1 Introduction

Let μ be a nonnegative Radon measure on R d which satisfies the following growth condition: for all x R d and all r>0,

μ ( B ( x , r ) ) C 0 r n ,
(1.1)

where C 0 and n are positive constants and n(0,d], B(x,r) is the open ball centered at x and having radius r. So μ is claimed to be non-doubling measure. If there exists a positive constant C such that for any xsupp(μ) and r>0, μ(B(x,2r))Cμ(B(x,r)), the μ is said to be doubling measure. It is well known that the doubling condition on underlying measures is a key assumption in the classical theory of harmonic analysis. Especially, in recent years, many classical results concerning the theory of Calderón-Zygmund operators and function spaces have been proved still valid if the underlying measure is a nonnegative Radon measure on R d which only satisfies (1.1) (see [18]). The motivation for developing the analysis with non-doubling measures and some examples of non-doubling measures can be found in [9]. We only point out that the analysis with non-doubling measures played a striking role in solving the long-standing open Painlevé’s problem by Tolsa in [10].

Let K(x,y) be a μ-locally integrable function on R d × R d {(x,y):x=y}. Assume that there exists a positive constant C such that for any x,y R d with xy,

|K(x,y)|C | x y | ( n 1 ) ,
(1.2)

and for any x,y, y R d ,

| x y | 2 | y y | [ | K ( x , y ) K ( x , y ) | + | K ( y , x ) K ( y , x ) | ] 1 | x y | dμ(x)C.
(1.3)

The fractional type Marcinkiewicz integral ℳ associated to the above kernel K(x,y) and the measure μ as in (1.1) is defined by

M(f)(x)= ( 0 | | x y | t K ( x , y ) | x y | α f ( y ) d μ ( y ) | 2 d t t 3 ) 1 2 ,x R d ,0<α<n.
(1.4)

If μ is the d-dimensional Lebesgue measure in R d , and

K(x,y)= Ω ( x y ) | x y | n 1 ,
(1.5)

with Ω homogeneous of degree zero and Ω Lip γ ( S d 1 ) for some γ(0,1], then K satisfies (1.2) and (1.3). Under these conditions, ℳ in (1.4) is introduced by Si et al. in [11]. As a special case, by letting α=0, we recapture the classical Marcinkiewicz integral operators that Stein introduced in 1958 (see [12]). Since then, many works have appeared about Marcinkiewicz type integral operators. A nice survey has been given by Lu in [13].

In 2007, the Hörmander-type condition was introduced by Hu et al. in [14], which was slightly stronger than (1.3) and was defined as follows:

sup > 0 , y , y R d | y y | k = 1 k 2 k < | x y | 2 k + 1 [ | K ( x , y ) K ( x , y ) | + | K ( y , x ) K ( y , x ) | ] 1 | x y | d μ ( x ) C .
(1.6)

However, in this paper, we discover that the kernel should satisfy some other kind of smoothness condition to replace (1.6).

Definition 1.1 Let 1s<, 0<ε<1. The kernel K is said to satisfy a Hörmander-type condition if there exist c s >1 and C s >0 such that for any x R d and > c s |x|,

sup > 0 , y , y R d | y y | k = 1 2 k ε ( 2 k ) n ( 1 ( 2 k ) n 2 k < | x y | 2 k + 1 [ ( | K ( x , y ) K ( x , y ) | + | K ( y , x ) K ( y , x ) | ) 1 | x y | ] s d μ ( x ) ) 1 s C s .
(1.7)

We denote by H s the class of kernels satisfying this condition. It is clear that these classes are nested,

H s 2 H s 1 H 1 ,1< s 1 < s 2 <.

We should point out that H 1 is not condition (1.6).

