Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I see this question on the math stack exchange. I found it interesting and still there is no solution there

Let $(X,A,\nu)$ be a probability space and $T:X\to X$ a measure preserving transformation $\nu$. Take a measurable partiton $P=\{P_0,...,P_{k-1}\}$. Let I be a set of all possible itineraries, that is, I=$\{(i_1,...,i_n,...)\in k^{N}$; there is a $x\in X$, such that $T^n(x)\in P_{i_n}$ for all n$\in$N}

Suppose that I is countably infinite.

Is true that the entropy of T with respect to P is $0$ ($h(T,P)=0)$?

share|improve this question
    
Can you say something about where the question comes from? It sounds a bit like a homework assignment... –  Anthony Quas Jan 13 '13 at 4:26

2 Answers 2

This condition is much more restrictive than just having zero entropy. In fact you are talking about a purely atomic invariant measure of the shift on $A^{\mathbb Z_+}$, where $A$ is a finite alphabet. Any such measure is a (possibly infinite) convex combination of measures equidistributed on orbits of periodic points.

EDIT As the exposition of Daniel contains a number of mistakes, let me expand my answer.

  1. The partition $P$ gives rise to a symbolic coding of the original transformation by assigning to any point $x\in X$ the sequence of $P$-names of $(T^n x)_{n\ge 0}$, i.e., $$ x \mapsto (i_0,i_1,\dots) \;, $$ where $i_n$ is determined by the condition $T^n x \in P_{i_n}$. The image of the original measure on $X$ under this transformation is a shift invariant measure.

  2. Now one can forget about the original measure and deal just with the quotient shift invariant measure on $A^{\mathbb Z_+}$ (where $A$ is the set of elements of the partition $P$). By the assumption it is purely atomic. I claim that any purely atomic probability measure $m$ invariant under a certain transformation $T$ is a convex combination of uniform measures on periodic orbits. Indeed, let $x$ be a maximal weight atom of $m$. Then $m(Tx)\le m(x)$ because the weight of $x$ is maximal; on the other hand, $m(Tx)\ge m(x)$ because $x\in T^{-1}(Tx)$ and $T$ is measure preserving. Therefore $m(Tx)=m(x)>0$, so that $x$ must be a periodic point. Now one can remove the orbit of $x$ and apply this argument again, etc.

  3. The entropy of a periodic measure preserving transformation is zero.

share|improve this answer
    
You can drill a little more your answer? –  Juan Valdez Jan 12 '13 at 21:50
    
What concretely? –  R W Jan 12 '13 at 22:20
    
I like this answer because it answers what the question should have been. –  Daniel Mansfield Jan 13 '13 at 8:39
    
I have asked the similar question without the stationarity assumption here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/285709/… –  Stéphane Laurent Jan 25 '13 at 22:51

I think that I can expand on RW's answer

If $I$ is countably infinite, then we can cover $X$ with the countable partition $$ X = \vee_{n=0}^\infty T^{-n}P $$ Take any element of this partition: $$Q = P_{n_0} \vee T^{-1}P_{n_1} \vee \cdots \vee T^{-i}P_{n_i} \vee \cdots $$ where $n_i \in [1,k]$. Then $$ TQ = TP_{n_0} \vee P_{n_1} \vee T^{-1}P_{n_2} \vee \cdots \vee T^{-i+1}P_{n_i} \vee \cdots $$ is contained within partition element $$ P_{n_1} \vee T^{-1}P_{n_2} \vee \cdots \vee T^{-i+1}P_{n_i} \vee \cdots $$ so $TQ$ (or more generally $T^iQ$) is either disjoint from $Q$ (when it is contained within another partition), or equal to $Q$

There are two possibilities for the measure of $Q$:

(1) the measure of $Q$ is zero, or

(2) the measure of $Q$ is positive, and $T^nQ=T^{n+k}Q$ for some $n,k < \infty$. Otherwise $\{T^iQ\}$ is an infinite sequence of disjoint sets, each of constant measure $\mu(Q)$, and

$$ \infty = \sum_{i=1}^\infty \mu(Q) = \sum_{i=1}^\infty \mu(T^iQ) \leq \mu(X) = 1$$

Hence there are (possibly infinitely many) $Q$'s of finite measure, each with finite orbit.

Each $Q$ represents the set of points that are indistinguishable in your topology, so we can say that the space you are talking about is really just a (countable) union of finite orbits with an atomic probability measure.

share|improve this answer
    
It's not clear a priori why $TQ$ should be another element of the partition... –  Anthony Quas Jan 13 '13 at 4:24
    
Thank you Anthony, $TQ$ is not necessarily an element of the partition. I have modified the answer in response to your comment. –  Daniel Mansfield Jan 13 '13 at 5:48

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.