Home Area Integral Characterization of Hardy space H1L related to Degenerate Schrödinger Operators
Article Open Access

Area Integral Characterization of Hardy space H1L related to Degenerate Schrödinger Operators

  • Jizheng Huang , Pengtao Li EMAIL logo and Yu Liu
Published/Copyright: December 31, 2019

Abstract

Let

Lf(x)=1ω(x)i,ji(aij()jf)(x)+V(x)f(x)

be the degenerate Schrödinger operator, where ω is a weight from the Muckenhoupt class A2, V is a nonnegative potential that belongs to a certain reverse Hölder class with respect to the measure ω(x)dx. For such an operator we define the area integral ShL associated with the heat semigroup and obtain the area integral characterization of HL1 , which is the Hardy space associated with L.

1 Introduction

As a suitable substitute of Lebesgue spaces Lp(ℝn), the classical Hardy space H1(ℝn) plays an important role in various fields of analysis and partial differential equations. Let Δ be the Laplace operator on ℝn. It follows from [1] that H1(ℝn) can be characterized by the maximal function supt>0|etΔf(x)|. In fact, H1(ℝn) can be seen as a Hardy space associated with the operator –Δ. We use L to denote a general differential operators, such as Schrödinger operators with nonnegative potential or second order elliptic self-adjoint operators in divergence form and so on. The Hardy spaces associated with L become one of the most concerned problems of the harmonic analysis. Readers can refer to [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] and the references therein. In recent years, [3] and [10] study the Hardy spaces associated with the degenerate Schrödinger operators.

As we know, the area integral is an important tool to characterize Hardy spaces. In [11], Fefferman and Stein obtain the area integral characterization of the classical Hardy spaces Hp(ℝn). From then on, such characterization was extended to other settings. We refer the reader to [4, 5, 12] and the references therein. Let L be a degenerate Schrödinger operator L on ℝn. In this paper, motivated by the above literatures, we will prove that the Hardy space associated with L also has such a characterization. The degenerate Schrödinger operator L on ℝn is defined as follows.

Lf(x)=1ω(x)i,ji(aij()if)(x)+Vf(x),

where (aij(x))i,j is a real symmetric matrix satisfying

C1ω(x)|ξ|2i,jaij(x)ξiξj¯Cω(x)|ξ|2

with ω being a nonnegative weight from the Muckenhoupt class A2, and V ≥ 0 belonging to a reverse Hölder class with respect to the measure = ω(x)dx (see Section 2 for their definitions). Denote by 𝓔(f, g) the Dirichlet form associated with L, that is,

E(f,g)=Rni,jaij(x)jf(x)ig(x)¯dx+RnV(x)f(x)dμ(x).

The operator –L is the infinitesimal generator of the heat semigroup {Tt}t>0 of self-adjoint linear operators on L2(). Let Kt(x, y) be the integral kernels of {Tt}, i.e.,

Ttf(x)=RnKt(x,y)f(y)dμ(y).

In [3], Dziubański introduces the following Hardy space associated with the operator L.

Definition 1.1

We say a function f in L1() belongs to HL1 () if the heat maximal function 𝓜f is in L1(), where

Mf(x)=supt>0|Ttf(x)|.

The HL1 -norm of f is defined by fHL1 = ∥𝓜fL1().

Dziubański in [3] has given the following atomic decomposition of HL1 ().

Definition 1.2

A function a is called an HL1 -atom associated with a ball B(x, r) if

  1. r < ρ(x), supp aB(x, r), ∥aLμ(B(x, r))–1;

  2. If rρ(x)/4, then ∫a(y)(y) = 0,

where ρ(x) is the auxiliary function that defined in (2.3).

The atomic norm HL1atom is defined by

fHL1atom=inf|λj|,

where the infimum is taken over all decompositions f = ∑j λj aj, where {aj} is a sequence of HL1 -atoms and {λj} is a sequence of scalars.

Proposition 1.3

([3, Theorem 2.1]) Assume that ω ∈ (RD)νDyA2 with 2 < νy. Let VBq,μ, q > y/2. Then there exists a constant C > 0 such that

1CfHL1atomfHL1CfHL1atom.

The first main result of this paper can be stated as follows. Let ShL be the area integral associated with the heat semigroup generated by L, see (3.1) below. We have the following area integral characterization of HL1 ():

Assume that ω ∈ (RD)νDyA2, 2 < νy, and VBq,μ with q > y/2. Then

fHL1(dμ)ShL(f)L1(dμ),

see Theorems 3.9 & 3.14 for the details.

Following the classical case, we need a reproducing formula related to L in the distributional sense to divide the elements of HL1 () into atoms. As the dual space of HL1 () (cf. Definition 3.10), the BMO type spaces BMOL() are introduced by Yang-Yang-Zhou in [13, 14]. Suppose f ∈ (BMOL()), we obtain the desired reproducing formula which can be seen from Theorem 3.13. Since (BMOL())* is a subclass of the Schwartz temperate distribution space 𝓢′, so we know that our reproducing formula is valid for the elements in (BMOL())* due to the fact that for a general potential V, the kernel of etL only satisfies some Lipschitz condition, see Proposition 3.3. Also, the reproducing formula can be extended to all temperate distributions under this assumption if the high order derivatives of the kernel of etL still have a Gaussian upper bound.

Remark 1.4

  1. The Hardy space HL1 () in this paper is a special case of the localized Hardy space Hρ1 (𝓧) associated with the admissible function ρ, which has been investigated by Yang and Zhou in [10], where 𝓧 is a RD-space. However, the authors give several maximal function characterizations of Hρ1 (𝓧) without the area integral characterization in [10]. We will focus on the latter in this paper.

  2. Our main results can be seen as the generalization of the classical case. In fact, if ω(x)dx = dx and L = Δ=i=1n2xi2, the space H1 (dx) is exactly the classical space H1(ℝn). It is well-known that the Hardy space H1(ℝn) has the area integral characterization associated with heat semigroup et.

Throughout this article, we will use c and C to denote the positive constants, which are independent of main parameters and may be different at each occurrence. By B1B2, we mean that there exists a constant C > 1 such that 1CB1B2C.

2 Preliminaries

A nonnegative function ω is an element of the Muckenhoupt class A2 if there exists a constant C > 0 such that for every ball B,

(1|B|Bω(x)dx)(1|B|Bω1(x)dx)C. (2.1)

Here and subsequently, |B| denotes the volume of the ball B with respect to the Lebesgue measure dx. It is well-known that (2.1) implies that the measure (x) = ω(x)dx satisfies the doubling condition, that is, there exists a constant C0 > 0 such that for every x ∈ ℝn, r > 0,

μ(B(x,2r))C0μ(B(x,r)). (2.2)

Using the notation of [15], we say that ωDy, y > 0, if there is a constant C > 0 such that for every t > 1,

μ(B(x,tr))Ctyμ(B(x,r)).

Notice that (2.2) guarantees the existence of such a y.

Similarly, ω ∈ (RD)ν if for every t > 1,

tνμ(B(x,r))Cμ(B(x,tr)).

A nonnegative potential V belongs to the reverse Hölder class Bq,μ, q > 1, with respect to the measure if there exists a constant C > 0 such that for every Euclidean ball B, one has

(1μ(B)BVq(y)dμ(y))1/qC(1μ(B)BV(y)dμ(y)).

From now on we shall assume that ωA2Dy ∩ (RD)ν, 2 < ν < y, (x) = ω(x)dx and VBq,μ, q > y/2. We set δ = 2 – y/q.

In Definitions 1.2 & 3.10, we have used the following auxiliary function m(x, V) which is defined by

ρ(x)=m(x,V)1=sup{r>0:r2μ(B(x,r))B(x,r)V(y)dμ(y)1}. (2.3)

It is easy to see that, via a perturbation formula,

0Kt(x,y)ht(x,y).

Here ht(x, y) denotes the integral kernels of the semigroup {St}t>0 on L2() generated by –L0, where

L0f(x)=1ω(x)i,ji(aijjf)(x).

It is known that the kernels ht(x, y) satisfy the Gaussian estimates:

c1μ(B(x,t))exp(|xy|2/c2t)ht(x,y)C1μ(B(x,t))exp(|xy|2/C2t), (2.4)

which indicates that the kernels Kt(x, y) have a Gaussian upper bound. Furthermore, Dziubański in [3] proves that

Lemma 2.1

There exists a constant C > 0 such that for every N > 0 there exists a constant CN such that

Kt(x,y)CNμ(B(x,t))(1+tρ(x))N(1+tρ(y))Nexp(C|xy|2/t).

