\stackMath
Chian Yeong Chuah Department of Mathematics The Ohio State University 231 West 18th Avenue Columbus, OH 43210-1174, USA ORCid:0000-0003-3776-6555 chuah.21@osu.edu , Zhen-Chuan Liu Departamento de Matemáticas Universidad Autónoma de Madrid C/ Francisco Tomás y Valiente, 7 Facultad de Ciencias, módulo 17, 28049 Madrid,Spain. ORCid: 0000-0002-6092-5473 liu.zhenchuan@uam.es and Tao Mei Department of Mathematics Baylor University 1301 S University Parks Dr, Waco, TX 76798, USA. ORCid: 0000-0001-6191-6184 tao_mei@baylor.edu
Abstract. We give a direct proof of the operator valued Hardy-Littlewood maximal inequality for 2 ≤ p < ∞ 2 𝑝 2\leq p<\infty 2 ≤ italic_p < ∞ , which was first proved in [7 ] .
Key words and phrases: Maximal Inequality, Schatten p 𝑝 p italic_p -class, von Neumann Algebra, L p subscript 𝐿 𝑝 L_{p} italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT -Space
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary: 46B28, 46L52. Secondary: 42A45.
1. IntroductionThe operator valued Hardy-Littlewood maximal inequality ([7 ] ) has become a basic tool in the study of noncommutative analysis. See e.g. [2 , 4 , 8 ] for the recent works which apply this inequality.
The original proof of the inequality contained in [7 ] reduces the problem to the martingale case where the noncommutative Doob’s maximal inequality due to M. Junge ([5 ] ) is applied. G. Hong reproved this maximal inequality in [3 ] . He follows Stein’s idea of dominating the Hardy-Littlewood maximal function by maximal averages of heat semigroup operators and applies the noncommutative maximal ergodic theory due to M. Junge and Q. Xu ([6 ] ). Both proofs are indirect which prevent researchers, who are not familiar with the terminology of noncommutative analysis from a good understanding of the theorem. The purpose of this article is to provide a direct and more understandable proof of this inequality for the case p ≥ 2 𝑝 2 p\geq 2 italic_p ≥ 2 .
Recall that, for a locally integrable function f 𝑓 f italic_f , the Hardy-Littlewood maximal function is defined as
M f ( x ) = sup t 1 2 t ∫ I ( x , t ) | f ( y ) | 𝑑 y , 𝑀 𝑓 𝑥 subscript supremum 𝑡 1 2 𝑡 subscript 𝐼 𝑥 𝑡 𝑓 𝑦 differential-d 𝑦 Mf(x)=\sup_{t}\frac{1}{2t}\int_{I(x,t)}|f(y)|dy, italic_M italic_f ( italic_x ) = roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_t end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I ( italic_x , italic_t ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_f ( italic_y ) | italic_d italic_y ,
where I ( x , t ) 𝐼 𝑥 𝑡 I(x,t) italic_I ( italic_x , italic_t ) is the interval centered at x 𝑥 x italic_x with length 2 t . 2 𝑡 2t. 2 italic_t . The classical Hardy-Littlewood maximal inequality states that
(1.1) ‖ M f ‖ L p ≤ c p p − 1 ‖ f ‖ L p , subscript norm 𝑀 𝑓 superscript 𝐿 𝑝 𝑐 𝑝 𝑝 1 subscript norm 𝑓 superscript 𝐿 𝑝 \displaystyle\|Mf\|_{L^{p}}\leq c\frac{p}{p-1}\|f\|_{L^{p}}, ∥ italic_M italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_c divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_p - 1 end_ARG ∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
for all f ∈ L p ( ℝ ) , 1 < p ≤ ∞ formulae-sequence 𝑓 superscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℝ 1 𝑝 f\in L^{p}(\mathbb{R}),1<p\leq\infty italic_f ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R ) , 1 < italic_p ≤ ∞ .
Let X 𝑋 X italic_X be a Banach space, for X-valued functions f 𝑓 f italic_f , their maximal function M f 𝑀 𝑓 Mf italic_M italic_f can be defined by considering the maximal function of the norm of f 𝑓 f italic_f ,
(1.2) M f ( x ) = sup t 1 2 t ∫ I ( x , t ) ‖ f ( y ) ‖ X 𝑑 y . 𝑀 𝑓 𝑥 subscript supremum 𝑡 1 2 𝑡 subscript 𝐼 𝑥 𝑡 subscript norm 𝑓 𝑦 𝑋 differential-d 𝑦 \displaystyle Mf(x)=\sup_{t}\frac{1}{2t}\int_{I(x,t)}\|f(y)\|_{X}dy. italic_M italic_f ( italic_x ) = roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_t end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I ( italic_x , italic_t ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_f ( italic_y ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_y .
Apply the classical Hardy-Littlewood maximal inequality to the L p subscript 𝐿 𝑝 L_{p} italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT function ‖ f ‖ X subscript norm 𝑓 𝑋 \|f\|_{X} ∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , one obtains that
(1.3) ‖ M f ‖ L p ( X ) ≤ c p p − 1 ‖ f ‖ L p ( X ) = ( ∫ ℝ ‖ f ‖ X p ) 1 p , subscript norm 𝑀 𝑓 superscript 𝐿 𝑝 𝑋 𝑐 𝑝 𝑝 1 subscript norm 𝑓 superscript 𝐿 𝑝 𝑋 superscript subscript ℝ superscript subscript norm 𝑓 𝑋 𝑝 1 𝑝 \displaystyle\|Mf\|_{L^{p}(X)}\leq c\frac{p}{p-1}\|f\|_{L^{p}(X)}=(\int_{%\mathbb{R}}\|f\|_{X}^{p})^{\frac{1}{p}}, ∥ italic_M italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_c divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_p - 1 end_ARG ∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
for all f ∈ L p ( ℝ , X ) , 1 < p ≤ ∞ formulae-sequence 𝑓 superscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℝ 𝑋 1 𝑝 f\in L^{p}(\mathbb{R},X),1<p\leq\infty italic_f ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R , italic_X ) , 1 < italic_p ≤ ∞ . A shortcoming is that this type of maximal function is scalar-valued and may lose a lot of information of X 𝑋 X italic_X that f 𝑓 f italic_f originally carried.
When X = L p ( Ω ) 𝑋 superscript 𝐿 𝑝 Ω X=L^{p}(\Omega) italic_X = italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) with Ω Ω \Omega roman_Ω a measurable space, one may define a X 𝑋 X italic_X -valued maximal function F 𝐹 F italic_F as
(1.4) F ( x , ω ) = 1 2 t ∫ I ( x , t ) | f ( y , ω ) | 𝑑 y , 𝐹 𝑥 𝜔 1 2 𝑡 subscript 𝐼 𝑥 𝑡 𝑓 𝑦 𝜔 differential-d 𝑦 \displaystyle F(x,\omega)=\frac{1}{2t}\int_{I(x,t)}|f(y,\omega)|dy, italic_F ( italic_x , italic_ω ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_t end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I ( italic_x , italic_t ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_f ( italic_y , italic_ω ) | italic_d italic_y ,
and deduce from (1.3 ) that
(1.5) ‖ F ‖ L p ( ℝ , L p ( Ω ) ) ≤ c p p − 1 ‖ f ‖ L p ( ℝ , L p ( Ω ) ) . subscript norm 𝐹 superscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℝ superscript 𝐿 𝑝 Ω 𝑐 𝑝 𝑝 1 subscript norm 𝑓 superscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℝ superscript 𝐿 𝑝 Ω \displaystyle\|F\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R},L^{p}(\Omega))}\leq c\frac{p}{p-1}\|f\|_{%L^{p}(\mathbb{R},L^{p}(\Omega))}. ∥ italic_F ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R , italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_c divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_p - 1 end_ARG ∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R , italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Note that in (1.4 ), F 𝐹 F italic_F is a X 𝑋 X italic_X -valued function that dominates the average of | f | 𝑓 |f| | italic_f | pointwisely, while in (1.2 ), M f 𝑀 𝑓 Mf italic_M italic_f is merely a scalar valued function that carries much less information. Can similar results like (1.4 ) and (1.5 ) hold for X 𝑋 X italic_X -valued functions when the Banach space X 𝑋 X italic_X is not equipped with a total order but still has a reasonable partial order, e.g. for X = 𝑋 absent X= italic_X = the Schatten p 𝑝 p italic_p classes?Based on G. Pisier’s work on operator spaces and M. Junge and Junge/Xu’s work on the theory of noncommutative martingales, T. Mei ([7 ] ) proved a maximal inequality like (1.5 ) for X 𝑋 X italic_X being the noncommutative L p superscript 𝐿 𝑝 L^{p} italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT -spaces. In the case that X = 𝑋 absent X= italic_X = the Schatten p 𝑝 p italic_p -class S p subscript 𝑆 𝑝 S_{p} italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and f ∈ L p ( S p ) 𝑓 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 subscript 𝑆 𝑝 f\in L_{p}({S_{p}}) italic_f ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) for some 1 < p ≤ ∞ 1 𝑝 1<p\leq\infty 1 < italic_p ≤ ∞ , this operator-maximal inequality says that there exists a S p subscript 𝑆 𝑝 S_{p} italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT -valued function F 𝐹 F italic_F such that
(i) 1 2 t ∫ x − t x + t | f ( y ) | 𝑑 y ≤ F ( x ) 1 2 𝑡 superscript subscript 𝑥 𝑡 𝑥 𝑡 𝑓 𝑦 differential-d 𝑦 𝐹 𝑥 \frac{1}{2t}\int_{x-t}^{x+t}|f(y)|dy\leq F(x) divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_t end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x - italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x + italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_f ( italic_y ) | italic_d italic_y ≤ italic_F ( italic_x ) as operators for all t > 0 𝑡 0 t>0 italic_t > 0 , i.e. F − 1 2 t ∫ x − t x + t | f ( y ) | 𝑑 y ∈ S p 𝐹 1 2 𝑡 superscript subscript 𝑥 𝑡 𝑥 𝑡 𝑓 𝑦 differential-d 𝑦 superscript 𝑆 𝑝 F-\frac{1}{2t}\int_{x-t}^{x+t}|f(y)|dy\in S^{p} italic_F - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_t end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x - italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x + italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_f ( italic_y ) | italic_d italic_y ∈ italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a self adjoint positive definite operator almost everywhere.
(ii) There exists an absolute constant c 𝑐 c italic_c such that
(1.6) ‖ F ‖ L p ( S p ) ≤ c p 2 ( p − 1 ) 2 ‖ f ‖ L p ( S p ) . subscript norm 𝐹 superscript 𝐿 𝑝 superscript 𝑆 𝑝 𝑐 superscript 𝑝 2 superscript 𝑝 1 2 subscript norm 𝑓 superscript 𝐿 𝑝 superscript 𝑆 𝑝 \displaystyle\|F\|_{L^{p}(S^{p})}\leq c\frac{p^{2}}{(p-1)^{2}}\|f\|_{L^{p}(S^{%p})}. ∥ italic_F ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_c divide start_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_p - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
A main obstacle for the proof of (1.6 ) is the lack of a total order. This was overcome by M. Junge using G. Pisier’s duality result for the operator spaces L p ( ℓ ∞ ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 subscript ℓ L_{p}(\ell_{\infty}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) and L p ( ℓ 1 ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 subscript ℓ 1 L_{p}(\ell_{1}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) . This article aims togive a direct proof for (1.6 ) and a more understandable proof of Pisier’s duality result (Lemma 2.2 ) for analysts who are not familiar with operator spaces.
2. PreliminaryLet H 𝐻 H italic_H be a separable Hilbert space. We denote the space of bounded linear operators on H 𝐻 H italic_H by B ( H ) 𝐵 𝐻 B(H) italic_B ( italic_H ) . For x ∈ B ( H ) 𝑥 𝐵 𝐻 x\in B(H) italic_x ∈ italic_B ( italic_H ) , we denote by x ∗ superscript 𝑥 x^{*} italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT the adjoint operator of x 𝑥 x italic_x , and define | x | p = ( x ∗ x ) p 2 superscript 𝑥 𝑝 superscript superscript 𝑥 𝑥 𝑝 2 |x|^{p}=(x^{*}x)^{\frac{p}{2}} | italic_x | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT by the functional calculus for 0 < p < ∞ 0 𝑝 0<p<\infty 0 < italic_p < ∞ . We say that x ∈ B ( H ) 𝑥 𝐵 𝐻 x\in B(H) italic_x ∈ italic_B ( italic_H ) is self-adjoint if x = x ∗ 𝑥 superscript 𝑥 x=x^{*} italic_x = italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . We say a self-adjoint operator x 𝑥 x italic_x is positive, denoted by x ≥ 0 𝑥 0 x\geq 0 italic_x ≥ 0 if
(2.1) ⟨ x e , e ⟩ ≥ 0 , 𝑥 𝑒 𝑒
0 \displaystyle\langle xe,e\rangle\geq 0, ⟨ italic_x italic_e , italic_e ⟩ ≥ 0 ,
for all e ∈ H 𝑒 𝐻 e\in H italic_e ∈ italic_H . This is equivalent to saying that x = y ∗ y 𝑥 superscript 𝑦 𝑦 x=y^{*}y italic_x = italic_y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y for some y ∈ B ( H ) 𝑦 𝐵 𝐻 y\in B(H) italic_y ∈ italic_B ( italic_H ) . For two self-adjoint x , y ∈ B ( H ) 𝑥 𝑦
𝐵 𝐻 x,y\in B(H) italic_x , italic_y ∈ italic_B ( italic_H ) , we write x ≤ y 𝑥 𝑦 x\leq y italic_x ≤ italic_y if y − x ≥ 0 𝑦 𝑥 0 y-x\geq 0 italic_y - italic_x ≥ 0 .The Schatten p 𝑝 p italic_p -classes S p subscript 𝑆 𝑝 S_{p} italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 0 < p < ∞ 0 𝑝 0<p<\infty 0 < italic_p < ∞ are the spaces of x ∈ B ( H ) 𝑥 𝐵 𝐻 x\in B(H) italic_x ∈ italic_B ( italic_H ) so that
‖ x ‖ p = ( t r | x | p ) 1 p < ∞ . subscript norm 𝑥 𝑝 superscript 𝑡 𝑟 superscript 𝑥 𝑝 1 𝑝 \|x\|_{p}=(tr|x|^{p})^{\frac{1}{p}}<\infty. ∥ italic_x ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( italic_t italic_r | italic_x | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT < ∞ .
Here, t r 𝑡 𝑟 tr italic_t italic_r is the usual trace t r ( x ) = ∑ k ⟨ x e k , e k ⟩ 𝑡 𝑟 𝑥 subscript 𝑘 𝑥 subscript 𝑒 𝑘 subscript 𝑒 𝑘
tr(x)=\sum_{k}\langle xe_{k},e_{k}\rangle italic_t italic_r ( italic_x ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_x italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ for x ≥ 0 ∈ B ( H ) 𝑥 0 𝐵 𝐻 x\geq 0\in B(H) italic_x ≥ 0 ∈ italic_B ( italic_H ) . TheSchatten p 𝑝 p italic_p classes share many properties with the ℓ p subscript ℓ 𝑝 \ell_{p} roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT spaces of sequences. In particular, S p subscript 𝑆 𝑝 S_{p} italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are Banach spaces for p ≥ 1 𝑝 1 p\geq 1 italic_p ≥ 1 and B ( H ) 𝐵 𝐻 B(H) italic_B ( italic_H ) (resp. S q subscript 𝑆 𝑞 S_{q} italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) is the dual space of S 1 subscript 𝑆 1 S_{1} italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (resp. S p subscript 𝑆 𝑝 S_{p} italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for 1 < p , q < ∞ , 1 p + 1 q formulae-sequence 1 𝑝 𝑞 1 𝑝 1 𝑞
1<p,q<\infty,\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q} 1 < italic_p , italic_q < ∞ , divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ), via the isometric isomorphism,
x ↦ ϕ x : ϕ x ( y ) = t r ( x y ) : maps-to 𝑥 subscript italic-ϕ 𝑥 subscript italic-ϕ 𝑥 𝑦 𝑡 𝑟 𝑥 𝑦 x\mapsto\phi_{x}:\phi_{x}(y)=tr(xy) italic_x ↦ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_y ) = italic_t italic_r ( italic_x italic_y )
for y ∈ S 1 𝑦 subscript 𝑆 1 y\in S_{1} italic_y ∈ italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (resp. S p subscript 𝑆 𝑝 S_{p} italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ).
