J. Math. Anal. Appl.

289 (2004) 248259

www.elsevier.com/locate/jmaa
On some pointwise inequalities
A.K. Lerner
Department of Mathematics, Bar-Ilan University, 52900 Ramat Gan, Israel
Received 7 February 2003
Submitted by R.H. Torres
Abstract
In a recent paper (Studia Math. 138 (2000) 285291) we proved pointwise estimates relating some
classical maximal and singular integral operators. Here we show that, in a sense, there are more
exible inequalities which not only imply the previously known results but also give something new.
In particular, they hold for the multilinear CaldernZygmund operators. This result gives a new
approach to a recent work by Grafakos and Torres, and unies some classical inequalities by Cotlar
and Coifman and Fefferman.
2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Multilinear CaldernZygmund operators; Pointwise inequalities
1. Introduction
Let be a non-negative, locally integrable function on R
n
. Given a measurable set E,
let (E) =
_
E
(x) dx. The non-increasing rearrangement of a measurable function f on
R
n
with respect to is dened by
f

(t ) = sup
(E)=t
inf
xE

f (x)

(0 <t <).
If 1 we use the notation f

(t ).
Let us consider the maximal function
m

f (x) = sup
Qx
(f
Q
)

_
|Q|
_
(0 < <1),
E-mail address: aklerner@netvision.net.il.
URL: http://www.math.biu.ac.il/~lernera.
0022-247X/$ see front matter 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jmaa.2003.09.051
A.K. Lerner / J. Math. Anal. Appl. 289 (2004) 248259 249
where the supremum is taken over all cubes Q containing x,
Q
denotes the indicator
function of Q and |Q| denotes the Lebesgue measure of Q.
In [10,11], we have established several pointwise estimates involved m

and some clas-

sical operators in harmonic analysis. The following inequalities hold for any appropriate f
and all x R
n
(see [10]):
m

(Mf )(x) c
,n
f
#
(x) +Mf (x) (0 < <1), (1)
m

(T

f )(x) c
,n
Mf (x) +T

f (x) (0 < <1), (2)

where Mf and f
#
are the HardyLittlewood and FeffermanStein maximal operators,
respectively, T

f is the maximal CaldernZygmund singular integral operator. Such in-

equalities easily imply rearrangement, L
p

(for satisfying A

Muckenhoupts condition)
and BLO-norm estimates, i.e., many classical results concerning the above-mentioned op-
erators.
The aim of this paper is to show that there are more exible pointwise estimates which,
in particular, imply (1) and (2). First of all we mention the following simple
Proposition 1. For any f L
1
loc
(R
n
) and all x R
n
,
m

f (x)
1

f
#
(x) +Mf (x) (0 < <1) (3)
and
Mf (x)
2
1
f
#
(x) +m

f (x) (0 < <1). (4)

It turns out that (3) and (4) yield more information than (1). The following main lemma
claries the sense of these inequalities.
Lemma 2. Let f, g and h be non-negative functions on R
n
. Suppose that for any 0 < ,
<1, there exist constants A

, B

>0 so that
m

f (x) A

g(x) +h(x) (5)

and
h(x) B

g(x) +m

f (x) (6)
for all x R
n
. Assume also that A

. Then
(i) if f

(+) =0 and h

(+) =0, then

max
_
f
L
p

, h
L
p

_
c
p,
g
L
p

(0 <p <);
(ii) if g L

, then
max
_
m

f
BLO
, h
BLO
_
c

(0 < < 1).

For example, Proposition 1 combined with this lemma immediately gives the following
new result which can be viewed as an analogue of the Bennett theorem [1] saying that
Mf : BMOBLO.
250 A.K. Lerner / J. Math. Anal. Appl. 289 (2004) 248259
Corollary 3. If f BMO and m

f <, then m

f BLO and
m

f
BLO
c
,n
f

(0 < <1).
Our main theorem states that inequalities exactly of the same type as (5) and (6) hold
for the CaldernZygmund operators. This gives a unied approach to the classical results
due to Cotlar [8, p. 56] and Coifman and Fefferman [3] which say about certain rela-
tions between maximal and singular integral operators. Recently these results have been
generalized by Grafakos and Torres [6] to the case of multilinear singular integrals. Esti-
mates (5) and (6) work in this case as well, and we will state our theorem in this context.
Let

f = (f
1
, . . . , f
m
). Denote by T (

f ) and T

(

f ) the m-linear CaldernZygmund and
maximal truncated operators, respectively (see [6] or Section 3 below for precise deni-
tions).
Theorem 4. Let T be an m-linear CaldernZygmund operator. Then for all

f in any
product of L
q
j
(R
n
) spaces, with 1 q
j
<, and for all x R
n
,
m

_
T (

f )
_
(x) c
1
m

j=1
Mf
j
(x) +T

(

f )(x) (0 < <1) (7)
and
T

(

f )(x) c
2
m

j=1
Mf
j
(x) +m

_
T (

f )
_
(x) (0 < <1) (8)
with constants c
i
independent of

f and x.
It is clear, by Chebyshevs inequality, that
m

f (x) =
_
m

_
|f |

__
1/

_
1

M
_
|f |

_
(x)
_
1/
( >0),
and therefore (8) easily implies a multilinear version of Cotlars inequality proved in [6]:
T

(

f )(x) c
m,n,
_
m

j=1
Mf
j
(x) +
_
M
_

T (

f )

_
(x)
_
1/
_
( >0).
On the other hand, (8) combined with (7) gives, by part (i) of Lemma 2, a multilinear
version of the CoifmanFefferman theorem [6]. Moreover, our approach gives L
p

bounds
for T

(

f ) and T (

f ) at once. Also we get the following BLO-estimate.
Corollary 5. For all

f in any product of L
q
j
L

(R
n
) spaces, with 1 q
j
<, T

(

f )
belongs to the space BLO, and
_
_
T

(

f )
_
_
BLO
c
m

j=1
f
j

.
A.K. Lerner / J. Math. Anal. Appl. 289 (2004) 248259 251
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we establish several properties of the
function m

f and prove Proposition 1 and Lemma 2. In Section 3 we list main facts

concerning the multilinear CaldernZygmund operators and prove Theorem 4. Section 4
contains some concluding remarks.
2. Proofs of Proposition 1 and Lemma 2
Recall that the HardyLittlewood and FeffermanStein maximal functions are dened
by
Mf (x) = sup
Qx
1
|Q|
_
Q

f (y)

dy
and
f
#
(x) = sup
Qx
1
|Q|
_
Q

f (y) f
Q

dy,
respectively, where f
Q
=(1/|Q|)
_
Q
f and the supremum is taken over all cubes Q con-
taining x.
Proof of Proposition 1. For any Q containing x we get
(f
Q
)

_
|Q|
_

_
(f f
Q
)
Q
_

_
|Q|
_
+|f
Q
|

1
|Q|
_
Q
|f f
Q
| +|f
Q
|
1

f
#
(x) +Mf (x),
which gives (3). To prove (4), we can assume that f 0, and then use the fact that
|f |
#
(x) 2f
#
(x). For any Q x,
f
Q
inf
yQ
_

f (y) f
Q

+f (y)
_

_
(f f
Q
)
Q
_

_
(1 )|Q|
_
+(f
Q
)

_
|Q|
_

1
1
f
#
(x) +m

f (x),
and this implies (4).
We recall also several well-known denitions used below.
The space BLO [4] consists of all functions f L
1
loc
(R
n
) such that
f
BLO
=sup
Q
_
f
Q
inf
Q
f
_
<.
A weight satises Muckenhoupts condition A

if there exist c, > 0 such that for

any Q and E Q,
(E) c
_
|E|/|Q|
_

(Q).
252 A.K. Lerner / J. Math. Anal. Appl. 289 (2004) 248259
We will need some properties of the operator m

. The following two lemmas say that

the function m

f is a pointwise majorant of |f |; nevertheless, m

f and f have equivalent

weighted rearrangements with respect to A

.
Lemma 6. For any measurable function f and for a.e. x R
n
,

f (x)

f (x) (0 < <1).

Proof. Let x be the point of the approximately continuity of f (see [12, p. 132]). The set
of such points have full measure. For any > 0 there exists a cube Q centered at x and a
set E Q such that |E| >|Q| and |f (x)| |f (y)| + for all y E. It follows from this
that

f (x)

inf
yE

f (y)

+ (f
Q
)

_
|Q|
_
+ m

f (x) +.
Letting 0 completes the proof.
Lemma 7. Let A

. For any measurable function f and all t >0,

(m

f )

(t ) f

(ct ) (0 < <1), (9)

where c =c(, ).
This lemma was proved in [11] (cf. inequality (3.1) therein).
Remark 8. In the case of the Lebesgue measure we can take in (9) c =/3
n
, that is,
(m

f )

(t ) f

(t /3
n
). (10)
Next, the operator m

satises the following subadditivity and submultiplicativity prop-

erties.
Lemma 9. For any measurable functions f, g and for all x R
n
,
m

(f +g)(x) m
/2
f (x) +m
/2
g(x),
m

(fg)(x) m
/2
f (x)m
/2
g(x).
Proof. This lemma follows immediately fromthe simple properties of rearrangements (see
[2, p. 67])
(f +g)

(t ) f

(t /2) +g

(t /2)
and
(fg)

(t ) f

(t /2)g

(t /2).
In the next two lemmas we consider the composition of m

with itself and with maximal

operators. We will use the fact that if cubes Q
1
and Q
2
intersect, then either Q
1
3Q
2
or
Q
2
3Q
1
.
A.K. Lerner / J. Math. Anal. Appl. 289 (2004) 248259 253
Lemma 10. For any measurable function f and all x R
n
,
m

(m

f )(x) m
/9
nf (x) (0 < , <1).
Proof. Let Q be any cube containing x. For all y Q we get
m

f (y) =max
_
sup
Q

y, Q

3Q
(f
Q
)

_
|Q

|
_
, sup
Q

y, Q3Q

(f
Q
)

_
|Q

|
_
_
max
_
m

(f
3Q
)(y), m
/3
nf (x)
_
.
Hence, from this and (10) we obtain
_
(m

f )
Q
_

_
|Q|
_
max
__
m

(f
3Q
)
_

_
|Q|
_
, m
/3
nf (x)
_
max
_
(f
3Q
)

_
|Q|/3
n
_
, m
/3
nf (x)
_
max
_
m
/9
nf (x), m
/3
nf (x)
_
m
/9
nf (x).
Taking the upper bound over all Q x yields the lemma.
Lemma 11. For any f L
1
loc
(R
n
) and all x R
n
,
m

(Mf )(x) c
n,
Mf (x) (0 < <1), (11)
m

(f
#
)(x) c
n,
f
#
(x) (0 < <1). (12)
Proof. We prove only the rst inequality, since the proof of the second one is essentially
the same. Let Q be any cube containing x. For all y Q we get
Mf (y) =max
_
sup
Q

y, Q

3Q
1
|Q

|
_
Q

|f |, sup
Q

y, Q3Q

1
|Q

|
_
Q

|f |
_
max
_
M(f
3Q
)(y),
3
n
|3Q

|
_
3Q

|f |
_
M(f
3Q
)(y) +3
n
Mf (x).
Hence, by the weak type (1, 1) property of M,
_
(Mf )
Q
_

_
|Q|
_

_
M(f
3Q
)
_

_
|Q|
_
+3
n
Mf (x)

3
n
|Q|
_
3Q
|f | +3
n
Mf (x) (9
n
/ +3
n
)Mf (x).
Taking the upper bound over all Q x yields (11).
Remark 12. It is interesting to note that inequality (12) may be deduced from (11), using
the fact that f
#
(x) MM
#

f (x), where M
#

f (x) is the so-called local sharp maximal

function (cf. [7,9]).
Now we state the main lemma from [10], which is a key ingredient in the proving of
Lemma 2.
254 A.K. Lerner / J. Math. Anal. Appl. 289 (2004) 248259
Lemma 13. Let f and g be non-negative functions on R
n
. Suppose that for any , 0 <
1/2, there exists a constant c

>0 so that
m

f (x) c

g(x) +f (x)
for all x R
n
, and let A

. Then
(i) there exists a constant c

>0 so that
f

(t ) c

(2t ) +f

(2t ) (t >0);
(iii) if f

(+) =0, then

f
L
p

c
p,
g
L
p

(0 <p <);
(iii) if g L

, then
f
BLO
cg

.
Proof of Lemma 2. Using (5), (6) and Lemmas 6, 9 and 10, we obtain
m

(m

f )(x) m
/9
nf (x) A
/9
ng(x) +h(x)
(A
/9
n +B

)g(x) +m

f (x) (13)
and
m

h(x) B

m
/2
g(x) +m
/29
nf (x) (B

+A
/29
n)m
/2
g(x) +h(x). (14)
Fromthis and (iii) of Lemma 13 we immediately obtain BLO-estimates. Further, by (9),
f

(+) =0 implies (m

f )

(+) =0. Hence, (13), Lemma 6 and (ii) of Lemma 13 give

f
L
p

f
L
p

c
p,
g
L
p

.
To get L
p

-bound for h, we proceed exactly as in the proving of Lemma 13, that is, we
choose

depending on such that

h
L
p

c
p,
m

h h
L
p

,
whenever h

(+) =0. Then, using (14) and (9), we obtain

h
L
p

cm

/2
g
L
p

cg
L
p

.
The lemma is proved.
3. Proof of Theorem 4
Let K(x, y
1
, . . . , y
m
) be a locally integrable function dened off the diagonal x =y
1
=
=y
m
in (R
n
)
m+1
, which satises the size estimate
K(y
0
, y
1
, . . . , y
m
)
A
_
m
k,l=0
|y
k
y
l
|
_
mn
(15)
A.K. Lerner / J. Math. Anal. Appl. 289 (2004) 248259 255
and, for some >0, the regularity condition

K(y
0
, . . . , y
j
, . . . , y
m
) K(y
0
, . . . , y

j
, . . . , y
m
)

A|y
j
y

j
|

_
m
k,l=0
|y
k
y
l
|
_
mn+
, (16)
whenever 0 j m and |y
j
y

j
|
1
2
max
0km
|y
j
y
k
|.
Consider multilinear operators T initially dened on the m-fold product of Schwartz
spaces and taking values into the space of tempered distributions,
T : S(R
n
) S(R
n
) S

(R
n
).
We say that T is an m-linear CaldernZygmund operator if, for some 1 q
j
< , it
extends to a bounded multilinear operator fromL
q
1
L
q
m
to L
q
, where 1/q =1/q
1
+
+1/q
m
, and there is a kernel K satisfying (15) and (16) such that
T (f
1
, . . . , f
m
)(x) =
_
(R
n
)
m
K(x, y
1
, . . . , y
m
)f
1
(y
1
) . . . f
m
(y
m
) dy
1
. . . dy
m
, (17)
whenever f
1
, . . . , f
m
are C

functions with compact support and x /

_
m
j=1
suppf
j
.
The multilinear CaldernZygmund theory has been recently developed by Grafakos
and Torres (see [5,6]). In particular, it was shown in [5] that any m-linear Caldern
Zygmund operator T is bounded from L
r
1
L
r
m
to L
1/(1/r
1
++1/r
m
)
for all
1 <r
j
<, and the representation (17) still holds for L
r
j
functions as long as x /
_
m
j=1
suppf
j
. Moreover, T maps L
1
L
1
into L
1/m,
, that is,
_
T (f
1
, . . . , f
m
)
_

(t )
c
t
m
m

j=1
f
j

1
. (18)
We will occasionally write y = (y
1
, . . . , y
m
),

f = (f
1
, . . . , f
m
). Given a point x
R
n
, set S

(x) = { y: max
1jm
|x y
j
| }, U

(x) = { y S

(x): |x y
1
|
2
+ +
|x y
m
|
2
>
2
}.
Following [6], dene the truncated and modied truncated operators by
T

(f
1
, . . . , f
m
)(x)
=
_
|xy
1
|
2
++|xy
m
|
2
>
2
K(x, y
1
, . . . , y
m
)f
1
(y
1
) . . . f
m
(y
m
) dy
1
. . . dy
m
and

(f
1
, . . . , f
m
)(x) =
_
y / S

(x)
K(x, y
1
, . . . , y
m
)f
1
(y
1
) . . . f
m
(y
m
) d y,
respectively, and the associated maximal operators by
T

(

f )(x) =sup
>0

(

f )(x)

and

(

f )(x) =sup
>0

(

f )(x)

.
256 A.K. Lerner / J. Math. Anal. Appl. 289 (2004) 248259
It is easy to see, by (15), that for any >0,

