Convergence in $L^1$ implies there exists a subsequence that converges almost everywhere.
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
In Folland, Theorem 2.32 states
If $f_n to f$ in $L^1$ then there is a subsequence ${f_{n_j}}$ such that $f_{n_j} to f$ almost everywhere.
The proof given just says to "combine propositions 2.29 and 2.30" which say
(2.29) If $f_n to f$ in $L^1$ then $f_n to f$ in measure.
and
(2.30) Suppose ${f_n}$ is Cauchy in measure then there is a measureable $f$ such that $f_n to f$ in measure and there is a subsequence $f_{n_j}$ that converges to $f$ almost everywhere. Moreover if $f_n to g$ in measure then $f =g$ almost everywhere.
I'm unsure how how this is implied? I think part of this is because I don't fully understand 2.30. I know that given $f_n to f$ in L^1 then by 2.29 we know that $f_n to f$ in measure. 2.30, however, deals with a sequence that is Cauchy in measure. However, in general convergence in measure does not imply Cauchy in measure, correct?
real-analysis analysis measure-theory convergence measurable-functions
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
In Folland, Theorem 2.32 states
If $f_n to f$ in $L^1$ then there is a subsequence ${f_{n_j}}$ such that $f_{n_j} to f$ almost everywhere.
The proof given just says to "combine propositions 2.29 and 2.30" which say
(2.29) If $f_n to f$ in $L^1$ then $f_n to f$ in measure.
and
(2.30) Suppose ${f_n}$ is Cauchy in measure then there is a measureable $f$ such that $f_n to f$ in measure and there is a subsequence $f_{n_j}$ that converges to $f$ almost everywhere. Moreover if $f_n to g$ in measure then $f =g$ almost everywhere.
I'm unsure how how this is implied? I think part of this is because I don't fully understand 2.30. I know that given $f_n to f$ in L^1 then by 2.29 we know that $f_n to f$ in measure. 2.30, however, deals with a sequence that is Cauchy in measure. However, in general convergence in measure does not imply Cauchy in measure, correct?
real-analysis analysis measure-theory convergence measurable-functions
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
In Folland, Theorem 2.32 states
If $f_n to f$ in $L^1$ then there is a subsequence ${f_{n_j}}$ such that $f_{n_j} to f$ almost everywhere.
The proof given just says to "combine propositions 2.29 and 2.30" which say
(2.29) If $f_n to f$ in $L^1$ then $f_n to f$ in measure.
and
(2.30) Suppose ${f_n}$ is Cauchy in measure then there is a measureable $f$ such that $f_n to f$ in measure and there is a subsequence $f_{n_j}$ that converges to $f$ almost everywhere. Moreover if $f_n to g$ in measure then $f =g$ almost everywhere.
I'm unsure how how this is implied? I think part of this is because I don't fully understand 2.30. I know that given $f_n to f$ in L^1 then by 2.29 we know that $f_n to f$ in measure. 2.30, however, deals with a sequence that is Cauchy in measure. However, in general convergence in measure does not imply Cauchy in measure, correct?
real-analysis analysis measure-theory convergence measurable-functions
In Folland, Theorem 2.32 states
If $f_n to f$ in $L^1$ then there is a subsequence ${f_{n_j}}$ such that $f_{n_j} to f$ almost everywhere.
The proof given just says to "combine propositions 2.29 and 2.30" which say
(2.29) If $f_n to f$ in $L^1$ then $f_n to f$ in measure.
and
(2.30) Suppose ${f_n}$ is Cauchy in measure then there is a measureable $f$ such that $f_n to f$ in measure and there is a subsequence $f_{n_j}$ that converges to $f$ almost everywhere. Moreover if $f_n to g$ in measure then $f =g$ almost everywhere.
I'm unsure how how this is implied? I think part of this is because I don't fully understand 2.30. I know that given $f_n to f$ in L^1 then by 2.29 we know that $f_n to f$ in measure. 2.30, however, deals with a sequence that is Cauchy in measure. However, in general convergence in measure does not imply Cauchy in measure, correct?
real-analysis analysis measure-theory convergence measurable-functions
real-analysis analysis measure-theory convergence measurable-functions
asked Nov 29 at 5:03
carsandpulsars
34117
34117
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Convergence in measure implies Cauchy in measure.
Let our measure be $mu$. if $f_n to f$ in measure, then given $epsilon > 0$, we have $mu({x : |f_n(x) - f(x)| > epsilon/2})to 0$ as $n to infty$. But as $|f_n(x) - f_m(x)| leq |f_n(x) - f(x)| + |f(x) - f_m(x)|$, we have
$$ {x: |f_n(x) - f_m(x)| > epsilon} subseteq {x: |f_n(x) - f(x)| > epsilon/2} cup {x : |f(x) - f_m(x)| > epsilon/2}.$$
Monotonicity of measure then gives that $mu({x: |f_n(x) - f_m(x)| > epsilon})$ is arbitrarily small as $n,m to infty$. Concretely: given $delta > 0$, there exists $N$ such that if $n geq N$, then $mu({x : |f_n(x) - f(x)|> epsilon/2}) < delta/2$. For this $N$, if $n,m geq N$, then also $mu({x: |f_n(x) - f_m(x)| > epsilon}) < delta$.
I feel like this should have been stated as a theorem/corollary on its own! Thank you very much. This answers my question perfectly.
– carsandpulsars
Nov 29 at 5:37
add a comment |
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',
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%2f3018205%2fconvergence-in-l1-implies-there-exists-a-subsequence-that-converges-almost-ev%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Convergence in measure implies Cauchy in measure.
Let our measure be $mu$. if $f_n to f$ in measure, then given $epsilon > 0$, we have $mu({x : |f_n(x) - f(x)| > epsilon/2})to 0$ as $n to infty$. But as $|f_n(x) - f_m(x)| leq |f_n(x) - f(x)| + |f(x) - f_m(x)|$, we have
$$ {x: |f_n(x) - f_m(x)| > epsilon} subseteq {x: |f_n(x) - f(x)| > epsilon/2} cup {x : |f(x) - f_m(x)| > epsilon/2}.$$
Monotonicity of measure then gives that $mu({x: |f_n(x) - f_m(x)| > epsilon})$ is arbitrarily small as $n,m to infty$. Concretely: given $delta > 0$, there exists $N$ such that if $n geq N$, then $mu({x : |f_n(x) - f(x)|> epsilon/2}) < delta/2$. For this $N$, if $n,m geq N$, then also $mu({x: |f_n(x) - f_m(x)| > epsilon}) < delta$.
I feel like this should have been stated as a theorem/corollary on its own! Thank you very much. This answers my question perfectly.
– carsandpulsars
Nov 29 at 5:37
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Convergence in measure implies Cauchy in measure.
Let our measure be $mu$. if $f_n to f$ in measure, then given $epsilon > 0$, we have $mu({x : |f_n(x) - f(x)| > epsilon/2})to 0$ as $n to infty$. But as $|f_n(x) - f_m(x)| leq |f_n(x) - f(x)| + |f(x) - f_m(x)|$, we have
$$ {x: |f_n(x) - f_m(x)| > epsilon} subseteq {x: |f_n(x) - f(x)| > epsilon/2} cup {x : |f(x) - f_m(x)| > epsilon/2}.$$
Monotonicity of measure then gives that $mu({x: |f_n(x) - f_m(x)| > epsilon})$ is arbitrarily small as $n,m to infty$. Concretely: given $delta > 0$, there exists $N$ such that if $n geq N$, then $mu({x : |f_n(x) - f(x)|> epsilon/2}) < delta/2$. For this $N$, if $n,m geq N$, then also $mu({x: |f_n(x) - f_m(x)| > epsilon}) < delta$.
I feel like this should have been stated as a theorem/corollary on its own! Thank you very much. This answers my question perfectly.
– carsandpulsars
Nov 29 at 5:37
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Convergence in measure implies Cauchy in measure.
Let our measure be $mu$. if $f_n to f$ in measure, then given $epsilon > 0$, we have $mu({x : |f_n(x) - f(x)| > epsilon/2})to 0$ as $n to infty$. But as $|f_n(x) - f_m(x)| leq |f_n(x) - f(x)| + |f(x) - f_m(x)|$, we have
$$ {x: |f_n(x) - f_m(x)| > epsilon} subseteq {x: |f_n(x) - f(x)| > epsilon/2} cup {x : |f(x) - f_m(x)| > epsilon/2}.$$
Monotonicity of measure then gives that $mu({x: |f_n(x) - f_m(x)| > epsilon})$ is arbitrarily small as $n,m to infty$. Concretely: given $delta > 0$, there exists $N$ such that if $n geq N$, then $mu({x : |f_n(x) - f(x)|> epsilon/2}) < delta/2$. For this $N$, if $n,m geq N$, then also $mu({x: |f_n(x) - f_m(x)| > epsilon}) < delta$.
Convergence in measure implies Cauchy in measure.
Let our measure be $mu$. if $f_n to f$ in measure, then given $epsilon > 0$, we have $mu({x : |f_n(x) - f(x)| > epsilon/2})to 0$ as $n to infty$. But as $|f_n(x) - f_m(x)| leq |f_n(x) - f(x)| + |f(x) - f_m(x)|$, we have
$$ {x: |f_n(x) - f_m(x)| > epsilon} subseteq {x: |f_n(x) - f(x)| > epsilon/2} cup {x : |f(x) - f_m(x)| > epsilon/2}.$$
Monotonicity of measure then gives that $mu({x: |f_n(x) - f_m(x)| > epsilon})$ is arbitrarily small as $n,m to infty$. Concretely: given $delta > 0$, there exists $N$ such that if $n geq N$, then $mu({x : |f_n(x) - f(x)|> epsilon/2}) < delta/2$. For this $N$, if $n,m geq N$, then also $mu({x: |f_n(x) - f_m(x)| > epsilon}) < delta$.
answered Nov 29 at 5:14
Joshua Mundinger
2,4801026
2,4801026
I feel like this should have been stated as a theorem/corollary on its own! Thank you very much. This answers my question perfectly.
– carsandpulsars
Nov 29 at 5:37
add a comment |
I feel like this should have been stated as a theorem/corollary on its own! Thank you very much. This answers my question perfectly.
– carsandpulsars
Nov 29 at 5:37
I feel like this should have been stated as a theorem/corollary on its own! Thank you very much. This answers my question perfectly.
– carsandpulsars
Nov 29 at 5:37
I feel like this should have been stated as a theorem/corollary on its own! Thank you very much. This answers my question perfectly.
– carsandpulsars
Nov 29 at 5:37
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
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%2f3018205%2fconvergence-in-l1-implies-there-exists-a-subsequence-that-converges-almost-ev%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