# Norm inequalities for the conjugate operator in two-weighted Lebesgue spaces

• 1655 Accesses

## Abstract

In this article, first, we prove that weighted-norm inequalities for the M-harmonic conjugate operator on the unit sphere whenever the pair (u, v) of weights satisfies the A p -condition, and udσ, vdσ are doubling measures, where is the rotation-invariant positive Borel measure on the unit sphere with total measure 1. Then, we drive cross-weighted norm inequalities between the Hardy-Littlewood maximal function and the sharp maximal function whenever (u, v) satisfies the A p -condition, and vdσ does a certain regular condition.

2000 MSC: primary 32A70; secondary 47G10.

## 1 Introduction

Let B be the unit ball of nwith norm |z| = 〈z, z1/2 where 〈, 〉 is the Hermitian inner product, S be the unit sphere and σ be the rotation-invariant probability measure on S.

For z B, ξ S, we define the $M$-harmonic conjugate kernel K(z, ξ) by

$i K ( z , ξ ) = 2 C ( z , ξ ) - P ( z , ξ ) - 1 ,$

where C(z, ξ) = (1 - 〈z, ξ〉)-nis the Cauchy kernel and P(z, ξ) = (1 - |z|2)n/|1 - 〈z, ξ〉 |2nis the invariant Poisson kernel .

For the kernels, C and P, refer to . And for all f - A(B), the ball algebra, such that f(0) is real, the reproducing property of 2C(z, ξ) - 1 [2, Theorem 3.2.5] gives

$∫ S K ( z , ξ ) Re f ( ξ ) d σ ( ξ ) = - i f ( z ) - Re f ( z ) = Im f ( z ) .$

For n = 1, the definition of K f is the same as the classical harmonic conjugate function and so we can regard K f as the Hilbert transform on the unit circle. The Lpboundedness property of harmonic conjugate functions on the unit circle for 1 < p < ∞ was introduced by Riesz in 1924 [3, Theorem 2.3 of Chapter 3]. Later, in 1973, Hunt et al.  proved that, for 1 < p < ∞, conjugate functions are bounded on weighted measured Lebesgue space if and only if the weight satisfies A p -condition. Most recently, Lee and Rim  provided an analogue of that of  by proving that, for 1 < p < ∞, M-harmonic conjugate operator K is bounded on Lp(ω) if and only if the nonnegative weight ω satisfies the A p (S)-condition on S; i.e., the nonnegative weight ω satisfies

$sup Q 1 σ ( Q ) ∫ Q ω d σ 1 σ ( Q ) ∫ Q ω - 1 ∕ ( p - 1 ) d σ p - 1 : = A p ω < ∞ ,$

where Q = Q(ξ, δ) = {η S : d(ξ, η) = |1 - 〈ξ, η〉|1/2 < δ} is a non-isotropic ball of S.

To define the A p (S)-condition for two weights, we let (u, v) be a pair of two non-negative integrable functions on S. For p > 1, we say that (u, v) satisfies two-weighted A p (S)-condition if

$sup Q 1 σ ( Q ) ∫ Q u d σ 1 σ ( Q ) ∫ Q v - 1 ∕ ( p - 1 ) d σ p - 1 : = A p < ∞ ,$
(1.1)

where Q is a non-isotropic ball of S. For p = 1, the A1(S)-condition can be viewed as a limit case of the A p (S)-condition as p 1, which means that (u, v) satisfies the A1(S)-condition if

$sup Q 1 σ ( Q ) ∫ Q u d σ ess sup Q v - 1 : = A 1 < ∞ ,$

where Q is a non-isotropic ball of S.

In succession of classical weighted-norm inequalities, starting from Muckenhoupt's result in 1975 , there have been extensive studies on two-weighted norm inequalities (for textbooks  and for related topics ). In , Muckenhoupt derives a necessary and sufficient condition on two-weighted norm inequalities for the Poisson integral operator. And then, Sawyer [18, 19] obtained characterizations of two-weighted norm inequalities for the Hardy-Littlewood maximal function and for the fractional and Poisson integral operators, respectively. As a result on two-weighted A p (S)-condition itself, Neugebauer  proved the existence of an inserting pair of weights. Cruz-Uribe and Pérez  give a sufficient condition for Calderón-Zygmund operators to satisfy the weighted weak (p, p) inequality. More recently, Martell et al.  provide two-weighted norm inequalities for Calderón-Zygmund operators that are sharp for the Hilbert transform and for the Riesz transforms.

Ding and Lin  consider the fractional integral operator and the maximal operator that contain a function homogeneous of degree zero as a part of kernels and the authors prove weighted (Lp, Lq)-boundedness for those operators for two weights.

