Next Article in Journal
Differential Evolution Based Algorithm for Optimal Current Ripple Cancelation in an Unequal Interleaved Power Converter
Next Article in Special Issue
Calderón Operator on Local Morrey Spaces with Variable Exponents
Previous Article in Journal
On the Benefits of Providing Timely Information in Ticket Queues with Balking and Calling Times
Previous Article in Special Issue
Lebesgue Points of Besov and Triebel–Lizorkin Spaces with Generalized Smoothness
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Spaces of Pointwise Multipliers on Morrey Spaces and Weak Morrey Spaces

1
Department of Mathematics, Ibaraki University, Mito 310-8512, Ibaraki, Japan
2
Department of Mathematics, Chuo University, 1-13-27, Kasuga 112-8551, Bunkyo, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Mathematics 2021, 9(21), 2754; https://doi.org/10.3390/math9212754
Submission received: 5 September 2021 / Revised: 18 October 2021 / Accepted: 24 October 2021 / Published: 29 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Developments of Function Spaces and Their Applications I)

Abstract

:
The spaces of pointwise multipliers on Morrey spaces are described in terms of Morrey spaces, their preduals, and vector-valued Morrey spaces introduced by Ho. This paper covers weak Morrey spaces as well. The result in the present paper completes the characterization of the earlier works of the first author’s papers written in 1997 and 2000, as well as Lemarié-Rieusset’s 2013 paper. As a corollary, the main result in the present paper shows that different quasi-Banach lattices can create the same vector-valued Morrey spaces. The goal of the present paper is to provide a complete picture of the pointwise multiplier spaces.

1. Introduction

The aim of this note is to consider spaces of pointwise multipliers on Morrey spaces and weak Morrey spaces. Our results supplement the ones in [1,2,3,4]. We state our main results in Section 2. Section 1 is devoted to the formulation of the results.
We denote by L 0 ( R n ) the space of all measurable functions from R n to R or C . Let E 1 , E 2 L 0 ( R n ) be linear subspaces. We say that a function g L 0 ( R n ) is a pointwise multiplier from E 1 to E 2 , if the pointwise multiplication f · g is in E 2 for any f E 1 . We denote by PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) the set of all pointwise multipliers from E 1 to E 2 . We abbreviate this as PWM ( E , E ) to PWM ( E ) .
For p ( 0 , ] , L p ( R n ) denotes the usual Lebesgue space equipped with the norm · L p . It is well known by Hölder’s inequality that:
f · g L p 2 f L p 1 g L p 3 ( f L p 1 ( R n ) , g L p 3 ( R n ) )
for 1 / p 2 = 1 / p 1 + 1 / p 3 with p j ( 0 , ] , j = 1 , 2 , 3 , so that p 1 p 2 . This shows that:
PWM ( L p 1 ( R n ) , L p 2 ( R n ) ) L p 3 ( R n ) .
Conversely, we can show the reverse inclusion by using the uniform boundedness theorem or the closed graph theorem, that is,
PWM ( L p 1 ( R n ) , L p 2 ( R n ) ) = L p 3 ( R n ) .
In particular, if p 1 = p 2 = p , then:
PWM ( L p ( R n ) ) = L ( R n ) .
Meanwhile, if p 1 < p 2 , then:
PWM ( L p 1 ( R n ) , L p 2 ( R n ) ) = { 0 }
since L loc p 1 ( R n ) is not included in L loc p 2 ( R n ) . Proofs of (1) and (2) can be found in the work of Maligranda and Persson [5], Proposition 3 and Theorem 1. See also [4]. We do not prove (3) directly in this paper, but we mention that (3) is a direct consequence in Section 2. The goal of this note is to generalize this observation to Morrey spaces motivated by the works [2,3,4,6]. For p ( 0 , ) and λ [ 0 , n ] , the (classical/strong) Morrey space L p , λ ( R n ) is defined as the space of f L 0 ( R n ) such that:
f L p , λ = sup Q Q 1 | Q | λ n Q | f ( y ) | p d y 1 / p < ,
where Q stands for the set of all cubes in R n whose edges are parallel to the coordinate axes. The parameter p serves to describe the local integrability of functions, while λ describes the growth of Q | f ( y ) | p d y in comparison with | Q | . It is easy to see that L p , λ ( R n ) is a quasi-Banach space, which is subject to the scaling law f ( t · ) L p , λ = t n λ p f L p , λ for all f L p , λ ( R n ) and t > 0 . The notation L p , λ ( R n ) was used, for instance, by Peetre [7]. The weak Morrey space w L p , λ ( R n ) is defined by a routine procedure: The weak Morrey space w L p , λ ( R n ) is the set of all measurable functions f L 0 ( R n ) for which f w L p , λ = sup λ > 0 λ χ ( λ , ] ( | f | ) L p , λ is finite, where χ A stands for the characteristic function of the set A.
To describe various properties of functions in L p , λ ( R n ) , it is sometimes convenient to use the notation M q p ( R n ) . Let 0 < q p . Recall that for an L loc q ( R n ) -function f, its Morrey norm f M q p is defined by:
f M q p sup Q Q | Q | 1 p 1 q Q | f ( y ) | q d y 1 q .
The Morrey space M q p ( R n ) is the set of all L q ( R n ) -locally integrable functions f for which the norm f M q p is finite. Once again, by the routine procedure, we define the weak Morrey space w M q p ( R n ) as the set of all measurable functions f L 0 ( R n ) for which f w M q p = sup λ > 0 λ χ ( λ , ] ( | f | ) M q p is finite. The parameter q describes the local integrability of functions. As is seen from the scaling law f ( t · ) M q p = t n p f M q p for all f M q p ( R n ) and t > 0 , the parameter p in the Morrey space M q p ( R n ) describes the global integrability. We remark that some authors swap the role of p and q; see [6] for example.
By (4) and (5), we have:
L q , λ ( R n ) = M q p ( R n ) , if λ = n ( 1 q / p ) or equivalently p = q n n λ .
Let 0 < p < . It is noteworthy that L p , 0 ( R n ) = M p p ( R n ) = L p ( R n ) and that L p , n ( R n ) = M p ( R n ) = L ( R n ) , so that Morrey spaces generalize Lebesgue spaces.
Let 0 < q i p i < , i = 1 , 2 . We consider the space of pointwise multipliers from M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) to M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) . A direct consequence of the closed graph theorem is that there exists a constant M > 0 such that, for f M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) and g PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) ,
f · g M q 2 p 2 M f M q 1 p 1 .
One naturally defines a norm on PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) by:
g PWM ( M q 1 p 1 , M q 2 p 2 ) inf { M > 0 : ( 6 ) holds for all f M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) }
for g PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) . In the following, unless otherwise stated, the equality:
PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) = E 3
tacitly means the norm equivalence, that is a function g L 0 ( R n ) belongs to E 3 if and only if g PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) , and in this case:
g PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) g E 3 ,
where the implicit constants in ∼ do not depend on g. It follows from the scaling law of Morrey spaces that:
g ( t · ) PWM ( M q 1 p 1 , M q 2 p 2 ) = t n p 2 + n p 1 g PWM ( M q 1 p 1 , M q 2 p 2 )
for all g PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) .
An easy consequence of Hölder’s inequality is that:
f · g L p 2 , λ 2 f L p 1 , λ 1 g L p 3 , λ 3 ,
if p j ( 0 , ) and λ j [ 0 , n ] , j = 1 , 2 , 3 satisfy 1 / p 2 = 1 / p 1 + 1 / p 3 and λ 2 / p 2 = λ 1 / p 1 + λ 3 / p 3 . This shows that:
PWM ( L p 1 , λ 1 ( R n ) , L p 2 , λ 2 ( R n ) ) L p 3 , λ 3 ( R n ) .
Therefore, the aim of this note is to investigate the difference between the two spaces above. It is important to note that the scaling laws considered above force the parameters p 1 , p 2 , p 3 to satisfy λ 2 / p 2 = λ 1 / p 1 + λ 3 / p 3 .
In this paper, we describe PWM ( L p 1 , λ 1 ( R n ) , L p 2 , λ 2 ( R n ) ) for all parameters p j ( 0 , ) and λ j [ 0 , n ) , j = 1 , 2 . Of interest is the case where λ 2 < λ 1 , since we already specified PWM ( L p 1 , λ 1 ( R n ) , L p 2 , λ 2 ( R n ) ) in the case λ 1 λ 2 in our earlier paper [3].
Theorem 1
([3], Corollary 2.4). Let p i ( 0 , ) and λ i [ 0 , n ) , i = 1 , 2 . Then:
PWM ( L p 1 , λ 1 ( R n ) , L p 2 , λ 2 ( R n ) ) = { 0 } , p 1 < p 2 o r n + ( λ 1 n ) p 2 p 1 < λ 2 , = L ( R n ) , p 2 p 1 a n d λ 2 = n + ( λ 1 n ) p 2 p 1 , = L p 3 , λ 3 ( R n ) , p 2 < p 1 a n d λ 1 λ 2 < n + ( λ 1 n ) p 2 p 1 , L p 3 , λ 3 ( R n ) , p 2 < p 1 a n d 0 < λ 1 p 2 p 1 λ 2 < λ 1 , { 0 } , p 2 p 1 a n d 0 λ 2 < λ 1 p 2 p 1 ,
where p 3 = p 1 p 2 / ( p 1 p 2 ) and λ 3 = ( p 1 λ 2 p 2 λ 1 ) / ( p 1 p 2 ) .
Let p i ( 0 , ) , i = 1 , 2 . As the endpoint cases of λ 1 = n or/and λ 2 = n , we have:
PWM ( L p 1 , λ 1 ( R n ) , L p 2 , λ 2 ( R n ) ) = { 0 } , 0 λ 1 < λ 2 = n , = L p 2 , λ 2 ( R n ) , 0 λ 2 λ 1 = n .
We rephrase Theorem 1 as follows:
Theorem 2.
Let 0 < q i p i < , i = 1 , 2 . Then:
PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) = { 0 } , q 1 < q 2 or p 1 < p 2 , = L ( R n ) , q 2 q 1 a n d p 1 = p 2 , = M q 3 p 3 ( R n ) , q 2 < q 1 a n d p 1 q 2 / q 1 p 2 < p 1 , M q 3 p 3 ( R n ) , q 2 < q 1 < p 1 a n d 1 / ( 1 / p 1 + 1 / q 2 1 / q 1 ) p 2 < p 1 q 2 / q 1 , { 0 } , q 2 q 1 < p 1 a n d p 2 < 1 / ( 1 / p 1 + 1 / q 2 1 / q 1 ) ,
where q 3 = q 1 q 2 / ( q 1 q 2 ) and p 3 = p 1 p 2 / ( p 1 p 2 ) .
We have notation for the scale L p , λ ( R n ) analogous to the scale M q p ( R n ) . We may also replace M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) and/or M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) by w M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) and/or w M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) to define the corresponding multiplier spaces. According to [1], we have a counterpart of Theorem 1 to weak Morrey spaces: we can replace L p i , λ i ( R n ) by w L p i , λ i ( R n ) in Theorem 1 and M q i p i ( R n ) by w M q i p i ( R n ) in Theorem 2. As for weak Morrey spaces, the following results were obtained in [1].
Theorem 3
([8], Corollary 3). The same conclusion as Theorem 1 remains valid if we replace L p k , λ k ( R n ) by w L p k , λ k ( R n ) for k = 1 , 2 , 3 . As a result, the same conclusion as Theorem 2 remains valid if we replace M q k p k ( R n ) by w M q k p k ( R n ) for k = 1 , 2 , 3 .
It is interesting to compare these results with the following endpoint cases:
PWM ( L ( R n ) , M q p ( R n ) ) = M q p ( R n ) , PWM ( L ( R n ) , w M q p ( R n ) ) = w M q p ( R n ) , PWM ( M q p ( R n ) , L ( R n ) ) = PWM ( w M q p ( R n ) , L ( R n ) ) = { 0 }
for all 0 < q p < .
The goal of this note is to give complete characterizations of:
PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) )
including
PWM ( w M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) ,
PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , w M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) )
and:
PWM ( w M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , w M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) .
Here are tables of the characterization of these spaces. For example, in Table 1, we deal with the case of p 1 > p 2 and q 1 > q 2 in Theorem 4 to follow.
The remaining part of this paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, we present our main results summarized as Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4. Section 3 deals with preliminary and general facts of the multiplier spaces. Section 4 is devoted to the proof of the results summarized in the tables above.

