a}

as in 2.1 . Then

\begin{matrix} {(\sum_{k = 1}^{L} \int_{[0, 1]^{d}} \int_{Ω} | K_{k}^{N} * h_{k}^{ω, a} |^{q} d μ d x)}^{1 / q} \leq C A \end{matrix}

(3.7)

Proof. By Hölder's inequality and Fubini's theorem

\begin{matrix} {(\sum_{k = 1}^{L} \int_{[0, 1]^{d}} \int_{Ω} | K_{k}^{N} * h_{k}^{ω} |^{q} d μ d x)}^{1 / q} \leq {(\int_{Ω} \int_{[0, 1]^{d}} {(\sum_{k = 1}^{L} | K_{k}^{N} * h_{k}^{ω} |^{q})}^{p / q} d x d μ)}^{1 / p} . \end{matrix}

(3.8)

Let

e_{z} (x) = e^{i 〈 x, z 〉}

. Then for any compactly supported bounded function

g

\begin{matrix} K_{k}^{N} * g (x) = (2 π)^{- d} \int \hat{ζ_{N}} (ξ) e_{r_{k} ξ} (x) K_{k} * [g e_{- r_{k} ξ}] (x) d ξ . \end{matrix}

(3.9)

Let

η

be a Schwartz function in

ℰ (2)

with the property that

\hat{η} (ξ) = 1

for

| ξ | \leq 1

. Let

η_{k} = r_{k}^{d} η (r_{k} \cdot)

and

K_{k} = r_{k}^{d} K (r_{k} \cdot)

, then

\begin{matrix} K_{k} * η_{k} = K_{k} . \end{matrix}

(3.10)

Now suppose

1 \leq q \leq p

. Then 3.9 , 3.10 , Minkowski's inequality and the assumption 1.1 imply for fixed

ω

\begin{matrix} ∥ {(\sum_{k = 1}^{L} | K_{k}^{N} * h_{k}^{ω} |^{q})}^{1 / q} ∥_{p} & \leq \int | \hat{ζ_{N}} (ξ) | ∥ {(\sum_{k = 1}^{L} | K_{k} * η_{k} * [h_{k}^{ω} e_{- r_{k} ξ}] |^{q})}^{1 / q} ∥_{p} d ξ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq A \int | \hat{ζ_{N}} (ξ) | ∥ {(\sum_{k = 1}^{L} | η_{k} * [h_{k}^{ω} e_{- r_{k} ξ}] |^{q})}^{1 / q} ∥_{p} d ξ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq C_{ρ} A ∥ {(\sum_{k = 1}^{L} {[{sup}_{y} \frac{| h_{k}^{ω} (\cdot + y) |}{(1 + r_{k} | y |)^{ρ}}]}^{q})}^{1 / q} ∥_{p} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

for any

ρ > 0

. We have used that

∥ \hat{ζ_{N}} ∥_{1} = O (1)

. We choose

ρ > d / q

, take

p

th powers, and integrate over

ω \in Ω

. By Lemma 2.1 we obtain

\begin{matrix} {(\int_{Ω} ∥ {(\sum_{k = 1}^{L} | K_{k}^{N} * h_{k}^{ω} |^{q})}^{1 / q} ∥_{p}^{p} d μ)}^{1 / p} \leq C (p, q, d) A \end{matrix}

(3.11)

and 3.7 follows from 3.11 and 3.8 (in the case

q \geq 1

It remains to prove 3.11 in the case

q \leq 1

. Since

ζ

has compact support we can apply the Plancherel-Pólya theorem in

L^{q}

. Let

{Q_{ν}^{N}}

denote the collection of dyadic cubes of sidelength

2^{- M - N}

(where

2^{- M} \approx u = u (q)

as in 3.2 ). For each such cube choose

ξ_{ν} \in Q_{ν}^{N}

Then for fixed

ω

\begin{matrix} ∥ {(\sum_{k = 1}^{L} | K_{k}^{N} * h_{k}^{ω} |^{q})}^{1 / q} ∥_{p} & \leq {(\int {(\sum_{k = 1}^{L} {(\int | \hat{ζ_{N}} (ξ) K_{k} * [h_{k}^{ω} e_{- r_{k} ξ}] (x) | d ξ)}^{q})}^{p / q} d x)}^{1 / p} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} ≲ {(\int {(\sum_{k = 1}^{L} {(\sum_{ν} 2^{- N d} | \hat{ζ_{N}} (ξ_{ν}) K_{k} * [h_{k}^{ω} e_{- r_{k} ξ_{ν}}] (x) |)}^{q})}^{p / q} d x)}^{1 / p} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

and by the imbedding

ℓ^{q} \subset ℓ^{1}

and Minkowski's inequality (

p / q \geq 1

) this is dominated by

\begin{matrix} {(\int {(\sum_{k = 1}^{L} \sum_{ν} 2^{- N d q} | \hat{ζ_{N}} (ξ_{ν}) K_{k} * [h_{k}^{ω} e_{- r_{k} ξ_{ν}}] (x) |^{q})}^{p / q} d x)}^{1 / p} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} ≲ {(2^{- N d q} \sum_{ν} | \hat{ζ_{N}} (ξ_{ν}) |^{q} {(\int {(\sum_{k = 1}^{L} | K_{k} * [h_{k}^{ω} e_{- r_{k} ξ_{ν}} (x)] |^{q})}^{p / q} d x)}^{q / p})}^{1 / q} . \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

By 3.10 and 1.1 the last expression is in turn dominated by

\begin{matrix} {(2^{- N d q} \sum_{ν} | \hat{ζ_{N}} (ξ_{ν}) |^{q} A^{q} {(\int {(\sum_{k = 1}^{L} | η_{k} * [h_{k}^{ω} e_{- r_{k} ξ_{ν}}] |^{q})}^{p / q} d x)}^{q / p})}^{1 / q} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} ≲ C_{M} A {(2^{- N d q} \sum_{ν} | \hat{ζ_{N}} (ξ_{ν}) |^{q})}^{1 / q} ∥ {(\sum_{k = 1}^{L} | {sup}_{y} \frac{| h_{k}^{ω} (\cdot + y)}{(1 + r_{k} | y |)^{ρ}} |^{q})}^{1 / q} ∥_{p} . \end{matrix}

(3.12)

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

To eliminate the

ν

-summation we observe that by the Plancherel-Pólya theorem

2^{- N d q} \sum_{ν} | {\hat{ζ}}_{N} (ξ_{ν}) |^{q} ≲ 2^{- N d (q - 1)} \int | {\hat{ζ}}_{N} (ξ) |^{q} d ξ = \int | \hat{ζ} (ξ) |^{q} d ξ .

Thus we may apply Lemma 2.1 (choosing

ρ > d / q

) to bound 3.12 and obtain 3.11 in the case

q < 1

as well. □

Proof of Theorem 1.1 , conclusion. Let

Q_{k}^{N + M + 2} (x)

be the unique dyadic cube of sidelength

2^{- n_{k} + N + M + 2}

containing

x

and let

V_{k}^{N, M} (x)

be the union of all dyadic cubes of sidelength

2^{- n_{k} + N + M + 2}

whose boundaries have nonempty intersection with the boundary of

Q_{k}^{N + M + 2} (x)

. Then

V_{k}^{N, M} (x) \subset [0, 1]^{d}

provided that

x \in [1 / 4, 3 / 4]^{d}

. Let

V_{k}^{N, M} (x)

be the family of all dyadic cubes in

Q (n_{k})

which are contained in the closure of

V_{k}^{N, M} (x)

One of the obstacles to be overcome in our proofs is that unwanted cancellations could conceivably arise between the different terms contributing to expressions such as

\sum_{Q \in Q (n_{k})} θ_{Q} (ω) K_{k}^{N} * χ_{Q} (x) .

We will handle this by considering the contributions of events in which all terms but one in the sum are either small, or have coefficients

θ_{Q} (ω) = 0

. To this end, for each

Q \in V_{k}^{N, M} (x)

define the event

\begin{matrix} Ω (k, x, Q) = {ω \in Ω : θ_{Q} (ω) = 1 and θ_{Q^{'}} (ω) = 0 for all Q^{'} \in V_{k}^{N, M} (x) \ {Q}} . \end{matrix}

(3.13)

Q \in Q (n_{k})

but

Q / \in V_{k}^{N, M} (x)

then

r_{k} | x - y | \geq r_{k} 2^{- n_{k} + N + M + 2} \geq 2^{N + 2}

for all

y \in Q

and thus

K_{k}^{N} * χ_{Q} = 0

. For fixed

1 \leq k \leq L

x \in [1 / 4, 3 / 4]^{d}

\begin{matrix} \int_{Ω} | K_{k}^{N} * h_{k}^{ω} (x) |^{q} d μ & = \int_{Ω} | \sum_{Q^{'} \in V_{k}^{N, M} (x)} θ_{Q^{'}} (ω) K_{k}^{N} * χ_{Q^{'}} (x) |^{q} d μ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq & \sum_{Q \in V_{k}^{N, M} (x)} \int_{Ω (k, x, Q)} | \sum_{Q^{'} \in V_{k}^{N, M} (x)} θ_{Q^{'}} (ω) K_{k}^{N} * χ_{Q^{'}} (x) |^{q} d μ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & \sum_{Q \in V_{k}^{N, M} (x)} μ (Ω (k, x, Q)) | K_{k}^{N} * χ_{Q} (x) |^{q} . \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

Now

μ (Ω (k, x, Q)) = a (1 - a)^{2^{(N + M + 2) d} 3^{d} - 1}

with

a = 2^{- N d}

. Thus

\begin{matrix} μ (Ω (k, x, Q)) \geq c_{M} 2^{- N d} \end{matrix}

(3.14)

and therefore

μ (Ω (k, x, Q)) | K_{k}^{N} * χ_{Q} (x) |^{q} \geq c_{M} 2^{- N d} 2^{- n_{k} d q} {inf}_{y \in Q} | r_{k}^{d} K^{N} (r_{k} (x - y)) |^{q} .

We have thus proved that

\int_{Ω} | K_{k}^{N} * h_{k}^{ω} (x) |^{q} d μ \geq c_{M}^{'} 2^{- N d} \sum_{Q \in V_{k}^{N, M} (x)} {inf}_{z \in r_{k} Q} | K^{N} (r_{k} x - z) |^{q} .

