- Research
- Open access
- Published:
Endpoint regularity of discrete multisublinear fractional maximal operators associated with \(\ell^{1}\)-balls
Journal of Inequalities and Applications volume 2018, Article number: 33 (2018)
Abstract
In this paper we investigate the endpoint regularity of the discrete m-sublinear fractional maximal operator associated with \(\ell^{1}\)-balls, both in the centered and uncentered versions. We show that these operators map \(\ell^{1}(\mathbb{Z}^{d})\times\cdots\times \ell^{1}(\mathbb{Z}^{d})\) into \(\operatorname{BV}(\mathbb{Z}^{d})\) boundedly and continuously. Here \(\operatorname{BV}(\mathbb{Z}^{d})\) represents the set of functions of bounded variation defined on \(\mathbb{Z}^{d}\).
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
The regularity theory of maximal operators has been the subject of many recent articles in harmonic analysis. The first work was contributed by Kinnunen [1] who investigated the Sobolev regularity of the centered Hardy–Littlewood maximal function \(\mathcal{M}\) and proved that \(\mathcal{M}\) is bounded on the first order Sobolev spaces \(W^{1,p}(\mathbb{R}^{d})\) for all \(1< p\leq\infty\). It was noticed that the \(W^{1,p}\)-bound for the uncentered maximal operator \(\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}\) also holds by a simple modification of Kinnunen’s arguments or [2, Theorem 1]. Subsequently, the above result was extended to a local version in [3], to a fractional version in [4], to a multisublinear version in [5, 6] and to a one-sided version in [7]. Due to the lack of sublinearity of weak derivatives of the maximal function, the continuity of \(\mathcal{M}: W^{1,p}\rightarrow W^{1,p}\) for \(1< p<\infty\) is a certainly non-trivial problem. This question was resolved by Luiro in [8]. Later on, Luiro’s result was extended to the local version in [9] and to the multisublinear version in [5, 10]. Another way to extend the regularity theory of maximal operators is to study its behavior on different differentiable function spaces, such as fractional Sobolev spaces, Triebel–Lizorkin spaces, Besov spaces and so on. We refer the readers to consult [9, 11–13]. We notice that the \(L^{p}\)-bounds for \(\mathcal{M}\) is the crux of the \(W^{1,p}\)-bounds for \(\mathcal{M}\) for all \(1< p\leq\infty\). Due to the lack of the \(L^{1}\)-bounds for \(\mathcal{M}\), the \(W^{1,1}\)-regularity of maximal operators seems to be a deeper issue. A crucial question was posed by Hajłasz and Onninen in [2]:
Question A
([2])
Is the operator \(f\mapsto|\nabla\mathcal{M}f|\) bounded from \(W^{1,1} (\mathbb{R}^{d})\) to \(L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{d})\)?
This question was solved completely in dimension \(d=1\). Tanaka [14] first proved that \(\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}f\) is weakly differentiable and satisfies
if \(f\in W^{1,1}(\mathbb{R})\). The above result was later refined by Aldaz and Pérez Lázaro [15] who showed that if f is of bounded variation on \(\mathbb{R}\), then \(\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}f\) is absolutely continuous and
where \(\operatorname{Var}(f)\) denotes the total variation of f. The above result directly yields (1.1) with constant \(C=1\) (see also [16]). For the centered version, Kurka [17] showed that if f is of bounded variation on \(\mathbb{R}\), then (1.2) holds for \(\mathcal{M}\) with constant \(C=240\mbox{,}004\). Kurka also observed that if \(f\in W^{1,1}(\mathbb{R})\), then \(\mathcal{M}f\) is weakly differentiable and (1.1) also holds for \(\mathcal{M}\) with constant \(C=240\mbox{,}004\). Recently, inequalities (1.1) and (1.2) were extended to a fractional setting in [18] and to a multisublinear setting in [19]. In the remarkable work [20], Carneiro et al. proved that the operator \(f\mapsto(\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}f)'\) is continuous from \(W^{1,1}(\mathbb{R})\) to \(L^{1}(\mathbb{R})\). It is currently unknown whether the above continuity also holds for the centered version. For the general case \(d\geq2\), Question A remains open, and partial progress was obtained by Hajłasz and Malý [21], Luiro [22] and Saari [23]. Other works on the endpoint regularity of maximal operators include [7, 24, 25].
