1
$\begingroup$

For any $\alpha\in [0, 1]$ and $g:[a, b]\to [0, 1]$, let us define $g^{-}:[0, 1]\to [a, b]$, by the formula $g^{-}(\alpha) = \inf (x\in [a, b] ; g(x)\ge \alpha )$.

Let $f_{n}, f : [a, b]\to [0, 1]$, $n\in \mathbb{N}$, be continuous on $[a, b]$, such that the value $1$ is attained, for $f$ and for all $f_{n}$. It is true that if $f_{n}\to f$ uniformly on $[a, b]$, then $f_{n}^{-}(\alpha)\to f^{-}(\alpha)$, almost everywhere in $[0, 1]$ ?

Thank you in advance.

Best, George

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ First you have $g$ defined on $[a,b]$, then you ask a conclusion for any $a \in [0,1]$. Not the same $a$? $\endgroup$ Apr 18, 2012 at 15:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In addition to what Gerald Edgar asks: how do you define the inf in case the set is empty? That being said, as far as I understand the question, I doubt this is true. Say take maps from [0,1] to itself that are straight lines from some value t, say (1-1/n), at 0 to 1 at 1. Let your sequences of functions be such that t converges to 1; this will converge uniformly to constant 1. While this minus transform you consider at 1 should be 1 for all these functions it should be 0 for the limit (if I understand the def correctly). $\endgroup$
    – user9072
    Apr 18, 2012 at 15:55
  • $\begingroup$ One more thought: I guess (but did not check in detail as long as the def is not completely clear) if you change gretear-equal to strict greater this would work. $\endgroup$
    – user9072
    Apr 18, 2012 at 16:20
  • $\begingroup$ I apologize, $a$ in the definitions of $g^{-}$, $f_{n}^{-}$ and $f^{-}$ is in fact $\alpha$ (to be not confused with the endpoint $a$ of the interval $[a, b]$. $\endgroup$
    – George
    Apr 18, 2012 at 16:40
  • $\begingroup$ @quid: it seems to me that if we change the definition of f-minus to make the inequality strict, then it is still seen to be false by a similar counterexample: let f_n be 1/n on the interval [0,1/2] and a straight line on the interval [1/2,1]. For each of these functions f_n, the inf of the x with f_n(x) > 0 is 0, but their limit f is 0 on the interval [0,1/2], so the inf of the x with f(x) > 0 is 1/2. $\endgroup$ Apr 18, 2012 at 17:53

2 Answers 2

1
$\begingroup$

There are two problems:

  1. Replace a continuous $g:[a,b]\to [0,1]$ by its monotone non-decreasing majorant $g^{\text{mon}}$ which is the infimum of all monotone non-increasing functions $\ge g$. I did not check the details, but this operation might be continuous in the $\sup$-norm.

  2. Is taking inverse on the space of monotone non-decreasing functions $f:[a,b]\to [0,1]$ with $f(a)=0$ (?!) and $f(b)=1$ (?!) into the space of monotone non-decreasing functions $[0,1]\to [a,b]$ continuous with respect to the $\sup$-norms?

This two hints might help you to decide the question.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

The inf in case the set is empty is well-defined according to his assumption.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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