Now the disjoint cubes

r_{k} x - r_{k} Q

cover the ball of radius

2^{N + 2}

Q

ranges over the cubes in

V_{k}^{N, M} (x)

. The diameter of

r_{k} x - r_{k} Q

is bounded by

\sqrt{d} r_{k} 2^{- n_{k}} \leq 2^{- M} \leq u

and therefore

\begin{matrix} \int_{Ω} | K_{k}^{N} * h_{k}^{ω} (x) |^{q} d μ \geq c_{M}^{'} 2^{- N d} \int {inf}_{| y - z | \leq u} | K^{N} (z) |^{q} d y . \end{matrix}

(3.15)

Now integrate over

x \in [1 / 4 / 3 / 4]^{d}

and sum in

k = 1, . . ., 2^{N d}

and the assertion 3.5 follows from 3.15 and 3.7 . □ Remark. Theorem 1.1 can be applied to the case of Bochner-Riesz multipliers mentioned in the introduction. A refinement of this example is as follows. Let

χ

be supported in

{ξ : 3 / 4 < | ξ | < 5 / 4}

and be equal to

1

in a neighborhood of the unit circle and consider the multiplier

m_{λ, δ} (ξ) = \sum_{k \in Z} χ (2^{- k} ξ) (1 - 2^{- 2 k} | ξ |^{2})_{+}^{λ} [log (1 - 2^{- k} | ξ |)^{- 1}]^{- δ}

Then

f \mapsto ℱ^{- 1} [m_{λ, δ} \hat{f}]

fails to be bounded on the homogeneous Triebel-Lizorkin space

{\dot{F}}_{0}^{p q}

λ < d (1 / q - 1 / 2) - 1 / 2

, or

λ = d (1 / q - 1 / 2) - 1 / 2

δ \leq 1 / q

. These examples show that that the restriction

p \leq q \leq p^{'}

in some multiplier theorems for Triebel-Lizorkin spaces stated in [13] , [15] is needed; moreover, if

q \leq 1

then the condition on

q

in the analogue of the Mikhlin-Hörmander multiplier theorem stated on p.75 in [20] is necessary.

4 Proof of Theorem 1.2

We use the random construction of § 2 . Fix a real valued Schwartz function

η

so that

\hat{η}

is supported in

{ξ : 1 / 2 < | ξ | < 1}

and so that

η (x) \geq 1

for

| x | \leq 2^{- M + 2 + d}

(with some positive

M

which is fixed in the proof ).

Let

σ \leq d / q

and

q \leq p

and let

L

be large. We may assume that

L = 2^{N d}

for some large

N \in N

. To show the lower bound 1.6 we may assume that the

r_{k}

's,

k = 1, . . ., L

are large.

This follows by scaling, namely if

δ_{t} f (x) : = f (t x)

, and if

f_{k} \in ℰ_{o} (r)

then

δ_{t} f_{k} \in ℰ_{o} (t r)

; moreover

δ_{t}^{- 1} M_{σ, r t} δ_{t} = M_{σ, r}

. Thus the operator norms of

{M_{σ, r_{k}}}

and

{M_{σ, t r_{k}}}

are the same.

We may assume

2^{n_{k} - M} \leq r_{k} < 2^{n_{k} + 1 - M}, n_{k} \in Z, n_{k} \geq 100 d + M + N,

for

k = 1, . . ., L

. Define

η_{k} (x) = r_{k}^{d} η (r_{k} x)

and

\begin{matrix} g_{k}^{ω, a} = η_{k} * h_{k}^{ω, a}, a = 2^{- N d}, \end{matrix}

(4.1)

with

h_{k}^{ω, a}

as in 2.1 . Note that

g_{k}^{ω, a} \in ℰ_{o} (r_{k})

. We omit the superscript

a

in what follows.

Since

p \geq q

we see by Hölder's inequality and Fubini's theorem that

\begin{matrix} {(\int_{Ω} ∥ {(\sum_{k = 1}^{L} | M_{σ, r_{k}} g_{k}^{ω} |^{q})}^{1 / q} ∥_{p}^{p} d μ)}^{1 / p} \geq {(\sum_{k = 1}^{L} \int_{[0, 1]^{d}} \int_{Ω} | M_{σ, r_{k}} g_{k}^{ω} |^{q} d μ d x)}^{1 / q} . \end{matrix}

(4.2)

Let

x \in [1 / 4, 3 / 4]^{d}

and let

Q_{k}^{j} (x)

be the unique dyadic cube of sidelength

2^{- n_{k} + j}

which contains

x

. Let

ℳ_{j, k} f (x) = {sup}_{y \in Q_{k}^{j} (x) \ Q_{k}^{j - 1} (x)} | f (y) |

Then

\begin{matrix} M_{σ, r_{k}} [g_{k}^{ω}] (x) \geq c_{M, d} {sup}_{2 \leq j \leq N} 2^{- j σ} ℳ_{j, k} g_{k}^{ω} (x) . \end{matrix}

(4.3)

Thus, in view of Corollary 2.2 , 4.2 and 4.3 it suffices to show that for

σ \leq d / q

\begin{matrix} {(\sum_{k = 1}^{L} \int_{[\frac{1}{4}, \frac{3}{4}]^{d}} \int_{Ω} {sup}_{2 \leq j \leq N} | 2^{- j σ} ℳ_{j, k} g_{k}^{ω} (x) |^{q} d μ d x)}^{1 / q} \geq c max {2^{N (- σ + d / q)}, N^{1 / q}} . \end{matrix}

(4.4)

To show 4.4 we let

V_{k}^{N} (x)

be the union of all dyadic cubes of sidelength

2^{- n_{k} + N + 1}

whose boundaries have nonempty intersection with the boundary of

Q_{k}^{N + 1} (x)

. Split

ℳ_{j, k} g_{k}^{ω} (x) = I_{j}^{ω} (k, x) + I I_{j}^{ω} (k, x)

where

\begin{matrix} I_{j}^{ω} (k, x) & = {sup}_{y \in Q_{k}^{j} (x) \ Q_{k}^{j - 1} (x)} | \sum_{\binom{Q \in Q (n_{k})}{Q \subset V_{k}^{N} (x)}} θ_{Q} (ω) η_{k} * χ_{Q} (y) | \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} I I_{j}^{ω} (k, x) & = {sup}_{y \in Q_{k}^{j} (x) \ Q_{k}^{j - 1} (x)} | \sum_{\binom{Q \in Q (n_{k})}{Q \subset [\frac{1}{4}, \frac{3}{4}]^{d} \ V_{k}^{N} (x)}} θ_{Q} (ω) η_{k} * χ_{Q} (y) | \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

The terms

I I_{j}^{ω} (k, x)

are error terms; indeed if

y \in Q_{k}^{j} (x)

j \leq N

and

z \in [\frac{1}{4}, \frac{3}{4}]^{d} \ V_{k}^{N} (x)

then

| y - z | \geq c 2^{- n_{k} + N}

and from this it is easy to see that

{sup}_{2 \leq j \leq N} | I I_{j}^{ω} (k, x) | \leq C_{M, ρ} M_{ρ, 2^{- n_{k}}} [h_{k}^{ω}]

for any

ρ > 0

. Thus by Lemma 2.1

\begin{matrix} {(\sum_{k = 1}^{L} \int_{[\frac{1}{4}, \frac{3}{4}]^{d}} \int_{Ω} {sup}_{2 \leq j \leq N} | 2^{- j σ} I I_{j}^{ω} (k, x) |^{q} d μ d x)}^{1 / q} \leq C (p, q, M) . \end{matrix}

(4.5)

We show for almost every

x \in [1 / 4, 3 / 4)^{d}

1 \leq k \leq L

the uniform lower bound

\begin{matrix} \int_{Ω} {sup}_{2 \leq j \leq N} | 2^{- j σ} I_{j}^{ω} (k, x) |^{q} d μ \geq c^{'} 2^{- N d} max {2^{N (d - q σ)}, N} . \end{matrix}

(4.6)

Clearly 4.4 follows from 4.6 after integrating in

x

and then summing in

k

(recall that

L = 2^{N d}

); the error term 4.5 changes this lower bound only by a small constant if

N

is large.

Next, to prove 4.6 we observe that if

Q \in Q (n_{k})

and if

y_{Q}

is the center of

Q

and

z \in Q

then

| y_{Q} - z | \leq \sqrt{d} 2^{- n_{k}} \leq 2^{- M + d + 1} r_{k}^{- 1}

and since

η (w) \geq 1

for

| w | \leq 2^{- M + d + 1}

it follows that

\begin{matrix} η_{k} * χ_{Q} (y_{Q}) = \int r_{k}^{d} η (r_{k} (y_{Q} - z)) χ_{Q} (z) d z \geq r_{k}^{d} 2^{- n_{k} d} \geq 2^{- M d} . \end{matrix}

(4.7)

Now assume

Q \in Q (n_{k})

is contained in

V_{k}^{N} (x)

. For this

Q

let

Ω (k, x, Q)

be the event that

θ_{Q} (ω) = 1

, but

θ_{Q^{'}} (ω) = 0

for all other

Q^{'} \in Q (n_{k})

contained in

V_{k}^{N} (x)

. The probability of this event is

μ (Ω (k, x, Q)) = a (1 - a)^{3^{d} 2^{(N + 1) d}}

and since

a = 2^{- N d}

we get the uniform lower bound

\begin{matrix} μ (Ω (k, x, Q)) \geq c_{d} 2^{- N d} . \end{matrix}

(4.8)

Moreover, if

2 \leq l \leq N

and

Q \subset Q_{k}^{l} (x) \ Q_{k}^{l - 1} (x)

Q \subset V_{k}^{N} (x)

then

\begin{matrix} \int_{Ω (k, x, Q)} {sup}_{2 \leq j \leq N} | 2^{- j σ} I_{j}^{ω} (k, x) |^{q} d μ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = \int_{Ω (k, x, Q)} 2^{- l q σ} {sup}_{y \in Q_{k}^{l} (x) \ Q_{k}^{l - 1} (x)} | η_{k} * χ_{Q} (y) |^{q} d μ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq μ Ω (k, x, Q) 2^{- l q σ} | η_{k} * χ_{Q} (y_{Q}) |^{q} \geq 2^{- N d} 2^{- l q σ} 2^{- M d q} . \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

