Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

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

I need some background before asking the question:

Let $\mathcal{P}$ is called a measurable partition if there is a measurable set $M_0\subset M$ with full probability measure such that, restric to $M_0$ $$\mathcal{P}=\bigvee_{n=1}^\infty \mathcal{P}_n$$ for some crescent sequence $\mathcal{P}_1 \prec \dots \prec \mathcal{P}_n \prec \dots$ of enumerable partitions, where $\mathcal{P}_i\prec \mathcal{P}_{i+1}$ means that every element of $\mathcal{P}_{i+1}$ is contained in some element of $\mathcal{P}_i$ (we say that $\mathcal{P}_i$ is less thin than $\mathcal{P}_{n+1}$) and also $\bigvee_{n=1}^\infty \mathcal{P}_n$ is the thinnest such that $$\mathcal{P}_n \prec \bigvee_{n=1}^\infty \mathcal{P}_n, \forall n$$

It's elements are of the form $\cap_{n=1}^\infty P_n$, where $P_n \in \mathcal{P}_n$.

Questions: i) Show that a partition $\mathcal{P}$ is a measurable partition iff there exists measurable subsets $M_0, E_1, E_2,\dots,E_n,\dots$ such that $\mu(M_0)=1$ and, restrict to $M_0$, $$\mathcal{P}= \bigvee_{n=1}^\infty \{E_n, M\setminus E_n\}$$

ii) If $\mu$ is an ergodic probability for a transformation $f$ and $k\geq2$. How is the ergodic decomposition of $f^k$?

share|cite|improve this question
And your thoughts on this are? – Did Feb 12 '13 at 19:42
First, thank you for being interested!! Wel... for i), $(\Leftarrow)$ I have a clue about how it works. For the other implication, I was planning on, for each $E_i$, maybe taking it from the previews $\mathcal{P}_{i-1}$ but i couldn't manage to do it wisely. For ii), I can see that the decomposition of $f^k$ is "bigger" because we every measure that is ergodic for $f$ is ergodic for $f^k$, but I don't have a clue how to control those other measures. – user35682 Feb 12 '13 at 20:22
These should be in the question. – Did Feb 12 '13 at 20:43
up vote 1 down vote accepted

For i), we can suppose each partition is finite, i.e., $\mathcal P_n=\{P_1,\cdots,P_{k_n}\}$, then define $E_{k_i}=P_{k_i}$, then one gets $\mathcal P_n\prec \bigvee_{i=1}^{k_n}\{E_{k_i},M\backslash E_{k_i}\}$.Thus, taking all the $E_j$ in this form, we have $\bigvee_n \mathcal P_n\prec \bigvee_j \{E_j,M\backslash E_j\}$.

For ii), Consider $k=2$. There are two cases. Case 1. For any $A\subset M$ such that $f^{-2}(A)=A$, $\mu(A)>0$, we also have $f^{-1}(A)=A$, this implies that $\mu(A)=0$ or $1$. In this case, we have $(f^2,\mu)$ is also ergodic.

Case two. there exists some $A$ such that $f^{-2}(A)=A$, but $\mu(A\backslash f^{-1}(A))>0$, in this case,

$f^{-1} (A\backslash f^{-1}(A)\cup f^{-1}(A)\backslash A)=A\backslash f^{-1}(A)\cup f^{-1}(A)\backslash A$ and therefore, $\mu(A\Delta f^{-1}(A))=1$, which implies that $M=A\cup f^{-1}(A)$.

Now define $\nu_1$ such that $\nu_1(E)=2\mu(E\cap A)$ and $\nu_2(E)=2\mu(E\cap A^c)$, then both $\nu_2$ and $\nu_2$ are ergodic and $\mu=\frac{1}{2} (\nu_1+\nu_2)$.

share|cite|improve this answer
So questions i) and ii) are not related ? – Stéphane Laurent Feb 13 '13 at 22:40
don't think so. – Xiaochuan Feb 14 '13 at 12:03

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.