![Arxiv:0906.4883V2 [Math.CA] 4 Jan 2010 Ro O Olna Yeblcsses[4.W Hwblwta El’ T Helly’S That Theorem](http://data.docslib.org/img/073604080bdf9949216609c85953e6cc-1.webp)
arXiv:0906.4883v2 [math.CA] 4 Jan 2010 ro o olna yeblcsses[4.W hwblwta el’ t Helly’s that theorem. existence compactness below Kolmogorov’s breaking show of We ground consequence [14]. Glimm’s easy systems an in ins is hyperbolic For ingredient nonlinear dimension). essential for spatial an one proof speciali requires is more version theorem being classical of its Helly’s as that spite context used sense in the often the laws, in is in conservation particular theorem hyperbolic in Helly’s nonlinear theorem, compactness of described. Kolmogorov’s are for replacement groups, a compact or spaces, Orlicz tmost at er20–9 h uhr ol iet hn eg Kristian Helge thank to Lette like and would Science authors of The Academy 2008–09. Norwegian Di year the Partial at Nonlinear Study on Advanced program research international the eto .Frhroe xesost te pcs say spaces, other to extensions Furthermore, 4. Section hr eesvrlohrapoce oteiseo eciigcmatsubsets compact describing of issue the to approaches other i of it 19 several from if [18] were only paper there classical and Kolmogorov’s if in originated compact which is theorem, space metric a that bounded. spaces, fact totally We metric the and in on complete the compactness based theorem. and on is Arzelà–Ascoli theorem lemma again compactness common the which Kolmogorov one the on from both based theorem deduce Arzelà–Ascoli can frequently one are how show theorem here this theorem. compactness of Fréchet–Kolmogorov Proofs or theorem, compactness Kolmogorov opeeadttlybudd(e,eg,[4 .1].Snew r neetdin interested concentrate are shall, we and Since may, we boundedness. 13]). spaces, total p. Banach on attention of [34, our subsets e.g., for (see, results bounded compactness totally and complete every ec rosfrnnierprildffrnileutos eesr n sufficient and necessary of A subset equations. a differential for partial condition nonlinear for proofs tence An upre npr yteRsac oni fNra.Ti pap This Norway. of Council Research the by part in Supported e od n phrases. and words Key 2000 Date spaces the in results Compactness utemr,w rc u h itrclroso omgrvscompactness Kolmogorov’s of roots historical the out trace we Furthermore, L p H OMGRVREZCMATESTHEOREM COMPACTNESS KOLMOGOROV–RIESZ THE ( > ε ε R aur ,2010. 4, January : ahmtc ujc Classification. Subject Mathematics -cover d nmti pcs hi eaint el’ hoe sdiscu is backgroun theorem historical c Helly’s theorem. the on on compactness to lemma discussion relation detailed simple Their a a contains of spaces. consequences metric are in both theorem pactness Abstract. ε ro oadatrKlooo,adsvrlo hs r ecie in described are these of several and Kolmogorov, after and to prior ) ercsaei called is space metric A . .I swl nw htamti pc scmati n nyi tis it if only and if compact is space metric a that known well is It 0. famti pc sacvro h pc ossigo eso diameter of sets of consisting space the of cover a is space metric a of AADHNH-LE N EG HOLDEN HELGE AND HANCHE-OLSEN HARALD eso htteAzl–soitermadKlooo com- Kolmogorov and theorem Arzelà–Ascoli the that show We omgrvRezcmatesterm opcns in compactness theorem, compactness Kolmogorov–Riesz L p ( 2. R d rlmnr results Preliminary ob opc sgvni hti fe aldthe called often is what in given is compact be to ) 1. Introduction oal bounded totally L rmr:4E0 63;Scnay 46N20. Secondary: 46E35; 46E30, Primary: p ( 1 R d (1 ) ≤ eeta qain tteCnr for Centre the at Equations fferential < p fi disafinite a admits it if ese o rifldiscussions. fruitful for Jenssen ∞ si sodrn h academic the during Oslo in rs fteKolmogorov the of d r fe ia nexis- in vital often are ) L sd h paper The ssed. rwswitna atof part as written was er p ( R ompactness d (0 ) 1 However, 31. ≤ ε cvrfor -cover L e (e.g., zed < p p heorem . tance, 1), s 2 HANCHE-OLSEN AND HOLDEN