For fixed

k, x

the events

Ω (k, x, Q)

are disjoint and we can sum over

Q

. Thus

\begin{matrix} \int_{Ω} {sup}_{2 \leq j \leq N} | 2^{- j σ} I_{j}^{ω} (k, x) |^{q} d μ \geq \sum_{\binom{Q \in Q (n_{k})}{Q \subset V_{k}^{N} (x)}} \int_{Ω (k, x, Q)} {sup}_{2 \leq j \leq N} | 2^{- j σ} I_{j}^{ω} (k, x) |^{q} d μ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq c_{1} \sum_{2 \leq l \leq N} \sum_{\binom{Q \in Q (n_{k})}{Q \subset Q_{k}^{l} (x) \ Q_{k}^{l - 1} (x)}} 2^{- l q σ} 2^{- N d} \geq c_{2} \sum_{2 \leq l \leq N} (2^{l d} - 2^{(l - 1) d}) 2^{- l q σ} 2^{- N d} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq c_{3} 2^{- N d} max {2^{N (d - q σ)}, N} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

where the constants depend only on

d

σ

and

M

. This proves 4.6 and 4.4 follows. □

5 Deterministic examples

We return to Theorem 1.2 and give a nonprobabilistic proof for the lower bound in the case where

r_{k} = 2^{- k}

k > 0

. With small modifications the argument can be made to apply in the general lacunary case, where

{inf}_{k} r_{k + 1} / r_{k} > 1

, but we leave this to the reader.

Fix

M > 0

sufficiently large and let

η \in S \cap ℰ_{o} (1)

be a Schwartz function such that

η (x) \geq 1

| x_{i} | \leq 2^{- M}

for

i = 1, . . ., d

. Let

η_{k} = 2^{k d} η (2^{k} \cdot)

We fix

N

large and set

L = 2^{N d}

. For

k \geq N

, let

Z_{k, N}^{d} = {0, 1, . . ., 2^{k - N} - 1}^{d}

and for

j = (j_{1}, . . ., j_{d}) \in Z_{k, N}^{d}

we set

Q_{k, j} = [j_{1} 2^{- k + N}, j_{1} 2^{- k + N} + 2^{- k - M}] \times \cdot \cdot \cdot \times [j_{d} 2^{- k + N}, j_{d} 2^{- k + N} + 2^{- k - M}] .

Denote by

χ_{k, j}

be the characteristic function of

Q_{k, j}

, and let

h_{k} = \sum_{j \in Z_{k, N}^{d}} χ_{k, j}

. Let

f_{k} = h_{k} * η_{k}

so that

f_{k} \in ℰ_{o} (2^{k})

Proposition 5.1. For

0 < q \leq p < \infty

\begin{matrix} ∥ {(\sum_{k = N}^{2^{N d}} | f_{k} |^{q})}^{1 / q} ∥_{p} \leq C (p, q), \end{matrix}

(5.1)

and for

σ \leq d / q

\begin{matrix} ∥ {(\sum_{k = N}^{2^{N d}} | M_{σ, 2^{k}} f_{k} |^{q})}^{1 / q} ∥_{p} \geq c (p, q, M) max {2^{N (\frac{d}{q} - σ)}, N^{1 / q}} . \end{matrix}

(5.2)

Proof. It is easy to see that

| f_{k} | \leq C_{s} (M_{H L} [| h_{k} |^{s}])^{1 / s}

, for

s > 0

; see the argument for 2.6 in the proof of Lemma 2.1 . Thus it suffices to prove 5.1 with

f_{k}

replaced by

h_{k}

. For the proof we may assume that

p \geq q

, and in fact

p = n q

for some integer

n

(the intermediate cases follow by interpolation). Thus we have to show that the

L^{1} ([0, 1]^{d})

norm of

(\sum_{k = N}^{2^{N d}} h_{k})^{n}

has an upper bound depending only on

n

. Since each

h_{k}

is nonnegative, this follows from

\begin{matrix} \sum_{\binom{k_{1}, . . ., k_{n} \in [N, 2^{N d}]}{k_{1} \leq k_{2} \leq \cdot \cdot \cdot \leq k_{n}}} \int^{n} \prod_{i = 1} h_{k_{i}} (x) d x \leq C (n) . \end{matrix}

(5.3)

In comparison with the random case, we have lost independence; the correlation between

h_{k_{i}}

and

h_{k_{i + 1}}

is strongest when

k_{i + 1} - k_{i}

is small. To estimate 5.3 observe that the support of

h_{k}

has measure

2^{- (N + M) d}

and that

meas (⋃_{Q_{k_{i + 1}, ν} \subset Q_{k_{i}}, j} Q_{k_{i + 1}, ν}) = {\begin{matrix} | Q_{k_{i}, j} | 2^{- (N + M) d} & if k_{i + 1} \geq k_{i} + N + M, \\ | Q_{k_{i}, j} | 2^{(k_{i} - k_{i + 1}) d} & if k_{i} \leq k_{i + 1} \leq k_{i} + N + M . \end{matrix}

Thus

\int^{n} \prod_{i = 1} h_{k_{i}} (x) d x = meas (supp (^{n} \prod_{i = 1} h_{k_{i}})) = {2^{- (N + M) d}}^{n - 1} \prod_{i = 1} max {2^{(k_{i} - k_{i + 1}) d}, 2^{- (N + M) d}} .

We sum in

k_{n}, k_{n - 1}, . . ., k_{1}

(each ranging over the integers in

[N, 2^{N d}]

) and 5.3 follows. We now show for

σ \leq d / q

the lower bound 5.2 . Let

y_{k, j}

be the center of

Q_{k, j}

and observe that

η_{k} * h_{k, j} (y_{k, j}) \geq 2^{- M d}

. Thus also

\begin{matrix} M_{σ, 2^{k}} [η_{k} * h_{k, j}] (x) \geq 2^{- M d} (1 + 2^{k} | x - y_{k, j} |)^{- σ} if | x - y_{k, j} | \leq 2^{- k + N - 2} . \end{matrix}

(5.4)

Moreover

\begin{matrix} | η_{k} * \sum_{j^{'} \neq j} h_{k, j^{'}} (x) | \leq C_{s} {(M_{H L} [| h_{k} |^{s}])}^{1 / s} if | x - y_{k, j} | \leq 2^{- k + N - 2} \end{matrix}

(5.5)

so that the terms in 5.5 are negligible error terms. By Hölder's inequality and 5.4 , 5.5

\begin{matrix} {(\int_{[0, 1]^{d}} {(\sum_{k = N}^{2^{N d}} | M_{σ, 2^{k}} f_{k} (x) |^{q})}^{p / q} d x)}^{1 / p} \geq {(\sum_{k = N}^{2^{N d}} \int_{[0, 1]^{d}} | M_{σ, 2^{k}} f_{k} (x) |^{q} d x)}^{1 / q} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq c_{M} {(\sum_{k = N}^{2^{N d}} \sum_{j \in Z_{k, N}^{d}} \int_{\binom{x \in [0, 1]^{d}}{| x - y_{k, j} | \leq 2^{- k + N - 2}}} (1 + 2^{k} | x - y_{k, j} |)^{- σ q})}^{1 / q} \end{matrix}

(5.6)

\begin{matrix} - C_{M} {(\int {(M_{H L} [| h_{k} |^{s}])}^{q / s})}^{1 / q} . \end{matrix}

(5.7)

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

The subtracted term in 5.7 is uniformly bounded if

s < q

and one easily verifies that the main term in 5.6 is bounded below by

c 2^{N (d - σ q) / q}

σ < d / q

and by

N^{1 / q}

σ = d / q

. Thus 5.2 follows. □

6 Proof of Theorem 1.3

We shall first use arguments from singular integral theory to establish the upper bounds.

Then we show the lower bounds by somewhat more technical variants of the ideas used above to prove Theorem 1.2 .

6.1 Upper bounds

In this section we set

L_{k} f = η_{k} * f

where

η_{k} = 2^{k d} η (2^{k} \cdot)

and

η

is a Schwartz function whose Fourier transform is supported in

{ξ : 1 / 2 \leq | ξ | \leq 2}

It suffices to set

r = 2^{2^{N d}}

and the claimed upper bound follows easily from

\begin{matrix} ∥ {(\int_{0}^{1} {sup}_{| h | \leq t} | Δ_{h}^{m} \sum_{k = 1}^{2^{N d}} L_{k} f (x) |^{q} t^{- 1 - σ q} d t)}^{1 / q} ∥_{p} ≲ A_{N} (p, q, σ) ∥ {(\sum_{k = 1}^{2^{N d}} 2^{σ q k} | L_{k} f |^{q})}^{1 / q} ∥_{p} \end{matrix}

(6.1)

for

q \leq p

, where

A_{N} (p, q, σ) = 2^{N (- σ + d / q)} if d / p < σ < d / q, A_{N} (p, q, d / q) = max {N, N^{1 / q}} .

