Section 9.3

From Radon-Nikodym to Riesz Representation

[16/0%]
Show
LaTeX
Problem 9.3.1

The following is an advanced calculus fact used in the next problem, often called the diagonal method. Suppose that each row of the array

x1,1x1,2x1,3⋯x2,1x2,2x2,3⋯⋮⋮⋮ \begin{array}{llll} x_{1,1} & x_{1,2} & x_{1,3} & \cdots \\ x_{2,1} & x_{2,2} & x_{2,3} & \cdots \\ \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \end{array}

is a bounded sequence of real numbers. Then there exists a strictly increasing sequence n1,n2,⋯n_{1}, n_{2}, \cdots of positive integers such that lim⁡kxr,nk\lim_{k} x_{r, n_{k}} exists for each r∈Nr \in \mathbb {N}.

?
Remark.
?

The first row of the above array is a bounded sequence, and hence there is a convergent subsequence x1,n1,1,x1,n1,2,x1,n1,3,⋯x_{1, n_{1,1}}, x_{1, n_{1,2}}, x_{1, n_{1,3}}, \cdots, where the sequence {n1,k}k=1∞\left\{ n_{1,k}\right\}_{k=1}^{\infty } is strictly increasing and lim⁡kx1,n1,k\lim_{k} x_{1, n_{1,k}} exists. Return to the original array and look at the second row along the sequence n1,1,n1,2,⋯n_{1,1}, n_{1,2}, \cdots, so that we are considering the bounded sequence x2,n1,1,x2,n1,2,x2,n1,3,⋯x_{2, n_{1,1}}, x_{2, n_{1,2}}, x_{2, n_{1,3}}, \cdots. Select from this bounded sequence a convergent subsequence; write it as x2,n2,1,x2,n2,2,x2,n2,3,⋯x_{2, n_{2,1}}, x_{2, n_{2,2}}, x_{2, n_{2,3}}, \cdots. Observe the following: {n2,k}k=1∞\left\{ n_{2,k}\right\}_{k=1}^{\infty } is a strictly increasing subsequence of {n1,k}k=1∞\left\{ n_{1,k}\right\}_{k=1}^{\infty }, and lim⁡kx2,n2,k\lim_{k} x_{2, n_{2,k}} exists. Continue on this process, obtaining a new array

n1,1n1,2n1,3⋯n2,1n2,2n2,3⋯⋮⋮⋮ \begin{array}{llll} n_{1,1} & n_{1,2} & n_{1,3} & \cdots \\ n_{2,1} & n_{2,2} & n_{2,3} & \cdots \\ \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \end{array}

such that (i) each row is a strictly increasing sequence of positive integers, (ii) each row is a subsequence of the row above, and (iii) for each r∈Nr \in \mathbb {N} the limit lim⁡kxr,nr,k\lim_{k} x_{r, n_{r,k}} exists. Therefore, for each r∈Nr \in \mathbb {N} we have that xr,nr,1,xr,nr,2,xr,nr,3,⋯x_{r, n_{r,1}}, x_{r, n_{r,2}}, x_{r, n_{r,3}}, \cdots is a convergent sequence of the rrth row of the original array. Define nk=nk,kn_{k}=n_{k,k} for each k∈Nk \in \mathbb {N}. The nkn_{k}'s are strictly increasing because each row of the new array is increasing and is contained in the preceding row. Also, nr,nr+1,nr+2,⋯n_{r}, n_{r+1}, n_{r+2}, \cdots is a subsequence of the rrth row of the new array for each r∈Nr \in \mathbb {N}. It follows that xr,nr,xr,nr+1,xr,nr+2,⋯x_{r, n_{r}}, x_{r, n_{r+1}}, x_{r, n_{r+2}}, \cdots is a subsequence of xr,nr,1,xr,nr,2,xr,nr,3,⋯x_{r, n_{r,1}}, x_{r, n_{r,2}}, x_{r, n_{r,3}}, \cdots for each rr in N\mathbb {N}, so that lim⁡kxr,nk\lim_{k} x_{r, n_{k}} exists for each r∈Nr \in \mathbb {N}.

Problem 9.3.2

Let (Ω,F,μ)(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) denote a σ\sigma-finite measure space with 1<p<+∞1<p<+\infty. Further assume that F\mathcal{F} is countably generated, which means that there is a countable class C\mathcal{C} with σ(C)=F\sigma (\mathcal{C})=\mathcal{F}. Let B1p={f∈Lp:∥f∥p⩽1}B_{1}^{p}=\left\{ f \in L^{p}: \left\| f\right\|_{p} \leqslant 1\right\}, so that B1pB_{1}^{p} is the unit ball in LpL^{p}. We will show that B1pB_{1}^{p} is compact in the topology of weak convergence. That is, every sequence in B1pB_{1}^{p} contains a subsequence converging weakly to an element of B1pB_{1}^{p}.

?
(a)

Lp′L^{p^{\prime }} has a countable dense subset, say G\mathcal{G}. [Recall an approximation result from Chapter 8.]

(b)

Append to G\mathcal{G} all finite rational linear combinations of its elements. We will refer to this augmented collection as G\mathcal{G}; G\mathcal{G} [the augmented collection] is still countable. Next, let {fn}n=1∞\left\{ f_{n}\right\}_{n=1}^{\infty } denote a sequence in B1pB_{1}^{p}.

For every g∈Lp′g \in L^{p^{\prime }}, {∫fng dμ}n=1∞\left\{ \int f_{n} g \, \mathrm{d} \mu \right\}_{n=1}^{\infty } is a bounded sequence of real numbers with bound ∥g∥p′\left\| g\right\|_{p^{\prime }}. From this we may deduce that {∫fng dμ}n=1∞\left\{ \int f_{n} g \, \mathrm{d} \mu \right\}_{n=1}^{\infty } is a bounded sequence of real numbers with bound ∥g∥p′\left\| g\right\|_{p^{\prime }} for every g∈Gg \in \mathcal{G}.

Since G\mathcal{G} is countable, there is a subsequence {nk}k=1∞\left\{ n_{k}\right\}_{k=1}^{\infty } of the sequence 1,2,⋯1, 2, \cdots such that lim⁡k∫fnkg dμ\lim_{k} \int f_{n_{k}} g \, \mathrm{d} \mu exists for every g∈Gg \in \mathcal{G}. [This is a direct application of the diagonal method from advanced calculus: The array whose rrth row is {∫frgn dμ}n=1∞\left\{ \int f_{r} g_{n} \, \mathrm{d} \mu \right\}_{n=1}^{\infty }, with {gn}n=1∞\left\{ g_{n}\right\}_{n=1}^{\infty } an enumeration of G\mathcal{G}, is bounded row by row, so Exercise 1 of this section applies.] Write LG(g)=lim⁡k∫fnkg dμL_{\mathcal{G}}(g)=\lim_{k} \int f_{n_{k}} g \, \mathrm{d} \mu for every g∈Gg \in \mathcal{G}; Hölder's Inequality gives ∣LG(g)∣⩽∥g∥p′\left|L_{\mathcal{G}}(g)\right| \leqslant \left\| g\right\|_{p^{\prime }} for every g∈Gg \in \mathcal{G}.

