Tree Embeddings and Tree-Star Ramsey Numbers

Abstract: We say that a graph $F$ can be embedded into a graph $G$ if $G$ contains an isomorphic copy of $F$ as a subgraph. Guo and Volkmann \cite{GV} conjectured that if $G$ is a connected graph with at least $n$ vertices and minimum degree at least $n-3$, then any tree with $n$ vertices and maximum degree at most $n-4$ can be embedded into $G$. In this paper, we give a result slightly stronger than this conjecture and obtain a sufficient and necessary condition that a tree with $n$ vertices and maximum degree at most $n-3$ can be embedded into a connected graph G with at least $n$ vertices and minimum degree at least $n-3$. Our result implies that the conjecture of Guo and Volkmann is true with one exception. We also give an application to the Ramsey number of a tree versus a star.

\section{Introduction}

All graphs considered throughout the paper are simple graphs, i.e. without loops and multiple edges. Let $V(G)$ denote the vertex set of $G$ and let $E(G)$ denote the edge set of $G$. For $v\in V(G)$, let $N(v)=\{u\in V(G)|uv\in E(G)\}$, $N[v]=N(v)\cup\{v\}$, and $d(v)=|N(v)|$. For $S\subseteq V(G)$, denote $N(S)=\cup_{v\in S}N(v)$ and $N[S]=N(S)\cup S$. Let $\delta(G)=min\{d(v)| v\in V(G)\}$ and $\Delta(G)=max\{d(v)| v\in V(G)\}$. Let $K_n$ denote the complete graph on n vertices and $K_{1, m}$ denote the star with $m+1$ vertices. For graphs $G$ and $H$, the {\em Ramsey Number} $R(G, H)$ is the smallest integer $N$ such that any red-blue-coloring of $E(K_N)$ yields a red $G$ or a blue $H$. For graphs $F$ and $G$, we say that an injection $\phi: V(F)\rightarrow V(G)$ is an {\em embedding} of $F$ into $G$ if for any edge $xy$ in $F$, $\phi(x)\phi(y)$ is an edge in $G$. We say that  $F$ {\it can be embedded into} $G$ if there is an  embedding of $F$ into $G$.

Degree conditions for tree embedding have been  studied actively. A well-known conjecture of Erd\H{o}s-S\'os states that any tree with $n$ vertices can be embedded into a simple graph  with average degree exceeding $n-2$. In \cite{HRSW}, Havet, Reed, Stein and Wood studied the conditions on the maximum degree and the minimum degree of a graph to embed any tree with $n$ vertices, they proposed an interesting conjecture that any tree with $n$ vertices can be embedded into a simple graph with maximum degree more than $n+1$ and minimum degree at least $\lfloor {2(n+1) \over 3}\rfloor$. The Loebl-Koml\'os-S\'os conjecture \cite{EFLS95} states that  any tree with $n$ vertices can be embedded into a simple graph with median degree at least $n+1$. We study minimum degree conditions to embed trees, and it has natural applications on tree-star Ramsey numbers.

In \cite{parson}, Parson determined the path-star Ramsey numbers. A key ingredient in the proof is that $P_n$, a path with $n$ vertices, can be embedded into a graph with minimum degree $n-1$. This is generalized to the following well-known result (see  \cite{cockayne}).

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma}
If $G$ is a graph with minimum degree $n-1$, then any tree with $n$ vertices can be embedded into $G$.
\end{lemma}

This lemma implies the Ramsey result of Burr \cite{Burr}: $R(T_n, K_{1, m})\leq m+n-1$, where $T_n$ is a tree with $n$ vertices and $K_{1, m}$ is the star with $m+1$ vertices.
Applying Lemma \ref{lemma}, Cockayne \cite{cockayne} improved the upper bound of $R(T_n, K_{1, m})$ to $m+n-2$ for a special class of trees with $n$ vertices and some values of $m$ and $n$. Further, Guo and Volkmann  \cite{GV} generalized the result of  Cockayne to any tree with $n$ vertices. A key making the generalization possible is that Guo and Volkmann showed that any tree with $n$ vertices other than $K_{1, n-1}$ can be embedded into a connected graph with at least $n$ vertices and minimum degree $n-2$.
They remarked that there are connected graphs $G$ with at least $n$ vertices and minimum degree $n-3$, and trees with $n$ vertices and maximum degree  $n-3$ which cannot be embedded into  $G$. And they proposed the following conjecture.
\begin{conj}\label{gvcon}{\em (\cite{GV})}
If $G$ is a connected graph with at least $n$ vertices and minimum degree at least $n-3$, then any tree  with $n$ vertices and maximum degree at most $n-4$ can be embedded into $G$.
\end{conj}
We show a  result slightly stronger than this conjecture and  obtain a sufficient and necessary condition that trees with $n$ vertices and
maximum degree at most $n-3$ can be embedded into a graph $G$ with minimum degree at least $n-3$.

Let $p$ and $q$ be positive integers. Let $T(p, q)$ be a tree with a longest path $v_1v_2v_3v_4v_5$ satisfying that $d(v_3)=2$, and $v_2$ and $v_4$ have $p$ and $q$ leaves respectively (see Figure \ref{thm}).
\begin{figure}[ht]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[height=4.5cm]{thm.pdf}
    \caption{$T(p, q)$}\label{thm}
\end{figure}
The following is the main result in this paper.
\begin{theo}\label{theo1}
Let $G$ be a connected graph with at least $n$ vertices and minimum degree at least $ n-3$. Let $T_n$ be a tree with $n$ vertices and $\Delta(T_n)\leq n-3$. Then $T_n$ can be embedded into $G$ if and only if the following situations do not happen.\\
(i) $G=K_{n-3, n-3}$ and $T_n=T(p, n-3-p)$, where $p\geq 1$.\\
(ii) $G$ is a balanced complete $(k+1)$-partite graph with $a$ vertices in each part and $ka=n-3$, and $T_n=T(1, n-4)$, where $k\ge 2$ is a positive integer.
\end{theo}
This result implies that Conjecture \ref{gvcon} holds except in situation (i) in Theorem \ref{theo1}.
A non-negative integer $N$ is called a linear combination of two positive integers $p$ and $q$ if there exist non-negative integers $k$ and $l$ such that $N=kp+lq$.
 Applying Theorem \ref{theo1}, we are going to prove the following tree-star Ramsey numbers in Section \ref{sec4}.
\begin{theo}\label{cor1} Let $T_n$ be a tree with $n$ vertices, $\Delta(T_n)\leq n-3$, and $T_n\not= T(p, n-3-p)$. If $m+n-3$ is not a linear combination of $n-1$ and $n-2$, then $R(T_n, K_{1, m})\leq m+n-3$.
\end{theo}

\begin{theo}\label{cor2}
Let $T_n$ be a tree with $n$ vertices and $\Delta(T_n)\leq n-3$. Let $m=k(n-1)+3$ and $0\leq k \leq n-5$.\\% $R(T_n, K_{1, m})\leq m+n-3$ if the following conditions are satisfied \\
(i) If $T_n\not=T(p, n-3-p)$, then $R(T_n, K_{1, m})=m+n-3$.\\
(ii) If $m+n-3$ is not a linear combination of $n-1$, $n-2$, $n-3+a_1$, ..., $n-3+a_d$, where $a_1, a_2, ..., a_d$ are positive divisors of $n-3$ no less than $3$, then $R(T(1, n-4), K_{1, m})=m+n-3$. Otherwise $R(T(1, n-4), K_{1, m})=m+n-2$.\\
(iii) Let $p\geq 2$. If $m+n-3$ is not a linear combination of $2n-6$, $n-1$ and $n-2$, then $R(T(p, n-3-p), K_{1, m})=m+n-3$. Otherwise $R(T(p, n-3-p), K_{1, m})=m+n-2$.
\end{theo}

 The conjecture of Erd\H{o}s-S\'os states that  any tree with $n$ vertices  can be embedded into a graph  with average degree exceeding $n-2$. It is easy to show that a connected graph  with average degree greater than $n-2$ contains a connected subgraph with minimum degree greater than $\frac{1}{2}(n-2)$. So if one can characterize  what kind of trees with $n$ vertices can be embedded into a connected graph $G$ with at least $n$ vertices and $\delta(G)\geq \frac{1}{2}(n-1)$, then these trees will satisfy the conjecture.   In general, it is interesting to study what kind of $T_n$ can be embedded into a connected graph $G$ with at least $n$ vertices and $\delta(G)\geq t$.

In Section \ref{sec2}, we give some crucial lemmas in the proof of Theorem \ref{theo1}. The proof of Theorem \ref{theo1} will be given in Section \ref{sec3}. In Section \ref{sec4}, we prove Theorems \ref{cor1} to \ref{cor2}.

\section{Preparations}\label{sec2}
\begin{defi}
A labelling $\{v_1, v_2, ..., v_n\}$ of vertices of a tree with $n$ vertices is called a conventional labelling if for each $j\in [2, n]$, $|N(v_j)\cap\{v_1, ..., v_{j-1}\}|=1$. To simplify the notation, we always denote the unique vertex in $N(v_j)\cap\{v_1, ..., v_{j-1}\}$ by $v_{j'}$ for a conventional labelling.
\end{defi}

Note that a tree $T$ always has a conventional labelling. We may take any vertex in $V(T)$ as $v_1$ and order the other vertices as $v_2, ..., v_n$ in increasing order of the distances to $v_1$.

For given graphs $F$ and $G$, we say that {\em  a subset $U\subseteq V(F)$ has been embedded into $G$} (or $\phi$ is an {\em  embedding of $U$ to G}) if an embedding $\phi$ of $F[U]$ into $G$ has been established. If $U\subseteq V(F)$ has been embedded to $G$ via an embedding $\phi$, we say that $\phi$ can be extended to a vertex $v\in V(F)\setminus U$ if there exists $v'\in V(G)$ such that the extension function $\hat\phi: U\cup\{v\}\rightarrow V(G)$ defined by $\hat\phi(u)=\phi(u)$ for $u\in U$ and $\hat\phi(v)=v'$ is an embedding of $F[U\cup\{v\}]$ into $G$.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma23}
Let $G$ be a connected graph with at least $n$ vertices. Let $\{v_1, v_2, ..., v_n\}$ be a conventional labelling of $T_n$. Let $j\in \{2, ..., n\}$. Let $\phi$ be an embedding of $\{v_1, ..., v_{j-1}\}$ into $G$.\\
(i) If
\begin{equation}
|N(\phi(v_{j'}))\setminus\{\phi(v_1), ..., \phi(v_{j-1})\}|\geq 1, \label{1}
\end{equation}
then $\phi$ can be extended to $v_j$.\\
(ii) If $\delta(G)\geq n-1$, then $\phi$ can be extended to $v_j$.\\
(iii) Let $\delta(G)\geq n-2$. If $2\leq j\leq n-1$, then $\phi$ can be extended to $v_j$. If $j=n$ and there exists $k\in \{1, 2, ..., n-1\}\setminus\{n'\}$ such that $\phi(v_k)\notin N(\phi(v_{n'}))$, then $\phi$ can be extended to $v_j$.\\
(iv) Let $\delta(G)\geq n-3$. If $2\leq j\leq n-2$, then $\phi$ can be extended to $v_j$. If $j=n-1$ and $|\{\phi(v_1), ..., \phi(v_{n-2})\}\setminus N(\phi(v_{(n-1)'}))|\geq 2$, then $\phi$ can be extended to $v_j$. If $j=n$ and $|\{\phi(v_1), ..., \phi(v_{n-1})\}\setminus N(\phi(v_{n'}))|\geq 3$, then $\phi$ can be extended to $v_j$.
\end{lemma}
{\em Proof of Lemma \ref{lemma23}.} The condition in (i) guarantees that there is a free vertex in $N(\phi(v_{j'}))$ to embed $v_j$, therefore $v_j$ can be embedded to a vertex in $N(\phi(v_{j'}))$, and this proves (i).  (ii), (iii) and (iv) are direct implications of (i).
\hspace*{\fill}$\Box$\medskip

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma3}(\cite{Dirac})
Let $G$ be a connected graph with minimum degree $\delta(G)$. Then $G$ contains a path of length $min\{n, 2\delta(G)+1\}$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma25}
Let $G$ be a connected graph with minimum degree $\delta$. Let $S_0\subseteq V(G)$ and let $S_1$ be a proper subset of $S_0$ such that $N(S_1)\subseteq S_0$. If there exists $\alpha\in S_0$ such that $N(\alpha)\not\subset S_0$, then there exists a path of length at least $|S_1|+\delta-|S_0|+1$ starting from a neighbor $\alpha$ outside $S_0$.
\end{lemma}
{\em Proof of Lemma \ref{lemma25}.} Let $\alpha_1\in N(\alpha)\setminus S_0$. Let $\alpha_1\alpha_2...\alpha_g$ be a maximum path outside $S_0$. Since $N(S_1)\subseteq S_0$, $N(\alpha_g)\subseteq S_0\cup\{\alpha_1, \alpha_2, ..., \alpha_{g-1}\}\setminus S_1$. Since $|N(a_g)|\geq \delta$, $|S_0|+g-1-|S_1|\geq \delta$. So $g\geq |S_1|+\delta-|S_0|+1$.
\hspace*{\fill}$\Box$\medskip

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma26}
Let $G$ be a non-complete and connected graph, then there exist $\alpha, \beta, \gamma\in V(G)$ such that $\alpha\beta, \alpha\gamma\in E(G)$ and $\beta\gamma\notin E(G)$.
\end{lemma}
{\em Proof of Lemma \ref{lemma26}.} Take a shortest path between two non-adjacent vertices, then three consecutive vertices in this path satisfy the condition.
\hspace*{\fill}$\Box$\medskip

\section{Embedding trees}\label{sec3}
We give the proof of Theorem \ref{theo1} below.

{\em Proof of Theorem \ref{theo1}.} Let $T_n$ be a tree with $n$ vertices. Let $P$ be a longest path of $T_n$. Let $|P|$ be the number of vertices of path $P$ and $i=|P|-2$. Since $|P|=3$ implies that $T_n=K_{1,n-1}$, it contradicts $\Delta(T_n)\leq n-3$. So $|P|\geq 4.$ For $|P|\ge 5$, we label the two end vertices as $v_{n-1}$ and $v_n$, all other vertices in $P$ as $v_1, v_2, ..., v_i$ such that $P=v_{n-1}v_1v_2...v_iv_n$, i.e. $v_{n-1}$ is connected to $v_1$, $v_1$ is connected to $v_2$,  $\cdots$, $v_{i-1}$ is connected to $v_i$, and $v_i$ is connected to $v_n$. We order the vertices outside $P$ as $\{v_{i+1}, ..., v_{n-2}\}$ in non-decreasing order of the distances to $P$. For example, $v_{i+1}$ is connected to a vertex in $P$. Note that $\{v_1, v_2, ..., v_{n-1}, v_n\}$ is a conventional labelling. We will show that there is no embedding $\phi: V(T_n)\rightarrow V(G)$ if and only if situation (i) or (ii) in Theorem \ref{theo1} happens.

By Lemma \ref{lemma}, we can easily embed $\{v_1, ..., v_{n-2}\}$ into $G$. So what we need to work on is to embed $v_1$ and $v_i$ properly  so that there is a free vertex for us to embed $v_{n-1}$ in the neighborhood of the vertex  $v_1$ embedded to, and there is a free vertex for us to embed $v_{n}$ in the neighborhood of the vertex  $v_i$ embedded to.

By Lemma \ref{lemma26}, there exist $u_1$, $u_2$ and $u_3$ in $G$ satisfying that $u_2\in N(u_1)$ and $u_3\in N(u_2)\setminus N(u_1)$. Let $\phi(v_j)=u_j$ for $j\in [3]$. By Lemma \ref{lemma23} (iv), $\phi$ can be extended to $\{v_4, ..., v_{i-1}\}$. Denote $\phi(v_j)=u_j$ for $j\in [i-1]$. Denote $K_i=\{\phi(v_1), ..., \phi(v_{i-1})\}$.

{\em Case 1.} $|P|\geq 6$.

{\em Case 1.1.}  There exists a vertex, denoted by $u_i$, in $N(u_{i-1})\setminus K_i$ such that $|K_i\setminus N(u_i)|\ge 2$.

In this case, let $\phi(v_i)=u_i$. Since $\delta(G)\geq n-3$, $u_1, u_3\notin N(u_1)$, by Lemma \ref{lemma23} (iv), $\phi$ can be extended to $\{v_1, ..., v_{n-1}\}$. Further  $|K_i\setminus N(u_i)|\ge 2$ implies that $|\{\phi(v_1), ..., \phi(v_{n-1})\}\setminus N(u_i)|\geq 3$, by Lemma \ref{lemma23} (iv), there exists an embedding from $T_n$ into $G$.

{\em Case 1.2.}  There exists a vertex, denoted by $u_i$, in $N(u_{i-1})\setminus K_i$ such that $|K_i\setminus N(u_i)|=1$, and $|K_i\setminus N(u)|\le1$ for any $u\in N(u_{i-1})\setminus K_i$.

Note that $|K_i\setminus N(u_i)|=1$ implies that there exists a vertex $u_x$ in $K_i$ such that $u_xu_i\notin E(G)$.

If $d(u_i)\geq n-2$, let $\phi(v_i)=u_i$. Since $u_3\notin N(u_1)$, by Lemma \ref{lemma23} (iv), $\phi$ can be extended to $\{v_{i+1}, ..., v_{n-1}\}$. Since $u_x, u_i\notin N(u_i)$, $|N(u_i)\setminus\{\phi(v_1), ..., \phi(v_{n-1})\}|\geq 1$ and there is at least one free vertex in $N(u_i)$ to embed $v_n$. So it is sufficient to consider $d(u_i)=n-3$. Let $K=K_i\cup N[u_i]$, then $|K|=n-1$.

\begin{claim}\label{claim0}
$N(u_1)\subseteq K$ if $T_n$ cannot be embedded into G.
\end{claim}
{\em Proof of Claim \ref{claim0}.} Suppose that there exists a vertex denoted by  $u_{n-1}$ in $N(u_1)\setminus K$. Since $u_3\notin N(u_1)$, by Lemma \ref{lemma23} (iv), $\phi$ can be extended to $\{v_1, ..., v_{n-1}\}$. Furthermore, we can guarantee that some vertex $v_a\in T_n\setminus\{v_n\}$ is embedded to $u_{n-1}$, where $a\in [i+1, n-1]$ (This is always possible since we can always embed $v_{n-1}$ to $u_{n-1}$ if $u_{n-1}$ is not previously used). Now $u_x, u_i, u_{n-1}\notin N(u_i)$, then there exists a free vertex in $N(u_i)\setminus\{\phi(v_1), ..., \phi(v_{n-2}), \phi(v_{n-1})\}$ to embed $v_n$ and $T_n$ can be embedded into $G$.
\hspace*{\fill}$\Box$\medskip

\begin{claim}\label{claim1}
$N(u_2)\subseteq K$ if $T_n$ cannot be embedded into G.
\end{claim}
{\em Proof of Claim \ref{claim1}.} If there exists a vertex $u_1'\in N(u_2)\setminus K$, then reassign $\phi(v_1)=u_1'$ and let $\phi(v_i)=u_i$. By the choice of $u_1'$, we know that $u_i\notin N(\phi(v_1))$. By Lemma \ref{lemma23} (iv), $\phi$ can be extended to $\{v_1, ..., v_{n-1}\}$. Recall that there exists a vertex $u_x\in K_i$ such that $u_xu_i\notin E(G)$. We claim that $u_x\not=u_1$. Since $d(u_1)\geq n-3$, $u_1, u_3\notin N(u_1)$, $N(u_1)\subseteq K$ and $|K|=n-1$, $u_1u_i\in E(G)$. Since $u_x, u_1'\notin N(u_i)$, there is at least one free vertex in $N(u_i)\setminus\{\phi(v_1), ..., \phi(v_{n-1})\}$ to embed $v_n$. A contradiction.
\hspace*{\fill}$\Box$\medskip

\begin{claim}\label{claim2}
$N(u_t)\subseteq K$ for $1\leq t\leq i-1$ if $T_n$ cannot be embedded into G.
\end{claim}
{\em Proof of Claim \ref{claim2}.} Use induction on t. For $t=1$ or 2, it is guaranteed by Claim \ref{claim1}. Let $3\leq t\leq i-1.$ We assume that $N(u_s)\subseteq K$ for $1\leq s\leq t-1$. If $N(u_t)\not\subset K$, then there exists a vertex $u_{t-1}'\in N(u_t)\setminus K$. By Lemma \ref{lemma25}, there exists a path $u_{t-1}'u_{t-2}'...u_1'$ outside K. Reassign $\phi(v_{\alpha})=u_{\alpha}'$ for $1\leq\alpha\leq t-1$ and let $\phi(v_i)=u_i$. Since $u_{\alpha}'\notin N(u_i)$ for $1\leq\alpha\leq t-1$ and $t\geq 3$, by Lemma \ref{lemma23} (iv), $\phi$ can be extended to $\{v_{i+1}, ..., v_n\}$.
\hspace*{\fill}$\Box$\medskip

\begin{claim}\label{claim3}
$N(K)\subseteq K$ if $T_n$ cannot be embedded into G.
\end{claim}
{\em Proof of Claim \ref{claim3}.} If there exists a vertex $u_{i-1}'\in N(u_i)\setminus K_i$ such that there exists a vertex $u_{i-2}'\in N(u_{i-1}')\setminus K$, by Lemma \ref{lemma25}, there exists a path $u_{i-2}'u_{i-3}'...u_1'$ outside K. Reassign $\phi(v_{\alpha})=u_{\alpha}'$ for $1\leq\alpha\leq i-1$ and let $\phi(v_i)=u_i$. Since $i\geq 4$ guarantees that $u_1', u_2'\notin N(u_i)$, by Lemma \ref{lemma23} (iv), $\phi$ can be extended to $\{v_{i+1}, ..., v_n\}$.
\hspace*{\fill}$\Box$\medskip

By Claim \ref{claim3}, if $T_n$ cannot be embedded into $G$, then $K$ is a component with $n-1$ vertices, contradicting that $G$ is a connected graph with at least $n$ vertices. So $T_n$ can be embedded into $G$ in this case.

{\em Case 1.3.}  For each vertex $u$ in $N(u_{i-1})\setminus K_i$, $|K_i\setminus N(u)|=0$.

Take a vertex, denote by $u_i$, in $N(u_{i-1})\setminus K_i$, and let $\phi(v_i)=u_i$.

If $d(u_i)\geq n-1$, since $u_1, u_3\notin N(u_1)$, by Lemma \ref{lemma23} (iv), $\phi$ can be extended to an embedding on $\{v_1, ..., v_{n-1}\}$. Since $d(u_i)\geq n-1$ and $\phi(v_i)=u_i\notin N(u_i)$, there is at least one free vertex in $N(u_i)\setminus\{\phi(v_1), ..., \phi(v_{n-1})\}$ to embed $v_n$.

If $d(u_i)=n-2$, then $|N[u_i]|=n-1$. We claim that $\cup_{u\in N[u_i]}N[u]=N[u_i]$ if $T_n$ cannot be embedded into $G$. If there exists a vertex, denote by $u_{n-1}$, in $N(u_1)\setminus N[u_i]$, let $\phi(v_i)=u_i$ and extend $\phi$ to an embedding on $\{v_1, ..., v_{n-1}\}$ such that we embed some $v_a\in \{v_{i+1}, ..., v_{n-1}\}$ to $u_{n-1}$ (This is always possible since we can always embed $v_{n-1}$ to $u_{n-1}$ if $u_{n-1}$ is not previously used). Now $u_i, u_{n-1}\notin N(u_i)$, therefore there exists one free vertex in $N(u_i)$ to embedded $v_n$ and $T_n$ can be embedded into $G$. So we have shown that $N[u_1]\subseteq N[u_i]$. Assume that $\cup_{i=1}^t N[u_i]\subseteq N[u_i]$ for $1\leq t\leq i-1$, we show that $N[u_{t+1}]\subseteq N[u_i]$.
If there exists a vertex $u_t'\in N[u_{t+1}]\setminus N[u_i]$, by Lemma \ref{lemma25}, there exists a path $u_t'u_{t-1}'...u_1'$ outside $N[u_i]$. Reassign $\phi(v_\alpha)=u_{\alpha}'$ for $1\leq\alpha\leq t$. Since $u_i\notin N(\phi(v_1))$, by Lemma \ref{lemma23} (iv), $\phi$ can be extended to an embedding on $\{v_1, ..., v_{n-1}\}$. Since $d(u_i)=n-2$ and $\phi(v_i)=u_i$, $\phi(v_a)\notin N(u_i)$ for $1\leq a\leq t$, there is at least one free vertex in $N(u_i)\setminus\{\phi(v_1), ..., \phi(v_{n-1})\}$ to embed $v_n$. Therefore we have shown that $N[K_i]\subseteq N[u_i]$.
If there exist vertices $u', u''$ such that $u'\in N(u_i)\setminus K_i$ and $u''\in N[u']\setminus N[u_i]$, since $d(u_3)\geq n-3$, $|N[u_i]|=n-1$ and $u_1, u_3\notin N(u_3)$ and $N(u_3)\subseteq N[u_i]$, $u_3u'\in E(G)$. Reassign $\phi(v_2)=u'$ and $\phi(v_1)=u''$. Since $u_i\notin N(\phi(v_1))$, by Lemma \ref{lemma23} (iv), $\phi$ can be extended to $\{v_1, v_2, ..., v_{n-1}\}$. Since $u''u_i\notin E(G)$ and $d(u_i)=n-2$, there exists a free vertex in $N(u_i)\setminus\{\phi(v_1), ..., \phi(v_{n-1})\}$ to embed $v_n$ and $T_n$ can be embedded into $G$. So we have shown that $\cup_{u\in N[u_i]}N[u]=N[u_i]$ if $T_n$ cannot be embedded into $G$. Therefore $N[u_i]$ is a component of $n-1$ vertices, contradicting that $G$ is a connected graph with at least $n$ vertices.

Now we discuss $d(u_i)=n-3$. Since $u_1u_3\notin E(G)$ and $d(u_3)\geq n-3$, there exists a vertex, denoted by $u_2'$, in $N(u_3)\setminus N[u_i]$. If there exists a vertex $u_1'\in N(u_2')\setminus N[u_i]$, then reassign $\phi(v_2)=u_2'$ and $\phi(v_1)=u_1'$. Since $\phi(v_1), \phi(v_2)\notin N(\phi(v_i))$, by Lemma \ref{lemma23} (iv), $\phi$ can be extended to $\{v_1, ..., v_n\}$ and $T_n$ can be embedded into $G$. So $N(u_2')\subseteq N[u_i]$. Since $u_2'u_i\notin E(G)$ and $d(u_2')\geq n-3$, $N(u_2')=N(u_i)$. Since $u_2'u_1, u_2'u_3\in E(G)$, we can reassign $\phi(v_2)=u_2'$. Now $u_i$ has a non-neighbor in $K_i$. Note that $u_3\notin N(\phi(v_1))$ still holds. This situation is exactly {\em Case 1.2} we have proved.

{\em Case 2.} $|P|=5$.

\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\linewidth}
\includegraphics[height=4.5cm]{02.pdf}
\caption{Case $d_{T_n}(v_2)\ge 3$}
\label{fig2}
\end{minipage}
\quad
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\linewidth}
\includegraphics[height=4.5cm]{03.pdf}
\caption{Case $d_{T_n}(v_2)=2$}
\label{fig3}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
In this case, $P=v_{n-1}v_1v_2v_3v_n$. If $d_{T_n}(v_2)\geq 3$, then there exists a vertex $v_4$ connected to $v_2$ (see Figure \ref{fig2}). If $d_{T_n}(v_2)=2$, then $N_{T_n}(v_2)=\{v_1, v_3\}$. If $T_n=P$, since $|V(G)|\geq5$ and $\delta(G)\geq 2$, by Lemma \ref{lemma3}, $P=T_n$ can be embedded in $G$. So if $d_{T_n}(v_2)=2$, we may assume that $d_{T_n}(v_1)\geq 3$ or $d_{T_n}(v_3)\geq 3$ (see Figure \ref{fig3}).

Let $u_3'$ be a vertex with maximum degree in $V(G)$. If $d(u_3')\geq n-2$, if there exists a vertex $u_2'\in N(u_3')$ such that there exists a vertex $u_1'\in N(u_2')\setminus N[u_3']$, then let $\phi(v_1)=u_1'$, $\phi(v_2)=u_2'$ and $\phi(v_3)=u_3'$. Since $u_1', u_3'\notin N(u_1')$ and $\delta(G)\geq n-3$ and $d(u_3')\geq n-2$, by Lemma \ref{lemma23} (iv), $\phi$ can be extended to $\{v_4, ..., v_n\}$. If there is no such vertex $u_2'$ in $N(u_3')$, then $N[u_3']$ is a component, so $d(u_3')\geq n-1$. If there exists a vertex $u_1'\in N(u_3')$ such that $d(u_1')\geq n-2$, let $\phi(v_1)=u_1'$ and $\phi(v_3)=u_3'$ and $\phi(v_2)\in N(u_1')$, then by Lemma \ref{lemma23} (iv), $\phi$ can be extended to $\{v_4, ..., v_n\}$. So we may assume that $d(u_x)=n-3$ for all $u_x\in N(u_3')$. Since $|N[u_3']|\geq n$, for any vertex $u_3''\in N(u_3')$, we can find vertices $u_1'', u_4''\in N(u_3')\setminus N[u_3'']$. Let $\phi(v_1)=u_1''$ and $\phi(v_2)=u_3'$ and $\phi(v_3)=u_3''$ and $\phi(v_4)=u_4''$. Since $\phi(v_1), \phi(v_3)\notin N(\phi(v_1))$, $d(\phi(v_1))\geq n-3$ and $\phi(v_1), \phi(v_3), \phi(v_4)\notin N(\phi(v_3))$, by Lemma \ref{lemma23} (iv), $\phi$ can be extended to $\{v_4, ..., v_n\}$ and $T_n$ can be embedded into $G$. Therefore, it is sufficient to consider that $G$ is an ($n-3$)-regular connected graph.

{\em Case 2.1.} $G$ is an ($n-3$)-regular connected graph with at least $n$ vertices and $d_{T_n}(v_2)\geq 3$ (see Figure \ref{fig2}).

\begin{claim}\label{f2}
Let $G$ be  ($n-3$)-regular and $d_{T_n}(v_2)\geq 3$ (see Figure \ref{fig2}). If there exist vertices $u_x, u_y, u_a, u_b\in V(G)$ such that $u_xu_y\in E(G)$ and $u_a, u_b\in N(u_y)\setminus N[u_x]$ (see Figure \ref{f21}), then $T_n$ can be embedded into G.
\end{claim}
{\em Proof.} Let $\phi(v_1)=u_a$, $\phi(v_2)=u_y$, $\phi(v_3)=u_x$ and $\phi(v_4)=u_b$. Since $G$ is ($n-3$)-regular, $\phi(v_1), \phi(v_2)\notin N(\phi(v_1))$, and $\phi(v_1), \phi(v_4), \phi(v_3)\notin N(\phi(v_3))$, by Lemma \ref{lemma23} (iv), $\phi$ can be extended to $\{v_5, ..., v_n\}$.
\hspace*{\fill}$\Box$\medskip
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\linewidth}
\includegraphics[height=4.5cm]{claim.pdf}
\caption{Figure for Claim \ref{f2}}
\label{f21}
\end{minipage}
\quad
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\linewidth}
\includegraphics[height=4.5cm]{a.pdf}
\caption{Figure for Case 2.1}
\label{f1}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}

Take a vertex $u_3'\in V(G)$. Since $|N[u_3']|=n-2$, $N[u_3']$ is not a component. So there exists vertices $u_1', u_2'$ such that $u_2'\in N(u_3')$ and $u_1'\in N(u_2')\setminus N[u_3']$ (see Figure \ref{f1}). By Claim \ref{f2}, $N[u_2']\subseteq N[u_3']\cup\{u_1'\}$. If $u_1'$ has two neighbors outside $N[u_3']$, then these two neighbors are outside $N[u_2']$. By Claim \ref{f2}, $T_n$ can be embedded into $G$. If $N(u_1')\subseteq N[u_3']$, then $N(u_1')=N(u_3')$. If $T_n$ cannot be embedded into $G$, Claim \ref{f2} implies that $\cup_{u\in N[u_3']}N(u)\cup N(u_1')=N[u_3']\cup\{u_1'\}$. Otherwise there exists a vertex $u\in N(u_3')$ such that $u$ has a neighbor $w$ outside $N[u_3']\cup\{u_1'\}$, then $u$ has two neighbors $w$ and $u_1'$ outside $N[u_3']$, contradicting Claim \ref{f2}. Thus $N[u_3']\cup\{u_1'\}$ is a component on $n-1$ vertices, contradicting that $G$ is a connected graph with at least $n$ vertices. Therefore, there exists exactly one vertex $u_a\in N(u_1')\setminus N[u_3']$. By Claim \ref{f2}, $N(u_1')$ and $N(u_a)$ differ by at most one vertex. So $N(u_1')\subseteq N(u_3')\cup\{u_a\}$. If there exists a vertex $u\in N(u_3')\cap N(u_1')$ connected to $u_a$, then both $u_a$ and $u_1'$ are in $N(u)\setminus N(u_3')$, contradicting Claim \ref{f2}. So $N(u_1')$ and $N(u_a)$ have no common neighbor in $N[u_3']$, contradicting Claim \ref{f2} again. So $T_n$ can be embedded into $G$.

{\em Case 2.2.} $G$ is  ($n-3$)-regular and $d_{T_n}(v_2)=2$ (see Figure \ref{fig3}), i.e. $T_n=T(p, n-3-p)$ for some $p$.

\begin{claim}\label{f3}
Let G be an (n-3)-regular connected graph on at least $n$ vertices. If there exists $u_1', u_2', u_3'\in V(G)$ such that $u_1'u_2', u_2'u_3'\in E(G)$ and $u_1'u_3'\notin E(G)$. Then $T_n$ can be embedded into G or $N(u_1')=N(u_3')$.
\end{claim}
{\em Proof.} Suppose that $N(u_1')\not=N(u_3')$. Since $G$ is regular, there exists a vertex $u_4\in N(u_1')\setminus N[u_3']$. Let $\phi(v_1)=u_1'$, $\phi(v_2)=u_2'$, $\phi(v_3)=u_3'$ and $\phi(v_4)=u_4$. Since $u_1'u_3'\notin E(G)$, and $u_1', u_3', u_4\notin N(u_3')$, by Lemma \ref{lemma23} (iv), $\phi$ can be extended to an embedding of $T_n$.
\hspace*{\fill}$\Box$\medskip

Assume that $T_n$ cannot be embedded into $G$. Let $A_1$ be a maximal set in $G$ satisfying that it is an independent set and its any two vertices have a common neighbor. By Claim \ref{f3}, all vertices in $A_1$ have the same set of neighbors, say $B$. Then $|B|=n-3$. We claim that $V(G)=A_1\cup B$. Otherwise, there exists a vertex $u_x\in V(G)\setminus (A_1\cup B)$ such that $u_x$ is connected to a vertex in $B$ and none of the vertices in $A_1$ is adjacent to $u_x$. By Claim \ref{f3}, $N(u_x)=B$. This contradicts the maximality of $A_1$. Since it holds for all such maximal sets, we can divide $B$ into $k$ sets $B_1, B_2, ..., B_k$ such that $B_j$ is such a maximal set for each $j\in [k]$. Since $G$ is regular, $|A_1|=|B_1|=...=|B_k|=a$, $n-3=ak$ and $|V(G)|=n-3+a$ (See Figure \ref{case2.3}). Since $|V(G)|\geq n$, $a\geq 3$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[height=4.5cm]{case3.pdf}
    \caption{$K_{a, a, \dots, a}$}\label{case2.3}
\end{figure}

If $k=1$, since $G$ is ($n-3$)-regular, $G=K_{n-3, n-3}$, and in this case, $T(p, n-3-p)$ cannot be embedded into $K_{n-3, n-3}$. This is because that $T(p, n-3-p)$ is a bipartite graph with 2 and $n-2$ vertices in each of the two parts. This is situation (i) in Theorem \ref{theo1}.

If $k\geq 2$, then let $\phi(v_1)\in B_1$, $\phi(v_2)\in B_2$ and $\phi(v_3)\in A_1$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\linewidth}
\includegraphics[height=4.5cm]{31.pdf}
\caption{$T(p, n-3-p) (2\le p\le n-5)$}
\label{f8}
\end{minipage}
\quad
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\linewidth}
\includegraphics[height=4.5cm]{32.pdf}
\caption{$T(1, n-4)$}
\label{f9}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}

If $d(v_1)\geq 3$ and $d(v_3)\geq 3$ (see Figure \ref{f8}), let $\phi(v_k), \phi(v_j)\in A_1$ and $\phi(v_s), \phi(v_t)\in B_1$, then the other leaves can be embedded in $A\cup B$ since $G$ is a balanced complete $(k+1)$-partite graph, and $T_n$ can be embedded into $G$. Now consider $d(v_1)=2$ or $d(v_3)=2$, i.e. $T_n=T(1, n-4)$. We claim that $T(1, n-4)$ cannot be embedded into $G$. Without loss of generality, assume that $d(v_1)=2$ (see Figure \ref{f9}). Suppose that $T(1, n-4)$ can be embedded into $G$ and $v_3$ is embedded into $A_1$ (without loss of generality). Then all $n-3$ vertices connected to $v_3$ should be embedded outside $A_1$. Since $|V(G)\setminus A_1|=n-3$, $\phi(v_1)$ must be in $A_1$. Since all vertices of $T(1, n-4)\setminus\{v_1, v_3\}$ are connected to $v_1$ or $v_3$, then every vertex in $T(1, n-4)\setminus\{v_1, v_3\}$ must be embedded outside $A_1$, i.e. there are $n-2$ vertices should be embedded outside $A_1$, but $|V(G)\setminus A_1|=n-3$. This is impossible. So in this case $T(1, n-4)$ cannot be embedded into $G$. This is situation (ii) in Theorem \ref{theo1}.

{\em Case 3.} $|P|=4$.

In this case we label the vertices of $T_n$ as in Figure \ref{fig1}. Note that $\{v_1, v_2, ..., v_n\}$ is a conventional labelling. Since $d(v_1)+d(v_2)=n$ and $\Delta(T_n)\leq n-3$, $d(v_1), d(v_2)\geq 3$.

\begin{figure}[ht]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[height=4.5cm]{01}
    \caption{$T_n$ has n-2 leaves}\label{fig1}
\end{figure}

{\em Case 3.1.} $\Delta(G)\geq n-1$.

Let $u, v\in V(G)$ such that $d(u)=\Delta(G)$ and $uv\in E(G)$. Embed $\phi(v_2)=u$ and $\phi(v_1)=v$. By Lemma \ref{lemma23} (iv), $\phi$ can be extended to $\{v_1, ..., v_{n-2}\}$. Recall that $v_{n-1}$ and $v_n$ have the same parent (see Figure \ref{fig1}). Since $d(u)\geq n-1$, there are two free vertices in $N(u)\setminus\{\phi(v_1), ..., \phi(v_{n-2})\}$ to embed $v_{n-1}$ and $v_n$. So $T_n$ can be embedded in $G$.

{\em Case 3.2.} $\Delta(G)=n-2$.

Let $\phi(v_2)=u_2'$ such that $d(u_2')=n-2$. We claim that there exists a vertex $u_1'\in N(u_2')$ such that there exists a vertex $u_3'\in N(u_1')\setminus N[u_2']$. Otherwise $\cup_{u\in N[u_2']}=N[u_2']$. So $N[u_2']$ is a component with $n-1$ vertices, contradicting that $G$ is a connected graph on at least $n$ vertices. Let $\phi(v_1)=u_1'$ and $\phi(v_3)=u_3'$. By Lemma \ref{lemma23} (iv), $\phi$ can be extended to $\{v_1, ..., v_{n-2}\}$. Since $d(u_2')=n-2$ and $u_3'\notin N(u_2')$, there are two free vertices in $N(u_2')\setminus\{\phi(v_1), ..., \phi(v_{n-2})\}$ to embed $v_{n-1}$ and $v_n$. So $T_n$ can be embedded into $G$.

{\em Case 3.3.} $G$ is $(n-3)$-regular.

\begin{claim} \label{case2}
If there exists a vertex $u_2'\in V(G)$ such that there exists a vertex $u_1'\in N(u_2')$ with two neighbors $u_x, u_y\in N(u_1')\setminus N[u_2']$, then $T_n$ can be embedded into $G$.
\end{claim}
{\em Proof.} Let $\phi(v_1)=u_1'$, $\phi(v_2)=u_2'$, $\phi(v_3)=u_x$ and $\phi(v_4)=u_y$. By Lemma \ref{lemma23} (iv), $\phi$ can be extended to $\{v_1, ..., v_{n-2}\}$. Since $u_2', u_x, u_y\notin N(u_2')$ and $d(u_2')=n-3$, there are two free vertices in $N(u_2')\setminus\{\phi(v_1), ..., \phi(v_{n-2})\}$ to embed $v_{n-1}$ and $v_n$. So $T_n$ can be embedded into $G$.
\hspace*{\fill}$\Box$\medskip

\begin{claim} \label{case22}
If $T_n$ cannot be embedded into $G$, then for any vertex $u_x\in V(G)$, there exists a vertex $u_y\in N(u_x)$ such that $u_y$ has exactly one neighbor outside $N[u_x]$.
\end{claim}
{\em Proof.} By Claim \ref{case2}, any vertex in $N(u_x)$ has at most one neighbor outside $N[u_x]$. If $\cup_{u\in N[u_x]}N[u]\subseteq N[u_x]$, then $N[u_x]$ is a component on $n-2$ vertices, a contradiction.
\hspace*{\fill}$\Box$\medskip

If $T_n$ cannot be embedded into $G$, let $u_x\in V(G)$ and $u_y\in N(u_x)$ such that $u_z\in N(u_y)\setminus N[u_x]$. Since $G$ is (n-3)-regular and $u_z\in N(u_y)\setminus N[u_x]$, there is exactly one vertex $u_a\in N(u_x)\setminus N(u_y)$ and $N(u_y)=N[u_x]\cup\{u_z\}\setminus\{u_y, u_a\}$. By Claim \ref{case2}, $N[u_y]\setminus\{u_x\}\subseteq N[u_z]$. Since $u_yu_a\notin E(G)$, $|d(u_a)|=n-3$ and $|N[u_x]|=n-2$, there is exactly one vertex $u_b\in N(u_a)\setminus N(u_x)$. If $u_b=u_z$, then $N(u_z)=N(u_x)$. For any vertex $u\in N(u_x)$, $u_z\in N(u)\setminus N(u_x)$. Then by Claim \ref{case2}, $N[u_x]\cup\{u_z\}$ is a component on $n-1$ vertices, a contradiction. So $u_b\not=u_z$. Since $u_a$ has exactly one neighbor outside $N(u_x)$, $N[u_a]=N[u_x]\cup\{u_b\}\setminus\{u_y\}$. Since all vertices in $N(u_x)$ have at most one neighbor outside $N(u_x)$ and $u_z$ is a neighbor of all vertices in $N(u_x)\setminus\{u_a\}=N(u_a)\setminus\{u_b, u_x\}\cup\{u_y\}$, by Claim \ref{case2}, $u_b$ is not adjacent to any of these vertices, i.e, $u_b$ has no neighbor in $N(u_a)\setminus\{u_b\}$, contradicting Claim \ref{case2} again. So $T_n$ can be embedded into $G$ in this case.
\hspace*{\fill}$\Box$\medskip

\section{Tree-star Ramsey number }\label{sec4}
In this section, we apply Theorem \ref{theo1} to obtain the Ramsey number of a tree versus a star for some cases.

{\em Proof of Theorem \ref{cor1}.} For any red-blue-coloring of $E(K_{m+n-3})$, let $G_R$ and $G_B$ be the red graph and the blue graph respectively. If $\Delta(G_B)\geq m$, then there is a blue $K_{1, m}$. So we may assume that $\Delta(G_B)\leq m-1$. Hence $\delta(G_R)\geq (m+n-4)-(m-1)=n-3$. Since $m+n-3$ is not a linear combination of $n-1$ and $n-2$, then $G_R$ contains a component with order at least $n$. By Theorem \ref{theo1}, $T_n$ can be embedded into $G_R$.
\hspace*{\fill}$\Box$\medskip

\begin{fact}\label{fact1}
For positive integers $m$ and $n$, $m+n-4$ is a linear combination of $n-1$ and $n-2$ and $m+n-3$ is not a linear combination of $n-1$ and $n-2$ if and only if $m=k(n-1)+3$ and $0\leq k\leq n-5$.
\end{fact}
{\em Proof of Fact \ref{fact1}.} Necessity: If $m+n-4=k(n-1)+l(n-2)$, $k\geq 0$ and $l\geq 1$, then $$m+n-3=k(n-1)+l(n-2)+(n-1)-(n-2)=(k+1)(n-1)+(l-1)(n-2),$$ contradicting that $m+n-3$ is not a linear combination of $n-1$ and $n-2$. Therefore $l=0$ and $m=(k-1)(n-1)+3$, where $k\geq 1$. Let us rewrite $m=k(n-1)+3$, where $k\geq 0$. If $k\geq n-4$, then $$m+n-3=k(n-1)+n=(k-n+4)(n-1)+(n-2)(n-2),$$ and $m+n-3$ is a linear combination of n-1 and n-2. So $0\leq k \leq n-5$.

Sufficiency: If $m=k(n-1)+3$ and $0\leq k\leq n-5$, then $m+n-4=(k+1)(n-1)$ is a linear combination of $n-1$ and $n-2$. If $m+n-3$ is a linear combination of $n-1$ and $n-2$, then $m+n-3=k(n-1)+n=k'(n-1)+l'(n-2)$ ($k', l'\geq 0$). So $(k+2-k')(n-1)=(l'+1)(n-2)$. Since $n-1$ is relatively prime to $n-2$, $k+2-k'=c(n-2)$ for $c\geq 1$. Therefore $k\geq (n-2)-2+k'\geq n-4$, a contradiction.
\hspace*{\fill}$\Box$\medskip

For a positive integer $a$ dividing $n-3$, let $B(n-3+a)$ be the balanced complete $\frac{n-3+a}{a}$-partite graph on $n-3+a$ vertices.

{\em Proof of Theorem \ref{cor2}.} Since $m+n-4=(k+1)(n-1)$, we can partition $V(K_{m+n-4})$ into $k+1$ disjoint equal parts with $n-1$ vertices in each part. Color edges in each part red and other edges blue. Then $\Delta(G_B)\leq m+n-4-(n-1)=m-3$. So this coloring yields neither a red $T_n$ nor a blue $K_{1, m}$. Therefore $R(T_n, K_{1, m})\geq m+n-3$.

(i). By Fact \ref{fact1} and Theorem \ref{cor1}, $R(T_n, K_{1, m})\leq m+n-3$. Therefore $R(T_n, K_{1, m})=m+n-3$.

(ii). For any red-blue-coloring of $E(K_{m+n-3})$, let $G_R$ and $G_B$ be the red graph and the blue graph respectively. If $\Delta(G_B)\geq m$, then there is a blue $K_{1, m}$. So we may assume that $\Delta(G_B)\leq m-1$. Hence $\delta(G_R)\geq (m+n-4)-(m-1)=n-3$. By Fact \ref{fact1}, $G_R$ contains a component with at least $n$ vertices. By Theorem \ref{theo1}, if $m+n-3$ is not a linear combination of $n-1$, $n-2$, $n-3+a_1$, ..., $n-3+a_d$, then $T(1, n-4)$ can be embedded into $G_R$. So $R(T(1, n-4), K_{1, m})\leq m+n-3$. Therefore $R(T(1, n-4), K_{1, m})=m+n-3$.