2.1. Noncommutative L p subscript 𝐿 𝑝 L_{p} italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT spacesA von Neumann algebra , by definition, is a weak-∗ * ∗ closed subalgebras ℳ ℳ \mathcal{M} caligraphic_M of B ( H ) 𝐵 𝐻 B(H) italic_B ( italic_H ) .The completeness according to the weak ∗ * ∗ -topology of ℳ ℳ \mathcal{M} caligraphic_M ensures that it contains the spectral projections of its self-adjoint elements. ℓ ∞ ( ℕ ) subscript ℓ ℕ \ell_{\infty}({\mathbb{N}}) roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_N ) which is isometrically isomorphic to the subalgebras of the diagonal operators and B ( H ) 𝐵 𝐻 B(H) italic_B ( italic_H ) itself are two basic examples of von Neumann algebras.The usual trace τ = t r 𝜏 𝑡 𝑟 \tau=tr italic_τ = italic_t italic_r on B ( H ) 𝐵 𝐻 B(H) italic_B ( italic_H ) is a linear functional on the weak-∗ * ∗ dense subspace S 1 subscript 𝑆 1 S_{1} italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT satisfying the following properties,
i) Tracial: τ ( x y ) = τ ( x y ) 𝜏 𝑥 𝑦 𝜏 𝑥 𝑦 \tau(xy)=\tau(xy) italic_τ ( italic_x italic_y ) = italic_τ ( italic_x italic_y ) ,
ii) Faithful: if x ≥ 0 𝑥 0 x\geq 0 italic_x ≥ 0 and τ ( x ) = 0 𝜏 𝑥 0 \tau(x)=0 italic_τ ( italic_x ) = 0 then x = 0 𝑥 0 x=0 italic_x = 0 ,
iii) Lower semi-continuous: τ ( sup x i ) = sup τ ( x i ) 𝜏 supremum subscript 𝑥 𝑖 supremum 𝜏 subscript 𝑥 𝑖 \tau(\sup x_{i})=\sup\tau(x_{i}) italic_τ ( roman_sup italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = roman_sup italic_τ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) when x i ≥ 0 subscript 𝑥 𝑖 0 x_{i}\geq 0 italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 is increasing,
iv) Semifinite: for any x ≥ 0 𝑥 0 x\geq 0 italic_x ≥ 0 , there exists 0 ≤ y ≤ x 0 𝑦 𝑥 0\leq y\leq x 0 ≤ italic_y ≤ italic_x such that τ ( y ) < ∞ 𝜏 𝑦 \tau(y)<\infty italic_τ ( italic_y ) < ∞ .
This leads to defining semifinite von Neumann algebras ℳ ℳ \mathcal{M} caligraphic_M as those equipped with a trace τ 𝜏 \tau italic_τ , which is an unbounded linear functional satisfying (i)-(iv) for x , y 𝑥 𝑦
x,y italic_x , italic_y belonging to a weak ∗ * ∗ dense subspace. Note the restriction of the usual trace of B ( H ) 𝐵 𝐻 B(H) italic_B ( italic_H ) on ℳ ℳ \mathcal{M} caligraphic_M may not be semifinite, and not every von Neumann algebras is semifinite. Given such a pair ( ℳ , τ ) ℳ 𝜏 (\mathcal{M},\tau) ( caligraphic_M , italic_τ ) (which is usually viewed as a noncommutative L ∞ subscript 𝐿 L_{\infty} italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - space) the noncommutative L p subscript 𝐿 𝑝 L_{p} italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT spaces associated to it are the completion of f ∈ ℳ 𝑓 ℳ f\in{\mathcal{M}} italic_f ∈ caligraphic_M with finite quasi norm
‖ f ‖ p = [ τ ( | f | p ) ] 1 p for 0 < p < ∞ , formulae-sequence subscript norm 𝑓 𝑝 superscript delimited-[] 𝜏 superscript 𝑓 𝑝 1 𝑝 for
0 𝑝 \|f\|_{p}\,=\,\left[\tau\left(|f|^{p}\right)\right]^{\frac{1}{p}}\quad\mbox{%for}\quad 0<p<\infty, ∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = [ italic_τ ( | italic_f | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for 0 < italic_p < ∞ ,
where | f | p = ( f ∗ f ) p / 2 superscript 𝑓 𝑝 superscript superscript 𝑓 𝑓 𝑝 2 |f|^{p}=(f^{*}f)^{p/2} | italic_f | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is constructed via functional calculus. We set L ∞ ( ℳ ) = ℳ subscript 𝐿 ℳ ℳ L_{\infty}(\mathcal{M})=\mathcal{M} italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) = caligraphic_M .
The Schatten p 𝑝 p italic_p -classes S p subscript 𝑆 𝑝 S_{p} italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and the L p subscript 𝐿 𝑝 L_{p} italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT spaces on a semifinite measure space ( Ω , μ ) Ω 𝜇 (\Omega,\mu) ( roman_Ω , italic_μ ) are examples of noncommutative L p subscript 𝐿 𝑝 L_{p} italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT spaces associated with ℳ = B ( H ) ℳ 𝐵 𝐻 \mathcal{M}=B(H) caligraphic_M = italic_B ( italic_H ) and ℳ = L ∞ ( Ω , μ ) ℳ subscript 𝐿 Ω 𝜇 {\mathcal{M}}=L_{\infty}(\Omega,\mu) caligraphic_M = italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Ω , italic_μ ) respectively. Another basic example arises from group von Neumann algebras. Every commutative semifinite von Neumann algebra is isometrically isomorphic to the space L ∞ ( Ω , μ ) subscript 𝐿 Ω 𝜇 L_{\infty}(\Omega,\mu) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Ω , italic_μ ) of essentially bounded functions on some semifinite measure space ( Ω , μ ) Ω 𝜇 (\Omega,\mu) ( roman_Ω , italic_μ ) .Many basic properties of L p ( Ω , μ ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 Ω 𝜇 L_{p}(\Omega,\mu) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Ω , italic_μ ) extend to L p ( ℳ ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ L_{p}(\mathcal{M}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) . In particular, one has the Hölder’s inequality which states that
‖ x y ‖ p ≤ ‖ x ‖ r ‖ y ‖ q , subscript norm 𝑥 𝑦 𝑝 subscript norm 𝑥 𝑟 subscript norm 𝑦 𝑞 \displaystyle\|xy\|_{p}\leq\|x\|_{r}\|y\|_{q}, ∥ italic_x italic_y ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ ∥ italic_x ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_y ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
for x ∈ L r ( ℳ ) , y ∈ L q ( ℳ ) , 0 ≤ p , q , r , ≤ ∞ , 1 q + 1 r = 1 p x\in L_{r}(\mathcal{M}),y\in L_{q}(\mathcal{M}),0\leq p,q,r,\leq\infty,\frac{1%}{q}+\frac{1}{r}=\frac{1}{p} italic_x ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) , italic_y ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) , 0 ≤ italic_p , italic_q , italic_r , ≤ ∞ , divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_r end_ARG = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG . The interpolation properties of L p ( Ω , μ ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 Ω 𝜇 L_{p}(\Omega,\mu) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Ω , italic_μ ) extend to L p ( ℳ ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ L_{p}(\mathcal{M}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) as well, and the duality properties of L p ( Ω , μ ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 Ω 𝜇 L_{p}(\Omega,\mu) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Ω , italic_μ ) extend to L p ( ℳ ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ L_{p}(\mathcal{M}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) for the range p ≥ 1 𝑝 1 p\geq 1 italic_p ≥ 1 . The elements in L p ( ℳ ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ L_{p}(\mathcal{M}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) may not belong to ℳ ℳ \mathcal{M} caligraphic_M or B ( H ) 𝐵 𝐻 B(H) italic_B ( italic_H ) in general. They can be understood as unbounded operators affiliated with ℳ ℳ \mathcal{M} caligraphic_M .For self-adjoint elements x , y 𝑥 𝑦
x,y italic_x , italic_y in L p ( ℳ ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ L_{p}(\mathcal{M}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) , we say x 𝑥 x italic_x is positive, denoted by x ≥ 0 𝑥 0 x\geq 0 italic_x ≥ 0 if (2.1 ) holds (the quantity may be ∞ \infty ∞ though). We write x ≤ y 𝑥 𝑦 x\leq y italic_x ≤ italic_y if y − x ≥ 0 𝑦 𝑥 0 y-x\geq 0 italic_y - italic_x ≥ 0 .
Define ℓ ∞ ( L p ( ℳ ) ) subscript ℓ subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ \ell_{\infty}(L_{p}(\mathcal{M})) roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) ) as the space of all sequences x = ( x n ) n ≥ 1 𝑥 subscript subscript 𝑥 𝑛 𝑛 1 x=(x_{n})_{n\geq 1} italic_x = ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n ≥ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in L p ( ℳ ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ L_{p}(\mathcal{M}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) such that
(2.2) ‖ x ‖ ℓ ∞ ( L p ( ℳ ) ) = sup n ‖ x n ‖ p < ∞ . subscript norm 𝑥 subscript ℓ subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript supremum 𝑛 subscript norm subscript 𝑥 𝑛 𝑝 \displaystyle\|x\|_{\ell_{\infty}(L_{p}(\mathcal{M}))}=\sup_{n}\|x_{n}\|_{p}<\infty. ∥ italic_x ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ∞ .
Define ℓ 1 ( L p ( ℳ ) ) subscript ℓ 1 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ \ell_{1}(L_{p}(\mathcal{M})) roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) ) as the space of all sequences x = ( x n ) n ≥ 1 𝑥 subscript subscript 𝑥 𝑛 𝑛 1 x=(x_{n})_{n\geq 1} italic_x = ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n ≥ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in L p ( ℳ ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ L_{p}(\mathcal{M}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) such that
(2.3) ‖ x ‖ ℓ 1 ( L p ( ℳ ) ) = ∑ n ‖ x n ‖ p < ∞ . subscript norm 𝑥 subscript ℓ 1 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript 𝑛 subscript norm subscript 𝑥 𝑛 𝑝 \displaystyle\|x\|_{\ell_{1}(L_{p}(\mathcal{M}))}=\sum_{n}\|x_{n}\|_{p}<\infty. ∥ italic_x ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ∞ .
We have the duality that
ℓ ∞ ( L q ( ℳ ) ) = ( ℓ 1 ( L p ( ℳ ) ) ) ∗ subscript ℓ subscript 𝐿 𝑞 ℳ superscript subscript ℓ 1 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ \displaystyle\ell_{\infty}(L_{q}(\mathcal{M}))=(\ell_{1}(L_{p}(\mathcal{M})))^%{*} roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) ) = ( roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
for 1 ≤ p < ∞ , 1 p + 1 q = 1 formulae-sequence 1 𝑝 1 𝑝 1 𝑞 1 1\leq p<\infty,\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}=1 1 ≤ italic_p < ∞ , divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG = 1 , via the isometric isomorphism
x ↦ φ x ; φ x ( y ) = ∑ n τ ( x n y n ) . formulae-sequence maps-to 𝑥 subscript 𝜑 𝑥 subscript 𝜑 𝑥 𝑦 subscript 𝑛 𝜏 subscript 𝑥 𝑛 subscript 𝑦 𝑛 x\mapsto\varphi_{x};\varphi_{x}(y)=\sum_{n}\tau(x_{n}y_{n}). italic_x ↦ italic_φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; italic_φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_y ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) .
On the other hand, ℓ 1 ( L q ( ℳ ) ) subscript ℓ 1 subscript 𝐿 𝑞 ℳ \ell_{1}(L_{q}(\mathcal{M})) roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) ) isometrically embeds into the dual of ℓ ∞ ( L p ( ℳ ) ) subscript ℓ subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ \ell_{\infty}(L_{p}(\mathcal{M})) roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) ) as a weak ∗ * ∗ -dense subspace via the same isomorphism for the same range and relation of p , q 𝑝 𝑞
p,q italic_p , italic_q . We refer to the survey paper [11 ] for more information on noncommutative L p subscript 𝐿 𝑝 L_{p} italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT spaces.
2.2. Pisier’s L p ( ℳ ; ℓ ∞ ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript ℓ
L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{\infty}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) normGiven two positive operators x , y ∈ L p ( ℳ ) 𝑥 𝑦
subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ x,y\in L_{p}(\mathcal{M}) italic_x , italic_y ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) e.g. x , y ∈ S p 𝑥 𝑦
subscript 𝑆 𝑝 x,y\in S_{p} italic_x , italic_y ∈ italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , the expression sup ( x , y ) supremum 𝑥 𝑦 \sup(x,y) roman_sup ( italic_x , italic_y ) does not make sense unless x , y 𝑥 𝑦
x,y italic_x , italic_y commutes so that the least upper element exists.Nevertheless, the following is a reasonable expression for ‖ sup n x n ‖ L p ( ℳ ) subscript norm subscript supremum 𝑛 subscript 𝑥 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ \|\sup_{n}x_{n}\|_{L_{p}(\mathcal{M})} ∥ roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for sequences of positive elements x n subscript 𝑥 𝑛 x_{n} italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in L p ( ℳ ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ L_{p}(\mathcal{M}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) ,
(2.4) ∥ | ( x n ) ∥ L p ( ℳ ; ℓ ∞ + ) = inf { ∥ a ∥ L p ; x n ≤ a , a ∈ L p ( ℳ ) } . \displaystyle\||(x_{n})\|_{L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{\infty}^{+})}=\inf\{\|a\|_{%L_{p}};x_{n}\leq a,a\in L_{p}(\mathcal{M})\}. ∥ | ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_inf { ∥ italic_a ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_a , italic_a ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) } .
For sequences of positive elements y n subscript 𝑦 𝑛 y_{n} italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in L p ( ℳ ) , 1 ≤ p < ∞ subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ 1
𝑝 L_{p}(\mathcal{M}),1\leq p<\infty italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) , 1 ≤ italic_p < ∞ such that ∑ n = 1 N y n superscript subscript 𝑛 1 𝑁 subscript 𝑦 𝑛 \sum_{n=1}^{N}y_{n} ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT converges in L p ( ℳ ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ L_{p}(\mathcal{M}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) , let
(2.5) ‖ ( y n ) ‖ L p ( ℳ ; ℓ 1 + ) = ‖ ∑ n = 1 ∞ y n ‖ L p ( ℳ ) . subscript norm subscript 𝑦 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ superscript subscript ℓ 1
subscript norm superscript subscript 𝑛 1 subscript 𝑦 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ \displaystyle\|(y_{n})\|_{L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{1}^{+})}=\left\|\sum_{n=1}^{%\infty}y_{n}\right\|_{L_{p}(\mathcal{M})}. ∥ ( italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Here the right hand side is an increasing sequence. G. Pisier ([9 ] and M. Junge ([5 ] proved that the expressions (2.4 ) and (2.5 ) extend to Banach space norms.1 1 1 The obvious extension ‖ ∑ n | x n | ‖ p subscript norm subscript 𝑛 subscript 𝑥 𝑛 𝑝 \|\sum_{n}|x_{n}|\|_{p} ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for sequences x n ∈ L p ( ℳ ) subscript 𝑥 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ x_{n}\in L_{p}(\mathcal{M}) italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) fails the triangle inequality. Furthermore, they proved a duality result for these two norms (see Lemma 2.2 ), which is the key for Junge’s proof of the noncommutative Doob’s maximal inequality.