(c)

LGL_{\mathcal{G}} is uniformly continuous on its domain G\mathcal{G}. [We have

∣LG(g)−LG(g′)∣=lim⁡k∣∫fnk(g−g′) dμ∣⩽lim‾⁡k∥fnk∥p∥g−g′∥p′⩽∥g−g′∥p′ \left|L_{\mathcal{G}}(g)-L_{\mathcal{G}}(g^{\prime })\right|=\lim _{k}\left|\int f_{n_{k}}(g-g^{\prime }) \, \mathrm{d} \mu \right| \leqslant \varlimsup _{k}\left\| f_{n_{k}}\right\| _{p}\left\| g-g^{\prime }\right\| _{p^{\prime }} \leqslant \left\| g-g^{\prime }\right\| _{p^{\prime }}

for every g,g′∈Gg, g^{\prime } \in \mathcal{G}.]

(d)

There exists a unique continuous function LL on Lp′L^{p^{\prime }} such that L=LGL=L_{\mathcal{G}} on G\mathcal{G}. [From advanced calculus, we know that a uniformly continuous function ψ\psi defined on a dense subset DD of a metric space (X,ρ)(X, \rho ) has a unique continuous extension to all of XX.]

(e)

For every g,g′∈Gg, g^{\prime } \in \mathcal{G} we have LG(g+g′)=LG(g)+LG(g′)L_{\mathcal{G}}(g+g^{\prime })=L_{\mathcal{G}}(g)+L_{\mathcal{G}}(g^{\prime }). [Direct verification.]

(f)

For every h,h′∈Lp′h, h^{\prime } \in L^{p^{\prime }} we have L(h+h′)=L(h)+L(h′)L(h+h^{\prime })=L(h)+L(h^{\prime }). [Let {gn}n=1∞\left\{ g_{n}\right\}_{n=1}^{\infty } denote a sequence in the dense collection G\mathcal{G} with gn→p′hg_{n} \xrightarrow {p^{\prime }} h; let {gn′}n=1∞\left\{ g_{n}^{\prime }\right\}_{n=1}^{\infty } denote a sequence in G\mathcal{G} with gn′→p′h′g_{n}^{\prime } \xrightarrow {p^{\prime }} h^{\prime }. Thus {gn+gn′}n=1∞\left\{ g_{n}+g_{n}^{\prime }\right\}_{n=1}^{\infty } is a sequence in G\mathcal{G} with gn+gn′→p′h+h′g_{n}+g_{n}^{\prime } \xrightarrow {p^{\prime }} h+h^{\prime }. Use the continuity of LL and (e) to verify the equation

L(h)+L(h′)=lim⁡nL(gn)+lim⁡nL(gn′)=lim⁡n[LG(gn)+LG(gn′)]=lim⁡nLG(gn+gn′)=L(h+h′). \begin{aligned} L(h)+L(h^{\prime }) & =\lim _{n} L(g_{n})+\lim _{n} L(g_{n}^{\prime }) \\ & =\lim _{n}[L_{\mathcal{G}}(g_{n})+L_{\mathcal{G}}(g_{n}^{\prime })] \\ & =\lim _{n} L_{\mathcal{G}}(g_{n}+g_{n}^{\prime }) \\ & =L(h+h^{\prime }). \end{aligned}

]

(g)

Directly verify that LG(cg)=cLG(g)L_{\mathcal{G}}(cg)=cL_{\mathcal{G}}(g) for every g∈Gg \in \mathcal{G} and c∈Rc \in \mathbb {R}. This in turn shows that L(cg)=cL(g)L(cg)=cL(g) for every c∈Rc \in \mathbb {R} and g∈Lp′g \in L^{p^{\prime }}. [The first part is easy. The second part is obtained in the same spirit as was (f).]

(h)

By (g), LL is a linear functional on Lp′L^{p^{\prime }}. Show in addition that LL is bounded with ∥L∥⩽1\left\| L\right\| \leqslant 1. [We already know that LL is continuous from (d); use the relevant claim from Section 8.8 to achieve boundedness. Next, pick h∈Lp′h \in L^{p^{\prime }}; let {gn}n=1∞\left\{ g_{n}\right\}_{n=1}^{\infty } denote a sequence in G\mathcal{G} with gn→p′hg_{n} \xrightarrow {p^{\prime }} h. Verify that

∣L(h)∣=lim⁡n∣L(gn)∣=lim⁡n∣LG(gn)∣⩽lim⁡n∥gn∥p′=∥h∥p′. \left|L(h)\right|=\lim _{n}\left|L(g_{n})\right|=\lim _{n}\left|L_{\mathcal{G}}(g_{n})\right| \leqslant \lim _{n}\left\| g_{n}\right\| _{p^{\prime }}=\left\| h\right\| _{p^{\prime }}.

]

(i)

We now invoke the Riesz Representation Theorem for the bounded linear functional LL on Lp′L^{p^{\prime }}, obtaining a function f∈Lpf \in L^{p} such that L(g)=∫fg dμL(g)=\int fg \, \mathrm{d} \mu for every g∈Lp′g \in L^{p^{\prime }}. Since ∥L∥⩽1\left\| L\right\| \leqslant 1, we have ∥f∥p=∥L∥⩽1\left\| f\right\|_{p}=\left\| L\right\| \leqslant 1 by Claim 1 of Section 8.9, hence f∈B1pf \in B_{1}^{p}. Recall the subsequence {nk}k=1∞\left\{ n_{k}\right\}_{k=1}^{\infty } given after part (b). Observe that for every g∈Gg \in \mathcal{G} we have

L(g)=∫fg dμ=LG(g)=lim⁡k∫fnkg dμ. L(g)=\int fg \, \mathrm{d} \mu =L_{\mathcal{G}}(g)=\lim _{k} \int f_{n_{k}} g \, \mathrm{d} \mu .

We have that {fnk}k=1∞\left\{ f_{n_{k}}\right\}_{k=1}^{\infty } converges weakly to ff, completing the proof. [Pick g′g^{\prime } in Lp′L^{p^{\prime }} and ε>0\varepsilon >0; find g∈Gg \in \mathcal{G} with ∥g−g′∥p′<ε3\left\| g-g^{\prime }\right\|_{p^{\prime }}<\frac{\varepsilon }{3}. Define αk=∣∫fnkg dμ−∫fg dμ∣\alpha_{k}=\left|\int f_{n_{k}} g \, \mathrm{d} \mu -\int fg \, \mathrm{d} \mu \right| for each k∈Nk \in \mathbb {N}, and observe that the above shows lim⁡kαk=0\lim_{k} \alpha_{k}=0. Verify that

∣∫fg′ dμ−∫fnkg′ dμ∣⩽∣∫fg′ dμ−∫fg dμ∣+αk+∣∫fnkg dμ−∫fnkg′ dμ∣⩽∫∣f∣∣g′−g∣ dμ+αk+∫∣fnk∣∣g′−g∣ dμ⩽∥f∥p∥g′−g∥p′+αk+∥fnk∥p∥g′−g∥p′⩽2ε3+αk. \begin{aligned} \left|\int fg^{\prime } \, \mathrm{d} \mu -\int f_{n_{k}} g^{\prime } \, \mathrm{d} \mu \right| & \leqslant \left|\int fg^{\prime } \, \mathrm{d} \mu -\int fg \, \mathrm{d} \mu \right|+\alpha _{k}+\left|\int f_{n_{k}} g \, \mathrm{d} \mu -\int f_{n_{k}} g^{\prime } \, \mathrm{d} \mu \right| \\ & \leqslant \int \left|f\right|\left|g^{\prime }-g\right| \, \mathrm{d} \mu +\alpha _{k}+\int \left|f_{n_{k}}\right|\left|g^{\prime }-g\right| \, \mathrm{d} \mu \\ & \leqslant \left\| f\right\| _{p}\left\| g^{\prime }-g\right\| _{p^{\prime }}+\alpha _{k}+\left\| f_{n_{k}}\right\| _{p}\left\| g^{\prime }-g\right\| _{p^{\prime }} \\ & \leqslant \frac{2\varepsilon }{3}+\alpha _{k}. \end{aligned}

For large enough kk we thus have ∣∫fg′ dμ−∫fnkg′ dμ∣<ε\left|\int fg^{\prime } \, \mathrm{d} \mu -\int f_{n_{k}} g^{\prime } \, \mathrm{d} \mu \right|<\varepsilon. Since g′∈Lp′g^{\prime } \in L^{p^{\prime }} is arbitrary, the entire proof is complete.]

