7.17 If f is continuous on [0, 1] and if Rudin’s Ex.

20
Z 1
f (x)xn dx = 0, n = 0, 1, 2, . . . ,
0

prove that f (x) = 0 on [0, 1].

Proof Since f is continuous on [0, 1], by Theorem 4.15, there is M such that |f (x)| ≤
M for all x ∈ [0, 1]. Since f is continuous on [0, 1], by the Weierstrass Approximation
Theorem, there is a sequence of complex polynomials Pn such that Pn → f uniformly
on [0, 1]. Let  > 0 be given. We know that there is N such that n ≥ N implies
|Pn (x) − f (x)| < /M, x ∈ [0, 1].
Hence, if n ≥ N , we have
f (x)Pn (x) − |f (x)|2  = |f (x)|˙|Pn (x) − f (x)| < M · /M = ,
 
x ∈ [0, 1].
In other words, f Pn → |f |2 uniformly on [0, 1]. By Theorem 7.16, and the hypothe-
ses, we have Z 1 Z 1 Z 1
|f |2 dx = f f dx = lim f Pn dx = 0.
0 0 n→∞ 0
By Rudin’s Exercise 6.2, we know that f = 0 on [0, 1].
7.18 Assume f ∈ R(α) on [a, b], and prove that there are polynomials Pn such that Rudin’s Ex. 22
Z b
lim |f − Pn |2 dα = 0.
n→∞ a

Proof Without loss of generality, we assume that f is a real function. Otherwise,

we only need to consider the real and imaginary parts separately.
Let  > 0 be given. By Rudin’s Exercise 6.12, there is a continuous function g on
[a, b] such that kf − gk2 < /2. By the Weierstrass Approximation Theorem, there is
a sequence of polynomials {Pn } such that Pn → g uniformly on [a, b]. Hence, there
exists N such that n ≥ N implies

|Pn (x) − g(x)| < p , x ∈ [a, b].
2 [α(b) − α(a)]
Hence, if n ≥ N , we have
Z b
2
kPn − gk22 = |Pn (x) − g(x)|2 dα < · [α(b) − α(a)] = 2 /4.
a 4[α(b) − α(a)]
It follows from Rudin’s Exercise 6.11 that, if n ≥ N , then
Z b
|f − Pn |2 dα = kf − Pn k22
a
2
≤ (kf − gk2 + kg − Pn k2 )
2
< (/2 + /2) = 2 ,
which implies the desired limit.

1
8.3 Prove that XX XX Rudin’s Ex. 3
aij = aij
i j j i

if aij ≥ 0 for all i and j.

Proof If both summations contain finitely many terms, it is clear that they are
interchangeable. Otherwise, if we can show that
 
X∞ X∞  X 
aij = sup aij : S ⊂ N+ × N+ is finite ,
i=1 j=1 S  
(i,j)∈S

then the consequence of the problem follows.

In fact, for any finite S ⊂ N+ × N+ , since aij ≥ 0, we have

X ∞
∞ X X
aij ≥ aij ,
i=1 j=1 (i,j)∈S

which implies
 
X ∞
∞ X  X 
aij ≥ sup aij : S ⊂ N+ × N+ is finite .
i=1 j=1 S  
(i,j)∈S

In order to prove the reversed inequality, if we let s ∈ R be any number satisfying

∞ X
X ∞
s< aij .
i=1 j=1

we only need to prove that

 
 X 
s < sup aij : S ⊂ N+ × N+ is finite .
S  
(i,j)∈S

Indeed, we choose  > 0 such that

∞ X
X ∞
s+< aij .
i=1 j=1

Then there is m ∈ N+ such that

∞
m X
X
aij > s + .
i=1 j=1

2
 ∞
X
If for some i0 with 1 ≤ i0 ≤ m, the sum ai0 j is infinite, then there is n ∈ N+
j=1
n
X
such that ai0 j > s. For the finite set S = {i0 } × {1, 2, . . . , n} ⊂ N+ × N+ , we
j=1
have X
aij > s,
(i,j)∈S

which implies the desired reversed inequality. Otherwise, for each i with 1 ≤ i ≤ m,
there is ni ∈ N+ such that
ni
X ∞
X
aij > aij − /m.
j=1 j=1

Put n = max{n1 , n2 , . . . , nm }, and

S = {1, 2, . . . , m} × {1, 2, . . . , n}.

Then
X m X
X n
aij = aij
(i,j)∈S i=1 j=1
 
X ni
m X m
X X∞ ∞
m X
X
≥ aij >  aij − /m =
 aij −  > s,
i=1 j=1 i=1 j=1 i=1 j=1

which also implies the desired reversed inequality.