A small doubt about the dominated convergence theorem The Next CEO of Stack OverflowIs Lebesgue's Dominated Convergence Theorem a logical equivalence?Lebesgue's Dominated Convergence Theorem questionsExample about Dominated Convergence TheoremDominated Convergence TheoremNecessity of generalization of Dominated Convergence theoremSeeking counterexample for Dominated Convergence theoremHypothesis of dominated convergence theoremDominated convergence theorem vs continuityBartle's proof of Lebesgue Dominated Convergence TheoremTheorem similar to dominated convergence theorem
Planeswalker Ability and Death Timing
My boss doesn't want me to have a side project
Is it okay to majorly distort historical facts while writing a fiction story?
MT "will strike" & LXX "will watch carefully" (Gen 3:15)?
Why was Sir Cadogan fired?
Is it reasonable to ask other researchers to send me their previous grant applications?
Creating a script with console commands
Does int main() need a declaration on C++?
How do I keep Mac Emacs from trapping M-`?
How should I connect my cat5 cable to connectors having an orange-green line?
Calculate the Mean mean of two numbers
What does it mean 'exit 1' for a job status after rclone sync
How do I secure a TV wall mount?
Physiological effects of huge anime eyes
A hang glider, sudden unexpected lift to 25,000 feet altitude, what could do this?
Ising model simulation
Does Germany produce more waste than the US?
Find a path from s to t using as few red nodes as possible
Finitely generated matrix groups whose eigenvalues are all algebraic
How seriously should I take size and weight limits of hand luggage?
"Eavesdropping" vs "Listen in on"
Gauss' Posthumous Publications?
Cannot restore registry to default in Windows 10?
Why can't we say "I have been having a dog"?
A small doubt about the dominated convergence theorem
The Next CEO of Stack OverflowIs Lebesgue's Dominated Convergence Theorem a logical equivalence?Lebesgue's Dominated Convergence Theorem questionsExample about Dominated Convergence TheoremDominated Convergence TheoremNecessity of generalization of Dominated Convergence theoremSeeking counterexample for Dominated Convergence theoremHypothesis of dominated convergence theoremDominated convergence theorem vs continuityBartle's proof of Lebesgue Dominated Convergence TheoremTheorem similar to dominated convergence theorem
$begingroup$
Theorem $mathbfA.2.11$ (Dominated convergence). Let $f_n : X to mathbb R$ be a sequence of measurable functions and assume that there exists some integrable function $g : X to mathbb R$ such that $|f_n(x)| leq |g(x)|$ for $mu$-almost every $x$ in $X$. Assume moreover that the sequence $(f_n)_n$ converges at $mu$-almost every point to some function $f : X to mathbb R$. Then $f$ is integrable and satisfies $$lim_n int f_n , dmu = int f , dmu.$$
I wanted to know if in the hypothesis $|f_n(x)| leq|g(x)|$ above, if I already know that each $f_n$ is integrable, besides convergent, the theorem remains valid? Without me having to find this $g$ integrable?
measure-theory convergence lebesgue-integral
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Theorem $mathbfA.2.11$ (Dominated convergence). Let $f_n : X to mathbb R$ be a sequence of measurable functions and assume that there exists some integrable function $g : X to mathbb R$ such that $|f_n(x)| leq |g(x)|$ for $mu$-almost every $x$ in $X$. Assume moreover that the sequence $(f_n)_n$ converges at $mu$-almost every point to some function $f : X to mathbb R$. Then $f$ is integrable and satisfies $$lim_n int f_n , dmu = int f , dmu.$$
I wanted to know if in the hypothesis $|f_n(x)| leq|g(x)|$ above, if I already know that each $f_n$ is integrable, besides convergent, the theorem remains valid? Without me having to find this $g$ integrable?
measure-theory convergence lebesgue-integral
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
The dominating function $g$ is the whole point of the theorem. It's in the very name of the theorem.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Theorem $mathbfA.2.11$ (Dominated convergence). Let $f_n : X to mathbb R$ be a sequence of measurable functions and assume that there exists some integrable function $g : X to mathbb R$ such that $|f_n(x)| leq |g(x)|$ for $mu$-almost every $x$ in $X$. Assume moreover that the sequence $(f_n)_n$ converges at $mu$-almost every point to some function $f : X to mathbb R$. Then $f$ is integrable and satisfies $$lim_n int f_n , dmu = int f , dmu.$$
I wanted to know if in the hypothesis $|f_n(x)| leq|g(x)|$ above, if I already know that each $f_n$ is integrable, besides convergent, the theorem remains valid? Without me having to find this $g$ integrable?
