Singular integral operators and the Riesz transform
1 Calderón-Zygmund kernels
Let be the measure of . It is
Let be the measure of the unit ball in . It is
For and let
A Borel measurable function is called a Calderón-Zygmund kernel if there is some such that
-
1.
,
-
2.
,
-
3.
, .
The following lemma gives a tractable condition under which Condition 2 is satisfied.11 1 Camil Muscalu and Wilhelm Schlag, Classical and Multilinear Harmonic Analysis, volume I, p. 167, Lemma 7.2.
Lemma 1.
If for all then for ,
Proof.
For , if then
Write , for which . By the fundamental theorem of calculus,
thus
Then using ,
For , using spherical coordinates,22 2 See http://individual.utoronto.ca/jordanbell/notes/sphericalmeasure.pdf
∎
For a Calderón-Zygmund kernel , for , for , and for , using Condition 3 with and ,33 3 https://math.aalto.fi/~parissi1/notes/harmonic.pdf, p. 115, Lemma 6.15.
By Condition 1 there is some such that , and combining this with ,
which is integrable on . Then by the dominated convergence theorem,
Lemma 2.
For a Calderón-Zygmund kernel , for , and for , the limit
exists.
2 Singular integral operators
For a Calderón-Zygmund kernel on , for , and for , let
We call a singular integral operator. By Lemma 2 this makes sense.
We prove that singular integral operators are bounded.44 4 Camil Muscalu and Wilhelm Schlag, Classical and Multilinear Harmonic Analysis, volume I, p. 168, Proposition 7.3; Elias M. Stein, Singular Integrals and Differentiability Properties of Functions, p. 35, §3.2, Theorem 2; http://math.uchicago.edu/~may/REU2013/REUPapers/Talbut.pdf
Theorem 3.
There is some such that for any Calderón-Zygmund kernel and any ,
Proof.
For and for define
Take , for which
For the first integral, using Condition 3 with and and then using Condition 1,
For the second integral, let , and
Let
with which
On the one hand, applying Condition 2, as ,
On the other hand, let
For we have
and for we have , so for ,
Applying Condition 1,
Furthermore, for we have , and for we have
Hence
so
Therefore
and then
and finally55 5 The way I organize the argument, I want to use , while we have only obtained this bound for . To make the argument correct I may need to do things in a different order, e.g. apply Fatou’s lemma and then use an inequality instead of using an inequality and then apply Fatou’s lemma.
Define
Then
and so
by Plancherel’s theorem and the inequality we got for ,
For each , as and , and thus using Fatou’s lemma,
That is,
∎
3 The Riesz transform
Let
For , let
This is a Calderón-Zygmund kernel. For define
We call each , , a Riesz transform.
For define by
(1) |
For ,
For ,
It then follows from the dominated convergence theorem that the limit
exists, which shows that the definition (1) makes sense. It is apparent that is linear. Then prove that if in then . This being true means that , namely that each is a tempered distribution.
For a function , write
For and , define
It is a fact that , and this tempered distribution is induced by the function .66 6 Loukas Grafakos, Classical Fourier Analysis, second ed., p. 116, Theorem 2.3.20. The Fourier transform of a tempered distribution is defined by
where
It is a fact that is itself a tempered distribution. Finally, for a tempered distribution and a Schwartz function , we define
It is a fact that is itself a tempered distribution. It is proved that77 7 Loukas Grafakos, Classical Fourier Analysis, second ed., p. 120, Proposition 2.3.22.
The left-hand side is the Fourier transform of the tempered distribution , and the right-hand side is the product of the Schwartz function and the tempered distribution .
Lemma 4.
For , for , and for ,
We will use the following identity for integrals over .88 8 Loukas Grafakos, Classical Fourier Analysis, second ed., p. 261, Lemma 4.1.15.
Lemma 5.
For and for ,
Proof.
It is a fact that
(2) |
It suffices to prove the claim when . For there is such that99 9 http://www.math.umn.edu/~garrett/m/mfms/notes/08_homogeneous.pdf
for which . Using that and that is invariant under we calculate
Applying Lemma 2 and , this becomes
Hence for each ,
It is a fact that1010 10 Loukas Grafakos, Classical Fourier Analysis, second ed., p. 441, Appendix D.2.
Using this with and using that the measure of is , we calculate
∎
We now calculate the Fourier transform of the . We show that the Fourier transform of the tempered distribution is induced by the function .1111 11 Loukas Grafakos, Classical Fourier Analysis, second ed., p. 260, Proposition 4.1.14.
Theorem 6.
For and for ,
Proof.
We calculate
For the inside integral, because is an odd function,
Call the whole last expression . It is a fact that for ,
thus for ,
As1212 12 Loukas Grafakos, Classical Fourier Analysis, second ed., p. 263, Exercise 4.1.1.
applying the dominated convergence theorem yields
Then using Lemma 5 and putting the above together we get
We work out that
and therefore
completing the proof. ∎
Because ,
Theorem 7.
For and for ,
In other words, the multiplier of the Riesz transform is .
4 Properties of the Riesz transform
Theorem 8.
where for .
Proof.
For ,
hence
Taking the inverse Fourier transform,
i.e.
∎
For a tempered distribution , for , we define
It is a fact that is itself a tempered distribution. One proves that
Each side of the above equation is a tempered distribution. Then
Suppose that is a Schwartz function and that is a tempered distribution satisfying
called Poisson’s equation. Then
For ,
Using Theorem 7,
Therefore
Theorem 9.
If is a Schwartz function and is a tempered distribution satisfying
then for ,