Abstract
We present a new Bellman function that gives estimates for L p norm, 1 < p < 2, of differentially subordinated martingales if one of them has extra symmetries. Our Bellman function is obtained by explicitly solving a corresponding Monge–Ampère equation. In one particular case this Bellman function can be given by an explicit and simple formula. This corresponds to p = 3∕2.
Access provided by CONRICYT-eBooks. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification.
1 Introduction: Orthogonal Martingales and the Beurling-Ahlfors Transform
The main result of this note is Theorem 7 below. Of main interest is the array of new Bellman functions, which are very different from the Burkholder’s function.
A complex-valued martingale Y = Y 1 + iY 2 is said to be orthogonal if the quadratic variations of the coordinate martingales are equal and their mutual covariation is 0:
In [2], Bañuelos and Janakiraman make the observation that the martingale associated with the Beurling-Ahlfors transform is, in fact, an orthogonal martingale. They show that Burkholder’s proof in [9] naturally accommodates for this property and leads to an improvement in the estimate of the Ahlfors–Beurling transform ∥ B ∥ p , which is given by the formula
Theorem 1 (One-Sided Orthogonality)
-
(i)
(Left-side orthogonality) Suppose 2 ≤ p < ∞. If Y is an orthogonal martingale and X is any martingale such that \(\left <Y \right> \leq \left <X\right>\) , then
$$\displaystyle{ \|Y \|_{p} \leq \sqrt{\frac{p^{2 } - p} {2}} \|X\|_{p}. }$$(1) -
(ii)
(Right-side orthogonality) Suppose 1 < p < 2. If X is an orthogonal martingale and Y is any martingale such that \(\left <Y \right> \leq \left <X\right>\) , then
$$\displaystyle{ \|Y \|_{p} \leq \sqrt{ \frac{2} {p^{2} - p}}\|X\|_{p}. }$$(2)
It is not known whether these estimates are the best possible.
Remark
The result for left-side orthogonality was proved in [2]. The result for right-side orthogonality was stated in [20]. In [20] we emulate [2] to provide in a rather simple way an estimate on right-side orthogonality and in the regime 1 < p ≤ 2. In the present work we tried to come up with a better constant for this regime, as the sharpness of these constants in [2] and [20] is somewhat dubious. For that purpose we build some family of new (funny and interesting) Bellman functions, very different from the original Burkholder’s function. Even though the approach is quite different from the one in [2] and [20], the constants we obtain here are the same! So, maybe they are sharp after all [1, 3, 4, 6–8, 10–13, 15–19, 21]. The Bellman function approach to harmonic analysis problems was used in [22–29]. Implicitly it was used in [30] as well. It was extended in [33–37].
If X and Y are the martingales associated with f and Bf respectively, then Y is orthogonal, \(\left <Y \right> \leq 4\left <X\right>\), see [2] (and Theorem 5 below), and hence by (1), one obtains
By interpolating this estimate \(\sqrt{2(\,p^{2 } - p)}\) with the known ∥ B ∥ 2 = 1, Bañuelos and Janakiraman establish the present best estimate in the conjecture by Iwaniec:
where \(p^{{\ast}} =\max (\,p, \frac{p} {p-1})\). This is the best to date estimate known for all p. For large p, however, a better estimate is contained in [5]:
The conjecture of Iwaniec states that
The reader who wants to see the operator theory origins of the problems in this article may consult [27, 32].
2 New Questions and Results
Since B is associated with left-side orthogonality and since we know ∥ B ∥ p = ∥ B ∥ p′, two important questions arise:
-
(i)
If 2 ≤ p < ∞, what is the best constant C p in the left-side orthogonality problem: ∥ Y ∥ p ≤ C p ∥ X ∥ p , where Y is orthogonal and \(\left <Y \right> \leq \left <X\right>\)?
-
(ii)
Similarly, if 1 < p′ < 2, what is the best constant C p′ in the left-side orthogonality problem?
We have separated the two questions, since Burkholder’s proof (and his function) already gives a good answer, when p ≥ 2. This was the main observation of [2].
However, no estimate (better than p − 1) follows from analyzing Burkholder’s function, when 1 < p′ < 2. Perhaps, we may hope that \(C_{p'} <\sqrt{\frac{p^{2 } -p} {2}}\), when \(1 <p' = \frac{p} {p-1} <2\), which would then imply a better estimate for ∥ B ∥ p . This paper destroys this hope by finding C p′; see Theorem 2. We also ask and answer an analogous question of right-side orthogonality when 2 < p < ∞. In the spirit of Burkholder [14], we believe these questions are of independent interest in martingale theory and may have deeper connections with other areas of mathematics.
Remark
The following sharp estimates are proved in [5], they cover the left-side orthogonality for the regime 1 < p ≤ 2 and the right-side orthogonality for the regime 2 ≤ p < ∞. Notice that these two complementary regimes have some non-trivial estimates: 1) for 2 ≤ p < ∞ and left-side orthogonality in [2], 2) for 1 < p ≤ 2, and the right-side orthogonality in this note and in [20], but their sharpness is somewhat dubious.
