Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $f:[0,1] \longrightarrow \mathbb R$ be a continuous function, and let $g:\mathbb R \longrightarrow \mathbb R$ be a continuous and periodic function with period $1$. Prove that

$\displaystyle\lim_{n\to \infty}\int_0^1f(x)g(nx)dx=\left(\int_0^1f(x)dx\right)\left(\int_0^1g(x)dx\right)$.

any Ideas?

share|cite|improve this question
I would probably begin by making the substitution $y=nx$ and splitting the integral into a sum of $n$ terms, giving $\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \int_i^{i+1} f(y/n) g(y) dy$, and then use continuity arguments to take $f$ outside the integral. – Chris Taylor Feb 3 '12 at 8:16
up vote 6 down vote accepted

Note that for positive integer $n$, we have $$\tag{1}\int_0^1f(x)g(nx)dx=\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\int_{\frac{i}{n}}^{\frac{i+1}{n}}f(x)g(nx)dx.$$ We change the variable by letting $y=nx$, then $dx=dy/n$. For $i=0,1,..., n-1$, we have $$\tag{2}\int_{\frac{i}{n}}^{\frac{i+1}{n}}f(x)g(nx)dx=\frac{1}{n}\int_{i}^{i+1}f(\frac{y}{n})g(y)dy=\frac{1}{n}f(\zeta_i)\int_{i}^{i+1}g(y)dy$$ where $\zeta_i\displaystyle\in[\frac{i}{n},\frac{i+1}{n}]$. Here we have used the mean-value theorem in the last equality. By assumption that $g$ has period $1$, by $(2)$ we have $$\int_{\frac{i}{n}}^{\frac{i+1}{n}}f(x)g(nx)dx=\frac{1}{n}f(\zeta_i)\int_{0}^{1}g(y)dy.$$ Put this back to $(1)$, we have $$\int_0^1f(x)g(nx)dx=\left(\int_{0}^{1}g(y)dy\right)\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\frac{1}{n}f(\zeta_i)$$ where $\zeta_i\displaystyle\in[\frac{i}{n},\frac{i+1}{n}]$. Note that by Riemann sum, we have $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\frac{1}{n}f(\zeta_i)=\int_0^1f(x)dx.$$ This proves the assertion.

share|cite|improve this answer
how did you conclude the last equality in (2)? which kind of mean value theorem did you use? – John Tesh Feb 3 '12 at 9:21
@JohnTesh, I think he was using this but made an extra assumption that $g$ does not ever change signs, which it certainly may. – Ragib Zaman Feb 3 '12 at 9:42
ok, thanks, I think we can fix the problem you mentioned by adding a constant to the function $g$. – John Tesh Feb 3 '12 at 11:06

Let $$\displaystyle A_n(f,g) = \int_0^1 f(x)g(nx)\ dx - \left(\int_0^1 f(x)\ ds\right) \left(\int_0^1 g(x)\ dx\right).$$ Note that $\displaystyle |A_n(f,g)| \le 2 \|f\|_2 \|g\|_2$ so it suffices to prove $\displaystyle \lim_{n \to \infty} A_n(f,g) = 0$ when $f$ and $g$ are in a dense subspace of $L^2(0,1)$, in particular for trigonometric polynomials. Further, it suffices to prove it for $f$ and $g$ in a set that spans the trigonometric polynomials. But for $f(x) = e_j(x) = \exp(2 \pi i jx)$ and $g(x) = e_k(x) = \exp(2 \pi ikx)$ where $j$ and $k$ are integers, $$\displaystyle \int_0^1 e_j(x) e_k(nx)\ dx = 1 \text{ if } j + nk = 0, \text{ otherwise } 0,$$ while $$\displaystyle \int_0^1 e_j(x)\ dx \int_0^1 e_k(x)\ dx = 1 \text{ if } j = k = 0, \text{ otherwise } 0.$$ Thus $A_n(e_j,e_0) = 0$ for all $j$ and $n$, while if $k\ne 0$, for each $j$ there are at most two $n$ for which $A_n(e_j,e_k) \ne 0$. In each case $\displaystyle \lim_{n \to \infty} A_n(e_j,e_k) = 0$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Usually this problem is seen with $g$ being some trigonometric function with the specical condition $\displaystyle \int^1_0 g(x) dx = 0 \ ;$ in this case the result is easy to discover. Intuitively, for large enough $n$ the oscillations become extremely rapid and since piece-wise constant functions uniformly approximate continuous functions arbitrarily well, the areas cancel out. So it is natural to prove this special case first:

Suppose $\displaystyle \int^1_0 g(x) dx =0. $ Let $G(x) =\displaystyle \int^x_0 g(t) dt.$ Since $g$ is $1$-periodic and $\displaystyle \int^1_0 g(x) dx=0,$ we have that $G$ is bounded on $ \mathbb{R}.$

If $f \in C^1( [0,1],\mathbb{R} )$ then integration by parts gives $$ \int^1_0 f(x) g(nx) dx = \frac{ f(1)G(n) - f(0)G(0) }{n} - \frac{1}{n} \int^1_0 f'(x) G(nx) dx \to 0$$ as required. As note that if $\displaystyle \int^1_0 g(x) dx \neq 0 $ then the limit is not $0$ for arbitrary $f\in C[0,1].$

If $f$ is continuous but not nessicarily $C^1$ then by the Stone-Weierstrass Theorem we can find a continuously differentiable $h: [0,1] \to \mathbb{R}$ such that $\displaystyle \int^1_0 |f(x)-h(x)| dx$ is arbitrarily small. Then since $$ \biggr| \int^1_0 \left( f(x) - h(x) \right) g(nx) dx \biggr| \leq \sup_{x\in [0,1]} |g(x)| \int^1_0 | f(x)-h(x)| dx$$ is also arbitrarily small, we have $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \int^1_0 f(x) g(nx) dx = \lim_{n\to \infty} \int^1_0 h(x)g(nx) dx =0.$$

How can one discover the general result? In the language of linear algebra, what we have shown is that $\displaystyle \int^1_0 f(x) g(nx) dx \to 0$ if and only if $g\in \ker L$, where $L:C[0,1]\to C[0,1]$ is the linear operator defined by $L(g) =\displaystyle \int^1_0 g(x) dx.$ So naturally, we want to see what this kernel looks like. We can see that $L^2=L$ so then we find that $ \ker L = \{ g- Lg : g\in C[0,1] \}.$ So the special case is true if we use $g-Lg,$ and rewriting that gives precisely the general result. We could compress this into a more mysterious conclusion:

Now, for arbitrary $ \displaystyle \int^1_0 g(x) dx$, the function $ \hat{g}(x)=g(x) -\displaystyle \int^1_0 g(x) dx $ is a continuous $1$-periodic function with $\displaystyle \int^1_0 \hat{g}(x) dx=0$ and applying the previously developed result to it gives the full result.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.