6
$\begingroup$

Let $f:[a,\infty)\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be a uniformly continuous function in that range. $\int_{a}^{\infty} f$ converges. Prove that $\lim_{x\to\infty} f(x)=0$

Hint: Use the sequence $F_n(x)=n\int_{x}^{x+\frac{1}{n}} f$.

Honestly I have been trying to solve this one for some time but the hint really confuses me.

I have tried to mess around with $F_n(x)$ a bit, for example by using the fundamental theorem but it still seems like such a random choice and I can't make anything out of it.

Any guidance/explanations will be appreciated.

Please use the hint in the question.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I always thought that the point of a hint was to make a problem easier, not harder $\endgroup$ – Shalop May 19 '19 at 0:40
  • $\begingroup$ @Shalop: Clearly not in this case. $\endgroup$ – RRL May 19 '19 at 0:40
8
$\begingroup$

First of all, note that for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$ $$\lim_{x\rightarrow\infty}F_n(x)=n\left[\lim_{x\rightarrow\infty}\left(\int_a^{x+\frac{1}{n}}f(t)\mathrm{d}t- \int_a^xf(t)\mathrm{d}t\right)\right]=n\left[\int_a^{\infty}f(t)\mathrm{d}t-\int_a^{\infty}f(t)\mathrm{d}t\right]=0.$$ Now let $\varepsilon>0$ be arbitrary. By uniform continuity, there is a $\delta>0$ such that for all $t,x\in\left[a,\infty\right)$, we have $|f(t)-f(x)|<\varepsilon$ whenever $|t-x|<\delta$. Pick $N\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $\frac{1}{n}<\delta$ for all $n\ge N$. Then for all $x\in\left[a,\infty\right)$, we have $$\left|n\int_x^{x+\frac{1}{n}}f(t)\mathrm{d}t-f(x)\right|=\left|n\int_x^{x+\frac{1}{n}}f(t)-f(x)\mathrm{d}t\right|\le n\int_x^{x+\frac{1}{n}}|f(t)-f(x)|\mathrm{d}t\le\varepsilon.$$ Since $\varepsilon$ and $x$ were arbitrary, we conclude that $\lVert F_n-f\rVert\rightarrow0$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$, i.e. $F_n\rightarrow f$ uniformly. Thus, $$\lim_{x\rightarrow\infty}f(x)=\lim_{x\rightarrow\infty}\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}F_n(x)=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\lim_{x\rightarrow\infty}F_n(x)=0.$$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I'm still puzzling over the interchange of limits, but at least for all $n > N$ we have $0 \leqslant |f(x)| \leqslant |f(x) - F_n(x)| + |F_n(x)| < \epsilon + |F_n(x)|$ and $0 \leqslant \liminf_{x \to \infty}|f(x)| \leqslant \limsup_{x \to \infty} |f(x)| < \epsilon$ for any $\epsilon > 0$ which gives the result. $\endgroup$ – RRL May 19 '19 at 0:28
  • $\begingroup$ @RRL This follows from a generalized version of the uniform limit theorem, as given in 7.11 of Baby Rudin for example. This particular case is easier though: suppose $f_n\colon\left[a,\infty\right)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ converge uniformly to $f$ and $f_n(x)\rightarrow L$ for $x\rightarrow\infty$ and all $n$. Then $|f(x)-L|\le|f(x)-f_n(x)|+|f_n(x)-L|$. Pick $n$ s.t. $||f_n-f||<\varepsilon/2$. Pick $X$ s.t. $|f_n(x)-L|<\varepsilon/2$ for $x>X$. Then $|f(x)-L|<\varepsilon$ for $x>X$. The statement follows. $\endgroup$ – Thorgott May 19 '19 at 0:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ OK - thanks. It's a very nice answer (+1) from me. $\endgroup$ – RRL May 19 '19 at 0:39
4
$\begingroup$

Assume that $\lim_{x \to \infty}f(x) =0$ does not hold and arrive at contradiction with the fact that the integral of $f$ is convergent.

If $\lim_{x \to \infty} f(x) = 0$ does not hold then there exists $\epsilon_0 > 0$ and a sequence $x_n \to \infty$ such that $|f(x_n)| \geqslant \epsilon_0$ for all $n$.

Assume WLOG that $f(x_n) \geqslant \epsilon_0$.

There exists by uniform continuity of $f$ a $\delta > 0$ such that $|f(t) - f(x_n)| < \epsilon_0/2$ for all $t \in [x_n - \delta,x_n + \delta].$

This implies $f(t) > \epsilon_0/2$ and

$$ \int_{x_n - \delta}^{x_n + \delta} f(t) \, dt > \epsilon_0\delta$$

This violates the Cauchy criterion for convergence of the improper integral since $x_n$ can be arbitrarily large.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ How does this use the sequence $x\mapsto \int_x^{x+\frac1n}\int f(t)\ \mathsf dt$? $\endgroup$ – Math1000 May 18 '19 at 23:59
  • $\begingroup$ I had a very similar idea, but as mentioned that does not use the sequence. $\endgroup$ – איתן לוי May 19 '19 at 0:09
  • $\begingroup$ There's a common thread here but I thought to show you an indirect proof. If following the hint is essential, then I would definitely accept the other answer. $\endgroup$ – RRL May 19 '19 at 0:13
  • $\begingroup$ @Math1000: It doesn't. $\endgroup$ – RRL May 19 '19 at 0:33

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.