L1 Space: Difference between revisions

From Optimal Transport Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(44 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==Introduction==
==Introduction==
Let <math>(X,\mathcal{M},\mu)</math> be a measure space. From our study of integration, we know that if <math> f,g</math> are integrable functions, the following functions are also integrable:
Let <math>(X,\mathcal{M},\mu)</math> be a measure space. From our study of integration<ref name="Folland">Folland, Gerald B. (1999). ''Real Analysis: Modern Techniques and Their Applications'', John Wiley and Sons, ISBN 0471317160, Second edition.</ref>, we know that if <math> f,g</math> are integrable functions, the following functions are also integrable:


<ol>
<ol>
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>.
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 24: Line 26:
<li> <math>f=g</math> a.e.
<li> <math>f=g</math> a.e.
</ol>
</ol>
===Proof===
===Proof<ref name="Folland">Folland, Gerald B. (1999). ''Real Analysis: Modern Techniques and Their Applications'', John Wiley and Sons, ISBN 0471317160, Second edition.</ref>===
(to be filled in)
<math> 2\implies 1: {\bigg\vert}\int_E f-\int_E g{\bigg\vert}\leq 1_E|f-g|\leq \int |f-g|=0</math>
 
<math> 3\implies 2: </math> Since <math> f=g</math> a.e., <math>|f-g|=0</math> a.e. Take a simple function, <math> \phi</math>, such that <math> 0\leq \phi\leq |f-g|</math>, such <math>\phi</math> must be <math>0</math> a.e. Therefore, <math> \int |f-g|=\sup\left\{\int \phi: 0\leq\phi\leq|f-g|,\phi\text{ simple}\right\}=0</math>
 
<math> 1\implies 3: </math> Suppose the set <math>\{ x\in X: f(x)\neq g(x)\} </math> does not have measure zero. Then either <math> E_+=\{x\in X: (f-g)_+(x)\neq 0\} </math> or <math>E_-=\{x\in X: (f-g)_-(x)\neq0\}</math> has nonzero measure, where <math> (f-g)_+</math> denotes <math> \max\{f-g,0\}</math> and <math> (f-g)_-</math> denotes <math> \max\{-(f-g),0\}</math>. WLOG, assume <math>E_+</math> has nonzero measure. Define the following sets <math> E_{+,n}=\{x\in X: (f-g)_+>1/n\}</math>, then from continuity from below, <math>\mu(E_+)=\mu\left(\cup_i^\infty E_{+,i}\right)=\lim_{i\to\infty}\mu(E_{+,i})>0</math>. This shows that there exists some <math> i\in\mathbb{N}</math> such that <math> \mu(E_{+,i})>0</math>, which implies that <math>\int_E (f-g)\geq\int_E(f-g)_+\geq \int_{E_{+,i}}(f-g)_+\geq \mu(E_{+,i})/i>0</math>, contradicting 1.


With the proposition, we define our norm on <math>L^1(\mu)</math> to be <math>d(f,g)=\int |f-g|</math>. This is indeed a norm since:
With the proposition, we define our norm on <math>L^1(\mu)</math> to be <math>\lVert f\rVert=\int |f|</math>. This is indeed a norm since:
<ol>
<ol>
<li><math> \int |f+g| \leq \int |f|+\int|g|</math>
<li><math> \int |f+g| \leq \int |f|+\int|g|</math>
<li><math>\int |cf|=\int |c||f|, c\in \mathbb{R}</math>
<li><math>\int |f|=0\iff f=0</math> a.e
</ol>
==Completeness of <math>L^1 </math> space==
A space <math>V</math> with a metric <math>d</math> is said to be complete if for every Cauchy sequence <math>{x_k}</math> in <math>V</math> (that is, <math>d(x_l,x_k)\to 0</math> as <math>k,l \to \infty</math>) there exist <math>x \in V</math> such that <math>x_k \to x</math> in the sense that
:<math>d(x_k,x)\to 0</math> as <math>k\to \infty</math>
===Riesz-Fischer Theorem===
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====
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:

  1. , 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:

  1. for all
  2. 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:

  1. 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

Examples

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Folland, Gerald B. (1999). Real Analysis: Modern Techniques and Their Applications, John Wiley and Sons, ISBN 0471317160, Second edition.
  2. Elias M. Stein and Rami Shakarchi(2005), Real Analysis: measure theory, integration, & hilbert spaces, first edition