Scribd
Upload
17 views

Homework204 Set04

The document contains proofs of three mathematical statements: 1) It proves that the order of summation for a doubly indexed sequence is interchangeable if all terms are non-negative. 2) It proves that for a function in the Riemann class on an interval, there exist polynomials that converge uniformly to the function. 3) It proves that the supremum of partial sums over all finite index sets of a doubly indexed sequence is equal to the total sum, if all terms are non-negative.

Uploaded by

Nicolás Reyes Gómez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
17 views

Homework204 Set04

The document contains proofs of three mathematical statements: 1) It proves that the order of summation for a doubly indexed sequence is interchangeable if all terms are non-negative. 2) It proves that for a function in the Riemann class on an interval, there exist polynomials that converge uniformly to the function. 3) It proves that the supremum of partial sums over all finite index sets of a doubly indexed sequence is equal to the total sum, if all terms are non-negative.

Uploaded by

Nicolás Reyes Gómez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

7.17 If f is continuous on [0, 1] and if Rudin’s Ex.

20
Z 1
f (x)xn dx = 0, n = 0, 1, 2, . . . ,
0

prove that f (x) = 0 on [0, 1].


Proof Since f is continuous on [0, 1], by Theorem 4.15, there is M such that |f (x)| ≤
M for all x ∈ [0, 1]. Since f is continuous on [0, 1], by the Weierstrass Approximation
Theorem, there is a sequence of complex polynomials Pn such that Pn → f uniformly
on [0, 1]. Let  > 0 be given. We know that there is N such that n ≥ N implies
|Pn (x) − f (x)| < /M, x ∈ [0, 1].
Hence, if n ≥ N , we have
f (x)Pn (x) − |f (x)|2 = |f (x)|˙|Pn (x) − f (x)| < M · /M = ,

x ∈ [0, 1].
In other words, f Pn → |f |2 uniformly on [0, 1]. By Theorem 7.16, and the hypothe-
ses, we have Z 1 Z 1 Z 1
|f |2 dx = f f dx = lim f Pn dx = 0.
0 0 n→∞ 0
By Rudin’s Exercise 6.2, we know that f = 0 on [0, 1].
7.18 Assume f ∈ R(α) on [a, b], and prove that there are polynomials Pn such that Rudin’s Ex. 22
Z b
lim |f − Pn |2 dα = 0.
n→∞ a

Proof Without loss of generality, we assume that f is a real function. Otherwise,


we only need to consider the real and imaginary parts separately.
Let  > 0 be given. By Rudin’s Exercise 6.12, there is a continuous function g on
[a, b] such that kf − gk2 < /2. By the Weierstrass Approximation Theorem, there is
a sequence of polynomials {Pn } such that Pn → g uniformly on [a, b]. Hence, there
exists N such that n ≥ N implies

|Pn (x) − g(x)| < p , x ∈ [a, b].
2 [α(b) − α(a)]
Hence, if n ≥ N , we have
Z b
2
kPn − gk22 = |Pn (x) − g(x)|2 dα < · [α(b) − α(a)] = 2 /4.
a 4[α(b) − α(a)]
It follows from Rudin’s Exercise 6.11 that, if n ≥ N , then
Z b
|f − Pn |2 dα = kf − Pn k22
a
2
≤ (kf − gk2 + kg − Pn k2 )
2
< (/2 + /2) = 2 ,
which implies the desired limit.

1
8.3 Prove that XX XX Rudin’s Ex. 3
aij = aij
i j j i

if aij ≥ 0 for all i and j.


Proof If both summations contain finitely many terms, it is clear that they are
interchangeable. Otherwise, if we can show that
 
X∞ X∞  X 
aij = sup aij : S ⊂ N+ × N+ is finite ,
i=1 j=1 S  
(i,j)∈S

then the consequence of the problem follows.


In fact, for any finite S ⊂ N+ × N+ , since aij ≥ 0, we have

X ∞
∞ X X
aij ≥ aij ,
i=1 j=1 (i,j)∈S

which implies
 
X ∞
∞ X  X 
aij ≥ sup aij : S ⊂ N+ × N+ is finite .
i=1 j=1 S  
(i,j)∈S

In order to prove the reversed inequality, if we let s ∈ R be any number satisfying


∞ X
X ∞
s< aij .
i=1 j=1

we only need to prove that


 
 X 
s < sup aij : S ⊂ N+ × N+ is finite .
S  
(i,j)∈S

Indeed, we choose  > 0 such that


∞ X
X ∞
s+< aij .
i=1 j=1

Then there is m ∈ N+ such that


∞
m X
X
aij > s + .
i=1 j=1

2
∞
X
If for some i0 with 1 ≤ i0 ≤ m, the sum ai0 j is infinite, then there is n ∈ N+
j=1
n
X
such that ai0 j > s. For the finite set S = {i0 } × {1, 2, . . . , n} ⊂ N+ × N+ , we
j=1
have X
aij > s,
(i,j)∈S

which implies the desired reversed inequality. Otherwise, for each i with 1 ≤ i ≤ m,
there is ni ∈ N+ such that
ni
X ∞
X
aij > aij − /m.
j=1 j=1

Put n = max{n1 , n2 , . . . , nm }, and

S = {1, 2, . . . , m} × {1, 2, . . . , n}.

Then
X m X
X n
aij = aij
(i,j)∈S i=1 j=1
 
X ni
m X m
X X∞ ∞
m X
X
≥ aij >  aij − /m =
 aij −  > s,
i=1 j=1 i=1 j=1 i=1 j=1

which also implies the desired reversed inequality.

You might also like