The purpose of this paper is to get some estimates for the fractional type Marcinkiewicz integral ℳ with kernel K satisfying (1.2) and (1.7) on the Hardy-type space and the RBMO(μ) space. To be precise, we establish the boundedness of ℳ in H fin 1 , , 0 (μ) for 1 q =1 α n in Section 2. In Section 3, we prove that ℳ is bounded from the space RBMO(μ) to the Morrey space M q p (μ), from the space RBMO(μ) to the Lebesgue space L n α (μ) for p= n α .

Before stating our results, we need to recall some necessary notation and definitions. For a cube Q R d , we mean a closed cube whose sides are parallel to the coordinate axes. We denote its center and its side length by x Q and (Q), respectively. Let η>1, ηQ denote the cube with the same center as Q and (ηQ)=η(Q). Given two cubes QR in R d , set

S Q , R =1+ k = 1 N Q , R μ ( 2 k Q ) [ ( 2 k Q ) ] n ,

where N Q , R is the smallest positive integer k such that ( 2 k Q)(R). The concept S Q , R was introduced in [15], where some useful properties of S Q , R can be found.

Lemma 1.2 For a function b L loc 1 (μ), 0<β1, conditions (i) and (ii) below are equivalent.

  1. (i)

    There exist some constant C 2 and a collection of numbers b Q such that these two properties hold: for any cube Q,

    1 μ ( 2 Q ) Q |b(x)b(y)|dμ(x) C 2 ( Q ) β ,
    (1.8)

and for any cube R such that QR and (R)2(Q),

| b Q b R | C 2 ( Q ) β .
(1.9)
  1. (ii)

    For any given p, 1p, there is a constant C(p)0 such that for every cube Q, then

    [ 1 μ ( Q ) Q | b ( x ) m Q ( b ) | p d μ ( x ) ] 1 p C(p) ( Q ) β ,
    (1.10)

where

m Q (b)= 1 μ ( Q ) Q b(y)dμ(y),

and also for any cube R such that QR and (R)2(Q),

| m Q (b) m R (b)|C(p) ( Q ) β .

Remark 1.3 Lemma 1.2 is a slight variant of Theorem 2.3 in [16]. To be precise, if we replace all balls in Theorem 2.3 of [16] by cubes, we then obtain Lemma 1.2.

Remark 1.4 For 0<β1, (1.9) is equivalent to

| b Q b R |C S Q , R ( R ) β
(1.11)

for any two cubes QR with (R)2(Q) (see Remark 2.7 in [16]).

Lemma 1.5 Let 0<α<n, 1<p< n α , 1 r = 1 p α n and q n n α . Then the fractional integral operator I α defined by

I α f(x)= R d f ( y ) | x y | n α dy

is bounded from L p (μ) to L r (μ) (see [17]).

Lemma 1.6 Let 0<α<n, 1<p< n α , 1 q = 1 p α n . Suppose that K(x,y) satisfies (1.2) and (1.3) andis as in (1.4). Then there exists a positive constant C>0 such that for all bounded functions f with compact support,

M ( f ) L q ( μ ) C f L p ( μ ) .

Proof of Lemma 1.6 By Minkowski’s inequality, we have

M ( f ) ( x ) = ( 0 | | x y | t K ( x , y ) | x y | α f ( y ) d μ ( y ) | 2 d t t 3 ) 1 / 2 R d | K ( x , y ) | | x y | α | f ( y ) | ( | x y | d t t 3 ) 1 2 d μ ( y ) C R d 1 | x y | n α 1 | f ( y ) | 1 | x y | d μ ( y ) C R d | f ( y ) | | x y | n α d μ ( y ) C I α ( | f | ) ( x ) .

By Lemma 1.5 then

M ( f ) L q ( μ ) C f L p ( μ ) .

 □

Throughout this paper, we use the constant C with subscripts to indicate its dependence on the parameters. For a μ-measurable set E, χ E denotes its characteristic function. For any p[1,], we denote by p its conjugate index, namely 1 p + 1 p =1.

2 Boundedness of ℳ in Hardy spaces

This section is devoted to the behavior of ℳ in Hardy spaces. In order to define the Hardy space H 1 (μ), Tolsa introduced the grand maximal operator M ϕ in [18].

