A direct proof involving a positive summability kernel

  • Thread starter Thread starter psie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fourier analysis
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem from Fourier Analysis concerning the behavior of a positive summability kernel and its integral involving a continuous function at the origin. Participants are exploring the limit of the integral as the kernel's support shrinks to zero.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the reduction of the integral to a specific form and question the continuity of the function involved. There are attempts to apply the mean value theorem and considerations regarding the continuity of the function at zero. Some participants suggest splitting the integral or using bounds based on continuity.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants providing insights and questioning assumptions about continuity and the application of theorems. There is no explicit consensus yet, but various lines of reasoning are being explored, particularly regarding the implications of continuity at the origin.

Contextual Notes

Participants note constraints such as the requirement not to use certain theorems from the text and the specific conditions under which the function is continuous. There is also mention of the need to consider the behavior of the function as the interval shrinks to zero.

psie
Messages
315
Reaction score
40
Homework Statement
Prove directly that if $$K_n(s)=\begin{cases}n &\text{if }|s|<1/(2n)\\ 0 &\text{if }|s|>1/(2n),\end{cases}$$ and ##f## is a continuous function at the origin, then $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\int_\mathbb{R}K_n(s)f(s)ds=f(0).$$
Relevant Equations
Positive summability kernels, see e.g. Wikipedia.
This is an exercise from Fourier Analysis and its Applications by Vretblad.

I know the integral over ##\mathbb R## reduces to $$\int_{-1/(2n)}^{1/(2n)} nf(s)ds.$$ But I don't know where to go from here. There is a theorem in the book which states that this limit exists and equals ##f(0)##, but I'm apparently not supposed to use the theorem. Appreciate any help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
##n\cdot f(s)## is continuous and therefore integrable, say ##\int n\cdot f(s)\,ds = F(x).## Hence, if ##F(x)## is continuous at the origin, we get
$$
\int_{-1/(2n)}^{1/(2n)} nf(s)\,ds = F(1/(2n))-F(-1/(2n)) \stackrel{n\to \infty }{\longrightarrow }0
$$
So all it has to be shown is, that ##F(x)## is continuous at ##x=0## or at least that ##\displaystyle{\lim_{n \to \infty}}F(1/(2n))=0.## Maybe, we need to split the integral at ##x=0.##
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: psie
The mean value theorem gives you that for each ##n## the integral is equal to ##f(c_n)## for some ##-\frac1{2n}\le c_n\le \frac1{2n}##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: psie
Hmm, thanks for the replies. But ##f## is only continuous at ##0##. Can we then say that it has an antiderivative? I'm afraid we can't use the mean value theorem either, which requires continuity in an interval. Maybe there's something missing in the exercise...
 
Continuous at ##0## means in an open neighborhood of ##0.## Just choose ##n## large enough. The MVT provides a sequence of mean values ##c_n## that can be trapped in ##\left[-1/(2n)\, , \,1/(2n)\right].## In general, one has to be careful with the MVT when the intermediate value depends on boundaries!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: psie
psie said:
Homework Statement: Prove directly that if $$K_n(s)=\begin{cases}n &\text{if }|s|<1/(2n)\\ 0 &\text{if }|s|>1/(2n),\end{cases}$$ and ##f## is a continuous function at the origin, then $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\int_\mathbb{R}K_n(s)f(s)ds=f(0).$$
Relevant Equations: Positive summability kernels, see e.g. Wikipedia.

This is an exercise from Fourier Analysis and its Applications by Vretblad.

I know the integral over ##\mathbb R## reduces to $$\int_{-1/(2n)}^{1/(2n)} nf(s)ds.$$ But I don't know where to go from here. There is a theorem in the book which states that this limit exists and equals ##f(0)##, but I'm apparently not supposed to use the theorem. Appreciate any help.

By definition, <br /> \tfrac1n \inf_{|x| \leq \tfrac 1{2n}} f(x) \leq \int_{-1/2n}^{1/2n} f(x)\,dx \leq \tfrac1n \sup_{|x| \leq \tfrac 1{2n}} f(x). and by continuity of f at zero <br /> \lim_{n \to \infty} \inf_{|x| \leq \tfrac 1{2n}} f(x) = f(0) = \lim_{n \to \infty} \sup_{|x| \leq \tfrac 1{2n}} f(x).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: psie
pasmith said:
by continuity of f at zero <br /> \lim_{n \to \infty} \inf_{|x| \leq \tfrac 1{2n}} f(x) = f(0) = \lim_{n \to \infty} \sup_{|x| \leq \tfrac 1{2n}} f(x).
Could you explain why, by continuity of ##f##, \begin{align} \lim _{n\to \infty }\inf _{x\in \left[-\frac{1}{n}{,}\frac{1}{n}\right]}f\left(x\right)&=f(0), \\ \lim _{n\to \infty }\sup _{x\in \left[-\frac{1}{n}{,}\frac{1}{n}\right]}f\left(x\right)&=f(0).\end{align} I'd be very grateful for your reply.
 
if Jn is a sequence of intervals shrinking down to 0, i.e. all containing zero and with diameters approaching zero, and if for each n, Kn is the smallest interval containing all values of f on Jn, then continuity of f at 0, implies that the sequence Kn shrinks down to f(0). note that the endpoints of Kn are exactly the inf and sup of the values of f on Jn.

i.e. as x gets closer to zero, the values f(x) must get closer to f(0). so as n-->infinity, the values of f(x) for -1/n ≤ x ≤ 1/n, must approach f(0).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: psie

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K