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

      0 references
      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
      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

      Identifiers