Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Difference and Wavelet Characterizations of Distances from Functions in Lipschitz Spaces to Their Subspaces

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that the distance from a Lipschitz function $f$ to a broad family of smooth subspaces is comparable, uniformly in $f$, to a critical deviation index built from the super-level sets of normalized finite differences.

desk verdict Substantial new framework and applications, but the proof of the central f-independent distance equivalence has a load-bearing uniformity gap that needs repair before the main theorem can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16116 v1 pith:AFHLME2Z submitted 2025-05-22 math.FA math.APmath.CA

Feng Dai , Eero Saksman , Dachun Yang , Wen Yuan , Yangyang Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.FAmath.APmath.CA MSC 42B3526A1642B2542C4046E35
keywords LipschitzspacesdistancetosubspacesfinitedifferencesDaubechieswaveletsquasi-normedlatticesoffunctionsequencesBesovTriebel–LizorkinCarlesonmeasures
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to turn a global approximation problem—how far a continuous function on $\mathbb{R}^n$ is from a smooth subspace, measured in the Lipschitz norm—into a local condition on super-level sets of finite differences. It claims that for every smoothness order $s>0$ and for any subspace of the Lipschitz space $\Lambda_s$ that can be built from Daubechies wavelets and a quasi-normed lattice of function sequences $X$, the distance from $f$ to the subspace is comparable, uniformly in $f$, to the smallest threshold $\varepsilon$ such that the set of points and scales $(x,y)$ with $\Delta_r f(x,y)/y^s>\varepsilon$ has finite size in the $X$-norm. The same conclusion holds with a Carleson-type measure in place of the lattice norm for endpoint spaces such as $F^s_{\infty,q}$ and $B^s_{\infty,q}$. A sympathetic reader would care because this reduces a hard nonlinear distance problem to a checkable condition on normalized differences, and because it recovers the classical BMO distance formula and extends it from $J^s(bmo)$ with $s\le 1$ to Sobolev, Besov, Triebel–Lizorkin, and their type variants for all $s>0$. The paper also characterizes, in the same terms, the closures of these subspaces inside $\Lambda_s$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Lipschitz deviation constant $\varepsilon_X f$: the infimum of all thresholds $\varepsilon$ such that the $X$-norm of the sequence $$\left(\int_{$2^{{-j-1}}$}^{$2^{{-j}}$}1_{S_{r,j}(s,f,\varepsilon)}(\cdot,y)\,\frac{dy}{y}\right)_{j\in\mathbb{Z}_+}$$ is finite after $u$-convexification. Its companion is the Daubechies $s$-Lipschitz $X$-based space $\Lambda_s^X$, defined by requiring the sequence of sums of normalized wavelet coefficients over each dyadic scale to belong to $X$. The proof connects these two objects through a Whitney-type polynomial approximation lemma that bounds a wavelet coefficient by the supremum of $\Delta_r f(x,y)/y^s$ over a tube above the cube, and through a pair of comparability theorems showing that difference bad sets and wavelet bad sets are contained in fixed hyperbolic neighborhoods of each other up to finite dyadic shifts. The Poincaré hyperbolic metric supplies the quantitative geometry, and the difference operator supplies the smoothness information that wavelets alone do not directly reveal.

What would settle it

Construct a family $f_N\in\Lambda_s$ whose bad-difference sets concentrate in one hyperbolic ball at scale $N$ while the corresponding wavelet coefficients sit next to that ball, and compute both sides of the claimed equivalence for a lattice $X$ such as $L^p(\ell^q)$; if $\varepsilon_X f_N$ and $\mathrm{dist}(f_N,\Lambda_s^X)$ fail to be comparable with a uniform constant as $N\to\infty$, the central theorem is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is stated as a two-sided comparability, $$\operatorname{dist}(f,\Lambda_s^X)_{\Lambda_s}\sim \varepsilon_X f+\inf\left\{\varepsilon>0:\left\|\left\{\sum_{I\in V_0(s,f,\varepsilon)}1_I\delta_{0,j}\right\}_{j\in\mathbb{Z}_+}\right\|_X<\infty\right\},$$ for every $f\in\Lambda_s$, with constants independent of $f$. Here $\Lambda_s^X$ is the Daubechies $s$-Lipschitz $X$-based space, whose norm is the $X$-norm of the sequence of normalized wavelet coefficients at each dyadic scale, and $\varepsilon_X f$ is the critical index at which the $u$-convexified $X$-norm of the sequence of measures of the difference super-level sets becomes finite; $V_0(s,f,\varepsilon)$ records the unit dyadic cubes whose scaling-function coefficient exceeds $\varepsilon$. The first term captures the bulk of the approximation error, while the second term is a boundary term coming from the coarsest-scale coefficients. For endpoint lattices where the dilation inequality fails, the same format holds with a Carleson-type measure $\nu$ replacing the $X$-norm. Applied to concrete spaces, the theorem says, for instance, that the distance to $J^s(bmo)$ is comparable to the critical Carleson index of the difference bad set, and that the distance to the Sobolev space $W^{1,p}$ is comparable to an $L^p$ norm of the weighted measure of second-difference bad sets.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the two-sided comparison between large wavelet coefficients and large normalized finite differences can be made with constants independent of $f$; the proof's bridge lemma only gives such a comparison with constants that may depend on $f$, and no step supplies the required uniformity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • All previously known cases become special cases: the distance to $J^s(bmo)$ is characterized for every $s>0$, not only $0<s\le 1$, and the one-dimensional case extends to all dimensions.
  • For Sobolev, Besov, and Triebel–Lizorkin spaces, the distance formulas reduce to checking whether the sequence of measures of difference super-level sets lies in $\ell^q(L^p)$ or $L^p(\ell^q)$, which is a directly testable condition.
  • The same formulas identify the closures: $f$ lies in the $\Lambda_s$-closure of the subspace exactly when both the deviation constant and the level-zero wavelet boundary term vanish.
  • For Besov-type and Triebel–Lizorkin-type spaces with $\tau\in[0,1/p)$, the same theorem gives distance and closure characterizations that the paper states are new.
  • Because the equivalence constants are independent of $f$, the critical index $\varepsilon_X f$ can serve as a computable proxy for the Lipschitz distance in numerical approximation problems.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct testable extension would be to run the same two-sided comparison in a doubling metric measure space with a wavelet basis: the hyperbolic-metric steps generalize, and the only piece needing a new proof is the Whitney lemma.
  • If the uniformity gap in the bridge lemma can be closed, the approach would immediately imply stability of the equivalence under perturbations of $f$ in a way the current proof does not show.
  • The endpoint results suggest a natural question the paper does not answer: whether a logarithmic correction appears when the lattice parameter $\tau$ reaches $1/p$, the boundary of the range covered by the Besov-type and Triebel–Lizorkin-type applications.
  • One could exploit the equivalence numerically by bisecting on $\varepsilon$ and computing the $X$-norm of the dyadic super-level indicators, giving an algorithm for Lipschitz distance that never computes a wavelet coefficient.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a general framework, based on quasi-normed lattices X of function sequences and Daubechies wavelet systems, for measuring the distance in the Lipschitz space Lambda_s from a function f to the subspace Lambda_s^X. The central result, Theorem 2.4, asserts that, under Assumption I, this distance is comparable, with constants independent of f, to the sum of a difference-based Lipschitz deviation constant epsilon_X f and an infimum over thresholds controlling the level-zero wavelet coefficients. A second theorem, Theorem 2.9, gives an analogous characterization under Assumption II for endpoint cases such as F^s_{infinity,q} and B^s_{infinity,q}. The paper also proves a wavelet characterization (Theorem 3.1), derives closure criteria in terms of bad sets (Theorems 4.2 and 4.3), and applies the framework to Sobolev spaces, J^s(bmo), Besov, Triebel-Lizorkin, Besov-type, and Triebel-Lizorkin-type spaces, including new proper inclusion results.