Definition 2.1 Given f L loc 1 (μ), M ϕ f is defined as

M ϕ f(x)= sup φ x | R d fφdμ|,

where the notation φx means that φ L 1 (μ) C 1 ( R d ) and satisfies

  1. (1)

    φ L 1 ( μ ) 1,

  2. (2)

    0φ(y) 1 | x y | n for all y R d ,

  3. (3)

    | φ (y)| 1 | x y | n + 1 for all y R d .

Based on Theorem 1.2 in [18], we can define the Hardy space H 1 (μ) as follows (see [15]).

Definition 2.2 The Hardy space H 1 (μ) is the set of all functions f L 1 (μ) satisfying that R d fdμ=0 and M ϕ f L 1 (μ). Moreover, the norm of f H 1 (μ) is defined by

f H 1 ( μ ) = f L 1 ( μ ) + M ϕ f L 1 ( μ ) .

We recall the atomic Hardy space H atb 1 , , 0 (μ) as follows.

Definition 2.3 Let ρ>1. A function h L loc 1 (μ) is called an atomic block if

  1. (1)

    there exists some cube R such that supphR,

  2. (2)

    R d h(x)dμ(x)=0,

  3. (3)

    for i=1,2, there are functions a i supported on cubes Q i R and numbers λ i R such that h= λ 1 a 1 + λ 2 a 2 , and

    a i L ( μ ) [ μ ( ρ Q i ) S Q i , R ] 1 .

Then define

| h | H atb 1 , , 0 ( μ ) =| λ 1 |+| λ 2 |.

Define H atb 1 , , 0 (μ) and H fin 1 , , 0 (μ) as follows:

f H atb 1 , , 0 ( μ ) =inf { j | h j | H atb 1 , , 0 ( μ ) : f = j = 1 h j , { h j } j N  are  ( 1 , , 0 ) -atoms }

and

f H fin 1 , , 0 ( μ ) =inf { j k | h j | H atb 1 , , 0 ( μ ) : f = j = 1 k h j , { h j } j = 1 k  are  ( 1 , , 0 ) -atoms } ,

where the infimum is taken over all possible decompositions of f in atomic blocks, H fin 1 , , 0 (μ) is the set of all finite linear combinations of (1,,0)-atoms.

Remark 2.4 It was proved in [15] that for each ρ>1, the atomic Hardy space H atb 1 , , 0 (μ) is independent of the choice of ρ.

Applying the theory of Meda et al. in [19], we easily get the result as follows.

Theorem 2.5 Let 0<α<n, 1 q =1 α n . Suppose that K satisfies (1.2) and the H q condition and f H fin 1 , , 0 (μ). Thenis bounded from the Hardy space into the Lebesgue space, namely there exists a positive constant C such that

M ( f ) L q ( μ ) C f H fin 1 , , 0 ( μ ) .

Proof of Theorem 2.5 Without loss of generality, we may assume that ρ=4 and f=h as a finite of atomic blocks defined in Definition 2.3. It is easy to see that we only need to prove the theorem for one atomic block h. Let R be a cube such that supphR, R d h(x)dμ(x)=0, and

h(x)= λ 1 a 1 (x)+λ a 2 (x),
(2.1)

where λ i for i=1,2 is a real number, | h i | H atb 1 , , 0 ( μ ) = λ 1 + λ 2 , a i for i=1,2 is a bounded function supported on some cubes Q i R and it satisfies

a i L ( μ ) [ μ ( 4 Q i ) S Q i , R ] 1 .
(2.2)

Write

M ( h ) L q ( μ ) ( 2 R | M ( h ) ( x ) | q d μ ( x ) ) 1 q + ( R d 2 R | M ( h ) ( x ) | q d μ ( x ) ) 1 q ( 2 R | M ( h ) ( x ) | q d μ ( x ) ) 1 q + { R d 2 R ( 0 | x x R | + 2 ( R ) | | x y | t K ( x , y ) | x y | α h ( y ) d μ ( y ) | 2 d t t 3 ) q 2 d μ ( x ) } 1 q + { R d 2 R ( | x x R | + 2 ( R ) | | x y | t K ( x , y ) | x y | α h ( y ) d μ ( y ) | 2 d t t 3 ) q 2 d μ ( x ) } 1 q = I + II + III .

