Real Analysis Exchange

Vol. 30(1), 2004/2005, pp. 59–74

Stanislav Hencl∗, Department of Mathematical Analysis, Charles University,

Sokolovská 83, 186 00 Prague 8, Czech Republic.
email: hencl@karlin.mff.cuni.cz

NOTES ON ABSOLUTELY CONTINUOUS

FUNCTIONS OF SEVERAL VARIABLES

Abstract
n
Let Ω ⊂ R be a domain. The result of J. Kauhanen, P. Koskela
and J. Malý [4] states that a function f : Ω → R with a derivative in
the Lorentz space Ln,1 (Ω, Rn ) is n-absolutely continuous in the sense
of [5]. We give an example of an absolutely continuous function of two
variables, whose derivative is not in L2,1 . The boundary behavior of
n-absolutely continuous functions is also studied.

1 Introduction.
Absolutely continuous functions of one variable are admissible transformations
for the change of variables in the Lebesgue integral. Recently, J. Malý [5] in-
troduced a class of n-absolutely continuous functions giving an n-dimensional
analogue of the notion of absolute continuity from this point of view. For the
recent development in the theory of n-absolutely continuous functions also see
[2] and [3].
Suppose that Ω ⊂ Rn is a domain. A function f : Ω → Rm is said to be
n-absolutely continuous if for each ε > 0 there is δ > 0 such that for each
disjoint finite family {Bi } of open balls in Ω we have
X X
Ln (Bi ) < δ =⇒ (oscBi f )n < ε.
i i

It was shown in [5] that n-absolute continuity implies weak differentiability

with gradient in Ln , differentiability a.e., area and coarea formula.
Key Words: absolutely continuous functions of several variables, boundary behavior
Mathematical Reviews subject classification: 26B30, 26B05
Received by the editors September 22, 2003
Communicated by: B. S. Thomson
∗ This research has been supported in part by the Research Project MSM 113200007 from

the Czech Ministry of Education, Grant No. 201/00/0767 from the Grant Agency of the
Czech republic (GA ČR)

59
60 Stanislav Hencl

It was proved by J. Kauhanen, P. Koskela and J. Malý [4] that a function

f : Ω → R has an n-absolutely continuous representative if ∇f ∈ Ln,1 (Ω, Rn ).
This result gains in interest if we realize that Ln,1 (Ω) is the largest rearrange-
ment invariant Banach space of functions on Rn with such a property, (see [1]).
In the third section we give an example of 2-absolutely continuous function,
whose derivative is not in the Lorentz space L2,1 .
Sections 4 and 5 are devoted to the study of the boundary behavior of n-
absolutely continuous functions. The aim of these sections is to find conditions
on the domain Ω which guarantee that every n-absolutely continuous function
on Ω can be continuously extended to ∂Ω. Let 0 < α < 1. Example 4.3
demonstrates that the existence of a continuous extension is not generally
guaranteed by the condition that a domain Ω has C 1,α boundary. On the
other hand, in Section 5 it is shown that a continuous extension exists if Ω
has a C 1,1 boundary. (See Preliminaries for the definition of C 1,α boundary.)

2 Preliminaries.

We will denote by Ln the n-dimensional Lebesgue measure. We will use the

symbol αn to denote the Lebesgue measure of the unit ball in Rn .
We will denote by B(x, r) the n-dimensional Euclidean open ball with
the center x and diameter r and by B(x, r) the corresponding closed ball.
Throughout the paper, we will use the letter B only for open balls.
For a mapping f : Ω → R, we denote by f 0 (x) the vector of all partial
derivatives of f at x. We write ∇f for the weak (distributional) derivative.
The convex hull of a set A ⊂ Rn will be denoted by conv(A). The closure
of a set A is denoted by A and its boundary is denoted by ∂A. We denote by
|x| the Euclidean norm of a point x ∈ Rd .
Let A ⊂ Rd be an open set and 0 < α ≤ 1. A function F : A → Rd is said
to be α-Hölder continuous if there is a constant K > 0 such that

|F (x) − F (y)| ≤ K|x − y|α for every x, y ∈ A. (2.1)

As usual, F is called Lipschitz if it is 1-Hölder continuous. We will denote by

C 1,α (A) the family of functions from A to R whose derivative, as a function
from A to Rd , is α-Hölder continuous. Let us denote by C 1 (A) the family of
functions whose derivative is continuous.
We will use the letter Ω to denote a domain; i.e., a connected open set
in Rn , n ≥ 2. Let 0 < α ≤ 1. A domain Ω is said to have C 1,α boundary
(or C 1 boundary) ∂Ω if for every x0 ∈ ∂Ω there is a ball B(x0 , r0 ) ⊂ Rn ,
i ∈ {1, . . . , n}, an open set D ⊂ Rn−1 and h ∈ C 1,α (Rn−1 ) (or h ∈ C 1 (Rn−1 ))
Absolutely Continuous Functions of Several Variables 61

such that
∂Ω ∩ B(x0 , r0 ) = {x ∈ Rn : [x1 , . . . , xi−1 , xi+1 , . . . , xn ] ∈ D and
(2.2)
h(x1 , . . . , xi−1 , xi+1 , . . . , xn ) = xi }

and that either G+ ⊂ Ω and G− ∩ Ω = ∅ or G− ⊂ Ω and G+ ∩ Ω = ∅ where

G+ = {x ∈ B(x0 , r0 ) : h(x1 , . . . , xi−1 , xi+1 , . . . , xn ) < xi }
(2.3)
and G− = {x ∈ B(x0 , r0 ) : h(x1 , . . . , xi−1 , xi+1 , . . . , xn ) > xi }.

We will need the following version of the Taylor theorem which holds for
C 1,1 (Rd ) mappings.
Proposition 2.1. Let h : Rd → R be a C 1,1 mapping. Let K denotes the
Lipschitz constant of h0 (i.e., |h0 (x) − h0 (y)| ≤ K|x − y| for every x, y ∈ Rd ).
Then
h(x̃0 + x̃) − h(x̃0 ) − h0 (x̃0 )x̃ ≤ K |x̃|2
 
(2.4)
2
for every x̃0 , x̃ ∈ Rd .
If f : Ω → R is a mapping and x ∈ Ω, we write mlip(f, x) for the “maximal
function” version of Lipschitz constant
n f (x) − f (y) 
mlip(f, x) = sup  :
 
x−y
o
y ∈ Ω \ {x} and x, y ∈ B for some ball B ⊂ Ω .

We write oscB(x,r) f for the oscillation of f over the ball B(x, r), which is the
diameter of the image f (B(x, r)). The support of a function f : Ω → R is
denoted by spt(f ) = {x ∈ Ω : f (x) 6= 0}.
Throughout this paper, we use the letter γ for a continuous mapping γ :
[0, 1] → Ω. Set hγi = {γ(t) : t ∈ [0, 1]}. The length of the curve γ is denoted
by `(γ). For x, y ∈ Ω, we will denote by ρΩ (x, y) the distance of x and y in
Ω; i.e.,

ρΩ (x, y) = inf{`(γ); γ : [0, 1] → Ω, γ(0) = x and γ(1) = y}.

We use the convention that C denotes some positive constant. The value
of this constant may differ from occurrence to occurrence but for a fixed n
(the dimension of the underlying space Rn ) it is always an absolute constant.
Given a function f : Ω → R, the n-variation of f on Ω is defined by
X
(oscBi f )n : {Bi } is a disjoint finite family of balls in Ω .

Vn (f, Ω) = sup
i
62 Stanislav Hencl

We define the space AC n (Ω) to be the family of all n-absolutely continuous

functions f : Ω → R such that Vn (f, Ω) < ∞.
A function f : Ω → R is said to satisfy the RR-condition (written f ∈
RR(Ω)) if there is a function g ∈ L1 (Ω), called the weight, such that
 n Z
oscB(x,r) f ≤ g
B(x,r)

for every ball B(x, r) ⊂ Ω. A condition similar to RR was used by Rado

and Reichelderfer [6] as a sufficient condition for the area formula and for the
differentiability a.e. It was shown in [5] that the RR-condition easily implies
n-absolute continuity.

Theorem 2.2 (RR-condition). Suppose that a function f : Ω → R satisfies

the RR-condition. Then f ∈ AC n (Ω).

Moreover the results of M. Csörnyei [2] give RR(Ω) = AC n (Ω), but we will
not need this fact in this paper.

3 Lorentz Space Ln,1 .

If f : Ω → Rm is a measurable function, we define its distributional function
m(·, f ) by
m(σ, f ) = Ln ({x : |f (x)| > σ}), σ > 0,
and the nonincreasing rearrangement f ? of f by

f ? (t) = inf{σ : m(σ, f ) ≤ t}.

The Lorentz space Ln,1 (Ω, Rm ) is defined to be the class of all measurable
functions f : Ω → Rm such that
Z ∞
1 dt
t n f ? (t) < ∞.
0 t

For abbreviation, we write Ln,1 (Ω) instead of Ln,1 (Ω, R). For an introduction
to Lorentz spaces see for instance [7].
The following theorem of J. Kauhanen, P. Koskela and J. Malý [4] states
that functions with the distributional derivative in the Lorentz space Ln,1 are
n-absolutely continuous.

Theorem 3.1. Suppose that ∇f ∈ Ln,1 (Ω, Rn ). Then there is a representative

of f such that f ∈ AC n (Ω).
Absolutely Continuous Functions of Several Variables 63

This result is quite sharp, because A. Cianchi and L. Pick [1] proved that
Ln,1 is the largest rearrangement invariant Banach space of functions on Rn
with the property ∇f ∈ Ln,1 (Ω, Rn ) ⇒ f ∈ C(Ω) (see also [4, Theorem F]).
The rest of this section is devoted to the proof that there are ε > 0 and
f ∈ AC 2 (B([0, 0], ε)) such that ∇f /∈ L2,1 (B([0, 0], ε), R2 ). It follows that
these two classes of functions do not coincide.

Lemma 3.2. Let B(0, R) ⊂ Rn and let f : B(0, R)\{0} → R+ be a continuous

function. Suppose that there is a decreasing function g : (0, R) → R+ such
RR
that f (x) = g(|x|). Then f ∈ Ln,1 (B(0, R)) if and only if 0 g < ∞.

Proof. Since m(σ, f ) = Ln ({x : |f (x)| > σ}) = αn (g −1 (σ))n , it follows that
√ n
? −1 n
 t
f (t) = inf{σ : m(σ, f ) ≤ t} = inf{σ : αn (g (σ)) ≤ t} = g n √ .
αn

From this we have

Z ∞ Z αn Rn
1 dt 1 dt
t n f ? (t) = t n f ? (t)
0 t 0 t
Z αn Rn n
√  Z R
1
 t dt
= t n g n√ =C g(s)ds.
0 α n t 0

Lemma 3.3. Let B(0, R) ⊂ Rn and let G : [0, R] → R+ be an increasing

continuous function which is differentiable on (0, R). Assume further that G0
is a continuous decreasing function on (0, R). Then a function F (x) = G(|x|)
satisfies F 0 ∈ Ln,1 (B(0, R), Rn ).

Proof. Set f = |F 0 | and g = G0 . Clearly, f and g satisfy the assumptions of

RR RR
Lemma 3.2 and 0 g = 0 G0 = G(R) − G(0) < ∞ .

Remark 3.4. From Lemma 3.3 and Theorem 3.1 we have that AC n (Ω) func-
tions can have arbitrarily “bad” modulus of continuity even on compact sub-
sets of Ω. Note that functions from AC n (Ω) are not necessarily uniformly
continuous on Ω if ∂Ω is not “nice” (see Section 4 for details).

The following lemma provides a criterion for absolute continuity.

Lemma 3.5. Let Ω ⊂ Rn be a domain and let f : Ω → R. If g(x) =

mlipn (f, x) ∈ L1 (Ω) then f satisfies the RR-condition with weight Cg, and
hence f ∈ AC n (Ω).
64 Stanislav Hencl

Proof. Fix B = B(z, r) ⊂ Ω and x ∈ B. There exist a, b ∈ B such that

oscB f
≤ |f (a) − f (b)|.
2
Since |a − x| ≤ 2r and |b − x| ≤ 2r, we have

oscnB f |f (a) − f (b)|n |f (a) − f (x)|n |f (b) − f (x)|n

 
≤ C ≤ C +
rn rn (2r)n (2r)n
n n
 
|f (a) − f (x)| |f (b) − f (x)|
≤C n
+ ≤ C mlipn (f, x) = Cg(x)
|a − x| |b − x|n

It follows that
Z oscnB(z,r) f Z
oscnB(z,r) f = C dx ≤ C g(x)dx.
B(z,r) rn B(z,r)

Hence f satisfies the RR-condition with weight Cg, and the desired conclusion
follows from Theorem 2.2.
Example 3.6. There is a function f : B([0, 0], 1/2) → R such that f ∈
AC 2 (B([0, 0], 1/2)), but mlip2 (f, x) /∈ L1 (B([0, 0], 1/2)).
Proof. Set (
1
| log |x||1/2
for x ∈ B([0, 0], 1/2),
f (x) =
0 for x = [0, 0].
Clearly, Lemma 3.3 and Theorem 3.1 give that f ∈ AC 2 (B([0, 0], 1/2)). An
easy computation shows that

 f (x) − f (0) 2
Z Z  Z
2
 1
mlip (f, x) dx =  dx =   dx
x − 0 |x| 2 log |x|

B B B
Z 21 Z log 12
1 1
=C 2 | log r|
r dr = C da = ∞.
0 r −∞ |a|

Theorem 3.7. There exist 0 < ε0 < 1/2 and F : B([0, 0], ε0 ) → R such that
F ∈ AC 2 (B([0, 0], ε0 )) and ∇F /∈ L2,1 (B([0, 0], ε0 )).
Proof. Set (
1 1
ln r r sin r for r ∈ (0, 1/2),
g(r) =
0 for r = 0.
We claim that the function F (x) = g(|x|) satisfies desired conditions if ε0 is
small enough. Plainly, F 0 ∈ C(B([0, 0], 1/2) \ {0}) and ∇F = F 0 a.e.
Absolutely Continuous Functions of Several Variables 65

Let us first prove that F 0 /∈ L2,1 (B([0, 0], ε0 )). We compute

 1 −1 1 1 1 1 −1 1 
|F 0 (x)| = |g 0 (|x|)| =  |x| 2 cos + sin + |x| sin

ln |x| |x| |x| ln |x| |x| |x| ln2 |x| |x|
.

Let
      [ 1 
1  1  1 1
M = r ∈ 0, : cos  ≥
 = π , π . (3.1)
2 r 2 3 + kπ − 3 + kπ
k∈N

We have
 1 1   1 1   1 1  −1  1  1
|g 0 (r)| ≥  cos  −  sin  −  2 sin  ≥ − − 2
  
r ln r r ln r r ln r r 2r ln r ln r ln r
1
for every r ∈ M . Clearly, there is k0 ∈ N \ {1} such that for ε0 =
− π3 + k0 π
we have
−1
|g 0 (r)| ≥ for every r ∈ M ∩ (0, ε0 ). (3.2)
4r ln r
Set
−1
f (x) = , x ∈ B([0, 0], ε0 ).
4|x| ln |x|
We claim that the nonincreasing rearrangements of F 0 and f satisfy

(F 0 )? (t) ≥ f ? (4t). (3.3)

From (3.2) we have

|F 0 (x)| ≥ |f (x)| for |x| ∈ M ∩ (0, ε0 ). (3.4)

An elementary computation gives

  
1 1
3L2 x : |x| ∈ π , π
+ kπ − 3 + kπ
  3  (3.5)
1 1
> L2 x : |x| ∈ ,
− π3 + kπ π3 + (k − 1)π

for every k ∈ N \ {1}. From (3.4), (3.5) and

 
[ 1 1
[0, ε0 ] ∩ M = π , π
3 + kπ − 3 + kπ
k∈N, k≥k0

we obtain 4m(σ, F 0 ) ≥ m(σ, f ). The inequality (3.3) easily follows.

66 Stanislav Hencl

ε0
−1
Z
Since dr = ∞, we have f /∈ L2,1 (B([0, 0], ε0 )) by Lemma 3.2.
4r ln r
0
Thus (3.3) implies
F 0 /∈ L2,1 (B([0, 0], ε0 )).
Using Lemma 3.5 we will prove that F ∈ AC 2 (B([0, 0], ε0 )). Clearly,
mlip2 (F, x) = mlip2 (g, |x|).
For every r such that 0 < r < ε0 < 1/e we have
 1 −1 1 1 1 1 −1 1 
|g 0 (r)| =  r 2 cos + sin + r sin

ln r r r ln r r r ln2 r r

(3.6)
−1 −1 1 −3
≤ + + ≤ .
r ln r ln r ln2 r r ln r
Fix r such that r < ε0 < 1/e and t such that 1/r + 2π ≤ 1/t ≤ 1/r + 4π
and define t̃ = t/(1 − 2πt) (i.e., 1/t̃ = 1/t − 2π). Since the function t/ ln t is
decreasing on the interval (0, 1/e), we obtain |g(t̃)| ≥ |g(t)| and therefore
sup |g(r) − g(t)| ≤ sup |g(r) − g(t̃)|.
t, 1 1
[ 1
t ∈ r +2π, r +4π ] t̃, 1
t̃ [
∈ r1 , r1 +2π ]
Analogously, we conclude that
sup |g(r) − g(t)| ≤ sup |g(r) − g(t̃)|.
1 1
t, t > r +2π t̃, 1
t̃ [
∈ r1 , r1 +2π ]
This and 5/r > 1/r + 2π for r < ε0 < 1/e give
   
 g(r) − g(t) 
 = sup  g(r) − g(t)  .
 
sup  (3.7)
0≤t≤ε0 r−t  r
5 ≤t≤ε0
 r−t 
From (3.6) and (3.7) we obtain
 g(r) − g(t) 
mlip(g, r) = sup 
 
r−t

0≤t≤ε0
 g(r) − g(t)  −3
= sup  ≤ sup |g 0 (ξ)| ≤ .
 
r
r
5 ≤t≤ε0
r − t r
5 ≤ξ≤ε0 5 ln 5r
An easy computation yields
−3
Z Z  2
mlip2 (F, x) ≤ |x|
dx |x|
B([0,0],ε0 ) B([0,0],ε0 ) ln 5 5
Z ε0  Z ln ε50
1 2 1
≤C r r dr = C 2
da < ∞.
0 r ln 5 −∞ a
Therefore F ∈ AC 2 (B([0, 0], ε0 )) by Lemma 3.5.
Absolutely Continuous Functions of Several Variables 67

4 Boundary Behavior—Negative Results.

In this section we give examples of domains Ω ⊂ Rn for which there is a
function f ∈ AC n (Ω) that fails to have a continuous extension to ∂Ω (i.e.,
there is no f˜ ∈ C(Ω) such that f = f˜ on Ω). When Ω is bounded, this
is equivalent to the fact that there is f ∈ AC n (Ω) which is not uniformly
continuous on Ω.
Theorem 4.1. Let Ω ⊂ Rn be a domain and suppose that there is x ∈ ∂Ω
such that for all balls B ⊂ Ω we have x /∈ ∂B. Then there is f ∈ AC n (Ω)
such that there is no continuous extension of f to ∂Ω.
Proof. This theorem is an easy consequence of Theorem 4.2.
Theorem 4.2. Let Ω ⊂ Rn be a domain and let 0 < R < 1. Suppose that there
is x ∈ ∂Ω such that x /∈ ∂B for every ball B ⊂ Ω. Then there is f ∈ AC n (Ω)
such that f ≥ 0, spt(f ) ⊂ B(x, R) and limy→x f (y) = +∞. Moreover, there
y∈Ω

is g ∈ L1 (Ω), spt g ⊂ B(x, R) such that f satisfies the RR-condition with

weight g.
Proof. For every m ∈ N we set
[n  1  1o
Mm = B z, : z ∈ Ω, dist(z, ∂Ω) ≥ .
m m
Since it is not possible to touch ∂Ω at the point x with a ball of radius 1/m,
we have rm = dist(x, Mm ) > 0.
Set a1 = R. We define a sequence {am }∞ m=2 by induction. Given am , we
will show that there is am+1 such that 0 < am+1 < am and for every ball B
h   a  i
m
B ∩ B(x, am+1 ) 6= ∅ and B ∩ B(x, am ) \ B x, 6= ∅
2 (4.1)
=⇒ B ∩ (Rn \ Ω) 6= ∅.
1 am
Fix k ∈ N such that k < 6 . For every B(z, r) we have
h 1   a 
m
i
r≤ and B(z, r) ∩ B(x, am ) \ B x, 6= ∅
k  a  2 (4.2)
m
=⇒ B(z, r) ∩ B x, = ∅.
6
We prove that (4.1) holds for am+1 = min(am /6, rk ) by contradiction. If there
were a ball B(z, r) such that (4.1) failed, we would have
1
B(z, r) ∩ B(x, rk ) 6= ∅ and B(z, r) ∩ (Rn \ Ω) = ∅ =⇒ r ≤ ,
k
68 Stanislav Hencl

by the definition of rk . From (4.2) we obtain B(z, r) ∩ B(x, am /6) = ∅ and

therefore B(z, r) ∩ B(x, am+1 ) = ∅, contrary to the assumption in (4.1).
Let f be defined for y ∈ Ω by


0 y ∈ Ω \ B(x, a1 ),
 m−1

 P 1 1 2 am
f (y) = i + m am (am − |x − y|) y ∈ B(x, am ) \ B(x, 2 ), m ∈ N,
i=1

 m
1
y ∈ B(x, a2m ) \ B(x, am+1 ), m ∈ N.

 P
i

i=1

Clearly, limy→x f (y) = +∞. Set

y∈Ω

( n
2
am m y ∈ B(x, am ) \ B(x, a2m ), m ∈ N,
g(y) =
0 y ∈ B(x, a2m ) \ B(x, am+1 ), m ∈ N.

From (4.1) we have

 a 
m
g(y) = mlipn (f, y) for y ∈ B(x, am ) \ B x, , m ∈ N.
2
Lemma 3.5 now gives oscnB f ≤ C B g for every ball B ⊂ B(x, am ) \ B(x, a2m ).
R

From (4.1) and the definition of f it is evident that for every ball B ⊂ Ω
there is a ball B 0 ⊂ B such that oscB f = oscB 0 f and B 0 ⊂ B(x, am )\B(x, a2m )
for some m ∈ N. Thus
Z Z
oscnB f = oscnB 0 f ≤ C g(y) dy ≤ C g(y) dy.
B0 B

Hence f satisfies the RR-condition with weight Cg. An easy computation

gives that
Z ∞   a  2 n
m
X
g≤ Ln B(x, am ) \ B x,
Ω m=1
2 am m
∞  2 n ∞ 
X X 1 n
≤ Canm = C2n < ∞.
m=1
am m m=1
m

Example 4.3. Let 0 < α < 1. There exist a domain Ω ⊂ Rn with C 1,α
boundary and f ∈ AC n (Ω) such that there is no continuous extension of f to
∂Ω.
Proof. Set Ω = {[x1 , . . . , xn ] ∈ Rn : x1 > |[x2 , . . . , xn ]|α+1 }. It is not
difficult to show that Ω has C 1,α boundary and that for every ball B ⊂ Ω we
have 0 /∈ ∂B. Thus Theorem 4.2 shows that there is f ∈ AC n (Ω) such that
there is no continuous extension of f to the point 0 ∈ ∂Ω.
Absolutely Continuous Functions of Several Variables 69

The following example shows that it is not enough to assume that we can
touch every point of a boundary by a ball.
Example 4.4. There is a bounded, convex domain Ω ⊂ R2 with C 1 boundary
such that for all x ∈ ∂Ω we have x ∈ ∂B for some ball B ⊂ Ω. Moreover,
there is f ∈ AC 2 (Ω) such that there is no continuous extension of f to ∂Ω.
Proof. For i ∈ N0 set xi = 21i , 212i and
 

   
1 1 3 1
Ai = [x, y] ∈ R2 : x ∈ i+1 , i , y = i+1 x − 2i+1 .
2 2 2 2
Define Ω1 = conv(S), where we have set
∞
[
S= Ai ∪ {[x, y] : x2 + (y − 1)2 = 1, y ≥ 1}
i=0
∪ {[x, y] : x2 + (y − 1)2 = 1, x ≤ 0}.

Clearly, there is a continuous function h : [−1, 1] → R such that

p
Ω1 = {[x, y] : x ∈ (−1, 1), h(x) < y < 1 + 1 − x2 }.
1 1
For every j ∈ N \ {1, 2, 3} and 2j ≤x≤ 2j−1 we have
 1  r
1 1 2 1 1
h(x) ≤ h j−1 = 2(j−1) = 4 2j ≤ 4x ≤ − − x2 .
2 2 2 8 82
Thus B([0, 1/8], 1/8) ⊂ Ω1 .
1
Applying Theorem 4.2 to Ω1 , xi and ri = 2i+3 we obtain functions fi , gi
such that spt(g
P∞ i ), i ∈ RN, are pairwise disjoint.
P∞ Consider {ai }∞
i=0 , ai ∈ R, ai >
0 such that i=0 a i Ω1
gi < ∞. Set f = i=0 a i fi . Clearly, f satisfies the
P∞ 2
RR-condition with weight g = i=0 ai gi and hence f ∈ AC (Ω1 ).
There are yi ∈ Ω1 such that

dist(yi , Ai ) = dist(yi , Ai−1 ) and ai fi (yi ) = 1

and there is y0 ∈ Ω1 such that

dist(y0 , A0 ) = dist(y0 , ∂B([0, 1], 1)) and a0 f0 (y0 ) = 1.

Let Bi = B(yi , dist(yi , ∂Ω1 )). Fix zi ∈ Ai ∩ ∂Bi and z ∈ ∂B([0, 1], 1) ∩ ∂B0 .
Set
Ωi1 = Ω1 \ B(xi , |xi − zi |) ∪ Bi , i ∈ N,


  
0 z + z0 |z − z0 |
Ω1 = Ω1 \ B , ∪ B0 .
2 2
70 Stanislav Hencl

T∞
Let Ω = i=0 Ωi1 . Now Ω obviously satisfies all assumptions. Further,
f ∈ AC 2 (Ω) and there is no continuous extension of f to the point [0, 0] since
y→0+ y→0+
[0, y] −→ [0, 0] and f ([0, y]) −→ 0 but yi → [0, 0] and f (yi ) → 1.
Remark 4.5. In much the same way we can prove that there is a domain
Ω ⊂ Rn with the same properties as in Example 4.4.

5 Boundary Behavior—Positive Results.

Definition 5.1. A domain Ω ⊂ Rn is said to have the property (P) if the
following holds. There are k ∈ N, η > 0 and a function h : [0, η) → [0, ∞)
such that h(0) = 0, h is continuous at 0, and for every x, y ∈ Ω satisfying
|x − y| < η we have:
There are balls Bi = B(si , ri ) ⊂ Ω, i ∈ {1, . . . , k} such that
x ∈ B1 , Bi ∩ Bi+1 6= ∅ for all i ∈ {1, . . . , k − 1}, (5.1)
y ∈ Bk and ri ≤ h(|x − y|) for all i ∈ {1, . . . , k}.
For abbreviation of (5.1), we say that the points x and y are joined in Ω
by k balls.
Lemma 5.2. Suppose that a domain Ω has the property (P) and let f : Ω → R.
Suppose that for every ε > 0 there is δ > 0 such that
 
B(c, r) ⊂ Ω, r < δ ⇒ oscB(c,r) f < ε. (5.2)

Then there is f˜ ∈ C(Ω) such that f = f˜ on Ω.

Proof. To obtain a contradiction, suppose that there are Ω and f : Ω → R
satisfying (5.2) such that there is no continuous extension of f to the point
x ∈ Ω \ Ω. Then we can find sequences {aj }∞ ∞
j=1 ⊂ Ω, {bj }j=1 ⊂ Ω and ε̃ > 0
such that
aj → x, bj → x, |aj − bj | < η and |f (aj ) − f (bj )| ≥ ε̃
where η is occurring in the definition of the property (P). Applying (P) to
points aj , bj we obtain balls B1j , B2j , . . . , Bkj such that

aj ∈ B1j , Bij ∩ Bi+1

j
6= ∅ for i ∈ {1, . . . , k − 1} and bj ∈ Bkj .
By the triangle inequality, we have
k
X
ε̃ ≤ |f (aj ) − f (bj )| ≤ oscB j (f ).
i
i=1
Absolutely Continuous Functions of Several Variables 71

