Các Bài Tập Nhỏ « Ngô Quốc Anh

Tháng Mười Một 5, 2009

An equivalent criterion for absolutely continuous functions

Chuyên mục: Các Bài Tập Nhỏ, Giải Tích 6 (MA5205) — Ngô Quốc Anh @ 22:29

In mathematics, absolute continuity is a smoothness property which is stricter than continuity and uniform continuity.

Definition. A finite function $f$ on a finite interval $[a,b]$ is said to be absolute continuous if and only if for given $\varepsilon > 0$ , there exists $\delta > 0$ such that

$\displaystyle\sum_k |f(b_k) - f(a_k)| < \varepsilon$

for any collection (finite or not) $\{[a_k, b_k]\}$ of non-overlapping subintervals of $[a, b]$ with $\sum (b_k - a_k) < \delta$ .

Statement. Show that $f$ is absolutely continuous on $[a, b]$ if and only if given $\varepsilon > 0$ , there exists $\delta > 0$ such that

$\displaystyle \Big|\sum_k (f(b_k) - f(a_k)) \Big| < \varepsilon$

for any finite collection $\{[a_k, b_k]\}$ of non-overlapping subintervals of $[a, b]$ with $\sum (b_k - a_k) < \delta$ .

Proof. If $f$ is absolutely continuous on $[a, b]$ , then the result is easily obtained by using the definition and the fact that $|x + y| \leq |x| + |y|$ for every $x,y \in \mathbb R$ .

Now we prove that

for given $\varepsilon > 0$ , there exists $\delta > 0$ such that $\sum |f(b_k) - f(a_k)| < \varepsilon$ for any finite collection $\{[a_k, b_k]\}$ of non-overlapping subintervals of $[a, b]$ with $\sum (b_k - a_k) < \delta$ .

Indeed, we split the collection $\{[a_k, b_k]\}$ into two types:

type $A$ are all $k$ such that $f(b_k) - f(a_k) \geq 0$ and
type $B$ are all $k$ such that $f(b_k) - f(a_k) < 0$ .

For given $\varepsilon > 0$ , there exists $\delta > 0$ such that $| \sum (f(b_k) - f(a_k))| < \frac{\varepsilon}{3}$ for any finite collection $\{[a_k, b_k]\}$ with $\sum (b_k - a_k) < \delta$ . Then for $k \in A$ we also have

$\displaystyle\sum_{k \in A} \left( f(b_k) - f(a_k) \right) = \Big| \sum_{k \in A} (f(b_k) - f(a_k))\Big| < \frac{\varepsilon}{3}$ .

Similarly,

$\displaystyle\sum_{k \in B} \left( f(a_k) - f(b_k) \right) = \Big| \sum_{k \in B} (f(b_k) - f(a_k))\Big| < \frac{\varepsilon}{3}$ .

From the following inequality $a + b \leq |a-b| + b + b$ with $a,b \geq 0$ we deduce that

$\displaystyle\sum\limits_{k = 1}^n {\left| {f\left( {{b_k}} \right) - f\left( {{a_k}} \right)} \right|} = \underbrace {\sum\limits_{k \in A} {f\left( {{b_k}} \right) - f\left( {{a_k}} \right)} }_a + \underbrace {\sum\limits_{k \in B} {f\left( {{a_k}} \right) - f\left( {{b_k}} \right)} }_b$

with the fact that

$\displaystyle a+b \leqslant \left| {\sum\limits_{k \in A} {f\left( {{b_k}} \right) - f\left( {{a_k}} \right)} - \sum\limits_{k \in B} {f\left( {{a_k}} \right) - f\left( {{b_k}} \right)} } \right| + \sum\limits_{k \in B} {f\left( {{a_k}} \right) - f\left( {{b_k}} \right)} + \sum\limits_{k \in B} {f\left( {{a_k}} \right) - f\left( {{b_k}} \right)}.$

Note that the right hand side of the above inequality is bounded from above by

$\displaystyle\frac{\varepsilon }{3} + \frac{\varepsilon }{3} + \frac{\varepsilon }{3} = \varepsilon.$

Thus, we have proved that for given $\varepsilon >0$ , there exists $\delta>0$ such that

$\displaystyle\sum\limits_{k = 1}^n {\left| {f\left( {b_k } \right) - f\left( {a_k } \right)} \right|} < \varepsilon$

for any finite collection $\{[a_k, b_k]\}$ of non-overlapping subintervals of $[a, b]$ with $\sum (b_k - a_k) < \delta$ . Letting $n \to \infty$ we can claim that $f$ is absolutely continuous.

