2

Recall that $f:[a,b]\to\mathbb{R}$ is absolutely continuous if for all $\epsilon$ there exists $\delta$ such that for any $(a_i,b_i)$ pairwise disjoint intervals we have $\sum(b_i-a_i)<\delta\implies\sum|f(b_i)-f(a_i)|<\epsilon$, or equivalently $f$ is a.e. differentiable and:

$$f(x)-f(y)=\int_y^xf'(t)\mathrm{d}t,$$

for all $x,y\in[a,b]$, and it is Lipschitz continuous (or just Lipschitz) if there exists a constant $C$ such that, for $x,y\in[a,b]$:

$$|f(x)-f(y)|\leq C|x-y|.$$

Choosing $\delta=\frac{\epsilon}{C}$, one verifies that the definition of absolute continuity holds for Lipschitz functions.

The space of absolutely continuous functions $\operatorname{AC}([a,b])$ can be normed with:

$$\|f\|:=|f(a)|+\|f'\|_{L^1([a,b])}.$$

It turns out (see 1 and 2) that this norm makes $\operatorname{AC}$ into a Banach space.

$\operatorname{AC}$ is also the same as $W^{1,1}$, and we know that Lipschitz functions are dense there, since smooth functions are, and they are Lipschitz.

So I was wondering: are Lipschitz functions dense in the other norm as well? Mollifying doesn't really seem to help, because I do get convergence in $L^1$ of the derivatives, but the convergence at $a$ is troublesome. I mean, convergence in that norm equates to $f_n'\to f'$ in $L^1$ and $f_n(a)\to f(a)$, so I was trying to mollify and prove those two convergences. Any hints?

Perhaps I could show that norming $\operatorname{AC}$ with $|f(x)|$ instead of $|f(a)|$, where $x\in(a,b)$, results in an equivalent norm, and then mollify and use that, for continuous functions on $(a,b)$, the mollifications converge uniformly in any compact subset, hence pointwise?

Or maybe I can extend uniform convergence of mollifications to any compact subset including the whole $[a,b]$? I'd have a problem there, I guess, because how do I define the mollification at the endpoints?

MickG
  • 8,645
  • 1
    Try $f_M(x) = f(a)+ \int_a^x \max(\min(f'(x),M), -M) dx$. Note that $|f'-f_M'|_1 \to 0$. – copper.hat Oct 01 '16 at 22:34
  • @copper.hat Do you mean for $M\to\infty$? And should that $f$ in the $\min$ be a $f'$? – MickG Oct 01 '16 at 22:37
  • Yes, it is just 'clipping' $f'(x)$ so it is bounded by $M$. I'm not sure what you mean by the $f'$ comment... – copper.hat Oct 01 '16 at 22:39
  • @copper.hat Um, I think I saw an unedited version of your comment which had $\max(\min(f(x),M),-M)dx$ and did not have the second sentence :). – MickG Oct 01 '16 at 22:41
  • $L^1$ convergence is because of evident pointwise convergence plus being dominated by $f'$ for all $M$. Lipschitz-ness is because we have bounded derivative, so $M$ functions as a Lipschitz constant, as is easily seen. Right? I guess I'll self-answer in the morning (provided you do not answer before then of course :) ). – MickG Oct 01 '16 at 22:44
  • Quite likely! My typping skills are pooor. – copper.hat Oct 01 '16 at 22:45
  • For any $L^1$ function $g$, we have $\lim_{M \to \infty}\mu { x | |g(x)| \ge M } \to 0$. – copper.hat Oct 01 '16 at 22:46

0 Answers0