Here is the key lemma for many compactness results (in this lemma and its proof, every metric is named d): Lemma 1. Let X be a metric space. Assume that, for every ε > 0, there exists some δ > 0, a metric space W , and a mapping Φ: X W so that Φ[X] is totally bounded, and whenever x,y X are such that d Φ(x),→Φ(y) < δ, then d(x,y) < ε. Then X is totally bounded. ∈ Proof. For any ε > 0, pick δ, W and Φ as in the statement of the lemma. Since Φ[X] is totally bounded, there exists a finite δ-cover V1,...,Vn of Φ[X]. Then {−1 } −1 it immediately follows from the assumptions that Φ (V1),..., Φ (Vn) is an ε-cover of X. Thus X is totally bounded. { }
Lemma 1 embodies the main argument in the standard proof of the classical Arzelà– Ascoli theorem, as we now demonstrate. Theorem 2 (Arzelà–Ascoli). Let Ω be a compact topological space. Then a subset of C(Ω) is totally bounded in the supremum norm if, and only if, (i) it is pointwise bounded, and (ii) it is equicontinuous. Recall the definition of equicontinuity: Condition (ii) means that for every x Ω and every ε > 0 there is a neighborhood V of x so that f(y) f(x) < ε for∈ all y V and all f in the given set of functions. | − | ∈ Proof. Assume C(Ω) is pointwise bounded and equicontinuous. Let ε > 0. Combining the equicontinuityF ⊂ of and compactness of Ω, we can find a finite set of points x ,...,x Ω with neighborhoodsF V ,...,V covering all of Ω so that 1 n ∈ 1 n f(x) f(xj) < ε whenever f and x Vj. | Define− Φ: | Rn by ∈F ∈ F → Φ(f) = f(x1), . . . , f(xn) . By the pointwise boundedness of , the image Φ[ ] is bounded, and hence totally bounded, in Rn. F F Furthermore, if f, g with Φ(f) Φ(g) < ε, then since any x Ω belongs ∈F − ∞ ∈ to some Vj, f(x) g(x) f(x) f(x ) + f(x ) g(x ) + g(x ) g(x) < 3ε, | − | ≤ | − j | | j − j | | j − | and so f g 3ε. By Lemma 1, is totally bounded. − ∞ ≤ F For the converse, assume that is a totally bounded subset of C(Ω). The existence of a finite ε-coverF for , for any ε, clearly implies the bound- edness of , thus establishing the uniformF boundedness and hence also pointwise boundednessF of . To prove equicontinuity,F let x Ω and ε > 0 be given. Pick an ε-cover U ,...,U of , and chose g U∈ for j = 1,...,n. Pick a neighborhood V of x { 1 n} F j ∈ j j so that gj(y) gj (x) < ε whenever y Vj , for j = 1,...,n. Let V = V1 Vm. If f U| then− f g| ε, and so∈ when y V , ∩ ∩ ∈ j − j ∞ ≤ ∈ f(y) f(x) f(y) g (y) + g (y) g (x) + g (x) f(x) < 3ε, | − | ≤ | − j | | j − j | | j − | which proves equicontinuity.
Remark 3. This theorem was first proved by Ascoli [3] for equi-Lipschitz functions and extended by Arzelà [2] to a general family of equicontinuous functions. See [4, p. 203]. THE KOLMOGOROV–RIESZ COMPACTNESS THEOREM 3
We present the following theorem, first proved by Fréchet [12] for the case p = 2, as a warm-up exercise, as the proof is short and nicely exposes some key ideas for the proof of Theorem 5. Theorem 4. A subset of lp, where 1 p < , is totally bounded if, and only if, ≤ ∞ (i) it is pointwise bounded, and (ii) for every ε > 0 there is some n so that, for every x in the given subset, x p < εp. | k| k>n Proof. Assume that lp satisfies the two conditions. Given ε > 0, pick n as in the second condition,F and ⊂ define a mapping Φ: Rn by F → Φ(x) = (x1,...,xn). By the pointwise boundedness of , the image Φ( ) is totally bounded. F n F p 1/p If x,y with Φ(x) Φ(y) p = k=1 xk yk < ε, then ∈F | − | | − | n 1/p 1/p x y x y p + x y p < ε + 2ε = 3ε. − p ≤ | k − k| | k − k| k =1 k>n By Lemma 1, is totally bounded. F We will leave proving the converse as an exercise to the reader. The techniques from the proof of Theorem 2 are easily adapted. See also the proof of Theorem 5.