2. Main Results

2.1. Characterization of PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) )

To characterize the pointwise multiplier space PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) , we recall a couple of notions in [9,10].
A quasi-Banach (resp. Banach) lattice on R n is a nonzero quasi-Banach (resp. Banach) space ( E , · ) contained in L 0 ( R n ) such that f E g E holds for all f , g E such that | f | | g | . Let u ( 0 , ) . For a quasi-Banach lattice E L 0 ( R n ) , we define its u-convexification E u by:
E u { f : | f | u E } , f E u | f | u E 1 / u .
For example, ( L 1 ( R n ) ) p = L p ( R n ) .
We next recall the notion of block spaces introduced by Long [10].
Definition 1.
Let 1 q p < . A function A L 0 ( R n ) is a ( p , q ) -block if there exists a cube Q that supports A and:
A L q | Q | 1 q 1 p ,
where p and q stand for the conjugate exponent of p and q, respectively. If we need to specify Q, then we say that b is a ( p , q ) -block supported on Q. Let 1 q p < , and define the block space H q p ( R n ) as the set of all f L p ( R n ) for which f is realized as the sum f = j = 1 τ j A j with some { τ j } j = 1 1 ( N ) and some sequence { A j } j = 1 of ( p , q ) -blocks. Define the norm f H q p for f H q p ( R n ) as:
f H q p inf τ τ 1 ,
where τ = { τ j } j = 1 runs over all admissible expressions as above.
Finally, to state our result, we recall the definition of vector-valued Morrey spaces proposed by Ho [9]. Let E ( R n ) L 0 ( R n ) be a quasi-Banach lattice, and let p > 0 . Then, the E-based vector-valued Morrey space M E p ( R n ) is the set of all f L 0 ( R n ) for which:
f M E p sup Q Q | Q | 1 p χ Q f E χ Q E
is finite.
Recall that a quasi-Banach lattice E enjoys the Fatou property if sup j N f j E and lim j f j E = lim j N f j for any sequence { f j } j = 1 in E satisfying 0 f 1 f 2 . We make a brief remark on the relation among these notions introduced above.
Remark 1.
If χ Q E = | Q | 1 p for all cubes Q and if E has the Fatou property, then a simple observation shows M E p ( R n ) = E ( R n ) with the equivalence of norms. In particular, If E ( R n ) = H q p ( R n ) , then M E p ( R n ) = E ( R n ) .
We provide a complete picture of the description of PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) .
Theorem 4.
Let 0 < q i p i < , i = 1 , 2 :
  • If q 1 < q 2 or p 1 < p 2 , then PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) = { 0 } ;
  • If q 1 q 2 and p 1 = p 2 , then PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) = L ( R n ) ;
  • If q 1 q 2 and p 1 > p 2 , then PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) = M X q 2 p 3 ( R n ) , where p 3 and X are given by:
    p 3 = p 1 p 2 p 1 p 2 , X = H q 1 q 2 p 1 q 2 ( R n ) .
    In particular,
    PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M 1 p 2 ( R n ) ) = M H q 1 p 1 p 3 ( R n ) ,
    where p 3 is defined by p 3 = p 1 p 2 p 1 p 2 .
It is significant that Theorem 4 does not require q 1 p 1 q 2 p 2 , unlike Theorem 2. We give an equivalent form using the scale L p , λ ( R n ) .
Theorem 5.
Let p i ( 0 , ) and λ i [ 0 , n ) , i = 1 , 2 :
  • If p 1 < p 2 or p 1 n λ 1 < p 2 n λ 2 , then PWM ( L p 1 , λ 1 ( R n ) , L p 2 , λ 2 ( R n ) ) = { 0 } ;
  • If p 1 p 2 and p 1 n λ 1 = p 2 n λ 2 , then PWM ( L p 1 , λ 1 ( R n ) , L p 2 , λ 2 ( R n ) ) = L ( R n ) ;
  • If p 1 p 2 and p 1 n λ 1 > p 2 n λ 2 , then PWM ( L p 1 , λ 1 ( R n ) , L p 2 , λ 2 ( R n ) ) = M X p 2 v 3 ( R n ) , where v 3 and X are given by:
    n λ 1 p 1 n + 1 v 3 = n λ 2 p 2 n , X ( R n ) = H ( p 1 p 2 ) p 1 n p 2 ( n λ 1 ) ( R n ) .
We prove Theorem 4 in Section 4.1.
We combine Theorems 2 and 4 to have a nontrivial coincidence of function spaces.
Corollary 1.
Let q i ( 0 , ) and p i [ q i , ) , i = 1 , 2 . Assume that q 1 > q 2 and p 1 > p 2 . Write q 3 = q 1 q 2 q 1 q 2 , p 3 = p 1 p 2 p 1 p 2 and X ( R n ) = H q 1 q 2 p 1 q 2 ( R n ) . If q 1 p 1 q 2 p 2 , then M q 3 p 3 ( R n ) = M X q 2 p 3 ( R n ) .
A remark about Corollary 1 may be in order.
Remark 2.
Let X ( R n ) be as in Corollary 1, and let Y ( R n ) = L q 3 ( R n ) . Corollary 1 reveals that M Y p 3 ( R n ) = M X q 2 p 3 ( R n ) , although X ( R n ) q 2 Y ( R n ) .

2.2. Characterization of PWM ( w M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) )

Once we prove Theorem 4, we can pass the results above from M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) to w M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) with ease if 0 < q 2 < q 1 < . To describe the multiplier space PWM ( w M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) , we will recall the definition given in [11,12]:
Definition 2.
  • ([11], Definition 1.4.1) Let f : R n C be a measurable function. Then, define its decreasing rearrangement f by:
    f ( t ) = inf { λ > 0 : | { | f | > λ } | t } ;
  • ([11], Definition 1.4.6) Let 1 < p , q < . The Lorentz space L p , q is the set of all measurable functions f : R n C for which:
    f L p , q = 0 ( t 1 p f ( t ) ) q d t t 1 q
    is finite;
  • ([12], Definition 2.3) Let 1 < q p < . A measurable function b is said to be a ( p ; q , 1 ) -block if there exists a cube Q such that:
    supp ( b ) Q , b L q , 1 | Q | 1 p 1 q ;
  • ([12], Definition 2.3) Let 1 < q p < . The space H q , 1 p ( R n ) is the set of all L p ( R n ) -functions f for which there exist a sequence { λ j } j = 1 1 ( N ) and a sequence { b j } j = 1 of ( p ; q , 1 ) -blocks for which:
    f = j = 1 λ j b j
    in L p ( R n ) . For f H q , 1 p ( R n ) , one defines:
    f H q , 1 p = inf j = 1 | λ j | ,
    where inf is over all possible decompositions in ( 11 ) .
Concerning Lorentz spaces, a couple of remarks may be in order:
Remark 3.
Let 0 < p , p 1 , p 2 , q , q 1 , q 2 :
  • Let G be a measurable set in R n . Then:
    χ G L p , q = p q 1 q | G | 1 p ,
    where we understand ( p / q ) 1 / q = 1 for q = . See [11], Example 1.4.8;
  • Assume that:
    1 p = 1 p 1 + 1 p 2 , 1 q = 1 q 1 + 1 q 2 .
    Then:
    f · g L p , q e 1 p f L p 1 , q 1 g L p 2 , q 2
    for all f L p 1 , q 1 ( R n ) and g L p 2 , q 2 ( R n ) , or equivalently:
    g PWM ( L p 1 , q 1 , L p , q ) e 1 p g L p 2 , q 2
    for all g L p 2 , q 2 ( R n ) . See [8], p. 6, Corollary 3, for the precise constant;
  • We have an equivalent expression if p > 1 : For all f L 0 ( R n ) ,
    f w L p = f L p , sup | E | 1 p 1 f L 1 ( E ) : E   i s   a   m e a s u r a b l e   s e t   w i t h   | E | ( 0 , ) .
    See [11], Exercise 1.1.12.
Theorem 6.
Let 0 < q i p i < , i = 1 , 2 . If p 1 > p 2 and q 1 q 2 , then:
PWM ( w M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) = M X q 2 p 3 ( R n ) ,
where p 3 and X are given by:
p 3 = p 1 p 2 p 1 p 2 , X = H q 1 q 2 , 1 p 1 q 2 ( R n ) .
We prove Theorem 6 in Section 4.2.
The special case of p 1 = q 1 > p 2 = q 2 deserves attention.
Corollary 2.
In addition to the assumption in Theorem 6, we let p 1 = q 1 > p 2 = q 2 . Then:
PWM ( w L p 1 ( R n ) , L p 2 ( R n ) ) = M X p 2 p 3 ( R n ) ,
where p 3 and X are given by:
p 3 = p 1 p 2 p 1 p 2 , X = H p 1 p 2 , 1 p 1 p 2 ( R n ) .
We complement Corollary 2.
Proposition 1.
Let 0 < q i p i < , i = 1 , 2 . If either one of the following conditions holds, then:
PWM ( w M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) = { 0 } :
  • p 1 < p 2 ;
  • q 1 < q 2 ;
  • p 1 = p 2 and q 1 = q 2 .
We prove Proposition 1 in Section 4.3.
If p 1 = p 2 and q 1 > q 2 , then we have something similar to the case of classical Morrey spaces.
Proposition 2.
Let 0 < q i p i < , i = 1 , 2 . Assume p 1 = p 2 and q 1 > q 2 . Then:
PWM ( w M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) = L ( R n ) .
We prove Proposition 2 in Section 4.4.

2.3. Characterization of PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , w M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) )

Next, we pass from M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) to w M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) .
Theorem 4 allows us to characterize PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , w M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) .
Theorem 7.
Let 0 < q i p i < , i = 1 , 2 , satisfy p 1 > p 2 and q 1 q 2 . Define p 3 by:
1 p 3 = 1 p 2 + 1 q 2 1 p 1 .
Then. a function h L 0 ( R n ) belongs to PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , w M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) if and only if χ E h M H q 1 p 1 p 3 ( R n ) for all measurable sets E with | E | ( 0 , ) and:
sup { | E | 1 q 2 1 χ E h M H q 1 p 1 p 3 : E   i s   a   m e a s u r a b l e   s e t   w i t h   | E | ( 0 , ) } < .
In this case,
h PWM ( M q 1 p 1 , w M q 2 p 2 ) sup { | E | 1 q 2 1 χ E h M H q 1 p 1 p 3 : E   i s   a   m e a s u r a b l e   s e t   w i t h   | E | ( 0 , ) } .
We prove Theorem 7 in Section 4.5.
We supplement Theorem 7 by considering the case of p 1 p 2 .
Proposition 3.
Let 0 < q i p i < , i = 1 , 2 :
  • Assume p 1 < p 2 or q 1 < q 2 . Then:
    PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , w M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) = { 0 } ;
  • Assume p 1 = p 2 and q 1 q 2 . Then:
    PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , w M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) = L ( R n ) .
We prove Proposition 3 in Section 4.6.

2.4. Characterization of PWM ( w M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , w M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) )

Finally, we pass both M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) and M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) to w M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) and w M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) , respectively. The proof is a mere combination of Theorems 6 and 7. Therefore, we omit the detail again.
Theorem 8.
Let 0 < q i p i < , i = 1 , 2 , satisfy p 1 > p 2 and q 1 q 2 . Define p 3 by:
1 p 3 = 1 p 2 + 1 q 2 1 p 1 .
Then h L 0 ( R n ) belongs to PWM ( w M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , w M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) if and only if χ E h M H q 1 , 1 p 1 p 3 ( R n ) for all measurable sets E with | E | ( 0 , ) and:
sup { | E | 1 q 2 1 χ E h M H q 1 , 1 p 1 p 3 : E   i s   a   m e a s u r a b l e   s e t   w i t h   | E | ( 0 , ) } <
and in this case:
h PWM ( w M q 1 p 1 , w M q 2 p 2 ) sup { | E | 1 q 2 1 χ E h M H q 1 , 1 p 1 p 3 : E   i s   a   m e a s u r a b l e   s e t   w i t h   | E | ( 0 , ) } .
In particular, h L 0 ( R n ) belongs to PWM ( w L p 1 ( R n ) , w L p 2 ( R n ) ) if and only if, for all measurable sets E with | E | ( 0 , ) , χ E h M H p 1 , 1 p 1 p 1 ( R n ) and
sup { | E | 1 p 2 1 χ E h M H p 1 , 1 p 1 p 1 : E   i s   a   m e a s u r a b l e   s e t   w i t h   | E | ( 0 , ) } <
and in this case:
h PWM ( w L p 1 , w L p 2 ) sup { | E | 1 p 2 1 χ E h M H p 1 , 1 p 1 p 1 : E   i s   a   m e a s u r a b l e   s e t   w i t h   | E | ( 0 , ) } .
In the above, the implicit constants do not depend on h.
In Theorem 8, the case of p 1 p 2 is covered in Theorem 3.
It seems to make sense to compare Theorems 7 and 8 with an existing result. Let p 1 = q 1 and p 2 = q 2 in Theorems 7 and 8.
Corollary 3.
Let 0 < p 2 < p 1 < . Then:
PWM ( L p 1 ( R n ) , w L p 2 ( R n ) ) = PWM ( w L p 1 ( R n ) , w L p 2 ( R n ) ) = w L p 1 p 2 p 1 p 2 ( R n ) .
In [8], Corollary 3, the first author showed the second equality in (13). We reprove Corollary 3 by the use of Theorems 7 and 8 in Section 4.7.

