Tesis Johansson PDF

2007:53
DOCTORA L T H E S I S
Carleman type inequalities

and Hardy type inequalities
for monotone functions
Maria Johansson
Luleå University of Technology

Department of Mathematics
2007:53|:-1544|: - -- 07⁄53 -- 

Carleman type inequalities and
Hardy type inequalities for
monotone functions
by
Maria Johansson
Department of Mathematics
Luleå University of Technology
971 87 Luleå, Sweden
November 2007
Supervisor
Lars-Erik Persson,
Luleå University of Technology, Sweden
Published 2007
Printed in Sweden by University Printing Office, Luleå
To Hans, Emma and Nils
iv
Abstract
This Ph.D. thesis deals with various generalizations of the inequalities by

Carleman, Hardy and Pólya-Knopp. In Chapter 1 we give an introduction
and overview of the area that serves as a frame for the rest of the thesis. In
Chapter 2 we consider Carleman’s inequality, which may be regarded as a
discrete version of Pólya-Knopp’s inequality and also as a natural limiting
inequality of the discrete Hardy inequality. We present several simple proofs
of and remarks (e.g. historical) about this inequality. In Chapter 3 we give
some sharpenings and generalizations of Carleman’s inequality. We discuss
and comment on these results and put them into the frame presented in the
previous chapter. In particular, we present some new proofs and results. In
Chapter 4 we prove a multidimensional Sawyer duality formula for radially
decreasing functions and with general weights. We also state the correspond-
ing result for radially increasing functions. In particular, these results imply
that we can describe mapping properties of operators defined on cones of
such monotone functions. Moreover, we point out that these results can also
be used to describe mapping properties of operators between some corre-
sponding general weighted multidimensional Lebesgue spaces. In Chapter 5
we give a new weight characterization of the weighted Hardy inequality for
decreasing functions and use this result to give a new weight characteriza-
tion of the weighted Pólya-Knopp inequality for decreasing functions and we
also give a new scale of weightconditions for characterizing the embedding
Λp (v) → Γq (u) for the case 1 < p ≤ q < ∞. In Chapter 6 we make a unified
approach to Hardy type inequalitits for decreasing functions and prove a re-
sult which covers both the Sinnamon result with one condition and Sawyer’s
result with two independent conditions for the case when one weight is non-
decreasing. In all cases we point out that this condition is not unique and
can even be chosen among some (infinite) scales of conditions. In Chapter 7
v
vi Abstract
we prove a weight characterization of Lpν [0, ∞)−Lqμ [0, ∞) boundedness of the

1
s
general Hardy operator (Hs f )(x) = [0,x] f s udλ restricted to the cone of
monotone functions f ≥ 0 for 0 < p, q, s < ∞ with positive Borel σ-finite
measures λ, μ and ν. In Chapter 8 we present some new integral conditions
characterizing the embedding Λp (v) → Γq (w) , 0 < p, q ≤ ∞, including
proofs also for the cases (i) p = ∞, 0 < q < ∞, (ii) q = ∞, 1 < p < ∞ and
(iii) p = q = ∞. Only one condition is necessary for each case, which means
that our conditions are different and simpler than other corresponding con-
ditions in the literature. We even prove our results in a more general frame
namely when the space Γq (w) is replaced by the more general space Γqu (w) .
In our proof we use a technique of discretization and anti-discretization de-
veloped by A. Gogatishvili and L. Pick, where they considered the opposite
embedding.
Preface
This Ph.D. thesis is written as a monograph. In particular, the contributions

of the author in the papers below are included and put into this general
frame.
• M. Johansson, L.-E. Persson and A. Wedestig, Carlemans olikhet-

historik, skärpningar och generaliseringar, Normat 51:3 (2003), 89-108
(in Swedish).
• M. Johansson, L.-E. Persson and A. Wedestig, Carleman’s inequality:

history, proofs and some new generalizations, J. Inequal. Pure Appl.
Math. 3(4) (2003)(19 pages).
• S. Barza, M. Johansson and L.-E. Persson, A Sawyer duality principle

for radially monotone functions in Rn , J. Inequal. Pure Appl. Math.
6(2) (2005)(13 pages).
• A. Gogatishvili, M. Johansson, C.A. Okpoti and L.-E. Persson, Char-

acterizations of embeddings in Lorentz spaces, Bull. Austral. Math.
Soc. 76 (2007), 69-92.
• M. Johansson, V.D. Stepanov and E.P. Ushakova, Hardy inequality

with three measures on monotone functions, to appear in Math. In-
equal. Appl. (20 pages).
vii
viii Preface
• M. Johansson, A unified approach to the Sawyer and Sinnamon char-

acterizations of Hardy’s inequality for decreasing functions, Research
report 6, Department of Mathematics, Luleå University of Technology,
(2007) (11 pages).
• M. Johansson, A new characterization of the Hardy and its limit Polya-

Knopp inequality for decreasing functions, Research report 7, De-
partment of Mathematics, Luleå University of Technology, (2007) (14
pages), submitted.
See also [9], [32], [48], [49], [50], [51] and [52].
Acknowledgements
First of all I want to express my deepest gratitude to Professor Lars-Erik

Persson, my main supervisor, for his guidance, support and encouragement.
I consider myself fortunate to be one of his students.
Secondly, I want to express my gratitude to Professor Lech Maligranda
and Vladimir Stepanov, my co-supervisors, for their support and many fruit-
ful discussions. Moreover , I want to Thank Dr. Sorina Barza and Dr. Anna
Wedestig, my co-supervisors up to licentiate degree, for constant support
and generous advices.
I would also like to thank my co-authors Professor Lars-Erik Persson,
Professor Vladimir Stepanov (Peoples Friendship University, Moscow, Rus-
sia), Professor Amiran Gogatishvili (Mathematical Institute, Academy of
Sciences, Czech Republic), Dr. Elena Ushakova (Computing Center FEB
RAS, Khabarovsk, Russia), Dr. Sorina Barza (Karlstad University), Dr.
Anna Wedestig and Dr. Christopher Okpoti (University of education, Win-
neba, Ghana) , for their cooperation and also for their help with this Ph.D.
thesis. Especially I want to thank Dr. Anna Wedestig for all her help and
for just being a good friend.
Furthermore, I thank everyone at the Department of Mathematics at
Luleå University of Technology for the inspiring and challenging atmosphere.
Finally, I want to thank my husband Hans for his constant love and
support, and I thank our children Emma and Nils for bringing so much joy
into our lives.
Luleå, November 2007

Maria Johansson
ix
x Acknowledgements
Conventions and notations
The notations R, Z, N stand for the field of real numbers, the group of integers
and the semigroup of natural numbers, respectively. If n ∈ N \{0} we denote
Rn+ := {x = (x1 , ..., xn ) : xi ≥ 0, i = 1, 2, ...n} and R+ := R1+ .
Constants are always positive and denoted by C and may be different
at different places. Throughout this thesis all functions are assumed to be
measurable. Moreover, n ∈ Z+ , 1 ≤ p < ∞, p = p−1 p
(p = ∞ if p = 1),
v (x) and u (x) are weights (positive and measurable functions on Rn ) and
Lpv = Lpv (Rn )

1
p
p
= f : Rn → R, measurable s.t. |f (x)| v (x) dx <∞ .
Rn
A function f : Rn → R is decreasing (increasing) if f (x) ≤ f (y) whenever

x ≤ y. If f : Rn → R is decreasing (increasing) separately in each variable
we write 0 ≤ f ↓ (0 ≤ f ↑). A set D ⊂ Rn is said to be decreasing if its
characteristic function χD is decreasing, and clearly if 0 ≤ h ↓ and t > 0,
then the set Dh,t = {x ∈ Rn : h (x) > t} is decreasing.
The symbol ≈ (c.f. (4.1)) means that the quotient of the right and left
hand sides is bounded from above and below by positive constants, while
expressions as 0 · ∞ = ∞ · 0 are taken as zero. Other notations will be
introduced and explained when required.
xi
xii Conventions and notations
Contents
Abstract v
Preface vii
Acknowledgements ix
Conventions and notations xi
1 Introduction 1
1.1 On Hardy’s original inequalities and its pre-history . . . . . . 1
1.2 Some further developments of the Hardy inequality . . . . . . 4
1.3 On the limiting inequalities of the discrete Hardy inequality . 5
1.4 On the limiting inequalities of the continuous Hardy inequality 6
1.5 On Hardy and Pólya-Knopp type inequalities on the cone of
decreasing functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.6 On the connection between the one condition case and the
two conditions case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.7 On multidimensional Hardy-type inequalities . . . . . . . . . 12
1.8 On the Hardy inequality with measures . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2 Carleman’s inequality - history and proofs 15

2.1 Some proofs of Carleman’s inequality . . . 16
2.2 Pólya-Knopp’s inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.3 Final remarks about Torsten Carleman and his work . . . . . 28
3 Carleman’s inequality - some new sharpenings and general-

izations 31
xiii
xiv Contents
4 A Sawyer duality principle for radially monotone functions

in Rn 41
4.1 Preliminary results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.2 The Duality Principle for radially monotone functions . . . . 44
4.3 Further results and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5 A new characterization of the Hardy inequality and its limit

Pólya-Knopp inequality for decreasing functions 59
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5.2 A new weight characterization of the weighted Hardy inequal-
ity for decreasing functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.3 A characterization of the Pólya-Knopp inequality for decreas-
ing functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
5.4 Another approach via an equivalence theorem . . . . . . . . . 68
6 A Unified approach to Sawyer and Sinnamon characteriza-

tions of the Hardy inequality for decreasing functions 73
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
6.2 The main result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
6.3 Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
7 Hardy inequality with three measures on monotone func-

tions 83
7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
7.2 Preliminary remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
7.3 The case 0 < p ≤ 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
7.4 The case 1 < p, q < ∞ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
8 Characterizations of embeddings in Lorentz spaces 107

8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
8.2 Preliminaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
8.3 The main result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
8.4 Proofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 On Hardy’s original inequalities and its pre-

history
The dramatic pre-history until G.H. Hardy finally proved his famous inequal-
ity (see (1.2) below) in his 1925 paper was recently described and analyzed in
the paper [61] by A. Kufner, L. Maligranda and L.-E. Persson. In particular
we have included some facts from this description in this section.
Let us first consider the following standard forms of Hardy’s inequality.
The discrete Hardy inequality: if p > 1 and {ak }∞ 1 is a sequence of
positive real numbers, then
∞
n p p
∞

1
p
ak ≤ apn , (1.1)
n p−1
n=1 k=1 n=1
and the continuous Hardy inequality: suppose that p > 1 and f is a non-
negative p-integrable function on (0, ∞). Then f is integrable over the in-
terval (0, x) for all x > 0 and
⎛ x ⎞p
∞ p ∞
⎝ 1 f (t)dt⎠ dx ≤ p
f p (x)dx. (1.2)
x p−1
0 0 0
We make the following remarks:
1
2 Carleman type inequalities and Hardy type inequalities
1. The inequalities (1.1) and (1.2) are the standard forms of Hardy’s
inequalities, which can be found in many textbooks in analysis and have been
highlighted first in the famous book [44] by G.H. Hardy, J.E. Littlewood and
G. Pólya.
2. By restricting (1.2) to the class of step functions it can easily be proved
that (1.2) in fact implies (1.1). This important fact seems to have been first
mentioned by E. Landau (cf. [43, p. 154] and [61, Section 8], see also section
1.3). p
p
3. The constant p−1 in both inequalities (1.1) and (1.2) is sharp in
the sense that it can not be replaced by any smaller number.
4. The inequalities (1.1) and (1.2) imply the following information:
∞

∞

If apn < ∞, then hpn (a) < ∞, (1.3)

n=1 n=1
where a = {an } with an ≥ 0 and h (a) = {hn (a)} ,

hn (a) := n1 nk=1 ak < ∞ is the discrete Hardy operator.
∞ ∞
If f p (x)dx < ∞, then (Hf (x))p dx < ∞, (1.4)
0 0
1
x
where f (x) ≥ 0 and Hf (x) := x f (x) dx is the continuous Hardy operator.
0
Note that (1.3) and (1.4) are sometimes (see e.g. comments at the end
of Hardy’s paper [41]) called the weak forms of (1.1) and (1.2), respectively.
5. The inequalities (1.1) and (1.2) together with remark 3 above im-
ply the important information that the Hardy operators H and h map the
spaces Lp into Lp and lp into lp , respectively (p > 1), and their norms are
equal to p := p−1
p
. Here, as usual, the spaces Lp and lp are the Lebesgue
spaces consisting of all classes of measurable functions f = f (x) on (0, ∞) ,
respective sequences a = {an } of real numbers, such that
⎛∞ ⎞1/p ∞ 1/p

f Lp := ⎝ |f (x)| dx⎠ < ∞ and alp :=

p
|an |p
< ∞.
0 n=1
6. The inequalities (1.1) and (1.2) have been generalized and applied in
analysis and in the theory of differential equations. Some of these develop-
ments, generalizations and applications have been described and discussed
Introduction 3
in several papers and books e.g. [44], [62], [63] and [80], devoted only to this
subject.
Let us now present shortly the inequality that in fact was Hardy’s main
source and motivation when he initiated the research that finally led him
to the inequality (1.1). This was another famous inequality, which was dis-
covered by D. Hilbert in the early1900s. Here we present it in the most
basic form: If ∞ 2
m=1 am < ∞ and
∞ 2
n=1 bn < ∞ (am ≥ 0, bn ≥ 0) , then the
∞ ∞
double series n=1 m=1 am+n m bn
converges (the weak form). More precisely,
the inequality
∞
∞
∞ 1/2 ∞ 1/2

am bn

2
≤π am b2n (1.5)
m+n
n=1 m=1 m=1 n=1
holds with π as the sharp constant. In the literature also the following more
general form of (1.5) is referred to as Hilbert’s inequality:
∞
∞
∞ 1/p ∞ 1/p

am bn π

≤ p
am bnp
, (1.6)
m+n sin π
n=1 m=1 p m=1 n=1
where p > 1 and p = p−1 p

, even if Hilbert himself was not even close to
consider this case (the space Lp appeared only in 1910). We remark that it
was M. Riesz and G.H. Hardy himself who took the first step towards a proof
of (1.6). Other important mathematicians who take part in this development
was E. Landau and G. Pólya.
Now consider the inequality (1.1). In fact, for p = 2 G. H. Hardy dealt
with this inequality already in his paper [41] from 1919 but his ideas and
motivation (to find an elementary proof of Hilbert’s inequality) traces back
even to his paper [40] from 1915. Moreover, in the paper [42] from 1920 Hardy
described a proof of (1.1) which had been communicated to him by M. Riesz
2 p
p
but without the best constant (in his estimate the constant p−1 appears).
Finally, in his famous 1925 paper [43] Hardy wrote: ”In a letter dated 21
June 1921, Landaucommunicated
to me a direct proof of (1.1) which gives
p
p
the correct value p−1 ”. In the same note he stated and proved his
celebrated integral version of (1.1) namely (1.2) and informed that Landau
already in his 1921 letter also pointed out that in fact (1.2) implies (1.1).
The inequality (1.1) is usually referred to as the discrete Hardy inequality
in the literature but for historical reasons (described above) we could also
call it the Hardy-Riesz-Landau inequality. As you can see in [61] other
mathematicians made very important contributions in the development of
the inequalities (1.2) and (1.1), e.g. E. Landau, G. Pólya, M. Riesz and I.
Schur. For example if the results of these persons had been published in
another way it could have changed the situation and it should not be unfair
to call the discrete inequality (1.1) as the Riesz, or the Landau-Riesz or the
Hardy-Landau-Riesz inequality.
1.2 Some further developments of the Hardy in-

equality
Since 1925 the investigations and generalizations of Hardy’s inequality have
developed in several directions. Here we have to mention some books which
are important. The first one is the classical Hardy-Littlewood-Pólya book
[44] from 1934. Moreover, in 1990 B. Opic and A. Kufner published the
book [80], which is completely concerned with the Hardy inequalities. The
newest developments of Hardy-type inequalities can be found in [63] by A.
Kufner and L.-E. Persson and in [62] by A. Kufner, L. Maligranda and L.-E.
Persson. Here we also mention the following books on inequalities (related
to this subject): [28], [29], [31] and [72].
There are also many papers written in this subject. For more information
see the references in the books. Here we also have to mention some recent
Ph.D. theses devoted to this subject, namely those by S. Barza [7], A.A.
Kalybay [55], M. Nassyrova [75], C.A. Okpoti [79], D.V. Prokhorov [89], E.
Ushakova [101] and A. Wedestig [103].
Important developments have been made in, for example, the following
directions:
• Weighted forms of Hardy-type inequalities.
• The mapping properties of the Hardy operator between weighted Lp

or Lq spaces.
• Compactness properties of the Hardy operator.
• Weighted Hardy-type inequalities of weak type.
• Weighted Hardy-type inequalities on the cone of monotone functions

or sequences.
• Hardy-type inequalities in more general function spaces e.g. Orlicz,

Lorentz or even Banach function spaces.
Introduction 5
• Limiting (Carleman or Pólya-Knopp type) inequalities of the Hardy-

type inequalities (when p → ∞).
• Hardy-type inequalities with more general integraloperators (described

e.g. by an integralkernel satisfying an Oinarov condition).
• Multidimensional Hardy-type inequalities (e.g. for cones or even more

general subsets of Rn ).
• Fractional order Hardy-type inequalities.
• Refined Hardy-type inequalities.
• Higher order Hardy-type inequalities.
• General three-weights Hardy-type inequalities.
• Hardy-type inequalities for negative indices.
• Mapping properties of the Hardy operator with variable limits and its
limiting (geometric mean) operator.
• Various combinations of the developments above.
• Various applications e.g. mapping properties of the maximal function,

imbedding of Lorentz spaces, the theory of partial differential equa-
tions, signal processing, etc.
In the remaining part of this introduction we just comment more on some

points in connection to which contributions have been made in this Ph.D.
thesis.
1.3 On the limiting inequalities of the discrete Hardy

inequality
1
First we observe that by replacing ak in (1.1) by akp and letting k −→ ∞ we
obtain the inequality n
∞

∞
ak ≤ e an . (1.7)
n=1 k=1 n=1
This inequality was first presented in 1922 in [14] by the Swedish mathemati-
cian Torsten Carleman (1892-1942) and it is called Carleman’s inequality.
Carleman discovered this inequality during his important work on quasian-

alytical functions and he could hardly have imagined at that time that this
discovery would be an object for such great independent interest.
More information about Carleman’s inequality is found in Chapter 2,
where we present several proofs and remarks on (1.7). At the end of the
chapter we also present some facts about T. Carleman and his work.
In Chapter 3 we give some examples of some generalizations of (1.7)
and (1.9). We discuss and comment on these results and put them into
the frame presented in Chapter 2. We also include some new proofs and
results. In particular, we prove a new weight characterization of a general
weighted Carleman type inequality for the case 0 < p ≤ q < ∞, i.e. we
prove a necessary and sufficient condition on the weight sequences {bk }∞k=1
and {dk }∞k=1 so that the inequality
∞
∞ 1/p

√
( k a1 a2 ...ak )q bk ≤ C apk dk (1.8)

k=1 k=1
holds for some finite and positive constant C and for all sequences {ak }∞
k=1
of positive numbers.
1.4 On the limiting inequalities of the continuous

Hardy inequality
By making similar calculations as mentioned in the previous section, in the
inequality (1.2) we obtain the corresponding limit inequality
⎛ ⎞
∞ x ∞
1
exp ⎝ ln f (t)dt⎠ dx < e f (x)dx, (1.9)
x
0 0 0
where f (t) > 0 and it is sometimes called Knopp’s inequality with reference
to [54] (cf. Remark 2.12). However, it seems that it was G. Pólya who first
discovered this inequality (see Remark 2.3). Therefore we prefer to call it
Pólya-Knopp’s inequality.
In Chapter 2 we prove that (1.9) implies (1.7). We also present some
proofs of (1.9) and thereby some more proofs of (1.7).
Next we mention that in [84] L.-E. Persson and V.D. Stepanov proved a
weight characterization for the inequality (1.14) by first characterizing the
Introduction 7
Hardy inequality
⎛ ∞⎛ x ⎞q ⎞1 ⎛∞ ⎞1
q p
⎝ ⎝ 1
f (t)dt⎠ u(x)dx⎠ ≤ C ⎝ f (x)v(x)dx⎠
p
(1.10)
x
0 0 0
with a new weight criteria. Their result reads:
Theorem 1.1. Let 1 0
0 0 0
Moreover, the best constant C in (1.10) can be estimated as follows:
AP S ≤ C ≤ p AP S. .
Then by performing a limiting procedure they received the following limit

result:
Theorem 1.2. Let 0 0
0
where ⎛ ⎞− q
x p
1
w(x) = exp ⎝ ln v(y)dy ⎠ u(x). (1.13)
x
0
Moreover, if C is the best possible constant in (1.14), then

1
DP S ≤ C ≤ e p DP S .
In Chapter 5 partly guided by these investigations of Persson and Stepanov

we give a new weight characterization to the Pólya-Knopp inequality for de-
creasing functions. More exactly, we proceed as follows: first we give a
characterization of the Hardy inequality for decreasing functions, and then

we use this to give a weight characterization of the weighted Pólya-Knopp
inequality
⎛ ⎛ ⎛ ⎞⎞q ⎞1 ⎛∞ ⎞1
∞ x q p
⎝ ⎝exp ⎝ 1 ln f (t)dt ⎠⎠ u(x)dx ⎠ ≤C ⎝ f (x)v(x)dx

p ⎠ (1.14)
x
0 0 0
for decreasing functions f ≥ 0, for the case 0 < p ≤ q < ∞.
1.5 On Hardy and Pólya-Knopp type inequalities

on the cone of decreasing functions
Recall that, for 0 < p < ∞, the Lorentz space Λp (w) is defined by
⎧ ⎛∞ ⎞1 ⎫
⎪
⎨ p ⎪
⎬
Λ (w) := f : f p,w = ⎝ (f (x)) w(t)dt⎠ < ∞ ,
p ∗ ∗ p
⎪
⎩ ⎪
⎭
0
where w is a weight, f is a measurable function on a measure space X (for

example Rn ) and f ∗ denotes the decreasing rearrangement of |f | defined by
f ∗ (t) = inf {λ > 0 : |{x > 0 : |f (x)| > λ}| ≤ t} .
It is well-known that the functional ·p,w is a norm if and only if w is

decreasing and p ≥ 1.
In order to be able to study the structure of the Λp (w) −space it is impor-
tant to study the boundedness of the Hardy operator f ∗∗ (t) = 1t 0 f ∗ (s) ds
t
between weighted Lp -spaces, which means that the Hardy inequality

⎛ ⎛ ⎞p ⎞1 ⎛∞ ⎞1
∞ x p p
⎝ ⎝1 f (t)dt⎠ u(x)dx⎠ ≤ C ⎝ f (x) u(x)dx⎠

∗ ∗ p
x
0 0 0
holds for decreasing functions f ∗ (t). Recall that the rearrangement of the
Hardy-Littlewood maximal function M f is equivalent to the Hardy operator
of the rearrangement of |f |. To be more precise, if

1
(M f ) (x) = sup |f (z)| dz, x ∈ Rn ,
x∈Q |Q| Q
Introduction 9
where Q is a cube in Rn with sides parallel to the coordinate axes and |Q|
is its Lebesgue measure, then

∗ 1 t ∗
(M f ) (x) ≈ f (s) ds, t > 0.
t 0
Some historical remarks and further developments of this equivalence can be
found in paper [6] (see also [62, p. 92]).
Hence, to prove that
M : Λp (v) → Λq (u) , 1 < p, q < ∞
is a bounded mapping, or, in other words, to characterize the weight func-

tions u and v for which M is bounded between weighted Lorentz spaces, it
is equivalent to prove that the Hardy operator H, defined by

1 t
(Hf ) (t) := f (s) ds, t ≥ 0,
t 0
on the cone of positive decreasing functions, is bounded from Lp (v) to Lq (u) ,
1 < p, q < ∞. This means that one desires to characterize the weight
functions u and v for which the Hardy inequality
⎛ ⎞1 ⎛∞ ⎞1
∞ x q q p
⎝ 1
f (t) dt u (x) dx⎠ ≤ C ⎝ f (x) v (x) dx⎠
p
x 0
0 0
holds for all f ≥ 0 which are decreasing.

In Chapter 8 we present some new integral conditions which characterize
the embedding Λpu (v) → Γpu (v), where
∞ 1
p
Γpu (v) = f : f Γpu (v) = fu∗∗p (t) v (t) dt <∞ .
0
for the cases 0 < p, q ≤ ∞. We include proofs also for the cases (i) p = ∞,
0 < q < ∞, (ii) q = ∞, 1 < p < ∞ and (iii) p = q = ∞. Hence the results
are new also for the case u ≡ 1. Only one condition is necessary for each
case which means that our conditions are different and simpler than other
corresponding conditions in the literature. In our proof we use a technique
of discretization and anti-discretization developed by A Gogatishvili and L.
Pick in [35] and [36], where the opposite embedding was considered.
Other aspects of generalized Lorentz spaces and Hardy type inequalities
for monotone functions have been studied by several authors among them
we mention L. Maligranda (see e.g. [26], [45], [57], [56], [68], [69], [70] and
[71]) and for more references see also the Ph.D. Thesis [7] by S. Barza and
the new book [62] by A. Kufner, L. Maligranda and L.-E. Persson.
We also mention that in 1990 E. Sawyer [93] established the following
remarkable duality principle for weighted Lp spaces on the cone of decreasing
functions:
Suppose that 1 < p < ∞. Let g, v be positive measurable functions on
(0, ∞) with v locally integrable. Then
∞
f (x) g (x) dx
sup 0 1 ≈
0≤f ↓ ∞ p (x) v (x) dx p
0 f
1/p ∞
∞ x p x −p
g (x) dx
g (t) dt v (t) dt v (x) dx + ∞0 1/p .
0 0 0
0 v (x) dx
A very nice proof of this principle was presented by V.D. Stepanov in
[99].
1.6 On the connection between the one condition

case and the two conditions case
In 1990 E. Sawyer also made a very important contribution to the study of
the Hardy inequality for decreasing functions, namely he proved the follow-
ing result by using a general approach (see [93, Theorem 2] and also [100,
Theorem 2] for a simpler proof):
Theorem 1.3. Let 1 < p ≤ q < ∞. Then the Hardy inequality

⎛ ⎞1 ⎛∞ ⎞1
∞ x q q p
⎝ 1 ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
f (t) dt u (x) dx ≤C f (x) v (x) dx
p
(1.15)
x 0
0 0
holds for all f ↓≥ 0 if and only if

⎛ ⎞ 1q
t
− p1
A0 = A0 (p, q, u, v) := supV (t) ⎝ u(x)dx⎠ < ∞, (1.16)
t>0
0
and
A1 = A1 (p, q, u, v) := (1.17)
Introduction 11
⎛∞ ⎞1 ⎛ t ⎞ 1
q p
⎝ −q ⎠ ⎝ p −p ⎠
sup u(x)x dx x V (x)v(x)dx < ∞,
t>0
t 0
where p = p
p−1 and
t
V (t) = v(x)dx. (1.18)
0
C ≈ max(A0 , A1 ).
The inequality (1.15) is a special case of the general three-weights in-

equality studied in [77] (here the measures are dx, u(x)dx and v(x)dx, re-
spectively). We also note that G. Sinnamon in [97] studied the following
two-weights Hardy inequality
⎛∞ ⎞1 ⎛∞ ⎞1
x q q p
⎝ f dλ dμ⎠ ≤ C ⎝ f dλ⎠ ,
p
0
0 0
where λ and μ are measures on R. For the special case when dμ = u (x) dx
and dλ = v (x) dx this result reads (see [97, Corollary 3.4]):
Theorem 1.4. Let 1 < p ≤ q < ∞ and let u (x) and v (x) be weight functions
on (0, ∞). Then the inequality
⎛∞ ⎞1⎛∞ ⎞1
x q q p
⎝ f (t) v (t) dt u (x) dx ⎠ ≤C ⎝ f (x) v (x) dx

p ⎠ (1.19)
0
0 0
holds for all non-increasing f ≥ 0 if and only if

⎛ t ⎛ x ⎞q ⎞ 1q ⎛ t ⎞− p1

A2 := sup ⎝ u (x) ⎝ v (y) dy ⎠ dx⎠ ⎝ v (x) dx⎠ < ∞. (1.20)
t>0
0 0 0
In Chapter 6 we investigate the connection between the result due to

Sawyer (Theorem 1.3) and the result due to Sinnamon (Theorem 1.4). We
also present a new Hardy type inequality from which we can get both the
Sinnamon one condition result and the Sawyer two conditions result for a
special case.
1.7 On multidimensional Hardy-type inequalities

There are few results concerning characterizations of the weights so that
multidimensional Hardy-type inequalities hold in weighted Lp -spaces. Here
we just mention the following results, which have guided the investigations
in this thesis:
1. Hardy-type inequalities when the standard one-dimensional Hardy-
operator is replaced by spherical means. One early result of this type is due
to P. Drábek, H.P. Heinig and A. Kufner [27] (see our Theorem 4.1). This
idea is further developed and explained in the paper [24] by A. Čižmešija,
L.-E. Persson and A. Wedestig, where general cones in Rn are considered.
2. In the paper [93] E. Sawyer considered mapping properties of the
two-dimensional Hardy operator H2 defined by
x1 x2
H2 (f (x1 , x2 )) = f (t1 , t2 ) dt1 dt2 .
0 0
He proved the remarkable result that it was necessary and sufficient to have
three different integral conditions to characterize the weights u and v so that
a Hardy-type inequality holds in the normal Lp (u) → Lq (v) situation when
1 < p ≤ q < ∞.
Moreover, recently in her Ph.D. thesis [103] A. Wedestig proved that if
the weight v is of product type, then in fact we can get a weight charac-
terization in the Sawyer situation described above by only using one of his
conditions. This Wedestig result in fact also holds in dimension n ∈ Z+
and the corresponding limit (Pólya-Knopp type) inequalities can be derived.
These ideas were also further developed and complemented in the Ph.D.
thesis [101] by E. Ushakova.
3. In the paper [10], S. Barza, L.-E. Persson and J. Soria studied multi-
dimensional Hardy-type inequalities on the cone of functions decreasing (or
increasing) in each variable. In particular, in their characterization these
authors were guided to introduce the new concept of decreasing sets. More
results of this type can be found in the paper [11] by S. Barza, L.-E. Persson
and V.D. Stepanov. These ideas were fully developed in the Ph.D. thesis [7]
by S. Barza.
In Chapter 4 of this Ph.D. thesis we prove a multidimensional version
of the Sawyer duality principle for radially decreasing functions and with
general weights (see Theorem 4.3). We also state the corresponding result
for radially increasing functions (see Theorem 4.5). A number of applications
and related results are also included.
Introduction 13
1.8 On the Hardy inequality with measures

