3
$\begingroup$

Let $\Omega$ be a nonempty open subset of $\mathbb{R}^k$, $\mathfrak{B}$ the collection of all borel sets of $\mathbb{R}^k$ contained in $\Omega$, and $\mu$ the $k$-dimensional Lebesgue measure. Consider a sequence $\{ f_n \}$ of Borel measurable complex functions on $\Omega$ such that $f_n \in L_{loc}^{1}(\Omega)$ for all $n$, which means that for every compact $K \subseteq \Omega$ and every $n$, we have \begin{equation} \int_{K} \left| f_n \right| d \mu < \infty. \end{equation} Let $C_{c}(\Omega)$ be the set of all continuous functions $\phi:\Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ whose support is a compact subset of $\Omega$, and let $C_{c}^{\infty}(\Omega)$ be the set of all infinitely differentiable functions $\phi:\Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ whose support is a compact subset of $\Omega$. Let $\mathfrak{B}_{loc}$ be the set of all $E \in \mathfrak{B}$ such that the closure $\bar{E}$ of $E$ in $\mathbb{R}^k$ is a compact subset of $\Omega$. Finally, for every function $g:\Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$, and every $T \subseteq \Omega$, we denote by $g_{| T}$ the restriction of $g$ to $T$.

Let $f$ be a Borel measurable complex function on $\Omega$ such that $f \in L_{loc}^{1}(\Omega)$, and consider the following four properties.

(A) For every compact subset $K$ of $\Omega$, we have \begin{equation} \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} f_{n | K} = f_{| K} \end{equation} in $L^1(K)$.

\begin{equation} (B) \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \int_{E} f_n d\mu = \int_{E} f d\mu \qquad \forall E \in \mathfrak{B}_{loc} \end{equation}

\begin{equation} (C) \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \int_{\Omega} f_n \phi d\mu = \int_{\Omega} f \phi d\mu \qquad \forall \phi \in C_{c}(\Omega) \end{equation}

\begin{equation} (D) \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \int_{\Omega} f_n \phi d\mu = \int_{\Omega} f \phi d\mu \qquad \forall \phi \in C_{c}^{\infty}(\Omega) \end{equation}

It is immediate to prove that (A) implies (B), (C) and (D). Trivially, (C) implies (D). My question is: are there other implications among these three properties? Any proof or counter-example is welcome.

PS Clearly, by considering $g_n=f_n - f$, we can assume without loss of generality that $f=0$.

PSS For those who know distribution theory, note that, given a Borel measurable complex function $g$ on $\Omega$ such that $g \in L_{loc}^{1}(\Omega)$, if we set for every $\phi \in C_{c}^{\infty}(\Omega)=\mathcal{D}(\Omega)$ \begin{equation} T_{g}(\phi) = \int_{\Omega} g \phi d \mu, \end{equation} then (D) says that $T_{f_n} \rightarrow T_{f}$ in the weak*-topology of $\mathcal{D}^{'}(\Omega)$.

$\endgroup$
0
0
$\begingroup$

I have finally settled the problem. Since the solution is quite long, I will split it into four parts.

Let us start by proving that, surprisingly enough for me, (B) implies (C).

Let $K$ be a compact subset of $\Omega$. I will denote by $\mathfrak{B}_{K}$ the collection of all Borel sets of $\mathbb{R}^k$ contained in $K$. I will assume, without loss of generality, that $f=0$. Moreover, I will consider all the functions as restricted to $K$: in particular, with abuse of notation, I will denote by $f_n$ the restriction of the original $f_n:\Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ to $K$.

First of all, some terminology. Given a sequence of complex measures $\{ \lambda_n \}$ on $\mathfrak{B}_{K}$, we shall say that $\{ \lambda_n \}$ is uniformly absolutely continuous if for every $\epsilon > 0$, there exists $\delta > 0$, such that for every $E \in \mathfrak{B}_{K}$, with $\mu(E) < \delta$, we have $| \lambda_n(E) | < \epsilon$ for all $n$. We shall denote with $|\lambda_n|$ the total variation of $\lambda_n$. We need the following preliminary result.

Lemma

A sequence of complex measures $\{ \lambda_n \}$ on $\mathfrak{B}_{K}$ is uniformly absolutely continuous if and only if $\{ |\lambda_n| \}$ is uniformly absolutely continuous.

Proof. The ''if'' part is trivial. Let us prove the ''only if'' part. Assume by contradiction that for some $\epsilon > 0$ there exists a sequence $\{ E_m \}$ in $\mathfrak{B}_{K}$, such that $\mu(E_m) \rightarrow 0$ and for every $m$ there exists $n_m$ such that $|\lambda_{n_m}|(E_n) \geq \epsilon$. Fix $m$, and take a countable partition $\{ A_j \}$ of $E_m$, with $A_j \in \mathfrak{B}_{K}$ for every $j$, and such that $\sum_{j=1}^{\infty} |\lambda_{n_m} (A_j)| \geq \frac{\epsilon}{2}$. Choose $\bar{j}$ such that $\sum_{j=1}^{\bar{j}} |\lambda_{n_m} (A_j)| \geq \frac{\epsilon}{4}$. From Lemma 6.3 in [R], we deduce that $\left| \sum_{j=1}^{\bar{j}} \lambda_{n_m} (A_j) \right| \geq \frac{\epsilon}{4 \pi}$. Then put \begin{equation} D_m = \bigcup_{j=1}^{\bar{j}} A_j. \end{equation} You get $\mu(D_m) \leq \mu(E_m)$, so that $\mu(D_m) \rightarrow 0$, and $\left| \lambda_{n_m}(D_n) \right| \geq \frac{\epsilon}{4 \pi}$ for all $m$, a contradiction.

QED

Now, let us come back to our problem. Assume that (B) holds, and set for all $n$ \begin{equation} \lambda_n(E) = \int_{E} f_n d \mu \qquad (E \in \mathfrak{B}_K). \end{equation} From the converse of Vitali's Theorem (see [R], Exercise 6.10(g)), we deduce that $\{ \lambda_n \}$ is uniformly absolutely continuous, and by the previous lemma we deduce that $\{ \left| \lambda_n \right| \}$ is uniformly absolutely continuous. From [R], Theorem 6.13 we know that for any $n$: \begin{equation} \left| \lambda_n \right|(E) = \int_{E} \left| f_n \right| d \mu \qquad (E \in \mathfrak{B}_{K}). \end{equation} So, if $\eta > 0$, there exists $\delta > 0$ such that \begin{equation} \int_{E} \left| f_n \right| d \mu < \eta, \end{equation} for any $E \in \mathfrak{B}_{K}$ such that $\mu(E) < \delta$. Let $\{ E_{1},\dots, E_{m} \}$ be a finite subset of $\mathfrak{B}_{K}$, such that $\mu(E_j) < \delta$ for $j=1,\dots,m$, and \begin{equation} K = \bigcup_{j=1}^{m} E_j, \end{equation} To see that such a collection of sets exists, fix a positive integer $p$ such that $2^{kp} > \frac{1}{\delta}$, and consider the subdivision of $\mathbb{R}^{k}$ in dyadic $k$-cells \begin{equation} W = \left \{ (x_1,\dots,x_k) \in \mathbb{R}^k : \frac{j_i}{2^p} \leq x_i < \frac{j_i + 1}{2^p}, \quad i=1,\dots, k \right \}, \end{equation} where $( j_1, \dots, j_k )$ ranges in $\mathbb{Z}^{k}$, with $\mathbb{Z}$ denoting the set of all integer numbers. Take the intersections of these $k$-cells with $K$ to get the required collection.

Now, we have for any $n$ \begin{equation} \int_{K} \left| f_n \right| d \mu \leq \sum_{j=1}^{m} \int_{E_j} \left| f_n \right| d \mu \leq m \eta, \end{equation} so that $\{ f_n \}$ is bounded in $L^{1}(K)$ by $M= m \eta $.

Suppose that $\phi \in C_{c}(\Omega)$, that $\phi$ is real, with $\phi \geq 0$, and that the support of $\phi$ is contained in $K$. Let $\epsilon > 0$. Since $\phi$ is continuous, it is bounded, and from the construction in [R], Theorem 1.17, we deduce the existence of a simple function $s:K \rightarrow [0,\infty)$ such that $0 \leq \phi(x) - s(x) \leq \epsilon$ for all $x \in K$. From our hypothesis there exists $\nu > 0$ such that for $n > \nu$ we have \begin{equation} \left| \int_{K} f_n s d \mu \right| < \epsilon. \end{equation} We then have for any $n > \nu$ \begin{equation} \left| \int_{K} f_n \phi d \mu \right| \leq \left| \int_{K} f_n s d \mu \right| + \left| \int_{K} f_n (\phi - s) d \mu \right| < \epsilon + M \epsilon, \end{equation} and so \begin{equation} \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \int_{\Omega} f_n \phi d \mu = \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \int_{K} f_n \phi d \mu = 0. \end{equation} If now $\phi \in C_{c}(\Omega)$, $\phi$ is real, and the support of $\phi$ is contained in $K$, by considering the positive part $\phi^{+}$ and negative part $\phi^{-}$ of $\phi$ we get again \begin{equation} \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \int_{\Omega} f_n \phi d \mu = 0. \end{equation} Finally, if $\phi \in C_{c}(\Omega)$ and the support of $\phi$ is contained in $K$, by considering the real and imaginary part we get \begin{equation} \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \int_{\Omega} f_n \phi d \mu = 0. \end{equation}

