Theorem

If is a Lipschitz map, that is, there exists such that , , then maps measurable sets into measurable sets.

\begin{proof} We can prove that:

  • maps -set to -set, because continuous map preserves compact sets and -set can be covered by countable union of compact sets;
  • maps sets of measure zero into sets of measure zero by considering the cover of sets with cubes.

Recall that for any measurable set , there exists -set and of measure zero such that . Then we finish the proof. \end{proof}

Lemma

If is measurable in , then the function is measurable in .

\begin{proof} Define , then is measurable because . Define , then is Lipschitz. Note that and is measurable by ^179d20. Thus is measurable. \end{proof}

Remark. If we take , the proof also works. ChatGPT tells me the choice of  might simply reflect a convention or aesthetic preference.

Lemma

Assume that .

  • , and
  • If , and , then .

\begin{proof} i) Note that if , then

Then for any , we have and so . Then by Fubini’s theorem, there is .

ii) Let , and let be the conjugate exponent to . By Holder’s inequality,

Then using the Fubini theorem, there is

and then taking roots gives our desire result.

When , for any given , we have

By the arbitrary of , we finish the proof. \end{proof}

The definition of is written in this remark.

Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev

Let . Then for every is measurable in . Moreover,

  • if , then for a constant that depends only on , and ;
  • if , then

\begin{proof} See here.

读了一遍,大概拿中文写个大纲:

  • 先考虑nonnegative f的情况,估计 的大小。
    • 分成 两部分来算积分,后者用Holder估计,前者用 the HardyLittlewood maximal function 在一系列圆环来做(因为这样可以避开奇点)
    • 取一个 把前面两部分得到的丑陋的两个常数操作一下,得到 .
  • ^4tmmbv. 现在我们完成了 i) 的对于 nonnegative 的证明。
  • 时,还是用 的估计,用一下 Hardy-Littlewood. 现在我们完成了 ii) 的对于 nonnegative 的证明。
  • 现在考虑一般的 ,注意到 就可以了。 \end{proof}

Remark. Here is a motivation of ^z20dwo. Define

and note that it is a convolution of and . By Fubini’s theorem, we know and so exists but it is not necessary finite.

We aim to find and such that is a bounded operator from to . It will turn out that the values of and for which the norm inequality

is true, for some independent of , are limited to

To explain it, we need to verify the following observation:

  • If , there exists such that everywhere in . That is, cannot hold if .
  • If and , there exists such that . Thus, fails when and .
  • If , the only value of for which can possibly hold for all satisfies .

The computation is omitted.

Remark. 这个证明不考。