Serguei V. Astashkin and Guillermo P. Curbera - Rearrangement Invariance of Rademacher Multiplicator Spaces

Journal of Functional Analysis 256 (2009) 40714094
www.elsevier.com/locate/jfa
Rearrangement invariance of Rademacher
multiplicator spaces
Serguei V. Astashkin
a
, Guillermo P. Curbera
b,,1
a
Department of Mathematics, Samara State University, ul. Akad. Pavlova 1, 443011 Samara, Russia
b
Facultad de Matemticas, Universidad de Sevilla, Aptdo. 1160, Sevilla 41080, Spain
Received 6 October 2008; accepted 23 December 2008
Available online 19 January 2009
Communicated by N. Kalton
Abstract
Let X be a rearrangement invariant function space on [0, 1]. We consider the Rademacher multipli-
cator space (R, X) of all measurable functions x such that x h X for every a.e. converging series
h =

a
n
r
n
X, where (r
n
) are the Rademacher functions. We study the situation when (R, X) is a
rearrangement invariant space different from L
. Particular attention is given to the case when X is an

interpolation space between the Lorentz space () and the Marcinkiewicz space M(). Consequences are
derived regarding the behaviour of partial sums and tails of Rademacher series in function spaces.
2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Rademacher functions; Rearrangement invariant spaces
Introduction
In this paper we study the behaviour of the Rademacher functions (r
n
) in function spaces.
Let R denote the set of all functions of the form

a
n
r
n
, where the series converges a.e. For
a rearrangement invariant (r.i.) space X on [0, 1], let R(X) be the closed linear subspace of
X given by R X. The Rademacher multiplicator space of X is the space (R, X) of all
measurable functions x : [0, 1] R such that x
a
n
r
n
X, for every

a
n
r
n
R(X). It is a
*
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: astashkn@ssu.samara.ru (S.V. Astashkin), curbera@us.es (G.P. Curbera).
1
Partially supported D.G.I. #BFM2003-06335-C03-01 (Spain).
0022-1236/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jfa.2008.12.021
4072 S.V. Astashkin, G.P. Curbera / Journal of Functional Analysis 256 (2009) 40714094
Banach function space on [0, 1] when endowed with the norm
x
(R,X)
=sup
__
_
_
_
x
a
n
r
n
_
_
_
_
X
:
a
n
r
n
X,
_
_
_
_
a
n
r
n
_
_
_
_
X
1
_
.
The space (R, X) can be viewed as the space of operators from R(X) into the whole space X
given by multiplication by a measurable function.
The Rademacher multiplicator space (R, X) was rstly considered in [8] where it was
shown that for a broad class of classical r.i. spaces X the space (R, X) is not r.i. This re-
sult was extended in [2] to include all r.i. spaces such that the lower dilation index
X
of their
fundamental function
X
satises
X
> 0. This result motivated the study the symmetric ker-
nel Sym(R, X) of the space (R, X), that is, the largest r.i. space embedded into (R, X).
The space Sym(R, X) was studied in [2], where it was shown that, if X is an r.i. space satis-
fying the Fatou property and X L
N
, where L
N
is the Orlicz space with N(t ) = exp(t
2
) 1,
then Sym(R, X) is the r.i. space with the norm x :=x
(t ) log
1/2
(2/t )
X
. It was also shown
that any space X which has the Fatou property and is an interpolation space for the couple
(Llog
1/2
L, L
) can be realized as the symmetric kernel of a certain r.i. space. The opposite
situation is when the Rademacher multiplicator space (R, X) is r.i. The simplest case of this
situation is when (R, X) = L
. In [1] it was shown that (R, X) = L
holds for all r.i.

spaces X which are interpolation spaces for the couple (L
, L
N
). It was shown in [3] that
(R, X) = L
if and only if the function log

1/2
(2/t ) does not belong to the closure of L
in X.
In this paper we investigate the case when the Rademacher multiplicator space (R, X) is an
r.i. space different from L
. Examples of this situation were considered in [2,8,9]. In all cases

they were spaces X consisting of functions with exponential growth.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 1 is devoted to the preliminaries. In Section 2
we study technical conditions on an r.i. space X and its fundamental function . In Section 3
we present a sufcient condition for (R, X) being r.i. (Theorem 3.4). For this, two results are
needed. Firstly, that the symmetric kernel Sym(R, X) is a maximal space (Proposition 3.1), and
secondly, a condition, of independent interest, on the behaviour of logarithmic functions on an
r.i. space (Proposition 3.3). Section 4 is devoted to the study of necessary conditions for (R, X)
being an r.i. space. This is done by separately studying conditions on partial sums and tails of
Rademacher series (Propositions 4.1 and 4.2). Theorem 4.4 addresses the case when X in an
interpolation space for the couple ((), M()), where () and M() are, respectively, the
Lorentz and Marcinkiewicz spaces with the fundamental function . Theorem 4.5 specializes
the previous result for the case of X =M(). We end presenting, in Section 5, examples which
highlight certain features of the previous results.
1. Preliminaries
Throughout the paper a rearrangement invariant (r.i.) space X is a Banach space of classes of
measurable functions on [0, 1] such that if y
and x X then y X and y

X
x
X
.
Here x
is the decreasing rearrangement of x, that is, the right continuous inverse of its distri-
bution function: n
x
() = {t [0, 1]: |x(t )| > }, where is the Lebesgue measure on [0, 1].
Functions x and y are said to be equimeasurable if n
x
() =n
y
(), for all >0. The associated
space (or Kthe dual) of X is the space X
of all functions y such that

_
1
0
|x(t )y(t )| dt <, for
every x X. It is an r.i. space. The space X
is a subspace of the topological dual X
. If X
is a
S.V. Astashkin, G.P. Curbera / Journal of Functional Analysis 256 (2009) 40714094 4073
norming subspace of X
, then X is isometric to a subspace of the space X
=(X
. The space
X is maximal when X =X
. We denote by X
0
the closure of L
in X. If X is not L
, then X
0
coincides with the absolutely continuous part of X, that is, the set of all functions x X such
that lim
(A)0
x
A
X
=0. Here and next,
A
is the characteristic function of the set A[0, 1].
The fundamental function of X is the function
X
(t ) :=
[0,t ]
X
.
Important examples of r.i. spaces are Marcinkiewicz, Lorentz and Orlicz spaces. Let :
[0, 1] [0, +) be a quasi-concave function, that is, increases, (t )/t decreases and
(0) =0. The Marcinkiewicz space M() is the space of all measurable functions x on [0, 1] for
which the norm
x
M()
= sup
0<t 1
(t )
t
t
_
0
x
(s) ds <.
If : [0, 1] [0, +) is an increasing concave function, (0) =0, then the Lorentz space ()
consists of all measurable functions x on [0, 1] such that
x
()
=
1
_
0
x
(s) d(s) <.

Let M be an Orlicz function, that is, an increasing convex function on [0, ) with M(0) = 0.
The norm of the Orlicz space L
M
is dened as follows
x
L
M
=inf
_
>0:
1
_
0
M
_
|x(s)|
_
ds 1
_
.
The fundamental functions of these spaces are
M()
(t ) =
()
(t ) = (t ), and
L
M
(t ) =
1/M
1
(1/t ), respectively.
The Marcinkiewicz M() and Lorentz () spaces are, respectively, the largest and the small-
est r.i. spaces with fundamental function , that is, if the fundamental function of an r.i. space X
is equal to , then () X M().
If is a positive function dened on [0, 1], then its lower dilation index is
:= lim
t 0
+
log(sup
0<s1
(st )
(s)
)
logt
,
and its upper dilation index is
:= lim
t +
log(sup
0<s1/t
(st )
(s)
)
logt
.
If a quasi-concave function satises
< 1, then we have the following equivalence for the

norm in the Marcinkiewicz space M()
x
M()
sup
0<t 1
(t )x
(t ), (1.1)
[11, Theorem II.5.3]. Here, and throughout the paper, A B means that there exist constants
C >0 and c >0 such that c AB C A.
For each t > 0, the dilation operator
t
x(s) := x(s/t )
[0,1]
(s/t ), s [0, 1], is bounded on
any r.i. space X.
Given Banach spaces X
0
and X
1
continuously embedded in a common Hausdorff topological
vector space, a Banach space X is an interpolation space with respect to the couple (X
0
, X
1
) if
X
0
X
1
X X
0
+X
1
and for every linear operator T with T : X
i
X
i
(i =0, 1) continu-
ously, we have T : X X.
The Rademacher functions are r
n
(t ) :=signsin(2
n
t ), t [0, 1], n 1. We have already de-
ned R(X) :=R X where R is the set of all a.e. converging series

a
n
r
n
, that is, (a
n
)
2
[15, Theorem V.8.2]. For X =L
p
, 1 p <, Khintchin inequality shows that R(X) is isomor-
phic to
2
. If X =L
, then R(X) =
1
. The Orlicz space L
N
, for N(t ) =exp(t
2
) 1, will be
of major importance in our study. A result of Rodin and Semenov shows that R(X)
2
if and
only if (L
N
)
0
X, [14]. Hence, for spaces X satisfying this condition we have
_
_
_
_
a
n
r
n
_
_
_
_
X
_
_
(a
n
)
_
_
2
. (1.2)
The fundamental function of L
N
is (equivalent to) (t ) = log
1/2
(2/t ). Since N(t ) increases
very rapidly, L
N
coincides with the Marcinkiewicz space with fundamental function , [13].
This, together with
=0 <1, gives
x
L
N
sup
0<t 1
x
(t ) log
1/2
(2/t ).
In particular, for every 0 <t 1 we have
x
(t ) Cx
L
N
log
1/2
(2/t ). (1.3)
Hence, for an r.i. space X, L
N
X is equivalent to log
1/2
(2/t ) X.
We denote the dyadic intervals of [0, 1] by
k
n
:=[
k1
2
n
,
k
2
n
) for n N and k =1, . . . , 2
n
. The
set of all dyadic step functions is D =
n
D
n
, where, for n N, D
n
is the set of all dyadic step
functions of order n:
f (t ) =
2
n
k=1
c
k
k
n
(t ), c
k
R.
For convenience of computations, all logarithms will be considered with base 2.
For any undened notion regarding function spaces, r.i. spaces, and interpolation of linear
operators, we refer the reader to the monographs [6,7,11,12].
2. Conditions on r.i. spaces
In this section we collect together the conditions and results of technical nature on an r.i. space
X and its fundamental function that will be needed in the following sections.
Denition 2.1. Let X be an r.i. space on [0, 1] and be a function dened on [0, 1].
(a) The operator Q is dened, over adequate functions x(t ) on [0, 1], as follows
Qx(t ) :=x
_
t
2
_
, 0 t 1.
(b) satises the
2
-condition if it is nonnegative, increasing, concave, and there exists C >0
such that
(t ) C
_
t
2
_
, 0 <t 1. (2.1)
(c) X satises the log-condition if there exists C >0 such that, for all u (0, 1),
_
_
_
_
log
1/2
_
2
t
_
(0,u]
_
_
_
_
X
C
_
_
_
_
log
1/2
_
2u
t
_
(0,u]
_
_
_
_
X
. (2.2)
(d) If is increasing and quasi-concave, we dene the function
(t ) :=t
1/2
_
2
11/t
_
, 0 <t 1.
(e) (t ) satises the
2-condition if it is increasing, quasi-concave, and there exists n

0
Nsuch
that
c
:= sup
nn
0
(2
2n
)
(2
n
)
2
. (2.3)
The following proposition is rather elementary. However, since we will refer next to it many
times, we include the proofs of the less trivial implications (3) and (4).
Proposition 2.2. Let X be an r.i. space on [0, 1] with fundamental function (t ).
(1) If Q is bounded on X, then
2
.
(2) If
2
and X is an interpolation space for the couple ((), M()), then Q is bounded
on X.
(3) If log
1/2
(2/t ) X and
2
, then X satises the log-condition.
(4) If the lower dilation index of satises

>0, then
C
0
:= sup
n=1,2,...
1
n(2
n
)
k=n
(2
k
)
k
<.
(5) If the function log
1/2
(2/t )(t ) is increasing on some interval (0, t
0
), for t
0
> 0, then
satises the

2-condition.
Proof. (3) For 0 <u 1, we have
_
_
_
_
log
1/2
_
2
t
_
(0,u]
_
_
_
_
X
_
_
_
_
log
1/2
_
2
t
_
(0,u
2
]
_
_
_
_
X
+
_
_
_
_
log
1/2
_
2
t
_
(u
2
,u]
_
_
_
_
X
. (2.4)
If 0 <t u
2
, then

t t /u. Therefore,
_
_
_
_
log
1/2
_
2
t
_
(0,u
2
]
_
_
_
_
X
2
_
_
_
_
log
1/2
_
2
t
_
(0,u
2
]
_
_
_
_
X
2
_
_
_
_
log
1/2
_
2u
t
_
(0,u]
_
_
_
_
X
.
By (2.1),
_
_
_
_
log
1/2
_
2
t
_
(u
2
,u]
_
_
_
_
X
2log
1/2
_
2
u
_
(u
2
,u]
2Clog
1/2
_
2
u
_
_
u
2
_
=
2Clog
1/2
_
2u
u
2
_
_
u
2
_
2C
_
_
_
_
log
1/2
_
2u
t
_
(0,u]
_
_
_
_
X
.
The last two formulas and (2.4) imply the log-condition (2.2).
(4) If

> 0, then there are > 0 and C > 0 such that for all 0 < u 1 and t 1 we have
(t u) Ct
(u), that is,
_
2
11/(t u)
_
Ct
+1/2
_
2
11/u
_
.
Fix n N, set u =1/n, and apply the previous inequality with t =2
j
, where j =0, 1, 2, . . . .
This, together with the quasi-concavity of , implies that
_
2
2
j
n
_
C2
(+1/2)j
_
2
n
_
, j =0, 1, 2, . . . .
Therefore,
k=n
(2
k
)
k
=
j=0
2
j+1
n1
k=2
j
n
(2
k
)
j=0
2
j/2
n
_
2
2
j
n
_
C
n
_
2
n
_

j=0
2
(+1/2)j
2
j/2
=C
n
_
2
n
_
2
1
. 2
Remark 2.3. (a) Denition 2.1(b) was introduced in [4] in connection with extrapolation of
operators in r.i. spaces.
(b) Due to being concave and increasing, the
2
-condition (2.1) is equivalent to its discrete
analog: there exist >1 and C >0 such that
_
2
n
_
C
_
2
n
_
, n N. (2.5)
(c) The log-condition (2.2) is equivalent to its discrete analog: there exists C > 0 such that,
for all n N,
_
_
_
_
log
1/2
_
2
t
_
(0,2
n
]
_
_
_
_
X
C
_
_
_
_
log
1/2
_
2
2
n
t
_
(0,2
n
]
_
_
_
_
X
. (2.6)
(d) The same proof as of Proposition 2.2(3) shows that if inequality (2.1) holds for u E, for
some E [0, 1], then inequality (2.2) also holds for u E.
(e) Note that the condition

> 0 implies that (t ) Clog
1/2
(2/t ) (0 < t 1) with
some C > 0 and > 0. Therefore, log
1/2
(2/t ) (). The condition

> 0 means, roughly
speaking, that the distance from to the fundamental function log
1/2
(2/t ) of the space L
N
is
sufciently large.
3. Sufcient conditions for (R, X) being an r.i. space
We begin with a sharpening of results of 2 of [2], that will be needed for the main result of
this section.
Proposition 3.1. Let X be an r.i. space on [0, 1]. Then Sym(R, X) =Sym(R, X
). In particular,
Sym(R, X) is a maximal r.i. space.
Proof. First, suppose log
1/2
(2/t ) / X
0
. Since (X
)
0
= X
0
, then log
1/2
(2/t ) / (X
)
0
. From
[2, Theorem 3.2], Sym(R, X) =Sym(R, X
) =L
.
Suppose now that log
1/2
(2/t ) X
0
. Since X X
, then Sym(R, X) Sym(R, X
), [2,
Corollary 3.4]. Thus, we only have to prove that Sym(X
) Sym(R, X). By [2, Corollary 2.11],

we have
x
Sym(R,X
)

_
_
x
(t ) log
1/2
(2/t )
_
_
X
.
Therefore, if x Sym(R, X
) then x
(t ) log
1/2
(2/t ) X
. Let a =(a
k
)
2
. It is well known
that the function x
a
:=
a
k
r
k
(L
N
)
0
, which implies, by [11, Lemma II.5.4], that
lim
t 0
+
log
1/2
_
2
t
_
1
t
t
_
0
x
a
(s) ds =0,
whence
lim
t 0
+
x
a
(t ) log
1/2
_
2
t
_
=0. (3.1)
For 0 <h 1 and 0 <t 1, we have
x
(t )x
a
(t )
[0,h]
(t ) sup
0<sh
_
x
a
(s) log
1/2
(2/s)
_
x
(t ) log
1/2
(2/t ),
whence
_
_
x
(t )x
a
(t )
[0,h]
(t )
_
_
X
sup
0<sh
_
x
a
(s) log
1/2
(2/s)
_
_
_
x
(t ) log
1/2
(2/t )
_
_
X
.
Since x
(t ) log
1/2
(2/t ) X
, by (3.1),
_
_
x
(t )x
a
(t )
[0,h]
(t )
_
_
X
0 as h 0
+
.
This means that x
(t )x
a
(t ) (X
)
0
= X
0
. Since this holds for every a
2
, then [2, Corol-
lary 2.5] implies that x Sym(R, X
0
) Sym(R, X). The maximality of Sym(R, X) follows
from [2, Proposition 2.6]. 2
The following corollary is a straightforward consequence of Proposition 3.1 and [2, Corol-
lary 2.11].
Corollary 3.2. For every r.i. space X on [0, 1] such that log
1/2
(2/t ) X
x
Sym(R,X)

_
_
x
(t ) log
1/2
(2/t )
_
_
X
.
The next result gives a useful sufcient condition for the rearrangement invariance of
(R, X).
Proposition 3.3. Let X be an r.i. space on [0, 1] such that log
1/2
(2/t ) X
0
. Suppose there exists
A>0 such that for n N
_
_
_
_
_
2
n
k=1
c
k
k
n
log
1/2
_
2
t
_
_
_
_
_
_
X
A
_
_
_
_
_
2
n
k=1
c
k
k
n
log
1/2
_
2
2
n
t +1 k
_
_
_
_
_
_
X
, (3.2)
for every c
1
c
2
c
2
n 0. Then (R, X) is an r.i. space.
Proof. Since Sym(R, X) (R, X), we just have to show the opposite inclusion.
Let f D
n
, that is, f =
2
n
k=1
c
k
k
n
, with c
k
R. Since Sym(R, X) is r.i., we can assume
that the sequence (c
k
)
2
n
k=1
is nonnegative and decreasing. In this case, by Corollary 3.2,
f
Sym(R,X)

_
_
_
_
_
2
n
k=1
c
k
k
n
log
1/2
_
2
t
_
_
_
_
_
_
X
. (3.3)
On the other hand, by the denition of the norm in (R, X),
f
(R,X)
sup
__
_
_
_
_
f
k=n+1
a
k
r
k
_
_
_
_
_
X
:
_
_
_
_
_
k=n+1
a
k
r
k
_
_
_
_
_
X
1
_
.
Since log
1/2
(2/t ) X
0
, we have R(X)
2
so, by (1.2), for all n, m N,
_
_
_
_
_
n+m
k=n+1
1
m
r
k
_
_
_
_
_
X
C
1
.
Hence,
f
(R,X)
C
1
1
sup
mN
__
_
_
_
_
f
n+m
k=n+1
1
m
r
k
_
_
_
_
_
X
_
. (3.4)
Note that, for n N and k =1, . . . , 2
n
, we have
_
k
n
n+m
i=n+1
r
i
_
(t ) =
_
m
i=1
r
i
_
_
2
n
t
_
, 0 t 2
n
.
Therefore, since X is r.i., we get
_
_
_
_
_
f
1
m
n+m
i=n+1
r
i
_
_
_
_
_
X
=
_
_
_
_
_
2
n
k=1
c
k
k
n
m
n+m
i=n+1
r
i
_
_
_
_
_
X
=
_
_
_
_
_
2
n
k=1
c
k
k
n
m
_
m
i=1
r
i
_
_
2
n
t +1 k
_
_
_
_
_
_
X
.
Using the central limit theorem (see [14] or [12, Theorem 2.b.4]), we have
lim
m
_
1
m
m
i=1
r
i
_
(t ) log
1/2
_
2
e
2t
_
, 0 <t
2
e
2
. (3.5)
This and inequality (3.4) imply that
f
(R,X)
M
_
_
_
_
_
2
n
k=1
c
k
k
n
log
1/2
_
2
2
n
t +1 k
_
_
_
_
_
_
X
.
By assumption, log
1/2
(2/t ) X
0
. Therefore, since (X
)
0
=X
0
isometrically, we can change the
norm of X
by the norm of X, i.e., we have

f
(R,X)
M
_
_
_
_
_
2
n
k=1
c
k
k
n
log
1/2
_
2
2
n
t +1 k
_
_
_
_
_
_
X
.
This inequality, (3.3), and (3.2) imply that for f D we have
f
Sym(R,X)
Cf
(R,X)
. (3.6)
Next, we extend inequality (3.6) to L
. Since log
1/2
(2/t ) X
0
, we have Sym(R, X) =L
[2, Theorem 3.2]. In particular, the fundamental function of Sym(R, X) tends to 0 as t 0

