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
$begingroup$
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?
functional-analysis probability-theory measure-theory
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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?
functional-analysis probability-theory measure-theory
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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?
functional-analysis probability-theory measure-theory
$endgroup$
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
functional-analysis probability-theory measure-theory
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
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
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
$begingroup$
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