Define L p ( ℳ ; ℓ ∞ ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript ℓ
L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{\infty}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) as the space of all sequences x = ( x n ) n ≥ 1 𝑥 subscript subscript 𝑥 𝑛 𝑛 1 x=(x_{n})_{n\geq 1} italic_x = ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n ≥ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in L p ( ℳ ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ L_{p}(\mathcal{M}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) which admits a factorization
(2.6) x n = a z n b , ∀ n ≥ 1 , formulae-sequence subscript 𝑥 𝑛 𝑎 subscript 𝑧 𝑛 𝑏 for-all 𝑛 1 x_{n}=az_{n}b,\quad\forall n\geq 1, italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_a italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b , ∀ italic_n ≥ 1 ,
where a , b ∈ L 2 p ( ℳ ) 𝑎 𝑏
subscript 𝐿 2 𝑝 ℳ a,b\in L_{2p}(\mathcal{M}) italic_a , italic_b ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) and z = ( z n ) 𝑧 subscript 𝑧 𝑛 z=(z_{n}) italic_z = ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) belongs to the unit ball of ℳ ℳ \mathcal{M} caligraphic_M .Given x ∈ L p ( ℳ ; ℓ ∞ ) 𝑥 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript ℓ
x\in L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{\infty}) italic_x ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , define
(2.7) ‖ x ‖ L p ( ℳ ; ℓ ∞ ) = inf { ‖ a ‖ 2 p sup n ≥ 1 ‖ z n ‖ ∞ ‖ b ‖ 2 p } , subscript norm 𝑥 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript ℓ
infimum subscript norm 𝑎 2 𝑝 subscript supremum 𝑛 1 subscript norm subscript 𝑧 𝑛 subscript norm 𝑏 2 𝑝 \displaystyle\|x\|_{L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{\infty})}=\inf\left\{\|a\|_{2p}%\sup_{n\geq 1}\|z_{n}\|_{\infty}\|b\|_{2p}\right\}, ∥ italic_x ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_inf { ∥ italic_a ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n ≥ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_b ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } ,
where the infimum is taken over all factorizations of x 𝑥 x italic_x as in (2.6 ). We denote the subset of L p ( ℳ ; ℓ ∞ ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript ℓ
L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{\infty}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) consisting of all positive sequences by L p ( ℳ ; ℓ ∞ + ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript superscript ℓ
L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell^{+}_{\infty}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) . Next, we denote the subspace of L p ( ℳ ; ℓ ∞ ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript ℓ
L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{\infty}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) consisting of all sequences x = ( x n ) n 𝑥 subscript subscript 𝑥 𝑛 𝑛 x=(x_{n})_{n} italic_x = ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that x n = 0 subscript 𝑥 𝑛 0 x_{n}=0 italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 for n > N 𝑛 𝑁 n>N italic_n > italic_N by L p ( ℳ ; ℓ ∞ N ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript superscript ℓ 𝑁
L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell^{N}_{\infty}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) .
Define L p ( ℓ 1 ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 subscript ℓ 1 L_{p}(\ell_{1}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) as the space of all sequences x = ( x n ) n ≥ 1 𝑥 subscript subscript 𝑥 𝑛 𝑛 1 x=(x_{n})_{n\geq 1} italic_x = ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n ≥ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in L p ( ℳ ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ L_{p}(\mathcal{M}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) which admits a factorization
(2.8) x n = a n b n , for all n ≥ 1 , formulae-sequence subscript 𝑥 𝑛 subscript 𝑎 𝑛 subscript 𝑏 𝑛 for all 𝑛 1 x_{n}=a_{n}b_{n},\quad\text{ for all }n\geq 1, italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , for all italic_n ≥ 1 ,
such that the series ∑ n a n a n ∗ subscript 𝑛 subscript 𝑎 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑛 \sum_{n}a_{n}a_{n}^{*} ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and ∑ n b n ∗ b n subscript 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝑏 𝑛 subscript 𝑏 𝑛 \sum_{n}b_{n}^{*}b_{n} ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT converges in L p ( ℳ ) . subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ L_{p}(\mathcal{M}). italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) . Given x ∈ L p ( ℳ ; ℓ 1 ) 𝑥 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript ℓ 1
x\in L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{1}) italic_x ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , define
(2.9) ‖ x ‖ L p ( ℳ ; ℓ 1 ) = inf { ‖ ( ∑ a j a j ∗ ) 1 2 ‖ 2 p ⋅ ‖ ( ∑ b j ∗ b j ) 1 2 ‖ 2 p } , subscript norm 𝑥 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript ℓ 1
infimum ⋅ subscript norm superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑗 superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑗 1 2 2 𝑝 subscript norm superscript superscript subscript 𝑏 𝑗 subscript 𝑏 𝑗 1 2 2 𝑝 \|x\|_{L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{1})}=\inf\left\{\left\|\left(\sum a_{j}a_{j}^{*%}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right\|_{2p}\cdot\left\|\left(\sum b_{j}^{*}b_{j}\right%)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right\|_{2p}\right\}, ∥ italic_x ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_inf { ∥ ( ∑ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ∥ ( ∑ italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } ,
where the infimum is taken over all possible factorizations (2.8 ).2 2 2 There are slightly different definition of the space L p ( ℳ ; ℓ 1 ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript ℓ 1
L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{1}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) in the literature. Here, we use the definition given in [10 ] . We denote the subset of L p ( ℳ ; ℓ 1 ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript ℓ 1
L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{1}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) consisting of all positive sequences by L p ( ℳ ; ℓ 1 + ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript superscript ℓ 1
L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell^{+}_{1}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) .Define L p ( ℓ 1 N ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 superscript subscript ℓ 1 𝑁 L_{p}(\ell_{1}^{N}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) to be the space of all sequences x = ( x n ) n ≥ 1 ∈ L p ( ℓ 1 ) 𝑥 subscript subscript 𝑥 𝑛 𝑛 1 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 subscript ℓ 1 x=(x_{n})_{n\geq 1}\in L_{p}(\ell_{1}) italic_x = ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n ≥ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) with x n = 0 subscript 𝑥 𝑛 0 x_{n}=0 italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 for n > N 𝑛 𝑁 n>N italic_n > italic_N .G. Pisier ([9 ] ) proved that (2.7 ) and (2.9 ) are norms extending (2.4 ) and (2.5 ).
Lemma 2.1 (Pisier [9 ] ). For sequences x n ≥ 0 ∈ L p ( ℳ ) subscript 𝑥 𝑛 0 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ x_{n}\geq 0\in L_{p}(\mathcal{M}) italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) , we have
(2.10) ‖ ( x n ) ‖ L p ( ℳ ; ℓ 1 ) = ‖ ( x n ) ‖ L p ( ℳ ; ℓ 1 + ) subscript norm subscript 𝑥 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript ℓ 1
subscript norm subscript 𝑥 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ superscript subscript ℓ 1
\displaystyle\|(x_{n})\|_{L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{1})}=\|(x_{n})\|_{L_{p}(%\mathcal{M};\ell_{1}^{+})} ∥ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∥ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
in the sense that both sides are equally finite or both sides are infinite, and
(2.11) ‖ ( x n ) ‖ L p ( ℳ ; ℓ ∞ ) ≤ ‖ ( x n ) ‖ L p ( ℳ ; ℓ ∞ + ) ≤ 4 ‖ ( x n ) ‖ L p ( ℳ ; ℓ ∞ ) subscript norm subscript 𝑥 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript ℓ
subscript norm subscript 𝑥 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ superscript subscript ℓ
4 subscript norm subscript 𝑥 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript ℓ
\displaystyle\|(x_{n})\|_{L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{\infty})}\leq\|(x_{n})\|_{L_%{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{\infty}^{+})}\leq 4\|(x_{n})\|_{L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{%\infty})} ∥ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ ∥ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 4 ∥ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
Proof. We prove (2.10 ) first. The left hand side is obviously smaller because we may choosea n = b n = ( x n ) 1 2 subscript 𝑎 𝑛 subscript 𝑏 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝑥 𝑛 1 2 a_{n}=b_{n}=(x_{n})^{\frac{1}{2}} italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for x n ≥ 0 subscript 𝑥 𝑛 0 x_{n}\geq 0 italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 . To prove that the right hand side is smaller, we assume ‖ ( x n ) ‖ L p ( ℳ ; ℓ 1 ) = 1 subscript norm subscript 𝑥 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript ℓ 1
1 \|(x_{n})\|_{L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{1})}=1 ∥ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 and assume that there exists a factorization that x n = a n b n subscript 𝑥 𝑛 subscript 𝑎 𝑛 subscript 𝑏 𝑛 x_{n}=a_{n}b_{n} italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that
‖ ∑ n a n a n ∗ ‖ p , ‖ ∑ n b n b n ∗ ‖ p ≤ 1 + ε . subscript norm subscript 𝑛 subscript 𝑎 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑛 𝑝 subscript norm subscript 𝑛 subscript 𝑏 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝑏 𝑛 𝑝
1 𝜀 \|\sum_{n}a_{n}a_{n}^{*}\|_{p},\|\sum_{n}b_{n}b_{n}^{*}\|_{p}\leq 1+\varepsilon. ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 1 + italic_ε .
Then, 2 x n = a n b n + b n ∗ a n ∗ ≤ a n a n ∗ + b n ∗ b n 2 subscript 𝑥 𝑛 subscript 𝑎 𝑛 subscript 𝑏 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝑏 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑛 subscript 𝑎 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝑏 𝑛 subscript 𝑏 𝑛 2x_{n}=a_{n}b_{n}+b_{n}^{*}a_{n}^{*}\leq a_{n}a_{n}^{*}+b_{n}^{*}b_{n} 2 italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT because( a n ∗ − b n ) ∗ ( a n ∗ − b n ) ≥ 0 superscript superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑛 subscript 𝑏 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑛 subscript 𝑏 𝑛 0 (a_{n}^{*}-b_{n})^{*}(a_{n}^{*}-b_{n})\geq 0 ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≥ 0 . So, ∑ n = 1 N x n superscript subscript 𝑛 1 𝑁 subscript 𝑥 𝑛 \sum_{n=1}^{N}x_{n} ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT converges in L p ( ℳ ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ L_{p}({\mathcal{M}}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) because ∑ n N a n a n ∗ superscript subscript 𝑛 𝑁 subscript 𝑎 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑛 \sum_{n}^{N}a_{n}a_{n}^{*} ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and ∑ n N b n ∗ b n superscript subscript 𝑛 𝑁 superscript subscript 𝑏 𝑛 subscript 𝑏 𝑛 \sum_{n}^{N}b_{n}^{*}b_{n} ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT do. Moreover,
2 ‖ ∑ n = 1 N x n ‖ p ≤ ‖ ∑ n = 1 N a n a n ∗ + b n b n ∗ ‖ p ≤ 2 + 2 ε . 2 subscript norm superscript subscript 𝑛 1 𝑁 subscript 𝑥 𝑛 𝑝 subscript norm superscript subscript 𝑛 1 𝑁 subscript 𝑎 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑛 subscript 𝑏 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝑏 𝑛 𝑝 2 2 𝜀 2\|\sum_{n=1}^{N}x_{n}\|_{p}\leq\|\sum_{n=1}^{N}a_{n}a_{n}^{*}+b_{n}b_{n}^{*}%\|_{p}\leq 2+2\varepsilon. 2 ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 2 + 2 italic_ε .
We conclude by taking N → ∞ , ε → 0 . formulae-sequence → 𝑁 → 𝜀 0 N\rightarrow\infty,\varepsilon\rightarrow 0. italic_N → ∞ , italic_ε → 0 .
For (2.11 ), assuming x n ≤ a ∈ L p ( ℳ ) subscript 𝑥 𝑛 𝑎 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ x_{n}\leq a\in L_{p}(\mathcal{M}) italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_a ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) , we denote by p 𝑝 p italic_p the projection onto the kernel of a 𝑎 a italic_a . Then, p ∈ ℳ 𝑝 ℳ p\in\mathcal{M} italic_p ∈ caligraphic_M . Let z n = ( p + a 1 2 ) − 1 x n ( p + a 1 2 ) − 1 subscript 𝑧 𝑛 superscript 𝑝 superscript 𝑎 1 2 1 subscript 𝑥 𝑛 superscript 𝑝 superscript 𝑎 1 2 1 z_{n}=(p+a^{\frac{1}{2}})^{-1}x_{n}(p+a^{\frac{1}{2}})^{-1} italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( italic_p + italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_p + italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . Then, z n subscript 𝑧 𝑛 z_{n} italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT belongs to the unit ball of ℳ ℳ \mathcal{M} caligraphic_M and x n = a 1 2 z n a 1 2 subscript 𝑥 𝑛 superscript 𝑎 1 2 subscript 𝑧 𝑛 superscript 𝑎 1 2 x_{n}=a^{\frac{1}{2}}z_{n}a^{\frac{1}{2}} italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .We see that the first inequality holds. Next, we show the second inequality. We assume that ‖ ( x n ) ‖ L p ( ℳ ; ℓ ∞ ) = 1 subscript norm subscript 𝑥 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript ℓ
1 \|(x_{n})\|_{L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{\infty})}=1 ∥ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 and x n subscript 𝑥 𝑛 x_{n} italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT has a factorization x n = a z n b subscript 𝑥 𝑛 𝑎 subscript 𝑧 𝑛 𝑏 x_{n}=az_{n}b italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_a italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b with ‖ z n ‖ = 1 norm subscript 𝑧 𝑛 1 \|z_{n}\|=1 ∥ italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ = 1 and ‖ a ‖ 2 p , ‖ b ‖ 2 p ≤ 1 + ε subscript norm 𝑎 2 𝑝 subscript norm 𝑏 2 𝑝
1 𝜀 \|a\|_{2p},\|b\|_{2p}\leq 1+\varepsilon ∥ italic_a ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ∥ italic_b ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 1 + italic_ε .We write z n = ∑ k = 0 3 i k z n , k subscript 𝑧 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝑘 0 3 superscript 𝑖 𝑘 subscript 𝑧 𝑛 𝑘
z_{n}=\sum_{k=0}^{3}i^{k}z_{n,k} italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with contractions z n , k ≥ 0 subscript 𝑧 𝑛 𝑘
0 z_{n,k}\geq 0 italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 , and consider the new decomposition x n = ∑ k a k z n , k b subscript 𝑥 𝑛 subscript 𝑘 subscript 𝑎 𝑘 subscript 𝑧 𝑛 𝑘
𝑏 x_{n}=\sum_{k}a_{k}z_{n,k}b italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b with a k = i k a subscript 𝑎 𝑘 superscript 𝑖 𝑘 𝑎 a_{k}=i^{k}a italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a . Noting that ( a k ∗ − b ) ∗ z n , k ( a k ∗ − b ) ≥ 0 superscript superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑘 𝑏 subscript 𝑧 𝑛 𝑘
superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑘 𝑏 0 (a_{k}^{*}-b)^{*}z_{n,k}(a_{k}^{*}-b)\geq 0 ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_b ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_b ) ≥ 0 , we have
x n = 1 2 ∑ k = 0 3 ( a k z n , k b + b ∗ z n , k a k ∗ ) ≤ 1 2 ∑ k = 1 3 ( a k ∗ z n k a k + b z n , k b ∗ ) ≤ 2 ( a ∗ a + b b ∗ ) , subscript 𝑥 𝑛 1 2 superscript subscript 𝑘 0 3 subscript 𝑎 𝑘 subscript 𝑧 𝑛 𝑘
𝑏 superscript 𝑏 subscript 𝑧 𝑛 𝑘
superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑘 1 2 superscript subscript 𝑘 1 3 superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑘 subscript 𝑧 subscript 𝑛 𝑘 subscript 𝑎 𝑘 𝑏 subscript 𝑧 𝑛 𝑘
superscript 𝑏 2 superscript 𝑎 𝑎 𝑏 superscript 𝑏 x_{n}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=0}^{3}(a_{k}z_{n,k}b+b^{*}z_{n,k}a_{k}^{*})\leq\frac{%1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^{3}(a_{k}^{*}z_{n_{k}}a_{k}+bz_{n,k}b^{*})\leq 2(a^{*}a+bb^{*}), italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b + italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ≤ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_b italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ≤ 2 ( italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a + italic_b italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,
with ‖ 2 ( a ∗ a + b b ∗ ) ‖ p ≤ ( 2 + 2 ε ) 2 . subscript norm 2 superscript 𝑎 𝑎 𝑏 superscript 𝑏 𝑝 superscript 2 2 𝜀 2 \|2(a^{*}a+bb^{*})\|_{p}\leq(2+2\varepsilon)^{2}. ∥ 2 ( italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a + italic_b italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ ( 2 + 2 italic_ε ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . Taking ε → 0 → 𝜀 0 \varepsilon\rightarrow 0 italic_ε → 0 , we conclude (2.11 ).∎
The following lemma is another key to understanding the proof of the operator Hardy-Littlewood maximal inequality.The result was proved by G. Pisier ([9 , 5 ] ). We include an argument for the case of finite sequences below.
