Arxiv:2106.00086V2 [Math.LO] 2 Jun 2021 Esrsudrdﬀrn Ovrec Oin 3 9]

Home , Convergence of measures

arXiv:2106.00086v2 [math.LO] 2 Jun 2021 esrsudrdffrn ovrec oin 3 9]. o [3, limits notions randomn as convergence defined algorithmic different measures under in and measures theory points randomne measure random algorithmic of between to connections aspect connections one sub-fie th deep main particular, investigated fr its the In has a of with field in one especially working theory, the analysis, measure while in and possible research computability as Current between analysis of computation. theory attempt for classical and the t analogues of computability computable much in these analogues examines have analysis analysis putable mathematical co that of understood study have mathematicians the [15], mid-1930s the in bers n ocntutsal itiuin [5]. converge distributions demonstrate stable to construct used to be and can convergence weak ticular, the naayi is analysis in r n loihi admes npriua,tespace the particular, In randomness. algorithmic and ory nasprbemti space metric separable a on one otnosra-audfunction real-valued continuous bounded lim esrso optbemti space metric computable a on measures esrs[] e er ae,Bne,Baemn .Rjs and Rojas, measu probability C. Brolin-Lyubich Braverman, a Binder, that show later, to years o framework convergence few this weak A used Borel-Can by the obtained [7]. of framework converge version measures weak effective computability an of the proved topology using Rojas the C. metrizes in and and was Hoyrup, metric 1956 Prokhorov in The [12] [10]. Prokhorov metric Prokhorov the with equipped einn ihAa uigspoern oko h optblt frea of computability the on work pioneering Turing’s Alan with Beginning h otcmol tde oino ovrec o eune o sequences for convergence of notion studied commonly most The ekcnegneas nele urn eerhi optbem computable in research current underlies also convergence Weak n eklmtmeasure limit weak R X FETV OIN FWA OVREC OF CONVERGENCE WEAK OF NOTIONS EFFECTIVE dµ f Abstract. fwa ovrec fmaue.W en w ffcienotio effective two define We on measures measures. of of convergence convergence weak of htteentosaeeuvln.B en fti equivale consi measures. this of which convergence of Theorem, weak Portmanteau means of the By definitions equivalent of version equivalent. effective are an notions these that n = ekconvergence weak R IOH .MNCOLADDEOA ROJAS A. DIEGO AND MCNICHOLL H. TIMOTHY X eetbihafaeokfrtesuyo h ffcietheory effective the of study the for framework a establish We ESRSO H ELLINE REAL THE ON MEASURES dµ f ekcnegnei sflto npoaiiy npar- In probability. in tool useful a is convergence Weak . h measure The . X 1. euneo nt oe measures Borel finite of sequence A . R ekyconverges weakly n nfr n n o-nfr.W show We non-uniform. one and uniform one : Introduction µ X 1 f nti ento suiu n scalled is and unique is definition this in om optbemti pc when space metric computable a forms on X h euneo elnumbers real of sequence the , oameasure a to M t fmultiple of sts c,w prove we nce, ( c ndistribution in nce X so weak of ns cpscnrlto central ncepts ffiieBorel finite of ) el em by Lemma telli µ orcvras recover to s d fclassical of lds c.Galatolo, nce. interactions e s isi the in lies ess eune of sequences f probability f er.Com- heory. f o every for if, rdcdby troduced ei always is re auethe- easure Yampolsky measures f s[3 14]. [13, ss amework { µ num- l n } n ∈ N 2 TIMOTHYH.MCNICHOLLANDDIEGOA.ROJAS computable [2]. In algorithmic randomness, Gács developed an approach to uniform randomness tests using the properties of P(X) (the space of Borel probability measures on X) equipped with the weak convergence topology [6]. As shown in Example 4.8 below, a weakly convergent sequence of measures, even if computable, need not have a computable limit. This possibility has been noted before. More specifically, the First Computability Obstruction (Proposition 1.1.3, [8]) states that any sequence of measures generated by iterating a computable mea- 0 sure through a cellular automaton converges weakly to a ∆2-computable measure. In fact, it is a fairly easy consequence of our results that any sequence of measures 0 that is computable and weakly convergent has a ∆2 limit. The conditions under which the weak limit of a computable sequence of measures is computable appear not to have been investigated. We are thus led to the following. Question 1.1. What is a suitable definition of effective weak convergence? We propose two answers to this question, one of which is uniform (Definition 4.2), and one of which is not (Definition 4.1). At first glance, the uniform version is much stronger. In particular, the uniform condition automatically implies weak convergence, whereas the non-uniform version does not. However, our first main result (Theorem 4.3) is that in fact the two definitions are equivalent. We then provide evidence that our definition of effective weak convergence in M(R) is the appropriate computable analogue to classical weak convergence in M(R). In particular, our other main result is an effective version of the Port- manteau Theorem, a 1941 theorem due to Alexandroff [1] that characterizes weak convergence of measures, for M(R). This paper is divided as follows. Section 2 consists of the necessary background in both classical and computable analysis and measure theory. Section 3 covers some preliminary material used in latter sections to state and prove the main results of this paper. In Section 4, we define effective notions of weak convergence in M(R), and we show that they are equivalent for uniformly computable sequences in M(R). In Section 5, we prove an effective version of the Portmanteau Theorem for M(R). We conclude in Section 6 with a discussion on the results and implications for future research in this direction.

2. Background 2.1. Background from classical analysis and measure theory. We denote the set of all bounded continuous functions on R by Cb(R). We denote the indicator function of a set E by 1E. Fix a measure µ ∈ M(R), and let A ⊆ R. A is said to be a µ-continuity set if µ(∂A) = 0. Below, we state a version of the classical Portmanteau Theorem. Although there are as many as ten equivalent deﬁnitions of weak convergence (see [11]), we will focus on ﬁve.

Theorem 2.1 (Classical Portmanteau Theorem, [1]). Let {µn}n∈N be a sequence in M(R). The following are equivalent.

(1) {µn}n∈N weakly converges to µ. (2) For every uniformly continuous f ∈ Cb(R),

lim fdµn = fdµ. n→∞ ZR ZR EFFECTIVE NOTIONS OF WEAK CONVERGENCE OF MEASURES ON THE REAL LINE 3

(3) For every closed C ⊆ R,

lim sup µn(C) ≤ µ(C). n→∞ (4) For every open U ⊆ R,

lim inf µn(U) ≥ µ(U). n→∞ (5) For every µ-continuity set A ⊆ R,

lim µn(A)= µ(A). n→∞ 2.2. Background from computable analysis and computable measure theory. We presume familiarity with the fundamentals of computability theory as expounded in [4]. For a more expansive treatment of computable analysis, see [16]. We say that a bounded interval I ⊆ R is rational if each of its endpoints is rational. Fix an effective enumeration {Ii}i∈N of the set of all rational open intervals. If I is compact, let PQ(I) denote the space of polygonal functions on I with rational vertices; we will refer to these functions as rational polygonal functions on I. When p ∈ PQ[a,b], we extend p to all of R by letting p(x)= p(a) for xb. 0 An open set U ⊆ R is Σ1 if {i ∈ N : Ii ⊆ U} is c.e.. Similarly, a closed set C ⊆ R 0 0 0 is Π1 if {i ∈ N : Ii ∩ C = ∅} is c.e.. We denote the set of Σ1 subsets of R by Σ1(R), 0 0 and we denote the set of Π1 subsets of R by Π1(R). We say that e ∈ N indexes 0 0 U ∈ Σ1(R) if e indexes {i ∈ N : Ii ⊆ U}. Indices of sets in Π1(R) are defined 0 analogously. A pair (U, V )ofΣ1 sets is indexed by an e ∈ N if U is indexed by (e)0 and V is indexed by (e)1. Fix a real number x. A Cauchy name of x is a sequence {qn}n∈N of rational −n numbers so that limn qn = x and so that |qn − qn+1| < 2 for all n ∈ N. When I ⊆ R is a compact rational interval and J ⊆ R is a rational open interval, we let NI,J = {f ∈ C(R): f[I] ⊆ J}. A compact-open (c.o.) name of a function f ∈ C(R) is an enumeration of {NI,J : f ∈ NI,J }. If f ∈ C(R), then f is computable if and only f has a computable c.o. name. Each of the names we have just discussed can be represented as a point in Σω for a sufficiently large alphabet Σ. Fix x ∈ R. x is computable if it has a computable Cauchy name. An index of such a name is also said to be an index of f. x is left-c.e. (right-c.e.) if its left (right) Dedekind cut is c.e.. It follows that x is computable if and only if it is left-c.e. and right-c.e.. A sequence {xn}n∈N is computable if xn is computable uniformly in n. A function f :⊆ R → R is computable if there is a Turing functional F so that F (ρ) is a Cauchy name of f(x) whenever ρ is a Cauchy name of x. An index of such a functional F is also said to be an index of f. We denote the set of all bounded c computable functions on R by Cb (R). A function f :⊆ R → R is lower semi-computable if there is a Turing functional F so that F (ρ) enumerates the left Dedekind cut of f(x) whenever ρ is a Cauchy name of x. A function f :⊆ R → R is upper semi-computable if −f is lower semi-computable. A function F :⊆ C(R) → R is computable if there is a Turing functional Φ so that Φ(ρ) is a Cauchy name of F (f) whenever ρ is a c.o.-name of f. An index of such a functional Φ is also said to be an index of F . 4 TIMOTHYH.MCNICHOLLANDDIEGOA.ROJAS

Suppose {an}n∈N is a convergent sequence of reals, and let a = limn an. A −k modulus of convergence of {an}n∈N is a function g : N → N so that |an − a| < 2 whenever k ≥ g(n). A measure µ ∈ M(R) is computable if µ(R) is a computable real and µ(U) is 0 left-c.e. uniformly in an index of U ∈ Σ1(R); i.e. it is possible to compute an index of the left Dedekind cut of µ(U) from an index of U. A sequence of measures {µn}n∈N in M(R) is uniformly computable if µn is a computable measure uniformly in n. 0 Suppose µ ∈M(R) is computable. A pair (U, V ) of Σ1 subsets of R is µ-almost decidable if U ∩ V = ∅, µ(U ∪ V ) = µ(R), and U ∪ V = R. If, in addition, U ⊆ A ⊆ R − V , then we say that (U, V ) is a µ-almost decidable pair of A. We then say A is µ-almost decidable if it has a µ-almost decidable pair. Suppose (U, V ) is a µ-almost decidable pair of A. Then, e indexes A if e = hi, ji for some index i of U and some index j of V . We note that µ-almost decidable sets are eﬀective analogues of µ-continuity sets. The deﬁnition of µ-almost decidable set is from [14].

3. Preliminaries In order to formulate an effective Portmanteau Theorem, we require an effective definition of lim sup and lim inf. The following definitions provide such an effectivization.

Deﬁnition 3.1. Suppose {an}n∈N is a sequence of reals, and let g :⊆ Q → N.

(1) We say g witnesses that lim infn an is not smaller than a if dom(g) is the left Dedekind cut of a and if ran whenever r ∈ dom(g) and n ≥ g(r).

We observe that lim infn an ≤ a if and only if there is a witness that lim infn an is not smaller than a. Similarly, lim supn an ≤ a if and only if there is a witness that lim supn an is not larger than a. The following proposition eﬀectivizes the fact that for any sequence of reals {an}n∈N, lim supn an ≤ a ≤ lim infn an implies limn an = a.

Proposition 3.2. Suppose there is a computable witness that lim infn an is not smaller than a, and suppose there is a computable witness that lim supn an is not larger than a. Then, limn an = a, and {an}n∈N has a computable modulus of convergence.

Proof. We ﬁrst note that lim supn an ≤ a ≤ lim infn an and so limn an = a. We also note that a is computable since its left and right Dedekind cuts are c.e.. Let g1 be a computable witness that lim infn an is not smaller than a, and let g2 be a computable witness that lim supn an is not larger than a. Deﬁne g : N → N as follows. Let k ∈ N. Since a is computable, we can compute r1, r2 ∈ Q so that −k r1

Proposition 3.3. For µ ∈M(R), the following are equivalent. (1) µ is computable. c (2) f 7→ R f dµ is computable on nonnegative f ∈ Cb (R). That is, from an c indexR of an f ∈ Cb (R) it is possible to compute an index of R f dµ. c (3) f 7→ R f dµ is computable on uniformly continuous f ∈ CbR(R) such that 0 ≤ fR≤ 1. Proof. Clearly (2) implies (3), and (1) implies (2) by Corollary 4.3.1 in [10].

We have left to show that (3) implies (1). To this end, suppose f 7→ R fdµ is c computable on uniformly continuous f ∈ Cb (R) such that 0 ≤ f ≤ 1. NoteR that µ(R) is a computable real since the constant function x 7→ 1 is computable and uniformly continuous. 0 Now, fix U ∈ Σ1(R). It suffices to show that µ(U) is the limit of a non-decreasing sequence of left-c.e. reals uniformly in an index of U. Let Un = {Ii : 0 ≤ i ≤ n ∧ Ii ⊆ U}. We note that, since U is open, U = n Un. TheS sequence {µ(Un)}n∈N is non-decreasing, and by continuity of measure,S limn µ(Un) = µ(U). Thus, it suffices to show that µ(Un) is left-c.e. uniformly in n and an index of U. To this end, we observe that for each n ∈ N,

1Un = max{1Ii :0 ≤ i ≤ n, Ii ⊆ U} is nonnegative and lower-semicomputable uniformly in n. Thus, we can compute for each n ∈ N a sequence of computable Lipschitz functions 0 ≤ tn,k ≤ 1 such that tn,k increases to 1Un pointwise as k → ∞ (see Proposition C.7, [6]). By the Monotone Convergence Theorem, µ(Un) = limk→∞ R tn,k dµ. Since R tn,kdµ is computable uniformly in n, k, µ(Un) is left-c.e. uniformlyR in n and anR index of U.

4. Effectivizing Weak Convergence of Measures on R

Throughout this section, let {µn}n∈N be a sequence in M(R), and fix µ ∈M(R). To devise an effective notion of weak convergence for {µn}n∈N, we need to impose a computability condition on the convergence of the sequence { R fdµn}n∈N with f ∈ Cb(R). Our first attempt is the following. R

Definition 4.1. We say {µn}n∈N effectively weakly converges to µ if for every c f ∈ Cb (R), limn R f dµn = R f dµ and it is possible to compute an index of a modulus of convergenceR for { RR f dµn}n∈N from an index of f and a bound B ∈ N on |f|. R Definition 4.1 at first glance seems reasonable. However, as it only produces moduli of convergence for computable functions, it does not automatically imply weak convergence. One generally expects that the effective version of a classical notion to imply the classical notion. Thus, we are led to also consider the following.

Definition 4.2. We say {µn}n∈N uniformly effectively weakly converges to µ if it weakly converges to µ and there is a uniform procedure that for any f ∈ Cb(R) computes a modulus of convergence for { R f dµn}n∈N from a c.o.-name of f and a bound B ∈ N on |f|. R While effective weak convergence requires computable real-valued functions, uniform effective weak convergence may use any real-valued function. As such, a modulus of uniform effective weak convergence is able to compute with incomputable 6 TIMOTHYH.MCNICHOLLANDDIEGOA.ROJAS information. Hence, uniformly effective weak convergence is a stronger convergence notion than effective weak convergence. In particular, since every function in Cb(R) has a c.o. name, it is automatic that every uniformly effectively weakly convergent sequence weakly converges. On the other hand, since it avoids the use of names, Definition 4.1 seems easier to work with in practice. Fortunately, we have the following.

Theorem 4.3. Suppose {µn}n∈N is uniformly computable. The following are equivalent.

(1) {µn}n∈N is effectively weakly convergent. (2) {µn}n∈N is uniformly effectively weakly convergent. Before proving Theorem 4.3, we prove a few preliminary results. The first demonstrates one of the desired properties of effective weak convergence.

Proposition 4.4. If {µn}n∈N is uniformly computable and eﬀectively weakly converges to µ, then µ is a computable measure.

Proof. By Proposition 3.3, it suﬃces to show that f 7→ R fdµ is computable on the c c set of nonnegative f ∈ Cb (R). Let f ∈ Cb (R). Then, { R f dµn}n∈N is a computable sequence of reals since {µn}n∈N is uniformly computable.R Since {µn}n∈N eﬀectively weakly converges to µ, limn R f dµn = R f dµ and it is possible to compute a modulus of convergence for {R R f dµn}n∈NR from an index of f. By Theorem 4.2.3 in [16], R f dµ is computable,R and it is possible to compute an index of R f dµ from anR index of f. R Next, we need the following lemmas.

Lemma 4.5. Suppose {µn}n∈N is uniformly computable and eﬀectively weakly converges to µ. From N ∈ N, it is possible to compute a,n0 ∈ N so that µn(R\[−a,a]) < −N 2 for all n ≥ n0.

Proof. First, deﬁne the sequence {wa,k}k∈N of functions on R by k k wa,k(x)= 1R\[−a,a](x)+(2 (x−a)+1)1[a−2−k ,a](x)+(−2 (x+a)+1)1[−a,−a+2−k](x).

The graph of wa,k is shown in Figure 1.

(−a − 2−k, 1) (a +2−k, 1) ••— 1 wa,k(x)

| | x −a 0 a

Figure 1. The graph of y = wa,k(x) for ﬁxed a, k ∈ N. EFFECTIVE NOTIONS OF WEAK CONVERGENCE OF MEASURES ON THE REAL LINE 7

We note that for all a ∈ N,

1R\[−(a+1),a+1] ≤ wa,0 ≤ 1R\[−a,a]. Thus, for all ν ∈M(R) and a ∈ N,

ν(R \ [−(a + 1),a + 1]) ≤ wa,0 dν ≤ ν(R \ [−a,a]). ZR

′ ′ −N We first search for a so that R wa ,0 dµ < 2 . Since µ is finite, it follows that this search must terminate. SinceR µ is computable, this search is effective. Set ′ a = a + 1. Since {µn}n∈N effectively weakly converges to µ, we can now compute ′ −N −N an n0 ∈ N so that R wa ,0dµn < 2 for all n ≥ n0. Thus, νn(R \ [−a,a]) < 2 for all n ≥ n0. R

Lemma 4.6. Suppose {µn}n∈N is uniformly computable and eﬀectively weakly converges to µ. From a c.o.-name of an f ∈ Cb(R) and N,B ∈ N so that |f| ≤ B, it −N is possible to compute a,n1 ∈ N and ψ ∈ PQ[−a,a] so that | R(f − ψ)dµ| < 2 −N R and so that | R(f − ψ)dµn| < 2 whenever n ≥ n1. R Proof. By Lemma 4.5, we can ﬁrst compute a,n0 ∈ N so that µ(R \ [−a,a]) < −1 −(N+2) −1 −(N+2) B 2 and µn(R \ [−a,a])

T (x)= 1[−a,a](x) + (x + a + 1)1(−a−1,−a)(x) + (−x + a + 1)1(a,a+1)(x).

The graph of T is shown in Figure 2. Thus, ν([−a,a]) ≤ R T dν for all ν ∈M(R). R y

— 1

Ta(x) ••| | x a , a , (− − 1 0)−a 0 a ( +1 0)

Figure 2. The graph of y = Ta(x) for ﬁxed a ∈ N.

Since {µn}n∈N eﬀectively weakly converges to µ, we can now compute an n1 ≥ n0 so that | R T dµn − R T dµ| < 1 whenever n ≥ n1. Fix f R∈ Cb(R). FromR a c.o.-name of f, we can compute a c.o.-name of f|[−a,a]. Then, by means of Theorem 6.2.1 of [16], we can compute a ψ ∈ PQ[−a,a] so that

2−(N+1) max{|f(x) − ψ(x)| : x ∈ [−a,a]} < . 1+ R T dµ R 8 TIMOTHYH.MCNICHOLLANDDIEGOA.ROJAS

Let n ∈ N, and suppose n ≥ n1. By the construction of T , µ([−a,a]) < 1+ R T dµ. However, since n ≥ n1, we also have R

µn([−a,a]) ≤ T dµn ZR ≤ T dµ − T dµ + T dµ Z n Z Z R R R

< 1+ T dµ. ZR If ν ∈M(R), then

(f − ψ) dν ≤ |f − ψ| dν + |f − ψ| dν Z Z Z R [−a,a] R\[−a,a]

2−(N+1) ≤ ν([−a,a]) + 2Bν(R \ [−a,a]). 1+ R T dµ −RN −N It follows that | R(f − ψ) dµ| < 2 and that | R(f − ψ) dµn| < 2 . R R c Proof of Theorem 4.3. It is possible to compute a c.o.-name of f ∈ Cb (R) from an index of f. It thus follows that every uniformly effectively weakly convergent sequence is effectively weakly convergent. Now, suppose {µn}n∈N effectively weakly converges to µ. Let B ∈ N, and suppose ρ is a c.o. name of f ∈ Cb(R) with |f| ≤ B. We construct a function G : N → N as follows. By means of Lemma 4.6, we can compute a,n1 ∈ N and −(N+2) ψ ∈ PQ[−a,a] so that | R(f − ψ) dµ| < 2 and so that | R(f − ψ) dµn| < −(N+2) 2 when n ≥ n1.R Since {µn}n∈N effectively weakly convergesR to µ, we can −(N+1) now compute an n2 ∈ N so that | R ψ dµn − R ψ dµ| < 2 whenever n ≥ n2. Set G(N)= n2. R R Suppose n ≥ G(N). Then,

fdµ − fdµ ≤ (f − ψ)dµ + ψdµ − ψdµ + (ψ − f)dµ Z n Z Z n Z n Z Z R R R R R R

< 2 −(N+2) +2−(N +1) +2−(N+2) =2−N .

Thus, G is a modulus of convergence for { R f dµn}n∈N. Since the construction of G from ρ and B is uniform, {µn}n∈N uniformlyR effectively weakly converges to µ. The corollary to Theorem 4.3 below follows from the observation that every uniformly effectively weakly convergent sequence in M(R) weakly converges. Corollary 4.7. If a uniformly computable sequence of measures effectively weakly converges, then it weakly converges. Finally, we note that the above results above allow us to distinguish the classical notion of weak convergence of measures on R from its effective versions.

Example 4.8. For E ⊆ R, let µn(E)= λ(E ∩ [0, qn]) for each n, where {qn}n∈N is a computable increasing sequence of rationals that converges to an incomputable left-c.e. α ∈ (0, 1). Then it is easy to see that {µn}n∈N weakly converges to the measure µ(E) = λ(E ∩ [0, α]) for E ⊆ R. However, by Proposition 4.4, {µn}n∈N EFFECTIVE NOTIONS OF WEAK CONVERGENCE OF MEASURES ON THE REAL LINE 9 cannot eﬀectively weakly converge since µ(R)= λ(R ∩ [0, α]) = λ([0, α]) = α is not computable.

5. An Effective Portmanteau Theorem Below, we state an eﬀective version of the classical Portmanteau Theorem (The- orem 2.1).

Theorem 5.1 (Eﬀective Portmanteau Theorem). Let {µn}n∈N be a uniformly computable sequence in M(R). The following are equivalent.

(1) {µn}n∈N eﬀectively weakly converges to µ. (2) From e,B ∈ N so that e indexes a uniformly continuous f ∈ Cb(R) with |f|≤ B, it is possible to compute a modulus of convergence of { R f dµn}n∈N. 0 (3) µ is computable, and from an index of C ∈ Π1(R) it is possibleR to compute an index of a witness that lim supn µn(C) is not larger than µ(C). 0 (4) µ is computable, and from an index of U ∈ Σ1(R) it is possible to compute an index of a witness that lim infn µn(U) is not smaller than µ(U). (5) µ is computable, and for every µ-almost decidable A, limn µn(A) = µ(A) and an index of a modulus of convergence of {µn(A)}n∈N can be computed from a µ-almost decidable index of A.

f f When f ∈ Cb(R) and t ∈ R, let Ut = {f >t}, and let U t = {f ≥ t}. Bya standard argument with Tonelli’s Theorem, 1 1 f f f dν = ν(Ut ) dt = ν(U t ) dt ZR Z0 Z0 whenever ν ∈M(R). To prove Theorem 5.1, we will need the following lemmas. c Lemma 5.2. Let f ∈ Cb (R) be so that 0

By similar reasoning, t 7→ ν(f −1[(−∞,t)]) is lower semi-computable. Since f −1 f ν(U t )= ν(R)−ν(f [(−∞,t)]), it follows that t 7→ ν(U t ) is upper semi-computable. Thus, (2).

By inspection, these arguments are uniform in indices of ν and f.

Lemma 5.3. Let {µn}n∈N be a uniformly computable sequence in M(R) that weakly c converges to a computable measure µ. Furthermore, let f ∈ Cb (R) be so that 0

0 (1) Suppose that from an index of U ∈ Σ1 it is possible to compute an index of a witness that lim infn µn(U) is not smaller than µ(U). Then, there is a computable witness that lim infn R f dµn is not smaller than R f dµ. 0 (2) Suppose that from an index of CR ∈ Π1 it is possible to computeR an index of a witness that lim supn µn(C) is not larger than µ(C). Then, there is a computable witness that lim supn R f dµn is not larger than R f dµ. f R R Proof. (1): Let φ(t) = µ(Ut ) for all t ∈ [0, 1]. Thus, φ is non-increasing. Let L denote the set of all tuples (k, v0, ..., v2k −1) so that k ∈ N, vj ∈ Q, and vj < φ((j +1)2−k) whenever j < 2k. Since φ is lower-semicomputable, L is L is c.e.. We −k −k note that if (k, v0,...,v2k−1) ∈ L, then vj < φ(t) whenever j·2 ≤ t ≤ (j+1)·2 . k 2 −1 1 −k We also note that if (k, v0,...,v ) ∈ L, then 0 φ(t) dt > 2 j vj . 1 R kP We claim 0 φ(t)dt > r if and only if there exists (k, v0, ..., v2 −1) ∈ L so that R k 1 j<2k vj > r2 . It suﬃces to prove the forward direction. Suppose 0 φ(t)dt > r. P −1 R1 Since φ is non-increasing, φ is Riemann integrable. Let ǫ = 2 0 φ(t)dt − r . R Then, there exists δ > 0 so that S − 1 φ(t)dt <ǫ whenever S is a Riemann sum 0 R −k for φ whose partition has width smaller than δ . Let k ∈ N so that 2 <δ. Thus, 1 φ((j + 1)2−k)2−k − φ(t)dt < ǫ. Z Xk 0 j<2

−k −k k Therefore, j<2k φ(( j + 1)2 )2 > r. There exist rational numbers v0, ..., v2 −1 k k P − − k so that vj ≤ φ((j + 1)2 ) and j<2k vj 2 > r. Thus, (k, v0, ..., v2 −1) ∈ L. We now define a computableP function g :⊆ Q → N. Given r ∈ Q, search for k −k k (k, v0, ..., v2 −1) ∈ L so that j<2k vj 2 > r. Then, for each j < 2 , com- P f f pute a witness hj that lim infn µn(U(j+1)2−k ) is not smaller than µ(U(j+1)2−k ) for f k {µn(U(j+1)2−k )}n∈N. Set g(r) = max{hj (vj ): j < 2 }. Since L is c.e., g is a computable partial function. By what has just been shown, 1 1 g(r) ↓ if and only if 0 φ(t)dt > r. Suppose 0 φ(t)dt > r and n ≥ g(r). Then, f R f R −k −k µn(Uj·2−k ) > vj . Thus, µn(Ut ) > vj whenever j · 2 ≤ t ≤ (j + 1)2 . Hence, 1 f −k 1 f 0 µn(Ut )dt > j<2k vj 2 > r. Therefore, g witnesses that lim infn 0 µn(Ut ) dt R P 1 f R is not smaller than 0 µ(Ut ) dt. R f (2): Let ψ(t)= µ(U t ) for all t ∈ [0, 1]. Thus, ψ is non-decreasing. Let H denote −k the set of all tuples (k,u0, ..., u2k−1) so that k ∈ N, uj ∈ Q, and uj > ψ(j · 2 ) whenever j ·2−k ≤ t ≤ (j +1)2−k. Since ψ is upper semi-computable, H is c.e.. We −k −k note that if (k,u0, ..., u2k−1) ∈ H, then uj > ψ(t) whenever j·2 ≤ t ≤ (j+1)·2 . 1 k We now claim 0 ψ(t)dt < r if and only if there exists (k,u0, ..., u2 −1) ∈ H k k R so that j<2 uj < r2 . The proof is a minor modification of the proof of the analogousP claim in the proof of (1). The construction of the required witness now proceeds along the lines of the definition of g in the proof of (1). We note that the proof of Lemma 5.3 is uniform. Proof of Theorem 5.1. By Theorem 4.3, (1) implies (2). The equivalence of (3) and (4) follows by considering complements. EFFECTIVE NOTIONS OF WEAK CONVERGENCE OF MEASURES ON THE REAL LINE11

(2) ⇒ (1): Assume (2) holds. By Proposition 3.3, µ is a computable measure. Since rational polygonal functions are uniformly continuous, it follows from the proof of Theorem 4.3 that {µn}n∈N is uniformly eﬀectively weakly convergent. Thus, by Theorem 4.3, it follows that {µn}n∈N is eﬀectively weakly convergent.

(1)⇒ (4): Assume (1) holds. By Proposition 4.4, µ is computable. 0 Let U ∈ Σ1(R). We construct a function g as follows. Given r ∈ Q, ﬁrst wait until r is enumerated into the left Dedekind cut of µ(U). By means of Proposition C.7 of [6], we can now compute a non-decreasing sequence {tk}k∈N of Lipschitz functions so that 0 ≤ tk ≤ 1 and so that limk tk = 1U . By the Monotone Convergence Theorem, limk R tk dµ = µ(U). Search for k0 so that R tk0 dµ > r. We then com- R −N0 R −N0 pute N0,n0 ∈ N so that r +2 < R tk0 dµ and | R tk0 dµ − R tk0 dµn| < 2 when n ≥ n0. Set g(r) = n0. Thus,R when n ≥ gR(r), µn(U) R≥ R tk0 dµn > r. Therefore, g witnesses that lim infn µn(U) is not smaller than µ(U).R Finally, we note that the construction of g is uniform in that an index of g can be computed from an index of U. Thus, (4).

(4) ⇒ (1): Suppose (4). Thus, (3). c Fix f ∈ Cb (R), and suppose B ∈ N is an upper bound on |f|. Set

f + B +1 h = . 2(B + 1)

Thus, 0

Let an = R h dµn. Let a = R h dµ. By Lemma 5.3, there is a computable witness thatR lim infn an is not smallerR than a, and there is a computable witness that lim supn an is not larger than a. Thus, by Proposition 3.2, limn an = a and {an}n∈N has a computable modulus of convergence. It follows that { R f dµn}n∈N has a computable modulus of convergence. R The argument just given is uniform, and so we conclude {µn}n∈N eﬀectively weakly converges to µ.

(4) ⇒ (5): Suppose (4). Thus, (3). Suppose A is µ-almost decidable. Let (U, V )bea µ-almost decidable pair for A. Thus, µ(U)= µ(A)= µ(R \ V ). By (4), there is a computable witness that lim infn µn(U) is not smaller than µ(A); let g1 be such a witness. By (3), there is a computable witness that lim supn µn(R\ V ) is not larger than µ(A); let g2 be such a witness. Since µn(U) ≤ µn(A) ≤ µn(R \ V ), g1 is also a witness that lim infn µn(A) is not smaller than µ(A), and g2 is also a witness that lim supn µn(A) is not larger than µ(A). So, by Proposition 3.2, {µn(A)}n∈A has a computable modulus of convergence g. The argument just given is uniform in that an index of g can be computed from an index of A. Hence, (5).

0 (5) ⇒ (3): Suppose (5). Thus, µ is computable. Let C ∈ Π1(R). Set

Ck = {R \ Ii : i ≤ k ∧ Ii ∩ C = ∅}. \ 12 TIMOTHYH.MCNICHOLLANDDIEGOA.ROJAS

Thus, Ck ⊇ Ck+1 and k Ck = C. Therefore, by continuity of measure, ν(C) = limk ν(Ck) for all ν ∈ MT (R). Since µ is computable, k 7→ µ(Ck) is upper semi- computable. We construct a function g as follows. Let r ∈ Q. Wait until r is enumerated into the right Dedekind cut of µ(C). Then, compute k0 so that µ(Ck0 ) < r. For every R> 0, let:

BR = {x ∈ R : d(x, Ck0 ) ≤ R}

CR = {x ∈ R : d(x, CR)= R} By a standard counting argument, for every open interval I ⊆ (0, ∞), there exists R ∈ I so that µ(CR) = 0. Also, CR ⊇ ∂BR. From a Cauchy name of R > 0, it is possible to compute an enumeration of {i : Ii ⊆ R \ BR}.

Since the boundary of Ck0 consists of ﬁnitely many rational numbers, from a Cauchy name of a positive real R, it is possible to compute an enumeration of {i : Ii ⊆ R \ CR}. Hence, R 7→ µ(CR) is upper semi-computable. So, given an open rational interval I ⊆ (0, ∞), it is possible to compute R ∈ I so that µ(CR) = 0. Thus, we can compute R0 > 0 so that µ(BR0 ) < r and µ(CR0 ) = 0. −N0 Hence, µ(∂BR0 )) = 0. We then compute N0 ∈ N so that 2 < r − µ(BR0 ).

BR0 is a ﬁnite union of pairwise disjoint closed intervals and singletons. The endpoints of these intervals are computable as are these singletons. Furthermore, their µ-measure is 0. Thus, BR0 is µ-almost decidable. So, we can now compute −N0 n0 ∈ N so that |µn(BR0 ) − µ(BR0 )| < 2 when n ≥ n0. Set g(r) = n0. Thus, when n ≥ g(r), µn(BR0 ) < r and so µn(C) ≤ µn(Ck0 ) ≤ µn(BR0 ) < r. Thus, g is a witness that lim supn µn(C) is not larger than µ(C).

We note that an index of BR0 as a µ-almost decidable set can be computed from an index of C. Thus, the construction of g from an index of C is uniform.

6. Conclusion We introduced two effective notions of weak convergence of measures in M(R). In the first, moduli of convergence are produced for computable functions in Cb(R). In the second, moduli of convergence are produced for all functions in Cb(R) via c.o. names. While the second appears more powerful, Theorem 4.3 demonstrates that the two are in fact equivalent. By means of this equivalence, we proved an effective version of the Portmanteau Theorem. Altogether, Theorems 4.3 and 5.1 provide a broad characterization of effective weak convergence in M(R). We could have also started our development by defining effective weak convergence as effective convergence in the Prokhorov metric which is known to yield a computable metric space on P(R) [10]. However, such a definition would not provide much utility for the development of an effective theory of weak convergence unless first proven equivalent to the conditions we have set forth. This equivalence will be investigated in a forthcoming paper.

References 1. A. Alexandroﬀ, Additive set-functions in abstract spaces, Matematicheskii Sbornik 9 (1941), no. 52, 563–628. 2. I. Binder, M. Braverman, C. Rojas, and M. Yampolsky, Computability of Brolin-Lyubich measure, Communications in Mathematical Physics 308 (2011), 743–771. 3. A. Case and J. H. Lutz, Mutual dimension and random sequences, Theoretical Computer Science 731 (2018), 68–87. EFFECTIVE NOTIONS OF WEAK CONVERGENCE OF MEASURES ON THE REAL LINE13

4. S. B. Cooper, Computability theory, Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2004. 5. R. Durrett, Probability: theory and examples, fourth ed., Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics, vol. 31, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010. 6. P. Gács, Uniform test of algorithmic randomness over a general space, Theoretical Computer Science 341 (2005), no. 1, 91 – 137. 7. S. Galatolo, M. Hoyrup, and C. Rojas, A constructive Borel-Cantelli lemma: constructing orbits with required statistical properties, Theoretical Computer Science 410 (2009), 2207– 2222. 8. B. Hellouin de Menibus, Asymptotic behaviour of cellular automata : computation and randomness, PhD thesis, Aix-Marseille Université, 2014. 9. M. Hoyrup, Randomness and the ergodic decomposition, Models of computation in context, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci., vol. 6735, Springer, Heidelberg, 2011, pp. 122–131. 10. M. Hoyrup and C. Rojas, Computability of probability measures and Martin-Löf randomness over metric spaces, Information and Computation 207 (2009), 830–847. 11. G. S. Lo, M. Ngom, and T. A. Kpanzou, Weak Convergence (IA). Sequences of Random Vectors, arXiv abs/1610.05415 (2016). 12. Y. Prokhorov, Convergence of random processes and limit theorems in probability theory, Theory of Probability and Its Applications 1 (1956), 157–214. 13. J. Rute, Computable randomness and betting for computable probability spaces, Mathematical Logic Quarterly 62 (2016), no. 4-5, 335–366. 14. , On the close interaction between algorithmic randomness and constructive/computable measure theory, arXiv abs/1812.03375 (2018). 15. A. M. Turing, On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society s2-42 (1937), no. 1, 230–265. 16. K. Weihrauch, Computable analysis, Texts in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2000.

Department of Mathematics, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011 Email address: [email protected]