Problem 9.3.3

Let f,f′,f1,f2,⋯∈Lpf, f^{\prime }, f_{1}, f_{2}, \cdots \in L^{p}, where the underlying space (Ω,F,μ)(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) is σ\sigma-finite and 1<p<+∞1<p<+\infty. Suppose that fn→ff_{n} \rightarrow f weakly in LpL^{p} and fn→f′f_{n} \rightarrow f^{\prime } weakly in LpL^{p}. The goal is to show that f=f′f=f^{\prime } μ\mu-a.e. on Ω\Omega, so that weak limits in LpL^{p} are unique.

?
(a)

Quickly show that ∫fg dμ=∫f′g dμ\int fg \, \mathrm{d} \mu =\int f^{\prime } g \, \mathrm{d} \mu for every g∈Lp′g \in L^{p^{\prime }}. [Both quantities are equal to lim⁡n∫fng dμ\lim_{n} \int f_{n} g \, \mathrm{d} \mu.]

(b)

Show that f=f′f=f^{\prime } μ\mu-a.e. on Ω\Omega. [Define Lf(g)=∫fg dμL_{f}(g)=\int fg \, \mathrm{d} \mu for every g∈Lp′g \in L^{p^{\prime }}; define Lf′(g)=∫f′g dμL_{f^{\prime }}(g)=\int f^{\prime } g \, \mathrm{d} \mu for every g∈Lp′g \in L^{p^{\prime }}. Both LfL_{f} and Lf′L_{f^{\prime }} are bounded linear functionals on Lp′L^{p^{\prime }} that agree on Lp′L^{p^{\prime }} by (a). Use the uniqueness claim of the Riesz Representation Theorem.]

Problem 9.3.4

Let (Ω,F,μ)(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) denote a σ\sigma-finite measure space, and let g∈L∞(Ω,F,μ)g \in L^{\infty }(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ). Define LgL_{g} on L1(Ω,F,μ)L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) by writing Lg(f)=∫fg dμL_{g}(f)=\int fg \, \mathrm{d} \mu for every f∈L1(Ω,F,μ)f \in L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ). Then LgL_{g} is a bounded linear functional with ∥Lg∥=∥g∥∞\left\| L_{g}\right\| =\left\| g\right\|_{\infty }.

?
Remark.
?

It is trivial that LgL_{g} is linear. Recalling that ∣g∣⩽∥g∥∞\left|g\right| \leqslant \left\| g\right\|_{\infty } μ\mu-a.e. on Ω\Omega gives ∣∫fg dμ∣⩽∥g∥∞∥f∥1\left|\int fg \, \mathrm{d} \mu \right| \leqslant \left\| g\right\|_{\infty }\left\| f\right\|_{1}, which shows that LgL_{g} is bounded and ∥L∥g⩽∥g∥∞\left\| L\right\|_{g} \leqslant \left\| g\right\|_{\infty }. If ∥g∥∞=0\left\| g\right\|_{\infty }=0 we have trivially ∥Lg∥=∥g∥∞\left\| L_{g}\right\| =\left\| g\right\|_{\infty }. Otherwise, let ∥g∥∞>0\left\| g\right\|_{\infty }>0, 0<ε<∥g∥∞0<\varepsilon <\left\| g\right\|_{\infty }, and let E={ω∈Ω:∣g(ω)∣>∥g∥∞−ε}E=\left\{ \omega \in \Omega : \left|g(\omega )\right|>\left\| g\right\|_{\infty }-\varepsilon \right\}. Now μ(E)>0\mu (E)>0, and by σ\sigma-finiteness there is some subset A⊆EA \subseteq E with 0<μ(A)<+∞0<\mu (A)<+\infty. Let f=1μ(A)  1Asgn⁡gf=\frac{1}{\mu (A)} \; \mathbb {1}_{A} \operatorname {sgn} g; it is easy to verify that f∈L1(Ω,F,μ)f \in L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) and ∥f∥1⩽1\left\| f\right\|_{1} \leqslant 1. Then Lg(f)=∫fg dμ=1μ(A)∫A∣g∣ dμ⩾∥g∥∞−ε=(∥g∥∞−ε)∥f∥1L_{g}(f)=\int fg \, \mathrm{d} \mu =\frac{1}{\mu (A)} \int_{A}\left|g\right| \, \mathrm{d} \mu \geqslant \left\| g\right\|_{\infty }-\varepsilon =(\left\| g\right\|_{\infty }-\varepsilon )\left\| f\right\|_{1}, so that ∥Lg∥⩾∥g∥∞−ε\left\| L_{g}\right\| \geqslant \left\| g\right\|_{\infty }-\varepsilon. Since ε>0\varepsilon >0 is arbitrary we have ∥Lg∥=∥g∥∞\left\| L_{g}\right\| =\left\| g\right\|_{\infty }.

Problem 9.3.5

The upcoming exercises discuss the Riesz Representation Theorem for the case p=1p=1. In the text it was stated that the Riesz Representation Theorem does not necessarily hold for arbitrary measure spaces (Ω,F,μ)(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) when p=1p=1. This exercise provides a counterexample for a non-σ\sigma-finite measure space. This counterexample is not rigorous because certain claims are made without proof. These claims can be verified upon completion of the next chapter, but we state the facts now.

Let Ω=[0,1]×[0,1]\Omega =[0,1] \times [0,1], and let F\mathcal{F} denote the two-dimensional Borel subsets of Ω\Omega. For each E∈FE \in \mathcal{F}, define

ν(E)=∑x∈[0,1]λ({y∈[0,1]:(x,y)∈E}), \nu (E)=\sum _{x \in [0,1]} \lambda (\left\{ y \in [0,1]: (x,y) \in E\right\} ),

where the uncountable sum ∑x∈[0,1]\sum_{x \in [0,1]} is as defined at the beginning of Section 9.2, and where λ\lambda denotes the restriction of one-dimensional Lebesgue measure to the Borel subsets of [0,1][0,1]. Next, write

μ(E)=ν(E)+∑y∈[0,1]λ({x∈[0,1]:(x,y)∈E}) \mu (E)=\nu (E)+\sum _{y \in [0,1]} \lambda (\left\{ x \in [0,1]: (x,y) \in E\right\} )

for every E∈FE \in \mathcal{F}.

?
(a)

Both μ\mu and ν\nu are measures with domain F\mathcal{F}, and ν⩽μ\nu \leqslant \mu. [It should be straightforward to verify that ν\nu is a measure. From this and the interchange of the roles of xx and yy one can show that μ\mu is a measure. That ν(E)⩽μ(E)\nu (E) \leqslant \mu (E) for all E∈FE \in \mathcal{F} is trivial.]

(b)

Define LL on L1(Ω,F,μ)L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) by writing L(f)=∫f dνL(f)=\int f \, \mathrm{d} \nu for every f∈L1(Ω,F,μ)f \in L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ). Verify that L1(Ω,F,μ)⊆L1(Ω,F,ν)L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) \subseteq L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \nu ), so that the definition makes sense. Next, verify that LL is a bounded linear functional on L1(Ω,F,μ)L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) with ∥L∥⩽1\left\| L\right\| \leqslant 1. [Again, this should be straightforward.]

Now assume that the conclusion of the Riesz Representation Theorem holds: there is g∈L∞(Ω,F,μ)g \in L^{\infty }(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) such that L=LgL=L_{g} for this gg, where the notation is as in Exercise 4. That is, assume that L(f)=∫fg dμL(f)=\int fg \, \mathrm{d} \mu for every f∈L1(Ω,F,μ)f \in L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ).

Accept without proof the assertion the existence of some x0∈[0,1]x_{0} \in [0,1] such that ∫[0,1]∣g(x0,y)∣ dλ(y)=0\int_{[0,1]}\left|g(x_{0},y)\right| \, \mathrm{d} \lambda (y)=0. [The proof of this fact requires the machinery of the next chapter.]

(c)

Let V={x0}×[0,1]V=\left\{ x_{0}\right\} \times [0,1] and f=  1Vf=\; \mathbb {1}_{V}. Show that ν(V)=1\nu (V)=1 and f∈L1(Ω,F,μ)f \in L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ).

(d)

Verify that

1=ν(V)=∫Ωf dν=L(f)=Lg(f)=∫Ωfg dμ=∫Vg dμ⩽∫[0,1]g(x0,y) dλ(y)=0, \begin{aligned} 1=\nu (V)=\int _{\Omega } f \, \mathrm{d} \nu =L(f)=L_{g}(f)=\int _{\Omega } fg \, \mathrm{d} \mu & = \int _{V} g \, \mathrm{d} \mu \\ & \leqslant \int _{[0,1]} g(x_{0}, y) \, \mathrm{d} \lambda (y) \\ & = 0, \end{aligned}

so that we achieve a contradiction. [The inequality may be accepted on faith, as it depends on some concepts yet to be defined.] This gives a semirigorous counterexample to the Riesz Representation Theorem in the case p=1p=1. The problem here is that (Ω,F,μ)(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) is not a σ\sigma-finite measure space. [Actually, (Ω,F,μ)(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) fails even to be decomposable.]

Problem 9.3.6

Let (Ω,F,μ)(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) denote a measure space. Suppose that ϕ(E)=∫Ef dμ\phi (E)=\int_{E} f \, \mathrm{d} \mu for every E∈FE \in \mathcal{F}, where f∈L1(Ω,F,μ)f \in L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ). ϕ\phi is an additive set function.

?
(a)

Let P={ω∈Ω:f(ω)⩾0}P=\left\{ \omega \in \Omega : f(\omega ) \geqslant 0\right\}. Then (P,Pc)(P, P^{c}) is a Hahn decomposition of Ω\Omega with respect to ϕ\phi. [Obvious.]

(b)

Let ϕ=ϕ+−ϕ−\phi =\phi^{+}-\phi^{-} denote the Jordan decomposition of ϕ\phi into finite measures ϕ+\phi^{+} and ϕ−\phi^{-}; recall that Jordan decompositions are unique by Exercise 4 of Section 9.1. Show that ϕ+(E)=∫Ef+ dμ\phi^{+}(E)=\int_{E} f^{+} \, \mathrm{d} \mu and ϕ−(E)=∫Ef− dμ\phi^{-}(E)=\int_{E} f^{-} \, \mathrm{d} \mu for every E∈FE \in \mathcal{F}. [We have ϕ+(E)=ϕ(E∩P)=∫E∩Pf dμ=∫E∩Pf+ dμ\phi^{+}(E)=\phi (E \cap P)=\int_{E \cap P} f \, \mathrm{d} \mu =\int_{E \cap P} f^{+} \, \mathrm{d} \mu for every E∈FE \in \mathcal{F}, where PP is as in part (a).]

(c)

Define ∣ϕ∣(E)=ϕ+(E)+ϕ−(E)=∫E∣f∣ dμ\left|\phi \right|(E)=\phi^{+}(E)+\phi^{-}(E)=\int_{E}\left|f\right| \, \mathrm{d} \mu. ∣ϕ∣\left|\phi \right| is a finite measure, and for every E∈FE \in \mathcal{F} we have ∣ϕ∣(E)=sup⁡∑i=1n∣ϕ(Ei)∣\left|\phi \right|(E)=\sup \sum_{i=1}^{n}\left|\phi (E_{i})\right|, the supremum being over all finite decompositions of EE into disjoint F\mathcal{F}-sets E1,⋯ ,EnE_{1}, \cdots , E_{n}. [Let E∈FE \in \mathcal{F}, and let β\beta denote the supremum. If E1,⋯ ,EnE_{1}, \cdots , E_{n} are disjoint F\mathcal{F}-sets, then

∑i=1n∣ϕ(Ei)∣=∑i=1n∣ϕ+(Ei)−ϕ−(Ei)∣⩽∑i=1n(ϕ+(Ei)+ϕ−(Ei))=∑i=1n∣ϕ∣(Ei)=∣ϕ∣(E), \begin{aligned} \sum _{i=1}^{n}\left|\phi (E_{i})\right|=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left|\phi ^{+}(E_{i})-\phi ^{-}(E_{i})\right| & \leqslant \sum _{i=1}^{n}(\phi ^{+}(E_{i})+\phi ^{-}(E_{i})) \\ & = \sum _{i=1}^{n}\left|\phi \right|(E_{i}) \\ & = \left|\phi \right|(E), \end{aligned}

which gives β⩽∣ϕ∣(E)\beta \leqslant \left|\phi \right|(E). For the reverse inequality, consider the disjoint F\mathcal{F}-sets E∩PE \cap P and E∩PcE \cap P^{c}, where PP is as in (a). Then

β⩾∣ϕ(E∩P)∣+∣ϕ(E∩Pc)∣=ϕ+(E)+ϕ−(E)=∣ϕ∣(E). \beta \geqslant \left|\phi (E \cap P)\right|+\left|\phi (E \cap P^{c})\right|=\phi ^{+}(E)+\phi ^{-}(E)=\left|\phi \right|(E).

This gives β=∣ϕ∣(E)\beta =\left|\phi \right|(E).]

Problem 9.3.7

This exercise uses the notation and results of Exercise 6. Let LL denote a bounded linear functional on L1(Ω,F,μ)L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ), where (Ω,F,μ)(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) is a finite measure space. We desire to show the following: There is g∈L∞(Ω,F,μ)g \in L^{\infty }(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) such that L(f)=∫fg dμL(f)=\int fg \, \mathrm{d} \mu for every f∈L1(Ω,F,μ)f \in L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ).

Exercise 6 (restated). Let (Ω,F,μ)(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) denote a measure space. Suppose that ϕ(E)=∫Ef dμ\phi (E)=\int_{E} f \, \mathrm{d} \mu for every E∈FE \in \mathcal{F}, where f∈L1(Ω,F,μ)f \in L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ); ϕ\phi is an additive set function. Let (P,Pc)(P, P^{c}) denote the Hahn decomposition of Ω\Omega with respect to ϕ\phi, let ϕ=ϕ+−ϕ−\phi =\phi^{+}-\phi^{-} denote the (unique) Jordan decomposition of ϕ\phi into finite measures ϕ+\phi^{+} and ϕ−\phi^{-}, and let ∣ϕ∣=ϕ++ϕ−\left|\phi \right|=\phi^{+}+\phi^{-}; then for every E∈FE \in \mathcal{F}, ∣ϕ∣(E)=sup⁡∑i=1n∣ϕ(Ei)∣\left|\phi \right|(E)=\sup \sum_{i=1}^{n}\left|\phi (E_{i})\right|, the supremum being over all finite decompositions of EE into disjoint F\mathcal{F}-sets E1,⋯ ,EnE_{1}, \cdots , E_{n}.