In , Muckenhoupt and Wheeden provided simple examples of a pair that satisfies two-weighted A p ()-condition but not two-weighted norm inequalities for the Hardy-Littlewood maximal operator and the Hilbert transform. In this article, we prove the converse of the main theorem of  by adding a doubling condition for a weight function. And then by adding a suitable regularity condition on a weight function, we derive and prove a cross-weighted norm inequalities between the Hardy-Littlewood maximal function and the sharp maximal function.

Throughout this article, Q denotes a non-isotropic ball of S induced by the non-isotropic metric d on S which is defined by d(ξ, η) = |1 - 〈ξ, η〉|1/2. For notational simplicity, we denote ʃ Q f dσ := f(Q) the integral of f over Q, and $1 σ ( Q ) ∫ Q f d σ : = f Q$ the average of f over Q. Also, for a nonnegative integrable function u and a measurable subset E of S, we write u(E) for the integral of u over E. We write Q(δ) in place of Q(ξ, δ) whenever the center ξ has no meaning in a context. For a positive constant s, sQ(δ) means Q(). We say that a weight v satisfies a doubling condition if there is a constant C independent of Q such that v(2Q) ≤ Cv(Q) for all Q.

Theorem 1.1. Let 1 < p < ∞. If (u, v) satisfies two-weighted A p' (S)-condition for some p' < p and udσ, vdσ are doubling measures, then there exists a constant C which depends on u, v and p, such that for all function f,

$∫ S K f p u d σ ≤ C ∫ S f p v d σ f o r a l l f ∈ L p ( v ) .$
(1.2)

To prove the next theorem, we need a regularity condition for v such that for 1 ≤ p < ∞, we assume that for a measurable set E Q and for σ(E) ≤ θσ(Q) with 0 ≤ θ ≤ 1, we get

$v ( E ) ≤ 1 - ( 1 - θ ) p v ( Q ) .$
(1.3)

Let f L1(S) and let 1 < p < ∞. The (Hardy-Littlewood) maximal and the sharp maximal functions M f, f#p, resp. on S are defined by

$M f ( ξ ) = sup Q 1 σ ( Q ) ∫ Q f d σ , f # p ( ξ ) = sup Q 1 σ ( Q ) ∫ Q f - f Q p d σ 1 ∕ p ,$

where each supremum is taken over all balls Q containing ξ. From the definition, the sharp maximal function f f#pis an analogue of the maximal function M f, which satisfies f#1(ξ) ≤ 2M f(ξ).

Theorem 1.2. Let 1 < p < ∞. If (u, v) satisfies two-weighted A p (S)-condition and vdσ does (1.3), then there exists a constant C which depends on u, v and p, such that for all function f,

$∫ S ( M f ) p u d σ ≤ C ∫ S f # 1 p v d σ + ∫ S f p v d σ .$

Remark. On the unit circle, we derive a sufficient condition for weighted-norm inequalities for the Hilbert transform for two weights.

The proofs of Theorem 1.1 will be given in Section 3. We start Section 2 by deriving some preliminary properties of (u, v) which satisfies the A p (S)-condition. In Section 4, we prove Theorem 1.2.

## 2 Two-weight on the unit sphere

Lemma 2.1. If (u, v) satisfies two-weighted A p (S)-condition, then for every function f ≥ 0 and for every ball Q,

$( f Q ) p u ( Q ) ≤ A p ∫ Q f p v d σ .$

Proof. If p = 1 and (u, v) satisfies two-weighted A1(S)-condition, we get, for every ball Q and every f ≥ 0,

$f Q u ( Q ) = f ( Q ) u Q ≤ A 1 f ( Q ) 1 ess sup Q v − 1 ≤ A 1 ∫ Q f v d σ ,$

since $1 / ess sup Q v − 1 = ess inf Q v ≤ ( ξ )$ for all ξ Q.

If 1 < p < ∞ and (u, v) satisfies two-weighted A p (S)-condition, we have, for every ball Q and every f ≥ 0, using Holder's inequality with p and its conjugate exponent p/(p - 1),

$f Q = 1 σ ( Q ) ∫ Q f v 1 ∕ p v - 1 ∕ p d σ ≤ 1 σ ( Q ) ∫ Q f p v d σ 1 ∕ p 1 σ ( Q ) ∫ Q v - 1 ∕ ( p - 1 ) d σ ( p - 1 ) ∕ p$

Hence,

$f Q p u ( Q ) = u ( Q ) σ ( Q ) 1 σ ( Q ) ∫ Q v - 1 ∕ ( p - 1 ) d σ p - 1 ∫ Q f p v d σ ≤ A p ∫ Q f p v d σ .$

Therefore, the proof is complete.

