A question about the proof of the simple approximation lemma

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Artusartos
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Approximation Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the Simple Approximation Lemma, which states that for a bounded measurable function f on a set E, there exist simple functions φε and ψε that approximate f within an ε margin. Specifically, φε is always less than or equal to f, while ψε is greater than or equal to f, with the difference between them being less than ε. The proof involves partitioning the range of f and constructing the simple functions based on this partition, ensuring that for any x in E, the corresponding values of φε and ψε are defined and meet the approximation criteria.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of measurable functions and their properties
  • Familiarity with bounded intervals and partitions
  • Knowledge of simple functions and their construction
  • Basic concepts of approximation in mathematical analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of measurable functions in detail
  • Explore the construction and application of simple functions in analysis
  • Learn about the implications of the Simple Approximation Lemma in real analysis
  • Investigate graphical methods for visualizing function approximations
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of real analysis, and anyone interested in the approximation of functions through measurable and simple functions will benefit from this discussion.

Artusartos
Messages
236
Reaction score
0
The Simple Approximation Lemma

Let f be a measurable real-valued function on E. Assume f is bounded on E, that is, there is an [itex]M \geq 0[/itex] for which [itex]|f|\leq M[/itex] on E. Then for each [itex]\epsilon > 0[/itex], there are simple functions [itex]\phi_{\epsilon}[/itex] and [itex]\psi_{\epsilon}[/itex] defined on E which have the following approximation properties:

[itex]\phi_{\epsilon} \leq f \leq \psi_{\epsilon}[/itex] and [itex]0 \leq \psi_{\epsilon} - \phi_{\epsilon} < \epsilon[/itex] on E.

Proof: Let (c,d) be an open, bouned interval that contains the image of E, f(x), and [itex]c=y_0 < y_1 < ... < y_n = d[/itex] be a partition of the closed, bouned interval [c,d] such that [itex]y_{k}-y_{k-1} < \epsilon[/itex] for [itex]1 \leq k \leq n[/itex].

[tex]I_k = [y_{k-1}, y_k)[/tex] and [tex]E_k = f^{-1}(I_k)[/tex] for [itex]1 \leq k \leq n[/itex]

Since each [itex]I_k[/itex] is an inteval and the function f is measurable, each set [itex]E_k[/itex] is measurable. Define the simple functions [itex]\phi_{\epsilon}[/itex] and [itex]\psi_{\epsilon}[/itex] on E by

[tex]\phi_{\epsilon} = \sum^{n}_{k=1} y_{k-1} . \chi_{E_k}[/tex]

and [tex]\psi_{\epsilon} = \sum^{n}_{k=1} y_{k} . \chi_{E_k}[/tex]

Let x belong to E. Since [itex]f(E) \subseteq (c,d)[/itex], there is a unique k, [itex]1 \leq k \leq n[/itex], for which [itex]y_{k-1} \leq f(x) < y_k[/itex] and therefore [tex]\phi_{\epsilon} (x) = y_{k-1} \leq f(x) < y_k = \psi_{\epsilon} (x)[/tex].

But [itex]y_k - y_{k-1} < \epsilon[/itex], and therefore [itex]\phi_{\epsilon}[/itex] and [itex]\psi_{\epsilon}[/itex] have the required approximation properties.

My Question:

"Let x belong to E. Since [itex]f(E) \subseteq (c,d)[/itex], there is a unique k, [itex]1 \leq k \leq n[/itex], for which [itex]y_{k-1} \leq f(x) < y_k[/itex] and therefore [tex]\phi_{\epsilon} (x) = y_{k-1} \leq f(x) < y_k = \psi_{\epsilon} (x)[/tex]." So if we choose any x, we will aways be able to find [itex]y_k[/itex] and [itex]y_{k-1}[/itex] such that [tex]\phi_{\epsilon} (x) = y_{k-1} \leq f(x) < y_k = \psi_{\epsilon} (x)[/tex], right? But the theorem tell us that we need to find [itex]\phi_{\epsilon}[/itex] and [itex]\psi_{\epsilon}[/itex] so that [itex]\phi_{\epsilon}[/itex] is less than all possible values of f(x) and that [itex]\psi_{\epsilon}[/itex] is greater than all possible values of f(x) (not specific for any x you choose, so you the proof gives you a different [itex]y_k[/itex] and [itex]y_{k-1}[/itex] for each x...but the theorem tell us that there is only one for the whole function. Also, how can the whole function be greater than [itex]\phi_{\epsilon}[/itex] and less than [itex]\psi_{epsilon}[/itex], if the difference is less than epsilon?)...so I don't understand this proof.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
##f(x)## as a whole lies between ##\phi_\epsilon## and ##\psi_\epsilon##, which are step functions, a lower step function and an upper. For a single point ##x_0## we have only two single steps: the lower and the upper, and ##f(x_0)## lies between ##y_{k-1}\chi_{E_k}## and ##y_{k}\chi_{E_k}##. However, all steps bands are close enough. Draw a picture.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K