?
(a)

Define ν(E)=L(  1E)\nu (E)=L(\; \mathbb {1}_{E}) for every E∈FE \in \mathcal{F}. Then ν\nu is an additive set function on F\mathcal{F}. [Note that part (i) of the proof in this section works for p=1p=1.]

(b)

There exists a unique [up to a μ\mu-null set] function g∈L1(Ω,F,μ)g \in L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) such that ν(E)=∫Eg dμ\nu (E)=\int_{E} g \, \mathrm{d} \mu. [Note that part (ii) of the proof in this section works for p=1p=1.] By the definition of ∣ν∣\left|\nu \right|, we have ∣ν∣(E)=∫E∣g∣ dμ\left|\nu \right|(E)=\int_{E}\left|g\right| \, \mathrm{d} \mu for every E∈FE \in \mathcal{F}.

(c)

We may without any loss of generality assume that ∣g(ω)∣⩽∥L∥\left|g(\omega )\right| \leqslant \left\| L\right\| for every ω∈Ω\omega \in \Omega. Therefore, we have g∈L∞(Ω,F,μ)g \in L^{\infty }(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) as well. [Let A={ω∈Ω:∣g(ω)∣>∥L∥}A=\left\{ \omega \in \Omega : \left|g(\omega )\right|>\left\| L\right\| \right\}. If μ(A)>0\mu (A)>0, then ∣ν∣(A)=∫A∣g∣ dμ>∫A∥L∥ dμ=∥L∥μ(A)\left|\nu \right|(A)=\int_{A}\left|g\right| \, \mathrm{d} \mu >\int_{A}\left\| L\right\| \, \mathrm{d} \mu =\left\| L\right\| \mu (A). By part (c) of the previous exercise, there exists a finite collection A1,⋯ ,AnA_{1}, \cdots , A_{n} of disjoint F\mathcal{F}-sets with union AA such that ∑i=1n∣ν(Ai)∣>∥L∥μ(A)\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left|\nu (A_{i})\right|>\left\| L\right\| \mu (A). But then

∥L∥μ(A)<∑i=1n∣ν(Ai)∣=∑i=1n∣L(  1Ai)∣⩽∑i=1n∥L∥∥  1Ai∥1=∥L∥∑i=1nμ(Ai)=∥L∥μ(A), \begin{aligned} \left\| L\right\| \mu (A)<\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left|\nu (A_{i})\right|=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left|L(\; \mathbb {1}_{A_{i}})\right| & \leqslant \sum _{i=1}^{n}\left\| L\right\| \left\| \; \mathbb {1}_{A_{i}}\right\| _{1} \\ & = \left\| L\right\| \sum _{i=1}^{n}\mu (A_{i}) \\ & = \left\| L\right\| \mu (A), \end{aligned}

a contradiction. Thus ∣g∣⩽∥L∥\left|g\right| \leqslant \left\| L\right\| μ\mu-a.e. on Ω\Omega.]

(d)

Show that L(s)=∫sg dμL(s)=\int sg \, \mathrm{d} \mu for every finite-valued F/B∗\mathcal{F}/\mathcal{B}^{*}-measurable simple function ss defined on Ω\Omega. [Follow the proof of (iii) given in the proof of the section.]

(e)

L(f)=∫fg dμL(f)=\int fg \, \mathrm{d} \mu for every f∈L1(Ω,F,μ)f \in L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ). [Follow the proof of (v) given in the proof of the section, or do the usual thing of using MCT to show the result is true for nonnegative functions in L1(Ω,F,μ)L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) and then using positive and negative parts to give the result in general.]

(f)

The function g∈L∞(Ω,F,μ)g \in L^{\infty }(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) is unique up to a μ\mu-null set. [This should be straightforward. Suppose that ψ∈L∞(Ω,F,μ)\psi \in L^{\infty }(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) is such that ∫fψ dμ=0\int f\psi \, \mathrm{d} \mu =0 for every f∈L1(Ω,F,μ)f \in L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ). If {ω∈Ω:ψ(ω)≠0}\left\{ \omega \in \Omega : \psi (\omega ) \neq 0\right\} has positive μ\mu-measure, then, without loss of generality, A={ω∈Ω:ψ(ω)>0}A=\left\{ \omega \in \Omega : \psi (\omega )>0\right\} has positive and finite μ\mu-measure. Let f=  1Af=\; \mathbb {1}_{A}. Then ∫fψ dμ=∫Aψ dμ>0\int f\psi \, \mathrm{d} \mu =\int_{A} \psi \, \mathrm{d} \mu >0, a contradiction. Use this to get the general uniqueness claim.]

Problem 9.3.8

Extend Exercise 7 to where (Ω,F,μ)(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) is σ\sigma-finite. This gives the Riesz Representation Theorem for the case p=1p=1.

?
Remark.
?

Let {An}n=1∞\left\{ A_{n}\right\}_{n=1}^{\infty } denote a disjoint sequence of F\mathcal{F}-sets of finite μ\mu-measure with union Ω\Omega. For each n∈Nn \in \mathbb {N} and E∈FE \in \mathcal{F}, let μn(E)=μ(E∩An)\mu_{n}(E)=\mu (E \cap A_{n}), so that (Ω,F,μn)(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu_{n}) is a finite measure space. Define LnL_{n} on L1(Ω,F,μn)L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu_{n}) by writing Ln(f)=L(fIAn)L_{n}(f)=L(fI_{A_{n}}). Then each LnL_{n} is a bounded linear functional on L1(Ω,F,μn)L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu_{n}) with ∥Ln∥⩽∥L∥\left\| L_{n}\right\| \leqslant \left\| L\right\|. Use the previous exercise now for each n∈Nn \in \mathbb {N}: there is gn∈L∞(Ω,F,μn)g_{n} \in L^{\infty }(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu_{n}) such that ∣gn(ω)∣⩽∥Ln∥⩽∥L∥\left|g_{n}(\omega )\right| \leqslant \left\| L_{n}\right\| \leqslant \left\| L\right\| for every ω∈Ω\omega \in \Omega and

L(fIAn)=Ln(f)=∫fgn dμn=∫Anfgn dμfor each f∈L1(Ω,F,μn). L(fI_{A_{n}})=L_{n}(f)=\int fg_{n} \, \mathrm{d} \mu _{n}=\int _{A_{n}} fg_{n} \, \mathrm{d} \mu \quad \text{for each } f \in L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu _{n}).

Since L1(Ω,F,μ)⊆L1(Ω,F,μn)L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) \subseteq L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu_{n}), the above relation holds for each f∈L1(Ω,F,μ)f \in L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ). Now consider the functions g1,g2,⋯g_{1}, g_{2}, \cdots. For each n∈Nn \in \mathbb {N} the values of gng_{n} on AncA_{n}^{c} are of no consequence in determining LnL_{n}. We may meaningfully define a function gg on Ω\Omega by writing g(ω)=gn(ω)g(\omega )=g_{n}(\omega ) when ω∈An\omega \in A_{n}; it is straightforward to verify that g∈L∞(Ω,F,μ)g \in L^{\infty }(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) and ∥g∥∞⩽∥L∥\left\| g\right\|_{\infty } \leqslant \left\| L\right\|. At this point, pick f∈L1(Ω,F,μ)f \in L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ). Use the continuity of LL, the boundedness of gg, and DCT to obtain

L(f)=lim⁡mL(∑n=1mfIAn)=lim⁡m∑n=1mL(fIAn)=lim⁡m∑n=1m∫Anfg dμ=lim⁡m∫∑n=1mfIAng dμ=∫fg dμ. \begin{aligned} L(f)=\lim _{m} L\left(\sum _{n=1}^{m} fI_{A_{n}}\right)=\lim _{m} \sum _{n=1}^{m} L(fI_{A_{n}}) & = \lim _{m} \sum _{n=1}^{m} \int _{A_{n}} fg \, \mathrm{d} \mu \\ & = \lim _{m} \int \sum _{n=1}^{m} fI_{A_{n}} g \, \mathrm{d} \mu \\ & = \int fg \, \mathrm{d} \mu . \end{aligned}

The uniqueness of gg up to a μ\mu-null set may be established as in the finite case.

Problem 9.3.9

Let Ω=(0,1]\Omega =(0,1], let F\mathcal{F} denote the Borel subsets of Ω\Omega, and let λ\lambda denote Lebesgue measure restricted to F\mathcal{F}. Then L1(Ω,F,μ)L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) is not weakly compact. This shows that in Exercise 2 we cannot consider the case p=1p=1, even if the underlying space is finite.

?
Remark.
?

For each n∈Nn \in \mathbb {N} let fn=n  1(0,n−1]f_{n}=n \; \mathbb {1}_{(0, n^{-1}]}, and suppose that some subsequence {fnk}k=1∞\left\{ f_{n_{k}}\right\}_{k=1}^{\infty } converges weakly as k→∞k \rightarrow \infty to some f∈L1(Ω,F,μ)f \in L^{1}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ). Integrate fnkf_{n_{k}} against the functions sgn⁡f  1(ε,1]\operatorname {sgn} f \; \mathbb {1}_{(\varepsilon , 1]} in L∞(Ω,F,μ)L^{\infty }(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) and show that the hypothesized weak convergence forces f=0f=0 μ\mu-a.e. on Ω\Omega. Next, integrate against the constant function 11, (which is clearly in L∞(Ω,F,μ)L^{\infty }(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu )), and obtain a contradiction.

Problem 9.3.10

Let (Ω,F,μ)(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) denote a σ\sigma-finite measure space. Let F(Ω,F,μ)\mathfrak {F}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) denote the set of functions ϕ:F→R\phi : \mathcal{F} \rightarrow \mathbb {R} such that

  1. sup⁡{∣ϕ(A)∣:A∈F}<+∞\sup \left\{ \left|\phi (A)\right|: A \in \mathcal{F}\right\} <+\infty,

  2. ϕ(A∪B)=ϕ(A)+ϕ(B)\phi (A \cup B)=\phi (A)+\phi (B) whenever A,B∈FA, B \in \mathcal{F} are disjoint, and

  3. ϕ(A)=0\phi (A)=0 whenever A∈FA \in \mathcal{F} and μ(A)=0\mu (A)=0. Given ϕ∈F(Ω,F,μ)\phi \in \mathfrak {F}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ), define ∣ϕ∣\left|\phi \right| on F\mathcal{F} by writing

∣ϕ∣(A)=sup⁡{∑i=1n∣ϕ(Ai)∣:A1,⋯ ,An are disjoint F-sets with union A} \left|\phi \right|(A)=\sup \left\{ \sum _{i=1}^{n}\left|\phi (A_{i})\right|: A_{1}, \cdots , A_{n} \text{ are disjoint } \mathcal{F}\text{-sets with union } A\right\}

for every A∈FA \in \mathcal{F}. Given ϕ∈F(Ω,F,μ)\phi \in \mathfrak {F}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ), define ∥ϕ∥=∣ϕ∣(Ω)\left\| \phi \right\| =\left|\phi \right|(\Omega ).

?
(a)

Show that ∣ϕ∣∈F(Ω,F,μ)\left|\phi \right| \in \mathfrak {F}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ).

(b)

Show that F(Ω,F,μ)\mathfrak {F}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) is a normed linear space [with setwise linear operations].

Problem 9.3.11

Assume the notation of Exercise 10. Let f=∑j=1mαj  1Ajf=\sum_{j=1}^{m} \alpha_{j} \; \mathbb {1}_{A_{j}} and g=∑k=1nβk  1Bkg=\sum_{k=1}^{n} \beta_{k} \; \mathbb {1}_{B_{k}} denote F/B∗\mathcal{F}/\mathcal{B}^{*}-measurable simple functions with domain Ω\Omega [i.e. A1,⋯ ,Am∈FA_{1}, \cdots , A_{m} \in \mathcal{F} are disjoint with union Ω\Omega and B1,⋯ ,Bn∈FB_{1}, \cdots , B_{n} \in \mathcal{F} are disjoint with union Ω\Omega]. Let ϕ∈F(Ω,F,μ)\phi \in \mathfrak {F}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ). Then

∣∑j=1mαjϕ(Aj)−∑k=1nβkϕ(Bk)∣⩽∥ϕ∥∥f−g∥u, \left|\sum _{j=1}^{m} \alpha _{j} \phi (A_{j})-\sum _{k=1}^{n} \beta _{k} \phi (B_{k})\right| \leqslant \left\| \phi \right\| \left\| f-g\right\| _{u},

where ∥h∥u=sup⁡ω∈Ω∣h(ω)∣\left\| h\right\|_{u}=\sup_{\omega \in \Omega }\left|h(\omega )\right| for every function hh on Ω\Omega.

?
Remark.
?

Verify that

∣∑j=1mαjϕ(Aj)−∑k=1nβkϕ(Bk)∣=∣∑j=1m∑k=1n(αj−βk)ϕ(Aj∩Bk)∣⩽∑j=1m∑k=1n∣αj−βk∣∣ϕ(Aj∩Bk)∣⩽∑j=1m∑k=1n∥f−g∥u∣ϕ(Aj∩Bk)∣⩽∥f−g∥u∥ϕ∥. \begin{aligned} \left|\sum _{j=1}^{m} \alpha _{j} \phi (A_{j})-\sum _{k=1}^{n} \beta _{k} \phi (B_{k})\right| & =\left|\sum _{j=1}^{m} \sum _{k=1}^{n}(\alpha _{j}-\beta _{k}) \phi (A_{j} \cap B_{k})\right| \\ & \leqslant \sum _{j=1}^{m} \sum _{k=1}^{n}\left|\alpha _{j}-\beta _{k}\right|\left|\phi (A_{j} \cap B_{k})\right| \\ & \leqslant \sum _{j=1}^{m} \sum _{k=1}^{n}\left\| f-g\right\| _{u}\left|\phi (A_{j} \cap B_{k})\right| \\ & \leqslant \left\| f-g\right\| _{u}\left\| \phi \right\| . \end{aligned}
Problem 9.3.12

Assume the notation of Exercise 10 and let ϕ∈F(Ω,F,μ)\phi \in \mathfrak {F}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ). If s=∑j=1mαj  1Ajs=\sum_{j=1}^{m} \alpha_{j} \; \mathbb {1}_{A_{j}} is an F/B∗\mathcal{F}/\mathcal{B}^{*}-measurable simple function on Ω\Omega, define ∫s dϕ=∑j=1mαjϕ(Aj)\int s \, \mathrm{d} \phi =\sum_{j=1}^{m} \alpha_{j} \phi (A_{j}). Next, if ff is a bounded F/B∗\mathcal{F}/\mathcal{B}^{*}-measurable function on Ω\Omega, there is a sequence of simple functions {sn}n=1∞\left\{ s_{n}\right\}_{n=1}^{\infty } on Ω\Omega such that ∥f−sn∥u→0\left\| f-s_{n}\right\|_{u} \rightarrow 0.

?
(a)

The real sequence {∫sn dϕ}n=1∞\left\{ \int s_{n} \, \mathrm{d} \phi \right\}_{n=1}^{\infty } is a Cauchy sequence. Define ∫f dϕ=lim⁡n∫sn dϕ\int f \, \mathrm{d} \phi =\lim_{n} \int s_{n} \, \mathrm{d} \phi.

(b)

This definition is well-defined, as ∫f dϕ\int f \, \mathrm{d} \phi does not depend on the particular sequence {sn}n=1∞\left\{ s_{n}\right\}_{n=1}^{\infty } of F/B∗\mathcal{F}/\mathcal{B}^{*}-measurable simple functions on Ω\Omega with ∥f−sn∥u→0\left\| f-s_{n}\right\|_{u} \rightarrow 0. The definition is also consistent with our definition of ∫⋯ dϕ\int \cdots \, \mathrm{d} \phi for simple functions.

(c)

Let ff and gg denote bounded F/B∗\mathcal{F}/\mathcal{B}^{*}-measurable functions on Ω\Omega, and let α∈R\alpha \in \mathbb {R}. Show that

  1. ∫αf dϕ=α∫f dϕ\int \alpha f \, \mathrm{d} \phi =\alpha \int f \, \mathrm{d} \phi,

  2. ∫(f+g) dϕ=∫f dϕ+∫g dϕ\int (f+g) \, \mathrm{d} \phi =\int f \, \mathrm{d} \phi +\int g \, \mathrm{d} \phi,

  3. ∣∫f dϕ∣⩽∫∣f∣ d∣ϕ∣\left|\int f \, \mathrm{d} \phi \right| \leqslant \int \left|f\right| \, \mathrm{d}\left|\phi \right|, and

  4. 0⩽f⩽g0 \leqslant f \leqslant g forces ∫f d∣ϕ∣⩽∫g d∣ϕ∣\int f \, \mathrm{d}\left|\phi \right| \leqslant \int g \, \mathrm{d}\left|\phi \right|.

(d)

Let hh denote a bounded F/B∗\mathcal{F}/\mathcal{B}^{*}-measurable function such that h=0h=0 μ\mu-a.e. on Ω\Omega. Then ∫h dϕ=0\int h \, \mathrm{d} \phi =0.

(e)

We have defined ∫⋯ dϕ\int \cdots \, \mathrm{d} \phi first for simple functions, then for bounded functions. We wish to extend this to functions in L∞(Ω,F,μ)L^{\infty }(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ). To do this, let g∈L∞(Ω,F,μ)g \in L^{\infty }(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ), and pick a bounded function f∈L∞f \in L^{\infty } such that ∥f−g∥∞=0\left\| f-g\right\|_{\infty }=0. [See Exercise 2 of Section 8.4 to see that such a function ff exists.] We define ∫g dϕ\int g \, \mathrm{d} \phi to be ∫f dϕ\int f \, \mathrm{d} \phi. Using this, show that this definition makes sense in that if gg is a bounded function in L∞L^{\infty } with ∥h−g∥∞=0\left\| h-g\right\|_{\infty }=0, then ∫f dϕ=∫h dϕ\int f \, \mathrm{d} \phi =\int h \, \mathrm{d} \phi.

Remark.
?
(a)

Use Exercise 11.

(d)

Let A={ω∈Ω:h(ω)≠0}A=\left\{ \omega \in \Omega : h(\omega ) \neq 0\right\}. Verify that

∣∫h dϕ∣⩽∫∣h∣ d∣ϕ∣=∫  1A∣h∣ d∣ϕ∣+∫  1Ac∣h∣ d∣ϕ∣⩽∥h∥u∣ϕ∣(A)+0=0 \begin{aligned} \left|\int h \, \mathrm{d} \phi \right| \leqslant \int \left|h\right| \, \mathrm{d}\left|\phi \right| & =\int \; \mathbb {1}_{A}\left|h\right| \, \mathrm{d}\left|\phi \right|+\int \; \mathbb {1}_{A^{c}}\left|h\right| \, \mathrm{d}\left|\phi \right| \\ & \leqslant \left\| h\right\| _{u}\left|\phi \right|(A)+0 \\ & =0 \end{aligned}

by appealing to part (c) and to Exercise 10.

Problem 9.3.13

Let (Ω,F,μ)(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) denote a σ\sigma-finite measure space, and let ϕ∈F(Ω,F,μ)\phi \in \mathfrak {F}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ). Define LϕL_{\phi } on L∞(Ω,F,μ)L^{\infty }(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) by writing Lϕ(g)=∫g dϕL_{\phi }(g)=\int g \, \mathrm{d} \phi. Then LϕL_{\phi } is a bounded linear functional with ∥Lϕ∥=∥ϕ∥=∣ϕ∣(Ω)\left\| L_{\phi }\right\| =\left\| \phi \right\| =\left|\phi \right|(\Omega ).

?
Remark.
?

Linearity follows from Exercise 12. For the other claim, let g∈L∞(Ω,F,μ)g \in L^{\infty }(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ). Pick bounded f∈L∞(Ω,F,μ)f \in L^{\infty }(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) so that ∥f−g∥∞=0\left\| f-g\right\|_{\infty }=0 and ∥f∥u=∥g∥∞\left\| f\right\|_{u}=\left\| g\right\|_{\infty }. [See part (e) of the previous exercise or Exercise 2 of Section 8.4 to see that such a function ff exists.] Using the previous exercise gives

∣Lϕ(g)∣=∣∫g dϕ∣=∣∫f dϕ∣⩽∫∣f∣ d∣ϕ∣⩽∥f∥u∥ϕ∥=∥g∥∞∥ϕ∥. \begin{aligned} \left|L_{\phi }(g)\right|=\left|\int g \, \mathrm{d} \phi \right|=\left|\int f \, \mathrm{d} \phi \right| & \leqslant \int \left|f\right| \, \mathrm{d}\left|\phi \right| \\ & \leqslant \left\| f\right\| _{u}\left\| \phi \right\| \\ & =\left\| g\right\| _{\infty }\left\| \phi \right\| . \end{aligned}

This gives ∥Lϕ∥⩽∥ϕ∥\left\| L_{\phi }\right\| \leqslant \left\| \phi \right\|. For the reverse inequality, pick ε>0\varepsilon >0 and use the definition of ∣ϕ∣\left|\phi \right| in Exercise 10 to find a disjoint collection A1,⋯ ,An∈FA_{1}, \cdots , A_{n} \in \mathcal{F} with union Ω\Omega and ∑j=1n∣ϕ(Aj)∣>∥ϕ∥−ε\sum_{j=1}^{n}\left|\phi (A_{j})\right|>\left\| \phi \right\| -\varepsilon. For j=1,⋯ ,nj=1, \cdots , n, let αj=sgn⁡ϕ(Aj)\alpha_{j}=\operatorname {sgn} \phi (A_{j}). Define the function g=∑j=1nαj  1Ajg=\sum_{j=1}^{n} \alpha_{j} \; \mathbb {1}_{A_{j}}. We have g∈L∞(Ω,F,μ)g \in L^{\infty }(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) with ∥g∥∞=∥g∥u⩽1\left\| g\right\|_{\infty }=\left\| g\right\|_{u} \leqslant 1, and

∣Lϕ(g)∣=∣∫g dϕ∣=∣∑j=1nαjϕ(Aj)∣=∑j=1n∣ϕ(Aj)∣⩾∥g∥∞(∥ϕ∥−ε). \left|L_{\phi }(g)\right|=\left|\int g \, \mathrm{d} \phi \right|=\left|\sum _{j=1}^{n} \alpha _{j} \phi (A_{j})\right|=\sum _{j=1}^{n}\left|\phi (A_{j})\right| \geqslant \left\| g\right\| _{\infty }\left(\left\| \phi \right\| -\varepsilon \right).

