Showing that a function is zero a.e.

In summary, to show that a function is zero almost everywhere, we must prove that the set of points where the function is not equal to zero has measure zero. This means that the function is equal to zero at almost every point in its domain, except for a set of points with measure zero. A function is said to be zero almost everywhere if it is equal to zero at almost every point in its domain, except for a set of points with measure zero. This is important in many areas of mathematics and can be proven using techniques such as the Lebesgue integral, the Lebesgue differentiation theorem, and the Borel-Cantelli lemma. Additionally, a function cannot be zero a.e. and non-zero at the same time
  • #1
AxiomOfChoice
533
1
I've TeX'ed this up directly from my class notes. The argument purports to show that a function [itex]g\in L^2[0,1][/itex] is zero almost everywhere (a.e.). I dont' see how...can someone help me fill in the missing steps? I'm with him pretty much until the last line...

Let [itex]x_n \to 0[/itex], [itex]x'_n \to g[/itex], both in the [itex]L^2[/itex]-norm. (Assume that the [itex]x_n[/itex] are [itex]C^\infty[/itex] with compact support contained inside [itex](0,1)[/itex].) We want to show [itex]g = 0[/itex] a.e. First, note that [itex]x_n(t) = \int_0^t x_n'(s)ds[/itex] by the FTC. By Holder's inequality, [itex]g\in L^2[0,1][/itex] implies [itex]g\in L^1[0,1][/itex]:
[tex]
\int_0^1 |g(t)|dt \leq \left( \int_0^1 |g(t)|^2 dt \right)^{1/2} \left( \int_0^1 1^2 \ dt \right)^{1/2} = \left( \int_0^1 |g(t)|^2 dt \right)^{1/2} < \infty.
[/tex]
Hence (and he doesn't say so in the notes, but I'm pretty sure this also follows from Holder)
[tex]
\left| \int_0^t (g(s)-x_n'(s))ds \right| \leq \left( \int_0^t |g-x_n'|^2 \right)^{1/2} \left( \int_0^t ds \right)^{1/2} \leq \|g - x_n'\|_{L^2} \cdot 1 \to 0 \quad \text{as }n\to \infty.
[/tex]
It follows that [itex]g = 0[/itex] a.e.

Again, the last line of the proof, and what he is trying to do, confuses me, but I think I've provided all the assumptions he established at the onset of this example. However, if something seems amiss, please let me know, and I'll try my best to flesh it out. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hmmm...well, I guess I know that
[tex]
\left| \int_0^t (g(s)-x_n'(s))ds \right| = \left| x_n(t) - \int_0^t g(s)ds \right|,
[/tex]
so it follows that, for a.e. [itex]t\in [0,1][/itex], we have
[tex]
\lim_{n\to \infty}\left| \int_0^t (g(s)-x_n'(s))ds \right| = \left| \lim_{n\to \infty} \left(x_n(t) - \int_0^t g(s)ds \right) \right| = \left| \int_0^t g(s) ds \right| = 0.
[/tex]
It seems we could conclude [itex]g(s) = 0[/itex] a.e. from THIS, but I don't quite see how...
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Actually, I'm pretty sure what I just posted is bogus, since we only know [itex]x_n \to 0[/itex] in the [itex]L^2[/itex]-norm, not pointwise a.e. So I'm back to being utterly clueless.
 
  • #4
AxiomOfChoice said:
Hmmm...well, I guess I know that
[tex]
\left| \int_0^t (g(s)-x_n'(s))ds \right| = \left| x_n(t) - \int_0^t g(s)ds \right|,
[/tex]

It's ok till here. In what follows:

so it follows that, for a.e. [itex]t\in [0,1][/itex], we have
[tex]
\lim_{n\to \infty}\left| \int_0^t (g(s)-x_n'(s))ds \right| = \left| \lim_{n\to \infty} \left(x_n(t) - \int_0^t g(s)ds \right) \right| = \left| \int_0^t g(s) ds \right| = 0.
[/tex]
It seems we could conclude [itex]g(s) = 0[/itex] a.e. from THIS, but I don't quite see how...

You have used that [itex]\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty}{x_n(t)}=0[/itex], but you don't know this. You only know convergence in [itex]L^2[/itex]-norm, so you can't use convergence a.e.

