Riemann lebesgue lemma. wikipedia. 2010-06-26

  • Thread starter Thread starter jostpuur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Riemann Wikipedia
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the perceived shortcomings of the Wikipedia proof of the Riemann-Lebesgue lemma. Participants express confusion over the application of the dominated convergence theorem in the proof, questioning its clarity and justification. Concerns are raised about the transition from proving the lemma for step functions to integrable functions without sufficient explanation. A suggestion is made to find a step function that approximates the integrable function to clarify the proof's logic. Overall, the conversation highlights a need for clearer exposition in mathematical proofs, particularly in online resources like Wikipedia.
jostpuur
Messages
2,112
Reaction score
19
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann-Lebesgue_lemma

Have I made a mistake when it looks to me that the Wikipedia proof on Riemann-Lebesgue lemma looks like nonsense?

Step 1. An elementary calculation shows that
<br /> \int\limits_I e^{itx} dx \to 0\quad\textrm{as}\quad t\to \pm\infty<br />
for every interval I\subset [a,b]. The proposition is therefore true for all step functions with support in [a,b].

Step 2. By the dominated convergence theorem, the proposition is true for all positive functions, integrable on [a,b].

How are you supposed to use dominated convergence theorem there?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
f(x) eitx is dominated by f(x)?
 
jostpuur said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann-Lebesgue_lemma

Have I made a mistake when it looks to me that the Wikipedia proof on Riemann-Lebesgue lemma looks like nonsense?



How are you supposed to use dominated convergence theorem there?

I haven't analyzed it in detail, but I think it means that any integrable function can be shown to be dominated by a step function (over a finite interval).
 
Could you tell us why you think it looks like "non-sense"?
 
I have read one proof for this theorem from a book, and I understood it. Now I see another proof in Wikipedia, I'm unable to understand it, and the author of this piece of wiki-info has not given any sources. That's the origin of my doubts.

If you first prove the result for step functions, and them mention the use of dominated convergence theorem, it looks like that you want to approximate some integrable function with step functions and move a limit from inside the integral to the outside. Like this:

<br /> \lim_{t\to\infty} \int e^{itx} f(x) dx = \lim_{t\to\infty}\lim_{n\to\infty} \int e^{itx} f_n(x)dx<br />

But what is this good for? It looks like an example of a case where the author justifies some simple step and then completely omits the justification for more difficult step.

If \epsilon &gt; 0 and an integrable function f are given, it would make lot more sense to find a step function f_n such that \|f -f_n\|_1 &lt; \frac{\epsilon}{2}, and then choose T&gt;0 such that

<br /> \big| \int e^{itx} f(x)dx\big| \leq \int |f(x) - f_n(x)| dx \;+\; \big|\int e^{itx} f_n(x) dx\big| &lt; \epsilon<br />

for all t &gt; T. But you don't need dominated convergence for this direction of proof.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K