A small doubt about the dominated convergence theorem The Next CEO of Stack OverflowIs...

How to check if all elements of 1 list are in the *same quantity* and in any order, in the list2?

A small doubt about the dominated convergence theorem

What did we know about the Kessel run before the prequels?

Why didn't Khan get resurrected in the Genesis Explosion?

Why is information "lost" when it got into a black hole?

Why, when going from special to general relativity, do we just replace partial derivatives with covariant derivatives?

RigExpert AA-35 - Interpreting The Information

Rotate a column

Is it my responsibility to learn a new technology in my own time my employer wants to implement?

Would a grinding machine be a simple and workable propulsion system for an interplanetary spacecraft?

The past simple of "gaslight" – "gaslighted" or "gaslit"?

Is French Guiana a (hard) EU border?

Axiom Schema vs Axiom

What connection does MS Office have to Netscape Navigator?

Is it okay to majorly distort historical facts while writing a fiction story?

Is it professional to write unrelated content in an almost-empty email?

I want to delete every two lines after 3rd lines in file contain very large number of lines :

What flight has the highest ratio of time difference to flight time?

Grabbing quick drinks

Is it convenient to ask the journal's editor for two additional days to complete a review?

Would be okay to drive on this tire?

Reference request: Grassmannian and Plucker coordinates in type B, C, D

Can we say or write : "No, it'sn't"?

How to invert MapIndexed on a ragged structure? How to construct a tree from rules?



A small doubt about the dominated convergence theorem



The Next CEO of Stack OverflowIs Lebesgue's Dominated Convergence Theorem a logical equivalence?Lebesgue's Dominated Convergence Theorem questionsExample about Dominated Convergence TheoremDominated Convergence TheoremNecessity of generalization of Dominated Convergence theoremSeeking counterexample for Dominated Convergence theoremHypothesis of dominated convergence theoremDominated convergence theorem vs continuityBartle's proof of Lebesgue Dominated Convergence TheoremTheorem similar to dominated convergence theorem












3












$begingroup$



Theorem $mathbf{A.2.11}$ (Dominated convergence). Let $f_n : X to mathbb R$ be a sequence of measurable functions and assume that there exists some integrable function $g : X to mathbb R$ such that $|f_n(x)| leq |g(x)|$ for $mu$-almost every $x$ in $X$. Assume moreover that the sequence $(f_n)_n$ converges at $mu$-almost every point to some function $f : X to mathbb R$. Then $f$ is integrable and satisfies $$lim_n int f_n , dmu = int f , dmu.$$




I wanted to know if in the hypothesis $|f_n(x)| leq|g(x)|$ above, if I already know that each $f_n$ is integrable, besides convergent, the theorem remains valid? Without me having to find this $g$ integrable?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    3












    $begingroup$



    Theorem $mathbf{A.2.11}$ (Dominated convergence). Let $f_n : X to mathbb R$ be a sequence of measurable functions and assume that there exists some integrable function $g : X to mathbb R$ such that $|f_n(x)| leq |g(x)|$ for $mu$-almost every $x$ in $X$. Assume moreover that the sequence $(f_n)_n$ converges at $mu$-almost every point to some function $f : X to mathbb R$. Then $f$ is integrable and satisfies $$lim_n int f_n , dmu = int f , dmu.$$




    I wanted to know if in the hypothesis $|f_n(x)| leq|g(x)|$ above, if I already know that each $f_n$ is integrable, besides convergent, the theorem remains valid? Without me having to find this $g$ integrable?










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      3












      3








      3


      1



      $begingroup$



      Theorem $mathbf{A.2.11}$ (Dominated convergence). Let $f_n : X to mathbb R$ be a sequence of measurable functions and assume that there exists some integrable function $g : X to mathbb R$ such that $|f_n(x)| leq |g(x)|$ for $mu$-almost every $x$ in $X$. Assume moreover that the sequence $(f_n)_n$ converges at $mu$-almost every point to some function $f : X to mathbb R$. Then $f$ is integrable and satisfies $$lim_n int f_n , dmu = int f , dmu.$$




      I wanted to know if in the hypothesis $|f_n(x)| leq|g(x)|$ above, if I already know that each $f_n$ is integrable, besides convergent, the theorem remains valid? Without me having to find this $g$ integrable?










