A small doubt about the dominated convergence theorem The Next CEO of Stack OverflowIs Lebesgue's Dominated Convergence Theorem a logical equivalence?Lebesgue's Dominated Convergence Theorem questionsExample about Dominated Convergence TheoremDominated Convergence TheoremNecessity of generalization of Dominated Convergence theoremSeeking counterexample for Dominated Convergence theoremHypothesis of dominated convergence theoremDominated convergence theorem vs continuityBartle's proof of Lebesgue Dominated Convergence TheoremTheorem similar to dominated convergence theorem
Do I need to write [sic] when a number is less than 10 but isn't written out?
TikZ: How to reverse arrow direction without switching start/end point?
How to get from Geneva Airport to Metabief, Doubs, France by public transport?
Why does standard notation not preserve intervals (visually)
Does increasing your ability score affect your main stat?
Can we say or write : "No, it'sn't"?
How do I align (1) and (2)?
Where does this common spurious transmission come from? Is there a quality difference?
Solving system of ODEs with extra parameter
Is it professional to write unrelated content in an almost-empty email?
A Man With a Stainless Steel Endoskeleton (like The Terminator) Fighting Cloaked Aliens Only He Can See
Legal workarounds for testamentary trust perceived as unfair
How to edit “Name” property in GCI output?
If Nick Fury and Coulson already knew about aliens (Kree and Skrull) why did they wait until Thor's appearance to start making weapons?
Why did CATV standarize in 75 ohms and everyone else in 50?
Running a General Election and the European Elections together
Won the lottery - how do I keep the money?
Would a grinding machine be a simple and workable propulsion system for an interplanetary spacecraft?
Is there a difference between "Fahrstuhl" and "Aufzug"
Why isn't acceleration always zero whenever velocity is zero, such as the moment a ball bounces off a wall?
How is this set of matrices closed under multiplication?
Where do students learn to solve polynomial equations these days?
Can you be charged for obstruction for refusing to answer questions?
I want to delete every two lines after 3rd lines in file contain very large number of lines :
A small doubt about the dominated convergence theorem
The Next CEO of Stack OverflowIs Lebesgue's Dominated Convergence Theorem a logical equivalence?Lebesgue's Dominated Convergence Theorem questionsExample about Dominated Convergence TheoremDominated Convergence TheoremNecessity of generalization of Dominated Convergence theoremSeeking counterexample for Dominated Convergence theoremHypothesis of dominated convergence theoremDominated convergence theorem vs continuityBartle's proof of Lebesgue Dominated Convergence TheoremTheorem similar to dominated convergence theorem
$begingroup$
Theorem $mathbfA.2.11$ (Dominated convergence). Let $f_n : X to mathbb R$ be a sequence of measurable functions and assume that there exists some integrable function $g : X to mathbb R$ such that $|f_n(x)| leq |g(x)|$ for $mu$-almost every $x$ in $X$. Assume moreover that the sequence $(f_n)_n$ converges at $mu$-almost every point to some function $f : X to mathbb R$. Then $f$ is integrable and satisfies $$lim_n int f_n , dmu = int f , dmu.$$
I wanted to know if in the hypothesis $|f_n(x)| leq|g(x)|$ above, if I already know that each $f_n$ is integrable, besides convergent, the theorem remains valid? Without me having to find this $g$ integrable?
measure-theory convergence lebesgue-integral
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Theorem $mathbfA.2.11$ (Dominated convergence). Let $f_n : X to mathbb R$ be a sequence of measurable functions and assume that there exists some integrable function $g : X to mathbb R$ such that $|f_n(x)| leq |g(x)|$ for $mu$-almost every $x$ in $X$. Assume moreover that the sequence $(f_n)_n$ converges at $mu$-almost every point to some function $f : X to mathbb R$. Then $f$ is integrable and satisfies $$lim_n int f_n , dmu = int f , dmu.$$
I wanted to know if in the hypothesis $|f_n(x)| leq|g(x)|$ above, if I already know that each $f_n$ is integrable, besides convergent, the theorem remains valid? Without me having to find this $g$ integrable?
measure-theory convergence lebesgue-integral
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The dominating function $g$ is the whole point of the theorem. It's in the very name of the theorem.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
9 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Theorem $mathbfA.2.11$ (Dominated convergence). Let $f_n : X to mathbb R$ be a sequence of measurable functions and assume that there exists some integrable function $g : X to mathbb R$ such that $|f_n(x)| leq |g(x)|$ for $mu$-almost every $x$ in $X$. Assume moreover that the sequence $(f_n)_n$ converges at $mu$-almost every point to some function $f : X to mathbb R$. Then $f$ is integrable and satisfies $$lim_n int f_n , dmu = int f , dmu.$$
I wanted to know if in the hypothesis $|f_n(x)| leq|g(x)|$ above, if I already know that each $f_n$ is integrable, besides convergent, the theorem remains valid? Without me having to find this $g$ integrable?
