Arxiv:2102.09657V2 [Math.CA] 24 Aug 2021 Nta.Ide,Framaual Function Measurable a for Indeed, Instead

arXiv:2102.09657v2 [math.CA] 24 Aug 2021 nta.Ide,framaual function measurable a for Indeed, instead. h weak- the itn otepoutspace product the to lifting and hoe 1.1. Theorem uhta o all for that such space. h ups fti ae st rv e hrceiaino the of characterization new a prove to is paper this of purpose The e od n phrases. and words Key Classiﬁcation Subject Mathematics 2020 ugi atal upre yaFtr elwhpF20039from FT200100399 Fellowship Future a by supported partially is Yung L 2 N p pc ( space eoti naao o h case the for analog an obtain fo (BBM) we Bourgain-Brezis-Mironescu celebrated the complements L es u oitgain hspoie hrceiaino h n the of characterization a provides This integration. no but sets, omadsetting and norm opeet oml yMaz by formula a complements bananwebdigo h ree-ioknspace Triebel-Lizorkin the of embedding new a obtain the oml o the for formula Abstract. p ∈ eoe h eegemaueon measure Lebesgue the denotes L omo n ucinin function any of norm (1 L p p , ( us-omof quasi-norm I ∞ R − [ 2 ). F N c ∆) o every For 1 1 1 omi h alad einr for semi-norm Gagliardo the in norm ) ] /p L eety rzs a catne n h eodato 4 est [4] author second the and Schaftingen Van Brezis, Recently, − ≤ p, k s/ ∞ W E OML O THE FOR FORMULA NEW A u ˙ < p 2 ( k L R 1 L B oml;Maz formula; BBM ,p s N p p ( × ( omo ucinin function a of norm R .Ti rvdsacaatrzto fsuch of characterization a provides This 1. = ∞ R R N N N N F ) ) swl sishmgnoscounterpart homogeneous its as well as )), IGOGG N OLMYUNG PO-LAM AND GU QINGSONG ) n all and ∈ ≤ R =sup := y[ by N N " L λ> hr xs constants exist there , u ′ × p F aadSaohioa[2.A eut yitroain we interpolation, by result, a As [12]. Shaposhnikova and ya ( ( | 0 R x x ] u R L s 1. N ) . p, − λ N .I atclr epeetanwfruafrthe for formula new a present we particular, In 0. = ∈ ,wihivle nytemaue fsial level suitable of measures the only involves which ), − rmr 61;Scnay26A33,35A23,46E30,46E35. Secondary 26D10; Primary ∞ ′ p Introduction aSaohioafrua rcinlSblvsae weak- space; Sobolev Fractional formula; ya-Shaposhnikova y L ( L n osdrn weak- a considering and u R | 2 N N p ( p N y ( C × R F R ) { c R ∞ 2 # ( ( 1 N N N ,y x, ,y x, ( L R ) ) p, where , , seeg,[,].Te u rtrsl reads: result ﬁrst our Then [5,9]). e.g., (see N ∞ on ) ) .Tefruawsotie yreplacing by obtained was formula The ). ( R W ∈ ˙ N s,p R × F R R 2 ( c 2 N s,p N R N 1 ) N : ( = × ≤ R ihaweak- a with ) L | F N R c p 2 1 ie h eslpotential Bessel the (i.e. ) ( c N ( ,y x, NORM 2 1 h utainRsac Council. Research Australian the N ml 1.I hspaper, this In [1]. rmula /p F r on orm n 1 and ˙ L ) 2 s,p k ) u p ≥ | > W ( k ˙ R us-omoe there over quasi-norm 0 L 1 N ,p p λ ≤ L and ( ,for ), L L bihdanew a ablished R } p om,which norms, p p N < p ( ( 1 R ) R omon norm /p . 2 c N s N 2 ,which ), ∞ ∈ quasi- ) = (0 edenote we , c , 2 1), ( N R ) N (1.1) (1.2) > by , L 0 p , 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

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

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. We next turn to two results obtained by interpolating the upper bound in (1.2), with the upper bound in (1.10). The first result can be formulated using the Bessel potential spaces (I − ∆)−s/2Lp(RN ):

Theorem 1.2. For every N ∈ N and p ∈ (1, ∞), there exists a constant C′ = C′(p, N) such that for all s ∈ (0, 1) and all u ∈ (I − ∆)−s/2Lp(RN ), we have

u(x) − u(y) ′ s/2 N ≤ C k(I − ∆) ukLp(RN ). (1.13) p +s " |x − y| #Lp,∞(RN ×RN )

