Can you solve the Problem of the Week #41 - March 11th, 2013?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chris L T521
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The problem presented involves a sequence of non-negative measurable functions $\{f_n\}$ that are monotonically decreasing and converge pointwise to a function $f$. Given that $f_1 \in L_{\mu}^1(X)$, it is established that $f \in L_{\mu}^1(X)$ and that the integral of $f$ over the measure space equals the limit of the integrals of $f_n$. The solution provided by girdav confirms these conclusions through rigorous mathematical proof.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of non-negative measurable functions
  • Familiarity with the concept of pointwise convergence
  • Knowledge of Lebesgue integrals and $L_{\mu}^1$ spaces
  • Basic principles of measure theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Dominated Convergence Theorem in measure theory
  • Explore properties of monotone convergence in Lebesgue integration
  • Learn about the implications of Fatou's Lemma
  • Investigate applications of $L^p$ spaces in functional analysis
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of analysis, and anyone interested in measure theory and integration techniques will benefit from this discussion.

Chris L T521
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
913
Reaction score
0
Here's this week's problem.

-----

Problem: Suppose that $\{f_n\}$ is a collection of non-negative measurable functions with $f_1\geq f_2\geq\cdots\geq 0$ and $f_n(x)\rightarrow f(x)$ for every $x\in X$. Furthermore, suppose that $f_1\in L_{\mu}^1(X)$. Prove that $f\in L_{\mu}^1(X)$ and
\[\int_X f\,d\mu = \lim_{n\to\infty} \int_X f_n\,d\mu.\]

-----

 
Physics news on Phys.org
This week's question was correctly answered by girdav. You can find his solution below.

As $0\leqslant f(x)\leqslant f_1(x)$ for all $x$, $f$ is integrable. Define $g_n:=f_1-f_n$: this forms a non decreasing sequence of measurable functions. Hence we can apply monotone convergence theorem, which will yield the result.

It's actually a reversed version of the MCT.
Note that we can relax the assumption "for all $x$" considering only "for almost every $x$" with the underlying measure.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K