Last time, we considered the (long and hard) Lebesgue density theorem, which says, given any Lebesgue locally integrable function f:Rn→R, then for almost all p, the density δ(p,f) of f at p exists and equals to the value f(p).
Using this theorem, we proved that for a locally integrable function f:R→R, and a∈R, a primitive F(x)=∫axf(t)dt is differentiable almost everywhere, and F′(p)=f(p) a.e. (at least at those points p, where f(p)=δ(p,f))
Unfortunately, the converse is false, namely, if you give me a continuous function G, such that G′=f a.e., then I cannot conclude that G is a primitive of f. The famous example is 'devil's staircase', which is a continuous function on [0,1], that is constant on the complement of the Cantor set. (Discussion: how do you construct this function? )
So, how to fix this? How to rule this case out? We have the notion of 'absolutely continuous' function, it is even better than uniform continuous function (continuity on a compact set is equal to uniform continuity).
Definition : we say f:[a,b]→R is absolutely continuous, if for any ϵ>0, there is a δ>0, such that for any countable disjoint open intervals (ai,bi) in [a,b] with total length <δ, we have
∑i=1∞∣f(bi)−f(ai)∣<ϵ.
There are equivalent conditions, where we replace 'countable' by 'finite', and replace ∣f(bi)−f(ai)∣ by m(f([ai,bi])).
Absolutely continuous function sends null set to null set.
xsin(1/x) on [0,1] is not absolutely continuous. Indeed, consider (an,bn)=(1/(2πn),1/(2π(n+1/4)), then ∑n=1∞∣f(bn)−f(an)∣=∑n=1∞2π(n+1/4)=∞, hence for any δ>0, there exists N>0, such that 1/2πN<δ, and the sum ∑n=N∞∣f(bn)−f(an)∣=∞.
Theorem: if f:[a,b]→R is integrable, then (a) F(x)=∫axf(t)dt is absolutely continuous. and (b) If G is an absolutely continuous function with G′=f a.e., then there is a constant c, such that G=F+c.
Proof: We may write f=f+−f−, the difference of two non-negative functions. And define the primitives of f± as F±, then F=F+−F−. If F± were absolutely continuous, then so will F be. Hence suffice to prove (a) for the non-negative f.
How to show F is absolutely continuous? Given ϵ>0, we need to find δ, such that for disjoint open intervals in the domain with total measure less than δ, the sum of the measure of the images is less than ϵ.
If f were bounded, say f<M, then given ϵ>0, we can just take δ=ϵ/M.
If f is not bounded, then we can split f to be a bounded part and an unbounded part. For any n>0, we can define f=fn+gn, where fn=max(f,n). Then, as n→∞, gn→0 a.e., and by DCT, ∫gn→0. Pick N large enough, such that ∫gN<ϵ/2. Then, let δ=(ϵ/2)/N. Then, for any countable disjoint open intervals {(ai,bi)} with length <δ, we have
i∑∫aibif(t)dt≤i∑∫aibifN(t)dt+i∑∫aibigN(t)dt≤Nδ+∫abgN≤ϵ/2+ϵ/2=ϵ
Done for (a).
(b) Suppose G is some absolutely continuous function on [a,b] with G′=f a.e., Then G′(x)−F′(x)=0 .e. Suffice to prove that if H:[a,b]→R is absolutely continuous, and H′=0 a.e., then H=c. In fact, suffice to prove that H(a)=H(b), then consider H restricted to [a′,b′]⊂[a,b],
How to use the condition H′=0 a.e.? Let Z⊂[a,b] be a nullset, such that if x∈A=[a,b]\Z, we have H′(x)=0. By definition, it means that limh→0[H(x+h)−H(x)]/h=0. Then, we claim, for any x∈A, for any ϵ, there exists δ, such that if x∈[a,b] with 0<b−a<δ, we have ∣H(bi)−H(ai)∣/(bi−ai)<ϵ/2(b−a) (why?). Thus, we have a Vitali covering of A by closed interval. Thus, there is a countable collection of disjoint intervals [ai,bi], such that
i∑∣H(bi)−H(ai)∣≤ϵ/2(b−a)i∑(bi−ai)≤ϵ/2
Since H is absolutely continuous, thus for ϵ/2, there is a δ>0, such that ∑i=1n∣bi−ai∣<δ implies ∑i∣H(bi)−H(ai)∣<ϵ/2. Let N be large enough, such that m([a,b]−⊔i=1N[ai,bi])<δ. And relabel these N intervals, so that a≤a1<b1<a2<b2⋯<aN<bN≤b, then we have
∣H(b)−H(a)∣≤n=1∑N∣H(bn)−H(an)∣+n=1∑N−1∣H(bn+1)−H(an)∣+∣H(b)−H(bN)∣+∣H(a1)−H(a)∣≤ϵ/2+ϵ/2=ϵ
Since ϵ is arbitrary, we do get H(a)=H(b).
I will leave Pugh section 10 for presentation project.
math105-s22/notes/lecture_15.txt · Last modified: 2022/03/09 12:37 by pzhou