Show that $lim_{ntoinfty}int_{X}fdmu_n = int_Xfdmu$












1












$begingroup$


Given is a a $sigma$ - Algebra $mathcal{A}$, a measure space $(X, mathcal{A})$ and a sequence of measures $left(mu_n :mathcal{A} to [0,infty]right)_{nin mathbb{N}}$ with $mu_n(A) leq mu_{n+1}(A):forall nin mathbb{N}$. I have to show that if $f:Xto[0,infty]$ is measureable with respect to $mathcal{A}$, it follows that $lim_{ntoinfty}int_{X}fdmu_n = int_Xfdmu$, where $mu: mathcal{A}to[0,infty]$, $mu(A):=sup{mu_n(A):ninmathbb{N}}$ and $Ainmathcal{A}$. We have defind integrals with step functions, hence $f=sum_{k=1}^Nalpha_k1_{A_k}$ and it follows by definition that $int_Xfdmu=sum_{k=1}^Nalpha_kmu(A_k)$ for an arbitrary measure $mu$. I have literally no idea where to start...






real-analysis measure-theory convergence







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    First prove the case where $f$ is a step function. Can you do that?
    $endgroup$
    – Severin Schraven
    Jan 2 at 14:02
















1












$begingroup$


Given is a a $sigma$ - Algebra $mathcal{A}$, a measure space $(X, mathcal{A})$ and a sequence of measures $left(mu_n :mathcal{A} to [0,infty]right)_{nin mathbb{N}}$ with $mu_n(A) leq mu_{n+1}(A):forall nin mathbb{N}$. I have to show that if $f:Xto[0,infty]$ is measureable with respect to $mathcal{A}$, it follows that $lim_{ntoinfty}int_{X}fdmu_n = int_Xfdmu$, where $mu: mathcal{A}to[0,infty]$, $mu(A):=sup{mu_n(A):ninmathbb{N}}$ and $Ainmathcal{A}$. We have defind integrals with step functions, hence $f=sum_{k=1}^Nalpha_k1_{A_k}$ and it follows by definition that $int_Xfdmu=sum_{k=1}^Nalpha_kmu(A_k)$ for an arbitrary measure $mu$. I have literally no idea where to start...






real-analysis measure-theory convergence







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    First prove the case where $f$ is a step function. Can you do that?
    $endgroup$
    – Severin Schraven
    Jan 2 at 14:02














1












1








1





$begingroup$


Given is a a $sigma$ - Algebra $mathcal{A}$, a measure space $(X, mathcal{A})$ and a sequence of measures $left(mu_n :mathcal{A} to [0,infty]right)_{nin mathbb{N}}$ with $mu_n(A) leq mu_{n+1}(A):forall nin mathbb{N}$. I have to show that if $f:Xto[0,infty]$ is measureable with respect to $mathcal{A}$, it follows that $lim_{ntoinfty}int_{X}fdmu_n = int_Xfdmu$, where $mu: mathcal{A}to[0,infty]$, $mu(A):=sup{mu_n(A):ninmathbb{N}}$ and $Ainmathcal{A}$. We have defind integrals with step functions, hence $f=sum_{k=1}^Nalpha_k1_{A_k}$ and it follows by definition that $int_Xfdmu=sum_{k=1}^Nalpha_kmu(A_k)$ for an arbitrary measure $mu$. I have literally no idea where to start...






real-analysis measure-theory convergence







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Given is a a $sigma$ - Algebra $mathcal{A}$, a measure space $(X, mathcal{A})$ and a sequence of measures $left(mu_n :mathcal{A} to [0,infty]right)_{nin mathbb{N}}$ with $mu_n(A) leq mu_{n+1}(A):forall nin mathbb{N}$. I have to show that if $f:Xto[0,infty]$ is measureable with respect to $mathcal{A}$, it follows that $lim_{ntoinfty}int_{X}fdmu_n = int_Xfdmu$, where $mu: mathcal{A}to[0,infty]$, $mu(A):=sup{mu_n(A):ninmathbb{N}}$ and $Ainmathcal{A}$. We have defind integrals with step functions, hence $f=sum_{k=1}^Nalpha_k1_{A_k}$ and it follows by definition that $int_Xfdmu=sum_{k=1}^Nalpha_kmu(A_k)$ for an arbitrary measure $mu$. I have literally no idea where to start...






