In mathematics, Fatou's lemma establishes an inequality relating the Lebesgue integral of the limit inferior of a sequence of functions to the limit inferior of integrals of these functions. The lemma is named after Pierre Fatou.
Fatou's lemma can be used to prove the Fatou–Lebesgue theorem and Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem.
Standard statement
In what follows,
denotes the
-algebra of Borel sets on
.
Theorem—Fatou's lemma. Given a measure space
and a set
let
be a sequence of
-measurable non-negative functions
. Define the function
by
for every
. Then
is
-measurable, and

where the integrals and the Limit inferior may be infinite.
Fatou's lemma remains true if its assumptions hold
-almost everywhere. In other words, it is enough that there is a null set
such that the values
are non-negative for every
To see this, note that the integrals appearing in Fatou's lemma are unchanged if we change each function on
.
Proof
Fatou's lemma does not require the monotone convergence theorem, but the latter can be used to provide a quick and natural proof. A proof directly from the definitions of integrals is given further below.
Via the Monotone Convergence Theorem
let
. Then:
- the sequence
is pointwise non-decreasing at any x and
,
.
Since
,
and infima and suprema of measurable functions are measurable we see that
is measurable.
By the Monotone Convergence Theorem and property (1), the sup and integral may be interchanged:

where the last step used property (2).
From "first principles"
To demonstrate that the monotone convergence theorem is not "hidden", the proof below does not use any properties of Lebesgue integral except those established here and the fact that the functions
and
are measurable.
Denote by
the set of simple
-measurable functions
such that
on
.
Monotonicity—
- If
everywhere on
then

- If
and
then

- If f is nonnegative and
, where
is a non-decreasing chain of
-measurable sets, then

Proof
1. Since
we have

By definition of Lebesgue integral and the properties of supremum,

2. Let
be the indicator function of the set
It can be deduced from the definition of Lebesgue integral that

if we notice that, for every
outside of
Combined with the previous property, the inequality
implies

3. First note that the claim holds if f is the indicator function of a set, by monotonicity of measures. By linearity, this also immediately implies the claim for simple functions.
Since any simple function supported on Sn is simple and supported on X, we must have
.
For the reverse, suppose g ∈ SF(f) with
By the above,

Now we turn to the main theorem
Proof
Recall the closed intervals generate the Borel σ-algebra. Thus it suffices to show, for every
, that
. Now observe that
![{\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}g_{n}^{-1}([t,+\infty ])&=\left\{x\in X\mid g_{n}(x)\geq t\right\}\\[3pt]&=\left\{x\in X\;\left|\;\inf _{k\,\geq \,n}f_{k}(x)\geq t\right.\right\}\\[3pt]&=\bigcap _{k\,\geq \,n}\left\{x\in X\mid f_{k}(x)\geq t\right\}\\[3pt]&=\bigcap _{k\,\geq \,n}f_{k}^{-1}([t,+\infty ])\end{aligned}}}](./9c4629e8eef562fad7dbba39d6bff54ca975e36f.svg)
Every set on the right-hand side is from
, which is closed under countable intersections. Thus the left-hand side is also a member of
.
Similarly, it is enough to verify that
, for every
. Since the sequence
pointwise non-decreases,
.
Step 2—Given a simple function
and a real number
, define

Then
,
, and
.
Proof
Step 2a. To prove the first claim, write s as a weighted sum of indicator functions of disjoint sets:
.
Then
.
Since the pre-image
of the Borel set
under the measurable function
is measurable, and
-algebras are closed under finite intersection and unions, the first claim follows.
Step 2b. To prove the second claim, note that, for each
and every
,
Step 2c. To prove the third claim, suppose for contradiction there exists

Then
, for every
. Taking the limit as
,

This contradicts our initial assumption that
.
Step 3—From step 2 and monotonicity,

Step 4—For every
,
.
Proof
Indeed, using the definition of
, the non-negativity of
, and the monotonicity of Lebesgue integral, we have
.
In accordance with Step 4, as
the inequality becomes
.
Taking the limit as
yields
,
as required.
Step 5—To complete the proof, we apply the definition of Lebesgue integral to the inequality established in Step 4 and take into account that
:

The proof is complete.
Examples for strict inequality
Equip the space
with the Borel σ-algebra and the Lebesgue measure.

