text:
# Topological diagonalizations and Hausdorff dimension

## 1. Introduction

The Hausdorff dimension of a subset of $`^k`$ is a derivative of the notion of Hausdorff *measures* . However, for our purposes it will be more convenient to use the following equivalent definition. Denote the diameter of a subset $`A`$ of $`^k`$ by $`\mathrm{diam}(A)`$. The *Hausdorff dimension* of a set $`X^k`$, $`\mathrm{dim}(X)`$, is the infimum of all positive $`\delta `$ such that for each positive $`ϵ`$ there exists a cover $`\{I_n\}_n`$ of $`X`$ with

$$\underset{n}{}\mathrm{diam}(I_n)^\delta <ϵ.$$

From the many properties of Hausdorff dimension, we will need the following easy ones.

###### Lemma 1.

1. If $`XY^k`$, then $`\mathrm{dim}(X)\mathrm{dim}(Y)`$.
2. Assume that $`X_1,X_2,`$ are subsets of $`^k`$ such that $`\mathrm{dim}(X_n)=\delta `$ for each $`n`$. Then $`\mathrm{dim}(_nX_n)=\delta `$.
3. Assume that $`X^k`$ and $`Y^m`$ is such that there exists a Lipschitz surjection $`\varphi :XY`$. Then $`\mathrm{dim}(X)\mathrm{dim}(Y)`$.
4. For each $`X^k`$ and $`Y^m`$, $`\mathrm{dim}(X\times Y)\mathrm{dim}(X)+\mathrm{dim}(Y)`$.

Equality need not hold in item (4) of the last lemma. In particular, one can construct a set $`X`$ with Hausdorff dimension zero and a set $`Y`$ such that $`\mathrm{dim}(X\times Y)>\mathrm{dim}(Y)`$. On the other hand, when $`X`$ is countable, $`X\times Y`$ is a union of countably many copies of $`Y`$, and therefore

(1)
$$\mathrm{dim}(X\times Y)=\mathrm{dim}(Y).$$

Having Hausdorff dimension zero can be thought of as a notion of smallness. Being countable is another notion of smallness, and we know that the first notion is not enough restrictive in order to have Equation 1 hold, but the second is.

Notions of smallness for sets of real numbers have a long history and many applications – see, e.g., . We will consider some notions which are weaker than being countable and stronger than having Hausdorff dimension zero.

According to Borel , a set $`X^k`$ has *strong measure zero* if for each sequence of positive reals $`\{ϵ_n\}_n`$, there exists a cover $`\{I_n\}_n`$ of $`X`$ such that $`\mathrm{diam}(I_n)<ϵ_n`$ for all $`n`$. Clearly strong measure zero implies Hausdorff dimension zero. It does not require any special assumptions in order to see that the converse is false. A perfect set can be mapped onto the unit interval by a uniformly continuous function and therefore cannot have strong measure zero.

###### Proposition 2 (folklore).

There exists a perfect set of reals $`X`$ with Hausdorff dimension zero.

###### Proof.

For $`0<\lambda <1`$, denote by $`C(\lambda )`$ the Cantor set obtained by starting with the unit interval, and at each step removing from the middle of each interval a subinterval of size $`\lambda `$ times the size of the interval (So that $`C(1/3)`$ is the canonical middle-third Cantor set, which has Hausdorff dimension $`\mathrm{log}2/\mathrm{log}3`$.) It is easy to see that if $`\lambda _n1`$, then $`\mathrm{dim}(C(\lambda _n))0`$.

Thus, define a special Cantor set $`C(\{\lambda _n\}_n)`$ by starting with the unit interval, and at step $`n`$ removing from the middle of each interval a subinterval of size $`\lambda _n`$ times the size of the interval. For each $`n`$, $`C(\{\lambda _n\}_n)`$ is contained in a union of $`2^n`$ (shrunk) copies of $`C(\lambda _n)`$, and therefore $`\mathrm{dim}(C(\{\lambda _n\}_n))\mathrm{dim}(C(\lambda _n))`$. ∎

As every countable set has strong measure zero, the latter notion can be thought of an “approximation” of countability. In fact, Borel conjectured in  that every strong measure zero set is countable, and it turns out that the usual axioms of mathematics (ZFC) are not strong enough to prove or disprove this conjecture: Assuming the Continuum Hypothesis there exists an uncountable strong measure zero set (namely, a Luzin set), but Laver  proved that one cannot prove the existence of such an object from the usual axioms of mathematics.

The property of strong measure zero (which depends on the metric) has a natural topological counterpart. A topological space $`X`$ has *Rothberger’s property $`C^{\prime \prime }`$*  if for each sequence $`\{𝒰_n\}_n`$ of covers of $`X`$ there is a sequence $`\{U_n\}_n`$ such that for each $`n`$ $`U_n𝒰_n`$, and $`\{U_n\}_n`$ is a cover of $`X`$. Using Scheepers’ notation , this property is a particular instance of the following selection hypothesis (where $`𝔘`$ and $`𝔙`$ are any collections of covers of $`X`$):

* For each sequence $`\{𝒰_n\}_n`$ of members of $`𝔘`$, there is a sequence $`\{U_n\}_n`$ such that $`U_n𝒰_n`$ for each $`n`$, and $`\{U_n\}_n𝔙`$.

Let $`𝒪`$ denote the collection of all open covers of $`X`$. Then the property considered by Rothberger is $`𝖲_1(𝒪,𝒪)`$. Fremlin and Miller  proved that a set $`X^k`$ satisfies $`𝖲_1(𝒪,𝒪)`$ if, and only if, $`X`$ has strong measure zero with respect to each metric which generates the standard topology on $`^k`$.

But even Rothberger’s property for $`X`$ is not strong enough to have Equation 1 hold: It is well-known that every Luzin set satisfies Rothberger’s property (and, in particular, has Hausdorff dimension zero).

###### Lemma 3.

The mapping $`(x,y)x+y`$ from $`^2`$ to $``$ is Lipschitz.

###### Proof.

Observe that for nonnegative reals $`a`$ and $`b`$, $`(ab)^20`$ and therefore $`a^2+b^22ab`$. Consequently,

$$a+b=\sqrt{a^2+2ab+b^2}\sqrt{2(a^2+b^2)}=\sqrt{2}\sqrt{a^2+b^2}.$$

Thus, $`|(x_1+y_1)(x_2+y_2)|\sqrt{2}\sqrt{(x_1x_2)^2+(y_1y_2)^2}`$ for all $`(x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2)^2`$. ∎

Assuming the Continuum Hypothesis, there exists a Luzin set $`L`$ such that $`L+L`$, a Lipschitz image of $`L\times L`$, is equal to $``$ .

We therefore consider some stronger properties. An open cover $`𝒰`$ of $`X`$ is an *$`\omega `$-cover* of $`X`$ if each finite subset of $`X`$ is contained in some member of the cover, but $`X`$ is not contained in any member of $`𝒰`$. $`𝒰`$ is a $`\gamma `$-cover of $`X`$ if it is infinite, and each element of $`X`$ belongs to all but finitely many members of $`𝒰`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ denote the collections of open $`\omega `$-covers and $`\gamma `$-covers of $`X`$, respectively. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Omega }𝒪`$, and these three classes of covers introduce $`9`$ properties of the form $`𝖲_1(𝔘,𝔙)`$. If we remove the trivial ones and check for equivalences , then it turns out that only six of these properties are really distinct, and only three of them imply Hausdorff dimension zero:

$$𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Gamma })𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega })𝖲_1(𝒪,𝒪).$$

The properties $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega })`$ were also studied before. $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega })`$ was studied by Sakai , and $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ was studied by Gerlits and Nagy in : A topological space $`X`$ is a *$`\gamma `$-set* if each $`\omega `$-cover of $`X`$ contains a $`\gamma `$-cover of $`X`$. Gerlits and Nagy proved that $`X`$ is a $`\gamma `$-set if, and only if, $`X`$ satisfies $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. It is not difficult to see that every countable space is a $`\gamma `$-set. But this property is not trivial: Assuming the Continuum Hypothesis, there exist uncountable $`\gamma `$-sets .

