Fourier series coefficients and convergence

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the convergence of Fourier series coefficients for a sequence of Riemann integrable functions defined on the interval [0, 1]. The original poster presents a problem that requires showing uniform convergence of the Fourier coefficients as the sequence approaches a limit function.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to intuitively understand the convergence of the functions and the implications for the Fourier coefficients. They express uncertainty about how to rigorously demonstrate that the convergence of the integral implies pointwise convergence of the functions. Some participants suggest using the triangle inequality and properties of integrals to establish relationships between the functions and their Fourier coefficients.

Discussion Status

Participants have provided insights into the relationships between the functions and their Fourier coefficients, with some suggesting that the original poster's approach may lead to a demonstration of uniform convergence. There is ongoing exploration of whether the established relationships can be directly used to show uniform convergence or if a fresh approach is necessary.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the convergence of the integral of the absolute difference between the functions is a key aspect of the problem, and there is discussion about the implications of this convergence for the Fourier coefficients. The original poster is also navigating the challenge of articulating their reasoning clearly in the context of their homework assignment.

stripes
Messages
262
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Third question of the day because this assignment is driving me crazy:

Suppose that [itex]\left\{ f_{k} \right\} ^{k=1}_{\infty}[/itex] is a sequence of Riemann integrable functions on the interval [0, 1] such that

[itex]\int ^{0}_{1} |f_{k}(x) - f(x)|dx \rightarrow 0 as k \rightarrow \infty[/itex].

Show that [itex]\hat{f} _{k} (n) \rightarrow \hat{f} (n)[/itex] uniformly in n as [itex]k \rightarrow \infty[/itex]

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



I can't seem to do this rigorously. I can only approach it intuitively. Since the integral of the absolute value tends to zero, I want to say that [itex]f_{k}(x) \rightarrow f(x)[/itex]. But I'm not sure how to show that. If [itex]f_{k}(x) \rightarrow f(x)[/itex] is indeed true, then is it not trivial that [itex]\hat{f} _{k} (n) \rightarrow \hat{f} (n)[/itex]? Furthermore, how would I show the convergence is uniform? Do I just have to use the epsilon definition? I also want to say for all epsilon greater than zero, there exists fk(x) such that [itex]|f_{k}(x) - f(x)| < \epsilon[/itex] since fk converges to f. But I need to first show that fk converges to f, using the fact that the integral of the absolute value of the difference between the two converges to zero! I am piecing it together but I don't know how to write it down in the form of an answer. Thanks in advance.

Edit: f hat is the Fourier coefficient, I guess in complex form.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well it's really simple:

[itex]|\hat{f_k}-\hat{f}|=|\int (f_k(x)-f(x))exp(-i n x) dx |[/itex]

Now use triangle inequality, and the fact that |exp(-inx)|=1.
 
[itex] <br /> \int ^{1}_{0} |f_{k}(x) - f(x)|dx \geq | \int ^{1}_{0} f_{k}(x) - f(x)dx | = | \int ^{1}_{0} ( f_{k}(x) - \int ^{1}_{0} f(x) ) dx | = | \int ^{1}_{0} ( f_{k}(x) (e^{-inx}) - \int ^{1}_{0} f(x) (e^{-inx}) ) dx |[/itex]

because [itex](e^{-inx}) = 1[/itex] for all [itex]n, x \geq 0[/itex]. We know n starts at 1, and the question tells us [itex]x \in [0, 1][/itex].

[itex] <br /> | \int ^{1}_{0} ( f_{k}(x) (e^{-inx}) - \int ^{1}_{0} f(x) (e^{-inx}) ) dx | = | \hat{f} _{k}(n) - \hat{f} (n) |<br /> [/itex]

So by the comparison test, [itex]\int ^{0}_{1} |f_{k}(x) - f(x)|dx \rightarrow 0[/itex] as [itex]k \rightarrow \infty \Rightarrow | \hat{f} _{k}(n) - \hat{f} (n) | \rightarrow 0 \Rightarrow \hat{f} _{k}(n) \rightarrow \hat{f} (n)[/itex]?

If this is right (I don't think my last statement is correct), do I just use the epsilon definition of uniform convergence by finding N so that [itex]|f_{k}(n) - f(n)| < \epsilon[/itex]?
 
stripes said:
[itex] <br /> \int ^{1}_{0} |f_{k}(x) - f(x)|dx \geq | \int ^{1}_{0} f_{k}(x) - f(x)dx | = | \int ^{1}_{0} ( f_{k}(x) - \int ^{1}_{0} f(x) ) dx | = | \int ^{1}_{0} ( f_{k}(x) (e^{-inx}) - \int ^{1}_{0} f(x) (e^{-inx}) ) dx |[/itex]

because [itex](e^{-inx}) = 1[/itex] for all [itex]n, x \geq 0[/itex].
No, it is not true that [itex]e^{-inx} = 1[/itex]. It is true if you add absolute value signs: [itex]|e^{-inx}| = 1[/itex]. Try starting like this:
$$\left|\hat{f}_k - \hat{f}\right| = \left|\int_0^1 f_k(x) e^{-inx} dx - \int_0^1 f(x) e^{-inx} dx\right| = \left|\int_0^1 (f_k(x) - f(x))e^{-inx} dx\right| \leq \int_0^1 \left| (f_k(x) - f(x))e^{-inx} \right| dx = \ldots$$
 
My mistake.

[itex] <br /> \ldots = \left|\int_0^1 (f_k(x) - f(x))e^{-inx} dx\right| \leq \int_0^1 \left| (f_k(x) - f(x))e^{-inx} \right| dx = \int ^{1}_{0} |f_{k} (x) - f(x)||e^{-inx}| dx = \int ^{1}_{0} |f_{k} (x) - f(x)|(1) dx[/itex] which converges to zero. By the comparison test, [itex]\left|\hat{f}_k - \hat{f}\right|[/itex] also converges to zero.

Then [itex]| \hat{f} _{k}(n) - \hat{f} (n) | \rightarrow 0 \Rightarrow \hat{f} _{k}(n) \rightarrow \hat{f} (n)[/itex]?
 
stripes said:
Then [itex]| \hat{f} _{k}(n) - \hat{f} (n) | \rightarrow 0 \Rightarrow \hat{f} _{k}(n) \rightarrow \hat{f} (n)[/itex]?
Yes, that's certainly true. If the absolute value of some quantity is approaching zero, then the quantity itself must also approach zero.
 
Alright. Thanks for your help thus far. I have shown that [itex]| \hat{f} _{k}(n) \rightarrow \hat{f} (n)[/itex], but I need to show the convergence is uniform. My question is, will my conclusion help me show uniform convergence? I.e., can I work with what I've gotten to show uniform convergence, or must I start from scratch with the definition?
 
stripes said:
Alright. Thanks for your help thus far. I have shown that [itex]| \hat{f} _{k}(n) \rightarrow \hat{f} (n)[/itex], but I need to show the convergence is uniform. My question is, will my conclusion help me show uniform convergence? I.e., can I work with what I've gotten to show uniform convergence, or must I start from scratch with the definition?
Your proof already shows that the convergence is uniform, because your upper bound, [itex]\int ^{1}_{0} |f_{k} (x) - f(x)| dx[/itex], does not depend on [itex]n[/itex].
 
jbunniii said:
Your proof already shows that the convergence is uniform, because your upper bound, [itex]\int ^{1}_{0} |f_{k} (x) - f(x)| dx[/itex], does not depend on [itex]n[/itex].

Right! Well it wasn't really my proof. You and MathematicalPhysicist basically did it. While I do understand it, I (obviously) have a hard time getting things started. I still have another question I haven't done and the other one you're helping me with!

Thanks again.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K