Corollary 2.2. If (u, v) satisfies two-weighted A p (S)-condition, then

$σ ( E ) σ ( Q ) p u ( Q ) ≤ A p v ( E ) ,$

where E is a measurable subset of Q.

Proof. Applying Lemma 2.1 with f replaced by χ E proves the conclusion.

## 3 Proof of Theorem 1.1

In this section, we will prove the first main theorem. First, we derive the inequality between two sharp maximal functions of K f and f.

Lemma 3.1. Let f L1(S). Then, for q > p > 1, there is a constant Cp,qsuch that (K f)#p(ξ) ≤ Cp,qf#q(ξ) for almost every ξ.

Proof. It suffices to show that for r ≥ 1 and q > 1, there is a constant C rq such that (K f)#r(ξ) ≤ C rq f#rq(ξ) for almost every ξ,

i.e., for Q = Q(ξ Q , δ) a ball of S, we prove that there are constants λ = λ(Q, f) and C rq such that

$1 σ ( Q ) ∫ Q K f ( η ) - λ r d σ 1 ∕ r ≤ C r , q f # q ( ξ Q ) .$
(3.1)

Fix Q = Q(ξ Q , δ) and write

$f ( η ) = f ( η ) - f Q χ 2 Q ( η ) + f ( η ) - f Q χ S \ 2 Q ( η ) + f Q : = f 1 ( η ) + f 2 ( η ) + f Q .$

Then, K f = K f1 + K f2, since K f Q = 0.

For each z B, put

$g ( z ) = ∫ S 2 C ( z , ξ ) - 1 f 2 ( ξ ) d σ ( ξ ) .$

Then, g is continuous on B Q By setting λ = -ig(ξ Q ) in (3.1), we shall drive the conclusion. By Minkowski's inequality, we split the integral in (3.1) into two parts,

$1 σ ( Q ) ∫ Q K f ( η ) + i g ( ξ Q ) r d σ ( η ) 1 ∕ r ≤ 1 σ ( Q ) ∫ Q K f 1 r d σ 1 ∕ r + 1 σ ( Q ) ∫ Q K f 2 + i g ( ξ Q ) r d σ 1 ∕ r : = I 1 + I 2 .$
(3.2)

We estimate I1. By Holder's inequality, it is estimated as

$I 1 ≤ 1 σ ( Q ) ∫ Q K f 1 r q d σ 1 ∕ r q ≤ 1 σ ( Q ) ∫ S K f 1 r q d σ 1 ∕ r q ≤ C r q σ ( Q ) 1 ∕ r q f 1 L r q ,$

since K is bounded on Lrq(S) (rq > 1). By replacing f1 by f - f Q , we get

$f 1 L r q = ∫ 2 Q f - f Q r q d σ 1 ∕ r q ≤ ∫ 2 Q f - f 2 Q r q d σ 1 ∕ r q + σ ( 2 Q ) 1 ∕ r q f 2 Q - f Q .$

Thus, by applying Hölder's inequality in the last term of the above,

$σ ( 2 Q ) 1 ∕ r q f 2 Q - f Q ≤ σ ( 2 Q ) 1 ∕ r q σ ( Q ) ∫ Q f - f 2 Q d σ ≤ σ ( 2 Q ) 1 ∕ r q σ ( Q ) 1 - 1 ∕ r q σ ( Q ) ∫ 2 Q f - f 2 Q r q d σ 1 ∕ r q = R 2 1 ∕ r q ∫ 2 Q f - f 2 Q r q d σ 1 ∕ r q ( by ( 4 . 2 ) ) .$

Hence,

$I 1 ≤ C r q 1 + R 2 1 ∕ r q f # r q ( ξ Q ) .$
(3.3)

Now, we estimate I2. Since f2 ≡ 0 on 2Q, the invariant Poisson integral of f2 vanishes on Q, i.e., $lim t ↗ 1 ∫ S P ( t η , ξ ) f 2 ( η ) dσ ( η ) =0$ whenever ξ Q. Thus, for almost all ξ Q,

$i K f 2 ( ξ ) = ∫ S \ 2 Q 2 C ( ξ , η ) - 1 f 2 ( η ) d σ ( η ) = g ( ξ )$

and then, by Minkowski's inequality for integrals,

$I 2 = 1 σ ( Q ) ∫ Q i K f 2 - g ( ξ Q ) r d σ 1 ∕ r ≤ ∫ S \ 2 Q 2 f 2 ( η ) 1 σ ( Q ) ∫ Q C ( ξ , η ) - C ( ξ Q , η ) r d σ ( ξ ) 1 ∕ r d σ ( η ) .$

By Lemma 6.1.1 of , we get an upper bound such that

$I 2 ≤ C δ ∫ S \ 2 Q f 2 ( η ) 1 - η , ξ Q n + 1 ∕ 2 d σ ( η ) ,$
(3.4)

where C is an absolute constant. Write $S \ 2 Q = ⋃ k = 1 ∞ 2 k + 1 Q \ 2 k Q$. Then, the integral of (3.4) is equal to

$∑ k = 1 ∞ ∫ 2 k + 1 Q \ 2 k Q f ( η ) - f Q 1 - η , ξ Q n + 1 ∕ 2 d σ ( η ) ≤ ∑ k = 1 ∞ 1 2 ( 2 n + 1 ) k δ 2 n + 1 ∫ 2 k + 1 Q \ 2 k Q f - f Q d σ ≤ ∑ k = 1 ∞ 1 2 ( 2 n + 1 ) k δ 2 n + 1 ∫ 2 k + 1 Q f - f 2 k + 1 Q d σ + ∑ j = 0 k ∫ 2 k + 1 Q f 2 j + 1 Q - f 2 j Q d σ .$

By Hölder's inequality, by (4.3),

$∫ 2 k + 1 Q f - f 2 k + 1 Q d σ ≤ R 2 k + 1 δ 1 σ 2 k + 1 Q ∫ 2 k + 1 Q f - f 2 k + 1 Q r q d σ 1 ∕ r q ≤ R 2 k + 1 δ f # r q ( ξ Q ) ,$
(3.5)

Similarly, for each j,

$∫ 2 k + 1 Q f 2 j + 1 Q - f 2 j Q d σ ≤ σ 2 k + 1 Q σ ( 2 j Q ) ∫ 2 j Q f - f 2 j + 1 Q d σ ≤ R 2 k - j + 1 ∫ 2 j + 1 Q f - f 2 j + 1 Q d σ ( by ( 4 . 2 ) ) ≤ R 2 k - j + 1 R 2 j + 1 δ f # r q ( ξ Q ) from ( 3 . 5 ) with k = j = R 1 R 2 k + 2 δ f # r q ( ξ Q ) .$

Thus,

$∑ j = 0 k ∫ 2 k + 1 Q f 2 j + 1 Q - f 2 j Q d σ ≤ k + 1 R 1 R 2 k + 2 δ f # r q ( ξ Q ) .$
(3.6)

Since R s increases as s ∞ and R1 > 1, by adding (3.5) to (3.6), we have the upper bound as

$( k + 2 ) R 1 R 2 k + 2 δ f # r q ( ξ Q ) .$

Eventually, the identity of $R 2 k + 2 δ = R 1 2 2 n ( k + 2 ) δ 2 n$ yields that

$I 2 ≤ 2 4 n C R 1 2 ∑ k = 1 ∞ k + 2 2 k f # r q ( ξ Q ) ,$
(3.7)

and therefore, combining (3.3) and (3.7), we complete the proof.

The main theorem depends on Marcinkiewicz interpolation theorem between two abstract Lebesgue spaces, which is as follows.

Proposition 3.2. Suppose (X, μ) and (Y, ν) are measure spaces; p0, p1, q0, q1are elements of [1, ∞] such that p0q0, p1q1and q0q1and

$1 p = 1 + t p 0 + t p 1 , 1 q = 1 - t q 0 + t q 1 ( 0 < t < 1 ) .$

If T is a sublinear map from$L p 0 ( μ ) + L p 1 ( μ )$to the space of measurable functions on Y which is of weak-types (p0,q0) and (p1,q1), then T is of type (p, q).

Now, we prove the main theorem.

Proof of Theorem 1.1. Under the assumption of the main theorem, we will prove that (1.2) holds. We fix p > 1 and let f Lp(v).

By Theorem 1.2, there is a constant C p such that

$∫ S K f p u d σ ≤ ∫ S M u ( K f ) p u d σ ≤ C p ∫ S ( K f ) # 1 p u d σ ≤ C p ∫ S f # q p u d σ by Lemma 3 . 1 with q > 1 , p ∕ q > 1 ≤ 2 p C p ∫ S M f q p ∕ q u d σ ( by the triangle inequality ) .$
(3.8)

where M u is the maximal operator with respect to udσ, the second inequality follows from the doubling condition of udσ.

Without loss of generality, we assume f ≥ 0. By Holder's inequality and by (1.1), we have

$1 σ ( Q ) ∫ Q d σ ≤ 1 σ ( Q ) ∫ Q f p ∕ q v d σ q ∕ p 1 σ ( Q ) ∫ Q v - 1 ∕ ( p ∕ q - 1 ) d σ 1 - q ∕ p ≤ A p ∕ q q ∕ p 1 σ ( Q ) ∫ Q f p ∕ q v d σ q ∕ p σ ( Q ) v ( Q ) q ∕ p for all Q .$

Thus, if f Q > λ, then

$u ( Q ) ≤ A p ∕ q λ p ∕ q ∫ Q f p ∕ q v d σ for all Q .$
(3.9)

Let E be an arbitrary compact subset of {ξ S: M f(ξ) > λ}. Since vdσ is a doubling measure, from (3.9), there exists a constant C p,q such that

$u ( E ) ≤ C p , q λ p ∕ q ∫ S f p ∕ q v d σ .$

Thus, M f is of weak-type (Lp/q(vdσ),Lp/q(udσ)). Moreover,

$M f L ∞ ( u d σ ) ≤ M f L ∞ ( since u d σ ≪ d σ ) ≤ f L ∞ = f L ∞ ( u d σ ) ( since u d σ ≪ d σ , v > 0 a .e . by ( 1 . 1 ) ) .$

Now, by Proposition 3.2, M f is of type (Lr(vdσ), Lr(udσ)) for f > p/q.

Hence, the last integral of (3.8) is bounded by some constant times

$∫ S f q r v d σ ( for all r > p ∕ q ) .$

Since q is arbitrary so that p/q > 0, we can replace qr by p with p > 1. Therefore, the proof is completed.

## 4 Proof of Theorem 1.2

Theorem 1.2 can be regarded as cross-weighted norm inequalities for the Hardy-Littlewood maximal function and the sharp maximal function on the unit sphere. For a single A p -weight in n, refer to Theorem 2.20 of .

From Proposition 5.1.4 of , we conclude that when n > 1,

$Γ 2 ( n ∕ 2 + 1 ) 2 n - 2 Γ ( n + 1 ) s 2 n ≤ σ ( Q ( s δ ) ) σ ( Q ( δ ) ) ≤ 2 n - 2 Γ ( n + 1 ) Γ 2 ( n ∕ 2 + 1 ) s 2 n ,$

and when n = 1,

$2 π s 2 ≤ σ ( Q ( s δ ) ) σ ( Q ( δ ) ) ≤ π 2 s 2$

for any s > 0. Throughout the article, several kinds of constants will appear. To avoid confusion, we define the maximum ratio between sizes of two balls by

$R s : R s , n = max 2 n - 2 Γ ( n + 1 ) Γ 2 ( n ∕ 2 + 1 ) , π 2 s 2 n ,$
(4.1)

and thus, for every s > 0, for every δ > 0,

$σ ( s Q ( δ ) ) ≤ R s σ ( Q ( δ ) ) .$
(4.2)

Putting δ = 1 in (4.2), we get

$σ ( Q ( s ) ) ≤ R s .$
(4.3)

To prove Theorem 1.2, we need some lemmas. The next result is a covering lemma on the unit sphere, related to the maximal function. Let f L1(S) and let $t> f L 1 ( S )$. We may assume $f L 1 ( S ) ≠0$. Since {M f > t} is open, take a ball Q {M f > t} with center at each point of {M f > t}. For such a ball Q,

$σ ( Q ) ≤ 1 t ∫ Q f d σ .$
(4.4)

Thus, to each ξ {M f > t} corresponds a largest radius δ such that the ball Q = Q(ξ, δ) {M f > t} satisfies (4.4). Hence, we conclude the following simple covering lemma.

Lemma 4.1 (Covering lemma on S). Let f L1(S) be non-trivial. Then, for$t> f L 1 ( S )$, there is a collection of balls {Q t,j } such that

(i) $ξ ∈ S : M f ( ξ ) > t ⊂ ⋃ j Q t , j ,$

(ii) $σ ( Q t , j ) ≤ t - 1 f ( Q t , j ) ,$

where each Q t,j has the maximal radius of all the balls that satisfy (ii) in the sense that if Q is a ball that contains some Q t,j as its proper subset, then σ(Q) > t-1 ʃ Q |f| dσ holds.

Now, we are ready to prove Theorem 1.2.

Proof of Theorem 1.2. Fix 1 < p < ∞. We may assume f#1 Lp(v) and f Lp(v), otherwise, Theorem 1.2 holds clearly. Since v satisfies the doubling condition, we have ||M f|| Lp (v)C||f#1|| Lp (v). Combining this with f#1 Lp(v), we have ||M f||Lp(v)< ∞.

Suppose that f is non-trivial and we may assume that f ≥ 0. Let

$t > max 2 , 2 R 2 2 , R 3 f L 1 ( S ) .$

For ε > 0, E t be a compact subset of {M f > t} such that u({M f > t}) < u(E t ) + e-tε. Indeed, since u is integrable, u dσ is a regular Borel measure absolutely continuous with respect to σ.

Suppose {Qt,j} is a collection of balls having the properties (i) and (ii) of Lemma 4.1. Since {Q t,j } is a cover of a compact set E t , there is a finite subcollection of {Q t,j }, which covers E t . By Lemma 5.2.3 of , there are pairwise disjoint balls, $Q t , j 1 , Q t , j 2 , . . . , Q t , j ℓ$ of the previous subcollection such that

$E t ⊂ ⋃ k = 1 ℓ 3 Q t , j k , σ ( E t ) ≤ R 3 ∑ k = 1 ℓ σ ( Q t , j k ) ,$

where ℓ may depend on t. To avoid the abuse of subindices, we rewrite $Q t , j k$ as Q t,j . Let us note that from the maximality of Q t,j ,

$t > 1 σ ( 2 Q t . j ) ∫ 2 Q t , j f d σ ≥ σ ( Q t . j ) σ ( 2 Q t . j ) t ≥ R 2 - 1 t .$
(4.5)

Fix $Q 0 =2 Q k t , j 0$, where κ-1 = 2R2. (Here, κ < 1/2, since R2 > 1.) Let λ > 0 that will be chosen later. From the definition of the sharp maximal function, there are two possibilities: either

$Q 0 ⊂ { f # 1 > λ t } or Q 0 ⊄ { f # 1 > λ t } .$
(4.6)

In the first case, since Qt,j's are pairwise disjoint,

$∑ j : Q t , j ⊂ Q 0 ⊂ { f # 1 > λ t } v ( Q t , j ) ≤ v ( { f # 1 > λ t } ) ,$

and also,

$∑ Q 0 Q 0 ⊂ { f # 1 > λ t } ∑ { j : Q t , j ⊂ Q 0 } v ( Q t , j ) ≤ v ( { f # 1 > λ t } ) .$
(4.7)

In the second case,

$1 σ ( Q 0 ) ∫ Q 0 | f - f Q 0 | d σ ≤ λ t .$
(4.8)

Since $2 - 1 t> f L 1 ( S )$, by (4.5), taking $f Q 0 ≤ R 2 k t = 2 - 1 t$ into account, we have

Thus,

$∑ j : Q t , j ⊂ Q 0 ⊄ { f # 1 > λ t } σ ( Q t , j ) ≤ 2 λ σ ( Q 0 ) .$
(4.9)

In (4.9), take a small λ > 0 such that

$2 λ < 1 .$
(4.10)

(Note that the condition (4.10) enables us to use (1.3).) Thus, (4.9) can be written as

$∑ j : Q t . j ⊂ Q 0 ⊄ { f # 1 > λ t } v ( Q t , j ) ≤ 1 - ( 1 - 2 λ ) p v ( 2 Q κ t , j 0 ) .$

Adding up all possible Q0's in the second case of (4.6), we get

$∑ Q 0 Q 0 ⊄ { f # 1 > λ t } ∑ { j : Q t , j ⊂ Q 0 } v ( Q t , j ) ≤ ( 1 − ( 1 − 2 λ ) p ) ∑ k v ( 2 Q κ t , k ) .$
(4.11)

Since $M f > t ⊂ M f > R 2 - 1 t$ and $σ 2 Q t , j ≤ R 2 t - 1 ∫ 2 Q t , j f d σ$ holds (4.5), we can construct the collection of balls $Q R 2 - 1 t , j$ which covers $M f > R 2 - 1 t$ with maximal radius just the same way as Lemma 4.1, so that 2Q t,j is contained in $Q R 2 - 1 t , i$ for some i. Recall that $R 2 - 1 kt= 2 - 1 R 2 - 2 t> f L 1 ( S )$, hence, (4.11) turns into

$∑ Q 0 Q 0 ⊄ { f # 1 > λ t } ∑ { j : Q t , j ⊂ Q 0 } v ( Q t , j ) ≤ ( 1 − ( 1 − 2 λ ) p ) ∑ k v ( Q R 2 − 1 κ t , k ) .$
(4.12)

Combining (4.7) and (4.11), we summarize

$∑ j v ( Q t , j ) ≤ v ( { f # 1 > λ t } ) + ∑ k 1 - ( 1 - 2 λ ) p v ( Q R 2 - 1 κ t , k ) .$
(4.13)

Now, put

$α v ( t ) = ∑ j v ( Q t , j ) , β u ( t ) = u ( E t ) .$
(4.14)

Then,

(4.15)

where the fourth inequality follows from the fact that $3 Q t , j ⊂ Q R 3 - 1 t , i$ for some i. Indeed, we can construct $Q R 3 - 1 t , i$ as before, since $R 3 - 1 t> f L 1 ( S )$.

Eventually, putting the constant $e p = ∫ 0 ∞ t p e - t d t$, and $N=max 2 , 2 R 2 2 , R 3$ (which depends only on n), we have

The first term I is dominated by

where the first inequality follows from Hölder's inequality for $f L 1 ( S ) o$.

On the other hand,

Hence,

$∫ S | M f | p u d σ ≤ N p A p ∥ f ∥ L p ( v ) p + A p C p R 3 p ∫ S | f # 1 | p v d σ + e p ε .$

The first and the last integrals are independent of ε. Letting ε 0, therefore, the proof is complete after accepting Lemma 4.3.

Lemma 4.2. Let α v be defined in (4.14). Then, for every qp and every r > 0,

$∫ 0 r t q - 1 α v ( t ) d t < ∞ .$

Proof. For a positive real number r, we set

$I r = ∫ 0 r q t q - 1 α v ( t ) d t .$
(4.16)

Since $∑ j v ( Q t , j ) ≤ ∫ { M f > t } vdσ$, we have

$I r ≤ ∫ 0 r q t q - 1 ∫ { M f > t } v d σ d t .$

We note that I r is finite, since pp0 and it is bounded by

$q r q - p p ∫ 0 r p t p - 1 ∫ { M f > t } v d σ d t ≤ q r q - p p ∥ M f ∥ L p ( v ) p < ∞ ,$

since M f Lp(v). Therefore, the proof is complete.

Now, filling up next lemma, we finish the proof of Theorem 1.2.

Lemma 4.3. Under the same assumption as Theorem 1.2, if α v is defined in (4.14), then there is a constant C p such that

$∫ 0 ∞ t p - 1 α v ( t ) d t ≤ C p ∫ 0 ∞ t p - 1 v ( { f # 1 > t } ) d t .$

Proof. Recall (4.13), i.e.,

$α v ( t ) ≤ v ( { f # 1 > λ t } ) + 1 - ( 1 - 2 λ ) p α v ( R 2 - 1 κ t ) .$

By integration, it follows that

$∫ 0 r t p - 1 α v ( t ) d t ≤ ∫ 0 r t p - 1 v f # 1 > λ t d t + 1 - ( 1 - 2 λ ) p ∫ 0 r t p - 1 α v R 2 - 1 k t d t = ∫ 0 r t p - 1 v f # 1 > λ t d t + 1 - ( 1 - 2 λ ) p R 2 p k - p ∫ 0 R 2 - 1 k r t p - 1 α v t d t ≤ ∫ 0 r t p - 1 v f # 1 > λ t d t + 2 p R 2 2 p 1 - ( 1 - 2 λ ) p ∫ 0 r t p - 1 α v ( t ) d t since k = 2 - 1 R 2 - 1 , R 2 - 1 k < 1 ,$
(4.17)

where the equality is due to the change of variable.

Take a small λ so that

$2 p R 2 2 p 1 - ( 1 - 2 λ ) p < 1 ∕ 2 , 2 λ < 1 ,$

where the second inequality comes from (4.10). Then, by Lemma 4.2, (4.17) can be written as

$1 2 ∫ 0 r t p - 1 α v ( t ) d t ≤ ∫ 0 r t p - 1 v f # 1 > λ t d t = λ - p ∫ 0 λ r t p - 1 v f # 1 > t d t ,$

where the equality is caused by the change of variable.

Finally, letting r ∞, we obtain

$∫ 0 ∞ t p - 1 α v ( t ) d t ≤ 2 λ - p ∫ 0 ∞ t p - 1 v f # 1 > t d t .$

Therefore, the proof is complete.

## References

1. 1.

Lee J, Rim KS: Properties of M-harmonic conjugate operator. Canad Math Bull 2003, 46: 113–121. 10.4153/CMB-2003-011-x

2. 2.

Rudin W: Function Theory in the Unit Ball of n. Springer, New York; 1980.

3. 3.

Garnett JB: Bounded Analytic Functions. Academic Press, New York; 1981.

4. 4.

Hunt R, Muckenhoupt B, Wheeden R: Weighted norm inequalities for the conjugate function and Hilbert transform. Trans Amer Math Soc 1973, 176: 227–251.

5. 5.

Lee J, Rim KS: Estimate of M-harmonic conjugate operator. J Inequal Appl 2010, 13. Art. ID 435450

6. 6.

Muckenhoupt B: Two weight function norm inequalities for the Poisson integral. Trans Amer Math Soc 1975, 210: 225–231.

7. 7.

Sawyer ET: Two weight norm inequalities for certain maximal and integral operators. In Harmonic Analysis (Minneapolis, MN, 1981), Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Volume 908. Springer, Berlin; 1982.

8. 8.

Garcia-Cuerva J, Rubio JL: Weighted norm inequalities and related topics. In North-Holland Mathematics Studies. Volume 116. North-Holland, New York; 1985.

9. 9.

Stein EM: Harmonic Analysis, Real Variable Methods, Orthogonality, and Oscillatory Integrals. Princeton University Press, Princeton; 1993.

10. 10.

Grafakos L: Classical and Modern Fourier Analysis. Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River; 2004.

11. 11.

Muckenhoupt B, Webb DW: Two-weight norm inequalities for Cesàro means of Laguerre expansions. Trans Amer Math Soc 2001, 353: 1119–1149. 10.1090/S0002-9947-00-02729-X

12. 12.

Muckenhoupt B, Webb DW: Two-weight norm inequalities for the Cesàro means of Hermite expansions. Trans Amer Math Soc 2002, 354: 4525–4537. 10.1090/S0002-9947-02-03093-3

13. 13.

Garcia-Cuerva J, Martell JM: Two-weight norm inequalities for maximal operators and fractional integrals on non-homogeneous spaces. Indiana Univ Math. J 2001, 50: 1241–1280.

14. 14.

Pérez C: Two weighted norm inequalities for Riesz potentials and uniform Lp-weighted Sobolev inequalities. Indiana Univ Math J 1990, 39: 31–44. 10.1512/iumj.1990.39.39004

15. 15.

Pérez C: Two weighted inequalities for potential and fractional type maximal operators. Indiana Univ Math J 1994, 43: 663–683. 10.1512/iumj.1994.43.43028

16. 16.

Li W: Two-weight norm inequalities for commutators of potential type integral operators. J Math Anal Appl 2006, 322: 1215–1223. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2005.08.051

17. 17.

Zani SL: Two-weight norm inequalities for maximal functions on homogeneous spaces and boundary estimates. Studia Math 2007, 126: 67–94.

18. 18.

Sawyer ET: A characterization of a two-weight norm inequality for maximal operators. Studia Math 1982, 75: 1–11.

19. 19.

Sawyer ET: A characterization of two weight norm inequalities for fractional and Poisson integrals. Trans Amer Math Soc 1988, 308: 533–545. 10.1090/S0002-9947-1988-0930072-6

20. 20.

Neugebauer CJ: Inserting A p -weights. Proc Amer Math Soc 1983, 87: 644–648.

21. 21.

Cruz-Uribe D, Pérez C: Sharp two-weight, weak-type norm inequalities for singular integral operators. Math Res Lett 1999, 6: 417–427.

22. 22.

Martell J, Cruz-Uribe D, Pérez C: Sharp two-weight inequalities for singular integrals, with applications to the Hilbert transform and the Sarason conjecture. Adv Math 2007, 216: 647–676. 10.1016/j.aim.2007.05.022

23. 23.

Ding Y, Lin CC: Two-weight norm inequalities for the rough fractional integrals. Int J Math Math Sci 2001, 25: 517–524. 10.1155/S0161171201003982

24. 24.

Muckenhoupt B, Wheeden RL: Two weight function norm inequalities for the Hardy-Littlewood maximal function and the Hilbert transform. Studia Math 1976, 55: 279–294.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to express our deep gratitude to the referee for careful suggestions. His suitable and valuable comments were able to make a great improvement of the original manuscript.

## Author information

Correspondence to Kyung Soo Rim.

### Competing interests

The author Kyung Soo Rim was supported in part by a National Research Foundation of Korea Grant, NRF 2011-0027339.

### Authors' contributions

KSR drove a sufficient condition for two-weighted norm inequalities for K. In proving cross-weighted norm inequalities between the Hardy-Littlewood maximal function and the sharp maximal function on the unit sphere, and JL carried out the study about the covering lemma on the sphere. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

## Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Rim, K.S., Lee, J. Norm inequalities for the conjugate operator in two-weighted Lebesgue spaces. J Inequal Appl 2011, 117 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2011-117

• Accepted:

• Published:

### Keywords

• two-weighted norm inequality
• non-isotropic metric
• maximal function
• sharp maximal function
• M-harmonic conjugate operator
• Hilbert transform 