If $m+n-3=k_1(n-1)+l_1(n-2)+s_1(n-3+a_1)+...+s_d(n-3+a_d)$, for red-blue-coloring of $E(K_{m+n-3})$, let $G_R$ and $G_B$ be the red graph and the blue graph respectively. Let $G_R=k_1K_{n-1}\cup l_1K_{n-2}\cup s_1B(n-3+a_1)\cup ...\cup s_dB(n-3+a_d)$ and $G_B=G_R^c$. By Theorem \ref{theo1}, $T(1, n-4)$ cannot be embedded into $G_R$. Since $\delta(G_R)\geq n-3$, then $\Delta(G_B)\leq (m+n-4)-(n-3)=m-1$. So there is neither a red $T_n$ nor a blue $K_{1, m}$. Therefore $R(T(1, n-4), K_{1, m})\geq m+n-2$. The same lower bound was given in \cite{GV}. So $R(T(1, n-4), K_{1, m})= m+n-2$.

(iii). For any red-blue-coloring of $E(K_{m+n-3})$, let $G_R$ and $G_B$ be the red graph and the blue graph respectively. If $\Delta(G_B)\geq m$, then there is a blue $K_{1, m}$. So we may assume that $\Delta(G_B)\leq m-1$. Hence $\delta(G_R)\geq n-3$. By Fact \ref{fact1} and $m+n-3$ is not a linear combination of $2n-6$, $n-1$ and $n-2$, there exists a component $G'$ such that $n\leq |V(G')|\not=2n-5$. By Theorem \ref{theo1}, $T(p, n-3-p)$ can be embedded into $G'$. Therefore $R(T(p, n-3-p), K_{1, m})= m+n-3$. If $m+n-3=r(2n-6)+s(n-1)+t(n-2)$, then we can partition $K_{m+n-3}$ into $r+s+t$ disjoint parts such that $r$ parts have order $2n-6$ and $s$ parts have order $n-1$ and $t$ parts have order $n-2$. Let $G_R=rK_{n-3, n-3}\cup sK_{n-1}\cup tK_{n-2}$ and $G_B=G_R^c$. Then $\Delta(G_B)\leq m+n-4-(n-3)=m-1$ and $T(p, n-3-p)$ cannot be embedded into $G$. Therefore $R(T(p, n-3-p), K_{1, m})\geq m+n-2$. The same lower bound was given in \cite{GV}. So $R(T(1, n-4), K_{1, m})= m+n-2$.
\hspace*{\fill}$\Box$\medskip

\bigskip

{\bf Acknowledgement}
The research is supported in part by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 11931002).


Generalised Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities using weak Lebesgue spaces and BMO

Abstract: Using elementary arguments based on the Fourier transform we prove that for $1 \leq q < p < \infty$ and $s \geq 0$ with $s > n(1/2-1/p)$, if $f \in L^{q,\infty}(\R^n) \cap \dot{H}^s(\R^n)$ then $f \in L^p(\R^n)$ and there exists a constant $c_{p,q,s}$ such that\[ \|f\|_{L^p} \leq c_{p,q,s} \|f\|_{L^{q,\infty}}^\theta \|f\|_{\dot H^s}^{1-\theta}, \] where $1/p = \theta/q + (1-\theta)(1/2-s/n)$. In particular, in $\R^2$ we obtain the generalised Ladyzhenskaya inequality $\|f\|_{L^4}\le c\|f\|_{L^{2,\infty}}^{1/2}\|f\|_{\dot H^1}^{1/2}$. We also show that for $s=n/2$ the norm in $\|f\|_{\dot H^{n/2}}$ can be replaced by the norm in BMO. As well as giving relatively simple proofs of these inequalities, this paper provides a brief primer of some basic concepts in harmonic analysis, including weak spaces, the Fourier transform, the Lebesgue Differentiation Theorem, and Calderon-Zygmund decompositions.

\section{Introduction}

For $1\le q<p<\infty$ the Gagliardo--Nirenberg interpolation inequality (Nirenberg  \cite{Niren})
\begin{equation}\label{GN}
\|f\|_{L^p}\le c\|f\|_{L^q}^{\theta}\|f\|_{\dot H^s}^{1-\theta},\qquad\frac{1}{p}=\frac{\theta}{q}+(1-\theta)\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{s}{n}\right)
\end{equation}
   is an extremely useful tool in the analysis of many partial differential equations. In particular, in the mathematical theory of the two-dimensional Navier--Stokes equations it is frequently encountered in the form of Ladyzhenskaya's inequality (Ladyzhenskaya \cite{Ladyz})
\begin{equation}\label{realLadyz}
\|f\|_{L^4}\le
c\|f\|_{L^2}^{1/2}\|\nabla f\|_{L^2}^{1/2}.
\end{equation}
This paper provides an introduction to some of the basic ideas of harmonic analysis, as a means of generalising the Gagliardo--Nirenberg inequality in two directions.

First, using only simple properties of the weak $L^p$ spaces (Section \ref{sec:weakLp}) and the Fourier transform (Section \ref{sec:FT}), we show that one can replace the $L^q$ norm on the right-hand side of (\ref{GN}) by the norm in the weak $L^q$ space:
\begin{equation}\label{ourineq}
\|f\|_{L^p}\le c\|f\|_{L^{q,\infty}}^\theta\|f\|_{\dot H^s}^{1-\theta}.
\end{equation}
Along the way we also provide a proof of various forms of Young's inequality for convolutions (Section \ref{sec:Young}) and the endpoint Sobolev embedding $\dot H^s({\mathbb R}^n)\subset L^p({\mathbb R}^n)$ for $s=n(1/2-1/p)$, $2<p<\infty$ (Section \ref{sec:EPSE}). To our knowledge the direct proof of (\ref{ourineq}) that we provide here in Section \ref{sec:GGN1} is new.

We note that, in particular, (\ref{ourineq}) provides the following generalisation of the 2D Ladyzhenskaya inequality:
\begin{equation}\label{2DgLadyz}
\|f\|_{L^4}\le c\|f\|_{L^{2,\infty}}^{1/2}\|\nabla f\|_{L^2}^{1/2}.
\end{equation}
We outline at the end of Section \ref{sec:Young} how this inequality is relevant for an analysis of the coupled system
\begin{align*}
-\Delta u+\nabla p&=(B\cdot\nabla)B,\qquad\nabla\cdot u=0,\\
\frac{{\rm d} B}{{\rm d} t}+\eta\Delta B+(u\cdot\nabla)B&=(B\cdot\nabla)u,\qquad\nabla\cdot B=0,
\end{align*}
on a two-dimensional domain (for full details see McCormick et al.\ \cite{MRR}). This system arises from the theory of magnetic relaxation for the generation of stationary Euler flows (see Moffatt \cite{M}), and was our original motivation for pursuing generalisations of (\ref{realLadyz}) and then of (\ref{GN}).

Related to the case $s=n/2$ in (\ref{GN}), Chen \& Zhu \cite{CZ} (see also Azzam \& Bedrossian \cite{AB}; Dong \& Xian \cite{DX}; Kozono \& Wadade \cite{KW}) obtain the inequality
\begin{equation}\label{AzBed}
\|f\|_{L^p}\le c\|f\|_{L^q}^{q/p}\|f\|_{\rm BMO}^{1-q/p},
\end{equation}
where BMO is the space of functions with bounded mean oscillation (see Section \ref{sec:BMO}). This inequality (cf.\ Exercise 7.4.1 in Grafakos \cite{Graf2}) is stronger than (\ref{GN}) since $\|f\|_{\rm BMO}\le c\|f\|_{\dot H^{n/2}}$ (see Lemma \ref{Hn2nBMO}). In fact one can obtain a stronger inequality still, weakening the $L^q$ norm on the right-hand side as we did in our transition from (\ref{GN}) to (\ref{ourineq}):
\begin{equation}\label{withBMO}
\|f\|_{L^p}\le c\|f\|_{L^{q,\infty}}^{q/p}\|f\|_{\rm BMO}^{1-q/p}.
\end{equation}
 In Section \ref{sec:GGN2} we adapt the proof used in \cite{CZ} for (\ref{AzBed}) to prove (\ref{withBMO}); their argument makes use of the John--Nirenberg inequality for functions in BMO, which is proved via a Calderon--Zygmund type decomposition (Section \ref{sec:BMO}). This decomposition in turn makes use of the Lebesgue Differentiation Theorem (Theorem \ref{LDT}).

 One can prove (\ref{withBMO}), and a slightly stronger inequality involving Lorentz spaces,
 $$
 \|f\|_{L^{p,1}}\le c\|f\|_{L^{q,\infty}}^{q/p}\|f\|_{\rm BMO}^{1-q/p},\qquad 1<q<p<\infty,
 $$
 using the theory of interpolation spaces (as in McCormick et al.\ \cite{MRR}); see Corollary \ref{GNLorentz} (and also Kozono et al.\ \cite{KMW}). For the sake of completeness we briefly recall the theory of interpolation spaces in Section \ref{sec:ispaces} and give a proof of this inequality.

 Since it provides one of the main applications of weak $L^p$ spaces, we include a final section that contains a statement of the Marcinkiewicz interpolation theorem and some of its consequences, including a strengthened form of Young's inequality. A very readable account of all the harmonic analysis included here can be found in the two books by Grafakos \cite{Grafakos,Graf2}.

We note that nowhere in this paper do we attempt to find the optimal constants for our inequalities, and throughout we treat functions defined on the whole of ${\mathbb R}^n$. Similar results for functions on bounded domains are more involved, since one requires carefully tailored extension theorems (see Azzam \& Bedrossian \cite{AB}, for example).

\section{Weak $L^p$ spaces and interpolation}\label{sec:weakLp}

We begin with the definition of the weak $L^p$ spaces and quick proofs of some of their properties. For more details see Chapter 1 of Grafakos \cite{Grafakos}.

For a measurable function $f\:{\mathbb R}^n\to{\mathbb R}$ define the \emph{distribution function of $f$} by
$$
d_f(\alpha)=\mu\{x:\ |f(x)|>\alpha\},
$$
where $\mu(A)$ (or later $|A|$) denotes the Lebesgue measure of a set $A$. It follows using Fubini's Theorem that
\begin{equation}\label{df2Lp}
\|f\|_{L^p}^p=\int_{{\mathbb R}^n}|f(x)|^p\,{\rm d} x=p\int_{{\mathbb R}^n}\int_0^{|f(x)|}\alpha^{p-1}\,{\rm d}\alpha\,{\rm d} x=p\int_0^\infty\alpha^{p-1}d_f(\alpha)\,{\rm d}\alpha.
\end{equation}
For $1\le p<\infty$ set
\begin{align*}
\|f\|_{L^{p,\infty}}&=\inf\left\{C:\ d_f(\alpha)\le\frac{C^p}{\alpha^p}\right\}\\
&=\sup\{\gamma d_f(\gamma)^{1/p}:\ \gamma>0\}.
\end{align*}
The space $L^{p,\infty}({\mathbb R}^n)$ consists of all those $f$ such that $\|f\|_{L^{p,\infty}}<\infty$. It follows immediately from the definition that
\begin{equation}\label{Lpw2df}
f\in L^{p,\infty}({\mathbb R}^n)\qquad\Rightarrow\qquad
d_f(\alpha)\le \|f\|_{L^{p,\infty}}^p\alpha^{-p}
\end{equation}
and that for any $f$ and $g$
\begin{equation}\label{simple}
d_{f+g}(\alpha)\le d_{f}(\alpha/2)+d_{g}(\alpha/2),
\end{equation}
which implies that
\begin{equation}\label{wktri}
\|f+g\|_{L^{p,\infty}}\le 2(\|f\|_{L^{p,\infty}}+\|g\|_{L^{p,\infty}}).
\end{equation}

The following simple lemma (the proof is essentially that of Chebyshev's inequality) is fundamental and shows that any function in $L^p$ is also in $L^{p,\infty}$.

\begin{lemma}\label{Lp2Lpw}
If $f\in L^p({\mathbb R}^n)$ then $f\in L^{p,\infty}({\mathbb R}^n)$ and $\|f\|_{L^{p,\infty}}\le\|f\|_{L^p}$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
This follows since
\[
  d_f(\alpha)=\int_{\{x:\ |f(x)|>\alpha\}}1\,{\rm d} x
  \le\int_{\{x:\ |f(x)|>\alpha\}} \frac{|f(x)|^p}{\alpha^p}\,{\rm d} x
  \le\|f\|_{L^p}^p\alpha^{-p}.\qedhere
\]
\end{proof}

While $L^p\subset L^{p,\infty}$, clearly $L^{p,\infty}$ is a larger space than $L^p$: for example,
\begin{equation}\label{x2minus}
|x|^{-n/p}\in L^{p,\infty}({\mathbb R}^n)
\end{equation}
but this function is not an element of $L^p({\mathbb R}^n)$.

An immediate indication of why these spaces are useful is given in the following simple result, which shows that in the $L^p$ interpolation inequality
$$
\|f\|_{L^r}\le \|f\|_{L^p}^\theta\|f\|_{L^q}^{1-\theta},\qquad\frac{1}{r}=\frac{\theta}{p}+\frac{1-\theta}{q},
$$
one can replace the Lebesgue spaces on the right-hand side by their weak counterparts.

\begin{lemma}\label{Lpinterp}
Take $1\le p<r<q\le\infty$. If $f\in L^{p,\infty}\cap L^{q,\infty}$ then $f\in L^r$ and
$$
\|f\|_{L^r}\le c_{p,r,q}\|f\|_{L^{p,\infty}}^{\theta}\|f\|_{L^{q,\infty}}^{1-\theta},
$$
where
$$
\frac{1}{r}=\frac{\theta}{p}+\frac{1-\theta}{q}.
$$
If $q=\infty$ we interpret $L^{\infty,\infty}$ as $L^\infty$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
We give the proof when $q<\infty$; the proof when $q=\infty$ is slightly simpler. If $f\in L^{p,\infty}$ then $d_f(\alpha)\le\|f\|_{L^{p,\infty}}^p\alpha^{-p}$, so for any $x$ we have
\begin{align*}
\|f\|_{L^r}^r&=r\int_0^\infty\alpha^{r-1}d_f(\alpha)\,{\rm d}\alpha\\
&\le r\int_0^x\alpha^{r-1}\|f\|_{L^{p,\infty}}^p\alpha^{-p}\,{\rm d}\alpha+r\int_x^\infty\alpha^{r-1}\|f\|_{L^{q,\infty}}^q\alpha^{-q}\,{\rm d}\alpha\\
&\le\frac{r}{r-p}\|f\|_{L^{p,\infty}}^px^{r-p}+\frac{r}{r-q}\|f\|_{L^{q,\infty}}^qx^{q-r}.
\end{align*}
Now choose
$$
x^{p-q}=\frac{\|f\|_{L^{p,\infty}}^p}{\|f\|_{L^{q,\infty}}^q}
$$
to equalise the dependence of the two terms on the right-hand side on the weak norms.\end{proof}

\section{The Fourier transform}\label{sec:FT}

The Schwartz space ${\mathscr S}$ of rapidly decreasing test functions consists of all $\phi\in C^\infty({\mathbb R}^n)$ such that
$$
\sup_{x\in{\mathbb R}^n}|x^\beta\partial^\alpha\phi|\le M_{\alpha,\beta}\qquad\mbox{for all}\qquad\alpha,\beta\ge0,
$$
where $\alpha,\beta$ are multi-indices.

For any $f\in{\mathscr S}$ one can define the Fourier transform\footnote{There are various possible definitions of the Fourier transform. For example, one could omit the factor of $2\pi$ from the exponential and include a multiplicative factor of $(2\pi)^{-n/2}$ in front of the integral; in this case one keeps the Fourier inversion formula unchanged. However, the fact that the function ${\rm e}^{-\pi|x|^2}$ has norm one and is unaffected by the Fourier transform as defined in (\ref{fourierint}) is useful; one can use this to prove the Fourier inversion formula, see Theorem 2.2.14 in Grafakos \cite{Grafakos}, for example.}
\begin{equation}\label{fourierint}
{\mathscr F}[f](\xi)=\hat f(\xi)=\int_{{\mathbb R}^n}{\rm e}^{-2\pi{\rm i}\xi\cdot x}f(x)\,{\rm d} x.
\end{equation}
It is straightforward to check that
$$
{\mathscr F}[\partial^\alpha f](\xi)=(2\pi{\rm i})^{|\alpha|}\xi^\alpha\hat f(\xi)\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad{\mathscr F}[x^\beta f](\xi)=(-2\pi{\rm i})^{|\beta|}[\partial^\beta\hat f](\xi),
$$
from which it follows that $\mathscr F$ maps ${\mathscr S}$ into itself.

Given the Fourier transform of $f$, one can reconstruct $f$ by essentially applying the Fourier transform operator once more:
\be{finversion}
f(x)=\int_{{\mathbb R}^n}{\rm e}^{2\pi{\rm i}\xi\cdot x}\hat f(\xi)\,{\rm d}\xi.
\end{equation}
If we define $\sigma(f)$ by $\sigma(f)(x)=f(-x)$ then we can write the inversion formula more compactly as $f={\sigma\circ\mathscr F}(\hat f)$. We define ${\mathscr F}^{-1}=\sigma\circ\mathscr F$, the point being that when we can meaningfully extend the definition of $\mathscr F$ and $\sigma$ we will retain this inversion formula.

An obvious extension of the Fourier transform is to any function $f\in L^1({\mathbb R}^n)$, using the integral definition in (\ref{fourierint}) directly. Since
$$
|\hat f(\xi)|\le\int_{{\mathbb R}^n}|f(x)|\,{\rm d} x=\|f\|_{L^1}
$$
it follows that $\mathscr F$ maps $L^1$ into $L^\infty$. Furthermore, there is a natural definition of the Fourier transform for $f\in L^2({\mathbb R}^n)$. Given $f\in{\mathscr S}$,
\begin{align*}
\|\hat f\|_{L^2}&=\int_{{\mathbb R}^n}\overline{\hat f(x)}\left(\int_{{\mathbb R}^n}{\rm e}^{-2\pi{\rm i}\xi\cdot x}f(\xi)\,{\rm d} \xi\right)\,{\rm d} x\\
&=\int_{{\mathbb R}^n}f(\xi)\left(\int_{{\mathbb R}^n}\overline{\hat f(x){\rm e}^{2\pi{\rm i}\xi\cdot x}}\,{\rm d} x\right)\,{\rm d}\xi\\
&=\int\overline{f(\xi)}f(\xi)\,{\rm d}\xi=\|f\|_{L^2}^2.
\end{align*}
Now given any $f\in L^2$, one can write $f=\lim_{n\to\infty}f_n$, where $f_n\in{\mathscr S}$ and the limit is taken in $L^2$. It follows that $\hat f_n$ is Cauchy in $L^2$, and we identify its limit as $\hat f$. So we can define $\mathscr F\:L^2\to L^2$, with $\|\hat f\|_{L^2}=\|f\|_{L^2}$.

The Fourier transform can therefore be defined (by linearity) for any $f\in L^1+L^2$; $f$ can be recovered from $\hat f$ using ${\mathscr F}^{-1}$ if $\hat f\in L^1+L^2$, and if $\hat f\in L^1$ (in particular if $\hat f\in{\mathscr S}$) then we can use the integral form of the Fourier inversion formula (\ref{finversion}) to give $f$ pointwise as an integral involving $\hat f$.

Given this, we can in fact define the Fourier transform if $f\in L^{r,\infty}$ for some $1<r<2$ (and in particular if $f\in L^r$), by splitting $f$ into two parts, one in $L^1$ and one in $L^2$. The following lemma gives a more general version of this, which will be useful later. We use $\chi_P$ to denote the characteristic function of the set $\{x:\ P\mbox{ holds}\}$.

\begin{lemma}\label{splitg}
  Take $1\le t<r<s\le\infty$, and suppose that $g\in L^{r,\infty}$. For any $M>0$ set
  $$
  g_{M-}=g\chi_{|g|\le M}\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad g_{M+}=g\chi_{|g|>M}.
  $$
  Then $g=g_{M-}+g_{M+}$, where $g_{M-}\in L^s$ with
  \be{g-Ls}
  \|g_{M-}\|_{L^s}^s\le\frac{s}{s-r}M^{s-r}\|g\|_{L^{r,\infty}}^r-M^sd_g(M)
  \end{equation}
  if $s<\infty$ and $\|g_{M-}\|_{L^\infty}\le M$, and $g_{M+}\in L^t$ with
  \be{g+Lt}
  \|g_{M+}\|_{L^t}^t\le\frac{r}{r-t}M^{t-r}\|g\|_{L^{r,\infty}}^r.
  \end{equation}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Simply note that
\begin{equation}\label{dg-}
d_{g_{M-}}(\alpha)=\begin{cases}
0&\alpha\ge M\\ d_g(\alpha)-d_g(M)&\alpha<M
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{dg+}
d_{g_{M+}}(\alpha)=\begin{cases}
d_g(\alpha)&\alpha>M\\
d_g(M)&\alpha\le M.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Then using (\ref{df2Lp}), (\ref{dg-}), and (\ref{Lpw2df}) it is simple to show (\ref{g-Ls}), and (\ref{g+Lt}) follows similarly, using (\ref{dg+}) in place of (\ref{dg-}).
\end{proof}

It is natural to ask what one can say about $\hat f$ when $f\in L^p$. We will see in Section \ref{sec:Marcin} that $\hat f\in L^q$ with $(p,q)$ conjugate, provided that $1\le p\le 2$ (Corollary \ref{cor:FT}).  Note, however, that for any $p>2$ one can find a function in $L^p$ whose Fourier transform is not even a locally integrable function (see Exercise 2.3.13 in Grafakos \cite{Grafakos}).

One can extend the definition further to the space of tempered distributions ${\mathscr S}'$. We say that a sequence $\{\phi_n\}\in{\mathscr S}$ converges to $\phi\in{\mathscr S}$ if
$$
\sup_{x\in{\mathbb R}^n}|x^\alpha\partial^\beta(\phi_n-\phi)|\to0\qquad\mbox{for all}\qquad\alpha,\beta\ge0,
$$
and a linear functional $F$ on ${\mathscr S}$ is an element of ${\mathscr S}'$ if $\<F,\phi_n\>\to \<F,\phi\>$ whenever $\phi_n\to\phi$ in ${\mathscr S}$. It is easy to show that for any $\phi,\psi\in{\mathscr S}$
$$
\<\phi,\hat\psi\>=\<\hat\phi,\psi\>,
$$
and this\footnote{We use $\<\cdot,\cdot\>$ for the action of an element of ${\mathscr S}'$ on elements of ${\mathscr S}$, and set $\<f,g\>=\int fg$ when $f$ and $g$ are functions.} allows us to define the Fourier transform for $F\in{\mathscr S}'$ by setting
$$
\<\hat F,\psi\>=\<F,\hat\psi\>\qquad\mbox{for every}\quad\psi\in{\mathscr S}.
$$
Since one can also extend the definition of $\sigma$ to ${\mathscr S}'$  via the definition $\<\sigma(F),\psi\>=\<F,\sigma(\psi)\>$, the identity $F={\mathscr F}^{-1}\hat F$ still holds in this generality.

\section{Convolution and Young's inequality}\label{sec:Young}

Expressions given by convolutions, i.e.
$$
[f\star g](x)=\int_{{\mathbb R}^n}f(y)g(x-y)\,{\rm d} y,
$$
occur frequently. It is a fundamental result that $[f\star g]\hat{\ }(\xi)=\hat f(\xi)\hat g(\xi)$; for $f,g\in{\mathscr S}$ this is the result of simple calculation, which can be extended to $f\in{\mathscr S}$, $g\in{\mathscr S}'$ via the definition $\<f\star g,\phi\>=\<g,\sigma(f)\star\phi\>$.

 One of the primary results for convolutions is Young's inequality.  Following Grafakos (Theorem 1.2.12 in \cite{Grafakos}) we give an elementary proof that
uses only H\"older's inequality.

\begin{lemma}[Young's inequality]\label{sYoung}
Let $1\le p,q,r\le\infty$ satisfy
$$
\frac{1}{p}+1=\frac{1}{q}+\frac{1}{r}.
$$
Then for all $f\in L^q$, $g\in L^r$, we have $f\star g\in L^p$ with
\be{standardYoung}
\|f\star g\|_{L^p}\le\|f\|_{L^q}\|g\|_{L^r}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof} We use $p'$ to denote the conjugate of $p$. Then we have
  $$
  \frac{1}{r'}+\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q'}=1,\qquad\frac{q}{p}+\frac{q}{r'}=1,\quad\mbox{and}\quad \frac{r}{p}+\frac{r}{q'}=1.
  $$
  First use H\"older's inequality with exponents $r'$, $p$, and $q'$:
  \begin{align*}
  |(f\star g)(x)|&\le\int|f(y)||g(x-y)|\,{\rm d} y\\
  &=\int|f(y)|^{q/r'}\left(|f(y)|^{q/p}|g(x-y)|^{r/p}\right)|g(x-y)|^{r/q'}\,{\rm d} y\\
  &\le\|f\|_{L^q}^{q/r'}\left(\int|f(y)|^q|g(x-y)|^r\,{\rm d} y\right)^{1/p}\left(\int|g(x-y)|^r\,{\rm d} y\right)^{1/q'}\\
  &\le\|f\|_{L^q}^{q/r'}\left(\int|f(y)|^q|g(x-y)|^r\,{\rm d} y\right)^{1/p}\|g\|_{L^r}^{r/q'}.
  \end{align*}
Now take the $L^p$ norm (with respect to $x$):
\begin{align*}
\|f\star g\|_{L^p}&\le\|f\|_{L^q}^{q/r'}\|g\|_{L^r}^{r/q'}\left(\iint|f(y)|^q|g(x-y)|^r\,{\rm d} y\,{\rm d} x\right)^{1/p}\nonumber\\
&=\|f\|_{L^q}^{q/r'}\|g\|_{L^r}^{r/q'}\|f\|_{L^q}^{q/p}\|g\|_{L^r}^{r/p}\nonumber\\
&=\|f\|_{L^q}\|g\|_{L^r}.\qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}

We will need a version of this inequality that allows $L^q$ on the right-hand side to be replaced by $L^{q,\infty}$. The price we have to pay for this (at least initially) is that we also weaken the left-hand side; and note that we have also lost the possibility of some endpoint values ($r=\infty$ and $p,q=1,\infty$) that are allowed in (\ref{standardYoung}). In fact one can keep the full $L^p$ norm on the left, provided that $r>1$; but this requires Proposition \ref{prop:wYoung} as an intermediate step and the Marcinkiewicz Interpolation Theorem (see Section \ref{sec:Marcin}).

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:wYoung}
Suppose that $1\le r<\infty$ and $1<p,q<\infty$. If $f\in L^{q,\infty}$ and $g\in L^r$ with
$$
\frac{1}{p}+1=\frac{1}{q}+\frac{1}{r}
$$
then $f\star g\in L^{p,\infty}$ with
\begin{equation}\label{w2wYoung}
\|f\star g\|_{L^{p,\infty}}\le c_{p,q,r}\|f\|_{L^{q,\infty}}\|g\|_{L^r}.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
We follow the proof in Grafakos \cite{Grafakos}, skipping some of the algebra. We have already introduced the main step, the splitting of $f$ in Lemma \ref{splitg}. For a fixed $M>0$ we set $f=f_{M-}+f_{M+}$. Using (\ref{g-Ls}) and H\"older's inequality we obtain
$$
|(f_{M-}\star g)(x)|\le\|f_{M-}\|_{L^{q'}}\|g\|_{L^q}\le \left(\frac{q'}{q'-r}M^{q'-r}\|f\|_{L^{r,\infty}}^r\right)^{1/q'}\|g\|_{L^q},
$$
where $(q,q')$ are conjugate; the right-hand side reduces to $M\|g\|_{L^1}$ if $q=1$. Note in particular that if
$$
M=(\alpha^{q'}2^{-q'}rp^{-1}\|f\|_{L^{r,\infty}}^{-r}\|g\|_{L^q}^{-q'})^{1/(q'-r)}
$$
(or $\alpha/2\|g\|_{L^1}$ if $q=1$) then $d_{f_{M-}\star g}(\alpha/2)=0$.

For $f_{M+}$ we can use (\ref{g+Lt}) and apply Young's inequality to yield
$$
\|f_{M+}\star g\|_{L^q}\le\|f_{M+}\|_{L^1}\|g\|_{L^q}\le\frac{r}{r-1}M^{1-r}\|f\|_{L^{r,\infty}}^r\|g\|_{L^q}.
$$

Choosing $M$ as above and using (\ref{simple}) it follows that
\begin{align*}
d_{f\star g}(\alpha)&\le d_{f_{M+}\star g}(\alpha/2)\\
&\le(2\|f_{M+}\star g\|_{L^p}\alpha^{-1})^q\\
&\le(2rM^{1-r}\|f\|_{L^{r,\infty}}^r\|g\|_{L^q}(r-1)^{-1}\alpha^{-1})^q\\
&=C\|f\|_{L^{r,\infty}}^p\|g\|_{L^q}^p\alpha^{-p},
\end{align*}
which yields (\ref{w2wYoung}).\end{proof}

This result has implications, among other things, for the regularity of solutions of elliptic equations. It was mentioned in the introduction that our study of generalised Gagliardo--Nirenberg inequalities was motivated by the study of a particular coupled system in two dimensions, namely
\begin{align*}
-\Delta u+\nabla p&=(B\cdot\nabla)B,\qquad\nabla\cdot u=0,\\
\frac{{\rm d} B}{{\rm d} t}+\eta\Delta B+(u\cdot\nabla)B&=(B\cdot\nabla)u,\qquad\nabla\cdot B=0.
\end{align*}
Formal energy estimates (which can be made rigorous via a suitable regularisation) yield
$$
\frac{1}{2}\|B(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\eta\int_0^t\|\nabla B\|_{L^2}^2+\int_0^t\|\nabla u\|_{L^2}^2\le \frac{1}{2}\|B(0)\|_{L^2}^2,
$$
showing in particular that $B\in L^\infty(0,T;L^2)$ when $B(0)\in L^2$. To obtain a similar uniform estimate on $u$ we need to understand the regularity of solutions of the Stokes problem
$$
-\Delta u+\nabla p=(B\cdot\nabla)B\qquad\nabla\cdot u=0
$$
when $B\in L^2$. A slightly simpler problem with the same features is
\be{RHSdiv}
-\Delta \phi=\partial_if,
\end{equation}
with $f\in L^1$. It is well known that the solution of $-\Delta\phi=g$ in ${\mathbb R}^2$ is given by $E\star g$, where
$$
E(x)=-\frac{1}{2\pi}\log|x|.
$$
Noting (after an integration by parts) that the solution of (\ref{RHSdiv}) is given by $\partial_i E\star f$, and that $\partial_i E\in L^{2,\infty}$, it follows from Proposition \ref{prop:wYoung} that $f\in L^1$ implies that $\phi\in L^{2,\infty}$. [The stronger version of Young's inequality given in Theorem \ref{bestYoung} does not apply when $f\in L^1$, so would not improve the regularity here.] Thus to obtain further estimates (in particular on the time derivative of $B$) we required a version of the Ladyzhenskaya inequality that replaced the $L^2$ norm of $u$ with the norm of $u$ in $L^{2,\infty}$. Further details can be found in McCormick et al.\ \cite{MRR}.

\section{Endpoint Sobolev embedding}\label{sec:EPSE}

In our proof of the inequality
$$
\|f\|_{L^p}\le c\|f\|_{L^{q,\infty}}^\alpha\|f\|_{\dot H^s}^{1-\alpha}
$$
we will use the endpoint Sobolev embedding $\dot H^s({\mathbb R}^n)\subset L^p({\mathbb R}^n)$ for $s=n(1/2-1/p)$ when $2<p<\infty$. We prove this here, following Theorem 1.2 in Chemin et al.\ \cite{CDG*}.

Since the Fourier transform maps $L^2$ isometrically into itself, and
$$
{\mathscr F}[\partial^\alpha f](\xi)=(2\pi{\rm i})^{|\alpha|}\xi^\alpha\hat f(\xi),
$$
it is relatively straightforward to show that when $s$ is a non-negative integer
\begin{equation}\label{SobnormFT}
\sum_{|\alpha|=s}\|\partial^\alpha f\|_{L^2}^2\ \simeq\ \int_{{\mathbb R}^n}|\xi|^{2s}|\hat f(\xi)|^2\,{\rm d}\xi,
\end{equation}
where we write $a\simeq b$ if there are constants $0<c\le C$ such that $ca\le b\le Ca$.

For any $s\ge0$, even if $s$ is not an integer, we can define\footnote{We follow the definition of Bahouri et al.\ \cite{C**} (see also Chemin et al.\ \cite{CDG*}), including the condition that $\hat f\in L^1_{\rm loc}({\mathbb R}^n)$. This sidesteps complexities that arise from problems with understanding the meaning of $|\xi|^s\hat f$ if one only knows that $\hat f\in{\mathscr S}'$; see the discussion in Chapter 6 of Grafakos \cite{Graf2}.} the homogeneous Sobolev space $\dot H^s({\mathbb R}^n)$ using (\ref{SobnormFT}):
$$
\dot H^s({\mathbb R}^n)=\left\{f\in{\mathscr S}':\ \hat f\in L^1_{\rm loc}({\mathbb R}^n)\mbox{ and }\int_{{\mathbb R}^n}|\xi|^{2s}|\hat f(\xi)|^2\,{\rm d}\xi<\infty\right\}.
$$
For $s<n/2$ this is a Hilbert space with the natural norm
$$
\|f\|_{\dot H^s}=\left(\int_{{\mathbb R}^n}|\xi|^{2s}|\hat f(\xi)|^2\,{\rm d}\xi\right)^{1/2},
$$
and one can therefore also define $\dot H^s({\mathbb R}^n)$ in this case as the completion of ${\mathscr S}$ with respect to the $\dot H^s$ norm (that $\dot H^s({\mathbb R}^n)$ is complete iff $s<n/2$ is shown in Bahouri et al.\ \cite{C**}; the simple example showing that $\dot H^s({\mathbb R}^n)$ is not complete when $s\ge n/2$ can also be found in Chemin et al.\ \cite{CDG*}).

\begin{theorem}\label{EPS}
For $2<p<\infty$ there exists a constant $c=c_{n,p}$ such that if $f\in\dot H^s({\mathbb R}^n)$ with $s=n(1/2-1/p)$ then $f\in L^p({\mathbb R}^n)$ and
\begin{equation}\label{endpt}
\|f\|_{L^p}\le c\|f\|_{\dot H^s}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof} First we prove the result when $\|f\|_{\dot H^s}=1$. For such an $f$, write $f=f_{<R}+f_{>R}$, where
\begin{equation}\label{flgR}
f_{<R}={\mathscr F}^{-1}(\hat f\chi_{\{|\xi|\le R\}})\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad f_{>R}={\mathscr F}^{-1}(\hat f\chi_{\{|\xi|>R\}}).
\end{equation}
In both expressions the Fourier inversion formula makes sense: for $f_{>R}$ we know that $\hat f\chi_{>R}\in L^2({\mathbb R}^n)$, and $\mathscr F$ (and likewise ${\mathscr F}^{-1}$) is defined on $L^2$; while for $f_{<R}$ we know that $\hat f\in L^1_{\rm loc}({\mathbb R}^n)$, and so $\hat f\chi_{\le R}\in L^1({\mathbb R}^n)$ which means that we can write $f_{<R}$ using the integral form of the inversion formula
(\ref{finversion}) to write
$$
f_{<R}(x)=\int_{|\xi|\le R} {\rm e}^{2\pi{\rm i} \xi\cdot x}\hat f(\xi)\,{\rm d}\xi.
$$

Thus
\begin{align*}
\|f_{<R}\|_{L^\infty}&\le\int_{|\xi|\le R}|\xi|^{-s}|\xi|^s|\hat f(\xi)|\,{\rm d}\xi\\
&\le\left(\int_{|\xi|\le R}|\xi|^{-2s}\,{\rm d}\xi\right)^{1/2}\|f\|_{\dot H^s}= C_sR^{n/2-s}=C_sR^{n/p},
\end{align*}
since we took $\|f\|_{\dot H^s}=1$ and $s=n(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p})$. Now, since for any choice of $R$
$$
d_f(\alpha)\le d_{f_{<R}}(\alpha/2)+ d_{f_{>R}}(\alpha/2)
$$
(using (\ref{simple})), we can choose $R$ to depend on $\alpha$,  $R=R_\alpha:=(\alpha/2C_s)^{p/n}$, and then we have
$$
d_{f_{<R_\alpha}}(\alpha/2)=0,
$$
it follows that $d_f(\alpha)\le d_{f_{>R_\alpha}}(\alpha/2)$. Thus, using the fact that the Fourier transform is an isometry from $L^2$ into itself,
\begin{align*}
\|f\|_{L^p}^p&\le p\int_0^\infty\alpha^{p-1}d_{f_{>R_\alpha}}(\alpha/2)\,{\rm d}\alpha\\
&\le p\int_0^\infty\alpha^{p-1}\frac{4}{\alpha^2}\|f_{>R_\alpha}\|_{L^2}^2\,{\rm d}\alpha\\
&= C\int_0^\infty \alpha^{p-3}\|{\mathscr F}(f_{>R_\alpha})\|_{L^2}^2\,{\rm d}\alpha\\
&= C\int_0^\infty \alpha^{p-3}\int_{|\xi|\ge R_\alpha}|\hat f(\xi)|^2\,{\rm d}\xi\,{\rm d}\alpha\\
& =C\int_{{\mathbb R}^n}\left(\int_0^{2C_s|\xi|^{n/p}}\alpha^{p-3}\,{\rm d}\alpha\right)|\hat f(\xi)|^2\,{\rm d}\xi\\
&\le C\int_{{\mathbb R}^n}|\xi|^{n(p-2)/p}|\hat f(\xi)|^2\,{\rm d} s\\
& = C,
\end{align*}
since $n(p-2)/p=2s$ and we took $\|f\|_{\dot H^s}=1$.

Thus for $f\in\dot H^s$ with $\|f\|_{\dot H^s}=1$ we have $\|f\|_{L^p}\le C$, and (\ref{endpt}) follows for general $f\in\dot H^s$ on applying this result to $g=f/\|f\|_{\dot H^s}$.\end{proof}

\section{A weak-strong Bernstein inequality}\label{sec:bernstein}

In the next section we will require a result, known as Bernstein's inequality, that provides integrability of $f$ assuming localisation of its Fourier transform: if $\hat f$ is supported in $B(0,R)$ (the ball of radius $R$) then for any $1\le p\le q\le \infty$ if $f\in L^p({\mathbb R}^n)$ then
\begin{equation}\label{normalB}
\|f\|_{L^q}\le c_{p,q}R^{n(1/p-1/q)}\|f\|_{L^p}.
\end{equation}
For our purposes we will require a version of this inequality that replaces $L^p$ by $L^{p,\infty}$ on the right-hand side.

As in the standard proof of (\ref{normalB}), we make use of the following simple result. We use the notation ${\mathfrak D}_hf(x)=h^{-n}f(x/h)$; note that $\widehat{{\mathfrak D}_h}(x)=\hat f(hx)$. The support of $g\in{\mathscr S}'$ is the intersection of all closed sets $K$ such that $\<g,\phi\>=0$ whenever the support of $\phi\in{\mathscr S}$ is disjoint from $K$.

\begin{lemma}
  There is a fixed $\phi\in{\mathscr S}$ such that if $\hat f$ is supported in $B(0,R)$ then $f=({\mathfrak D}_{1/R}\phi)\star f$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
  Take $\phi\in{\mathscr S}$ so that $\hat\phi=1$ on $B(0,1)$. Then
  $$
  \widehat{{\mathfrak D}_{1/R}\phi}(\xi)=\hat\phi(\xi/R)
  $$
  which is equal to $1$ on $B(0,R)$. Thus $({\mathfrak D}_{1/R}\phi)\star f-f$ has Fourier transform zero, and the lemma follows.
\end{proof}

For use in the proof of our next lemma, note that
\begin{equation}\label{DphiLp}
\|{\mathfrak D}_{1/R}\phi\|_{L^r}=R^{n(1-1/r)}\|\phi\|_{L^r}.
\end{equation}

\begin{lemma}[Weak-strong Bernstein inequality]\label{Bernstein}
Let $1\le p<\infty$ and suppose that $f\in L^{p,\infty}({\mathbb R}^n)$ and that $\hat f$ is supported in $B(0,R)$. Then for each $q$ with $p<q<\infty$ there exists a constant $c_{p,q}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{bernstein}
\|f\|_{L^{q}}\le cR^{n(1/p-1/q)}\|f\|_{L^{p,\infty}}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
We follow the standard proof, replacing Young's inequality by its weak form, and making use of the interpolation result of Lemma \ref{Lpinterp}. First we prove the weak-weak version
$$
\|f\|_{L^{q,\infty}}\le cR^{n(1/p-1/q)}\|f\|_{L^{p,\infty}}
$$
valid for all $1\le p\le q<\infty$. To do this we simply apply the weak form of Young's inequality (Proposition \ref{prop:wYoung}) to $f=\phi^{1/R}\star f$:
\begin{align*}
\|f\|_{L^{q,\infty}}&=\|({\mathfrak D}_{1/R}\phi)\star f\|_{L^{q,\infty}}\\
&\le c\|{\mathfrak D}_{1/R}\phi\|_{L^r}\|f\|_{L^{p,\infty}},
\end{align*}
where
$$
1+\frac{1}{q}=\frac{1}{r}+\frac{1}{p}
$$
with $1\le p<\infty$ and $1<q,r<\infty$. It follows using (\ref{DphiLp}) that
  $$
  \|f\|_{L^{1,\infty}}\le cR^{n(1/p-1)}\|f\|_{L^{p,\infty}}
 \qquad\mbox{and}\qquad
  \|f\|_{L^{2q,\infty}}\le cR^{n(1/p-1/2q)}\|f\|_{L^{p,\infty}},
  $$
 and we then obtain (\ref{bernstein}) by interpolation of $L^q$ between $L^{1,\infty}$ and $L^{2q,\infty}$ (Lemma \ref{Lpinterp}),
    \begin{align}
    \|f\|_{L^q}&\le c\|f\|_{L^{1,\infty}}^{1/(2q-1)}\|f\|_{L^{2q,\infty}}^{(2q-2)/(2q-1)}\nonumber\\
    &\le cR^{n(1/p-1/q)}\|f\|_{L^{p,\infty}}.\qedhere
    \end{align}
\end{proof}

\section{Generalised Gagliardo--Nirenberg inequality I}\label{sec:GGN1}

We now prove our first generalisation of the Gagliardo--Nirenberg inequality, replacing the $L^q$ norm on the right-hand side of (\ref{GN}) by the norm in $L^{q,\infty}$. The new part of the following result is when $s\ge n/2$, with the case $s=n/2$ particularly interesting: in the range $n(1/2-1/p)<s<n/2$ the inequality follows using weak-$L^p$ interpolation from Lemma \ref{Lpinterp} coupled with the Sobolev embedding $\dot H^{n(1/2-1/p)}\subset L^p$ from Theorem \ref{EPS}.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:Ladyz}
Take $1\le q<p$ and $s\ge0$ with $s>n(1/2-1/p)$. There exists a constant $c_{p,q,s}$  such that if $f\in L^{q,\infty}({\mathbb R}^n)\cap \dot H^s({\mathbb R}^n)$ then $f\in L^p({\mathbb R}^n)$ and
  \begin{equation}\label{interpolated}
  \|f\|_{L^p}\le c_{p,q,s}\|f\|_{L^{q,\infty}}^{\theta}\|f\|_{\dot H^s}^{1-\theta}\qquad\mbox{for every}\quad f\in L^{q,\infty}\cap\dot H^s,
  \end{equation}
  where
  \begin{equation}\label{alphais}
  \frac{1}{p}=\frac{\theta}{q}+(1-\theta)\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{s}{n}\right).
  \end{equation}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
First we prove the theorem in the case $p\ge 2$. As in the proof of Theorem \ref{EPS} we write
$$
f=f_{<R}+f_{>R},
$$
where $f_{<R}$ and $f_{>R}$ are defined in (\ref{flgR}).

Using the endpoint Sobolev embedding $\dot H^{n(1/2-1/p)}({\mathbb R}^n)\subset L^p({\mathbb R}^n)$ from Theorem \ref{EPS} (taking $\dot H^0=L^2$ when $p=2$) we can estimate
\begin{align*}
\|f_{>R}\|_{L^p}&\le c\|f_{>R}\|_{\dot H^{n(1/2-1/p)}}\\
&=c\left(\int_{|\xi|\ge R}|\xi|^{2n(1/2-1/p)}|\hat f(\xi)|^2\,{\rm d}\xi\right)^{1/2}\\
&\le\frac{c}{R^{s-n(1/2-1/p)}}\left(\int_{|\xi|\ge R}|\xi|^{2s}|\hat f(\xi)|^2\,{\rm d}\xi\right)^{1/2}\\
&=\frac{c}{R^{s-n(1/2-1/p)}}\|f\|_{\dot H^s},
\end{align*}
while
$$
\|f_{<R}\|_{L^p}\le cR^{n(1/q-1/p)}\|f_{<R}\|_{L^{q,\infty}}\le cR^{n(1/q-1/p)}\|f\|_{L^{q,\infty}}
$$
using the weak-strong Bernstein inequality from Lemma \ref{Bernstein} and (\ref{wktri}).

Thus
$$
\|f\|_{L^p}\le c(R^{n(1/q-1/p)}\|f\|_{L^{q,\infty}}+R^{-s+n(1/2-1/p)}\|f\|_{\dot H^s}).
$$
Choosing
$$
R^{s+n(1/q-1/2)}=\frac{\|f\|_{\dot H^s}}{\|f\|_{L^{q,\infty}}}
$$
we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{halfI}
\|f\|_{L^p}\le c\|f\|_{L^{q,\infty}}^{\theta}\|f\|_{\dot H^s}^{1-\theta},
\end{equation}
where
$$
\theta=1-n\frac{1/q-1/p}{s+n(1/q-1/2)},
$$
which on rearrangement yields the condition (\ref{alphais}).

If $1\le q<p<2$ then we first interpolate $L^p$ between $L^{q,\infty}$ and $L^2$, and then use the above result with $p=2$. Setting $\frac{1}{2}=\frac{\theta'}{q}+(1-\theta')\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{s}{n}\right)$ we have
\begin{align*}
\|f\|_{L^p}&\le c\|f\|_{L^{q,\infty}}^{q(2-p)/p(2-q)}\|f\|_{L^2}^{2(p-q)/p(2-q)}\\
&\le c\|f\|_{L^{q,\infty}}^{q(2-p)/p(2-q)}\left(c\|f\|_{L^{q,\infty}}^{\theta'}\|f\|_{\dot H^s}^{1-\theta'}\right)^{2(p-q)/p(2-q)}\\
&=c\|f\|_{L^{q,\infty}}^\theta\|f\|_{\dot H^s}^{1-\theta},
\end{align*}
with $\theta$ given by (\ref{alphais}), as required.\end{proof}

\section{The space BMO of functions with bounded mean oscillation}\label{sec:BMO}

For any set $A\subset{\mathbb R}^n$ we write
$$
f_A=\frac{1}{|A|}\int_{A} f\,{\rm d} x
$$
for the average of $f$ over the set $A$. The space of functions with bounded mean oscillation, ${\rm BMO}({\mathbb R}^n)$, consists of those functions $f$ for which
$$
\|f\|_{\rm BMO}:=\sup_{Q\subset{\mathbb R}^n}\frac{1}{|Q|}\int_Q|f-f_Q|\,{\rm d} x
$$
is finite, where the supremum is taken over all cubes $Q\subset{\mathbb R}^n$. Note that this is a not a norm (any constant function has $\|c\|_{\rm BMO}=0$), but BMO is a linear space, i.e.\ if $f,g\in{\rm BMO}$ then  $f+g\in{\rm BMO}$ and
$$
\|f+g\|_{\rm BMO}\le\|f\|_{\rm BMO}+\|g\|_{\rm BMO}.
$$
This space was introduced by John \& Nirenberg \cite{JN}; more details can be found in Chapter 7 of Grafakos \cite{Graf2}, for example.

BMO is a space with the same scaling as $L^\infty$, but is a larger space. Indeed, if $f\in L^\infty({\mathbb R}^n)$ then clearly for any cube $Q$
\be{fmfQf}
\int_Q|f-f_Q|\,{\rm d} x\le2\int_Q|f|\le 2|Q|\|f\|_{L^\infty},
\end{equation}
and so
\be{Linf2BMO}
\|f\|_{\rm BMO}\le2\|f\|_{L^\infty}.
\end{equation}
However, the function $\log|x|\in{\rm BMO}({\mathbb R}^n)$ but is not bounded on ${\mathbb R}^n$ (Example 7.1.3 in Grafakos \cite{Graf2}).

The endpoint Sobolev embedding from Theorem \ref{EPS} fails when $s=n/2$, but at this endpoint we still have $\dot H^{n/2}({\mathbb R}^n)\subset{\rm BMO}({\mathbb R}^n)$. This is simple to show (following Theorem 1.48 in Bahouri et al.\ \cite{C**}), if we note that
for any $x\in Q$
$$
|f(x)-f_Q|=\left|\frac{1}{|Q|}\int_Q f(x)-f(y)\,{\rm d} y\right|\le\sqrt{n}|Q|^{1/n}\|\nabla f\|_{L^\infty(Q)}.
$$

\begin{lemma}\label{Hn2nBMO}
If $f\in L^1_{\rm loc}({\mathbb R}^n)\cap\dot H^{n/2}({\mathbb R}^n)$ then $f\in{\rm BMO}({\mathbb R}^n)$ and there exists a constant $C=C(n)$ such that
$$
\|f\|_{\rm BMO}\le C\|f\|_{\dot H^{n/2}}\qquad\mbox{for all}\quad f\in L^1_{\rm loc}({\mathbb R}^n)\cap\dot H^{n/2}({\mathbb R}^n).
$$
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
We write $f=f_{<R}+f_{>R}$ as in the proof of Theorem \ref{EPS} and then, recalling (\ref{fmfQf}),
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{|Q|}&\int_Q|f-f_Q|\le\sqrt{n}|Q|^{1/n}\|\nabla f_{<R}\|_{L^\infty(Q)}+\frac{1}{|Q|}\int_Q|f_{>R}-(f_{>R})_Q|\\
&\le\sqrt{n}|Q|^{1/n}\int_{|\xi|\le R}|\xi||\hat f(\xi)|\,{\rm d}\xi+\frac{2}{|Q|^{1/2}}\left(\int_Q|f_{<R}|^2\right)^{1/2}\\
&\le\sqrt{n}|Q|^{1/n}cR\left(\int_{{\mathbb R}^n}|\xi|^{n/2}|\hat f(\xi)|^2\,{\rm d}\xi\right)^{1/2}+\frac{2}{|Q|^{1/2}}\left(\int_{|\xi|\ge R}|\hat f(\xi)|^2\right)^{1/2}\\
&\le c_n[|Q|^{1/n}R+|Q|^{-1/2}R^{n/2}]\|f\|_{\dot H^{n/2}}.
\end{align*}
Choosing $R=|Q|^{-1/n}$ yields
$$
\frac{1}{|Q|}\int_Q|f-f_Q|\le C\|f\|_{\dot H^{n/2}};
$$
taking the supremum over all cubes $Q\subset{\mathbb R}^n$ yields $\|f\|_{\rm BMO}\le C\|f\|_{\dot H^{n/2}}$.\end{proof}

We now want to prove a result, due to John \& Nirenberg \cite{JN}, that gives an important property of functions in BMO that will be crucial in the proof of the inequality
$$
   \|f\|_{L^p}\le C\|f\|_{L^{q,\infty}}^{q/p}\|f\|_{\rm BMO}^{1-q/p},\qquad q<p<\infty,
$$
given in the next section. To prove the John--Nirenberg inequality we will need a Calderon--Zygmund type decomposition of ${\mathbb R}^n$ into a family of cubes with certain useful properties. The proof that such a decomposition is possible uses the Lebesgue Differentiation Theorem, which we now state (without proof).

We define the uncentred cubic maximal function by
$$
{\mathfrak M} f(x)=\sup_{Q\ni x}\frac{1}{|Q|}\int_Q|f(y)|\,{\rm d} y,
$$
where the supremum is taken over all cubes $Q\subset{\mathbb R}^n$ that contain $x$. The proof of the Lebesgue Differentiation Theorem uses the fact that ${\mathfrak M}$ maps $L^1$ into $L^{1,\infty}$; see Section 3.4 in Folland \cite{F} or Section 2.1 in Grafakos \cite{Grafakos} for details.

\begin{theorem}[Lebesgue Differentiation Theorem]\label{LDT}
If $f\in L^1_{\rm loc}({\mathbb R}^n)$ then
\begin{equation}\label{LebDiff}
\lim_{|Q|\to0}\frac{1}{|Q|}\int_Qf(y)\,{\rm d} y=f(x)
\end{equation}
for almost every $x\in{\mathbb R}^n$, where $Q$ is a cube containing $x$. As a consequence, $|f(x)|\le {\mathfrak M} f(x)$ almost everywhere.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:cubes}
  Let $Q$ be any cube in ${\mathbb R}^n$. Given $f\in L^1(Q)$ and
  $$
  M\ge\frac{1}{|Q|}\int_Q|f|
  $$
  there exists a countable collection $\{Q_j\}$ of disjoint open cubes such that $|f(x)|\le M$ for almost every $x\in Q\setminus\bigcup_jQ_j$ and
  \be{upanddown}
  M<\frac{1}{|Q_j|}\int_{Q_j}|f(x)|\,{\rm d} x\le 2^nM
  \end{equation}
  for every $Q_j$.
\end{proposition}

Note that it follows from (\ref{upanddown}) that
\be{sum2int}
\sum_j|Q_j|\le\frac{1}{M}\int_Q|f|.
\end{equation}

\begin{proof}
  Decompose $Q$ by halving each side into a collection ${\mathscr Q}_0$ of $2^n$ equal cubes.
Select one of these cubes $\hat Q$ if
  \begin{equation}\label{badun}
  \frac{1}{|\hat Q|}\int_{\hat Q}|f(x)|\,{\rm d} x>M.
  \end{equation}
  Call the selected cubes ${\mathscr C}_1$ and let ${\mathscr Q}_1={\mathscr Q}_0\setminus{\mathscr C}_1$.

  Repeat this process inductively, to produce a set ${\mathscr C}=\bigcup_j{\mathscr C}_j$ of selected cubes, on which (\ref{badun}) holds. Note that if $\hat Q$ was selected at step $k$ then it is contained in a cube $Q'\in{\mathscr Q}_{k-1}$, and so
  $$
  M<\frac{1}{|\hat Q|}\int_{\hat Q}|f(x)|\,{\rm d} x\le 2^n\frac{1}{|Q'|}\int_{Q'}|f(x)|\,{\rm d} x\le 2^nM.
  $$

  Finally, if $x\in Q\setminus\bigcup_jQ_j$ then there exists a sequences of cubes $Q_k$ containing $x$ with sides shrinking to zero and such that
  $$
  \frac{1}{|Q_k|}\int_{Q_k}|f(x)|\,{\rm d} x\le M.
  $$
  It follows from the Lebesgue Differentiation Theorem that $|f(x)|\le M$ for almost every $x\in Q\setminus\bigcup_jQ_j$.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}[John--Nirenberg inequality]\label{JN}
There exist constants $c$ and $C$ (depending only on $n$) such that if $f\in{\rm BMO}({\mathbb R}^n)$ then for any cube $Q\subset{\mathbb R}^n$
\be{expJN}
|\{x\in Q:\ |f-f_Q|>\alpha\}|\le \frac{C}{\|f\|_{\rm BMO}}{\rm e}^{-c\alpha/\|f\|_{\rm BMO}}\int_Q|f-f_Q|
\end{equation}
for all $\alpha\ge\|f\|_{\rm BMO}$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
We prove the result assuming that $\|f\|_{\rm BMO}=1$; we then obtain (\ref{expJN}) by applying the resulting inequality to $f/\|f\|_{\rm BMO}$. Let $F(\alpha)$ be the minimum number such that the inequality
\be{ineq4JN}
|\{x\in Q:\ |f(x)|>\alpha\}|\le F(\alpha)\int_Q|f|
\end{equation}
holds for all $f\in L^1(Q)$ and all cubes $Q$; note (cf.\ Lemma \ref{Lp2Lpw}) that $F(\alpha)\le 1/\alpha$.

Following the original proof of John \& Nirenberg \cite{JN} we show that for all $\alpha\ge 2^n$,
\be{2iterate}
F(\alpha)\le\frac{1}{M}F(\alpha-2^nM)\qquad\mbox{for all}\quad 1\le M\le 2^{-n}\alpha.
\end{equation}
Given $M$ in this range we decompose $f$ using Proposition \ref{prop:cubes}. Now, if $|f(x)|>\alpha\ge 2^n$ then $x\in Q_k$ for some $k$, and we know that $|f_{Q_k}|\le 2^nM$ from (\ref{upanddown}). So then
$$
|\{x\in Q:\ |f(x)|>\alpha\}|\le\sum_k|\{x\in Q_k:\ |f(x)-f_{Q_k}|>\alpha-2^nM\}|.
$$
We can now use (\ref{ineq4JN}) on the cube $Q_k$ for the function $f-f_{Q_k}$, so that
\begin{align*}
|\{x\in Q_k:\ |f(x)-f_{Q_k}|>\alpha-2^nM\}|&\le F(\alpha-2^nM)\int_{Q_k}|f-f_{Q_k}|\,{\rm d} x\\
&\le F(\alpha-2^nM)|Q_k|
\end{align*}
(recall that we took $\|f\|_{\rm BMO}=1$). It follows using (\ref{sum2int}) that
$$
|\{x\in Q:\ |f(x)|>\alpha\}\le\left(\sum_k|Q_k|\right)F(\alpha-2^nM)\le \frac{1}{M} F(\alpha-2^nM)\int_Q|f|\,{\rm d} x,
$$
which is (\ref{2iterate}).

To finish the proof we iterate (\ref{2iterate}) in a suitable way. We remarked above that $F(\alpha)\le1/\alpha$; now observe that
$$
\frac{1}{\alpha}\le C{\rm e}^{-\alpha/2^n{\rm e}}\qquad 1\le\alpha\le1+2^n{\rm e},
$$
for $C=\max_{1\le\alpha\le1+2^n{\rm e}}\alpha^{-1}{\rm e}^{\alpha/2^n{\rm e}}$. Iterating (\ref{2iterate}) with $M={\rm e}$, which implies that $F(\alpha+2^n{\rm e})\le\frac{1}{{\rm e}}F(\alpha)$, we obtain
$$
F(\alpha)\le C{\rm e}^{-c\alpha}\qquad\mbox{for all}\quad \alpha\ge 1,
$$
where $c=1/2^n{\rm e}$, which gives (\ref{expJN}).
\end{proof}

The more usually quoted form of this inequality,
$$
|\{x\in Q:\ |f-f_Q|>\alpha\}|\le C|Q|{\rm e}^{-c\alpha/\|f\|_{\rm BMO}},
$$
follows immediately from the definition of $\|f\|_{\rm BMO}$.

 \section{Generalised Gagliardo--Nirenberg inequality II}\label{sec:GGN2}

 We now adapt the very elegant argument of Chen \& Zhu \cite{CZ}  to prove the following stronger version of the inequality in (\ref{interpolated}) in the case $s=n/2$; they proved the inequality for $f\in L^q\cap{\rm BMO}$, but the changes required to take $f\in L^{q,\infty}\cap{\rm BMO}$ are in fact straightforward. Another proof for $f\in L^q\cap{\rm BMO}$, which still relies on the John--Nirenberg inequality (but less explicitly), is given by Azzam \& Bedrossian \cite{AB}, and a sketch of an alternative proof of the result for $f\in L^{q,\infty}\cap{\rm BMO}$ can be found in the paper by Kozono et al.\ \cite{KMW} (see also the discussion in Section \ref{sec:ispaces}, below).

 \begin{theorem}\label{thm:BMOineq}
   For any $1\le q<p<\infty$, if  $f\in L^{q,\infty}({\mathbb R}^n)\cap{\rm BMO}({\mathbb R}^n)$ then $f\in L^p({\mathbb R}^n)$ and there exists a constant $C=C(q,p,n)$ such that
   \begin{equation}\label{BMOineq}
   \|f\|_{L^p}\le C\|f\|_{L^{q,\infty}}^{q/p}\|f\|_{\rm BMO}^{1-q/p}.
   \end{equation}
 \end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
First we note that it is a consequence of the John--Nirenberg inequality from Lemma \ref{JN} that if $f\in{\rm BMO}\cap L^1$ then
\begin{equation}\label{JN-BMO}
d_f(\alpha)\le C{\rm e}^{-C\alpha/\|f\|_{\rm BMO}}\|f\|_{L^1}
\end{equation}
for all $\alpha>\|f\|_{\rm BMO}$; this follows by taking $|Q|\to\infty$ in (\ref{expJN}), since when $f\in L^1$,
 $$
 |f_Q|=\frac{1}{|Q|}\int|f|\to0\qquad\mbox{as}\quad|Q|\to\infty,
 $$
 and $\int_Q|f-f_Q|\,{\rm d} x\le 2\int_Q|f|\,{\rm d} x$.

Now take $f\in{\rm BMO}$ with $\|f\|_{\rm BMO}=1$. Split $f=f_{1-}+f_{1+}$ as in Lemma \ref{splitg}. Since $f_{1-}\in L^\infty$, $\|f_{1-}\|_{\rm BMO}\le 2\|f_{1-}\|_{L^\infty}\le 2$ (using (\ref{Linf2BMO})); thus $f_{1+}=f-f_{1-}\in{\rm BMO}$ and
$$
\|f_{1+}\|_{\rm BMO}\le\|f\|_{\rm BMO}+\|f_{1-}\|_{\rm BMO}\le 3.
$$

Using Lemma \ref{splitg} we know that
\begin{equation}\label{f1-}
\|f_{1-}\|_{L^p}^p\le C\|f_{1-}\|_{L^{q,\infty}}^q.
\end{equation}
Also, for $(q,q')$ conjugate,
$$
\|f_{1+}\|_{L^1}=\int|f_{1+}|\le\int|f_{1+}|^{1+1/q'}=\|f_{1+}\|_{L^{1+1/q'}}^{1+1/q'}\le c\|f_{1+}\|_{L^1}^{1/q'}\|f_{1+}\|_{L^{q,\infty}}
$$
(since $1<1+1/q'<q$ we can use weak-$L^p$ interpolation), which yields
$$
\|f_{1+}\|_{L^1}\le c\|f_{1+}\|_{L^{q,\infty}}^q.
$$
Now we calculate
\begin{align*}
\|f_{1+}\|_{L^p}^p&=p\int_0^\infty\alpha^{p-1}d_{f_{1+}}(\alpha)\,{\rm d}\alpha\\
&=p\int_0^1\alpha^{p-1}d_f(1)\,{\rm d}\alpha+p\int_1^\infty\alpha^{p-1}d_{f_{1+}}(\alpha)\,{\rm d}\alpha\\
&\le d_f(1)+p\left(\int_1^\infty\alpha^{p-1}C{\rm e}^{-C\alpha/3}\,{\rm d}\alpha\right)\|f_{1+}\|_{L^1},
\end{align*}
where we have used (\ref{dg+}), (\ref{JN-BMO}), and the fact that $\|f_{1+}\|_{\rm BMO}\le3$. Thus
\begin{equation}\label{f1+}
\|f_{1+}\|_{L^p}^p\le \|f\|_{L^{q,\infty}}^q+C\|f_{1+}\|_{L^{q,\infty}}^q\le C\|f\|_{L^{q,\infty}}^q.
\end{equation}

Adding (\ref{f1-})$^{1/p}$ and (\ref{f1+})$^{1/p}$ we obtain
$$
\|f\|_{L^p}\le C\|f\|_{L^{q,\infty}}^{q/p};
$$
(\ref{BMOineq}) follows.\end{proof}

\section{The interpolation space approach}\label{sec:ispaces}

So far we have avoided defining the two-parameter Lorentz spaces $L^{p,r}$, which involve decreasing rearrangements. In this final section we will obtain an inequality involving such spaces
\be{itsLorentz}
\|u\|_{L^{p,1}}\le C_{n,p,q}\|u\|_{L^{q,\infty}}^{q/p}\|u\|_{\rm BMO}^{1-q/p},
\end{equation}
from which (at least for $q>1$) our two previous inequalities follow (we require $1<q<p<\infty$ in (\ref{itsLorentz}), see Theorem \ref{GNLorentz}). We will do this via the theory of interpolation spaces. Here we will not provide detailed proofs of any of the results, for the most part merely providing statements of the relevant general theory.

