%\NoBlackBoxes \magnification=\magstep1 \documentstyle{amsppt} \def\tit#1{\medskip\leftline{\bf #1}\smallskip} \def\ci#1{_{ {}_{\ssize #1} } } \def\cci#1{_{ {}_{\sssize #1} } } \def\wt{\widetilde} %\def\wt{\widehat} \def\R{\Bbb R} \def\C{\Bbb C} \def\X{\Cal X} \def\B{\Cal B} \def\dist{\operatorname{dist}} \def\diam{\operatorname{diam}} \def\supp{\operatorname{supp}} \def\ess{\operatorname{ess}} \def\Om{\Omega} \def\om{\omega} \def\e{\varepsilon} \def\f{\varphi} \def\d{\delta} \def\a{\alpha} \def\s{\sigma} \redefine\le{\leqslant} \redefine\ge{\geqslant} \tit{\S 0. Introduction (historical remarks).} The classical theory of Calderon-Zygmund operators started with the study of convolution operators on the real line with singular kernels (a typical example of such an operator is the so called Hilbert transform, defined by $ Hf(t)=\int_\R\frac{f(s)\,ds}{t-s} $). Later it has developed into a large branch of analysis covering a quite wide class of singular integral operators on abstract measure spaces (so called ``spaces of homogeneous type''). To see how far the theory has evolved during the last 30 years, it is enough to compare the classical textbook [] by Stein written in ...(which, by the way, still remains an excellent introduction into the subject for newcomers) to the modern outline of the theory in [], [], and []. The only thing that has remained unchallenged until very recently was the doubling property of the measure, i.e., the assumption that for some constant $C>0$, $$ \mu(B(x,2r))\le C\mu(B(x,r))\qquad\text{ for every }x\in X, r>0, $$ where $X$ is some metric space endowed with a Borel measure $\mu$, and, as usual, $B(x,r)=\{y\in X\,:\,\dist(x,y)\le r\}$ is the closed ball of radius $r$ centered at $x$. The main result we want to present to the reader can be now described in one short sentence: \medskip \centerline{{\it The doubling condition is superfluous for the most part of the classical theory.}} \medskip \flushpar The reader may ask: ``Why should one try to eliminate the doubling condition at all?'' The first example of the situation when such a necessity arises concerns the action of the Cauchy integral operator on the complex plane. The problem here is as the following: \flushpar \medskip \it\flushpar Given a finite Borel measure $\mu$ on the complex plane $\C$, figure out whether the Cauchy integral operator $$ Cf(x)=C_\mu f(x)=\int_\C\frac{f(y)\,d\mu(y)}{x-y} $$ acts in $L^2(\mu)$ (in $L^p(\mu)$, from $L^1(\mu)$ to $L^{1,\infty}(\mu)$, and so on). \medskip \flushpar \rm The leading example of such a measure (coming from study of analytic capacity) is the one-dimensional Hausdorf measure on some strange compact set $K$ on the plane. If $K$ is a Lipshitz curve or something similar, then we have a space of homogeneous type and almost all standard techniques do apply (see [Christ]). But in general the measure does not satisfy the doubling condition and one had to look for an alternative approach (see for instance [Mel'nikov] and [Tolsa]). This was a real pity, because the Cauchy integral operator is one of the {\it most natural and important} examples of Calderon-Zygmund operators, and to have it excluded from the general framework would be an unforgivable drawback of the theory. Another example is just some standard singular integral operator considered in an open domain $\Om\subset\R^n$ (with the usual $n$-dimensional Lebesgue measure) instead of the whole space. Such singular integral operators are claimed in several papers to ``appear naturally in the study of PDE''. We will abstain from any comment on this issue, but the problem seems to be very natural indeed, and definitely is of its own interest. Again, if the boundary of $\Om$ is nice, we get a space of homogeneous type and everything is well understood. But, if we don't mistake, for domains with ``wild'' boundaries no satisfactory theory of Calderon-Zygmund operators has been previously known. One more good question is ``Why then hasn't it all been done long ago?'' We do not know any really good answer to that. Nevertheless let us attract the attention of the reader to the fact that in order to drop the doubling condition from the proofs, it is impossible to ``build on the top of the existing theory'': one should go to the very roots and to rebuild the whole thing from a scratch (for the experts in the field it will be enough to say that one has to give up the Calderon-Zygmund decomposition completely and to severely restrict himself in the usage of the Hardy-Littlewood maximal function). Such a task requires a lot of courage {\it just to start}. We plan to outline the ``basics'' of the theory of Calderon-Zygmund operators in non-homogeneous spaces in one large paper to appear in ``Algebra and Analysis'' (known in the West as ``St.-Petersburg Math. J.''). This note is a kind of advertisement for that forthcoming paper. It can also be considered as a complement to [], where the $L^2$-theory was (at least partially) constructed for the special case of the Cauchy integral operator on the complex plane. Here we are going to deal only with the part of the theory concerning the boundedness of a Calderon-Zygmund operator $T$ and the associated maximal operator $T^\sharp$ (see the definition below) in the $L^p$-spaces ($1
0$ (not necessarily an integer). Let $\X$ be a separable metric space endowed with a non-negative ``$n$-dimensional'' Borel measure $\mu$, i.e., a measure satisfying $$ \mu(B(x,r))\le r^n\qquad\text{ for all }x\in\X,\ r>0. $$ Define, as usual, $$ L^p(\mu):=\Bigl\{ f:\X\to \C\,:\,\|f\|\ci{L^p(\mu)}:=\Bigl[ \int_{\X}|f|^p\,d\mu \Bigr]^{\frac1p}<+\infty \Bigr\} $$ for $1\le p<+\infty$, $$ L^\infty(\mu):=\bigl\{ f:\X\to \C\,:\,\|f\|\ci{L^\infty(\mu)}:= \ess\sup_{x\in\X}|f(x)|<+\infty \bigr\}, $$ and $$ L^{1,\infty}(\mu):=\bigl\{ f:\X\to \C\,:\,\|f\|\ci{L^{1,\infty}(\mu)}:= \sup_{t>0} t\cdot\mu\{x\in\X\,:\,|f(x)|>t\}<+\infty \bigr\}. $$ Note that the ``norm'' $\|f\|\ci{L^{1,\infty}(\mu)}$ isn't actually a norm in the sense that it does not satisfy the triangle inequality. Still, we have $$ \|cf\|\ci{L^{1,\infty}(\mu)}=|c|\cdot\|f\|\ci{L^{1,\infty}(\mu)} \quad\text{ and }\quad \|f+g\|\ci{L^{1,\infty}(\mu)}\le 2\bigl(\|f\|\ci{L^{1,\infty}(\mu)}+\|g\|\ci{L^{1,\infty}(\mu)}\bigr) $$ for every $c\in\C$, $f,g\in L^{1,\infty}(\mu)$. (The latter is just the observation that in order to have the sum greater than $t$, one should have at least one term greater than $\frac t2$). Let $M(\X)$ be the space of all complex-valued Borel measures on $\X$. We will denote by $\|\nu\|$ the total variation of the measure $\nu\in M(\X)$. For $f\in L^p(\mu)$, we will denote by $\supp f$ the essential support of the function $f$, i.e., the smallest closed set $F\subset \X$ for which $f$ vanishes $\mu$-almost everywhere outside $F$. Also, for $\nu\in M(\X)$, we will denote by $\supp \nu$ the smallest closed set $F\subset\X$ for which $\nu$ vanishes on $\X\setminus F$ (i.e., $\nu(E)=0$ for every Borel set $E\subset \X\setminus F$). Since $\X$ is a separable metric space, such smallest closed set always exists. If $\{\B_j\}_{j=1}^\infty$ is some countable base of topology in $\X$, then for $\nu\in M(\X)$, the support $\supp\nu$ is just the complement of the union of those $\B_j$, on which the measure $\nu$ vanishes. For a function $f\in L^p(\mu)$, we obviously have $\supp f=\supp\nu$ where $d\nu=|f|^p\,d\mu$. Let $K:\X\times\X\to \C$ be a classical ``$n$-dimensional'' Calderon-Zygmund kernel on $\X$, i.e., for some $A>0$, $\e\in(0,1]$, \flushpar \medskip \flushpar 1)\centerline {$\dsize |K(x,y)|\le\frac{A}{\dist(x,y)^n}$,}\kern-100pt \flushpar and \flushpar 2)\centerline{$\dsize |K(x,y)-K(x',y)|, \,|K(y,x)-K(y,x')|\le\frac{A\dist(x,x')^\e}{\dist(x,y)^{n+\e}}$ }\kern-100pt \flushpar whenever $x,x',y\in\X$ and $\dist(x,x')\le \frac{1}{2}\dist(x,y)$. \medskip Assume that $T$ is a bounded linear operator in $L^2(\mu)$ with the Calderon-Zygmund kernel $K$. As usual, it means that $$ Kf(x)=\int_\X K(x,y)f(y)d\mu(y) $$ for $\mu$-almost every $x\in \X\setminus \supp f$. Obviously, the adjoint operator $T^*$ is also bounded in $L^2(\mu)$ and has the kernel $K^*(x,y)=\overline{K(y,x)}$, which is a Calderon-Zygmund kernel as well. \medskip For technical reasons it will be convenient to put {\it by definition} $$ T\nu(x):=\int_\X K(x,y)\,d\nu(y) $$ for $\nu\in M(\X)$ and $x\in \X\setminus \supp \nu$. Note that we {\it do not} attempt here to define the values $T\nu(x)$ for $x\in \supp\nu$. \medskip The maximal operator $T^\sharp$ associated with the Calderon-Zygmund operator $T$ is defined as the following. For every $r>0$, put $$ T_r f(x):= \int_{\X\setminus B(x,r)}K(x,y)f(y)\,d\mu(y) $$ for $f\in L^p(\mu)$, and $$ T_r\nu(x):= \int_{\X\setminus B(x,r)}K(x,y)\,d\nu(y) $$ for $\nu\in M(\X)$. Define $$ T^\sharp f(x):=\sup_{r>0}|T_r f(x)| $$ for $f\in L^p(\mu)$, and $$ T^\sharp\nu(x):=\sup_{r>0}|T_r \nu(x)| $$ for $\nu\in M(\X)$. Now we are able to formulate the main result of this paper: \tit{Theorem:} \tit{1) $L^p$-action.} \it\flushpar For every $p\in(1,+\infty)$, the operator $T$ is bounded in $L^p(\mu)$ in the sense that for every $f\in L^p(\mu)\cap L^2(\mu)$, $$ \|Tf\|\ci{L^p(\mu)}\le C\|f\|\ci{L^p(\mu)} $$ with some constant $C>0$ not depending on $f$. \rm \tit{2) Weak type 1-1 estimate.} \it\flushpar The operator $T$ is bounded from $L^1(\mu)$ to $L^{1,\infty}(\mu)$ in the sense that for every $f\in L^1(\mu)\cap L^2(\mu)$, %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% % and for every $t>0$, %$$ %\mu\{x\in\X\,:\, |Tf(x)|>t \} \le C \frac{\|f\|\cci{L^1(\mu)}}{t} %$$ %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% $$ \|Tf\|\ci{L^{1,\infty}(\mu)}\le C\|f\|\ci{L^1(\mu)} $$ with some constant $C>0$ not depending on $f$. \rm \tit{3) Action of the maximal operator in $L^p(\mu)$} \it\flushpar For every $p\in(1,+\infty)$, the operator $T^\sharp$ is bounded in $L^p(\mu)$ in the sense that for every $f\in L^p(\mu)$, $$ \|T^\sharp f\|\ci{L^p(\mu)}\le C\|f\|\ci{L^p(\mu)} $$ with some constant $C>0$ not depending on $f$. \rm \tit{4) Weak type 1-1 estimate for the maximal operator.} \it\flushpar The operator $T^\sharp$ is bounded from $M(\X)$ to $L^{1,\infty}(\mu)$ in the sense that for every $\nu\in M(\X)$, %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %and for every $t>0$, %$$ %\mu\{x\in\X\,:\, |T^\sharp\nu(x)|>t \} \le C \frac{\|\nu\|}{t} %$$ %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% $$ \|T^\sharp f\|\ci{L^{1,\infty}(\mu)}\le C\|\nu\| $$ with some constant $C>0$ not depending on $\nu$. \rm \tit{\S2. The plan of the paper.} For notational simplicity, we will restrict ourselves to the case of {\it real-valued} functions, measures, and kernels (to obtain the result for the complex-valued case, it is enough to consider the real and the imaginary parts separately). % In \S3 we shall outline some preliminary lemmas (all of them well-known) that will be used throughout the rest of the paper (sometimes even without an explicit reference). % In \S\S4-5 we shall prove the weak type $1-1$ estimate for $T\nu$ where $\nu$ is a finite linear combination of unit point masses with non-negative coefficients (these two sections constitute the core of the whole article). % In \S6 we shall present a simple approximation scheme allowing to switch in the weak type $1-1$ estimate from such ``elementary'' measures to functions $f\in L^1(\mu)\cap L^2(\mu)$. The $L^p$-boundedness of $T$ will then follow immediately via the standard interpolation and duality tricks. % In \S7 we shall prove a Cotlar type inequality for the maximal operator $T^\sharp$, which will allow us to establish its $L^p$-boundedness for $1
0}\frac{1}{\mu(B(x,r))}\int_{B(x,r)}|f|\,d\mu.
$$
Note that if $x\in\supp\mu$, then $\mu(B(x,r))>0$ for every $r>0$
(otherwise one could drop a small open ball centered at $x$
from the support of $\mu$), so the definition makes sense $\mu$-almost
everywhere.
If the measure $\mu$ satisfies the doubling property, or if $\X$ has nice
geometric structure (similar to that of $\R^N$), the Hardy-Littlewood maximal
function operator is well-known to be bounded in all $L^p(\mu)$ with
$1< p\le +\infty$ and from $L^1(\mu)$ to $L^{1,\infty}(\mu)$. But,
unfortunately, for
arbitrary separable metric space $\X$ and measure $\mu$, the best one can say
is that $M$ is bounded in $L^\infty(\mu)$ (which is just
the obvious observation that the
integral does not exceed the essential supremum of the integrand times the
measure of the domain of integration). Fortunately, to save the game
is not too hard: all one needs is to replace the measure of the ball
$B(x,r)$ in the denominator by the measure of the {\it three times larger}
ball, i.e., to define
$$
\wt Mf(x):=
\sup_{r>0}
\frac{1}{\mu(B(x,3r))}\int_{B(x,r)}|f|\,d\mu.
$$
Note that always $\wt Mf(x)\le Mf(x)$ and,
if the measure $\mu$ satisfies the doubling condition,
$Mf(x)\le C\cdot \wt Mf(x)$ for some constant $C>0$ (the square of the
constant in the doubling condition).
\tit{Lemma 3.1.}
\it\flushpar
The modified maximal function operator
$\wt M$ is bounded in $L^p(\mu)$ for each $p\in(1,+\infty]$
and acts from $L^1(\mu)$ to $L^{1,\infty}(\mu)$.
\rm
\tit{Proof:}
The boundedness in $L^\infty(\mu)$ is obvious.
To prove the weak type $1-1$ estimate, we will use the celebrated
\tit{Vitali covering theorem.}
\it\flushpar
Fix some $R>0$. Let $E\subset \X$ be any set and let
$\{B(x,r_x)\}\ci{x\in E}$
be a family of balls of radii $0 0$, put
$$
\wt M_\beta f(x):=
\bigl[
\wt M(|f|^\beta)(x)
\bigr]^{\frac1\beta}=
\sup_{r>0}\Bigl[\frac{1}{\mu(B(x,3r))}\int_{B(x,r)}
|f|^\beta\,d\mu \Bigr]^{\frac1\beta}.
$$
Note that the greater $\beta$ is, the greater $\wt M_\beta f(x)$ is
(the Holder inequality). Note also that $\wt M_\beta$ is bounded in
$L^p(\mu)$ for every $p\in(\beta,+\infty]$ (to say that $\wt M_\beta$
is bounded in $L^p(\mu)$ is exactly the same as to say that $\wt M$
is bounded in $L^{{}^{\ssize p/\!{}_\beta}}(\mu)$).
We shall however need one less trivial (though no less standard) observation:
\tit{Lemma 3.2.}
\it\flushpar
For any $\beta\in(0,1)$, the maximal operator $\wt M_\beta$ is bounded
in $L^{1,\infty}(\mu)$, i.e.,
$$
\|\wt M_\beta f\|\ci{L^{1,\infty}(\mu)}\le C
\|f\|\ci{L^{1,\infty}(\mu)}
$$
with some constant $C>0$ not depending on $f$.
\rm
\medskip
\tit{Proof:}
Let $f\in L^{1,\infty}(\mu)$. Write $f=f_t+f^t$ where
$$
f_t(x)=
\left\{
\aligned
f(x),&\quad \text{if }|f(x)|\le t;
\\
0,&\quad \text{if }|f(x)|> t;
\endaligned
\right.
