Locally Defined Operators and Locally Lipschitz Composition Operators in the Space WBVp(·)([a, b]) ()
1. Introduction
This paper lies in the field of variable exponent function spaces, exactly we will deal with the space
of bounded
-variation in Wiener’s sense with vari- able exponent (see [1] , [2] ).
Variable exponent Lebesgue spaces appeared in the literature in 1931 in the paper by Orlicz [3] . He was interested in the study of function spaces that contain all measurable functions
such that

for some
and
satisfying some natural assumptions, where
is an open set in
. This space is denotated by
and it is now called Orlicz space. However, we point out that in [3] the case
corresponding to variable exponents is not included. In the 1950’s, these problems were systematically studied by Nakano [4] , who developed the theory of modular function spaces. Nakano explicitly mentioned variable exponent Lebesgue spaces as an example of more general spaces he considered, see Nakano [4] p. 284. In 1991, Kováčik and Rákosník [5] established several basic properties of spaces
and
with variable exponents. Their results were extended by Fan and Zhao [6] in the framework of Sobolev spaces
.
With the emergence of nonlinear problems in applied sciences, standard Lebesgue and Sobolev spaces demostrated their limitations in applications. The class of nonlinear problems with variable exponents growth is a new research field and it reflects a new kind of physical phenomena.
It is well known that the class of nonlinear operator equations of various types has many useful applications in describing numerous problems of the real world. A number of equations which include a given operators have arisen in many branches of science such as the theory of optimal control, economics, biological, mathematical physics and engineering. Among nonlinear operators, there is a distinguished class called composi- tion operators. Next we define such operators.
Definition 1.1. Given a function
, the composition operator H, associated to a function f (autonomous case) maps each function
into the composi- tion function
given by
(1.1)
More generally, given
we consider the operator H, defined by
(1.2)
This operator is also called superposition operator or susbtitution operator or Nemytskij operator. The operator in the form (1.1) is usually called the (autonomous) composition operator and the one defined by (1.2) is called non-autonomos.
A rich source of related questions are the excellent books by J. Appell and P. P. Zabrejko [7] and J. Appell, J. Banas, N. Merentes [8] .
E. P. Sobolevskij in 1984 [9] proved that the autonomous composition operator associate to
is locally Lipschitz in the space
if and only if the derivative
exists and is locally Lipschitz. In recent articles J. Appell, N. Merentes, J. L. Sánchez [10] , N. Merentes, S. Rivas, J. L. Sánchez [11] and O. Mejía, N. Merentes, B. Rzepka [12] , obtained several results of the Sobolevskij type. According to the authors mentioned above the importance of these results lies in the fact that in most applications to many nonlinear problems it is sufficient to impose a local Lipschitz condition, instead of a global Lipschitz condition. In fact, they proved that Sobolevskij’s result is valid in the spaces
,
,
,
and
.
In this paper, we obtained two main results. The organization of this paper is as follows. Section 2, we gather some notions and preliminary facts, and necessary back- ground about the class of functions of bounded
-variation in Wiener’s sense with variable exponent, also we expose some new properties of this space. In Section 3, we establish our first main result of the Sobolevskij type which is also valid in some spaces of functions of generalized bounded variations such as
. In Section 4, we enunciate and prove our second main result related to the composition operator: If a locally defined operator
maps
into
then it is composition operator.
2. Preliminaries
Throughout this paper, we use the following notation: Let a function
and we will denote by
the dia-
meter of the image
(or the oscillation of f on
), by
a number be- tween
and
.
In 2013 R. Castillo, N. Merentes and H. Rafeiro [1] introduced the notion of bounded variation space in the Wiener sense with variable exponent on
and present a result of compactness (Helly principle) in this space.
Definition 2.1 (See [1] ). Given a function
, a partition
of the interval
and a function
. The nonnegative real number
![]()
is called Wiener variation with variable exponent (or
-variation in Wiener’s sense) of f on
where
is a tagged partition of the interval
, i.e., a partition of the interval
together with a finite sequence of numbers
subject to the conditions that for each j,
.
In case that
, we say that f has bounded Wiener variation with variable exponent (or bounded
-variation in Wiener’s sense) on
. The symbol
will denote the space of functions of bounded
-variation in Wiener’s sense with variable exponent on
.
Definition 2.2. (Norm in
) The functional
defined by
(2.1)
where
is a norm on
.
Theorem 2.3 (See [1] ). Every sequence in
has a subsequence conver- gent pointwise to a function ![]()
In 2015, O. Mejía, N. Merentes and J. L. Sánchez [2] showed the following properties of elements of
that allow us to get characterizations of them.
Lemma 2.4 (General properties of the
-variation). Let
be an ar- bitrary map. We have
(P1) minimality: if
, then
![]()
(P2) monotonicity: if
and
, then
,
and
.
(P3) semi-additivity: if
, then
![]()
(P4) change of a variable: if
and
is a (not necessarily
strictly) monotone function, then
.
(P5) regularity:
.
The following structural theorem is taken from [2] , this gives us a characterization of the members of
.
Theorem 2.5 (see [2] ). The map
is of bounded
-variation if and only if there exists a bounded nondecreasing function
a Hölderian map
of exponent
and
such that
on
.
Given
, consider the
-variation function in Wiener’s sense
defined by
(2.2)
Proposition 2.6. Suppose that
is continuous at some point
; then, the function
(2.2) is also continuous at
.
Proof. Let
and suppose that
is continuous function at
, without loss of generality we can assume that
. Consider the difference
. Choose partitions
and
such that
![]()
Afterwards, we choose
such that
for
which is possible by the continuity of f at
. By definition of
there exist a partition
and
such that
![]()
Then for these y, we have
![]()
![]()
Lemma 2.7. Let
. Then
![]()
Proof. Let
is a tagged partition of the interval
, take
. Then
![]()
Thus
![]()
Proposition 2.8. Let
be a sequence such that
converges to f almost everywhere, with
. Then
![]()
that is, the Luxemburg norm is lower semi-continuous on
.
Proof. Let
such that
for
. By the Definition 2.1, for any
with
exist a tagged partition
of
such that
![]()
By the pointwise convergence of
to
exist
such that
![]()
for all
and
,
. And by the Minkowski’s in- equality, we get
![]()
therefore
![]()
hence
![]()
that is,
![]()
Passing the limit as
tends
, we get that
is sequentially lower
semicontinuous, i.e.,
![]()
if
and
for all
. By the Definition 2.1 it fol- lows that
![]()
Lemma 2.9 (Invariance Principle). Let
be a function. Then, the com- position operator (1.1) maps the space
into itself if and only if it maps, for any other choice of
, the space
into itself.
Proof. The function
defined by
![]()
is an affine homeomorphism with inverse the function
defined by
![]()
such that:
and
. Thus,
defined by
![]()
defines a 1-1 correspondence between all partitions
of
and all par- titions
of
since v is strictly increasing. Consequently, for
, we obtain
![]()
3. Locally Lipschitz Composition Operators
In this section, we expose one of the main results of this paper. We demonstrate that a result of the Sobolevskij type is also valid in the space
of bounded
-variation in the Wiener’s sense with variable exponent.
Theorem 3.1. Let
be a function. If the composition operator H gene- rated by h maps the space
into itself then H is locally Lipschitz if and only if
exist and is locally Lipschitz in
.
Proof. First let us assume that
is locally Lipschitz in
. For
we denote by
the minimal Lipschitz constant of
and by
the supremum of
on the bounded set
![]()
The finiteness of
implies that H satisfies a local Lipschitz condition in the norm
(norm of supremum), so we only have to prove a local Lipschitz condition for H with respect to the
-norm (2.1). We do this by applying twice the mean value theorem.
Fix
with
. Given a partition
of
, we split the index set {1, …, m} into a union
of disjoint sets I and J by defining the following:
if
![]()
if
![]()
By the classical mean value theorem we find
between
and
such that
![]()
Now, by definition of I we have
![]()
Making a simple calculation
![]()
Since
and adding on
we get that
![]()
Again by the mean value theorem we find
between
and
and
between
and
such that
![]()
and
![]()
By definition of J we have
![]()
Again a simple calculation shows that
![]()
Since
and adding on
we get that
![]()
Summing up both partial sums and observing that
and
do not de- pend on the partition
we conclude that
![]()
which proves the assertion.
Conversely, suppose that H satisfies a Lipschitz condition. By assumption, the constant
(3.1)
is finite for each
. Considering, in particular, both functions u and v in (3.1) constant, we see that
![]()
This shows that h is locally Lipschitz, and so the derivative
exists almost every- where in
. It remains to prove that
exists everywhere in
and is locally Lipschitz. For the proof of the first claim we show that
exists in any closed interval
.
Given
, consider
with
. Let
be a de-
creasing sequence of positive real numbers converging to 0; without loss of generality,
we may assume that
for all
. Define a sequence of functions
by
(3.2)
Since the composition operator H associate to h acts in the space
, by assumption, the functions
given by (3.2) belong to
.
Now, we show that the sequences
have uniformly bounded
-variation
in Wiener’s sense for all
with
. In fact, let
be a partition of the interval of
. For each
define fun- ctions
and v by
(3.3)
Then,
and
. Furthermore, from Lemma 2.7, (3.2) and (3.3), we
obtain the estimates
![]()
Since the partition
was arbitrary, the inequality
![]()
holds for every
and each
with
. From Lemma
2.7, the definition of the function
in (3.2), and the definition of the functions
and v in (3.3), we further get
![]()
hence
. By Lemma 2.7, we conclude that
(3.4)
which shows that the sequence
satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem 2.3.
Theorem 2.3 ensures the existence of a pointwise convergent subsequence of
; without loss of generality we assume that the whole sequence
con-
verges pointwise on
to some function
.
Now setting
, where
small enough such that
. By (3.3)
we note that
(3.5)
for almost all
. Since the primitive of f and the function
are both absolutely continuous and have the same derivative on
, we conclude that they differ only by some constant on
, and so
exists everywhere on
. From the invariance principle (Lemma 2.9), we deduce that the derivative
of h exists on any interval, and so everywhere in
.