Hardy was originally most interested in the discrete case but his final result in
the 1925 paper was in the continuous case (but he was aware of the fact that
the continuous case implies the discrete case in this unweighted situation).
After that almost all development has been concerning the continuous case
(see e.g. the book [62] and the references given there). However, fairly
late also the discrete case has been considered, by e.g. Bennett [13] and the
Ph.D. thesis by C. Okpoti [79] (and in the references given there). Thus, it
is natural to consider the case with general measures. The first result in this
direction seems to be the following result by B. Muckenhoupt [74]: In 1972
he proved that, in the case 1 ≤ p = q < ∞, the inequality
⎛ q ⎞1 ⎛∞ ⎞1
∞ x q p

⎝ f (t) dt dμ (x)⎠ ≤ C ⎝ |f (x)| dν (x)⎠ ,
p
(1.21)

0 0 0
where μ and ν are Borel measures, holds if and only if

⎛ ⎞ 1
r ∼
1−p p
1 dv
M = sup (μ [r, ∞)) ⎝ p dx⎠ < ∞,
r>0 dx
0
∼
where v denotes the absolute continuous part of ν. Moreover, if C is the

least constant for which (1.21) holds, then M ≤ C ≤ p1/p (p )1/p M for
1 < p < ∞ and C = M for p = 1. Moreover, V. Kokilashvili [60] (see also
[62]) in 1979 announced the general result (without a proof there) that for
1 ≤ p ≤ q < ∞ the inequality (1.21) holds if and only if
⎛ ⎞ 1
r ∼
1−p p
1 dv
M K = sup (μ [r, ∞)) ⎝ q dx⎠ < ∞.
r>0 dx
0
It was proved in [33] that there are infinite many conditions (even four scales
of conditions) for characterizing (1.21) for 1 < p ≤ q < ∞. We remark that
in (1.21) three measures are involved namely dt, dμ (x) and dν (x) .
We also consider the following general two weights Hardy type inequality
⎛ ⎛ ⎞q ⎛∞⎞1 ⎞1
q
p
⎜ ⎜ ⎟ ⎟
⎝ ⎝ f dλ⎠ dμ (x)⎠ ≤ C ⎝ f dλ⎠ ,
p
(1.22)
R (−∞,x] 0
and the final general three weights inequality

⎛ ⎛ ⎞q ⎞1 ⎛∞ ⎞1
q
p
⎜ ⎜ ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠
⎝ ⎝ f dσ ⎠ dμ (x)⎠ ≤ C p
f dν . (1.23)
R (−∞,x] 0
By using Sinnamon’s idea about level functions it is possible to characterize

(1.22) and, furthermore, by [78, Theorem 2.1] we can in fact reduce (1.23)
to (1.22).
In Chapter 7 we will study the inequality
⎛ ⎛ ⎞q ⎞1 ⎛ ⎞1
q
∞ p
⎜ ⎜ ⎟ ⎟
⎝ ⎝ f udλ⎠ vdμ (x)⎠ ≤ C ⎝ f wdν ⎠
p
[0,∞) [0,x] 0
where u, v and w are weights, for monotone functions and for all cases 0 <
p, q < ∞.
Chapter 2
Carleman’s inequality - history and

proofs
In this chapter we discuss the following remarkable inequality:

√ √
a1 + a1 a2 + ... + k a1 a2 ...ak < e (a1 + a2 + ...) , (2.1)

∞
where a1 , a2 , ... are positive numbers and ai is convergent. This inequal-
i=1
ity was presented in 1922 in [14] by the Swedish mathematician Torsten
Carleman (1892-1942) and it is called Carleman’s inequality. Carleman dis-
covered this inequality during his important work on quasianalytical func-
tions and he could hardly have imagined at that time that this discovery
would be an object for such great interest. The continuous version of (2.1)
reads ⎛ x ⎞
∞ ∞
⎝ 1 ⎠
exp ln f (t)dt dx < e f (x)dx, (2.2)
x
0 0 0
where f (t) > 0 and it is sometimes called Knopp’s inequality with reference
to [54] (cf. Remark 2.12). However it seems that it was G. Pólya who first
discovered this inequality (see Remark 2.3). Therefore we prefer to call it
Pólya-Knopp’s inequality.
In Section 2.1 of this chapter we present several proofs of and remarks
on (2.1). In Section 2.2 we prove that (2.2) implies (2.1) and present some
proofs of (2.2) (and thus some more proofs of (2.1)).
15
Finally, we include some facts about Torsten Carleman and his work,
which we have found, by studying [1], [58] and the recent article [67] by L.
Maligranda. This description partly complements the information given by
L. Gårding in his book [30].
2.1 Some proofs of Carleman’s inequality

Proof 1. (Rough sketch of Carleman’s original proof)
Carleman first noted that the problem can be solved by finding maximum
of the expression

k
1
(a1 a2 ...ai ) i
i=1
under the constraint

k
ai = 1.
i=1
He then substituted ai = e−xi

and obtained the simpler problem:
Find maximum Mk for k = 1, 2, ... of
k
x1 +x2 +...+xi
G= e− i
i=1
under the constraint

k
H= e−xi = 1.
i=1
This problem can be solved by using the Lagrange multiplier method. Unfor-
tunately this leads to some technical calculations, which, of course Carleman
carried out in an elegant way. We leave out these calculations here, and only
refer to Carleman’s paper [14], where all the details are presented. The result
is that Mk < e for all k ∈ Z+ . Carleman then showed separately that the
inequality (2.1) is strict when the sum on the left hand side converges.
Remark 2.1. In the same paper [14], Carleman proved that the inequality
(2.1) does not hold in general for any constant c < e, i.e., that the constant
e is sharp.
Proof 2. (via Hardy’s inequality)

Carleman’s inequality - history and proofs 17
The discrete version of Hardy’s inequality reads (see [43], [44])
∞
p p
∞

1
k
p
ai < apk , p > 1. (2.3)
k p−1
k=1 i=1 k=1
1/p
Replace ai with ai and note that by using that x = eln x and the definition
of the derivative we find that
k p
1
1/p

k k
1 1/p 0
ai = exp ln ai − ln ai
k p
i=1 i=1 i=1

k
→ exp D(ln axi ) ( when p → ∞)
i=1 x=0
k

k
= exp axi ln ai / axi
i=1 i=1 x=0
k 1/k
1

k
= exp ln ai = ai
k
i=1 i=1
and
we p see that (2.3) leads to the non-strict inequality (2.1) since
p
p−1 → e when p → ∞. Observe that this method does not automati-
cally prove that we have strict inequality in (2.2) and this has to be proved
separately (see for example our later proofs).
Remark 2.2. G.H. Hardy formulated his inequality (2.3) in 1920 in [42]
and proved it 1925 in [43] but it seems that Carleman did not know about the
inequality (2.3) at this time, since he does not refer to the simple connection
that holds according to the proof above. This is somewhat remarkable since
Carleman worked together with Hardy at that time, see for example their
joint paper [15].
Remark 2.3. The above means that (2.1) may be considered as a limit
inequality for the scale (2.3) of Hardy inequalities. This was pointed out by
G.H. Hardy in 1925 in the paper [43, p. 156], but he pronounced that it was
G. Pólya who made him aware of this interesting fact.
We now present two proofs which are based on variations of the arithmetic-
geometric mean inequality (the AG-inequality).
Proof 3 Because of the AG-inequality the following holds for every i =

1, 2, ..., every k and all ci > 0:
1/k k −1/k k 1/k k −1/k

k 1
k
ai = ci ci ai ≤ ci ci ai. (2.4)
k
i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1
(1+i)i
We now choose ci = ii−1
, i = 1, 2, ..., k. Then
k 1/k

ci =k+1 (2.5)
1
and (2.4) and (2.5) gives that

∞

∞

k
√ 1
k
a1 a2 ...ak ≤ ci ai
k (k + 1)
k=1 k=1 i=1
∞

∞

1
= ci ai
k (k + 1)
i=1 k=i

∞ ∞ ∞
ci ai
1 i
= = ai 1 + ≤e ai .
i i
i=1 i=1 i=1
The strict inequality holds, since we cannot have equality at the same time in
all terms of the inequality. This can only occur if ci ai = c for some constant
i ∞
1
c > 0 i.e. ai = c 1+i i
i , i = 1, 2, ... but this can not hold since ai is
i=1
i
convergent (note that 1+i i
→ e when i → ∞).
Remark 2.4. This idea of proof was presented by G. Pólya (see [86, p. 249])
but here we have more closely followed the presentation which can be found
in L. Hörmander’s book [47], p. 24.
Remark 2.5. We note that Proof 3 shows that for finite sums the inequality
(2.1) holds even for some constant strictly less than e. More precise, for
N = 1, 2, ...we have
N N

k
√ 1
k
a1 a2 ...ak ≤ 1+ ak .
k
k=1 k=1
For historical reasons we also present another variant of Proof 3

Proof 4. We choose ci = i, i = 1, 2, ...k, in (2.4) and get that

k 1/k
1
k
ai ≤ (k!)−1/k iai . (2.6)
k
i=1 i=1
Moreover, it holds that

2 k
(k + 1)k 1 1 1
= 1+ 1+ ... 1 + < ek (2.7)
k! 1 2 k
and, by using this inequality and (2.6), we get that

∞

∞

1
k
√ −1/k
k
a1 a2 ...ak ≤ (k!) iai
k
k=1 k=1 i=1

∞
k
e
≤ iai
k(k + 1)
k=1 i=1

∞ ∞

1
= e iai
k(k + 1)
i=1 k=1
∞

= e ai .
i=1
The strict inequality can be proved in a similar manner as in Proof 3 (equality

∞
demands that ak = kc but this contradicts the fact that ak is convergent).
k=1
Remark 2.6. In the paper [42, p. 77], G.H. Hardy presented essentially
this proof but he also pronounced that it was G. Knopp who pointed out this
proof to him.
Proof 5 (Carleson’s proof)

We first note that we can assume that a1 ≥ a2 ≥ ... (because the sum at
the left hand side of (2.1) obviously becomes the greatest if the sequence {ai }
is rearranged in decreasing order while the sum at the right hand side will
be the same for every rearrangement). Let m(x) be a polygon through the
k
points (0, 0) and (k, log(1/ai )), k = 1, 2, ... The function m(x) is obviously
1
convex and because of that it holds that for every r > 1
m(rx) ≥ m(x) + (r − 1)xm´(x). (2.8)

Furthermore
m´(x) = log(1/ak ), x ∈ (k − 1, k) , (2.9)
and since m (0) = 0 and m is convex.
m(x) m(x) − m(0) m(k) − m(0)
= ≤ (2.10)
x x k
1
k
m(k)
= = log(1/ai ) for all x ≤ k.
k k
i=1
We now make a substitution and use Hölder’s inequality and (2.8). Then we
find, for every A > 0 and r > 1,
A rA
1 −m(x)/x 1
e dx ≤ e−m(x)/x dx
r r
0 0
A
= e−m(rx)/rx dx
0
A

≤ e−m(x)/rx−((r−1)/r)m (x) dx
0
⎛ A ⎞1/r ⎛ A ⎞ (r−1)
r

≤ ⎝ e−m(x)/x dx⎠ ⎝ e−m (x) dx⎠
0 0
so that
A A
r
−m(x)/x
e dx ≤ r r−1 e−m (x) dx.
0 0
r
We let A → ∞, r → 1+ and note that then r r−1 → e so that
∞ ∞

e−m(x)/x dx ≤ e e−m (x) dx. (2.11)
0 0
We now use (2.9) and (2.10) and get that

∞ ∞ k

∞

∞

−m (x) −m (x) − log(1/ak )

e dx = e dx = e = ak
0 k=1k−1 k=1 k=1
respectively
∞ ∞ k

e−m(x)/x dx = e−m(x)/x dx
0 k=1k−1
∞
∞
k 1/k

1
k
1/k
≥ exp − log (1/ai ) = ai .
k
k=1 i=1 k=1 i=1
The non-strict inequality (2.1) follows by using these estimates and (2.11).
The strict inequality follows from the fact that we can not have equality in
(2.10) at the same time for all x and k.
Remark 2.7. This is L. Carleson’s proof (see [16]) and in fact he proved
that the even more general inequality (2.11) holds for every piecewise dif-
ferentiable convex function m(x) on [0, ∞] such that m(0) = 0. In fact,
Carleson formulated and proved his inequality in the following slightly more
general form:
∞ ∞
p −m(x)/x
x e dx ≤ e p+1
xp e−m (x) dx, p > −1. (2.12)
0 0
Proof 6 (via Redheffer’s inequality)

R.M. Redheffer proved in 1967 the following interesting inequality (see
[90] and also [91]):
n
nGn + k (bk − 1) Gk ≤ ak bkk (2.13)
k=1 k=1
which holds for all n = 1, 2, ... and all positive sequences {bk } and where
k 1/k
!
Gk = ai .
i=1
In particular, we see that if
a) bk = 1, k = 1, 2, ... , then
n
Gn ≤ ak = An ,
n
k=1
i.e. (2.13) coincides with the AG-inequality

b) bk = 1 + k1 , k = 1, 2, ... ,then

n n

k
1
nGn + Gk ≤ 1+ ak ,
k
k=1 k=1
which implies that the non-strict inequality (2.1) follows when n → ∞. The
strict inequality can also be proved by using the arguments in the following
proof of the inequality (2.13): We use the elementary inequality
1 + a (x − 1) ≤ xa , x > 0, a > 1, (2.14)
(a simple proof of (2.14) can be obtained by putting α = a1 and replacing x
with xa in the following form of the AG-inequality: xα 11−α ≤ αx+(1 − α) 1).
We now use (2.14) with a = k and x = GGk−1 k
bk (k ≥ 2) to obtain that
k
Gk Gk ak k
1+k bk − 1 ≤ bk = b ,
Gk−1 Gk−1 Gk−1 k
which can be written as
Gk−1 + k (Gk bk − Gk−1 ) ≤ ak bkk . (2.15)
We now prove (2.13) by simple induction. First we observe that G1 = a1 so
that
G1 + (b1 − 1) G1 = a1 b1
i.e. (2.13) holds for n = 1. Assume that the inequality (2.13) holds for
n = N ∈ Z+ . Now us this induction assumption and (2.15) with k = N + 1
and we get that

N +1
(N + 1) GN +1 + k (bk − 1) Gk
k=1

N
= (N + 1) bN +1 GN +1 + k (bk − 1) Gk
k=1

N
= N GN + k (bk − 1) Gk + (N + 1) bN +1 GN +1 − N GN
k=1

N +1
+1
≤ ak bkk + aN +1 bN
N +1 = ak bkk
k=1 k=1
i.e. (2.13) holds even for n = N +1 and, by the induction axiom, we conclude
that (2.13) holds for all n ∈ Z+ .
Remark 2.8. The proof above is somewhat more complicated than the other
proofs but it leads to a better result. In fact, this method of proving inequal-
ities uses a well-known principle, which is sometimes referred to as Redhef-
fer’s recursion principle (see [81]). This principle can also be used to improve
several other classical inequalities.
Let a(n) = {a1 , a2 , ..., an } be a positive sequence (n = 1, 2, ...). We define
the powermeans Mr,n of a(n) in the following way
⎧ 1/r
⎪
⎪ 1 r
n
⎨ n⎪ ak , r = 0,
Mr,n = Mr,n a(n) = k=1 1/n
⎪
⎪ !n
⎪
⎩ ak , r = 0.
k=1
Note that An = M1,n , Gn = M0,n and Hn = M−1,n are the usual arithmetic,
geometric and harmonic means, respectively. We also look at the following
sequence of powermeans:
M r,n = (Mr,1 , Mr,2 , ..., Mr,n ) .
In 1996 B. Mond and J. Pečarić proved the following interesting inequality
between iterative powermeans, see [73]:
Ms,n (M r,n ) ≤ Mr,n (M s,n ) , (2.16)
for every r ≤ s. We have equality if and only if a1 = ... = an . The proof in
[73] is fairly complicated so we do not show it here. But we are convinced
that there is a more elementary proof and we leave that as an open question
to the reader. Our next proof is based on the Mond-Pečaric result.
Proof 7 We use (2.16) with s = 1 and r = 0 and get that

n k 1/n
1
1
n
Gk ≤ ai . (2.17)
n k
k=1 k=1 i=1
By using this inequality and the fact that

n
ai ≤ ai , k ≤ n,
i=1 i=1
we find that

n
n
n
Gk ≤ √
n
ak . (2.18)
k=1
n! k=1
We use our previous estimate (2.7) with k = n − 1 and get that
nn nn−1 n
= < en−1 , i.e., √ < e1−1/n .
n! (n − 1)! n
n!
By combining this inequality with (2.17) we find that
k 1/k

n
n
1−1/n
ai <e ak . (2.19)
k=1 i=1 k=1
This non-strict inequality (2.1) follows when we let n → ∞. The fact that
the inequality actually is strict follows from the fact that equality in (2.18)
only can occur when all ai are equal, but this can not be true under our

∞
assumption that ak is convergent.
k=1
Remark 2.9. More information about how (2.16) can be used to prove and
improve inequalities can be found in the papers [25] and [22].
Remark 2.10. We note that if we, in the proof above, combine (2.17) with
the following variant of the AG-inequality
1/n 1/n

n
1
k
1
ai = (a1 (a1 + a2 ) ... (a1 + a2 + ... + an ))1/n
k n!
k=1 i=1
1/n
1 (na1 + (n − 1) a2 + ... + an )
≤
n! n
we get the following strict improvement of (2.19):
k 1/k n

n
k−1
1−1/n
ai <e 1− ak . (2.20)
n
k=1 i=1 k=1
2.2 Pólya-Knopp’s inequality

We begin by proving that (2.2) implies (2.1). As before we note that it is
enough to prove (2.1) when {ak }∞ 1 is a decreasing sequence. Use (2.2) with
the function f (x) = ak , x ∈ [k − 1, k), k = 1, 2, .... Then
∞ ∞

f (x)dx = ak (2.21)
0 k=1
and
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ x ⎞
∞ x ∞

k+1
1 1
exp ⎝ ln f (t)dt⎠ dx = exp ⎝ ln f (t)dt⎠ dx. (2.22)
x x
0 0 k=0 k 0
Furthermore, it yields that

⎛ ⎞
1 x
1
exp ⎝ ln f (t)dt⎠ dx = a1 , (2.23)
x
0 0
and, for k = 1, 2, ... ,

k+1 k+1 1

k+1
1
k+1
ai = exp ln ai dx (2.24)
k+1
i=1 k i=1

k+1
1
k
x−k
≤ exp ln ai + ln ak+1 ) dx
x x
k i=1
⎛ x ⎞

k+1
1
= exp ⎝ ln f (t)dt⎠ dx.
x
k 0
The crucial inequality in (2.24) depends on the fact that the integrand
is a weighted arithmetic mean of the numbers ln ai , i = 1, 2, ..., k + 1, with
weights x1 , ..., x1 (k − 1 weights) and x−(k−1)
k . Here k − 1 ≤ x ≤ k and since
the sequence is decreasing the mean value is smallest for x = k, i.e., when
all weights = k1 . Now (2.1) follows by combining (2.21) - (2.24).
We now present some simple proofs of (2.2) (and thereby some more
proofs of (2.1)).
x
Proof 8 We note that the function m (x) = − ln f ∗ (t) dt fulfils the condi-
0
tions to use Carleson’s inequality (2.12) (here f ∗ (t) is the decreasing rear-
rangement of the function f ). Therefore, according to (2.12), it holds that
⎛ x ⎞
∞ ∞
⎝ 1 ∗ ⎠
x exp
p
ln f (t) dt dx ≤ e p+1
xp f ∗ (x) dx, (2.25)
x
0 0 0
for every p > −1. Carleson’s argument shows that we in fact have strict
inequality in (2.25) and especially by using (2.25) for p = 0 we get Pólya-
Knopp’s inequality (2.2).
Remark 2.11. Carleson did not note this fact explicitly in his paper [16]
since he obviously was mainly interested in giving a simple proof of the in-
equality (2.1).
We now present two other proofs of (2.2) and thereby of (2.1) which, like
Carleson’s proof, only are based on convexity arguments.
Proof 9 First we note that

⎛ x ⎞

1
exp ⎝ ln f (t)dt⎠ (2.26)
x
0
⎛ x ⎞
x
1 1
= exp ⎝ ln tf (t)dt − ln tdt⎠
x x
0 0
⎛ x ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
x
1 1
= exp ⎝ ln tf (t)dt⎠ exp ⎝− ln tdt⎠ .
x x
0 0
Furthermore, it yields that

x
1
− ln tdt = − ln x + 1 (2.27)
x
0
and, in view of Jensen’s inequality (or the AG-inequality),

⎛ x ⎞
x
⎝ 1 ⎠ 1
exp ln tf (t)dt ≤ tf (t)dt. (2.28)
x x
0 0
We integrate, use (2.26) - (2.28) and change the order of integration and find
that
⎛ x ⎞ ⎛ x ⎞
∞ ∞
1 1
exp ⎝ ln f (t)dt⎠ dx ≤ e− ln x+1 ⎝ tf (t)dt⎠ dx
x x
0 0 0 0
⎛ x ⎞
∞ ∞ ∞ ∞
1 ⎝ 1
=e tf (t)dt⎠ dx = e tf (t) dx = e f (t)dt.
x2 x2
0 0 0 t 0
The strict inequality follows since equality in Jensen’s inequality requires that
∞
tf (t) is constant a.e. but this can not occur since f (x)dx is convergent.
0
Remark 2.12. The proof above is partly related to Knopp’s original idea
(see [59] p. 211). However Knopp worked with the interval [1, x] instead of
[0, x] and hence Jensen’s inequality can not be used. Moreover, Knopp never
wrote out the inequality (2.2) explicitly even if it is sometimes referred in the
literature as this is the case, see for example [44, p. 250] and [72, p. 143].
Remark 2.13. By modifying the proof above we can easily prove even some
weighted versions of (2.2) for instance the following
⎛ x ⎞
∞ ∞
⎝ 1 ⎠ e
exp ln f (t)dt x dx <
p
f (x)xp dx
x 1−p
0 0 0
for every p < 1 which is more general than (2.2), cf. also (2.25).
Proof 10 We first note that if we replace f (t) by f (t)/t in (2.2), then by
(2.27) the left hand side in (2.2) equals
⎛ ⎛ x ⎞⎞
∞ x
1
exp ⎝ ⎝ ln f (t)dt − ln tdt⎠⎠ dx
x
0 0 0
⎛ ⎞
∞ x
1 dx
= e exp ⎝ ln f (t)dt⎠ .
x x
0 0
Thus, (2.2) can equivalently be written in the maybe more natural form
⎛ x ⎞
∞ ∞
1 dx dx
exp ⎝ ln f (t)dt⎠ < 1 f (x) . (2.29)
x x x
0 0 0
In order to prove (2.29) we use the fact that the function f (u) = eu is convex
and Jensen’s inequality :
⎛ x ⎞ ⎛ x ⎞
∞ ∞
1 dx 1
exp ⎝ ln f (t)dt⎠ ≤ ⎝ f (t)dt⎠ dx
x x x2
0 0 0 0
⎛∞ ⎞
∞
1
= f (t) ⎝ dx⎠ dt
x2
0 t
∞
dt
= f (t) .
t
0
The strict inequality follows in the same way as in Proof 9.

Remark 2.14. There are some great similarities between Proof 3 of Carle-
man’s inequality and Proof 10 of Pólya -Knopp’s inequality. After changing
order of summation and integration, respectively, in the concluding calcula-
tions we get
∞

∞
1 1 1 1
= and dx = ,
k (k + 1) i x2 t
k=i t
respectively, and this is crucial for the proofs. We also note that (2.29) does
not follow from Carleson’s inequality (2.12) since p = −1.
2.3 Final remarks about Torsten Carleman and his

work
Remark 2.15. A main reference concerning Torsten Carleman and his
mathematics is of course the book [30] of L. Gårding (see p. 233-276). In
this book Carleman is described in the following way: ”With Torsten Carle-
man (1892-1949) Sweden got their so far most outstanding mathematician.”
It is therefore not curious that Gårding spent the next 30 pages to describe
Carleman and his mathematical work and no other mathematician was given
even close to so much space in the book. It is remarkable that (2.1) was not
explicitly mentioned in Gårding’s book, which can depend on the fact that
he (as well as Carleman himself ) obviously regarded the inequality only as a
necessary tool to prove his important main results concerning quasianalytical
functions. However, as we have seen in this chapter, Carleman’s inequality
(2.1) and its continuous variant (Pólya-Knopp’s inequality (2.2)) has at-
tracted a lot of attention and it is even mentioned in the title of a number
of papers. See our list of references, Chapter 4 in the book [72] (with 174
references), Chapter 1 in the book [63] and the recently published paper [83]
(with 53 references). And the interest seems only to have increased during
the very last years.
Remark 2.16. (About the person Torsten Carleman). There is a lot of

interesting information in Gårding’s book [30] and some complementary in-
formation can be found in [1]. However, the main reference in this con-
nection is the recent biographic paper [67] by L. Maligranda. Tage Gillis
Torsten Carleman was born 8 July 1892. He defended his Ph.D. thesis 1917
at Uppsala University. In 1923 he was appointed as full professor at the
Lund University. Shortly after this, and on an initiative of Professor Gösta
Mittag-Leffler, he was called as professor at the University of Stockholm, in
1924. He died 1949. Carleman was a remarkable person and there are many
remarks concerning him (see e.g. Professor B. Kjellberg’s interesting and
very personal description in [58, p. 93]).
Chapter 3
Carleman’s inequality - some new

sharpenings and generalizations
In this chapter we give some sharpenings and generalizations of (2.1) and

(2.2). We discuss and comment on these results and put them into the frame
presented in the previous chapter. We also include some new proofs and
results. In particular, we prove a new weight characterization of a general
weighted Carleman type inequality for the case 0 < p ≤ q < ∞, i.e. we prove
a necessary and sufficient condition on the sequence {bk }∞ ∞
k=1 and {dk }k=1 so
that the inequality
∞
∞ 1/p

√ q

p
( k a1 a2 ...ak ) bk ≤ C ak dk
k=1 k=1
holds for some finite and positive constant C and for all sequences {ak }∞
k=1
of positive numbers. Moreover, we give upper and lower estimates of the
best constant C in the inequality (the corresponding operator norm).
We have already given some examples of sharpenings of Carleman’s in-
equality for finite sums (see for example remark 2.5 and (2.13), (2.19) and
(2.20)). In this chapter we give some additional sharpenings and generaliza-
tions of the Carleman and Pólya-Knopp inequalities. We start by noting the
following:
Remark 3.1. Proof 9 is of course similar to Proof 10 but it contains the
important information that (2.1) in fact can be equivalently rewritten in the
31
form (2.29) with the best constant 1. By using this observation, and by
modifying the proof, we find that, in fact, the following more general theorem
holds (cf. [53], Theorem 4.1):
Theorem 3.1. Let 0 < b ≤ ∞. Let φ be a positive and strictly monotone
convex function on (a, c), −∞ ≤ a < c ≤ ∞. Then
⎛ x ⎞
b b
1 dx x dx
φ⎝ f (t)dt⎠ < φ (f (x)) 1 − (3.1)
x x b x
0 0 0
for every realvalued function on (0, b) such that a < f (x) < c.
Proof. We use Jensen’s inequality, change the order of integration and get
⎛ x ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
b b x
1 dx ⎝ f (t)dt⎠ 1 dx
φ⎝ φ−1 f (t)dt⎠ ≤
x x x2
0 0 0 0
⎛ b ⎞
b
1
= f (t) ⎝ dx⎠ dt
x2
0 t
b
1 1
= f (t) − dt
t b
0
b
t dt
= f (t) 1 − .
b t
0
We replace f (t) with φ (f (t)) and the inequality (3.1) is proved.
Remark 3.2. For b = ∞ the inequality (3.1) is strict under the condition
that the integral on the right hand side converges and Theorem 3.1 and the
proof essentially coincide with Theorem 4.1 in [53]. The case described in
Theorem 3.1 has been treated even more generally in [23].
Remark 3.3. By choosing φ (u) = eu and replacing f (x) with ln f (x) we see
that (3.1) becomes (2.29) and thereby the equivalent inequality (2.1) and by
choosing φ (u) = up we find that (3.1) with b = ∞ implies Hardy’s inequality
in the form
⎛ x ⎞p
∞ ∞
⎝ 1 ⎠ dx dx
f (t)dt < f p (x) , p ≥ 1, (3.2)
x x x
0 0 0
Carleman’s inequality - some new sharpenings and gener- 33
alizations
which for the case p > 1 (after some substitutions) can be written in the
usual form (see (1.2))
⎛ x ⎞p
∞ p ∞
⎝ 1 p
g(t)dt⎠ dx < gp (x)dx, p > 1, (3.3)
x p−1
0 0 0

where g (x) = f x1−1/p x−1/p .
Note especially that Hardy’s inequality writ-
ten in the form (3.2) holds even when p = 1 but that the inequality (3.3) then
has no meaning.
Remark 3.4. In particular, Theorem 3.1 implies the following improvements
of Pólya-Knopp’s and Hardy’s inequalities for finite intervals (0, b) , b < ∞:
⎛ x ⎞
b b
1 x
exp ⎝ f (t)dt⎠ dx ≤ e f (x) 1 − dx,
x b
0 0 0
and
⎛ ⎞p
b0 x p b0 (p−1)/p
⎝1 f (t)dt⎠ dx ≤
p
1−
x
dx,
x p−1 b0
0 0 0

respectively, where b0 = bp/(p−1) and g (x) = f x(p−1)/p x−1/p as before.
These inequalities has by the way been proved in the paper [25] (see also
[22]) with a different method which is built on the inequalities between mixed
means (cf. our Proof 7).The idea in this remark is further developed and
applied in [23].
Another interesting question which has been studied is to find general
weighted versions of the inequality (2.2). Partly guided by the development
concerning Hardy type inequalities (see for example the books [63] and [80])
one has asked:
Let 0 < p, q < ∞. Find necessary and sufficient conditions for the weights
(i.e. the positive and measurable functions) u (x) and v (x) so that
⎛ ∞⎛ ⎛ x ⎞⎞q ⎞1/q ⎛∞ ⎞1/p

⎝ ⎝exp ⎝ 1 ln f (t)dt⎠⎠ u (x) dx⎠ ≤ C ⎝ f p (x)u (x) dx⎠
x
0 0 0
(3.4)
holds with a stable estimate of the operator norm (= the smallest constant
so that (3.4) holds).
The following results were recently proved by L.E. Persson and V.D.
Stepanov [84]:
Theorem 3.2. Let 0 0
0
where ⎛ ⎛ ⎞⎞q/p
s
1 1
w (s) = ⎝exp ⎝ ln dt⎠⎠ u (s)
s v (t)
0
and
D ≤ C ≤ e1/p D.
Theorem 3.3. Let 0 < q < p < ∞. Then the inequality (3.4) holds if and
only if
⎛ ⎛ ⎞r/p ⎞1/r
∞ x
⎜ 1 ⎟
B := ⎝ ⎝ w(s)ds⎠ w(x)dx⎠ < ∞,
x
0 0
where w (x) is defined as in Theorem 3.2, and C ≈ B.
Remark 3.5. These results were proved in [84]. We also refer the reader to
some earlier results of this type which can be found in the papers [46], [73]
and [82]. A further development of Theorem 3.2 and 3.3 can be found in [76]
and the Ph.D thesis by M. Nassyrova [75].
We will now present an example of a new sharpening of the Carleman

inequality (2.1) (see [53], Theorem 2.1).
Theorem 3.4. Let {ak }∞ 1 , be a sequence of positive numbers and put xi =

1 i
iai 1 + i , i = 1, 2, .... Then the following holds for N ∈ Z+ :
N N

lk k 1 k
Gk + ≤ 1− 1+ ak , (3.5)
k (k + 1) N +1 k
k=1 k=1 k=1
where
[x] " 2
√
#
Gk := k
a1 a2 ...ak and lk := x∗k−i+1 − x∗i .
i=1
Here [x] is the usual integer part of x and {x∗k } is the sequence {xk }
rearranged in decreasing order.
alizations
Remark 3.6. For previous results of this type we also refer to the papers
[2], [3], [4], [83], [104], [105] and the references found there. We note that
k
by using the estimate lk ≥ 0, 1 + k1 < e and letting N → ∞ we get (2.1)
as a special case of (3.5).
Remark 3.7. Refinements of Carleman’s inequality (2.1) with e replaced by
k
1 + k1 has been known since at least 1967 (see [90] and [91] and compare
with our Proof 6). We also note that the factor 1 − Nk+1 in (3.5) means that
the ”usual” sum on the right hand side of the inequality has been replaced
by the equivalent Cesarosum, i.e. we have calculated the arithmetic mean of
partial sums. This mean value is of course strictly less than the ”usual” sum
since the terms are positive.
Remark 3.8. In the paper [104] P. Yan and G. Sun proved that Carleman’s
inequality (2.1) can be improved in the following way:
∞
k 1/k ∞ −1/2

1
ai <e 1+ ak . (3.6)
k + 1/5
k=1 i=1 k=1
k
This result easily follows from (3.5) by estimating the important factor 1 + k1
in the following way:
−1/2
1 k 1
1+ ≤e 1+ (3.7)
k k + c∗
2
where c∗ = 8−e
e2 −4
≈ 0, 1802696 < 1/5. The inequality (3.7) does not hold for
numbers smaller than c∗ . (See [53], Remark 12). This means that by using
(3.5) we see that the Yan-Sun inequality (3.6) actually can be replaced with
the sharper inequality
∞
k 1/k ∞ ∞ −1/2

bk
1
ai + <e 1+ ak .
k (k + 1) k + c∗
k=1 i=1 k=1 k=1

1 k
Remark 3.9. The factor 1 + k has also been of interest in some other
new papers. For example M. Gyllenberg and P. Yan recently proved in the
paper [39] that

∞
1 k an
1+ =e 1−
k n=1
(1 + k)n
where all an are positive and can be calculated recursively. For example
a1 = 12 , a2 = 24
1 1
, a3 = 48 etc. This answers an earlier question raised by
Yang (see [105]).
Remark 3.10. We have noted before that Carleson’s inequality (2.12) gives
both (2.1) and (2.2) as special cases. Another inequality with that property
has recently been proved, namely the following see ([53], theorem 3.1):
⎛ ⎞
B x
1
exp ⎝ ln f (t)dM (t)⎠ dM (x)
M (x)
0 0
B
M∗ (x)
+e 1− f (x)dM (x)
M (x)
0
B
M∗ (x)
≤ e 1− f (x)dM (x).
M (B)
0
Here B ∈ R+, M (x) is a right continuous and increasing function on (0, ∞)

and M∗ (x) is a special defined function with the property that M∗ (x) ≤ M (x).
By using this theorem with M (x) = x and B = ∞ we get (2.2) and by using
it with $ 1
M (x) = 2 ,0 ≤ x ≤ 1
k , k ≤ x ≤ k + 1, k = 1, 2, ...
we get a refinement of (2.1).
In view of questions raised in connection to (3.4) it is natural to ask the

following connected to (2.1): Let 0 < p, q < ∞. Find necessary and sufficient
conditions on the positive sequence {bk }∞ ∞
1 and {dk }1 such that
∞
1 ∞ 1

√ q
p
( k a1 a2 ...ak )q bk ≤C apk dk (3.8)

k=1 k=1
holds. We will prove the following general weighted Carleman inequality:
Theorem 3.5. For k = 1, 2..., let ak ≥ 0, bk ≥ 0 and dk ≥ 0. If 0 0, if and
only if
⎛ k −q/kp ⎞1/q
N
+1
B1 = sup N −1/p ⎝ di bk ⎠ < ∞. (3.9)
N >0 k=1 i=1
Remark 3.11. This result was also stated and proved in the recent Ph.D.
thesis [103] of A. Wedestig. However, our proof here is different.
alizations
−1/p
Proof. Assume that (3.9) holds. Let first w1 = 0, and replace ak with ãk dk
in (3.8). Then (3.8) is equivalent to
⎛ k q/k k −q/kp ⎞ 1q ∞ 1

∞
p p
⎝ ãi di bk ⎠ ≤ C ãk
k=1 i=1 i=1 k=1
! −q/kp
k
or, if wk = i=1 di bk ,
⎛ k q/k ⎞ 1q ∞ 1
∞

p
I 1/q := ⎝ ãi wk ⎠ ≤ C ãpk . (3.10)

k=1 i=1 k=1
Now if {a∗k }∞
k=1 is decreasing rearrangement of {ãk }∞
k=1 , then obviously
⎛ k q/k ⎞ 1q ⎛ k q/k ⎞ 1q
∞

∞

⎝ ãi wk ⎠ ≤ ⎝ a∗i wk ⎠ . (3.11)
k=1 i=1 k=1 i=1
Let f ∗ (x) = a∗k and w (x) = wk for x ∈ [k − 1, k) , k = 1, 2, .... Then

⎛ k q/k ⎞ 1q
∞

⎝ a∗i wk ⎠ (3.12)
k=1 i=1
∞ k
k q

∗1
= exp log ai k wk dx
k=1k−1 i=1
∞ k
q

1
k−1
1
= exp log a∗i + log a∗k wk dx
k k
k=1k−1 i=1
∞ k
q

1
k−1
x − (k − 1)
≤ exp log a∗i + log a∗k wk dx
x x
k=1k−1 i=1
⎡ ⎛ ⎞⎤q
∞ k

x
= ⎣exp ⎝ 1 ln f ∗ (t)dt⎠⎦ w(x)dx
x
k=1k−1 0
⎛⎡ ⎛ x ⎞⎤q ⎞1/q
∞
1
= ⎝ ⎣exp ⎝ ln f ∗ (t)dt⎠⎦ w(x)dx⎠ .
x
0 0
Moreover, it follows from Theorem 3.2 that if

⎛ ⎞1/q
x
D := supx−1/p ⎝ w(t)dt⎠ < ∞, (3.13)
x>0
0
then the inequality

⎛ ⎛ ⎛ ⎞⎞q ⎞1/q ⎛∞ ⎞1/q
∞ x
⎝ ⎝exp ⎝ 1 ln f ∗ (t)dt⎠⎠ w(x)dx⎠ ≤ C ⎝ f ∗p (x) dx⎠
x
0 0 0
(3.14)
holds, and if C is the best possible constant in (3.14), then
C ≤ e1/p D.
Hence, by combining (3.11), (3.12) and (3.14) we have

⎛ k q/k ⎞ 1q ⎛ ⎞1/q
∞

∞
⎝ ãi wk ⎠ ≤ C⎝ f ∗p (x) dx⎠
k=1 i=1 0
∞ 1 ∞
1

p
p
= C a∗p
k =C ãpk
k=1 k=1
i.e. (3.10) and thus (3.8) holds whenever (3.13) holds. In fact, for N ∈ Z+ ,
we have
⎛ x ⎞1/q N +1 1/q

sup x−1/p ⎝ w(t)dt⎠ ≤ N −1/p wk .

N <x<N +1 k=1
0
Hence
⎛ ⎞1/q
x
supx−1/p ⎝ w(t)dt⎠ (3.15)
x>0
0
⎛ −q/kp ⎞1/q

N +1
k
≤ sup N −1/p ⎝ di bk ⎠ = B1 ,
N >0 k=1 i=1
so that, according to (3.9), (3.13) holds.

alizations
If w1 = 0, then, by using what we just have proved and an elementary

inequality, we have
⎛ k −q/k ⎞1/q
∞

I 1/q = ⎝ãq1 w1 + ãi wk ⎠ (3.16)
k=2 i=1
∞ 1/p

1/q
≤ max 1, 21/q−1 w1 + C ãpk .
k=2
Therefore, by using (3.9), (3.13), (3.15) and (3.16), we conclude that (3.8)
holds.
On the contrary, assume that (3.8) (and thus (3.10)) holds for all positive
sequences. In particular, let ãk = 1, k = 1, ..., N + 1 and ãk = 0, k > N + 1.
Then the left hand side in (3.10) can be estimated as follows:
⎛ k q/k ⎞1/q ⎛ q/k ⎞1/q N +1 1/q
∞

N +1
k
⎝ ãi wk ⎠ ≥⎝ ãi wk ⎠ = wk .
k=1 i=1 k=1 i=1 k=1
For the right hand side we have

∞
1/p N +1 1/p

ãpk = 1 = (N + 1)1/p ≤ (2N )1/p

k=1 k=1
and in view of (3.8), it follows that

N +1 1/q
−1/p

(2N ) wk ≤ C,
k=1
so that (3.9) holds. The proof is complete.
Remark 3.12. We note that our proof gives that if b1 = 0, then C ≈ B1 , or

more exactly,
2−1/p B1 ≤ C ≤ e1/p B1 .
Remark 3.13. In [46] the weighted Carleman’s inequality (3.8) was char-
acterized with another condition than B1 .
Chapter 4
A Sawyer duality principle for

radially monotone functions in Rn
As mentioned in the introduction a remarkable duality principle for positive

decreasing functions of one variable was proved by E. Sawyer in [93], and also
some applications are well-known. Here we also refer to the useful proof and
ideas concerning this principle presented by V. Stepanov in [99]. Moreover,
it is natural to look for extensions to functions of several variables. Such
generalizations were recently obtained in [8], [10] and [11]. For 0 < q < p <
∞, 1r = 1q − 1p , it was shown in [11] that
⎛ − r ⎞ p1
1 1 ∞ r
q p
f qu q
Rn u
q
sup R
n
1 ≈ 1 + sup ⎝ u d v ⎠ ,
0≤f ↓ p p p 0≤h↓ 0
Rn f v Rn v
D h,t D h,t
(4.1)
where u and v are weights, i.e. positive and locally integrable functions on
Rn . For the case 0 < p ≤ q < ∞ cf. [10] .
If q = 1 < p < ∞, then (4.1) with n = 1 is a variant of the duality
theorem given in [93] (cf. also [99]).
An explicit form of (4.1) for n ∈ Z+ was given in [8], but only when v
is of product type, that is weights of the form v (x) = v (x1 , x2 , ..., xn ) =
v1 (x1 ) v2 (x2 ) ...vn (xn ), vi ≥ 0, i = 1, 2, ..., n.
We say that f : Rn → R is a radially decreasing (increasing) function
if f (x) = f (y) when |x| = |y| and f (x) ≥ f (y) (f (x) ≤ f (y)) when
41
|x| < |y| and we write f ↓ r and f ↑ r , respectively (see also [65] for further
explanations and applications of these notions).
In this Chapter we will prove a duality formula of the type (4.1) for
radially decreasing functions and with general weights (see Theorem 4.3).
We also state the corresponding result for radially increasing functions (see
Theorem 4.5). In particular, these results imply that we can describe map-
ping properties of operators defined on cones of such monotone functions.
Moreover, we point out that these results can also be used to describe map-
ping properties of operators between some corresponding general weighted
multidimensional Lebesgue spaces (see Theorem 4.6 and cf. also [99] for the
case n = 1). We illustrate this useful technique for the identity operator (see
Corollary 4.7) and for the Hardy integral operator over the n-dimensional
sphere (see Corollary 4.9).
4.1 Preliminary results

Consider the Hardy integral operator H of the form

(Hf ) (x) = f (y)dy,
B(x)
where B (x) is the ball in Rn centered at the origin and with radius |x|. We
need the following well-known n-dimensional form of Hardy’s inequality (see
[27]):
Theorem 4.1. Let W and U be weights on Rn and 1 0 |x|≥α |x|≤α
Moreover, if c is the smallest constant for which (4.2) holds, then

p1 1
a ≤ c ≤ ap pq .
A Sawyer duality principle for radially monotone func- 43
tions in Rn
(ii) The inequality

q 1 1
q
p
W (x) f (y)dy dx ≤c U (x)f (x)dx
p
(4.3)
Rn Rn \B(x) Rn
holds if and only if

1 1
q p
1−p
b := sup W (x)dx U (x)dx <∞ .
α>0 |x|≤α |x|≥α
Moreover, if c is the smallest constant for which (4.3) holds, then

p1 1
b ≤ c ≤ bp pq .
In particular we need the following special case of Theorem 4.1 (ii):

Lemma 4.2. Let v be a weight function, V (x) = B(x) v(y)dy and 1 < p <
∞. Then for f ≥ 0
p
v(x) f (y)dy dx ≤ p f p (x)V p (x) v 1−p (x)dx (4.4)
Rn Rn \B(x) Rn
is satisfied.
Proof. Apply Theorem
4.1 (ii) with W (x) = v(x),
p
U (x) = v 1−p (x) B(x) v(y)dy and q = p. Denote

vn (s) = sn−1 v(sσ)dσ , (4.5)
Σn−1
where Σn−1 as usual denotes the unit sphere in Rn , s ∈ R. We note that

1 ⎛ −p ⎞ 1
p
p
b = sup v(x)dx ⎝ v(y)dy v(x)dx⎠

α>0 |x|≤α |x|≥α B(x)
⎛ −p ⎞ 1
|x| p
1
= sup V p (α) ⎝ vn (s) ds v (x) dx⎠
α>0 |x|≥α 0
−p 1
1
∞ t p
= sup V p (α) tn−1 vn (s) ds v (tδ) dtdδ

α>0 α Σn−1 0
−p 1
1
∞ t p
= sup V p (α) vn (s) ds tn−1 v (tσ) dσ dt

α>0 α 0 Σn−1
1
1
∞ t −p p
= sup V p (α) vn (s) ds vn (t) dt

α>0 α 0
−p +1 1
∞ p
1 d t
1
= sup V p (α) vn (s) ds dt
α>0 α dt 0 1 − p
−p+1
1 1
α p
≤ sup 1 V p (α) vn (t) dt
(p − 1)α>0 0 p
1 1 1
−1 1
= sup 1 V
p (α) V p (α) = 1 < ∞ .
α>0 (p − 1) p (p − 1) p
Therefore, by Theorem 4.1 (ii), (4.4) holds with a constant
1 1
1
c≤ 1 (p ) p p p = p and the proof is complete.
(p −1) p
4.2 The Duality Principle for radially monotone func-

tions
In
the sequel we sometimes delete the integration variable and write e.g.
Rn f g instead of Rn f (x) g (x) dx
when it can not be misunderstood. More-
over, as usual, g1 = gL1 = Rn |g (x)| dx. Our main result in this section
reads:
Theorem 4.3. Suppose that v is a weight on Rn and 1 < p < ∞. If f
is a positive radially decreasing function on Rn and g a positive measurable
function on Rn , then

n fg
C (g) := sup R 1 ≈ I1 + I2 , (4.6)
f ↓r f pv p
R n
where −1
I1 = v1p g1
and 1
p
p −p
I2 =
G (t) V (t) v (t) dt
Rn

with V (t) = B(t) v (x) dx and G (t) = B(t) g (x) dx.
tions in Rn
Remark 4.1. Theorem 4.1 for the case n = 1 is just Theorem 1 in [93].
However, our proof below is based on the technique in [99] and our investi-
gation in Section 4.1.
Proof. If f ≡ c > 0, then

Rnfg g1
+
C (g) ≥ sup 1 = 1 = I1 .
f =c p p
Rn
p
f v v 1
+

Moreover, we use the test function f (x) = |t|>|x| h(t)dt, where h (t) ≥ 0
(note that f is radially decreasing), Lemma 4.2 and usual duality in Lpv -
space to find that

f (x) g (x) dx
Rn
C (g) = sup 1
Rn f (x) v (x) dx
0≤f ↓ p p

Rn |x|<|t| h (t) dt g (x) dx
≥ sup p 1
h≥0 p
R n |x|<|t| h (t) dt v (x) dx

Rn h (t) g (x) dxdt
|x|<|t|
= sup p 1
h≥0 p
R n |x|<|t| h (t) dt v (x) dx

1 Rn h |x|<|t| g
≥ sup
p h≥0 hp V p v 1−p p1
Rn
hV G
1 n Vv
= sup R v
p h≥0 hV p p1
Rn v v
1
1 G p p
= v = I2 .
p Rn V
To prove the upper bound of C (g) we use the monotonicity of f . Since f is

radially decreasing we have

1
gf = gf V
Rn Rn V
∞
1
= f (x) g (x) v(t)dt dx
0 Σn−1 V (x) B(x)

1
= v (t) f (x) g (x) dx dt
Rn |x|>|t| V (x)

1
≤ v (t) f (t) g (x) dx dt. (4.7)
Rn |x|>|t| V (x)
To estimate the inner integral we define gn (s) and vn (s) analogously to
(4.5), note that V (x) = V (|x|) and find that
∞
1 1
g (x) dx = s n−1
g (sσ) dsdσ
|x|>|t| V (x) |t| Σn−1 V (sσ)
∞ ∞
1 1
= s n−1
g (sσ) dσ ds = gn (s) ds
|t| Σn−1 V (s) |t| V (s)
) *∞
1 s
= gn (z) dz +
V (s) 0 |t|
∞
1 s
+ 2
s n−1
v (sσ) dσ gn (z) dz ds
|t| V (s) Σn−1 0
∞ ∞ s
1 1
≤ gn (z) dz + 2
vn (s) gn (z) dz ds.
V (∞) 0 |t| V (s) 0
+ ,- . + ,- .
K1 K2
Hence the inner integral can be estimated by K1 + K2 and by substituting

this into (4.7) and applying Hölder’s and Minkowski’s inequalities we get
that
1 1
p p
p
fg ≤ f v (K1 + K2 ) ≤ p
f v (K1 + K2 ) v
Rn Rn Rn Rn
1 1 1
p p p
p p
≤ f pv K1 v + K2 v .
Rn Rn Rn
tions in Rn
Moreover,
1 p 1
∞ p
p 1
K1p v = gn (z) dz v (x) dx
Rn Rn V (∞) 0
1
∞
1 p
= s n−1
g (sσ) dσds v (x) dx
V (∞) 0 Σn−1 Rn
−1+ p1 − p1
= v1 g1 = v1 g1 = I1 ,
and, according to Lemma 4.2,

1
p
K2p v
Rn
⎛ p ⎞ 1
∞ p
1 s
=⎝ 2
vn (s) gn (z) dz ds v (t) dt⎠
Rn |t| V (s) 0
⎛ p ⎞ p1

∞ s
sn−1 v (sσ)
=⎝ z n−1 g (zδ) dzdδ dσds v⎠
Rn |t| Σn−1 V 2 (s) 0 Σn−1
⎛ p ⎞ 1
p
v (x)
=⎝ g (y) dy v (t) dt⎠
Rn Rn \B(t) V 2 (x) B(x)
1
p
−p
≤ p V (t) g v (t) dt = p I2 .
Rn B(|x|)
The upper bound of C (g) follows by combining the last estimates and the
proof is complete.
Remark 4.2. According to our proof we see that the duality constant C (g)
in (4.6) can in fact be estimated in the following more precise way:
max (I1 , I2 ) ≤ C (g) ≤ I1 + p I2 .
In particular we have the following useful information:


Corollary 4.4. Let the assumptions in Theorem 4.3 be satisfied and Rn v =
∞. Then

n fg
I2 ≤ sup R 1 ≤ p I2 . (4.8)
f ↓r f pv p
Rn
The proof above is self-contained and not depending directly on the one-
dimensional result (only on similar arguments as V.D. Stepanov used when
he proved this case). Here we give another shorter proof where we directly
use the (Sawyer) onedimensional result.
Proof. Make the following changes of variables
t = sσ and x = yτ, (4.9)

where s, y ∈ (0, ∞) and σ, τ ∈ n−1 . By using that f (sσ) = f (s) since f
is radial, we get:
∞
f (sσ) g (sσ) sn−1 dσds
Rn f g 0 n−1
1 = 1/p
p p ∞
Rn f v 0
f p (sσ) v (sσ) sn−1 dσds
n−1
∞
/ (s) ds
f (s) G
0
= 1/p ,
∞ /
0 f (s) V (s) ds
p
and hence, by using the (Sawyer) one-dimensional result we find that

fg
Rn
1 ≈ (4.10)
f pv p
R n
⎛ p ⎞ p1
∞ − 1 ∞ ∞
s /
G (y) dy
p
⎜ 0 ⎟
V/ (s) ds /
G (s) ds +⎝ p V/ (s) ds⎠ := I.
0 0 0 V/ (y) dy
s
0
Moreover,
tions in Rn
− 1
∞ p ∞
I = v (sσ) s n−1
dσ ds g (sσ) s n−1
dσds
0 n−1 0 n−1
⎛ p ⎞ p1
∞
s g (yτ ) y n−1 dτ dy
⎜ 0 n−1 ⎟
+⎝ p v (sσ) sn−1 dσds⎠
0 s v (yτ ) y n−1 dτ dy n−1
0 n−1
− p1
= v (t) dt g (t) dt
Rn Rn
⎛ p ⎞ p1

⎜ B(t) g (x) dx ⎟
+⎝ p v (t) dt⎠ (4.11)
Rn
B(t) v (x) dx
The proof follows by combining (4.10) and (4.11).
For completeness and our applications we also state the corresponding

result for radially increasing functions in Rn :
Theorem 4.5. Suppose that v is a weight on Rn and 1 < p < ∞. If f
is a positive radially increasing function on Rn and g a positive measurable
function on Rn , then

n fg
D (g) := sup R 1 ≈ I1 + I3 ,
f ↑r f pv p
Rn
where −1
I1 = v1p g1 ,
and 1
p
p −p
I3 = G1 (t) V1 (t) v (t) dt ,
Rn

with G1 (t) = Rn \B(t) g (x) dx and V1 (t) = Rn \B(t) v (x) dx.
Proof. We now use Theorem 4.1 (i) (instead of (ii) as in the proof of Lemma
4.2) and obtain as in the proof of (4.4):
p
v(x) f (y)dy dx ≤ p f p (x)V1p (x) v 1−p (x)dx.
Rn B(x) Rn
By using this estimate the proof follows similarly as the proof of Theorem
4.3 so we leave out the details.
Remark 4.3. In fact, similar to Remark 4.2 and Corollary 4.4, we find that
max (I1 , I3 ) ≤ D (g) ≤ I1 + p I3

and if, in addition to the assumptions in Theorem 4.5, Rn v = ∞, then

fg
Rn
I3 ≤ sup 1 ≤ p I3 .
f ↑r p p
Rn f v
4.3 Further results and applications

Let T be an integral operator defined on the cone of functions f : Rn → R,
which are radially decreasing (0 < f ↓ r) and let T ∗ be the adjoint operator.
Then our results imply the following useful duality result:
Theorem 4.6. Let 1 < p, q < ∞, u, v be weights on R with

n
Rn v (x) dx = ∞. Then the inequality
1 1
q p
q
(T f (x)) u (x) dx ≤c f (x)v (x) dx
p
(4.12)
Rn Rn
holds for all f ↓ r if and only if

⎛ p ⎞ 1
p
⎝ −p
∗
T g (y) dy V (x) v (x) dx⎠ (4.13)
Rn B(x)
1
q
q 1−q
≤ c g (x)u (x) dx
Rn
holds for every positive measurable function g.
Proof. Assume first that (4.12) holds for all 0 < f ↓ r. Then, by using
Corollary 4.4, duality and Hölder’s inequality, we find that
p
∗ −p n f (x) T ∗ g (x) dx
T g (y) dy V (x) v (x) dx ≤ sup R 1
Rn f (x) v (x) dx
Rn B(x) f ↓r p p

T f (x) g (x) dx
n
= sup R 1
Rn f (x) v (x) dx
f ↓r p p
tions in Rn
1
q 1 −q q
Rn (T f (x)) u (x) dx Rn g (x) u

q q q (x) dx
≤ sup 1
f ↓r f p (x) v (x) dx p
R n
1
q
q 1−q
=c g (x) u (x) dx .
Rn
On the contrary assume that (4.13) holds for all g ≥ 0. Then, by using
Corollary 4.4 again, we have that
1
p
q 1−q
pc (g (x)) (u (x)) dx
Rn
⎛ p ⎞ 1
p
⎝ −p
≥p ∗
T g (t) dt V (x) v (x) dx⎠
Rn B(x)

f (x) T ∗ g (x) dx
Rn Rn T f (x) g (x) dx
≥ 1 = 1
Rn f (x) v (x) dx Rn f (x) v (x) dx
p p p p
for each fixed 0 < f ↓ r. Therefore we find that

1
1 p

h (x) T f (x) u (x) dx ≤ p c
q f (x) v (x) dx
p
, (4.14)
Rn Rn
where
1
g (x) u− q (x)
h (x) = .
1
q q1
−q
Rn g (x) u (x) dx
Since hLq = 1 we obtain (4.12) by taking supremum in (4.14) and using

usual duality in Lp -spaces.
Remark 4.4. By modifying the proof above we see that a similar dual-
ity result also holds for positive radially
increasing
functions. In fact, in
this case we just need to replace B(x) by Rn \B(x) and V (x) by V1 (x) =

Rn \B(x) v (x) dx in (4.13).
For example when T is the identity operator we obtain the following

result:
Corollary
4.7. Let 1 < p ≤ q < ∞ and suppose that u, v are weights on Rn
with Rn v = ∞ and V (x) = B(x) v (y) dy.
a) The following conditions are equivalent:
i) The inequality
1 1
q p
q
f u ≤c p
f v (4.15)
Rn Rn
is satisfied for all 0 ≤ f ↓ r.

ii) The inequality
⎛ p ⎞ 1
p

⎝ g (y) dy V −p (x) v (x) dx⎠ (4.16)
Rn B(x)
1
q
q 1−q
≤ c g (x)u (x) dx
Rn
holds for all g ≥ 0.

iii)
− 1 1
p q
sup v(x)dx u(x)dx <∞.

α>0 B(α) B(α)

b) If V1 (x) = Rn \B(x) v (t) dt, then for 0 ≤ f ↑ r (4.15) is equivalent to that
⎛ p ⎞ 1
p
⎝ −p
g (y) dy V1 (x) v (x) dx⎠
Rn Rn \B(x)
1
q
q 1−q
≤ c g (x)u (x) dx
Rn
which in turn is equivalent to

− 1 1
p q
sup v(x)dx u(x)dx <∞.

α>0 Rn \B(α) Rn \B(α)
Proof. a) The equivalence of i) and ii) is just a special case of Theorem 4.6.
Moreover, the fact that ii) and iii) are equivalent follows from Theorem 4.1
tions in Rn

(i) with f replaced by g, q by p , p by q , W by vV −p and U by u1−q . In
fact, then (4.16) is equivalent to (note that (1 − q) (1 − q ) = 1 )
1 1 − 1 1
p
|x|<α v
p q q
−p
sup vV u = sup 1 u < ∞.
α>0 |x|>α |x|<α α>0 (p − 1) p |x|<α
The proof of b) follows similarly by just using Remark 4.4 and Theorem 4.1
(ii).
Remark 4.5. The equivalence of i) and iii) can also be proved using the
technique from [10]. For the case q < p cf. also [11].
The next result concerns the multidimensional Hardy operator, defined

on the cone of radially decreasing functions in Rn .
Proposition 4.8. Let 1 < p ≤ q < ∞ and suppose that u and v are weights
on Rn with Rn v = ∞ and V (x) = B(x) v (x) dx. If 0 ≤ f is a radially
decreasing function in Rn , then
q 1 1
q
p
f (y) dy u (x) dx ≤c f (x)v (x) dx
p
(4.17)
Rn B(x) Rn
is satisfied if and only if the following conditions hold:

− 1 1
p q
q
sup v(x)dx u(x) |B (x)| dx <∞ (4.18)
α>0 B(α) B(α)
and
1 1
p q
p −p
sup |B (x)| V (x) v (x) dx u(x)dx < ∞.
α>0 B(α) Rn \B(α)
(4.19)
Here, as usual, |B (x)| denotes the Lebesgue measure of the ball with
center at 0 and with radius |x|.
Remark 4.6. For the case n = 1 this result is due to V. Stepanov (see [99],
Theorem 2).
Proposition 4.8 can be proved by using the method of reduction to the

one-dimensional case but here we present an independent proof:

Proof. Since T f (x) = B(x) f (t) dt its conjugate T ∗ is defined by T ∗ g (x) =

Rn \B(x) g (t) dt. Assume first that (4.18) and (4.19) hold. We note that,
according to Theorem 4.6, (4.17) for 0 < f ↓ r is equivalent to (4.13) for
arbitrary g ≥ 0. Moreover, to be able to characterize weights for which
(4.13) is satisfied, we first compute:

T ∗g = g (y) dy dz
B(x) B(x) |y|>|z|

∞ ∞
= t n−1
g (tδ) dδdt dz = gn (t) dt dz
B(x) |z| Σn−1 B(x) |z|
|x| ∞
= sn−1 gn (t) dt dσds
0 Σn−1 s

|x| |x| |x| ∞
= |Σn−1 | sn−1 gn (t) dt ds + gn (t) dtds
0 s 0 |x|
|x| t |x| ∞
= |Σn−1 | s n−1
ds gn (t) dt + |Σn−1 | ds gn (t) dt
0 0 0 |x|

|x| t
= dσ sn−1 ds tn−1 g (tδ) dδ dt
0 Σn−1 0 Σn−1

|x| ∞
+ dσds tn−1 g (tδ) dδdt
0 Σn−1 |x| Σn−1

= |B (y)| g (y) dy + |B (x)| g (y) dy
B(x) Rn \|B(x)|
+ ,- . + ,- .
I1 I2
= I1 (x) + I2 (x) .
This means that (4.17) holds if and only if

1
p
p −p
(I1 (x) + I2 (x)) V (x) v (x) dx (4.20)
Rn
1
q
q 1−q
≤ c g (x) U (x) dx .
Rn
Moreover, by Theorem 4.1 (i) with q replaced by p and p replaced by q , we

tions in Rn
obtain that
1
p
p −p
(I1 (x)) V (x) v (x) dx (4.21)
Rn
⎛ p ⎞ 1
p
⎝ −p
= |B (y)| g (y) dy V (x) v (x) dx⎠
Rn B(x)

1
q u (x)1−q q
≤ c (|B (x)| g (x)) dx

Rn |B (x)|q
1
q
q 1−q
= c g (x) u (x) dx ,
Rn
which holds because, according to (4.18),

⎛ −p ⎞ 1 ⎛ 1−q ⎞1
p q
u (y)1−q
sup ⎝ v (x) v (y) dy dx⎠ ⎝ dy ⎠
α>0 Rn \B(α) B(x) B(α) |B (y)|q
− 1 1
p
B(α) v (y) dy
q
≤ sup 1 u (y) |B (y)|q dy < ∞.

