Abstract
We prove the optimality of the Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality:
where Y and Z are rearrangement invariant Banach function spaces, and \(X = Y^{1/2}Z^{1/2}\) is the Calderón–Lozanovskii space. By optimality, we mean that for a certain pair of spaces on the right-hand side, it is not possible to reduce the space on the left-hand side while remaining in the class of rearrangement invariant spaces. Our result establishes the optimality for Lorentz and Orlicz spaces, surpassing previous findings. Additionally, we discuss the significance of pointwise inequalities and present a counterexample that prohibits further improvements.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
The Sobolev–Gagliardo–Nirenberg interpolation inequality is typically an inequality in the form
where \(0\le j<k\) are the degrees of derivatives, \(\theta \in [j/k, 1]\) and X, Y, Z are function spaces. The general form is the product of continued development. The first attempts at estimating an intermediate derivative were made at the beginning of the 20th century by Landau (see [24]) who proved inequality
Later on, Kolmogoroff proved the result for higher-order derivatives [17]. In 1958 the problem was revisited by Nash (see [35]) and Ladyzenskaya who proved
in dimension two and also a similar type result in dimension three. Her research in [23] was motivated by the study of mathematical models for hydro-mechanics. Later, Stein in [44] improved Landau-Kolmogoroff’s result in one dimension as
for \(p\in [1,\infty )\). The real brake-through came in 1959 as Gagliardo [11] and Nirenberg [37] independently introduced the general version of Gagliardo–Nirenberg interpolation inequality for Lebesgue spaces which took the form
The formula holds for parameters \(0\le j<k\), \(\theta =j/k\), and p, q, r satisfying \(k/p=j/r+(k-j)/q\). Also a slightly more complicated setting for the case \(\theta \in [j/k,1]\) is proven therein. The modern versions of the proof can be found in [10, 25].
Nowadays, the field is too wide for being covered without omitting a lot. The primary motivation is obtaining the estimate for the solution of PDE, see, for example, [2, 8, 38]. As the methods and the function spaces scales refine, the demand for a finer version of such an inequality appears. As for other applications, we may mention the chain rule for Sobolev spaces [34] or the study of the boundedness of bilinear multipliers [12, 43]. The problem is developed in several branches, and the term Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality may be used for several slightly different settings.
We may split the field concerning (1) based on value of j. Either \(j>0\) as done by Gagliardo or \(j=0\) as done by Ladyzhenskaya. There are interesting modern results for \(j>0\) arising from studying the inequality in the context of Orlicz spaces, see [16] or by relaxing \(L^{\infty }\) space into BMO in [45]. In literature, the more dominant version is corresponding to Ladyzhenskaya’s result, where (1) is set for \(j=0\) and typically \(k=1\). This version is studied in [8, 33] and used in above mentioned [2, 38].
Generalizations have been made in several directions. Even in the original paper, Nirenberg extends the Lebesgue scale into negative p and claims the result for Hölder spaces. The other direction is to extend j and k from integer numbers into real, more precisely using the fractional Sobolev space. Such a setting may be found in [3, 4].
Yet another possible modification is the so-called nonlinear or strongly nonlinear Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality
where F is a functional, such as in [15, 41]. These types may be beneficial in special cases of applications where standard multiplicative versions may not be enough.
To map the development, we outline the tools used in the formulation and proofs of the modern results. We already mentioned fractional Sobolev spaces, which not only create new settings but also help to prove older results with ease [3]. The problem was also investigated in the Lorentz spaces scale. Relaxations from the Lebesgue spaces to the Lorentz spaces scale were given for \(j=0\) in [33] and, recently, in See also [21] for variable Lebesgue spaces setting and [3, 5, 6] for fractional Sobolev and Besov spaces setting.
2 Results
We start the paper by reformulating the version of the Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality for rearrangement invariant Banach function spaces stated already in [9] (cf. [21]) in another form. We do so, since the statement from [9] allows only very limited analysis of optimality, as we explain in Sect. 4. The rougher versions of optimality may be found in [9] or even [37], where the optimality from the point of view of fundamental functions is given, covering for example the optimality on the scale of Lebesgue and Orlicz spaces. Some other special cases may be found elsewhere in the literature.
Theorem 1.1
(Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality for r.i.B.f. spaces) Let Y, Z be rearrangement invariant Banach function spaces and let \(X=Y^{j/k}Z^{1-j/k}\) be defined by the Calderón–Lozanovskii construction, where \(1\le j< k\) and upper Boyd indices of both spaces Y and Z are smaller than 1. Then
holds for all \(u\in W^{k,1}_{{{\,\textrm{loc}\,}}}(\mathbb {R}^d)\cap Z\).
The use of the maximal operator to find a pointwise version of the Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality was essential in achieving the result. Such a question was firstly undertaken by Kałamajska [13]. We use the following version of such a pointwise Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality
proved by Maz\('\)ya and Shaposchnikova in [32].
It is worth mentioning here, that pointwise estimates have already been applied to prove more general forms of the Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality, such as the Gagliardo–Nirenberg for Orlicz spaces considered by Kałamajska, Pietruska-Pałuba, and Krbec (see [14, 16]) or even for general Banach function spaces [9, 21].
Later, Lokharu focused on different types of maximal operators in [27, 28]. Notice also that early version of Theorem 2.1 appeared in the literature before [9] in [21], but without the focus on the optimality.
Having Theorem 2.1 in a suitable form, we are ready to discuss the optimality of it in the setting of rearrangement invariant Banach function spaces. By optimality we mean, that having fixed two spaces, say Y, Z, there is no space B such that it is smaller than X and (3) still holds.
It is already known that Theorem 2.1 is sharp in the scale of Lebesgue spaces. This follows from the so-called scaling argument, see [9, Thm. 1.1]. In fact, the scaling argument applied to the setting of rearrangement invariant Banach function spaces gives a necessary condition on the fundamental function of space X satisfying (3), as was proved in [9]. However, (except in the limit cases) there is a whole universe of rearrangement invariant Banach function spaces with the same fundamental function. Thus to decide whether the choice of \(X=Y^{j/k}Z^{1-j/k}\) in (3) is optimal in the scale of rearrangement invariant Banach function spaces we need to introduce an essentially different and more sensitive approach, than the scaling argument. We fix our attention only on the most classical case of \(j=1,k=2\).
