Volume 2013, Issue 1 151929
Research Article
Open Access

Weighted Differentiation Composition Operators to Bloch-Type Spaces

Junming Liu

Junming Liu

Department of Mathematics, Shantou University, Shantou, Guangdong 515063, China stu.edu.cn

Search for more papers by this author
Zengjian Lou

Corresponding Author

Zengjian Lou

Department of Mathematics, Shantou University, Shantou, Guangdong 515063, China stu.edu.cn

Search for more papers by this author
Ajay K. Sharma

Ajay K. Sharma

School of Mathematics, Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University, Kakryal, Katra 182320, India smvdu.net.in

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 10 June 2013
Citations: 2
Academic Editor: Pedro M. Lima

Abstract

We characterized the boundedness and compactness of weighted differentiation composition operators from BMOA and the Bloch space to Bloch-type spaces. Moreover, we obtain new characterizations of boundedness and compactness of weighted differentiation composition operators.

1. Introduction

Let 𝔻 be the open unit disk in the complex plane , H(𝔻) the space of all functions holomorphic on 𝔻, dA(z) = (1/π)dxdy the normalized area measure on 𝔻, and H the space of all bounded holomorphic functions with the norm ∥f = sup z𝔻 | f(z)|.

Let α > 0. The α-Bloch space α on 𝔻 is the space of all holomorphic functions f on 𝔻 such that
()
The little α-Bloch space consists of all fα such that
()
Both spaces α and are Banach spaces with the norm
()
and is a closed subspace of α. If α = 1, they become the classical Bloch space and little Bloch space 0, respectively. For any α > 0, the space consists of functions fH(𝔻) such that
()
For information of such spaces, see, for example, [14].
For a𝔻, let be the automorphism of 𝔻 that interchanges 0 and a. Let the Green function in 𝔻 with logarithmic singularity at a be given by
()
The space BMOA consists of all f in the Hardy space H2 such that
()
BMOA is a Banach space under following norm (see, e.g., [5]):
()
Let φ and ψ be holomorphic maps on the open unit disk 𝔻 such that φ(𝔻) ⊂ 𝔻. For a nonnegative integer n, we define a linear operator as follows:
()
We call it weighted differentiation composition operators, which was defined in [6, 7]. If n = 0 and ψ ≡ 1, becomes Cφ induced by φ, defined as Cφf = f ∘ φ, fH(𝔻). If ψ = 1 and φ(z) = z, then is the differentiation operator defined as Dnf = f(n). If n = 0, then we get the weighted composition operator ψCφ defined as ψCφf = ψ · (fφ). If n = 1 and ψ(z) = φ(z), then reduces to DCφ. When ψ ≡ 1, then reduces to differentiation composition operator CφDn (also named as product of differentiation and composition operator). If we put φ(z) = z, then , the product of multiplication and differentiation operator.

The boundedness and compactness of differentiation composition operator between spaces of holomorphic functions have been studied extensively. For example, Hibschweiler; Portnoy and Ohno studied differentiation composition operator CφD on Hardy and Bergman spaces in [8, 9]; Li; Stević and Ohno studied CφD on Bloch type spaces in [1012]; Wu and Wulan gave a new compactness criterion of CφDm on the Bloch space in [13]. Recently, the weighted differentiation composition operator between different function spaces has also been investigated by several authors (see, for example, [1421]).

Boundedness, compactness, and essential norm of weighted composition operator ψCφ between Bloch-type spaces have been studied in [2224]. Recently, Manhas and Zhao [25] and Hyvärinen and Lindström [26] gave a new characterization of boundedness and compactness of ψCφ in terms of the norm of φn (for the compactness of composition operator, see [27, 28]).

Motivated by [13, 25, 26], we study the operator from BMOA and Bloch space to Bloch-type spaces.

Throughout this paper, constants are denoted by C; they are positive and not necessarily the same at each occurrence. The notation AB means that there is a positive constant C such that ACB. When AB and BA, we write AB.

2. Some Lemmas

It is well known that H ⊂ BMOA ⊂ . From the definition of the norm, we know
()
Indeed, Girela proved that
()
in Corollary 5.2 of [5]. The following lemma is from Lemma 5 in [29] (see also Lemma 4.12 of [4]).

Lemma 1. If fH(𝔻), then

()

The following lemma may be known, but we fail to find its reference; so we give a proof for the completeness of the paper.

Lemma 2. Let fH(𝔻). Then,

()

Proof. Applying Littlewood-Paley identity

()
and Lemma 1, we have
()
It follows from the definitions of Bloch space and BMOA space that
()

By Theorem 6.2 of [5] and the proof of Theorem 1 of [30], we have the following lemma.

Lemma 3. Let n be a fixed positive integer and f with f(0) = f(0) = ··· = f(n−1)(0) = 0. If

()
then ∥fBMOA≲1.

Lemma 4. Suppose that n is a fixed positive integer. Let k+, 0 ≤ x ≤ 1, and

()
If kn, then there are two positive constants cn and Cn, depending only on n, such that
()

Proof. The proof is similar to that of Lemma 2.2 of [13] and is so omitted.

3. Boundedness of

In this section, we characterize the boundedness of from BMOA and the Bloch space to Bloch-type spaces.

Theorem 5. Let α > 0, ψH(𝔻), n+, and φ a holomorphic self-map of 𝔻. Then, the following statements are equivalent:

  • (a)

    is bounded.

  • (b)

    and are bounded.

  • (c)

    is bounded.

  • (d)

    and are bounded.

  • (e)

    is bounded.

  • (f)

    and are bounded.

  • (g)

    sup z𝔻((1−|z|2) α/(1−|φ(z)|2) n)|ψ(z)| <    and sup z𝔻((1−|z|2) α/(1−|φ(z)|2) n+1) | ψ(z)φ(z)| < .

  • (h)

    and .

Proof. It is obvious that (f)⇒(b), (f)⇒(d), (e)⇒(c), and (e)⇒(a). Thus, we will prove the theorem according to the following steps. (I): (a)⇒(g), (c)⇒(g). (II): (b)⇒(g), (d)⇒(g). (III): (g)⇒(e), (g)⇒(f). (IV): (f)⇔(h).

(I): (a)⇒(g), (c)⇒(g). Suppose that (a) or (c) holds. We choose the test function g1(z) = zn. By Lemma 2, we get

()
So
()
Taking g2(z) = zn+1 and using the fact that |φ(z)| < 1, we have
()
We now consider the function
()
It is easy to check that fλ0∩BMOA and . Moreover,
()
Thus, and
()
We obtain
()
Thus, for any r0 ∈ (0,1), we have
()
Using (21) yields
()
Combining (26) with (27), we get
()
We next consider the function
()
Similarly, we get gλ0∩BMOA and
()
Moreover,
()
So
()
and . We have, as above,
()

Thus, for any s0 ∈ (0,1),

()
Applying (20), we get
()
Combining (34) with (35) yields
()
(II): (b)⇒(g) and (d)⇒(g). Suppose that is bounded or is bounded. Set
()
If λ = , then for any positive integer N, we can find b𝔻 such that
()
If φ(b) = 0, then choose the test function g(z) = zn. It is clear that g0. From Lemma 2, we have
()

So

()
If φ(b) ≠ 0, consider the function
()
where a = φ(b). Let . Then, F(0) = F(0) = ··· = F(n−1)(0) = 0 and
()
It is easy to see that
()
So, by Theorems 5.4 and 5.13 of [4], we have F0 and ∥F≲1. By Lemma 1 of [31] and Lemma 3, we get ∥FBMOA≲1. We have
()
Since N is arbitrary, we get . This contradicts the boundedness of and that of .

Now, suppose that is bounded or is bounded. Set

()
If η = , then for any positive integer M, exists u𝔻 such that
()
If φ(u) = 0, then set g(z) = zn+1. The process as above gives
()
If φ(u) ≠ 0, consider the function
()
where a = φ(u). Let . Then, F(0) = F(0) = ··· = F(n)(0) = 0 and
()
Applying Theorems 5.4 and 5.13 of [4] again yields F0 and ∥F≲1. We get ∥FBMOA≲1 and
()
Since M is arbitrary, we have . This contradicts the boundedness of .

(III): (g)⇒(e), (g)⇒(f). Note that

()
The desired results follow.

(IV): (f)⇔(h). Suppose that (f) is true. It follows from Proposition 5.1 of [4] that . So,

()

Conversely, assume that (h) is true. It is easy to see that

()
If ∥φ < 1, then
()
Hence, (g) is true. From (g)⇒(f), we obtain that (f) is also true.

From now on, we assume that ∥φ = 1. For any integer kn, let

()
Let m with mn be the smallest positive integer such that . Since is not empty for every integer km and . By Lemma 4, for f,
()
So, is bounded. Similar argument implies
()
Thus, is bounded. Theorem 5 is proved.

