The following content was based on Minlos' book on statistical physics. Let $\Lambda \subset \mathbb{R}^{d}$ be fixed (Minlos takes $d=3$ but I think the ideas follow without change to $d \ge 1$). We denote by $\Lambda^{N}$ the $N$-fold cartesian product of $\Lambda$ with itself and $(\Lambda^{N})'$ $N$-uples $(x_{1},...,x_{N})$ in $\Lambda$ with different entries, i. e. $x_{i}\neq x_{j}$ if $i\neq j$. Also $\Gamma_{\Lambda, N}:=\{\omega \subset \Lambda, \hspace{0.1cm} \mbox{card}(\omega) = N\}$, where $\mbox{card}(\omega)$ is the cardinality of the set $\omega$. Define $\Pi: (\Lambda^{N})' \to \Gamma_{\Lambda, N}$ by $(x_{1},...,x_{N}) \mapsto \{x_{1},...,x_{N}\}$. For every subset $A$ of $\Gamma_{\Lambda, N}$, Minlos set: $$ \mu_{\Lambda}^{(N)}(A) := \frac{\mbox{Vol}(\Pi^{-1}(A))}{N!} $$ Then, he states that $\mu_{\Lambda}(\Gamma_{\Lambda, N}) = \frac{|\Lambda|^{N}}{N!}$. The problem is that he doesn't seem to define $\mbox{Vol}$ or $|\cdot|$ anywhere and it is getting me a little confused. At first, I thought $\mbox{Vol}$ was just the Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb{R}^{dN}$. But it would be a little odd because if I take $A = \{x_{1},...,x_{N}\}$ it seems that $\mu_{\Lambda}^{(N)}(\{x_{1},...,x_{N}\}) = 0$. Besides, how come does the second statement about $\mu_{\Lambda}(\Gamma_{\Lambda, N})$ follow? If $|\Lambda|$ is the cardinality of $\Lambda$ (which I don't know for sure), does it follow from de definition of $\mu_{\Lambda}$?


If $\text{Vol}$ denotes the Lebesgue measure on $(\mathbb R^d)^N$, if $|\cdot|$ denotes the Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb R^d$, and if $\mu_\Lambda=\mu_\Lambda^{(N)}$, then indeed $\mu_\Lambda(\Gamma_{\Lambda,N})=\frac{|\Lambda|^N}{N!}$. This follows because (i) $\Pi^{-1}(\Gamma_{\Lambda,N})=(\Lambda^N)'$ and (ii) (say, by the Fubini--Tonelli theorem) $\text{Vol}((\Lambda^N)')=\text{Vol}(\Lambda^N)=|\Lambda|^N$.

As for $\mu_\Lambda^{(N)}(A)$ with $A=\{x_{1},...,x_{N}\}$, it is undefined. Indeed, for $\mu_\Lambda^{(N)}(A)$ be defined, $A$ must be a subset of $\Gamma_{\Lambda,N}$, whereas $\{x_{1},...,x_{N}\}$ is a subset of $\mathbb R^d$ but not of $\Gamma_{\Lambda,N}$. On the other hand, if $A$ is the singleton set $\{(x_{1},...,x_{N})\}$ with pairwise distinct $x_j$'s in $\mathbb R^d$, then indeed $\mu_\Lambda^{(N)}(A)=0$, and there is nothing odd about that.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ This is a very good answer! In summary, it looks like $|\cdot|$ is not the cardinality of the set, but it $|\cdot|$ and $\mbox{Vol}$ seem to be two Lebesgue measures on different spaces. It makes sense to me! $\endgroup$ – MathMath Feb 9 at 13:52

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.