3
$\begingroup$

Am I correct with usage of this generalised Dominated Convergence lemma: a sequence $(f_n)$ in $L^1$ on a bounded domain is strongly convergent if and only if $(f_n)$ is uniformly integrable and $(f_n)$ converges in measure, or pointwise almost everywhere?

By Dunford Pettis I know that $(f_n)$ is uniformly integrable if and only if $(f_n)$ is weakly convergent in $L^1$.

My question is, is it possible to deduce $L^p$ convergence of a bounded sequence $(f_n)\subset L^p$, by showing that, for all $\phi\in L^\infty$: $$1. \int |f_n |^p(x) \phi (x) dx\to \int |f |^p(x) \phi (x) dx$$ and $$2. \,\, f_n\to f \text{ in measure} $$ which would imply the uniform integrability of $|f_n-f|^p$, and hence the desired convergence? I would attempt to use the Vitali lemma, so that on a bounded domain $\Omega$, $(|f_n|^p)$ uniformly bounded in $L^1(\Omega)$, existence (and finiteness) of the pointwise a.e limit and uniform integrability of $|f_n-f|^p$ allow passage to the limit $$\lim_n \int_\Omega |f_n-f|^p dx = \int_\Omega\lim_n |f_n-f|^p dx =0.$$

Furthermore, how limited would an approximation argument for 1., with $\phi\in C_c^\infty$? Is there a counterexample with a uniformly integrable sequence, pointwise converging, that does not converge in $L^p$? I ask this second question because of the equivalence of distributional convergence to weak convergence in $L^p$ if the sequence (and limit) are already bounded in $L^p$.

Note: I am using the following definition of UI: $\forall\varepsilon>0, \exists g$ an integrable function such that $$\sup_{n}\int_\Omega(|f_n|-g)^+\mathrm dx\lt\varepsilon.$$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I don't know qnd I really have no time to think at this now, but I'd like to leave a commentary anyway. Weak convergence in $L^1$ space and in $L^p$ space are very different things. The reason is that $L^1$ space embeds in the space of measures, so the "right" setting for weak convergence of $L^1$ functions really is seeing them as measures. There is nothing analogous for $L^p$. (For instance, note that you cannot "converge to the delta distribution" in $L^p$ space. The scaling is just wrong.) HTH even if it is rather vague; if you find it confusing I'll erase this comment $\endgroup$ – Giuseppe Negro May 27 '14 at 13:56
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, I understand. I was trying to think of a way to prove a higher uniform integrability than $L^1$, but cannot find anything equivalent to the definition. $\endgroup$ – michek May 27 '14 at 13:59
  • $\begingroup$ I am trying to make use of the equivalence that for a uniformly bounded sequence $(f_n)$ in $L^p, 1<p<\infty$, with $f\in L^p$, then $f_n\to f$ weakly in $L^p$ iff $f_n\to f$ weakly-* in the sense of measures (or even $f_n\to f$ in $\mathcal{D}'$). $\endgroup$ – michek May 27 '14 at 14:23
  • $\begingroup$ Is your measure space finite? Otherwise, what definition of uniform integrability do you use? Because with the definition I know, the sequence $f_n = \chi_{[n,n+1]}$ on $\Bbb{R}$ with Lebesgue measure should be a counter example to your initial statement. $\endgroup$ – PhoemueX May 27 '14 at 16:20
  • $\begingroup$ Yes it is finite. I will edit to include the definition. $\endgroup$ – michek May 27 '14 at 16:25
1
$\begingroup$

I just noted that the statement you want to prove is actually trivial, because if

$$\int |f_n - f|^p \cdot \phi \, dx \rightarrow 0$$

for all $\phi \in L^\infty$, you can use this with $\phi \equiv 1$ which is then nothing but convergence in $L^p$.

EDIT: If you instead require $\phi \in C_c^\infty(\Omega)$, the statement becomes false in general. As a counterexample consider $p=2$, $\Omega = (0,1)$ and $f_n = \sqrt{n} \cdot \chi_{(0,1/n)}$. Of course, in this case, the sequence is not uniformly integrable.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Then maybe I am misunderstanding Dunford Pettis: what should it mean to be relatively compact in the weak $L^1$ topology? Wouldn't this trivially imply strong $L^1$ convergence as you have shown? $\endgroup$ – michek May 28 '14 at 9:56
  • $\begingroup$ The point is that weak $L^1$ convergence means $\int (f_n - f) \cdot \phi dx \rightarrow 0$ for all $\phi \in L^\infty$. Note the missing absolute value around $f_n - f$. You could choose the $\phi$ so that the absolute value does not matter, but this requires $\phi = \phi_n$ in general, so that the statement with the absolute values is strictly stronger. $\endgroup$ – PhoemueX May 28 '14 at 10:26
  • $\begingroup$ I think I see the problem now. Could one argue this holds for the positive and negative parts of $f_n-f$? $\endgroup$ – michek May 28 '14 at 10:29
  • $\begingroup$ Perhaps weak convergence of the $p-th$ powers, plus convergence of their norms, would give the $L^p$ convergence for all reflexive $p's$. $\endgroup$ – michek May 28 '14 at 10:37
  • $\begingroup$ Do you mean this? If $f_n \rightarrow f$ weakly in $L^p$ and $\Vert f_n \Vert_p \rightarrow \Vert f \Vert_p$ (and $1<p<\infty$), then already $f_n \rightarrow f$ strongly in $L^p$. If so, have a look at math.stackexchange.com/questions/163209/… . $\endgroup$ – PhoemueX May 28 '14 at 11:42

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.