By (2.1), we have

I = ( 2 R | M ( h ) ( x ) | q d μ ( x ) ) 1 q | λ 1 | ( 2 R | M ( a 1 ) ( x ) | q d μ ( x ) ) 1 q + | λ 2 | ( 2 R | M ( a 2 ) ( x ) | q d μ ( x ) ) 1 q = I 1 + I 2 .

To estimate I 1 , we write

I 1 | λ 1 | ( 2 Q 1 | M ( a 1 ) ( x ) | q d μ ( x ) ) 1 q + | λ 1 | ( 2 R 2 Q 1 | M ( a 1 ) ( x ) | q d μ ( x ) ) 1 q = I 11 + I 12 .

Choose p 1 and q 1 such that 1< p 1 < n α , 1<q< q 1 and 1 q 1 = 1 p 1 n α . By the Hölder inequality, the fact that S Q 1 , R 1 and the ( L p 1 (μ), L q 1 (μ))-boundedness of ℳ (see Lemma 1.6), we have that

I 11 | λ 1 | [ 2 Q 1 | M ( a 1 ) ( x ) | q 1 d μ ( x ) ] 1 q 1 μ ( 2 Q 1 ) 1 q 1 q 1 C | λ 1 | a 1 L p 1 ( μ ) μ ( 2 Q 1 ) 1 q 1 q 1 C | λ 1 | a 1 L ( μ ) μ ( 2 Q 1 ) 1 p 1 + 1 q 1 q 1 C | λ 1 | .

Denote N 2 Q 1 , 2 R simply by N 1 . Invoking the fact that a 1 L ( μ ) [ μ ( 4 Q i ) S Q i , R ] 1 , we thus get

I 12 C | λ 1 | { k = 1 N 1 + 1 2 k + 1 Q 1 2 k Q 1 [ 0 | | x y | t a 1 ( y ) | x y | n α 1 d μ ( y ) | 2 d t t 3 ] q 2 d μ ( x ) } 1 q C | λ 1 | { k = 1 N 1 + 1 ( 2 k Q 1 ) q ( α n ) × 2 k + 1 Q 1 2 k Q 1 [ Q 1 | a 1 ( y ) | | x y | n 1 α ( | x y | d t t 3 ) 1 2 d μ ( y ) ] q d μ ( x ) } 1 q C | λ 1 | { k = 1 N 1 + 1 ( 2 k Q 1 ) q ( α n ) 2 k + 1 Q 1 2 k Q 1 [ Q 1 | a 1 ( y ) | d μ ( y ) ] q d μ ( x ) } 1 q C | λ 1 | { k = 1 N 1 + 1 ( 2 k Q 1 ) q ( α n ) μ ( 2 k + 1 Q 1 ) a 1 L ( μ ) q μ ( Q 1 ) q } 1 q C | λ 1 | { k = 1 N 1 + 1 ( 2 k Q 1 ) q ( α n ) μ ( 4 Q 1 ) q S Q 1 , R q μ ( 2 k + 1 Q 1 ) a 1 L ( μ ) q μ ( Q 1 ) q } 1 q C | λ 1 | ( S Q 1 , R q k = 2 N 1 + 1 μ ( 2 k Q 1 ) ( 2 k Q 1 ) n ) 1 q C | λ 1 | .

Here we have used the fact that

k = 2 N 1 + 1 μ ( 2 k Q ) ( 2 k Q ) n C S Q , R ,

see [16] for details.

The estimates for I 11 and I 12 give the desired estimate for I 1 . With a similar argument, we have

I 2 C| λ 2 |.