+
.
By Lusins theorem, we deduce that for every g L
there is a sequence {f
n
} D such that
f
n
g
Sym(R,X)
0. The embedding Sym(R, X) (R, X) implies that f
n
g
(R,X)

0. By (3.6), we have that f
n
Sym(R,X)
Cf
n
(R,X)
. Consequently
g
Sym(R,X)
Cg
(R,X)
, g L
. (3.7)
Let h (R, X) be a nonnegative function. There exists a sequence {g
n
} L
such that
0 g
n
h a.e. on [0, 1]. Then, (3.7) implies that
g
n
Sym(R,X)
Cg
n
(R,X)
Ch
(R,X)
.
Since, by Proposition 3.1, Sym(R, X) is maximal, we deduce that h Sym(R, X) and
h
Sym(R,X)
Ch
(R,X)
. 2
We can now prove the main result of this section.
Theorem 3.4. If X is an r.i. space on [0, 1] such that the operator Qx(s) = x(s
2
) is bounded
in X, then
(R, X) =Sym(R, X).
Proof. First we note that if log
1/2
(2/t ) / X
0
then, by [3], (R, X) =Sym(R, X) =L
. Thus,
we may assume that log
1/2
(2/t ) X
0
. In view of Proposition 3.3, we just have to establish (3.2).
Denote
g(t ) =
2
n
k=1
c
k
k
n
log
1/2
_
2
t
_
and h(t ) =
2
n
k=1
c
k
k
n
log
1/2
_
2
2
n
t +1 k
_
,
where c
1
c
2
c
2
n 0. We write g in the form g =g
1
+g
2
,
g
1
(t ) =c
1
1
n
(t ) log
1/2
(2/t ) and g
2
(t ) =g(t ) g
1
(t ). (3.8)
Since Q is bounded in X, by Proposition 2.2(1), (3), we have
g
1
X
Cc
1
_
_
_
_
1
n
log
1/2
_
2
2
n
t
__
_
_
_
X
Ch
X
. (3.9)
For estimating g
2
X
, we consider the function
g
2
(t ) :=
n
j=1
2
j
i=2
j1
+1
c
i
i
n
(t ) log
1/2
_
2
2
jn
_
.
It is easily seen that
g
2
(t )
g
2
(t )
, 0 <t 1. (3.10)
Let Q
1
be the inverse operator to Q, i.e., Q
1
x(t ) :=x(
t ). A straightforward calculation
shows that
Q
1
g
2
(t ) =
n
j=1
2
j
i=2
j1
+1
c
i
[
(i1)
2
2
2n
,
i
2
2
2n
]
(t ) log
1/2
_
2
2
jn
_
.
Thus, in order to prove the inequality
_
Q
1
g
2
_
(t ) h
(t ), 0 <t 1, (3.11)
it sufces to show that, for every j =1, 2, . . . , n and i satisfying 2
j1
<i 2
j
, we have
_
t [0, 1]:

h(t )
c
i
log
1/2
_
2
2
jn
__
k=1
2k 1
2
2n
=
i
2
2
2n
.
Indeed, let k =1, 2, . . . , i. Since c
1
c
2
c
2
n 0, we have
_
t
k
n
:

h(t )
c
i
log
1/2
_
2
2
jn
__
_
t
_
0, 2
n
_
: log
1/2
_
2
2
n
t
_
log
1/2
_
2
2
jn
__
=2
j2n
.
Hence,
_
t [0, 1]:

h(t )
c
i
log
1/2
_
2
2
jn
__
i 2
j2n
i
2
2
2n
.
So, inequality (3.11) is proved.
By (3.10) and (3.11) we get
g
2
_
_
Q
_
Q
1
g
2
__
_
X
Q
_
_
Q
1
g
2
_
_
X
Qh
X
.
This inequality together with (3.9) yields (3.2) so, the result is proved. 2
Combining Theorem 3.4 and Proposition 2.2(2) we have the following.
Corollary 3.5. If X is an interpolation space for the couple ((), M()) and
2
, then
(R, X) =Sym(R, X). In particular, X may be the Lorentz space () or the Marcinkiewicz
space M().
Remark 3.6. Boundedness of the operator Q in X is not a necessary condition for the equality
(R, X) = Sym(R, X). Indeed, for every increasing concave function
2
there is an r.i.
space X such that Q is not bounded on X [5, Example 2.12]. Actually, X is a subspace of the
Marcinkiewicz space M() and therefore X
=M(). Then, Proposition 3.1, Corollary 3.5, and

[3, Corollary 3] imply that
Sym(R, X) =Sym(R, X
) =Sym
_
R, M()
_
=
_
R, M()
_
(R, X).
This, together with (R, X) Sym(R, X), gives (R, X) =Sym(R, X).
Remark 3.7. The proofs of Proposition 3.3 and Theorem 3.4, and [3, Remark 5] show that the
following tail-assertion holds: if X is an r.i. space on [0, 1] such that the operator Q is bounded
on X, then there exists A>0 such that for every f D
n
we have
f
Sym(R,X)
Asup
__
_
_
_
_
f
i=n+1
c
i
r
i
_
_
_
_
_
X
:
_
_
_
_
_
i=n+1
c
i
r
i
_
_
_
_
_
X
1
_
.
4. Necessary conditions for (R, X) being an r.i. space
Now we pass to the consideration of the opposite problem: nding necessary conditions for
an r.i. space X satisfying (R, X) =Sym(R, X).
We require some specic sets formed by unions of dyadic intervals. Consider the matrix
A = (
i,j
), where
i,j
is the value of the function r
j
on the interval
i
2n
, where n N,
j =1, 2, . . . , 2n, and i =1, 2, . . . , 2
2n
. Let
n
{1, 2, . . . , 2
2n
} be the set of all rearrangements
of signs on {1, 2, . . . , 2
n
} such that for every i
n
we have
i,j+n
=
i,j
, j =1, 2, . . . , n.
Denote by A(
n
) the submatrix of A corresponding to the set
n
. We will consider A(
n
) as
an operator acting from
2n
2
into
2
n
2
. Dene
U
n
=
_
i
n
i
2n
.
Since card
n
=2
n
, then (U
n
) =2
n
.
Now, we prove a rst result assuming certain tail-estimates.
Proposition 4.1. Suppose that X is an r.i. space on [0, 1] with fundamental function such that