The contributions for the terms with

| 2^{k} h | \leq 1

can be dealt with by standard arguments using Peetre's maximal function. One obtains

\begin{matrix} ∥ {(\int_{0}^{1} {sup}_{| h | \leq t} | \sum_{\binom{1 \leq k \leq 2^{N d}}{2^{k} | h | \leq 1}} Δ_{h}^{m} L_{k} f (x) |^{q} t^{- 1 - σ q} d t)}^{1 / q} ∥_{p} ≲ ∥ {(\sum_{k = 1}^{2^{N d}} 2^{k σ q} | L_{k} f |^{q})}^{1 / q} ∥_{p}; \end{matrix}

(6.2)

it is only here that the more detailed structure of the difference operator

Δ_{h}^{m}

and in particular the condition

m > σ

is used. Therefore (after a change of variable and application of the triangle inequality) matters are reduced to the inequality

\begin{matrix} ∥ {(\int_{0}^{1} {sup}_{| h | \leq t} | \sum_{\binom{1 \leq k \leq 2^{N d}}{2^{k} | h | \geq 1}} L_{k} f (x + h) |^{q} t^{- 1 - σ q} d t)}^{1 / q} ∥_{p} ≲ A_{N} (p, q, σ) ∥ {(\sum_{k = 1}^{2^{N d}} 2^{σ q k} | L_{k} f |^{q})}^{1 / q} ∥_{p} . \end{matrix}

(6.3)

For

n \geq 0

define

\begin{matrix} ℳ_{k}^{n} f_{k} (x) = {sup}_{| h | \leq 2^{n - k + 1}} | f_{k} (x + h) | . \end{matrix}

(6.4)

Proposition 6.1.1. Let

0 < q \leq p < \infty

. Then if

f_{k} \in ℰ (2^{k})

\begin{matrix} ∥ {ℳ_{k}^{n} f_{k}} ∥_{L^{p} (ℓ^{q})} ≲ 2^{n d / q} ∥ {f_{k}} ∥_{L^{p} (ℓ^{q})} . \end{matrix}

(6.5)

Remarks. (i) Note that

ℳ_{k}^{n} f_{k} ≲ 2^{n d / ρ} M_{ρ, 2^{k}} f_{k}

so that the non-endpoint

L^{p} (ℓ^{q})

bound with constant

C_{ɛ} 2^{n (d / q + ɛ)}

follows from Peetre's maximal theorem.

(ii) There is also an endpoint inequality when

p < q

, namely

∥ {ℳ_{k}^{n} f_{k}} ∥_{L^{p} (ℓ^{q})} ≲ 2^{n d / p} ∥ {f_{k}} ∥_{L^{p} (ℓ^{q})}, 0 < p \leq q < \infty .

This bound is not needed here and can be proved using arguments in §3 of [15] .

Proof that Proposition 6.1.1 implies 6.3 .

Assuming

q \geq 1

we estimate

\begin{matrix} {(\int_{0}^{1} {sup}_{| h | \leq t} | \sum_{\binom{1 \leq k \leq 2^{N d}}{2^{k} | h | \geq 1}} L_{k} f (x + h) |^{q} t^{- 1 - σ q} d t)}^{1 / q} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} ≲ \sum_{m \geq 0} \sum_{n \geq 0} {(\sum_{l = 1}^{2^{N d}} 2^{l σ q} {sup}_{2^{- l - m} \leq | h | \leq 2^{- l - m + 2}} | L_{l + m + n} f (x + h) |^{q})}^{1 / q} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

and using Proposition 6.1.1 we obtain

\begin{matrix} ∥ {(\sum_{l = 1}^{2^{N d}} 2^{l σ q} {sup}_{2^{- l - m} \leq | h | \leq 2^{- l - m + 2}} | L_{l + m + n} f (x + h) |^{q})}^{1 / q} ∥_{p} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} ≲ 2^{- m σ} 2^{n (\frac{d}{q} - σ)} ∥ {(\sum_{l} 2^{(l + m + n) σ q} | L_{l + m + n} f |^{q})}^{1 / q} ∥_{p} . \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

The contributions of very large parameters

n

are negligible, but an alternative bound is needed to quantify this. One such bound can derived by invoking Hölder's inequality to get

\begin{matrix} ∥ {(\sum_{l = 1}^{2^{N d}} 2^{l σ q} {sup}_{2^{- l - m} \leq | h | \leq 2^{- l - m + 2}} | L_{l + m + n} f (x + h) |^{q})}^{1 / q} ∥_{p} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq 2^{N d (1 / q - 1 / p)} ∥ {(\sum_{l = 1}^{2^{N d}} 2^{l σ p} {sup}_{2^{- l - m} \leq | h | \leq 2^{- l - m + 2}} | L_{l + m + n} f (x + h) |^{p})}^{1 / p} ∥_{p} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} ≲ 2^{- m σ} 2^{n (\frac{d}{p} - σ)} 2^{N d (1 / q - 1 / p)} ∥ {(\sum_{l} 2^{(l + m + n) σ q} | L_{l + m + n} f |^{q})}^{1 / q} ∥_{p} . \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

Consequently after summing in

m, n

we obtain

\begin{matrix} A_{p, q, σ} (2^{2^{N d}}) ≲ \sum_{n \geq 0} min {2^{n (\frac{d}{p} - σ)} 2^{N d (1 / q - 1 / p)}, 2^{n (\frac{d}{q} - σ)}} . \end{matrix}

(6.6)

In Theorem 1.3 we have the hypotheses

q < p

and

σ > d / p

. Thus the series is

O (2^{N (d / q - σ)})

σ < d / q

and is

O (N)

when

σ = d / q

q < 1

we have to bound the

L^{p}

norm of

{(\sum_{m \geq 0} \sum_{n \geq 0} \sum_{l = 1}^{2^{N d}} 2^{l σ q} {sup}_{2^{- l - m} \leq | h | \leq 2^{- l - m + 2}} | L_{l + m + n} f (x + h) |^{q})}^{1 / q}

and now

A_{p, q, σ}^{q} (2^{2^{N d}}) ≲ \sum_{n = 0}^{\infty} min {2^{n q (\frac{d}{p} - σ)} 2^{N d (1 - q / p)}, 2^{n q (\frac{d}{q} - σ)}}

which is

O (2^{N (d - q σ)})

σ < d / q

and

O (N)

when

σ = d / q

. Thus we have shown that the upper bound in Theorem 1.3 is implied by Proposition 6.1.1 .

Proof of Proposition 6.1.1 .

We first observe that the known arguments in Peetre's maximal inequality yield the assertion for

p = q

. Indeed a small modification of the proof in [20] , p. 20, shows that for

g \in ℰ (1)

0 < r < \infty

ρ > d / r

\begin{matrix} {sup}_{z} \frac{| \nabla g (x + z) |}{(1 + 2^{- n} | z |)^{ρ}} ≲ {sup}_{z} \frac{| g (x + z) |}{(1 + 2^{- n} | z |)^{ρ}} \end{matrix}

(6.7)

and that this can be used to obtain

\begin{matrix} {sup}_{z} \frac{| g (x + z) |}{(1 + 2^{- n} | z |)^{ρ}} ≲ 2^{n d / r} \sum_{m = 0}^{\infty} 2^{- m (ρ - d / r)} {(2^{- d (n + m)} \int_{| z | \leq 2^{n + m}} | g (x + z) |^{r} d z)}^{1 / r} . \end{matrix}

(6.8)

6.8 implies for

0 < r < \infty

the inequality

\begin{matrix} ∥ ℳ_{k}^{n} g ∥_{r} ≲ 2^{n d / r} ∥ g ∥_{r}, g \in ℰ (2^{k}), \end{matrix}

(6.9)

first for

k = 0

and then by scaling also for general

k

. Thus we obtain 6.5 for

p = q

We now consider the assertion for

p > q

. First observe that the case

1 \leq q < p

can be proved by interpolation with the

L^{p} (ℓ^{p})

bound once the cases

q \leq p \leq 1

and

q \leq 1, p > 1

are settled. We consider these cases in what follows and use rather standard arguments from singular integral theory, namely the Fefferman-Stein

#

-function estimate ([6] ) which is valid for Banach-space valued functions; it is applied here to

L^{p / q}

functions which take values in the Banach space

ℓ^{1} (L^{\infty})

In what follows the slashed integral

\ \int_{Q}

will denote an average over the cube

Q

. By the Fefferman-Stein theorem it suffices to bound

{(\int {[{sup}_{Q ϶ x} \ \int_{Q} \sum_{k} {sup}_{| h | \leq 2^{n - k}} | | f_{k} (w + h) |^{q} - \ \int_{Q} | f_{k} (z + h) |^{q} d z | d w]}^{p / q} d x)}^{1 / p}

2^{n d / q} ∥ {f_{k}} ∥_{L^{p} (ℓ^{q})}

. Since

| a |^{q} - | b |^{q} \leq | a - b |^{q}

for

q \leq 1

this bound follows from

\begin{matrix} {(\int {[{sup}_{Q ϶ x} \ \int_{Q} \sum_{k} {sup}_{| h | \leq 2^{n - k}} \ \int_{Q} | f_{k} (w + h) - f_{k} (z + h) |^{q} d z d w]}^{p / q} d x)}^{1 / p} ≲ 2^{n d / q} ∥ {f_{k}} ∥_{L^{p} (ℓ^{q})} \end{matrix}

(6.10)

In what follows we denote by

ℓ (Q)

the integer

ℓ

for which the sidelength of

Q

is in

[2^{ℓ - 1}, 2^{ℓ})

. Moreover we let

ℛ_{0} (Q)

be the region of all points

x

which have distance

\leq d 2^{ℓ (Q)}

from

Q

and for

m > 0

let

ℛ_{m} (Q)

of all points

x

for which

d 2^{ℓ (Q) + m - 1} \leq dist (x, Q) < d 2^{ℓ (Q) + m}

. Let

η

be a Schwartz function in

ℰ (2)

whose Fourier transform is equal to

1

{ξ : | ξ | \leq 1}

. Let

η_{k} = 2^{k d} η (2^{k} \cdot)

and

P_{k} f = η_{k} * f

and observe that

P_{k} f_{k} = f_{k}

f \in ℰ (2^{k})

The estimate 6.10 is a consequence of the following three inequalities:

\begin{matrix} {(\int {[{sup}_{Q ϶ x} \ \int_{Q} \sum_{k > n - ℓ (Q)} {sup}_{| h | \leq 2^{n - k + 1}} | f_{k} (w + h) |^{q} d w]}^{p / q} d x)}^{1 / p} ≲ 2^{n d / q} ∥ {f_{k}} ∥_{L^{p} (ℓ^{q})}, \end{matrix}

(6.11)

(6.12) ( ∫ [ sup Q ϶ x \ ∫ Q ∑ k = − C 0 n − ℓ ( Q ) n − ℓ ( Q ) sup | h | ≤ 2 n − k + 1 | f k ( w + h ) | q d w ] p / q d x ) 1 / p ≲ ( n + 1 ) 1 / q − 1 / p 2 n d / p ∥ { f k } ∥ L p ( ℓ q ) ,

and, if

C_{0} > d / p

(6.13) ( ∫ [ sup Q ϶ x \ ∫ Q ∑ k < − C 0 n − ℓ ( Q ) sup | h | ≤ 2 n − k \ ∫ Q | f k ( w + h ) − f k ( z + h ) | q d z d w ] p / q d x ) 1 / p ≲ ∥ { f k } ∥ L p ( ℓ q ) .