Combining the estimates for I 1 and I 2 yields the estimate for I.

For i=1,2, y Q i R, x R d (2R), we have |xy||x x R ||x x R |+2(R), by Minkowski’s inequality, we get

II { R d ( 2 R ) [ R h ( y ) | x y | n 1 α ( | x y | | x x R | + 2 ( R ) d t t 3 ) 1 2 ] q d μ ( x ) } 1 q C R { R d ( 2 R ) [ | 1 ( | x x R | + 2 ( R ) ) 2 1 | x y | 2 | 1 2 | h ( y ) | | x y | n 1 α ] q d μ ( x ) } 1 q d μ ( y ) C R { R d ( 2 R ) ( ( R ) 1 2 | x y | 3 2 | h ( y ) | | x y | n 1 α ) q d μ ( x ) } 1 q d μ ( y ) C R { k = 1 2 k + 1 R ( 2 k R ) ( ( R ) 1 2 | x y | n α + 1 2 ) q d μ ( x ) } 1 q | h ( y ) | d μ ( y ) C ( j = 1 2 | λ j | a j L 1 ( μ ) ) { k = 1 ( R ) 1 2 ( 2 k R ) n + α 1 2 μ ( 2 k + 1 R ) 1 q } C ( j = 1 2 | λ j | ) .

For any yR, we have |xy||x x R |+|y x R ||x x R |+2(R)t. It follows that

III { R d 2 R ( | x x R | + 2 ( R ) | | x y | t [ K ( x , y ) | x y | α K ( x , x R ) | x x R | α ] h ( y ) d μ ( y ) | 2 d t t 3 ) q 2 d μ ( x ) } 1 q { R d 2 R [ R | K ( x , y ) | x y | α K ( x , x R ) | x x R | α | ( | x x R | + 2 ( R ) d t t 3 ) 1 2 | h ( y ) | d μ ( y ) ] q d μ ( x ) } 1 q C R k = 1 { 2 k + 1 R 2 k R [ | K ( x , y ) | x y | α K ( x , x R ) | x x R | α | 1 | x y | ] q d μ ( x ) } 1 q | h ( y ) | d μ ( y ) C R k = 1 { 2 k + 1 R 2 k R [ | K ( x , y ) | x y | α K ( x , y ) | x x R | α + K ( x , y ) | x x R | α K ( x , x R ) | x x R | α | 1 | x y | ] q d μ ( x ) } 1 q | h ( y ) | d μ ( y ) C R k = 1 { 2 k + 1 R 2 k R [ | K ( x , y ) | x y | α K ( x , y ) | x x R | α | 1 | x y | ] q d μ ( x ) } 1 q | h ( y ) | d μ ( y ) + C R k = 1 { 2 k + 1 R 2 k R [ | K ( x , y ) | x x R | α K ( x , x R ) | x x R | α | 1 | x y | ] q d μ ( x ) } 1 q | h ( y ) | d μ ( y ) C R k = 1 ( R ) { 2 k + 1 R 2 k R 1 | x y | q ( n α + 1 ) d μ ( x ) } 1 q | h ( y ) | d μ ( y ) + R k = 1 ( 2 k + 1 R 2 k R [ ( 2 k R ) α | K ( x , y ) K ( x , x R ) | | x y | ] q d μ ( x ) ) 1 q | h ( y ) | d μ ( y ) C ( j = 1 2 | λ j | ) .

Here we have used the fact that 1 q =1 α n .

Combining the estimates for I, II and III yields that

M ( h ) L q ( μ ) C | h | H atb 1 , , 0 ( μ ) ,

and this is the result of Theorem 2.5. □

3 Boundedness of ℳ in RBMO(μ) spaces

In this section, we discuss the boundedness for ℳ as in (1.4) in the space RBMO(μ) for f M p q (μ) and f L n α (μ), respectively.

Firstly, we need to recall the definition of Morrey space with non-doubling measure denoted by M q p (μ), which was introduced by Sawano and Tanaka in [20].