In [16], Hebisch and Saloff-Coste have proved the following estimates for the heat kernels of L0:

|ht(x,y)ht(x,z)|Cμ(B(x,t))1(|yz|/t)αexp((|xy|2|yz|)+2/ct) (2.5)

with constants α > 0, c > 0, C > 0, and

|tkht(x,y)|Cktkμ(B(x,t))exp(|xy|2ct).

In the rest of this section, we state some properties of the function m(x, V) which will be used in the sequel.

Lemma 2.2

([15, Lemma 2]) Assume that ωDy, VBq,μ with q > y/2. Then there exists a constant C > 0 such that for every 0 < r < R < ∞ and y ∈ ℝn, we have

r2μ(B(y,r))B(y,r)V(x)dμ(x)C(rR)δR2μ(B(y,R))B(y,R)V(x)dμ(x).

Lemma 2.3

([15, Lemma 3]) Under the assumptions of Lemma 2.2, for every constant C1 > 1, there exists a constant C2 > 1 such that if

1C1r2μ(B(x,r))B(x,r)V(y)dμ(y)C1,

then C21 rm(x, V) ≤ C2.

Lemma 2.4

([15, Lemma 4]) Under the assumptions of Lemma 2.2, for every constant C1 ≥ 1 there is a constant C2 ≥ 1 such that 1C2m(x,V)m(y,V)C2 for |xy| ≤ C1r(x). Moreover, there exist constants k0, C, c > 0 such that

m(y,V)C(1+|xy|m(x,V))k0m(x,V)

and

m(y,V)cm(x,V)(1+|xy|m(x,V))k0/(1+k0).

Lemma 2.5

([3, Lemma 4.4]) There exist constants l, C > 0 such that

R2μ(B(x,R))B(x,R)V(y)dμ(y)C(Rm(x,V))lprovided Rm(x,V)1.

Lemma 2.6

([3, Corollary 4.5]) For any constants c, C′ > 0 there exists a constant C > 0 such that

ec|xy|2/tV(y)μ(B(x,t))dμ(y)Ct1(tm(x,V))δfortCm(x,V)1.

Lemma 2.7

For VBq,μ and l > 0, there exists a constant C > 0 such that

Rn1μ(B(x,t))V(z)e|xz|2/tdμ(z)Ct(tρ(x))l,tρ(x)2.

Proof

RnV(z)1μ(B(x,t))ec|xz|2/tdμ(z)(|xz|<t+|xz|t)V(z)1μ(B(x,t))ec|xz|2/tdμ(z)=:I1+I2.

For I1, using Lemma 2.5, we have

I1t2tμ(B(x,t))B(x,t)V(z)dμ(z)Ct(tρ(x))l.

Similarly, for I2, we have

I2j=01μ(B(x,t))2jt|xz|<2j+1tV(z)(1+|xz|2/t)Ndμ(z)j=01μ(B(x,t))1(1+22j)N|xz|<2j+1tV(z)dμ(z)1tj=02j(2Ny+2)(2j+1tm(x,V))lCt(tρ(x))l.

3 Area integral characterization associated to the heat semigroup

3.1 Smoothness estimates associated with {Tt}

In this section, by use of the area integral associated to the heat semigroup {Tt}t>0, we characterize the Hardy type space HL1 (). The area integral associated to {Tt}t>0 is defined as follows.

Definition 3.1

For (x, t) ∈ R+n+1 , let (Qtf)(x)=t2(dTsds|s=t2f)(x). The area integral associated to the heat semigroup {Tt}t>0 is defined by

ShLf(x)=(0B(x,t)|Qtf(y)|2dμ(y)dttμ(B(x,t)))1/2. (3.1)

Moreover, the Littlewood-Paley g-function associated to the heat semigroup {Tt}t>0 is defined by

ghLf(x)=(0|Qtf(x)|2dtt)1/2. (3.2)

To prove our main results, we need some estimates for the integral kernels of the operators Qt:

Qt(x,y)=t2Ks(x,y)s|s=t2.

Proposition 3.2

Assume that ωDy, VBq,μ with q > y/2. Set qt(x, y) = ht(x, y) – Kt(x, y). Then for |h| ≤ min{|xy|/4, ρ(y)}, we have

|qt(x,y+h)qt(x,y)|Cμ(B(x,t))ec|xy|2/t(|h|ρ(x))δ,

where 0 < δ′ < min(δ, 1).

Proof

Since 0 ≤ Kt(x, y) ≤ ht(x, y), so we have 0qt(x,y)1μ(B((x,t)))ec|xy|2/t. We divide the proof into two cases.

  1. |h| ≥ ρ(x). For δ′ > 0, (|h|/ρ(x))δ ≥ 1. Because |h| ≤ |xy|/4, we can see that |xyh| ≥ 3|xy|/4 and ec|xyh|2/tec′|xy|2/t, which imply that

    |qt(x,y)|+|qt(x,y+h)|1μ(B(x,t))ec|xy|2/t(|h|ρ(x))δ.

    The above two estimates give

    |qt(x,y+h)qt(x,y)|Cμ(B(x,t))ec|xy|2/t(|h|ρ(x))δ.
  2. |h| < ρ(x). We further divide Case II into two subcases.

    1. t ≤ 2|h|2. By [3, Proposition 5.1], we conclude that the desired estimate is valid.

    2. t > 2|h|2. We only need to prove:

      |qt(x,y+h)qt(x,y)|Cμ(B(x,t))(|h|ρ(x))δeϵ|xy|2/t.

Via (2.5), we have

|ht(x,y+h)ht(x,y)|Cμ(B(x,t))(|h|t)αexp((|xy|2|h|)+2/ct).

If |h| < |xy|/4, then |xy| – 2|h| ≥ |xy|/2 and

|ht(x,y+h)ht(x,y)|Cμ(B(x,t))(|h|t)αe|xy|2/ct.

Because

qt(x,y)=0tRnKts(x,z)V(z)hs(z,y)dμ(z)ds,

we can use the change of variable to obtain

|qt(x,y+h)qt(x,y)|0tRn|Kts(x,z)|V(z)|hs(z,y+h)hs(z,y)|dμ(z)ds=0t/2Rn|Ks(x,z)|V(z)|hts(z,y+h)hts(z,y)|dμ(z)ds+0t/2Rn|Kts(x,z)|V(z)|hs(z,y+h)hs(z,y)|dμ(z)ds=:J1+J2.

When t < 2ρ(x)2, note that 0 < s < t/2, t/2 < ts < t. Because B(x, t ) ⊂ B(z, |xz| + t ), a direct computation gives

1μ(B(z,t))ec|xz|2/s1μ(B(x,t))μ(B(z,t+|xz|))μ(B(z,t))ec1|xz|2/sec2|xz|2/sCμ(B(x,t))ec1|xz|2/s. (3.3)

We obtain, by Lemma 2.6 and (3.3),

J10t/2Rn1μ(B(x,s))ec|xz|2/sV(z)μ(B(z,ts))(|h|ts)αdμ(z)dsCμ(B(x,t))(|h|t)α0t/2Rn1μ(B(z,s))ec1|xz|2/sV(z)dμ(z)dsCμ(B(x,t))(|h|t)α0t/21s(sρ(x))δdsCμ(B(x,t))(|h|t)α(tρ(x))δ.

Taking δ0 = min{α, δ} ≤ α, for t2ρ(x), we have (t/2ρ(x))δδ01. For t>2|h|,(|h|/t)δ (|h|/t)δ0. Then

J1cμ(B(x,t))(|h|t)α(tρ(x))δ0(tρ(x))δδ0cμ(B(x,t))(|h|ρ(x))δ0.

When t > 2ρ(x)2, note that 0 < s < t/2, t/2 < ts < t. Hence,

J10t/2RnCNμ(B(x,s))(1+sρ(x))N(1+sρ(z))Nec|xz|2/sV(z)cμ(B(z,ts))(|h|ts)αdμ(z)ds(|h|t)α0t/2RnCNμ(B(x,s))(1+sρ(x))N(1+sρ(z))NV(z)ec|xz|2/sμ(B(x,t))dμ(z)ds.

The term J1 can be further divided as follows:

J1(|h|t)αCNμ(B(x,t))0t/2Rn1μ(B(x,s))(1+sρ(x))Nec|xz|2/sV(z)dμ(z)ds=:J1,1+J1,2,

where

J1,1=(|h|t)αCNμ(B(x,t))0ρ(x)2RnV(z)μ(B(x,s))(1+sρ(x))Nec|xz|2/sdμ(z)ds

and

J1,2=(|h|t)αCNμ(B(x,t))ρ(x)2t/2RnV(z)μ(B(x,s))(1+sρ(x))Nec|xz|2/sdμ(z)ds.

For J1,1, since |h| ≤ ρ(x), then (|h|/ρ(x))α ≤ (|h|/ρ(x))δ0 for αδ0. So we can get

J1,1(|h|t)αCNμ(B(x,t))0ρ(x)21μ(B(x,s))(1+tρ(x))NRnec|xz|2/sV(z)dμ(z)ds(|h|t)αCNμ(B(x,t))0ρ(x)2(1+tρ(x))N1s(sρ(x))δds(|h|ρ(x))δ0CNμ(B(x,t)).

For J1,2, choose N large enough such that (t/2ρ(x))lN1, where l is the constant in Lemma 2.5. Using Lemma 2.5, we have

J1,2(|h|t)αCNμ(B(x,t))ρ(x)2t/21s(sρ(x))l0(1+sρ(x))Nds(|h|t)αCNμ(B(x,t))ρ(x)2t/21s(sρ(x))l0NdsCNμ(B(x,t))(|h|ρ(x))δ0,

which implies J1CNμ(B(x,t))(|h|/ρ(x))δ0.

In what follows, we consider J2. In fact,

J2=0|h|2Rn|Kts(x,z)|V(z)|hs(z,y+h)hs(z,y)|dμ(z)ds+|h|2t/2|zy|<2|h||Kts(x,z)|V(z)|hs(z,y+h)hs(z,y)|dμ(z)ds+|h|2t/2|zy|2|h||Kts(x,z)|V(z)|hs(z,y+h)hs(z,y)|dμ(z)ds=:J2,1+J2,2+J2,3.

For J2,1, by the symmetry, we have

J2,10|h|2Rn[ec|zy|2/sμ(B(y,s))+ec|zyh|2/sμ(B(y+h,s))]V(z)μ(B(x,ts))(1+tsρ(x))N×(1+ts/ρ(z))Nec|xz|2/tsdμ(z)ds.

Because 0 < s < |h|2 < t/2, we know S < |h| < ρ(y) ∼ ρ(y + h). Then we obtain

J2,1cμ(B(x,t))(1+tρ(x))N0|h|2Rn[ec|zy|2/sμ(B(y,s))+ec|zyh|2/sμ(B(y+h,s))]V(z)dμ(z)dscμ(B(x,t))(1+tρ(x))N0|h|2Rn1s(sρ(y))δdscμ(B(x,t))(1+tρ(x))N(|h|ρ(x))δ(ρ(x)ρ(y))δ.

Similarly, we can deal with J2,2. It is easy to see that B(y, 2|h|) ⊂ B(z, 4|h|). Using 2 < νy, we have

1|h|2|h|2t/2(|h|s)α+νds=|h|α+ν2|h|2t/21s(α+ν)/2ds1.

So

J2,21μ(B(x,t))(1+tρ(x))N|h|2t/2|zy|<2|h|(|h|s)α1μ(B(z,s))V(z)dμ(z)ds1μ(B(x,t))(1+tρ(x))N1(2|h|)2(2|h|ρ(y))δ|h|2t/2(|h|s)α+νdsCμ(B(x,t))(1+tρ(x))N(|h|ρ(x))δ(ρ(x)ρ(y))δ.

For J2,3, we divide the estimate into two cases.

  1. If t < 2ρ(y)2, s < t/2 < ρ(y)2. Because B(y, S ) ⊂ B(z, |yz| + S ), the doubling property of μ implies that

    1μ(B(z,s))(1+|yz|s)y1μ(B(y,s)).

    We use (2.5) to obtain that

    J2,31μ(B(x,t))(1+tρ(x))N|h|2t/2|zy|>2|h||hs(z,y+h)hs(z,y)|V(z)dμ(z)Cμ(B(x,t))(1+tρ(x))N|h|2t/2|zy|>2|h|ec|yz|2/sV(z)μ(B(z,s))(|h|s)αdμ(z)dsCμ(B(x,t))(1+tρ(x))N|h|2t/21s(|h|ρ(y))δ(s|h|)δ(|h|s)αds.

    For S < ρ(y) and δ0 = min{α, δ}, (s/ρ(y))δ(s/ρ(y))δ0. Moreover, |h|<ρ(y),(|h|/s)α(|h|/s)δ0. Finally, we have

    J2,3Cμ(B(x,t))(1+tρ(x))N(|h|ρ(y))δ0|h|2t/21sdsCμ(B(x,t))(1+tρ(x))N(|h|ρ(x))δ0(ρ(x)ρ(y))δ0(1+|log|h|ρ(x)|)(1+|logρ(x)ρ(y)|).
  2. If t ≥ 2ρ(y)2, we have

    J2,3(|h|2ρ(y)2+ρ(y)2t/2)|zy|2|h||Kts(x,z)|V(z)|hs(z,y+h)hs(z,y)|dμ(z)ds=:J2,3(1)+J2,3(2).

For J2,3(1) , because |h|2 < s < ρ(y)2,

J2,3(1)Cμ(B(x,t))(1+tρ(x))N(|h|ρ(x))δ0(ρ(x)ρ(y))δ0(1+|log|h|ρ(x)|)(1+|logρ(x)ρ(y)|).

For J2,3(2) , we can deduce that

J2,3(2)Cμ(B(x,t))(1+tρ(x))Nρ(y)2t/2|zy|2|h|(|h|s)αec|zy|2/sV(z)μ(B(z,s))dμ(z)dsCμ(B(x,t))(1+tρ(x))Nρ(y)2t/2(|h|s)α(sρ(y))l0dssCμ(B(x,t))(1+tρ(x))N+l0+α(tρ(x))l0α(|h|ρ(x))α(ρ(x)ρ(y))l0.

For any ρ(x) and ρ(y), we have

ρ(x)ρ(y)C(1+|xy|ttρ(x))k0Cεeε|xy|2/t(1+tρ(x))k0.

Taking N large enough, we get the desired result. This completes the proof of Proposition 3.2.□

In what follows, we begin to estimate the smoothness of the kernel Kt(⋅, ⋅).

Proposition 3.3

For every 0 < δ′ < δ0 = min{α, δ, ν}, there exists a constant C > 0 such that for every M > 0 and |h| < t ,

|Kt(x,y+h)Kt(x,y)|CM(|h|/t)δ1μ(B(x,t))ec|xy|2/t(1+t/ρ(x))M(1+t/ρ(y))M.

Proof

In the following proof, we denote by N the positive number, which may be different in different places. The proof is divided into four cases.

  1. t/2|h|t. By Lemma 2.1

    Kt(x,y)CNμ(B(x,t))(1+t/ρ(x))N(1+t/ρ(y))Nec|xy|2/t.

    Using the triangle inequality, we have |xy|2/2t ≤ 1 + |xyh|2/t. Hence, ec|xyh|2/tCec|xy|2/2t. Then

    |Kt(x,y+h)Kt(x,y)|CMμ(B(x,t))(1+t/ρ(x))N[(1+t/ρ(y))N+(1+t/ρ(y+h))N]ec|xy|2/t.

    Notice that (1 + |h|m(y, V))k0/k0+1 ≥ 1. We can use Lemma 2.4 to deduce that

    (1+t/ρ(y+h))N(1+|h|m(y,V))k0N/k0+1(1+tm(y,V))N1(1+tm(y,V))N/k0+1,

    where we have used the fact |h| ≤ t in the last inequality. For any N, we can get

    |Kt(x,y+h)Kt(x,y)|Cμ(B(x,t))(1+tρ(x))N(1+tρ(y))Nec|xy|2/t.

    Because t/2|h|t,(|h|/t)δ1 for δ′ > 0. If t/2|h|t,

    |Kt(x,y+h)Kt(x,y)|Cμ(B(x,t))(|h|t)δec|xy|2/t(1+tρ(x))N(1+tρ(y))N.
  2. |h| < |xy|/4. Similar to Case 1, for any N, we have

    |Kt(x,y+h)Kt(x,y)|Cμ(B(x,t))(1+tρ(x))N(1+tρ(y))Nec|xy|2/t.