QED

$\endgroup$
0
0
$\begingroup$

Now, we shall show by using a counterexample that (C) does not imply (B). Take $k=1$, $\Omega = \mathbb{R}$, and define for any positive integer $n$: \begin{equation} f_n(x) = \begin{cases} 2n^2 + 4n^{5} \left(x - \frac{2j+1}{2n} \right) & \text{if } x \in \left[ \frac{2j+1}{2n} - \frac{1}{2n^3}, \frac{2j+1}{2n} \right] \quad (j=0,1,\dots,n-1), \\ 2n^2 - 4n^{5} \left(x - \frac{2j+1}{2n} \right) & \text{if } x \in \left[ \frac{2j+1}{2n}, \frac{2j+1}{2n} + \frac{1}{2n^3} \right] \quad (j=0,1,\dots,n-1), \\ 0 & \text{otherwise}. \end{cases} \end{equation} Then $f_n$ is a piecewise linear function, $f_n \geq 0$, $f_n(x)=0$ if $x \notin I = [0,1]$, and \begin{equation} \int_{I} f_n d \mu = 1. \end{equation} Moreover, if $S_n$ is the support of $f_n$, we have \begin{equation} \mu(S_n) = \frac{1}{n^2}, \end{equation} so that \begin{equation} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \mu(S_n) < \infty. \end{equation} For any positive integer $m$, let $n_m$ be an integer such that \begin{equation} \sum_{n \geq n_m} \mu(S_n) < \frac{1}{m}, \end{equation} and put $E_m = \bigcup_{n \geq n_m} S_n$. Then for any $A \in \mathfrak{B}$, with $A \subseteq \mathbb{R} \setminus E_m$, we have \begin{equation} \int_{A} f_n d \mu \rightarrow 0. \end{equation} Assume there exists a Borel measurable $f:\mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ such that $f \in L_{loc}^{1}(\mathbb{R})$ and such that for every $E \in \mathfrak{B}_{loc}$ we have \begin{equation} \int_{E} f_n d \mu \rightarrow \int_{E} f d \mu. \end{equation} Then, from what we have proved above and [R], Theorem 1.39 we get that for any positive integer $p$, we have $f=0$ a.e. $[ \mu ]$ on $[-p,p] \setminus E_{m}$, so that $f=0$ a.e. $[ \mu ]$ on $\mathbb{R} \setminus E_{m}$. We deduce that $f=0$ a.e. $[ \mu ]$ on $\bigcup_{m=1}^{\infty} \left( \mathbb{R} \setminus E_{m} \right)$. If we set $E = \bigcap_{m=1}^{\infty} E_m$, then we have $\mu(E)=0$, so we conclude that $f=0$ a.e. $[ \mu ]$ on $\mathbb{R}$. But we have \begin{equation} \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \int_{I} f_n d \mu = 1, \end{equation} so (B) cannot hold.

We shall now show that instead (C) holds, with $f$ defined by

\begin{equation} f(x) = \begin{cases} 1 & \text{if } x \in \left[0, 1 \right], \\ 0 & \text{otherwise}. \end{cases} \end{equation}

Let $\phi \in C_{c}(\mathbb{R})$. For any positive integer $n$ define the function \begin{equation} \phi_{n}(x) = \begin{cases} \phi \left( \frac{2j+1}{2n} \right) & \text{if } \left[ \frac{j}{n}, \frac{j+1}{n} \right), \quad (j=0,1,\dots, n-1), \\ 0 & \text{otherwise}. \end{cases} \end{equation}