This theorem follows from complex interpolation by considering the following holomorphic family of linear operators

u(x) − u(y) u(x) 7→ Tzu(x, y) := (1.14) N +z |x − y| p where z ∈ C takes value in the strip {0 ≤ Re z ≤ 1}. Indeed, the second inequality in (1.2) p N p,∞ N N shows that when Re z = 0, Tz maps L (R ) to L (R × R ). On the other hand, as observed by Poliakovsky [11, Lemma 3.1], the second inequality in (1.10) continues to hold 1,p N −1/2 p N −1/2 p N for all u ∈ W (R )=(I −∆) L (R ). Thus when Re z = 1, Tz maps (I −∆) L (R ) to Lp,∞(RN × RN ). Theorem 1.2 now follows by complex interpolation. One drawback of Theorem 1.2 is that the left-hand side concerns a homogeneous norm, while the right-hand side contains an inhomogeneous norm. But it is only slightly harder to prove a variant of Theorem 1.2, concerning a homogeneous Triebel-Lizorkin space instead. First, let’s recast Theorem 1.2 in terms of (inhomogeneous) fractional Triebel-Lizorkin s,p RN RN spaces Fq on , which we deﬁne as follows. Let S( ) be the Fr´echet space of Schwartz functions on RN , and S′(RN ) the space of all tempered distributions on RN . Let F −1 be the 4 inverse Fourier transform on RN given by

F −1φ(x)= φ(ξ)e2πix·ξdξ, (1.15) RN Z RN ∞ RN for φ ∈ S( ). Let ϕ ∈ Cc ( ) be a ﬁxed function supported on {|ξ| ≤ 2} such that ϕ(ξ) = 1 whenever |ξ| ≤ 1. Write ψ(ξ)= ϕ(ξ) − ϕ(2ξ) (1.16) ∞ RN so that ψ ∈ Cc ( ) is supported on {1/2 ≤|ξ| ≤ 2} with ϕ(ξ)+ ψ(2−jξ) = 1 for all ξ ∈ RN . (1.17) j∈N X A corresponding family of Littlewood-Paley projections is given by

−1 P0u(x) := u ∗F ϕ(x) (1.18) and −1 ∆ju(x) := u ∗F ψj(x), (1.19) −j where ψj(ξ) := ψ(2 ξ). For s ∈ R, p ∈ (1, ∞) and q ∈ (1, ∞), we deﬁne the (inhomoge- s,p RN ′ RN neous) Triebel-Lizorkin space Fq ( ) to be the space of all u ∈ S ( ) for which 1/q q js q s,p N kukFq (R ) := |P0u| + |2 ∆ju| < ∞. (1.20) Lp(RN ) j∈N X Standard Littlewood-Paley theory shows that for 1

s/2 s,p RN p RN kukF2 ( ) ≃p,N k(I − ∆) ukL ( ). (1.22) Thus we could have replaced the Bessel potential spaces (I − ∆)−s/2Lp(RN ) in Theorem 1.2 s,p RN by the inhomogeneous F2 ( ). This motivates us to consider a variant of Theorem 1.2 for homogeneous Triebel-Lizorkin spaces instead. To introduce these spaces, we denote by Z(RN ) the subspace of all u ∈ S(RN ) R ′ RN for which RN u(x)p(x)dx = 0 for every polynomial p(x) ∈ [x], and denote by Z ( ) the space of all continuous linear functionals on Z(RN ), which we identify with the quotient R ′ N N N −j S (R )/{polynomials on R }. If ψ ∈ S(R ) is as in (1.16) and ψj(ξ) := ψ(2 ξ) for j ∈ Z, then N ψj(ξ) = 1 for all ξ ∈ R \{0}. (1.23) Z Xj∈ We denote by {∆j}j∈Z the family of Littlewood-Paley projections given by

−1 ∆ju(x) := u ∗F ψj(x), (1.24) 5 ′ RN −1 which is well-deﬁned for all u ∈ Z ( ) (because RN F ψj(x)p(x)dx = 0 for all polynomials p(x) ∈ R[x].) The homogeneous Triebel-Lizorkin space F˙ s,p(RN ) is then deﬁned to be the R q space of all u ∈ Z′(RN ) for which 1/q js q kukF˙ s,p(RN ) := |2 ∆ju| < ∞. (1.25) q Lp(RN ) j∈Z X −1 ∞ RN It was known (c.f. proof of Theorem in [15, Chapter 5.1.5]) that F [Cc ( \{0})], the space of (Schwartz) functions on RN given by inverse Fourier transforms of C∞, compactly RN ˙ s,p RN R supported functions on \{0}, is a dense subset of Fq ( ) for s ∈ , p ∈ (1, ∞) and q ∈ (1, ∞) (see Appendix below for a sketch of proof). Also, for 1

