Convergence in $L_p$ and elsewhere
$begingroup$
Let $|f|_p:=(int_X|f|^pdmu)^{1/p}$ and let $L_p$ be the space of (the classes of equivalence of) complex or real measurable functions such that $int_X|f|^p dmu<infty$ exists. In Kolmgorov-Fomin's Элементы теории функций и функционального анализа I find the following interesting properties that are valid for any space $X$ such that $mu(X)<infty$:
If sequence ${f_n}subset L_2(X,mu)$ converges with respect to the metric of $L_2(X,mu)$, it also converges with respect to the metric of $L_1(X,mu)$ [to the same function, I would say].
If sequence ${f_n}$ [where I think that it necessary that we intend ${f_n}subset L_2(X,mu)$] uniformly converges, it also converged with respect to norm $|cdot|_2$ [to the same function, I would say]
If sequence ${f_n}$ of summable functions [belonging to $L_2(X,mu)$, I would say, of course] converges with respect to $|cdot|_2$, it also converges in $X$ in measure [to the same function, I would say].
If sequence ${f_n}$ converges with respect to $||_1$, it is possible to extract a subsequence ${f_{n_k}}$ from it that converges almost everywhere [punctually].
From the proofs given by Kolmogorov and Fomin (pp. 387-388 here) for the case of $L_2(X,mu)$ I am convinced that all that I have written also holds by substituting $L_2$ and $|cdot|_2$ with $L_p$ and $|cdot|_p$, $pgeq 1$. With the precisation that we should have ${f_n}subset L_p(X,mu)$ at the second point. Is all that I have written correct? Thank you for any answer!!!
measure-theory convergence metric-spaces lebesgue-integral lp-spaces
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $|f|_p:=(int_X|f|^pdmu)^{1/p}$ and let $L_p$ be the space of (the classes of equivalence of) complex or real measurable functions such that $int_X|f|^p dmu<infty$ exists. In Kolmgorov-Fomin's Элементы теории функций и функционального анализа I find the following interesting properties that are valid for any space $X$ such that $mu(X)<infty$:
If sequence ${f_n}subset L_2(X,mu)$ converges with respect to the metric of $L_2(X,mu)$, it also converges with respect to the metric of $L_1(X,mu)$ [to the same function, I would say].
If sequence ${f_n}$ [where I think that it necessary that we intend ${f_n}subset L_2(X,mu)$] uniformly converges, it also converged with respect to norm $|cdot|_2$ [to the same function, I would say]
If sequence ${f_n}$ of summable functions [belonging to $L_2(X,mu)$, I would say, of course] converges with respect to $|cdot|_2$, it also converges in $X$ in measure [to the same function, I would say].
If sequence ${f_n}$ converges with respect to $||_1$, it is possible to extract a subsequence ${f_{n_k}}$ from it that converges almost everywhere [punctually].
From the proofs given by Kolmogorov and Fomin (pp. 387-388 here) for the case of $L_2(X,mu)$ I am convinced that all that I have written also holds by substituting $L_2$ and $|cdot|_2$ with $L_p$ and $|cdot|_p$, $pgeq 1$. With the precisation that we should have ${f_n}subset L_p(X,mu)$ at the second point. Is all that I have written correct? Thank you for any answer!!!
measure-theory convergence metric-spaces lebesgue-integral lp-spaces
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Yes, sounds correct.
$endgroup$
– saz
Nov 8 '14 at 16:54
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $|f|_p:=(int_X|f|^pdmu)^{1/p}$ and let $L_p$ be the space of (the classes of equivalence of) complex or real measurable functions such that $int_X|f|^p dmu<infty$ exists. In Kolmgorov-Fomin's Элементы теории функций и функционального анализа I find the following interesting properties that are valid for any space $X$ such that $mu(X)<infty$:
If sequence ${f_n}subset L_2(X,mu)$ converges with respect to the metric of $L_2(X,mu)$, it also converges with respect to the metric of $L_1(X,mu)$ [to the same function, I would say].
If sequence ${f_n}$ [where I think that it necessary that we intend ${f_n}subset L_2(X,mu)$] uniformly converges, it also converged with respect to norm $|cdot|_2$ [to the same function, I would say]
If sequence ${f_n}$ of summable functions [belonging to $L_2(X,mu)$, I would say, of course] converges with respect to $|cdot|_2$, it also converges in $X$ in measure [to the same function, I would say].