3. The Kolmogorov–Riesz theorem Theorem 5 (Kolmogorov–Riesz). Let 1 p < . A subset of Lp(Rn) is totally bounded if, and only if, ≤ ∞ F (i) is bounded, (ii) Ffor every ε > 0 there is some R so that, for every f , ∈F f(x) p dx < εp, |x|>R| | (iii) for every ε > 0 there is some ρ > 0 so that, for every f and y Rn with y < ρ, ∈ F ∈ | | f(x + y) f(x) p dx < εp. Rn | − | Proof. Assume that Lp(Rn) satisfies the three conditions. First, given ε > 0, pick R as in the secondF ⊂ condition, and ρ as in the third condition. Let Q be an open cube centered at the origin so that y < 1 ρ whenever y Q. | | 2 ∈ Let Q1,...,QN be mutually non-overlapping translates of Q so that the closure of i Qi contains the ball with radius R centered at the origin. Let P be the projection p n map of L (R ) onto the linear span of the characteristic functions of the cubes Qi given by 1 f(z) dz, x Qi, i = 1,...,N, P f(x) = Qi ∈ | | Qi 0 otherwise. From (ii) and the definition of P f we find, for f , ∈F N f P f p < εp + f(x) P f(x) p dx − p | − | i=1 Qi N 1 p = εp + f(x) f(z) dz dx. Qi − i=1 Qi | | Qi 4 HANCHE-OLSEN AND HOLDEN
Next we use Jensen’s inequality and change a variable of integration, where we note that x z 2Q when x,z Q : − ∈ ∈ i N 1 p f P f p < εp + f(x) f(z) dz dx − p Q − i=1 Qi i Qi | | N 1 p εp + f(x) f(x + y) dy dx ≤ Q − i=1 Qi i 2Q | | 1 p εp + f(x) f(x + y) dx dy ≤ Q Rn − | | 2Q 1 < εp + εp dy = (2n + 1)εp Q | | 2Q n 1/p n 1/p by (iii). Thus f P f p < (2 + 1) ε, and f p < (2 + 1) ε + P f p. By the − n 1/p linearity of P , if f, g and P f P g p < ε then f g p < (2 + 1) + 1 ε. Moreover, since P is∈F bounded (in− fact P = 1) and − is bounded by (i), the image P [ ] is bounded. Since the image of P is finite dimensional,F P [ ] is totally bounded.F Thus is totally bounded by Lemma 1. F F For the converse, assume that is totally bounded. The existence of a finite ε-coverF for , for any ε, clearly implies the boundedness of , thus establishing Condition (i). F F To establish Condition (ii), let ε > 0 be given, let U1,...,Un be an ε-cover of , and chose g U for j = 1,...,n. Select R so that{ } F j ∈ j p p gj(x) dx < ε , j = 1,...,m. x>R| | If f U then f g ε, and so ∈ j − j p ≤ 1/p 1/p 1/p p p p f(x) dx f(x) gj (x) dx + gj (x) dx x>R| | ≤ x>R| − | x>R| | 1/p p f gj p + gj (x) dx < 2ε, ≤ − x>R| | thus establishing Condition (ii). Condition (iii) is established similarly, by noting that the inequality of the con- dition is easily established for any single function f Lp(Rn), for example using the fact that C∞(Rn) is dense in Lp(Rn). Then, picking∈ an ε-cover U ,...,U c { 1 n} and gj Uj for each j as in the previous paragraph, given ε > 0 we can find ρ > 0 with ∈ p p gj (x + y) gj(x) dx < ε , y <ρ, j = 1,...,m. Rn | − | | | Again, if f U we find ∈ j 1/p 1/p p p f(x + y) f(x) dx f(x + y) gj(x + y) dx Rn | − | ≤ Rn | − | 1/p p + gj (x + y) gj (x) dx Rn | − | 1/p p + gj (x) f(x) dx Rn | − | < 3ε, and the proof is complete. THE KOLMOGOROV–RIESZ COMPACTNESS THEOREM 5
Remark 6. (I) A singleton set is clearly totally bounded, yet Condition (iii) is not obvious for a singleton set at first glance. However, it follows easily from the density of the space of smooth functions with compact support in Lp. p (II) In applications, one sometimes constructs a sequence f1, f2,... in L satis- fying the first two conditions of Theorem 5 and the condition 1/p fn(x + y) fn(x) dx < α(y) + β(n), lim α(y) = 0, lim β(n) = 0. n y→0 n→∞ R − Then for some N and δ > 0, the right-hand side of the above inequality is less than ε for all n > N and y small enough. By the fact noted in the previous paragraph, we can choose a smaller| | upper bound for y to make the