Theorem 1.2
[Optimality of Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality for r.i.B.f. spaces] Let Y, Z be r.i.B.f. spaces and \(X=Y^{1/2}Z^{1/2}\). Assume that the Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality
holds for all \(u\in W^{2,1}_{{{\,\textrm{loc}\,}}}(\mathbb {R}^d)\cap Z\) and some rearrangement invariant Banach function space B.
-
(i)
If \(Z\cap L^{\infty }\subset Y\cap L^{\infty }\), then \(X\cap L^{\infty }\subset B\cap L^{\infty }\).
-
(ii)
If \(Z\cap L^{1} \subset Y\cap L^{1}\), then \(X\cap L^{1} \subset B\cap L^{1}\).
Remark 2.3
Notice that we do not need restrictions on upper Boyd indices of Y and Z, in contrast to Theorem 2.1.
When both assumptions of points (i) and (ii) are satisfied at the same time, we get the complete optimality of \(X=Y^{j/k}Z^{1-j/k}\).
Corollary 1.4
Let Y, Z be r.i.B.f. spaces satisfying \(Z\subset Y\). If the Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality
holds for all \(u\in W^{2,1}_{{{\,\textrm{loc}\,}}}(\mathbb {R}^d)\cap Z\) and some r.i.B.f. space B, then \(Y^{1/2}Z^{1/2}\subset B\).
Concluding, we see that the choice of \(X=Y^{1/2}Z^{1/2}\) is optimal among all r.i.B.f. spaces in the Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality (3), provided that \(Z\subset Y\). However, the assumption \(Z\subset Y\) is quite restrictive and does not apply to the most classical r.i. spaces (Lebesgue spaces, Lorentz spaces, etc.), since usually there is no inclusion between such spaces over \(\mathbb {R}_+\). It appears, however, that manoeuvring between points (i) and (ii) of Theorem 2.2 we can use it to give an almost complete answer to the question about the optimality of (3) among Lorentz spaces posted in [9, Remark 2.7].
Corollary 1.5
Let \(1< R,Q< \infty \) and \(1\le r,q\le \infty \). Then the Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality
holds for all \(u\in W^{2,1}_{{{\,\textrm{loc}\,}}}(\mathbb {R}^d)\cap L^{R,r}\) with \(P=(1/(2Q)+1/(2R))^{-1}\) and \(p= (1/(2q)+1/(2r))^{-1}\).
On the other hand, if one of the following conditions holds
-
(i)
\(R\not =Q\),
-
(ii)
\(R=Q\) and \(r<q\),
then the Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality
holds for all \(u\in W^{2,1}_{{{\,\textrm{loc}\,}}}(\mathbb {R}^d)\cap L^{R,r}\) if and only if \(P'=P\) and \(p'\ge p\).
Notice, that the corollary above does not cover the case of \(Q=R\) and \(r>q\), thus the following problem remains open.
Question 1.6
Is the Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality (6) optimal when \(1<Q=R\) and \(r>q\), or is there any \(p'<p{:=}(1/(2q)+1/(2r))^{-1}\) such that (6) holds with p replaced by \(p'\) in that case, i.e. when \(1<Q=R\) and \(r>q\)?
Our main results give also new information about the Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality for Orlicz spaces.
Corollary 1.7
Let \(\varphi ,\varphi _1,\varphi _2\) be Young functions such that \(\varphi ^{-1}\approx \sqrt{\varphi _1^{-1}\varphi _2^{-1}}\) and upper Boyd indices of \(L^{\varphi _1}\) and \(L^{\varphi _2}\) are smaller than 1. Then the Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality
holds for all \(u\in W^{2,1}_{{{\,\textrm{loc}\,}}}(\mathbb {R}^d)\cap L^{\varphi _2}\). On the other hand, if \(L^{\varphi _2}\subset L^{\varphi _1}\) and the Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality
holds for all \(u\in W^{2,1}_{{{\,\textrm{loc}\,}}}(\mathbb {R}^d)\cap L^{\varphi _2}\) and some r.i.B.f. space B, then \(L^{\varphi }\subset B\).
Notice that (7) has been already proved in [9] (cf. [16]). On the other hand, it was shown therein that \(L^{\varphi }\) as above is optimal among all Orlicz spaces, while our result says that it is optimal also in the class of r.i.B.f. spaces, provided \(L^{\varphi _2}\subset L^{\varphi _1}\).
3 Preliminaries
Given some positive-valued F(u), G(u) we write
if there exists a constant \(C>0\) (independent on u) such that
If both \(F(u)\lesssim G(u)\) and \(G(u)\lesssim F(u)\), then we write
3.1 Function spaces instruments
In our paper, we shall use the following standard notation. Given a Lebesgue-measurable set \(A\subset \mathbb {R}^d\), we shall denote its Lebesgue measure by |A|. The symbol \(L^0(A)\) denotes the space of all measurable functions over the given set A that are finite almost everywhere.
Let \(X\subset L^0\) be a Banach space. We call X a Banach function space (B.f. space, for short) if it has the following properties:
-
the ideal property, i.e. given \(f\in L^0\) and \(g\in X\) with \(|f|\le g\) it holds that \(\Vert f\Vert _X\le \Vert g\Vert _X\).
-
the Fatou property, i.e. given \(f\in L^0\) and an increasing sequence \((f_n)\in X\) such that \(0\le f_n\rightarrow f\) a.e. and \(\sup _n\Vert f_n\Vert _X<\infty \), there holds \(f\in X\) and \(\Vert f\Vert _X=\sup \limits _n\Vert f_n\Vert _X\).
Given a measurable function \(f\in L^0(\mathbb {R}^d)\) and \(\alpha \in \mathbb {R}\) we shall denote its level set shortly by
and similarly in the case of \(\{f\ge \alpha \}, \{f<\alpha \}, \{f\le \alpha \}\). Throughout the paper, a distribution function of f is denoted by
and the non-increasing rearrangement by
A B.f. space X is called a rearrangement invariant B.f. space (we use the abbreviation r.i.B.f. space) if given two functions \(f\in L^0\) and \(g\in X\) which are equidistributed (i.e. \(f_*=g_*\)), it holds that \(f\in X\) and \(\Vert f\Vert _X=\Vert g\Vert _X\).