What you do know is that convergence in [itex]L^2[/itex] implies convergence in measure. And convergence in measure implies that there exists a subsequence that converges to a.e.
So, you cannot use directly that [itex]\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty}{x_n(t)}=0[/itex], but you DO know it for a subsequence. You can use this to conclude that

[tex]\int_0^t g(s) ds = 0[/tex]

for all t. Use this to show for every Borel subset A that

[tex]\int_A g(s)ds=0[/tex]

By choosing [itex]A=\{g>0\}[/tex], one can prove that g=0 a.e.
 
  • #5
micromass said:
It's ok till here. In what follows:



You have used that [itex]\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty}{x_n(t)}=0[/itex], but you don't know this. You only know convergence in [itex]L^2[/itex]-norm, so you can't use convergence a.e.

What you do know is that convergence in [itex]L^2[/itex] implies convergence in measure. And convergence in measure implies that there exists a subsequence that converges to a.e.
So, you cannot use directly that [itex]\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty}{x_n(t)}=0[/itex], but you DO know it for a subsequence. You can use this to conclude that

[tex]\int_0^t g(s) ds = 0[/tex]

for all t. Use this to show for every Borel subset A that

[tex]\int_A g(s)ds=0[/tex]

By choosing [itex]A=\{g>0\}[/tex], one can prove that g=0 a.e.

WOW...that was a lot for him to have left out. No wonder I couldn't see it. Thanks again, micromass.

Here's another question, though...doesn't this:
[tex]
\int_E |g(t)| \leq \left( \int_E |g(t)|^2 \right)^{1/2} \left( \int_E 1^2 \right)^{1/2} = \sqrt{m(E)} \cdot \left( \int_E |g(t)|^2 dt \right)^{1/2} < \infty
[/tex]
show that [itex]L^2(E) \subset L^1(E)[/itex], as long as we restrict ourselves to a measurable set [itex]E[/itex] of finite measure? Or am I missing something?
 
  • #6
AxiomOfChoice said:
WOW...that was a lot for him to have left out. No wonder I couldn't see it. Thanks again, micromass.

Here's another question, though...doesn't this:
[tex]
\int_E |g(t)| \leq \left( \int_E |g(t)|^2 \right)^{1/2} \left( \int_E 1^2 \right)^{1/2} = \sqrt{m(E)} \cdot \left( \int_E |g(t)|^2 dt \right)^{1/2} < \infty
[/tex]
show that [itex]L^2(E) \subset L^1(E)[/itex], as long as we restrict ourselves to a measurable set [itex]E[/itex] of finite measure? Or am I missing something?

That is correct. In general, if [itex]1\leq p\leq q\leq +\infty[/itex] and E is of finite measure, then

[itex]L^q(E)\subseteq L^p(E)[/itex].

Note however that

[tex]\ell^1\subseteq \ell^2[/tex]

so in this case, the reverse is true.
And, in general there is no inclusion between [itex]L_1(\mathbb{R})[/itex] and [itex]L^2(\mathbb{R})[/itex]. So the result above only holds for sets of finite measure!
 

FAQ: Showing that a function is zero a.e.

1. How do you show that a function is zero almost everywhere (a.e.)?

To show that a function is zero a.e., we must prove that the set of points where the function is not equal to zero has measure zero. This means that the function is equal to zero at almost every point in its domain, except for a set of points with measure zero.

2. What does it mean for a function to be zero a.e.?

A function is said to be zero almost everywhere if it is equal to zero at almost every point in its domain, except for a set of points with measure zero. This means that the function is essentially zero, except for a negligible set of points.

3. What is the importance of showing that a function is zero a.e.?

Showing that a function is zero almost everywhere is important in many areas of mathematics, including measure theory, functional analysis, and probability theory. It allows us to simplify calculations and proofs, as well as make important conclusions about the properties of the function.

4. What are some techniques for proving that a function is zero a.e.?

There are several techniques that can be used to prove that a function is zero almost everywhere. These include using the Lebesgue integral, the Lebesgue differentiation theorem, and the Borel-Cantelli lemma. In some cases, it may also be helpful to use properties of measurable sets and functions.

5. Can a function be zero a.e. and non-zero at the same time?

No, a function cannot be zero a.e. and non-zero at the same time. This is because if a function is non-zero at a set of points with positive measure, then it cannot be equal to zero at almost every point in its domain. Therefore, a function can only be either zero a.e. or non-zero a.e., but not both.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
33
Views
3K
Back
Top