\subsection{Lorentz spaces}

Given a measurable function $f\:{\mathbb R}^n\rightarrow{\mathbb R}$, we have already defined and made much use of its distribution function $d_f$. We now define its decreasing rearrangement $f^*:[0,\infty)\to[0,\infty]$ as
$$
f^*(t)=\inf\{\alpha:\ d_f(\alpha)\le t\},
$$
with the convention that $\inf\varnothing=\infty$. The point of this definition is that $f$ and $f^*$ have the same distribution function,
$$
d_{f^*}(\alpha)=d_f(\alpha),
$$
but $f^*$ is a positive non-increasing scalar function. Since their distribution functions agree, we can use the identity in (\ref{df2Lp}) to show that the $L^p$ norm of $f$ is equal to the $L^p$ norm of $f^*$:
\begin{align*}
\int_{{\mathbb R}^n}|f(x)|^p\,{\rm d} x&=p\int_0^\infty \alpha^{p-1}d_f(\alpha)\,{\rm d}\alpha\\
&=p\int_0^\infty\alpha^{p-1}d_{f^*}(\alpha)\,{\rm d}\alpha=\int_0^\infty f^*(\alpha)^p\,{\rm d}\alpha.
\end{align*}

Given $1\le p,q\le\infty$, the Lorentz space $L^{p,q}({\mathbb R}^n)$ consists of all measurable functions $f$ for which the quantity
$$
\|f\|_{L^{p,q}}:=\left(\int_0^\infty[t^{1/p}f^*(t)]^q\frac{{\rm d} t}{t}\right)^{1/q}
$$
(for $q<\infty$) or
$$
\|f\|_{L^{p,\infty}}:=\sup_{0<t<\infty}t^{1/p}f^*(t)
$$
(for $q=\infty$) is finite. It is simple to show (see Proposition 1.4.5 in Grafakos \cite{Grafakos}) that this definition agrees with our previous definition of $L^{p,\infty}$, that $L^{\infty,\infty}=L^\infty$, and that $L^{p,p}=L^p$ (the last of these, at least, is immediate).

If $r<s$ then $L^{p,r}\subset L^{p,s}$; so the largest space in this family for fixed $p$ is the weak space $L^{p,\infty}$, and the smallest is $L^{p,1}$. To see that $L^{p,r}\subset L^{p,\infty}$ for every $r$, simply observe that
\begin{align*}
t^{1/p}f^*(t)&=\left\{\frac{r}{p}\int_0^t[s^{1/p}f^*(t)]^r\frac{{\rm d} s}{s}\right\}^{1/r}\\
&\le \left\{\frac{r}{p}\int_0^t[s^{1/p}f^*(s)]^r\frac{{\rm d} s}{s}\right\}^{1/r}\\
&\le(r/p)^{1/r}\|f\|_{L^{p,r}},
\end{align*}
which yields $\|f\|_{L^{p,\infty}}\le (r/p)^{1/r}\|f\|_{L^{p,r}}$ on taking the supremum over $t>0$. Given this, if $r<q<\infty$ then, using H\"older's inequality,
$$
\|f\|_{L^{p,q}}=\left\{\int_0^t[t^{1/p}f^*(t)]^{q-r+r}\frac{{\rm d} t}{t}\right\}^{1/r}\le\|f\|_{L^{p,\infty}}^{(q-r)/q}\|f\|_{L^{p,r}}^{r/q}\le C_{p,q,r}\|f\|_{L^{p,r}}.
$$

\subsection{Interpolation spaces}

We now very briefly outline the theory of interpolation spaces; the general theory is modelled on the definition of the Lorentz spaces given above. For sustained expositions of the theory see Bennett \& Sharpley \cite{BS}, Bergh \& L\"ofstr\"om \cite{BL}, or Lundari \cite{Lunardi}.

Given two Banach spaces $X_0$ and $X_1$ that embed continuously into some parent Hausdorff topological vector space, which we term ``a compatible pair", we define the $K$-functional for each $x\in X_0+X_1$ and $t>0$ by
$$
K(x,t)=\inf\{\|x_0\|_{X_0}+t\|x_1\|_{X_1}:\ x_0+x_1=x,\ x_0\in X_0,\ x_1\in X_1\}.
$$
Then for $0<\theta<1$ and $1\le q<\infty$ we define the interpolation space $(X_0,X_1)_{\theta,q}$ as the space of all $x\in X_0+X_1$ for which
$$
\|x\|_{\theta,q}:=\left(\int_0^\infty[t^{-\theta}K(f,t)]^q\frac{{\rm d} t}{t}\right)^{1/q}
$$
is finite. Similarly, for $0\le\theta\le 1$ and $q=\infty$, the space $(X_0,X_1)_{\theta,\infty}$ is the space of all $x\in X_0+X_1$ such that
$$
\|x\|_{\theta,\infty}=\sup_{0<t<\infty}t^{-\theta}K(f,t)
$$
is finite. For all these spaces ($1\le q\le\infty$) we have the interpolation inequality
\begin{equation}\label{norm4tq}
\|f\|_{\theta,q}\le C_{\theta,q}\|f\|_{X_0}^{1-\theta}\|f\|_{X_1}^\theta
\end{equation}
(see Section 3.5 in Bergh \& L\"ofstr\"om \cite{BL}, for example).

Given the definitions of Lorentz spaces and of the interpolation spaces, it is not surprising that
$$
(L^1,L^\infty)_{1-1/p,r}=L^{p,r}
$$
for $0<\theta<1$, $1\le r\le\infty$. That one can replace $L^\infty$ here by BMO is much less obvious, but key to the `quick' proof of (\ref{itsLorentz}) that we give in this section.

\begin{theorem}[Bennett \& Sharpley]\label{BSBMO}
For $1<p<\infty$ and $1\le r\le\infty$,
$$
L^{p,r}=(L^1,{\rm BMO})_{1-1/p,r}.
$$
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
See Chapter 5, Theorem 8.11, in Bennett \& Sharpley \cite{BS}. One can also find a proof of this result in the paper by Hanks \cite{Hanks}, and of a similar but slightly weaker result (with $L^p$ on the left-hand side) using complex interpolation spaces  in the paper by Janson \& Jones \cite{JJ}.
\end{proof}

We note here that the key step in the proof of this result given in Bennet \& Sharpley \cite{BS} (and in Hanks \cite{Hanks}) is a relationship between the sharp function of $f$,
$$
f^\sharp_Q(x):=\sup_{Q'\subset Q,\ Q'\ni x}\frac{1}{|Q'|}\int_{Q'}|f-f_{Q'}|,
$$
its decreasing rearrangement $f^*$, and the function $f^{**}(t):=\frac{1}{t}\int_0^tf^*(s)\,{\rm d} s$:
$$
f^{**}(t)-f^*(t)\le C(f_Q^\sharp)^*(t)\qquad 0<t<|Q|
$$
(Lemma 7.3 in Chapter 5 of Bennett \& Sharpley \cite{BS}). This also forms the main ingredient in the proof of (\ref{BMOineq}) in Kozono \& Wadade \cite{KW} (and the proof of (\ref{Lorentzone}) in Kozono et al.\ \cite{KMW}).

The inequality (\ref{BMOineq}) in fact follows simply from Theorem \ref{BSBMO} using the following `Reiteration Theorem', which allows one to identify interpolants between two interpolation spaces in terms of the original `endpoints'.

\begin{theorem}[Reiteration Theorem]\label{reiteration}
Let $(X_0,X_1)$ be a compatible pair of Banach spaces, and let $0\le\theta_0<\theta_1\le 1$ and $1\le q_0,q_1\le\infty$. Set
$$
Y_0=(X_0,X_1)_{\theta_0,q_0}\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad Y_1=(X_0,X_1)_{\theta_1,q_1}.
$$
If $0<\theta<1$ and $1\le q\le\infty$ then
$$
(Y_0,Y_1)_{\theta,q}=(X_0,X_1)_{(1-\theta)\theta_0+\theta\theta_1,q}.
$$
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
See Theorem 2.4 of Chapter 5 in Bennett \& Sharpley \cite{BS}, or Theorem 3.5.3 in Bergh \& L\"ofstr\"om \cite{BL}.
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary}[Generalised Gagliardo--Nirenberg with Lorentz spaces]\label{GNLorentz}

$ $\\ If $u\in L^{q,\infty}\cap{\rm BMO}$ for some $q>1$ and $q<p<\infty$, then $u\in L^{p,1}$ and there exists a constant $C_{n,p,q}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{Lorentzone}
\|u\|_{L^{p,1}}\le C_{n,p,q}\|u\|_{L^{q,\infty}}^{q/p}\|u\|_{\rm BMO}^{1-q/p}.
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}

Note that given the ordering of Lorentz spaces, $L^{p,1}\subset L^{p,p}=L^p$ and so this result implies Theorem \ref{thm:BMOineq} in the case $q>1$.

\begin{proof}
Using Theorem \ref{BSBMO}, since $q>1$ we have
$$
L^{q,s}=(L^1,{\rm BMO})_{1-1/q,s};
$$
set $\mathfrak B=(L^1,{\rm BMO})_{1,\infty}$. Note that from (\ref{norm4tq}) $\|f\|_{\mathfrak B}\le C\|f\|_{\rm BMO}$. Now simply use the Reiteration Theorem to obtain
$$
L^{p,r}=(L^{q,s},{\mathfrak B})_{(1-q/p),r},
$$
from which the inequality (\ref{Lorentzone}) follows immediately using (\ref{norm4tq}).
\end{proof}

\noindent(One can use interpolation spaces to provide a proof of Theorem \ref{thm:BMOineq} that does not involve Lorentz spaces by using interpolation only with $q=\infty$ and then interpolation between weak $L^p$ spaces, see McCormick et al.\ \cite{MRR}.)

\section{Afterword: The Marcinkiewicz interpolation theorem}\label{sec:Marcin}

Although we have not needed it here, one of the main uses of weak spaces arises due to the powerful Marcinkiewicz interpolation theorem, in which bounds in weak spaces at the endpoints lead to bounds in strong spaces in between. We include here a statement of the theorem\footnote{Be aware that to fit in with our other statements throughout the paper we have swapped the traditional roles of $p$ and $q$ in Theorem \ref{thm:Marcinkiewicz}.} and some straightforward consequences.

We say $T$ is sublinear if
$$
|T(f+g)|\le|Tf|+|Tg|\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad |T(\lambda f)|\le|\lambda||Tf|
$$
almost everywhere.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:Marcinkiewicz}
Suppose that $q_0<q_1$ and that $T$ is a sublinear map defined on $L^{q_0}+L^{q_1}$ such that for some $p_0,p_1$
$$
\|Tf\|_{L^{p_0,\infty}}\le A_0\|f\|_{L^{q_0}}\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad \|Tf\|_{L^{p_1,\infty}}\le A_1\|f\|_{L^{q_1}}.
$$
If
\begin{equation}\label{pandq}
\frac{1}{q}=\frac{1-t}{q_0}+\frac{t}{q_1}\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad\frac{1}{p}=\frac{1-t}{p_0}+\frac{t}{p_1}
\end{equation}
and $p\ge q$ then $T\:L^q\to L^p$ and there exists a constant $A_t$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{Mmagic}
\|Tf\|_{L^p}\le A_t\|f\|_{L^q}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

With the restriction that $p_0\ge q_0$ and $p_1\ge q_1$ one can find an elementary proof of this theorem in Folland \cite{F}. To remove this restriction requires a more refined argument using the decreasing rearrangements introduced in Section \ref{sec:ispaces}, see Theorem 1.4.19 in Grafakos \cite{Grafakos} or Hunt \cite{Hunt}.

We now give some interesting consequences of this theorem.

\subsection{The Fourier transform on $L^p$, $1\le p\le 2$}

We saw in Section \ref{sec:FT} that $\mathscr F$ maps $L^1$ into $L^\infty$ and $L^2$ into $L^2$, so the following result is immediate.

\begin{corollary}\label{cor:FT}
For $1\le p\le 2$ the Fourier transform is a bounded linear map from $L^p$ into $L^q$, where $(p,q)$ are conjugate.
\end{corollary}

\subsection{A sharpened version of Young's inequality}

Another application is the improved version of Young's inequality that was promised in Section \ref{sec:Young}.

\begin{theorem}\label{bestYoung}
  Suppose that $1<p,q,r<\infty$. If $f\in L^{q,\infty}$ and $g\in L^r$ with
$$
\frac{1}{p}+1=\frac{1}{q}+\frac{1}{r}
$$
then $f\star g\in L^p$ with
\begin{equation}\label{w2sYoung}
\|f\star g\|_{L^p}\le c_{p,q,r}\|f\|_{L^{q,\infty}}\|g\|_{L^r}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Note that it follows from the conditions on $p,q,r$ that $p>q$.
Fix $f\in L^{q,\infty}$ with $\|f\|_{L^{q,\infty}}=1$, and consider the linear operator $T(g)=f\star g$. Since $1<p,q<\infty$ we can find $p_0<p<p_1$, $q_0<q<q_1$, and $0<t<1$ such $p_0\ge q_0$, $p_1\ge q_1$, and (\ref{pandq}) holds. Now using the weak form of Young's inequality from Proposition \ref{prop:wYoung},
$$
\|f\star g\|_{L^{p_0,\infty}}\le C\|g\|_{L^{q_0}}\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad\|f\star g\|_{L^{p_1,\infty}}\le C\|g\|_{L^{q_1}}.
$$
We can now use the Marcinkiewicz interpolation theorem to guarantee that
$$
\|f\star g\|_{L^p}\le C\|g\|_{L^q}.
$$
Since $f\star g$ is also linear in $f$, we obtain (\ref{w2sYoung}).
\end{proof}

\subsection{Endpoint Sobolev embedding, revisited}

Using Theorem \ref{bestYoung} and the fact that if $P_\alpha(x)=|x|^{-\alpha}$ then $[\hat P_\alpha](\xi)=c_{n,\alpha}P_{n-\alpha}(\xi)$ (this can be checked by simple calculation) we can give a very quick alternative proof of the endpoint Sobolev embedding, after Theorem 1.38 in Bahouri et al.\ \cite{C**}.

\begin{theorem}
For $2<p<\infty$ there exists a constant $c=c_{n,p}$ such that if $f\in\dot H^s({\mathbb R}^n)$ with $s=n(1/2-1/p)$ then $f\in L^p({\mathbb R}^n)$ and $\|f\|_{L^p}\le c\|f\|_{\dot H^s}$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof} We make the pointwise definition $\gamma(\xi)=|\xi|^s\hat f(\xi)$; since $f\in\dot H^s({\mathbb R}^n)$, $\gamma\in L^2({\mathbb R}^n)$. If we set $g={\mathscr F}^{-1}\gamma$ then $g\in L^2({\mathbb R}^n)$ and $\|g\|_{L^2}=\|\gamma\|_{L^2}=\|f\|_{\dot H^s}$. Now,
$$
\hat f(\xi)=\frac{|\xi|^s\hat f(\xi)}{|\xi|^s}=\hat g(\xi)|\xi|^{-s},
$$
and so $f=g\star c_{n,n-s}^{-1}P_{n-s}$. Since $P_{n-s}\in L^{n/(n-s),\infty}$ and $g\in L^2$ it follows from Theorem \ref{bestYoung} that $f\in L^p({\mathbb R}^n)$.\end{proof}

\subsection*{Acknowledgment}
We would like to thanks Jacob Azzam for his helpful comments, in particular for pointing out a number of references including \cite{CZ}. JCR would like to thank Franco Tomarelli for the invitation to speak in the Seminario Matematico e Fisico di Milano and subsequently to write this paper for the {\it Milan Journal of Mathematics}.