If $int f:rm dmu_nxrightarrowntoinftyint f:rm dmu$ for all $fin C_0$, can we conclude $mu_nxrightarrowntoinftymu$ weakly? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Linear Maps between the $L^1$-spaces of two singular measuresAre vague convergence and weak convergence of measures both weak* convergence?$int_Omega phi dmu_ntoint_Omegaphi dmu,forall phiin C_0(Omega) $ and $mu_ngeq 0$ implies $mugeq 0$?Does convergence of $lim_n rightarrow infty int h dmu_n$ for all continuous, bounded $h$ imply weak convergence of $(mu_n)$?Tricky weak-* convergence questionQuestion on Radon measure's Lebesgue decompositionWeak convergence of linear combinations of Dirac measures to a signed measuredescription of dual space of space of Radon measure equipped with topology of weak convergenceLet $mu_ntomu$ weakly as prob. measures on compact $X$. If $B$ is Banach and $f:Xto B$ is continuous, does $int fdmu_ntoint fdmu$ in norm?Equality of finite signed measures by showing that the integrals of every bounded continuous function coincide

How to support a colleague who finds meetings extremely tiring?

What aspect of planet Earth must be changed to prevent the industrial revolution?

different output for groups and groups USERNAME after adding a username to a group

Why can't wing-mounted spoilers be used to steepen approaches?

"is" operation returns false with ndarray.data attribute, even though two array objects have same id

What information about me do stores get via my credit card?

My body leaves; my core can stay

How did passengers keep warm on sail ships?

Why doesn't a hydraulic lever violate conservation of energy?

Can the Right Ascension and Argument of Perigee of a spacecraft's orbit keep varying by themselves with time?

How to read αἱμύλιος or when to aspirate

Could an empire control the whole planet with today's comunication methods?

One-dimensional Japanese puzzle

Keeping a retro style to sci-fi spaceships?

Example of compact Riemannian manifold with only one geodesic.

Student Loan from years ago pops up and is taking my salary

"... to apply for a visa" or "... and applied for a visa"?

How did the audience guess the pentatonic scale in Bobby McFerrin's presentation?

Word to describe a time interval

Do I have Disadvantage attacking with an off-hand weapon?

Why are PDP-7-style microprogrammed instructions out of vogue?

Make it rain characters

Are there continuous functions who are the same in an interval but differ in at least one other point?

Intergalactic human space ship encounters another ship, character gets shunted off beyond known universe, reality starts collapsing



If $int f:rm dmu_nxrightarrowntoinftyint f:rm dmu$ for all $fin C_0$, can we conclude $mu_nxrightarrowntoinftymu$ weakly?



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Linear Maps between the $L^1$-spaces of two singular measuresAre vague convergence and weak convergence of measures both weak* convergence?$int_Omega phi dmu_ntoint_Omegaphi dmu,forall phiin C_0(Omega) $ and $mu_ngeq 0$ implies $mugeq 0$?Does convergence of $lim_n rightarrow infty int h dmu_n$ for all continuous, bounded $h$ imply weak convergence of $(mu_n)$?Tricky weak-* convergence questionQuestion on Radon measure's Lebesgue decompositionWeak convergence of linear combinations of Dirac measures to a signed measuredescription of dual space of space of Radon measure equipped with topology of weak convergenceLet $mu_ntomu$ weakly as prob. measures on compact $X$. If $B$ is Banach and $f:Xto B$ is continuous, does $int fdmu_ntoint fdmu$ in norm?Equality of finite signed measures by showing that the integrals of every bounded continuous function coincide










0












$begingroup$


Let




  • $E$ be a locally compact Hausdorff space (if it's a considerably simplification, assume $E=mathbb R$)


  • $C_0(E)$ denote the space of continuous functions vanishing at infinity equipped with the supremum norm


  • $mu_n,mu$ be probability measures on $(E,mathcal B(E))$ for $ninmathbb N$

By definition, $mu_nxrightarrowntoinftymu$ weakly if $$int f:rm dmu_nxrightarrowntoinftyint f:rm dmutag1$$ for all bounded continuous $f:Etomathbb R$.