Definition 3.1 Let ν>1 and 1qp<. The Morrey space M q p (μ) is defined by

M q p (μ)= { f L loc q ( μ ) : f M q p ( μ ) < } ,

where the norm f M q p ( μ ) is given by

f M q p ( μ ) = sup Q μ ( ν Q ) 1 p 1 q ( Q | f ( x ) | q d μ ( x ) ) 1 q .

We should note that the parameter ν>1 appearing in the definition does not affect the definition of the space M q p (μ), and M q p (μ) is a Banach space with its norms (see [20]). By using the Hölder inequality to (1.4), it is easy to see that for all 1 q 2 q 1 p, then

L p (μ)= M p p (μ) M q 1 p (μ) M q 2 p (μ).

Theorem 3.2 Let 0<α<n, 1q<p= n α . Suppose that K(x,y) satisfies (1.2) and the H p condition, ℳ is defined as in (1.4). Then there exists a positive constant C such that for all f M q p (μ),

M ( f ) RBMO ( μ ) C f M q p ( μ ) .

Theorem 3.3 Let 0<α<n and p= n α . Suppose that K(x,y) satisfies (1.2) and the H n n α condition, ℳ is defined as in (1.4). Then there exists a positive constant C such that for all bounded functions f with compact support,

M ( f ) RBMO ( μ ) C f L n α ( μ ) .

Remark 3.4 As a special condition, we take p=q= n α , Theorem 3.3 can be deduced with a similar method of Theorem 3.2.

Proof of Theorem 3.2 For any cubes Q and R in R d such that QR satisfies (R)2(Q), let

a Q = m Q [ M ( f χ R d 3 2 Q ) ]

and

a R = m R [ M ( f χ R d 3 2 R ) ] .

It is easy to see that a Q and a R are real numbers. By Lemma 1.2, we need to show that for some fixed r>q, there exists a constant C>0 such that

( 1 μ ( 2 Q ) Q | M ( f ) ( x ) a Q | r d μ ( x ) ) 1 r C f M q p ( μ )
(3.1)

and

| a Q a R |C f M q p ( μ ) .
(3.2)

Let us first prove estimate (3.1). For a fixed cube Q and xQ, decompose f= f 1 + f 2 , where f 1 = f χ 3 2 Q and f 2 =f f 1 . Write that

1 μ ( 2 Q ) Q | M ( f ) ( x ) a Q | r d μ ( x ) = 1 μ ( 2 Q ) Q | M ( f 1 + f 2 ) ( x ) a Q | r d μ ( x ) 1 μ ( 2 Q ) Q | M ( f 1 ) ( x ) | r d μ ( x ) + 1 μ ( 2 Q ) Q | M ( f 2 ) ( x ) a Q | r d μ ( x ) = I 1 + I 2 .

For 1 r = 1 q α n and p= α n , it follows that

I 1 = 1 μ ( 2 Q ) Q | M ( f 1 ) ( x ) | r d μ ( x ) C 1 μ ( 2 Q ) ( 3 2 Q | f ( x ) | q d μ ( x ) ) r q C 1 μ ( 2 Q ) ( μ ( 2 Q ) 1 p 1 q 3 2 Q | f ( x ) | q d μ ( x ) ) r q μ ( 2 Q ) r ( 1 q 1 p ) C f M q p ( μ ) r μ ( 2 Q ) r ( 1 q 1 p ) 1 C f M q p ( μ ) r .

Now let us estimate the term I 2 ,

I 2 = 1 μ ( 2 Q ) Q | M ( f 2 ) ( x ) a Q | r d μ ( x ) = 1 μ ( 2 Q ) Q | M ( f 2 ) ( x ) 1 μ ( Q ) Q M ( f χ R d 3 2 Q ) ( y ) d μ ( y ) | r d μ ( x ) = 1 μ ( 2 Q ) Q | 1 μ ( Q ) Q M ( f 2 ) ( x ) d μ ( y ) 1 μ ( Q ) Q M ( f χ R d 3 2 Q ) ( y ) d μ ( y ) | r d μ ( x ) 1 μ ( 2 Q ) 1 μ ( Q ) Q Q | M ( f 2 ) ( x ) M ( f 2 ) ( y ) | r d μ ( x ) d μ ( y ) .

