Prove that $lim_{Nrightarrowinfty}(1/N)sum_{n=1}^N f(nx)=int_{0}^1f(t)dt$












5












$begingroup$


Suppose $f$ is continuous and periodic on the reals with period 1. Prove that if $xin[0,1]$ is an irrational number, then



$$lim_{Nrightarrowinfty}frac{1}{N}sum_{n=1}^N f(nx)=int_{0}^1f(t)dt$$



Suggestion: First consider $f(t) = e^{2pi(ikt)}$ where k is an integer.



I can see that this is a limit of a weighted average, but the suggestion throws me off. I've seen the suggestion in fourier transforms but it's not clicking at the moment. Any help would be welcome.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 5




    $begingroup$
    You miss division by $N$ on the lhs. Otherwise, this yields $+infty=1$ for $f=1$. This is a suggestion to use Stone-Weierstrass once you have settled the case of trigonometric polynomials. I am not sure about your nickname.
    $endgroup$
    – Julien
    May 7 '13 at 19:07










  • $begingroup$
    I think this should help: mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/72777.html. Unlike @julien, I am quite sure about your nickname.
    $endgroup$
    – Quinn Culver
    May 8 '13 at 21:49










  • $begingroup$
    Unless there is a very good reason, we prefer not to arbitrarily delete good content: it could well help other users in the future.
    $endgroup$
    – robjohn
    May 13 '13 at 22:27
















5












$begingroup$


Suppose $f$ is continuous and periodic on the reals with period 1. Prove that if $xin[0,1]$ is an irrational number, then



$$lim_{Nrightarrowinfty}frac{1}{N}sum_{n=1}^N f(nx)=int_{0}^1f(t)dt$$



Suggestion: First consider $f(t) = e^{2pi(ikt)}$ where k is an integer.



I can see that this is a limit of a weighted average, but the suggestion throws me off. I've seen the suggestion in fourier transforms but it's not clicking at the moment. Any help would be welcome.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 5




    $begingroup$
    You miss division by $N$ on the lhs. Otherwise, this yields $+infty=1$ for $f=1$. This is a suggestion to use Stone-Weierstrass once you have settled the case of trigonometric polynomials. I am not sure about your nickname.
    $endgroup$
    – Julien
    May 7 '13 at 19:07










  • $begingroup$
    I think this should help: mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/72777.html. Unlike @julien, I am quite sure about your nickname.
    $endgroup$
    – Quinn Culver
    May 8 '13 at 21:49










  • $begingroup$
    Unless there is a very good reason, we prefer not to arbitrarily delete good content: it could well help other users in the future.
    $endgroup$
    – robjohn
    May 13 '13 at 22:27














5












5








5


4



$begingroup$


Suppose $f$ is continuous and periodic on the reals with period 1. Prove that if $xin[0,1]$ is an irrational number, then



$$lim_{Nrightarrowinfty}frac{1}{N}sum_{n=1}^N f(nx)=int_{0}^1f(t)dt$$



Suggestion: First consider $f(t) = e^{2pi(ikt)}$ where k is an integer.



I can see that this is a limit of a weighted average, but the suggestion throws me off. I've seen the suggestion in fourier transforms but it's not clicking at the moment. Any help would be welcome.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Suppose $f$ is continuous and periodic on the reals with period 1. Prove that if $xin[0,1]$ is an irrational number, then



$$lim_{Nrightarrowinfty}frac{1}{N}sum_{n=1}^N f(nx)=int_{0}^1f(t)dt$$



Suggestion: First consider $f(t) = e^{2pi(ikt)}$ where k is an integer.



I can see that this is a limit of a weighted average, but the suggestion throws me off. I've seen the suggestion in fourier transforms but it's not clicking at the moment. Any help would be welcome.







real-analysis analysis equidistribution






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 9 '16 at 2:03









Martin Sleziak

44.7k10118272




44.7k10118272










asked May 7 '13 at 19:01









Real AnalReal Anal

12619




12619








  • 5




    $begingroup$
    You miss division by $N$ on the lhs. Otherwise, this yields $+infty=1$ for $f=1$. This is a suggestion to use Stone-Weierstrass once you have settled the case of trigonometric polynomials. I am not sure about your nickname.
    $endgroup$
    – Julien
    May 7 '13 at 19:07










  • $begingroup$
    I think this should help: mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/72777.html. Unlike @julien, I am quite sure about your nickname.
    $endgroup$
    – Quinn Culver
    May 8 '13 at 21:49










  • $begingroup$
    Unless there is a very good reason, we prefer not to arbitrarily delete good content: it could well help other users in the future.
    $endgroup$
    – robjohn
    May 13 '13 at 22:27














  • 5




    $begingroup$
    You miss division by $N$ on the lhs. Otherwise, this yields $+infty=1$ for $f=1$. This is a suggestion to use Stone-Weierstrass once you have settled the case of trigonometric polynomials. I am not sure about your nickname.
    $endgroup$
    – Julien
    May 7 '13 at 19:07










  • $begingroup$
    I think this should help: mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/72777.html. Unlike @julien, I am quite sure about your nickname.
    $endgroup$
    – Quinn Culver
    May 8 '13 at 21:49










  • $begingroup$
    Unless there is a very good reason, we prefer not to arbitrarily delete good content: it could well help other users in the future.
    $endgroup$
    – robjohn
    May 13 '13 at 22:27








5




5




$begingroup$
You miss division by $N$ on the lhs. Otherwise, this yields $+infty=1$ for $f=1$. This is a suggestion to use Stone-Weierstrass once you have settled the case of trigonometric polynomials. I am not sure about your nickname.
$endgroup$
– Julien
May 7 '13 at 19:07




$begingroup$
You miss division by $N$ on the lhs. Otherwise, this yields $+infty=1$ for $f=1$. This is a suggestion to use Stone-Weierstrass once you have settled the case of trigonometric polynomials. I am not sure about your nickname.
$endgroup$
– Julien
May 7 '13 at 19:07












$begingroup$
I think this should help: mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/72777.html. Unlike @julien, I am quite sure about your nickname.
$endgroup$
– Quinn Culver
May 8 '13 at 21:49




$begingroup$
I think this should help: mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/72777.html. Unlike @julien, I am quite sure about your nickname.
$endgroup$
– Quinn Culver
May 8 '13 at 21:49












$begingroup$
Unless there is a very good reason, we prefer not to arbitrarily delete good content: it could well help other users in the future.
$endgroup$
– robjohn
May 13 '13 at 22:27




$begingroup$
Unless there is a very good reason, we prefer not to arbitrarily delete good content: it could well help other users in the future.
$endgroup$
– robjohn
May 13 '13 at 22:27










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

Using the hint you were given, it is easy to verify that
$$
int_0^1 e^{2pi i k t} , mathrm{d}t = left{
begin{array}{lr}
1 & : k = 0 \
0 & : k neq 0
end{array}
right.
$$
Similarly, for $k neq 0$ and irrational $x [0,1]$, using geometric series
$$
begin{align*}
lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} left| sum_{n=1}^N e^{2 pi i k n x} right| &= lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} left| e^{2 pi i k x} frac{e^{2 pi i k N x} - 1}{e^{2 pi i k x} - 1} right| \
&leq lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} frac{2}{|e^{2 pi i k x} - 1|} \
&= 0
end{align*}
$$
noting that since $x$ is irrational $e^{2 pi i k x} neq 1$ for any $k neq 0$. On the other hand, for $k = 0$ we have $e^0 = 1$, so
$$
lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} sum_{n = 1}^N 1 = 1.
$$
It follows that
$$
lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} sum_{n = 1}^N e^{2 pi i k n x} = int_0^1 e^{2 pi i k t} , mathrm{d}t.
$$



Now for any continuous function $f$ on $mathbb{R}$ with period $1$, there is a sequence of complex numbers ${c_k}_{-infty}^infty$ such that
$$
f(t) = sum_{k = -infty}^infty c_k e^{2 pi i k t}.
$$
So with a little justification of the interchange between sum and integral,
$$
begin{align*}
int_0^1 f(t) , mathrm{d}t &= int_0^1 sum_{k = -infty}^infty c_k e^{2 pi i k t} , mathrm{d}t \
&= sum_{k = -infty}^infty c_k int_0^1 e^{2 pi i k t} = c_0.
end{align*}
$$
And correspondingly, for irrational $x in [0,1]$,
$$
begin{align*}
lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} sum_{n = 1}^N f(n x) &= lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} sum_{n = 1}^N sum_{k = -infty}^infty c_k e^{2 pi i k n x} \
&= sum_{k = -infty}^infty c_k lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} sum_{n = 1}^N e^{2 pi i k n x} \
&= c_0.
end{align*}
$$



It follows that
$$
lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} sum_{n = 1}^N f(n x) = int_0^1 f(t), mathrm{d}t.
$$






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Expressing continuous function with period 1, as a Fourier series is not valid. See math.stackexchange.com/questions/14855/…
    $endgroup$
    – i707107
    Oct 7 '13 at 18:13



















0












$begingroup$

Here's a sketch of another way to try to do it, if for some odd reason you don't want to try the better way using Stone-Weierstrass.



Assume that you have the conclusion of the hint, as demonstrated in the previous answer.



Consider the family of functions, for $N = 1, 2, 3, dots$
$$
h_N(t)
= frac{1}{N}{ f(t+alpha) + f(t+2alpha) + dots + f(t+Nalpha) }
- int_0^1 f(t) dt
$$



Using the hint, show that the sequence
$$widehat{h_N}(k) = int_0^1 h_N(t) dt$$
converges to $0$ in $l^2(mathbb{Z})$.



We know $l^2(mathbb{Z})$ and $L^2([0, 1])$ are Hilbert space isometric, because the trigonometric polynomials are dense in $L^2([0, 1])$, and so it follows that $h_N$ converges to $0$ in $L^2([0, 1])$.



We have to show that in fact this yields pointwise convergence, which is general not true but in this case is because of the continuity of $f$.



Here's an easy fact to verify: Suppose you have a sequence and a value, such that every subsequence has a sub-subsequence which converges to that value. Then, the original sequence also converges to that value.



Pick $t_*$ in $[0, 1]$, and pick an arbitrary subsequence of ${h_N(t_*)}$.



The corresponding subsequence of ${h_N}$ converges in $L^2$ to $0$, since ${h_N}$ itself does.

We know from $L^2$-space theory that there is a sub-subsequence which converges pointwise almost everywhere to $0$.



There are a couple of different ways to proceed from here. One way is to notice that the sub-subsequence of ${h_N}$ is equicontinuous. Then you can apply Arzela's theorem to find a sub-sub-subsequence which converges uniformly to a continuous limit function $phi(t)$ on $[0, 1]$.



By Dominated Convergece, this sub-sub-subsequence also converges in $L^2$ to $phi$.

So, $phi$ equals $0$ almost everywhere, and by continuity they are in fact equal everywhere.



The upshot is that $phi(t) = 0$ for all $t$, so for our arbitrary $t_*$ and our arbitrary subsequence of ${h_N(t_*)}$, we found a sub-sub-subsequence which converges pointwise at $t_*$ to $0$.



So ${h_N(t_*)}$ converges to $0$, but $t_*$ was arbitrary so ${h_N(t)}$ converges to $0$ for every $t$.



Choosing $t = 0$ gives the result we are looking for.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f384765%2fprove-that-lim-n-rightarrow-infty1-n-sum-n-1n-fnx-int-01ftdt%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    3












    $begingroup$

    Using the hint you were given, it is easy to verify that
    $$
    int_0^1 e^{2pi i k t} , mathrm{d}t = left{
    begin{array}{lr}
    1 & : k = 0 \
    0 & : k neq 0
    end{array}
    right.
    $$
    Similarly, for $k neq 0$ and irrational $x [0,1]$, using geometric series
    $$
    begin{align*}
    lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} left| sum_{n=1}^N e^{2 pi i k n x} right| &= lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} left| e^{2 pi i k x} frac{e^{2 pi i k N x} - 1}{e^{2 pi i k x} - 1} right| \
    &leq lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} frac{2}{|e^{2 pi i k x} - 1|} \
    &= 0
    end{align*}
    $$
    noting that since $x$ is irrational $e^{2 pi i k x} neq 1$ for any $k neq 0$. On the other hand, for $k = 0$ we have $e^0 = 1$, so
    $$
    lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} sum_{n = 1}^N 1 = 1.
    $$
    It follows that
    $$
    lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} sum_{n = 1}^N e^{2 pi i k n x} = int_0^1 e^{2 pi i k t} , mathrm{d}t.
    $$



    Now for any continuous function $f$ on $mathbb{R}$ with period $1$, there is a sequence of complex numbers ${c_k}_{-infty}^infty$ such that
    $$
    f(t) = sum_{k = -infty}^infty c_k e^{2 pi i k t}.
    $$
    So with a little justification of the interchange between sum and integral,
    $$
    begin{align*}
    int_0^1 f(t) , mathrm{d}t &= int_0^1 sum_{k = -infty}^infty c_k e^{2 pi i k t} , mathrm{d}t \
    &= sum_{k = -infty}^infty c_k int_0^1 e^{2 pi i k t} = c_0.
    end{align*}
    $$
    And correspondingly, for irrational $x in [0,1]$,
    $$
    begin{align*}
    lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} sum_{n = 1}^N f(n x) &= lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} sum_{n = 1}^N sum_{k = -infty}^infty c_k e^{2 pi i k n x} \
    &= sum_{k = -infty}^infty c_k lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} sum_{n = 1}^N e^{2 pi i k n x} \
    &= c_0.
    end{align*}
    $$



    It follows that
    $$
    lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} sum_{n = 1}^N f(n x) = int_0^1 f(t), mathrm{d}t.
    $$






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Expressing continuous function with period 1, as a Fourier series is not valid. See math.stackexchange.com/questions/14855/…
      $endgroup$
      – i707107
      Oct 7 '13 at 18:13
















    3












    $begingroup$

    Using the hint you were given, it is easy to verify that
    $$
    int_0^1 e^{2pi i k t} , mathrm{d}t = left{
    begin{array}{lr}
    1 & : k = 0 \
    0 & : k neq 0
    end{array}
    right.
    $$
    Similarly, for $k neq 0$ and irrational $x [0,1]$, using geometric series
    $$
    begin{align*}
    lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} left| sum_{n=1}^N e^{2 pi i k n x} right| &= lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} left| e^{2 pi i k x} frac{e^{2 pi i k N x} - 1}{e^{2 pi i k x} - 1} right| \
    &leq lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} frac{2}{|e^{2 pi i k x} - 1|} \
    &= 0
    end{align*}
    $$
    noting that since $x$ is irrational $e^{2 pi i k x} neq 1$ for any $k neq 0$. On the other hand, for $k = 0$ we have $e^0 = 1$, so
    $$
    lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} sum_{n = 1}^N 1 = 1.
    $$
    It follows that
    $$
    lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} sum_{n = 1}^N e^{2 pi i k n x} = int_0^1 e^{2 pi i k t} , mathrm{d}t.
    $$



    Now for any continuous function $f$ on $mathbb{R}$ with period $1$, there is a sequence of complex numbers ${c_k}_{-infty}^infty$ such that
    $$
    f(t) = sum_{k = -infty}^infty c_k e^{2 pi i k t}.
    $$
    So with a little justification of the interchange between sum and integral,
    $$
    begin{align*}
    int_0^1 f(t) , mathrm{d}t &= int_0^1 sum_{k = -infty}^infty c_k e^{2 pi i k t} , mathrm{d}t \
    &= sum_{k = -infty}^infty c_k int_0^1 e^{2 pi i k t} = c_0.
    end{align*}
    $$
    And correspondingly, for irrational $x in [0,1]$,
    $$
    begin{align*}
    lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} sum_{n = 1}^N f(n x) &= lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} sum_{n = 1}^N sum_{k = -infty}^infty c_k e^{2 pi i k n x} \
    &= sum_{k = -infty}^infty c_k lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} sum_{n = 1}^N e^{2 pi i k n x} \
    &= c_0.
    end{align*}
    $$



    It follows that
    $$
    lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} sum_{n = 1}^N f(n x) = int_0^1 f(t), mathrm{d}t.
    $$






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Expressing continuous function with period 1, as a Fourier series is not valid. See math.stackexchange.com/questions/14855/…
      $endgroup$
      – i707107
      Oct 7 '13 at 18:13














    3












    3








    3





    $begingroup$

    Using the hint you were given, it is easy to verify that
    $$
    int_0^1 e^{2pi i k t} , mathrm{d}t = left{
    begin{array}{lr}
    1 & : k = 0 \
    0 & : k neq 0
    end{array}
    right.
    $$
    Similarly, for $k neq 0$ and irrational $x [0,1]$, using geometric series
    $$
    begin{align*}
    lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} left| sum_{n=1}^N e^{2 pi i k n x} right| &= lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} left| e^{2 pi i k x} frac{e^{2 pi i k N x} - 1}{e^{2 pi i k x} - 1} right| \
    &leq lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} frac{2}{|e^{2 pi i k x} - 1|} \
    &= 0
    end{align*}
    $$
    noting that since $x$ is irrational $e^{2 pi i k x} neq 1$ for any $k neq 0$. On the other hand, for $k = 0$ we have $e^0 = 1$, so
    $$
    lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} sum_{n = 1}^N 1 = 1.
    $$
    It follows that
    $$
    lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} sum_{n = 1}^N e^{2 pi i k n x} = int_0^1 e^{2 pi i k t} , mathrm{d}t.
    $$



    Now for any continuous function $f$ on $mathbb{R}$ with period $1$, there is a sequence of complex numbers ${c_k}_{-infty}^infty$ such that
    $$
    f(t) = sum_{k = -infty}^infty c_k e^{2 pi i k t}.
    $$
    So with a little justification of the interchange between sum and integral,
    $$
    begin{align*}
    int_0^1 f(t) , mathrm{d}t &= int_0^1 sum_{k = -infty}^infty c_k e^{2 pi i k t} , mathrm{d}t \
    &= sum_{k = -infty}^infty c_k int_0^1 e^{2 pi i k t} = c_0.
    end{align*}
    $$
    And correspondingly, for irrational $x in [0,1]$,
    $$
    begin{align*}
    lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} sum_{n = 1}^N f(n x) &= lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} sum_{n = 1}^N sum_{k = -infty}^infty c_k e^{2 pi i k n x} \
    &= sum_{k = -infty}^infty c_k lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} sum_{n = 1}^N e^{2 pi i k n x} \
    &= c_0.
    end{align*}
    $$



    It follows that
    $$
    lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} sum_{n = 1}^N f(n x) = int_0^1 f(t), mathrm{d}t.
    $$






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    Using the hint you were given, it is easy to verify that
    $$
    int_0^1 e^{2pi i k t} , mathrm{d}t = left{
    begin{array}{lr}
    1 & : k = 0 \
    0 & : k neq 0
    end{array}
    right.
    $$
    Similarly, for $k neq 0$ and irrational $x [0,1]$, using geometric series
    $$
    begin{align*}
    lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} left| sum_{n=1}^N e^{2 pi i k n x} right| &= lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} left| e^{2 pi i k x} frac{e^{2 pi i k N x} - 1}{e^{2 pi i k x} - 1} right| \
    &leq lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} frac{2}{|e^{2 pi i k x} - 1|} \
    &= 0
    end{align*}
    $$
    noting that since $x$ is irrational $e^{2 pi i k x} neq 1$ for any $k neq 0$. On the other hand, for $k = 0$ we have $e^0 = 1$, so
    $$
    lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} sum_{n = 1}^N 1 = 1.
    $$
    It follows that
    $$
    lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} sum_{n = 1}^N e^{2 pi i k n x} = int_0^1 e^{2 pi i k t} , mathrm{d}t.
    $$



    Now for any continuous function $f$ on $mathbb{R}$ with period $1$, there is a sequence of complex numbers ${c_k}_{-infty}^infty$ such that
    $$
    f(t) = sum_{k = -infty}^infty c_k e^{2 pi i k t}.
    $$
    So with a little justification of the interchange between sum and integral,
    $$
    begin{align*}
    int_0^1 f(t) , mathrm{d}t &= int_0^1 sum_{k = -infty}^infty c_k e^{2 pi i k t} , mathrm{d}t \
    &= sum_{k = -infty}^infty c_k int_0^1 e^{2 pi i k t} = c_0.
    end{align*}
    $$
    And correspondingly, for irrational $x in [0,1]$,
    $$
    begin{align*}
    lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} sum_{n = 1}^N f(n x) &= lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} sum_{n = 1}^N sum_{k = -infty}^infty c_k e^{2 pi i k n x} \
    &= sum_{k = -infty}^infty c_k lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} sum_{n = 1}^N e^{2 pi i k n x} \
    &= c_0.
    end{align*}
    $$



    It follows that
    $$
    lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N} sum_{n = 1}^N f(n x) = int_0^1 f(t), mathrm{d}t.
    $$







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Jun 2 '13 at 5:10









    dcookdcook

    471




    471












    • $begingroup$
      Expressing continuous function with period 1, as a Fourier series is not valid. See math.stackexchange.com/questions/14855/…
      $endgroup$
      – i707107
      Oct 7 '13 at 18:13


















    • $begingroup$
      Expressing continuous function with period 1, as a Fourier series is not valid. See math.stackexchange.com/questions/14855/…
      $endgroup$
      – i707107
      Oct 7 '13 at 18:13
















    $begingroup$
    Expressing continuous function with period 1, as a Fourier series is not valid. See math.stackexchange.com/questions/14855/…
    $endgroup$
    – i707107
    Oct 7 '13 at 18:13




    $begingroup$
    Expressing continuous function with period 1, as a Fourier series is not valid. See math.stackexchange.com/questions/14855/…
    $endgroup$
    – i707107
    Oct 7 '13 at 18:13











    0












    $begingroup$

    Here's a sketch of another way to try to do it, if for some odd reason you don't want to try the better way using Stone-Weierstrass.



    Assume that you have the conclusion of the hint, as demonstrated in the previous answer.



    Consider the family of functions, for $N = 1, 2, 3, dots$
    $$
    h_N(t)
    = frac{1}{N}{ f(t+alpha) + f(t+2alpha) + dots + f(t+Nalpha) }
    - int_0^1 f(t) dt
    $$



    Using the hint, show that the sequence
    $$widehat{h_N}(k) = int_0^1 h_N(t) dt$$
    converges to $0$ in $l^2(mathbb{Z})$.



    We know $l^2(mathbb{Z})$ and $L^2([0, 1])$ are Hilbert space isometric, because the trigonometric polynomials are dense in $L^2([0, 1])$, and so it follows that $h_N$ converges to $0$ in $L^2([0, 1])$.



    We have to show that in fact this yields pointwise convergence, which is general not true but in this case is because of the continuity of $f$.



    Here's an easy fact to verify: Suppose you have a sequence and a value, such that every subsequence has a sub-subsequence which converges to that value. Then, the original sequence also converges to that value.



    Pick $t_*$ in $[0, 1]$, and pick an arbitrary subsequence of ${h_N(t_*)}$.



    The corresponding subsequence of ${h_N}$ converges in $L^2$ to $0$, since ${h_N}$ itself does.

    We know from $L^2$-space theory that there is a sub-subsequence which converges pointwise almost everywhere to $0$.



    There are a couple of different ways to proceed from here. One way is to notice that the sub-subsequence of ${h_N}$ is equicontinuous. Then you can apply Arzela's theorem to find a sub-sub-subsequence which converges uniformly to a continuous limit function $phi(t)$ on $[0, 1]$.



    By Dominated Convergece, this sub-sub-subsequence also converges in $L^2$ to $phi$.

    So, $phi$ equals $0$ almost everywhere, and by continuity they are in fact equal everywhere.



