4
$\begingroup$

Let $f : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ be a function of normalized bounded variation (NBV), meaning that $f$ is of bounded variation, $f$ is right continuous, and $f(x) \to 0$ and $x \to -\infty$. As explained in Section 3.5 of Folland's Real Analysis textbook, there is a unique complex measure $df$ with the property that $df(x_1, x_2] = f(x_2) - f(x_1)$ for all $x_1 < x_2$ in $\mathbb{R}$.

Moreover, in Exercise 34, which accompanies this section, we are asked to prove that for any two NBV functions $f$ and $g$, we have $$d(fg) = \tfrac{1}{2}(g(x+) + g(x-))df + \tfrac{1}{2}(f(x+) + f(x-))dg,$$ where $f(x\pm)$ denotes the right and left hand limits of $f$, respectively.

I would like to know whether the chain rule $d(e^f) = \tfrac{1}{2}(e^{f(x+)} + e^{f(x-)})df$, or a similar formula, is valid.

It seems plausible that a nice formula like this holds for a composition of an NBV function with an exponential. After all, $e^f$ has the same discontinuities as $f$. I have tried to prove this formula by integrating against a test function $\varphi$. By the dominated convergence theorem. $$\int \varphi \tfrac{1}{2}(e^{f(x+)} + e^{f(x-)})df = \lim_{N \to \infty} \sum_{n= 0}^N \int \frac{f^n(x+) + f^n(x-)}{2(n!)} \varphi df.$$

But I am stuck after this. Hints or solutions are greatly appreciated.

$\endgroup$
0

2 Answers 2

3
$\begingroup$

$\newcommand{\R}{\mathbb R}\newcommand{\de}{\delta}\newcommand{\ep}{\varepsilon}$No reasonable chain rule will hold here in general, if $f$ is allowed to be discontinuous.

Indeed, let $\mu_f:=df$, the Lebesgue--Stieltjes measure corresponding to the right-continuous function $f$ of bounded variation. Similarly defined is $\mu_{e^f}$. Let $f_-(x):=f(x-)$ for real $x$.

Claim: There is no chain rule such that for some real $t$ and all right-continuous functions $f\colon\R\to\R$ of bounded variation we would have \begin{equation*} d\mu_{e^f}=((1-t)e^f+te^{f-})\,d\mu_f. \tag{0}\label{0} \end{equation*} More specifically, there is no real $t$ such that for all right-continuous functions $f\colon\R\to\R$ of bounded variation we would have \begin{equation*} \mu_{e^f}([0,1])=\int_{[0,1]}((1-t)e^f+te^{f-})\,d\mu_f. \tag{1}\label{1} \end{equation*} In particular, none of the following chain rules will hold for all right-continuous functions $f\colon\R\to\R$ of bounded variation:

  • $d\mu_{e^f}=e^f\,d\mu_f$;
  • $d\mu_{e^f}=e^{f-}\,d\mu_f$;
  • $d\mu_{e^f}=\frac{e^f+e^{f-}}2\,d\mu_f$.

Indeed, let \begin{equation*} f:=1_{[0,\infty)}+b\,1_{[1,\infty)} =1_{[0,1)}+(1+b)\,1_{[1,\infty)}, \end{equation*} where $b$ is a real number. Then $f$ is a right-continuous function of bounded variation, \begin{equation*} e^f=1_{(-\infty,0)}+e\,1_{[0,1)}+e^{1+b}\,1_{[1,\infty)}, \end{equation*} \begin{equation*} \mu_f=\de_0+b\de_1,\quad \mu_{e^f}=(e-1)\de_0+(e^{1+b}-e)\de_1, \end{equation*} where $\de_x$ is the Dirac measure supported on $\{x\}$. Then \eqref{1} becomes the identity \begin{equation*} e-1+e^{1+b}-e=(1-t)e+t+b[(1-t)e^{1+b}+te]. \end{equation*} Differentiating this identity twice in $b$, we get $1=(1-t)(2+b)$ for all real $b$, which cannot be true for any given real $t$. $\quad\Box$


On a positive note, if $f$ is continuous, then it can be shown quite elementarily that the chain rule \begin{equation*} d\mu_{e^f}=e^f\,d\mu_f \end{equation*} holds. One of the ways to prove this is as follows.

Take any real $a$ and any real $\ep>0$. Let \begin{equation*} E_\ep:=\Big\{x\in[a,\infty)\colon\int_a^y(d\mu_{e^f}-e^f\,d\mu_f-2\ep|d\mu_f|)\le0 \ \forall y\in[a,x]\Big\}; \end{equation*} note that $\int_a^y$ makes sense here, since the function $f$ is continuous and hence the measures $d\mu_f$, $|d\mu_f|$, and $d\mu_{e^f}$ are non-atomic.

Note also that $a\in E_\ep$, so that $E_\ep$ is nonempty. Let \begin{equation*} s:=\sup E_\ep. \end{equation*} We want to show that $s=\infty$. To obtain a contradiction, assume the contrary. Then \begin{equation*} s=\max E_\ep\in E_\ep, \end{equation*} again because the measures $d\mu_f$, $|d\mu_f|$, and $d\mu_{e^f}$ are non-atomic and hence the integral in the definition of $E_\ep$ is continuous in $y$.

Since $f$ is continuous, there is some real $h>0$ such that for all $z\in[s,s+h]$ we have \begin{equation*} |e^{f(z)}-e^{f(s)}|\le\ep, \end{equation*} and hence for all $t\in[s,s+h]$ \begin{equation*} \int_s^{t}e^f\,d\mu_f=(f(t)-f(s))(e^{f(s)}+\theta_1\ep) \end{equation*} and (say by the mean-value theorem) \begin{equation*} \int_s^{t}d\mu_{e^f}=e^{f(t)}-e^{f(s)}=(f(t)-f(s))(e^{f(s)}+\theta_2\ep), \end{equation*} where $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ stand for certain expressions each with values in $[-1,1]$. So, again for all $t\in[s,s+h]$, \begin{equation*} \int_s^t(d\mu_{e^f}-e^f\,d\mu_f-2\ep|d\mu_f|) \le2\ep|f(t)-f(s)|-\int_s^t 2\ep|d\mu_f|\le0 \end{equation*} and hence \begin{equation*} \int_a^t(d\mu_{e^f}-e^f\,d\mu_f-2\ep|d\mu_f|) =\int_a^s(d\mu_{e^f}-e^f\,d\mu_f-2\ep|d\mu_f|) +\int_s^t(d\mu_{e^f}-e^f\,d\mu_f-2\ep|d\mu_f|) \le0+0. \end{equation*} So, $s+h\in E_\ep$, which contradicts the conditions $s=\max E_\ep$ and $h>0$.

Thus, indeed $s=\infty$, for each real $a$ and each real $\ep>0$. So, for all real $a,y$ such that $a\le y$, \begin{equation*} \int_a^y d\mu_{e^f}\le \int_a^y e^f\,d\mu_f \end{equation*} and, similarly, \begin{equation*} \int_a^y d\mu_{e^f}\ge \int_a^y e^f\,d\mu_f. \end{equation*}

So, the measures $d\mu_{e^f}$ and $e^f\,d\mu_f$ coincide on the semiring of all intervals. Therefore, $d\mu_{e^f}=e^f\,d\mu_f$. $\quad\Box$

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

Your version is clearly not completely correct since it doesn't have the right point masses $e^{f_+}-e^{f_-}$.

Since the point parts are easily dealt with by hand, we can perhaps focus on the continuous parts of the measures and simply assume that $f$ is continuous. Then it is indeed true that $d\nu=e^f\, d\mu$, with $d\mu=df$, $d\nu=de^f$. First of all, it is easy to see that $\nu\ll\mu$ ($\nu$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\mu$; cover a $\mu$-null set by intervals of small total measure). Next, the Radon-Nikodym derivative can be computed $\mu$-a.e. as a pointwise derivative $$ \frac{d\nu}{d\mu} = \lim_{h\to 0} \frac{\nu(x,x+h)}{\mu(x,x+h)} = \lim_{h\to 0} \frac{e^{f(x+h)}-e^{f(x)}}{f(x+h)-f(x)} . $$ By writing $$ e^{f(x+h)}= e^{f(x)}e^{f(x+h)-f(x)} = e^{f(x)}(1+f(x+h)-f(x))+o(f(x+h)-f(x)) , $$ we see that the limit equals $e^{f(x)}$, as required.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ "the point parts are easily dealt with by hand" -- please see my answer, which I think shows that this is actually the problem. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 24, 2022 at 4:05
  • $\begingroup$ @IosifPinelis: By "the point parts are easily dealt with by hand" I meant the (trivial) statement that $d(e^f)_{pp}$ has point mass $e^{f(x+)}-e^{f(x-)}$ at $x$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 24, 2022 at 16:19
  • $\begingroup$ @IosifPinelis: So the procedure that suggests itself is to split $f=f_c+f_{pp}$ into a continuous and point part (uniquely, at the level of the measures), apply my answer to $d(e^f)_c=d(e^{f_c})$ and my previous comment to $d(e^f)_{pp}$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 24, 2022 at 16:22
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for this clarification. However, to me a chain rule is something like $(f\circ g)'=(f'\circ g)g'$. So, with the splitting, the resulting rule does not seem to be a chain rule to me. But that may be splitting hairs. :-) $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 24, 2022 at 16:42

You must log in to answer this question.

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