>0. Let I N be such that for every n I we have
[0,2
n
]
Sym(R,X)
Asup
__
_
_
_
_
[0,2
n
]
i=n+1
c
i
r
i
_
_
_
_
_
X
:
_
_
_
_
_
i=n+1
c
i
r
i
_
_
_
_
_
X
1
_
,
where A > 0 does not depend on n. Then, there exist > 1 and C > 0 such that, for all n I ,
we have (2.5), that is,
_
2
n
_
C
_
2
n
_
, n I.
Proof. Note that, by Remark 2.3(e), log
1/2
(2/t ) X
0
. We only have to consider the case when
I is innite. In view of the hypothesis and arguing as in the proof of Proposition 3.3, we get
_
_
_
_
log
1/2
_
2
t
_
[0,2
n
]
_
_
_
_
X
C
1
_
_
_
_
log
1/2
_
2
2
n
t
_
[0,2
n
]
_
_
_
_
X
, n I.
Since () X M() [11, Theorems 2.5.5, 2.5.7], then
_
_
_
_
log
1/2
_
2
t
_
[0,2
n
]
_
_
_
_
M()
C
1
_
_
_
_
log
1/2
_
2
2
n
t
_
[0,2
n
]
_
_
_
_
()
, n I. (4.1)
The right-hand side of (4.1) is equal to
k=n
2
k
_
2
k1
log
1/2
_
2
2
n
t
_
d(t ) 2
k=n
log
1/2
_
2
2
nk
_
_
_
2
k
_
_
2
k1
__
.
For j >n, by applying the Abel transformation, we have
j
k=n
log
1/2
_
2
2
nk
_
_
_
2
k
_
_
2
k1
__
=
j1
k=n
_
2
k1
_
(
k +2 n
k +1 n) +
_
2
n
_
_
2
j1
_
_
j +1 n
k=n+1
(2
k
)
k n
+
_
2
n
_
.
Therefore,
_
_
_
_
log
1/2
_
2
2
n
t
_
[0,2
n
]
_
_
_
_
()
2C
1
k=n+1
(2
k
)
k n
+
_
2
n
_
_
.
On the other hand,
_
_
_
_
log
1/2
_
2
t
_
[0,2
n
]
_
_
_
_
M()
n
_
2
n
_
.
Thus (4.1) implies that
n
_
2
n
_
2C
1
_

k=n+1
(2
k
)
k n
+
_
2
n
_
_
.
Hence, if n I is large enough, we have
n
_
2
n
_
3C
1
k=n+1
(2
k
)
k n
. (4.2)
Let >0 to be chosen later. Then
[(1+)n]
k=n+1
(2
k
)
k n
_
2
n
_
[(1+)n]n
k=1
1
k
2
_
2
n
_
_
_
(1 +)n
_
n
2
_
2
n
_
n. (4.3)
Since

>0, by Proposition 2.2(4), we have
k=2n
(2
k
)
k n
k=2n
(2
k
)
k
2C
0
_
2
2n
_
n. (4.4)
We choose so that 0 < (12C
)
2
. Then inequalities (4.2)(4.4) imply that
n
_
2
n
_
6C
1
_
2n1
k=[(1+)n]+1
(2
k
)
k n
+2C
0
_
2
2n
_
n
_
.
Since
2n1
k=[(1+)n]+1
(2
k
)
k n
_
2
[(1+)n]
_
n
k=1
1
k
2
_
2
[(1+)n]
_
n,
we then get
n
_
2
n
_
12C
1
max(1, C
0
)
n
_
2
[(1+)n]
_
or
_
2
n
_
C
_
2
[(1+)n]
_
.
Choosing (1, 1 +), we have that [(1 +)n] > n for large enough n N. Therefore, in-
equality (2.5) holds for large enough n I for such . Changing C, if necessary, we obtain (2.5)
for all n I . 2
We now assume certain head-estimates. This requires the intervals [0, 2
n
] to be replaced
with the sets U
n
dened previously (see Example 5.1 below).
Proposition 4.2. Suppose that X is an r.i. space on [0, 1] such that log
1/2
(2/t ) X
0
. Let I N
be such that, for every n I ,
U
n
Sym(R,X)
Asup
__
_
_
_
_
U
n

2n
j=1
c
i
r
i
_
_
_
_
_
X
:
_
_
_
_
_
2n
j=1
c
i
r
i
_
_
_
_
_
X
1
_
,
where A > 0 does not depend on n. Then, there exist > 1 and C > 0 such that, for all n I ,
we have (2.5), that is,
_
2
n
_
C
_
2
n
_
, n I.
Proof. Since log
1/2
(2/t ) X
0
, we have R(X)
2
. Thus
sup
__
_
_
_
_
U
n

2n
j=1
c
i
r
i
_
_
_
_
_
X
:
_
_
_
_
_
2n
j=1
c
i
r
i
_
_
_
_
_
X
1
_
sup
__
_
_
_
_
U
n

2n
j=1
c
i
r
i
_
_
_
_
_
X
:
_
_
(c
j
)
_
_
2
1
_
.
For c =(c
j
)
2n
j=1
and
i,j
the value of r
j
on
i
2n
, we have
U
n

2n
j=1
c
j
r
j
=
i
n
_
2n
j=1
c
j
i,j
_

i
n
=
i
n
b
i
i
n
, (4.5)
where b
i
:=(A(
n
)c)
i
for i
n
. Then, if (c
j
)
2
1,
|b
i
| =
2n
j=1
c
j
i,j
_
_
(c
j
)
_
_
2
2n
2n, i
n
. (4.6)
Moreover, the choice of
n
implies that
b
i
=
2n
j=1
c
j
i,j
=
n
j=1
(c
j
+c
j+n
)
i
j
, i
n
,
for some rearrangement of signs (
i
j
)
n
j=1
. Note that, since (c
j
)
2
1,
_
n
j=1
(c
j
+c
j+n
)
2
_
1/2
2. (4.7)
Given >0, to be chosen later, consider the set
B
n
:=
_
k
n
: |b
k
|
n
_
.
We estimate the size of B
n
. For this, we use the exponential estimate of Rademacher sums, [10,
Theorem II.2.5], and (4.7):
cardB
n
=card
_
k
=1:
k=1
(c
k
+c
k+n
)
k
n
_
=2
n
_
t [0, 1]:
k=1
(c
k
+c
k+n
)r
k
(t )
n
_
2
n
_
t [0, 1]:
k=1
(c
k
+c
k+n
)r
k
(t )
2
_
n
j=1
(c
j
+c
j+n
)
2
_
1/2
_
2 2
n
e
2
n/8
,
whence
cardB
n
2 2
n(1
2
)
, for =(log
2
e)/8.
Using this estimate, equality (4.5), and (4.6), we have, for the fundamental function of X,
_
_
_
_
_
U
n

