arxiv: v2 [math.ca] 22 Mar 2018

Transcription

1 ACCESSIBLE PARTS OF BOUNDARY FOR SIMPLY CONNECTED DOMAINS PEKKA KOSKELA, DEBANJAN NANDI, AND ARTUR NICOLAU arxiv: v2 [math.ca] 22 Mar 2018 Abstract. For a bounded simply connected domain Ω R 2, any point z Ω any 0 < α < 1, we give a lower bound for the α- dimensional Hausdorff content of the set of points in the boundary of Ω which can be joined to z by a John curve with a suitable John constant depending only on α, in terms of the distance of z to Ω. In fact this set in the boundary contains the intersection Ω z Ω of the boundary of a John sub-domain Ω z of Ω, centered at z, with the boundary of Ω. This may be understood as a quantitative version of a result of Makarov. This estimate is then applied to obtain the pointwise version of a weighted Hardy inequality. 1. Introduction Let Ω C be a domain. We say that Ω is C-John with center z 0 if for any z Ω there exists a rectifiable curve γ z joining z z 0 in Ω such that for any point z in the image of γ z, it holds that Cd Ω (z ) l(γ z (z,z)), where d Ω (z ) := dist(z, Ω) l(γ z (z,z)) is the length of the subcurve between z z. Given A C, we define the α-hausdorff content as H α (A) := inf{ j=1 diam(e j ) α : E j C, A j N E j }. Given a simply connected John domain z Ω there is a John subdomain Ω z with center z so that, for the ball in the intrinsic metric (defined by taking the infimum of the lengths of rectifiable paths in the domainjoiningpairsofpoints)ofradius2d Ω (z),wehaveb Ω (z,2d Ω (z)) Ω z ; see[5], forexample. Thisstatement isquantitativeinthesensethat the John constant of Ω z depends only on the John constant of Ω. It is easy to see that this conclusion fails for general simply connected Ω: we may not capture all of B Ω (z,2d Ω (z)) Ω by Ω z for a John subdomain Ω z for a fixed John constant. The best we can hope for is Key words phrases. simply connected, John domain, Hardy inequality. A. Nicolau was partially supported by the grants 2014SGR75 of Generalitat de Catalunya MTM P MTM P of Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación. P. Koskela D. Ni were partially supported by the Academy of Finl grant

2 2 P. KOSKELA, D. NANDI, AND A. NICOLAU to capture a part of Ω of H 1 -content of the order of d Ω (z). Our main result gives a rather optimal conclusion. Theorem 1.1. Let Ω be a bounded, simply connected domain in the plane. Let 0 < α < 1 be fixed. Given z Ω, there is a John subdomain Ω z Ω with center z John constant depending only on α such that H α ( Ω z Ω) c(α)d Ω (z) α. The motivation for Theorem 1.1 partially arises from the weighted pointwise Hardy inequalities (see [1], [4], [5]) ( ) 1/q (1) u(x) Cd Ω (x) 1 β p sup u q d qβ/p Ω 0<r<2d Ω (x) B(x,r) Ω where u C0 (Ω), 1 < q < p < β <. This inequality immediately yields the usual weighted Hardy inequality (see [2],[3] for the classical Hardy inequality [8], [5] for higher dimensional versions of it) u(x) p d Ω (x) β p dx C u(x) p d Ω (x) β dx Ω via the boundedness of the Hardy-Littlewood maximal operator on L p/q. ThepointwiseHardyinequalitieswereshownin[5]toholdforany simply connected John domain for all 1 < p < every β < p 1. This is the optimal range even for Lipschitz domains; see [8]. From Theorem 1.1 together with Theorem 5.1 in [5] we have the following corollary. Corollary 1.2. Let Ω C be simply connected. Let 1 < p <. Then, for each β < p 1 there exist 1 < q(β,p) < p C > 0 such that the weighted pointwise Hardy inequality (1) holds for each x Ω. Above, q C are independent of Ω. The corresponding weighted Hardy inequalities were already established in [6]. Our proof of Theorem 1.1 is based on the following estimate for conformal maps which we expect to be of independent interest. Let H be the upper half plane. Theorem 1.3. Let f : H Ω be a conformal map. Let 0 < α < 1 be fixed. Then there exists C(α) > 0 such that the following holds. Given z 0 = x 0 + iy 0 H, there exists a set E = E(z 0,α) (x 0 y 0 /2,x 0 +y 0 /2) such that (a) H α (E) yα 0 C(α) (b) 1 C(α) f (z 0 ) f (w) C(α) f (z 0 ) for any point w in the sawtooth region S(E) := {x+iy : x (x 0 y 0 /2,x 0 +y 0 /2), d(x,e) y < y 0 }. Theorem1.3canbeunderstoodasaquantitativeversionofaresultof Makarov; seetheorem5.1of[7], seealsocorollary1.4of[11]. Ourproof of Theorem 1.3 uses Makarov s idea of approximating Bloch functions Ω

