Why is $frac{x^n}{x^3+x^4}chi_{[0,1[} in mathcal{L}^1$












1












$begingroup$


In one of our exams it was written without explanation that $f_{n}(x):=frac{x^n}{x^3+x^4}chi_{[0,1[} in mathcal{L}^1$



But I fail to see how this does not warrant an explanation.



My ideas



$frac{x^n}{x^3+x^4}$ is continuous on $]0,1[$, $forall n in mathbb N$.



I basically want to find a function $g in mathcal{L}^1$ such that $f_{n} leq g, forall n in mathbb N$



on $]0,1[$ this is not difficult as $frac{x^n}{x^3+x^4}chi_{]0,1[}leqfrac{1}{x^3+x^4}$



But what about at $x = 0$, I mean $f_{n}(0)$ is not defined so how can I create a plausible inequality? I do realize that ${0}$ has measure zero but how do I successfuly incorporate that into proving that $f_{n} in mathcal{L}^1$










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Is $n in mathbb{N}$? Because it's not really integrable for $n=0,1,2$.
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    Jan 4 at 11:16


















1












$begingroup$


In one of our exams it was written without explanation that $f_{n}(x):=frac{x^n}{x^3+x^4}chi_{[0,1[} in mathcal{L}^1$



But I fail to see how this does not warrant an explanation.



My ideas



$frac{x^n}{x^3+x^4}$ is continuous on $]0,1[$, $forall n in mathbb N$.



I basically want to find a function $g in mathcal{L}^1$ such that $f_{n} leq g, forall n in mathbb N$



on $]0,1[$ this is not difficult as $frac{x^n}{x^3+x^4}chi_{]0,1[}leqfrac{1}{x^3+x^4}$



But what about at $x = 0$, I mean $f_{n}(0)$ is not defined so how can I create a plausible inequality? I do realize that ${0}$ has measure zero but how do I successfuly incorporate that into proving that $f_{n} in mathcal{L}^1$










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Is $n in mathbb{N}$? Because it's not really integrable for $n=0,1,2$.
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    Jan 4 at 11:16
















1












1








1





$begingroup$


In one of our exams it was written without explanation that $f_{n}(x):=frac{x^n}{x^3+x^4}chi_{[0,1[} in mathcal{L}^1$



But I fail to see how this does not warrant an explanation.



My ideas



$frac{x^n}{x^3+x^4}$ is continuous on $]0,1[$, $forall n in mathbb N$.



I basically want to find a function $g in mathcal{L}^1$ such that $f_{n} leq g, forall n in mathbb N$



on $]0,1[$ this is not difficult as $frac{x^n}{x^3+x^4}chi_{]0,1[}leqfrac{1}{x^3+x^4}$



But what about at $x = 0$, I mean $f_{n}(0)$ is not defined so how can I create a plausible inequality? I do realize that ${0}$ has measure zero but how do I successfuly incorporate that into proving that $f_{n} in mathcal{L}^1$










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




In one of our exams it was written without explanation that $f_{n}(x):=frac{x^n}{x^3+x^4}chi_{[0,1[} in mathcal{L}^1$



But I fail to see how this does not warrant an explanation.



My ideas



$frac{x^n}{x^3+x^4}$ is continuous on $]0,1[$, $forall n in mathbb N$.



I basically want to find a function $g in mathcal{L}^1$ such that $f_{n} leq g, forall n in mathbb N$



on $]0,1[$ this is not difficult as $frac{x^n}{x^3+x^4}chi_{]0,1[}leqfrac{1}{x^3+x^4}$



But what about at $x = 0$, I mean $f_{n}(0)$ is not defined so how can I create a plausible inequality? I do realize that ${0}$ has measure zero but how do I successfuly incorporate that into proving that $f_{n} in mathcal{L}^1$







real-analysis integration measure-theory continuity






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Jan 4 at 10:58









SABOYSABOY

656311




656311








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Is $n in mathbb{N}$? Because it's not really integrable for $n=0,1,2$.
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    Jan 4 at 11:16
















  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Is $n in mathbb{N}$? Because it's not really integrable for $n=0,1,2$.
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    Jan 4 at 11:16










1




1




$begingroup$
Is $n in mathbb{N}$? Because it's not really integrable for $n=0,1,2$.
$endgroup$
– Botond
Jan 4 at 11:16






$begingroup$
Is $n in mathbb{N}$? Because it's not really integrable for $n=0,1,2$.
$endgroup$
– Botond
Jan 4 at 11:16












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

Most likely, the goal is to study the convergence in $mathcal L^1$ of the sequence $left(f_nright)_{ngeqslant 1}$ hence the fact that $f_n$ is not integrable for $nin{0;1;2}$ is not a problem.



