Abstract
We improve our results on boundedness of the Riesz potential in the central Morrey–Orlicz spaces and the corresponding weak-type version. We also present two new properties of the central Morrey–Orlicz spaces: nontriviality and inclusion property.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Central Morrey–Orlicz spaces
A function \(\Phi :[0,\infty ) \rightarrow [0,\infty ]\) is called a Young function, if it is a nondecreasing convex function with \(\lim _{u \rightarrow 0^+}\Phi (u) = \Phi (0) = 0\), and not identically 0 or \(\infty \) in \((0,\infty )\). It may have jump up to \(\infty \) at some point \(u>0\), but then it should be left continuous at u.
To each Young function \(\Phi \) one can associate another convex function \(\Phi ^*\), i.e., the complementary function to \(\Phi \), which is defined by
Then \(\Phi ^*\) is also a Young function and \(\Phi ^{**} = \Phi \). Note that \(u \le \Phi ^{-1}(u) \Phi ^{*^{-1}}(u) \le 2 u\) for all \(u > 0,\) where \(\Phi ^{-1}\) is the right-continuous inverse of \(\Phi \) defined by
We say that Young function \(\Phi \) satisfies the \(\Delta _2\)-condition and we write shortly \(\Phi \in \Delta _2\), if \(0< \Phi (u) < \infty \) for \(u>0\) and there exists a constant \(D_2 > 1\) such that
For any Young function \(\Phi \), the number \(\lambda \in {\mathbb {R}}\) and an open ball \(B_r = \{x \in {\mathbb {R}}^n :|x|<r\}, r>0\) we can define central Morrey–Orlicz spaces \(M^{\Phi ,\lambda }(0)\) as all \(f \in L^1_{loc}({{\mathbb {R}}^n})\) such that
where
Similarly, the weak central Morrey–Orlicz spaces \(WM^{\Phi ,\lambda }(0)\) are defined as
where
and \(d(f, u) = | \{x \in {{\mathbb {R}}^n} :|f(x)| > u \}|\).
The properties of these spaces can be found in [4]. If \(\Phi (u) = u^p,\,1\le p<\infty \) and \(\lambda \in {\mathbb {R}},\) then \(M^{\Phi ,\lambda }(0) = M^{p,\lambda }(0)\) and \(WM^{\Phi ,\lambda }(0) = WM^{p,\lambda }(0)\) are classical central and weak central Morrey spaces. Moreover, for \(\lambda = 0\) the spaces \(M^{\Phi , 0}(0) = L^{\Phi }({\mathbb {R}}^n)\) and \(WM^{\Phi , 0}(0) = WL^{\Phi }(\mathbb R^n)\) are classical Orlicz and weak Orlicz spaces.
In the following lemma and later, \(B(x_0, r_0)\) will denote an open ball with the center at \(x_0 \in {\mathbb {R}}^n\) and radius \(r_0 > 0\), that is, \(B(x_0, r_0) = \{x \in {{\mathbb {R}}^n}:|x - x_0| < r_0\}\).
Lemma 1
Let \(\Phi \) be a Young function, \(\Phi ^*\) its complementary function, \(0 \le \lambda \le 1\) and \(r > 0\). Then
- \((\textrm{i})\):
-
\(\int _{B_r} |f(x)g(x)|\,dx \le 2\, |B_r|^{\lambda }\, \Vert f\Vert _{\Phi , \lambda , B_r} \Vert g\Vert _{\Phi ^*, \lambda , B_r}\).
- \((\textrm{ii})\):
-
\(\Vert \chi _{B(x_0, r_0)}\Vert _{\Phi ^{*}, \lambda , B_r} \le \frac{|B_r \cap B(x_0, r_0)|}{|B_r|^\lambda }\Phi ^{-1} \left( \frac{|B_r|^\lambda }{|B_r \cap B(x_0, r_0)|} \right) \), where \(B_r \cap B(x_0, r_0) \ne \emptyset \) for \(x_0 \in \mathbb R^n\) and \(r_0 > 0\). In particular, \(\Vert \chi _{B_r} \Vert _{\Phi ^*, \lambda , B_r} \le \dfrac{\Phi ^{-1} \left( |B_r|^{\lambda -1} \right) }{|B_r|^{\lambda -1}}.\)
- \((\textrm{iii})\):
-
\(\Vert \chi _{B_t}\Vert _{\Phi , \lambda , B_r} = 1/ {\Phi ^{-1} \left( \frac{|B_r|^\lambda }{|B_r \cap B_t|}\right) }\) and \(\Vert \chi _{B_t}\Vert _{M^{\Phi , \lambda } (0)} = \dfrac{1}{\Phi ^{-1}(|B_t|^{\lambda - 1})}\) for any \(t > 0\).
Proof of this lemma can be found in [4, Lemma 1].
2 Riesz potential in the central Morrey–Orlicz spaces
We will work with the central Morrey–Orlicz spaces, defined by the Orlicz functions. A function \(\Phi :[0,\infty ) \rightarrow [0,\infty )\) is called an Orlicz function, if it is a strictly increasing continuous and convex function with \(\Phi (0)=0\).
Let \(f:{{\mathbb {R}}^n} \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) be a Lebesgue measurable function and \(\alpha \in (0,n)\). The Riesz potential is defined as
The linear operator \(I_{\alpha }\) plays an important role in various branches of analysis, including potential theory, harmonic analysis, Sobolev spaces, partial differential equations and can be treated as a special singular integral. That is why it is important to study its boundedness between different spaces. Many authors investigated boundedness of \(I_\alpha \) in Morrey, Orlicz and Morrey–Orlicz spaces. We present here our main theorem on the boundedness of the Riesz potential in the central Morrey–Orlicz spaces.
In order to prove our result we will use estimate from [13] for the Hardy–Littlewood maximal operator in central Morrey–Orlicz spaces. The Hardy–Littlewood maximal operator M or centred maximal function Mf of a function f defined on \({\mathbb {R}}^n\) is defined at each \(x {\in {\mathbb {R}}^n}\) as
For any Orlicz function \(\Phi \) and \(0 \le \lambda \le 1\), maximal operator M is bounded on \(M^{\Phi , \lambda }(0)\), provided \({\Phi }^* \in {\Delta }_2\), and then there exists a constant \(C_0>1\) such that
(see [13, Theorem 6(i)]). Moreover, the maximal operator M is bounded from \(M^{\Phi , \lambda }(0)\) to \(WM^{\Phi , \lambda }(0)\), that is, there exists a constant \(c_0>1\) such that \(\Vert Mf\Vert _{WM^{\Phi , \lambda }(0)} \le c_0 \, \Vert f\Vert _{M^{\Phi , \lambda }(0)}\) for all \(f \in M^{\Phi , \lambda }(0)\) (see [13, Theorem 6(ii)]).
Furthermore, in the proof of the main result we will use Hedberg’s pointwise estimate from [7, p. 506].
Lemma 2
(Hedberg) If \(f:{{\mathbb {R}}^n} \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) is a Lebesgue measurable function and \(\alpha \in (0,n)\), then for all \(x \in {\mathbb {R}}^n\) and \(r > 0\)
with \(C_H = \frac{2^n}{2^{\alpha } - 1} v_n\), where \(v_n = |B(0, 1)| = \pi ^{n/2}/\Gamma (n/2+1)\).
Proof
For the sake of completeness, we include its proof, taking care about the constant \(C_H\) in the estimate. For any \(x \in {\mathbb {R}}^n\) and \(r > 0\)
\(\square \)
Theorem 1
Let \(0<\alpha <n,\) \(\Phi , \Psi \) be Orlicz functions and either \(0< \lambda , \mu <1, \lambda \ne \mu \) or \(\lambda =0\) and \(0 \le \mu < 1.\) Assume that there exist constants \(C_1, C_2 \ge 1\) such that
and
- \((\textrm{i})\):
-
If \({\Phi }^* \in {\Delta }_2\), then \(I_{\alpha }\) is bounded from \(M^{\Phi , \lambda }(0)\) to \(M^{\Psi , \mu }(0)\), that is, there exists a constant \(C_3 = C_3(n, C_0, C_H, C_1, C_2) \ge 1\) such that \(\Vert I_{\alpha } f\Vert _{M^{\Psi , \mu }(0)} \le C_3 \, \Vert f\Vert _{M^{\Phi , \lambda }(0)}\) for all \(f \in M^{\Phi , \lambda }(0)\).
- \((\textrm{ii})\):
-
The operator \(I_{\alpha }\) is bounded from \(M^{\Phi , \lambda }(0)\) to \(WM^{\Psi , \mu }(0)\), that is, there exists a constant \(c_3 = c_3 (n, c_0, C_H, C_1, C_2) \ge 1\) such that \(\Vert I_{\alpha } f\Vert _{WM^{\Psi , \mu }(0)} \le c_3\, \Vert f\Vert _{M^{\Phi , \lambda }(0)}\) for all \(f \in M^{\Phi , \lambda }(0)\).
In our earlier paper [4, Theorem 3] it was proved result under conditions (1) and (3), and the latter means that
The condition (3) is stronger than the assumption (2) because
and clearly the integral in (2) is smaller than the integral in (3). This improvement provides us with larger classes of Orlicz functions \(\Phi \) and \(\Psi ,\) defining central Morrey–Orlicz spaces where the operator \(I_\alpha \) is bounded.
In the simplest case, when \(\Phi (u) = u^p, \Psi (u) = u^q\) where \(1< p< q < \infty \), then the convergence of the integral in (1) means \(p < \frac{n (1 - \lambda )}{\alpha }\) and the assumption itself gives equality \(\frac{\alpha }{n} + \frac{\lambda - 1}{p} = \frac{\mu - 1}{q}\). Assumptions (2) and (3) are both equivalent and give the following equations: \(\frac{1}{q} = \frac{1}{p} - \frac{\alpha }{n}\) and \(\frac{\lambda }{p} = \frac{\mu }{q}\). Of course, with the above assumptions, the operator \(I_{\alpha }\) is bounded from \(M^{p, \lambda }(0)\) to \(M^{q, \mu }(0)\).
Only later, on the Examples 2 and 3, we will see that the conditions (1) and (2) hold but estimate (3) fails, which shows that our Theorem 1 improves Theorem 3 in [4].
Let us comment on what we can get when the numbers \(\lambda \) and \(\mu \) come from “boundaries”.
Remark 1
If \(\lambda = \mu = 0\) we come to the same conclusion as in [4, Remark 4], that is, condition (1) is sufficient for the boundedness of \(I_\alpha \) from Orlicz space \(L^\Phi ({\mathbb {R}}^n)\) to weak Orlicz space \(WL^\Psi ({\mathbb {R}}^n).\) If, in addition \(\Phi ^{*} \in \Delta _2\), then \(I_\alpha \) is bounded from \(L^\Phi ({\mathbb {R}}^n)\) to \(L^\Psi ({\mathbb {R}}^n)\). Note that in this case condition (2) follows from (1).
Remark 2
If \(\lambda = 0\) and \(0< \mu < 1\), then the condition (3) is not satisfied, as we already mentioned in [4, Remark 3] and therefore the result proved in [4] does not include boundedness of the Riesz potential in this case. On the other hand, in this case, assumption (1) is stronger than (2). Indeed,
Therefore, if (1) holds, then \(I_\alpha \) is bounded from \(L^\Phi ({\mathbb {R}}^n)\) to \(WM^{\Psi ,\mu }(0).\) If, in addition \(\Phi ^*\in \Delta _2,\) then \(I_\alpha \) is bounded from \(L^\Phi ({\mathbb {R}}^n)\) to \(M^{\Psi ,\mu }(0).\) In particular, when \(\Phi (u) = u^p,~\Psi (u) = u^q\), \(0<\frac{\alpha }{n}<\frac{1}{p}\) and \(\frac{\alpha }{n}-\frac{1}{p} = \frac{\mu -1}{q}\), then (1) holds. In fact, for all \(u > 0\)
and we obtain (1) with \(C_1 = \frac{q}{1-\mu }.\) Thus, from Theorem 1 we get that \(I_\alpha \) is bounded from \(L^p({\mathbb {R}}^n)\) to \(M^{q,\mu }(0)\). This result, in particular, was proved in [3, Theorem 2].
Remark 3
If \(0< \lambda < 1\) and \(\mu = 0\), the conditions (2) and (3) are not satisfied. Additionally, \(I_\alpha \) is not bounded from \(M^{\Phi , \lambda }(0)\) to \(L^\Psi ({\mathbb {R}}^n)\) by applying the necessary condition for boundedness of \(I_\alpha \) given in [4, Theorem 2(ii)]. In fact, let \(R \ge 1,\) \(x_R = (R, 0,\ldots , 0) \in {\mathbb {R}}^n\) and \(f_R(x) = \chi _{B(x_R,1)}(x).\) Following the same arguments as in [9, Proposition 1] and [4, Theorem 2(ii)] we obtain that
Thus,
and therefore \(I_\alpha \) is not bounded from \(M^{\Phi , \lambda }(0)\) to \(L^\Psi ({\mathbb {R}}^n).\)
Remark 4
If \(0< \lambda = \mu < 1\), then the assumption (2) does not hold. Indeed, let \(r>u = r^\lambda \) with \(r>1.\) Then
means
which is not true when \(r \rightarrow \infty .\) Moreover, if either \(a = \liminf \limits _{t \rightarrow 0^+} \frac{\Phi ^{-1}(t)}{\Psi ^{-1}(t)} > 0\) or \(b = \liminf \limits _{t \rightarrow \infty } \frac{\Phi ^{-1}(t)}{\Psi ^{-1}(t)} = \infty \), then by Theorem 2 in [4] the Riesz potential \(I_{\alpha }\) is not bounded from \(M^{\Phi , \lambda }(0)\) to \(M^{\Psi , \lambda }(0)\). In particular, \(I_{\alpha }\) is not bounded from \(M^{p, \lambda }(0)\) to \(M^{q, \lambda }(0)\) for any \(1 \le p, q < \infty \) (see also [9]). There remains an unresolved case when \(a = 0\) and \(b < \infty \).
Proof of Theorem 1
(i) For any \(x \in B_r\) and \(f \in M^{\Phi , \lambda } (0)\) we consider two disjoint subsets
and
We estimate the Riesz potential \(I_\alpha f(x)\) by a sum of two integrals
For \(x \in B_r^1\) and \(|y| \le 2r\) we have \(|y - x| \le |y| +|x| \le 3r\), and so
By Hedberg’s pointwise estimate, given in Lemma 2, we obtain
This implies, for \(x \in B_r^1\), that
On the other hand,
for any \(u > 0\). Thus, applying assumption (1) we obtain
To estimate the second integral \(I_2 f(x) \), first note that when \(x \in B_r^1\) and \(|y| > 2r\) we have \(|x|< r < |y|/2\) and \(|y - x| \ge |y| - |x| > |y|/2\), and so \(|x - y|^{\alpha - n} < 2^{n - \alpha } |y|^{\alpha - n}\). Thus, following Hedberg’s method, as in [4, pp. 18–20], we obtain
Then, from Lemma 1, it follows that
Applying assumption (1) we get
Thus, for \(x \in B_r^1\), we obtain
where \(C_7 = C_1\cdot \max \{4 \cdot 2^n \cdot C_0\, C_5, C_6\}\). Since \(2^{n(\mu -1)}<1\) it follows that
Let now \(x \in B_r^2.\) We can write \(I_\alpha f(x)\) as follows
where \(\delta \) is defined in the following way
Since \(x \in B_r^2\) it follows that \(|B_\delta |<|B_r|\). Hedberg’s pointwise estimate from Lemma 2 to \( I_3 f (x) \) gives
and from the assumption (2) we get
Next, since equality (4) holds it follows that
Applying again Hedberg’s method for \(I_4 f(x)\) we obtain
where \(B_{|x|+2^{k+1}\delta }\) is the smallest ball with the centre at origin containing \(B(x,2^{k+1}\delta ).\) From Lemma 1, using the fact that \(B_{|x|+2^{k+1}\delta } \cap B(x,2^{k+1}\delta ) = B(x,2^{k+1}\delta )\), we get
Since \(|x| \le r\) and \(2^k\delta \le (\frac{t}{v_n})^\frac{1}{n}\le 2^{k+1}\delta \) it follows that
So using the concavity of \(\Phi ^{-1}\), we get
where \(C_8 = \frac{4^{\lambda n}2^{n+1} v_n^{1-\frac{\alpha }{n}}}{n\ln {2}} \le \frac{4^n \cdot 2^{n+2} \cdot v_n^{1-\frac{\alpha }{n}}}{n}\). Based on the assumptions of (1), (2) and the fact that \(|B_\delta | < |B_r|\) we get
Thus, for \(x\in B_r^2\) we obtain
with \(C_9 = v_n^{-\alpha /n}\,C_0\,C_2\,C_H + C_8 \, (C_1 + C_2)\). Then
Finally, since \(B_r = B_r^1 \cup B_r^2\) and the last two sets are disjoint, and by the convexity of \(\Psi \) it follows that
where \(C_3 = 2\max \{2 \, C_7, C_9\}.\) Hence, \(\Vert I_\alpha f\Vert _{M^{\Psi ,\mu }(0)} \le C_3 \,\Vert f\Vert _{M^{\Phi ,\lambda }(0)}\).
(ii) Similarly to the previous case, we will present \(B_r\) as a union of two disjoint subsets \(B_r = B_r^1 \cup B_r^2\), where \(B_r^1\) and \(B_r^2\) are defined in the same way as in the first part of the proof with respect to the constant \(c_0\), that is,
and
For \(x \in B_r\) we get
where \(c_3 = 2 \,\max \{4\,c_7, 2\,c_9\}, c_7 = C_1 \max \{4 \cdot 2^n \cdot c_0\,C_5, C_6\}, c_9 = v_n^{-\alpha /n}\,c_0\,C_2\,C_H +C_8(C_1+C_2)\). We follow the same calculations as in the proof of Theorem 3(ii) in [4] and we get
and
where we used the property \(\Psi (u) \,d(g,u) = v\, d(g, \Psi ^{-1}(v)) = v\, d(\Psi (g),v)\) for any \(u>0\) with \(v = \Psi (u).\)
From the first part of the proof of this theorem for any \(r>0\) we have
and
For \(I_6\) from the first part of the proof of this theorem we obtain
where \(\delta \) is defined as in (4) with respect to \(c_0\), that is,
Thus,
and doing the same calculations as in the proof of Theorem 3(ii) in [4] we get
Hence,
and \(\Vert I_\alpha f\Vert _{WM^{\Psi ,\mu }(0)} \le c_3 \Vert f\Vert _{M^{\Phi ,\lambda }(0)}.\) \(\square \)
Below we present examples for our Theorem 1. In our earlier paper [4] we have shown that Example 1 holds under conditions (1) and (3), which clearly means that it also holds under conditions (1) and (2) of Theorem 1.
Example 1
Let \(0< \alpha< n, 0 \le \lambda< 1, 1< p < \frac{n(1-\lambda )}{\alpha }, 0 \le a \le \sqrt{1-\frac{1}{p}}-(1-\frac{1}{p})\) and
If \(\frac{1}{q} = \frac{1}{p} - \frac{\alpha }{n},\) \(\frac{\lambda }{p} = \frac{\mu }{q}\), then conditions (1) and (2) of Theorem 1 are satisfied, and the Riesz potential \(I_\alpha \) is bounded from \(M^{\Phi , \lambda }(0)\) to \(M^{\Psi , \mu }(0)\). We note that condition \(0 \le a \le \frac{1}{p}\) ensures that function \(\Phi ^{-1}(u)\) is increasing on \((0, \infty )\) and \(\Phi ^{-1}(u)/u\) is decreasing on \((0, \infty ).\) Then the function \(\Phi ^{-1}(u)\) is equivalent to a concave function on \((0,\infty )\) (cf. [1, pp. 117–118] or [11, p. 49]). On the other hand, if we have stronger requirement \(0 \le a \le \sqrt{1-\frac{1}{p}}-(1-\frac{1}{p}),\) then it is possible to prove that the function \(\Phi ^{-1}(u)\) is concave on \((0,\infty ).\) In particular, if \(a=0\) we get the Spanne–Peetre type result [15] proved in [5, Proposition 1.1], that is, the Riesz potential \(I_\alpha \) is bounded from \(M^{p,\lambda }(0)\) to \(M^{q,\mu }(0)\) under the conditions \(1< p < \frac{n(1-\lambda )}{\alpha },\) \(0 \le \lambda < 1,\) \(\frac{1}{q} = \frac{1}{p} - \frac{\alpha }{n}\) and \(\frac{\lambda }{p} = \frac{\mu }{q}\).
The next two examples satisfy conditions (1) and (2), but the requirement (3) does not hold for them.
Example 2
Let \(0<\alpha <n,\) \(0< \lambda , \mu <1,\) \(1<p_1<p_2< \frac{n(1-\lambda )}{\alpha },~1<q_1<q_2<\infty \) and
If \(\frac{1}{p_1}-\frac{\alpha }{n} = \frac{1}{q_1},~\frac{\lambda }{p_1} < \frac{\mu }{q_1}\) and \(\frac{1}{p_2}-\frac{\alpha }{n} = \frac{1}{q_2},~\frac{\lambda }{p_2} = \frac{\mu }{q_2},\) then conditions (1) and (2) of Theorem 1 are satisfied and the Riesz potential \(I_\alpha \) is bounded from \(M^{\Phi , \lambda }(0)\) to \(M^{\Psi , \mu }(0).\)
Example 3
Let \(0<\alpha <n,\) \(0< \lambda , \mu <1,\) \(1<p_1<p_2< \infty ,~1<q_1<q_2<\infty ,~a, b>0\) and
If \(\frac{1}{p_1}-\frac{\alpha }{n} = \frac{1}{q_1},\) \(\frac{1}{p_2}-\frac{\alpha }{n} = \frac{1}{q_2},~\frac{\lambda }{p_2} = \frac{\mu }{q_2},~\frac{\lambda }{p_1} < \frac{\mu }{q_1}\) and \(0<a \le \frac{1-\mu }{1-\lambda }(\frac{1}{q_1}-\frac{1}{q_2}),\,\, 0<b \le \frac{1}{p_2}\), then conditions (1) and (2) of Theorem 1 are satisfied and the Riesz potential \(I_\alpha \) is bounded from \(M^{\Phi , \lambda }(0)\) to \(M^{\Psi , \mu }(0).\)
The technical details related to the proofs in Examples 2 and 3 are shifted to the “Appendix” in Sect. 4.
3 Two properties of central Morrey–Orlicz spaces
Properties of Morrey and central Morrey spaces were considered by several authors (for example V. I. Burenkov, V. S. Guliyev, E. Nakai, Y. Sawano and others). Here we will present some properties of central Morrey–Orlicz spaces. It is known that \(M^{p, \lambda }(0) \ne \{0\}\) if and only if \(\lambda \ge 0\) (see [2]). In the next proposition we describe when the central Morrey–Orlicz space \(M^{\Phi ,\lambda }(0)\) is nontrivial.
Proposition 1
Let \(\Phi \) be an Orlicz function and \(\lambda \in {\mathbb {R}}.\) The space \(M^{\Phi ,\lambda }(0) \ne \{0\}\) if and only if \(\lambda \ge 0.\)
Proof
Let first \(\lambda <0\) and \(f \in M^{\Phi ,\lambda }(0),\) such that \(f \not \equiv 0.\) Then
and therefore
Thus,
On the other hand, there exists \(t_0>0,\) such that \(\int \limits _{B_{t_0}} \Phi \left( \frac{|f(x)|}{\Vert f\Vert _{M^{\Phi ,\lambda }(0)}}\right) \,dx>0\) and for any \(r>t_0\) and \(\lambda <0\) we have
which means that \(f(x) = 0\) on \(B_{t_0}\) and we are done.
Let now \(\lambda \ge 0.\) Then we will show that there exists \(f \in M^{\Phi ,\lambda }(0),\) such that \(f \not \equiv 0\). We follow ideas from [9, Proposition 1] and consider function \(f_R(x) = \chi _{B(x_R,1)}(x),\) where \(R > 1\) and \(x_R = (R,0,\ldots ,0).\) We will show that \(f \in M^{\Phi ,\lambda }(0)\) for any \(\lambda \ge 0.\) In our previous paper we have shown that
for details we refer to the proof of Theorem 2 in [4]. Since \(|B_r \cap B(x_R,1)| \le |B(x_R,1)| = v_n\) it follows that \(\frac{|B_r|^\lambda }{|B_r \cap B(x_R,1)|} \ge \frac{|B_r|^\lambda }{v_n}\) and \(\frac{1}{\Phi ^{-1}\bigl (\frac{|B_r|^\lambda }{|B_r \cap B(x_R,1)|}\bigr )} \le \frac{1}{\Phi ^{-1}\bigl (\frac{|B_r|^\lambda }{v_n }\bigr )}.\) Thus,
where the last equality is true since \(\lambda \ge 0.\) Therefore, \(f_R \in M^{\Phi ,\lambda }(0).\) \(\square \)
Next we consider inclusion properties of central Morrey–Orlicz spaces. In the case of classical Morrey and classical central Morrey spaces it is known that if \(1 \le p< q< \infty , 0 \le \mu< \lambda < 1\) and \(\frac{1 - \lambda }{p} = \frac{1 - \mu }{q}\), then
Both inclusions are proper (see, for example, [6]). We also note that the second embedding in (5) is also true for \(1< \lambda < \mu \). We have shown in [4] that the embeddings (5) follow by the Hölder–Rogers inequality with \(\frac{q}{p} > 1\). In the next theorem we present inclusion properties of central Morrey–Orlicz spaces.
Proposition 2
Let \(\Phi \) and \(\Psi \) be Orlicz functions, \(0 \le \lambda , \mu <1\). Then \(M^{\Psi , \mu }(0) \hookrightarrow M^{\Phi , \lambda }(0)\) if and only if there are constants \(A_1, A_2>0,\) such that
-
(i)
\(\Phi (\frac{u}{A_1}) \le \Psi (u)^{\frac{\lambda -1}{\mu -1}}~ \text {for all}~u>0\) and
-
(ii)
\(\Phi (\frac{u}{A_2}) \le \Psi (u) r^{\lambda -\mu }~ \text {for all}~ u,r>0,\) satisfying \(\Psi ^{-1}(r^{\mu -1})<u\).
Proof
Let first \(f \in M^{\Psi , \mu }(0)\), \(f \not \equiv 0,\) \(B_r\) be any open ball in \({\mathbb {R}}^n\) and functions \(\Phi \) and \(\Psi \) satisfy conditions (i) and (ii). Then
and so \(\Psi \left( \frac{|f(x)|}{\Vert f\Vert _{M^{\Psi , \mu }(0)}} \right) <\infty \) a.e. in \(B_r\). We divide \(B_r\) into two disjoint subsets
and
Let us denote \(t = |B_r|\) and \(u = \frac{|f(x)|}{\Vert f\Vert _{M^{\Psi , \mu }(0)}}\). Then, for \(x \in B_r^3\) we have \(0<t^{\mu -1}<\Psi (u)\) and from (ii) it follows that
For \(x \in B_r^4\) we get \(0<\Psi (u) \le t^{\mu -1}\) and from (i) it follows that
Thus,
and so \(\Vert f\Vert _{M^{\Phi ,\lambda }(0)} \le 2 \max (A_1,A_2)\Vert f\Vert _{M^{\Psi , \mu }(0)}\).
Let now \(\Vert f\Vert _{M^{\Phi ,\lambda }(0)} \le C \Vert f\Vert _{M^{\Psi ,\mu }(0)}\) for any \(f\in M^{\Psi ,\mu }(0)\) and some constant \(C>0.\) First for any \(t>0\) we consider \(f_t(x) = \chi _{B_t}(x).\) Then, using Lemma 1(iii) we obtain
which also means that \(\Psi ^{-1}(s^{\mu -1}) \le C \Phi ^{-1}(s^{\lambda -1})\) for all \(s>0\) or \(s^{\mu -1} \le \Psi (C\Phi ^{-1}(s^{\lambda -1}))\). By change of variables \(\Phi ^{-1}(s^{\lambda -1}) = u\) we get
so we have condition (i) with \(A_1 = C\).
For the proof of the second part, i.e. to prove the necessity of the condition (ii), we refer to the proof of Lemma 4.12 and Theorem 4.1 in [8] and to Theorem 4.9 and Lemma 4.10 in [14]. \(\square \)
References
Bergh, J., Löfström, J.: Interpolation Spaces: An Introduction. Springer, Berlin (1976)
Burenkov, V.I., Guliyev, H.V.: Necessary and sufficient conditions for boundedness of the maximal operator in local Morrey-type spaces. Studia Math. 163(2), 157–176 (2004)
Burenkov, V.I., Guliev, V.S., Guliev, G.V.: Necessary and sufficient conditions for the boundedness of the Riesz potential in local Morrey-type spaces. Dokl. Akad. Nauk 412(5), 585–589 (2007) (in Russian); English translation in Dokl. Math. 75(1), 103–107 (2007)
Burtseva, E., Maligranda, L., Matsuoka, K.: Boundedness of the Riesz potential in central Morrey–Orlicz spaces. Positivity 26(1), Paper No. 22 (2022)
Fu, Z.W., Lin, Y., Lu, S.: \(\lambda \)-central BMO estimates for commutators of singular integral operators with rough kernels. Acta Math. Sin. (Engl. Ser.) 24(3), 373–386 (2008)
Gunawan, H., Hakim, D.I., Idris, M.: Proper inclusions of Morrey spaces. Glas. Mat. Ser. III 53(73), 143–151 (2018)
Hedberg, L.I.: On certain convolution inequalities. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 36, 505–510 (1972)
Kita, H.: Some inclusion relations of Orlicz–Morrey spaces and the Hardy–Littlewood maximal function. In: Banach and Function Spaces IV (ISBFS 2012), pp. 81–116. Yokohama Publishers, Yokohama (2014)
Komori-Furuya, Y., Sato, E.: Fractional integral operators on central Morrey spaces. Math. Inequal. Appl. 20(3), 801–813 (2017)
Krasnoselskii, M.A., Rutickii, Ja.B.: Convex Functions and Orlicz Spaces. Noordhoff, Groningen (1961)
Krein, S.G., Petunin, Yu.I., Semenov, E.M.: Interpolation of Linear Operators. American Mathematical Society, Providence (1982)
Maligranda, L.: Orlicz Spaces and Interpolation, Seminars in Mathematics, vol. 5. Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas (1989)
Maligranda, L., Matsuoka, K.: Maximal function in Beurling–Orlicz and central Morrey–Orlicz spaces. Colloq. Math. 138(2), 165–181 (2015)
Nakai, E.: Orlicz–Morrey spaces and the Hardy–Littlewood maximal function. Stud. Math. 188(3), 193–221 (2008)
Peetre, J.: On the theory of \({\cal{L} }_{p,\lambda }\) spaces. J. Funct. Anal. 4, 71–87 (1969)
Acknowledgements
The second author was partially supported by the Poznan University of Technology under grant number 0213/SBAD/0118.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Lulea University of Technology.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
EB and LM contributed equally to the paper. They read the whole paper and approved it.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
We will present here all the technical proofs related to Examples 2 and 3.
Proof of Example 2
The function
is an Orlicz function, \(\Phi ^* \in \Delta _2\) and
If \(u \ge 1,\) then estimate (1) holds since
where the last integral is convergent because \( p_1 < \frac{n(1-\lambda )}{\alpha }\). \(\square \)
If \(0< u \le 1,\) then estimate (1) holds since
where the last inequality is true since \(p_1<p_2\) and therefore \(\frac{1}{q_1} - \frac{\lambda }{p_1}>\frac{1-\mu }{q_2}.\)
Estimate (2) also holds for any \(r>u>0.\) Indeed, let first \(r > 1,\) then \(1< r^\lambda< r^\mu < r.\) We consider three cases on u.
- \(1^\circ \).:
-
If \(u<r^\lambda ,\) then we get
$$\begin{aligned}{} & {} u^\frac{\alpha }{n}\Phi ^{-1}\left( \frac{r^\lambda }{u}\right) +\int \limits _u^r t^\frac{\alpha }{n}\Phi ^{-1}\left( \frac{r^\lambda }{t}\right) \frac{dt}{t}\\{} & {} \quad = r^\frac{\mu }{q_2}u^{-\frac{1}{q_2}} +r^\frac{\lambda }{p_2}\int \limits _u^{r^\lambda }t^{\frac{\alpha }{n}-\frac{1}{p_2}-1}\,dt + r^\frac{\lambda }{p_1}\int \limits _{r^\lambda }^r t^{\frac{\alpha }{n}-\frac{1}{p_1}-1}\,dt \\{} & {} \quad = \left( \frac{r^\mu }{u}\right) ^\frac{1}{q_2}+q_2 r^{\frac{\lambda }{p_2}}\left( u^{-\frac{1}{q_2}} - r^{\lambda \left( \frac{\alpha }{n}-\frac{1}{p_2}\right) }\right) +q_1 r^{\frac{\lambda }{p_1}}\left( r^{\lambda \left( \frac{\alpha }{n}-\frac{1}{p_1}\right) } - r^{\frac{\alpha }{n}-\frac{1}{p_1}}\right) \\{} & {} \quad = (1+q_2) \left( \frac{r^\mu }{u}\right) ^\frac{1}{q_2}+(q_1-q_2) r^{\lambda \frac{\alpha }{n}} - q_1 r^{\frac{\lambda -1}{p_1}+\frac{\alpha }{n}} \le (1+q_2) \Psi ^{-1}\left( \frac{r^\mu }{u}\right) , \end{aligned}$$where the last inequality is true since \(q_1<q_2.\)
- \(2^\circ \).:
-
If \(1<r^\lambda<r^\mu<u<r,\) then we obtain
$$\begin{aligned} u^\frac{\alpha }{n}\Phi ^{-1}\left( \frac{r^\lambda }{u}\right)+ & {} \int \limits _u^r t^\frac{\alpha }{n}\Phi ^{-1}\left( \frac{r^\lambda }{t}\right) \frac{dt}{t} = r^\frac{\lambda }{p_1} u^{\frac{\alpha }{n}-\frac{1}{p_1}} + r^\frac{\lambda }{p_1} \int \limits _u^r t^{\frac{\alpha }{n} - \frac{1}{p_1}-1}\, dt\\< & {} r^\frac{\mu }{q_1} u^{-\frac{1}{q_1}}+ q_1r^\frac{\mu }{q_1}\left( u^{-\frac{1}{q_1}} - r^{-\frac{1}{q_1}}\right) < (1+q_1)\left( \frac{r^\mu }{u}\right) ^\frac{1}{q_1}\\= & {} (1+q_1) \Psi ^{-1}\left( \frac{r^\mu }{u}\right) . \end{aligned}$$ - \(3^\circ \).:
-
If \(1<r^\lambda<u<r^\mu <r,\) then taking into account that \(\frac{1}{p_1}>\frac{1}{p_2}\) and \(\frac{r^\lambda }{u}<1\) we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}{} & {} u^\frac{\alpha }{n}\Phi ^{-1}\left( \frac{r^\lambda }{u}\right) +\int \limits _u^r t^\frac{\alpha }{n}\Phi ^{-1}\left( \frac{r^\lambda }{t}\right) \frac{dt}{t} = r^\frac{\lambda }{p_1} u^{\frac{\alpha }{n}-\frac{1}{p_1}}+r^\frac{\lambda }{p_1} \int \limits _u^r t^{\frac{\alpha }{n} - \frac{1}{p_1}-1}\, dt\\{} & {} \quad = u^\frac{\alpha }{n} \left( \frac{r^\lambda }{u}\right) ^\frac{1}{p_1}+q_1\left( \left( \frac{r^\lambda }{u}\right) ^\frac{1}{p_1} u^\frac{\alpha }{n} - r^{\frac{\lambda }{p_1}-\frac{1}{q_1}}\right) \\{} & {} \quad < (1+q_1) u^\frac{\alpha }{n} \left( \frac{r^\lambda }{u}\right) ^\frac{1}{p_2} = (1+q_1) r^\frac{\mu }{q_2}u^{-\frac{1}{q_2}} = (1+q_1)\Psi ^{-1}\left( \frac{r^\mu }{u}\right) . \end{aligned}$$Let now \(0< r \le 1.\) Then \(0<u<r\le r^\mu \le r^\lambda \le 1\) and (2) holds since
$$\begin{aligned}{} & {} u^\frac{\alpha }{n}\Phi ^{-1}\left( \frac{r^\lambda }{u}\right) +\int \limits _u^r t^\frac{\alpha }{n}\Phi ^{-1}\left( \frac{r^\lambda }{t}\right) \frac{dt}{t} = r^\frac{\lambda }{p_2} u^{-\frac{1}{q_2}}+r^\frac{\lambda }{p_2}\int \limits _u^r t^{\frac{\alpha }{n}-\frac{1}{p_2}-1}\,dt\\{} & {} \quad = \left( \frac{r^\mu }{u}\right) ^\frac{1}{q_2}+q_2 r^\frac{\mu }{q_2}\left( u^{-\frac{1}{q_2}}-r^{-\frac{1}{q_2}}\right) \le (1+q_2) \Psi ^{-1}\left( \frac{r^\mu }{u}\right) . \end{aligned}$$
Thus, all conditions of Theorem 1 are satisfied and \(I_\alpha \) is bounded from \(M^{\Phi , \lambda }(0)\) to \(M^{\Psi , \mu }(0).\)
Let us note that this example does not satisfy the condition (3), that is, the condition
does not hold in this case. Indeed, let \(0<r<1\) and \(u>r.\) We choose any number \(\nu ,\) such that \(0<\lambda<\nu<\mu <1\) and let \(u = r^\nu .\) Then \(0<r<r^\mu<u = r^\nu<r^\lambda <1\) and we get
Since \(\frac{\lambda \alpha }{n} =\frac{\lambda }{p_2}-\frac{\lambda }{q_2} = \frac{\mu -\lambda }{q_2}>\frac{\mu -\nu }{q_2}\) and \(\frac{1}{q_1}>\frac{1}{q_2}\) it follows that
Thus, this example does not satisfy condition (3), which shows that Theorem 1 improves our result proved in [4, Theorem 3].
Proof of Example 3
Since \(\frac{\lambda }{p_1} < \frac{\mu }{q_1}\) and \(1< q_1< q_2 < \infty \) it follows that
and so \(\lambda <\mu \). Moreover, note that conditions \(a\le \frac{1}{p_1},\) \(b \le \frac{1}{p_2}\) and \(a \le \frac{1}{q_1}\frac{1-\mu }{1-\lambda }\) ensure that functions \(\Phi ^{-1}(u)\) and \(\Psi ^{-1}(u)\) are increasing on \((0, \infty )\), and functions \(\Phi ^{-1}(u)/u\) and \(\Psi ^{-1}(u)/u\) are decreasing on \((0, \infty )\). Then \(\Phi ^{-1}(u)\) and \(\Psi ^{-1}(u)\) are equivalent to concave functions on \((0, \infty )\) (cf. [1, pp. 117–118] or [11, p. 49]). There exist concrete parameters a and b, for which functions \(\Phi ^{-1}(u)\) and \(\Psi ^{-1}(u)\) are concave on \((0, \infty )\), but it requires long calculations to prove this, so we omit such details. In addition, for further estimations we require that \(0<a\le \frac{1-\mu }{1-\lambda }(\frac{1}{q_1}-\frac{1}{q_2}).\)
First we will show that (1) holds for any \(u>0.\) Let \(\varepsilon >0\) be sufficiently small such that \(0<\varepsilon <\frac{1}{q_1}-\frac{\lambda }{p_1}-a(1-\lambda )\). Observe that
Then the function
We consider separately two cases on u. For \(u \ge 1\) we have
Since \(\frac{\lambda }{p_1} < \frac{\mu }{q_1}\) it follows that
and therefore estimate (1) holds for \(u \ge 1\). \(\square \)
Let \(0<u < 1.\) Then
The function \((1+\ln {t^{\lambda -1}})^{-b}\) is increasing for any \(0<t<1\) and by (6) we obtain
If \(\frac{1}{\varepsilon }-\frac{q_2}{1-\mu }\le 0,\) then we are ready with (1) for \(0<u< 1.\) If \(\frac{1}{\varepsilon }-\frac{q_2}{1-\mu }>0,\) then since \(1<u^{\frac{\mu -1}{q_2}}\) we get
and therefore estimate (1) holds for \(0<u<1\).
Next, we will show that (2) holds. Let first \(0<r \le 1.\) Then \(0<r \le r^\mu \le r^\lambda \le 1\) and for any \(0<u<r\) we obtain
Since \((1+\ln {\frac{r^\lambda }{u}})^{-b} \le 1\) and the function \((1+\ln {\frac{r^\lambda }{t}})^{-b}\) is increasing for any \(t \in (0, r^\lambda )\) it follows that
Thus, we get that (2) holds for any \(0<u<r\le 1.\)
Let now \(r > 1.\) Then \(1< r^\lambda< r^\mu < r.\) We consider three cases on u.
- \(1^\circ \).:
-
Let first \(0<u<r^\lambda<r^\mu <r.\) Then
$$\begin{aligned}{} & {} u^\frac{\alpha }{n}\Phi ^{-1}\left( \frac{r^\lambda }{u}\right) +\int \limits _u^r t^\frac{\alpha }{n}\Phi ^{-1}\left( \frac{r^{\lambda }}{t}\right) \frac{dt}{t}= r^\frac{\lambda }{p_2} u^{-\frac{1}{q_2}}\left( 1+\ln {\frac{r^\lambda }{u}}\right) ^{-b}\\{} & {} \quad +\int \limits _u^{r^\lambda } t^\frac{\alpha }{n} \left( \frac{r^\lambda }{t}\right) ^{\frac{1}{p_2}}\left( 1+\ln {\frac{r^\lambda }{t}}\right) ^{-b}\, \frac{dt}{t} + \int \limits _{r^\lambda }^r t^\frac{\alpha }{n} \left( \frac{r^\lambda }{t}\right) ^{\frac{1}{p_1}}\left( 1-\ln {\frac{r^\lambda }{t}}\right) ^{a}\, \frac{dt}{t}\\{} & {} < \left( \frac{r^\mu }{u}\right) ^\frac{1}{q_2} + r^\frac{\lambda }{p_2}\int \limits _u^{r^\lambda } t^{-\frac{1}{q_2}}\left( 1+\ln {\frac{r^\lambda }{t}}\right) ^{-b} \frac{dt}{t}\\{} & {} \quad + r^\frac{\lambda }{p_1}\int \limits _{r^\lambda }^r t^{-\frac{1}{q_1}+\varepsilon }\left( 1+\ln {\frac{t}{r^\lambda }}\right) ^{a} \frac{dt}{t^{1+\varepsilon }}. \end{aligned}$$Let \(0<\varepsilon <\frac{1}{q_1}-a.\) Since the function \((1+\ln {\frac{r^\lambda }{t}})^{-b}\) is increasing for any \(t \in (0, r^\lambda )\) and
$$\begin{aligned} f_2(t) = t^{-\frac{1}{q_1}+\varepsilon }\left( 1+\ln {\frac{t}{r^\lambda }}\right) ^{a}\,\,\text {is decreasing on} \, (r^\lambda , \infty ), \end{aligned}$$(7)it follows that
$$\begin{aligned}{} & {} u^\frac{\alpha }{n}\Phi ^{-1}\left( \frac{r^\lambda }{u}\right) +\int \limits _u^r t^\frac{\alpha }{n}\Phi ^{-1}\left( \frac{r^{\lambda }}{t}\right) \frac{dt}{t}\\{} & {} \quad \le \left( \frac{r^\mu }{u}\right) ^\frac{1}{q_2}+r^\frac{\mu }{q_2}\int \limits _u^{r^\lambda } t^{-\frac{1}{q_2}-1}\,dt+r^{\frac{\lambda }{p_1}-\frac{\lambda }{q_1}+\lambda \varepsilon }\int \limits _{r^\lambda }^r t^{-1-\varepsilon }\,dt\\{} & {} \quad = \left( \frac{r^\mu }{u}\right) ^\frac{1}{q_2} + q_2 r^\frac{\mu }{q_2}(u^{-\frac{1}{q_2}} - r^{-\frac{\lambda }{q_2}})+\frac{1}{\varepsilon } r^{\lambda \left( \frac{1}{p_1}-\frac{1}{q_1}\right) } - \frac{1}{\varepsilon }r^{\lambda \left( \frac{1}{p_1} - \frac{1}{q_1}\right) +\varepsilon (\lambda -1)}\\ {}{} & {} \quad \le (1+q_2) \left( \frac{r^\mu }{u}\right) ^\frac{1}{q_2} - r^{\frac{\alpha \lambda }{n}}(q_2-\frac{1}{\varepsilon }+\frac{1}{\varepsilon }r^{\varepsilon (\lambda -1)}), \end{aligned}$$where the last expression follows from two equalities \( \frac{\mu - \lambda }{q_2} = \frac{\lambda }{p_2} - \frac{\lambda }{q_2} = \frac{\alpha \lambda }{n}\) and \(\lambda (\frac{1}{p_1} - \frac{1}{q_1}) = \frac{\alpha \lambda }{n}\). Observe that
$$\begin{aligned}{} & {} \frac{1}{q_1} - a \ge \frac{1}{q_1} - \frac{1-\mu }{1-\lambda }\left( \frac{1}{q_1}-\frac{1}{q_2}\right) = \frac{1}{q_1}\frac{\mu -\lambda }{1-\lambda }\nonumber \\{} & {} +\frac{1}{q_2}\frac{1-\mu }{1-\lambda } =\frac{\mu -\lambda }{1-\lambda }\left( \frac{1}{q_1}-\frac{1}{q_2}\right) +\frac{1}{q_2}>\frac{1}{q_2}, \end{aligned}$$and we choose \(\varepsilon >0\) such that \(\frac{1}{q_2}<\varepsilon <\frac{1}{q_1}-a.\) Then \(q_2-\frac{1}{\varepsilon }+\frac{1}{\varepsilon }r^{\varepsilon (\lambda -1)}>0\) for any \(r > 1\). Thus, for \(r^\lambda >u\) we obtain
$$\begin{aligned} u^\frac{\alpha }{n}\Phi ^{-1}\left( \frac{r^\lambda }{u}\right) +\int \limits _u^r t^\frac{\alpha }{n}\Phi ^{-1}\left( \frac{r^{\lambda }}{t}\right) \frac{dt}{t} \le (1+q_2) \left( \frac{r^\mu }{u}\right) ^\frac{1}{q_2}= (1+q_2)\Psi ^{-1}\left( \frac{r^\mu }{u}\right) , \end{aligned}$$which shows that (2) holds for \(u<r^\lambda<r^\mu <r.\)
- \(2^\circ \).:
-
Let now \(1<r^\lambda<u<r^\mu <r.\) By (7) we have
$$\begin{aligned}&u^\frac{\alpha }{n}\Phi ^{-1}\left( \frac{r^\lambda }{u}\right) +\int \limits _u^r t^\frac{\alpha }{n}\Phi ^{-1}\left( \frac{r^{\lambda }}{t}\right) \frac{dt}{t} \\&\quad = r^\frac{\lambda }{p_1}u^{-\frac{1}{q_1}} \left( 1+\ln {\frac{u}{r^\lambda }}\right) ^a+\int \limits _u^r t^\frac{\alpha }{n} \left( \frac{r^\lambda }{t}\right) ^\frac{1}{p_1}\left( 1+\ln {\frac{t}{r^\lambda }}\right) ^a \frac{dt}{t}\\&\quad = r^\frac{\lambda }{p_1}u^{-\frac{1}{q_1}} \left( 1+\ln {\frac{u}{r^\lambda }}\right) ^a+r^\frac{\lambda }{p_1}\int \limits _u^r t^{-\frac{1}{q_1}+\varepsilon }(1+\ln {\frac{t}{r^\lambda }})^a \frac{dt}{t^{1+\varepsilon }}\\&\quad \le r^\frac{\lambda }{p_1}u^{-\frac{1}{q_1}} \left( 1+\ln {\frac{u}{r^\lambda }}\right) ^a+r^\frac{\lambda }{p_1} u^{-\frac{1}{q_1}+\varepsilon }\left( 1+\ln {\frac{u}{r^\lambda }}\right) ^a \int \limits _u^r t^{-1-\varepsilon }\,dt\\&\quad \le \left( 1+\frac{1}{\varepsilon }\right) \, r^\frac{\lambda }{p_1} u^{-\frac{1}{q_1}}\left( 1+\ln {\frac{u}{r^\lambda }}\right) ^a. \end{aligned}$$Since \(\ln {\frac{u}{r^\lambda }} \le \frac{u}{r^\lambda }-1\) for any \(\frac{u}{r^\lambda }>1\) and \(a<\frac{1}{p_1}-\frac{1}{p_2}\) it follows that
$$\begin{aligned}{} & {} u^\frac{\alpha }{n}\Phi ^{-1}\left( \frac{r^\lambda }{u}\right) +\int \limits _u^r t^\frac{\alpha }{n}\Phi ^{-1}\left( \frac{r^{\lambda }}{t}\right) \frac{dt}{t} \le \left( 1+\frac{1}{\varepsilon }\right) \, r^\frac{\lambda }{p_1} u^{-\frac{1}{q_1}} \left( \frac{u}{r^\lambda }\right) ^a \\{} & {} \quad \le \bigg (1+\frac{1}{\varepsilon }\bigg ) \, r^\frac{\lambda }{p_1} u^{-\frac{1}{q_1}} \left( \frac{u}{r^\lambda }\right) ^{\frac{1}{p_1}-\frac{1}{p_2}} =\bigg (1+\frac{1}{\varepsilon }\bigg )\, r^\frac{\lambda }{p_2}u^{-\frac{1}{q_1}+\frac{1}{q_1}-\frac{1}{q_2}} \\{} & {} \quad =\left( 1+\frac{1}{\varepsilon }\right) \left( \frac{r^\mu }{u}\right) ^{\frac{1}{q_2}} = \left( 1+\frac{1}{\varepsilon } \right) \Psi ^{-1}\left( \frac{r^\mu }{u}\right) , \end{aligned}$$where we used equality \(\frac{1}{p_1}-\frac{1}{p_2}=\frac{1}{q_1}-\frac{1}{q_2}.\) Thus, condition (2) is true also for \(1<r^\lambda<u<r^\mu <r.\)
- \(3^\circ \).:
-
Finally, we will show that (2) holds for \(1<r^\lambda<r^\mu<u<r\). Again by (7) we get
$$\begin{aligned}{} & {} u^\frac{\alpha }{n}\Phi ^{-1}\left( \frac{r^\lambda }{u}\right) +\int \limits _u^r t^\frac{\alpha }{n}\Phi ^{-1}\left( \frac{r^{\lambda }}{t}\right) \frac{dt}{t}\\{} & {} \quad = r^\frac{\lambda }{p_1} u^{-\frac{1}{q_1}} \bigg (1-\ln {\frac{r^\lambda }{u}}\bigg )^a+\int \limits _u^r t^\frac{\alpha }{n} \left( \frac{r^\lambda }{t}\right) ^\frac{1}{p_1} \bigg (1+\ln {\frac{t}{r^\lambda }}\bigg )^a \frac{dt}{t}\\{} & {} \quad = r^\frac{\lambda }{p_1} u^{-\frac{1}{q_1}} \bigg (1+\ln {\frac{u}{r^\lambda }}\bigg )^a+r^\frac{\lambda }{p_1} \int \limits _u^r t^{-\frac{1}{q_1}+\varepsilon } \bigg (1+\ln {\frac{t}{r^\lambda }}\bigg )^a \frac{dt}{t^{1+\varepsilon }}\\{} & {} \quad \le \bigg (1+\frac{1}{\varepsilon }\bigg ) \, r^\frac{\lambda }{p_1} u^{-\frac{1}{q_1}}\bigg (1+\ln {\frac{u}{r^\lambda }}\bigg )^a. \end{aligned}$$Since the function \(g(u) = 1+\ln {\frac{u}{r^\lambda }}-\bigg (1+\ln {\frac{u}{r^\mu }}\bigg )\bigg (1+\ln {r^{\mu -\lambda }}\bigg )\) is decreasing for any \(r^\mu<u<r\) it follows that \(g(u) \le g(r^\mu ) = 0.\) Thus, taking into account that \(\ln {r^{\mu -\lambda }} \le r^{\mu -\lambda } - 1\) for any \(r>1\) and \(\mu >\lambda \) we obtain
$$\begin{aligned} (1+\ln {\frac{u}{r^\lambda }})^a \le (1+\ln {\frac{u}{r^\mu }})^a (1+\ln {r^{\mu -\lambda }})^a \le r^{a(\mu -\lambda )} (1+\ln {\frac{u}{r^\mu }})^a. \end{aligned}$$Applying estimates \(a < \frac{1}{p_1}-\frac{1}{p_2}\) and \(\frac{1-\lambda }{1-\mu }>1\) we get
$$\begin{aligned}{} & {} u^\frac{\alpha }{n}\Phi ^{-1}\left( \frac{r^\lambda }{u}\right) +\int \limits _u^r t^\frac{\alpha }{n}\Phi ^{-1}\left( \frac{r^{\lambda }}{t}\right) \frac{dt}{t} \le \bigg (1+\frac{1}{\varepsilon }\bigg ) \, u^{-\frac{1}{q_1}}r^{a(\mu -\lambda )+\frac{\lambda }{p_1}} \left( 1+\ln {\frac{u}{r^\mu }}\right) ^a\\{} & {} \quad \le \bigg (1+\frac{1}{\varepsilon }\bigg ) \, u^{-\frac{1}{q_1}}r^{\frac{\mu }{p_1}-\frac{\mu }{p_2}+\frac{\lambda }{p_2}} \left( 1+\ln {\frac{u}{r^\mu }}\right) ^a\\{} & {} \quad \le \bigg (1+\frac{1}{\varepsilon }\bigg ) \, u^{-\frac{1}{q_1}}r^{\frac{\mu }{q_1}-\frac{\mu }{q_2}+\frac{\mu }{q_2}} \bigg (1+ \frac{1-\lambda }{1-\mu }\ln {\frac{u}{r^\mu }}\bigg )^a\\{} & {} \quad = \bigg (1+\frac{1}{\varepsilon }\bigg ) \left( \frac{r^\mu }{u}\right) ^{\frac{1}{q_1}}\left( 1-\frac{1-\lambda }{1-\mu }\ln {\frac{r^\mu }{u}}\right) ^a = \bigg (1+\frac{1}{\varepsilon }\bigg ) \Psi ^{-1}\left( \frac{r^\mu }{u}\right) . \end{aligned}$$
Thus, all conditions of Theorem 1 are satisfied and \(I_\alpha \) is bounded from \(M^{\Phi , \lambda }(0)\) to \(M^{\Psi , \mu }(0).\)
It is important to mention that this example does not satisfy the condition (3), that is, the condition
is not true for functions \(\Phi ^{-1}\) and \(\Psi ^{-1}\) defined in Example 3. Indeed, let \(0<r < 1\) and \(u=1.\) Then taking into account that \((1-\ln {\frac{r^\lambda }{t}})^a\) is increasing function on \([1, \infty )\) we get
Since \(\frac{\lambda }{p_1} < \frac{\mu }{q_1}\) it follows that
Thus, the condition (3) is not satisfied for the functions \(\Phi \) and \(\Psi ,\) defined in Example 3. However, as it was shown above, all conditions of Theorem 1 are satisfied, which shows that Theorem 1 improves our result proved in [4, Theorem 3].
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Burtseva, E., Maligranda, L. A new result on boundedness of the Riesz potential in central Morrey–Orlicz spaces. Positivity 27, 62 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11117-023-01013-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11117-023-01013-4
Keywords
- Riesz potential
- Orlicz functions
- Orlicz spaces
- Morrey–Orlicz spaces
- Central Morrey–Orlicz spaces
- Weak central Morrey–Orlicz spaces