4. Compactness of

The following criterion for the compactness is a useful tool and it follows from standard arguments, for example, Proposition 3.11 of [32] or Lemma 2.10 of [33].

Lemma 6. Let α > 0, n+, and X = 0, , or BMOA. Suppose that ψ and φ are in H(𝔻) such that φ(𝔻) ⊂ 𝔻. Then, is compact if and only if for any sequence {fm} in X with , which converges to zero locally uniformly on 𝔻; we have .

We now give the compactness of from BMOA and the Bloch space to Bloch-type spaces.

Theorem 7. Let α > 0, ψH(𝔻), n+, and φ a holomorphic self-map of 𝔻. Then, the following statements are equivalent:

  • (a)

    is compact.

  • (b)

    is compact and is compact.

  • (c)

    is compact.

  • (d)

    is compact and is compact.

  • (e)

    is compact.

  • (f)

    is compact and is compact.

  • (g)

    ψα, ,

    ()

  • (h)

    and .

Proof. The proof is a modification of that of Theorem 5; so we give a sketch of the proof. We will prove the theorem according to the following steps. (I): (a)⇒(g), (c)⇒(g). (II): (b)⇒(g), (d)⇒(g). (III): (g)⇒(e), (g)⇒(f). (IV): (f)⇔(h).

(I): (a)⇒(g), (c)⇒(g). Suppose that (a) or (c) holds. Then by Theorem 5, we have

()
That is, ψα, .

Let {zj} be a sequence in 𝔻 such that |φ(zj)| → 1 as j. Now, we consider the function

()
Simple computation shows that fj0∩BMOA and
()
It is also easy to check that fj → 0 uniformly on compact subsets of 𝔻 as j. Moreover,
()
We have
()
By Lemma 6, we get
()
We next consider the function
()
Similarly, we get gj0∩BMOA and
()
It is easy to see that gj converges to zero uniformly on compact subsets of 𝔻 as j and
()
Thus,
()
Applying Lemma 6 again, we have
()
Since zj𝔻 is arbitrary, we proved that (g) is true.

(II) (b)⇒(g), (d)⇒(g). Suppose that (b) or (d) holds. A similar argument to (I) shows that ψα, . Now, suppose that the equations in (g) are not true. Then, there exists a sequence {zj} in 𝔻 and δ > 0 such that |φ(zj)| → 1 as j and

()
Choose a subsequence of {zj} if necessary and suppose that inf j | φ(zj)| > 1/2. Let
()
Then, it is easy to check that fj0∩BMOA, fj → 0, uniformly on compact subsets of 𝔻 and
()
Thus,
()
Those contradict the compactness of and .

(III) (g)⇒(e), (g)⇒(f). Let {fm} be a norm bounded sequence in that converges to zero uniformly on compact subsets of 𝔻. Let . For ɛ > 0, then there exists r0 ∈ (0,1) such that for |φ(z)| > r0, we have

()
Thus, for z𝔻, we have
()
where K1 = sup z𝔻(1 − |z|2) α|ψ(z)| and K2 = sup z𝔻(1 − |z|2) α|ψ(z)φ(z)|. Since uniformly on compact subsets of 𝔻 as m, we have as m. It follows from Lemma 6 that is compact.

Similar as above, we know

()
From uniformly on compact subsets of 𝔻, we have and as m. So, , are compact.

(IV): (f)⇔(h). Suppose that (f) is true. Note that and zk → 0 uniformly on compact subsets of 𝔻 as k; by Lemma 6, we have

()
Conversely, assume that (h) is true. It is easy to see that
()
If ∥φ < 1, from (g)⇒(f), we get that (f) is true. If ∥φ = 1, as in the proof of Theorem 5, let
()
And let m with mn be the smallest positive integer such that . For given ɛ > 0, there exists a large enough integer M1 with M1 > m such that
()
whenever k > M1. Let {fj} be a norm bounded sequence in that converges to zero uniformly on compact subsets of 𝔻 as j. Denote . We get
()
Then,
()
where
()
()
Since uniformly on compact subsets of 𝔻, then as j. Thus, by Lemma 6, is compact. Similar as above, we can prove that is compact. The proof is complete.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by NNSF of China (Grant no. 11171203) and NSF of Guangdong Province (Grant nos. 10151503101000025 and S2011010004511).

      The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.