User Tools

Site Tools


math105-s22:s:mchlxo:start

Michael Xiao

Lecture Notes

Homework

HW1 (Updated 1/26)
HW2 (Updated 2/3)
HW3 (Updated 2/11)
HW4 (Updated 2/17)
HW5 (Updated 2/25)
HW6 (Updated 3/2)
HW7 (Updated 3/11)
HW8 (Updated 3/18)
HW9 (Updated 3/25)
HW10 (Updated 4/6)
HW11 (Updated 4/16)
HW12 (Updated 4/23)

Additional Notes

Lebesgue vs. Riemann Integral

The Lebesgue integral is defined in terms of the undergraph. For a function f:R[0,)f: \mathbb{R}\rightarrow [0,\infty), the undergraph of ff is defined as u(f)={(x,y):0y<f(x)}u(f)=\{(x,y):0\leq y <f(x)\} If u(f)u(f) is measurable, we say that ff is measurable, and define the Lebesgue integral of ff as f=m(u(f))\int f = m(u(f)) If f<\int f < \infty, we say that ff is Lebesgue integrable. From this definition, we notice that the Lebesgue integral heavily depends on the notion of measure and measurability; this mode of integration has many benefits compared to the Riemann integral.

The Riemann integral is defined in terms of upper and lower integrals. For a function f:[a,b]Rf: [a,b] \rightarrow \mathbb{R}, the upper and lower sums are defined as U(f,P)=k=1nMk(f)(xkxk1)U(f,P)=\sum_{k=1}^{n}M_k (f)(x_k - x_{k-1}) L(f,P)=k=1nmk(f)(xkxk1)L(f,P)=\sum_{k=1}^{n}m_k (f)(x_k - x_{k-1}) where PP is a partition of hte set [a,b][a,b] and Mk(f)=sup{f(x):x[xk1,xk]}M_k (f) = sup \{f(x):x \in [x_{k-1},x_k] \} mk(f)=inf{f(x):x[xk1,xk]}m_k (f) = inf \{f(x):x \in [x_{k-1},x_k] \} Then, the upper and lower integrals of ff are defined as U(f)=inf{U(f,P):P is a partition of [a,b]}U(f)=inf\{U(f,P): \text{P is a partition of [a,b]}\} L(f)=sup{L(f,P):P is a partition of [a,b]}L(f)=sup\{L(f,P): \text{P is a partition of [a,b]}\} Lastly, the Riemann integral over [a,b][a,b] is defined as abf(x)dx=L(f)=U(f)\int_{a}^{b}f(x)dx = L(f)=U(f) From this definition, we notice that the notion of Riemann integral heavily depends on the interval on which it is defined. This could generate concerns over the flexibility of the Riemann integral that Lebesgue integral can handle more elegantly. For example, when both types of integrals are generalized to higher dimensions, the notion of an interval in Riemann integral is more difficult to define since we can have “irregular shapes” such as circles. On the other hand, Lebesgue integral can compute the measure of the undergraph defined on these “irregular shapes” more easily using box covers. I do think, however, measure is a rather abstract concept, its computation is a bit more difficult to understand compared to the “area under the curve” definition of the Riemann integral.

Final Essay: Measure on Brownian Motion

We start with definition of Brownian motion.

Definition (Brownian Motion)

Let ω:[0,)Rn\omega : [0, \infty) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n} be a path. Given t1<t2t_1 < t_2 and ω(t1)=x1\omega(t_1) = x_1, the probability density for ω(t2)\omega(t_2) is
p(t2t1,xx1)=1[4π(t2t1)]n2exx124(t2t1)p(t_2-t_1, x-x_1) = \frac{1}{[4\pi (t_2-t_1) ]^{\frac{n}{2}}} e^{\frac{-|x-x_1|^2}{4(t_2-t_1)}} In addition, for any t1tt2t_1\leq t \leq t_2, ω(t)\omega(t) does not depend on the trajectory of the path before t1t_1. The definition of Brownian motion provides a probability integral that motivates the construction of the measure on the space of Brownian motion paths. Namely, give 0t1t2tk0\leq t_1 \leq t_2 \leq \cdot \cdot \cdot \leq t_k and Borel sets EjRnE_j \subset \mathbb{R}^{n}, and starting at x=0x=0 and t=0t=0, we have Pr[ω(t1)E1,ω(t2)E2,,ω(tk)Ek]=E1Ekp(tktk1,xkxk1)p(t1,x1)dxkdx1Pr[\omega(t_1) \in E_1, \omega(t_2) \in E_2, \cdot \cdot \cdot,\omega(t_k) \in E_k] = \int_{E_1} \cdot \cdot \cdot \int_{E_k} p(t_k - t_{k-1}, x_k - x_{k-1}) \cdot \cdot \cdot p(t_1, x_1) dx_k \cdot \cdot \cdot dx_1 One last thing before we construct the measure is we have to define the space of Brownian motion paths. We characterize the path by its location at positive rational time t, and the space of all paths is P=tQ+R˙n\mathcal{P} = \prod_{t \in \mathbb{Q}^{+}} \dot{\mathbb{R}}^{n} where R˙n=Rn{}\dot{\mathbb{R}}^{n} = \mathbb{R}^{n} \cup \{ \infty \} is the one-point compactification of Rn\mathbb{R}^{n}. Hausdorff's theorem (Wright 1994) ensures that P\mathcal{P} is compact. Now, we are ready to construct our measure, motivated by the following theorem:

Theorem 1

If XX is a compact metric space and α\alpha is a positive linear functional on C(X)C(X), then there exists a unique finite, positive Borel measure μ\mu such that α(f)=fdμ\alpha(f) = \int f d\mu for all fC(X)f \in C(X)

proof: see Taylor (2006) Theorem 13.5
To use this theorem, we construct a positive linear functional E:C(P)RE: C(\mathcal{P}) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}. We first define EE on the subspace C#C^{\#} with only continuous functions that depend on only finitely many of the factors in P\mathcal{P}, with the form ϕ(ω)=F(ω(t1),,ω(tk)) , t1<<tk\phi (\omega) = F(\omega(t_1), … , \omega(t_k)) \text{ , } t_1 < … <t_k where FF is continuous on P\mathcal{P} and tjQ+t_j \in \mathbb{Q}^{+}. Then we let E(ϕ)=p(t1,x1)p(t2t1,x2x1)p(tktk1mxkxk1)F(x1,,xk)dxkdx1E(\phi) = \int \cdot \cdot \cdot \int p(t_1, x_1) p(t_2 - t_1, x_2 - x_1) \cdot \cdot \cdot p(t_k - t_{k-1}m x_k - x_{k-1}) F(x_1, …, x_k) dx_k \cdot \cdot \cdot dx_1 To check this functional is well-defined, we resort to the following proposition:

Proposition 1

For tst \neq s, p(t,xy)p(s,y)dy=p(t+s,x)\int p(t, x-y)p(s,y)dy = p(t+s, x)
proof: see Sternberg (2014) slides 10 and 11
Proposition 1 showed that if FF does not depend on a given set of xix_i, we obtain the same functional E(ϕ)E(\phi). In addition, we have E(1)=1E(1) = 1, so by the Stone-Weierstrass Theorem, C#C^{\#} is dense in C(P)C(\mathcal{P}) (see Taylor 2006 Theorem A.23). Furthermore, this functional can be extended to C(P)C(\mathcal{P}). Therefore, by Theorem 1, we have a measure on the space P\mathcal{P}:

Theorem 2 (Wiener Measure)

There exists a unique Borel measure (called the Wiener Measure) μ\mu on P\mathcal{P} such that E(ϕ)=Pϕ(ω)dμ(ω) E(\phi) = \int_{\mathcal{P}} \phi(\omega) d \mu(\omega) for each ϕ(ω)\phi(\omega) with a continuous FF on P\mathcal{P}

References

Sternberg, Shlomo Z. 2014. “Wiener Measure.” Harvard Math 201a, November 11.

Taylor, Michael E. 2006. Measure Theory and Integration. Graduate Studies in Mathematics, v. 76. Providence, R.I: American Mathematical Society.

Wright, David G. 1994. “Tychonoff’s Theorem.” Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 120 (3): 985–87. https://doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9939-1994-1170549-2.

Resources

A paper that constructs a set which includes points at which the density of the set can take on any values in [0,1][0,1]

math105-s22/s/mchlxo/start.txt · Last modified: 2022/05/06 01:25 by mchlxo