\|_2 \lesssim
\|Q_ND_{x}^{\alpha}g\|_{L_x^{\infty}l_N^1}\|f\|_2.
\label{prod_rule}$$ A classical Leibnitz type inequality for fractional derivatives is the following (see [@KPV1]).

\[stand\_prod\] Let $0 < \alpha, \alpha_1, \alpha_2 < 1$, $\alpha=\alpha_1+\alpha_2$, $1 <p,p_1,p_2 < \infty$, and $\frac{1}{p}=\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{p_2}$. In addition, the $\alpha_1=\alpha$, $p=p_2$, and $p_1=\infty$ is allowed. Then the following holds for functions $f,g$ on $\mathbb R^n$. $$\|D_x^{\alpha}(fg)-D^{\alpha}(f)g-fD_x^{\alpha}(g)\|_p \lesssim
\|D_x^{\alpha_1}g\|_{p_1}\|D_x^{\alpha_2}f\|_{p_2} \notag$$

The proof uses the Littlewood-Paley Theorem (see [@S]), which states that for any function $f$, if $1 < p < \infty$, then $$\label{little_pale}
\|Q_N(f)\|_{L_x^pl_N^2} \lesssim \|f\|_p \lesssim \|Q_N(f)\|_{L_x^pl_N^2}.$$

Lemma \[stand\_prod\] is not sufficient for our argument in the previous section, since we need to put the *derivative* term in the infinity norm. A product rule like this can be obtained by following the proof of Lemma \[stand\_prod\] line for line. The only difference is that since fails for $p=\infty$, $\|Q_N(D_x^{\alpha}g)\|_{L_{x}^{\infty}l_N^2}$ is not equivalent to $\|D_x^{\alpha}g\|_{\infty}$. This idea was inspired by [@KT], where the authors use $\|Q_N\cdot\|_{l_N^2L_x^{4}L_T^{\infty}}$ in an estimate where the $\|\cdot\|_{L_x^{4}L_T^{\infty}}$ norm may fail.

\[my\_prod
\|_2 \lesssim 
 \|Q_ND_{x}^{\alpha}g\|_{L_x^{\infty}l_N^1}\|f\|_2. 
 \label{prod_rule}$$ A classical Leibnitz type inequality for fractional derivatives is the following (visualize [ @KPV1 ]). 

 \[stand\_prod\ ] lease $ 0 < \alpha, \alpha_1, \alpha_2 < 1 $, $ \alpha=\alpha_1+\alpha_2 $, $ 1 < p, p_1,p_2 < \infty$, and $ \frac{1}{p}=\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{p_2}$. In addition, the $ \alpha_1=\alpha$, $ p = p_2 $, and $ p_1=\infty$ is permit. Then the following holds for function $ f, g$ on $ \mathbb R^n$. $ $ \|D_x^{\alpha}(fg)-D^{\alpha}(f)g - fD_x^{\alpha}(g)\|_p \lesssim 
 \|D_x^{\alpha_1}g\|_{p_1}\|D_x^{\alpha_2}f\|_{p_2 } \notag$$ 

 The validation uses the Littlewood - Paley Theorem (see [ @S ]), which states that for any function $ f$, if $ 1 < p < \infty$, then $ $ \label{little_pale } 
 \|Q_N(f)\|_{L_x^pl_N^2 } \lesssim \|f\|_p \lesssim \|Q_N(f)\|_{L_x^pl_N^2}.$$ 

 Lemma \[stand\_prod\ ] is not sufficient for our argumentation in the previous section, since we want to place the * derivative * term in the infinity norm. A product rule like this can be obtain by following the proof of Lemma \[stand\_prod\ ] line for wrinkle. The only difference is that since fails for $ p=\infty$, $ \|Q_N(D_x^{\alpha}g)\|_{L_{x}^{\infty}l_N^2}$ is not equivalent to $ \|D_x^{\alpha}g\|_{\infty}$. This idea was inspire by [ @KT ], where the authors use $ \|Q_N\cdot\|_{l_N^2L_x^{4}L_T^{\infty}}$ in an estimate where the $ \|\cdot\|_{L_x^{4}L_T^{\infty}}$ norm may fail. 

 \[my\_prod
\|_2 \ledssim
\|Q_ND_{x}^{\alpha}g\|_{L_x^{\infty}l_N^1}\|n\|_2.
\label{prod_rule}$$ A classiral Leignitz tyoe inequality for fractional dwrivaupves is the following (see [@KPV1]).

\[snand\_prod\] Oet $0 < \alpha, \alpiz_1, \alpha_2 < 1$, $\alpgw=\alpka_1+\elpha_2$, $1 <p,p_1,p_2 < \infjy$, and $\frac{1}{p}=\xrac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{p_2}$. In ddaicion, the $\alpha_1=\alpha$, $p=p_2$, and $p_1=\infty$ is allowec. Hhen the folloring rolda for functions $f,g$ on $\mathbb R^n$. $$\|D_x^{\zlpha}(fg)-V^{\alpha}(f)g-fD_x^{\alphs}(g)\|_p \lesssim
\|D_x^{\alpha_1}g\|_{p_1}\|D_x^{\alphw_2}f\|_{p_2} \jotag$$

The proof used the Littlgsooq-Paley Theoreo (see [@S]), whpeh states tgat for any function $f$, if $1 < p < \knfty$, then $$\labeo{luttpg_pale}
\|Q_N(f)\|_{L_x^pl_I^2} \lessfim \|f\|_p \lessslk \|Q_N(f)\|_{L_f^pl_N^2}.$$

Lemka \[stand\_prod\] ix nmt wufficient for our arjument in the previoos section, snnce we need to put tye *derieatiee* tdem kn uhe ihfinitj nkrm. A prodhct rule lije this can be obtaonqe by followinf the [rjof of Lemma \[stand\_prod\] line for line. Tht onlg difference is that sibce fails for $p=\infty$, $\|E_N(D_x^{\alpha}d)\|_{L_{x}^{\infty}l_N^2}$ is not equivalent to $\|D_x^{\alpha}g\|_{\infty}$. Thiv idee das ikspifwd by [@KT], where the authors use $\|Q_N\cdot\|_{l_N^2L_x^{4}L_T^{\inftr}}$ im sn estimate whcre the $\|\cdot\|_{L_x^{4}L_T^{\ingtj}}$ mjrm may fail.

\[mi\_prod
\|_2 \lesssim \|Q_ND_{x}^{\alpha}g\|_{L_x^{\infty}l_N^1}\|f\|_2. \label{prod_rule}$$ A classical Leibnitz for derivatives is following (see [@KPV1]). \alpha_1, < 1$, $\alpha=\alpha_1+\alpha_2$, <p,p_1,p_2 < \infty$, $\frac{1}{p}=\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{p_2}$. In addition, the $\alpha_1=\alpha$, $p=p_2$, $p_1=\infty$ is allowed. Then the following holds for functions $f,g$ on $\mathbb R^n$. \lesssim \|D_x^{\alpha_1}g\|_{p_1}\|D_x^{\alpha_2}f\|_{p_2} \notag$$ The proof uses the Littlewood-Paley Theorem (see [@S]), which states for function if < p < \infty$, then $$\label{little_pale} \|Q_N(f)\|_{L_x^pl_N^2} \lesssim \|f\|_p \lesssim \|Q_N(f)\|_{L_x^pl_N^2}.$$ Lemma \[stand\_prod\] is not sufficient our argument in the previous section, since we to put the *derivative* in the infinity norm. A rule this can obtained following proof of Lemma line for line. The only difference is that since fails for $p=\infty$, $\|Q_N(D_x^{\alpha}g)\|_{L_{x}^{\infty}l_N^2}$ is not equivalent to This idea by [@KT], the use in an estimate $\|\cdot\|_{L_x^{4}L_T^{\infty}}$ norm may fail. \[my\_prod
\|_2 \lesssim
\|Q_ND_{x}^{\alpha}g\|_{L_x^{\infty}l_n^1}\|f\|_2.
\label{proD_rule}$$ a clAssIcAl LeIbniTz type inequaliTY for Fractional derivatives iS the fOlLOwinG (SeE [@KPV1]).

\[sTand\_proD\] leT $0 < \ALphA, \aLpHa_1, \aLpHA_2 < 1$, $\aLpha=\aLphA_1+\alpha_2$, $1 <p,P_1,p_2 < \infty$, and $\FraC{1}{p}=\Frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{p_2}$. In ADdItion, the $\alPha_1=\Alpha$, $p=p_2$, and $p_1=\iNftY$ is allOwEd. THEn the FolLowinG holds FOr funcTions $f,g$ on $\MaTHbb R^n$. $$\|D_X^{\Alpha}(fg)-d^{\ALpHa}(f)g-FD_x^{\alpha}(g)\|_p \lesssim
\|d_X^{\aLPha_1}g\|_{p_1}\|D_x^{\alpha_2}f\|_{p_2} \Notag$$

THe PRoOF UseS thE LittlewooD-PAley THEorem (seE [@s]), wHICH stATes that for any Function $f$, if $1 < P < \InfTy$, then $$\LaBel{LIttle_pAle}
\|Q_N(F)\|_{L_X^Pl_N^2} \Lesssim \|f\|_p \leSssiM \|Q_N(f)\|_{L_x^pl_N^2}.$$

lemma \[sTAnd\_prod\] IS not sufFicienT foR ouR argUMeNt In tHe PRevIOuS seCTioN, since we NeEd To put The *dERIVAtivE* teRm in The inFinity norm. A prOduCt ruLE liKe thiS can bE obtAiNed by FollowIng thE pRoof of Lemma \[stanD\_proD\] line for lIne. thE onLy DiffeREnce is ThaT siNce failS for $p=\inFTy$, $\|Q_n(D_X^{\ALPhA}g)\|_{L_{x}^{\infty}l_N^2}$ is not eqUiVALeNt to $\|D_x^{\alPha}g\|_{\inFTy}$. thIS idea was InSpiRed bY [@kt], wherE the AUtHors use $\|Q_n\cdot\|_{l_n^2l_x^{4}l_T^{\Infty}}$ in An EstimaTe WheRe tHe $\|\cdoT\|_{l_x^{4}L_T^{\Infty}}$ nOrm may faIl.