In order to estimate |M( f 2 )(x)M( f 2 )(y)|, we write

D 1 ( x , y ) = ( 0 [ | x z | t < | y z | | K ( x , z ) | | x z | α f 2 ( z ) d μ ( z ) ] 2 d t t 3 ) 1 2 , D 2 ( x , y ) = ( 0 [ | y z | t < | x z | | K ( y , z ) | | y z | α f 2 ( z ) d μ ( z ) ] 2 d t t 3 ) 1 2

and

D 3 (x,y)= ( 0 [ | x z | t | y z | t | K ( x , z ) | x z | α K ( y , z ) | y z | α | | f 2 ( z ) | d μ ( z ) ] 2 d t t 3 ) 1 2 .

It is easy to get that for any x,yQ,

| M ( f 2 ) ( x ) M ( f 2 ) ( y ) | = | ( 0 | | x z | t K ( x , z ) | x z | α d μ ( z ) | 2 d t t 3 ) 1 2 ( 0 | | y z | t K ( y , z ) | y z | α d μ ( z ) | 2 d t t 3 ) 1 2 | ( 0 | | x z | t K ( x , z ) | x z | α f 2 ( z ) d μ ( z ) | y z | t K ( y , z ) | y z | α f 2 ( z ) d μ ( z ) | 2 d t t 3 ) 1 2 ( 0 | | x z | t < | y z | K ( x , z ) | x z | α f 2 ( z ) d μ ( z ) + | y z | t K ( x , z ) | x z | α f 2 ( z ) d μ ( z ) | y z | t < | x z | K ( y , z ) | y z | α f 2 ( z ) d μ ( z ) | x z | t K ( y , z ) | y z | α f 2 ( z ) d μ ( z ) | 2 d t t 3 ) 1 2 ( 0 | | x z | t < | y z | K ( x , z ) | x z | α f 2 ( z ) d μ ( z ) | 2 d t t 3 ) 1 2 + ( 0 | | y z | t < | x z | K ( y , z ) | y z | α f 2 ( z ) d μ ( z ) | 2 d t t 3 ) 1 2 + { 0 [ | x z | t | y z | t ( K ( x , z ) | x z | α K ( y , z ) | y z | α ) f 2 ( z ) d μ ( z ) ] 2 d t t 3 } 1 2 j = 1 3 D j ( x , y ) .

For D 1 (x,y), since x,yQ, z 3 2 Q, thus we get

D 1 ( x , y ) C ( 0 [ | x z | t < | y z | | f 2 ( z ) | | x z | n α 1 d μ ( z ) ] 2 d t t 3 ) 1 2 C | x z | < | y z | | f 2 ( z ) | | x z | n α 1 ( | x z | | y z | d t t 3 ) 1 2 d μ ( z ) C ( Q ) 1 2 | x z | < | y z | | f 2 ( z ) | | x z | n α + 1 2 d μ ( z ) C ( Q ) 1 2 R d 3 2 Q | f 2 ( z ) | | x z | n α + 1 2 d μ ( z ) C ( Q ) 1 2 k = 1 2 k + 1 Q 2 k Q | f 2 ( z ) | | x z | n α + 1 2 d μ ( z ) C ( Q ) 1 2 k = 1 1 ( 3 2 2 k Q ) n α + 1 2 2 k + 1 Q | f 2 ( z ) | d μ ( z ) C k = 1 2 k 2 1 ( 3 2 2 k Q ) n α ( 2 k + 1 Q | f 2 ( z ) | q d μ ( z ) ) 1 q μ ( 3 2 2 k Q ) 1 1 q C f M q p ( μ ) k = 1 2 k 2 C f M q p ( μ ) .

By a similar argument, it follows that

D 2 (x,y)C f M q p ( μ ) .

Finally, by the condition H P , which the kernel K(x,y) conditions, applying Minkowski’s inequality, and the fact that α= n p , we have

D 3 ( x , y ) = ( 0 [ | x z | t | y z | t | K ( x , z ) | x z | α K ( y , z ) | y z | α | | f 2 ( z ) | d μ ( z ) ] 2 d t t 3 ) 1 2 C R d 3 2 Q | K ( x , z ) | x z | α K ( y , z ) | y z | α | | f ( z ) | ( | x z | t | y z | t d t t 3 ) 1 2 d μ ( z ) C k = 1 3 2 2 k + 1 Q 3 2 2 k Q | K ( x , z ) | x z | α K ( y , z ) | y z | α | | f ( z ) | | y z | d μ ( z ) C f M q p ( μ ) k = 1 μ ( 2 k Q ) 1 q 1 p × { 3 2 2 k + 1 Q 3 2 2 k Q [ 1 | y z | | K ( x , z ) | x z | α K ( y , z ) | y z | α | ] q d μ ( z ) } 1 q C f M q p ( μ ) k = 1 ( 3 2 2 k Q ) n q n p × { 3 2 2 k + 1 Q 3 2 2 k Q [ 1 | y z | | K ( x , z ) | x z | α K ( x , z ) | y z | α + K ( x , z ) | y z | α K ( y , z ) | y z | α | ] q d μ ( z ) } 1 q C f M q p ( μ ) k = 1 ( 3 2 2 k Q ) α n p ( 3 2 2 k Q ) n × { 1 ( 3 2 2 k Q ) n 3 2 2 k + 1 Q 3 2 2 k Q [ | K ( x , z ) K ( y , z ) | 1 | y z | ] q d μ ( z ) } 1 q + C f M q p ( μ ) k = 1 ( 3 2 2 k Q ) n q n p ( Q ) α ( 3 2 2 k + 1 Q 3 2 2 k Q 1 | y z | n q d μ ( z ) ) 1 q C f M q p ( μ ) .

Combining these estimates, we conclude that

I 2 C f M q p ( μ ) ,

and so estimate (3.1) is proved.

We proceed to show (3.2). For any cubes QR with xQ, denote N Q , R + 1 simply by N. Write

| a Q a R | | m R [ M ( f χ R d 2 N Q ) ] m Q [ M ( f χ R d 2 N R ) ] | + | m Q [ M ( f χ 2 N Q 3 2 Q ) ] | + | m R [ M ( f χ 2 N Q 3 2 R ) ] | = E 1 + E 2 + E 3 .

As in the estimate for the term I 2 , then

E 2 C f M q p ( μ ) .

We conclude from yR, z 2 N Q 3 2 Q that

M ( f χ 2 N Q 3 2 R ) ( y ) C 2 N Q 3 2 R | K ( y , z ) | y z | α | ( | y z | d t t 3 ) 1 2 d μ ( z ) C 2 N Q 3 2 R | f ( z ) | | y z | n α d μ ( z ) C ( R ) α n 2 N Q 3 2 R | f ( z ) | d μ ( z ) C ( R ) α n ( 2 N Q 3 2 R | f ( z ) | q d μ ( z ) ) 1 q μ ( 2 N Q ) 1 1 q C ( R ) α n μ ( 2 N Q ) 1 p 1 q ( 2 N Q | f ( z ) | q d μ ( z ) ) 1 q μ ( 2 N Q ) 1 1 p C f M q p ( μ ) ( 2 N Q ) α n p C f M q p ( μ ) .

Taking mean over yR, we obtain

E 3 C f M q p ( μ ) .

Analysis similar to that in the estimates for E 3 shows that

E 2 C f M q p ( μ ) .

Finally, we get (3.2) and this is precisely the assertion of Theorem 3.2. □