7
$\begingroup$

Suppose we have a dynamical system and a sequence of functions $0=f_0\leq f_1\leq\cdots\leq f_k$. Define $J_{r,\lambda}$ to be the set of points $x$ such that there are $j_0<j_1<\cdots<j_r$ so that, for each $i<r$, $\sup_n A_n(f_{j_{i+1}}-f_{j_i})(x)>\lambda$. Using the maximal ergodic theorem, we see that $\mu(J_{1,\lambda})\leq ||f_k||_1/\lambda$. Is there a similar bound on $\mu(J_{r,\lambda})$ (maybe even $||f_k||_1/r\lambda$)?

Note that this doesn't seem to trivially reduce to multiple applications of the maximal ergodic theorem, because the sequences of $j$'s might overlap between different points, and one point might see $r$ jumps from $0$ to $j_r$, while another point doesn't see any jumps until some $j'>j_r$.

(We have some ideas that might show this, at least for a slightly more restrictive definition of $J_{r,\lambda}$---that there are $n_0<\cdots<n_{r-1}$ so that, for each $i<r$, $A_{n_i}(f_{j_{i+1}}-f_{j_i})(x)>\lambda$---but they're messy, and it seems like a clever use of the maximal ergodic theorem should give a slick proof, but we don't see how to do it.)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ When you say a similar bound, there is the identical bound $\mu(J_{r,\lambda})\le \|f_k\|_1/\lambda$, right? (just since $J_{r,\lambda}\subset J_{1,\lambda}$ unless I'm mistaken) - maybe you're looking for a bound that is of strictly smaller order than this (as a function of $r$)? Or is your question "what is the sharp bound"? $\endgroup$ – Anthony Quas Dec 12 '16 at 4:01
  • $\begingroup$ @AnthonyQuas I was hoping for a bound that goes to 0 as r goes to infinity $\endgroup$ – Henry Towsner Dec 12 '16 at 4:59
4
$\begingroup$

You can't do substantially better than $\|f_k\|_\lambda$. Here's a simple example: Consider $X=\{0,1,\ldots,2^{N}-1\}$, equipped with normalized counting measure. The transformation is $T(x)=x+1\bmod 2^{N}$. The functions are $$ f_i(x)=\begin{cases} 2&\text{if $x<i$;}\\ 0&\text{otherwise.} \end{cases} $$ for $i=0,\ldots,2^{N}$.

Let $\lambda=1$. Now if $j<2^N-2^{N/2}$ and $1\le n\le N/2$, consider $f_{j+2^{n}}-f_{j+2^{n-1}}$. This takes values 2 on the range $j+2^{n-1}$ to $j+2^n-1$ and 0's elsewhere. The maximum of the Birkhoff averages evaluated at $j$ is therefore 1. Hence for each $j\in \{0,\ldots,2^N-2^{N/2}-1\}$, $j\in J_{N/2,1}$. That is, $\mu(J_{N/2,1})\ge 1-2^{-N/2}$, but $\|f_{2^N}\|=2$. You cannot do better than $\mu(J_{r,\lambda})\le \|f_k\|/(2\lambda)$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It occurs to me that if you play with the construction a little (using $M^n$ instead of $2^N$, you cannot actually obtain a better bound than you get from the trivial inclusion $J_{r,\lambda}\subset J_{1,\lambda}$. That is: $\mu(J_{r,\lambda})\le \|f_k\|/\lambda$ and this is sharp. (This feels like it would be a nice exercise on maximal ergodic theorems somewhere). $\endgroup$ – Anthony Quas Dec 12 '16 at 19:50

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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