Consider the function f ( x ) : [ 0 , 1 ] &#x2192;<!-- → --> [

ttyme411gl 2022-07-11 Answered
Consider the function f ( x ) : [ 0 , 1 ] [ 0 , 1 ] given by
{ 2 x 0 x 1 2 x 1 2 1 2 < x 1
I found the measure with density given by ρ = 4 3 χ [ 0 , 1 2 ] + 2 3 χ ( 1 2 , 1 ] (with respect to Lebsegue measure) is invariant for this transformation. My question now is: how can I prove this system with this measure is ergodic? I thought to use the approach with invariant functions and Fourier series, but I'm not sure on how to write Fourier expansion with a measure different than Lebesgue's. I also thought to exploit a possible conjugacy with symbolic shift, but wasn't able to prove that [ 0 , 1 2 ] and ( 1 2 , 1 ] constitute a Markov partition of the unit interval. Any ideas?
You can still ask an expert for help

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

Solve your problem for the price of one coffee

  • Available 24/7
  • Math expert for every subject
  • Pay only if we can solve it
Ask Question

Answers (1)

Bruno Dixon
Answered 2022-07-12 Author has 14 answers
They gave as the exact same question in the course "introduction to analysis", as an example for uses for Fourier series, so the solution is bases on Fourier series.
Let's take f : R C periodic and continuous such that 0 2 π | f ( x ) f T ( x ) | 2 = 0, we want to show that there exists c C such that f c.
From Parseval's identity, we know that 0 2 π | f ( x ) f T ( x ) | 2 = k Z | f f T ^ ( k ) | 2 .
Therefore we can infer that f f T ^ ( k ) = 0 ( b y   l i n e a r i t y )   f ^ ( k ) = f T ^ ( k )   k Z
After doing some calculation we can also infer that for any "even" k Z , f T ^ ( k ) = f ^ ( k 2 ).
so by induction we can infer now that for any p 0, f T ^ ( 2 n p ) = f ^ ( p ) From Riemann–Lebesgue lemma, we can now infer that
lim n f T ^ ( 2 n p ) = 0 f ^ ( p ) = 0 ,   p 0
So now we conclude that Fouriee series of f is f ^ ( 0 ) and therefore f f ^ ( 0 ), so f is constant, as required.
Did you like this example?
Subscribe for all access

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

You might be interested in

asked 2022-06-21
Let us say that we have some set of independent random variables: X = { X i } i = 1 n defined over a probability space of   ( Ω , F , P ). I want to understand whether the following holds:
If F X = σ ( { X 1 , X 2 , , X n } ) , then is it, in general, true that: | F X | = i I n | σ ( { X i } ) | ?
As we know, as X consists of independent R.V.-s, then we can state that i , j I n : σ ( { X i } ) and σ ( { X j } ) are independent. But how to proceed from this fact to the split of the cardinality of F X ?
I would appreciate any help, thank you in advance!
asked 2022-03-25
Determine which of the four levels of measurement (nominal, ordinal, interval, ratio) is most appropriate for the data below.
Class times measured in minutes
A. The nominal level of measurement is most appropriate because the data cannot be ordered.
B. The interval level of measurement is most appropriate because the data can be ordered, differences (obtained by subtraction) can be found and are meaningful, and there is no natural starting point.
C. The ratio level of measurement is most appropriate because the data can be ordered, differences can be found and are meaningful, and there is a natural starting zero point.
D. The ordinal level of measurement is most appropriate because the data can be ordered, but differences (obtained by subtraction) cannot be found or are meaningless.
asked 2022-05-31
MathJax(?): Can't find handler for document MathJax(?): Can't find handler for document Consider probability spaces ( Ω , G , P ) and ( Ω , F , Q ) with the properties F G and P | F = Q.
Let X be a Q-integrable (and F -measurable) random variable. Is it true, that
E P [ X ] = E Q [ X ] ?
I feel like this should be true. I think there is an approximation of X with simple functions on F and because of the fact, that P ( F ) = Q ( F ) for any F F .
asked 2022-06-03
For a filtration F 0 F t F . We know that if X is F 0 -measurable, then X is also F t -measurable for t 0.
I have a question about the martingale X t (which F t measurable) is that given a stopping time T,
why 1 T = X is F T -measurable?
It is clear that 1 T = is F T -measurable. But because X is F -measurable. How can we say X is also F T -measurable?
asked 2022-05-21
Suppose we have two clusters of points, c 1 , c 2 . We want to measure the distance between them. There are three popular ways:
1. single link = the short distance between x c 1 and y c 2
2. complete link = the longest distance between x c 1 and y c 2
3. group average link = 1 | c 1 c 2 | ( | c 1 c 2 | 1 ) x ( c 1 c 2 ) y ( c 1 c 2 ) , y x d i s t ( x , y )
I'm trying to show C L ( 1 , 2 ) ( S L ( 1 , 2 ) + G A L ( 1 , 2 ) ) / 2
I'd be glad if you could help me with that
asked 2022-06-13
Consider f a bounded, measurable function defined on [ 1 , ] and define a n := [ n , n + 1 ) f. Does the fact that f is integrable imply n = 1 a n converges?
I would like to say that the argument
n = 1 a n = 1 f
made in that post is not correct.
My attempt was the following: Since f is integrable, | f | is also integrable. Therefore,
[ 1 , ) | f | = lim k 1 k | f | < .
Moreover, we have the following:
n = 1 a n = n = 1 n n + 1 f n = 1 | n n + 1 f | n = 1 n n + 1 | f | = lim k n = 1 k n n + 1 | f |
However, I cannot proceed further from here. Can anyone help?
asked 2022-06-14
how to show that the set
B δ = { x D g : y S  such that  d S ( x , y ) < δ  but  d S ( g ( x ) , g ( y ) ) > ϵ }
is measurable with respect to the Borel σ-algebra of S?
I changed the notation a bit since the result is stated generally for an a.e. continuous mapping g : S S between two (separable, I presume) metric spaces, S and S .