4
$\begingroup$

Let $f$ be a continuous map defined on a compact metric space $X$. Suppose that $f$ preserves the Borel probability measure $\mu$ and that, for every positive-measure set $A\subseteq X$, we have $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \mu(f^n(A))=1.$$ How to prove, as simply as possible, that $$\lim_{n\to \infty} \mu(A\cap f^{-n}(B))=\mu(A)\mu(B),$$ for every $A,B$ measurable sets?

(This question was asked on Math Stack Exchange, with no answers: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4883667/simplest-proof-that-exactness-implies-mixing)

$\endgroup$
0

2 Answers 2

5
$\begingroup$

I think the martingale theory really captures exactly what's happening. I don't know any other proof, but suspect that you would end up reproducing the backwards martingale theorem in some form? I am reproducing the proof below, which I think is elementary other than one use of the backwards martingale theorem, and assuming some properties of conditional expectation.

As Ronnie says, your condition implies that the tail $\sigma$-algebra, $\bigcap_n T^{-n}\mathcal B$ is trivial: if $A\in \bigcap_{n\ge 0} T^{-n}\mathcal B$ is a set of positive measure, then for each $n$, $A=T^{-n}B_n$ for some set $B_n$, and $T^nA=B_n$, so that by your assumption $\mu(B_n)\to 1$. Since $\mu(B_n)=\mu(A)$, it follows that $\mu(A)=1$.

Now $T^{-n}\mathcal B$ is a decreasing sequence of $\sigma$-algebras whose limit is the trivial $\sigma$-algebra. It follows that for any $f\in L^2$, $\mathbb E(f|T^{-n}\mathcal B)$ converges in $L^2$ to $\int f\,d\mu$ by the backwards martingale theorem. Taking $f=\mathbf 1_A$ and setting $g=\mathbf 1_B$, we have $$ \mu(A\cap T^{-n}B)=\mathbb E(g\circ T^nf)=\mathbb E(\mathbb E(g\circ T^nf|T^{-n}\mathcal B))=\mathbb E(g\circ T^n\cdot\mathbb E(f|T^{-n}\mathcal B)). $$ We used the "tower law" for the second equality and brought out a $T^{-n}\mathcal B$-measurable "constant" in the third equality. Since $\mathbb E(f|T^{-n}B)$ converges in $L^2$ to $\mu(A)$, it is easy to check that the final expectation converges to $\mu(A)\mathbb E(g\circ T^n)=\mu(A)\mu(B)$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ This was a surprising result to me when I first saw it here yesterday, but phrasing it in terms of martingale theory makes it seem much more natural. $\endgroup$
    – Nate River
    Commented Mar 26 at 12:06
  • $\begingroup$ I doubt there is any simpler reformulation that does not end up reproving the backward martingale convergence theorem, since it seems the condition in the OP and the triviality of the tail sigma algebra are in fact equivalent? $\endgroup$
    – Nate River
    Commented Mar 26 at 12:07
  • $\begingroup$ I think they are if the measure is invariant, yes. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 26 at 21:45
4
$\begingroup$

Not sure if this is what you're looking for, and I'm not an expert on exact systems, but:

your definition of exact implies that $\bigcap_{n \geq 0} T^{-n} \mathcal{B} = \mathcal{N}$, where $\mathcal{B}$ is your $\sigma$-algebra and $\mathcal{N}$ is the sub-$\sigma$-algebra of sets of measure $0$ or $1$ (see this MO post: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3282546/exactness-transformation-on-ergodic-theory)

Then, that definition of exact implies that the natural extension is a $K$-automorphism (see "Exact endomorphisms of Lebesgue spaces" by Rokhlin)

Then, $K$ is known to imply strong mixing (I think this is in Walters's "Ergodic Theory"), and strong mixing of the natural extension implies strong mixing of the original system since it is a factor.

Now maybe you already knew all of this, which is why you asked for a "simple" proof; I don't know if there's a direct proof of this fact not routing through $K$-automorphisms, it's an interesting question.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ 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). $\endgroup$
    – Uagi
    Commented Mar 25 at 17:51
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 25 at 18:34
  • $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$
    – Uagi
    Commented Mar 26 at 10:26

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .