2
$\begingroup$

Let $(X_n)$ be a sequence of independent but not necessarily identically distributed random variables with $\mathbb{E}X_n = 0$ for all $n$. If the $X_n$ are uniformly bounded, Kolmogorov's strong Law of Large Numbers implies that $(1/n)\sum_{i=1}^n X_i \rightarrow 0$ almost surely.

Now let $S$ be a metric space and let $T$ be the shift operator on $S^\mathbb{N}$, that is $T(x_0,x_1,\dots) = (x_1, x_2,\dots)$. Consider a product probability measure $\mu = \prod_{i=0}^\infty \mu_i$ on $S^\mathbb{N}$ (thus $\mu$ is generally not invariant unless $\mu_i = \mu_0$ for all $i$).

For a given bounded, continuous function $f$ on $S^\mathbb{N}$ of the form $f = g \circ \pi$, where $g$ is a continuous bounded function on $S$ and $\pi(x_0,x_1,\dots) = x_0$, let $$X^f_n(\boldsymbol{x}) := f\circ T^n(\boldsymbol{x}) - \int f\circ T^n(\boldsymbol{y})\,\mu(\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{y}).$$ On the probability space $(\Omega, \mathbb{P}) := (S^\mathbb{N}, \mu)$, we have that $(X_n^f)$ is a sequence of independent random variables with $\mathbb{E}X_n^f = 0$ for all $n$, with $\sup_{\boldsymbol{x},n}X_n^f(\boldsymbol{x}) < \infty$. Thus by the SLLN we have $(1/n)\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}X_n^f \rightarrow 0$ ($\mu$ a.e.).

Therefore, given a product probability measure on $S^\mathbb{N}$, a property analogous to ergodicity (w.r.t. $T$) holds when we restrict ourselves to continuous bounded maps of the form $f = g\circ\pi$ as above.

My question is: does this property still hold for the general $f\in C_b(S^\mathbb{N})$?

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The statement from your first paragraph is incorrect; you need additional assumptions. Consider for example the rv's $X_n=\pm 2^{n^2}$, with prob $1/2$ each. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 22, 2017 at 15:49
  • $\begingroup$ I have corrected the statement of the SLLN. $\endgroup$
    – user127022
    Commented Apr 22, 2017 at 23:53

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

No. For example, take $S=\mathbb R$ and let $\mu_n$ be Lebesgue measure restricted to $[n,n+1]$. Set $$ f(x_0,x_1,\ldots)=\sin^2(2\pi x_0)\sin(2\pi(x_{2^j-\lfloor x_0\rfloor}) \text{ if $x_0\in [2^{j-1},2^j)$}. $$

Then $f(T^n(x_0,x_1,\ldots))=\sin^2(2\pi x_n)\sin(2\pi x_{2^j})$ for all $n$ in the range $[2^{j-1},2^j)$ (the reason for the $\sin^2$ term is just to make it continuous). The averages don't converge.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Should it be $f(T^n(x_0,x_1,\dots)) = \sin^2(2\pi x_n)\sin(2\pi x_{2^j - \lfloor x_n\rfloor})$ for $x_n \in [2^{j-1}, 2^j)$? $\endgroup$
    – user127022
    Commented Apr 27, 2017 at 16:56
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, absolutely. Thanks for the correction. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 28, 2017 at 3:42
  • $\begingroup$ could you perhaps point me to a reference where this (counter-)example appears in more detail? $\endgroup$
    – user127022
    Commented May 8, 2017 at 23:46
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry. I can't because the counter-example was created specifically in response to this question. But: if you agree with the calculation that $f(T^n(x_0,x_1,\ldots))=\sin^2(2\pi x_n)\sin(2\pi x_{2^j})$ for all realizations $(x_0,x_1,\ldots)$ of the random vector $(X_0,X_1,\ldots)$, then the reason for the lack of convergence is that the average over the block $[2^{j-1},2^j)$ is close to $\frac 12\sin(2\pi x_{2^j})$; and as these blocks are doubling in length, brings the overall average towards that value; the next block brings the overall average towards $\frac 12\sin(2\pi x_{2^{j+1}})$ etc. $\endgroup$ Commented May 9, 2017 at 1:48

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.