REVIEW 1 cited by
Joint normality of representations of numbers: an ergodic approach
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
abstract
We introduce an ergodic approach to the study of {\em joint normality} of representations of numbers. For example, we show that for any integer $b \geq 2$ almost every number $x \in [0,1)$ is jointly normal with respect to the $b$-expansion and continued fraction expansion. This fact is a corollary of the following result which deals with {\em pointwise joint ergodicity}: Let $T_b:[0,1] \rightarrow [0,1]$ be the times $b$ map defined by $T_b x = bx \, \bmod \, 1 $ and let $T_G:[0,1] \rightarrow [0,1]$ be the Gauss map defined by $T_G(x) = \{\frac{1}{x}\}$ for $x \ne 0$ and $T_G (0) =0.$ (Here $\{ \cdot \}$ denotes the fractional part.) For any $f, g \in L^{\infty} (\lambda)$, \[ \lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{N } \sum_{n=0}^{N-1} f(T_b^{n}x) \, g(T_G^n x) = \int f \, d \lambda \cdot \int g \, d \mu_G \quad \text{for almost every } x \in [0,1], \] where $\lambda$ is the Lebesgue measure on $[0,1]$ and $\mu_G$ is the Gauss measure on $[0,1]$ given by $\mu_G (A) = \frac{1}{ \log 2} \int_A \frac{1}{1+x} dx$ for any measurable set $A \subset [0,1]$. We show that the phenomenon of the pointwise joint ergodicity takes place for a wide variety of number-theoretical maps of the interval and derive the corresponding corollaries pertaining to joint normality. We also establish the equivalence of various forms of normality and joint normality for representations of numbers, hereby providing a general framework for classical normality results.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Resolving the joint ergodicity problem for Hardy sequences
For Hardy sequences of polynomial growth, the paper proves the 'difficult' direction of the joint ergodicity classification conjecture and gives a counterexample showing the converse fails in general.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.