Density theorems revisited (Q4243448)
From MaRDI portal
!
This is the item page for this Wikibase entity, intended for internal use and editing purposes. Please use the normal view instead:
scientific article; zbMATH DE number 1288307
| Language | Label | Description | Also known as |
|---|---|---|---|
| default for all languages | No label defined |
||
| English | Density theorems revisited |
scientific article; zbMATH DE number 1288307 |
Statements
18 May 1999
0 references
density theorems
0 references
differential basis
0 references
density basis
0 references
differentiation system
0 references
Lebesgue density theorem
0 references
0.9048116207122804
0 references
0.7743456959724426
0 references
0.7718688249588013
0 references
Density theorems revisited (English)
0 references
Let \(\{I_n\}^\infty_{n=1}\) be a sequence of pairwise disjoint intervals with \(I_n\to 0\). It is called a density basis if for every measurable set \(A\) and a.e. \(x\in A\) we have \(\lim_{n\to \infty}\lambda((x+I_n)\cap A)/| I_n| =1\). \textit{V. Aversa} and \textit{D. Preiss} [Real. Anal. Exch. 13, 28-32 (1987-88)] proved that \(\{I_n\}\) is a density basis if \(I_n=[a_n,b_n]\) with \(b_1>a_1>b_2>a_2>\dots>0\), \(b_n\to 0\), and \(\limsup b_{n+1}/(b_n-a_n)<\infty\). In the present paper, the author proves a much stronger result; she in fact gives several different characterizations for density bases. She proves that the following statements are equivalent: (1) \(\{I_n\}\) is a density basis. (2) For every \(f\in L^1(\mathbb R)\) and for a.e. \(x\in \mathbb R\), \(\lim_{n\to\infty} \int_{I_n} f(x+u) du/| I_n| =f(x)\). (3) For every measurable set \(F\) and for a.e. \(x\in F\), \((x+I_n)\cap F\neq \emptyset\) for \(n\) large enough. (4) There is a \(K\in \mathbb N\) such that for every \(\ell>0\) the set \(\bigcup_{| I_n| \leq\ell} I_n\) can be covered by at most \(K\) intervals of length \(\ell\). (5) For a system \(\Phi\) of real intervals and for a.e. \(x\in \mathbb R\setminus\bigcup\Phi\), \(x+I_n\in \Phi\) for at most finitely many \(n\). The most difficult part of the proof is the implication \((3)\to (4)\); the Aversa-Preiss result follows because under their assumptions, condition (4) is satisfied.
0 references