First the estimation of the main term 6.11 is rather analogous to the standard “good-function estimate” in Calderón-Zygmund theory. We split

f_{k} = P_{k} f_{k} = \sum_{m = 0}^{\infty} P_{k} [χ_{ℛ_{m} (Q)} f_{k}]

and estimate for fixed

x

and

Q

using 6.9

(6.14) \ ∫ Q ∑ k > n − ℓ ( Q ) sup | h | ≤ 2 n − k + 1 | P k χ ℛ 0 ( Q ) f k | ( w + h ) | q d w ≲ 2 n d | Q | − 1 ∑ k > n − ℓ ( Q ) ∫ R d | P k χ ℛ 0 ( Q ) f k | ( w ) | q d w .

It is straightforward to estimate for any

ρ

ρ^{'}

| P_{k} [χ_{ℛ_{0} (Q)} f_{k}] (w) | \leq C_{ρ} M_{ρ, 2^{k}} f_{k} (w) if w \in ℛ_{0} (Q), k + ℓ (Q) \geq 0

and

| P_{k} [χ_{ℛ_{0} (Q)} f_{k}] (w) | \leq C_{ρ_{1}, ρ_{2}} 2^{- (ℓ (Q) + k + m) ρ^{'}} M_{ρ, 2^{k}} f_{k} (w) if w \in ℛ_{m} (Q), m \geq 1, k + ℓ (Q) + m \geq 0 .

Therefore from 6.14

\begin{matrix} {sup}_{Q ϶ x} \ \int_{Q} {sup}_{| h | \leq 2^{n - k + 1}} | P_{k} [χ_{ℛ_{0} (Q)} f_{k}] (w + h) |^{q} d w \leq C 2^{n d} M_{H L} (| M_{ρ, 2^{k}} f_{k} |^{q}) (x) \end{matrix}

(6.15)

and we may use the

L^{p / q}

boundedness of

M_{H L}

and the Peetre maximal theorem to deduce

\begin{matrix} ∥ {[{sup}_{Q ϶ x} \ \int_{Q} \sum_{k > n - ℓ (Q)} {sup}_{| h | \leq 2^{n - k + 1}} | P_{k} [χ_{ℛ_{0} (Q)} f_{k}] (w + h) |^{q} d w]}^{1 / q} ∥_{p} ≲ 2^{n d / q} ∥ {f_{k}} ∥_{L^{p} (ℓ^{q})} \end{matrix}

(6.16)

We also obtain for

m \geq 1

| P_{k} [χ_{ℛ_{m} (Q)} f_{k}] (x^{'}) | \leq C_{ρ} 2^{- (k + ℓ (Q) + m) ρ} M_{ρ, 2^{k}} f_{k} (x)

x \in ℛ_{0} (Q)

x^{'} \in ℛ_{0} (Q)

k + ℓ (Q) + m \geq 0

. This can be applied to bound the expression

{sup}_{| h | \leq 2^{n - k + 1}} | P_{k} [χ_{ℛ_{m} (Q)} f_{k}] (w + h) |

when

w \in Q

and

k \geq n - ℓ (Q)

. We obtain

\begin{matrix} ∥ {[{sup}_{Q ϶ x} \ \int_{Q} \sum_{k > n - ℓ (Q)} {sup}_{| h | \leq 2^{n - k + 1}} | P_{k} [χ_{ℛ_{m} (Q)} f_{k}] (w + h) |^{q} d w]}^{1 / q} ∥_{p} ≲ 2^{- m ρ} ∥ {f_{k}} ∥_{L^{p} (ℓ^{q})} \end{matrix}

(6.17)

and 6.11 follows from 6.16 and 6.17 .

By Hölder's inequality the `left hand side of 6.12 is controlled by

\begin{matrix} C {(\int {[{sup}_{Q ϶ x} \ \int_{Q} {(\sum_{k = - C_{0} n - ℓ (Q)}^{n - ℓ (Q)} | ℳ_{k}^{n} f_{k} (w) |^{q} (w))}^{q / p} (1 + n)^{1 - q / p} d w]}^{p / q} d x)}^{1 / p} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} ≲ (1 + n)^{1 / q - 1 / p} {(\int {[M_{H L} ((\sum_{k} | ℳ_{k}^{n} f_{k} |^{p})^{q / p})]}^{p / q} d x)}^{1 / p} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} ≲ (1 + n)^{1 / q - 1 / p} {(\int \sum_{k} | ℳ_{k}^{n} f_{k} |^{p} d x)}^{1 / p} . \end{matrix}

(6.18)

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

By 6.9 for

r = p

we bound 6.18 by a constant times

(1 + n)^{1 / q - 1 / p} 2^{n d / p} {(\sum_{k} \int | f_{k} |^{p} d x)}^{1 / p} ≲ (1 + n)^{1 / q - 1 / p} 2^{n d / p} ∥ {f_{k}} ∥_{L^{p} (ℓ^{q})}

and 6.12 is proved.

Finally to see 6.13 we simply observe that

ℳ_{k}^{n} (\nabla f_{k}) ≲ 2^{k} ℳ_{k}^{n} (f_{k})

and thus for

x \in Q

\ \int_{Q} {sup}_{| h | \leq 2^{n - k}} \ \int_{Q} | f_{k} (w + h) - f_{k} (w + h + z) |^{q} d z d w ≲ 2^{k q} (diam (Q))^{q} | ℳ_{k}^{n} f_{k} (x) |^{q} .

Therefore the left hand side of 6.13 is bounded by

{(\int {(M_{H L} [2^{- C_{0} n q} | ℳ_{k}^{n} f_{k} |^{q}])}^{p / q})}^{1 / p} ≲ 2^{n (\frac{d}{p} - C_{0})} ∥ {f_{k}} ∥_{L^{p} (ℓ^{q})} . □

Remarks. (i) For the sequence of dyadic radii

r_{k} = 2^{k}

consider the maximal operators

M_{σ, r_{k}}

. Proposition 6.1.1 can be used to show a converse to the lower bound in Theorem 1.2 in this case; i.e. if

ℬ_{p, q, σ} (L) = sup {∥ {(\sum_{k = 1}^{L} | M_{σ, 2^{k}} f_{k} |^{q})}^{1 / q} ∥ : ∥ {f_{k}} ∥_{L^{p} (ℓ^{q})} \leq 1, f_{k} \in ℰ (2^{k}), k = 1, . . ., L}

then

ℬ_{p, q, σ} (L) \approx L^{- σ + d / q}

d / p < σ < d / q

and

ℬ_{p, q, d / q} (L) \approx {log}^{1 / q} L

p > q

(ii) Proposition 6.1.1 and the preceding remark remain valid for a general lacunary sequence (

r_{k + 1} / r_{k} \geq γ > 1

6.2 Lower bounds

We shall work with the Schwartz function

η

defined as in the proof of Theorem 1.2 (i.e. with

\hat{η}

vanishing identically outside of

{1 / 2 < | ξ | < 1}

and with

| η (x) | \geq 1

for

| x | \leq 2^{- M + d + 2}

, for suitable

M

). We shall need a

C^{\infty}

function

φ

supported in

[- 2^{- 2 M - 4}, 2^{- 2 M - 4}]^{d}

so that

\begin{matrix} | φ * η (z) | \geq c_{0} (M) > 0 if | z | \leq 2^{- M + d + 1} \end{matrix}

(6.19)

Let

R

be a large positive integer, to be chosen later. We may assume that

R \geq 10 d (1 + 1 / p + 1 / q)

. It clearly suffices to prove the lower bound in 1.9 for

r

of the form

\begin{matrix} r = 2^{R 2^{N d}} \end{matrix}

(6.20)

uniformly for all large positive integers

N

We let

\begin{matrix} n_{k} = k R, k = 1, 2, . . ., \end{matrix}

(6.21)

\begin{matrix} r_{k} = 2^{n_{k} - M} . \end{matrix}

(6.22)

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

Set

φ_{k} (x) = r_{k}^{d} φ (r_{k} x)

and

η_{k} (x) = r_{k}^{d} η (r_{k} x)

. Specify

\begin{matrix} a = 2^{- N d} = L^{- 1}, \end{matrix}

(6.23)

let

g_{k}^{ω} \equiv g_{k}^{ω, a}

as in 4.1 , and set

\begin{matrix} G_{k}^{ω} (x) = 2^{- n_{k} σ} g_{k}^{ω} (x), G^{ω} (x) = \sum_{k = 1}^{2^{N d}} G_{k}^{ω} (x) . \end{matrix}

(6.24)

We need the following estimates for convolutions with the functions

g_{k}^{ω}

and

G^{ω}

Lemma 6.2.1. (i) Let

H

be a Schwartz function so that

\int H (x) x^{α} d x = 0

for all multiindices

α

with

{max}_{i} | α |_{i} \leq N_{0}

. Let

H_{ℓ} = 2^{ℓ d} H (2^{ℓ} \cdot)

. Then

\begin{matrix} | H_{ℓ} * g_{l}^{ω} (x) | ≲ 2^{- | ℓ - n_{l} | (N_{0} - d / s)} {(M ((\sum_{Q \in Q (n_{l})} θ_{Q} (ω) χ_{Q})^{s}) (x))}^{1 / s} . \end{matrix}

(6.25)

(ii) For

0 < p, q < \infty

\begin{matrix} {(\int_{Ω} ∥ G^{ω} ∥_{F_{σ q}^{p}}^{p} d μ (ω))}^{1 / p} \leq C_{1} \end{matrix}

(6.26)

and

\begin{matrix} {(\int_{Ω} \int_{R^{d}} {[\int_{0}^{1} {sup}_{| h | \leq t} \sum_{l : t 2^{n_{l}} \leq 1} | Δ_{h}^{m} G_{l}^{ω} (x) |^{q} t^{- 1 - σ q} d t]}^{p / q} d x d μ (ω))}^{1 / p} \leq C_{2} . \end{matrix}

(6.27)

Moreover

\begin{matrix} {(\int_{Ω} \int_{R^{d}} {[\int_{0}^{1} {(\sum_{l : t 2^{n_{l}} \geq 1} | G_{l}^{ω} (x) |)}^{q} t^{- 1 - σ q} d t]}^{p / q} d x d μ (ω))}^{1 / p} \leq C_{3} . \end{matrix}

(6.28)

Here

C_{1}

C_{2}

C_{3}

depend only on

p

q

m

and

d

Proof. 6.25 is straightforward, cf. the reasoning for inequality 2.6 . The other assertions follow in a straightforward manner from the basic estimates 2.6 and 6.25 , a suitable application of Minkowski's inequality, and Lemma 2.1 . □

Let

{\tilde{Δ}}_{h}^{m}

be defined by

\begin{matrix} {\tilde{Δ}}_{h}^{m} f (x) = Δ_{h}^{m} f (x) - (- 1)^{m} f (x) = \sum_{ν = 1}^{m} (- 1)^{m - ν} (\binom{m}{ν}) f (x + ν h) \end{matrix}

(6.29)

and let

I_{k, j} = [2^{- n_{k} + j + 2 d}, 2^{- n_{k} + j + 2 d + 1}] .

In view of Lemma 6.2.1 and Hölder's inequality on

Ω \times [0, 1]^{d}

(with

p / q \geq 1

), in order to prove the lower bounds in 1.9 , 1.10 , 1.11 it suffices to prove that

(6.30) ( ∫ Ω ∫ [ 1 4 , 3 4 ] d ∑ k ∑ j = d + M N − M − d ∫ I k , j sup | h | ≤ m t | ∑ l ≥ k Δ ~ h m m G l ω ( x ) | q t − 1 − σ q d t d x d μ ) 1 / q ≥ c 0 max { 2 N ( d q − σ ) , N 1 / q }

for some

c_{0} > 0

Let

\begin{matrix} Γ_{k, m}^{l, Q} (x, h) : = \int φ_{k} (y) {\tilde{Δ}}_{\frac{h - y}{m}}^{m} η_{l} * χ_{Q} (x) d y, Q \in Q (n_{l}) \end{matrix}

(6.31)

and

\begin{matrix} Γ_{k, m}^{l} (x, h, ω) : = \int φ_{k} (y) {\tilde{Δ}}_{\frac{h - y}{m}}^{m} G_{l}^{ω} (x) d y = 2^{- n_{l} σ} \sum_{Q \in Q (n_{l})} θ_{Q} (ω) Γ_{k, m}^{l, Q} (x, h) . \end{matrix}

(6.32)

We use the elementary inequality

| φ_{k} * a (h) | \leq C {sup}_{| h - u | \leq 2^{- n_{k} - 2}} | a (u) |

to deduce that 6.30 follows from the existence of a constant

c_{1} > 0

such that

(6.33) ( ∫ Ω ∫ [ 1 4 , 3 4 ] d ∑ k ∑ j = M + d N − M − d 2 ( n k − j ) σ q sup | h | ≤ m 2 − n k + j + d | ∑ l ≥ k Γ k , m l ( x , h , ω ) | q d x d μ ) 1 / q ≥ c 1 max { 2 N ( d q − σ ) , N 1 / q } .

We show now that the only relevant terms in 6.33 are those with

l = k

; it is here where we have to choose

R

sufficiently large.

Lemma 6.2.2. For

0 < q \leq p < \infty

(6.34) ( ∫ Ω ∫ ∑ k ∑ j = M + d N − M − d 2 ( n k − j ) σ q sup | h | ≤ m 2 − n k + j + d | ∑ l ≥ k + 1 Γ k , m l ( x , h , ω ) | q d x d μ ) 1 / q ≤ C 4 2 − R max { 2 N ( d q − σ ) , N 1 / q }

Proof. Here we use the cancellation inherent in

Ψ_{Q} : = η_{l} * χ_{Q}

, stemming from the vanishing of

\hat{η} (ξ)

near

ξ = 0

. Define

y_{Q, ν} \equiv y_{Q, ν} (x, h) = h + (x - x_{Q}) m / ν

where

x_{Q}

is the center of

Q

. Now by 6.29 and Taylor's formula

\begin{matrix} Γ_{k, m}^{l, Q} (x, h) = \sum_{ν = 1}^{m} c_{ν} \int φ_{k} (y) Ψ_{Q} (x + \frac{ν}{m} (h - y)) d y \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = \sum_{ν = 1}^{m} c_{ν} \int \int_{0}^{1} \frac{(1 - s)^{N_{0} - 1}}{N_{0}!} 〈 y - y_{Q, ν}, \nabla 〉^{N_{0}} φ_{k} (y_{Q} + s (y - y_{Q, ν})) d s Ψ_{Q} (x + \frac{ν}{m} (h - y)) d y \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

where

c_{ν} = (- 1)^{m - ν} (\binom{m}{ν})

Q \in Q (n_{l})

. Let

\begin{matrix} F_{l}^{ω} (x) = \sum_{Q \in Q (n_{l})} θ_{Q} (ω) η_{l} * χ_{Q} (x); \end{matrix}

(6.35)

then we see that for

l > k

\begin{matrix} {sup}_{| h | \leq m 2^{- n_{k} + j + d}} | Γ_{k, m}^{l} (x, h, ω) | ≲ 2^{- n_{l} σ q} 2^{(n_{k} - n_{l}) N_{0}} {sup}_{| y | \leq 2^{- n_{k} + j + d}} | F_{l}^{ω} (x + y) | \end{matrix}

(6.36)

By 6.9

\begin{matrix} ∥ {sup}_{| y | \leq 2^{- n_{k} + j + d}} | F_{l}^{ω} (\cdot + y) | ∥_{q} ≲ 2^{(n_{l} - n_{k} + j) d / q} ∥ F_{l}^{ω} ∥_{q} \end{matrix}

(6.37)

and therefore the left hand side of 6.34 is dominated by

\begin{matrix} \sum_{s = 1}^{\infty} {(\int_{Ω} \int \sum_{k = 1}^{2^{N d}} \sum_{j = M + d}^{N - M - d} 2^{(n_{k} - j) σ q} {sup}_{| h | \leq m 2^{- n_{k} + j + d}} | Γ_{k, m}^{k + s} (x, h, ω) |^{q} d x d μ)}^{1 / q} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} ≲ \sum_{s = 1}^{\infty} {(\int_{Ω} \int \sum_{k = 1}^{2^{N d}} \sum_{j = M + d}^{N - M - d} 2^{(n_{k} - n_{k + s} - j) σ q} 2^{(n_{k} - n_{k + s}) N_{0} q} {sup}_{| y | \leq 2^{- n_{k} + j + d}} | F_{k + s}^{ω} (x + y) |^{q} d x d μ)}^{1 / q} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} ≲ \sum_{s = 1}^{\infty} 2^{- R s (N_{0} + σ - d / q)} {(\sum_{k = 1}^{2^{N d}} \sum_{j = M + d}^{N - M - d} 2^{- j (σ q - d)} \int_{Ω} ∥ F_{k + s}^{ω} ∥_{q}^{q} d μ)}^{1 / q} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} ≲ 2^{- R} max {2^{(- σ + d / q) N}, N^{1 / q}}, \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

by 6.36 , 6.37 , Minkowski's inequality and Corollary 2.2 .

q < 1

we use the

ℓ^{q}

triangle inequality in place of Minkowski's inequality and we have to bound

{(\sum_{s = 1}^{\infty} \int_{Ω} \int \sum_{k = 1}^{2^{N d}} \sum_{j = M + d}^{N - M - d} 2^{(n_{k} - n_{k + s} - j) σ q} 2^{(n_{k} - n_{k + s}) N_{0} q} {sup}_{| y | \leq 2^{- n_{k} + j + d}} | F_{k + s}^{ω} (x + y) |^{q} d x d μ)}^{1 / q};

the result is the same. □

Given Lemma 6.2.2 the lower bound 6.33 follows from a corresponding lower bound for the expression only involving the

Γ_{k, m}^{k} (x, h, ω)

and it remains to show for

σ \leq d / q

Lemma 6.2.3.

(6.38) ( ∑ k ∑ j = M + d N − M − d 2 − j σ q ∫ [ 1 4 , 3 4 ] d ∫ Ω sup | h | ≤ m 2 − n k + j + d | 2 n k σ Γ k , m k ( x , h , ω ) | q d μ d x ) 1 / q ≥ c 2 max { 2 N ( d q − σ ) , N 1 / q }

for some

c_{2} > 0

Proof. In what follows we fix

x \in [1 / 4, 3 / 4]^{d}

and

1 \leq k \leq 2^{N d}

. As in the proof of Theorem 1.2 define

V_{k}^{N} (x)

to be the union of all dyadic cubes of sidelength

2^{- n_{k} + N + 1}

whose boundaries intersect the boundary of

Q_{k}^{N + 1} (x)

. Let

V_{k}^{N} (x)

be the set of all

Q \in Q (n_{k})

that are contained in the closure of

V_{k}^{N} (x)

. Denote by

Ω (k, x, Q)

the event that

θ_{Q} (ω) = 1

, but

θ_{Q^{'}} (ω) = 0

for all

Q^{'} \in V_{k}^{N} (x) \ {Q}

. For the probability of this event there is the lower bound

μ (Ω (k, x, Q)) \geq c_{d} 2^{- N d}

; see 4.8 .

Now let

W (k, j, x)

be the set of all cubes

Q \in Q (n_{k})

for which

2^{- n_{k} + j} \leq dist (x, Q) \leq 2^{- n_{k} + j + 1} .

For

Q \in W (k, j, x)

denote by

y_{Q}

the center of

Q

and set

h_{Q, x} = y_{Q} - x

so that

| h_{Q, x} | ≲ 2^{- n_{k} + j + 1} .

Thus the left hand side of 6.38 is bounded below by

\begin{matrix} c {(\sum_{k} \sum_{j = M + d}^{N - M - d} 2^{- j σ q} \int_{[\frac{1}{4}, \frac{3}{4}]^{d}} \sum_{Q \in W (k, j, x)} \int_{Ω (k, x, Q)} | 2^{n_{k} σ} Γ_{k, m}^{k} (x, h_{Q, x}, ω) |^{q} d μ d x)}^{1 / q} . \end{matrix}

(6.39)

For

Q \in W (k, j, x)

and

ω \in Ω (k, x, Q)

we decompose further

2^{n_{k} σ} Γ_{k, m}^{k} (x, h_{Q, x}, ω) = \sum_{ν = 1}^{m} (- 1)^{m - ν} (\binom{m}{ν}) I_{ν}^{ω} (k, x, Q) + I I^{ω} (k, x)

where

\begin{matrix} I_{ν}^{ω} (k, x, Q) = \int φ_{k} (y) η_{k} * χ_{Q} (x + \frac{ν}{m} (h_{Q, x} - y)) d y \end{matrix}

(6.40)

and

\begin{matrix} I I^{ω} (k, x, Q) = \sum_{\binom{Q^{'} \in Q (n_{k})}{Q^{'} / \in V_{k}^{N} (x)}} θ_{Q^{'}} (ω) \int φ_{k} (y) {\tilde{Δ}}_{\frac{h (Q, x) - y}{m}}^{m} η_{l} * χ_{Q^{'}} (x) d y . \end{matrix}

(6.41)

We prove a lower bound for

I_{m}^{ω}

and upper bounds for

I I^{ω}

and

I_{ν}^{ω}

ν \leq m - 1

Notice that for

ω \in Ω (k, x, Q)

\begin{matrix} I_{m}^{ω} (k, x, Q) & = \int φ_{k} (y) η_{k} * χ_{Q} (x + h_{Q, x} - y) d y \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = \int r_{k}^{d} (η * φ) (r_{k} (y_{Q} - z)) χ_{Q} (z) d z \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

and since

| r_{k} (y_{Q} - z) | \leq \sqrt{d} 2^{- n_{k}} \cdot 2^{n_{k} - M}

for

z \in Q

it follows from 6.19 that

\begin{matrix} | I_{m}^{ω} (k, x, Q) | \geq c (M) r_{k}^{d} 2^{- n_{k} d} \geq c^{'} (M) if ω \in Ω (k, x, Q), Q \in W (k, j, x) . \end{matrix}

(6.42)

Since

μ (Ω (k, x, Q)) \geq c 2^{- N d}

and

card (W (k, j, x)) \approx 2^{j d}

\begin{matrix} {(\sum_{k = 1}^{2^{N d}} \sum_{j = M + d}^{N - M - d} 2^{- j σ q} \int_{[\frac{1}{4}, \frac{3}{4}]^{d}} \sum_{Q \in W (k, j, x)} \int_{Ω (k, x, Q)} | I_{m}^{ω} (k, x, Q) |^{q} d μ d x)}^{1 / q} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} ≳ {(\int_{[\frac{1}{4}, \frac{3}{4}]^{d}} \sum_{k = 1}^{2^{N d}} 2^{- N d} \sum_{j = M + d}^{N - M - d} 2^{j (d - σ q)})}^{1 / q} ≳ c_{q} {(max {2^{N (d - σ q)}, N})}^{1 / q} . \end{matrix}

(6.43)

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

Next notice that for

ω \in Ω (k, x, Q)

Q \in W (k, j, x)

y \in supp φ_{k}

and

ν \leq m - 1

| x + (h_{Q, x} - y) ν / m - y_{Q} | \geq | x - y_{Q} | (1 - ν / m) - ν / m | y | ≳ 2^{- n_{k} + j}

which shows that

| η_{k} * χ_{Q} (x + \frac{ν}{m} (h_{Q, x} - y)) | \leq C_{ρ} 2^{- j ρ}

for all

ρ

and consequently we get the estimate

| I_{ν}^{ω} (k, x, Q) | \leq C_{M, ρ} M_{ρ, 2^{- n_{k}}} [h_{k}^{ω}], ν \leq m - 1 .

Similarly for

I I^{ω} (k, x, Q)

we can argue as for the corresponding term in the proof of Theorem 1.2 and see that

{sup}_{2 \leq j \leq N} | I I^{ω} (k, x) | \leq C_{M, ρ} M_{ρ, 2^{- n_{k}}} [h_{k}^{ω}] if ω \in Ω (k, x, Q)

for any

ρ > 0

. Thus

\begin{matrix} {(\sum_{k = 1}^{2^{N d}} \sum_{j = M + d}^{N - M - d} 2^{- j σ q} \int_{[\frac{1}{4}, \frac{3}{4}]^{d}} \sum_{Q \in W (k, j, x)} \int_{Ω (k, x, Q)} {[\sum_{ν = 1}^{m - 1} | I_{ν}^{ω} (k, x, Q) | + | I I^{ω} (k, x, Q) |]}^{q} d μ d x)}^{1 / q} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} ≲ {(\sum_{k = 1}^{2^{N d}} \int_{Ω} \int {(M_{ρ, 2^{- n_{k}}} h_{k}^{ω})}^{q} d x d μ)}^{1 / q} \leq C \end{matrix}

(6.44)

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

by Lemma 2.1 . We combine the estimates 6.43 and 6.44 to see that the expression 6.38 is bounded below by

max {2^{N (d - σ / q)}, N^{1 / q}}

. □

We now combine the various estimates and note that the lower bound in Lemma 6.2.3 is independent of

R

. Thus if

R

is chosen to be sufficiently large, the upper bounds in 6.34 can be absorbed by the lower bound 6.38 , and 6.33 consequently follows. All told, we have shown the lower bound

A_{p, q, σ} (2^{R 2^{N d}}) ≳ max {2^{N (d - σ / q)}, N^{1 / q}}

, which implies the asserted lower bound for large

r = 2^{R 2^{N d}}

. □ Remark. One can also consider the more regular variant

D_{s, m}^{σ, q} f (x) = {(\int_{0}^{1} {[\ \int_{| h | \leq t} | Δ_{h}^{m} f (x) |^{s} d h]}^{q / s} t^{- 1 - σ q} d t)}^{1 / q} .

where the slashed integral denotes the average over the ball

{h : | h | \leq t}

. Then

∥ f ∥_{F_{σ}^{p q}} \approx ∥ f ∥_{p} + ∥ D_{s, m}^{σ, q} f ∥_{p}

provided that

σ > max {0, d (1 / p - 1 / s), d (1 / q - 1 / s)}

. A modification of our argument shows that the characterization fails when

σ \leq d (1 / q - 1 / s)

7 Proof of Theorem 1.4

Let

η

be a Schwartz function in

ℰ (2)

such that

\hat{η}

vanishes identically in a neighborhood of the origin and

\hat{η} (ξ) = 1

2^{- 1 / 2} \leq | ξ | \leq 2^{1 / 2}

. In what follows we fix

q < p \leq 2

and assume that

0 < γ < 1

and that

b = γ d (1 / p - 1 / 2)

. Define for

k > 1

the operator

T_{k}

\begin{matrix} \hat{T_{k} f} (ξ) = e^{i | ξ |^{γ}} \hat{η} (2^{- k} ξ) \hat{f} (ξ) . \end{matrix}

(7.1)

It is easy to see, using 1.5 , that the statement of the Theorem is equivalent with the statement that the best constant

A_{L}

in the inequality

\begin{matrix} ∥ {(\sum_{k = 1}^{L} | 2^{- k b} T_{k} f_{k} |^{q})}^{1 / q} ∥_{p} \leq A_{L} ∥ {(\sum_{k = 1}^{L} | f_{k} |^{q})}^{1 / q} ∥_{p}, with f_{k} \in ℰ (2^{k + 1}), \end{matrix}

(7.2)

satisfies

A_{L} \approx L^{1 / q - 1 / p}

. As the operators

2^{- k b} T_{k}

map

L^{p} \cap ℰ (2^{k + 1})

L^{p}

, with bounds uniform in

k > 0

(cf. [6] ), the upper bound

A_{L} ≲ L^{1 / q - 1 / p}

is immediate by Hölder's inequality and the embedding

ℓ^{q} \subset ℓ^{p}

. In what follows we prove the lower bound.

We use a variant of the random construction of § 2 and define

θ_{Q, a}

and

h_{k}^{ω, a}

as in 2.1 ; however we now let

a

depend on

k

and require that

\begin{matrix} a_{k} = 2^{- k γ d} . \end{matrix}

(7.3)

Also let

\tilde{η}

be a Schwartz function in

ℰ (2)

whose Fourier transform equals

1

on the support of

\hat{η}

. Define (using the notation in § 2 with

n_{k} = k

)

\begin{matrix} f_{k}^{ω} (x) = β_{k} \sum_{Q \in Q (k)} θ_{Q, a_{k}} (ω) \tilde{η} (2^{k} (x - x_{Q})) \end{matrix}

(7.4)

where

x_{Q}

is the center of

Q

and

\begin{matrix} β_{k} = a_{k}^{- 1 / p} . \end{matrix}

(7.5)

We claim

\begin{matrix} {(\int_{Ω} ∥ {(\sum_{k = 1}^{L} | f_{k}^{ω} |^{q})}^{1 / q} ∥_{p}^{p} d μ (ω))}^{1 / p} ≲ L^{1 / p}; \end{matrix}

(7.6)

this inequality will use only 7.5 and the fact that the

β_{k}

increase at least in a geometric progression; the specific choice 7.3 is not yet needed.

A straightforward estimate yields

| f_{k}^{ω} (x) | \leq C_{s} {(M_{H L} (| β_{k} h_{k}^{ω, a_{k}} |^{s}))}^{1 / s}

for all

s > 0

and therefore it suffices to prove 7.6 with

f_{k}^{ω}

replaced by

β_{k} h_{k}^{ω, a_{k}}

Now since

h_{k}^{ω, a_{k}}

takes only values

1

and

0

and the

β_{k}

increase at least geometrically we see that for all

x

{(\sum_{k = 1}^{L} | β_{k} h_{k}^{ω, a_{k}} (x) |^{q})}^{1 / q} \leq C_{γ} {sup}_{1 \leq k \leq L} | β_{k} h_{k}^{ω, a_{k}} (x) |,

with a finite constant

C_{γ}

independent of

x

. After replacing the supremum by an

ℓ^{p}

norm we see that the left hand side of 7.6 can be estimated by

{(\int_{[0, 1]^{d}} \sum_{k = 1}^{L} \int_{Ω} | β_{k} h_{k}^{ω, a_{k}} |^{p} d μ (ω) d x)}^{1 / p} \leq C {(\int_{[0, 1]^{d}} \sum_{k = 1}^{L} β_{k}^{p} a_{k} d x)}^{1 / p} = C L^{1 / p} .

It remains to show the lower bound

\begin{matrix} {(\int_{Ω} ∥ {(\sum_{k = 1}^{L} | T_{k} f_{k}^{ω} |^{q})}^{1 / q} ∥_{p}^{p} d μ)}^{1 / p} \geq c L^{1 / q} . \end{matrix}

(7.7)

Now let

K_{k}

be the convolution kernel of

T_{k}

. Then

T_{k} f_{k}^{ω} (x) = β_{k} \sum_{Q \in Q (k)} θ_{Q, a_{k}} (ω) 2^{- k d} K_{k} (x - x_{Q}) .

A stationary phase calculation shows that for suitable

ɛ_{1} > 0

there is the uniform estimate for large

k

\begin{matrix} | K_{k} (x) | \geq 2^{k (d - d γ / 2)} if (1 - ɛ_{1}) 2^{- k (1 - γ)} \leq | x | \leq (1 + ɛ_{1}) 2^{- k (1 - γ)}; \end{matrix}

(7.8)

moreover for any

ρ < \infty

\begin{matrix} | K_{k} (x) | \leq C_{ρ} 2^{k d} (2^{k} | x |)^{- ρ} if | x | \geq B 2^{- k (1 - γ)} \end{matrix}

(7.9)

for suitable

B

(

\geq 2

); this is seen by using integration by parts for the oscillatory integral, which has a nonstationary phase when

| x | \geq B 2^{- k (1 - γ)}

. Now apply Hölder's inequality (as in all previous examples):

{(\int_{Ω} \int_{[0, 1]^{d}} {(\sum_{k = 1}^{L} | 2^{- k b} T_{k} f_{k}^{ω} |^{q})}^{p / q} d x d μ)}^{1 / p} \geq {(\int_{[\frac{1}{4}, \frac{3}{4}]^{d}} \int_{Ω} \sum_{k = 1}^{L} | 2^{- k (d + b)} β_{k} \sum_{Q \in Q (k)} θ_{Q, a_{k}} (ω) K_{k} (x - x_{Q}) |^{q} d μ d x)}^{1 / q} .

Fix

x \in [1 / 4, 3 / 4]^{d}

and let

V_{k, γ} (x)

be the set of all cubes

Q \in Q (k)

whose distance to

x

\leq C_{2} 2^{- k (1 - γ)}

where

C_{2} ≫ B

for a sufficiently large constant

B

. Let

Ω (k, x, Q)

be the event that

θ_{Q} (ω) = 1

but

θ_{Q^{'}} (ω) = 0

for all

Q^{'} \in V_{k, γ} (x) \ {Q}

. The probability of this event satisfies

μ (Ω (k, x, Q)) \geq a_{k} (1 - a_{k})^{card (V_{k, γ} (x)) - 1} \geq c a_{k},

by our choice 7.3 .

By the upper bound 7.9 we get

\begin{matrix} \int_{Ω} | 2^{- k (d + b)} β_{k} \sum_{Q \in Q (k) \ V_{k, γ} (x)} θ_{Q, a_{k}} (ω) K_{k} (x - x_{Q}) |^{q} d μ (ω) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} ≲ 2^{k d} \int_{| z - x | \geq 2^{- k (1 - γ)}} (β_{k} 2^{- k (b + d)})^{q} (2^{k} | z - x |)^{- ρ q} d z \leq β_{k}^{q} 2^{- k b q} 2^{k γ (d - ρ q)} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

provided that

ρ > d / q

. Consequently by choosing

ρ

large enough we find that

\begin{matrix} {(\int_{[\frac{1}{4}, \frac{3}{4}]^{d}} \int_{Ω} \sum_{k = 1}^{L} | 2^{- k (d + b)} β_{k} \sum_{Q \in Q (k) \ V_{k, γ} (x)} θ_{Q, a_{k}} (ω) K_{k} (x - x_{Q}) |^{q} d μ d x)}^{1 / q} \leq C \end{matrix}

(7.10)

uniformly in

L

By 7.10 we may estimate

\begin{matrix} {(\int_{[\frac{1}{4}, \frac{3}{4}]^{d}} \int_{Ω} \sum_{k = 1}^{L} | 2^{- k (d + b)} β_{k} \sum_{Q} θ_{Q, a_{k}} (ω) K_{k} (x - x_{Q}) |^{q} d μ d x)}^{1 / q} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq {(\int_{[\frac{1}{4}, \frac{3}{4}]^{d}} \sum_{k = 1}^{L} \int_{Ω} | 2^{- k (d + b)} β_{k} \sum_{Q^{'} \in V_{k, γ} (x)} θ_{Q^{'}, a_{k}} (ω) K_{k} (x - x_{Q^{'}}) |^{q} d μ d x)}^{1 / q} - C \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

and the main term is

\begin{matrix} \geq {(\int_{[\frac{1}{4}, \frac{3}{4}]^{d}} \sum_{k = 1}^{L} \sum_{Q \in V_{k, γ} (x)} \int_{Ω (k, x, Q)} | 2^{- k (d + b)} β_{k} \sum_{Q^{'} \in V_{k, γ} (x)} θ_{Q^{'}, a_{k}} (ω) K_{k} (x - x_{Q^{'}}) |^{q} d μ d x)}^{1 / q} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = {(\int_{[\frac{1}{4}, \frac{3}{4}]^{d}} \sum_{k = 1}^{L} \sum_{Q \in V_{k, γ} (x)} \int_{Ω (k, x, Q)} | 2^{- k (d + b)} β_{k} K_{k} (x - x_{Q}) |^{q} d μ d x)}^{1 / q} . \end{matrix}

(7.11)

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

Now let

W_{k, γ} (x)

be the family of all cubes in

Q (k)

which are contained in the set

{y : (1 - ɛ_{1}) 2^{- k (1 - γ)} \leq | x - y | \leq (1 + ɛ_{1}) 2^{- k (1 - γ)}}

. These cubes are also in

V_{k, γ} (x)

and if

Q \in W_{k, γ} (x)

then we may use the lower bound 7.8 for the term

K_{k} (x - x_{Q})

. Note also that

card (W_{k, γ} (x)) ≳ 2^{k d γ} \approx a_{k}^{- 1}

for large

k

Thus the term 7.11 is bounded below for large

L

{(\int_{[\frac{1}{4}, \frac{3}{4}]^{d}} \sum_{k = 1}^{L} \sum_{Q \in W_{k, γ} (x)} \int_{Ω (k, x, Q)} {[2^{- k (d + b)} β_{k} 2^{k (d - γ d / 2)}]}^{q} d μ d x)}^{1 / q} \geq c {(\int_{[\frac{1}{4}, \frac{3}{4}]^{d}} \sum_{k = C}^{L} card (W_{k, γ} (x)) a_{k} d x)}^{1 / q} ≳ L^{1 / q}

and consequently we obtain 7.7 . □ Remark: The case

γ = 1

which is relevant for the wave equation is an exceptional case (see [8] , [10] ), as the critical

b

is given by

b = (d - 1) (1 / p - 1 / 2)

1 < p \leq 2

. However if these parameters are chosen in Theorem 1.4 then a modification of the above argument, with

a_{k} = 2^{- k (d - 1)}

, shows that 1.13 remains valid.

References

A. Baernstein and E.T. Sawyer, Embedding and multiplier theorems for $H^{p} (R^{n})$ , Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 53 (1985).
A. Benedek, A.-P. Calderón and R. Panzone, Convolution operators on Banach space valued functions, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 48 (1962), 356–365.
J. Bourgain, Bounded orthogonal systems and the $Λ (p)$ -set problem, Acta Math. 162 (1989), 227–245.
C. Fefferman, The multiplier problem for the ball, Ann. of Math. 94 (1971), 330–336.
C. Fefferman and E. M. Stein, Some maximal inequalities, Amer. J. Math. 93 (1971), 107–115.
$H^{p}$ spaces of several variables, Acta Math. 129 (1972), 137–193.
G.A. Kalyabin, Descriptions of functions from classes of Besov-Lizorkin-Triebel type (Russian), Studies in the theory of differentiable functions of several variables and its applications, VIII. Trudy Mat. Inst. Steklov. 156 (1980), 82–109, 262.
A. Miyachi, On some estimates for the wave equation in $L^{p}$ and $H^{p}$ , Journ. Fac. Sci. Tokyo, Sci.IA, 27 (1980), 331–354.
J. Peetre, On spaces of Triebel-Lizorkin type, Ark. Mat. 13 (1975), 123–130.
J. Peral, $L^{p}$ estimates for the wave equation, J. Funct. Anal. 36 (1980), 114–145.
M. Plancherel and G. Pólya, Fonctions entières et intégrales de Fourier multiples, Comment. Math. Helv. 9 (1937), 224–248.
W. Rudin, Functional Analysis, McGraw-Hill, 1973.
A. Seeger, Some inequalities for singular convolution operators in $L^{p}$ -spaces, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 308 (1988), 259–272.
A note on Triebel-Lizorkin spaces, in: Approximation and Function Spaces, Banach Center Publ. 22, PWN-Polish Sci. Publ., Warszawa, 1989, 391–400.
Remarks on singular convolution operators, Studia Math., 97 (1990), 91-114.
E.M. Stein, Singular integrals and differentiability properties of functions, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. 1970.
E.M. Stein, Harmonic analysis: Real variable methods, orthogonality and oscillatory integrals, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, N.J. 1993.
E. M. Stein and G. Weiss, Introduction to Fourier analysis on Euclidean spaces, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, N.J. 1971.
R. Strichartz, Multipliers on fractional Sobolev spaces, J. Math. Mech. 16 (1967), 1031–1060.
H. Triebel, Theory of Function Spaces, Monogr. Math. 78, Birkhäuser, Basel, 1983.
, Theory of Function Spaces II, Monogr. Math. 84, Birkhäuser, Basel, 1992.

Michael Christ, Department of Mathematics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3840, USA E-mail address : mchrist@math.berkeley.edu Andreas Seeger, Department of Mathematics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706-1388, USA E-mail address : seeger@math.wisc.edu