Since ε>0\varepsilon >0 is generic, this gives ∥Lϕ∥⩾∥ϕ∥\left\| L_{\phi }\right\| \geqslant \left\| \phi \right\|.

Problem 9.3.14

Prove the Riesz Representation Theorem for p=+∞p=+\infty: Let (Ω,F,μ)(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) denote a σ\sigma-finite measure space, and let LL denote a bounded linear functional on L∞(Ω,F,μ)L^{\infty }(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ). Then there exists ϕ∈F(Ω,F,μ)\phi \in \mathfrak {F}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) such that L=LϕL=L_{\phi }, where LϕL_{\phi } is as in the previous exercise.

Framework (from the paragraph preceding Exercise 10). Given a σ\sigma-finite measure space (Ω,F,μ)(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ), F(Ω,F,μ)\mathfrak {F}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) denotes the set of functions ϕ:F→R\phi : \mathcal{F} \rightarrow \mathbb {R} such that (i) sup⁡{∣ϕ(A)∣:A∈F}<+∞\sup \left\{ \left|\phi (A)\right|: A \in \mathcal{F}\right\} <+\infty, (ii) ϕ(A∪B)=ϕ(A)+ϕ(B)\phi (A \cup B)=\phi (A)+\phi (B) whenever A,B∈FA, B \in \mathcal{F} are disjoint, and (iii) ϕ(A)=0\phi (A)=0 whenever A∈FA \in \mathcal{F} and μ(A)=0\mu (A)=0; ∣ϕ∣(A)=sup⁡{∑i=1n∣ϕ(Ai)∣:A1,⋯ ,An disjoint F-sets with union A}\left|\phi \right|(A)=\sup \left\{ \sum_{i=1}^{n}\left|\phi (A_{i})\right|: A_{1}, \cdots , A_{n} \text{ disjoint } \mathcal{F}\text{-sets with union } A\right\} for every A∈FA \in \mathcal{F}, and ∥ϕ∥=∣ϕ∣(Ω)\left\| \phi \right\| =\left|\phi \right|(\Omega ).

Exercise 13 (restated): Let (Ω,F,μ)(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) denote a σ\sigma-finite measure space, and let ϕ∈F(Ω,F,μ)\phi \in \mathfrak {F}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ). Define LϕL_{\phi } on L∞(Ω,F,μ)L^{\infty }(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) by writing Lϕ(g)=∫g dϕL_{\phi }(g)=\int g \, \mathrm{d} \phi. Then LϕL_{\phi } is a bounded linear functional with ∥Lϕ∥=∥ϕ∥=∣ϕ∣(Ω)\left\| L_{\phi }\right\| =\left\| \phi \right\| =\left|\phi \right|(\Omega ).

Note the slight difference in the form of the theorem for the p=+∞p=+\infty case as compared to the case where 1⩽p<+∞1 \leqslant p<+\infty.

?
Problem 9.3.15

Suppose that ϕ:2Ω→{0,1}\phi : 2^{\Omega } \rightarrow \left\{ 0,1\right\} is such that ϕ(Ω)=1\phi (\Omega )=1 and ϕ(A∪B)=ϕ(A)+ϕ(B)\phi (A \cup B)=\phi (A)+\phi (B) whenever AA and BB are disjoint subsets of Ω\Omega. Such a ϕ\phi is referred to as a finitely additive measure. Define U={A⊆Ω:ϕ(A)=1}\mathcal{U}=\left\{ A \subseteq \Omega : \phi (A)=1\right\}.

?
(a)

∅∉U\varnothing \notin \mathcal{U}.

(b)

If A∈UA \in \mathcal{U} and A⊆B⊆ΩA \subseteq B \subseteq \Omega, then B∈UB \in \mathcal{U}.

(c)

If A,B∈UA, B \in \mathcal{U}, then A∩B∈UA \cap B \in \mathcal{U}.

(d)

If A⊆ΩA \subseteq \Omega, then A∈UA \in \mathcal{U} or Ac∈UA^{c} \in \mathcal{U}.

(e)

If a collection V\mathcal{V} of subsets of Ω\Omega satisfies (a)-(c), then V\mathcal{V} is called a filter on Ω\Omega. If V\mathcal{V} satisfies (a)-(d), then V\mathcal{V} is called an ultrafilter on Ω\Omega. Let V\mathcal{V} denote an ultrafilter on Ω\Omega, and define ψ:2Ω→{0,1}\psi : 2^{\Omega } \rightarrow \left\{ 0,1\right\} by writing ψ(A)=1\psi (A)=1 if A∈VA \in \mathcal{V} and ψ(A)=0\psi (A)=0 if A∉VA \notin \mathcal{V}. Then ψ\psi is a finitely additive measure.

(f)

Let (Ω,F,μ)(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) denote a σ\sigma-finite measure space, and let ϕ\phi denote a finitely additive measure in F(Ω,F,μ)\mathfrak {F}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) [see Exercise 10 for the definition of F(Ω,F,μ)\mathfrak {F}(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu )]. Then ∫fg dϕ=∫f dϕ∫g dϕ\int f g \, \mathrm{d} \phi =\int f \, \mathrm{d} \phi \int g \, \mathrm{d} \phi for every f,g∈L∞(Ω,F,μ)f, g \in L^{\infty }(\Omega , \mathcal{F}, \mu ) iff ϕ(A)\phi (A) is 00 or 11 for every A∈FA \in \mathcal{F}.

Problem 9.3.16

Let Ω\Omega denote a nonempty set. A filter U\mathcal{U} on Ω\Omega is called free if ⋂U=∅\bigcap \mathcal{U}=\varnothing. [That is, there is no ω∈Ω\omega \in \Omega that is common to each of the sets in U\mathcal{U}.] If a filter is not free, it is referred to as fixed.

?
(a)

If U\mathcal{U} is a fixed ultrafilter on Ω\Omega, then U={A⊆Ω:ω∈A}\mathcal{U}=\left\{ A \subseteq \Omega : \omega \in A\right\} for some ω∈Ω\omega \in \Omega.

(b)

If Ω\Omega is finite, then every ultrafilter on Ω\Omega is fixed.

(c)

If Ω\Omega is infinite, then there exists a free ultrafilter on Ω\Omega.

Remark.
?
(c)

Define the collection A={A⊆Ω:Ac is finite}\mathcal{A}=\left\{ A \subseteq \Omega : A^{c} \text{ is finite}\right\}. Then A\mathcal{A} is a filter. Use Zorn's Lemma to obtain a maximal filter V\mathcal{V} containing A\mathcal{A}, and then show that V\mathcal{V} is a free ultrafilter.