real-analysis measure-theory convergence




real-analysis measure-theory convergence






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 3 at 0:00









Davide Giraudo

126k16150261




126k16150261










asked Jan 2 at 13:49









Michael MaierMichael Maier

819




819








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    First prove the case where $f$ is a step function. Can you do that?
    $endgroup$
    – Severin Schraven
    Jan 2 at 14:02














  • 2




    $begingroup$
    First prove the case where $f$ is a step function. Can you do that?
    $endgroup$
    – Severin Schraven
    Jan 2 at 14:02








2




2




$begingroup$
First prove the case where $f$ is a step function. Can you do that?
$endgroup$
– Severin Schraven
Jan 2 at 14:02




$begingroup$
First prove the case where $f$ is a step function. Can you do that?
$endgroup$
– Severin Schraven
Jan 2 at 14:02










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

Here are some hints.




  1. First it is not clear that $mu$ is indeed a measure.

  2. Show that the sequence $left( int_{X}fdmu_nright)_{ngeqslant 1}$ is non-decreasing.

  3. As a consequence, $lim_{nto +infty}int_{X}fdmu_n=sup_{ngeqslant 1}int_{X}fdmu_n$.

  4. By definition of the Lebesgue integral, $$int_{X}fdmu_n=sup_{sinmathcal S} int_{X}sdmu_n ,$$
    where $mathcal S=left{smid 0leqslant sleqslant f, .s=sum_{i=1}^Nc_imathbf 1_{A_i},A_iinmathcal Aright}$. Switching the two supremum reduces to establish the result when $f=sum_{i=1}^Nc_imathbf 1_{A_i},A_iinmathcal A$. Indeed, by 3.
    $$
    lim_{nto +infty}int_{X}fdmu_n=sup_{ngeqslant 1}sup_{sinmathcal S}int_{X}sdmu_n=sup_{sinmathcal S}sup_{ngeqslant 1}int_{X}sdmu_n.
    $$
    If we manage to show that for each $sinmathcal S$, the equality $sup_{ngeqslant 1}int_{X}sdmu_n=int_{X}sdmu$, then we are done.

  5. By linearity it suffices to do it when $f =mathbf 1_{A},Ainmathcal A$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thanks! However, we defined Lebesgue integral as $int_xfdmu_n=sup{int_xs_kdmu_n, kinmathbb{N}}$, where $s_k$ denotes a sequence of step funktions as defined by you. What am I missing?
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Maier
    Jan 4 at 10:00








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I guess that in your definition, we have $s_k(x)uparrow f(x)$ for all $x$. Ten the two definition are equivalent.
    $endgroup$
    – Davide Giraudo
    Jan 4 at 10:09










  • $begingroup$
    Alright. To show part 2.), I have to show that (using my definition) $sup{int_xs_kdmu_n, kinmathbb{N}} leq sup{int_xs_kdmu_{n+1}, kinmathbb{N}}$. I can now drop the two suprema (right?), and after writing out the integral for a step function $s_k$ i get $sum_{i=1}^inftyalpha_imu_n(A_i)leqsum_{i=1}^inftyalpha_imu_{n+1}(A_i)$, which is true due to my initial conditions.
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Maier
    Jan 4 at 10:16












  • $begingroup$
    And one more (hopefully) last question? Why does switching the suprema reduce the case to f being a step function? I then have something like $sup_{kinmathbb{N}}left(sup_{ngeq1}{int_Xs_kdmu_n}right)$, and I do not see how that leads me further...
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Maier
    Jan 4 at 10:31












  • $begingroup$
    Regard your first comment, yes. The only thing you have to modify is the index of the sum (the $infty$ should be $N$). For your second comment, see the edit.
    $endgroup$
    – Davide Giraudo
    Jan 4 at 11:31











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3059500%2fshow-that-lim-n-to-infty-int-xfd-mu-n-int-xfd-mu%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









1












$begingroup$

Here are some hints.