    If |h| > ρ(y), we have

    Kt(x,y+h)Kt(x,y)|Cμ(B(x,t))(1+tρ(x))N(1+tρ(y))N(|h|t)δec|xy|2/t.
  3. |h| < |xy|/4 and |h| ≤ ρ(y). On the one hand, we have

    |qt(x,y+h)qt(x,y)|Cμ(B(x,t))(|h|ρ(x))δec|xy|2/tCμ(B(x,t))(|h|t)δ(1+tρ(x))δec|xy|2/t.

    On the other hand, because |h| < |xy|/4, |xy| – 2|h| > |xy|/2, then ec(|xy|–2|h|)2/ctec|xy|2/t. And |h|t,δδ0<min(α,δ),(|h|/t)α(|h|/t)δ. Therefore,

    |ht(x,y+h)ht(x,y)|Cμ(B(x,t))(|h|t)αec(|xy|2|h|)2/ctCμ(B(x,t))(|h|t)δec|xy|2/tCμ(B(x,t))(|h|t)δ(1+tρ(x))δec|xy|2/t.

    So we have

    |Kt(x,y+h)Kt(x,y)|Cμ(B(x,t))(|h|/t)δ(1+t/ρ(x))δec|xy|2/t.

    Finally, we get

    |Kt(x,y+h)Kt(x,y)|Cμ(B(x,t))(|h|t)δ(1+tρ(x))δec|xy|2/t

    and

    |Kt(x,y+h)Kt(x,y)|Cμ(B(x,t))ec|xy|2/t(1+tρ(x))N(1+tρ(y))N.

    Combining with the above two estimates, we get, for N large enough,

    |Kt(x,y+h)Kt(x,y)|Cμ(B(x,t))(|h|t)δ(1+tρ(x))N(1+tρ(y))Nec|xy|2/t.
  4. |xy|/4 < |h| ≤ t/2 . We divide |Kt(x, y + h) – Kt(x, y)| into two parts. Precisely, we have

    |Kt(x,y+h)Kt(x,y)|(|zy|4|h|+|zy|>4|h|)Kt/2(x,z)|Kt/2(z,y+h)Kt(z,y)|dμ(z)=:S1+S2.

    For S1, due to Lemma 2.1, we have

    S1CNμ(B(x,t/2))(1+t/2ρ(x))N|zy|4|h|1μ(B(z,t/2))dμ(z)CNμ(B(x,t))(1+t/2ρ(x))N1μ(B(y,t/2))|zy|4|h|μ(B(y,t/2))μ(B(z,t/2))dμ(z).

    For any uB(y, t/2 ), we can see that B(y, t/2 ) ⊂ B(z, 5 t/2 ). By the doubling property of the measure μ, we obtain

    S1Cyμ(B(x,t/2))(1+tρ(x))Nμ(B(y,|h|))μ(B(y,t/2))Cyμ(B(x,t/2))(1+tρ(x))N(|h|t/2)ν.

Next, we consider S2. For |zy| > 4|h|, similar to Case 2, we have

|Kt/2(z,y+h)Kt/2(z,y)|Cec|zy|2/tμ(B(z,t/2))(|h|t/2)δ(1+t/2ρ(z))N(1+t/2ρ(z))N.

The above estimate gives

S2C(|h|t/2)δ(1+t/2ρ(z))N|zy|>4|h|Kt/2(x,z)ec|zy|2/tμ(B(z,t/2))(1+t/2ρ(z))Ndμ(z).

Because |xy|/4 < |h| and |zy| > 4|h|, then |xy| < |zy|. Using the estimate of Kt/2(x, z) in Lemma 2.1, we know

S2C(|h|t)δ(1+t/2ρ(y))N|zy|>4|h|ec1|zy|2/tec2|zy|2/tμ(B(z,t))(1+t/2ρ(z))NKt/2(x,z)dμ(z)C(|h|t)δ(1+t/2ρ(y))N(1+t/2ρ(x))Nec2|xy|2/t{|zy|>4|h|ec1|zy|2/tμ(B(z,t))dμ(z)}.

Set

I=|zy|>4|h|1μ(B(z,t/2))ec1|zy|2/tdμ(z).

Because B(y, t/2 ) ⊂ B(z, |zy| + t/2 ), we could get

ICμ(B(y,t/2))|zy|>4|h|μ(B(z,|yz|+t/2))μ(B(z,t/2))ec1|zy|2/tdμ(z)Cμ(B(y,t/2))|zy|>4|h|(1+|yz|/t)yec1|zy|2/tdμ(z)Cμ(B(y,t/2))(|zy|>4t/2+4|h|<|zy|<4t/2)ec3|zy|2/tdμ(z)=:I1+I2,

where we have used the following fact again: (1+|yz|/t)yec1|zy|2/tCec3|zy|2/t. For I2, a direct computation gives

I2=Cμ(B(y,t/2))4|h|<|zy|<4t/2ec3|zy|2/tdμ(z)Cy.

For I1, we have

I1Cμ(B(y,t/2))k=22kt/2<|zy|2k+1t/21(1+|zy|/t/2)ldμ(z)Cμ(B(y,t/2))k=21(1+2kt/2/t/2)lμ(B(y,2k+1t/2))k=22(k+1)y1(1+2k)lCy.

So we have proved that ICy. Finally, we get

S2Cμ(B(x,t))(|h|t)δ(1+t/2ρ(x))N(1+t/2ρ(x))Nec|xy|2/t.

This completes the proof of Proposition 3.3. □

Proposition 3.4

Let Qt(x, y) = t2 s Ks(x, y)|s=t2.

  1. For N > 0, there exists a constant CN > 0 such that

    |Qt(x,y)|CNμ(B(x,t))e|xy|2/t2(1+t/ρ(x))N(1+t/ρ(y))N.
  2. Let 0 < δ′ ≤ δ0 and |h| < t, where δ0 appears in Proposition 3.3. For any N > 0, there exists a constant CN > 0 such that

    |Qt(x+h,y)Qt(x,y)|CNμ(B(x,t))ec|xy|2/t2(|h|t)δ(1+tρ(x))N(1+tρ(y))N.
  3. For any N > 0, there exists a constant CN > 0 such that

    |RnQt(x,y)dμ(y)|CN(tρ(x))δ(1+tρ(x))N.

Remark 3.5

In fact, we could assume 0 < δ < 1 in (c) of Proposition 3.4. Because for δ > 1, by use of the arbitrariness of N, we can choose a 0 < δ′ < 1 < δ such that

(t/ρ(x))δ1(1+t/ρ(x))N+δδ(t/ρ(x))δ1(1+t/ρ(x))N.

In order to prove Proposition 3.4, we need the following lemmas. Similar to [17, Corollary 6.2], we can use (2.4) to obtain

Lemma 3.6

The semigroup has the (unique) extension to a holomorphic semigroup Tξ on L2(eη|xy|dx) in the sectorπ/4 = {ξ : |argξ| < π/4}. Moreover, there exist constants C, c′ > 0 such that for every η > 0 we have

TξL2(eη|xy|dx)L2(eη|xy|dx)Cecη2Reξ.

Lemma 3.7

There exists a constant c > 0 such that for every M > 0, there exists a constant C > 0 such that for every η > 0 and y ∈ ℝn, we have

|Kξ(x,y)|2eη|xy|dμ(x)Cecη2Reξ1μ(B(y,Reξ))(1+Reξ/ρ(y))M.

Proof

Let t = Reξ, we have Kξ(x, y) = [Tξt/10 Kt/10(⋅, y)](x). Using Lemma 2.1 we have

|Kξ(x,y)|2eη|xy|dμ(x)Cecη2Re(ξt/10)Kt/10(,y)L2(eη|xy|dμ(x))2Cecη2tRnec|uy|2/tμ(B(u,t))2(1+tρ(u))2M(1+tρ(y))2Meη|uy|dμ(u)Cecη2t(1+t/ρ(y))2MRnec|uy|2/t+η|uy|dμ(u).

For every ωB(y, t ), |uω| ≤ |yu| + |yω| ≤ |yu| + t , that is, B(y, t ) ⊂ B(u, |yu| + t ). Set

B0={u:|uy|<2t+ηt};Bk={u:2kt+ηt|uy|<2k+1t+ηt},k=1,2,.

We get

|Kξ(x,y)|2eη|xy|dμ(x)Cecη2t(1+tρ(y))2M1μ(B(y,t))2Rn(1+|yu|t)2yec|uy|2/t+η|uy|dμ(u)Cecη2t(1+tρ(y))2M1μ(B(y,t))2k=0ec1(2kt+ηt)2/tμ(B(y,2k+1t+ηt))(1+2k)lC(1+tρ(y))2Mecη2tμ(B(y,t))k=0(1+2k+1+ηt)yec1(2k+ηt)2(1+2k)lCecη2t1μ(B(y,t))(1+t/ρ(y))2M.

