Coming up with counterexamples in Real Analysis

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter bham10246
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Analysis Real analysis
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
7 replies · 4K views
bham10246
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
Coming up with counterexamples is hard. So to prove or not to prove, that depends if there exists a counterexample.

Question 1 has been ANSWERED!: If [itex]f[/itex] has a bounded variation on [itex][a,b][/itex], then is it true that [itex]f[/itex] is of Riemann integration on [itex][a,b][/itex]?


Question 2 has been ANSWERED!: Is it true that [itex]L^1(\mathbb{R}) \cap L^3(\mathbb{R}) \subseteq L^2(\mathbb{R})[/itex]?


Question 3. Is it true that
[itex]\cap_{1 \leq p<\infty} \: L^{p}(\mathbb{R},m) \subseteq L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R},m)[/itex] where [itex]m[/itex] denotes Lebesgue measure on [itex]\mathbb{R}[/itex].




Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Question 2:

Proposition. If [itex]0<p<q<r \le \infty[/itex], then [itex]L^p\cap L^r \subset L^q[/itex] and [itex]\|f\|_q\le \|f\|_p^\lambda \|f\|_r^{1-\lambda}[/itex], where [itex]\lambda \in (0,1)[/itex] is defined by

[tex]\frac{1}{q}=\frac{\lambda}{p}+\frac{1-\lambda}{r}.[/tex]

Proof. Use Hölder's inequality.
 
Thanks! I think I have seen your proposition before in some book!
 
For Question 1 I believe its false.

Eg. f(x)=1 if x is rational 0 o.w.
 
Hi ansrivas, you might be right, as long as the bounded variation is for a finite partition of the interval [a,b]. That is,

[itex]\sum_{i=1,..., N} |f(x_i)-f(x_i-1)| \leq M[/itex] for some M.

It's because for your function f, the total variation of f is infinite, isn't it?
 
As for my own answer to Question 3, I think if f is in [itex]L^1 \cap L^\infty[/itex], then [itex]f\in L^p[/itex] for every [itex]p\geq 1[/itex].

So the converse of Problem 3 is certainly true! But I don't think this is true...
 
Does this work?

By definition, [itex]ess \sup f(x) = \inf \{M : m\{x: f(x)> M\}=0 \}[/itex].

So suppose such finite M does not exist. Then [itex]m\{x: f(x)> n\} >0[/itex] for all n.

Then by Tchevbychev, [itex]\int_{\mathbb{R}} |f|^p \geq n m(E) >0[/itex] where [itex]E = \{x: f(x)> n \}[/itex].

So as [itex]n \rightarrow \infty[/itex], [itex]\int_{\mathbb{R}}|f|^p \rightarrow \infty[/itex]?

Contradiction?