Is $|x|^{-alpha}$ integrable for polynomially bounded measures on $mathbb{R}^n$











up vote
3
down vote

favorite












We know that $|x|^{-alpha}$ is in $L^1 (xin mathbb{R}^n:|x| ge 1)$ with the normal Lebesgue measure for $alpha > n$. But what if we had a measure $mu$ on $mathbb{R}^n$ which is polynomially bounded, i.e., $mu(|x|le A) le C(1+A^N)$ where $C,N$ are fixed constants, then would we have something like $|x|^{-alpha}$ is in $L^1 ({xin mathbb{R}^n:|x| ge 1},mu)$ for $alpha >N$?










share|cite|improve this question


























    up vote
    3
    down vote

    favorite












    We know that $|x|^{-alpha}$ is in $L^1 (xin mathbb{R}^n:|x| ge 1)$ with the normal Lebesgue measure for $alpha > n$. But what if we had a measure $mu$ on $mathbb{R}^n$ which is polynomially bounded, i.e., $mu(|x|le A) le C(1+A^N)$ where $C,N$ are fixed constants, then would we have something like $|x|^{-alpha}$ is in $L^1 ({xin mathbb{R}^n:|x| ge 1},mu)$ for $alpha >N$?










    share|cite|improve this question
























      up vote
      3
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      3
      down vote

      favorite











      We know that $|x|^{-alpha}$ is in $L^1 (xin mathbb{R}^n:|x| ge 1)$ with the normal Lebesgue measure for $alpha > n$. But what if we had a measure $mu$ on $mathbb{R}^n$ which is polynomially bounded, i.e., $mu(|x|le A) le C(1+A^N)$ where $C,N$ are fixed constants, then would we have something like $|x|^{-alpha}$ is in $L^1 ({xin mathbb{R}^n:|x| ge 1},mu)$ for $alpha >N$?










      share|cite|improve this question













      We know that $|x|^{-alpha}$ is in $L^1 (xin mathbb{R}^n:|x| ge 1)$ with the normal Lebesgue measure for $alpha > n$. But what if we had a measure $mu$ on $mathbb{R}^n$ which is polynomially bounded, i.e., $mu(|x|le A) le C(1+A^N)$ where $C,N$ are fixed constants, then would we have something like $|x|^{-alpha}$ is in $L^1 ({xin mathbb{R}^n:|x| ge 1},mu)$ for $alpha >N$?







      measure-theory lebesgue-measure






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked yesterday









      Andrew Yuan

      1228




      1228






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          1
          down vote













          We split the integral into dyadic pieces in the following way:
          begin{align}
          int_{{|x| ge 1}} |x|^{-alpha} , mathrm{d}mu(x) &= sum_{n=0}^infty int_{{2^{n+1} > |x| ge 2^n}} |x|^{-alpha} , mathrm{d}mu(x) \
          &le sum_{n=0}^infty 2^{-nalpha} mu{2^n le |x| < 2^{n+1}}
          end{align}

          Now we can use the polynomially growth bound $mu(|x| le 2^{n+1}) le C(1+2^{(n+1)N})$ to get that the last term is bounded by
          begin{align}
          sum_{n=0}^infty 2^{-nalpha} mu{|x| le 2^{n+1}} le C sum_{n=0}^infty 2^{-nalpha} (1+ 2^{(n+1)N}).
          end{align}

          Here the last sum is convergent if and only if $alpha >N$ and $alpha >0$. Thus, in this more general case, we have also integrability provided that $alpha > N,$ where I supposed that $N >0$.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • Notice you can bypass the dyadic partitioning by setting up the first sum over dyadic ranges.
            – Guacho Perez
            9 hours ago










          • I have simplified the proof with regard to your comment. Now the proof is simpler.
            – p4sch
            3 hours ago












          • nice proof, (+1).
            – Guacho Perez
            3 hours ago











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          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',
          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%2f3019483%2fis-x-alpha-integrable-for-polynomially-bounded-measures-on-mathbbrn%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








          up vote
          1
          down vote













          We split the integral into dyadic pieces in the following way:
          begin{align}
          int_{{|x| ge 1}} |x|^{-alpha} , mathrm{d}mu(x) &= sum_{n=0}^infty int_{{2^{n+1} > |x| ge 2^n}} |x|^{-alpha} , mathrm{d}mu(x) \
          &le sum_{n=0}^infty 2^{-nalpha} mu{2^n le |x| < 2^{n+1}}
          end{align}

          Now we can use the polynomially growth bound $mu(|x| le 2^{n+1}) le C(1+2^{(n+1)N})$ to get that the last term is bounded by
          begin{align}
          sum_{n=0}^infty 2^{-nalpha} mu{|x| le 2^{n+1}} le C sum_{n=0}^infty 2^{-nalpha} (1+ 2^{(n+1)N}).
          end{align}

          Here the last sum is convergent if and only if $alpha >N$ and $alpha >0$. Thus, in this more general case, we have also integrability provided that $alpha > N,$ where I supposed that $N >0$.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • Notice you can bypass the dyadic partitioning by setting up the first sum over dyadic ranges.
            – Guacho Perez
            9 hours ago










          • I have simplified the proof with regard to your comment. Now the proof is simpler.
            – p4sch
            3 hours ago












          • nice proof, (+1).
            – Guacho Perez
            3 hours ago















          up vote
          1
          down vote













          We split the integral into dyadic pieces in the following way:
          begin{align}
          int_{{|x| ge 1}} |x|^{-alpha} , mathrm{d}mu(x) &= sum_{n=0}^infty int_{{2^{n+1} > |x| ge 2^n}} |x|^{-alpha} , mathrm{d}mu(x) \
          &le sum_{n=0}^infty 2^{-nalpha} mu{2^n le |x| < 2^{n+1}}
          end{align}

          Now we can use the polynomially growth bound $mu(|x| le 2^{n+1}) le C(1+2^{(n+1)N})$ to get that the last term is bounded by
          begin{align}
          sum_{n=0}^infty 2^{-nalpha} mu{|x| le 2^{n+1}} le C sum_{n=0}^infty 2^{-nalpha} (1+ 2^{(n+1)N}).
          end{align}

          Here the last sum is convergent if and only if $alpha >N$ and $alpha >0$. Thus, in this more general case, we have also integrability provided that $alpha > N,$ where I supposed that $N >0$.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • Notice you can bypass the dyadic partitioning by setting up the first sum over dyadic ranges.
            – Guacho Perez
            9 hours ago










          • I have simplified the proof with regard to your comment. Now the proof is simpler.
            – p4sch
            3 hours ago












          • nice proof, (+1).
            – Guacho Perez
            3 hours ago













          up vote
          1
          down vote










          up vote
          1
          down vote









          We split the integral into dyadic pieces in the following way:
          begin{align}
          int_{{|x| ge 1}} |x|^{-alpha} , mathrm{d}mu(x) &= sum_{n=0}^infty int_{{2^{n+1} > |x| ge 2^n}} |x|^{-alpha} , mathrm{d}mu(x) \
          &le sum_{n=0}^infty 2^{-nalpha} mu{2^n le |x| < 2^{n+1}}
          end{align}

          Now we can use the polynomially growth bound $mu(|x| le 2^{n+1}) le C(1+2^{(n+1)N})$ to get that the last term is bounded by
          begin{align}
          sum_{n=0}^infty 2^{-nalpha} mu{|x| le 2^{n+1}} le C sum_{n=0}^infty 2^{-nalpha} (1+ 2^{(n+1)N}).
          end{align}

          Here the last sum is convergent if and only if $alpha >N$ and $alpha >0$. Thus, in this more general case, we have also integrability provided that $alpha > N,$ where I supposed that $N >0$.






          share|cite|improve this answer














          We split the integral into dyadic pieces in the following way:
          begin{align}
          int_{{|x| ge 1}} |x|^{-alpha} , mathrm{d}mu(x) &= sum_{n=0}^infty int_{{2^{n+1} > |x| ge 2^n}} |x|^{-alpha} , mathrm{d}mu(x) \
          &le sum_{n=0}^infty 2^{-nalpha} mu{2^n le |x| < 2^{n+1}}
          end{align}

          Now we can use the polynomially growth bound $mu(|x| le 2^{n+1}) le C(1+2^{(n+1)N})$ to get that the last term is bounded by
          begin{align}
          sum_{n=0}^infty 2^{-nalpha} mu{|x| le 2^{n+1}} le C sum_{n=0}^infty 2^{-nalpha} (1+ 2^{(n+1)N}).
          end{align}

          Here the last sum is convergent if and only if $alpha >N$ and $alpha >0$. Thus, in this more general case, we have also integrability provided that $alpha > N,$ where I supposed that $N >0$.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited 3 hours ago

























          answered 16 hours ago









          p4sch

          3,940216




          3,940216












          • Notice you can bypass the dyadic partitioning by setting up the first sum over dyadic ranges.
            – Guacho Perez
            9 hours ago










          • I have simplified the proof with regard to your comment. Now the proof is simpler.
            – p4sch
            3 hours ago












          • nice proof, (+1).
            – Guacho Perez
            3 hours ago


















          • Notice you can bypass the dyadic partitioning by setting up the first sum over dyadic ranges.
            – Guacho Perez
            9 hours ago










          • I have simplified the proof with regard to your comment. Now the proof is simpler.
            – p4sch
            3 hours ago












          • nice proof, (+1).
            – Guacho Perez
            3 hours ago
















          Notice you can bypass the dyadic partitioning by setting up the first sum over dyadic ranges.
          – Guacho Perez
          9 hours ago




          Notice you can bypass the dyadic partitioning by setting up the first sum over dyadic ranges.
          – Guacho Perez
          9 hours ago












          I have simplified the proof with regard to your comment. Now the proof is simpler.
          – p4sch
          3 hours ago






          I have simplified the proof with regard to your comment. Now the proof is simpler.
          – p4sch
          3 hours ago














          nice proof, (+1).
          – Guacho Perez
          3 hours ago




          nice proof, (+1).
          – Guacho Perez
          3 hours 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.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • 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.


          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%2f3019483%2fis-x-alpha-integrable-for-polynomially-bounded-measures-on-mathbbrn%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

          Måne

          Storängen

          VLT Carioca