-1

I am trying to prove the following: where $f:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is Lebesgue-integrable,

$$\lim_{a\rightarrow\infty} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} f(x)=0.$$

I have tried proving this statement using polynomials and then using stone-weierstrass, but I don't think that result is appropriate here. I have also tried rewriting sin in terms of e, but that seems more appropriate for a contour integral. My third idea is to use DCT/MCT but I don't know how to choose the functions. Are any of these the right idea? Any help is appreciated.

  • 1
    Riemann-Lebesgue Lemma – MathFail Jun 06 '23 at 20:31
  • I don't think I know how to use that one. –  Jun 06 '23 at 20:31
  • @MathFail Can you expand on how to use this? Would DCT/MCT not suffice? –  Jun 06 '23 at 20:54
  • DCT, MCT are not helpful, since the integrand typically doesn’t have a limit if $f(x)\neq 0$ and $x\neq 0$. – peek-a-boo Jun 06 '23 at 21:01
  • what you try to prove is Riemann-Lebesgue Lemma, you can search this name. – MathFail Jun 06 '23 at 21:11
  • Can this be true for arbitrary functions f ? What conditions are you assuming about the function f ? (E.g., is it continuous? Does it belong to L^p for some p ?) Without this information it is impossible to know what question is being asked. – Dan Asimov Jun 06 '23 at 21:33

1 Answers1

0

Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a subset of $L^1(\Bbb{R})$, and suppose it has the property that for all $f\in \mathcal{F}$, the limit you write holds. Then, the closure $\overline{\mathcal{F}}$ of $\mathcal{F}$ in $L^1(\Bbb{R})$ has the same property as well, this is because for any $\phi\in \overline{\mathcal{F}}$ and any $f\in \mathcal{F}$ and any $a\in\Bbb{R}$, we have \begin{align} \left|\int_{\Bbb{R}}\phi(x)\sin(ax)\,dx\right|&\leq \left|\int_{\Bbb{R}}\phi(x)\sin(ax)\,dx-\int_{\Bbb{R}}f(x)\sin(ax)\,dx\right|+\left|\int_{\Bbb{R}}f(x)\sin(ax)\,dx\right|\\ &\leq\|\phi-f\|_{L^1(\Bbb{R})}+\left|\int_{\Bbb{R}}f(x)\sin(ax)\right|. \end{align} First, take the $\limsup$ of both sides as $a\to\infty$ (we take $\limsup$ since $\lim$ might not exist) to get \begin{align} \limsup_{a\to\infty}\left|\int_{\Bbb{R}}\phi(x)\sin(ax)\,dx\right|&\leq \|\phi-f\|_{L^1(\Bbb{R})}+0. \end{align} Now, since $f\in\mathcal{F}$ was arbitrary, by taking a sequence $f_n\in \mathcal{F}$ which converges to $\phi$ in $L^1(\Bbb{R})$, the RHS vanishes, and so we get \begin{align} \limsup_{a\to\infty}\left|\int_{\Bbb{R}}\phi(x)\sin(ax)\,dx\right|&\leq 0. \end{align} The $\limsup$ is clearly also $\geq 0$, so it is equal to $0$. If the $\limsup$ of a non-negative quantity vanishes, then the limit exists and is also equal to $0$. Hence, we conclude that every function in $\overline{\mathcal{F}}$ has the quoted property. If you don’t like $\limsup$, then feel free to transcribe everything above into an $\epsilon$-$\delta$ type proof.

One more small observation we can make is that if a collection of functions has this limit property, then the linear span (i.e finite linear combinations) also has this property.

With this general observation in mind, we see that in order to prove the limit in question holds for all $L^1$ functions, it suffices to fix a subset $\mathcal{F}$, whose linear span is dense, and prove it for these functions. Some simple examples of such sets, for which proving the statement becomes easy are:

  • $\mathcal{F}$ being the set of indicator functions of intervals, i.e the set of all $\chi_{[\alpha,\beta]}$ with $\alpha,\beta\in\Bbb{R}$. Here, you can directly integrate and calculate the limit.
  • $\mathcal{F}$ being the subspace of Schwartz functions, or smooth compactly supported functions or $C^1_c$. Here, using integration by parts once, you can easily prove the limit is $0$.

