1
$\begingroup$

Let $g_n$ and $g$ be uniformly bounded on $[0,1]$, meaning that there exists a single $M > 0$ satisfying $|g(x)| \leq M$ and $|g_n(x)| \leq M$ for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$ and $x \in [0,1]$. Assume $g_n \rightarrow g$ pointwise on $[0,1]$ and uniformly on any set of the form $[0, \alpha]$ where $0 < \alpha < 1$. If all the functions are (Riemann) integrable, show that $ \lim_{n \to \infty} \int_0^1 g_n = \int_0^1 g. $

I tried proving this, but I'm not sure if my reasoning is entirely correct. Let $\epsilon > 0$. Fix $\alpha \in (0,1)$ and consider the interval $[0, \alpha]$. Then $$ \left| \int_0^1 g_n - \int_0^1 g \right| \\ = \left| \int_0^{\alpha} g_n + \int_{\alpha}^1 g_n - \left( \int_0^{\alpha} g + \int_{\alpha}^1 g \right) \right| \\ \leq \int_{0}^{\alpha} | g_n(x) - g(x) | dx + \int_{\alpha}^1 |g_n(x) - g(x)| dx \\ \leq \int_{0}^{\alpha} | g_n(x) - g(x) | dx + \int_{\alpha}^1 |g_n(x)| dx + \int_{\alpha}^1 |g(x)| dx. $$ Since $g_n \rightarrow g$ uniform on $[0, \alpha]$, there exists a $n_0 \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $$ |g_n(x) - g(x)| < \frac{\epsilon}{2 \alpha}, $$ for all $x \in [a,b]$ and all $n \geq n_0$. Since $g_n$ and $g$ are uniformly bounded, we have $|g_n(x)| < M$ and $|g(x)| < M$. So all together this would give me $$ \left| \int_0^1 g_n - \int_0^1 g \right| < \frac{\epsilon}{2\alpha} + 2M(1-\alpha). $$ How can I get this smaller than $\epsilon$? Also, I'm not sure if my reasoning is correct since I haven't used the fact that $g_n \rightarrow g$ pointwise on $[0,1]$.

Help is appreciated.

$\endgroup$
16
  • $\begingroup$ Are your functions continous ? $\endgroup$
    – yago
    Aug 5, 2016 at 12:52
  • $\begingroup$ That is not given. All is given, is that they are Riemann integrable. $\endgroup$
    – Kamil
    Aug 5, 2016 at 12:54
  • $\begingroup$ If $|g_n(x) - g(x)| \leq \frac{\epsilon}{2\alpha}$ then $\int_0^\alpha|g_n(x) - g(x)|dx \leq \frac{\epsilon}{2}$, not $\frac{\epsilon}{2\alpha}$. Then your bound is $\frac{\epsilon}{2} + 2M(1-\alpha)$, so by choosing $\alpha$ small enough, you're done $\endgroup$
    – yago
    Aug 5, 2016 at 12:59
  • $\begingroup$ Why do you still have $\alpha$ in the denominator after "So all together this would give me"? And since you can choose the $\alpha$ you want to use, to control the second term have you, for instance, tried to set $\alpha\stackrel{\rm def}{=} 1-\frac{\varepsilon}{4M}$? $\endgroup$
    – Clement C.
    Aug 5, 2016 at 13:00
  • $\begingroup$ (Also, the pointwise convergence does not seem necessary, to answer your doubt. Note that the uniform convergence you get imply already $f_n\to f$ pointwise on $[0,1)$; and the convergence pointwise at $1$ is not useful nor necessary for the result you want.) $\endgroup$
    – Clement C.
    Aug 5, 2016 at 13:02

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

Hint: You're so close. Take $\alpha$ close to $1$. Then we can bound the difference of the integrals on $[0, \alpha]$ since it is uniform. Then we can bound the difference of the integrals by $2M(1 - \alpha)$, as you have done: since $\alpha$ is close to $1$, this quantity will also be small.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Can you be more specific please. Like write down explicitly the last steps of the argumentations? Since I still don't know how to pick $\alpha$ to get the correct upper bound. $\endgroup$
    – Kamil
    Aug 5, 2016 at 13:05
  • $\begingroup$ Let $1 - \alpha < \frac{\varepsilon}{2M}$. Then (Using your last line) we have $\frac{\varepsilon}{2\alpha} + M(1 - \alpha) < \frac{\varepsilon}{2} + \frac{\varepsilon}{2} = \varepsilon$. $\endgroup$
    – MCT
    Aug 5, 2016 at 13:06
  • $\begingroup$ @MichaelTong You are missing a factor $2$ in the last line. (Also, there shouldn't be any $\alpha$ in the denominator.) $\endgroup$
    – Clement C.
    Aug 5, 2016 at 13:07
  • $\begingroup$ @ClementC. You mean in the answer or the comment? In the comment I was just leaving off where Kamil started, though I agree there shouldn't be an $\alpha$ in the denominator of $\frac{\varepsilon}{2 \alpha}$ $\endgroup$
    – MCT
    Aug 5, 2016 at 13:12
  • $\begingroup$ Yes -- there was a mistake in the original post, better to correct it than to go silently with it. $\endgroup$
    – Clement C.
    Aug 5, 2016 at 13:12

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.