To simplify the notion, we make use of the Luxemburg representation theorem [1, Thm. 4.2, Ch. 2]. It says that for each r.i.B.f. space X over arbitrary \(A\subset \mathbb {R}^d\) there is an r.i.B.f. space \(\overline{X}\) over \((0,\infty )\) with the Lebesgue measure, such that for every measurable \(f:A\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) one has
Vice versa, having r.i.B.f. spaces \(\overline{X}\) defined over \((0,\infty )\) we can define a r.i.B.f. space X over \(\mathbb {R}^d\) just by the same equality, i.e. (9) for \(f\in L^0(\mathbb {R}^d)\).
Henceforth, speaking about a r.i.B.f. space X we always mean that X is defined over \((0,\infty )\) and, at the same time it defines a r.i.B.f. space over \(\mathbb {R}^d\) by (9), but we will not differentiate between X and \(\overline{X}\) (cf. [26, pp.114–115]).
Given a r.i.B.f. space X we define
Moreover, we write
if there exists a constant \(C>0\) such that
We also need the Hardy operator, which is defined for \(u\in L^{1}_{{{\,\textrm{loc}\,}}}\) by the formula
Further, the symbol \(u^{**}\) will be used for the Hardy-Littlewood maximal function of u defined by
It is known, that each r.i.B.f. space X satisfies the Hardy-Littlewood-Polya principle ( [1, Cor. 4.7, Ch. 2]) (or the majorant property, see [15]), which states that for \(g\in X\) and \(f\in L^{1}_{{{\,\textrm{loc}\,}}}\)
The maximal function defined above is closely connected with the maximal operator which is defined for any function locally integrable on \(\mathbb {R}^d\), by the formula
where the supremum on the right-hand side is taken over all d–dimensional cubes Q containing x. The Riesz-Herz equivalence states that
where the constant of equivalence depends only on the dimension d (see [1, Theorem 3.8]).
The dilation operator \(D_s\) is defined for \(s>0\) and \(f\in L^0(0,\infty )\) (or \(f\in L^0(\mathbb {R}^d)\)) by the formula
It is known ( [1, Prop. 5.11, Ch. 3]) that \(D_s\) is bounded on each r.i.B.f. space X for each \(s>0\). Moreover, for each r.i.B.f. space X on \((0,\infty )\) limits
exist. The numbers \(\alpha _X\) and \(\beta _X\) are called lower and upper Boyd indices of X, respectively. As in [1], we understand that Boyd of a r.i.B.f. space over \(\mathbb {R}^d\) are just Boyd indices of its Luxemburg representant. Then for each r.i.B.f. space X, its Boyd indices belong to [0, 1] and \(\alpha _X\le \beta _X\). For more information on Boyd indices and, in general, r.i.B.f. spaces we refer for instance to books [1, 22, 39].
The most significant examples of r.i.B.f. spaces except for the Lebesgue spaces are Lorentz and Orlicz spaces. Let us recall their definitions. For \(1\le P,p<\infty \) the Lorentz space \(L^{P,p}\) is given by the (quasi–) norm
or by
when \(p=\infty \) and \(1\le P<\infty \). When \(P=\infty \) the space \(L^{\infty ,p}\) is nontrivial only when also \(p=\infty \) and then \(L^{\infty ,\infty }=L^{\infty }\). In the case \(1<P\) and \(1\le p\le \infty \) the functional \(\Vert \cdot \Vert _{P,p}\) is already equivalent to the norm, thus we will treat \(L^{P,p}\) as a r.i.B.f. space. When \(P=1\) we consider only \(p=1\), since otherwise \(L^{1,p}\) is no more a B.f. space.
A continuous, convex, increasing function \(\varphi :[0,\infty )\rightarrow [0,\infty )\) satisfying \(\varphi (0)=0\) is called a Young function. For a given Young function \(\varphi \) we define the Orlicz space \(L^{\varphi }\) by
with the Luxemburg norm
3.2 Derivatives
To denote the distributional derivative in one-dimensional case we use symbols \(u',u'',u^{(k)}\). The symbols \(\nabla ,\nabla ^k\) denote the distributional gradient, respectively the distributional gradient of order k. We set
Given a r.i.B.f. space X we set
We also define the maximal operator of the k-order gradient by
The notion \(W^{k,p}(A)\) will be used for the space of functions whose distributional derivatives up to degree k belong to \(L^{p}(A)\), the sub-index “loc” is added if the distributional derivatives belong only to \(L^{p}_{{{\,\textrm{loc}\,}}}(A)\).
3.3 Calderón–Lozanovskii construction and pointwise product spaces
Given \(0<\theta <1\) and two B.f. spaces X, Y over the same measure space, the Calderón–Lozanovskii space \(X^{\theta }Y^{1-\theta }\) is defined as
and equipped with the norm
It is easily seen that one can replace “\(\le \)” by “\(=\)” in the above definitions. Moreover, the following inequality holds true for each \( g\in X,h\in Y\) (see [30])
Given a B.f. space X and \(\alpha >1\), we define the \(\alpha \)-convexification of X (respectively, \(\alpha \)-concavification when \(0<\alpha <1\)) by
with the (quasi–) norm given by
It is easy to see that convexification is just a special case of the Calderón–Lozanovskii construction, namely
In Sect. 5, we will once more need the constructions intimately connected with Calderón–Lozanovskii spaces. Given two B.f. spaces X, Y over the same measure space we define their pointwise product \(X\odot Y\) by
equipped with the quasi-norm
We will need the following identification from [19]
4 New form of Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality for r.i.B.f. spaces
We start this section with the proof of Theorem 2.1, which actually is an immediate consequence of (4).
Proof of Theorem 2.1
Let \(u\in W^{k,1}_{{{\,\textrm{loc}\,}}}(\mathbb {R}^d)\) and \(1\le j<k\). We have by (4)
Then by properties of the Calderon–Lozanovski construction
Finally, we replace the maximal operators of functions with functions themselves in both norms on the right-hand side. The boundedness of the maximal operator in the considered spaces (based on the upper Boyd index being smaller than 1) gives
as desired. \(\square \)
Let us note that without the assumption about the boundedness of the maximal operator, we cannot obtain the last estimate. Neither counterexamples nor the proof of the validity of the theorem without the assumption on the Boyd indices is known. Let us, however, notice, that the original proof of the Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality for Lebesgue spaces allows also \(L^1\) spaces (cf. [10, 11, 37]), the space where the maximal operator is not bounded. On the other hand, proofs of the inequality for Orlicz, Lorentz, or more general spaces (up to our knowledge) are based on the same kind of pointwise inequalities, while such an approach requires assumptions on Boyd indices (or generally on the boundedness of the maximal operator).
Question 1.8
Does Theorem 2.1 hold without the assumption on Boyd indices of Y and Z?
One of the possible ways of removing assumptions on Boyd indices would be a slight improvement of (4). In fact, according to [13] we can rewrite (actually, strengthen) (4) to
Then, by the Riesz-Herz equivalence, we observe that it would be sufficient for our purpose if we could put the geometric mean of |u| and \(|\nabla ^2 u|\) inside the double-star operator. Precisely, the question is if the following inequality holds
This inequality would then, by a simple use of the Hardy-Littlewood-Polya principle, imply that Theorem 2.1 holds with no restriction on Boyd indices. However, the counterexample below shows that one cannot hope for (14).
Example 4.2
Let \(u_n:{{\,\mathrm{\mathbb {R}}\,}}\rightarrow {{\,\mathrm{\mathbb {R}}\,}}\) be a sequence of functions defined in the following way
One easily verifies that all the functions are supported in interval [0, 2] and \(u_n(2)=u_n'(2)=0\). Moreover, we estimate
hence we have
On the other hand
One readily checks that
while
Thus the inequality (14) cannot hold in general.
Let us finally explain why Theorem 1.2 of [9] required reformulation. For inequalities involving only two norms, like Sobolev or Poincare inequalities, the question about optimality is immediate: we fix one norm and ask how much the second one can be improved. For the Gagliardo–Nirenberg type inequalities the situation is more complicated. Namely, the question about optimality may be asked at least in three ways. Considering
we need to fix two spaces and ask for the optimality of the third one.
In our main results, we follow one possible approach: having two spaces Y, Z corresponding to a function and its higher derivative, roughly speaking we found or constructed an optimal space X corresponding to the middle derivative.
However, from the point of view of applications, another approach may be desirable. Namely, having spaces X and Y [or X and Z] fixed, we need to find the third space Z [or Y], possibly optimal, such that (15) holds. Such a point of view has already been presented in [9]. That approach, however, has some disadvantages.
To discuss it, we need to provide a new notation. Given a couple of r.i.B.f. spaces X, Y such that \(Y{\mathop {\hookrightarrow }\limits ^{loc }} X\), we define the space M(X, Y) of pointwise multipliers from X to Y using the following formula
and equip it with the natural operator norm
With this norm M(X, Y) becomes an r.i.B.f. space. Moreover, the following general version of the Hölder inequality follows directly from the definition
Notice that M(X, Y) is a kind of generalization of the Köthe dual of X (i.e. \(X'=M(X, L^1)\)), but on the other hand, it may be regarded as a kind of point-wise quotient of the space Y by X. More information about the spaces of pointwise multipliers may be found in [18, 31].
Now we can state an alternative version of Theorem 2.1. Notice that point (i) is actually Theorem 1.2 of [9].
Theorem 1.10
Let \(j,k\in \mathbb {N}\), \(1\le j<k\).
-
(i)
If X, Y are r.i.B.f. spaces such that
$$\begin{aligned} Y^{\frac{k}{j}}{\mathop {\hookrightarrow }\limits ^{loc }} X \end{aligned}$$and both Y and \(M(Y^{k/j},X)^{1-j/k}\) have upper Boyd indices less than 1, then for all \(u\in W^{k,1}_{{{\,\textrm{loc}\,}}}(\mathbb {R}^d)\) it holds
$$\begin{aligned} \Vert \nabla ^j u\Vert _{X}\lesssim \Vert \nabla ^k u\Vert _{Y}^{j/k} \Vert u\Vert _{M(Y^{k/j},X)^{1-j/k}}^{1-j/k}. \end{aligned}$$(16) -
(ii)
If X, Z are r.i.B.f. spaces such that
$$\begin{aligned} Z^{\frac{k}{k-j}}{\mathop {\hookrightarrow }\limits ^{loc }} X \end{aligned}$$and both Z and \(M(Z^{k/(k-j)},X)^{j/k}\) have upper Boyd indices less than 1, then for all \(u\in W^{k,1}_{{{\,\textrm{loc}\,}}}(\mathbb {R}^d)\) it holds
$$\begin{aligned} \Vert \nabla ^j u\Vert _{X}\lesssim \Vert \nabla ^k u\Vert _{M(Z^{k/(k-j)},X)^{j/k}}^{j/k} \Vert u\Vert _{Z}^{1-j/k}. \end{aligned}$$(17)
Proof
The proof is immediate once we know Theorem 2.1. Let us consider point (i). In fact, it is enough to see that
We have by (13)
\(\square \)
Notice that the last inclusion above, i.e. \(Y^{k/j}\odot M(Y^{k/j}, X)\subset X\), can not be replaced by equality. This is the reason that the formulation of Theorem 2.1 is more accurate than the claim of Theorem 4.3 above (thus also Theorem 1.2 of [9]). Let us explain it better. We already know that the Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality
holds with \(X=Y^{j/k}Z^{1-j/k}\) and is optimal in many cases (for more details see Sect. 5). So, to keep potential optimality, having spaces X, Y, we need to find the third space Z satisfying \(X=Y^{j/k}Z^{1-j/k}\). However, such a space Z may not exist, and the best we can choose is the space
appearing in the Theorem 4.3(i), which for sure gives only inclusion
but need not give equality. Whether this inclusion becomes equality is exactly the problem of (Lozanovskii like) factorization.
Further, we say that Y factorizes X when
The origins of factorization come from the Lozanovskii factorization theorem [29, Theorem 6] (which says that for each B.f. space X, there holds \(X\odot X'=L^1\)), while Pisier has considered factorization in terms of Calderon-Lozanovskii construction in [40] (cf. [36]). For a quite comprehensive study of factorization problems, see, for example, [19, 20, 42] and references therein.
In this language, our previous question becomes whether
This is, whether \(Y^{k/j}\) factorizes X? If not, then one shouldn’t expect optimality of (16) (or (17), respectively).
Let us use an example to explain the situation. Consider \(X=L^{2,\infty }\), \(Y=L^{2,1}\) and \(j=1,k=2\). Then \(Y^2=L^{4,2}\). We have by [20, Theorem 4]
Thus
and Theorem 4.3(i) gives
On the other hand, we know from Theorem 2.1 or Corollary 2.5 that stronger inequalities hold, i.e.
and
Concluding, we see that formulation of Theorem 4.3 may differ from that of Theorem 2.1 when respective spaces do not factorize each other. In consequence, only Theorem 2.1 has the potential to be optimal and, in fact, it is in many cases, as we will see in the next section.
5 Optimality
As announced in the introduction, we will show that in the most classical case of \(k=2\) and \(j=1\) of the Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality which we just proved is optimal for a broad class of r.i.B.f. spaces. We have just shown that
holds with \(X=Y^{1/2}Z^{1/2}\) under some assumptions on Y, Z. Now we study the following question of optimality. For fixed Y, Z, is the choice of X optimal among the r.i.B.f. spaces? More precisely, can X be replaced in (18) by strictly smaller r.i.B.f. space B (we mean that \(B\subsetneq X\)) such that the estimate is still valid for each \(u\in W^{2,1}_{{{\,\textrm{loc}\,}}}(\mathbb {R}^d)\)? In this section, we show that in many cases of spaces Y, Z the choice \(X=Y^{1/2}Z^{1/2}\) is optimal.
In the beginning, we need a few simple observations on Calderón–Lozanovskii construction.
Lemma 1.11
Let Y, Z be r.i.B.f. spaces.
-
(i)
If \(Z\cap L^{\infty }\subset Y\cap L^{\infty }\) then for each \(f=f^*\in Y^{1/2}Z^{1/2}\) of the form
$$\begin{aligned} f=\sum _{k=1}^{\infty }c_{k}\chi _{[k-1,k)} \end{aligned}$$there are \(g=g^*\in Y\) and \(h=h^*\in Z\) of the same form, i.e.
$$\begin{aligned} g=\sum _{k=1}^{\infty }a_{k}\chi _{[k-1,k)},\ \ h=\sum _{k=1}^{\infty }b_{k}\chi _{[k-1,k)} \end{aligned}$$such that
$$\begin{aligned} f\le g^{1/2}h^{1/2}\ \text { and }\ h\le g. \end{aligned}$$ -
(ii)
If \(Z\cap L^{1}\subset Y\cap L^{1}\), then for each \(f=f^*\in Y^{1/2}Z^{1/2}\) such that \({{\,\textrm{supp}\,}}f\subset [0,1]\) there are \(g=g^*\in Y\) and \(h=h^*\in Z\) satisfying
$$\begin{aligned} f\le g^{1/2}h^{1/2}\ \text { and }\ h\le g. \end{aligned}$$
Proof
(i) Let \(f=f^*=\sum _{k=1}^{\infty }c_{k}\chi _{[k-1,k)}\in Y^{1/2}Z^{1/2}\). Then there are \(u\in Y,v\in Z\) such that
By [22, p. 67] we have for each \(t\ge 0\)
Denoting \(\eta {:=}D_{1/2}u^*,\gamma {:=}D_{1/2}v^*\) we get
while \(\eta \in Y,\gamma \in Z\) since Y, Z are r.i.B.f. spaces, as the dilation operator is bounded in every r.i.B.f. space.
Further, we define the averaging operator T (also known as conditional expectation operator) by the formula
Since each r.i.B.f. space with the majorant property is an exact interpolation space for the couple \((L^{\infty },L^{1})\), the operator T is non-expanding mapping on such a space (see [1, 22]). In consequence,
Both r and h are of the form
where
We need to see that also \(f\le r^{1/2}h^{1/2}\). Indeed, by the Hölder inequality we get immediately
Consequently, it holds that \(r\in Y\cap L^{\infty }\) and \(h\in Z\cap L^{\infty }\), since they are of the special form. Therefore, applying the assumption \(Z\cap L^{\infty }\subset Y\cap L^{\infty }\), we see that also
Thus the functions g and h have all the properties declared in point (i) since the maximum of nonincreasing functions is also a nonincreasing function.
(ii) Let \(Z\cap L^{1}\subset Y\cap L^{1}\) and choose \(f^*=f\in Y^{1/2}Z^{1/2}\) such that \({{\,\textrm{supp}\,}}f\subset [0,1]\). Arguing as before, we conclude that there are \(\eta =\eta ^*\in Y,\gamma =\gamma ^*\in Z\) such that
Evidently, we can assume that also \({{\,\textrm{supp}\,}}\eta \subset [0,1]\) and \({{\,\textrm{supp}\,}}\gamma \subset [0,1]\). However, each r.i.B.f. space is contained in \(L^1+L^{\infty }\), which implies that any element of a r.i.B.f. space whose support has finite measure is in \(L^1\). Then \(\eta \in Y\cap L^{1}\) and \(\gamma \in Z\cap L^{1}\). Consequently, thanks to the assumption \(Z\cap L^{1}\subset Y\cap L^{1}\), it is enough to take
\(\square \)
Lemma 1.12
For every \(\alpha \ge 1\) there exists \(u\in W^{2,\infty }(\mathbb {R})\), \({{\,\textrm{supp}\,}}u=[0,1]\), such that
-
(i)
\( \bigl |\left\{ |u'|\ge \alpha \right\} \bigr |\ge 1/6 \)
-
(i)
\(|u(t)|\le 1/3\) and \(|u''(t)|\le 6\alpha ^2\).
Proof
On \((0,1/\alpha )\) we define a continuous piecewise affine \(u'(t)\) as
and \(u(t)=\int _{0}^tu'(s)\,ds\). This formula can be copied several times on intervals \([k/\alpha ,(k+1)/\alpha ]\) for \(k\in \mathbb {N}, k<\alpha \) by \(u(t){:=}u(t-k/\alpha )\). If \(\alpha \) is integer number, this will cover whole [0, 1] interval, otherwise we extend by constant zero, as we illustrate by Fig. 1 for case \(\alpha \in (2,3)\). Note that for \(\alpha \) integer, we may get constant 1/3 in (i), but for \(\alpha \) non-integer the achieved constant has to be lowered to 1/6. \(\square \)
We are finally ready to prove the main theorem of the paper.
