3
$\begingroup$

Attached is a proof I found. It is probably very basic, but I can not understand the marked thing. Why this term is zero? I hope someone can explain it for me. enter image description here

Edit(elaboration): A Norm is a function that takes a function $f$ and returns a number. Discreet norm's input is not the function itself but it's values at certain defined points. Each discreet norm has it's own set of points $\{x_i\}$ (and also weights $\{w_i\}$ ).

There are some conditions it should follow to be called a norm (you can google it).

Here, $f_i$ is short notation of $f(x_i)$, and the $L_p$ norm is defined as $$L_p \equiv (\sum{|f_i|^p w_i})^{1/p} $$

$|f_i|$ is simply absolute value. And of course $f$ should be defined at $\{x_i\}$ points.

If we send $p$ to infinity then we get the infinity norm $L_\infty$.

  • 1
    Much more context has to be supplied before we can help you.2012-02-15
  • 0
    @Ragib I thought that the question was self contained. Can you elaborate about what is missing?2012-02-15
  • 0
    What kind of objects are these $f_i$? If there are functions, what is their domain and codomain, and what does $ |f_i| $ mean? What kind of quantity are the $ w_i $ ?2012-02-15
  • 0
    @Ragib See my edit.2012-02-15
  • 0
    @Ragib: It seems there is a discrete probability measure $\mathbb{P}$ distributed on $n$ atoms, and $w_i$, $i = 1,\dots,n$ are the weights; $f_i = f(x_i)$, where $x_1, \dots, x_n$ are the atoms of $\mathbb{P}$, with $\mathbb{P}(x_i) = w_i$.2012-02-15
  • 2
    @Artium: The marked term is not equal to zero but rather tends to zero as $p$ tends to infinity, assuming that $f_i$, which by definition is $f(x_i)$, is strictly smaller than $M$ (which is an assumption that seems to be made here). You could alternatively try to prove the limit above using the squeeze theorem: on the one hand the quantity in parentheses is $\geq w_mM^p$. On the other hand, it is dominated by $(w_1 + w_2+\cdots + w_n)M^p + w_mM^p = (1 + w_m)M^p$.2012-02-15
  • 0
    I should remark that where I say "assuming $f(x_i)$ is strictly smaller than $M$", it should be added "when $i\neq m$".2012-02-15
  • 0
    @WNY Thank you. The squeeze theorem makes more sense.2012-02-15

2 Answers 2