Questions : [See below for context.]
$\rm\color{#c00}{a)}$ First, is the proof presented below $100$ % correct ?
$\rm\color{#c00}{b)}$ How would one justify the LHS of $(2)$ ? Are my thoughts correct ?
Thoughts : One way I see it is in three times : first we note that $(\cdot)^{1/p}$ is continuous, then we apply the Monotone Convergence Theorem (MON) and finally we note that $|\cdot|^p$ is continuous, so that all in all we can bring the limit all the way in (even if $\displaystyle\sum_{k\geq1} |f_k|$ is infinite in this case).
Another way I see it is by noting that every norm is (Lipschitz) continuous, so that we can effectively bring the limit inside (even if it is infinite in this case).
$\rm\color{#c00}{c)}$ Why must we take the absolute value of $f_k$ when investigating $\displaystyle\sum|f_k|$ ? Are my thoughts correct ?
Thoughts : I think that MON would not apply for $\rm\color{#c00}{b)}$ and I think that if we did not take the absolute value, then we could not speak, a priori, of the limit, that is, $\displaystyle\sum_{k\geq1} f_k$, in $(2)$. Taking the absolute value gives a series with positive terms and such a series either converges or diverges to $\infty$. A series with negative terms could diverge by oscillating.
$\rm\color{#c00}{d)}$ In $(4)$, defining $F$ by $0$ is purely arbitrary, right ? We could define $F$ to be anything on the null set, right ? Also, $\displaystyle\sum_{k\geq1} f_k$ does exist on the given set since absolute convergence implies convergence for series of numbers, right ?
$\rm\color{#c00}{e)}$ The equality $(5)$ is true since
$$
F-\sum_{k=1}^{n}f_k=\sum_{k=n+1}^{\infty}f_k
$$
almost everywhere, right ?$\rm\color{#c00}{f)}$ Would it be fair to say that what was sufficient to prove was $\displaystyle\sum_{k\geq1}|f_k|<\infty$ a.e., [added] and that the reason the proof is not trivial is that $L^p(\mu)$ contains, by definition, finite-valued functions ? I mean, in measure theory we work with functions with range in the extended real line, $[-\infty,\infty]$, and if we allowed the functions in $L^p(\mu)$ to take infinite values, then in fact every series would be convergent (trivially) in $L^p(\mu)$. Is this correct ?
Def. : Let $(X,\cal{A},\mu)$ be a measured space. Then for $1\leq p<\infty$ we define
$$
L^p(\mu):=\{f:X\to\mathbb{R}\text{ measurable and s.t. }\|f\|_p<\infty\},
$$
where $\|f\|_p:=\left(\int|f|^pd\mu\right)^{1/p}$. As usual we really take equivalence classes of functions differing only on a null set.
Thm (Riesz-Fischer) : $(L^p(\mu),\|\cdot\|_p)$ is complete for $1\leq p<\infty$.
Dem. : We know it suffices to show that every absolutely convergent series converges.
Let $(f_k)_{k\geq1}\subset L^p(\mu)$ be a sequence such that
$$
\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\|f_k\|_p<\infty.\tag{0}
$$
Since, by Minkowski's inequality, one has
$$
\left\|\sum_{k=1}^n|f_k|\right\|_p\leq\sum_{k=1}^n\|f_k\|_p,\tag{1}
$$
letting $n\to\infty$ gives
$$
\left\|\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}|f_k|\right\|_p\leq\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\|f_k\|_p<\infty,\tag{2}
$$
thus
$$
\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}|f_k|<\infty\quad\text{a.e.}\tag{3}
$$
Now define
$$
F:=\begin{cases}\displaystyle\sum_{k\geq1}f_k&\text{on }\left\{\displaystyle\sum_{k\geq1}|f_k|<\infty\right\},\\0&\text{otherwise}.\end{cases}\tag{4}
$$
Then $F$ is in $L^p(\mu)$ since $|F|\leq\displaystyle\sum_{k\geq1}|f_k|$ and by $(2)$. Also, $F$ is such that
$$
\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}f_k=F,
$$
because
\begin{align}
\left\|F-\sum_{k=1}^{n}f_k\right\|_p&=\left\|\sum_{k=n+1}^{\infty}f_k\right\|_p\tag{5}\\
&\leq\left\|\sum_{k=n+1}^{\infty}|f_k|\right\|_p\\
&\stackrel{(2)}{\leq}\sum_{k=n+1}^{\infty}\|f_k\|_p\xrightarrow[(n\to\infty)]{(0)}0.\quad\text{Q.E.D.}
\end{align}
Best Answer