Showing posts with label harmonic analysis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label harmonic analysis. Show all posts

Some applications of Littlewood Paley decompositions

Throughout this post $ {d\in\mathbb{N}}$ will be a fixed dimension constant. Recall that the $ {k}$-th Littlewood-Paley "projection'' of $ {f\in\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^{d})}$, $ {k\in\mathbb{Z}}$, is defined as
$ \displaystyle P_{k}f=(\varphi_{k}\hat{f})^{\vee}, $
where $ {\varphi_{k}(\xi)=\varphi_{0}(2^{-k}\xi)}$, $ {\varphi_{0}(\xi)=\psi(\xi)-\psi(2\xi)}$ and $ {\psi}$ s a $ {C^{\infty}}$ bump function supported in $ {B(0,2)}$ and equals $ {1}$ in $ {B(0,1)}$ in the frequency space. These operators are frequency localisation operators, where each piece $ {P_{k}f}$ of $ {f}$ is localised to frequency $ {\sim2^{k}}$, since the Fourier support of $ {P_{k}f}$ is precisely the annulus $ {\text{Ann}(2^{k-1},2^{k})}$. The purpose of this post is to see some applications of frequency localisation, in particular in understanding derivatives.

There are three basic interconnected heuristics that one should keep in mind about the frequency localisation of a function, in particular Littlewood-Paley pieces $ {\{P_{k}f\}_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}}$:
  • Localisation to frequency $ {\sim2^{k}}$ basically distroys all the spatial information under scale $ {\sim2^{-k}}$. More precisely, $ {P_{k}f}$ essentially ocsillates like the plaine wave $ {e^{2^{k}ix}}$, and also differentiating $ {P_{k}f}$ in the spacial variable mainly amplifies itself by a factor of $ {2^{k}}$, c.f. Lemma 6.
  • Different $ {P_{k}f}$ are "almost orthogonal'' to each other. In fact, the $ {P_{k}f}$ and $ {P_{l}f}$ are exactly $ {L^{2}}$-orthogonal whenever $ {|k-l|>1}$. c.f. Theorem 7 Littlewood Paley inequality.
  • For a frequency localised function such as $ {P_{k}f}$, lower $ {L^{p}}$ norms control higher $ {L^{q}}$ norms. This is analogous to the case of spatial localised function (i.e. functions that has compact support), for which the control is reversed, by the merit of Hölder's inequality. c.f. Lemma 8 Bernstein's inequality, or the closely related Young's convolution inequality, which will be the ultimate source of varous embedding inequalities.

Some Examples of the Calderón-Zygmund operators

In this post we study various examples of ``singular integral operator''. Those included here are
  • The Riesz transforms, which recover the Hessian of a Schwartz function from its Laplacian;
  • Regular parametrix of constant coefficient linear (hypo)elliptic operators, and their distributional derivatives, which are responsible for the regularity property of their solutions;
  • Littlewood Paley projections, which is a convenient tool of multiresolution analysis.
In the above examples the kernel of the operator is ``singular'', in the sense that it's not always locally integrable, yet the operator has nice boundedness properties, established by Calderón and Zymund, and others. Roughly speaking, that they can have such properties is due to the following two properties:
  • The kernels have certain cancellation condition, or when it is a convolutional operator, the closely related property that their Fourier transform (i.e. corresponding multiplier) is bounded. In general it is the $L^2$ boundedness of the operator. This in some sense makes it possible to bound those functions that have big height but low oscillation.
  • The kernels, and their derivatives, have "integrable decay'', or the closely related property that their multipliers are $ {C^{\infty}}$ functions that satisfy some differential inequalities corresponding to that decay. This in some sense makes it possible to bound those functions that have low height but big oscillation.
There is a more precise procedure to implement above intuitive argument, that is the famous Calderón-Zygmund decomposition, together with real interpolation. However, it should be noted that the argument only leads to a weak type bound in the endpoint case $L^{1}$ and $L^{\infty}$, and in that case more delicate nature of the functions (cf. the $\bf{H^{1}}$ and $BMO$) have to be considered. These boundedness properties will not be studied here, instead I want to present how these examples arise naturally in various questions, then I will identify them as such operators, and explain why studying them is important.


Singular integrals: a starter

 We begin with the simpliest subject of our current theme of study, namely the Hilbert transform. It often appears in two forms. One is as a Fourier multiplier operator: in the case the underlying space is $ {\mathbb{R}}$,
$ \displaystyle H(f)(x)=\int_{\mathbb{R}}f^{\wedge}(\xi)\frac{\text{sign}(\xi)}{i}e^{2\pi ix\xi}\thinspace d\xi $
for $ {f\in L^{2}(\mathbb{R})}$, where
$ \displaystyle \text{sign}(\xi)=\begin{cases} 1 & \xi>0\\ 0 & \xi=0\\ -1 & \xi<0 \end{cases};\ f^{\wedge}(\xi):=\int_{\mathbb{R}}f(x)e^{-2\pi i\xi x}\,dx $
or in the case the underlying space is a circle $ {\mathbb{T}}$,
$ \displaystyle H(f)(\theta)=\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}f^{\wedge}(n)\frac{\text{sign}(n)}{i}e^{in\theta} $
where $ {f\in L^{2}([0,2\pi])}$, and
$ \displaystyle \text{sign}(n)=\begin{cases} 1 & n>0\\ 0 & n=0\\ -1 & n<0 \end{cases};\ f^{\wedge}(n):=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{[0,2\pi]}f(x)e^{-inx}\,dx. $
(Note that the sign function vanishes on a measure zero set on $ {\mathbb{R}}$, but on a measure 1 set on $ {\mathbb{Z}}$. This ultimately causes the constant mode of the periodic function jumping out in various identities, compared to their analogs for functions on $ {\mathbb{R}}$. This is however not essential.) The other formulation is as a "singular integral operator'', as will be ellaborated below. It is in the 19th and earlier 20th centuries that the properties of this operator came into interest, for its fundamental connection with the following two questions that arised in Analysis.

The first one is that of convergence, in some appropriate sense, of the symmetric partial sum of the Fourier series of an integrable function $ {f:[0,2\pi]\rightarrow\mathbb{C}}$
$ \displaystyle S_{N}(f)(\theta):=\sum_{|n|\leq N}f^{\wedge}(n)e^{in\theta}\rightarrow f(\theta)\ ? $
At that time Lebesgue's integration theory had not been developed. However, that under the condition of $ {C^{1}}$ regularity of the function, the pointwise convergence was already clear to Dirichlet, in 1829, who told in private that he would soon resolve the case when $ {f}$ is continuous. This was disproved in 1873, by du Bois Reymond. Then after the work of Lebesgue, under the condition of square integrability of $ {f}$, the $ {L^{2}}$ convergence can be established using elemental Hilbert space technique, invented during the end of the 19th century. Later, achieved by Marcel Riesz in 1923, the $ {L^{p}}$ convergence was shown to be true for all $ {1<p<\infty}$. Nevertheless, the "local'' convergence behavior turns out much more intricate, and the a.e. convergence for $ {L^{2}}$ functions was eventually resolved by Carleson, in 1966.

The Hilbert transform enters the above question as follows. The symmetric partial sum can be regarded as the convolution with the Dirichlet kernel (this is no incidence: a bounded multiplier must correspond to a distributional kernel that commutes with translations)
$ \displaystyle S_{N}(f)(\theta)=f*D_{N}\thinspace(\theta), $
where
$ \displaystyle D_{N}(x)=\sum_{|n|\leq N}e^{inx}. $

The integral operator so defined is actually the orthogonal projection $ {P_{|n|\leq N}}$ to the space spanned by $ {\{e^{inx}\}_{|n|\leq N}}$, which is associated with the following multiplier on the intergers
$ \displaystyle m_{S_{N}}(n)=\chi_{|n|\leq N}=\begin{cases} 1 & |n|\leq N\\ 0 & \text{otherwise} \end{cases}. $
Denote the multiplier of the Hilber transform on the circle by $ {m_{H}(n):=\frac{1}{i}\text{sign}(n)}$. And notice that
$ \displaystyle m_{S_{N}}(n)=\frac{i}{2}\left(m_{H}(n+N)-m_{H}(n-N)\right)+\frac{1}{2}\chi_{\{\pm N\}}. $
Then, in terms of operator,
$ \displaystyle S_{N}(f)(\theta)=\frac{ie^{-iN\theta}H(e^{iN\theta}f)-ie^{iN\theta}H(e^{-iN\theta}f)}{2}+\frac{P_{\pm N}}{2}. $
Hence the study of the boundedness properties of the family of operators $ {S_{N}}$ reduces to the boundedness property of operators $ {H}$ and $ {P_{\pm N}}$.

The second question is concerned with a different summation method of Fourier series, and its connection to complex analysis. Here for each $ {\theta\in[0,2\pi]}$, the Fourier series is called Abel summable to $ {f(\theta)}$ if
$ \displaystyle \sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}f^{\wedge}(n)r^{|n|}e^{in\theta}\rightarrow f(\theta) $
as $ {r\rightarrow1}$. Similar to the symmetric partial sum, Abel summation can also be written as a convolution of $ {f}$ with a kernel. This time it is the Poisson kernel for the unit disk
$ \displaystyle f*\mathcal{P}_{r}\thinspace(\theta), $
where
$ \displaystyle \mathcal{P}_{r}(\theta)=\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}r^{|n|}e^{in\theta}=\frac{1-r^{2}}{1-2r\cos\theta+r^{2}}. $
We remark that if for a.e. $ {\theta\in[0,2\pi]}$, a Fourier series is Abel summable and moreover, $ {f^{\wedge}(n)=0}$ for all $ {n<0}$, then $ {f}$ , originally defined on the unit circle, can be extended to a holomorphic function inside the unit disk, by
$ \displaystyle F(z)=\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}f^{\wedge}(n)z^{n}. $
It is of interest that when the a.e. convergence holds. In sharp contrast to the symmetric partial sum method, it turns out that the result holds even for integrable functions. This is to be explained by the fact that the family of Poisson kernels, indexed in $ {r}$, forms an approximations to the identity, while it is not the case for the Dirichlet kernels.

Now we ask the converse, that is, given a holomorphic function $ {F}$ in the unit disk, then under what conditions $ {F}$ will have radial limit on the circle, i.e.
$ \displaystyle \lim_{r\rightarrow1^{-}}F(re^{i\theta})\ \text{ exists for a.e. $\theta\in [0,2\pi]$?} $
Suppose $ {F}$ has the power series expansion $ {\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}a_{n}z^{n}}$. Now by Parseval's identity
$ \displaystyle \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}|a_{n}|^{2}r^{2n}=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{[0,2\pi]}|F(re^{i\theta})|^{2}d\theta,\ 0\leq r<1. $
Thus, assume that
so that the series $ {\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}|a_{n}|^{2}}$ converges to the above quantity, and thus has a corresponding $ {L^{2}}$ function $ {F_{0}(e^{i\theta}).}$ Since $ {L^{2}([0,2\pi])\subset L^{1}([0,2\pi])}$, by the above paragraph we have the limit $ {\lim_{r\rightarrow1^{-}}F(re^{i\theta})}$ exists for a.e. $ {\theta}$. This result was obtained by Fatou.

The space of holomorphic functions on the unit disk satisfying the bound (1) is called the Hardy space $ {H^2(\mathbb{D})}$, with norm $ {\|F\|_{H^{2}(\mathbb{D})}}$ defined to be the quantity on the LHS of (1). It can be identified with the closed subspace $ {\ell^{2}(\mathbb{Z}_{+})}$ of the Hilbert space $ {\ell^{2}(\mathbb{Z})}$, or equivalently the space $ {\mathcal{S}}$ of square integrable functions on the cirlce whose Fourier coefficients vanish for $ {n<0}$. In view of this, define the orthogonal projection from $ {L^{2}([0,2\pi])}$ to $ {\mathcal{S}}$, and write in the corresponding element in $ {H^{2}(\mathbb{D})}$
$ \displaystyle \begin{array}{rcl} P(f)(z): & = & \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}a_{n}z^{n}.\\ & = & \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\left(\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{[0,2\pi]}f(e^{i\theta})e^{-in\theta}\thinspace d\theta\right)z^{n}\\ & = & \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{[0,2\pi]}f(e^{i\theta})\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\left(e^{-i\theta}z\right)^{n}\thinspace d\theta\\ & = & \frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{S^{1}}\frac{f(\zeta)}{\zeta-z}\thinspace d\zeta, \end{array} $
which turns out to be the Cauchy integral on the circle. On the other hand, notice that
For this reason, $ {H(f)}$ is often called conjugate to $ {f}$, and hence can be also identified the imaginary part of the Cauchy kernel of the unit circle
$ \displaystyle \frac{1}{i(\zeta-z)}d\zeta=\frac{ie^{i\psi}d\psi}{i(e^{i\psi}-re^{i\theta})}=\mathcal{P}_{r}(\theta-\psi)d\psi+\frac{d\psi}{2}+i\mathcal{Q}_{r}(\theta-\psi)d\psi. $
Here $ {Q_{r}(\theta)}$ is known as the conjugate Poisson kernel. In explicit form,
$ \displaystyle \mathcal{Q}_{r}(\theta-\psi)=\frac{r\sin(\theta-\psi)}{1-2r\cos\theta+r^{2}}\rightarrow\frac{1}{2}\cot(\frac{\theta-\psi}{2}) $
as $ {r\rightarrow1^{-}}$. Unlike Poisson's kernel, it is not absolutely integrable, thus called "singular'', near the diagonal $ {\theta=\psi}$, but note that $ {\cot(x)}$ is an odd function on $ {[-\pi,\pi]}$, which is one manifestation of the {cancellation property} for such singular integral operators.

Now we turn to the analogous results of the above for functions on the real line, where the unit disk is replaced by the upper half space $ {\mathbb{R}_{+}^{2}:=\{(x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^{2}:y>0\}}$. Starting with a function $ {F_{0}^{\wedge}\in L^{2}(0,\infty)}$, define its Laplace transform to be
which can be viewed as an "integral version'' of Abel summation of the Fourier series $ {\sum_{n\geq0}f^{\wedge}(n)}$. (The analogue for $ {\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}f^{\wedge}(n)}$ will be given by $ {\int_{\mathbb{R}}f^{\wedge}(\xi)e^{-2\pi|\xi|y}e^{2\pi ix\xi}\thinspace d\xi}$.) Since for any $ {\delta>0}$, if $ {y\geq\delta}$, the integral has the uniform bound
$ \displaystyle \int_{[0,\infty)}|F_{0}^{\wedge}(\xi)e^{2\pi i\xi z}|\thinspace d\xi\leq\left(\int_{[0,\infty)}|F_{0}^{\wedge}(\xi)|^{2}\thinspace d\xi\right)^{1/2}\left(\int_{[0,\infty)}e^{-4\pi\xi\delta}\thinspace d\xi\right)^{1/2}, $
so $ {F}$ is in fact holomorphic in $ {\mathbb{R}_{+}^{2}}$. Plancherel's identity implies that
$ \displaystyle \int_{\mathbb{R}}|F(x+iy)|^{2}\thinspace dx=\int_{[0,\infty)}|F_{0}^{\wedge}(\xi)|^{2}e^{-4\pi\xi y}\thinspace d\xi\leq\|F_{0}^{\wedge}\|_{L^{2}(0,\infty)}^{2} $
and by the monotone convergence theorem
$ \displaystyle \sup_{y>0}\int_{\mathbb{R}}|F(x+iy)|^{2}\thinspace dx=\|F_{0}^{\wedge}\|_{L^{2}(0,\infty)}^{2}. $

As before, the Hardy space $ {H^{2}(\mathbb{R}_{+}^{2})}$ is defined to be the space of holomorphic functions on $ {\mathbb{R}_{+}^{2}}$ satisfying the condition
$ \displaystyle \sup_{y>0}\int_{\mathbb{R}}|F(x+iy)|^{2}\thinspace dx<\infty, $
and equipped with the norm $ {\|F\|_{H^{2}(\mathbb{R}_{+}^{2})}}$ to be the above quantity.

