- #1
psie
- 271
- 32
- TL;DR Summary
- I'm reading about ##L^p## space and there's a remark after a proposition that confuses me.
Proposition 4.6 Let ##p\in[1,\infty)## and let ##(f_n)## be a convergent sequence in ##L^p(E,\mathcal A,\mu)## with limit ##f##. Then there is a subsequence ##(f_{k_n})## that converges pointwise to ##f## except on a measurable set of zero ##\mu##-measure.
Remark The result also holds for ##p=\infty##, but in that case there is no need to extract a subseqeuence, as the convergence in ##L^\infty## is equivalent to uniform convergence except on a set of zero measure.
Let us mention a useful by-product of Proposition 4.6. If ##(f_n)## is a convergent sequence in ##L^p(E,\mathcal A,\mu)## with limit ##f##, and if we also know that ##f_n(x)\to g(x)## ##\mu(\mathrm{d}x)##-a.e., then ##f=g## ##\mu## a.e.
I fail to see why the "by-product" of Proposition 4.6 is true. Isn't $$f_n\stackrel{L^p}{\to} f \text{ and } f_n(x)\to g(x) \ \mu(\mathrm{d}x)\text{-a.e.}$$ the same statement? I am confused about how to apply Proposition 4.6 to prove the "by-product" statement. Any help is greatly appreciated.