Lemma 2.2 ([9 , 5 ] ). The norms (2.4 ) and (2.5 ) are in duality. More precisely, for 1 ≤ p < ∞ , 1 p + 1 q = 1 formulae-sequence 1 𝑝 1 𝑝 1 𝑞 1 1\leq p<\infty,\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}=1 1 ≤ italic_p < ∞ , divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG = 1 ,
(i) For any N 𝑁 N italic_N -tuple ( y 1 , … , y N ) subscript 𝑦 1 … subscript 𝑦 𝑁 (y_{1},\dots,y_{N}) ( italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) in L p ( ℳ ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ L_{p}(\mathcal{M}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) and y k ≥ 0 , k = 1 , … , N formulae-sequence subscript 𝑦 𝑘 0 𝑘 1 … 𝑁
y_{k}\geq 0,k=1,\dots,N italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 , italic_k = 1 , … , italic_N , we have
(2.12) ∥ ( y n ) ∥ L p ( ℳ ; ℓ 1 N ) = sup { | τ ( ∑ j = 1 N x j y j ) | : ∥ ( x j ) ∥ L q ( ℳ ; ℓ ∞ + ) ≤ 1 } . \|(y_{n})\|_{L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{1}^{N})}=\sup\left\{|\tau\left(\sum_{j=1}%^{N}x_{j}y_{j}\right)|:\|(x_{j})\|_{L_{q}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{\infty}^{+})}\leq 1%\right\}. ∥ ( italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_sup { | italic_τ ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | : ∥ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 1 } .
(ii) For any bounded sequence ( x n ) subscript 𝑥 𝑛 (x_{n}) ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) in L q ( ℳ ) subscript 𝐿 𝑞 ℳ L_{q}(\mathcal{M}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) with x n ≥ 0 subscript 𝑥 𝑛 0 x_{n}\geq 0 italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 , we have
(2.13) ∥ ( x n ) ∥ L q ( ℳ ; ℓ ∞ ) = sup N { | τ ( ∑ j = 1 N x j y j ) | : y j ≥ 0 , ∥ ( y j ) ∥ L p ( ℳ ; ℓ 1 N ) ≤ 1 } . \|(x_{n})\|_{L_{q}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{\infty})}=\sup_{N}\left\{|\tau\left(\sum_%{j=1}^{N}x_{j}y_{j}\right)|:y_{j}\geq 0,\|(y_{j})\|_{L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{1%}^{N})}\leq 1\right\}. ∥ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT { | italic_τ ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | : italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 , ∥ ( italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 1 } .
(iii) L q ( ℳ ; ℓ ∞ + ) subscript 𝐿 𝑞 ℳ superscript subscript ℓ
L_{q}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{\infty}^{+}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) embeds isometrically into the dual space of L p ( ℳ ; ℓ 1 ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript ℓ 1
L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{1}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) for 1 ≤ p < ∞ 1 𝑝 1\leq p<\infty 1 ≤ italic_p < ∞ via the isomorphism
x ↦ φ x : φ x ( y ) = ∑ n x n y n . : maps-to 𝑥 subscript 𝜑 𝑥 subscript 𝜑 𝑥 𝑦 subscript 𝑛 subscript 𝑥 𝑛 subscript 𝑦 𝑛 x\mapsto\varphi_{x}:\varphi_{x}(y)=\sum_{n}x_{n}y_{n}. italic_x ↦ italic_φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_y ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
For any φ 𝜑 \varphi italic_φ in L p ( ℳ ; ℓ 1 ) ∗ subscript 𝐿 𝑝 superscript ℳ subscript ℓ 1
L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{1})^{*} italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT such that φ ( ( y n ) ) ≥ 0 𝜑 subscript 𝑦 𝑛 0 \varphi((y_{n}))\geq 0 italic_φ ( ( italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) ≥ 0 for finite positive sequences ( y n ) ∈ L p ( ℳ ) subscript 𝑦 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ (y_{n})\in L_{p}(\mathcal{M}) ( italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) , there is a (unique) positive sequence ( x n ) subscript 𝑥 𝑛 (x_{n}) ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) in L q ( ℳ ) subscript 𝐿 𝑞 ℳ L_{q}(\mathcal{M}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) with
‖ x ‖ L q ( ℳ ; ℓ ∞ ) = ‖ φ ‖ ( L p ( ℳ ; ℓ 1 ) ) ∗ subscript norm 𝑥 subscript 𝐿 𝑞 ℳ subscript ℓ
subscript norm 𝜑 superscript subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript ℓ 1
\|x\|_{L_{q}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{\infty})}=\|\varphi\|_{(L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_%{1}))^{*}} ∥ italic_x ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∥ italic_φ ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
such that for any N ≥ 1 𝑁 1 N\geq 1 italic_N ≥ 1 and any y = ( y 1 , … , y N ) ∈ L p ( ℳ ; ℓ 1 N ) 𝑦 subscript 𝑦 1 … subscript 𝑦 𝑁 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ superscript subscript ℓ 1 𝑁
y=(y_{1},\dots,y_{N})\in L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{1}^{N}) italic_y = ( italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,
φ ( y ) = τ ( ∑ j = 1 N x j y j ) . 𝜑 𝑦 𝜏 superscript subscript 𝑗 1 𝑁 subscript 𝑥 𝑗 subscript 𝑦 𝑗 \varphi(y)=\tau\left(\sum_{j=1}^{N}x_{j}y_{j}\right). italic_φ ( italic_y ) = italic_τ ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) .
Proof. (i). Let x = ( x n ) ∈ L q ( ℳ ; ℓ ∞ ) , y = ( y n ) ∈ L p ( ℳ ; ℓ 1 ) formulae-sequence 𝑥 subscript 𝑥 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 𝑞 ℳ subscript ℓ
𝑦 subscript 𝑦 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript ℓ 1
x=(x_{n})\in L_{q}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{\infty}),y=(y_{n})\in L_{p}(\mathcal{M};%\ell_{1}) italic_x = ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_y = ( italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) . First, we prove that
(2.14) | ∑ τ ( x j y j ) | ≤ ‖ ( x j ) ‖ L q ( ℳ ; ℓ ∞ ) ‖ y ‖ L p ( ℳ ; ℓ 1 N ) . 𝜏 subscript 𝑥 𝑗 subscript 𝑦 𝑗 subscript norm subscript 𝑥 𝑗 subscript 𝐿 𝑞 ℳ subscript ℓ
subscript norm 𝑦 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ superscript subscript ℓ 1 𝑁
\left|\sum\tau(x_{j}y_{j})\right|\leq\|(x_{j})\|_{L_{q}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{%\infty})}\|y\|_{L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{1}^{N})}. | ∑ italic_τ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | ≤ ∥ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_y ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Consider a factorization x j = a z j b subscript 𝑥 𝑗 𝑎 subscript 𝑧 𝑗 𝑏 x_{j}=az_{j}b italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_a italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b where a , b ∈ L 2 q ( ℳ ) 𝑎 𝑏
subscript 𝐿 2 𝑞 ℳ a,b\in L_{2q}(\mathcal{M}) italic_a , italic_b ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) and ( z j ) subscript 𝑧 𝑗 (z_{j}) ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) belongs to the unit ball of ℳ ℳ \mathcal{M} caligraphic_M .Also consider a factorization of y j = u j v j subscript 𝑦 𝑗 subscript 𝑢 𝑗 subscript 𝑣 𝑗 y_{j}=u_{j}v_{j} italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT where u j , v j ∈ L 2 p ( ℳ ) subscript 𝑢 𝑗 subscript 𝑣 𝑗
subscript 𝐿 2 𝑝 ℳ u_{j},v_{j}\in L_{2p}(\mathcal{M}) italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) .Then, by Hölder’s inequality and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality,
| ∑ j τ ( a z j b u j v j ) | subscript 𝑗 𝜏 𝑎 subscript 𝑧 𝑗 𝑏 subscript 𝑢 𝑗 subscript 𝑣 𝑗 \displaystyle\left|\sum_{j}\tau(az_{j}bu_{j}v_{j})\right| | ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ ( italic_a italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | = | ∑ j τ ( z j b u j v j a ) | ≤ ∑ j ‖ b u j v j a ‖ 1 absent subscript 𝑗 𝜏 subscript 𝑧 𝑗 𝑏 subscript 𝑢 𝑗 subscript 𝑣 𝑗 𝑎 subscript 𝑗 subscript norm 𝑏 subscript 𝑢 𝑗 subscript 𝑣 𝑗 𝑎 1 \displaystyle=\left|\sum_{j}\tau(z_{j}bu_{j}v_{j}a)\right|\leq\sum_{j}\|bu_{j}%v_{j}a\|_{1} = | ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a ) | ≤ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_b italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ ∑ j ‖ b u j ‖ 2 ‖ v j a ‖ 2 absent subscript 𝑗 subscript norm 𝑏 subscript 𝑢 𝑗 2 subscript norm subscript 𝑣 𝑗 𝑎 2 \displaystyle\leq\sum_{j}\|bu_{j}\|_{2}\|v_{j}a\|_{2} ≤ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_b italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ ( ∑ j ‖ b u j ‖ 2 2 ) 1 2 ( ∑ j ‖ v j a ‖ 2 2 ) 1 2 absent superscript subscript 𝑗 superscript subscript norm 𝑏 subscript 𝑢 𝑗 2 2 1 2 superscript subscript 𝑗 superscript subscript norm subscript 𝑣 𝑗 𝑎 2 2 1 2 \displaystyle\leq\left(\sum_{j}\|bu_{j}\|_{2}^{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(%\sum_{j}\|v_{j}a\|_{2}^{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} ≤ ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_b italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( τ ( b ∑ j u j u j ∗ b ∗ ) ) 1 2 ( τ ( a ∗ ∑ j v j v j ∗ a ) ) 1 2 absent superscript 𝜏 𝑏 subscript 𝑗 subscript 𝑢 𝑗 superscript subscript 𝑢 𝑗 superscript 𝑏 1 2 superscript 𝜏 superscript 𝑎 subscript 𝑗 subscript 𝑣 𝑗 superscript subscript 𝑣 𝑗 𝑎 1 2 \displaystyle=\left(\tau(b\sum_{j}u_{j}u_{j}^{*}b^{*})\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}%\left(\tau(a^{*}\sum_{j}v_{j}v_{j}^{*}a)\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} = ( italic_τ ( italic_b ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_τ ( italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ‖ b ∗ b ‖ q 1 2 ‖ ∑ j u j u j ∗ ‖ p 1 2 ‖ a a ∗ ‖ q 1 2 ‖ ∑ j v j v j ∗ ‖ p 1 2 absent subscript superscript norm superscript 𝑏 𝑏 1 2 𝑞 subscript superscript norm subscript 𝑗 subscript 𝑢 𝑗 superscript subscript 𝑢 𝑗 1 2 𝑝 subscript superscript norm 𝑎 superscript 𝑎 1 2 𝑞 subscript superscript norm subscript 𝑗 subscript 𝑣 𝑗 superscript subscript 𝑣 𝑗 1 2 𝑝 \displaystyle\leq\|b^{*}b\|^{\frac{1}{2}}_{q}\|\sum_{j}u_{j}u_{j}^{*}\|^{\frac%{1}{2}}_{p}\|aa^{*}\|^{\frac{1}{2}}_{q}\|\sum_{j}v_{j}v_{j}^{*}\|^{\frac{1}{2}%}_{p} ≤ ∥ italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_a italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ ‖ b ‖ 2 q ‖ ( ∑ j u j u j ∗ ) 1 2 ‖ p ‖ a ‖ 2 q ‖ ( ∑ j v j v j ∗ ) 1 2 ‖ p absent subscript norm 𝑏 2 𝑞 subscript norm superscript subscript 𝑗 subscript 𝑢 𝑗 superscript subscript 𝑢 𝑗 1 2 𝑝 subscript norm 𝑎 2 𝑞 subscript norm superscript subscript 𝑗 subscript 𝑣 𝑗 superscript subscript 𝑣 𝑗 1 2 𝑝 \displaystyle\leq\|b\|_{2q}\|(\sum_{j}u_{j}u_{j}^{*})^{\frac{1}{2}}\|_{p}\|a\|%_{2q}\|(\sum_{j}v_{j}v_{j}^{*})^{\frac{1}{2}}\|_{p} ≤ ∥ italic_b ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_a ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
Hence, we proved the one side inequality of (i) and (ii) and the first half of (iii).
Now, suppose y n ≥ 0 , y = ( y n ) n ∈ L p ( ℳ ; ℓ 1 N ) formulae-sequence subscript 𝑦 𝑛 0 𝑦 subscript subscript 𝑦 𝑛 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ superscript subscript ℓ 1 𝑁
y_{n}\geq 0,y=(y_{n})_{n}\in L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{1}^{N}) italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 , italic_y = ( italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .Choose x = ( x n ) n = 1 N 𝑥 superscript subscript subscript 𝑥 𝑛 𝑛 1 𝑁 x=(x_{n})_{n=1}^{N} italic_x = ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with x n = ( ∑ k = 1 N y k ) p − 1 subscript 𝑥 𝑛 superscript superscript subscript 𝑘 1 𝑁 subscript 𝑦 𝑘 𝑝 1 x_{n}=(\sum_{k=1}^{N}y_{k})^{p-1} italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for all 1 ≤ n ≤ N 1 𝑛 𝑁 1\leq n\leq N 1 ≤ italic_n ≤ italic_N . Note
‖ ( x n ) ‖ L q ( ℳ ; ℓ ∞ ) = ‖ ( ∑ k y k ) p − 1 ‖ q = ‖ ∑ k = 1 N y k ‖ p p − 1 subscript norm subscript 𝑥 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 𝑞 ℳ subscript ℓ
subscript norm superscript subscript 𝑘 subscript 𝑦 𝑘 𝑝 1 𝑞 superscript subscript norm superscript subscript 𝑘 1 𝑁 subscript 𝑦 𝑘 𝑝 𝑝 1 \|(x_{n})\|_{L_{q}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{\infty})}=\left\|\left(\sum_{k}y_{k}%\right)^{p-1}\right\|_{q}=\|\sum_{k=1}^{N}~{}y_{k}\|_{p}^{p-1} ∥ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∥ ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
Thus,
τ ( ∑ k y k x k ) = τ ( ∑ k = 1 N y k ( ∑ k = 1 N y k ) p − 1 ) = ‖ ∑ k = 1 N y k ‖ p . 𝜏 subscript 𝑘 subscript 𝑦 𝑘 subscript 𝑥 𝑘 𝜏 superscript subscript 𝑘 1 𝑁 subscript 𝑦 𝑘 superscript superscript subscript 𝑘 1 𝑁 subscript 𝑦 𝑘 𝑝 1 subscript norm superscript subscript 𝑘 1 𝑁 subscript 𝑦 𝑘 𝑝 \tau\left(\sum_{k}y_{k}x_{k}\right)=\tau\left(\sum_{k=1}^{N}~{}y_{k}\left(\sum%_{k=1}^{N}~{}y_{k}\right)^{p-1}\right)=\|\sum_{k=1}^{N}~{}y_{k}\|_{p}. italic_τ ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_τ ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Therefore, we proved the other direction of (i).
We now prove the other direction of (ii). By the Hahn-Banach theorem, for any ( x n ) ∈ L p ( ℳ ; ℓ ∞ ) subscript 𝑥 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript ℓ
(x_{n})\in L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{\infty}) ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , there exists φ ∈ L p ( ℳ ; ℓ ∞ ) ∗ 𝜑 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 superscript ℳ subscript ℓ
\varphi\in L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{\infty})^{*} italic_φ ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , such that ‖ φ ‖ = 1 norm 𝜑 1 \|\varphi\|=1 ∥ italic_φ ∥ = 1 and φ ( ( x n ) ) = ‖ ( x n ) ‖ L p ( ℳ ; ℓ ∞ ) 𝜑 subscript 𝑥 𝑛 subscript norm subscript 𝑥 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript ℓ
\varphi((x_{n}))=\|(x_{n})\|_{L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{\infty})} italic_φ ( ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) = ∥ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .Since L p ( ℳ ; ℓ ∞ ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript ℓ
L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{\infty}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) is a subspace of ℓ ∞ ( L p ( ℳ ) ) subscript ℓ subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ \ell_{\infty}(L_{p}(\mathcal{M})) roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) ) , there exists φ ~ ∈ ( ℓ ∞ ( L p ( ℳ ) ) ) ∗ ~ 𝜑 superscript subscript ℓ subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ \tilde{\varphi}\in(\ell_{\infty}(L_{p}(\mathcal{M})))^{*} over~ start_ARG italic_φ end_ARG ∈ ( roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT such thatφ ( x ) = φ ~ ( x ) 𝜑 𝑥 ~ 𝜑 𝑥 \varphi(x)=\tilde{\varphi}(x) italic_φ ( italic_x ) = over~ start_ARG italic_φ end_ARG ( italic_x ) . Since the unit ball of ℓ 1 N ( L p ( ℳ ) ) superscript subscript ℓ 1 𝑁 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ \ell_{1}^{N}(L_{p}(\mathcal{M})) roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) ) is weak ∗ * ∗ -dense in the unit ball of ( ℓ ∞ ( L p ( ℳ ) ) ) ∗ superscript subscript ℓ subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ (\ell_{\infty}(L_{p}(\mathcal{M})))^{*} ( roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and x n ≥ 0 subscript 𝑥 𝑛 0 x_{n}\geq 0 italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 , we conclude that for any ε > 0 𝜀 0 \varepsilon>0 italic_ε > 0 , there exists a φ ε ∈ ( ℓ ∞ ( L p ( ℳ ) ) ) ∗ subscript 𝜑 𝜀 superscript subscript ℓ subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ \varphi_{\varepsilon}\in(\ell_{\infty}(L_{p}(\mathcal{M})))^{*} italic_φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ ( roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in the form
φ ε ( ( x n ) ) = ∑ n = 1 τ ( x n y n ) , subscript 𝜑 𝜀 subscript 𝑥 𝑛 subscript 𝑛 1 𝜏 subscript 𝑥 𝑛 subscript 𝑦 𝑛 \varphi_{\varepsilon}((x_{n}))=\sum_{n=1}\tau(x_{n}y_{n}), italic_φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ,
such that φ ( x ) = φ ~ ( x ) ≤ φ ε ( x ) + ε 𝜑 𝑥 ~ 𝜑 𝑥 subscript 𝜑 𝜀 𝑥 𝜀 \varphi(x)=\tilde{\varphi}(x)\leq\varphi_{\varepsilon}(x)+\varepsilon italic_φ ( italic_x ) = over~ start_ARG italic_φ end_ARG ( italic_x ) ≤ italic_φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) + italic_ε and ( y n ) n ∈ ℓ 1 N ( L p ( ℳ ) ) subscript subscript 𝑦 𝑛 𝑛 superscript subscript ℓ 1 𝑁 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ (y_{n})_{n}\in\ell_{1}^{N}(L_{p}(\mathcal{M})) ( italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) ) with y n ≥ 0 subscript 𝑦 𝑛 0 y_{n}\geq 0 italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 . On the other hand, we know from (i) that,
‖ ( y n ) ‖ L p ( ℳ ; ℓ 1 ) subscript norm subscript 𝑦 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript ℓ 1
\displaystyle\|(y_{n})\|_{L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{1})} ∥ ( italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = \displaystyle= = sup ‖ x ‖ L p ( ℳ ; ℓ ∞ ) ≤ 1 | τ ( x n y n ) | subscript supremum subscript norm 𝑥 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript ℓ
1 𝜏 subscript 𝑥 𝑛 subscript 𝑦 𝑛 \displaystyle\sup_{\|x\|_{L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{\infty})}\leq 1}|\tau(x_{n}y%_{n})| roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_x ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_τ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | ≤ \displaystyle\leq ≤ sup ‖ x ‖ ℓ ∞ ( L p ) ≤ 1 | τ ( x n y n ) | subscript supremum subscript norm 𝑥 subscript ℓ subscript 𝐿 𝑝 1 𝜏 subscript 𝑥 𝑛 subscript 𝑦 𝑛 \displaystyle\sup_{\|x\|_{\ell_{\infty}(L_{p})}\leq 1}|\tau(x_{n}y_{n})| roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_x ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_τ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | ≤ \displaystyle\leq ≤ ‖ φ ε ‖ = 1 . norm subscript 𝜑 𝜀 1 \displaystyle\|\varphi_{\varepsilon}\|=1. ∥ italic_φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ = 1 .
We obtain
(2.15) ∥ ( x n ) ∥ L p ( ℳ ; ℓ ∞ ) = φ ( x ) ≤ φ ε ( x ) + ε ≤ sup { | τ ( ∑ x n y n ) | : y j ≥ 0 , ∥ ( y n ) ∥ L p ′ ( ℳ ; ℓ 1 N ) ≤ 1 } + ε . \|(x_{n})\|_{L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{\infty})}=\varphi(x)\leq\varphi_{%\varepsilon}(x)+\varepsilon\leq\sup\left\{|\tau\left(\sum x_{n}y_{n}\right)|:y%_{j}\geq 0,\|(y_{n})\|_{L_{p^{{}^{\prime}}}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{1}^{N})}\leq 1%\right\}+\varepsilon. ∥ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_φ ( italic_x ) ≤ italic_φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) + italic_ε ≤ roman_sup { | italic_τ ( ∑ italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | : italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 , ∥ ( italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 1 } + italic_ε .
We then conclude (ii) by letting ε → 0 → 𝜀 0 \varepsilon\rightarrow 0 italic_ε → 0 .
We now prove the other direction of (iii).Note that ℓ 1 ( L p ( ℳ ) ) subscript ℓ 1 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ \ell_{1}(L_{p}(\mathcal{M})) roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) ) is a sub-linear vector space of L p ( ℳ ; ℓ 1 ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript ℓ 1
L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{1}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) equipped with a larger norm. So, for any bounded linear functional φ ∈ ( L p ( ℳ ; ℓ 1 ) ) ∗ 𝜑 superscript subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript ℓ 1
\varphi\in(L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{1}))^{*} italic_φ ∈ ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , its restriction on ℓ 1 ( L p ( ℳ ) ) subscript ℓ 1 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ \ell_{1}(L_{p}(\mathcal{M})) roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) ) defines a bounded linear functional φ ~ ∈ ( ℓ 1 ( L p ( ℳ ) ) ) ∗ = ℓ ∞ ( L q ( ℳ ) ) ~ 𝜑 superscript subscript ℓ 1 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript ℓ subscript 𝐿 𝑞 ℳ \tilde{\varphi}\in(\ell_{1}(L_{p}(\mathcal{M})))^{*}=\ell_{\infty}(L_{q}(%\mathcal{M})) over~ start_ARG italic_φ end_ARG ∈ ( roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) ) . We conclude that there exists x n ≥ 0 , ( x n ) ∈ ℓ ∞ ( L q ( ℳ ) ) formulae-sequence subscript 𝑥 𝑛 0 subscript 𝑥 𝑛 subscript ℓ subscript 𝐿 𝑞 ℳ x_{n}\geq 0,(x_{n})\in\ell_{\infty}(L_{q}(\mathcal{M})) italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 , ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) ) such that
(2.16) φ ( ( y n ) ) = ∑ n = 1 ∞ τ ( x n y n ) , 𝜑 subscript 𝑦 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝑛 1 𝜏 subscript 𝑥 𝑛 subscript 𝑦 𝑛 \displaystyle\varphi((y_{n}))=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\tau(x_{n}y_{n}), italic_φ ( ( italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ,
for all ( y n ) ∈ ℓ 1 ( L p ( ℳ ) ) ⊂ L p ( ℳ ; ℓ 1 ) subscript 𝑦 𝑛 subscript ℓ 1 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript ℓ 1
(y_{n})\in\ell_{1}(L_{p}(\mathcal{M}))\subset L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{1}) ( italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) ) ⊂ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) . In particular, the expression (2.16 ) holds for any finite sequences ( y n ) ∈ L p ( ℳ ; ℓ 1 ) subscript 𝑦 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript ℓ 1
(y_{n})\in L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{1}) ( italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) . By (ii), we have
‖ ( x n ) ‖ L q ( ℳ ; ℓ ∞ ) subscript norm subscript 𝑥 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 𝑞 ℳ subscript ℓ
\displaystyle\|(x_{n})\|_{L_{q}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{\infty})} ∥ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = \displaystyle= = sup { τ ( ∑ n = 1 x n y n ) ; finite sequences ( y n ) , ‖ y n ‖ L p ( ℳ ; ℓ 1 ) ≤ 1 } supremum 𝜏 subscript 𝑛 1 subscript 𝑥 𝑛 subscript 𝑦 𝑛 finite sequences subscript 𝑦 𝑛 subscript norm subscript 𝑦 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript ℓ 1
1 \displaystyle\sup\left\{\tau\left(\sum_{n=1}x_{n}y_{n}\right);{\rm finite\ %sequences}(y_{n}),\|y_{n}\|_{L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{1})}\leq 1\right\} roman_sup { italic_τ ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ; roman_finite roman_sequences ( italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , ∥ italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 1 } = \displaystyle= = sup { φ ( ( y n ) ) ; finite sequences ( y n ) , ‖ y n ‖ L p ( ℳ ; ℓ 1 ) ≤ 1 } ≤ ‖ φ ‖ ( L p ( ℳ ; ℓ 1 ) ) ∗ . supremum 𝜑 subscript 𝑦 𝑛 finite sequences subscript 𝑦 𝑛 subscript norm subscript 𝑦 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript ℓ 1
1 subscript norm 𝜑 superscript subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ subscript ℓ 1
\displaystyle\sup\left\{\varphi((y_{n}));{\rm finite\ sequences}\ (y_{n}),\|y_%{n}\|_{L_{p}(\mathcal{M};\ell_{1})}\leq 1\right\}\leq\|\varphi\|_{(L_{p}(%\mathcal{M};\ell_{1}))^{*}}. roman_sup { italic_φ ( ( italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) ; roman_finite roman_sequences ( italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , ∥ italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 1 } ≤ ∥ italic_φ ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
∎
3. Operator-Maximal InequalityLet ℳ ℳ \mathcal{M} caligraphic_M be a semifinite von Neumann algebra, e.g. L ∞ ( Ω ) subscript 𝐿 Ω L_{\infty}(\Omega) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) or B ( H ) 𝐵 𝐻 B(H) italic_B ( italic_H ) . Let L p ( ℳ ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ L_{p}(\mathcal{M}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) be the associated noncommutative L p subscript 𝐿 𝑝 L_{p} italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT spaces, e.g. L p ( Ω ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 Ω L_{p}(\Omega) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) or the Schatten classes S p subscript 𝑆 𝑝 S_{p} italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .Let L p ( ℝ , ℳ ) , 1 ≤ p < ∞ subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℝ ℳ 1
𝑝 L_{p}(\mathbb{R},\mathcal{M}),1\leq p<\infty italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R , caligraphic_M ) , 1 ≤ italic_p < ∞ be the space of all L p ( ℳ ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ L_{p}(\mathcal{M}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) -valued Bochner-measurable functions f 𝑓 f italic_f on the real line such that
‖ f ‖ L p ( ℝ , L p ( ℳ ) ) = ( ∫ ℝ ‖ f ( x ) ‖ p p 𝑑 x ) 1 p = ( ∫ ℝ τ [ | f ( x ) | p ] 𝑑 x ) 1 p < ∞ . subscript norm 𝑓 superscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℝ subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ superscript subscript ℝ superscript subscript norm 𝑓 𝑥 𝑝 𝑝 differential-d 𝑥 1 𝑝 superscript subscript ℝ 𝜏 delimited-[] superscript 𝑓 𝑥 𝑝 differential-d 𝑥 1 𝑝 \|f\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R},L_{p}(\mathcal{M}))}=\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}}\|f(x)\|_{%p}^{p}dx\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}=\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}}\tau\left[|f(x)|^{p}%\right]dx\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}<\infty. ∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R , italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_f ( italic_x ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_x ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ [ | italic_f ( italic_x ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] italic_d italic_x ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT < ∞ .
We prove the following operator Hardy-Littlewood maximal inequality for f ∈ L p ( ℝ , L p ( ℳ ) ) 𝑓 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℝ subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ f\in L_{p}(\mathbb{R},L_{p}(\mathcal{M})) italic_f ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R , italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) ) where 2 ≤ p < ∞ 2 𝑝 2\leq p<\infty 2 ≤ italic_p < ∞ . The corresponding result for p = ∞ 𝑝 p=\infty italic_p = ∞ is trivial.
Theorem 3.1 . Given f ∈ L p ( ℝ , L p ( ℳ ) ) 𝑓 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℝ subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ f\in L_{p}(\mathbb{R},L_{p}(\mathcal{M})) italic_f ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R , italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) ) for some 2 ≤ p < ∞ 2 𝑝 2\leq p<\infty 2 ≤ italic_p < ∞ , there exists a L p ( ℳ ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ L_{p}(\mathcal{M}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) -valued Bochner-measurable function F 𝐹 F italic_F such that
(i) 1 2 t ∫ x − t x + t | f ( y ) | 𝑑 y ≤ F ( x ) 1 2 𝑡 superscript subscript 𝑥 𝑡 𝑥 𝑡 𝑓 𝑦 differential-d 𝑦 𝐹 𝑥 \frac{1}{2t}\int_{x-t}^{x+t}|f(y)|dy\leq F(x) divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_t end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x - italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x + italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_f ( italic_y ) | italic_d italic_y ≤ italic_F ( italic_x ) as operators for all t > 0 𝑡 0 t>0 italic_t > 0 , i.e. F − 1 2 t ∫ x − t x + t | f ( y ) | 𝑑 y ≥ 0 𝐹 1 2 𝑡 superscript subscript 𝑥 𝑡 𝑥 𝑡 𝑓 𝑦 differential-d 𝑦 0 F-\frac{1}{2t}\int_{x-t}^{x+t}|f(y)|dy\geq 0 italic_F - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_t end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x - italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x + italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_f ( italic_y ) | italic_d italic_y ≥ 0 almost everywhere.
(ii) There exists an absolute constant c 𝑐 c italic_c such that
(3.1) ‖ F ‖ L p ( ℝ , L p ( ℳ ) ) ≤ c ‖ f ‖ L p ( ℝ , L p ( ℳ ) ) . subscript norm 𝐹 superscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℝ subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ 𝑐 subscript norm 𝑓 superscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℝ subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ \displaystyle\|F\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R},L_{p}(\mathcal{M}))}\leq c\|f\|_{L^{p}(%\mathbb{R},L_{p}(\mathcal{M}))}. ∥ italic_F ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R , italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_c ∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R , italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
In order to prove main theorem, we prove the dual form of Theorem 3.1 . Let 𝒩 𝒩 \mathcal{N} caligraphic_N be the von Neumann algebra tensor product L ∞ ( ℝ ) ⊗ ℳ tensor-product subscript 𝐿 ℝ ℳ L_{\infty}(\mathbb{R})\otimes\mathcal{M} italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R ) ⊗ caligraphic_M equipped with the semifinite trace ν = ∫ ⊗ τ 𝜈 tensor-product 𝜏 \nu=\int\otimes\tau italic_ν = ∫ ⊗ italic_τ . Then, L p ( ℝ , ℳ ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℝ ℳ L_{p}(\mathbb{R},\mathcal{M}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R , caligraphic_M ) coincides with the noncommutative L p subscript 𝐿 𝑝 L_{p} italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT spaces L p ( ℕ ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℕ L_{p}({\mathbb{N}}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_N ) associated with the pair ( ℕ , ν ) ℕ 𝜈 ({\mathbb{N}},\nu) ( blackboard_N , italic_ν ) for 1 ≤ p < ∞ 1 𝑝 1\leq p<\infty 1 ≤ italic_p < ∞ . Let T n , n > 0 subscript 𝑇 𝑛 𝑛
0 T_{n},n>0 italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_n > 0 be the averaging operator on L p ( ℝ ) ⊗ L p ( ℳ ) tensor-product subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℝ subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℳ L_{p}(\mathbb{R})\otimes L_{p}(\mathcal{M}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R ) ⊗ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) defined by
( T n f ) ( x ) = 1 2 n + 1 ∫ x − 2 n x + 2 n f ( t ) 𝑑 t subscript 𝑇 𝑛 𝑓 𝑥 1 superscript 2 𝑛 1 superscript subscript 𝑥 superscript 2 𝑛 𝑥 superscript 2 𝑛 𝑓 𝑡 differential-d 𝑡 \displaystyle(T_{n}f)(x)=\frac{1}{2^{n+1}}\int_{x-2^{n}}^{x+2^{n}}f(t)\,dt ( italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ) ( italic_x ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x - 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x + 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_t ) italic_d italic_t
It is easy to verify that { T n } n ∈ ℤ subscript subscript 𝑇 𝑛 𝑛 ℤ \{T_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}} { italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n ∈ blackboard_Z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a family of operators from L 2 ( 𝒩 ) → L 2 ( 𝒩 ) → subscript 𝐿 2 𝒩 subscript 𝐿 2 𝒩 L_{2}(\mathcal{N})\to L_{2}(\mathcal{N}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_N ) → italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_N ) satisfying
• T n = T n ∗ subscript 𝑇 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝑇 𝑛 T_{n}=T_{n}^{*} italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ;
• T n g ≥ 0 subscript 𝑇 𝑛 𝑔 0 T_{n}g\geq 0 italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g ≥ 0 if g ≥ 0 𝑔 0 g\geq 0 italic_g ≥ 0 ;
• T n T m ≤ 2 T σ ( m ) subscript 𝑇 𝑛 subscript 𝑇 𝑚 2 subscript 𝑇 𝜎 𝑚 T_{n}T_{m}\leq 2T_{\sigma(m)} italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 2 italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for σ ( m ) = m + 1 𝜎 𝑚 𝑚 1 \sigma(m)=m+1 italic_σ ( italic_m ) = italic_m + 1 and any n ≤ m 𝑛 𝑚 n\leq m italic_n ≤ italic_m .
Lemma 3.2 . For any finite sequence g n ∈ L 2 ( 𝒩 ) subscript 𝑔 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 2 𝒩 g_{n}\in L_{2}(\mathcal{N}) italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_N ) with all g n ≥ 0 subscript 𝑔 𝑛 0 g_{n}\geq 0 italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 , we have
(3.2) ‖ ( T n g n ) ‖ L 2 ( 𝒩 ; ℓ 1 ) ≤ 4 ‖ ( g n ) ‖ L 2 ( 𝒩 ; ℓ 1 ) . subscript norm subscript 𝑇 𝑛 subscript 𝑔 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 2 𝒩 subscript ℓ 1
4 subscript norm subscript 𝑔 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 2 𝒩 subscript ℓ 1
\|(T_{n}g_{n})\|_{L_{2}(\mathcal{N};\ell_{1})}\leq 4\|(g_{n})\|_{L_{2}(%\mathcal{N};\ell_{1})}. ∥ ( italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_N ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 4 ∥ ( italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_N ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Proof. Given a positive sequence ( g n ) n ∈ L 2 ( ℕ ) subscript subscript 𝑔 𝑛 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 2 ℕ (g_{n})_{n}\in L_{2}({\mathbb{N}}) ( italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_N ) with only finitely many non-zero terms and a bijection α 𝛼 \alpha italic_α on ℤ ℤ \mathbb{Z} blackboard_Z , we have that for σ ( m ) = m + 1 𝜎 𝑚 𝑚 1 \sigma(m)=m+1 italic_σ ( italic_m ) = italic_m + 1 ,
‖ ∑ n T n g α ( n ) ‖ L 2 ( 𝒩 ) 2 superscript subscript norm subscript 𝑛 subscript 𝑇 𝑛 subscript 𝑔 𝛼 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 2 𝒩 2 \displaystyle\left\|\sum_{n}T_{n}g_{\alpha(n)}\right\|_{L_{2}(\mathcal{N})}^{2} ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_n ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_N ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ν ( ∑ n , m T n g α ( n ) T m g α ( m ) ) absent 𝜈 subscript 𝑛 𝑚
subscript 𝑇 𝑛 subscript 𝑔 𝛼 𝑛 subscript 𝑇 𝑚 subscript 𝑔 𝛼 𝑚 \displaystyle=\nu\left(\sum_{n,m}T_{n}g_{\alpha(n)}T_{m}g_{\alpha(m)}\right) = italic_ν ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_n ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = ν ( ∑ n < m T n g α ( n ) T m g α ( m ) ) + ν ( ∑ n ≥ m T n g α ( n ) T m g α ( m ) ) absent 𝜈 subscript 𝑛 𝑚 subscript 𝑇 𝑛 subscript 𝑔 𝛼 𝑛 subscript 𝑇 𝑚 subscript 𝑔 𝛼 𝑚 𝜈 subscript 𝑛 𝑚 subscript 𝑇 𝑛 subscript 𝑔 𝛼 𝑛 subscript 𝑇 𝑚 subscript 𝑔 𝛼 𝑚 \displaystyle=\nu\left(\sum_{n<m}T_{n}g_{\alpha(n)}T_{m}g_{\alpha(m)}\right)+%\nu\left(\sum_{n\geq m}T_{n}g_{\alpha(n)}T_{m}g_{\alpha(m)}\right) = italic_ν ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n < italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_n ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + italic_ν ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n ≥ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_n ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( by the tracial property of ν ) by the tracial property of 𝜈 \displaystyle({\rm by\ the\ tracial\ property\ of}\ \nu) ( roman_by roman_the roman_tracial roman_property roman_of italic_ν ) = ν ( ∑ n < m T n g α ( n ) T m g α ( m ) ) + ν ( ∑ n ≥ m T m g α ( m ) T n g α ( n ) ) absent 𝜈 subscript 𝑛 𝑚 subscript 𝑇 𝑛 subscript 𝑔 𝛼 𝑛 subscript 𝑇 𝑚 subscript 𝑔 𝛼 𝑚 𝜈 subscript 𝑛 𝑚 subscript 𝑇 𝑚 subscript 𝑔 𝛼 𝑚 subscript 𝑇 𝑛 subscript 𝑔 𝛼 𝑛 \displaystyle=\nu\left(\sum_{n<m}T_{n}g_{\alpha(n)}T_{m}g_{\alpha(m)}\right)+%\nu\left(\sum_{n\geq m}T_{m}g_{\alpha(m)}T_{n}g_{\alpha(n)}\right) = italic_ν ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n < italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_n ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + italic_ν ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n ≥ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_n ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = ν ( ∑ n < m T n g α ( n ) T m g α ( m ) ) + ν ( ∑ n ≤ m T n g α ( n ) T m g α ( m ) ) absent 𝜈 subscript 𝑛 𝑚 subscript 𝑇 𝑛 subscript 𝑔 𝛼 𝑛 subscript 𝑇 𝑚 subscript 𝑔 𝛼 𝑚 𝜈 subscript 𝑛 𝑚 subscript 𝑇 𝑛 subscript 𝑔 𝛼 𝑛 subscript 𝑇 𝑚 subscript 𝑔 𝛼 𝑚 \displaystyle=\nu\left(\sum_{n<m}T_{n}g_{\alpha(n)}T_{m}g_{\alpha(m)}\right)+%\nu\left(\sum_{n\leq m}T_{n}g_{\alpha(n)}T_{m}g_{\alpha(m)}\right) = italic_ν ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n < italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_n ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + italic_ν ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n ≤ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_n ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )
Note that ν ( ∑ n T n g α ( n ) T n g α ( n ) ) ≥ 0 𝜈 subscript 𝑛 subscript 𝑇 𝑛 subscript 𝑔 𝛼 𝑛 subscript 𝑇 𝑛 subscript 𝑔 𝛼 𝑛 0 \nu\left(\sum_{n}T_{n}g_{\alpha(n)}T_{n}g_{\alpha(n)}\right)\geq 0 italic_ν ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_n ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_n ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≥ 0 . So, we have that
‖ ∑ n T n g α ( n ) ‖ L 2 ( 𝒩 ) 2 superscript subscript norm subscript 𝑛 subscript 𝑇 𝑛 subscript 𝑔 𝛼 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 2 𝒩 2 \displaystyle\left\|\sum_{n}T_{n}g_{\alpha(n)}\right\|_{L_{2}(\mathcal{N})}^{2} ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_n ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_N ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ 2 ν ( ∑ n ≤ m T n g α ( n ) T m g α ( m ) ) absent 2 𝜈 subscript 𝑛 𝑚 subscript 𝑇 𝑛 subscript 𝑔 𝛼 𝑛 subscript 𝑇 𝑚 subscript 𝑔 𝛼 𝑚 \displaystyle\leq 2\nu\left(\sum_{n\leq m}T_{n}g_{\alpha(n)}T_{m}g_{\alpha(m)}\right) ≤ 2 italic_ν ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n ≤ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_n ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 2 ν ( ∑ n ≤ m g α ( n ) T n T m g α ( m ) ) absent 2 𝜈 subscript 𝑛 𝑚 subscript 𝑔 𝛼 𝑛 subscript 𝑇 𝑛 subscript 𝑇 𝑚 subscript 𝑔 𝛼 𝑚 \displaystyle=2\nu\left(\sum_{n\leq m}g_{\alpha(n)}T_{n}T_{m}g_{\alpha(m)}\right) = 2 italic_ν ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n ≤ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_n ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≤ 4 ν ( ∑ n ≤ m g α ( n ) T σ ( m ) g α ( m ) ) . absent 4 𝜈 subscript 𝑛 𝑚 subscript 𝑔 𝛼 𝑛 subscript 𝑇 𝜎 𝑚 subscript 𝑔 𝛼 𝑚 \displaystyle\leq 4~{}\nu\left(\sum_{n\leq m}g_{\alpha(n)}T_{\sigma(m)}g_{%\alpha(m)}\right). ≤ 4 italic_ν ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n ≤ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_n ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) .
By the tracial property of ν 𝜈 \nu italic_ν , we have that ν ( a b ) = ν ( b 1 2 a b 1 2 ) ≥ 0 𝜈 𝑎 𝑏 𝜈 superscript 𝑏 1 2 𝑎 superscript 𝑏 1 2 0 \nu(ab)=\nu(b^{\frac{1}{2}}ab^{\frac{1}{2}})\geq 0 italic_ν ( italic_a italic_b ) = italic_ν ( italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ≥ 0 for any a , b ≥ 0 𝑎 𝑏
0 a,b\geq 0 italic_a , italic_b ≥ 0 . So
‖ ∑ n T n g α ( n ) ‖ L 2 ( 𝒩 ) 2 superscript subscript norm subscript 𝑛 subscript 𝑇 𝑛 subscript 𝑔 𝛼 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 2 𝒩 2 \displaystyle\left\|\sum_{n}T_{n}g_{\alpha(n)}\right\|_{L_{2}(\mathcal{N})}^{2} ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_n ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_N ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ 4 ν ( ∑ n , m g α ( n ) T σ ( m ) g α ( m ) ) absent 4 𝜈 subscript 𝑛 𝑚
subscript 𝑔 𝛼 𝑛 subscript 𝑇 𝜎 𝑚 subscript 𝑔 𝛼 𝑚 \displaystyle\leq 4~{}\nu\left(\sum_{n,m}g_{\alpha(n)}T_{\sigma(m)}g_{\alpha(m%)}\right) ≤ 4 italic_ν ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_n ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≤ 4 ν ( ( ∑ n g α ( n ) ) ( ∑ m T σ ( m ) g α ( m ) ) ) absent 4 𝜈 subscript 𝑛 subscript 𝑔 𝛼 𝑛 subscript 𝑚 subscript 𝑇 𝜎 𝑚 subscript 𝑔 𝛼 𝑚 \displaystyle\leq 4~{}\nu\left(\left(\sum_{n}g_{\alpha(n)}\right)\left(\sum_{m%}T_{\sigma(m)}g_{\alpha(m)}\right)\right) ≤ 4 italic_ν ( ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_n ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) = 4 ν ( ( ∑ n g n ) ) ( ∑ m T m g σ − 1 α ( m ) ) ) \displaystyle=4~{}\nu\left(\left(\sum_{n}g_{n})\right)\left(\sum_{m}T_{m}g_{%\sigma^{-1}\alpha(m)}\right)\right) = 4 italic_ν ( ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) ≤ 4 ‖ ∑ n g n ‖ L 2 ( 𝒩 ) ‖ ∑ m T m g σ − 1 α ( m ) ‖ L 2 ( 𝒩 ) . absent 4 subscript norm subscript 𝑛 subscript 𝑔 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 2 𝒩 subscript norm subscript 𝑚 subscript 𝑇 𝑚 subscript 𝑔 superscript 𝜎 1 𝛼 𝑚 subscript 𝐿 2 𝒩 \displaystyle\leq 4~{}\left\|\sum_{n}g_{n}\right\|_{L_{2}(\mathcal{N})}~{}%\left\|\sum_{m}T_{m}g_{\sigma^{-1}\alpha(m)}\right\|_{L_{2}(\mathcal{N})}. ≤ 4 ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_N ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_N ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Now, taking the supremum over all bijections α 𝛼 \alpha italic_α on both sides, we get
sup α ‖ ∑ n T n g α ( n ) ‖ L 2 ( 𝒩 ) 2 subscript supremum 𝛼 superscript subscript norm subscript 𝑛 subscript 𝑇 𝑛 subscript 𝑔 𝛼 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 2 𝒩 2 \displaystyle\sup_{\alpha}\left\|\sum_{n}T_{n}g_{\alpha(n)}\right\|_{L_{2}(%\mathcal{N})}^{2} roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_n ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_N ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ 4 ‖ ∑ n g n ‖ L 2 ( 𝒩 ) sup α ‖ ∑ m T m g σ − 1 α ( m ) ‖ L 2 ( 𝒩 ) absent 4 subscript norm subscript 𝑛 subscript 𝑔 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 2 𝒩 subscript supremum 𝛼 subscript norm subscript 𝑚 subscript 𝑇 𝑚 subscript 𝑔 superscript 𝜎 1 𝛼 𝑚 subscript 𝐿 2 𝒩 \displaystyle\leq 4\left\|\sum_{n}g_{n}\right\|_{L_{2}(\mathcal{N})}\sup_{%\alpha}\left\|\sum_{m}T_{m}g_{\sigma^{-1}\alpha(m)}\right\|_{L_{2}(\mathcal{N})} ≤ 4 ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_N ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_N ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 4 ‖ ∑ n g n ‖ L 2 ( 𝒩 ) sup α ‖ ∑ m T m g α ( m ) ‖ L 2 ( 𝒩 ) absent 4 subscript norm subscript 𝑛 subscript 𝑔 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 2 𝒩 subscript supremum 𝛼 subscript norm subscript 𝑚 subscript 𝑇 𝑚 subscript 𝑔 𝛼 𝑚 subscript 𝐿 2 𝒩 \displaystyle=4\left\|\sum_{n}g_{n}\right\|_{L_{2}(\mathcal{N})}\sup_{\alpha}%\left\|\sum_{m}T_{m}g_{\alpha(m)}\right\|_{L_{2}(\mathcal{N})} = 4 ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_N ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_N ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
By dividing the finite number sup α ‖ ∑ m T m g α ( m ) ‖ L 2 ( 𝒩 ) subscript supremum 𝛼 subscript norm subscript 𝑚 subscript 𝑇 𝑚 subscript 𝑔 𝛼 𝑚 subscript 𝐿 2 𝒩 \sup_{\alpha}\|\sum_{m}T_{m}g_{\alpha(m)}\|_{L_{2}(\mathcal{N})} roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_N ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on both sides, we get (3.2 ).∎
Note that { T n } n ∈ ℤ subscript subscript 𝑇 𝑛 𝑛 ℤ \{T_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}} { italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n ∈ blackboard_Z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a family of positive-preserving contractions on L 1 ( 𝒩 ) subscript 𝐿 1 𝒩 L_{1}(\mathcal{N}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_N ) . Lemma 3.2 holds trivially if we replace L 2 ( ℕ ) subscript 𝐿 2 ℕ L_{2}({\mathbb{N}}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_N ) with L 1 ( ℕ ) subscript 𝐿 1 ℕ L_{1}({\mathbb{N}}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_N ) . We show that this remains true if we replace L 2 ( ℕ ) subscript 𝐿 2 ℕ L_{2}({\mathbb{N}}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_N ) with L p ( ℕ ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℕ L_{p}({\mathbb{N}}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_N ) for all 1 < p < 2 1 𝑝 2 1<p<2 1 < italic_p < 2 .We need the following Cauchy-Schwartz inequality. We include a proof for completeness.
Lemma 3.3 . Suppose a n ∈ L q ( 𝒩 , ν ) , b n ∈ L r ( 𝒩 , ν ) formulae-sequence subscript 𝑎 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 𝑞 𝒩 𝜈 subscript 𝑏 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 𝑟 𝒩 𝜈 a_{n}\in L_{q}(\mathcal{N},\nu),b_{n}\in L_{r}(\mathcal{N},\nu) italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_N , italic_ν ) , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_N , italic_ν ) . Then,we have
(3.3) ‖ ∑ n = 1 N T n ( a n ∗ b n ) ‖ p ≤ ‖ ∑ n = 1 N T n ( a n ∗ a n ) ‖ q ‖ ∑ n = 1 N T n ( b n ∗ b n ) ‖ r . subscript norm superscript subscript 𝑛 1 𝑁 subscript 𝑇 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑛 subscript 𝑏 𝑛 𝑝 subscript norm superscript subscript 𝑛 1 𝑁 subscript 𝑇 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑛 subscript 𝑎 𝑛 𝑞 subscript norm superscript subscript 𝑛 1 𝑁 subscript 𝑇 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝑏 𝑛 subscript 𝑏 𝑛 𝑟 \left\|\sum_{n=1}^{N}T_{n}(a_{n}^{*}b_{n})\right\|_{p}\leq\left\|\sum_{n=1}^{N%}T_{n}(a_{n}^{*}a_{n})\right\|_{q}~{}\left\|\sum_{n=1}^{N}T_{n}(b_{n}^{*}b_{n}%)\right\|_{r}. ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
In particular,
(3.4) ‖ ∑ n = 1 N T n ( a n ∗ b n ) ‖ p ≤ ‖ ∑ n = 1 N T n ( a n ∗ a n ) ‖ p ‖ ∑ n = 1 N T n ( b n ∗ b n ) ‖ p . subscript norm superscript subscript 𝑛 1 𝑁 subscript 𝑇 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑛 subscript 𝑏 𝑛 𝑝 subscript norm superscript subscript 𝑛 1 𝑁 subscript 𝑇 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑛 subscript 𝑎 𝑛 𝑝 subscript norm superscript subscript 𝑛 1 𝑁 subscript 𝑇 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝑏 𝑛 subscript 𝑏 𝑛 𝑝 \left\|\sum_{n=1}^{N}T_{n}(a_{n}^{*}b_{n})\right\|_{p}\leq\left\|\sum_{n=1}^{N%}T_{n}(a_{n}^{*}a_{n})\right\|_{p}~{}\left\|\sum_{n=1}^{N}T_{n}(b_{n}^{*}b_{n}%)\right\|_{p}. ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Proof. Let X n = ( a n b n 0 0 ) subscript 𝑋 𝑛 matrix subscript 𝑎 𝑛 subscript 𝑏 𝑛 0 0 X_{n}=\begin{pmatrix}a_{n}&b_{n}\\0&0\end{pmatrix} italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) . Then we have
X n ∗ X n = ( a n ∗ a n a n ∗ b n b n ∗ a n b n ∗ b n ) . superscript subscript 𝑋 𝑛 subscript 𝑋 𝑛 matrix superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑛 subscript 𝑎 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑛 subscript 𝑏 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝑏 𝑛 subscript 𝑎 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝑏 𝑛 subscript 𝑏 𝑛 X_{n}^{*}X_{n}=\begin{pmatrix}a_{n}^{*}a_{n}&a_{n}^{*}b_{n}\\b_{n}^{*}a_{n}&b_{n}^{*}b_{n}\end{pmatrix}. italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) .
This implies that
( ∑ n = 1 N T n ( a n ∗ a n ) ∑ n = 1 N T n ( a n ∗ b n ) ∑ n = 1 N T n ( b ∗ a n ) ∑ n = 1 N T n ( b n ∗ b n ) ) = ( α γ γ ∗ β ) ≥ 0 . matrix superscript subscript 𝑛 1 𝑁 subscript 𝑇 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑛 subscript 𝑎 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝑛 1 𝑁 subscript 𝑇 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑛 subscript 𝑏 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝑛 1 𝑁 subscript 𝑇 𝑛 superscript 𝑏 subscript 𝑎 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝑛 1 𝑁 subscript 𝑇 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝑏 𝑛 subscript 𝑏 𝑛 matrix 𝛼 𝛾 superscript 𝛾 𝛽 0 \begin{pmatrix}\sum_{n=1}^{N}T_{n}(a_{n}^{*}a_{n})&\sum_{n=1}^{N}T_{n}(a_{n}^{%*}b_{n})\\\sum_{n=1}^{N}T_{n}(b^{*}a_{n})&\sum_{n=1}^{N}T_{n}(b_{n}^{*}b_{n})\end{%pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}\alpha&\gamma\\\gamma^{*}&\beta\end{pmatrix}\geq 0. ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_CELL start_CELL ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_CELL start_CELL ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) = ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_α end_CELL start_CELL italic_γ end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL italic_β end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) ≥ 0 .
Then, by [1 , Prop. 1.3.2] , there exists a contraction y 𝑦 y italic_y such that γ = α 1 2 y β 1 2 𝛾 superscript 𝛼 1 2 𝑦 superscript 𝛽 1 2 \gamma=\alpha^{\frac{1}{2}}y\beta^{\frac{1}{2}} italic_γ = italic_α start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .Thus by Hölder’s inequality,
‖ ∑ n = 1 N T n ( a n ∗ b n ) ‖ p = ‖ γ ‖ p = ‖ α 1 2 y β 1 2 ‖ p ≤ ‖ α 1 2 ‖ q ‖ β 1 2 ‖ r . subscript norm superscript subscript 𝑛 1 𝑁 subscript 𝑇 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑛 subscript 𝑏 𝑛 𝑝 subscript norm 𝛾 𝑝 subscript norm superscript 𝛼 1 2 𝑦 superscript 𝛽 1 2 𝑝 subscript norm superscript 𝛼 1 2 𝑞 subscript norm superscript 𝛽 1 2 𝑟 \left\|\sum_{n=1}^{N}T_{n}(a_{n}^{*}b_{n})\right\|_{p}=\|\gamma\|_{p}=\|\alpha%^{\frac{1}{2}}y\beta^{\frac{1}{2}}\|_{p}\leq\|\alpha^{\frac{1}{2}}\|_{q}\|%\beta^{\frac{1}{2}}\|_{r}. ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∥ italic_γ ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∥ italic_α start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ ∥ italic_α start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
The lemma is proved.∎
Lemma 3.4 . Under the same assumption of Lemma 3.2 , we have that,
(3.5) ‖ ( T n g n ) ‖ L p ( 𝒩 ; ℓ 1 ) ≤ 4 2 − 2 p ‖ ( g n ) ‖ L p ( 𝒩 ; ℓ 1 ) . subscript norm subscript 𝑇 𝑛 subscript 𝑔 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 𝒩 subscript ℓ 1
superscript 4 2 2 𝑝 subscript norm subscript 𝑔 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 𝒩 subscript ℓ 1
\|(T_{n}g_{n})\|_{L_{p}(\mathcal{N};\ell_{1})}\leq 4^{2-\frac{2}{p}}\|(g_{n})%\|_{L_{p}(\mathcal{N};\ell_{1})}. ∥ ( italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_N ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 4 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 - divide start_ARG 2 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ ( italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_N ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
for all finite sequences ( g n ) ∈ L p ( 𝒩 ; ℓ 1 ) subscript 𝑔 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 𝒩 subscript ℓ 1
(g_{n})\in L_{p}(\mathcal{N};\ell_{1}) ( italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_N ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , g n ≥ 0 subscript 𝑔 𝑛 0 g_{n}\geq 0 italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 , 1 ≤ p ≤ 2 1 𝑝 2 1\leq p\leq 2 1 ≤ italic_p ≤ 2 .
Proof. Assume that ‖ ∑ n = 1 N g n ‖ p = 1 subscript norm superscript subscript 𝑛 1 𝑁 subscript 𝑔 𝑛 𝑝 1 \|\sum_{n=1}^{N}~{}g_{n}\|_{p}=1 ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 . Let g = ( ∑ n = 1 N g n ) 1 / 2 𝑔 superscript superscript subscript 𝑛 1 𝑁 subscript 𝑔 𝑛 1 2 g=\left(\sum_{n=1}^{N}g_{n}\right)^{1/2} italic_g = ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . We then have ‖ g ‖ 2 p = 1 . subscript norm 𝑔 2 𝑝 1 \|g\|_{2p}=1. ∥ italic_g ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 . By approximation, we may assume g 𝑔 g italic_g is invertible.Let h n = g − 1 g n g − 1 ≥ 0 subscript ℎ 𝑛 superscript 𝑔 1 subscript 𝑔 𝑛 superscript 𝑔 1 0 h_{n}=g^{-1}g_{n}g^{-1}\geq 0 italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≥ 0 . Then, ‖ ∑ n = 1 N h n ‖ ∞ ≤ 1 subscript norm superscript subscript 𝑛 1 𝑁 subscript ℎ 𝑛 1 \|\sum_{n=1}^{N}h_{n}\|_{\infty}\leq 1 ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 1 . Let θ 𝜃 \theta italic_θ be defined by 1 p = 1 − θ 1 + θ 2 1 𝑝 1 𝜃 1 𝜃 2 \frac{1}{p}=\frac{1-\theta}{1}+\frac{\theta}{2} divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG = divide start_ARG 1 - italic_θ end_ARG start_ARG 1 end_ARG + divide start_ARG italic_θ end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG . Let
F ( z ) = g ( 1 − z ) p + z p / 2 h n g ( 1 − z ) p + z p / 2 𝐹 𝑧 superscript 𝑔 1 𝑧 𝑝 𝑧 𝑝 2 subscript ℎ 𝑛 superscript 𝑔 1 𝑧 𝑝 𝑧 𝑝 2 F(z)=g^{(1-z)p+zp/2}h_{n}g^{(1-z)p+zp/2} italic_F ( italic_z ) = italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 - italic_z ) italic_p + italic_z italic_p / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 - italic_z ) italic_p + italic_z italic_p / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
and U t = g − i p t / 2 subscript 𝑈 𝑡 superscript 𝑔 𝑖 𝑝 𝑡 2 U_{t}=g^{-ipt/2} italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_i italic_p italic_t / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . Note that F ( θ ) = g n 𝐹 𝜃 subscript 𝑔 𝑛 F(\theta)=g_{n} italic_F ( italic_θ ) = italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and F ( i t ) = U t g p h n g p U t 𝐹 𝑖 𝑡 subscript 𝑈 𝑡 superscript 𝑔 𝑝 subscript ℎ 𝑛 superscript 𝑔 𝑝 subscript 𝑈 𝑡 F(it)=U_{t}g^{p}h_{n}g^{p}U_{t} italic_F ( italic_i italic_t ) = italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , F ( 1 + i t ) = U t g p / 2 h n g p / 2 U t 𝐹 1 𝑖 𝑡 subscript 𝑈 𝑡 superscript 𝑔 𝑝 2 subscript ℎ 𝑛 superscript 𝑔 𝑝 2 subscript 𝑈 𝑡 F(1+it)=U_{t}g^{p/2}h_{n}g^{p/2}U_{t} italic_F ( 1 + italic_i italic_t ) = italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .Therefore,
‖ ∑ n = 1 N T n F ( i t ) ‖ 1 subscript norm superscript subscript 𝑛 1 𝑁 subscript 𝑇 𝑛 𝐹 𝑖 𝑡 1 \displaystyle\left\|\sum_{n=1}^{N}T_{n}F(it)\right\|_{1} ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_i italic_t ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ ∑ n = 1 N ‖ T n F ( i t ) ‖ 1 ≤ ∑ n = 1 N ‖ F ( i t ) ‖ 1 ≤ ∑ n = 1 N ‖ g p h n g p ‖ 1 absent superscript subscript 𝑛 1 𝑁 subscript norm subscript 𝑇 𝑛 𝐹 𝑖 𝑡 1 superscript subscript 𝑛 1 𝑁 subscript norm 𝐹 𝑖 𝑡 1 superscript subscript 𝑛 1 𝑁 subscript norm superscript 𝑔 𝑝 subscript ℎ 𝑛 superscript 𝑔 𝑝 1 \displaystyle\leq\sum_{n=1}^{N}\left\|T_{n}F(it)\right\|_{1}\leq\sum_{n=1}^{N}%\left\|F(it)\right\|_{1}\leq\sum_{n=1}^{N}\|g^{p}h_{n}g^{p}\|_{1} ≤ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_i italic_t ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ italic_F ( italic_i italic_t ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ν ( g p ∑ n = 1 N h n g p ) absent 𝜈 superscript 𝑔 𝑝 superscript subscript 𝑛 1 𝑁 subscript ℎ 𝑛 superscript 𝑔 𝑝 \displaystyle=\nu\left(g^{p}\sum_{n=1}^{N}h_{n}~{}g^{p}\right) = italic_ν ( italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) (3.6) ≤ ν ( g 2 p ) = 1 . absent 𝜈 superscript 𝑔 2 𝑝 1 \displaystyle\leq\nu(g^{2p})=1. ≤ italic_ν ( italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = 1 .
On the other hand, applying Lemma 3.3 to a n ∗ = U t g p 2 h n 1 2 , b n = h n 1 2 g p 2 U t formulae-sequence superscript subscript 𝑎 𝑛 subscript 𝑈 𝑡 superscript 𝑔 𝑝 2 superscript subscript ℎ 𝑛 1 2 subscript 𝑏 𝑛 superscript subscript ℎ 𝑛 1 2 superscript 𝑔 𝑝 2 subscript 𝑈 𝑡 a_{n}^{*}=U_{t}g^{\frac{p}{2}}h_{n}^{\frac{1}{2}},b_{n}=h_{n}^{\frac{1}{2}}g^{%\frac{p}{2}}U_{t} italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
‖ ∑ n = 1 N T n F ( 1 + i t ) ‖ 2 = ‖ ∑ n = 1 N T n ( U t g p 2 h n 1 2 h n 1 2 a p 2 U t ) ‖ 2 subscript norm superscript subscript 𝑛 1 𝑁 subscript 𝑇 𝑛 𝐹 1 𝑖 𝑡 2 subscript norm superscript subscript 𝑛 1 𝑁 subscript 𝑇 𝑛 subscript 𝑈 𝑡 superscript 𝑔 𝑝 2 superscript subscript ℎ 𝑛 1 2 superscript subscript ℎ 𝑛 1 2 superscript 𝑎 𝑝 2 subscript 𝑈 𝑡 2 \displaystyle\left\|\sum_{n=1}^{N}T_{n}F(1+it)\right\|_{2}=\left\|\sum_{n=1}^{%N}~{}T_{n}\left(U_{t}g^{\frac{p}{2}}h_{n}^{\frac{1}{2}}h_{n}^{\frac{1}{2}}a^{%\frac{p}{2}}U_{t}\right)\right\|_{2} ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( 1 + italic_i italic_t ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ ‖ ∑ n = 1 N T n ( U t g p / 2 h n 1 / 2 h n 1 / 2 g g / 2 U t ∗ ) ‖ 2 1 2 ‖ ∑ n = 1 N T n ( U t ∗ a p / 2 h n 1 / 2 h n 1 2 g p / 2 U t ) ‖ 2 1 2 absent superscript subscript norm superscript subscript 𝑛 1 𝑁 subscript 𝑇 𝑛 subscript 𝑈 𝑡 superscript 𝑔 𝑝 2 superscript subscript ℎ 𝑛 1 2 superscript subscript ℎ 𝑛 1 2 superscript 𝑔 𝑔 2 superscript subscript 𝑈 𝑡 2 1 2 superscript subscript norm superscript subscript 𝑛 1 𝑁 subscript 𝑇 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝑈 𝑡 superscript 𝑎 𝑝 2 superscript subscript ℎ 𝑛 1 2 superscript subscript ℎ 𝑛 1 2 superscript 𝑔 𝑝 2 subscript 𝑈 𝑡 2 1 2 \displaystyle\leq\left\|\sum_{n=1}^{N}T_{n}\left(U_{t}g^{p/2}h_{n}^{1/2}h_{n}^%{1/2}g^{g/2}U_{t}^{*}\right)\right\|_{2}^{\frac{1}{2}}\left\|\sum_{n=1}^{N}T_{%n}\left(U_{t}^{*}a^{p/2}h_{n}^{1/2}h_{n}^{\frac{1}{2}g^{p/2}}U_{t}\right)%\right\|_{2}^{\frac{1}{2}} ≤ ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_g / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ 4 ‖ U t ( g p / 2 ∑ n = 1 N h n g p / 2 ) U t ∗ ‖ 2 1 2 ‖ U t ∗ ( g p / 2 ∑ n = 1 N h n g p / 2 ) U t ‖ 2 1 2 absent 4 superscript subscript norm subscript 𝑈 𝑡 superscript 𝑔 𝑝 2 superscript subscript 𝑛 1 𝑁 subscript ℎ 𝑛 superscript 𝑔 𝑝 2 superscript subscript 𝑈 𝑡 2 1 2 superscript subscript norm superscript subscript 𝑈 𝑡 superscript 𝑔 𝑝 2 superscript subscript 𝑛 1 𝑁 subscript ℎ 𝑛 superscript 𝑔 𝑝 2 subscript 𝑈 𝑡 2 1 2 \displaystyle\leq 4\left\|U_{t}\left(g^{p/2}\sum_{n=1}^{N}~{}h_{n}~{}g^{p/2}%\right)U_{t}^{*}\right\|_{2}^{\frac{1}{2}}\left\|U_{t}^{*}\left(g^{p/2}\sum_{n%=1}^{N}~{}h_{n}~{}g^{p/2}\right)U_{t}\right\|_{2}^{\frac{1}{2}} ≤ 4 ∥ italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (3.7) ≤ 4 ‖ g p ‖ 2 = 4 . absent 4 subscript norm superscript 𝑔 𝑝 2 4 \displaystyle\leq 4\|g^{p}\|_{2}=4. ≤ 4 ∥ italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 4 .