measure-theory convergence lebesgue-integral
$endgroup$
Theorem $mathbfA.2.11$ (Dominated convergence). Let $f_n : X to mathbb R$ be a sequence of measurable functions and assume that there exists some integrable function $g : X to mathbb R$ such that $|f_n(x)| leq |g(x)|$ for $mu$-almost every $x$ in $X$. Assume moreover that the sequence $(f_n)_n$ converges at $mu$-almost every point to some function $f : X to mathbb R$. Then $f$ is integrable and satisfies $$lim_n int f_n , dmu = int f , dmu.$$
I wanted to know if in the hypothesis $|f_n(x)| leq|g(x)|$ above, if I already know that each $f_n$ is integrable, besides convergent, the theorem remains valid? Without me having to find this $g$ integrable?
measure-theory convergence lebesgue-integral
measure-theory convergence lebesgue-integral
edited 2 hours ago
Rócherz
3,0013821
3,0013821
asked 2 hours ago
Ricardo FreireRicardo Freire
579211
579211
$begingroup$
The dominating function $g$ is the whole point of the theorem. It's in the very name of the theorem.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
9 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The dominating function $g$ is the whole point of the theorem. It's in the very name of the theorem.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
9 mins ago
$begingroup$
The dominating function $g$ is the whole point of the theorem. It's in the very name of the theorem.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
9 mins ago
$begingroup$
The dominating function $g$ is the whole point of the theorem. It's in the very name of the theorem.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
9 mins ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This is an excellent question. For the theorem to apply, you need the $f_n$'s to be uniformly dominated by an integrable function $g$. To see this, consider the sequence
$$
f_n(x) := frac1n mathbf1_[0,n](x).
$$
Clearly, $f_n in L^1(mathbbR)$ for each $n in mathbbN$. Moreover, $f_n(x) to 0$ as $n to infty$ for each $x in mathbbR$. However,
beginalign*
lim_n to infty int_mathbbR f_n,mathrmdm = lim_n to infty int_0^n frac1n,mathrmdx = 1 neq 0.
endalign*
Nevertheless, you are not in too much trouble if you cannot find a dominating function. If your sequence of functions is uniformly bounded in $L^p(E)$ for $1 < p < infty$ where $E$ has finite measure, then you can still take the limit inside the integral. Namely, the following theorem often helps to rectify the situation.
Theorem. Let $(f_n)$ be a sequence of measurable functions on a measure space $(X,mathfrakM,mu)$ converging almost everywhere to a measurable function $f$. If $E subset X$ has finite measure and $(f_n)$ is bounded in $L^p(E)$ for some $1 < p < infty$, then
$$
lim_n to infty int_E f_n,mathrmdmu = int_E f,mathrmdmu.
$$
In fact, one has $f_n to f$ strongly in $L^1(E)$.
In a sense, one can do without a dominating function when the sequence is uniformly bounded in a "higher $L^p$-space" and the domain of integration has finite measure.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
$endgroup$
– Ricardo Freire
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In general, it is not sufficient that each $f_n$ be integrable without a dominating function. For instance, the functions $f_n = chi_[n,n+1]$ on $mathbf R_ge 0$ are all integrable, and $f_n(x) to 0$ for all $xin mathbf R_ge 0$, but they are not dominated by an integrable function $g$, and indeed we do not have
$$
lim_ntoinfty int f_n = int lim_ntoinftyf_n
$$
since in this case, the left-hand side is $1$, but the right-hand side is $0$.
To see why there is no dominating function $g$, such a function would have the property that $g(x)ge 1$ for each $xge 0$, so it would not be integrable on $mathbf R_ge 0$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
$endgroup$
– Ricardo Freire
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3168945%2fa-small-doubt-about-the-dominated-convergence-theorem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This is an excellent question. For the theorem to apply, you need the $f_n$'s to be uniformly dominated by an integrable function $g$. To see this, consider the sequence
$$
f_n(x) := frac1n mathbf1_[0,n](x).
$$
Clearly, $f_n in L^1(mathbbR)$ for each $n in mathbbN$. Moreover, $f_n(x) to 0$ as $n to infty$ for each $x in mathbbR$. However,
beginalign*
lim_n to infty int_mathbbR f_n,mathrmdm = lim_n to infty int_0^n frac1n,mathrmdx = 1 neq 0.
endalign*
Nevertheless, you are not in too much trouble if you cannot find a dominating function. If your sequence of functions is uniformly bounded in $L^p(E)$ for $1 < p < infty$ where $E$ has finite measure, then you can still take the limit inside the integral. Namely, the following theorem often helps to rectify the situation.
Theorem. Let $(f_n)$ be a sequence of measurable functions on a measure space $(X,mathfrakM,mu)$ converging almost everywhere to a measurable function $f$. If $E subset X$ has finite measure and $(f_n)$ is bounded in $L^p(E)$ for some $1 < p < infty$, then
$$
lim_n to infty int_E f_n,mathrmdmu = int_E f,mathrmdmu.
$$
In fact, one has $f_n to f$ strongly in $L^1(E)$.
In a sense, one can do without a dominating function when the sequence is uniformly bounded in a "higher $L^p$-space" and the domain of integration has finite measure.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
$endgroup$
– Ricardo Freire
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is an excellent question. For the theorem to apply, you need the $f_n$'s to be uniformly dominated by an integrable function $g$. To see this, consider the sequence
$$
f_n(x) := frac1n mathbf1_[0,n](x).
$$
Clearly, $f_n in L^1(mathbbR)$ for each $n in mathbbN$. Moreover, $f_n(x) to 0$ as $n to infty$ for each $x in mathbbR$. However,
beginalign*
lim_n to infty int_mathbbR f_n,mathrmdm = lim_n to infty int_0^n frac1n,mathrmdx = 1 neq 0.
endalign*
Nevertheless, you are not in too much trouble if you cannot find a dominating function. If your sequence of functions is uniformly bounded in $L^p(E)$ for $1 < p < infty$ where $E$ has finite measure, then you can still take the limit inside the integral. Namely, the following theorem often helps to rectify the situation.
Theorem. Let $(f_n)$ be a sequence of measurable functions on a measure space $(X,mathfrakM,mu)$ converging almost everywhere to a measurable function $f$. If $E subset X$ has finite measure and $(f_n)$ is bounded in $L^p(E)$ for some $1 < p < infty$, then
$$
lim_n to infty int_E f_n,mathrmdmu = int_E f,mathrmdmu.
$$
In fact, one has $f_n to f$ strongly in $L^1(E)$.
In a sense, one can do without a dominating function when the sequence is uniformly bounded in a "higher $L^p$-space" and the domain of integration has finite measure.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
$endgroup$
– Ricardo Freire
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is an excellent question. For the theorem to apply, you need the $f_n$'s to be uniformly dominated by an integrable function $g$. To see this, consider the sequence
$$
f_n(x) := frac1n mathbf1_[0,n](x).
$$
Clearly, $f_n in L^1(mathbbR)$ for each $n in mathbbN$. Moreover, $f_n(x) to 0$ as $n to infty$ for each $x in mathbbR$. However,
beginalign*
lim_n to infty int_mathbbR f_n,mathrmdm = lim_n to infty int_0^n frac1n,mathrmdx = 1 neq 0.
endalign*
Nevertheless, you are not in too much trouble if you cannot find a dominating function. If your sequence of functions is uniformly bounded in $L^p(E)$ for $1 < p < infty$ where $E$ has finite measure, then you can still take the limit inside the integral. Namely, the following theorem often helps to rectify the situation.
Theorem. Let $(f_n)$ be a sequence of measurable functions on a measure space $(X,mathfrakM,mu)$ converging almost everywhere to a measurable function $f$. If $E subset X$ has finite measure and $(f_n)$ is bounded in $L^p(E)$ for some $1 < p < infty$, then
$$
lim_n to infty int_E f_n,mathrmdmu = int_E f,mathrmdmu.
$$
In fact, one has $f_n to f$ strongly in $L^1(E)$.
In a sense, one can do without a dominating function when the sequence is uniformly bounded in a "higher $L^p$-space" and the domain of integration has finite measure.
$endgroup$
This is an excellent question. For the theorem to apply, you need the $f_n$'s to be uniformly dominated by an integrable function $g$. To see this, consider the sequence
$$
f_n(x) := frac1n mathbf1_[0,n](x).
$$
Clearly, $f_n in L^1(mathbbR)$ for each $n in mathbbN$. Moreover, $f_n(x) to 0$ as $n to infty$ for each $x in mathbbR$. However,
beginalign*
lim_n to infty int_mathbbR f_n,mathrmdm = lim_n to infty int_0^n frac1n,mathrmdx = 1 neq 0.
endalign*
Nevertheless, you are not in too much trouble if you cannot find a dominating function. If your sequence of functions is uniformly bounded in $L^p(E)$ for $1 < p < infty$ where $E$ has finite measure, then you can still take the limit inside the integral. Namely, the following theorem often helps to rectify the situation.
