Questions : [See below for context.]

$\rm\color{#c00}{a)}$ First, is the proof presented below $100$ % correct ?

$\rm\color{#c00}{b)}$ How would one justify the LHS of $(2)$ ? Are my thoughts correct ?

Thoughts : One way I see it is in three times : first we note that $(\cdot)^{1/p}$ is continuous, then we apply the Monotone Convergence Theorem (MON) and finally we note that $|\cdot|^p$ is continuous, so that all in all we can bring the limit all the way in (even if $\displaystyle\sum_{k\geq1} |f_k|$ is infinite in this case).

Another way I see it is by noting that every norm is (Lipschitz) continuous, so that we can effectively bring the limit inside (even if it is infinite in this case).

$\rm\color{#c00}{c)}$ Why must we take the absolute value of $f_k$ when investigating $\displaystyle\sum|f_k|$ ? Are my thoughts correct ?

Thoughts : I think that MON would not apply for $\rm\color{#c00}{b)}$ and I think that if we did not take the absolute value, then we could not speak, a priori, of the limit, that is, $\displaystyle\sum_{k\geq1} f_k$, in $(2)$. Taking the absolute value gives a series with positive terms and such a series either converges or diverges to $\infty$. A series with negative terms could diverge by oscillating.

$\rm\color{#c00}{d)}$ In $(4)$, defining $F$ by $0$ is purely arbitrary, right ? We could define $F$ to be anything on the null set, right ? Also, $\displaystyle\sum_{k\geq1} f_k$ does exist on the given set since absolute convergence implies convergence for series of numbers, right ?

$\rm\color{#c00}{e)}$ The equality $(5)$ is true since $$ F-\sum_{k=1}^{n}f_k=\sum_{k=n+1}^{\infty}f_k $$ almost everywhere, right ?

$\rm\color{#c00}{f)}$ Would it be fair to say that what was sufficient to prove was $\displaystyle\sum_{k\geq1}|f_k|<\infty$ a.e., [added] and that the reason the proof is not trivial is that $L^p(\mu)$ contains, by definition, finite-valued functions ? I mean, in measure theory we work with functions with range in the extended real line, $[-\infty,\infty]$, and if we allowed the functions in $L^p(\mu)$ to take infinite values, then in fact every series would be convergent (trivially) in $L^p(\mu)$. Is this correct ?

Def. : Let $(X,\cal{A},\mu)$ be a measured space. Then for $1\leq p<\infty$ we define $$ L^p(\mu):=\{f:X\to\mathbb{R}\text{ measurable and s.t. }\|f\|_p<\infty\}, $$ where $\|f\|_p:=\left(\int|f|^pd\mu\right)^{1/p}$. As usual we really take equivalence classes of functions differing only on a null set.

Thm (Riesz-Fischer) : $(L^p(\mu),\|\cdot\|_p)$ is complete for $1\leq p<\infty$.

Dem. : We know it suffices to show that every absolutely convergent series converges.

Let $(f_k)_{k\geq1}\subset L^p(\mu)$ be a sequence such that $$ \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\|f_k\|_p<\infty.\tag{0} $$ Since, by Minkowski's inequality, one has $$ \left\|\sum_{k=1}^n|f_k|\right\|_p\leq\sum_{k=1}^n\|f_k\|_p,\tag{1} $$ letting $n\to\infty$ gives $$ \left\|\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}|f_k|\right\|_p\leq\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\|f_k\|_p<\infty,\tag{2} $$ thus $$ \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}|f_k|<\infty\quad\text{a.e.}\tag{3} $$ Now define $$ F:=\begin{cases}\displaystyle\sum_{k\geq1}f_k&\text{on }\left\{\displaystyle\sum_{k\geq1}|f_k|<\infty\right\},\\0&\text{otherwise}.\end{cases}\tag{4} $$ Then $F$ is in $L^p(\mu)$ since $|F|\leq\displaystyle\sum_{k\geq1}|f_k|$ and by $(2)$. Also, $F$ is such that $$ \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}f_k=F, $$ because \begin{align} \left\|F-\sum_{k=1}^{n}f_k\right\|_p&=\left\|\sum_{k=n+1}^{\infty}f_k\right\|_p\tag{5}\\ &\leq\left\|\sum_{k=n+1}^{\infty}|f_k|\right\|_p\\ &\stackrel{(2)}{\leq}\sum_{k=n+1}^{\infty}\|f_k\|_p\xrightarrow[(n\to\infty)]{(0)}0.\quad\text{Q.E.D.} \end{align}


1 Answer 1

  1. Yes.
  2. This has nothing to do with continuity; only with the monotone convergence theorem. Note that we cannot use that continuity of the $L^p$-norm: In order to deduce $$\|g_n\|_p \to \|g\|_p$$ from the continuity of the norm, we already have to know that $g_n \to g$ in $L^p$ (recall that the norm is continuous as a mapping $\|\cdot\|: (L^p,\|\cdot\|_p) \to (\mathbb{R},|\cdot|)$. The argumentation goes as follows: By Minkowski's inequality, $$\left\| \sum_{k=1}^n |f_k| \right\|_p \leq \sum_{k=1}^n \|f_k\|_p \leq \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \|f_k\|_p. \tag{1}$$ Since $|f_k| \geq 0$, we know $$\sum_{k=1}^n |f_k| \uparrow \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} |f_k| \qquad \text{as} \,\, n \to \infty. \tag{2}$$ Therefore, it follows from the monotone convergence theorem that $$\left\| \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} |f_k| \right\|_p = \sup_{n \in \mathbb{N}} \left\| \sum_{k=1}^n |f_k| \right\|_p \stackrel{(1)}{\leq} \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \|f_k\|_p < \infty.$$
  3. Yes, that's correct. The series $\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} |f_k| \in [0,\infty]$ is well-defined since each addend is non-negative. Moreover, the non-negativity is crucial in $(2)$ (otherwise we cannot apply monotone convergence theorem).
  4. Yes.
  5. Yes.
  6. No, it's not that easy. If I understand you correctly, you would like to set $$F := \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} f_k$$ (as a pointwise limit) which might take values in $[-\infty,\infty]$. The problem is that the series $$\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} f_k$$ is not necessarily convergent, consider e.g. $f_k = (-1)^k$. This means that $F$ is not well-defined on some exceptional set and we have to ensure that this exceptional set is small (in $L^p$-sense). That's exactly what the proof above is about: We show that the exceptional set has measure $0$.
  • $\begingroup$ Concerning $\rm\color{#c00}{b)}$, I have some additional questions. $\rm\color{#c00}{ba)}$ We know (by definition) that $g_n\to g$ simply, but not that $g_n\to g$ in $L^p$ and that's why we can't use the continuity of the norm, right ? In fact strictly speaking $g\not\in L^p$ as $g$ might be infinite at some points, and we can't identify $g$ with a function in $L^p$ yet since that's what we are trying to prove, right ? So continuity of the norm doubly doesn't apply here. $\rm\color{#c00}{bb)}$ Is there any reason why you put $\sup$ instead of $\lim$ (even though it's equivalent here) ? $\endgroup$
    – Guest
    Jan 21, 2015 at 20:54
  • $\begingroup$ $\rm\color{#c00}{bc)}$ I don't understand why the continuity of $(\cdot)^{1/p}$ is not used before applying MON. MON tells you when you can interchange the limit with the integral, and the norm is the integral to the power $\frac{1}{p}$. In my question I said that we could bring the limit inside $(\cdot)^{1/p}$ even if the limit inside is infinite since sometimes we could not (e.g. $x^2-x$ is continuous but $\infty^2-\infty$ is undefined, or consider $\sin(x)$). $\endgroup$
    – Guest
    Jan 21, 2015 at 20:55
  • $\begingroup$ Finally, I thought what we really needed to verify in order to use MON is that $\left(\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^n|f_k|\right)^p\uparrow\left(\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}|f_k|\right)^p$, which is indeed the case since $|\cdot|^p$ is increasing. Am I correct ? $\endgroup$
    – Guest
    Jan 21, 2015 at 20:55
  • $\begingroup$ @Guest ba) Yes, that's correct. bb) No, not really. Sometimes it's helpful (e.g. if you want to interchange limites), but in this case - as you said- in doesn't matter. bc) Yeah, you are right. And yes, we need that $|\cdot|^p$ is increasing in order to apply MON. $\endgroup$
    – saz
    Jan 22, 2015 at 5:35

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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