Undergrad Regarding dominated convergence theorem in Folland

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the Dominated Convergence Theorem as presented by Folland, specifically the proof's first sentence regarding the measurability of the limit function f. Participants express confusion about whether Folland assumes the measure is complete, with one interpretation suggesting that f_n's convergence implies f is measurable under the completion of the measure space. Another perspective argues that the measure does not need to be complete, as the convergence of f_n to f allows for the application of Proposition 2.11 to establish f's measurability. The conversation also highlights the importance of Proposition 2.12, indicating that the choice of measure (complete or not) does not affect the results in L^1 spaces. Ultimately, the participants seek clarity on the implications of these propositions for the theorem's proof.
psie
Messages
315
Reaction score
40
TL;DR
I am stuck at the very first sentence in the proof of Folland's version of the dominated convergence theorem. The wording confuses me and I'm not sure if he assumes the measure to be complete and the limiting function to be measurable.
The Dominated Convergence Theorem. Let ##\{f_n\}## be a sequence in ##L^1## such that (a) ##f_n\to f## a.e., and (b) there exists a nonnegative ##g\in L^1## such that ##|f_n|\leq g## a.e. for all ##n##. Then ##f\in L^1## and ##\int f=\lim\int f_n##.

Proof. ##f## is measurable (perhaps after redefinition on a null set) by Prop. 2.11 and 2.12, and since ##|f|\leq g## a.e., we have ##f\in L^1##. ...

That's the first sentence in the proof. Prior to this Folland mentions the spaces ##L^1(\overline{\mu})## and ##L^1(\mu)## and how "we can (and shall) identify these spaces." (here ##\overline{\mu}## is the completion of ##\mu##). The propositions mentioned in the proof read as follows:

Proposition. 2.11. The following implications are valid iff the measure ##\mu## is complete:
a) If ##f## is measurable and ##f=g## ##\mu##-a.e., then ##g## is measurable.
b) If ##f_n## is measurable for ##n\in\mathbb N## and ##f_n\to f## ##\mu##-a.e., then ##f## is measurable.

Proposition. 2.12. Let ##(X, \mathcal M,m)## be a measure space and let ##(X,\overline{\mathcal M} ,\overline \mu)## be its completion. If ##f## is an ##\overline{\mathcal M}##-measurable function on ##X##, there is an ##\mathcal M##-measurable function ##g## such that ##f=g## ##\overline{\mu}##-almost everywhere.

I'm really confused by Folland's first sentence in the proof of the dominated convergence theorem. My interpretation of Folland's theorem and first sentence is that he assumes ##\{f_n\}\subset L^1(\overline{\mu})##, so by Prop. 2.11b ##f## is measurable. Now by Prop. 2.12, i.e. by redefinition on a null set, we can find ##f_0\in L^1(\mu)## such that $f=f_0$ a.e. Does this make sense to you? My interpretation assumes the measure to be complete; I don't see otherwise why he'd refer to Proposition. 2.11.

Grateful for any thoughts or comments.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Here's an alternative interpretation, which I think is the correct one.

The measure ##\mu## is not assumed to be complete. As for the measurability of ##f##; we know that ##f_n## converge to ##f## ##\mu##-almost everywhere. Consider temporarily the completion of your ##\sigma##-algebra and measure. The ##f_n##'s are measurable with respect to that completion, and still converge ##\overline{\mu}##-a.e to ##f##. This is because if a function is measurable with respect to some ##\sigma##-algebra, then also with respect to any larger ##\sigma##-algebra (also, ##\{x:f_n(x)\not\to f(x)\}## is still a ##\overline{\mu}##-null set). By Proposition 2.11, ##f## is measurable with respect to the complete ##\sigma##-algebra. By Proposition 2.12, ##f## is equal ##\overline{\mu}##-a.e. to a function that's measurable with respect to the incomplete ##\sigma##-algebra (and we agree to denote that measurable function by ##f##, which is what Folland means by redefining ##f## on a null set).
 
I'm not sure I understand your concerns. 2.11(b) makes ##f## measurable and ##|f|<g## guarantees ##\int |f|<\int g<\infty .##
 
fresh_42 said:
I'm not sure I understand your concerns. 2.11(b) makes ##f## measurable and ##|f|<g## guarantees ##\int |f|<\int g<\infty .##
2.11b makes ##f## measurable provided the measure is complete, but Folland does not state the measure is complete.
 
FYI, my Firefox browser is not displaying the Latex overline. My Chrome and Microsoft Edge browsers display it properly. Readers might want to not use Firefox for this thread.
 
2.12 says that in questions about ##L^1## it doesn't matter if you work with the given measure or its completion. So assume the measure is complete.
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

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