    The upshot is that $phi(t) = 0$ for all $t$, so for our arbitrary $t_*$ and our arbitrary subsequence of ${h_N(t_*)}$, we found a sub-sub-subsequence which converges pointwise at $t_*$ to $0$.



    So ${h_N(t_*)}$ converges to $0$, but $t_*$ was arbitrary so ${h_N(t)}$ converges to $0$ for every $t$.



    Choosing $t = 0$ gives the result we are looking for.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      0












      $begingroup$

      Here's a sketch of another way to try to do it, if for some odd reason you don't want to try the better way using Stone-Weierstrass.



      Assume that you have the conclusion of the hint, as demonstrated in the previous answer.



      Consider the family of functions, for $N = 1, 2, 3, dots$
      $$
      h_N(t)
      = frac{1}{N}{ f(t+alpha) + f(t+2alpha) + dots + f(t+Nalpha) }
      - int_0^1 f(t) dt
      $$



      Using the hint, show that the sequence
      $$widehat{h_N}(k) = int_0^1 h_N(t) dt$$
      converges to $0$ in $l^2(mathbb{Z})$.



      We know $l^2(mathbb{Z})$ and $L^2([0, 1])$ are Hilbert space isometric, because the trigonometric polynomials are dense in $L^2([0, 1])$, and so it follows that $h_N$ converges to $0$ in $L^2([0, 1])$.



      We have to show that in fact this yields pointwise convergence, which is general not true but in this case is because of the continuity of $f$.



      Here's an easy fact to verify: Suppose you have a sequence and a value, such that every subsequence has a sub-subsequence which converges to that value. Then, the original sequence also converges to that value.



      Pick $t_*$ in $[0, 1]$, and pick an arbitrary subsequence of ${h_N(t_*)}$.



      The corresponding subsequence of ${h_N}$ converges in $L^2$ to $0$, since ${h_N}$ itself does.

      We know from $L^2$-space theory that there is a sub-subsequence which converges pointwise almost everywhere to $0$.



      There are a couple of different ways to proceed from here. One way is to notice that the sub-subsequence of ${h_N}$ is equicontinuous. Then you can apply Arzela's theorem to find a sub-sub-subsequence which converges uniformly to a continuous limit function $phi(t)$ on $[0, 1]$.



      By Dominated Convergece, this sub-sub-subsequence also converges in $L^2$ to $phi$.

      So, $phi$ equals $0$ almost everywhere, and by continuity they are in fact equal everywhere.



      The upshot is that $phi(t) = 0$ for all $t$, so for our arbitrary $t_*$ and our arbitrary subsequence of ${h_N(t_*)}$, we found a sub-sub-subsequence which converges pointwise at $t_*$ to $0$.



      So ${h_N(t_*)}$ converges to $0$, but $t_*$ was arbitrary so ${h_N(t)}$ converges to $0$ for every $t$.



      Choosing $t = 0$ gives the result we are looking for.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        0












        0








        0





        $begingroup$

        Here's a sketch of another way to try to do it, if for some odd reason you don't want to try the better way using Stone-Weierstrass.



        Assume that you have the conclusion of the hint, as demonstrated in the previous answer.



        Consider the family of functions, for $N = 1, 2, 3, dots$
        $$
        h_N(t)
        = frac{1}{N}{ f(t+alpha) + f(t+2alpha) + dots + f(t+Nalpha) }
        - int_0^1 f(t) dt
        $$



        Using the hint, show that the sequence
        $$widehat{h_N}(k) = int_0^1 h_N(t) dt$$
        converges to $0$ in $l^2(mathbb{Z})$.



        We know $l^2(mathbb{Z})$ and $L^2([0, 1])$ are Hilbert space isometric, because the trigonometric polynomials are dense in $L^2([0, 1])$, and so it follows that $h_N$ converges to $0$ in $L^2([0, 1])$.



        We have to show that in fact this yields pointwise convergence, which is general not true but in this case is because of the continuity of $f$.



        Here's an easy fact to verify: Suppose you have a sequence and a value, such that every subsequence has a sub-subsequence which converges to that value. Then, the original sequence also converges to that value.



        Pick $t_*$ in $[0, 1]$, and pick an arbitrary subsequence of ${h_N(t_*)}$.



        The corresponding subsequence of ${h_N}$ converges in $L^2$ to $0$, since ${h_N}$ itself does.

        We know from $L^2$-space theory that there is a sub-subsequence which converges pointwise almost everywhere to $0$.



        There are a couple of different ways to proceed from here. One way is to notice that the sub-subsequence of ${h_N}$ is equicontinuous. Then you can apply Arzela's theorem to find a sub-sub-subsequence which converges uniformly to a continuous limit function $phi(t)$ on $[0, 1]$.



        By Dominated Convergece, this sub-sub-subsequence also converges in $L^2$ to $phi$.

        So, $phi$ equals $0$ almost everywhere, and by continuity they are in fact equal everywhere.



        The upshot is that $phi(t) = 0$ for all $t$, so for our arbitrary $t_*$ and our arbitrary subsequence of ${h_N(t_*)}$, we found a sub-sub-subsequence which converges pointwise at $t_*$ to $0$.



        So ${h_N(t_*)}$ converges to $0$, but $t_*$ was arbitrary so ${h_N(t)}$ converges to $0$ for every $t$.



        Choosing $t = 0$ gives the result we are looking for.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        Here's a sketch of another way to try to do it, if for some odd reason you don't want to try the better way using Stone-Weierstrass.



        Assume that you have the conclusion of the hint, as demonstrated in the previous answer.



        Consider the family of functions, for $N = 1, 2, 3, dots$
        $$
        h_N(t)
        = frac{1}{N}{ f(t+alpha) + f(t+2alpha) + dots + f(t+Nalpha) }
        - int_0^1 f(t) dt
        $$



        Using the hint, show that the sequence
        $$widehat{h_N}(k) = int_0^1 h_N(t) dt$$
        converges to $0$ in $l^2(mathbb{Z})$.



        We know $l^2(mathbb{Z})$ and $L^2([0, 1])$ are Hilbert space isometric, because the trigonometric polynomials are dense in $L^2([0, 1])$, and so it follows that $h_N$ converges to $0$ in $L^2([0, 1])$.



        We have to show that in fact this yields pointwise convergence, which is general not true but in this case is because of the continuity of $f$.



        Here's an easy fact to verify: Suppose you have a sequence and a value, such that every subsequence has a sub-subsequence which converges to that value. Then, the original sequence also converges to that value.



        Pick $t_*$ in $[0, 1]$, and pick an arbitrary subsequence of ${h_N(t_*)}$.



        The corresponding subsequence of ${h_N}$ converges in $L^2$ to $0$, since ${h_N}$ itself does.

        We know from $L^2$-space theory that there is a sub-subsequence which converges pointwise almost everywhere to $0$.



        There are a couple of different ways to proceed from here. One way is to notice that the sub-subsequence of ${h_N}$ is equicontinuous. Then you can apply Arzela's theorem to find a sub-sub-subsequence which converges uniformly to a continuous limit function $phi(t)$ on $[0, 1]$.



        By Dominated Convergece, this sub-sub-subsequence also converges in $L^2$ to $phi$.

        So, $phi$ equals $0$ almost everywhere, and by continuity they are in fact equal everywhere.



        The upshot is that $phi(t) = 0$ for all $t$, so for our arbitrary $t_*$ and our arbitrary subsequence of ${h_N(t_*)}$, we found a sub-sub-subsequence which converges pointwise at $t_*$ to $0$.



        So ${h_N(t_*)}$ converges to $0$, but $t_*$ was arbitrary so ${h_N(t)}$ converges to $0$ for every $t$.



        Choosing $t = 0$ gives the result we are looking for.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Jan 19 at 19:47

























        answered Jan 19 at 19:27









        bryanjbryanj

        2,5081127




        2,5081127






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f384765%2fprove-that-lim-n-rightarrow-infty1-n-sum-n-1n-fnx-int-01ftdt%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Mario Kart Wii

            What does “Dominus providebit” mean?

            Antonio Litta Visconti Arese