measure-theory convergence lebesgue-integral
$endgroup$
Theorem $mathbfA.2.11$ (Dominated convergence). Let $f_n : X to mathbb R$ be a sequence of measurable functions and assume that there exists some integrable function $g : X to mathbb R$ such that $|f_n(x)| leq |g(x)|$ for $mu$-almost every $x$ in $X$. Assume moreover that the sequence $(f_n)_n$ converges at $mu$-almost every point to some function $f : X to mathbb R$. Then $f$ is integrable and satisfies $$lim_n int f_n , dmu = int f , dmu.$$
I wanted to know if in the hypothesis $|f_n(x)| leq|g(x)|$ above, if I already know that each $f_n$ is integrable, besides convergent, the theorem remains valid? Without me having to find this $g$ integrable?
measure-theory convergence lebesgue-integral
measure-theory convergence lebesgue-integral
edited yesterday
Rócherz
3,0013821
3,0013821
asked yesterday
Ricardo FreireRicardo Freire
594211
594211
4
$begingroup$
The dominating function $g$ is the whole point of the theorem. It's in the very name of the theorem.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
yesterday
add a comment |
4
$begingroup$
The dominating function $g$ is the whole point of the theorem. It's in the very name of the theorem.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
yesterday
4
4
$begingroup$
The dominating function $g$ is the whole point of the theorem. It's in the very name of the theorem.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
yesterday
$begingroup$
The dominating function $g$ is the whole point of the theorem. It's in the very name of the theorem.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
yesterday
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This is an excellent question. For the theorem to apply, you need the $f_n$'s to be uniformly dominated by an integrable function $g$. To see this, consider the sequence
$$
f_n(x) := frac1n mathbf1_[0,n](x).
$$
Clearly, $f_n in L^1(mathbbR)$ for each $n in mathbbN$. Moreover, $f_n(x) to 0$ as $n to infty$ for each $x in mathbbR$. However,
beginalign*
lim_n to infty int_mathbbR f_n,mathrmdm = lim_n to infty int_0^n frac1n,mathrmdx = 1 neq 0.
endalign*
Nevertheless, you are not in too much trouble if you cannot find a dominating function. If your sequence of functions is uniformly bounded in $L^p(E)$ for $1 < p < infty$ where $E$ has finite measure, then you can still take the limit inside the integral. Namely, the following theorem often helps to rectify the situation.
Theorem. Let $(f_n)$ be a sequence of measurable functions on a measure space $(X,mathfrakM,mu)$ converging almost everywhere to a measurable function $f$. If $E in mathfrakM$ has finite measure and $(f_n)$ is bounded in $L^p(E)$ for some $1 < p < infty$, then
$$
lim_n to infty int_E f_n,mathrmdmu = int_E f,mathrmdmu.
$$
In fact, one has $f_n to f$ strongly in $L^1(E)$.
In a sense, one can do without a dominating function when the sequence is uniformly bounded in a "higher $L^p$-space" and the domain of integration has finite measure.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
$endgroup$
– Ricardo Freire
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In general, it is not sufficient that each $f_n$ be integrable without a dominating function. For instance, the functions $f_n = chi_[n,n+1]$ on $mathbf R_ge 0$ are all integrable, and $f_n(x) to 0$ for all $xin mathbf R_ge 0$, but they are not dominated by an integrable function $g$, and indeed we do not have
$$
lim_ntoinfty int f_n = int lim_ntoinftyf_n
$$
since in this case, the left-hand side is $1$, but the right-hand side is $0$.
To see why there is no dominating function $g$, such a function would have the property that $g(x)ge 1$ for each $xge 0$, so it would not be integrable on $mathbf R_ge 0$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
$endgroup$
– Ricardo Freire
yesterday
add a comment |
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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
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
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3168945%2fa-small-doubt-about-the-dominated-convergence-theorem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This is an excellent question. For the theorem to apply, you need the $f_n$'s to be uniformly dominated by an integrable function $g$. To see this, consider the sequence
$$
f_n(x) := frac1n mathbf1_[0,n](x).
$$
Clearly, $f_n in L^1(mathbbR)$ for each $n in mathbbN$. Moreover, $f_n(x) to 0$ as $n to infty$ for each $x in mathbbR$. However,
beginalign*
lim_n to infty int_mathbbR f_n,mathrmdm = lim_n to infty int_0^n frac1n,mathrmdx = 1 neq 0.
endalign*
Nevertheless, you are not in too much trouble if you cannot find a dominating function. If your sequence of functions is uniformly bounded in $L^p(E)$ for $1 < p < infty$ where $E$ has finite measure, then you can still take the limit inside the integral. Namely, the following theorem often helps to rectify the situation.
Theorem. Let $(f_n)$ be a sequence of measurable functions on a measure space $(X,mathfrakM,mu)$ converging almost everywhere to a measurable function $f$. If $E in mathfrakM$ has finite measure and $(f_n)$ is bounded in $L^p(E)$ for some $1 < p < infty$, then
$$
lim_n to infty int_E f_n,mathrmdmu = int_E f,mathrmdmu.
$$
In fact, one has $f_n to f$ strongly in $L^1(E)$.
In a sense, one can do without a dominating function when the sequence is uniformly bounded in a "higher $L^p$-space" and the domain of integration has finite measure.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
$endgroup$
– Ricardo Freire
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is an excellent question. For the theorem to apply, you need the $f_n$'s to be uniformly dominated by an integrable function $g$. To see this, consider the sequence
$$
f_n(x) := frac1n mathbf1_[0,n](x).
$$
Clearly, $f_n in L^1(mathbbR)$ for each $n in mathbbN$. Moreover, $f_n(x) to 0$ as $n to infty$ for each $x in mathbbR$. However,
beginalign*
lim_n to infty int_mathbbR f_n,mathrmdm = lim_n to infty int_0^n frac1n,mathrmdx = 1 neq 0.
endalign*
Nevertheless, you are not in too much trouble if you cannot find a dominating function. If your sequence of functions is uniformly bounded in $L^p(E)$ for $1 < p < infty$ where $E$ has finite measure, then you can still take the limit inside the integral. Namely, the following theorem often helps to rectify the situation.
Theorem. Let $(f_n)$ be a sequence of measurable functions on a measure space $(X,mathfrakM,mu)$ converging almost everywhere to a measurable function $f$. If $E in mathfrakM$ has finite measure and $(f_n)$ is bounded in $L^p(E)$ for some $1 < p < infty$, then
$$
lim_n to infty int_E f_n,mathrmdmu = int_E f,mathrmdmu.
$$
In fact, one has $f_n to f$ strongly in $L^1(E)$.
In a sense, one can do without a dominating function when the sequence is uniformly bounded in a "higher $L^p$-space" and the domain of integration has finite measure.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
$endgroup$
– Ricardo Freire
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is an excellent question. For the theorem to apply, you need the $f_n$'s to be uniformly dominated by an integrable function $g$. To see this, consider the sequence
$$
f_n(x) := frac1n mathbf1_[0,n](x).
$$
Clearly, $f_n in L^1(mathbbR)$ for each $n in mathbbN$. Moreover, $f_n(x) to 0$ as $n to infty$ for each $x in mathbbR$. However,
beginalign*
lim_n to infty int_mathbbR f_n,mathrmdm = lim_n to infty int_0^n frac1n,mathrmdx = 1 neq 0.
endalign*
Nevertheless, you are not in too much trouble if you cannot find a dominating function. If your sequence of functions is uniformly bounded in $L^p(E)$ for $1 < p < infty$ where $E$ has finite measure, then you can still take the limit inside the integral. Namely, the following theorem often helps to rectify the situation.
Theorem. Let $(f_n)$ be a sequence of measurable functions on a measure space $(X,mathfrakM,mu)$ converging almost everywhere to a measurable function $f$. If $E in mathfrakM$ has finite measure and $(f_n)$ is bounded in $L^p(E)$ for some $1 < p < infty$, then
$$
lim_n to infty int_E f_n,mathrmdmu = int_E f,mathrmdmu.
$$
In fact, one has $f_n to f$ strongly in $L^1(E)$.
In a sense, one can do without a dominating function when the sequence is uniformly bounded in a "higher $L^p$-space" and the domain of integration has finite measure.
$endgroup$
This is an excellent question. For the theorem to apply, you need the $f_n$'s to be uniformly dominated by an integrable function $g$. To see this, consider the sequence
$$
f_n(x) := frac1n mathbf1_[0,n](x).
$$
Clearly, $f_n in L^1(mathbbR)$ for each $n in mathbbN$. Moreover, $f_n(x) to 0$ as $n to infty$ for each $x in mathbbR$. However,
beginalign*
lim_n to infty int_mathbbR f_n,mathrmdm = lim_n to infty int_0^n frac1n,mathrmdx = 1 neq 0.
endalign*
Nevertheless, you are not in too much trouble if you cannot find a dominating function. If your sequence of functions is uniformly bounded in $L^p(E)$ for $1 < p < infty$ where $E$ has finite measure, then you can still take the limit inside the integral. Namely, the following theorem often helps to rectify the situation.