\qquad \text{ and } \qquad
f^t(x)=
\left\{
\aligned
0,&\quad \text{if }|f(x)|\le t;
\\
f(x),&\quad \text{if }|f(x)|> t.
\endaligned
\right.
$$
Since
$\|\wt M_\beta f_t\|\ci{L^\infty(\mu)}\le \|f_t\|\ci{L^\infty(\mu)}\le t$
and
$[\wt M_\beta f]^\beta\le [\wt M_\beta f_t]^\beta+[\wt M_\beta f^t]^\beta$
(additivity of integral), we have
$$
\multline
\mu\{x\in\X\,:\,\wt M_\beta f>2^{\frac 1\beta}t\}\le
\mu\{x\in\X\,:\,\wt M_\beta f^t> t\}
\\
=
\mu\{x\in\X\,:\,\wt M|f^t|^\beta> t^\beta\}\le
t^{-\beta}\int_\X |f^t|^\beta\,d\mu
\endmultline
$$
according to the weak type $1-1$ estimate for $\wt M$.
On the other hand, we have
$$
\multline
\int_\X |f^t|^\beta\,d\mu= t^\beta \mu\{|f|>t\}+
\int_t^{+\infty}\beta s^{\beta-1}\mu\{|f|>s\}ds
\\
\le
t^\beta\frac1t\|f\|\ci{L^{1,\infty}(\mu)}+
\|f\|\ci{L^{1,\infty}(\mu)}\int_t^{+\infty}\beta s^{\beta-2}ds
=\frac{1}{1-\beta}\frac{1}{t}t^{\beta}
\|f\|\ci{L^{1,\infty}(\mu)}.
\endmultline
$$
So, finally we get
$$
\mu\{x\in\X\,:\,\wt M_\beta f>2^{\frac 1\beta}t\}\le
\frac{1}{1-\beta}\frac{1}{t}
\|f\|\ci{L^{1,\infty}(\mu)},
$$
i.e.,
$$
\|\wt M_\beta f\|\ci{L^{1,\infty}}\le
\frac{2^
%{\frac{1}{\beta}}}
{1/\beta}}
{1-\beta}
\,\|f\|\ci{L^{1,\infty}},
$$
proving the lemma.
\tit{Comparison lemma.}
\tit{Lemma 3.3.}
\it\flushpar
Let $U:(0,+\infty)\to [0,+\infty)$ be a continuous
non-negative decreasing function.
Let $\nu$ be any non-negative Borel measure $\X$.
Then for every $x\in\X$ and $R>0$,
$$
\int_{\X\setminus B(x,R)}U(\dist(x,y))\,d\nu(y)\le
3^{n}\wt M \nu(x)
\Bigl[R^n U(R)+n\int_{R}^{+\infty}t^{n-1}U(t)\,dt\Bigr].
$$
\rm
\tit{Proof:}
Consider first the case when $U$ is a ``step-function'', i.e.,
$U(t)=\chi\ci{(0,T]}$ for some $T>0$ (as usual, by $\chi\ci E$ we denote the
characteristic function of the set $E$).
%
If $T\le R$, the inequality is obvious because the left hand part is $0$.
For $T>R$, it is equivalent to the estimate
$$
\nu(B(x,T)\setminus B(x,R))\le 3^n\wt M\nu (x)\cdot T^n,
$$
which easily follows from
the definition of $\wt M\nu(x)$ and the inequality
$\mu(B(x,3T))\le 3^n\cdot T^n$.
Now to obtain the lemma,
it is enough to recall that every non-negative continuous decreasing
function $U(t)$ can be represented as the limit of an increasing sequence
of linear combinations of step-functions with non-negative coefficients.
\medskip
\tit{Hormander inequality}
We shall need one more standard observation about Calderon-Zygmund kernels.
\tit{Lemma 3.4.}
\it\flushpar
Let $\eta\in M(\X)$, $\eta(\X)=0$, and
$\supp\eta\subset B(x,\rho)$ for some $\rho>0$.
Then for every non-negative Borel measure $\nu$ on $\X$, we have
$$
\int_{\X\setminus B(x,2\rho)}|T\eta|d\nu\le A_1\,\wt M\nu(x)\,\|\eta\|
$$
where $A_1>0$ depends only on the dimension $n$ and the constants $A$ and $\e$
in the definition of the Calderon-Zygmund kernel $K$.
\flushpar
In particular,
$$
\int_{\X\setminus B(x,2\rho)}|T\eta|\cdot |f|d\mu\le A_1\,\wt Mf(x)\,\|\eta\|
$$
for every Borel measurable function $f$ on $\X$, and
$$
\int_{\X\setminus B(x,2\rho)}|T\eta|d\mu\le A_1\,\|\eta\|.
$$
\rm
\tit{Proof:}
For any $y\in \X\setminus B(x,2\rho)$ we have
$$
\split
|T\eta(y)|=\Bigl|\int_{B(x,\rho)}K(y,x')d\eta(x')\Bigr|=
\Bigl|\int_{B(x,\rho)}[K(y,x')-K(y,x)]d\eta(x')\Bigr|\le
\\
\le
\|\eta\|\sup_{x'\in B(x,\rho)}|K(y,x')-K(y,x)|\le
\|\eta\|\frac{A\rho^\e}{\dist(x,y)^{n+\e}}.
\endsplit
$$
It remains only to notice that, according to the Comparison Lemma
applied to $R=2\rho$ and $U(t)=\dfrac{\rho^\e}{t^{n+\e}}$,
$$
\multline
\int_{\X\setminus
B(x,2\rho)}\frac{\rho^\e\,d\nu(y)}{\dist(x,y)^{1+\e}}
\\
\le
%
3^n \wt M\nu(x) \Bigl[(2\rho)^n \frac{\rho^\e}{(2\rho)^{n+\e}}+
n \int_{2\rho}^{+\infty} t^{n-1}\frac{\rho^\e}{t^{n+\e}}\Bigr]dt
=3^n 2^{-\e}(1+\tfrac n\e)\wt M\nu(x).
\endmultline
$$
\tit{\S4. The Guy David lemma.}
The following lemma is implicitly contained in [David].
\tit{Lemma 4.1.}
\it\flushpar
For any Borel set $F\in \X$ of finite measure
and for any point $x\in\supp\mu$,
$$
T^\sharp\chi\ci F(x)\le 2\cdot 3^n\,\wt MT\chi\ci F(x)+A_2
$$
where $A_2>0$ depends only on the dimension $n$, the constants $A$ and $\e$
in the definition of the Calderon-Zygmund kernel $K$, and the norm
$\|T\|\ci{\!L^2(\mu){\to} L^2(\mu)\!}$.
%
%(the condition
%$x\in\supp\mu$ is imposed only to have the maximal function
%$\wt MT\chi\ci F(x)$ well-defined at the point $x$).
%
\rm
\tit{Proof:}
Let $
%%%% x\in \supp\mu,
r>0$. Consider the sequence of balls
$B(x,r_j)$ where $r_j:=3^j r$,
and the corresponding sequence of measures $\mu_j:=\mu(B(x,r_j))$
($j=0,1,\dots)$.
Note that
we cannot have $\mu_j>2\cdot 3^n\mu_{j-1}$ for every $j\ge 1$.
Indeed, otherwise we would have for every $j=1,2,\dots$,
$$
\mu(B(x,r))=\mu_0\le [2\cdot 3^n]^{-j}\mu_j\le
[2\cdot 3^n]^{-j} r_j^n=2^{-j}r^n.
$$
Since the right hand part tends to $0$ as $j\to+\infty$,
we could conclude from here that $\mu(B(x,r))=0$, which is impossible.
Therefore there exists
the smallest positive integer $k$ for which $\mu_k\le 2\cdot 3^n\mu_{k-1}$.
Put $R:=r_{k-1}=3^{k-1}r$. Observe that
$$
\multline
|T_r\chi\ci F(x)-T\ci{3R}\chi\ci F(x)|\le
\int_{B(x,3R)\setminus B(x,r)}|K(x,y)|\,d\mu(y)
\\
=
\sum_{j=1}^k\int_{B(x, r_j)\setminus B(x,r_{j-1})}|K(x,y)|\,d\mu(y)
=:
\sum_{j=1}^k\Cal I_j.
\endmultline
$$
Now recall that $|K(x,y)|\le\frac{A}{\dist(x,y)^n}$ and therefore
$\Cal I_j\le A\frac{\mu_j}{r_{j-1}^n}$ for every $j=1,\dots,k$.
