3
$\begingroup$

Suppose that $\alpha_n$ is a sequence of positive numbers converging to $0$.

Question. Is there a bounded measurable function $f$, say $1$-periodic, such that $f_n(x)=f(x-\alpha_n)$ does not converge to $f(x)$ for any $x$ in some set $A$ of positive Lebesgue measure?

This of course is not the case when $f$ is continuous, or when its set of discontinuities has measure zero. In fact such a function, if it exists, must have support on a totally disconnected set of the real line.

Edit: If such $f$ exist, then considered as a function on $\mathbb{T}$ one would have $$ \|f_n-f\|_{L_1(\mathbb{T})}\xrightarrow{n\rightarrow\infty}0$$ and so, every subsequence fo $f_n$ would have an almost surely convergent subsequence; which makes $f(x)$ very sensitive to small variations of the argument $x$.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Note that a non-zero constant function $f$ answers affirmatively to the question as it is. Could you clarify? What is $x$ etc. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 19, 2021 at 7:21
  • $\begingroup$ I think maybe he means “for almost every $x$, $f_n (x)$ fails to converge to $f(x)$. $\endgroup$
    – Nate River
    Commented Apr 19, 2021 at 7:39
  • $\begingroup$ I don't know the answer to your precise question, but the almost-everywhere convergence of a subsequence essentially follows from the continuity of the translation operator $t \in \mathbf{R} \mapsto [\tau_t f: x \mapsto f(x-t)]$ in the $L^p$-spaces, for $p < \infty$. For this it is sufficient to have $f \in L^p(\mathbf{R})$. Although this isn't quite the case for you, the question can be reduced to this. $\endgroup$
    – Leo Moos
    Commented Apr 19, 2021 at 13:24
  • $\begingroup$ @LeoMoos: I was typing an edit to the posting when your comment came in. I am aware of the smoothness of the translation operator in $L_p$. That is what would make $f$ somewhat strange. It was suggested to use $f=\mathbb{1}_F$, where $F$ is a fat Cantor set. The the problem would be to see that $F\cap \limsup_n(F-a_n)$ has mass less that $m(F)$. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 19, 2021 at 14:24
  • $\begingroup$ Related on Math.SE: math.stackexchange.com/questions/1920408/…, though this constructs a specific sequence instead of starting with an arbitrary one. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 21, 2021 at 4:07

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

These questions boil down to questions about maximal inequalities. If you define $(T_nf)(x)=f(x-\alpha_n)$, then maximal inequalities are concerned with the operator $Mf(x)=\sup_n |T_nf(x)|$ and the finite approximations $M_nf(x)=\max_{k\le n}|T_kf(x)|$.

One then asks whether the (non-linear) operator $M$ is bounded in the "weak $L^1$ norm" (which is not a norm at all!). The weak $L^1$ norm of a function $f$ is $\|f\|_{1,\infty}:=\sup_t t\cdot\lambda\{x\colon |f(x)|\ge t\}$ (that is the area of the largest rectangle under the graph). A key example of something with finite weak $L^1$ norm, but infinite $L^1$ norm is $f(x)=\frac 1x$ (which clearly has weak $L^1$ norm 1).

A weak $L^1$ maximal inequality is an inequality of the form $\|Mf\|_{1,\infty}\le C\|f\|_1$ for all $f\in L^1$. One can show (as in this question) that if a weak $L^1$ maximal inequality is satisfied, then the set of $f$ for which $T_nf$ converges pointwise to $f$ is an $L^1$ closed set. Since for continuous functions $T_nf$ converges pointwise to $f$, and continuous functions form a dense set, if a weak $L^1$ maximal inequality is satisfied, it follows that $T_nf$ converges pointwise to $f$ for all $f\in L^1$.

The converse is also true: if there is not a weak $L^1$ maximal inequality, then there are $L^1$ functions for which $T_nf$ does not converge pointwise to $f$. This is based on (for example) taking positive $f_j$'s of $L^1$ norm $2^{-j}$ so that $Mf_j$ is of weak $L^1$ at least norm $2^j$. Summing the $f_j$'s gives a counterexample.

In this case, it is not hard to see that there is no weak $L^1$ maximal inequality: suppose that the $(\alpha_n)$ are strictly decreasing (this is not essential, but simplifies things). Let $N\in\mathbb N$ and let $\delta<\min_{i\le N}(\alpha_i-\alpha_{i+1})$. Then if $f$ is the indicator function of an interval $J$ of length $\delta$, then $M_Nf$ takes the value 1 on $\bigcup_{i=1}^N(J+\alpha_i)$. By the choice of $\delta$, these intervals are disjoint, so we see that $\|Mf\|_{1,\infty}\ge N\|f\|_1$ for this $f$.

In your question, you asked for a bounded function. You can do this in the same way, but you have to tinker with the construction by hand to make sure it does the right thing.

Edited to add details of (unbounded) $L^1$ counterexample

You can pick out a subsequence of the $\alpha_n$'s so that $\alpha_n<\frac 12\alpha_{n-1}$. Clearly if you don't have pointwise convergence along this sequence, nor do you have pointwise convergence along the full sequence.

Let $k$ be given. If $f$ is the indicator function of an interval of length $\alpha_{4^{k+1}}$, then $T_{4^k}f,\ldots, T_{4^{k+1}-1}f$ are disjointly supported. $\|\max_{4^k\le j< 4^{k+1}}T_jf\|_{1,\infty}=3\cdot 4^k\|f\|_{1,\infty}$.

Now if you take $g_k$ to be a randomly chosen sum of $3^{-k}/\alpha_{4^{k+1}}$ translates of $f$, you obtain a function of norm $3^{-k}$ where for each $x$, the probability that $\max_{4^k\le j< 4^{k+1}}T_jg_k$ is not 1 is $(1-3^{-k})^{3\cdot 4^k}$, which is microscopic. Hence $g_k$ is very likely to give you "hits" when you apply $T_j$'s in the range $4^k$ to $4^{k+1}$. Summing the $g_k$'s, you get a function giving hits in all of these ranges.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ I would like to answer by analogy. There is a standard analysis example of a sequence of functions that converges in measure to 0, but not pointwise. Something similar is happening here. The $g$ is the sum of a bunch of $f_j$, each supported on a collection of microscopic intervals. Then the $T_nf_j$ are disjointly supported for all sufficiently small $n$. The result of this is for each $n$, $T_ng$ is close to $g$ for most $x$'s. But, for a.e. $x$, there are lots of $n$'s where $T_ng$ is picking up mass from the spikes. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 21, 2021 at 6:50
  • $\begingroup$ @AntonyQuas: Thanks for the explanation of counter example specific to $T_nf=f(\cdot-\alpha_n)$. My question was more about paragraph "The converse is also true: If there is no weak ..." I thought the construction there was about proving that "$T_nf\xrightarrow{n\rightarrow\infty }T_*f$ point wise ($T_n$ general $L_1(\mathbb{R})$ bounded operators) imply weak Maximal inequality" as in D. L. Burkholder or Swayer. If it was, I could not see why $T_ng\nrightarrow g$ a.s. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 21, 2021 at 11:27
  • $\begingroup$ @OliverDiaz: I'm not sure I understand your comment here. I agree I was a bit vague in the paragraph you reference. I don't know the exact conditions under which the failure of a maximal inequality implies failure of pointwise convergence. However, Sawyer's paper that you reference is good enough for your example: your operators are distributive in Sawyer's sense, so the fact that they fail to satisfy a maximal inequality implies that there is not pointwise a.e. convergence. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 21, 2021 at 23:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What I was trying to say is in the aforementioned paragraph I tough you were presenting a proof that almost surely convergence implies a weak type maximal inequality. As I just learn, that is false but in some interesting cases it works ( Stein, Swayer for finite measures under some conditions). But all this stuff the you may know very well. I also found a real line result for $T_nf:= f*\mu_n$ where $\mu_n$ are measures with compact support, the OP being the particular case $\mu_n=\delta_{\alpha_n}$. This is in Stein's Harmonic Analysis p. 441. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 22, 2021 at 0:50
  • $\begingroup$ Good to know. Actually I don’t know this area super-well. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 22, 2021 at 1:47

You must log in to answer this question.

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