Fourier series coefficients and convergence

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
8 replies · 2K views
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
[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.