  1. First it is not clear that $mu$ is indeed a measure.

  2. Show that the sequence $left( int_{X}fdmu_nright)_{ngeqslant 1}$ is non-decreasing.

  3. As a consequence, $lim_{nto +infty}int_{X}fdmu_n=sup_{ngeqslant 1}int_{X}fdmu_n$.

  4. By definition of the Lebesgue integral, $$int_{X}fdmu_n=sup_{sinmathcal S} int_{X}sdmu_n ,$$
    where $mathcal S=left{smid 0leqslant sleqslant f, .s=sum_{i=1}^Nc_imathbf 1_{A_i},A_iinmathcal Aright}$. Switching the two supremum reduces to establish the result when $f=sum_{i=1}^Nc_imathbf 1_{A_i},A_iinmathcal A$. Indeed, by 3.
    $$
    lim_{nto +infty}int_{X}fdmu_n=sup_{ngeqslant 1}sup_{sinmathcal S}int_{X}sdmu_n=sup_{sinmathcal S}sup_{ngeqslant 1}int_{X}sdmu_n.
    $$
    If we manage to show that for each $sinmathcal S$, the equality $sup_{ngeqslant 1}int_{X}sdmu_n=int_{X}sdmu$, then we are done.

  5. By linearity it suffices to do it when $f =mathbf 1_{A},Ainmathcal A$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thanks! However, we defined Lebesgue integral as $int_xfdmu_n=sup{int_xs_kdmu_n, kinmathbb{N}}$, where $s_k$ denotes a sequence of step funktions as defined by you. What am I missing?
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Maier
    Jan 4 at 10:00








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I guess that in your definition, we have $s_k(x)uparrow f(x)$ for all $x$. Ten the two definition are equivalent.
    $endgroup$
    – Davide Giraudo
    Jan 4 at 10:09










  • $begingroup$
    Alright. To show part 2.), I have to show that (using my definition) $sup{int_xs_kdmu_n, kinmathbb{N}} leq sup{int_xs_kdmu_{n+1}, kinmathbb{N}}$. I can now drop the two suprema (right?), and after writing out the integral for a step function $s_k$ i get $sum_{i=1}^inftyalpha_imu_n(A_i)leqsum_{i=1}^inftyalpha_imu_{n+1}(A_i)$, which is true due to my initial conditions.
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Maier
    Jan 4 at 10:16












  • $begingroup$
    And one more (hopefully) last question? Why does switching the suprema reduce the case to f being a step function? I then have something like $sup_{kinmathbb{N}}left(sup_{ngeq1}{int_Xs_kdmu_n}right)$, and I do not see how that leads me further...
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Maier
    Jan 4 at 10:31












  • $begingroup$
    Regard your first comment, yes. The only thing you have to modify is the index of the sum (the $infty$ should be $N$). For your second comment, see the edit.
    $endgroup$
    – Davide Giraudo
    Jan 4 at 11:31
















1












$begingroup$

Here are some hints.




