arxiv: v1 [math.ca] 10 Oct 2017

Transcription

1 TWO WEIGHT BUMP CONDITIONS FOR MATRIX WEIGHTS arxiv: v [math.ca] 0 Oct 207 DAVID CRUZ-URIBE, OFS, JOSHUA ISRALOWITZ, AND KABE MOEN Abstract. In this aer we extend the theory of two weight, A bum conditions to the setting of matrix weights. We rove two matrix weight inequalities for fractional maximal oerators, fractional and singular integrals, sarse oerators and averaging oerators. As alications we rove quantitative, one weight estimates, in terms of the matrix A constant, for singular integrals, and rove a Poincaré inequality related to those that aear in the study of degenerate ellitic PDEs.. Introduction In this aer we extend the theory of A bum conditions to matrix weights. To ut our results into context we first briefly review the theory in the case of scalar weights. A scalar weight w (i.e., a non-negative, locally integrable function) satisfies the Muckenhout A condition, < <, if ( [w] A = su wdx w dx) <, where here and below the suremum is taken over all cubes with edges arallel to the coordinate axes. It is well known that this condition is sufficient for a wide variety of classical oerators (e.g., the Hardy-Littlewood maximal oerator, singular integral oerators) to be bounded on L (w). (Cf. [2,6].) This condition naturally extends to airs of weights: we say (u,v) A if ( [u,v] A = su udx v dx) <. However, unlike in the one weight case, while this condition is often necessary for an oerator to ma L (v) into L (u), it is almost never sufficient. (See [6] and 200 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 42B20, 42B25, 42B35. Key words and hrases. Matrix weights, A bum conditions, maximal oerators, fractional integral oerators, singular integral oerators, sarse oerators, Poincaré inequalities, -Lalacian. The first author is suorted by NSF Grant DMS and research funds from the Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences, the University of Alabama. The second and third authors are suorted by the Simons Foundation.

2 2 DAVID CRUZ-URIBE, OFS, JOSHUA ISRALOWITZ, AND KABE MOEN the references it contains.) Therefore, for many years, the roblem was to find a similar condition that was sufficient. The idea of A bum conditions originated with Neugebauer [27] but was fully develoed by Pérez [28,29,3]. (See also Sawyer and Wheeden [34].) If we rewrite the two weight A condition as su u, v, <, where, denotes the localized L norm with resect to measure χ dx, then a bumed A condition is gotten by relacing the L and/or L norms with a slightly larger norm in the scale of Orlicz saces. We recall a few roerties of Orlicz saces; for more details see [6]. Let Φ : [0, ) [0, ) be a Young function: convex, increasing, Φ(0) = 0, and Φ(t)/t as t. Given Φ, its associate function is another Young function defined by { } Φ(t) = su st Φ(s). s>0 If Φ(t) = t, Φ(t) t. Given < <, we say that Φ satisfies the B condition, denoted by Φ B, if Φ(t) dt t t <. Given a cube we define the localized Orlicz norm f Φ, by { ( ) } f(x) f Φ, = inf λ > 0 : Φ dx <. λ Ω The air Φ, Φ satisfy the generalized Hölder inequality in the scale of Orlicz saces: f(x)g(x) dx 2 f Φ, g,. (.) Pérez roved that if the term on the right in the two weight A condition is bumed in the scale of Orlicz saces, then the maximal oerator satisfies a two weight inequality. Recall that the Hardy-Littlewood maximal oerator is defined by Mf(x) = su f(y) dy χ (x). Theorem.. Given < <, suose Φ is a Young function such that Φ B. If (u,v) is a air of weights such that then M : L (v) L (u). su u, v Φ, <,

3 TWO WEIGHT BUMP CONDITIONS FOR MATRIX WEIGHTS 3 Remark.2. For instance, if we take Φ(t) = t log(e+t) +δ, δ > 0, then Φ(t) t log(e+t) ǫ, ǫ > 0, and Φ B. Orlicz functions of this kind are referred to as log bums. It was conjectured (see [9]) that a comarable result held for Calderón-Zygmund singular integral oeratorsifbothtermsinthetwo weight A conditionwere bumed. After a number of artial results, this was roved by Lerner [22]. Recall that a Calderón-Zygmund singular integral is an oerator T : L 2 L 2 such that if f Cc (Rd ), then for x su (f), Tf(x) = K(x,y)f(y)dy, R d where the kernel K : R d R d \ C ( = {(x,x) : x R d }), satisfies K(x,y) C x y d, and h δ K(x,y) K(x,y +h) + K(x,y) K(x+h,y) C x y d+δ, for some δ > 0 and x y > 2 h. Theorem.3. Given < <, suose Φ and are Young functions such that Φ B and B. If (u,v) is a air of weights such that su u, v Φ, <, and if T is a Calderón-Zygmund singular integral, then T : L (v) L (u). Analogous results hold for the fractional maximal oerator M α, and the fractional integral oerator I α, 0 < α < d, defined by M α f(x) = su α d f(y) dy χ (x), and f(y) I α f(x) = dy. R x y d d α For these oerators we are interested in off-diagonal inequalities, when < q <. The corresonding two weight condition is [u,v] A α,q = su α d q + u q q, v, <.

4 4 DAVID CRUZ-URIBE, OFS, JOSHUA ISRALOWITZ, AND KABE MOEN (In the one weight case, which requires q = α d, the weight w satisfies u = wq, v = w. See [6] for details.) Again, this condition is itself not sufficient, but if the norms are bumed a sufficient condition is gotten. For the off-diagonal inequalities (i.e., when < q) we relace the B condition by the weaker B,q condition: we say a Young function Φ B,q if Φ(t) q t q dt t <. It was shown in [7] that B B,q when < q. The following two results were first roved by Pérez [30] with the stronger B condition; they were imroved to use the B,q condition in [7]. Theorem.4. Given < q < and 0 < α < d, suose Φ is a Young function such that Φ B,q. If (u,v) is a air of weights such that then M α : L (v) L q (u). su α d q + u q q, v Φ, <, Theorem.5. Given < q < and 0 < α < d, suose Φ and are Young functions such that Φ B,q and B q,. If (u,v) is a air of weights such that then I α : L (v) L q (u). su α d q + u q, v Φ, <, The rimary goal of this aer is to generalize Theorems. through.5 to the setting of matrix weights. To state our results we first give some basic information on matrix weights. For more details, see [8,5,32]. A matrix weight U is an n n self-adjoint matrix function with locally integrable entries such that U(x) is ositive definite for a.e. x R d. For a matrix weight we can define U r for any r R, via diagonalization. Given an exonent < and an n n matrix weight U on R d we define the matrix weighted sace L (U) to be the set of measurable, vector-valued functions f : R d C n such that ( ) f L (U) = U(x) f(x) dx <. R d

