用户: Solution/ 解答: GTM249 Chapter 1 Part II

1.3 Interpolation

1.3.1.

This just requires some tiny changes in the proof of the original theorem.

1.3.2.

Interpolating between and using Marcinkiewicz, we have Then using Riesz–Thorin to interpolate between and , we have where by solving . Thus Now we come to estimate the constant. Note that , we have then . Thus With these estimates, we have with the use of .

1.3.3.

(a)

It is a special case of (b). To be specific, take in (b), then the norm becomes

(b)

It suffices to study the case of due to the assumption . For , write , where , then we have the relation since . Thus Now take to end this proof.

(c)

Again, write , where . Thus Now take such that and optimize over to end the estimate.

1.3.7.

Writewhere when and . Using Hölder’s inequality and the hypotheses on , we obtain that If , then If , then For , we have Add the three parts together and use the countable subadditivity of , we then conclude that

1.3.8.

Use the change of variables , and the first integral becomes For the second one,

1.4. Lorentz Spaces

1.4.1.

(a)

Since

(b)

Since

1.4.2.

We omit the proof of the case since always holds for . Now for case, write and . Since , we may always find and , such that for each and some . Thence we may continue our estimate as follows: Thus For the case, suppose a.e., then for . Then Thus

1.4.3.

(a)

For , we have since . Otherwise, For the second part, since , we have When , we have the property of scalar multiplication, whence is a norm.

(b)

The first inequality holds since . This is quite obvious when , since in this case. For , take , then . Then , we have by definition. Set , we have Since is arbitrary, we have Thus For the second inequality, we may seek for a proof for , but unfortunately this is untrue. (For , the right side is definitely zero but unnecessarily for the left.) Note that the defined is controlled by . We just show the case when . This is because Thus,

(c)

When , we may take , then will be equivalent to the norm .

1.4.4.

(a)

Write and . Since , we may fix , then Thus, for any , choose finitely combined simple functions such that Then the estimate follows that (for , using the fact that is actually metrizable) For , just take the power of for some suitable described in [Ex.1.1.12], and make some necessary changes to get the same estimate.

(b)

Write and . Set , then for , we have

1.4.10.

(a)

Take , and . Thus by setting , and , we obtain a decomposition . Clearly . For , we have Plus, for , we have Now combined together, we have which is exactly .

(b)

Since

(c)

Since

1.4.11.

First we show

(a)

(Fatou’s Lemma in )

(b)

We know Since , we have by this control that in measure. Now choose a subsequence such that a.e.

1.4.13.

(Dyadic Decomposition) Set , and . Obviously, we have . Since is decreasing, we have Clearly, , which has measure . For the last matter, set . Thus which is enough to show the boundedness of . Another direction follows from the estimate on each that and and use a shift.

1.4.14.

(a)

Take , then by the definition of . Thus

(b)

Since , set , where is an ascending chain of finite measure subspace with union equal to . Then by condition, we have Thus . Let , then . Thus, which means .