1.2 Discrete setting
We shall generally denote by \(\vec{n}=(n_{1}, n_{2},\ldots,n_{d})\) a vector in \(\mathbb{Z}^{d}\). For a discrete function \(f:\mathbb{Z}^{d}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\), we define the \(\ell^{p}(\mathbb{Z}^{d})\)-norm for \(1\leq p<\infty\) by \(\Vert f \Vert_{\ell^{p}(\mathbb{Z}^{d})}=(\sum_{\vec{n}\in\mathbb{Z}^{d}} |f(\vec{n})|^{p})^{1/p}\) and the \(\ell^{\infty}(\mathbb{Z}^{d})\)-norm by \(\Vert f \Vert_{\ell^{\infty}(\mathbb{Z}^{d})}=\sup_{\vec{n}\in \mathbb{Z}^{d}}|f(\vec{n})|\). We also let \(\Vert\vec{n} \Vert_{p}= (\sum_{i=1}^{d}|n_{i}|^{p})^{1/p}\) for all \(1\leq p<\infty\). Formally, we define the discrete analogue of the Sobolev spaces by
where ∇f is the gradient of a discrete function f defined by \(\nabla f(\vec{n})=(D_{1} f(\vec{n}), \ldots,D_{d}f(\vec{n}))\) and \(D_{l} f(\vec{n})\) is the partial derivative of f denoted by
and \(\vec{e}_{l}=(0,\ldots,0,1,0,\ldots,0)\) is the canonical lth base vector, \(l=1,2,\ldots,d\). It is clear that
which yields that the discrete Sobolev space \(W^{1,p} (\mathbb{Z}^{d})\) is just \(\ell^{p}(\mathbb{Z}^{d})\) with an equivalent norm. We also denote by \(\operatorname{BV}(\mathbb{Z}^{d})\) the set of all functions of bounded variation defined on \(\mathbb{Z}^{d}\), where the total variation of \(f:\mathbb{Z}^{d}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\) is defined by
It follows that
Recently, the study of the regularity properties of discrete maximal operators has also attracted many scholars. This progress began with Bober et al. [26] who proved that
and
where M (resp., M̃) is the usual discrete centered (resp., uncentered) Hardy–Littlewood maximal operator. We notice that inequality (1.5) is sharp. Subsequently, Temur [27] proved (1.5) for M (with constant \(C=294\mbox{,}912\mbox{,}004\)) following Kurka’s breakthrough [17]. Inequality (1.6) is not optimal, and it was asked in [26] whether the sharp constant for inequality (1.6) is in fact \(C=2\). This question was resolved in the affirmative by Madrid in [28]. Recently, Carneiro and Madrid [18] extended inequality (1.5) to the fractional setting (also see [20, 29–31] for the relevant results).
For general dimension \(d\geq1\), Carneiro and Hughes [32] studied the endpoint regularity of the discrete centered Hardy–Littlewood maximal operator associated with \(\ell^{2}\)-balls
where \(B_{r}(\vec{n})\) is the open ball in \(\mathbb{R}^{d}\) centered at n⃗ with radius r and \(N(B_{r}(\vec{n}))\) is the number of the lattice points in the set \(B_{r}(\vec{n})\). Carneiro and Hughes [32] first proved that M and its uncentered version map \(\ell^{1}(\mathbb{Z}^{d})\) into \(\operatorname{BV} (\mathbb{Z}^{d})\) boundedly and continuously. The above result was later extended to a fractional setting in [18] and to a multisublinear setting in [33]. In particular, Liu and Wu [33] investigated the regularity of the discrete centered multisublinear fractional maximal operator associated with \(\ell^{2}\)-balls
where \(m\geq1\) and \(0\leq\alpha< md\). Precisely, they proved the following result.
Theorem B
([33])
Let \(d\geq1\) and \(0\leq\alpha<(m-1)d+1\). Then \(\mathfrak{M}_{\alpha}\) maps \(\ell^{1}(\mathbb{Z}^{d})\times\cdots\times\ell^{1}(\mathbb{Z}^{d})\) into \(\operatorname{BV}(\mathbb{Z}^{d})\) boundedly and continuously.
