Reason: First published proof of lem:l2-interval-inner-product-2026a.
Proof
Throughout write λ=λ[0,T] and B=B[0,T], and let every integral be over [0,T] with respect to λ unless another measure is displayed. All appeals to linearity and monotonicity of the integral are to linearity and monotonicity of the Lebesgue integral. We use throughout that Rd is a real vector space, that the dot product is symmetric and linear in each argument, and that ∣x∣2=x⋅x=∑i=1d(xi)2, by claim 1 of the elementary properties of the Euclidean norm.
Claim 1. Let u,v∈L2([0,T];Rd), so all components ui,vi are B-measurable. The maps x↦∣x∣2 from Rd to R and (x,y)↦x⋅y from R2d to R are polynomial in the coordinates, hence continuous and in particular sequentially continuous, so t↦∣u(t)∣2 and t↦u(t)⋅v(t) are B-measurable by measurability of sequentially continuous functions of measurable Euclidean maps.
For every t∈[0,T], expanding the nonnegative quantities ∣u(t)±v(t)∣2 by bilinearity of the dot product gives
0≤∣u(t)∣2±2u(t)⋅v(t)+∣v(t)∣2,
and taking whichever sign makes the middle term equal to −2∣u(t)⋅v(t)∣ yields the pointwise bound 2∣u⋅v∣≤∣u∣2+∣v∣2. The right-hand side is measurable with finite integral, so by monotonicity and linearity
Claim 2. The components of u+v and of cu are ui+vi and cui, which are B-measurable by Sequentially Continuous Functions of Measurable Euclidean Maps are Measurable applied to the continuous maps (s,r)↦s+r and s↦cs. Pointwise ∣u+v∣2=∣u∣2+2u⋅v+∣v∣2≤2∣u∣2+2∣v∣2 by the bound of claim 1, so ∫∣u+v∣2≤2∫∣u∣2+2∫∣v∣2<∞. Also ∣cu∣2=c2∣u∣2 by claim 5 of Elementary Properties of the Euclidean Norm on Rn, whose integral is c2∫∣u∣2<∞. Hence L2([0,T];Rd) is closed under the pointwise operations. Because those operations are performed in Rd separately at each t, every vector-space axiom holds in L2([0,T];Rd) because it holds in Rd at each t; the constant map 0 is square-integrable and is the zero element.
Claim 3.Finite unions of null sets are null. Let N1,N2∈B with λ(N1)=λ(N2)=0. Since λ is a measure, applying countable additivity to the disjoint decomposition N2=(N2∖N1)∪(N2∩N1) gives λ(N2∖N1)≤λ(N2)=0, and applying it to N1∪N2=N1∪(N2∖N1) gives λ(N1∪N2)=λ(N1)+λ(N2∖N1)=0. Induction extends this to any finite union.
∼ is an equivalence relation. Reflexivity holds with N=∅, symmetry with the same N, and transitivity by the preceding paragraph applied to the union of the two exceptional sets.
Vanishing criterion. Let w=u−v, which lies in L2([0,T];Rd) by claim 2, and put g=∣w∣2, a nonnegative real-valued B-measurable function by claim 1. Suppose first that u∼v, so that g vanishes off some N∈B with λ(N)=0. For each natural numbern the function gn=min(g,n) is B-measurable and satisfies gn≤n1N pointwise, since both sides vanish off N while gn≤n everywhere. Now n1N is a nonnegative simple function of integral nλ(N)=0, so ∫gn=0 by monotonicity. The sequence (gn)n is nondecreasing with pointwise limit g, so ∫g=limn∫gn=0 by monotone convergence. Conversely, suppose ∫g=0. By claim 5 of the restricted Lebesgue toolkit, the set N={t∈[0,T]:g(t)>0} satisfies λ(N)=0; it belongs to B because g is measurable. For t∈/N we have ∣w(t)∣2=0, hence w(t)=0 by claim 3 of Elementary Properties of the Euclidean Norm on Rn, that is u(t)=v(t). So u∼v.
Compatibility and the quotient. If u=u′ off a null N1 and v=v′ off a null N2, then u+v=u′+v′ off the null set N1∪N2 and cu=cu′ off N1; hence [u]+[v]=[u+v] and c[u]=[cu] are independent of the representatives chosen. The vector-space axioms transfer from L2([0,T];Rd) to the quotient by applying the class map to each axiom, and [0] is the zero element.