$`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is closed under taking finite powers , thus the Luzin set we used to see that Equation 1 need not hold when $`X`$ satisfies $`𝖲_1(𝒪,𝒪)`$ does not rule out that possibility that this Equation holds when $`X`$ satisfies $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega })`$. However, in  it is shown that assuming the Continuum Hypothesis, there exist Luzin sets $`L_0`$ and $`L_1`$ satisfying $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega })`$, such that $`L_0+L_1=`$. Thus, the only remaining candidate for a nontrivial property of $`X`$ where Equation 1 holds is $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ ($`\gamma `$-sets). Fremlin (personal communication) asked whether Equation 1 is indeed provable in this case. We give a negative answer, but show that for a yet stricter (but nontrivial) property which was considered in the literature, the answer is positive.

The notion of a strong $`\gamma `$-set was introduced in . However, we will adopt the following simple characterization from  as our formal definition. Assume that $`\{𝔘_n\}_n`$ is a sequence of collections of covers of a space $`X`$, and that $`𝔙`$ is a collection of covers of $`X`$. Define the following selection hypothesis.

* For each sequence $`\{𝒰_n\}_n`$ where $`𝒰_n𝔘_n`$ for each $`n`$, there is a sequence $`\{U_n\}_n`$ such that $`U_n𝒰_n`$ for each $`n`$, and $`\{U_n\}_n𝔙`$.

A cover $`𝒰`$ of a space $`X`$ is an *$`n`$-cover* if each $`n`$-element subset of $`X`$ is contained in some member of $`𝒰`$. For each $`n`$ denote by $`𝒪_n`$ the collection of all open $`n`$-covers of a space $`X`$. Then $`X`$ is a *strong $`\gamma `$-set* if $`X`$ satisfies $`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.

In most cases $`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,𝔙)`$ is equivalent to $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },𝔙)`$ , but not in the case $`𝔙=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$: It is known that for a strong $`\gamma `$-set $`G\{0,1\}^{}`$ and each $`A\{0,1\}^{}`$ of measure zero, $`GA`$ has measure zero too ; this can be contrasted with Theorem 5 below. In Section 3 we show that Equation 1 is provable in the case that $`X`$ is a strong $`\gamma `$-set, establishing another difference between the notions of $`\gamma `$-sets and strong $`\gamma `$-sets, and giving a positive answer to Fremlin’s question under a stronger assumption on $`X`$.

## 2. The product of a $`\gamma `$-set and a set of Hausdorff dimension zero

###### Theorem 4.

Assuming the Continuum Hypothesis (or just $`𝔭=𝔠`$), there exist a $`\gamma `$-set $`X`$ and a set $`Y`$ with Hausdorff dimension zero such that the Hausdorff dimension of the algebraic sum

$$X+Y=\{x+y:xX,yY\}$$

(a Lipschitz image of $`X\times Y`$ in $``$) is $`1`$. In particular, $`dim(X\times Y)1`$.

Our theorem will follow from the following related theorem. This theorem involves the *Cantor space* $`\{0,1\}^{}`$ of infinite binary sequences. The Cantor space is equipped with the product topology and with the product measure.

###### Theorem 5 (Bartoszyński and Recław ).

Assume the Continuum Hypothesis (or just $`𝔭=𝔠`$). Fix an increasing sequence $`\{k_n\}_n`$ of natural numbers, and for each $`n`$ define

$$A_n=\{f\{0,1\}^{}:f[k_n,k_{n+1})0\}.$$

If the set

$$A=\underset{m}{}\underset{nm}{}A_n$$

has measure zero, then there exists a $`\gamma `$-set $`G\{0,1\}^{}`$ such that the algebraic sum $`GA`$ is equal to $`\{0,1\}^{}`$ (where where $``$ denotes the modulo $`2`$ coordinatewise addition).

Observe that the assumption in Theorem 5 holds whenever $`_n2^{(k_{n+1}k_n)}`$ converges.

###### Lemma 6.

There exists an increasing sequence of natural numbers $`\{k_n\}_n`$ such that $`_n2^{(k_{n+1}k_n)}`$ converges, and such that for the sequence $`\{B_n\}_n`$ defined by

$$B_n=\{\underset{i}{}\frac{f(i)}{2^{i+1}}:f\{1,0,1\}^{}\text{ and }f[k_n,k_{n+1})0\}$$

for each $`n`$, the set

$$Y=\underset{m\omega }{}\underset{nm}{}B_n$$

has Hausdorff dimension zero.

###### Proof.

Fix a sequence $`p_n`$ of positive reals which converges to $`0`$. Let $`k_0=0`$. Given $`k_n`$ find $`k_{n+1}`$ satisfying

$$3^{k_n}\frac{1}{2^{p_n(k_{n+1}2)}}\frac{1}{2^n}.$$

Clearly, every $`B_n`$ is contained in a union of $`3^{k_n}`$ intervals such that each of the intervals has diameter $`1/2^{k_{n+1}2}`$. For each positive $`\delta `$ and $`ϵ`$, choose $`m`$ such that $`_{nm}1/2^n<ϵ`$ and such that $`p_n<\delta `$ for all $`nm`$. Now, $`Y`$ is a subset of $`_{nm}B_n`$, and

$$\underset{nm}{}3^{k_n}\left(\frac{1}{2^{k_{n+1}2}}\right)^\delta <\underset{nm}{}3^{k_n}\left(\frac{1}{2^{k_{n+1}2}}\right)^{p_n}<\underset{nm}{}\frac{1}{2^n}<ϵ.$$

Thus, the Hausdorff dimension of $`Y`$ is zero. ∎

The following lemma concludes the proof of Theorem 4.

###### Lemma 7.

There exists a $`\gamma `$-set $`X`$ and a set $`Y`$ with Hausdorff dimension zero such that $`X+Y=`$. In particular, $`dim(X+Y)=1`$.

###### Proof.

Choose a sequence $`\{k_n\}_n`$ and a set $`Y`$ as in Lemma 6. Then $`_n2^{(k_{n+1}k_n)}`$ converges, and the corresponding set $`A`$ defined in Theorem 5 has measure zero. Thus, there exists a $`\gamma `$-set $`G`$ such that $`GA=\{0,1\}^{}`$.

Define $`\mathrm{\Phi }:\{0,1\}^{}`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(f)=\underset{i}{}\frac{f(i)}{2^{i+1}}.$$

As $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is continuous, $`X=\mathrm{\Phi }[G]`$ is a $`\gamma `$-set of reals. Assume that $`z`$ is a member of the interval $`[0,1]`$, let $`f\{0,1\}^{}`$ be such that $`z=_if(i)/2^{i+1}`$. Then $`f=ga`$ for appropriate $`gG`$ and $`aA`$. Define $`h\{1,0,1\}^{}`$ by $`h(i)=f(i)g(i)`$. For infinitely many $`n`$, $`a[k_n,k_{n+1})0`$ and therefore $`f[k_n,k_{n+1})g[k_n,k_{n+1})`$, that is, $`h[k_n,k_{n+1})0`$ for infinitely many $`n`$. Thus, $`y=_ih(i)/2^{i+1}Y`$, and for $`x=\mathrm{\Phi }(g)`$,

$$x+y=\underset{i}{}\frac{g(i)}{2^{i+1}}+\underset{i}{}\frac{h(i)}{2^{i+1}}=\underset{i}{}\frac{g(i)+h(i)}{2^{i+1}}=\underset{i}{}\frac{f(i)}{2^{i+1}}=z.$$

This shows that $`[0,1]X+Y`$. Consequently, $`X+(Y+)=(X+Y)+=`$. Now, observe that $`Y+`$ has Hausdorff dimension zero since $`Y`$ has. ∎

## 3. The product of a strong $`\gamma `$-set and a set of Hausdorff dimension zero

###### Theorem 8.

Assume that $`X^k`$ is a strong $`\gamma `$-set. Then for each $`Y^l`$, $`\mathrm{dim}(X\times Y)=\mathrm{dim}(Y)`$.