Để lại phản hồi

Tháng Mười 30, 2009

A characteristic of essentially bounded functions

Chuyên mục: Các Bài Tập Nhỏ, Giải Tích 6 (MA5205), Linh Tinh, Nghiên Cứu Khoa Học — Ngô Quốc Anh @ 11:53

In this topic, we prove the following statement

Statement: Let $(X,\mathcal B, m)$ be a probability space. Let $h \in L^2(m)$ . Then $h$ is essentially bounded iff $h \cdot f \in L^2(m)$ for all $f \in L^2(m)$ .

Proof. If $h$ is bounded, then by using the Holder inequality one has

$\displaystyle\int_X {{{\left| {h \cdot f} \right|}^2}dm}\leq \underbrace {\sqrt {\int_X {{{\left| h \right|}^2}dm} } }_{ \leqslant c}\sqrt {\int_X {{{\left| f \right|}^2}dm} }<+\infty$

for all $f \in L^2(m)$ . Conversely, we suppose $h$ is such that $h \cdot f \in L^2(m)$ whenever $f \in L^2(m)$ . Let

$\displaystyle X_n = \{ x \in X : n-1 \leq |h(x)| < n\}, \quad \forall n>0$ .

Then $\{X_n\}_1^\infty$ partitions $X$ . Let

$\displaystyle f\left( x \right) =\sum\limits_{n = 1}^\infty{\frac{1}{{n\sqrt {m\left( {{X_n}} \right)} }}{\chi_{{X_n}}}\left( x \right)} ,$

where it is understood that the $n$ -term is omiited if $m(X_n)=0$ . Then

$\displaystyle\int_X {{{\left| f \right|}^2}dm}=\int_X {{{\left({\sum\limits_{n = 1}^\infty {\frac{1}{{n\sqrt {m\left( {{X_n}}\right)} }}{\chi _{{X_n}}}\left( x \right)} } \right)}^2}dm}\leq \sum\limits_{n = 1}^\infty{\frac{1}{{{n^2}}}}<\infty$

which implies $f \in L^2(m)$ . Since

$\displaystyle\int_X {{{\left| {hf} \right|}^2}dm}=\sum\limits_{n \in F} {\int_{{X_n}} {{{\left| {hf} \right|}^2}dm}}\geq\sum\limits_{n \in F}{{{\left( {\frac{{n - 1}}{n}}\right)}^2}}$

where $F = \left\{ {n:m\left( {{X_n}} \right) \ne 0} \right\}$ . Sincc $h \cdot f \in L^2(m)$ we have that $F$ is finite and therefore $h$ is essentially bounded.

Để lại phản hồi

Tháng Mười 17, 2009

The Brezis-Lieb lemma and several applications

Chuyên mục: Các Bài Tập Nhỏ, Giải Tích 6 (MA5205), Nghiên Cứu Khoa Học — Ngô Quốc Anh @ 14:34

What we did in this topic was just an $L^p$ version of the Brezis-Lieb lemma. In this topic, we will discuss the generalization of this lemma.

Roughly speaking, what we are going to prove is the following: If $j : \mathbb C \to \mathbb C$ is a continuous function such that $j(0) = 0$ , then, when $f_n \to f$ a.e. and

$\displaystyle\int |j(f_n(x))| d\mu(x) \leq C < \infty$

we claim that

$\displaystyle\lim\limits_{n \to \infty} \int \left[ j(f_n) - j(f_n - f)\right] = \int j(f)$

under suitable conditions on $j$ and/or $\{f_n\}$ .

To be exact, in addition let $j$ satisfy the following hypothesis:

For every sufficiently small $\varepsilon>0$ , there exists two continuous, nonnegative functions $\varphi_\varepsilon$ and $\psi_\varepsilon$ such that

$\displaystyle |j(a+b)-j(a)| \leq \varepsilon \varphi_\varepsilon(a) + \psi_\varepsilon(b)$

for all $a, b \in \mathbb C$ .

Theorem. Let $j$ satisfy the above hypothesis and let $f_n = f+g_n$ be a sequence of measurable functions from $\Omega$ to $\mathbb C$ such that

$g_n \to 0$ a.e.
$j(f) \in L^1$ .
$\displaystyle\int \varphi_\varepsilon(g_n(x))d\mu(x) \leq C < \infty$ for some constant $C$ , independent of $\varepsilon$ and $n$ .
$\displaystyle\int \psi_\varepsilon(f(x)) d\mu(x) < \infty$ for all $\varepsilon >0$ .

Then, as $n \to \infty$ ,

$\displaystyle\lim\limits_{n \to \infty} \int \left| j(f+g_n) - j(g_n) - j(f) \right| d\mu =0.$

Proof. Fix $\varepsilon >0$ and let

$\displaystyle W_{\varepsilon, n} (x) = \Big[ \big|j(f_n(x)) -j(g_n(x)) - j(f(x))\big| - \varepsilon \varphi_\varepsilon (g_n(x))\Big]_+,$

where $[a]_+ = \max\{a,0\}$ . As $n \to \infty$ , $W_{\varepsilon, n} (x) \to 0$ a.e. On the other hand,

$\displaystyle \big| j(f_n) - f(g_n) - j(f)\big| \leq |j(f_n) - j(g_n)| + |j(f)| \leq \varepsilon \varphi_\varepsilon(g_n) + \psi_\varepsilon(f) + |j(f)|.$

Therefore, $W_{\varepsilon, n} \leq \psi_\varepsilon(f) + |j(f)| \in L^1$ . By the Lebesgue Dominated Convergence theorem, $\displaystyle\int W_{\varepsilon, n} d\mu \to 0$ as $n \to \infty$ . However,

$\displaystyle |j(f_n) - j(g_n) - j(f)| \leq W_{\varepsilon, n} +\varepsilon \varphi_\varepsilon(g_n)$

and thus

$\displaystyle I_n \equiv \int \big| j(f_n) - j(g_n) - j(f) \big| d\mu\leq \int \big[ W_{\varepsilon, n} + \varepsilon \varphi_\varepsilon(g_n)\big] d\mu .$

Consequently, $\limsup_{n \to \infty} I_n \leq \varepsilon C$ . Now let $\varepsilon \to 0$ .

Applications.

The simplest example is when we choose $j(x)=|x|^p$ where $0< p<\infty$ . In this situation, one has

$\displaystyle \int \Big(|f_n|^p - |f_n - f|^p - |f|^p \Big) d\mu \to 0.$

We now assume $u_n \rightharpoonup u$ in $W^{1, 2}$ . As a consequence and up to a subsequence, $u_n \to u$ in $L^\alpha$ for every $1<\alpha<2^\star := \frac{2n}{n-2}$ and $u_n \to u$ a.e. Therefore, for a fixed $q \in (2, 2^\star)$ , the fact that $u_n \to u$ in $L^q$ implies, by the Brezis-Lieb lemma, that
$\displaystyle u_n^{q-1} \to u^{q-1}$ in $L^\frac{q}{q-1}$ .

This is because $\{u_n^{q-1}\}_n \subset L^\frac{q}{q-1}$ is bounded, $u_n^{q-1} \to u^{q-1}$ a.e. and

$\displaystyle\mathop {\lim }\limits_{n \to \infty } \int {\Big( {\underbrace {{{\left| {u_n^{q - 1}} \right|}^{\frac{q}{{q - 1}}}}}_{{{\left| {{u_n}} \right|}^q}} - {{\left| {u_n^{q - 1} - {u^{q - 1}}} \right|}^{\frac{q}{{q - 1}}}}} \Big)d\mu }=\int {\underbrace {{{\left| {{u^{q - 1}}} \right|}^{\frac{q}{{q - 1}}}}}_{{{\left| u \right|}^q}}d\mu }$ .

$u_n \to u$

$L^p$

$\lim_{n\to \infty} \int |u_n|^p d\mu = \int |u|^p d\mu$

$\displaystyle \mathop {\lim }\limits_{x \to \infty }\int {{{\left| {u_n^{q - 1} - {u^{q - 1}}} \right|}^{\frac{q}{{q - 1}}}}d\mu } = 0$ .

$\displaystyle \mathop {\lim }\limits_{x \to \infty } \int {\left( {u_n^{q - 1} - {u^{q - 1}}} \right)\left( {{u_n} - u} \right)d\mu } = 0$ .

Để lại phản hồi

Tháng Mười 13, 2009

Strong convergence in L^p implies convergence a.e.

Chuyên mục: Các Bài Tập Nhỏ, Giải Tích 6 (MA5205), Nghiên Cứu Khoa Học — Ngô Quốc Anh @ 21:49

This topic is to show how to prove the following statement: if $\{u_n\}_n$ converges strongly to some $u$ in $L^p(\Omega)$ , then up to a subsequence, $\{u_n\}_n$ converges almost everywhere to $u$ in $\Omega$ .

The proof relies on the so-called Tchebyshev’s inequality. To this end, we first observe that $\{u_n\}_n$ converges strongly to $u$ in $L^p(\Omega)$ means

$\displaystyle\lim\limits_{n \to \infty } \int_\Omega {{{\left| {{u_n} - u} \right|}^p}dx} = 0.$

We now apply the Tchebyshev’s inequality, indeed, for each $\varepsilon>0$ one has

$\displaystyle meas\left\{ {x:\left| {{u_n}(x) - u(x)} \right| >\varepsilon } \right\} \leqslant \frac{1}{{{\varepsilon ^p}}}\int_{\left\{ {x:\left| {{u_n}(x) - u(x)} \right| > \varepsilon } \right\}} {{{\left| {{u_n} - u} \right|}^p}dx} .$

The right hand side of the above inequality can be dominated by

$\displaystyle\frac{1}{{{\varepsilon ^p}}}\int_\Omega {{{\left| {{u_n} - u} \right|}^p}dx}$

which implies that

$\displaystyle 0 \leqslant \mathop {\lim }\limits_{n \to \infty } meas\left\{ {x:\left| {{u_n}(x) - u(x)} \right| > \varepsilon } \right\} \leqslant \mathop {\lim }\limits_{n \to \infty } \left( {\frac{1} {{{\varepsilon ^p}}}\int_\Omega {{{\left| {{u_n} - u} \right|}^p}dx} } \right) = 0.$

Thus $u_n$ converges to $u$ in measure. It turns out that up to a subsequence, $u_n$ converges to $u$ almost everywhere.

Để lại phản hồi

Tháng Chín 26, 2009

How to calculate limit by using definition of definite integral?

Chuyên mục: Các Bài Tập Nhỏ, Giải Tích 2 — Ngô Quốc Anh @ 14:23

Let $f : [a, b] \to \mathbb R$ be a continuous function, not necessarily nonnegative. Partition $[a, b]$ into $n$ consecutive sub-intervals $[x_{i-1}, x_i]$ ( $i = 1, 2, ..., n$ ) each of length $\Delta x = \frac{b-a}{n}$ , where we set $a=x_0$ , $b=x_n$ and $x_1, x_2,...,x_{n-1}$ to be successive points between $a$ and $b$ with $x_k-x_{k-1}=\Delta x$ . Let $c_k$ be any intermediate point in the sub-interval $[x_{k-1},x_k]$ . Then the sum

$\displaystyle\sum\limits_{k = 1}^n {f\left( {{c_k}} \right)\Delta x}$

is called a Riemann sum for $f$ on $[a, b]$ .

Suppose we let the number of partition in $P$ tends to infinity.

$\displaystyle\mathop {\lim }\limits_{n \to \infty } \sum\limits_{k = 1}^n {f\left( {{c_k}} \right)\Delta x} = I.$

We call $I$ the Riemann integral (or definite integral) of $f$ over $[a, b]$ and we write

$\displaystyle I = \int_a^b {f(x)dx} .$

In other words,

$\displaystyle\int_a^b {f(x)dx} = \frac{{b - a}}{n}\mathop {\lim }\limits_{n \to \infty } \sum\limits_{k = 1}^n {f\left( {{c_k}} \right)}$

if the limit on the right side exists.

If we put $c_k=x_{k-1}$ we the obtain

$\displaystyle\int_a^b {f(x)dx} = \frac{{b - a}}{n}\mathop {\lim }\limits_{n \to \infty } \sum\limits_{k = 1}^n {f\left( {a + (k - 1)\frac{{b - a}}{n}} \right)} .$

Example 1. Find

$\displaystyle\mathop {\lim }\limits_{n \to \infty } \left( {\frac{1}{n} + \frac{1}{{n + 1}} + \cdots + \frac{1}{{2n - 2}} + \frac{1}{{2n - 1}}} \right).$

Solution. Clearly

$\displaystyle\frac{1}{n} + \frac{1}{{n + 1}} + \cdots + \frac{1}{{2n - 2}} + \frac{1}{{2n - 1}} = \sum\limits_{k = 1}^n {\frac{1}{{n + (k - 1)}}} = \frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{k = 1}^n {\frac{1}{{1 + \frac{{k - 1}}{n}}}} .$

Then if we choose $a=0$ , $b=1$ we then get

$\displaystyle\mathop {\lim }\limits_{n \to \infty } \left( {\frac{1}{n} + \frac{1}{{n + 1}} + \cdots + \frac{1}{{2n - 2}} + \frac{1}{{2n - 1}}} \right) = \int_0^1 {\frac{{dx}}{{1 + x}}} .$

With this it is easy to see that

$\displaystyle\mathop {\lim }\limits_{n \to \infty } \left( {\frac{1}{n} + \frac{1}{{n + 1}} + \cdots + \frac{1}{{2n - 2}} + \frac{1}{{2n - 1}}} \right) = \ln 2$

since

$\displaystyle\int_0^1 {\frac{{dx}}{{1 + x}}} = \ln 2.$

If we put $c_k=x_k$ we the obtain

$\displaystyle\int_a^b {f(x)dx} = \frac{{b - a}}{n}\mathop {\lim }\limits_{n \to \infty } \sum\limits_{k = 1}^n {f\left( {a + k\frac{{b - a}}{n}} \right)} .$

Example 2. Find

$\displaystyle\mathop {\lim }\limits_{n \to \infty } \left( {\frac{n}{{{n^2} + {1^2}}} + \frac{n}{{{n^2} + {2^2}}} + \cdots + \frac{n}{{{n^2} + {{(n - 1)}^2}}} + \frac{n}{{{n^2} + {n^2}}}} \right).$

Solution. Clearly,

$\displaystyle\frac{n}{{{n^2} + {1^2}}} + \frac{n}{{{n^2} + {2^2}}} + \cdots + \frac{n}{{{n^2} + {n^2}}} = \sum\limits_{k = 1}^n {\frac{n}{{{n^2} + {k^2}}}} = \frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{k = 1}^n {\frac{1}{{1 + {{\left( {\frac{k}{n}} \right)}^2}}}}$

which yields

$\displaystyle\mathop {\lim }\limits_{n \to \infty } \left( {\frac{n}{{{n^2} + {1^2}}} + \frac{n}{{{n^2} + {2^2}}} + \cdots + \frac{n}{{{n^2} + {n^2}}}} \right) = \int_0^1 {\frac{{dx}}{{1 + {x^2}}}} = \frac{\pi }{4}.$

Remark. It is worth mentioning that in general it is not true that

$\displaystyle\lim \left( {summation} \right) = summation\left( {\lim } \right).$

For example, we all know that for each fixed $k$

$\displaystyle\mathop {\lim }\limits_{n \to \infty } \frac{1}{{n + k}} = 0$

but

$\displaystyle\mathop {\lim }\limits_{n \to \infty } \left( {\sum\limits_{k = 1}^n {\frac{1}{{n + k}}} } \right) = \ln 2 \ne 0 = \sum\limits_{k = 1}^n {\left( {\mathop {\lim }\limits_{n \to \infty } \frac{1}{{n + k}}} \right)} .$

The point is

$\displaystyle\lim \left( {summation} \right) = summation\left( {\lim } \right)$

holds true only for finite summation.

Để lại phản hồi

Tháng Chín 13, 2009

An algebraic identity for 9th level

Chuyên mục: Các Bài Tập Nhỏ, Linh Tinh — Ngô Quốc Anh @ 21:16

In this topic I will show you how to prove

$\sqrt[3]{2} + \sqrt[3]{{20}} - \sqrt[3]{{25}} = 3\sqrt {\sqrt[3]{5} - \sqrt[3]{4}}$

In order to prove that fact, we just do as following: by using

$(a+b+c)^2=a^2+b^2+c^2+2(ab+ac+bc)$

we obtain

${\Big( {\sqrt[3]{2} + \underbrace {\sqrt[3]{{20}}}_{\sqrt[3]{{{2^2}}}\sqrt[3]{5}} - \underbrace {\sqrt[3]{{25}}}_{\sqrt[3]{{{5^2}}}}} \Big)^2}=\sqrt[3]{{{2^2}}} + \sqrt[3]{{{2^4}}}\sqrt[3]{{{5^2}}} + \sqrt[3]{{{5^4}}} + 2\left( {\underbrace {\sqrt[3]{2}\sqrt[3]{{{2^2}}}}_2\sqrt[3]{5} - \sqrt[3]{2}\sqrt[3]{{{5^2}}} - \sqrt[3]{{{2^2}}}\underbrace {\sqrt[3]{5}\sqrt[3]{{{5^2}}}}_5} \right).$

Therefore

${\left( {\sqrt[3]{2} + \sqrt[3]{{20}} - \sqrt[3]{{25}}} \right)^2} = \sqrt[3]{{{2^2}}} + 2\sqrt[3]{2}\sqrt[3]{{{5^2}}} + 5\sqrt[3]{5} + 2\left( {2\sqrt[3]{5} - \sqrt[3]{2}\sqrt[3]{{{5^2}}} - 5\sqrt[3]{{{2^2}}}} \right).$

Clearly

$\sqrt[3]{{{2^2}}} + 2\sqrt[3]{2}\sqrt[3]{{{5^2}}} + 5\sqrt[3]{5} + 2\left( {2\sqrt[3]{5} - \sqrt[3]{2}\sqrt[3]{{{5^2}}} - 5\sqrt[3]{{{2^2}}}} \right) = 9\left( {\sqrt[3]{5} - \sqrt[3]{{{2^2}}}} \right).$

