Gives condition for a set of functions to be relatively compact in an Lp space
In functional analysis , the Fréchet–Kolmogorov theorem (the names of Riesz or Weil are sometimes added as well) gives a necessary and sufficient condition for a set of functions to be relatively compact in an L p space . It can be thought of as an L p version of the Arzelà–Ascoli theorem , from which it can be deduced. The theorem is named after Maurice René Fréchet and Andrey Kolmogorov .
Statement
Let
B
{\displaystyle B}
be a subset of
L
p
(
R
n
)
{\displaystyle L^{p}(\mathbb {R} ^{n})}
with
p
∈
[
1
,
∞
)
{\displaystyle p\in [1,\infty )}
, and let
τ
h
f
{\displaystyle \tau _{h}f}
denote the translation of
f
{\displaystyle f}
by
h
{\displaystyle h}
, that is,
τ
h
f
(
x
)
=
f
(
x
−
h
)
.
{\displaystyle \tau _{h}f(x)=f(x-h).}
The subset
B
{\displaystyle B}
is relatively compact if and only if the following properties hold:
(Equicontinuous)
lim
|
h
|
→
0
‖
τ
h
f
−
f
‖
L
p
(
R
n
)
=
0
{\displaystyle \lim _{|h|\to 0}\Vert \tau _{h}f-f\Vert _{L^{p}(\mathbb {R} ^{n})}=0}
uniformly on
B
{\displaystyle B}
.
(Equitight)
lim
r
→
∞
∫
|
x
|
>
r
|
f
|
p
=
0
{\displaystyle \lim _{r\to \infty }\int _{|x|>r}\left|f\right|^{p}=0}
uniformly on
B
{\displaystyle B}
.
The first property can be stated as
∀
ε
>
0
∃
δ
>
0
{\displaystyle \forall \varepsilon >0\,\,\exists \delta >0}
such that
‖
τ
h
f
−
f
‖
L
p
(
R
n
)
<
ε
∀
f
∈
B
,
∀
h
{\displaystyle \Vert \tau _{h}f-f\Vert _{L^{p}(\mathbb {R} ^{n})}<\varepsilon \,\,\forall f\in B,\forall h}
with
|
h
|
<
δ
.
{\displaystyle |h|<\delta .}
Usually, the Fréchet–Kolmogorov theorem is formulated with the extra assumption that
B
{\displaystyle B}
is bounded (i.e.,
‖
f
‖
L
p
(
R
n
)
<
∞
{\displaystyle \Vert f\Vert _{L^{p}(\mathbb {R} ^{n})}<\infty }
uniformly on
B
{\displaystyle B}
). However, it has been recently shown that equitightness and equicontinuity imply this property.[ 1]
Special case
For a subset
B
{\displaystyle B}
of
L
p
(
Ω
)
{\displaystyle L^{p}(\Omega )}
, where
Ω
{\displaystyle \Omega }
is a bounded subset of
R
n
{\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{n}}
, the condition of equitightness is not needed. Hence, a necessary and sufficient condition for
B
{\displaystyle B}
to be relatively compact is that the property of equicontinuity holds. However, this property must be interpreted with care as the below example shows.
Examples
Existence of solutions of a PDE
Let
(
u
ϵ
)
ϵ
{\displaystyle (u_{\epsilon })_{\epsilon }}
be a sequence of solutions of the viscous Burgers equation posed in
R
×
(
0
,
T
)
{\displaystyle \mathbb {R} \times (0,T)}
:
∂
u
∂
t
+
1
2
∂
u
2
∂
x
=
ϵ
Δ
u
,
u
(
x
,
0
)
=
u
0
(
x
)
,
{\displaystyle {\frac {\partial u}{\partial t}}+{\frac {1}{2}}{\frac {\partial u^{2}}{\partial x}}=\epsilon \Delta u,\quad u(x,0)=u_{0}(x),}
with
u
0
{\displaystyle u_{0}}
smooth enough. If the solutions
(
u
ϵ
)
ϵ
{\displaystyle (u_{\epsilon })_{\epsilon }}
enjoy the
L
1
{\displaystyle L^{1}}
-contraction and
L
∞
{\displaystyle L^{\infty }}
-bound properties,[ 2] we will show existence of solutions of the inviscid Burgers equation
∂
u
∂
t
+
1
2
∂
u
2
∂
x
=
0
,
u
(
x
,
0
)
=
u
0
(
x
)
.
{\displaystyle {\frac {\partial u}{\partial t}}+{\frac {1}{2}}{\frac {\partial u^{2}}{\partial x}}=0,\quad u(x,0)=u_{0}(x).}
The first property can be stated as follows: If
u
,
v
{\displaystyle u,v}
are solutions of the Burgers equation with
u
0
,
v
0
{\displaystyle u_{0},v_{0}}
as initial data, then
∫
R
|
u
(
x
,
t
)
−
v
(
x
,
t
)
|
d
x
≤
∫
R
|
u
0
(
x
)
−
v
0
(
x
)
|
d
x
.
{\displaystyle \int _{\mathbb {R} }|u(x,t)-v(x,t)|dx\leq \int _{\mathbb {R} }|u_{0}(x)-v_{0}(x)|dx.}
The second property simply means that
‖
u
(
⋅
,
t
)
‖
L
∞
(
R
)
≤
‖
u
0
‖
L
∞
(
R
)
{\displaystyle \Vert u(\cdot ,t)\Vert _{L^{\infty }(\mathbb {R} )}\leq \Vert u_{0}\Vert _{L^{\infty }(\mathbb {R} )}}
.
Now, let
K
⊂
R
×
(
0
,
T
)
{\displaystyle K\subset \mathbb {R} \times (0,T)}
be any compact set , and define
w
ϵ
(
x
,
t
)
:=
u
ϵ
(
x
,
t
)
1
K
(
x
,
t
)
,
{\displaystyle w_{\epsilon }(x,t):=u_{\epsilon }(x,t)\mathbf {1} _{K}(x,t),}
where
1
K
{\displaystyle \mathbf {1} _{K}}
is
1
{\displaystyle 1}
on the set
K
{\displaystyle K}
and 0 otherwise. Automatically,
B
:=
{
(
w
ϵ
)
ϵ
}
⊂
L
1
(
R
2
)
{\displaystyle B:=\{(w_{\epsilon })_{\epsilon }\}\subset L^{1}(\mathbb {R} ^{2})}
since
∫
R
2
|
w
ϵ
(
x
,
t
)
|
d
x
d
t
=
∫
R
2
|
u
ϵ
(
x
,
t
)
1
K
(
x
,
t
)
|
d
x
d
t
≤
‖
u
0
‖
L
∞
(
R
)
|
K
|
<
∞
.
{\displaystyle \int _{\mathbb {R} ^{2}}|w_{\epsilon }(x,t)|dxdt=\int _{\mathbb {R} ^{2}}|u_{\epsilon }(x,t)\mathbf {1} _{K}(x,t)|dxdt\leq \Vert u_{0}\Vert _{L^{\infty }(\mathbb {R} )}|K|<\infty .}
Equicontinuity is a consequence of the
L
1
{\displaystyle L^{1}}
-contraction since
u
ϵ
(
x
−
h
,
t
)
{\displaystyle u_{\epsilon }(x-h,t)}
is a solution of the Burgers equation with
u
0
(
x
−
h
)
{\displaystyle u_{0}(x-h)}
as initial data and since the
L
∞
{\displaystyle L^{\infty }}
-bound holds: We have that
‖
w
ϵ
(
⋅
−
h
,
⋅
−
h
)
−
w
ϵ
‖
L
1
(
R
2
)
≤
‖
w
ϵ
(
⋅
−
h
,
⋅
−
h
)
−
w
ϵ
(
⋅
,
⋅
−
h
)
‖
L
1
(
R
2
)
+
‖
w
ϵ
(
⋅
,
⋅
−
h
)
−
w
ϵ
‖
L
1
(
R
2
)
.
{\displaystyle \Vert w_{\epsilon }(\cdot -h,\cdot -h)-w_{\epsilon }\Vert _{L^{1}(\mathbb {R} ^{2})}\leq \Vert w_{\epsilon }(\cdot -h,\cdot -h)-w_{\epsilon }(\cdot ,\cdot -h)\Vert _{L^{1}(\mathbb {R} ^{2})}+\Vert w_{\epsilon }(\cdot ,\cdot -h)-w_{\epsilon }\Vert _{L^{1}(\mathbb {R} ^{2})}.}
We continue by considering
‖
w
ϵ
(
⋅
−
h
,
⋅
−
h
)
−
w
ϵ
(
⋅
,
⋅
−
h
)
‖
L
1
(
R
2
)
≤
‖
(
u
ϵ
(
⋅
−
h
,
⋅
−
h
)
−
u
ϵ
(
⋅
,
⋅
−
h
)
)
1
K
(
⋅
−
h
,
⋅
−
h
)
‖
L
1
(
R
2
)
+
‖
u
ϵ
(
⋅
,
⋅
−
h
)
(
1
K
(
⋅
−
h
,
⋅
−
h
)
−
1
K
(
⋅
,
⋅
−
h
)
‖
L
1
(
R
2
)
.