Lemma 3.8

There exists a constant c > 0 such that for every M > 0 there is a constant CM > 0 such that for any ξ ∈ △π/5,

|Kξ(x,y)|CMμ(B(y,Reξ))(1+Reξ/ρ(x))M(1+Reξ/ρ(y))Mec|xy|2/Reξ.

Proof

We have

|Kξ(x,y)|eη|xy|=|Kξ/2(x,u)Kξ/2(u,y)dμ(u)|eη|xy|(|Kξ/2(x,u)|2e2η|xu|dμ(u))1/2(|Kξ/2(u,y)|2e2η|yu|dμ(u))1/21μ(B(x,Reξ))1/21μ(B(y,Reξ))1/2ecη2Reξ(1+Reξρ(x))M(1+Reξρ(y))M.

Set η = c′|xy|(Reξ)−1, where c″ is a sufficiently small constant. Then we have

|Kξ(x,y)|ec|xy|2/ReξCMμ(B(x,Reξ))1/2ec|xy|2/Reξμ(B(y,Reξ))1/2(1+ξρ(x))M(1+ξρ(y))MCMμ(B(x,Reξ))(1+|xy|Reξ)y/2ec|xy|2/Reξ(1+ξρ(x))M(1+ξρ(y))MCMμ(B(x,Reξ))ec|xy|2/Reξ(1+ξρ(x))M(1+ξρ(y))M.

Similarly, we can prove

|Kξ(x,y)|CMμ(B(y,Reξ))ec|xy|2/Reξ(1+ξρ(x))M(1+ξρ(y))M.

This completes the proof of Lemma 3.8. □

Proof of Proposition 3.4

Now we are in a position to complete the proof of Proposition 3.4.

  1. By the Cauchy integral formula and Lemma 3.8, we have

    |Qt(x,y)|=|12πi|ξt2|=t2/2t2Kξ(x,y)(ξt2)2dξ|Cμ(B(x,t))ec|xy|2/t2(1+tρ(x))M(1+tρ(x))M.
  2. By the definition of Qt(x, y), we have

    |Qt(x+h,y)Qt(x,y)|CnRn|Kt2/2(x+h,η)Kt2/2(x,η)||Qt/2(η,y)|dμ(η).

    It can be deduced from Proposition 3.3 that

    |Kt2/2(x+h,η)Kt2/2(x,η)|CM(|h|t)δec|xη|2/t2μ(B(x,t))(1+tρ(x))M(1+tρ(y))M

    and

    |Qt(x+h,y)Qt(x,y)|CMRn(|h|t)δec|xη|2/t2μ(B(x,t))(1+tρ(x))Mec|ηy|2/t2μ(B(η,t))(1+tρ(y))M(1+tρ(η))2Mdμ(η)CM1μ(B(x,t))(1+tρ(x))M(1+tρ(y))M(|h|t)δRnec|xη|2/t2c|ηy|2/t2μ(B(η,t))dμ(η).

    The integral in the last inequality is divided as follows:

    Rnec|xη|2/t2c|ηy|2/t2μ(B(η,t))dμ(η)=(|xη|>t+|xη|t)ec|xη|2/t2c|ηy|2/t2μ(B(η,t))dμ(η)=:I1+I2.

    Next, we consider I1 and I2 separately. For I1, because |xη|2 + |ηy|2 ≥ |xy|2/2, we have

    I1ec2|xy|2/t21μ(B(x,t))|xη|tμ(B(η,|xη|+t))μ(B(η,t))ec1|xη|2/t2dμ(η)ec2|xy|2/t21μ(B(x,t))|xη|t(1+|xη|t)yec1|xη|2/t2dμ(η)Cec2|xy|2/t2.

    For I2, we obtain

    I2k=12kt|xη|<2k+1tec|xη|2/t2c|ηy|2/t2μ(B(η,t))dμ(η)1μ(B(x,t))k=1(1+2k+1tt)yμ(B(x,2k+1t))(1+2kt/t)lec2|xy|2/t2k=1(1+2k+1)y1(1+2k)l2(k+1)yec2|xy|2/t2Cec2|xy|2/t2.

    The estimates for I1 and I2 imply that

    |Qt(x+h,y)Qt(x,y)|CNμ(B(x,t))ec|xy|2/t2(|h|/t)δ(1+t/ρ(x))N(1+t/ρ(y))N.
  3. It is easy to see that

    I=|RnQt(x,y)dμ(y)|sRnCNμ(B(x,t))(1+tρ(x))N(1+tρ(y))NV(y)ec|xy|2/t2dμ(y)s(1+tρ(x))NRnec|xy|2/t2V(y)μ(B(x,t))dμ(y).

    If tcρ(x), a direct computation gives

    It2(1+t/ρ(x))N1t2(t/ρ(x))δ=CN(1+t/ρ(x))N(t/ρ(x))δ.

    If t > cρ(x), as we have proved,

    I(1+t/ρ(x))N(t/ρ(x))l0CN(1+t/ρ(x))N(t/ρ(x))δ.

    This completes the proof of Proposition 3.4.

3.2 The area integral characterization of HL1 ()

Now we give the area integral characterization for Hardy spaces associated with the degenerate Schrödinger operator L. We will divide the proof into two steps. At first, we prove that for any f HL1 , ShL f belongs to L1().

Theorem 3.9

Suppose VBq,μ, q > 1. Let L=1ω(x)i,ji(aij()j)(x)+V(x) be the degenerate Schrödinger operator. For f HL1 (), we have ShL fL1(), where ShL is defined in (3.1).

Proof

At first, we can show that the Littlewood-Paley g-function gLh is bounded on L2(), where gLh is defined in (3.2). In fact, using the reproducing formula on L2() and the spectral theorem, ghLfL2(dμ)2=18fL2(dμ)2. To prove Theorem 3.9, we only need to verify that ShL (a) is uniformly in L1() for any HL1 -atom a. For yY(x), we have for zB(y, t), |xz| ≤ |xy| + |yz| < 2t, that is, B(y, t) ⊂ B(x, 2t). So we can get

ShLaL2(Rn,dμ)2=Rn[0Rn|Qta(y)|2χY(x)(y,t)dμ(y)dttμ(B(x,t))]dμ(x)=0Rn[RnχY(x)(y,t)dμ(x)]|Qta(y)|2dμ(y)dttμ(B(x,t))0Rn[1μ(B(y,t))RnχY(x)(y,t)dμ(x)]|Qta(y)|2μ(B(x,2t))μ(B(x,t))dμ(y)dtt2y0Rn|Qta(y)|2dμ(y)dttCyμ(B(x,r))1,

where in the last inequality we have used the condition: ∥aLμ(B(x, r))−1. Then we write

ShLaL1=B(x0,4r)ShLa(x)dμ(x)+Bc(x0,4r)ShLa(x)dμ(x):=I+II.

For I, it is easy to see that

Iμ(B(x0,4r))1/2(B(x0,4r)|ShLa(x)|2dμ(x))1/2Cyμ(B(x0,4r))1/2μ(B(x,r))1/2C.

For the estimate of II, the following two cases are considered.

  1. r < ρ(x0)/4. By the canceling property of the atom a, we have

    ShLa(x)=[0|xy|<t|Qta(y)|2dμ(y)dttμ(B(x,t))]1/2[0|xy|<t(B(x0,r)|Qt(y,z)Qt(y,x0)||a(z)|dμ(z))2dμ(y)dttμ(B(x,t))]1/2[(0|xx0|2|xy|<t+|xx0|2|xy|<t)(B(x0,r)|Qt(y,z)Qt(y,x0)|dμ(z)μ(B(x0,r)))2dμ(y)dttμ(B(x,t))]1/2=:II1+II2.

    For II1, because 0 < t < |xx0|/2 and |xy| < t, we can get |yx0| ∼ |xx0|. For zB(x0, r) and xBc(x0, 4r), we have |x0z| < rc|x0y|/4. Using (b) of Proposition 3.4, for |h| < t and symmetry, we have

    |Qt(x,y+h)Qt(x,y)|CMμ(B(y,t))ec|xy|2/t2(|h|/t)δ(1+t/ρ(x))M(1+t/ρ(y))M

    and

    |Qt(y,z)Qt(y,x0)|CMμ(B(x0,t))ec|yx0|2/t2(|zx0|/t)δ(1+t/ρ(x0))M(1+t/ρ(y))M.

