Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Some Intrinsic Characterizations of Besov-Triebel-Lizorkin-Morrey-type Spaces on Lipschitz Domains

Liding Yao Liding Yao, Department of Mathematics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210 yao.1015@osu.edu
Abstract.

We give Littlewood-Paley type characterizations for Besov-Triebel-Lizorkin-type spaces pqsτ,pqsτsuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏\mathscr{B}_{pq}^{s\tau},\mathscr{F}_{pq}^{s\tau}script_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and Besov-Morrey spaces 𝒩uqpssuperscriptsubscript𝒩𝑢𝑞𝑝𝑠\mathcal{N}_{uqp}^{s}caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u italic_q italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT on a special Lipschitz domain ΩnΩsuperscript𝑛\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}roman_Ω ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT: for a suitable sequence of Schwartz functions (ϕj)j=0superscriptsubscriptsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑗0(\phi_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT,

fpqsτ(Ω)subscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏Ω\displaystyle\|f\|_{\mathscr{B}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\Omega)}∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT supP dyadic cubes|P|τ(2jsϕjf)j=log2(P)q(Lp(ΩP));absentsubscriptsupremum𝑃 dyadic cubessuperscript𝑃𝜏subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑓𝑗subscript2𝑃superscript𝑞superscript𝐿𝑝Ω𝑃\displaystyle\textstyle\approx\sup_{P\text{ dyadic cubes}}|P|^{-\tau}\|(2^{js}% \phi_{j}\ast f)_{j=\log_{2}\ell(P)}^{\infty}\|_{\ell^{q}(L^{p}(\Omega\cap P))};≈ roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P dyadic cubes end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_P | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = roman_log start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ ( italic_P ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ∩ italic_P ) ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ;
fpqsτ(Ω)subscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏Ω\displaystyle\|f\|_{\mathscr{F}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\Omega)}∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT supP dyadic cubes|P|τ(2jsϕjf)j=log2(P)Lp(ΩP;q);absentsubscriptsupremum𝑃 dyadic cubessuperscript𝑃𝜏subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑓𝑗subscript2𝑃superscript𝐿𝑝Ω𝑃superscript𝑞\displaystyle\textstyle\approx\sup_{P\text{ dyadic cubes}}|P|^{-\tau}\|(2^{js}% \phi_{j}\ast f)_{j=\log_{2}\ell(P)}^{\infty}\|_{L^{p}(\Omega\cap P;\ell^{q})};≈ roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P dyadic cubes end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_P | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = roman_log start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ ( italic_P ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ∩ italic_P ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ;
f𝒩uqps(Ω)subscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒩𝑢𝑞𝑝𝑠Ω\displaystyle\|f\|_{\mathcal{N}_{uqp}^{s}(\Omega)}∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u italic_q italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (supP dyadic cubes|P|1u1p2jsϕjfLp(ΩP))j=0q.absentsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsubscriptsupremum𝑃 dyadic cubessuperscript𝑃1𝑢1𝑝superscript2𝑗𝑠subscriptnormsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑓superscript𝐿𝑝Ω𝑃𝑗0superscript𝑞\displaystyle\textstyle\approx\big{\|}\big{(}\sup_{P\text{ dyadic cubes}}|P|^{% \frac{1}{u}-\frac{1}{p}}\cdot 2^{js}\|\phi_{j}\ast f\|_{L^{p}(\Omega\cap P)}% \big{)}_{j=0}^{\infty}\big{\|}_{\ell^{q}}.≈ ∥ ( roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P dyadic cubes end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_P | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_u end_ARG - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ∩ italic_P ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

We also show that fpqsτ(Ω)subscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏Ω\|f\|_{\mathscr{B}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\Omega)}∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, fpqsτ(Ω)subscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏Ω\|f\|_{\mathscr{F}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\Omega)}∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and f𝒩uqps(Ω)subscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒩𝑢𝑞𝑝𝑠Ω\|f\|_{\mathcal{N}_{uqp}^{s}(\Omega)}∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u italic_q italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT have equivalent (quasi-)norms via derivatives: for 𝒳{pq,τ,pq,τ,𝒩uqp}superscript𝒳superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝜏superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝜏superscriptsubscript𝒩𝑢𝑞𝑝\mathscr{X}^{\bullet}\in\{\mathscr{B}_{pq}^{\bullet,\tau},\mathscr{F}_{pq}^{% \bullet,\tau},\mathcal{N}_{uqp}^{\bullet}\}script_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∙ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ { script_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∙ , italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∙ , italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u italic_q italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∙ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT }, we have f𝒳s(Ω)|α|mαf𝒳sm(Ω)subscriptnorm𝑓superscript𝒳𝑠Ωsubscript𝛼𝑚subscriptnormsuperscript𝛼𝑓superscript𝒳𝑠𝑚Ω\|f\|_{\mathscr{X}^{s}(\Omega)}\approx\sum_{|\alpha|\leq m}\|\partial^{\alpha}% f\|_{\mathscr{X}^{s-m}(\Omega)}∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_α | ≤ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s - italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

In particular fqs(Ω)|α|mαfqsm(Ω)supP|P|n/q(2jsϕjf)j=log2(P)q(Lq(ΩP))subscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑞𝑠Ωsubscript𝛼𝑚subscriptnormsuperscript𝛼𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑞𝑠𝑚Ωsubscriptsupremum𝑃superscript𝑃𝑛𝑞subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑓𝑗subscript2𝑃superscript𝑞superscript𝐿𝑞Ω𝑃\|f\|_{\mathscr{F}_{\infty q}^{s}(\Omega)}\approx\sum_{|\alpha|\leq m}\|% \partial^{\alpha}f\|_{\mathscr{F}_{\infty q}^{s-m}(\Omega)}\approx\sup_{P}|P|^% {-n/q}\|(2^{js}\phi_{j}\ast f)_{j=\log_{2}\ell(P)}^{\infty}\|_{\ell^{q}(L^{q}(% \Omega\cap P))}∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_α | ≤ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s - italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_P | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_n / italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = roman_log start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ ( italic_P ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ∩ italic_P ) ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Key words and phrases:
Rychkov’s extension operator, Lipschitz domains, Besov-type space, Triebel-Lizorkin-type space, Besov-Morrey space
2020 Mathematics Subject Classification:
46E35 (primary), 42B35 and 42B25 (secondary)

1. Introduction

Let ΩnΩsuperscript𝑛\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}roman_Ω ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a special Lipschitz domain, that is, ΩΩ\Omegaroman_Ω is of the form {(x,xn):xn>ρ(x)}conditional-setsuperscript𝑥subscript𝑥𝑛subscript𝑥𝑛𝜌superscript𝑥\{(x^{\prime},x_{n}):x_{n}>\rho(x^{\prime})\}{ ( italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) : italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > italic_ρ ( italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) } where ρ:n1:𝜌superscript𝑛1\rho:\mathbb{R}^{n-1}\to\mathbb{R}italic_ρ : blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → blackboard_R is a Lipschitz function such that ρL<subscriptnorm𝜌superscript𝐿\|\nabla\rho\|_{L^{\infty}}<\infty∥ ∇ italic_ρ ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ∞. (See also [Tri06, Definition 1.103].)

In [Ryc99], based on the construction of his extension operator, Rychkov gave a Littlewood-Paley type intrinsic characterization of the Triebel-Lizorkin spaces on ΩΩ\Omegaroman_Ω: for 0<p<0𝑝0<p<\infty0 < italic_p < ∞, 0<q0𝑞0<q\leq\infty0 < italic_q ≤ ∞ and s𝑠s\in\mathbb{R}italic_s ∈ blackboard_R, pqs(Ω)superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠Ω\mathscr{F}_{pq}^{s}(\Omega)script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) has the following equivalent (quasi-)norm (see [Ryc99, Theorem 3.2]):

(1) f(2jsϕjf)j=0q(0;Lp(Ω))=(Ω(j=02jsq|ϕjf(x)|q)p/q𝑑x)1/p.maps-to𝑓subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑓𝑗0superscript𝑞subscriptabsent0superscript𝐿𝑝ΩsuperscriptsubscriptΩsuperscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑗0superscript2𝑗𝑠𝑞superscriptsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑓𝑥𝑞𝑝𝑞differential-d𝑥1𝑝f\mapsto\|(2^{js}\phi_{j}\ast f)_{j=0}^{\infty}\|_{\ell^{q}(\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0% };L^{p}(\Omega))}=\bigg{(}\int_{\Omega}\Big{(}\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}2^{jsq}|\phi_% {j}\ast f(x)|^{q}\Big{)}^{p/q}dx\bigg{)}^{1/p}.italic_f ↦ ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ( italic_x ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p / italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_x ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

We take obvious modification for q=𝑞q=\inftyitalic_q = ∞. Here (ϕj)j=0superscriptsubscriptsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑗0(\phi_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a carefully chosen family of Schwartz functions such that the convolution ϕjfsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑓\phi_{j}\ast fitalic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f is defined on ΩΩ\Omegaroman_Ω, see Definition 4.

In [SY24, Proposition 6.6], we used Rychkov’s construction to prove that fpqs(Ω)subscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠Ω\|f\|_{\mathscr{F}_{pq}^{s}(\Omega)}∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT have equivalent (quasi-)norms via their derivatives. More precisely, let m1𝑚1m\geq 1italic_m ≥ 1, for every 0<p<0𝑝0<p<\infty0 < italic_p < ∞, 0<q0𝑞0<q\leq\infty0 < italic_q ≤ ∞ and s𝑠s\in\mathbb{R}italic_s ∈ blackboard_R there is a C=C(Ω,p,q,s,m)>0𝐶𝐶Ω𝑝𝑞𝑠𝑚0C=C(\Omega,p,q,s,m)>0italic_C = italic_C ( roman_Ω , italic_p , italic_q , italic_s , italic_m ) > 0 such that

(2) C1fpqs(Ω)|α|mαfpqsm(Ω)Cfpqs(Ω),fpqs(Ω).formulae-sequencesuperscript𝐶1subscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠Ωsubscript𝛼𝑚subscriptnormsuperscript𝛼𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝑚Ω𝐶subscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠Ωfor-all𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠ΩC^{-1}\|f\|_{\mathscr{F}_{pq}^{s}(\Omega)}\leq\sum_{|\alpha|\leq m}\|\partial^% {\alpha}f\|_{\mathscr{F}_{pq}^{s-m}(\Omega)}\leq C\|f\|_{\mathscr{F}_{pq}^{s}(% \Omega)},\quad\forall f\in\mathscr{F}_{pq}^{s}(\Omega).italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_α | ≤ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s - italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_C ∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ∀ italic_f ∈ script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) .

Both (1) and (2) miss the endpoint: do we have the analogy of (1) and (2) for p=𝑝p=\inftyitalic_p = ∞? In this paper, we give the positive answers to both cases, by using the recently developed Triebel-Lizorkin-type spaces pqsτsuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏\mathscr{F}_{pq}^{s\tau}script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT: we have the coincidences qs=pqs,1p=qqs,1qsuperscriptsubscript𝑞𝑠superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠1𝑝superscriptsubscript𝑞𝑞𝑠1𝑞\mathscr{F}_{\infty q}^{s}=\mathscr{F}_{pq}^{s,\frac{1}{p}}=\mathscr{B}_{qq}^{% s,\frac{1}{q}}script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s , divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = script_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s , divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for 0<p<0𝑝0<p<\infty0 < italic_p < ∞ (see (9)).

To make the results more general, we include the discussions of Besov-type spaces pqsτsuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏\mathscr{B}_{pq}^{s\tau}script_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and the Besov-Morrey spaces 𝒩pqsτsuperscriptsubscript𝒩𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏\mathscr{N}_{pq}^{s\tau}script_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, see Definition 6.

We denote by 𝒬𝒬\mathcal{Q}caligraphic_Q the set of dyadic cubes in nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{R}^{n}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, that is

(3) 𝒬:={QJ,v:J,vn},whereQJ,v:=2Jv+(0,2J)n.formulae-sequenceassign𝒬conditional-setsubscript𝑄𝐽𝑣formulae-sequence𝐽𝑣superscript𝑛whereassignsubscript𝑄𝐽𝑣superscript2𝐽𝑣superscript0superscript2𝐽𝑛\mathcal{Q}:=\{Q_{J,v}:J\in\mathbb{Z},v\in\mathbb{Z}^{n}\},\quad\text{where}% \quad Q_{J,v}:=2^{-J}v+(0,2^{-J})^{n}.caligraphic_Q := { italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_J ∈ blackboard_Z , italic_v ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } , where italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_J end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_v + ( 0 , 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_J end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Our result for (1) is the following:

Theorem 1 (Littlewood-Paley type characterizations).

Let Ω={(x,xn):xn>ρ(x)}nΩconditional-setsuperscript𝑥subscript𝑥𝑛subscript𝑥𝑛𝜌superscript𝑥superscript𝑛\Omega=\{(x^{\prime},x_{n}):x_{n}>\rho(x^{\prime})\}\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}roman_Ω = { ( italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) : italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > italic_ρ ( italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) } ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a special Lipschitz domain and let (ϕj)j=0superscriptsubscriptsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑗0(\phi_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a Littlewood-Paley family associated with ΩΩ\Omegaroman_Ω (see Definition 4). Then for 0<p,qformulae-sequence0𝑝𝑞0<p,q\leq\infty0 < italic_p , italic_q ≤ ∞, s𝑠s\in\mathbb{R}italic_s ∈ blackboard_R and τ0𝜏0\tau\geq 0italic_τ ≥ 0 (p<𝑝p<\inftyitalic_p < ∞ for \mathscr{F}script_F-cases), we have the following equivalent (quasi-)norms:

fpqsτ(Ω)subscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏Ω\displaystyle\|f\|_{\mathscr{B}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\Omega)}∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ϕ,p,q,s,τ(2js𝟏Ω(ϕjf))j=0qLτp=supQJ,v𝒬2nJτ(j=max(0,J)2jsqϕjfLp(QJ,vΩ)q)1q;subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏absentsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript1Ωsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑓𝑗0superscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏subscriptsupremumsubscript𝑄𝐽𝑣𝒬superscript2𝑛𝐽𝜏superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑗0𝐽superscript2𝑗𝑠𝑞superscriptsubscriptnormsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑓superscript𝐿𝑝subscript𝑄𝐽𝑣Ω𝑞1𝑞\displaystyle\approx_{\phi,p,q,s,\tau}\|(2^{js}\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}\cdot(\phi_{% j}\ast f))_{j=0}^{\infty}\|_{\ell^{q}L^{p}_{\tau}}=\sup_{Q_{J,v}\in\mathcal{Q}% }2^{nJ\tau}\Big{(}\sum_{j=\max(0,J)}^{\infty}2^{jsq}\|\phi_{j}\ast f\|_{L^{p}(% Q_{J,v}\cap\Omega)}^{q}\Big{)}^{\frac{1}{q}};≈ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_p , italic_q , italic_s , italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n italic_J italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = roman_max ( 0 , italic_J ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ;
fpqsτ(Ω)subscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏Ω\displaystyle\|f\|_{\mathscr{F}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\Omega)}∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ϕ,p,q,s,τ(2js𝟏Ω(ϕjf))j=0Lτpq=supQJ,v𝒬2nJτ(QJ,vΩ(j=max(0,J)2jsq|ϕjf(x)|q)pq𝑑x)1p;subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏absentsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript1Ωsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑓𝑗0subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞subscriptsupremumsubscript𝑄𝐽𝑣𝒬superscript2𝑛𝐽𝜏superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑄𝐽𝑣Ωsuperscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑗0𝐽superscript2𝑗𝑠𝑞superscriptsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑓𝑥𝑞𝑝𝑞differential-d𝑥1𝑝\displaystyle\approx_{\phi,p,q,s,\tau}\|(2^{js}\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}\cdot(\phi_{% j}\ast f))_{j=0}^{\infty}\|_{L^{p}_{\tau}\ell^{q}}=\sup_{Q_{J,v}\in\mathcal{Q}% }2^{nJ\tau}\Big{(}\int_{Q_{J,v}\cap\Omega}\Big{(}\sum_{j=\max(0,J)}^{\infty}2^% {jsq}|\phi_{j}\ast f(x)|^{q}\Big{)}^{\frac{p}{q}}dx\Big{)}^{\frac{1}{p}};≈ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_p , italic_q , italic_s , italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n italic_J italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = roman_max ( 0 , italic_J ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ( italic_x ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_x ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ;
f𝒩pqsτ(Ω)subscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒩𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏Ω\displaystyle\|f\|_{\mathscr{N}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\Omega)}∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ϕ,p,q,s,τ(2js𝟏Ω(ϕjf))j=0qMτp=(j=0supQJ,v𝒬2(js+nJτ)qϕjfLp(QJ,vΩ)q)1q.subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏absentsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript1Ωsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑓𝑗0superscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑝𝜏superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑗0subscriptsupremumsubscript𝑄𝐽𝑣𝒬superscript2𝑗𝑠𝑛𝐽𝜏𝑞superscriptsubscriptnormsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑓superscript𝐿𝑝subscript𝑄𝐽𝑣Ω𝑞1𝑞\displaystyle\approx_{\phi,p,q,s,\tau}\|(2^{js}\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}\cdot(\phi_{% j}\ast f))_{j=0}^{\infty}\|_{\ell^{q}M^{p}_{\tau}}=\Big{(}\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}% \sup_{Q_{J,v}\in\mathcal{Q}}2^{(js+nJ\tau)q}\|\phi_{j}\ast f\|_{L^{p}(Q_{J,v}% \cap\Omega)}^{q}\Big{)}^{\frac{1}{q}}.≈ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_p , italic_q , italic_s , italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_j italic_s + italic_n italic_J italic_τ ) italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

(See Definition 5 for qLτpsuperscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏\ell^{q}L^{p}_{\tau}roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, Lτpqsubscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞L^{p}_{\tau}\ell^{q}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and qMτpsuperscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑝𝜏\ell^{q}M^{p}_{\tau}roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.) In particular for 0<q0𝑞0<q\leq\infty0 < italic_q ≤ ∞ and s𝑠s\in\mathbb{R}italic_s ∈ blackboard_R,

fqs(Ω)ϕ,q,ssupJ,vn2JnqQJ,vΩ(j=max(0,J)2jqs|ϕjf(x)|qdx)1q.subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑞𝑠subscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑞𝑠Ωsubscriptsupremumformulae-sequence𝐽𝑣superscript𝑛superscript2𝐽𝑛𝑞subscriptsubscript𝑄𝐽𝑣Ωsuperscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑗0𝐽superscript2𝑗𝑞𝑠superscriptsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑓𝑥𝑞𝑑𝑥1𝑞\|f\|_{\mathscr{F}_{\infty q}^{s}(\Omega)}\approx_{\phi,q,s}\sup_{J\in\mathbb{% Z},v\in\mathbb{Z}^{n}}2^{J\frac{n}{q}}\int_{Q_{J,v}\cap\Omega}\Big{(}\sum_{j=% \max(0,J)}^{\infty}2^{jqs}|\phi_{j}\ast f(x)|^{q}dx\Big{)}^{\frac{1}{q}}.∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_q , italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J ∈ blackboard_Z , italic_v ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_J divide start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = roman_max ( 0 , italic_J ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_q italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ( italic_x ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_x ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

One can also get some characterizations on bounded Lipschitz domain, whose expressions are less elegant however. See Remark 24.

Similar to [Ryc99, Theorem 2.3], we also have the corresponding characterizations using Peetre maximal functions, see Proposition 21 and Corollary 23.

Our result for (2) is the following:

Theorem 2 (Equivalent norm characterizations via derivatives).

Let 𝒜{,,𝒩}𝒜𝒩\mathscr{A}\in\{\mathscr{B},\mathscr{F},\mathscr{N}\}script_A ∈ { script_B , script_F , script_N }, 0<p,qformulae-sequence0𝑝𝑞0<p,q\leq\infty0 < italic_p , italic_q ≤ ∞, s𝑠s\in\mathbb{R}italic_s ∈ blackboard_R and τ0𝜏0\tau\geq 0italic_τ ≥ 0 (p<𝑝p<\inftyitalic_p < ∞ for \mathscr{F}script_F-cases). Let ΩnΩsuperscript𝑛\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}roman_Ω ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be either a special Lipschitz domain or a bounded Lipschitz domain. Then for any positive integer m𝑚mitalic_m, the space 𝒜pqsτ(Ω)superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏Ω\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\Omega)script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) has the following equivalent (quasi-)norm:

(4) f𝒜p,qs,τ(Ω)p,q,s,m,τ,Ω|α|mαf𝒜p,qsm,τ(Ω).subscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝑚𝜏Ωsubscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏Ωsubscript𝛼𝑚subscriptnormsuperscript𝛼𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝑚𝜏Ω\|f\|_{\mathscr{A}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\Omega)}\approx_{p,q,s,m,\tau,\Omega}\sum_{|% \alpha|\leq m}\|\partial^{\alpha}f\|_{\mathscr{A}_{p,q}^{s-m,\tau}(\Omega)}.∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s , italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q , italic_s , italic_m , italic_τ , roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_α | ≤ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s - italic_m , italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

In particular f,qs(Ω)q,s,m,Ω|α|mαf,qsm(Ω)subscript𝑞𝑠𝑚Ωsubscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑞𝑠Ωsubscript𝛼𝑚subscriptnormsuperscript𝛼𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑞𝑠𝑚Ω\|f\|_{\mathscr{F}_{\infty,q}^{s}(\Omega)}\approx_{q,s,m,\Omega}\sum_{|\alpha|% \leq m}\|\partial^{\alpha}f\|_{\mathscr{F}_{\infty,q}^{s-m}(\Omega)}∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ , italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q , italic_s , italic_m , roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_α | ≤ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ , italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s - italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for all 0<q0𝑞0<q\leq\infty0 < italic_q ≤ ∞ and s𝑠s\in\mathbb{R}italic_s ∈ blackboard_R.

The Besov-Morrey case 𝒜=𝒩𝒜𝒩\mathscr{A}=\mathscr{N}script_A = script_N of Theorem 2 was stated in [YSY15, Proposition 4.15]. However, the key step in their proof requires [Tri08, (4.70)] (see [YSY15, Remark 4.14]), which cannot be achieved.

Remark 3.

In the proof of [Tri08, Proposition 4.21], Triebel claimed the following statement:

(5) f𝒜pqs(Ω)Ef𝒜pqs(n)|α|mαEf𝒜pqs(n)=|α|mEαf𝒜pqs(n)|α|mαf𝒜pqs(Ω).subscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠Ωsubscriptnorm𝐸𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠superscript𝑛subscript𝛼𝑚subscriptnormsuperscript𝛼𝐸𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠superscript𝑛subscript𝛼𝑚subscriptnorm𝐸superscript𝛼𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠superscript𝑛less-than-or-similar-tosubscript𝛼𝑚subscriptnormsuperscript𝛼𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠Ω\|f\|_{\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s}(\Omega)}\approx\|Ef\|_{\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s}(% \mathbb{R}^{n})}\approx\sum_{|\alpha|\leq m}\|\partial^{\alpha}Ef\|_{\mathscr{% A}_{pq}^{s}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}=\sum_{|\alpha|\leq m}\|E\partial^{\alpha}f\|_{% \mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}\lesssim\sum_{|\alpha|\leq m}\|\partial^{% \alpha}f\|_{\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s}(\Omega)}.∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ ∥ italic_E italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_α | ≤ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_E italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_α | ≤ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_E ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≲ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_α | ≤ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Here E=EΩ𝐸subscript𝐸ΩE=E_{\Omega}italic_E = italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is an extension operator which is bounded on 𝒜pqs(Ω)𝒜pqs(n)superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠Ωsuperscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠superscript𝑛\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s}(\Omega)\to\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s}(\mathbb{R}^{n})script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) → script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) and 𝒜pqsm(Ω)𝒜pqsm(n)superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝑚Ωsuperscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝑚superscript𝑛\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s-m}(\Omega)\to\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s-m}(\mathbb{R}^{n})script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s - italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) → script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s - italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ).

However, the commutativity αE=Eαsuperscript𝛼𝐸𝐸superscript𝛼\partial^{\alpha}\circ E=E\circ\partial^{\alpha}∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ italic_E = italic_E ∘ ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in (5) (see [Tri08, (4.70)]) cannot be achieved. In [SY24, Section 1.2] we borrowed some facts from several complex variables to show that αE=Eαsuperscript𝛼𝐸𝐸superscript𝛼\partial^{\alpha}\circ E=E\circ\partial^{\alpha}∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ italic_E = italic_E ∘ ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT can never be true: if it is true (even locally) then ¯¯\overline{\partial}over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG-equation for ΩΩ\Omegaroman_Ω can gain 1 derivative. To prove Theorem 2 (also to fix the proof of [YSY15, Proposition 4.15]), simply using the boundedness of EΩsubscript𝐸ΩE_{\Omega}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is not enough.

By observing (5) more carefully, the argument still works if αE=Eααsuperscript𝛼𝐸superscript𝐸𝛼superscript𝛼\partial^{\alpha}\circ E=E^{\alpha}\circ\partial^{\alpha}∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ italic_E = italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT hold for some extension operators Eα:𝒜pqsm(Ω)𝒜pqsm(Ω):superscript𝐸𝛼subscriptsuperscript𝒜𝑠𝑚𝑝𝑞Ωsubscriptsuperscript𝒜𝑠𝑚𝑝𝑞ΩE^{\alpha}:\mathscr{A}^{s-m}_{pq}(\Omega)\to\mathscr{A}^{s-m}_{pq}(\Omega)italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : script_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s - italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) → script_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s - italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ). This can be done if E𝐸Eitalic_E is the standard half space extension111The half space extension works on +n={xn>0}subscriptsuperscript𝑛subscript𝑥𝑛0\mathbb{R}^{n}_{+}=\{x_{n}>0\}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 }. It has the form Ef(x,xn)=jajf(x,bjxn)𝐸𝑓superscript𝑥subscript𝑥𝑛subscript𝑗subscript𝑎𝑗𝑓superscript𝑥subscript𝑏𝑗subscript𝑥𝑛Ef(x^{\prime},x_{n})=\sum_{j}a_{j}f(x^{\prime},-b_{j}x_{n})italic_E italic_f ( italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , - italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) when xn<0subscript𝑥𝑛0x_{n}<0italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < 0. In this case Eαf(x,xn)=jaj(bj)αnf(x,bjxn)superscript𝐸𝛼𝑓superscript𝑥subscript𝑥𝑛subscript𝑗subscript𝑎𝑗superscriptsubscript𝑏𝑗subscript𝛼𝑛𝑓superscript𝑥subscript𝑏𝑗subscript𝑥𝑛E^{\alpha}f(x^{\prime},x_{n})=\sum_{j}a_{j}(-b_{j})^{\alpha_{n}}f(x^{\prime},-% b_{j}x_{n})italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( - italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , - italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) has the similar expression to E𝐸Eitalic_E.. Using the operators Eαsuperscript𝐸𝛼E^{\alpha}italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Triebel proved the equivalent norms via derivatives for +nsubscriptsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{R}^{n}_{+}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and for smooth domains, see [Tri10, Section 3.3.5].

In our case E𝐸Eitalic_E is Rychkov’s extension operator (see (31)). Even on special Lipschitz domain, it is not known to the author whether αE=Eααsuperscript𝛼𝐸superscript𝐸𝛼superscript𝛼\partial^{\alpha}\circ E=E^{\alpha}\circ\partial^{\alpha}∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ italic_E = italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT can be achieved (which in general should have the form (27)). Nevertheless, a weaker form αE=βEα,ββsuperscript𝛼𝐸subscript𝛽superscript𝐸𝛼𝛽superscript𝛽\partial^{\alpha}\circ E=\sum_{\beta}E^{\alpha,\beta}\circ\partial^{\beta}∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ italic_E = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is enough to fix (5). In the proof we introduce Eα,βsuperscript𝐸𝛼𝛽E^{\alpha,\beta}italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in (41) and get the proof using (42).

See also [SY24, Section 2.2 and Remark 6.5].

2. Function Spaces and Notations

Let Un𝑈superscript𝑛U\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_U ⊆ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be an open set, we define 𝒮(U)superscript𝒮𝑈\mathscr{S}^{\prime}(U)script_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_U ) to be the space of restricted tempered distributions:
𝒮(U):={f~|U:f~𝒮(n)}\mathscr{S}^{\prime}(U):=\{\tilde{f}|_{U}:\tilde{f}\in\mathscr{S}^{\prime}(% \mathbb{R}^{n})\}script_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_U ) := { over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ∈ script_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) }. See also [Ryc99, Proposition 3.1].

We use the notation ABless-than-or-similar-to𝐴𝐵A\lesssim Bitalic_A ≲ italic_B to mean that ACB𝐴𝐶𝐵A\leq CBitalic_A ≤ italic_C italic_B where C𝐶Citalic_C is a constant independent of A,B𝐴𝐵A,Bitalic_A , italic_B. We use AB𝐴𝐵A\approx Bitalic_A ≈ italic_B for “ABless-than-or-similar-to𝐴𝐵A\lesssim Bitalic_A ≲ italic_B and BAless-than-or-similar-to𝐵𝐴B\lesssim Aitalic_B ≲ italic_A”. And we use AxBsubscriptless-than-or-similar-to𝑥𝐴𝐵A\lesssim_{x}Bitalic_A ≲ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B to emphasize that the constant depends on the quantity x𝑥xitalic_x.

When p𝑝pitalic_p or q<1𝑞1q<1italic_q < 1, we use “norms” (for 𝒜pqsτsuperscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s\tau}script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT etc.) as the abbreviation to the usual “quasi-norms”.

In the paper we use the following Littlewood-Paley family, whose elements do not have compact supports in the Fourier side. It is crucially useful in the construction of Rychkov’s extension operator.

Definition 4.

Let Ω={xn>ρ(x)}Ωsubscript𝑥𝑛𝜌superscript𝑥\Omega=\{x_{n}>\rho(x^{\prime})\}roman_Ω = { italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > italic_ρ ( italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) } be a special Lipschitz domain, a Littlewood-Paley family associated with ΩΩ\Omegaroman_Ω is a sequence ϕ=(ϕj)j=0𝒮(n)italic-ϕsuperscriptsubscriptsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑗0𝒮superscript𝑛\phi=(\phi_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}\subset\mathscr{S}(\mathbb{R}^{n})italic_ϕ = ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊂ script_S ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) of Schwartz functions that satisfies the following:

  1. (P.a)

    Moment condition: xαϕ1(x)𝑑x=0superscript𝑥𝛼subscriptitalic-ϕ1𝑥differential-d𝑥0\int x^{\alpha}\phi_{1}(x)dx=0∫ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) italic_d italic_x = 0 for all multi-indices α0n𝛼superscriptsubscriptabsent0𝑛\alpha\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^{n}italic_α ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

  2. (P.b)

    Scaling condition: ϕj(x)=2(j1)nϕ1(2j1x)subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑥superscript2𝑗1𝑛subscriptitalic-ϕ1superscript2𝑗1𝑥\phi_{j}(x)=2^{(j-1)n}\phi_{1}(2^{j-1}x)italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) = 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_j - 1 ) italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x ) for all j2𝑗2j\geq 2italic_j ≥ 2.

  3. (P.c)

    Approximate identity: j=0ϕj=δ0superscriptsubscript𝑗0subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗subscript𝛿0\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\phi_{j}=\delta_{0}∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the Dirac delta measure.

  4. (P.d)

    Support condition: suppϕj{(x,xn):xn<ρL|x|}suppsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗conditional-setsuperscript𝑥subscript𝑥𝑛subscript𝑥𝑛subscriptnorm𝜌superscript𝐿superscript𝑥\operatorname{supp}\phi_{j}\subset\{(x^{\prime},x_{n}):x_{n}<-\|\nabla\rho\|_{% L^{\infty}}\cdot|x^{\prime}|\}roman_supp italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊂ { ( italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) : italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < - ∥ ∇ italic_ρ ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ | italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | } for all j0𝑗0j\geq 0italic_j ≥ 0.

In the paper we use the sequence spaces qLτpsuperscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏\ell^{q}L^{p}_{\tau}roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, Lτpqsubscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞L^{p}_{\tau}\ell^{q}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, qMτpsuperscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑝𝜏\ell^{q}M^{p}_{\tau}roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT given by the following:

Definition 5.

Let 0<p,qformulae-sequence0𝑝𝑞0<p,q\leq\infty0 < italic_p , italic_q ≤ ∞ and τ0𝜏0\tau\geq 0italic_τ ≥ 0. We denote by qLτp(n)superscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑛\ell^{q}L^{p}_{\tau}(\mathbb{R}^{n})roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) and Lτpq(n)subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞superscript𝑛L^{p}_{\tau}\ell^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) the spaces of vector valued measurable functions (fj)j=0Llocp(n)superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑓𝑗𝑗0subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝locsuperscript𝑛(f_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}\subset L^{p}_{\mathrm{loc}}(\mathbb{R}^{n})( italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊂ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_loc end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) such that the following (quasi-)norms are finite respectively:

(fj)j=0qLτpsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑓𝑗𝑗0superscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏\displaystyle\|(f_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}\|_{\ell^{q}L^{p}_{\tau}}∥ ( italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT :=supQJ,v𝒬2nJτ(fj)j=max(0,J)q(Lp(QJ,v))=supJ,vn2nJτ(j=max(0,J)fjLp(QJ,v)q)1q;assignabsentsubscriptsupremumsubscript𝑄𝐽𝑣𝒬superscript2𝑛𝐽𝜏subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑓𝑗𝑗0𝐽superscript𝑞superscript𝐿𝑝subscript𝑄𝐽𝑣subscriptsupremumformulae-sequence𝐽𝑣superscript𝑛superscript2𝑛𝐽𝜏superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑗0𝐽superscriptsubscriptnormsubscript𝑓𝑗superscript𝐿𝑝subscript𝑄𝐽𝑣𝑞1𝑞\displaystyle:=\sup_{Q_{J,v}\in\mathcal{Q}}2^{nJ\tau}\|(f_{j})_{j=\max(0,J)}^{% \infty}\|_{\ell^{q}(L^{p}(Q_{J,v}))}=\sup_{J\in\mathbb{Z},v\in\mathbb{Z}^{n}}2% ^{nJ\tau}\Big{(}\sum_{j=\max(0,J)}^{\infty}\|f_{j}\|_{L^{p}(Q_{J,v})}^{q}\Big{% )}^{\frac{1}{q}};:= roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n italic_J italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ ( italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = roman_max ( 0 , italic_J ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J ∈ blackboard_Z , italic_v ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n italic_J italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = roman_max ( 0 , italic_J ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ;
(fj)j=0Lτpqsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑓𝑗𝑗0subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞\displaystyle\|(f_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}\|_{L^{p}_{\tau}\ell^{q}}∥ ( italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT :=supQJ,v𝒬2nJτ(fj)j=max(0,J)Lp(QJ,v;q)=supJ,vn2nJτ(QJ,v(j=max(0,J)|fj(x)|q)pq𝑑x)1p.assignabsentsubscriptsupremumsubscript𝑄𝐽𝑣𝒬superscript2𝑛𝐽𝜏subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑓𝑗𝑗0𝐽superscript𝐿𝑝subscript𝑄𝐽𝑣superscript𝑞subscriptsupremumformulae-sequence𝐽𝑣superscript𝑛superscript2𝑛𝐽𝜏superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑄𝐽𝑣superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑗0𝐽superscriptsubscript𝑓𝑗𝑥𝑞𝑝𝑞differential-d𝑥1𝑝\displaystyle:=\sup_{Q_{J,v}\in\mathcal{Q}}2^{nJ\tau}\|(f_{j})_{j=\max(0,J)}^{% \infty}\|_{L^{p}(Q_{J,v};\ell^{q})}=\sup_{J\in\mathbb{Z},v\in\mathbb{Z}^{n}}2^% {nJ\tau}\bigg{(}\int_{Q_{J,v}}\Big{(}\sum_{j=\max(0,J)}^{\infty}|f_{j}(x)|^{q}% \Big{)}^{\frac{p}{q}}dx\bigg{)}^{\frac{1}{p}}.:= roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n italic_J italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ ( italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = roman_max ( 0 , italic_J ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J ∈ blackboard_Z , italic_v ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n italic_J italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = roman_max ( 0 , italic_J ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_x ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

We define the Morrey space222Our notation is different from the standard one, which can be found in for example [TX05, Definition 2.1]. Mτp(n)subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑝𝜏superscript𝑛M^{p}_{\tau}(\mathbb{R}^{n})italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) to be the set of all fLlocp(n)𝑓subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝locsuperscript𝑛f\in L^{p}_{\mathrm{loc}}(\mathbb{R}^{n})italic_f ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_loc end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) whose (quasi-)norm below is finite:

fMτp:=supQJ,v𝒬2nJτfLp(QJ,v).assignsubscriptnorm𝑓subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑝𝜏subscriptsupremumsubscript𝑄𝐽𝑣𝒬superscript2𝑛𝐽𝜏subscriptnorm𝑓superscript𝐿𝑝subscript𝑄𝐽𝑣\|f\|_{M^{p}_{\tau}}:=\textstyle\sup_{Q_{J,v}\in\mathcal{Q}}2^{nJ\tau}\|f\|_{L% ^{p}(Q_{J,v})}.∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n italic_J italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

We define qMτp(n):=q(0;Mτp(n))assignsuperscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑝𝜏superscript𝑛superscript𝑞subscriptabsent0subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑝𝜏superscript𝑛\ell^{q}M^{p}_{\tau}(\mathbb{R}^{n}):=\ell^{q}(\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0};M^{p}_{\tau% }(\mathbb{R}^{n}))roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) := roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) with (fj)j=0qMτp:=(j=0fjMτp(n)q)1qassignsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑓𝑗𝑗0superscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑝𝜏superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑗0superscriptsubscriptnormsubscript𝑓𝑗subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑝𝜏superscript𝑛𝑞1𝑞\|(f_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}\|_{\ell^{q}M^{p}_{\tau}}:=\big{(}\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}% \|f_{j}\|_{M^{p}_{\tau}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}^{q}\big{)}^{\frac{1}{q}}∥ ( italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Our Besov-type spaces pqsτsuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏\mathscr{B}_{pq}^{s\tau}script_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, Triebel-Lizorkin-type spaces pqsτsuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏\mathscr{F}_{pq}^{s\tau}script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and Besov-Morrey spaces 𝒩pqsτsuperscriptsubscript𝒩𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏\mathscr{N}_{pq}^{s\tau}script_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are given by the following:

Definition 6.

Let λ=(λj)j=0𝜆superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝜆𝑗𝑗0\lambda=(\lambda_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}italic_λ = ( italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a sequence of Schwartz functions satisfying:

  1. (P.a’)

    The Fourier transform λ^0(ξ)=nλ0(x)22πixξ𝑑xsubscript^𝜆0𝜉subscriptsuperscript𝑛subscript𝜆0𝑥superscript22𝜋𝑖𝑥𝜉differential-d𝑥\hat{\lambda}_{0}(\xi)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}\lambda_{0}(x)2^{-2\pi ix\xi}dxover^ start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ξ ) = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_π italic_i italic_x italic_ξ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_x satisfies suppλ^0{|ξ|<2}suppsubscript^𝜆0𝜉2\operatorname{supp}\hat{\lambda}_{0}\subset\{|\xi|<2\}roman_supp over^ start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊂ { | italic_ξ | < 2 } and λ^0|{|ξ|<1}1evaluated-atsubscript^𝜆0𝜉11\hat{\lambda}_{0}|_{\{|\xi|<1\}}\equiv 1over^ start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { | italic_ξ | < 1 } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≡ 1.

  2. (P.b’)

    λj(x)=2jnλ0(2jx)2(j1)nλ0(2j1x)subscript𝜆𝑗𝑥superscript2𝑗𝑛subscript𝜆0superscript2𝑗𝑥superscript2𝑗1𝑛subscript𝜆0superscript2𝑗1𝑥\lambda_{j}(x)=2^{jn}\lambda_{0}(2^{j}x)-2^{(j-1)n}\lambda_{0}(2^{j-1}x)italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) = 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x ) - 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_j - 1 ) italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x ) for j1𝑗1j\geq 1italic_j ≥ 1.

Let 0<p,qformulae-sequence0𝑝𝑞0<p,q\leq\infty0 < italic_p , italic_q ≤ ∞, s𝑠s\in\mathbb{R}italic_s ∈ blackboard_R and τ0𝜏0\tau\geq 0italic_τ ≥ 0 (p<𝑝p<\inftyitalic_p < ∞ for \mathscr{F}script_F-cases). We define the Besov-type Morrey space pqsτ(n)superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏superscript𝑛\mathscr{B}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\mathbb{R}^{n})script_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), the Triebel-Lizorkin-type Morrey space pqsτ(n)superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏superscript𝑛\mathscr{F}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\mathbb{R}^{n})script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) and the Besov-Morrey space 𝒩pqsτ(n)superscriptsubscript𝒩𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏superscript𝑛\mathscr{N}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\mathbb{R}^{n})script_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), to be the sets of all tempered distributions f𝒮(n)𝑓superscript𝒮superscript𝑛f\in\mathscr{S}^{\prime}(\mathbb{R}^{n})italic_f ∈ script_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) such that the following norms are finite, respectively:

(6) fpqsτ(n):=(2jsλjf)j=0qLτp;fpqsτ:=(2jsλjf)jLτpq;f𝒩pqsτ:=(2jsλjf)jqMτp.formulae-sequenceassignsubscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏superscript𝑛subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript𝜆𝑗𝑓𝑗0superscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏formulae-sequenceassignsubscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏subscriptnormsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript𝜆𝑗𝑓𝑗subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞assignsubscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒩𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏subscriptnormsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript𝜆𝑗𝑓𝑗superscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑝𝜏\displaystyle\|f\|_{\mathscr{B}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}:=\|(2^{js}% \lambda_{j}\ast f)_{j=0}^{\infty}\|_{\ell^{q}L^{p}_{\tau}};\ \|f\|_{\mathscr{F% }_{pq}^{s\tau}}:=\|(2^{js}\lambda_{j}\ast f)_{j}\|_{L^{p}_{\tau}\ell^{q}};\ \|% f\|_{\mathscr{N}_{pq}^{s\tau}}:=\|(2^{js}\lambda_{j}\ast f)_{j}\|_{\ell^{q}M^{% p}_{\tau}}.∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; ∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; ∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Let 𝒜{,,𝒩}𝒜𝒩\mathscr{A}\in\{\mathscr{B},\mathscr{F},\mathscr{N}\}script_A ∈ { script_B , script_F , script_N }. For an (arbitrary) open subset Un𝑈superscript𝑛U\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_U ⊆ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, we define 𝒜pqsτ(U):={f~|U:f~𝒜pqsτ(n)}\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s\tau}(U):=\{\tilde{f}|_{U}:\tilde{f}\in\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s% \tau}(\mathbb{R}^{n})\}script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_U ) := { over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ∈ script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) } (p<𝑝p<\inftyitalic_p < ∞ for \mathscr{F}script_F-cases) with the norm

(7) f𝒜pqsτ(U):=inf{f~𝒜pqsτ(n):f~𝒜pqsτ(n),f~|U=f}.\textstyle\|f\|_{\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s\tau}(U)}:=\inf\{\|\tilde{f}\|_{\mathscr{A% }_{pq}^{s\tau}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}:\tilde{f}\in\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\mathbb{R% }^{n}),\tilde{f}|_{U}=f\}.∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_U ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := roman_inf { ∥ over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ∈ script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_f } .

The definitions of the spaces 𝒜pqsτ(U)superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏𝑈\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s\tau}(U)script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_U ) do not depend on the choice of (λj)j=0superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝜆𝑗𝑗0(\lambda_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}( italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT which satisfies (P.a’) and (P.b’). See [YSY10, Page 39, Corollary 2.1] and [TX05, Theorem 2.8].

Remark 7.

We remark some known results and different notations for these spaces in nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{R}^{n}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT from the literature:

  1. (i)

    Clearly pqs(n)=pqs0(n)=𝒩pqs0(n)superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠superscript𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠0superscript𝑛superscriptsubscript𝒩𝑝𝑞𝑠0superscript𝑛\mathscr{B}_{pq}^{s}(\mathbb{R}^{n})=\mathscr{B}_{pq}^{s0}(\mathbb{R}^{n})=% \mathscr{N}_{pq}^{s0}(\mathbb{R}^{n})script_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = script_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = script_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) and pqs0(n)=pqs(n)superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠0superscript𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠superscript𝑛\mathscr{F}_{pq}^{s0}(\mathbb{R}^{n})=\mathscr{F}_{pq}^{s}(\mathbb{R}^{n})script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) (provided p<𝑝p<\inftyitalic_p < ∞).

  2. (ii)

    In applications only 0τ1p0𝜏1𝑝0\leq\tau\leq\frac{1}{p}0 ≤ italic_τ ≤ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG is interesting: by [YY13, Theorem 2] and [Sic12, Lemma 3.4],

    (8) p,qs,τ(n)=p,qs,τ(n)=,s+n(τ1p)(n),𝒩p,qs,τ(n)={0}, 0<p,q,s,τ>1p.formulae-sequencesuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏superscript𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏superscript𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑠𝑛𝜏1𝑝superscript𝑛formulae-sequencesuperscriptsubscript𝒩𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏superscript𝑛0formulae-sequencefor-all 0𝑝formulae-sequence𝑞formulae-sequence𝑠𝜏1𝑝\mathscr{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\mathbb{R}^{n})=\mathscr{F}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\mathbb{% R}^{n})=\mathscr{B}_{\infty,\infty}^{s+n(\tau-\frac{1}{p})}(\mathbb{R}^{n}),% \quad\mathscr{N}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\mathbb{R}^{n})=\{0\},\quad\forall\,0<p,q\leq% \infty,\ s\in\mathbb{R},\ \tau>\tfrac{1}{p}.script_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s , italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s , italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = script_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ , ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s + italic_n ( italic_τ - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , script_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s , italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = { 0 } , ∀ 0 < italic_p , italic_q ≤ ∞ , italic_s ∈ blackboard_R , italic_τ > divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG .
  3. (iii)

    For the case τ=1/p𝜏1𝑝\tau=1/pitalic_τ = 1 / italic_p, by [YY13, Theorem 2] and [Sic12, Remark 11(ii)],

    p,s,1p(n)=p,s,1p(n)=,s(n),𝒩p,qs,1p(n)=,qs(n), 0<p,q,s.formulae-sequencesuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑠1𝑝superscript𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑠1𝑝superscript𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑠superscript𝑛formulae-sequencesuperscriptsubscript𝒩𝑝𝑞𝑠1𝑝superscript𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑞𝑠superscript𝑛formulae-sequencefor-all 0𝑝formulae-sequence𝑞𝑠\mathscr{B}_{p,\infty}^{s,\frac{1}{p}}(\mathbb{R}^{n})=\mathscr{F}_{p,\infty}^% {s,\frac{1}{p}}(\mathbb{R}^{n})=\mathscr{B}_{\infty,\infty}^{s}(\mathbb{R}^{n}% ),\quad\mathscr{N}_{p,q}^{s,\frac{1}{p}}(\mathbb{R}^{n})=\mathscr{B}_{\infty,q% }^{s}(\mathbb{R}^{n}),\quad\forall\,0<p,q\leq\infty,\ s\in\mathbb{R}.script_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s , divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s , divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = script_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ , ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , script_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s , divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = script_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ , italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , ∀ 0 < italic_p , italic_q ≤ ∞ , italic_s ∈ blackboard_R .
  4. (iv)

    Although pqsτsuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏\mathscr{F}_{pq}^{s\tau}script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-spaces are only defined for p<𝑝p<\inftyitalic_p < ∞, we have a description for qssuperscriptsubscript𝑞𝑠\mathscr{F}_{\infty q}^{s}script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-spaces as the following (see [YSY10, Page 41, Proposition 2.4(iii)] and [FJ90, Section 5]):

    (9) qs(n)=p,qs,1p(n)=q,qs,1q(n), 0<p<, 0<q,s.formulae-sequencesuperscriptsubscript𝑞𝑠superscript𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠1𝑝superscript𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑞𝑞𝑠1𝑞superscript𝑛for-all 0𝑝 0𝑞𝑠\mathscr{F}_{\infty q}^{s}(\mathbb{R}^{n})=\mathscr{F}_{p,q}^{s,\frac{1}{p}}(% \mathbb{R}^{n})=\mathscr{B}_{q,q}^{s,\frac{1}{q}}(\mathbb{R}^{n}),\quad\forall% \,0<p<\infty,\ 0<q\leq\infty,\ s\in\mathbb{R}.script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s , divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = script_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q , italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s , divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , ∀ 0 < italic_p < ∞ , 0 < italic_q ≤ ∞ , italic_s ∈ blackboard_R .
  5. (v)

    Our notation 𝒩pqsτsuperscriptsubscript𝒩𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏\mathscr{N}_{pq}^{s\tau}script_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT corresponds to the pqsτsuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏\mathcal{B}_{pq}^{s\tau}caligraphic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in [Sic12, Definition 5]. For the classical notations333Some papers may have different order of the indices. For example, in [Maz03] this is written as 𝒩upqssuperscriptsubscript𝒩𝑢𝑝𝑞𝑠\mathcal{N}_{upq}^{s}caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. 𝒩uqpssuperscriptsubscript𝒩𝑢𝑞𝑝𝑠\mathcal{N}_{uqp}^{s}caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u italic_q italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT we have correspondence (see [Sic12, Remark 13(iii)] for example):

    𝒩u,q,ps(n)=𝒩p,qs,1p1u(n), 0<pu, 0<q,s.formulae-sequenceformulae-sequencesuperscriptsubscript𝒩𝑢𝑞𝑝𝑠superscript𝑛superscriptsubscript𝒩𝑝𝑞𝑠1𝑝1𝑢superscript𝑛for-all 0𝑝𝑢 0𝑞𝑠\mathcal{N}_{u,q,p}^{s}(\mathbb{R}^{n})=\mathscr{N}_{p,q}^{s,\frac{1}{p}-\frac% {1}{u}}(\mathbb{R}^{n}),\quad\forall\,0<p\leq u\leq\infty,\ 0<q\leq\infty,\ s% \in\mathbb{R}.caligraphic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u , italic_q , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = script_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s , divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_u end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , ∀ 0 < italic_p ≤ italic_u ≤ ∞ , 0 < italic_q ≤ ∞ , italic_s ∈ blackboard_R .
  6. (vi)

    We do not talk about the Triebel-Lizorkin-Morrey spaces uqpssuperscriptsubscript𝑢𝑞𝑝𝑠\mathcal{E}_{uqp}^{s}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u italic_q italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in the paper, because they are special cases of the Triebel-Lizorkin-type spaces: we have u,q,ps(n)=p,qs,1/p1/u(n)superscriptsubscript𝑢𝑞𝑝𝑠superscript𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠1𝑝1𝑢superscript𝑛\mathcal{E}_{u,q,p}^{s}(\mathbb{R}^{n})=\mathscr{F}_{p,q}^{s,1/p-1/u}(\mathbb{% R}^{n})caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u , italic_q , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s , 1 / italic_p - 1 / italic_u end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) for all p(0,)𝑝0p\in(0,\infty)italic_p ∈ ( 0 , ∞ ), q(0,]𝑞0q\in(0,\infty]italic_q ∈ ( 0 , ∞ ], u[p,]𝑢𝑝u\in[p,\infty]italic_u ∈ [ italic_p , ∞ ] and s𝑠s\in\mathbb{R}italic_s ∈ blackboard_R. See [YSY10, Corollary 3.3].

  7. (vii)

    There are also papers that use the notations Λϱ𝒜pqssuperscriptΛitalic-ϱsuperscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠\Lambda^{\varrho}\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s}roman_Λ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϱ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and Λϱ𝒜pqssubscriptΛitalic-ϱsuperscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠\Lambda_{\varrho}\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s}roman_Λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϱ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for 𝒜{,}𝒜\mathscr{A}\in\{\mathscr{B},\mathscr{F}\}script_A ∈ { script_B , script_F } and nϱ0𝑛italic-ϱ0-n\leq\varrho\leq 0- italic_n ≤ italic_ϱ ≤ 0 (p<𝑝p<\inftyitalic_p < ∞ for \mathscr{F}script_F-cases), for example [Tri20, HT23]. These spaces describe the same collection to 𝒜pqsτsuperscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s\tau}script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for 𝒜{,,𝒩}𝒜𝒩\mathscr{A}\in\{\mathscr{B},\mathscr{F},\mathscr{N}\}script_A ∈ { script_B , script_F , script_N }, see [HT23, Remarks 2.7 and 2.9] for example.

For more discussions, we refer the reader to [YSY10, Tri14, HT23].

3. Proof of the Theorems

Our proof follows from some results in [Ryc99] and [YY10].

The key ingredient is the Peetre maximal operators introduced in [Pee75].

Definition 8.

Let N>0𝑁0N>0italic_N > 0, Un𝑈superscript𝑛U\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_U ⊆ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be an open set and let η=(ηj)j=0𝜂superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝜂𝑗𝑗0\eta=(\eta_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}italic_η = ( italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a sequence of Schwartz functions. The associated Peetre maximal operators (𝒫U,jη,N)j=0superscriptsubscriptsubscriptsuperscript𝒫𝜂𝑁𝑈𝑗𝑗0(\mathcal{P}^{\eta,N}_{U,j})_{j=0}^{\infty}( caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_η , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are given by

𝒫U,jη,Nf(x):=supyU|ηjf(y)|(1+2j|xy|)N,f𝒮(n),xn,j0.formulae-sequenceassignsubscriptsuperscript𝒫𝜂𝑁𝑈𝑗𝑓𝑥subscriptsupremum𝑦𝑈subscript𝜂𝑗𝑓𝑦superscript1superscript2𝑗𝑥𝑦𝑁formulae-sequence𝑓superscript𝒮superscript𝑛formulae-sequence𝑥superscript𝑛𝑗0\mathcal{P}^{\eta,N}_{U,j}f(x):=\sup\limits_{y\in U}\frac{|\eta_{j}\ast f(y)|}% {(1+2^{j}|x-y|)^{N}},\quad f\in\mathscr{S}^{\prime}(\mathbb{R}^{n}),\quad x\in% \mathbb{R}^{n},\quad j\geq 0.caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_η , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_x ) := roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y ∈ italic_U end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG | italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ( italic_y ) | end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_x - italic_y | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG , italic_f ∈ script_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , italic_x ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_j ≥ 0 .
Lemma 9.

Let ϕ=(ϕj)j=0italic-ϕsuperscriptsubscriptsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑗0\phi=(\phi_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}italic_ϕ = ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a Littlewood-Paley family associated with a special Lipschitz domain ΩΩ\Omegaroman_Ω (see Definition 4). Then there is a ψ=(ψj)j=0𝒮(n)𝜓superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝜓𝑗𝑗0superscript𝒮superscript𝑛\psi=(\psi_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}\subset\mathscr{S}^{\prime}(\mathbb{R}^{n})italic_ψ = ( italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊂ script_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) satisfying (P.a) and (P.b) such that (ψjϕj)j=0superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝜓𝑗subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑗0(\psi_{j}\ast\phi_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}( italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is also associated with ΩΩ\Omegaroman_Ω.

Proof.

The assumptions ϕj(x)=2(j1)nϕ1(2j1x)subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑥superscript2𝑗1𝑛subscriptitalic-ϕ1superscript2𝑗1𝑥\phi_{j}(x)=2^{(j-1)n}\phi_{1}(2^{j-1}x)italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) = 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_j - 1 ) italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x ) for j1𝑗1j\geq 1italic_j ≥ 1 and j=0ϕj=δ0superscriptsubscript𝑗0subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗subscript𝛿0\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\phi_{j}=\delta_{0}∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT imply ϕ1(x)=2nϕ0(2x)ϕ0(x)subscriptitalic-ϕ1𝑥superscript2𝑛subscriptitalic-ϕ02𝑥subscriptitalic-ϕ0𝑥\phi_{1}(x)=2^{n}\phi_{0}(2x)-\phi_{0}(x)italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) = 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 2 italic_x ) - italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ), i.e. ϕ^1(ξ)=ϕ^0(ξ/2)ϕ^0(ξ)subscript^italic-ϕ1𝜉subscript^italic-ϕ0𝜉2subscript^italic-ϕ0𝜉\hat{\phi}_{1}(\xi)=\hat{\phi}_{0}(\xi/2)-\hat{\phi}_{0}(\xi)over^ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ξ ) = over^ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ξ / 2 ) - over^ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ξ ). We can take ψ=(ψj)j=0𝜓superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝜓𝑗𝑗0\psi=(\psi_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}italic_ψ = ( italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT via the Fourier transforms:

ψ^0(ξ):=2ϕ^0(ξ)ϕ^0(ξ)3;ψ^j(ξ):=(ϕ^0(2jξ)+ϕ^0(21jξ))(2ϕ^0(2jξ)2ϕ^0(21jξ)2), for j1.formulae-sequenceassignsubscript^𝜓0𝜉2subscript^italic-ϕ0𝜉subscript^italic-ϕ0superscript𝜉3formulae-sequenceassignsubscript^𝜓𝑗𝜉subscript^italic-ϕ0superscript2𝑗𝜉subscript^italic-ϕ0superscript21𝑗𝜉2subscript^italic-ϕ0superscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝜉2subscript^italic-ϕ0superscriptsuperscript21𝑗𝜉2 for 𝑗1\hat{\psi}_{0}(\xi):=2\hat{\phi}_{0}(\xi)-\hat{\phi}_{0}(\xi)^{3};\qquad\hat{% \psi}_{j}(\xi):=(\hat{\phi}_{0}(2^{-j}\xi)+\hat{\phi}_{0}(2^{1-j}\xi))(2-\hat{% \phi}_{0}(2^{-j}\xi)^{2}-\hat{\phi}_{0}(2^{1-j}\xi)^{2}),\text{ for }j\geq 1.over^ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ξ ) := 2 over^ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ξ ) - over^ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ξ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ; over^ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ξ ) := ( over^ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ξ ) + over^ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 - italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ξ ) ) ( 2 - over^ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ξ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - over^ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 - italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ξ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , for italic_j ≥ 1 .

See [Ryc99, Proposition 2.1] for details. ∎

Lemma 10 ([BPT96, Lemma 2.1]).

Let η=(ηj)j=0𝜂superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝜂𝑗𝑗0\eta=(\eta_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}italic_η = ( italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and θ=(θj)j=0𝒮(n)𝜃superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝜃𝑗𝑗0𝒮superscript𝑛\theta=(\theta_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}\subset\mathscr{S}(\mathbb{R}^{n})italic_θ = ( italic_θ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊂ script_S ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) both satisfy conditions (P.a) and (P.b). Then for any N>0𝑁0N>0italic_N > 0 there exists a C=C(η,θ,N)>0𝐶𝐶𝜂𝜃𝑁0C=C(\eta,\theta,N)>0italic_C = italic_C ( italic_η , italic_θ , italic_N ) > 0 such that

n|ηjθk(x)|(1+2k|x|)N𝑑xη,θ,N2N|jk|,j,k0.formulae-sequencesubscriptless-than-or-similar-to𝜂𝜃𝑁subscriptsuperscript𝑛subscript𝜂𝑗subscript𝜃𝑘𝑥superscript1superscript2𝑘𝑥𝑁differential-d𝑥superscript2𝑁𝑗𝑘for-all𝑗𝑘0\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}|\eta_{j}\ast\theta_{k}(x)|(1+2^{k}|x|)^{N}dx\lesssim_{% \eta,\theta,N}2^{-N|j-k|},\qquad\forall j,k\geq 0.∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_θ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) | ( 1 + 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_x | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_x ≲ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_η , italic_θ , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_N | italic_j - italic_k | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ∀ italic_j , italic_k ≥ 0 .
Lemma 11.

Let 0<p,qformulae-sequence0𝑝𝑞0<p,q\leq\infty0 < italic_p , italic_q ≤ ∞, τ0𝜏0\tau\geq 0italic_τ ≥ 0 and δ>nτ𝛿𝑛𝜏\delta>n\tauitalic_δ > italic_n italic_τ. There is a C=C(n,p,q,τ,δ)>0𝐶𝐶𝑛𝑝𝑞𝜏𝛿0C=C(n,p,q,\tau,\delta)>0italic_C = italic_C ( italic_n , italic_p , italic_q , italic_τ , italic_δ ) > 0 such that for every (gj)j=0Llocp(n)superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑔𝑗𝑗0subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝locsuperscript𝑛(g_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}\subset L^{p}_{\mathrm{loc}}(\mathbb{R}^{n})( italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊂ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_loc end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ),

(10) (k02δ|jk|gk)j=0qLτpsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑘0superscript2𝛿𝑗𝑘subscript𝑔𝑘𝑗0superscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏\displaystyle\Big{\|}\Big{(}\sum_{k\geq 0}2^{-\delta|j-k|}g_{k}\Big{)}_{j=0}^{% \infty}\Big{\|}_{\ell^{q}L^{p}_{\tau}}∥ ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_δ | italic_j - italic_k | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT C(gj)j=0qLτp;absent𝐶subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑔𝑗𝑗0superscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏\displaystyle\leq C\|(g_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}\|_{\ell^{q}L^{p}_{\tau}};≤ italic_C ∥ ( italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ;
(11) (k02δ|jk|gk)j=0Lτpqsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑘0superscript2𝛿𝑗𝑘subscript𝑔𝑘𝑗0subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞\displaystyle\Big{\|}\Big{(}\sum_{k\geq 0}2^{-\delta|j-k|}g_{k}\Big{)}_{j=0}^{% \infty}\Big{\|}_{L^{p}_{\tau}\ell^{q}}∥ ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_δ | italic_j - italic_k | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT C(gj)j=0Lτpq,provided p<;formulae-sequenceabsent𝐶subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑔𝑗𝑗0subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞provided 𝑝\displaystyle\leq C\|(g_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}\|_{L^{p}_{\tau}\ell^{q}},\qquad% \text{provided }p<\infty;≤ italic_C ∥ ( italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , provided italic_p < ∞ ;
(12) (k02δ|jk|gk)j=0qMτpsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑘0superscript2𝛿𝑗𝑘subscript𝑔𝑘𝑗0superscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑝𝜏\displaystyle\Big{\|}\Big{(}\sum_{k\geq 0}2^{-\delta|j-k|}g_{k}\Big{)}_{j=0}^{% \infty}\Big{\|}_{\ell^{q}M^{p}_{\tau}}∥ ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_δ | italic_j - italic_k | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT C(gj)j=0qMτp.absent𝐶subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑔𝑗𝑗0superscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑝𝜏\displaystyle\leq C\|(g_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}\|_{\ell^{q}M^{p}_{\tau}}.≤ italic_C ∥ ( italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Proof.

(10) and (11) have been done in [YY10, Lemma 2.3]. We only prove (12).

Using the case τ=0𝜏0\tau=0italic_τ = 0 in (10) we have

(k02δ|jk|fk)j=0q(Lp)p,q,δ(fj)j=0q(Lp),(fj)j=0q(0;Lp(n)).formulae-sequencesubscriptless-than-or-similar-to𝑝𝑞𝛿subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑘0superscript2𝛿𝑗𝑘subscript𝑓𝑘𝑗0superscript𝑞superscript𝐿𝑝subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑓𝑗𝑗0superscript𝑞superscript𝐿𝑝for-allsuperscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑓𝑗𝑗0superscript𝑞subscriptabsent0superscript𝐿𝑝superscript𝑛\textstyle\big{\|}\big{(}\sum_{k\geq 0}2^{-\delta|j-k|}f_{k}\big{)}_{j=0}^{% \infty}\big{\|}_{\ell^{q}(L^{p})}\lesssim_{p,q,\delta}\|(f_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}% \|_{\ell^{q}(L^{p})},\quad\forall(f_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}\in\ell^{q}(\mathbb{Z}_% {\geq 0};L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{n})).∥ ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_δ | italic_j - italic_k | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≲ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q , italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ( italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ∀ ( italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) .

Note that gkMτp=supQJ,v|2nJτ𝟏QJ,vgk|Lp(n)subscriptnormsubscript𝑔𝑘subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑝𝜏subscriptnormsubscriptsupremumsubscript𝑄𝐽𝑣superscript2𝑛𝐽𝜏subscript1subscript𝑄𝐽𝑣subscript𝑔𝑘superscript𝐿𝑝superscript𝑛\|g_{k}\|_{M^{p}_{\tau}}=\|\sup_{Q_{J,v}}|2^{nJ\tau}\mathbf{1}_{Q_{J,v}}\cdot g% _{k}|\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}∥ italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∥ roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n italic_J italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. By taking fk:=supQJ,v|2nJτ𝟏QJ,vgk|assignsubscript𝑓𝑘subscriptsupremumsubscript𝑄𝐽𝑣superscript2𝑛𝐽𝜏subscript1subscript𝑄𝐽𝑣subscript𝑔𝑘f_{k}:=\sup_{Q_{J,v}}|2^{nJ\tau}\mathbf{1}_{Q_{J,v}}\cdot g_{k}|italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n italic_J italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | above we have

(k02δ|jk||gk|)j=0qMτp=(supQJ,v𝒬2nJτ𝟏QJ,vk02δ|jk||gk|)j=0q(Lp)subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑘0superscript2𝛿𝑗𝑘subscript𝑔𝑘𝑗0superscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑝𝜏subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsubscriptsupremumsubscript𝑄𝐽𝑣𝒬superscript2𝑛𝐽𝜏subscript1subscript𝑄𝐽𝑣subscript𝑘0superscript2𝛿𝑗𝑘subscript𝑔𝑘𝑗0superscript𝑞superscript𝐿𝑝\displaystyle\Big{\|}\Big{(}\sum_{k\geq 0}2^{-\delta|j-k|}|g_{k}|\Big{)}_{j=0}% ^{\infty}\Big{\|}_{\ell^{q}M^{p}_{\tau}}=\Big{\|}\Big{(}\sup_{Q_{J,v}\in% \mathcal{Q}}2^{nJ\tau}\mathbf{1}_{Q_{J,v}}\cdot\sum_{k\geq 0}2^{-\delta|j-k|}|% g_{k}|\Big{)}_{j=0}^{\infty}\Big{\|}_{\ell^{q}(L^{p})}∥ ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_δ | italic_j - italic_k | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∥ ( roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n italic_J italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_δ | italic_j - italic_k | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
(k02δ|jk|supQJ,v𝒬2nJτ𝟏QJ,v|gk|)j=0q(Lp)=(k02δ|jk|fk)j=0q(Lp)absentsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑘0superscript2𝛿𝑗𝑘subscriptsupremumsubscript𝑄𝐽𝑣𝒬superscript2𝑛𝐽𝜏subscript1subscript𝑄𝐽𝑣subscript𝑔𝑘𝑗0superscript𝑞superscript𝐿𝑝subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑘0superscript2𝛿𝑗𝑘subscript𝑓𝑘𝑗0superscript𝑞superscript𝐿𝑝\displaystyle\quad\leq\Big{\|}\Big{(}\sum_{k\geq 0}2^{-\delta|j-k|}\sup_{Q_{J,% v}\in\mathcal{Q}}2^{nJ\tau}\mathbf{1}_{Q_{J,v}}\cdot|g_{k}|\Big{)}_{j=0}^{% \infty}\Big{\|}_{\ell^{q}(L^{p})}=\Big{\|}\Big{(}\sum_{k\geq 0}2^{-\delta|j-k|% }f_{k}\Big{)}_{j=0}^{\infty}\Big{\|}_{\ell^{q}(L^{p})}≤ ∥ ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_δ | italic_j - italic_k | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n italic_J italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ | italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∥ ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_δ | italic_j - italic_k | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
p,q,δ(fj)j=0q(Lp)=(gj)j=0qMτp.subscriptless-than-or-similar-to𝑝𝑞𝛿absentsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑓𝑗𝑗0superscript𝑞superscript𝐿𝑝subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑔𝑗𝑗0superscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑝𝜏\displaystyle\quad\lesssim_{p,q,\delta}\|(f_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}\|_{\ell^{q}(L^% {p})}=\|(g_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}\|_{\ell^{q}M^{p}_{\tau}}.≲ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q , italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ( italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∥ ( italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . absent\displaystyle\hskip 57.81621pt\qeditalic_∎
Lemma 12.

Let ΩnΩsuperscript𝑛\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}roman_Ω ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a special Lipschitz domain, let ϕ=(ϕj)j=0italic-ϕsuperscriptsubscriptsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑗0\phi=(\phi_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}italic_ϕ = ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a Littlewood-Paley family associated with ΩΩ\Omegaroman_Ω, and let θ=(θj)j=0𝜃superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝜃𝑗𝑗0\theta=(\theta_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}italic_θ = ( italic_θ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT satisfies conditions (P.a), (P.b) and (P.d). Then for any N>0𝑁0N>0italic_N > 0 and γ(0,]𝛾0\gamma\in(0,\infty]italic_γ ∈ ( 0 , ∞ ] there is a C=C(θ,ϕ,N)>0𝐶𝐶𝜃italic-ϕ𝑁0C=C(\theta,\phi,N)>0italic_C = italic_C ( italic_θ , italic_ϕ , italic_N ) > 0, such that,

(13) 𝒫Ω,jθ,Nf(x)C(k=02Nγ|jk|Ω2kn|ϕkf(y)|γdy(1+2k|xy|)Nγ)1/γ,f𝒮(n),j0,xΩ.formulae-sequencesubscriptsuperscript𝒫𝜃𝑁Ω𝑗𝑓𝑥𝐶superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑘0superscript2𝑁𝛾𝑗𝑘subscriptΩsuperscript2𝑘𝑛superscriptsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑘𝑓𝑦𝛾𝑑𝑦superscript1superscript2𝑘𝑥𝑦𝑁𝛾1𝛾formulae-sequencefor-all𝑓superscript𝒮superscript𝑛formulae-sequence𝑗0𝑥Ω\mathcal{P}^{\theta,N}_{\Omega,j}f(x)\leq C\bigg{(}\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}2^{-N% \gamma|j-k|}\int_{\Omega}\frac{2^{kn}|\phi_{k}\ast f(y)|^{\gamma}dy}{(1+2^{k}|% x-y|)^{N\gamma}}\bigg{)}^{1/\gamma},\quad\forall f\in\mathscr{S}^{\prime}(% \mathbb{R}^{n}),\ j\geq 0,\ x\in\Omega.caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_θ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_x ) ≤ italic_C ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_N italic_γ | italic_j - italic_k | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ( italic_y ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_y end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_x - italic_y | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ∀ italic_f ∈ script_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , italic_j ≥ 0 , italic_x ∈ roman_Ω .
Proof.

The special case θ=ϕ𝜃italic-ϕ\theta=\phiitalic_θ = italic_ϕ of (13) is proved in [Ryc99, Proof of Theorem 3.2, Step 1]. Namely, we have

(14) 𝒫Ω,jϕ,Nf(x)ϕ,N(k=02Nγ|jk|Ω2kn|ϕkf(y)|γdy(1+2k|xy|)Nγ)1/γ,f𝒮(n),j0,xΩ.formulae-sequencesubscriptless-than-or-similar-toitalic-ϕ𝑁subscriptsuperscript𝒫italic-ϕ𝑁Ω𝑗𝑓𝑥superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑘0superscript2𝑁𝛾𝑗𝑘subscriptΩsuperscript2𝑘𝑛superscriptsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑘𝑓𝑦𝛾𝑑𝑦superscript1superscript2𝑘𝑥𝑦𝑁𝛾1𝛾formulae-sequencefor-all𝑓superscript𝒮superscript𝑛formulae-sequence𝑗0𝑥Ω\mathcal{P}^{\phi,N}_{\Omega,j}f(x)\lesssim_{\phi,N}\bigg{(}\sum_{k=0}^{\infty% }2^{-N\gamma|j-k|}\int_{\Omega}\frac{2^{kn}|\phi_{k}\ast f(y)|^{\gamma}dy}{(1+% 2^{k}|x-y|)^{N\gamma}}\bigg{)}^{1/\gamma},\quad\forall f\in\mathscr{S}^{\prime% }(\mathbb{R}^{n}),\ j\geq 0,\ x\in\Omega.caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_x ) ≲ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_N italic_γ | italic_j - italic_k | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ( italic_y ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_y end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_x - italic_y | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ∀ italic_f ∈ script_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , italic_j ≥ 0 , italic_x ∈ roman_Ω .

Also see [Ull12, Proof of Theorem 2.6, Step 1] for the argument. Thus it suffices to prove the case γ=𝛾\gamma=\inftyitalic_γ = ∞:

(15) 𝒫Ω,jθ,Nf(x)θ,ϕ,Nsupk02N|jk|𝒫Ω,kϕ,Nf(x),f𝒮(n),j0,xΩ.formulae-sequencesubscriptless-than-or-similar-to𝜃italic-ϕ𝑁subscriptsuperscript𝒫𝜃𝑁Ω𝑗𝑓𝑥subscriptsupremum𝑘0superscript2𝑁𝑗𝑘subscriptsuperscript𝒫italic-ϕ𝑁Ω𝑘𝑓𝑥formulae-sequencefor-all𝑓superscript𝒮superscript𝑛formulae-sequence𝑗0𝑥Ω\mathcal{P}^{\theta,N}_{\Omega,j}f(x)\lesssim_{\theta,\phi,N}\sup_{k\geq 0}2^{% -N|j-k|}\mathcal{P}^{\phi,N}_{\Omega,k}f(x),\quad\forall f\in\mathscr{S}^{% \prime}(\mathbb{R}^{n}),\quad j\geq 0,\quad x\in\Omega.caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_θ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_x ) ≲ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ , italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_N | italic_j - italic_k | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_x ) , ∀ italic_f ∈ script_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , italic_j ≥ 0 , italic_x ∈ roman_Ω .

Let ψ=(ψj)j=0𝜓superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝜓𝑗𝑗0\psi=(\psi_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}italic_ψ = ( italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT satisfies the consequence of Lemma 9, so θjf=k=0(θjψk)(ϕkf)subscript𝜃𝑗𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑘0subscript𝜃𝑗subscript𝜓𝑘subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑘𝑓\theta_{j}\ast f=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}(\theta_{j}\ast\psi_{k})\ast(\phi_{k}\ast f)italic_θ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_θ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∗ ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ) for j0𝑗0j\geq 0italic_j ≥ 0. By assumption ϕj,ψj,θjsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗subscript𝜓𝑗subscript𝜃𝑗\phi_{j},\psi_{j},\theta_{j}italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_θ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are supported in K={xn<ρL|x|}𝐾subscript𝑥𝑛subscriptnorm𝜌superscript𝐿superscript𝑥K=\{x_{n}<-\|\nabla\rho\|_{L^{\infty}}\cdot|x^{\prime}|\}italic_K = { italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < - ∥ ∇ italic_ρ ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ | italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | } where ρ𝜌\rhoitalic_ρ is the defining function for Ω={xn>ρ(x)}Ωsubscript𝑥𝑛𝜌superscript𝑥\Omega=\{x_{n}>\rho(x^{\prime})\}roman_Ω = { italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > italic_ρ ( italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) }. Using the property ΩKΩΩ𝐾Ω\Omega-K\subseteq\Omegaroman_Ω - italic_K ⊆ roman_Ω, we have

𝟏Ω(θjf)subscript1Ωsubscript𝜃𝑗𝑓\displaystyle\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}\cdot(\theta_{j}\ast f)bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( italic_θ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ) =𝟏Ωk=0(θjψk)(𝟏Ω(ϕkf));absentsubscript1Ωsuperscriptsubscript𝑘0subscript𝜃𝑗subscript𝜓𝑘subscript1Ωsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑘𝑓\displaystyle\textstyle=\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}\cdot\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}(\theta_{j}% \ast\psi_{k})\ast(\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}\cdot(\phi_{k}\ast f));= bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_θ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∗ ( bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ) ) ;
and thus𝒫Ω,jθ,Nf(x)and thussubscriptsuperscript𝒫𝜃𝑁Ω𝑗𝑓𝑥\displaystyle\text{and thus}\quad\mathcal{P}^{\theta,N}_{\Omega,j}f(x)and thus caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_θ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_x ) =supzΩ|θjf(z)|(1+2j|xz|)NsupzΩk=0Ω|θjψk(zy)||ϕkf(y)|dy(1+2j|xz|)N.absentsubscriptsupremum𝑧Ωsubscript𝜃𝑗𝑓𝑧superscript1superscript2𝑗𝑥𝑧𝑁subscriptsupremum𝑧Ωsuperscriptsubscript𝑘0subscriptΩsubscript𝜃𝑗subscript𝜓𝑘𝑧𝑦subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑘𝑓𝑦𝑑𝑦superscript1superscript2𝑗𝑥𝑧𝑁\displaystyle=\sup_{z\in\Omega}\frac{|\theta_{j}\ast f(z)|}{(1+2^{j}|x-z|)^{N}% }\leq\sup_{z\in\Omega}\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\int_{\Omega}\frac{|\theta_{j}\ast% \psi_{k}(z-y)||\phi_{k}\ast f(y)|dy}{(1+2^{j}|x-z|)^{N}}.= roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z ∈ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG | italic_θ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ( italic_z ) | end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_x - italic_z | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ≤ roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z ∈ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG | italic_θ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z - italic_y ) | | italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ( italic_y ) | italic_d italic_y end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_x - italic_z | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG .

The elementary inequality yields

1(1+2j|xz|)N2N|jk|(1+2k|xz|)N(1+2k|zy|)N(1+2k|zy|)N2N|jk|(1+2k|zy|)N(1+2k|xy|)N.1superscript1superscript2𝑗𝑥𝑧𝑁superscript2𝑁𝑗𝑘superscript1superscript2𝑘𝑥𝑧𝑁superscript1superscript2𝑘𝑧𝑦𝑁superscript1superscript2𝑘𝑧𝑦𝑁superscript2𝑁𝑗𝑘superscript1superscript2𝑘𝑧𝑦𝑁superscript1superscript2𝑘𝑥𝑦𝑁\frac{1}{(1+2^{j}|x-z|)^{N}}\leq\frac{2^{N|j-k|}}{(1+2^{k}|x-z|)^{N}}\frac{(1+% 2^{k}|z-y|)^{N}}{(1+2^{k}|z-y|)^{N}}\leq 2^{N|j-k|}\frac{(1+2^{k}|z-y|)^{N}}{(% 1+2^{k}|x-y|)^{N}}.divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_x - italic_z | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ≤ divide start_ARG 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N | italic_j - italic_k | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_x - italic_z | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG divide start_ARG ( 1 + 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_z - italic_y | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_z - italic_y | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ≤ 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N | italic_j - italic_k | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG ( 1 + 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_z - italic_y | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_x - italic_y | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG .

Therefore,

(16) 𝒫Ω,jθ,Nf(x)subscriptsuperscript𝒫𝜃𝑁Ω𝑗𝑓𝑥\displaystyle\mathcal{P}^{\theta,N}_{\Omega,j}f(x)caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_θ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_x ) =supzΩ|ϕkf(z)|(1+2k|xz|)Nk=0Ω2N|jk||θjψk(zy)|(1+2k|zy|)N𝑑yabsentsubscriptsupremum𝑧Ωsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑘𝑓𝑧superscript1superscript2𝑘𝑥𝑧𝑁superscriptsubscript𝑘0subscriptΩsuperscript2𝑁𝑗𝑘subscript𝜃𝑗subscript𝜓𝑘𝑧𝑦superscript1superscript2𝑘𝑧𝑦𝑁differential-d𝑦\displaystyle=\sup_{z\in\Omega}\frac{|\phi_{k}\ast f(z)|}{(1+2^{k}|x-z|)^{N}}% \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\int_{\Omega}2^{N|j-k|}|\theta_{j}\ast\psi_{k}(z-y)|(1+2^{k% }|z-y|)^{N}dy= roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z ∈ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG | italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ( italic_z ) | end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_x - italic_z | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N | italic_j - italic_k | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_θ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z - italic_y ) | ( 1 + 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_z - italic_y | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_y
supk02N|jk|𝒫Ω,kϕ,Nf(x)l=0Ω22N|jl||θjψl(y)|(1+2l|y|)N𝑑yabsentsubscriptsupremum𝑘0superscript2𝑁𝑗𝑘superscriptsubscript𝒫Ω𝑘italic-ϕ𝑁𝑓𝑥superscriptsubscript𝑙0subscriptΩsuperscript22𝑁𝑗𝑙subscript𝜃𝑗subscript𝜓𝑙𝑦superscript1superscript2𝑙𝑦𝑁differential-d𝑦\displaystyle\leq\sup_{k\geq 0}2^{-N|j-k|}\mathcal{P}_{\Omega,k}^{\phi,N}f(x)% \sum_{l=0}^{\infty}\int_{\Omega}2^{2N|j-l|}|\theta_{j}\ast\psi_{l}(y)|(1+2^{l}% |y|)^{N}dy≤ roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_N | italic_j - italic_k | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_x ) ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_N | italic_j - italic_l | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_θ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_y ) | ( 1 + 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_y | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_y
θ,ϕ,Nsupk02N|jk|𝒫Ω,kϕ,Nf(x)l=02(2N(2N+1))|jl|supk02N|jk|𝒫Ω,kϕ,Nf(x).subscriptless-than-or-similar-to𝜃italic-ϕ𝑁absentsubscriptsupremum𝑘0superscript2𝑁𝑗𝑘superscriptsubscript𝒫Ω𝑘italic-ϕ𝑁𝑓𝑥superscriptsubscript𝑙0superscript22𝑁2𝑁1𝑗𝑙less-than-or-similar-tosubscriptsupremum𝑘0superscript2𝑁𝑗𝑘superscriptsubscript𝒫Ω𝑘italic-ϕ𝑁𝑓𝑥\displaystyle\lesssim_{\theta,\phi,N}\sup_{k\geq 0}2^{-N|j-k|}\mathcal{P}_{% \Omega,k}^{\phi,N}f(x)\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}2^{(2N-(2N+1))|j-l|}\lesssim\sup_{k% \geq 0}2^{-N|j-k|}\mathcal{P}_{\Omega,k}^{\phi,N}f(x).≲ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ , italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_N | italic_j - italic_k | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_x ) ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2 italic_N - ( 2 italic_N + 1 ) ) | italic_j - italic_l | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≲ roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_N | italic_j - italic_k | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_x ) .

Here the last inequality is obtained by applying Lemma 10.

Therefore we get (15). Combining it with (14) we complete the proof. ∎

Recall the Hardy-Littlewood maximal function f(x):=supR>0|B(0,R)|1B(x,R)|f(y)|𝑑yassign𝑓𝑥subscriptsupremum𝑅0superscript𝐵0𝑅1subscript𝐵𝑥𝑅𝑓𝑦differential-d𝑦\mathcal{M}f(x):=\sup_{R>0}|B(0,R)|^{-1}\int_{B(x,R)}|f(y)|dycaligraphic_M italic_f ( italic_x ) := roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R > 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_B ( 0 , italic_R ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B ( italic_x , italic_R ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_f ( italic_y ) | italic_d italic_y for fLloc1𝑓subscriptsuperscript𝐿1locf\in L^{1}_{\mathrm{loc}}italic_f ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_loc end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Lemma 13.

Let N>n𝑁𝑛N>nitalic_N > italic_n. There is a C=C(N)>0𝐶𝐶𝑁0C=C(N)>0italic_C = italic_C ( italic_N ) > 0 such that for any gLloc1(n)𝑔subscriptsuperscript𝐿1locsuperscript𝑛g\in L^{1}_{\mathrm{loc}}(\mathbb{R}^{n})italic_g ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_loc end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ),

(17) n2kn|g(y)|dy(1+2k|xy|)NCwn1(1+|vw|)Nn(𝟏QJ,wg)(x),J,vn,kJ,xQJ,v.formulae-sequencesubscriptsuperscript𝑛superscript2𝑘𝑛𝑔𝑦𝑑𝑦superscript1superscript2𝑘𝑥𝑦𝑁𝐶subscript𝑤superscript𝑛1superscript1𝑣𝑤𝑁𝑛subscript1subscript𝑄𝐽𝑤𝑔𝑥formulae-sequence𝐽formulae-sequence𝑣superscript𝑛formulae-sequence𝑘𝐽𝑥subscript𝑄𝐽𝑣\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}\frac{2^{kn}|g(y)|dy}{(1+2^{k}|x-y|)^{N}}\leq C\sum_{w\in% \mathbb{Z}^{n}}\frac{1}{(1+|v-w|)^{N-n}}\cdot\mathcal{M}(\mathbf{1}_{Q_{J,w}}% \cdot g)(x),\quad J\in\mathbb{Z},\ v\in\mathbb{Z}^{n},\ k\geq J,\ x\in Q_{J,v}.∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_g ( italic_y ) | italic_d italic_y end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_x - italic_y | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ≤ italic_C ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + | italic_v - italic_w | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N - italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ⋅ caligraphic_M ( bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ italic_g ) ( italic_x ) , italic_J ∈ blackboard_Z , italic_v ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_k ≥ italic_J , italic_x ∈ italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Our lemma here is weaker than the corresponding estimate in [YY10, Proof of Theorem 1.2, Step 3].

Proof.

By taking a translation, it suffices to prove the estimate on xQJ,0𝑥subscript𝑄𝐽0x\in Q_{J,0}italic_x ∈ italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, i.e for v=0𝑣0v=0italic_v = 0. Note that if yQJ,w𝑦subscript𝑄𝐽𝑤y\in Q_{J,w}italic_y ∈ italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, then |xy|dist(QJ,w,QJ,0)1n2Jmax(0,|w|n)𝑥𝑦distsubscript𝑄𝐽𝑤subscript𝑄𝐽01𝑛superscript2𝐽0𝑤𝑛|x-y|\geq\operatorname{dist}(Q_{J,w},Q_{J,0})\geq\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}2^{-J}\max(% 0,|w|-\sqrt{n})| italic_x - italic_y | ≥ roman_dist ( italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≥ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_n end_ARG end_ARG 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_J end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_max ( 0 , | italic_w | - square-root start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ) and |xy||w|+n𝑥𝑦𝑤𝑛|x-y|\leq|w|+\sqrt{n}| italic_x - italic_y | ≤ | italic_w | + square-root start_ARG italic_n end_ARG. Therefore

n2kn|g(y)|dy(1+2k|xy|)NB(x,3n2J)2kn|g(y)|dy(1+2k|xy|)N+|w|>2nQJ,w2kn|g(y)|dy(1+2k|xy|)Nsubscriptsuperscript𝑛superscript2𝑘𝑛𝑔𝑦𝑑𝑦superscript1superscript2𝑘𝑥𝑦𝑁subscript𝐵𝑥3𝑛superscript2𝐽superscript2𝑘𝑛𝑔𝑦𝑑𝑦superscript1superscript2𝑘𝑥𝑦𝑁subscript𝑤2𝑛subscriptsubscript𝑄𝐽𝑤superscript2𝑘𝑛𝑔𝑦𝑑𝑦superscript1superscript2𝑘𝑥𝑦𝑁\displaystyle\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}\frac{2^{kn}|g(y)|dy}{(1+2^{k}|x-y|)^{N}}% \leq\int_{B(x,3\sqrt{n}2^{-J})}\frac{2^{kn}|g(y)|dy}{(1+2^{k}|x-y|)^{N}}+\sum_% {|w|>2\sqrt{n}}\int_{Q_{J,w}}\frac{2^{kn}|g(y)|dy}{(1+2^{k}|x-y|)^{N}}∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_g ( italic_y ) | italic_d italic_y end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_x - italic_y | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ≤ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B ( italic_x , 3 square-root start_ARG italic_n end_ARG 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_J end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_g ( italic_y ) | italic_d italic_y end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_x - italic_y | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_w | > 2 square-root start_ARG italic_n end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_g ( italic_y ) | italic_d italic_y end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_x - italic_y | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG
2n(kJ)(1+2k|y|)NL1(yn)(𝟏B(0,4n2J)g)(x)+|w|>2n2kn(1+2k2J(|w|n1))NQJ,w|g(y)|𝑑yless-than-or-similar-toabsentsubscriptnormsuperscript2𝑛𝑘𝐽superscript1superscript2𝑘𝑦𝑁superscript𝐿1subscriptsuperscript𝑛𝑦subscript1𝐵04𝑛superscript2𝐽𝑔𝑥subscript𝑤2𝑛superscript2𝑘𝑛superscript1superscript2𝑘superscript2𝐽𝑤𝑛1𝑁subscriptsubscript𝑄𝐽𝑤𝑔𝑦differential-d𝑦\displaystyle\quad\lesssim\Big{\|}\frac{2^{n(k-J)}}{(1+2^{k}|y|)^{N}}\Big{\|}_% {L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n}_{y})}\mathcal{M}(\mathbf{1}_{B(0,4\sqrt{n}2^{-J})}\cdot g% )(x)+\sum_{|w|>2\sqrt{n}}\frac{2^{kn}}{\big{(}1+2^{k}2^{-J}(\frac{|w|}{\sqrt{n% }}-1)\big{)}^{N}}\int_{Q_{J,w}}|g(y)|dy≲ ∥ divide start_ARG 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n ( italic_k - italic_J ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_y | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M ( bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B ( 0 , 4 square-root start_ARG italic_n end_ARG 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_J end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ italic_g ) ( italic_x ) + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_w | > 2 square-root start_ARG italic_n end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_J end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG | italic_w | end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_n end_ARG end_ARG - 1 ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_g ( italic_y ) | italic_d italic_y
|w|<4n(𝟏QJ,wg)(x)+|w|>2n2(kJ)(Nn)|w|Nn2nJ|w|nB(x,2J(|w|+n))|𝟏QJ,wg(y)|𝑑yless-than-or-similar-toabsentsubscript𝑤4𝑛subscript1subscript𝑄𝐽𝑤𝑔𝑥subscript𝑤2𝑛superscript2𝑘𝐽𝑁𝑛superscript𝑤𝑁𝑛superscript2𝑛𝐽superscript𝑤𝑛subscript𝐵𝑥superscript2𝐽𝑤𝑛subscript1subscript𝑄𝐽𝑤𝑔𝑦differential-d𝑦\displaystyle\quad\lesssim\sum_{|w|<4\sqrt{n}}\mathcal{M}(\mathbf{1}_{Q_{J,w}}% \cdot g)(x)+\sum_{|w|>2\sqrt{n}}\frac{2^{-(k-J)(N-n)}}{|w|^{N-n}}\cdot\frac{2^% {nJ}}{|w|^{n}}\int_{B(x,2^{-J}(|w|+\sqrt{n}))}|\mathbf{1}_{Q_{J,w}}\cdot g(y)|dy≲ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_w | < 4 square-root start_ARG italic_n end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M ( bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ italic_g ) ( italic_x ) + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_w | > 2 square-root start_ARG italic_n end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ( italic_k - italic_J ) ( italic_N - italic_n ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG | italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N - italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ⋅ divide start_ARG 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n italic_J end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG | italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B ( italic_x , 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_J end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( | italic_w | + square-root start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ) ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ italic_g ( italic_y ) | italic_d italic_y
wn1(1+|w|)Nn(𝟏QJ,wg)(x).less-than-or-similar-toabsentsubscript𝑤superscript𝑛1superscript1𝑤𝑁𝑛subscript1subscript𝑄𝐽𝑤𝑔𝑥\displaystyle\quad\lesssim\sum_{w\in\mathbb{Z}^{n}}\frac{1}{(1+|w|)^{N-n}}% \cdot\mathcal{M}(\mathbf{1}_{Q_{J,w}}\cdot g)(x).≲ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + | italic_w | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N - italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ⋅ caligraphic_M ( bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ italic_g ) ( italic_x ) . absent\displaystyle\hskip 21.68121pt\qeditalic_∎

Combining Lemmas 11 - 13 we have the following Morrey-type estimates for Peetre maximal functions.

Proposition 14.

Keeping the assumptions of Lemma 12, for every 0<p,qformulae-sequence0𝑝𝑞0<p,q\leq\infty0 < italic_p , italic_q ≤ ∞, s𝑠s\in\mathbb{R}italic_s ∈ blackboard_R, τ0𝜏0\tau\geq 0italic_τ ≥ 0 and N>max(2n/min(p,q),|s|+nτ)𝑁2𝑛𝑝𝑞𝑠𝑛𝜏N>~{}\!\max(2n/\min(p,q),|s|+n\tau)italic_N > roman_max ( 2 italic_n / roman_min ( italic_p , italic_q ) , | italic_s | + italic_n italic_τ ), there is a C=C(θ,ϕ,p,q,s,τ,N)>0𝐶𝐶𝜃italic-ϕ𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏𝑁0C=C(\theta,\phi,p,q,s,\tau,N)>0italic_C = italic_C ( italic_θ , italic_ϕ , italic_p , italic_q , italic_s , italic_τ , italic_N ) > 0 such that for every f𝒮(Ω)𝑓superscript𝒮Ωf\in\mathscr{S}^{\prime}(\Omega)italic_f ∈ script_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ),

(18) (2js𝟏Ω(𝒫Ω,jθ,Nf))j=0qLτpsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript1Ωsubscriptsuperscript𝒫𝜃𝑁Ω𝑗𝑓𝑗0superscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏\displaystyle\big{\|}\big{(}2^{js}\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}\cdot(\mathcal{P}^{\theta% ,N}_{\Omega,j}f)\big{)}_{j=0}^{\infty}\big{\|}_{\ell^{q}L^{p}_{\tau}}∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_θ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT C(2js𝟏Ω(ϕjf))j=0qLτp;absent𝐶subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript1Ωsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑓𝑗0superscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏\displaystyle\leq C\big{\|}\big{(}2^{js}\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}\cdot(\phi_{j}\ast f% )\big{)}_{j=0}^{\infty}\big{\|}_{\ell^{q}L^{p}_{\tau}};≤ italic_C ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ;
(19) (2js𝟏Ω(𝒫Ω,jθ,Nf))j=0Lτpqsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript1Ωsubscriptsuperscript𝒫𝜃𝑁Ω𝑗𝑓𝑗0subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞\displaystyle\big{\|}\big{(}2^{js}\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}\cdot(\mathcal{P}^{\theta% ,N}_{\Omega,j}f)\big{)}_{j=0}^{\infty}\big{\|}_{L^{p}_{\tau}\ell^{q}}∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_θ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT C(2js𝟏Ω(ϕjf))j=0Lτpq,provided p<;formulae-sequenceabsent𝐶subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript1Ωsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑓𝑗0subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞provided 𝑝\displaystyle\leq C\big{\|}\big{(}2^{js}\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}\cdot(\phi_{j}\ast f% )\big{)}_{j=0}^{\infty}\big{\|}_{L^{p}_{\tau}\ell^{q}},\qquad\text{provided }p% <\infty;≤ italic_C ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , provided italic_p < ∞ ;
(20) (2js𝟏Ω(𝒫Ω,jθ,Nf))j=0qMτpsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript1Ωsubscriptsuperscript𝒫𝜃𝑁Ω𝑗𝑓𝑗0superscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑝𝜏\displaystyle\big{\|}\big{(}2^{js}\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}\cdot(\mathcal{P}^{\theta% ,N}_{\Omega,j}f)\big{)}_{j=0}^{\infty}\big{\|}_{\ell^{q}M^{p}_{\tau}}∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_θ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT C(2js𝟏Ω(ϕjf))j=0qMτp.absent𝐶subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript1Ωsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑓𝑗0superscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑝𝜏\displaystyle\leq C\big{\|}\big{(}2^{js}\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}\cdot(\phi_{j}\ast f% )\big{)}_{j=0}^{\infty}\big{\|}_{\ell^{q}M^{p}_{\tau}}.≤ italic_C ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Remark 15.

It is possible that the assumption N>max(2nmin(p,q),|s|+nτ)𝑁2𝑛𝑝𝑞𝑠𝑛𝜏N>\max(\frac{2n}{\min(p,q)},|s|+n\tau)italic_N > roman_max ( divide start_ARG 2 italic_n end_ARG start_ARG roman_min ( italic_p , italic_q ) end_ARG , | italic_s | + italic_n italic_τ ) can be relaxed to N>nmin(p,q)𝑁𝑛𝑝𝑞N>\frac{n}{\min(p,q)}italic_N > divide start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG roman_min ( italic_p , italic_q ) end_ARG. In applications, we only need a large enough N𝑁Nitalic_N that does not depend on f𝑓fitalic_f.

A similar result for (20) can be found in [TX05, Proposition 2.12]. Note that we require θjsubscript𝜃𝑗\theta_{j}italic_θ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to have Fourier compact supports in that proposition.

Proof.

We use a convention ϕj:0\phi_{j}:\equiv 0italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : ≡ 0 for j1𝑗1j\leq-1italic_j ≤ - 1. Thus in the computations below every sequence (aj)j=Jsuperscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑎𝑗𝑗𝐽(a_{j})_{j=J}^{\infty}( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = italic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is identical to (aj)j=max(0,J)superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑎𝑗𝑗0𝐽(a_{j})_{j=\max(0,J)}^{\infty}( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = roman_max ( 0 , italic_J ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

By the assumption on N𝑁Nitalic_N we can take γ(0,min(p,q))𝛾0𝑝𝑞\gamma\in(0,\min(p,q))italic_γ ∈ ( 0 , roman_min ( italic_p , italic_q ) ) such that Nγ>2n𝑁𝛾2𝑛N\gamma>2nitalic_N italic_γ > 2 italic_n. We first prove (19).

Since N>|s|+nτ𝑁𝑠𝑛𝜏N>|s|+n\tauitalic_N > | italic_s | + italic_n italic_τ. By Lemma 12 and using 2jγs2Nγ|jk|2(N|s|)γ|jk|2kγssuperscript2𝑗𝛾𝑠superscript2𝑁𝛾𝑗𝑘superscript2𝑁𝑠𝛾𝑗𝑘superscript2𝑘𝛾𝑠2^{j\gamma s}2^{-N\gamma|j-k|}\leq 2^{-(N-|s|)\gamma|j-k|}2^{k\gamma s}2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_γ italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_N italic_γ | italic_j - italic_k | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ( italic_N - | italic_s | ) italic_γ | italic_j - italic_k | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_γ italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT,

(2js𝒫Ω,jθ,Nf)j=0Lτpq=(2jγs(𝒫Ω,jθ,Nf)γ)j=0Lτγpγqγ1γ(k=02(|s|N)γ|jk|Ω2kn|2ksϕkf(y)|γdy(1+2k|y|)Nγ)j=0Lτγpγqγ1γ.\|(2^{js}\mathcal{P}^{\theta,N}_{\Omega,j}f)_{j=0}^{\infty}\|_{L^{p}_{\tau}% \ell^{q}}=\big{\|}\big{(}2^{j\gamma s}(\mathcal{P}^{\theta,N}_{\Omega,j}f)^{% \gamma}\big{)}_{j=0}^{\infty}\big{\|}_{L^{\frac{p}{\gamma}}_{\tau\gamma}\ell^{% \frac{q}{\gamma}}}^{\frac{1}{\gamma}}\lesssim\bigg{\|}\Big{(}\sum_{k=0}^{% \infty}2^{(|s|-N)\gamma|j-k|}\int_{\Omega}\frac{2^{kn}|2^{ks}\phi_{k}\ast f(y)% |^{\gamma}dy}{(1+2^{k}|\cdot-y|)^{N\gamma}}\Big{)}_{j=0}^{\infty}\bigg{\|}_{L^% {\frac{p}{\gamma}}_{\tau\gamma}\ell^{\frac{q}{\gamma}}}^{\frac{1}{\gamma}}.∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_θ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_γ italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_θ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_q end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≲ ∥ ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( | italic_s | - italic_N ) italic_γ | italic_j - italic_k | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ( italic_y ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_y end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | ⋅ - italic_y | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_q end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

By Lemma 11 and since (N|s|)γ>nτγ𝑁𝑠𝛾𝑛𝜏𝛾(N-|s|)\gamma>n\tau\gamma( italic_N - | italic_s | ) italic_γ > italic_n italic_τ italic_γ,

(k=02(|s|N)γ|jk|Ω2kn|2ksϕkf(y)|γdy(1+2k|y|)Nγ)j=0Lτγpγqγ(Ω2kn|2ksϕkf(y)|γdy(1+2k|y|)Nγ)k=0Lτγpγqγ.\bigg{\|}\Big{(}\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}2^{(|s|-N)\gamma|j-k|}\int_{\Omega}\frac{2^% {kn}|2^{ks}\phi_{k}\ast f(y)|^{\gamma}dy}{(1+2^{k}|\cdot-y|)^{N\gamma}}\Big{)}% _{j=0}^{\infty}\bigg{\|}_{L^{\frac{p}{\gamma}}_{\tau\gamma}\ell^{\frac{q}{% \gamma}}}\lesssim\bigg{\|}\Big{(}\int_{\Omega}\frac{2^{kn}|2^{ks}\phi_{k}\ast f% (y)|^{\gamma}dy}{(1+2^{k}|\cdot-y|)^{N\gamma}}\Big{)}_{k=0}^{\infty}\bigg{\|}_% {L^{\frac{p}{\gamma}}_{\tau\gamma}\ell^{\frac{q}{\gamma}}}.∥ ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( | italic_s | - italic_N ) italic_γ | italic_j - italic_k | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ( italic_y ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_y end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | ⋅ - italic_y | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_q end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≲ ∥ ( ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ( italic_y ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_y end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | ⋅ - italic_y | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_q end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Applying Lemma 13 with g(x)=𝟏Ω(x)|2ksϕkf(x)|γ𝑔𝑥subscript1Ω𝑥superscriptsuperscript2𝑘𝑠subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑘𝑓𝑥𝛾g(x)=\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}(x)\cdot|2^{ks}\phi_{k}\ast f(x)|^{\gamma}italic_g ( italic_x ) = bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) ⋅ | 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ( italic_x ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for each k0𝑘0k\geq 0italic_k ≥ 0 and expanding the Lτγpγqγsubscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝛾𝜏𝛾superscript𝑞𝛾L^{\frac{p}{\gamma}}_{\tau\gamma}\ell^{\frac{q}{\gamma}}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_q end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-norm,

(Ω2kn|2ksϕkf(y)|γdy(1+2k|y|)Nγ)k=0Lτγpγqγ=supJ,vn2nJτγ1γ(Ω2kn|2ksϕkf(y)|γdy(1+2k|y|)Nγ)k=JLpγ(QJ,v;qγ)1γ\displaystyle\bigg{\|}\Big{(}\int_{\Omega}\frac{2^{kn}|2^{ks}\phi_{k}\ast f(y)% |^{\gamma}dy}{(1+2^{k}|\cdot-y|)^{N\gamma}}\Big{)}_{k=0}^{\infty}\bigg{\|}_{L^% {\frac{p}{\gamma}}_{\tau\gamma}\ell^{\frac{q}{\gamma}}}=\sup_{J\in\mathbb{Z},v% \in\mathbb{Z}^{n}}2^{nJ\tau\gamma\cdot\frac{1}{\gamma}}\bigg{\|}\Big{(}\int_{% \Omega}\frac{2^{kn}|2^{ks}\phi_{k}\ast f(y)|^{\gamma}dy}{(1+2^{k}|\cdot-y|)^{N% \gamma}}\Big{)}_{k=J}^{\infty}\bigg{\|}_{L^{\frac{p}{\gamma}}(Q_{J,v};\ell^{% \frac{q}{\gamma}})}^{\frac{1}{\gamma}}∥ ( ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ( italic_y ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_y end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | ⋅ - italic_y | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_q end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J ∈ blackboard_Z , italic_v ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n italic_J italic_τ italic_γ ⋅ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ ( ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ( italic_y ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_y end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | ⋅ - italic_y | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = italic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_q end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
N,γsupJ,vn2nJτ(wn1(1+|wv|)Nγn(𝟏QJ,w𝟏Ω|2ksϕkf|γ))k=JLpγ(QJ,v;qγ)1γsubscriptless-than-or-similar-to𝑁𝛾absentsubscriptsupremumformulae-sequence𝐽𝑣superscript𝑛superscript2𝑛𝐽𝜏superscriptsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑤superscript𝑛1superscript1𝑤𝑣𝑁𝛾𝑛subscript1subscript𝑄𝐽𝑤subscript1Ωsuperscriptsuperscript2𝑘𝑠subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑘𝑓𝛾𝑘𝐽superscript𝐿𝑝𝛾subscript𝑄𝐽𝑣superscript𝑞𝛾1𝛾\displaystyle\quad\lesssim_{N,\gamma}\sup_{J\in\mathbb{Z},v\in\mathbb{Z}^{n}}2% ^{nJ\tau}\bigg{\|}\Big{(}\sum_{w\in\mathbb{Z}^{n}}\frac{1}{(1+|w-v|)^{N\gamma-% n}}\mathcal{M}(\mathbf{1}_{Q_{J,w}}\cdot\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}\cdot|2^{ks}\phi_{k% }\ast f|^{\gamma})\Big{)}_{k=J}^{\infty}\bigg{\|}_{L^{\frac{p}{\gamma}}(Q_{J,v% };\ell^{\frac{q}{\gamma}})}^{\frac{1}{\gamma}}≲ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N , italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J ∈ blackboard_Z , italic_v ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n italic_J italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + | italic_w - italic_v | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_γ - italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG caligraphic_M ( bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ | 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = italic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_q end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
(vn1(1+|v|)Nγn)1/γsupJ,wn2nJτ((𝟏QJ,wΩ|2ksϕkf|γ))k=JLpγ(n;qγ)1γ.absentsuperscriptsubscript𝑣superscript𝑛1superscript1𝑣𝑁𝛾𝑛1𝛾subscriptsupremumformulae-sequence𝐽𝑤superscript𝑛superscript2𝑛𝐽𝜏superscriptsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsubscript1subscript𝑄𝐽𝑤Ωsuperscriptsuperscript2𝑘𝑠subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑘𝑓𝛾𝑘𝐽superscript𝐿𝑝𝛾superscript𝑛superscript𝑞𝛾1𝛾\displaystyle\quad\leq\Big{(}\sum_{v\in\mathbb{Z}^{n}}\frac{1}{(1+|v|)^{N% \gamma-n}}\Big{)}^{1/\gamma}\sup_{J\in\mathbb{Z},w\in\mathbb{Z}^{n}}2^{nJ\tau}% \big{\|}\big{(}\mathcal{M}(\mathbf{1}_{Q_{J,w}\cap\Omega}\cdot|2^{ks}\phi_{k}% \ast f|^{\gamma})\big{)}_{k=J}^{\infty}\big{\|}_{L^{\frac{p}{\gamma}}(\mathbb{% R}^{n};\ell^{\frac{q}{\gamma}})}^{\frac{1}{\gamma}}.≤ ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + | italic_v | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_γ - italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J ∈ blackboard_Z , italic_w ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n italic_J italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ ( caligraphic_M ( bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ | 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = italic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_q end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Since Nγn>n𝑁𝛾𝑛𝑛N\gamma-n>nitalic_N italic_γ - italic_n > italic_n the sum vn(1+|v|)nNγsubscript𝑣superscript𝑛superscript1𝑣𝑛𝑁𝛾\sum_{v\in\mathbb{Z}^{n}}(1+|v|)^{n-N\gamma}∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 1 + | italic_v | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - italic_N italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is finite.

Finally, applying Fefferman-Stein’s inequality to ((𝟏QJ,wΩ|2ksϕkf|γ))k=Jsuperscriptsubscriptsubscript1subscript𝑄𝐽𝑤Ωsuperscriptsuperscript2𝑘𝑠subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑘𝑓𝛾𝑘𝐽\big{(}\mathcal{M}(\mathbf{1}_{Q_{J,w}\cap\Omega}\cdot|2^{ks}\phi_{k}\ast f|^{% \gamma})\big{)}_{k=J}^{\infty}( caligraphic_M ( bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ | 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = italic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in Lpγ(n;qγ)superscript𝐿𝑝𝛾superscript𝑛superscript𝑞𝛾L^{\frac{p}{\gamma}}(\mathbb{R}^{n};\ell^{\frac{q}{\gamma}})italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_q end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) for each J𝐽J\in\mathbb{Z}italic_J ∈ blackboard_Z (see [FS71, Theorem 1(1)] and also [Gra14, Remark 5.6.7]), since 1<p/γ<1𝑝𝛾1<p/\gamma<\infty1 < italic_p / italic_γ < ∞ and 1<q/γ1𝑞𝛾1<q/\gamma\leq\infty1 < italic_q / italic_γ ≤ ∞,

supQJ,w𝒬2nJτ((𝟏QJ,wΩ|2ksϕkf|γ))k=JLpγ(n;qγ)1γsupQJ,w2nJτ(𝟏QJ,wΩ|2ksϕkf|γ))k=JLpγ(n;qγ)1γ\displaystyle\sup_{Q_{J,w}\in\mathcal{Q}}2^{nJ\tau}\big{\|}\big{(}\mathcal{M}(% \mathbf{1}_{Q_{J,w}\cap\Omega}\cdot|2^{ks}\phi_{k}\ast f|^{\gamma})\big{)}_{k=% J}^{\infty}\big{\|}_{L^{\frac{p}{\gamma}}(\mathbb{R}^{n};\ell^{\frac{q}{\gamma% }})}^{\frac{1}{\gamma}}\lesssim\sup_{Q_{J,w}}2^{nJ\tau}\big{\|}\big{(}\mathbf{% 1}_{Q_{J,w}\cap\Omega}\cdot|2^{ks}\phi_{k}\ast f|^{\gamma})\big{)}_{k=J}^{% \infty}\big{\|}_{L^{\frac{p}{\gamma}}(\mathbb{R}^{n};\ell^{\frac{q}{\gamma}})}% ^{\frac{1}{\gamma}}roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n italic_J italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ ( caligraphic_M ( bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ | 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = italic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_q end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≲ roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n italic_J italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ ( bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ | 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = italic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_q end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
=supQJ,w2nJτ(𝟏Ω(2ksϕkf))k=JLp(QJ,w;q)=(2ks𝟏Ω(ϕkf))k=0Lτpq.absentsubscriptsupremumsubscript𝑄𝐽𝑤superscript2𝑛𝐽𝜏subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsubscript1Ωsuperscript2𝑘𝑠subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑘𝑓𝑘𝐽superscript𝐿𝑝subscript𝑄𝐽𝑤superscript𝑞subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑘𝑠subscript1Ωsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑘𝑓𝑘0subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞\displaystyle\quad=\sup_{Q_{J,w}}2^{nJ\tau}\big{\|}\big{(}\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}% \cdot(2^{ks}\phi_{k}\ast f)\big{)}_{k=J}^{\infty}\big{\|}_{L^{p}(Q_{J,w};\ell^% {q})}=\big{\|}\big{(}2^{ks}\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}\cdot(\phi_{k}\ast f)\big{)}_{k=% 0}^{\infty}\big{\|}_{L^{p}_{\tau}\ell^{q}}.= roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n italic_J italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ ( bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = italic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

This completes the proof of (19).

The proof of (18) and (20) are similar but simpler: by assumption 1<p/γ1𝑝𝛾1<p/\gamma\leq\infty1 < italic_p / italic_γ ≤ ∞ we have

(21) :Lpγ(n)Lpγ(n).:superscript𝐿𝑝𝛾superscript𝑛superscript𝐿𝑝𝛾superscript𝑛\mathcal{M}:L^{\frac{p}{\gamma}}(\mathbb{R}^{n})\to L^{\frac{p}{\gamma}}(% \mathbb{R}^{n}).caligraphic_M : italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) → italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .

Therefore, we prove (18) by the following:

(2js𝒫Ω,jθ,Nf)j=0qLτpθ,ϕ,s,τ,N,γ(k=02(nτ+1)γ|jk|Ω2kn|2ksϕkf(y)|γdy(1+2k|y|)Nγ)j=0qγLτγpγ1γ\displaystyle\|(2^{js}\mathcal{P}^{\theta,N}_{\Omega,j}f)_{j=0}^{\infty}\|_{% \ell^{q}L^{p}_{\tau}}\lesssim_{\theta,\phi,s,\tau,N,\gamma}\bigg{\|}\Big{(}% \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}2^{-(n\tau+1)\gamma|j-k|}\int_{\Omega}\frac{2^{kn}|2^{ks}% \phi_{k}\ast f(y)|^{\gamma}dy}{(1+2^{k}|\cdot-y|)^{N\gamma}}\Big{)}_{j=0}^{% \infty}\bigg{\|}_{\ell^{\frac{q}{\gamma}}L^{\frac{p}{\gamma}}_{\tau\gamma}}^{% \frac{1}{\gamma}}∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_θ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≲ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ , italic_ϕ , italic_s , italic_τ , italic_N , italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ( italic_n italic_τ + 1 ) italic_γ | italic_j - italic_k | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ( italic_y ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_y end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | ⋅ - italic_y | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_q end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT by (13)by italic-(13italic-)\displaystyle\text{by }\eqref{Eqn::STInq::omega}by italic_( italic_)
p,q,s,τ(Ω2kn|2ksϕkf(y)|γdy(1+2k|y|)Nγ)k=0qγLτγpγ1γ\displaystyle\quad\lesssim_{p,q,s,\tau}\bigg{\|}\Big{(}\int_{\Omega}\frac{2^{% kn}|2^{ks}\phi_{k}\ast f(y)|^{\gamma}dy}{(1+2^{k}|\cdot-y|)^{N\gamma}}\Big{)}_% {k=0}^{\infty}\bigg{\|}_{\ell^{\frac{q}{\gamma}}L^{\frac{p}{\gamma}}_{\tau% \gamma}}^{\frac{1}{\gamma}}≲ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q , italic_s , italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ( ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ( italic_y ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_y end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | ⋅ - italic_y | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_q end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT by (10)by italic-(10italic-)\displaystyle\text{by }\eqref{Eqn::ASumLem::Bs}by italic_( italic_)
N,γ(vn1(1+|v|)Nγn)1/γ((𝟏Ω|2ksϕkf|γ))k=0qγLτγpγ1γsubscriptless-than-or-similar-to𝑁𝛾absentsuperscriptsubscript𝑣superscript𝑛1superscript1𝑣𝑁𝛾𝑛1𝛾superscriptsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsubscript1Ωsuperscriptsuperscript2𝑘𝑠subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑘𝑓𝛾𝑘0superscript𝑞𝛾subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝛾𝜏𝛾1𝛾\displaystyle\quad\lesssim_{N,\gamma}\Big{(}\sum_{v\in\mathbb{Z}^{n}}\frac{1}{% (1+|v|)^{N\gamma-n}}\Big{)}^{1/\gamma}\big{\|}\big{(}\mathcal{M}(\mathbf{1}_{% \Omega}\cdot|2^{ks}\phi_{k}\ast f|^{\gamma})\big{)}_{k=0}^{\infty}\big{\|}_{% \ell^{\frac{q}{\gamma}}L^{\frac{p}{\gamma}}_{\tau\gamma}}^{\frac{1}{\gamma}}≲ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N , italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + | italic_v | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_γ - italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ ( caligraphic_M ( bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ | 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_q end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT by (17)by italic-(17italic-)\displaystyle\text{by }\eqref{Eqn::PeeToHL}by italic_( italic_)
p,γ(𝟏Ω|2ksϕkf|γ))k=0q/γLτγp/γ1/γ=(2ks𝟏Ω(ϕkf))k=0qLτp\displaystyle\quad\lesssim_{p,\gamma}\big{\|}\big{(}\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}\cdot|2% ^{ks}\phi_{k}\ast f|^{\gamma})\big{)}_{k=0}^{\infty}\big{\|}_{\ell^{q/\gamma}L% ^{p/\gamma}_{\tau\gamma}}^{1/\gamma}=\big{\|}\big{(}2^{ks}\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}% \cdot(\phi_{k}\ast f)\big{)}_{k=0}^{\infty}\big{\|}_{\ell^{q}L^{p}_{\tau}}≲ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ( bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ | 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q / italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p / italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT by (21).by italic-(21italic-)\displaystyle\text{by }\eqref{Eqn::PeeEst::BddM}.by italic_( italic_) .

Finally we prove (20). Using (15) and (12) (since N>|s|+nτ𝑁𝑠𝑛𝜏N>|s|+n\tauitalic_N > | italic_s | + italic_n italic_τ) we have

(22) (2js𝒫Ω,jθ,Nf)j=0qMτpθ,ϕ,s,N(k=02(N|s|)|jk|2ks𝒫Ω,kϕ,Nf)j=0qMτpp,q,τ,N(2js𝒫Ω,jϕ,Nf)j=0qMτp.subscriptless-than-or-similar-to𝜃italic-ϕ𝑠𝑁subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscriptsuperscript𝒫𝜃𝑁Ω𝑗𝑓𝑗0superscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑝𝜏subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑘0superscript2𝑁𝑠𝑗𝑘superscript2𝑘𝑠subscriptsuperscript𝒫italic-ϕ𝑁Ω𝑘𝑓𝑗0superscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑝𝜏subscriptless-than-or-similar-to𝑝𝑞𝜏𝑁subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscriptsuperscript𝒫italic-ϕ𝑁Ω𝑗𝑓𝑗0superscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑝𝜏\|(2^{js}\mathcal{P}^{\theta,N}_{\Omega,j}f)_{j=0}^{\infty}\|_{\ell^{q}M^{p}_{% \tau}}\lesssim_{\theta,\phi,s,N}\Big{\|}\Big{(}\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}2^{(N-|s|)|j% -k|}2^{ks}\mathcal{P}^{\phi,N}_{\Omega,k}f\Big{)}_{j=0}^{\infty}\Big{\|}_{\ell% ^{q}M^{p}_{\tau}}\lesssim_{p,q,\tau,N}\|(2^{js}\mathcal{P}^{\phi,N}_{\Omega,j}% f)_{j=0}^{\infty}\|_{\ell^{q}M^{p}_{\tau}}.∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_θ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≲ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ , italic_ϕ , italic_s , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_N - | italic_s | ) | italic_j - italic_k | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≲ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q , italic_τ , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Taking γ(n/N,min(p,q))𝛾𝑛𝑁𝑝𝑞\gamma\in(n/N,\min(p,q))italic_γ ∈ ( italic_n / italic_N , roman_min ( italic_p , italic_q ) ), we have 2js(𝒫Ω,jϕ,Nf)N,γ(|2js𝟏Ω(ϕjf)|γ)1/γsubscriptless-than-or-similar-to𝑁𝛾superscript2𝑗𝑠subscriptsuperscript𝒫italic-ϕ𝑁Ω𝑗𝑓superscriptsuperscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript1Ωsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑓𝛾1𝛾2^{js}(\mathcal{P}^{\phi,N}_{\Omega,j}f)\lesssim_{N,\gamma}\mathcal{M}(|2^{js}% \mathbf{1}_{\Omega}\cdot(\phi_{j}\ast f)|^{\gamma})^{1/\gamma}2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) ≲ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N , italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M ( | 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT pointwise in nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{R}^{n}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

When p<𝑝p<\inftyitalic_p < ∞ and τ<1/p𝜏1𝑝\tau<1/pitalic_τ < 1 / italic_p, by [TX05, Lemma 2.5] we have

(23) 2js𝒫Ω,jϕ,NfMτpN,γ(|2js𝟏Ω(ϕjf)|γ)1/γMτpp,γ,τ2js𝟏Ω(ϕjf)Mτp,j0.formulae-sequencesubscriptless-than-or-similar-to𝑁𝛾subscriptnormsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscriptsuperscript𝒫italic-ϕ𝑁Ω𝑗𝑓subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑝𝜏subscriptnormsuperscriptsuperscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript1Ωsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑓𝛾1𝛾subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑝𝜏subscriptless-than-or-similar-to𝑝𝛾𝜏subscriptnormsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript1Ωsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑓subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑝𝜏𝑗0\|2^{js}\mathcal{P}^{\phi,N}_{\Omega,j}f\|_{M^{p}_{\tau}}\lesssim_{N,\gamma}% \big{\|}\mathcal{M}\big{(}|2^{js}\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}\cdot(\phi_{j}\ast f)|^{% \gamma}\big{)}^{1/\gamma}\big{\|}_{M^{p}_{\tau}}\lesssim_{p,\gamma,\tau}\|2^{% js}\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}\cdot(\phi_{j}\ast f)\|_{M^{p}_{\tau}},\quad j\geq 0.∥ 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≲ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N , italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ caligraphic_M ( | 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≲ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_γ , italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_j ≥ 0 .

We see that (23) is valid for all 1<p/γ,τ0formulae-sequence1𝑝𝛾𝜏01<p/\gamma\leq\infty,\tau\geq 01 < italic_p / italic_γ ≤ ∞ , italic_τ ≥ 0.

When τ=1/p𝜏1𝑝\tau=1/pitalic_τ = 1 / italic_p, we have Mτp=Lsubscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑝𝜏superscript𝐿M^{p}_{\tau}=L^{\infty}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT by [Sic12, Remark 11(ii)], so (23) follows from (21). When τ>1/p𝜏1𝑝\tau>1/pitalic_τ > 1 / italic_p we have Mτp={0}subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑝𝜏0M^{p}_{\tau}=\{0\}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { 0 }, so (23) holds trivially.

Thus by taking qsuperscript𝑞\ell^{q}roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-sum of (23), we get (20), completing the proof. ∎

Proposition 16.

Let θ=(θj)j=0𝜃superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝜃𝑗𝑗0\theta=(\theta_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}italic_θ = ( italic_θ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT satisfies (P.a) and (P.b), and let λ=(λj)j=0𝜆superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝜆𝑗𝑗0\lambda=(\lambda_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}italic_λ = ( italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT satisfies (P.a’) and (P.b’). For any 0<p,qformulae-sequence0𝑝𝑞0<p,q\leq\infty0 < italic_p , italic_q ≤ ∞, s𝑠s\in\mathbb{R}italic_s ∈ blackboard_R, τ0𝜏0\tau\geq 0italic_τ ≥ 0 and N>max(2n/min(p,q),|s|+nτ)𝑁2𝑛𝑝𝑞𝑠𝑛𝜏N>\max(2n/\min(p,q),|s|+n\tau)italic_N > roman_max ( 2 italic_n / roman_min ( italic_p , italic_q ) , | italic_s | + italic_n italic_τ ), there is a C=C(θ,λ,p,q,s,τ,N)>0𝐶𝐶𝜃𝜆𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏𝑁0C=C(\theta,\lambda,p,q,s,\tau,N)>0italic_C = italic_C ( italic_θ , italic_λ , italic_p , italic_q , italic_s , italic_τ , italic_N ) > 0 such that for every f~𝒮(n)~𝑓superscript𝒮superscript𝑛\tilde{f}\in\mathscr{S}^{\prime}(\mathbb{R}^{n})over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ∈ script_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ),

(24) (2js𝒫n,jθ,Nf~)j=0qLτpsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscriptsuperscript𝒫𝜃𝑁superscript𝑛𝑗~𝑓𝑗0superscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏\displaystyle\|(2^{js}\mathcal{P}^{\theta,N}_{\mathbb{R}^{n},j}\tilde{f})_{j=0% }^{\infty}\|_{\ell^{q}L^{p}_{\tau}}∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_θ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT C(2jsλjf~)j=0qLτp;absent𝐶subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript𝜆𝑗~𝑓𝑗0superscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏\displaystyle\leq C\|(2^{js}\lambda_{j}\ast\tilde{f})_{j=0}^{\infty}\|_{\ell^{% q}L^{p}_{\tau}};≤ italic_C ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ;
(25) (2js𝒫n,jθ,Nf~)j=0Lτpqsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscriptsuperscript𝒫𝜃𝑁superscript𝑛𝑗~𝑓𝑗0subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞\displaystyle\|(2^{js}\mathcal{P}^{\theta,N}_{\mathbb{R}^{n},j}\tilde{f})_{j=0% }^{\infty}\|_{L^{p}_{\tau}\ell^{q}}∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_θ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT C(2jsλjf~)j=0Lτpq,provided p<;formulae-sequenceabsent𝐶subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript𝜆𝑗~𝑓𝑗0subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞provided 𝑝\displaystyle\leq C\|(2^{js}\lambda_{j}\ast\tilde{f})_{j=0}^{\infty}\|_{L^{p}_% {\tau}\ell^{q}},\qquad\text{provided }p<\infty;≤ italic_C ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , provided italic_p < ∞ ;
(26) (2js𝒫n,jθ,Nf~)j=0qMτpsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscriptsuperscript𝒫𝜃𝑁superscript𝑛𝑗~𝑓𝑗0superscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑝𝜏\displaystyle\|(2^{js}\mathcal{P}^{\theta,N}_{\mathbb{R}^{n},j}\tilde{f})_{j=0% }^{\infty}\|_{\ell^{q}M^{p}_{\tau}}∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_θ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT C(2jsλjf~)j=0qMτp.absent𝐶subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript𝜆𝑗~𝑓𝑗0superscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑝𝜏\displaystyle\leq C\|(2^{js}\lambda_{j}\ast\tilde{f})_{j=0}^{\infty}\|_{\ell^{% q}M^{p}_{\tau}}.≤ italic_C ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Proof.

The proof is the same as that for Proposition 14, except that we replace every ΩΩ\Omegaroman_Ω by nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{R}^{n}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in the arguments. We leave the details to readers. ∎

Based on Proposition 14, we can prove a boundedness result of Rychkov-type operators on 𝒜pqsτsuperscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s\tau}script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-spaces.

Proposition 17.

Let ΩnΩsuperscript𝑛\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}roman_Ω ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a special Lipschitz domain and let γ𝛾\gamma\in\mathbb{R}italic_γ ∈ blackboard_R. Let η=(ηj)j=0𝜂superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝜂𝑗𝑗0\eta=(\eta_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}italic_η = ( italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and θ=(θj)j=0𝜃superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝜃𝑗𝑗0\theta=(\theta_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}italic_θ = ( italic_θ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT satisfy conditions (P.a), (P.b) and (P.d) with respect to ΩΩ\Omegaroman_Ω. We define an operator444The notation is slightly different from the one in [SY24, Theorem 1.5]. TΩη,θ,γsubscriptsuperscript𝑇𝜂𝜃𝛾ΩT^{\eta,\theta,\gamma}_{\Omega}italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_η , italic_θ , italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT as

(27) TΩη,θ,γf:=j=02jγηj(𝟏Ω(θjf)),f𝒮(Ω).formulae-sequenceassignsubscriptsuperscript𝑇𝜂𝜃𝛾Ω𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑗0superscript2𝑗𝛾subscript𝜂𝑗subscript1Ωsubscript𝜃𝑗𝑓𝑓superscript𝒮ΩT^{\eta,\theta,\gamma}_{\Omega}f:=\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}2^{j\gamma}\eta_{j}\ast(% \mathbf{1}_{\Omega}\cdot(\theta_{j}\ast f)),\quad f\in\mathscr{S}^{\prime}(% \Omega).italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_η , italic_θ , italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f := ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ ( bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( italic_θ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ) ) , italic_f ∈ script_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) .

Then for 𝒜{,,𝒩}𝒜𝒩\mathscr{A}\in\{\mathscr{B},\mathscr{F},\mathscr{N}\}script_A ∈ { script_B , script_F , script_N }, 0<p,qformulae-sequence0𝑝𝑞0<p,q\leq\infty0 < italic_p , italic_q ≤ ∞, s𝑠s\in\mathbb{R}italic_s ∈ blackboard_R and τ0𝜏0\tau\geq 0italic_τ ≥ 0 (p<𝑝p<\inftyitalic_p < ∞ for \mathscr{F}script_F-cases), we have the boundedness

TΩη,θ,γ:𝒜p,qs,τ(Ω)𝒜p,qsγ,τ(n).:subscriptsuperscript𝑇𝜂𝜃𝛾Ωsuperscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏Ωsuperscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝛾𝜏superscript𝑛T^{\eta,\theta,\gamma}_{\Omega}:\mathscr{A}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\Omega)\to\mathscr{% A}_{p,q}^{s-\gamma,\tau}(\mathbb{R}^{n}).italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_η , italic_θ , italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s , italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) → script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s - italic_γ , italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .
Proof.

Recall 𝒮(Ω)={f~|Ω:f~𝒮(n)}\mathscr{S}^{\prime}(\Omega)=\{\tilde{f}|_{\Omega}:\tilde{f}\in\mathscr{S}^{% \prime}(\mathbb{R}^{n})\}script_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) = { over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ∈ script_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) } is defined via restrictions. We see that TΩη,θ,γ:𝒮(Ω)𝒮(n):subscriptsuperscript𝑇𝜂𝜃𝛾Ωsuperscript𝒮Ωsuperscript𝒮superscript𝑛T^{\eta,\theta,\gamma}_{\Omega}:\mathscr{S}^{\prime}(\Omega)\to\mathscr{S}^{% \prime}(\mathbb{R}^{n})italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_η , italic_θ , italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : script_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) → script_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is well-defined in the sense that, for every extension f~𝒮(n)~𝑓superscript𝒮superscript𝑛\tilde{f}\in\mathscr{S}^{\prime}(\mathbb{R}^{n})over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ∈ script_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) of f𝑓fitalic_f, the summation j=02jγηj(𝟏Ω(θjf~))superscriptsubscript𝑗0superscript2𝑗𝛾subscript𝜂𝑗subscript1Ωsubscript𝜃𝑗~𝑓\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}2^{j\gamma}\eta_{j}\ast(\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}\cdot(\theta_{j}% \ast\tilde{f}))∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ ( bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( italic_θ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ) ) converges 𝒮(n)superscript𝒮superscript𝑛\mathscr{S}^{\prime}(\mathbb{R}^{n})script_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) and does not depend on the choice of f~~𝑓\tilde{f}over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG. See [SY24, Propositions 3.10 and 3.14] for example.

Let λ=(λj)j=0𝜆superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝜆𝑗𝑗0\lambda=(\lambda_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}italic_λ = ( italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be as in Definition 6 that defines the 𝒜pqsτsuperscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s\tau}script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-norms. By Lemma 10, for every j,k0𝑗𝑘0j,k\geq 0italic_j , italic_k ≥ 0, n|λjηk(y)|(1+2k|y|)N𝑑yλ,η,N2N|jk|subscriptless-than-or-similar-to𝜆𝜂𝑁subscriptsuperscript𝑛subscript𝜆𝑗subscript𝜂𝑘𝑦superscript1superscript2𝑘𝑦𝑁differential-d𝑦superscript2𝑁𝑗𝑘\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}|\lambda_{j}\ast\eta_{k}(y)|(1+2^{k}|y|)^{N}dy\lesssim_{% \lambda,\eta,N}2^{-N|j-k|}∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_y ) | ( 1 + 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_y | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_y ≲ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ , italic_η , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_N | italic_j - italic_k | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Thus by the similar argument to (16), for every N>|sγ|𝑁𝑠𝛾N>|s-\gamma|italic_N > | italic_s - italic_γ |,

2j(sγ)2kγ|λjηk(𝟏Ω(θkf))(x)|superscript2𝑗𝑠𝛾superscript2𝑘𝛾subscript𝜆𝑗subscript𝜂𝑘subscript1Ωsubscript𝜃𝑘𝑓𝑥\displaystyle 2^{j(s-\gamma)}2^{k\gamma}|\lambda_{j}\ast\eta_{k}\ast(\mathbf{1% }_{\Omega}\cdot(\theta_{k}\ast f))(x)|2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j ( italic_s - italic_γ ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ ( bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( italic_θ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ) ) ( italic_x ) | 2j(sγ)2kγΩ|λjηk(y)|(1+2k|y|)N𝑑ysuptΩ|θkf(t)|(1+2k|xt|)Nabsentsuperscript2𝑗𝑠𝛾superscript2𝑘𝛾subscriptΩsubscript𝜆𝑗subscript𝜂𝑘𝑦superscript1superscript2𝑘𝑦𝑁differential-d𝑦subscriptsupremum𝑡Ωsubscript𝜃𝑘𝑓𝑡superscript1superscript2𝑘𝑥𝑡𝑁\displaystyle\leq 2^{j(s-\gamma)}2^{k\gamma}\int_{\Omega}|\lambda_{j}\ast\eta_% {k}(y)|(1+2^{k}|y|)^{N}dy\cdot\sup\limits_{t\in\Omega}\frac{|\theta_{k}\ast f(% t)|}{(1+2^{k}|x-t|)^{N}}≤ 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j ( italic_s - italic_γ ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_y ) | ( 1 + 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_y | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_y ⋅ roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ∈ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG | italic_θ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ( italic_t ) | end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_x - italic_t | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG
λ,η,N2(N|sγ|)|jk|2ks(𝒫Ω,kθ,Nf)(x).subscriptless-than-or-similar-to𝜆𝜂𝑁absentsuperscript2𝑁𝑠𝛾𝑗𝑘superscript2𝑘𝑠superscriptsubscript𝒫Ω𝑘𝜃𝑁𝑓𝑥\displaystyle\lesssim_{\lambda,\eta,N}2^{-(N-|s-\gamma|)|j-k|}2^{ks}(\mathcal{% P}_{\Omega,k}^{\theta,N}f)(x).≲ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ , italic_η , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ( italic_N - | italic_s - italic_γ | ) | italic_j - italic_k | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( caligraphic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_θ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ) ( italic_x ) .

Therefore, by Lemma 11, for any N>|sγ|+nτ𝑁𝑠𝛾𝑛𝜏N>|s-\gamma|+n\tauitalic_N > | italic_s - italic_γ | + italic_n italic_τ,

(28) (2j(sγ)λjTΩη,θ,γf)j=0qLτpsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠𝛾subscript𝜆𝑗subscriptsuperscript𝑇𝜂𝜃𝛾Ω𝑓𝑗0superscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏\displaystyle\|(2^{j(s-\gamma)}\lambda_{j}\ast T^{\eta,\theta,\gamma}_{\Omega}% f)_{j=0}^{\infty}\|_{\ell^{q}L^{p}_{\tau}}∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j ( italic_s - italic_γ ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_η , italic_θ , italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT λ,η,p,q,s,γ,τ,N(2ks𝒫Ω,kθ,Nf)k=0qLτp;subscriptless-than-or-similar-to𝜆𝜂𝑝𝑞𝑠𝛾𝜏𝑁absentsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑘𝑠superscriptsubscript𝒫Ω𝑘𝜃𝑁𝑓𝑘0superscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏\displaystyle\lesssim_{\lambda,\eta,p,q,s,\gamma,\tau,N}\|(2^{ks}\mathcal{P}_{% \Omega,k}^{\theta,N}f)_{k=0}^{\infty}\|_{\ell^{q}L^{p}_{\tau}};≲ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ , italic_η , italic_p , italic_q , italic_s , italic_γ , italic_τ , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_θ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ;
(29) (2j(sγ)λjTΩη,θ,γf)j=0Lτpqsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠𝛾subscript𝜆𝑗subscriptsuperscript𝑇𝜂𝜃𝛾Ω𝑓𝑗0subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞\displaystyle\|(2^{j(s-\gamma)}\lambda_{j}\ast T^{\eta,\theta,\gamma}_{\Omega}% f)_{j=0}^{\infty}\|_{L^{p}_{\tau}\ell^{q}}∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j ( italic_s - italic_γ ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_η , italic_θ , italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT λ,η,p,q,s,γ,τ,N(2ks𝒫Ω,kθ,Nf)k=0Lτpq,provided p<;formulae-sequencesubscriptless-than-or-similar-to𝜆𝜂𝑝𝑞𝑠𝛾𝜏𝑁absentsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑘𝑠superscriptsubscript𝒫Ω𝑘𝜃𝑁𝑓𝑘0subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞provided 𝑝\displaystyle\lesssim_{\lambda,\eta,p,q,s,\gamma,\tau,N}\|(2^{ks}\mathcal{P}_{% \Omega,k}^{\theta,N}f)_{k=0}^{\infty}\|_{L^{p}_{\tau}\ell^{q}},\qquad\text{% provided }p<\infty;≲ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ , italic_η , italic_p , italic_q , italic_s , italic_γ , italic_τ , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_θ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , provided italic_p < ∞ ;
(30) (2j(sγ)λjTΩη,θ,γf)j=0qMτpsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠𝛾subscript𝜆𝑗subscriptsuperscript𝑇𝜂𝜃𝛾Ω𝑓𝑗0superscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑝𝜏\displaystyle\|(2^{j(s-\gamma)}\lambda_{j}\ast T^{\eta,\theta,\gamma}_{\Omega}% f)_{j=0}^{\infty}\|_{\ell^{q}M^{p}_{\tau}}∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j ( italic_s - italic_γ ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_η , italic_θ , italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT λ,η,p,q,s,γ,τ,N(2ks𝒫Ω,kθ,Nf)k=0qMτp.subscriptless-than-or-similar-to𝜆𝜂𝑝𝑞𝑠𝛾𝜏𝑁absentsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑘𝑠superscriptsubscript𝒫Ω𝑘𝜃𝑁𝑓𝑘0superscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑝𝜏\displaystyle\lesssim_{\lambda,\eta,p,q,s,\gamma,\tau,N}\|(2^{ks}\mathcal{P}_{% \Omega,k}^{\theta,N}f)_{k=0}^{\infty}\|_{\ell^{q}M^{p}_{\tau}}.≲ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ , italic_η , italic_p , italic_q , italic_s , italic_γ , italic_τ , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_θ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Let f~𝒜pqsτ(n)~𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏superscript𝑛\tilde{f}\in\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\mathbb{R}^{n})over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ∈ script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) be an extension of f𝑓fitalic_f. Clearly 𝒫Ω,kθ,Nf(x)=𝒫Ω,kθ,Nf~(x)𝒫n,kθ,Nf~(x)subscriptsuperscript𝒫𝜃𝑁Ω𝑘𝑓𝑥subscriptsuperscript𝒫𝜃𝑁Ω𝑘~𝑓𝑥subscriptsuperscript𝒫𝜃𝑁superscript𝑛𝑘~𝑓𝑥\mathcal{P}^{\theta,N}_{\Omega,k}f(x)=\mathcal{P}^{\theta,N}_{\Omega,k}\tilde{% f}(x)\leq\mathcal{P}^{\theta,N}_{\mathbb{R}^{n},k}\tilde{f}(x)caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_θ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_x ) = caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_θ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_x ) ≤ caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_θ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_x ) holds pointwise for xn𝑥superscript𝑛x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_x ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Therefore, by choosing N>2n/min(p,q)𝑁2𝑛𝑝𝑞N>2n/\min(p,q)italic_N > 2 italic_n / roman_min ( italic_p , italic_q ) and combining (28) and (24), we have

TΩη,θ,γfpqsτ(n)=(2j(sγ)λjTΩη,θ,γf)j=0qLτpη,θ,λ,p,q,s,γ,τ(2jsλjf~)j=0qLτp=f~pqsτ(n).subscriptnormsubscriptsuperscript𝑇𝜂𝜃𝛾Ω𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏superscript𝑛subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠𝛾subscript𝜆𝑗subscriptsuperscript𝑇𝜂𝜃𝛾Ω𝑓𝑗0superscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏subscriptless-than-or-similar-to𝜂𝜃𝜆𝑝𝑞𝑠𝛾𝜏subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript𝜆𝑗~𝑓𝑗0superscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏subscriptnorm~𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏superscript𝑛\|T^{\eta,\theta,\gamma}_{\Omega}f\|_{\mathscr{B}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\mathbb{R}^{n})% }=\|(2^{j(s-\gamma)}\lambda_{j}\ast T^{\eta,\theta,\gamma}_{\Omega}f)_{j=0}^{% \infty}\|_{\ell^{q}L^{p}_{\tau}}\lesssim_{\eta,\theta,\lambda,p,q,s,\gamma,% \tau}\|(2^{js}\lambda_{j}\ast\tilde{f})_{j=0}^{\infty}\|_{\ell^{q}L^{p}_{\tau}% }=\|\tilde{f}\|_{\mathscr{B}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}.∥ italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_η , italic_θ , italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j ( italic_s - italic_γ ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_η , italic_θ , italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≲ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_η , italic_θ , italic_λ , italic_p , italic_q , italic_s , italic_γ , italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∥ over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Taking the infimum over all extensions f~~𝑓\tilde{f}over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG of f𝑓fitalic_f we get the boundedness TΩη,θ,γ:p,qs,τ(Ω)p,qsγ,γ(n):subscriptsuperscript𝑇𝜂𝜃𝛾Ωsuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏Ωsuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝛾𝛾superscript𝑛T^{\eta,\theta,\gamma}_{\Omega}:\mathscr{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\Omega)\to\mathscr{% B}_{p,q}^{s-\gamma,\gamma}(\mathbb{R}^{n})italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_η , italic_θ , italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : script_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s , italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) → script_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s - italic_γ , italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). Similarly using (29), (25) and (30), (26) we get TΩη,θ,γ:𝒜p,qs,τ(Ω)𝒜p,qsγ,γ(n):subscriptsuperscript𝑇𝜂𝜃𝛾Ωsuperscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏Ωsuperscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝛾𝛾superscript𝑛T^{\eta,\theta,\gamma}_{\Omega}:\mathscr{A}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\Omega)\to\mathscr{% A}_{p,q}^{s-\gamma,\gamma}(\mathbb{R}^{n})italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_η , italic_θ , italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s , italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) → script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s - italic_γ , italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) for 𝒜{,𝒩}𝒜𝒩\mathscr{A}\in\{\mathscr{F},\mathscr{N}\}script_A ∈ { script_F , script_N }. ∎

Remark 18.

Under the definition (7), the operator norms of TΩη,θ,γsubscriptsuperscript𝑇𝜂𝜃𝛾ΩT^{\eta,\theta,\gamma}_{\Omega}italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_η , italic_θ , italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT do not depend555It can depend on the upper bound of ρLsubscriptnorm𝜌superscript𝐿\|\nabla\rho\|_{L^{\infty}}∥ ∇ italic_ρ ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, which is bounded by inf{xn|x|:(x,xn)suppϕj}infimumconditional-setsubscript𝑥𝑛superscript𝑥superscript𝑥subscript𝑥𝑛suppsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗\inf\{-\frac{x_{n}}{|x^{\prime}|}:(x^{\prime},x_{n})\in\operatorname{supp}\phi% _{j}\}roman_inf { - divide start_ARG italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG | italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | end_ARG : ( italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ roman_supp italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } where ϕ{η,θ}italic-ϕ𝜂𝜃\phi\in\{\eta,\theta\}italic_ϕ ∈ { italic_η , italic_θ } and j0𝑗0j\geq 0italic_j ≥ 0. on ΩΩ\Omegaroman_Ω. This is due to the same reason as mentioned in [SY24, Remark 3.11]:

One can see that the constants in Proposition 14 depend on everything except on ΩΩ\Omegaroman_Ω. The same hold for the implied constants in (28), (29) and (30). After the pointwise inequality 𝒫Ω,kθ,Nf𝒫n,kθ,Nf~subscriptsuperscript𝒫𝜃𝑁Ω𝑘𝑓subscriptsuperscript𝒫𝜃𝑁superscript𝑛𝑘~𝑓\mathcal{P}^{\theta,N}_{\Omega,k}f\leq\mathcal{P}^{\theta,N}_{\mathbb{R}^{n},k% }\tilde{f}caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_θ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ≤ caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_θ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG, it remains to estimate (2js𝒫n,jθ,Nf~)j=0superscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscriptsuperscript𝒫𝜃𝑁superscript𝑛𝑗~𝑓𝑗0(2^{js}\mathcal{P}^{\theta,N}_{\mathbb{R}^{n},j}\tilde{f})_{j=0}^{\infty}( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_θ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (which is Proposition 16), where ΩΩ\Omegaroman_Ω is not involved.

Corollary 19 ([YSY15, ZHS20, Zhu21]).

Let ΩnΩsuperscript𝑛\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}roman_Ω ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a special Lipschitz domain. Let ϕ=(ϕj)j=0italic-ϕsuperscriptsubscriptsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑗0\phi=(\phi_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}italic_ϕ = ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and ψ=(ψj)j=0𝜓superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝜓𝑗𝑗0\psi=(\psi_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}italic_ψ = ( italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be as in the assumption and conclusion of Lemma 9 with respect to ΩΩ\Omegaroman_Ω. Then the Rychkov’s extension operator

(31) EΩf=EΩψ,ϕf:=j=0ψj(𝟏Ω(ϕjf)),f𝒮(Ω),formulae-sequencesubscript𝐸Ω𝑓subscriptsuperscript𝐸𝜓italic-ϕΩ𝑓assignsuperscriptsubscript𝑗0subscript𝜓𝑗subscript1Ωsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑓𝑓superscript𝒮ΩE_{\Omega}f=E^{\psi,\phi}_{\Omega}f:=\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\psi_{j}\ast(\mathbf{1% }_{\Omega}\cdot(\phi_{j}\ast f)),\quad f\in\mathscr{S}^{\prime}(\Omega),italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f = italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ψ , italic_ϕ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f := ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ ( bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ) ) , italic_f ∈ script_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) ,

is well-defined and has boundedness EΩ:𝒜pqsτ(Ω)𝒜pqsτ(n):subscript𝐸Ωsuperscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏Ωsuperscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏superscript𝑛E_{\Omega}:\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\Omega)\to\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\mathbb% {R}^{n})italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) → script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) for 𝒜{,,𝒩}𝒜𝒩\mathscr{A}\in\{\mathscr{B},\mathscr{F},\mathscr{N}\}script_A ∈ { script_B , script_F , script_N } and all 0<p,qformulae-sequence0𝑝𝑞0<p,q\leq\infty0 < italic_p , italic_q ≤ ∞, s𝑠s\in\mathbb{R}italic_s ∈ blackboard_R, τ0𝜏0\tau\geq 0italic_τ ≥ 0 (p<𝑝p<\inftyitalic_p < ∞ for \mathscr{F}script_F-cases).

Proof.

EΩsubscript𝐸ΩE_{\Omega}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is an extension operator because by assumption EΩf|Ω=j=0ψjϕjf=fevaluated-atsubscript𝐸Ω𝑓Ωsuperscriptsubscript𝑗0subscript𝜓𝑗subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑓𝑓E_{\Omega}f|_{\Omega}=\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\psi_{j}\ast\phi_{j}\ast f=fitalic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f = italic_f. The boundedness is immediate since EΩ=TΩψ,ϕ,0subscript𝐸Ωsubscriptsuperscript𝑇𝜓italic-ϕ0ΩE_{\Omega}=T^{\psi,\phi,0}_{\Omega}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ψ , italic_ϕ , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT from (27). ∎

Remark 20.

Corollary 19 is not new. See [YSY15, Proposition 4.13] for 𝒜=𝒩𝒜𝒩\mathscr{A}=\mathscr{N}script_A = script_N, [ZHS20, Section 4] for 𝒜=𝒜\mathscr{A}=\mathscr{F}script_A = script_F and [Zhu21, Section 4] for 𝒜=𝒜\mathscr{A}=\mathscr{B}script_A = script_B. For the proof we also refer [GHS23, Theorem 3.6] to readers.

The key to prove Theorem 1 is to use the following analog of [Ryc99, Theorem 2.3].

Proposition 21 (Characterizations via Peetre’s maximal functions).

Let ΩnΩsuperscript𝑛\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}roman_Ω ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a special Lipschitz domain and let ϕ=(ϕj)j=0italic-ϕsuperscriptsubscriptsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑗0\phi=(\phi_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}italic_ϕ = ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a Littlewood-Paley family associated with ΩΩ\Omegaroman_Ω. Then for 0<p,qformulae-sequence0𝑝𝑞0<p,q\leq\infty0 < italic_p , italic_q ≤ ∞, s𝑠s\in\mathbb{R}italic_s ∈ blackboard_R and τ0𝜏0\tau\geq 0italic_τ ≥ 0 (p<𝑝p<\inftyitalic_p < ∞ for \mathscr{F}script_F-cases), we have the following intrinsic characterizations: for every N>max(2nmin(p,q),|s|+nτ)𝑁2𝑛𝑝𝑞𝑠𝑛𝜏N>\max(\frac{2n}{\min(p,q)},|s|+n\tau)italic_N > roman_max ( divide start_ARG 2 italic_n end_ARG start_ARG roman_min ( italic_p , italic_q ) end_ARG , | italic_s | + italic_n italic_τ ),

(32) fpqsτ(Ω)subscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏Ω\displaystyle\|f\|_{\mathscr{B}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\Omega)}∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ϕ,p,q,s,τ,N(2js𝟏Ω(𝒫Ω,jϕ,Nf))j=0qLτp;subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏𝑁absentsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript1Ωsubscriptsuperscript𝒫italic-ϕ𝑁Ω𝑗𝑓𝑗0superscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏\displaystyle\approx_{\phi,p,q,s,\tau,N}\big{\|}\big{(}2^{js}\mathbf{1}_{% \Omega}\cdot(\mathcal{P}^{\phi,N}_{\Omega,j}f)\big{)}_{j=0}^{\infty}\big{\|}_{% \ell^{q}L^{p}_{\tau}};≈ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_p , italic_q , italic_s , italic_τ , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ;
(33) fpqsτ(Ω)subscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏Ω\displaystyle\|f\|_{\mathscr{F}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\Omega)}∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ϕ,p,q,s,τ,N(2js𝟏Ω(𝒫Ω,jϕ,Nf))j=0Lτpq,provided p<;formulae-sequencesubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏𝑁absentsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript1Ωsubscriptsuperscript𝒫italic-ϕ𝑁Ω𝑗𝑓𝑗0subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞provided 𝑝\displaystyle\approx_{\phi,p,q,s,\tau,N}\big{\|}\big{(}2^{js}\mathbf{1}_{% \Omega}\cdot(\mathcal{P}^{\phi,N}_{\Omega,j}f)\big{)}_{j=0}^{\infty}\big{\|}_{% L^{p}_{\tau}\ell^{q}},\qquad\text{provided }p<\infty;≈ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_p , italic_q , italic_s , italic_τ , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , provided italic_p < ∞ ;
(34) f𝒩pqsτ(Ω)subscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒩𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏Ω\displaystyle\|f\|_{\mathscr{N}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\Omega)}∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ϕ,p,q,s,τ,N(2js𝟏Ω(𝒫Ω,jϕ,Nf))j=0qMτp.subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏𝑁absentsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript1Ωsubscriptsuperscript𝒫italic-ϕ𝑁Ω𝑗𝑓𝑗0superscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑝𝜏\displaystyle\approx_{\phi,p,q,s,\tau,N}\big{\|}\big{(}2^{js}\mathbf{1}_{% \Omega}\cdot(\mathcal{P}^{\phi,N}_{\Omega,j}f)\big{)}_{j=0}^{\infty}\big{\|}_{% \ell^{q}M^{p}_{\tau}}.≈ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_p , italic_q , italic_s , italic_τ , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Remark 22.

(32) and (33) are not new as well. The case 𝒜=𝒜\mathscr{A}=\mathscr{F}script_A = script_F is done in [SZ22, Theorem 1.7], where a more general setting is considered. See also [GHS23, Proof of Theorem 3.6, Step 2] for a proof of 𝒜{,}𝒜\mathscr{A}\in\{\mathscr{B},\mathscr{F}\}script_A ∈ { script_B , script_F }.

As already mentioned in Remark 15, it is possible that the assumption of N𝑁Nitalic_N can be weakened.

Proof of Proposition 21.

Let λ=(λj)j=0𝜆superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝜆𝑗𝑗0\lambda=(\lambda_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}italic_λ = ( italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be as in Definition 6 that defines the 𝒜pqsτsuperscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s\tau}script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-norms. We only prove (33) since the proof of (32) and (34) are the same by replacing Lτpqsubscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞L^{p}_{\tau}\ell^{q}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with qLτpsuperscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏\ell^{q}L^{p}_{\tau}roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and qMτpsuperscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑝𝜏\ell^{q}M^{p}_{\tau}roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and including the discussion of p=𝑝p=\inftyitalic_p = ∞.

(greater-than-or-equivalent-to\gtrsim) For fpqsτ(Ω)𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏Ωf\in\mathscr{F}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\Omega)italic_f ∈ script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ), let f~pqsτ(n)~𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏superscript𝑛\tilde{f}\in\mathscr{F}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\mathbb{R}^{n})over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ∈ script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) be an extension of f𝑓fitalic_f. We see that pointwisely

(𝟏Ω𝒫Ω,jϕ,Nf)(x)𝒫Ω,jϕ,Nf(x)=𝒫Ω,jϕ,Nf~(x)𝒫n,jϕ,Nf~(x),j0,xn.formulae-sequencesubscript1Ωsubscriptsuperscript𝒫italic-ϕ𝑁Ω𝑗𝑓𝑥subscriptsuperscript𝒫italic-ϕ𝑁Ω𝑗𝑓𝑥subscriptsuperscript𝒫italic-ϕ𝑁Ω𝑗~𝑓𝑥subscriptsuperscript𝒫italic-ϕ𝑁superscript𝑛𝑗~𝑓𝑥formulae-sequence𝑗0𝑥superscript𝑛(\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}\cdot\mathcal{P}^{\phi,N}_{\Omega,j}f)(x)\leq\mathcal{P}^{% \phi,N}_{\Omega,j}f(x)=\mathcal{P}^{\phi,N}_{\Omega,j}\tilde{f}(x)\leq\mathcal% {P}^{\phi,N}_{\mathbb{R}^{n},j}\tilde{f}(x),\quad j\geq 0,\quad x\in\mathbb{R}% ^{n}.( bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) ( italic_x ) ≤ caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_x ) = caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_x ) ≤ caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_x ) , italic_j ≥ 0 , italic_x ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Thus by Proposition 14,

(2js𝟏Ω(𝒫jϕ,Nf))j=0Lτpq(2js𝒫Ω,jϕ,Nf~)j=0Lτpqλ,ϕ,p,q,s,γ,τ,N(2jsλjf~)j=0Lτpq=f~pqsτ(n).subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript1Ωsubscriptsuperscript𝒫italic-ϕ𝑁𝑗𝑓𝑗0subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscriptsuperscript𝒫italic-ϕ𝑁Ω𝑗~𝑓𝑗0subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞subscriptless-than-or-similar-to𝜆italic-ϕ𝑝𝑞𝑠𝛾𝜏𝑁subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript𝜆𝑗~𝑓𝑗0subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞subscriptnorm~𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏superscript𝑛\big{\|}\big{(}2^{js}\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}\cdot(\mathcal{P}^{\phi,N}_{j}f)\big{)% }_{j=0}^{\infty}\big{\|}_{L^{p}_{\tau}\ell^{q}}\leq\big{\|}\big{(}2^{js}% \mathcal{P}^{\phi,N}_{\Omega,j}\tilde{f}\big{)}_{j=0}^{\infty}\big{\|}_{L^{p}_% {\tau}\ell^{q}}\lesssim_{\lambda,\phi,p,q,s,\gamma,\tau,N}\big{\|}\big{(}2^{js% }\lambda_{j}\ast\tilde{f}\big{)}_{j=0}^{\infty}\big{\|}_{L^{p}_{\tau}\ell^{q}}% =\|\tilde{f}\|_{\mathscr{F}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}.∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≲ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ , italic_ϕ , italic_p , italic_q , italic_s , italic_γ , italic_τ , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∥ over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Taking infimum over all extensions f~~𝑓\tilde{f}over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG of f𝑓fitalic_f, we get fpqsτ(Ω)(2js𝟏Ω(𝒫Ω,jϕ,Nf))j=0Lτpqgreater-than-or-equivalent-tosubscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏Ωsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript1Ωsubscriptsuperscript𝒫italic-ϕ𝑁Ω𝑗𝑓𝑗0subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞\|f\|_{\mathscr{F}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\Omega)}\gtrsim\big{\|}\big{(}2^{js}\mathbf{1}% _{\Omega}\cdot(\mathcal{P}^{\phi,N}_{\Omega,j}f)\big{)}_{j=0}^{\infty}\big{\|}% _{L^{p}_{\tau}\ell^{q}}∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≳ ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

(less-than-or-similar-to\lesssim) By Corollary 19 we have fpqsτ(Ω)EΩfpqsτ(n)=(2jsλjEΩf)j=0Lτpqsubscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏Ωsubscriptnormsubscript𝐸Ω𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏superscript𝑛subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript𝜆𝑗subscript𝐸Ω𝑓𝑗0subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞\|f\|_{\mathscr{F}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\Omega)}\approx\|E_{\Omega}f\|_{\mathscr{F}_{% pq}^{s\tau}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}=\|(2^{js}\lambda_{j}\ast E_{\Omega}f)_{j=0}^{% \infty}\|_{L^{p}_{\tau}\ell^{q}}∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ ∥ italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Therefore using (28) with the fact that EΩ=TΩψ,ϕ,0subscript𝐸Ωsubscriptsuperscript𝑇𝜓italic-ϕ0ΩE_{\Omega}=T^{\psi,\phi,0}_{\Omega}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ψ , italic_ϕ , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT,

(35) (2jsλjEΩf)j=0Lτpq=(2jsλjTΩψ,ϕ,0f)j=0Lτpqψ,ϕ,λ,p,q,s,τ(2js𝒫Ω,jϕ,Nf)j=0Lτpq.subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript𝜆𝑗subscript𝐸Ω𝑓𝑗0subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript𝜆𝑗subscriptsuperscript𝑇𝜓italic-ϕ0Ω𝑓𝑗0subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞subscriptless-than-or-similar-to𝜓italic-ϕ𝜆𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscriptsuperscript𝒫italic-ϕ𝑁Ω𝑗𝑓𝑗0subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞\|(2^{js}\lambda_{j}\ast E_{\Omega}f)_{j=0}^{\infty}\|_{L^{p}_{\tau}\ell^{q}}=% \|(2^{js}\lambda_{j}\ast T^{\psi,\phi,0}_{\Omega}f)_{j=0}^{\infty}\|_{L^{p}_{% \tau}\ell^{q}}\lesssim_{\psi,\phi,\lambda,p,q,s,\tau}\|(2^{js}\mathcal{P}^{% \phi,N}_{\Omega,j}f)_{j=0}^{\infty}\|_{L^{p}_{\tau}\ell^{q}}.∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ψ , italic_ϕ , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≲ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ , italic_ϕ , italic_λ , italic_p , italic_q , italic_s , italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Write Ω={(x,xn):xn>ρ(x)}Ωconditional-setsuperscript𝑥subscript𝑥𝑛subscript𝑥𝑛𝜌superscript𝑥\Omega=\{(x^{\prime},x_{n}):x_{n}>\rho(x^{\prime})\}roman_Ω = { ( italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) : italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > italic_ρ ( italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) }. We define a “fold map” L=LΩ:nΩ¯:𝐿subscript𝐿Ωsuperscript𝑛¯ΩL=L_{\Omega}:\mathbb{R}^{n}\twoheadrightarrow\overline{\Omega}italic_L = italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ↠ over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG as

L(x):=xif xΩ;L(x):=(x,2ρ(x)xn),if xΩ.formulae-sequenceassign𝐿𝑥𝑥formulae-sequenceif 𝑥Ωformulae-sequenceassign𝐿𝑥superscript𝑥2𝜌superscript𝑥subscript𝑥𝑛if 𝑥ΩL(x):=x\quad\text{if }x\in\Omega;\qquad L(x):=(x^{\prime},2\rho(x^{\prime})-x_% {n}),\quad\text{if }x\notin\Omega.italic_L ( italic_x ) := italic_x if italic_x ∈ roman_Ω ; italic_L ( italic_x ) := ( italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , 2 italic_ρ ( italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) - italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , if italic_x ∉ roman_Ω .

Recall Ω={xn>ρ(x)}Ωsubscript𝑥𝑛𝜌superscript𝑥\Omega=\{x_{n}>\rho(x^{\prime})\}roman_Ω = { italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > italic_ρ ( italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) }. By direct computation, we have

(36) |L(x)y|(ρL+1+ρL2)2|xy|Ω|xy|xn,yΩ.formulae-sequence𝐿𝑥𝑦superscriptsubscriptnorm𝜌superscript𝐿1superscriptsubscriptnorm𝜌superscript𝐿22𝑥𝑦subscriptless-than-or-similar-toΩ𝑥𝑦formulae-sequence𝑥superscript𝑛𝑦Ω\textstyle|L(x)-y|\leq\big{(}\|\nabla\rho\|_{L^{\infty}}+\sqrt{1+\|\nabla\rho% \|_{L^{\infty}}^{2}}\big{)}^{2}|x-y|\lesssim_{\Omega}|x-y|\qquad x\in\mathbb{R% }^{n},\quad y\in\Omega.| italic_L ( italic_x ) - italic_y | ≤ ( ∥ ∇ italic_ρ ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + square-root start_ARG 1 + ∥ ∇ italic_ρ ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_x - italic_y | ≲ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_x - italic_y | italic_x ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_y ∈ roman_Ω .

Therefore

𝒫Ω,jϕ,Nf(x)=supyΩ|ϕjf(y)|(1+2j|xy|)NΩ,NsupyΩ|ϕjf(y)|(1+2j|L(x)y|)N=(𝒫Ω,jϕ,Nf)(L(x)),xn.formulae-sequencesuperscriptsubscript𝒫Ω𝑗italic-ϕ𝑁𝑓𝑥subscriptsupremum𝑦Ωsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑓𝑦superscript1superscript2𝑗𝑥𝑦𝑁subscriptless-than-or-similar-toΩ𝑁subscriptsupremum𝑦Ωsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑓𝑦superscript1superscript2𝑗𝐿𝑥𝑦𝑁superscriptsubscript𝒫Ω𝑗italic-ϕ𝑁𝑓𝐿𝑥𝑥superscript𝑛\mathcal{P}_{\Omega,j}^{\phi,N}f(x)=\sup_{y\in\Omega}\frac{|\phi_{j}\ast f(y)|% }{(1+2^{j}|x-y|)^{N}}\lesssim_{\Omega,N}\sup_{y\in\Omega}\frac{|\phi_{j}\ast f% (y)|}{(1+2^{j}|L(x)-y|)^{N}}=\big{(}\mathcal{P}_{\Omega,j}^{\phi,N}f\big{)}% \big{(}L(x)\big{)},\quad x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}.caligraphic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_x ) = roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y ∈ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG | italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ( italic_y ) | end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_x - italic_y | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ≲ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y ∈ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG | italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ( italic_y ) | end_ARG start_ARG ( 1 + 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_L ( italic_x ) - italic_y | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = ( caligraphic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ) ( italic_L ( italic_x ) ) , italic_x ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Clearly for 0<p0𝑝0<p\leq\infty0 < italic_p ≤ ∞ we have the following estimate for cube Q𝒬𝑄𝒬Q\in\mathcal{Q}italic_Q ∈ caligraphic_Q and function gLlocp(Ω)𝑔subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝locΩg\in L^{p}_{\mathrm{loc}}(\Omega)italic_g ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_loc end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ):

gLLp(Q)pgLp(ΩL1(Q))pPQ𝟏ΩgLp(P),where Q:={P𝒬:|P|=|Q|,PL1(Q)}.formulae-sequencesubscriptless-than-or-similar-to𝑝subscriptnorm𝑔𝐿superscript𝐿𝑝𝑄subscriptnorm𝑔superscript𝐿𝑝Ωsuperscript𝐿1𝑄subscriptless-than-or-similar-to𝑝subscript𝑃subscript𝑄subscriptnormsubscript1Ω𝑔superscript𝐿𝑝𝑃assignwhere subscript𝑄conditional-set𝑃𝒬formulae-sequence𝑃𝑄𝑃superscript𝐿1𝑄\|g\circ L\|_{L^{p}(Q)}\lesssim_{p}\|g\|_{L^{p}(\Omega\cap L^{-1}(Q))}\lesssim% _{p}\sum_{P\in\mathcal{I}_{Q}}\|\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}\cdot g\|_{L^{p}(P)},\quad% \text{where }\mathcal{I}_{Q}:=\{P\in\mathcal{Q}:|P|=|Q|,\ P\cap L^{-1}(Q)\neq% \varnothing\}.∥ italic_g ∘ italic_L ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Q ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≲ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_g ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ∩ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Q ) ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≲ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P ∈ caligraphic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ italic_g ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_P ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , where caligraphic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := { italic_P ∈ caligraphic_Q : | italic_P | = | italic_Q | , italic_P ∩ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Q ) ≠ ∅ } .

By (36) we have control of the cardinality #Qn(1+ρL)2nΩ1subscriptless-than-or-similar-to𝑛#subscript𝑄superscript1subscriptnorm𝜌superscript𝐿2𝑛subscriptless-than-or-similar-toΩ1\#\mathcal{I}_{Q}\lesssim_{n}(1+\|\nabla\rho\|_{L^{\infty}})^{2n}\lesssim_{% \Omega}1# caligraphic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≲ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 1 + ∥ ∇ italic_ρ ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≲ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1, which is uniform in Q𝒬𝑄𝒬Q\in\mathcal{Q}italic_Q ∈ caligraphic_Q. Therefore,

(37) (2js𝒫Ω,jϕ,Nf)j=0LτpqN(2js(𝒫Ω,jϕ,Nf)L)j=0Lτpqp,q,Ω(2js𝟏Ω(𝒫Ω,jϕ,Nf))j=0Lτpq.subscriptless-than-or-similar-to𝑁subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscriptsuperscript𝒫italic-ϕ𝑁Ω𝑗𝑓𝑗0subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscriptsuperscript𝒫italic-ϕ𝑁Ω𝑗𝑓𝐿𝑗0subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞subscriptless-than-or-similar-to𝑝𝑞Ωsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript1Ωsubscriptsuperscript𝒫italic-ϕ𝑁Ω𝑗𝑓𝑗0subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞\|(2^{js}\mathcal{P}^{\phi,N}_{\Omega,j}f)_{j=0}^{\infty}\|_{L^{p}_{\tau}\ell^% {q}}\lesssim_{N}\big{\|}\big{(}2^{js}(\mathcal{P}^{\phi,N}_{\Omega,j}f)\circ L% \big{)}_{j=0}^{\infty}\big{\|}_{L^{p}_{\tau}\ell^{q}}\lesssim_{p,q,\Omega}\big% {\|}\big{(}2^{js}\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}\cdot(\mathcal{P}^{\phi,N}_{\Omega,j}f)% \big{)}_{j=0}^{\infty}\big{\|}_{L^{p}_{\tau}\ell^{q}}.∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≲ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) ∘ italic_L ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≲ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q , roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Combining (35) and (37) we get fpqsτ(Ω)(2js𝟏Ω(𝒫Ω,jϕ,Nf))j=0Lτpqless-than-or-similar-tosubscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏Ωsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript1Ωsubscriptsuperscript𝒫italic-ϕ𝑁Ω𝑗𝑓𝑗0subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞\|f\|_{\mathscr{F}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\Omega)}\lesssim\big{\|}\big{(}2^{js}\mathbf{1% }_{\Omega}\cdot(\mathcal{P}^{\phi,N}_{\Omega,j}f)\big{)}_{j=0}^{\infty}\big{\|% }_{L^{p}_{\tau}\ell^{q}}∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≲ ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, finishing the proof. ∎

We can now prove Theorem 1:

Proof of Theorem 1.

The qssuperscriptsubscript𝑞𝑠\mathscr{F}_{\infty q}^{s}script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-cases follow immediately from the pqsτsuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏\mathscr{F}_{pq}^{s\tau}script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-cases using (9).

Fix a N>max(2n/min(p,q),|s|+nτ)𝑁2𝑛𝑝𝑞𝑠𝑛𝜏N>\max(2n/\min(p,q),|s|+n\tau)italic_N > roman_max ( 2 italic_n / roman_min ( italic_p , italic_q ) , | italic_s | + italic_n italic_τ ). We only prove the pqsτsuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏\mathscr{F}_{pq}^{s\tau}script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-cases. The proofs of the pqsτsuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏\mathscr{B}_{pq}^{s\tau}script_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-cases and the 𝒩pqsτsuperscriptsubscript𝒩𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏\mathscr{N}_{pq}^{s\tau}script_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-cases are the same, except that we replace every Lτpqsubscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞L^{p}_{\tau}\ell^{q}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with qLτpsuperscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏\ell^{q}L^{p}_{\tau}roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and qMτpsuperscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑝𝜏\ell^{q}M^{p}_{\tau}roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

By Proposition 21 we have fpqsτ(Ω)(2js𝟏Ω(𝒫Ω,jϕ,Nf))j=0Lτpqsubscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏Ωsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript1Ωsubscriptsuperscript𝒫italic-ϕ𝑁Ω𝑗𝑓𝑗0subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞\|f\|_{\mathscr{F}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\Omega)}\approx\big{\|}\big{(}2^{js}\mathbf{1}% _{\Omega}\cdot(\mathcal{P}^{\phi,N}_{\Omega,j}f)\big{)}_{j=0}^{\infty}\big{\|}% _{L^{p}_{\tau}\ell^{q}}∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Therefore, it suffices to show that (2js𝟏Ω(𝒫Ω,jϕ,Nf))j=0Lτpq(2js𝟏Ω(ϕjf))j=0Lτpqsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript1Ωsubscriptsuperscript𝒫italic-ϕ𝑁Ω𝑗𝑓𝑗0subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript1Ωsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑓𝑗0subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞\big{\|}\big{(}2^{js}\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}\cdot(\mathcal{P}^{\phi,N}_{\Omega,j}f% )\big{)}_{j=0}^{\infty}\big{\|}_{L^{p}_{\tau}\ell^{q}}\approx\big{\|}\big{(}2^% {js}\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}\cdot(\phi_{j}\ast f)\big{)}_{j=0}^{\infty}\big{\|}_{L^% {p}_{\tau}\ell^{q}}∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Clearly (2js𝟏Ω(𝒫Ω,jϕ,Nf))j=0Lτpq(2js𝟏Ω(ϕjf))j=0Lτpqsubscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript1Ωsubscriptsuperscript𝒫italic-ϕ𝑁Ω𝑗𝑓𝑗0subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript1Ωsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑓𝑗0subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞\big{\|}\big{(}2^{js}\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}\cdot(\mathcal{P}^{\phi,N}_{\Omega,j}f% )\big{)}_{j=0}^{\infty}\big{\|}_{L^{p}_{\tau}\ell^{q}}\geq\big{\|}\big{(}2^{js% }\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}\cdot(\phi_{j}\ast f)\big{)}_{j=0}^{\infty}\big{\|}_{L^{p}% _{\tau}\ell^{q}}∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT since ϕjf(x)𝒫Ω,jϕ,Nf(x)subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑓𝑥subscriptsuperscript𝒫italic-ϕ𝑁Ω𝑗𝑓𝑥\phi_{j}\ast f(x)\leq\mathcal{P}^{\phi,N}_{\Omega,j}f(x)italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ( italic_x ) ≤ caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_x ) holds for all f𝒮(Ω)𝑓superscript𝒮Ωf\in\mathscr{S}^{\prime}(\Omega)italic_f ∈ script_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ), xΩ𝑥Ωx\in\Omegaitalic_x ∈ roman_Ω and j0𝑗0j\geq 0italic_j ≥ 0. The converse (2js𝟏Ω(𝒫Ω,jϕ,Nf))j=0Lτpqϕ,p,q,s,τ,N(2js𝟏Ω(ϕjf))j=0Lτpqsubscriptless-than-or-similar-toitalic-ϕ𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏𝑁subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript1Ωsubscriptsuperscript𝒫italic-ϕ𝑁Ω𝑗𝑓𝑗0subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript1Ωsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑓𝑗0subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞\big{\|}\big{(}2^{js}\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}\cdot(\mathcal{P}^{\phi,N}_{\Omega,j}f% )\big{)}_{j=0}^{\infty}\big{\|}_{L^{p}_{\tau}\ell^{q}}\lesssim_{\phi,p,q,s,% \tau,N}\big{\|}\big{(}2^{js}\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}\cdot(\phi_{j}\ast f)\big{)}_{j% =0}^{\infty}\big{\|}_{L^{p}_{\tau}\ell^{q}}∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≲ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_p , italic_q , italic_s , italic_τ , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT follows from (18). Thus, we prove the pqsτsuperscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏\mathscr{F}_{pq}^{s\tau}script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-cases. ∎

We have the immediate analogy of [YY10, Theorem 1.1] on Lipschitz domains:

Corollary 23.

Keeping the assumptions in Proposition 21, we have the following intrinsic characterizations: for every N>max(2n/min(p,q),|s|+nτ)𝑁2𝑛𝑝𝑞𝑠𝑛𝜏N>\max(2n/\min(p,q),|s|+n\tau)italic_N > roman_max ( 2 italic_n / roman_min ( italic_p , italic_q ) , | italic_s | + italic_n italic_τ ),

fpqsτ(Ω)subscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏Ω\displaystyle\|f\|_{\mathscr{B}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\Omega)}∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ϕ,p,q,s,τ,NsupQJ,v𝒬2nJτ(j=max(0,J)2jsq𝒫(QJ,vΩ),jϕ,NfLp(QJ,vΩ)q)1q;subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏𝑁absentsubscriptsupremumsubscript𝑄𝐽𝑣𝒬superscript2𝑛𝐽𝜏superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑗0𝐽superscript2𝑗𝑠𝑞superscriptsubscriptnormsubscriptsuperscript𝒫italic-ϕ𝑁subscript𝑄𝐽𝑣Ω𝑗𝑓superscript𝐿𝑝subscript𝑄𝐽𝑣Ω𝑞1𝑞\displaystyle\approx_{\phi,p,q,s,\tau,N}\sup_{Q_{J,v}\in\mathcal{Q}}2^{nJ\tau}% \Big{(}\sum_{j=\max(0,J)}^{\infty}2^{jsq}\|\mathcal{P}^{\phi,N}_{(Q_{J,v}\cap% \Omega),j}f\|_{L^{p}(Q_{J,v}\cap\Omega)}^{q}\Big{)}^{\frac{1}{q}};≈ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_p , italic_q , italic_s , italic_τ , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n italic_J italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = roman_max ( 0 , italic_J ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ω ) , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ;
fpqsτ(Ω)subscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏Ω\displaystyle\|f\|_{\mathscr{F}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\Omega)}∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ϕ,p,q,s,τ,NsupQJ,v𝒬2nJτ(QJ,vΩ(j=max(0,J)2jsq|𝒫(QJ,vΩ),jϕ,Nf(x)|q)pq𝑑x)1p,provided p<;formulae-sequencesubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏𝑁absentsubscriptsupremumsubscript𝑄𝐽𝑣𝒬superscript2𝑛𝐽𝜏superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑄𝐽𝑣Ωsuperscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑗0𝐽superscript2𝑗𝑠𝑞superscriptsubscriptsuperscript𝒫italic-ϕ𝑁subscript𝑄𝐽𝑣Ω𝑗𝑓𝑥𝑞𝑝𝑞differential-d𝑥1𝑝provided 𝑝\displaystyle\approx_{\phi,p,q,s,\tau,N}\sup_{Q_{J,v}\in\mathcal{Q}}2^{nJ\tau}% \Big{(}\int_{Q_{J,v}\cap\Omega}\Big{(}\sum_{j=\max(0,J)}^{\infty}2^{jsq}|% \mathcal{P}^{\phi,N}_{(Q_{J,v}\cap\Omega),j}f(x)|^{q}\Big{)}^{\frac{p}{q}}dx% \Big{)}^{\frac{1}{p}},\quad\text{provided }p<\infty;≈ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_p , italic_q , italic_s , italic_τ , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n italic_J italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = roman_max ( 0 , italic_J ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ω ) , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_x ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_x ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , provided italic_p < ∞ ;
f𝒩pqsτ(Ω)subscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒩𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏Ω\displaystyle\|f\|_{\mathscr{N}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\Omega)}∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ϕ,p,q,s,τ,N(j=0supQJ,v𝒬2nJτq+jsq𝒫(QJ,vΩ),jϕ,NfLp(QJ,vΩ)q)1q.subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏𝑁absentsuperscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑗0subscriptsupremumsubscript𝑄𝐽𝑣𝒬superscript2𝑛𝐽𝜏𝑞𝑗𝑠𝑞superscriptsubscriptnormsubscriptsuperscript𝒫italic-ϕ𝑁subscript𝑄𝐽𝑣Ω𝑗𝑓superscript𝐿𝑝subscript𝑄𝐽𝑣Ω𝑞1𝑞\displaystyle\approx_{\phi,p,q,s,\tau,N}\Big{(}\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\sup_{Q_{J,v% }\in\mathcal{Q}}2^{nJ\tau q+jsq}\|\mathcal{P}^{\phi,N}_{(Q_{J,v}\cap\Omega),j}% f\|_{L^{p}(Q_{J,v}\cap\Omega)}^{q}\Big{)}^{\frac{1}{q}}.≈ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_p , italic_q , italic_s , italic_τ , italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n italic_J italic_τ italic_q + italic_j italic_s italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ω ) , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .
Proof.

Since |ϕjf(x)|𝒫(QJ,vΩ),jϕ,Nf(x)𝒫Ω,jϕ,Nf(x)subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑓𝑥subscriptsuperscript𝒫italic-ϕ𝑁subscript𝑄𝐽𝑣Ω𝑗𝑓𝑥subscriptsuperscript𝒫italic-ϕ𝑁Ω𝑗𝑓𝑥|\phi_{j}\ast f(x)|\leq\mathcal{P}^{\phi,N}_{(Q_{J,v}\cap\Omega),j}f(x)\leq% \mathcal{P}^{\phi,N}_{\Omega,j}f(x)| italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ( italic_x ) | ≤ caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ω ) , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_x ) ≤ caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ , italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_x ) pointwisely for every QJ,v𝒬subscript𝑄𝐽𝑣𝒬Q_{J,v}\in\mathcal{Q}italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_Q and xQJ,vΩ𝑥subscript𝑄𝐽𝑣Ωx\in Q_{J,v}\cap\Omegaitalic_x ∈ italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ω, the results follow immediately by combining Theorem 1 and Proposition 21. ∎

Remark 24.

By the standard partition of unity argument, we can give the analogy of Theorem 1 on a bounded Lipschitz domain. An example is the following:

(38) fpqsτ(Ω)subscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏Ω\displaystyle\|f\|_{\mathscr{B}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\Omega)}∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ν=1N(2js𝟏ΩUν(ϕjν(χνf)))j=0qLτp;absentsuperscriptsubscript𝜈1𝑁subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript1Ωsubscript𝑈𝜈superscriptsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝜈subscript𝜒𝜈𝑓𝑗0superscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏\displaystyle\approx\sum_{\nu=1}^{N}\|(2^{js}\mathbf{1}_{\Omega\cap U_{\nu}}% \cdot(\phi_{j}^{\nu}\ast(\chi_{\nu}f)))_{j=0}^{\infty}\|_{\ell^{q}L^{p}_{\tau}};≈ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω ∩ italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ ( italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ;
(39) fpqsτ(Ω)subscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏Ω\displaystyle\|f\|_{\mathscr{F}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\Omega)}∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ν=1N(2js𝟏ΩUν(ϕjν(χνf)))j=0Lτpq;absentsuperscriptsubscript𝜈1𝑁subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript1Ωsubscript𝑈𝜈superscriptsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝜈subscript𝜒𝜈𝑓𝑗0subscriptsuperscript𝐿𝑝𝜏superscript𝑞\displaystyle\approx\sum_{\nu=1}^{N}\|(2^{js}\mathbf{1}_{\Omega\cap U_{\nu}}% \cdot(\phi_{j}^{\nu}\ast(\chi_{\nu}f)))_{j=0}^{\infty}\|_{L^{p}_{\tau}\ell^{q}};≈ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω ∩ italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ ( italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ;
(40) f𝒩pqsτ(Ω)subscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒩𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏Ω\displaystyle\|f\|_{\mathscr{N}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\Omega)}∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ν=1N(2js𝟏ΩUν(ϕjν(χνf)))j=0qMτp;absentsuperscriptsubscript𝜈1𝑁subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript2𝑗𝑠subscript1Ωsubscript𝑈𝜈superscriptsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝜈subscript𝜒𝜈𝑓𝑗0superscript𝑞subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑝𝜏\displaystyle\approx\sum_{\nu=1}^{N}\|(2^{js}\mathbf{1}_{\Omega\cap U_{\nu}}% \cdot(\phi_{j}^{\nu}\ast(\chi_{\nu}f)))_{j=0}^{\infty}\|_{\ell^{q}M^{p}_{\tau}};≈ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω ∩ italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ ( italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ;

Here {Uν,(ϕjν)j=0,χν}ν=1Nsuperscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑈𝜈superscriptsubscriptsuperscriptsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝜈𝑗0subscript𝜒𝜈𝜈1𝑁\{U_{\nu},(\phi_{j}^{\nu})_{j=0}^{\infty},\chi_{\nu}\}_{\nu=1}^{N}{ italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT satisfy the following:

  • {Uν}ν=1Nsuperscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑈𝜈𝜈1𝑁\{U_{\nu}\}_{\nu=1}^{N}{ italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is an open cover of Ω¯¯Ω\overline{\Omega}over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG, and there are cones Kνnsubscript𝐾𝜈superscript𝑛K_{\nu}\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT such that Uν(ΩKν)UνΩsubscript𝑈𝜈Ωsubscript𝐾𝜈subscript𝑈𝜈ΩU_{\nu}\cap(\Omega-K_{\nu})\subseteq U_{\nu}\cap\Omegaitalic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ ( roman_Ω - italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ⊆ italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ roman_Ω for each ν=1,,N𝜈1𝑁\nu=1,\dots,Nitalic_ν = 1 , … , italic_N.

  • For ν=1,,N𝜈1𝑁\nu=1,\dots,Nitalic_ν = 1 , … , italic_N, (ϕjν)j=0superscriptsubscriptsuperscriptsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝜈𝑗0(\phi_{j}^{\nu})_{j=0}^{\infty}( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT satisfies (P.a) - (P.c) in Definition 4, with support condition suppϕjνKνsuppsuperscriptsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝜈subscript𝐾𝜈\operatorname{supp}\phi_{j}^{\nu}\subset K_{\nu}roman_supp italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊂ italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for j0𝑗0j\geq 0italic_j ≥ 0.

  • χνCc(Uν)subscript𝜒𝜈superscriptsubscript𝐶𝑐subscript𝑈𝜈\chi_{\nu}\in C_{c}^{\infty}(U_{\nu})italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) for ν=1,,N𝜈1𝑁\nu=1,\dots,Nitalic_ν = 1 , … , italic_N, and satisfy666In fact we can relax the condition to ν=1Nχν|Ω¯>cevaluated-atsuperscriptsubscript𝜈1𝑁subscript𝜒𝜈¯Ω𝑐\sum_{\nu=1}^{N}\chi_{\nu}|_{\overline{\Omega}}>c∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > italic_c for some c>0𝑐0c>0italic_c > 0. ν=1Nχν|Ω¯1evaluated-atsuperscriptsubscript𝜈1𝑁subscript𝜒𝜈¯Ω1\sum_{\nu=1}^{N}\chi_{\nu}|_{\overline{\Omega}}\equiv 1∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≡ 1.

To prove (38), (39) and (40) the only thing we need are the following standard results (p<𝑝p<\inftyitalic_p < ∞ for \mathscr{F}script_F-cases):

  1. (ΨΨ\Psiroman_Ψ.a)

    Let χCc(n)𝜒superscriptsubscript𝐶𝑐superscript𝑛\chi\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n})italic_χ ∈ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). Then [f~χf~]:𝒜pqsτ(n)𝒜pqsτ(n):delimited-[]maps-to~𝑓𝜒~𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏superscript𝑛superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏superscript𝑛[\tilde{f}\mapsto\chi\tilde{f}]:\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\mathbb{R}^{n})\to% \mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\mathbb{R}^{n})[ over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ↦ italic_χ over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ] : script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) → script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is bounded.

  2. (ΨΨ\Psiroman_Ψ.b)

    Let ΦΦ\Phiroman_Φ be an invertible affine linear transform. Then [f~f~Φ]:𝒜pqsτ(n)𝒜pqsτ(n):delimited-[]maps-to~𝑓~𝑓Φsuperscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏superscript𝑛superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏superscript𝑛[\tilde{f}\mapsto\tilde{f}\circ\Phi]:\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\mathbb{R}^{n})% \to\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\mathbb{R}^{n})[ over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ↦ over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ∘ roman_Φ ] : script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) → script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is bounded.

  3. (ΨΨ\Psiroman_Ψ.c)

    For every m1𝑚1m\geq 1italic_m ≥ 1, we have equivalent norms f𝒜p,qs,τ(n)p,q,s,τ,m|α|mαf𝒜p,qsm,τ(n)subscript𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏𝑚subscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏superscript𝑛subscript𝛼𝑚subscriptnormsuperscript𝛼𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝑚𝜏superscript𝑛\|f\|_{\mathscr{A}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}\approx_{p,q,s,\tau,m}\sum_{% |\alpha|\leq m}\|\partial^{\alpha}f\|_{\mathscr{A}_{p,q}^{s-m,\tau}(\mathbb{R}% ^{n})}∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s , italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q , italic_s , italic_τ , italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_α | ≤ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s - italic_m , italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

One can see [YSY10, Sections 6.1.1 and 6.2], [WYY17, Theorem 1.6] and [ST07, Theorem 3.3] for their proof. See also [HT23, Sections 3.4, 4.2 and 4.3]. We remark that because of (8) it is enough to consider the case 0τ1p0𝜏1𝑝0\leq\tau\leq\frac{1}{p}0 ≤ italic_τ ≤ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG. We leave the details to the readers.

One can also write down the analogy of Proposition 21 and Corollary 23 similar to (38), (39) and (40), we leave the details to the readers as well.

Finally, we prove Theorem 2 using the following fact:

Proposition 25 ([SY24, Theorem 1.5 (ii)]).

Let (ϕj)j=1superscriptsubscriptsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑗1(\phi_{j})_{j=1}^{\infty}( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a family777Here the index of the Schwartz family start from j=1𝑗1j=1italic_j = 1. In Definition 5 we start with j=0𝑗0j=0italic_j = 0. of Schwartz functions satisfying (P.a), (P.b) and (P.d). Recall that for every j1𝑗1j\geq 1italic_j ≥ 1, ϕj(x)=2(j1)nϕ1(2j1x)subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑥superscript2𝑗1𝑛subscriptitalic-ϕ1superscript2𝑗1𝑥\phi_{j}(x)=2^{(j-1)n}\phi_{1}(2^{j-1}x)italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) = 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_j - 1 ) italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x ), xαϕj(x)𝑑x=0superscript𝑥𝛼subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑥differential-d𝑥0\int x^{\alpha}\phi_{j}(x)dx=0∫ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) italic_d italic_x = 0 for all α𝛼\alphaitalic_α, and suppϕj{xn<A|x|}suppsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗subscript𝑥𝑛𝐴superscript𝑥\operatorname{supp}\phi_{j}\subset\{x_{n}<-A|x^{\prime}|\}roman_supp italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊂ { italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < - italic_A | italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | } for some A>0𝐴0A>0italic_A > 0.

Then for any m1𝑚1m\geq 1italic_m ≥ 1, there are families of Schwartz functions ϕ~β=(ϕ~jβ)j=1superscript~italic-ϕ𝛽superscriptsubscriptsubscriptsuperscript~italic-ϕ𝛽𝑗𝑗1\tilde{\phi}^{\beta}=(\tilde{\phi}^{\beta}_{j})_{j=1}^{\infty}over~ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( over~ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for |β|=m𝛽𝑚|\beta|=m| italic_β | = italic_m that also satisfy (P.a), (P.b) and (P.d), such that

ϕj=2jm|β|=mβϕ~jβ,for every j1.formulae-sequencesubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗superscript2𝑗𝑚subscript𝛽𝑚superscript𝛽superscriptsubscript~italic-ϕ𝑗𝛽for every 𝑗1\phi_{j}=2^{-jm}\sum_{|\beta|=m}\partial^{\beta}\tilde{\phi}_{j}^{\beta},\quad% \text{for every }j\geq 1.italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_j italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_β | = italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , for every italic_j ≥ 1 .
Proof of Theorem 2.

Once the case of special Lipschitz domains is done, the proof of the case of bounded Lipschitz domains follows from the standard partition of unity argument (one can read [SY24, Section 6] for details) along with the facts (ΨΨ\Psiroman_Ψ.a), (ΨΨ\Psiroman_Ψ.b) and (ΨΨ\Psiroman_Ψ.c) mentioned in Remark 24.

Let ΩnΩsuperscript𝑛\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}roman_Ω ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a special Lipschitz domain. Let f𝒜pqsτ(Ω)𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏Ωf\in\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\Omega)italic_f ∈ script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) and let f~𝒜pqsτ(n)~𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏superscript𝑛\tilde{f}\in\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\mathbb{R}^{n})over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ∈ script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) be an extension of f𝑓fitalic_f. By (ΨΨ\Psiroman_Ψ.c) we have αf~𝒜p,qs|α|,τ(n)p,q,s,τ,αf~𝒜pqsτ(n)subscriptless-than-or-similar-to𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏𝛼subscriptnormsuperscript𝛼~𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝛼𝜏superscript𝑛subscriptnorm~𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏superscript𝑛\|\partial^{\alpha}\tilde{f}\|_{\mathscr{A}_{p,q}^{s-|\alpha|,\tau}(\mathbb{R}% ^{n})}\lesssim_{p,q,s,\tau,\alpha}\|\tilde{f}\|_{\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s\tau}(% \mathbb{R}^{n})}∥ ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s - | italic_α | , italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≲ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q , italic_s , italic_τ , italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Since αf~superscript𝛼~𝑓\partial^{\alpha}\tilde{f}∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG is also an extension of αfsuperscript𝛼𝑓\partial^{\alpha}f∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f, by (7) in Definition 5, taking the infimum over all extensions f~~𝑓\tilde{f}over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG of f𝑓fitalic_f we get |α|mαf𝒜p,qsm,τ(Ω)f𝒜pqsτ(Ω)less-than-or-similar-tosubscript𝛼𝑚subscriptnormsuperscript𝛼𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝑚𝜏Ωsubscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏Ω\sum_{|\alpha|\leq m}\|\partial^{\alpha}f\|_{\mathscr{A}_{p,q}^{s-m,\tau}(% \Omega)}\lesssim\|f\|_{\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\Omega)}∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_α | ≤ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s - italic_m , italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≲ ∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

To prove the converse inequality f𝒜pqsτ(Ω)|α|mαf𝒜p,qsm,τ(Ω)less-than-or-similar-tosubscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏Ωsubscript𝛼𝑚subscriptnormsuperscript𝛼𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝑚𝜏Ω\|f\|_{\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\Omega)}\lesssim\sum_{|\alpha|\leq m}\|% \partial^{\alpha}f\|_{\mathscr{A}_{p,q}^{s-m,\tau}(\Omega)}∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≲ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_α | ≤ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s - italic_m , italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, let (ϕj,ψj)j=0superscriptsubscriptsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗subscript𝜓𝑗𝑗0(\phi_{j},\psi_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be as in (31).

We let (ϕ~jβ)j=1𝒮(n)superscriptsubscriptsubscriptsuperscript~italic-ϕ𝛽𝑗𝑗1𝒮superscript𝑛(\tilde{\phi}^{\beta}_{j})_{j=1}^{\infty}\subset\mathscr{S}(\mathbb{R}^{n})( over~ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊂ script_S ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) (|β|>0𝛽0|\beta|>0| italic_β | > 0) be given in Proposition 25. Thus ϕj=2jqβ:|β|=qβϕ~jβsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗superscript2𝑗𝑞subscript:𝛽𝛽𝑞superscript𝛽subscriptsuperscript~italic-ϕ𝛽𝑗\phi_{j}=2^{-jq}\sum_{\beta:|\beta|=q}\partial^{\beta}\tilde{\phi}^{\beta}_{j}italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_j italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β : | italic_β | = italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for all j,q1𝑗𝑞1j,q\geq 1italic_j , italic_q ≥ 1.

For α0𝛼0\alpha\neq 0italic_α ≠ 0, we define ψα=(ψjα)j=1superscript𝜓𝛼superscriptsubscriptsubscriptsuperscript𝜓𝛼𝑗𝑗1\psi^{\alpha}=(\psi^{\alpha}_{j})_{j=1}^{\infty}italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT by ψjα(x):=2j|α|αψj(x)assignsubscriptsuperscript𝜓𝛼𝑗𝑥superscript2𝑗𝛼superscript𝛼subscript𝜓𝑗𝑥\psi^{\alpha}_{j}(x):=2^{-j|\alpha|}\partial^{\alpha}\psi_{j}(x)italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) := 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_j | italic_α | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) (for j1𝑗1j\geq 1italic_j ≥ 1). Thus the sequences ψαsuperscript𝜓𝛼\psi^{\alpha}italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (for α0𝛼0\alpha\neq 0italic_α ≠ 0) all satisfy (P.a), (P.b) and (P.d).

We define a family of linear operators,

(41) Eα,0f=EΩα,0f:=αψ0(𝟏Ω(ϕ0f)),Eα,βf=EΩα,βf:=j=1ψjα(𝟏Ω(ϕ~jβf)), for |α|=|β|>0.formulae-sequencesuperscript𝐸𝛼0𝑓subscriptsuperscript𝐸𝛼0Ω𝑓assignsuperscript𝛼subscript𝜓0subscript1Ωsubscriptitalic-ϕ0𝑓superscript𝐸𝛼𝛽𝑓subscriptsuperscript𝐸𝛼𝛽Ω𝑓assignsuperscriptsubscript𝑗1superscriptsubscript𝜓𝑗𝛼subscript1Ωsuperscriptsubscript~italic-ϕ𝑗𝛽𝑓 for 𝛼𝛽0E^{\alpha,0}f=E^{\alpha,0}_{\Omega}f:=\partial^{\alpha}\psi_{0}\ast(\mathbf{1}% _{\Omega}\cdot(\phi_{0}\ast f)),\quad E^{\alpha,\beta}f=E^{\alpha,\beta}_{% \Omega}f:=\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\psi_{j}^{\alpha}\ast(\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}\cdot(% \tilde{\phi}_{j}^{\beta}\ast f)),\text{ for }|\alpha|=|\beta|>0.italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f = italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f := ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ ( bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ) ) , italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f = italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f := ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ ( bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( over~ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ) ) , for | italic_α | = | italic_β | > 0 .

For every f𝒮(Ω)𝑓superscript𝒮Ωf\in\mathscr{S}^{\prime}(\Omega)italic_f ∈ script_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) and for every multi-index α0𝛼0\alpha\neq 0italic_α ≠ 0, we see that

(42) αEfsuperscript𝛼𝐸𝑓\displaystyle\partial^{\alpha}Ef∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_E italic_f =j=0αψj(𝟏Ω(ϕjf))=αψ0(𝟏Ω(ϕ0f))+j=1β:|β|=|α|2j|α|ψjα(𝟏Ω2j|α|(βϕ~jβf))absentsuperscriptsubscript𝑗0superscript𝛼subscript𝜓𝑗subscript1Ωsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑓superscript𝛼subscript𝜓0subscript1Ωsubscriptitalic-ϕ0𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑗1subscript:𝛽𝛽𝛼superscript2𝑗𝛼superscriptsubscript𝜓𝑗𝛼subscript1Ωsuperscript2𝑗𝛼superscript𝛽superscriptsubscript~italic-ϕ𝑗𝛽𝑓\displaystyle=\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\partial^{\alpha}\psi_{j}\ast(\mathbf{1}_{% \Omega}\cdot(\phi_{j}\ast f))=\partial^{\alpha}\psi_{0}\ast(\mathbf{1}_{\Omega% }\cdot(\phi_{0}\ast f))+\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\sum_{\beta:|\beta|=|\alpha|}2^{j|% \alpha|}\psi_{j}^{\alpha}\ast(\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}\cdot 2^{-j|\alpha|}(\partial% ^{\beta}\tilde{\phi}_{j}^{\beta}\ast f))= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ ( bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ) ) = ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ ( bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ) ) + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β : | italic_β | = | italic_α | end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j | italic_α | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ ( bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_j | italic_α | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ) )
=αψ0(𝟏Ω(ϕ0f))+β:|β|=|α|j=1ψjα(𝟏Ω(ϕ~jββf))=Eα,0f+β:|β|=|α|Eα,β[βf].absentsuperscript𝛼subscript𝜓0subscript1Ωsubscriptitalic-ϕ0𝑓subscript:𝛽𝛽𝛼superscriptsubscript𝑗1superscriptsubscript𝜓𝑗𝛼subscript1Ωsuperscriptsubscript~italic-ϕ𝑗𝛽superscript𝛽𝑓superscript𝐸𝛼0𝑓subscript:𝛽𝛽𝛼superscript𝐸𝛼𝛽delimited-[]superscript𝛽𝑓\displaystyle=\partial^{\alpha}\psi_{0}\ast(\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}\cdot(\phi_{0}% \ast f))+\sum_{\beta:|\beta|=|\alpha|}\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\psi_{j}^{\alpha}\ast% (\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}\cdot(\tilde{\phi}_{j}^{\beta}\ast\partial^{\beta}f))=E^{% \alpha,0}f+\sum_{\beta:|\beta|=|\alpha|}E^{\alpha,\beta}[\partial^{\beta}f].= ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ ( bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ italic_f ) ) + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β : | italic_β | = | italic_α | end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ ( bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( over~ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ) ) = italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β : | italic_β | = | italic_α | end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ] .

By Proposition 17, Eα,0,Eα,β:𝒜p,qsm,τ(Ω)𝒜p,qsm,τ(n):superscript𝐸𝛼0superscript𝐸𝛼𝛽superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝑚𝜏Ωsuperscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝑚𝜏superscript𝑛E^{\alpha,0},E^{\alpha,\beta}:\mathscr{A}_{p,q}^{s-m,\tau}(\Omega)\to\mathscr{% A}_{p,q}^{s-m,\tau}(\mathbb{R}^{n})italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s - italic_m , italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) → script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s - italic_m , italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) are all bounded. Therefore

f𝒜pqsτ(Ω)subscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏Ωabsent\displaystyle\|f\|_{\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\Omega)}\approx∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ Ef𝒜pqsτ(n)(Ψ.c)|α|mαEf𝒜pqsm,τ(n)subscriptnorm𝐸𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏superscript𝑛(Ψ.c)subscript𝛼𝑚subscriptnormsuperscript𝛼𝐸𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝑚𝜏superscript𝑛\displaystyle\|Ef\|_{\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}\overset{\text{% \ref{Item::Property::DerNorm}}}{\approx}\sum_{|\alpha|\leq m}\|\partial^{% \alpha}Ef\|_{\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s-m,\tau}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}∥ italic_E italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT overOVERACCENT start_ARG ≈ end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_α | ≤ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_E italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s - italic_m , italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
(42)(42)less-than-or-similar-to\displaystyle\overset{\text{\eqref{Eqn::EqvNormPfKey}}}{\lesssim}over() start_ARG ≲ end_ARG Ef𝒜pqsm,τ(n)+0<|α|m(Eα,0f𝒜pqsm,τ(n)+β:|β|=|α|Eα,β[βf]𝒜pqsm,τ(n))subscriptnorm𝐸𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝑚𝜏superscript𝑛subscript0𝛼𝑚subscriptnormsuperscript𝐸𝛼0𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝑚𝜏superscript𝑛subscript:𝛽𝛽𝛼subscriptnormsuperscript𝐸𝛼𝛽delimited-[]superscript𝛽𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝑚𝜏superscript𝑛\displaystyle\|Ef\|_{\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s-m,\tau}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}+\sum_{0<|% \alpha|\leq m}\Big{(}\|E^{\alpha,0}f\|_{\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s-m,\tau}(\mathbb{R}% ^{n})}+\sum_{\beta:|\beta|=|\alpha|}\|E^{\alpha,\beta}[\partial^{\beta}f]\|_{% \mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s-m,\tau}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}\Big{)}∥ italic_E italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s - italic_m , italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 < | italic_α | ≤ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∥ italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s - italic_m , italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β : | italic_β | = | italic_α | end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ] ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s - italic_m , italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )
less-than-or-similar-to\displaystyle\lesssim f𝒜pqsm,τ(Ω)+0<|α|m(f𝒜pqsm,τ(Ω)+β:|β|=|α|βf𝒜pqsm,τ(Ω))|β|mβf𝒜pqsm,τ(Ω).less-than-or-similar-tosubscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝑚𝜏Ωsubscript0𝛼𝑚subscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝑚𝜏Ωsubscript:𝛽𝛽𝛼subscriptnormsuperscript𝛽𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝑚𝜏Ωsubscript𝛽𝑚subscriptnormsuperscript𝛽𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝑚𝜏Ω\displaystyle\|f\|_{\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s-m,\tau}(\Omega)}+\sum_{0<|\alpha|\leq m% }\Big{(}\|f\|_{\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s-m,\tau}(\Omega)}+\sum_{\beta:|\beta|=|% \alpha|}\|\partial^{\beta}f\|_{\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s-m,\tau}(\Omega)}\Big{)}% \lesssim\sum_{|\beta|\leq m}\|\partial^{\beta}f\|_{\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s-m,\tau}% (\Omega)}.∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s - italic_m , italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 < | italic_α | ≤ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s - italic_m , italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β : | italic_β | = | italic_α | end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s - italic_m , italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≲ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_β | ≤ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s - italic_m , italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

This completes the proof of (4) for the case of special Lipschitz domains.

The qssuperscriptsubscript𝑞𝑠\mathscr{F}_{\infty q}^{s}script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-cases follow immediately from (9) since we have qs(n)=qqs,1q(n)superscriptsubscript𝑞𝑠superscript𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑞𝑞𝑠1𝑞superscript𝑛\mathscr{F}_{\infty q}^{s}(\mathbb{R}^{n})=\mathscr{F}_{qq}^{s,\frac{1}{q}}(% \mathbb{R}^{n})script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = script_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s , divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). ∎

4. Further Open Questions

By the same method, using Lemma 10 - Proposition 14, it is possible for us to get the analogs of Theorems 1 and 2 on the so-called local spaces.

The local version of 𝒜pqsτ(n)superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏superscript𝑛\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\mathbb{R}^{n})script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) for 𝒜{,,𝒩}𝒜𝒩\mathscr{A}\in\{\mathscr{B},\mathscr{F},\mathscr{N}\}script_A ∈ { script_B , script_F , script_N }, denoted by 𝒜p,q,unifs,τ(n)superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞unif𝑠𝜏superscript𝑛\mathscr{A}_{p,q,\text{unif}}^{s,\tau}(\mathbb{R}^{n})script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q , unif end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s , italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), is defined by replacing the supremum among the set of dyadic cubes 𝒬𝒬\mathcal{Q}caligraphic_Q with {QJ,v𝒬:J0}conditional-setsubscript𝑄𝐽𝑣𝒬𝐽0\{Q_{J,v}\in\mathcal{Q}:J\geq 0\}{ italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J , italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_Q : italic_J ≥ 0 }. See [Sic12, Section 3.4] for example. For an open subset ΩnΩsuperscript𝑛\Omega\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n}roman_Ω ⊆ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT we use 𝒜p,q,unifs,τ(Ω):={f~|Ω:f~𝒜p,q,unifs,τ(n)}\mathscr{A}_{p,q,\text{unif}}^{s,\tau}(\Omega):=\{\tilde{f}|_{\Omega}:\tilde{f% }\in\mathscr{A}_{p,q,\text{unif}}^{s,\tau}(\mathbb{R}^{n})\}script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q , unif end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s , italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) := { over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ∈ script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q , unif end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s , italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) } similarly. For more details we refer [Tri13] to readers.

One can also consider the analog of Theorems 1 and 2 on 𝒜p(),q()s(),ϕsuperscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠italic-ϕ\mathscr{A}_{p(\cdot),q(\cdot)}^{s(\cdot),\phi}script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p ( ⋅ ) , italic_q ( ⋅ ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s ( ⋅ ) , italic_ϕ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, the spaces with variable exponents. For example [SZ22], which may require certain assumptions on the exponents.

In Definition 6, it is known that the norms are equivalent if (λj)j=0superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝜆𝑗𝑗0(\lambda_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}( italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT only satisfies the scaling condition (P.b) and the Tauberian condition:

(43) There exist ε0,c>0such that|λ^0(ξ)|>c for |ξ|<ε0,and |λ^1(ξ)|>c for ε0/2<|ξ|<2ε0.formulae-sequenceThere exist subscript𝜀0𝑐0such thatsubscript^𝜆0𝜉𝑐 for 𝜉subscript𝜀0and subscript^𝜆1𝜉𝑐 for subscript𝜀02𝜉2subscript𝜀0\text{There exist }\varepsilon_{0},c>0\quad\text{such that}\quad|\hat{\lambda}% _{0}(\xi)|>c\text{ for }|\xi|<\varepsilon_{0},\quad\text{and }|\hat{\lambda}_{% 1}(\xi)|>c\text{ for }\varepsilon_{0}/2<|\xi|<2\varepsilon_{0}.There exist italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_c > 0 such that | over^ start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ξ ) | > italic_c for | italic_ξ | < italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , and | over^ start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ξ ) | > italic_c for italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / 2 < | italic_ξ | < 2 italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

See [WYY17, Theorems 2.5 and 2.6] and [Xu05, Theorem 1] for example.

It is not known to the author whether we can replace the assumption (P.c) for (ϕj)j=0superscriptsubscriptsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑗0(\phi_{j})_{j=0}^{\infty}( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in Theorem 1 with the Tauberian condition (43).

For Theorem 2, we do not know whether (4) has the following improvement:

Question 26.

Keeping the assumptions of Theorem 2, can we find a C=C(Ω,p,q,s,τ,m)>0𝐶𝐶Ω𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏𝑚0C=C(\Omega,p,q,s,\tau,m)>0italic_C = italic_C ( roman_Ω , italic_p , italic_q , italic_s , italic_τ , italic_m ) > 0 such that the following holds?

f𝒜pqsτ(Ω)C(f𝒜p,qsm,τ(Ω)+k=0nmfxkm𝒜p,qsm,τ(Ω)),f𝒜pqsτ(Ω).formulae-sequencesubscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏Ω𝐶subscriptnorm𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝑚𝜏Ωsuperscriptsubscript𝑘0𝑛subscriptnormsuperscript𝑚𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑥𝑘𝑚superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝑚𝜏Ωfor-all𝑓superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠𝜏Ω\|f\|_{\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\Omega)}\leq C\Big{(}\|f\|_{\mathscr{A}_{p,q}^% {s-m,\tau}(\Omega)}+\sum_{k=0}^{n}\Big{\|}\frac{\partial^{m}f}{\partial x_{k}^% {m}}\Big{\|}_{\mathscr{A}_{p,q}^{s-m,\tau}(\Omega)}\Big{)},\quad\forall\,f\in% \mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s\tau}(\Omega).∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_C ( ∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s - italic_m , italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s - italic_m , italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , ∀ italic_f ∈ script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) .

Cf. [WYY17, Theorem 1.6]. The question is open even for the classical Besov and Triebel-Lizorkin spaces 𝒜pqs(Ω)superscriptsubscript𝒜𝑝𝑞𝑠Ω\mathscr{A}_{pq}^{s}(\Omega)script_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) when ΩΩ\Omegaroman_Ω is a (special or bounded) Lipschitz domain.

Acknowledgment.

I would like to thank Dorothee Haroske, Wen Yuan and Ciqiang Zhuo for their informative discussions and advice. I would also like to thank the referees for the comments and suggestions.

References

  • [BPT96] Huy-Qui Bui, Maciej Paluszyński, and Mitchell H. Taibleson, A maximal function characterization of weighted Besov-Lipschitz and Triebel-Lizorkin spaces, Studia Math. 119 (1996), no. 3, 219–246. MR 1397492
  • [FJ90] Michael Frazier and Björn Jawerth, A discrete transform and decompositions of distribution spaces, J. Funct. Anal. 93 (1990), no. 1, 34–170. MR 1070037
  • [FS71] Charles Fefferman and Elias M. Stein, Some maximal inequalities, Amer. J. Math. 93 (1971), 107–115. MR 284802
  • [GHS23] Helena F. Gonçalves, Dorothee D. Haroske, and Leszek Skrzypczak, Limiting embeddings of Besov-type and Triebel-Lizorkin-type spaces on domains and an extension operator, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4) 202 (2023), no. 5, 2481–2516. MR 4634273
  • [Gra14] Loukas Grafakos, Classical Fourier analysis, third ed., Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 249, Springer, New York, 2014. MR 3243734
  • [HT23] Dorothee D. Haroske and Hans Triebel, Morrey smoothness spaces: a new approach, Sci. China Math. 66 (2023), no. 6, 1301–1358. MR 4596050
  • [Maz03] Anna L. Mazzucato, Besov-Morrey spaces: function space theory and applications to non-linear PDE, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 355 (2003), no. 4, 1297–1364. MR 1946395
  • [Pee75] Jaak Peetre, On spaces of Triebel-Lizorkin type, Ark. Mat. 13 (1975), 123–130. MR 380394
  • [Ryc99] Vyacheslav S. Rychkov, On restrictions and extensions of the Besov and Triebel-Lizorkin spaces with respect to Lipschitz domains, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 60 (1999), no. 1, 237–257. MR 1721827
  • [Sic12] Winfried Sickel, Smoothness spaces related to Morrey spaces—a survey. I, Eurasian Math. J. 3 (2012), no. 3, 110–149. MR 3024132
  • [ST07] Yoshihiro Sawano and Hitoshi Tanaka, Decompositions of Besov-Morrey spaces and Triebel-Lizorkin-Morrey spaces, Math. Z. 257 (2007), no. 4, 871–905. MR 2342557
  • [SY24] Ziming Shi and Liding Yao, New estimates of Rychkov’s universal extension operator for Lipschitz domains and some applications, Math. Nachr. 297 (2024), no. 4, 1407–1443. MR 4734977
  • [SZ22] Qi Sun and Ciqiang Zhuo, Extension of variable Triebel-Lizorkin-type space on domains, Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc. 45 (2022), no. 1, 201–216. MR 4351129
  • [Tri06] Hans Triebel, Theory of function spaces. III, Monographs in Mathematics, vol. 100, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2006. MR 2250142
  • [Tri08] by same author, Function spaces and wavelets on domains, EMS Tracts in Mathematics, vol. 7, European Mathematical Society (EMS), Zürich, 2008. MR 2455724
  • [Tri10] by same author, Theory of function spaces, Modern Birkhäuser Classics, Birkhäuser/Springer Basel AG, Basel, 2010, Reprint of 1983 edition [MR0730762], Also published in 1983 by Birkhäuser Verlag [MR0781540]. MR 3024598
  • [Tri13] by same author, Local function spaces, heat and Navier-Stokes equations, EMS Tracts in Mathematics, vol. 20, European Mathematical Society (EMS), Zürich, 2013. MR 3086433
  • [Tri14] by same author, Hybrid function spaces, heat and Navier-Stokes equations, EMS Tracts in Mathematics, vol. 24, European Mathematical Society (EMS), Zürich, 2014. MR 3308920
  • [Tri20] by same author, Theory of function spaces. IV, Monographs in Mathematics, vol. 107, Birkhäuser/Springer, Cham, [2020] ©2020. MR 4298338
  • [TX05] Lin Tang and Jingshi Xu, Some properties of Morrey type Besov-Triebel spaces, Math. Nachr. 278 (2005), no. 7-8, 904–917. MR 2141966
  • [Ull12] Tino Ullrich, Continuous characterizations of Besov-Lizorkin-Triebel spaces and new interpretations as coorbits, J. Funct. Spaces Appl. (2012), Art. ID 163213, 47. MR 2898467
  • [WYY17] Suqing Wu, Dachun Yang, and Wen Yuan, Equivalent quasi-norms of Besov-Triebel-Lizorkin-type spaces via derivatives, Results Math. 72 (2017), no. 1-2, 813–841. MR 3684461
  • [Xu05] Jingshi Xu, A characterization of Morrey type Besov and Triebel-Lizorkin spaces, Vietnam J. Math. 33 (2005), no. 4, 369–379. MR 2200234
  • [YSY10] Wen Yuan, Winfried Sickel, and Dachun Yang, Morrey and Campanato meet Besov, Lizorkin and Triebel, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 2005, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2010. MR 2683024
  • [YSY15] by same author, Interpolation of Morrey-Campanato and related smoothness spaces, Sci. China Math. 58 (2015), no. 9, 1835–1908. MR 3383989
  • [YY10] Dachun Yang and Wen Yuan, Characterizations of Besov-type and Triebel-Lizorkin-type spaces via maximal functions and local means, Nonlinear Anal. 73 (2010), no. 12, 3805–3820. MR 2728556
  • [YY13] by same author, Relations among Besov-type spaces, Triebel-Lizorkin-type spaces and generalized Carleson measure spaces, Appl. Anal. 92 (2013), no. 3, 549–561. MR 3021276
  • [ZHS20] Ciqiang Zhuo, Marc Hovemann, and Winfried Sickel, Complex interpolation of Lizorkin-Triebel-Morrey spaces on domains, Anal. Geom. Metr. Spaces 8 (2020), no. 1, 268–304. MR 4178742
  • [Zhu21] Ciqiang Zhuo, Complex interpolation of Besov-type spaces on domains, Z. Anal. Anwend. 40 (2021), no. 3, 313–347. MR 4284347