3. Preliminaries

For the proof of the theorems in the present paper, we use a scaling property. Arithmetic shows that the following scaling property holds:
Lemma 1.
([5], (g) p. 326) Let E 1 and E 2 be quasi-Banach lattices, and let u > 0 . Then:
PWM ( E 1 u , E 2 u ) = PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) u .
We move on to the convexification of E-based Morrey spaces. Actually, as the next lemma shows, E-based Morrey spaces are closed under the convexification of quasi-Banach lattices.
Lemma 2.
Let E L 0 ( R n ) be a quasi-Banach lattice and p , u > 0 . Then: ( M E p u ( R n ) ) u = M E u p ( R n ) .
Proof. 
For f L 0 ( R n ) , a direct computation shows:
f M E u p = sup Q Q | Q | 1 p χ Q f E u χ Q E u = sup Q Q | Q | u p χ Q | f | u E χ Q E 1 u = | f | u M E p u 1 u = f ( M E p u ) u .
We also investigate how M E p ( R n ) inherits the dilation property from E.
Lemma 3.
We have f ( t · ) M E p = t n p f M E p for all f M E p ( R n ) and t > 0 as long as E is subject to the scaling law g ( t · ) E = t n u g E for some u > 0 and for all g E and t > 0 .
Proof. 
The proof is straightforward, and we omit the detail. □
Remark that Lemma 3 is not used for the proof of the main results in the present paper. However, Lemma 3 allows us to compare the scaling laws in the function spaces in question.
In Section 2, we introduced block spaces together with some of their variants. We recall that these spaces can be identified with the Köthe dual of Morrey spaces.
If E is a Banach lattice, then recall that its “Köthe dual” E is defined in L 0 ( R n ) by the set of all g L 0 ( R n ) such that:
g E sup f · g L 1 : f L 0 ( R n ) , f E 1 < .
We can specify the Köthe dual of Morrey spaces as follows:
Lemma 4.
  • Let 1 q p < . Then, the Köthe dual of M q p ( R n ) is H q p ( R n ) with the coincidence of norms;
  • Let 1 < q p < . Then, the Köthe dual of w M q p ( R n ) is isomorphic to H q , 1 p ( R n ) with the equivalence of norms.
Lemma 4 is a culmination of what we proved in various papers. See [13], Theorem 3.1, for 1. with q = 1 , and see [14], Theorem 4.1, for example, for 1. with 1 < q < , while 2. was proven in [12], Theorem 2.7.
A direct consequence of Lemma 4 is that we have:
χ Q H q p = | Q | 1 p
for all cubes Q.
When E 1 and E 2 are both homogeneous in the sense that the translation operator induces isomorphism, we can mollify PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) . Furthermore, in this case, by the next lemma, we see that the functions in PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) do not increase the local integrability of the functions.
Lemma 5.
Let E 1 , E 2 be Banach lattices, which are translation invariant in the sense that h ( · y ) E j = h E j for all h E j , j = 1 , 2 . Assume that E 1 and E 2 enjoy the Fatou property and that E 2 L loc u ( R n ) for some u ( 0 , ) :
  • χ [ 0 , 1 ] n E 1 E 2 .
  • The space PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) is a translation-invariant Banach lattice, and any element in PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) is almost everywhere finite;
  • If f L 1 ( R n ) and g PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) , then f g PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) and:
    f g PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) f L 1 g PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) .
    In particular, for almost all x R n ,
    R n | g ( x y ) f ( y ) | d y < .
  • If PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) { 0 } , then χ [ 1 , 1 ] n PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) .
  • PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) L loc u ( R n ) .
  • If there exists a function f E 1 L loc u ( R n ) , then PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) = { 0 } .
Proof. 
  • We concentrate on E 1 ; E 2 can be dealt with similarly. Let f E 1 be a nonzero function. By truncation, the linearity of E 1 , and the lattice property of E 1 , we may assume that f = χ F for some bounded measurable set F. Notice that:
    g N : = 1 N n k 1 = 1 N k 2 = 1 N k n = 1 N f · ( k 1 , k 2 , , k n ) N E 1
    satisfies g N E 1 f E 1 due to the translation invariance and the triangle inequality. Since g N χ [ 0 , 1 ] n f in the topology of L 1 ( R n ) as N , by the Fatou property of E 1 , χ [ 0 , 1 ] n f E 1 . Since χ [ 0 , 1 ] n f L 1 = | F | > 0 , it follows that χ [ 0 , 1 ] n f is a nonzero continuous function. By the translation invariance and the lattice property of E 1 , it follows that χ [ 0 , 1 ] n E 1 ;
  • Let g PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) and y R n . Then:
    g ( · y ) f E 2 = f ( · + y ) g E 2 g PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) f ( · + y ) E 1 = g PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) f E 1
    for all f E 1 . Thus, we see that g ( · y ) PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) and that:
    g ( · y ) PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) g PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) .
    Likewise, if we swap the role of g and g ( · y ) , then we have:
    g PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) g ( · y ) PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) .
    Thus, PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) is translation invariant. Since E 2 is a Banach lattice, we see that PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) is a Banach lattice. To check that any element g PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) is finite almost everywhere, we only need to show that g χ [ 1 , 1 ] n is finite almost everywhere. Assume otherwise; F : = { x [ 1 , 1 ] n : | g ( x ) | = } has a positive measure. Then, χ F PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) since χ F | g | PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) . Thus, χ F = χ F · χ [ 1 , 1 ] n E 2 . This implies that χ F E 2 ( 0 , ) . However, this is a contradiction since > g χ [ 1 , 1 ] n E 2 χ F E 2 = ;
  • We prove:
    | f | | g | PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) and | f | | g | PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) f L 1 g PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) ,
    which is slightly stronger than (16). For h E 1 , we have:
    h · | f | | g | E 2 R n h ( · ) g ( · y ) f ( y ) E 2 d y = R n h ( · + y ) g ( · ) f ( y ) E 2 d y g PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) R n h ( · + y ) f ( y ) E 1 d y = g PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) R n h ( · + y ) E 1 | f ( y ) | d y = g PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) R n h E 1 | f ( y ) | d y = g PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) f L 1 h E 1 .
    Finally, (17) is a consequence of 2. and the fact that:
    R n | f ( · y ) g ( y ) | d y = | f | | g | PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) ;
  • If PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) { 0 } , then by the lattice property of PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) , there exists a nonzero and non-negative function g PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) . By 1., χ [ R , R ] n g PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) { 0 } . If we choose R 1 large enough, then χ [ R , R ] n g κ χ [ 1 , 1 ] n for some κ > 0 . Due to the lattice property of PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) , we obtain χ [ 1 , 1 ] n PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) ;
  • By 2., the lattice property, and the translation invariance of E 1 , χ K E 1 for all compact sets K. Thus, if f PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) , then χ K f E 2 L loc u ( R n ) ;
  • Assume PWM ( E 1 , E 2 ) { 0 } . By translation, we may assume f χ [ 1 , 1 ] n L loc u ( R n ) . Meanwhile, by 3., | f χ [ 1 , 1 ] n | E 2 L loc u ( R n ) . This is a contradiction.

