How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
A preserving identity need not be ergodic
Statement refuted
The assertion “every measure-preserving probability transformation is ergodic” is false.
Facts & Assumptions
Every strictly invariant set in an ergodic system must be null or conull Ergodicity relative to an invariant measure.
Counterexample
Given: The objects and hypotheses in the statement.
Take with all subsets measurable, , and . The measure is countably additive because a disjoint family has at most two nonempty members. Its total mass is one. For every subset E, , so T is measurable and preserves probability.
The set is strictly invariant and has . It is neither null nor conull, contradicting the ergodicity requirement. The specified T is therefore a counterexample.
Depends on
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · two levels
2 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Sarig Definition 1.4, p.5; explicit finite witness (standard reference, not scraped)