Theorem 2
Let Y = (Y 1 ,Y 2 ) be an orthogonal martingale and let X = (X 1 ,X 2 ) be an arbitrary martingale.
-
(i)
Let 1 < p′ ≤ 2. Suppose \(\left <Y \right> \leq \left <X\right>\) . Then the least constant that always works in the inequality ∥Y ∥ p′ ≤ C p′ ∥X∥ p′ is
$$\displaystyle{ C_{p'} = \frac{1} {\sqrt{2}} \frac{z_{p'}} {1 - z_{p'}} }$$(7)where z p′ is the smallest root in (0,1) of the bounded Laguerre function L p′ .
-
(ii)
Let 2 ≤ p < ∞. Suppose \(\left <X\right> \leq \left <Y \right>\) . Then the least constant that always works in the inequality ∥X∥ p ≤ C p ∥Y ∥ p is
$$\displaystyle{ C_{p} = \sqrt{2}\frac{1 - z_{p}} {z_{p}} }$$(8)where z p is the smallest root in (0,1) of the bounded Laguerre function L p .
Bounded Laguerre function L p is a bounded function that solves the ODE
3 Orthogonality
Let Z = (X, Y ), W = (U, V ) be two \(\mathbb{R}^{2}\)-valued martingales on the filtration of 2-dimensional Brownian motion B s = (B 1s , B 2s ). Let \(A = \left [\begin{array}{*{10}c} -1,& i\\ i, &1 \end{array} \right ]\). We want W to be the martingale transform of Z (defined by matrix A). Let
where X, Y are real-valued processes, and \(\overrightarrow{x}(s),\overrightarrow{y}(s)\) are \(\mathbb{R}^{2}\)-valued “martingale differences”.
Put
and
We will denote
As before
We can easily write components of \(\overrightarrow{u}(s),\overrightarrow{v}(s)\):
Notice that
3.1 Local Orthogonality
The processes
are called the covariance processes. We can denote
Of importance is the following observation.
Lemma 3
Let \(A = \left [\begin{array}{*{10}c} -1,& i\\ i, &1 \end{array} \right ]\) . Then
Or
Also we have the following statement.
Lemma 4
With the same A
Or
Or
Proof
The same can be shown for v. □
Definition
The complex martingale W = A ⋆ Z is called the Ahlfors-Beurling transform of martingale Z.
Now let us quote again the theorem of Bañuelos–Janakiraman from [2]:
Theorem 5
Let Z,W be any two martingales on the filtration of Brownian motion, such that W is an orthogonal martingale in the sense of (12) : d〈 U,V 〉 = 0, and such that there is a subordination property
Let p ≥ 2. Then
Further we will use the notation
Applied to our case (with the help of Lemmas 3, 4) we get the following theorem from Theorem 5.
Theorem 6
\(\|W\|_{p} =\| A \star Z\|_{p} \leq \sqrt{2(\,p^{2 } - p)}\|Z\|_{p},\,\,\forall p \geq 2.\)
4 Subordination by Orthogonal Martingales in L 3∕2
For 1 < p ≤ 2 one has the following
Theorem 7
Let Z,W be any two \(\mathbb{R}^{2}\) martingales as above, and let W be an orthogonal martingale in the sense that:
Let us also assume
Let Z be subordinated to the orthogonal martingale W:
Then for 1 < q ≤ 2
Below we will give the proof for all q ∈ (1, 2], but first we will give the proof only for q = 3∕2. Moreover, our general-case proof may indicate that the constant \(\sqrt{ \frac{ 2} {p^{2}-p}}\) is sharp after all. (Note that a completely different proof, but with the same constant, is given in [20].)
Proof
We assume that \(F = (\Phi,\Psi )\) (or \(F = \Phi + i\Psi\)) is a martingale on the filtration of Brownian motion
and that these vector processes and their components satisfy Lemmas 3 and 4, namely:
Hence,
By subordination assumption (17) we have
Our next goal is to prove that
Let us polarize the last equation to convert its RHS to 2 ∥ W ∥ 3∕2 ∥ F ∥ 3. Then let us use the combination of (22) and (23). Then we obtain the desired estimate
which is equivalent to the claim of Theorem 7 for q = 3∕2.
We are left to prove (23). For that we will need next several sections. □
5 Bellman Functions and Martingales, the Proof of (23)
Suppose we have the function of 4 real variables such that
where
Then we can prove (23). Let us start by writing Itô’s formula for the process \(b(t):= B(\Phi (t),\Psi (t),U(t),V (t))\):
Here d 2 B stands for the Hessian bilinear form. It is applied to vector (ϕ 1, ψ 1, u 1, v 1) and then to vector (ϕ 2, ψ 2, u 2, v 2). Of course, the second derivatives of B constituting this form are calculated at point \((\Phi,\Psi,U,V )\). All this is at time t. The first term is a martingale with zero average, and it disappears after taking the expectation.
Therefore,
The sum in (28) is the Hessian bilinear form on vector (ϕ 1, ψ 1, u 1, v 1) plus the Hessian bilinear form on vector (ϕ 2, ψ 2, u 2, v 2). Using (26) we can add these two forms with a definite cancellation:
Notice that orthogonality (19) and equality of norms (20):
imply pointwise equalities u 1 v 1 + u 2 v 2 = 0 and thus
Therefore, UV –term above will disappear, and we will get
Hence, by using (27) we get
Let us combine now (28) and (31). We get
We used (25) that claims b ≥ 0. But it also claims that
Combine (32) and (33). We obtain (23).
To find the function with (25) and (26) we need the next section.
6 Special Function \(B = \frac{2} {9}(y_{11}^{2} + y_{ 12}^{2}) + 3(y_{ 21}^{2} + y_{ 22}^{2})^{1/2})^{3/2} + \frac{2} {9}((y_{11}^{2} + y_{ 12}^{2}))^{3/2}\)
It is useful if the reader thinks that y 11, y 12, y 21, y 22 are correspondingly \(\Phi,\Psi,U,V\).
Also in what follows dy 11, dy 12, dy 21, dy 22 can be viewed as ϕ 1, ψ 1, u 1, v 1 and ϕ 2, ψ 2, u 2, v 2.
Let B n+m (x) be a real-valued function of n + m variables x = (x 1, …, x n , x n+1, …, x n+m ). Define a function B nk+m (y) of n vector-valued variables y i = (y i1, …, y ik ), 1 ≤ i ≤ n, and m scalar variables y i , n + 1 ≤ i ≤ n + m, as follows:
where
Omitting indices we shall denote by \(\frac{d^{2}\mathbf{B}} {dx^{2}}\) and \(\frac{d^{2}\mathbf{B}} {dy^{2}}\) the Hessian matrices of B n+m (x) and B nk+m (x), respectively.
7 Hessian of a Vector-Valued Function
Lemma 8
Let P j be the following operator from \(\mathbb{R}^{k}\) to \(\mathbb{R}\) :
i.e., it gives the projection to the direction y j . Let P be the block-diagonal operator from \(\mathbb{R}^{kn+m} = \mathbb{R}^{k} \oplus \mathbb{R}^{k} \oplus \ldots \oplus \mathbb{R}^{k} \oplus \mathbb{R} \oplus \ldots \oplus \mathbb{R}\) to \(\mathbb{R}^{n+m} = \mathbb{R} \oplus \mathbb{R} \oplus \ldots \oplus \mathbb{R} \oplus \mathbb{R} \oplus \ldots \oplus \mathbb{R}\) whose first n diagonal elements are P j and the rest is identity. Then
or
7.1 Positive Definite Quadratic Forms
Let
be a positive definite quadratic form. We are interested in the best possible constant D such that
After dividing this inequality over | x | | y | we get
The left-hand side has its minimum at the point \(t = \sqrt{\frac{C} {A}}\). Therefore the best D is \(\sqrt{AC} -\vert B\vert\).
Now we would like to present Q as a sum of three squares:
which would immediately imply the required estimate. We think that
is a complete square, whence
or
Therefore, \(\tau = \sqrt{\frac{A} {C}}\) and
7.2 Example
Let
Calculate the derivatives:
Also
After substitution in the expressions of the preceding sections we get
7.3 Verifying (27)
And henceforth
Let us now (when we know τ) check the condition (27):
So, yes, we finished the proof of the fact that function
satisfies all differential properties we wished, and thus it is proving our main result for \(q = \frac{3} {2}\). In fact, we saw that it proves (23). In its turn we saw that (23) implies (24), which is the same as proving Theorem 7 for q = 3∕2.
We are very lucky that B is found in the explicit form. There are only two such exponents, for which explicit form exists: \(q = \frac{3} {2}\) and q = 2.
8 Explanation of How We Found This Special Function B: Pogorelov’s Theorem
We owe the reader an explanation of where we got this function B, which played such a prominent part above.
Let p ≥ 2. We want to find a function satisfying the following properties:
-
1) B is defined in the whole plane \(\mathbb{R}^{2}\) and B(u, v) = B(−u, v) = B(u, −v);
-
2) \(0 \leq B(u,v) \leq (\,p - 1)(\frac{1} {p}\vert u\vert ^{p} + \frac{1} {q}\vert v\vert ^{q})\);
-
3) Everywhere we have inequality for Hessian quadratic form d 2 B(u, v) ≥ 2 | du | | dv | ;
-
4) Homogeneity: B(c 1∕p u, c 1∕q v) = c B(u, v), c > 0;
-
5) Function B should be the “best” one satisfying 1), 2), 3).
We understand the last statement as follows: B must saturate inequalities to make them equalities on a natural subset of \(\mathbb{R}^{2}\) in 2) and on a natural subset of the tangent bundle of \(\mathbb{R}^{2}\) in 3).
