










































Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
Measure theory, invariant measures, birkhoff’s Ergodic theorem and circle rotation are explained
Typology: Lecture notes
1 / 50
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Lorenz in 1963 as an extremely simpliÖed model of the Navier-Stokes equa- tions for a áuid áow: 8 < :
x _ 1 = (x 2 x 1 ) x_ 2 = x 1 ( x 3 ) x 2 x _ 3 = x 1 x 2 x 3 ;
where is the Prandlt number and the Rayleigh number. Usually = 10, = 8= 3 , and varies. However, for = 28, the systems exhibits a chaotic behaviour. This is a very good example of a relatively simple ODE which is quite intractable from many angles. It does not admit any explicit analytic solutions; the topology is extremely complicated with in- Önitely many periodic solutions which are knotted in many di§erent ways (there are studies of the structure of the periodic solutions of Lorenzís equa- tions from the point of view of knot theory); on the other hand, numerical integration has very limited use since nearby solutions diverge very quickly.
Using classical methods, one can prove that the solutions of Lorenzís equations, eventually, end up in some bounded region U R^3. This sim- pliÖes our approach signiÖcantly since it means that it is su¢ cient to con- centrate on the solutions inside U. A combination of results obtained over almost 40 years by several di§erent mathematicians can be formulated in the following theorem which can be thought of essentially as a statement in ergodic theory. We give here a precise but slightly informal statement as some of the terms will be deÖned more precisely later on these notes.
Theorem 2 For every ball B R^3 , there exists a ìprobabilityî p (B) 2 [0; 1] such that, for ìalmost everyî initial condition x 0 2 R^3 , we have
lim T!
0
(^1) B (xt) dt = p (B) ; (1.2)
where xt is the solution of (1.1) with initial condition x 0.
First of all, recall that (^1) B is the characteristic function of the set B deÖned by
(^1) B (x) =
1 if x 2 B; 0 if x = 2 B:
The integral
0 1 B^ (xt)^ dt^ is simply the amount of time that the solution^ xt spends inside the ball B between time 0 and time T , and T ^1
0 1 B^ (xt)^ dt is therefore the proportion of time that the solution spends in B from t = 0 to T. Theorem 2 makes two highly non trivial assertions:
0 1 B^ (xt)^ dt^ converges as^ T^! 1;
There is no a priori reason why the limit (1.2) should exist. But perhaps the most remarkable fact is that the limit is the same for almost all initial conditions (the concept almost all will be made precise later). This says that the asymptotic time averages of the solution xt with initial condition x 0 are actually independent of this initial condition. Therefore, independently of the initial condition, the proportion of time that the systems spends on B is P (B). In other words, there exists a way of measuring the balls B such that the measure P (B) gives us information on the amount of time that the system, on average, spends on B. Theorem 2 is just a particular case of the more general Birko§ís Ergodic Theorem which we will state and prove in Chapter 4. The moral of the story is that even though Lorenzís equations are dif- Öcult to describe from an analytic, numerical, or topological point of view, they are very well behaved from a probabilistic point of view. The tools and methods of probability theory are therefore very well suited to study and understand these equations and other similar dynamical systems. This is essentially the point of view on ergodic theory that we will take in these lectures. Since this is an introductory course, we will focus on the simplest examples of dynamical systems for which there is already an extremely rich and interesting theory, which are one-dimensional maps of the interval or the circle. However, the ideas and methods which we will present often apply in much more general situations and usually form the conceptual founda- tion for analogous results in higher dimensions. Indeed, results about inter- val maps are applied directly to higher dimensional systems. For example, Lorenzís equations can be studied taking a cross section for the áow and using PoincarÈís Örst return map, which essentially reduces the system to a one dimensional map.
2.1 Motivation: Positive measures and Cantor sets 6
to talk about C as having any length. Nevertheless, the total length of the intervals removed is
i 0 ri^ <^1 so it would make sense to say that the size of C is 1
i 0 ri. Measure theory formalizes this notion in a rigorous way and makes it possible to assign a size to sets such as C.
Remark 3 If
i 0 ri^ = 1^ is exactly^1 , then^ C^ is an example of a non- countable set of zero Lebesgue measure.
Non-measurable sets
The example above shows that it is desirable to generalise the notion of length so that we can apply it to measure more complicated subsets which are not intervals. In particular, we would like to say that the Cantor set deÖned above has positive measure. It turns out that, in general, it is not possible to deÖne a measure in a consistent way on all possible subsets. In 1924 Banach and Tarski showed that it is possible to divide the unit ball in 3-dimensional space into 5 parts and re-assemble these parts to form two unit balls, thus apparently doubling the volume of the original set. This implies that it is impossible to consistently assign a well deÖned volume to any subset in an additive way. See a very interesting discussion on wikipedia on this point (Banach-Tarski paradox). Consider the following simpler example. Let S^1 be the unit circle and let f : S^1! S^1 be an irrational circle rotation. We will see that, in this case, every orbit is dense in S^1 (Theorem 27) Let A S^1 be a set containing exactly one point from each orbit. Suppose that we have deÖned a general notion of a measure m on S^1 that generalises the notion of length of an interval so that the measure m (A) has a meaning. In particular, in order to be well-deÖned, such a measure will be translation invariant in the sense that the measure of a set cannot be changed by simply translating this set. Therefore, since a circle rotation f is just a translation, we have m (f n^ (A)) = m (A) for every n 2 Z, where f n^ := f n^ times: : : f. Moreover, since A contains only one single point from each orbit and all points on a given orbit are distinct, we have f n^ (A)\f m^ (A) = ; if n 6 = m. Consequently,
m
f n^ (A)
f m^ (A)
= m (f n^ (A)) + m (f m^ (A)) :
Therefore,
1 = m
= m
n= f n^ (A)
n=
m (f n^ (A)) =
n=
m (A)
2.2 Measures and -algebras 7
which is clearly impossible as the right hand side is zero if m (A) = 0 or inÖnity if m (A) > 0. In order to overcome this di¢ culty, one has to restrict the family of subsets which can be assigned a length consistently. This subsets will be called measurable sets and the family a -algebra.
Remark 4 The previous counterexample depends on the Axiom of Choice to ensure that the set constructed by choosing a single point from each of an uncountable family of subsets exists.
2.2 Measures and -algebras
Let X be a set and A a collection of (not necessarily disjoint) subsets of X.
DeÖnition 5 We say that A is an algebra (of subsets of X) if
Sn i=1 Ai^2 A.
We say that A is a -algebra if, additionally,
3í. for any countable collection fAigi 2 N of subsets in A, we have [ i 2 N Ai^ 2 A:
The family of all subsets of a set X is obviously a -algebra. Given C a family of subsets of X we deÖne the -algebra (C) generated by C as the smallest -algebra containing C. That is, as the intersection of all the -algebras containing C. This is always well deÖned and is in general smaller than the -algebra of all subsets of X.
Exercise 6 Prove that the intersection of all the -algebras containing C is indeed a -algebra.
If X is a topological space, the -algebra generated by open sets is called the Borel -algebra and is denoted by B (X). Observe that a Cantor set C introduced in (2.1) is the complement of a countable union of open intervals and, therefore, belongs to Borel -algebra B ([0; 1]).
2.2 Measures and -algebras 9
n^ lim!1 ^ (An) =^ ^ (A)^ where^ A^ :=^
n 2 N An:
(a) is -additive =) For any decreasing sequence fAngn 2 N F (i.e., An+1 An) such that (A 1 ) < 1 we have
n^ lim!1 ^ (An) =^ ^ (A)^ where^ A^ :=^
n 2 N An: (b) If for any decreasing sequence fAngn 2 N F such that An & ;, we have limn!1 (An) = 0, then is -additive.
DeÖning a countably additive function on -algebras is non-trivial. It is usually easier to deÖne countably additive functions on algebras because the class of sequences fAngn 2 N A such that
n 2 N An^ 2 A^ is smaller than in^ - algebras. Observe that, unlike what happens in -algebras,
n 2 N An^ needs not belong to A if A is only an algebra. For example, the standard length is a countably additive function on the algebra generated by Önite unions of intervals. The fact that this extends to a countably additive function on the corresponding -algebra (and therefore, that we can measure Cantor sets) is guaranteed by the following fundamental result.
Theorem 10 (CarathÈodoryís Theorem, [3, Theorem 1.5.6]) Let e be a countably additive function deÖned on an algebra A of subsets. Then e can be extended in a unique way to a countably additive function on the -algebra F = (A).
Remark 11 The -additivity of e cannot be removed as the following counter-example shows. Let A be the algebra of sets A N such that either A or NnA is Önite. For Önite A, let (A) = 0, and for A with a Önite complement let (A) = 1. Then is an additive, but not countably additive set function. Proof. It is clear that A is indeed an algebra. (A [ B) = (A) + (B) is obvious for disjoint sets A and B if A is Önite. Finally, A and B in A cannot be inÖnite simultaneously being disjoint. If was countably additive, we would have
(N) =
n=
(fng) = 0;
which is clearly a contradiction.
2.2 Measures and -algebras 10
Nevertheless, deÖning measures on R is easier, as the next subsection summarises.
In this subsection, we are going to gather some deÖnitions and results that, roughly speaking, state that a measure on R is completely determined by the value of that measure on intervals of the form (a; b], a b.
DeÖnition 12 A distribution function F : R! R is a right-continuous increasing function. That is,
x y ) F (x) F (y) and lim x!a+^
F (x) = F (a) :
Let now J := f(a; b] : a b 2 Rg and let F : R! R be a distribution function. DeÖne : J ! [0; 1 ] (a; b] 7 ! F (b) F (a):
Then, one can prove that thus deÖned is a -additive and -Önite function on J. Moreover, there exists a unique -additive extension of onto B (R). That is,
Theorem 13 A distribution function F : R! R determines a measure on (R; B (R)) by means of the formula
((a; b]) = F (b) F (a); (a; b] 2 J:
A natural question now arises. Can we obtain any measure on (R; B (R)) from a distribution function? The answer is no, but almost any of them. Observe that the measure deÖned through (2.2) is Önite on any bounded interval. These are precisely the measures we can generate by means of distribution functions. They are called Lebesgue-Stieljes measures.
DeÖnition 14 A Lebesgue-Stieljes measure is a measure on (R; B (R)) such that, for any bounded A 2 B (R), (A) < 1.
Proposition 15 Let be a Lebesgue-Stieljes measure. Then, there exists a distribution function F such that
8 a < b 2 R; F (b) F (a) = ((a; b]) : (2.3)
2.2 Measures and -algebras 12
(I) :=
I
f (y) dy:
Then deÖnes a -Önitely additive function on the algebra of Önite unions of subintervals of R and thus extends uniquely to a measure on B(R). Indeed, a possible distribution function F associated to is
F (x) =
Z (^) x
0
f (y) dy:
p 2
Z (^) x