![{\displaystyle f_{n}(x)={\begin{cases}{\frac {1}{n}}&{\text{for }}x\in [0,n],\\0&{\text{otherwise.}}\end{cases}}}](./bf508e0cccac351160fdf49494d4f3711f15edfe.svg)
These sequences
converge on
pointwise (respectively uniformly) to the zero function (with zero integral), but every
has integral one.
The role of non-negativity
A suitable assumption concerning the negative parts of the sequence f1, f2, . . . of functions is necessary for Fatou's lemma, as the following example shows. Let S denote the half line [0,∞) with the Borel σ-algebra and the Lebesgue measure. For every natural number n define
![{\displaystyle f_{n}(x)={\begin{cases}-{\frac {1}{n}}&{\text{for }}x\in [n,2n],\\0&{\text{otherwise.}}\end{cases}}}](./032ca178360ef3bcbb8ef9ee885942640791cad1.svg)
This sequence converges uniformly on S to the zero function and the limit, 0, is reached in a finite number of steps: for every x ≥ 0, if n > x, then fn(x) = 0. However, every function fn has integral −1. Contrary to Fatou's lemma, this value is strictly less than the integral of the limit (0).
As discussed in § Extensions and variations of Fatou's lemma below, the problem is that there is no uniform integrable bound on the sequence from below, while 0 is the uniform bound from above.
Reverse Fatou lemma
Let f1, f2, . . . be a sequence of extended real-valued measurable functions defined on a measure space (S,Σ,μ). If there exists a non-negative integrable function g on S such that fn ≤ g for all n, then

Note: Here g integrable means that g is measurable and that
.
Sketch of proof
We apply linearity of Lebesgue integral and Fatou's lemma to the sequence
Since
this sequence is defined
-almost everywhere and non-negative.
Extensions and variations of Fatou's lemma
Integrable lower bound
Let
be a sequence of extended real-valued measurable functions defined on a measure space
. If there exists an integrable function
on
such that
for all
, then

Proof
Apply Fatou's lemma to the non-negative sequence given by
.
Pointwise convergence
If in the previous setting the sequence
converges pointwise to a function
-almost everywhere on
, then

Proof
Note that
has to agree with the limit inferior of the functions
almost everywhere, and that the values of the integrand on a set of measure zero have no influence on the value of the integral.
Convergence in measure
The last assertion also holds, if the sequence
converges in measure to a function
.
Proof
There exists a subsequence such that

Since this subsequence also converges in measure to
, there exists a further subsequence, which converges pointwise to
almost everywhere, hence the previous variation of Fatou's lemma is applicable to this subsubsequence.
Fatou's Lemma with Converging Measures
Measures with setwise convergence
In all of the above statements of Fatou's Lemma, the integration was carried out with respect to a single fixed measure
. Suppose that
is a sequence of measures on the measurable space
such that (see Convergence of measures)
.
Then, with
non-negative integrable functions and
being their pointwise limit inferior, we have

Proof
|
We will prove something a bit stronger here. Namely, we will allow to converge -almost everywhere on a subset of . We seek to show that

Let
.
Then μ(E-K)=0 and

Thus, replacing by we may assume that converge to pointwise on . Next, note that for any simple function we have

Hence, by the definition of the Lebesgue Integral, it is enough to show that if is any non-negative simple function less than or equal to , then

Let a be the minimum non-negative value of φ. Define

We first consider the case when .
We must have that is infinite since

where M is the (necessarily finite) maximum value of that attains.
Next, we define

We have that

But is a nested increasing sequence of functions and hence, by the continuity from below ,
.
Thus,
.
At the same time,

proving the claim in this case.
The remaining case is when . We must have that is finite. Denote, as above, by the maximum value of and fix Define

Then An is a nested increasing sequence of sets whose union contains . Thus, is a decreasing sequence of sets with empty intersection. Since has finite measure (this is why we needed to consider the two separate cases),

Thus, there exists n such that

Therefore, since

there exists N such that

Hence, for

At the same time,

Hence,

Combining these inequalities gives that

Hence, sending to 0 and taking the liminf in , we get that

completing the proof.
|
Asymptotically uniform integrable functions
The following results use the notion asymptotically uniform integrable (a.u.i). A sequence
of measurable
-valued functions is a.u.i with respect to a sequence of measures
if
Weakly converging measures
A sequence of measures
on a metric space
converges weakly to a finite measure
on M if, for each bounded continuous function
on
,
Measures with convergence in total variation
A sequence of finite measures
on a measurable space
converges in total variation to a measure
on
if
Theorem[2]—Let
be a measurable space,
be a sequence of measures on
converging in total variation to a measure
, and
be a sequence of measurable
-valued functions on
, and
be a measurable
-valued function. Assume that
and
Then

