• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

A NEW FORMULA FOR THE Lp NORM QINGSONG GU AND PO-LAM YUNG Abstract. Recently, Brezis, Van Schaftingen and the second author [4] established a new ˙ 1,p ∞ RN formula for the W norm of a function in Cc ( ). The formula was obtained by replacing the Lp(R2N ) norm in the Gagliardo semi-norm for W˙ s,p(RN ) with a weak-Lp(R2N ) quasi- norm and setting s = 1. This provides a characterization of such W˙ 1,p norms, which complements the celebrated Bourgain-Brezis-Mironescu (BBM) formula [1]. In this paper, we obtain an analog for the case s = 0. In particular, we present a new formula for the Lp norm of any function in Lp(RN ), which involves only the measures of suitable level sets, but no integration. This provides a characterization of the norm on Lp(RN ), which complements a formula by Maz′ya and Shaposhnikova [12]. As a result, by interpolation, we s,p N obtain a new embedding of the Triebel-Lizorkin space F2 (R ) (i.e. the Bessel potential −s/2 p N s,p N space (I − ∆) L (R )), as well as its homogeneous counterpart F˙2 (R ), for s ∈ (0, 1), p ∈ (1, ∞). 1. Introduction The purpose of this paper is to prove a new characterization of the Lp norm on RN , by lifting to the product space RN × RN and considering a weak-Lp quasi-norm over there instead. Indeed, for a measurable function F (x, y) on RN × RN and 1 ≤ p< ∞, we denote p the weak-L quasi-norm of F by [F ]Lp,∞(RN ×RN ), where p 2N 2N 1/p [F ]Lp,∞(RN ×RN ) := sup λ L {(x, y) ∈ R : |F (x, y)| ≥ λ} (1.1) λ>0 and L2N denotes the Lebesgue measure on R2N (see e.g., [5,9]). Then our first result reads: arXiv:2102.09657v2 [math.CA] 24 Aug 2021 Theorem 1.1. For every N ∈ N, there exist constants c1 = c1(N) > 0 and c2 = c2(N) > 0, such that for all 1 ≤ p< ∞ and all u ∈ Lp(RN ), 1/p u(x) − u(y) 1/p c1 kukLp(RN ) ≤ N ≤ 2c2 kukLp(RN ). (1.2) p " |x − y| #Lp,∞(RN ×RN ) 2020 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 26D10; Secondary 26A33,35A23,46E30,46E35. Key words and phrases. BBM formula; Maz′ya-Shaposhnikova formula; Fractional Sobolev space; weak-Lp space. Yung is partially supported by a Future Fellowship FT200100399 from the Australian Research Council. 1 Moreover, for 1 ≤ p< ∞ and u ∈ Lp(RN ), if we write RN RN |u(x) − u(y)| Eλ := (x, y) ∈ × : x =6 y, N ≥ λ , (1.3) ( |x − y| p ) then p 2N p lim λ L (Eλ)=2κN kuk p RN , (1.4) λ→0+ L ( ) N/2 N RN where κN := π /Γ( 2 + 1) is the volume of the unit ball in . We remark that the power of |x − y| in the denominator of the quantity in the middle of (1.2) is the natural one dictated by dilation invariance. Furthermore, the main thrust of (1.2) is in the first inequality. In fact, the second inequality has already been observed by e.g. Dominguez and Milman in [8]. On the other hand, the first inequality of (1.2) is an easy consequence of (1.4), with c1(N) := 2κN (because the supremum over λ > 0 always dominates the limit as λ → 0+). In addition, we emphasize that (1.4) is not true unless we assume u ∈ Lp(RN ) to begin with; indeed, if 1 ≤ p < ∞ and u is identically 1, then 2N L (Eλ) = 0 for every λ> 0, while kukLp(RN ) =+∞. So the proof of (1.4) is a little delicate, which we give in detail in Section 2. Our point of view of lifting to the product space RN × RN and using the weak-Lp quasi- norm there is motivated by recent work of the second author with Ha¨ımBrezis and Jean Van Schaftingen [4], which established an analog of the above theorem for the Sobolev semi-norm k∇ukLp(RN ). The article [4] in turn drew important inspiration from the BBM formula for the Sobolev space W 1,p, which first appeared in a celebrated paper [1] of Bourgain, Brezis and Mironescu. An analogue of the BBM formula for Lp in place of W 1,p was first obtained by Maz′ya and Shaposhnikova [12]. Our Theorem 1.1 can be thought of as a counterpart of the Maz′ya-Shaposhnikova formula for the Lp norm, in the same way that the main result in [4] relates to the BBM formula for W 1,p. To describe all these developments in more detail, let’s