Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Karl E. Petersen's book "Ergodic Theory", chapter 2, exercise 9, on page 56

Prove that for any ergodic measure preserving transformation $T:X\rightarrow X$ on a non-atomic probability space $(X, \mathcal B, \mu)$ there exists a set $A$ of positive measure for which the return time $n_A$ is unbounded.

Notation: Here $n_A$ is given by $n_A (x):= \min\{n: T^n(x)\in A \} $, so $n_A: A \rightarrow \mathbb N$ is an a.e. defined measurable map (by Poincare Recurrence) and it is the smallest integer such that the point $x\in A$ returns to $A$ under the action of $T$. By unbounded I suppose he means that the essential supremum of $n_A$ is not finite...

I could really use some help here! Thanks so much

share|cite|improve this question

Note: Petersen assumes that $T$ is bijective a.e. (p.2)

This one is a bit tricky, but I think the following intuition can be made to work: We construct a gasket of positive measure by deleting countably many sets from $X$, leaving a set of positive measure with unbounded return time.

With the Kakutani-Rokhlin Lemma (Lemma 4.7, p. 48) we can find some set $A$ with measure less than a half, such that $TA$ and $A$ are disjoint. Delete $TA$ from $X$, then the essential supremum of $n_{X/TA}$ is at least $2$ (on $A$) and $\mu(X/TA)>1/2$.

enter image description here

Looking at the skyscraper of how $A$ was constructed in the Kakutani-Rokhlin Lemma, it should be possible to construct a sufficiently small set of positive measure $B\subset A$ with $TB,T^3B\subset TA$ and $T^2B\subset A$ and $B,TB,T^2B,T^3B$ disjoint. Delete $T^2B$ from $X/TA$, so that the resulting set has return time at least $4$ on B.

enter image description here

Continuing in this way, with successive (not too large) deletions from $X$, should yield the set we're looking for. I'll leave the exact details.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.