###### Proof.

The proof for this is similar to that of Theorem 7 in .

It is enough to show that $`\mathrm{dim}(X\times Y)\mathrm{dim}(Y)`$.

###### Lemma 9.

Assume that $`Y^l`$ is such that $`\mathrm{dim}(Y)<\delta `$. Then for each positive $`ϵ`$ there exists a *large* cover $`\{I_n\}_n`$ of $`Y`$ (i.e., such that each $`yY`$ is a member of infinitely many sets $`I_n`$) such that $`_n\mathrm{diam}(I_n)^\delta <ϵ`$.

###### Proof.

For each $`m`$ choose a cover $`\{I_n^m\}_n`$ of $`Y`$ such that $`_n\mathrm{diam}(I_n^m)^\delta <ϵ/2^m`$. Then $`\{I_n^m:m,n\}`$ is a large cover of $`Y`$, and $`_{m,n}\mathrm{diam}(I_n^m)^\delta <_nϵ/2^m=ϵ`$. ∎

###### Lemma 10.

Assume that $`Y^l`$ is such that $`\mathrm{dim}(Y)<\delta `$. Then for each sequence $`\{ϵ_n\}_n`$ of positive reals there exists a large cover $`\{A_n\}_n`$ of $`Y`$ such that for each $`n`$ $`A_n`$ is a union of finitely many sets, $`I_1^n,\mathrm{},I_{m_n}^n`$, such that $`_j\mathrm{diam}(I_j^n)^\delta <ϵ_n`$.

###### Proof.

Assume that $`\{ϵ_n\}_n`$ is a sequence of positive reals. By Lemma 9, there exists a large cover $`\{I_n\}_n`$ of $`Y`$ such that $`_n\mathrm{diam}(I_n)^\delta <ϵ_1`$. For each $`n`$ let $`k_n=\mathrm{min}\{m:_{jm}\mathrm{diam}(I_j)^\delta <ϵ_n\}`$. Take

$$A_n=\underset{j=k_n}{\overset{k_{n+1}1}{}}I_j.$$

Fix $`\delta >\mathrm{dim}(Y)`$ and $`ϵ>0`$. Choose a sequence $`\{ϵ_n\}_n`$ of positive reals such that $`_n2nϵ_n<ϵ`$, and use Lemma 10 to get the corresponding large cover $`\{A_n\}_n`$.

For each $`n`$ we define an $`n`$-cover $`𝒰_n`$ of $`X`$ as follows. Let $`F`$ be an $`n`$-element subset of $`X`$. For each $`xF`$, find an open interval $`I_x`$ such that $`xI_x`$ and

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{m_n}{}}\mathrm{diam}(I_x\times I_j^n)^\delta <2ϵ_n.$$

Let $`U_F=_{xF}I_x`$. Set

$$𝒰_n=\{U_F:F\text{ is an }n\text{-element subset of }X\}.$$

As $`X`$ is a strong $`\gamma `$-set, there exist elements $`U_{F_n}𝒰_n`$, $`n`$, such that $`\{U_{F_n}\}_n`$ is a $`\gamma `$-cover of $`X`$. Consequently,

$$X\times Y\underset{n}{}(U_{F_n}\times A_n)\underset{n}{}\underset{xF_n}{}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m_n}{}}I_x\times I_j^n$$

and

$$\underset{n}{}\underset{xF_n}{}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m_n}{}}\mathrm{diam}(I_x\times I_j^n)^\delta <\underset{n}{}n2ϵ_n<ϵ.$$

## 4. Open problems

There are ways to strengthen the notion of $`\gamma `$-sets other than moving to strong $`\gamma `$-sets. Let $`_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ denote the collections of *countable Borel* $`\omega `$-covers and $`\gamma `$-covers of $`X`$, respectively. As every open $`\omega `$-cover of a set of reals contains a countable $`\omega `$-subcover , we have that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and therefore $`𝖲_1(_\mathrm{\Omega },_\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ implies $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. The converse is not true .

###### Problem 11.

Assume that $`X`$ satisfies $`𝖲_1(_\mathrm{\Omega },_\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. Is it true that for each $`Y`$, $`\mathrm{dim}(X\times Y)=\mathrm{dim}(Y)`$?

We conjecture that assuming the Continuum Hypothesis, the answer to this problem is negative. We therefore introduce the following problem. For infinite sets of natural numbers $`A,B`$, we write $`A^{}B`$ if $`AB`$ is finite. Assume that $``$ is a family of infinite sets of natural numbers. A set $`P`$ is a *pseudointersection* of $``$ if it is infinite, and for each $`B`$, $`A^{}B`$. $``$ is *centered* if each finite subcollection of $``$ has a pseudointersection. Let $`𝔭`$ denote the minimal cardinality of a centered family which does not have a pseudointersection. In  it is proved that $`𝔭`$ is also the minimal cardinality of a set of reals which does not satisfy $`𝖲_1(_\mathrm{\Omega },_\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.

###### Problem 12.

Assume that the cardinality of $`X`$ is smaller than $`𝔭`$. Is it true that for each $`Y`$, $`\mathrm{dim}(X\times Y)=\mathrm{dim}(Y)`$?

Another interesting open problem involves the following notion . A cover $`𝒰`$ of $`X`$ is a *$`\tau `$-cover* of $`X`$ if it is a large cover, and for each $`x,yX`$, one of the sets $`\{U𝒰:xU\text{ and }yU\}`$ or $`\{U𝒰:yU\text{ and }xU\}`$ is finite. Let $`\mathrm{T}`$ denote the collection of open $`\tau `$-covers of $`X`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{T}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, therefore $`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ implies $`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,\mathrm{T})`$.

###### Problem 13.

Assume that $`X`$ satisfies $`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,\mathrm{T})`$. Is it true that for each $`Y`$, $`\mathrm{dim}(X\times Y)=\mathrm{dim}(Y)`$?

It is conjectured that $`𝖲_1(\{𝒪_n\}_n,\mathrm{T})`$ is strictly stronger than $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{T})`$ . If this conjecture is false, then the results in this paper imply a negative answer to Problem 13.

Another type of problems is the following: We have seen that the assumption that $`X`$ is a $`\gamma `$-set and $`Y`$ has Hausdorff dimension zero is not enough in order to prove that $`X\times Y`$ has Hausdorff dimension zero. We also saw that if $`X`$ satisfies a stronger property (strong $`\gamma `$-set), then $`dim(X\times Y)=dim(Y)`$ for all $`Y`$. Another approach to get a positive answer would be to strengthen the assumption on $`Y`$ rather than $`X`$.

If we assume that $`Y`$ has strong measure zero, then a positive answer follows from a result of Scheepers  (see also ), asserting that if $`X`$ is a strong measure zero metric space which also has the Hurewicz property, then for each strong measure zero metric space $`Y`$, $`X\times Y`$ has strong measure zero. Indeed, if $`X`$ is a $`\gamma `$-set then it has the required properties.

Finally, the following question of Krawczyk remains open.

###### Problem 14.

Is it consistent (relative to ZFC) that there are uncountable $`\gamma `$-sets but for each $`\gamma `$-set $`X`$ and each set $`Y`$, $`dim(X\times Y)=dim(Y)`$?


format: text

text:
# Distorted Hankel integral operators

## 1. Introduction

We are going to study a class of integral operators on $`L^2(_+)`$ that generalizes Hankel integral operators.

For a function $`\phi `$ in $`L^1(_+)`$, the integral Hankel operator $`𝚪_\phi `$ is defined on $`L^2(_+)`$ by

$$(𝚪_\phi f)(x)=__+\phi (x+y)f(y)𝑑y.$$

It is easy to see that such operators are bounded on $`L^2(_+)`$. Operators $`𝚪_\phi `$ can be bounded in a much more general case. For $`𝚪_\phi `$ to be bounded, $`\phi `$ does not have to be a function, it can be a distribution. Bounded Hankel operators $`𝚪_\phi `$ are unitarily equivalent to Hankel operators on $`\mathrm{}^2`$, i.e., operators with Hankel matrices of the form $`\{\alpha _{j+k}\}_{j,k0}`$. These facts can be found in \[Pel4\], Ch. 1, §8.

In this paper for $`\alpha ,\beta >0`$, we study the integral operators $`𝔊_\phi ^{\alpha ,\beta }`$ on $`L^2(_+)`$ defined by

$`\left(𝔊_\phi ^{\alpha ,\beta }f\right)(x)={\displaystyle __+}\phi \left(x^\alpha +y^\beta \right)f(y)𝑑y.`$ (1.1)
Clearly, if $`\phi `$ is a locally integrable function on $`_+=(0,\mathrm{})`$, the right-hand side of (1.1) is well defined for smooth functions $`f`$ with compact support in $`(0,\mathrm{})`$. The integral on the right-hand side of (1.1) makes sense for distributions $`\phi `$ on $`(0,\mathrm{})`$ and infinitely differentiable functions $`\phi `$ with compact support in $`_+`$. We say that for a distribution $`\phi `$, the operator $`𝔊_\phi ^{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is bounded on $`L^2(_+)`$ if it extends by continuity to $`L^2(_+)`$. Integral operators $`𝔊_\phi ^{\alpha ,\beta }`$ are called distorted Hankel operators. We are going to study boundedness, compactness and Schatten-von Neumann properties of distorted Hankel operators.

Obviously, for $`\alpha =\beta =1`$, the operator $`𝔊_\phi ^{\alpha ,\beta }`$ coincides with the integral Hankel operator $`𝚪_\phi `$. On the other hand, the limit case of the operators $`𝔊_\phi ^{\alpha ,\alpha }`$ as $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$ are the integral operators $`Q_\phi `$ on $`L^2(_+)`$ defined by

$$(Q_\phi f)(x)=__+\phi (\mathrm{max}\{x,y\})f(y)𝑑y.$$

We refer the reader to \[AJPR\] where the operators $`Q_\phi `$ are studied in detail. Note, however, that properties of the operators $`Q_\phi `$ are quite different from properties of the operators $`𝔊_\phi ^{\alpha ,\beta }`$.

In §2 we collect necessary information on Schatten–von Neumann classes, weighted integral Hankel operators, and discuss properties of the averaging projection and weighted projections onto the integral Hankel operators. We state in §2 known results (Theorems A–D) that will be used in Sections 4 and 5.

In §3 we show that Theorem B, that describes the weighted integral Hankel operators $`𝚪_\phi ^{\alpha ,\beta }`$ of class $`𝑺_p`$, does not extend to $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ not satisfying the hypotheses of Theorem B.

In §4 we reduce the study of the operators $`𝔊_\phi ^{\alpha ,\beta }`$ to the study of weighted integral Hankel operators (see the definition in §2). We describe the operators $`𝔊_\phi ^{\alpha ,\beta }`$ that belong to the Schatten–von Neumann class $`𝑺_p`$ under a certain condition on $`\alpha ,\beta `$, and $`𝒫`$.

In §5 we introduce the averaging projection $`𝒬_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ onto the subspace of operators of the form $`𝔊_\phi ^{\alpha ,\beta }`$ and we study their metric properties. In particular, we show that if $`\alpha \beta `$, $`\beta >1`$, and

$$\frac{2\beta }{\beta +1}<p<\frac{2\beta }{\beta 1},$$

then $`𝒬_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is bounded on $`𝑺_p`$. Moreover, this result is sharp. It is interesting to observe that both $`\frac{2\beta }{\beta +1}`$ and $`\frac{2\beta }{\beta 1}`$ go to 2 as $`\beta `$ tends to $`\mathrm{}`$. However, in the limiting case the averaging projection on the subspace of the operators of the from $`Q_\phi `$ is bounded for all $`p(1,\mathrm{})`$, see \[AJPR\].

It is also interesting that, unlike in the case of Hankel integral operators, for $`\alpha ,\beta (0,1)`$, the averaging projection $`𝒬_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is bounded on $`𝑺_1`$, and on the space of bounded and compact operators.

## 2. Preliminaries

Schatten–von Neumann classes. Recall that for a bounded operator $`T`$ on a Hilbert space $``$ the singular values $`s_j(T)`$, $`j0`$, are defined by

$$s_j(T)=inf\{TK:K(),\mathrm{rank}Kj\}.$$

Here $`()`$ denotes the space of bounded linear operators on $``$.

The Schatten–von Neumann class $`𝑺_p=𝑺_p()`$, $`0<p<\mathrm{}`$, consists of the operators $`T`$ on $``$ such that

$$T_{𝑺_p}=\left(\underset{j0}{}\left(s_j(T)\right)^p\right)^{1/p}<\mathrm{}.$$

We denote by $`𝓒()`$ the space of compact operators on $``$.

If $`1p<\mathrm{}`$, then $`_{𝑺_p}`$ is a norm, which makes $`𝑺_p`$ a Banach space. For $`p<1`$, $`_{𝑺_p}`$ does not satisfy the triangle inequality, it is a quasinorm (i.e., $`T_1+T_2_{𝑺_p}\mathrm{const}(T_1_{𝑺_p}+T_2_{𝑺_p})`$ for $`T_1,T_2𝑺_p`$), which makes $`𝑺_p`$ a quasi-Banach space.

The linear functional $`\mathrm{trace}`$ is defined on $`𝑺_1`$ by

$$\mathrm{trace}T=\underset{j0}{}(Te_j,e_j),T𝑺_1,$$

where $`\{e_j\}_{j0}`$ is an orthonormal basis in $``$. Moreover, the right-hand side does not depend on the choice of the basis.

If $`1<p<\mathrm{}`$, the dual space $`𝑺_p^{}`$ can be identified with $`𝑺_p^{}`$ with respect to the pairing

$`T,R=\mathrm{trace}TR^{},T𝑺_p,R𝑺_p^{}.`$ (2.1)
Here $`p^{}=p/(p1)`$ is the dual exponent. With respect to the same pairing (2.1) one can identify $`𝑺_1^{}`$ with $`()`$ and $`\left(𝓒()\right)^{}`$ with $`𝑺_1`$.

In the case $`=L^2(𝒳,\mu )`$ and $`\mu `$ is a $`\sigma `$-finite measure, the space $`𝑺_2`$ coincides with the set of integral operators $`_k`$,

$$(_kf)(x)=_𝒳k(x,y)f(y)𝑑\mu (y),fL^2(𝒳,\mu ),x,y𝒳,$$

with $`kL^2(𝒳\times 𝒳,\mu \mu )`$ and

$$_k_{𝑺_2}=\left(\underset{𝒳\times 𝒳}{}|k(x,y)|^2𝑑\mu (x)𝑑\mu (y)\right)^{1/2}.$$

Moreover, if $`T`$ and $`R`$ are integral operators in $`𝑺_2`$ with kernel functions $`k`$ and $`\xi `$, then

$$\mathrm{trace}TR^{}=\underset{𝒳\times 𝒳}{}k(x,y)\overline{\xi (x,y)}𝑑\mu (x)𝑑\mu (y).$$

We refer the reader to \[GK\] and \[BS\] for basic facts about Schatten–von Neumann classes.

Besov classes. We consider here spaces $`𝔅_p^s`$ of distributions on $`_+=(0,\mathrm{})`$. The space $`𝔅_p^s`$ can be identified with the restrictions of the Fourier transforms of functions in the Besov classes $`B_p^s()`$ to $`_+`$.

