Solutions to Ergodic Theory:Lecture Eight
Lecture eight:The mean ergodic theorem
((note::Professor Terence Tao began posting his lecture notes about the course “ergodic theory” early in 2008. I try doing all the exercises. This is the ten exercises in lecture eight. Here is the the page of this course,and here is the page of this lecture. ))
Exercise 1:Let be a probability space with
separable. Then the Banach spaces
are separable (i.e. have a countable dense subset) for every
; in particular, the Hilbert space
,
) is separable. Show that the claim can fail for
. (We allow the
spaces to be either real or complex valued, unless otherwise specified.)
Proof:Suppose there is a countable family of sets such that
. Let
denote the set of all the linear combination of indicator functions in
over rational numbers. One easily verifies that the space
is countable. Given a function
, we can choose a sequence of
such that
. This complete the proof.
On the other hand, since could have uncountably many elements, we could choose choose uncountably many set from
. If any two of these sets A and
have there symmetry difference set with positive measure, then we have that
. This means the above claim can fail for
.
Exercise 2:Prove the following generalization of the recurrence theorem: if
is a measure-preserving system and
is non-negative, then
.
Proof:Firstly we observe the fact that . It can be easily established by considering the indicator function firstly, the simple function and then general function f as the limit of simple functions. Thus we have
. By Cauchy-schwarz inequality,
The left-hand side can be rearranged as
and $latex\int_X T^mf(x) T^n f(x)d\mu =\int_X f(x) T^{n-m}(x)d\mu$.
For any $latex\varepsilon >0$ and any m a positive integer, there exists some such that
whenever
. Then
here C is some constant, thus we can get
for all large N, the final conclusion follows from the arbitrariness of .
Exercise 3:Give examples to show that the quantity $\mu(X)^2$ in the conclusion of Theorem 1 cannot be replaced by any smaller quantity in general,
regardless of the actual value of . (Hint: use a Bernoulli system example.)
Proof:In the space and define
. Let
and let
is the product measure. For any positive number
, we can choose some set E with
in the following way.We first represent
as the form of
Suppose is the first nonzero term. Let
be the open set with the first
coordinates “1″ which has measure
. Similarly we choose
since and finally get a series of non joint open sets satisfying that
So we define
Now take any positive number , from the above method, we can stop earlier when the measure of the union set is larger than
before we have infinite many open sets. Suppose we have a positive integer
such that
. Let
One easily verifies , which means
, too.
Exercise 4:Using the pigeonhole principle instead of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality (and in particular, the statement that if , then the sets
cannot all be disjoint), prove the weaker statement that for any set E of positive measure in a measure-preserving system, the set
is non-empty for infinitely many n. (This exercise illustrates the general point that the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality can be viewed as a quantitative strengthening of the pigeonhole principle.)
Proof:Since , we can choose N large enough that
. Then from the pegeon-hole
principle, there is some and $T^n(E)$ such that
(assuming
), which means
. Then take l larger than n-m, and observe
for the same N chosen before, we thus have some n such that
. Continue this inductively, we get that the set
is nonempty for infinite many n.
Exercise 5:With the notation and assumptions of Corollary 1, show that the limit exists, is real, and is greater than or equal to
. (Hint: the constant function 1 lies in
.) Note that this is stronger than the conclusion of Exercise 2.
Proof:By Corollary 1, we know that the limit is actually . Suppose the
is the orthogonal basis of the closed subspace
. Without loss of generality, suppose
the constant function. If we define
, then
, which is obviously real. Since
, we are done.
Exercise 6:Let be a probability space, and let
be a sub
algebra. Let
.
1. The operator is a bounded self-adjoint projection on
. It maps real functions to real functions, it preserves constant functions (and more generally preserves
-valued functions), and commutes with complex conjugation.
2. If f is non-negative, then is non-negative (up to sets of measure zero, of course). More generally, we have a comparison principle: if f, g are real-valued and
pointwise a. e., then
a.e. Similarly, we have the triangle inequality
a.e..
3. (Module property) If , then ${\Bbb E}( f g|{\mathcal X’}) = {\Bbb E}( f|{\mathcal X’}) g$ a.e..
4. (Contraction) If . (Hint: do the
and
cases first.) This implies in particular that conditional expectation has a unique continuous extension to
for
(the
case is exceptional, but note that
is contained in
since
is finite).
Proof.1, The operator is bounded from the inequality:
$\leq (\int_X |f|^2d\mu)^{\frac{1}{2}} (\int_X|{\Bbb E}( f|{\mathcal X’})|^2d\mu)^{\frac{1}{2}}$
If f is a real function, then for any , we have
is a real number, so
must be a real function on
.The rest conclusions are obvious.
2, It is obvious.
3, Note that given any , the equality
holds.
4, First consider the situations when and
. For the former one, we have
;
for the later one, it suffice to prove that for any large number A, if , then
, which is easy to verify.
When , we have that:
Exercise 7:Show that if E lies in , then there exists a set
which is genuinely invariant (
) and which differs from E only by a set of measure zero. Thus it does not matter whether we deal with shift-invariance or essential shift-invariance here. (More generally, it will not make any significant difference if we modify any of the sets in our
-algebras by null sets.)
Proof. Let . One easily sees that both
and
.
Exercise 8:Show that .
Proof. ““: Suppose there exists a
which is not in
. It means that there exists some measurable set K such that
is not in
. Thus
, and we draw our conclusion from the fact that
on at least a set with positive measure.
““: Suppose there exists a
which is not in
. Suppose that
has positive measure. Since we have that
,we have that
. On the other hand, however, T is measure-preserving shift, so
should hold, a contradiction.
Exercise 9.Show that Corollary 2 continues to hold if is replaced throughout by
for any
. (Hint: for the case
, use that
is dense in
. For the case
, use that
is dense in
.) What happens when
?
Proof.For the case , given any
, since
is dense in
, we can take a sequence
converging to f in
. Then it suffice to notice the following:
For the case , given any
, since
is dense in
, we can take a sequence
converging to f in
. Also, one should notice that for a
, there exists a sequence of simple functions
converging to
in
. It is obvious that for each simple function, the conclusion holds, hence for
.
Exercise 10:Let be a countably infinite discrete group. A F
lner sequence is a sequence of increasing finite non-empty sets
in
with
with the property that for any given finite set
, we have
as
, where
is the product set of
and S,
denotes the cardinality of
, and
denotes symmetric difference. (For instance, in the case
, the sequence
is a F
lner sequence.) If
acts (on the left) in a measure-preserving manner on a probability space
, and
, show that
converges in
to
, where
is the collection of all measurable sets which are
-invariant modulo null sets, and
is the function
.
Proof. (Basically the same procedure of the proof of Corollary 2)
Let and it suffice to show that
. The left-hand side can be written as:
,
where
Now from the triangle inequality we know that the sequence of is uniformly bounded in
and so by Cauchy-Schwarz we know that the inner products
are bounded. If they converge to zero, we are done. otherwise, by the Bolzano-weierstrass theorem, we have for some subsequence
, we have
.
By the Banarch-Alaoglu theorem, there is a further subsequence which converge to some limit
. Since c is not zero, G is not zero function. Then from the definition of the the F
lner sequence for any
, we have that
Suppose , then the right hand side becomes
which converge to 0 from the property of Flner sequence. So on taking limits we get that
On the other hand, we have , and so
is 0. By taking limits we have
also, leading to a contradiction.
Explore posts in the same categories: Ergodic Theory, Maths