9.3. THE Lp SPACES 229

Proof: The second claim follows right away from the definition of ∥ f∥∞. If it is not

so, then µ ({ω : | f (ω)|> λ}) = 0 and so λ would be one of those constants M in thedescription of ∥ f∥

∞and ∥ f∥

∞would not really be the infimum of these numbers. Consider

the other claim. By definition,

µ

({ω : | f (ω)|> 1

n+∥ f∥

})= 0

This is because there must be some essential upper bound M between ∥ f∥∞

and ∥ f∥∞+ 1

nsince otherwise, ∥ f∥

∞would not be the infimum. But

µ ({ω : | f (ω)|> ∥ f∥∞}) = ∪∞

n=1µ

({ω : | f (ω)|> 1

n+∥ f∥

})and each of the sets in the union has measure zero. ■

Note that this implies that if ∥ f∥∞= 0, then f = 0 a.e. so f is regarded as 0. Thus,

to say that ∥ f −g∥∞= 0 is to say that the two functions inside the norm are equal except

for a set of measure zero, and the convention is that when this happens, we regard them asthe same function. If α = 0 then ∥α f∥

∞= 0 = 0∥ f∥

∞. If α ̸= 0, then M ≥ | f (ω)| implies

|α|M ≥ |α f (ω)| . In particular, |α|(∥ f∥

∞+ 1

n

)≥ |α f (ω)| for all ω not in the union of the

sets of measure zero corresponding to each ∥ f∥∞+ 1

n . Thus there is a set of measure zeroN such that for ω /∈ N,

|α|(∥ f∥

∞+

1n

)≥ |α f (ω)| for all n

Therefore, for ω /∈N, |α|∥ f∥∞≥∥α f∥

∞. This implies that ∥ f∥

∞=∥∥ 1

αα f∥∥

∞≤ 1|α| ∥α f∥

and so ∥α f∥∞≥ |α|∥ f∥

∞also. This shows that this acts like a norm relative to multipli-

cation by scalars. What of the triangle inequality? Let Mn ↓ ∥ f∥∞

and Nn ↓ ∥g∥∞. Thus for

each n, there is an exceptional set of measure zero such that off this set Mn ≥ | f (ω)| and asimilar condition holding for g and Nn. Let N be the union of all the exceptional sets for fand g for each n. Then for ω /∈ N, the following holds for all ω /∈ N

Mn +Nn ≥ | f (ω)|+ |g(ω)| ≥ | f (ω)+g(ω)|

So take a limit of both sides and find that ∥ f∥∞+∥g∥

∞≥ | f (ω)+g(ω)| for all ω off a set

of measure zero. Therefore,

∥ f∥∞+∥g∥

∞≥ ∥ f +g∥

Theorem 9.3.10 L∞ (Ω) is complete.

Proof: Let { fn} be a Cauchy sequence. Let N be the union of all sets where it isnot the case that | fn (ω)− fm (ω)| ≤ ∥ fn− fm∥∞

. By Proposition 9.3.9, there is such anexceptional set Mmn for each choice of m,n. Thus N is the countable union of these setsof measure zero. Therefore, for ω /∈ N,{ fn (ω)}∞

n=1 is a Cauchy sequence and so we letg(ω) = 0 if ω /∈ N and g(ω)≡ limn→∞ fn (ω) . Thus g is measurable. Also, for ω /∈ N,

|g(ω)− fn (ω)|= limm→∞| fm (ω)− fn (ω)| ≤ lim sup

m→∞

∥ fm− fn∥∞< ε

provided n is sufficiently large. This shows |g(ω)| ≤ ∥ fn∥∞+ ε, ω /∈ N so ∥g∥

∞< ∞.

Also it shows that there is a set of measure zero N such that for all ω /∈ N, for any ε > 0,|g(ω)− fn (ω)| < ε which means ∥g− fn∥∞

≤ ε . Since ε is arbitrary, this shows thatlimn→∞ ∥g− fn∥∞

= 0.■

9.3. THE LP SPACES 229Proof: The second claim follows right away from the definition of ||f||,,. If it is notso, then ({@:|f(@)| >A}) = 0 and so A would be one of those constants M in thedescription of || f]|,, and ||,f||,, would not really be the infimum of these numbers. Considerthe other claim. By definition,n({o:ir(o) >< +lirl.}) =oThis is because there must be some essential upper bound M between ||/||,, and || f||,. +4since otherwise, || f||,, would not be the infimum. Butb ({0:|F(0)|> Wfla}) =Ueaat ({ 2 1F(@)]> + Ufletand each of the sets in the union has measure zero.Note that this implies that if ||/||,, = 0, then f =0 ae. so f is regarded as 0. Thus,to say that || — g||,, = 0 is to say that the two functions inside the norm are equal exceptfor a set of measure zero, and the convention is that when this happens, we regard them asthe same function. If @ = 0 then ||@f||,, =0 =0||f||,.. If a 40, then M > | f (@)| implies|a.|M > |of (@)|. In particular, |@| (|| f||.. +4) = |of (@)| for all @ not in the union of thesets of measure zero corresponding to each || f||,, + +. Thus there is a set of measure zeroN such that for @ ¢ N,al (It 2) = a.r(@)| foraTherefore, for @ ¢ N,|04\||f||.. = || Of lle. - This implies that || f||.. = || 7S ].. < ql.and so ||@f\|,, > |@| || f||.. also. This shows that this acts like a norm relative to multipli-cation by scalars. What of the triangle inequality? Let M,, | ||f||,, and Ny 1 ||g||... Thus foreach n, there is an exceptional set of measure zero such that off this set M, > |f(@)| andasimilar condition holding for g and N,. Let N be the union of all the exceptional sets for fand g for each n. Then for @ ¢ N, the following holds for all @ ¢ NMn +Nn = |f(@)| +18 (@)| = |f(@) +8 (@)|So take a limit of both sides and find that || f||,, + ||g||.. > |f(@) +. (@)| for all @ off a setof measure zero. Therefore,IIflleo + M18lleo 2 IF + 8lleeTheorem 9.3.10 7% (Q) is complete.Proof: Let {f,} be a Cauchy sequence. Let N be the union of all sets where it isnot the case that |f,(@)— fin(@)| < |lfn —JSmll.- By Proposition 9.3.9, there is such anexceptional set Mj, for each choice of m,n. Thus N is the countable union of these setsof measure zero. Therefore, for @ ¢ N, {fn(@)};_, is a Cauchy sequence and so we letg(@) =O0if a ¢ N and g(@) = limy,4~ f, (@). Thus g is measurable. Also, for o ¢ N,|g (@) — fn(@)| = lim | fm (@) — fn(@)| < lim sup || fn — fnloo < €m—-eprovided n is sufficiently large. This shows |g(@)| < ||fnll. +€, @ ¢ N so ||g||,, < °.Also it shows that there is a set of measure zero N such that for all @ ¢ N, for any € > 0,|\g(@) — fn (@)| < € which means ||g—f,,||,, < €. Since € is arbitrary, this shows thatlim || — fnl|.. = 0.