Sign up ×
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 am reading these notes by Terry Tao. I have a question about the difference between convergence in $L^{\infty}$ and convergence almost uniformly.

Is the difference that convergence almost uniformly guarantees that you can get uniform convergence outside a set of arbitrarily small but still positive measure, while convergence $L^{\infty}$ gets uniform convergence outside a set of exactly measure zero? Formal definitions follow to make ideas precise.

Let $(X, \mathcal{M}, \mu)$ be a measure space. Let $f, f_1, f_2, \ldots$ be a measurable functions.

We say that $f_n \to f$ in $L^{\infty}$ if for all $\varepsilon > 0$ there is an $N_{\varepsilon}$ such that $|f_n(x) - f(x)| \leq \varepsilon$ $\mu$--a.e. when $n \geq N_{\varepsilon}$.

We say that $f_n \to f$ almost uniformly if for all $\varepsilon > 0$ there is a set $E \in \mathcal{M}$ with $\mu(E) \leq \varepsilon$ such that $f_n \to f$ uniformly on $E^c$. I.e., for each $\delta > 0$ there is an $N_{\delta}$ such that $|f_n(x) - f(x)| \leq \delta$ for all $x \in E^c$ when $n \geq N_{\delta}$.

share|cite|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 4 down vote accepted

Yes, that is right.

It is a good exercise to prove that your definition of $L^\infty$ convergence is equivalent to:

There is a set $E \subset \mathcal{M}$ with $\mu(E) = 0$ such that $f_n \to f$ uniformly on $E^c$.

The thing to notice is that your definition should be expanded as:

For all $\epsilon > 0$ there exists $N$ such that for all $n \ge N$ there exists $F \in \mathcal{M}$ such that $\mu(F) = 0$ and $|f_n(x) - f(x)| \le \epsilon$ for all $x \in F^c$.

That is, the set $F$ may depend on $\epsilon$ and $n$. In showing the equivalence with my statement, you have to find a single set $F$ that works for all $\epsilon,n$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you @Nate Eldredge for the comment and the exercise. Shouldn't the end of your definition read $x \in F^c$ instead of $x \in F$. –  Alex Aug 27 '12 at 1:11
@AlexOlssen: Indeed, thanks. Fixed. –  Nate Eldredge Aug 27 '12 at 1:58

Here's an example to see the difference:

Consider the sequence of functions $f_n$, where $f_n(x)= 1$, whenever $\frac{-1}{n}<x<\frac{1}{n}$ and zero otherwise. These functions are clearly measurable. Also, the point-wise limit is the function $f$ which is zero on $R \backslash\{0\}$ and $f(0)=1$. Finally, one can show that that this converges almost uniformly (By chopping of small intervals centered around $0$), but not in $L^\infty$(Since we can do no such chopping).

Since I am in a hurry, I could only give a sketch. Perhaps I could try and clarify any doubts you have in the comments?

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks a lot for the example! –  Alex Aug 27 '12 at 1:15
I thought that I would spell out why the example works. To see convergence almost uniformly we can pick $N > 2 / \varepsilon$. Then $\mu(\{x: |f_n(x) - f(x)| > \varepsilon\}) < 2 * (1 / (2 / \varepsilon)) = \varepsilon$. However no matter what $N$ we pick there is still a set with positive measure where $|f_n(x) - f(x)| = 1$ so that we do not get convergence $L^{\infty}$. –  Alex Aug 27 '12 at 1:27
@AlexOlssen Perfect.Couldn't have said it better myself. :) –  Galois Group Aug 27 '12 at 1:32

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.