For $ngeqslant 3$ and $xin(0,1)$,
$$
0leqslant frac{x^3}{x^3+x^4}leqslant frac{x^3+x^4}{x^3+x^4}=1
$$

hence
$$
0leqslant f_n(x)leqslant x^{n-3}leqslant 1
$$

and a bounded function on $(0,1)$ is integrable.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    The fact that $n geq 3 $ is relevant is because $lim_{x to 0^{+}}f_{n}(x) = 0 $ when $n geq 3$ correct ? So indeed then $f_{n}$ is defined on $[0,1)$ and we can use $f_{n}leq 1$ on $[0,1)$ while $n geq 3$ correct??
    $endgroup$
    – SABOY
    Jan 4 at 12:03












  • $begingroup$
    Actually we do not need to define $f_n(0)$; the point is that $int_0^1 1/t dt$ and $int_0^1 1/t^2 dt$ are infinite.
    $endgroup$
    – Davide Giraudo
    Jan 4 at 12:14










  • $begingroup$
    Ok let me ask it plainly, does $f_{n} chi_{]0,1[} in mathcal{L}^1$ imply that $f_{n} chi_{[0,1[}in mathcal{L}^1$ because ${0}$ is of measure zero?
    $endgroup$
    – SABOY
    Jan 4 at 12:24












  • $begingroup$
    Yes. ${}{}{}{}$
    $endgroup$
    – Davide Giraudo
    Jan 4 at 12:51











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',
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%2f3061522%2fwhy-is-fracxnx3x4-chi-0-1-in-mathcall1%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












$begingroup$

Most likely, the goal is to study the convergence in $mathcal L^1$ of the sequence $left(f_nright)_{ngeqslant 1}$ hence the fact that $f_n$ is not integrable for $nin{0;1;2}$ is not a problem.



For $ngeqslant 3$ and $xin(0,1)$,
$$
0leqslant frac{x^3}{x^3+x^4}leqslant frac{x^3+x^4}{x^3+x^4}=1
$$

hence
$$
0leqslant f_n(x)leqslant x^{n-3}leqslant 1
$$

and a bounded function on $(0,1)$ is integrable.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    The fact that $n geq 3 $ is relevant is because $lim_{x to 0^{+}}f_{n}(x) = 0 $ when $n geq 3$ correct ? So indeed then $f_{n}$ is defined on $[0,1)$ and we can use $f_{n}leq 1$ on $[0,1)$ while $n geq 3$ correct??
    $endgroup$
    – SABOY
    Jan 4 at 12:03












  • $begingroup$
    Actually we do not need to define $f_n(0)$; the point is that $int_0^1 1/t dt$ and $int_0^1 1/t^2 dt$ are infinite.
    $endgroup$
    – Davide Giraudo
    Jan 4 at 12:14










  • $begingroup$
    Ok let me ask it plainly, does $f_{n} chi_{]0,1[} in mathcal{L}^1$ imply that $f_{n} chi_{[0,1[}in mathcal{L}^1$ because ${0}$ is of measure zero?
    $endgroup$
    – SABOY
    Jan 4 at 12:24












  • $begingroup$
    Yes. ${}{}{}{}$
    $endgroup$
    – Davide Giraudo
    Jan 4 at 12:51
















1












$begingroup$

Most likely, the goal is to study the convergence in $mathcal L^1$ of the sequence $left(f_nright)_{ngeqslant 1}$ hence the fact that $f_n$ is not integrable for $nin{0;1;2}$ is not a problem.



For $ngeqslant 3$ and $xin(0,1)$,
$$
0leqslant frac{x^3}{x^3+x^4}leqslant frac{x^3+x^4}{x^3+x^4}=1
$$

hence
$$
0leqslant f_n(x)leqslant x^{n-3}leqslant 1
$$

and a bounded function on $(0,1)$ is integrable.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    The fact that $n geq 3 $ is relevant is because $lim_{x to 0^{+}}f_{n}(x) = 0 $ when $n geq 3$ correct ? So indeed then $f_{n}$ is defined on $[0,1)$ and we can use $f_{n}leq 1$ on $[0,1)$ while $n geq 3$ correct??
    $endgroup$
    – SABOY
    Jan 4 at 12:03












  • $begingroup$
    Actually we do not need to define $f_n(0)$; the point is that $int_0^1 1/t dt$ and $int_0^1 1/t^2 dt$ are infinite.
    $endgroup$
    – Davide Giraudo
    Jan 4 at 12:14










  • $begingroup$
    Ok let me ask it plainly, does $f_{n} chi_{]0,1[} in mathcal{L}^1$ imply that $f_{n} chi_{[0,1[}in mathcal{L}^1$ because ${0}$ is of measure zero?
    $endgroup$
    – SABOY
    Jan 4 at 12:24












  • $begingroup$
    Yes. ${}{}{}{}$
    $endgroup$
    – Davide Giraudo
    Jan 4 at 12:51














1












1








1





$begingroup$

Most likely, the goal is to study the convergence in $mathcal L^1$ of the sequence $left(f_nright)_{ngeqslant 1}$ hence the fact that $f_n$ is not integrable for $nin{0;1;2}$ is not a problem.



For $ngeqslant 3$ and $xin(0,1)$,
$$
0leqslant frac{x^3}{x^3+x^4}leqslant frac{x^3+x^4}{x^3+x^4}=1
$$

hence
$$
0leqslant f_n(x)leqslant x^{n-3}leqslant 1
$$

and a bounded function on $(0,1)$ is integrable.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



Most likely, the goal is to study the convergence in $mathcal L^1$ of the sequence $left(f_nright)_{ngeqslant 1}$ hence the fact that $f_n$ is not integrable for $nin{0;1;2}$ is not a problem.



For $ngeqslant 3$ and $xin(0,1)$,
$$
0leqslant frac{x^3}{x^3+x^4}leqslant frac{x^3+x^4}{x^3+x^4}=1
$$

hence
$$
0leqslant f_n(x)leqslant x^{n-3}leqslant 1
$$

and a bounded function on $(0,1)$ is integrable.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Jan 4 at 11:38









Davide GiraudoDavide Giraudo

127k17154268




127k17154268












  • $begingroup$
    The fact that $n geq 3 $ is relevant is because $lim_{x to 0^{+}}f_{n}(x) = 0 $ when $n geq 3$ correct ? So indeed then $f_{n}$ is defined on $[0,1)$ and we can use $f_{n}leq 1$ on $[0,1)$ while $n geq 3$ correct??
    $endgroup$
    – SABOY
    Jan 4 at 12:03












  • $begingroup$
    Actually we do not need to define $f_n(0)$; the point is that $int_0^1 1/t dt$ and $int_0^1 1/t^2 dt$ are infinite.
    $endgroup$
    – Davide Giraudo
    Jan 4 at 12:14










  • $begingroup$
    Ok let me ask it plainly, does $f_{n} chi_{]0,1[} in mathcal{L}^1$ imply that $f_{n} chi_{[0,1[}in mathcal{L}^1$ because ${0}$ is of measure zero?
    $endgroup$
    – SABOY
    Jan 4 at 12:24












  • $begingroup$
    Yes. ${}{}{}{}$
    $endgroup$
    – Davide Giraudo
    Jan 4 at 12:51


















  • $begingroup$
    The fact that $n geq 3 $ is relevant is because $lim_{x to 0^{+}}f_{n}(x) = 0 $ when $n geq 3$ correct ? So indeed then $f_{n}$ is defined on $[0,1)$ and we can use $f_{n}leq 1$ on $[0,1)$ while $n geq 3$ correct??
    $endgroup$
    – SABOY
    Jan 4 at 12:03












  • $begingroup$
    Actually we do not need to define $f_n(0)$; the point is that $int_0^1 1/t dt$ and $int_0^1 1/t^2 dt$ are infinite.
    $endgroup$
    – Davide Giraudo
    Jan 4 at 12:14










  • $begingroup$
    Ok let me ask it plainly, does $f_{n} chi_{]0,1[} in mathcal{L}^1$ imply that $f_{n} chi_{[0,1[}in mathcal{L}^1$ because ${0}$ is of measure zero?
    $endgroup$
    – SABOY
    Jan 4 at 12:24












  • $begingroup$
    Yes. ${}{}{}{}$
    $endgroup$
    – Davide Giraudo
    Jan 4 at 12:51
















$begingroup$
The fact that $n geq 3 $ is relevant is because $lim_{x to 0^{+}}f_{n}(x) = 0 $ when $n geq 3$ correct ? So indeed then $f_{n}$ is defined on $[0,1)$ and we can use $f_{n}leq 1$ on $[0,1)$ while $n geq 3$ correct??
$endgroup$
– SABOY
Jan 4 at 12:03






$begingroup$
The fact that $n geq 3 $ is relevant is because $lim_{x to 0^{+}}f_{n}(x) = 0 $ when $n geq 3$ correct ? So indeed then $f_{n}$ is defined on $[0,1)$ and we can use $f_{n}leq 1$ on $[0,1)$ while $n geq 3$ correct??
$endgroup$
– SABOY
Jan 4 at 12:03














$begingroup$
Actually we do not need to define $f_n(0)$; the point is that $int_0^1 1/t dt$ and $int_0^1 1/t^2 dt$ are infinite.
$endgroup$
– Davide Giraudo
Jan 4 at 12:14




$begingroup$
Actually we do not need to define $f_n(0)$; the point is that $int_0^1 1/t dt$ and $int_0^1 1/t^2 dt$ are infinite.
$endgroup$
– Davide Giraudo
Jan 4 at 12:14












$begingroup$
Ok let me ask it plainly, does $f_{n} chi_{]0,1[} in mathcal{L}^1$ imply that $f_{n} chi_{[0,1[}in mathcal{L}^1$ because ${0}$ is of measure zero?
$endgroup$
– SABOY
Jan 4 at 12:24






$begingroup$
Ok let me ask it plainly, does $f_{n} chi_{]0,1[} in mathcal{L}^1$ imply that $f_{n} chi_{[0,1[}in mathcal{L}^1$ because ${0}$ is of measure zero?
$endgroup$
– SABOY
Jan 4 at 12:24














$begingroup$
Yes. ${}{}{}{}$
$endgroup$
– Davide Giraudo
Jan 4 at 12:51




$begingroup$
Yes. ${}{}{}{}$
$endgroup$
– Davide Giraudo
Jan 4 at 12:51


















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%2f3061522%2fwhy-is-fracxnx3x4-chi-0-1-in-mathcall1%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

Bressuire

Cabo Verde

Gyllenstierna