If we only know that $(1)$ holds for all $fin C_0(E)$, are we still able to conclude $mu_nxrightarrowntoinftymu$ weakly?




This might be related to the notion of a separating class: Given a family $mathcal F$ on Radon measures, a class $mathcal C$ of measurable real-valued functions is called separating, if for all $nu_1,nu_2inmathcal F$ the implication $$left(int f:rm dmu=int f:rm dnu;textfor all finmathcal Ccapmathcal L^1(mu)capmathcal L^1(nu)right)Rightarrowmu=nutag2$$ holds. Maybe we can show that $C_0(E)$ is separating. In that case, a reference to a textbook would be enough for me.



EDIT: I guess we obtain that $mu,mu_n$ are uniquely determined by their actions on $C_0(E)$-functions by the Riesz–Markov theorem. Can we conclude from this?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    I'm not an expert in this, but say, if $ E = mathbbR $ and $ mu_n((a,b)) = b-a $ whenever $ (a,b)subset (n,n+1) $. Then for any $ f in C_0(mathbbR) $ we should have $ int f,mathrm dmu_n to 0 $ as $ n to infty $ so $ mu = 0 $, but if we pick $ f equiv 1 $ then $ f : mathbbR to mathbbR $ is continuous and bounded and $ int f,mathrm dmu_n = 1 $ for all $ n $, so $ mu = 0 $ couldn't be the weak limit. But perhaps my reasoning is flawed. I'm not great a measure theory.
    $endgroup$
    – zo0x
    2 days ago















0












$begingroup$


Let




  • $E$ be a locally compact Hausdorff space (if it's a considerably simplification, assume $E=mathbb R$)


  • $C_0(E)$ denote the space of continuous functions vanishing at infinity equipped with the supremum norm


  • $mu_n,mu$ be probability measures on $(E,mathcal B(E))$ for $ninmathbb N$

By definition, $mu_nxrightarrowntoinftymu$ weakly if $$int f:rm dmu_nxrightarrowntoinftyint f:rm dmutag1$$ for all bounded continuous $f:Etomathbb R$.




If we only know that $(1)$ holds for all $fin C_0(E)$, are we still able to conclude $mu_nxrightarrowntoinftymu$ weakly?




This might be related to the notion of a separating class: Given a family $mathcal F$ on Radon measures, a class $mathcal C$ of measurable real-valued functions is called separating, if for all $nu_1,nu_2inmathcal F$ the implication $$left(int f:rm dmu=int f:rm dnu;textfor all finmathcal Ccapmathcal L^1(mu)capmathcal L^1(nu)right)Rightarrowmu=nutag2$$ holds. Maybe we can show that $C_0(E)$ is separating. In that case, a reference to a textbook would be enough for me.



EDIT: I guess we obtain that $mu,mu_n$ are uniquely determined by their actions on $C_0(E)$-functions by the Riesz–Markov theorem. Can we conclude from this?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    I'm not an expert in this, but say, if $ E = mathbbR $ and $ mu_n((a,b)) = b-a $ whenever $ (a,b)subset (n,n+1) $. Then for any $ f in C_0(mathbbR) $ we should have $ int f,mathrm dmu_n to 0 $ as $ n to infty $ so $ mu = 0 $, but if we pick $ f equiv 1 $ then $ f : mathbbR to mathbbR $ is continuous and bounded and $ int f,mathrm dmu_n = 1 $ for all $ n $, so $ mu = 0 $ couldn't be the weak limit. But perhaps my reasoning is flawed. I'm not great a measure theory.
    $endgroup$
    – zo0x
    2 days ago













0












0








0





$begingroup$


Let




  • $E$ be a locally compact Hausdorff space (if it's a considerably simplification, assume $E=mathbb R$)


  • $C_0(E)$ denote the space of continuous functions vanishing at infinity equipped with the supremum norm


  • $mu_n,mu$ be probability measures on $(E,mathcal B(E))$ for $ninmathbb N$

By definition, $mu_nxrightarrowntoinftymu$ weakly if $$int f:rm dmu_nxrightarrowntoinftyint f:rm dmutag1$$ for all bounded continuous $f:Etomathbb R$.




If we only know that $(1)$ holds for all $fin C_0(E)$, are we still able to conclude $mu_nxrightarrowntoinftymu$ weakly?




This might be related to the notion of a separating class: Given a family $mathcal F$ on Radon measures, a class $mathcal C$ of measurable real-valued functions is called separating, if for all $nu_1,nu_2inmathcal F$ the implication $$left(int f:rm dmu=int f:rm dnu;textfor all finmathcal Ccapmathcal L^1(mu)capmathcal L^1(nu)right)Rightarrowmu=nutag2$$ holds. Maybe we can show that $C_0(E)$ is separating. In that case, a reference to a textbook would be enough for me.



EDIT: I guess we obtain that $mu,mu_n$ are uniquely determined by their actions on $C_0(E)$-functions by the Riesz–Markov theorem. Can we conclude from this?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Let




  • $E$ be a locally compact Hausdorff space (if it's a considerably simplification, assume $E=mathbb R$)


  • $C_0(E)$ denote the space of continuous functions vanishing at infinity equipped with the supremum norm


  • $mu_n,mu$ be probability measures on $(E,mathcal B(E))$ for $ninmathbb N$

By definition, $mu_nxrightarrowntoinftymu$ weakly if $$int f:rm dmu_nxrightarrowntoinftyint f:rm dmutag1$$ for all bounded continuous $f:Etomathbb R$.




If we only know that $(1)$ holds for all $fin C_0(E)$, are we still able to conclude $mu_nxrightarrowntoinftymu$ weakly?




This might be related to the notion of a separating class: Given a family $mathcal F$ on Radon measures, a class $mathcal C$ of measurable real-valued functions is called separating, if for all $nu_1,nu_2inmathcal F$ the implication $$left(int f:rm dmu=int f:rm dnu;textfor all finmathcal Ccapmathcal L^1(mu)capmathcal L^1(nu)right)Rightarrowmu=nutag2$$ holds. Maybe we can show that $C_0(E)$ is separating. In that case, a reference to a textbook would be enough for me.



EDIT: I guess we obtain that $mu,mu_n$ are uniquely determined by their actions on $C_0(E)$-functions by the Riesz–Markov theorem. Can we conclude from this?







functional-analysis probability-theory measure-theory






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 2 days ago







0xbadf00d

















asked Mar 31 at 7:34









0xbadf00d0xbadf00d

1,72241534




1,72241534











  • $begingroup$
    I'm not an expert in this, but say, if $ E = mathbbR $ and $ mu_n((a,b)) = b-a $ whenever $ (a,b)subset (n,n+1) $. Then for any $ f in C_0(mathbbR) $ we should have $ int f,mathrm dmu_n to 0 $ as $ n to infty $ so $ mu = 0 $, but if we pick $ f equiv 1 $ then $ f : mathbbR to mathbbR $ is continuous and bounded and $ int f,mathrm dmu_n = 1 $ for all $ n $, so $ mu = 0 $ couldn't be the weak limit. But perhaps my reasoning is flawed. I'm not great a measure theory.
    $endgroup$
    – zo0x
    2 days ago
















  • $begingroup$
    I'm not an expert in this, but say, if $ E = mathbbR $ and $ mu_n((a,b)) = b-a $ whenever $ (a,b)subset (n,n+1) $. Then for any $ f in C_0(mathbbR) $ we should have $ int f,mathrm dmu_n to 0 $ as $ n to infty $ so $ mu = 0 $, but if we pick $ f equiv 1 $ then $ f : mathbbR to mathbbR $ is continuous and bounded and $ int f,mathrm dmu_n = 1 $ for all $ n $, so $ mu = 0 $ couldn't be the weak limit. But perhaps my reasoning is flawed. I'm not great a measure theory.
    $endgroup$
    – zo0x
    2 days ago















