Abstract
We deal with the Fuglede p-modulus of a system of measures, focusing on three aspects. First, we combine results concerning Badger’s criterion for the extremal function, i.e., the function which realizes the p-modulus, and plans with barycenter in \(L^q\), which give an alternative—in a sense, probabilistic—approach to p-modulus. It seems that the correlation of these results has not yet been established. Second, we deal with families of measures for which the integral of the extremal function is one. On such a family, the p-modulus as well as the optimal plans are concentrated. We consider closures of these families and relate them with generic families of measures for which the extremal function exists. Finally, we compute the p-modulus and extremal function for finite families of measures.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Consider a measurable space \((X,{{\mathcal {M}}})\) and fix a reference measure \(\mathfrak {m}\). For a family of measures \(\Sigma \) defined on a \(\sigma \)-algebra \({{\mathcal {M}}}\) and coefficient \(p>1\), we may consider a notion of p-modulus [3]. This is a number which plays a remarkable role in many areas, such as: quasiconformal mappings, geometric measure theory, analysis on manifolds, etc. Let us introduce this notion. Denote by \({{\mathcal {L}}}^p(X,\mathfrak {m})\) a set of all functions on X with finite p-norm. We do not identify functions equal on a set of full measure. We say that \(f\in {{\mathcal {L}}}(X,\mathfrak {m})\) is p-admissible if \(f\ge 0\) and \(\int _X f(x)\,\text {d}\mu (x)\ge 1\) for all \(\mu \in \Sigma \). The p-modulus \({\textrm{mod}}_p(\Sigma ,\mathfrak {m})\) it defined as
A function \(f_{\Sigma }\) which realizes the infimum is called extremal.
The important consequence is the generalization on the notion: almost everywhere (with respect to some measure). In this case, we deal with a family of measures. Namely, we say that some property holds p-almost everywhere (p-a.e.) with respect to \(\Sigma \), if there is a subfamily \(T\subset \Sigma \), such that \({\textrm{mod}}_p(T)=0\) and this property holds for any measure in \(\Sigma \setminus T\).
The basic example [3] is the following: Let \(\Sigma _A\) be a family of Dirac measures \(\delta _x\), where \(x\in A\), and \(A\in {{\mathcal {M}}}\). Then, it is easy to see that the “best” p-admissible function is \(f\equiv 1\) on A, which implies \({\textrm{mod}}_p(\Sigma _A)=\mathfrak {m}(A)\). Notice that here p-modulus does not depend on p. In this case, p-a.e. is equivalent to a.e. in a classical sense.
Although, the importance of p-modulus was first discovered in the context of capacity and quasiconformality, now it plays central role in many other aspects. It was a starting point for considerations of p-harmonic functions and Newton–Sobolev spaces on measure metric spaces [4]. In another remarkable article [1], the authors introduce the notion of a plan with barycenter in \({{\mathcal {L}}}^q\), where q is a coefficient conjugate to p, to study the p-modulus from the probabilistic perspective and its consequences for week gradients on metric measure spaces (which are fundamental for Newton–Sobolev spaces and p-harmonicity). Another important observation has been made by Badger [2], where he generalizes Beurling’s criteria for the existence of the extermal function. Let us enlarge on these two results.
The main result in [2] is the following.
Theorem 1.1
Let \(\Sigma \) be a family of measures on X and fix a reference measure \(\mathfrak {m}\). Then, a p-admissible function \(f_{\Sigma }\) is extremal if and only if the following holds: there exists a family of measures F, such that
-
(i)
\({\textrm{mod}}_p(\Sigma )={\textrm{mod}}_p(\Sigma \cup F)\),
-
(ii)
for every \(\nu \in F\), \(\int _X f(x)\,d\nu (x)=1\),
-
(iii)
for \(f\in {{\mathcal {L}}}^p(X,\mathfrak {m})\) taking values in \([-\infty ,\infty ]\) if \(\int _X f(x)\,d\nu (x)\ge 0\) for all \(\nu \in F\), then \(\int _X f_{\Sigma }^{p-1}(x)f(x)\,d\mathfrak {m}\ge 0\).
The important observation by Badger is that F does not need to be inside \(\Sigma \). In fact, from the proof of above theorem it follows that F may be chosen as a family of measures \(c\mu \), where \(\mu \in \Sigma \) and \(c=c(\mu )\) is such that \(\int _X f_{\Sigma }(x)\,d(c\mu )(x)=1\). This immediately implies the following important corollary.
Corollary 1.2
Let \(\Sigma \) be a family of measures on X and fix a reference measure \(\mathfrak {m}\). If \(f_{\Sigma }\) is is extremal for the p-modulus of \(\Sigma \), then the following condition holds:
-
(iii’)
for \(f\in {{\mathcal {L}}}^p(X,\mathfrak {m})\) taking values in \([-\infty ,\infty ]\) if \(\int _X f(x)\,d\mu (x)\ge 0\) for all \(\mu \in \Sigma \), then \(\int _X f_{\Sigma }^{p-1}(x)f(x)\,d\mathfrak {m}\ge 0\).
Moreover, the following example from [2] shows that F may be disjoint with \(\Sigma \): Let \(\Sigma \) be a family of Lebesgue measures on curves joining two horizontal edges of a rectangle, where a is a length of vertical edge and b is a length of horizontal edge. It can be shown that the p-modulus of F equals the p-modulus of a family of vertical lines (Fig. 1), which is \(a^{1-p}b\). Denote a family of vertical lines by F. The extremal function \(f_{\Sigma }\) in this case is constant end equals \(f=\frac{1}{a}\). Thus, since any curve in \(\Sigma '=\Sigma {\setminus } F\) has length greater that curves in F, it follows that \(\int _X f_{\Sigma }(x)\,\text {d}\mu (x)>1\) for any \(\mu \in \Sigma '\). However, since any curve in F can be approximated by curves in \(\Sigma '\) it follows (see details in [2]) that
On the other hand, we have results by Ambrosio et al. [1] treating existence of a plan associated with family of measures \(\Sigma \). The idea is to find a measure \(\eta \) on \(\Sigma \), such that the continuity condition holds
for any \(f\in {{\mathcal {L}}}^p(X,\mathfrak {m})\) with non-negative values and for some constant c depending only on \(\eta \) itself and the coefficient q conjugate to p (We will denote the constant c by \(c_q(\eta )\) if it is optimal in a sense of Theorem 1.3 and we will call it the optimal constant). The implications of this condition are huge. Firstly, considering a barycenter \({{\underline{\eta }}}\) associated with \(\Sigma \). It is a measure on X defined by
From the definition of a plan (applied with characteristic function \(f=\chi _A\)), it follows that barycenter \({{\underline{\eta }}}\) is absolutely continuous with respect to \(\mathfrak {m}\) and the density \(\rho =\text {d}{{\underline{\eta }}}/\text {d}\mathfrak {m}\) is q-integrable. Authors in [1] prove the following remarkable result.
Theorem 1.3
Assume \(\Sigma \) is a Suslin set,
Then, there exists optimal plan, i.e., a plan for which \(C_{p,\mathfrak {m}}(\Sigma )\) is attained among all plans with \(c(\eta )>0\). This plan satisfies, among other properties
-
(a)
\(\rho ={\textrm{mod}}_p(\Sigma )^{-1}f_{\Sigma }^{p-1}\),
-
(b)
\(\int _X f_{\Sigma }(x)\,d\mu (x)=1\) for \(\eta \)-a.e. \(\mu \in \Sigma \),
-
(c)
\(\eta \) is concentrated on \(\Sigma \).