Given such a function $ {F}$ with suitable decaying property, via a contour integration argument, its inverse Laplace transform satisfies, for any $ {y_{1},y_{2}>0}$.
$ \displaystyle \int_{\mathbb{R}}F(x+iy_{1})e^{-2\pi i\xi(x+iy_{1})}\thinspace dx=\int_{\mathbb{R}}F(x+iy_{2})e^{-2\pi i\xi(x+iy_{2})}\thinspace dx. $
In other words, there is a deck transformation rule
$ \displaystyle F_{y_{1}}^{\wedge}(\xi)e^{2\pi y_{1}\xi}=F_{y_{2}}^{\wedge}(\xi)e^{2\pi y_{2}\xi}. $
A limiting argument shows this it is true for all $ {F\in H^{2}(\mathbb{R}_{+}^{2})}$. Hence the function $ {F_{0}^{\wedge}(\xi):=F_{y}^{\wedge}(\xi)e^{2\pi y\xi}}$ is well defined, and by Plancherel's identity
$ \displaystyle \int_{\mathbb{R}}|F(x+iy)|^{2}\thinspace dx=\int_{\mathbb{R}}|F_{0}^{\wedge}(\xi)|^{2}e^{-4\pi y\xi}\thinspace dx. $
Thus,
$ \displaystyle \|F\|_{H^{2}(\mathbb{R}_{+}^{2})}=\int_{\mathbb{R}}|F_{0}^{\wedge}(\xi)|^{2}\thinspace dx $
and $ {H^{2}(\mathbb{R}_{+}^{2})}$ can be identified with the Hilbert space $ {L^{2}(0,\infty)}$ via (3).

It then follows that $ {F}$ has boundary values $ {F_{0}}$, the inverse Fourier transform of $ {F_{0}^{\wedge}}$, in the $ {L^{2}}$ sense. It also holds a.e., once we have the Poisson integral representation
$ \displaystyle F(x+iy)=\int_{[0,\infty)}F_{0}^{\wedge}(\xi)e^{2\pi i\xi z}\thinspace d\xi=\int_{\mathbb{R}}F_{0}(x-t)\mathcal{P}_{y}(t)\thinspace dt $
or more generally,
$ \displaystyle \int_{\mathbb{R}}f^{\wedge}(\xi)e^{-2\pi|\xi|y}e^{2\pi ix\xi}\thinspace d\xi=\int_{\mathbb{R}}f(x-t)\mathcal{P}_{y}(t)\thinspace dt $
where $ {\mathcal{P}_{y}(x)=\frac{1}{\pi}\frac{y}{x^{2}+y^{2}}}$ is the Poisson kernel for the upper half space. To see this, define the Cauchy kernel for $ {y>0}$
$ \displaystyle C(x+iy)=\int_{\mathbb{R}}e^{2\pi i|\xi|z}\thinspace d\xi=\int_{\mathbb{R}}2\chi_{[0,\infty)}e^{2\pi i\xi z}\thinspace d\xi=\frac{i}{\pi z}. $
Then
$ \displaystyle \begin{array}{rcl} \mathcal{P}_{y}(x) & = & \int_{\mathbb{R}}e^{-2\pi|\xi|y}e^{2\pi ix\xi}\thinspace d\xi\\ & = & \int_{[0,\infty)}e^{-2\pi\xi y}e^{2\pi ix\xi}\thinspace d\xi+\int_{[0,\infty)}e^{-2\pi\xi y}e^{-2\pi ix\xi}\thinspace d\xi\\ & = & \frac{1}{2}(C(x+iy)+C(-x+iy))\\ & = & \frac{1}{\pi}\frac{y}{x^{2}+y^{2}}. \end{array} $

Notice that for $ {y>0}$
$ \displaystyle \frac{i}{\pi z}=\mathcal{P}_{y}(x)+i\mathcal{Q}_{y}(x) $
where $ {\mathcal{Q}_{y}(x)=\frac{1}{\pi}\frac{x}{x^{2}+y^{2}}}$ is the conjugate Poisson kernel. We would like to know what happens when $ {y\rightarrow0}$. This is the clearest in terms of multipliers. We have, corresponding to the above,
$ \displaystyle 2\chi_{[0,\infty)}e^{-2\pi\xi y}=e^{-2\pi|\xi|y}+\frac{1}{i}\text{sign}(\xi)e^{-2\pi|\xi|y} $
and as $ {y\rightarrow0}$,
$ \displaystyle 2\chi_{[0,\infty)}(\xi)=1+\text{sign}(\xi)=1+im_{H}(\xi), $
where $ {m_{H}(\xi)=\frac{1}{i}\text{sign}(\xi)}$ is the Fourier multiplier of the Hilbert transform on the real line. One thus has
$ \displaystyle H(f)(x)=\lim_{y\rightarrow0}\int_{\mathbb{R}}f(x-t)\mathcal{Q}_{y}(t)\thinspace dt $
in $ {L^{2}}$. We shall now focus on distributional property of $ {\mathcal{Q}_{y}(t)}$ as $ {y\rightarrow0}$. Assume $ {\varphi}$ is a test function. For any $ {\epsilon>0}$,
$ \displaystyle \begin{array}{rcl} & & \int_{\mathbb{R}}\varphi(t)\mathcal{Q}_{y}(t)\thinspace dt\\ & = & \int_{|t|<\epsilon}\varphi(t)\mathcal{Q}_{y}(t)\thinspace dt+\int_{|t|\geq\epsilon}\varphi(t)\mathcal{Q}_{y}(t)\thinspace dt\\ & = & \int_{|t|<\epsilon}(\varphi(t)-\varphi(0))\mathcal{Q}_{y}(t)\thinspace dt+\int_{|t|\geq\epsilon}\varphi(t)\mathcal{Q}_{y}(t)\thinspace dt\\ & =: & A+B \end{array} $
Here the {cancellation property} of $ {\mathcal{Q}_{y}(x)}$ plays a role. It is clear that $ {A=O(\epsilon)}$, and so
$ \displaystyle \int_{\mathbb{R}}\varphi(t)\mathcal{Q}_{y}(t)\thinspace dt=\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow0}\int_{|t|\geq\epsilon}\varphi(t)\mathcal{Q}_{y}(t)\thinspace dt. $
We now wish to take $ {y\rightarrow0}$. When $ {|t|\geq\epsilon}$ it is clear that $ {\mathcal{Q}_{y}(t)\rightarrow\frac{1}{\pi t}}$ as $ {y\rightarrow0}$. This amounts to estimate
$ \displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi}\int_{|t|\geq\epsilon}\varphi(t)\thinspace\frac{dt}{t}-\int_{\mathbb{R}}\varphi(t)\mathcal{Q}_{\epsilon}(t)\thinspace dt=\int_{\mathbb{R}}\varphi(t)\Delta_{\epsilon}(t)\thinspace dt, $
where
$ \displaystyle \Delta_{\epsilon}(t)=\begin{cases} -\mathcal{Q}_{\epsilon}(t) & \text{if }|t|<\epsilon\\ \frac{1}{t}-\mathcal{Q}_{\epsilon}(t) & \text{if }|t|\geq\epsilon \end{cases}, $
which again satisfies a cancellation property. It's then not hard to see that
$ \displaystyle \begin{array}{rcl} & & \left|\int_{\mathbb{R}}\varphi(t)\Delta_{\epsilon}(t)\thinspace dt\right|\\ & = & \left|\int_{|t|<\epsilon}(\varphi(t)-\varphi(0))\Delta_{\epsilon}(t)\thinspace dt\right|+\left|\int_{\epsilon\leq|t|<1}(\varphi(t)-\varphi(0))\Delta_{\epsilon}(t)\thinspace dt\right|+\left|\int_{|t|\geq1}\varphi(t)\Delta_{\epsilon}(t)\thinspace dt\right|\\ & = & O(\epsilon+\epsilon\log\epsilon+\epsilon). \end{array} $
We conclude that $ {\mathcal{Q}_{y}(x)\rightarrow\frac{1}{\pi}\text{p.v.}(\frac{1}{x})}$ in distribution as $ {y\rightarrow0}$, and the Hilbert transform ca be written as a singular integral operator
$ \displaystyle H(f)=\frac{1}{\pi}\text{p.v.}(\frac{1}{x})*f. $
Moreover, since $ {\mathcal{P}_{y}(x)\rightarrow\frac{1}{\pi}\delta_{0}}$ in distributon as $ {y\rightarrow0}$, denoting the distributional limit of $ {\frac{1}{z}}$ to be $ {\frac{1}{x+i0}}$ as $ {y\rightarrow0}$, we have the following distributional identity for kernels
$ \displaystyle \frac{1}{x+i0}=\text{p.v.}(\frac{1}{x})-i\pi\delta $
corresponding to identity for multipliers above.
Again, one can define the orthogonal projection $ {P}$ from $ {L^{2}(\mathbb{R})}$ to the closed subspace that contains functions whose Fourier transforms are supported on $ {[0,\infty)}$. It is realized by the Cauchy integral
$ \displaystyle F(z)=\int_{\mathbb{R}}\frac{f(t)}{t-z}\thinspace dt=\int_{[0,\infty)}f^{\wedge}(\xi)e^{2\pi i\xi z}\thinspace d\xi,\ z\in\mathbb{R}_{+}^{2} $
which maps $ {L^{2}(\mathbb{R})}$ onto $ {H^{2}(\mathbb{R}_{+}^{2})}$.

Distributions in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and the Fourier transform

 Let us recall the integration by part formula:
$ \displaystyle \int_{\Omega}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_{i}}\varphi\,dx+\int_{\Omega}f\frac{\partial\varphi}{\partial x_{i}}\,dx=\int_{\partial\Omega}f\varphi\,\nu_{i}d\Gamma $
where functions are smooth and integrable, and $ {\partial\Omega}$ is regular. If the RHS vanishes, in particular when the function $ {\varphi}$ is compactly supported in $ {\Omega}$, then
$ \displaystyle \int_{\Omega}f\frac{\partial\varphi}{\partial x_{i}}\,dx=-\int_{\Omega}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_{i}}\varphi\,dx, $
and more generally, in multi-index notation
$ \displaystyle \int_{\Omega}f(\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\varphi)\,dx=(-1)^{|\alpha|}\int_{\Omega}(\partial_{x}^{\alpha}f)\varphi\,dx. $
The map $ {(u,v)\mapsto\int_{\Omega}uv\,dx}$ is easily seen to be symmetric, bilinear and positive definite, so can be morally viewed as an inner product $ {\langle u,v\rangle}$, or more generally, a duality pairing. Then we see from the above that the linear differential operator $ {\partial_{x}^{\alpha}}$, whose domain is $ {C_{c}^{\infty}(\Omega)}$, has its adjoint $ {(-1)^{|\alpha|}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}}$.

While for an ordinary function $ {f}$ that is merely integrable, the expression $ {\partial_{x}^{\alpha}f}$ doesn't make too much sense, however, the expression $ {\int_{\Omega}f(\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\varphi)\,dx}$ is still well-defined. This suggests an extension of the adjoint operator, initially defined on smooth functions, to a larger space. For that we need to choose a topology on $ {C_{c}^{\infty}(\Omega)}$ (one that makes it into a locally convex topological vector space), from which we can get its dual space $ {C_{c}^{\infty}(\Omega)'}$, as the candidate space for extension. The topology should be such that the resulting extension is "reasonable'' enough: if a sequence $ {f_{n}\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\Omega)}$ is such that
$ \displaystyle \langle\varphi,f_{n}\rangle\rightarrow\langle\varphi,f\rangle $
holds for all $ {\varphi\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\Omega)}$, which in particular implies
$ \displaystyle \langle\partial_{x_{i}}\varphi,f_{n}\rangle\rightarrow\langle\partial_{x_{i}}\varphi,f\rangle $
for all $ {\varphi\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\Omega)}$, then it should hold that
$ \displaystyle \langle\partial_{x_{i}}\varphi,f\rangle=\langle\varphi,-\partial_{x_{i}}f\rangle $
since it holds true for the sequence $ {f_{n}}$. In other words, the adjoint operator should be continuously extended, with respect to the duality pairing topology, i.e. the weak* topology. As such, the topology to be placed on $ {C_{c}^{\infty}(\Omega)}$ is expected to be very strong, in order for the unbounded operators such as $ {\partial_{x}^{\alpha}}$ to have a continuous extension. This means that we will get a very large dual space $ {C_{c}^{\infty}(\Omega)'}$, known as the space of distributions on $ {\Omega}$.

This post has been mainly influenced by Terry's notes, where many quotations are from him; also Hörmander's Analysis of linear partial differential operators, Vol. 1, and Stein's several books. The applications of this part of the theory are so fascinating that I decide to devote my next post to them.

Schauder estimate

From known results in potential theory for the Poisson equation
$ \displaystyle \Delta u=f, $
Schauder was able to develop a linear elliptic theory in the framework of classical solutions, which will be presented in this article. The fundamental observation is that locally, equations
$ \displaystyle Lu=f $
under appropriate assumptions can be regarded as perturbations of the Poisson equation. Before commencing the analysis we will first develop some intuition with Hölder spaces, as well as some general strategy in dealing with estimate with Hölder-type quantities. This will be done in Section 2. The attack on this perturbation analysis will thus need to face the following strategical questions:
  • what are the most essential problems that one can reduce to? 
  • what kind of estimates does one need to make?*
  • what assumptions does one need, so that the results from the potential theory (or, the constant coefficient case)  become useful?
The somewhat vague question* shall be partially answered in Section 5, given the guidance from the Banach's two famous theorems in linear functional analysis. However, the technique will shine at its full extent only after one grasps the ideas in Section 3, where the first and the third questions are addressed. The answers to these questions, though not always explicit stated, should constitute the basic philosophy in attacking similar problems.

In the exposition we have largely followed the book by Gilbarg and Trudinger. Materials for Hölder spaces are mainly collected from notes of Tao.

Interpolation of $ {L^{p}}$ estimates

In this post I collect some background material of the very useful interpolation technique, i.e. the Marcinkiewicz interpolation theorem, which is used for example in the $L^p$-estimates of strong solutions of an elliptic equation.  It says that if we have a pair of "weak type" estimate of a sublinear operator, then one can in fact "interpolate" these estimates to be a "strong type" estimate in the intermediate cases (which fails in the endpoint cases). A prototypical example is Hardy-Littlewood maximal operator, where we have the inequality
$m\{x:f^*(x)>\alpha\}\leq \frac{C}{\alpha} \| f\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R^d})},$
and a trivial estimate
$\|f^*\|_{L^\infty} \leq \|f\|_{L^\infty}$, 
Then it holds that
$\|f^*\|_{L^p} \leq C(p)\|f\|_{L^p}$, 
for all $1< p< \infty$. 

The M. Riesz -Thorin interpolation theorem is also collected, as an illustration of the complex interpolation method. In contrast to the above, it interpolates two "strong type" estimate. But because of the use of complex analysis, the constants are often optimal. Its many applications include the Hausdorff-Young inequality, which says the Fourier transform is bounded from $ L^p $ to $ L^q $, with $1 \leq p \leq 2$ and $ 1/p + 1/q = 1$. And also the boundedness of Hilbert transform on $ L^p $ for $ 1 < p < \infty $. For discussions on these examples, see Stein's book on functional analysis, whereas here I have basically followed Terry's note for this exposition. 

Throughout this post we will assume our underlying measure spaces are $\sigma$-finite, so that we can do limiting argument in cases such as $p=\infty$, but otherwise can be extended to non-$\sigma$-finite cases as well.