3 ACCESSIBLE PARTS OF BOUNDARY FOR SIMPLY CONNECTED DOMAINS 3 by dyadic martingales. Theorem 1.1 then follows from Theorem 1.3 Lemma 3.3 below; in fact we have that (Ω z0,d Ωz0 ) is bilipschitz equivalent to the sawtooth region in Theorem Preliminaries Let D be the unit disk in the complex plane. A function g : D C is called a Bloch function if it is analytic g B := sup(1 z 2 ) g (z) <. z D This defines a seminorm. The Bloch functions form a complex Banach space B with the norm g(0) + g B. Given a univalent analytic function f : D C we have that the function logf is a Bloch function by the Koebe Distortion theorem with logf B 6. Conversely, given a function g B with g B 2, there exists a univalent function f : D C such that g = logf, see (Chapter 4, [10]). Given a conformal map f : H C, it follows by a conformal change of coordinates that sup Im(z) g (z) < 6 z H where g is the function logf. Let us introduce some notation. Given a closed interval I R we denote by x I the center of I z I := x I +i. We denote by Q(I) the square {x+iy : x I, y (0,)}. The intrinsic metric of a domain Ω C is given by d Ω (x,y) := inf{l(γ x,y ) : γ x,y is a rectifiable curve joining x y in Ω}. The euclidean disk with center z radius r is denoted by B(z,r) B Ω (z,r) is the corresponding intrinsic ball. We denote by diam(a), the diameter of a set A C. We denote by diam Ω (A) the diameter of a subset A Ω measured with respect to the intrinsic metric of Ω. 3. Proofs of the theorems We first sketch the proof of Theorem 1.3. The set E constructed below is a Cantor-type set. One considers the harmonic function u = log f, the real part of the Bloch function logf, where f is the conformal map from Theorem 1.3. The construction involves selecting good parts in the boundary near which the function u remains essentially bounded estimating the size of the bad parts in the boundary where the difference from a fixed value is large positive or large negative. The good parts correspond to the points in the boundary, accessible from some interior point of Ω by a John curve. The key observation is that it is possible to recursively choose subsets from the bad parts of the boundary, near which the difference from the fixed value is up down at consecutive generations so that the final error in the intersection is not too large. The set E consists of

4 4 P. KOSKELA, D. NANDI, AND A. NICOLAU the good parts an intersection of suitable nested sets of the bad part. The Hausdorff content of E is shown to be large by the mass distribution principle after defining a limit measure supported on E. We use the following well known lemma in the proof of Theorem 1.3; see Lemma 2.2 of [9]. Lemma 3.1. Let u be a harmonic function in the upper half plane H such that sup Im(z) u(z) A. z H Let I R be an interval let {I j } be a collection of pairwise disjoint dyadic subintervals of I assume additionally that u is bounded in Q(I)\ j Q(I j ). Then we have (2) u(z I ) = u(z Ij ) I j + 1 u(x)dx+o(a). j I\ j I j Proof. Let us write y for the imaginary part of z fix 0 < ǫ < 1. Green s theorem applied to the harmonic functions u y in the domain U ǫ := (Q(I)\ j (Q(I j ))) {y > ǫ} gives y u u y = y u νds u y νds U ǫ U ǫ U ǫ U ǫ thus (3) u y νds = y u νds U ǫ U ǫ where ν is the outward unit normal vector. The absolute value of the latter integral is bounded by 10A by assumption. Note that the oscillation of u on the upper edges of Q(I) Q(I j ) is bounded; indeed u(x+i I j ) u(x +i I j ) A x x / I j for x,x I j. From (3) we have u(z I ) = u(z Ij ) I j + 1 I j >ǫ I u(x+iǫ)χ I\( I j >ǫ I j)(x)dx+o(a) because the vertical sides of (Q(I j )) do not contribute to the integral. The estimate now follows once we let ǫ 0, since the function u has radial limits almost everywhere in I\ j I j. Lemma 3.2. Let u be a harmonic function in the upper half plane H such that sup Im(z) u(z) A. z H Then there is a number M 0 = M 0 (A) such that the following holds for any M > M 0.

5 ACCESSIBLE PARTS OF BOUNDARY FOR SIMPLY CONNECTED DOMAINS 5 Given any interval I R, define G(I) := {Re(z) : z Q(I), sup u(z) u(z I ) M +A 2}, 0<Im(z)< assume that G(I). Consider the family F(I) of maximal 100 dyadic subintervals I j I such that u(z Ij ) u(z I ) M. Then we have (a) u(z) u(z I ) M + A 2 for any z Q(I)\ Q(I j ). In j particular, u(z Ij ) u(z I ) M +A 2. (b) I j 2 M A 2 for every Ij F(I). (c) Consider the family F + (I) (respectively F (I)) of intervals in F(I) such that u(z Ij ) u(z I ) M (respectively u(z Ij ) u(z I ) M). Then we have (i) I j /4 I j F + (I) (ii) I j /4 I j F (I) Proof. Given z = x + iy H such that x I (respectively I j ) /2 < y < (respectively I j /2 < y < I j ) it follows that u(z) u(z I ) A 2 (respectively u(z) u(z Ij ) A 2) by our hypothesis. Part(b) follows by iterating the above inequality part(a) follows from the maximality of the dyadic intervals. For part (c) we write the estimate from Lemma 3.1 as (u(z Ij ) u(z I )) I j + 1 (u(x) u(z I ))dx = δ j I\ I j j where δ = δ(u,a) lies in the interval [ δ A,δ A ], where δ A is a constant that depends only on A. We observe that I\ j I j G(I). Thus the absolute value of the integral is bounded by M+A 2, by part (a) 100 the assumption that G(I) /100. Hence we have (u(z Ij ) u(z I )) I j M +A 2 + δ. 100 j Next we note that M u(z Ij ) u(z I ) M +A 2 for any j. Part (c) then follows from this. Indeed, if I j (4) 1 4, then we have I j F + (I) I j F (I) I j

6 6 P. KOSKELA, D. NANDI, AND A. NICOLAU M +A from which we get δ M +A 2 4 I j F (I) + I j F (I) I j A 2 4M + δ A M. (u(z Ij ) u(z I )) I j This contradicts (4) if M > M 0 (A). The other inequality in part (c) follows similarly. Now we are ready to prove Theorem 1.3. Proof of Theorem 1.3. Let 0 < α < 1 be fixed. We may assume without loss of generality that z 0 = i. We construct the set E as follows. Set u(z) = log( f (z) ). Then u is the real part of a Bloch function thus satisfies the hypothesis of Lemma 3.2 with A = 6. Denote by I 0 the interval ( 1, 1). Consider the set 2 2 Q(I(0) ) the subset G(I (0) ) as defined in Lemma 3.2. An interval I is called good if G(I) /100 bad otherwise. If G(I (0) ) I (0) /100, then set E = G(I (0) ). Then H α (E) 1 the claim follows. So we assume that the other case holds consider the maximal family F(I (0) ) of subintervals I j I 0 as chosen in Lemma 3.2, with M = M(α) to be fixed later. Thus I 0 is a bad interval we may apply Lemma 3.2. We have 2 M 6 2 I (0) if I F + (I (0) ) I F + (I (0) ) I (0) /4. The first generation G 1 = G 1 (I (0) ) is formed by the subsets G(I) of the good intervals I F + (I (0) ) by the bad intervals I F + (I (0) ). We write G 1 = G g 1 G b 1 where We also have G g 1(I (0) ) = {G(I) : I F + (I (0) ) is good} G b 1 (I(0) ) = {I F + (I (0) ) : I is bad}. I G 1 I (0) /400. The construction stops in the sets in the family G g 1 of good sets. In the sets I G1 b it continues as follows.

7 ACCESSIBLE PARTS OF BOUNDARY FOR SIMPLY CONNECTED DOMAINS 7 Fix I (1) G b 1. Since I (1) is bad we can apply Lemma 3.2 consider the collection F (I (1) ) which satisfies 2 M 6 2 I (1) if I F (I (1) ) I F (I (1) ) I (1) /400. ThefirstgenerationG 1 (I (1) )oftheintervali (1) G b 1 iswrittengg 1(I (1) ) = G 1 (I (1) ) G b 1 (I(1) ), where G g 1(I (1) ) = {G(I) : I F (I (1) ) is good} G b 1 (I(1) ) = {I F (I (1) ) : I is bad}. We use the first generation as defined above, of members of the collection G b 1 (I(0) ), to define the second generation G 2 (I (0) ) = G g 2(I (0) ) G b 2 (I(0) ), where We also have G g 2 (I(0) ) = G b 2 (I(0) ) = G g I (1) G1 b 1 (I(1) ) (I(0) ) G I (1) G1 b 1 b (I(1) ). (I(0) ) I (1) /400 for any I (1) G1. b I I (1) I G 2 Observe that u oscillates to the right of u(z I0 ) in the first step of the construction to the left of u(z I ) in the second. We have u(z I ) u(z I (0)) 12 2 for any I G b 2. Again the construction continues in the intervals of G b 2(I (0) ). Since the errors cancel but do not vanish, we use a slightly different value of M, if needed, for choosing the maximal family F(I) for the bad intervals I G b 2, so that the errors do not addup. More precisely, given I (2) G b 2, we choose a value M from the interval [M 6 2,M +6 2] such that u(z I (2))+M = u(z I (0))+M. So the construction stops after finitely many steps or continues indefinitely providing new generations G n. Let I (n) G n. Either I (n) is of the form G(Ĩ) the construction stops in I(n) or I (n) G b n (I(0) ) the construction provides new sets intervals of G n+1 contained in I (n) which satisfy 2 M 6 2 I (n) if I I (n),i G n+1

8 8 P. KOSKELA, D. NANDI, AND A. NICOLAU We define I (n) /400. I I (n) I G n+1 E := ( n G g n) ( n G b n). By construction for any x E any 0 y 1 we have log f (x+iy) log f (i) 2M +24. Consider theset S(E)asdefinedinthestatement ofthetheorem. Since u is a Bloch function, the previous estimate gives that e 2M 30 f (i) f (w) e 2M+30 f (i) for any w S(E). Thus part (b) of the statement follows. Part (a) of the statement follows if it is shown that H α (E) c(α). To prove the last estimate, it suffices by the mass distribution principle to construct a positive measure µ with µ(e) 1 such that there exists a constant c(α) > 0 with µ(i) c(α) α, for any interval I I 0. The measure µ will be the limit of certain measures µ n supported in the union ( G g k ) Gb n, where Gg k are the k n good parts of the previous generations. Next we construct the measure µ. Let µ 0 = dx I(0). Consider a(i (0) ) = I(0) I G 1 which satisfies a(i (0) ) 400. By defining µ 1 := a(i (0) ) I G 1 dx I we have µ 1 (I (0) ) = 1. The measure µ 2 will coincide with µ 1 on G g 1. On G 2 the measure µ 2 will be defined by redistributing the mass of µ 1. More concretely, if I (1) G b 1 set Since a(i (1) ) = a(i (1) ) = µ 1(I (1) ) I I. (1) I G 2 I (1) µ 1 (I (1) ) I I I (1) (1) I G 2 = a(i (0) I (1) ) I I, (1) I G 2

9 ACCESSIBLE PARTS OF BOUNDARY FOR SIMPLY CONNECTED DOMAINS 9 we deduce that a(i (1) ) Define µ 2 = µ Gg a(i (1) ) I (1) G b 1 dx I I (1) I G 2 Themeasuresµ 3,...,µ n,...aredefinedrecursively. Observethatµ k (I) = µ n (I) for any k n, provided I G n. Moreover, if I G n we have µ n (I) 400 n. Finally set µ = limµ n. n It is clear that sptµ E µ(e) = 1. We want to check that µ(i) c(α) α for any interval I I 0. Let J I 0 be an interval. We may assume that there is a positive integer j such that 2 M(j+1) 6 2 J 2 Mj 6 2. Let G j (J) (respectively G g k (J)) be the family of sets of generation G j (respectively G g k ) which intersect J. Let A j(j) be the family of sets in Mj (J) of diameters smaller than 2 j 1 k=0 Gg k 6 2. Since the sets in Gj (J) A j (J) intersect J have diameter smaller than 2 J, we have Hence µ(j) I G j (J) G j (J) A j (J) 4J. µ(i)+ I G j (J) A j (J) =: A+B. j 1 k=0 µ(i)+ If I G j (J) A j (J), then we have Hence I G g k (J) µ(i J) I j 1 k=0 Gg k (J)\A j(j) µ(i) = µ j (I) = µ j(i) 400 j. A 400 j I 4J I G j (J) A j (J) I j J. µ(i J) Since the sets in j 1 k=0 Gg k (J)\A j(j) intersect J are contained in intervals of length larger than J which are pairwise disjoint, the collection j 1 k=0 Gg k (J)\A j(j) is contained in at most two intervals L 1 L 2. Now 2 2 B µ(l i ) 400 j L i J 400 j [J. i=1 i=1

10 10 P. KOSKELA, D. NANDI, AND A. NICOLAU Hence µ(j) A+B j J. Since J 2 Mj 6 2, we deduce that 2ln2 µ(j) 5 J 1 6 (400) M. We choose M large enough so that 1 6 2ln 2 (400) M follows with this value of M. > α. The theorem The proof of Theorem 1.1 uses the following auxiliary result. Lemma 3.3. Assume that a set E = E(z 0,α) R exists, for which part (b) of Theorem 1.3 is satisfied. Then we have that f(s(e)) is a John domain with John constant depending on α. Moreover, H α (f(e)) c(α) f (z 0 ) α H α (E). Proof. Wemayassume thate iscompact. Wehaveforf(z) f(s(e)) that d f(s(e)) (f(z), f(s(e))) c(α) f (z 0 ) d S(E) (z) from which it follows that f(s(e)) is John, with John curves being the imagesofthejohncurvesins(e)(whichwemaytaketobethevertical line segment joining the point z to the upper edge of Q(I) followed by a horizontal line segment till z I ). The constant only depends on α. Let {B i } i be a countable (possibly finite) collection of disks covering f(e). We may assume that f(z 0 ) / B i for all indices i. For each point f(ẑ) f(e) B i consider the John curve γẑ joining f(ẑ) to the John center f(z 0 ). Let f(z) γẑ be a point such that l(γẑ(f(ẑ),f(z))) = rad(b i ) =: R i. By the John condition we have that d f(s(e)) (f(z)) 1 c(α) R i. In the following we write S (E) for the set f(s(e)). Consider the collection of intrinsic balls {B S (E)(f(z),c(α)d S (E)(f(z)))} f(ẑ) in the intrinsic metric of S (E). The balls in this collection cover the set f(e) B i. By the 5r-covering theorem we find pairwise disjoint balls B S (E)(f(z i j),c(α)d S (E)(f(z i j))), j = 1,2,... such that {B S (E)(f(zj),5c(α)d i S (E)(f(zj)))} i j covers f(e) B i. Wehave alsoanupperboundn(α)forthenumber N i ofthepairwise disjoint intrinsic balls found above for each f(e) B i, since every ball B S (E)(f(zj),c(α)d i S (E)(f(zj))) i in the collection contains the euclidean diskb(f(zj),r i i /c(α)). Letthecollectionoffinitelymanysuchintrinsic balls chosen for each index i be denoted together {B ij } i N where for 1 j N i given i 1 j N i, B ij = B S (E)(f(zj i),5c(α)d S (E)(f(zj i ))). We

11 ACCESSIBLE PARTS OF BOUNDARY FOR SIMPLY CONNECTED DOMAINS11 have (diam(b i )) α i i N i j=1 (diam S (E)(B ij )) α c(α) f (z 0 ) α i,j (diam S(E) (f 1 (B ij ))) α c(α) f (z 0 ) α H α (E) The lemma follows. Proof of Theorem 1.1. Let f be the conformal map from H to Ω. Consider the set E = E(f 1 (z),α) obtained using Theorem 1.3. Applying Lemma 3.3 we have H α (f(e)) (e 2M f (f 1 (z)) ) α H α (E). Theorem 1.1 now follows by combining the above estimate with part (a) of Theorem 1.3 observing that, by part (b), z can be joined to Ω by a curve which is the bilipschitz image of a curve in H of length comparable to Imf 1 (z) joining f 1 (z) to R. References [1] P. Haj lasz, Pointwise Hardy inequalities, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 127 (1999), no. 2, [2] G. H. Hardy, Note on a theorem of Hilbert, Math. Z. 6 (1920), no. 3-4, [3] G. H. Hardy, Notes on some points in the integral calculus (LX), Messenger of Math. 54 (1925), [4] J. Kinnunen O. Martio, Hardy s inequalities for Sobolev functions, Math. Res. Lett. 4 (1997), [5] P. Koskela J. Lehrbäck, Weighted pointwise Hardy Inequalities, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 79 (2009), no. 3, [6] J. Lehrbäck, Weighted Hardy inequalities beyond Lipschitz domains, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 142 (2014), no. 5, [7] N. Makarov, Probability methods in the theory of conformal mappings, Algebra i Analiz 1 (1989), no. 1, 3 59 (Russian); English transl., Leningrad Math. J. 1 (1990), no. 1, [8] J. Nečas, Sur une méthode pour résoudre les équations aux dérivées partielles du type elliptique, voisine de la variationnelle, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa (3) 16 (1962), [9] A. Nicolau, Radial behaviour of Bloch harmonic fucntions their area function, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 4 (1999), [10] Ch. Pommerenke, Boundary behaviour of conformal maps, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences], vol. 299, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, [11] S. Rohde, The boundary behavior of Bloch functions, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 48 (1993), no. 3,

12 12 P. KOSKELA, D. NANDI, AND A. NICOLAU (Pekka Koskela) Department of Mathematics Statistics, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, FI Jyväskylä, Finl address: (Debanjan Ni) Department of Mathematics Statistics, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, FI Jyväskylä, Finl address: (Artur Nicolau) Departament de Matemàtiques, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra. Barcelona, Spain address: