Let f j </msub> &#x2208;<!-- ∈ --> L P </msup> &#x2229;<!--

Fletcher Hays

Fletcher Hays

Answered question

2022-06-16

Let f j L P L l o c 1 and g L q where p , q are conjugates and | | f j | | p < M for all j . I have that S f j 0 for all S A (measurable) where A is a compact subset of R and want to show A f j g 0.
Since A is bounded, g L q g L so I want to write down something like | A f j g | | | g | | L | f j | . But this is false. I can only use the tools that I know if I control | f | , but I've already come up with counterexamples to show we have no control over that so considering | f j g | is useless. Another idea was to use Cauchy schwarz but we need not have f j 2 0

Answer & Explanation

klemmepk

klemmepk

Beginner2022-06-17Added 16 answers

The conclusion is not true. Let p > 1 , A = [ 0 , 1 ] and f j ( x ) = j  ( log  j )  1 for 0  x  j  1 and f ( x ) = 0 otherwise. Then  f j  1  0. On the other hand
 f j  p p = j p  1 ( log  j )  p   .
As f j are not bounded in L p , in view of the Banach-Steinhaus theorem, there is g  L q such that the sequence
 0 1 f j ( x ) g ( x )  d x
is unbounded.

Remark The conclusion is supported by the additional supposition that  f j  p are uniformly bounded, say by M . Then we can approximate g  L q by combining indicators in a linear fashion. Indeed, for g  L q and N > 0 let
A N = { x  A  :  | g ( x ) |  N } 
Then
lim N  A  A N | g ( x ) | q  d x = 0.
For a given ε > 0 there is N such that
 A  A N | g ( x ) | q  d x < 1 2 ε q 
For n  N and 1  k  n let
B k , n = { x  A  :  ( k  1 ) N n < | g ( x ) |  k N n } 
Define
g n ( x ) =  k = 1 n k N n 1  I B k , n 
Next
 g n  g  q q =  A | g n ( x )  g ( x ) | q  d x =  A N | g n ( x )  g ( x ) | q  d x +  A  A N | g ( x ) | q  d x  =  k = 1 n  B k , n | g n ( x )  g ( x ) | q  d x + 1 2 ε q  N q n q  k = 1 n m ( B k , n ) + 1 2 ε q  N q n q m ( A ) + 1 2 ε q 
Fix n such that N q n q m ( A )  1 2 ε q . Then  g n  g  q  ε .
Next
 A f j g  d x =  A f j [ g  g n ]  d x +  A f j g N  d x
Consequently
|  A f j g  d x |   A | f j |  | g  g n |  d x + |  A f j g n  d x |    f j  p  g  g n  q + |  A f j g n  d x |  M ε + |  A f j g n  d x | 
Using assumptions, we
lim j  A f j g n  d x = 0
The conclusion is thus drawn.

Do you have a similar question?

Recalculate according to your conditions!

Ask your question.
Get an expert answer.

Let our experts help you. Answer in as fast as 15 minutes.

Didn't find what you were looking for?