Notice, that from condition (b) above, it implies that \(\Sigma \) contains measure family \(\Sigma _{{\textrm{ext}}}\) with measures for which the integral of the extremal function equals 1. This condition may not be satisfied with Badger’s approach. The explanation may be the following: in some cases family \(\Sigma \) is such that \(C_{p,\mathfrak {m}}(\Sigma )=0\). On the other hand, condition (a) above reminds of condition (iii) in Badger’s theorem. In fact, for Suslin sets \(\Sigma \), (a) implies (iii). Let us explain this. From the definition of \(\rho \), we have the following integral formula:
for any non-negative function \(f\in {{\mathcal {L}}}^p(X,\mathfrak {m})\). Clearly, taking non-negative and nonpositive part of a function using linearity of both sides with respect to f, it follows that above formula holds for any \(f\in {{\mathcal {L}}}^p(X,\mathfrak {m})\). Therefore, taking \(F=\{\mu \in \Sigma \mid \int _X f_{\Sigma }(x)\,\text {d}\mu (x)=1\}\) and \(f\in {{\mathcal {L}}}^p(X,\mathfrak {m})\) taking values in \([-\infty ,\infty ]\), if \(\int _X f(x)\,\text {d}\mu (x)\ge 0\) for all \(\mu \in F\), then
since F is of full measure in \(\Sigma \). Notice moreover, that such chosen F satisfies also conditions (i) and (ii) of Badger’s criterion. It seems that the correlation between results in [2] and [1] has not been established anywhere in the literature. Moreover, it is interesting to notice that condition (iii) in Badger’s Theorem 1.1 means that a functional \(L:{{\mathcal {W}}}\mapsto {{\mathbb {R}}}\):
where \({{\mathcal {W}}}=\{\Phi _f\mid f\in C_b(X)\}\), is positive. The existence of optimal plan is proved in [1] using geometric Hahn–Banach theorem and Riesz representation theorem for positive functional. We will use above observation to present slightly different proof of Theorem 1.3.
In this note, we study the extremal function from three perspective. First, we use Badger’s result to give alternative proof (in a compact case) of the existence of optimal plan (Theorem 1.3). Second, we focus on the set of Borel measures for which the integral of the extremal function equals one. Finally, we deal with the finite families \(\Sigma \) of measures. We give explicit formulas for the extremal function and the p-modulus.
2 Basic definitions and facts
Let X be a Polish space, \(\mathfrak {m}\) a Borel measure on X. Denote by \({{\mathcal {L}}}^p(X,\mathfrak {m})\) (and \({{\mathcal {L}}}_+^p(X,\mathfrak {m}\)) spaces of p-integrable (positive) functions on X. Let \({{\mathcal {M}}}_+(X)\) be a space of Borel non-negative measures on X. For a function \(f\in {{\mathcal {L}}}_+^p(X,\mathfrak {m})\) denote by \(\Phi _f:{{\mathcal {M}}}_+(X)\rightarrow {{\mathbb {R}}}\) the operator given by
It can be proven that \(\Phi _f\) is a Borel map.
Fix a subset \(\Sigma \subset {{\mathcal {M}}}_+(X)\). We say that a function \(f\in {{\mathcal {L}}}^p_+(X,\mathfrak {m})\) is p-admissible if \(\Phi _f\ge 1\) on \(\Sigma \). Following [3], we define p-modulus of \(\Sigma \) by
If the set of p-admissible functions is empty, we put \({\textrm{mod}}_p(\Sigma )=\infty \). We will need also a version with respect to continuous and bounded functions
p-Moduli \({\textrm{mod}}_p\) and \({\textrm{mod}}_{p,c}\) have the following properties (see Fuglede [3]):
-
1.
if \({{\mathcal {T}}}\subset \Sigma \), then \({\textrm{mod}}_p({{\mathcal {T}}})\le {\textrm{mod}}_p(\Sigma )\),
-
2.
for families \(\Sigma _i\), \(i\in {{\mathbb {N}}}\), \({\textrm{mod}}_p(\bigcup _i\Sigma _i)^{\frac{1}{p}}\le \sum _i{\textrm{mod}}_p(\Sigma _i)^{\frac{1}{p}}\),
-
3.
if \(p>1\) and \({\textrm{mod}}_p(\Sigma )>0\), then there is a function \(f_{\Sigma }\in {{\mathcal {L}}}^p_+(X,\mathfrak {m})\), such that \(\Phi _{f_{\Sigma }}\ge 1\) up to a subfamily of p-modulus zero and \({\textrm{mod}}_p(\Sigma )=\Vert f_{\Sigma }\Vert ^p\),
-
4.
\({\textrm{mod}}_p(\Sigma )=0\) if and only if there is a function \(f\in {{\mathcal {L}}}^p_+(X,\mathfrak {m})\), such that \(\Phi _f=\infty \) on \(\Sigma \).
Let us move to description of plans with barycenter in \(L^q(X,\mathfrak {m})\) studied in [1]. Firstly, recall that we equip \({{\mathcal {M}}}_+(X)\) with Polish topology of weak convergence (in duality with \(C_b(X)\)). We say that a Borel probability measure \(\eta \) on \({{\mathcal {M}}}_+(X)\) is a plan with barycenter in \(L^q(X,\mathfrak {m})\) if there is non-negative constant \(c_q(\eta )\), such that
The use of such terminology in motivated by the following observation [1]: define a measure \({{\underline{\eta }}}\) on X as a barycenter:
Then, \({{\underline{\eta }}}(A)\le c_q(\eta )(\mathfrak {m}(A))^{\frac{1}{p}}\), hence there exists an integrable function \(\rho \), such that \({{\underline{\eta }}}=\rho \mathfrak {m}\). By condition (2.1) it follows that \(\rho \in L^q(X,\mathfrak {m})\). Moreover, by the definition of \({{\underline{\eta }}}\) from the “layer cake” representation we have
Choose a subset \(\Sigma \) in \({{\mathcal {M}}}_+(X)\) and consider a number
where the supremum is taken with respect to all plans \(\eta \) with barycenter in \(L^q(X,\mathfrak {m})\), such that \(c(\eta )>0\). If such plans do not exist, we put \(C_{p,\mathfrak {m}}(\Sigma )=-\infty \). It follows by the definition of p-modulus taking p-admissible functions in (2.1) that
The main results in [1] concerning p-modulus in general are Theorem 1.3 and the following lemma.
Lemma 2.1
[1] If \(\Sigma \) is universally measurable, \(C_{p,\mathfrak {m}}(\Sigma )>0\), \({\textrm{sup}}_{\mu \in \Sigma }\mu (X)<\infty \), then there is a plan \(\eta \) with barycenter in \(L^q(X,\mathfrak {m})\) optimal for (2.3). Moreover, this plan is concentrated on \(\Sigma \), hence \(C_{p,\mathfrak {m}}(\Sigma )=c(\eta )^{-1}\).
Recall that a set \(\Sigma \subset {{\mathcal {M}}}_+(X)\) is universally measurable if it is measurable for any measure \(\sigma \in {{\mathcal {M}}}_+({{\mathcal {M}}}_+(X))\).
3 Main results
Adopt notation from the previous section.