Let $`v`$ be a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ function on $``$ such that

$$\mathrm{supp}v=[\frac{1}{2},2]\text{and}\underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}v\left(\frac{x}{2^j}\right)=1,x>0.$$

Put

$`v_j(x)=v\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{2^j}}\right),x>0.`$ (2.2)
For $`0<p\mathrm{}`$ and $`s`$, we define the space $`𝔅_p^s`$ as the space of distributions $`\phi `$ on $`_+`$ such that

$$\phi _{𝔅_p^s}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\left(\underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(2^{js}(v_j\phi )_{L^p}\right)^p\right)^{1/p}<\mathrm{},p<\mathrm{},$$

and

$$\phi _{𝔅_{\mathrm{}}^s}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\underset{\mathrm{}<j<\mathrm{}}{sup}2^{js}(v_j\phi )_L^{\mathrm{}}<\mathrm{}.$$

Here $``$ denotes the Fourier transform.

If $`p1`$, $`𝔅_p^s`$ is a Banach space with norm $`_{𝔅_p^s}`$. If $`p<1`$, $`𝔅_p^s`$ is a quasi-Banach space with quasinorm $`_{𝔅_p^s}`$, i.e., $`\phi _1+\phi _2_{𝔅_p^s}\mathrm{const}\left(\phi _1_{𝔅_p^s}+\phi _2_{𝔅_p^s}\right)`$.

We also define the space $`𝔟_{\mathrm{}}^s`$, $`s`$, as the closed subspace of $`𝔅_{\mathrm{}}^s`$, which consists of distributions $`\phi 𝔅_{\mathrm{}}^s`$ such that

$$\underset{|j|\mathrm{}}{lim}2^{js}(v_j\phi )_L^{\mathrm{}}=0.$$

If $`\phi `$ is a distribution on $`_+`$ and $`\psi (x)=x^\sigma \phi (x)`$ (this equality has to be understood in the distributional sense), then it is easy to see that $`\phi 𝔅_{\mathrm{}}^s`$ if and only if $`\psi 𝔅_{\mathrm{}}^{s\sigma }`$.

If $`1p<\mathrm{}`$ and $`s_1,s_2`$, one can identify the dual space $`\left(𝔅_p^{s_1}\right)^{}`$ with the space $`𝔅_p^{}^{s_2}`$ with respect to the pairing

$`\phi ,\psi ={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}t^{s_1+s_1}\phi (t)\overline{\psi (t)}𝑑t,\phi 𝔅_p^{s_1},\psi 𝔅_p^{}^{s_2}.`$ (2.3)
Note that the integral on the right-hand side makes sense for compactly supported $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ functions $`\phi `$ can be understood as the value of the distribution $`\psi `$ at the function $`tt^{s_1+s_1}\phi (t)`$. The linear functional $`\phi \phi ,\psi `$ extends by continuity to the whole space $`𝔅_p^{s_1}`$. As usual, $`\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{p^{}}=1`$.

The dual space $`𝔟_{\mathrm{}}^{s_1}`$ can be identified with the space $`𝔅_1^{s_2}`$ with respect to the same pairing (2.3).

Remark. The Besov spaces $`B_p^s()`$ of functions on $``$ can be defined as the space of tempered distributions $`f`$ on $``$ such that

$$\underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(2^{sj}f\xi _j_{L^p}\right)^p+\underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(2^{sj}f\eta _j_{L^p}\right)^p<\mathrm{},$$

where $`\xi _j`$ and $`\eta _j`$ are functions in on $``$ such that

$$\xi _j=v_j\text{and}(\eta _j)(x)=v_j(x),x.$$

and the $`v_j`$ are defined by (2.2). This this space contains all polynomials. It is possible to define the space $`B_p^s()`$ modulo the polynomials of degree at most $`s1/p`$, in which case only polynomials of degree at most $`s1/p`$ can belong to this space. In both cases

$$𝔅_p^s=\left\{f\right|(0,\mathrm{}):fB_p^s()\}.$$

The subspace $`\left(B_p^s()\right)_+`$ of $`B_p^s()`$ is defined by

$$\left(B_p^s()\right)_+=\{fB_p^s():\mathrm{supp}f[0,+\mathrm{})\}.$$

Functions in $`\left(B_p^s()\right)_+`$ can be extended analytically in a natural way to the upper half-plane. Clearly,

$$\left\{(f)\right|(0,\mathrm{}):f\left(B_p^s()\right)_+\}=𝔅_p^s.$$

We refer the reader to \[Pee\] for more information about Besov classes.

Weighted integral Hankel operators. For a locally integrable function $`\phi `$ on $`_+`$ the weighted integral Hankel operator $`𝚪_\phi ^{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is defined by

$$\left(𝚪_\phi ^{\alpha ,\beta }f\right)(x)=_0^{\mathrm{}}x^\alpha y^\beta \phi (x+y)f(y)𝑑y$$

for smooth functions $`f`$ with compact support in $`_+`$. Again, the definition makes sense for distributions $`\phi `$ on $`_+`$. The operators $`𝚪_\phi ^{\alpha ,\beta }`$ are analogs of weighted Hankel matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\psi ^{\alpha ,\beta }=\left\{(1+j)^\alpha (1+k)^\beta \widehat{\psi }(j+k)\right\}_{j,k0}`$, where $`\psi `$ is a function analytic in the unit disk.

For $`\alpha =\beta =0`$, the operator $`𝚪_\phi ^{0,0}=𝚪_\phi `$ is the integral Hankel operator defined in the introduction.

We need the following results.

Theorem A. Suppose that $`\alpha >0`$ and $`\beta >0`$. Then $`𝚪_\phi ^{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is bounded on $`L^2(_+)`$ if and only if $`\phi 𝔅_{\mathrm{}}^{\alpha +\beta }`$ and $`𝚪_\phi ^{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is compact if and only if $`\phi 𝔟_{\mathrm{}}^{\alpha +\beta }`$.

We refer the reader to \[Pel2\] for the corresponding result for weighted Hankel matrices and to \[JP\] for more general results than Theorem A.

Theorem B. Let $`0<p<\mathrm{}`$. Suppose that $`\mathrm{min}\{\alpha ,\beta \}>\mathrm{max}\{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{p}\}`$. Then $`𝚪_\phi ^{\alpha ,\beta }𝐒_p`$ if and only if $`\phi 𝔅_p^{1/p+\alpha +\beta }`$.

For $`p1`$ the description of the weighted Hankel matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\psi ^{\alpha ,\beta }`$ of class $`𝑺_p`$ was obtained in \[Pel1\] for $`\alpha =\beta =0`$ and in \[Pel2\] in the case $`\mathrm{min}\{\alpha ,\beta \}>\mathrm{max}\{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{p}\}`$. For integral Hankel operators and $`p1`$ see \[CR\], \[R\], and \[JP\]. In the case $`p<1`$ we refer the reader to \[Pel1\] for weighted Hankel matrices and to \[S\] for the weighted integral Hankel operators. See also \[Pel4\], Ch. 6.

Averaging projection onto the integral Hankel operators. Consider the orthogonal projection $`𝒫`$ on the Hilbert–Schmidt class $`𝑺_2`$ onto the subspace of Hankel integral operators. Clearly, if $`kL^2(_+\times _+)`$, then

$$𝒫_k=𝚪_\phi ,$$

where

$$\phi (x)=\frac{1}{x}_0^xk(t,xt)𝑑t.$$

For $`2<p<\mathrm{}`$, the averaging projection $`𝒫`$ can be defined on the dense subset $`𝑺_p𝑺_2`$ of of $`𝑺_p`$. As usual, we say that $`𝒫`$ is bounded on $`𝑺_p`$ if it extends by continuity to a bounded operator on $`𝑺_p`$.

Theorem C. Let $`1<p<\mathrm{}`$. Then the averaging projection $`𝒫`$ is bounded on $`𝐒_p`$.

The same result for the averaging projection onto the space of Hankel matrices was obtained in \[Pel1\], see also \[Pel4\]. The same proof works for the averaging projection onto the set of integral Hankel operators.