{\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&\Vert w_{\epsilon }(\cdot -h,\cdot -h)-w_{\epsilon }(\cdot ,\cdot -h)\Vert _{L^{1}(\mathbb {R} ^{2})}\\&\leq \Vert (u_{\epsilon }(\cdot -h,\cdot -h)-u_{\epsilon }(\cdot ,\cdot -h))\mathbf {1} _{K}(\cdot -h,\cdot -h)\Vert _{L^{1}(\mathbb {R} ^{2})}+\Vert u_{\epsilon }(\cdot ,\cdot -h)(\mathbf {1} _{K}(\cdot -h,\cdot -h)-\mathbf {1} _{K}(\cdot ,\cdot -h)\Vert _{L^{1}(\mathbb {R} ^{2})}.\end{aligned}}}
The first term on the right-hand side satisfies
‖
(
u
ϵ
(
⋅
−
h
,
⋅
−
h
)
−
u
ϵ
(
⋅
,
⋅
−
h
)
)
1
K
(
⋅
−
h
,
⋅
−
h
)
‖
L
1
(
R
2
)
≤
T
‖
u
0
(
⋅
−
h
)
−
u
0
‖
L
1
(
R
)
{\displaystyle \Vert (u_{\epsilon }(\cdot -h,\cdot -h)-u_{\epsilon }(\cdot ,\cdot -h))\mathbf {1} _{K}(\cdot -h,\cdot -h)\Vert _{L^{1}(\mathbb {R} ^{2})}\leq T\Vert u_{0}(\cdot -h)-u_{0}\Vert _{L^{1}(\mathbb {R} )}}
by a change of variable and the
L
1
{\displaystyle L^{1}}
-contraction. The second term satisfies
‖
u
ϵ
(
⋅
,
⋅
−
h
)
(
1
K
(
⋅
−
h
,
⋅
−
h
)
−
1
K
(
⋅
,
⋅
−
h
)
)
‖
L
1
(
R
2
)
≤
‖
u
0
‖
L
∞
(
R
)
‖
1
K
(
⋅
−
h
,
⋅
)
−
1
K
‖
L
1
(
R
2
)
{\displaystyle \Vert u_{\epsilon }(\cdot ,\cdot -h)(\mathbf {1} _{K}(\cdot -h,\cdot -h)-\mathbf {1} _{K}(\cdot ,\cdot -h))\Vert _{L^{1}(\mathbb {R} ^{2})}\leq \Vert u_{0}\Vert _{L^{\infty }(\mathbb {R} )}\Vert \mathbf {1} _{K}(\cdot -h,\cdot )-\mathbf {1} _{K}\Vert _{L^{1}(\mathbb {R} ^{2})}}
by a change of variable and the
L
∞
{\displaystyle L^{\infty }}
-bound. Moreover,
‖
w
ϵ
(
⋅
,
⋅
−
h
)
−
w
ϵ
‖
L
1
(
R
2
)
≤
‖
(
u
ϵ
(
⋅
,
⋅
−
h
)
−
u
ϵ
)
1
K
(
⋅
,
⋅
−
h
)
‖
L
1
(
R
2
)
+
‖
u
ϵ
(
1
K
(
⋅
,
⋅
−
h
)
−
1
K
)
‖
L
1
(
R
2
)
.
{\displaystyle \Vert w_{\epsilon }(\cdot ,\cdot -h)-w_{\epsilon }\Vert _{L^{1}(\mathbb {R} ^{2})}\leq \Vert (u_{\epsilon }(\cdot ,\cdot -h)-u_{\epsilon })\mathbf {1} _{K}(\cdot ,\cdot -h)\Vert _{L^{1}(\mathbb {R} ^{2})}+\Vert u_{\epsilon }(\mathbf {1} _{K}(\cdot ,\cdot -h)-\mathbf {1} _{K})\Vert _{L^{1}(\mathbb {R} ^{2})}.}
Both terms can be estimated as before when noticing that the time equicontinuity follows again by the
L
1
{\displaystyle L^{1}}
-contraction.[ 3] The continuity of the translation mapping in
L
1
{\displaystyle L^{1}}
then gives equicontinuity uniformly on
B
{\displaystyle B}
.
Equitightness holds by definition of
(
w
ϵ
)
ϵ
{\displaystyle (w_{\epsilon })_{\epsilon }}
by taking
r
{\displaystyle r}
big enough.
Hence,
B
{\displaystyle B}
is relatively compact in
L
1
(
R
2
)
{\displaystyle L^{1}(\mathbb {R} ^{2})}
, and then there is a convergent subsequence of
(
u
ϵ
)
ϵ
{\displaystyle (u_{\epsilon })_{\epsilon }}
in
L
1
(
K
)
{\displaystyle L^{1}(K)}
. By a covering argument, the last convergence is in
L
l
o
c
1
(
R
×
(
0
,
T
)
)
{\displaystyle L_{loc}^{1}(\mathbb {R} \times (0,T))}
.
To conclude existence, it remains to check that the limit function, as
ϵ
→
0
+
{\displaystyle \epsilon \to 0^{+}}
, of a subsequence of
(
u
ϵ
)
ϵ
{\displaystyle (u_{\epsilon })_{\epsilon }}
satisfies
∂
u
∂
t
+
1
2
∂
u
2
∂
x
=
0
,
u
(
x
,
0
)
=
u
0
(
x
)
.
{\displaystyle {\frac {\partial u}{\partial t}}+{\frac {1}{2}}{\frac {\partial u^{2}}{\partial x}}=0,\quad u(x,0)=u_{0}(x).}
See also
References
Literature
Spaces
Theorems Operators Algebras Open problems Applications Advanced topics