If sequence ${f_n}$ converges with respect to $||_1$, it is possible to extract a subsequence ${f_{n_k}}$ from it that converges almost everywhere [punctually].
From the proofs given by Kolmogorov and Fomin (pp. 387-388 here) for the case of $L_2(X,mu)$ I am convinced that all that I have written also holds by substituting $L_2$ and $|cdot|_2$ with $L_p$ and $|cdot|_p$, $pgeq 1$. With the precisation that we should have ${f_n}subset L_p(X,mu)$ at the second point. Is all that I have written correct? Thank you for any answer!!!
measure-theory convergence metric-spaces lebesgue-integral lp-spaces
$endgroup$
Let $|f|_p:=(int_X|f|^pdmu)^{1/p}$ and let $L_p$ be the space of (the classes of equivalence of) complex or real measurable functions such that $int_X|f|^p dmu<infty$ exists. In Kolmgorov-Fomin's Элементы теории функций и функционального анализа I find the following interesting properties that are valid for any space $X$ such that $mu(X)<infty$:
If sequence ${f_n}subset L_2(X,mu)$ converges with respect to the metric of $L_2(X,mu)$, it also converges with respect to the metric of $L_1(X,mu)$ [to the same function, I would say].
If sequence ${f_n}$ [where I think that it necessary that we intend ${f_n}subset L_2(X,mu)$] uniformly converges, it also converged with respect to norm $|cdot|_2$ [to the same function, I would say]
If sequence ${f_n}$ of summable functions [belonging to $L_2(X,mu)$, I would say, of course] converges with respect to $|cdot|_2$, it also converges in $X$ in measure [to the same function, I would say].
If sequence ${f_n}$ converges with respect to $||_1$, it is possible to extract a subsequence ${f_{n_k}}$ from it that converges almost everywhere [punctually].
From the proofs given by Kolmogorov and Fomin (pp. 387-388 here) for the case of $L_2(X,mu)$ I am convinced that all that I have written also holds by substituting $L_2$ and $|cdot|_2$ with $L_p$ and $|cdot|_p$, $pgeq 1$. With the precisation that we should have ${f_n}subset L_p(X,mu)$ at the second point. Is all that I have written correct? Thank you for any answer!!!
measure-theory convergence metric-spaces lebesgue-integral lp-spaces
measure-theory convergence metric-spaces lebesgue-integral lp-spaces
edited Dec 28 '18 at 11:32
Davide Giraudo
127k17154268
127k17154268
asked Nov 8 '14 at 15:49
Self-teaching workerSelf-teaching worker
2,29321140
2,29321140
2
$begingroup$
Yes, sounds correct.
$endgroup$
– saz
Nov 8 '14 at 16:54
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
Yes, sounds correct.
$endgroup$
– saz
Nov 8 '14 at 16:54
2
2
$begingroup$
Yes, sounds correct.
$endgroup$
– saz
Nov 8 '14 at 16:54
$begingroup$
Yes, sounds correct.
$endgroup$
– saz
Nov 8 '14 at 16:54
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Yes, everything is correct. The important things are that if $mu(X) < infty$, then we have the inclusions
$$L^q(X,mu) subset L^p(X,mu)$$
for $1 leqslant p leqslant q leqslant infty$, and by Hölder's inequality
$$lVert frVert_{p}leqslant lVert frVert_qcdot mu(X)^{largefrac{1}{p}-frac{1}{q}}$$
these inclusions are continuous. Thus,
- any convergent sequence in $L^q(X,mu)$ is also convergent in $L^p(X,mu)$ for all $1 leqslant p < q$, and has the same limit (by the continuity of inclusion, but we can also see that by extracting an almost everywhere convergent subsequence).
- Uniform convergence is slightly stronger than convergence in $L^infty$ ($L^infty$-convergence is uniform convergence on the complement of some null set), hence every uniformly convergent sequence converges in all $L^p$ such that $f_n in L^p(X,mu)$ for every sufficiently large $n$. For if $Ninmathbb{N}$ is such that for all $xin X$ we have $lvert f_n(x) - f_N(x)rvert leqslant 1$ for all $ngeqslant N$, then we have $f_n in L^p(X,mu) iff f_Nin L^p(X,mu)$ for all $ngeqslant N$, and the sequence $(g_k)$ where $g_k = f_{N+k} - f_N$ is a convergent sequence in $L^infty(X,mu)$, hence $g_kto g$ in all $L^p(X,mu)$ and $(f_n)_{ngeqslant N}$ therefore converges to $f_N + g$ in all $L^p(X,mu)$ with $f_Nin L^p(X,mu)$.
- The weakest notion of convergence in all the $L^p(X,mu)$ (where $mu(X) < infty$!) is the $L^1$-convergence, so if we see that $L^1$-convergence implies convergence in measure, it follows for all $pin [1,infty]$. To see that $L^1$-convergence implies convergence in measure, suppose it were not so, and take a sequence $f_n xrightarrow{L^1} f$ such that there is a $delta > 0$ and an $eta > 0$ with $$muleft({ x : lvert f_n(x) - f(x)rvert > deltaright) > etatag{$ast$}$$ for all $n$ [the negation of the definition of convergence in measure gives that inequality for a subsequence $(f_{n_k})$, then we restrict our attention to that subsequence, hence we can assume it holds for all $n$]. Also, using 4., we can assume that $f_n(x) to f(x)$ pointwise (almost everywhere). Now Egorov's theorem asserts that the convergence is actually uniform on the complement of sets of arbitrarily small measure, i.e. for every $varepsilon > 0$ there is a measurable $Esubset X$ with $mu(E) < varepsilon$ such that the convergence is uniform on $Xsetminus E$. Choosing $varepsilon < eta$, we obtain a contradiction to $(ast)$.
- Since a convergent sequence $(f_n)$ is a Cauchy sequence, we can extract a subsequence such that $lVert f_m - f_{n_k}rVert_1 < 2^{-k}$ for all $m geqslant n_k$. Then $$sum_{k=0}^infty lvert f_{n_{k+1}} - f_{n_k}rvert$$ is a convergent (in $L^1$) series of non-negative functions, hence it is pointwise convergent everywhere, and attains the value $infty$ only on a null set $N$. On $Xsetminus N$, the series $$sum_{k=0}^infty left(f_{n_{k+1}} - f_{n_k}right)$$ is absolutely convergent, hence $(f_{n_k}(x))$ converges for all $xin Xsetminus N$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you so much!!! Comprehensive and clear answer, as always!
$endgroup$
– Self-teaching worker
Nov 8 '14 at 17:32
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1012085%2fconvergence-in-l-p-and-elsewhere%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
$begingroup$
Yes, everything is correct. The important things are that if $mu(X) < infty$, then we have the inclusions
$$L^q(X,mu) subset L^p(X,mu)$$
for $1 leqslant p leqslant q leqslant infty$, and by Hölder's inequality
$$lVert frVert_{p}leqslant lVert frVert_qcdot mu(X)^{largefrac{1}{p}-frac{1}{q}}$$
these inclusions are continuous. Thus,
- any convergent sequence in $L^q(X,mu)$ is also convergent in $L^p(X,mu)$ for all $1 leqslant p < q$, and has the same limit (by the continuity of inclusion, but we can also see that by extracting an almost everywhere convergent subsequence).
- Uniform convergence is slightly stronger than convergence in $L^infty$ ($L^infty$-convergence is uniform convergence on the complement of some null set), hence every uniformly convergent sequence converges in all $L^p$ such that $f_n in L^p(X,mu)$ for every sufficiently large $n$. For if $Ninmathbb{N}$ is such that for all $xin X$ we have $lvert f_n(x) - f_N(x)rvert leqslant 1$ for all $ngeqslant N$, then we have $f_n in L^p(X,mu) iff f_Nin L^p(X,mu)$ for all $ngeqslant N$, and the sequence $(g_k)$ where $g_k = f_{N+k} - f_N$ is a convergent sequence in $L^infty(X,mu)$, hence $g_kto g$ in all $L^p(X,mu)$ and $(f_n)_{ngeqslant N}$ therefore converges to $f_N + g$ in all $L^p(X,mu)$ with $f_Nin L^p(X,mu)$.
- The weakest notion of convergence in all the $L^p(X,mu)$ (where $mu(X) < infty$!) is the $L^1$-convergence, so if we see that $L^1$-convergence implies convergence in measure, it follows for all $pin [1,infty]$. To see that $L^1$-convergence implies convergence in measure, suppose it were not so, and take a sequence $f_n xrightarrow{L^1} f$ such that there is a $delta > 0$ and an $eta > 0$ with $$muleft({ x : lvert f_n(x) - f(x)rvert > deltaright) > etatag{$ast$}$$ for all $n$ [the negation of the definition of convergence in measure gives that inequality for a subsequence $(f_{n_k})$, then we restrict our attention to that subsequence, hence we can assume it holds for all $n$]. Also, using 4., we can assume that $f_n(x) to f(x)$ pointwise (almost everywhere). Now Egorov's theorem asserts that the convergence is actually uniform on the complement of sets of arbitrarily small measure, i.e. for every $varepsilon > 0$ there is a measurable $Esubset X$ with $mu(E) < varepsilon$ such that the convergence is uniform on $Xsetminus E$. Choosing $varepsilon < eta$, we obtain a contradiction to $(ast)$.
- Since a convergent sequence $(f_n)$ is a Cauchy sequence, we can extract a subsequence such that $lVert f_m - f_{n_k}rVert_1 < 2^{-k}$ for all $m geqslant n_k$. Then $$sum_{k=0}^infty lvert f_{n_{k+1}} - f_{n_k}rvert$$ is a convergent (in $L^1$) series of non-negative functions, hence it is pointwise convergent everywhere, and attains the value $infty$ only on a null set $N$. On $Xsetminus N$, the series $$sum_{k=0}^infty left(f_{n_{k+1}} - f_{n_k}right)$$ is absolutely convergent, hence $(f_{n_k}(x))$ converges for all $xin Xsetminus N$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you so much!!! Comprehensive and clear answer, as always!
$endgroup$
– Self-teaching worker
Nov 8 '14 at 17:32
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, everything is correct. The important things are that if $mu(X) < infty$, then we have the inclusions
$$L^q(X,mu) subset L^p(X,mu)$$
for $1 leqslant p leqslant q leqslant infty$, and by Hölder's inequality
$$lVert frVert_{p}leqslant lVert frVert_qcdot mu(X)^{largefrac{1}{p}-frac{1}{q}}$$
these inclusions are continuous. Thus,
- any convergent sequence in $L^q(X,mu)$ is also convergent in $L^p(X,mu)$ for all $1 leqslant p < q$, and has the same limit (by the continuity of inclusion, but we can also see that by extracting an almost everywhere convergent subsequence).
- Uniform convergence is slightly stronger than convergence in $L^infty$ ($L^infty$-convergence is uniform convergence on the complement of some null set), hence every uniformly convergent sequence converges in all $L^p$ such that $f_n in L^p(X,mu)$ for every sufficiently large $n$. For if $Ninmathbb{N}$ is such that for all $xin X$ we have $lvert f_n(x) - f_N(x)rvert leqslant 1$ for all $ngeqslant N$, then we have $f_n in L^p(X,mu) iff f_Nin L^p(X,mu)$ for all $ngeqslant N$, and the sequence $(g_k)$ where $g_k = f_{N+k} - f_N$ is a convergent sequence in $L^infty(X,mu)$, hence $g_kto g$ in all $L^p(X,mu)$ and $(f_n)_{ngeqslant N}$ therefore converges to $f_N + g$ in all $L^p(X,mu)$ with $f_Nin L^p(X,mu)$.
- The weakest notion of convergence in all the $L^p(X,mu)$ (where $mu(X) < infty$!) is the $L^1$-convergence, so if we see that $L^1$-convergence implies convergence in measure, it follows for all $pin [1,infty]$. To see that $L^1$-convergence implies convergence in measure, suppose it were not so, and take a sequence $f_n xrightarrow{L^1} f$ such that there is a $delta > 0$ and an $eta > 0$ with $$muleft({ x : lvert f_n(x) - f(x)rvert > deltaright) > etatag{$ast$}$$ for all $n$ [the negation of the definition of convergence in measure gives that inequality for a subsequence $(f_{n_k})$, then we restrict our attention to that subsequence, hence we can assume it holds for all $n$]. Also, using 4., we can assume that $f_n(x) to f(x)$ pointwise (almost everywhere). Now Egorov's theorem asserts that the convergence is actually uniform on the complement of sets of arbitrarily small measure, i.e. for every $varepsilon > 0$ there is a measurable $Esubset X$ with $mu(E) < varepsilon$ such that the convergence is uniform on $Xsetminus E$. Choosing $varepsilon < eta$, we obtain a contradiction to $(ast)$.
- Since a convergent sequence $(f_n)$ is a Cauchy sequence, we can extract a subsequence such that $lVert f_m - f_{n_k}rVert_1 < 2^{-k}$ for all $m geqslant n_k$. Then $$sum_{k=0}^infty lvert f_{n_{k+1}} - f_{n_k}rvert$$ is a convergent (in $L^1$) series of non-negative functions, hence it is pointwise convergent everywhere, and attains the value $infty$ only on a null set $N$. On $Xsetminus N$, the series $$sum_{k=0}^infty left(f_{n_{k+1}} - f_{n_k}right)$$ is absolutely convergent, hence $(f_{n_k}(x))$ converges for all $xin Xsetminus N$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you so much!!! Comprehensive and clear answer, as always!
$endgroup$
– Self-teaching worker
Nov 8 '14 at 17:32
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, everything is correct. The important things are that if $mu(X) < infty$, then we have the inclusions
$$L^q(X,mu) subset L^p(X,mu)$$
for $1 leqslant p leqslant q leqslant infty$, and by Hölder's inequality
$$lVert frVert_{p}leqslant lVert frVert_qcdot mu(X)^{largefrac{1}{p}-frac{1}{q}}$$
these inclusions are continuous. Thus,
- any convergent sequence in $L^q(X,mu)$ is also convergent in $L^p(X,mu)$ for all $1 leqslant p < q$, and has the same limit (by the continuity of inclusion, but we can also see that by extracting an almost everywhere convergent subsequence).
- Uniform convergence is slightly stronger than convergence in $L^infty$ ($L^infty$-convergence is uniform convergence on the complement of some null set), hence every uniformly convergent sequence converges in all $L^p$ such that $f_n in L^p(X,mu)$ for every sufficiently large $n$. For if $Ninmathbb{N}$ is such that for all $xin X$ we have $lvert f_n(x) - f_N(x)rvert leqslant 1$ for all $ngeqslant N$, then we have $f_n in L^p(X,mu) iff f_Nin L^p(X,mu)$ for all $ngeqslant N$, and the sequence $(g_k)$ where $g_k = f_{N+k} - f_N$ is a convergent sequence in $L^infty(X,mu)$, hence $g_kto g$ in all $L^p(X,mu)$ and $(f_n)_{ngeqslant N}$ therefore converges to $f_N + g$ in all $L^p(X,mu)$ with $f_Nin L^p(X,mu)$.
- The weakest notion of convergence in all the $L^p(X,mu)$ (where $mu(X) < infty$!) is the $L^1$-convergence, so if we see that $L^1$-convergence implies convergence in measure, it follows for all $pin [1,infty]$. To see that $L^1$-convergence implies convergence in measure, suppose it were not so, and take a sequence $f_n xrightarrow{L^1} f$ such that there is a $delta > 0$ and an $eta > 0$ with $$muleft({ x : lvert f_n(x) - f(x)rvert > deltaright) > etatag{$ast$}$$ for all $n$ [the negation of the definition of convergence in measure gives that inequality for a subsequence $(f_{n_k})$, then we restrict our attention to that subsequence, hence we can assume it holds for all $n$]. Also, using 4., we can assume that $f_n(x) to f(x)$ pointwise (almost everywhere). Now Egorov's theorem asserts that the convergence is actually uniform on the complement of sets of arbitrarily small measure, i.e. for every $varepsilon > 0$ there is a measurable $Esubset X$ with $mu(E) < varepsilon$ such that the convergence is uniform on $Xsetminus E$. Choosing $varepsilon < eta$, we obtain a contradiction to $(ast)$.
- Since a convergent sequence $(f_n)$ is a Cauchy sequence, we can extract a subsequence such that $lVert f_m - f_{n_k}rVert_1 < 2^{-k}$ for all $m geqslant n_k$. Then $$sum_{k=0}^infty lvert f_{n_{k+1}} - f_{n_k}rvert$$ is a convergent (in $L^1$) series of non-negative functions, hence it is pointwise convergent everywhere, and attains the value $infty$ only on a null set $N$. On $Xsetminus N$, the series $$sum_{k=0}^infty left(f_{n_{k+1}} - f_{n_k}right)$$ is absolutely convergent, hence $(f_{n_k}(x))$ converges for all $xin Xsetminus N$.
$endgroup$
Yes, everything is correct. The important things are that if $mu(X) < infty$, then we have the inclusions
$$L^q(X,mu) subset L^p(X,mu)$$
for $1 leqslant p leqslant q leqslant infty$, and by Hölder's inequality
$$lVert frVert_{p}leqslant lVert frVert_qcdot mu(X)^{largefrac{1}{p}-frac{1}{q}}$$
these inclusions are continuous. Thus,
- any convergent sequence in $L^q(X,mu)$ is also convergent in $L^p(X,mu)$ for all $1 leqslant p < q$, and has the same limit (by the continuity of inclusion, but we can also see that by extracting an almost everywhere convergent subsequence).
- Uniform convergence is slightly stronger than convergence in $L^infty$ ($L^infty$-convergence is uniform convergence on the complement of some null set), hence every uniformly convergent sequence converges in all $L^p$ such that $f_n in L^p(X,mu)$ for every sufficiently large $n$. For if $Ninmathbb{N}$ is such that for all $xin X$ we have $lvert f_n(x) - f_N(x)rvert leqslant 1$ for all $ngeqslant N$, then we have $f_n in L^p(X,mu) iff f_Nin L^p(X,mu)$ for all $ngeqslant N$, and the sequence $(g_k)$ where $g_k = f_{N+k} - f_N$ is a convergent sequence in $L^infty(X,mu)$, hence $g_kto g$ in all $L^p(X,mu)$ and $(f_n)_{ngeqslant N}$ therefore converges to $f_N + g$ in all $L^p(X,mu)$ with $f_Nin L^p(X,mu)$.
- The weakest notion of convergence in all the $L^p(X,mu)$ (where $mu(X) < infty$!) is the $L^1$-convergence, so if we see that $L^1$-convergence implies convergence in measure, it follows for all $pin [1,infty]$. To see that $L^1$-convergence implies convergence in measure, suppose it were not so, and take a sequence $f_n xrightarrow{L^1} f$ such that there is a $delta > 0$ and an $eta > 0$ with $$muleft({ x : lvert f_n(x) - f(x)rvert > deltaright) > etatag{$ast$}$$ for all $n$ [the negation of the definition of convergence in measure gives that inequality for a subsequence $(f_{n_k})$, then we restrict our attention to that subsequence, hence we can assume it holds for all $n$]. Also, using 4., we can assume that $f_n(x) to f(x)$ pointwise (almost everywhere). Now Egorov's theorem asserts that the convergence is actually uniform on the complement of sets of arbitrarily small measure, i.e. for every $varepsilon > 0$ there is a measurable $Esubset X$ with $mu(E) < varepsilon$ such that the convergence is uniform on $Xsetminus E$. Choosing $varepsilon < eta$, we obtain a contradiction to $(ast)$.
- Since a convergent sequence $(f_n)$ is a Cauchy sequence, we can extract a subsequence such that $lVert f_m - f_{n_k}rVert_1 < 2^{-k}$ for all $m geqslant n_k$. Then $$sum_{k=0}^infty lvert f_{n_{k+1}} - f_{n_k}rvert$$ is a convergent (in $L^1$) series of non-negative functions, hence it is pointwise convergent everywhere, and attains the value $infty$ only on a null set $N$. On $Xsetminus N$, the series $$sum_{k=0}^infty left(f_{n_{k+1}} - f_{n_k}right)$$ is absolutely convergent, hence $(f_{n_k}(x))$ converges for all $xin Xsetminus N$.
answered Nov 8 '14 at 16:58
Daniel Fischer♦Daniel Fischer
174k16168287
174k16168287
$begingroup$
Thank you so much!!! Comprehensive and clear answer, as always!
$endgroup$
– Self-teaching worker
Nov 8 '14 at 17:32
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thank you so much!!! Comprehensive and clear answer, as always!
$endgroup$
– Self-teaching worker
Nov 8 '14 at 17:32
$begingroup$
Thank you so much!!! Comprehensive and clear answer, as always!
$endgroup$
– Self-teaching worker
Nov 8 '14 at 17:32
$begingroup$
Thank you so much!!! Comprehensive and clear answer, as always!
$endgroup$
– Self-teaching worker
Nov 8 '14 at 17:32
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1012085%2fconvergence-in-l-p-and-elsewhere%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
2
$begingroup$
Yes, sounds correct.
$endgroup$
– saz
Nov 8 '14 at 16:54