There are some other tricks as well from proving the Riemann-Lebesgue lemma, but this idea of proving things for a dense class of objects, and then taking limits is a very common theme in analysis.

peek-a-boo
  • 55,725
  • 2
  • 45
  • 89
  • see also this answer of mine for some other stuff which I didn’t mention here. – peek-a-boo Jun 06 '23 at 21:11
  • Thank you. So I can show this is true for all indicator functions, and then explain why every element of L1 has this property? Is it well-known that the span is dense in L1? –  Jun 06 '23 at 21:16
  • @Rectangularprism you can easily show this is true for indicators of intervals. It is then obvious for finite linear combinations of such guys. What I showed is it must then also be true for the closure. To finish the argument, the only extra thing you need to know is that the closure of span of indicators of intervals is equal to all of $L^1$ (i.e the span of indicators of intervals is dense in $L^1$), and this is a very standard fact which you can google (actually I proved it partially in the link above). – peek-a-boo Jun 06 '23 at 21:18
  • One more obtuse question as I'm not very good at analysis. To show this is true for indicators, can I use the fact that they are simple functions and replace the integral with $\mu(\chi^{-1}(1))$? –  Jun 06 '23 at 21:26
  • No, $f$ might be an indicator, but don’t forget the trigonometric term; that makes the whole thing not a simple function. We have $\int_{\Bbb{R}}\chi_{[\alpha\beta]}\sin(ax),d\lambda(x)=\int_{[\alpha,\beta]}\sin(ax),d\lambda(x)$. The way you evaluate this integral is as always by the fundamental theorem of calculus (which is also true, in greater generality, for Lebesgue integrals), $\left[\frac{-\cos(ax)}{a}\right]_{\alpha}^{\beta}$, assuming $a\neq 0$. – peek-a-boo Jun 06 '23 at 21:27
  • Ah, so you'd get $\frac{-cos(a\beta)+cos(a\alpha)}{a}$. And since the top can't be any greater than 2, taking a to infinity sends the whole thing to zero. Got it! –  Jun 06 '23 at 21:37
  • 1
    yes, the key is we have a $\frac{1}{a}$. Now, try to do the same thing using the integration by parts I suggested. That also produces a factor of $\frac{1}{a}$ which helps out. – peek-a-boo Jun 06 '23 at 21:38
  • One more thing I'm confused about: what does closure mean in this context? Is it true that for a dense subset the closure is all of L1? Is that why this works? –  Jun 06 '23 at 21:42
  • 1
    look up the definitions. I’m not using them in a non-standard way. – peek-a-boo Jun 06 '23 at 21:42
  • Sure, sure. This was helpful; thanks again! –  Jun 06 '23 at 21:45
  • Returning to this, I'm now realizing that by closure you meant LITERAL topological closure with respect to the L1 norm! However, I cannot seem to find a proof online that the set of indicator functions is indeed dense in L1. Can you refer me to one, or perhaps help me to show it? –  Jun 07 '23 at 23:00
  • @Rectangularprism google it (something like “step functions dense in $L^1$”), or refer to the link above for some ideas. THis is a very standard result. – peek-a-boo Jun 07 '23 at 23:21
  • I'll take a look at the link. I have tried looking it up but can only seem to find results for the more general simple functions. –  Jun 07 '23 at 23:25
  • 1
    @Rectangularprism ok then my link above tells you how to go from simple functions (i.e involving arbitrary measurable sets) to step functions (i.e using only intervals). This was my second comment to you… – peek-a-boo Jun 07 '23 at 23:26
  • Ah, sorry, I didn't fully appreciate the comment before. –  Jun 07 '23 at 23:34