2
$\begingroup$

I have a question about the weak convergence of measures.

Let $\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ denote the set of all borel measurable sets in $\mathbb{R}^d$, and let $m \colon \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^d) \to [0,\infty]$ denote the Lebesgue measure. Take a sequence of nonnegative continuous functions $\{\varphi_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ on $\mathbb{R}^d$ and define a sequence of Borel measures $\{\mu_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ by \begin{align*} \mu_n(B)=\int_{B}\varphi_n(x)\,m(dx),\quad B \in \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^d). \end{align*} Suppose that each $\mu_n$ is a probability measure on $\mathbb{R}^d$.

Is there an example of $\{\mu_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ and a probability measure $\mu$ such that $\{\mu_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ converges weakly to $\mu$ and that $\mu$ is singular to $m$. For such measures, can we find a Sobolev space with negative index in which $\{\mu_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ converges to $\mu$?

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Could you specific what you mean by weak convergence of measures? Convergence when tested against bounded continuous functions? (The notion "weak convergence" is used differently in probability theory and in functional analysis.) $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 25 at 21:17
  • $\begingroup$ @JochenGlueck Thank for your reply. We say that $\{\mu_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ converges weakly to $\mu$ if $\lim_{n \to \infty}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}f(x)\,\mu_n(dx)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}f(x)\,\mu(dx)$for any bounded continuous function $f\colon \mathbb{R}^d \to \mathbb{R}$. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 25 at 21:23
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Every finite measure $\mu$ is a weak limit of a sequence measures with densities, namely $\mu_n=\mu\ast \varphi_n$ with $\varphi_n(x)=n^d\varphi(nx)$ for a positive smooth function $\varphi$ with compact support and integral $1$. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 25 at 21:34
  • $\begingroup$ @JochenWengenroth Thanks for your reply. I got it. For example, if $\mu\colon \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^d) \to [0,1]$ is a Dirac measure at the origin, can we find a Sobolev space with negative index in which $\mu_n \to \mu$? I would also like to know such a proper subset of $\mathcal{S}'(\mathbb{R}^d). $ $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 25 at 21:40

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

Edited: One precise result is as follows, from Evans' Weak Convergence Methods for Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations (AMS 1990). We modify the proof of Theorem 6 (Compactness for Measures), page 7, to reach the case $U = \mathbb{R}^d$.

Theorem: Let $(\mu_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ be a tight sequence in $\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ converging weakly to $\mu$. Then $(\mu_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ is convergent in $W^{- 1, q}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ for $1 \leq q < \frac{d}{d - 1}$.

The argument is as follows: take and fix any smooth, nonnegative, radially-decreasing cutoff with $\varphi(x) = 1$ for $|x| \leq 1$, $\text{supp}(\varphi) \subseteq B(0, 2)$.

Then for any $R > 0$, the map $f \mapsto f \varphi_R$ for $\varphi_R(x) = \varphi(x / R)$ gives a bounded linear operator $T_R : W^{1, q'}(\mathbb{R}^d) \to W^{1, q}_0(B(0, 2 R))$, and it can be verified from the Leibnitz rule that $\|T_R\|_* \leq 2 + R^{- 1} \|\nabla \varphi\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^d)}$, and thus $\|T_R\|_* \leq 3$ for $R > 1$ sufficiently large.

Letting $\epsilon > 0$, we use tightness to take $R^* \gg 1$ such that for $B = B(0, R^*)$, $|\mu_n|(B^c) < \epsilon$ for all $n$, and also $|\mu|(B^c) < \epsilon$. Increasing $R^*$ if necessary, we may ensure $\|T_{R^*}\|_* \leq 3$.

We let $q' = (1 - \frac{1}{q})^{- 1}$, and form $W^{1, q'}_0(2 B)$. Because $q < \frac{d}{d - 1}$, $q' > d$, and so $W^{1, q'}_0(2 B) \hookrightarrow C_0^{1 - d / q'}(2 B)$ by the standard Sobolev-Morrey embedding result.

By Arzelà-Ascoli and the boundedness of the domain $B$, $C_0^{1 - d / q'}(2 B) \hookrightarrow C_0(2 B)$ compactly. It follows that the image of any norm-bounded set $S$ from $W^{1, q'}_0(2 B)$, $\iota(S) \subseteq C_0(2 B)$, is precompact.

So for the unit ball of $W^{1, q'}(\mathbb{R}^d)$, if we map it by $T_{R^*}$ to a bounded subset of $W^{1, q'}_0(2 B)$, this will be a totally-bounded subset in the space $C_0(2 B)$. Thus there is a finite collection $(g_i)_{i = 1}^{N(\epsilon)} \subseteq C_0(2 B)$ of points that produces an $\epsilon$-net of the image.