$begingroup$
I'm not an expert in this, but say, if $ E = mathbbR $ and $ mu_n((a,b)) = b-a $ whenever $ (a,b)subset (n,n+1) $. Then for any $ f in C_0(mathbbR) $ we should have $ int f,mathrm dmu_n to 0 $ as $ n to infty $ so $ mu = 0 $, but if we pick $ f equiv 1 $ then $ f : mathbbR to mathbbR $ is continuous and bounded and $ int f,mathrm dmu_n = 1 $ for all $ n $, so $ mu = 0 $ couldn't be the weak limit. But perhaps my reasoning is flawed. I'm not great a measure theory.
$endgroup$
– zo0x
2 days ago




$begingroup$
I'm not an expert in this, but say, if $ E = mathbbR $ and $ mu_n((a,b)) = b-a $ whenever $ (a,b)subset (n,n+1) $. Then for any $ f in C_0(mathbbR) $ we should have $ int f,mathrm dmu_n to 0 $ as $ n to infty $ so $ mu = 0 $, but if we pick $ f equiv 1 $ then $ f : mathbbR to mathbbR $ is continuous and bounded and $ int f,mathrm dmu_n = 1 $ for all $ n $, so $ mu = 0 $ couldn't be the weak limit. But perhaps my reasoning is flawed. I'm not great a measure theory.
$endgroup$
– zo0x
2 days ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

The convergence in question is sometimes called vague convergence. (In fact, there are two slightly different definitions of vague convergence in literature, but I digressed.) Vague convergence is in general different from weak convergence because it is too weak to detect mass escaping towards infinity (i.e. failure of tightness). On the other hand, if we can somehow guarantee that no mass escapes, vague convergence often improves to weak convergence.



Here, let's consider the case $E = mathbbR^d$.




Proposition. Let $mu_n$ and $mu$ be probability measures on $mathbbR^d$. Then the followings are equivalent:



(1) $mu_n to mu$ weakly, i.e., $int f , mathrmdmu_n to int f , mathrmdmu$ for all $f$ in the space $C_b(mathbbR^d)$ of all bounded continuous functions.



(2) $mu_n to mu$ vaguely, i.e., $int f , mathrmdmu_n to int f , mathrmdmu$ for all $f$ in the space $C_0(mathbbR^d)$.




Since the implication (1) $Rightarrow$ (2) is trivial, let us prove the other direction. Assume that $mu_n to mu$ vaguely. Fix $f in C_b(mathbbR^d)$. Then for any $chi in C_0(mathbbR^d)$ with $0 leq chi leq 1$, we have $chi f in C_0(mathbbR^d)$. By splitting $f$ as the sum $f = (1-chi)f + chi f$ and denoting by $|f|_sup$ the supremum-norm of $f$, we get



beginalign*
left| int f , mathrmdmu_n - int f , mathrmdmu right|
leq |f|_supint (1 - chi) , mathrmdmu_n + |f|_sup int (1 - chi) , mathrmdmu + left| int chi f , mathrmdmu_n - int chi f , mathrmdmu right|.
endalign*



Letting $limsup$ as $ntoinfty$ and noting that $int (1 - chi) , mathrmdmu_n = 1 - int chi , mathrmdmu_n to 1 - int chi , mathrmdmu$ as $ntoinfty$,



beginalign*
limsup_ntoinfty left| int f , mathrmdmu_n - int f , mathrmdmu right|
leq 2|f|_sup left( 1 - int chi , mathrmdmu right).
endalign*



Now it is easy to check that $sup int chi , mathrmdmu : chi in C_0(mathbbR^d) text and 0 leq chi leq 1 = 1$, and so, the above bound can be made arbitrarily small. So the limsup in the left-hand side is zero, thus proving that $int f , mathrmdmu_n to int f , mathrmdmu$ for any $f in C_b(mathbbR^d)$. $square$



As for the generalization to arbitrary locally compact Hausdorff $E$, I guess the same proof will work when $E$ is a Radon space (i.e. every Borel probability measure on $E$ is inner regular). But for full generality, I have no good idea as I have not enough expertise in this direction.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I've found vague convergence defined in terms of $C_c(E)$. But since $C_c(E)$ is dense in $C_0(E)$ a vague convergence should imply convergence for all $fin C_0(E)$ by dominated convergence. Since the other direction is trivial, this should be equivalent, if I'm not missing anything.
    $endgroup$
    – 0xbadf00d
    2 days ago











Your Answer








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%2f3169140%2fif-int-f-rm-d-mu-n-xrightarrown-to-infty-int-f-rm-d-mu-for-all-f-i%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












$begingroup$

The convergence in question is sometimes called vague convergence. (In fact, there are two slightly different definitions of vague convergence in literature, but I digressed.) Vague convergence is in general different from weak convergence because it is too weak to detect mass escaping towards infinity (i.e. failure of tightness). On the other hand, if we can somehow guarantee that no mass escapes, vague convergence often improves to weak convergence.



Here, let's consider the case $E = mathbbR^d$.




Proposition. Let $mu_n$ and $mu$ be probability measures on $mathbbR^d$. Then the followings are equivalent:



(1) $mu_n to mu$ weakly, i.e., $int f , mathrmdmu_n to int f , mathrmdmu$ for all $f$ in the space $C_b(mathbbR^d)$ of all bounded continuous functions.



(2) $mu_n to mu$ vaguely, i.e., $int f , mathrmdmu_n to int f , mathrmdmu$ for all $f$ in the space $C_0(mathbbR^d)$.




Since the implication (1) $Rightarrow$ (2) is trivial, let us prove the other direction. Assume that $mu_n to mu$ vaguely. Fix $f in C_b(mathbbR^d)$. Then for any $chi in C_0(mathbbR^d)$ with $0 leq chi leq 1$, we have $chi f in C_0(mathbbR^d)$. By splitting $f$ as the sum $f = (1-chi)f + chi f$ and denoting by $|f|_sup$ the supremum-norm of $f$, we get



beginalign*
left| int f , mathrmdmu_n - int f , mathrmdmu right|
leq |f|_supint (1 - chi) , mathrmdmu_n + |f|_sup int (1 - chi) , mathrmdmu + left| int chi f , mathrmdmu_n - int chi f , mathrmdmu right|.
endalign*



Letting $limsup$ as $ntoinfty$ and noting that $int (1 - chi) , mathrmdmu_n = 1 - int chi , mathrmdmu_n to 1 - int chi , mathrmdmu$ as $ntoinfty$,



beginalign*
limsup_ntoinfty left| int f , mathrmdmu_n - int f , mathrmdmu right|
leq 2|f|_sup left( 1 - int chi , mathrmdmu right).
endalign*



Now it is easy to check that $sup int chi , mathrmdmu : chi in C_0(mathbbR^d) text and 0 leq chi leq 1 = 1$, and so, the above bound can be made arbitrarily small. So the limsup in the left-hand side is zero, thus proving that $int f , mathrmdmu_n to int f , mathrmdmu$ for any $f in C_b(mathbbR^d)$. $square$



As for the generalization to arbitrary locally compact Hausdorff $E$, I guess the same proof will work when $E$ is a Radon space (i.e. every Borel probability measure on $E$ is inner regular). But for full generality, I have no good idea as I have not enough expertise in this direction.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I've found vague convergence defined in terms of $C_c(E)$. But since $C_c(E)$ is dense in $C_0(E)$ a vague convergence should imply convergence for all $fin C_0(E)$ by dominated convergence. Since the other direction is trivial, this should be equivalent, if I'm not missing anything.
    $endgroup$
    – 0xbadf00d
    2 days ago















1












$begingroup$

The convergence in question is sometimes called vague convergence. (In fact, there are two slightly different definitions of vague convergence in literature, but I digressed.) Vague convergence is in general different from weak convergence because it is too weak to detect mass escaping towards infinity (i.e. failure of tightness). On the other hand, if we can somehow guarantee that no mass escapes, vague convergence often improves to weak convergence.