kukLp(RN ) if s =0 kuk ˙ s,p RN ≃ (1.26) F2 ( ) p,N k∇uk p RN if s =1,  L ( ) −1 ∞ RN ′ RN at least if u ∈ F [Cc ( \{0})] (indeed this holds as long as u ∈ S ( ) for which the right hand side of the above display equation is ﬁnite). This allows us to prove the next ˙ s,p RN result, concerning the homogeneous space F2 ( ): Theorem 1.3. For every N ∈ N and p ∈ (1, ∞), there exists a constant C′ = C′(p, N) such −1 ∞ RN that for all s ∈ (0, 1) and all u ∈F [Cc ( \{0})],

u(x) − u(y) ′ ≤ C kuk ˙ s,p RN . (1.27) N F2 ( ) p +s " |x − y| #Lp,∞(RN ×RN ) As a result, for s ∈ (0, 1) and p ∈ (1, ∞), one may deﬁne the left-hand side of (1.27) for all ˙ s,p RN u ∈ F2 ( ) by density, and the inequality (1.27) continues to hold. Theorem 1.3 is the most powerful in the case 1

Proposition 1.4. For every N ∈ N and every p ∈ (1, ∞), there exists a constant C′′ = ′′ −1 ∞ RN C (N,p) so that for all u ∈F [Cc ( \{0})], s ∈ (0, 1), one has

max{ 1 , 1 } u(x) − u(y) ′′ 1 2 p ≤ C kuk ˙ s,p RN . (1.28) N +s Fp ( ) |x − y| p s(1 − s) Lp(RN ×RN ) h i

The left hand side of (1.27) is smaller than the left hand side of (1.28) by Chebyshev’s inequality, but the norm on the right hand side of (1.27) is also smaller than the norm on

the right hand side of (1.28) if 1

u(x) − u(y) max sup kuzk p RN , sup k∇uzk p RN . ? (1.29) L ( ) L ( ) N +s Re z=0 Re z=1 p " |x − y| #Lp,∞(RN ×RN )

Acknowledgements. The authors thank Ha¨ımBrezis and Jean Van Schaftingen for their kind encouragement as we pursued this project, and Armin Schikorra for sharing his thoughts related to Proposition 1.4. They also thank Ka-Sing Lau for his teaching and inspiration over the years.

2. Proof of Theorem 1.1 Proof. As remarked above, the second inequality in (1.2) is essentially known. It was stated without proof in [8]. But for completeness, and also because we need to use it to derive the ﬁrst inequality in (1.2), we give its simple proof below. Indeed, we show that for 1 ≤ p< ∞ and all measurable functions u on RN ,

p u(x) − u(y) p+1 p N ≤ 2 κN kukLp(RN ) (2.1) p " |x − y| #Lp,∞(RN ×RN ) so that the second inequality of (1.2) holds with c2(N) := 2κN , where κN is the volume of the unit ball in RN . N To prove (2.1), given 1 ≤ p< ∞, a measurable u on R , and λ> 0, let Eλ be as in (1.3). Then by the triangle inequality,

1 E ⊂ (x, y) ∈ RN × RN : x =6 y, |u(x)| ≥ λ|x − y|N/p λ 2 (2.2) 1 (x, y) ∈ RN × RN : x =6 y, |u(y)| ≥ λ|x − y|N/p 2 [ 7 so

2N L (Eλ) ≤ 1 (x,y): |y−x|≤(2|u(x)|λ−1)p/N dydx RN RN { } Z Z

+ 1 (x,y): |y−x|≤(2|u(y)|λ−1)p/N dxdy R RN { } Z Z (2.3) −1 p p −1 p p = κN (2λ ) |u(x)| dx + κN (2λ ) |u(y)| dy RN RN Z Z p+1 −p p =2 κN λ kukLp(RN ). (2.1) now follows by multiplying by λp on both sides and taking supremum over all λ> 0. It remains to establish (1.4) for all u ∈ Lp(RN ), 1 ≤ p< ∞, which would then imply the ﬁrst inequality in (1.2). We ﬁrst consider the case under the additional assumption that u is compactly supported on RN . This extra assumption about u will then be removed by using suitable truncations of u, together with (2.1) which handles the error that arises.

Case 1. u is compactly supported. For λ> 0, let Eλ be as in (1.3). Then

2N 2N L (Eλ)=2L (Hλ) (2.4) where N N Hλ := Eλ ∩{(x, y) ∈ R × R : |y| > |x|}. (2.5)

This is because Eλ is the union of its three subsets, one where |y| > |x|, one where |y| < |x|, and one where |y| = |x|. The last set has L2N measure zero, and the ﬁrst two sets have the 2N 2N same L measure by symmetry of the set Eλ. Hence we only need to estimate L (Hλ). Since u is compactly supported, we may assume

N supp u ⊆ BR := {x ∈ R : |x| < R} (2.6)

for some R > 0. Now if (x, y) ∈ Hλ, then we must have x ∈ BR. This is because otherwise

both x, y are outside BR, which by our assumption about the support of u implies that

u(x) = u(y) = 0, and hence (x, y) ∈/ Eλ, contradicting that (x, y) ∈ Hλ. Moreover, for

x ∈ BR, let |u(y) − u(x)| H := y ∈ RN : |y| > |x|, ≥ λ (2.7) λ,x |y − x|N/p and |u(x)| p/N H := y ∈ RN : |y| ≥ R, |y − x| ≤ . (2.8) λ,x,R λ ( ) Then Fubini’s theorem gives

2N N L (Hλ)= L (Hλ,x)dx, (2.9) ZBR while

Hλ,x,R = Hλ,x \ BR, (2.10) 8 because for |y| ≥ R, we have u(y) = 0 and hence |u(x)| = |u(y) − u(x)|. It follows that

Hλ,x,R ⊆ Hλ,x ⊆ Hλ,x,R ∪ BR. (2.11)

N Writing κN = L (B1), from the ﬁrst inclusion in (2.11), we have |u(x)|p LN (H ) ≥LN (H ) ≥ κ − κ RN . (2.12) λ,x λ,x,R N λp N On the other hand, from the second inclusion in (2.11), we have |u(x)|p LN (H ) ≤ κ + κ RN . (2.13) λ,x N λp N

Integrating (2.12) and (2.13) over x ∈ BR, and using (2.9), we obtain κ κ N kukp − κ2 R2N ≤L2N (H ) ≤ N kukp + κ2 R2N . (2.14) λp Lp(RN ) N λ λp Lp(RN ) N Multiplying both sides by λp and letting λ → 0+, we have

p 2N p lim λ L (Hλ)= κN kuk p RN , (2.15) λ→0+ L ( ) as desired.

p RN Case 2. u ∈ L ( ), not necessarily compactly supported. Let uR = u · 1BR be the truncation of u with |x| ≤ R for some R > 0. Let vR = u − uR. Later we will crucially use p RN that kvRkLp(RN ) → 0 as R →∞, which holds only because u ∈ L ( ) and 1 ≤ p< ∞.

Since uR is compactly supported in BR, by (2.13) with λ replaced by λ(1 − σ), we obtain 2κ L2N (A ) ≤ N ku kp + 2(κ RN )2. (2.20) 1 λp(1 − σ)p R Lp(RN ) N

For A2, by using (2.1) for vR, we obtain 2p+1κ L2N (A ) ≤ N kv kp . (2.21) 2 (λσ)p R Lp(RN ) 9 Combining (2.19), (2.20) and (2.21), and multiplying by λp, we obtain 2κ 2p+1κ λpL2N (E ) ≤ N ku kp +2λp(κ RN )2 + N kv kp . (2.22) λ (1 − σ)p R Lp(RN ) N σp R Lp(RN ) We now ﬁrst let λ → 0+, then let R →∞ and ﬁnally let σ → 0+. Since

2N 2N 2N L (Eλ) ≥L (A3) −L (A2). (2.27)

Since uR is compactly supported in BR, by (2.12) with λ replaced by λ(1 + σ), we have 2κ L2N (A ) ≥ N ku kp − 2(κ RN )2. (2.28) 3 λp(1 + σ)p R Lp(RN ) N Combining (2.27), (2.28) and (2.21), and multiplying by λp, we obtain 2κ 2p+1κ λpL2N (E ) ≥ N ku kp − 2λp(κ RN )2 − N kv kp . (2.29) λ (1 + σ)p R Lp(RN ) N σp R Lp(RN ) We now ﬁrst let λ → 0+, then let R →∞ and ﬁnally let σ → 0+. We obtain

p 2N p lim inf λ L (Eλ) ≥ 2κN kuk p RN . (2.30) λ→0+ L ( ) (1.4) then follows from (2.24) and (2.30).

3. Embeddings of homogeneous fractional Triebel-Lizorkin spaces In this section, we first prove Theorem 1.3. Its proof is similar to that of Theorem 1.2, in that it also proceeds via complex interpolation, for the holomorphic family of linear operators ˙ 1,p RN {Tz} defined in (1.14). On the other hand, it is not clear whether T1 maps F2 ( ) to Lp,∞(RN × RN ). Thus we provide a more careful proof below, explaining why interpolation works. 10 −1 ∞ RN First, we recall the subspace F [Cc ( \{0})] which consists of Schwartz functions on RN ˙ s,p RN −1 ∞ RN and is dense in F2 ( ) when s ∈ (0, 1), p ∈ (1, ∞). For u ∈F [Cc ( \{0})], say −1 ∞ RN u = F u and u ∈ Cc ( \{0}), we may define complex powers of Laplacian:

(−∆)zu(x) := (2π|ξ|)2zu(ξ)e2πix·ξdξ, z ∈ C. (3.1) b b RN Z RN C For every fixed x ∈ , this defines an entire functionb of z ∈ . Furthermore, for every C −1 ∞ RN RN fixed z ∈ , this defines a function in F [Cc ( \{0})] ⊂ S( ). Lemma 3.1. For every N ∈ N and 1

(s−z)/2 N+1 k(−∆) uk p RN ≤ A(1 + |Im z|) kuk ˙ s,p RN . (3.2) L ( ) F2 ( ) (b) For z ∈ C with Re z =1, we have

(s−z)/2 N+1 k∇(−∆) uk p RN ≤ A(1 + |Im z|) kuk ˙ s,p RN . (3.3) L ( ) F2 ( ) Proof. The proof is a standard application of the theory of singular integrals. We verify the z-dependence of the constants in (3.2) and (3.3) by providing the necessary details below.

We ﬁrst prove (a). Let z ∈ C with Re z = 0. Write z = it for some t ∈ R. Let {∆˜ j}j∈Z be another family of Littlewood-Paley projections, given by −1 ˜ ∆˜ ju(x) := u ∗F ψj(x), (3.4)

−j ∞ where ψ˜j(ξ) := ψ˜(2 ξ) for some C function supported on {1/4 ≤ |ξ| ≤ 4}, so that ˜ ψ(ξ) = 1 on the support of ψ; this gives ∆˜ j∆j = ∆j for all j ∈ Z. As a result, for −1 ∞ RN Z u ∈F [Cc ( \{0})], j ∈ and s ∈ (0, 1), we have (s−z)/2 js ∆j(−∆) u = (2 ∆ju) ∗ Kj (3.5) −1 −js s−it ˜ where Kj := F [2 (2π|ξ|) ψj] satisﬁes

N+1 −(N+1) sup |∇Kj(x)| .N (1 + |t|) |x| . (3.6) j∈Z (This is because for any multiindices α, one has α −js s−it ˜ |α| −j|α| |∂ξ [2 (2π|ξ|) ψj(ξ)]| .α (1 + |t|) 2 χ|ξ|≃2j (3.7) with implicit constant independent of j ∈ Z, s ∈ (0, 1) and t ∈ R; we may apply this with N+1 ∞ N |α| = N and N +1 to bound |x| |∇Kj(x)| in L (R ).) We may now apply a vector-valued singular integral theorem to the operator

(fj(x))j∈Z 7→ (fj ∗ Kj(x))j∈Z, (3.8) which is clearly bounded on L2(ℓ2) with norm . 1; by [13, Chapter II, Theorem 5], or [14, Chapter I.6.4], this operator is also bounded on Lp(ℓ2) for all 1

1/2 (s−z)/2 (s−z)/2 2 k(−∆) ukLp(RN ) ≃p,N |∆j(−∆) u| p RN Z L ( ) Xj∈ 1/2 N+1 js 2 (3.9) .p,N (1 + |t|) |2 ∆ju| Lp(RN ) j∈Z X N+1 = A(p, N)(1 + |t| ) kuk ˙ s,p RN F2 ( ) the middle inequality following from (3.5) and the boundedness of the operator in (3.8) on Lp(ℓ2). This completes the proof of (a). To deduce (b), one can either appeal to the boundedness of the Riesz transform ∇(−∆)−1/2 on Lp(RN ), or repeat the argument above. We omit the details.

Furthermore, we will need to consider, for 1

∞ 2N N N 1/p [g]Lp,1(RN ×RN ) := p L ({(x, y) ∈ R × R : |g(x, y)| ≥ λ}) dλ < ∞. (3.10) Z0 Just like [·]Lp,∞ , the quantity [·]Lp,1 is not a norm because it does not satisfy the triangle inequality; it is only a quasi-norm. Nevertheless, for 1

′ ∞ kgkLp ,1(RN ×RN ) := sup g(x, y)G(x, y)dxdy :[G]Lp, (RN ×RN ) =1 . (3.11) RN RN Z × ′ ′ If p ∈ (1, ∞), every g ∈ Lp ,1( RN × RN ) can be approximated in the Lp ,1 norm by functions ′ in Lp ,1(RN × RN ) that are compactly supported in the open set {(x, y) ∈ RN × RN : x =6 y} ′ (because such approximation is possible in the comparable Lp ,1(RN × RN ) quasi-norm by the dominated convergence theorem). We are now ready to prove Theorem 1.3.

−1 ∞ RN Proof of Theorem 1.3. We ﬁx s ∈ (0, 1), p ∈ (1, ∞), u ∈ F [Cc ( \ {0})], and g ∈ ′ Lp ,1(RN × RN ) with compact support in {(x, y) ∈ RN × RN : x =6 y}. Consider the function

(−∆)(s−z)/2u(x) − (−∆)(s−z)/2u(y) H(z)= g(x, y) N dxdy. (3.12) RN RN p +z Z × |x − y| This is an entire function of z, and we claim that it is a bounded function on the strip C −1 ∞ RN {z ∈ : 0 ≤ Re z ≤ 1}. Indeed, for u ∈F [Cc ( \{0})], (3.1) gives

(−∆)(s−z)/2u(x)= (2π|ξ|)s−zu(ξ)e2πix·ξdξ for all z ∈ C, (3.13) RN Z 12 b so (s−z)/2 (s−z)/2 (s−z)/2 |(−∆) u(x) − (−∆) u(y)| ≤ 2k(−∆) ukL∞(RN )

s−Re z ≤ 2 (2π|ξ|) |u(ξ)|dξ . exp(a1|Rez|) b Zξ∈supp u (3.14) b 1 if a1 > 0 is large enough so that max{2π|ξ|, 2π|ξ| } ≤ exp(a1) for all ξ ∈ supp u. Also, on the support of g(x, y), we have b 1 . exp(a2|Rez|) (3.15) N +z |x − y| p

−1 if a2 > 0 is large enough so that max{|x − y |, |x − y| : (x, y) ∈ supp g} ≤ exp(a2). Finally, ′ since g ∈ Lp ,1(RN × RN ) has compact support, it is in L1(RN × RN ) as well. So

|H(z)| . kgkL1 exp(a|Rez|) for all z ∈ C (3.16)

where a = a1 + a2. In particular, H(z) is bounded on the strip {z ∈ C: 0 ≤ Re z ≤ 1}, as claimed. Furthermore, for Re z = 0, the upper bound in (1.2), together with (3.2), show that |(−∆)(s−z)/2u(x) − (−∆)(s−z)/2u(y)| |H(z)| ≤ |g(x, y)| N dxdy RN RN p Z × |x − y| (−∆)(s−z)/2u(x) − (−∆)(s−z)/2u(y) ′ ≤kgk p ,1 R2N N L ( ) p,∞ R2N (3.17) |x − y| p L ( ) h i 1/p ′ (s−z)/2 ≤ 2c2 kgkLp ,1(R2N )k(−∆) ukLp(RN ) 1/p N+1 ′ ≤ 2c A(1 + |Im z|) kgk p ,1 R2N kuk ˙ s,p RN . 2 L ( ) F2 ( ) On the other hand, for Re z = 1, the upper bound in (1.10), together with (3.3), show that |(−∆)(s−z)/2u(x) − (−∆)(s−z)/2u(y)| |H(z)| ≤ |g(x, y)| N dxdy RN RN p +1 Z × |x − y| (−∆)(s−z)/2u(x) − (−∆)(s−z)/2u(y) ′ ≤kgk p ,1 R2N N L ( ) +1 p,∞ R2N (3.18) |x − y| p L ( ) h i 1/p ′ (s−z)/2 ≤ C kgkLp ,1(R2N )k∇(−∆) ukLp(RN )

1/p N+1 ′ ≤ C A(1 + |Im z|) kgk p ,1 R2N kuk ˙ s,p RN . L ( ) F2 ( ) (The upper bound in (1.10) applies because (−∆)(s−z)/2u ∈ S(RN ) ⊂ W 1,p(RN ) when u ∈ −1 ∞ RN F [Cc ( \{0})], allowing us to invoke [11, Lemma 3.1].) This allows us to use the three lines lemma from complex analysis to the bounded holomorphic function H(z)/(z + 1)N+1 on the strip {z ∈ C: 0 ≤ Re z ≤ 1}, and conclude that

′ |H(s)| . kgk p ,1 R2N kuk ˙ s,p RN . (3.19) p,N L ( ) F2 ( ) 13 Taking supremum over g, we get

u(x) − u(y) ′ s,p N ≤ C kuk ˙ RN (3.20) +s p,∞ R2N F2 ( ) |x − y| p L ( ) h i ′ ′ −1 ∞ RN where C = C (p, N), and this inequality holds for all u ∈F [Cc ( \{0})]. This shows ˙ s,p RN that the left-hand side may be deﬁned by density for all u ∈ F2 ( ), and that the inequality ˙ s,p RN continues to hold after such extension for all u ∈ F2 ( ). −1 ∞ RN Proof of Proposition 1.4. We just note that for u ∈F [Cc ( \{0})], we have u(x) − u(y) u(x + z) − u(x) N = N (3.21) p +s p +s |x − y| 2 |z| 2 Lp(R N ) Lp(R N )

