Check if $supleft{int_J|f(x)|chi_B(x), dx:lambda(B)le1/kright}to 0$












2












$begingroup$


Let $JsubsetBbb R$ be a perfect interval and let $finmathcal L_1(J,E)$. Set



$$R_k:=supleft{int_J|f(x)|chi_B(x), dx:lambda(B)le1/k, Bsubset Jright}tag1$$



I want to see if it is true that $(R_k)to 0$.



What I tried: let $(A_j)_j$ be any sequence of sets such that $lim_{jtoinfty}lambda(A_j)=0$, then
$$
lim_{ktoinfty}int_Jchi_{A_k}(x), dx=lim_{ktoinfty}lambda(A_k)=0tag2
$$
which implies, by a previous result, that there is a subsequence of $(chi_{A_k})_k$ such that $(chi_{A_{k_j}})_jto 0$ point-wise a.e.



Then for any sequence $(A_j)_j$ such that $lambda(A_j)le 1/j$ and $int_{A_j}|f(x)|dxgeint_{A_{j+1}}|f(x)|, dx$, we find that there is a subsequence $(A_{k_j})_j$ such that



$$lim_{jtoinfty}int_{A_{k_j}}|f(x)|=0tag3,$$



and because the sequence $Big(int_{A_k}|f(x)|, dxBig)_k$ is monotone then we also find that $lim_kint_{A_k}|f(x)|, dx=0$. Then note that $(R_k)_k$ is also monotone, and by the above we can conclude that $(R_k)to 0$ also.



Two questions here:




  1. It is the above correct or there is some flaw? In particular I find difficult to show formally the statement "and by the above we can conclude that $(R_k)to 0$ also", that is, if for each $xin A$ the statements above holds then it also holds for $sup A$. This, intuitively, seems not right.


  2. If the statement of the title is true, there is a simpler way to show the same result?







analysis measure-theory proof-verification lebesgue-integral alternative-proof







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    2












    $begingroup$


    Let $JsubsetBbb R$ be a perfect interval and let $finmathcal L_1(J,E)$. Set



    $$R_k:=supleft{int_J|f(x)|chi_B(x), dx:lambda(B)le1/k, Bsubset Jright}tag1$$



    I want to see if it is true that $(R_k)to 0$.



    What I tried: let $(A_j)_j$ be any sequence of sets such that $lim_{jtoinfty}lambda(A_j)=0$, then
    $$
    lim_{ktoinfty}int_Jchi_{A_k}(x), dx=lim_{ktoinfty}lambda(A_k)=0tag2
    $$
    which implies, by a previous result, that there is a subsequence of $(chi_{A_k})_k$ such that $(chi_{A_{k_j}})_jto 0$ point-wise a.e.



    Then for any sequence $(A_j)_j$ such that $lambda(A_j)le 1/j$ and $int_{A_j}|f(x)|dxgeint_{A_{j+1}}|f(x)|, dx$, we find that there is a subsequence $(A_{k_j})_j$ such that



    $$lim_{jtoinfty}int_{A_{k_j}}|f(x)|=0tag3,$$



    and because the sequence $Big(int_{A_k}|f(x)|, dxBig)_k$ is monotone then we also find that $lim_kint_{A_k}|f(x)|, dx=0$. Then note that $(R_k)_k$ is also monotone, and by the above we can conclude that $(R_k)to 0$ also.



    Two questions here:




    1. It is the above correct or there is some flaw? In particular I find difficult to show formally the statement "and by the above we can conclude that $(R_k)to 0$ also", that is, if for each $xin A$ the statements above holds then it also holds for $sup A$. This, intuitively, seems not right.


    2. If the statement of the title is true, there is a simpler way to show the same result?







    analysis measure-theory proof-verification lebesgue-integral alternative-proof







    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      2












      2








      2


      1



      $begingroup$


      Let $JsubsetBbb R$ be a perfect interval and let $finmathcal L_1(J,E)$. Set



      $$R_k:=supleft{int_J|f(x)|chi_B(x), dx:lambda(B)le1/k, Bsubset Jright}tag1$$



      I want to see if it is true that $(R_k)to 0$.



      What I tried: let $(A_j)_j$ be any sequence of sets such that $lim_{jtoinfty}lambda(A_j)=0$, then
      $$
      lim_{ktoinfty}int_Jchi_{A_k}(x), dx=lim_{ktoinfty}lambda(A_k)=0tag2
      $$
      which implies, by a previous result, that there is a subsequence of $(chi_{A_k})_k$ such that $(chi_{A_{k_j}})_jto 0$ point-wise a.e.



      Then for any sequence $(A_j)_j$ such that $lambda(A_j)le 1/j$ and $int_{A_j}|f(x)|dxgeint_{A_{j+1}}|f(x)|, dx$, we find that there is a subsequence $(A_{k_j})_j$ such that



      $$lim_{jtoinfty}int_{A_{k_j}}|f(x)|=0tag3,$$



      and because the sequence $Big(int_{A_k}|f(x)|, dxBig)_k$ is monotone then we also find that $lim_kint_{A_k}|f(x)|, dx=0$. Then note that $(R_k)_k$ is also monotone, and by the above we can conclude that $(R_k)to 0$ also.



      Two questions here:




      1. It is the above correct or there is some flaw? In particular I find difficult to show formally the statement "and by the above we can conclude that $(R_k)to 0$ also", that is, if for each $xin A$ the statements above holds then it also holds for $sup A$. This, intuitively, seems not right.


      2. If the statement of the title is true, there is a simpler way to show the same result?







      analysis measure-theory proof-verification lebesgue-integral alternative-proof







      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      Let $JsubsetBbb R$ be a perfect interval and let $finmathcal L_1(J,E)$. Set



      $$R_k:=supleft{int_J|f(x)|chi_B(x), dx:lambda(B)le1/k, Bsubset Jright}tag1$$



      I want to see if it is true that $(R_k)to 0$.



      What I tried: let $(A_j)_j$ be any sequence of sets such that $lim_{jtoinfty}lambda(A_j)=0$, then
      $$
      lim_{ktoinfty}int_Jchi_{A_k}(x), dx=lim_{ktoinfty}lambda(A_k)=0tag2
      $$
      which implies, by a previous result, that there is a subsequence of $(chi_{A_k})_k$ such that $(chi_{A_{k_j}})_jto 0$ point-wise a.e.



      Then for any sequence $(A_j)_j$ such that $lambda(A_j)le 1/j$ and $int_{A_j}|f(x)|dxgeint_{A_{j+1}}|f(x)|, dx$, we find that there is a subsequence $(A_{k_j})_j$ such that



      $$lim_{jtoinfty}int_{A_{k_j}}|f(x)|=0tag3,$$



      and because the sequence $Big(int_{A_k}|f(x)|, dxBig)_k$ is monotone then we also find that $lim_kint_{A_k}|f(x)|, dx=0$. Then note that $(R_k)_k$ is also monotone, and by the above we can conclude that $(R_k)to 0$ also.



      Two questions here:




      1. It is the above correct or there is some flaw? In particular I find difficult to show formally the statement "and by the above we can conclude that $(R_k)to 0$ also", that is, if for each $xin A$ the statements above holds then it also holds for $sup A$. This, intuitively, seems not right.


      2. If the statement of the title is true, there is a simpler way to show the same result?







      analysis measure-theory proof-verification lebesgue-integral alternative-proof




      analysis measure-theory proof-verification lebesgue-integral alternative-proof






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Dec 9 '18 at 14:19









      Did

      247k23223459




      247k23223459










      asked Dec 9 '18 at 7:52









      MasacrosoMasacroso

      13k41746




      13k41746






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2












          $begingroup$

          Firt of all, you cannot expect that $A_{j+1} subset A_j$. In the definition of $R_k$ you don't have any dependence on $R_{k-1}$. In fact, the "local peaks" of $f$ can be in two different points leading to the disjointness of $A_j$ and $A_{j+1}$.



          The statement is equivalent to the absolute continuity of the finite measure
          $$mu(A) := int_A |f(x)| , dx quad quad (A in mathcal{B}(I))$$
          with respect to the Lebesgue-measure. Since $f$ is integrable, there exists $K>0$ with
          $$int_{{|f|>K}} |f(x)| , dx < varepsilon/2.$$
          For any measurable set $A subset I$ with $lambda(A) < epsilon/(2K)$ we find that
          begin{align}
          int_A |f(x)| , dx &le int_{{|f|>K}} |f(x)| , dx + int_{A cap {|f| le K}} |f(x)| , dx \
          & le varepsilon/2 + K lambda(A) < varepsilon.
          end{align}
          In particular, we have for all $k in mathbb{N}$ with $1/k < varepsilon/(2K)$ that $R_k le varepsilon$. This proves $lim_{k rightarrow infty} R_k =0$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            there is a theorem that says that for any Cauchy sequence of simple functions then there is a subsequence that converges point-wise a.e. to some function. I used this theorem, not something related to monotone sequence of sets
            $endgroup$
            – Masacroso
            Dec 9 '18 at 19:39












          • $begingroup$
            Ah, okay! However, my argumentation is much easier. :-)
            $endgroup$
            – p4sch
            Dec 9 '18 at 20:02










          • $begingroup$
            Yes, of course! Typo corrected. :-)
            $endgroup$
            – p4sch
            Dec 9 '18 at 20:28











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3032129%2fcheck-if-sup-left-int-jfx-chi-bx-dx-lambdab-le1-k-right-to-0%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          2












          $begingroup$

          Firt of all, you cannot expect that $A_{j+1} subset A_j$. In the definition of $R_k$ you don't have any dependence on $R_{k-1}$. In fact, the "local peaks" of $f$ can be in two different points leading to the disjointness of $A_j$ and $A_{j+1}$.



          The statement is equivalent to the absolute continuity of the finite measure
          $$mu(A) := int_A |f(x)| , dx quad quad (A in mathcal{B}(I))$$
          with respect to the Lebesgue-measure. Since $f$ is integrable, there exists $K>0$ with
          $$int_{{|f|>K}} |f(x)| , dx < varepsilon/2.$$
          For any measurable set $A subset I$ with $lambda(A) < epsilon/(2K)$ we find that
          begin{align}
          int_A |f(x)| , dx &le int_{{|f|>K}} |f(x)| , dx + int_{A cap {|f| le K}} |f(x)| , dx \
          & le varepsilon/2 + K lambda(A) < varepsilon.
          end{align}
          In particular, we have for all $k in mathbb{N}$ with $1/k < varepsilon/(2K)$ that $R_k le varepsilon$. This proves $lim_{k rightarrow infty} R_k =0$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            there is a theorem that says that for any Cauchy sequence of simple functions then there is a subsequence that converges point-wise a.e. to some function. I used this theorem, not something related to monotone sequence of sets
            $endgroup$
            – Masacroso
            Dec 9 '18 at 19:39












          • $begingroup$
            Ah, okay! However, my argumentation is much easier. :-)
            $endgroup$
            – p4sch
            Dec 9 '18 at 20:02










          • $begingroup$
            Yes, of course! Typo corrected. :-)
            $endgroup$
            – p4sch
            Dec 9 '18 at 20:28
















          2












          $begingroup$

          Firt of all, you cannot expect that $A_{j+1} subset A_j$. In the definition of $R_k$ you don't have any dependence on $R_{k-1}$. In fact, the "local peaks" of $f$ can be in two different points leading to the disjointness of $A_j$ and $A_{j+1}$.



          The statement is equivalent to the absolute continuity of the finite measure
          $$mu(A) := int_A |f(x)| , dx quad quad (A in mathcal{B}(I))$$
          with respect to the Lebesgue-measure. Since $f$ is integrable, there exists $K>0$ with
          $$int_{{|f|>K}} |f(x)| , dx < varepsilon/2.$$
          For any measurable set $A subset I$ with $lambda(A) < epsilon/(2K)$ we find that
          begin{align}
          int_A |f(x)| , dx &le int_{{|f|>K}} |f(x)| , dx + int_{A cap {|f| le K}} |f(x)| , dx \
          & le varepsilon/2 + K lambda(A) < varepsilon.
          end{align}
          In particular, we have for all $k in mathbb{N}$ with $1/k < varepsilon/(2K)$ that $R_k le varepsilon$. This proves $lim_{k rightarrow infty} R_k =0$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            there is a theorem that says that for any Cauchy sequence of simple functions then there is a subsequence that converges point-wise a.e. to some function. I used this theorem, not something related to monotone sequence of sets
            $endgroup$
            – Masacroso
            Dec 9 '18 at 19:39












          • $begingroup$
            Ah, okay! However, my argumentation is much easier. :-)
            $endgroup$
            – p4sch
            Dec 9 '18 at 20:02










          • $begingroup$
            Yes, of course! Typo corrected. :-)
            $endgroup$
            – p4sch
            Dec 9 '18 at 20:28














          2












          2








          2





          $begingroup$

          Firt of all, you cannot expect that $A_{j+1} subset A_j$. In the definition of $R_k$ you don't have any dependence on $R_{k-1}$. In fact, the "local peaks" of $f$ can be in two different points leading to the disjointness of $A_j$ and $A_{j+1}$.



          The statement is equivalent to the absolute continuity of the finite measure
          $$mu(A) := int_A |f(x)| , dx quad quad (A in mathcal{B}(I))$$
          with respect to the Lebesgue-measure. Since $f$ is integrable, there exists $K>0$ with
          $$int_{{|f|>K}} |f(x)| , dx < varepsilon/2.$$
          For any measurable set $A subset I$ with $lambda(A) < epsilon/(2K)$ we find that
          begin{align}
          int_A |f(x)| , dx &le int_{{|f|>K}} |f(x)| , dx + int_{A cap {|f| le K}} |f(x)| , dx \
          & le varepsilon/2 + K lambda(A) < varepsilon.
          end{align}
          In particular, we have for all $k in mathbb{N}$ with $1/k < varepsilon/(2K)$ that $R_k le varepsilon$. This proves $lim_{k rightarrow infty} R_k =0$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Firt of all, you cannot expect that $A_{j+1} subset A_j$. In the definition of $R_k$ you don't have any dependence on $R_{k-1}$. In fact, the "local peaks" of $f$ can be in two different points leading to the disjointness of $A_j$ and $A_{j+1}$.



          The statement is equivalent to the absolute continuity of the finite measure
          $$mu(A) := int_A |f(x)| , dx quad quad (A in mathcal{B}(I))$$
          with respect to the Lebesgue-measure. Since $f$ is integrable, there exists $K>0$ with
          $$int_{{|f|>K}} |f(x)| , dx < varepsilon/2.$$
          For any measurable set $A subset I$ with $lambda(A) < epsilon/(2K)$ we find that
          begin{align}
          int_A |f(x)| , dx &le int_{{|f|>K}} |f(x)| , dx + int_{A cap {|f| le K}} |f(x)| , dx \
          & le varepsilon/2 + K lambda(A) < varepsilon.
          end{align}
          In particular, we have for all $k in mathbb{N}$ with $1/k < varepsilon/(2K)$ that $R_k le varepsilon$. This proves $lim_{k rightarrow infty} R_k =0$.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Dec 9 '18 at 20:27

























          answered Dec 9 '18 at 13:25









          p4schp4sch

          5,105217




          5,105217












          • $begingroup$
            there is a theorem that says that for any Cauchy sequence of simple functions then there is a subsequence that converges point-wise a.e. to some function. I used this theorem, not something related to monotone sequence of sets
            $endgroup$
            – Masacroso
            Dec 9 '18 at 19:39












          • $begingroup$
            Ah, okay! However, my argumentation is much easier. :-)
            $endgroup$
            – p4sch
            Dec 9 '18 at 20:02










          • $begingroup$
            Yes, of course! Typo corrected. :-)
            $endgroup$
            – p4sch
            Dec 9 '18 at 20:28


















          • $begingroup$
            there is a theorem that says that for any Cauchy sequence of simple functions then there is a subsequence that converges point-wise a.e. to some function. I used this theorem, not something related to monotone sequence of sets
            $endgroup$
            – Masacroso
            Dec 9 '18 at 19:39












          • $begingroup$
            Ah, okay! However, my argumentation is much easier. :-)
            $endgroup$
            – p4sch
            Dec 9 '18 at 20:02










          • $begingroup$
            Yes, of course! Typo corrected. :-)
            $endgroup$
            – p4sch
            Dec 9 '18 at 20:28
















          $begingroup$
          there is a theorem that says that for any Cauchy sequence of simple functions then there is a subsequence that converges point-wise a.e. to some function. I used this theorem, not something related to monotone sequence of sets
          $endgroup$
          – Masacroso
          Dec 9 '18 at 19:39






          $begingroup$
          there is a theorem that says that for any Cauchy sequence of simple functions then there is a subsequence that converges point-wise a.e. to some function. I used this theorem, not something related to monotone sequence of sets
          $endgroup$
          – Masacroso
          Dec 9 '18 at 19:39














          $begingroup$
          Ah, okay! However, my argumentation is much easier. :-)
          $endgroup$
          – p4sch
          Dec 9 '18 at 20:02