introduce some notations. Let Ω be a domain (i.e. an open, connected set) in RN . For 1 ≤ p < ∞ and 0 <s< 1, the Gagliardo semi-norm of a function u ∈ Lp(Ω) is defined as |u(x) − u(y)|p 1/p |u| ˙ s,p := dxdy , (1.5) W (Ω) |x − y|N+sp ZΩ ZΩ where |·| in the denominator on the right hand side denotes the Euclidean norm on RN . (The dot above W s,p indicates that this semi-norm is homogeneous with respect to dilations.) This semi-norm is an important tool in the study of many partial differential equations, and has found numerous important applications (see e.g. [2, 7, 10]). A well-known ‘defect’ of this semi-norm is that |u|W˙ s,p(Ω) does not converge to the Sobolev − semi-norm k∇ukLp(Ω) as s → 1 . Indeed, it is easy to see (c.f. [1]) that if u is any smooth, non-constant function on a domain Ω ⊂ RN , then kukp → ∞ as s → 1− (see also W˙ s,p(Ω) 2 [3, Proposition 4] for an extension to measurable u’s that are not necessarily smooth). This ‘defect’ was addressed by Bourgain, Brezis and Mironescu in [1]: if Ω is a smooth, bounded domain in RN , then applying their Theorem 2 with p(1 − s)1|x|≤D ρs(x)= p(1−s) N−p(1−s) , s ∈ (0, 1) (1.6) D ωN |x| N−1 where D is the diameter of Ω and ωN is the surface area of S , we see that for 1 ≤ p< ∞ and u ∈ W 1,p(Ω) := {u ∈ Lp(Ω): |∇u| ∈ Lp(Ω)}, one has what is now known as the BBM formula: p 1 p lim (1 − s)|u| ˙ s,p = k(p, N)k∇ukLp(Ω), (1.7) s→1− W (Ω) p where 2Γ((p + 1)/2)π(N−1)/2 k(p, N) := |e · ω|pdω = . (1.8) SN−1 Γ((N + p)/2) Z Here e ∈ SN−1 is any fixed vector, e · ω is the inner product of e with ω, and dω is the surface measure on SN−1 induced from the Lebesgue measure on RN . See also D´avila [6] for an extension to the space of functions of bounded variation on Ω. s,p RN On the other hand, for s ∈ (0, 1) and 1 ≤ p < ∞, let W0 ( ) be the completion of ∞ RN Cc ( ) under the Gagliardo semi-norm |·|W˙ s,p(RN ). Parallel to the BBM formula (1.7), ′ s,p RN Maz ya and Shaposhnikova [12] showed that for any u ∈ 0<s<1 W0 ( ), we have p 2N Sp lim skuk ˙ s,p RN = κN kuk p RN , (1.9) s→0+ W ( ) p L ( ) N where κN is the volume of the unit ball in R . Recently, Brezis, Van Schaftingen and the second author [4] considered what happened p RN RN when one replaces the L norm on × in the Gagliardo semi-norm |·|W˙ s,p(RN ) by the weak-Lp quasi-norm, and evaluates it at s = 1. This leads to the following characterization of k∇ukLp(RN ) in [4, Theorem 1.1]: they proved the existence of two positive constants c = c(N) ∞ RN and C = C(N) such that for all u ∈ Cc ( ) and 1 ≤ p< ∞, p p p u(x) − u(y) p c k∇ukLp(RN ) ≤ N ≤ Ck∇ukLp(RN ). (1.10) p +1 " |x − y| #Lp,∞(RN ×RN ) ∞ RN Furthermore, it was shown that for u ∈ Cc ( ) and 1 ≤ p< ∞, if N N |u(x) − u(y)| E˜λ := (x, y) ∈ R × R : x =6 y, ≥ λ , (1.11) N +1 ( |x − y| p ) then p 2N ˜ 1 p lim λ L (Eλ)= k(p, N)k∇uk p RN . (1.12) λ→∞ N L ( ) 3 1/p Thus, the first inequality in (1.10), with c(N) := infp∈[1,∞)(k(p, N)/N) > 0, is a direct consequence of (1.12) and (1.1). See also Poliakovsky [11, Lemma 3.1] for an extension of the second inequality in (1.10) to functions u ∈ W 1,p(RN ) := {u ∈ Lp(RN ): |∇u| ∈ Lp(RN )}. In light of the formula (1.9) of Maz′ya and Shaposhnikova mentioned above, which es- tablishes an analog of the BBM formula (1.7) when s → 0+, a natural question is whether one has an analog of (1.10) and (1.12) for Lp instead of W 1,p. Our Theorem 1.1 can be thought of as an affirmative answer to this question. Our proof is technically simpler than the corresponding one for (1.10) and (1.12) in [4], in that our proof relies only on Fubini’s theorem, but not on any covering lemma nor any Taylor expansion. On the other hand, it came as a mild surprise that while (1.12) involves a limit as λ → +∞, its cousin (1.4) involves instead a limit where λ → 0+: the former is natural since large values of λ captures what happens to |u(x) − u(y)| when x and y are close to each other, which in turn relates to the size of |∇u(x)|, but we do not have a good explanation of the latter.

Load more

  17

Copy Link