2
$\begingroup$

Let $E$ be a metric space and $\mathcal M(E)$ denoote the space of finite signed measures on $\mathcal B(E)$ equipped with the total variation norm $\left\|\;\cdot\;\right\|$.

I would like to know whether we can show that if $(\mu_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ is convergent with respect to the topology of weak convergence of measures, then $\left(\frac{\mu_n}{\left\|\mu_n\right\|}\right)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ is convergent as well.

This is at least true when $\mu_n$ is nonnegative for all $n\in\mathbb N$, but since the proof of this result utilizes the fact that $\left\|\mu_n\right\|=\mu_n(E)$, this doesn't seem to extend to the general case.

However, I'm especially interested in the following special case: Assume $E$ is a normed vector space and let $$\exp(\mu):=\sum_{k\in\mathbb N_0}\frac{\mu^{\ast k}}{k!},$$ where $\mu^{\ast k}$ denotes the $k$-fold convolution power, for $\mu\in\mathcal M(E)$.

I would like to know whether we can show that if $(\exp(\mu_n))_{n\in\mathbb N}$ is convergent, then $\left(\frac{\exp(\mu_n)}{\left\|\exp(\mu_n)\right\|}\right)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ is convergent as well.

Note that $\left\|\exp(\mu)\right\|=e^{\left\|\mu\right\|}$.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ First question: Surely not. Otherwise each sequence of probability measures $(\mu_n)$ would weakly converge, since $(\mu_n/n)$ converges (the other way round). $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 31, 2020 at 11:14
  • $\begingroup$ @DieterKadelka Either you got my first assertion wrong or I don't understand your counterexample. If the $\mu_n$ are probaiblity measures, then the assertion is readily "if $(\mu_n)$ converges, then $(\mu_n)$ converges", which is trivially true and does not imply that $(\mu_n)$ is guaranteed to converge. $\endgroup$
    – 0xbadf00d
    Commented Jan 1, 2021 at 5:30
  • $\begingroup$ More complete: Let $(P_n)$ be any sequence of probability measures and $\mu_n := P_n/n$. Then $(\mu_n)$ converges, but $(P_n) := (\mu_n/\|\mu_n\|)$ in general doesn't. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 1, 2021 at 9:35
  • $\begingroup$ @DieterKadelka Please take note of my comment below the answer of Iosif Pinelis. The reason why your counterexample works is that it does not satisfy $\lim_{n\to\infty}\left\|\mu_n\right\|\ne0$. $\endgroup$
    – 0xbadf00d
    Commented Jan 1, 2021 at 13:29

2 Answers 2

2
$\begingroup$

$\newcommand\R{\mathbb R}$The answer to the second question (and hence to the first one) is no.

Indeed, let $E:=\R$.

For all odd natural $n$, let $\mu_n:=\mu$, where $\mu$ is the uniform distribution on the interval $[2,3]$, so that $\mu_n(dx)=\mu(dx)=1(2\le x\le3)\,dx$, $\exp^*(\mu_n)=\exp^*(\mu)$, $\|\exp^*(\mu_n)\|=\|\exp^*(\mu)\|=e$, whence $$\frac{\exp^*(\mu_{2k+1})}{\|\exp^*(\mu_{2k+1})\|}=\frac{\exp^*(\mu)}e\to\frac{\exp^*(\mu)}e;$$ everywhere here, the convergence is for (natural) $k\to\infty$. In particular, letting $$\nu_n:=\frac{\exp^*(\mu_n)}{\|\exp^*(\mu_n)\|}\quad\text{and}\quad \nu:=\frac{\exp^*(\mu)}{\|\exp^*(\mu)\|}=\frac{\exp^*(\mu)}e,\tag{0}$$ we have $$\int1\,d\nu_{2k+1}=1\to1.\tag{1}$$

For all even natural $n$, let $\mu_n(dx):=\mu(dx)(1+2\pi\cos nx)$. Then, by the Riemann–Lebesgue lemma, $\mu_{2k}\to\mu$. Hence, by dominated convergence or using characteristic functions, $$\exp^*(\mu_{2k})\to\exp^*(\mu);$$ in particular, $$\int1\,d\exp^*(\mu_{2k})\to\int1\,d\exp^*(\mu)=e.\tag{2}$$ On the other hand, $$\|\mu_{2k}\|=\int_2^3 dx\,|1+2\pi\cos 2kx|\ge\int_2^3 dx\,(2\pi|\cos 2kx|-1)\to3.$$ The crucial point is that, for each $j\in\{0\}\cup\{2,3,\dots\}$, the support set of the measure $|\mu_{2k}|$ (which is the interval $[2,3]$) is disjoint from the support set of the measure $|\mu_{2k}|^{*j}$ (which is the interval $[2j,3j]$). Therefore, $$\liminf_k\|\exp^*(\mu_{2k})\|\ge\liminf_k\|\mu_{2k}\|\ge3$$ and hence, in view of (2), $$\limsup_k\int1\,d\nu_{2k} =\limsup_k\frac{\int1\,d\exp^*(\mu_{2k})}{\|\exp^*(\mu_{2k})\|} \le\frac e3<1.$$

Thus, in view of (0) and (1), the sequence $$\Big(\frac{\exp^*(\mu_n)}{\|\exp^*(\mu_n)\|}\Big)$$ does not converge, even though $\exp^*(\mu_n)\to\exp^*(\mu)$.

$\endgroup$
12
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your answer. (a) Your "$\exp^\ast$" is simply my "$\exp$" or is there a difference? (b) Does the converge implication fail to hold as well? $\endgroup$
    – 0xbadf00d
    Commented Dec 31, 2020 at 16:39
  • $\begingroup$ Regarding (b): This implication should generally hold. If $\mu_t$ is a net of finite signed measures such that $\mu_t/\left\|\mu_t\right\|$ weakly converges to $\mu$ and we additionally assume that $\left\|\mu_t\right\|\to a\ne 0$, then $\mu_tf=\left\|\mu_t\right\|\frac{\mu_t}{\left\|\mu_t\right\|}\to a\mu f$ for all $f\in C_b(E)$. Thus $\mu_t\to a\mu$. $\endgroup$
    – 0xbadf00d
    Commented Dec 31, 2020 at 16:46
  • $\begingroup$ @0xbadf00d : (a) Yes, my $\exp^*(\mu)$ (showing that the exponentiation is convolutional) is your $\exp(\mu)$. (b) What do you mean by "converge implication"? If by this you mean "converse implication", I think it is better to ask this additional question in a separate post. Generally, I think multiple questions in one post should be avoided. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 31, 2020 at 16:50
  • $\begingroup$ (b) Yes, sorry, that was a typo. I've meant "converse implication". I've provided an answer for this implication in this post. Please let me know whether you agree or not. $\endgroup$
    – 0xbadf00d
    Commented Dec 31, 2020 at 18:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @0xbadf00d : I am not sure about this, but my guess would be that that would not suffice. However, it would be much harder to construct a counterexample with that additional condition. I suggest you post that as a separate question. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 1, 2021 at 15:19
0
$\begingroup$

Let $E$ be a metric space.

Lemma 1: Let $(\mu_t)_{t\in I}$ be a net in $\mathcal M(E)$ with $$c:=\lim_{t\in I}\left\|\mu_t\right\|\ne0\tag2$$ and $$\nu_t:=\frac{\mu_t}{\left\|\mu_t\right\|}\;\;\;\text{for }t\in I.$$ Then,

  1. $\exists\mu\in\mathcal M(E)$ with $(\mu_t)_{t\in I}\to\mu$ weakly;
  2. $\exists\nu\in\mathcal M(E)$ with $(\nu_t)_{t\in I}\to\nu$ weakly

are equivalent. In that case, $$\nu=\frac\mu c.\tag2$$

Proof: "$\Rightarrow$": $(\mu_t)_{t\in I}\to\mu$ weakly $\Rightarrow$ $$\nu_tf=\frac1{\underbrace{\left\|\mu_t\right\|}_{\to\:c}}\underbrace{\mu_tf}_{\to\:\mu f}\xrightarrow{t\in I}\frac\mu cf\;\;\;\text{for all }f\in C_b(E)\tag3.$$

"$\Leftarrow$": $(\nu_t)_{t\in I}\to\nu$ weakly $\Rightarrow$ $$\mu_tf=\underbrace{\left\|\mu_t\right\|}_{\to\:c}\underbrace{\nu_tf}_{\to\:\nu f}\xrightarrow{t\in I}c\nu f\;\;\;\text{for all }f\in C_b(E).\tag4$$


Now assume $(E,d)$ is a metric $\mathbb R$-vector space and let $$\operatorname{CPoi}(\lambda):=\frac{\operatorname{exp}(\lambda)}{\left\|\operatorname{exp}(\lambda)\right\|}\;\;\;\text{for }\lambda\in\mathcal M(E).$$

Corollary 2: Let $(\lambda_t)_{t\in I}\subseteq\mathcal M(E)$. If $(\left\|\lambda_t\right\|)_{t\in I}$ is convergent and $$\alpha:=\lim_{t\in I}\left\|\lambda_t\right\|,$$ then

  1. $\exists\mu\in\mathcal M(E)$ with $(\operatorname{exp}(\lambda_t))_{t\in I}\to\mu$ weakly;
  2. $\exists\nu\in\mathcal M(E)$ with $(\operatorname{CPoi}(\lambda))_{t\in I}\to\nu$ weakly

are equivalent. In that case, $$\nu=\frac\mu{e^\alpha}.\tag5$$

Proof: Let $$\mu_t:=\operatorname{exp}(\lambda_t)$$ and $$\nu_t:=\operatorname{CPoi}(\lambda_t)=\frac{\mu_t}{\left\|\mu_t\right\|}$$ for $t\in I$. By definition of $\alpha$, $$c:=\lim_{t\in I}\left\|\mu_t\right\|=\lim_{t\in I}e^{\left\|\lambda_t\right\|}=e^\alpha>0\tag6$$ and hence the claim follows readily from Lemma 1.

$\endgroup$
14
  • $\begingroup$ What is your assumption about $E$? And in 2, a $t$ is missing. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 1, 2021 at 17:35
  • $\begingroup$ How do you explain/prove the second equality in (6)? $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 1, 2021 at 19:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @IosifPinelis So, if you are right, my formula for the total variation norm of $\exp(\eta)$ is wrong for signed finite measures $\eta$. What's the correct identity then? $\endgroup$
    – 0xbadf00d
    Commented Jan 3, 2021 at 5:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, I agree with the your latter claims. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 3, 2021 at 20:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @0xbadf00d : As I wrote before, a counterexample to that was given at mathoverflow.net/questions/380257/… (where $\|\exp^*(\rho_n)\|<e^{\|\rho_n\|}$). $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 8, 2021 at 16:59

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .