DMCT $int fdmu=lim_ntoinfty int f_n dmu$ equivalent to $lim_ntoinftyint mid f_n -f mid dmu=0$?
Clash 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?
real-analysis integration measure-theory lebesgue-integral
add a comment |Â
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?
real-analysis integration measure-theory lebesgue-integral
What does "DMCT" stand for here? People sometimes write "DCT" for "dominated convergence theorem" but the M has me stumped...
â David C. Ullrich
Aug 13 at 14:39
yes I mean Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem
â Joey Doey
Aug 13 at 15:41
Right. So why is it "DMCT"? What does the M stand for?
â David C. Ullrich
Aug 13 at 15:44
I think it was a typo. Actaully I mean DCT
â Joey Doey
Aug 13 at 16:32
add a comment |Â
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?
real-analysis integration measure-theory lebesgue-integral
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?
real-analysis integration measure-theory lebesgue-integral
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...
â David C. Ullrich
Aug 13 at 14:39
yes I mean Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem
â Joey Doey
Aug 13 at 15:41
Right. So why is it "DMCT"? What does the M stand for?
â David C. Ullrich
Aug 13 at 15:44
I think it was a typo. Actaully I mean DCT
â Joey Doey
Aug 13 at 16:32
add a comment |Â
What does "DMCT" stand for here? People sometimes write "DCT" for "dominated convergence theorem" but the M has me stumped...
â David C. Ullrich
Aug 13 at 14:39
yes I mean Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem
â Joey Doey
Aug 13 at 15:41
Right. So why is it "DMCT"? What does the M stand for?
â David C. Ullrich
Aug 13 at 15:44
I think it was a typo. Actaully I mean DCT
â 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...
â 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...
â David C. Ullrich
Aug 13 at 14:39
yes I mean Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem
â Joey Doey
Aug 13 at 15:41
yes I mean Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem
â Joey Doey
Aug 13 at 15:41
Right. So why is it "DMCT"? What does the M stand for?
â David C. Ullrich
Aug 13 at 15:44
Right. So why is it "DMCT"? What does the M stand for?
â David C. Ullrich
Aug 13 at 15:44
I think it was a typo. Actaully I mean DCT
â Joey Doey
Aug 13 at 16:32
I think it was a typo. Actaully I mean DCT
â Joey Doey
Aug 13 at 16:32
add a comment |Â
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 $(f_n)$.)
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
â Joey Doey
Aug 13 at 15:40
add a comment |Â
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
$$lim_nrightarrow infty z_n= lim_nrightarrow inftyRe(z_n)+ilim_nrightarrow inftyIm(z_n).$$
add a comment |Â
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 $(f_n)$.)
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
â Joey Doey
Aug 13 at 15:40
add a comment |Â
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 $(f_n)$.)
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
â Joey Doey
Aug 13 at 15:40
add a comment |Â
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 $(f_n)$.)
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 $(f_n)$.)
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
â Joey Doey
Aug 13 at 15:40
add a comment |Â
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
â 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
â 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
â Joey Doey
Aug 13 at 15:40
add a comment |Â
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
$$lim_nrightarrow infty z_n= lim_nrightarrow inftyRe(z_n)+ilim_nrightarrow inftyIm(z_n).$$
add a comment |Â
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
$$lim_nrightarrow infty z_n= lim_nrightarrow inftyRe(z_n)+ilim_nrightarrow inftyIm(z_n).$$
add a comment |Â
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
$$lim_nrightarrow infty z_n= lim_nrightarrow inftyRe(z_n)+ilim_nrightarrow inftyIm(z_n).$$
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
$$lim_nrightarrow infty z_n= lim_nrightarrow inftyRe(z_n)+ilim_nrightarrow inftyIm(z_n).$$
edited Aug 13 at 13:16
answered Aug 13 at 11:35
Lev Ban
53016
53016
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
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
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
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
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
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
What does "DMCT" stand for here? People sometimes write "DCT" for "dominated convergence theorem" but the M has me stumped...
â David C. Ullrich
Aug 13 at 14:39
yes I mean Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem
â Joey Doey
Aug 13 at 15:41
Right. So why is it "DMCT"? What does the M stand for?
â David C. Ullrich
Aug 13 at 15:44
I think it was a typo. Actaully I mean DCT
â Joey Doey
Aug 13 at 16:32