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$





      Theorem $mathbf{A.2.11}$ (Dominated convergence). Let $f_n : X to mathbb R$ be a sequence of measurable functions and assume that there exists some integrable function $g : X to mathbb R$ such that $|f_n(x)| leq |g(x)|$ for $mu$-almost every $x$ in $X$. Assume moreover that the sequence $(f_n)_n$ converges at $mu$-almost every point to some function $f : X to mathbb R$. Then $f$ is integrable and satisfies $$lim_n int f_n , dmu = int f , dmu.$$




      I wanted to know if in the hypothesis $|f_n(x)| leq|g(x)|$ above, if I already know that each $f_n$ is integrable, besides convergent, the theorem remains valid? Without me having to find this $g$ integrable?







      measure-theory convergence lebesgue-integral






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 54 mins ago









      Rócherz

      3,0013821




      3,0013821










      asked 1 hour ago









      Ricardo FreireRicardo Freire

      579211




      579211






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3












          $begingroup$

          This is an excellent question. For the theorem to apply, you need the $f_n$'s to be uniformly dominated by an integrable function $g$. To see this, consider the sequence
          $$
          f_n(x) := frac{1}{n} mathbf{1}_{[0,n]}(x).
          $$

          Clearly, $f_n in L^1(mathbb{R})$ for each $n in mathbb{N}$. Moreover, $f_n(x) to 0$ as $n to infty$ for each $x in mathbb{R}$. However,
          begin{align*}
          lim_{n to infty} int_{mathbb{R}} f_n,mathrm{d}m = lim_{n to infty} int_0^n frac{1}{n},mathrm{d}x = 1 neq 0.
          end{align*}



          Nevertheless, you are not in too much trouble if you cannot find a dominating function. If your sequence of functions is uniformly bounded in $L^p(E)$ for $1 < p < infty$ where $E$ has finite measure, then you can still take the limit inside the integral. Namely, the following theorem often helps to rectify the situation.




          Theorem. Let $(f_n)$ be a sequence of measurable functions on a measure space $(X,mathfrak{M},mu)$ converging almost everywhere to a measurable function $f$. If $E subset X$ has finite measure and $(f_n)$ is bounded in $L^p(E)$ for some $1 < p < infty$, then
          $$
          lim_{n to infty} int_E f_n,mathrm{d}mu = int_E f,mathrm{d}mu.
          $$

          In fact, one has $f_n to f$ strongly in $L^1(E)$.




          In a sense, one can do without a dominating function when the sequence is uniformly bounded in a "higher $L^p$-space" and the domain of integration has finite measure.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
            $endgroup$
            – Ricardo Freire
            35 mins ago



















          2












          $begingroup$

          In general, it is not sufficient that each $f_n$ be integrable without a dominating function. For instance, the functions $f_n = chi_{[n,n+1]}$ on $mathbf R_{ge 0}$ are all integrable, and $f_n(x) to 0$ for all $xin mathbf R_{ge 0}$, but they are not dominated by an integrable function $g$, and indeed we do not have
          $$
          lim_{ntoinfty} int f_n = int lim_{ntoinfty}f_n
          $$

          since in this case, the left-hand side is $1$, but the right-hand side is $0$.





          To see why there is no dominating function $g$, such a function would have the property that $g(x)ge 1$ for each $xge 0$, so it would not be integrable on $mathbf R_{ge 0}$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
            $endgroup$
            – Ricardo Freire
            35 mins ago












          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3168945%2fa-small-doubt-about-the-dominated-convergence-theorem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          3












          $begingroup$

          This is an excellent question. For the theorem to apply, you need the $f_n$'s to be uniformly dominated by an integrable function $g$. To see this, consider the sequence
          $$
          f_n(x) := frac{1}{n} mathbf{1}_{[0,n]}(x).
          $$

          Clearly, $f_n in L^1(mathbb{R})$ for each $n in mathbb{N}$. Moreover, $f_n(x) to 0$ as $n to infty$ for each $x in mathbb{R}$. However,
          begin{align*}
          lim_{n to infty} int_{mathbb{R}} f_n,mathrm{d}m = lim_{n to infty} int_0^n frac{1}{n},mathrm{d}x = 1 neq 0.
          end{align*}



          Nevertheless, you are not in too much trouble if you cannot find a dominating function. If your sequence of functions is uniformly bounded in $L^p(E)$ for $1 < p < infty$ where $E$ has finite measure, then you can still take the limit inside the integral. Namely, the following theorem often helps to rectify the situation.




          Theorem. Let $(f_n)$ be a sequence of measurable functions on a measure space $(X,mathfrak{M},mu)$ converging almost everywhere to a measurable function $f$. If $E subset X$ has finite measure and $(f_n)$ is bounded in $L^p(E)$ for some $1 < p < infty$, then
          $$
          lim_{n to infty} int_E f_n,mathrm{d}mu = int_E f,mathrm{d}mu.
          $$

          In fact, one has $f_n to f$ strongly in $L^1(E)$.




          In a sense, one can do without a dominating function when the sequence is uniformly bounded in a "higher $L^p$-space" and the domain of integration has finite measure.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
            $endgroup$
            – Ricardo Freire
            35 mins ago
















          3












          $begingroup$

          This is an excellent question. For the theorem to apply, you need the $f_n$'s to be uniformly dominated by an integrable function $g$. To see this, consider the sequence
          $$
          f_n(x) := frac{1}{n} mathbf{1}_{[0,n]}(x).
          $$

          Clearly, $f_n in L^1(mathbb{R})$ for each $n in mathbb{N}$. Moreover, $f_n(x) to 0$ as $n to infty$ for each $x in mathbb{R}$. However,
          begin{align*}
          lim_{n to infty} int_{mathbb{R}} f_n,mathrm{d}m = lim_{n to infty} int_0^n frac{1}{n},mathrm{d}x = 1 neq 0.
          end{align*}



          Nevertheless, you are not in too much trouble if you cannot find a dominating function. If your sequence of functions is uniformly bounded in $L^p(E)$ for $1 < p < infty$ where $E$ has finite measure, then you can still take the limit inside the integral. Namely, the following theorem often helps to rectify the situation.




          Theorem. Let $(f_n)$ be a sequence of measurable functions on a measure space $(X,mathfrak{M},mu)$ converging almost everywhere to a measurable function $f$. If $E subset X$ has finite measure and $(f_n)$ is bounded in $L^p(E)$ for some $1 < p < infty$, then
          $$
          lim_{n to infty} int_E f_n,mathrm{d}mu = int_E f,mathrm{d}mu.
          $$

          In fact, one has $f_n to f$ strongly in $L^1(E)$.




          In a sense, one can do without a dominating function when the sequence is uniformly bounded in a "higher $L^p$-space" and the domain of integration has finite measure.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
            $endgroup$
            – Ricardo Freire
            35 mins ago














          3












          3








          3





          $begingroup$

          This is an excellent question. For the theorem to apply, you need the $f_n$'s to be uniformly dominated by an integrable function $g$. To see this, consider the sequence
          $$
          f_n(x) := frac{1}{n} mathbf{1}_{[0,n]}(x).
          $$

          Clearly, $f_n in L^1(mathbb{R})$ for each $n in mathbb{N}$. Moreover, $f_n(x) to 0$ as $n to infty$ for each $x in mathbb{R}$. However,
          begin{align*}
          lim_{n to infty} int_{mathbb{R}} f_n,mathrm{d}m = lim_{n to infty} int_0^n frac{1}{n},mathrm{d}x = 1 neq 0.
          end{align*}



          Nevertheless, you are not in too much trouble if you cannot find a dominating function. If your sequence of functions is uniformly bounded in $L^p(E)$ for $1 < p < infty$ where $E$ has finite measure, then you can still take the limit inside the integral. Namely, the following theorem often helps to rectify the situation.




          Theorem. Let $(f_n)$ be a sequence of measurable functions on a measure space $(X,mathfrak{M},mu)$ converging almost everywhere to a measurable function $f$. If $E subset X$ has finite measure and $(f_n)$ is bounded in $L^p(E)$ for some $1 < p < infty$, then
          $$
          lim_{n to infty} int_E f_n,mathrm{d}mu = int_E f,mathrm{d}mu.
          $$

          In fact, one has $f_n to f$ strongly in $L^1(E)$.




          In a sense, one can do without a dominating function when the sequence is uniformly bounded in a "higher $L^p$-space" and the domain of integration has finite measure.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          This is an excellent question. For the theorem to apply, you need the $f_n$'s to be uniformly dominated by an integrable function $g$. To see this, consider the sequence
          $$
          f_n(x) := frac{1}{n} mathbf{1}_{[0,n]}(x).
          $$

          Clearly, $f_n in L^1(mathbb{R})$ for each $n in mathbb{N}$. Moreover, $f_n(x) to 0$ as $n to infty$ for each $x in mathbb{R}$. However,
          begin{align*}
          lim_{n to infty} int_{mathbb{R}} f_n,mathrm{d}m = lim_{n to infty} int_0^n frac{1}{n},mathrm{d}x = 1 neq 0.
          end{align*}



          Nevertheless, you are not in too much trouble if you cannot find a dominating function. If your sequence of functions is uniformly bounded in $L^p(E)$ for $1 < p < infty$ where $E$ has finite measure, then you can still take the limit inside the integral. Namely, the following theorem often helps to rectify the situation.




          Theorem. Let $(f_n)$ be a sequence of measurable functions on a measure space $(X,mathfrak{M},mu)$ converging almost everywhere to a measurable function $f$. If $E subset X$ has finite measure and $(f_n)$ is bounded in $L^p(E)$ for some $1 < p < infty$, then
          $$
          lim_{n to infty} int_E f_n,mathrm{d}mu = int_E f,mathrm{d}mu.
          $$

          In fact, one has $f_n to f$ strongly in $L^1(E)$.




          In a sense, one can do without a dominating function when the sequence is uniformly bounded in a "higher $L^p$-space" and the domain of integration has finite measure.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited 17 mins ago

























          answered 49 mins ago









          rolandcyprolandcyp

          1,856315




          1,856315












          • $begingroup$
            I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
            $endgroup$
            – Ricardo Freire
            35 mins ago


















          • $begingroup$
            I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
            $endgroup$
            – Ricardo Freire
            35 mins ago
















          $begingroup$
          I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
          $endgroup$
          – Ricardo Freire
          35 mins ago




          $begingroup$
          I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
          $endgroup$
          – Ricardo Freire
          35 mins ago











          2












          $begingroup$

          In general, it is not sufficient that each $f_n$ be integrable without a dominating function. For instance, the functions $f_n = chi_{[n,n+1]}$ on $mathbf R_{ge 0}$ are all integrable, and $f_n(x) to 0$ for all $xin mathbf R_{ge 0}$, but they are not dominated by an integrable function $g$, and indeed we do not have
          $$
          lim_{ntoinfty} int f_n = int lim_{ntoinfty}f_n
          $$

          since in this case, the left-hand side is $1$, but the right-hand side is $0$.





          To see why there is no dominating function $g$, such a function would have the property that $g(x)ge 1$ for each $xge 0$, so it would not be integrable on $mathbf R_{ge 0}$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
            $endgroup$
            – Ricardo Freire
            35 mins ago
















          2












          $begingroup$

          In general, it is not sufficient that each $f_n$ be integrable without a dominating function. For instance, the functions $f_n = chi_{[n,n+1]}$ on $mathbf R_{ge 0}$ are all integrable, and $f_n(x) to 0$ for all $xin mathbf R_{ge 0}$, but they are not dominated by an integrable function $g$, and indeed we do not have
          $$
          lim_{ntoinfty} int f_n = int lim_{ntoinfty}f_n
          $$

          since in this case, the left-hand side is $1$, but the right-hand side is $0$.





          To see why there is no dominating function $g$, such a function would have the property that $g(x)ge 1$ for each $xge 0$, so it would not be integrable on $mathbf R_{ge 0}$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
            $endgroup$
            – Ricardo Freire
            35 mins ago














          2












          2








          2





          $begingroup$

          In general, it is not sufficient that each $f_n$ be integrable without a dominating function. For instance, the functions $f_n = chi_{[n,n+1]}$ on $mathbf R_{ge 0}$ are all integrable, and $f_n(x) to 0$ for all $xin mathbf R_{ge 0}$, but they are not dominated by an integrable function $g$, and indeed we do not have
          $$
          lim_{ntoinfty} int f_n = int lim_{ntoinfty}f_n
          $$

          since in this case, the left-hand side is $1$, but the right-hand side is $0$.





          To see why there is no dominating function $g$, such a function would have the property that $g(x)ge 1$ for each $xge 0$, so it would not be integrable on $mathbf R_{ge 0}$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          In general, it is not sufficient that each $f_n$ be integrable without a dominating function. For instance, the functions $f_n = chi_{[n,n+1]}$ on $mathbf R_{ge 0}$ are all integrable, and $f_n(x) to 0$ for all $xin mathbf R_{ge 0}$, but they are not dominated by an integrable function $g$, and indeed we do not have
          $$
          lim_{ntoinfty} int f_n = int lim_{ntoinfty}f_n
          $$

          since in this case, the left-hand side is $1$, but the right-hand side is $0$.





          To see why there is no dominating function $g$, such a function would have the property that $g(x)ge 1$ for each $xge 0$, so it would not be integrable on $mathbf R_{ge 0}$.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 48 mins ago









          Alex OrtizAlex Ortiz

          11.2k21441




          11.2k21441












          • $begingroup$
            I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
            $endgroup$
            – Ricardo Freire
            35 mins ago


















          • $begingroup$
            I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
            $endgroup$
            – Ricardo Freire
            35 mins ago
















          $begingroup$
          I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
          $endgroup$
          – Ricardo Freire
          35 mins ago




          $begingroup$
          I understood. Thanks a lot for the help
          $endgroup$
          – Ricardo Freire
          35 mins ago


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3168945%2fa-small-doubt-about-the-dominated-convergence-theorem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Щит и меч (фильм) Содержание Названия серий | Сюжет |...

          Венесуэла на летних Олимпийских играх 2000 Содержание Состав...

          Meter-Bus Содержание Параметры шины | Стандартизация |...