Let us start with 3). This inequality just means that d 2 B(u, v) ≥ 2dudv, d 2 B(u, v) ≥ −2dudv for any \((u,v) \in \mathbb{R}^{2}\) and for any \((du,dv) \in \mathbb{R}^{2}\). In other words, this is just positivity of matrices
Now we want (40) to barely occur. In other words, we want one of the matrices in (40) to have a zero determinant for every (u, v).
Notice that symmetry 1) allows us to consider B only in the first quadrant. Here we will assume the second matrix in (40) to have zero determinant in the first quadrant.
So let us assume for u > 0, v > 0
Let us introduce
So, we require that
Returning to saturation of 2): we require that \(B(u,v) =\phi (u,v):= (\,p - 1)(\frac{1} {p}u^{p} + \frac{1} {q}v^{q})\) at a non-zero point. By homogeneity 4) we have this equality on the whole curve \(\Gamma\), where \(\Gamma\) is invariant under transformations u → c 1∕p u, v → c 1∕q v.
Notice that γ is unknown at this moment. We are going to solve (42) and (43), so that our solution satisfies (40), 1), 2), 3), 4).
Remark
We strongly suspect that such solution is still non-unique. On the other hand, one cannot “improve” 1), 2), 3), 4) by, say, changing 2 in 3) to a bigger constant, or making a constant p − 1 in 2) smaller.
Recall that we have also the symmetry conditions on A(u, v) + uv = : B(u, v). They are
We assume the smoothness of B. It is a little bit ad hoc assumption, and we will be using it as such, namely, we will assume it when it is convenient and we will be on guard not to come to a contradiction. Anyway, assuming now the smoothness of B on the v-axis we get that the symmetry implies the Neumann boundary condition on B on v-axis: \(\frac{\partial } {\partial u}B(0,v) = 0\), that is
Solving the homogeneous Monge-Ampère equation is the same as building a surface of zero gaussian curvature. We base the following on a Theorem of Pogorelov [31]. The reader can see the algorithm in [36]. So we will be brief. Solution A must have the form
where t 1: = A u (u, v), t 2: = A v (u, v), t(u, v) are unknown function of u, v, but, say, t 1, t 2 are certain functions of t. Moreover, Pogorelov’s theorem says that
We write homogeneity condition 4) as follows A(c 1∕p u, c 1∕q v) = cA(u, v), differentiate in c and plug c = 1. Then we obtain
which being combined with (45) gives
Notice a simple thing, when t is fixed (46) gives us the equation of a line in (u, v) plane. Call this line L t . Functions t 1, t 2 are certain (unknown at this moment) functions of t, so again, for a fixed t equation (48) also gives us a line. Of course this must be L t . Comparing the coefficients we obtain differential equations on t 1, t 2:
We write immediately the solutions in the following form:
Plugging this into (47) one gets
where t(u, v) (see (48)) is defined from the following implicit formula
To define unknown constants C 1, C 2 we have only one boundary condition (44). However we have one more condition. It is a free boundary condition (we think that p ≥ 2 ≥ q)
This seems to be not saving us because we have three unknowns C 1, C 2, γ and two conditions: (44) and (53). But we will require in addition that B(u, v) and ϕ(u, v) have the same tangent plane on the curve \(\Gamma\):
Now we are going to solve (44), (53), (54), to find C 1, C 2, γ and plug them into (51) and (52).
First of all
So \(v/pC_{1} = t(0,v)^{\frac{1} {q} }\) from (50). Plug u = 0 into (52) to get \(t(0,v)^{\frac{1} {q} } = \frac{q} {p}C_{2}v\). Combining we get
Now we use (54).
Using (50) we get
Let us write \(\Gamma\) as \(u^{p} = \frac{1} {\gamma } uv\) or v q = γ q−1 uv, and let us write on \(\Gamma\)
The reader will easily see from what follows that a, b are constants. From (55)
Also from (56)
We already proved
We have five equations (55)–(61) on five unknowns C 1, C 2, a, b, γ.
One solution is obvious:
from where one finds
Therefore,
where t is defined from
If we specify \(p = 3,q = \frac{3} {2}\) we get
and solving the quadratic equation on \(s:= t^{\frac{1} {3} }\): \(s^{2} - 2C_{1}us -\frac{C_{2}} {2} v = 0\), we get (the right root will be with + sign)
Therefore, B(u, v) being equal to C 1 s 2 u + C 2 sv − uv is (\(C_{1}C_{2} = \frac{2} {3}\), see (61))
and so
The last term disappears (see (61)), and we get
Finally from (65)
This is exactly the function in (35). This function gave us our main theorem for p = 3. We have just explained how we got it.
By the way, in this particular case the transcendental equation on γ becomes the usual cubic equation on \(\sqrt{\gamma }\): \(2\sqrt{\gamma } + 1 = 4 -\frac{1} {\gamma }\), which has only one real solutions γ = 1.
9 Explanation: Pogorelov’s Theorem Again
We owe the reader the explanation, why we chose the function A(u, v) = B(u, v) + uv rather than A(u, v) = B(u, v) − uv to have the degenerate Hessian form.
We want to find a function satisfying the following properties (in what follows p ≥ 2):
-
1) B is defined in the whole plane \(\mathbb{R}^{2}\) and B(u, v) = B(−u, v) = B(u, −v);
-
2) \(0 \leq B(u,v) \leq \phi (u,v) = (\,p - 1)(\frac{1} {p}\vert u\vert ^{p} + \frac{1} {q}\vert v\vert ^{q})\);
-
3) Everywhere we have inequality for Hessian quadratic form d 2 B(u, v) ≥ 2 | du | | dv | ;
-
4) Homogeneity: B(c 1∕p u, c 1∕q v) = c B(u, v), c > 0;
-
5) Function B should be the “best” one satisfying 1), 2), 3).
-
(i)
What do we mean by best function? We would like B to be the ‘largest’ function below ϕ(u, v) such that the convexity condition in 3) holds. We expect that such a function should equal the upper bound ϕ(u, v) at some point(s) and the inequality in 3) should be equality where possible.
-
(ii)
Due to the symmetry in 1), we can restrict our attention to {u > 0, v > 0}.
-
(iii)
If we have at some (u, v), B(u, v) = ϕ(u, v), then condition 4) implies that B(c 1∕p u, c 1∕q v) = cB(u, v) = c ϕ(u, v) = ϕ(c 1∕p u, c 1∕q v). Hence they remain equal on a curve {(u, v): v q = γ q u p} for some γ.
-
(iv)
The condition < d 2 B ⋅ (u, v), (u, v) > ≥ 2 | u | | v | means that the ‘directional convexity’ in direction (u, v) stays above the value 2 | u | | v | . This means that the directional convexity of B is above that of both the functions uv and − uv. Equivalently we are asserting the positive definiteness of the matrices:
$$\displaystyle{ \left (\begin{array}{*{10}c} B_{uu} &B_{uv} - 1 \\ B_{vu} - 1& B_{vv}\end{array} \right ) \geq 0,\left (\begin{array}{*{10}c} B_{uu} &B_{uv} + 1 \\ B_{vu} + 1& B_{vv}\end{array} \right ) \geq 0. }$$(69) -
(v)
In order to optimize (69), we require that one of the matrices is degenerate (with “ = 0‴). Suppose that the first matrix is degenerate. This means that the function A(u, v) = B(u, v) − uv has a degenerate Hessian. At every point, one of its two non-negative eigenvalues is 0, and the function has 0 convexity in the direction of corresponding eigenvector. Since the matrix is positive definite, it follows that 0 is the minimal eigenvalue, hence the graph of this function is a surface with gaussian curvature 0.
Moreover the directional convexity of B − uv is greater than that of B + uv in directions of negative slope and less than in directions of positive slope. If we want B + uv to have non-degenerate positive Hessian, then the degeneracy of B − uv must occur in the positive slope direction.
Let us analyze the function A(u, v) = B(u, v) − uv. A theorem of Pogorolev tells us that A will be a linear function on lines of degeneracy. That is, it will have the form:
where t 1(u, v), t 2(u, v) and t(u, v) are constant on the lines given by
We can say two things about the coefficient functions, that the eigen-lines that intersect the positive y axis must also have \(\frac{dt_{1}} {dt_{2}} \leq 0\) and \(\frac{dt_{2}} {dt} \geq 0\) - this information comes from (71) and the fact that the eigen-lines have positive slope. At the moment we know nothing else about the coefficient functions. We will use the various boundary conditions on B, hence on A to determine them.
-
(i)
First observe that since B(u, v) = B(−u, v) = B(u, −v), we may expect that B is smooth on at least one of the two axes, assume on the y axis, and hence the corresponding derivative ∂ u B(0, v) = 0. This means:
$$\displaystyle{ \partial _{u}A(0,v) = -v. }$$(72) -
(ii)
We already assumed that
$$\displaystyle{ B(u,v) =\phi (u,v) = (\,p - 1)(\frac{u^{p}} {p} + \frac{v^{q}} {q} ) }$$(73)on some curve \(\Gamma =\{ v^{q} =\gamma ^{q}u^{p}\}\).
-
(iii)
Let us also assume that the tangent planes of B and ϕ agree on \(\Gamma\). This means that the gradients of the two functions B(u, v) − z and ϕ(u, v) − z should be parallel at the points (u, v, ϕ(u, v)) where \((u,v) \in \Gamma\). Therefore
$$\displaystyle{(\partial _{u}\phi,\partial _{v}\phi,-1) =\lambda (\partial _{u}B,\partial _{v}B,-1),}$$which implies λ = 1 and
$$\displaystyle{ B_{u}(u,v) = (\,p - 1)u^{p-1},B_{ v}(u,v) = (\,p - 1)v^{q-1} }$$(74)on the curve \(\Gamma\). Similarly on \(\Gamma\),
$$\displaystyle{ A_{u}(u,v) = (\,p - 1)u^{p-1} - v,A_{ v}(u,v) = (\,p - 1)v^{q-1} - u. }$$(75)
Recall:
where t 1(u, v) = A u (u, v), t 2(u, v) = A v (u, v) and t(u, v) are constant on the lines given by
We also have the homogeneity condition: A(c 1∕p u, c 1∕q v) = cA(u, v). Differentiating this with respect to c and setting c = 1 gives:
Comparing (76) and (79), we have
Now comparing (77) and (80) gives
Solving these differential equations, we have
Putting this into (80) gives:
Let us make two observations: Recall that if our eigen-line intercepts the positive y axis and has positive slope, then \(\frac{dt_{1}} {dt_{2}} = \frac{q} {p} \frac{C_{1}} {C_{2}} \vert t\vert ^{\frac{1} {q}-\frac{1} {p} } \leq 0\) and \(\frac{dt_{2}} {dt} \geq 0\). If t > 0, then \(\frac{dt_{2}} {dt} = \frac{1} {p}C_{2}\vert t\vert ^{-1/q}\), and if t < 0, then \(\frac{dt_{2}} {dt} = -\frac{1} {p}C_{2}\vert t\vert ^{-1/q}\). We conclude from this:
-
(i)
If t > 0, then C 1 C 2 ≤ 0 and C 2 ≥ 0, hence C 1 ≤ 0,
-
(ii)
If t < 0, then C 1 C 2 ≤ 0 and C 2 ≤ 0, hence C 1 ≥ 0.
Let us bring in the following: t 1 = A u (0, v) = −v. The first equality is from Pogorolev and the second is the boundary condition (72). Then (82) implies that
and (83) implies that
Conclude:
-
(i)
If v > 0, then C 1 < 0. The previous observations imply t > 0 and C 2 ≥ 0. We are concerned at present with this case of positive y intercept.
-
(ii)
From (84) and (85), we conclude
$$\displaystyle{ C_{1}C_{2} = -p. }$$(86)
Next from (75), we know that on \(\Gamma\),
In terms of t, this says
Write on \(\Gamma\)
Note that a ≥ 0 and b ≤ 0 due to the signs of C 1 and C 2. Substituting in (88) and using (86) gives
Note that (89) also implies that
(92), (86) and the fact pq = p + q imply that
Next observe that (83), (86) and (89) imply
and hence by (90)
The equation that follows from making substitutions into the boundary condition (73) B = ϕ on \(\Gamma\) and A = B − uv gives no new relationship. So we can avoid its consideration.
Simplifying (95) shows that γ is solution to the equation
The rest of the analysis is yet to be done. However, note that \(\frac{B_{u}} {u} = \frac{\phi _{u}} {u}\) on \(\Gamma\), and on the corresponding eigen-line, we can understand it by using the fact that A u = B u − v is constant. This may help later.
10 The Case When p = 3 and \(q = \frac{3} {2}\)
Observe that by setting δ = γ q−1, we can rewrite (96) as
Let us analyze the case when p = 3. Then this equation becomes
whose unique positive solution is \(\delta = 1 + \sqrt{2}\). Therefore
Then using (86), (90) and (93), we obtain
and
Now we will explicitly find B(u, v). Recall
Let s = t 1∕3. Then we have \(s^{2} -\frac{2} {3}C_{1}us -\frac{1} {3}C_{2}v = 0\) and
Use the fact that C 1 C 2 = −3 to simplify and obtain:
We can use | C 1 | C 2 = 3 to deduce \(\frac{B_{u}} {u} =\tau\). Next we compute the quadratic form associated with B by using the formulation before:
Now let \(\mathbf{B}(y_{11},y_{12},y_{21},y_{22}):= B(\sqrt{y_{11 }^{2 } + y_{12 }^{2}},\sqrt{y_{11 }^{2 } + y_{12 }^{2}}) = B(x_{1},x_{2})\). Then the associated quadratic form becomes
In order for the quadratic form to have the self-improving property, we need
for suitable constant c. In fact if \(\frac{C_{2}} {C_{1}^{2}} = 1\), we know that c = 3. This suggests that the right constant is \(2 + \frac{C_{2}} {C_{1}^{2}} \approx 3.276142375\). (Calculation gives | C 1 | ≈ 1. 329660319 and C 2 ≈ 2. 256215334, hence \(\frac{C_{2}} {C_{1}^{2}} \approx 1.276142375\).)
If the rest of the process is the same as with the previous estimate, then the over all constant estimate would be approximately
11 The Proof of Theorem 7 for General q ∈ (1, 2]
Recall that we found for 1 < q ≤ 2 ≤ p < ∞, 1∕p + 1∕q = 1 the following function
Our goal is to represent the Hessian form of this implicitly given B as a sum of squares. This requires some calculations.
where
Also
which, after using (107), (110) gives
Similarly,
Recall also that we had
Using the notations (110) and (113) we can compute the Hessian of B = B q . Namely,
Plugging
and using (111) we get the following concise formulas:
Let us introduce the notations:
Then we saw in the previous sections that the Hessian quadratic form of B
will have the form
It is useful if the reader thinks that in what follows y 11, y 12, y 21, y 22 are, correspondingly, \(\Phi,\Psi,U,V\).