          $begingroup$
          Ah, okay! However, my argumentation is much easier. :-)
          $endgroup$
          – p4sch
          Dec 9 '18 at 20:02












          $begingroup$
          Yes, of course! Typo corrected. :-)
          $endgroup$
          – p4sch
          Dec 9 '18 at 20:28




          $begingroup$
          Yes, of course! Typo corrected. :-)
          $endgroup$
          – p4sch
          Dec 9 '18 at 20:28


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3032129%2fcheck-if-sup-left-int-jfx-chi-bx-dx-lambdab-le1-k-right-to-0%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          -

          Popular posts from this blog

          Wiesbaden

          Image
          Wappen Deutschlandkarte 50.0825 8.24 117 Koordinaten: 50° 5′  N , 8° 14′  O Basisdaten Bundesland: Hessen Regierungsbezirk: Darmstadt Höhe: 117 m ü. NHN Fläche: 203,93 km 2 Einwohner: 278.654 (31. Dez. 2017) [1] Bevölkerungsdichte: 1366 Einwohner je km 2 Postleitzahlen: 65183–65207, 55246, 55252 Vorlage:Infobox Gemeinde in Deutschland/Wartung/PLZ enthält Text Vorwahlen: 0611, 06122, 06127, 06134 Kfz-Kennzeichen: WI Gemeindeschlüssel: 06 4 14 000 LOCODE: DE WIB NUTS: DE714 Stadtgliederung: 26 Ortsbezirke Adresse der Stadtverwaltung: Schlossplatz 6 65183 Wiesbaden Webpräsenz: www.wiesbaden.de Oberbürgermeister: Sven Gerich (SPD) Lage der Landeshauptstadt Wiesbaden in Hessen und im Regierungsbezirk Darmstadt Offizielles Logo der Landeshauptstadt Wiesbaden Flagge der Landeshauptstadt Wiesbaden Wiesbaden is
          Read more

          Marschland

          Image
          Kilometerweite Marsch in den Vier- und Marschlanden am Elbdeich Die Wedeler Marschlandschaft in Schleswig-Holstein Der Hadelner Kanal zur Entwässerung der Marsch Die tief gelegene Marsch und ein Entwässerungskanal Das Schöpfwerk Otterndorf im Land Hadeln zur Entwässerung der Medem verfügte damals bereits über die größte Kreiselpumpe Europas. Das Schöpfwerk in Neuhaus für die Aue und des Neuhaus-Bülkauer Kanals Als Marsch(land) (v. niederdt., altsächs. mersc ) – auch Masch , Mersch oder Schwemmland genannt – bezeichnet man eine nacheiszeitlich entstandene geomorphologische Landform im Gebiet der nordwestdeutschen Küsten und Flüsse sowie vergleichbare Landformen weltweit. Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 Landschaft 2 Entstehung 3 Marschböden 4 Nutzung 5 Marschgebiete in Deutschland 6 Siehe auch 7 Literatur 8 Weblinks 9 Einzelnachweise Landschaft | Marschen sind generell flache Landstriche ohne natürliche Erhebungen. Si
          Read more

          Dieringhausen

          Image
          Dieringhausen Stadt Gummersbach 50.982777777778 7.5316666666667 165 Koordinaten: 50° 58′ 58″  N , 7° 31′ 54″  O Höhe: 165  (160–245)  m Einwohner: 5055  (30. Jun. 2016) Postleitzahl: 51645 Vorwahl: 02261 Lage von Dieringhausen in Gummersbach Im Hohl ca. 1927–1930 Ansicht von Südwesten bei Bünghausen Dieringhausen (im örtlichen Dialekt Dierkesen ) ist ein Ortsteil von Gummersbach im Oberbergischen Kreis, Regierungsbezirk Köln, Nordrhein-Westfalen (Deutschland). Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 Geographie 2 Geschichte 3 Kultur 3.1 Sehenswürdigkeiten 3.2 Regelmäßige Veranstaltungen 4 Infrastruktur und Wirtschaft 4.1 Verkehr 4.1.1 Schienen- und Busverkehr 4.1.2 Straßen 4.2 Öffentliche Einrichtungen 4.2.1 Schulen und Bildungseinrichtungen 4.2.2 Kirchliche Einrichtungen 5 Persönlichkeiten 5.1 In Dieringhausen geboren 5.2 In Dieringhausen gelebt 6 Einzelnachweise 7
          Read more