Changing place of limit and integral - problem

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Petar Mali
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integral Limit
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interchange of limits and integrals in the context of mathematical analysis, particularly concerning the delta function and its integral representation. Participants explore the conditions under which such interchanges are valid, referencing concepts like uniform convergence and the Lebesgue Dominated Convergence theorem.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the delta function and its integral representation, questioning the validity of interchanging the limit and integral.
  • Another participant asserts that the interchange is justified due to uniform convergence of the limit.
  • A different participant challenges this claim, stating that uniform convergence is insufficient without the assumption of finite measure, referencing the Lebesgue Dominated Convergence theorem.
  • Another reply suggests that showing uniform convergence on compact sets would allow for the exchange of limits.
  • One participant counters that uniform convergence on compact subsets is also inadequate, providing a counterexample to illustrate their point.
  • A later response emphasizes that the original claim about uniform convergence applies specifically to the sequence of functions in question, invoking Morera's theorem to support their argument.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the conditions necessary for interchanging limits and integrals, with multiple competing views on the sufficiency of uniform convergence and the applicability of various theorems.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations related to the convergence of expressions and the conditions under which interchanging limits and integrals is valid, indicating that not all expressions in the discussion are convergent.

Petar Mali
Messages
283
Reaction score
0
[tex]\delta(x)=\frac{d}{dx}\Theta(x)[/tex] - delta function like a first derivative of Heaviside step function

[tex]\Theta(x)=\int dx\delta(x)[/tex]

We use integral representation of delta function

[tex]\delta(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int^{\infty}_{-\infty}dke^{-ikx}[/tex]

from that we get

[tex]\Theta(x)=\int dx\frac{1}{2\pi}\int^{\infty}_{-\infty}dke^{-ikx}[/tex]

And now we use one trick!

[tex]\Theta(x)=\int dx\frac{1}{2\pi}\int^{\infty}_{-\infty}dke^{-ikx}lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+}e^{\epsilon k}[/tex]

Consider now the expression without the limit

[tex]\frac{1}{2\pi}\int^{\infty}_{-\infty}dk\int dxe^{-i(k+i\epsilon)x}=\frac{i}{2\pi}\int^{\infty}_{-\infty}dk\frac{e^{-ikx}}{k+i\epsilon}[/tex]

we get that

[tex]\Theta(x)=\frac{i}{2\pi} lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0+}\int^{\infty}_{-\infty}dk\frac{e^{-ikx}}{k+i\epsilon}[/tex]

Using complex integration in lower half plane for [tex]x>0[/tex] and upper half plane for [tex]x<0[/tex] we get that the upper expression is correct. But why we can change the place of limit and integral? I'm not sure.

Thanks for your answer!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The question of when we can interchange to limits (and the integral, of course, is a limit) is a main topic in Mathmatical Analysis. Here we can do it because that limit converges uniformly.
 
Can you tell me the answer with little more details? Thanks
 
Nooo!

If you want to justify

[tex] \lim_{n\to\infty} \int\limits_X f_n(x) d\mu(x) = \int\limits_X \lim_{n\to\infty} f_n(x) d\mu(x)[/tex]

with uniform convergence, you must assume [tex]\mu(X) < \infty[/tex]

If [tex]\mu(X)=\infty[/tex], then uniform convergence is not enough. Counter examples exist. The Lebesgue Dominated Convergence theorem is the standard tool for this situation.

Mali, details of your calculations didn't make sense to me, but I believe that you are in a situation where an expression

[tex] \lim_{\epsilon\to 0} \int dx\; F_{\epsilon}(x)[/tex]

makes sense, and an expression

[tex] \int dx\; \lim_{\epsilon\to 0} F_{\epsilon}(x)[/tex]

does not make sense. That means that not everything in your formulas is convergent, and you are not really supposed to justify change of orders of limit and integration. You are merely doing tricks.
 
Show that the sequence of functions converges uniformly on every compact (closed and bounded) set in its domain. Then you can exchange limits.
 
Rubbish! The standard counter example to the change of order of limit and integration, which is

[tex] f_n(x) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}<br /> \frac{1}{n}, & 0\leq x\leq n\\<br /> 0, & n < x\\<br /> \end{array}\right.[/tex]

is also a counter example to this claim that uniform convergence on compact subsets of domain would be enough.
 
Last edited:
jostpuur said:
Rubbish! The standard counter example to the change of order of limit and integration, which is

[tex] f_n(x) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}<br /> \frac{1}{n}, & 0\leq x\leq n\\<br /> 0, & n < x\\<br /> \end{array}\right.[/tex]

is also a counter example to this claim that uniform convergence on compact subsets of domain would be enough.

I never said my claim held for just any sequence of functions. It holds for the one in question because each integral can be rewritten as the line integral of an analytic function. This is a consequence of Morera's theorem.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K