Motivating Benford’s law by rotating a circle
Motivating Benford’s law by rotating a circle 1 / 6
Motivating Benfords law by rotating a circle Motivating Benfords law - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Motivating Benfords law by rotating a circle Motivating Benfords law by rotating a circle 1 / 6 Consider a set of naturally-occurring data Motivating Benfords law by rotating a circle 2 / 6 Consider a set of naturally-occurring
Motivating Benford’s law by rotating a circle 1 / 6
Motivating Benford’s law by rotating a circle 2 / 6
Motivating Benford’s law by rotating a circle 2 / 6
Motivating Benford’s law by rotating a circle 2 / 6
Motivating Benford’s law by rotating a circle 2 / 6
Motivating Benford’s law by rotating a circle 3 / 6
Motivating Benford’s law by rotating a circle 3 / 6
Motivating Benford’s law by rotating a circle 3 / 6
Ω
Ω
Ω
✼✻
n ❢♦r s♦♠❡ m, n ∈ N ✇✐t❤ (m, n) = 1✱ s♦ ❢♦r ❛♥② ♠❡❛s✉r❛❜❧❡ B ∈
2n
k=0
n (♠♦❞ 1)
✼✼
Motivating Benford’s law by rotating a circle 4 / 6
Motivating Benford’s law by rotating a circle 4 / 6
Motivating Benford’s law by rotating a circle 5 / 6
n ❢♦r s♦♠❡ m, n ∈ N ✇✐t❤ (m, n) = 1✱ s♦ ❢♦r ❛♥② ♠❡❛s✉r❛❜❧❡ B ∈
2n
k=0
n (♠♦❞ 1)
✼✼
Motivating Benford’s law by rotating a circle 6 / 6
◮ For example, if n = 3 and ℓ = 2, N2(3) = {21}. Motivating Benford’s law by rotating a circle 6 / 6
◮ For example, if n = 3 and ℓ = 2, N2(3) = {21}.
Motivating Benford’s law by rotating a circle 6 / 6
◮ For example, if n = 3 and ℓ = 2, N2(3) = {21}.
Motivating Benford’s law by rotating a circle 6 / 6
◮ For example, if n = 3 and ℓ = 2, N2(3) = {21}.
Motivating Benford’s law by rotating a circle 6 / 6
◮ For example, if n = 3 and ℓ = 2, N2(3) = {21}.
Motivating Benford’s law by rotating a circle 6 / 6
◮ For example, if n = 3 and ℓ = 2, N2(3) = {21}.
Motivating Benford’s law by rotating a circle 6 / 6
◮ For example, if n = 3 and ℓ = 2, N2(3) = {21}.
Motivating Benford’s law by rotating a circle 6 / 6
◮ For example, if n = 3 and ℓ = 2, N2(3) = {21}.
Motivating Benford’s law by rotating a circle 6 / 6
◮ For example, if n = 3 and ℓ = 2, N2(3) = {21}.
Motivating Benford’s law by rotating a circle 6 / 6
◮ For example, if n = 3 and ℓ = 2, N2(3) = {21}.