Claim 4. Let u∼u′ and v∼v′, with exceptional null sets N1 and N2. The function h=u⋅v−u′⋅v′ is integrable by claim 1 and linearity, and vanishes off the null set N1∪N2. The first half of the vanishing criterion of claim 3 used only that the function in question is nonnegative, measurable, and vanishes off a null set; the function ∣h∣ has all three properties, being nonnegative, B-measurable by Sequentially Continuous Functions of Measurable Euclidean Maps are Measurable applied to the continuous map s↦∣s∣ on R and to the measurable function h, and zero off N1∪N2; applying that argument to ∣h∣ gives ∫∣h∣=0. Since h≤∣h∣ and −h≤∣h∣ pointwise, monotonicity and linearity give ∫h≤∫∣h∣=0, so ∫u⋅v=∫u′⋅v′. Thus ⟨⋅,⋅⟩L2 is well defined on L2([0,T];Rd), and taking v=u, v′=u′ shows the same for ∥⋅∥L2.
Symmetry of the pairing is pointwise symmetry of the dot product. For linearity in the first argument, let u,u′′∈L2([0,T];Rd) and c real; then (cu+u′′)⋅v=c(u⋅v)+u′′⋅v pointwise, all three products are integrable by claim 1, and linearity of the integral gives ⟨c[u]+[u′′],[v]⟩L2=c⟨[u],[v]⟩L2+⟨[u′′],[v]⟩L2. Linearity in the second argument follows by symmetry. Finally ⟨[u],[u]⟩L2=∫∣u∣2=∥[u]∥L22≥0 because the integrand is nonnegative, and by the vanishing criterion of claim 3 applied with v=0, ∥[u]∥L2=0 holds exactly when ∫∣u∣2=0, exactly when u∼0, exactly when [u]=[0].
Claim 5. Absolute homogeneity: ∥c[u]∥L22=∫∣cu∣2=c2∫∣u∣2, so ∥c[u]∥L2=∣c∣∥[u]∥L2 by uniqueness of the nonnegative square root.
Write A=∥[u]∥L22, B=⟨[u],[v]⟩L2 and C=∥[v]∥L22. For every real s the element u+sv lies in L2([0,T];Rd) by claim 2, and expanding by claim 4,
0≤∥[u]+s[v]∥L22=A+2sB+s2C.
If C=0 then [v]=[0] by claim 4, whence B=0 and B2≤AC holds trivially. If C>0, the choice s=−B/C gives 0≤A−B2/C, that is B2≤AC. Taking nonnegative square roots yields ∣B∣≤∥[u]∥L2∥[v]∥L2, the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. Consequently
and taking nonnegative square roots gives the triangle inequality.
Claim 6. The quantity dL2([u],[v])=∥[u]−[v]∥L2 is a nonnegative real number, and it vanishes exactly when [u]−[v]=[0], that is when [u]=[v], by claim 4. Symmetry follows from absolute homogeneity with c=−1, and the triangle inequality for dL2 from that of claim 5 applied to [u]−[w]=([u]−[v])+([v]−[w]). These are precisely the axioms of a metric space.
Claim 7.Scaling of the integral. Let f:[0,T]→[0,∞] be B-measurable. If s=∑r=1pcr1Er is a nonnegative simple function with Er∈B, then by the integral of a simple function,
Whether a nonnegative simple function s satisfies s≤f pointwise does not depend on the measure, so by the definition of the integral of a nonnegative measurable function the set of numbers {∫sdPT}, taken over nonnegative simple s≤f, is exactly the set {T−1∫sdλ} taken over the same family. Since T−1>0, multiplication by T−1 carries upper bounds to upper bounds in both directions, so the least upper bound of the first set is T−1 times that of the second, with the convention that both are ∞ together. Hence ∫fdPT=T−1∫fdλ.
Characterisation of L2. By claim 1 of the restricted Lebesgue toolkit, ([0,T],B,PT) is a probability space, and a random variable on it is exactly a B-measurable real-valued function, so the measurability requirement is the same in both descriptions. Each (ui)2 is nonnegative and B-measurable, and ∣u∣2=∑i=1d(ui)2 pointwise, so linearity gives ∫∣u∣2dλ=∑i=1d∫(ui)2dλ. By the scaling identity, the expectation on ([0,T],B,PT) satisfies E[(ui)2]=T−1∫(ui)2dλ. As all terms are nonnegative, ∫∣u∣2dλ is finite if and only if E[(ui)2] is finite for every i, that is if and only if each ui is a square-integrable random variable. In that case
∥[u]∥L22=∫∣u∣2dλ=i=1∑dTE[(ui)2]=Ti=1∑d∥ui∥22.
Almost-sure equality. If u∼v with exceptional set N, then PT(N)=T−1λ(N)=0 and ui=vi off N for each i, so each ui equals vi almost surely. Conversely, suppose for each i that ui=vi almost surely. The set Ni={t∈[0,T]:ui(t)=vi(t)} lies in B, being the set where the measurable function ui−vi is nonzero, and PT(Ni)=0, hence λ(Ni)=TPT(Ni)=0. By the first paragraph of claim 3 the finite union N=⋃i=1dNi is null, and u=v off N, so u∼v.