Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

The Capacitary John-Nirenberg Inequality Revisited

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An outer capacity satisfies the packing condition exactly when it is equivalent, up to a factor of four, to the Hausdorff content it induces — and this is what lets the whole harmonic-analysis toolbox carry over.

desk verdict The packing condition is a genuinely useful idea and the dyadic theory for general translation-invariant contents is mostly solid, but Theorem 1's advertised if-and-only-if is only proved in one direction and the proof has a few fixable gaps. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11412 v1 pith:LOOCQRFV submitted 2025-01-20 math.FA math.AP

Riju Basak , You-Wei Benson Chen , Prasun Roychowdhury , Daniel Spector This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.FAmath.AP MSC 46E3542B3542B37
keywords capacitarymaximalfunctionHausdorffcontentChoquetintegralJohn-NirenberginequalitypackingconditionoutercapacityLebesguedifferentiationCalderón-Zygmunddecomposition
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

This paper asks which outer capacities can support the standard harmonic-analysis toolbox: maximal-function bounds, Lebesgue differentiation, Calderón–Zygmund decompositions, and the exponential John–Nirenberg inequality. The authors isolate one structural condition, the packing assumption, that compensates for the nonlinearity of Choquet integrals against a capacity. Their main theorem states that an outer capacity satisfies the packing assumption if and only if it is comparable, up to the universal factor $1/4$, to the Hausdorff content it induces. With the same condition plus a doubling hypothesis, they extend the full toolbox to arbitrary outer capacities. If correct, the packing condition is exactly the substitute for linearity that makes the nonlinear capacitary theory run.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the packing assumption (P): for a non-overlapping dyadic subfamily $\{Q_j\}$ of $Q'$ with $\sum_j C(Q_j) \le A_0 C(Q')$, the Choquet integrals obey $\sum_j \int_{Q_j} f\, dC \le A_0 \int_{\cup_j Q_j} f\, dC$. This quasi-additivity is what replaces ordinary linearity of the integral in every proof. The dyadic packing lemma (Proposition 2.1) selects from any covering family a subfamily and disjoint ancestors with controlled $\lambda$-mass; applied to $\lambda = H^C_\infty$, it yields exactly the inequality behind the maximal estimates, the decomposition, and the exponential decay. Theorem 1 identifies (P) with the two-sided comparison between $C$ and its induced content, which is what allows the centered ball-based theory to be reduced to the dyadic one.

What would settle it

Search for an outer capacity $C$ satisfying (P) for which some set $E$ has $C(E) < \frac14 H^C_\infty(E)$, or an outer capacity with $\frac14 H^C_\infty(E) \le C(E) \le H^C_\infty(E)$ for all $E$ that violates the quasi-additivity in (P); Theorem 1 predicts neither can exist. A concrete place to look is the Sobolev capacity $\mathrm{Cap}_{1,p}$ on the Cantor-type set of [7, Section 5.3], where the equivalence is known to fail, so (P) must fail there as well.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For an outer capacity $C$, define the induced Hausdorff content by $H^C_\infty(E) := \inf\{\sum_i C(Q_i) : E \subset \bigcup_i Q_i,\ Q_i \in \mathcal{D}(Q)\}$. Theorem 1 is the equivalence: $C$ satisfies the packing assumption (P) if and only if $\frac14 H^C_\infty(E) \le C(E) \le H^C_\infty(E)$ for every $E \subset \mathbb{R}^n$. In the paper's reading, this says that, up to the universal factor $4$, the only outer capacities that pack are those already equivalent to the Hausdorff content they generate. Assuming the doubling condition (1.7), the authors then prove capacitary maximal inequalities, Lebesgue differentiation, a Calderón–Zygmund decomposition, and an exponential John–Nirenberg inequality for general outer capacities (Theorems A$'$, B$'$, C$'$, D$'$), reducing each statement to the dyadic theory of translation-invariant contents $H^\phi_\infty$ built from a monotone gauge $\phi$.

Load-bearing premise

The full ball-based theory depends on the capacity being doubling in the sense of (1.7); without doubling, the dyadic theorems still hold, but the centered versions for balls and the parent-cube control in the Calderón–Zygmund decomposition are not established, and Example 1.6 stops exactly at that boundary.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every outer capacity satisfying (P) and doubling admits a weak-type $(1,1)$ and strong-type $(p,p)$ bound for the capacitary maximal operator $M_C$.
  • For such capacities, Lebesgue differentiation holds: $\frac{1}{C(B(x,r))}\int_{B(x,r)} |f-f(x)|\, dC \to 0$ at $C$-quasi every point for $f \in L^1(\mathbb{R}^n; C)$.
  • A Calderón–Zygmund decomposition exists for doubling (P)-capacities, with the standard two-sided control of average heights over the selected dyadic cubes.
  • Functions of bounded $C$-mean oscillation satisfy an exponential John–Nirenberg estimate $C(\{x\in Q': |f(x)-c_{Q'}|>t\}) \le A C(Q') e^{-a t/\|f\|_{BMO_C(Q_0)}}$.
  • The dyadic theorems for translation-invariant contents $H^\phi_\infty$ hold without any doubling assumption; Example 1.6 shows they cover gauges that are only locally doubling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the factor $1/4$ in Theorem 1 comes from the dyadic Whitney argument, and the paper leaves open whether it is optimal; calibrating it on simple self-similar sets would measure the slack in the reduction to dyadic contents.
  • Inference: the known failure of (P) for Sobolev and Riesz capacities now has a quantitative meaning — their nonlocal character forces the induced content to be strictly smaller, and Theorem 1 says this is the same obstruction as the failure of dyadic quasi-additivity.
  • Inference: since the dyadic package needs no doubling, a natural testable extension is to replace global doubling by the weaker parent-cube bound (1.10) in the centered theorems; Example 1.6 suggests that the centered results may genuinely require doubling.
  • Inference: the exponential decay is a step toward a capacitary $H^1$–BMO duality in which $M^\#_C$ plays the role of the BMO gauge; if such duality holds, it would give a new description of the dual of $L^1(\mathbb{R}^n; C)$.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops maximal function estimates, Lebesgue differentiation, Calderón–Zygmund decompositions, and a John–Nirenberg inequality for translation-invariant Hausdorff contents and then extends these results to general outer capacities satisfying a new packing condition (P) together with a doubling condition. The central structural claim is Theorem 1, which asserts that an outer capacity satisfies (P) if and only if it is equivalent to its induced Hausdorff content. The applications Theorems A', B', C', and D' rely on the forward direction of this equivalence plus doubling, and the paper also contains dyadic versions of the maximal and differentiation theorems for general outer measures satisfying (P).

Significance. If the main results are correct, the paper identifies a clean, almost necessary condition on an outer capacity that lets a substantial part of the classical harmonic-analysis package be developed for nonlinear capacitary integrals. The dyadic theory for general outer measures satisfying (P), and the identification of (P) as a useful structural hypothesis, are genuine contributions. However, the advertised equivalence in Theorem 1 is only partially proved, and the proof of the forward direction contains a gap in the application of (P). These issues undermine the central characterization as stated, though they appear to be repairable within the manuscript's framework.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6, Proof of Theorem 1] The proof establishes only the implication (i) ⇒ (ii). After deriving C(E) ≤ H^C_∞(E), the rest of the proof assumes (P) and proves the lower bound (1/4)H^C_∞(E) ≤ C(E). There is no argument that the equivalence in (ii) implies the packing condition (P). Yet the abstract and Theorem 1 state an 'if and only if'. The converse direction is a load-bearing part of the paper's central claim and is missing.
  2. [Section 6, equation (6.4)] The application of the packing assumption to the subfamily {Q_{j_k}} is not justified. The subfamily may be infinite and need not be contained in any single dyadic cube Q' ∈ D(Q), whereas (P) is formulated relative to a fixed cube Q'. Moreover, the constant 2 in (6.4) presumes A0 = 2, but (P) only supplies an unspecified constant A0 ≥ 1. An exhaustion argument and a careful tracking of A0 are needed; as written, the lower bound (1/4)H^C_∞(E) is not established.
  3. [Section 6, proof of Theorem 1, lower bound] The chain bounding C(U) from below via ∑_k C(Q_{j_k}) and ∑_k H^C_∞(Q_{j_k}) uses the packing inequality in a form that also requires a justification for the ancestors Q̃_k. In particular, the step 'C(U) ≥ C(∪_k Q_{j_k}) ≥ (1/2)∑_k C(Q_{j_k})' relies on (P) with constant 2, but (P) is not verified for the infinite family and does not yield the constant 2. This gap affects the proof of the forward direction of Theorem 1 and hence also the reductions used in Theorems A', B', C', and D'.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title and Abstract] There are several typographical errors, including 'Capacit ary' in the title, 'Le besgue' in the abstract, and 'Calder ´ on' in the introduction.
  2. [Section 2, Proposition 2.1] The selection process for the subfamily {Q_{j_k}} and the maximal family of ancestors {Q̃_k} is described informally and would benefit from a more rigorous treatment, especially for infinite families and for the possibility of empty or non-unique maximal families.
  3. [Section 6, Lemma 6.4] The phrase 'we may assume that {Q_i} is maximally disjoint' is not formal; please specify the selection procedure and justify the inclusion (6.5) after this selection.
  4. [Example 1.5] The sentence 'Therefore, Theorems A', B', C', and D' are applicable to H^C_∞' is confusing because the theorems are stated for the outer capacity C, not for its induced content; please clarify the intended application.
  5. [Remark 1.1 and Theorem C'] The symbol D is used both for the constant in Theorem C' and for the constant in (1.10) in Remark 1.1; this notational overlap should be resolved to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 1's forward direction is a genuine structural derivation, and the author-overlapping citations are technical lemmas, not the target conclusions.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, I find no circular step that reduces a claimed prediction to its own inputs. Theorem 1's forward direction, which is the part actually proved in Section 6, starts from the packing assumption (P) on C and derives the two-sided bound (1/4)H_C^inf(E) <= C(E) <= H_C^inf(E) by combining Proposition 2.1's packing decomposition, Proposition 6.1's equality C(Q') = H_C^inf(Q') on dyadic cubes, and the packing assumption itself; the lower bound does not presuppose the equivalence being proved. The converse direction of the advertised 'if and only if' is not written out in Section 6, so Theorem 1 as stated is overclaimed, but a missing proof direction is a completeness/correctness defect, not circularity. The extensions Theorems A', B', C', and D' likewise reduce to the already-established dyadic theory after Theorem 1 and the ball-to-cube comparison lemmas; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and the packing condition is introduced in this paper rather than imported by citation. The paper does cite earlier works with overlapping authorship, notably [10, Lemma 2.5] for interpolation, [12, Lemma 4.1] for the elementary exponential-decay iteration, and [31] for the Banach-space/density structure of Choquet L^1 spaces. These are published, independently stated technical lemmas with stated assumptions; they are used as tools, not as substitutes for the paper's central claims, so they do not make the derivation circular. The score 1 reflects only the presence of minor author-overlapping citations that are not load-bearing for the main structural theorem.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted parameters. It relies on standard dyadic and Choquet theory, on an interpolation lemma from the authors' earlier work, and on Whitney's decomposition. The packing condition (P) is the central new structural object; its independent support is partial because the converse of Theorem 1 is unproved.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math The Choquet integral with respect to a monotone, strongly subadditive set function is sublinear (inequality (2.9)).
    Used in Section 2 via [31, Theorem 1.2]; strong subadditivity of Hausdorff contents is taken from [34, Proposition 3.5].
  • domain assumption The interpolation lemma [10, Lemma 2.5] for quasi-sublinear operators with weak (1,1) and L-infinity bounds yields strong Lp bounds.
    Invoked in the proofs of Theorem a(ii), Theorem A(ii), and Theorem A'(ii); it is imported from the authors' prior work and not reproved.
  • standard math Whitney decomposition of open sets into non-overlapping half-open dyadic cubes.
    Used in the proof of Theorem 1 to cover an open set by dyadic cubes, citing Grafakos [21, J.1].
  • domain assumption Outer regularity (iv) of the capacity C is part of the definition of outer capacity.
    Essential in the final step of the proof of Theorem 1 to pass from open sets to arbitrary E by taking an infimum over open supersets.
invented entities (1)
  • Packing condition (P) for outer measures and capacities independent evidence
    purpose: Serves as a quasi-additivity substitute for the nonlinear Choquet integral over non-overlapping dyadic cubes, enabling weak (1,1) maximal estimates, Lebesgue differentiation, Calderon-Zygmund decompositions, and John-Nirenberg inequalities.
    Theorem 1 links (P) to equivalence with the induced Hausdorff content, a checkable criterion; however, the converse direction of that theorem is not proved in the text, so the independent evidence is only partial as written.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Capacitary John-Nirenberg Inequality Revisited." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LOOCQRFV

@misc{pith2026250111412,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Capacitary John-Nirenberg Inequality Revisited},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LOOCQRFV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11412}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we establish maximal function estimates, Lebesgue differentiation theory, Calder\'on-Zygmund decompositions, and John-Nirenberg inequalities for translation invariant Hausdorff contents. We further identify a key structural component of these results -- a packing condition satisfied by these Hausdorff contents which compensates for the non-linearity of the capacitary integrals. We prove that for any outer capacity, this packing condition is satisfied if and only if the capacity is equivalent to its induced Hausdorff content. Finally, we use this equivalence to extend the preceding theory to general outer capacities which are assumed to satisfy this packing condition.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Uncentered Fractional Maximal functions and mean oscillation spaces associated with dyadic Hausdorff content

    math.FA 2025-06 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    Fractional maximal operators map BMO functions into Hausdorff-content BLO spaces, send BMO to VMO via uniform continuity, and preserve vanishing mean oscillation spaces adapted to dyadic Hausdorff content.

  2. On Lebesgue points and measurability with Choquet integrals

    math.FA 2025-02 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A measurable function is exactly one whose dyadic Hausdorff-content Choquet averages recover it at almost every point, and continuous functions are not dense in the corresponding spaces for content dimension delta < n.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Aalto, L

    D. Aalto, L. Berkovits, O. E. Kansanen, and H. Yue, John-Nirenberg lemmas for a doubling measure , Studia Math. 204 (2011), no. 1, 21–37, DOI 10.4064/sm204-1-2. MR2794938 ↑1

    work page doi:10.4064/sm204-1-2 2011

  2. [2]

    D. R. Adams, On the existence of capacitary strong type estimates in Rn, Ark. Mat. 14 (1976), no. 1, 125–140, DOI 10.1007/BF02385830. MR0417774 ↑1

    doi:10.1007/bf02385830 1976

  3. [3]

    , Sets and functions of finite Lp-capacity, Indiana Univ . Math. J. 27 (1978), no. 4, 611–627, DOI 10.1512/iumj.1978.27.27040. MR0486575 ↑1

    work page doi:10.1512/iumj.1978.27.27040 1978

  4. [4]

    1302, Spr inger, Berlin, 1988, pp

    , A note on Choquet integrals with respect to Hausdorff capaci ty, Function spaces and appli- cations (Lund, 1986), Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 1302, Spr inger, Berlin, 1988, pp. 115–124, DOI 10.1007/BFb0078867. MR0942261 ↑1

    work page doi:10.1007/bfb0078867 1986

  5. [5]

    , Weighted capacity and the Choquet integral, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 102 (1988), no. 4, 879–887, DOI 10.2307/2047327. MR0934860 ↑1

    work page doi:10.2307/2047327 1988

  6. [6]

    , Choquet integrals in potential theory , Publ. Mat. 42 (1998), no. 1, 3–66. MR1628134 ↑1

    work page 1998

  7. [7]

    D. R. Adams and L. I. Hedberg, Function spaces and potential theory , Grundlehren der mathema- tischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathem atical Sciences], vol. 314, Springer- V erlag, Berlin, 1996. MR1411441 ↑7

    work page 1996

  8. [8]

    D. R. Adams and J. C. Polking, The equivalence of two definitions of capacity , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 37 (1973), 529–534, DOI 10.2307/2039477. MR0328109 ↑1

    work page doi:10.2307/2039477 1973

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Anger, Representation of capacities , Math

    B. Anger, Representation of capacities , Math. Ann. 229 (1977), no. 3, 245–258, DOI 10.1007/BF01391470. MR0466588 ↑1

    1977 doi

  2. [10]

    Y .-W . B. Chen, K. H. Ooi, and D. Spector, Capacitary maximal inequalities and applications , J. Funct. Anal. 286 (2024), no. 12, Paper No. 110396, 31, DOI 10.1016/j.jfa.202 4.110396. MR4729407 ↑1, 3, 6, 7, 14, 18, 26

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    Y .-W . B. Chen and A. Claros, β -dimensional sharp maximal function and applications , preprint arXiv:2407.04456. ↑3

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    ↑1, 3, 6, 7, 19, 20 28 R

    You-W ei Chen and Daniel Spector, On functions of bounded β -dimensional mean oscillation, Advances in Calculus of Variations, posted on 2023, DOI doi:10.1515/ acv-2022-0084. ↑1, 3, 6, 7, 19, 20 28 R. BASAK, Y . W. B. CHEN, P . ROYCHOWDHURY, AND D. SPECTOR

    2023

  5. [13]

    Choquet, Theory of capacities , Ann

    G. Choquet, Theory of capacities , Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 5 (1953/54), 131–295 (1955). MR0080760 ↑1

    1955

  6. [14]

    Cianchi, M

    A. Cianchi, M. V . Korobkov, and J. Kristensen, Distortion of Hausdorff measures under Orlicz–Sobolev maps, preprint arXiv:2208.08152. ↑1

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Ferone, M

    A. Ferone, M. V . Korobkov, and A. Roviello, On some universal Morse-Sard type theorems , J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 139 (2020), 1–34, DOI 10.1016/j.matpur.2020.05.002 (English , with English and French summaries). MR4108405 ↑1

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    Harjulehto and R

    P . Harjulehto and R. Hurri-Syrj ¨ anen,On Choquet integrals and Poincar´ e-Sobolev inequalities, J. Funct. Anal. 284 (2023), no. 9, Paper No. 109862, 18, DOI 10.1016/j.jfa.2023 .109862. MR4545158 ↑1 [17] , Estimates for the variable order Riesz potential with appli cations, P...

    2023 doi

  9. [18]

    4, 1379–1399, DOI 10.1007/s44007-024-00131-z

    , On Choquet Integrals and Sobolev Type Inequalities , Matematica 3 (2024), no. 4, 1379–1399, DOI 10.1007/s44007-024-00131-z. MR4842143 ↑1

    2024 doi

  10. [19]

    Hatano, R

    N. Hatano, R. Kawasumi, H. Saito, and H. Tanaka, Choquet integrals, Hausdorff content and frac- tional operators, Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 110 (2024), no. 2, 355–366, DOI 10.1017/S000497272400011X. MR4803163 ↑1

    2024 doi

  11. [20]

    L. C. Evans and R. F. Gariepy, Measure theory and fine properties of functions , Revised edition, Text- books in Mathematics, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2015. MR340 9135 ↑6

    2015

  12. [21]

    Grafakos, Classical Fourier analysis , 3rd ed., Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol

    L. Grafakos, Classical Fourier analysis , 3rd ed., Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 249, Springer , New York, 2014. MR3243734 ↑24

    2014

  13. [22]

    John and L

    F. John and L. Nirenberg, On functions of bounded mean oscillation , Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 14 (1961), 415–426, DOI 10.1002/cpa.3160140317. MR0131498 ↑20

    1961 doi

  14. [23]

    M. V . Korobkov and J. Kristensen, The trace theorem, the Luzin N - and Morse-Sard properties for the sharp case of Sobolev-Lorentz mappings , J. Geom. Anal. 28 (2018), no. 3, 2834–2856, DOI 10.1007/s12220-017-9936-7. MR3833820 ↑1

    2018 doi

  15. [24]

    V . G. Maz ′ja, Certain integral inequalities for functions of several var iables, Problems of mathemat- ical analysis, No. 3: Integral and differential operators. Differential equations (Russian), Izdat. Leningrad. Univ ., Leningrad, 1972, pp. 33–68 (Russian). MR 0344880 ↑1, 7

    1972

  16. [25]

    V . G. Maz′ja and V . P . Havin,A nonlinear potential theory, Uspehi Mat. Nauk 27 (1972), no. 6, 67–138. MR0409858 ↑1

    1972

  17. [26]

    ´A. D. Mart´ ınez and D. Spector,An improvement to the John-Nirenberg inequality for functi ons in crit- ical Sobolev spaces , Adv . Nonlinear Anal. 10 (2021), no. 1, 877–894, DOI 10.1515/anona-2020-0157. MR4191703 ↑1

    2021 doi

  18. [27]

    N. G. Meyers, A theory of capacities for potentials of functions in Lebesg ue classes , Math. Scand. 26 (1970), 255–292 (1971), DOI 10.7146/math.scand.a-10981. MR0277741 ↑1

    1970 doi

  19. [28]

    K. H. Ooi and N. C. Phuc, The Hardy-Littlewood maximal function, Choquet integrals , and embed- dings of Sobolev type , Math. Ann. 382 (2022), no. 3-4, 1865–1879, DOI 10.1007/s00208-021-02227 -1. MR4403237 ↑1

    2022 doi

  20. [29]

    , On a capacitary strong type inequality and related capacita ry estimates , Rev . Mat. Iberoam. 38 (2022), no. 2, 589–599, DOI 10.4171/rmi/1285. MR4404777 ↑1

    2022 doi

  21. [30]

    Orobitg and J

    J. Orobitg and J. V erdera, Choquet integrals, Hausdorff content and the Hardy-Little wood maximal operator, Bull. London Math. Soc. 30 (1998), no. 2, 145–150, DOI 10.1112/S0024609397003688. MR1489325 ↑1, 8

    1998 doi

  22. [31]

    A. C. Ponce and D. Spector, Some remarks on capacitary integrals and measure theory (Suzanne Lenhart and Jie Xiao, ed.), De Gruyter, Berlin, Boston, 2023. ↑10, 11, 14, 18

    2023

  23. [32]

    A. C. Ponce and D. Spector, A boxing inequality for the fractional perimeter , Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. (5) 20 (2020), no. 1, 107–141. MR4088737 ↑1

    2020

  24. [33]

    Saito and H

    H. Saito and H. Tanaka, Dual of the Choquet spaces with general Hausdorff content , Studia Math. 266 (2022), no. 3, 323–335, DOI 10.4064/sm210415-29-1. MR4450 794 ↑1

    2022 doi

  25. [34]

    Saito, H

    H. Saito, H. Tanaka, and T. W atanabe, Abstract dyadic cubes, maximal operators and Hausdorff con tent, Bull. Sci. Math. 140 (2016), no. 6, 757–773, DOI 10.1016/j.bulsci.2016.02.001 . MR3543752 ↑9

    2016 doi

  26. [35]

    , Block decomposition and weighted Hausdorff content , Canad. Math. Bull. 63 (2020), no. 1, 141– 156, DOI 10.4153/s000843951900033x. MR4059812 ↑1

    2020 doi

  27. [36]

    1, 125– 138, DOI 10.1007/s11117-018-0598-x

    , Fractional maximal operators with weighted Hausdorff cont ent, Positivity 23 (2019), no. 1, 125– 138, DOI 10.1007/s11117-018-0598-x. MR3908380 ↑1

    2019 doi

  28. [37]

    E. M. Stein, Singular integrals and differentiability properties of fu nctions, Princeton Mathematical Se- ries, No. 30, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1970. MR0290095 ↑7

    1970

  29. [38]

    43, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1993

    , Harmonic analysis: real-variable methods, orthogonality , and oscillatory integrals , Princeton Mathematical Series, vol. 43, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1993. With the assistance of Timothy S. Murphy; Monographs in Harmonic Analysis, III. MR1232192 ↑1

    1993

  30. [39]

    Yang and W

    D. Yang and W . Yuan,A note on dyadic Hausdorff capacities, Bull. Sci. Math. 132 (2008), no. 6, 500–509, DOI 10.1016/j.bulsci.2007.06.005. MR2445577 ↑6 THE CAPACITARY JOHN-NIRENBERG INEQUALITY REVISITED 29 (R. Basak) D EPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS , N ATIONAL TAIWAN NORMAL UNIVERS...

    2008 doi

  31. [2023]

    ©2023, pp. 127–155. MR4654515 ↑1

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.