Confusion regarding the dominated convergence theorem

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the application of the Dominated Convergence Theorem (DCT) in the context of a function sequence f_ε that converges pointwise to zero as ε approaches zero. Despite the lack of uniform boundedness for large ε, the DCT can still be applied because any countable subsequence of the original sequence will converge to zero. The key justification lies in demonstrating that the sequence behaves well in a neighborhood around zero, allowing for the conclusion that the limit of the integral of f_ε is indeed zero.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lebesgue integration and the Dominated Convergence Theorem
  • Familiarity with pointwise convergence of functions
  • Knowledge of sequences and limits in mathematical analysis
  • Concept of integrable functions and their properties
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the proof and applications of the Dominated Convergence Theorem in Lebesgue integration
  • Explore the implications of pointwise versus uniform convergence in analysis
  • Investigate examples of non-bounded functions and their behavior under integration
  • Learn about subsequences and their convergence properties in mathematical sequences
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of analysis, and anyone interested in advanced topics related to Lebesgue integration and convergence theorems.

AxiomOfChoice
Messages
531
Reaction score
1
So a well-known theorem from Lebesgue integration is the dominated convergence theorem. It talks about a sequence [itex]f_1,f_2,\ldots[/itex] of functions converging pointwise to a function [itex]f[/itex]. And if [itex]|f_n(x)| \leq g(x)[/itex] for an integrable function [itex]g[/itex], then we have [itex]\int f_n \to \int f[/itex].

But what if we have a given function [itex]f_\epsilon[/itex] which depends on some parameter [itex]\epsilon[/itex], which we are taking to zero? Suppose you've shown that [itex]f_\epsilon \to 0[/itex] pointwise as [itex]\epsilon \to 0[/itex]; however, you know [itex]f_\epsilon[/itex] is NOT bounded in [itex]\epsilon[/itex] - if you take [itex]\epsilon[/itex] large enough, you can make [itex]\sup_{x\in \mathbb R} f_\epsilon(x)[/itex] arbitrarily large. But, of course, we don't WANT to do that - we want to take [itex]\epsilon[/itex] small. And suppose you know that [itex]\epsilon < \epsilon_0[/itex] means [itex]\sup f_{\epsilon} < \sup f_{\epsilon_0}[/itex]. My question is this: Can we still apply the DCT to show that [itex]\lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \int_{\mathbb R} f_\epsilon = 0[/itex]? If so, why?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The answer is yes, but it needs non-trivial justifications
Firstly because the DCT is stated for only a countable SEQUENCE of converging functions. Your epsilon seems to me to be a real parameter. But we can still apply DCT because EVERY countable subsequence you can get from the original epsilon sequence will converge to zero.
Two, even though for large epsilon your function might be wild, remember that limits of sequences are not affected by the initial terms of the sequence. You only need demonstrate good behavior of your sequence in some little ball around 0, which you claim to have done, so you're fine.
I hope this helps, even though its a couple of months late.
 
This is what you want to prove:

[tex] \forall \mathcal{E}>0\quad \exists \epsilon_0>0\quad\textrm{s.t.}\quad 0<\epsilon <\epsilon_0 \quad\implies\quad |\int f_{\epsilon}| < \mathcal{E}[/tex]

This is what you know:

For all sequences [itex]\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2,\epsilon_3,\ldots[/itex]
[tex] \lim_{n\to\infty}\epsilon_n = 0\quad\implies\quad \lim_{n\to\infty}\int f_{\epsilon_n} = 0[/tex]

In order to achieve what you want, you can make an anti-thesis, and use what you know. Assume that there exists [itex]\mathcal{E}>0[/itex], but does not exists [itex]\epsilon_0 > 0[/itex] such that the first implication would be satisfied. Then we obtain a sequence [itex]\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2,\epsilon_3,\ldots[/itex] such that

[tex] \lim_{n\to\infty}\epsilon_n=0[/tex]

and

[tex] 0<\epsilon < \epsilon_n \quad\nRightarrow\quad |\int f_{\epsilon}|<\mathcal{E}\quad\forall n=1,2,3,\ldots[/tex]

Now we are close to a contradiction.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K