1.3 Main results
It is well known that the geometry of \(\ell^{1}\)-balls in \(\mathbb{Z}^{d}\) is more intricate than that of \(\ell^{2}\)-balls. Especially, the number of lattice points in the \(\ell^{1}\)-ball is more complex than that of \(\ell^{2}\)-ball. This makes the investigation of the discrete multisublinear maximal operators associated with \(\ell^{1}\)-balls very complex and interesting. The primary purpose of this paper is to explore the regularity properties of the discrete multisublinear maximal operators associated with \(\ell^{1}\)-balls. Let \(m\geq1\) and \(\vec{f}=(f_{1},\ldots,f_{m})\) with each \(f_{j}\) being a discrete function on \(\mathbb{Z}^{d}\). For \(0\leq\alpha< md\), we define the discrete centered m-sublinear fractional maximal operator \(\mathbf{M}_{\alpha}\) associated with \(\ell^{1}\)-balls by
where \(\Gamma_{r}(\vec{n})\) is the \(\ell^{1}\)-ball centered at n⃗ with radius r, i.e. \(\Gamma_{r}(\vec{n}) =\{\vec{k}\in\mathbb{Z}^{d}; \Vert\vec{k}-\vec{n} \Vert_{1}< r\}\), and \(N(\Gamma_{r}(\vec{n}))\) denotes the number of elements in the set \(\Gamma_{r}(\vec{n})\). The uncentered version of \(\mathbf{M}_{\alpha}\) is given by
Clearly, when \(\alpha=0\) and \(m=d=1\), \(\mathbf{M}_{\alpha}=M\) and \(\widetilde{\mathbf{M}}_{\alpha}=\widetilde{M}\). For the bounds of \(\mathbf{M}_{\alpha}\) and \(\widetilde{\mathbf{M}}_{\alpha}\), we have
if \(1< p_{1},\ldots,p_{m}\leq\infty\), \(1\leq q\leq\infty\) for \(\alpha=0\), and \(1< p_{1},\ldots,p_{m}<\infty\), \(1\leq q<\infty\) for \(0<\alpha<md\), and \(\frac{1}{q}\leq\frac{1}{p_{1}}+ \cdots+\frac{1}{p_{m}}-\frac{\alpha}{d}\). To see (1.7), we notice that
Here \(B_{r}(\vec{n})\) is the open ball in \(\mathbb{R}^{d}\) centered at n⃗ with radius r and \(N(B_{r}(\vec{n}))\) is the number of lattice points in the set \(B_{r}(\vec{n})\). On the other hand, it was shown in [34] that
Here \(c_{d}=\frac{2\pi^{d/2}}{\Gamma(d/2)d}\). (1.10) yields that
Here \(C_{0}>1\) depends only on the dimension d. It follows from (1.8)–(1.9) and (1.11) that
(1.8), (1.10) and (1.12) imply that
(1.13) together with the bounds for \(\mathfrak{M}_{\alpha}\) leads to (1.7).
Based on the above, a natural question, which arises from the above results, is the following:
Question C
Are both \(\mathbf{M}_{\alpha}\) and \(\widetilde{\mathbf{M}}_{\alpha}\) bounded and continuous from \(\ell^{1}(\mathbb{Z}^{d})\times\cdots\times\ell^{1}(\mathbb{Z}^{d})\) to \(\operatorname{BV}(\mathbb{Z}^{d})\)?
This problem is the main motivation for this work. We will give an affirmative answer by our next theorem.
Theorem 1.1
Let \(d\geq1\) and \(0\leq\alpha<(m-1)d+1\). Then \(\mathbf{M}_{\alpha}\) maps \(\ell^{1}(\mathbb{Z}^{d})\times\cdots\times\ell^{1} (\mathbb{Z}^{d})\) into \(\operatorname{BV}(\mathbb{Z}^{d})\) boundedly and continuously. Moreover, if \(\vec{f}=(f_{1},\ldots,f_{m})\) with each \(f_{j}\in\ell^{1}(\mathbb{Z}^{d})\), then
The same results hold for the operator \(\widetilde{\mathbf{M}}_{\alpha}\).
Remark 1.1
(i) By (1.4) and Theorem 1.1, we know that both \(\vec{f}\mapsto |\nabla\mathbf{M}_{\alpha}(\vec{f})|\) and \(\vec{f}\mapsto |\nabla\widetilde{\mathbf{M}}_{\alpha}(\vec{f})|\) are bounded and continuous from \(\ell^{1}(\mathbb{Z}^{d}) \times\ell^{1}(\mathbb{Z}^{d})\times\cdots\times\ell^{1} (\mathbb{Z}^{d})\) to \(\ell^{1}(\mathbb{Z}^{d})\) if \(d\geq1\) and \(0\leq\alpha<(m-1)d+1\).