3.1 Alternative proof of Theorem 1.3 in a compact case
We will give a proof in the case of \(\Sigma \) compact. Assume \(C_{p,\mathfrak {m}}(\Sigma )>0\) and \({\textrm{sup}}_{\mu \in \Sigma }\mu (X)<\infty \). Denote by \(f_{\Sigma }\) the extremal function for the p-modulus of \(\Sigma \). Put
Then, \({{\mathcal {W}}}\) is a subspace in \(C(\Sigma )\) and K is a cone in \(C(\Sigma )\). Consider a linear functional \(L:{{\mathcal {W}}}\rightarrow {{\mathbb {R}}}\) given by
For \(\Phi _f\in {{\mathcal {W}}}\cap K\), by Corollary 1.2 of Badger’s Theorem, we have \(L(\Phi _f)\ge 0\). Thus, L is positive on \({{\mathcal {W}}}\cap K\). We will show that for any \(F\in C(\Sigma )\) there exists \(f\in C(X)\), such that \(F-\Phi _f\in K\), i.e., \(F\ge \Phi _f\). Indeed, by assumption \(d={\textrm{sup}}_{\mu \in \Sigma }\mu (X)<\infty \). Since F is continuous on a compact set \(\Sigma \), it attains its minimum \(m={\textrm{inf}}_{\Sigma }F\). It suffices to put \(f=\frac{m}{d}\). Then, for any \(\mu \in \Sigma \):
Hence, \(\Phi _f\le F\). Thus we may apply Riesz extension theorem. It implies existence of positive functional \({\tilde{L}}\) on \(C(\Sigma )\) extending L. Now, by Riesz representation theorem, there is a Borel measure \(\eta \) on \(\Sigma \), such that
In particular, for \(F=\Phi _f\) we have
Hence, \(\eta \) is a plan with \(c(\eta )={\textrm{mod}}_p(\Sigma )^{-\frac{1}{p}}\). Putting any p-admissible f we get \(\eta (\Sigma )\le 1\). Moreover, for the extremal function \(f_{\Sigma }\) we have
Since \(\Phi _{f_{\Sigma }}\ge 1\) it follows that \(\eta (\Sigma )>0\). Now we proceed analogously as in [1]. If \(\eta (\Sigma )<1\), define \(\eta '=\eta (\Sigma )^{-1}\eta \). Then, \(\eta '\) is a Borel probability measure concentrated on \(\Sigma \) and
Thus
We have shown that there exists plan with barycenter in \(L^q(X,\mathfrak {m})\) concentrated on \(\Sigma \) with \(c>0\). Now, classical argument with considering maximizing sequence shows that there is an optimal plan (see proof of Lemma 4.4 in [1])
3.2 Sets of extremal measures
Define
If \(C_{p,\mathfrak {m}}=0\), then for any plan with positive \(c(\eta )\) we have \(\eta (\Sigma )=0\). Hence, \(\eta (\Sigma ^0_{{\textrm{ext}}})=0\). Let us move to more detailed description of the sets \(\Sigma _{{\textrm{ext}}}\) and \(\Sigma ^0_{{\textrm{ext}}}\). We are motivated by the following two examples.
Example 3.1
(See [1]) Let \(X=[0,1]\) be the unit interval, \(\mathfrak {m}={{\mathcal {L}}}\) the Lebesgue measure. Put
Then, any p-admissible function f satisfies
Thus, the extremal function equals \(f_{\Sigma }=2\) and \({\textrm{mod}}_p(\Sigma )=2^p\). Additionally, \(\Sigma ^0_{{\textrm{ext}}}=\left\{ {{\mathcal {L}}}_{\left[ 0,\frac{1}{2}\right] },{{\mathcal {L}}}_{\left[ \frac{1}{2},1\right] }\right\} \ne \Sigma \) and \({\textrm{mod}}_p(\Sigma )={\textrm{mod}}_p(\Sigma ^0_{{\textrm{ext}}})\). Hence, the optimal plan \(\eta \) is concentrated on \(\Sigma ^0_{{\textrm{ext}}}\). It is easy to see that
Example 3.2
Let \(\Sigma \) be a family of Lebesgue measures on curves joining two concentric circles on a plane (as in the Introduction) except for the rays. It is known that the extremal function \(f_{\Sigma }\) is constant and that the p-modulus of \(\Sigma \) equals q-capacity of considered condenser, q and p are conjugate coefficients. However, for the family \({{\mathcal {T}}}\) of Lebesgue measures on rays we have \({{\mathcal {T}}}\subset \Sigma _{{\textrm{ext}}}\), hence \({{\mathcal {T}}}\) and \(\Sigma _{{\textrm{ext}}}\) are disjoint with \(\Sigma \). Moreover, \({\textrm{mod}}_p(\Sigma )={\textrm{mod}}_p(\Sigma \cup {{\mathcal {T}}})\).
The first example suggests that it is convenient to consider the closure \({\textrm{cl}}\Sigma \) of \(\Sigma \). We will consider in this case the p-modulus \({\textrm{mod}}_{p,c}\) defined with respect to continuous bounded functions.