5 TWO WEIGHT BUMP CONDITIONS FOR MATRIX WEIGHTS 5 Given a matrix weight U and x R d, define the oerator norm of U(x) by U(x) o = su U(x)e. e C n e = For brevity, given a norm on a some scalar valued Banach function sace (e.g., L ), we will write U for U o and Ue for Ue. Given two matrix weights U and V, a linear oerator T satisfies if and only if T : L (V) L q (U) U q TV : L (R d,c n ) L q (R d,c n ), and it is in this form that we will rove matrix weighted norm inequalities. However, this aroach no longer works for sublinear oerators such as maximal oerators. Following the aroach introduced in [4, 5] we define a matrix weighted fractional maximal oerator. Given matrix weights U and V and 0 < α < d, we define M α,u,v f(x) = su U(x) q V(y) f(y) dy. (.2) x α d When U = V, this oerator was first considered in [20]. Our first result give sufficient conditions on the matrices U and V for M α,u,v to be bounded from L (R d,c n ) to L q (R d,c n ). Theorem.6. Given 0 α < d and < q < such that α, suose q d Φ is a Young function with Φ B,q. If (U,V) is a air of matrix weights such that ( ) [U,V],q,Φ = su α d + q U(x) q V q Φ, dx <, (.3) then M α,u,v : L (R d,c n ) L q (R d,c n ). Remark.7. In the scalar case (i.e., when n = ) Theorem.6 immediately reduces to Theorem. when α = 0 and Theorem.4 when α > 0. Remark.8. Theorem.6 generalizes two results known in the one weight case (i.e., when U = V). When = q and α = 0, if we take Φ(t) = t, then the condition (.3) reduces to the matrix A condition, [U] A = su ( ) U(x) U(y) o dy dx <, (.4) which is sufficient for M U = M 0,U,U to be bounded on L (R d,c n ): see [4,5].

6 6 DAVID CRUZ-URIBE, OFS, JOSHUA ISRALOWITZ, AND KABE MOEN Similarly, when α > 0 and = α, and we again take Φ(t) =, then (.3) q d t becomes the matrix A,q condition, ( ) q [U] A,q = su U(x) q U(y) o dy dx <, introduced in [20], where they showed this condition is sufficient for M α,u = M α,u,u to ma L (R d,c n ) into L q (R d,c n ). Remark.9. In Theorem.6 the restriction on and q that α is natural. q d For if the oosite inequality holds, given matrix weights U and V such that M α,u,v : L (R d,c n ) L q (R d,c n ), then U(x) = 0 almost everywhere. See Proosition 3. below. In the scalar case, this was first roved by Sawyer [33]. Our second result gives sufficient conditions on the matrices U and V for I α to ma L (V) to L q (U). Here and in Theorem.4, by Φy, we mean that the Orlicz norm is taken with resect to the y variable. We define x, similarly. Theorem.0. Given 0 < α < d and < q < such that α, suose q d that Φ and are Young functions with Φ B,q and B q. If (U,V) is a air of matrix weights such that [U,V],q,Φ, = su then I α : L (V) L q (U). α d + q U(x) q V(y) Φy, <, (.5) x, Remark.. In the scalar case, Theorem.0 reduces to a secial case of Theorem.5 in that we do not recature the weaker hyothesis B q,. This is a consequence of our roof; we conjecture that this result remains true with this weaker hyothesis. Remark.2. In the one weight case, it was roved in [20] that if q = α d and U A,q, then I α : L (U) L q (U). Remark.3. As for the fractional maximal oerator, the restriction that q α d is natural. In the scalar case (i.e., when n = ), if the oosite inequality holds, then, since M α f(x) I α ( f )(x), we have that the weights are trivial. See [33] for details. Our third result gives sufficient conditions on the matrices U and V for a Calderón- Zygmund oerator T to ma L (V) to L (U).

7 TWO WEIGHT BUMP CONDITIONS FOR MATRIX WEIGHTS 7 Theorem.4. Given < <, suose Φ and are Young functions with Φ B and B. If (U,V) is a air of matrix weights such that [U,V],Φ, = su U(x) V(y) Φy, <, (.6) x, and if T is a Calderón-Zygmund oerator, then T : L (V) L (U). Remark.5. Theorem.4alsoholdsifT isahaarshiftoeratororaararoduct. See the discussion in Section 5 below. As a corollary to Theorem.4 we can rove quantitative one weight estimates for Calderón-Zygmund oerators. To state our result, recall that if W is in matrix A, then for every e C n, W e is a scalar A weight, and [ W e ] A [W] A. Thus, following [26], we can then define the scalar A constant of W by [W] A sc, = su[ W e ] A. e C n (We will make recise our definition of A in Section 5.) Corollary.6. Given < <, suose W is a matrix A weight. If T is a Calderón-Zygmund oerator, then T L (W) [W] A [W ] A sc, [W] A sc, [W]+ A. Remark.7. Corollary.6 aears to be the first quantitative estimate for matrix weighted inequalities for singular integrals for all, < <. ualitative one weight, matrix A estimates for Calderón-Zygmund oerators were first roved in [4, 5]. Bickel, Petermichl and Wick [2] roved that for the Hilbert transform H, H L 2 (W) [W] 3 2 A2 log([w] A2 ). This result was imroved by Nazarov, et al. [26] and Culiuc, di Plinio and Ou [] and extended it to all Calderón-Zygmund oerators T, getting T L 2 (W) [W] 3 2 A2. (In fact, in [26] they rove a stronger result which we will discuss below.) Corollary.6 reduces to this estimate when = 2. We doubt that our estimate is shar: it is reasonable to conjecture that the shar exonent for matrix weights is the same as in the scalar case: max{, }. We do note that in the scalar case, our exonent is sharer than what would be gotten from Rubio de Francia extraolation, which starting from the exonent 3 when = 2 is 2 }. In articular, it is asymtotically shar as. 3 max{, 2

8 8 DAVID CRUZ-URIBE, OFS, JOSHUA ISRALOWITZ, AND KABE MOEN We now consider the two weight matrix A,q condition, ( ( [U,V] A α,q = su d + q ) q ) U(x) q V(y) o dy q dx <. (.7) By the roerties of Orlicz norms, we have that [U,V] A α,q is dominated by [U,V],q,Φ and [U,V],q,Φ,. As we noted in Remark.8 above, this condition is sufficient in the one weight case for the strong tye, two weight norm inequalities for maximal and fractional integrals. However, even in the scalar case this condition is not sufficient for two weight norm inequalities for fractional maximal or integral oerators [5]. It is known to be necessary and sufficient for averaging oerators to ma L (v) into L (u) [] and for the fractional maximal oerator to ma L (v) into L q, (u) [6]. We give two generalizations of these results to the matrix setting. Since these results include endoint estimates, we extend the definition of A,q to the case = : given matrix weights U and V, define [U,V] α,q = su α d + q esssu y ( U q (x)v (y) dx o ) q <. (.8) Our first result concerns averaging oerators. For 0 α < d, given a cube, define A α f(x) = α d f(y)dy χ (x). More generally, given a family of disjoint cubes, define A α f(x) = A α f(x). Theorem.8. Given 0 α < d, q < such that α, and a air q d of matrix weights (U, V), the following are equivalent: () (U,V) A α,q; (2) Given any set of airwise disjoint cubes in R d, A α f L q (U) [U,V] A α,q f L (V), where the constant is indeendent of. Remark.9. In the one weight, scalar case when = q Theorem.8 was imlicit in Jawerth [2]; for the general result in the scalar case, see Berezhnoĭ []. In the one weight matrix case, again when = q, Theorem.8 was roved in [8].

9 TWO WEIGHT BUMP CONDITIONS FOR MATRIX WEIGHTS 9 Remark.20. As a corollary to Theorem.8 we rove two weight estimates for convolution oerators and aroximations of the identity, generalizing one weight results from [8]. See Corollary 6. below. Our second result is a weak tye inequality for a two weight variant of the socalled auxiliary maximal oerator introduced in [4,5]. Given 0 α < d and matrix weights U and V, define M α,u,v f(x) = su α d U q V (y)f(y) dy χ (x), (.9) where U q is the reducing oerator associated with the matrix U. (For a recise definition, see Section 2 below.) Given any cube, the associated averaging oerator is B α f(x) = α d U q V (y)f(y) dy χ (x). Theorem.2. Given 0 α < d, q < such that α, and a air q d of matrix weights (U, V), the following are equivalent: () (U,V) A α,q ; (2) M α,u,v : L L q, ; (3) For every cube, B α : L L q, with norm indeendent of. Remark.22. It is very temting to conjecture that Theorem.2 remains true with the auxiliary maximal oerator relaced by M α,u,v, but we have been unable to rove this. We can rove.2 because the auxiliary maximal oerator is much easier to work with when considering weak tye inequalities. Finally, as a corollary to Theorem.0 we rove a mixed Poincaré inequality involving both scalar and matrix weights. Theorem.23. Given < q < such that, suose that Φ and q d are Young functions with Φ B,q and B q. If u is a scalar weight and V is a matrix weight such that su d + q u q, V Φ, <, (.0) then given any oen convex set E R d with u(e) <, and any scalar function f C (E), ( ) ( ) f(x) f E,u q q u(x)dx V (x) f(x) dx, (.) E E

10 0 DAVID CRUZ-URIBE, OFS, JOSHUA ISRALOWITZ, AND KABE MOEN where f E,u = u(e) f(x)u(x)dx. The imlicit constant is indeendent of E. E Remark.24. Poincaré inequalities of this kind lay a role in the study of degenerate ellitic equations. See, for instance, [23 25, 35, 36]. As an immediate consequence of Theorem.23 we can use the main result in [0] to rove the existence of weak solutions to a Neumann boundary value roblem for a degenerate -Lalacian. See Corollary 7. below. The remainder of this aer is organized as follows. In Section 2 we gather together some reliminary results about the so called reducing oerators associated with matrix weights. Reducing oerators lay a major role in all of our roofs. In Section 3 we rove Theorem.6 and Proosition 3. In Section 4 we rove Theorem.0. In our roofs of these two theorems we make extensive use of the theory of dyadic aroximations for fractional maximal and integral oerators; for the scalar theory, see [5]. In Section 5 we rove Theorem.4 and Corollary.6. In our roof we use the recent result of Nazarov, et al. [26], who extended dyadic aroximation theory for singular integrals to the matrix setting, and showed that to rove matrix weighted estimates for Calderón-Zygmund oerators it is enough to rove them for sarse oerators. InSection6weroveTheorems.8and.2,androveCorollary6.aboutconvolution oerators. Finally, in Section 7 we rove Theorem.23, and rove Corollary 7. giving weak solutions to a degenerate -Lalacian. Throughout this aer notation is standard or will be defined as needed. If we write X Y, we mean that X cy, where the constant c can deend on the dimension d of the underlying sace R d, the dimension n of our vector functions, the exonents and q in the weighted Lebesgue saces, and the underlying fractional maximal or integral oerators (i.e., on α) or on the underlying Calderón-Zygmund oerator. The deendence on the matrix weights will always be made exlicit. If we write X Y, then X Y and Y X. 2. Reducing oerators Given a matrix weight A, a Young function, and a cube, we can define a norm on C n by Ae,, e C n. The following lemma yields a very imortant tool in the study of matrix weights, the so-called reducing oerator, which lets us relace this norm by a norm induced by a constant ositive matrix. The following result was roved by Goldberg [5, Proosition.2].

11 TWO WEIGHT BUMP CONDITIONS FOR MATRIX WEIGHTS Lemma 2.. Given a matrix weight A, a Young function, and a cube, there exists a (constant ositive) matrix A, called a reducing oerator of A, such that for all e C n, A e Ae,, where the imlicit constants deend only on d. As a consequence of Lemma 2., we get the following result for the norms of reducing oerators. These estimates are imlicit in the literature, at least for L norms; we rove them for the convenience of the reader. Proosition 2.2. Given matrix weights A and B, Young functions Φ and, a cube, and reducing oerators A and BΦ, then for all e Cn, A o A,, (2.) A BΦ o A(x)B Φ x, A(x)B(y) Φy x,. (2.2) In both cases the imlicit constants deend only on d. Remark 2.3. As will be clear from the roof, the first estimate in (2.2) is true if B Φ is relaced with any constant matrix. Proof. To rove (2.) fix an orthonormal basis {e j } n j= of C n. Then by the definition of the oerator norm and of reducing oerators, n n A o A Φ e j Ae j Φ, A Φ,. j= j= The roof of (2.2) is similar, but we exloit the fact that while matrix roducts of self-adjoint matrices do not commute, they have the same oerator norm: n A B Φ o A Be Φ j j= n A(x)B Φ e j x, j= A(x)B Φ x, = B Φ A(x) x, n B Φ A(x)e j x, j=

12 2 DAVID CRUZ-URIBE, OFS, JOSHUA ISRALOWITZ, AND KABE MOEN n B(y)A(x)e j Φy, j= B(y)A(x) Φy, = A(x)B(y) Φy, x, x,. x, As a consequence of Proosition 2.2 we can restate all of the weight conditions in our theorems in terms of reducing oerators. Given matrix weights U and V, Young functions and Φ, and q <, let U q, and V,Φ be the reducing oerators U q, e U q e,, V,Φ e V e Φ,. If (t) = t q or Φ(t) = t then we will write U q, V, (or more simly, Uq, V ). With this definition, we have the following equivalences: in Theorem.6, [U,V],q,Φ su α d + q U q,q V,Φ o; (2.3) in Theorem.0, [U,V],q,Φ, su α d + q U q, V,Φ o; (2.4) in Theorem.4, [U,V],Φ, su U, V,Φ o. (2.5) When > we can restate the two weight A,q condition (.7) as and when = by [U,V] A α,q su α d + q U q V o, (2.6) [U,V] A α,q su α d + q esssu U q V (y) o. (2.7) y Finally, we will need the following lemma in the roof of Corollary.6. It is a quantitative version of a result roved in Roudenko [32, Corollary 3.3]. It follows at once if we use (2.6) to restate the definitions of one weight matrix A and A from (.4). Lemma 2.4. Given < < and a matrix weight W, if W A, then W A and [W] A [W ] A.

13 TWO WEIGHT BUMP CONDITIONS FOR MATRIX WEIGHTS 3 3. Proof of Theorem.6 We first rove that in Theorem.6 we may assume without loss of generality that α. q d Proosition 3.. Given 0 < α < d, matrix weights U, V and < < q < such that q > α d, suose that M α,u,v : L L q. If V is locally integrable, then U(x) = 0 for almost every x R d. Proof. Fix and a vector e, and let f(y) = V (y)eχ (y). Then for x, M α,u,v f(x) α d U α q (x)e dy = d U q (x)e. Therefore, ( α d U q (x)e q dx ) which in turn imlies that ( ) U q (x)e q q dx ( q Mα,U,V f L q f L = V (x)e dx q α d ( V (x)e dx ). ), Let x 0 be any Lebesgue oint of the functions U q (x)e q and V (x)e and let k be an sequence of cubes centered at x 0 that shrink to this oint. By the Lebesgue differentiation theorem, since q α > 0, therighthand side of theabove inequality d tends to 0. Therefore, U q (x0 )e q = 0. Since this is true for every vector e, we have that U(x 0 ) o = U q (x0 ) q o = 0. Hence, U(x 0 ) = 0. To rove Theorem.6 we will first reduce the roblem to the corresonding dyadic maximal oerator. We recall some facts from the theory of dyadic oerators. We say that a collection of cubes D in R d is a dyadic grid if () if D, then l() = 2 k for some k Z. (2) If P, D, then P {P,, }. (3) For every k Z, the cubes D k = { D : l() = 2 k } form a artition of R d. We can aroximate arbitrary cubes in R d by cubes from a finite collection of dyadic grids. (For a roof, see [5, Theorem 3.].) Proosition 3.2. For t {0,± 3 }d define the sets D t = {2 k ([0,) d +m+t) : k Z,m Z d }.

14 4 DAVID CRUZ-URIBE, OFS, JOSHUA ISRALOWITZ, AND KABE MOEN Then each D t is a dyadic grid, and given any cube R d, there exists t and t D t such that t and l( t ) 3l(). Given 0 α < d, matrix weights U and V and a dyadic grid D, define the dyadic maximal oerator Mα,U,V D as in (.2) but with the suremum taken over all cubes D containing x. Then the following result follows at once from Proosition 3.2 (cf. [5, Proosition 3.2]). Proosition 3.3. Given 0 α < d, matrix weights U and V, let D t be the dyadic grids from Proosition 3.2. Then for all x R d, M α,u,v f(x) Mα,U,V Dt f(x). t {0,± 3 }d As a consequence of Proosition 3.3, to rove Theorem.6 it will suffice to rove it for Mα,U,V D, where D is any dyadic grid. For the remainder of this section, fix a dyadic grid D. Our roof is adated from the roof of the boundedness of the one weight maximal oerator in [5]. We begin with two lemmas. For brevity, we will write V Φ for the reducing oerator V,Φ. The first gives a norm inequality for an auxiliary fractional maximal oerator, analogous to the oerator M W introduced in [4,5]. Lemma 3.4. Given 0 β < d, let < q < be such that β =. Let Φ be d q a Young function such that Φ B,q. Given a matrix weight V, define the auxiliary maximal oerator Mβ,V D f(x) = su β d (V Φ ) V(y) f(y) dy χ (x). D Then M D β,v : L (R d,c n ) L q (R d,c n ). Proof. Define the Orlicz fractional maximal oerator M β, Φf(x) = su β d f Φ, χ (x); if β = 0, we write M Φ = M 0, Φ. It was shown in [7] that M β, Φ : L (R d ) L q (R d ). (3.) Nowfixx R d and D containingx. ThenbythegeneralizedHölderinequality (.) we have that β d (V) Φ V(y) f(y) dy (V Φ ) V Φ, β d f Φ,.

15 TWO WEIGHT BUMP CONDITIONS FOR MATRIX WEIGHTS 5 By the first inequality in (2.2) (which holds if we relace the reducing oerator B Φ by any matrix), we have that for all cubes, (V Φ ) V Φ, = V (V Φ ) Φ, V Φ (VΦ ) o =. Therefore, if we combine these two inequalities and take the suremum over all cubes containing x, we get that Mβ,V D f(x) M β, Φ( f )(x). The desired norm inequality follows at once. For the second lemma, given a cube D, let D() = {P D : P } and define the maximal tye oerator N (x) = su α d + q U(x) q V Φ R o χ R (x). (3.2) R D() Lemma 3.5. Given a air of matrix weights U, V that satisfy (.3), then N (x) q dx <. (3.3) su D Lemma 3.5 is actually an immediate consequence of Lemma 4. which we will need to rove Theorem.0, and so its roof is deferred to the next section: see Remark 4.2. Proof of Theorem.6. Fix β such that β =. Note that by our assumtion on d q and q, β 0. Given any cube, α d U(x) q V(y) f(y) dy = α d + q q U(x) q V Φ (V) Φ V(y) f(y) dy α d + q U(x) q V Φ o β d (V) Φ V(y) f(y) dy. For every x R d there exists = x D such that Mα,U,Vf(x) D 2 α d + q U(x) q V Φ o β d (V) Φ V(y) f(y) dy. There exists a unique j = j x Z such that 2 j < x β d (V Φ x ) V(y) f(y) dy 2 j+. (3.4) x

16 6 DAVID CRUZ-URIBE, OFS, JOSHUA ISRALOWITZ, AND KABE MOEN Now for each j Z, let S j be the collection of cubes = x that are maximal with resect to (3.4). Note that the cubes in S j are disjoint. Then for each x R d there exists j Z and S S j such that x S and Mα,U,Vf(x) D 2 α d + q U(x) q V Φ o β d (V) Φ V(y) f(y) dy 2 j+2 N S (x). Moreover, we have that Hence, by Lemmas 3.4 and 3.5, S S j S {x R d : M D β,v f(x) > 2j }. R d M D α,u,vf(x) q dx j Z 2 jq S S j S N S (x) q dx j Z = j Z 2 jq S S j S 2 jq S S j S 2 jq {x : Mβ,V D f(x) > 2j } j Z Mβ,V D f(x)q dx R ( d )q f(x) dx. R d 4. Proof of Theorem.0 Throughout this section, for brevity we will write U = Uq, and VΦ = V,Φ. We begin with a lemma that extends [5, Lemma 3.3] to the scale of Orlicz saces. Lemma 4.. Given a air of matrix weights U, V that satisfy (.5), then su N, < D Remark 4.2. Since B q, we have that (t) t q andso t q (t). Therefore, for anycube D, N q, N, (cf.[6]), andsolemma 3.5followsimmediately from Lemma 4..

17 TWO WEIGHT BUMP CONDITIONS FOR MATRIX WEIGHTS 7 Proof of Lemma 4.. Fix a cube D. We first claim that there exists C > 0 sufficiently large such that if {Rj } is the collection of maximal dyadic subcubes R of, if any, satisfying R α d + q V Φ R U o > C, then j R j. (4.) 2 To see this, note that since α, by inequality (2.2) we have that d q C < Rj α d + q V Φ RjU α d + q V Φ R o ju C α d + q V U Φ,R o j, where C > deends only on n. Therefore, by the definition of the Luxemburg norm, ( V(y) U ) o Φ dy >. R j (C α d + q ) C NowsetC = 2C (U,V), whereby (2.2), (2.4)andourassumtionontheweights U and V, (U,V) = su α d + q V U Φ, [U,V],q,Φ, <. Since the cubes {Rj } are disjoint and Φ is convex, we get Rj j j this roves (4.). R j ( V(y) U ) o Φ dy (C α d + q ) C ( V(y) 2 U ) o Φ dy V U Φ, 2 ; To comlete the roof we will use an aroximation argument. For m N such that 2 m < l(), define the truncated oerator We will rove that N(x) m = su R α d + q U(x) q V Φ R o. R D() x R l(r)>2 m ( N m ) (x) dx 3, (4.2) CC

18 8 DAVID CRUZ-URIBE, OFS, JOSHUA ISRALOWITZ, AND KABE MOEN where C = su U q (U ),. (The last inequality follows from (2.2).) Then by convexity and the definition of the Luxemburg norm we will have that N m, 3CC, and the desired inequality follows from Fatou s lemma as m. To rove (4.2), let G = j R j. If x \G, then for any dyadic cube R D() containing x such that l(r) > 2 m we have R α d + q U(x) q V Φ R o = R α d + q U(x) q (U ) U VΦ R o R α d + q U(x) q (U ) o U VΦ R o C U(x) q (U ) o. Let F j = {x R j : Nm (x) Nm R j(x)}. Then by the maximality of the cubes {R j } and the revious estimate, we have that if x F j, N m(x) C U(x) q (U ) o. We can now estimate as follows: ( N m ) (x) dx CC \G 2 + j ( U q (x)(u ) ) o dx+ C j + ( N m ) (x) dx j R j \F CC j ( N m ) R j(x) dx. R j CC F j ( U q (x)(u ) ) o dx To estimate the last term we iterate this argument. For each j form the collection {R 2 k } of maximal dyadic cubes, if any, R D(R j) such that R α d + q U R jv Φ R o > C. Then we can reeat the first argument above to show that for each j, k:r 2 k R j C Rk 2 2 R j. (4.3)

19 TWO WEIGHT BUMP CONDITIONS FOR MATRIX WEIGHTS 9 Thus, reeating the second argument we get ( N m ) R j(x) dx R CC j j j k:r 2 k R j 2 + j Rk + 2 k:r 2 k R j R w k R 2 k ( N m R 2 k(x) CC ( N m R 2 k(x) CC ) dx ) dx. We continue with this argument on each integral on the right-hand side. However, by (4.3), the cubes Rk 2 are roerly contained in the cubes R j. But for this argument we are assuming that all the cubes have side length greater than 2 m. Therefore, after k iterations, where k m+log 2 (l()), the resulting collection of cubes {Ri k} must be emty so the final sum in the estimate vanishes. So if we sum over the k stes, we get ( N m ) (x) dx 3 2 k 3. CC This gives us (4.2) and our roof is comlete. Proof of Theorem.0. We will rove that U q Iα V : L (R d,c n ) L (R d,c n ). By a standard aroximation argument, it will suffice to rove that U q Iα V f,g f L g, L L 2 q where f, g are bounded functions of comact suort. In [20, Lemma 3.8] it was shown that U L2 q Iα V V(y) f,g d f(y),u(x) q g(x) dxdy, C n α t {0,± 3 }d D t where the dyadic grids D t are defined as in Proosition 3.2. Therefore, to comlete the roof, it suffices to fix a dyadic grid D and show that the inner sum is bounded by f L g L q. Our argument adats to the matrix setting the scalar, two weight argument originally due to Pérez [29] (see also [5]). First note that by the generalized Hölder s inequality in the scale of Orlicz saces, inequality (2.2) and the definition of V Φ, α V(y) d f(y),u(x) q g(x) dxdy C n D

20 20 DAVID CRUZ-URIBE, OFS, JOSHUA ISRALOWITZ, AND KABE MOEN ( )( ) α d (V) Φ V(y) f(y) dy VU(x) Φ q g(x) dx D ( ) α d (V Φ ) V Φ, f Φ, V Φ U(x) q g(x) dx D ( ) α d f Φ, VU(x) Φ q g(x) dx. D Fix a > 2 d+ and define the collection of cubes k = { D : a k < f Φ, a k+ }, and let S k be the disjoint collection of D that are maximal with resect to the inequality f Φ, > a k. Set S = k Sk. We now continue the above estimate: ( ) d f Φ, V Φ U(x) q g(x) dx k k α k = k a k+ k α d a k+ P S k k P α d V Φ U(x) q g(x) dx V Φ U(x) q g(x) dx. Fix a cube P S k ; then we can estimate the inner most sum: α d V Φ U(x) q g(x) dx k P α d D P = j=0 = P α d P l()=2 j l(p) V Φ U(x) q g(x) dx α d 2 jα j=0 P l()=2 j l(p) V Φ U(x) q g(x) dx V Φ U(x) q g(x) dx

21 TWO WEIGHT BUMP CONDITIONS FOR MATRIX WEIGHTS 2 P β d P N P (x) g(x) dx, where β =, β 0 by our hyotheses, and N d q P is defined by (3.2). If we insert this estimate into the above inequality, then by the generalized Hölder inequality (.) and Lemma 4., a k+ P β d N P (x) g(x) dx P S k k a k a k a k For each S, define P ( ) P ( P β d f Φ,P ) N P (x) g(x) dx P S k P P ( P β d f Φ,P )( N P,P g,p ) P S k P inf Mβ Φf(x)M g(x). x P P S k E = \ S Then by [6, Proosition A.], the sets E are airwise disjoint and E. 2 Given this, we can continue the above estimate: P inf Mβ Φf(x)M g(x) x P k P S k. 2 E inf Mβ Φf(x)M g(x) x S 2 M β Φf M gdx S E 2 M β Φf M gdx R d 2 M β Φf L q M g L q f L g L q. The last inequality follows from (3.). If we combine all of the above inequalities, we get the desired result.

22 22 DAVID CRUZ-URIBE, OFS, JOSHUA ISRALOWITZ, AND KABE MOEN 5. Proof of Theorem.4 and Corollary.6 Throughout this section, for brevity we will write U = U, and V Φ = V,Φ. In order to rove our results about Calderón-Zygmund oerators we introduce the concet of sarse oerators. For comlete details, see [5]. Given a dyadic grid D, a set S D is sarse if for each cube S, there exists a set E such that E and the collection of sets {E 2 } is airwise disjoint. Define the dyadic sarse oerator Tα S by Tα S f(x) = α d f(y)dy χ (x). S Note that in the roof of Theorem.0 the set of cubes S is sarse, and the sums being aroximated can be viewed as the integrals of sarse oerators. By modifying this roof we can rove the following result. Theorem 5.. Given 0 α < d and < q < such that q α d, suose that Φ and are Young functions with Φ B,q and B q. If (U,V) is a air of matrix weights satisfy the bum condition (.5), then T S α : L (V) L q (U). Remark 5.2. In the one weight case, a quantitative version of Theorem 5. was roved in [3,9] when = q = 2 and α = 0. Proof. The roof is virtually identical to the roof of Theorem.0 above, excet that, since we start an oerator defined over a sarse family S, we may omit the argument used to construct the set S. This was the only art of the roof of Theorem.0 where we used the assumtion that α > 0; everywhere else in the roof we may take α = 0. Because of these similarities, we only sketch the main stes: U q T Sα V f,g S L 2 +α d su α d + q V Φ U o S E ( βd M β Φf L q M g L q. f L g L q. V(y) (y)f(y),u(x) q (x)g(x) C n dxdy ) (V) Φ V f dx )( (U) U q g dx

23 TWO WEIGHT BUMP CONDITIONS FOR MATRIX WEIGHTS 23 We will now use Theorem 5. with = q and α = 0 (or more recisely, its roof) to rove Theorem.4 and Corollary.6. To do so, we must first describe the recent results of Nazarov, et al. [26] on convex body domination. Fix a cube and a C n valued function f L (). Define { } f = ϕf dx : ϕ : R, ϕ L () ; Then f is a symmetric, convex, comact set in C n. If T is a CZO (or a Haar shift or a araroduct) then for f L (), Tf is dominated by a sarse convex body oerator. More recisely, there exists a sarse collection S such that for some constant C indeendent of f, and a.e. x R d, Tf(x) C S f χ (x), (5.) where the sum is an infinite Minkowski sum of convex bodies. As a consequence of this fact, to rove norm inequalities for a CZO, it is enough to rove uniform estimates for the generalized sarse oerators of the form T S f(x) = S ϕ (x,y)f(y)dy, where for each, ϕ is a real valued function suorted on as a function of y and such that for each x, ϕ (x, ). Note that it is not clear from [26] whether ϕ (x,y) can be chosen as a measurable function of x, though this is not imortant for us (and is unlikely to be imortant for the further study of matrix weighted norm inequalities.) Proof of Theorem.4. Since U TV f(x),g(x) C n = χ (x) U VΦ ϕ (x, )(V Φ ) V f,(u ) U (x)g(x) S C n su V Φ U ( ) ( ) o (V ) V (x)f χ (x) (U) U g(x) S the roof now continues exactly as in the roof of Theorem 5..

24 24 DAVID CRUZ-URIBE, OFS, JOSHUA ISRALOWITZ, AND KABE MOEN To rove Corollary.6 we first need a few additional facts about scalar weights and Orlicz maximal oerators due to Hytönen and Pérez. We say that a weight w A if it satisfies the Fujii-Wilson condition [w] A = su w() M(wχ )(x)dx <. (There are several other definitions of the A condition: see [3]. This definition, which seems to yield the smallest constant, has roved to be the right choice in the study of shar constant inequalities for CZOs.) In [7] they showed that if w A, then it satisfies a shar reverse Hölder inequality: for any cube, w RH s : i.e., ( ) w s s dx 2 wdx, 2 d+ [w] A. where s = + They also roved a quantitative version of inequality (3.): in [8] they showed that given a Young function Φ, ( ( ) t M Φ L c(n) dφ(t)). Φ() Φ(t) In articular, if we let Φ(t) = t r, r >, then a straightforward comutation shows that M Φ L (r ). (5.2) Proof of Corollary.6. BytheargumentintheroofofTheorem.4itisenoughto rove this estimate for sarse oerators. Fix a dyadic grid D and a sarse set S D and let W be a matrix A weight. As we noted in the introduction, for every e C n, W e is a scalar A weight with uniformly bounded constant [5, Corollary 2.2]. Using the Fujii-Wilson condition, we define [W] A sc, = su[ W e ] A. e C n By the shar reverse Hölder inequality, if we let s = +, r = +, (5.3) 2 d+ [W] A sc, 2 d+ [W ]A sc, then for every e C n, W e RH s and W e RH r.

25 TWO WEIGHT BUMP CONDITIONS FOR MATRIX WEIGHTS 25 Define (t) = t s and Φ(t) = t r. Then B and Φ B. Moreover, we claim that [W,W],Φ, [W] A. Toseethis, weargueasintheroofofproosition2.2. Let{e j } n j= beanorthonormal basis in C n. Then by (2.5) (with = q and U = V = W), and the reverse Hölder inequality, [W,W],Φ, su U VΦ o n ( su 2su j= n ( j= ) W (x)u e j r r dx su UV o. ) W (x)u e j dx If we reeat this argument again, exchanging the roles of U and V, we get that [W,W],Φ, su UV o su U V o [W] A. (5.4) Therefore, we can aly Theorem.4 with the air of weights (W,W). A close examination of the roof of this result (i.e., the roof of Theorem 5.) shows that T L (W) [W,W],Φ, M Φ L M L. But by (5.4) and by (5.2) combined with (5.3) we get A sc [W,W],Φ, M Φ L M L [W] A [W], [W ] A sc, This gives us the first estimate in Corollary.6; the second follows from this one, Lemma 2.4 and the fact that see [5, Corollary 2.2]. [W] A sc, su[ W e ] A [W] A ; e C n Remark 5.3. In [26] they roved that the sarse matrix domination inequality (5.) holds if T is a Haar shift or a araroduct. Consequently, Theorem.4 and Corollary.6 hold for these oerators. Additionally, they roved a slightly stronger result when = 2, assuming that a air of matrix weights [U,V] satisfy the two weight A condition, and each of U and V satisfy the aroriate scalar A condition. We can.

26 26 DAVID CRUZ-URIBE, OFS, JOSHUA ISRALOWITZ, AND KABE MOEN immediately extend our roofs to give the analog of this result for all < <. Details are left to the interested reader. 6. Proof of Theorems.8 and.2 For brevity, in this section if α = 0 we will write A,q = A 0,q ; if = q we will write A α or A if α = 0. Proof of Theorem.8. We first rove the sufficiency of the A α,q > we estimate using Hölder s inequality and (2.6): condition. When A f q L q (U) = U q (x)a f(x) q dx R d = α d χ (x)u q (x)v (y)v (y)f(y)dy qdx R d = R d [U,V] q A α,q ( qα d χ (x) q α d + q ( ( [U,V] q A α,q f q L (V). ) q ( )q U q (x)v (y) o dy V (y)f(y) dy dx ( U q (x)v (y) o dy ) q dx V (y)f(y) dy )q V (y)f(y) dy When = we can argue as above, excet that instead of Hölder s inequality we use Fubini s theorem and (2.7). To rove necessity when >, fix a cube and let e C n be such that e =. Then, assuming averaging oerators are uniformly bounded with norm at most K, we have by duality that there exists g L (V), g L (V) =, such that Uq ( e V V (y)u q e dy ) = χ U q e L (V ) = U q e,g(x) dx C n )q

27 TWO WEIGHT BUMP CONDITIONS FOR MATRIX WEIGHTS 27 = e,u q Uq g(x) dx g(x) dx C n ( U q (y)a g(y) q dy = q α d A α g L q (U) K q α d g L (V) K q α d. If we now rearrange terms and take the suremum over all we get that ) q su α d + q U q V o = su α d + q V Uq o K, and so (U,V) A α,q. When = we cannot use duality, so we argue as follows. Since A is linear, given f L () we can rewrite our assumtion to get ( q ) A f L q () = α d U q (x)v q (y)f(y)dy dx C f L (). Therefore, given any S with S > 0, if we let f(x) = χ S (x)e, where e C n and e =, then ( ) q ) S q +α d U q (x) ( V q (y)edy dx K S. Thus, by the definition of V q we get that ( V (y)edy) K. q +α d Uq But then by the Lebesgue differentiation theorem it follows that α d + q esssu U q V (y) K. o y By (2.2) it follows that (U,V) A α,q. S S As a corollary to Theorem.8 we have the uniform boundedness of convolution oerators and the convergence of aroximate identities.

28 28 DAVID CRUZ-URIBE, OFS, JOSHUA ISRALOWITZ, AND KABE MOEN Corollary 6.. Given < and a air of matrix weights (U,V) in A, let ϕ Cc (B(0,)) be a non-negative, radially symmetric and decreasing function with ϕ =, and for t > 0 let ϕ t (x) = t n ϕ(x/t). Then Moreover, we have that su ϕ t f L (U) C f L (V ). t>0 lim ϕ t f f L (U) = 0. t 0 This was roved in the one weight case in [8, Theorem 4.9]. The roof is essentially the same, bounding the convolution oerator by averaging oerators and then alying Theorem.8. Details are left to the interested reader, excet for the following result which is of indeendent interest. Recall that if (u,v) is a air of scalar A weights, then it is immediate by the Lebesgue differentiation theorem that u(x) [u,v] A v(x) a.e. The following result is the matrix analog. Proosition 6.2. Given <, if (U,V) A, then U (x)v (x) o [U,V] A. Remark 6.3. In the roof of Corollary 6., this is used to rove that the L (U) norm of a function is dominated by the L (V) norm: ( ) f L (U) U (x)v (x) o V (x)f(x) dx [U,V] A f L (V). R d Proof. We first consider the case when >. Since U is locally integrable, we have for a.e. x R d that lim m U(x) U(y) dy = lim x m U (x) m o mu (y)dy = 0, x o and that the same holds for V,V, and the scalar function U o ; here { x m } is a sequence of nested cubes whose intersection is {x} and whose side-length tends to zero. Thus by Hölder s inequality, for any e C n we have U (x)e = lim m U (y)edy x m ( limsu m x m U (y)edy ) limsu m x m U (y)e dy limsu U x e. m m

29 On the other hand, lim su U x m o limsu m m TWO WEIGHT BUMP CONDITIONS FOR MATRIX WEIGHTS 29 n j= x m U (y)ej dy limsu m x m U(y) o dy = U(x) o ; in articular, { U x m o} is bounded. Then we can argue as we did above above to get that for any e C n, Hence, we get that lim su V (x)u m U (x)v (x) o x m e limsu ( n j= limsu m m V x m U x m e. U (x)v (x)ej ) ( n j= U x m V (x)ej ) limsu V (x)u x o m m ( n limsu m j= limsu V x U m x o m m [U,V] A. ) V (x)u e j x m Proof of Theorem.2. We first rove () imlies (2). Given (U,V) A α,q, we will rove that M α,u,v : L L q,. Arguing exactly as we did in Section 3 using Proosition 3.2, it will suffice to fix a dyadic grid D and rove that M α,u,v,d : L L q,, where M α,u,v,d is defined as in (.9) but with the suremum restricted to cubes in D. Fix λ > 0 and let f L (R d,c n ). Then for any cube D we have by (2.6) that α d U q V α (y)f(y) dy d U q V o f L q [U,V]A α,q f L.

30 30 DAVID CRUZ-URIBE, OFS, JOSHUA ISRALOWITZ, AND KABE MOEN The right-hand side tends to 0 as, so (see [6, Proosition A.7]) there exists a collection { j } of maximal, disjoint cubes in D such that j α d U q j V (y)f(y) dy > λ j and j j = {x : M α,u,v,d f(x) > λ}. But then we can estimate as follows: by Hölder s inequality and the definition of V, {x : M α,u,v,df(x) > λ} by (2.6), = j j ( λ q j + q +α d j λ q j λ q j [U,V] A α,q λ q j j U q j V(y) ) q f(y) dy ( ( ) q ) q ( j + q +α d U q j V(y) dy j ( ( ) q U )q j + q +α q d j V j q o f(y) dy ; j ( [U,V] A α,q λ q f q L ; j f(y) dy )q j f(y) dy the last inequality holds since q (so by convexity we may ull the ower outside the sum), and since the cubes { j } are disjoint. This comletes the roof that () imlies (2). Theroofthat(2)imlies(3)isimmediate: givenacube, B α f(x) M α,u,v f(x). Finally, we rove that (3) imlies (). It follows at once from the definition of the L q, norm that for any e C n, q χ e L q, = e. First suose that >. )q

31 TWO WEIGHT BUMP CONDITIONS FOR MATRIX WEIGHTS 3 Then using this identity, duality, and (.7), we have that su su χ α d f L = U q V (y)f(y)dy L q, = su su α d + q U q V (y)f(y)dy f L = = su su su α d + q U q V (y)f(y),e dy f L = e = C n = su su su α d + q U q V (y)f(y),e dy e = f L = C n = su su su α d + q f(y),χ V (y)u q e dy C n = su e = f L = su e = R d α d + q χ V U q e L su α d + q V U o [U,V] A α,q. When = the roof is nearly the same, excet that instead of using duality to get the L norm, we take the oerator norm of the matrices and use (2.7). This comletes the roof that (3) imlies (). 7. Proof of Theorem.23 The roof of Theorem.23 is really a corollary of the roof of Theorems.0 and 5.. First, we will show that it will suffice to assume E < and rove (.) with the left-hand side relaced by where f E = E E u(e) E f(x) f E q u(x)dx, f(x)dx. For by Hölder s inequality, f(x) f E,u q u(x)dx f(x) f E q u(x)dx+ f E f E,u u(x)dx E E = f(x) f E q u(x)dx+u(e) (f(x) f E )u(x)dx u(e) E E q

32 32 DAVID CRUZ-URIBE, OFS, JOSHUA ISRALOWITZ, AND KABE MOEN 2 E f(x) f E q u(x)dx. To get (.) with E such that E =, relace E by E = E B R (0). Then E is convex and v(e ), E <. The desired inequality follows from Fatou s lemma if we let R. Next, recall that for convex sets E, we have the following well-known inequality (see [4]): for scalar functions f C (E) and x E, f(x) f E E f(y) x y d dy = I (χ E f )(x). Therefore, it will be enough to rove that given any vector-valued function g, u q I ( V g ) L q g L. (7.) For in this case, if we let let g = χ E V f, then combining the above inequalities we get inequality (.). To rove (7.) we argue as in the roof of Theorems.0 and 5., so here we only sketch the main ideas. Define the matrix U to be the diagonal matrix u(x)i d, where I d is the d d identity matrix. Let U and VΦ be the reducing oerators associated to U and V as in Section 4. Fix a vector function g and a scalar function h L q ; without loss of generality we may assume g and h are bounded functions of comact suort. By the scalar theory of domination by sarse oerators for the fractional integral (see [5]), we have that u L2 q Iα ( V g ),h d V(y) g(y) u(x) q h(x) dxdy, α t {0,± 3 }d S t where each S t is a sarse set contained in the dyadic grid D t which is defined as in Proosition 3.2. Therefore, we need to fix a sarse set S and show that the inner sum is bounded by g L h. L q Let {e j } be any orthonormal basis of C n. Then D t α d S S V(y) g(y) u(x) q h(x) dxdy α d n +α d j= (V Φ ) V(y) g(y) V Φ o u(x) q h(x) dxdy (V Φ ) V(y) g(y) dy V Φ U(x) q h(x)ej dx

33 TWO WEIGHT BUMP CONDITIONS FOR MATRIX WEIGHTS 33 su α d + q V Φ U o n E β d (V) Φ V (y)f(y) dy j= S (U ) U q (x)h(x)ej dx. The middle inequality holds since u and h are scalars and V Φ o V Φ e j. The roof now continues exactly as before. To estimate the suremum in the last inequality, note that by (2.2) it is equivalent to (.0) which is finite by assumtion. Finally, we use Theorem.23 to rove the existence of a weak solution of a degenerate -Lalacian equation. In a recent aer [0] it was shown that the existence of a weak solution was equivalent to the existence of a (,) Poincaré inequality. For brevity, we refer the reader to [0] for recise definitions of a weak solution, which is technical in the degenerate case. Corollary 7.. Fix < < and a bounded, convex, oen set E R d. Let u be a scalar weight and A a matrix weight such that A 2 o L loc (E). Suose that there exist Young functions Φ and, Φ B and B, such that su d u, A 2 Φ, <. (7.2) Then for every f L (u;e) there exists a weak solution g to the degenerate - Lalacian Neumann roblem ( 2 ) div A(x) g(x) A(x) g(x) = f(x) 2 f(x)u(x) in E (7.3) n t A(x) u = 0 on E, where n is the outward unit normal vector of E. Remark 7.2. In the statement of Corollary 7. there seems to be an imlicit assumtion on the regularity of E so that n exists. This is not the case, but we refer the reader to [0] for details. Proof. Define the matrix weight V by A 2 = V. Then (7.2) is equivalent to (.0). Therefore, by Theorem.23 we have the Poincaré inequality f(x) f E,u u(x)dx A 2 (x) f(x) dx. E But by the main result in [0], this is equivalent to the existence of a weak solution to (7.3). E

34 34 DAVID CRUZ-URIBE, OFS, JOSHUA ISRALOWITZ, AND KABE MOEN References [] E. I. Berezhnoĭ, Two-weighted estimations for the Hardy-Littlewood maximal function in ideal Banach saces, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 27 (999), no., MR (99d:42028) [2] K. Bickel,S. Petermichl,and B.Wick, Bounds for the Hilbert transform with matrix A 2 weights, J. Funct. Anal. 270 (206), no. 5, MR [3] K. Bickel and B. Wick, A Study of the Matrix Carleson Embedding Theorem with Alications to Sarse Oerators, rerint (205). arxiv: v. [4] M. Christ andm. Goldberg,Vector A 2 weights and a hardy-littlewood maximal function., Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 353, no. 3 (200), MR83604 [5] D. Cruz-Uribe, Two weight inequalities for fractional integral oerators and commutators, VI International Course of Mathematical Analysis in Andalusia, 206, [6] D. Cruz-Uribe, J.M. Martell, and C. Pérez, Weights, extraolation and the theory of Rubio de Francia, Oerator Theory: Advances and Alications, vol. 25, Birkhäuser/Sringer Basel AG, Basel, 20. MR (202f:4200) [7] D. Cruz-Uribe and K. Moen, A fractional Muckenhout-Wheeden theorem and its consequences, Integral Equations Oerator Theory 76 (203), no. 3, MR [8] D. Cruz-Uribe, K. Moen, and S. Rodney, Matrix A weights, degenerate Sobolev saces, and maings of finite distortion, to aear, J. Geom. Anal. [9] D. Cruz-Uribe and C. Pérez, On the two-weight roblem for singular integral oerators, Ann. Sc. Norm. Suer. Pisa Cl. Sci. (5) (2002), no. 4, MR99004 (2004d:4202) [0] D. Cruz-Uribe, S. Rodney, and E. Rosta, Poincaré inequalities and Neumann roblems for the -Lalacian, rerint (207). arxiv: v. [] A. Culiuc, F. di Plinio, and Y. Ou, Uniform sarse domination of singular integrals via dyadic shifts, rerint (206). arxiv: v2. [2] J. Duoandikoetxea, Fourier analysis, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 29, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 200. MR80036 (200k:4200) [3] J. Duoandikoetxea, F.J. Martín-Reyes, and S. Ombrosi, On the A conditions for general bases, Math. Z. 282 (206), no. 3-4, MR [4] D. Gilbarg and N.S. Trudinger, Ellitic artial differential equations of second order, Classics in Mathematics, Sringer-Verlag, Berlin, 200. Rerint of the 998 edition. MR84364 [5] M. Goldberg, Matrix A weights via maximal functions., Pacific J. Math. 2, no. 2 (2003), MR [6] L. Grafakos, Modern fourier analysis, 2nd ed., Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 250, Sringer, New York, [7] T. Hytönen and C. Pérez, Shar weighted bounds involving A, Anal. PDE 6 (203), no. 4, MR [8], The L(logL) ǫ endoint estimate for maximal singular integral oerators, J. Math. Anal. Al. 428 (205), no., MR [9] J. Isralowitz, H. K. Kwon, and S. Pott, Matrix weighted norm inequalities for commutators and araroducts with matrix symbols, rerint (205). arxiv: v. [20] J. Isralowitz and K. Moen, Matrix weighted Poincaré inequalities and alications to degenerate ellitic systems, rerint (206). arxiv:60.00.

35 TWO WEIGHT BUMP CONDITIONS FOR MATRIX WEIGHTS 35 [2] B. Jawerth, Weighted inequalities for maximal oerators: linearization, localization and factorization, Amer. J. Math. 08 (986), no. 2, MR83336 (87f:42048) [22] A. K. Lerner, On an estimate of Calderón-Zygmund oerators by dyadic ositive oerators, J. Anal. Math. 2 (203), no., 4 6. [23] D.D. Monticelli and S. Rodney, Existence and sectral theory for weak solutions of Neumann and Dirichlet roblems for linear degenerate ellitic oerators with rough coefficients, J. Differential Equations 259 (205), no. 8, MR [24] D.D. Monticelli, S. Rodney, and R. Wheeden, Boundedness of weak solutions of degenerate quasilinear equations with rough coefficients, Differential Integral Equations 25 (202), no. -2, MR [25], Harnack s inequality and Hölder continuity for weak solutions of degenerate quasilinear equations with rough coefficients, Nonlinear Anal. 26 (205), MR [26] F. Nazarov, S. Petermichl, S. Treil, and A. Volberg, Convex body domination and weighted estimates with matrix weights, rerint (207). arxiv: v3. [27] C. J. Neugebauer, Inserting A -weights, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 87 (983), no. 4, MR (84d:42026) [28] C. Pérez, On sufficient conditions for the boundedness of the Hardy-Littlewood maximal oerator between weighted L -saces with different weights, Proc. London Math. Soc. 3 (995), MR [29] C. Pérez, Two weighted inequalities for otential and fractional tye maximal oerators, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 43 (994), no. 2, MR29534 (95m:42028) [30], Two weighted inequalities for otential and fractional tye maximal oerators, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 43 (994), no. 2, MR29534 [3], Weighted norm inequalities for singular integral oerators, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 49 (994), no. 2, MR2604 (94m:42037) [32] S. Roudenko, Matrix-weighted Besov saces, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 355 (2003), no., (electronic). MR (2003k:42037) [33] E.T. Sawyer, Two weight norm inequalities for certain maximal and integral oerators, Harmonic Analysis (Minneaolis, Minn., 98), 982, [34] E.T. Sawyer and R. Wheeden, Weighted inequalities for fractional integrals on Euclidean and homogeneous saces, Amer. J. Math. 4 (992), no. 4, MR75693 [35], Hölder continuity of weak solutions to subellitic equations with rough coefficients, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 80 (2006), no. 847, x+57. MR [36], Degenerate Sobolev saces and regularity of subellitic equations, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 362 (200), no. 4, MR