2
$\begingroup$

Let $f_n,f: E \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ where $E$ has finite measure, suppose that $\phi:\mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is continuous. Then $\phi \circ f_n \rightarrow \phi \circ f$ in measure. Show that this can fail when $E$ has infinite measure.

Here is my work so far: Since $f_n \rightarrow f$ in measure there exists a subsequence $f_{n_k}$ such that $f_{n_k} \rightarrow f$ pointwise a.e. on $E$. Then by continuity we have $\phi\circ f_{n_k} \rightarrow \phi \circ f$ pointwise a.e. on E. Of course this implies that $\phi \circ f_{n_k} \rightarrow \phi \circ f$ in measure. My trouble is that this only shows a subsequence converges in measure and not the full sequence itself. I feel like I almost there but I am just confused about how to end the proof.

Any help is appreciated!

$\endgroup$
4
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Go down to the level of sub-subsequences. $\endgroup$ Mar 17, 2021 at 18:24
  • $\begingroup$ So consider a subsequence of $f_n$, say $f_{n_k}$. Since $f_{n_k}$ converges to $f$ in measure we do the same as before, find a sub-subsequence that converges to $f$ pointwise a.e. This implies that $\phi \circ f_{n_{k_j}} \rightarrow \phi \circ f$ in measure. How do we continue from here? $\endgroup$ Mar 17, 2021 at 18:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Blaze are you familiar with the characterization that $f_n \to f$ in measure (finite measure space) if and only if for every subsequence of $f_n$ there is a further subsequence that converges a.e.? $\endgroup$
    – nullUser
    Mar 17, 2021 at 18:40
  • $\begingroup$ @nullUser I am not familiar with this, but I can see how it would solve my problem immediately. $\endgroup$ Mar 17, 2021 at 18:42

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

As mentioned in the comments, the following theorem trivializes the problem.

Theorem. Let $\mu$ be a finite measure. Then $(f_n)$ converges to $f$ in measure if and only if for every subsequence of $(f_n)$ there is a further subsequence that converges almost everywhere.

Proof. Suppose $(f_n)$ converges to $f$ in measure, i.e. $\mu(|f_n - f| > \epsilon) \to 0$ for all $\epsilon > 0$, and let a subsequence be given. For convenience just write it as $(f_n)$ again to avoid subscripts. Take a sequence $\epsilon_n \to 0$ decreasing and $\delta_n$ decreasing with $\sum_n \delta_n < \infty$ and choose $N(0) = 0$ and $N(n) > N(n-1)$ such that $\mu(|f_{N(n)} - f| > \epsilon_n) < \delta_n$ for all $i \geq N(n)$. Since $\sum_n \delta_n <\infty$, by the Borel-Cantelli lemma, except on a set of measure $0$, one has $|f_{N(n)}-f| \leq \epsilon_n$ for all but finitely many $n$. Since the $N(n)$ are increasing and $\epsilon_n$ decreasing, $|f_{N(i)}-f| \leq \epsilon_i \leq \epsilon_n$ for all $i \geq n$ except finitely many exceptions. Thus $f_{N(n)} \to f$ as $n \to \infty$ except on a set of $0$ measure.

Next suppose that for each subsequence there is a further subsequence converging almost surely. Assume for contradiction that $\limsup_n \mu(|f_n - f| > \epsilon) = \delta > 0$ for all $n$. Then choose a subsequence (which to avoid subscripts we assume is the whole sequence) such that $\mu(|f_n - f| > \epsilon) \geq \delta/2$ for all $n$. By the assumed property, choose a further subsequence such that $f_{N(n)} \to f$ except on a set of measure $0$. Then $$\delta/2 \leq \mu(|f_{N(n)}-f| > \epsilon) = \int 1_{|f_{N(n)}-f|>\epsilon} d\mu \to 0$$ by the dominated convergence theorem (using here that $\mu$ is finite), a contradiction. Thus it must be that $f_n \to f$ in measure.

$\endgroup$

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.