Therefore there is d(j) ∈ {1, 2, . . . , k} such that oscB j (f ) ≥ ε̃/k. Let us

d(j)
j
denote by rj the radius of From |aj −bj | → 0, rj ≤ h(|aj −bj |), h(0) = 0
Bd(j) .
and the continuity of h at 0 we obtain rj → 0. Hence oscB j (f ) ≥ ε̃/k
d(j)
contradicts (5.2).
Lemma 5.3. Let R > 0 and let Ω ⊂ Rn be a domain. Suppose that we
have a continuous curve γ : [0, 1] → Ω such that diam(hγi) < R and that for
every z ∈ hγi there is a ball Bz = B(cz , R) ⊂ Ω such that z ∈ Bz . Then
there are z1 , . . . , z2·3n ∈ hγi such that x = γ(0) and y = γ(1) are joined by
Bz1 , Bz2 , . . . , Bz2·3n in Ω.
Proof. Find z1 , z2 , . . . , zk ∈ hγi such that x and y are joined by Bz1 . . . Bzk
and k is minimal in the sense
 0 0 0 
z1 , z2 , . . . , zl ∈ hγi, Bz0 , . . . , Bz0 ⊂ Ω join x and y =⇒ k ≤ l. (5.3)
1 l

If there were a, b, c ∈ {1, . . . , k}, a 6= b 6= c 6= a such that Bza ∩ Bzb ∩ Bzc 6= ∅,

then one of the balls Bza , Bzb , Bzc would be redundant in joining x and y
which contradicts the minimality of k in the sense of (5.3). From this and
Bzi ⊂ B(x, 3R) we have
k
[ 2Ln (B(x, 3R))
= 2 · 3n .


Ln Bi ≤ 2Ln (B(x, 3R)) ⇒ k ≤
i=1
Ln (B(0, R))

Lemma 5.4. Given r > 0 and A ⊂ Rn suppose that Ω = a∈A B(a, r) is

S
a bounded domain. Suppose that for every z ∈ ∂Ω and for every sequences
{xi }∞ ∞
i=1 , {yi }i=1 ⊂ Ω we have

xi → z, yi → z =⇒ ρΩ (xi , yi ) → 0. (5.4)
Then Ω has the property (P).
Proof. Set
g(t) = sup{ρΩ (x, y) : x, y ∈ Ω, |x − y| ≤ t} for t ≥ 0.
We claim that the function g is continuous at 0. Conversely, suppose that there
are δ > 0 and {xi }i∈N , {yi }i∈N ⊂ Ω such that |xi − yi | → 0 and ρΩ (xi , yi ) > δ.
Since Ω is compact, we may assume that there is z ∈ Ω such that xi → z and
yi → z. Clearly this would not be possible if z ∈ Ω and therefore z ∈ ∂Ω.
However this contradicts condition (5.4).
Fix η > 0 small enough such that for t < η we have 2g(t) < r. Set
h(t) = 2g(t) and k = 2 · 3n . We claim that Ω satisfies the property (P) with
the constants k, η and the function h.
72 Stanislav Hencl

Fix x, y ∈ Ω such that |x − y| < η. It follows from the choice of η that

h(|x − y|) < r. By the definition of ρΩ (x, y), there is a continuous curve
γ : [0, 1] → Ω such that γ(0) = x, γ(1) = y and `(γ) < 2ρΩ (x, y). Clearly,

diam(hγi) < 2ρΩ (x, y) ≤ 2g(|x − y|) = h(|x − y|).

∈ hγi we can find B(cz , h(|x − y|)) ⊂ Ω with z ∈ B(cz , h(|x − y|))
For every z S
since Ω = a∈A B(a, r) and h(|x − y|) < r. Applying Lemma 5.3 to R =
h(|x − y|) we obtain points z1 , . . . , zk ∈ hγi such that B(cz1 , R), . . . , B(czk , R)
join x and y in Ω.

Thanks to Lemma 5.2 we can rephrase Lemma 5.4 as follows.

Theorem 5.5. Let A ⊂ Rn and r > 0. Suppose that Ω = a∈A B(a, r)

S
is a bounded domain such that for every z ∈ ∂Ω and for every sequences
{xi }∞ ∞
i=1 , {yi }i=1 ⊂ Ω we have

xi → z, yi → z =⇒ ρΩ (xi , yi ) → 0. (5.5)

Let f : Ω → R be a function such that for every ε > 0 there is δ > 0 such that
 
B(c, r) ⊂ Ω, r < δ ⇒ oscB(c,r) f < ε. (5.6)

Then there is f˜ ∈ C(Ω) such that f = f˜ on Ω.

Theorem 5.6. Let Ω ⊂ Rn be a domain with C 1,1 boundary. Then for every
n-absolutely continuous function f : Ω → R there is f˜ ∈ C(Ω) such that f = f˜
on Ω.

Proof. We only give the main ideas of the proof. We can assume that Ω
is bounded, for the existence of the extension is a local property. Clearly,
every n-absolutely continuous function f : Ω → R satisfies (5.6) and hence it
remains to verify the assumptions of Theorem 5.5 about the domain Ω.
Let x0 ∈ ∂Ω and find r0 > 0, D ⊂ Rn−1 and a function h ∈ C 1,1 (Rn−1 )
occurring in (2.2). Without loss of generality we may assume that i = 1,
x0 = 0,

∂Ω ∩ B(0, r0 ) = {x ∈ Rn : [x2 , . . . , xn ] ∈ D and h(x2 , . . . , xn ) = x1 },

G+ ⊂ Ω and G− ∩ Ω = ∅ (where G+ and G− are defined in (2.3)). It is clear

fromS
this description that (5.5) holds for z = x0 . Now it remains to show that
Ω = a∈A B(a, r) for some A ⊂ Rn and r > 0.
Absolutely Continuous Functions of Several Variables 73

Let us denote by V ∈ Rn−1 the vector of partial derivatives of h at 0.

Choose a constant K > 0 large enough such that K is greater than the Lips-
chitz constant of h0 (i.e., |h0 (x) − h0 (y)| ≤ K|x − y| for every x, y ∈ Rn−1 ) and
moreover
 p1 + |V |2   p1 + |V |2 
B 0, ⊂ D and B 0, ⊂ B(x0 , r0 ). (5.7)
K K
We claim that
h 1 −V −Vn−1 i 1 p 
1
B̃ := B , ,..., , 1 + |V |2 ⊂ Ω. (5.8)
2K 2K 2K 2K
Let x ∈ ∂ B̃ \{0}. Set x̃ = [x2 , . . . , xn ] and notice that x̃ ∈ D and x ∈ B(x0 , r0 )
1 1
by (5.7). From (5.8) we have |x|2 = K x1 − K V x̃. Proposition 2.1 now gives
K 2
h(x̃) ≤ V x̃ + |x̃| < V x̃ + K|x|2 = x1
2
which implies x ∈ Ω since G+ ⊂ Ω. Clearly ∂ B̃ ⊂ Ω ∪ {0}, implies B̃ ⊂ Ω.
Note that the radius of B̃ depends only on h, r0 and D, and not on a particular
point x0 . Therefore it is possible to find r̃0 > 0 and r1 > 0 such that for every
x ∈ ∂Ω ∩ B(x0 , r̃0 ) there exists a ball B(cx , r1 ) ⊂ Ω such that x ∈ ∂B(cx , r1 ).
Since ∂Ω is compact, this implies that there is r2 > 0 such that for every
x ∈ ∂Ω there is a ball B(cx , r2 ) ⊂ Ω such that x ∈ ∂B(cx , r2 ). From this
1,1
and
S the definition of C boundary it is not difficult to deduce that Ω =
a∈A B(a, r) for some A ⊂ Rn and r > 0.
The following example shows that the assumptions of Lemma 5.4 are not
equivalent to the property (P).
Example 5.7. There is a bounded domain Ω ⊂ R2 which has the property
(P) and does not satisfy the assumptions of Lemma 5.4.
Proof. Set
A = [x, y] : x2 + (y − 1)2 = 1 and (x ≤ 0) or (y ≥ 1)


and   
1 1 1 1
Bi = B , + , .
2i 2i 8 22i 2i
 S∞ 
We claim that the domain Ω = conv A ∪ i=1 Bi has the desired properties.
S
Since ∂Bi ∩ ∂Ω 6= ∅ and diam Bi → 0, we have Ω 6= a∈A B(a, r) for any
r > 0 and A ⊂ R2 . Thus Ω does not satisfy the assumptions of Lemma 5.4.
The proof of the property (P) for Ω is straightforward and not difficult and
hence we omit it.
74 Stanislav Hencl

Acknowledgement. The author wishes to express his thanks to Professor

Jan Malý for suggesting the problems and for many stimulating conversations.
The author would like to thank Professor L. Zajı́ček and the referee of the
paper for valuable comments.

References
[1] A. Cianchi, L. Pick, Sobolev embeddings into BM O, V M O and L∞ , Ark.
Mat., 36 (1998), 317–340.
[2] M. Csörnyei, Absolutely continuous functions of Rado, Reichelderfer and
Malý, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 252 (2000), 147–166.
[3] S. Hencl, On the notions of absolute continuity for functions of several
variables, Fund. Math., 173 (2002), 175–189.
[4] J. Kauhanen, P. Koskela and J. Malý, On functions with derivatives in a
Lorentz space, Manuscripta Math., 100:1 (1999), 87–101.
[5] J. Malý, Absolutely continuous function of several variables, J. Math. Anal.
Appl., 231 (1999), 492–508.
[6] T. Rado, P. V. Reichelderfer, Continuous Transformations in Analysis,
Springer, 1955.
[7] E. M. Stein, G. Weiss, Introduction to Fourier Analysis on Euclidean
Spaces, Princeton Univ. Press, 1971.