1
$\begingroup$

Let $\mu(A)<\infty$, and the function $f(x)$ is measurable and finite on $A$. Suppose that $E_k(f)=\{x\in A: k\leq |f(x)|<k+1\}$ for $k\geq 0$. Prove that $f(x)\in L(A)$ iff $$\sum \limits_{k=1}^{\infty}k\mu(E_k(f))<\infty.$$

$\Rightarrow$ Suppose that $f(x)\in L(A)$ then $|f(x)|\in L(A)$. Since $f(x)$ is finite on $A$ then $A=\sqcup_{k=0}^{\infty} E_k(f)$. For each $n\geq 0$ consider the function $F_n(x)=\sum \limits_{k=0}^{n}|f(x)|\chi_{E_k}(x)$ then $\{F_n(x)\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ be a family of measurable functions on $A$ such that $F_n(x)\to |f(x)|$ for each $x\in A$ and $|F_n(x)|\leq |f(x)|$ for all $n\geq 1$. Then by Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem it follows that $$\int \limits_{A}|f(x)|d\mu=\lim \limits_{n\to \infty}\int \limits_{A}F_n(x)d\mu=\sum \limits_{k=0}^{\infty} \int \limits_{A}|f(x)|\chi_{E_k}(x)d\mu\geq $$ $$\sum \limits_{k=0}^{\infty} \int \limits_{A}k\chi_{E_k}(x)d\mu=\sum \limits_{k=0}^{\infty} k\mu(E_k)<\infty.$$

$\Leftarrow$ Suppose that $\sum \limits_{k=0}^{\infty} k\mu(E_k)<\infty$. We see that functions $\{F_n(x)\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ are nonnegative, non-decreasing measurable functions on $A$ such that $F_n(x)\to |f(x)|$ for each $x\in A$. Then by monotone convergence theorem $$\int\limits_{A}|f(x)|d\mu=\lim \limits_{n\to \infty}\int \limits_{A}F_n(x)d\mu=\sum \limits_{k=0}^{\infty}\int\limits_{A}|f(x)|\chi_{E_k}(x)d\mu<\sum \limits_{k=0}^{\infty}\int\limits_{A}(k+1)\chi_{E_k}(x)d\mu=$$$$=\sum \limits_{k=0}^{\infty}(k+1)\mu(E_k)<\infty$$ because $\sum \limits_{k=0}^{\infty}k\mu(E_k)<\infty$.

I checked my solution and I have never used the fact that $\mu(A)<\infty$. What's wrong with solution?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

The last statement is not correct. If $\sum_{k=0}^\infty k\mu(E_k)<\infty$, then it may happen that $\sum_{k=0}^\infty (k+1)\mu(E_k)=\infty$. Thus happens when $k=0$ and $\mu(E_0)=\infty$. The usual convention in measure theory tells you that $0\cdot\infty=0$ so the first sum is finite, but not the second one.

A related counterexample would be a constant function $f=1/2$ on $\mathbb{R}^n$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Are you sure? Let $a_k\geq 0$ and since $\sum \limits_{k=0}^{\infty}ka_k<\infty$ then $\sum \limits_{k=0}^{\infty}a_k<\infty$ because $a_k\leq ka_k$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 12, 2020 at 19:47
  • $\begingroup$ @ZFR $a_k\leq ka_k$ is false $k=0$ unless $a_0=0$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 12, 2020 at 19:49
  • $\begingroup$ Hmm. Yeah you're right. Since $\sum \limits_{k=0}^{\infty}ka_k=\sum \limits_{k=1}^{\infty}ka_k<\infty$ then it follows that $\sum \limits_{k=1}^{\infty}(k+1)a_k<\infty$ but we are considering the series which has also one additional term $a_0$. If $a_0=\infty$ then my claim is indeed wrong. But if $\mu(A)<\infty$ then $a_0<\infty$ because $E_0(f)\subset A$. Right? $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 12, 2020 at 19:56

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.