Proof of Theorem 2.2
(i) Assume that \(Z\cap L^{\infty }\subset Y\cap L^{\infty }\) and suppose \(X\cap L^{\infty }\not \subset B\cap L^{\infty }\). We will construct a function \(\eta \in W^{2,1}_{{{\,\textrm{loc}\,}}}(\mathbb {R}^d)\) such that
but
Firstly we will consider the case of \(d=1\). Since \(X\cap L^{\infty }\not \subset B\cap L^{\infty }\) there is \(\tilde{f}=(\tilde{f})^*\in (X\cap L^{\infty })\backslash (B\cap L^{\infty })\) with \(\Vert \tilde{f}\Vert _X=1\) and observe that \(\tilde{f}\) can be chosen in the form of
On the other hand, \(X=Y^{1/2}Z^{1/2}\), thus from Lemma 5.1 it follows that there are \(g\in Y\), \(h\in Z\) such that \(\tilde{f}\le g^{1/2}h^{1/2}\),
and \(h\le g\). Define
Then \(f=f^*\) is of the form
and also \(f\in X\backslash B\), since \(0\le \tilde{f}\le f\). In particular, \(\Vert f\Vert _B=\infty \).
By definition of f we have \(c_k=\sqrt{a_kb_k}\) for each k, thus for each k
since \(h\le g\). Now for each \(k=1,2,...\) we define \(u_k\) as u from Lemma 5.2 applied with \(\alpha =c_k/b_k\). Further we define
In consequence,
From Lemma 5.2 it follows
which implies that for each \(n\in \mathbb {N}\)
Since dilation operators are bounded on r.i.B.f. spaces we get
The limit for \(n\rightarrow \infty \) of the term on right-hand side is \(\infty \) since \(\sum _{k=1}^{n} c_k\chi _{[k-1,k)}\rightarrow f\) pointwise, while B has the Fatou property and \(f\not \in B\). Together with estimates (21) and (22) it implies that
Furthermore,
and the way we have chosen functions \(u_k\) ensures that for each \(k=1,2,...\) and each \(t\in [k-1,k)\)
while
Using this and (20) we get
In consequence \(\Vert \eta ''\Vert _Y<\Vert g\Vert _Y<\infty \). By (20) we have \(\Vert \eta \Vert _Z\le \Vert h\Vert _Z<\infty \), since
This finishes the proof of point (i) in the case of \(d=1\).
In the case \(d>1\) we proceed in the same fashion. Firstly we select f, g, h together with \(b_k,c_k,a_k\) and define the functions \(u_k\) exactly as above. Further, define \(w'\) to be a piecewise affine continuous function with slots in points \((0,0),(1/4,1),(3/4,-1),(1,0)\). Precisely the formula is
We set for \(t>0\)
Then \(w\in W^{2,\infty }(\mathbb {R})\) has the following properties:
-
(a)
\({{\,\textrm{supp}\,}}w= [0,1]\)
-
(b)
\(|w(t)|\le 1/4\), \(|w'(t)|\le 1\) and \(|w''(t)|\le 4\) for each \(t\in [0,1]\)
-
(c)
\(|w(t)|\ge 1/8\) for each \(t\in [1/4,3/4]\).
Finally, we are ready to define the desired function \(\eta \) on \(\mathbb {R}^d\). We put
where for each \(k=1,2,3,...\)
It remains to estimate the function \(\eta \) and its derivatives analogously as in the previous part of the proof. By Lemma 5.2 and points (a), (b) above we have
Moreover, notice that \(|u_k'|\le \frac{c_k}{b_k}\), therefore for each fixed \(1<i\le d\)
while respective estimates for other second order derivatives appearing in \(\nabla ^2\eta \) are immediate. In consequence,
Finally, point (c) above implies that
where \(C_k=\left\{ |b_k u'_k|\ge c_k\right\} \times [1/4,3/4]^{d-1}\). Thus \(|C_k|\ge \frac{1}{2^{d+2}}\) by definition of \(u_k\)’s. In consequence, for each \(n\in \mathbb {N}\)
and we can finish the proof as before.
(ii) Consider the case \(Z\cap L^{1} \subset Y\cap L^{1}\) and suppose \(X\cap L^{1}\not \subset B\cap L^{1}\). This time we will construct a sequence \((\eta _n)\subset W^{2,1}_{{{\,\textrm{loc}\,}}}(\mathbb {R}^d)\) such that
Once again we start with the case of \(d=1\). It follows that there is \(r = r^* \in (X\cap L^{1}) \backslash (B\cap L^{1})\). However, \(r \chi _{[1,\infty )}\in L^{\infty }\cap L^1\subset B\cap L^{1} \) and consequently \(r \chi _{[0,1]}\in (X\cap L^{1}) \backslash (B\cap L^{1})\). We define
Then \(\tilde{f}\in X=Y^{1/2}Z^{1/2}\), so by Lemma 5.1 there are \(g^*=g\in Y\), \(h^*=h\in Z\) such that \(\tilde{f}\le g^{1/2}h^{1/2}\) and \(h\le g\). Define for each n
Set
Note that since \(0\le h_n\le h\) and \(0\le g_n\le g\) by the lattice property we obtain that
Further, we put \(f_n=g_n^{1/2}h_n^{1/2}\). Then \(f_n\) is of the form
The pointwise convergence \(0\le f_n\rightarrow f= g^{1/2}h^{1/2}\) combined with the Fatou property of B yields
Moreover, \(c_{n,k}=\sqrt{a_{n,k}b_{n,k}}\) and
Now for each n and \(k=1,2,...,n\) we select \(u_{n,k}\) from Lemma 5.2 applied with \(\alpha =c_{n,k}/b_{n,k}\). Finally we define
Then
and we have
because by Lemma 5.2 (i)
Hence
We have
since dilations are bounded on B.
On the other hand, we have
and so \(\Vert \eta _n\Vert _Z\le \Vert h_n\Vert _Z\le \Vert h\Vert _Z<\infty \). Moreover,
and, since
we get
and consequently \(\Vert \eta ''_n\Vert _Y\le n^2\Vert g_n\Vert _Y\le n^2\Vert g\Vert _Y\). Finally, we have
and the proof of point (ii) is finished in the case of \(d=1\). When \(d>1\) the proof is a mixture of the above argument together with the idea used for the case \(d>1\) in the proof of point (i). More precisely, we define
where
and the rest of the proof repeats the same steps as before. \(\square \)
Assuming the spaces on the right-hand side of the Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality satisfy assumption \(Z\subset Y\), then Theorem 2.2 takes the following simplified form.
Corollary 1.13
Let Y, Z be r.i.B.f. spaces satisfying \(Z\subset Y\). If the Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality
holds for all \(u\in W^{2,0}(\mathbb {R}^d)\), then \(Y^{1/2}Z^{1/2}\subset B\).
Proof
We need only to see that if \(Z\subset Y\) and \(Y^{1/2}Z^{1/2}\not \subset B\) then either assumptions of point (i) or point (ii) of Theorem 2.2 are satisfied. First of all, notice that \(Z\subset Y\) implies both
Now let \(0\le f\in Y^{1/2}Z^{1/2}\backslash B\) and define
Then either \(f_b\) belongs to \((Y^{1/2}Z^{1/2})\backslash B\) or \(f_a\) belongs to \((Y^{1/2}Z^{1/2})\backslash B\) (or both are valid). In case \(f_b\in (Y^{1/2}Z^{1/2})\backslash B\) we apply Theorem 2.2 (i), since \(f_b\in L^{\infty }\). Otherwise, we apply Theorem 2.2 (ii), since \(f_a\in L^{1}\). \(\square \)
Let us apply previous thoughts on Orlicz spaces. As mentioned in the introduction, Kałamajska and Pietruska-Pałuba [16] studied the Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality
They proved the choice of \(L^{\varphi }\) for \(\varphi \) satisfying
is valid when spaces satisfy some additional technical assumptions. Later the result was relaxed of some of these assumptions and the optimality of the choice \(X=L^{\varphi }\) among all Orlicz spaces was given in [9]. Theorem 2.2 explains that it is already the optimal choice of space among all r.i.B.f. spaces, provided \(L^{\varphi _2}\subset L^{\varphi _1}\).
Concluding, we see that the choice of \(X=Y^{1/2}Z^{1/2}\) is optimal among all r.i.B.f. spaces in the Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality (3), provided that \(Z\subset Y\). However, the assumption \(Z\subset Y\) is quite restrictive and does not apply to the most classical r.i.B.f. spaces on \(\mathbb {R}_+\) (Lebesgue spaces, Lorentz spaces, etc.), since usually there is no inclusion between such spaces on \(\mathbb {R}_+\). It appears, however, that maneuvering between points (i) and (ii) of Theorem 2.2 we can use it to give an almost complete answer to the question about the optimality of (3) among Lorentz spaces posted in [9] formulated as Corollary 2.5.
Proof of Corollary 2.5
The choice of \(P=(1/(2Q)+1/(2R))^{-1}\) is the only possible. This is a consequence of the scaling argument (see [9, Theorem 1.1] for details) and of the shape of fundamental functions of Lorentz spaces. Thus we need only to explain that
does not hold when \(p'<p{:=}(1/(2q)+1/(2r))^{-1}\) for \(P=(1/(2Q)+1/(2R))^{-1}\). We will consider three cases. Firstly, if \(R<Q\) then
Thus we can apply point (i) of Theorem 2.2 with \(B=L^{P,p'}\), since \(L^{P,p'}\subsetneq L^{P,p}\).
In the second case, when \(R>Q\), we have
and we apply point (ii) of Theorem 2.2.
Finally, when \(R=Q\) and \(r<q\), then assumptions of Corollary 5.3 are satisfied. \(\square \)
Data Availability
Not applicable.
References
Bennett, C., Sharpley, R.: Interpolation of operators. Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 129. Academic Press Inc, Boston (1988)
Boccardo, L., Dall’Aglio, A., Gallouët, T., Orsina, L.: Nonlinear parabolic equations with measure data. J. Funct. Anal. 147(1), 237–258 (1997)
Brezis, H., Mironescu, P.: Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequalities and non-inequalities: the full story. Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré C, Analyse non linéaire 35(5), 1355–1376 (2018)
Brezis, H., Mironescu, P.: Where Sobolev interacts with Gagliardo–Nirenberg. J. Funct. Anal. 277(8), 2839–2864 (2019)
Brezis, H., Van Schaftingen, J., Yung, P.: Going to Lorentz when fractional Sobolev, Gagliardo and Nirenberg estimates fail. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 60(4), 12 (2021)
Brezis, H., Van Schaftingen, J., Yung, P.: A surprising formula for Sobolev norms. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118(8), 6 (2021)
Dao, N. A., Díaz, J. I., Nguyen, Q. H.: Generalized Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequalities using Lorentz spaces, BMO, Hölder spaces and fractional Sobolev spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 173, 146–153 (2018)
Del Pino, M., Dolbeault, J.: Best constants for Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequalities and applications to nonlinear diffusions. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 81(9), 847–875 (2002)
Fiorenza, A., Formica, M. R., Roskovec, T., Soudský, F.: Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality for rearrangement-invariant banach function spaces. Rendiconti Lincei - Matematica e Applicazioni 30(4), 847–864 (2019)
Fiorenza, A., Formica, M. R., Roskovec, T., Soudský, F.: Detailed proof of classical Gagliardo–Nirenberg interpolation inequality with historical remarks. Z. Anal. Anwend. 40(2), 217–236 (2021)
Gagliardo, E.: Proprieta di alcuna classi di funzioni in piu variabili. Ricerche Mat. 7(1), 102–137 (1958)
Grafakos, L., He, D., Slavíková, L.: \(L^2\times L^2\rightarrow L^1\) boundedness criteria. Math. Ann. 376(1–2), 431–455 (2020)
Kałamajska, A.: Pointwise multiplicative inequalities and Nirenberg type estimates in weighted Sobolev spaces. Studia Math. 108(3), 275–290 (1994)
Kałamajska, A., Krbec, M.: Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequalities in regular Orlicz spaces involving nonlinear expressions. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 362(2), 460–470 (2010)
