Abstract

AbstractLet $$0<\alpha <d$$ 0 < α < d and $$1\le p<d/\alpha $$ 1 ≤ p < d / α . We present a proof that for all $$f\in W^{1,p}({\mathbb {R}}^d)$$ f ∈ W 1 , p ( R d ) both the centered and the uncentered Hardy–Littlewood fractional maximal operator $${\mathrm {M}}_\alpha f$$ M α f are weakly differentiable and $$ \Vert \nabla {\mathrm {M}}_\alpha f\Vert _{p^*} \le C_{d,\alpha ,p} \Vert \nabla f\Vert _p , $$ ‖ ∇ M α f ‖ p ∗ ≤ C d , α , p ‖ ∇ f ‖ p , where $$ p^* = (p^{-1}-\alpha /d)^{-1} . $$ p ∗ = ( p - 1 - α / d ) - 1 . In particular it covers the endpoint case $$p=1$$ p = 1 for $$0<\alpha <1$$ 0 < α < 1 where the bound was previously unknown. For $$p=1$$ p = 1 we can replace $$W^{1,1}({\mathbb {R}}^d)$$ W 1 , 1 ( R d ) by $$\mathrm {BV}({\mathbb {R}}^d)$$ BV ( R d ) . The ingredients used are a pointwise estimate for the gradient of the fractional maximal function, the layer cake formula, a Vitali type argument, a reduction from balls to dyadic cubes, the coarea formula, a relative isoperimetric inequality and an earlier established result for $$\alpha =0$$ α = 0 in the dyadic setting. We use that for $$\alpha >0$$ α > 0 the fractional maximal function does not use certain small balls. For $$\alpha =0$$ α = 0 the proof collapses.

Highlights

  • The centered Hardy–Littlewood maximal function is defined by Mc f (x) = sup f B(x,r), r >0 and the uncentered Hardy–Littlewood maximal function is defined by M f (x) = sup fB

  • Note that unless f = 0 M f 1 ≤ Cd,1 f 1 fails since M f is not in L1(Rd )

  • [16] Hajłasz and Onninen asked whether formula (1.1) holds for p = 1 for the centered Hardy–Littlewood maximal operator

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The study of the regularity of the fractional maximal operator was initiated by Kinnunen and Saksman They proved in [20,Theorem 2.1] that formula (1.2) holds for 0. In [10] Carneiro and Madrid used this, the Ld/(d−α)-boundedness of Mα−1, and Sobolev embedding to concluded formula (1.2) All of this works for the uncentered fractional maximal function Mα. Remark 1.8 For centered, uncentered maximal operator and dyadic maximal operator, Theorems 1.2, 1.4 and 1.5 admit localized versions of the following form. Dyadic cubes are much easier to deal with than balls, but the dyadic version still serves as a model case for the continuous versions since both versions share many properties This can be observed in [30], where we proved var M01E ≤ Cd var 1E for the dyadic maximal operator and the uncentered Hardy–Littlewood maximal operator. From ∇ f p < ∞ we can anyways conclude f ∈ L p(Rd ) by Sobolev embedding

Reformulation
Hardy–Littlewood maximal operator
Dyadic maximal operator
Making the balls disjoint
Transfer to dyadic cubes
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call