Theorem. Let $(f_n)$ be a sequence of measurable functions on a measure space $(X,mathfrakM,mu)$ converging almost everywhere to a measurable function $f$. If $E subset X$ has finite measure and $(f_n)$ is bounded in $L^p(E)$ for some $1 < p < infty$, then
$$
lim_n to infty int_E f_n,mathrmdmu = int_E f,mathrmdmu.
$$
In fact, one has $f_n to f$ strongly in $L^1(E)$.
In a sense, one can do without a dominating function when the sequence is uniformly bounded in a "higher $L^p$-space" and the domain of integration has finite measure.
edited 1 hour ago
answered 2 hours ago
rolandcyprolandcyp
1,856315
1,856315
$begingroup$
I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
$endgroup$
– Ricardo Freire
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
$endgroup$
– Ricardo Freire
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
$endgroup$
– Ricardo Freire
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
$endgroup$
– Ricardo Freire
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In general, it is not sufficient that each $f_n$ be integrable without a dominating function. For instance, the functions $f_n = chi_[n,n+1]$ on $mathbf R_ge 0$ are all integrable, and $f_n(x) to 0$ for all $xin mathbf R_ge 0$, but they are not dominated by an integrable function $g$, and indeed we do not have
$$
lim_ntoinfty int f_n = int lim_ntoinftyf_n
$$
since in this case, the left-hand side is $1$, but the right-hand side is $0$.
To see why there is no dominating function $g$, such a function would have the property that $g(x)ge 1$ for each $xge 0$, so it would not be integrable on $mathbf R_ge 0$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
$endgroup$
– Ricardo Freire
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In general, it is not sufficient that each $f_n$ be integrable without a dominating function. For instance, the functions $f_n = chi_[n,n+1]$ on $mathbf R_ge 0$ are all integrable, and $f_n(x) to 0$ for all $xin mathbf R_ge 0$, but they are not dominated by an integrable function $g$, and indeed we do not have
$$
lim_ntoinfty int f_n = int lim_ntoinftyf_n
$$
since in this case, the left-hand side is $1$, but the right-hand side is $0$.
To see why there is no dominating function $g$, such a function would have the property that $g(x)ge 1$ for each $xge 0$, so it would not be integrable on $mathbf R_ge 0$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
$endgroup$
– Ricardo Freire
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In general, it is not sufficient that each $f_n$ be integrable without a dominating function. For instance, the functions $f_n = chi_[n,n+1]$ on $mathbf R_ge 0$ are all integrable, and $f_n(x) to 0$ for all $xin mathbf R_ge 0$, but they are not dominated by an integrable function $g$, and indeed we do not have
$$
lim_ntoinfty int f_n = int lim_ntoinftyf_n
$$
since in this case, the left-hand side is $1$, but the right-hand side is $0$.
To see why there is no dominating function $g$, such a function would have the property that $g(x)ge 1$ for each $xge 0$, so it would not be integrable on $mathbf R_ge 0$.
$endgroup$
In general, it is not sufficient that each $f_n$ be integrable without a dominating function. For instance, the functions $f_n = chi_[n,n+1]$ on $mathbf R_ge 0$ are all integrable, and $f_n(x) to 0$ for all $xin mathbf R_ge 0$, but they are not dominated by an integrable function $g$, and indeed we do not have
$$
lim_ntoinfty int f_n = int lim_ntoinftyf_n
$$
since in this case, the left-hand side is $1$, but the right-hand side is $0$.
To see why there is no dominating function $g$, such a function would have the property that $g(x)ge 1$ for each $xge 0$, so it would not be integrable on $mathbf R_ge 0$.
answered 2 hours ago
Alex OrtizAlex Ortiz
11.2k21441
11.2k21441
$begingroup$
I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
$endgroup$
– Ricardo Freire
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
$endgroup$
– Ricardo Freire
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
$endgroup$
– Ricardo Freire
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
$endgroup$
– Ricardo Freire
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3168945%2fa-small-doubt-about-the-dominated-convergence-theorem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
The dominating function $g$ is the whole point of the theorem. It's in the very name of the theorem.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
9 mins ago