Results 1 to 11 of 11

Math Help - integrable funtion and uniform convergence

  1. #1
    Newbie
    Joined
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    24

    integrable funtion and uniform convergence

    Let f_n be integrable on [0,1] for all n and f_n\rightarrow f uniformly. Show that f is integrable and \int f_n dx \rightarrow \int fdx.

    Since f_n converges uniformly to f, for any \epsilon >0, there is N such that for all x and for all n \geq N, |f-f_n|<\epsilon. And since |f|-|f_n| \leq|f-f_n|, \int |f|dx-\int |f_n|dx \leq \int |f|-|f_n|dx \leq \int |f-f_n|dx \rightarrow 0.
    So \int |f| = lim \int |f_n|.

    i have a question here. i know that for each n, \int |f_n| dx < \infty but how can i show that lim \int |f_n|dx < \infty.

    help would be appreciated so much.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Newbie
    Joined
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by PRLM View Post
    Let f_n be integrable on [0,1] for all n and f_n\rightarrow f uniformly. Show that f is integrable and \int f_n dx \rightarrow \int fdx.

    Since f_n converges uniformly to f, for any \epsilon >0, there is N such that for all x and for all n \geq N, |f-f_n|<\epsilon. And since |f|-|f_n| \leq|f-f_n|, \int |f|dx-\int |f_n|dx \leq \int |f|-|f_n|dx \leq \int |f-f_n|dx \rightarrow 0.
    So \int |f| = lim \int |f_n|.

    i have a question here. i know that for each n, \int |f_n| dx < \infty but how can i show that lim \int |f_n|dx < \infty.

    help would be appreciated so much.
    can i assume that f_n is bounded if f_n is integrable?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Member
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    From
    Florida
    Posts
    228
    I assume that you are working with the Riemann integral so then yes f being integrable does mean that it is bounded.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Super Member
    Joined
    Apr 2009
    From
    México
    Posts
    721
    To show integrability of f you could use that g:[a,b] \rightarrow \mathbb{R} is Riemann int. iff the set of discontinuities of g has measure 0 (ie. this set can be covered by a countable family of sets (a_{i,\epsilon },b_{i,\epsilon })_{i\in \mathbb{N} } such that \sum_{i=0}^{\infty } (b_{i, \epsilon }-a_{i, \epsilon }) < \epsilon) .
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Member
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    From
    Florida
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Jose27 View Post
    To show integrability of f you could use that g:[a,b] \rightarrow \mathbb{R} is Riemann int. iff the set of discontinuities of g has measure 0 (ie. this set can be covered by a countable family of sets (a_{i,\epsilon },b_{i,\epsilon })_{i\in \mathbb{N} } such that \sum_{i=0}^{\infty } (b_{i, \epsilon }-a_{i, \epsilon }) < \epsilon) .
    I don't think this is true. Take f to be 0 on the rationals and 0 on the irrationals. Then the upper and lower Riemann sums don't agree for any partition of the interval (lets say [0,1]).
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Super Member
    Joined
    Apr 2009
    From
    México
    Posts
    721
    Quote Originally Posted by putnam120 View Post
    I don't think this is true. Take f to be 0 on the rationals and 0 on the irrationals. Then the upper and lower Riemann sums don't agree for any partition of the interval (lets say [0,1]).
    I assume you meant Dirichlet's function instead of the zero constant. The problem is, Dirichlet's function is discontinous everywhere (ie. the measure of the set of discontinuities is positive)
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Member
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    From
    Florida
    Posts
    228
    Oh whoops sorry I misread what you meant. Then what about f:[0,1]\to\{0,1\} where f is 1 on the Cantor set and 0 otherwise. Since the cantor set is uncountable you can't just cover it by intervals who's sum is small. Plus it has measure 0.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    Newbie
    Joined
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by putnam120 View Post
    I assume that you are working with the Riemann integral so then yes f being integrable does mean that it is bounded.
    So if i can assume f_n is bounded, i can find M such that |f_n| < M for all n, which mean lim sup |f_n| < M. So \int |f|=\int lim|f_n|\leq\int limsup|f_n|<\infty. is it correct?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    Super Member
    Joined
    Apr 2009
    From
    México
    Posts
    721
    Quote Originally Posted by putnam120 View Post
    Plus it has measure 0.
    You answered yourself. To cover it the way I said remember how one constructed the set by taking intervlas of lenght 3^{-n} (if I rememeber correctly) and then intersecting all of them so it suffices to cover a "step" for sufficiently large n.

    The fact that if such a cover exists then f is integrable is more or less easy to see.

    Well, I guess you also need to have f bounded on the hypothesis, but given it's Riemann it's always implicitly assumed.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    Newbie
    Joined
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by putnam120 View Post
    Oh whoops sorry I misread what you meant. Then what about f:[0,1]\to\{0,1\} where f is 1 on the Cantor set and 0 otherwise. Since the cantor set is uncountable you can't just cover it by intervals who's sum is small. Plus it has measure 0.
    or are we supposed to used the assumption that f_n\rightarrow f uniformly to say that f_n and f are both bounded? because if f is not bounded i dont think f_n can converge uniformly to f, can it? i dont think a uniform \epsilon can work for all x in the domain. would you give me your thoughts on this?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  11. #11
    Member
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    From
    Florida
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by PRLM View Post
    So if i can assume f_n is bounded, i can find M such that |f_n| < M for all n, which mean lim sup |f_n| < M. So \int |f|=\int lim|f_n|\leq\int limsup|f_n|<\infty. is it correct?
    No, it just means that for each n we have f_n\le M_n. So then since f_n\to f uniformly we have that |f-f_N|<\epsilon\Longrightarrow |f|\le |f_N|+\epsilon\le M_N+\epsilon. Now take M=\max(M_1,M_2,\dots,M_{N-1},M_N+\epsilon).

    Thus |f|\le M and |f_n|\le M+\epsilon. So even though what you said initially was correct (the f_n are uniformly bounded) you were using the wrong definition for bounded.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. uniform integrable
    Posted in the Advanced Statistics Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 4th 2011, 03:20 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 31st 2010, 07:09 PM
  3. integrable funtion
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 23rd 2009, 02:53 PM
  4. A Funtion of 3 uniform, continuous random variables
    Posted in the Advanced Statistics Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 27th 2009, 08:26 AM
  5. Uniform Continuous and Uniform Convergence
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 28th 2007, 02:51 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum