How to deduce the following inequality by use of the Shannon-McMillan-Breiman theorem? My question is how to deduce the red inequality from the Shannon-McMillan-Breiman theorem?
First I state some lemmas which will be used in the QUESTION:
the proceeding lemmas are in the setting where $X$ is a non-compact metric space and $T$ is a homeomorphism.
Lemma::For any invariant measure $\mu$ and compact set $C$ with $\mu(C) > 1-\sigma/2$,
there is a compact set $K \subset C$ with $\mu(K) > 1 - \sigma$ and an $N$ so that for every
$n\ge N$ and $x\in K$
$$\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}X_{A}(T^{i}x)\ge1-\sigma$$
lemma:
Let $P = \{P_1,.-. ,P_k\}$ be a Borel partition of $X$, let $C_i\subset P_i$ be
compact subsets and let $C = \{C_1, . . . , C_k\}$. Suppose that $K \subset C = \cup C_i$ is
compact and that there exists $\delta > 0$ so that for all $n > N$ and all$x\in K$
$$\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}X_{A}(T^{i}x)\ge1-\sigma$$
then
$$ \limsup_{n\to \infty}\log r(n, C, K) \ge \limsup_{n\to \infty}\log r(n, P, K) -\epsilon(\sigma)$$
where $\epsilon(\sigma)\to 0$ as $\epsilon\to 0$.
where $r(n, C, K)$ is defined as below 
Let $C = \{C_1,... , C_k\}$ be any finite collection of disjoint subsets of $X$; C need
not be a cover of $X$. We say that a finite set $E \subset K$ is $(n, C)-$ separated if for any
pair of distinct points $x, y \in E$, there exists $1<i<r\neq s<k $ and i\in {0,1,...,n-1}such
that   $T^i x \in C_r$ and $T^i y \in C_s$. Define $r(n, C, K)$ to be the maximal cardinality of
a $(n, C)$-separated subset of $k$.
Now fix a metric $d$, an invariant Borel probability measure
$\mu$, a finite Borel partition $P = \{ P_1 , . . . , P_k\}$ and $\sigma > 0$. Choose compact sets
$k \subset C_r \subset P_r$ so that $C = \cup C_i$ satisfies it$\mu(C) > 1 - \sigma/2$. Choose $K$ and $N$ as in mentioned lemmas 
 By the Shannon-McMillan-Breiman theorem
$$\color{red}{r(n,P, K) > (1 - 2\sigma)2 ^{(h_{\mu}(T'P)-\sigma)n}}.$$
This problems comes up from paper by Michael Handel, Bruce Kitchens and Daniel J. Rudolph on Entropy: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02761650 
 A: Let $T$ be an ergodic transformation of $(X,\mu)$. Let $\mathcal P$ be a partition of $X$. Write $\mathcal P(x)$ for the element of $\mathcal P$ in which $x$ lies. Now write $\mathcal P_n=\bigvee_{j=0}^{n-1}T^{-j}\mathcal P$, so that $\mathcal P_n(x)$ is the element of $\mathcal P_n$ containing $x$. 
The Shannon-Macmillan-Breiman theorem states that if $T$ is an ergodic transformation of $(X,\mu)$ and $h=h_\mu(T,\mathcal P)$, then 
$\tfrac 1n\log\mu(\mathcal P_n(x))\to -h$ for $\mu$-a.e. $x$. 
Since $\tfrac 1n\log_2\mu(\mathcal P_n(x))$ converges almost surely to $-h$, it also converges in measure. That is: for any $\epsilon>0$, there exists an $n_0$ such that for $n\ge n_0$, 
$$
\mu\{x\colon |\tfrac 1n\log_2\mu(\mathcal P_n(x))+h|\le \epsilon\}>1-\epsilon.
$$
In particular, for sufficiently large $n$, 
$\mu\{x\colon \mu(\mathcal P_n(x))\le 2^{-n(h-\epsilon)}\}>1-\epsilon$.
Notice that $A=\{x\colon\mu(\mathcal P_n(x))\le 2^{-n(h-\epsilon)}\}$ is a union of sets of the form $\mathcal P_n(x)$. Since each has measure at most $2^{-n(h-\epsilon)}$, there must be at least $(1-\epsilon)2^{n(h-\epsilon)}$ such cylinder sets since $\mu(A)>1-\epsilon$. 
The argument in the paper is a slight extension of this, obtained by intersecting $A$ with $K$.
