DMCT $int fdmu=lim_ntoinfty int f_n dmu$ equivalent to $lim_ntoinftyint mid f_n -f mid dmu=0$?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












Let $f$ and $f_n$ measurable numeric functions, $nin mathbb N$ and $f=lim_ntoinftyf_n$ a.e. and suppose an integrable $gge 0 $ exists with $mid f_n mid le g$ a.e. Then $f$ and $f_n$ are integrable with $lim_ntoinftyint mid f_n -f mid dmu=0$.



i) Why is this equivalent to $int fdmu=lim_ntoinfty int f_n dmu$?



ii) And why can one suppose in the proof of this statement (DMCT) that $f$ and $f_n$ are real valued?







share|cite|improve this question




















  • What does "DMCT" stand for here? People sometimes write "DCT" for "dominated convergence theorem" but the M has me stumped...
    – David C. Ullrich
    Aug 13 at 14:39










  • yes I mean Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem
    – Joey Doey
    Aug 13 at 15:41










  • Right. So why is it "DMCT"? What does the M stand for?
    – David C. Ullrich
    Aug 13 at 15:44










  • I think it was a typo. Actaully I mean DCT
    – Joey Doey
    Aug 13 at 16:32














up vote
0
down vote

favorite












Let $f$ and $f_n$ measurable numeric functions, $nin mathbb N$ and $f=lim_ntoinftyf_n$ a.e. and suppose an integrable $gge 0 $ exists with $mid f_n mid le g$ a.e. Then $f$ and $f_n$ are integrable with $lim_ntoinftyint mid f_n -f mid dmu=0$.



i) Why is this equivalent to $int fdmu=lim_ntoinfty int f_n dmu$?



ii) And why can one suppose in the proof of this statement (DMCT) that $f$ and $f_n$ are real valued?







share|cite|improve this question




















  • What does "DMCT" stand for here? People sometimes write "DCT" for "dominated convergence theorem" but the M has me stumped...
    – David C. Ullrich
    Aug 13 at 14:39










  • yes I mean Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem
    – Joey Doey
    Aug 13 at 15:41










  • Right. So why is it "DMCT"? What does the M stand for?
    – David C. Ullrich
    Aug 13 at 15:44










  • I think it was a typo. Actaully I mean DCT
    – Joey Doey
    Aug 13 at 16:32












up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











Let $f$ and $f_n$ measurable numeric functions, $nin mathbb N$ and $f=lim_ntoinftyf_n$ a.e. and suppose an integrable $gge 0 $ exists with $mid f_n mid le g$ a.e. Then $f$ and $f_n$ are integrable with $lim_ntoinftyint mid f_n -f mid dmu=0$.



i) Why is this equivalent to $int fdmu=lim_ntoinfty int f_n dmu$?



ii) And why can one suppose in the proof of this statement (DMCT) that $f$ and $f_n$ are real valued?







share|cite|improve this question












Let $f$ and $f_n$ measurable numeric functions, $nin mathbb N$ and $f=lim_ntoinftyf_n$ a.e. and suppose an integrable $gge 0 $ exists with $mid f_n mid le g$ a.e. Then $f$ and $f_n$ are integrable with $lim_ntoinftyint mid f_n -f mid dmu=0$.



i) Why is this equivalent to $int fdmu=lim_ntoinfty int f_n dmu$?



ii) And why can one suppose in the proof of this statement (DMCT) that $f$ and $f_n$ are real valued?









share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Aug 13 at 11:08









Joey Doey

628




628











  • What does "DMCT" stand for here? People sometimes write "DCT" for "dominated convergence theorem" but the M has me stumped...
    – David C. Ullrich
    Aug 13 at 14:39










  • yes I mean Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem
    – Joey Doey
    Aug 13 at 15:41










  • Right. So why is it "DMCT"? What does the M stand for?
    – David C. Ullrich
    Aug 13 at 15:44










  • I think it was a typo. Actaully I mean DCT
    – Joey Doey
    Aug 13 at 16:32
















  • What does "DMCT" stand for here? People sometimes write "DCT" for "dominated convergence theorem" but the M has me stumped...
    – David C. Ullrich
    Aug 13 at 14:39










  • yes I mean Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem
    – Joey Doey
    Aug 13 at 15:41










  • Right. So why is it "DMCT"? What does the M stand for?
    – David C. Ullrich
    Aug 13 at 15:44










  • I think it was a typo. Actaully I mean DCT
    – Joey Doey
    Aug 13 at 16:32















What does "DMCT" stand for here? People sometimes write "DCT" for "dominated convergence theorem" but the M has me stumped...
– David C. Ullrich
Aug 13 at 14:39




What does "DMCT" stand for here? People sometimes write "DCT" for "dominated convergence theorem" but the M has me stumped...
– David C. Ullrich
Aug 13 at 14:39












yes I mean Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem
– Joey Doey
Aug 13 at 15:41




yes I mean Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem
– Joey Doey
Aug 13 at 15:41












Right. So why is it "DMCT"? What does the M stand for?
– David C. Ullrich
Aug 13 at 15:44




Right. So why is it "DMCT"? What does the M stand for?
– David C. Ullrich
Aug 13 at 15:44












I think it was a typo. Actaully I mean DCT
– Joey Doey
Aug 13 at 16:32




I think it was a typo. Actaully I mean DCT
– Joey Doey
Aug 13 at 16:32










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote













Saying $limint|f-f_n|=0$ is not equivalent to saying $limint f_n=int f$ in general. The first implies the second (since $|int f_n-int f|=|int(f_n-f)|leint|f_n-f|$) but not conversely.



Wondering where you could have got the idea that they were equivalent, I think I got it. The following two theorems are equivalent:





Thm 1. Suppose $f_nto f$ almost everywhere, $gge0$, $int g<infty$, and $|f_n|le g$. Then $int f_ntoint f$.



Thm 2. Suppose $f_nto f$ almost everywhere, $gge0$, $int g<infty$, and $|f_n|le g$. Then $int|f_n-f|to0$.





Note that saying the theorems are equivalent does not say that the conclusions of the theorems are equivalent.



It's trivial that Theorem 2 implies Theorem 1. Since I suspect that showing the two theorems are equivalent was a homework problem, I'll just give a huge hint how to show that Theorem 1 implies Theorem 2:



Suppose Theorem 1. Suppose $f_nto f$ almost everywhere, $gge0$, $|f_n|le g$, and $int g<infty$. Let $F_n=???$ and let $G=???$. Then $F_nto F$ almost everywhere, where $F=???$. Also $Gge0$, $|F_n|le G$, and $int G<infty$. So Theorem 1 implies that $int F_ntoint F$, and it follows that $int|f_n-f|to0$.



(That does not show that $int f_ntoint f$ and $int|f_n-f|to0$ are equivalent, because in deriving Theorem 2 from Theorem 1 we applied Theorem 1 to the sequence $(F_n)$, not to the seqence $(f_n)$.)






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • I encountered this problem when I was working on DMCT, sometimes the statement only from Thm 1. is stated and sometimes both Thm 1. and Thm 2., but thanks for your answer anyway
    – Joey Doey
    Aug 13 at 15:40


















up vote
0
down vote













1)



First, note that



$$left| int f_n - int f right|leq int left|f_n-f right|$$



Thus,



$$lim_nrightarrow inftyint |f_n-f|=0implies lim_nrightarrow inftyint f_n = int f $$



Conversely, note that



$$|f_n-f|leq 2g $$



and that



$$lim_nrightarrow infty |f_n-f|=0$$



Then by DMCT,



$$lim_nrightarrow inftyint|f_n-f| = int 0 = 0 .$$



2) Use that



$$int f = int Re(f) + iint Im(f)$$



and that



$$lim_nrightarrow infty z_n= lim_nrightarrow inftyRe(z_n)+ilim_nrightarrow inftyIm(z_n).$$






share|cite|improve this answer






















    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',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: false,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );








     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2881254%2fdmct-int-fd-mu-lim-n-to-infty-int-f-n-d-mu-equivalent-to-lim-n-to-inft%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest






























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    1
    down vote













    Saying $limint|f-f_n|=0$ is not equivalent to saying $limint f_n=int f$ in general. The first implies the second (since $|int f_n-int f|=|int(f_n-f)|leint|f_n-f|$) but not conversely.



    Wondering where you could have got the idea that they were equivalent, I think I got it. The following two theorems are equivalent:





    Thm 1. Suppose $f_nto f$ almost everywhere, $gge0$, $int g<infty$, and $|f_n|le g$. Then $int f_ntoint f$.



    Thm 2. Suppose $f_nto f$ almost everywhere, $gge0$, $int g<infty$, and $|f_n|le g$. Then $int|f_n-f|to0$.





    Note that saying the theorems are equivalent does not say that the conclusions of the theorems are equivalent.



    It's trivial that Theorem 2 implies Theorem 1. Since I suspect that showing the two theorems are equivalent was a homework problem, I'll just give a huge hint how to show that Theorem 1 implies Theorem 2:



    Suppose Theorem 1. Suppose $f_nto f$ almost everywhere, $gge0$, $|f_n|le g$, and $int g<infty$. Let $F_n=???$ and let $G=???$. Then $F_nto F$ almost everywhere, where $F=???$. Also $Gge0$, $|F_n|le G$, and $int G<infty$. So Theorem 1 implies that $int F_ntoint F$, and it follows that $int|f_n-f|to0$.



    (That does not show that $int f_ntoint f$ and $int|f_n-f|to0$ are equivalent, because in deriving Theorem 2 from Theorem 1 we applied Theorem 1 to the sequence $(F_n)$, not to the seqence $(f_n)$.)






    share|cite|improve this answer






















    • I encountered this problem when I was working on DMCT, sometimes the statement only from Thm 1. is stated and sometimes both Thm 1. and Thm 2., but thanks for your answer anyway
      – Joey Doey
      Aug 13 at 15:40















    up vote
    1
    down vote













    Saying $limint|f-f_n|=0$ is not equivalent to saying $limint f_n=int f$ in general. The first implies the second (since $|int f_n-int f|=|int(f_n-f)|leint|f_n-f|$) but not conversely.



    Wondering where you could have got the idea that they were equivalent, I think I got it. The following two theorems are equivalent:





    Thm 1. Suppose $f_nto f$ almost everywhere, $gge0$, $int g<infty$, and $|f_n|le g$. Then $int f_ntoint f$.



    Thm 2. Suppose $f_nto f$ almost everywhere, $gge0$, $int g<infty$, and $|f_n|le g$. Then $int|f_n-f|to0$.





    Note that saying the theorems are equivalent does not say that the conclusions of the theorems are equivalent.



    It's trivial that Theorem 2 implies Theorem 1. Since I suspect that showing the two theorems are equivalent was a homework problem, I'll just give a huge hint how to show that Theorem 1 implies Theorem 2:



    Suppose Theorem 1. Suppose $f_nto f$ almost everywhere, $gge0$, $|f_n|le g$, and $int g<infty$. Let $F_n=???$ and let $G=???$. Then $F_nto F$ almost everywhere, where $F=???$. Also $Gge0$, $|F_n|le G$, and $int G<infty$. So Theorem 1 implies that $int F_ntoint F$, and it follows that $int|f_n-f|to0$.



    (That does not show that $int f_ntoint f$ and $int|f_n-f|to0$ are equivalent, because in deriving Theorem 2 from Theorem 1 we applied Theorem 1 to the sequence $(F_n)$, not to the seqence $(f_n)$.)






    share|cite|improve this answer






















    • I encountered this problem when I was working on DMCT, sometimes the statement only from Thm 1. is stated and sometimes both Thm 1. and Thm 2., but thanks for your answer anyway
      – Joey Doey
      Aug 13 at 15:40













    up vote
    1
    down vote










    up vote
    1
    down vote









    Saying $limint|f-f_n|=0$ is not equivalent to saying $limint f_n=int f$ in general. The first implies the second (since $|int f_n-int f|=|int(f_n-f)|leint|f_n-f|$) but not conversely.



    Wondering where you could have got the idea that they were equivalent, I think I got it. The following two theorems are equivalent:





    Thm 1. Suppose $f_nto f$ almost everywhere, $gge0$, $int g<infty$, and $|f_n|le g$. Then $int f_ntoint f$.



    Thm 2. Suppose $f_nto f$ almost everywhere, $gge0$, $int g<infty$, and $|f_n|le g$. Then $int|f_n-f|to0$.





    Note that saying the theorems are equivalent does not say that the conclusions of the theorems are equivalent.



    It's trivial that Theorem 2 implies Theorem 1. Since I suspect that showing the two theorems are equivalent was a homework problem, I'll just give a huge hint how to show that Theorem 1 implies Theorem 2:



    Suppose Theorem 1. Suppose $f_nto f$ almost everywhere, $gge0$, $|f_n|le g$, and $int g<infty$. Let $F_n=???$ and let $G=???$. Then $F_nto F$ almost everywhere, where $F=???$. Also $Gge0$, $|F_n|le G$, and $int G<infty$. So Theorem 1 implies that $int F_ntoint F$, and it follows that $int|f_n-f|to0$.



    (That does not show that $int f_ntoint f$ and $int|f_n-f|to0$ are equivalent, because in deriving Theorem 2 from Theorem 1 we applied Theorem 1 to the sequence $(F_n)$, not to the seqence $(f_n)$.)






    share|cite|improve this answer














    Saying $limint|f-f_n|=0$ is not equivalent to saying $limint f_n=int f$ in general. The first implies the second (since $|int f_n-int f|=|int(f_n-f)|leint|f_n-f|$) but not conversely.



    Wondering where you could have got the idea that they were equivalent, I think I got it. The following two theorems are equivalent:





    Thm 1. Suppose $f_nto f$ almost everywhere, $gge0$, $int g<infty$, and $|f_n|le g$. Then $int f_ntoint f$.



    Thm 2. Suppose $f_nto f$ almost everywhere, $gge0$, $int g<infty$, and $|f_n|le g$. Then $int|f_n-f|to0$.





    Note that saying the theorems are equivalent does not say that the conclusions of the theorems are equivalent.



    It's trivial that Theorem 2 implies Theorem 1. Since I suspect that showing the two theorems are equivalent was a homework problem, I'll just give a huge hint how to show that Theorem 1 implies Theorem 2:



    Suppose Theorem 1. Suppose $f_nto f$ almost everywhere, $gge0$, $|f_n|le g$, and $int g<infty$. Let $F_n=???$ and let $G=???$. Then $F_nto F$ almost everywhere, where $F=???$. Also $Gge0$, $|F_n|le G$, and $int G<infty$. So Theorem 1 implies that $int F_ntoint F$, and it follows that $int|f_n-f|to0$.



    (That does not show that $int f_ntoint f$ and $int|f_n-f|to0$ are equivalent, because in deriving Theorem 2 from Theorem 1 we applied Theorem 1 to the sequence $(F_n)$, not to the seqence $(f_n)$.)







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited Aug 13 at 14:59

























    answered Aug 13 at 14:38









    David C. Ullrich

    54.8k33685




    54.8k33685











    • I encountered this problem when I was working on DMCT, sometimes the statement only from Thm 1. is stated and sometimes both Thm 1. and Thm 2., but thanks for your answer anyway
      – Joey Doey
      Aug 13 at 15:40

















    • I encountered this problem when I was working on DMCT, sometimes the statement only from Thm 1. is stated and sometimes both Thm 1. and Thm 2., but thanks for your answer anyway
      – Joey Doey
      Aug 13 at 15:40
















    I encountered this problem when I was working on DMCT, sometimes the statement only from Thm 1. is stated and sometimes both Thm 1. and Thm 2., but thanks for your answer anyway
    – Joey Doey
    Aug 13 at 15:40





    I encountered this problem when I was working on DMCT, sometimes the statement only from Thm 1. is stated and sometimes both Thm 1. and Thm 2., but thanks for your answer anyway
    – Joey Doey
    Aug 13 at 15:40











    up vote
    0
    down vote













    1)



    First, note that



    $$left| int f_n - int f right|leq int left|f_n-f right|$$



    Thus,



    $$lim_nrightarrow inftyint |f_n-f|=0implies lim_nrightarrow inftyint f_n = int f $$



    Conversely, note that



    $$|f_n-f|leq 2g $$



    and that



    $$lim_nrightarrow infty |f_n-f|=0$$



    Then by DMCT,



    $$lim_nrightarrow inftyint|f_n-f| = int 0 = 0 .$$



    2) Use that



    $$int f = int Re(f) + iint Im(f)$$



    and that



    $$lim_nrightarrow infty z_n= lim_nrightarrow inftyRe(z_n)+ilim_nrightarrow inftyIm(z_n).$$






    share|cite|improve this answer


























      up vote
      0
      down vote













      1)



      First, note that



      $$left| int f_n - int f right|leq int left|f_n-f right|$$



      Thus,



      $$lim_nrightarrow inftyint |f_n-f|=0implies lim_nrightarrow inftyint f_n = int f $$



      Conversely, note that



      $$|f_n-f|leq 2g $$



      and that



      $$lim_nrightarrow infty |f_n-f|=0$$



      Then by DMCT,



      $$lim_nrightarrow inftyint|f_n-f| = int 0 = 0 .$$



      2) Use that



      $$int f = int Re(f) + iint Im(f)$$



      and that



      $$lim_nrightarrow infty z_n= lim_nrightarrow inftyRe(z_n)+ilim_nrightarrow inftyIm(z_n).$$






      share|cite|improve this answer
























        up vote
        0
        down vote










        up vote
        0
        down vote









        1)



        First, note that



        $$left| int f_n - int f right|leq int left|f_n-f right|$$



        Thus,



        $$lim_nrightarrow inftyint |f_n-f|=0implies lim_nrightarrow inftyint f_n = int f $$



        Conversely, note that



        $$|f_n-f|leq 2g $$



        and that



        $$lim_nrightarrow infty |f_n-f|=0$$



        Then by DMCT,



        $$lim_nrightarrow inftyint|f_n-f| = int 0 = 0 .$$



        2) Use that



        $$int f = int Re(f) + iint Im(f)$$



        and that



        $$lim_nrightarrow infty z_n= lim_nrightarrow inftyRe(z_n)+ilim_nrightarrow inftyIm(z_n).$$






        share|cite|improve this answer














        1)



        First, note that



        $$left| int f_n - int f right|leq int left|f_n-f right|$$



        Thus,



        $$lim_nrightarrow inftyint |f_n-f|=0implies lim_nrightarrow inftyint f_n = int f $$



        Conversely, note that



        $$|f_n-f|leq 2g $$



        and that



        $$lim_nrightarrow infty |f_n-f|=0$$



        Then by DMCT,



        $$lim_nrightarrow inftyint|f_n-f| = int 0 = 0 .$$



        2) Use that



        $$int f = int Re(f) + iint Im(f)$$



        and that



        $$lim_nrightarrow infty z_n= lim_nrightarrow inftyRe(z_n)+ilim_nrightarrow inftyIm(z_n).$$







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Aug 13 at 13:16

























        answered Aug 13 at 11:35









        Lev Ban

        53016




        53016






















             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


























             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2881254%2fdmct-int-fd-mu-lim-n-to-infty-int-f-n-d-mu-equivalent-to-lim-n-to-inft%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest













































































            這個網誌中的熱門文章

            How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

            Mutual Information Always Non-negative

            Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?