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

A collection $\{f_n\}$ of real valued functions is said to be HK-equi-integrable on $I=[a,b]$, if there exists a gauge $\delta$ on $I$ such that for every $\epsilon>0$, there exists a $\delta$-fine tagged partition $\mathcal{P}$ of $I$ such that $\|S(f,\mathcal{P})-\int_I f\|_X<\epsilon$ for every $n$. That is, the gauge $\delta$ is independent on $n$.
Where gauge $\delta$ is any positive function $\delta:[a,b]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^+$. And $S(f,\mathcal{P})=\sum_i f(\xi_i)(x_i-x_{i-1})$.

Now my question is that does equi-integrability of $\{f_n\}$ and point wise convergence of $\{f_n\}$ to $f$ implies uniform convergence of the sequence $\{f_n\}$?

share|cite|improve this question
Please confirm: 1) The $f_n$ are assumed Riemann integrable. 2) Here the norm $\|\cdot\|_X$ is just the absolute value. 3) Here $\delta$-fine means $x_{i+1}-x_i\le \delta(\epsilon)$ for $i=0,\dots, n-1$. – Pietro Majer Aug 9 '11 at 11:37
This question is a duplicate (slightly expanded) of . @Pietro: The whole question is about Henstock–Kurzweil integral. What would be the point of asking $f_n$ to be Riemann integrable? – Emil Jeřábek Aug 9 '11 at 12:06
no special point, but to have a clear question. – Pietro Majer Aug 9 '11 at 13:23
Oh I didn't notice all these clones of the question. – Pietro Majer Aug 9 '11 at 13:26
In the closed version of the question, Emil Jeřábek says: ... I think that the intended definition of HK-equi-integrability should read: for every $\epsilon>0$ there exists a gauge $\delta$ such that for every $n$ and every $\delta$-fine partition $\mathcal P$, $|S(f_n,\mathcal P)−\int f_n|\le \epsilon$. – Gerald Edgar Aug 9 '11 at 14:24

What if you try these functions $f_n$ on $[0,1]$ ... piecewise linear, with $f_n(0) = 0$, $f_n(1/n)=-1$, $f_n(2/n)=1$, $f_n(3/n)=0$, $f_n(1)=0$.

share|cite|improve this answer

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.