integral smaller than ε for | | n = 1, 2,...,N. Thus f1, f2,... satisfies Condition (iii), and hence a convergent subsequence exists. { } An interesting corollary to the Kolmogorov theorem is the following result, see [22], which also contains a variant using the uniform smoothness of the functions in and their Fourier transforms. See also [7], which contains an alternate formulation basedF on the short-time Fourier transform, as well as one based on the wavelet transform. Corollary 7. Let L2(Rd) be such that sup f M < . If F ⊆ f∈F 2 ≤ ∞ lim sup f(x) 2 dx = 0 and lim sup fˆ(ξ) 2 dξ = 0, r→∞ f∈F |x|≥r| | ρ→∞ f∈F |ξ|≥ρ| | then is totally bounded in L2(Rd). F Proof. We show that satisfies the conditions of Theorem 5 for p = 2. Clearly, Conditions (i) and (ii)F are among our assumptions, so we only need to prove (iii). For f we find: ∈F f(x + y) f(x) 2 dx = (eiξ y 1)fˆ(ξ) 2 dξ Rn | − | Rn | − | 2 2 (eiξ y 1)fˆ(ξ) dξ + 4 fˆ(ξ) dξ ≤ |ξ|<ρ − |ξ|>ρ M 2 sup eiξ y 1 2 + ε for ρ big enough ≤ |ξ|<ρ| − | p p In the following result, Lloc(Ω) is equipped with the topology of L convergence on compact subsets of Ω. Recall that Ω is the countable union of compacts, e.g., n Ω = K1 K2 . . . with Kk = x Ω: x k and dist(x, R Ω) 1/k . Moreover ∪ ∪ { ∈ | | ≤ \ ≥ } p any compact subset of Ω is contained in some Kk, and so the topology on Lloc(Ω) p is given by the countable family of seminorms f = f p . L (Ω) is k |Kk L (Kk) loc complete with respect to the metric (f, g) ∞ min(2−k, f g ). → k=1 − k n Corollary 8. Let Ω R be an open set. Write fK (x) = f(x) when x K, ⊆ p ∈ fK (x) = 0 otherwise. A subset Lloc(Ω) is totally bounded if, and only if, the following holds: F ⊆ (i) For every compact K Ω there is some M so that ⊂ f (x) p dx < M, f . | K | ∈F 6 HANCHE-OLSEN AND HOLDEN (ii) For every ε > 0 and every compact K Ω there is some ρ > 0 so that ⊂ f (x + y) f (x) p dx < εp, f , y < ρ. | K − K | ∈F | | Proof. Note that is totally bounded in Lp (Ω) if and only if = f : f F loc Fk { Kk ∈ F} is totally bounded for every k, with Kk as defined above. For the next result, recall that the Sobolev space W k,p(Rn) is defined to con- sist of those measurable functions f which, together with all their distributional derivatives Dαf of order α k, belong to Lp(Rn). Here α = (α ,...,α ) is | | ≤ 1 n a multi-index, i.e., each αj is a nonnegative integer, α = α1 + + αn, and 1 | | Dα = ∂|α|/(∂xα ∂xαn ). Finally, W k,p(Rn) is equipped with the complete norm 1 n 1/p α p f k,p = D f(x) dx . Rn | | |α |≤k Corollary 9. A subset W k,p(Rn) is totally bounded if, and only if, the fol- lowing holds: F ⊆ (i) is bounded, i.e., there is some M so that F Dαf(x) p dx < M, f , α k. | | ∈F | | ≤ (ii) For every ε > 0 there is some R so that Dαf(x) p dx < εp, f , α k. |x|>R| | ∈F | | ≤ (iii) For every ε > 0 there is some ρ > 0 so that Dαf(x + y) Dαf(x) p dx < εp, f , α k, y < ρ. Rn | − | ∈F | | ≤ | | Proof. Note that is totally bounded in W k,p(Rn) if and only if Dα[ ] = Dαf : f is totally boundedF in Lp(Rn) for every multi-index α with α Fk. { ∈ F} | | ≤ 4. A bit of history In 1931, Kolmogorov [18] proved the first result in this direction. It characterizes compactness in Lp(Rn) for 1 < p < , in the case where all functions are supported in a common bounded set. Condition∞ (iii) of Theorem 5 is replaced by the uniform convergence in Lp norm of spherical means of each function in the class to the function itself. (Clearly, our Condition (ii) is automatic in this case.) Just a year later, Tamarkin [28] expanded this result to the case of unbounded supports by adding Condition (ii) of Theorem 5. In 1933, Tulajkov [31] expanded the Kolmogorov–Tamarkin result to the case p = 1. In the same year, and probably independently, M. Riesz [25] proved the result for 1 p < , essentially in the form of our Theorem 5. Thus we feel somewhat justified≤ in using∞ the names Kolmogorov and Riesz in referring to the theorem, though we are perhaps being a bit unfair to Tamarkin and Tulajkov in doing so. The compactness theorem has also seen generalizations in other directions. Hanson [15] proved a necessary and sufficient condition for compactness of a family of measurable functions on a bounded measurable set, with respect to con- vergence in measure. (Here the measurable functions form a metric space in which the distance between two functions is the infimum of all ε > 0 so that the two functions differ by at most ε except on a set of measure ε.) ≤ THE KOLMOGOROV–RIESZ COMPACTNESS THEOREM 7 Fréchet [13] replaced Conditions (i) and (ii) of Theorem 5 with a single condition (“equisummability”), and generalized the theorem to arbitrary positive p. Phillips [23, Thm 3.7] proved a necessary and sufficient condition for compactness in Lp on a general measure space (1 p ), and indeed in any Banach space, which is however somewhat less suited≤ to≤ applications ∞ to PDEs. Nevertheless, our sufficiency proof for Theorem 5 is based on Phillips’ criterion. (It is more common, albeit more involved, to use mollifiers in the proof.) Weil [33] (see also [9, p. 269 ff]) extended the result to Lp(G) where G is a locally compact group. Tsuji [30] considered the case of Lp(Rd) with 0 < p < 1, and Takahashi [27] studied the same problem in Orlicz spaces. A characterization of compact subsets of Lp([0,T ]; B) (B a Banach space), which is very convenient in the context of time-dependent partial differential equations, is given by Simon [26] (see also [20]). A readable account of some of the historical development can be found in [8, p. 388]. Helly’s theorem [16], which was published already in 1912, is easily seen to be a special case of Kolmogorov’s compactness theorem in the one-dimensional case, see Section 6. Further references include [32], [17], [5], [6], [11], [21]. 5. The Rellich–Kondrachov theorem In this section we use Kolmogorov’s theorem to prove a simple variant of the Rellich–Kondrachov theorem [24, 19]. Our simplification consists in avoiding bound- ary regularity conditions by working on the entire space Rn. The standard Rellich– Kondrachov theorem requires a bounded region. The present version replaces this by a uniform decay estimate, specially tailored to fit the framework of the present paper. The Sobolev norm f on W 1,p(Rn) is defined by 1,p 1/p p 1/p p p ∂f f 1,p = f(x) + f(x) p dx , f p = . Rn | | |∇ | |∇ | ∂xi j According to the Sobolev embedding theorem, if p < n then W 1,p(Rn) Lq(Rn), and the inclusion map is bounded, for any q satisfying p q p∗, where⊂p∗ is the conjugate Sobolev exponent: ≤ ≤ 1 1 1 = . p∗ p − n To see where this exponent comes from, consider a function f and its scalings f λ(x) = f(x/λ) where λ > 0, and note that f λ = λn/p f and f λ = p p ∇ p λn/p−1 f , so the inclusion map W 1,p Lq can only be bounded if there exists ∇ p → a constant C with λn/q C(λn/p + λn/p−1) for all λ > 0. In the limits λ and λ 0 we conclude n/q ≤ n/p and n/q n/p 1 respectively. → ∞ → ≤ ≥ − Theorem 10. Assume p < n and p q 6. Helly’s theorem Helly’s theorem is often referred to as Helly’s selection principle, in order to avoid confusion with another theorem by Helly, stating that, given a collection of convex sets in Rn so that any n+1 of them have a point in common, then any finite subcollection has nonempty intersection. Helly’s selection principle is essentially a corollary of the Kolmogorov–Riesz theorem, though historically it was not derived that way. Recall that an integrable function f on the line is of bounded variation if it has finite essential or total variation, that is, if m TV(f) = sup f(x ) f(x ) < , | j+1 − j | ∞ j=1 where the supremum is taken over all finite partitions xj Proof. We may assume y > 0 without loss of generality. The calculation ∞ ∞ y u(x + y) u(x) dx = u(x + jy + y) u(x + jy) dx | − | | − | −∞ j= −∞ 0 y ∞ = u(x + (j + 1)y) u(x + jy) dx | − | 0 j= −∞ y TV(u) dx = y TV(u), ≤ 0 finishes the proof. Theorem 12 (Helly). Let (un) be a sequence of functions of bounded variation on the bounded real interval [a, b]. If there is a constant M so that TV(u ) M and n ≤ un ∞ M for all n, then there is a subsequence of (un) which converges pointwise everywhere ≤ and in L1 norm in [a, b] to a function of bounded variation. Proof. Extend each function un to all of R by setting it to zero outside [a, b]. By Lemma 11, the set of all the functions un satisfy Condition (iii) of Theorem 5 (with p = 1), while (i) holds by assumption and (ii) is trivial. Hence there is a 1 subsequence of (un) which converges in L ([a, b]). Moreover, integration theory tells us that we also get pointwise convergence almost everywhere, possibly after passing to a subsequence once more. However, this is not quite enough. Write instead u = v w where each v , w is an non-decreasing function: n n − n n n vn(x) is un(a) plus the positive variation of un on the interval [a, x], and wn(x) is the negative variation on the same interval. Then the sequences (vn) and (wn) both satisfy the conditions of the present theorem, and so, by the result of the previous paragraph, we may pass to a subsequence so that (vn) and (wn) both converge in L1([a, b]), as well as pointwise almost everywhere. Let v be the limit of the sequence (vn). Clearly, v is non-decreasing on the set where pointwise convergence holds, and so we may assume that v is non-decreasing everywhere, after possibly redefining it on a set of measure zero. Now it is clear that vn(x) v(x) for any point of continuity x for v: Given ε > 0, pick δ > 0 so that y x < δ→implies v(y) v(x) < ε, let x δ References [1] A. Adams and J. F. Fournier. Sobolev Spaces. Second edition. Academic Press 2003. 10 HANCHE-OLSEN AND HOLDEN [2] C. Arzelà. Sulle funzione de linee. (In Italian) Mem. Accad. Sci. Bologna 5-5 (1894/95) 225–244. [3] G. Ascoli. Le curve limiti di una varietá data di curve. (In Italian) Rend. Accad. Lincei 18 (1884) 521–586. [4] E. DiBenedetto. Real Analysis. Birkhäuser, Boston, 2002. q [5] G. Bruno and R. Grande. A compactness criterion in Bap spaces. Rend. Accad. Naz. Sci. XL Mem. Mat. Appl. 20 (1996), 95–121. [6] G. Bruno and R. Grande. Compact embedding theorems for Sobolev–Besicovitch spaces of almost periodic functions. Rend. Accad. Naz. Sci. XL Mem. Mat. Appl. 20 (1996) 157–173. [7] M. Dörfler, H. G. Feichtinger, K. Gröchenig. Compactness criteria in function spaces. Coll. Math. 94 (2002) 37–50. [8] N. Dunford and J. T. Schwartz. Linear Operators. Part I: General Theory. Wiley, New York, 1988. [9] R. E. Edwards. Functional Analysis. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Chicago, 1965. [10] L. C. Evans and R. F. Gariepy. Measure Theory and Fine Properties of Functions. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1992. [11] H. G. Feichtinger, Compactness in translation invariant Banach spaces of distributions and compact multipliers. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 102 (1984) 289–327. [12] M. Fréchet. Essai de geometrie analytique. (In French) Nouv. ann. math. 4 (1908) 97–116, 289–317. [13] M. Fréchet. Sur les ensembles compacts de fonctions de carrés sommables. (In French) Acta Litt. Sci. Szeged. 