Note that $\mu_j\le [2\cdot 3^n]^{(j+1-k)}\mu_{k-1}$ and
$r_{j-1}=3^{j-k}r_{k-1}$ for $j=1,\dots, k$.
Hence
$$
\sum_{j=1}^k\Cal I_j\le
A
\sum_{j=1}^k \frac{\mu_j}{r_{j-1}^n}\le
A\cdot 2\cdot 3^n\,\frac{\mu_{k-1}}{r_{k-1}^n}\,
\sum_{j=1}^k 2^{j-k}\le 4\cdot 3^n A
$$
(for $\mu_{k-1}=\mu(B(x,r_{k-1}))\le r_{k-1}^n$).
And that is basically the main part of the reasoning,
because now it is enough to pick
up any standard proof based on the doubling condition to get the
desired
estimate for $T\ci{3R}\chi\ci F(x)$ (recall that $\mu(B(x,3R))\le
2\cdot 3^n\mu(B(x,R))\,!)$.
One of such standard ways is to compare
$T\ci{3R}\chi\ci F(x)$ to the average
$$
V\ci R(x):=\frac{1}{\mu(B(x,R))}\int_{B(x,R)}T\chi\ci Fd\mu
$$
(the quantity, which is clearly bounded by
$\frac{\mu(B(x,3R))}{\mu(B(x,R))}
\wt MT\chi\ci F(x)\le 3\cdot 2^n\wt MT\chi\ci F(x)$).
We have (here and below $\d_x$ is the unit point mass at the point
$x\in \X$):
$$
\multline
T\ci{3R}\chi\ci F(x)-V\ci{R}(x)=
\\
\int_{F\setminus B(x,3R)} T^*[\d_x-\tfrac
{1}{\mu(B(x,R))}\chi\ci{B(x,R)}d\mu]d\mu-
\frac{1}{\mu(B(x,R))}\int_{\X}\chi\ci{B(x,R)}\cdot T\chi\ci{F\cap
B(x,3R)}d\mu.\kern-8pt
\endmultline
$$
The first term does not exceed $2A_1$ according to Lemma 3.4
(applied to the adjoint operator $T^*$ instead of $T$),
while the second can be estimated by
$$
\multline
\frac{1}{\mu(B(x,R))}
\|T\|\ci{\!L^2(\mu){\to} L^2(\mu)\!}\cdot
\|\chi\ci{B(x,R)}\|\ci{L^2(\mu)}
\cdot \|\chi\ci{F\cap
B(x,3R)}\|\ci{L^2(\mu)}\le
\\
%\le
\frac{1}{\mu(B(x,R))}
\|T\|\ci{\!L^2(\mu){\to} L^2(\mu)\!}\sqrt{\mu(B(x,R))}\sqrt{\mu(B(x,3R))}
\le \sqrt{2\cdot 3^n}\,\|T\|\ci{\!L^2(\mu){\to} L^2(\mu)\!}.
\endmultline
$$
Combining all the above inequalities, we see that one can take
$A_2=4\cdot 3^n\,A+2A_1+\sqrt{2\cdot 3^n}\|T\|\ci{\!L^2(\mu){\to} L^2(\mu)\!}$.
\medskip
The lemma we just outlined is crucial for our proof of the weak type $1-1$
estimate, but, unfortunately, not sufficient alone. In the next section
we will present a construction that, however simple and natural, seems
to have been completely overlooked
(at any rate we don't know of any other paper in which it is used).
\tit{\S5. An alternative to the Calderon-Zygmund decomposition.}
Let $\nu\in M(\X)$ be a finite
linear combination of unit point masses with positive coefficients,
i.e.,
$$
\nu=\sum_{i=1}^N \a_i\d_{x_i}.
$$
\tit{Theorem 5.1.}
\it\flushpar
%For any $t>0$,
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%$$
%\mu\{x\in\X\,:\,|T\nu(x)|>t\}\le \frac{A_4\|\nu\|}{t}
%$$
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
$$
\|T\nu\|\ci{L^{1,\infty}(\mu)}\le A_4\|\nu\|
$$
with some
$A_4>0$ depending only on the dimension $n$, the constants $A$ and $\e$
in the definition of the Calderon-Zygmund kernel $K$, and the norm
$\|T\|\ci{\!L^2(\mu){\to} L^2(\mu)\!}$.
\rm\flushpar
Here there is no problem with the definition of $T\nu$: it is just the finite
sum $\sum_{i=1}^N \a_i K(x,x_i)$, which makes sense everywhere except
finitely many points.
\tit{Proof:}
Without loss of generality, we may assume
that $\|\nu\|=\sum_i\a_i=1$ (this is just a matter of normalization).
Thus we have to prove that
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%for every $t>0$,
%$$
%\mu\{|T\nu|>t\}\le \frac {A_4}t.
%$$
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
$\|T\nu\|\ci{L^{1,\infty}(\mu)}\le A_4$.
Fix some $t>0$ and
suppose first that $\mu(\X)>\frac1t$. Let
$B(x_1,\rho_1)$ be the smallest (closed) ball such that
$\mu(B(x_1,\rho_1))\ge\dfrac{\a_1}{t}$ (since the function
$\rho\to \mu(B(x,\rho))$ is increasing and continuous from the right,
tends to $0$ as $\rho\to 0$, and is greater than $\dfrac1t\ge
\dfrac{\a_1}{t}$ for
sufficiently large $\rho>0$,
such $\rho_1$ exists and is strictly positive).
Note that for the corresponding {\it open} ball $B'(x_1,\rho_1):=
\{y\in\X\,:\,\dist(x,y)<\rho_1\}$, we
have $\mu(B'(x_1,\rho_1))=\lim_{\rho\to \rho_1-0}\mu(B(x,\rho))\le
\dfrac{\a_1}{t}$.
Since the measure $\mu$ is $\sigma$-finite and
non-atomic, one can choose a Borel set
$E_1$ satisfying
$$
B'(x_1,\rho_1)\subset E_1\subset B(x_1,\rho_1)\qquad\text{ and }\qquad
\mu(E_1)=\frac{\a_1}{t}.
$$
Let
$B(x_2,\rho_2)$ be the smallest ball such that $\mu(B(x_2,\rho_2)\setminus
E_1)\ge\dfrac{\a_2}{t}$ (since $\mu(\X)>\frac1t$, the measure of the remaining
part $\X\setminus E_1$ is still greater than
$\dfrac{1-\a_1}{t}\ge\dfrac{\a_2}{t}$).
Again for the corresponding open ball $B'(x_2,\rho_2)$,
we have $\mu(B'(x_2,\rho_2)\setminus
E_1)\le\dfrac{\a_2}{t}$, and therefore there exists a Borel set $E_2$,
satisfying
$$
B'(x_2,\rho_2)\setminus E_1
\subset E_2
\subset B(x_1,\rho_1)\setminus E_1
\qquad\text{ and }\qquad
\mu(E_2)=\frac{\a_2}{t}.
$$
In general, for $i=3,4,\dots,N$, let
$B(x_i,\rho_i)$ be the smallest ball such that
$$
\mu\Bigl(B(x_i,\rho_i)\setminus
\bigcup_{\ell=1}^{i-1}E_\ell
\Bigr)\ge\frac{\a_i}{t},
$$
and let $E_i$ be a Borel set satisfying
$$
B'(x_i,\rho_i)\setminus
\bigcup_{\ell=1}^{i-1}E_\ell
\subset
E_i
\subset
B(x_i,\rho_i)\setminus
\bigcup_{\ell=1}^{i-1}E_\ell
\quad\text{ and }\quad
\mu(E_i)=\frac{\a_i}{t}.
$$
Put $E:=\bigcup_i E_i$.
Clearly
$$
\bigcup_i B'(x_i,\rho_i)
\subset
E
\subset
\bigcup_i B(x_i,\rho_i)
\qquad\text{ and }\qquad
\mu(E)=\frac1t.
$$
Now let us compare $T\nu$ to $t\,\sum_i\chi\ci{\X\setminus
B(x_i,2\rho_i)}
\cdot T\chi\ci{E_i}=:t\sigma$ outside $E$.
