Timeline for Simple proof that exactness implies strong mixing
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 26 at 10:26 | comment | added | Uagi | You're right, I could have been more specific. I assumed asking for a proof "as simply as possible" was clear enough, but it wasn't. I already upvoted your answer, however. | |
| Mar 25 at 18:34 | comment | added | Ronnie Pavlov | Got it. I'd say you should give these details in the original post; there's no way for us to know what you already know and don't know and it's a bit of a waste of time to type an answer that doesn't help you! Your OP could have just said "I know several complex proofs that exact implies mixing, using K-automorphisms and martingales, but I'm looking for something direct." Also, I don't know what martingale theorem(s) you're using, but a priori I would say a proof that only uses martingales is pretty elementary! Do you have a reference? I tried to make such a proof and didn't see how to. | |
| Mar 25 at 17:51 | comment | added | Uagi | Yeah, thanks, but you guessed exactly the point: I knew what you say, but I was searching for a more elementary proof, which I "feel" should be there...(The other proof strategy I know uses martingale theory). | |
| Mar 25 at 17:37 | history | answered | Ronnie Pavlov | CC BY-SA 4.0 |