Let g be a μ-measurable function on X.
a) One has mg∘mg=m∣g∣2;
b) For all integers k,ℓ∈N, one has mgkgℓ=mgkmgℓ.
One has mg∘mg⊂m∣g∣2 by Lemma 6. Conversely, one deduces from the inequality ∣g∣⩽1+∣g∣2 that dom(m∣g∣2) = dom(mg∘mg), whence the first assertion.
Let k,ℓ∈N. We have mgkmgℓ⊂mgkgℓ(loc. cit.). The domain of mgkmgℓ is the set of classes in L2(X,μ) of functions h∈L2(X,μ) such that ∣g∣jh belong to L2(X,μ) for every integer j such that 0⩽j⩽k+ℓ. The inequalities
∣gjh∣⩽∣h∣+∣gk+ℓh∣
valid for 0⩽j⩽k+ℓ, show that dom(mgkmgℓ) is equal to dom(mgkgℓ), whence assertion b).
Bourbaki sets the proof directly after the statement, and the corpus does not separate them, so what is above is the statement and its proof together.
Nothing.
Nothing.