Note that $`𝒫`$ is unbounded on $`𝑺_1`$ and on the spaces of bounded and compact operators (see \[Pel1\], \[Pel4\]). However, there are bounded projections on $`𝑺_1`$ onto the subspace of integral Hankel operators. Indeed, for $`\alpha ,\beta >0`$ we define the weighted averaging projection $`𝒫_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ by

$$𝒫_{\alpha ,\beta }_k=𝚪_\phi ,$$

where

$$\phi (x)=\frac{\underset{0}{\overset{x}{}}t^\alpha (xt)^\beta k(t,xt)𝑑t}{\underset{0}{\overset{x}{}}t^\alpha (xt)^\beta 𝑑t}.$$

Theorem D. Let $`\alpha ,\beta >0`$. Then $`𝒫_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is a bounded operator on $`𝐒_1`$.

The corresponding result for weighted averaging projection on the subspace of Hankel matrices was found by the first author, see (\[Pel2\] and \[Pel4\]). The same proof works in the case of integral operators.

## 3. Theorem B is sharp

When we study properties of the averaging projection $`𝒬_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ onto the space of operators of the form $`𝔊_\phi ^{\alpha ,\beta }`$, we will need the fact that Theorem B cannot be extended to other values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$.

###### Theorem 3.1.

Let $`\alpha ,\beta `$ and $`0<p<\mathrm{}`$. Suppose that $`\mathrm{min}\{\alpha ,\beta \}\mathrm{max}\{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{p}\}`$. Then there are functions $`\psi 𝔅_p^{1/p+\alpha +\beta }`$ such that $`𝚪_\psi ^{\alpha ,\beta }𝐒_p`$.

Proof. Consider first the case $`p2`$. For a positive integer $`n`$ we define the function $`\phi _n`$ on $`_+`$ by

$$\phi _n(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & x(1,1+\frac{2}{n}),\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

It follows easily from the definition of $`𝔅_p^{1/p+\alpha +\beta }`$ that

$$\phi _n_{𝔅_p^{1/p+\alpha +\beta }}\mathrm{const}\phi _n_{L^p}\mathrm{const}n^{1/p^{}}.$$

Let us now estimate from below $`𝚪_{\phi _n}^{\alpha ,\beta }_{𝑺_p}`$. Define the function $`k`$ on $`_+^2`$ by

$$k(x,y)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\{\begin{array}{cc}x^\alpha y^\beta ,\hfill & (x.y)\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_j,\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & (x,y)\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_j,\hfill \end{array}$$

where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_j=(\frac{j}{n},\frac{j+1}{n})\times (\frac{nj}{n},\frac{nj+1}{n}),0jn.$$

Since the squares $`\mathrm{\Delta }_j`$ have disjoint projections onto the coordinate axes, it is easy to see that

$$𝚪_{\phi _n}^{\alpha ,\beta }_{𝑺_p}_k_{𝑺_p}=\left(\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}_{k_j}_{𝑺_p}^p\right)^{1/p},$$

where $`k_j=k\chi _{\mathrm{\Delta }_j}`$ and $`\chi _{\mathrm{\Delta }_j}`$ is the characteristic function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_j`$. Clearly, $`_{k_j}`$ is a rank one operator and

$$_{k_j}_{𝑺_p}\frac{j^\alpha (nj)^\beta }{n^{\alpha +\beta +1}}.$$

Without loss of generality, we may assume $`\alpha \beta `$. It is easy to verify that

$`𝚪_{\phi _n}^{\alpha ,\beta }_{𝑺_p}`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{j^{p\alpha }(nj)^{p\beta }}{n^{p(\alpha +\beta +1)}}}\right)^{1/p}`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{const}\{\begin{array}{cc}n^{\alpha 1},\hfill & \alpha <1/p,\hfill \\ n^{\alpha 1}(\mathrm{log}(1+n))^{1/p},\hfill & \alpha =1/p.\hfill \end{array}`$
Clearly,

$$\frac{𝚪_{\phi _n}^{\alpha ,\beta }_{𝑺_p}}{\phi _n_{𝔅_p^{1/p+\alpha +\beta }}}\mathrm{}\text{as}n\mathrm{},$$

which completes the proof in the case $`p2`$.

Suppose now that $`p<2`$. Again, we assume that $`\alpha \beta `$. We prove that if $`\alpha \frac{1}{2}`$, the condition $`\psi 𝔅_p^{1/p+\alpha +\beta }`$ does not even imply that $`𝚪_\psi ^{\alpha ,\beta }𝑺_2`$. Let $`\psi `$ be a nonzero smooth function with support in $`[1,2]`$. Clearly, $`\psi L^p`$, and so $`\psi 𝔅_p^{1/p+\alpha +\beta }`$. On the other hand,

$$𝚪_\psi ^{\alpha ,\beta }_{𝑺_2}^2=_1^2|\phi (t)|^2_0^tx^{2\alpha }(tx)^{2\beta }𝑑x𝑑t=\mathrm{},$$

since, clearly,

$$_0^tx^{2\alpha }(tx)^{2\beta }dx=\mathrm{}.\mathrm{}$$

## 4. Boundedness, Compactness, and Schatten–von Neumann Properties

Let $`k`$ be a function on $`_+^2`$ such that the integral operator on $`L^2(_+)`$ with kernel function $`k`$ is bounded on $`L^2(_+)`$. As in §2, denote this integral operator by $`_k`$:

$$(_kf)(x)=__+k(x,y)f(y)𝑑y.$$

We say that $`k𝑺_p(_+^2)`$ if the operator $`_k`$ belongs to the Schatten–von Neumann class $`𝑺_p`$ and we write $`k_{𝑺_p}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}_k_{𝑺_p}`$. Let now $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ be nonzero real numbers. We put

$`k_{\alpha ,\beta }(x,y)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}x^{\frac{1}{2\alpha }\frac{1}{2}}y^{\frac{1}{2\beta }\frac{1}{2}}k(x^{\frac{1}{\alpha }},y^{\frac{1}{\beta }}).`$ (4.1)
We introduce the unitary operator $`U_\alpha `$ on $`L^2(_+)`$ defined by

$$(U_\alpha f)(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{|\alpha |}}x^{\frac{1}{2\alpha }\frac{1}{2}}f\left(x^{\frac{1}{\alpha }}\right),fL^2(_+).$$

It is easy to see that

$$U_\alpha _k=\frac{1}{\sqrt{|\alpha \beta |}}_{k_{\alpha ,\beta }}U_\beta ,\alpha ,\beta \{0\},$$

and so

$$k_{\alpha ,\beta }_{𝑺_p}=\sqrt{|\alpha \beta |}k_{𝑺_p}.$$

###### Theorem 4.1.

Suppose that $`\alpha ,\beta (0,1)`$. Then $`𝔊_\phi ^{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is bounded if and only if $`\phi 𝔅_{\mathrm{}}^{\frac{1}{2\alpha }+\frac{1}{2\beta }1}`$. The operator $`𝔊_\phi ^{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is compact if and only if $`\phi 𝔟_{\mathrm{}}^{\frac{1}{2\alpha }+\frac{1}{2\beta }1}`$.

Proof. Suppose first that $`\phi `$ is a locally integrable functin on $`_+`$. Consider the kernel function $`\varkappa `$ of $`𝔊^{\alpha ,\beta }`$:

$$\varkappa (x,y)=\phi (x^\alpha +y^\beta ),x,y>0.$$

Obviously, by (4.1)

$`\varkappa _{\alpha ,\beta }(x,y)=x^{\frac{1}{2\alpha }\frac{1}{2}}y^{\frac{1}{2\beta }\frac{1}{2}}\phi (x+y),`$ (4.2)
i.e., the integral operator operator with kernel function $`\varkappa _{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is a weighted integral Hankel operator. Hence, $`𝔊_\phi ^{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is bounded (or compact) if and only if $`𝚪_\phi ^{\frac{1}{2\alpha }\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2\beta }\frac{1}{2}}`$ is bounded (or compact). By Theorem A (see §2), this is equivalent to the fact that $`\phi 𝔅_{\mathrm{}}^{\frac{1}{2\alpha }+\frac{1}{2\beta }1}`$ $`(`$or $`\phi 𝔟_{\mathrm{}}^{\frac{1}{2\alpha }+\frac{1}{2\beta }1})`$.

