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

For a sequence $\{f_{n}\}$ which converges in $\mathcal{L}^{p}$ space, can we extract a subsequence which is dominated by a function $g \in \mathcal{L}^{p}$?

Can anyone help with this? I thought about using a rapidly Cauchy subsequence but can't get any further...

share|cite|improve this question
Actually the existence of such $g$ is contained in the standard proof of Riesz-Fischer theorem. Indeed, assuming $f_{0} = 0$ for notational simplicity, we can find a constant $C$ and a subsequence $(f_{n_j})$ with $n_{1} = 0$ such that $\| f_{n_{j+1}} - f_{n_{j}} \| \leq C 2^{-j}$. Then $g = \sum_{j=1}^{\infty} |f_{n_{j+1}} - f_{n_{j}}|$ is a dominating function for this subsequence. – Sangchul Lee Nov 20 '11 at 5:58
@sos440: Any hints why the $g$ defined as you described belongs to $L^p$? – mathreader Jul 11 '13 at 9:16
Ok, I think I know how to show that $g$ belongs to $L^p$. Define $g_k=\sum_{j=1}^k|f_{n_{j+1}}-f_{n_j}|$. Then $g_k\to g$ pointwise, $g_k\in L^p$, and $\|g_{k+m}-g_k\|_p\le\sum_{j=k+1}^{k+m}\|f_{n_{j+1}}-f_{n_j}\|_p\le2^{-k-1}$ by the Minkowski's inequality and the choice of $f_{n_k}$. Thus $\int|g_{k+m}-g_k|^p\le2^{(-k-1)p}$, and by Fatou's lemma applied to $k$ fixed and $m\to\infty$, we get $\int|g-g_k|^p\le2^{(-k-1)p}$, and since $\|g\|_p\le\|g-g_k\|_p+\|g_k\|_p$, we get $g\in L^p$. – mathreader Jul 11 '13 at 12:20
up vote 2 down vote accepted

If $f_n\to f$ in $L^p$, then there is a subsequence $(f_{n_k})$ such that $\|f_{n_k} - f\|_p < 2^{-k}$. Take $g=|f|+\sum\limits_{k=1}^\infty|f_{n_k}-f|$.

share|cite|improve this answer
How to show $g$ is in $L^{p}$? – Red Rover Nov 20 '11 at 8:16
NVM. Got it. Thanks a ton. – Red Rover Nov 20 '11 at 8:44
@Jonas: Indeed, why is $g\in L^p$? If the sum in $g$ were finite, then Minkowski's inequality would do the trick. But it is not the case. – mathreader Jul 11 '13 at 9:15
@mathreader: In any Banach space $X$, if $\sum_k\|x_k\|$ converges to a finite number, then $\sum_k x_k$ converges to an element of $X$. – Jonas Meyer Jul 11 '13 at 13:25
@JonasMeyer: Thanks! That observation makes it much easier than what I wrote in the comment to the original question above. Basically, if we define $g_n=\sum_{k=1}^nx_k$, then $$\|g_{n+m}-g_n\|=\|\sum_{k=n+1}^{n+m}x_k\|\le\sum_{k=n+1}^{n+m}\|x_k\|$$ can be made smaller than arbitrary $\epsilon>0$ for big enough $n$ and all $m$, and thus $\{g_k\}$ is a Cauchy sequence in a Banach space, hence is convergent to $g=\sum_{k=1}^\infty x_k$. – mathreader Jul 11 '13 at 14:13

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.