(ii) Both \(\mathbf{M}_{\alpha}\) and \(\widetilde{\mathbf{M}}_{\alpha}\) are not bounded from \(\ell^{1}(\mathbb{Z}^{d})\times\ell^{1}(\mathbb{Z}^{d})\times\cdots \times\ell^{1}(\mathbb{Z}^{d})\) into \(\operatorname{BV}(\mathbb{Z}^{d})\) when \((m-1)d+1<\alpha<md\).
(iii) Both \(\mathbf{M}_{\alpha}\) and \(\widetilde{\mathbf{M}}_{\alpha}\) are not bounded from \(\operatorname{BV}(\mathbb{Z}^{d})\times\operatorname{BV} (\mathbb{Z}^{d})\times\cdots\times\operatorname{BV}(\mathbb{Z}^{d})\) into \(\operatorname{BV}(\mathbb{Z}^{d})\) when \((m-1)(d-1)<\alpha<md\).
To see the above claims (ii) and (iii), let us only consider the centered case. Let \(l\in\mathbb{N}\setminus\{0\}\) with \(l>2(\Lambda_{0}+1)\) and \(\vec{f}=(f_{1},\ldots,f_{m})\) with each \(f_{j}(\vec{n})=\chi_{\{0\leq\Vert\vec{n} \Vert_{1}\leq l\}} (\vec{n})\). Here \(\Lambda_{0}\) is given as in (2.3). One can easily check that \(\Vert f_{j} \Vert_{\ell^{1}(\mathbb{Z}^{d})}=N_{1,d}(l) \lesssim_{d}l^{d}\), \(\Vert\nabla f \Vert_{\ell^{1}(\mathbb{Z}^{d})} \lesssim_{d}l^{d-1}\) and \(\mathbf{M}_{\alpha}(\vec{f}) (\vec{n})=(N_{1,d}(l- \Vert\vec{n} \Vert_{1}))^{\frac{\alpha}{d}}\) when \(0\leq\Vert\vec{n} \Vert_{1}\leq l\). Then we have
Since \(l- \Vert n' \Vert_{1}-|n_{d}|-1>\Lambda_{0}\) when \(\Lambda_{0}\leq \Vert(n',n_{d}) \Vert_{1}\leq\frac{l-1}{2}\). Then, by (2.11) with \(\gamma=\frac{\alpha}{d}\) and (2.3),
Consequently,
Letting \(l\rightarrow+\infty\), the claims (ii) and (iii) follow.
Remark 1.2
It should be pointed out that our main results are new even in the special case \(m=1\) and \(\alpha=0\).
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 contains some notation and necessary lemmas. The proof of Theorem 1.1 is given in Section 3. It should be pointed out that the main method employed in this paper is a combination of ideas and arguments from [18, 33], but our methods and techniques in the proof of Theorem 1.1 are more simple, direct and different than those in [18, 33]. In particular, the proof of Theorem B is highly dependent on a summability argument over the sequence of local maximal and local minima of discrete multisublinear fractional maximal functions and two summability estimates (see [33, Lemmas 2.1–2.2]). In [18, 33], the proofs of the corresponding continuity results are highly dependent on the Brezis–Lieb lemma [35]. Moreover, the discrete versions of Luiro’s lemma (see [18, Lemmas 4–5]) have also played key roles in the proof of the corresponding continuity results in [18]. However, these tools and lemmas are unnecessary in our proof. We would like to remark that the proposed method in this paper can be extended to study the convergence of the parameter estimation algorithms for linear and bilinear systems (see [36–38]). Throughout this paper, the letter C will denote a positive constant that may vary at each occurrence but is independent of the essential variables. If there exists a constant \(C>0\) depending only on ϑ such that \(A\leq CB\), we then write \(A\lesssim_{\vartheta}B\) or \(B\gtrsim_{\vartheta}A\); and if \(A\lesssim_{\vartheta}B\lesssim_{\vartheta}A\), we then write \(A\thicksim_{\vartheta}B\). We also use the conventions \(\prod_{i\in\emptyset}a_{i}=1\) and \(\sum_{i\in\emptyset}a_{i}=0\).
2 Preliminary notations and lemmas
Let \(\mathbb{N}=\{0,1,2,\ldots\}\). For any \(r\in\mathbb{N}\), we denote by \(N_{1,d}(r)\) the number of elements in the set \(\{\vec{n}=(n_{1},\ldots,n_{d})\in \mathbb{Z}^{d}: \Vert\vec{n} \Vert_{1}\leq r\}\). It is obvious that \(N_{1,d}(0)=1\) and \(N_{1,d}(r+1)>N_{1,d}(r)\geq1\) for all \(r\in\mathbb{N}\). Fix \(\vec{n}\in\mathbb{Z}^{d}\), since \(\Vert\vec{n} \Vert_{2}\leq\Vert\vec{n} \Vert_{1}\leq\sqrt{d} \Vert\vec{n} \Vert_{2}\), then
Here \(c_{d}\) is given as in (1.10) and \(r_{+}:=\max\{r, c_{d}^{-1/d}\}\) for any \(r>0\). By (2.2), there exists \(\Lambda_{0}\in\mathbb{N}\setminus\{0\}\) such that
The following lemmas will play key roles in the proof of Theorem 1.1.
Lemma 2.1
Let \(\gamma>0\), \(d\geq1\) and \(\Lambda_{0}\) is given as in (2.3). Define the function \(\Phi_{\gamma}:\mathbb{N}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\) by \(\Phi_{\gamma}(r)=(N_{1,d}(r))^{-\gamma}-(N_{1,d}(r+1))^{-\gamma}\). Then
-
(i)
\(\Phi_{\gamma}\) is strictly decreasing on \(\mathbb{N}\).
-
(ii)
\(\Phi_{\gamma}(r)\sim_{\gamma,d,\Lambda_{0}}\Phi(2r)\) for any \(r\in\mathbb{N}\).
-
(iii)
\(\Phi_{\gamma}(r)\sim_{\gamma,d,\Lambda_{0}}(N_{1,d} (r+1))^{-\gamma-\frac{1}{d}}\) for any \(r\in\mathbb{N}\).
Proof
When \(d=1\). It is obvious that \(\Phi_{\gamma}(r)=(2r+1)^{-\gamma}-(2r+3)^{-\gamma}\) is strictly decreasing on \(r\in\mathbb{N}\). To prove (i) for the case \(d\geq2\), it suffices to show that
(2.5) reduces to the following:
It was shown in [28, Lemma 4] that
Combining (2.7) with the arithmetic mean-geometric mean inequality yields (2.6).
To prove (ii), it suffices to show that
Let us begin with proving the following:
We consider the following two cases.
Case A. \(\gamma\in\mathbb{N}\setminus\{0\}\). When \(\gamma=1\), (2.9) is obvious by (2.4). When \(\gamma\geq2\), we have
This together with (2.3) and (2.4) yields (2.9) for the case \(\gamma\geq2\).
Case B. \(\gamma\notin\mathbb{N}\). We can write \(\gamma=\frac{p}{q}\) for some \(p,q\in\mathbb{N}\) with \(p\geq1\) and \(q\geq2\). Observe that
for any \(a,b>0\). It follows that
for any \(a,b>0\). Then
for any \(a,b>0\). From (2.3), (2.10) and Case A with \(\gamma=p\), we have
which establishes (2.9) in this case.
It follows from (2.3) and (2.9) that
When \(0\leq r<\Lambda_{0}\). By (i) and (2.11), we get
This together with the trivial inequality \((N_{1,d} (r))^{-\gamma}-(N_{1,d}(r+1))^{-\gamma}\lesssim_{\gamma,d, \Lambda_{0}}(r+1)^{-1-d\gamma}\) for any \(0\leq r<\Lambda_{0}\) yields that
Combining (2.12) with (2.11) yields (2.8).