Kałamajska, A., Peszek, J.: On certain generalizations of the Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality and their applications to capacitary estimates and isoperimetric inequalities. J. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 13(1), 271–290 (2013)
Kałamajska, A., Pietruska-Pałuba, K.: Interpolation inequalities for derivatives in Orlicz spaces. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 55(6), 1767–1789 (2006)
Kolmogoroff, A.: On inequalities between the upper bounds of the successive derivatives of an arbitrary function on an infinite interval. Am. Math. Soc. Transl. 1949(4), 19 (1949)
Kolwicz, P., Leśnik, K., Maligranda, L.: Pointwise multipliers of Calderón–Lozanovskiĭ spaces. Math. Nachr. 286(8–9), 876–907 (2013)
Kolwicz, P., Leśnik, K., Maligranda, L.: Pointwise products of some Banach function spaces and factorization. J. Funct. Anal. 266(2), 616–659 (2014)
Kolwicz, P., Leśnik, K., Maligranda, L.: Symmetrization, factorization and arithmetic of quasi-Banach function spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 470(2), 1136–1166 (2019)
Kopaliani, T., Chelidze, G.: Gagliardo–Nirenberg type inequality for variable exponent lebesgue spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 356(1), 232–236 (2009)
Kreĭn, S. G., Petunīn, Yu. \(\bar{{\rm I}}\)., Semënov, E. M.: Interpolation of linear operators, Transl. Math. Monogr., 54. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI (1982)
Ladyženskaja, O. A.: Solution “in the large” to the boundary-value problem for the Navier-Stokes equations in two space variables. Soviet Physics. Dokl., 123(3), 1128–1131 (427–429 Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR) (1958)
Landau, E.: Einige ungleichungen für zweimal differentiierbare funktionen. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. 2(1), 43–49 (1914)
Leoni, G.: A first course in Sobolev spaces, Grad. Stud. Math., 181. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, second edition (2017)
Lindenstrauss, J., Tzafriri, L.: Classical Banach Spaces. II. Function Spaces. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York (1979)
Lokharu, E. È.: The Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality for maximal functions that measure smoothness. Zap. Nauchn. Sem. S.-Peterburg. Otdel. Mat. Inst. Steklov. (POMI), 389 (Issledovaniya po Lineĭnym Operatoram i Teorii Funktsiĭ. 38:143–161 (2011)
Lokharu, E. È.: Interpolation inequalities for maximal functions that measure smoothness. Algebra i Analiz 24(2), 192–229 (2012)
Lozanovskii, G. Ja.: On some banach lattices. Siberian Math. J. 10(3), 419–431 (1969)
Maligranda, L.: Orlicz spaces and interpolation. Seminários de Matemática [Seminars in Mathematics], vol. 5. Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Departamento de Matemática, Campinas (1989)
Maligranda, L., Persson, L.E.: Generalized duality of some Banach function spaces. Nederl. Akad. Wetensch. Indag. Math. 51(3), 323–338 (1989)
Maz\(^{\prime }\)ya, V., Shaposhnikova, T.: On pointwise interpolation inequalities for derivatives. Math. Bohem. 124(2-3), 131–148 (1999)
McCormick, D. S., Robinson, J. C., Rodrigo, J. L.: Generalised Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequalities using weak Lebesgue spaces and BMO. Milan J. Math. 81(2), 265–289 (2013)
Molchanova, A., Roskovec, T., Soudský, F.: Regularity of the inverse mapping in Banach function spaces. Math. Nachr. 294(12), 2382–2395 (2021)
Nash, J.: Continuity of solutions of parabolic and elliptic equations. Am. J. Math. 80(4), 931–954 (1958)
Nilsson, P.: Interpolation of Banach lattices. Studia Math. 82(2), 135–154 (1985)
Nirenberg, L.: On elliptic partial differential equations. Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa - Classe di Scienze 13(2), 115–162 (1959)
Penel, P., Pokorný, M.: Some new regularity criteria for the Navier–Stokes equations containing gradient of the velocity. Appl. Math. 49(5), 483–493 (2004)
Pick, L., Kufner, A., John, O., Fučík, S.: Function spaces. Vol. 1. (Second revised and extended edition), De Gruyter Ser. Nonlinear Anal. Appl., 14, Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin (2013)
Pisier, G.: Some applications of the complex interpolation method to Banach lattices. J. Anal. Math. 35, 264–281 (1979)
Rivière, T., Strzelecki, P.: A sharp nonlinear Gagliardo–Nirenberg-type estimate and applications to the regularity of elliptic systems. Commun. Partial Differ. Equ. 30(4–6), 589–604 (2005)
Schep, A. R.: Products and factors of Banach function spaces. Positivity 14(2), 301–319 (2010)
Slavíková, L.: On the failure of the Hörmander multiplier theorem in a limiting case. Revista Matemática Iberoamericana. 12 (2019)
Stein, E. M.: Functions of exponential type. Ann. Math. 2(65), 582–592 (1957)
Strzelecki, P.: Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequalities with a BMO term. Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 38(2), 294–300 (2006)
Acknowledgements
The first named author was supported by the National Science Center (Narodowe Centrum Nauki), Poland (Project no. 2017/26/D/ST1/00060). The second and the third named authors were supported by grant number GJ20-19018Y of the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic. We would like to thank our colleagues and friends for fruitful discussions on the topic and inspiration, especially to Aleš Nekvinda and also to Jan Malý, who passed away in 2021 and for whom we dedicate the paper. Moreover, we are grateful to both referees for the detailed remarks and corrections that allowed us to improve the presentation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Dedicated to the memory of Professor Jan Malý (1955–2021).
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Leśnik, K., Roskovec, T. & Soudský, F. Optimal Gagliardo–Nirenberg interpolation inequality for rearrangement invariant spaces. Rev. Real Acad. Cienc. Exactas Fis. Nat. Ser. A-Mat. 117, 161 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-023-01481-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-023-01481-z
Keywords
- Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality
- Rearrangement invariant Banach function spaces
- Calderón–Lozanovskii spaces