the three lines lemma

Let be a bounded continuous function on the strip that is holomorphic on the interior of the strip. If for and for , then for Re .

\begin{proof} WLOG assume that . For , define

and it is holomorphic inside the strip. Note that and .

For any , there is

because and are bounded. Since as , there exists such that for any and by the maximum modulus principle. It holds for any arbitrarily large and so inside the entire strip. Take and then we finish the proof. \end{proof}

Definition

A measure on a measurable space is semifinite if for any measurable with , there exists a measurable such that .

Theorem

Let be a measure space and let be conjugate exponents. Suppose that is a measurable function on such that for all in the space of simple measurable functions that vanish outside a set of finite measure, and the quantity

is finite. Also, suppose that is -finite if and that is semifinite if . Then and .

\begin{proof} Take a bounded measurable with finite measure support and , then there is a sequence of simple measurable functions such that . Since and , by the dominated convergence theorem we have

Suppose that . Let with finite measure such that . Let be a sequence of simple measurable functions such that pointwise and and let . Then pointwise, , and vanishes outside . Let

Note that . There exists some with satisfying by Riesz representation theorem. Then by Fatou’s lemma

On the other hand, Holder’s inequality gives , so the proof is complete for the case .

Now suppose . Given , let . If were positive, we could choose with since is semifinite. Setting , we would then have , and . But this is impossible by the argument at the beginning of the proof. Hence , and the reverse inequality is obvious. \end{proof}

Remark. Note that is the most crucial condition. It essentially measures how “large” is in terms of its interaction with all , and finite implies that is “not too wild” and suggests that should belong to . Furthermore, with some condition on the measurable space, we get .

Remark. 这个证明不考。

the Riesz-Thorin interpolation theorem

Suppose that and are measure spaces and . If , suppose also that is semifinite. For , define and by

If is a linear map from into such that for and for , then for .

\begin{proof} See here. \end{proof}

Remark. 这个证明不考。

Recall that is not integrable over , and to include such functions we slightly weaken the norms. Let be a measure space and be a measurable function. We consider the distribution function with . Recall that there is

by layer cake representation. Notice that

and so , for all . This leads the following definition.

Definition

Let be a measure space and be a measurable function. Define the distribution function as , and define

which is called the weak -norm of . Furthermore, let us denote

As in the -space, we also regard functions in which are equal a.e. as one function.

By construction we have when . We have seen that . Note that with , we have and it deduces that this inclusion is in general strict, that is .

Definition

Let be a map from some vector space of measurable functions on to the space of all measurable functions on . is called subadditive if and for all and .

A subadditive operator is strong type with , if maps into , and there exists such that

A subadditive operator is weak type with , if maps into , and there exists such that

Also, we shall say that is weak type iff is strong type .

Marcinkiewicz

Let and be measure spaces and . Let be a subadditive operator defined on . If is of weak type and then it is also of strong type for every .

\begin{proof} Firstly, assume that . Fix . By ^a9aid4, we can take some number and decompose where and . Then and . We have

Since is subadditive, there is and so . Since is of weak type and of weak type , we have

Thus we have

Observe that and , then , where

and

Hence, and so is of strong type .

Now assume that . In this case, we have for all , and for all . The case can be settled easily, and then we assume that . Let and set

Since , we have , which implies that . Hence

It then follows from the same calculations as in the case 1 that

Therefore, and so is of strong type . \end{proof}