Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

Can anyone give me some hint on the following problem? Many thanks!

Given a probability space $(X, \Sigma, \mathbb{P})$ and a $\mathbb{P}$-preserving map $\tau: X\to X$, show that the following three are equivalent:

(i) $\tau$ is $\mathbb{P}$-ergodic;

(ii) For any $S\in \Sigma$ with $\mathbb{P}(S)>0$, we have $\mathbb{P}\big(\bigcup_{i=1}^\infty\tau^{-i}(S)\big)=1$;

(iii) For any $A, B\in \Sigma$ with $\mathbb{P}(A),\mathbb{P}(B)>0$, there exists $m\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $\mathbb{P}(\tau^{-m}(A)\cap B)>0$.

Actually, (i)$\Rightarrow$(ii) is trivial, and only the $\mathbb{P}$-preserving property will be employed in the proof. But how to show the others?

share|improve this question
    
I checked the original problem, and (ii) is what it is above, not a typo... –  user65018 Apr 22 '13 at 1:06
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

(ii) => (i)

Start with a measurable set $E$ with $\tau^{-1} E = E$. Either $P(E) = 0$, or $P(E) > 0$. What does (ii) tell you about the latter case?

(ii) => (iii) What can you say about $P(\cup_{i=1}^{\infty} \tau^{-i} (A) \cap B)$?

(iii) => (i) Start with a measurable set $E$ with $\tau^{-1} E = E$. Either $P(E) = 0$, or $P(E) > 0$. If $P(E) < 1$, in (iii) take $A = E$. Can you find a good candidate for B?

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks for your hint very much! But this does not complete the proof exactly, since you did not show that (i) implies (ii). I think to employ Poincare's recurrence theorem can work. But anyway, thank you very much!! –  user65018 Apr 25 '13 at 3:37
    
@user65018, you said in your post that (i) to (ii) is trivial, so I didn't write anything about it. –  user27126 Apr 25 '13 at 3:42
    
Actually (i)=>(ii) is not trivial. But in the first version there was a typo in this problem: originally "$P(S)>0$" in (ii) was "$P(S)=1$", and in that case (i)=>(ii) is trivial: we even do not need to use the ergodicity condition... After modifying the problem, I did not modify my comments... Sorry for that. But thanks a lot for your comments. –  user65018 Apr 25 '13 at 7:13
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.