Proving the Monotone Convergence Theorem for Non-Negative Measurable Functions

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
6 replies · 3K views
BrainHurts
Messages
100
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Let f be a non-negative measurable function. Prove that

[itex]\lim _{n \rightarrow \infty} \int (f \wedge n) \rightarrow \int f.[/itex]

The Attempt at a Solution



I feel like I'm supposed to use the monotone convergence theorem.

I don't know if I'm on the right track but I created a sequence of functions so that

[itex]h_1(x) \leq h_2(x) \cdots[/itex] where

[itex]h_1(x) = \min(f_1(x), n)[/itex]

[itex]h_2(x) = \min(f_2(x),n)[/itex]

[itex]\vdots[/itex]

[itex]h_n(x) = \min(f_n(x),n)[/itex]

So the [itex]h(x) = \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} h_n(x) = \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \min(f_n,n) = \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}\min(f,n)[/itex]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
BrainHurts said:

Homework Statement



Let f be a non-negative measurable function. Prove that

[itex]\lim _{n \rightarrow \infty} \int (f \wedge n) \rightarrow \int f.[/itex]

The Attempt at a Solution



I feel like I'm supposed to use the monotone convergence theorem.

I don't know if I'm on the right track but I created a sequence of functions so that

[itex]h_1(x) \leq h_2(x) \cdots[/itex] where

[itex]h_1(x) = \min(f_1(x), n)[/itex]

[itex]h_2(x) = \min(f_2(x),n)[/itex]

[itex]\vdots[/itex]

[itex]h_n(x) = \min(f_n(x),n)[/itex]

So the [itex]h(x) = \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} h_n(x) = \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \min(f_n,n) = \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}\min(f,n)[/itex]

I'm guessing ##f \wedge n## means min(f,n)? Then why not just define ##f_n=\min(f,n)##? What do YOU mean by your ##f_n##??
 
Dick said:
I'm guessing ##f \wedge n## means min(f,n)? Then why not just define ##f_n=min(f,n)##? What do YOU mean by your ##f_n##??

yes [itex]f \wedge n = \min(f, n)[/itex]

so define

[itex]f_1(x) = \min(f(x),1)[/itex]

[itex]f_2(x) = \min(f(x),2)[/itex]

[itex]\vdots[/itex]

[itex]f_n(x) = \min(f(x),n)[/itex]

In short we still have that [itex]f_1(x) \leq f_2(x) \leq \cdots \leq f_n(x)[/itex] for all x.

Well I want [itex]\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}f_n \rightarrow f[/itex] for all x because if I have this situation I can use the monotone convergence theorem.

I'm just not sure if that's the case.
 
Last edited:
BrainHurts said:
yes [itex]f \wedge n = \min(f, n)[/itex]

so define

[itex]f_1(x) = \min(f_1(x),1)[/itex]

[itex]f_2(x) = \min(f_2(x),2)[/itex]

[itex]\vdots[/itex]

[itex]f_n(x) = \min(f_n(x),n)[/itex]

In short I believe we still have that [itex]f_1(x) \leq f_2(x) \leq \cdots \leq f_n(x)[/itex] for all x.

Well I want [itex]\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}(f_n \wedge n) \rightarrow f[/itex] for all x because if I have this situation I can use the monotone convergence theorem.

I'm just not sure if that's the case.

I think it's all fine, except ##f_1(x) = \min(f_1(x),1)## doesn't do a good job of defining ##f_1##. ##f_1(x) = \min(f(x),1)## is much better. Are you asking why ##f_n \rightarrow f##?
 
Last edited:
Sorry I just made some edits, I saw my mistake.
 
I think I'm covered, because I'll have to consider the case when f is finite and f is infinite correct?
 
BrainHurts said:
I think I'm covered, because I'll have to consider the case when f is finite and f is infinite correct?

Maybe. f is nonnegative. So either the integral exists or it's '+infinity'. I think in either case the sequence convergence is correct. If you allow things like '+infinity'. Think about a function like f(x)=1/x^2. Define f(0) however you want.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person