1
$\begingroup$

Problem: If $f_n \to f$ in the $L^1$ norm, and $f_n \in L^1$ for each $n$, show that for every $\epsilon > 0$, there exists $\delta > 0$ such that if $m(A) < \delta$, $\int_A |f_n| < \epsilon$ for all integers $n$.

My attempt: We have already shown that if $f$ is integrable, then for each $\epsilon > 0$ there is a $\delta > 0$ such that whenever $m(A) < \delta$, $\int_A f(x) dx < \epsilon$.

To begin with, I noted that $L^1(R)$ is complete, and therefore $f \in L^1(R)$. Now, it's clear that for any $\epsilon > 0$, I can find a $\delta > 0$ such that for some $N$, we have $\int_A |f_n| < \epsilon$ if $m(A) < \delta$ and $n \ge N$. But I can't figure out how to generalize this to all $n$! A hint in the correct direction would be much appreciated.

Note: I have already tried using that

$$\int_A|f_n| \le \int_A |f_n - f| + \int_A |f|,$$

but this first estimate is where I'm running into problems, since it's only bounded by $\epsilon$ for $n \ge N$, where $N$ is some integer.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ hint: $f_n = f_n - f + f$ $\endgroup$ – user251257 Sep 11 '15 at 1:45
  • $\begingroup$ @user251257 I've tried that, and found that $\int_A |f_n| \le \int_A |f_n-f| + \int_A |f|$. This, along with the fact that for any $\epsilon > 0$, I can find $\delta$ s.t. if $m(A) < \delta$, $\int_A |f| < \epsilon/2$, gives me that $\int_A |f_n| \le \int_A|f_n - f| + \epsilon/2$. I know that I can bound $\int_A|f_n - f|$ as $n\to\infty$, since $f_n \to f$ in the $L^1$ norm, but that only gives me that $\int_A |f_n-f| < \epsilon/2$ for values of $n$ greater than or equal to some integer $N$. What am I missing? $\endgroup$ – poppy3345 Sep 11 '15 at 1:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ hm. sorry. I missed that you want it for all $n$. Notice the maximum of finitely many $L^1$ functions is $L^1$ again. $\endgroup$ – user251257 Sep 11 '15 at 1:58
  • $\begingroup$ So, set $\epsilon > 0$. First find $N$ such that for all $n \ge N$, $\int_A |f_n| < \epsilon/2$. Then, we write: $\int_A |f_n| \le \int_A |f_n-f| + \epsilon/2$ if $m(A) < \delta$ as before. If $n \ge N$, we are done, we have found that $\int_A |f_n| < \epsilon$. If $n \le N$, we can find $\delta_1$, $\delta_2$,... such that $\int_A|f_n| < \delta_n$ for each $n$. Take $\delta = \min\{\delta, \delta_1,\delta_2,...,\delta_{N-1}\}$? $\endgroup$ – poppy3345 Sep 11 '15 at 2:11
  • $\begingroup$ Oops, guess I should have done that $\delta = \min\{\delta,\delta_1,...,\delta_{N-1}\}$ thing before doing the $n \ge N$ case. But, is that the right idea? $\endgroup$ – poppy3345 Sep 11 '15 at 2:11
3
$\begingroup$

First, notice that $L^1(R)$ is complete, and thus $f\in L^1(R)$. Now, $$\int_A|f_n|dm \le \int_A|f_n - f|dm + \int_A|f|dm.$$ Since $f_n \to f$ in the $L^1$ norm, if we fix $\epsilon > 0$, we can find an integer $N$ such that, for all $n \ge N$, we have $$\int|f_n-f|dm < \epsilon/2.$$ Now, for each $f_n$, where $n < N$, $f_n$ is Lebesgue integrable, so we can find $\delta_n > 0$ for each $n$ such that if $m(A) < \delta_n$, $$\int_A|f_n| dm < \epsilon.$$ We also have $\delta$ such that if $m(A) < \delta$, we have $$\int_A |f| dm < \epsilon/2.$$ Let $\tilde{\delta} = \min\{\delta_1,\delta_2,...,\delta_{N-1},\delta\}$. Then, if $n < N$, if $m(A) < \tilde{\delta}$, we have $$\int_A |f_n| dm < \epsilon,$$ and if $n \ge N$, we have $$\int_A |f_n| \le \int_A |f_n - f| + \int_A |f| < \epsilon,$$ as desired.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Just a little remark. You say "since $L^1$ is complete, $f\in L^1$". I respectfully disagree with this reasoning, because the fact that $f\in L^1$ is already incorporated in the assumption "$f_n \to f$ in $L^1$". No need to invoke completeness. You would need completeness only if the assumption were "$f_n$ is a Cauchy sequence with respect to the $L^1$ norm". $\endgroup$ – Giuseppe Negro Sep 11 '15 at 18:04
  • $\begingroup$ But, except for that minor remark, the proof looks OK to me. $\endgroup$ – Giuseppe Negro Sep 11 '15 at 18:07
  • $\begingroup$ @GiuseppeNegro thank you! I appreciate the helpful insight there, and I agree that $f_n \to f$ in $L^1$ implies $f \in L^1$. However, even though I know it uses too many steps, is the statement still correct, or is there a flaw in the reasoning? Thanks! $\endgroup$ – poppy3345 Sep 11 '15 at 18:14
  • $\begingroup$ It is OK and it does not use too many steps. $\endgroup$ – Giuseppe Negro Sep 11 '15 at 18:19

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.