Thus

${\left( {\sqrt[3]{2} + \sqrt[3]{{20}} - \sqrt[3]{{25}}} \right)^2} = 9\left( {\sqrt[3]{5} - \sqrt[3]{4}} \right)$

which yields

$\left| {\sqrt[3]{2} + \sqrt[3]{{20}} - \sqrt[3]{{25}}} \right| = 3\sqrt {\sqrt[3]{5} - \sqrt[3]{4}} .$

Finally, by using the fact that $(a+b)^3=a^3+3a^2b+3ab^2+b^3$ we get

${\left( {\sqrt[3]{2} + \sqrt[3]{{20}}} \right)^3} - 25 = \underbrace {\left( {22 + 3\sqrt[3]{{{2^2}}}\sqrt[3]{{20}} + 3\sqrt[3]{2}\sqrt[3]{{{{20}^2}}}} \right) - 25}_{3\left( {\sqrt[3]{{{2^2}}}\sqrt[3]{{20}} + \sqrt[3]{2}\sqrt[3]{{{{20}^2}}} - 1} \right)} > 0$

which implies

${\sqrt[3]{2} + \sqrt[3]{{20}} - \sqrt[3]{{25}}}>0.$

In other words,

$\sqrt[3]{2} + \sqrt[3]{{20}} - \sqrt[3]{{25}} = 3\sqrt {\sqrt[3]{5} - \sqrt[3]{4}}.$

Để lại phản hồi

Tháng tám 29, 2009

On a polynomials of degree n, having all its zeros in the unit dis

Chuyên mục: Các Bài Tập Nhỏ, Giải tích 7 (MA4247), Linh Tinh, Nghiên Cứu Khoa Học — Ngô Quốc Anh @ 21:07

I found a very useful inequality involving a polynomials of degree $n$ , having all its zeros in the unit disk from the following paper, doi:10.1016/j.jmaa.2009.07.049, published in J. Math. Anal. Appl.

Statement. If $P(z)$ is a polynomial of degree $n$ , having all its zeros in the disk $|z| \leq 1$ , then

$\left| {zP'(z)} \right| \geq \displaystyle\frac{n} {2}\left| {P(z)} \right|$

for $|z|=1$ .

Proof. Since all the zeros of $P(z)$ lie in $latex|z| \leq 1$. Hence if $z_1, z_2,...,z_n$ are the zeros of $P(z)$ , then $|z_j| \leq 1$ for all $j =1,2,...,n$ . Clearly,

$\displaystyle\Re \frac{{{e^{i\theta }}P'\left( {{e^{i\theta }}} \right)}}{{P\left( {{e^{i\theta }}} \right)}} = \sum\limits_{j = 1}^n {\Re \frac{{{e^{i\theta }}}}{{{e^{i\theta }} - {z_j}}}} ,$

for every point $e^{i\theta}$ , $0 \leq \theta < 2 \pi$ which is not a zero of $P(z)$ . Note that

$\displaystyle\sum\limits_{j = 1}^n {\Re \frac{e^{i\theta }}{e^{i\theta } - z_j}}\geq\sum\limits_{j = 1}^n{\frac{1}{2}}=\frac{n}{2}.$

This implies

$\displaystyle\left| {\frac{{{e^{i\theta }}P'\left( {{e^{i\theta }}} \right)}}{{P\left( {{e^{i\theta }}} \right)}}} \right| \geq \Re \frac{{{e^{i\theta }}P'\left( {{e^{i\theta }}} \right)}}{{P\left( {{e^{i\theta }}} \right)}} \geq \frac{n}{2},$

for every point $e^{i \pi}$ , $0 \leq \theta < 2\pi$ . Hence

$\left| {zP'(z)} \right| \geq \displaystyle \frac{n}{2}\left| {P(z)} \right|$

for $|z|=1$ and this completes the proof.

Để lại phản hồi

Tháng tám 18, 2009

An other limit supremum of sin function

Chuyên mục: Các Bài Tập Nhỏ, Giải Tích 1, Giải Tích 6 (MA5205), Linh Tinh, Nghiên Cứu Khoa Học — Ngô Quốc Anh @ 12:35

In the topic we showed that for any irrational $\alpha$ the limit $\mathop {\lim }\limits_{n \to \infty } \sin \left( {n\alpha \pi } \right)$ does not exist. In this topic, we consider the following limit

$\mathop {\overline {\lim } }\limits_{n \to \infty } \sin \left( {nx} \right) .$

To be precise, we prove that

$\mathop {\overline {\lim } }\limits_{n \to \infty } \sin \left( {nx} \right) = 1$

for almost every $x \in [0,2\pi]$ .

