2
$\begingroup$

I am looking for a good, simple reference for the proof of Riesz-Fischer Theorem ($L^p$ spaces are complete).

An example of a not so good reference in my opinion is Royden, where he uses "rapidly Cauchy" sequences which I believe makes me more confused.

I am currently looking at Bartle, which is the best I have found so far, but it is a bit brief and there are some things I do not understand. (E.g. Why is $E$ measurable)

Hence, I am looking for a second reference that may complement Bartle.

Thanks for any help!

Ideally, I am looking for a book that is suitable for senior undergraduates. The intended purpose is to fully understand the proof of Riesz-Fischer Theorem for self-study. I am not looking for the most general proof that has Riesz-Fischer as a corollary, in fact simply $L^p(\mathbb{R})$ will be sufficient, I don't need general measure spaces.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $L^1$ case is proven in Real Analysis by Stein & Shakarchi, and the similar proof can be applied in general $L^p$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 14, 2016 at 12:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In requests for references it is particularly helpful to Readers to have some sense of your completed studies, or the intended purpose for the "good, simple reference" if not self-study. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 14, 2016 at 12:51

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

Almost everyone uses the same idea, which sounds like your definition of rapidly-Cauchy sequence. Somehow you have to find a subsequence of a Cauchy sequence $\{ f_n \}$ that converges; once you know that a subsequence converges, then the sequence itself converges. However, when authors try to break the proof into a bunch of small results, I think the simplicity of the proof is lost.

By choosing $\{ n_k \}$ so that $\|f_{l}-f_{m} \| < 1/2^k$ whenever $l, m \ge n_k$, you have a candidate sequence, written as a telescoping sum $$ f_{n_k}=f_{n_1}+(f_{n_2}-f_{n_1})+(f_{n_3}-f_{n_2})+\cdots+(f_{n_{k}}-f_{n_{k-1}}) \tag{$\dagger$} $$ Why is this a good candidate? Because, by the triangle inequality for the norm, $$ \left(\int (|f_{n_1}|+|f_{n_2}-f_{n_1}|+|f_{n_3}-f_{n_2}|+\cdots+|f_{n_k}-f_{n_{k-1}}|)^p d\mu\right)^{1/p} \\ \le \|f_{n_1}\|_p+\|f_{n_2}-f_{n_1}\|_p+\|f_{n_{2}}-f_{n_{3}}\|_p+\cdots+\|f_{n_k}-f_{n_{k-1}}\|_p \le M, $$ where $M=\|f_{n_1}\|_p+\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{2^k}$. Because the above holds for all $k$, the Monotone Convergence Theorem guarantees that the following non-negative, monotone sequence of functions converges to a finite limit a.e.: $$ g=|f_{n_1}|+\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}|f_{n_{k+1}}-f_{n_{k}}|. $$ Comparing with $(\dagger)$, you obtain the pointwise a.e. convergence of $\{ f_{n_k}\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$; and the dominated convergence theorem guarantees that the pointwise a.e. finite limit function $f$ is in $L^p$. Finally, $$ \|f-f_{n_{k}}\|_p \le \sum_{l=k}^{\infty}\|f_{n_{l+1}}-f_{n_{l}}\|_p \rightarrow 0 \mbox{ as } k\rightarrow\infty. $$ I don't think a proof of completeness can be much cleaner than that.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Very nice. Upvoted. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 14, 2016 at 15:13

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.