Choose $\epsilon > 0$, and let $\delta > 0$ be such that $| \phi(x) - \phi(y) | < \epsilon$ for every $x, y$ such that $|x - y | < \delta$. Let $\bar{n}$ be an integer such that $\bar{n} > \frac{2}{\delta}$. Then we have \begin{equation} \left| \int_{\mathbb{R}} f_n \phi d \mu - \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=0}^{n-1} \phi \left(\frac{2j+1}{2n} \right) \right| = \left| \int_{I} f_n \phi d \mu - \int_{I} f_n \phi_n d \mu \right| \leq \int_{I} f_n \left| \phi - \phi_n \right| d \mu \leq \epsilon \int_{I} f_n d \mu = \epsilon. \end{equation} From [Ru], Theorem 6.7 we have \begin{equation} \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=0}^{n-1} \phi \left(\frac{2j+1}{2n} \right) = \int_{0}^{1} \phi(x) dx, \end{equation} where the right-hand side integral is the Riemann integral of $\phi$ over $I$. From [Ru], Theorem 11.33 we also know that \begin{equation} \int_{0}^{1} \phi(x) dx = \int_{I} \phi d \mu. \end{equation} So we conlude that \begin{equation} \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \int_{\mathbb{R}} f_n \phi d \mu = \int_{I} \phi d \mu = \int_{\mathbb{R}} f \phi d \mu. \end{equation}

QED

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Finally, we show by means of a counterexample that (D) does not imply (C). Take $k=1$, $\Omega= \mathbb{R}$, and define for any positive integer $n$: \begin{equation} f_n(x) = \begin{cases} 2 n^{\frac{11}{4}} x & \text{if } x \in \left[ 0, \frac{1}{2n} \right], \\ n^{\frac{7}{4}}(2-2nx) & \text{if } x \in \left[ \frac{1}{2n}, \frac{3}{2n} \right], \\ n^{\frac{7}{4}}(-4+2nx) & \text{if } x \in \left[ \frac{3}{2n}, \frac{2}{n} \right], \\ 0 & \text{otherwise} \end{cases} \quad. \end{equation} If $\phi \in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})$, then for some $L >0$ we have $| \phi'(x) | \leq L$ for all $x \in \mathbb{R}$. So by using Lagrange Mean Value Theorem, we get \begin{multline} \left| \int_{\mathbb{R}} f_n \phi d \mu \right| = \left| \int_{\left[ 0, \frac{1}{n} \right]} f_n \phi d \mu + \int_{\left[ \frac{1}{n}, \frac{2}{n} \right]} f_n \phi d \mu \right| = \left| \int_{0}^{ \frac{1}{n}} f_n(x) \phi(x) dx - \int_{0}^{ \frac{1}{n}} f_n(x) \phi \left(x+\frac{1}{n} \right) dx \right| \leq \\ \leq \int_{0}^{ \frac{1}{n}} f_n(x) \left| \phi(x) - \phi \left(x+\frac{1}{n} \right) \right| dx \leq \frac{L}{n} \int_{0}^{ \frac{1}{n}} f_n(x) dx = \frac{L}{n} \frac{n^{\frac{7}{4}}}{2n} = \frac{L}{2 n^{\frac{1}{4}}}, \end{multline} so that (D) holds with $f=0$. To see that (C) does no hold, define now \begin{equation} \phi(x) = \begin{cases} \sqrt{x} & \text{if } x \in \left[ 0, 1 \right], \\ 2 - x & \text{if } x \in \left[ 1, 2 \right], \\ 0 & \text{otherwise} \end{cases} \quad. \end{equation} An easy computation shows that for $n \geq 2$ we have \begin{equation} \int_{\mathbb{R}} f_n \phi d \mu = \frac{n^{\frac{1}{4}}}{15 \sqrt{2}} \left(-68 + 36 \sqrt{3} \right), \end{equation} so that \begin{equation} \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \int_{\mathbb{R}} f_n \phi d \mu = - \infty. \end{equation}

QED

References

[R], Rudin, Real and Complex Analysis, Third Edition

[Ru], Principles of Mathematical Analysis, Third Edition

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Even though, the three parts of the solution are independent, to read them in the order I wrote them, select "oldest" among the ordering options. $\endgroup$ Sep 16 '16 at 17:44
0
$\begingroup$

Now, I show by means of a counterexample that (B) does not imply (A). To see this, consider $k=1$, $\Omega = \mathbb{R}$, and define for every positive integer $n$: \begin{equation} f_n(x)= \begin{cases} 1 & \text{if } x \in \left[\frac{2j}{2^n}, \frac{2j+1}{2^n}\right), \quad (j=0,1,\dots, 2^{n-1}-1), \\ -1 & \text{if } x \in \left[\frac{2j+1}{2^n}, \frac{2j+2}{2^n}\right), \quad (j=0,1,\dots, 2^{n-1}-1), \\ 0 & \text{otherwise}. \end{cases} \end{equation} Take $f=0$. Then by outer regularity of $\mu$, for every $E \in \mathfrak{B}$ and every $\epsilon > 0$, you can find an open set $V$ of $\mathbb{R}$ such that $E \subseteq V$ and $\mu(V \backslash E) < \epsilon$. Set $W = V \cap (0,1)$. $W$ is an at most countable union of open and pairwise disjoint intervals $\{ I_m \}$. Choose $\bar{m}$ such that \begin{equation} \sum_{m > \bar{m}} \mu(I_m) < \epsilon. \end{equation}

Since $f_n$ is periodic on each of the intervals $I_m$, $m=1,\dots,\bar{m}$, and $|f_n(x)| = 1$ for all $x \in (0,1)$, you can find $\bar{n}$ such that for all $n > \bar{n}$ \begin{equation} \left| \int_{I_m} f_n d\mu \right| < \frac{\epsilon}{\bar{m}} \end{equation} for $m=1,\dots,\bar{m}$. We then have for $n > \bar{n}$: \begin{equation} \left| \int_{W} f_n d \mu \right| = \left| \sum_{m} \int_{I_m} f_n d \mu \right| \leq \sum_{m \leq \bar{m}} \left| \int_{I_m} f_n d \mu \right| + \left| \sum_{m > \bar{m}} \int_{I_m} f_n d \mu \right| \leq \epsilon + \sum_{m > \bar{m}} \int_{I_m} |f_n| d \mu \leq 2 \epsilon. \end{equation}

If $D = E \cap (0,1)$, then $\mu(W \setminus D) < \epsilon$, so we have for $n > \bar{n}$: \begin{equation} \left| \int_{E} f_n d \mu \right| = \left| \int_{D} f_n d \mu \right| \leq \left| \int_{W} f_n d \mu - \int_{D} f_n d \mu\right| + \left| \int_{W} f_n d \mu \right| \leq \int_{W \setminus D} |f_n| d \mu + 2 \epsilon < 3 \epsilon. \end{equation}

This proves (B). But (A) is not satisfied with $f=0$ because we have for any $n$ \begin{equation} \int_{\left[0,1 \right]} |f_n| d \mu = 1. \end{equation} Actually, (A) cannot be satisfied by any $f \in L_{loc}^{1}(\Omega)$. Indeed, assume it is. Then, (B) would hold with the same $f$. So from we what we have proved we deduce that for any interval $[a,b]$ and any $E \in \mathfrak{B}$ contained in $[a,b]$, we would have \begin{equation} \int_{E} f d \mu = 0. \end{equation} So from [R], Theorem 1.39, we would have $f=0$ a.e. on $[a,b]$. And so $f=0$ a.e. on $\Omega$. But then $f$ cannot satisfy (A), as we have seen.

PS We know now that (B) implies (C), so our sequence $\{ f_n \}$ satisfies for sure (C). This can also be given a simple direct proof as follows. Now, if $\phi \in C_{c}(\Omega)$, then for every $\epsilon > 0$, there exists $\delta > 0$ such that $|\phi(x) -\phi(y)| < \epsilon$ for every $x, y \in \Omega$ such that $|x-y|< \delta$. Choose $\bar{n}$ such that $2^{\bar{n}} > 1/\delta$. For every $n > \bar{n}$, and every $j=0,1,\dots,2^{n-1}-1$, we have \begin{multline} \left| \int_{\left[\frac{2j}{2^n}, \frac{2j+2}{2^n}\right]} f_n \phi d \mu \right | = \left| \int_{\left[\frac{2j}{2^n}, \frac{2j+1}{2^n}\right]} \phi d \mu - \int_{\left[\frac{2j+1}{2^n}, \frac{2j+2}{2^n}\right]} \phi d \mu \right | \leq \\ \leq \int_{\left[\frac{2j}{2^n}, \frac{2j+1}{2^n}\right]} \left| \phi(x) - \phi ( x+ 1/2^{n}) \right| d \mu \leq \frac{\epsilon}{2^{n}}. \end{multline} So for $n > \bar{n}$ we have \begin{equation} \left| \int_{\Omega} f_n \phi d \mu \right | \leq \frac{\epsilon}{2}, \end{equation} which proves (C).

$\endgroup$
0

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.