2n
j=1
c
j
r
j
_
_
_
_
_
X
_
_
_
_
iB
n
b
i
i
n
_
_
_
_
X
+
_
_
_
_
i
n
\B
n
b
i
i
n
_
_
_
_
X
2n
[0,cardB
n
2
2n
]
X
+
n
U
n
2n
_
2 2
n(1+
2
)
_
+
n
_
2
n
_
.
Consequently,
sup
__
_
_
_
_
U
n

2n
j=1
c
i
r
i
_
_
_
_
_
X
:
_
_
_
_
_
2n
j=1
c
i
r
i
_
_
_
_
_
X
1
_
C
1
n
_
_
2 2
n(1+
2
)
_
+
_
2
n
__
.
On the other hand, since log
1/2
(2/t ) X
0
, then by [2, Theorem 2.8]
U
n
Sym(R,X)

_
_
[0,2
n
]
log
1/2
(2/t )
_
_
X
n
_
2
n
_
, n N.
From the last two inequalities and the hypothesis it follows that, for every n I ,
_
2
n
_
C
2
_
_
2 2
n(1+
2
)
_
+
_
2
n
__
.
For >0 small enough, we get
_
2
n
_
C
3
_
2
n
_
,
where C
3
>0 does not depend on n I and =1 +
2
>1. 2
Combining Propositions 4.1 and 4.2 we obtain the following result.
Theorem 4.3. Let X be an r.i. space on [0, 1] such that log
1/2
(2/t ) X
0
. Suppose that there
exists A>0 such that, for every n N,
U
n
Sym(R,X)
A
U
n
(R,X)
. (4.8)
Then X satises the discrete log-condition (2.6), that is, there exists C >0 such that for all n N
_
_
_
_
log
1/2
_
2
t
_
(0,2
n
]
_
_
_
_
X
C
_
_
_
_
log
1/2
_
2
2
n
t
_
(0,2
n
]
_
_
_
_
X
.
If, in addition,

>0, where is the fundamental function of X, then
2
.
Proof. Denote by I
1
the set of all n N such that
U
n
Sym(R,X)
2Asup
__
_
_
_
_
U
n

i=2n+1
c
i
r
i
_
_
_
_
_
X
:
_
_
_
_
_
i=2n+1
c
i
r
i
_
_
_
_
_
X
1
_
. (4.9)
The denition of (R, X) and the properties of Rademacher functions yield
U
n
(R,X)
sup
__
_
_
_
_
U
n

2n
i=1
c
i
r
i
_
_
_
_
_
X
:
_
_
_
_
_
2n
i=1
c
i
r
i
_
_
_
_
_
X
1
_
+sup
__
_
_
_
_
U
n

i=2n+1
c
i
r
i
_
_
_
_
_
X
:
_
_
_
_
_
i=2n+1
c
i
r
i
_
_
_
_
_
X
1
_
.
Set I
2
:=N\ I
1
. By (4.8) and (4.9) we have, for every n I
2
,
U
n
Sym(R,X)
2Asup
__
_
_
_
_
U
n

2n
i=1
c
i
r
i
_
_
_
_
_
X
:
_
_
_
_
_
2n
i=1
c
i
r
i
_
_
_
_
_
X
1
_
. (4.10)
It is clear that
U
n
Sym(R,X)
=
[0,2
n
]
Sym(R,X)
and
sup
__
_
_
_
_
U
n

i=2n+1
c
i
r
i
_
_
_
_
_
X
:
_
_
_
_
_
i=2n+1
c
i
r
i
_
_
_
_
_
X
1
_
=sup
__
_
_
_
_
[0,2
n
]
i=n+1
c
i
r
i
_
_
_
_
_
X
:
_
_
_
_
_
i=n+1
c
i
r
i
_
_
_
_
_
X
1
_
,
since the functions
U
n

i=2n+1
c
i
r
i
and
[0,2
n
]
i=n+1
c
i
r
i
are equimeasurable. Therefore,
(4.9) is equivalent to
[0,2
n
]
Sym(R,X)
2Asup
__
_
_
_
_
[0,2
n
]
i=n+1
c
i
r
i
_
_
_
_
_
X
:
_
_
_
_
_
i=n+1
c
i
r
i
_
_
_
_
_
X
1
_
, (4.11)
that is (as in the proof of Proposition 3.3), to the inequality
_
_
_
_
log
1/2
_
2
t
_
(0,2
n
]
_
_
_
_
X
C
_
_
_
_
log
1/2
_
2
2
n
t
_
(0,2
n
]
_
_
_
_
X
, n I
1
.
By Proposition 4.2, inequality (4.10) implies that there exist
1
> 1 and C
1
> 0 such that
inequality (2.5) holds for n I
2
. This, together with Proposition 2.2(3) and Remark 2.3(d), give
(2.6) for n I
2
. Consequently, (2.6) holds for all n N.
If

>0 then, by (4.11) and Proposition 4.1, we have (2.5) for some
2
>1 and C
2
>0 and
all n I
1
. Combining this with Proposition 4.2 and (4.10) we obtain (2.5) for all n N. From
Remark 2.3(b), we conclude that
2
. 2
Theorem 4.3, Corollary 3.5, Proposition 4.1, and Remark 3.7 yield the following result.
Theorem 4.4. Let X be an interpolation space for the couple ((), M()), where the function
satises the condition:

>0. The following conditions are equivalent:
(i) (R, X) =Sym(R, X).
(ii) There exists A>0 such that
U
n
Sym(R,X)
A
U
n
(R,X)
, n N.
(iii)
2
.
(iv) There exists A>0 such that for all n N and for every f D
n
we have
f
Sym(R,X)
Asup
__
_
_
_
_
f
k=n+1
a
k
r
k
_
_
_
_
_
X
:
_
_
_
_
_
k=n+1
a
k
r
k
_
_
_
_
_
X
1
_
.
(v) There exists A>0 such that for every n N
[0,2
n
]
Sym(R,X)
Asup
__
_
_
_
_
[0,2
n
]
k=n+1
a
k
r
k
_
_
_
_
_
X
:
_
_
_
_
_
k=n+1
a
k
r
k
_
_
_
_
_
X
1
_
.
The previous result can be improved for Marcinkiewicz spaces.
Theorem 4.5. Suppose that X is a Marcinkiewicz space M() with log
1/2
(2/t ) X
0
and
<1.
The following conditions are equivalent:
(i) (R, X) =Sym(R, X).
(ii) X satises the discrete log-condition (2.6), that is, there exists C >0 such that
_
_
_
_
log
1/2
_
2
t
_
(0,2
n
]
_
_
_
_
X
C
_
_
_
_
log
1/2
_
2
2
n
t
_
(0,2
n
]
_
_
_
_
X
, n N.
(iii) There exists C >0 such that
n
_
2
n
_
C sup
kn
k n
_
2
k
_
, n N.
Moreover, if satises the