Proposition 3.3
We have \({\textrm{mod}}_{p,c}(\Sigma )={\textrm{mod}}_{p,c}({\textrm{cl}}\Sigma )\).
Proof
Since \(\Sigma \subset {\textrm{cl}}\Sigma \) it follow that \({\textrm{mod}}_{p,c}(\Sigma )\le {\textrm{mod}}_{p,c}({\textrm{cl}}\Sigma )\). To prove the converse inequality it suffices to show that any p-admissible function for the p-modulus of \(\Sigma \) is also p-admissible for the p-modulus of \({\textrm{cl}}\Sigma \). Let \(f\in C_b(X)\) be such that \(\Phi _f(\mu )\ge 1\) for \(\mu \in \Sigma \). Let \(\mu _0\in {\textrm{cl}}\Sigma \) and let \((\mu _n)\subset \Sigma \) be a sequence convergent to \(\mu _0\). Then
Since \(\int _X f\,\text {d}\mu \ge \) it follows that \(\int _X f\,\text {d}\mu _0\ge 1\). Thus f is p-admissible for \({\textrm{cl}}\Sigma \). \(\square \)
Corollary 3.4
The extremal function \(f_{\Sigma }\) for the p-modulus of \(\Sigma \) is also the extremal function for the p-modulus of \({\textrm{cl}}\Sigma \), i.e., \(f_{\Sigma }=f_{{\textrm{cl}}\Sigma }\).
Proposition 3.5
Assume \(f_{\Sigma }\in C_b(X)\) and \(\Sigma \) is a bounded set in \({{\mathcal {M}}}_+(X)\). Then, \(({\textrm{cl}}\Sigma )_{{\textrm{ext}}}^0\) is nonempty.
Proof
Suppose \(({\textrm{cl}}\Sigma )_{{\textrm{ext}}}^0\) is empty. Let
Then \(c=1\), since otherwise \(\frac{1}{c}f_{\Sigma }\) would be p-admissible for the p-modulus of \(\Sigma \) with the p-norm smaller that the p-norm of \(f_{\Sigma }\). Take a minimizing sequence \((\mu _n)\), i.e. \(\Phi _{f_{\Sigma }}(\mu _n)\rightarrow c=1\). Thus \(\int _X f_{\Sigma }\,\text {d}\mu _n\rightarrow 1\). Since \({\textrm{cl}}\Sigma \) is compact, by boundedness of \(\Sigma \), it follows that \((\mu _n)\) has convergent subsequence \((\mu _{n_k})\). Denote a limit measure by \(\mu _0\in {\textrm{cl}}\Sigma \). Then
It implies \(\Phi _{f_{\Sigma }}(\mu _0)=1\). Hence, \(\mu _0\in ({\textrm{cl}}\Sigma )_{{\textrm{ext}}}^0\). \(\square \)
3.3 Finite sets of measures
We now move to a description of families \(\Sigma \) consisting of finite number of measures. Let us begin with the simplest case of one measure.
Proposition 3.6
Assume \(\Sigma =\{\mu \}\), where \(\mu =\rho \mathfrak {m}\) for some \(\rho \in L^q(X,\mathfrak {m})\). Then
Proof
We apply Theorem 1.1. Let \(f_{\Sigma }=m^{q-1}\rho ^{q-1}\), where q is a coefficient conjugate to p and \(m=\left( \int _X \rho ^q\,\text {d}\mathfrak {m}\right) ^{1-p}\). Let \(F=\{\mu \}=\Sigma \). Then
Moreover, for any \(f\in {{\mathcal {L}}}^p(X,\mathfrak {m})\) possibly taking values \(\pm \infty \), and such that \(\int _X f\,\text {d}\mu \ge 0\), we have
Applying Badger’s Theorem 1.1 we see that \(f_{\Sigma }\) is extremal for the p-modulus of \(\Sigma \) and that \({\textrm{mod}}_p(\Sigma )=m\). This completes the proof. \(\square \)
Notice that in this case, i.e. \(\Sigma =\{\mu \}\), the optimal plan is a Dirac measure at \(\mu \), \(\eta =\delta _{\mu }\).
