The Space of Bounded p(·)-Variation in the Sense Wiener-Korenblum with Variable Exponent ()
Received 28 October 2015; accepted 16 January 2016; published 19 January 2016

1. Introduction
A number of generalizations and extensions of variation of a function have been given in many directions since Camile Jordan in 1881 gave a first notion of bounded variation in the paper [1] devoted to the convergence of Fourier series. Consequently, the study of notions of generalized bounded variation forms an important direction in the field of mathematical analysis. Two well-known generalizations are the functions of bounded p-variation and the functions of bounded j-variation, due to N. Wiener [2] and L. C. Young [3] respectively. In 1924 N. Wiener [2] generalized the Jordan notion and introduced the notion of p-variation (variation in the sense of Wiener). Later, in 1937, L. Young [3] introduced the notion of j-variation of a function. The p-variation of a function f is the supremum of the sums of the pth powers of absolute increments of f over no overlapping intervals. Wiener mainly focused on the case
, the 2-variation. For p-variations with
, the first major work was done by Young [3] , partly with Love [4] . After a long hiatus following Young’s work, pth-variations were reconsidered in a probabilistic context by R. Dudley [5] [6] , in 1994 and 1997, respectively. Many basic properties of the variation in the sense of Wiener and a number of important applications of the concept can be found in [7] [8] . Also, the paper by V. V. Chistyakov and O. E. Galkin [9] , in 1998, is very important in the context of p-variation. They study properties of maps of bounded p-variation
in the sense of Wiener, which are defined on a subset of the real line and take values in metric or normed spaces.
In 1997 while studying Poisson integral representations of certain class of harmonic functions in the unit disc of the complex plan B. Korenblum [10] introduced the notion of bounded k-variation and proved that a function f is of bounded k-variation if ot can be written as the difference of two k-decreasing functions. This concept differs from others due to the fact that it introduces a distortion function k that measures intervals in the domain of the function and not in the range. In 1986, S. Ki Kim and J. Kim [11] , gave the notion of the space of functions of kf-bounded variation on
, which is a combination of the notion of bounded f-variation in the sense of Schramm and bounded k-variation in the sense of Korenblum, and J. Park et al. [12] [13] proved some properties in this space. Considering
for
and
, then it follows that this space generalized the space of functions of kp-bounded variation in the sense of Wiener-Korenblum. In 1990 S. Ki Kim and J. Yoon [14] showed the existence of the Riemann-Stieltjes integral of functions of bounded k-variation and in 2011 W. Aziz, J. Guerrero, J. L. Sánchez and M. Sanoja, in [15] , showed that the space of bounded k-variation satisfies the Matkowski’s weak condition. Also, in 2012, M. Castillo, M. Sanoja and I. Zea [16] presented the space of functions of bounded k-variation in the sense of Riez-Korenblum, denoted by
, which is a combination of the notions of bounded p-variation in the sense of Riesz
and bounded k-variation in the sense of Korenblum.
Recently, there has been an increasing interest in the study of various mathematical problems with variable exponents. With the emergency of nonlinear problems in applied sciences, standard Lebesgue and Sobolev spaces demonstrated their limitations in applications. The class of nonlinear problems with exponent growth is a new research field and it reflects a new kind of physical phenomena. In 2000 the field began to expand even further. Motivated by problems in the study of electrorheological fluids, L. Diening [17] raised the question of when the Hardy-Littlewood maximal operator and other classical operators in harmonic analysis are bounded on the variable Lebesgue spaces. These and related problems are the subject of active research nowadays. These problems are interesting in applications (see [18] -[21] ) and give rise to a revival of the interest in Lebesgue and Sobolev spaces with variable exponent, the origins of which can be traced back to the work of W. Orlicz in the 1930’s [22] . In the 1950’s, this study was carried on by H. Nakano [23] [24] who made the first systematic study of spaces with variable exponent. Later, Polish and Czechoslovak mathematicians investigated the modular function spaces (see for example J. Musielak [25] [26] , O. Kovacik and J. Rakosnik [27] ). We refer to books [21] for the detailed information on the theoretical approach to the Lebesgue and Sobolev spaces with variable exponents. In 2015, R. Castillo, N. Merentes and H. Rafeiro [28] studied a new space of functions of generalized bounded variation. There the authors introduced the notion of bounded variation in the Wiener sense with the exponent p(×)-variable. In the same year, O. Mejia, N. Merentes and J. L. Sánchez in [29] , proved some properties in this space, for the composition operator and showed a structural theorem for mappings of bounded variation in the sense of Wiener with the exponent p(×)-variable.
The main purpose of this paper is threefold: First, we provide extension of the space of generalized bounded variation present in [28] and [29] in the sense Wiener-Korenblum and we give a detailed description of the new class formed by the functions of bounded variation in the sense of Wiener-Korenblum with the exponent p(×)- variable. Second, we prove a necessary and sufficient condition for the acting of composition operator
(Nemystskij) on the space
and, third we show that any uniformly bounded composition operator that maps the space
into itself necessarily satisfies the so called Matkowski’s weak condition.
2. Preliminaries
We use throughout this paper the following notation: we will denote by

the diameter of the image
(or the oscillation of f on
) and by
a number between
.
The class of bounded variation functions exhibit many interesting properties that it makes them a suitable class of functions in a variety of contexts with wide applications in pure and applied mathematics (see [8] and [30] ). Since C. Jordan in 1881 (see [1] ) gave the complete characterization of functions of bounded variation as a difference of two increasing functions, the notion of bounded variation functions has been generalized in different ways.
Definition 2.1. Let
be a function. For each partition
of
, we define
(1)
where the supremum is taken over all partitions
of the interval
. If
, we say that f has bounded variation. The collection of all functions of bounded variation on
is denoted by
.
A generalization of this notion was presented by N. Wiener (see [2] ) who introduced the notion of p-variation as follows.
Definition 2.2. Given a real number
, a partition
of
, and a function
. The nonnegative real number
(2)
is called the Wiener variation (or p-variation in Wiener’s sense) of f on
where the supremum is taken over all partitions
.
In case that
, we say that f has bounded Wiener variation (or bounded p-variation in Wiener’s sense) on
. The symbol
will denote the space of functions of bounded p-variation in
Wiener’s sense on
.
Other generalized version was given by B. Korenblum in 1975 [10] . He considered a new kind of variation, called k-variation, and introduced a function k for distorting the expression
in the partition if self, rather than the expression
in the range. On advantage of this alternative approach is that a function of bounded k-variation may be decomposed into the difference of two simpler functions called k-decreasing functions.
Definition 2.3. A function
is called a distortion function (k-function) if k satisfies the following properties:
1) k is continuous with
and
;
2) k is concave and increasing;
3)
.
B. Korenblum (see [10] ), introduced the definition of bounded k-variation as follows.
Definition 2.4. Let k be a distortion function, f a real function
, and
a partition of the interval
. Let one consider
(3)
where the supremum is taken over all partitions
of the interval
. In the case
one says that f has bounded k-variation on
and one will denote by
the space of functions of bounded k-variation on
.
Some properties of k-function cab be found in [12] [14] [16] .
In 2013 R. Castillo, N. Merentes and H. Rafeiro [28] introduce the notation of bounded variation space in the Wiener sense with variable exponent on
and study some of its basic properties.
Definition 2.5. Given a function
, a partition
of the interval
, and a function
. The nonnegative real number
(4)
is called Wiener variation with variable exponent (or p(×)-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 i,
.
In case that
, we say that f has bounded Wiener variation with variable exponent (or bounded p(×)-variation in Wiener’s sense) on
. The symbol
will denote the space of functions of bounded p(×)-variation in Wiener’s sense with variable exponent on
.
Remark 2.6. Given a function ![]()
1) If
for all x in
, then
.
2) If
for all x in
and
, then
.
In [29] , O. Mejia, N. Merentes and J. L. Sánchez proved some properties in this space, for the composition operator and show a structural theorem for mappings of bounded variation in the sense of Wiener with the exponent p(×)-variable.
Now, we generalized the notion of bounded variation space in the sense of Wiener-Korenblum with variable exponent on
. For this, we defined bellow the bounded p(×)-variation in the sense of Wiener-Korenblum with exponent variable.
Definition 2.7. Given a function
, a partition
of the interval
,
be a distortion function and a function
. The nonnegative real number
(5)
is called Wiener-Korenblum variation with variable exponent (or p(×)-variation in the sense of Wiener-Korenblum) 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 i,
.
In case that
, we say that f has bounded Wiener-Korenblum variation with variable exponent (or bounded p(×)-variation in the sense of Wiener-Korenblum) on
. The symbol ![]()
will denote the space of functions of bounded p(×)-variation in the sense Wiener-Korenblum with variable exponent on
.
Remark 2.8. Given a function![]()
1) If
for all
in
, then
.
2) If
for all
in
and
, then
.
Example 2.9. Let
be a function such that
and
for
. Then, from mean value theorem, we have
![]()
Therefore,
.
3. Properties of the Space
Theorem 3.1. Let
and
be a distortion function then
.
Proof. Let
,
and
be a partition of the interval
. Then, by the
subadditivity, we have:
![]()
Thus,
(6)
Then considering the supremum of the left side we get
(7)
therefore,
and
. W
Remark 3.2. From this result we deduce that every function of bounded p(×)-variation in of Wiener’s sense with variable exponent on the interval
is a bounded p(×)-variation in the Wiener-Korenblum sense on the interval
.
Now we will see that the class of function of bounded p(×)-variation in the sense of Wiener-Korenblum has a structure of vector space.
Theorem 3.3. Let
, then the set
is a vector space.
Proof. Let
, then for each partition
of
, and
is a tagged partition of the interval
, we obtain:
![]()
Now adding from
to
we get
![]()
Since p(×) is bounded, then there is a
such that
for all
, and we obtain
![]()
In other word, if
, then the function
is of bounded p(×)-variation in the sense of Wiener-Korenblum with variable exponent on
and
![]()
On the other hand, since p(×) is bounded, there exists
such that
![]()
therefore,
. So,
is a vector space. W
Proposition 3.4. Given a function
, the variation
is convex.
Proof. Let
and
. By Theorem 3.3
. Since for
the function
is convex, then we get
![]()
Then,
![]()
W
Definition 3.5. (Norm in
)
Let
be a function that belongs to
. Then
(8)
where
.
Theorem 3.6.
is a normed space.
Proof. Let
,
. Then, we have that:
a)
since
and
.
b)
![]()
Therefore,
.
c) Fix
and
; then
and
. Now let
. Then by convexity of ![]()
![]()
Hence
![]()
Thus, ![]()
d) Let us now prove that
if and only if
. If
, then
for all
, and so
. Conversely, suppose that
, i.e.,
![]()
then
and
, we get
![]()
i.e.,
![]()
without loss of generality, considering the partition
we get
![]()
then
![]()
we get
![]()
Hence,
for all
and
, therefore
. W
In the following, we show that
endowed with the norm
is a Banach space.
Theorem 3.7. Let
be a function, then
is a Banach space.
Proof. Let
be a Cauchy sequence in
, then given
, there is
such that for
we have
![]()
i.e.
![]()
Then
![]()
Thus, for all
and
, we have that
![]()
then
![]()
therefore
![]()
by properties of function
, we get
![]()
then
![]()
hence
![]()
In consequence, the sequence
, is a uniformly sequence of Cauchy, on the interval
. Since
is complete, there exists a function f defined on
such that
![]()
We will show that
converge on the norm
.
Since the
is a Cauchy sequence there is a
such that
![]()
From the fact that
converge uniformly to the function f on the interval
, we get
![]()
Therefore, the sequence
converge to the function f on the norm
.
Thus
is a Banach space. W
The following properties of elements of
allow us to get characterizations of them.
Lemma 3.8. (General properties of the p(×)-variation) Let
be a arbitrary map and
be a distortion function. We have
(P1) Minimality: if
, then
![]()
(P2) Change of variable: if
and
is a (not necessarily strictly) monotone function, then ![]()
(P3) Regularity: ![]()
Proof. (P1) Let
,
.
![]()
(P2) Let
,
a (not necessary strictly) monotone function,
a tagged partition of the interval
,
and
with
, then
![]()
On the other hand, if a partition
of
is such that
for
, then there exist
such that
and again by the monotonicity of
:
![]()
(P3) By monotonocity of
we get
![]()
On the other hand, for any number
there is a partition
,
with
. We define
a partition of the interval
, then
and
. W
In the next section we will be dealing with the composition operator (Nemitskij).
4. Composition Operator between the Space ![]()
In any field of nonlinear analysis composition operators (Nemytskij), the superposition operators generated by appropriate functions, play a crucial role in the theory of differential, integral and functional equations. Their analytic properties depend on the postulated properties of the defining function and on the function space in which they are considered. A rich source of related questions is the monograph by J. Appell and P. P. Zabrejko [31] and J. Appell, J. Banas, N. Merentes [8] .
The composition operator problem refers to determining the conditions on a function
, such that the composition operator, associated with the function h, maps a space
of functions
into itself [32] [33] . There are several spaces where the composition operator problem has been resolved. In 1961, A. A. Babaev [34] showed that the composition H, associated with the function
, maps the space
of the Lipschitz functions into itself if and only if h is locally Lipschitz; in 1967, K. S. Mukhtarov [35] obtained the same result for the space
of the Hölder functions of order
.
The first work on the composition operator problem in the space of functions of bounded variation
was made by M. Josephy in 1981, [36] . Other work of this type have been preformed over
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
and
(see [8] ).
Now, we define the composition operator. Given a function
, the composition operator H, associated to a function f (autonomous case) maps each function
into the composition function
, given by
(9)
More generally, given
, we consider the operator H, defined by
(10)
This operator is also called superposition operator or susbtitution operator or Nemytskij operator. In what follows, will refer (9) as the autonomus case and to (10) as the non-autonomus case.
In order to obtain the main result of this section, we will use a function of the zig-zag type such as the employed by J. Appell et al. [8] [37] that the locally Lipschitz condition of the function h is a necessary and suffi-
cient condition such that
and that in this situation H is bounded.
One of our main goals is to prove a result in the case when h is locally Lipschitz if and only if the composition operator maps the space of functions of bounded p(×)-variation into itself.
The following lemma, established in [38] , will be useful in the proof of our main Theorem (Theorem 4.2).
Lemma 4.1. Let
,
, then
![]()
Theorem 4.2. Let H be a composition operator associated to
. H maps the space
into itself if and only if h is locally Lipschitz.
Proof. We may suppose without loss generality that
. First, let
be locally Lipschitz on
, and let
. Then
for some
. Considering the local Lipschitz condition
(11)
for
, for any partition
we obtain the estimate
![]()
This shows that for
,
, and hence
as claimed.
The proof of the only if direction will be by contradiction, that is we assume
and h is not locally Lipschitz. Since the identity function
belong to
, then
and therefore h is bounded in the interval
. Without loss of generality we may assume that
(12)
Since h is not locally Lipschitz in
there is a closed interval I such that h does not satisfy any Lipschitz condition. In order to simplify the proof we can assume that
In this way for any increasing sequence of positive real numbers
that converge to infinite, that we will define later, we can choose sequences
,
, such that
(13)
In addition choose
such that
![]()
Considering subsequence if it necessary, we can assume without loss of generality that the sequence
is monotone increasing.
Since
is compact, from inequality (13) we have that exist subsequences of
and
that we will denote in the same way, and that converge to
.
Since the sequence
is a Cauchy sequence we can assume (taking subsequence if it is necessary) that
(14)
Again considering subsequences if needed and using the properties of the function
we can assume that
(15)
Consider the new sequence
defined by
![]()
From of inequalities (12) and (13) it follows that
, therefore
![]()
Consider the sequence defined recursively
by
![]()
This sequence is strictly increasing and from the relations (14) and (15), we get
![]()
Then to ensure that
, is sufficient to suppose that
.
We define the continuous zig-zag function
, as shown below
![]()
Put
![]()
We can write each interval
, as the union of the family of non-overlapping intervals
![]()
And function u is defined on
as follows
(16)
(17)
and
(18)
In all these situations the slopes of these segments of lines is 1.
Hence, we have for
, the absolute value of the slope of the line segments in these ranges are bounded by 1, as shown below
![]()
![]()
We will show that
.
Let
, then there are the following possibilities for the location of s and t on
.
Case 1: If
are in the same interval ![]()
From relations (16), (17) and (18) follows
.
Case 2: If
are in two different intervals ![]()
There are several possibilities:
a)
,![]()
.
)
. By Lemma 4.1 and relations (16) and (17) we have
![]()
)
. Then
![]()
b)
.
If
proceed as
).
If
, again using the Lemma 4.1 and relations (16), (17) and (18) we obtain
![]()
Case 3: If
.
From Lemma 4.1 and the second case, we conclude
![]()
Case 4: If
.
Then from Lemma 4.1
![]()
Case 5: If
.
From Lemma 4.1 and Case 4
![]()
Case 6: If ![]()
In this circumstance
and the situation is trivial. Therefore we have that
![]()
So u is Lipschitz in
. Moreover, for each partition of interval
of the form
![]()
and
, using the inequality (13), convexity of the function
and definition of
, we have
![]()
As the serie
diverge,
, which is a contradiction. W
5. Uniformly Continuous Composition Operator
In a seminal article of 1982, J. Matkowski [39] showed that if the composition operator H, associated with the function
, maps the space
of the Lipschitzian functions into itself and is a globally Lipschitzian map, then the function h has the form
(19)
for some
.
There are a variety of spaces besides
that verify this result [37] . The spaces of Banach
that fulfill this property are said to satisfy the Matkowski property [32] .
In 1984, J. Matkowski and J. Miś [40] considered the same hypotheses on the operator H for the space
of the function of bounded variation and concluded that (19) is true for the regularization
of the function h with respect of the first variable; that is,
![]()
where
. The spaces that satisfy this condition are said to verify weak Matkowski property, [32] .
In this section, we give the other main result of this paper, namely, we show that any uniformly bounded composition operator that maps the space
into itself necessarily satisfies the so called Matkowski’s weak condition.
First of all we will give the definition of left regularization of a function.
Definition 5.1. Let
, its left regularization
of mapping f is the function given as
![]()
We will denote by
the subset in
which consists of those functions that are left continuous on
.
Lemma 5.2. If
, then
.
Thus, if a function
, then its left regularization is a left continuous function, i.e.,
.
Also, we will denote by
the subset in
which consists of those functions that are left continuous on
.
Lemma 5.3. If
, then
.
Proof. By Lemma 5.2, we have
. Then, by Theorem 3.1,
.
Thus, if a function
, then its left regularization is a left continuous function, i.e.,
. In consequence,
.
Another lemma useful for the follow theorem is developed below:
Lemma 5.4. Let
, be a distortion function,
and
. Then
if and only if
.
Proof. Let
. Suppose that
; then by definition of
there exists
such that
and
. Since, for
the function
is convex, we have:
![]()
Conversely, assume
, then
; hence
.
Theorem 5.5. Suppose that the composition operator H generated by
maps
into itself and satisfies the following inequality
(20)
for some function
. Then, there exist functions
such that
(21)
where
is the left regularization of
for all
.
Proof. By hypothesis, for
fixed, the constant function
belongs to
. Since H maps
into itself, we have
. By Lemma 5.2 the left regularization
for every
.
From the inequality (20) and definition of the norm
we obtain for
,
(22)
From the inequality (22) and Lemma 5.2, if
then
(23)
Let
, and let
be the equidistant partition defined by
![]()
Given
with
, define
by
(24)
and
(25)
Then the difference
satisfies
![]()
Consequently, by the inequality (20)
![]()
From the inequality (23) and the definition of p(×)-variation in the sense of Wiener-Korenblum we have
![]()
However, by definition of the functions
and
,
![]()
Then
(26)
Since
for all
,
, and passing to the limit as
, then
![]()
hence,
![]()
So, we conclude that
satisfies the Jensen equation in
(see [41] , page 315). The continuity of
with respect of the second variable implies that for every
there exist
such that
![]()
Because
,
and
, for each
, we obtain that
. W
J. Matkowski [42] introduced the notion of a uniformly bounded operator and proved that any uniformly bounded composition operator acting between general Lipschitz function normed spaces must be of the form (21).
Definition 5.6. ([42] , Def. 1) Let
and
be two metric (or normed) spaces. We say that a mapping
is uniformly bounded if, for any
there exists a nonnegative real number
such that for any nonempty set
we have
![]()
Remark 5.7. Every uniformly continuous operator or Lipschitzian operator is uniformly bounded.
Theorem 5.8. Let
and H be the composition operator associated with h. Suppose that H maps
into itself and is uniformly continuous, then, there exist functions
such that
![]()
where
is the left regularization of
for all
.
Proof. Take any
and
such that
![]()
Since
by the uniform boundedness of H, we have
![]()
that is,
![]()
and therefore, by the Theorem 5.5 we get
![]()
Acknowledgements