| 
June 24th, 2009, 11:19 AM
| | Newbie | | Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9
Country: Thanks: 2
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
| | Convergence of Convolutions (Approximate Convolution Identity) I'm trying to show that if a sequence of functions, (f_n) is uniformly convergent to a function f, and \phi_n (do people use LaTeX notation here?) is an approximation to the dirac delta (an approximate convolution identity), then f_n*\phi_n, i.e. the sequence of convolutions, is also convergent uniformly to f (for my purposes we can restrain ourselves to showing this on a compact set luckily!). This intuitively makes sense, but I'm having a doggone hard time showing it rigorously. Anyone have any ideas? Is this the right place for this post?
Last edited by jon.s.beardsley; June 24th, 2009 at 11:26 AM.
Reason: noticed you could make things urgent!, plus new information
| 
June 24th, 2009, 12:03 PM
| | Newbie | | Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9
Country: Thanks: 2
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
| | Let me make this simpler. Can we at least show that f_n*\phi_n is pointwise convergent to f? | 
June 24th, 2009, 12:10 PM
| | MHF Contributor | | Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Lyon, France
Posts: 1,003
Country: Thanks: 53
Thanked 640 Times in 543 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by jon.s.beardsley I'm trying to show that if a sequence of functions, (f_n) is uniformly convergent to a function f, and \phi_n (do people use LaTeX notation here?) is an approximation to the dirac delta (an approximate convolution identity), then f_n*\phi_n, i.e. the sequence of convolutions, is also convergent uniformly to f (for my purposes we can restrain ourselves to showing this on a compact set luckily!). This intuitively makes sense, but I'm having a doggone hard time showing it rigorously. Anyone have any ideas? Is this the right place for this post? | Have you tried to write  ? Then  tends to 0 (by uniform convergence of  to  ), and  tends to 0 as well (usual result about convolution with an approximation of delta).
nb: click on the formulas to see what I typed to get them. | | The following users thank Laurent for this useful post: | |  | 
June 24th, 2009, 12:33 PM
| | Newbie | | Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9
Country: Thanks: 2
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
| | So I'm assuming we can use  because on a compact set the function is necessarily bounded? For  the only condition I have is that it is continuous (I could use locally integrable instead). Also, is there any way you might clarify the algebra in creating that first inequality you have? I understand rewriting the convolution (very clever!) but I have trouble seeing how we then immediately go to the inequality with the norms in it. Thanks so much. | 
June 24th, 2009, 12:41 PM
| | MHF Contributor | | Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Lyon, France
Posts: 1,003
Country: Thanks: 53
Thanked 640 Times in 543 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by jon.s.beardsley So I'm assuming we can use  because on a compact set the function is necessarily bounded? For  the only condition I have is that it is continuous (I could use locally integrable instead). Also, is there any way you might clarify the algebra in creating that first inequality you have? I understand rewriting the convolution (very clever!) but I have trouble seeing how we then immediately go to the inequality with the norms in it. Thanks so much. | The first inequality is: for every  ,  (I bound  by its maximum value, and  because  is positive (?)), hence we have an upper bound independent of  . This gives what I wrote.
Since there is uniform convergence, by definition  is finite and converges to 0. The compacity is involved in the justification of the second term: why  converges uniformly to  . | | The following users thank Laurent for this useful post: | |  | 
June 24th, 2009, 12:42 PM
| | Newbie | | Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9
Country: Thanks: 2
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
| | Dearly sorry about the trouble but The first inequality is: for every  , [LaTeX Error: Image is too big (644x37, limit 600x220)] | 
June 24th, 2009, 12:46 PM
| | Newbie | | Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9
Country: Thanks: 2
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
| | nevermind, i have the TeX in my e-mail. Thanks! | 
June 24th, 2009, 12:57 PM
| | Newbie | | Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9
Country: Thanks: 2
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
| | How is it that  converges uniformly? As far as I understood, pointwise convergence on a compact set does not necessarily imply uniform convergence. | 
June 24th, 2009, 01:14 PM
| | MHF Contributor | | Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Lyon, France
Posts: 1,003
Country: Thanks: 53
Thanked 640 Times in 543 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by jon.s.beardsley How is it that  converges uniformly? As far as I understood, pointwise convergence on a compact set does not necessarily imply uniform convergence. | I guess you mean  .
Since this is the result in the case when  for all  , I supposed you already knew that  converges uniformly to  . (So that you were asked for a generalization of this fact)
This is a usual property of approximations of delta, a quick one but not a trivial one. On a compact set, if  is continuous,  . The idea for the proof is to write  , and to use the fact that  is 0 away from 0 (precisions depend on your own definition) so that the integral reduces to a segment around  of small width. Using the uniform continuity of  (that's were compacity is involved), we conclude. (Use an  for the proof) I guess you already met this proof in your lecture, didn't you? | 
June 24th, 2009, 01:20 PM
| | Newbie | | Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9
Country: Thanks: 2
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
| | Thankyou for your help. I have not had any sort of lecture or class on this material. I am attempting to prove some properties of generalized functions for an undergraduate research thesis, and I'm having to figure much out my own (i.e. measure theory, distributions, a lot of functional analysis). I'm trying to show that a class of generalized functions form a sheaf (you know, those things Grothendieck liked) over locally compact spaces, and am starting with  . Right now I'm working on a glueing property. Thanks again for all the help. | 
June 24th, 2009, 02:10 PM
| | Newbie | | Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9
Country: Thanks: 2
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
| | I cannot see how  is true. | 
June 24th, 2009, 02:43 PM
| | MHF Contributor | | Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Lyon, France
Posts: 1,003
Country: Thanks: 53
Thanked 640 Times in 543 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by jon.s.beardsley I cannot see how  is true. | Because  ( and  as well) and, since  (approximation of delta...),  (change of variable) | 
June 26th, 2009, 06:22 AM
| | Newbie | | Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9
Country: Thanks: 2
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
| | All is clear now! Thankyou! | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:29 PM. | | |