2-fold and 3-fold mixing: why 3-dot-type counterexamples are impossible in one dimension

Details 2-fold and 3-fold mixing: why 3-dot-type counterexamples are impossible in one dimension 2-fold and 3-fold mixing: why 3-dot-type counterexamples are impossible in one dimension

2006-03-07

arxiv.org/abs/math/0603154v1

Bulletin of the Brazilian Mathematical Society 37, 4 (2006) 503-521

Mathematics

Probability

Scientific paper

V.A. Rohlin asked in 1949 whether 2-fold mixing implies 3-fold mixing for a stationary process indexed by Z, and the question remains open today. In 1978, F. Ledrappier exhibited a counterexample to the 2-fold mixing implies 3-fold mixing problem, the so-called "3-dot system", but in the context of stationary random fields indexed by ZxZ. In this work, we first present an attempt to adapt Ledrappier's construction to the one-dimensional case, which finally leads to a stationary process which is 2-fold but not 3-fold mixing conditionally to the sigma-algebra generated by some factor process. Then, using arguments coming from the theory of joinings, we will give some strong obstacles proving that Ledrappier's counterexample can not be fully adapted to one-dimensional stationary processes.

Affiliated with

Also associated with

No associations

Rating

2-fold and 3-fold mixing: why 3-dot-type counterexamples are impossible in one dimension does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this scientific paper.

If you have personal experience with 2-fold and 3-fold mixing: why 3-dot-type counterexamples are impossible in one dimension, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and 2-fold and 3-fold mixing: why 3-dot-type counterexamples are impossible in one dimension will most certainly appreciate the feedback.

Rate now

Comments { 0 }

Profile ID: LFWR-SCP-O-366185