Dominated convergence 2.1?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
After this question : Dominated convergence 2.0?
I want to know, what about the case when $hin L^1([0,1])$.
The completed question :
Let $(f_n)_n$ be a sequence in $C^2([0,1])$ converging pointwise to $g in L^1([0,1])$ and $forall x in [0,1], g(x)in mathbb R$.
Assume that:
$forall ninmathbb N, f_n''<h$, where $h in L^1([0,1])$.
Is it true that $lim int_0^1 f_n=int_0^1 g$ ?
real-analysis integration
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
After this question : Dominated convergence 2.0?
I want to know, what about the case when $hin L^1([0,1])$.
The completed question :
Let $(f_n)_n$ be a sequence in $C^2([0,1])$ converging pointwise to $g in L^1([0,1])$ and $forall x in [0,1], g(x)in mathbb R$.
Assume that:
$forall ninmathbb N, f_n''<h$, where $h in L^1([0,1])$.
Is it true that $lim int_0^1 f_n=int_0^1 g$ ?
real-analysis integration
+1. Maybe it is worthwhile mentioning in the post that you assume $g$ to take values in $mathbbR$ rather than in $[-infty, infty]$?
â Jochen Glueck
Aug 19 at 18:49
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
After this question : Dominated convergence 2.0?
I want to know, what about the case when $hin L^1([0,1])$.
The completed question :
Let $(f_n)_n$ be a sequence in $C^2([0,1])$ converging pointwise to $g in L^1([0,1])$ and $forall x in [0,1], g(x)in mathbb R$.
Assume that:
$forall ninmathbb N, f_n''<h$, where $h in L^1([0,1])$.
Is it true that $lim int_0^1 f_n=int_0^1 g$ ?
real-analysis integration
After this question : Dominated convergence 2.0?
I want to know, what about the case when $hin L^1([0,1])$.
The completed question :
Let $(f_n)_n$ be a sequence in $C^2([0,1])$ converging pointwise to $g in L^1([0,1])$ and $forall x in [0,1], g(x)in mathbb R$.
Assume that:
$forall ninmathbb N, f_n''<h$, where $h in L^1([0,1])$.
Is it true that $lim int_0^1 f_n=int_0^1 g$ ?
real-analysis integration
real-analysis integration
edited Aug 19 at 19:13
asked Aug 19 at 18:40
Dattier
612314
612314
+1. Maybe it is worthwhile mentioning in the post that you assume $g$ to take values in $mathbbR$ rather than in $[-infty, infty]$?
â Jochen Glueck
Aug 19 at 18:49
add a comment |Â
+1. Maybe it is worthwhile mentioning in the post that you assume $g$ to take values in $mathbbR$ rather than in $[-infty, infty]$?
â Jochen Glueck
Aug 19 at 18:49
+1. Maybe it is worthwhile mentioning in the post that you assume $g$ to take values in $mathbbR$ rather than in $[-infty, infty]$?
â Jochen Glueck
Aug 19 at 18:49
+1. Maybe it is worthwhile mentioning in the post that you assume $g$ to take values in $mathbbR$ rather than in $[-infty, infty]$?
â Jochen Glueck
Aug 19 at 18:49
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
I claim that under these assumptions, the functions $f_n$ are uniformly bounded. Then the conclusion follows from the dominated convergence theorem.
First set $H(x) = int_0^x int_0^t h(s),ds$, which is $C^1$. Letting $u_n = f_n-H$, we have that $u_n$ is concave (i.e. $-u_n$ is convex), continuous, and still converges pointwise.
Now let $v_n(x) = u_n(x) - (x u_n(1) + (1-x) u_n(0))$. Now $v_n$ is again concave and continuous, $v_n(0)= v_n(1)=0$, and $v_n$ still converges pointwise (note that $u_n(0), u_n(1)$ both converge to finite limits). In particular we have $v_n ge 0$ everywhere.
Let $M_n$ be the maximum value of $v_n$, and let $x_n$ be the point where it is attained. Suppose first that $x_n ge 1/2$. By concavity we have $v_n(x) ge fracxx_n v(x_n) ge x v(x_n) = x M_n$ for all $0 le x le x_n$. In particular, we have $v_n(1/2) ge frac12 M_n$. If $x_n le 1/2$, we can get the same result by a similar argument (or by replacing $v_n(x)$ with $v_n(1-x)$).
