3
$\begingroup$

Suppose that $E$ is a metric space, let $\mathcal{B}_E$ denote the set of its Borel subsets and suppose that $\mu$ is a probability measure on $(E,\mathcal{B}_E)$. In addition, suppose that $p:E\times \mathcal{B}_E\to[0,1]$ is a stochastic kernel such that

  • For any $B\in\mathcal{B}_E$, $p(\cdot,B):E\to[0,1]$ is a measurable map.
  • For any $x\in E$, $p(x,\cdot):\mathcal{B}_E\to[0,1]$ is a probability measure on $(E,\mathcal{B}_E)$.

It can be shown (for example, Lemma 2 on page 11 of this) that for any bounded measurable function $f$

$$\int \left(\int f(y)p(x,dy)\right)\mu(dx)=\int f(x)\nu(dx),\quad\quad(*)$$

where $\nu$ is the probability measure on $(E,\mathcal{B}_E)$ defined by

$$\nu(B):=\int p(x,B)\mu(dx).$$

My question is: If $1\leq q <\infty$ Is it ever true that $(*)$ holds for any $f\in L^q(\mu)$ if $\mu$ is an invariant probability measure of $p$? That is, if for any $B\in \mathcal{B}_E$

$$\mu(B)=\int p(x,B)\mu(dx).$$

The reason I think (hope!) there might be something to the above is that, under some mild conditions on $E$ and $\mu$, one can show that the bounded linear operator on the space of bounded measurable functions defined by $p$ can be extended to $L^q(\mu)$.

$\endgroup$
0

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

By linearity, we can assume that $f$ is non-negative. Indeed, in order to do that, we have to be sure that $\int f(y)p(x,dy)$ is finite for almost every $x$ when $f$ is a non-negative element of $\mathbb L^1(\mu)$. Define $g_n(x):=\int f(y)\chi_{\{y, f(y)\geqslant n\}}p(x,dy)$. Using invariance of $\mu$, we have $$\int f(y)\chi_{\{y, f(y)\geqslant n\}}\mathrm d\mu=\iint f(y)\chi_{\{y, f(y)\geqslant n\}}p(x,dy)\mu(dx),$$ hence $\lVert g_n\Vert_{\mathbb L^1(\mu)}\to 0$. Consequently, we can extract a subsequence $(g_{n_k})_k$ converging $\mu$-almost everywhere to $0$. In particular, for $\mu$-almost every $x$, we have finiteness of $\int f(y)p(x,dy)$.

There is a sequence of non-negative bounded measurable functions which converges pointwise to $f$ (more than almost everywhere), say $(f_n)_{n\geqslant 1}$. We thus have for each $n$, $$\int\left(\int f_n(y)p(x,dy)\right)\mu(dx)=\int f_n(x)\mu(dx).$$ Using monotone convergence theorem, the RHS converges to $\int f(x)\mu(dx)$ as $n$ goes to infinity.

For the LHS, define $g_n(x):=\int f_n(y)p(x,dy)$: this sequence is pointwise non-decreasing to $\int f(y)p(x,dy)$ hence we conclude using two times the monotone convergence theorem.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Hi, thanks for the post. Quick question, to go from non-negative functions to $f\in L^q(\mu)$ do we not require that $$\int \max\{f,0\}p(x,dy)+\int \min\{f,0\}p(x,dy)$$ is well defined (i.e. ensure that we don't end up with $\infty-\infty$)? How can we guarantee this, simply knowing that $f\in L^q(\mu)$? Or I'm I missing something? $\endgroup$
    – jkn
    Commented Jan 11, 2014 at 14:10
  • $\begingroup$ I've added details. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 11, 2014 at 15:28
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, one last subtlety (if you have the time). From the above we have that if $f\in L^p(\mu)$, then $g(x):=\int f(y)p(x,dy)$ is defined $\mu$-almost everywhere (vs if $f$ was bounded and measurable it's straightforward to show that $g$ is defined everywhere and measurable). So if $f\in L^q(\mu)$, does it make sense to be integrating $g$ with respect to $\mu$? $\endgroup$
    – jkn
    Commented Jan 11, 2014 at 17:45
  • $\begingroup$ Actually, we have finiteness of the LHS. Pick indeed $n$ such that the RHS of the first displayed equation of the answer is small than $1$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 11, 2014 at 17:53

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.