2-condition (2.3), then conditions (i)(iii) are equivalent to:
(iv)
2
.
Proof. We start proving the equivalence between (ii) and (iii). Since
u
_
0
log
1/2
_
2
t
_
dt ulog
1/2
_
2
u
_
, 0 <u 1,
we have, by the quasi-concavity of (t ),
_
_
_
_
log
1/2
_
2
2
n
t
_
[0,2
n
]
_
_
_
_
X
= sup
0<t 2
n
(t )
t
t
_
0
log
1/2
_
2
2
n
s
_
ds
= sup
0<t 2
n
(t )
2
n
t
2
n
t
_
0
log
1/2
_
2
s
_
ds
sup
0<t 2
n
(t ) log
1/2
_
2
2
n
t
_
sup
kn
k n
_
2
k
_
,
for every n N. Similarly,
_
_
_
_
log
1/2
_
2
t
_
[0,2
n
]
_
_
_
_
X
sup
kn
k
_
2
k
_
.
Therefore, inequality (2.6) is equivalent to
sup
kn
k
_
2
k
_
C sup
kn
k n
_
2
k
_
,
which, in turn, is equivalent to (iii).
The implication (i) (ii) is a straightforward consequence of Theorem 4.3. Let us prove the
opposite statement. Assume that (ii) is fullled. From Proposition 3.3, it sufces to prove (3.2),
that is,
x
X
Cy
X
,
where
x(t ) :=
2
n
k=1
a
k
k
n
(t ) log
1/2
_
2
t
_
, y(t ) :=
2
n
k=1
a
k
k
n
(t ) log
1/2
_
2
2
n
t +1 k
_
,
the constant C >0 does not depend on n N, and a
1
a
2
a
2
n 0.
Since x(t ) is a decreasing function and
<1, by (1.1) we have

x
X
sup
0<t 1
x(t )(t ).
Hence, using the quasi-concavity of (t ), we have
x
X
sup
1k2
n
a
k
log
1/2
_
2
k2
n
_
_
k
2
n
_
sup
0jn
a
2
j
_
n j +1
_
2
jn
_
. (4.12)
Since
a
2
j
_
n j +1
_
2
jn
_
_
_
_
_
a
2
j log
1/2
_
2
t
_
[0,2
jn
]
_
_
_
_
X
,
by (ii), we have
a
2
j
_
n j +1
_
2
jn
_
C
_
_
_
_
a
2
j log
1/2
_
2
2
nj
t
_
[0,2
jn
]
_
_
_
_
X
. (4.13)
Note that, for
a
the dilation operator by a >0,
log
1/2
_
2
2
nj
t
_
[0,2
jn
]
(t ) =
2
j
_
log
1/2
_
2
2
n
t
_
[0,2
n
]
(t )
_
.
This implies that the functions
log
1/2
_
2
2
nj
t
_
[0,2
jn
]
(t ) and
2
j
i=1
i
n
(t ) log
1/2
_
2
2
n
t +1 i
_
have the same distribution function. Therefore, since a
1
a
2
j 0, we get
_
_
_
_
a
2
j log
1/2
_
2
2
nj
t
_
[0,2
jn
]
_
_
_
_
X
_
_
_
_
_
2
j
i=1
a
i
i
n
(t ) log
1/2
_
2
2
n
t +1 i
_
_
_
_
_
_
X
y
X
.
The result follows from the previous inequality together with (4.12) and (4.13).
We prove that (iii), together with the

2-condition, implies (iv). By Remark 2.3(b), we only
have to show that there exist >1 and C >0 such that (2.5) holds, that is,
_
2
n
_
C
_
2
n
_
, n N.
By assumption, for every n N there exists k
n
n such that
n
_
2
n
_
C
1
_
k
n
n
_
2
k
n
_
. (4.14)
Let us show that we can assume, if n is large enough, that k
n
can be chosen satisfying
C
2
1
+1
C
2
1
n k
n
2n. (4.15)
The rst inequality follows directly from (4.14) since, as k
n
n, we have
n C
1
_
k
n
n.
For the second inequality in (4.15), suppose that k
n
2n. Then, for some m N, we have 2
m
n
k
n
< 2
m+1
n. This, together with the

2-condition (2.3), implies that, for large enough n, we
have
_
k
n
n
_
2
k
n
_
2
m+1
2
n
_
2
2
m
n
_
c
1
2c
)
m
2n
_
2
2n
_
c
1
2n
_
2
2n
_
.
But, then (4.14) holds also for k
n
=2n (with the constant c
1
2C
1
instead of C
1
). Thus, (4.15)
holds. Combining (4.14) and (4.15), we conclude that
_
2
n
_
C
_
2
n
_
,
where n N is large enough, := (C
2
1
+1)/C
2
1
> 1, and the constant C > 0 does not depend
on n. By changing, if necessary, the constant C, we have the above inequality for all n N.
Since, by Proposition 2.2(3), (iv) implies (ii) the proof is completed. 2
Remark 4.6. The proof of Theorem 4.5 and [3, Remark 5] show that the following tail-assertion
holds: if X is a Marcinkiewicz space M() such that
< 1, then (R, X) is r.i. if and only if

there exists A>0 such that for every f D
n
we have
f
Sym(R,X)
Asup
__
_
_
_
_
f
i=n+1
c
i
r
i
_
_
_
_
_
X
:
_
_
_
_
_
i=n+1
c
i
r
i
_
_
_
_
_
X
1
_
.
5. Examples
We end with two examples which highlight certain features of the previous results.
Example 5.1. The sets U
n
appearing in Proposition 4.2 are, in some sense, necessary since they
cannot be replaced by the simpler sets, of equal measure, [0, 2
n
]. This is so even in the case
when the r.i. space X is very close to L
.
To see this, dene
(t ) :=2
1log
1/2
(2/t )
, 0 <t 1.
It can be easily checked that, for sufciently small t > 0,
(t ) > 0 and
(t ) < 0. Therefore,
there exists a nonnegative increasing concave function (t ) on [0, 1] such that (t ) = (t ) for
small enough t >0.
Let X be the Marcinkiewicz space M(). Since the upper dilation index of satises
=0,
we have X L
p
for all p <. Since lim
t 0
+ (t ) log
1/2
(2/t ) =0, we have log
1/2
(2/t ) X
0
.
Therefore,
sup
__
_
_
_
_
[0,2
n
]
i=1
c
i
r
i
_
_
_
_
_
X
:
_
_
_
_
_
n
i=1
c
i
r
i
_
_
_
_
_
X
1
_
sup
__
_
_
_
_
[0,2
n
]
i=1
c
i
r
i
_
_
_
_
_
X
:
_
_
(a
i
)
_
_
2
1
_
__
_
_
_
_
[0,2
n
]
i=1
1
n
r
i
_
_
_
_
_
X
_
n2
n
.
From [2, Corollary 2.11] and [11, Theorem 2.5.3] it follows that
[0,2
n
]
Sym(R,X)
sup
0<t <2
n
log
1/2
(2/t ) 2
1log
1/2
(2/t )
C
n2
n
.
Thus, for all n N, we have
[0,2
n
]
Sym(R,X)
Csup
__
_
_
_
_
[0,2
n
]
i=1
c
i
r
i
_
_
_
_
_
X
:
_
_
_
_
_
n
i=1
c
i
r
i
_
_
_
_
_
X
1
_
.
However, since
(2
2n
)
(2
n
)
2
n
0 if n ,
it follows that /
2
.
This example also allows to see that the discrete log-condition in Theorem 4.5(ii) cannot be
replaced with the weaker condition
[0,2
n
)
Sym(M())

[0,2
n
)
(R,M())
, n N.
To see this, note that (t ) satises the

2-condition (due to Proposition 2.2(5)) and
= 0.
However, since /
2
, we conclude that (R, M()) =Sym(R, M()).
Example 5.2. The implication (i) (iv) in Theorem 4.5 is not valid in general, that is, the
2-condition is essential.
To see this, let n
k
= 2
2
k
, t
k
= 2
n
k
, and
k
= 2
k12
k
for k N. Note that n
k+1
= n
2
k
and
n
k
k
=2
k1
. Dene a continuous function (t ) on the interval (0, 2
4
] as follows: (t ) =
1
k
t
k
if t
2
k
<t t
k
and (t ) is linear on the interval (t
k+1
, t
2
k
], k N. Direct calculation shows that
(t
k
) =
1
k
n
1/2
k
and
_
t
2
k
_
=
1
k
n
1/2
k+1
, k N. (5.1)
The function (t ) is quasi-concave and lim
t 0
+ (t ) =0.
Let us check that X = M() and satisfy the conditions of Theorem 4.5. Condition
log
1/2
(2/t ) (M())
0
is equivalent to
lim
i
i +1
_
2
i
_
=0. (5.2)
To see this, let n
k
i <2n
k
, then, by (5.1),
i +1
_
2
i
_
_
2n
k
+1(t
k
) =
_
2n
k
+1
1
k
n
1/2
k
<
2
k
.
If 2n
k
i <n
k+1
, again by (5.1), we have
i +1
_
2
i
_
_
n
k+1
+1
_
t
2
k
_
=
_
n
k+1
+1
1
k
n
1/2
k+1
<
2
k
.
This gives (5.2).
In order to calculate the upper dilation index
, we consider the dilation function M
of .
Since
M
_
2
n
k
_
= sup
n=0,1,...
(2
n
)
(2
nn
k
)
=2
n
k
k
,
then
k
0, whence
=0. Moreover, /
2
since, by (5.1),
(2
2n
k
)
(2
n
k
)
=
(t
2
k
)
(t
k
)
=2
2
k1
0 as k .
Lastly, we show that (R, M()) = Sym(M()). In view of the proof of Theorem 4.5, it
sufces to prove that there exists C >0 such that
n
_
2
n
_
C sup
kn
k n
_
2
k
_
, n N.
For this, it sufces to nd a constant C >0 such that for all n N there exists m N such that
_
2
n
_
C2
m/2
_
2
2
m
n
_
. (5.3)
Suppose rst that n
k
n <2n
k
. Set m:=[log(n
k+1
/n)]. Since
n
k+1
n
2
m
n
k+1
2n
n
k+1
4n
k
=
1
4
n
k
,
by using (5.1), we get
_
2
2
m
n
_
_
2
n
k+1
_
=
1
k +1
n
1/2
k+1
=
1
k +1
n
1
k
k
k +1
n
1/2
k

_
2
n
k
_
1
4
2
m/2
_
2
n
_
.
If 2n
k
n <n
k+1
, set m:=[log(n
k+2
/n)]. Then,
n
k+2
n
2
m
n
k+2
2n
n
k+2
2n
k+1
=
1
2
n
k+1
.
Therefore, again by (5.1),
_
2
2
m
n
_
_
2
n
k+2
_
=
1
k +2
n
1/2
k+2
=
1
k +2
n
1
k+1
k
k +2
n
1/2
k+1

_
2
2n
k
_
1
3
2
2
m/2
_
2
n
_
.
Thus (5.3) is proved and so, (R, M()) =Sym(M()).
References
[1] S.V. Astashkin, On multiplicator space generated by the Rademacher system, Math. Notes 75 (2004) 158165.
[2] S.V. Astashkin, G.P. Curbera, Symmetric kernel of Rademacher multiplicator spaces, J. Funct. Anal. 226 (2005)
173192.
[3] S.V. Astashkin, G.P. Curbera, Rademacher multiplicator spaces equal to L
, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 136 (2008)

34933501.
[4] S.V. Astashkin, K.V. Lykov, Extrapolatory description for the Lorentz and Marcinkiewicz spaces close to L
,
Siberian Math. J. 47 (2006) 797812.
[5] S.V. Astashkin, K.V. Lykov, Strongly extrapolation spaces and interpolation, Siberian Math. J., in press.
[6] C. Bennett, R. Sharpley, Interpolation of Operators, Academic Press, Boston, 1988.
[7] Yu.A. Brudny, N.Ya. Krugljak, Interpolation Functors and Interpolation Spaces, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1991.
[8] G.P. Curbera, A note on function spaces generated by Rademacher series, Proc. Edinb. Math. Soc. 40 (1997) 119
126.
[9] G.P. Curbera, V.A. Rodin, Multiplication operators on the space of Rademacher series in rearrangement invariant
spaces, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 134 (2003) 153162.
[10] B.S. Kashin, A.A. Saakyan, Orthogonal Series, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1989.
[11] S.G. Krein, Ju.I. Petunin, E.M. Semenov, Interpolation of Linear Operators, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI,
1982.
[12] J. Lindenstrauss, L. Tzafriri, Classical Banach Spaces, vol. II, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1979.
[13] G.G. Lorentz, Relations between function spaces, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 12 (1961) 127132.
[14] V.A. Rodin, E.M. Semenov, Rademacher series in symmetric spaces, Anal. Math. 1 (1975) 207222.
[15] A. Zygmund, Trigonometric Series, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1977.

Serguei V. Astashkin and Guillermo P. Curbera - Rearrangement Invariance of Rademacher Multiplicator Spaces

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Serguei V. Astashkin and Guillermo P. Curbera - Rearrangement Invariance of Rademacher Multiplicator Spaces

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Journal of Functional Analysis 256 (2009) 40714094

. Particular attention is given to the case when X is an

. In [1] it was shown that (R, X) = L

holds for all r.i.

if and only if the function log

. Examples of this situation were considered in [2,8,9]. In all cases

and x X then y X and y

of all functions y such that

is a subspace of the topological dual X

, then X is isometric to a subspace of the space X

(s) d(s) <.

< 1, then we have the following equivalence for the

2-condition if it is increasing, quasi-concave, and there exists n

(u), that is,

, then Sym(R, X) Sym(R, X

) Sym(R, X). By [2, Corollary 2.11],

by the norm of X, i.e., we have

[2, Theorem 3.2]. In particular, the fundamental function of Sym(R, X) tends to 0 as t 0

=M(). Then, Proposition 3.1, Corollary 3.5, and

<1, by (1.1) we have

< 1, then (R, X) is r.i. if and only if

, we consider the dilation function M

, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 136 (2008)

Вам также может понравиться