So I have stumbled upon the following theorem:

Let $\left\{f_n\right\}$ be a sequence of measurable functions. For $x \in X$, put $$ g(x) = \sup \left\{ f_n (x) \mid n \in \mathbb{N} \right\} \\ h(x) = \limsup_{n \to \infty} f_n (x) $$ Then $g$ and $h$ are measurable

The proof is as follows:

$$ \left\{ x \mid g(x) > a \right\} = \bigcup_{n=1}^{\infty} \left\{ x \mid f_n (x) > a \right\} $$

At least to me, this seems to not be true, so I was wondering if someone could help me understand where I go awry.

It seems to me that you could have a sequence of functions $f_n (x) = x + \frac{x}{n} : n \neq 3 , f_3 (x) = 1000$. From the proof $$ g(x) = \sup \left\{ x + \frac{x}{n} \mid n \in \mathbb{N} \right\} = \left\{ \begin{array}{rr} 2x & : x \ge 0 \\ x & : x < 0 \end{array} \right. $$ Now it seems to me that each $f_n (x)$ is measurable in $\mathbb{R}$ however the statement in the proof isn't true here. Put $a = 3$ then $\left\{ x \mid g(x) > 3 \right\} = \left( \frac{3}{2}, \infty \right)$ however $\bigcup_{n=1}^{\infty} \left\{ x \mid f_n (x) > 3 \right\} = (- \infty , \infty )$ because $f_3 (x) > 3 \; \forall \; x \in \mathbb{R}$, so wouldn't this be a counter example to the proof given?

Thanks in advance!

  • $\begingroup$ Haven't you completely ignored your own definition of $f_3$ here? By definition, $g(x)\geq f_3(x)=1000$ for all $x$. $\endgroup$ – Nick Peterson Jul 20 '13 at 0:40
  • $\begingroup$ @NicholasR.Peterson oop, I put in the wrong value, I meant a different $a$ and meant $f_3 = -1000$ $\endgroup$ – DanZimm Jul 20 '13 at 0:45
  • $\begingroup$ @NicholasR.Peterson you enabled me to see where I was thinking wrong, so I wanted to thank you! $\endgroup$ – DanZimm Jul 20 '13 at 0:47

You have a sequence $\langle f_n\rangle$ and you set $$g(x)=\sup_{n\geqslant 1}\{f_n(x)\}$$

The claim is that

$$\left\{ x \mid g(x) > a \right\} = \bigcup_{n=1}^{\infty} \left\{ x \mid f_n (x) > a \right\}$$

First, suppose $x$ is such that $g(x)>a$. This means $$\sup_{n\geqslant 1}\{f_n(x)\}>a$$

This means that there exists $m$ such that $f_m(x)>a^{\dagger}$, so $x\in \{x\mid f_m(x)>a\}$ and thus $x$ is in that union. Conversely, suppose $x$ is in the union. Then for some $m$ we have $f_m(x)>a$, thus $\sup\limits_{n\geqslant 1 }\{f_n(x)\}=g(x)>a$.

$\dagger$: Note that if for each $n$ we had $f_n(x)\leq a$ then the $\sup$ would be $\leq a$. Thus, by contraposition, we must have $f_m(x)>a$ for at least one $m$.

  • $\begingroup$ Ah ok thank you, I will accept once I can (4 minutes from this comments post) $\endgroup$ – DanZimm Jul 20 '13 at 0:47

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.