4. Proof of the Main Results

4.1. Proof of Theorem 4

The proof of Theorem 4 is not so long. Furthermore, the statements in Theorem 4, 1. and 2. are already included in Theorem 2. Therefore, we consider 3. solely. First, assume that p 2 = q 2 = 1 . In this case, we need to find a description of PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , L 1 ( R n ) ) . According to [5], this is nothing but the Köthe dual of M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) . In this case, it remains to note that H q 1 p 1 ( R n ) = M H q 1 p 1 p 1 ( R n ) thanks to Remark 1 and that p 1 = p 3 q 2 = p 3 .
Next, we assume that p 2 > q 2 = 1 . Then by the definition of M 1 p 2 ( R n ) , g L 0 ( R n ) belongs to PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) = PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M 1 p 2 ( R n ) ) if and only if | Q | 1 p 2 1 χ Q g PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , L 1 ( R n ) ) for each Q Q and fulfills:
sup Q Q | Q | 1 p 2 1 χ Q g PWM ( M q 1 p 1 , L 1 ) < .
According to the previous paragraph, this is equivalent to | Q | 1 p 2 1 χ Q g H q 1 p 1 ( R n ) for each Q Q and sup Q Q | Q | 1 p 2 1 χ Q g H q 1 p 1 = sup Q Q | Q | 1 p 3 χ Q g H q 1 p 1 χ Q H q 1 p 1 < , i.e., g M H q 1 p 1 p 3 ( R n ) .
We handle the general case. Let L > 0 . According to Lemma 1,
g PWM ( M L q 1 L p 1 ( R n ) , M L q 2 L p 2 ( R n ) )
if and only if | g | L PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) . Therefore, from Lemma 2 and what we proved in the previous paragraph, we deduce:
PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) = PWM ( M q 1 q 2 p 1 q 2 ( R n ) , M 1 p 2 q 2 ( R n ) ) q 2 = M X p 3 q 2 ( R n ) q 2 = M X q 2 p 3 ( R n ) .
The proof is therefore complete.

4.2. Proof of Theorem 6

In the proof of Theorem 4, we may replace M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) by w M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) . Then, accordingly, we have to replace H q 1 q 2 p 1 q 2 ( R n ) by H q 1 q 2 , 1 p 1 q 2 ( R n ) . Thus, the proof is similar to Theorem 4.

4.3. Proof of Proposition 1

We may assume q 1 , q 2 > 1 by the scaling argument by Lemma 1:
  • Since q 1 , q 2 > 1 , we may regard w M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) and M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) as Banach spaces as in (12). Assume:
    PWM ( w M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) { 0 } .
    Then, χ [ 1 , 1 ] n PWM ( w M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) by virtue of Lemma 5, 4.. This implies f · χ [ 1 , 1 ] n M q 2 p 2 g PWM ( w M q 1 p 1 , M q 2 p 2 ) f w M q 1 p 1 for all f w M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) . If we substitute f ( t · ) instead of f into this condition, we obtain f · χ [ t , t ] n M q 2 p 2 t n p 2 n p 1 g PWM ( w M q 1 p 1 , M q 2 p 2 ) f w M q 1 p 1 . Since p 2 > p 1 , if we let t , then we have f M q 2 p 2 = 0 for all f w M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) . This is a contradiction;
  • Let r ( q 1 , q 2 ) . According to [15], p. 67 (see also [3], Theorem 2.2 and Remark 2.3, and [16], Theorem 4.9), there exists f M r p 1 ( R n ) L q 2 ( R n ) such that supp ( f ) [ 0 , 1 ] n . Thus, we are in the position of using Lemma 5, 6. to have the conclusion;
  • By virtue of Lemma 5, 4., if:
    PWM ( w M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) = PWM ( w M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) ) { 0 } ,
    then χ [ 1 , 1 ] n PWM ( w M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) ) . Then, for f w M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) and r > 0 ,
    χ [ r , r ] n f M q 1 p 1 = r n p 1 χ [ 1 , 1 ] n f ( r · ) M q 1 p 1 χ [ 1 , 1 ] n PWM ( w M q 1 p 1 , M q 1 p 1 ) r n p 1 f ( r · ) w M q 1 p 1 = χ [ 1 , 1 ] n PWM ( w M q 1 p 1 , M q 1 p 1 ) f w M q 1 p 1 .
    Letting r , we obtain:
    f M q 1 p 1 χ [ 1 , 1 ] n PWM ( w M q 1 p 1 , M q 1 p 1 ) f w M q 1 p 1 .
    This implies w M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) . This is impossible; see [16,17] as well as [18], Section 4.