α>0 (p − 1) p B(α)
Similarly, according to Theorem 4.1 (ii),

1
p
p −p
(I2 (x)) V (x) v (x) dx (4.22)
Rn
⎛ −p ⎞ 1
p
⎝ −p
= |B (x)| g (y) dy V (x) v (x) dx⎠
Rn \B(α) Rn \B(x)
1
q
q 1−q
≤ c g (x) u (x) dx
Rn
because
1 1
p q
p −p
sup |B (x)| V (x) v (x) dx u (x) dx <∞
α>0 B(α) Rn \B(α)
which holds by (4.19). Thus, by using (4.20), Minkowski’s inequality and

(4.21)-(4.22), we see that (4.17) holds.
Now assume that (4.17) holds i.e. that (4.20) holds. Then, in particular,
1 1
p q
p −p q 1−q
(I1 (x)) V (x) v (x) dx ≤c g (x) u (x) dx (4.23)
Rn Rn
and, by using Theorem 4.1 (i) and arguing as above, we find that (4.18)
holds. Moreover, (8.13) holds also with I1 replaced by I2 so that, by using
Theorem 4.1 (ii) and again arguing as in the sufficiently part, we see that
(4.19) holds. The proof is complete.
Remark 4.7. For the case when also the weights are radially decreasing or
increasing some of our results can be written in a more suitable form. Here
we only state the following consequence of Proposition 4.8:
Corollary 4.9. Let 1 < p ≤ q < ∞ and let f (x) and B (x) be positive and
radially decreasing in Rn . Then the Hardy inequality
q 1
q
1
f (y) dy |B (x)|b dx
Rn |B (x)| B(x)
1
p
a
≤ c f (x) |B (x)| dx
p
Rn
holds if and only if −1 < a < p − 1, −1 < b < q − 1 and

a+1 b+1
= . (4.24)
p q
Proof. Apply Proposition 4.8 with v (x) = |B (x)|a and u (x) = |B (x)|b . We
note that some straightforward calculations give that
− 1 1
p q
−(a+1)n (b+1)n
+ q
v (x) dx u (x) dx ≈α p (4.25)
B(α) B(α)
whenever a > −1, b > −1 and

1 1
p q
p −p
|B (x)| V (x) v (x) dx u(x)dx (4.26)
B(α) Rn \B(α)

an−anp +n bn−nq+n
+ n − a+1 + b+1
≈ α p q =α p q
whenever a < p − 1 and b < q − 1.

Moreover, according to the estimates (4.25) and (4.26), the condition
(4.24) (and only this) gives finite supremum. The proof is complete.
tions in Rn
Remark 4.8. It is easy to see that Theorem 4.1 is true also if Rn is replaced
by Rn+ or even some more general cone in Rn since the proof essentially
consists of using polar coordinates and carrying over the problem to the (well-
known) one dimensional question. Therefore, by modifying our proofs, we see
that all our results in this chapter indeed holds also when Rn is replaced by
Rn+ or even general cones in Rn as defined in [24].
By a general cone C in Rn we mean a subset of Rn defined as follows:

Let Ω be a measurable subset of the unit sphere Sn−1 . Then
C = {x ∈ Rn : x = sσ, 0 < s < ∞ and σ ∈ Ω} .

Chapter 5
A new characterization of the

Hardy inequality and its limit
Pólya-Knopp inequality for
decreasing functions
5.1 Introduction
As mentioned in the introduction E. Sawyer [93] (see Theorem 1.3) proved
the following theorem by performing a general approach for general operators
(In [100] V.D. Stepanov gave a direct proof, which also gave good estimates
of the equivalence constants).
Theorem 5.1. Let 1 0
0
59
and
A1 = A1 (p, q, u, v) := (5.3)
⎛ ⎞1 ⎛ t ⎞ 1
∞ q p

sup ⎝ u(x)x dx⎠ ⎝ x V
−q p −p
(x)v(x)dx⎠ < ∞,
t>0
t 0
where p = p
p−1 and
t
V (t) = v(x)dx. (5.4)
0
C ≈ max(A0 , A1 ).
Moreover, as also mentioned in the introduction L.-E. Persson and V.D.

Stepanov (see Theorem 1.1) proved a new weight characterization for the
Hardy inequality. Their motivation for doing that was the fact that it
was not possible to perform the mentioned limit procedure by using the
usual Muckenhoupt condition so they needed an equivalent characterization.
Partly guided by this fact we will prove a new weight characterization for
the Hardy inequality for decreasing functions, because also in this case it
is not possible to use Sawyer’s characterization to perform a corresponding
limit procedure.
More exactly, in Section 5.2 we present and prove our new alternative
weight characterization of the Hardy inequality for decreasing functions (see
Theorem 5.2). In Section 5.3 we will perform the mentioned limit procedure
in this result and, thus, derive the corresponding Pólya-Knopp inequality
for decreasing functions (see Theorem 5.4). Finally, in Section 5.4 we use
a fairly new equivalence theorem to give an alternative proof of Theorem
5.2 and Sawyer’s result (see Remark 5.3). In fact, this result shows that
there are infinitely many possibilities to characterize the considered Hardy
inequality for decreasing functions.
5.2 A new weight characterization of the weighted

Hardy inequality for decreasing functions
The main result of this section reads:
A new characterization of the Hardy inequality and its 61
limit Pólya-Knopp inequality for decreasing functions
Theorem 5.2. Let 1 < p ≤ q < ∞. Then the Hardy inequality (5.1) holds
for all f ↓≥ 0 if and only if (5.2) and
A2 = A2 (p, q, u, v) := (5.5)
⎛ y⎛ x ⎞q ⎞1 ⎛ y ⎞− 1
q p
⎝ ⎝ p −p ⎠ −q ⎠ ⎝ p −p ⎠
sup t V (t)v(t)dt u(x)x dx t V (t)v(t)dt <∞
y>0
0 0 0
hold, where V is defined by (5.4). Moreover, if C is the best possible constant

in (5.1), then
C ≈ max(A0 , A2 ). (5.6)
For the proof we need the following Lemma:
Lemma 5.3. Let 0 < p ≤ q < ∞. Then the inequality

⎛ ⎛∞⎞1 ⎞1
∞ q p
⎝ f (x)u(x)dx
q ⎠ ≤C ⎝ f (x)v(x)dx
p ⎠ (5.7)
0 0
holds for all f ↓≥ 0 if and only if (5.2) holds. Moreover, the constant C = A0
is the best possible, where A0 is defined by (5.2).
A proof of this Lemma can be found e.g. in [100] (for more references
see e.g. the Ph.D. thesis [7] by S. Barza).
Proof. (Theorem 5.2). Since f is a decreasing function we can write f (x) =

∞
h(y)dy, for some h(y) ≥ 0. First note that, by changing order of integra-
x
tion,
x x ∞ ∞ x
1 1 1
f (t)dt = h(y)dydt = h(y)dy + yh(y)dy. (5.8)
x x x
0 0 t x 0
Consequently, by using (5.8) and Minkowski’s inequality, we find that

⎛ ⎛ ⎞q ⎞1
∞ x q
F := ⎝ ⎝1 f (t)dt⎠ u(x)dx⎠
x
0 0
⎛ ∞⎛ ∞ ⎞q ⎞1
x q
⎝ ⎝ 1 ⎠ ⎠
= h(y)dy + yh(y)dy u(x)dx
x
0 x 0
⎛ ⎞1
⎛ ∞⎛ x ⎞q ⎞1
∞ q q
1
≤ ⎝ f (x) u(x)dx
q ⎠ + ⎝ ⎝ yh(y)dy ⎠ u(x)dx ⎠
x
0 0 0
⎛∞ ⎞1
q
:= ⎝ f (x)u(x)dx
q ⎠ + F1 .
0
The first term on the right hand side can be estimated by using Lemma 5.3
and, thus,
⎛∞ ⎞1
p
F ≤ A0 ⎝ f (x)v(x)dx
p ⎠ + F1 . (5.9)
0
Let us estimate the second term F1 . We have, setting H = hV, where V

is defined by (5.4),
⎛ x ⎞q ⎛ x ⎞q
∞ ∞
1 1 yH(y) ⎠
F1q = ⎝ yh(y)dy ⎠ u(x)dx = ⎝ dy u(x)dx.
x x V (y)
0 0 0 0
y
Moreover, by integrating by parts and setting H(t)dt = G(y), we get that
0
x x x
yH(y) xG(x) G(y) yv(y)
dy = − dy + G(y)dy
V (y) V (x) V (y) V 2 (y)
0 0 0
x
xG(x) yv(y)
≤ + G(y)dy.
V (x) V 2 (y)
0
Hence, according to Minkowski’s inequality,

⎛∞ ⎞1/q ⎛ ∞ ⎛ x ⎞q ⎞1/q
q
G(x) 1 yv(y)
F1 ≤ ⎝ u(x)dx⎠ + ⎝ ⎝ G(y)dy ⎠ u(x)dx⎠
V (x) x V 2 (y)
0 0 0
(5.10)
:= F2 + F3 .
Moreover, by integrating by parts and using an approximation argument, we

find that
⎛ x ⎞
∞ q ∞ q
G(x) G(x) v(x) ⎝
F2q = u(x)dx ≤ q u(t)dt⎠ dx.
V (x) V (x)q+1
0 0 0
Hence, by applying condition (5.2), we have that

∞
G(x)q v(x)
F2q ≤ qAq0 dx. (5.11)
V (x)q+1−q/p
0
Moreover,
⎛ ⎞
y x y y
G(y) = h(x) v(t)dtdx = v(t) ⎝ h(x)dx⎠ dt (5.12)
0 0 0 t
⎛ ⎞
y ∞ y
≤ v(t) ⎝ h(x)dx⎠ dt ≤ f (t)v(t)dt.
0 t 0
Consequently, by inserting (5.12) into (5.11), we get that

⎛ ⎞q
∞ x
v(x)
F2q ≤ qAq0 ⎝ f (t)v(t)dt⎠ dx.
V (x)q+1−q/p
0 0
If we apply Theorem 1.1 to the function f (t) v (t) instead of f (t) and the
q
−q−1
weights V (x) p v (x) xq instead of u (x) and v (x)1−p instead of v (x) we
find that the condition (1.11) becomes
⎛ t ⎛ x ⎞q ⎞

Aq
PS = sup ⎝ V (x)q/p−1−q v(x) ⎝ v (1−p)(1−p ) dy ⎠ dx⎠ ×
t>0
0 0
⎛ t ⎞− pq

⎝ v(x)(1−p)(1−p ) dx⎠
0
⎛ t ⎞⎛ t ⎞− pq

p
= sup ⎝ V (x)q/p−1 v(x))dx⎠ ⎝ v(x)dx⎠ = ,
t>0 q
0 0
and, thus,
⎛∞ ⎞q
p
q q
q
F2 ≤ p p A0 ⎝ f (x)v(x)dx
p ⎠ . (5.13)
0
Denoting
yv(y)
G(y) = Φ(y)
V 2 (y)
and

xp V −p (x)v(x) = Ψ(x)1−p (5.14)
and, again applying Theorem 1.1, (5.5) and (5.12), we find that
⎛ ⎞q ⎛∞ ⎞q
∞ x p
q q
F3q = ⎝1 Φ(y)dy ⎠ u(x)dx ≤ p A2 ⎝ Φ (x)Ψ(x)dx⎠
p
x
0 0 0
⎛ ⎞q
∞ p
q
= p Aq2 ⎝ G (x)v(x)V (x)
p −p
dx⎠
0
⎛ ⎛ ⎞p ⎞q
∞ x p
q q
≤ p A2 ⎝ ⎝ f (y)v(y)dy ⎠ −p
v(x)V (x) dx ⎠
0 0
⎛ ⎞q
∞ p
2q
≤ p Aq2 ⎝ f (x) v(x)dx⎠ .
p
(5.15)
0
Here we in the last step apply Theorem 1.1 with q = p, f (x) replaced by
f (x) v (x), v (x) replaced by v 1−p (x) and u (x) replaced by v (x) V −p (x) xp
so that the condition (1.11) AP S = 1. By combining the estimates (5.9),
(5.10), (5.13) and (5.15) we find that (5.1) holds with a constant C satisfying
2
C ≤ 1 + p1/q p A0 + p A2 ),
i.e. the upper estimate in (5.6) holds.

For the necessity, assume that the inequality (5.1) holds for all f ↓≥ 0.
Consider, for fixed y > 0, the decreasing testfunction
⎛ ⎞1
y p
p −p −1
fy (s) = ⎝ t V (t) v(t)dt⎠ χ[0,y] (s).
s
Applying this function to the right hand side of (5.1) and changing order of
integration we obtain that
⎛∞ ⎞1/p ⎛ y⎛ y ⎞ ⎞1
p
⎝ fy (s)p v(s)ds⎠ ⎝ ⎝ p −p −1 ⎠ ⎠

= t V (t) v(t)dt v(s)ds
0 0 s
⎛ ⎛ ⎞ ⎞ 1p
y t

= ⎝ tp V (t)−p −1 ⎝ v(s)ds⎠ dt⎠
0 0
⎛ ⎞1
y p
p −p
= ⎝ t V (t) v(t)dt⎠ . (5.16)
0
For the left hand side of (5.1) we have that

⎛ ∞⎛ x ⎞q ⎞1
q
⎝ ⎝ 1
f (s)ds⎠ u(x)dx⎠
x
0 0
⎛ ⎛ ⎛ ⎞ 1 ⎞q ⎞ 1q
∞ x y p
⎜ ⎜1 ⎝ ⎟ ⎟
= ⎝ ⎝ tp V (t)−p −1 v(t)dt⎠ ds⎠ u(x)dx⎠
x
0 0 s
⎛ ⎛ ⎛ ⎞ 1 ⎞q ⎞ 1q
y x y p
⎜ ⎜ ⎟ ⎟
≥ ⎝ ⎝ ⎝ tp V (t)−p −1 v(t)dt⎠ ds⎠ u(x)x−q dx⎠ . (5.17)
0 0 s
For the inner integral it yields that

⎛ ⎞1
x y p
⎝ p −p −1
t V (t) v(t)dt⎠ ds
0 s
⎛ ⎞1
x y p
p
⎝ −p −1
≥ s p V (t) v(t)dt⎠ ds
0 s
⎛ ⎛ y ⎞− 1 ⎞
x x p
1 ⎜p
⎝ V (z)−p −1 v(z)dz ⎠ ⎟
≥ sp ⎝ V (t)−p −1 v(t)dt⎠ ds := I
p
0 s t
Now, by changing the order of integration, we find that

⎛ ⎞⎛ ⎞− 1
x t y p
1 −p −1
p
−p −1
I = V (t) v(t) ⎝ s ds⎠ ⎝
p V (z) v(z)dz ⎠ dt
p
0 0 t
⎛ y ⎞− 1
x p
1
= V (t)−p −1 v(t)tp ⎝ V (z)−p −1 v(z)dz ⎠ dt
pp
0 t
x
1
≥ 1 V (t)−p v(t)tp dt. (5.18)
p (p ) p
0
Therefore, by combining (5.16) and (5.17) with (5.18), we obtain that

⎛ y ⎞− 1 ⎛ y ⎛ x ⎞q ⎞1
p q
⎝ tp V (t)−p v(t)dt⎠ ⎝ ⎝ tp V −p (t)v(t)dt⎠ u(x)x−q dx⎠

0 0 0
1
≤ p p p C
1
x
Hence C ≥ A2
1 . Moreover, since f (x) ≤ x f (t)dt when f is decreasing,
p(p ) p 0
it follows that A0 ≤ C, by choosing ft (x) = χ[0,t] (x) and taking supremum.
Hence also the lower estimate of (5.6) holds and the proof is complete.
Remark 5.1. The crucial part of the proof above is to use the results in
[84], [99] and the technique in [100] combined with finding explicitly the cor-
responding test functions. For the estimates C ≈ max (A0 , A2 ) we have found
that

1 2
1/q
max A0 , A2 ≤ C ≤ 1 + p p A0 + p A2 ) (5.19)
p (p )1/p
but we strongly believe that these estimates can be improved.
5.3 A characterization of the Pólya-Knopp inequal-

ity for decreasing functions
In this Section we will give a weight characterization of the Pólya-Knopp
inequality (1.14) for decreasing functions. In fact, the following Pólya-Knopp
type inequality may be regarded as a limit result of our Theorem 5.2:
Theorem 5.4. Let 0 < p ≤ q < ∞. Let u (x) and v (x) be weight functions
and assume that v (x) is decreasing. Then the inequality
⎛ ∞⎛ ⎛ x ⎞⎞q ⎞1 ⎛∞ ⎞1
q p
⎝ ⎝exp ⎝ 1
ln f (t)dt⎠⎠ u(x)dx⎠ ≤ C ⎝ f (x)v(x)dx⎠ (5.20)
p
x
0 0 0

⎛ ⎞ 1q
t
− p1 ⎝
DP S = DP S (p, q, w) := supt w(x)dx⎠ < ∞, (5.21)
t>0
0
holds. Moreover, if C is the best possible constant in (5.20), then
DP S ≤ C ≤ inf k (r) DP S , (5.22)

r>1
where p 2 pr
k (r) = 1 + r qr r + r ,
1
Proof. Assume that (5.21) holds and let g(x) = f (x)v(x) p . Then as v(x) is
decreasing and f (x) is decreasing so is g(x). Moreover, if w(x) be defined as
in (1.13), then (5.20) is equivalent to
⎛ ⎛ ⎛ ⎞⎞q ⎞1 ⎛ ⎞1
∞ x q ∞ p
⎝ ⎝exp ⎝ 1 ln g(t)dt⎠⎠ w(x)dx⎠ ≤ C ⎝ g (x)dx⎠ ,

p
(5.23)
x
0 0 0
r
and with g(t) = h(t) p equivalent to
⎛ ⎛ ⎛ ⎞⎞ qr ⎞1 ⎛ ⎞1
∞ x p
q
∞ p
⎜
⎝ ⎝exp ⎝ 1 ln h(t)dt⎠⎠
⎟
w(x)dx⎠ ≤ C ⎝ h (x)dx⎠ . (5.24)
r
x
0 0 0
qr
Note that if r > 1 and 1 < p ≤ q < ∞, then we have 1 < r ≤ p < ∞. By
applying Jensen’s inequality we find that if the inequality
⎛ ⎛ ⎞ qr ⎞1 ⎛∞ ⎞1
∞ x p
q
p
⎜ ⎝ qp ⎟
⎝ h(t)dt⎠ w(x)x s dx⎠ ≤ C ⎝ h (x)dx⎠
− r
(5.25)
0 0 0
holds for all decreasing functions h (x) , then also (5.24) holds with the same
constant C. Now we replace p by r and q by qr p , u (x) with w(x) and let
v(x) = 1 in the inequality (5.1) and apply Theorem 5.2. This means that
the inequality (5.25) holds if and only if
⎛ t ⎞ 1q
r
qr p
− 1
A0 (r, , w, 1) = DP S (p, q, w) = supt p ⎝ w(x)dx⎠ < ∞,
p t>0
0
and
⎛ t ⎞ 1q
r
qr p 1
A2 (r, , w, 1) = DP S (p, q, w) = supt− p ⎝ w(x)dx⎠ < ∞,
p t>0
0
where w (x) is defined by (1.13). We conclude that if (5.21) holds, then

(5.24) and, thus, (5.20) holds for all f ↓≥ 0. Moreover, by using the upper
bound in (5.19) we have that for the best constant C in (5.20), we have the
estimate p 2 rp
C ≤ 1 + r qr r + r DP S = k (r) DP S .
By taking infimum the upper bound in (5.22) is proved.

The neccesity part and the proof of the lower bound in (5.22) follows by
applying
1
g(x) = t− p χ[0,t] (x)
to (5.23). The proof is complete.
Remark 5.2. We have obtained the same condition for characterizing the
Pólya-Knopp inequality for decreasing functions as for all positive functions
in [84] but our upper estimate of the best constant C in (5.22) is different.
5.4 Another approach via an equivalence theorem

In [93] E. Sawyer showed that to characterize the inequality (5.1) for de-
creasing functions f is equivalent to characterize the following inequalities:
⎛ ⎛ ⎞p ⎞ 1 ⎛∞ ⎞ 1
∞ x p
q
⎜ ⎝ ⎠ −p ⎟ ⎝ q 1−q ⎠
⎝ f (t)dt V (x) v(x)dx⎠ ≤ C f (x)u(x) dx ,
0 0 0
(5.26)
and
⎛ ⎛ ⎞p ⎞ 1 ⎛∞ ⎞ 1
∞ ∞ p
q
⎜ ⎝ f (t) ⎠ p −p ⎟ ⎝ q 1−q ⎠
⎝ dt x V (x) v(x)dx⎠ ≤ C f (x)u(x) dx ,
t
0 x 0
(5.27)
where V is defined by (5.4). Then, by using the Hardy inequality and the
so called Muckenhoupt condition to characterize the inequalities (5.26) and
(5.27), E. Sawyer received the before mentioned result in Theorem 5.1.
Recently the weighted Hardy inequality has been characterized with some
new conditions (see e.g. [64] and [102]). More generally, nowadays we know
that the Hardy inequality (5.1) for 1 < p ≤ q < ∞ holds for all f ≥ 0 if
and only if just one of the following (infinite many equivalent) conditions is
satisfied (see [33]):
Theorem 5.5. Let 1 < p ≤ q < ∞, 0 < s < ∞ and define
⎛ ⎞1
⎛ t ⎞q 1 −s q ⎛ ⎞s
∞ p x
⎜ ⎟
A1 (s) := sup ⎜ dt⎟

⎝ u (t) ⎝ v 1−p (y)dy ⎠ ⎠
⎝ v 1−p (t)dt⎠ ,
0<x<∞
x 0 0
⎛ ⎞1
⎛ t ⎞q 1
+s q ⎛ ⎞−s
x p x
⎜ ⎟
A2 (s) := sup ⎜

⎝ u (t) ⎝ v 1−p (y)dy ⎠ dt⎟
⎠
⎝ v 1−p (t)dt⎠ ,
0<x<∞
0 0 0
⎛ ⎞ 1
⎛∞ ⎞p 1 −s p ⎛ ⎞s
x q ∞
⎜ ⎟
A3 (s) := sup ⎜ dt⎟

⎝ v 1−p (t) ⎝ u(y)dy ⎠ ⎠
⎝ u(y)dy ⎠ ,
0<x<∞
0 t t
⎛ ⎞ 1
⎛ ⎞p 1
+s p ⎛∞ ⎞−s
∞ ∞ q
⎜ ⎟
A4 (s) := sup ⎜ dt⎟

⎝ v 1−p (t) ⎝ u(y)dy ⎠ ⎠
⎝ u(y)dy ⎠ .
0<x<∞
x t t
(5.28)
Then the Hardy inequality
⎛ ∞⎛ x ⎞q ⎞1 ⎛∞ ⎞1
q p
⎝ ⎝ f (t) dt⎠ u (x) dx⎠ ≤ C ⎝ f p (x) v (x) dx⎠ (5.29)

0 0 0
holds for all measurable functions f ≥ 0 if and only if any of the quantities
Ai (s) is finite. Moreover, for the best constant C in (5.29) we have C ≈
Ai (s), i = 1, 2, 3, 4.
This gives us the possibility to characterize the weighted Hardy inequal-
ity for decreasing functions with some new conditions, by just using the
technique of E. Sawyer described above. We can therefore formulate the
following generalization of our Theorem 5.2:
Theorem 5.6. Let 1 < p ≤ q < ∞. Then the inequality (5.1) holds for all
f ↓≥ 0 if and only if for any s, r, 0 < s, r < ∞, one of the quantities
⎛ ⎞ 1
⎛ t ⎞p 1q −s p ⎛ ⎞s
∞ x
⎜ −p
⎟
B1 (s) := sup ⎜⎝ V (t) v (t)
⎝ u(y)dy ⎠ dt⎟
⎠
⎝ u(t)dt⎠ ,
0<x<∞
x 0 0
⎛ ⎞ 1
⎛ t ⎞p 1q +s p ⎛ ⎞−s
x x
⎜ ⎟
B2 (s) := sup ⎜ −p
⎝ V (t) v (t)
⎝ u(y)dy ⎠ dt⎟
⎠
⎝ u(t)dt⎠ ,
0<x<∞
0 0 0
⎛ ⎞1
⎛∞ ⎞q 1 −s q
x p
⎜ ⎟
B3 (s) := sup ⎜⎝ u(t) ⎝ V (y)−p v (y) dy ⎠ dt⎟
⎠ ×
0<x<∞
0 t
⎛ ⎞s
∞
⎝ −p
V (y) v (y) dy ⎠ ,
t
⎛ ⎞1
⎛∞ ⎞q 1 +s q
∞ p
⎜ ⎟
B4 (s) := sup ⎜⎝ u(t) ⎝ V (y)−p v (y) dy ⎠ dt⎟
⎠ ×
0<x<∞
x t
⎛ ⎞−s
∞

⎝ V (y)−p v (y) dy ⎠
t
and one of the quantities
⎛ ⎞1
⎛ t ⎞q 1 −r q ⎛ ⎞r
∞ p x
⎜ ⎟
E1 (r) := sup ⎜ dt⎟

−q ⎝
Ψ1−p (y)dy ⎠ ⎝ Ψ1−p (t)dt⎠ ,
0<x<∞
⎝ u (t) t ⎠
x 0 0
⎛ ⎞1
⎛ t ⎞q 1 +r q
x p
⎜ ⎟
E2 (r) := sup ⎜

⎝ u (t) t−q ⎝ Ψ1−p (y)dy ⎠ dt⎟
⎠ ×
0<x<∞
0 0
⎛ x ⎞−r

⎝ Ψ1−p (t)dt⎠ ,
0
⎛ ⎞ 1
⎛ ⎞p 1
−r p ⎛ ⎞r
x ∞ q ∞
⎜ ⎟
E3 (r) := sup ⎜⎝ Ψ 1−p
(t) ⎝ u(y)y −q dy ⎠ dt⎟
⎠
⎝ u(y)y −q dy ⎠ ,
0<x<∞
0 t t
⎛ ⎞ 1
⎛∞ ⎞p 1 +r p
∞ q
⎜ ⎟
E4 (r) := sup ⎜ dt⎟

⎝ Ψ
1−p
(t) ⎝ u(y)y −q dy ⎠ ⎠ ×
0<x<∞
x t
⎛∞ ⎞−r

⎝ u(y)y −q dy ⎠
t
are finite, where V is defined by (5.4) and Ψ is defined by (5.14).
Remark 5.3. By using B1 with s = 1q and V (∞) = ∞ (this is no real restic-

tion see e.g. [93, p. 148] and [63, p. 316]) and integrating, and also using
E1 with r = p1 we get the result due to Sawyer (Theorem 5.1). Furthermore,
if we again use B1 as but with s = 1q and also E2 with r = 1p we get our result
(Theorem 5.2).
Proof. (Theorem 5.6). We apply the above mentioned technique by E.

Sawyer [93]. First we give weight characterizations for the inequality (5.26).

If we use Theorem 5.5 with p, q, u (x) , v (x) replaced by q , p ,V (x)−p v (x)

and u(x)1−q ,respectively, then we obtain the first bunch of conditions in
Theorem 5.6.
Now, we characterize the inequality (5.27) and first we note that, by
duality (see e.g. [63, p. 314]), (5.27) is equivalent to the Hardy inequality
⎛ ⎛ ⎞q ⎞1 ⎛∞ ⎞1
∞ x q p
⎝ ⎝ f (t)dt⎠ u(x)x−q dx⎠ ≤ C ⎝ f p (x)Ψ(x)dx⎠ ,

0 0 0
where Ψ(x) is defined by (5.14) so we can again use Theorem 5.5 now with
s, u (x) and v (x) replaced by r, u (x) x−q and Ψ(x) respectively, and we get
the second bunch of conditions in Theorem 5.6. The proof is complete.
Remark 5.4. By using Theorem 5.6 and arguing as in the proof of Theo-
rem 5.4 we can get a number of other characterizations of the Pólya-Knopp
inequality (5.20) then that is stated in Theorem 5.4.
Chapter 6
A Unified approach to Sawyer and

Sinnamon characterizations of the
Hardy inequality for decreasing
functions
6.1 Introduction
Let us first recall that in the Sawyer characterization of Hardy’s inequality
for decreasing functions two independent conditions were used (see Theorem
1.3 = Theorem 5.1 and c.f. also our alternative descriptions in Theorem 5.2
and 5.6).
On the contrary, in the next result by G. Sinnamon [97] only one condi-
tion is necessary to characterize the corresponding Hardy type inequality.
Theorem 6.1. Let 1 < p ≤ q < ∞ and let u (x) and v (x) be weight functions
on (0, ∞). Then the inequality
⎛ ∞⎛ x ⎞q ⎞1 ⎛∞ ⎞1
q p
⎝ ⎝ f (t) v (t) dt⎠ u (x) dx⎠ ≤ C ⎝ f p (x) v (x) dx⎠ (6.1)

0 0 0
73
holds for all decreasing f ≥ 0 if and only if

⎛ t ⎛ x ⎞q ⎞ 1q ⎛ t ⎞− p1

A3 := sup ⎝ u (x) ⎝ v (y) dy ⎠ dx⎠ ⎝ v (x) dx⎠ < ∞. (6.2)
t>0
0 0 0
Remark 6.1. The main argument of Sinnamon was to prove (via so called
level functions) that (6.1) is in fact equivalent to that
⎛ ⎞1 ⎛ ⎞1
∞ q ∞ p
⎝ f (x) V (x) u (x) dx⎠ ≤ C ⎝

q q
f (x) v (x) dx⎠
p
(6.3)
0 0
holds for all decreasing f ≥ 0 and use the fact that a characterization for such
continuous embeddings between Lorentz spaces is known. (Here, as usual,
x
V (x) = v (t) dt.)
0
At a first glance the two inequalities (5.1) and (6.1) seems to be similar,
but to characterize (5.1) we need two conditions while (6.1) can be charac-
terized by only one condition. Moreover, in [93] E. Sawyer gives an example
for the fact that neither (5.2) nor (5.3) is sufficient for (5.1) to hold namely
the following:
Example: If u (x) = xq−1 and v (x) = xp−1 , then (5.2) holds but not
(5.3), while if u (x) = xq (x + 1)−q−1 and v (x) = χ(0,1) (x) , then (5.3) holds
but not (5.2).
Let us now look at another example:
Example: If v(x) ≡ 1, then
⎛ ⎞ 1q
t 1
−p
A0 = sup ⎝ u(x)dx⎠ t
0<t<∞
0
and ⎛∞ ⎞1
q
1
p
A1 = sup ⎝ x u(x)dx⎠ t .
−q
0<t<∞
t
We also note that if u (x) is replaced by u (x) x−q in (6.1)-(6.2) and v (x) ≡ 1,
then (5.1) coincides with (6.1) and (5.2) coincides with (6.2). In particular,
this means that in this case the conditions A0 < ∞ and A1 < ∞ must be
equivalent. This can be proved directly but it is also a consequence of the
general equivalence result proved in [33] (see Theorem 5.5 and Remark 6.2):
A Unified approach to Sawyer and Sinnamon characteri- 75
zations of the Hardy inequality for decreasing functions
Remark 6.2. The equivalence of the conditions A0 < ∞ and A1 < ∞ for
v (x) ≡ 1 follows by using Theorem 5.5 with u (x) = u (x) x−q and A1 with
s = p1 and A2 with s = 1p .
In Section 6.2 we state and prove the main result of this Chapter (The-
orem 6.2), which generalize the above mentioned result of Sinnamon (see
Corollary 6.3) and also put some new light on the result of Sawyer for the
case when the weight v (x) is increasing. Section 6.3 is reserved for some
concluding remarks.
6.2 The main result

Our main result reads:
Theorem 6.2. Let 1 < p ≤ q < ∞ and let u (x) , v (x) and ϕ (x) be weight
functions on (0, ∞), where ϕ (x) is decreasing. Then the inequality
⎛ ∞⎛ x ⎞q ⎞1 ⎛∞ ⎞1
q p
⎝ ⎝ f (t) ϕ (t) v (t) dt⎠ u (x) dx⎠ ≤ C ⎝ f p (x) v (x) dx⎠ (6.4)
0 0 0
holds for all C < ∞ and decreasing f if and only if one of the following
conditions holds for some s > 0:
⎛ ⎞1
⎛ ⎞q 1
−s q
∞ x p
⎜ ⎟
Dϕ (s) := sup ⎜ dx⎟

⎝ u (x) ⎝ v (y) ϕp (y) dy ⎠ ⎠ × (6.5)
t>0
t 0
⎛ ⎞s
t

⎝ v (x) ϕp (x) dx⎠ < ∞.
0
⎛ ⎞ 1
⎛∞ ⎞p 1
−s p
t q
⎜ ⎟
Dϕ∗ (s) := sup ⎜ dx⎟

⎝ v (x) ϕp (x) ⎝ u (y) dy ⎠ ⎠ × (6.6)
t>0
0 x
⎛ ⎞s
∞
⎝ u (x) dx⎠ < ∞.
t
⎛ ⎞1
⎛ x ⎞q 1 +s q
t p
⎜ ⎟
Eϕ (s) := sup ⎜
⎝ u (x)
⎝ v (y) ϕp (y) dy ⎠ dx⎟
⎠ × (6.7)
t>0
0 0
⎛ ⎞−s
t
⎝ p
v (x) ϕ (x) dx⎠ < ∞.
0
⎛ ⎞ 1
⎛∞ ⎞p 1 +s p
∞ q
⎜ ⎟
Eϕ∗ (s) := sup ⎜ dx⎟

⎝ v (x) ϕp (x) ⎝ u (y) dy ⎠ ⎠ × (6.8)
t>0
t x
⎛ ⎞−s
∞
⎝ u (x) dx⎠ < ∞.
t

Proof. First we use Theorem 5.5 with u (x), v (x) = ϕ−p (x) to conclude
that, for any s > 0, the conditions (6.5) - (6.8) are equivalent. In particular,
now we assume that (6.5) holds for some s, 0 < s < p1 . Since f is decreasing
we can write ∞
f p (x) = h (y) dy, where h ≥ 0.
x
Thus, by using the Fubini theorem, we find that (6.4) can equivalently be
written as
⎛ ⎛ ⎛ ⎞1 ⎞q ⎞ 1q
∞ x ∞ p
⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎟ ⎟
⎝ ⎝ h (y) dy ⎠ v (t) ϕ (t) dt⎠ u (x) dx⎠ (6.9)
0 0 t
⎛ ⎛ ⎞ ⎞1
∞ y p
≤ C⎝ h (y) ⎝ v (x) dx⎠ dy ⎠

0 0
Now, we define
x 1
p 1 p
Ṽϕ (t) = v (t) ϕ (t) dt and C0 = .
1 − sp
0
By using Hölder’s inequality, Minkowski’s generalized integral inequality and

changing order of integration we find that
⎛ ⎞1
∞ x ∞ 1
p
q q
⎝ h (y) dy v (t) ϕ (t) dt u (x) dx⎠

0 t
0
⎛ ∞ q ⎞1
x ∞ 1 q
p 1 1
= ⎝ h (y) dy ϕ (t) Ṽϕ−s (t) Ṽϕs (t) v p (t) v p (t) dt u (x) dx⎠
0 t
0
⎛ q
∞ x ∞ p
≤⎝ −sp
h (y) dy Ṽϕ (t) v (t) ×
0 t
0
q 1
x q
p
−sp p
Ṽϕ (t) ϕ (t) v(t)dt u (x) dx
0
⎛∞ ⎞1
x ∞ q
1
q
p q p
−s
≤ C0 ⎝ h (y) dy Ṽϕsp (t) v (t) dt Ṽϕ (x) u (x) dx⎠
0 t
0
⎛ ⎛∞ ⎞ p ⎞ p1
∞ ∞
1
q
⎜ q p −s ⎟
≤ C0 ⎝ h (y) dy Ṽϕ (t) v (t) ⎝ Ṽϕ
sp
(x) u (x) dx⎠ dt⎠
t
0 t
⎛ ⎛ ⎛∞ ⎞ p ⎞ ⎞ p1
∞ q
y 1
⎜ ⎜ q p −s ⎟ ⎟
≤ C0 ⎝ h (y) ⎝ Ṽϕ (t) v (t) ⎝ Ṽϕ
sp
(x) u (x) dx⎠ dt⎠ dy ⎠
0
0 t
⎛ ⎞1 ⎛ ∞ ⎞1
∞
1
q y p
q p
−s
≤ C0 supṼϕs (t) ⎝ Ṽϕ (x) u (x) dx ⎠ ⎝ h (y) v (t) dt dy ⎠
t≥0 0
t 0
⎛ ⎞1
1 ∞ p
1 p y
= D1 (s) ⎝ h (y) v (t) dt dy ⎠
1 − sp 0
0
⎛ ⎞1
1 ∞ p
1 p
= Dϕ (s) ⎝ f (t) v (t) dt⎠ .
p
1 − sp
0
Hence (6.9) and, thus, (6.4) holds.

Now we assume that (6.4) holds for some C < ∞ and choose the test-
function

p − p1 +s p
f (x) = Ṽϕ (t) ϕ p (x) χ(0,t) (x) +
p − (ps + 1)

1
− +s p
p
Ṽϕ (x) ϕ p (x) χ(t,∞) (x)
where t > 0 is fixed. Then the integral on the right hand side of (6.4) is
equal to
⎛ t
p
⎝ p
= Ṽϕ−(1+ps) (t) ϕp (x) v (x) dx (6.10)
p (1 − s) − 1
0
⎞1
∞ p

+ Ṽϕ−(1+ps) (x) ϕp (t) v (x) dx⎠
t
p 1
p −ps 1 −ps p
= Ṽϕ (t) + Ṽϕ (t)
p (1 − s) − 1 ps
p 1
p 1 p −s
= + Ṽϕ (t) .
p (1 − s) − 1 ps
Moreover, the left hand side of (6.4) is greater than
⎛ ∞⎛ x ⎞q ⎞1
q )
*
⎝ ⎝ f (t) ϕ (t) v (t) dt⎠ u (x) dx⎠ = since p + 1 = p
p
t 0
⎛
⎛
∞ t
1

p − +s
=⎝ ⎝
p
Ṽϕ (t) ϕp (y) v (y) dy +
p (1 − s) − 1
t 0

⎞q ⎞1
x 1
q
− +s
p
(y) ϕ (y) v (y) dy ⎠ u (x) dx⎠
p
Ṽϕ
t
⎛
∞
1

1

p p
−s p p
−s
=⎝ Ṽϕ (t) + Ṽϕ (x) −
p (1 − s) − 1 p (1 − s) − 1
t
1 q 1
q
p −s
Ṽϕ p (t) u (x) dx
p (1 − s) − 1
⎛∞ ⎞1
q
p q p1 −s
= ⎝ Ṽϕ (x) u (x) dx ⎠ .
p (1 − s) − 1
t
By combining this estimate with (6.10) we find that, in view of (6.4),

⎛ ⎞1
∞
1
q
p q p
−s
⎝ Ṽϕ (x) u (x) φ (x) dx⎠
p (1 − s) − 1
t
p 1
p 1 p
≤ C≤ + Ṽϕ−s (t)
p (1 − s) − 1 ps
i.e. that
⎛ p ⎞ p1 ⎛ ∞
⎞1
p q
q p1 −s
⎝ p(1−s)−1p ⎠ ⎝ Ṽϕ (x) u (x) dx ⎠ Ṽϕs (t) ≤ C < ∞.
p 1
p(1−s)−1 + ps t
By taking supremum over all t > 0 we find that (6.5) holds for 0 < s < 1p .
Hence, according to Theorem 5.5, all conditions (6.5) - (6.8) holds for all
s > 0. The proof is complete.
By applying Theorem 6.2 with ϕ ≡ 1 we obtain the following version of

the before mentioned result by G. Sinnamon:
Corollary 6.3. Let 1 < p ≤ q < ∞ and let u (x) and v (x) be weight
functions on (0, ∞). Then the inequality
⎛ ∞⎛ x ⎞q ⎞1 ⎛∞ ⎞1
q p
⎝ ⎝ f (t) v (t) dt⎠ u (x) dx⎠ ≤ C ⎝ f p (x) v (x) dx⎠

0 0 0
holds for some C < ∞ and for all decreasing f ≥ 0 if and only if one of the
following conditions holds for some s > 0 :
⎛ ⎞1
⎛ x ⎞q 1 −s q ⎛ ⎞s
∞ p x
⎜ ⎟
D1 (s) = sup ⎜
⎝ u (x)
⎝ v (y) dy ⎠ dx⎟
⎠
⎝ v (t) dt⎠ < ∞.
t>0
t 0 0
⎛ ⎞ 1
⎛∞ ⎞p 1 −s p ⎛ ⎞s
t q ∞
⎜ ⎟
D1∗ (s) = sup ⎜
⎝ v (x)
⎝ u (y) dy ⎠ dx⎟
⎠
⎝ u (x) dx⎠ < ∞.
t>0
0 x t
⎛ ⎞1
⎛ x ⎞q 1 +s q ⎛ ⎞−s
t p x
⎜ ⎟
E1 (s) = sup ⎜
⎝ u (x)
⎝ v (y) dy ⎠ dx⎟
⎠
⎝ v (t) dt⎠ < ∞.
t>0
0 0 0
⎛ ⎞ 1
⎛∞ ⎞p 1 +s p ⎛ ⎞−s
∞ q ∞
⎜ ⎟
E1∗ (s) = sup ⎜
⎝ v (x) ⎝ u (y) dy ⎠ dx⎟
⎠
⎝ u (x) dx⎠ < ∞.
t>0
t x t
Remark 6.3. Theorem 6.1isobtained by just noting that condition (6.2)

coincides with condition E1 1p < ∞.
1
Moreover, by applying Theorem 6.2 with ϕ (t) = v(t) and u (x) replaced
−q
by u (x) x we obtain the following alternative to the Sawyer result for the
case when v (t) is increasing.
Corollary 6.4. Let 1 < p ≤ q < ∞ and let u (x) and v (x) be weight
functions on (0, ∞), where v (x) is increasing. Then the inequality
⎛ ⎛ ⎞q ⎛∞ ⎞1 ⎞1
∞ x q p
⎝ ⎝1 f (t) dt⎠ u (x) dx⎠ ≤ C ⎝ f (x) v (x) dx⎠

p
(6.11)
x
0 0 0
holds for some C < ∞ and for all decreasing f ≥ 0 if and only if one of the
following conditions holds for some s > 0 :
⎛ ⎞1
⎛ ⎞q 1
−s q
∞ x p
⎜ ⎟
F1 (s) = sup ⎜ dx⎟

⎝ u (x) x−q ⎝ v 1−p (y) dy ⎠ ⎠ ×
t>0
t 0
⎛ ⎞s
t
⎝ 1−p
v (x) dx⎠ < ∞.
0
⎛ ⎞ 1
⎛∞ ⎞p 1 −s p
t q
⎜ ⎟
F1∗ (s) = sup ⎜
⎝ v
1−p
(x) ⎝ u (y) y −q dy ⎠ dx⎟
⎠ ×
t>0
0 x
⎛∞ ⎞s

⎝ u (x) x−q dx⎠ < ∞.
t
⎛ ⎞1
⎛ x ⎞q 1
+s q
t p
⎜ ⎟
F2 (s) = sup ⎜ dx⎟

⎝ u (x) x−q ⎝ v 1−p (y) dy ⎠ ⎠ ×
t>0
0 0
⎛ ⎞−s
t

⎝ v 1−p (x) dx⎠ < ∞.
0
⎛ ⎞ 1
⎛ ⎞p 1
+s p
∞ ∞ q
⎜ ⎟
F2∗ (s) = sup ⎜
⎝ v 1−p
(x) ⎝ u (y) y −q dy ⎠ dx⎟
⎠ ×
t>0
t x
⎛ ⎞−s
∞
⎝ u (x) x−q dx⎠ < ∞.
t
Remark 6.4. According to Theorem 5.1 two conditions are necessary to

characterize (6.11) for the general case but, in view of Corollary 6.4, for the
special case when v (x) is increasing only one condition is required (but there
are infinite many such equivalent conditions). Moreover, in this case each of
the conditions above are also equivalent.
6.3 Concluding remarks

Remark 6.5. Our proof of Theorem 6.2 shows that if C is the best possible
constant in (6.4), then
⎛ p ⎞ 1
p p 1
⎝ p(1−s)−1
⎠ 1 p
sup

p Dϕ (s) ≤ C ≤ inf Dϕ (s) .
p
+ 1 s∈ 0, p1 1 − sp
s∈ 0, p1 p(1−s) ps
Remark 6.6. According to our proof of Theorem 6.2 we see that the suf-
ficient part of the Theorem holds in general i.e. without the additional as-
sumption that ϕ (x) is decreasing.
Remark 6.7. Note that condition F1 (s) < ∞, with 0 < s < p1 coincides
with that obtained by Wedestig in [102] to characterize (6.11) for all functions
f ≥ 0. The explanation of this phenomenon is that among all rearrangements
∞
of the function f the integral f p (x) v (x) dx with v (x) non-decreasing, will
0
be the smallest possible when f is rearranged in decreasing order. It follows
that if v (x) is increasing, then (6.11) for all functions is equivalent to (6.11)
restricted to the cone of decreasing functions.
Remark 6.8. In view of Sinnamon’s result that (6.1) and (6.3) are in fact
equivalent our result also gives directly new results concerning embedding be-
tween Lorentz spaces. More exactly, let f ∗ denote the decreasing rearrange-
ment of function f from the measurespace Ω. Then, for 1 < p ≤ q < ∞, the
inequality
⎛∞ ⎞1 ⎛∞ ⎞1
q p
⎝ (f ∗ (t) dt)q u (x) dx⎠ ≤ C ⎝ (f ∗ (x))p v (x) dx⎠

0 0
holds for some finite constant C if and only if any of the conditions in Corol-
lary 6.3 holds for any s > 0 and with u (x) replaced by Vu(x)
q (x) . Except for the

case E1 p1 < ∞ used by Sinnamon we think this fact is not pointed out
before in the literature.
Remark 6.9. A generalization of Sinnamon’s results in Theorem 6.1 can be

found in [85]. In fact, they prove a similar result for the case with a (Oinarov
type) kernel involved in the Hardy operator in the left hand side in (6.1). It
is an open question if the results in this Chapter can also be generalized to
this case in this generality.
Chapter 7
Hardy inequality with three

measures on monotone functions
7.1 Introduction
Let M+ be the class consisting of all Borel functions f : [0, ∞) → [0, +∞]
and M ↓ (M ↑) be a subclass of M+ , which consists of all decreasing
(increasing) functions f ∈ M+ . Suppose that λ, μ and ν are positive Borel
σ-finite measures on [0, ∞) and u, v, w ∈ M+ are weight functions.
In this chapter we study for 0 < p, q, s < ∞ the problem when the Hardy
inequality of the form
1 1
q p
(Hs f )q vdμ ≤C f p wdν , (7.1)

[0,∞) [0,∞)
holds for all f ∈ M ↓ or for all f ∈ M ↑, where

1
s
(Hs f ) (x) := f s udλ . (7.2)

[0,x]
Since by the substitution f s → f the inequality (7.1) can be reduced to

the equivalent inequality with new parameters p and q of the form
1 1
q p
(Hf )q vdμ ≤C f p wdν , (7.3)

[0,∞) [0,∞)
83
where
(Hf ) (x) := (H1 f ) (x) = f udλ (7.4)
[0,x]
we may and shall restrict our studies to the inequality (7.3). All the charac-
terizations of (7.1) can be easily reproduced from the results for (7.3).
The weighted inequality (7.3) for f ∈ M ↓, when λ = μ = ν is the
Lebesgue measure, was essentially characterized in [93] and [100] with the
complement for the case 0 < q < 1 = p in [98] and recent contribution in
[13] for the case 0 < q < p < 1. In fact, [93], [100], [98] and [13] deal with
the case u(x) = 1, but a weight u can be incorporated with no change in
the arguments. A piece of historical remarks and the literature can be found
in ( [62] and [63, Chapter 6]). We summarize these results in the following
theorems:
Theorem 7.1. Let λ = μ = ν be the Lebesgue measure. Then the inequality

(7.3) holds for all f ∈ M ↓ if and only if:
(a) 1 0 0 0 0
and
∞ 1 t s p s −p 1
p
q
A1 := sup v u w w(s)ds
t>0 t 0 0 0
and C ≈ A0 + A1 .
1 1
(b) 0 < q < p < ∞, 1 < p < ∞, r := q − 1p , max (B0 , B1 ) < ∞, where
1
∞ t − pr t s q pr t q r
B0 := w u v(s)ds u v (t) dt ,
0 0 0 0 0
and
⎛ ⎞1
∞ ∞ r t s p s −p r
p
r
p
B1 := ⎝ v u w w(s)ds v(t)dt⎠
0 t 0 0 0
and C ≈ B0 + B1 .
Hardy inequality with three measures on monotone func- 85
tions
(c) 0 < q < p ≤ 1, max (B0 , B1 ) < ∞, where

⎛ ⎞1
∞ s p s −1 pr ∞ r r
p
B1 := ⎝ esssup u w v v(t)dt⎠
0 s∈[0,t] 0 0 t
and C ≈ B0 + B1 .
(d) 0 0 0 t 0
and C ≈ A0 + A1 .
It is important to note, that the weighted case of (7.3) for 1 < p, q < ∞
was solved in [93] by proving the principle of duality which allows to reduce
an inequality with a positive operator on monotone functions to an inequality
with modified operator on non-negative functions. The other cases, when
p, q ∈ (1, ∞) were studied by different methods.
Our aim is twofold. First we study the inequality (7.3) in the case 0 < p ≤
1 proving a complete analog of the parts (c) and (d) of Theorem 7.1 (Section
7.3). In the case 0 < q < p ≤ 1 our method is based on the characterization
of the Hardy inequality on nonnegative functions in the case 0 < q < 1 = p,
which we establish in Section 7.3 (Theorem 7.12). This approach is direct
and different from discretization methods of [13] and [37].
Hardy inequality (7.3) on monotone functions with two different measures
was recently investigated by G. Sinnamon [97]. Namely, for 1 < p < ∞ and
0 < q < ∞ the author established the equivalence of (7.3) with u ≡ v ≡ w ≡
1 and dλ = dν for f ∈ M+ to the same inequality restricted to f ∈ M ↓ .
Moreover, such equivalence takes place also for more general operator than
(7.4), that is for the operator

(Kf ) (x) = k (x, y) f (y) dλ (y)
[0,x]
with a kernel k (x, y) ≥ 0, which is monotone in the variable y (see [85,

Theorem 2.3]). Moreover, G. Sinnamon [97] extended the Sawyer principle
of duality for measures. We apply this extension to characterize (7.3) in
case 1 < p, q < ∞ (Section 4) combining with the recent results by D.V.
Prokhorov [87] for the inequality (7.3) on f ∈ M+ with 1 < p < ∞ and
0 < q < ∞ extended by the same author for the Hardy operator with
Oinarov kernel [88].
7.2 Preliminary remarks

Denote

Λf (x) := f dλ, and Λ̄f (x) := f dλ. (7.5)
[0,x] [x,∞)
We need the following statements.
Lemma 7.2. ([87], Lemma 1) If γ > 0, then

Λf (∞)γ+1 γ Λf (∞)γ+1
≤ f (x) Λf (x) dλ (x) ≤ (7.6)
max {1, γ + 1} [0,∞) min {1, γ + 1}
holds. If γ ∈ (−1, 0) and Λf (∞) < +∞, then (7.6) holds.
Lemma 7.3. ([87], Lemma 2) If γ > 0, then

Λ̄f (0)γ+1 Λ̄f (0)γ+1
≤ f (x) Λ̄f (x)γ dλ (x) ≤ (7.7)
max {1, γ + 1} [0,∞) min {1, γ + 1}
holds. If γ ∈ (−1, 0) and Λ̄f (0) < +∞, then (7.7) holds.
The following two statements can be obtained from [[96], Lemma 2.1]
(see also [[97], Proposition 1.5]).
Lemma 7.4. Let f ∈ M ↑ with f (0) = 0 and let η be a Borel measure on

[0, ∞). Then there exist f0 ∈ M ↑ and the sequence {hn }n≥1 ⊂ M+ such
that
(1) f0 (x) ≤ f (x) for all x ∈ [0, ∞).
(2) f0 (x) = f(x) for η-a.e. x ∈ [0, ∞).
(3) fn (x) := [0,x]) hn dη ≤ f0 (x) for all x ∈ [0, ∞).
(4) For all x ∈ [0, ∞) the sequence {fn (x)}n≥1 is nondecreasing in n and
f0 (x) = limn→∞ fn (x) η-a.e. x ∈ [0, ∞).
Lemma 7.5. Let f ∈ M ↓ with f (+∞) = 0 and let η be a Borel measure

on [0, ∞). Then there exist f0 ∈ M ↓ and the sequence {hn }n≥1 ⊂ M+ such
that
(1) f0 (x) ≤ f (x) for all x ∈ [0, ∞).
(2) f0 (x) = f(x) for η-a.e. x ∈ [0, ∞).
(3) fn (x) := [x,∞) hn dη ≤ f0 (x) for all x ∈ [0, ∞).
f0 (x) = limn→∞ fn (x) η-a.e. x ∈ [0, ∞).
tions
Remark 7.1. Two similar lemmas are valid for the approximation from
above.
The following statements are taken from [96] and concern the weighted
Lpλ [0, ∞) − Lqμ [0, ∞) inequality with the operator of the form

(Ku f ) (x) = k (x, y) u (y) f (y) dλ (y) .
[0,x]
Here the kernel k (x, y) ≥ 0 is μ × λ - measurable on [0, ∞) × [0, ∞) and

satisfies the following Oinarov condition. There is a constant D ≥ 1 such
that
D −1 k (x, y) ≤ k (x, z) + k (z, y) ≤ Dk (x, y) , 0 ≤ y ≤ z ≤ x. (7.8)
Theorem 7.6. Let 1 < p ≤ q < ∞. Then the inequality

1 1
q p
q
(Ku f ) vdμ ≤C p
f dλ (7.9)
[0,∞) [0,∞)
holds for all f ∈ M+ if and only if A : = max (A0,1 , A0,2 ) < ∞, where
1 1
q p
p
A0,1 := sup v(x)k (x, t)q dμ (x) u dλ ,
t∈[0,∞) [t,∞) [0,t]
1 1
q p
p p
A0,2 := sup vdμ k (t, y) u (y) dλ (y) .
t∈[0,∞) [t,∞) [0,t]
If 1 < q < p < ∞ and 1r = 1q − 1p , then inequality (7.9) holds for all f ∈ M+
if and only if B : = max (B0,1 , B0,2 ) < ∞, where
B0,1 :=
⎛ r r ⎞1
q q
r
⎝ p p
v(x)k (x, t)q dμ (x) u dλ u (t) dλ (t)⎠ ,
[0,∞) [t,∞) [0,t]
B0,2 :=
⎛ r r ⎞1
p p
r
⎝ p p
vdμ k (t, y) u (y) dλ (y) v (t) dμ (t)⎠ .
[0,∞) [t,∞) [0,t]
The next statement is an analog of the previous theorem for the operator
Ku∗ of the dual form

(Ku∗ f ) (x) = k (y, x) u (y) f (y) dλ (y)
[x,∞)
with a kernel satisfying Oinarov’s condition (7.8).

Theorem 7.7. Let 1 < p ≤ q < ∞. Then the inequality
1 1
q p
(Ku∗ f )q vdμ ≤C f p dλ (7.10)

[0,∞) [0,∞)

holds for all f ∈ M+ if and only if A∗ : = max A∗0,1 , A∗0,2 < ∞, where
1 1
q p
p
A∗0,1 := sup q
v(x)k (t, x) dμ (x) u dλ ,
t∈[0,∞) [0,t]) [t,∞)
1 1
q p
p p
A∗0,2 := sup vdμ k (y, t) u (y) dλ (y) .
t∈[0,∞) [0,t] [t,∞)
If 1 < q < p < ∞ and 1r = 1q − 1p , then inequality (7.10) holds for all f ∈ M+

if and only if B∗ : = max B∗0,1 , B∗0,2 < ∞, where
B∗0,1 :=
⎛ r r ⎞1
q q
r
⎝ p p
q
v(x)k (t, x) dμ (x) u dλ u (t) dλ (t)⎠ ,
[0,∞) [0,t] [t,∞)
B∗0,2 :=
⎛ r r ⎞1
p p
r
⎝ p p
vdμ k (y, t) u (y) dλ (y) v (t) dμ (t)⎠ .
[0,∞) [0,t] [t,∞)
In the following theorems we collect weight versions of the results ob-

tained by G. Sinnamon in [97] for embeddings the cones of monotone func-
tions. Put

W (t) := wdν, and W̄ (x) := wdν. (7.11)
[0,t] [x,∞)
tions
Theorem 7.8. If 0 < p ≤ q < ∞, then

1 1
q q q
[0,∞) F vdμ [0,x] vdμ
sup 1 = sup 1 . (7.12)
F ∈M↓ p x∈[0,∞) p
[0,∞) F p wdν [0,x] wdν
1 1 1
Theorem 7.9. If 0 < q < p < ∞, and r = q − p then
1 ⎛ r ⎞1
q q r
[0,∞) F vdμ
q
1 ≈ ⎝ dν(y)⎠ .
−1
sup w(y) W vdμ
F ∈M↓ p [0,∞) [y,∞)
[0,∞) F p wdν
(7.13)
Analogous results take place for F ∈ M ↑ .
Theorem 7.10. If 0 < p ≤ q < ∞, then
1 1
q q q
[0,∞) F vdμ [x,∞) vdμ
sup 1 = sup 1 . (7.14)
F ∈M↑ p x∈[0,∞) p
p
[0,∞) F wdν [x,∞) wdν
1 1
Theorem 7.11. If 0 < q < p < ∞ and r = q − 1p , then
1 ⎛ r ⎞1
q q r
[0,∞) F vdμ
q
sup ≈ ⎝ w(y) W̄ −1
vdμ dν(y)⎠ .
1
F ∈M↑ p [0,∞) [0,y]
[0,∞) F p wdν
(7.15)
Note that Theorems 7.9 and 7.11 with q = 1 give analogs of Sawyer’s
principle of duality with general Borel measures.
7.3 The case 0 < p ≤ 1

We need the following extension of ([98], Theorem 3.3) from the weighted
case to the case of measures.
Theorem 7.12. Let 0 < q < 1, ν = νa + νs , νa = dνa
dλ dλ and νs ⊥ λ . Then
q 1
q
f udλ v (x) dμ (x) ≤C f wdν (7.16)

[0,∞) [0,x] [0,∞)
holds for all f ∈ M+ if and only if

⎛ q ⎞ 1−q
1−q
q
v (z) dμ (z)
B := ⎝ v (y) dμ (y)⎠ < ∞,
[0,∞) [0,y] w̃↓ (z)
where
w dνa
w̃ := and w̃(x)↓ := ess inf λ w̃ (t) . (7.17)
u dλ t∈[0,x]
Moreover, C ≈ B.
Proof. Let us start with proving that (7.16) is equivalent to the following
inequality
q 1
q
dνa
f udλ v (x) dμ (x) ≤C fw dλ. (7.18)
[0,∞) [0,x] [0,∞) dλ
Obviously, (7.18) implies (7.16). Let (7.16) hold and f ∈ M+ . If νs ⊥ λ,

then there exists A ⊂ [0, ∞) such that λ (A) = 0, supp νs = A and supp νa =
[0, ∞) \A . Let f˜ = f χ[0,∞)\A . Then
q 1
q
f udλ v (x) dμ (x)

[0,∞) [0,x]
q 1
q
= f˜udλ v (x) dμ (x)

[0,∞) [0,x]

≤ C f˜wdν
[0,∞)

= C f˜wdνa + f˜wdνs
[0,∞) [0,∞)

= C f wdνa .
[0,∞)
Now if we use (7.17), then (7.18) is equivalent to

q 1
q
f udλ v (x) dμ (x) ≤C f uw̃dλ. (7.19)

[0,∞) [0,x] [0,∞)
tions
Then, by [96, Theorem 3.1] and changing f u to f, we get that (7.19) is

equivalent to
q 1
q
f dλ v (x) dμ (x) ≤C f w̃↓ dλ. (7.20)

[0,∞) [0,x] [0,∞)

Now we follow the proof of [98, Theorem 3.3]. First let w̃↓ (x) = [x,∞) bdλ

λ-a.e. x ∈ [0, ∞) , [0,∞) bdλ = ∞ and [x,∞] bdλ < ∞. Then, by changing
order of integration the right hand side of (7.20) is equal to

C f dλ bdλ
[0,∞) [0,x]
and hence (7.20) is equivalent to

q 1
q
f dλ v (x) dμ (x) ≤C f dλ bdλ. (7.21)

[0,∞) [0,x] [0,∞) [0,x]

Since [0,x] f dλ is increasing we can replace it with F and so (7.21) is equiv-
alent to
1
q
F q v (x) dμ (x) ≤C F bdλ with F ∈ M ↑ . (7.22)

