I have recently embarked on an endeavor to understand weak convergence and, consequently, have stumbled across the Portmanteau theorem. As I am not a mathematician, I presume that my questions are rather basic in nature. I would very much appreciate, though, if someone (who might have a little time on their hands) could help me to see what I am missing.

Provided that $\mu_n$ weakly converges to $\mu$, I learned that the following statements are equivalent \begin{align}&\text{a)}\qquad\int_{S}f\,\text{d}\mu_n\to\int_S f\,\text{d}\mu\quad\forall\quad\text{real-valued, bounded, and continuous functions $f:S\to\mathbb{R}$}\\&\text{b)}\qquad\int_{S}f\,\text{d}\mu_n\to\int_S f\,\text{d}\mu\quad\forall\quad\text{real-valued, bounded Lipschitz functions $f:S\to\mathbb{R}$}\\&\text{c)}\qquad\underset{n\to\infty}{\lim\text{sup}}\,\int_S\mathbb{1}_A\,\text{d}\mu_n\leq\int_S\mathbb{1}_A\,\text{d}\mu\quad\forall\quad\text{closed subsets }A\subseteq S\\&\text{d)}\qquad\underset{n\to\infty}{\lim\text{inf}}\,\int_S\mathbb{1}_B\,\text{d}\mu_n\geq\int_S\mathbb{1}_B\,\text{d}\mu\quad\,\forall\quad\text{open subsets }B\subseteq S\\&\text{e)}\qquad\underset{n\to\infty}{\lim}\,\,\,\,\int_S\mathbb{1}_C\,\text{d}\mu_n\geq\int_S\mathbb{1}_C\,\text{d}\mu\quad\,\,\,\forall\quad\mu-\text{continuity sets }C\subseteq S\end{align}

Statement a) is the definition of weak convergence; moreover I understand that the vectorspace of Lipschitz continuous functions is a subset of all continuous function so a) implies b).

I do, however, struggle to see how b) implies c). Building on a couple of proofs I have seen so far, it would seem that it is key to construct a set $A_k$ such that $$A_k=\{x\in S:\text{inf}\{|x-y|:y\in A\}\leq k^{-1}\,\}.$$ Hence, as $k\to\infty$ it follows that $A_k\downarrow A$. Moreover, most proofs go on proposing to define a bounded, Lipschitz function $f_k:S\to\mathbb{R}$ such that $$\mathbb{1}_A\leq f_k\leq\mathbb{1}_{A_k}$$ Unfortunately, I have not been able to find a single proof that features an explicit function, so I am a little bit lost at this point.

Question 1: How would such a function look like and how would one go about proving that this function is, in fact, Lipschitz continuous?

Provided this function exists, it follows that $$\underset{n\to\infty}{\lim\text{sup}} \int_S\mathbb{1}_A\text{d}\mu_n\leq\lim_{n\to\infty}\int_Sf_k\text{d}\mu_n=\int_Sf_k\text{d}\mu\leq\int_S\mathbb{1}_{A_k}\text{d}\mu$$ I understand that the last inequality follows from the increasing property of the Lebesgue integral and the penultimate equality follows from b). I struggle, however, with this part $$\underset{n\to\infty}{\lim\text{sup}} \int_S\mathbb{1}_A\text{d}\mu_n\leq\lim_{n\to\infty}\int_Sf_k\text{d}\mu_n$$ As I am not a mathematician by education, I have looked up the definition of the limit superior on Wikipedia and I have learned that $$\underset{n\to\infty}{\lim\text{sup}} \int_S\mathbb{1}_A\text{d}\mu_n=\lim_{n\to\infty}\sup\left(\int_S\mathbb{1}_A\text{d}\mu_m:m\geq n\right)$$ but I have no idea how that translates to the above inequality.

Question 2: I would be very grateful, if someone could give me some sort of step-by-step explanation of how this first inequality comes about.

Moving on; I do see how $k\to\infty$ then yields the desired result. But...

Question 3: Statement d) is supposed to follow from c) "by taking complements". Since I do not even really see how the fact that all sets $A$ are closed factors into the line of reasoning above, I have no idea how the fact that all sets $B$ are open makes d) equivalent to c) by taking complements.

Thank you so very much.

Best regards,

  1. Define $f_k\colon S\to \mathbb R$ by $$f_k(x)=1-\frac{d(x,A_k)}{k^{-1}+d(x,A_k)},$$ where $d(x,B)=\inf\left\{d(x,y),y\in B\right\}$.

  2. This a consequence of the combination of the fact that if $\left(a_n\right)_{n\geqslant 1}$ and $\left(b_n\right)_{n\geqslant 1}$ are two sequence of real numbers such that for all $n$, $a_n\leqslant b_n$, then $\limsup_{n\to +\infty}a_n\leqslant\limsup_{n\to +\infty} b_n$. If the sequence $\left(b_n\right)_{n\geqslant 1}$ converges to $b$, then $\limsup_{n\to +\infty} b_n=b$.

This gives that $\limsup_{n\to +\infty}\mu_n(A)\leqslant \mu(A_k)$ for all $k$. Then notice that the sequence of sets $\left(A_k\right)_{k\geqslant 1}$ is non-increasing and its intersection is $A$.

  1. Suppose (c). Let $B$ be an open subset of $S$. Apply (c) to $A=S\setminus B$, which is closed.

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.