Here, let's consider the case $E = mathbbR^d$.




Proposition. Let $mu_n$ and $mu$ be probability measures on $mathbbR^d$. Then the followings are equivalent:



(1) $mu_n to mu$ weakly, i.e., $int f , mathrmdmu_n to int f , mathrmdmu$ for all $f$ in the space $C_b(mathbbR^d)$ of all bounded continuous functions.



(2) $mu_n to mu$ vaguely, i.e., $int f , mathrmdmu_n to int f , mathrmdmu$ for all $f$ in the space $C_0(mathbbR^d)$.




Since the implication (1) $Rightarrow$ (2) is trivial, let us prove the other direction. Assume that $mu_n to mu$ vaguely. Fix $f in C_b(mathbbR^d)$. Then for any $chi in C_0(mathbbR^d)$ with $0 leq chi leq 1$, we have $chi f in C_0(mathbbR^d)$. By splitting $f$ as the sum $f = (1-chi)f + chi f$ and denoting by $|f|_sup$ the supremum-norm of $f$, we get



beginalign*
left| int f , mathrmdmu_n - int f , mathrmdmu right|
leq |f|_supint (1 - chi) , mathrmdmu_n + |f|_sup int (1 - chi) , mathrmdmu + left| int chi f , mathrmdmu_n - int chi f , mathrmdmu right|.
endalign*



Letting $limsup$ as $ntoinfty$ and noting that $int (1 - chi) , mathrmdmu_n = 1 - int chi , mathrmdmu_n to 1 - int chi , mathrmdmu$ as $ntoinfty$,



beginalign*
limsup_ntoinfty left| int f , mathrmdmu_n - int f , mathrmdmu right|
leq 2|f|_sup left( 1 - int chi , mathrmdmu right).
endalign*



Now it is easy to check that $sup int chi , mathrmdmu : chi in C_0(mathbbR^d) text and 0 leq chi leq 1 = 1$, and so, the above bound can be made arbitrarily small. So the limsup in the left-hand side is zero, thus proving that $int f , mathrmdmu_n to int f , mathrmdmu$ for any $f in C_b(mathbbR^d)$. $square$



As for the generalization to arbitrary locally compact Hausdorff $E$, I guess the same proof will work when $E$ is a Radon space (i.e. every Borel probability measure on $E$ is inner regular). But for full generality, I have no good idea as I have not enough expertise in this direction.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I've found vague convergence defined in terms of $C_c(E)$. But since $C_c(E)$ is dense in $C_0(E)$ a vague convergence should imply convergence for all $fin C_0(E)$ by dominated convergence. Since the other direction is trivial, this should be equivalent, if I'm not missing anything.
    $endgroup$
    – 0xbadf00d
    2 days ago













1












1








1





$begingroup$

The convergence in question is sometimes called vague convergence. (In fact, there are two slightly different definitions of vague convergence in literature, but I digressed.) Vague convergence is in general different from weak convergence because it is too weak to detect mass escaping towards infinity (i.e. failure of tightness). On the other hand, if we can somehow guarantee that no mass escapes, vague convergence often improves to weak convergence.



Here, let's consider the case $E = mathbbR^d$.




Proposition. Let $mu_n$ and $mu$ be probability measures on $mathbbR^d$. Then the followings are equivalent:



(1) $mu_n to mu$ weakly, i.e., $int f , mathrmdmu_n to int f , mathrmdmu$ for all $f$ in the space $C_b(mathbbR^d)$ of all bounded continuous functions.



(2) $mu_n to mu$ vaguely, i.e., $int f , mathrmdmu_n to int f , mathrmdmu$ for all $f$ in the space $C_0(mathbbR^d)$.




Since the implication (1) $Rightarrow$ (2) is trivial, let us prove the other direction. Assume that $mu_n to mu$ vaguely. Fix $f in C_b(mathbbR^d)$. Then for any $chi in C_0(mathbbR^d)$ with $0 leq chi leq 1$, we have $chi f in C_0(mathbbR^d)$. By splitting $f$ as the sum $f = (1-chi)f + chi f$ and denoting by $|f|_sup$ the supremum-norm of $f$, we get



beginalign*
left| int f , mathrmdmu_n - int f , mathrmdmu right|
leq |f|_supint (1 - chi) , mathrmdmu_n + |f|_sup int (1 - chi) , mathrmdmu + left| int chi f , mathrmdmu_n - int chi f , mathrmdmu right|.
endalign*



Letting $limsup$ as $ntoinfty$ and noting that $int (1 - chi) , mathrmdmu_n = 1 - int chi , mathrmdmu_n to 1 - int chi , mathrmdmu$ as $ntoinfty$,



beginalign*
limsup_ntoinfty left| int f , mathrmdmu_n - int f , mathrmdmu right|
leq 2|f|_sup left( 1 - int chi , mathrmdmu right).
endalign*



Now it is easy to check that $sup int chi , mathrmdmu : chi in C_0(mathbbR^d) text and 0 leq chi leq 1 = 1$, and so, the above bound can be made arbitrarily small. So the limsup in the left-hand side is zero, thus proving that $int f , mathrmdmu_n to int f , mathrmdmu$ for any $f in C_b(mathbbR^d)$. $square$



As for the generalization to arbitrary locally compact Hausdorff $E$, I guess the same proof will work when $E$ is a Radon space (i.e. every Borel probability measure on $E$ is inner regular). But for full generality, I have no good idea as I have not enough expertise in this direction.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



The convergence in question is sometimes called vague convergence. (In fact, there are two slightly different definitions of vague convergence in literature, but I digressed.) Vague convergence is in general different from weak convergence because it is too weak to detect mass escaping towards infinity (i.e. failure of tightness). On the other hand, if we can somehow guarantee that no mass escapes, vague convergence often improves to weak convergence.



Here, let's consider the case $E = mathbbR^d$.




Proposition. Let $mu_n$ and $mu$ be probability measures on $mathbbR^d$. Then the followings are equivalent:



(1) $mu_n to mu$ weakly, i.e., $int f , mathrmdmu_n to int f , mathrmdmu$ for all $f$ in the space $C_b(mathbbR^d)$ of all bounded continuous functions.



(2) $mu_n to mu$ vaguely, i.e., $int f , mathrmdmu_n to int f , mathrmdmu$ for all $f$ in the space $C_0(mathbbR^d)$.




Since the implication (1) $Rightarrow$ (2) is trivial, let us prove the other direction. Assume that $mu_n to mu$ vaguely. Fix $f in C_b(mathbbR^d)$. Then for any $chi in C_0(mathbbR^d)$ with $0 leq chi leq 1$, we have $chi f in C_0(mathbbR^d)$. By splitting $f$ as the sum $f = (1-chi)f + chi f$ and denoting by $|f|_sup$ the supremum-norm of $f$, we get



beginalign*
left| int f , mathrmdmu_n - int f , mathrmdmu right|
leq |f|_supint (1 - chi) , mathrmdmu_n + |f|_sup int (1 - chi) , mathrmdmu + left| int chi f , mathrmdmu_n - int chi f , mathrmdmu right|.
endalign*



Letting $limsup$ as $ntoinfty$ and noting that $int (1 - chi) , mathrmdmu_n = 1 - int chi , mathrmdmu_n to 1 - int chi , mathrmdmu$ as $ntoinfty$,



beginalign*
limsup_ntoinfty left| int f , mathrmdmu_n - int f , mathrmdmu right|
leq 2|f|_sup left( 1 - int chi , mathrmdmu right).
endalign*