We have
$$
T\nu-t\s=\sum_i\f_i
$$
where
$$
\f_i=\a_i T\d_{x_i}- t\,\chi\ci{\X\setminus B(x_i,2\rho_i)}\cdot
T\chi\ci{E_i}.
$$
Note now that
$$
\int_{\X\setminus E}|\f_i|d\mu\le \int_{\X\setminus
B(x_i,2\rho_i)}\bigl|T[\a_i
\d_{x_i}-t\chi\ci{E_i}d\mu]\bigr|d\mu + \int_{B(x_i,2\rho_i)\setminus
B'(x_i,\rho_i)}
\a_i|T\d_{x_i}|d\mu.
$$
But, according to Lemma 3.4, the first integral does not exceed
$$
A_1\|\a_i
\d_{x_i}-t\,\chi\ci{E_i}d\mu\|=2A_1 \a_i,
$$
while $|T\d_{x_i}|\le A \rho_i^{-n}$ outside $B'(x_i,\rho_i)$ and therefore
the second integral is not greater than
$\a_i A \rho_i^{-n}\mu(B(x_i,2\rho_i))\le 2^n A \a_i$.
Finally we conclude that
$$
\int_{\X\setminus E}|T\nu-t\s|d\mu\le
(2A_1+2^nA)\sum_i\a_i=2A_1+2^nA,
$$
and thereby $|T\nu-t\s|\le (2A_1+2^nA)t$
everywhere on $\X\setminus E$, except, maybe, a set of
measure $\frac{1}{t}$. To accomplish the proof of the theorem,
we will show that for sufficiently large $A_3$,
$$
\mu\{|\s|>A_3\}\le \frac2t.
$$
Then, combining all the above estimates, we shall get
$$
\mu\bigl\{x\in\X\,:\,|T\nu(x)|>(A_3+2A_1+2^nA)t\bigr\}\le\frac4t.
$$
Since the same inequality is obviously true in the
case when $\mu(\X)\le\frac1t$,
one may take $A_4=4(A_3+2A_1+2^nA)$.
We will apply the standard Stein-Weiss duality trick.
Assume that the inverse inequality
$\mu\{|\s|>A_3\}> \frac2t$
holds. Then either
$
\mu\{\s>A_3\}> \frac1t,
$
or
$
\mu\{\s<-A_3\}> \frac1t.
$
Assume for definiteness that the first case takes place
and choose some set $F\subset \X$ of measure exactly
$\frac1t$
such that $\s>A_3$ everywhere on $F$.
Then, clearly,
$$
\int_\X\s\chi\ci F d\mu>\frac{A_3}{t}.
$$
On the other hand, this integral can be computed as
$$
\sum_i \int_{\X} [T\chi\ci{E_i}]\cdot\chi\ci{F\setminus
B(x_i,2\rho_i)}\,d\mu
=\sum_i \int_{\X} \chi\ci{E_i}\cdot [T^*\chi\ci{F\setminus
B(x_i,2\rho_i)}]\,d\mu
$$
Note that for every point $x\in E_i\subset B(x_i,\rho_i)$,
$$
\multline
|T^*\chi\ci{F\setminus B(x_i,2\rho_i)}(x)-T^*\chi\ci{F\setminus
B(x,\rho_i)}(x)|
=\Bigl|\int_{B(x_i,2\rho_i)\setminus B(x,\rho_i)}K(y,x)d\mu(y) \Bigr|
\le
\\
\le A\rho_i^{-n}\mu(B(x_i,2\rho_i))\le 2^nA
\endmultline
$$
and thereby for every $x\in E_i\cap\supp\mu$,
$$
|T^*\chi\ci{F\setminus B(x_i,2\rho_i)}(x)|\le (T^*)^\sharp \chi\ci
F(x)+2^nA\le
2\cdot 3^n\,\wt MT^*\chi\ci F(x)+A_2+2^nA
$$
according to the Guy David lemma.
Hence
$$
\int_{\X} \s\chi\ci F d\mu\le (A_2+2^nA)\mu(E)+2\cdot 3^n\int_{\X}\chi\ci
E\cdot
\wt MT^*\chi\ci F
d\mu.
$$
But the first term equals $\dfrac{A_2+2^nA}{t}$ while the second one does
not exceed
$$
2\cdot 3^n\,
\|\chi\ci E\|\ci{L^2(\mu)}
\|\wt MT^*\chi\ci F\|\ci{L^2(\mu)}\le
\frac{2\cdot 3^n}{t}\|\wt M\|\ci{L^2(\mu)\to
L^2(\mu)}
\|T^*\|\ci{\!L^2(\mu){\to} L^2(\mu)\!}.
$$
Recalling that
$
\|T^*\|\ci{\!L^2(\mu){\to} L^2(\mu)\!}
=\|T\|\ci{\!L^2(\mu){\to} L^2(\mu)\!}
$, we see that one can take
$$
A_3=A_2+2^nA+2\cdot 3^n\,\|\wt M\|\ci{L^2(\mu)\to
L^2(\mu)}\|T\|\ci{\!L^2(\mu){\to} L^2(\mu)\!}
$$
to get a contradiction. Since the norm $\|\wt M\|\ci{L^2(\mu)\to
L^2(\mu)}$ is bounded by some absolute constant (the constant in the
Marzinkevich interpolation theorem), we are done.
\tit{\S6. From finite linear
combinations of point masses to $L^1(\mu)$-functions.}
Note first of all that Theorem 5.1 remains valid (with twice larger constant)
for finite linear combinations of point masses with {\it arbitrary} real
coefficients. Indeed, every such measure $\nu$ can be represented as
$\nu_+-\nu_-$ where $\nu_\pm$ are
finite linear combinations of point masses with {\it positive}
coefficients and $\|\nu\|=\|\nu_+\|+\|\nu_-\|$. Hence
$$
\|T\nu\|\ci{L^{1,\infty}(\mu)}\le 2\bigl(
\|T\nu_+\|\ci{L^{1,\infty}(\mu)}+
\|T\nu_-\|\ci{L^{1,\infty}(\mu)}
\bigr)\le
2A_4 (\|\nu_+\|+\|\nu_-\|)= 2A_4\|\nu\|.
$$
Now we are ready to prove
\tit{Theorem 6.1.}
\it\flushpar
Let $f\in L^1(\mu)\cap L^2(\mu)$. Then
$$
\|Tf\|\ci{L^{1,\infty}(\mu)}\le A_5\|f\|\ci{L^1(\mu)}
$$
with some
$A_5>0$ depending only on the dimension $n$, the constants $A$ and $\e$
in the definition of the Calderon-Zygmund kernel $K$, and the norm
$\|T\|\ci{\!L^2(\mu){\to} L^2(\mu)\!}$.
\rm
\tit{Proof:}
Let $C_0(\X)$ be the space of bounded continuous functions on $\X$
with bounded support (a function is said to have bounded support
if it vanishes outside some (large) ball of finite radius).
Clearly, $C_0(\X)\subset L^1(\mu)\cap L^2(\mu)$, and it
is a standard fact from
measure theory that $C_0(\X)$ is dense in $L^1(\mu)\cap L^2(\mu)$
with respect to the norm $\|\cdot\|\ci{L^1(\mu)}+\|\cdot\|\ci{L^2(\mu)}$.
Therefore it is enough to prove the desired inequality for $f\in C_0(\X)$.
Fix $t>0$ and put $G:=\{x\in \X\,:\,|f(x)|>t\}$,
$f^t:=f\cdot\chi\ci G$ and $f_t=f\cdot\chi\ci{\X\setminus G}$.
We have
$
T f= T f^t+T f_t.
$
Now observe, as usual, that
$$
\int_\X |f_t|^2\,d\mu\le
t\int_\X |f_t|\,d\mu
\le t\|f\|\ci{L^1(\mu)}.
$$
Therefore $\int_\X|Tf_t|^2\,d\mu\le \|T\|\ci{\!L^2(\mu){\to} L^2(\mu)\!}^2
t\|f\|\ci{L^1(\mu)}$, and
$$
\mu\bigl\{x\in\X\,:\, |Tf_t(x)|>t\cdot\|T\|\ci{\!L^2(\mu){\to} L^2(\mu)\!}\bigr\}\le
\frac{\|f\|\cci{L^1(\mu)}}{t}.
$$
Note now that $G$ is an {\it open} set (this is the only place where we
use the continuity of $f$) and that $\mu(G)\le \frac1t \|f\|\ci{L^1(\mu)}$.
Recall that every open set $G$ in a separable metric space allows a ``Whitney
decomposition'', i.e., it can be represented as a union of countably many
pairwise disjoint Borel sets $G_i$ ($i=1,2,\dots$) satisfying
$$
\diam G_i\le \tfrac12 \dist(G_i,\X\setminus G).
$$
Put $f_i:=f\cdot\chi\ci{G_i}$. Then $f^t=\sum_{i=1}^\infty f_i$ where the
series converges at least in $L^2(\mu)$.
Let $f^{(N)}$ be the $N$-th partial sum of this series.
Define
$$
\a_i:=\int_{\X}f_i\,d\mu=\int_{G_i}f\,d\mu.
$$
Obviously, $\sum_{i=1}^\infty|\a_i|\le \|f\|\ci{L^1(\mu)}$.
Choose one point $x_i$ in every set $G_i$ and
put $\nu\ci N=\sum_{i=1}^N \a_i\d_{x_i}$.
Consider the difference $Tf^{(N)}-T\nu\ci N$ outside $G$.
We have
$$
\int_{\X\setminus G}\bigl|Tf^{(N)}-T\nu\ci N\bigr|\,d\mu{\le}
\sum_{i=1}^N \int_{\X\setminus
G}\bigl|T[f_id\mu-\a_i\d_{x_i}]\bigl|\,d\mu{\le}
2 A_1 \sum_{i=1}^{N}|\a_i|\le 2 A_1 \|f\|\ci{L^1(\mu)}
$$
according to Lemma 3.4.
Thus $|Tf^{(N)}-T\nu\ci N|\le 2 A_1 t$
everywhere outside $G$ save, maybe, some exceptional set of
measure at most $\frac1t\|f\|\ci{L^1(\mu)}$.
As we have seen above,
$$
\mu\{x\in\X\,:\,|T\nu\ci N(x)|> 2 A_4 t\}\le \frac1t\|\nu\ci N\|
\le\frac1t\|f\|\ci{L^1(\mu)}.
$$
Hence
$$
\mu\bigl\{x\in\X\setminus G\,:\,|Tf^{(N)}(x)|> 2(A_1+A_4) t
\bigr\}\le
\frac2t\|f\|\ci{L^1(\mu)},
$$
and
$$
\mu\bigl\{x\in\X\,:\,|Tf^{(N)}(x)|> 2(A_1+A_4) t
\bigr\}\le
\frac3t\|f\|\ci{L^1(\mu)}.
$$
Since $f^{(N)}\to f^t$ in $L^2(\mu)$ as $N\to +\infty$, we have
$Tf^{(N)}\to Tf^t$ in $L^2(\mu)$ as $N\to +\infty$, which is more than enough
to pass to the limit and to conclude that
$$
\mu\bigl\{x\in\X\,:\,|Tf^{t}(x)|> 2(A_1+A_4) t
\bigr\}\le
\frac3t\|f\|\ci{L^1(\mu)}.
$$
Thus, we can take $A_5=4\bigl[\,\|T\|\ci{\!L^2(\mu){\to} L^2(\mu)\!}+2(A_1+A_4)
\,\bigr]$.
As usual, by the Marzinkevich interpolation theorem, we obtain
that the operator $T$ is bounded in $L^p(\mu)$
for every $1 1$ and $x\in \supp\mu$,
$$
T^\sharp f(x)\le 4\cdot 9^n \wt M T f(x) + B(\beta)\,\wt M\ci\beta f(x)
$$
where the constant $B(\beta)>0$ depends on the parameter $\beta>1$, the
dimension $n$, the constants
$\e$ and $A$ in the definition of the Calderon-Zygmund kernel $K$,
and the norm $\|T\|\ci{\!L^2(\mu){\to} L^2(\mu)\!}$ only.
\rm
\tit{Proof.}
It is just a minor modification of the proof of the Guy David lemma.
Let again $r>0$. Put $r_j=3^j r$ and $\mu_j=\mu(B(x,r_j))$ as before,
but let now $k$ be the smallest positive integer
for which $\mu_{k+1}\le 4\cdot 9^n\mu_{k-1}$ (i.e. we look now {\it two
steps forward\/} when checking for the doubling).
Note that such an integer $k$ exists, because otherwise
for every {\it even} $j$,
$$
\mu(B(x,r))\le 2^{-j}3^{-nj}\mu(B(x,r_j))\le
2^{-j}r^n,
$$
and thereby $\mu(B(x,r))=0$, which is impossible.
Put $R=r_{k-1}=3^{k-1}r$ exactly as before.
We have
$$
\multline
|T_r f(x)-T\ci{3R} f(x)|\le
\int_{B(x,3R)\setminus B(x,r)}|K(x,y)|\cdot|f(y)|\,d\mu(y)
\\
=\sum_{j=1}^k
\int_{B(x,r_j)\setminus B(x,r_{j-1})}|K(x,y)|\cdot|f(y)|\,d\mu(y)
=:\sum_{j=1}^k \Cal I_j.
\endmultline
$$
Note that
$$
\Cal I_j\le Ar_{j-1}^{-n}\int_{B(x,r_j)}|f|\,d\mu
\le
A r_{j-1}^{-n}\mu_{j+1}
\wt Mf(x).
$$
Observe now that $r_{j-1}=3^{j-1-k}r_{k}$ and
$\mu_{j+1}\le [4\cdot 9^n]^{\frac{j+2-k}{2}}\mu_{k}$ for $1\le j\le k$
(it is enough to check this inequality for $j=k, k-1$ and $k-2$).
Hence
$$
\sum_{j=1}^k \Cal I_j
\le 4\cdot 27^n\, A\, \wt M f(x)\,
\Bigl[\frac{\mu_{k}}{r_k^n}\Bigl]
\sum_{j=1}^k 2^{j-k}\le
8\cdot 27^n\,
A\,\wt Mf(x)
\le 8\cdot 27^n\,
A\,\wt M\ci\beta f(x).
$$
So, again, we need only to estimate $T\ci{3R} f(x)$.
As before, consider the average
$$
V\ci R(x):= \frac{1}{\mu(B(x,R))}\int_{B(x,R)}T f d\mu,
$$
which is bounded by $\frac{\mu(B(x,3R))}{\mu(B(x,R))}\wt MTf(x)
\le 4\cdot 9^n\wt MTf(x)$ according to our choice of $k$,
and write
$$
\multline
T\ci{3R} f(x)-V\ci{R}(x)=
\\
\int_{\!\X\setminus B(x,3R)}\! T^*[\d_x-\tfrac
{1}{\mu(B(x,R))}\chi\ci{B(x,R)}d\mu]\, f\,d\mu-
\frac{1}{\mu(B(x,R))}\!\int_\X\chi\ci{B(x,R)}\!\cdot
T[ f\chi\ci{
B(x,3R)}]d\mu.\kern-12pt
\endmultline
$$
Using Lemma 3.4, we can now estimate
the absolute value of the minuend by
$2A_1 \wt Mf(x)\le 2A_1 \wt M\ci\beta f(x)$.
As to the subtrahend, at this stage we know that $T$ is bounded
in $L^\beta(\mu)$,
and therefore the absolute value of the subtrahend does not exceed
$$
\frac{1}{\mu(B(x,R))}\|T\|\ci{L^\beta(\mu)\to L^\beta(\mu)}
\|\chi\ci{B(x,R)}\|\ci{L^{\beta'}(\mu)}\cdot \| f\chi\ci{
B(x,3R)}\|\ci{L^\beta(\mu)}
$$
where ${\beta'}:= \frac{\beta}{\beta-1}$ is the conjugate exponent to
$\beta$.
Clearly
$$
\|\chi\ci{B(x,R)}\|\ci{L^{\beta'}(\mu)}=\bigl\{\mu(B(x,R))
\bigr\}^{1/{\beta'}}.
$$
The point is that now, according to our choice of $k$, we
have
$\mu(B(x,9R))\le 4\cdot 9^n\mu(B(x,R))$,
and therefore
$$
\| f\chi\ci{
B(x,3R)}\|\ci{L^\beta(\mu)}\le
\wt M\ci{\beta} f(x) \bigl\{\mu(B(x,9R))
\bigr\}^{1/\beta} \le
\wt M\ci{\beta} f(x) \bigl\{4\cdot 9^n\mu(B(x,R))
\bigr\}^{1/\beta}.
$$
This allows us to conclude finally that the subtrahend is bounded by
$$
[4\cdot 9^n]^{1/\beta}\|T\|\ci{L^\beta(\mu)\to L^\beta(\mu)}\wt M\ci{\beta}
f(x),
$$
proving the theorem with $B(\beta)=8\cdot 27^n A+2A_1+
[4\cdot 9^n]^{1/\beta}\|T\|\ci{L^\beta(\mu)\to L^\beta(\mu)}$.
\tit{\S8. Weak type 1-1 estimate for the maximal operator $T^\sharp$.}
Now, to complete the ``classical $L^p$-theory'', it remains to prove
that the maximal operator $T^\sharp$ is bounded from $M(\X)$ to
$L^{1,\infty}(\mu)$, i.e., that for every signed measure $\nu\in
M(X)$,
$$
\|T^\sharp\nu\|\ci{L^{1,\infty}(\mu)}\le C\|\nu\|
$$
with some
constant $C>0$, not depending on $\nu$.
We will start again with ``elementary'' measures $\nu\in M(\X)$,
i.e., with the measures of the kind $\nu=\sum_{i=1}^N \a_i\d_{x_i}$
where $x_i\in \X$, $\a_i>0$ ($i=1,\dots,N$).
\tit{Theorem 8.1.}
\it\flushpar
Let $\beta\in(0,1)$.
For every elementary measure $\nu\in M(\X)$ and for every $x\in\supp\mu$,
$$
[T^\sharp\nu(x)]^\beta \le 4\cdot 9^n[\wt M_\beta T\nu]^{\beta}+
B(\beta)\,[\wt M\nu(x)]^{\beta}
$$
with some
$B(\beta)>0$ depending only on the parameter $\beta<1$,
dimension $n$, the constants $A$ and $\e$
in the definition of the Calderon-Zygmund kernel $K$,
and the norm
$\|T\|\ci{\!L^2(\mu){\to} L^2(\mu)\!}$.
\rm
\medskip
Note again that $T\nu$ is well-defined everywhere except finitely many
points, so the first term on the right does make sense.
\tit{Corollary 8.2.}
\it\flushpar
For every elementary measure $\nu\in M(\X)$,
$$
\|T^\sharp\nu\|\ci{L^{1,\infty}(\mu)}\le
A_6\|\nu\|
$$
with
$A_6>0$ depending only on the
dimension $n$, the constants $A$ and $\e$
in the definition of the Calderon-Zygmund kernel $K$, and the norm
$\|T\|\ci{\!L^2(\mu){\to} L^2(\mu)\!}$.
\rm
\tit{Proof of Theorem 8.1:}
Take some $r>0$. Put $r_j=3^j r$ and $\mu_j=\mu(B(x,r_j))$ as usual,
and let again (like in \S7) $k$ be the smallest positive integer
for which $\mu_{k+1}\le 4\cdot 9^n\mu_{k-1}$.
Put $R=r_{k-1}=3^{k-1}r$.
The same reasoning as in the proof of Theorem 7.1 yields
$$
%\multline
|T_r\nu(x)-T\ci{3R}\nu(x)|
\le 8\cdot 27^n\,
A\,\wt M\nu(x)
%\endmultline
$$
Now represent the measure $\nu$ as $\nu_1+\nu_2$, where
$$
\nu_1:=\sum_{i:\,x_i\in B(x,3R)}\a_i\d_{x_i}
\quad\text{ and }\quad
\nu_2:=\sum_{i:\,x_i\notin B(x,3R)}\a_i\d_{x_i}.
$$
For any $x'\in B(x,R)$, we have
$$
\multline
|T\ci{3R}\nu(x)-T\nu_2(x')|= |T\nu_2(x)-T\nu_2(x')|
%=\Bigl|\int_\X T\nu_2\,d[\d_x-\d_{x'}] \Bigr|
=\Bigl|\int_\X T^*[\d_x-\d_{x'}]\,d\nu_2 \Bigr|
\\
\le
\int_\X |T^*[\d_x-\d_{x'}]|\,d\nu_2
=
\int_{\X\setminus B(x,3R)} |T^*[\d_x-\d_{x'}]|\,d\nu\le
2A_1\wt M\nu(x)
\endmultline
$$
(see Lemma 3.4).
Hence
$$
\frac{1}{\mu(B(x,R))}\int_{B(x,R)}|T\ci{3R}\nu(x)-T\nu_2(x')|^\beta\,d\mu(x')
\le
\bigl[2A_1\wt M\nu(x)\bigr]^\beta.
$$
On the other hand,
$$
\multline
\frac{1}{\mu(B(x,R))}\int_{B(x,R)}|T\nu_2(x')-T\nu(x')|^\beta\,d\mu(x')
\\
=
\frac{1}{\mu(B(x,R))}\int_{B(x,R)}|T\nu_1(x')|^\beta\,d\mu(x')
\\
=
\frac{1}{\mu(B(x,R))}
\int_0^{+\infty}\beta s^{\beta-1}\mu\{x'\in B(x,R)\,:\,|T\nu_1(x')|>s\}\,ds.
\endmultline
$$
Note now that for every $s>0$,
$$
\multline
\mu\{x'\in B(x,R)\,:\,|T\nu_1(x')|>s\}
\le
\min\Bigl(\mu(B(x,R)),\frac{A_4\,\|\nu_1\|}{s}\Bigr)
\\
\le
\mu(B(x,R))
\min\bigl(1,\tfrac{\mu(B(x,9R))}{\mu(B(x,R))}\,
\tfrac {A_4\,\wt M\nu(x)}{s}\bigr)
\le
\mu(B(x,R))
\min\bigl(1,\tfrac{4\cdot 9^n\,A_4\,\wt M\nu(x)}{s}\bigr).
\endmultline
$$
Therefore
$$
\multline
\frac{1}{\mu(B(x,R))}
\int_0^{+\infty}\beta s^{\beta-1}\mu\{x'\in B(x,R)\,:\,|T\nu_1(x')|>s\}\,ds
\\
\le
\int_0^{+\infty}\beta s^{\beta-1}
\min\Bigl(1,\frac{4\cdot 9^n\,A_4\,\wt M\nu(x)}{s}\Bigr)\,ds
\\
=
\bigl[4\cdot 9^n\,A_4\,\wt M\nu(x)\bigr]^{\beta}
\int_0^{+\infty}\beta s^{\beta-1}\min(1,\tfrac1s)\,ds
=\tfrac1{1-\beta}
\bigl[4\cdot 9^n\,A_4\,\wt M\nu(x)\bigr]^{\beta}.
\endmultline
$$
Using the elementary inequality $|a+b|^\beta\le |a|^{\beta}+|b|^{\beta}$
($a,b\in\R;\,\beta\in(0,1)$\,), we obtain
$$
\frac{1}{\mu(B(x,R))}\int_{B(x,R)}|T\ci{3R}\nu(x)-T\nu(x')|^\beta\,d\mu(x')
{\le}
\bigl([2A_1]^\beta
+\tfrac1{1-\beta}
[4\cdot 9^n\,A_4]^\beta\bigr)\,[\wt M\nu(x)]^{\beta}.
$$
Using it twice more, we finally get
$$
\multline
|T\ci{r}\nu(x)|^{\beta}
\le
\frac{1}{\mu(B(x,R))}\int_{B(x,R)}|T\nu|^\beta\,d\mu
\\
+
\bigl([8\cdot 27^n A]^\beta+[2A_1]^\beta
+\tfrac1{1-\beta}
[4\cdot 9^n\,A_4]^\beta\bigr)\,[\wt M\nu(x)]^{\beta}.\!\!
\endmultline
$$
To prove the theorem, it remains only to note that
$$
\frac{1}{\mu(B(x,R))}\int_{B(x,R)}|T\nu|^\beta\,d\mu
\le
\frac{\mu(B(x,3R))}{\mu(B(x,R))}[\wt M\ci\beta T\nu]^\beta
\le
4\cdot 9^n[\wt M\ci\beta T\nu]^\beta.
$$
\medskip
To prove Corollary $8.2$, it is enough to recall that $\wt M_\beta$
is bounded in $L^{1,\infty}(\mu)$ for any $\beta\in(0,1)$,
and that
$\|T\nu\|\ci{L^{1,\infty}(\mu)}\le A_4\|\nu\|$ and
$\|\wt M\nu\|\ci{L^{1,\infty}(\mu)}\le\|\nu\|$.
%\bye
\tit{\S9. The weak type $1-1$ estimate for arbitrary measures $\nu\in M(X)$.}
\tit{Theorem 9.1.}
\it\flushpar
For any finite non-negative measure $\nu\in M(\X)$, one has
$$
\|T^\sharp\|\ci{L^{1,\infty}(\mu)}\le A_6\|\nu\|,
$$
where $A_6$ is the same constant as in the corollary 8.2.
\rm
\tit{Remark.}
Theorem 9.1 essentially says that elementary measures are ``weakly dense''
in the set of
all finite non-negative measures.
This is by no means surprising, but, since we work with a space that is not
locally compact and with a kernel that is not everywhere continuous,
is not completely obvious (or, maybe, it is, but we just don't see how).
That's why we decided to include a formal proof.
\tit{Corollary 9.2.}
\it\flushpar
For every $\nu\in M(\X)$,
$$
\|T^\sharp\|\ci{L^{1,\infty}(\mu)}\le 2A_6\|\nu\|,
$$
\rm
\tit{Proof of Theorem 9.1:}
%Without loss of generality, we may assume that $\|\nu\|=\nu(\X)=1$.
Fix $t>0$. Our aim is to show that
$$
\mu\{x\in\X\,:\,T^\sharp\nu(x)>t\}\le \frac{A_6\|\nu\|}{t}.
$$
Take $R>0$ and consider the truncated maximal operator
$$
T\ci R^\sharp\nu(x):=\sup_{r>R}|T_r\nu(x)|.
$$
Since $T\ci R^\sharp\nu\nearrow T^\sharp\nu$ pointwise on $\X$ as $R\to 0$,
it is enough to check that
$$
\mu\{x\in\X\,:\,T\ci R^\sharp\nu(x)>t\}\le \frac{A_6\|\nu\|}{t}
$$
for every $R>0$.
For every $N\in\Bbb N$, consider the random elementary measure
$$
\nu\ci N:=\frac{\|\nu\|}N\sum_{i=1}^N \d_{x_i}
$$
where the random points $x_i\in \X$ are independent and
$\Cal P\{x_i\in E\}=\frac{\nu(E)}{\|\nu\|}$
for every Borel set $E\subset \X$.
(Here and below we denote by $\Cal P\{X\}$ the probability of the event $X$,
by $\Cal E\xi$ the mathematical expectation of a random variable $\xi$, and
by $\Cal D\xi:=\Cal E|\xi-\Cal E\xi|^2=\Cal E|\xi|^2-|\Cal E\xi|^2$
the dispersion of the random variable $\xi$).
Note that for every fixed $x\in \X$ and $r>R$,
$$
\Cal E\, T_r\d_{x_i}(x)= T_r(\Cal E\,\d_{x_i})(x)= \frac{1}{\|\nu\|}T_r\nu(x)
$$
and
$$
\Cal D\, T_r\d_{x_i}(x)\le
\Cal E\, |T_r\d_{x_i}(x)|^2\le \frac{A^2}{r^{2n}}\le \frac{A^2}{R^{2n}}.
$$
Hence
$$
\Cal E\, T_r\nu\ci N(x)= T_r\nu(x)
\qquad \text{ and }\qquad
\Cal D\, T_r\nu\ci N(x)\le
\frac1N\,\frac{A^2\|\nu\|^2}{R^{2n}}.
$$
Fix a very small number $\gamma>0$ and note that for every point $x\in\X $
satisfying $|T_r\nu(x)|>t$, we have
$$
\multline
\Cal P\{|T_r\nu\ci N(x)|\le (1-\gamma)t\}
\le
\Cal P\{|T_r\nu\ci N(x)-T_r\nu(x)|> \gamma t\}
\\
\le
\frac{\Cal D\,T_r\nu\cci N(x)}{\gamma^2 t^2}\le
\frac1N\,\frac{A^2\|\nu\|^2}{R^{2n}\gamma^2 t^2}\le\gamma,
\endmultline
$$
provided that $N\in\Bbb N$ is large enough.
From here we incur that for every point $x\in\X $
satisfying $|T^\sharp\ci R\nu(x)|>t$, we have
$$
\Cal P\{|T^\sharp\nu\ci N(x)|\le (1-\gamma)t\}
\le\gamma.
$$
Let now $E$ be any Borel set {\it of finite measure} such that
$T^\sharp\ci R\nu(x)>t$ for every $x\in E$.
We have
$$
\Cal E\,\mu\{x\in E\,:\,|T^\sharp\nu\ci N(x)|\le (1-\gamma)t\}=
\int_F
P\{|T^\sharp\nu\ci N(x)|\le (1-\gamma)t\}
\,d\mu(x)
\le\gamma\mu(E).
$$
Thus there exists at least one choice of points $x_i$ ($i=1,\dots,N$)
for which $\mu\{x\in E\,:\,
|T^\sharp\nu\ci N(x)|\le (1-\gamma)t\}\le \gamma\mu(E)$ and therefore
$$
\mu\{x\in E\,:\,
|T^\sharp\nu\ci N(x)|> (1-\gamma)t\}\ge (1-\gamma)\mu(E).
$$
According to the weak type $1-1$ estimate for elementary measures, this
implies
$$
\mu(E)\le\frac{A_6\|\nu\ci N\|}{(1-\gamma)^2 t}=
\frac{A_6\|\nu\|}{(1-\gamma)^2 t}.
$$
Since $\gamma>0$ was arbitrary, we get $\mu(E)\le\frac{A_6\|\nu\|}{t}$.
At last, since $\mu$ is $\sigma$-finite and $E$ was an
arbitrary subset of the set of the points $x\in\X$ for which $T\ci
R^\sharp\nu(x)>t$, we conclude that
$$
\mu\{x\in\X\,:\,T\ci R^\sharp\nu(x)>t\}\le \frac{A_6\|\nu\|}{t},
$$
proving the theorem.
To prove Corollary 9.2, it is enough to recall that every signed measure
$\nu\in M(\X)$ can be represented as $\nu_+-\nu_-$, where $\nu_\pm$ are
{\it finite non-negative} measures and $\|\nu_+\|+\|\nu_-\|=\|\nu\|$.
\tit{References (??????? CHANGE THE LIST
??????? }
[Ch1] M.Christ, A $T(b)$ theorem with remarks on analytic capacity
and the Cauchy integral,
Colloq. Math. {\bf 60/61} (1990), 601-628.
[Ch2] M.Christ, Lectures on singular integral operators. Regional
Conference Series in
Mathematics,{\bf 77}, Amer. Math. Soc., 1990.
[CW] R.R.Coifman, G.Weiss. Analyse harmonique non-commutative sur
certaines espaces
homog\`{e}nes. Lect. Notes in Math.{\bf 242}, Springer-Verlag, 1971.
[D] G.David, Completely unrectifiable 1-sets on the plane have
vanishing analytic capacity.
Pr\'{e}publications Math\'{e}matiques d'ORSAY, No. 61, 1997, 1-94.
[DJ] G.David, J.L.Journ\'{e}, A boundedness criterion for
generalized
Calder\'{o}n-Zygmund operators, Ann. of Math. (2), {\bf 120} (1984),
157-189.
[DM] G.David, P.Mattila, Removable sets for Lipschitz harmonic
functions in the plane, Pr\'{e}publications Math\'{e}matiques d'ORSAY, No. 31, 1997, 1-59.
[MMV] P.Mattila, M.Melnikov, J.Verdera, The Cauchy integral,
analytic capacity,
and uniform rectifiability, Ann. of Math. (2) {\bf 144} (1996), 127-136.
[Me] M.Melnikov, Analytic capacity: discrete approach and curvature
of the measure.
Mat. Sbornik, (6) {\bf 186} (1995), 827-846.
[MV] M.Melnikov, J.Verdera, A geometric proof of the $L^2$
boundedness of the Cauchy
integral on Lipschitz graphs, IMRN (Internat. Math. Res. Notices)
1995, 325-331.
[Mu] T.Murai, A real-variable method for the Cauchy transform, and
Analytic capacity,
Lect. Notes in Math. {\bf 1307}, Springer-Verlag, 1988.
[NTV1] F.Nazarov, S.Treil, A.Volberg, Cauchy integral and
Calder\'{o}n-Zygmund operators on nonhomogeneous spaces. IMRN
International Math. Res. Notices, 1997, {\bf No. 15}, pp. 703-726.
[NTV2] F.Nazarov, S.Treil, A.Volberg, Calder\'{o}n-Zygmund
operators in nonhomogeneous spaces. Preprint, June 1997, 1-10.
[St] E.M.Stein, Harmonic analysis: real-variable methods,
orthogonality, and oscillatory
integrals. With the assistance of Timothy S. Murphy. Princeton Math.
Series, {\bf 43}, Monographs
in Harmonic Analysis, Princeton Univ. press, Princeton, NJ, 1993.
[T1] X.Tolsa, $L^2$-boundedness of the Cauchy integral operator for
continuous measures. Preprint, 1997, 1-24.
[T2] X.Tolsa, Cotlar's inequality and existence of principal values
for the Cauchy integral without doubling conditions. Preprint, 1997,
1-31.
\bigskip
Address:
Department of Mathematics,
Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA.
\bigskip
Current address of A.Volberg:
Department of Mathematics,
Univ. of Hawaii,
2565 The Mall,
Honolulu, HI. 96822.
\bye
\bye
\bye