Checking whether $f_n$ has a convergent subsequence in $L^2$-norm.

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











up vote
0
down vote

favorite
2













Question. (True/False) Let $V=C_c(mathbbR)$, the space of continuous functions on $mathbbR$ with continuous support endowed with the metric $$d(f,g)=(int_mathbbR|f(t)-g(t)|^2dt)^frac12$$
Let $f:mathbbRto mathbbR$ be a continuous function which vanishes outside the interval $[0,1]$. Define $f_n(x)=f(x-n)$ for $nin mathbbN$. Then $f_n$ has a convergent subsequence in $V$.




My attempt: Now here, $|f_n|_2=|f|_2$ for all $nin mathbbN$.Also $f_n$ is basically same as $f$, just shifted in the interval $[n,n+1]$ and outside this interval $f_n$ is zero.Hence, $lim_nto inftyf_n(x)=0$ for all $x in mathbbR$ (i.e., pointwise limit is zero function on $mathbbR$). Also $f_n$ is not uniformly convergent on $mathbbR$.



But how can I conclude the convergency of its subsequence in $| ~|_2$ norm? Please help. Thank you.







share|cite|improve this question
























    up vote
    0
    down vote

    favorite
    2













    Question. (True/False) Let $V=C_c(mathbbR)$, the space of continuous functions on $mathbbR$ with continuous support endowed with the metric $$d(f,g)=(int_mathbbR|f(t)-g(t)|^2dt)^frac12$$
    Let $f:mathbbRto mathbbR$ be a continuous function which vanishes outside the interval $[0,1]$. Define $f_n(x)=f(x-n)$ for $nin mathbbN$. Then $f_n$ has a convergent subsequence in $V$.




    My attempt: Now here, $|f_n|_2=|f|_2$ for all $nin mathbbN$.Also $f_n$ is basically same as $f$, just shifted in the interval $[n,n+1]$ and outside this interval $f_n$ is zero.Hence, $lim_nto inftyf_n(x)=0$ for all $x in mathbbR$ (i.e., pointwise limit is zero function on $mathbbR$). Also $f_n$ is not uniformly convergent on $mathbbR$.



    But how can I conclude the convergency of its subsequence in $| ~|_2$ norm? Please help. Thank you.







    share|cite|improve this question






















      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite
      2









      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite
      2






      2






      Question. (True/False) Let $V=C_c(mathbbR)$, the space of continuous functions on $mathbbR$ with continuous support endowed with the metric $$d(f,g)=(int_mathbbR|f(t)-g(t)|^2dt)^frac12$$
      Let $f:mathbbRto mathbbR$ be a continuous function which vanishes outside the interval $[0,1]$. Define $f_n(x)=f(x-n)$ for $nin mathbbN$. Then $f_n$ has a convergent subsequence in $V$.




      My attempt: Now here, $|f_n|_2=|f|_2$ for all $nin mathbbN$.Also $f_n$ is basically same as $f$, just shifted in the interval $[n,n+1]$ and outside this interval $f_n$ is zero.Hence, $lim_nto inftyf_n(x)=0$ for all $x in mathbbR$ (i.e., pointwise limit is zero function on $mathbbR$). Also $f_n$ is not uniformly convergent on $mathbbR$.



      But how can I conclude the convergency of its subsequence in $| ~|_2$ norm? Please help. Thank you.







      share|cite|improve this question













      Question. (True/False) Let $V=C_c(mathbbR)$, the space of continuous functions on $mathbbR$ with continuous support endowed with the metric $$d(f,g)=(int_mathbbR|f(t)-g(t)|^2dt)^frac12$$
      Let $f:mathbbRto mathbbR$ be a continuous function which vanishes outside the interval $[0,1]$. Define $f_n(x)=f(x-n)$ for $nin mathbbN$. Then $f_n$ has a convergent subsequence in $V$.




      My attempt: Now here, $|f_n|_2=|f|_2$ for all $nin mathbbN$.Also $f_n$ is basically same as $f$, just shifted in the interval $[n,n+1]$ and outside this interval $f_n$ is zero.Hence, $lim_nto inftyf_n(x)=0$ for all $x in mathbbR$ (i.e., pointwise limit is zero function on $mathbbR$). Also $f_n$ is not uniformly convergent on $mathbbR$.



      But how can I conclude the convergency of its subsequence in $| ~|_2$ norm? Please help. Thank you.









      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Aug 21 at 10:13









      Indrajit Ghosh

      763515




      763515




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          It would seem to me that you do not have convergent sub-sequence. If you were to prove that the distance between any two functions in the sequence is bounded from below, then there can't be a Cauchy sub-sequence, implying also there can't be a convergent sub-sequence.



          I would argue that since any two functions in the sequence are supported on 'disjoint' sets, then:



          $Vert f_n-f_mVert_2= sqrt Vert f_nVert_2^2+Vert f_m Vert_2^2 geq Vert fVert_2 $



          Should $f$ not be $0$, you have no Cauchy subsequence, and the statement is false.






          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%2f2889706%2fchecking-whether-f-n-has-a-convergent-subsequence-in-l2-norm%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest






























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            1
            down vote



            accepted










            It would seem to me that you do not have convergent sub-sequence. If you were to prove that the distance between any two functions in the sequence is bounded from below, then there can't be a Cauchy sub-sequence, implying also there can't be a convergent sub-sequence.



            I would argue that since any two functions in the sequence are supported on 'disjoint' sets, then:



            $Vert f_n-f_mVert_2= sqrt Vert f_nVert_2^2+Vert f_m Vert_2^2 geq Vert fVert_2 $



            Should $f$ not be $0$, you have no Cauchy subsequence, and the statement is false.






            share|cite|improve this answer
























              up vote
              1
              down vote



              accepted










              It would seem to me that you do not have convergent sub-sequence. If you were to prove that the distance between any two functions in the sequence is bounded from below, then there can't be a Cauchy sub-sequence, implying also there can't be a convergent sub-sequence.



              I would argue that since any two functions in the sequence are supported on 'disjoint' sets, then:



              $Vert f_n-f_mVert_2= sqrt Vert f_nVert_2^2+Vert f_m Vert_2^2 geq Vert fVert_2 $



              Should $f$ not be $0$, you have no Cauchy subsequence, and the statement is false.






              share|cite|improve this answer






















                up vote
                1
                down vote



                accepted







                up vote
                1
                down vote



                accepted






                It would seem to me that you do not have convergent sub-sequence. If you were to prove that the distance between any two functions in the sequence is bounded from below, then there can't be a Cauchy sub-sequence, implying also there can't be a convergent sub-sequence.



                I would argue that since any two functions in the sequence are supported on 'disjoint' sets, then:



                $Vert f_n-f_mVert_2= sqrt Vert f_nVert_2^2+Vert f_m Vert_2^2 geq Vert fVert_2 $



                Should $f$ not be $0$, you have no Cauchy subsequence, and the statement is false.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                It would seem to me that you do not have convergent sub-sequence. If you were to prove that the distance between any two functions in the sequence is bounded from below, then there can't be a Cauchy sub-sequence, implying also there can't be a convergent sub-sequence.



                I would argue that since any two functions in the sequence are supported on 'disjoint' sets, then:



                $Vert f_n-f_mVert_2= sqrt Vert f_nVert_2^2+Vert f_m Vert_2^2 geq Vert fVert_2 $



                Should $f$ not be $0$, you have no Cauchy subsequence, and the statement is false.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Aug 21 at 10:25









                Keen-ameteur

                726213




                726213






















                     

                    draft saved


                    draft discarded


























                     


                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2889706%2fchecking-whether-f-n-has-a-convergent-subsequence-in-l2-norm%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?