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

Exercise. (Rudin, Functional Analysis, chapter 2, pag. 53). Let us consider the space $$ \mathcal D :=\{f \in C^{\infty}(\mathbb R), \, \text{supp}f\subseteq [-1,1] \} $$ with the topology induced by the usual topology of $C^{\infty}(\Omega)$. Consider the linear functionals $$ \mathcal D \ni \phi \mapsto \Lambda_n \phi :=\int_{[-1,1]}f_n(t)\phi(t)dt \in \mathbb R $$ where $\{f_n\}$ is a sequence of Lebesgue integrable functions s.t. $\lim_n \Lambda_n\phi$ esixts for every $\phi \in \mathcal D$.

Using the facts that each $\Lambda_n$ is continuous and, moreover, that $\{\Lambda_n\}_{n \in \mathbb N}$ is equicontinuous I would like to prove that :

There exist two numbers $p \in \mathbb N$, $M \in \mathbb R^+$ s.t. $$ \left\vert \int_{[-1,1]}f_n(t)\phi(t)dt \right\vert \le M \Vert D^p\phi \Vert_{\infty} $$ for every $n$, for every $\phi \in \mathcal D$.

I think that this is a simple matter of uniform boundedness: we kwow that equicontinuity implies uniform boundedness so we can say $$ \forall E \subset \mathcal D \text{ bounded, }\, \exists M > 0 \text{ s.t. } \Lambda_nE \subset [-M,M], \quad \forall n \in \mathbb N. $$ I think that this fact is all we need to solve Rudin'exercise, but I do not kwow how to identify bounded sets in $\mathcal D$...

Thanks in advance.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

Denote by $p_i(\phi) = \sup_{x \in [-1,1]} |D^i \phi(x)|$ the usual seminorms on $\mathcal{D}$. Observe that $p_i \leq 2 p_{i+1}$ for all $i\in\mathbb{N}$. By the equicontinuity of the $\Lambda_n$ there is a $\delta>0$ and a neighbourhood $$ U = \{ \phi \in \mathcal{D}; p_{i_1}(\phi) < \delta, ..., p_{i_k}(\phi)<\delta\}$$ of $0$ such that $|\Lambda_n(\phi)| \leq 1$ for all $\phi \in U$ and $n\in \mathbb{N}$. Without loss of generality assume $i_1 < ... < i_k$. Now let $\phi\neq 0$ and $M:=\max\{p_{i_1}(\phi),...,p_{i_k}(\phi)\}$. By the observation above $M>0$ and $M\leq 2^{i_k}p_{i_k}(\phi)$. Then $\frac{\delta}{M}\phi \in U$ and hence

$$ \vert\Lambda_n(\phi)| = \vert\frac{M}{\delta} \Lambda_n(\frac{\delta}{M}\phi)\vert \leq \frac{M}{\delta} \leq \frac{2^{i_k}}{\delta} p_{i_k}(\phi). $$

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.