The given conditions imply that, for sufficiently large n, f_n is integrable over X and, therefore, over each measurable set E. So, we can assume, without loss of generality, that such conditions hold for every n. Also, f is integrable over every E of M and lim f_n = f on each subset of X.
Let E' be the complement of E, so that E' is in M. Then, for every natural n,
Int_E f_n du + Int_E' f_n du = Int f_n du
Since lim Int f_n du = Int f du = Int_E f du + Int_E' f du, it follows that
lim (Int_E f_n du + Int_E' f_n du) = Int_E f du + Int_E' f du (1).
Since f_n is a sequence in L+, it follows from Fatou's Lemma that:
Int_E lim inf f_n du = Int_E lim f_n du = Int_E f du <= lim inf Int_E f_n du. So, emphasizing the last inequality,
Int_E f du <= lim inf Int_E f_n du (2)
and, similarly (skipping the details),
Int_E' f du <= lim inf Int_E' f_n du (3)
The terms involved in (2) and (3) are finite, since f is integrable over E and over E'.
We know that if a_n and b_n are real sequences such that (a_n + b_n) --> a + b, a and b in R, and
a <= lim inf a_n and b <= lim inf b_n , then
a_n --> a and b_n --> b. (The proof of this result is given at the end of this post, anyway)
So, applying this result with a_n = Int_E f_n du , b_n = Int_E' f_n du, a = Int_E f du and b = Int_E' f du and considering (1), (2) and (3), it follows that
lim Int_E f_n du = Int_E f du, proving the theorem.
To see this conclusion may fail if lim Int f_n du = Int f du = oo, we can take X = (0, oo), M = Lebesgue sigma-algebra on X , u = Lebesgue measure and
f_n(x) = 1/(nx) if x is in (0, 1]
f_n(x) = 1 if x is in (1, oo) n=1,2,3.... ....
Then, f_n conveges to the function f given by
f(x) = 0, if x is in (0, 1] and f(x) = 1 if x is in (1, oo). Let E = (0, 1]. Then, recalling in this case the Lebesgue and Riemann integrals yields the same value, we have. for every n,
Int_E f_n du = Int (0 to 1)1/nx dx = 1/n ln(x) (0 to 1) = oo, Int_(1,oo) f_n du = 1 * oo = oo and, therefore, Int f_n du = oo. It follows that lim Int_E f_n du = oo and lim Int f_n du = oo.
On the other hand, Int_E f du = 0, Int_(0, 1) f du = oo and Int f du = oo
So, we have lim Int f_n du = Int f du = oo, but lim_E f_n du = oo > 0 = Int_E f du. This shows the condtion Int f du < oo cannot be dropped.
In this proof, we used the following result:
If a_n and b_n are real sequences such that (a_n + b_n) --> a + b, a and b in R, and
a <= lim inf a_n and b <= lim inf b_n , then
a_n --> a and b_n --> b
Proof:
For every n,
a_n = (a_n + b_n) - b_n.
By the properties of lim inf and lim sup of sequences, it follows from the assumptions that
lim sup a_n <= lim sup(a_n + b_n) + lim sup(-b_n) = a + b - lim inf b_n <= a + b - b = a. Hence,
lim sup a_n <= a <= lim inf a_n => lim a_n = a. It follows immediately that lim b_n = b
2007-12-20 04:51:17
·
answer #1
·
answered by Steiner 7
·
4⤊
0⤋
some authors enable easy purposes to take ? whilst defining the Lebesgue sums, and upload one greater term to the sum that money owed for it (the term ? x ?({f(x)=?})). yet this reasons technical issues so, so some distance as i be attentive to, maximum authors decide to limit the easy purposes approximating the integrand to the actual extensive form device: this avoids precisely the ought to introduce added hypothesis concerning to summability and/or positivity contained in the statements of the convergence theorems. I went by way of my books (this is been a whilst considering that I regarded at degree concept), and the only one i found that defines the essential with easy functionality to the prolonged reals is a e book by potential of Dym and McKean on Fourier sequence; the classic books on degree concept and Integration (Halmos, Taylor, Bartle, and so on.) all limit the easy purposes whilst defining the essential.
2016-11-04 03:22:30
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