1/p ksp p .N 2 sup ku(x + z) − u(x)k p (3.22) − L (dx) Z |z|≃2 k ! Xk∈ 1/p p/2 ksp 2 .N,p 2 sup |∆j+ku(x + z) − ∆j+ku(x)| dx , (3.23) − Z |z|≃2 k RN Z ! Xk∈ Z Xj∈ the last inequality following from Littlewood-Paley (note that the sum in j has only ﬁnitely many non-zero terms). We consider two cases. Case 1: 1

p/2 p/2 | Fj| ≤ |Fj| (3.24) j j X X 2 with Fj := |∆j+ku(x + z) − ∆j+ku(x)| . We get 1/p ksp p (3.23) . 2 sup |∆j+ku(x + z) − ∆j+ku(x)| dx (3.25) − Z |z|≃2 k RN Z ! Xk∈ Z Xj∈ 1/p ksp p ≤ 2 sup k∆j+ku(x + z) − ∆j+ku(x)k p . (3.26) − L (dx) Z Z |z|≃2 k ! Xk∈ Xj∈ Now if |z| ≃ 2−k, we write 1 d 1 ∆ u(x + z) − ∆ u(x)= ∆ u(x + tz)dt = z ·∇∆ u(x + tz)dt, (3.27) j+k j+k dt j+k j+k Z0 Z0 so its Lp norm with respect to x is bounded by

−k j |z|k∇∆j+kukLp(RN ) . 2 k∇∆j+kukLp(RN ) .N 2 k∆j+kukLp(RN ). (3.28) This shows j sup k∆j+ku(x + z) − ∆j+ku(x)kLp( dx) .N 2 k∆jukLp(RN ). (3.29) |z|≃2−k 14 We also have the trivial bound

sup k∆j+ku(x + z) − ∆j+ku(x)kLp( dx) ≤ 2k∆jukLp(RN ). (3.30) |z|≃2−k Then combine these two estimate, we write

k∆j+kukLp(RN ) if j > 0, sup k∆j+ku(x + z) − ∆j+ku(x)kLp( dx) .N (3.31) − j |z|≃2 k 2 k∆ uk p RN if j ≤ 0.  j+k L ( ) Then by substituting (3.31) into (3.26), we obtain u(x) − u(y) N (3.32) p +s |x − y| 2 Lp(R N ) 1/p ksp p jp p .N 2 k∆j+kukLp(RN ) + 2 k∆j+kukLp(RN ) (3.33) Z j>0 j≤0 h Xk∈ X X i 1/p −jsp (j+k)sp p j(1−s)p (j+k)sp p = 2 2 k∆j+kukLp(RN ) + 2 2 k∆j+kukLp(RN ) (3.34) j>0 Z j≤0 Z h X Xk∈ X Xk∈ i 1/p −jsp j(1−s)p s,p N = 2 + 2 kukF˙p (R ) (3.35) j>0 j≤0 h X X i 1 1/p ≃ kuk ˙ s,p RN . (3.36) s(1 − s) Fp ( ) Case 2: 2 ≤ p< ∞ We apply Minkowski inequality for Lp/2(RN ) and obtain 1/p p/2 ksp 2 (3.23) ≤ 2 sup k∆j+ku(x + z) − ∆j+ku(x)kLp(dx) (3.37) −k Z |z|≃2 j∈Z ! Xk∈ X 1/p p/2 ksp 2 ≤ 2 sup k∆j+ku(x + z) − ∆j+ku(x)kLp(dx) . (3.38) −k Z j∈Z |z|≃2 ! Xk∈ X But by (3.31), we have 1/p p/2 ksp 2 2j 2 (3.38) ≤ 2 k∆j+kukLp(dx) + 2 k∆j+kukLp(dx) (3.39) Z j>0 j≤0 ! Xk∈ X X 1/2 −2js 2(j+k)s 2 2j(1−s) 2(j+k)s 2 = 2 2 k∆j+kukLp(dx) + 2 2 k∆j+kukLp(dx) . (3.40) j>0 j≤0 p/2 ℓk X X p/2 Applying the Minkowski inequality for ℓ , we bound this by 1/2 1/2 −2js 2j(1−s) 1 2 + 2 kuk ˙ s,p RN . kuk ˙ s,p RN . (3.41) Fp ( ) s(1 − s) Fp ( ) j>0 j≤0 X X 15

4. Appendix: Density in Triebel-Lizorkin spaces In the proof of Theorem 1.3, we appealed to the case s ∈ (0, 1) and q = 2 of the following proposition. Thus we include a sketch of its proof.

−1 ∞ RN ˙ s,p RN R Proposition 4.1. F [Cc ( \{0})] is dense in Fq ( ) for s ∈ , p ∈ (1, ∞) and q ∈ (1, ∞).

R ˙ s,p RN Proof. Fix s ∈ , p ∈ (1, ∞) and q ∈ (1, ∞). First, for u ∈ Fq ( ), since 1/q js q lim |2 ∆ju| =0, (4.1) J→+∞ Lp(RN ) |j|>J X ˙ s,p RN we see that uJ := |j|≤J ∆ju converges in Fq ( ) as J → +∞. RN Next, let φ ∈ SP( ) with φ(0) = 1 whose Fourier transform φ is compactly supported −J on the unit ball. For every ﬁxed J ∈ N, we let uJ,δ(x) := φ(δx)uJ (x). Then for δ ≪ 2 , −1 ∞ RN b ˙ s,p we have uJ,δ ∈ F [Cc ( \{0})]. Thus it remains to show that uJ,δ → uJ in Fq as ∞ N δ → 0. To see this, note that uJ,δ is C on R , so uJ,δ converges pointwisely to uJ as δ → 0. p N Furthermore, uJ,δ is dominated by a multiple of uJ , which is in L (R ), so by the dominate convergence theorem,

lim kuJ,δ − uJ kLp(RN ) =0. (4.2) δ→0 As a result,

lim k∆j(uJ,δ − uJ )kLp(RN ) = 0 (4.3) δ→0 Z ˙ s,p for every j ∈ , which implies the desired convergence of uJ,δ to uJ in Fq as δ → 0. References

[1] Jean Bourgain, Ha¨ımBrezis, and Petru Mironescu, Another look at Sobolev spaces, Optimal control and partial differential equations, IOS, Amsterdam, 2001, pp. 439–455. [2] , Limiting embedding theorems for W s,p when s ↑ 1 and applications, J. Anal. Math. 87 (2002), 77–101. Dedicated to the memory of Thomas H. Wolff. [3] Ha¨ımBrezis, How to recognize constant functions. A connection with Sobolev spaces, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 57 (2002), no. 4(346), 59–74 (Russian, with Russian summary); English transl., Russian Math. Surveys 57 (2002), no. 4, 693–708. [4] Ha¨ımBrezis, Jean Van Schafingen, and Po-Lam Yung, A surprising formula for Sobolev norms, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 118 (2021), no. 8, e2025254118. [5] RenéErl´ınCastillo and Humberto Rafeiro, An introductory course in Lebesgue spaces, CMS Books in Mathematics/Ouvrages de Mathématiques de la SMC, Springer, [Cham], 2016. [6] Juan Dávila, On an open question about functions of bounded variation, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 15 (2002), no. 4, 519–527. [7] Eleonora Di Nezza, Giampiero Palatucci, and Enrico Valdinoci, Hitchhiker’s guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces, Bull. Sci. Math. 136 (2012), no. 5, 521–573. 16 [8] Oscar Dominguez and Mario Milman, New Brezis-Van Schaftingen-Yung Sobolev type inequalities connected with maximal inequalities and one parameter families of operators, arXiv:2010.15873. [9] Loukas Grafakos, Classical Fourier analysis, 3rd ed., Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 249, Springer, New York, 2014. [10] Vladimir Maz′ya, Sobolev spaces with applications to elliptic partial differential equations, Second, revised and augmented edition, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences], vol. 342, Springer, Heidelberg, 2011. [11] Arkady Poliakovsky, Some remarks on a formula for Sobolev norms due to Brezis, Van Schaftingen and Yung, arXiv:2102.00557. [12] Vladimir Maz′ya and Tatyana Shaposhnikova, On the Bourgain, Brezis, and Mironescu theorem concerning limiting embeddings of fractional Sobolev spaces, J. Funct. Anal. 195 (2002), no. 2, 230–238. [13] Elias M. Stein, Singular integrals and differentiability properties of functions, Princeton Mathematical Series, No. 30, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1970. [14] , Harmonic analysis: real-variable methods, orthogonality, and oscillatory integrals, Princeton Mathematical Series, vol. 43, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1993. With the assistance of Timothy S. Murphy; Monographs in Harmonic Analysis, III. [15] Hans Triebel, Theory of function spaces, Modern Birkhäuser Classics, Birkhäuser/Springer Basel AG, Basel, 2010. Reprint of 1983 edition [MR0730762]; Also published in 1983 by Birkhäuser Verlag [MR0781540].

(Q. Gu) Department of Mathematics, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China Email address: [email protected]

(P.-L. Yung) Mathematical Sciences Institute, Australian National University, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia and Department of Mathematics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong Email address: [email protected] Email address: [email protected]