4.4. Proof of Proposition 2

Thanks to Theorem 2 and the embedding:
M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) w M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) M q 2 p 1 ( R n ) ,
we have:
L ( R n ) = PWM ( M q 2 p 1 ( R n ) , M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) PWM ( w M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) = L ( R n ) .

4.5. Proof of Theorem 7

We may assume q 1 , q 2 > 1 by Lemma 1. The proof of Theorem 7 is a direct combination of Theorem 4 and Lemma 6 below.
Lemma 6.
Let 1 < q i p i < , i = 1 , 2 . Assume p 1 > p 2 and q 1 q 2 . Define r > 0 by:
1 r = 1 p 2 1 q 2 + 1 .
Then, f L 0 ( R n ) belongs to PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , w M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) if and only if, for all measurable sets E with | E | ( 0 , ) , χ E f PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M 1 r ( R n ) ) and:
sup { | E | 1 q 2 1 χ E f PWM ( M q 1 p 1 , M 1 r ) : E   i s   a   m e a s u r a b l e   s e t   w i t h   | E | ( 0 , ) } < .
In this case,
f PWM ( M q 1 p 1 , w M q 2 p 2 ) sup { | E | 1 q 2 1 χ E f PWM ( M q 1 p 1 , M 1 r ) : E   i s   a   m e a s u r a b l e   s e t   w i t h   | E | ( 0 , ) } .
Once Lemma 6 is established, Theorem 4 immediately gives the proof of Theorem 7. Therefore, we concentrate on Lemma 6.
Proof of Lemma 6.
Let h L 0 ( R n ) . Thanks to (12), h w M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) if and only if χ E h M 1 p 2 ( R n ) for all measurable sets E with | E | ( 0 , ) and:
sup Q sup E | Q | 1 p 2 1 q 2 | E | 1 q 2 1 χ E Q h L 1 = sup E | E | 1 q 2 1 χ E h M 1 r < ,
where E moves over all measurable sets with 0 < | E | < . Therefore, supposing that E moves over all measurable sets with | E | ( 0 , ) , we obtain:
f PWM ( M q 1 p 1 , w M q 2 p 2 ) = sup { f · g w M q 2 p 2 : g M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , g M q 1 p 1 = 1 } sup E sup { | E | 1 q 2 1 f · g · χ E M 1 r : g M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , g M q 1 p 1 = 1 } = sup E | E | 1 q 2 1 f χ E PWM ( M q 1 p 1 , M 1 r ) ,
as required. □

4.6. Proof of Proposition 3

  • Suppose p 1 < p 2 . We can go through the same argument as Proposition 1, 2. to conclude that by using the function:
    χ B ( x 0 , r ) | · x 0 | n ( p 1 + p 2 ) 2 p 1 p 2 M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) w M q 2 p 2 ( R n )
    for some x 0 R n and r > 0 . If q 1 < q 2 , then we take r 1 , r 2 so that q 1 < r 1 < r 2 < q 2 . Then, we have:
    PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , w M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) PWM ( w M r 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M r 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) = { 0 }
    thanks to Proposition 1, 2.;
  • It is clear that:
    L ( R n ) PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , w M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) .
    Thus, it suffices to show that:
    PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , w M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) L ( R n ) .
    To this end, let g PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , w M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) . Then:
    | Q | 1 p 2 1 q 2 g χ Q w L q 2 g PWM ( M q 1 p 1 , w M q 2 p 2 ) | Q | 1 p 1 = g PWM ( M q 1 p 1 , w M q 2 p 2 ) | Q | 1 p 2 .
    Thus, by the Lebesgue differentiation theorem, we obtain:
    g L g PWM ( M q 1 p 1 , w M q 2 p 2 ) ,
    as required.

4.7. Proof of Corollary 3

Theorems 7 and 8 can be shown to recover this result as follows:
  • Thanks to the fact that χ Q H p 1 p 1 = χ Q L p 1 and the Fatou property of H p 1 p 1 ( R n ) established in [14], M H p 1 p 1 p 1 ( R n ) coincides with L p 1 ( R n ) . Thus, according to [11], Exercise 1.4.14, we see that PWM ( L p 1 ( R n ) , w L p 2 ( R n ) ) = w L p 1 p 2 p 1 p 2 ( R n ) ;
  • Using Lemma 4, we deduce:
    sup { | E | 1 p 2 1 χ E h H p 1 , 1 p 1 : E   i s   a   m e a s u r a b l e   s e t   w i t h   | E | ( 0 , ) } sup { | E | 1 p 2 1 χ E h L p 1 : E   i s   a   m e a s u r a b l e   s e t   w i t h   | E | ( 0 , ) } h w L p 1 p 2 p 1 p 2 .
    Let r 1 be a number slightly less than p 1 , so that r 1 is slightly larger than p 1 . Define v 1 by:
    1 p 1 = 1 v 1 + 1 r 1 .
    Thanks to Remark 3,
    χ E h L p 1 , 1 χ E L v 1 , 1 h w L r 1 | E | 1 v 1 h w L r 1
    for all h w L p 1 ( R n ) . Using this estimate and Remark 1, we have:
    χ E h M H p 1 , 1 p 1 p 1 χ E h H p 1 , 1 p 1 sup { χ E g h L 1 : g w M p 1 p 1 ( R n ) , g w M p 1 p 1 1 } = sup { χ E g h L 1 : g w L p 1 ( R n ) , g w L p 1 1 } χ E h w L p 1 | E | 1 v 1 χ E h w L r 1 .
    Thus, it follows from the embedding L r 1 ( R n ) w L r 1 ( R n ) that:
    sup { | E | 1 p 2 1 χ E h H p 1 , 1 p 1 : E   i s   a   m e a s u r a b l e   s e t   w i t h   | E | ( 0 , ) } sup { | E | 1 p 2 + 1 v 1 1 χ E h L r 1 : E   i s   a   m e a s u r a b l e   s e t   w i t h   | E | ( 0 , ) } = sup { | E | p 1 p 2 p 1 p 2 1 r 1 χ E h L r 1 : E   i s   a   m e a s u r a b l e   s e t   w i t h   | E | ( 0 , ) } .
    Invoking [11], Exercise 1.4.14, once again, one obtains:
    sup { | E | 1 p 2 1 χ E h H p 1 , 1 p 1 : E   i s   a   m e a s u r a b l e   s e t   w i t h   | E | ( 0 , ) } h w L p 1 p 2 p 1 p 2 .
    Thus, Theorems 7 and 8 can recover the result in [8].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.N. and Y.S.; methodology, E.N. and Y.S.; software, E.N. and Y.S.; validation, E.N. and Y.S.; formal analysis, E.N. and Y.S.; investigation, E.N. and Y.S.; resources, E.N. and Y.S.; data curation, E.N. and Y.S.; writing—original draft preparation, E.N. and Y.S.; writing—review and editing, E.N. and Y.S.; visualization, E.N. and Y.S.; supervision, E.N. and Y.S.; project administration, E.N. and Y.S.; funding acquisition, E.N. and Y.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The first author was supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B), No. 15H03621, and, Research (C), No. 21K03304, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. The second author was supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) No. 16K05209, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kawasumi, R.; Nakai, E. Pointwise multipliers on weak Morrey spaces. Anal. Geom. Metr. Spaces 2020, 8, 363–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Nakai, E. Pointwise multipliers on the Morrey spaces. Mem. Osaka Kyouiku Univ. III Natur. Sci. Appl. Sci. 1997, 46, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  3. Nakai, E. A characterization of pointwise multipliers on the Morrey spaces, Sci. Math. 2000, 3, 445–454. [Google Scholar]
  4. Nakai, E. Pointwise multipliers on several function spaces—A survey. Linear Nonlinear Anal. 2017, 3, 27–59. [Google Scholar]
  5. Maligranda, L.; Persson, L.E. Generalized duality of some Banach function spaces. Indag. Math. (Proc.) 1989, 92, 323–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Lemarié-Rieusset, P.G. Multipliers and Morrey spaces. Potential Anal. 2013, 38, 741–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Peetre, J. On convolution operators leaving Lp,λ spaces invariant. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 1966, 72, 295–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Nakai, E. Pointwise Multipliers on the Lorentz Spaces. Mem. Osaka Kyouiku Univ. III Natur. Sci. Appl. Sci. 1996, 45, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  9. Ho, K.-P. Vector-valued operators with singular kernel and Triebel–Lizorkin block spaces with variable exponents. Kyoto J. Math. 2016, 56, 97–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Long, R.L. The spaces generated by blocks. Sci. Sin. Ser. A 1984, 27, 16–26. [Google Scholar]
  11. Grafakos, L. Classical Fourier Analysis. In Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 2nd ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; Volume 249. [Google Scholar]
  12. Sawano, Y.; El-Shabrawy, S.R. Weak Morrey spaces with applications. Math. Nachr. 2018, 291, 178–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mastyło, M.; Sawano, Y.; Tanaka, H. Morrey type space and its Köthe dual space. Bull. Malays. Math. Soc. 2018, 41, 1181–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sawano, Y.; Tanaka, H. The Fatou property of block spaces. J. Math. Sci. Univ. Tokyo 2015, 22, 663–683. [Google Scholar]
  15. Giaquinta, M. Multiple Integrals in the Calculus of Variations and Nonlinear Elliptic Systems; Annals of Mathematics Studies; Princeton Universiy Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1983; Volume 105. [Google Scholar]
  16. Nakai, E. Orlicz–Morrey spaces and the Hardy–Littlewood maximal function. Studia Math. 2008, 188, 193–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gunawan, H.; Hakim, D.I.; Nakai, E.; Sawano, Y. On inclusion relation between weak Morrey spaces and Morrey spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2018, 168, 27–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Mastyło, M.; Sawano, Y. Complex interpolation and Calderón–Mityagin couples of Morrey spaces. Anal. PDE 2019, 12, 1711–1740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) .
Table 1. PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) .
p 1 < p 2 p 1 = p 2 p 1 > p 2
q 1 < q 2 Theorem 2Theorem 2Theorem 2
q 1 = q 2 Theorem 2Theorem 2Theorem 4
q 1 > q 2 Theorem 2Theorem 2Theorem 4
Table 2. PWM ( w M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) .
Table 2. PWM ( w M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) .
p 1 < p 2 p 1 = p 2 p 1 > p 2
q 1 < q 2 Proposition 1, 1 and 2.Proposition 1, 2.Proposition 1, 2.
q 1 = q 2 Proposition 1, 1.Propositions 1, 3.Theorem 6
q 1 > q 2 Proposition 1, 1.Proposition 2Theorem 6
Table 3. PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , w M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) .
Table 3. PWM ( M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , w M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) .
p 1 < p 2 p 1 = p 2 p 1 > p 2
q 1 < q 2 Proposition 3, 1.Proposition 3, 1.Proposition 3, 1.
q 1 = q 2 Proposition 3, 1.Proposition 3, 2.Theorem 7
q 1 > q 2 Proposition 3, 1.Proposition 3, 2.Theorem 7
Table 4. PWM ( w M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , w M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) .
Table 4. PWM ( w M q 1 p 1 ( R n ) , w M q 2 p 2 ( R n ) ) .
p 1 < p 2 p 1 = p 2 p 1 > p 2
q 1 < q 2 Theorem 3Theorem 3Theorem 3
q 1 = q 2 Theorem 3Theorem 3Theorem 8
q 1 > q 2 Theorem 3Theorem 3Theorem 8
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nakai, E.; Sawano, Y. Spaces of Pointwise Multipliers on Morrey Spaces and Weak Morrey Spaces. Mathematics 2021, 9, 2754. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9212754

AMA Style

Nakai E, Sawano Y. Spaces of Pointwise Multipliers on Morrey Spaces and Weak Morrey Spaces. Mathematics. 2021; 9(21):2754. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9212754

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nakai, Eiichi, and Yoshihiro Sawano. 2021. "Spaces of Pointwise Multipliers on Morrey Spaces and Weak Morrey Spaces" Mathematics 9, no. 21: 2754. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9212754

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop