Carleson embedding theorem on the disk 2026-10-14
A positive Borel measure on the unit disc satisfies for every H1 space on the unit disk function exactly when it is a Carleson measure, with comparable optimal constants. The normalized squared Cauchy kernel tests necessity. For sufficiency, the boundary shadow of every point with lies inside a component arc of . The geodesic-cap and Carleson-box comparison bounds the measure of each shadow region by its component length, giving . The layer cake representation and H1 non-tangential maximal inequality on the disk give the embedding. The broader kernel and covering mechanism is discussed in Terence Tao's harmonic-analysis notes, Exercise 2 after Lemma 4.1; the analytic endpoint here uses the fractional-power argument just given.
For a real function bounded by one on a finite Cartesian product, the fourth power of its box norm is the mean of . Two applications of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality bound every rectangular discrepancy by the box norm. Conversely, decompose each bounded real test function into positive and negative parts and use the layer cake representation. Its bilinear pairing with is at most four times the cut norm. Applying this to the row and column tests furnished by fixed bounds the fourth moment by four times the cut norm. These dimension-independent estimates make the two notions of small discrepancy equivalent.
Lebesgue integral Created 2026-09-29 Updated 2026-10-14
For a nonnegative measurable function on a measure space, defineThe supremum may be infinite. A simple function assigns finitely many heights to measurable sets, so its integral is height times measure, summed over those pieces. This definition groups points by their values rather than requiring a partition into short intervals. See MIT lecture 11, Definition 108.
A real-valued function is Lebesgue integrable when . Its integral is , where is its positive part and . This finiteness requirement avoids subtracting two infinities. For functions taking values in the complex numbers, integrate the real part and imaginary part separately.
Consider the Dirichlet function on . It is a simple function, andIts Riemann integral does not exist. For every partition of an interval , each nondegenerate contains both rational numbers and irrational numbers, by their respective density of the rational numbers and density of the irrational numbers. Thus its infimum there is and its supremum is . The lower Darboux sum is , whereas the upper Darboux sum is . Refinement never closes this gap. A finite scatterplot cannot represent this behavior: the assertion concerns every subinterval and every partition of an interval.
Another view builds the Lebesgue integral from horizontal layers. For any nonnegative measurable function, the layer cake representation statesBoth sides may be infinite. The right side integrates the measure of a superlevel set against Lebesgue measure in the height variable . See Gautam Iyer's measure theory notes, Theorem 9.5.
For on with Lebesgue measure, the superlevel set at is , of Lebesgue measure ; for it is empty. ConsequentlyAt height , the layer extends from to , a width of . The picture shows why the same area can be accumulated vertically or horizontally. In a probability space, the identical formula expresses the expected value of a nonnegative random variable through its exceedance probabilities.
A proof outline avoids extra assumptions on the measure space. For a nonnegative simple function with disjoint measurable sets , the superlevel set has measure . Integrating this finite sum gives . Next use approximation by nonnegative simple functions . For every , the superlevel sets increase to . Continuity from below of a measure and the monotone convergence theorem on the height variable give the formula for .
Lp bound from a tail domination inequality 2026-10-14
Let , , and . Assume the displayed tail inequality and finite positive-threshold superlevel measures. First split at to obtain . Layer cake representation and Tonelli theorem imply . Integrating the original inequality against then gives , with . This is the analytic estimate behind the Doob Lp maximal inequality.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2001 iii Paper 21 5 a Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-14
For the continuous adapted process , the supremum on each compact time interval is attained. Let . Continuity gives , and henceEach event inside the union is in , so this proves carefully that is a stopping time. Merely checking rational times for would miss a path that touches the level at an isolated irrational time; the approximation from below avoids this issue. This is the closed-level hitting times of continuous adapted processes criterion. For , nonnegativity makes and the later inequality is immediate.
For , put and . On , continuity implies . To justify the optional sampling step without extra filtration assumptions, round upwards to a finite dyadic grid in , obtaining stopping times . The event belongs to , and hence to : directly, for , while for it is . Discrete optional sampling for the sampled submartingale givesAs , continuity gives . Nonnegativity and the Fatou lemma therefore yieldConsequently the Doob maximal inequality for a nonnegative submartingale takes the precise form
For the second-moment bound, suppose first that ; otherwise the inequality with an infinite right side is automatic. Set . The layer cake representation and the preceding tail estimate giveThe integrands are nonnegative, so the interchange is justified by the Tonelli theorem. Since is bounded, division is legitimate when its norm is nonzero, giving ; the zero-norm case is immediate. Finally, monotone convergence as givesThis truncated layer-cake proof of the L2 maximal inequality proves square integrability of the maximum rather than assuming it during the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality step.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2001 iii Paper 9 5 Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-14
Write , , and . We first prove a constant-version spherical isoperimetric inequality directly, including regions with several boundary components.
If , the arithmetic bound already gives . If , a region with smooth boundary is empty or the whole connected sphere up to boundary-null changes, and its area product is zero. For , write the smooth boundary as finitely many disjoint simple closed curves of lengths . Fix a point on each curve. The shorter boundary arc from to any other point has length at most , so is contained in the closed geodesic ball of radius about .
The complement of that small ball is connected and lies entirely on one side of . The Jordan curve theorem therefore gives a disk bounded by contained in the ball. Its area satisfiesThe indicator function of and the sum have the same jumps modulo two across every boundary curve. Their difference modulo two is consequently constant throughout the sphere off the boundary. Thus either or its complement lies in , up to its area-zero boundary. This also handles nested curves and disconnected regions. It follows thatCombining the cases, one valid universal choice is . Sharpness is not required.
For the inclusion estimate put , and . Splitting into its portions inside and outside givesBecause and , this expression lies between and . Apply the preceding spherical isoperimetric inequality to and divide by :Thus the constant in the spherical inclusion area discrepancy is independent of the nonempty open set .
Let and be the old and new smooth Riemannian metrics. Their area forms satisfyThe determinant ratio is invariant under changes of coordinates, so is a globally defined smooth function. The layer cake representation follows from and Tonelli's theorem:Smoothness makes every open. Compactness of the sphere gives . Multiply the inclusion bound by before integrating; for empty the resulting bound is trivially zero. For , and the discrepancy is exactly zero; for , is empty. ThereforeDividing by provesThis constant depends only on the two metrics. If is constant the normalized areas agree exactly, as the bound also shows.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2002 iii Paper 8 2 ii Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-14
Write . Split the integral in the assumed tail bound according to whether or :The finite-superlevel hypothesis permits subtraction of the first term. With , this becomesThus satisfies part (i), which proves finiteness and the preliminary estimateNow integrate the original tail bound against . The layer cake representation and Tonelli theorem givewhere the second step is Hölder's inequality. The preliminary estimate justified the finiteness needed here. If the result is immediate; otherwise divide by its st power. This proves the Lp bound from a tail domination inequality:The printed strict signs cannot hold when : both sides are zero. The universally valid formulation therefore has non-strict inequalities. If , the sharper estimate is actually strict, as follows.
Suppose equality held and . Equality in Hölder's inequality and the norm relation force almost everywhere; equality in the preceding integrated tail inequality forces equality in that tail inequality for almost every . Put and . The layer-cake identity on gives , so equality impliesBecause and , is finite for positive , locally absolutely continuous, and almost everywhere. It follows that , whose solutions on are . If , then almost everywhere, and diverges. If , then almost everywhere. Both contradict the assumed nonzero finite equality case. If but , strictness is immediate.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2002 iii Paper 8 2 i Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-14
The layer cake representation, followed by the assumed tail bound and Tonelli theorem, givesAll integrands are nonnegative, so this use of Tonelli theorem is valid before finiteness of the left-hand side is known. Since , the result is
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2002 iii Paper 8 4 Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-14
Let be the uncentered maximal function of , defined by its averages over balls. First establish the strong estimate needed below. The uncentered maximal weak-type inequality gives the weak bound with , and plainly for bounded inputs. For , split it into its parts on and . The first part is in , since , and the second part contributes at most to the maximal function. Sublinearity therefore givesIntegrating this bound with layer cake representation and Tonelli theorem yieldsThis proves the strong Lp bound from weak L1 and L-infinity bounds directly. In particular is finite almost everywhere.
Now split the positive Riesz potential of at a radius . In the near region, decompose into annuli . On the th annulus,The geometric series converges because . In the far region, Hölder's inequality, with , givesThe radial integral is finite exactly because . Combining these bounds, including the fixed Riesz normalization constant, givesFor , choose . If , every ball average vanishes and almost everywhere, so the assertion is trivial. The zero-norm case is likewise trivial. The resulting Hedberg inequality isThis proves absolute convergence of the defining integral for almost every , also for signed or complex . Put . The proposed exponent satisfies , so . Raising the pointwise estimate to the th power and using the proved maximal bound givesThus the Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality follows from the estimates just derived, rather than being quoted in place of its proof.
For uniqueness of the target exponent, suppose such a uniform estimate holds with index instead. Choose a nonzero nonnegative bump function and let for . Homogeneity of the Riesz potential givesThe assumed estimate at makes the nonzero output's norm finite. For all it must therefore satisfywith when . Letting tend to zero or infinity forces the power of to vanish:Hence no other target index is possible.
For the Sobolev embedding, take and , so the preceding result is available with . For , the vector field has zero divergence in away from . Integrating by parts outside the ball , its inner boundary contributes times the spherical average of about . The outer boundary contributes zero because has compact support. Letting provesThe absolute value is at most . ThusFor a general member of the first-order Sobolev space , approximate in the Sobolev norm by compactly supported smooth functions. This density of smooth functions in a Sobolev space follows from cutoffs tending to one and subsequent mollification: the cutoff-gradient term tends to zero in , and a mollifier approximates both the function and each weak derivative. The displayed estimate makes the approximants Cauchy in . Their limit is the original function, so subsequences converging almost everywhere identify the limit with it. This proves continuous embedding. The range is essential for this consequence; the formula is not a general critical embedding into .
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2003 iii Paper 9 5 b Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-14
We prove sufficiency by a non-tangential maximal function and the layer cake representation. Write . First : three hyperbolic geodesic caps corresponding to arcs of normalized length , with equally spaced centers, cover the unit disc. This handles interior points and large arcs, not only a thin boundary strip.
Fix aperture two and set . The crucial H1 non-tangential maximal inequality on the disk isHere is its endpoint proof. For let , which is holomorphic across the closed unit disc. Since modulus powers of holomorphic functions are subharmonic, Poisson comparison givesThe estimate that a Poisson maximal function is dominated by the Hardy-Littlewood maximal function yields . The strong Hardy-Littlewood maximal inequality now givesFor each interior point , hence . The Fatou lemma proves the maximal inequality. This uses a genuine maximal bound; the Hardy-Littlewood maximal function is not strongly bounded on .
For , the set is open, since each interior point witnessing this strict inequality has an open boundary shadow. Write its disjoint arc components as . If and , the arc centered at with angular half-width lies in , because there. Thus it lies in one component , and has angular projection in with . The geodesic-cap and Carleson-box comparison puts all such points in for a fixed enlargement factor whenever is small. For large , use . If or is the entire circle, that same total-mass estimate applies. Summing, without needing the enlarged caps to be disjoint, givesThe layer cake representation and the proved H1 non-tangential maximal inequality on the disk finish the argument:Thus the two conditions are equivalent, with their least admissible constants comparable: and . This is the Carleson embedding theorem on the disk, proved at the analytic endpoint.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2004 iii Paper 7 2 Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-14
For a positive Borel measure , the centered Hardy-Littlewood maximal function and the uncentered maximal function of a finite measure areWe use open balls and allow infinite values. For signed or complex measures the definition uses their total variation measure. Since a centered ball is also an admissible uncentered ball, and every ball containing lies in ,For functions, means the centered Hardy-Littlewood maximal function of .
The set is the union of the open balls with . In particular, each witnessing ball lies entirely inside . If is compact, take a finite witnessing cover of . Choose its largest-radius ball, discard all balls meeting it, and repeat. The selected balls are disjoint. Every discarded ball has no larger radius than the selected ball that discarded it and is contained in its threefold dilation. HenceTaking the supremum over compact by inner regularity of Lebesgue measure proves the stronger, localized estimateIf the right side is infinite there is nothing to prove. Positivity of the measure is important: a signed version uses , not .
For the radial-kernel inequality, integrability implies . For , let be the unique radius with . The layer cake representation and Tonelli theorem giveThe last integral equals the total mass of , namely one. Taking the absolute value of the original convolution therefore proves the claim with constant exactly one. This is radial decreasing kernel domination by the maximal function.
An application is boundary convergence of the Poisson integral. Its normalized radial profile is , so . For a continuous compactly supported , the approximate identity property gives pointwise. For arbitrary , put ; thenThe preceding weak type (1,1) estimate and the elementary integral bound for show that the set where this exceeds has measure at most . Continuous compactly supported functions are dense in , so this measure is zero. Thus the Poisson integrals of an integrable function converge to it almost everywhere; the same approximate identity also gives convergence in .
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2004 iii Paper 7 5 Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-14
Put . The goal is to obtain an integrable non-tangential maximal function without assuming in advance that has an integrable boundary density. We use a square root to place the boundary data in , where the Hardy-Littlewood maximal function is strongly bounded.
First recall this strong bound directly from Q2. For a nonnegative and , split . The second summand has centered maximal function at most ; the first is in . Q2's weak estimate, in dimension one, therefore givesThe layer cake representation and Tonelli theorem then implyThis is the needed Strong Lp bound for the Hardy-Littlewood maximal function, with an explicit adequate constant.
For , let and . Q1's elementary harmonic pointwise estimate makes bounded on the closed upper half-plane. Its boundary value is continuous, and . The function is subharmonic: away from zeros, for any ,and regularization, or the submean inequality at zeros, extends this to the whole domain. Bounded subharmonic comparison with the Poisson integral givesHere need not be in . The Poisson integral is nevertheless defined, since and , and it tends to its continuous boundary values. To justify comparison on this unbounded domain, the difference between the two sides is bounded above, subharmonic, and zero on the real boundary. On an upper half-disk of radius , use the positive harmonic barrierOn its semicircular arc, , while for every fixed interior as . The maximum principle for subharmonic functions, with a fixed bound for the difference, proves the comparison. The barrier's positive blow-up at the arc endpoints causes no difficulty.
For , the elementary inequality givesQ2's radial decreasing kernel domination by the maximal function extends to nonnegative inputs by applying it to increasing bounded compactly supported truncations. Hence, taking the supremum over the cone,For any fixed cone point, as . Therefore ; use a sequence of positive shifts and the Fatou lemma to concludeThe precise numerical constant is unimportant. Suprema over countable dense sets of cone points give the same values, so the maximal functions used here are measurable.
This yields boundary absolute continuity of measures rather than assuming it. The holomorphic function is a complex-valued harmonic function, so Q1 represents it as for a finite complex measure , with weak-star. Since , every compactly supported continuous satisfiesThe dual characterization of the total variation measure implies , so the Radon-Nikodym theorem gives with . The approximate identity now gives in the L1 norm and almost everywhere. Thus the analytic Hardy space has an integrable boundary function, unlike the unrestricted harmonic space.
In the real-line form of the F. and M. Riesz theorem, start with a finite complex measure whose Fourier transform of a finite measure vanishes for . Its Poisson integral is holomorphic: the transformed operators and act by and , which agree on that spectrum. These identities can first be read as distributional identities and then classically, since the Poisson integral is smooth. Its harmonic norm is finite by Q1, so the preceding argument makes the measure absolutely continuous. A one-sided Fourier spectrum forces a finite boundary measure to have a Lebesgue density.
For the customary circle form, normalize arc length by . If for , thenis analytic and is the Poisson integral on the unit disk of . Positivity and unit mass of the Poisson kernel on the circle imply . The same square-root argument on the disk gives an integrable radial maximum, as follows. For , put . The maximum principle for subharmonic functions on the disk givesThe supremum of these Poisson integrals is bounded by a constant times the circular Hardy-Littlewood maximal function. Indeed, for the circular kernel is bounded by a constant times for ; splitting into arcs of radii gives a summable geometric series of arc averages. For the kernel is uniformly bounded, and the whole-circle average suffices. The covering proof and the truncation argument already used on the line give the strong maximal bound for arcs on the circle as well. ThusLet and apply Fatou lemma to obtain an integrable radial maximum . The measures tend weak-star to and are dominated in magnitude by . The same continuous-test-function argument gives . This proves the F. and M. Riesz theorem: a finite complex measure on the circle with all negative Fourier coefficients zero is absolutely continuous with respect to arc length. Reversing the Fourier convention interchanges positive and negative indices.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2006 iii Paper 13 1 b Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-14
For the reverse direction, rectangular discrepancy also controls pairings with arbitrary bounded real test functions. If and , decompose each into its positive and negative parts. For example, the layer cake representation givesEach of the four sign combinations in is thus an integral of rectangular indicator functions. The triangle inequality and the definition of the cut norm show thatNow fix and take , . The hypothesis makes these admissible tests. Multiplying their pairing by and averaging givesConsequentlyTogether with part (a), this proves cut norm and rectangle fourth-moment equivalence. The intended equivalence is quantitative smallness: along any family of bounded functions, the normalized rectangle fourth moments tend to zero if and only if the normalized cut norms tend to zero. It does not assert equality of the two constants or norms.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2010 iii Paper 5 2 a Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-14
One potential form of the Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality is: if , , and , thenA normalization constant for the Riesz potential only changes . Equivalently, for , and ,The exponent relation is necessary under dilation. We prove the potential estimate and then derive the bilinear version.
First establish the needed maximal estimate, so it is not an unproved step in the argument. Define the centered Hardy-Littlewood maximal function by . For integrable , cover a compact subset of by finitely many balls whose averages exceed . Order these balls by decreasing radius and greedily retain a ball if it is disjoint from those already retained. Every discarded ball intersects a retained ball of at least its radius, so lies in its triple. HenceThe passage from compact subsets uses inner regularity of Lebesgue measure; the superlevel set is open because fixed-radius local averages are continuous. For , split . The second summand's maximal function is at most , and the first is integrable. ThereforeThe layer cake representation and Tonelli theorem giveThus the Strong Lp bound for the Hardy-Littlewood maximal function is proved for every .
For , split at radius . Dyadic shells with radii giveFor the outer part, Hölder's inequality givesThe last integral is finite exactly because . Balance the two bounds by to obtain the Hedberg inequalityThe zero cases follow directly or by a limit; is finite almost everywhere by the maximal estimate. Since , integration and the proved maximal bound yield . Taking and pairing with proves the bilinear form by Hölder's inequality, because . All integrals are justified first for nonnegative truncations and then by monotone convergence and the resulting finite bound. The strong estimate does not include or .
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2010 iii Paper 5 2 b Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-14
Write and . The exponent on the finite-set expression is in the PDF; the TeX aid drops its prime. Ignore zero-measure sets, whose integrals vanish. The equivalence isFor the first bound, let and choose a finite-measure subset . Since ,Exhaust by its intersections with bounded balls. If its measure is finite these give the desired bound in the limit; if it is infinite they force . Now take the supremum over .
For the other direction it suffices to assume ; the zero and infinite cases are immediate. For a set with , the layer cake representation givesSplit at . The first contribution is , and the second is . Their sum is . Multiply by and take the supremum. This proves the equivalence even when the quantities are extended-valued. The integral expression is an actual norm on the weak Lq space, since the triangle inequality holds inside every set integral. The distribution-function expression is generally a quasi-norm. The factor is sharp: on has and attains on every initial interval. In higher dimensions, multiply this example by the indicator of a unit box in the remaining coordinates.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2016 iii Paper 112 3 ii Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-14
Interpret as the length of a shortest Euclidean travelling salesman tour, and take the points to be independent random variables with the uniform distribution on the square. We assume ; a closed tour on one point has length zero, so the printed lower bound would be false for . For two points the closed tour traverses the joining segment twice.
For the deterministic upper bound, use the following precise geometric result, the squared edge bound for tours in the unit square: every finite set of points in admits a cyclic ordering such thatHere is a proof of that geometric result. First consider a right triangle with hypotenuse endpoints , hypotenuse length , and right-angle vertex . The quadratic path bound in a right triangle supplies a path from to through any finite set inside the triangle whose sum of squared edge lengths is at most . For an empty set use the edge . For a single point , use : the triangle lies in the disk with diameter , so and the law of cosines gives .
For several points, draw the altitude from to the hypotenuse. It splits the triangle into two smaller right triangles with hypotenuses and . Their squared hypotenuse lengths sum to by the Pythagorean theorem. Repeated altitude subdivision eventually makes every cell small enough to contain at most one of the given distinct points: each child is similar to the original triangle and its diameter contracts by at most the fixed factor . Construct the base-case paths and combine them from the bottom of this finite subdivision tree. The two child paths concatenate at . If is an auxiliary point, delete it by joining its two neighbours directly. Both neighbours lie in the right-angle sector of the parent triangle at , so their angle at is at most . The law of cosines now shows that this shortcut does not increase the sum of squared edge lengths. The combined path still has endpoints and squared cost at most .
One can first put the given points in generic positions, avoiding subdivision boundaries, and then pass to a limit. There are only finitely many possible visiting orders, so a subsequence keeps the same order and its squared cost converges; this also handles coincident locations. No assumption about a minimum separation remains in the result.
Split the square along a diagonal . Apply the triangle result in each half, following one path from to and the other back to . Each half contributes at most . Remove either diagonal endpoint if it was auxiliary. At a square corner all neighbours lie in a sector of angle , so the same squared-cost shortcut applies. This gives the asserted cyclic ordering with total squared cost at most four. It does not assert that the tour minimizing ordinary length itself has this squared-edge property. The Cauchy-Schwarz inequality applied to the tour supplied by the theorem provesThus the upper bound is deterministic, independently of the sampling law.
For the lower bound, put , the nearest neighbour distance at . Both edges incident to in any closed tour have length at least . Summing over vertices and then dividing by two gives . Conditional on , the union bound and the uniform distribution giveBoundary clipping only makes the ball smaller. Apply the layer cake representation of the expected value, restricting the integral to :Linearity of the expected value now yieldsThe unspecified sampling phrase in the paper must therefore be understood as independent uniform sampling: an arbitrary distribution concentrated in a tiny region cannot satisfy this lower bound.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2018 ii Paper 1 23F a Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-10-14
For every , the fundamental theorem of calculus givesApply this with . Since the integrand is nonnegative, Tonelli theorem permits exchanging the integrals:This is the generalized layer cake representation.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2018 ii Paper 1 23F b Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-10-14
The layer cake representation with givesFor each , splitSince and the maximal operator is sublinear,The weak Hardy-Littlewood maximal inequality therefore givesSubstitution into the distribution formula and another application of Tonelli theorem yieldThus the Strong Lp bound for the Hardy-Littlewood maximal function holds with
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2021 iii Paper 155 1 Solution Created 2026-09-28 Updated 2026-10-14
A coarse embedding has nondecreasing control functions such thatA family is a uniform coarse embedding of a family of metric spaces when all its maps use the same controls.
For with the Hamming distance, the coordinate map into satisfiesso the cubes embed isometrically and uniformly into . The same coordinate map into satisfiesThus they also uniformly coarsely embed into , with . This is the Hamming cube as an L1 and L2 metric.
For a finite graph , defineAn expander family is a sequence of graphs with orders tending to infinity, uniformly bounded degrees, and uniformly bounded below.
Now let and let be a median of . PutBoth supports have at most vertices. The layer cake representation and the definition of giveand the same holds for . Since their supports are disjoint,Adding givesThe triangle inequality also givesand henceRepresent an -valued map as scalar functions on the underlying measure space and integrate this inequality. The result is the L1 Poincare inequality for an expander graph.
Suppose next that is -regular and is noncontracting with Lipschitz constant . The Poincare inequality givesA ball of radius in a graph of maximum degree has at mostvertices. Therefore, forat least vertices lie outside the radius- ball about each vertex. Integrating the tail count of the distance givesConsequently every such haswhich proves the L1 distortion lower bound for an expander graph.
Finally, suppose an expander family admitted uniform coarse embeddings into . Embedded edges have length at most , whereas the preceding Poincare argument and the fact that at least half the ordered pairs have distance comparable to implyThis contradicts . Thus expanders do not uniformly coarsely embed into . They do not uniformly coarsely embed into either: a Hilbert space embeds isometrically into an space byso an coarse embedding would produce an one. This is the expander graph obstruction to uniform coarse embedding.
