MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. 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

Let $X$ be a compact metric space, $T$ a homeomorphism on $X$ and $\mu$ a $T$-invariant probability measure. Let $\phi:X\to\mathbb{R}$ be a continuous function and $\phi_n(x)=\phi(x)+\cdots+\phi(T^{n-1}x)$ be the induced cocycle.

A point $x\in X$ is said to be $\phi$-transient if $\phi_n(x)\to\infty$ as $n\to\infty$. Otherwise $x$ is said to be $\phi$-recurrent.

It may be more appropriate to define these notations in the skew-product system $(X\times\mathbb{R},\mu\times m)$, with $(T,\phi):(x,t)\mapsto (Tx,t+\phi(x))$. But above definitions also looks natural :)

Two propositions strengthen the $\phi$-recurrence property:

(1). For $\mu$-a.e. $\phi$-recurrent point $x$, $\displaystyle \liminf_{n\to\infty}|\phi_{n}(x)|=0$.

(2). Assume $(T,\mu)$ is ergodic and $\int\phi d\mu=0$. Then $\mu$-a.e. point $x$ is $\phi$-recurrent. In particular $\displaystyle \liminf_{n\to\infty}|\phi_{n}(x)|=0$ $\mu$-a.e. $x$.

My question is, how to prove these two properties?

Difference with Birkhoff Ergodic Theorem: $\frac{\phi_n(x)}{n}\to0$, but doesn't tell how $\phi_n(x)$ behaves.

Thank you!

Just recalled how to prove the recurrence in (2):

Let $C=\max_{x\in X}|\phi(x)|>0$. Then we divide $X$ into three subsets:

  • (recurrent part) $x\in X_r$ if $\phi_n(x)\in[-C,C]$ infinitely often;

  • (positive part) $x\in X_+$ if $\phi_n(x)\ge C$ for all $n$ large;

  • (negative part) $x\in X_-$ if $\phi_n(x)\le -C$ for all $n$ large.

Moreover both three are invariant. We need to show $X_{\pm}$ are of zero measure. If $\mu(X_+)>0$, then $\mu(X_+)=1$ (by ergodicity). So

$$0=\int\phi d\mu=\int\phi_n d\mu=\lim_{n\to\infty}\int \phi_n d\mu\ge\int\liminf_{n\to\infty}\phi_n d\mu\ge C>0,$$ contradicts in itself and hence $\mu(X_+)=0$. Similarly we have $\mu(X_-)=0$ and hence $\mu(X_r)=1$.

So (2) follows from (1).

share|cite|improve this question
What is $f$? Is this $T$? – Qiaochu Yuan Apr 17 '13 at 7:31
Classical Gottschalk-Hedlund's Theorem (see Theorem 2.9.4 in Katok-Hasselblatt) tells you that if you have a recurrent point then your cocycle is a coboundary: $\phi_n(x)=u(T^n(x))-u(x)$, with $u$ continuous function on $X$. – Michele Triestino Apr 17 '13 at 8:29
What is the question? – Ian Morris Apr 17 '13 at 8:31
@Qiaochu Yes. This is a typo. @Ian I revised my question. I want to know how to prove these two propositions. – Pengfei Apr 17 '13 at 21:06
Perhaps I am missing something, but how is the inequality $\lim_{n \to \infty} \int \phi_n d\mu \geq \int \liminf_{n \to \infty}\phi_n d\mu$ justified? Fatou's lemma does not work here, for example, because the functions $\phi_n$ might fail to be uniformly bounded below. – Ian Morris Apr 18 '13 at 10:26

I am not quite sure what the question is, but the following result might be a helpful starting point:

Theorem (Giles Atkinson, 1976): Let $T$ be an ergodic invertible measure-preserving transformation of a probability space $(X,\mathcal{F},\mu)$ and let $\phi \colon X \to \mathbb{R}$ be integrable. Then the following statements are equivalent:

  1. $\int \phi\,d\mu=0$

  2. For all $A \in \mathcal{F}$ such that $\mu(A)>0$, and all $\varepsilon>0$, there exists a nonzero integer $n$ such that $\mu\left(A \cap T^{-n}A \cap \{x \colon |\phi_n(x)|<\varepsilon\}\right)>0$.

Here we define $\phi_n(x)=0$ if $n=0$ and $\phi_n(x)=\phi_{-n}(T^nx)$ if $n$ is negative. Note that by taking $A=X$ and considering a sequence of values of $\varepsilon$ tending to zero we obtain $\liminf_{|n|\to \infty} \phi_n(x)=0$ a.e.

This falls slightly short of proving the statement (2) in the original post since a priori the sequence of integers $n$ along which convergenence to zero takes place might not take infinitely many positive values. I am fairly sure that the sequence can be taken so as to tend to $+\infty$ (indeed it is not unusual to see Atkinson's theorem cited in that form) but Atkinson's original paper unfortunately does not include that statement. I seem to remember that Aaronson's book on infinite ergodic theory includes a proof and so might shed light on this question, but I appear to have mislaid my copy.

(That a.e. $x \in X$ is recurrent in the topological sense (when $X$ is a compact metric space) when $\mu$ is an invariant Borel probability measure is a standard result: see for example Proposition 4.1.18 in Katok and Hasselblatt.)

share|cite|improve this answer
Proposition 4.1.18 there is about the base dynamics, and doesn't evolve the cocycle $\phi$. – Pengfei Apr 17 '13 at 21:18

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.