3
$\begingroup$

Suppose I have $\|f_n\|_{2}^2=\int_{S}f_n(x)^2dx\rightarrow 0$ over a compact set $S\subset R^d$, and $\{f_n\}$ is $1$-Lipschitz and $1$-smooth. What kind of extra condition can I add on $S$ so that $\|f_n\|_{\infty}\rightarrow 0$?

If $S$ is $R^d$, no extra condition is needed, since for any $|f(x)|>0$ we can always construct a neighborhood $B(x,r)\subset S$ for some $r=\Theta(|f(x)|)$ and the squared integral over $B(x,r)$ is $\Theta(|f(x)|^{d+2})$. However, for a compact set it does not necessarily holds that $B(x,r)\subset S$, so I guess some regularization condition can be added to make the convergence still hold.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Welcome to MathOverflow! I have some difficulties to follow your question: (i) If $f$ is a function, how can its norm converge anywhere? Do you consider a sequence (or net) of functions? (ii) If $S$ is $\mathbb{R}^d$ and a sequence $(f_n)$ of smooth and Lipschitz continuous functions converges to $0$ with respect to the $L^2$-norm, then it does by no means follow that it converges to $0$ with respect to the $L^\infty$-norm. So I don't understand the first paragraph in your question. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 6, 2019 at 20:11
  • $\begingroup$ @JochenGlueck : Apparently, it is assumed here that the Lipschitz constant is the same for all functions $f$ under consideration. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 6, 2019 at 20:16
  • $\begingroup$ @IosifPinelis: Thank you for your remark. Yes, I just noted this point in your answer. I really think this should be pointed out explicitly in the question. (And it is one more reason why I would suggest to talk about sequences rather than just use the symbol $f$.) $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 6, 2019 at 20:20
  • $\begingroup$ @JochenGlueck Yes you are right. Let me edit the question to make it clear. $\endgroup$
    – epsilon
    Commented Sep 6, 2019 at 20:32
  • $\begingroup$ @JochenGlueck : I agree that formally it would be better to talk in terms of sequences or nets. However, we do commonly say things like $x^2\to0$ as $x\to0$. Similarly, here we are saying, somewhat informally, that $\|f\|_\infty\to0$ as $\|f\|_2\to0$. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 6, 2019 at 20:42

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

It suffices that every neighborhood of every point in $S$ have a nonzero Lebesgue measure, that is, $$g_r(x):=|S\cap B_r(x)|>0\tag{1} $$ for all $x\in S$ and all real $r>0$, where $B_r(x):=\{y\in\mathbb R^d\colon\|y-x\|<r\}$, $\|\cdot\|$ is the Euclidean norm, and $|\cdot|$ is the Lebesgue measure.

Indeed, it easy to see that for each $r>0$ the function $g_r$ is continuous on the compact set $S$ and hence $$h_r:=\min_{x\in S}g_r(x)=\min_{x\in S}|S\cap B_r(x)|>0, $$ and this is the crucial point.

Suppose now that $\|f\|_\infty\ge c$ for some real $c>0$. Then $|f(x_f)|\ge c$ for some $x_f\in S$ and hence $|f|\ge c/2$ on $S\cap B_{r_c}(x_f)$, where $r_c=\frac c{2L}>0$ and $L$ is the Lipschitz constant (one and the same for all the functions $f$ you want to deal with). So, $$\|f\|_2\ge\frac c2\,\sqrt{|S\cap B_{r_c}(x_f)|}\ge\frac c2\,\sqrt{h_{r_c}}>0. \tag{2} $$ Thus, if $\|f\|_2\to0$, then $\|f\|_\infty\to0$.

Indeed, if (say) for a sequence $(f_n)$ we have $\|f_n\|_\infty\not\to0$, then, passing to a subsequence, without loss of generality we may assume that $\|f_n\|_\infty\ge c$ for some $c>0$ and all $n$. But then, by (2), $\|f_n\|_2\ge b>0$ for all $n$, where $b:=\frac c2\,\sqrt{h_{r_c}}>0$ -- so that $\|f_n\|_2\not\to0$.


It is also easy to see that condition (1) is, not only sufficient, but also necessary. Indeed, suppose that (1) fails to hold for some $x\in S$ and some real $r>0$. For all $y\in S$, let $f(y)$ be defined as the shortest distance from $y$ to $\mathbb R^d\setminus B_r(x)$. Then $f$ is $1$-Lipschitz and $\|f\|_2=0$, whereas $\|f\|_\infty=r>0$.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks so much for the clear answer. I am thinking does it still require a lower bound like $g_r(x)>c'\cdot r^d$ for some constant $c'>0$? Otherwise we can not make sure its minimum over $S$ is greater than zero. $\endgroup$
    – epsilon
    Commented Sep 6, 2019 at 20:48
  • $\begingroup$ @epsilon : No, you don't need a power lower bound on $g_r(x)$. For instance,even if $S$ has a however thin cusp, such as $S=\{(0,0\}\cup\{(x,y)\colon0<x\le1,0\le y\le e^{-1/x}\}$ for $d=2$, it will do. The point, which is now emphasized in the answer, is that for each $r>0$ the function $g_r$ is continuous and hence attains it minimum on the compact set $S$, and then the minimum is $>0$ if $g_r>0$. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 6, 2019 at 21:45
  • $\begingroup$ @losif Pinelis: hh you are right. But at last we still need an order of $r_c$ in $h_{r_c}$ right? $\endgroup$
    – epsilon
    Commented Sep 6, 2019 at 22:17
  • $\begingroup$ @epsilon : No, we don't need any order on $h_r$. All we need is $h_r>0$ for each $r>0$, which, as shown in the answer, we do have given (1). I have now added a detail on this. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 6, 2019 at 22:58
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Epsilon, if you like the answer, then you should approve it. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 7, 2019 at 3:25

You must log in to answer this question.

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