8
$\begingroup$

Let $(X,\mathcal{M},\mu)$ be a measure space with $\mu(X)<\infty$. Let $f_n$ be a sequence of measurable real-valued functions such that $f_n$ converges pointwise a.e. to a real-valued function $f$.

Show that for each point in $X$, the following limit holds

$$\lim_{n\to\infty} f_n \chi_{\displaystyle\{x\in X: |f_n(x)|\leq \alpha\}}=f \chi_{\displaystyle\ \{x\in X: |f(x)|\leq \alpha\}}$$

With exception of countably many values of $\alpha$.

I have not idea how to do it, I tried it 3 hours. I tried with Fatou's, LDCT, LMCT, Borel-Cantelli etc...

Edit: Etienne in answers noted that the conclusion does not hold if the exeption is in finitely many values of $\alpha$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ What kind of convergence are you trying to prove? Pointwise a.e., convergence in measure? $\endgroup$ – Alex Becker Jun 5 '13 at 19:39
  • $\begingroup$ @Alex Sorry I mean pointwise. $\endgroup$ – Gaston Burrull Jun 5 '13 at 20:08
  • $\begingroup$ What is the source of this problem? $\endgroup$ – Nate Eldredge Jun 6 '13 at 3:37
  • $\begingroup$ @Nate I don't know, I saw it in an exam. $\endgroup$ – Gaston Burrull Jun 6 '13 at 4:35
2
$\begingroup$

If the limit is understood as "pointwise a.e.", it seems that the conclusion does not necessarily hold. Assume that the space $X$ can be written as $X=\bigcup_{k\in\mathbb N} A_k$, where the $A_k$'s are (measurable,) pairwise disjoint with $\mu(A_k)>0$ (for example, take $X=[0,1]$ withLebesgue measure). Let $(\alpha_k)$ be any sequence of pairwise distinct positive numbers, and define a measurable function $f$ on $X$ by $f(x)=\alpha_k$ if $x\in A_k$. Finally, define $f_n(x)=f(x)+\frac1n\cdot$ Then $f_n(x)\to f(x)$ everywhere, but for each fixed $k$ every $x\in A_k$ we have $\chi_{\{\vert f_n\vert\leq \alpha_k\}}(x)=0$ for all $n$ (since $f_n(x)=\alpha_k+\frac1n$) whereas $\chi_{\{\vert f\vert\leq \alpha_k\}}(x)=1$ (since $f(x)=\alpha_k$); hence, for any $k\in\mathbb N$, the above limit does not hold with $\alpha=\alpha_k$.

On the other hand, the conclusion does hold (with pointwise a.e. convergence) if "finitely many values of $\alpha$" is replaced with "countably many values of $\alpha$". The key point is that the set $A$ of all $\alpha\geq 0$ such that $\{ x\in X;\; \vert f(x)\vert=\alpha\}$ has positive measure is countable, because the measure $\mu$ is finite ($\sigma$-finite would be enough). If $\alpha\not\in A$, then $\vert f(x)\vert \neq\alpha$ almost everywhere (by the definition of $A$), so that $\vert f(x)\vert$ is a point of continuity of the function $\chi_{[0,\alpha]}$. Since $\vert f_n(x)\vert\to\vert f(x)\vert$ a.e., it follows that $\chi_{[0,\alpha]}(\vert f_n(x)\vert)\to \chi_{[0,\alpha]} (\vert f(x)\vert)$ almost everywhere for any $\alpha$ not in the countable "exceptional" set $A$, and this shows that the above limit holds true for these $\alpha$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ How to deduce "$A$ numerable" from "$\mu$ is $\sigma$-finite or finite"? $\endgroup$ – Gaston Burrull Jun 6 '13 at 1:42
  • $\begingroup$ The sets $E_\alpha=\{ x\in X;\; \vert f(x)\vert=\alpha\}$ are pairwise disjoint, and in a $\sigma$-finite measure space you cannot find an uncountable family of pairwise disjoint sets with positive measure. $\endgroup$ – Etienne Jun 6 '13 at 5:54
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry but I still don't get it. Why the existence of uncountable disjoint family of positive measurable sets contradicts the fact that $\mu(X)<\infty$? I really can't see why. $\endgroup$ – Gaston Burrull Jun 6 '13 at 18:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ OK, here is a detailed proof. Assume the measure space is finite. Let $(E_i)_{i\in I}$ be a family of pairwise disjoint measurable sets with positive measure. We want to show that the index set $I$ is necessarily countable. For each $n\in\mathbb N$, put $I_n=\{ i\in I;\; \mu(E_i)\geq \frac 1n\}$. Then $I=\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb N} I_n$ since $\mu(E_i)>0$ for all $i$. So it is enough to show that each $I_n$ is finite. But this is clear since $$\sum_{i\in I_n} \mu(E_i)=\mu\left(\bigcup_{i\in I_n}E_i\right)<\infty$$ and $\mu(E_i)\geq \frac1n$ for all $i\in I_n$. $\endgroup$ – Etienne Jun 6 '13 at 18:53
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks I really appreciate your help. $\endgroup$ – Gaston Burrull Jun 6 '13 at 19:09

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.