Integration under functional sign - MathOverflow most recent 30 from http://mathoverflow.net 2013-05-19T23:31:41Z http://mathoverflow.net/feeds/question/96338 http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdf http://mathoverflow.net/questions/96338/integration-under-functional-sign Integration under functional sign Nimza 2012-05-08T13:54:30Z 2012-05-08T17:00:36Z <p>Let $f(x,y)$ be some bounded with its derivatives continuous function on $\Omega \times \overline{\Omega}$, where $\Omega$ is a domain in $\mathbb{R}^n$. Let $f(\cdot,y) \in \mathcal{E}(\Omega)$ for any fixed $y$. Let $L_{x} \in \mathcal{E}'(\Omega)$. Is it true that $$\int\limits_{\overline{\Omega}} L_{x}f(x,y) \, \mu(dy) = L_{x} \int\limits_{\overline{\Omega}} f(x,y) \, \mu(dy)$$ holds for any probability measure $\mu$ in $\overline{\Omega}$? If it is true, how to show it? </p> <p>If $f(x,y) \in \mathcal{E}(\Omega \times \Omega')$ where domain $\Omega'$ is such that $\overline{\Omega} \subseteq \Omega'$ then the equality holds by virtue of the tensor product of distributions theorem.</p> http://mathoverflow.net/questions/96338/integration-under-functional-sign/96348#96348 Answer by Liviu Nicolaescu for Integration under functional sign Liviu Nicolaescu 2012-05-08T15:12:27Z 2012-05-08T17:00:36Z <p>Suppose first that $L_x\in C^\infty_0(\Omega)$. Then the equality you ask about is Fubini's theorem. </p> <p>Suppose now that $L_x$ is not necessarily smooth. Choose a sequence $\newcommand{\ve}{\varepsilon}$ $L_{\ve,x}\in \mathscr{E}'(\Omega)$ that converges to $L_x$ in the weak sense. Then one needs to prove that</p> <p>$$\lim_{\ve\to 0} L_{\ve,x}\int_\Omega f(x,y)d\mu(y)=L_x\int_\Omega f(x,y)d\mu(y), \tag{A}$$</p> <p>$$\lim_{\ve\to 0}\int_\Omega (L_{\ve,x}-L_x)f(x,y)d\mu(y)=0. \tag{B}$$</p> <p>The equality (A) is an immediate consequence of the weak convergence. The equality (B) requires an additional assumption on $f$.</p> <p>Denote by $K$ a compact set containing the support of $L_x$ and $L_{\ve, x}$, $\ve$ sufficiently small. If we assume that for any multi-index $\alpha$ we have </p> <p>$$\sup_{x\in K, y\in \Omega} \partial^\alpha_x f(x,y) &lt;\infty, \tag{C}$$</p> <p>then (B) follows by invoking the uniform boundedness principle for $\mathscr{E}'(\Omega)$ which states that if a sequence $u_n \in \mathscr{E}'(\Omega)$ converges weakly to $0$, then $u_n(\phi)\to 0$ uniformly for $\phi$ in a bounded subset of $\mathscr{E}(\Omega)$. </p> <p>I recall that a subset $\Phi\subset \mathscr{E}(\Omega)$ is bounded if for any compact $K\subset \Omega$ and any multi-index $\alpha$ we have</p> <p>$$\sup_{x\in K, \phi\in \Phi} \partial^\alpha_x\phi(x) &lt;\infty.$$</p> <p><strong>Update.</strong> Let me set $\phi_y:=f(x,y)$. To insure the integrability of $y\mapsto L(\phi_y)$ for any $L\in\mathscr{E}'(\Omega)$ it suffices to assume that the map $\Omega\ni y\mapsto \phi_y\in\mathscr{E}(\Omega)$ is continuous, i.e., for any $y_0\in \Omega$, any $\ve>0$, any compact $K\subset \Omega$ and any multi-index $\alpha$ there exists $\delta>0$ such that</p> <p>$$|y-y_0|&lt;\delta \Rightarrow \sup_{x\in K}\left|\partial^\alpha_x\bigl(\; \phi_y(x)-\phi_{y_0}(x)\;\bigr )\right| &lt;\ve.$$</p> http://mathoverflow.net/questions/96338/integration-under-functional-sign/96354#96354 Answer by Phil Isett for Integration under functional sign Phil Isett 2012-05-08T16:03:42Z 2012-05-08T16:03:42Z <p>Davide's right. Neither integral makes sense because the function was only continuous. If you assume $f$ is a smooth test function, then a priori it's only clear when $\mu$ is a finite linear combination of point masses. Thus, you cannot avoid using a Riemann sums trick: approximate the more general measure with a sequence of finitely supported measures $\mu_n$. My impression is that the general theory of distributions cannot start without taking Riemann-type sums at some point and that any argument probably has this maneuver underlying it somewhere. </p> <p>For the right hand side, you need to prove that $\int f(x,y) d\mu_n \to \int f(x,y) d\mu(y)$ in some $C^k$ topology as functions of $x$ over the support of $L_x$. For the left hand side, check that $\mu_n \rightharpoonup \mu$ weakly and $L_x f(x,y)$ is continuous in $y$. This step again uses that $L_x$ is continuous with respect to $C^k$ convergence for some $k$.</p> <p>Note, if you establish this identity when $\mu$ is, say, an absolutely continuous measure with a smooth density function, then you can pass to the limit for a general finite measure by using a mollifying kernel (analogous to taking $L_{\epsilon, x}$ in Liviu's argument, but this is a mollification in the $y$ variable, and is just measure theoretic).</p>