Theorem. Let $(f_n)$ be a sequence of measurable functions on a measure space $(X,mathfrakM,mu)$ converging almost everywhere to a measurable function $f$. If $E in mathfrakM$ has finite measure and $(f_n)$ is bounded in $L^p(E)$ for some $1 < p < infty$, then
$$
lim_n to infty int_E f_n,mathrmdmu = int_E f,mathrmdmu.
$$
In fact, one has $f_n to f$ strongly in $L^1(E)$.
In a sense, one can do without a dominating function when the sequence is uniformly bounded in a "higher $L^p$-space" and the domain of integration has finite measure.
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
rolandcyprolandcyp
2,016316
2,016316
$begingroup$
I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
$endgroup$
– Ricardo Freire
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
$endgroup$
– Ricardo Freire
yesterday
$begingroup$
I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
$endgroup$
– Ricardo Freire
yesterday
$begingroup$
I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
$endgroup$
– Ricardo Freire
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In general, it is not sufficient that each $f_n$ be integrable without a dominating function. For instance, the functions $f_n = chi_[n,n+1]$ on $mathbf R_ge 0$ are all integrable, and $f_n(x) to 0$ for all $xin mathbf R_ge 0$, but they are not dominated by an integrable function $g$, and indeed we do not have
$$
lim_ntoinfty int f_n = int lim_ntoinftyf_n
$$
since in this case, the left-hand side is $1$, but the right-hand side is $0$.
To see why there is no dominating function $g$, such a function would have the property that $g(x)ge 1$ for each $xge 0$, so it would not be integrable on $mathbf R_ge 0$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
$endgroup$
– Ricardo Freire
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In general, it is not sufficient that each $f_n$ be integrable without a dominating function. For instance, the functions $f_n = chi_[n,n+1]$ on $mathbf R_ge 0$ are all integrable, and $f_n(x) to 0$ for all $xin mathbf R_ge 0$, but they are not dominated by an integrable function $g$, and indeed we do not have
$$
lim_ntoinfty int f_n = int lim_ntoinftyf_n
$$
since in this case, the left-hand side is $1$, but the right-hand side is $0$.
To see why there is no dominating function $g$, such a function would have the property that $g(x)ge 1$ for each $xge 0$, so it would not be integrable on $mathbf R_ge 0$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
$endgroup$
– Ricardo Freire
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In general, it is not sufficient that each $f_n$ be integrable without a dominating function. For instance, the functions $f_n = chi_[n,n+1]$ on $mathbf R_ge 0$ are all integrable, and $f_n(x) to 0$ for all $xin mathbf R_ge 0$, but they are not dominated by an integrable function $g$, and indeed we do not have
$$
lim_ntoinfty int f_n = int lim_ntoinftyf_n
$$
since in this case, the left-hand side is $1$, but the right-hand side is $0$.
To see why there is no dominating function $g$, such a function would have the property that $g(x)ge 1$ for each $xge 0$, so it would not be integrable on $mathbf R_ge 0$.
$endgroup$
In general, it is not sufficient that each $f_n$ be integrable without a dominating function. For instance, the functions $f_n = chi_[n,n+1]$ on $mathbf R_ge 0$ are all integrable, and $f_n(x) to 0$ for all $xin mathbf R_ge 0$, but they are not dominated by an integrable function $g$, and indeed we do not have
$$
lim_ntoinfty int f_n = int lim_ntoinftyf_n
$$
since in this case, the left-hand side is $1$, but the right-hand side is $0$.
To see why there is no dominating function $g$, such a function would have the property that $g(x)ge 1$ for each $xge 0$, so it would not be integrable on $mathbf R_ge 0$.
answered yesterday
Alex OrtizAlex Ortiz
11.3k21441
11.3k21441
$begingroup$
I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
$endgroup$
– Ricardo Freire
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
$endgroup$
– Ricardo Freire
yesterday
$begingroup$
I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
$endgroup$
– Ricardo Freire
yesterday
$begingroup$
I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
$endgroup$
– Ricardo Freire
yesterday
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
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
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3168945%2fa-small-doubt-about-the-dominated-convergence-theorem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown

4
$begingroup$
The dominating function $g$ is the whole point of the theorem. It's in the very name of the theorem.
$endgroup$
– Nate Eldredge
yesterday