8 (1937), 116–126. [14] J. Glimm. Solutions in the large for nonlinear hyperbolic systems of equations. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 18 (1965), 697–715. [15] E. H. Hanson. A note on compactness. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 39 (1933), 397–400. [16] E. Helly. Über lineare Funktionaloperationen. (In German) Österreich. Akad. Wiss. Math. Natur. Kl. S. B. IIa 121 (1912) 265–297. [17] S. Izumi. On the compactness of a class of functions. Proc. Imp. Acad. Tokyo 15 (1939) 111–113. [18] A. N. Kolmogorov. Über Kompaktheit der Funktionenmengen bei der Konvergenz im Mittel, Nachr. Ges. Wiss. Göttingen 9 (1931), 60–63. English translation: On the compactness of sets of functions in the case of convergence in the mean, in V. M. Tikhomirov (ed.), Selected Works of A. N. Kolmogorov, Vol. I, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1991, pp. 147–150. [19] W. Kondrachov. Sur certaines propriétés des fonctions dans l’espace. C. R. Acad. Sci. URSS., n. Sér. 48 (1945) 535–538. [20] E. Maitre. On a nonlinear compactness lemma in Lp(0,T ; B). Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. no. 27 (2003) 1725–1730. [21] M. Nicolescu. On the criterion of compactness of A. Kolmogorov. (In Romanian) Acad. Repub. Pop. Române. Bul. Şti. Ser. Math. Fiz. Chim. 2 (1950) 407–415. [22] R. L. Pego. Compactness in L2 and the Fourier Transform. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 95 (1985) 252–254. [23] R. S. Phillips. On linear transforms. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 48 (1940) 516–541. [24] F. Rellich. Ein Satz über mittlere Konvergenz. Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wis senschaften zu Göttingen, Mathematisch Physikalische Klasse (1930) 30–35. [25] M. Riesz. Sur les ensembles compacts de fonctions sommables. (In French) Acta Szeged Sect. Math. 6 (1933), 136–142. Also in L. Gårding, L. Hörmander (eds.), Marcel Riesz—Collected Papers, Springer, Berlin (1988). [26] J. Simon. Compact sets in the space Lp(0,T ; B). Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 146 (1987), 65–96. [27] T. Takahashi. On the compactness of the function-set by the convergence in mean of general type. Studio Math. 5 (1934) 141–150. [28] J. D. Tamarkin. On the compactness of the space Lp. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 32 (1932), 79–84. [29] Yu. V. Tret’yachenko and V. V. Chistyakov. Selection principle for pointwise bounded se- quences of functions. Math. Notes 84 (2008) 396–406. [30] M. Tsuji. On the compactness of space Lp (p > 0) and its application to integral operators. Kodai Math. J. (1951) 33–36. [31] A. Tulajkov. Zur Kompaktheit im Raum Lp für p = 1. (In German) Nachr. Ges. Wiss. Göttingen, Math. Phys. Kl. I 1933, nr. 39, 167–170. [32] P. Veress. Über Functionenmengen. (In German) Acta scient. math. 3 (1927) 177–192. [33] A. Weil. L’intégration dans les groupes topologiques et ses applications. Hermann et Cie., Paris, 1940. THE KOLMOGOROV–RIESZ COMPACTNESS THEOREM 11 [34] K. Yosida. Functional Analysis. Springer, Berlin, 1980. (Hanche-Olsen) Department of Mathematical Sciences Norwegian University of Science and Technology NO–7491 Trondheim, Norway E mail address: [email protected] URL: http://www.math.ntnu.no/˜hanche/ (Holden) Department of Mathematical Sciences Norwegian University of Science and Technology NO–7491 Trondheim, Norway, and Centre of Mathematics for Applications University of Oslo P.O. Box 1053, Blindern NO–0316 Oslo, Norway E mail address: [email protected] URL: http://www.math.ntnu.no/˜holden/