Motivating Benford’s law by rotating a circle 6 / 6
Ergodic Theorem Details 1 / 7
Ergodic Theorem Details 2 / 7
Ergodic Theorem Details 2 / 7
Ergodic Theorem Details 2 / 7
Ergodic Theorem Details 3 / 7
Ergodic Theorem Details 3 / 7
Ergodic Theorem Details 3 / 7
Ergodic Theorem Details 3 / 7
Ergodic Theorem Details 4 / 7
Ergodic Theorem Details 4 / 7
◮ Stein and Shakarchi’s Real Analysis is on the left, and our class notes
100
Chapter 3. DIFFERENTIATION AND INTEGRATION
Suppose f is integrable on Rd. Is it true that lim
m(B) → 0 x ∈ B1 m(B)
f(y) dy = f(x), for a.e. x? The limit is taken as the volume of open balls B containing x goes to 0. We shall refer to this question as the averaging problem. We remark that if B is any ball of radius r in Rd, then m(B) = vdrd, where vd is the measure of the unit ball. (See Exercise 14 in the previous chapter.) Note of course that in the special case when f is continuous at x , the limit does converge to f(x). Indeed, given ǫ > 0, there exists δ > 0 such that |f(x) − f(y)| < ǫ whenever |x − y| < δ. Since f(x) − 1 m(B)
f(y) dy = 1 m(B)
(f(x) − f(y)) dy, we find that whenever B is a ball of radius < δ/2 that contains x, then
1 m(B)
f(y) dy
1 m(B)
|f(x) − f(y)| dy < ǫ, as desired. The averaging problem has an affirmative answer, but to establish that fact, which is qualitative in nature, we need to make some quantitative estimates bearing on the overall behavior of the averages of f. This will be done in terms of the maximal averages of |f|, to which we now turn. 1.1 The Hardy-Littlewood maximal function The maximal function that we consider below arose first in the one- dimensional situation treated by Hardy and Littlewood. It seems that they were led to the study of this function by toying with the question
his satisfaction. As it turns out, the concepts involved have a universal significance in analysis. The relevant definition is as follows. If f is integrable on Rd, we define its maximal function f ∗ by f ∗(x) = sup
x∈B
1 m(B)
|f(y)| dy, x ∈ Rd, where the supremum is taken over all balls containing the point x. In
lem by a supremum, and f by its absolute value.
❇❡❝❛✉s❡ FN(x) = max1≤k≤N f k(x) ❢♦r x ∈ MN(f)✱ t❤✐s s❤♦✇s t❤❛t f(x) ≥ FN(x) − FN(Tx) ❢♦r x ∈ MN(f)✳ ❆s FN ✐s ♥♦♥♥❡❣❛t✐✈❡ ❛♥❞ ❡q✉❛❧ t♦ 0 ♦♥ Ω \ MN(f)✱ ✇❡ ❤❛✈❡ ˆ
MN(f)
fdP ≥ ˆ
MN(f)
FNdP − ˆ
MN(f)
FN ◦ TdP = ˆ
Ω
FNdP − ˆ
MN (f)
FN ◦ TdP ≥ ˆ
Ω
FNdP − ˆ
Ω
FN ◦ TdP = 0. ❋✐♥❛❧❧②✱ s✐♥❝❡ MN(f) ր M(f)✱ t❤❡ ❞♦♠✐♥❛t❡❞ ❝♦♥✈❡r❣❡♥❝❡ t❤❡♦r❡♠ s❤♦✇s t❤❛t ˆ
M(f)
fdP = lim
N→∞
ˆ
MN(f)
fdP ≥ 0.
1 nf n(x) > α}✱ t❤❡♥
´
Mα(f) fdP ≥ αP (Mα(f))✳
Pr♦♦❢✳ ▲❡t g = f − α✳ ❚❤❡♥ gn =
n−1
(f − α) ◦ T k =
n−1
s♦ 1
ngn = 1 nf n − α✱ ❛♥❞ t❤✉s
Mα(f) =
n≥1
1 nf n(x) > α
n≥1
1 nf n(x) − α > 0
n≥1
1 ngn(x) > 0
n≥1
gn(x) > 0
❚❤❡r❡❢♦r❡✱ t❤❡ ♠❛①✐♠❛❧ ❡r❣♦❞✐❝ t❤❡♦r❡♠ ✐♠♣❧✐❡s 0 ≤ ˆ
M(g)
gdP = ˆ
Mα(f)
(f − α) dP = ˆ
Mα(f)
fdP − αP (Mα(f)) .
´
A fdP ≥ 0✳
Pr♦♦❢✳ ❙✐♥❝❡ T −1A = A ✉♣ t♦ ❛ ♥✉❧❧ s❡t✱ 1A ◦ T = 1A ❛✳s✳✱ s♦ ✐❢ g = f · 1A✱ t❤❡♥ gn =
n−1
(f · 1A) ◦ T k =
n−1
· 1A = f n · 1A. ■t ❢♦❧❧♦✇s t❤❛t M(g) =
n≥1
gn(x) > 0
n≥1
f n(x) > 0
❛♥❞ t❤✉s ˆ
A
fdP = ˆ
M(g)
gdP ≥ 0.
f ∗(x) = supn≥1
1 n
n−1
k=0 |f ◦ T k (x)|
Ergodic Theorem Details 5 / 7
◮ A familiar example is:
101 The main properties of f ∗ we shall need are summarized in a theorem. Theorem 1.1 Suppose f is integrable on Rd. Then: (i) f ∗ is measurable. (ii) f ∗(x) < ∞ for a.e. x. (iii) f ∗ satisfies (1) m({x ∈ Rd : f ∗(x) > α}) ≤ A α fL1(Rd) for all α > 0, where A = 3d, and fL1(Rd) =
Rd |f(x)| dx.
Before we come to the proof we want to clarify the nature of the main conclusion (iii). As we shall observe, one has that f ∗(x) ≥ |f(x)| for a.e. x; the effect of (iii) is that, broadly speaking, f ∗ is not much larger than |f|. From this point of view, we would have liked to conclude that f ∗ is integrable, as a result of the assumed integrability of f. However, this is not the case, and (iii) is the best substitute available (see Exercises 4 and 5). An inequality of the type (1) is called a weak-type inequality be- cause it is weaker than the corresponding inequality for the L1-norms. Indeed, this can be seen from the Tchebychev inequality (Exercise 9 in Chapter 2), which states that for an arbitrary integrable function g, m({x : |g(x)| > α}) ≤ 1 α gL1(Rd), for all α > 0. We should add that the exact value of A in the inequality (1) is unim- portant for us. What matters is that this constant be independent of α and f. The only simple assertion in the theorem is that f ∗ is a measurable
x ∈ Eα, there exists a ball B such that x ∈ B and 1 m(B)
|f(y)| dy > α. Now any point x close enough to x will also belong to B; hence x ∈ Eα as well. The two other properties of f ∗ in the theorem are deeper, with (ii) being a consequence of (iii). This follows at once if we observe that {x : f ∗(x) = ∞} ⊂ {x : f ∗(x) > α}
αm(|f ∗| > α) ≤ A
❇❡❝❛✉s❡ FN(x) = max1≤k≤N f k(x) ❢♦r x ∈ MN(f)✱ t❤✐s s❤♦✇s t❤❛t f(x) ≥ FN(x) − FN(Tx) ❢♦r x ∈ MN(f)✳ ❆s FN ✐s ♥♦♥♥❡❣❛t✐✈❡ ❛♥❞ ❡q✉❛❧ t♦ 0 ♦♥ Ω \ MN(f)✱ ✇❡ ❤❛✈❡ ˆ
MN(f)
fdP ≥ ˆ
MN (f)
FNdP − ˆ
MN (f)
FN ◦ TdP = ˆ
Ω
FNdP − ˆ
MN (f)
FN ◦ TdP ≥ ˆ
Ω
FNdP − ˆ
Ω
FN ◦ TdP = 0. ❋✐♥❛❧❧②✱ s✐♥❝❡ MN(f) ր M(f)✱ t❤❡ ❞♦♠✐♥❛t❡❞ ❝♦♥✈❡r❣❡♥❝❡ t❤❡♦r❡♠ s❤♦✇s t❤❛t ˆ
M(f)
fdP = lim
N→∞
ˆ
MN(f)
fdP ≥ 0.
