Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm very confused about $L^\infty$. So I'm trying to prove this:

Is $\|f\|_{\infty}$ the smallest of all numbers of the form $\sup\{|g(x)| \,:\,x \in X\}$, where $f=g $ $\mu$-a.e.?

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 7 down vote accepted

The answer to your question is yes. Recall that the definition of $\|f\|_\infty$ is $$\|f\|_\infty=\operatorname{ess sup}(f)=\inf\{a\in\mathbb{R}\mid \mu(\{x\in X\mid |f(x)|>a\})=0\}.$$ I'll interpret the phrase "the smallest of all numbers of the form $\sup\{|g(x)|\,:\,x\in X\}$, where $f=g$ $\mu$-a.e." to mean $$M=\inf_{g=f\text{ a.e.}}\left\{\sup_{x\in X}|g(x)|\right\}.$$


For any $\epsilon>0$, we can define $g:X\to\mathbb{R}$ by $$g(x)=\begin{cases}f(x) & \text{if }|f(x)|\leq \|f\|_\infty+\epsilon,\\0 & \text{otherwise}.\end{cases}$$ Note that $$\mu(\{x\in X\mid f(x)\neq g(x)\})=\mu(\{x\in X\mid |f(x)|>\|f\|_\infty+\epsilon\})=0$$ by the definition of $\|f\|_\infty$, so that $f=g$ almost everywhere, and that $\sup_{x\in X}|g(x)|\leq \|f\|_\infty+\epsilon$.

Thus, $$M=\inf_{g=f\text{ a.e.}}\left\{\sup_{x\in X}|g(x)|\right\}\leq \|f\|_\infty+\epsilon$$ for all $\epsilon>0$, and thus $M\leq \|f\|_\infty$.


For the other direction, note that for any $\epsilon>0$, $$\mu(\{x\in X\mid |f(x)|>(\|f\|_\infty-\epsilon)\})>0$$ by the definition of $\|f\|_\infty$. If $g=f$ a.e., then certainly $|g|=|f|$ a.e., so we must have that $$\mu(\{x\in X\mid |g(x)|>(\|f\|_\infty-\epsilon)\})>0$$ too, so that $g(x)>\|f\|_\infty-\epsilon$ for some $x\in X$. Thus, for any $g$ such that $g=f$ a.e., we have that $$\sup_{x\in X}|g(x)|\geq \|f\|_\infty-\epsilon$$ so that $$M=\inf_{g=f\text{ a.e.}}\left\{\sup_{x\in X}|g(x)|\right\}\geq \|f\|_\infty-\epsilon$$ for all $\epsilon>0$, and thus $M\geq \|f\|_\infty$.

This shows that $M=\|f\|_\infty$.

share|improve this answer
    
It's perfect answer. –  Collins Jun 13 '12 at 6:33
    
Thanks, glad to help! –  Zev Chonoles Jun 13 '12 at 6:34
    
Just a little note: $\operatorname{ess sup}(f)$ should be $\operatorname{ess sup}(|f|)$. –  matheburg Aug 7 at 11:25

Your Answer

 
discard

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.