Now for any $f \in W^{1, q'}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ with $\|f\|_{W^{1, q'}(\mathbb{R}^d)} = 1$, we estimate $$\left| \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} f \, d\mu_n - \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} f \, d\mu \right| \leq \left| \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \varphi_{R^*} f \, d\mu_n - \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \varphi_{R^*} f \, d\mu \right| + \left| \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} (1 - \varphi_{R^*}) f \, d\mu_n - \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} (1 - \varphi_{R^*}) f \, d\mu \right|.$$

For the second term, we consider the support of the integrand, and use a base-height bound: $$(\text{II}) \leq \|(1 - \varphi_{R^*}) f\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^d)} (|\mu|(B(0, R^*)^c) + |\mu_n|(B(0, R^*)^c) ),$$ and since we know $|\mu_n|(B^c) < \epsilon$ and likewise for $\mu$, this is $$\leq C_{d, q'} \|(1 - \varphi_{R^*}) f\|_{W^{1, q'}(\mathbb{R}^d)} (\epsilon + \epsilon) \leq 2 \epsilon C_{d, q'} \|\text{Id} - T_{R^*}\|_{W^{1, q'} \to W^{1, q'}} \leq 2 (1 + 3) \epsilon C_{d, q'},$$ where $C_{d, q'}$ is some universal constant (arising from the Sobolev embedding $W^{1, q'} \hookrightarrow L^{\infty}$), and we recall that $T_{R^*}$ has operator norm $\leq 3$.

It now only remains to deal with the first term. We recall, from the total-boundedness property, that some $g_i \in C_0(2 B)$ will ensure $\|g_i - \varphi_{R^*} f\|_{L^{\infty}(2 B)} < \epsilon$. From this, we can control $$(\text{I}) \leq \left| \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} g_i \, d\mu_n - \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} g_i \, d\mu \right| + \epsilon |\mu_n|(\mathbb{R}^d) + \epsilon |\mu|(\mathbb{R}^d).$$

Weak convergence implies $|\mu_n|(\mathbb{R}^d) \leq M$ uniformly in $n$, and thus this becomes $$\|\mu_n - \mu\|_{W^{- 1, q}(\mathbb{R}^d)} = \sup_{\|f\|_{W^{1, q'}(\mathbb{R}^d)} = 1} |\langle f, \mu - \mu_n \rangle| \leq \sum_{i = 1}^{N} |\langle g, \mu_n - \mu \rangle| + (C_{d, q} + 2 M) \epsilon.$$

As $n \to \infty$, by weak convergence of $\mu_n \rightharpoonup \mu$ and the fact that the $g_i \in C_0(2 B) \subseteq C_0(\mathbb{R}^d)$, we will have $|\langle g_i, \mu_n - \mu \rangle| \to 0$ for every $i \in \{1, \dots, N\}$.

Thus $\limsup_{n \to \infty} \|\mu_n - \mu\|_{W^{- 1, q}(\mathbb{R}^d)} \leq (C_{d, q} + 2 M) \epsilon$, for every $\epsilon > 0$, which means the limit supremum is zero and we have norm convergence.

(It seems like this argument can be modified to give convergence in any $W^{- k, p}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ space with $k$ and $p$ such that $k p' > d$.)

Now, to your question specifically: since you specified the $\mu_n$ as well as the limit $\mu$ are all positive probability measures, we can conclude tightness. Indeed, given any $\delta > 0$, $\mu(\mathbb{R}^d) = 1$ implies that $\mu(K) > 1 - \delta$ for some compact $K$.

Then $\mu_n(K) > 1 - \delta$ for all $n$ sufficiently large, using positivity and weak convergence. Enlarging $K$ if necessary, this shows $\mu_n(K) > 1 - \delta$ for all $n$, and (since $\mu_n(\mathbb{R}^d) = 1$ for each $n$) we get $\mu_n(K^c) = |\mu_n|(K^c) < \delta$, and also $|\mu|(K^c) < \delta$.

This shows tightness of the sequence $(\mu_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$, and thus the result applies.

(We also note that some degree of tightness seems necessary, to obtain norm-convergence in a Sobolev space posed on all of $\mathbb{R}^d$. Otherwise, the sequence $\mu_n = \delta_{n e_1}$ of masses moving to infinity has a weak limit in $(C_0(\mathbb{R}^d))'$ of the $0$ measure. Then $\inf_n \|\mu_n - \mu\|_{W^{- 1, q}(\mathbb{R}^d)} = \inf_n \|\mu_n\|_{W^{- 1, q}(\mathbb{R}^d)} \gtrsim 1$, just by testing against translations of a single function in $W^{1, q'}$.)

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Wait a second, $C_0^{1-d/q'}(\mathbb{R}^d) \hookrightarrow C_0(\mathbb{R}^d)$ compactly? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 27 at 9:09
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks four your answer! I'll take a look at the Evans' book! $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 27 at 16:44
  • $\begingroup$ @Hannes Yep, by Arzelà-Ascoli. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 27 at 23:20
  • $\begingroup$ @PatrickLi Yes sure, that is what one wants to do, yet $\mathbb{R}^d$ is not not compact, so I suppose you propose to leverage the vanishing at infinity of $C_0$, yes? Would you mind explaining a bit or do you happen to have a reference? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 28 at 8:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Hi @Hannes, thanks so much for pointing out my massive mistake. Evans' result was addressing Rellich-Kondrachov on bounded open sets $U$, and I blindly followed his proof without picking up on the issue of a noncompact domain. It seems that for norm-convergence on all of $\mathbb{R}^d$, some tightness of the sequence appears to be required. I have modified my argument to assume this and obtain convergence in that specific setting. For OP's original problem, the sequence is tight, so this should still help with their question. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 28 at 16:11

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.