Let $f\left(x\right),\,x>0$ be a continuous and piecewise smooth function and assume that the double series $$f\left(x\right)=\sum_{m\geq1}\sum_{n\geq1}f_{n,m}\left(x\right)$$ converges absolutely and locally uniformly, where $f_{n,m}\left(x\right)$ and $\sum_{n\geq1}f_{n,m}\left(x\right)$ are continuous and piecewise smooth functions. Also assume that $D\left(\cdot\right)$ is the weak derivative operator.

Question 1: Is it true that $$D\left(f\left(x\right)\right)=\sum_{m\geq1}\sum_{n\geq1}D\left(f_{n,m}\left(x\right)\right)?\tag{1}$$

Question 2: Since $f\left(x\right),\,\sum_{n\geq1}f_{n,m}\left(x\right)$ and $f_{n,m}\left(x\right)$ are piecewise smooth functions then they are differentiable a.e., so, assuming that $(1)$, holds, is it possible to conclude $$\frac{d}{dx}f\left(x\right)=\sum_{m\geq1}\sum_{n\geq1}\frac{d}{dx}f_{n,m}\left(x\right)\,\mathrm{a.e.}\tag{2}$$ where $d/dx$ is the canonical derivative? And if is not, when this is true?

My approach is the following: since $f\left(x\right),\,\sum_{n\geq1}f_{n,m}\left(x\right)$ and $f_{n,m}\left(x\right)$ are piecewise smooth functions they can be identified as distributions and so we can differentiate term by term (see this theorem). For proving $(2)$ we can see use the fact that, where exists, the canonical derivative and the weak derivative are the same. I'm quite sure that my argument is wrong but I didn't find anything better.


As we know the weak derivative is action on test function, which has very good regularity, both like the slow-decay space and supp compact space (i do not remember the standard name of these space anyway).

So what we need to do is just to proof for all $g\in C_c(R^n)$, we have: $$\int_{R^n}D(g)f=\int_{R^n}D(g)\sum_{m\geq 1}\sum_{n\geq 1}f_{n,m}...(*)$$

But this is definitely WRONG, counterexample is very easy to find. you can just think you divide a cube into a lots of small cubes in a sequence of smaller and smaller scale. On every scale some cube is bad, that is to say $\sum\sum f_{n,m}$ coverage very slow on it, this could lead the RHS of $(*)$ never meaningful in fact!

If we know $\sum\sum f_{m,n}=f$ coverage uniformly then this is easy to get by a dominate coverage theorem. And may involve of Calderon-Zegmund decomposition could make the assume weaker on $f_{m,n}$.

  • $\begingroup$ But if we identify $f$, $\sum_{n\geq1}f_{n,m}\left(x\right)$ and $f_{n,m}\left(x\right)$ as distributions (and this is true since we assumed that are continuous and piecewise smooth functions) then the termwise differentiation is legitimate since the operator $D$ is continuous. Am I wrong? $\endgroup$ – user422009 Nov 14 '17 at 12:51
  • $\begingroup$ I don't agree with it. In fact it is easy to construct a counterexample to make $\sum_{n,m\geq 1}f_{n,m}(x)$ is NOT a distribution. Because it is too luxury to let it be continues compatible with the weak coverage. $\endgroup$ – Hu xiyu Nov 14 '17 at 12:54
  • $\begingroup$ On the other hand , I do not believe and never know distribution have countable-additive property just like measure without any other assumption without it is meaningful. I think I can construct counterexample. $\endgroup$ – Hu xiyu Nov 14 '17 at 12:56
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry but I don't understand. $\sum_{m\geq1}\sum_{n\geq1}f_{n,m}\left(x\right)=f(x)$ and I assumed that $f$ is a continuous and piecewise smooth function(I don't say it is always with this regularity, it is only the case I studied). Why can not be identified as a distribution? Maybe we have to assume the convergence of the series in the sense of distributions. $\endgroup$ – user422009 Nov 14 '17 at 12:58
  • $\begingroup$ At once you want to look it as a distribution, you need to proof it is weak continue. Always remember there is a natural topology on the distribution space. and this weak continue may be false in general in your case. $\endgroup$ – Hu xiyu Nov 14 '17 at 13:01

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.