Significance. If the main theorems are correct, the paper provides a substantial and unified extension of the Garnett-Jones distance formula and of the Saksman-Soler i Gibert results for J^s(bmo), covering all smoothness orders s in (0,infinity) and a wide class of subspaces. The manuscript contains a large amount of detailed technical work, including quantitative hyperbolic-metric lemmas, Whitney-type inequalities, and wavelet-difference comparisons, and it clearly identifies new corollaries for classical and type spaces. The main obstacle is the f-dependence of constants in the difference-to-wavelet inclusions used in the proofs of Theorems 2.4 and 2.9; this is a load-bearing uniformity gap that must be resolved before the stated f-independent equivalences are established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.3, proof of Theorem 2.4] The proof of the f-independent equivalence (2.6) uses inclusions whose constants are not f-independent. In the lower-bound direction, Theorem 4.4 supplies a positive constant delta depending on f, epsilon, and epsilon_1; Lemma 4.13 then gives a constant depending on delta, and Theorem 4.4 is applied with that delta. Consequently the displayed estimate preceding (2.6) carries an implicit constant C(f,epsilon,epsilon_1), which is incompatible with the statement that the equivalence constants are independent of f. This is not cosmetic: for f_A = g + A h with h in Lambda_s^X and dist(g,Lambda_s^X) > 0, one has dist(f_A,Lambda_s^X) = dist(g,Lambda_s^X) while ||f_A||_{Lambda_s} grows with A; no argument is given showing that the f-dependent constants stay bounded along such a family.
  2. [§4.3, second direction of Theorem 2.4] The upper-bound direction uses Theorem 4.10, whose statement explicitly allows m and R to depend on f. In the proof of Theorem 4.10, R_1 is chosen so that C||f||_{Lambda_s}(R_1^{-s}+R_1^{-(r-s)}) < epsilon/2, so R_1, and hence m and R, depend on f and epsilon. The union over i = j-m,...,j+m and the m-fold use of the shift estimate in Definition 2.1(i) introduce an m-dependent constant, while Lemma 4.14 has a constant depending on R. Thus the chain of estimates in the proof of Theorem 2.4 does not establish the asserted f-independent constants.
  3. [§4.4, proof of Theorem 2.9] The same uniformity defect is inherited by Theorem 2.9. Its proof invokes Theorem 4.10 and then Lemma 4.14 (or, under Assumption II, repeated shifts of the Carleson-type measure via Definition 2.6(iv)) with constants m and R that may depend on f. The first part of the proof also uses the f-dependent delta from Theorem 4.4. Since (2.9) asserts equivalence with constants independent of f, the written proof does not establish the stated uniformity either for the difference term or for the level-zero wavelet term.
  4. [Theorem 4.4] Theorem 4.4 is stated only with delta depending on f, epsilon, and epsilon_1. Because this theorem is a key input to both main difference-to-wavelet arguments, the paper should either prove a version in which delta can be chosen independently of f for suitable ratios epsilon/epsilon_1, or explicitly track and control the f-dependence through the rest of the proofs. As written, the dependency prevents the conclusion that the final equivalence constants are independent of f.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Proof of Theorem 2.4] The proof cites 'Corollary 3.2(i)', but no Corollary 3.2 appears in the paper; the intended reference is likely Theorem 3.1 or Proposition 3.2.
  2. [Proof of Theorem 4.2] The proof of Theorem 4.2 concludes with only the wavelet condition ||{sum_{I in W^0_j(s,f,epsilon)} 1_I}_{j in Z_+}||_X < infinity, omitting the difference term that appears in statement (ii) of the theorem; this appears to be a typographical omission.
  3. [Introduction, Section 2] After the general question about a subspace V, the displayed equivalence reads epsilon_{r,s,gamma}(f) ~ dist(f,Lambda_s)_{Lambda_s}; it should presumably be dist(f,V)_{Lambda_s}, since the surrounding discussion concerns the distance to a proper subspace V of Lambda_s.
  4. [Theorem 5.41] The displayed definition of epsilon^tau_{p,q} f is identical to the L_p(l_q)-type definition used for Triebel-Lizorkin spaces and does not contain the tau-dependent supremum over cubes that appears in Theorem 5.37(ii); this is likely a typo.
  5. [Theorem 5.50] In part (ii), the condition 'sup_{Q in Q} 1/|Q|^tau ||[int_0^{2^{-j_Q vee 0}} 1_{S_r(s,f,epsilon)}(cdot,y) dy/y]^{1/q}||_{L^p(Q)}' is missing the '< infinity' that should conclude the displayed condition.
  6. [Proof of Lemma 4.14] The final sentence of the proof of Lemma 4.14 says 'which completes the proof of Lemma 4.13'; this is a copy-paste error and should refer to Lemma 4.14.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the equivalence is between independently defined quantities and is proved in the paper.

full rationale

The paper's central result, Theorem 2.4, compares dist(f, Λ_s^X)_{Λ_s}, defined via the usual Lipschitz norm and a wavelet-defined subspace, with ε_X f, defined via super-level sets of normalized r-th order differences, plus a level-zero wavelet threshold term. These are independent quantities: one is an infimum over approximants g in a wavelet-defined subspace; the other is an infimum over thresholds making a difference bad-set functional finite. Definition 2.2 and Definition 2.3 do not identify them; Theorem 3.1 first establishes the wavelet-side characterization of the distance using the standard wavelet isomorphism (Lemma 5.5 from [67]), and Section 4 proves the difference-to-wavelet inclusions (Theorems 4.7 and 4.10) with estimates in the lattice. The cited prior work [50] is used as motivation and for endpoint comparisons, not as a substitute for the proof. Although the proof of Theorem 2.4 invokes Theorem 4.10 whose constants m and R are explicitly allowed to depend on f, this is a quantitative uniformity concern, not a circularity: it does not make the theorem's conclusion equal to its assumptions. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no load-bearing claim is justified only by a self-citation, and no equation reduces to the target result by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central theorem rests on technical assumptions about the lattice X (Assumptions I and II) and on standard wavelet characterizations. No parameters are fitted to data. The main invented object is the space Lambda_s^X, which has independent evidence because it reproduces known spaces for standard X.

free parameters (2)
  • Daubechies wavelet regularity L = integer with L>s and L>=r-1
    Chosen by hand to ensure wavelets are smooth enough and have enough vanishing moments; the theorems hold for any such L and the constants are independent of it.
  • Lattice exponent u in Assumption I = varies by lattice, e.g., 1/q for L^p(l^q)
    Assumption I is required with some u; in applications u is determined by the space, not fitted to data.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Existence of Daubechies wavelet systems with arbitrary regularity and vanishing moments
    Used throughout to define Lambda_s^X and to prove wavelet characterizations; see Section 2 and Lemma 5.5.
  • standard math Wavelet characterizations of Besov and Triebel-Lizorkin spaces (Lemmas 5.13, 5.25, 5.34, 5.43)
    Bridges the abstract lattice spaces to concrete function spaces; cited from the literature.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption I on the quasi-normed lattice X
    A technical maximal-type inequality introduced in Section 2; the main Theorem 2.4 is conditional on it.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption II on existence of a Carleson-type measure nu
    Introduced for endpoint spaces; Theorem 2.9 is conditional on it.
  • standard math Fefferman-Stein vector-valued maximal inequality and Whitney-type polynomial approximation
    Used in Lemmas 5.1, 5.35, 4.8 and elsewhere.
invented entities (1)
  • Daubechies s-Lipschitz X-based space Lambda_s^X independent evidence
    purpose: Unifies subspaces V intersect Lambda_s for Sobolev, Besov, Triebel-Lizorkin, Besov-type, and Triebel-Lizorkin-type spaces under one definition.
    For the standard choices of X, the space reduces to the known intersections via cited wavelet characterizations, so it is not a free-floating object.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Difference and Wavelet Characterizations of Distances from Functions in Lipschitz Spaces to Their Subspaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AFHLME2Z

@misc{pith2026250516116,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Difference and Wavelet Characterizations of Distances from Functions in Lipschitz Spaces to Their Subspaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AFHLME2Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16116}
}
abstract

Let $\Lambda_s$ denote the Lipschitz space of order $s\in(0,\infty)$ on $\mathbb{R}^n$, which consists of all $f\in\mathfrak{C}\cap L^\infty$ such that, for some constant $L\in(0,\infty)$ and some integer $r\in(s,\infty)$, \begin{equation*} \label{0-1}\Delta_r f(x,y): =\sup_{|h|\leq y} |\Delta_h^r f(x)|\leq L y^s, \ x\in\mathbb{R}^n, \ y \in(0, 1]. \end{equation*} Here (and throughout the article) $\mathfrak{C}$ refers to continuous functions, and $\Delta_h^r$ is the usual $r$-th order difference operator with step $h\in\mathbb{R}^n$. For each $f\in \Lambda_s$ and $\varepsilon\in(0,L)$, let $ S(f,\varepsilon):= \{ (x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^n\times [0,1]: \frac {\Delta_r f(x,y)}{y^s}>\varepsilon\}$, and let $\mu: \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}_+^{n+1})\to [0,\infty]$ be a suitably defined nonnegative extended real-valued function on the Borel $\sigma$-algebra of subsets of $\mathbb{R}_+^{n+1}$. Let $\varepsilon(f)$ be the infimum of all $\varepsilon\in(0,\infty)$ such that $\mu(S(f,\varepsilon))<\infty$. The main target of this article is to characterize the distance from $f$ to a subspace $V\cap \Lambda_s$ of $\Lambda_s$ for various function spaces $V$ (including Sobolev, Besov--Triebel--Lizorkin, and Besov--Triebel--Lizorkin-type spaces) in terms of $\varepsilon(f)$, showing that \begin{equation*} \varepsilon(f)\sim \mathrm{dist} (f, V\cap \Lambda_s)_{\Lambda_s}: = \inf_{g\in \Lambda_s\cap V} \|f-g\|_{\Lambda_s}.\end{equation*} Moreover, we present our results in a general framework based on quasi-normed lattices of function sequences $X$ and Daubechies $s$-Lipschitz $X$-based spaces.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Fractional Heat Semigroup Characterization of Distances from Functions in Lipschitz Spaces to Their Subspaces

    math.FA 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The distance from f to a subspace V of the inhomogeneous Lipschitz space Λ_s is equivalent to a critical index measuring where the fractional heat semigroup derivative ∂^r_t T_{α,t} f exceeds ε t^{s-rα}.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    J. M. Anderson, J. Clunie and C. Pommerenke, On Bloch functions and normal functions, J. Reine Angew. Math. 270 (1974), 12–37

    work page 1974

  2. [2]

    Axler, Bergman Spaces and Their Operators, Pitman Res

    S. Axler, Bergman Spaces and Their Operators, Pitman Res. Notes Math. Ser. 171, Longman Scientific & Technical, Harlow, 1988

    work page 1988

  3. [3]

    R. J. Bagby, An extended inequality for the maximal function, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 48 (1975) 419–422. Closures ofDaubechiess-LipschitzX-BasedSpaces inLipschitzSpaces59

    work page 1975

  4. [4]

    Benedetti and C

    R. Benedetti and C. Petronio, Lectures on Hyperbolic Geometry, Universitext, Springer- Verlag, Berlin, 1992

    work page 1992

  5. [5]

    Bourgain, EmbeddingL 1 inL 1/H1, Trans

    J. Bourgain, EmbeddingL 1 inL 1/H1, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 278 (1983), 689–702

    work page 1983

  6. [6]

    T. A. Bui, Besov and Triebel–Lizorkin spaces for Schr ¨odinger operators with inverse square potentials and applications, J. Differential Equations 269 (2020), 641–688

    2020

  7. [7]

    T. A. Bui, Hermite pseudo-multipliers on new Besov and Triebel–Lizorkin spaces, J. Approx. Theory 252 (2020), Paper No. 105348, 1–16

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    T. A. Bui, T. Q. Bui and X. T. Duong, Decay estimates on Besov and Triebel–Lizorkin spaces of the Stokes flows and the incompressible Navier–Stokes flows in half-spaces, J. Differential Equations 340 (2022), 83–110

    2022

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    T. A. Bui and X. T. Duong, Besov and Triebel–Lizorkin spaces associated to Hermite opera- tors, J. Fourier Anal. Appl. 21 (2015), 405–448

    2015

  2. [10]

    T. A. Bui and X. T. Duong, Spectral multipliers of self-adjoint operators on Besov and Triebel–Lizorkin spaces associated to operators, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 2021 (2021), 18181–18224

    2021

  3. [11]

    Chen, X.-T

    P. Chen, X.-T. Duong, J. Li, L. Song and L. Yan, The Garnett–Jones theorem on BMO spaces associated with operators and applications, arXiv: 2303.05211

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Chiarenza, M

    F. Chiarenza, M. Frasca and P. Longo,W 2,p-solvability of the Dirichlet problem for non- divergence elliptic equations with VMO coefficients, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 336 (1993), 841–853

    1993

  5. [13]

    Clop and V

    A. Clop and V . Cruz, Weighted estimates for Beltrami equations, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. 38 (2013), 91–113

    2013

  6. [14]

    R. A. DeV ore and G. G. Lorentz, Constructive Approximation, Grundlehren Math. Wiss. 303, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993

    1993

  7. [15]

    Ditzian, Polynomial approximation inL p(S) forp∈(0,∞), Constr

    Z. Ditzian, Polynomial approximation inL p(S) forp∈(0,∞), Constr. Approx. 12 (1996), 241–269

    1996

  8. [16]

    Fefferman and E

    C. Fefferman and E. M. Stein, Some maximal inequalities, Amer. J. Math. 93 (1971), 107– 115

    1971

  9. [17]

    H. G. Feichtinger, Translation and modulation invariant Banach spaces of tempered distribu- tions satisfy the metric approximation property, Anal. Appl. (Singap.) 20 (2022), 1271–1293

    2022

  10. [18]

    H. G. Feichtinger and P. Gr ¨obner, Banach spaces of distributions defined by decomposition methods. I, Math. Nachr. 123 (1985), 97–120

    1985

  11. [19]

    H. G. Feichtinger, J. Sun, D. Yang and W. Yuan, A framework of Besov–Triebel–Lizorkin type spaces via ball quasi-Banach function sequence spaces II: Applications to specific func- tion spaces, Anal. Appl. (Singap.) (to appear)

  12. [20]

    J. B. Garnett and P. W. Jones, The distance in BMO toL ∞, Ann. of Math. (2) 108 (1978), 373–393

    1978

  13. [21]

    J. B. Garnett and P. W. Jones, BMO from dyadic BMO, Pacific J. Math. 99 (1982), 351–371

    1982

  14. [22]

    P. G. Ghatage and D. C. Zheng, Analytic functions of bounded mean oscillation and the Bloch space, Integral Equations Operator Theory 17 (1993), 501–515

    1993

  15. [23]

    Grafakos, Modern Fourier Analysis, third edition, Grad

    L. Grafakos, Modern Fourier Analysis, third edition, Grad. Texts in Math. 250, Springer, New York, 2014

    2014

  16. [24]

    D. D. Haroske and Z. Liu, Generalized Besov-type and Triebel–Lizorkin-type spaces, Studia Math. 273 (2023), 161–199

    2023

  17. [25]

    D. D. Haroske, Z. Liu, S. D. Moura and L. Skrzypczak, Embeddings of generalised Morrey smoothness spaces, Acta Math. Sin. (Engl. Ser.) 41 (2025), 413–456

    2025

  18. [26]

    D. D. Haroske, S. Moura and L. Skrzypczak, Smoothness Morrey spaces of regular distribu- tions, and some unboundedness property, Nonlinear Anal. 139 (2016), 218–244

    2016

  19. [27]

    D. D. Haroske, S. D. Moura and L. Skrzypczak, On a bridge connecting Lebesgue and Mor- rey spaces in view of their growth properties, Anal. Appl. (Singap.) 22 (2024), 751–790. 60FengDai, EeroSaksman, DachunYang, WenYuan andYangy angZhang

    2024

  20. [28]

    D. D. Haroske and L. Skrzypczak, Embeddings of Besov–Morrey spaces on bounded do- mains, Studia Math. 218 (2013), 119–144

    2013

  21. [29]

    D. D. Haroske, L. Skrzypczak and H. Triebel, Nuclear Fourier transforms, J. Fourier Anal. Appl. 29 (2023), Paper No. 38, 1–28

    2023

  22. [30]

    D. D. Haroske, L. Skrzypczak and H. Triebel, Mapping properties of Fourier transforms, revisited, Acta Math. Sin. (Engl. Ser.) 41 (2025), 231–254

    2025

  23. [31]

    D. D. Haroske and H. Triebel, Morrey smoothness spaces: A new approach, Sci. China Math. 66 (2023), 1301–1358

    2023

  24. [32]

    Hovemann, Triebel–Lizorkin–Morrey spaces and differences, Math

    M. Hovemann, Triebel–Lizorkin–Morrey spaces and differences, Math. Nachr. 295 (2022), 725–761

    2022

  25. [33]

    Hovemann and W

    M. Hovemann and W. Sickel, Besov-type spaces and differences, Eurasian Math. J. 11 (2020), 25–56

    2020

  26. [34]

    Iwaniec,L p-theory of quasiregular mappings, In: Quasiconformal Space Mappings, Lec- ture Notes in Math

    T. Iwaniec,L p-theory of quasiregular mappings, In: Quasiconformal Space Mappings, Lec- ture Notes in Math. 1508, pp. 39–64, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992

    1992

  27. [35]

    Iwaniec and C

    T. Iwaniec and C. Sbordone, Riesz transforms and elliptic PDEs with VMO coefficients, J. Anal. Math. 74 (1998), 183–212

    1998

  28. [36]

    John and L

    F. John and L. Nirenberg, On functions of bounded mean oscillation, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 14 (1961), 415–426

    1961

  29. [37]

    P. W. Jones, Estimates for the corona problem, J. Funct. Anal. 39 (1980), 162–181

    1980

  30. [38]

    P. W. Jones, Factorization ofA p weights, Ann. of Math. (2), 111 (1980), 511–530

    1980

  31. [39]

    Kozono and M

    H. Kozono and M. Yamazaki, Semilinear heat equations and the Navier–Stokes equation with distributions in new function spaces as initial data, Comm. Partial Differential Equations 19 (1994), 959–1014

    1994

  32. [40]

    Li and Z

    P. Li and Z. Zhai, Well-posedness and regularity of generalized Navier–Stokes equations in some criticalQ-spaces, J. Funct. Anal. 259 (2010), 2457–2519

    2010

  33. [41]

    Li and Z

    P. Li and Z. Zhai, Riesz transforms onQ-type spaces with application to quasi-geostrophic equation, Taiwanese J. Math. 16 (2012), 2107–2132

    2012

  34. [42]

    Liang, Y

    Y . Liang, Y . Sawano, T. Ullrich, D. Yang and W. Yuan, New characterizations of Besov– Triebel–Lizorkin–Hausdorffspaces including coorbits and wavelets, J. Fourier Anal. Appl. 18 (2012), 1067–1111

    2012

  35. [43]

    Limani and A

    A. Limani and A. Nicolau, Bloch functions and Bekoll ´e–Bonami weights, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 72 (2023), 381–407

    2023

  36. [44]

    Meyer, Wavelets and Operators, Translated from the 1990 French original by D

    Y . Meyer, Wavelets and Operators, Translated from the 1990 French original by D. H. Salinger, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics 37, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992

    1990

  37. [45]

    Millot, M

    V . Millot, M. Pegon and A. Schikorra, Partial regularity for fractional harmonic maps into spheres, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 242 (2021), 747–825

    2021

  38. [46]

    Monreal Gal ´an and A

    N. Monreal Gal ´an and A. Nicolau, The closure of the Hardy space in the Bloch norm, Alge- bra i Analiz 22 (2010), 75–81

    2010

  39. [47]

    Neri, Fractional integration on the spaceH 1 and its dual, Studia Math

    U. Neri, Fractional integration on the spaceH 1 and its dual, Studia Math. 53 (1975), 175– 189

    1975

  40. [48]

    Nicolau and O

    A. Nicolau and O. Soler i Gibert, Approximation in the Zygmund class, J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) 101 (2020), 226–246

    2020

  41. [49]

    J. G. Ratcliffe, Foundations of Hyperbolic Manifolds, second edition, Grad. Texts in Mathe- matics 149, Springer, New York, 2006

    2006

  42. [50]

    Saksman and O

    E. Saksman and O. Soler i Gibert, Approximation in the Zygmund and H¨older classes onR n, Canad. J. Math. 74 (2022), 1745–1770

    2022

  43. [51]

    Sarason, Functions of vanishing mean oscillation, Trans

    D. Sarason, Functions of vanishing mean oscillation, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 207 (1975), 391–405. Closures ofDaubechiess-LipschitzX-BasedSpaces inLipschitzSpaces61

    1975

  44. [52]

    Sawano, Wavelet characterization of Besov–Morrey and Triebel–Lizorkin–Morrey spaces, Funct

    Y . Sawano, Wavelet characterization of Besov–Morrey and Triebel–Lizorkin–Morrey spaces, Funct. Approx. Comment. Math. 38 (2008), 93–107

    2008

  45. [53]

    Sawano, A note on Besov–Morrey spaces and Triebel–Lizorkin–Morrey spaces, Acta Math

    Y . Sawano, A note on Besov–Morrey spaces and Triebel–Lizorkin–Morrey spaces, Acta Math. Sin. (Engl. Ser.) 25 (2009), 1223–1242

    2009

  46. [54]

    Sawano, Besov–Morrey spaces and Triebel–Lizorkin–Morrey spaces on domains, Math

    Y . Sawano, Besov–Morrey spaces and Triebel–Lizorkin–Morrey spaces on domains, Math. Nachr. 283 (2010), 1456–1487

    2010

  47. [55]

    Sawano and H

    Y . Sawano and H. Tanaka, Decompositions of Besov–Morrey spaces and Triebel–Lizorkin– Morrey spaces, Math. Z. 257 (2007), 871–905

    2007

  48. [56]

    Sawano, D

    Y . Sawano, D. Yang and W. Yuan, New applications of Besov-type and Triebel–Lizorkin- type spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 363 (2010), 73–85

    2010

  49. [57]

    Shen, Bounds of Riesz transforms onL p spaces for second order elliptic operators, Ann

    Z. Shen, Bounds of Riesz transforms onL p spaces for second order elliptic operators, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 55 (2005), 173–197

    2005

  50. [58]

    Sickel, Smoothness spaces related to Morrey spaces–a survey

    W. Sickel, Smoothness spaces related to Morrey spaces–a survey. I, Eurasian Math. J. 3 (2012), 110–149

    2012

  51. [59]

    Sickel, Smoothness spaces related to Morrey spaces–a survey

    W. Sickel, Smoothness spaces related to Morrey spaces–a survey. II, Eurasian Math. J. 4 (2013), 82–124

    2013

  52. [60]

    J. Sun, D. Yang and W. Yuan, A framework of Besov–Triebel–Lizorkin type spaces via ball quasi-Banach function sequence spaces I: Real-variable characterizations, Math. Ann. 390 (2024), 4283–4360

    2024

  53. [61]

    Tang and J

    L. Tang and J. Xu, Some properties of Morrey type Besov–Triebel spaces, Math. Nachr. 278 (2005), 904–917

    2005

  54. [62]

    Triebel, Theory of Function Spaces, Monographs in Mathematics 78, Birkh ¨auser Verlag, Basel, 1983

    H. Triebel, Theory of Function Spaces, Monographs in Mathematics 78, Birkh ¨auser Verlag, Basel, 1983

    1983

  55. [63]

    Triebel, Theory of Function Spaces

    H. Triebel, Theory of Function Spaces. II, Monogr. Math. 84, Birkh ¨auser Verlag, Basel, 1992

    1992

  56. [64]

    Triebel, Theory of Function Spaces

    H. Triebel, Theory of Function Spaces. III, Monographs in Mathematics 100, Birkh ¨auser Verlag, Basel, 2006

    2006

  57. [65]

    Triebel, Function Spaces and Wavelets on Domains, European Math

    H. Triebel, Function Spaces and Wavelets on Domains, European Math. Soc. Publishing House, Z¨urich, 2008

    2008

  58. [66]

    Triebel, Bases in Function Spaces, Sampling, Discrepancy, Numerical Integration, Euro- pean Math

    H. Triebel, Bases in Function Spaces, Sampling, Discrepancy, Numerical Integration, Euro- pean Math. Soc. Publishing House, Z¨urich, 2010

    2010

  59. [67]

    Triebel, Theory of Function Spaces IV , Monographs in Mathematics 107, Birkh ¨auser/ Springer, Cham, 2020

    H. Triebel, Theory of Function Spaces IV , Monographs in Mathematics 107, Birkh ¨auser/ Springer, Cham, 2020

    2020

  60. [68]

    Uchiyama, On the compactness of operators of Hankel type, Tohoku Math

    A. Uchiyama, On the compactness of operators of Hankel type, Tohoku Math. J. (2) 30 (1978), 163–171

    1978

  61. [69]

    Uchiyama, The construction of certain BMO functions and the corona problem, Pacific J

    A. Uchiyama, The construction of certain BMO functions and the corona problem, Pacific J. Math. 79 (1982), 183–204

    1982

  62. [70]

    N. Th. Varopoulos, A probabilistic proof of the Garnett–Jones theorem on BMO, Pacific J. Math. 90 (1980), 201–221

    1980

  63. [71]

    Yang and W

    D. Yang and W. Yuan, A new class of function spaces connecting Triebel–Lizorkin spaces andQspaces, J. Funct. Anal. 255 (2008), 2760–2809

    2008

  64. [72]

    Yang and W

    D. Yang and W. Yuan, New Besov-type spaces and Triebel–Lizorkin-type spaces including Qspaces, Math. Z. 265 (2010), 451–480

    2010

  65. [73]

    Yang and W

    D. Yang and W. Yuan, Relations among Besov-type spaces, Triebel–Lizorkin-type spaces and generalized Carleson measure spaces, Appl. Anal. 92 (2013), 549–561

    2013

  66. [74]

    D. Yang, W. Yuan and C. Zhuo, Musielak–Orlicz Besov-type and Triebel–Lizorkin-type spaces, Rev. Mat. Complut. 27 (2014), 93–157

    2014

  67. [75]

    D. Yang, C. Zhuo and W. Yuan, Besov-type spaces with variable smoothness and integrabil- ity, J. Funct. Anal. 269 (2015), 1840–1898. 62FengDai, EeroSaksman, DachunYang, WenYuan andYangy angZhang

    2015

  68. [76]

    D. Yang, C. Zhuo and W. Yuan, Triebel–Lizorkin type spaces with variable exponents, Ba- nach J. Math. Anal. 9 (2015), 146–202

    2015

  69. [77]

    W. Yuan, W. Sickel and D. Yang, Morrey and Campanato Meet Besov, Lizorkin and Triebel, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 2005, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2010

    2005

  70. [78]

    W. Yuan, W. Sickel and D. Yang, The Haar system in Besov-type spaces, Studia Math. 253 (2020), 129–162. Feng Dai Department of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2G1, Canada E-mail:fdai@ualberta.ca Eero Saksman Department of Math...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.