Let $\mathsf{X} = \left\{ X,\mathcal{B},\mu,T \right\}$ be any measure preserving system. A sub-$\sigma$-algebra $\mathcal{A}\subseteq \mathcal{B}_X$ with $T^{-1}\mathcal{A}=\mathcal{A}$ modulo $\mu$ is called a $T$-invariant sub-$\sigma$-algebra. Show that the system $\tilde{\mathsf{X}}=\{ \tilde{X},\tilde{B},\tilde{\mu},\tilde{T} \}$ defined by
- $\tilde{X}=\{ x\in X^{\mathbb{Z}}\,|\, x_{k+1}=T(x_k)\,\text{for all } k\in \mathbb{Z} \}$;
- $(\tilde{T}(x))_k = x_{k+1}$ for all $\,k\in \mathbb{Z}$ and $x\in \tilde{X}$;
- $\tilde{\mu}(\{ x\in \tilde{X}\,|\,x_0\in A \}) =\mu(A)$ for any $A\in \mathcal{B}$, and $\tilde{\mu}$ is invariant under $\tilde{T}$;
- $\tilde{B}$ is the smallest $\tilde{T}$-invariant $\sigma$-algebra for which the map $\pi:x\mapsto x_0$ from $\tilde{X}$ to $X$ is measurable;
is an invertible measure-preserving system, and that the map $\pi:x\mapsto x_0$ is a factor map. The system $\tilde{\mathsf{X}}$ is called the invertible extension of $\mathsf{X}$.
This is exercise 2.1.7 of Ergodic theory--with a view towards number theory by Manfred Einsiedler and Thomas Ward (GTM 259). We have made the convention that all measure space considered is a probability measure. But I have some doubts about this construction.
- How does one show that $\tilde{X}$ is not empty in the first place?
- If one can indeed show 1, why does $\tilde{\mu}$ define a measure on $\tilde{B}$?
- And if indeed 1 and 2 hold, how do we show that if $\tilde{T}^{-1}$ i.e. the right shift, is still measure preserving?
If some of these indeed can not be done, then is it really true that any measure preserving system has an invertible extension ? And if so, how can we construct one?