Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Limit of measble functions

  1. Sep 11, 2011 #1
    1)is this true? If f_n(x) -> f(x) pointwise, then
    {x:f(x)<=a} = union{k=1^infty}intersection{n=k^infty}{x:f_n(x)<=a}.
    2)if A is measurable set, subset of reals, then is A-const set measurable?
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 12, 2011 #2
    I'm not getting your question. Could you make it more clear.
  4. Sep 12, 2011 #3
    For the first, you want to know if

    [tex]\{f\leq a\}=\liminf\{f_n\leq a\}[/tex]

    In other words, you want to know whether [itex]f\leq a[/itex] if and only if [itex]f_n\leq a[/itex] eventually.

    This is false, take [itex]f_n(x)=\frac{1}{n}x^2[/itex], then f(x)=0 and take a=0.
    Then [itex]\{f\leq 0\}=\mathbb{R}[/itex], but [itex]\liminf\{f_n\leq 0\}=\{0\}[/itex]

    As you do notice, you do have the [itex]\supseteq[/itex] inclusion.

    (b) is true. Let [itex]\mathbb{B}[/itex] be the Borel-sigma-algebra. Then we put

    [itex]\mathcal{A}=\{B-k~\vert~B\in \mathcal{B}\}[/itex]

    Try to prove that [itex]\mathcal{A}[/itex] is a sigma-algebra which contains the open intervals...
  5. Sep 12, 2011 #4
    Appreciate your help, you i "proved" my first claim. Could you help to find my error?
    So, if for given x [itex]f(x) \leq a[/itex], then for [itex]\forall \varepsilon>0, \forall x[/itex] [itex]\exists k[/itex] such that [itex]\forall n\geq k[/itex]

    [tex]f(x) - \varepsilon < f_n(x) < f(x) + \varepsilon \leq a + \varepsilon [/tex]
    Since [itex]\varepsilon [/itex] was arbitrary, we're done!
  6. Sep 12, 2011 #5
    The thing is that your n depends on [itex]\varepsilon[/itex]. So if you take [itex]\varepsilon[/itex] smaller, then n will be bigger. So the argument, "[itex]\varepsilon[/itex] is arbitrary" doesn't really work here.
  7. Sep 12, 2011 #6
    I see it now, thanks
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook