We study the relationship between the discrete and the continuous versions of the Kronecker–Weyl equidistribution theorem, as well as their possible extension to manifolds in higher dimensions. We also investigate a way to deduce in some limited way uniformity results in higher dimension from results in lower dimension.
Is it true that, for any integer d\geqslant1, any half-infinite geodesic with a Kronecker direction in a finite polycube translation manifold in d+1 dimensions is uniformly distributed? If not, then under what condition can we guarantee uniform distribution?
Is it true that, for any integer d\geqslant2, any half-infinite Kronecker sequence in a finite polycube translation manifold in d dimensions is uniformly distributed? If not, then under what condition can we guarantee uniform distribution?
The classical Kronecker–Weyl equidistribution theorem on the unit torus has some time-quantitative extensions with explicit error terms. Under what conditions can we establish time-quantitative uniformity in these more general settings?
Suppose that \mathcal{P} is a finite polysquare translation surface, and that \mathcal{M}=\mathcal{P}\times[0,1) denotes the associated polycube translation 3-manifold which is the cartesian product of \mathcal{P} and the unit torus [0,1). Suppose also that \mathbf{v}=(v_1,v_2)\in\mathbb{R}^2 is a Kronecker vector, so that \mathbf{v}^*=(v_1,v_2,1)\in\mathbb{R}^3 is a Kronecker direction. Then the following two statements are equivalent:
(i) Every half-infinite Kronecker sequence \mathbf{v}_0+j\mathbf{v}, j=0,1,2,3,\ldots, on \mathcal{P} is uniformly distributed.
(ii) Every half-infinite geodesic \mathcal{L}(t), t\geqslant0, with direction \mathbf{v}^* in \mathcal{M} is uniformly distributed.
((ii) \Rightarrow (i)) The argument here is rather simple. Suppose that \mathcal{P} has s atomic squares. To establish (i), let S be a convex set in an atomic square of \mathcal{P}. Consider the first J terms of the Kronecker sequence, given by \mathbf{v}_0+j\mathbf{v}, j=0,1,\ldots,J-1. The number of terms of this finite sequence in S is given by
with corresponding expectation given by
where \lambda_2 denotes 2-dimensional Lebesgue measure. To establish uniformity of the Kronecker sequence on \mathcal{P}, we need to show that
Let \mathcal{L}(t), t\geqslant0, be a half-infinite geodesic with starting point \mathcal{L}(0)=(\mathbf{v}_0,0) and direction \mathbf{v}^* on \mathcal{M}. Let S^*\subset\mathcal{M} be obtained by sweeping the set S\times\{0\} along by the vector \mathbf{v}^*, so that \lambda_3(S^*)=\lambda_2(S), where \lambda_3 denotes 3-dimensional Lebesgue measure. Consider a finite geodesic segment \mathcal{L}(t), 0\leqslant t\leqslant T=J(v_1^2+v_2^2+1)^{1/2}. Then the total length of the parts of this geodesic segment in S^* is given by
with corresponding expectation given by
The set S^* is a union of finitely many convex sets in atomic cubes of \mathcal{M}. Suppose that (ii) holds. Uniformity of the half-infinite geodesic in \mathcal{M} then implies that
It is clear that (?) follows immediately on combining (?)–(?).
((i) \Rightarrow (ii)) In [BDY20a, Section 3.4.1] or [BCY24, Section 3.6], a result concerning uniformity of a half-infinite geodesic is deduced from a result concerning uniformity of a sequence, by an application of the Koksma inequality. Here we apply an analogous Koksma inequality type argument.
Any half-infinite Kronecker sequence \mathbf{v}_0+j\mathbf{v}, j=0,1,2,3,\ldots, on a finite polysquare translation surface \mathcal{P} is uniformly distributed.
Let \mathcal{M}=\mathcal{P}\times[0,1) denote the associated polycube translation 3-manifold. In view of Theorem 1, it suffices to show that every half-infinite geodesic \mathcal{L}(t), t\geqslant0, with Kronecker direction in \mathcal{M} is uniformly distributed. This latter condition is the conclusion of Theorem 3.
Suppose that a polycube translation 3-manifold \mathcal{M} is the cartesian product of a finite polysquare translation surface \mathcal{P} and the unit torus [0,1). Then any half-infinite geodesic in \mathcal{M} with a Kronecker direction \mathbf{v}^*\in\mathbb{R}^3 is uniformly distributed unless it hits a singularity.
Suppose that \mathcal{P} is a finite polysquare translation surface, and that \mathcal{M}=\mathcal{P}\times[0,1) denotes the associated polycube translation 3-manifold which is the cartesian product of \mathcal{P} and the unit torus [0,1). Suppose also that \mathbf{v}\in\mathbb{R}^2 is the step vector of a Kronecker sequence on \mathcal{P}. Then the following statements are equivalent:
(i) Every half-infinite Kronecker sequence with step vector \mathbf{v} on \mathcal{P} is uniformly distributed.
(ii) For any w\in\mathbb{R} such that \mathbf{w}=(\mathbf{v},w)\in\mathbb{R}^3 is the step vector of a Kronecker sequence on \mathcal{M}, every half-infinite Kronecker sequence with step vector \mathbf{w} in \mathcal{M} is uniformly distributed.
((i) \Rightarrow (ii)) We need to prove that the \mathbf{w}-shift \mathbf{T}^*_\mathbf{w} in \mathcal{M} is ergodic. Suppose on the contrary that this is not the case. Then there exists a non-trivial partition \mathcal{M}=\mathcal{W}\cup\mathcal{S} into a union of two \mathbf{T}^*_\mathbf{w}-invariant subsets \mathcal{W},\mathcal{S}\subset\mathcal{M}, called White and Silver, say, each with integral measure and such that
where s is the number of atomic cubes in \mathcal{M} and \lambda_3 denotes 3-dimensional Lebesgue measure.
Let \mathcal{Y}_1,\ldots,\mathcal{Y}_s denote the atomic cubes of \mathcal{M}, and consider the projection of \mathcal{M} to the unit torus [0,1)^3. Then for any point P\in[0,1)^3, there are precisely s points
that have the same image P under this projection. Let
Then f_\mathcal{W} and f_\mathcal{S} are positive integer valued functions defined on [0,1)^3 such that
The \mathbf{w}-shift \mathbf{T}_\mathbf{w} in the unit torus [0,1)^3 is ergodic. Since the functions f_\mathcal{W} and f_\mathcal{S} are \mathbf{T}_\mathbf{w}-invariant, it follows from the Birkhoff ergodic theorem that they are constant almost everywhere in [0,1)^3. Then
Let \chi_\mathcal{W} denote the characteristic function of \mathcal{W} in \mathcal{M}. For every \mathbf{s}\in\mathcal{M}, write \mathbf{s}=(\mathbf{x},z), where \mathbf{x}\in\mathcal{P} and z\in[0,1). The well known Fubini theorem implies that
where the inner integral whitexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
is well defined in the sense of Lebesgue for almost every \mathbf{x}\in\mathcal{P}.
Consider now the projection of \mathbf{T}^*_\mathbf{w} to the polysquare translation surface \mathcal{P}, resulting in the ergodic \mathbf{v}-shift \mathbf{T}^*_\mathbf{v} on \mathcal{P}. Since the function \psi(\mathbf{x}) is \mathbf{T}^*_\mathbf{v}-invariant, it follows from ergodicity that it has constant value almost everywhere on \mathcal{P}. Thus it follows from (?) that whitexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
almost everywhere on \mathcal{P}.
Since the invariant subset \mathcal{W}\subset\mathcal{M} is measurable, it follows that for every \varepsilon_1>0, there exists a finite set of 3-dimensional axis-parallel rectangular boxes such that their union \mathcal{B}=\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{W};\varepsilon_1) has the property that the symmetric difference
has measure whitexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
We need the following simple technical result.
Let \chi_\mathcal{B} denote the characteristic function of \mathcal{B} in \mathcal{M}.
Let \mathcal{B} be a finite union of axis-parallel rectangular boxes satisfying (?). For every \varepsilon_2>0, there exists \varepsilon_3>0 and a finite set of disjoint axis-parallel rectangular boxes such that their union \mathcal{B}^*=\mathcal{B}^*(\mathcal{B};\varepsilon_2;\varepsilon_3) satisfies the following conditions:
(i) The measure \lambda_3(\mathcal{M}\setminus\mathcal{B}^*)<\varepsilon_2.
(ii) We have \chi_\mathcal{B}(\mathbf{s}')=\chi_\mathcal{B}(\mathbf{s}'') if the points \mathbf{s}',\mathbf{s}''\in\mathcal{M} belong to the same axis-parallel rectangular box in the disjoint union \mathcal{B}^*.
(iii) The side lengths of each axis-parallel rectangular box in the disjoint union \mathcal{B}^* is greater than \varepsilon_3.
(iv) Let s denote the number of atomic squares of \mathcal{P}. Then
We assume, without loss of generality, that every axis-parallel rectangular box in the finite union \mathcal{B} lies in the interior of an atomic cube of \mathcal{M}, as illustrated in the picture on the left in Figure 1, which only shows 2 of the 3 dimensions. For each face of each axis-parallel rectangular box in an atomic cube of \mathcal{M}, we extend it to an axis-parallel special square face of area 1 in the same atomic cube, as illustrated by the dashed lines in the picture on the right in Figure 1. We repeat this process for every axis-parallel rectangular box in the finite union \mathcal{B}.
Suppose that \mathscr{N}=\mathscr{N}(\mathcal{B}) denotes the total number of distinct axis-parallel rectangular boxes in the union \mathcal{B}. Then there are at most 2\mathscr{N} such distinct special square faces in each of the 3 axis-parallel directions. It follows that there exists a number \varepsilon_4=\varepsilon_4(\mathcal{B})>0 such that any special square face in an atomic cube has distance at least \varepsilon_4 from any other parallel special square face in the atomic cube or from any parallel boundary square face of the atomic cube.
We now remove every point in \mathcal{M} that lies a distance less than \varepsilon_5>0 from some special square face in the atomic cube that contains that point. Then the set of such points in \mathcal{M} that are removed has measure at most 12\mathscr{N}\varepsilon_5, and is represented by the regions shaded in light gray in the picture on the right in Figure 1.
Let \mathcal{B}^* denote the remainder of \mathcal{M} after these points are removed. Then \mathcal{B}^* is clearly a finite union of disjoint axis-parallel rectangular boxes in \mathcal{M}, where each box is either contained in \mathcal{B} or disjoint from \mathcal{B}, so that the condition (ii) is satisfied. Suppose now that \varepsilon_5>0 is chosen to satisfy
Then the first condition in (?) ensures that the condition (i) is satisfied, while the second condition in (?) ensures that the side lengths of each axis-parallel rectangular box in the union \mathcal{B}^* is greater than \varepsilon_3=\varepsilon_4-2\varepsilon_5, so that the condition (iii) is satisfied.
To establish the condition (iv), note that it follows from the condition (i) and the Fubini theorem that whitexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Let whitexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Then it follows from (?) that \lambda_2(\mathcal{E})\varepsilon_2^{1/2}<\varepsilon_2, from which the condition (iv) follows immediately, since \lambda_2(\mathcal{P})=s.
For almost every \mathbf{x}\in\mathcal{P}, the set
is measurable, and it follows from (?) that
We consider Lebesgue measurable subsets U_\sigma\subset[0,1), \sigma=1,\ldots,s, of the unit torus [0,1). In particular, we make the assumption that 0<\lambda_1(U_1)<1, where \lambda_1 denotes 1-dimensional Lebesgue measure. Furthermore, for any real number u\in\mathbb{R} and any \sigma=1,\ldots,s, we consider the (-u)-translated copy of U_\sigma, given by
Let \mathbf{x}_1,\ldots,\mathbf{x}_s\in\mathcal{P} be distinct points such that their images under projection modulo 1 to the unit torus [0,1)^2 coincide. We now apply the following variant of [BCY-a, Lemma 6.1] to the sets
so that for every \sigma=1,\ldots,s,
The set of values u_0\in[0,1) for which the inequalities
hold simultaneously has Lebesgue measure at least 1/2.
It then follows on combining (?)–(?) that the set of values u_0\in[0,1) for which the inequalities whitexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
hold simultaneously has Lebesgue measure at least 1/2. Let
denote this set of such values of u_0. Note that the condition (?) is equivalent to the condition
Let us revisit the disjoint union \mathcal{B}^*=\mathcal{B}^*(\mathcal{B};\varepsilon_2;\varepsilon_3) of axis-parallel rectangular boxes. For each axis-parallel rectangular box in this union, we push each boundary face inwards by a distance \varepsilon_6, where the parameter \varepsilon_6>0, to be specified later, satisfies whitexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
where \varepsilon_3 is a lower bound of the side lengths of these axis-parallel rectangular boxes. Then the resulting smaller axis-parallel rectangular box has volume which is at least (1-2\varepsilon_6/\varepsilon_3)^3 times that of the original axis-parallel rectangular box. This means that if \mathcal{B}^{**}=\mathcal{B}^{**}(\mathcal{B}^*;\varepsilon_6) is the disjoint union of these smaller axis-parallel rectangular boxes, then using Lemma ?(i) and writing
we have whitexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Note that the \varepsilon_6-neighbourhood of every point in \mathcal{B}^{**} is contained in \mathcal{B}^*.
Observe that \chi_\mathcal{B}(\mathbf{s}')=\chi_\mathcal{B}(\mathbf{s}'') if the points \mathbf{s}',\mathbf{s}''\in\mathcal{M} belong to the same axis-parallel rectangular box in the disjoint union \mathcal{B}^{**}, and that the side lengths of each axis-parallel rectangular box in the disjoint union \mathcal{B}^{**} is greater than \varepsilon_3-2\varepsilon_6. Furthermore, analogous to Lemma ?(iv), we have the inequality
For any \mathbf{x}\in\mathcal{P}, let \mathbf{x}_1,\ldots,\mathbf{x}_s\in\mathcal{P} be distinct points such that their images under projection modulo 1 to the unit torus [0,1)^2 coincides with the image of \mathbf{x} under the same projection. Then it follows from (?) that
For every u_0\in[0,1), let
denote some relevant multiplicity of u_0. Then
in view of (?). This can be interpreted to say that the average multiplicity \mu(u_0) of u_0\in[0,1) is at least s/2. Thus there exists a shift u^*_0\in[0,1) such that
It also follows from (?) that with the exception of at most s\varepsilon_7^{1/2} part of \mathbf{x}\in\mathcal{P}, at least 1-2\varepsilon_7^{1/2} part of the real numbers z\in[0,1) are such that with \mathbf{x}=\mathbf{x}_1,
In order to derive a contradiction, we need a density analogue of [BCY-a, Lemma 6.2]. Here \Vert\beta\Vert denotes the distance of \beta\in\mathbb{R} to the nearest integer.
Let \mathbf{v}=(v_1,v_2)\in\mathbb{R}^2 be a Kronecker vector, and let w\in\mathbb{R} be arbitrary such that \mathbf{w}=(v_1,v_2,w)\in\mathbb{R}^3 is a Kronecker vector. Let \varepsilon_6>0 be given. There exists a finite sequence whitexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
of positive integers such that
and the finite sequence \{m_j(\varepsilon_6)w\}, j=1,\ldots,k, visits every subinterval of [0,1) with length \varepsilon_6.
Note that the number k=k(\mathbf{w};\varepsilon_6) of terms of the finite sequence may depend on the choice of \mathbf{w} and the value of \varepsilon_6.
By the Kronecker density theorem, the sequence
modulo 1 is dense in the unit torus [0,1)^3. Let
be the infinite subsequence of 1,2,3,\ldots such that
Clearly (?) holds. Also, the subsequence m_j(\varepsilon_6)\mathbf{w}, j=1,2,3,\ldots, modulo 1 is dense in ([0,\varepsilon_6)\cup(1-\varepsilon_6,1))^2\times[0,1)\subset[0,1)^3. This implies that the sequence \{m_j(\varepsilon_6)w\}, j=1,2,3,\ldots, is dense in [0,1).
Next, let the integer n satisfy n>2/\varepsilon_6. We now partition the unit torus [0,1) into n short intervals I_1,\ldots,I_n of length 1/n in the standard way. Then for every i=1,\ldots,n, there exists an integer k_i such that the finite sequence
visits I_i. Let k=\max\{k_1,\ldots,k_n\}. Then the finite sequence
visits every interval I_1,\ldots,I_n. Now, since 1/n<\varepsilon_6/2, every subinterval of [0,1) with length \varepsilon_6 must contain at least one of the intervals I_1,\ldots,I_n, so is visited by the finite sequence (?).
It follows that there exists j_0=j_0(u_0^*) satisfying 1\leqslant j_0\leqslant k such that
For a fixed point \mathbf{x}\in\mathcal{P}, we can visualize the set \{(\mathbf{x},z):z\in[0,1)\} as a circle over the point \mathbf{x}, since [0,1) is the unit torus. For any point (\mathbf{x},z) on this circle, we have \mathbf{T}^*_\mathbf{w}(\mathbf{x},z)=(\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{v},\{z+w\}). It follows that the image of the circle under the transformation \mathbf{T}^*_\mathbf{w} is a circle \{(\mathbf{y},z'):z'\in[0,1)\} over the point \mathbf{y}=\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{v}. Clearly, this new circle is rotated from the original circle by a quantity w and its position on \mathcal{P} is translated from the original position by a vector \mathbf{v}. This action is repeated multiple times when we apply the transformation \mathbf{T}^*_\mathbf{w} successively. Our proof of Theorem 4((i)\Rightarrow(ii)) is based on a combination of this fact with Lemmas ?–?.
Let us continue the discussion prior to Lemma ?. For at least s/2-s\varepsilon_7^{1/2} part of the points \mathbf{x}\in\mathcal{P}, we have u_0^*\in\mathscr{S}(\mathcal{W};\mathbf{x}), and that for at least 1-2\varepsilon_7^{1/2} part of the real numbers z\in[0,1), writing \mathbf{x}=\mathbf{x}_1, we have
We say that the points in (?) form a good (s+1)-tuple, in the sense that they all belong to \mathcal{B}^{**}.
Let whitexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
be such a good (s+1)-tuple, and consider the new point Q^*=(\mathbf{T}^*_\mathbf{w})^{m_{j_0}}(Q), obtained from Q by m_{j_0} successive applications of the transformation \mathbf{T}^*_\mathbf{w}, where j_0 is chosen so that the inequalities (?) hold. Since the subset \mathcal{W}\subset\mathcal{M} is invariant under the transformation \mathbf{T}^*_\mathbf{w}, it follows that \chi_\mathcal{W}(Q)=\chi_\mathcal{W}(Q^*).
On the other hand, as observed in the Remark above, the image of the circle \{(\mathbf{x},z):z\in[0,1)\} under the transformation (\mathbf{T}^*_\mathbf{w})^{m_{j_0}} is a circle \{(\mathbf{y},z'):z'\in[0,1)\} with some particular \mathbf{y}=\mathbf{x}_1+m_{j_0}\mathbf{v}\in\mathcal{P}. It then follows from (?) that the coordinates of \mathbf{y} are \varepsilon_6-close to the corresponding coordinates of \mathbf{x}_{\sigma_0} for a particular \sigma_0=1,\ldots,s, and the last coordinate of Q^* is \varepsilon_6-close to \{z+u_0^*\}. Since Q_{\sigma_0}\in\mathcal{B}^{**}, it follows from the Remark after (?) that Q_{\sigma_0} and Q^* are in the same axis-parallel rectangular box in the disjoint union \mathcal{B}^*, and so \chi_\mathcal{B}(Q_{\sigma_0})=\chi_\mathcal{B}(Q^*), in view of Lemma ?(ii).
Recall that u_0^*\in\mathscr{S}(\mathcal{W};\mathbf{x}) for at least s/2-s\varepsilon_7^{1/2} part of the points \mathbf{x}\in\mathcal{P}. This and the condition (?) together imply that
and this is equivalent to
Consider now the three relations
which clearly imply the two relations
It follows that whitexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Intuitively speaking, (?) represents two negligible cases, with total measure less than \varepsilon_1, in view of (?), which contradict the substantial constant lower bound in (?) if \varepsilon_1>0 is sufficiently small. To make this precise, we need to study more closely the various parameters.
We have u_0^*\in\mathscr{S}(\mathcal{W};\mathbf{x}) for at least s/2-s\varepsilon_7^{1/2} part of the points \mathbf{x}\in\mathcal{P}. Using (?), we deduce that for at least whitexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
part of the real numbers z\in[0,1), the points
exhibit the property (?). It follows from (?) that the 3-dimensional Lebesgue measure of the points Q=(\mathbf{x}_1,z)\in\mathcal{M} such that the points (?) exhibit the property (?) is at least whitexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
where \varepsilon_7 is given by (?).
On the other hand, the property (?) is exceptional, and (?) implies that the quantity in (?) is less than 2\varepsilon_1. We emphasize the fact that the choice of the parameter \varepsilon_1 is independent of the choices of the other parameters \varepsilon_2,\varepsilon_3,\varepsilon_6. Thus we can make \varepsilon_7 in (?) arbitrarily small independently of the fixed value of \varepsilon_1. It is therefore easy to specify the parameters \varepsilon_1,\varepsilon_2,\varepsilon_3,\varepsilon_6 so that the value of the quantity in (?) is greater than 2\varepsilon_1, leading to a contradiction.
The contradiction establishes the ergodicity of the \mathbf{w}-shift in \mathcal{M}.
The last step is to extend ergodicity of the \mathbf{w}-shift in \mathcal{M} to unique ergodicity by using the standard argument in functional analysis. This is possible, since the projection of \mathcal{M} to the unit torus [0,1)^3 leads to unique ergodicity there.
Under the hypotheses of Theorem 4, the following statements are equivalent:
(i) The \mathbf{v}-shift on \mathcal{P} is ergodic.
(ii) For any w\in\mathbb{R} such that \mathbf{w}=(\mathbf{v},w)\in\mathbb{R}^3 is the step vector of a Kronecker sequence on \mathcal{M}, the \mathbf{w}-shift in \mathcal{M} is ergodic.
Suppose that \mathcal{P} is a finite polysquare translation surface, and that \mathcal{M}=\mathcal{P}\times[0,1) denotes the associated polycube translation 3-manifold which is the cartesian product of \mathcal{P} and the unit torus [0,1). Suppose also that \mathbf{v}\in\mathbb{R}^2 is a Kronecker direction. Then the following statements are equivalent:
(i) Every half-infinite geodesic with direction \mathbf{v} on \mathcal{P} is uniformly distributed.
(ii) For any w\in\mathbb{R} such that \mathbf{w}=(\mathbf{v},w)\in\mathbb{R}^3 is a Kronecker direction, every half-infinite geodesic with direction \mathbf{w} in \mathcal{M} is uniformly distributed.
Under the hypotheses of Theorem 4, the following statements are equivalent:
(i) Geodesic flow with direction \mathbf{v} on \mathcal{P} is ergodic.
(ii) For any w\in\mathbb{R} such that \mathbf{w}=(\mathbf{v},w)\in\mathbb{R}^3 is a Kronecker direction, geodesic flow with direction \mathbf{w} in \mathcal{M} is ergodic.
Suppose that the condition (i) in Theorem 4 holds. Then the \mathbf{v}-shift \mathbf{T}^*_\mathbf{v}=\mathbf{T}^*_\mathbf{v}(\mathcal{P}) on \mathcal{P} is ergodic.
If a Kronecker sequence on \mathcal{P} becomes undefined after finitely many terms, then the supporting geodesic \mathcal{L}(t), t\geqslant0, with starting point \mathcal{L}(0)=\mathbf{v}_0 and direction \mathbf{v} on \mathcal{P} hits a singular point of \mathcal{P}. The collection of singular points of \mathcal{P} clearly has 2-dimensional Lebesgue measure 0. Thus the collection of starting points \mathbf{v}_0 that lead a Kronecker sequence to be undefined after finitely many terms also has 2-dimensional Lebesgue measure 0. Thus almost every point \mathbf{v}_0\in\mathcal{P} gives rise to a half-infinite Kronecker sequence. Thus the condition (i) in Theorem 4 guarantees that for almost every starting point \mathbf{v}_0, the half-infinite Kronecker sequence \mathbf{v}_0+j\mathbf{v}, j=0,1,2,3,\ldots, on \mathcal{P} is uniformly distributed. Hence the visiting density of the sequence in any Jordan measurable set A is given by \lambda_2(A)/s.
Suppose, on the contrary, that the \mathbf{v}-shift \mathbf{T}^*_\mathbf{v} on \mathcal{P} is not ergodic. Then there is a partition \mathcal{P}=U_1\cup U_2, where the subsets U_1,U_2\subset\mathcal{P} are \mathbf{T}^*_\mathbf{v}-invariant, and satisfy \lambda_2(U_1)>0 and \lambda_2(U_2)>0. Moreover, since the projection of \mathbf{T}^*_\mathbf{v} to the unit torus [0,1)^2, simply by taking every coordinate modulo 1, leads to the \mathbf{v}-shift \mathbf{T}_\mathbf{v}=\mathbf{T}_\mathbf{v}([0,1)^2) on the unit torus [0,1)^2 which is ergodic, there is a decomposition \mathcal{P}=M_1\cup\ldots\cup M_k for some integer k satisfying 2\leqslant k\leqslant s, where s is the number of atomic squares in \mathcal{P}, such that for every i=1,\ldots,k, the set M_i is \mathbf{T}^*_\mathbf{v}-invariant and does not contain a proper \mathbf{T}^*_\mathbf{v}-invariant subset, and \lambda_2(M_i) is a positive integer. We say that the subsets M_1,\ldots,M_k are minimal.
We can find a Jordan measurable subset A\subset\mathcal{P} such that
Next we apply the Birkhoff ergodic theorem to both M_1 and M_2. The restriction of the \mathbf{v}-shift \mathbf{T}_\mathbf{v}^* to M_1 and to M_2 are both ergodic. In each case, the simplest form of the ergodic theorem says that the time average is equal to the space average. Then for almost every starting point \mathbf{v}_0\in M_1, the visiting density of the Kronecker sequence \mathbf{v}_0+j\mathbf{v}, j=0,1,2,3,\ldots, on \mathcal{P} in the set A is equal to the relative measure
while for almost every starting point \mathbf{v}_0\in M_2, the visiting density of the Kronecker sequence \mathbf{v}_0+j\mathbf{v}, j=0,1,2,3,\ldots, on \mathcal{P} in the set A is equal to the relative measure
Thus at least one of these is different from \lambda_2(A)/s, leading to a contradiction.
The text on this page is from arXiv:2404.00077v2 by J. Beck, W. W. L. Chen and Y. Yang, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.
The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2404/2404.00077.jsonl.