Let $p,q \in [1,+\infty\rangle$ and let $K : \Bbb{R}^2 \to \Bbb{R}$ be a measurable function such that the linear map $T : L^p(\Bbb{R}) \to L^q(\Bbb{R})$ given by$$(Tf)(x) = \int_{\Bbb{R}} K(x,y)f(y)\,dy, \quad \text{for a.e. $x \in \Bbb{R}$ and $f \in L^p(\Bbb{R})$}$$ is well-defined. Can we conclude that $T$ is bounded?
My attempt:
We shall use the Closed Graph Theorem to show that $T$ is bounded.
Since $T$ is well-defined, for every $f \in L^p(\Bbb{R})$ the function $Tf$ is a well-defined $L^q(\Bbb{R})$ function which is equal to the above integral for a.e. $x \in \Bbb{R}$. In particular, the integral $\int_{\Bbb{R}} K(x,\cdot)f(\cdot)$ exists for a.e. $x \in \Bbb{R}$.
We can conclude that for every $f \in L^p(\Bbb{R})$ there exists a set $N_f \subseteq \Bbb{R}$ of measure zero such that for all $x \in \Bbb{R}\setminus N_f$ holds $K(x,\cdot)f(\cdot) \in L^1(\Bbb{R})$.
Here comes the unclear part. Can we say that there exists a "global" set $N \subseteq \Bbb{R}$ measure zero such that for every $x \in \Bbb{R}\setminus N$ we have $$K(x,\cdot)f(\cdot) \in L^1(\Bbb{R}),\quad \text{ for all }f \in L^1(\Bbb{R})?$$
If so, we can proceed as in this answer:
For all $x \in \Bbb{R}\setminus N$ we define a linear map $A_x : L^p(\Bbb{R}) \to L^1(\Bbb{R})$ as $A_x(f) := K(x,\cdot)f(\cdot)$. It is easy to show that $A_x$ is bounded by the Closed Graph Theorem.
Now for all $x \in \Bbb{R}\setminus N$ we define the linear functional $l_x : L^p(\Bbb{R}) \to \Bbb{C}$ as $$l_x(f) := \int_{\Bbb{R}} K(x,\cdot)f(\cdot) = \int_{\Bbb{R}} A_x(f) = (Tf)(x), \quad f\in L^p(\Bbb{R})$$ Since $A_x$ is bounded, $l_x$ is bounded as well.
Now assume $f_n \xrightarrow{L^p} 0$ and $Tf_n \xrightarrow{L^q} f \in L^q(\Bbb{R})$ and we wish to show that $f = 0$. Since $l_x$ is continuous for all $x \in \Bbb{R}\setminus N$, for all such $x$ we have $$(Tf_n)(x) = l_x(f_n) \xrightarrow{n\to\infty} l_x(0) = 0$$ and hence $Tf_n \xrightarrow{\mathrm{a.e.}} 0$. From $Tf_n \xrightarrow{L^q} f$ by passing to a subsequence we conclude $f = 0$. Hence, $T$ is bounded by CGT.
So basically, my question boils down to the fact whether the quantifiers "for every" and "for almost every" commute. Are the statements
- $$(\text{for every } f \in L^p(\Bbb{R}))(\text{for a.e. }x \in \Bbb{R}) \quad K(x,\cdot)f(\cdot)\in L^1(\Bbb{R})$$
- $$(\text{for a.e. }x \in \Bbb{R})(\text{for every } f \in L^p(\Bbb{R})) \quad K(x,\cdot)f(\cdot)\in L^1(\Bbb{R})$$
equivalent?
The equivalence is false. In fact, if the second assertion holds for every $f\in L^p(\mathbb R)$ it follows that $K(x,\cdot)\in L_{p'}(\mathbb R)$ with $\frac1p+\frac1{p'}=1$ which is not true, in general if $T\colon L^p\to L^q$.
A more concrete counterexample is $K(x,y)=g(x-y)$ with $g\in L^1(\mathbb R)$ where the second assertion is false, in general, but the first holds with $p=1$. (In fact, you can pick $q=1$ by Fubini-Tonelli.)
However, the operator $T$ is automatically bounded - you can find the proof in Banach's classical monograph, BTW. The proof goes as follows:
Let $f_n\to0$ in $L^p$ and $Tf_n\to g$ in $L^q$. As you observe, one has to show that $g=0$. Passing to a subsequence, you can assume that $Tf_n\to g$ almost everywhere. Passing to a further subsequence, you can assume that $f_n\to0$ a.e., and moreover, that there is a function $h\in L^p$ such that $\lvert f_n(y)\rvert\le h(y)$ for almost every $y$. (The latter assertion is a little bit tricky to show and is usually proved implicitly in the proof of the completeness of $L^p$; in Rudin's "Real and complex analysis" you will find the proof.)
Now it suffices to observe that for the particular function $h$ the function $K(x,\cdot)h(\cdot)$ is integrable for almost all $x$. Hence, for almost all $x$ you can use Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem to show that $Tf_n(x)\to0$.