6

To be more precise, if $f\in L^1(\mathbb{R}^d), d>1$ and is uniformly continuous, is it true that $$\lim_{R\to\infty} \int_{|x|=R} |f(x)| \ dS(x) = 0 \ ?$$

where $dS$ is the surface measure on the sphere of radius $R$.

If $f\in L^1(\mathbb{R})$ and uniformly continuous, it's well-known that $|f(x)|\to 0$ as $|x|\to\infty$. But this problem seems to require more precise decay, and I have a feeling it's false. One idea for a counterexample: pick $f$ to be a radial series of bump functions centered at $|x|=n$ with slowly decaying heights and whose supports are disjoint and shrink fast enough to ensure integrability. This feels like main scenario for a counterexample (if one exists), but I wasn't able to get the details to work out.

  • 1
    Yes, your counterexample should work. I would make the height at $n$ equal to $n^{-1}$, then the limit does not go zero (at $n$ it is $2\pi$). As your bumps are going to zero and your bump functions are smooth, the resulting function will be uniformly continuous no matter how fast you shrink your support (in particular you can choose it in such a way that the resulting function is $L^1$). – Severin Schraven May 26 '22 at 01:55
  • When $d=1$, how are you defining $\int_{|x|=R}|f(x)|\mathrm d^d x$ ? Is it just $|f(-R)|+|f(R)|$ ? – K.defaoite May 26 '22 at 22:14
  • Sorry, I didn't see $d>1$. – K.defaoite May 26 '22 at 22:14

1 Answers1

1

You're right, it's false.

First, consider the function $$\operatorname{bump}(x;x_0,a)=\begin{cases}\exp\left(\frac{-1}{1-(x-x_0)^2/a^2}\right)&|x-x_0|<a \\ 0 & |x-x_0|\geq a\end{cases}$$ Where $x,x_0,a\in\Bbb{R}_+$. This is a "bump function" centered at $x_0$, with width $2a$.

Some remarks -

  • This function is everywhere nonnegative (importantly, equal to its own absolute value)

  • This function is uniformly continuous, since it is continuous on a compact set.

We first consider an integral which will later be useful (trust me!) $$\int_{\Bbb R_+}x\operatorname{bump}(x,x_0,a)\mathrm dx=\int_{x_0-a}^{x_0+a} x\exp\left(\frac{-1}{1-((x-x_0)/a)^2}\right)\mathrm dx \\= \int_{-a}^a (z+x_0)\exp\left(\frac{-1}{1-(z/a)^2}\right)\mathrm dz \\ = \underbrace{\int_{-a}^a z\exp\left(\frac{-1}{1-(z/a)^2}\right)\mathrm dz}_{=0 ~\text{b.c odd func. on symm. interv.}}+x_0\int_{-a}^a \exp\left(\frac{-1}{1-(z/a)^2}\right)\mathrm dz \\ =x_0\int_{-1}^1 \exp\left(\frac{-1}{1-s^2}\right)a\mathrm ds \\ =c~x_0a$$ Where $$c=\int_{-1}^1 \exp\left(\frac{-1}{1-x^2}\right)\mathrm dx \\ \text{and obviously,}~~0<c<1$$ Finding a closed form for $c$ is of no importance (and I suspect could be impossible). The point is that the integral of the bump function scales linearly with its width.

Now, consider the function $$F(x)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n}\operatorname{bump}\left(x,n,\frac{1}{2n^2}\right)$$

(This is uniformly continuous - should be easy enough to check.)

Finally, consider the function

$$\Phi : \Bbb{R}^2\to \Bbb{R} \\ \Phi(\boldsymbol x)=F(|\boldsymbol x|)$$

We can see that $\Phi$ is $L^1$.

$$\int_{\Bbb{R}^2}|\Phi(\boldsymbol x)|\mathrm d^2 \boldsymbol x = \int_0 ^ \infty F(r)~2\pi r~\mathrm dr \\ =2\pi\sum_{n=1}^\infty \int_0^\infty r\frac{1}{n}\operatorname{bump}\left(r,n,\frac{1}{2n^2}\right)\mathrm dr$$ Which, using our previous result, is $$2\pi\sum_{n=1}^\infty \int_0^\infty r\frac{1}{n}\operatorname{bump}\left(r,n,\frac{1}{2n^2}\right)\mathrm dr =2\pi \sum_{n=1}^\infty c n \frac{1}{n}\frac{1}{2n^2}=\pi c\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n^2}=c\pi \zeta(2)<\infty$$

However, if we consider the sequence of integrals of $\Phi$ on concentric circles around the origin,

$$A_n=\int\limits_{\partial \mathbb{B}(0,n) }\Phi(\boldsymbol x)\mathrm d^1 \boldsymbol x$$ One can easily check that $$A_n=2\pi \\ \forall n$$ And so $$\lim_{R\to\infty} \int\limits_{\partial \mathbb{B}(0,R)}|\Phi(\boldsymbol x)|\mathrm d^1 \boldsymbol x=2\pi \neq 0$$ I wonder if it's possible to make this limit infinite. Anyway, this serves fine as a counterexample.

K.defaoite
  • 12,536
  • As it stands, I don't think $\Phi$ is uniformly continuous, since it doesn't decay to zero as $|x|\to\infty$. However, by making the heights decay and adjusting the scaling of the supports it should still work out. – kieransquared May 27 '22 at 01:11
  • @kieransquared Yes, I've just noticed this myself. It's an easy fix though. – K.defaoite May 27 '22 at 01:35
  • 1
    @kieransquared I've adjusted the proof - it should be correct now. – K.defaoite May 27 '22 at 01:46
  • Yup. I think you are right that the limit can be made be infinite. For example in $\mathbb{R}^2$, make the heights scale like $n^{-1/2}$ and the widths of the supports like $n^{-3}$. Via a linear approximation, the area of the supporting annuli are roughly $2\pi n \cdot n^{-3} = 2\pi n^{-2}$ (plus some term that decays like $n^{-4}$), so that the $L^1$ norm is bounded by $2\pi \sum_n n^{-3/2}<\infty$. But the surface integrals scale like $\sqrt{n}$, so they diverge. – kieransquared May 27 '22 at 01:50
  • Apologies, I think the extra term decays at a different rate than $n^{-4}$. Regardless, you'd still have integrability. – kieransquared May 27 '22 at 02:02