Convergence in measure

Convergence in measure is either of two distinct mathematical concepts both of which generalize the concept of convergence in probability.

Definitions

edit

Let   be measurable functions on a measure space   The sequence   is said to converge globally in measure to   if for every     and to converge locally in measure to   if for every   and every   with    

On a finite measure space, both notions are equivalent. Otherwise, convergence in measure can refer to either global convergence in measure[1]: 2.2.3  or local convergence in measure, depending on the author.

Properties

edit

Throughout,   and   ( ) are measurable functions  .

  • Global convergence in measure implies local convergence in measure. The converse, however, is false; i.e., local convergence in measure is strictly weaker than global convergence in measure, in general.
  • If, however,   or, more generally, if   and all the   vanish outside some set of finite measure, then the distinction between local and global convergence in measure disappears.
  • If   is σ-finite and (fn) converges (locally or globally) to   in measure, there is a subsequence converging to   almost everywhere.[1]: 2.2.5  The assumption of σ-finiteness is not necessary in the case of global convergence in measure.
  • If   is  -finite,   converges to   locally in measure if and only if every subsequence has in turn a subsequence that converges to   almost everywhere.
  • In particular, if   converges to   almost everywhere, then   converges to   locally in measure. The converse is false.
  • Fatou's lemma and the monotone convergence theorem hold if almost everywhere convergence is replaced by (local or global) convergence in measure.
  • If   is  -finite, Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem also holds if almost everywhere convergence is replaced by (local or global) convergence in measure.[1]: 2.8.6 
  • If   and μ is Lebesgue measure, there are sequences   of step functions and   of continuous functions converging globally in measure to  .
  • If   and   are in Lp(μ) for some   and   converges to   in the  -norm, then   converges to   globally in measure. The converse is false.
  • If   converges to   in measure and   converges to   in measure then   converges to   in measure. Additionally, if the measure space is finite,   also converges to  .

Counterexamples

edit

Let  ,   be Lebesgue measure, and   the constant function with value zero.

  • The sequence   converges to   locally in measure, but does not converge to   globally in measure.
  • The sequence
 
where   and  , the first five terms of which are
 
converges to   globally in measure; but for no   does   converge to zero. Hence   fails to converge to   almost everywhere.[1]: 2.2.4 
  • The sequence
 
converges to   almost everywhere and globally in measure, but not in the  -norm for any  .

Topology

edit

There is a topology, called the topology of (local) convergence in measure, on the collection of measurable functions from X such that local convergence in measure corresponds to convergence on that topology. This topology is defined by the family of pseudometrics   where   In general, one may restrict oneself to some subfamily of sets F (instead of all possible subsets of finite measure). It suffices that for each   of finite measure and   there exists F in the family such that   When  , we may consider only one metric  , so the topology of convergence in finite measure is metrizable. If   is an arbitrary measure finite or not, then   still defines a metric that generates the global convergence in measure.[2]

Because this topology is generated by a family of pseudometrics, it is uniformizable. Working with uniform structures instead of topologies allows us to formulate uniform properties such as Cauchyness.

See also

edit

References

edit
  1. ^ a b c d Bogachev, Vladimir Igorevich (2007). Measure theory. Berlin New York: Springer. ISBN 978-3-540-34514-5.
  2. ^ Vladimir I. Bogachev, Measure Theory Vol. I, Springer Science & Business Media, 2007
  • D.H. Fremlin, 2000. Measure Theory. Torres Fremlin.
  • H.L. Royden, 1988. Real Analysis. Prentice Hall.
  • G. B. Folland 1999, Section 2.4. Real Analysis. John Wiley & Sons.