Abstract
In this paper, the variation of functions has been defined, whose domain is a convex and compact set in the plane. Furthermore, in addition to presenting properties that satisfy this variation, the vector space formed by functions with finite variation is studied, demonstrating that it is a Banach space and its elements can be expressed as the difference of non-decreasing functions.
Keywords and Phrases:
1. Introduction
Even though we have the definition of the integral of functions defined over a rectangle in the plane, to achieve flexibility when studying some natural phenomena, it is necessary to generalize this definition to more general regions, since many of them, perhaps most of them, can be developed in more irregular regions. And in the same line, although it is true that the study of functions of bounded variation arises as a necessary tool in the study of Fourier series, they have acquired importance from the theoretical point of view. Thus, this space of functions has been treated by several authors. First, the initial definition of functions of a real variable defined on a compact interval has now been extended to more general sets, among them: open sets, compact sets, etc. It has even been defined for functions whose values are in metric spaces or Banach spaces. Subsequently, interest arose in working with this type of function defined in two or more variables, see (Ambrosio, Citation1990; Bracamonte, Giménez, & Merente, Citation2013; Chistyakov & Tretyachenko, Citation2010). However, there is interest in studying some types of integral equations, such as those of the Fredholm and/or Volterra type (see Banaś & Dronka, Citation2000; Ereú, Marchan, Pérez, & Rojas, Citation2023). However, we are interested in obtaining solutions in the space of functions of bounded variation of nonlinear integral equations such as where f is a bounded variation function, for which it is essential that the functions that are involved in them are defined in more general sets. This new definition allows the study, among other things, of equations of this type. This is part of the motivation of this study, in addition to the interest of space itself, which is still of interest to many researchers (Bugajewski & Gulgowski, Citation2020; Ereú et al., Citation2023; Giménez, Merentes, & Vivas, Citation2014). We begin thus, with the definition of variation of a function defined on a compact and convex set, a relatively simple set in the plane.
2. Preliminaries
We begin by presenting the most frequently know definition of variation of a function with a rectangle as domain.
Let be a rectangle in we assume that and As in (Clarkson & Adams, Citation1933), the term net we shall, unless otherwise specified, mean a set of parallels to the axes
In this case we will say that and are partitions of the intervals [a, b] and [c, d] respectively, which we will denote by and Furthermore the net will state that
Each of the smaller rectangles into which is partitioned by a net will be called a cell.
If the authors also define the today called Vitali difference for by (2.1) (2.1)
Note that this difference involves all four vertices of the cell therefore it is required that the function f is defined in
Let be a partition of [a, b] and be a partition of [c, d]. Is clear that, is a net for Under the given conditions the following variations are defined and where the supremum is being taken over all of partitions of [a, b] and [c, d] respectively.
The total variation of is defined by
In (Chistyakov & Tretyachenko, Citation2010) the space of functions of finite total variation is defined (in sense of Vitali, Hardy and Krause) as,
In addition, several properties are demonstrated, among which are
f is bounded,
Is and with and then (2.2) (2.2)
if a sequence of maps from into converges pointwise on to a map then (2.3) (2.3)
In (Idczak, Citation1994), an interval function associated with f is defined as follows where Can be observed that the definition coincides with the one given for this function is additive and has bounded variation when where are rectangles such that (disjoint inner sets).In other words, this function has bounded variation if is finite.Furthermore, in (Łojasiewicz, Citation1988) it has been proven that if this function has bounded variation, it can be decomposed (Jordan Canonical Decomposition) as the difference of two additive, non-negative functions defined for
is a Banach algebra with respect to the usual pointwise operations and norm
The following inequality holds:
3. Variation of a function defined on more general sets
Our objective in this section is to define the variation of functions whose domain is a more general set For which we have restricted ourselves to compact and convex sets.
Let be a compact and convex set in the plane, we will restrict ourselves to rectangle which is the smallest rectangle that contains Note also that if we consider a finite number of points in they determine partitions and in the intervals [a, b] and [c, d] respectively.
When we are working on a rectangle in the plane the total variation is found by adding three variations, the first two corresponding to a variation of only one variable, but just on two of the edges of the rectangle where the variation of the function is being studied. In our case, to replicate this we make some preliminary considerations, let’s see.
Evidently, if is not a rectangle, then there must exist elements in that are not in Besides, given a point in (may not be in ), obviously the lines and have points in common with otherwise it would imply that is not the smallest rectangle containing
Taking this into account, for each point we define (3.1) (3.1)
Example 1.
If is the polygon of vertices and it is true that will be and consequently for the point so we have that
In fact, for any x in [1, 2] one has that while if x is in [2, 3] it follows that
Similarly, for each y in [c, d] we define (3.2) (3.2)
In the above example, for any we have that while, if is true that
By defining the variation of a function whose domain is
With these resources, we can now introduce the variation of a function defined over
Definition 3.1.
Let be a partition of [a, b], we define where
Note that describes the behavior of f at the lower boundary of
Example 2.
Consider the function defined on the triangle with vertices at the points and In this case is the rectangle with vertices at and that is Note that for any partition including 1, one will have that
Since this is true for any partition of [0, 2], it follows that
We now proceed to define the variation For which, we begin by noting that there exists a such that Therefore, we can define (3.3) (3.3)
In fact, this infimum is a minimum. Consequently, we can now define in the following way.
Definition 3.2.
Let be a partition of [e, d]; then is define by where
Note that indicates the variation of f over the left boundary of which does not overlap with the lower boundary.
Remark 3.3.
Note that in the case where is a rectangle, and indeed and are effectively a generalization of the variations and that are defined over a rectangle.
If is defined as zero.
Example 3.
Considering sigma and f as in the previous example, in this case, consequently we have that
A generalization of Vitali difference
Therefore, it is necessary to generalize the definition of Vitali difference given in Equation(2.1)(2.1) (2.1) . With this goal in mind, we define an extension of the function f to by
Then the type Vitali difference of f on the rectangle is defined by,
Note that if then
Now we can, emulating the definition of bounded variation for functions whose domain is a rectangle, present the corresponding definition for functions defined on a compact and convex set where and (3.4) (3.4)
We also present the set of functions of finite total variation (in the sense of Vitali – Hardy and Krause) as
It is clear that the particular case in which is a rectangle already fulfills the properties stated and studied above. So we now turn to study what properties are preserved when sigma is a more general set.
Properties
It is expected that this newly defined variation satisfies analogous properties to those satisfied by the variation in functions defined on a rectangle R. Let’s take a look at some of them.
(P1) If and are partitions of [a, b] and [e, d] (e as it has been defined in Equation(3.3)(3.3) (3.3) ) respectively, then for each we will have,
So, (3.5) (3.5)
Similarly, which guarantees that (3.6) (3.6)
Given that and are defined over the rectangle then they satisfy the inequality and by its definition, it guarantees us that (3.7) (3.7)
Thus, from inequalities Equation(3.5)(3.5) (3.5) , Equation(3.6)(3.6) (3.6) and Equation(3.7)(3.7) (3.7) , is obtained that and
(P2) Since the null function is in and property (P1) is satisfied we obtain that, with the operations of addition and multiplication by a scalar, is a real vector space.
(P3) If is a partition of [a, b] and t is a point in that is not in the partition, then for some and consequently using the triangular inequality in the th summand of
we obtain
Similarly, it can be verified that
Using the properties of Vitali difference for functions defined on a rectangle, we obtain that
The importance of this property is that it establishes a monotonicity of variation when we add points to the partitions. This allows us to treat the supremum as a limit when necessary.
(P4) If then f is a bounded function. Note that
From this we can state that if then A consequence of this is that is a bounded function, and in fact, if then
It is crucial to understand the ”magnitude” of this novel class of functions, as it would not significantly contribute if it solely comprised constant functions. Theorem 3.7 will provide the justification for investigating and studying this distinct class of functions.
Lemma 3.4.
Let be a Lipschitz continuous function, with Lipschitz constant L, then where denotes the diameter of
Proof.
If be a Lipschitz continuous function, with Lipschitz constant L, is a partition of [a, b], then for we have
Consequently, we obtain that
Similarly, the following lemma can be demonstrated.
Lemma 3.5.
Let be a Lipschitz continuous function, with Lipschitz constant L, then where denotes the diameter of
What happens with the variation of both variables? let’s see.
Lemma 3.6
Let be a Lipschitz continuous function, with Lipschitz constant L then
Proof.
If be a Lipschitz continuous function, with Lipschitz constant L, and partitions of [a, b] and [c, d] respectively, then and
From which we obtain that
So
Note that if there must exist points such that and in which case And with the same reasoning it follows that
As a consequence the following theorem can be stated
Theorem 3.7.
Let be a Lipschitz continuous function, with Lipschitz constant L, then and where denotes the diameter of
4. The space
As a consequence of (P1) we have that is a semi-norm. Then is worth asking whether a norm can be defined in this set of functions. For which it will be essential to consider the following property.
Lemma 4.1.
if and only if f is constant.
Proof.
It is clear that if f is constant then On the other hand, given that then and in this case is constant, therefore so is f. ▪
Lemma 4.2.
defines a norm for
The proof is an immediate consequence of property (P1) and the previous lemma.
Theorem 4.3
is a Banach space.
Proof.
Let be a Cauchy sequence in then for each and Since is a Cauchy sequence, there exists such that
Then, if
Therefore, the succession is a Cauchy sequence of numbers and thus convergent. Note additionally that this convergence is uniform; therefore, we define the function by
We need to verify if the function this way defined is in
Let’s see. If is a partition of [e, d], we will have that,
From where
On the other hand, by virtue of inequality Equation(2.3)(2.3) (2.3) , we will have that
Therefore,
Now, it is valid to ask the question, ”Why choose this extension? Could it be extended using and A defined in (3.2)?” The answer is affirmative. It is easy to show that if has bounded variation on then will also go have bounded variation. It is important to clarify that, in general, this two variations do not coincide.
5. Jordan-type decomposition theorem
It is known that any function of one variable that has bounded variation can be written as the difference of two non-decreasing functions. The idea of the following theorem is to emulate this result. Before we start, let’s present some definitions that will be necessary.
Definition 5.1
(see (Idczak, Citation1994)) A function will be called non-decreasing if and are non-decreasing and the associated function is nonnegative.
Theorem 5.2
If a function has a finite variation then there exist non-decreasing functions such that
Proof.
First, let us assume that has a finite variation. Then, for each we have that
Now, there exist non-decreasing functions and of one variable such that
In addition, we can choose two rectangle functions F and G that are additive and non-negative such that
Using this knowledge about functions defined on rectangles, we can now proceed:
Thus,
In particular,
6. Conclusions
In this paper, we have presented a definition of variation for functions defined on sets that are more general than those defined in the plane, specifically on convex and compact sets. To do this, we extend the function defined to the smallest rectangle that contains the said set, thus leveraging the known properties of function variation over rectangles. Subsequently, properties of this definition are presented, revealing that a set composed of functions defined on a convex and compact set, whose variation is bounded, is sufficiently rich as it contains all Lipschitz functions. Consequently, we obtain a space of functions equipped with a norm, with which it is demonstrated to be a Banach space. Finally, a Jordan-type decomposition theorem is obtained, meaning that a function in this space can be expressed as the difference of functions.
Disclosure statement
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest related to this research, either by authorship or publication. They also declare that they have not received specific funding from any source, whether commercial, public, or non-profit organizations.
References
- Ambrosio, L. (1990). Metric space valued functions of bounded variation. Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa-Classe di Scienze, 17(3), 439–478.
- Ashton, B., & Doust, I. (2005). Functions of bounded variation on compact subsets of the plane. Studia Mathematica, 169(2), 163–188. doi:10.4064/sm169-2-5
- Banaś, J., & Dronka, J. (2000). Integral Operators of Volterra-Stieltjes type, their properties and applications. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 32(11–13), 1321–1331. doi:10.1016/S0895-7177(00)00207-7
- Bracamonte, M., Giménez, J., & Merente, N. (2013). Vector valued functions of bounded bidimensional Φ− variation. Annals of Functional Analysis, 4(1), 89–108. doi:10.15352/afa/1399899839
- Bugajewski, D., & Gulgowski, J. (2020). On the characterization of compactness in the space of functions of bounded variation in the sense of Jordan. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 484(2), 123752. doi:10.1016/j.jmaa.2019.123752
- Chistyakov, V. V., & Tretyachenko, Y. V. (2010). Maps of several variables of finite total variation I. Mixed differences and the total variacion. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications. 370(2), 672–686. doi:10.1016/j.jmaa.2010.04.055
- Clarkson, J., & Adams, R. (1933). On definition of bounded variation for functions of two variables. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 35(4), 824–854. doi:10.1090/S0002-9947-1933-1501718-2
- Ereú, J., Marchan, L., Pérez, L., & Rojas, H. (2023). Some results on the space of bounded second κ− variation functions. AIMS Mathematics, 8(9), 21872–21892. doi:10.3934/math.20231115
- Giménez, J., Merentes, M., & Vivas, M. (2014). Functions of bounded variations on compact subsets of C. Journals of the Polish Mathematical Society, 54 (1), 3–19.
- Idczak, D. (1994). Functions of several variables of finite variation and their differentiability. Annales Polonici Mathematici, 60(1), 47–56. doi:10.4064/ap-60-1-47-56
- Łojasiewicz, S. (1988). An Introduction to the Theory of Real Functions. Chichester: Wiley.