So $M := sup_n M_n le 2 sup_n v_n(1/2)$ which is finite because $v_n$ converges pointwise. So we have $0 le v_n(x) le M$ for all $x,n$. It follows easily that $f_n$ is uniformly bounded as well (by, say, $M + sup_n |u_n(0)| + sup_n |u_n(1)| + sup_x |H(x)|$).
change the definition of $v_n$, the $t$ by $x$. I choose your proof because it completed, Pinelis use a corollary, without give a proof. @Nate Eldredge
â Dattier
Aug 20 at 8:41
you should corriged your tipos
â Dattier
Aug 20 at 8:47
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
The answer is yes. Indeed, let
$u_n:=f_n-H$ and $v:=g-H$, where
beginequation
H(x):=int_0^x(x-t)h(t),dt
endequation
for $xin[0,1]$.
Then $u_nto v$ pointwise and $u_n$ is concave for each $n$ (see the Detail below). So, by Lemma 1 below, $u_nto v$ in $L^1[0,1]$ and hence $lim int_0^1 f_n=int_0^1 g$.
Detail: By Taylor's theorem with the integral form of the remainder and the definition of $H$, for $xin[0,1]$,
beginequation
u_n(x)=f_n(x)-H(x)=f_n(0)+f'_n(0)x+int_0^1(x-t)_+[f''_n(t)-h(t)],dt.
endequation
Now the concavity of $u_n$ follows because $(x-t)_+$ is convex in $x$ and $f''_n<h$.
Lemma 1. Suppose that $f_n$ are convex real-valued functions on $[0,1]$ converging pointwise to a real-valued function $f$. Then $f_nto f$ in $L^1[0,1]$.
Proof. The function $f$ is real-valued and convex and hence bounded from below. So, by Corollary 3, all the functions $f_n$ are uniformly bounded from below. On the other hand, all the convex functions $f_n$ are uniformly bounded from above by $sup_n(f_n(0)vee f_n(1))$. So, Lemma 1 follows by dominated convergence.
why are, $u_n$ and $v$, monotone for the same piecewises ? @losif Pinelis
â Dattier
Aug 19 at 19:55
@Dattier : see the edited version.
â Iosif Pinelis
Aug 19 at 20:26
@NateEldredge : This is a good point. I'll think how to show that a sequence of concave functions converging pointwise on $[0,1]$ to a function in $L^1$ converges in $L^1$; I think this must be true.
â Iosif Pinelis
Aug 19 at 20:49
@NateEldredge : Please see the latest edit.
â Iosif Pinelis
Aug 19 at 21:14
@IosifPinelis: Yep, I think we basically found the same argument :-)
â Nate Eldredge
Aug 19 at 21:16
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
I claim that under these assumptions, the functions $f_n$ are uniformly bounded. Then the conclusion follows from the dominated convergence theorem.
First set $H(x) = int_0^x int_0^t h(s),ds$, which is $C^1$. Letting $u_n = f_n-H$, we have that $u_n$ is concave (i.e. $-u_n$ is convex), continuous, and still converges pointwise.
Now let $v_n(x) = u_n(x) - (x u_n(1) + (1-x) u_n(0))$. Now $v_n$ is again concave and continuous, $v_n(0)= v_n(1)=0$, and $v_n$ still converges pointwise (note that $u_n(0), u_n(1)$ both converge to finite limits). In particular we have $v_n ge 0$ everywhere.
Let $M_n$ be the maximum value of $v_n$, and let $x_n$ be the point where it is attained. Suppose first that $x_n ge 1/2$. By concavity we have $v_n(x) ge fracxx_n v(x_n) ge x v(x_n) = x M_n$ for all $0 le x le x_n$. In particular, we have $v_n(1/2) ge frac12 M_n$. If $x_n le 1/2$, we can get the same result by a similar argument (or by replacing $v_n(x)$ with $v_n(1-x)$).
So $M := sup_n M_n le 2 sup_n v_n(1/2)$ which is finite because $v_n$ converges pointwise. So we have $0 le v_n(x) le M$ for all $x,n$. It follows easily that $f_n$ is uniformly bounded as well (by, say, $M + sup_n |u_n(0)| + sup_n |u_n(1)| + sup_x |H(x)|$).
change the definition of $v_n$, the $t$ by $x$. I choose your proof because it completed, Pinelis use a corollary, without give a proof. @Nate Eldredge
â Dattier
Aug 20 at 8:41
you should corriged your tipos
â Dattier
Aug 20 at 8:47
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
I claim that under these assumptions, the functions $f_n$ are uniformly bounded. Then the conclusion follows from the dominated convergence theorem.
First set $H(x) = int_0^x int_0^t h(s),ds$, which is $C^1$. Letting $u_n = f_n-H$, we have that $u_n$ is concave (i.e. $-u_n$ is convex), continuous, and still converges pointwise.
Now let $v_n(x) = u_n(x) - (x u_n(1) + (1-x) u_n(0))$. Now $v_n$ is again concave and continuous, $v_n(0)= v_n(1)=0$, and $v_n$ still converges pointwise (note that $u_n(0), u_n(1)$ both converge to finite limits). In particular we have $v_n ge 0$ everywhere.
Let $M_n$ be the maximum value of $v_n$, and let $x_n$ be the point where it is attained. Suppose first that $x_n ge 1/2$. By concavity we have $v_n(x) ge fracxx_n v(x_n) ge x v(x_n) = x M_n$ for all $0 le x le x_n$. In particular, we have $v_n(1/2) ge frac12 M_n$. If $x_n le 1/2$, we can get the same result by a similar argument (or by replacing $v_n(x)$ with $v_n(1-x)$).
So $M := sup_n M_n le 2 sup_n v_n(1/2)$ which is finite because $v_n$ converges pointwise. So we have $0 le v_n(x) le M$ for all $x,n$. It follows easily that $f_n$ is uniformly bounded as well (by, say, $M + sup_n |u_n(0)| + sup_n |u_n(1)| + sup_x |H(x)|$).
change the definition of $v_n$, the $t$ by $x$. I choose your proof because it completed, Pinelis use a corollary, without give a proof. @Nate Eldredge
â Dattier
Aug 20 at 8:41
you should corriged your tipos
â Dattier
Aug 20 at 8:47
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
I claim that under these assumptions, the functions $f_n$ are uniformly bounded. Then the conclusion follows from the dominated convergence theorem.
First set $H(x) = int_0^x int_0^t h(s),ds$, which is $C^1$. Letting $u_n = f_n-H$, we have that $u_n$ is concave (i.e. $-u_n$ is convex), continuous, and still converges pointwise.
Now let $v_n(x) = u_n(x) - (x u_n(1) + (1-x) u_n(0))$. Now $v_n$ is again concave and continuous, $v_n(0)= v_n(1)=0$, and $v_n$ still converges pointwise (note that $u_n(0), u_n(1)$ both converge to finite limits). In particular we have $v_n ge 0$ everywhere.
Let $M_n$ be the maximum value of $v_n$, and let $x_n$ be the point where it is attained. Suppose first that $x_n ge 1/2$. By concavity we have $v_n(x) ge fracxx_n v(x_n) ge x v(x_n) = x M_n$ for all $0 le x le x_n$. In particular, we have $v_n(1/2) ge frac12 M_n$. If $x_n le 1/2$, we can get the same result by a similar argument (or by replacing $v_n(x)$ with $v_n(1-x)$).
So $M := sup_n M_n le 2 sup_n v_n(1/2)$ which is finite because $v_n$ converges pointwise. So we have $0 le v_n(x) le M$ for all $x,n$. It follows easily that $f_n$ is uniformly bounded as well (by, say, $M + sup_n |u_n(0)| + sup_n |u_n(1)| + sup_x |H(x)|$).
I claim that under these assumptions, the functions $f_n$ are uniformly bounded. Then the conclusion follows from the dominated convergence theorem.
First set $H(x) = int_0^x int_0^t h(s),ds$, which is $C^1$. Letting $u_n = f_n-H$, we have that $u_n$ is concave (i.e. $-u_n$ is convex), continuous, and still converges pointwise.
Now let $v_n(x) = u_n(x) - (x u_n(1) + (1-x) u_n(0))$. Now $v_n$ is again concave and continuous, $v_n(0)= v_n(1)=0$, and $v_n$ still converges pointwise (note that $u_n(0), u_n(1)$ both converge to finite limits). In particular we have $v_n ge 0$ everywhere.
Let $M_n$ be the maximum value of $v_n$, and let $x_n$ be the point where it is attained. Suppose first that $x_n ge 1/2$. By concavity we have $v_n(x) ge fracxx_n v(x_n) ge x v(x_n) = x M_n$ for all $0 le x le x_n$. In particular, we have $v_n(1/2) ge frac12 M_n$. If $x_n le 1/2$, we can get the same result by a similar argument (or by replacing $v_n(x)$ with $v_n(1-x)$).
So $M := sup_n M_n le 2 sup_n v_n(1/2)$ which is finite because $v_n$ converges pointwise. So we have $0 le v_n(x) le M$ for all $x,n$. It follows easily that $f_n$ is uniformly bounded as well (by, say, $M + sup_n |u_n(0)| + sup_n |u_n(1)| + sup_x |H(x)|$).
edited Aug 20 at 13:19
answered Aug 19 at 21:09
Nate Eldredge
18.8k362108
18.8k362108
change the definition of $v_n$, the $t$ by $x$. I choose your proof because it completed, Pinelis use a corollary, without give a proof. @Nate Eldredge
â Dattier
Aug 20 at 8:41
you should corriged your tipos
â Dattier
Aug 20 at 8:47
add a comment |Â
change the definition of $v_n$, the $t$ by $x$. I choose your proof because it completed, Pinelis use a corollary, without give a proof. @Nate Eldredge
â Dattier
Aug 20 at 8:41
you should corriged your tipos
â Dattier
Aug 20 at 8:47
change the definition of $v_n$, the $t$ by $x$. I choose your proof because it completed, Pinelis use a corollary, without give a proof. @Nate Eldredge
â Dattier
Aug 20 at 8:41
change the definition of $v_n$, the $t$ by $x$. I choose your proof because it completed, Pinelis use a corollary, without give a proof. @Nate Eldredge
â Dattier
Aug 20 at 8:41
you should corriged your tipos
â Dattier
Aug 20 at 8:47
you should corriged your tipos
â Dattier
Aug 20 at 8:47
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
The answer is yes. Indeed, let
$u_n:=f_n-H$ and $v:=g-H$, where
beginequation
H(x):=int_0^x(x-t)h(t),dt
endequation
for $xin[0,1]$.
Then $u_nto v$ pointwise and $u_n$ is concave for each $n$ (see the Detail below). So, by Lemma 1 below, $u_nto v$ in $L^1[0,1]$ and hence $lim int_0^1 f_n=int_0^1 g$.
Detail: By Taylor's theorem with the integral form of the remainder and the definition of $H$, for $xin[0,1]$,
beginequation
u_n(x)=f_n(x)-H(x)=f_n(0)+f'_n(0)x+int_0^1(x-t)_+[f''_n(t)-h(t)],dt.
endequation
Now the concavity of $u_n$ follows because $(x-t)_+$ is convex in $x$ and $f''_n<h$.
Lemma 1. Suppose that $f_n$ are convex real-valued functions on $[0,1]$ converging pointwise to a real-valued function $f$. Then $f_nto f$ in $L^1[0,1]$.
Proof. The function $f$ is real-valued and convex and hence bounded from below. So, by Corollary 3, all the functions $f_n$ are uniformly bounded from below. On the other hand, all the convex functions $f_n$ are uniformly bounded from above by $sup_n(f_n(0)vee f_n(1))$. So, Lemma 1 follows by dominated convergence.
why are, $u_n$ and $v$, monotone for the same piecewises ? @losif Pinelis
â Dattier
Aug 19 at 19:55
@Dattier : see the edited version.
â Iosif Pinelis
Aug 19 at 20:26
@NateEldredge : This is a good point. I'll think how to show that a sequence of concave functions converging pointwise on $[0,1]$ to a function in $L^1$ converges in $L^1$; I think this must be true.