It remains to prove (iii). By (2.3) and (2.8), we get
On the other hand, we get from (2.2) that
This together with (2.10) and the trivial fact that \((N_{1,d}(r+1))^{-\gamma-\frac{1}{d}}\leq1 \lesssim_{\gamma,d,\Lambda_{0}}(r+1)^{-1-d\gamma}\) for \(0\leq r<\Lambda_{0}\) implies that
which together with (2.13) yields (iii). □
Lemma 2.2
Let \(d\geq2\), \(\gamma>1\) and \(R\in\mathbb{N}\) with \(R\geq\Lambda_{0}\). Then
Proof
We only prove (2.14), since (2.15) follows from (2.14) and the following:
where in the last inequality of the above inequality we have used (2.3). For \(s\in\mathbb{N}\), let \(r_{1,d}(s)\) denote the number of elements in the set \(\{\vec{n}=(n_{1},n_{2}, \ldots,n_{d})\in\mathbb{Z}^{d}: \Vert\vec{n} \Vert_{1}=s\}\). Since \(d-d\gamma<0\), then by (2.3) and (2.4) we have
3 Proof of Theorem 1.1
This section is devoted to the proof of Theorem 1.1. Let \(\Phi_{\gamma}\) be defined as in Lemma 2.1. It is clear that
3.1 Proof of Theorem 1.1—boundedness part
Let \(\vec{f}=(f_{1},\ldots,f_{m})\) with each \(f_{j}\in\ell^{1} (\mathbb{Z}^{d})\). Without loss of generality, we assume that all \(f_{j}\geq0\). We divide the proof of this part into two cases.
3.1.1 Centered case
To prove (1.14), it suffices to show that
for all \(1\leq l\leq d\). We shall work with (3.2) for \(l=d\) and the other cases are analogous. In what follows, we set \(\vec{n}=(n',n_{d})\in\mathbb{Z}^{d}\) with \(n'=(n_{1}, \ldots,n_{d-1})\in\mathbb{Z}^{d-1}\). It is clear that
For each \(n'\in\mathbb{Z}^{d-1}\), let
Then we can write
Thus, to prove (3.2), it suffices to show that
We only prove (3.3) since (3.4) can be obtained similarly. For \(r\in\mathbb{N}\), we define the function \(A_{r}(\vec{f}): \mathbb{Z}^{d}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\) by
Since all \(f_{j}\in\ell^{1}(\mathbb{Z}^{d})\), then \(\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty}A_{r}(\vec{f})(\vec{n})=0\). It follows that for any \(n'\in\mathbb{Z}^{d-1}\) and \(n_{d} \in X_{n'}^{+}\), there exists \(r(n',n_{d})>0\) such that \(\mathbf{M}_{\alpha}(\vec{f})(n',n_{d})=A_{r(n',n_{d})} (\vec{f})(n',n_{d})\). This together with (3.1) yields that
It follows that
Fix \(\vec{k}\in\mathbb{Z}^{d}\). Invoking Lemmas 2.1–2.2, we have
In the last inequality of (3.7) we have used the fact \(\alpha<(m-1)d+1\). Then (3.3) follows from (3.6) and (3.7).
3.1.2 Uncentered case
In this case the arguments are similar to those in the centered case, but the arguments are more complex than those in the centered case. We want to show that
For each \(n'\in\mathbb{Z}^{d-1}\), let
Fix \(n'\in\mathbb{Z}^{d-1}\). Since all \(f_{j}\in\ell^{1} (\mathbb{Z}^{d})\), then for any \(n_{d}\in Y_{n'}^{+}\), there exist \(r(n',n_{d}+1)>0\) and \(\vec{l}\in \mathbb{Z}^{d}\) such that \(\widetilde{\mathbf{M}}_{\alpha}(\vec{f})(n',n_{d}+1)=A_{r(n',n_{d}+1)}(\vec{f})(\vec{l})\) and \(\Vert(n',n_{d}+1)-\vec{l} \Vert_{1}< r(n',n_{d}+1)\). By the arguments similar to those used in deriving (3.5), we obtain
Note that \(8[r]\geq[2r]\) for \(r\geq2\) and \(\Phi(r)\leq1\) for all \(r\in\mathbb{N}\). By Lemma 2.1, one can get that
By the arguments similar to those used to derive (3.7), we get
It follows from (3.9)–(3.11) that
Similarly, we can obtain
It follows from (3.12) and (3.13) that
This proves (3.8) and completes the proof of the boundedness part.
3.2 Proof of Theorem 1.1—continuity part
3.2.1 Centered case
Let \(\vec{f}=(f_{1},\ldots,f_{m})\) with each \(f_{j}\in\ell^{1}(\mathbb{Z}^{d})\) and \(g_{i,j}\rightarrow f_{j}\) in \(\ell^{1}(\mathbb{Z}^{d})\) for any \(1\leq j\leq m\) as \(i\rightarrow\infty\). Let \(\vec{g_{i}}=(g_{i,1},\ldots,g_{i,m})\) for \(i\in\mathbb{Z}\). We may assume without loss of generality that all \(g_{i,j}\geq0\) and \(f_{j}\geq0\) since \(||g_{i,j}|-|f_{j}| |\leq |g_{i,j}-f_{j} |\) for all \(1\leq j\leq d\). Without loss of generality, we shall prove that
Given \(\epsilon\in(0,1)\), there exists \(N_{1}=N_{1}(\epsilon, \vec{f})\in\mathbb{N}\) such that
By the boundedness part, we have that \(D_{d}\mathbf{M}_{\alpha}(\vec{f})\in\ell^{1}(\mathbb{Z}^{d})\). We also note that \(\alpha<{(m-1)d+1}\). Then, for above \(\epsilon>0\), there exists an integer Λ with \(\Lambda>\Lambda_{0}\) such that
One can easily check that
This together with (3.15) implies that \(\mathbf{M}_{\alpha}(\vec{g_{i}})(\vec{n})\rightarrow\mathbf{M}_{\alpha}(\vec{f}) (\vec{n})\) as \(i\rightarrow\infty\) for any \(\vec{n}\in \mathbb{Z}\). Therefore, we have
It follows that there exists \(N_{2}=N_{2}(\epsilon,\vec{f}, \Lambda)>0\) such that
(3.17) together with (3.16) implies that
We now prove
Fix \(i\geq N_{1}\). We can write
For \(A_{1}\), fix \(i\in\{1,2,\ldots,m\}\) and \(n'\in\mathbb{Z}^{d-1}\) with \(|n'|\geq2\Lambda\), let
We can write
By the arguments similar to those used in deriving (3.6), we have
where
Fix \(\vec{k}=(k',k_{d})\in\mathbb{Z}^{d}\). By a similar argument as that in getting (3.7), we can get
When \(\Vert k' \Vert_{1}<\Lambda\) and \(\Vert n' \Vert_{1}\geq2\Lambda\), then \(\Vert\vec{k}-(n',n_{d}+1) \Vert_{1}\geq\Vert k'-n' \Vert\geq \Lambda\). Note that \(m+\frac{1-\alpha}{d}>1\). Then, by Lemmas 2.1–2.2 and (3.16),
Combining (3.24) with (3.23) and (3.15)–(3.16) implies that
This together with (3.22) and (3.15) yields that
Similarly,
It follows from (3.21) and (3.25)–(3.26) that
By the arguments similar to those used to derive (3.27),
Then (3.19) follows from (3.20) and (3.27)–(3.28). From (3.18) and (3.19) we have
which yields (3.14).
3.2.2 Uncentered case
The proof is essentially analogous to Section 3.2.1. We leave the details to the interested reader.
References
Kinnunen, J.: The Hardy–Littlewood maximal function of a Sobolev function. Isr. J. Math. 100, 117–124 (1997)
Hajłasz, P., Onninen, J.: On boundedness of maximal functions in Sobolev spaces. Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn., Math. 29, 167–176 (2004)
Kinnunen, J., Lindqvist, P.: The derivative of the maximal function. J. Reine Angew. Math. 503, 161–167 (1998)
Kinnunen, J., Saksman, E.: Regularity of the fractional maximal function. Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 35(4), 529–535 (2003)
Carneiro, E., Moreira, D.: On the regularity of maximal operators. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 136(12), 4395–4404 (2008)
Liu, F., Wu, H.: On the regularity of the multisublinear maximal functions. Can. Math. Bull. 58(4), 808–817 (2015)
Liu, F., Mao, S.: On the regularity of the one-sided Hardy–Littlewood maximal functions. Czechoslov. Math. J. 67(142), 219–234 (2017)
Luiro, H.: Continuity of the maximal operator in Sobolev spaces. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 135(1), 243–251 (2007)
Luiro, H.: On the regularity of the Hardy–Littlewood maximal operator on subdomains of \(\mathbb{R}^{d}\). Proc. Edinb. Math. Soc. 53(1), 211–237 (2010)
Liu, F.: Continuity and approximate differentiability of multisublinear fractional maximal functions. Math. Inequal. Appl. 21(1), 25–40 (2018)
Korry, S.: Boundedness of Hardy–Littlewood maximal operator in the framework of Lizorkin–Triebel spaces. Rev. Mat. Complut. 15(2), 401–416 (2002)
Korry, S.: A class of bounded operators on Sobolev spaces. Arch. Math. 82(1), 40–50 (2004)
Liu, F., Wu, H.: On the regularity of maximal operators supported by submanifolds. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 453, 144–158 (2017)
Tanaka, H.: A remark on the derivative of the one-dimensional Hardy–Littlewood maximal function. Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 65(2), 253–258 (2002)