1 nf n(x) > α}✱ t❤❡♥
´
Mα(f) fdP ≥ αP (Mα(f))✳
Pr♦♦❢✳ ▲❡t g = f − α✳ ❚❤❡♥ gn =
n−1
(f − α) ◦ T k =
n−1
s♦ 1
ngn = 1 nf n − α✱ ❛♥❞ t❤✉s
Mα(f) =
n≥1
1 nf n(x) > α
n≥1
1 nf n(x) − α > 0
n≥1
1 ngn(x) > 0
n≥1
gn(x) > 0
❚❤❡r❡❢♦r❡✱ t❤❡ ♠❛①✐♠❛❧ ❡r❣♦❞✐❝ t❤❡♦r❡♠ ✐♠♣❧✐❡s 0 ≤ ˆ
M(g)
gdP = ˆ
Mα(f)
(f − α) dP = ˆ
Mα(f)
fdP − αP (Mα(f)) .
´
A fdP ≥ 0✳
Pr♦♦❢✳ ❙✐♥❝❡ T −1A = A ✉♣ t♦ ❛ ♥✉❧❧ s❡t✱ 1A ◦ T = 1A ❛✳s✳✱ s♦ ✐❢ g = f · 1A✱ t❤❡♥ gn =
n−1
(f · 1A) ◦ T k =
n−1
· 1A = f n · 1A. ■t ❢♦❧❧♦✇s t❤❛t M(g) =
n≥1
gn(x) > 0
n≥1
f n(x) > 0
❛♥❞ t❤✉s ˆ
A
fdP = ˆ
M(g)
gdP ≥ 0.
αP(f ∗ > α) ≤
Ergodic Theorem Details 6 / 7
104
Chapter 3. DIFFERENTIATION AND INTEGRATION
Since the balls Bi1, . . . , Bik are disjoint and satisfy (2) as well as (3), we find that m(K) ≤ m N
Bℓ
k
m(Bij) ≤ 3d α
k
|f(y)| dy = 3d α
j=1 Bij
|f(y)| dy ≤ 3d α
Since this inequality is true for all compact subsets K of Eα, the proof
1.2 The Lebesgue differentiation theorem The estimate obtained for the maximal function now leads to a solution
Theorem 1.3 If f is integrable on Rd, then (4) lim
m(B) → 0 x ∈ B1 m(B)
f(y) dy = f(x) for a.e. x. Proof. It suffices to show that for each α > 0 the set Eα = x : lim sup
m(B) → 0 x ∈ Bm(B)
f(y) dy − f(x)
has measure zero, because this assertion then guarantees that the set E = ∞
n=1 E1/n has measure zero, and the limit in (4) holds at all points
We fix α, and recall Theorem 2.4 in Chapter 2, which states that for each ǫ > 0 we may select a continuous function g of compact support with f − gL1(Rd) < ǫ. As we remarked earlier, the continuity of g implies that lim
m(B) → 0 x ∈ B1 m(B)
g(y) dy = g(x), for all x. Since we may write the difference
1 m(B)