Let us remark, that if \(\mu \) is not absolutely continuous with respect to \(\mathfrak {m}\), then \({\textrm{mod}}_p(\Sigma )=0\). Indeed, there exists Borel set A, such that \(\mathfrak {m}(A)=0\) and \(\mu (A)>0\). In particular taking
we have \(\int _X f\,\text {d}\mu =1\) and \(\int _X f^p\,\text {d}\mathfrak {m}=0\).
Assume now \(\Sigma =\{\mu _1,\ldots ,\mu _n\}\), where \(\mu _i=\rho _i\mathfrak {m}\) and \(\rho _i\in L^q(X,\mathfrak {m})\).
Proposition 3.7
For above finite family \(\Sigma \) we have
where \(\rho =\frac{1}{n}\sum _i \rho _i\). Moreover, the optimal plan equals
Proof
Consider a one element family \(F=\{\rho \,\mathfrak {m}\}\). Let
Then
-
1.
\({\textrm{mod}}_p(\Sigma )={\textrm{mod}}_p(\Sigma \cup F)\). Indeed, the inequality \({\textrm{mod}}_p(\Sigma )\le {\textrm{mod}}_p(\Sigma \cup F)\) is obvious by the monotonicity of p-modulus. Choose an admissible function f for the p-modulus of \(\Sigma \). Then
$$\begin{aligned} \int \limits _X f\,\text {d}(\rho \mathfrak {m})=\int \limits _X \rho f\,\text {d}\mathfrak {m}=\frac{1}{n}\sum _i \int \limits _X \rho _if\,\text {d}\mathfrak {m}\ge 1. \end{aligned}$$Thus f is p-admissible for \(\Sigma \cup F\). This implies that \({\textrm{mod}}_p(\Sigma )\ge {\textrm{mod}}_p(\Sigma \cup F)\).
-
2.
By the definition of a constant m, we have
$$\begin{aligned} \int \limits _X f_{\Sigma }\,\text {d}(\rho \mathfrak {m})=\frac{m}{n}\sum _i\int \limits _X \rho _i^q\,\text {d}\mathfrak {m}=1. \end{aligned}$$ -
3.
For any \(f\in {{\mathcal {L}}}^p(X,\mathfrak {m})\) taking values in \([-\infty ,\infty ]\) if \(\int _X f\,\text {d}(\rho \mathfrak {m})\ge 0\), then
$$\begin{aligned} \int \limits _X f_{\Sigma }^{p-1}f\,\text {d}\mathfrak {m}=\frac{m}{n}\sum _i \int \limits _X \rho _if\,\text {d}\mathfrak {m}=m\int \limits _X f\,\text {d}(\rho \mathfrak {m})\ge 0. \end{aligned}$$
Therefore, all assumptions of Badger’s Theorem 1.1 are satisfied. It suffices to prove the formula for the optimal plan \(\eta \). We have
Hence \(\eta \) is a (probability) plan with barycenter in \(L^q(X,\mathfrak {m})\) with the optimal constant \(C_{p,\mathfrak {m}}(\Sigma )\). \(\square \)
Data availability
Not applicable.
References
Ambrosio, L., Di Marino, S., Savaré, G.: On the duality between p-modulus and probability measures. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 17(8), 1817–1853 (2015)
Badger, M.: Beurling’s criterion and extremal metrics for Fuglede modulus. Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. 38(2), 677–689 (2013)
Fuglede, B.: Extremal length and functional completion. Acta Math. 98, 171–219 (1957)
Shanmugalingam, N.: Newtonian spaces: an extension of Sobolev spaces to metric measure spaces. Rev. Mat. Iberoam. 16(2), 243–279 (2000)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Denny Leung.
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
Ciska-Niedziałomska, M. Some properties of the extremal function for the Fuglede p-modulus. Ann. Funct. Anal. 15, 2 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43034-023-00303-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43034-023-00303-y