MHB What Does Norm Convergence Mean in $L^p$ Spaces?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Convergence Norm
Click For Summary
In $L^p$ spaces, if a sequence of functions $f_n$ converges to a function $f$ almost everywhere and their norms converge, then $f_n$ converges to $f$ in the norm sense, meaning that the $p$-norm of their difference approaches zero. The proof of this relies on a generalized version of the dominated convergence theorem and properties of convex functions. The discussion highlights the importance of understanding convergence in terms of norms and provides a reference for a detailed proof. Participants share insights on using Fatou's lemma and the implications of norm convergence. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the complexities and nuances of convergence in functional analysis.
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

If $f_n, f \in L^p, 1\leq p < +\infty$ and $f_n \rightarrow f$ almost everywhere, and $||f_n||_p \rightarrow ||f||_p$, then $f_n\rightarrow f$ as for the norm.

Could you give me some hints how to show it?? (Wondering)

What does convergence as for the norm mean?? (Wondering)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mathmari said:
Hey! :o

If $f_n, f \in L^p, 1\leq p < +\infty$ and $f_n \rightarrow f$ almost everywhere, and $||f_n||_p \rightarrow ||f||_p$, then $f_n\rightarrow f$ as for the norm.

Could you give me some hints how to show it?? (Wondering)

What does convergence as for the norm mean?? (Wondering)
This is an elusive result. I found a proof of it http://math.ucsd.edu/~lni/math240/Hand-out1.pdf (Theorem 0.1). The proof relies on a generalised version of the dominated convergence theorem, which is proved here. Another ingredient in the proof is the fact that $(a+b)^p \leqslant 2^{p-1}(a^p + b^p)$ for positive numbers $a,b$. You can deduce that from the fact that the function $f(x) = x^p$ is convex for $x>0$, and so $f\bigl(\frac12\!(a+b)\bigr) \leqslant \frac12\!\!\bigl(f(a) + f(b)\bigr).$

"Convergence as for the norm" means $\|\,f_n - f\|_p \to0$ as $n\to\infty$.
 
Last edited:
Opalg said:
This is an elusive result. I found a proof of it http://math.ucsd.edu/~lni/math240/Hand-out1.pdf (Theorem 0.1). The proof relies on a generalised version of the dominated convergence theorem, which is proved here. Another ingredient in the proof is the fact that $(a+b)^p \leqslant 2^{p-1}(a^p + b^p)$ for positive numbers $a,b$. You can deduce that from the fact that the function $f(x) = x^p$ is convex for $x>0$, and so $f\bigl(\frac12\!(a+b)\bigr) \leqslant \frac12\!\!\bigl(f(a) + f(b)\bigr).$

"Convergence as for the norm" means $\|\,f_n - f\|_p \to0$ as $n\to\infty$.

Ahaa... So can I formulate it as followed?? (Wondering)From Fatou`s lemma we have that $$\int \lim \inf [2^{p-1}(|f_n|^p+|f|_p)-|f_n-f|^p]d\mu \leq \\ \lim \inf \int [2^{p-1}(|f_n|^p+|f|^p)-|f_n-f|^p]d\mu \\ \Rightarrow 2^{p-1}\int \lim \inf (|f_n|^p+|f|^p)d\mu+\int \lim \inf (-|f_n-f|^p)d\mu \leq 2^{p-1}(\lim \inf \int |f_n|^pd\mu +\lim \inf \int |f|^pd\mu )+\lim \inf (-\int |f_n-f|^p d\mu) \\ \Rightarrow 2^{p-1}[\int \lim \inf |f_n |^pd \mu+\int \lim \inf |f|^pd \mu]-\int \lim \sup |f_n-f|^pd \mu \leq 2^{p-1}[\lim \inf \int |f_n|^pd \mu+\lim \inf \int |f|^p d\mu]-\lim \sup \int |f_n-f|^pd \mu \ \ \ \ \ (*) $$

Knowing that $||f_n||_p\rightarrow ||f||_p \Rightarrow \left ( \int |f_n|^p\right )^{1/p}\rightarrow \left ( \int |f|^p\right )^{1p}$ , we have that $\lim \inf |f_n|^p=|f|^p$

Therefore, $$(*)\Rightarrow 2^{p-1}\int (|f|^pd \mu+\int |f|^pd\mu)-\int \lim \sup |f_n-f|^pd \mu \leq 2^{p-1}(\lim \inf \int |f_n|^pd \mu +\int |f|^pd \mu)-\lim \sup \int |f_n-f|^pd \mu \\ \Rightarrow 2^{p-1}\int |f|^pd \mu-\int \lim \sup |f_n-f|^pd \mu \leq 2^{p-1}\lim \inf ||f_n||^p_p-\lim \sup \int |f_n-f|^pd \mu \\ \Rightarrow 2^{p-1}||f||^p_p-\int \lim \sup |f_n-f|^pd \mu \leq 2^{p-1} ||f||^p_p-\lim \sup \int |f_n-f|^pd \mu \\ \Rightarrow \lim \sup \int |f_n-f|^pd \mu \leq \int \lim\sup |f_n-f|^pd \mu \\ \Rightarrow \lim \sup ||f_n-f||^p_p \leq \int \lim \sup |f_n-f|^pd \mu =0, \text{ since } f_n\rightarrow f \text{ almost everywhere } $$

So, we conclude that $||f_n-f||_p\rightarrow 0$.
 
Yes, that looks good. (Yes) (Rock)

I struggled for a long time, unsuccessfully, to prove this result by using the dominated convergence theorem. Then I discovered that online reference to a generalisation of the DCT (proved in the same way as the standard DCT, from Fatou's lemma), in which instead of a single dominating function there is a convergent sequence of them.
 
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 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K