MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Suppose $f$ is a bounded continuous function on $[0,\infty)$ such that $\int_0^\infty f(t) \exp(-xt) \: dt \rightarrow 0$ as $x \rightarrow 0^+$. Does it follow that $\int_0^\infty f(t) \exp(-xt^2) \: dt \rightarrow 0$ as $x \rightarrow 0^+$? Is the reverse implication true?

I suspect that the answer is "no" in both cases, so here's my real (although vague) question: is there a notion of regularity for $f$ (along the lines of the notion of almost-periodicity) such that the two limit-assertions imply each other when $f$ is regular?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 3 down vote accepted

There exists a Tauberian theorem of the following form. Suppose that $a\in L^1_{loc}(\mathbb{R}_{>0})$ and for any $x>0$ the integral

$$ G(x):=\int_0^\infty e^{-x^2t^2} a(t) dt $$

exists and satisfies

$$ \sup_{x>0}|G(x)|<\infty, $$


$$ \lim_{x\searrow 0} G(x) = A\in\mathbb{R}. $$

The function $G(x)$ is called the Gauss-Weierstrass transform of $a$. Suppose also that the integrals

$$ L(x)=\int_0^\infty e^{-xt} a(t) dt $$

exist for any $x>0$. Then

$$ \lim_{x\searrow 0} L(x)= A= \lim_{x\searrow 0} G(x).$$

Let us point out that if $a\in L^1(\mathbb{R}_{>0})$, then the integrals $G(x)$ and $L(x)$ exist for any $x$ and

$$ A=\int_0^\infty a(t) dt. $$

For a proof see Chap.I, Sec 14, Thm. 21 of the book

S. Bochner, K. Chandrasekharan: Fourier Transforms, Ann. Math. Studies, vol. 19, Princeton University Press, 1949.

Addendum It seems that one of Wiener's Tauberian theorem. (see J. Korevaar: Tauberian Theory. A Century of developments, Theorem 5.1, Chap II).

share|cite|improve this answer
@Liviu: Thanks, but I am confused. What is $s$? Also, does $L_{loc}^1$ mean locally integrable in the sense of being integrable over every finite interval, or is some sort of uniformity required? – James Propp Mar 3 '13 at 4:34
That $s$ was mant to be an $x$ I fixed the typo. $L^1_{loc}$ means integrability on compacts, no uniformity assumed. – Liviu Nicolaescu Mar 3 '13 at 10:24
Looks like your addendum (about Wiener) got truncated or something (it doesn't appear to be a complete sentence). Can you re-edit it? Thanks! – James Propp Feb 14 '14 at 14:26
@ James I don't remember what I was attempting to say almost a year ago. Perhaps the details are in the reference I gave. I am on the road and I cannot access the book. – Liviu Nicolaescu Feb 15 '14 at 13:30

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.