Now it is easy to check that $sup int chi , mathrmdmu : chi in C_0(mathbbR^d) text and 0 leq chi leq 1 = 1$, and so, the above bound can be made arbitrarily small. So the limsup in the left-hand side is zero, thus proving that $int f , mathrmdmu_n to int f , mathrmdmu$ for any $f in C_b(mathbbR^d)$. $square$



As for the generalization to arbitrary locally compact Hausdorff $E$, I guess the same proof will work when $E$ is a Radon space (i.e. every Borel probability measure on $E$ is inner regular). But for full generality, I have no good idea as I have not enough expertise in this direction.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered 2 days ago









Sangchul LeeSangchul Lee

96.5k12173283




96.5k12173283







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I've found vague convergence defined in terms of $C_c(E)$. But since $C_c(E)$ is dense in $C_0(E)$ a vague convergence should imply convergence for all $fin C_0(E)$ by dominated convergence. Since the other direction is trivial, this should be equivalent, if I'm not missing anything.
    $endgroup$
    – 0xbadf00d
    2 days ago












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I've found vague convergence defined in terms of $C_c(E)$. But since $C_c(E)$ is dense in $C_0(E)$ a vague convergence should imply convergence for all $fin C_0(E)$ by dominated convergence. Since the other direction is trivial, this should be equivalent, if I'm not missing anything.
    $endgroup$
    – 0xbadf00d
    2 days ago







1




1




$begingroup$
I've found vague convergence defined in terms of $C_c(E)$. But since $C_c(E)$ is dense in $C_0(E)$ a vague convergence should imply convergence for all $fin C_0(E)$ by dominated convergence. Since the other direction is trivial, this should be equivalent, if I'm not missing anything.
$endgroup$
– 0xbadf00d
2 days ago




$begingroup$
I've found vague convergence defined in terms of $C_c(E)$. But since $C_c(E)$ is dense in $C_0(E)$ a vague convergence should imply convergence for all $fin C_0(E)$ by dominated convergence. Since the other direction is trivial, this should be equivalent, if I'm not missing anything.
$endgroup$
– 0xbadf00d
2 days ago

















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%2f3169140%2fif-int-f-rm-d-mu-n-xrightarrown-to-infty-int-f-rm-d-mu-for-all-f-i%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

Triangular numbers and gcdProving sum of a set is $0 pmod n$ if $n$ is odd, or $fracn2 pmod n$ if $n$ is even?Is greatest common divisor of two numbers really their smallest linear combination?GCD, LCM RelationshipProve a set of nonnegative integers with greatest common divisor 1 and closed under addition has all but finite many nonnegative integers.all pairs of a and b in an equation containing gcdTriangular Numbers Modulo $k$ - Hit All Values?Understanding the Existence and Uniqueness of the GCDGCD and LCM with logical symbolsThe greatest common divisor of two positive integers less than 100 is equal to 3. Their least common multiple is twelve times one of the integers.Suppose that for all integers $x$, $x|a$ and $x|b$ if and only if $x|c$. Then $c = gcd(a,b)$Which is the gcd of 2 numbers which are multiplied and the result is 600000?

Ingelân Ynhâld Etymology | Geografy | Skiednis | Polityk en bestjoer | Ekonomy | Demografy | Kultuer | Klimaat | Sjoch ek | Keppelings om utens | Boarnen, noaten en referinsjes Navigaasjemenuwww.gov.ukOffisjele webside fan it regear fan it Feriene KeninkrykOffisjele webside fan it Britske FerkearsburoNederlânsktalige ynformaasje fan it Britske FerkearsburoOffisjele webside fan English Heritage, de organisaasje dy't him ynset foar it behâld fan it Ingelske kultuergoedYnwennertallen fan alle Britske stêden út 'e folkstelling fan 2011Notes en References, op dizze sideEngland

Հադիս Բովանդակություն Անվանում և նշանակություն | Դասակարգում | Աղբյուրներ | Նավարկման ցանկ