Let us assume that f:[0,∞)→[0,∞) is a non-decreasing continuous function with
f(t)tt→∞→1.
We then have the following elementary Lemma:
For all k∈N0 we have
∫t0skdf(s)∫t0skdst→∞→1.
For the sake of completeness, a detailed elementary proof is given below which makes explicit use of the very simple nature of the integrand. However, it seems plausible that such a property should hold for much more general functions in place of sk. In particular, the following statement seems reasonable to me.
Conjecture: If h:[0,∞)→[0,∞) is measurable and
lim inft→∞h(t)>0
(and maybe something else), then we have
∫t0h(s)df(s)∫t0h(s)dst→∞→1.
Since h cannot "lose mass at infinity", this property would give meaning to the idea that if a distribution function of a measure μ on B([0,∞)) is asymptotically equivalent to the identity (which is the distribution function of Lebesgue's measure), then "μ is asymptotically equivalent to Lebesgue's measure".
Of course, further natural steps would be to replace Lebesgue's measure by any other locally finite measure ν on B([0,∞)) with a continuous distribution function and then compare μ and ν asymptotically. Then one could ask if continuity can be dropped. But for the moment, I guess the above conjecture is nice enough.
Does anyone know a reference where something like this is stated (and proved)? Or does anyone have an idea how to prove it? Thanks a lot in advance!
Proof of the elementary Lemma: Using the Stieltjes product formula, we can write
∫t0skdf(s)∫t0skds=k+1tk+1∫t0skdf(s)=k+1tk+1(tkf(t)−∫t0f(s)dsk)=(k+1)f(t)t−k+1tk+1∫t0f(s)ksk−1ds=(k+1)f(t)t−k−k(k+1)tk+1∫t0(f(s)−s)sk−1ds.
By (A), the first summand converges to k+1 for t→∞, so it remains to prove that
g(t):=k+1tk+1∫t0(f(s)−s)sk−1ds
vanishes for t→∞. Let ϵ>0. According to (A), there is some t0∈(0,∞) such that
|f(s)s−1|≤ϵfor all s∈[t0,∞).
Then
|g(t)|≤k+1tk+1∫t00|f(s)−s|sk−1ds+k+1tk+1∫tt0(sϵ)sk−1ds≤k+1tk+1∫t00|f(s)−s|sk−1ds+ϵ
for all t∈[t0,∞). As the integral in the last step is finite and does not depend on t, this shows that
lim supt→∞|g(t)|≤ϵ,
which completes the proof, since ϵ was chosen arbitrarily.
Answer
Here are some counter-examples: Let f(t)=t+sint. Then clearly f(t)/t→1 as t→∞.
If h(s)=es, then
∫t0h(s)f(ds)∫t0h(s)ds=1+cost+sint2+O(e−t).
If h(s)=2+coss, then
∫t0h(s)f(ds)∫t0h(s)ds=54+O(1t).
No comments:
Post a Comment