Re: measure and limit

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 09:58:13 EDT, eugene <jane1806@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Let (A_n)_n be a sequence of Lebesgue measurable subsets of [0,1], such that for any interval (a,b) we have that
lim_{n->infty} m (A_n & (a;b) ) = (b-a)/3.
Prove that for any function f: [0,1]->R of bounded variation lim_{n->infty} int_{A_n} f(x)dx = int_0^1 f(x)dx.

You left out a 3 in the last equation.

Also I suspect you stated the hypotheses wrong - I don't
see what this has to do with bounded variation.

Here m is a Lebesgue measure on R and a sign "&" means an interesection.

Any ideas would be very apprecitable

Thanks


************************

David C. Ullrich
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: prime number function
    ... (Is there an algebraic formula for that function? ... probably the question you meant - I suspect the answer ... David C. Ullrich ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: measure and limit
    ... Also I suspect you stated the hypotheses wrong - I ... see what this has to do with bounded variation. ... *All the functions of bounded varioation being the differences of two non-decreasing functions belong ot L^. ... David C. Ullrich ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: limit of N*0 as N->oo
    ... David C. Ullrich wrote: ... > (STAN MULAIK) wrote: ... as I suspect you're aware. ... David Cantrell ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Distribution of an infinite order
    ... Exactly what do we mean by the "order" of a distribution? ... I'm not sure I understand the question, but I suspect that the ... David C. Ullrich ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Uniform convergence of Fourier series
    ... A sufficient condition for Sto converge uniformly to f is that f be of bounded variation. ... David C. Ullrich ...
    (sci.math)