This question shows that $L^2$ convergence does not show pointwise convergence, even when the functions involved are continuous. This strongly contradicts my intuition, because I thought that weak-$L^2$ convergence sufficed for the same.

What is wrong with the following proof?

Let $\{\psi_\delta\}_{\delta}$ be approximate identities and continuous $\{f_n\}\rightharpoonup f_{\infty}$ in $L^2$. We claim $f_{\infty}(0)=\lim_{n\to\infty}{f_n(0)}$.

To see this, fix $\epsilon$. There exists $\alpha$ such that for any $\delta<\alpha$ and continuous $g$, $$\epsilon>|g(0)-\langle g,\psi_{\delta}\rangle|$$ For such $\delta$, then, $$\epsilon+\langle g,\psi_{\delta}\rangle>g(0)$$ Now let $g=|f_{\infty}-f_n|$; we have $$\epsilon+\langle|f_{\infty}-f_n|,\psi_{\delta}\rangle>|f_{\infty}(0)-f_n(0)|$$ As $\{f_n\}\rightharpoonup f_{\infty}$, we have $\lim_{n\to\infty}{\langle|f_{\infty}-f_n|,\psi_{\delta}\rangle}=0$ for any $\delta$. So take $n\to\infty$; we obtain $$\epsilon>\limsup_{n\to\infty}{|f_{\infty}(0)-f_n(0)|}$$ Now take $\epsilon\to0^+$.

Worked example

We can test this with the example from the cited question: in $L^2([0,1])\cap C([0,1])$, take $f_n(x)=\ln{\!(n)}e^{-nx}$ and $\psi_{\delta}(x)=\frac{1}{\delta}\chi_{[0,1]}\left(\frac{x}{\delta}\right)$. As $n\to\infty$, $$\|f_n\|_2=\ln{(n)}\sqrt{\frac{1-e^{-2n}}{2n}}\to0$$ so $\{f_n\}_n\to0$, and thus $\{f_n\}_n\rightharpoonup0$.

$f_n(0)=\ln{(n)}$, so we should expect $$\lim_{\delta\to0^+}{\int_0^1{f_n(x)\psi_{\delta}(x)\,dx}}=\ln{(n)}$$ On the other hand, weak convergence should give $$\lim_{n\to\infty}{\int_0^1{f_n(x)\psi_{\delta}(x)\,dx}}=\int_0^1{0\cdot\psi_{\delta}(x)\,dx}=0$$

Well, $$\int_0^1{f_n(x)\psi_{\delta}(x)\,dx}=\frac{\ln{(n)}(1-e^{-n\delta})}{n\delta}$$ Taking $n\to\infty$ does yield $0$, and $\delta\to0^+$ yields $\ln{(n)}$! What gives?

  • $\begingroup$ The limits do not commute! $\endgroup$ – Ian Feb 18 '19 at 3:42
  • $\begingroup$ @Ian: Yes. The idea here is that, by taking the $\delta$ limit after the $n$ limit, we "spread out" the values of $x$ that affect evaluating $f_n(x)$, so that the value $f_n(0)$ becomes "visible" to the $L^2$ norm. $\endgroup$ – Jacob Manaker Feb 18 '19 at 3:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Right, in the example they don't commute. At the level of this proof, that means that there are continuous functions with very bad modulus of continuity at $0$, which are arbitrarily hard to approximately evaluate at $0$ using the approximate identity $\psi_\delta$. This is why @gerw 's answer is correct. $\endgroup$ – Ian Feb 18 '19 at 14:27
  • $\begingroup$ As a side remark: Even if all the functions are continuous, strong $L^2$ convergence does not implies pointwise convergence everywhere. Just think of $f_n(x)=x^n$ on $[0,1]$. $\endgroup$ – MaoWao Feb 18 '19 at 16:00
  • $\begingroup$ @MaoWao: yes; discovering that fact is why I asked this question. $\endgroup$ – Jacob Manaker Feb 18 '19 at 21:09

The problem in your attempt is:

To see this, fix $\epsilon$. There exists $\alpha$ such that for any $\delta<\alpha$ and continuous $g$, $$\epsilon>|g(0)-\langle g,\psi_{\delta}\rangle|$$

This is not true. Instead, you have the following: For every $g$, there exists $\alpha$ such that for $\delta < \alpha$ you get $$\epsilon>|g(0)-\langle g,\psi_{\delta}\rangle|$$

  • $\begingroup$ I see; there is a hidden uniformity assumption. Thank you! $\endgroup$ – Jacob Manaker Feb 18 '19 at 21:08

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.