I think my questions relates to this other: "counterexamples to differentiation under integral sign"

In fact, it provides a counterexample

Consider $f(x,y)=y^3e^{-y^2x}$ and define $F(y) =\int_0^{\infty}f(x,y)dx$

We have that $F'(0)\not = \int_0^{\infty} \frac{\partial f}{\partial y}(x,0)dx$

(We calculate $F'(0)$ essentially using Monotone convergence theorem we can show that, for $y\in \mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\} $, $F(y)=y$ moreover $F(0)=0$ so $F'(0)=1$)

Now, I want to understand which hypothesis of Theorem 2 at this page does not hold. Obviously the third hypothesis does not hold, but I want to consider the case in which we replace it by a weacker condition:

"For each $b \in \mathbb{R}$, there exists an open interval $b\in J$ and an integrable function $g(x)$ over $(0, \infty)$ ,such that $| \frac{\partial f}{\partial y}(x,y)| \leq g(x)$ for every $y\in J$ and $\forall x$"

Now, the first hypothesis certainly holds as $\forall y, \ x\rightarrow f(x,y)$ is integrable $(0,\infty)$ by comparison with $e^{-kx}$ for appropriate positive value of $k$

Moreover $ \frac{\partial f}{\partial y}(x,y)$ exists everywhere...

So is the last hypothesis to be problematic but I can't see how as I can bound $y$ in $J$ and then just use some linear combination of $e^{-kx}$ and $ xe^{-lx}$ for suitable $k,l$ as they are both integrable over $(0,\infty)$

Thank you very much!

  • $\begingroup$ How are you going to pick k and l in such a way that the limit y->0 is covered? This is not a research level question. $\endgroup$ Dec 15 '12 at 1:44
  • $\begingroup$ Moritzplatz, note that $(F(y)-F(0))/y=\int_0^\infty y^2e^{-y^2x}dx$. It's the integral of $e^{-x}$ after rescaling. Rescaling is in fact the easiest way to make a counterxample to the dominated convergence theorem (then $F(y)$ has been defined consequently). If you make a picture of the graphs of $x\mapsto y^2e^{-y^2x}$ and compute $\sup_y y^2e^{-y^2x}$ it will be clear why the integrands are not dominated in $L^1$. $\endgroup$ Dec 15 '12 at 8:43
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks pietro, I think I've got closer to understand the problem. Is the fact that for any $x$ big enough i can find an $y_0$ close enough to zero such that $y_0^2e^{-y_0^2x}=1/x$ and then use the fact that $1/x$ is not integrable on $(k,\infty)$ for any $k$ ? thank you very much! $\endgroup$ Dec 15 '12 at 12:49
  • $\begingroup$ Precisely: there is no $g\in L^1(\mathbb{R}_+)$ such that $y^2e^{-y^2}\le g(x)$ for all $x$ and $y$, because computing the supremum you get $1/x\le g(x)$. Note that even extracting a sequence $y_n\to0$, you would always get a supremum $\sup_ n y^2 e^{-y^2 _n x}$ not integrable on $\mathbb{R}_+$. You may verify that, by a direct computation, but the simplest reason is: otherwise the dominated convergence theorem would give convergence in $L^1$ to the pointwise limit, which is $0$, whereas these functions all have $L^1$ norm equal to $1$. $\endgroup$ Dec 15 '12 at 13:45
  • $\begingroup$ thank you very much, you have been very helpfull and I think I understand this problem a lot better now! $\endgroup$ Dec 15 '12 at 13:56

You need a convenient locally convex space $E$ of functions in $x$ such that $g\mapsto \int_0^\infty g(x)\,dx$ is a bounded linear functional, and such that $y\mapsto f(\quad,y)$ is a differentiable curve in $E$, at least of Hoelder class $C^{1,\alpha}$. Then the interchange follows by the chain rule. The space $\mathcal S(-1,\infty)$ of smooth functions which decrease rapidly on the right suggests itself. This is a Frechet space with seminorms $sup \{(1+|x|^2)^m\partial_x^{k} g(x): -1<x<\infty\}$ for fixed $m,k$

Now we look at the paper: Peter W. Michor and David Mumford: A zoo of diffeomorphism groups on $\mathbb ℝ^n$. arXiv:1211.5704. (pdf)

By repeating the proof of 3.5 there (which uses the very strong theorem 2.4 of Frölicher and Kriegl) we see that:

The space $C^\infty(\mathbb R,\mathcal S(-1,\infty))$ of smooth curves in $\mathcal S(-1,\infty)$ consists of all functions $c\in C^\infty(\mathbb R\times(-1,\infty),\mathbb R)$ satisfying the following property:

$\bullet$ For all $k,m\in \mathbb N_{\ge0}$ and $\alpha\in \mathbb N_{\ge0}^n$, the expression $(1+|x|^2)^m\partial_t^{k}\partial^\alpha_xc(t,x)$ is uniformly bounded in $x\in (-1,\infty)$, locally in $t\in \mathbb R$.

Obviously, your function $f$ satisfies this.

EDIT: The "obviously" is wrong. $(1+x^2) y^3 e^{-y^2x}$ is not uniformly bounded for $(x,y)\in (-1,\infty)\times[-1,1]$. To see this insert the curve $x(t) = 1/(1+t^2)$, $y(t)=t$ to get $$(1+x^2) y^3 e^{-y^2x}= \Big(1+\frac{1}{(1+t^2)^2}\Big) t^3 e^{-\frac{t^2}{1+t^2}}, \quad t\in[-1.1]$$ which is unbounded.

Let me try again: $g\mapsto \int_0^\infty g(x)dx$ is a bounded linear functional on $L^1(-1,\infty)$, but $y\mapsto f(\quad,y)$ is not $Lip^1$ into (otherwise you could interchange).

  • $\begingroup$ Nice ! +1 for moving the goalposts. $\endgroup$ Dec 15 '12 at 9:26
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much! I will save this answer and study the concepts you use (like Hoelder classes and Frechet spaces) so that I will hopefully be able to understand it. Anyway, are you saying that I actually can exchange integration and differentiation? How does this work with what I got at zero? Thank you again and sorry for being pedantic. $\endgroup$ Dec 15 '12 at 10:42
  • $\begingroup$ @Moritzplatz: You are right, I did not read your question carefully enough. I shall edit my answer. $\endgroup$ Dec 15 '12 at 12:45

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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