_
U

(x)
K(x, y
1
, . . . , y
m
)f
1
(y
1
) . . . f
m
(y
m
) d y

c
m

j=1
Mf
j
(x),
and since
T

(

f )(x) =
_
U

(x)
K(x, y
1
, . . . , y
m
)f
1
(y
1
) . . . f
m
(y
m
) d y +

T

(

f )(x),
we have
T

(

f )(x) c
m

j=1
Mf
j
(x) +

T

(

f )(x) (19)
and

(

f )(x) c
m

j=1
Mf
j
(x) +T

(

f )(x). (20)
Let B = B(x, r) be an arbitrary ball centered at x with radius r. As in [6], we denote
f
0
j
=f
j

B
, f

j
=f
j
f
0
j
. Then
f
1
(y
1
) . . . f
m
(y
m
) =
m

j=1
_
f
0
j
(y
j
) +f

j
(y
j
)
_
=

1
,...,
m
{0,}
f

1
1
(y
1
) . . . f

m
m
(y
m
).
Lemma 14. Let z, B(x, r/2).
(i) Suppose that
j
1
= =
j
l
=0 for some {j
1
, . . . , j
l
} {1, . . . , m}, where 1 l <m.
Then

T
_
f

1
1
, . . . , f

m
m
_
(z)

c
m

j=1
Mf
j
(x); (21)
(ii) If
1
= =
m
=, then

T
_
f

1
, . . . , f

m
_
(z) T
_
f

1
, . . . , f

m
_
()

c
m

j=1
Mf
j
(x). (22)
This lemma is contained implicitly in [6].
Proof of Theorem 4. Let Q be an arbitrary cube containing the point x, and let B =
B(x, 2), where is the diameter of Q. Set f
0
j
=f
j

B
, f

j
=f
j
f
0
j
. Note that
T
_
f

1
, . . . , f

m
_
(x) =

T
2
(f
1
, . . . , f
m
)(x)

1
,...,
m
{0,}
T
_
f

1
1
, . . . , f

m
m
_
(x),
(23)
A.K. Lerner / J. Math. Anal. Appl. 289 (2004) 248259 257
where the sum extends over all
i
taking values {0, } except for the cases
1
= =

m
=0 and
1
= =
m
=. Hence, applying (21) and (20), we get

T
_
f

1
, . . . , f

m
_
(x)

c
m

j=1
Mf
j
(x) +

T

(

f )(x) c
m

j=1
Mf
j
(x) +T

(

f )(x).
From this and (22), for any z Q we have

T
_
f

1
, . . . , f

m
_
(z)

c
m

j=1
Mf
j
(x) +

T
_
f

1
, . . . , f

m
_
(x)

c
m

j=1
Mf
j
(x) +T

(

f )(x),
and therefore, using again (21), we obtain

T (

f )(z)

1
,...,
m
{0,}
T
_
f

1
1
, . . . , f

m
m
_
(z)

c
m

j=1
Mf
j
(x) +

T
_
f
0
1
, . . . , f
0
m
_
(z)

T
_
f

1
, . . . , f

m
_
(z)

c
m

j=1
Mf
j
(x) +

T
_
f
0
1
, . . . , f
0
m
_
(z)

+T

(

f )(x).
From this and the weak-type estimate (18) we get
_
T (

f )
Q
_

_
|Q|
_

_
T
_
f
0
1
, . . . , f
0
m
__

_
|Q|
_
+c
m

j=1
Mf
j
(x) +T

(

f )(x)

c
(|Q|)
m
m

j=1
_
B(x,2)

f (y
j
)

dy
j
+c
m

j=1
Mf
j
(x) +T

(

f )(x)
c
m

j=1
Mf
j
(x) +T

(

f )(x).
Taking the upper bound over all Q x completes the proof of (7).
Let now B =B(x, ) and Q be the cube centered at x with diameter . Set f
0
j
=f
j

B
,
f

j
=f
j
f
0
j
. By (21)(23), for any z Q we have

(

f )(x)

c
m

j=1
Mf
j
(x) +

T
_
f

1
, . . . , f

m
_
(x)

c
m

j=1
Mf
j
(x) +

T
_
f

1
, . . . , f

m
_
(z)

258 A.K. Lerner / J. Math. Anal. Appl. 289 (2004) 248259

c
m

j=1
Mf
j
(x) +

T
_
f
0
1
, . . . , f
0
m
_
(z)

T (

f )(z)

.
Taking the supremum over all > 0 and then inmum over all z Q, and using (18), we
obtain

(

f )(x) c
m

j=1
Mf
j
(x) + inf
zQ
_

T
_
f
0
1
, . . . , f
0
m
_
(z)

T (

f )(z)

_
c
m

j=1
Mf
j
(x) +
_
T
_
f
0
1
, . . . , f
0
m
__

_
(1 )|Q|
_
+
_
T (

f )
Q
_

_
|Q|
_
c
m

j=1
Mf
j
(x) +
c
((1 )|Q|)
m
m

j=1
_
B(x,)

f (y
j
)

dy
j
+m

_
T (

f )
_
(x)
c
m

j=1
Mf
j
(x) +m

_
T (

f )
_
(x).
From this and (19) we have (8). The theorem is proved.
4. Concluding remarks
In [1], it was proved that a non-negative function f belongs to BLO iff there are func-
tions h L

and g BMO with Mg < such that

f =Mg +h.
It is worth noting that the same characterization holds in terms of m

instead of M. We
have the following
Proposition 15. A non-negative function f belongs to BLO iff there are functions h L

and g BMO with m

g < such that

f =m

g +h, (24)
where is any constant from the interval (0, 1).
Proof. If f has a representation as in (24), then f belongs to BLO by Corollary 3.
Conversely, if f BLO, then m

f is nite a.e. by [10, Lemma 2]. Further, by the same

lemma, m

f f is bounded, and thus f =m

f +(f m

f ) is the representation of the

form (24).
Next, we would like to point out that, as we mentioned in the introduction, Proposi-
tion 1 and Theorem 4 imply (1) and (2), respectively. Indeed, it follows immediately from
Lemmas 9 and 11. More precisely, we obtain a multilinear version of (2):
m

_
T

(

f )
_
(x) c
,m,n
m

j=1
Mf
j
(x) +T

(

f )(x) (0 < <1). (25)
A.K. Lerner / J. Math. Anal. Appl. 289 (2004) 248259 259
From this and Lemma 13 we have the following rearrangement inequality with respect to
A

:
_
T

(

f )
_

(t ) c
_
m

j=1
Mf
j
_

(2t ) +
_
T

(

f )
_

(2t ). (26)
Finally, we note that, by (19) and (20), Theorem 4 and inequalities (25) and (26) also
hold for the modied maximal operator

T

(

f ) instead of T

(

f ).
Note added in proof
The author was kindly informed by the editor about the paper by C. Prez and R.H. Tor-
res (Sharp maximal function estimates for multilinear singular integrals, Contemp. Math.
320 (2003) 323331), where somewhat analogous estimates were obtained by means of
the FeffermanStein sharp maximal function and some other multilinear operators were
introduced.
Acknowledgment
The author is grateful to the referee for numerous comments and suggestions.
References
[1] C. Bennett, Another characterization of BLO, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 85 (1982) 552556.
[2] S.G. Krein, Yu.I. Petunin, E.M. Semenov, Interpolation of Linear Operators, in: Translations of Mathemati-
cal Monographs, Vol. 54, 1982.
[3] R.R. Coifman, C. Fefferman, Weighted norm inequalities for maximal functions and singular integrals,
Studia Math. 15 (1974) 241250.
[4] R.R. Coifman, R. Rochberg, Another characterization of BMO, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 79 (1980) 249254.
[5] L. Grafakos, R.H. Torres, Multilinear CaldernZygmund theory, Adv. Math. 165 (2002) 124164.
[6] L. Grafakos, R.H. Torres, Maximal operator and weighted norm inequalities for multilinear singular inte-
grals, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 51 (2002) 12611276.
[7] B. Jawerth, A. Torchinsky, Local sharp maximal functions, J. Approx. Theory 43 (1985) 231270.
[8] J.-L. Journ, CaldernZygmund Operators, Pseudo-Differential Operators and the Cauchy Integral of
Caldern, in: Lecture Notes in Math., Vol. 994, 1983.
[9] A.K. Lerner, On weighted estimates of non-increasing rearrangements, East J. Approx. 4 (1998) 277290.
[10] A.K. Lerner, On pointwise estimates for maximal and singular integral operators, Studia Math. 138 (2000)
285291.
[11] A.K. Lerner, On pointwise estimates for the LittlewoodPaley operators, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 131 (2003)
14591469.
[12] S. Saks, Theory of the Integral, Hafner, 1937.