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.
Ergodic averages converge in Lp on finite-measure spaces
Statement
Let , let preserve , let , and let be real or complex valued. If is its Birkhoff limit, then and
No convergence is asserted.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The finite measure space, , , , and in the Statement.
Ergodic averages are contractions (Ergodic averages are measurable, representative independent, and Lp contractive) and converge a.e. by Birkhoff (Birkhoff pointwise ergodic theorem).
On finite measure spaces, a.e. convergence implies convergence in measure, and convergence in measure plus uniform integrability gives convergence (On a finite measure space, almost-everywhere convergence implies convergence in measure, Vitali convergence theorem on finite and sigma-finite measure spaces).
Markov's inequality, dominated convergence, and Fatou's lemma have their usual integral forms (Chebyshev-Markov inequality for the integral, Dominated convergence, Fatou's lemma).
A bounded function on a finite measure space belongs to every finite (Finite-measure includes into for ).
Proof
Assume . Put . Contractivity and Markov give . For , split by radial clipping, so and . Pointwise, Consequently where invariance gives .
Now assume . Let . Then is bounded and belongs to by [F4], while dominated convergence applied to gives .
As , and is dominated by , so its integral tends to zero. Choose and then in step 1.1; the bound is uniform in and proves uniform integrability of . For complex , it also proves uniform integrability of the real and imaginary parts because each component modulus is bounded by .
Let be the Birkhoff limit of . For fixed , both and are bounded by . Their pointwise difference tends to zero a.e.; dominated convergence on the finite measure space therefore gives .
By [F1] the averages converge a.e., hence by [F2] in measure. Vitali applied to the real and imaginary parts gives convergence to their corresponding components of . The complex triangle inequality combines the two component conclusions.
Since a.e., Fatou and contractivity imply Thus , and Letting proves the claim. The two cases exhaust ; the proof never supplies uniform-norm convergence.
Depends on
- Ergodic averages are measurable, representative independent, and Lp contractive
- Birkhoff pointwise ergodic theorem
- Vitali convergence theorem on finite and sigma-finite measure spaces
- On a finite measure space, almost-everywhere convergence implies convergence in measure
- Finite-measure $L^r$ includes into $L^p$ for $p < r$
- Dominated convergence
- Fatou's lemma
- Chebyshev-Markov inequality for the integral
- Monotone convergence for the integral
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
52 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
- Omri Sarig, Lecture Notes on Ergodic Theory (2023) (standard reference, not scraped)
- Charles Walkden, Ergodic Theory lecture notes (standard reference, not scraped)