Return to Answer

The answer is no and a suitable counterexample in any dimension $n\geq 2$ was constructed by Oxtoby and Ulam. This is Theorem 12 p. 919 in:

J. C. Oxtoby, S. M. Ulam, Measure-preserving homeomorphisms and metrical transitivity. Ann. of Math. 42 (1941), 874–920.

Here, the automorphism means homeomorphism. Since it is rigid translation on cubes, the derivative is $DT^*=I$ on each of the cubes. This theorem says that not only strange homeomorphisms answering the question exist, but every homeomorphism preserving the measure can be uniformly approximated by such homeomorphisms.

The answer is no and a suitable counterexample in any dimension $n\geq 2$ was constructed by Oxtoby and Ulam. This is Theorem 12 p. 919 in:

J. C. Oxtoby, S. M. Ulam, Measure-preserving homeomorphisms and metrical transitivity. Ann. of Math. 42 (1941), 874–920.

Here, the automorphism means homeomorphism. Since it is rigid translation on cubes, the derivative is $DT^*=I$ on each of the cubes. This theorem says that not only strange homeomorphisms answering the question exist, but every homeomorphism preserving the measure can be uniformly approximated by such homeomorphisms. This is really a quite amazing result.

The answer is no and a suitable counterexample in any dimension $n\geq 2$ was constructed by Oxtoby and Ulam. This is Theorem 12 p. 919 in:

J. C. Oxtoby, S. M. Ulam, Measure-preserving homeomorphisms and metrical transitivity. Ann. of Math. (2) 42 (1941), 874–920.

Here, the automorphism means homeomorphism. Since it is rigid translation on cubes, the derivative is $DT^*=I$ on each of the cubes. This theorem says that not only strange homeomorphisms answering the question exist, but every homeomorphism preserving the measure can be uniformly approximated by such homeomorphisms.

The answer is no and a suitable counterexample in any dimension $n\geq 2$ was constructed by Oxtoby and Ulam. This is Theorem 12 p. 919 in:

J. C. Oxtoby, S. M. Ulam, Measure-preserving homeomorphisms and metrical transitivity. Ann. of Math. 42 (1941), 874–920.

Here, the automorphism means homeomorphism. Since it is rigid translation on cubes, the derivative is $DT^*=I$ on each of the cubes. This theorem says that not only strange homeomorphisms answering the question exist, but every homeomorphism preserving the measure can be uniformly approximated by such homeomorphisms.

The answer is no and a suitable counterexample in any dimension $n\geq 2$ was constructed by Oxtoby and Ulam. This is Theorem 12 p. 919 in:

J. C. Oxtoby, S. M. Ulam, Measure-preserving homeomorphisms and metrical transitivity. Ann. of Math. (2) 42 (1941), 874–920.

Here, the automorphism means homeomorphism. Since it is rigid translation on cubes, the derivative is $DT^*=I$ on each of the cubes. This theorem says that not only strange homeomorphisms answering the question exist, but every homeomorphism preserving the measure can be uniformly approximated by such homeomorphisms.

The answer is no and a suitable counterexample in any dimension $n\geq 2$ was constructed by Oxtoby and Ulam. This is Theorem 12 p. 919 in:

J. C. Oxtoby, S. M. Ulam, Measure-preserving homeomorphisms and metrical transitivity. Ann. of Math. (2) 42 (1941), 874–920.

Here, the automorphism means homeomorphism. Since it is rigid translation on cubes, the derivative is $DT^*=I$ on each of the cubes. This theorem says that not only strange homeomorphisms answering the question exist, but every homeomorphism preserving the measure can be uniformly approximated by such homeomorphisms.