Suppose that is a uniformly continous function. Show that
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3ded8/3ded877dceaf9cef2b6b1d6ac4f56dcf565cbeb1" alt="{\displaystyle \lim _{|x|\rightarrow \infty }f(x)=0\!\,}"
|
L^1 implies integral of tail end of function goes to zero
[edit | edit source]
Suppose
. Then,
or
Without loss of generality, we can assume the first one, i.e.,
(see remark below to see why this)
Note that
can be written as
Then, the negation of the above statement gives
Because of the uniform continuity, for the
there is a
such that
,
whenever
Then, if
, by Triangle Inequality, we have
which implies
,
whenever
Let
be a number greater than
. Note that
and
do not depend on
. With this in mind, note that
Then,
which is a huge contradiction.
Therefore,
Remark If we choose to work with the assumption that
, then in (*), we just need to work with
instead of the original one
By uniform continuity, for all
, there exists
such that for all
,
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/03a0f/03a0fbd53e3cd243d6bd18eadf82d6f3f0cc0c39" alt="{\displaystyle |f(x_{1})-f(x_{2})|<\epsilon \!\,}"
if
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d8c4e/d8c4e3c506c02c92d6ffa6c99c84733e4061d35b" alt="{\displaystyle |x_{1}-x_{2}|<\delta (\epsilon )\!\,}"
Assume for the sake of contradiction there exists
such that for all
, there exists
such that
and
.
Let
, then there exists
such that
and
.
Let
, then there exists
such that
and
.
Let
, then there exists
such that
and
.
So we have
with
if
and
for all
and for all
.
In other words, we are choosing disjoint subintervals of the real line that are of length
, centered around each
for
, and separated by at least
.
Hence,
which contradicts the assumption that
.
Therefore, for all
there exists
such that for all
,
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a25b2/a25b2a1f11ce518b0500ebfdb22899314853753d" alt="{\displaystyle |f(x)|<\epsilon \!\,}"
i.e.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3ded8/3ded877dceaf9cef2b6b1d6ac4f56dcf565cbeb1" alt="{\displaystyle \lim _{|x|\rightarrow \infty }f(x)=0\!\,}"
By absolute continuity, Fatou's Lemma, and hypothesis we have
Hence
a.e.
From the fundamental theorem of calculus, for all
,
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a9781/a97813d92afecc4b07fed7713aca1232f8b31942" alt="{\displaystyle f(x)-f(0)=\int _{0}^{x}f^{\prime }(t)dt=0}"
i.e.
is a constant
.
Assume for the sake of contradiction that
, then
.
which contradicts the hypothesis
. Hence,
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fe48f/fe48fa60daf9b954b81709f58c2e2d5254642c70" alt="{\displaystyle |c|=0\!\,}"
i.e.
for all
Suppose that is the set of all equivalence classes of measurable functions for which
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/51559/515594814962708f4accabaec7b800c243ecdb47" alt="{\displaystyle \int _{R}|f(x)|^{\frac {1}{2}}dx<\infty \!\,}"
|
Show that it is a metric linear space with the metric
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/eb844/eb8444a06b5296f9408fd9001eeb5a080f52794b" alt="{\displaystyle d(f,g)=\int _{R}|f(x)-g(x)|^{\frac {1}{2}}dx\!\,}"
where .
|
First, for all
,
Taking square roots of both sides of the inequality yields,
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/610d0/610d023bbb7987287abd12ac20545351ff71fa5d" alt="{\displaystyle (a+b)^{\frac {1}{2}}\leq a^{\frac {1}{2}}+b^{\frac {1}{2}}\!\,}"
Hence for all
,
Hence,
is a linear space.
Since
,
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9f8f8/9f8f8557678f962f6a3fdbfcab5ab3bf89552881" alt="{\displaystyle d(f,g)=0\quad \Longleftrightarrow \quad f=g\,\,a.e.\!\,}"
Also, for all
,
From
and
, we conclude that
is a metric space.
Show that with this metric is complete.
|
For
,
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d5c25/d5c25bd19b5dca95bfae83262d9d6ada8f08b8ed" alt="{\displaystyle (a+b+c)^{\frac {1}{2}}\leq a^{\frac {1}{2}}+(b+c)^{\frac {1}{2}}\leq a^{\frac {1}{2}}+b^{\frac {1}{2}}+c^{\frac {1}{2}}\!\,}"
By induction, we then have for all
and all
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/36e8c/36e8c1452dfba07cf71f09532ea0991ae72578b6" alt="{\displaystyle \left(\sum _{k=1}^{n}a_{k}\right)^{\frac {1}{2}}\leq \sum _{k=1}^{n}a_{k}^{\frac {1}{2}}\!}"
We can equivalently prove completeness by showing that a subsequence of a Cauchy sequence converges.
If a subsequence of a Cauchy sequence converges, then the Cauchy sequence converges.
Choose
such that for all
,
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/592ba/592ba53d630477f228b95ae70e7ff2fe32baaa20" alt="{\displaystyle d(f_{n},f_{n+1})<{\frac {1}{2^{n}}}\!\,}"
Rewrite
as a telescoping sum (successive terms cancel out) i.e.
.
The triangle inequality implies,
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/645ce/645cef8fb63cbbce1740caee4d0f69ae81415a5e" alt="{\displaystyle |f_{m}(x)|^{\frac {1}{2}}\leq |f_{1}(x)|^{\frac {1}{2}}+|g_{m-1}(x)|^{\frac {1}{2}}\!\,}"
which means the sequence
is always dominated by the sequence on the right hand side of the inequality.
Let
, then
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6d903/6d903429cc7459568da5527be1b516607acc70cd" alt="{\displaystyle g_{m}(x)\leq g_{m+1}(x)\!\,}"
and
.
In other words,
is a sequence of increasing, non-negative functions. Note that
, the limit of
as
, exists since
is increasing. (
is either a finite number
or
.)
Also,
Hence, for all
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ad0e0/ad0e02412175cfef081e30c0c05789c9ef39e515" alt="{\displaystyle \int _{R}|g_{m}(x)|^{\frac {1}{2}}dx\leq 1\!\,}"
By the Monotone Convergence Theorem,
Hence,
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e14a5/e14a5797ae65249240b6069aeba354122d453ba8" alt="{\displaystyle \lim _{m\rightarrow \infty }g_{m}(x)\in L^{\frac {1}{2}}\!\,}"
From the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem,
where the last step follows since
Hence,
i.e.
is complete.