    By the fact that |xx0| ∼ |yx0|, we obtain

    II1(0|xx0|2|xy|<t(B(x0,r)CMec|yx0|2/t2μ(B(x0,t))(|zx0|t)δdμ(z)μ(B(x0,r)))2dμ(y)dttμ(B(x,t)))1/2CM(0|xx0|/2|xy|<te2|yx0|2/t2μ(B(x0,t))2(rt)2δdμ(y)dttμ(B(x,t)))1/2CMrδ(0|xx0|/21μ(B(x0,t))2e2|xx0|2/t2dtt2δ+1)1/2.

    For 0 < t < |xx0|/2, 1B(x0,t)1B(x0,|xx0|)(|xx0|t)y. We can choose l large enough such that

    II1CMrδ(0|xx0|/21μ(B(x0,|xx0|))2(|xx0|t)2yec|xx0|2/t2dtt2δ+1)1/2CMrδ|xx0|yμ(B(x0,|xx0|))(0|xx0|/21t2y+2δ+11(1+|xx0|2/t2)ldt)1/2CM(r|xx0|)δ1μ(B(x0,|xx0|)).

    The above estimate for II1 implies

    Bc(x0,4r)II1dμ(x)CM|xx0|4r(r|xx0|)δ1μ(B(x0,|xx0|))dμ(x)CMk=22kr|xx0|<2k+1r(r|xx0|)δ1μ(B(x0,|xx0|))dμ(x)CMk=2(r2kr)δ1μ(B(x0,2kr))μ(B(x0,2k+1r))C.

    In what follows, we estimate II2. Since |zx0| ≤ r < |xx0|/2 ≤ t,

    |Qt(y,z)Qt(y,x0)|CMμ(B(x0,t))(|zx0|t)δe|yx0|2/t2(1+tρ(x))M(1+tρ(x))MCMμ(B(x0,t))(|zx0|t)δ.

    Due to the fact that |xx0|/2 < t, B(x0, t) ⊂ B(x0, |xx0|). We could get

    II2[|xx0|/2|xy|<t(B(x0,r)(|zx0|/t)δμ(B(x0,t))dμ(z)μ(B(x0,r)))2dμ(y)dttμ(B(x,t))]1/2(|xx0|/2|xy|<t1μ(B(x0,t))2(rt)2δdμ(y)dttμ(B(x,t)))1/2rδμ(B(x0,|xx0|))(|xx0|/2(|xx0|/t)2y1t2δ+1dt)1/2Cμ(B(x0,|xx0|))(r|xx0|)δ.

    Similarly, we have

    Bc(x0,4r)II2dμ(x)|xx0|>4rCμ(B(x0,|xx0|))(r|xx0|)δdμ(x)C.
  2. ρ(x0)/4 ≤ r < ρ(x0). In this case, the atom a has no canceling property. So

    (ShLa(x))2=(0r/2|xy|<t+r/2|xx0|/4|xy|<t+|xx0|/4|xy|<t)|Qta(y)|2dμ(y)dttμ(B(x,t))=:II1+II2+II3.

    We first estimate

    II1=0r/2|xy|<t|B(x0,r)Qt(y,z)a(z)dμ(z)|2dμ(y)dttμ(B(x,t)).

    Because |xx0| > 4r, |x0z| < r and |xy| < t < r/2, we have |yx0| > 7r/2. Set s = t2. By (a) of Proposition 3.4,

    |Qt(x,y)|Cμ(B(x,t))ec|xy|2/t2(1+t/ρ(x))M(1+t/ρ(y))M.

    For zB(x0, r), |zx0| < r < |xx0|/4. The triangular inequality implies that |yz| ∼ |xx0|. Then we could estimate II1 as follows.

    II1C0r/2|xy|<t|B(x0,r)ec|xx0|2/t2μ(B(y,t))dμ(z)μ(B(x0,r))|2dμ(y)dttμ(B(x,t))C0r/2|xy|<t1μ(B(y,t))2e2|xx0|2/t2dμ(y)dttμ(B(x,t))C0r/2e2|xx0|2/t2dttμ(B(x,t))2,

    where we have used the following facts: B(x, t) ⊂ B(y, |xy| + t) and μ(B(x, t))/μ(B(y, t)) ≤ (1+|xy|t)y . Note that r < |xx0|/4. Taking l large enough, we get

    II1cμ(B(x0,|xx0|))20r/21t(|xx0|t)2y1(1+|xx0|2/t2)l+1dtcr2|xx0|2μ(B(x0,|xx0|))2.

    For II2 , we have

    II2r/2|xx0|4|xy|<t[B(x0,r)ce|yz|2/t2μ(B(y,t))(1+tρ(y))M(1+tρ(z))Mdμ(z)μ(B(x0,r))]2dμ(y)dttμ(B(x,t)).

    Because zB(x0, r), |zx0| < r < ρ(x0), then ρ(z) ∼ ρ(x0) ∼ r. It follows from this fact that

    II2r/2|xx0|/4|xy|<te2c|xx0|2/t2(1+tρ(x0))2M1μ(B(y,t))2dμ(y)dttμ(B(x,t))r/2|xx0|/41tμ(B(x,t))2e2c|xx0|2/t2(1+tρ(x0))2Mdtr/2|xx0|/4(rt)2M(t|xx0|)2ldttμ(B(x,t))2,

    where in the last inequality we have used the fact: ρ(x0)/4 ≤ r < ρ(x0). We can deduce from the doubling property of μ that

    II2cr2M|xx0|2lr/2|xx0|/4t2lt2M+11μ(B(x0,|xx0|))2μ(B(x0,|xx0|))2μ(B(x0,t))2dtr2M|xx0|2Mμ(B(x0,|xx0|))2.

    At last, we estimate II3 . For |zx0| < r < ρ(x0), we have ρ(x0) ∼ ρ(z) and

    II3|xx0|/4|xy|<t[B(x0,r)cec|yz|2/t2μ(B(y,t))(1+tρ(y))M(1+tρ(z))Mdμ(z)μ(B(x0,r))2]2dμ(y)dttμ(B(x,t))|xx0|/4|xy|<tcμ(B(y,t))2(1+tρ(x0))2Mdμ(y)dttμ(B(x,t))|xx0|/4(ρ(x0)/t)2M1tμ(B(x,t))[1μ(B(x,t))2|xy|<t(1+|xy|t)2ydμ(y)]dt1μ(B(x0,|xx0|))2|xx0|/4ρ(x0)2Mt2M+1(|xx0|t)2ydtr2M|xx0|2Mμ(B(x0,|xx0|))2.

    Finally, we get

    Bc(x0,4r)ShLa(x)dμ(x)k=22kr|xx0|<2k+1r(r|xx0|)M1μ(B(x0,|xx0|))dμ(x)k=2(r2kr)Mμ(B(x0,2k+1r))μ(B(x0,2kr))k=22ky2kMC.

    This completes the proof of Theorem 3.9. □

Now we prove the converse of Theorem 3.9. Firstly, we need a reproducing formula associated with Qt. In order to establish the reproducing formula, we need the following bounded mean oscillation spaces associated with L which are introduced by Yang-Yang-Zhou [13]. For any ball B, let fB denote the mean of f on B, that is,

fB=1μ(B)Bf(y)dμ(y).

Definition 3.10

A function f Lloc1 () is said to be in the space BMOL() if

fBMOL(dμ):=supB(x,r):r<ρ(x)1μ(B(x,r))B(x,r)|f(y)fB(x,r)|dμ(y)+supB(x,r):rρ(x)1μ(B(x,r))B(x,r)|f(y)|dμ(y)<.

We refer the reader to Yang-Yang-Zhou [13] for further information on the space BMOL(). A direct computation implies the following result.

Proposition 3.11

For any t > 0 and x ∈ ℝn, we have Qt(x, ⋅) ∈ BMOL().

Proof

For any ball B(y0, r), if r < ρ(y0), by Proposition 3.4,

1μ(B(y0,r))B(y0,r)|Qt(x,y)(Qt(x,))B(x,r)|dμ(y)1μ(B(y0,r))B(y0,r)|Qt(x,y)Qt(x,y0)|dμ(y)Cμ(B(x,t))1,

where (Qt(x, ⋅))B(x,r) = 1μ(B)B Qt(x, y)(y). If rρ(y0), using Proposition 3.4 again, we have

1μ(B(y0,r))B(y0,r)|Qt(x,y)|dμ(y)Cμ(B(x,t))1.

Therefore, Qt(x, ⋅) ∈ BMOL(). □

In the characterizations of the Hardy space H1(ℝn), one of main tools is a Calderón type reproducing formula generated by a family of Littlewood-Paley functions {ϕt, t > 0}. In the literature, since the functions {ϕt, t > 0} ⊂ 𝓢(ℝn), such reproducing formula holds for f ∈ 𝓢′(ℝn) which equals to zero weakly at ∞. To obtain the area integral characterization of HL1 (), we need a reproducing formula associated with Qt. However, for a degenerate Schrödinger operator L, Qt(x, ⋅) may not belong to 𝓢(ℝn). By Proposition 3.11, we know that Qt(x, ⋅) ∈ BMOL() and Qt(f) is well defined for f ∈ (BMOL())*. Now we introduce the definition of the functions which equal to zero weakly at ∞ associated with L.

Definition 3.12

We say f ∈ (BMOL())* equals to zero weakly at ∞ associated with L, if

limAA(Qt)2f(x)dtt=0,

where the above limit holds in the sense of (BMOL())*.

Therefore, we have the following reproducing formula associated with Qt.

Theorem 3.13

Suppose that f equals to zero weakly atassociated with L. We have

f(x)=80(Qt)2f(x)dtt, (3.4)

where the integral means that

limε0limA8εA(Qt)2f(x)dtt=f(x)

holds in (BMOL()).

Proof

It is easy to see

8ϵA(Qt)2f(x)dtt=8ϵ(Qt)2f(x)dtt8A(Qt)2f(x)dtt=I1I2.

Because f equals to zero weakly at ∞ associated with L, we have limA I2 = 0. For any ϕBMOL(),

limϵ08ϵ(Qt)2fdtt,ϕ=limϵ0f,8ϵ(Qt)2ϕdtt=f,ϕ,

where the last equality holds, since we have

limϵ08ϵ(Qt)2dtt=I

in the sense of (BMOL()) and I is the identity operator in (BMOL()). □

For the converse of Theorem 3.9, we assume that f ∈ (BMOL())L1(). On the one hand, if fH1(), it is obvious that f ∈ (BMOL())L1(). Theorem 3.9 guarantees that ShL (f) ∈ L1(). Conversely, if f ∈ (BMOL())L1() and ShL (f) ∈ L1(), we will use the reproducing formula (3.4) to derive that f can be represented as the linear combination of H1-atoms and the scalars. By Proposition 1.3, this means that f HL1 (). Precisely, we have the following theorem.

Theorem 3.14

Suppose VBq,μ, q > 1. Let L=1ω(x)i,ji(aij()j)(x)+V(x) be the degenerate Schrödinger operator. For every f ∈ (BMOL())L1() and equals to zero weakly atassociated with L. If ShL fL1(), we have f HL1 ().

Proof

Since

Rn|ShLf(x)|dμ(x)=Rn(0B(x,t)|Qtf(y)|2dμ(y)dttμ(B(x,t)))1/2dμ(x)<,

we have Qtf T21 (ℝn, ), where T21 (ℝn, ) is the weighted tent space. Then we have Qt f(x) = ∑i λi ai(x, t), where ai(x, t) are the atoms of T21 and ∑i |λi| < ∞. We assume ai(x, t) is supported in B(x0,r)^ and set αi(x) = 0 Qt ai(x, t) dtt . Using (3.4), we have

f(x)=80Qt(iλiai(x,t))dtt=ciλi0Qtai(x,t)dtt=:ciλiαi(x).

We need to prove that the HL1 -norm of αi is bounded uniformly. For simplicity, we denote by α the function αi. In fact, we have

supt>0|etLα|L1(supt>0|etLα|)χBL1+(supt>0|etLα|)χ(B)cL1=:I1+I2.

For I1, we use Hölder’s inequality to get

I1=Bsupt>0|etLα(x)|dμ(x)μ(B)1/2α2.

For the L2-norm of α, by the self-adjointness of QtL and Hölder’s inequlity, we have

α2=supβ21Rnα(x)β¯(x)dμ(x)supβ21(Rn0|a(x,t)|2dμ(x)dtt)1/2(Rn0|Qtβ¯(x)|2dμ(x)dtt)1/2supβ21μ(B)1/2β2Cμ(B)1/2,

which gives I1(B)1/2μ(B)−1/2C.

Next, we estimate I2. For xBc(x0, 2r) and yB(x0, r), we have |xy| ∼ |xx0|. Since

(0rB(x0,r)|a(y,t)|2dμ(y)dtt)1/2μ(B(x0,r))1/2,

we can use the fact that t2/(s + t2) ≤ 1 and Hölder’s inequality to obtain

sups>0|esL0Qta(x,t)dtt|sups>00t2s+t2Rn1μ(B(x,s+t2))ec|xy|2/s+t2|a(y,t)|dμ(y)dttμ(B(x0,r))1/2sups>0(0rB(x0,r)(t2s+t2)2ec|xx0|2/s+t2μ(B(x,s+t2))2dμ(y)dtt)1/2Csups>01μ(B(x0,|xx0|))(0rt2s+t2μ(B(x0,|xx0|))2μ(B(x,s+t2))ec|xx0|2/s+t2dtt)1/2.

For uB(x0, |xx0|), it is easy to see that μ(B(x0, |xx0|)) ≤ μ(B(x, 2|xx0| + 2 s+t2 )). Set l = y + 1. So

sups>0|esL0Qta(x,t)dtt|Csups>01μ(B(x0,|xx0|))(0rts+t2(1+|xx0|/s+t2)2y(1+|xx0|2/(s+t2))ldt)1/2Cr|xx0|1μ(B(x0,|xx0|)).

Finally, we have

I2CBc(x0,2r)r|xx0|1μ(B(x0,|xx0|))dμ(x)k=1r2krμ(B(x0,2k+1r))μ(B(x0,2kr))C.

This completes the proof of Theorem 3.14. □

4

4 Acknowledgements

The authors are greatly indebted to the referees for their very careful reading and many valuable comments on this paper.

J.Z. Huang was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. 500419772).

P.T. Li was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grants (No. 11871293, No. 11571217); Shandong Natural Science Foundation of China (No. ZR2017JL008).

Y. Liu was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 11671031), Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University and Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Project (No. Z17111000220000).

References

[1] E. M. Stein, Harmonic Analysis: Real Variable Methods, Orthogonality and Oscillatory Integrals, Princeton Math. Serises 43, Princeton Univ. Press, 1993.Search in Google Scholar

[2] J. Dziubański and J. Zienkiewicz, Hardy space H1 associated to Schrödinger operator with potential satisfying reverse Hölder inequality, Rev. Mat. Iberoam. 15, (1999), 279–296.10.4171/RMI/257Search in Google Scholar

[3] J. Dziubański, Note on H1 spaces related to degenerate Schrödinger operators, Ill. J. Math. 49, (2005), 1271–1297.10.1215/ijm/1258138138Search in Google Scholar

[4] X. Duong and L. Yan, Duality of Hardy and BMO spaces associated with operators with heat kernel bounds, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 18, (2005), 943–973.10.1090/S0894-0347-05-00496-0Search in Google Scholar

[5] S. Hofmann, G. Lu, D. Mitrea, M. Mitrea and L. Yan, Hardy spaces associated to non-negative self-adjoint operators satisfying Davies-Gaffney estimates, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc.214, (2011), no. 1007.10.1090/S0065-9266-2011-00624-6Search in Google Scholar

[6] J. Cao and Da. Yang, Hardy spaces HLp(ℝn) associated with operators satisfying k-Davies-Gaffney estimates, Sci. China Math. 55, (2012), 1403–1440.10.1007/s11425-012-4394-ySearch in Google Scholar

[7] R. Jiang and Da. Yang, Orlicz-Hardy spaces associated with operators satisfying Davies-Gaffney estimates, Commun. Contemp. Math. 13, (2011), 331–373.10.1142/S0219199711004221Search in Google Scholar

[8] R. Jiang and Da. Yang, Orlicz-Hardy spaces associated with operators, Sci. China Ser. A 52, (2009), 1042–1080.10.1007/s11425-008-0136-6Search in Google Scholar

[9] C. Lin, H. Liu and Y. Liu, Hardy spaces associated with Schrödinger operators on the Heisenberg group, arXiv:1106.4960.Search in Google Scholar

[10] Da. Yang and Y. Zhou, Localized Hardy spaces H1 related to admissible functions on RD-spaces and applications to Schrödinger operators, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 363, (2011), 1197–1239.10.1090/S0002-9947-2010-05201-8Search in Google Scholar

[11] C. Fefferman and E.M. Stein, Hp spaces of several variables, Acta Math. 129, (1972), 137–193.10.1007/BF02392215Search in Google Scholar

[12] R. Coifman, Y. Meyer and E.M. Stein, Some new function spaces and their applications to harmonic analysis, J. Funct. Anal. 62, (1985), 304–335.10.1016/0022-1236(85)90007-2Search in Google Scholar

[13] Da. Yang, Do. Yang and Y. Zhou, Localized BMO and BLO spaces on RD-spaces and applications to Schrödinger operators, Commu. Pure Appl. Anal. 9, (2010), 779–812.10.3934/cpaa.2010.9.779Search in Google Scholar

[14] Da. Yang, Do. Yang and Y. Zhou, Localized Campanato-type spaces related to admissible functions on RD-spaces and applications to Schrödinger operators, Nagoya Math. J. 198, (2010), 77–119.10.1215/00277630-2009-008Search in Google Scholar

[15] K. Kurata and S. Sugano, Fundamental solution, eigenvalue asymptotics and eigenfunctions of degenerate elliptic operators with positive potentials, Studia Math. 138, (2000), 101–119.Search in Google Scholar

[16] W. Hebisch and L. Saloff-Coste, On the relation between elliptic and parabolic Harnack inequalities, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 51, (2001), 1437–1481.10.5802/aif.1861Search in Google Scholar

[17] J. Dziubański and J. Zienkiewicz, Hp spaces associated with Schrödinger operators with potentials from reverse Hölder classes, Colloq. Math. 98, (2003), 5–38.10.4064/cm98-1-2Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2017-10-17
Accepted: 2019-09-29
Published Online: 2019-12-31

© 2019 Jizheng Huang et al., published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Public License.

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. On the moving plane method for boundary blow-up solutions to semilinear elliptic equations
  3. Regularity of solutions of the parabolic normalized p-Laplace equation
  4. Cahn–Hilliard equation on the boundary with bulk condition of Allen–Cahn type
  5. Blow-up solutions for fully nonlinear equations: Existence, asymptotic estimates and uniqueness
  6. Radon measure-valued solutions of first order scalar conservation laws
  7. Ground state solutions for a semilinear elliptic problem with critical-subcritical growth
  8. Generalized solutions of variational problems and applications
  9. Existence and non-existence results for Kirchhoff-type problems with convolution nonlinearity
  10. Nonlinear Sherman-type inequalities
  11. Global regularity for systems with p-structure depending on the symmetric gradient
  12. Homogenization of a net of periodic critically scaled boundary obstacles related to reverse osmosis “nano-composite” membranes
  13. Noncoercive resonant (p,2)-equations with concave terms
  14. Evolutionary quasi-variational and variational inequalities with constraints on the derivatives
  15. Sharp estimates on the first Dirichlet eigenvalue of nonlinear elliptic operators via maximum principle
  16. Localization and multiplicity in the homogenization of nonlinear problems
  17. Remarks on a nonlinear nonlocal operator in Orlicz spaces
  18. A Picone identity for variable exponent operators and applications
  19. On the weakly degenerate Allen-Cahn equation
  20. Continuity results for parametric nonlinear singular Dirichlet problems
  21. Construction of type I blowup solutions for a higher order semilinear parabolic equation
  22. Singularly perturbed Choquard equations with nonlinearity satisfying Berestycki-Lions assumptions
  23. Comparison results for nonlinear divergence structure elliptic PDE’s
  24. Constant sign and nodal solutions for parametric (p, 2)-equations
  25. Monotonicity formulas for coupled elliptic gradient systems with applications
  26. Berestycki-Lions conditions on ground state solutions for a Nonlinear Schrödinger equation with variable potentials
  27. A class of semipositone p-Laplacian problems with a critical growth reaction term
  28. The role of superlinear damping in the construction of solutions to drift-diffusion problems with initial data in L1
  29. Reconstruction of Tesla micro-valve using topological sensitivity analysis
  30. Lewy-Stampacchia’s inequality for a pseudomonotone parabolic problem
  31. Global well-posedness of nonlinear wave equation with weak and strong damping terms and logarithmic source term
  32. Regularity Criteria for Navier-Stokes Equations with Slip Boundary Conditions on Non-flat Boundaries via Two Velocity Components
  33. Homoclinics for singular strong force Lagrangian systems
  34. A constructive method for convex solutions of a class of nonlinear Black-Scholes equations
  35. On a class of nonlocal nonlinear Schrödinger equations with potential well
  36. Superlinear Schrödinger–Kirchhoff type problems involving the fractional p–Laplacian and critical exponent
  37. Regularity for minimizers for functionals of double phase with variable exponents
  38. Boundary blow-up solutions to the Monge-Ampère equation: Sharp conditions and asymptotic behavior
  39. Homogenisation with error estimates of attractors for damped semi-linear anisotropic wave equations
  40. A-priori bounds for quasilinear problems in critical dimension
  41. Critical growth elliptic problems involving Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev critical exponent in non-contractible domains
  42. On the Sobolev space of functions with derivative of logarithmic order
  43. On a logarithmic Hartree equation
  44. Critical elliptic systems involving multiple strongly–coupled Hardy–type terms
  45. Sharp conditions of global existence for nonlinear Schrödinger equation with a harmonic potential
  46. Existence for (p, q) critical systems in the Heisenberg group
  47. Periodic traveling fronts for partially degenerate reaction-diffusion systems with bistable and time-periodic nonlinearity
  48. Some hemivariational inequalities in the Euclidean space
  49. Existence of standing waves for quasi-linear Schrödinger equations on Tn
  50. Periodic solutions for second order differential equations with indefinite singularities
  51. On the Hölder continuity for a class of vectorial problems
  52. Bifurcations of nontrivial solutions of a cubic Helmholtz system
  53. On the exact multiplicity of stable ground states of non-Lipschitz semilinear elliptic equations for some classes of starshaped sets
  54. Sign-changing multi-bump solutions for the Chern-Simons-Schrödinger equations in ℝ2
  55. Positive solutions for diffusive Logistic equation with refuge
  56. Null controllability for a degenerate population model in divergence form via Carleman estimates
  57. Eigenvalues for a class of singular problems involving p(x)-Biharmonic operator and q(x)-Hardy potential
  58. On the convergence analysis of a time dependent elliptic equation with discontinuous coefficients
  59. Multiplicity and concentration results for magnetic relativistic Schrödinger equations
  60. Solvability of an infinite system of nonlinear integral equations of Volterra-Hammerstein type
  61. The superposition operator in the space of functions continuous and converging at infinity on the real half-axis
  62. Estimates by gap potentials of free homotopy decompositions of critical Sobolev maps
  63. Pseudo almost periodic solutions for a class of differential equation with delays depending on state
  64. Normalized multi-bump solutions for saturable Schrödinger equations
  65. Some inequalities and superposition operator in the space of regulated functions
  66. Area Integral Characterization of Hardy space H1L related to Degenerate Schrödinger Operators
  67. Bifurcation of time-periodic solutions for the incompressible flow of nematic liquid crystals in three dimension
  68. Morrey estimates for a class of elliptic equations with drift term
  69. A singularity as a break point for the multiplicity of solutions to quasilinear elliptic problems
  70. Global and non global solutions for a class of coupled parabolic systems
  71. On the analysis of a geometrically selective turbulence model
  72. Multiplicity of positive solutions for quasilinear elliptic equations involving critical nonlinearity
  73. Lack of smoothing for bounded solutions of a semilinear parabolic equation
  74. Gradient estimates for the fundamental solution of Lévy type operator
  75. π/4-tangentiality of solutions for one-dimensional Minkowski-curvature problems
  76. On the existence and multiplicity of solutions to fractional Lane-Emden elliptic systems involving measures
  77. Anisotropic problems with unbalanced growth
  78. On a fractional thin film equation
  79. Minimum action solutions of nonhomogeneous Schrödinger equations
  80. Global existence and blow-up of weak solutions for a class of fractional p-Laplacian evolution equations
  81. Optimal rearrangement problem and normalized obstacle problem in the fractional setting
  82. A few problems connected with invariant measures of Markov maps - verification of some claims and opinions that circulate in the literature
Downloaded on 5.11.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/anona-2020-0051/html
Scroll to top button