-
MSE link The case of or is trivial. When and , assuming satisfying , there exists , which is measurable with and satisfies on . Then we have . Now let , we know , that is , by the arbitrariness of .
-
MSE link Using Holder inequality, we can get this conclusion by when , immediately.
-
For the case of , let , we have but , so . Then let , we have but , so . For the case of , let , we have and , so and .
-
From Real Analysis by Folland If , let and set and .
Then , so , and , so .
(For , obviously .) -
By Holder inequality, we know , that is, .
-
From Classical Fourier Analysis by Loukas Grafakos Let and . Now compute
since if and only if . We have
also
and
The desired inequality now follows from Minkowski's inequality. -
From Real Analysis by Folland If , we have and , so
If , we use Holder's inequality, taking the pair of conjugate exponents to be and :
Taking th roots, we are done. -
From Real Analysis by Folland First, if , for the functions are all supported in a common compact set , so
Now suppose . If , by the density of function, there exists with , so
and if is sufficiently small. -
MSE link Notice that for , then . We can know for any polynomial from the condition. Notice that can be regard as a polynomial because of Taylor's formula, we have . And because of when , we have .
-
MSE link Consider a sequence , we know . So for any , there is at most only one satisfying . So for any countable set , there exists satisfying . Then won't exist countable dense subset of . Therefore, isn't separable.