1 m(B)
(f(y) − g(y)) dy + 1 m(B)
g(y) dy − g(x) + g(x) − f(x)
❲❡ ❛r❡ ♥♦✇ ✐♥ ❛ ♣♦s✐t✐♦♥ t♦ ♣r♦✈❡ ❚❤❡♦r❡♠ ✶✸✳✸ ✭P♦✐♥t✇✐s❡ ❊r❣♦❞✐❝ ❚❤❡♦r❡♠✮✳ ❋♦r ❛♥② f ∈ L1✱ lim
n→∞
1 nf n = f ❛✳s✳ ✇❤❡r❡ f ∈ L1 ✐s ✐♥✈❛r✐❛♥t ✇✐t❤ ´
Ω fdP =
´
Ω fdP✳
Pr♦♦❢✳ ❙❡t f +(x) = lim sup
n→∞
1 nf n(x), f −(x) = lim inf
n→∞
1 nf n(x). ❈❧❡❛r❧② f + ❛♥❞ f − ❛r❡ ✐♥✈❛r✐❛♥t ✇✐t❤ f −(x) ≤ f +(x) ❢♦r ❛❧❧ x✳ ❲❡ ✇✐s❤ t♦ s❤♦✇ t❤❛t f + = f − ❛✳s✳✱ s♦ ✇❡ ♥❡❡❞ t♦ s❤♦✇ t❤❛t M = {x : f −(x) < f +(x)} ❤❛s P(M) = 0✳ ❋♦r α, β ∈ Q✱ ❧❡t Mα,β = {x : f −(x) < α, f +(x) > β}✳ ❚❤❡♥ M =
α,β∈Q Mα,β✱ s♦ ✐t s✉✣❝❡s t♦ s❤♦✇ t❤❛t
P(Mα,β) = 0 ❢♦r ❛❧❧ α, β ∈ Q ✇✐t❤ α < β✳ ❲❡ ♥♦t❡ ❛t t❤❡ ♦✉ts❡t t❤❛t t❤❡ ✐♥✈❛r✐❛♥❝❡ ♦❢ f + ❛♥❞ f − ✐♠♣❧② t❤❛t Mα,β ✐s ❛♥ ✐♥✈❛r✐❛♥t s❡t✳ ◆♦✇ ❧❡t M +
β
= {x : f +(x) > β}✳ ■❢ x ∈ M +
β ✱ t❤❡♥ t❤❡r❡ ✐s s♦♠❡ n ∈ N s✉❝❤ t❤❛t 1 nf n(x) > β✱ s♦
(f − β)n(x) = f n(x) − nβ > 0✱ ❤❡♥❝❡ x ∈ M(f − β)✳ ❙✐♥❝❡ Mα,β ⊆ M +
β ⊆ M(f − β) ✐s ✐♥✈❛r✐❛♥t✱ ❈♦r♦❧❧❛r② ✶✸✳✸ s❤♦✇s t❤❛t
´
Mα,β(f − β)dP ≥ 0✱ ❤❡♥❝❡
´
Mα,β fdP ≥ βP (Mα,β)✳
❙✐♠✐❧❛r❧②✱ ✐❢ x ∈ M −
α := {x : f −(x) < α}✱ t❤❡♥ t❤❡r❡ ✐s ❛♥ m ✇✐t❤ 1 mf m < α✱ s♦ (α − f)m > 0✳
■t ❢♦❧❧♦✇s t❤❛t Mα,β ⊆ M −
α ⊆ M(α − f)✱ s♦ t❤❛t
´
Mα,β fdP ≤ αP (Mα,β)✳
❚❤✉s ✇❡ ❤❛✈❡ s❤♦✇♥ t❤❛t βP (Mα,β) ≤ ˆ
Mα,β
fdP ≤ αP (Mα,β) , s♦ s✐♥❝❡ α < β✱ ✇❡ ❝♦♥❝❧✉❞❡ t❤❛t P (Mα,β) = 0 ❛s ❞❡s✐r❡❞✳ ❚❤✐s s❤♦✇s t❤❛t 1
nf n ❤❛s ❛♥ ❛❧♠♦st s✉r❡ ❧✐♠✐t f ∗✳
❇② ❈♦r♦❧❧❛r② ✶✸✳✶✱ ✇❡ ❛❧s♦ ❤❛✈❡ t❤❛t 1
nf n → f ✐♥ L1✱ ❛♥❞ ❋❛t♦✉✬s ❧❡♠♠❛ ❣✐✈❡s
ˆ f ∗ − f
ˆ lim inf
n
nf n − f
n
ˆ
nf n − f
s♦ f ∗ = f ❛✳s✳ ■♥ ❧✐❣❤t ♦❢ ♣r❡✈✐♦✉s ♦❜s❡r✈❛t✐♦♥s✱ t❤✐s s❤♦✇s t❤❛t 1
nf n ❝♦♥✈❡r❣❡s ❛✳s✳ t♦ f = E[f |I ]✳
❚❤❡♦r❡♠ ✶✸✳✹✳ ■❢ f ∈ Lp✱ 1 ≤ p < ∞✱ t❤❡♥ 1
nf n → E[f |I ] ✐♥ Lp✳
❲❡ ❝♦♥❝❧✉❞❡ ♦✉r ❞✐s❝✉ss✐♦♥ ♦❢ ❡r❣♦❞✐❝ t❤❡♦r❡♠s ✇✐t❤ s♦♠❡ ❡①❛♠♣❧❡s✳
✽✺
Ergodic Theorem Details 7 / 7
105 we find that lim sup
m(B) → 0 x ∈ Bm(B)
f(y) dy − f(x)
where the symbol ∗ indicates the maximal function. Consequently, if Fα = {x : (f − g)∗(x) > α} and Gα = {x : |f(x) − g(x)| > α} then Eα ⊂ (Fα ∪ Gα), because if u1 and u2 are positive, then u1 + u2 > 2α only if ui > α for at least one ui. On the one hand, Tchebychev’s inequality yields m(Gα) ≤ 1 α f − gL1(Rd), and on the other hand, the weak type estimate for the maximal function gives m(Fα) ≤ A α f − gL1(Rd). The function g was selected so that f − gL1(Rd) < ǫ. Hence we get m(Eα) ≤ A α ǫ + 1 α ǫ. Since ǫ is arbitrary, we must have m(Eα) = 0, and the proof of the the-
Note that as an immediate consequence of the theorem applied to |f|, we see that f ∗(x) ≥ |f(x)| for a.e. x, with f ∗ the maximal function. We have worked so far under the assumption that f is integrable. This “global” assumption is slightly out of place in the context of a “local” notion like differentiability. Indeed, the limit in Lebesgue’s theorem is taken over balls that shrink to the point x, so the behavior of f far from x is irrelevant. Thus, we expect the result to remain valid if we simply assume integrability of f on every ball. To make this precise, we say that a measurable function f on Rd is locally integrable, if for every ball B the function f(x)χB(x) is
loc(Rd) the space of all locally integrable
local integrability of a function. For example, the functions e|x| and |x|−1/2 are both locally integrable, but not integrable on Rd. Clearly, the conclusion of the last theorem holds under the weaker assumption that f is locally integrable.
❲❡ ❛r❡ ♥♦✇ ✐♥ ❛ ♣♦s✐t✐♦♥ t♦ ♣r♦✈❡ ❚❤❡♦r❡♠ ✶✸✳✸ ✭P♦✐♥t✇✐s❡ ❊r❣♦❞✐❝ ❚❤❡♦r❡♠✮✳ ❋♦r ❛♥② f ∈ L1✱ lim
n→∞
1 nf n = f ❛✳s✳ ✇❤❡r❡ f ∈ L1 ✐s ✐♥✈❛r✐❛♥t ✇✐t❤ ´
Ω fdP =
´
Ω fdP✳
Pr♦♦❢✳ ❙❡t f +(x) = lim sup
n→∞
1 nf n(x), f −(x) = lim inf
n→∞
1 nf n(x). ❈❧❡❛r❧② f + ❛♥❞ f − ❛r❡ ✐♥✈❛r✐❛♥t ✇✐t❤ f −(x) ≤ f +(x) ❢♦r ❛❧❧ x✳ ❲❡ ✇✐s❤ t♦ s❤♦✇ t❤❛t f + = f − ❛✳s✳✱ s♦ ✇❡ ♥❡❡❞ t♦ s❤♦✇ t❤❛t M = {x : f −(x) < f +(x)} ❤❛s P(M) = 0✳ ❋♦r α, β ∈ Q✱ ❧❡t Mα,β = {x : f −(x) < α, f +(x) > β}✳ ❚❤❡♥ M =
α,β∈Q Mα,β✱ s♦ ✐t s✉✣❝❡s t♦ s❤♦✇ t❤❛t
P(Mα,β) = 0 ❢♦r ❛❧❧ α, β ∈ Q ✇✐t❤ α < β✳ ❲❡ ♥♦t❡ ❛t t❤❡ ♦✉ts❡t t❤❛t t❤❡ ✐♥✈❛r✐❛♥❝❡ ♦❢ f + ❛♥❞ f − ✐♠♣❧② t❤❛t Mα,β ✐s ❛♥ ✐♥✈❛r✐❛♥t s❡t✳ ◆♦✇ ❧❡t M +
β
= {x : f +(x) > β}✳ ■❢ x ∈ M +
β ✱ t❤❡♥ t❤❡r❡ ✐s s♦♠❡ n ∈ N s✉❝❤ t❤❛t 1 nf n(x) > β✱ s♦
(f − β)n(x) = f n(x) − nβ > 0✱ ❤❡♥❝❡ x ∈ M(f − β)✳ ❙✐♥❝❡ Mα,β ⊆ M +
β ⊆ M(f − β) ✐s ✐♥✈❛r✐❛♥t✱ ❈♦r♦❧❧❛r② ✶✸✳✸ s❤♦✇s t❤❛t
´
Mα,β(f − β)dP ≥ 0✱ ❤❡♥❝❡
´
Mα,β fdP ≥ βP (Mα,β)✳
❙✐♠✐❧❛r❧②✱ ✐❢ x ∈ M −
α := {x : f −(x) < α}✱ t❤❡♥ t❤❡r❡ ✐s ❛♥ m ✇✐t❤ 1 mf m < α✱ s♦ (α − f)m > 0✳
■t ❢♦❧❧♦✇s t❤❛t Mα,β ⊆ M −
α ⊆ M(α − f)✱ s♦ t❤❛t
´
Mα,β fdP ≤ αP (Mα,β)✳
❚❤✉s ✇❡ ❤❛✈❡ s❤♦✇♥ t❤❛t βP (Mα,β) ≤ ˆ
Mα,β
fdP ≤ αP (Mα,β) , s♦ s✐♥❝❡ α < β✱ ✇❡ ❝♦♥❝❧✉❞❡ t❤❛t P (Mα,β) = 0 ❛s ❞❡s✐r❡❞✳ ❚❤✐s s❤♦✇s t❤❛t 1
nf n ❤❛s ❛♥ ❛❧♠♦st s✉r❡ ❧✐♠✐t f ∗✳
❇② ❈♦r♦❧❧❛r② ✶✸✳✶✱ ✇❡ ❛❧s♦ ❤❛✈❡ t❤❛t 1
nf n → f ✐♥ L1✱ ❛♥❞ ❋❛t♦✉✬s ❧❡♠♠❛ ❣✐✈❡s
ˆ f ∗ − f
ˆ lim inf
n
nf n − f
n
ˆ
nf n − f
s♦ f ∗ = f ❛✳s✳ ■♥ ❧✐❣❤t ♦❢ ♣r❡✈✐♦✉s ♦❜s❡r✈❛t✐♦♥s✱ t❤✐s s❤♦✇s t❤❛t 1
nf n ❝♦♥✈❡r❣❡s ❛✳s✳ t♦ f = E[f |I ]✳
❚❤❡♦r❡♠ ✶✸✳✹✳ ■❢ f ∈ Lp✱ 1 ≤ p < ∞✱ t❤❡♥ 1
nf n → E[f |I ] ✐♥ Lp✳
❲❡ ❝♦♥❝❧✉❞❡ ♦✉r ❞✐s❝✉ss✐♦♥ ♦❢ ❡r❣♦❞✐❝ t❤❡♦r❡♠s ✇✐t❤ s♦♠❡ ❡①❛♠♣❧❡s✳
✽✺
Ergodic Theorem Details 7 / 7