arXiv:1704.06376v1 [math.FA] 21 Apr 2017 hr sa pnsbe fEcienspace Euclidean of subset open an is Ω where r on functions, Young are (1.1) r elasticit other nonlinear among motivated, as is such and phenomena, – physical 39] atten 37, for increasing 35, models an 29, received 28, 26, has nonlineari 23, problems 11, by these of th governed study for problems The setting variational functional de and appropriate unified equations an a for are framework i spaces suited spaces Sobolev well Orlicz flexible, of family a The provides and spaces. Orlicz in norms volving rizSblvsaebitupon built space Orlicz-Sobolev oee edntpoieteotmlOlc agt a efo be can target, Resul Orlicz optimal 40]. 38, the 36, provide 33, not 32, need 30, however 24, [22, including tributions, then teto fvrosatosoe h er.I particular, In years. the W over authors various of attention L h xrsin“mlet en hti 11 od with holds (1.1) smalle the if is that it means if (1.1) “smallest” in expression space The target Orlicz optimal the is con.Tearw“ arrow The account. h rn gnyo h zc eulcadb h hre Univ Charles the by and Republic Czech Institute the (National of INdAM Agency Italian Grant of the eq GNAMPA differential by partial 2012, tions” parabolic and “Elliptic 2012TC7588 . inequalities rizSblvdmi n(.)i ti h ags Orlicz-S largest with the holds is (1.1) whenever it if, if Namely, (1.1) in domain Orlicz-Sobolev ealdi eto 2. Section in recalled es)o h boundary the on sense) B b 0 m, ai eso fteOlc-ooe mednst econsi be to embeddings Orlicz-Sobolev the of version basic A na embeddings, Orlicz-Sobolev with deals paper present The 2000 Date h usino etpsil riztre pcsi Sobole in spaces target Orlicz possible best of question The hsrsac a atyspotdb h eerhPoeto Project Research the by supported partly was research This phrases. and words Key eaecnendwt h pia omo h eeatembedd relevant the of form optimal the with concerned are We Ω,then (Ω), m n W Ω,adfrseilOlc-ooe pcs“ls”t t ha it, to “close” spaces Orlicz-Sobolev special for and (Ω), pi 4 2017. 24, April : ahmtc ujc Classification. Subject Mathematics 0 ihrsett rsmnmaue n,i atclr o t for particular, in and, Or measure, for Frostman addressed a are to questions respect Parallel the with Moreover, exists. i. space. it optimal, Orlicz whenever an given a of into existence embedded the tinuously for established is condition Abstract. m, PIA OANSAE NOLC-OOE EMBEDDINGS ORLICZ-SOBOLEV IN SPACES DOMAIN OPTIMAL A b (Ω) L B → (Ω) W eda ihOlc-ooe mednsi pnsbesof subsets open in embeddings Orlicz-Sobolev with deal We 0 m,A → L B → L (Ω). Ω steOlc pc nΩbitupon built Ω on space Orlicz the is (Ω) ∂ B b rizsae,Sblvebdig,otmldmi spaces, domain optimal embeddings, Sobolev spaces, Orlicz ,tgte ihterdrvtvsu oteorder the to up derivatives their with together Ω, tnsfrcniuu nlso.Peiedfiiin nth on definitions Precise inclusion. continuous for stands ” Ω.Aaoosy given Analogously, (Ω). A NRACACIADV AND CIANCHI ANDREA h usrp eoe htfntosvnsig(nasuit a (in vanishing functions that denotes 0 subscript The . 63,46E30. 46E35, W W 0 m,A 1. 0 m,A Introduction Ω elcdb nte rizSblvspace Orlicz-Sobolev another by replaced (Ω) (Ω) R ain:goercapcs eae nqaiis n app and inequalities, related aspects, geometric uations: n 1 → , B n L h space the , fHg ahmtc) ytegatP0-3173 of P201-13-14743S grant the by Mathematics), High of B ≥ tla iityo nvriyadRsac (MIUR) Research and University of Ministry Italian f .lretpsil,Olc-ooe pc con- space Orlicz-Sobolev possible, largest e. riy rjc AKN.33315. No. GAUK project ersity, (Ω) sfrabtayOlc-ooe pcs which spaces, Orlicz-Sobolev arbitrary for ts izSblvebdig noOlc spaces Orlicz into embeddings licz-Sobolev ,hvn eegemeasure Lebesgue having 2, tOlc pc nΩta edr 11 true. (1.1) renders that Ω on space Orlicz st n o-etna fluid-mechanics. non-Newtonian and y ´ TMUSIL IT L aeebdig nteboundary. the on embeddings race pia rizSblvsaei exhibited is space Orlicz-Sobolev optimal mednsfrteciia ooe space Sobolev critical the for embeddings blvsaeo o hc 11 holds. (1.1) which for Ω on space obolev cue hto h sa eegespaces, Lebesgue usual the of that ncludes nlsso olna ata differential partial nonlinear of analysis e , B iso o-eesrl oyoiltype. polynomial non-necessarily of ties cito fSblvebdig.Orlicz- embeddings. Sobolev of scription inoe h er e ..[,4 ,8– 5, 4, [1, e.g. see – years the over tion aos yapiain omathematical to applications by easons, Ω elcdwt nte rizspace Orlicz another with replaced (Ω) n n[,21]. [2, in und eyebdig fSblvtp,in- type, Sobolev of embeddings mely yeebdig a trce the attracted has embeddings type v ee eeaonsto amounts here dered ebe netgtdi eea con- several in investigated been ve B W ns Given ings. and , 0 m,A R n eesr n sufficient and necessary A . Ω ssi ob h optimal the be to said is (Ω) W 0 m,A m rsmnmaue,trace measures, Frostman A Ω sthe is (Ω) esythat say we , − ,aetkninto taken are 1, | s oisare topics ese Ω | m , W A t order -th 0 m, L and A b B able (Ω), lica- (Ω) B OPTIMALDOMAINSPACESINORLICZ-SOBOLEVEMBEDDINGS 2
The optimal Orlicz target problem has been solved in general in [12] for m = 1 (see also [13] for an alternate formulation of the solution), and in [14] for arbitrary m N. As shown in these papers, m,A ∈ B given any Orlicz-Sobolev space W0 (Ω), there always exists an optimal target Orlicz space L (Ω) in (1.1), and the function B admits an explicit expression in terms of A, n and m. Thus, the class of Orlicz spaces is closed under the operation of associating an optimal target in Sobolev embeddings. By contrast, this property is not enjoyed by the smaller family of Lebesgue spaces, namely in the context p m,A of classical Sobolev embeddings. Actually, if A(t)= t for some p 1, so that W0 (Ω) agrees with the usual Sobolev space W m,p(Ω), and Ω < , one has that ≥ 0 | | ∞ mp n−mp n L (Ω) if 1 m (1.6) “no optimal Orlicz-Sobolev space” L∞(Ω), → see [27, Theorem 4.3] and [16, Theorem 6.4 (ii)], respectively, for the case when m = 1, and [31, Example 5.1 (b)] for arbitrary m N. Equation (1.5) means that any Orlicz-Sobolev space that ∈ n is continuously embedded into the Orlicz space exp L n−m (Ω) can be replaced with a strictly larger n Orlicz-Sobolev space which is still continuously embedded into exp L n−m (Ω). Equation (1.6), as well as similar statements about non-existence of optimal Orlicz-Sobolev domain spaces in what follows, n m, m has to be interpreted in an analogous sense. In particular, interestingly enough, the space W0 (Ω), n appearing on the left-hand side of (1.2) when p = m , turns out not to be optimal for Orlicz-Sobolev n embeddings into exp L n−m (Ω). As far as we know, these are the only instances for which the answer to the optimal Orlicz-Sobolev domain problem is available in the literature. The recent contribution [31] provides a solution to an analogous problem for Orlicz-Sobolev embeddings of weak type, namely into Marcinkiewicz spaces. Our aim here is to fill in this gap, and to address this question in full generality. We establish a necessary and sufficient condition on the Young function B for an optimal Orlicz-Sobolev domain OPTIMALDOMAINSPACESINORLICZ-SOBOLEVEMBEDDINGS 3 m,A W0 (Ω) to exist in (1.1). Moreover, we exhibit the optimal Young function A when such an optimal domain does exist. This is the content of Theorem 3.2. In fact, as mentioned above, our analysis is not confined to (1.1), but also includes other related embedding problems. A natural variant amounts to (1.7) W m,A(Ω) LB(Ω), → where W m,A(Ω) is an Orlicz-Sobolev space of functions that are not subject to any boundary condition. Under suitable regularity assumptions on Ω, which are indispensable even in the classical Sobolev embedding, we show that the conclusions are exactly the same as for (1.1) – see Theorem 3.4. Embeddings of the form (1.7), with Ω = Rn, namely (1.8) W m,A(Rn) LB(Rn), → are the subject of Theorem 3.9. The point here is that, unlike the case of sets Ω of finite measure, the behavior of the Young functions A and B near 0 plays a role as well. Finally, in Theorem 3.10 the more general issue is faced of optimal Orlicz-Sobolev domains for embeddings into Orlicz spaces with respect to a Frostman measure µ on Ω. These read (1.9) W m,A(Ω) LB(Ω,µ), → where Ω is a bounded Lipschitz domain, Ω denotes the closure of Ω, and µ is a Borel measure on Ω such that (1.10) µ B (x) Ω Crγ for every x Rn and r> 0, r ∩ ≤ ∈ for some constants C > 0 and γ [n m,n]. Here, Br(x) denotes the ball centered at x, with ∈ − radius r. The restriction γ n m is imposed to guarantee that a trace operator on Ω, endowed with the measure µ, be well defined≥ − on the space W m,A(Ω), whatever the Young function A is. Of course, measures µ supported in Ω, and hence embeddings into Orlicz spaces LB(Ω,µ), are included as special cases. On the other hand, measures µ supported in ∂Ω correspond to trace inequalities in a classical sense. In particular, on denoting by γ the γ-dimensional Hausdorff measure, the choice µ = n 1 turns (1.9) into the boundary traceH embedding H − |∂Ω (1.11) W m,A(Ω) LB(∂Ω) → enucleated in Corollary 3.13. Another customary specialization of µ amounts to the case when µ = d N Rn Ω d , where d , and d denotes a d-dimensional compact submanifold of . Embedding (1.9) takesH | ∩N the form ∈ N (1.12) W m,A(Ω) LB(Ω ) → ∩Nd in this case, with d [n m,n], see Corollary 3.14. Clearly, Ω d can, in particular, equal the intersection of Ω with∈ a d-dimensional− affine subspace of Rn. ∩N The results mentioned above are stated in Section 3, that also contains applications to special instances of Orlicz spaces. The necessary background material is collected in Section 2. Section 4 is devoted to certain properties and relations among the Boyd indices of the Young functions that play a role in our analysis. Proofs of the main results are presented in the final Section 5. 2. Background 2.1. Young functions. We call A: [0, ) [0, ] a Young function if it is convex, left-continuous, and A(0) = 0. Any function of this kind∞ satisfies,→ ∞ in particular, (2.1) kA(t) A(kt) if k 1 and t 0. ≤ ≥ ≥ The Young conjugate A of A is given by A(t) = sup st A(s) : s 0 for t 0. e { − ≥ } ≥ The function A is a Young function as well, and its Young conjugate is again A. One has that e 1 1 (2.2) t A− (t) A− (t) 2t for t 0, e ≤ ≤ ≥ e OPTIMALDOMAINSPACESINORLICZ-SOBOLEVEMBEDDINGS 4 1 where A− denotes the generalized right-continuous inverse of A. The function B, defined as B(t)= cA(bt), where b, c are positive constants, is also a Young function and (2.3) B(t)= cA t for t 0. bc ≥ A Young function A is said to satisfy the ∆2-condition near infinity [resp. near zero] [resp. globally] if e e it is finite-valued and there exist constants c> 0 and t0 > 0 such that A(2t) cA(t) for t t [0 t t ] [t 0]. ≤ ≥ 0 ≤ ≤ 0 ≥ A Young function A is said to dominate another Young function B near infinity [near zero] [globally] if there exist constants c> 0 and t0 > 0 such that B(t) A(ct) for t t [0 t t ] [t 0]. ≤ ≥ 0 ≤ ≤ 0 ≥ The functions A and B are called equivalent near infinity [near zero] [globally] if they dominate each other near infinity [near zero] [globally]. More generally, the terminology “near infinity”, “near zero”, “globally” will be adopted to indicate that some property of a function of t holds for t t , for 0 t t or for t 0, respectively. ≥ 0 ≤ ≤ 0 ≥ 2.2. Boyd indices. Given a Young function A, we define the function h : (0, ) [0, ) as A∞ ∞ → ∞ 1 A− (st) hA∞(t) = sup 1 for t> 0. s>0 A− (s) The global lower and upper Boyd indices of A are then defined as log t log t (2.4) iA∞ = sup and IA∞ = inf , 1 (2.5) 1 i∞ I∞ . ≤ A ≤ A ≤∞ It can also be shown that log t log t (2.6) iA∞ = lim and IA∞ = lim . t log h∞(t) t 0+ log h∞(t) →∞ A → A 1 The Boyd indices of A admit an alternate expression, that does not call into play A− , provided that A is finite-valued. Define h : (0, ) [0, ) as A∞ ∞ → ∞ A(st) b hA∞(t) = sup for t> 0. s>0 A(s) Then, b log hA∞(t) log hA∞(t) (2.7) iA∞ = sup and IA∞ = inf . log t 1 log hA(t) log hA(t) (2.8) iA = sup and IA = inf . log t 1 1 σ Observe that if the function A− (t) t− is equivalent globally [near infinity], up to multiplicative positive constants, to a non-decreasing function, for some σ (0, 1), then IA∞ 1/σ [IA 1/σ]. 1 σ ∈ ≤ ≤ Similarly, if the function A− (t) t− is equivalent globally [near infinity] to a non-increasing function, then iA∞ 1/σ [iA 1/σ]. In the special≥ case when≥ A(t)= tp for some p 1, one has that i = I = p; furthermore, if A(t)= ≥ A∞ A∞ ∞ for large t, then iA = IA = . We refer the reader to [7] for∞ more details on the material of this subsection. 2.3. Orlicz spaces. Let be a sigma-finite, non-atomic, measure space endowed with a measure ν. R Denote by ( ) the space of real-valued ν-measurable functions in , and by +( ) the set of nonnegativeM functionsR in ( ). Given a Young function A, the OrliczR space LA( M) isR the collection of all functions f ( M) suchR that R ∈ M R f(x) A | | dν(x) < λ ∞ ZR for some λ> 0. The Orlicz space LA( ) is a Banach space endowed with the Luxemburg norm defined as R f(x) f LA( ) = inf λ> 0 : A | | dν(x) 1 k k R λ ≤ ZR for f ( ). The choice A(t)= tp, with 1 p< , yields LA( )= Lp( ), the customary Lebesgue space.∈ When M R A(t)=0 for t [0, 1] and A(t)=≤ for∞ t (1, ),R one hasR that LA( )= L ( ). ∈ ∞ ∈ ∞ R ∞ R Let E be a non-negligible measurable subset of , and let χE denote its characteristic function. Then R 1 (2.9) χ A = . E L ( ) 1 1 k k R A− E | | The fundamental function ϕ of LA( ) is defined as A R 1 ϕ (s)= for 0 ϕA(s)= χE LA( ) k k R for every set E such that ν(E)= s. A H¨older type inequality in Orlicz spaces asserts that ⊂ R f(x)g(x)dν(x) e e (2.10) g LA( ) sup R 2 g LA( ) k k R ≤ f LA( ) f LA( ) ≤ k k R ∈ R R k k R for every g LA( ). e The inclusion∈ relationsR between Orlicz spaces can be characterized in terms of the notion of dom- ination between Young functions. Assume that ν( ) < [ν( ) = ], and let A and B be Young functions. Then R ∞ R ∞ (2.11) LA( ) LB( ) if and only if A dominates B near infinity [globally]. R → R The alternate notation A(L)( ) for the Orlicz space LA( ) will be adopted when convenient. In particular, if ν( ) < , and A(tR) is equivalent to tp(log(1 + Rt))α near infinity, where either p> 1 and α R, or p = 1R and α∞ 0, then the Orlicz space LA( ) is the so-called Zygmund space denoted by Lp∈(log L)α( ). Orlicz spaces≥ of exponential type are denotedR by exp Lβ( ), and are built upon the R β R Young function A(t)= et 1, with β > 0. − OPTIMALDOMAINSPACESINORLICZ-SOBOLEVEMBEDDINGS 6 2.4. Marcinkiewicz spaces. We denote by M A( ) the weak Orlicz space associated with A, namely the Marcinkiewicz type space endowed with the normR obeying f ∗∗(s) f A = sup M ( ) 1 1 k k R 0 (2.14) χE M A( ) ϕA( E ) k k R ≃ | | for every measurable set E . Here, and in what follows, the relation between two expressions means that they are bounded⊂ R by each other, up to multiplicative positive≃ constants independent of the involved relevant variables. 2.5. Orlicz-Sobolev spaces. Let n N, n 2, and let Ω be an open subset of Rn. Given m N and a Young function A, the m-th order∈ Orlicz-Sobolev≥ space built upon A is defined by ∈ W m,A(Ω) = u (Ω) : u is m-times weakly differentiable in Ω, and ∈ M n ku LA(Ω), k = 0, 1,...,m . |∇ |∈ Here, ku denotes the vector of all k-th order weak derivatives of u and 0u = u. One haso that W m,A(Ω)∇ is a Banach space equipped with the norm defined as ∇ m k u m,A = u A k kW (Ω) k∇ kL (Ω) Xk=0 for u W m,A(Ω). By W m,A(Ω) we denote the subspace of W m,A(Ω) of those functions u in Ω whose ∈ 0 continuation by 0 outside Ω belongs to W m,A(Rn). The notations W mLA(Ω) and W mA(L)(Ω) will also m,A m,A be occasionally adopted instead of W (Ω); analogous alternate notations will be used for W0 (Ω). If Ω < , an iterated use of a Poincar´etype inequality in Orlicz spaces [37, Lemma 3] ensures that the| functional| ∞ m u A k∇ kL (Ω) m,A defines a norm on W0 (Ω) equivalent to u W m,A(Ω). As in the case of Orlicz spaces, inclusionk relationsk between Orlicz-Sobolev spaces can be described in terms of domination between the defining Young functions A and B. If Ω < , then (2.15) | | ∞ W m,A(Ω) W m,B(Ω) W m,A(Ω) W m,B(Ω) if and only if A dominates B near infinity. → 0 → 0 OPTIMALDOMAINSPACESINORLICZ-SOBOLEVEMBEDDINGS 7 On the other hand, (2.16) W m,A(Rn) W m,B(Rn) if and only if A dominates B globally. → A proof of assertions (2.15) and (2.16) seems not to be available in the literature. We sketch a proof in Proposition 5.5, Section 5. Sobolev and trace embeddings for functions with unrestricted boundary values require some regu- larity on the ground domain. The class of John domains is known to be essentially the largest where Sobolev type embeddings hold in their strongest form. A bounded open set Ω Rn is called a John domain if there exist a constant c (0, 1) and a point x Ω such that for every⊂x Ω there exists a ∈ 0 ∈ ∈ rectifiable curve ̟ : [0, l] Ω, with l> 0, parametrized by arclength, such that ̟(0) = x, ̟(l)= x0, and → dist ̟(r), ∂Ω cr for r [0, l]. ≥ ∈ The class of John domains includes classical families of open sets, such as that of bounded Lipschitz domains, and that of domains with the cone property. Recall that a bounded open set Ω is said to have the cone property if there exists a finite circular cone Λ such that each point in Ω is the vertex of a finite cone contained in Ω and congruent to Λ. 2.6. Reduction principles. A key ingredient in our approach is the use of so-called reduction prin- ciples for Sobolev type embeddings. They assert that a wide class of Sobolev and trace inequalities, including those considered in this paper, are in fact equivalent to considerably simpler one-dimensional inequalities for suitable Hardy type operators. The relevant operators are defined as 1 α 1 (2.17) Hα,βf(s)= f(r) r − dr for s> 0 β Zs for any function f (0, 1) making the integral in (2.17) converge. The exponents α and β satisfy the constraints 0 <α<∈ M 1, 0 <β< and α + 1/β 1, and depend on the Sobolev inequality in question. ∞ ≥ Given any open set Ω Rn with Ω < , embedding (1.1) is equivalent to the inequality ⊂ | | ∞ m (2.18) u B C u A k kL (Ω) ≤ 1k∇ kL (Ω) m,A for some constant C1 and for every u W0 (Ω). The pertinent reduction principle asserts that inequality (2.18) holds if and only if ∈ (2.19) H m ,1f LB(0,1) C2 f LA(0,1) k n k ≤ k k for some constant C , and for every nonnegative f LA(0, 1). See [12, Proof of Theorem 1] for m = 1, 2 ∈ and [25, Theorem A] and [19, Theorem 6.1] for arbitrary m. Moreover, the constants C1 and C2 depend on each other, and on n, m and Ω . Embedding (1.7) in a John domain Ω| amounts| to the inequality (2.20) u B C u m,A k kL (Ω) ≤ 1k kW (Ω) for every u W m,A(Ω). Inequality (2.20) is again equivalent to (2.19) ([12, Proof of Theorem 2] for m = 1, and∈ [19, Theorem 6.1] for any m). However, in this case the mutual dependence of the constants C1 and C2 involves full information on Ω, and not just on Ω . A characterization of embeddings on the whole Rn requires a combination| | of the Hardy inequality (2.19), which only depends on the behavior of the functions A and B near infinity, with a condition on their decay near zero. Specifically, the inequality (2.21) u B Rn C u m,A Rn k kL ( ) ≤ k kW ( ) holds for some constant C, and for every u W m,A(Rn) if and only if inequality (2.19) holds, and ∈ (2.22) A dominates B near zero, see [3]. The reduction principle for embedding (1.9) into Orlicz spaces, with respect to Frostman measures, applies to bounded Lipschitz domains Ω in Rn. It provides us with a sufficient condition for the OPTIMALDOMAINSPACESINORLICZ-SOBOLEVEMBEDDINGS 8 validity of (1.9) in terms of an appropriate Hardy type inequality, and it is also necessary if the decay in (1.10) is sharp, in the sense that there exist x Ω and positive constants c and R> 0 such that 0 ∈ (2.23) µ(B (x )) Ω) crγ if 0 < r < R. r 0 ∩ ≥ The relevant principle asserts that, if (1.10) and (2.23) are in force for some γ [n m,n], then the inequality ∈ − (2.24) u B C u m,A k kL (Ω,µ) ≤ 1k kW (Ω) holds for some constant C and for every u W m,A(Ω) if and only if 1 ∈ (2.25) H m , n f LB (0,1) C2 f LA(0,1) k n γ k ≤ k k A for some constant C2, and for every nonnegative f L (0, 1). The constants C1 and C2 depend on each other, and on n, m, γ, Ω and on the constants∈ appearing in (1.10) and (2.23). The equivalence of inequalities (2.24) and (2.25) is established in [18]. Let us mention that the special case when µ is the (n 1)-dimensional Hausdorff measure on ∂Ω is treated in [15]. The case when γ N, and µ is the γ-dimensional− Hausdorff measure restricted to a γ-dimensional affine subspace of Rn∈is dealt with in [17]. 3. Main results Let us begin by considering embedding (1.1). As a preliminary observation, note that, when (3.1) m n, ≥ m,A the optimal Orlicz-Sobolev domain W0 (Ω) in (1.1) corresponds to the choice A(t)= t for t 0, ≥ namely m,A m,1 W0 (Ω) = W0 (Ω). Indeed, under assumption (3.1), one classically has m,1 W (Ω) L∞(Ω), 0 → m,1 whence the optimality of W0 (Ω) follows, since m,A m,1 B (3.2) W (Ω) W (Ω) L∞(Ω) L (Ω) 0 → 0 → → for any Young functions A and B. We may thus restrict our attention to the case when 1 m Remark 3.1. Observe that the function Gn is increasing, as shown via the alternate formula m m 1 t 1 n Gn(t)= t n inf B− (s)max 1, − for t 1, 1 s< s ≥ ≤ ∞ 1 and hence its inverse Gn− is well-defined. 1 Also, the function Bn is actually a Young function. Indeed, since Gn is increasing, Gn− is increasing OPTIMALDOMAINSPACESINORLICZ-SOBOLEVEMBEDDINGS 9 1 as well. Thus, since the function Gn(t)/t is non-increasing, the function Gn− (t)/t is non-decreasing. 1 These facts also ensure that Bn is equivalent to Gn− globally. Theorem 3.2 [Optimal Orlicz-Sobolev domain under vanishing boundary conditions]. Let n 2 and 1 m Theorem 3.4 [Optimal Orlicz-Sobolev domain without boundary conditions]. Let n 2 n ≥ and 1 m (3.11) W m,Bn (Ω) LB(Ω), → and W m,Bn (Ω) is the optimal Orlicz-Sobolev domain space in (3.11). Conversely, if (3.4) fails, then no optimal Orlicz-Sobolev domain space exists in (1.7), in the sense that any Orlicz-Sobolev space W m,A(Ω) for which embedding (1.7) holds can be replaced with a strictly larger Orlicz-Sobolev space for which (1.7) is still true. n In particular, if iB > n m , then condition (3.4) is equivalent to IB < , and − ∞ 1 1 m B− (t) B− (t) t n near infinity. n ≃ Remark 3.5. An integral inequality analogous to (3.10), corresponding to embedding (3.11), holds under assumption (3.7), and with Bn replaced by Bn∞. Example 3.6. Consider the case when LB(Ω) is a Zygmund space of the form Lq(log L)α(Ω), where either q (1, ) and α R, or q = 1 and α 0. Assume that 1 m nq nα n+mq n+mq n R t (log t) if q > n m , α , m − ∈ α(1 n ) n Bn(t) is equivalent to t (log t) − if q = n m , α> 0, − t otherwise, near infinity. Moreover, nq n R n+mq if q > n m , α , IBn = − ∈ (1 otherwise, whence IBn < n/m. Therefore, by Theorem 3.2, nq nα n R m n+mq n+mq if q > n m , α , W0 L (log L) (Ω) − ∈ m q α n m α(1 n ) (3.12) if q = n m , α> 0, W0 L(log L) − (Ω) L (log L) (Ω) − → m,1 otherwise, W0 (Ω) for any open set Ω with Ω < , and the domain spaces are optimal among all Orlicz-Sobolev spaces. By Theorem 3.4, the same| | embeddings∞ continue to hold, with optimal domain spaces, for any John m m domain Ω, provided that W0 is replaced by W . Let us point out that, by [14] (see also [12] for m = 1), the space Lq(log L)α(Ω) is in turn the optimal Orlicz target space in (3.12). Thus, the domain and target spaces are mutually optimal in (3.12). Example 3.7. We deal here with the target space Lq exp √log L(Ω), with q [1, ), namely the Or- ∈ ∞ licz space built upon a Young function B(t)= tqe√log t near infinity. Assume as above that 1 m nq n near infinity. In particular, IBn = n+mq < m . Altogether, by Theorem 3.2, one has that nq 3 n m n+mq n 2 if q n m , W0 L exp n+mq √log L (Ω) q ≥ − L exp log L(Ω) otherwise, W m,1(Ω) → 0 p for any open set Ω with Ω < , and the domain spaces are optimal among all Orlicz-Sobolev spaces. | | ∞ m m A parallel result holds in any John domain Ω, with W0 replaced by W , owing to Theorem 3.4. Example 3.8. If the Young function B grows so fast near infinity that iB = , then it immediately follows from Theorems 3.2 and 3.4 that no optimal Orlicz-Sobolev domain space∞ exists in embeddings (1.1) and (1.7). This is the case, for instance, when LB(Ω) agrees with one of the following spaces: exp (log L)α (Ω) exp Lq(log L)β (Ω), or exp Lβ(Ω), exp exp Lβ (Ω), ..., exp (exp Lβ) (Ω), · · · or L∞(Ω) , where α> 1, β > 0 and q [1, ). ∈ ∞ The next result is a counterpart of Theorem 3.4 in the case whenΩ= Rn. The decay near zero of the involved Young functions is also relevant now. A Young function B obeying t near infinity, (3.13) B(t)= (B(t) near zero, and a Young function Bn obeying Bn(t) near infinity, (3.14) Bn(t)= (B(t) near zero come into play in the present situation. Let us stress that, if m n, then the answer to the optimal domain problem is still easier than in the case when 1 m (3.16) W m,Bn (Rn) LB(Rn) , → and W m,Bn (Rn) is the optimal Orlicz-Sobolev domain space in (3.16). Conversely, if (3.4) fails, then no optimal Orlicz-Sobolev domain space exists in (1.8), in the sense that any Orlicz-Sobolev space W m,A(Rn) for which embedding (1.8) holds can be replaced with a strictly larger Orlicz-Sobolev space for which (1.8) is still true. n In particular, if iB > n m , then condition (3.4) is equivalent to IB < , and − ∞ 1 m 1 B− (t) t n near infinity, Bn− (t) 1 ≃ (B− (t) near zero. OPTIMALDOMAINSPACESINORLICZ-SOBOLEVEMBEDDINGS 12 Our last main results concern the Orlicz-Sobolev embedding (1.9) with a measure µ satisfying (1.10) and (2.23). By the same reason as for (1.7), the optimal Orlicz-Sobolev domain space in these embeddings is W m,1(Ω), provided that m n. If, instead, 1 m Example 3.12. Assume that LB(Ω) = Lq(log L)α(Ω), the same Zygmund space as in Example 3.6, where either q (1, ) and α R, or q = 1 and α 0. Assume that 1 m Since IBγ < n/m, Theorem 3.10 tells us that nq nα γ R m γ+mq γ+mq if q > n m , α , W L (log L) (Ω) − ∈ α(n−m) q α γ m γ L (log L) (Ω,µ) , if q = n m , α> 0, W L(log L) (Ω) → − otherwise, W m,1(Ω) the domain spaces being optimal among all Orlicz-Sobolev spaces. The optimal Orlicz-Sobolev domain space in (1.11) agrees with that in (1.9), with γ = n 1. − Namely, it is built upon the Young function Bn 1 defined as in (3.17), with γ = n 1. This is the content of Corollary 3.13 below, and follows from− Theorem 3.10, and from the fact− that, if Ω is a n 1 bounded Lipschitz domain, then the measure µ = − ∂Ω fulfills conditions (1.10) and (2.23) with γ = n 1. H | − Corollary 3.13 [Optimal Orlicz-Sobolev domain for boundary traces]. Let n 2 and 1 m 1 E(σt) cσ 1−α E(t) globally [near infinity]. ≥ (v) The global [local] upper Boyd index of E satisfies e e IE∞ < 1/α IE < 1/α . (vi) The global [local] lower Boyd index of E satisfies i∞ > 1/(1 α) i > 1/(1 α) . E −e E − e e Proof. We shall prove the statement in the form “near infinity”. The proof of the global version is analogous - even simpler in fact - and will be omitted. (i) is equivalent to (iii) This equivalence is stated in [34, Lemma 2.3. (ii)], without proof. We provide a proof here, for completeness. Assume that there exist k > 1 and t0 > 0 such that inequality (i) is fulfilled for every t>t . Fix σ > 1 and t>t k, and let ρ [1,σ] be such that 0 0 ∈ 1 1 (4.1) E(ρt) (ρt)− α = inf E(r) r− α . t r σt ≤ ≤ We claim that 1 k α (4.2) σ ρ e− σ. ≥ ≥ The former inequality is part of the definition of ρ. As for the latter, we have that σt 1 1 ∞ E(s) E(s) 1 σ α α α E(ρt) (ρt)− k 1/α+1 ds 1/α+1 ds E(ρt) (ρt)− log , ≥ ρt/k s ≥ ρt s ≥ ρ Z Z whence the claim follows. Next, we show that E satisfies the ∆2-condition near infinity. Suppose, by contradiction, that for OPTIMALDOMAINSPACESINORLICZ-SOBOLEVEMBEDDINGS 15 1 k α every j N there exists t>t0k such that E(2t) > jE(t). Choosing σ = 2e , and ρ defined by (4.1), ensures∈ that σt 1 1 ∞ E(s) E(s) 1 (4.3) E(t)t− α k α ds ds E(ρt) (ρt)− α log σ . ≥ s1/α+1 ≥ s1/α+1 ≥ Zt/k Zt Hence, 1 1 1 E(2t) k α jE(ρt) ρ− α log σ jE(2t) σ− α log σ, ≥ ≥ since σ ρ 2, by (4.2). Therefore, ≥ ≥ 1 1 k α jσ− α log σ ≥ for all j N, which is impossible. ∈ Now suppose that (iii) does not hold. Thus, for every σ> 1 and c (0, 1) there exists a sequence tj such that t , and ∈ { } j →∞ 1 (4.4) E(σtj ) > cσ α E(tj) for j N. Let ρ be as in (4.1). By (4.4) and (4.3), ∈ 1 1 1 1 1 α α − α α α (4.5) E(σtj ) (σtj)− k > cE(tj) tj k > cE(ρtj ) (ρtj)− log σ. From (4.5), (4.2) and the ∆2-condition near infinity for E, we conclude that there exists a positive constant c1 such that 1 1 k α E(σtj) k α > cE e− σtj log σ > c1E(σtj ) log σ for sufficiently large j. Hence, 1 k α > c1 log σ for arbitrarily large σ, a contradiction. (iii) implies (i). Let t0 > 0 be such that inequality (iii) holds for t t0. Let j N. An iterative use of assumption (iii) ensures that ≥ ∈ j j j j (4.6) E(s) c σ α E(sσ− ) for s σ t . ≤ ≥ 0 By (4.6), if t t , then ≥ 0 j+1 j+1 E(s) ∞ tσ E(s) ∞ tσ E(sσ j) ∞ ds = ds cj σj/α − ds 1/α+1 1/α+1 1/α+1 t s tσj s ≤ tσj s Z Xj=0 Z Xj=0 Z ∞ σt E(r) 1 σt dr 1 σ1/α E(σt) = cj dr E(σt) = α . 1/α+1 1/α+1 − 1/α t r ≤ 1 c t r 1 c t Xj=0 Z − Z − Hence, (i) follows via property (2.1). (iii) implies (v). Assume that (v) does not hold, i.e. I 1/α. By equation (2.8), E ≥ 1 log h (σ) inf E , α ≤ 1<σ< log σ ∞ b and hence σ1/α h (σ) for every σ 1. Owing to the very definition of h , ≤ E ≥ E 1 E(σt) b σ α lim sup . b ≤ t E(t) →∞ Hence, for every c (0, 1) and t > 0, there exists t>t such that ∈ 0 0 1 E(σt) cσ α < , E(t) and this contradicts (iii). (v) implies (iii). Assume, by contradiction, that (iii) fails. Thereby, for every σ > 1 and c (0, 1) there exists a sequence t satisfying ∈ j →∞ 1 cσ α E(t ) < E(σt ) for j N. j j ∈ OPTIMALDOMAINSPACESINORLICZ-SOBOLEVEMBEDDINGS 16 Thus 1 E(σtj) E(σt) cσ α lim sup lim sup = hE(σ) , ≤ j E(tj) ≤ t E(t) →∞ →∞ whence b log cσ1/α log h (σ) E . log σ ≤ log σ Thanks to (2.8), passing to the limit as σ yields 1b/α IE, thus contradicting (v). (iii) is equivalent to (iv). Condition (iii) is→∞ equivalent to ≤ 1 (4.7) E(σt) (cσ) α E(t) ≤ for some constants c (0, 1) and σ > 1, and for sufficiently large t. Taking the Young conjugate of both sides, and making∈ use of (2.3) tell us that (4.7) is in turn equivalent to 1 1 1 (4.8) E tσ− (cσ) α E t(cσ)− α ≥ 1 1 1 α α for large t. Setting ̺ = c σ − , ande changing variables,e equation (4.8) reads 1 1 E(̺t) c α−1 ̺ 1−α E(t) ≥ for large t. Thus, it suffices to show that ̺> 1. Combining (2.1) and (4.7) yields e e 1 σE(t) E(σt) (cσ) α E(t) ≤ ≤ for large t, whence ̺ 1. If ̺> 1 we are done. On the other hand, ̺ = 1 if and only if E(t)= t for ≥ large t, and the latter condition implies that E = near infinity, so that (iv) is trivially satisfied. The proof of the reverse implication is similar. ∞ (ii) is equivalent to (iv). This is established ine [34, Lemma 2.3 (i)]. (iv) is equivalent to (vi). The proof of this fact follows along the same lines as that of the equivalence of (iii) and (v), and will be omitted, for brevity. We next analyze connections between the Boyd indices of a Young function B, and those of the Young function B defined, for 0 <α< 1, β > 0 and α + 1/β 1, as α,β ≥ 1 t G− (s) (4.9) B (t)= α,β ds for t 0, α,β s ≥ Z0 where G : [0, ) [0, ) is given by α,β ∞ → ∞ 1 tB− (1) if 0 t 1, (4.10) Gα,β(t)= 1 1/β α 1 ≤ ≤ t inf B− s s − if t> 1. ( 1 s t ≤ ≤ Note that, by the same argument as in Remark 3.1, Bα,β is actually a Young function, and 1 B− (t) G (t) for t> 0. α,β ≃ α,β Let us also observe that 1 1 I ≤ Bα,β ≤ α for every B. This follows from the fact that 1 α 1 1 α (4.11) B− (t) t− inf B− (s)max 1,t/s − for t 1, α,β ≃ 1 s< ≥ ≤ ∞ and that the right-hand side of (4.11) is a non-decreasing function. Under the additional assumption that B(t) (4.12) inf 1 > 0, 0 1 1 (4.21) inf B(s) s β(1−α)−1 B(t) t β(1−α)−1 for t> 0. 0 ∞ η 1 η (4.24) B(s) s− − ds B(kt) t− for t> 0, ≤ Zt e e OPTIMALDOMAINSPACESINORLICZ-SOBOLEVEMBEDDINGS 18 for some constant k > 1. Hence it suffices to show that (4.24) implies (4.21). To this purpose, denote by ρ [0,t] a number satisfying ∈ η η inf B(s) s− = B(ρt) (ρt)− for t> 0. 0 In particular, IB∞∞ < 1/α if and only if IB∞ < . α,β ∞ Proof. As in Lemma 4.2, we only prove Part (ii). By Lemma 4.2, assumption (4.18) implies equation (4.20). Thereby, 1 1 1/β α 1 Bα,β∞ − (st) B− (st) (st) − α 1/β hB∞∞ (t) sup t sup t hB∞ t for t> 0. α,β ≃ 1 ≃ 1 1/β α 1 ≃ s>0 Bα,β∞ − (s) s>0 B − s s − Equation (4.25) is therefore a consequence of the definition of global upper Boyd index. 5. Proof of the main results A key step in the proof of our main results is the solution of the optimal Orlicz domain space A L (0, 1) for the boundedness of the Hardy type operator Hα,β in (5.1) H : LA(0, 1) LB(0, 1) , α,β → for a given space LB(0, 1). Indeed, its boundedness properties characterize, via appropriate reduction principles, the Sobolev type embeddings considered in the present paper. This is the objective of the following lemma. OPTIMALDOMAINSPACESINORLICZ-SOBOLEVEMBEDDINGS 19 Lemma 5.1. Let 0 <α< 1, β > 0, and α + 1/β 1. Suppose that B is a Young function and let ≥ Bα,β be the Young function defined by (4.9). If 1 (5.2) I < , Bα,β α then (5.3) H : LBα,β (0, 1) LB(0, 1) , α,β → and LBα,β (0, 1) is the optimal (i.e. largest) Orlicz domain space that renders (5.3) true. Conversely, if (5.2) is not satisfied, then no optimal Orlicz domain space exists in (5.3), in the sense that any Orlicz space LA(0, 1) which makes (5.1) true can be replaced with a strictly larger Orlicz space B from which the operator Hα,β is still bounded into L (0, 1). A proof of Lemma 5.1 in turn combines [31, Theorem B], dealing with weak type estimates for the operator Hα,β in Orlicz spaces, with a result, contained in Lemma 5.3 below and its Corollary 5.4, showing that any weak type estimate for Hα,β in Orlicz spaces is equivalent to a corresponding strong estimate. In fact, we also need a variant of [31, Theorem B], which is the object of the next proposition, where the Hardy-type operator Hα,β is replaced with the operator Hα,β∞ , acting on spaces defined in the entire half-line (0, ), and defined as ∞ ∞ α 1 (5.4) Hα,β∞ f(s)= f(r) r − dr for s> 0, β Zs for any function f (0, ) whenever the integral in (5.4) is defined. Importantly, it is also necessary ∈ M ∞ to keep track of the dependence of the constants in the inequalities involving Hα,β∞ . Proposition 5.2. Let 0 <α< 1, β > 0 and α + 1/β 1, and let A and B be Young functions. Assume that B fulfills condition (4.12). Then the following≥ two assertions are equivalent. (i) There exists a constant C1 > 0 such that (5.5) Hα,β∞ f M B (0, ) C1 f LA(0, ) k k ∞ ≤ k k ∞ for every f LA(0, ). ∈ ∞ (ii) There exists a constant C2 such that t A(s) B∞ (C2t) (5.6) ds α,β for t> 0, 1/(1 α)+1 1/(1 α) 0 s − ≤ t − Z e g where the Bα,β∞ is the Young function defined in (4.13). Moreover the constants C1 and C2 only depend on each other and on α. Proof. A duality argument (see e.g. [19, Lemma 8.1]), combined with equation (2.10), tells us that inequality (5.5) is equivalent to 1 t β α 1 (5.7) t − f(s)ds C1 f B ′ e (M ) (0, ) A ≤ k k ∞ Z0 L (0, ) ∞ B B for every f (M )′(0, ), where (M )′(0, ) is defined as in (2.13). We claim that inequality (5.7) is in turn equivalent∈ to∞ ∞ 1 t β α 1 (5.8) t − f ∗(s)ds C1 f ∗ B ′ e (M ) (0, ) A ≤ k k ∞ Z0 L (0, ) ∞ B for every f (M )′(0, ). Indeed, the fact that (5.7) implies (5.8) is trivial, whereas the reverse implication follows∈ from∞ a basic property of rearrangements [6, Lemma 2.1, Chapter 2]. Next, by [31, Proposition 3.4], inequality (5.8) is equivalent to the same inequality restricted just to characteristic functions of the sets of finite measure, namely to the inequality 1 t β α 1 (5.9) t − χ (s)ds C1 χ B ′ for r> 0. (0,r) e (0,r) (M ) (0, ) A ≤ k k ∞ Z0 L (0, ) ∞ OPTIMALDOMAINSPACESINORLICZ-SOBOLEVEMBEDDINGS 20 Owing to the equality χ(0,r) M B (0, ) χ(0,r) (M B )′(0, ) = r for r> 0 k k ∞ k k ∞ (see [6, Theorem 5.2, Chapter 2]), and to equation (2.14) with A replaced by B, 1 (5.10) χ(0,r) (M B )′(0, ) rB− (1/r) for r> 0, k k ∞ ≃ up to absolute equivalence constants. On the other hand, computations show that 1 t β α 1 α 1 e (5.11) t − χ (s)ds r t − χ β (t) A for r> 0, (0,r) e (r , ) L (0, ) A ≃ k ∞ k Z0 L (0, ) ∞ ∞ up to equivalence constants depending on α. The right-hand side of (5.11) is finite if and only if the integral on the left-hand side of (5.6) converges. Moreover, if this is the case, then β(α 1) α 1 r − e (5.12) t − χ(rβ, )(t) LA(0, ) = 1 β for r> 0, k ∞ k ∞ F − (r− ) where F : (0, ) [0, ) is the (increasing) function defined by ∞ → ∞ t 1 1 A(s) F (t)= t 1−α ds for t> 0. 1 α s1/(1 α)+1 − Z0 − Combining (5.10), (5.12) and (5.9) tells us that (5.8),e and hence (5.5), is equivalent to the existence of a constant C3, depending on α, such that 1 1 1/β α 1 (5.13) 1 C3B− (t ) t − for t> 0. F − (t) ≤ Since F is increasing, inequality (5.13) is equivalent to 1 Gα,β∞ (t) 1 C3 for t> 0. F − (t) ≤ t Finally, by equations (4.15) and (2.2), inequality (5.5) is equivalent to 1 1 (5.14) B − (t) C F − (t) for t> 0, α,β ≤ 4 for some constant C4 depending on α. Hence, the conclusion follows, on taking inverses of both sides of (5.14). g Lemma 5.3. Let α, β, A and B be as in Proposition 5.2. If A B (5.15) H∞ : L (0, ) M (0, ), α,β ∞ → ∞ then A B (5.16) H∞ : L (0, ) L (0, ). α,β ∞ → ∞ Moreover, the norms of the operator Hα,β∞ in (5.15) and (5.16) are equivalent, up to multiplicative constants independent of A and B. Proof. Throughout this proof, we adopt the abridged notation H for Hα,β∞ . Given N > 0, define the Young functions AN and BN as A(t) 1 α (5.17) AN (t)= and BN (t)= B tN − for t 0. N N 1/β ≥ We claim that equation (5.15) implies that (5.18) H : LAN (0, ) M BN (0, ) , ∞ → ∞ with operator norm independent of N. To prove this claim, we make use of Proposition 5.2, which tells us that (5.15) is equivalent to the existence of a positive constant C such that t A(s) B∞ (Ct) (5.19) ds α,β for t> 0, 1/(1 α)+1 1/(1 α) 0 s − ≤ t − Z e g OPTIMALDOMAINSPACESINORLICZ-SOBOLEVEMBEDDINGS 21 where Bα,β∞ is the Young function defined by (4.13). One can verify that the function (BN )α,β∞ , associated with BN as in (4.13), satisfies Bα,β∞ (B )∞ = , N α,β N and that inequality (5.19) holds with A and Bα,β∞ replaced by AN and (BN )α,β∞ , respectively, with the same constant C. Proposition 5.2 again tells us that (5.18) holds, with operator norm independent of N. Now, given any function f (0, ) such that ∈ M+ ∞ (5.20) 0 < ∞ A f(r) dr 1 , ≤ Z0 set N = ∞ A f(r) dr. Z0 Thanks to (5.18), we have that (5.21) Hf M BN (0, ) C f LAN (0, ) C , k k ∞ ≤ k k ∞ ≤ for some constant C independent of N and f, since, by the very definition of Luxemburg norm in Orlicz spaces, (5.22) f LAN (0, ) 1. k k ∞ ≤ Equations (5.21)–(5.22), inequality (2.12) and equation (5.17) tell us t t C Hf B sup = sup for t> 0, M N (0, ) 1 1 1/β ≥ k k ∞ ≥ 0 1 t ∞ β (5.23) Hf >t B α A f(r) dr for t> 0. |{ }| C ∞ A f(r) dr ≤ 0 ! Z0 From inequality (5.23), via assumption R (5.20) and property (2.1) applied to B, one can deduce that α+ 1 t β (5.24) Hf >t B ∞ A f(r) dr for t> 0. |{ }| C ≤ Z0 Clearly, inequality (5.24) continues to hold even if the integral on the right-hand side vanishes. Our next task is to derive a strong type inequality from the weak type inequality (5.24). This will be accomplished via a discretization argument. If the (nonnegative) function Hf is unbounded, denote by sk k Z a sequence in (0, ) such that { } ∈ ∞ (5.25) Hf(s ) = 2k for k Z. k ∈ In the case when Hf is bounded, we define the sequence sk similarly, save that now the index k { K} ranges from to the smallest K Z such that Hf(0) 2 . We then set sK = 0, and define sk again by (5.25)−∞ for k K 1. In what∈ follows, we shall treat≤ these two cases simultaneously, and K will denote either ,≤ or an− integer, according to whether Hf is unbounded or bounded, respectively. ∞ Notice that sk is non-increasing, since Hf is non-increasing. Define fk = fχ β β for k < K. [sk ,sk−1) If k < K, then k Hf(s) Hf(sk) = 2 for s (sk,sk 1) . ≤ ∈ − OPTIMALDOMAINSPACESINORLICZ-SOBOLEVEMBEDDINGS 22 Hence, Hf(s) sk Hf(s) (5.26) ∞ B ds = B ds 0 4C sk+1 4C Z k β s − ∞ α 1 ∞ α 1 k 1 α 1 Hfk(s) fk(r) r − dr = f(r)χ β β (r) r − dr = f(r) r − dr β β s ,s β ≥ s s k k−1 s Z k Z k Z k k 1 = Hf(sk) Hf(sk 1) = 2 − for s [sk+1,sk). − − ∈ Consequently, k 1 (5.27) [s ,s ) Hf 2 − for k < K. k+1 k ⊂ k ≥ From inclusion (5.27) and inequality (5.24) we obtain that 1 k 1 k 1 α+ β 2 − k 1 2 − ∞ (5.28) (s s )B Hf 2 − B A f (r) dr k − k+1 C ≤ k ≥ C ≤ k Z0 for k < K. Coupling (5.26) with (5.28), and exploiting the fact that α + 1/β 1 yield ≥ α+ 1 Hf(s) β (5.29) ∞ B ds ∞ A f (r) dr 4C ≤ k Z0 k Corollary 5.4. Let 0 <α< 1, β > 0 and α + 1/β 1. Let Hα,β be the Hardy type operator defined by (2.17). Assume that A and B are Young functions≥ such that (5.30) H : LA(0, 1) M B(0, 1). α,β → Then (5.31) H : LA(0, 1) LB(0, 1). α,β → In particular, the space LA(0, 1) is the optimal Orlicz domain in (5.30) if and only if it is the optimal Orlicz domain in (5.31). Proof. Suppose that A and B are Young functions such that (5.30) holds. Let us make some prelimi- nary reduction. To begin with, we may suppose that both A and B are finite-valued, or, equivalently, A B A that neither L (0, 1) nor L (0, 1) agrees with L∞(0, 1). Indeed, if L (0, 1) = L∞(0, 1), then (5.31) holds trivially, since H : L∞(0, 1) L∞(0, 1), α,β → B B and L∞(0, 1) L (0, 1) for every Young function B. On the other hand, if L (0, 1) = L∞(0, 1), then M B(0, 1) = L→B(0, 1), and hence (5.31) is nothing but (5.30). Next, we may assume, without loss of generality, that t1 α (5.32) sup − = . 1 1/β 1 t< B− (t ) ∞ ≤ ∞ 1 Actually, if the supremum in (5.32) is finite, then t β(1−α) dominates B(t) near infinity, and hence 1 L β(1−α) (0, 1) LB(0, 1). → OPTIMALDOMAINSPACESINORLICZ-SOBOLEVEMBEDDINGS 23 Since LA(0, 1) L1(0, 1) for every Young function A and → 1 (5.33) H : L1(0, 1) L β(1−α) (0, 1), α,β → equation (5.31) holds also in this case. We may thus assume that the Young functions A and B are finite-valued, and that (5.32) is in force. Under these assumptions, [31, Theorem B] tells us that (5.30) implies that t A(s) B (Ct) ds α,β for t t , 1/(1 α)+1 1/(1 α) 0 1 s − ≤ t − ≥ Z e g for some constants C > 0 and t0 > 1. Let us denote by A and B two Young functions which agree with A and B near infinity, and are modified near zero in such a way that B satisfies condition (4.12), and condition (5.6) holds with A and Bα,β∞ replaced by A andb Bα,β∞b . Hence, by Proposition (5.2), b A B H∞ : L (0, ) M (0, ) , α,β b ∞ → bb ∞b thus, by Lemma 5.3, A B (5.34) H∞ : L (0, ) L (0, ) . α,β b ∞ → b ∞ Equation (5.34) implies (5.31) since LA(0, 1) = LA(0, 1), and LB(0, 1) = LB(0, 1), up to equivalent b b norms. Proof of Lemma 5.1. Here, we make use of the simplified notation H for the operator Hα,β. The argument of Remark 3.1, applied with Gn replaced by Gα,β, ensures that Bα,β is actually a Young function, and 1 1 1/β α 1 Bα,β− (t) t inf B− s s − for t 1. ≃ 1 s t ≥ ≤ ≤ Let us begin by considering the case when 1 1/β α 1 (5.35) inf B− s s − > 0. 1 s< ≤ ∞ 1 Under assumption (5.35) the function B− cannot be constant near infinity, and hence B is certainly finite-valued. Also, the function Gα,β(t) is equivalent to t, and hence Bα,β(t) is equivalent to t. Thereby IBα,β = 1, and LBα,β (0, 1) = L1(0, 1), up to equivalent norms. In order to prove (5.3), it remains to show that (5.36) H : L1(0, 1) LB(0, 1) . → To verify (5.36), note that condition (5.35) is equivalent to B(t) sup < , 1/β(1 α) 1 t< t − ∞ ≤ ∞ whence 1 L β(1−α) (0, 1) LB(0, 1). → This piece of information, combined with (5.33), yields (5.36). Note that the domain space is trivially optimal in (5.36), since L1(0, 1) is the largest Orlicz space on (0, 1). Let us next focus on the case when (5.35) fails, namely (5.32) holds. Thanks to Lemma 5.3, an optimal Orlicz domain LA(0, 1) exists in (5.37) H : LA(0, 1) LB(0, 1) → if and only if it exists in (5.38) H : LA(0, 1) M B(0, 1) . → On the other hand, since we are assuming that (5.32) is in force, by [31, Theorem A] an optimal Orlicz domain LA(0, 1) in (5.38) exists if and only if t B (s) B (Ct) (5.39) α,β ds α,β near infinity, 1/(1 α)+1 1/(1 α) 1 s − ≤ t − Z g g OPTIMALDOMAINSPACESINORLICZ-SOBOLEVEMBEDDINGS 24 for some constant C > 1. Condition (5.39) is in turn equivalent to (5.2), thanks to Proposition 4.1. The fact that, in case of existence, the optimal Orlicz space LA(0, 1) in (5.38), and hence in (5.37), is actually LBα,β (0, 1) is proved in [31, Theorem A] again. The proof is complete. The characterizations (2.15) and (2.16) of the inclusion relations between Orlicz-Sobolev spaces are established in the following proposition. Proposition 5.5. Assume that m,n N. Let A and B be Young functions. ∈ (i) If Ω is an open set in Rn such that Ω < , then | | ∞ (5.40) W m,A(Ω) W m,B(Ω) if and only if A dominates B near infinity, → and (5.41) W m,A(Ω) W m,B(Ω) if and only if A dominates B near infinity. 0 → 0 (ii) (5.42) W m,A(Rn) W m,B(Rn) if and only if A dominates B globally. → Proof. The “if” parts of assertions (5.40)–(5.42) are straightforward consequences of (2.11). The reverse implications in (5.40) and (5.41) can be verified as follows. Assume that Ω < , and | | ∞ (5.43) W m,A(Ω) W m,B(Ω) or W m,A(Ω) W m,B(Ω) . → 0 → 0 Suppose, without loss of generality, that 0 Ω. Let δ > 0 be so small that the cube Q centered at 0, whose sides are parallel to the coordinates∈ axes and have length 2δ, is contained in Ω. Given any function f LA( δ, δ), define the function v : Q R as ∈ − → x1 s1 sm−1 v(x)= f(sm)dsm dsm 1 . . . ds1 for x Q, · · · − ∈ Z0 Z0 Z0 where we have adopted the notation x = (x1,x2,...,xn). The function v is m-times weakly differen- ∂kv ∂mv tiable in Q. Moreover, k L∞(Q) if 1 k m 1, ∂xm (x) = f(x1) for x Q, and any other ∂x1 ∈ ≤ ≤ − 1 ∈ derivative vanishes identically. Hence, v W m,A(Q). By [20, Theorem 4.1], there exists a bounded m,A ∈ m,A Rn linear extension operator : W (Q) W ( ). Fix any function η C0∞(Ω) such that η = 1 in Q. Define u:Ω R asE → ∈ → (5.44) u = η (v) . E Then u W m,A(Ω), and, in fact, u W m,A(Ω). By either of embeddings (5.43), u W m,B(Ω) as well, ∈ ∈ 0 ∈ and hence f LB( δ, δ). Owing to the arbitrariness of f, this implies that LA( δ, δ) LB( δ, δ), and by [6, Theorem∈ − 1.8, Chapter 1], in fact LA( δ, δ) LB( δ, δ). Hence, by (2.11),− A ⊂dominates− B near infinity. − → − As far as the “only if” part of assertion (5.42) is concerned, the choice of trial functions u as in (5.44) implies that A dominates B near infinity also when Ω = Rn. On the other hand, if embedding (5.42) is in force, then, in particular, W m,A(Rn) LB(Rn), → whence A dominates B also near zero, by (2.22). Therefore, A dominates B globally. We are now in a position to accomplish the proofs of our main results. Proof of Theorem 3.2. The fact that an optimal Orlicz domain space in (2.18) exists if and only m,Bn if (3.4) holds, and that, in the affirmative case, it agrees with W0 (Ω), follows from Lemma 5.1, via the equivalence of the Sobolev inequality (2.18) and of the Hardy type inequality (2.19). Property (2.15) also plays a role here. The assertion about the validity of equation (3.6) is a consequence of Lemma 4.3. OPTIMALDOMAINSPACESINORLICZ-SOBOLEVEMBEDDINGS 25 ∞ m,Bn m Proof of Corollary 3.3. Fix u W0 (Ω), and assume, without loss of generality, that Ω Bn∞( u )dy < , otherwise (3.10) is trivially satisfied.∈ By Proposition 4.1, assumption (3.9) is equivalent to|∇ the | ∞ R existence of a constant C1 > 0, such that t B (s) B (C t) (5.45) n∞ ds n∞ 1 for t> 0. n/(n m)+1 n/(n m) 0 s − ≤ t − Z g g Given N > 0, let BN be the Young function defined as m B tN − n BN (t)= for t 0. N ≥ Then, the Young function (BN )n∞ associated with BN as in (3.8) satisfies Bn∞ (B )∞ = . N n N One can thus verify that inequality (5.45) continues to hold with Bn∞ replaced by (BN )n∞, and with the same constant C1, whatever N is. Hence, by Proposition 5.2 and Lemma 5.3, m ∞ H∞,1f LBN (0, ) C2 f L(BN )n (0, ) k n k ∞ ≤ k k ∞ ∞ for every f L(BN )n (0, ), for some constant for some C independent of N. In particular, ∈ ∞ 2 m ∞ H ,1f BN C2 f (B )n k n kL (0,1) ≤ k kL N (0,1) ∞ for every f L(BN )n (0, 1). Therefore, owing to the equivalence of inequalities (2.18) and (2.19), ∈ m ∞ (5.46) u B C u (B ) k kL N (Ω) ≤ k∇ kL N n (Ω) ∞ for every u W m,(BN )n (Ω), where the constant C is independent of N. On choosing ∈ 0 m N = B∞( u )dy , n |∇ | ZΩ m ∞ and observing that u (B ) 1 with this choice of N, inequality (5.46) yields u B C. k∇ kL N n (Ω) ≤ k kL N (Ω) ≤ Therefore u(x) B | | dx 1 , N C ≤ ZΩ whence, by the definition of BN , u(x) B | | dx N , CN m/n ≤ ZΩ namely (3.10). Proof of Theorem 3.4. The proof follows along the same lines as that of Theorem 3.2. Here, the equivalence of inequalities (2.20) and (2.19) comes into play. Proof of Theorem 3.9. The reduction principle for inequality (2.21) is relevant in this proof. Recall that such a principle asserts that this inequality is equivalent to the simultaneous validity of inequality (2.19) and of property (2.22). Now, assume that condition (3.4) holds. Then, by Lemma 5.1, inequality (2.19) holds with either LA(0, 1) = L1(0, 1), or LA(0, 1) = LBn (0, 1), according to whether m n or ≥ 1 m Proof of Theorem 3.10. This is a consequence of Lemma 5.1 and of the reduction principle for Sobolev embeddings with measure, which asserts the equivalence of inequalities (2.24) and (2.25). Proof of Corollary 3.11. The proof of inequality (3.23) relies upon a scaling argument as in the γ m proof of Corollary 3.3. Here, B(t) has to be replaced by BN (t)= N − n B(tN − n ), where m k N = Bγ( u )dy . Ω |∇ | Xk=0 Z References [1] E. Acerbi and R. Mingione. Regularity results for stationary electro-rheological fluids. Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal., 164:213–259, 2002. [2] R. A. Adams. On the Orlicz-Sobolev imbedding theorem. J. Funct. Anal., 24(3):241–257, 1977. [3] A. Alberico, A. Cianchi, L. Pick, and L. Slav´ıkov´a. Sharp Sobolev type embeddings in the entire Euclidean space. Preprint. [4] J. M. Ball. Convexity conditions and existence theorems in nonlinear elasticity. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 63:337–403, 1976/77. [5] P. Baroni. Riesz potential estimates for a general class of quasilinear equations. Calc. Var. Part. Diff. Equat., 53:803–846, 2015. [6] C. Bennett and R. Sharpley. Interpolation of operators, volume 129 of Pure and Applied Mathe- matics. Academic Press, Inc., Boston, MA, 1988. [7] D. W. Boyd. Indices for the Orlicz spaces. Pacific J. Math., 38:315–323, 1971. [8] D. Breit and O. D. Schirra. Korn-type inequalities in Orlicz-Sobolev spaces involving the trace- free part of the symmetric gradient and applications to regularity theory. J. Anal. Appl. (ZAA), 31:335–356, 2012. [9] D. Breit, B. Stroffolini, and A. Verde. A general regularity theorem for functionals with ϕ-growth. J. Math. Anal. Appl., 383:226–233, 2011. [10] M. Bul´ıˇcek, K. Diening, and S. Schwarzacher. Existence, uniqueness and optimal regularity results for very weak solutions to nonlinear elliptic systems. Anal. PDE, 9:1115–1151, 2016. [11] M. Bul´ıˇcek, M. Majdoub, and J. M´alek. Unsteady flows of fluids with pressure dependent viscosity in unbounded domains. Nonlinear Anal. Real World Appl., 11:3968–3983, 2010. [12] A. Cianchi. A sharp embedding theorem for Orlicz-Sobolev spaces. Indiana Univ. Math. J., 45(1):39–65, 1996. [13] A. Cianchi. Boundedness of solutions to variational problems under general growth conditions. Comm. Partial Differential Equations, 22(9-10):1629–1646, 1997. [14] A. Cianchi. Higher-order Sobolev and Poincar´einequalities in Orlicz spaces. Forum Math., 18(5):745–767, 2006. [15] A. Cianchi, R. Kerman, and L. Pick. Boundary trace inequalities and rearrangements. J. Anal. Math., 105:241–265, 2008. [16] A. Cianchi and L. Pick. Sobolev embeddings into BMO, VMO, and L . Ark. Mat., 36(2):317–340, 1998. ∞ [17] A. Cianchi and L. Pick. Optimal Sobolev trace embeddings. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 368(12):8349–8382, 2016. [18] A. Cianchi, L. Pick, and L. Slav´ıkov´a. Sobolev embeddings, rearrangement-invariant spaces and Frostman measures. Preprint. [19] A. Cianchi, L. Pick, and L. Slav´ıkov´a. Higher-order Sobolev embeddings and isoperimetric in- equalities. Adv. Math., 273:568–650, 2015. [20] A. Cianchi and M. Randolfi. On the modulus of continuity of weakly differentiable functions. Indiana Univ. Math. J., 60(6):1939–1973, 2011. [21] T. K. Donaldson and N. S. Trudinger. Orlicz-Sobolev spaces and imbedding theorems. J. Funct. Anal., 8:52–75, 1971. [22] D. E. Edmunds, P. Gurka, and B. Opic. Double exponential integrability of convolution operators in generalized Lorentz-Zygmund spaces. Indiana Univ. Math. J., 44:19–43, 1995. OPTIMALDOMAINSPACESINORLICZ-SOBOLEVEMBEDDINGS 27 [23] H. J. Eyring. Viscosity, plasticity, and diffusion as example of absolute reaction rates. J. Chemical Physics, 4:283–291, 1936. [24] J. A. Hempel, G. R. Morris, and N. S. Trudinger. On the sharpness of a limiting case of the Sobolev imbedding theorem. Bull. Austral. Math. Soc., 3:369–373, 1970. [25] R. Kerman and L. Pick. Optimal Sobolev imbeddings. Forum Math., 18(4):535–570, 2006. [26] A. G. Korolev. On the boundedness of generalized solutions of elliptic differential equations with nonpower nonlinearities. Mat. Sb., 180(1):78–100 (Russian), 1989. [27] M. Krbec and A. Kufner, editors. Nonlinear analysis, function spaces and applications. Vol. 6. Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Mathematical Institute, Prague, 1999. [28] G. M. Lieberman. The natural generalization of the natural conditions of Ladyzenskaya and Ural’ceva for elliptic equations. Comm. Part. Diff. Eq., 16:311–361, 1991. [29] P. Marcellini. Regularity for elliptic equations with general growth conditions. J. Diff. Eq., 105:296–333, 1993. [30] V. G. Maz’ya. Sobolev spaces, with applications to elliptic partial differential equations. Springer, Berlin, 2011. [31] V. Musil. Optimal Orlicz domains in Sobolev embeddings into Marcinkiewicz spaces. J. Funct. Anal., 270(7):2653–2690, 2016. [32] S. I. Pohozhaev. On the imbedding Sobolev theorem for pl = n. Doklady Conference, Section Math. Moscow Power Inst., 165:158–170 (Russian), 1965. [33] R. S. Strichartz. A note on Trudinger’s extension of Sobolev’s inequalities. Indiana Univ. Math. J., 21:841–842, 1971/72. [34] J.-O. Str¨omberg. Bounded mean oscillation with Orlicz norms and duality of Hardy spaces. Indiana Univ. Math. J., 28(3):511–544, 1979. [35] G. Talenti. Nonlinear elliptic equations, rearrangements of functions and Orlicz spaces. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl., 120:159–184, 1979. [36] G. Talenti. An embedding theorem. Partial differential equations and the calculus of variations, Vol. II. Birkh¨auser, Boston, MA, 1989. [37] G. Talenti. Boundedness of minimizers. Hokkaido Math. J., 19:259–279, 1990. [38] N. S. Trudinger. On imbeddings into Orlicz spaces and some applications. J. Math. Mech., 17:473–483, 1967. [39] A. Wri´oblewska. Steady flow of non-Newtonian fluids–monotonicity methods in generalized Orlicz spaces. Nonlinear Anal., 72:4136–4147, 2010. [40] V. I. Yudovich. Some estimates connected with integral operators and with solutions of elliptic equations. Soviet Math. Doklady, 2:746–749 (Russian), 1961. Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica “Ulisse Dini”, University of Florence, Viale Morgagni 67/A, 50134 Firenze, Italy E-mail address: [email protected] ORCiD: 0000-0002-1198-8718 Department of Mathematical Analysis, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University, So- kolovska´ 83, 186 75 Praha 8, Czech Republic E-mail address: [email protected] ORCiD: 0000-0001-6083-227X n m , then condition (3.9) is equivalent to IB∞ < , and − ∞ 1 1 m B∞− (t) B− (t) t n for t 0. n ≃ ≥ Companion results to Theorem 3.2 and Corollary 3.3 hold for embedding (1.7) between spaces of functions with unrestricted boundary values, provided that Ω is a John domain. Like for embedding (1.1), the only non-trivial case is when 1 m 0. α,β ≃ α,β The next lemma tells us that, under a suitable lower bound for the lower Boyd index of B, the infimum on the right-hand side of equations (4.10) and (4.14) can be disregarded. Lemma 4.2. Let B be a Young function, and let 0 <α< 1, β > 0 and α + 1/β 1. (i) Assume that ≥ 1 (4.16) i > . B β(1 α) − Then 1 1/β α 1 1 1/β α 1 (4.17) inf B− s s − B− t t − near infinity. 1 s t ≃ ≤ ≤ Hence, 1 1 1/β α B− (t) B− t t near infinity. α,β ≃ 1 Conversely if (4.17) holds, then iB . ≥ β(1 α) (ii) Assume in addition that (4.12) holds.− If 1 (4.18) i∞ > , B β(1 α) − then 1 1/β α 1 1 1/β α 1 (4.19) inf B− s s − B− t t − for t> 0. 0 0. α,β ≃ 1 Conversely if (4.19) holds, then iB∞ β(1 α) . ≥ − Proof. We limit ourselves to proving Part (ii). The proof of Part (i) requires minor modifications. 1 If B is infinite for large values of its argument, then the its generalized inverse B− is constant near infinity, and equation (4.19) holds trivially. In the remaining part of this proof, we may thus assume that the function B is finite-valued. Equation (4.19) is equivalent to 0, 0 0, ≥ ≥ ≥ ρ Zρt/k Zρt whenceekη log 1 , and e e e ≥ ρ kη ρ e− > 0 for t> 0. ≥ In the proof of Proposition 4.1 it is also shown that B satisfies the ∆2-condition. Hence, there exists a positive constant c such that kη e B(ρt) B te− cB(t) for t> 0. ≥ ≥ Consequently, e η e η e η η inf B(s) s− = B(ρt) (ρt)− cρ− B(t) t− for t> 0, 0