Let $X$ be a compact metric space, and $\mu$ a probability measure on $X$ with $\text{supp} \ \mu = X$. Suppose $T: X \to X$ is continuous, measure preserving and uniformly transitive in the sense that it satisfies the following two conditions:

i) The orbit of every point is dense in $X$.

ii) For every $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists some $\delta > 0$ such that for every $x \in X$, and $r > 0$ with $\mu(B_r (x)) > \varepsilon$, we have $T(B_s (T^{-1} (x)) \subset B_r (x)$ for all $ s > 0$ such that $\mu(B_s (T^{-1} (x)) < \delta$.

Question: Does it follow that $T$ is ergodic?

  • $\begingroup$ Isn't an invertible minimal system typically of type ii? Even always? $\endgroup$
    – Ville Salo
    Jun 10, 2021 at 9:56
  • $\begingroup$ If the answer is yes, I don't understand your choice of terminology but the answer to your question is "no". $\endgroup$
    – Ville Salo
    Jun 10, 2021 at 9:58

1 Answer 1


The answer is no, I think any of the usual examples works. Some argument below.

Lemma. Suppose $X$ is a compact metric space, $\mu$ a nonatomic probability measure on $X$, and $T : X \to X$ is a minimal measure-preserving homeomorphism. Then $(X, \mu, T)$ is "uniformly transitive" (did you mean to write "uniformly minimal" as in the title?)

Proof. i) The orbit of every point is dense, that's the definition of minimality.

ii) Let $S_r$ be the set of measures of all balls $B_r(x)$ as $x$ ranges over $X$. Clearly $S_r$ does not contain $0$ for any $r > 0$: apply compactness to the cover by $B_{r/2}(x)$'s and you get that for any $x$, every point in $X$ enters $B_r(x)$ after some uniform time $N$ meaning the measure of $B_r(x)$ is at least $1/N$. In fact this means even the closure of $S_r$ does not contain $0$. On the other hand, $\sup S_r$ tends to zero as $r \rightarrow 0$ by nonatomicity.

The fact $0$ is not in the closure means $\mu(B_r(x)) > \epsilon$ puts some lower bound on $r$. On the other hand by uniform continuity of $T^{-1}$, $\mu(B_s(T^{-1}(x)) < \delta$ puts a uniform upper bound on $s$. By uniform continuity of $T$, there is then a uniform upper bound on the diameter of $T(B_s(T^{−1}(x))$. This set contains $x$, so we have $T(B_s(T^{−1}(x)) \subset B_r(x)$ for small enough $s$, meaning any small enough $\delta$ works. Square.

Then we just recall the classical result.

Theorem. There is a compact metric space $X$, a nonatomic probability measure $\mu$ on $X$, and a minimal measure-preserving homeomorphism $T : X \to X$, such that $(X, \mu, T)$ is not ergodic.

Proof. It's enough to find a system $(X, T)$ with two different invariant measures. Take words $w_0^0 = 0$ and $w_1^0 = 1$, and construct $w^{n+1}_0$ and $w^{n+1}_1$ inductively from $w^n_0$ and $w^n_1$ by concatenating them around. Do this inductively so that the frequency of $a$-symbols in $w^{n+1}_a$ is strictly more than $2/3$, and take at least $3$ copies of both $w^n_0$ and $w^n_1$ when constructing $w^n_a$ for $a \in \{0,1\}$. Let $X \subset \{0,1\}^{\mathbb{Z}}$ be the subshift (topologically closed set invariant under the left shift action $T(x)_i = x_{i+1}$) consisting of all bi-infinite words whose finite subwords all appear in the words $w^n_a$. By a compactness argument $X$ is nonempty, and $X$ is minimal by the following standard argument: if a word $w$ appears in some point of $X$, it appears in some $w^n_a$, thus it appears in $w^{n+1}_0$ and $w^{n+1}_1$, and every point in $X$ is a concatenation of these, so $w$ appears with bounded gaps in every point.

Now, for a fixed $n$ construct two measures $\mu^n_0, \mu^n_1$ on $X$ as follows: for $\mu^n_a$ take any configuration $x$ in the cylinder $[w^n_a]$ (any word containing $w^n_a$ at the origin), and if $w^n_a$ has length $k$ define $\mu^n_a = \sum_{i = 0}^{k-1} T^i(\delta_x)/k$ where $\delta_x$ is the atomic measure on $\{x\}$. Clearly $\mu^n_a([a]) > 2/3$ and $\mu^n_a([1-a]) < 1/3$. Any weak-* limit point of $\mu^n_a$ is $T$-invariant by a standard computation, and by the definition of the topology we get a measure $\mu_a$ with $\mu_a([a]) \geq 2/3$ and $\mu_a([1-a]) \leq 1/3$. So we have two different invariant measures on $X$. Square.

  • $\begingroup$ Ah, very nice - I did miss that any invertible minimal system is already “uniformly transitive” or uniformly minimal might be the better terminology like you say. $\endgroup$
    – Nate River
    Jun 10, 2021 at 12:12

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.