if and only if the following two statements hold:
- (i) for each
,
as
, and, therefore, there exists a subsequence
such that
for
-a.e.
;
- (ii)
is a.u.i. with respect to
.
Fatou's lemma for conditional expectations
In probability theory, by a change of notation, the above versions of Fatou's lemma are applicable to sequences of random variables X1, X2, . . . defined on a probability space
; the integrals turn into expectations. In addition, there is also a version for conditional expectations.
Standard version
Let X1, X2, . . . be a sequence of non-negative random variables on a probability space
and let
be a sub-σ-algebra. Then
almost surely.
Note: Conditional expectation for non-negative random variables is always well defined, finite expectation is not needed.
Proof
Besides a change of notation, the proof is very similar to the one for the standard version of Fatou's lemma above, however the monotone convergence theorem for conditional expectations has to be applied.
Let X denote the limit inferior of the Xn. For every natural number k define pointwise the random variable

Then the sequence Y1, Y2, . . . is increasing and converges pointwise to X.
For k ≤ n, we have Yk ≤ Xn, so that
almost surely
by the monotonicity of conditional expectation, hence
almost surely,
because the countable union of the exceptional sets of probability zero is again a null set.
Using the definition of X, its representation as pointwise limit of the Yk, the monotone convergence theorem for conditional expectations, the last inequality, and the definition of the limit inferior, it follows that almost surely
![{\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\mathbb {E} {\Bigl [}\liminf _{n\to \infty }X_{n}\,{\Big |}\,{\mathcal {G}}{\Bigr ]}&=\mathbb {E} [X|{\mathcal {G}}]=\mathbb {E} {\Bigl [}\lim _{k\to \infty }Y_{k}\,{\Big |}\,{\mathcal {G}}{\Bigr ]}=\lim _{k\to \infty }\mathbb {E} [Y_{k}|{\mathcal {G}}]\\&\leq \lim _{k\to \infty }\inf _{n\geq k}\mathbb {E} [X_{n}|{\mathcal {G}}]=\liminf _{n\to \infty }\,\mathbb {E} [X_{n}|{\mathcal {G}}].\end{aligned}}}](./13169cd09a4372a20eb250f3d617c3623bfacabc.svg)
Let X1, X2, . . . be a sequence of random variables on a probability space
and let
be a sub-σ-algebra. If the negative parts

are uniformly integrable with respect to the conditional expectation, in the sense that, for ε > 0 there exists a c > 0 such that
,
then
almost surely.
Note: On the set where

satisfies
![{\displaystyle \mathbb {E} [\max\{X,0\}\,|\,{\mathcal {G}}]=\infty ,}](./11b354af5729d85d5b7f584bac0edc000ed0f6e6.svg)
the left-hand side of the inequality is considered to be plus infinity. The conditional expectation of the limit inferior might not be well defined on this set, because the conditional expectation of the negative part might also be plus infinity.
Proof
Let ε > 0. Due to uniform integrability with respect to the conditional expectation, there exists a c > 0 such that
![{\displaystyle \mathbb {E} {\bigl [}X_{n}^{-}1_{\{X_{n}^{-}>c\}}\,|\,{\mathcal {G}}{\bigr ]}<\varepsilon \qquad {\text{for all }}n\in \mathbb {N} ,\,{\text{almost surely}}.}](./8ca3bf9b4f2b18c99ab5fb278b2fa046d649f839.svg)
Since

where x+ := max{x,0} denotes the positive part of a real x, monotonicity of conditional expectation (or the above convention) and the standard version of Fatou's lemma for conditional expectations imply
almost surely.
Since

we have
almost surely,
hence
almost surely.
This implies the assertion.
References
- Carothers, N. L. (2000). Real Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 321–22. ISBN 0-521-49756-6.
- Royden, H. L. (1988). Real Analysis (3rd ed.). London: Collier Macmillan. ISBN 0-02-404151-3.
- Weir, Alan J. (1973). "The Convergence Theorems". Lebesgue Integration and Measure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 93–118. ISBN 0-521-08728-7.
|
---|
Basic concepts | |
---|
Sets | |
---|
Types of measures | |
---|
Particular measures | |
---|
Maps | |
---|
Main results | |
---|
Other results | |
---|
Applications & related | |
---|