[0,∞) [0,∞)
By [97, Theorem 2.5] and using Lemma 7.3 we get that

⎛ ⎞ 1−q
q
1
1−q
v (y) dμ (y)
C ≈ ⎝ b (x) dλ (x)⎠
[0,∞) [0,x] w̃↓ (y)
⎛ ⎞ 1−q
q
1−q
q
v (y) dμ (y) v (z) dμ (z)
≈ ⎝ b (x) dλ (x)⎠
[0,∞) [0,x] w̃↓ (y) [0,y] w̃↓ (z)
⎛ ⎞ 1−q
q
1−q
q
v (z) dμ (z)
= ⎝ v (y) dμ (y)⎠ .
[0,∞) [0,y] w̃↓ (z)
For a general w̃↓ we may and shall suppose that w̃↓ (x) < ∞ for all x > 0.
Let N ∈ N and
wN (x) := χ[0,N ] (x) w̃↓ (x) .
(0)
Then wN (+∞) = 0 and similar to Lemma 7.5 we find that wN ∈ M ↓ and
hn ∈ M+ (n ∈ N) such that
(0)
(1) wN (x) ≤ wN (x) for all x ∈ [0, ∞).
(0)
(2) wN (x) = wN (x) for λ-a.e. x ∈ [0, ∞).
(0)
(3) wN,k (x) := [x,∞) hk dλ ≥ wN (x) for all x ∈ [0, ∞).
(4) The sequence {wN,k (x)}k≥1 is decreasing in k for all x ∈ [0, ∞) and
(0)
wN (x) = lim wN,k (x) λ-a.e. x ∈ [0, ∞). Then, by the previous part of the
k→∞
proof, for any f ∈ M+ we have that
q 1
q
f dλ v (x) dμ (x)
[0,N ] [0,x]
⎛ q ⎞ 1−q
1−q
q
v (z) dμ (z)
⎝ v (x) dμ (x)⎠ f wN,k dλ.
[0,N ] [0,x] wN,k (z) [0,N ]
According to [87, Lemma 5] this is equivalent to

q 1
q
f
dλ v (x) dμ (x)
[0,N ] [0,x] wN,k
⎛ q ⎞ 1−q
1−q
q
v (z) dμ (z)
⎝ v (x) dμ (x)⎠ f dλ.
[0,N ] [0,x] wN,k (z) [0,N ]
1 1
By (3) and (1) we have that wN,k (z) ≤ wN (z) and by (4), (2) and the Mono-
tone Convergence Theorem, it yields that

f f f
lim dλ = (0)
dλ = dλ.
k→∞ [0,x] wN,k [0,x] w w
[0,x] N
N
Making the reverse change wfN → f we find that

q 1
q
f dλ v (x) dμ (x)
[0,N ] [0,x]
⎛ ⎞ 1−q
q
1−q
q
v (z) dμ (z)
⎝ v (x) dμ (x)⎠ f wN dλ
[0,N ] [0,x] wN (z) [0,N ]
tions
⎛ q ⎞ 1−q
1−q
q
⎝ v (z) dμ (z) ⎠
= v (x) dμ (x) f w̃↓ dλ
[0,N ] [0,x] w̃↓ (z) [0,N ]

≤B f w̃↓ dλ.
[0,∞)
Letting N −→ ∞ we arrive at C B. To show the reverse inequality

we again approximate
w̃↓ from above by a monotone sequence of functions
wk (x) := [x,∞) bk dλ ↓ w̃↓ . Then, by applying (7.21), (7.22) and [97, Theo-
rem 2.5], we find that
⎛ q ⎞ 1−q
1−q
q
⎝ v (z) dμ (z)
v (y) dμ (y)⎠ C
[0,∞) [0,y] wk (z)
and since wk−1 ↑ w̃↓−1 the result follows.
Definition 7.1. Let w ∈ M ↓ and be continuos on the left. It is known (

[92, Chapter
12, §3]), that there exists a Borel measure, say ηw , such that
w (x) = [x,∞) dηw + w (+∞) . We say that w ∈ I2 (0) if there exist a constant
C ≥ 1 such that

1 1 dηw
− ≤C 2
, x > 0.
w (x) w (0) [0,x] w
Corollary 7.13. Let 0 < q < 1, w ∈ M ↓ and w ∈ I2 (0). Then

q 1
q
hdλ v (x) dμ (x) ≤C hwdλ

[0,∞) [0,x] [0,∞)
holds for all h ∈ M+ if and only if

⎛ q ⎞ 1−q
1−q
q
vdμ
B := ⎝ v (x) dμ (x)⎠ < ∞.
[0,∞) [0,x] w
Moreover, C ≈ B ≈ B0 + B1 , where
1
q
1
B0 := vdμ w (0)− p
[0,x]
⎛ q ⎞ 1−q
1−q
q
q
⎝ − 1−q ⎠
B1 := w vdμ v (x) dμ (x) .
[0,∞) [x,∞)
Proof. It follows from Theorem 7.12, Lemma 7.3 and [97, Theorem 2.6].
Denote
Λ (t) := Λu (t) = udλ (7.23)
[0,t]
and observe that by the change f p → f in the inequality (7.3) we get the
following equivalent inequality:
p

1 q
q
Hf p vdμ ≤ Cp f wdν , f ∈M↓. (7.24)

[0,∞) [0,∞)
Theorem 7.14. (a) Let 0 < p ≤ q < ∞ and 0 < p ≤ 1. Then (7.3) holds
for all f ∈ M ↓ if and only if
− 1 1
p q
A0 := sup wdν Λq vdμ < ∞,

t∈[0,∞) [0,t] [0,t]
and
− 1 1
p q
A1 := sup Λ (t) wdν vdμ <∞

t∈[0,∞) [0,t] [t,∞)
and C ≈ A0 + A1
(b) Let 0 < q < 1 = p. Then (7.3) holds for all f ∈ M ↓ if and only if
⎛ ⎞ 1−q
1
1−q
q
B0 := ⎝ w (y) W −1 Λq vdμ dν (y)⎠ < ∞,

[0,∞) [y,∞)
and
⎛ ⎞ 1−q
q
1−q
q
⎝ Λ (s)
B1 := ess supλ v(t)dμ(t) v (t) dμ (t)⎠ <∞
[0,∞) [0,x) s∈[0,t] W (s)
and C ≈ B0 + B1
tions
p
(s)
(c) Let 0 < q < p < 1, Vp (t) := ess supλ ΛW (s) . Then (7.3) holds for all
s∈[0,t]
f ∈ M ↓ if
⎛ p ⎞ p−q
p−q
pq
B0 := ⎝ w (y) W −1
Λ vdμ
q
dν (y)⎠ < ∞,
[0,∞) [y,∞)
and
⎛ q ⎞ p−q
p−q
pq
B1 := ⎝ Vp (t) v(t)dμ(t) v (t) dμ (t)⎠ <∞

[0,∞) [0,x)
and if and only if B0 + B1 < ∞, provided Vp (t) is continuous on (0, ∞) and

1
Vp (t) ∈ I2 (0). Then C ≈ B0 + B1
Proof. (a) Since f ∈ M ↓, then (Hu f ) (x) ≥ f (x) Λ (x) and (7.3) implies
1 1
q p
f Λ vdμ
q q
≤C p
f wdν , f ∈M↓.
[0,∞) [0,∞)
It is known (see Theorem 7.8) that C = A0 for 0 < p ≤ q < ∞.

Now, if ft = χ[0,t] in (7.3), then
1 1
p q
C wdν ≥ (Hu ft )q vdμ

[0,t] [t,∞)
1
q
= Λ (t) vdμ ,
[t,∞)
which implies that C ≥ A1 . Consequently, A0 + A1 ≤ 2C.

For the sufficiency we suppose first that f ∈ M ↓, f (x) = [x,∞) hudλ for

λ-a.e. x ∈ [0, ∞), where h ∈ M+ and f (x) ≥ [x,∞) hudλ for all x ∈ [0, ∞).
Let 0 < p < 1. We have, by Lemma 7.3,

hudλ u (s) dλ (s)
[0,x] [s,∞)
⎛ p−1 ⎞1
p
≈ ⎝ hudλ h(y)u(y)dλ(y)⎠ u (s) dλ (s)

[0,x] [s,∞) [y,∞)
⎛ p−1 ⎞1
p
⎝ hudλ h(y)u(y)dλ⎠ u (s) dλ (s) + Λ (x) f (x)

[0,x] [s,x] [y,∞)
[by the Minkowski inequality] (7.25)

⎛ p−1 ⎞ 1
p
≤ ⎝ hudλ h(y)u(y)Λ (y) dλ(y)⎠ + Λ (x) f (x) .

p
[0,x] [y,∞)
Applying (7.25) we obtain that

1 1
q q
q
(Hf ) vdμ f q Λq vdμ + J, (7.26)
[0,∞) [0,∞)
where
J :=
⎛ ⎛ ⎞q ⎞1
p−1 p
q
⎜ ⎝ ⎟
⎝ hudλ h(y)u(y)Λ (y) dλ(y)⎠ v (x) dμ (x)⎠ .
p
[0,∞) [0,x] [y,∞)
For the first term on the right hand side of (7.26), according to Theorem
7.8, we have that
1 1
q p
f q Λq vdμ ≤ A0 f p wdν . (7.27)

[0,∞) [0,∞)
For the second term on the right hand side of (7.26), by the Minkowski
inequality with pq ≥ 1 and Lemma 7.3, we find that
⎛ p−1 p ⎞1
q
p
J ≤⎝ hudλ h(y)u(y)Λ (y) p

vdμ dλ(y)⎠
[0,∞) [y,∞) [y,∞)
tions
⎛ p−1 ⎞1
p
≤ A1 ⎝ hudλ h(y)u(y) wdν dλy ⎠

[0,∞) [y,∞) [0,y]
p 1
p
≈ A1 hudλ w(s)dν(s)
[0,∞) [s,∞)
1
p
≤ A1 f p wdν
[0,∞)
and the inequality

1 1
q p
(Hf )q vdμ (A0 + A1 ) f p wdν (7.28)

[0,∞) [0,∞)
in this case follows. For an arbitrary f ∈ M ↓ without loss of generality we

may suppose that f (+∞) = 0 and find, by Lemma 7.5, that f0 ∈ M ↓ and
a sequence {hn }n≥1 ⊂ M+ such that
(1) f0 (x) ≤ f (x) for all x ∈ [0, ∞).
(2) f0 (x) = f(x) for λ-a.e. x ∈ [0, ∞).
(3) fn (x) := [x,∞) hn udλ ≤ f0 (x) for all x ∈ [0, ∞).
f0 (x) = limn→∞ fn (x) λ-a.e. x ∈ [0, ∞).
Then, by the Monotone Convergence Theorem and (7.28), it yields that
1 1
q q
q (2) q
(Hf ) vdμ = (Hf0 ) vdμ
[0,∞) [0,∞)
1
q
(4) q
= lim (Hfn ) vdμ
n→∞ [0,∞)
1
p
(7.28)
(A0 + A1 ) lim fnp wdν
n→∞ [0,∞)
1
(3) p
≤ (A0 + A1 ) f0p wdν

[0,∞)
1
(1) p
≤ (A0 + A1 ) f p wdν
[0,∞)
and the upper bound C A0 + A1 is proved. The case p = 1 is treated by

the same method, but even simpler.
(b) Necessity. It follows from the inequality
1
q
q
(Hf ) vdμ ≤C f wdν, f ∈ M ↓, (7.29)
[0,∞) [0,∞)
that
1
q
f q Λq vdμ ≤C f wdν, f ∈M↓. (7.30)

[0,∞) [0,∞)
The last inequality is characterized by B0 (see Theorem 7.9 with p = 1.)

Hence, B0 ≤ C. Now, suppose h ∈ M+ and f (x) = [x,∞) hudλ. Then
f ∈ M ↓ and (7.29) gives
q 1
q
hudλ u (s) dλ (s) v (x) dμ (x)

[0,∞) [0,x] [s,∞)

≤ C hudλ w (x) dν (x) .
[0,∞) [s,∞)
This implies that
q 1
q
hΛudλ v (x) dμ (x) ≤C hW udλ.

[0,∞) [0,x] [0,∞)
Changing the variable hΛu → h, we obtain that
q 1
q
W
hdλ v (x) dμ (x) ≤C h udλ.
[0,∞) [0,x] [0,∞) Λ
The last inequality is characterized by Theorem 7.12. Consequently,

B1 C.

Sufficiency. Again, suppose first that f ∈ M ↓, f (x) = [x,∞) hudλ for

λ-a.e. x ∈ [0, ∞), where h ∈ M and f (x) ≥ [x,∞) hudλ for all x ∈ [0, ∞).
tions
Then, we have that

1
q
q
(Hf ) vdμ
[0,∞)
q 1
q
= hudλ u(s)dλ(s) vdμ

[0,∞) [0,x] [s,∞)
q 1
q
hudλ u(s)dλ(s) vdμ

[0,∞) [0,x] [s,x)
q 1
q
+ hudλ Λq (x)v(x)dμ(x)
[0,∞) [x,∞)
q 1 1
q q
≤ hΛudλ v(x)dμ(x) + f Λ vdμ

q q
[0,∞) [0,x] [0,∞)
[applying Theorem 7.12 and Theorem 2.8]

B1 hudλ w(x)dν(x)
[0,∞) [x,∞]

+B0 f wdν ≤ (B0 + B1 ) f wdν.
[0,∞) [0,∞)
For an arbitrary f ∈ M ↓ we use the arguments from the end of the part
(a).
(c) Sufficiency.
To prove (7.3) we again, suppose first that f ∈ M ↓
, f (x) = [x,∞) hudλ for λ-a.e. x ∈ [0, ∞), where h ∈ M+ and f (x) ≥

[x,∞) hudλ for all x ∈ [0, ∞). Then, arguing as before and applying Minkowskii’s
inequality, we find that
p
1
q q
Hf p v(x)dμ(x)
[0,∞)
⎛ ⎛ 1 ⎞q ⎞ pq
p
=⎝ ⎝ hudλ u(s)dλ(s)⎠ v(x)dμ(x)⎠

[0,∞) [0,x] [s,∞)
⎛ ⎛ 1 ⎞q ⎞ pq
p
⎝ ⎝ hudλ u(s)dλ(s)⎠ vdμ⎠

[0,∞) [0,x] [s,x)
⎛ q ⎞p
p
q
+⎝ hudλ Λ (x)v(x)dμ(x)⎠
q
[0,∞) [x,∞)
⎛ q ⎞p p
p
q
q
q
≤⎝ hΛp udλ v(x)dμ(x)⎠ + f Λq vdμ
p
[0,∞) [0,x] [0,∞)
[applying Theorem 7.12 and Theorem 7.8]

B1p hudλ w(x)dν(x)
[0,∞) [x,∞]

+B0p f wdν ≤ (B0p + B1p ) f wdν.
[0,∞) [0,∞)
For an arbitrary f ∈ M ↓ we again use the arguments from the end of the
part (a).
Necessity. The inequality B0 ≤ C follows by using similar arguments as
in the proof of A0 ≤ C and B0 ≤ C in the parts (a) and (b).
For the rest it is sufficient to show that (7.24) implies the inequality
C B1 .
Suppose for simplicity, that Vp (0) = 0. Let
$ r
0
p
g (t) := max 2 , m ∈ Z : 2 ≤ Vp (t)
m m
and $ r
0
p
τm := inf y ∈ [0, ∞) : 2 ≤ Vp (y) .
m
Since Vp (t) is continuous, then τm exists for all m ∈ Z, τm ↑ and

Λ (τm )r r r
r = 2m = Vpp (τm ) ≤ Vpp (t) ≤ 2m+1 , t ∈ [τm , τm+1 ] ,

W (τm ) p
g (τm ) = 2m , g (s) ≤ 2m−1 for all s ∈ [0, τm ) .

We note that
r
g (t) = 2m χ[τm ,τm+1 ) (t) ≤ Vpp (t) (7.31)
m∈Z
tions
and define r
q
[x,∞) vdμ
f (t) := dg (x) .
[t,∞) W (x)
Then f ∈ M ↓ and, by Lemma 7.3, it yields that
r
q
f wdν = vdμ dg (x)

[0,∞) [0,∞) [x,∞)
r
p
≈ g (x) vdμ v (x) dμ (x)

[0,∞) [x,∞)
r
r p
p
≤ Vp (x) vdμ v (x) dμ (x) := B2,1
r
.
[0,∞) [x,∞)
On the other hand

q 1
q
1
f (y)dΛ (y)
p v (x) dμ (x)
[0,∞) [0,x]

≥ v (x)
m [τm ,τm+1 )
⎛ ⎛ r ⎞ p1 ⎞q ⎞ 1q
q
⎜ ⎜ [s,∞) vdμ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟
×⎜
⎝ ⎝ dg (s)⎠ dΛ (y)⎟ ⎟
⎠ dμ (x)⎠
[0,τm ] [y,τm ] W (s)
⎛ r

p
≥ ⎝ vdμ vdμ
m [τm ,τm+1 ) [τm ,∞)
q 1
q
− p1 1
× W (τm ) (g (τm ) − g (y)) dΛ (y) p
[0,τm ]
⎛ r q ⎞ 1q

m
p
2 p Λ (τm )
⎝ vdμ vdμ 1
⎠
m [τm ,τm+1 ) [τm ,∞) W (τm ) p
⎛ r ⎞1

p
q
≥ ⎝ 2m
vdμ v (s) dμ (s)⎠
m [τm ,τm+1 ) [s,∞)
⎛ r ⎞1
r p
q
r
⎝ p
Vp (s) vdμ v (s) dμ (s)⎠ =: B2,1
q
[0,∞) [s,∞)
pr
r B q ⇒C B .
With such f (x) the inequality (7.24) gives that: C p B2,1 2,1 2,1
Now, if we put f = χ{0} in (7.24), then we find that
1 − 1 1 − 1
q q
W (0) p 1 p
C≥ vdμ = vdμ =: B2,0 .
[0,∞) Λp (0) [0,∞) Vp (0)
It follows from Corollary 7.13 that B2,1 + B2,0 B1 . Hence, C B1 and

the proof is complete.
In conclusion of this section we give an analog of part (a) of the previous

theorem for non-decreasing functions.
Theorem 7.15. Let 0 < p ≤ q < ∞ and 0 < p ≤ 1. Then, (7.3) holds for
all f ∈ M ↑ if and only if
1
q
1
Ā1 := sup Λ (x, t) v (x) dμ (x)
q
W̄ − p (x) < ∞,
t∈[0,∞) [t,∞)
where
Λ (x, t) := udλ,
[t,x]
and C ≈ Ā1 .
Proof. Replacing f in (7.3) by ft := χ[t,∞) we find that Ā1 ≤ C. For suffi-

ciency we suppose that

f (x) = hudλ, h ∈ M+
[0,x]
and let 0 < p < 1. Then, by Minkowskii inequality and Lemma 7.2, we find
tions
that

hudλ u (s) dλ (s)
[0,x] [0,s]
⎛ p−1 ⎞1
p
≈ ⎝ hudλ h (y) u (y) dλ (y)⎠ u (s) dλ (s)

[0,x] [0,s] [0,y]
⎛ p−1 ⎞1
p
≤ ⎝ hudλ h (y) u (y) Λ (x, y) dλ (y)⎠ .

p
[0,x] [0,y]
Thus, again by the Minkowskii inequality
1
q
(Hf )q vdμ
[0,∞)
⎛ ⎛ ⎞q
p−1 p
⎜ ⎝
≤ ⎝ hudλ h (y) u (y) Λ (x, y) dλ (y)⎠
p
[0,∞) [0,x] [0,y]
1
× v (x) dμ (x)) q
⎛ p−1

≤ ⎝ hudλ h (y) u (y)
[0,∞) [0,y]
p ⎞1
p
q
× Λ (x, y) v (x) dμ (x) dλ (y)⎠

[y,∞)
⎛ p−1 ⎞1
p
≤ Ā1 ⎝ hudλ h (y) u (y) wdν dλ (y)⎠

[0,∞) [0,y] [y,∞)
1
p
≈ Ā1 f p wdν .
[0,∞)
A general case f ∈ M ↑ follows by Lemma 7.4 similar to the proof of Theorem

7.14.
7.4 The case 1 < p, q < ∞

The result of this section is based on the following statement, which follows
from Theorems 7.9 and 7.11 with q = 1.

Corollary 7.16. Let (T f )(x) = [0,∞) k(x, y)f (y)u(y)dλ(y), where k(x, y)
is a defined on [0, ∞) × [0, ∞), non-negative, μ × λ-measurable kernel.
(a) The inequality
1 1
q p
(T f )q vdμ ≤C f p wdν (7.32)

[0,∞) [0,∞)
for f ∈ M ↓, holds if and only if the inequality

⎛ p ⎞ 1
p
⎝ w(y) W −1 ∗
(T g)udλ dν(y)⎠ (7.33)
[0,∞) [y,∞)
1
q
q
≤ C q vdμ , g ∈ M+ ,
[0,∞)

holds with (T ∗ g)(z) = [0,∞) k(z, x)g(z)v(z)dμ(z).
(b) The inequality (7.32) for f ∈ M ↑ holds if and only if the following
inequality holds:
⎛ p ⎞ 1
p
⎝ w(y) W̄ −1 (T ∗ g)udλ dν(y)⎠

[0,∞) [0,y]
1
q
q
≤ C q vdμ , g ∈ M+ .
[0,∞)
Now let us present our result for the case 1 < p, q < ∞ .

Theorem 7.17. Let k(x, y) = [y,x] W −1 udλ and f ∈ M ↓ . The inequality
(7.3) holds for 1 < p ≤ q < ∞ if and only if A = max {A0,1 + A0,2 } < ∞,
where
1 1
p q
p
A0,1 : = sup w(y)k(t, y) dν(y) vdμ ,
t∈[0,∞) [0,t] [t,∞)
tions
1 1
p q
A0,2 : = sup wdν v(x)k(x, t)q dμ(x) .

t∈[0,∞) [0,t] [t,∞)
Moreover, if C is the best constant in (7.3), then C = A.

In the case 1 < q < p < ∞ the inequality (7.3) holds if and only if
B = max {B0,1 + B0,2 } < ∞, where
⎛ r r ⎞1
p p
r

B0,1 : = ⎝ p
w(y)k(t, y) dν(y) vdμ v(t)dμ(t)⎠ ,
[0,∞) [0,t] [t,∞)
⎛ r r ⎞1
q q
r
B0,2 : = ⎝ wdν q
v(x)k(x, t) dμ(x) w(t)dν(t)⎠
[0,∞) [0,t] [t,∞)
1 1
and r = q − 1p . Moreover, if C is the best constant in (7.3), then C = B.
Proof. Because of Corollary 7.16 (a) the inequality (7.3) is equivalent to
⎛ p ⎞ 1
p
⎝ w(y) W (x)−1
gvdμ u(x)dλ(x) dν(y)⎠
[0,∞) [y,∞) [x,∞)
1
q
q
≤ C q vdμ , g ∈ M+ . (7.34)
[0,∞)
By changing the order of integration in the left hand side of (7.34) we obtain
the Hardy inequality with Oinarov kernel of the form
⎛ p ⎞ 1
p
⎝ w(y) g(z)k(z, y)v(z)dμ(z) dν(y)⎠

[0,∞) [y,∞)
1
q
q
≤ C q vdμ .
[0,∞)

By substitution f = gq v and according to Lemma 7 in [88] the last inequality
is equivalent to
⎛ p ⎞ 1
p
⎝ w(y) 1/q
f (z)k(z, y)v(z) dμ(z) dν(y) ⎠
[0,∞) [y,∞)
1
q
q
≤ C f dμ .
[0,∞)
Thus the proof follows by applying Theorem 7.6.
Similarly we can obtain the result for non-decreasing functions as follows.

Theorem 7.18. Let k̄(y, x) = [x,y] W̄ −1 udλ and f ∈ M ↑ . The inequality
1 2
(7.3) holds for 1 < p ≤ q < ∞ if and only if Ā = max Ā0,1 + Ā0,2 < ∞,
where
1 1
p q

Ā0,1 : = sup w(y)k̄(y, t)p dν(y) vdμ ,
t∈[0,∞) [t,∞) [0,t]
1 1
p q
Ā0,2 : = sup wdν v(x)k̄(t, x) dμ(x)

q
.
t∈[0,∞) [t,∞) [0,t]
Moreover, if C is the best constant in (7.3), then C = Ā. 1In the case 12 < q <
p < ∞ the inequality (7.3) holds if and only if B̄ = max B̄0,1 + B̄0,2 < ∞,
where
⎛ r r ⎞1
p p
r
p
B̄0,1 : = ⎝ w(y)k̄(y, t) dν(y) vdμ v(t)dμ(t)⎠ ,
[0,∞) [t,∞) [0,t]
⎛ r r ⎞1
q q
r
B̄0,2 : = ⎝ wdν v(x)k̄(t, x) dμ(x)

q
w(t)dν(t)⎠
[0,∞) [t,∞) [0,t]
1 1
and r = q − 1p . Moreover, if C is the best constant in (7.3), then C = B ∗ .
Chapter 8
Characterizations of embeddings in
Lorentz spaces
8.1 Introduction
Let (R, μ) be a totally σ-finite measure space with a non-atomic measure
μ, and let M (R, μ) be the set of all extended complex-valued μ-measurable
functions on R. For f ∈ M (R, μ), let
f∗ (t) = μ ({x ∈ R; |f (x)| > t}) , t ∈ (0, ∞) ,
be a distribution function of f . The non-increasing rearrangement f ∗ of f
is defined by
f ∗ (t) = inf {x > 0; f∗ (x) ≤ t} , t ∈ (0, ∞) .
We will assume that μ(R) = ∞. Everywhere in this chapter, we assume
that u, v, and w are weights, that is, locally integrable non-negative functions
on (0, ∞) and we denote
s s
V (s) = v (t) dt and U (s) = u (t) dt.
0 0
We assume that u is such that U (t) > 0 for every t ∈ (0, ∞) and denote
t
1
fu∗∗ (t) = f ∗ (s) u(s)ds.
U (t) 0
107
Definition 8.1. Let p ∈ (0, ∞) and let u and v be weight functions. Then
we define the following four spaces (of Lorentz and Marcinkiewicz type):
1
∞ p
Λp (v) = f ∈ M (R, μ) ; f Λp (v) = f ∗p (t) v (t) dt <∞ ;
0

Λ∞ (v) = f ∈ M (R, μ) ; f Λ∞ (v) = ess sup f ∗ (t)v(t) < ∞ ;
t∈(0,∞)
1
∞ p
Γpu (v) = f ∈ M (R, μ) ; f Γpu (v) = fu∗∗p (t) v (t) dt <∞ ;
0

Γ∞
u (v) = f ∈ M (R, μ) ; f Γ∞
u (v)
= ess sup fu∗∗ (t)v (t) <∞ .
t∈(0,∞)
When u ≡ 1 (hence U (t) = t), we will omit the subscript u. We thus

write, in such a case f ∗∗ , Γp (v) and Γ∞ (v) in place of fu∗∗ , Γpu (v) and Γ∞ u (v),
respectively. The spaces Λ (v) and Γ (v) are called classical Lorentz spaces.
p p
The spaces Λp (v) were introduced by G. G. Lorentz in 1951 in [66]. The

spaces Γp (v) were first used by E. Sawyer in [93] and the weak classical
Lorentz spaces were introduced by M. Carro and J. Soria in [19]. Weak
Lorentz spaces were further investigated in [17], [18], [20] and [21]. For
definitions and a detailed study of rearrangement-invariant Banach function
spaces see e.g. [12].
During the last two decades many authors have spent enormous ef-
forts in order to find necessary and sufficient conditions on the parameters
p, q ∈ [0, ∞] and weights u, w such that the embeddings Λp (v) → Γq (w)
hold. Such embeddings proved to be indispensable in several important ar-
eas in analysis, including the theory of interpolation and modern study of
Sobolev spaces. This research brought plenty of deep results, see in e.g. [5],
[19], [18], [20], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [93], [94], [95], [96], [98], [100] and
[99]. A summary of results of embeddings of classical Lorentz spaces known
by the end the of 1990’s, as well as some references, can be found in [21].
In this survey paper there were some cases of parameters which were not
known. In the paper [37] all cases have been established, but the resulting
characterization were expressed in a difficult way, not very satisfactory from
a practical point of view.
Our main goal in this chapter is to give some new necessary and sufficient
conditions on the weight functions u, v and w such that the inequality
f Γqu (w) ≤ C f Λp (v) (8.1)

Characterizations of embeddings in Lorentz spaces 109
holds for every f ∈ M (R, μ).

Our approach is based on discretization and anti-discretization methods
developed in [35] and [36]. Let as outline the structure of the chapter. In
Section 8.2 we give some preliminaries including some definitions and basic
facts concerning discretization and anti-disctertization from the papers [35]
and [36]. In Section 8.3 we present the main results and finally in Section
8.4 we give the proofs.
Throughout this chapter a b, (b a), means that a ≤ λb, where λ > 0
depends on inessential parameters. If b a b, then we write a ≈ b.
8.2 Preliminaries
Let us now recall some definitions and basic facts concerning discretization
and anti-discretization which can be found in [35] and [36].
Definition 8.2. Let {ak } be a sequence of positive real numbers. We say

that {ak } is strongly increasing or strongly decreasing and write ak ↑↑
or ak ↓↓ when
ak+1 ak+1
inf > 1 or sup < 1,
k∈Z ak k∈Z ak
respectively.
Definition 8.3. Let U be a continuous strictly increasing function on [0, ∞)

such that U (0) = 0 and lim U (t) = ∞. Then we say that U is admissible.
t→∞
Let U be an admissible function. We say that a function ϕ is U -quasiconcave

if ϕ is equivalent to an increasing function on [0, ∞) and Uϕ is equivalent to
a decreasing function on (0, ∞). We say that U -quasiconcave function ϕ is
non-degenerated if
1 ϕ (t) U (t)
lim ϕ (t) = lim = lim = lim = 0.
t→0+ t→∞ ϕ (t) t→∞ U (t) t→0+ ϕ (t)
The family of non-degenerated U -quasiconcave functions will be denoted by

ΩU . We say that ϕ is quasiconcave when ϕ ∈ ΩU with U (t) = t.
Definition 8.4. Assume that U is admissible and ϕ ∈ ΩU . We say that

{xk }k∈Z is a discretizing sequence for ϕ with respect to U if
(i) x0 = 1 and U (xk ) ;
k)
(ii) ϕ (xk ) and Uϕ(x
(xk ) ;
(iii) there is a decomposition Z = Z1 ∪Z2 such that Z1 ∩Z2 = ∅ and, for

every t ∈ [xk , xk+1 ] ,
ϕ (xk ) ≈ ϕ (t) if k ∈ Z1 ,
ϕ (xk ) ϕ (t)
≈ if k ∈ Z2 .
U (xk ) U (t)
Let us recall [35, Lemma 2.7] that if ϕ ∈ ΩU , then there always exists a
discretizing sequence for ϕ with respect to U .
Definition 8.5. Let U be an admissible function and let ν be a non-negative

Borel measure on [0, ∞). We say that the function ϕ defined by

dν(s)
ϕ(t) = U (t) , t ∈ (0, ∞),
[0,∞) U (s) + U (t)
is the fundamental function of the measure ν with respect to U . We will also

say that ν is a representation measure of ϕ with respect to U .
We say that ν is non-degenerate if the following conditions are satisfied
for every t ∈ (0, ∞):

dν(s) dν(s)
< ∞, t ∈ (0, ∞), = dν(s) = ∞.
[0,∞) U (s) + U (t) [0,1] U (s) [1,∞)
We recall from Remark 2.10 of [35] that

ϕ(t) ≈ dν(s) + U (t)q
U (s)−q dν(s), t ∈ (0, ∞).
[0,t] [t,∞)
We shall further assume that ν is non-degenerate.
Lemma 8.1. Let v be a weight function. Then
Λ∞ (v) = Λ∞ (ess sup v(s)),

0<s<t
with identical norms.
The proof follows from the following simple observation: If F and G are
non-negative functions on (0, ∞) and F is non-increasing, then
ess sup F (t)G(t) = ess sup F (t) ess sup G(s).

0<t<∞ 0<t<∞ 0<s<t
Lemma 8.2 ([36], Lemma 1.5). Let u, v be weights and let ϕ be defined
by
v(τ )
ϕ(t) = ess sup U (s) ess sup , t ∈ (0, ∞). (8.2)
s∈(0,t) τ ∈(s,∞) U (τ )
Then ϕ is the least U -quasiconcave majorant of v and
Γ∞ ∞
u (v) = Γu (ϕ),
with identical norms. Further, for t ∈ (0, ∞);

$ 0
U (t) 1
ϕ(t) = ess sup v(τ ) min 1, = U (t) ess sup ess sup v(τ ),
τ ∈(0,∞) U (τ ) s∈(t,∞) U (s) τ ∈(0,s)
v(s)U (t)
ϕ(t) ≈ ess sup .
s∈(0,∞) (s) + U (t)
U
Theorem 8.3 ([35], Theorem 2.11). Let p, q, r ∈ (0, ∞). Assume that
U is an admissible function, let ν be a non-negative non-degenerate Borel
measure on [0, ∞) and let ϕ be the fundamental function of ν with respect to
U q . Moreover, let σ ∈ ΩU and let {xk } be a discretizing sequence for ϕ with
respect to U q . Then
r

ϕ(xk ) q
r
ϕ(t) q −1
r dν(t) ≈ r .
[0,∞) σ(t) p k∈Z σ(xk ) p
Lemma 8.4 ([35], Corollary 2.13). Let q ∈ (0, ∞), let U be an admissible
function, let f ∈ ΩU , let ν be a positive non-degenerated Borel measure
on [0, ∞) and let ϕ be the fundamental function of ν with respect to U q .
Moreover, assume that {xk } is a discretizing sequence for ϕ with respect to
U q . Then
q 1 1
f (t)
q
f (xk ) q q
dν (t) ≈ ϕ (xk ) .
[0,∞) U (t) U (xk )
k∈Z
Lemma 8.5 ([35], Lemma 3.5 ). Let U be an admissible function, let

f, ϕ ∈ ΩU and let {xk } be a discretizing sequence for ϕ with respect to U .
Then
f (t) f (xk )
ess sup ϕ(t) ≈ sup ϕ (xk ) .
0<t<∞ U (t) k∈Z U (xk )
By using Lemma 3.1 and Lemma 3.2 from [35] we get the following result:
Lemma 8.6. If τk , then, for any q > 0,

q

xk q
xk
h τk ≈ h τk ,
k∈Z 0 k∈Z xk−1
q q
xk xk
sup h τk ≈ sup h τk ,
k∈Z 0 k∈Z xk−1

∞ q
xk+1 q
−1
h τk ≈ h τk−1 ,
k∈Z xk k∈Z xk
and ∞ q xk+1 q
−1
sup h τk ≈ sup h τk−1 .
k∈Z xk k∈Z xk
Lemma 8.7 ([35], Lemma 3.6). Let q ∈ (0, ∞), let U be an admissible
function, let ν be a positive non-degenerated Borel measure on [0, ∞) and let
ϕ be the fundamental function of ν with respect to U q . Assume that {xk } is
a discretizing sequence for ϕ with respect to U q . Then
∞ ∞ q
∞ q
|f (t)|dt |f (t)|dt
dν(x) ≈ ϕ(xk )
0 0 U (t) + U (x) 0 U (t) + U (xk )
k∈Z
xk xk+1 q

≈ U −1 (xk ) |f (y)| dy + |f (y)| U −1 (y) dy ϕ (xk )

k∈Z xk−1 xk

xk+1 1
q
−1
≈ |f (y)| U (y) ϕ(y) dy
q .
k∈Z xk
Lemma 8.8 ([35], Lemma 3.7). Let q ∈ (0, ∞), let U be an admissible
function and let ν be a non-degenerate positive Borel measure. Moreover, let
ϕ be the fundamental function of ν with respect to U q and let f be a measur-
able function on [0, ∞). If {xk } is a discretizing sequence for ϕ with respect
to U q , then
q q
|f (y)|
|f (y)|
sup dν(x) ≈ sup ϕ(xk )
[0,∞) y∈(0,∞) U (x) + U (y) k∈Z y∈(0,∞)
U (xk ) + U (y)
q

≈ U −1 (xk ) sup |f (y)| + sup |f (y)|U (y)−1 ϕ(xk )

xk−1 ≤y<xk xk ≤y<xk+1
k∈Z

≈ sup |f (y)|q U (y)−q ϕ(y).

xk ≤y<xk+1
k∈Z
Lemma 8.9 ([35], Lemma 3.8). Let v be a weight function, let U be

an admissible function and ϕ be defined by (8.2). Moreover, let {xk } be a
discretizing sequence for ϕ with respect to U . Then
∞ ∞
|f (t)|dt |f (t)|dt
ess sup v(x) ≈ sup ϕ(xk )
x∈(0,∞) 0 U (t) + U (x) k∈Z 0 U (t) + U (xk )
xk xk+1
−1 −1
≈ sup U (xk ) |f (y)| dy + |f (y)| U (y) dy ϕ (xk )
k∈Z xk−1 xk
xk+1
−1
≈ sup |f (y)| U (y) ϕ(y)dy .
k∈Z xk
Lemma 8.10 ([35], Lemma 3.9). Let U be an admissible function and let
ϕ ∈ ΩU . Let {xk } be a discretizing sequence for ϕ with respect to U . Then
|f (y)| |f (y)|
sup ϕ(x) sup ≈ sup ϕ(xk ) sup
x∈(0,∞) 0<y<∞ U (x) + U (y) k∈Z 0<y<∞ U (xk ) + U (y)
≈ sup ϕ(xk )U (xk )−1 sup |f (y)| + sup ϕ(xk ) sup |f (y)|U (y)−1
k∈Z xk−1 <y<xk k∈Z xk <y<xk+1
≈ sup sup |f (y)|U (y)−1 ϕ(y).

k∈Z xk ≤y<xk+1
Proposition 8.11 ([35], Proposition 4.1). Let {wk } and {vk } , k ∈ Z,

be two sequences of positive real numbers. Let p, q ∈ (0, ∞) and assume that
the inequality
1 1

q q
p p
ak vk ≤C ak wk
k∈Z k∈Z
is satisfied for every sequence {ak } of positive real numbers.

(i) If p ≤ q, then
−q
supwk p vk < ∞.
k∈Z
pq
(ii) If p > q and r = p−q , then
1

−r r
r
wk p vkq < ∞.
k∈Z
Lemma 8.12 ([80] and [98]). We have the following Hardy type inequali-
ties:
(a) For the case 0 < p ≤ 1,

p
x k x k 1
p xk
h (z) dz u(s)ds ≤C h (s) V (s)ds ; (8.3)
xk−1 s xk−1
p
the best constant C ≈ supxk−1 <t<xk xk−1 u(s)ds V (t)−1 and the equiva-
t
lent constant is independent of xk .

(b) For 1 < p < ∞,
p
x k x k 1
p xk
h (z) dz u(s)ds ≤C h (s) V (s)ds ; (8.4)
xk−1 s xk−1
p
xk t p
p − pp
p
the best constant C ≈ xk−1 xk−1 u(s)ds V (t) u(t)dt and the
equivalent constant is independent of xk .

We will also use the following trivial inequality
xk+1 xk+1
h(z)dz ≤ CV (xk )−1 h(s)V (s)ds. (8.5)
xk xk
8.3 The main result

Our main result reads:
Theorem 8.13. Let p, q ∈ (0, ∞] and let u, v, w be weights. Assume that u
is such that U q is admissible and the measure w(t) dt is non-degenerate with
respect to U q . Then the inequality (8.1) holds for every f ∈ M (R, μ) if and
only if
(i) 0 0 0 U (t) + U (x)
Moreover, the best constant C in (8.1) satisfies C ≈ A1 .
(ii) 0 < q 0 0 U (t) + U (x)
p 1
∞ p
U (t) v (t)
dt < ∞.
0 U (t) + U (x) V p (t)

pq
(iv) 1 < p < ∞, 0 < q < p, r = p−q
q r−q
∞ ∞
U (x) q
A4 := w(t)dt w(x) ×
0 0 U (t) + U (x)
p r ⎞ 1r
∞
U (t) v(t)dt p
dx⎠ < ∞.
0 U (t) + U (x) V p (t)

(v) 0 0 t∈(0,∞) U (t) + U (x)

(vi) 1 0 t∈(0,∞) U (t) + U (x) 0 U (t) + U (x) V p (t)

(vii) p = q = ∞

w(x) x u(t)dt
A7 := ess sup < ∞.
x∈(0,∞) U (x) 0 ess supv (s)
0<s<t

(viii) p = ∞, 0 < q < ∞
⎛ ⎛ ⎞q ⎞1
∞ x q
⎝ ⎝ 1 u(t)dt ⎠ ⎠
A8 := w(x)dx < ∞.
0 U (x) 0 ess supv (s)
0<s<t
Our next goal is to formulate Theorem 8.13 in a more compact and nice
form. We need the following definition of the associate space (also called the
Köthe dual) Λp (v)u of Λp (v) .
Definition 8.6. Let 0 < p ≤ ∞ and let u, v be weight functions. The

u-associate or Köthe dual space Λp (v)u of Λp (v) is defined by
∞ ∗
f (t) g∗ (t) u(t)dt
f Λp (v) =: sup 0 < ∞. (8.6)
u
g∈Λp (v) gΛp (v)
In the classical situation (that is when u = 1) the associate norm Λp (v) was
characterised by E. Sawyer [93] for 1 < p < ∞ and by V. D. Stepanov [100]
for 0 < p ≤ 1. In the case p = ∞ it was considered in [21] (see also [34]).
In fact we can describe Λp (v) in the following way:
⎧
⎪
⎪ Γ ∞ t
, 0<p≤1
⎪
⎪ V (t)
1/p

⎪
⎪
⎨ p
Γp t v(t) p
, 1<p<∞
Λ (v) =
p
V (t) (8.7)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 1 1
⎩ Λ ess supv(s) ,
⎪ p = ∞.
0<s<t
Remark 8.1. By letting t → U −1 (t) (where U −1 is the inverse function of

U ) in (8.6) and after using (8.7) we can obtain the following characterization
of Λp (v)u : ⎧
⎪ ∞ U (t)
⎪
⎪ Γ u 1/p , 0<p≤1
⎪
⎪ V (t)
⎪
⎨ p U (t)p v(t)
Γu , 1<p<∞
Λ (v)u =
p
V (t)p
(8.8)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ Λ1 ess supv(s) ,
u(t)
p = ∞.
⎩
0<s<t
Using Γqu (w) and Λp (v)u we can now formulate Theorem 8.13 in the
following compact form:
Theorem 8.14. Let p, q ∈ (0, ∞] and let u, v, w be weights. When q ∈

(0, ∞) we assume that u is such that U q is admissible and the measure w(t) dt
is non-degenerate with respect to U q . Then the inequality (8.1) holds for
every f ∈ M (R, μ) if and only if
(i) 0 < p ≤ q ≤ ∞
3 3 3 3
sup 3χ(0,t) 3Γq (w) 3χ(0,t) 3Λp (v) U (t)−1 < ∞;
t u u
pq
(ii) 0 < q < p ≤ ∞, r = p−q
∞3 1/r
3 3 3r
3χ(0,t) 3r−q
q w (t) U (t)−r 3
χ (0,t)
3 p dt < ∞.
Γ (w) u Λ (v) u
0
Remark 8.2. Theorem 8.13 and Theorem 8.14 are in fact equivalent, the
only difference is that Theorem 8.14 is stated in a more compact form. All
the eight conditions A1 − A8 in Theorem 8.13 can be obtained from the two
conditions in Theorem 8.14.
8.4 Proofs
Proof of Theorem 8.13: We start with the upper bounds (sufficiency).
Let 0 < p < ∞. First we use the fact that f is non-increasing if and only
if f p is non-increasing and a standard argument shows that it is enough to
∞
prove (8.1) for f satisfying f ∗ (t)p = t h(s)ds, where h is some positive
measurable function on (0, ∞). That is, when 0 < q < ∞ we only have to
prove that
t ∞ 1 q 1q
∞
1 p
h(z)dz u(s)ds w (t) dt
0 U (t) 0 s
∞ ∞ 1
p
≤C h(s)ds v (t) dt (8.9)
0 t
holds for every non-negative function h, and for q = ∞, by Lemma 8.2 we

have to prove that the inequality
t ∞ 1 ∞ ∞ 1
ϕ(t) p p
sup h(z)dz u(s)ds ≤ C h(s)ds v (t) dt
t∈(0,∞) U (t) 0 s 0 t
(8.10)
holds for every non-negative function h, where the function ϕ is defined by
(8.2).
According to Fubini’s theorem the inequalities (8.9) and (8.10) are equiv-
alent to
t 1 q 1q
∞ ∞
1 p
h(z)dz u(s)ds w(t)dt
0 U (t) 0 s
∞ 1
p
≤C h(t)V (t)dt ,
0
and
t ∞ 1 ∞ 1
ϕ(t) p p
sup h(z)dz u(s)ds ≤ C h(t)V (t)dt , (8.11)
t∈(0,∞) (t)
U 0 s 0
respectively.
Assume first that 0 < q < ∞. Define
∞
w (s) ds
ϕ (x) = U q (x) . (8.12)
0 (U (s) + U (x))q
Then ϕ ∈ ΩU q and therefore there exists a discretizing sequence for ϕ with
k)
respect to U q . Let {xk } be one such sequence. Then ϕ (xk ) and Uϕ(x
q (x ) .
k
Furthermore, there is a decomposition Z = Z1 ∪Z2 , Z1 ∩Z2 = ∅ such that for
every k ∈ Z1 and t ∈ [xk , xk+1 ], ϕ (xk ) ≈ ϕ (t) and for every k ∈ Z2 and
k)
t ∈ [xk , xk+1 ] , Uϕ(x ϕ(t)
q (x ) ≈ U q (t) .
k
For the left-hand side of (8.9), using Lemma 8.4 with dυ(t) = w (t) dt
t ∞ 1
and f (t) = 0 s h (z) dz p u(s)ds we get that
t ∞ 1 q 1q
∞
1 p
h (z) dz u(s)ds w (t) dt
0 U (t) 0 s
q 1q

xk ∞ 1
p ϕ (xk )
≈ h (z) dz u(s)ds
0 s U (xk )q
k∈Z
[using Lemma8.6]
1 q 1q

xk ∞ p ϕ (xk )
≈ h (z) dz u(s)ds
xk−1 s U (xk )q
k∈Z
1 q 1q

xk xk ∞ p ϕ (xk )
= h (z) dz + h (z) dz u(s)ds
xk−1 s xk U (xk )q
k∈Z
1 q 1q

xk xk p ϕ (xk )
≈ h (z) dz u(s)ds
xk−1 s U (xk )q
k∈Z
1 q 1q

xk ∞ p ϕ (xk )
+ h (z) dz u(s)ds
xk−1 xk U (xk )q
k∈Z
1q 1 q

xk
ϕ (xk )
xk p
≈ h (z) dz u(s)ds
xk−1 s U (xk )q
k∈Z
q xk q 1

∞ p ϕ (xk )
q
+ h (z) dz u(s)ds
xk xk−1 U (xk )q
k∈Z
xk
[using the fact that xk−1 u(s)ds = U (xk ) − U (xk−1 ) ≈ U (xk )]
1 q 1q

xk xk p ϕ (xk )
≈ h (z) dz u(s)ds
xk−1 s U (xk )q
k∈Z
1

∞ q
p
q
+ h (z) dz ϕ (xk )
k∈Z xk
[using Lemma 8.6 on the second term]
1 q 1q

xk xk p ϕ (xk )
≈ h (z) dz u(s)ds
xk−1 s U (xk )q
k∈Z
1

xk+1 q
p
q
+ h (z) dz ϕ (xk ) = I + II. (8.13)

k∈Z xk
Now we shall distinguish several cases. Starting with the case 0 < p ≤ 1.
Using (8.3) for I and (8.5) for II we find that
1 q 1q

xk xk p ϕ (xk )
I =: h (z) dz u(s)ds
xk−1 s U (xk )q
k∈Z
q

ϕ (xk ) t
− 1
≤ sup u (s) ds V (t) p ×
U (xk )q xk−1 <t<xk x k−1
k∈Z
q ⎞ 1q
xk p
h (s) V (s) ds ⎠
xk−1
⎛ q ⎞ 1q

ϕ (xk ) − pq
xk p
≤⎝ sup U (t)q V (t) h (s) V (s) ds ⎠

U (xk )q xk−1 <t<xk xk−1
k∈Z
(8.14)
and
1

xk+1 q
p
q
II = : h (z) dz ϕ (xk )
k∈Z xk
q 1q

− qp
xk+1 p
≤ ϕ (xk ) V (xk ) h (s) V (s) ds . (8.15)
k∈Z xk
q
(i) In the case 0 < p ≤ 1, p ≤ q < ∞ (i.e. p ≥ 1) we have according to
(8.14) that
1 ∞ 1
ϕ (xk ) q −1
p
I ≤ sup sup U (t) V (t) p h (s) V (s) ds ,
k U (xk ) xk−1 <t<xk 0
q
and, similarly, if p ≥ 1 we have according to (8.15) that
∞ 1
1 p
− p1
II ≤ supϕ (xk ) V (xk ) q h (s) V (s) ds
k 0
and, finally, according to (8.12) and Lemma 8.10, we get that

1 1
∞
ϕ (xk ) q −1/p
p
I + II ≤ sup sup U (t) V (t) h (s) V (s) ds
∞ 1
p
= A1 h (s) V (s) ds .
0
pq
(ii) For the case 0 < q < p ≤ 1, r = p−q , by applying Hölder’s inequality
for sums to the right-hand side of (8.14) and the right hand side of (8.15)
p
with exponents q and rq , we find that
r r 1 1

ϕ (xk ) q − p1
r ∞ p
I r sup U (t) V (t) h (s) V (s) ds
U (xk ) xk−1 <t<xk 0
k∈Z
1 1

r
− pr
r ∞ p
II ϕ (xk ) V (xk )
q h (s) V (s) ds .
k∈Z 0
Therefore, we get that

r r 1

ϕ (xk ) q − p1
r
I + II r sup U (t) V (t) ×

U (xk ) xk−1 <t<xk
k∈Z
∞ q
p
h (s) V (s) ds . (8.16)
0
By using Lemma 8.8 we obtain from (8.16) that

∞ 1
p
I + II A2 h (s) V (s) ds .
0
Now let us assume that 1 < p < ∞. Using (8.4) for I and (8.5) for II, we
get that
⎛ q

ϕ (xk ) xk p p
−p
p
I⎝ U (t) p V (t) u(t)dt ×

U (xk )q xk−1
k∈Z
q ⎞ 1q
xk p
h (s) V (s) ds ⎠ (8.17)

xk−1
q 1q

− pq
xk+1 p
II ϕ (xk ) V (xk ) h (s) V (s) ds . (8.18)
k∈Z xk
(iii) Suppose that 1 0 U (xk ) xk−1 0
∞ 1
1 1 p
−
II supϕ (xk ) q V (xk ) p h (s) V (s) ds .
k 0
Hence, using integration by part and Lemma 8.9, we find that

1 1
p
ϕ (xk ) q xk
− pp
p
p − pp

I + II sup V (t) U (t) p u(t)dt + U (xk ) V (xk ) ×
k>0 U (xk ) xk−1
∞ 1
p
h (s) V (s) ds
0
1 1
p
ϕ (xk ) q xk
−p p − pp

p
sup V (t) U (t) v(t)dt + V (xk ) U (xk ) ×
k>0 U (xk ) xk−1
∞ 1
p
h (s) V (s) ds
0

1 1
1
∞
U (t)p V (t)−p v(t)dt p ∞ p
supϕ (xk ) q
p
h (s) V (s) ds
k>0 (U (t) + U (xk ))
0 0
∞ 1
p
= A3 h (s) V (s) ds .
0
pq
(iv) Next we consider the case 1 < p < ∞, 0 < q < p, r = p−q . By using
Hölder’s inequality for sums to the right-hand side of (8.17) and the right
hand side of (8.18) with exponents pq and rq , we find that
⎛ r ⎞ 1r

ϕ q (xk )
r
xk p ∞ 1
p p
− pp
I ⎝ U (t) p V (xk ) u(t)dt ⎠ h (s) V (s) ds
U (xk )r xk−1 0
k∈Z
and 1

r ∞ 1
r p
− pr
II ϕ (xk ) V (xk )
q h (s) V (s) ds .
k∈Z 0
Therefore, using integration by part and Lemma 8.7, we see that
I + II
⎛ r ⎞ 1r

ϕ q (xk ) xk
r
p
p p p
−p −p
⎝ V (t) U (t) p u(t)dt + V (x )
k U (x k )p ⎠ ×
U (xk )r xk−1
k∈Z
∞ 1
p
h (s) V (s) ds
0
⎛ r ⎞ 1r

ϕ q (xk ) xk
r
p
p
−
⎝ r V (t)−p U (t)p v(t)dt + V (xk ) p U (xk )p ⎠ ×
U (xk ) xk−1
k∈Z
∞ 1
p
h (s) V (s) ds
0
⎛ r ⎞ 1r

r ∞ p −p ∞ 1
U (t) V (t) v(t)dt p ⎠ p
⎝ ϕ q (xk ) p
h (s) V (s) ds
k∈Z 0 (U (t) + U (xk )) 0
∞ 1
p
≤ A4 h (s) V (s) ds .
0
Let now q = ∞. In the same way, by using Lemma 8.2, Lemma 8.5 and
Lemma 8.6 we obtain for the left-hand side of (8.11) that
t ∞ 1
ϕ(t) p
sup h(z)dz u(s)ds
t∈(0,∞) U (t) 0 s
∞ 1
ϕ(xk ) xk p
≈ sup h(z)dz u(s)ds
k∈Z U (xk ) 0 s
xk 1
ϕ(xk ) xk p
≈ sup h(z)dz u(s)ds
k∈Z U (xk ) xk−1 s
xk+1 1
p
+ sup ϕ(xk ) h(z)dz := III + IV, (8.19)
k∈Z xk
where ϕ is defined by (8.2).

(v) Let 0 < p ≤ 1, q = ∞. By using the inequality (8.3) for III and
(8.5) for IV , we arrive at
1
ϕ (xk ) − p1
xk+1 p
III sup sup U (t) V (t) h (s) V (s) ds ,
k U (xk ) xk−1 <t<xk xk
xk+1 1
p
− pq
IV supϕ (xk ) V (xk ) h (s) V (s) ds
k xk
and, finally, by using Lemma 8.10, we get that

1
∞
ϕ (xk ) −1/p
p
III + IV sup sup U (t) V (t) h (s) V (s) ds
∞ 1
p
A5 h (s) V (s) ds .
0
(vi) Let now 1 < p < ∞, q = ∞. By using (8.4) for III and (8.5) for IV ,
we obtain that
1 1
p p
ϕ (xk ) xk p
− p xk
III sup U (t) p V (t) p u(t)dt h (s) V (s) ds
k∈Z U (xk ) xk−1 xk−1
and 1

− p1
xk+1 p
IV ϕ (xk ) V (xk ) h (s) V (s) ds .
k∈Z xk
Using integration by part and Lemma 8.9, we find that

1
p
ϕ (xk ) xk
− pp
p
− p
III + IV sup V (t) U (t) p u(t)dt + V (xk ) p U (xk )p ×
k>0 U (xk ) xk−1
∞ 1
p
h (s) V (s) ds
0
1
p
ϕ (xk ) xk
−p p − pp

p
sup V (t) U (t) v(t)dt + V (xk ) U (xk ) ×
k>0 U (xk ) xk−1
∞ 1
p
h (s) V (s) ds
0

1
∞
U (t)p V (t)−p v(t)dt p
supϕ (xk ) ×
k>0 0 U (t)p + U (xk )p
∞ 1
p
h (s) V (s) ds
0
∞ 1
p
= A6 h (s) V (s) ds .
0
(vii) For the case p = q = ∞, we use Lemma 8.1 and get that

w(x) x ∗
f Γ∞
u (w)
= ess sup f (t)u(t)dt
x∈(0,∞) U (x) 0

w(x) x u(t)dt
≤ ess sup ess sup f ∗ (x)ess supv (s)
x∈(0,∞) U (x) 0 ess supv (s) x∈(0,∞) 0<s<x
0<s<t
≤ A7 f Λ∞ (v) .
(viii) Finally, for p = ∞, 0 < q < ∞, by Lemma 8.1 we obtain that

⎛ ⎛ ⎞q ⎞1
∞ q
⎝ 1
x
u(t)dt ⎠
f Γqu (w) ≤⎝ w(x)dx⎠ ess sup f ∗ (x)ess supv (s)
0 U (x) 0 ess supv (s) x∈(0,∞) 0<s<x
0<s<t
≤ A8 f Λ∞ (v) .
Next we prove the lower bounds (Necessity). Let 0 < q < ∞ and let {xk }
be a discretizing sequence for ϕ from (8.12). Then by (8.13) we have that
1 q 1q

xk xk p ϕ (xk )
h (z) dz u(s)ds
xk−1 s U (xk )q
k∈Z
1

xk+1 q
p
q
+ h (z) dz ϕ (xk )
k∈Z xk
1

xk p
h (t) V (t) dt . (8.20)

k∈Z xk−1
Let 0 < p ≤ 1. For k ∈ Z, let hk be functions that satisfy the Hardy in-
equality (8.3) and the Hölder inequality (8.5), that is, functions hk satisfying
supp hk ⊂ [xk−1 , xk ] ,
xk
hk (s) V (s)ds = 1,
xk−1
1 p
xk xk p
hk (t) dt u(s)ds sup (U (t) − U (xk−1 ))p V (t)−1 ,
xk−1 s xk−1 <t<xk
xk
hk (s) ds V (xk−1 )−1 .
xk−1
Now we define the test function

h (s) = ak hk (s) , (8.21)

k∈Z
where {ak } is a sequence of positive real numbers. Then, by using this test
function in (8.20), we get that
1

pq ϕ (xk ) q − pq
q
ak sup (U (t) − U (x k−1 )) V (t)

U (xk )q xk−1 <t<xk
k∈Z
1 1

q − q
q
p
+ akp ϕ (xk−1 ) V (xk−1 ) p ak . (8.22)

k∈Z k∈Z
Now, by using Proposition 8.11 for the case 0 < p ≤ 1, p ≤ q, we find that
1
− p1
supϕ(xk ) q V (xk ) +
k∈Z
1
−1/p ϕ (xk ) q
sup sup (U (t) − U (xk−1 )) V (t) < ∞.
k∈Z xk−1 <t<xk U (xk )
Moreover, according to Lemma 8.10, we see that
1
A1 sup sup V (t)−1/p ϕ (t) q
k∈Z xk−1 <t<xk
1
1
− p1 −1/p ϕ (xk ) q
supϕ(xk ) V (xk ) q + sup sup U (t) V (t)
k∈Z k∈Z xk−1 <t<xk U (xk )
1 1
supϕ(xk ) q V (xk )− p
k∈Z
1
−1/p ϕ (xk ) q
+ sup sup (U (t) − U (xk−1 )) V (t) < ∞.
Let 0 < q < p ≤ 1. We obtain from (8.22) and Proposition 8.11 that
1

r
− r
r
ϕ(xk ) q V (xk ) p
k∈Z
r 1

ϕ (xk ) q r
+ sup (U (t) − U (xk−1 ))r V (t)−r/p < ∞.

xk−1 <t<xk U (xk )r
k∈Z
Therefore, in view of Theorem 8.3, Lemma 8.6 and Lemma 8.8, we have that
r
1

ϕ (x ) q
r
−r/p k
A2 sup U (t) V (t)
r
k∈Z
1

r
r
ϕ (xk ) q V (xk )−r/p

k∈Z
r 1

ϕ (xk ) q r
r −r/p
+ sup (U (t) − U (xk−1 )) V (t)
k∈Z
< ∞.
Let 1 < p < ∞. For k ∈ Z, let hk be functions that satisfy the Hardy in-
equality (8.4) and the Hölder inequality (8.5), that is, functions hk satisfying
supp hk ⊂ [xk−1 , xk ] ,
xk
hk (s) V (s)ds = 1,
xk−1
1 p
xk xk p
hk (t) dt u(s)ds
xk−1 s
p
xk p
p
− pp
(U (t) − U (xk−1 )) p V (t) u(t)dt
xk−1
xk
hk (s) ds V (xk−1 )−1 .
xk−1
Now we define the test function

h (s) = ak hk (s) , (8.23)

k∈Z
where {ak } is a sequence of positive real numbers. Then, by using this test
function in (8.20) we get that
⎛ q ⎞ 1q

q
ϕ (xk ) xk p
− pp
p
⎝ p
ak (U (t) − U (xk−1 )) p V (t) u(t)dt ⎠
U (xk )q xk−1
k∈Z
1 1

q
− pq
q
p
p
+ ak ϕ (xk−1 ) V (xk−1 ) ak . (8.24)
k∈Z k∈Z
Now, by using Proposition 8.11 for the case 1 < p < q < ∞, we find that
1/p 1
xk
p /p
−p /p ϕ (xk ) q
sup (U (t) − U (xk−1 )) V (t) u(t)dt
k∈Z xk−1 U (xk )
1 1
+ supV (xk )− p ϕ (xk ) q < ∞.
k∈Z
Hence, by using Lemma 8.5 and Lemma 8.9 and performing integration by
part, we have that
1 1/p
ϕ (xk ) q xk
1 1
A3 sup V (t)−p U (t)p v(t)dt + supϕ (xk ) q V (xk )− p
k∈Z U (xk ) xk−1 k∈Z
1 1/p
ϕ (xk ) q xk
−p p
sup V (t) (U (t) − U (xk−1 )) v(t)dt
k∈Z U (xk ) xk−1
1 1
+supϕ (xk ) q V (xk )− p
k∈Z
1 1/p
ϕ (xk ) q xk
− pp p
sup V (t) (U (t) − U (xk−1 )) p u(t)dt
1 1
+supϕ (xk ) q V (xk )− p < ∞.
k∈Z
Let now 1 < p < ∞, 0 < q < p. Then, by using (8.24) and Proposition 8.11,
we obtain that
⎛ r ⎞ 1r

ϕ (xk )
r/q x k
− pp
p p
⎝ V (t) (U (t) − U (x k−1 )) p u(t)dt ⎠
U (xk )r xk−1
k∈Z
1

r
− pr
r
+ ϕ (xk ) V xk
q < ∞.
k∈Z
Therefore, by using Theorem 8.3 and Lemma 8.7 and integration by part,
we get that
⎛ r ⎞ 1r
r

ϕ (xk ) q xk
p
A4 ⎝ r V (t)−p U (t)p v(t)dt ⎠

U (xk ) xk−1
k∈Z
1

r
− rp
r
+ ϕ (xk ) V (xk )
q
k∈Z
⎛ r ⎞ 1r
r

ϕ (xk ) q xk

p
⎝ r V (t)−p (U (t) − U (xk−1 ))p v(t)dt ⎠

U (xk ) xk−1
k∈Z
1

r
− rp
r
+ ϕ (xk ) V (xk )
q
k∈Z
⎛ r ⎞ 1r
r

ϕ (xk ) q xk p
−p p
p
⎝ V (t) (U (t) − U (x k−1 )) p u(t)dt ⎠

U (xk )r xk−1
k∈Z
1

r r
r
+ ϕ (xk ) q V (xk )− p < ∞.

k∈Z
Let q = ∞ and let {xk } be a discretizing sequence for ϕ defined by (8.2).

