L1 Space: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
==<math>L^1(\mu)</math> Space== | ==<math>L^1(\mu)</math> Space== | ||
In this section, we will construct <math>L^1(\mu)</math>. | In this section, we will construct <math>L^1(\mu)</math>. These are sometimes called Lebesgue spaces. | ||
===Definition=== | ===Definition=== | ||
Let <math>L^1</math> denote the set of integrable functions on <math>X</math>, ie <math>\int |f| <\infty</math>. Define an equivalence relation: <math>f\sim g</math> if <math>f=g</math> a.e. Then <math>L^1(\mu)= L^1/\sim</math>. In some abuse of notation, we often refer to an element <math>f \in L^1(\mu)</math> as a function, even though it really denotes the equivalence class of all functions in <math>L^1</math> which are a.e. equivalent to <math>f</math>. | Let <math>L^1</math> denote the set of integrable functions on <math>X</math>, ie <math>\int |f| <\infty</math>. Define an equivalence relation: <math>f\sim g</math> if <math>f=g</math> a.e. Then <math>L^1(\mu)= L^1/\sim</math>. In some abuse of notation, we often refer to an element <math>f \in L^1(\mu)</math> as a function, even though it really denotes the equivalence class of all functions in <math>L^1</math> which are a.e. equivalent to <math>f</math>. | ||
To see that <math>\sim</math> is indeed an equivalence relation, reflexivity and symmetry are immediate. Transitivity when <math>f \sim g</math> and <math>g \sim h</math> follows by considering the null set where <math>f</math> and <math>g</math> differ and similarly for <math>g</math> and <math>h</math>. Then see that the set where <math>f</math> and <math>h</math> differ is a subset of the union of the previous two null sets and hence is also a null set, so <math>f \sim h</math>. | |||
To make sense of the definition, we need the following proposition: | To make sense of the definition, we need the following proposition: | ||
Line 42: | Line 44: | ||
:<math>d(x_k,x)\to 0</math> as <math>k\to \infty</math> | :<math>d(x_k,x)\to 0</math> as <math>k\to \infty</math> | ||
===Riesz-Fischer Theorem=== | ===Riesz-Fischer Theorem=== | ||
The vector space <math>L^1</math> is complete in its metric. <ref name="Stein">Elias M. Stein and Rami Shakarchi(2005), Real Analysis: measure theory, integration, & hilbert spaces, first edition</ref> | The vector space <math>L^1</math> is complete in its metric induced by the <math>p</math>-norm. <ref name="Stein">Elias M. Stein and Rami Shakarchi(2005), Real Analysis: measure theory, integration, & hilbert spaces, first edition</ref> | ||
====Proof==== | ====Proof==== | ||
See Stein and Shakarchi | See Stein and Shakarchi | ||
==Examples== | |||
==References== | ==References== |
Latest revision as of 10:50, 18 December 2020
Introduction
Let be a measure space. From our study of integration[1], we know that if are integrable functions, the following functions are also integrable:
- , for
This shows that the set of integrable functions on any measurable space is a vector space. Furthermore, integration is a linear functional on this vector space, ie a linear function sending elements in our vector space to , one would like to use integration to define a norm on our vector space. However, if one were to check the axioms for a norm, one finds integration fails to be a norm by taking almost everywhere, then . In other words, there are non zero functions which has a zero integral. This motivates our definition of to be the set of integrable functions up to equivalence to sets of measure zero.
Space
In this section, we will construct . These are sometimes called Lebesgue spaces.
Definition
Let denote the set of integrable functions on , ie . Define an equivalence relation: if a.e. Then . In some abuse of notation, we often refer to an element as a function, even though it really denotes the equivalence class of all functions in which are a.e. equivalent to .
To see that is indeed an equivalence relation, reflexivity and symmetry are immediate. Transitivity when and follows by considering the null set where and differ and similarly for and . Then see that the set where and differ is a subset of the union of the previous two null sets and hence is also a null set, so .
To make sense of the definition, we need the following proposition:
Proposition: Let , then the following are equivalent:
- for all
- a.e.
Proof[1]
Since a.e., a.e. Take a simple function, , such that , such must be a.e. Therefore,
Suppose the set does not have measure zero. Then either or has nonzero measure, where denotes and denotes . WLOG, assume has nonzero measure. Define the following sets , then from continuity from below, . This shows that there exists some such that , which implies that , contradicting 1.
With the proposition, we define our norm on to be . This is indeed a norm since:
- a.e
Completeness of space
A space with a metric is said to be complete if for every Cauchy sequence in (that is, as ) there exist such that in the sense that
- as
Riesz-Fischer Theorem
The vector space is complete in its metric induced by the -norm. [2]
Proof
See Stein and Shakarchi