Solution. Let

$A = \left\{ {x \in \left( {0,2\pi } \right): \frac{x} {\pi } \notin \mathbb{Q}} \right\}.$

Then is a measurable set of measure $2\pi$ . Moreover, for any $x \in A$ ,

$\mathop {\overline {\lim } }\limits_{n \to \infty } \sin \left( {nx} \right) = 1.$

Indeed for any $x \in A$ , since

$\left\{ {k\frac{x} {\pi } - 2l: l \in \mathbb{Z}} \right\}$

is dense subgroup of $\mathbb R$ there are sequences $\{k_n\}$ and $\{l_n\}$ of $\mathbb Z$ such that

$\mathop {\lim }\limits_{n \to \infty } \left( {{k_n}\frac{x} {\pi } - {l_n}} \right) = \frac{1} {2}.$

Since

$\frac{1} {2} \notin \left\{ {k\frac{x} {\pi } - 2l: k,l \in \mathbb{Z}} \right\}$

$\{k_n\}$ admits a subsequence $\{k'_n\}$ either increasing to $+\infty$ or decreasing to $-\infty$ . If $\mathop {\lim }\limits_{n \to \infty } {{k'}_n} = + \infty$ then

$\mathop {\lim }\limits_{n \to \infty } \sin \left( {{{k'}_n}x} \right) = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{n \to \infty } \sin \left( {...$

Otherwise $\mathop {\lim }\limits_{n \to \infty } \left( { - 3{{k'}_n}} \right) = + \infty$ and

$\mathop {\lim }\limits_{n \to \infty } \sin \left( { - 3{{k'}_n}x} \right) = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{n \to \infty } \sin \lef...$

Để lại phản hồi

Tháng tám 17, 2009

The use of equivalence in measure

Chuyên mục: Các Bài Tập Nhỏ, Giải Tích 6 (MA5205), Linh Tinh, Nghiên Cứu Khoa Học — Ngô Quốc Anh @ 14:19

In mathematics, and specifically in measure theory, equivalence is a notion of two measures being “the same”. Two measures are equivalent if they have the same null sets.

Definition. Let $(X, \Sigma)$ be a measurable space, and let $\mu, \nu : \Sigma \to [0, +\infty]$ be two measures. Then $\mu$ is said to be equivalent to $\nu$ if

$\mu (A) = 0 \iff \nu (A) = 0$

for measurable sets in $\Sigma$ , i.e. the two measures have precisely the same null sets. Equivalence is often denoted $\displaystyle{\mu \sim \nu}$ or $\mu \approx \nu$ .

In terms of absolute continuity of measures, two measures are equivalent if and only if each is absolutely continuous with respect to the other:

$\mu \sim \nu \iff \mu \ll \nu \ll \mu.$

Equivalence of measures is an equivalence relation on the set of all measures $\Sigma \to [0, +\infty]$ .

Examples.

Gaussian measure and Lebesgue measure on the real line are equivalent to one another.
Lebesgue measure and Dirac measure on the real line are inequivalent.

Application. Let $\mu$ be a finite measure on $\mathbb R$ , and define

$f\left( x \right) = \int\limits_{ - \infty }^{ + \infty } {\frac{{\ln \left| {x - t} \right|}} {{\sqrt {\left| {x - t} \right...$

Show that f(x) is finite a.e. with respect to the Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb R$ .

Proof. Let

$g\left( x \right) = \left\{ \begin{gathered} \frac{{\ln \left| x \right|}} {{\sqrt {\left| x \right|} }},x \ne 0, \hfill \\...$

then $g \in L^1(\mathbb R, d\nu)$ where

$d\nu \left( x \right) = \frac{{dx}} {{1 + {x^2}}}$

and

$f\left( x \right) = \int_{ - \infty }^{ + \infty } {g\left( {x - t} \right)d\mu \left( t \right)} ,x \in \mathbb{R}.$

Clearly

$\int_{ - \infty }^{ + \infty } {\left| {f\left( x \right)} \right|d\mu \left( x \right)} \leqslant \int_{ - \infty }^{ + \in...$

and by Fubini’s Theorem

$\int_{ - \infty }^{ + \infty } {\left( {\int_{ - \infty }^{ + \infty } {\left| {g\left( {x - t} \right)} \right|d\mu \left( t...$

then

$\int_{ - \infty }^{ + \infty } {\left| {f\left( x \right)} \right|d\mu \left( x \right)} \leqslant \int_{ - \infty }^{ + \in...$

Since

$\begin{gathered} \int\limits_{ - \infty }^{ + \infty } {\left( {\int\limits_{ - \infty }^{ + \infty } {\left| {g\left( {x -...$

Thus the following function

$x \mapsto \int\limits_{ - \infty }^{ + \infty } {\left| {g\left( {x - t} \right)} \right|d\mu \left( t \right)}$

finite a.e. with respect to the measure $\nu$ . The conclusion follows from that the measure $\nu$ and the Lebesgue measure are equivalent.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_(measure_theory)

Để lại phản hồi

Tháng tám 16, 2009

On the stability of the Runge-Kutta 4 (RK4)

Chuyên mục: Các Bài Tập Nhỏ, Giải tích 9 (MA5265), Linh Tinh, Nghiên Cứu Khoa Học — Ngô Quốc Anh @ 14:11

In the literature, the so-called RK4 is given as following: we first define the following coefficients

$\begin{gathered} {K_1} = f\left( {{t_i},{y_i}} \right), \hfill \\ {K_2} = f\left( {{t_i} + \frac{1} {2}\Delta t,{y_i} + \...$

then

${y_{i + 1}} = {y_i} + \frac{{\Delta t}} {6}\left( {{K_1} + 2{K_2} + 2{K_3} + {K_4}} \right).$

This is the most important iterative method for the approximation of solutions of ordinary differential equations

$y' = f(t, y), \quad y(t_0) = y_0.$

This technique was developed around 1900 by the German mathematicians C. Runge and M.W. Kutta.

In order to study its stability, we use the model problem

$y' = \lambda y, \quad \Re \lambda < 0.$

In other words, we replace f(t,y) by $\lambda y$ . Then the stability condition for time step $\Delta$ comes from the following condition

$\left| \frac{y_{i+1}}{y_i} \right| \leq 1.$

Applying the above discussion to RK4 method, we see that

$\begin{gathered} {K_4} = \lambda \left( {{y_i} + \Delta t{K_3}} \right), \hfill \\ {K_3} = \lambda \left( {{y_i} + \frac{...$

which implies

$\begin{gathered} {K_4} = \lambda \left( {{y_i} + \Delta t\lambda \left( {{y_i} + \frac{1} {2}\Delta t\lambda \left( {{y_i} ...$

which yields

${y_{i + 1}} = {y_i} + \frac{{\Delta t}} {6}\left( {\lambda {y_i} + 2\lambda {y_i}\left( {1 + \frac{1} {2}\Delta t\lambda } \r...$

Thus

$\frac{{{y_{i + 1}}}} {{{y_i}}} = 1 + \frac{{\Delta t}} {6}\left[ {\lambda + 2\lambda \left( {1 + \frac{1} {2}\Delta t\lambda...$

which is nothing but

$\frac{{{y_{i + 1}}}} {{{y_i}}} = 1 + \Delta t\lambda + \frac{{{{\left( {\Delta t\lambda } \right)}^2}}} {2} + \frac{{{{\left...$

Therefore, the stability condition is given as follows

$\left| {1 + z + \frac{{{z^2}}} {2} + \frac{{{z^3}}} {6} + \frac{{{z^4}}} {{24}}} \right| \leq 1, \quad \Re z < 0.$

Để lại phản hồi

Bài viết cũ hơn »

	Ngô Quốc Anh trong bài About
	Pham Quy Muoi trong bài About
	Ngô Quốc Anh trong bài Các công trình gần đây
	Ngô Quốc Anh trong bài Các công trình gần đây
	Ngô Quốc Anh trong bài Các công trình gần đây
	BDT re tien trong bài Các công trình gần đây
	Bat Dang Thuc re tie… trong bài Các công trình gần đây
	Ngô Quốc Anh trong bài Nonexpansive Maps and a fixed …
	Violet trong bài Nonexpansive Maps and a fixed …
	namdhbk trong bài Linear shooting method

Ngô Quốc Anh

Tháng Mười Một 5, 2009

An equivalent criterion for absolutely continuous functions

Tháng Mười 30, 2009

A characteristic of essentially bounded functions

Tháng Mười 17, 2009

The Brezis-Lieb lemma and several applications

Tháng Mười 13, 2009

Strong convergence in L^p implies convergence a.e.

Tháng Chín 26, 2009

How to calculate limit by using definition of definite integral?

Tháng Chín 13, 2009

An algebraic identity for 9th level

Tháng tám 29, 2009

On a polynomials of degree n, having all its zeros in the unit dis

Tháng tám 18, 2009

An other limit supremum of sin function

Tháng tám 17, 2009

The use of equivalence in measure

Tháng tám 16, 2009

On the stability of the Runge-Kutta 4 (RK4)

Đề mục

Phân loại

Lưu trữ

Liên Kết

Bài gửi gần đây

Lịch

Bình luận gần đây

Số người đang xem

Thống kê