Then, according to (8.19), we have that
1
ϕ(xk ) xk xk p
sup h(z)dz u(s)ds
k∈Z U (xk ) xk−1 s
xk+1 1
p
+ sup ϕ(xk ) h(z)dz
k∈Z xk
1

xk p
h (t) V (t) dt . (8.25)

k∈Z xk−1
Let 0 < p ≤ 1. If we use in (8.25) the test function defined by (8.21), then
we obtain that
ϕ (xk )
1
−1
sup akp sup (U (t) − U (xk−1 )) V (t) p
k∈Z U (xk ) xk−1 <t<xk
1
1 1
p
+ sup akp ϕ (xk ) V (xk )− p ak .

k∈Z k∈Z
Therefore, by Proposition 8.11, we have that

ϕ (xk ) 1
sup sup (U (t) − U (xk−1 )) V (t)− p
k∈Z U (xk ) xk−1 <t<xk
− p1
+ sup ϕ (xk ) V (xk ) < ∞.
k∈Z
Thus, by Lemma 8.10, we find that
A5 sup sup V (t)−1/p ϕ (t)

k∈Z xk−1 <t<xk

− p1 ϕ (xk )
supϕ(xk )V (xk ) + sup sup U (t) V (t)−1/p
k∈Z k∈Z xk−1 <t<xk U (xk )
− p1
supϕ(xk )V (xk )
k∈Z

−1/p ϕ (xk )
+ sup sup (U (t) − U (xk−1 )) V (t) < ∞.
Now let 1 < p < ∞. Using in (8.25) the test function defined by (8.23) we
obtain that
1
p
ϕ (xk )
1
p
xk p
− pp

sup ak (U (t) − U (xk−1 )) p V (t) u(t)dt
1
1
p − p1

p
+ sup ak ϕ (xk ) V (xk ) ak .

k∈Z k∈Z
Moreover, by using Proposition 8.11, we get that
1/p
xk
p /p −p /p ϕ (xk )
sup (U (t) − U (xk−1 )) V (t) u(t)dt
k∈Z xk−1 U (xk )
1
+ supV (xk )− p ϕ (xk ) < ∞.
k∈Z
Hence, by using Lemma 8.5, Lemma 8.9 and performing integration by part,
we find that
1/p
ϕ (xk ) xk
−p p
A6 sup V (t) U (t) v(t)dt
1
+ supϕ (xk ) V (xk )− p
k∈Z
1/p
ϕ (xk ) xk
−p p
sup V (t) (U (t) − U (xk−1 )) v(t)dt
1
+ supϕ (xk ) V (xk )− p
k∈Z
1/p
ϕ (xk ) xk
− pp
p
sup V (t) (U (t) − U (xk−1 )) p u(t)dt
1
+ supϕ (xk ) V (xk )− p < ∞.
k∈Z
The corresponding estimates for A7 and A8 are trivial, by using Lemma 8.1
and taking the test function f (t) = (ess sup0<s<t v(s))−1 . The proof is com-
plete.
Proof of Theorem 8.14:
It is easy to see that
∗∗ U (t)
χ(0,t) (s) ≈ . (8.26)
u U (s) + U (t)
Using (8.26) we calculate the following norms in Theorem 8.14:
⎛ ⎞1
∞ q
3 3 U (t) q
3 χ(0,t) 3 ≈⎝ w (s) ds⎠ (8.27)
Γqu (w) (U (t) + U (s))q
0
and
3 3 U (t) w(s)
3 χ(0,t) 3 ≈ ess sup , (8.28)
Γ∞
u (w) U (t) + U (s)
0<s<∞
in each of the eight cases considered in Theorem 8.13.

1. For the case 1 < p < ∞, 0 < p ≤ q < ∞, by using (8.8) and (8.27),
we find that
3 3 3 3
3 χ(0,t) 3 ≈ 3 χ(0,t) 3

Λp (v)u U (t)p v(t)
Γpu
V (t)p
1
∞ p p
U (s) v (s)
≈ U (t) ds . (8.29)
0 U (t) + U (s) V (s)p
Thus, using (8.27) and (8.29)
3 3 3 3
sup 3χ(0,t) 3Γq (w) 3χ(0,t) 3Λp (v) U (t)−1
u u
t>0
⎛∞ ⎞1 ⎛ ∞ ⎞ 1
q q p p
⎝ U (t) ⎠ ⎝ U (s) v (s) ⎠

≈ sup w (s) ds ds
t>0 (U (t) + U (s))q U (t) + U (s) V (s)p
0 0
= A3 .
2. For the case 1 0 u u
⎛ ∞ p
⎞ 1
p
U (t) w (s) ⎝ U (s) v (s) ⎠
≈ sup ess sup ds
t>0 s∈(0,∞) U (t) + U (s) U (t) + U (s) V (s)p
0
= A6 .
For the case 0 < p ≤ 1, by using (8.8) and (8.26), we obtain that
3 3 3 3
3χ(0,t) 3 ≈ 3χ(0,t) 3
Λp (v)u Γ∞
U (t)
u
V (t)1/p
U (s)
≈ U (t) ess sup V (s)−1/p . (8.30)
t∈(0,∞) U (s) + U (t)
3. For the case, 0 0 u u
3 3 3 3
3 3 3
≈ sup χ(0,t) Γq (w) χ(0,t) 3 U (t)−1
U (t)
t>0 u Γ∞
u
V (t)1/p
⎛ ⎞1
∞ q q
U (t) U (s)
≈ sup ⎝ w (s) ds⎠ ess sup V (s)−1/p
t>0 U (t) + U (s) s∈(0,∞) U (s) + U (t)
0
⎛ ⎞1
∞ q q
U (t)
≈ sup ⎝ w (s) ds⎠ V (t)−1/p
t>0 U (t) + U (s)
0
= A1 .
4. For the case 0 0 u u
3 3 3 3
≈ sup 3χ(0,t) 3Γ∞ (w) 3χ(0,t) 3 U (t) U (t)−1
t>0 u Γ∞
u
V (t)1/p
U (t) w (s) U (s)

≈ sup ess sup ess sup V (s)−1/p
t>0 s∈(0,∞) U (s) + U (t) t∈(0,∞) U (s) + U (t)

U (s) w (s)
≈ sup ess sup V (t)−1/p
t>0 s∈(0,∞) U (s) + U (t)
= A5 .
pq
5. Now consider the case 1 < p < ∞, 0 < q < p, r = p−q . By using (8.8)
(8.27), and (8.29), we have that
⎛ ⎞1/r
∞
3 3 3 3
⎝ 3 χ(0,t) 3r−q
q w (t) U (t)−r 3χ(0,t) 3Λp (v) dt⎠
r
Γu (w) u
0
⎛∞ ⎞1/r

3 3r−q 3 3
≈ ⎝ 3 χ(0,t) 3Γq (w) w (t) U (t)−r 3χ(0,t) 3 p U (t)p v(t) dt⎠
r
u Γu
V (t)p
0
⎛ ⎛ ⎞ r−q
∞ ∞ q q
⎜ ⎝ U (t) ⎠
≈ ⎝ w (s) ds w (t) ×
(U (t) + U (s))q
0 0
⎛∞ ⎞ r ⎞1/r
p p
⎝ U (t) v (s) ⎟
ds⎠ dt⎠
U (s) + U (s) V (s)p
0
= A4 .
6. For the case 0 < q < p ≤ 1, by using (8.8), (8.27) and (8.30), we obtain
that
⎛ ⎞1/r
∞
3 3 3 3r
⎝ 3 χ(0,t) 3r−q w(t)U (t)−r 3χ(0,t) 3 ∞ dt⎠
Γq (w)u Γu
U (t)
V (t)1/p
0
⎛ ⎛ ⎞ r−q
∞ ∞ q
⎜ ⎝ U (t)q ⎠
≈⎝ q w(s)ds w(t)U (t)−r ×
(U (t) + U (s))
0 0
1r
−1 r
U (t)U (s)V (s) p
ess sup dt
s∈(0,∞) U (t) + U (s)
⎛ ⎛ ⎞ r−q ⎞ 1r
∞ ∞ q r
⎜ U (t)q −1 ⎟
≈⎝ ⎝ q w(s)ds
⎠ w(t)U (t)−r sup U (s)V (s) p dt⎠
(U (t) + U (s)) s∈(0,t)
0 0
= A2 .
7. For the case p = q = ∞, by using (8.8), (8.28) and Lemma 8.2, we

have that
3 3 3 3
sup 3 χ(0,t) 3 ∞ 3χ(0,t) 3 ∞ Γu (w) Λ (v)u
t>0
3 3 3 3
≈ sup 3χ(0,t) 3Γ∞ (w) 3 χ(0,t) 3
u(τ )
U (t)−1
t>0 u Λ1 ess sups∈(0,τ ) v(s)
t
U (t) w (s) 1 u (τ )
≈ sup ess sup dτ
t>0 s∈(0,∞) U (t) + U (s) U (t) ess sups∈(0,τ ) v(s)
0
t
w (s) u (τ )
≈ ess sup dτ
s∈(0,∞) U (s) ess sups∈(0,τ ) v(s)
0
= A7 .
8. For the case 0 < q < p = ∞, we have that r = q and by using (8.8),
we find that
⎛∞ ⎞1/r

3 3 3 3r
⎝ 3 χ(0,t) 3r−q w (t) U (t)−r 3χ(0,t) 3 ∞ U (t) dt⎠
Γq (w) u Γu
V (t)1/p
0
⎛ ⎞1/q
∞
3 3q
≈ ⎝ w (t) U (t)−q 3 χ(0,t) 3
u(t)
dt⎠
Λ1 ess sups∈(0,t) v(s)
0
⎛ ⎛ ⎞ ⎞1/q
∞ t
1 u (τ )
= ⎝ ⎝ dτ ⎠ w (t) dt⎠
U (t) ess sups∈(0,τ ) v(s)
0 0
= A8 .
The proof is complete.

Bibliography
[1] Svenskt Biografiskt Lexikon, Sjunde Bandet. Bonniers förlag, 1927.
[2] H. Alzer. On Carleman’s inequality. Portugal. Math., 50(3):331–334,

1993.
[3] H. Alzer. Refinement of a Carleman-type inequality. Studia Sci. Math.

Hungar., 32(3-4):361–366, 1996.
[4] H. Alzer. A refinement of Carleman’s inequality. J. Approx. Theory,

95(3):497–499, 1998.
[5] M. Ariño and B. Muckenhoupt. Maximal functions on classical Lorentz

spaces and Hardy’s inequality with weights for non-increasing func-
tions. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 320, 1990.
[6] I. Asekritova, N. Krugljak, L. Maligranda, and L.-E. Persson. Dis-

tribution and rearrangement estimates of the maximal function and
interpolation. Studia Math., 124:107–132, 1997.
[7] S. Barza. Weighted Multidimensional Integral Inequalities and Appli-

cations. Ph.D. Thesis, Luleå University of Technology, 1999.
[8] S. Barza, H. Heinig, and L.-E. Persson. Duality theorem over the cone
of monotone functions and sequences in higher dimensions. J. Inequal.
Appl., 7(1):79–108, 2002.
[9] S. Barza, M. Johansson, and L.-E. Persson. A Sawyer duality principle

for radially monotone functions in Rn . J. Inequal. Pure Appl. Math.,
6(2):13, 2005.
137
[10] S. Barza, L.-E. Persson, and J. Soria. Sharp weighted multidimensional

integral inequalities for monotone functions. Math. Nachr., 210:43–58,
2000.
[11] S. Barza, L.-E. Persson, and V. D. Stepanov. On weighted multidimen-

sional embeddings for monotone functions. Math. Scand., 88(2):303–
319, 2001.
[12] C. Bennett and R. Sharpley. Interpolation of Operators. Vol. 129.

Academic Press, Pure and Applied Mathematics, Boston, 1988.
[13] G. Bennett and K.-G. Grosse-Erdmann. Weighted Hardy inequalities

for decreasing sequences and functions. Math. Ann., 334:489–531, 2006.
[14] T. Carleman. Sur les fonctions quasi-analytiques. Helsingfors: Aka-

dem. Buchh. (5. Kongress Skandinav. Mathematiker in Helsingfors
vom 4. bis 7. Juli 1922), 181-196, 1923.
[15] T. Carleman and G. H. Hardy. Fourier series and analytic functions.

Proc. Royal Soc. A, 101:124–133, 1922.
[16] L. Carleson. A proof of an inequality of Carleman. Proc. Amer. Math.

Soc., 5:932–933, 1954.
[17] M. Carro, A. García del Amo, and J. Soria. Weak-type weights and
normable Lorentz spaces. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 124:849–857, 1996.
[18] M. Carro and J. Soria. Boundedness of some integral operators. Canad.

J. Math., 45:1155–1166, 1993.
[19] M. Carro and J. Soria. Weighted Lorentz spaces and the Hardy oper-
ator. J. Funct. Anal., 112:480–494, 1993.
[20] M. Carro and J. Soria. The Hardy-Littlewood maximal function and

weighted Lorentz spaces. J. London Math. Soc., 55:146–158, 1997.
[21] M. Carro, J. Soria, Pick L., and V.D. Stepanov. On embeddings be-
tween classical Lorentz spaces. Math. Ineq. Appl., 4:397–428, 2001.
[22] A. Čižmešija and J. Pečarić. Mixed means and Hardy’s inequality.

Math. Inequal. Appl., 1(4):491–506, 1998.
[23] A. Čižmešija, J. Pečarić, and L.-E. Persson. On strengthened Hardy

and Pólya-Knopp inequalities. J. Approx. Theory, 125(1):74–84, 2003.
Bibliography 139
[24] A. Čižmešija, L.-E. Persson, and A. Wedestig. Weighted integral in-

equalities for Hardy and geometric mean operators with kernals over
cones in Rn . Ital. J. Pure Appl. Math., 18:89–118, 2005.
[25] Čižmešija A. and Pečarić J. Classical Hardy’s and Carleman’s Inequal-

ities and Mixed Means. Survey on Classical Inequalities (Ed: T.M.
Rassias) Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht-Boston-London, 2000.
[26] M. Cwikel, A. Kaminska, L. Maligranda, and L. Pick. Are generalized

Lorentz "spaces" really spaces? Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 132(12):3615–
3625, 2004.
[27] P. Drábek, H. P. Heinig, and A. Kufner. Higher dimensional Hardy

inequality. General Inequalities, (Oberwolfach, 1995), Internat. Ser.
Numer. Math., Birkhäuser, Basel, 7(123):3–16, 1997.
[28] D. E. Edmunds and W. D. Evans. Spectral Theory and Differential

Operators. Oxford Mathematical Monographs. Oxford Science Pub-
lications. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York,
1987.
[29] D. E. Edmunds, V. Kokilashvili, and A. Meskhi. Bounded and Compact

Integral Operators. Mathematics and its Applications, 543. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2002.
[30] L. Gårding. Mathematics and Mathematicians. Mathematics in Swe-

den before 1950. Amer. Math. Soc. Providence, 1998.
[31] I. Genebashvili, A. Gogatishvili, V. Kokilashvili, and M. Krbec. Weight

Theory for Integral Transforms on Spaces of Homogeneous Type. Pit-
man Monographs and Surveys in Pure and Applied Mathematics, 92.
Longman, Harlow, 1998.
[32] A. Gogatishvili, M. Johansson, C. A. Okpoti, and L.-E. Persson. Char-

acterizations of embeddings in Lorentz spaces. Bull. Austral. Math.
Soc., 76:69–92, 2007.
[33] A. Gogatishvili, A. Kufner, L.-E. Persson, and A. Wedestig. An equiv-

alence theorem for integral conditions related to Hardy’s inequality.
Real Anal. Exchange, 29(2):867–880, 2003/04.
[34] A. Gogatishvili and L. Pick. Duality principles and reduction theorems.

Math. Ineq. Appl., 3:539–558, 2000.
[35] A. Gogatishvili and L. Pick. Discretization and anti-discretization of

rearrangement-invariant norms. Publ. Mat., 47:311–358, 2003.
[36] A. Gogatishvili and L. Pick. Embeddings and duality theory for weak
classical Lorentz spaces. Canad. Math. Bull., 49:82–95, 2006.
[37] M. L. Goldman. Sharp estimates for the norms of Hardy-type opera-

tors on cones of quasimonotone functions. Proc. Steklov Inst. Math.,
232(1):109–137, 2001.
[38] M. L. Gol’dman, Heinig H. P., and V. D. Stepanov. On the principle

of duality in Lorentz spaces. Canad. J. Math., 48:959–979, 1996.
[39] M. Gyllenberg and P. Yan. On a conjecture by Yang. J. Math. Anal.

Appl., 264(2):687–690, 2001.
[40] G. H. Hardy. Notes on some points in the integral calculus. Messenger

of Math., 41(45):163–166, 1915.

of Math., 51(48):107–112, 1919.
[42] G. H. Hardy. Notes on a theorem of Hilbert. Math. Z, 6:314–317, 1920.

of Math., 60(54):150–156, 1925.
[44] G. H. Hardy, J. E. Littlewood, and G. Pólya. Inequalities. 2nd ed.,

Cambridge University Press, 1952, 1934.
[45] H. Heinig and L. Maligranda. Weighted inequalities for monotone and

concave functions. Studia Math., 116(2):133–165, 1995.
[46] H. P. Heinig, R. Kerman, and M. Krbec. Weighted exponential in-

equalities. Georgian Math. J, 8(1):69–86, 2001.
[47] L. Hörmander. The Analysis of Linear Partial Differential Operators.

2nd ed. Springer Verlag (1983), 1989.
[48] M. Johansson. A new characterization of the Hardy and it’s limit

Polya-Knopp inequality for decreasing functions. Research report 7,
Department of Mathematics, Luleå University of Technology, submit-
ted, page 14, 2007.
Bibliography 141
[49] M. Johansson. A unified approach to the Sawyer and Sinnamon char-

acterizations of Hardy’s inequality for decreasing functions. Research
report 6, Department of Mathematics, Luleå University of Technology,
page 11, 2007.
[50] M. Johansson, L.-E. Persson, and A. Wedestig. Carleman’s inequality:
History, proofs and some new generalizations. J. Inequal. Pure Appl.
Math., 4(3), 2003.
[51] M. Johansson, L.-E. Persson, and A. Wedestig. Carlemans olikhet-
historik, skärpningar och generaliseringar. Normat, 51(3):89–108, 2003.
[52] M. Johansson, V. D. Stepanov, and E. P. Ushakova. Hardy inequal-
ity with three measures on monotone functions. to appear in Math.
Inequal. Appl., page 20.
[53] S. Kaijser, L.-E. Persson, and A. Öberg. On Carleman’s inequality. J.
Approx. Theory, 117(1):140–151, 2002.
[54] T. Kaluza and G. Szegö. Über Reihen mit Lauter Positivern Gliedern.
J. London Math. Soc, 2:266–272, 1927.
[55] A.A. Kalybay. A new development of Nikol’skii - Lizorkin and Hardy
type inequalities with applications. Ph.D. Thesis, Luleå University of
Technology, 2006.
[56] A. Kamińska and L. Maligranda. On Lorentz spaces Gammap,w . Israel
J. Math., 140:285–318, 2004.
[57] A. Kamińska and L. Maligranda. Order convexity and concavity of
lorentz spaces Lambda p,w , 0 < p < ∞. Studia Math., 160(3):267–286,
2004.
[58] B. Kjellberg. Matematiker i Uppsala - Några Minnen. Festschift in hon-
our of Lennart Carleson and Yngve Domar, Proc. Conf. Dept. Math.
Uppsala Univ, 1993.
[59] K. Knopp. Über Reihen mit Positivern Gliedern. J. London Math.
Soc, 3:205–212, 1928.
[60] V. Kokilashvili. On Hardy’s inequalities in weighted spaces. (Russian)
Soobshch. Akad. Nauk Gruzin. SSR, 96(1):37–40, 1979.
[61] A. Kufner, L. Maligranda, and L.-E. Persson. The pre-history of the
Hardy inequality. Amer. Math. Monthly, 113(8):715–732, 2006.
[62] A. Kufner, L. Maligranda, and L.-E. Persson. The Hardy Inequality -

About its History and some Related Results. Vydavatelsky Sevis Pub-
lishing House, Pilsen, 2007.
[63] A. Kufner and L.-E. Persson. Weighted Inequalities of Hardy Type.

World Scientific Publishing Co, Singapore/ New Jersey/ London/
Hong Kong, 2003.
[64] A. Kufner, L.-E. Persson, and A. Wedestig. A study of some con-

stants characterizing the weighted Hardy inequality. Orlicz Centenary
Volume, Banach Center Publ., 64, Polish Acad. Sci., Warsaw, pages
135–146, 2004.
[65] E. H. Lieb and M. Loss. Analysis. Graduate Studies in Mathematics.

14. AMS, 1997.
[66] G. G. Lorentz. On the theory of spaces λ. Pacific J. Math., 1:411–429,

1951.
[67] L. Maligranda. Torsten Carleman. at: http://www-history.mcs.st-

and.ac.uk/Biographies/Carleman.html.
[68] L. Maligranda. Generalized hardy inequalities in rearrangement invari-

ant spaces. J. Math. Pures Appl., no. 4, 59(9):405–415, 1980.
[69] L. Maligranda. Weighted estimates of integral operators for decreas-

ing functions. In: Boundary Value Problems, Special Functions and
Fractional Calculus (Minsk, 1996), Belorus. Gos. Univ., Minsk, pages
226–236, 1996.
[70] L. Maligranda. Weighted inequalities for monotone functions. Fourth

International Conference on Function Spaces (Zielona Góra, 1995).
Collect. Math., 48(4-6):687–700, 1997.
[71] L. Maligranda. Weighted inequalities for quasi-monotone functions. J.

London Math. Soc., 57(2):363–370, 1998.
[72] D. S. Mitrinovi, J. Pečarić, and A. M. Fink. Inequalities Involving

Functions and their Integrals and Derivatives. Kluwer Academic Pub-
lishers, 1991.
[73] B. Mond and J. Pečarić. A mixed means inequality. Austral. Math.

Soc. Gaz, 23(2):67–70, 1996.
Bibliography 143
[74] B. Muckenhoupt. Hardy’s inequality with weights. Studia Math.,

44:31–38, 1972.
[75] M. Nassyrova. Weighted inequalities involving Hardy-type and limiting

geometric mean operators. Ph.D. Thesis, Luleå University of Technol-
ogy, 2002.
[76] M. Nassyrova, L.-E. Persson, and V. D. Stepanov. On weighted in-

equalities with geometric mean operator by the Hardy-type integral
transform. J. Inequal. Pure Appl. Math., 3(4), 2002.
[77] C. Okpoti, L.-E. Persson, and G. Sinnamon. An equivalence theorem

for some integral conditions with general measures related to Hardy’s
inequality. J. Math. Anal. Appl., 326(1):398–413, 2007.
[78] C. Okpoti, L.-E. Persson, and G. Sinnamon. An equivalence theorem

for some integral conditions with general measures related to Hardy’s
inequality II. To appear, 2007.
[79] C.A. Okpoti. Weight Characterization of Hardy and Carleman Type

Inequalities. Ph.D. Thesis, Luleå University of Technology, 2006.
[80] B. Opic and A. Kufner. Hardy-Type Inequalities. Pitman Research

Notes in Mathematics 219, Longman Scientific & Technical, Harlow,
1990.
[81] B. Opic and L. Pick. On the geometric mean operator. J. Math. Anal.
Appl., 183(3):652–662, 1994.
[82] A. Ostrowski. Über quasi-analytische Funktionen und Bestimmtheit

Asymptotischer Entwicklungen. Acta Math., 53:181–266, 1929.
[83] J. Pečarić and K. B. Stolarsky. Carleman’s inequality: History and

new generalizations. Aequationes Math., 61(1-2):49–62, 2001.
[84] L.-E. Persson and V. D. Stepanov. Weighted integral inequalities with

the geometric mean operator. J. Inequal. Appl., 7(5):727–746, 2002.
[85] L.-E. Persson, V. D. Stepanov, and E. P. Ushakova. Equivalence of

Hardy-type inequalities with general measures on the cones of non-
negative respective non-increasing functions. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.,
134(8):2363–2372, 2006.
[86] G. Pólya. Proof of an inequality. Proc. London Math. Soc, 24(2), 1926.
[87] D. V. Prokhorov. Hardy’s inequality with three measures. Proc. Steklov

Inst. Math., 255:233–242, 2007.
[88] D. V. Prokhorov. Inequalities of Hardy type for a class of integral

operators with measures. Anal. Math., 33:199–225, 2007.
[89] D.V. Prokhorov. Weighted Inequalities Involving Riemann-Liouville

and Hardy Type Operators. Ph.D. Thesis, Luleå University of Technol-
ogy, 2003.
[90] R. M. Redheffer. Recurrent inequalities. Proc. London Math. Soc,

17(3):683–699, 1967.
[91] R. M. Redheffer. Easy proofs of hard inequalities. In: General inequal-

ities, Oberwolfach, 3:123–140, 1981.
[92] H. L. Royden. Real Analysis. Third edition. Macmillan Publishing

Company, New York, 1988.
[93] E. Sawyer. Boundedness of classical operators on classical Lorentz

spaces. Studia Math., 96(2):145–158, 1990.
[94] G. Sinnamon. Spaces defined by level functions and their duals. Studia
Math., 111:19–52, 1994.
[95] G. Sinnamon. Embeddings of concave functions and duals of Lorentz

spaces. Publ. Math., 46:489–515, 2002.
[96] G. Sinnamon. Transferring monotonicity in weighted norm inequalities.

Collect. Math., 54:181–216, 2003.
[97] G. Sinnamon. Hardy’s inequality and monotonocity. In: Function

Spaces and Nonlinear Analysis (Eds.: P. Drábec and J. Rákosnik),
Mathematical Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Re-
public, Prague 292-310, 2005.
[98] G. Sinnamon and V. D. Stepanov. The weighted Hardy inequality:

New proofs and the case p=1. J. London Math. Soc., (2) 54:89–101,
1996.
[99] V. D. Stepanov. Integral operators on the cone of monotone functions.

J. London Math. Soc., 48(3):465–487, 1993.
[100] V. D. Stepanov. The weighted Hardy’s inequality for nonincreasing

functions. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 338(1):173–186, 1993.
Bibliography 145
[101] E. Ushakova. Norm inequalities of Hardy and Pólya-Knopp types.

Ph.D. Thesis, Luleå University of Technology, 2006.
[102] A. Wedestig. Some new Hardy type inequalities and their limiting
inequalities. J. Inequal. Pure Appl. Math., 4(3), 2003.
[103] A. Wedestig. Weighted Inequalities of Hardy Type and their Limiting

Inequalities. Ph.D. Thesis, Luleå University of Technology, 2003.
[104] P. Yan and G. Sun. A strengthened Carleman inequality. J. Math.

Anal. Appl., 240(1):290–293, 1999.
[105] X. Yang. On Carleman’s inequality. J. Math. Anal. Appl., 253(2):691–

694, 2001.

Tesis Johansson PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tesis Johansson PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2007:53

Carleman type inequalities

Luleå University of Technology

2007:53|:-1544|: - -- 07⁄53 -- 

This Ph.D. thesis deals with various generalizations of the inequalities by

we prove a weight characterization of Lpν [0, ∞)−Lqμ [0, ∞) boundedness of the

This Ph.D. thesis is written as a monograph. In particular, the contributions

• M. Johansson, L.-E. Persson and A. Wedestig, Carlemans olikhet-

• M. Johansson, L.-E. Persson and A. Wedestig, Carleman’s inequality:

• S. Barza, M. Johansson and L.-E. Persson, A Sawyer duality principle

• A. Gogatishvili, M. Johansson, C.A. Okpoti and L.-E. Persson, Char-

• M. Johansson, V.D. Stepanov and E.P. Ushakova, Hardy inequality

• M. Johansson, A uniﬁed approach to the Sawyer and Sinnamon char-

• M. Johansson, A new characterization of the Hardy and its limit Polya-

First of all I want to express my deepest gratitude to Professor Lars-Erik

Luleå, November 2007

Lpv = Lpv (Rn )

A function f : Rn → R is decreasing (increasing) if f (x) ≤ f (y) whenever

Conventions and notations xi

2 Carleman’s inequality - history and proofs 15

3 Carleman’s inequality - some new sharpenings and general-

4 A Sawyer duality principle for radially monotone functions

5 A new characterization of the Hardy inequality and its limit

6 A Uniﬁed approach to Sawyer and Sinnamon characteriza-

7 Hardy inequality with three measures on monotone func-

8 Characterizations of embeddings in Lorentz spaces 107

1.1 On Hardy’s original inequalities and its pre-

We make the following remarks:

If apn < ∞, then hpn (a) < ∞, (1.3)

where a = {an } with an ≥ 0 and h (a) = {hn (a)} ,

f Lp := ⎝ |f (x)| dx⎠ < ∞ and a lp :=

where p > 1 and p = p−1 p

1.2 Some further developments of the Hardy in-

• Weighted forms of Hardy-type inequalities.

• The mapping properties of the Hardy operator between weighted Lp

• Compactness properties of the Hardy operator.

• Weighted Hardy-type inequalities of weak type.

• Weighted Hardy-type inequalities on the cone of monotone functions

• Hardy-type inequalities in more general function spaces e.g. Orlicz,

• Limiting (Carleman or Pólya-Knopp type) inequalities of the Hardy-

• Hardy-type inequalities with more general integraloperators (described

• Multidimensional Hardy-type inequalities (e.g. for cones or even more

• Fractional order Hardy-type inequalities.

• Reﬁned Hardy-type inequalities.

• Higher order Hardy-type inequalities.

• General three-weights Hardy-type inequalities.

• Hardy-type inequalities for negative indices.

• Various combinations of the developments above.

• Various applications e.g. mapping properties of the maximal function,

In the remaining part of this introduction we just comment more on some

1.3 On the limiting inequalities of the discrete Hardy

Carleman discovered this inequality during his important work on quasian-

( k a1 a2 ...ak )q bk ≤ C apk dk (1.8)

1.4 On the limiting inequalities of the continuous

with a new weight criteria. Their result reads:

Moreover, the best constant C in (1.10) can be estimated as follows:

Then by performing a limiting procedure they received the following limit

Moreover, if C is the best possible constant in (1.14), then

In Chapter 5 partly guided by these investigations of Persson and Stepanov

characterization of the Hardy inequality for decreasing functions, and then

⎝ ⎝exp ⎝ 1 ln f (t)dt ⎠⎠ u(x)dx ⎠ ≤C ⎝ f (x)v(x)dx

for decreasing functions f ≥ 0, for the case 0 < p ≤ q < ∞.

f Lp := ⎝ |f (x)| dx⎠ < ∞ and alp :=

It is well-known that the functional ·p,w is a norm if and only if w is