If $f$ is in $L^p$, prove that $lim_lambda to 0 lambda ^p omega(lambda) = 0$

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











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Suppose that $E subseteq mathbbR$ is measurable and that the measurable functions $f: E to mathbbR$ satisfies $int_E |f| ^p < infty$. If $omega$ is the distribution function of $f$, prove that $lim_lambda to 0 lambda ^p omega(lambda) = 0$.



I'm completely lost. How do I solve this problem?







share|cite|improve this question




















  • By "distribution function of $f$", do you mean $omega(lambda) = mu left(left xin E : lvert f(x)rvert geqslant lambdarightright)$ where $mu$ is the measure under consideration (probably Lebesgue measure), or what?
    – Daniel Fischer♦
    Oct 30 '14 at 14:12















up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Suppose that $E subseteq mathbbR$ is measurable and that the measurable functions $f: E to mathbbR$ satisfies $int_E |f| ^p < infty$. If $omega$ is the distribution function of $f$, prove that $lim_lambda to 0 lambda ^p omega(lambda) = 0$.



I'm completely lost. How do I solve this problem?







share|cite|improve this question




















  • By "distribution function of $f$", do you mean $omega(lambda) = mu left(left xin E : lvert f(x)rvert geqslant lambdarightright)$ where $mu$ is the measure under consideration (probably Lebesgue measure), or what?
    – Daniel Fischer♦
    Oct 30 '14 at 14:12













up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











Suppose that $E subseteq mathbbR$ is measurable and that the measurable functions $f: E to mathbbR$ satisfies $int_E |f| ^p < infty$. If $omega$ is the distribution function of $f$, prove that $lim_lambda to 0 lambda ^p omega(lambda) = 0$.



I'm completely lost. How do I solve this problem?







share|cite|improve this question












Suppose that $E subseteq mathbbR$ is measurable and that the measurable functions $f: E to mathbbR$ satisfies $int_E |f| ^p < infty$. If $omega$ is the distribution function of $f$, prove that $lim_lambda to 0 lambda ^p omega(lambda) = 0$.



I'm completely lost. How do I solve this problem?









share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Oct 30 '14 at 13:16









Johanna

4,68941539




4,68941539











  • By "distribution function of $f$", do you mean $omega(lambda) = mu left(left xin E : lvert f(x)rvert geqslant lambdarightright)$ where $mu$ is the measure under consideration (probably Lebesgue measure), or what?
    – Daniel Fischer♦
    Oct 30 '14 at 14:12

















  • By "distribution function of $f$", do you mean $omega(lambda) = mu left(left xin E : lvert f(x)rvert geqslant lambdarightright)$ where $mu$ is the measure under consideration (probably Lebesgue measure), or what?
    – Daniel Fischer♦
    Oct 30 '14 at 14:12
















By "distribution function of $f$", do you mean $omega(lambda) = mu left(left xin E : lvert f(x)rvert geqslant lambdarightright)$ where $mu$ is the measure under consideration (probably Lebesgue measure), or what?
– Daniel Fischer♦
Oct 30 '14 at 14:12





By "distribution function of $f$", do you mean $omega(lambda) = mu left(left xin E : lvert f(x)rvert geqslant lambdarightright)$ where $mu$ is the measure under consideration (probably Lebesgue measure), or what?
– Daniel Fischer♦
Oct 30 '14 at 14:12











2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote



accepted










We define $omega(lambda) = mu(f(x))$, then $lambda^p omega(lambda) to 0$ when $lambda to +infty$ is well known, since
$$lambda^p omega(lambda) leq int_E |f|^p1_geqlambda$$



It's interesting to see the convergence still holds when $lambda to 0$:



Take $lambda_n downarrow 0$, then we remark that



$$int_E |f|^p geq sum_n |lambda_n+1|^pleft(omega(lambda_n+1) - omega(lambda_n))right) = sum_n (lambda_n^p - lambda_n+1^p)omega(lambda_n)$$



