Part a.) Under the given conditions, we know that \forall \epsilon > 0 there exists r > 0 such that:
\frac{m(E \cap [-r,r])}{m([-r,r])} \geq (1-\epsilon)
Now, simply observe (by the translation / rotation invariance of the Lebesgue Measure):
m(-E \cap [-r,r]) = m(E \cap [-r,r]) \geq (1-\epsilon)2r
Thus, for \epsilon < \frac{1}{2}:
0 < (1-2\epsilon)2r \leq m(-E \cap E \cap [-r,r])
...and thus, since these sets have positive measure, we can always find a sequence of x_n's that satisfy the condition.
Part b.) It suffices to simply consider the cE case, where c > 1. Since:
\frac{m(cE \cap [-r,r])}{m([-r,r])} = \frac{m(E \cap [-\frac{r}{c}, \frac{r}{c}])}{m([-\frac{r}{c},\frac{r}{c}])}
We have:
m(cE \cap [-r,r]) = \frac{m([-r,r])}{m([-\frac{r}{c},\frac{r}{c}])}m\Big(E \cap \Big[-\frac{r}{c},\frac{r}{c}\Big]\Big) = \ldots
\ldots = cm\Big(E \cap \Big[-\frac{r}{c},\frac{r}{c}\Big]\Big)
Thus, like in part a, we have that since \forall \epsilon > 0 there exists an r_0 > 0 such that \forall r \in (0,r_0):
m(E \cap [-r,r]) > (1 - \epsilon)2r
Therefore, since \frac{r}{c} < r, we have:
m(cE \cap [-r,r]) = cm\Big(E \cap \Big[-\frac{r}{c},\frac{r}{c}\Big]\Big) > c(1 - \epsilon)2\frac{r}{c} = \ldots
\ldots = (1 - \epsilon)2r > 0
...when \epsilon < \frac{1}{2}. Thus, under these settings, the estimate:
m(cE \cap E \cap [-r,r]) > (1 - 2\epsilon)2r
...holds, \implies we can choose a sequence of x_n's satisfying the desired condition.
To see that this condition holds for 0 < c < 1, observe that if we simply define cE = F, that: \frac{1}{c}F = E, and the statement holds per the previous argument.
Now, since we know it works for c > 0, and c = -1 (from Part a.), simply combine the arguments to see that this clearly works for c \in \mathbb{R} \backslash \lbrace 0 \rbrace.
In preparation for a qualifying exam in Real Analysis, during the summer of 2013, I plan to solve as many problems from Stein & Shakarchi's Real Analysis text as I can. Please feel free to comment or correct me as I make my way through this.
Friday, July 5, 2013
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
3.2
Recall the statement from exercise 3.1c, however, instead of:
\int_\mathbb{R}^d K_\delta (y) = 1
Write: (\dagger) For some particular C \in \mathbb{R}:
\int_\mathbb{R}^d K_\delta (y) = C
The new statement should read:
\dagger \hspace{0.25cm} \Rightarrow (f*K_\delta)(x) \to Cf(x) \hspace{0.25cm} \text{as} \hspace{0.25cm} \delta \to 0
The argument follows identically to how the C=1 case is shown for approximations to the identity. Now, simply consider C = 0, and we're done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)