4
$\begingroup$

Consider the following continuous analogue of a card shuffling process:

Let $Y_i, Z_i$ ($i \in \mathbb Z^+$) be sequences of jointly independent uniformly distributed random variables on $[0, 1]$. Denote by $M_i =: [a_i, b_i]$ the closed interval having $Y_i$ and $Z_i$ as endpoints.

For each $n \in \mathbb Z_+$, let $T_n: [0, 1] \to [0, 1]$ be the (random) map defined by

$$ T_n (x) = \begin{cases} x + b_n - a_n& \text{if }\; x < a_n,\\ x - a_n & \text{if }\; a_ i \leq x \leq b_n,\\ x, &\text{if }\; x > b_n. \end{cases} $$

Thus each $T_n$ takes a random segment from the middle of the deck $[0, 1]$ and places it at the top of the deck.

It is immediate that $T_n$ are measure preserving with respect to the Lebesgue measure, almost surely.

Question: Is it true that $T_n$ are almost surely strong mixing?

We say that $T_n$ are strongly mixing if almost surely,

$$\lim_{n \to \infty} \mu( T_n \dots T_1 (A) \cap B) = \mu(A)\mu(B)$$

for all Borel sets $A$, $B$.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ What's the role of $n$? $\endgroup$
    – R W
    Nov 5, 2022 at 15:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @R W So we consider the composition $T_n \circ \dots \circ T_1$, and ask if in the limit this is mixing. $\endgroup$
    – Nate River
    Nov 5, 2022 at 15:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It is still not clear. What do yo mean by « in the limit »? The sequence $(T_n \circ \cdots T_1)_{n \ge 1}$ does not converge pointwise. Remark: each map $T_n \circ \cdots T_1$ is an interval exchange map. $\endgroup$ Nov 11, 2022 at 21:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I’ll add some clarifying definitions. $\endgroup$
    – Nate River
    Nov 12, 2022 at 2:59
  • $\begingroup$ Remark that the iteration of one interval exchange map is never strongly mixing (Katok) but almost surely weakly mixing (Avila-Forni). $\endgroup$
    – FMB
    Nov 13, 2022 at 14:28

1 Answer 1

1
+200
$\begingroup$

Here is an approach that can prove an average weak mixing of this system, ie:

$$\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \sum_{k=1}^n \mathbb{E} (\mu( T_k \dots T_1 (A) \cap B)) = \mu(A)\mu(B)$$

for all Borel sets $A$, $B$.

By a standard approximation argument, this is equivalent to:

$$ \lim_{n \to \infty} \mathbb{E}( \int (f \circ T_1 \circ \cdots \circ T_n) \cdot g ) = \int f \cdot g , $$ for all $f,g \in L^2([0,1])$.

We study the averaging operator $P$: $$ Pf = \mathbb{E}( f \circ T ) . $$ The operator $P$ is self-adjoint on $L^2([0,1])$, with operator norm 1, and $$ P^n f = \mathbb{E}( f \circ T_1 \circ \cdots \circ T_n ) . $$ By (an adaptation of) Von Neumann mean ergodic theorem we have, for every $f \in L^2([0,1])$, the convergence in $L^2$: $$ \frac{1}{n} \sum_{k=1}^n P^n f \to \pi(f) , $$ where $\pi$ is the orthogonal projection on the closed subspace of $P$-invariant function. In particular, the average weak mixing property above is equivalent to the non-existence of non-constant $P$-invariant function.

We can compute $P$ explicitly: $$ Pf(x) = 2 \int_x^1 \int_0^t f(u)dudt + x^2f(x) . $$ This reduces the question of average weak mixing to the 2nd order integral equation: $$ f(x) = 2 \int_x^1 \int_0^t f(u)dudt + x^2f(x) . $$ I found that there is no non-constant $L^2$ solution to this equation, by reducing to a differential equation (this should be verified !). This proves the average weak mixing.

I guess that the average mixing $$\lim_{n \to \infty} \mathbb{E} (\mu( T_n \dots T_1 (A) \cap B)) = \mu(A)\mu(B)$$ could be deduced (if true) from a spectral gap of $P$ on some appropriate function space.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.