â Iosif Pinelis
Aug 19 at 20:49
@NateEldredge : Please see the latest edit.
â Iosif Pinelis
Aug 19 at 21:14
@IosifPinelis: Yep, I think we basically found the same argument :-)
â Nate Eldredge
Aug 19 at 21:16
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
The answer is yes. Indeed, let
$u_n:=f_n-H$ and $v:=g-H$, where
beginequation
H(x):=int_0^x(x-t)h(t),dt
endequation
for $xin[0,1]$.
Then $u_nto v$ pointwise and $u_n$ is concave for each $n$ (see the Detail below). So, by Lemma 1 below, $u_nto v$ in $L^1[0,1]$ and hence $lim int_0^1 f_n=int_0^1 g$.
Detail: By Taylor's theorem with the integral form of the remainder and the definition of $H$, for $xin[0,1]$,
beginequation
u_n(x)=f_n(x)-H(x)=f_n(0)+f'_n(0)x+int_0^1(x-t)_+[f''_n(t)-h(t)],dt.
endequation
Now the concavity of $u_n$ follows because $(x-t)_+$ is convex in $x$ and $f''_n<h$.
Lemma 1. Suppose that $f_n$ are convex real-valued functions on $[0,1]$ converging pointwise to a real-valued function $f$. Then $f_nto f$ in $L^1[0,1]$.
Proof. The function $f$ is real-valued and convex and hence bounded from below. So, by Corollary 3, all the functions $f_n$ are uniformly bounded from below. On the other hand, all the convex functions $f_n$ are uniformly bounded from above by $sup_n(f_n(0)vee f_n(1))$. So, Lemma 1 follows by dominated convergence.
why are, $u_n$ and $v$, monotone for the same piecewises ? @losif Pinelis
â Dattier
Aug 19 at 19:55
@Dattier : see the edited version.
â Iosif Pinelis
Aug 19 at 20:26
@NateEldredge : This is a good point. I'll think how to show that a sequence of concave functions converging pointwise on $[0,1]$ to a function in $L^1$ converges in $L^1$; I think this must be true.
â Iosif Pinelis
Aug 19 at 20:49
@NateEldredge : Please see the latest edit.
â Iosif Pinelis
Aug 19 at 21:14
@IosifPinelis: Yep, I think we basically found the same argument :-)
â Nate Eldredge
Aug 19 at 21:16
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
The answer is yes. Indeed, let
$u_n:=f_n-H$ and $v:=g-H$, where
beginequation
H(x):=int_0^x(x-t)h(t),dt
endequation
for $xin[0,1]$.
Then $u_nto v$ pointwise and $u_n$ is concave for each $n$ (see the Detail below). So, by Lemma 1 below, $u_nto v$ in $L^1[0,1]$ and hence $lim int_0^1 f_n=int_0^1 g$.
Detail: By Taylor's theorem with the integral form of the remainder and the definition of $H$, for $xin[0,1]$,
beginequation
u_n(x)=f_n(x)-H(x)=f_n(0)+f'_n(0)x+int_0^1(x-t)_+[f''_n(t)-h(t)],dt.
endequation
Now the concavity of $u_n$ follows because $(x-t)_+$ is convex in $x$ and $f''_n<h$.
Lemma 1. Suppose that $f_n$ are convex real-valued functions on $[0,1]$ converging pointwise to a real-valued function $f$. Then $f_nto f$ in $L^1[0,1]$.
Proof. The function $f$ is real-valued and convex and hence bounded from below. So, by Corollary 3, all the functions $f_n$ are uniformly bounded from below. On the other hand, all the convex functions $f_n$ are uniformly bounded from above by $sup_n(f_n(0)vee f_n(1))$. So, Lemma 1 follows by dominated convergence.
The answer is yes. Indeed, let
$u_n:=f_n-H$ and $v:=g-H$, where
beginequation
H(x):=int_0^x(x-t)h(t),dt
endequation
for $xin[0,1]$.
Then $u_nto v$ pointwise and $u_n$ is concave for each $n$ (see the Detail below). So, by Lemma 1 below, $u_nto v$ in $L^1[0,1]$ and hence $lim int_0^1 f_n=int_0^1 g$.
Detail: By Taylor's theorem with the integral form of the remainder and the definition of $H$, for $xin[0,1]$,
beginequation
u_n(x)=f_n(x)-H(x)=f_n(0)+f'_n(0)x+int_0^1(x-t)_+[f''_n(t)-h(t)],dt.
endequation
Now the concavity of $u_n$ follows because $(x-t)_+$ is convex in $x$ and $f''_n<h$.
Lemma 1. Suppose that $f_n$ are convex real-valued functions on $[0,1]$ converging pointwise to a real-valued function $f$. Then $f_nto f$ in $L^1[0,1]$.
Proof. The function $f$ is real-valued and convex and hence bounded from below. So, by Corollary 3, all the functions $f_n$ are uniformly bounded from below. On the other hand, all the convex functions $f_n$ are uniformly bounded from above by $sup_n(f_n(0)vee f_n(1))$. So, Lemma 1 follows by dominated convergence.
edited Aug 19 at 21:13
answered Aug 19 at 19:17
Iosif Pinelis
14.9k12154
14.9k12154
why are, $u_n$ and $v$, monotone for the same piecewises ? @losif Pinelis
â Dattier
Aug 19 at 19:55
@Dattier : see the edited version.
â Iosif Pinelis
Aug 19 at 20:26
@NateEldredge : This is a good point. I'll think how to show that a sequence of concave functions converging pointwise on $[0,1]$ to a function in $L^1$ converges in $L^1$; I think this must be true.
â Iosif Pinelis
Aug 19 at 20:49
@NateEldredge : Please see the latest edit.
â Iosif Pinelis
Aug 19 at 21:14
@IosifPinelis: Yep, I think we basically found the same argument :-)
â Nate Eldredge
Aug 19 at 21:16
add a comment |Â
why are, $u_n$ and $v$, monotone for the same piecewises ? @losif Pinelis
â Dattier
Aug 19 at 19:55
@Dattier : see the edited version.
â Iosif Pinelis
Aug 19 at 20:26
@NateEldredge : This is a good point. I'll think how to show that a sequence of concave functions converging pointwise on $[0,1]$ to a function in $L^1$ converges in $L^1$; I think this must be true.
â Iosif Pinelis
Aug 19 at 20:49
@NateEldredge : Please see the latest edit.
â Iosif Pinelis
Aug 19 at 21:14
@IosifPinelis: Yep, I think we basically found the same argument :-)
â Nate Eldredge
Aug 19 at 21:16
why are, $u_n$ and $v$, monotone for the same piecewises ? @losif Pinelis
â Dattier
Aug 19 at 19:55
why are, $u_n$ and $v$, monotone for the same piecewises ? @losif Pinelis
â Dattier
Aug 19 at 19:55
@Dattier : see the edited version.
â Iosif Pinelis
Aug 19 at 20:26
@Dattier : see the edited version.
â Iosif Pinelis
Aug 19 at 20:26
@NateEldredge : This is a good point. I'll think how to show that a sequence of concave functions converging pointwise on $[0,1]$ to a function in $L^1$ converges in $L^1$; I think this must be true.
â Iosif Pinelis
Aug 19 at 20:49
@NateEldredge : This is a good point. I'll think how to show that a sequence of concave functions converging pointwise on $[0,1]$ to a function in $L^1$ converges in $L^1$; I think this must be true.
â Iosif Pinelis
Aug 19 at 20:49
@NateEldredge : Please see the latest edit.
â Iosif Pinelis
Aug 19 at 21:14
@NateEldredge : Please see the latest edit.
â Iosif Pinelis
Aug 19 at 21:14
@IosifPinelis: Yep, I think we basically found the same argument :-)
â Nate Eldredge
Aug 19 at 21:16
@IosifPinelis: Yep, I think we basically found the same argument :-)
â Nate Eldredge
Aug 19 at 21:16
add a comment |Â
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
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f308686%2fdominated-convergence-2-1%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
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
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
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
+1. Maybe it is worthwhile mentioning in the post that you assume $g$ to take values in $mathbbR$ rather than in $[-infty, infty]$?
â Jochen Glueck
Aug 19 at 18:49