  1. First it is not clear that $mu$ is indeed a measure.

  2. Show that the sequence $left( int_{X}fdmu_nright)_{ngeqslant 1}$ is non-decreasing.

  3. As a consequence, $lim_{nto +infty}int_{X}fdmu_n=sup_{ngeqslant 1}int_{X}fdmu_n$.

  4. By definition of the Lebesgue integral, $$int_{X}fdmu_n=sup_{sinmathcal S} int_{X}sdmu_n ,$$
    where $mathcal S=left{smid 0leqslant sleqslant f, .s=sum_{i=1}^Nc_imathbf 1_{A_i},A_iinmathcal Aright}$. Switching the two supremum reduces to establish the result when $f=sum_{i=1}^Nc_imathbf 1_{A_i},A_iinmathcal A$. Indeed, by 3.
    $$
    lim_{nto +infty}int_{X}fdmu_n=sup_{ngeqslant 1}sup_{sinmathcal S}int_{X}sdmu_n=sup_{sinmathcal S}sup_{ngeqslant 1}int_{X}sdmu_n.
    $$
    If we manage to show that for each $sinmathcal S$, the equality $sup_{ngeqslant 1}int_{X}sdmu_n=int_{X}sdmu$, then we are done.

  5. By linearity it suffices to do it when $f =mathbf 1_{A},Ainmathcal A$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thanks! However, we defined Lebesgue integral as $int_xfdmu_n=sup{int_xs_kdmu_n, kinmathbb{N}}$, where $s_k$ denotes a sequence of step funktions as defined by you. What am I missing?
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Maier
    Jan 4 at 10:00








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I guess that in your definition, we have $s_k(x)uparrow f(x)$ for all $x$. Ten the two definition are equivalent.
    $endgroup$
    – Davide Giraudo
    Jan 4 at 10:09










  • $begingroup$
    Alright. To show part 2.), I have to show that (using my definition) $sup{int_xs_kdmu_n, kinmathbb{N}} leq sup{int_xs_kdmu_{n+1}, kinmathbb{N}}$. I can now drop the two suprema (right?), and after writing out the integral for a step function $s_k$ i get $sum_{i=1}^inftyalpha_imu_n(A_i)leqsum_{i=1}^inftyalpha_imu_{n+1}(A_i)$, which is true due to my initial conditions.
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Maier
    Jan 4 at 10:16












  • $begingroup$
    And one more (hopefully) last question? Why does switching the suprema reduce the case to f being a step function? I then have something like $sup_{kinmathbb{N}}left(sup_{ngeq1}{int_Xs_kdmu_n}right)$, and I do not see how that leads me further...
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Maier
    Jan 4 at 10:31












  • $begingroup$
    Regard your first comment, yes. The only thing you have to modify is the index of the sum (the $infty$ should be $N$). For your second comment, see the edit.
    $endgroup$
    – Davide Giraudo
    Jan 4 at 11:31














1












1








1





$begingroup$

Here are some hints.




  1. First it is not clear that $mu$ is indeed a measure.

  2. Show that the sequence $left( int_{X}fdmu_nright)_{ngeqslant 1}$ is non-decreasing.

  3. As a consequence, $lim_{nto +infty}int_{X}fdmu_n=sup_{ngeqslant 1}int_{X}fdmu_n$.

  4. By definition of the Lebesgue integral, $$int_{X}fdmu_n=sup_{sinmathcal S} int_{X}sdmu_n ,$$
    where $mathcal S=left{smid 0leqslant sleqslant f, .s=sum_{i=1}^Nc_imathbf 1_{A_i},A_iinmathcal Aright}$. Switching the two supremum reduces to establish the result when $f=sum_{i=1}^Nc_imathbf 1_{A_i},A_iinmathcal A$. Indeed, by 3.
    $$
    lim_{nto +infty}int_{X}fdmu_n=sup_{ngeqslant 1}sup_{sinmathcal S}int_{X}sdmu_n=sup_{sinmathcal S}sup_{ngeqslant 1}int_{X}sdmu_n.
    $$
    If we manage to show that for each $sinmathcal S$, the equality $sup_{ngeqslant 1}int_{X}sdmu_n=int_{X}sdmu$, then we are done.

  5. By linearity it suffices to do it when $f =mathbf 1_{A},Ainmathcal A$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Here are some hints.




  1. First it is not clear that $mu$ is indeed a measure.

  2. Show that the sequence $left( int_{X}fdmu_nright)_{ngeqslant 1}$ is non-decreasing.

  3. As a consequence, $lim_{nto +infty}int_{X}fdmu_n=sup_{ngeqslant 1}int_{X}fdmu_n$.

  4. By definition of the Lebesgue integral, $$int_{X}fdmu_n=sup_{sinmathcal S} int_{X}sdmu_n ,$$
    where $mathcal S=left{smid 0leqslant sleqslant f, .s=sum_{i=1}^Nc_imathbf 1_{A_i},A_iinmathcal Aright}$. Switching the two supremum reduces to establish the result when $f=sum_{i=1}^Nc_imathbf 1_{A_i},A_iinmathcal A$. Indeed, by 3.
    $$
    lim_{nto +infty}int_{X}fdmu_n=sup_{ngeqslant 1}sup_{sinmathcal S}int_{X}sdmu_n=sup_{sinmathcal S}sup_{ngeqslant 1}int_{X}sdmu_n.
    $$
    If we manage to show that for each $sinmathcal S$, the equality $sup_{ngeqslant 1}int_{X}sdmu_n=int_{X}sdmu$, then we are done.

  5. By linearity it suffices to do it when $f =mathbf 1_{A},Ainmathcal A$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Jan 4 at 11:30

























answered Jan 2 at 14:15









Davide GiraudoDavide Giraudo

126k16150261




126k16150261












  • $begingroup$
    Thanks! However, we defined Lebesgue integral as $int_xfdmu_n=sup{int_xs_kdmu_n, kinmathbb{N}}$, where $s_k$ denotes a sequence of step funktions as defined by you. What am I missing?
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Maier
    Jan 4 at 10:00








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I guess that in your definition, we have $s_k(x)uparrow f(x)$ for all $x$. Ten the two definition are equivalent.
    $endgroup$
    – Davide Giraudo
    Jan 4 at 10:09










  • $begingroup$
    Alright. To show part 2.), I have to show that (using my definition) $sup{int_xs_kdmu_n, kinmathbb{N}} leq sup{int_xs_kdmu_{n+1}, kinmathbb{N}}$. I can now drop the two suprema (right?), and after writing out the integral for a step function $s_k$ i get $sum_{i=1}^inftyalpha_imu_n(A_i)leqsum_{i=1}^inftyalpha_imu_{n+1}(A_i)$, which is true due to my initial conditions.
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Maier
    Jan 4 at 10:16












  • $begingroup$
    And one more (hopefully) last question? Why does switching the suprema reduce the case to f being a step function? I then have something like $sup_{kinmathbb{N}}left(sup_{ngeq1}{int_Xs_kdmu_n}right)$, and I do not see how that leads me further...
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Maier
    Jan 4 at 10:31












  • $begingroup$
    Regard your first comment, yes. The only thing you have to modify is the index of the sum (the $infty$ should be $N$). For your second comment, see the edit.
    $endgroup$
    – Davide Giraudo
    Jan 4 at 11:31


















  • $begingroup$
    Thanks! However, we defined Lebesgue integral as $int_xfdmu_n=sup{int_xs_kdmu_n, kinmathbb{N}}$, where $s_k$ denotes a sequence of step funktions as defined by you. What am I missing?
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Maier
    Jan 4 at 10:00








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I guess that in your definition, we have $s_k(x)uparrow f(x)$ for all $x$. Ten the two definition are equivalent.
    $endgroup$
    – Davide Giraudo
    Jan 4 at 10:09










  • $begingroup$
    Alright. To show part 2.), I have to show that (using my definition) $sup{int_xs_kdmu_n, kinmathbb{N}} leq sup{int_xs_kdmu_{n+1}, kinmathbb{N}}$. I can now drop the two suprema (right?), and after writing out the integral for a step function $s_k$ i get $sum_{i=1}^inftyalpha_imu_n(A_i)leqsum_{i=1}^inftyalpha_imu_{n+1}(A_i)$, which is true due to my initial conditions.
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Maier
    Jan 4 at 10:16












  • $begingroup$
    And one more (hopefully) last question? Why does switching the suprema reduce the case to f being a step function? I then have something like $sup_{kinmathbb{N}}left(sup_{ngeq1}{int_Xs_kdmu_n}right)$, and I do not see how that leads me further...
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Maier
    Jan 4 at 10:31












  • $begingroup$
    Regard your first comment, yes. The only thing you have to modify is the index of the sum (the $infty$ should be $N$). For your second comment, see the edit.
    $endgroup$
    – Davide Giraudo
    Jan 4 at 11:31
















$begingroup$
Thanks! However, we defined Lebesgue integral as $int_xfdmu_n=sup{int_xs_kdmu_n, kinmathbb{N}}$, where $s_k$ denotes a sequence of step funktions as defined by you. What am I missing?
$endgroup$
– Michael Maier
Jan 4 at 10:00






$begingroup$
Thanks! However, we defined Lebesgue integral as $int_xfdmu_n=sup{int_xs_kdmu_n, kinmathbb{N}}$, where $s_k$ denotes a sequence of step funktions as defined by you. What am I missing?
$endgroup$
– Michael Maier
Jan 4 at 10:00






1




1




$begingroup$
I guess that in your definition, we have $s_k(x)uparrow f(x)$ for all $x$. Ten the two definition are equivalent.
$endgroup$
– Davide Giraudo
Jan 4 at 10:09




$begingroup$
I guess that in your definition, we have $s_k(x)uparrow f(x)$ for all $x$. Ten the two definition are equivalent.
$endgroup$
– Davide Giraudo
Jan 4 at 10:09












$begingroup$
Alright. To show part 2.), I have to show that (using my definition) $sup{int_xs_kdmu_n, kinmathbb{N}} leq sup{int_xs_kdmu_{n+1}, kinmathbb{N}}$. I can now drop the two suprema (right?), and after writing out the integral for a step function $s_k$ i get $sum_{i=1}^inftyalpha_imu_n(A_i)leqsum_{i=1}^inftyalpha_imu_{n+1}(A_i)$, which is true due to my initial conditions.
$endgroup$
– Michael Maier
Jan 4 at 10:16






$begingroup$
Alright. To show part 2.), I have to show that (using my definition) $sup{int_xs_kdmu_n, kinmathbb{N}} leq sup{int_xs_kdmu_{n+1}, kinmathbb{N}}$. I can now drop the two suprema (right?), and after writing out the integral for a step function $s_k$ i get $sum_{i=1}^inftyalpha_imu_n(A_i)leqsum_{i=1}^inftyalpha_imu_{n+1}(A_i)$, which is true due to my initial conditions.
$endgroup$
– Michael Maier
Jan 4 at 10:16














$begingroup$
And one more (hopefully) last question? Why does switching the suprema reduce the case to f being a step function? I then have something like $sup_{kinmathbb{N}}left(sup_{ngeq1}{int_Xs_kdmu_n}right)$, and I do not see how that leads me further...
$endgroup$
– Michael Maier
Jan 4 at 10:31






$begingroup$
And one more (hopefully) last question? Why does switching the suprema reduce the case to f being a step function? I then have something like $sup_{kinmathbb{N}}left(sup_{ngeq1}{int_Xs_kdmu_n}right)$, and I do not see how that leads me further...
$endgroup$
– Michael Maier
Jan 4 at 10:31














$begingroup$
Regard your first comment, yes. The only thing you have to modify is the index of the sum (the $infty$ should be $N$). For your second comment, see the edit.
$endgroup$
– Davide Giraudo
Jan 4 at 11:31




$begingroup$
Regard your first comment, yes. The only thing you have to modify is the index of the sum (the $infty$ should be $N$). For your second comment, see the edit.
$endgroup$
– Davide Giraudo
Jan 4 at 11:31


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3059500%2fshow-that-lim-n-to-infty-int-xfd-mu-n-int-xfd-mu%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

Human spaceflight

Image
Human spaceflight From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search "Space traveler" redirects here. For other uses, see Space traveler (disambiguation). @media all and (max-width:720px){.mw-parser-output .tmulti>.thumbinner{width:100%!important;max-width:none!important}.mw-parser-output .tmulti .tsingle{float:none!important;max-width:none!important;width:100%!important;text-align:center}} Apollo 11 crewmember Buzz Aldrin on the Moon, 1969 International Space Station crewmember Tracy Caldwell Dyson views the Earth, 2010 Space Shuttle Discovery heads into space with a crew aboard, STS-121 in 2006 Inside a space suit on the Canadarm, 1993 Human spaceflight (also referred to as crewed spaceflight or manned spaceflight ) is space travel with a crew or passengers aboard the spacecraft. Spacecraft carrying people may be operated directly, by human crew, or it may be e...
Read more

Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?

Image
0 1 What exactly does the error message beginning with E: mean? I assume it has to do with the file structure on Ubuntu-on-Windows, but what exactly? The following package was automatically installed and is no longer required: os-prober Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove it. The following extra packages will be installed: libxslt1.1 The following NEW packages will be installed: libxslt1.1 xmlstarlet 0 upgraded, 2 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 435 kB of archives. After this operation, 1023 kB of additional disk space will be used. Get:1 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty/main libxslt1.1 amd64 1.1.28-2build1 [145 kB] Get:2 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty/universe xmlstarlet amd64 1.5.0-1 [290 kB] ...
Read more

張江高科駅

Image
張江高科駅 ちょうこうこうか Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park 所在地 中国上海市浦東新区 所属事業者 上海地鉄運営有限公司（上海軌道交通・駅詳細） 上海浦東現代有軌交通有限公司（駅詳細） テンプレートを表示 張江高科駅 各種表記 繁体字： 張江高科站 簡体字： 张江高科站 拼音 ： Zhàngjiāng Gāokē Zhàn 発音： ヂャンジャン ガオクー ヂャン 英文： Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park Station テンプレートを表示 張江高科駅 （ちょうこうこうか-えき）は中華人民共和国上海市浦東新区に位置する、上海軌道交通2号線の駅である。 なお、張江高科駅前にある張江軌道電車の 張江地鉄駅駅 についてもここで述べる。 目次 1 利用可能な鉄道路線 2 沿革 3 駅構造 3.1 上海軌道交通 3.2 張江軌道電車 4 駅周辺 5 隣の駅 6 注釈 7 関連項目 利用可能な鉄道路線 上海軌道交通 ■ 2号線 上海浦東現代有軌交通有限公司 ■ 張江軌道電車 沿革 高架駅時代の姿 2000年12月27日 - 2号線の駅が高架駅として開業。 2010年 1月1日 - 張江軌道電車の開業に伴い、張江地鉄駅駅（停留所）を設置。 2月13日 - 駅地下化に伴い高架駅の運用停止。 2月24日 - 10日間の閉鎖を経て地下新駅の開業。 2017年2月9日 - リニューアル工事を経て再開業。乗降客の増加に対応し、ホームへのエレベーター、エスカレーターを増設、券売機エリアを拡張した [1] 。 駅構造 上海軌道交通 上海軌道交通 張江高科駅 5号口 ちょうこうこうか Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park ◄ 竜陽路 (2.60km) (1.61km) 金科路 ► 所在地 中国上海市浦東新区松涛路 祖冲之路 （中国語版） 北緯31度12分11秒 東経121度34分50秒  /  北緯31.2...
Read more