It remains to prove that
satisfies a local Lipschitz condition. Denoting by F the composition operator associate to the function
from (3.5), we claim that, for
with
, we have
(3.6)
where
is the Lipschitz constant from (3.1). In fact, by Theorem 2.3 we conclude that
![]()
whenever the sequence
of functions
converges pointwise on
to some function f. Combining this with (3.4) and the observation that
as
we obtain (3.6). We conclude that the composition opera- tor F maps the space
into itself, and so the corresponding function
is locally Lipschitz on
. By (3.5), the same is true for the function
.
4. Locally Defined Operators
In this section, we present our second main result, which is related to the notion of locally defined operator. We prove that every locally defined operator mapping the space of continuous and bounded
-variation in Wiener’s sense functions into itself is a composition operator (Nemytskij operator).
Definition 4.1. Let
be a closed interval of the real line
,
and let
,
be function spaces
. An operator
is called a locally defined, or
-local operator, briefly, a local operator, if for every open interval
and for all functions
, the implication
![]()
holds true.
Remark 4.1. For some pairs
of function spaces the forms of local operators
(or their representation theorems) have been established. For instance in [13] it was done is the case when
and
or
, in [14] - [16] in the case when
and
are the spaces of n-times (k-times, respectively) Whitney differentiable functions, in [17] , [18] in the case when
is the space of Hölder functions and
, in [19] for continuous and monotone functions, in [20] in the case when
for functions of bounded
-variation in the sense of Wiener and
and in [21] in the case when
for functions of bounded Riesz-variation and
.
Definition 4.2. (See [13] ) An operator
is said to be
1) left-hand defined, if and only if for every
and for every two functions
,
![]()
2) right-hand defined, if and only if for every
and for every two functions
,
![]()
From now on, let
, where
stands for the space of continuous functions defined on I. We begin this section with some definitions.
Theorem 4.3. (See [13] ) The operator
is locally defined if and only if it is left and right defined operator.
Theorem 4.4. Let
. If a locally defined operator K maps
into
then there exist a unique function
such that, for all
,
![]()
Proof. We begin by showing that for every
and for every
the condition
(4.1)
implies that
![]()
To this end choose arbitrary
and take an arbitrary pair of functions
which fulfil (4.1). The function
defined by
![]()
belongs to
. Indeed, define the functions
by
![]()
and
![]()
Since
,
are continuous in
and
. Let
be a partition of I such that
for some
. Then
![]()
Hence
. By a similar reasoning, we have
. Finally
, as
is a linear space. Thus
(4.2)
Since, for all ![]()
![]()
the condition (4.2) implies that
. As
![]()
according to Definition 4.2, we get
![]()
Therefore, by the continuity of
and
en
, we obtain
![]()
Suppose now that
is the left endpoint of the interval I (i.e.,
). By the con- tinuity of f and g at
, there exist a sequence
such that:
and
(4.3)
The sequence of functions
, defined by
![]()
![]()
for all
, belong to the space
. Indeed, by the definition of
, the triangle inequality, (4.1) and (4.3), we have
![]()
and
![]()
for all
. Therefore
![]()
so
(4.4)
Similar reasoning shows, that
(4.5)
From (4.4) and (4.5), we obtain that
and
(4.6)
Let us observe that
(4.7)
and for all
,
(4.8)
and for every
there exist
such that
(4.9)
Put
![]()
From (4.7), (4.8) and (4.9) the function
is well defined and
(4.10)
and
(4.11)
To show that
is continuous at
, fix an
. By the continuity of f and g at
, there exist
such that
(4.12)
Take an arbitrary
. There exist
such that
and either
or
. Since, by triangle inequality and (4.7)
![]()
therefore, by (4.10) and (4.12)
![]()
in the case when
, and by (4.11) and (4.12)
![]()
in the case when
. As the continuity of
at the remaining points is obvious,
is continuous.
By the lower semicontinuity of
(Proposition 2.8) and (4.6)
![]()
and the convergence of series
implies that
.
Thus there exist a function
and sequence
such that
![]()
According to the first part of the proof, we have
![]()
Hence, by continuity of
and
at
, letting
, we get
![]()
When
is the right endpoint of I, the argument is similar.
To define the function
, fix arbitrarily an
, let us define a fun- ction
by
(4.13)
Of course
, as a constant function, belongs to
. For
, put
![]()
Since, by (4.13), for all functions f,
![]()
according to what has already been proved, we have
(4.14)
To prove the uniqueness of h, assume that
is such that
![]()
for all
and
. To show that
let us fix arbitrarily
and take
with
. From (4.14), we have
![]()
which proves the uniqueness of h.
5. Conclusion
In this paper, we get two important results. In Theorem 3.1, we show that the result of the Sobolevkij type is valid for the space of functions of bounded
-variation in Wiener’s sense (
) on
. And the Theorem 4.4, we show that if a locally defined operator K maps
into
then it is composition operator.
Acknowledgements