Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

The inequality seems to be simple but I could not find the right limits of integration.

$$\sup_{\delta>0} |f*K_{\delta}|(x)\leq c f^*(x)$$

Where is some positive constant, $f$ is integrable, $K_\delta$ is an approximation of the identity and $f^*$ is the Hardy-Littlewood maximal function of $f$.

An approximation of the identity is family of Kernel satisfying:

I)$\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}K_{\delta}(x)dx = 1$;

II)$|K_{\delta}(x)|\leq A\delta^{-n}$;

III)$|K_{\delta}(x)|\leq A\delta /|x|^{n+1}$.

And the maximal function is the non-centered.

share|cite|improve this question
You should include what definition of the approximation of identity you are using. Some people consider them to be the same as compactly supported mollifiers, others allow $K_\delta$ to be a scaling family of any $L^1$ function with mass 1, while in other cases the family $K_\delta$ doesn't even have to be scaling: it can be any set of functions indexed by $\mathbb{R}_+$ each with mass 1, uniformly bounded in $L^1$, and has $\lim_{\delta\to 0} \int_{\epsilon < |x|} |K_\delta|dx = 0$ for any $\epsilon > 0$. – Willie Wong Feb 28 '12 at 8:52
up vote 6 down vote accepted

It is enough to assume just II and III. Define $L_{\delta}(x) = \min(\delta^{-n}, {\delta \over |x|^{n+1}})$. Since $|K_{\delta}(x)| \leq L_{\delta}(x)$, you have $|f \ast K_{\delta}(x)| \leq |f| \ast L_{\delta}(x)$ and thus it suffices to show your statement for $L_{\delta}(x)$ in place of $K_{\delta}(x)$.

Observe that $$|f\ast L_{\delta}(x)| \leq \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} |f(x - y)|L_{\delta}(y)\,dy$$ $$\leq \int_{|y| \leq \delta} |f(x - y)|L_{\delta}(y)\,dy + \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty}\int_{2^k\delta \leq |y| \leq 2^{k+1}\delta}|f(x - y)|L_{\delta}(y)\,dy$$ In the first term $L_{\delta} = \delta^{-n}$ and thus the term is bounded by $cf^*(x)$. In the $k$th term of the sum, $L_{\delta}(y) \leq C{\delta \over (2^{k}\delta)^{n+1}} = C2^{-k} (2^k\delta)^{-n}$. Thus this term is bounded by $C'2^{-k}f^*(x)$. Adding over all $k$ gives a bound of $$cf^*(x) + C'\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}2^{-k}f^*(x) = C''f^*(x)$$ This is independent of $\delta$ so your statement follows.

share|cite|improve this answer

Actually you can start from the most simple case: when $K_\delta$ is approximated by simple function $\phi$. $$\phi=\sum^{m}_{j=1} C_{j}\chi_{B_j},C_j\geq0, \ \ f*\phi=\sum^{m}_{j=1} C_{j} |B_j|\cdot\frac{1}{|B_j|}\cdot f*\chi_{B_j}$$. $$\therefore |f*\phi|\leq \sum^{m}_{j=1} C_{j} |B_j|f^{*}=\int \phi \cdot f^{*}=||\phi||_{1}\cdot f^*$$. Then use ${\phi_{k}}$to approach $K_\delta.$

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.