Definition
A measure-preserving dynamical system is defined as a probability space and a measure-preserving transformation on it. In more detail, it is a system
with the following structure:
- X is a set,
- is a σ-algebra over X,
- is a probability measure, so that μ(X) = 1, and μ(∅) = 0,
- T : X → X is a measurable transformation which preserves the measure μ, i. e. each satisfies μ(T−1A) = μ(A).
This definition can be generalized to the case in which T is not a single transformation that is iterated to give the dynamics of the system, but instead is a monoid (or even a group) of transformations Ts : X → X parametrized by s ∈ Z (or R, or N ∪ {0}, or [0, +∞)), where each transformation Ts satisfies the same requirements as T above. In particular, the transformations obey the rules
- T0 = idX : X → X, the identity function on X;
- , whenever all the terms are well-defined;
- , whenever all the terms are well-defined.
The earlier, simpler case fits into this framework by definingTs = Ts for s ∈ N.
The existence of invariant measures for certain maps and Markov processes is established by the Krylov–Bogolyubov theorem.
Read more about this topic: Measure-preserving Dynamical System
Famous quotes containing the word definition:
“According to our social pyramid, all men who feel displaced racially, culturally, and/or because of economic hardships will turn on those whom they feel they can order and humiliate, usually women, children, and animals—just as they have been ordered and humiliated by those privileged few who are in power. However, this definition does not explain why there are privileged men who behave this way toward women.”
—Ana Castillo (b. 1953)
“It is very hard to give a just definition of love. The most we can say of it is this: that in the soul, it is a desire to rule; in the spirit, it is a sympathy; and in the body, it is but a hidden and subtle desire to possess—after many mysteries—what one loves.”
—François, Duc De La Rochefoucauld (1613–1680)
“Scientific method is the way to truth, but it affords, even in
principle, no unique definition of truth. Any so-called pragmatic
definition of truth is doomed to failure equally.”
—Willard Van Orman Quine (b. 1908)