1

Let $(f_n)$ be a sequence of measurable functions on $X$, for which there exist such $f, g$, that $f_n \rightarrow f$ and $\forall_n \: |f_n| \le g$ for $g \in L_1 (X, \mu) \Leftrightarrow \int_X |g| d\mu < \infty$

Prove, that

  1. $f \in L_1 (X, \mu)$
  2. $\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \int_X f_n d\mu = \int_X f d\mu$
  3. $f_n \rightarrow f$ in $L_1 (X, \mu)$

My attempt

  1. If $\forall_n \: |f_n| \le g$, and we know, that $f_n \rightarrow f$, then it's also true that $|f| \le g$. Thus:

$$|f| \le g \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad |f| \le |g| \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad \int_X |f| d\mu \le \int_X |g| d\mu < \infty$$

  1. It's basically the Dominated convergence theorem

  2. $f_n \rightarrow f$ means (I think!), that $h_n = f_n - f$ is an $L_1 (X, \mu)$ function and that $\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \int_X h_n d\mu = 0$. The latter is a consequence of 2. (just subtract the one side from the other), we prove the former:

$$|h_n| = |f_n - f| \le |f_n| + |f| \le |g| + |f| \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad \int_X |h_n| d\mu \le \int_X |g| d\mu + \int_X |f| d\mu < \infty \text{ (by definition) }+ \infty \text{ (by 1.) } < \infty$$


I am not really sure about 1., if we can just assume that "if $|f_n| \le |g|$, then $|f| \le |g|$".

Also, I don't know if we cannot simply subtract the one side by the other in point 2 and simply call it a day, as because $f_n \rightarrow f \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad f_n - f \rightarrow 0$

Point 3 seems to be a consequence from the other two points, so I guess it should be fine? Unless I absolutely misunderstood what "convergence in $L_1 (X, \mu)$" means

user
  • 53
  • imo all three points constitute the “dominated convergence theorem”. – nejimban Dec 29 '21 at 18:37
  • @nejimban How, if only the second point is the "dominated convergence theorem"? Are points 1 and 3 a result/consequence of the "dominated convergence theorem"? – user Dec 29 '21 at 19:09
  • @user: The Wikipedia page you linked clearly states those three points. – nejimban Dec 29 '21 at 19:21
  • @nejimban How? I only see the second point. Can you maybe directly show me, where the first and third point is mentioned there? – user Dec 29 '21 at 19:23
  • @peek-a-boo I'm confused, how can the 3. point be the DCT, if the 2. point is what's been given to us during lecture as the DCT? And by which kind of triangle inequality can we get (2)? – user Dec 29 '21 at 19:25
  • 2
    @user https://x0.at/Kll-.png – nejimban Dec 29 '21 at 19:27
  • @nejimban Aren't actually (2) and (3) equivalent in the end? To (1): I can't seem to find the place, where we're proving that $f$ is integrable i.e. $f \in L_1 (X, \mu)$. – user Dec 29 '21 at 19:37
  • @peek-a-boo I don't quite understand how you mean to prove (2) from (3) – user Dec 29 '21 at 19:40
  • (3) is stronger than (2), However, (3) is equivalent to (2') $\lim_{n\to\infty}\int_X|f_n|,\mathrm d\mu=\int_X|f|,\mathrm d\mu$. – nejimban Dec 29 '21 at 19:47
  • @nejimban I mean by $f_n \rightarrow f$ in $L_1 (X, \mu)$ that $f_n$ converges to f in space $L_1 (X, \mu)$, and NOT that $f \in L_1 (X, \mu)$ – user Dec 29 '21 at 19:47
  • “$f_n\to f$ in $L^1(X,\mu)$” is another way to say “$f_n$ converges to $f$ in $L^1(X,\mu)$”. They mean exactly the same thing. – nejimban Dec 29 '21 at 19:49
  • @nejimban But are the proofs I've presented here correct? (see My attempt ) – user Dec 29 '21 at 19:50
  • In your proof of (3), $f_n\to f$ (in $L^1$) means $\int_X|h_n|,\mathrm d\mu\to 0$ (with the absolute values), not $\int_Xh_n,\mathrm d\mu\to0$. This follows from the dominated convergence theorem. In fact (3) and (1) are the DCT, and (2) is a direct consequence (as @peek-a-boo explained). – nejimban Dec 29 '21 at 19:54

2 Answers2

2

Ignore my previous comments; they probably made it sound more complicated than it was. Your attempts are almost correct. Regarding your concern about point (1), that is a basic fact about limits:

Suppose $\{a_n\}$ and $\{b_n\}$ are sequences in $[-\infty,\infty]$ which converge in $[-\infty,\infty]$, and suppose that for all $n\in\Bbb{N}$, we have $a_n\leq b_n$. Then, $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}a_n\leq \lim\limits_{n\to\infty}b_n$.

This is why $|f_n|\leq g$ for all $n$ implies $|f|=|\lim f_n|=\lim|f_n|\leq \lim g=g$, and hence $\int|f|\leq \int g<\infty$.

For 3 I think you have the right idea but your presentation isn't really clear. Just write things in words, and avoid unnecessary symbols. Saying $f_n\to f$ in $L^1$ means you have to show $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\int|f_n-f|=0$ (you were missing absolute values). To prove this, note that $f_n\to f$ pointwise by hypothesis and hence $|f_n-f|$ converges to $0$ pointwise, and $|f_n-f|\leq |f_n|+|f|\leq 2g$, and $2g\in L^1$, so by DCT (the version you seem to know by heart), $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\int|f_n-f|=0$.


In my comment, my intention was to merely point out that sometimes, the DCT is simply stated as

If $\{f_n\}$ is a sequence of measurable functions which converges pointwise to a function $f$ and $g\in L^1(\mu)$ is a function such that for all $n$, $|f_n|\leq g$ pointwise, then $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\int_X|f_n-f|=0$.

From this minimalistic way of phrasing things, there are already several things one can observe.

  • It is implicit in the statement (but also the only logical consequence of the hypothesis) that $g$ is a non-negative function.
  • $f$ being a pointwise limit of measurable functions is also measurable (this is a basic fact from measure theory).
  • $|f_n|\leq g$ and $g\in L^1$ implies that each $f_n\in L^1$.
  • To prove $f\in L^1$, we can argue as you have done, or we can note the following: $\int|f|\leq \int|f-f_n|+\int|f_n|\leq \int|f_n-f|+\int|g|$, and on the RHS, the terms converge to $0$, so in particular they are finite.
  • Finally, we can conclude $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\int f_n=\int f$ because of the very simple estimate $\left|\int f_n-\int f\right|=\left|\int (f_n-f)\right|\leq \int|f_n-f|$, and this converges to $0$ by assumption. So by the squeeze theorem, it follows that $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\int f_n=\int f$.
peek-a-boo
  • 55,725
  • 2
  • 45
  • 89
  • Thanks! But can we prove (3) if we assume that we only know that (2) is the DCT (I ask because you define the DCT differently than I do)? The proof we got for the DCT isn't anything like that (or what the Wikipedia page shows), it's completely different, and I really wouldn't like to present a different proof for the DCT to my professor and "to correct him" in a sense. – user Dec 29 '21 at 20:05
  • @user i'm not really sure how much clearer I can make my answer. the conclusion (3) is equivalent to any version of DCT's conclusion. And I've already provided a proof in my answer. Let $\phi_n=|f_n-f|$ and $\phi=0$. Then, $\phi_n$ is dominated by $2g$ and $\phi_n\to 0=\phi$ pointwise, so by the DCT you seem to know we have $\lim\int\phi_n=\int \phi=0$, i.e $\lim\int|f_n-f|=0$, which is the definition of "$f_n\to f$ in $L^1$". – peek-a-boo Dec 29 '21 at 20:07
  • Ok, this is the DCT we've been given: "Let $(f_n)$ be measurable and $\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} f_n (x) = f(x)$ for $x \in X$, $\mu$ a.e., and let there exist a function $g\in L_1 (X, \mu)$ on $X$, such that $\forall_n : |f_n (x)| \le g(x)$ Then $f$ is $L_1 (X,\mu)$, whereas $\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \int_X f_n d\mu = \int_X f d\mu$" As you see, this is much different than your version of the DCT. And assuming that we only know my version of the DCT: How would we be able to prove (3)? – user Dec 29 '21 at 20:11
  • now I see what you mean, thanks – user Dec 29 '21 at 20:12
  • No, i've corrected it already, it's the set of measurable funcitons. Simple functions are in our course denoted as $\Pi (X, \mu)$ – user Dec 29 '21 at 20:13
  • I hope you realize now that the DCT you stated and the DCT I stated are indeed equivalent (and make sure this equivalence becomes obvious to you, because when people say "by DCT" it includes any and all such minor variations of the theorem). – peek-a-boo Dec 29 '21 at 20:14
  • Yes, now I understand this, thanks – user Dec 29 '21 at 20:17
  • @user I added an answer showing that your (2) is “equivalent” to (3) if we are allowed to apply it to $|f_n|$ instead of $f_n$. I hope it clarifies things. – nejimban Dec 29 '21 at 20:21
2

Theorem. If $f_n\to f$ $\mu$-a.e. and $|f_n|\le g$ with $g\in L^1(\mu)$, then $\int f_n\,\mathrm d\mu\to\int f\,\mathrm d\mu$.

Suppose the conditions of Theorem hold. We show (3).

  • Apply Theorem to the sequence $|f_n|$ (with absolute values): we have $|f_n|\to|f|$ $\mu$-a.e. (by continuous mapping) and $\Bigl||f_n|\Bigr|=|f_n|\le g$, so by the theorem $\int_X|f_n|\,\mathrm d\mu\to\int_X|f|\,\mathrm d\mu$.
  • To conclude that $f_n\to f$ in $L^1(\mu)$, use the Riesz-Scheffé lemma which is a direct consequence of Fatou's lemma: \begin{align*} 2\int|f|\,\mathrm d\mu-\limsup_{n\to\infty}\int|f_n-f|\,\mathrm d\mu &=\liminf_{n\to\infty}\int\underbrace{(|f_n|+|f|-|f_n-f|)}_{\ge0}\,\mathrm d\mu\\&\underset{\text{Fatou}}\ge\int\liminf_{n\to\infty}\:(|f_n|+|f|-|f_n-f|)\,\mathrm d\mu\\[.4em]&=2\int|f|\,\mathrm d\mu, \end{align*} so $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\int|f_n-f|\,\mathrm d\mu=0.$$
nejimban
  • 3,663