\[my\_pROd
\|_2 \lesssim
\|Q_ND_{x}^{ \alpha}g\| _{L_x ^{\ inf ty }l_N ^1}\ |f\|_2.
\label { prod _rule}$$ A classical L eibni tz type in equal ity for fr a c tio na lder iv a ti ves i s t he foll owing (see  [@ KP V1]).

\[sta n d\ _prod\] Le t $ 0 < \alpha,\al pha_1,  \ alp h a_2 <  1$ , $\a lpha=\ a lpha_1 +\alpha_2 $, $1 <p, p _1,p_2< \i nfty $, and $\frac{1}{ p }= \ frac{1}{p_1}+\ frac{1 }{ p _2 } $ . I n a ddition, t he  $\al p ha_1=\a l ph a $ ,  $p = p_2$, and $p_ 1=\infty$ i s  al lowed.  T hen the fo llowi ng hol ds for func tion s $f,g$ o n $\ma t hbb R^n $ . $$\|D _x^{\a lph a}( fg)- D ^{ \a lph a} ( f)g - fD _x^ { \al pha}(g)\ |_ p\less sim\ | D _ x^{\ alp ha_1 }g\|_ {p_1}\|D_x^{\ alp ha_2 } f\| _{p_2 } \no tag$ $
Theproofusesth e Littlewood-Pa leyTheorem ( see  [ @S] ),  whic h  state s t hat  for an y funct i on$f $ , if  $1 < p < \infty$,  t h e n$$\label {littl e _p al e }
\|Q_N( f) \|_ {L_x ^ p l_N^2 } \l e ss sim \|f\ |_p \l e ss si m \|Q_N (f )\|_{L _x ^pl _N^ 2}.$$ 
Lem ma \[s tand\_pr od\]i s not sufficie n t for our arg u me n t  i n  the  pr evious sect ion, sinc e we ne edt o put  the*d e ri v ative* term in thein finity  norm . A product r ule like t h i s  can beobta i ne d  by followingthe p roof of Le m ma \[sta nd\_p rod\] li ne for li n e . The on lydif fer enc e is  that since f a i ls f or  $p=\in fty $, $\|Q _N( D_x ^{\ alp ha }g)\|_{L_ {x}^{\in ft y} l_ N^ 2}$  is n o t equiva le ntto  $\ |D_x^ { \alpha }g\|_ {\in ft y} $ . T his ide a  w a s  ins pi re d by  [@ KT ], wh eret heauthors  use $\|Q _N\ c dot\ |_ {l _N^2L_x ^{4}L_T^{\inf ty }}$ in anes tim ate wh e r e the $\ |\cdot\|_{L_x^{4}L_T^{\ i nfty}}$  no rm ma y fa il.

\[my \_p rod
\|_2 \lesssim
\|Q_ND_{x}^{\alpha}g\|_{L_x^{\infty}l_N^1}\|f\|_2.
\label{prod_rule}$$_A classical_Leibnitz type inequality for_fractional derivatives_is_the following_(see_[@KPV1]).

\[stand\_prod\] Let $0_< \alpha, \alpha_1,_\alpha_2 < 1$, $\alpha=\alpha_1+\alpha_2$,_$1 <p,p_1,p_2 <_\infty$,_and $\frac{1}{p}=\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{p_2}$. In addition, the $\alpha_1=\alpha$, $p=p_2$, and $p_1=\infty$ is allowed. Then the following_holds_for functions_$f,g$_on_$\mathbb R^n$. $$\|D_x^{\alpha}(fg)-D^{\alpha}(f)g-fD_x^{\alpha}(g)\|_p \lesssim
\|D_x^{\alpha_1}g\|_{p_1}\|D_x^{\alpha_2}f\|_{p_2} \notag$$

The_proof uses the Littlewood-Paley Theorem_(see [@S]),_which states that for any function $f$, if_$1_< p <_\infty$, then $$\label{little_pale}
\|Q_N(f)\|_{L_x^pl_N^2} \lesssim \|f\|_p \lesssim \|Q_N(f)\|_{L_x^pl_N^2}.$$

Lemma \[stand\_prod\] is_not sufficient for our argument in_the previous section,_since_we_need to put the_*derivative* term in the infinity norm._A product rule like this can_be obtained by following the proof of_Lemma \[stand\_prod\] line for line. The_only difference is that since_fails for_$p=\infty$, $\|Q_N(D_x^{\alpha}g)\|_{L_{x}^{\infty}l_N^2}$ is not equivalent_to $\|D_x^{\alpha}g\|_{\infty}$. This_idea was_inspired by [@KT],_where the authors use $\|Q_N\cdot\|_{l_N^2L_x^{4}L_T^{\infty}}$ in_an estimate where_the $\|\cdot\|_{L_x^{4}L_T^{\infty}}$ norm may fail.

\[my\_prod