Also in what follows dy 11, dy 12, dy 21, dy 22 can be viewed as ϕ 1, ψ 1, u 1, v 1 and ϕ 2, ψ 2, u 2, v 2.
Our goal now is to “tensorize” the form Q. This operation means in our particular case to consider the new function, now of 4 real variables (or 2 complex variables if one prefers), given by
and to write its Hessian quadratic form. In the previous section we saw the formula for doing that:
To show that this quadratic form has an interesting self-improving property we are going to make some calculations. First of all notice that
Now we start with combining (108) with (111)
Let us see that
This is the same as
But the last claim is correct, it is just the implicit equation (107) for t. So (120) is correct. So, combining (118) and (119) we obtain
We would expect that \(\frac{B_{v}} {v} = \frac{\beta } {\alpha } = \frac{1} {\tau }\) by symmetry, but actually \(\frac{B_{v}} {v}> \frac{\beta } {\alpha }\) for p > 2 and this allows us to have an improved inequality for \(\mathbb{Q}\). Let us see how.
Using (107) we get
In particular, using (118)
This is what we need
Now let us take a look at \(\mathbb{Q}\) and let us plug (121) and (122) into it. Then
Now imagine that we apply this estimate to two different collection of vectors (dy 11, dy 12, dy 21, dy 22), (dy′11, dy′12, dy′21, dy′22). Moreover, suppose that we have orthonormality condition
We denote ξ 1 2: = dy 11 2 + dy 12 2 + (dy′11)2 + (dy′12)2, ξ 2 2: = dy 21 2 + dy 22 2 + (dy′21)2 + (dy′22)2. Using that \(\frac{y_{22}^{2}+y_{ 21}^{2}} {x_{2}^{2}} = 1\) and (122) we rewrite the RHS and get
So we won \(\sqrt{2/p} = \sqrt{\frac{2(q-1)} {q}}\) in comparison with the usual Burkholder estimate, which would be \(\leq \frac{1} {q-1}\). So the estimate for the orthogonal martingale will be \(\leq \sqrt{\frac{2(q-1)} {q}} \cdot \frac{1} {q-1} = \sqrt{ \frac{2} {q(q-1)}}\).
And we get Theorem 7.
References
A. Baernstein, S. Montgomery-Smith, Some conjectures about integral means of ∂ f and \(\overline{\partial }f\), in Complex analysis and Differential Equations, Proceedings of the Marcus Wallenberg Symposium in Honor of Matts Essén, Uppsala, Sweden, 1997, pp. 92–109
R. Banuelos, P. Janakiraman, L p–bounds for the Beurling–Ahlfors transform. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 360 (7), 3603–3612 (2008)
R. Banuelos, P.J. Méndez-Hernandez, Space-time Brownian motion and the Beurling-Ahlfors transform. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 52 (4), 981–990 (2003)
R. Banuelos, G. Wang, Sharp inequalities for martingales with applications to the Beurling-Ahlfors and Riesz transforms. Duke Math. J. 80, 575–600 (1995)
A. Borichev, P. Janakiraman, A. Volberg, Subordination by conformal martingales in L p and zeros of Laguerre polynomials. Duke Math. J. 162 (5), 889–924 (2013)
A. Borichev, P. Janakiraman, A. Volberg, On Burkholder function for orthogonal martingales and zeros of Legendre polynomials. Am. J. Math. 135 (1), 207–236 (2013)
D. Burkholder, Boundary value problems and sharp estimates for the martingale transforms. Ann. Probab. 12, 647–702 (1984)
D. Burkholder, An Extension of Classical Martingale Inequality, ed. by J.-A. Chao, W.A. Woyczynski. Probability Theory and Harmonic Analysis (Marcel Dekker, New York, 1986)
D. Burkholder, Sharp inequalities for martingales and stochastic integrals. Colloque Paul Lévy sur les Processus Stochastiques (Palaiseau, 1987). Math. J. Astérisque No. 157–158, 75–94 (1988)
D. Burkholder, A proof of the Pelczynski’s conjecture for the Haar system. Studia Math. 91, 79–83 (1988)
D. Burkholder, Differential subordination of harmonic functions and martingales, in Harmonic Analysis and Partial Differential Equations, El Escorial 1987. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1384 (Springer, Berlin, 1989), pp. 1–23
D. Burkholder, Explorations of Martingale Theory and its Applications. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1464 (Springer, New York, 1991), pp. 1–66
D. Burkholder, Strong differential subordination and stochastic integration. Ann. Probab. 22, 995–1025 (1994)
D. Burkholder, Martingales and Singular Integrals in Banach Spaces. Handbook of the Geometry of Banach Spaces, vol. 1, Chap. 6 (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2001), pp. 233–269
O. Dragicevic, A. Volberg, Sharp estimates of the Ahlfors-Beurling operator via averaging of Martingale transform. Michigan Math. J. 51, 415–435 (2003)
O. Dragicevic, A. Volberg, Bellman function, Littlewood–Paley estimates, and asymptotic of the Ahlfors–Beurling operator in \(L^{p}(\mathbb{C})\), p → ∞. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 54 (4), 971–995 (2005)
O. Dragicevic, A. Volberg, Bellman function and dimensionless estimates of classical and Ornstein-Uhlenbeck Riesz transforms. J. Oper. Theory 56 (1), 167–198 (2006)
O. Dragicevic, S. Treil, A. Volberg, A lemma about 3 quadratic forms. Int. Math. Res. Not. (1) Article ID rnn072, 1–9 (2008). doi:10.1093/imrn/rnn072
S. Geiss, S. Montgomery-Smith, E. Saksman, On singular integral and martingale transforms, arxiv: math. CA/0701516v1 18 June 2007
P. Janakiraman, A. Volberg, Subordination by orthogonal martingales in L p, 1 < p ≤ 2 (2009, preprint), pp. 1–5, sashavolberg.wordpress.com
I. Karatzas, S. Shreve, Brownian Motion and Stochastic Calculus. Graduate Texts in Mathematics (Springer, Berlin, 1991)
F. Nazarov, S. Treil, The hunt for Bellman function: applications to estimates of singular integral operators and to other classical problems in harmonic analysis. Alg. I Anal. 8 (5), 32–162 (1997)
F. Nazarov, A. Volberg, Bellman function, two weighted Hilbert transforms and embeddings of the model spaces K θ . Wolff. J. Anal. Math. 87, 385–414 (2002). Dedicated to the memory of Thomas H
F. Nazarov, A. Volberg, Heating of the Ahlfors–Beurling operator and estimates of its norm. St. Petersburg Math. J. 14 (3), 563–573 (2003)
F. Nazarov, S. Treil, A. Volberg, The Bellman functions and two-weight inequalities for Haar multipliers. J. Am. Math. Soc. 12, 909–928 (1999)
F. Nazarov, S. Treil, A. Volberg, Bellman function in stochastic control and harmonic analysis, in Systems, Approximation, Singular Integral Operators, and Related Topics (Bordeaux, 2000). Operator Theory: Advance Application, vol. 129 (Birkhauser, Basel, 2001), pp. 393–423
N.K. Nikolski, Treatise on the shift operator, in Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften. Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences, vol. 273 (Springer, Berlin/New York, 1986)
S. Petermichl, A sharp bound for weighted Hilbert transform in terms of classical A p characteristic. Am. J. Math. 129 (5), 1355–1375 (2007)
S. Petermichl, A. Volberg, Heating the Beurling operator: weakly quasiregular maps on the plane are quasiregular. Duke Math. J. 112 (2), 281–305 (2002)
S. Pichorides, On the best values of the constants in the theorems of M. Riesz, Zygmund, and Kolmogorov. Studia Math. 44, 165–179 (1972)
A.V. Pogorelov, Extrinsic Geometry of Convex Surfaces. Translations of Mathematical Monographs, vol. 35 (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1973)
E. Sawyer, Two-Weight Norm Inequalities for Certain Maximal and Integral Operators. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 908 (Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York, 1982), pp. 102–127
L. Slavin, A. Stokolos, Monge-Ampère equations and Bellman functions: the dyadic maximal operator. C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris 346 (9–10), 585–588 (2008)
L. Slavin, V. Vasyunin, Sharp results in the integral-form John–Nirenberg inequality. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 363 (8), 4135–4169 (2011)
V. Vasyunin, A. Volberg, The Bellman function for certain two weight inequality: the case study. St. Petersburg Math. J. 18 (2), 201–222 (2007)
V. Vasyunin, A. Volberg, Monge–Ampère equation and Bellman optimization of Carleson embedding theorems. Advances in Math. Sciences, Series 2, vol. 226, pp. 195–238, 2009. arXiv:0803.2247. [American Mathematical Society Translations]
A. Volberg, Bellman approach to some problems in Harmonic analysis. Séminaires des Equations aux derivées partielles. Ecole Politéchnique, exposé XX, 2002, pp. 1–14
Acknowledgements
The authors are very grateful to Vasily Vasyunin who helped us with calculation of Sect. 7. We are also grateful to Marina Kuznetsova for careful reading of the text and suggesting many language improvements. Alexander Volberg is partially supported by the NSF grants DMS-1265549 and DMS-1600065.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Janakiraman, P., Volberg, A. (2017). New Bellman Functions and Subordination by Orthogonal Martingales in L p, 1 < p ≤ 2. In: Chanillo, S., Franchi, B., Lu, G., Perez, C., Sawyer, E. (eds) Harmonic Analysis, Partial Differential Equations and Applications. Applied and Numerical Harmonic Analysis. Birkhäuser, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52742-0_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52742-0_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Birkhäuser, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-52741-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-52742-0
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)