Then, by the three line lemma, we have
‖ ∑ n = 1 N T n g n ‖ p = ‖ ∑ n = 1 N T n F ( θ ) ‖ p ≤ 4 θ . subscript norm superscript subscript 𝑛 1 𝑁 subscript 𝑇 𝑛 subscript 𝑔 𝑛 𝑝 subscript norm superscript subscript 𝑛 1 𝑁 subscript 𝑇 𝑛 𝐹 𝜃 𝑝 superscript 4 𝜃 \left\|\sum_{n=1}^{N}T_{n}g_{n}\right\|_{p}=\left\|\sum_{n=1}^{N}~{}T_{n}F(%\theta)\right\|_{p}\leq 4^{\theta}. ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( italic_θ ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 4 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_θ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .
We complete the proof by applying the hom*ogeneity property.∎
Finally, we return to the proof of Theorem 3.1 by duality.
Proof. For f ∈ L p ( ℕ ) 𝑓 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℕ f\in L_{p}({\mathbb{N}}) italic_f ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_N ) , we have that | f | ∈ L p ( ℕ ) 𝑓 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℕ |f|\in L_{p}({\mathbb{N}}) | italic_f | ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_N ) and | f | 𝑓 |f| | italic_f | has the same norm with f 𝑓 f italic_f by definition.We apply (2.13 ) to the positive sequence in L p ( ℕ ) subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℕ L_{p}({\mathbb{N}}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_N ) T n ( | f | ) subscript 𝑇 𝑛 𝑓 T_{n}(|f|) italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_f | ) , and obtain
‖ ( T n ( | f | ) ) ‖ L p ( 𝒩 ; ℓ ∞ ) subscript norm subscript 𝑇 𝑛 𝑓 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 𝒩 subscript ℓ
\displaystyle\|(T_{n}(|f|))\|_{L_{p}(\mathcal{N};\ell_{\infty})} ∥ ( italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_f | ) ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_N ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = sup { ν ( ∑ T n ( | f | ) y n ) : y n ≥ 0 , ∥ ( y n ) ∥ L q ( 𝒩 ; ℓ 1 N ) ≤ 1 } \displaystyle=\sup\left\{\nu\left(\sum T_{n}(|f|)y_{n}\right):y_{n}\geq 0,\|(y%_{n})\|_{L_{q}(\mathcal{N};\ell_{1}^{N})}\leq 1\right\} = roman_sup { italic_ν ( ∑ italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_f | ) italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) : italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 , ∥ ( italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_N ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 1 } = sup { ν ( ∑ | f | T n ( y n ) ) : y n ≥ 0 , ∥ ( y n ) ∥ L q ( 𝒩 ; ℓ 1 N ) ≤ 1 } \displaystyle=\sup\left\{\nu\left(\sum|f|T_{n}(y_{n})\right):y_{n}\geq 0,\|(y_%{n})\|_{L_{q}(\mathcal{N};\ell_{1}^{N})}\leq 1\right\} = roman_sup { italic_ν ( ∑ | italic_f | italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) : italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 , ∥ ( italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_N ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 1 } ≤ sup { ν ( | f | ∑ T n y n ) : z n ≥ 0 , ∥ ( z n ) ∥ L q ( 𝒩 ; ℓ 1 N ) ≤ 4 2 − 2 q } \displaystyle\leq\sup\left\{\nu\left(|f|\sum T_{n}y_{n}\right):z_{n}\geq 0,\|(%z_{n})\|_{L_{q}(\mathcal{N};\ell_{1}^{N})}\leq 4^{2-\frac{2}{q}}\right\} ≤ roman_sup { italic_ν ( | italic_f | ∑ italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) : italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 , ∥ ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_N ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 4 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 - divide start_ARG 2 end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } ≤ 4 2 p ‖ f ‖ L p ( 𝒩 ) , absent superscript 4 2 𝑝 subscript norm 𝑓 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 𝒩 \displaystyle\leq 4^{\frac{2}{p}}\|f\|_{L_{p}(\mathcal{N})}, ≤ 4 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 2 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_N ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
for all 2 ≤ p < ∞ 2 𝑝 2\leq p<\infty 2 ≤ italic_p < ∞ . By (2.11 ), ‖ ( T n ( | f | ) ) ‖ L p ( 𝒩 ; ℓ ∞ ) ≤ 4 1 + 2 p ‖ f ‖ L p ( 𝒩 ) subscript norm subscript 𝑇 𝑛 𝑓 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 𝒩 subscript ℓ
superscript 4 1 2 𝑝 subscript norm 𝑓 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 𝒩 \|(T_{n}(|f|))\|_{L_{p}(\mathcal{N};\ell_{\infty})}\leq 4^{1+\frac{2}{p}}\|f\|%_{L_{p}(\mathcal{N})} ∥ ( italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( | italic_f | ) ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_N ; roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 4 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 + divide start_ARG 2 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_N ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . By definition (2.4 ), This means that there exists F ∈ L p ( ℕ ) 𝐹 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℕ F\in L_{p}({\mathbb{N}}) italic_F ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_N ) such that ‖ F ‖ L p ( ℕ ) ≤ 4 1 + 2 p ‖ f ‖ L p ( 𝒩 ) subscript norm 𝐹 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 ℕ superscript 4 1 2 𝑝 subscript norm 𝑓 subscript 𝐿 𝑝 𝒩 \|F\|_{L_{p}({\mathbb{N}})}\leq 4^{1+\frac{2}{p}}\|f\|_{L_{p}(\mathcal{N})} ∥ italic_F ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_N ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 4 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 + divide start_ARG 2 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_N ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and T n | f | ≤ F subscript 𝑇 𝑛 𝑓 𝐹 T_{n}|f|\leq F italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_f | ≤ italic_F . Theorem 3.1 follows since
1 2 t ∫ x − t x + t | f ( y ) | 𝑑 y ≤ 2 T n | f | 1 2 𝑡 superscript subscript 𝑥 𝑡 𝑥 𝑡 𝑓 𝑦 differential-d 𝑦 2 subscript 𝑇 𝑛 𝑓 \frac{1}{2t}\int_{x-t}^{x+t}|f(y)|dy\leq 2T_{n}|f| divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_t end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x - italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x + italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_f ( italic_y ) | italic_d italic_y ≤ 2 italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_f |
for every 2 n − 1 ≤ t < 2 n , n ∈ ℤ formulae-sequence superscript 2 𝑛 1 𝑡 superscript 2 𝑛 𝑛 ℤ 2^{n-1}\leq t<2^{n},n\in\mathbb{Z} 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_t < 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_n ∈ blackboard_Z .∎
References [1] R. Bhatia, Positive definite matrices,Princeton Ser. Appl. Math.Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2007, x+254 pp. [2] Z. Chen, Q. Xu, Z. Yin, Harmonic analysis on quantum tori,Comm. Math. Phys. 322 (2013), no. 3, 755-805. [3] G. Hong, The behavior of the bounds of matrix-valued maximal inequality in ℝ n superscript ℝ 𝑛 \mathbb{R}^{n} blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for large n 𝑛 n italic_n ,Illinois J. Math. 57 (2013), no. 3, 855-869. [4] G. Hong, B. Liao, S. Wang, Noncommutative maximal ergodic inequalities associated with doubling conditionsDuke Math. J. 170 (2021), no. 2, 205-246. [5] M. Junge, Doob’s Inequality for noncommutative Martingales, J. Reine Angew. Math. 549 (2002), 149-190. MR1916654 [6] M. Junge, Q. Xu, Noncommutative maximal ergodic theorems.J. Amer. Math. Soc.20(2007), no.2, 385-439. [7] T. Mei, Operator valued Hardy spaces. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 188 (2007), 64 pp. [8] Fourier multipliers in S L n ( ℝ ) 𝑆 subscript 𝐿 𝑛 ℝ SL_{n}(\mathbb{R}) italic_S italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R ) ,J. Parcet, E. Ricard, M. de la Salle, Duke Math. J. 171 (2022), no. 6, 1235-1297. [9] G. Pisier, noncommutative Vector Valued L p subscript 𝐿 𝑝 L_{p} italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT -Spaces and Completely p-Summing Maps, Soc. Math. France Astérisque (1998) 237. MR1648908 [10] G. Pisier, Martingales in Non-Commutative L p subscript 𝐿 𝑝 L_{p} italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT -spaces, unpublished manuscript. [11] G. Pisier, Q. Xu, Non-commutative L p subscript 𝐿 𝑝 L_{p} italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT -spaces. In Handbook of the geometry of Banach spaces, Vol. 2, pages 1459–1517. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2003. MR1999201 [12] E. M. Stein, Harmonic Analysis, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1993. MR1232192
FAQs
We find the exact value of the best possible constant C for the weak-type (1,1) inequality for the one-dimensional centered Hardy-Littlewood maximal operator. We prove that C is the largest root of the quadratic equation 12C2 − 22C + 5 = 0 thus obtaining C = 1. 5675208 ... .
What is the Hardy and Littlewood theorem? ›
. The integral formulation of the theorem relates in an analogous manner the asymptotics of the cumulative distribution function of a function with the asymptotics of its Laplace transform . The theorem was proved in 1914 by G. H.
Is the Hardy-Littlewood maximal function continuous? ›
the non-centered Hardy-Littlewood maximal function Mf and the centered Hardy-Littlewood maximal function Mcf on Rn. As two applications, we can easily deduce that Mcf and Mf are continuous if f is continuous , and Mf is continuous if f is of local bounded variation on R.
Is Hardy-Littlewood maximal function bounded? ›
Our main theorem is that the Hardy–Littlewood maximal operator is bounded in the Sobolev space W1,p(Rn) for 1 < p ≤ ∞ and hence, in that case, it has classical partial derivatives almost everywhere.
What is the Littlewood constant? ›
For a prime constellation, the Hardy-Littlewood constant for that constellation is the coefficient of the leading term of the (conjectured) asymptotic estimate of its frequency . It is given by a particular product over all primes.
What are the applications of Hardy Littlewood maximal function? ›
Applications. The Hardy–Littlewood maximal operator appears in many places but some of its most notable uses are in the proofs of the Lebesgue differentiation theorem and Fatou's theorem and in the theory of singular integral operators .
What is the Hardy Littlewood rule? ›
In mathematics, the Hardy-Littlewood rule is used. That is, authors are alphabetically ordered and everyone gets an equal share of credit independent to their actual contribu- tion .
What is Hardy and Littlewood number theory? ›
In number theory, the first Hardy–Littlewood conjecture states the asymptotic formula for the number of prime k-tuples less than a given magnitude by generalizing the prime number theorem . It was first proposed by G. H. Hardy and John Edensor Littlewood in 1923.
Is Hardy Littlewood maximal function measurable? ›
The averages are jointly continuous in x and r, so the maximal function Mf, being the supremum over r > 0, is measurable . It is not obvious that Mf is finite almost everywhere. This is a corollary of the Hardy–Littlewood maximal inequality.
How do you argue a function is continuous? ›
Key Concepts
For a function to be continuous at a point, it must be defined at that point, its limit must exist at the point, and the value of the function at that point must equal the value of the limit at that point. Discontinuities may be classified as removable, jump, or infinite.
Some Typical Continuous Functions
Trigonometric Functions in certain periodic intervals (sin x, cos x, tan x etc.) Polynomial Functions (x2 +x +1, x4 + 2…. etc.) Exponential Functions (e2x , 5ex etc.) Logarithmic Functions in their domain (log10 x, ln x2 etc.)
Are all holomorphic functions continuous? ›
If there exists a holomorphic function F defined on Ω such that F0 = f, we say that F is a primitive of f. If f is holomorphic in all of C then f is said to be entire. Like in real variable theory we find that f is continuous on an open set Ω if it is holomorphic on Ω .
What are the famous bounded functions? ›
sin(x) , cos(x) , arctan(x)=tan−1(x) , 11+x2 , and 11+ex are all commonly used examples of bounded functions.
How do you know if a function is bounded? ›
We say that a real function f is bounded from below if there is a number k such that for all x from the domain D( f ) one has f (x) ≥ k . We say that a real function f is bounded from above if there is a number K such that for all x from the domain D( f ) one has f (x) ≤ K.
What functions are not bounded? ›
Unbounded function : A function is unbounded if there exists a real number , such that lim x → a − | f ( x ) | = ∞ , or lim x → a + | f ( x ) | = ∞ , or lim x → − ∞ | f ( x ) | = ∞ or lim x → ∞ | f ( x ) | = ∞ .
What is the optimal constant for Poincare inequality? ›
The best constant of Poincare inequality can be determined by eigenvalue of Laplace operator. over the admissible set M:={u∈H10(Ω)‖u‖L2(Ω)=1}. Then by Rayleigh Quotient theorem we have α=λ1 where λ1 is the first eigenvalue of laplace operator −Δ. Hence the best constant of Poincare inequality is just 1/λ1 ?
What is the best constant in the Davis inequality for the expectation of the martingale square function? ›
Here we prove that √ 3 is the best constant by using an entirely different approach.
What is Hardy and Littlewood conjecture F? ›
In number theory, the first Hardy–Littlewood conjecture states the asymptotic formula for the number of prime k-tuples less than a given magnitude by generalizing the prime number theorem . It was first proposed by G. H. Hardy and John Edensor Littlewood in 1923.
What is a maximal inequality? ›
In probability theory, Kolmogorov's inequality is a so-called "maximal inequality" that gives a bound on the probability that the partial sums of a finite collection of independent random variables exceed some specified bound .
Article information
Author : Saturnina Altenwerth DVM
Last Updated : 2024-09-17T12:09:53+07:00
Views : 6127
Rating : 4.3 / 5 (44 voted)
Reviews : 83% of readers found this page helpful
Author information
Name : Saturnina Altenwerth DVM
Birthday : 1992-08-21
Address : Apt. 237 662 Haag Mills, East Verenaport, MO 57071-5493
Phone : +331850833384
Job : District Real-Estate Architect
Hobby : Skateboarding, Taxidermy, Air sports, Painting, Knife making, Letterboxing, Inline skating
Introduction : My name is Saturnina Altenwerth DVM, I am a witty, perfect, combative, beautiful, determined, fancy, determined person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.