If $`\phi `$ is a distribution, it is easy to verify that the formula

$`𝚪_\phi ^{\frac{1}{2\alpha }\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2\beta }\frac{1}{2}}=\sqrt{\alpha \beta }U_\alpha 𝔊_\phi ^{\alpha ,\beta }U_\beta ^{}`$ (4.3)
still holds, which implies the result. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 4.2.

Let $`p`$, $`\alpha `$, and $`\beta `$ be positive numbers such that

$$\mathrm{max}\{\alpha ,\beta \}(p2)<p.$$

Then $`𝔊_\phi ^{\alpha ,\beta }𝐒_p`$ if and only if $`\phi 𝔅_p^{\frac{1}{2\alpha }+\frac{1}{2\beta }+\frac{1}{p}1}`$.

Proof. Again, apply formula (4.3). Obviously, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ satisfy the hypotheses of Theorem B. The result follows from Theorem B. $`\mathrm{}`$

It turns out that in the case $`1p<\mathrm{}`$ the necessity of the condition $`\phi 𝔅_p^{\frac{1}{2\alpha }+\frac{1}{2\beta }+\frac{1}{p}1}`$ holds for any positive $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$.

###### Theorem 4.3.

Let $`1p<\mathrm{}`$, and let $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ be positive numbers. Suppose that $`𝔊_\phi ^{\alpha ,\beta }𝐒_p`$. Then $`\phi 𝔅_p^{\frac{1}{2\alpha }+\frac{1}{2\beta }+\frac{1}{p}1}`$.

Proof. As we have already observed, the integral operator $`_{\varkappa _{\alpha ,\beta }}`$ with kernel function $`\varkappa _{\alpha ,\beta }`$ defined by (4.2) must belong to $`𝑺_p`$.

Suppose first that $`p>1`$. We apply to $`_{\varkappa _{\alpha ,\beta }}`$ the averaging projection $`𝒫`$ (see §2). It is easy to verify that

$$𝒫_{\varkappa _{\alpha ,\beta }}=\mathrm{const}𝚪_\psi ,$$

where

$`\psi (x)=x^{\frac{1}{2\alpha }+\frac{1}{2\beta }1}\phi (x).`$ (4.4)
By Theorem C, $`𝚪_\psi 𝑺_p`$. Now by Theorem B, $`\psi 𝔅_p^{1/p}`$, which is equivalent to the fact that $`\phi 𝔅_p^{\frac{1}{2\alpha }+\frac{1}{2\beta }+\frac{1}{p}1}`$ (see Section 2).

Let now $`p=1`$. We apply to the operator $`_{\varkappa _{\alpha ,\beta }}`$ the weighted projection $`𝒫_{1.1}`$, which is bounded on $`𝑺_1`$ (see Theorem D). It is easy to verify that

$$𝒫_{1,1}_{\varkappa _{\alpha ,\beta }}=\mathrm{const}𝚪_\psi ,$$

where $`\psi `$ is defined by (4.4). By Theorem B, $`\psi 𝔅_1^1`$, which is equivalent to the fact that $`\phi 𝔅_1^{\frac{1}{2\alpha }+\frac{1}{2\beta }}`$ (see §2). $`\mathrm{}`$

## 5. The Averaging Projection onto the Operators $`𝔊_\phi ^{\alpha \mathbf{,}\beta }`$

In this section we study metric properties of the averaging projection on the class of operators of the form $`𝔊_\phi ^{\alpha ,\beta }`$. Consider the orthogonal projection $`𝒬_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ from the Hilbert–Schmidt class $`𝑺_2`$ onto the subspace of $`𝑺_2`$ of operators of the form $`𝔊_\phi ^{\alpha ,\beta }`$. Clearly, $`𝒬_{1,1}`$ is just the averaging projection $`𝒫`$ onto the Hankel integral operators. If we identify the Hilbert–Schmidt operators on $`L^2(_+)`$ with the space $`L^2(_+^2)`$, we find that $`𝒬_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is the orthogonal projection onto the subspace of functions that are constant on the sets $`\{(x,y)_+^2:x^\alpha +y^\beta =c\}`$, $`c>0`$.

We are going to characterize those $`\alpha ,\beta `$, and $`p`$, for which the projection $`𝒬_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is bounded on $`𝑺_p`$. Clearly, $`𝒬_{\alpha ,\beta }T`$ is well-defined for $`T𝑺_p`$ if $`p2`$. If $`p>2`$, we say that $`𝒬_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is bounded on $`𝑺_p`$ if it extends to a bounded operator from $`𝑺_p𝑺_2`$. Since $`𝒬_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is self-adjoint on $`𝑺_2`$, it follows that $`𝒬_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is bounded on $`𝑺_p`$ if and only if it is bounded on $`𝑺_p^{}`$, $`1<p<\mathrm{}`$, and $`𝒬_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is bounded on $`𝑺_1`$ if and only if it is bounded on $`(L^2(_+))`$.

###### Lemma 5.1.

Let $`kL^2(_+^2)`$ and let $`\alpha ,\beta >0`$. Put

$`\phi (x)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}{\displaystyle \frac{\underset{0}{\overset{\frac{\pi }{2}}{}}k(x^{\frac{1}{\alpha }}\mathrm{cos}^{\frac{2}{\alpha }}t,x^{\frac{1}{\beta }}\mathrm{sin}^{\frac{2}{\beta }}t)\mathrm{cos}^{\frac{2}{\alpha }1}t\mathrm{sin}^{\frac{2}{\beta }1}tdt}{A(\alpha ,\beta )}},`$ (5.1)
where

$$A(\alpha ,\beta )\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\underset{0}{\overset{\frac{\pi }{2}}{}}\mathrm{cos}^{\frac{2}{\alpha }1}t\mathrm{sin}^{\frac{2}{\beta }1}tdt$$

Then

$`𝒬_{\alpha ,\beta }_k=𝔊_\phi ^{\alpha ,\beta }.`$ (5.2)
Proof. The result follows from the following easily verifiable formula:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{_+^2}{}}f(x,y)𝑑x𝑑y={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha \beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}r^{\frac{1}{\alpha }+\frac{1}{\beta }1}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\frac{\pi }{2}}{}}}f(r^{\frac{1}{\alpha }}\mathrm{cos}^{\frac{2}{\alpha }}t,r^{\frac{1}{\beta }}\mathrm{sin}^{\frac{2}{\beta }}t)\mathrm{cos}^{\frac{2}{\alpha }1}t\mathrm{sin}^{\frac{2}{\beta }1}tdtdr,`$
which holds for any nonnegative measurable function $`f`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Remark. Note that $`A(\alpha ,\beta )=\frac{1}{2}B(1/\alpha ,1/\beta )`$, where $`B`$ is the Euler Beta function.

###### Theorem 5.2.

Let $`1p<\mathrm{}`$, and let $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ be positive numbers. Suppose that

$`p<\mathrm{max}\{\alpha ,\beta \}(p2)<p.`$ (5.4)
Then $`𝒬_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is bounded on $`𝐒_p`$.

Note that if $`\mathrm{max}\{\alpha ,\beta \}1`$, the rightmost inequality in (5.4) holds for any $`p`$. If $`\mathrm{max}\{\alpha ,\beta \}>1`$, then (5.4) is equivalent to the inequalities

$$\frac{2\mathrm{max}\{\alpha ,\beta \}}{\mathrm{max}\{\alpha ,\beta \}+1}<p<\frac{2\mathrm{max}\{\alpha ,\beta \}}{\mathrm{max}\{\alpha ,\beta \}1}.$$

Clearly, $`\frac{2\mathrm{max}\{\alpha ,\beta \}}{\mathrm{max}\{\alpha ,\beta \}+1}`$ and $`\frac{2\mathrm{max}\{\alpha ,\beta \}}{\mathrm{max}\{\alpha ,\beta \}1}`$ are dual exponents, i.e., the sum of their reciprocals is euqal to one.

Proof. Consider first the case $`p>1`$. Let $`𝒯_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ be the operator on $`𝑺_p`$ defined by

$$𝒯_{\alpha ,\beta }T=\phi ,\text{where}𝒬_{\alpha ,\beta }T=𝔊_\phi ^{\alpha ,\beta },$$

see Lemma 5.1. By Theorem 4.2, we have to show that $`𝒯_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is a bounded operator from $`𝑺_p`$ to $`𝔅_p^{\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{2\alpha }+\frac{1}{2\beta }1}`$.

Consider the dual exponent $`p^{}=p/(p1)`$. Define the operator

$$:𝔅_p^{}^{\frac{1}{p^{}}+\frac{1}{2\alpha }+\frac{1}{2\beta }1}𝑺_p^{}(_+^2)$$

by

$`(\phi )(x,y)=\phi (x^\alpha +y^\beta ),x,y>0.`$ (5.5)
By Theorem 4.2, $``$ is a bounded operator.

Let $`k𝑺_1(_+^2)`$ and let

$$𝒬_{\alpha ,\beta }_k=𝔊_\psi ^{\alpha ,\beta }$$

(see (5.1) and (5)). We have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{_+^2}{}}(\phi )(x,y)\overline{k(x,y)}𝑑x𝑑y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{_+^2}{}}(\phi )(x,y)\overline{\psi (x^\alpha +y^\beta )}𝑑x𝑑y`$ (5.6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2A(\alpha ,\beta )}{\alpha \beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}r^{\frac{1}{\alpha }+\frac{1}{\beta }1}\phi (r)\overline{\psi (r)}𝑑r.`$
It follows that $`𝒯_{\alpha ,\beta }=^{}`$ if we identify $`\left(𝔅_p^{}^{\frac{1}{p^{}}+\frac{1}{2\alpha }+\frac{1}{2\beta }1}\right)^{}`$ with $`𝔅_p^{\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{2\alpha }+\frac{1}{2\beta }1}`$ with respect to the pairing

$`f,g={\displaystyle __+}t^{\frac{1}{\alpha }+\frac{1}{\beta }1}f(r)\overline{g(r)}𝑑r`$ (5.7)
(see §2). Hence, $`𝒯_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is a bounded.

Suppose now that $`p=1`$. Clearly, (5.4) means that $`0<\alpha ,\beta <1`$. Consider the operator

$$:𝔟_{\mathrm{}}^{\frac{1}{2\alpha }+\frac{1}{2\beta }1}𝓒(L^2(_+))$$

defined by (5.5). It is bounded by Theorem A. Again, it is easy to see from (5.6) that $`𝒯_{\alpha ,\beta }^{}=`$ if we identify $`\left(𝔟_{\mathrm{}}^{\frac{1}{2\alpha }+\frac{1}{2\beta }1}\right)^{}`$ with $`𝔅_1^{\frac{1}{2\alpha }+\frac{1}{2\beta }}`$ with respect to the pairing (5.7). $`\mathrm{}`$

Now suppose that $`\alpha ,\beta (0,1)`$. By Theorem 5.2, the averaging projection $`𝒬_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is bounded on $`𝑺_1`$. We can consider the conjugate operator $`𝒬_{\alpha ,\beta }^{}`$ on the space $`(L^2(_+))`$ with respect to the standard pairing between $`𝑺_1`$ and $`(L^2(_+))`$ (see §2). Since $`𝒬_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is a self-adjoint operator on $`𝑺_2`$, it follows that $`𝒬_{\alpha ,\beta }^{}T=𝒬_{\alpha ,\beta }T`$ for $`T𝑺_2`$. We can now extend the averaging projection $`𝒬_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ to the space $`(L^2(_+))`$ by

$$𝒬_{\alpha ,\beta }T=𝒬_{\alpha ,\beta }^{}T,T(L^2(_+)).$$

It is easy to show that if $`T`$ is a bounded integral operator on $`L^2(_+)`$ with kernel function $`k`$, then $`𝒬_{\alpha ,\beta }T`$ can be defined as in (5.1) and (5.2).

###### Theorem 5.3.

Let $`\alpha ,\beta (0,1)`$. Then $`𝒬_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is a bounded operator on the space $`(L^2(_+))`$ of bounded operators and on the space $`𝓒(L^2(_+))`$ of compact operators.

Proof. We have already explained the fact that $`𝒬_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is bounded on $`(L^2(_+))`$. The boundedness of $`𝒬_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ on $`𝓒(L^2(_+))`$ follows immediately from the fact that $`𝒬_{\alpha ,\beta }𝑺_2𝑺_2`$ and the fact that $`𝑺_2`$ is dense in $`𝓒(L^2(_+))`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let us prove now that Theorems 5.2 and 5.3 are sharp.

###### Theorem 5.4.

Suppose that $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are positive numbers such that the averaging projection $`𝒬_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is bounded on $`𝐒_p`$, $`0<p<\mathrm{}`$. Then $`p1`$ and (5.4) holds.

###### Theorem 5.5.

Suppose that $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are positive numbers such that the averaging projection $`𝒬_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is bounded on the space $`(L^2(_+))`$ or on the space $`𝓒(L^2(_+))`$. then $`\alpha ,\beta <1`$.

In fact for $`p<1`$ the following much stronger retsult holds.

###### Theorem 5.6.

Let $`0<p<1`$ and $`\alpha ,\beta >0`$. Then there is no bounded projection from $`𝐒_p`$ onto the subspace of operators of the form $`𝔊_\phi ^{\alpha ,\beta }`$.

Let us first prove Theorem 5.6.

Proof of Theorem 5.6. The result follows from Theorem 4.2 and the Kalton theorem \[K\], which says, in particular, that if $`X`$ is a coplemented subspace of $`𝑺_p`$, $`0<p<1`$, such that $`X`$ can be imbedded isomorphically to an $`L^p`$ space, then the $`𝑺_p`$ quasinorm and the $`𝑺_1`$ norm on $`X`$ are equivalent. Indeed, let $`X`$ be the subspace of $`𝑺_p`$ of operators of the form $`𝔊_\phi ^{\alpha ,\beta }`$. By Theorem 4.2, the $`𝑺_1`$ norm and the $`𝑺_p`$ quasinorm on $`X`$ are not equivalent. It follows easily from the definition of the spaces $`𝔅_p^s`$ given in §2 that $`X`$ can be imbedded isometrically in an $`L^p`$ space. Thus by the Kalton theorem $`X`$ is not a complemented subspace of $`𝑺_p`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Theorem 5.4. Suppose that $`1p<\mathrm{}`$. The reasoning given in the proof of Theorem 5.2 shows that if the averaging projection $`𝒬_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is bounded on $`𝑺_p`$, then the condition $`\phi 𝔅_p^{\frac{1}{2\alpha }+\frac{1}{2\beta }+\frac{1}{p}1}`$ implies $`𝔊_\phi ^{\alpha ,\beta }𝑺_p`$. The result now follows from (4.2) and from Theorem 3.1. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Theorem 5.5. If $`𝒬_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is bounded on $`(L^2(_+))`$ or on $`𝓒(L^2(_+))`$, then, by duality, $`𝒬_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is bounded on $`𝑺_1`$. The result follows now from Theorem 5.4. $`\mathrm{}`$

| A.B. Aleksandrov | V.V. Peller |
| --- | --- |
| St-Petersburg Branch | Department of Mathematics |
| Steklov Institute of Mathematics | Michigan State University |
| Fontanka 27, 191011 St-Petersburg | East Lansing, Michigan 66506 |
| Russia | USA |