Norm of integral less than or equal to integral of norm of function

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the inequality relating the norm of an integral of a function to the integral of the norm of that function, specifically in the context of measurable spaces and integrable functions. Participants explore the mathematical reasoning behind the equality and inequality presented in a reference text, examining the implications of complex numbers and integration properties.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant states that the first equality in the argument is derived from applying a specific identity involving complex numbers, while the second equality is justified by the linearity of integration.
  • Another participant expresses uncertainty about interpreting the supremum of complex numbers or vectors in the context of the discussion, questioning whether the dot product or complex multiplication is intended.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of bringing the supremum inside the integral, with one participant suggesting that it can only yield larger values and that the supremum equals the norm.
  • One participant notes the intuitive nature of the inequality, emphasizing the potential for cancellation in the integral on the left side compared to the right side, which does not allow for such cancellation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing interpretations of the mathematical expressions and reasoning involved, indicating that there is no consensus on the understanding of the supremum or the implications of the inequalities presented.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the interpretation of complex numbers in the context of the supremum and the nature of the operations involved, as well as the conditions under which the inequalities hold.

psie
Messages
315
Reaction score
40
TL;DR
I have a question concerning the inequality $$\left|\int f\,\mathrm{d}\mu\right|\leq\int |f|\,\mathrm{d}\mu,$$where ##f## is complex-valued, measurable and integrable.
Let ##(E,\mathcal A)## be a measurable space equipped with a measure ##\mu##. If ##f:E\to\mathbb R## is integrable, then we have ##\left|\int f\,\mathrm{d}\mu\right|\leq\int |f|\,\mathrm{d}\mu##. If ##f:E\to\mathbb C## is integrable, Le Gall in his book Measure Theory, Probability and Stochastic Processes argues that (on page 29, bottom) the easiest way to obtain the inequality is by noticing $$\left|\int f\,\mathrm{d}\mu\right|=\sup_{a\in\mathbb C,|a|=1}a\cdot \int f\,\mathrm{d}\mu=\sup_{a\in\mathbb C,|a|=1}\int a\cdot f\,\mathrm{d}\mu,\tag1$$where ##a\cdot z## denotes the Euclidean scalar product on ##\mathbb C## identified with ##\mathbb R^2##. I wonder
  1. What is the author using in the first equality? Why does the second equality hold?
  2. How does one obtain the inequality from ##(1)##?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Note the identity z_1 \cdot z_2 \equiv |z_1||z_2|\cos(\arg z_1 - \arg z_2).
1. The first equality follows from applying the above identity to z_1 = a = e^{i\psi} and z_2 = \int f\,d\mu. The second equality follows because for constant a, <br /> a \cdot \int f\,d\mu = \int a \cdot f\,d\mu as can be verified by writing both sides in terms of real and imaginary parts.

2. I think the idea is to show that <br /> \left| \int f\,d\mu \right| = \sup_{\psi\,\mathrm{constant}} \int e^{i\psi} \cdot f\,d\mu \leq \sup_{\psi\,\mathrm{variable}} \int e^{i\psi} \cdot f\,d\mu = \int |f|\,d\mu. (Naturally one must constrain \psi so that e^{i\psi} \cdot f is integrable.)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: psie
Good question. I don't know how to interpret the sup of a set of complex numbers or vectors in ##\mathbb {R}^2## (which are not ordered). Does '.' mean the dot product or complex multiplication?
But here is my best guess at what he means.
1) The first one is just rotating the integral around until it is positive real and equal to its norm. The second one is the linearity of integration.
2) Bringing sup inside the integral can only give larger values. And the sup equals the norm.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: psie
I hope you realize that this inequality is intuitively clear. There can be a lot of cancellation (full or partial) in the integral on the left side but no cancellation on the right side.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: pasmith and psie

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K