Aldaz, J., Pérez Lázaro, J.: Functions of bounded variation, the derivative of the one dimensional maximal function, and applications to inequalities. Transl. Am. Math. Soc. 359(5), 2443–2461 (2007)
Liu, F., Chen, T., Wu, H.: A note on the endpoint regularity of the Hardy–Littlewood maximal functions. Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 94(1), 121–130 (2016)
Kurka, O.: On the variation of the Hardy–Littlewood maximal function. Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn., Math. 40, 109–133 (2015)
Carneiro, E., Mardid, J.: Derivative bounds for fractional maximal functions. Transl. Am. Math. Soc. 369(6), 4063–4092 (2017)
Liu, F., Wu, H.: Endpoint regularity of multisublinear fractional maximal functions. Can. Math. Bull. 60(3), 586–603 (2017)
Carneiro, E., Mardid, J., Pierce, L.B.: Endpoint Sobolev and BV continuity for maximal operators. J. Funct. Anal. 273(10), 3262–3294 (2017)
Hajłasz, P., Malý, J.: On approximate differentiability of the maximal function. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 138(1), 165–174 (2010)
Luiro, H.: The variation of the maximal function of a radial function. arXiv:1702.00669
Saari, O.: Poincaré inequalities for the maximal function. arXiv:1605.05176
Carneiro, E., Finder, R., Sousa, M.: On the variation of maximal operators of convolution type II. arXiv:1512.02715
Ramos, J.P.G.: Sharp total variation results for maximal functions. arXiv:1703.00362
Bober, J., Carneiro, E., Hughes, K., Pierce, L.B.: On a discrete version of Tanaka’s theorem for maximal functions. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 140(5), 1669–1680 (2012)
Temur, F.: On regularity of the discrete Hardy–Littlewood maximal function. arXiv:1303.3993
Madrid, J.: Sharp inequalities for the variation of the discrete maximal function. Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 95(1), 94–107 (2017)
Carneiro, E., Svaiter, B.F.: On the variation of maximal operators of convolution type. J. Funct. Anal. 265, 837–865 (2013)
Liu, F.: A remark on the regularity of the discrete maximal operator. Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 95(1), 108–120 (2017)
Liu, F., Wu, H.: A note on the endpoint regularity of the discrete maximal operator. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. (in press). https://doi.org/10.1090/proc/13962
Carneiro, E., Hughes, K.: On the endpoint regularity of discrete maximal operators. Math. Res. Lett. 19(6), 1245–1262 (2012)
Liu, F., Wu, H.: Regularity of discrete multisublinear fractional maximal functions. Sci. China Math. 60(8), 1461–1476 (2017)
Pierce, Discrete, L.P.: Analogues in harmonic analysis. Ph.D. Thesis, Princeton University (2009)
Brezis, H., Lieb, E.: A relation between pointwise convergence of functions and convergence of functionals. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 88, 486–490 (1983)
Li, M., Liu, X., Ding, F.: The gradient based iterative estimation algorithms for bilinear systems with autoregressive noise. Circuits Syst. Signal Process. 36(11), 4541–4568 (2017)
Li, M., Liu, X., Ding, F.: The maximum likelihood least squares based iterative estimation algorithm for bilinear systems with autoregressive moving average noise. J. Franklin Inst. 354(12), 4861–4881 (2017)
Li, M., Liu, X., Ding, F.: Least-squares-based iterative and gradient-based iterative estimation algorithms for bilinear systems. Nonlinear Dyn. 89(1), 197–211 (2017)
Acknowledgements
The author would like to express his deep gratitude to the referee for his/her carefully reading and invaluable comments. This work was partially supported by the NNSF of China (No. 11701333) and Support Program for Outstanding Young Scientific and Technological Top-notch Talents of College of Mathematics and Systems Science (No. Sxy2016K01).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The author worked on drafting and approving the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The author declares that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Liu, F. Endpoint regularity of discrete multisublinear fractional maximal operators associated with \(\ell^{1}\)-balls. J Inequal Appl 2018, 33 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13660-018-1627-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13660-018-1627-9