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.
Triangular averages of finite-past information converge to the infinite-past average
Statement
If nonnegative integrable-envelope functions converge -almost everywhere to , proves the triangular averages of tend to zero -almost everywhere and in on a finite measure-preserving system.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A finite-measure-preserving system , with , and finite-valued measurable functions with -almost everywhere and .
Birkhoff pointwise ergodic theorem: time averages of an integrable function in a measure-preserving system converge almost surely to an integrable limit.
Ergodic averages converge in Lp on finite-measure spaces: on a finite-measure space, the time averages converge in to their Birkhoff limit.
Measure-preserving transformations and systems: , so every preserves .
Dominated convergence: pointwise convergence under an integrable envelope implies convergence of integrals.
Integral invariance under measure-preserving maps: if preserves and is measurable, then , including infinite values.
The Lebesgue integral is linear on : the integral is linear on .
Proof
Given: The hypotheses and [F1]–[F7].
For each , put . Then -almost everywhere and almost everywhere, since as a pointwise limit. Dominated convergence [F4] gives .
Since almost everywhere and , [F4] gives . By [F3, F5], , so linearity [F7] makes the integral of the absolute triangular error by Cesaro averaging. Thus the error tends to zero in .
Fix . For , . Hence for , the average of is bounded by the first terms divided by , plus . The first part tends to zero almost everywhere. By [F1], the second part converges almost everywhere to the Birkhoff limit ; by [F2], the averages converge to in . By [F3, F5, F7], every average has integral . Thus [F6] and the convergence give . Therefore and .
Apply step 2.1 to every integer on the intersection of the resulting countably many full-measure sets. The limsup of the left side is at most for each . Since decreases pointwise, the averages and their limits decrease almost everywhere. They are nonnegative and bounded by the integrable ; dominated convergence [F4] gives . Thus almost everywhere, and the limsup is zero. Therefore almost everywhere.
By [F1]–[F2], the Birkhoff averages of converge almost everywhere and in to their Birkhoff limit. Steps 3.1 and 1.2 show the triangular averages differ from these averages by quantities tending to zero almost everywhere and in , respectively. Hence both modes of convergence hold with the same limit.
Depends on
- Birkhoff pointwise ergodic theorem
- Ergodic averages converge in Lp on finite-measure spaces
- Measure-preserving transformations and systems
- Integral invariance under measure-preserving maps
- The modulus of an integral is bounded by the integral of the modulus
- The Lebesgue integral is linear on $L^1(\mu)$
- Dominated convergence
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
29 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
- Robert M. Gray, Entropy and Information Theory, corrected edition (standard reference, not scraped)