Then for any $epsilon >0$, $exists N$ such that for all $k > N$ $$sum_n=k^infty (lambda_n^p - lambda_n+1^p)omega(lambda_n) < epsilon$$



Then remark that $omega(lambda_n) geq omega(lambda_k), forall n geq k$, so



$$sum_n=k^infty (lambda_n^p - lambda_n+1^p)omega(lambda_k) < epsilon$$



i.e. $$lambda_k^pomega(lambda_k)< epsilon, forall k > N$$



It's esay to complete the proof from here(suppose the conclusion is not true, then exists $lambda_n$ such that blabla, and $lambda_n$ has a decreasing subsequence, then apply what's above to get a contradiction.)






share|cite|improve this answer





























    up vote
    1
    down vote













    Here is another proof, using the identity $$pint_0^infty lambda^p-1 omega(lambda) , d lambda = int_E |f|^p , dm$$ which one can prove with Fubini-Tonelli. If $fin L^p$, then the integral on the left converges; making the change of variables $lambda = 1/t$, we have $$int_0^infty lambda^p-1 omega(lambda) , d lambda = int_infty^0 frac1t^p-1 omegaleft(frac1t right) frac-1t^2 , dt = int_0^infty frac1t^p+1 omegaleft(frac1t right) , dt$$ Since this integral converges, and the function is nonnegative, we have $lim_c to infty int_c^infty t^-(p+1) omega(t^-1) , dt =0$.



    On the other hand, we can bound $$int_c^infty t^-(p+1) omega(t^-1) > int_c^infty t^-(p+1), dt cdot omega(1/c) = frac1pc^-p omega(1/c)$$ Taking $ctoinfty$ gives the desired result by squeezing.






    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%2f998230%2fif-f-is-in-lp-prove-that-lim-lambda-to-0-lambda-p-omega-lambda%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



      accepted










      We define $omega(lambda) = mu(f(x))$, then $lambda^p omega(lambda) to 0$ when $lambda to +infty$ is well known, since
      $$lambda^p omega(lambda) leq int_E |f|^p1_geqlambda$$



      It's interesting to see the convergence still holds when $lambda to 0$:



      Take $lambda_n downarrow 0$, then we remark that



      $$int_E |f|^p geq sum_n |lambda_n+1|^pleft(omega(lambda_n+1) - omega(lambda_n))right) = sum_n (lambda_n^p - lambda_n+1^p)omega(lambda_n)$$



      Then for any $epsilon >0$, $exists N$ such that for all $k > N$ $$sum_n=k^infty (lambda_n^p - lambda_n+1^p)omega(lambda_n) < epsilon$$



      Then remark that $omega(lambda_n) geq omega(lambda_k), forall n geq k$, so



      $$sum_n=k^infty (lambda_n^p - lambda_n+1^p)omega(lambda_k) < epsilon$$



      i.e. $$lambda_k^pomega(lambda_k)< epsilon, forall k > N$$



      It's esay to complete the proof from here(suppose the conclusion is not true, then exists $lambda_n$ such that blabla, and $lambda_n$ has a decreasing subsequence, then apply what's above to get a contradiction.)






      share|cite|improve this answer


























        up vote
        1
        down vote



        accepted










        We define $omega(lambda) = mu(f(x))$, then $lambda^p omega(lambda) to 0$ when $lambda to +infty$ is well known, since
        $$lambda^p omega(lambda) leq int_E |f|^p1_geqlambda$$



        It's interesting to see the convergence still holds when $lambda to 0$:



        Take $lambda_n downarrow 0$, then we remark that



        $$int_E |f|^p geq sum_n |lambda_n+1|^pleft(omega(lambda_n+1) - omega(lambda_n))right) = sum_n (lambda_n^p - lambda_n+1^p)omega(lambda_n)$$



        Then for any $epsilon >0$, $exists N$ such that for all $k > N$ $$sum_n=k^infty (lambda_n^p - lambda_n+1^p)omega(lambda_n) < epsilon$$



        Then remark that $omega(lambda_n) geq omega(lambda_k), forall n geq k$, so



        $$sum_n=k^infty (lambda_n^p - lambda_n+1^p)omega(lambda_k) < epsilon$$



        i.e. $$lambda_k^pomega(lambda_k)< epsilon, forall k > N$$



        It's esay to complete the proof from here(suppose the conclusion is not true, then exists $lambda_n$ such that blabla, and $lambda_n$ has a decreasing subsequence, then apply what's above to get a contradiction.)






        share|cite|improve this answer
























          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted






          We define $omega(lambda) = mu(f(x))$, then $lambda^p omega(lambda) to 0$ when $lambda to +infty$ is well known, since
          $$lambda^p omega(lambda) leq int_E |f|^p1_geqlambda$$



          It's interesting to see the convergence still holds when $lambda to 0$:



          Take $lambda_n downarrow 0$, then we remark that



          $$int_E |f|^p geq sum_n |lambda_n+1|^pleft(omega(lambda_n+1) - omega(lambda_n))right) = sum_n (lambda_n^p - lambda_n+1^p)omega(lambda_n)$$



          Then for any $epsilon >0$, $exists N$ such that for all $k > N$ $$sum_n=k^infty (lambda_n^p - lambda_n+1^p)omega(lambda_n) < epsilon$$



          Then remark that $omega(lambda_n) geq omega(lambda_k), forall n geq k$, so



          $$sum_n=k^infty (lambda_n^p - lambda_n+1^p)omega(lambda_k) < epsilon$$



          i.e. $$lambda_k^pomega(lambda_k)< epsilon, forall k > N$$



          It's esay to complete the proof from here(suppose the conclusion is not true, then exists $lambda_n$ such that blabla, and $lambda_n$ has a decreasing subsequence, then apply what's above to get a contradiction.)






          share|cite|improve this answer














          We define $omega(lambda) = mu(f(x))$, then $lambda^p omega(lambda) to 0$ when $lambda to +infty$ is well known, since
          $$lambda^p omega(lambda) leq int_E |f|^p1_geqlambda$$



          It's interesting to see the convergence still holds when $lambda to 0$:



          Take $lambda_n downarrow 0$, then we remark that



          $$int_E |f|^p geq sum_n |lambda_n+1|^pleft(omega(lambda_n+1) - omega(lambda_n))right) = sum_n (lambda_n^p - lambda_n+1^p)omega(lambda_n)$$



          Then for any $epsilon >0$, $exists N$ such that for all $k > N$ $$sum_n=k^infty (lambda_n^p - lambda_n+1^p)omega(lambda_n) < epsilon$$



          Then remark that $omega(lambda_n) geq omega(lambda_k), forall n geq k$, so



          $$sum_n=k^infty (lambda_n^p - lambda_n+1^p)omega(lambda_k) < epsilon$$



          i.e. $$lambda_k^pomega(lambda_k)< epsilon, forall k > N$$



          It's esay to complete the proof from here(suppose the conclusion is not true, then exists $lambda_n$ such that blabla, and $lambda_n$ has a decreasing subsequence, then apply what's above to get a contradiction.)







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Oct 30 '14 at 14:47

























          answered Oct 30 '14 at 13:47









          Petite Etincelle

          12.2k11946




          12.2k11946




















              up vote
              1
              down vote













              Here is another proof, using the identity $$pint_0^infty lambda^p-1 omega(lambda) , d lambda = int_E |f|^p , dm$$ which one can prove with Fubini-Tonelli. If $fin L^p$, then the integral on the left converges; making the change of variables $lambda = 1/t$, we have $$int_0^infty lambda^p-1 omega(lambda) , d lambda = int_infty^0 frac1t^p-1 omegaleft(frac1t right) frac-1t^2 , dt = int_0^infty frac1t^p+1 omegaleft(frac1t right) , dt$$ Since this integral converges, and the function is nonnegative, we have $lim_c to infty int_c^infty t^-(p+1) omega(t^-1) , dt =0$.



              On the other hand, we can bound $$int_c^infty t^-(p+1) omega(t^-1) > int_c^infty t^-(p+1), dt cdot omega(1/c) = frac1pc^-p omega(1/c)$$ Taking $ctoinfty$ gives the desired result by squeezing.






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                up vote
                1
                down vote













                Here is another proof, using the identity $$pint_0^infty lambda^p-1 omega(lambda) , d lambda = int_E |f|^p , dm$$ which one can prove with Fubini-Tonelli. If $fin L^p$, then the integral on the left converges; making the change of variables $lambda = 1/t$, we have $$int_0^infty lambda^p-1 omega(lambda) , d lambda = int_infty^0 frac1t^p-1 omegaleft(frac1t right) frac-1t^2 , dt = int_0^infty frac1t^p+1 omegaleft(frac1t right) , dt$$ Since this integral converges, and the function is nonnegative, we have $lim_c to infty int_c^infty t^-(p+1) omega(t^-1) , dt =0$.



                On the other hand, we can bound $$int_c^infty t^-(p+1) omega(t^-1) > int_c^infty t^-(p+1), dt cdot omega(1/c) = frac1pc^-p omega(1/c)$$ Taking $ctoinfty$ gives the desired result by squeezing.






                share|cite|improve this answer






















                  up vote
                  1
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  1
                  down vote









                  Here is another proof, using the identity $$pint_0^infty lambda^p-1 omega(lambda) , d lambda = int_E |f|^p , dm$$ which one can prove with Fubini-Tonelli. If $fin L^p$, then the integral on the left converges; making the change of variables $lambda = 1/t$, we have $$int_0^infty lambda^p-1 omega(lambda) , d lambda = int_infty^0 frac1t^p-1 omegaleft(frac1t right) frac-1t^2 , dt = int_0^infty frac1t^p+1 omegaleft(frac1t right) , dt$$ Since this integral converges, and the function is nonnegative, we have $lim_c to infty int_c^infty t^-(p+1) omega(t^-1) , dt =0$.



                  On the other hand, we can bound $$int_c^infty t^-(p+1) omega(t^-1) > int_c^infty t^-(p+1), dt cdot omega(1/c) = frac1pc^-p omega(1/c)$$ Taking $ctoinfty$ gives the desired result by squeezing.






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  Here is another proof, using the identity $$pint_0^infty lambda^p-1 omega(lambda) , d lambda = int_E |f|^p , dm$$ which one can prove with Fubini-Tonelli. If $fin L^p$, then the integral on the left converges; making the change of variables $lambda = 1/t$, we have $$int_0^infty lambda^p-1 omega(lambda) , d lambda = int_infty^0 frac1t^p-1 omegaleft(frac1t right) frac-1t^2 , dt = int_0^infty frac1t^p+1 omegaleft(frac1t right) , dt$$ Since this integral converges, and the function is nonnegative, we have $lim_c to infty int_c^infty t^-(p+1) omega(t^-1) , dt =0$.



                  On the other hand, we can bound $$int_c^infty t^-(p+1) omega(t^-1) > int_c^infty t^-(p+1), dt cdot omega(1/c) = frac1pc^-p omega(1/c)$$ Taking $ctoinfty$ gives the desired result by squeezing.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Aug 29 at 4:41









                  Sameer Kailasa

                  5,37621743




                  5,37621743



























                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded















































                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f998230%2fif-f-is-in-lp-prove-that-lim-lambda-to-0-lambda-p-omega-lambda%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest













































































                      這個網誌中的熱門文章

                      tkz-euclide: tkzDrawCircle[R] not working

                      How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

                      1st Magritte Awards