L^p Spaces and Convergence of Functions

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter tornado28
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem from functional analysis concerning the convergence of functions in L^p spaces. Participants explore the conditions under which the norm of the difference between two functions converges to zero, specifically focusing on the implications of pointwise convergence almost everywhere.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a problem regarding the convergence of functions in L^p spaces, noting progress in the case of p=2 using Hölder's inequality.
  • Another participant suggests reducing the problem to the case of p=1 and provides an inequality that may assist in the proof.
  • A different participant reiterates the original problem and offers a partial proof, indicating that if the norm of the difference converges to zero, then the norms of the functions must also converge.
  • Concerns are raised about the validity of a specific inequality used in the proof, particularly in cases where the functions may take on opposite signs.
  • One participant proposes using Egorov's Theorem under certain conditions to tackle the problem, while expressing uncertainty about the general applicability of the discussed approaches.
  • Another participant emphasizes the need to establish a limit involving the norms and suggests applying Fatou's lemma, contingent on proving the non-negativity of a related expression.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the implications of one direction of the convergence statement, but there is no consensus on the other direction, with multiple competing views and approaches remaining unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding specific inequalities and conditions necessary for applying certain theorems, indicating that the discussion is dependent on the definitions and assumptions made about the functions involved.

tornado28
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
This is a functional analysis qualifying exam problem that I can't figure out. Any assistance would be appreciated since I have to take a similar qual soon. I was able to make some limited progress in the p=2 case using Holders inequality.

Suppose [itex]f_n, f\in L^p[/itex] where [itex]1\le p <\infty[/itex] and that [itex]f_n \rightarrow f[/itex] a.e. Show that [itex]\|f_n-f\|_p \rightarrow 0[/itex] iff [itex]\|f_n\|_p \rightarrow \|f\|_p[/itex].
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi tornado28! :smile:

First reduce everything to the case p=1. That is, assume that you know the result for p=1, show that it also holds for p>1.

In reducing this case, you will need the inequality:

For [itex]x,y\geq 0[/itex], then [itex]|x-y|^p\leq |x^p-y^p|[/itex]. Try to prove this.
 
tornado28 said:
This is a functional analysis qualifying exam problem that I can't figure out. Any assistance would be appreciated since I have to take a similar qual soon. I was able to make some limited progress in the p=2 case using Holders inequality.

Suppose [itex]f_n, f\in L^p[/itex] where [itex]1\le p <\infty[/itex] and that [itex]f_n \rightarrow f[/itex] a.e. Show that [itex]\|f_n-f\|_p \rightarrow 0[/itex] iff [itex]\|f_n\|_p \rightarrow \|f\|_p[/itex].
This is in fact a difficult question. I had the same when I took my analysis qual a few years ago. Here is how you prove it. First, notice that [itex]\|f_n\|_p =\| f_n-f+f \|_p \leq \| f_n-f \|_p + \| f\|_p[/itex] This implies that [itex]\| f_n\|_p-\| f\|_p \leq \| f_n-f \|_p[/itex]. Thus if lim[itex](\| f_n-f \|_p)=0[/itex] then lim[itex](\| f_n\|_p - \| f \|_p)=0[/itex]
Next, to show the second part, use the fact that [itex]2^p( |f_n|^p+|f|^p-|f_n - f|^p) \geq 0[/itex] and lim[itex]( 2^p( |f_n|^p+|f|^p-|f_n - f|^p))=2^{p+1}|f|^p[/itex] and apply Fatou's lemma. I will let you finish the rest.
Vignon Oussa
 
Last edited:
Ok, I understand why [itex]\|f_n-f\|_p \rightarrow 0 \Rightarrow \|f_n\|_p \rightarrow \|f\|_p[/itex], but I still don't have a solution for the other direction. In your solution, Vig, it is not necessarily true that [itex]2^p( |f_n|^p+|f|^p-|f_n - f|^p) \geq 0[/itex] since we could, for instance, have [itex]f_n=1[/itex], [itex]f = -1[/itex], and [itex]p=2[/itex].

I think I could do it using Egorov's Theorem in the case that the underlying space is sigma compact, but since both of you seem to think that it can be done in general I wonder if I could have another hint.

I thought I had a proof using the inequality you suggested Micro, but I'm running into the same problem. It's not necessarily the case that [itex]|f_n - f|^p \le \left| |f_n|^p - |f|^p \right|[/itex] when [itex]f_n[/itex] and [itex]f[/itex] have opposite signs.
 
tornado28 said:
Ok, I understand why [itex]\|f_n-f\|_p \rightarrow 0 \Rightarrow \|f_n\|_p \rightarrow \|f\|_p[/itex], but I still don't have a solution for the other direction. In your solution, Vig, it is not necessarily true that [itex]2^p( |f_n|^p+|f|^p-|f_n - f|^p) \geq 0[/itex] since we could, for instance, have [itex]f_n=1[/itex], [itex]f = -1[/itex], and [itex]p=2[/itex].

I think I could do it using Egorov's Theorem in the case that the underlying space is sigma compact, but since both of you seem to think that it can be done in general I wonder if I could have another hint.

I thought I had a proof using the inequality you suggested Micro, but I'm running into the same problem. It's not necessarily the case that [itex]|f_n - f|^p \le \left| |f_n|^p - |f|^p \right|[/itex] when [itex]f_n[/itex] and [itex]f[/itex] have opposite signs.

Ok, let's do this in the way I know works (I was trying to find an easy way out). Firstly, establish that

[tex]\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty}{2^p(|f_n|^p+|f|^p)-|f_n-f|^p}=2^{p+1}|f|^p[/tex]

Now, apply Fatou's lemma to calculate

[tex]\int{2^{p+1}|f|^pd\mu}[/tex]

(note: to be able to apply Fatou's lemma, you'll need to know that [itex]2^p(|f_n|^p+|f|^p)-|f_n-f|^p\geq 0[/itex]. To show that this is the case, apply that the function [itex]\Phi(x)=x^p[/itex] is convex)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K