Checking whether $f_n$ has a convergent subsequence in $L^2$-norm.
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
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.
general-topology functional-analysis
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
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.
general-topology functional-analysis
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
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.
general-topology functional-analysis
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.
general-topology functional-analysis
asked Aug 21 at 10:13
Indrajit Ghosh
763515
763515
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
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.
add a comment |Â
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.
add a comment |Â
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.
add a comment |Â
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.
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.
answered Aug 21 at 10:25
Keen-ameteur
726213
726213
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%2f2889706%2fchecking-whether-f-n-has-a-convergent-subsequence-in-l2-norm%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