Welcome to MathOverflow

Question

2

Suppose that $(\Omega,\mathcal{A},\mu)$ is a $\sigma$-finite measure space of infinite measure and $T:\Omega\to\Omega$ a measure-preserving transformation with measurable inverse. Let be $\Omega_k\in \mathcal{A}$ an increasing sequence such that $\Omega_k\uparrow\Omega$ and $\mu(\Omega_k)<+\infty$ for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$.

Question 1: Given a set $A\in\mathcal{A}$, such that $\mu(A)>0$, is it true that the set $$E_k=\{\omega\in A; T^n(w)\notin A\ \forall n\in\mathbb{N}\ \text{and}\ T^{n_j}(w)\in \Omega_k \ \text{for some infinite sequence}\ (n_j(\omega)) \}$$ has zero measure ?

Question 2: If $T$ is not invertible is $\mu(E_k)=0$, in general ?

edited Oct 30 2010 at 3:09

asked Oct 30 2010 at 0:14

Leandro
1,537●1●6●11

	Your set E depends on the value of k, right? Or do you want to merely require recurrence to some $\Omega_k$, where k which may depend on $\omega$? If E depends on k, so that we have sets $E_k$, do you want $E_k$ to have zero measure for some k? For all k? – Vaughn Climenhaga Oct 30 2010 at 2:09
	Hi Vaughn, yes the set E depends on k. Perhaps I should mention in the question that I defined those sets because I am trying to use them to prove that almost all points are recurrent or goes to infinity, where a point $\omega$ goes to infinity it means that for any $k\in\mathbb{N}$, there is an $n_0\equiv n_0(k)$ such that for all $n\geq n_0$ we have $T^n(\omega)\notin \Omega_k$. – Leandro Oct 30 2010 at 2:25
	I don't see it in the question now, but presumably $\mu$ should be an invariant measure? – Vaughn Climenhaga Oct 30 2010 at 2:35
	Yes the measure is invariant. – Leandro Oct 30 2010 at 3:03

Vaughn Climenhaga · Accepted Answer · 2010-10-30 03:09:02Z UTC

If I remember my infinite ergodic theory correctly, any measure-preserving transformation $T$ of a $\sigma$-finite measure space $(\Omega,\mathcal{A},\mu)$ leads to a decomposition of $\Omega$ into a dissipative part $\Omega_d$ and a conservative part $\Omega_c$. (This notation is probably non-standard.) The dissipative part is the union of the wandering sets for $T$, where a set $E$ is wandering if it is disjoint from all its preimages $T^{-n}(E)$, $n\geq 0$. The conservative part is thee complement of the dissipative part.

On the dissipative part, everything "goes to infinity" in some sense (eventually leaves $\Omega_k$, for instance), while on the conservative part, the Poincare recurrence theorem holds. (Conservative measures are exactly those $\sigma$-finite measures for which the Poincare recurrence theorem still works.) I believe this establishes the dichotomy you want.

This may even work for transformations that don't preserve $\mu$, but only preserve the collection of null sets. I'd check a reference on that, though -- details of all of this are in Aaronson's book An Introduction to Infinite Ergodic Theory.

Poincare Recurrence Theorem on Infinite Measure Space

Remember to vote up questions/answers you find interesting or helpful (requires 15 reputation points)

1 Answer

You can accept an answer to one of your own questions by clicking the check mark next to it. This awards 15 reputation points to the person who answered and 2 reputation points to you.