Arxiv:2108.13019V1 [Math.DS] 30 Aug 2021
![Arxiv:2108.13019V1 [Math.DS] 30 Aug 2021](http://data.docslib.org/img/6056642/arxiv-2108-13019v1-math-ds-30-aug-2021.jpg)
arXiv:2108.13019v1 [math.DS] 30 Aug 2021 . hoe (Brudno-White). Theorem 1.1 Let Introduction 1 epc to respect i sup lim T eso o eea yaia ytm.Sc eso sobt and (MDS) is system version dynamical a preserving measure Such systems. dynamical general for version v e [Whi91]. see realiza space typical state a with of complexity algorithmic lower and upper fastate a of eoigby Denoting n as navr ls anr nteohrhn tprovides it hand complexity. orbit other of the measure On a as entropy manner. of close interpretation very a in ways, complexit ent algorithmic reasons: and two (entropy for randomness statement of remarkable concepts a is theorem above The upper of description minimal a of hnfor Then n over ( x o h anpr hsrsl a rvdb rdoi [Bru82], in Brudno by proved was result this part main the For IE NRP N LOIHI OPEIYOF COMPLEXITY ALGORITHMIC AND ENTROPY FIBER Σ ∈ ) euto .Bun oncigagrtmccmlxt n e systems. and complexity algorithmic connecting Brudno A. of result T hsdsrbsaprdgai aeo admdnmclsys dynamical random partition a of case paradigmatic a describes This nrp fteRSwt epc to respect with RDS the of entropy ( BTAT ecnie nt e ftransformations of set finite a consider We ABSTRACT. and eafiieapae.I h hoyo loihi complexity algorithmic of theory the In alphabet. finite a be , X, Σ
n 0 −1 P ( sqatfidi em fteKlooo complexity Kolmogorov the of terms in quantified is x x oe loihi complexity algorithmic lower ams all -almost C ) ) o all for hc r hoe admyacrigt negdcstochas ergodic an to according randomly choosen are which , T , ∈ ℎ ( a hnb enda h pe n oe loihi complex algorithmic lower and upper the as defined be then may !
1 0 ( X ◦ Σ ...! of T n onieadeulteetoyrt ftepoes whenever process, the of rate entropy the equal and coincide T ,
sdfie steuiu sequence unique the as defined is X 0 ∈ n ( −1 x ) eso httecniinlagrtmccmlxt faran a of complexity algorithmic conditional the that show we x ℕ ) h nrp aeof rate entropy the ... , ) The . ∈ and X eaiet h fiber the to relative v eobtain we upper ihrsett nvra uigmachine Turing universal a to respect with ( ! Let i inf lim = ) ADMORBITS RANDOM ( and E , T , X, ( LIAS x = ) fa nnt sequence infinite an of oe ri complexity orbit lower hnvrtelte segdc hsetnsaclassical a extends This ergodic. is latter the whenever , T ihrsetto respect with Z ) n
ea roi D and MDS ergodic an be IMMERMANN −1 ( = 1 x C = ) (
! 0 eafiiepriinof partition finite a be 0
ℎ ...! 1 ! ... ( ∈ n in ( −1 T T , ino ttoaysohsi process stochastic stationary a of tion Λ ) hc r endi ahrdiffer- rather in defined are which y), ) ) toyi eemnsi dynamical deterministic in ntropy ie sflos Let follows. as ained ℕ ) ℕ rdostermrasa follows. as reads theorem Brudno’s epciey By respectively. ∈Λ e RS.Cnieigafinite a Considering (RDS). tem . ! qasams ueytefiber the surely almost equals C uhthat such nteoehn tcnet two connects it hand one the On over cigo rbblt space probability a on acting ( ( v ioosjsicto o the for justification rigorous a x ) hc esrstelength the measures which , ) hr ti losae na in stated also is it where Σ and h admeso word a of randomness the i process tic a edfie as defined be can eafiiepriinof partition finite a be ! X U n The . ae nti the this on Based . o trajectory dom h atri ergodic, is latter the ( = x rdostheorem Brudno’s t fits of ity ) P (Λ fastate a of ( fadol if only and if ℕ , T , X, -name ,S , , ) -name. . x ! ( ) ! with ea be = ) ( X x ) , . Generalizations of Brudno’s theorem have been proposed for quantum statistics, see [BKM+06] and [Ben07], and, more recently, for actions of amenable groups, see [Sim15], [FT17], [Mor20] and [Alp20]. Further connections of entropy, computability and complexity are e.g. adressed in [Bru78]. [Whi91], [Whi93] and [GHR10]. In this paper we propose a generalization of Brudno’s result to the context of random dynamics. More specifically we shall consider random dynamical systems, which are given by a finite set of measure preserving transformations T ( ∈ Λ) on a standard probability space (X,), choosen randomly according to an ergodic stochastic process. While the process is specified by an ergodic shift (Λℕ,,S), the random dynamics are described by a skew-product T on the product space (Λℕ × X,⊗) taking the form T ( , x) = S , T x 0 for some pair , x ℕ X. Such skew-products are often called step skew-products. We will ( )∈Λ × therefore refer to the corresponding RDS (Λℕ ×X, ⊗, T ) as a step skew-product system (SSPS). To obtain a generalization of Brudno’s theorem to the random context we shall use a condi- tional version of algorithmic complexity, which is obtained in terms of oracle Turing machines. Let Σ and Λ be finite alphabets. For a word v over Σ and a sequence over Λ the conditional Kolmogorov complexity C(v ) of v relative to measures the length of a minimal description of v with respect to a universal oracle Turing machine U with oracle . (For more details see Sec- tion 2.) Based on this we defineð the upper and lower conditional algorithmic complexity of an −1 infinite sequence ! over Σ relative to as (! ) = lim sup n C !0...!n−1 and (! ) = n−1C ! ...! respectively. lim inf 0 n−1 Now consider an SSPS ℕ X, ⊗ , Tð together with a finite partitionð of X.ð For a (Λ × ) state x ∈ X we may defineð the - -name ! (x) of x as the unique sequence ! ∈ ℕ such that ! = P if and only if T ◦...◦T (x) ∈ P for all n ∈ ℕ. This allows us to introduce the upper n n−1 0 and lower conditional orbit complexities (x ) and (x ) of x relative to as the upper and lower algorithmic complexity of the - -name of x relative to . The entropy of an RDS is usually identified with the so called fiber entropyðof the the correspondingð skew-product. Denoting by h⊗(,T ) the fiber entropy of T with respect to , which will be introduced below, we may formulate our main result as follows.
ℕ 1.2 Theorem. Let Λ × X, ⊗ , T be an ergodic SSPS and be a finite partition of X. Then for ⊗-almost all , x we obtain ( )
(x ) = (x ) = h ( ,T ). ⊗
Theorem 1.2 contains Brudno’sð classical theoremð as a special case. Moreover, it provides us with an interpretation of fiber entropy as a measure of conditional orbit complexity. It is easy to see that the unconditional algorithmic complexity of the - -name of x corresponds to the ℕ algorithmic complexity of the Λ × -name of ( , x) with respect to T and equals therefore the ℕ entropy ℎ(Λ × ,T ) for ⊗-almost all ( , x) by Theorem 1.1. Furthermore, denoting by the natural partition of Λℕ consisting of the cylindersets, which are specified in the first symbol, we obtain the following relation, which may be seen as an partitionwise analogue of the Abramov- Rokhlin formula for orbit complexities.
2 ℕ 1.3 Theorem. Let (Λ × X, ⊗ , T ) be an ergodic SSPS and be a finite partition of X. Then for ⊗-almost all ( , x) we have ( , x) = ( , x), (x ) = (x ) and ( ) = × × ( ). Denoting by × ( , x), (x ) and ( ) the respective common values we obtain the relation ð ð ð (x ) = × ( , x) − ( ).
Organization. The paper is organizedð as follows: In Section 2 we discuss the relevant prelimi- naries from entropy theory of deterministic systems and algorithmic complexity. In Section 3 we develop the necessary entropy theory for step skew-products and apply it to some examples arising from actions of countable groups. Finally, Section 4 is devoted to the proof of our main results.
Acknowledgements. The results of this paper extend results of the author’s diploma thesis. The author thanks his advisor Felix Pogorzelski for freely sharing his ideas on the topic and giving valuable hints in many stages of the work as well as for constant motivation and substantial support during the writing process. Moreover, he gratefully acknowledges financial support through a grant of the German-Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research and Development (GIF) (grant I-1485- 304.6/2019).
2 Preliminaries
We set ℕ = {0, 1, 2,...}. In this paper an alphabet is always a finite, non empty set. Given an alpha- bet Σ we write Σ∗ for the set of (finite) words over Σ. The empty word is denoted by e. We say that ∗ ∗ a word v ∈ Σ is a prefix of a word w ∈ Σ in case v ≤ w and vi = wi for i ∈ {0,..., v −1}. By convention the empty word is a prefix of every word. A set B ⊆ Σ∗ is called prefix free in case v = w for any v, w ∈ B such that v is a prefix of w. ð ð ð ð ð ð
Kolmogorov complexity. Kolmogorov complexity is usually defined in terms of Turing machines. A Turing machine (TM) is a mathematical model of a computer. Informally, it consists of a bi- infinite inscripted tape together with a device for reading and writing on it. At the beginning of a computation the input word is written to the right of the device, while the machine is in the start state. Now in every step of the following computation the device reads the inscription at its actual position, overwrites it and moves to the left or to the right as the machine changes into a new state. All this happens in accordance with a fixed program. If a so called stop state is reached, the machine halts and outputs the word written to the right of the device. The machine may also never reach a stop state, in which case it computes infinitely long. There are various equivalent formalizations of Turing machines, see e. g. [HU79]. However, we shall confine ourselves to the above informal description. In the following we will always consider Turing machines with input alphabet {0, 1} and assume an output alphabet Σ to be fixed. Given a TM M we shall write dom(M) for the set of words on which M terminates and M(u) for the output of M on some u ∈ dom(M). M is called prefix free in case dom(M) is a prefix free set. By a universal (prefix free) Turing machine we mean a (prefix free) TM U with the property
3 that for every TM M there is some word w ∈ {0, 1}∗ such that U terminates on wu if and only if M terminates on u and the outputs M(u) and U(wu) coincide for every u ∈ dom(M). In this sense a universal TM can simulate every other TM when given its programme in a suitable form as additional input. The existence of fundamental (prefix free) Turing machines is a well known fact of computability theory, see e. g. [DH10]. Kolmogorov complexity as well as conditional Kolmogorov complexity, which is defined later, are usually only considered for words over {0, 1}. However, it will be convenient for us to define both for words over an arbitrary alphabet. The properties proposed in this and the next section are obtained by a straightforward adaption of the proofs given in [DH10]. Given a TM M the complexity of a word v ∈Σ∗ with respect to M is defined as
CM (v) ∶= min u ∶ u ∈ dom(M) and M(u) = v , where min ç = ∞ by convention. In otherð ð words CM (v) measures the length of a minimal descrip- tion of v with respect to M. To obtain a measure of complexity, which takes every possible choice of M into account, one fixes a universal TM U and defines the Kolmogorov complexity C(v) of v as the complexity CU (v) of v with respect to U. By the defining property of a universal TM one obtains
C(v) ≤ CM (v) + O(1) (2.1) for any TM M, where the constant O(1) depends only on M. In particular, choosing another universal TM in the definition will not change the values of C up to an additive constant. In this sense C is independent under the choice of U, which may be seen as a justification for the above definition. An often considered variant of C is obtained by using a universal prefix free TM P instead of U. The corresponding complexity K(v) = CP (v) is called the prefix free Kolmogorov complexity of v. Similarly as above one has
K(v) ≤ CM (v) + O(1) (2.2) for every prefix free TM M with O(1) only depending on M. In particular, K is independent under the choice of P up to an additive constant. Considering a Turing machine, which maps the n-th word in {0, 1}∗ to the n-th word in Σ∗ one obtains the upper bound C(v) ≤ v log Σ + O(1) as well as the upper bound ð ð ð ð K(v) ≤ v log Σ + 2 log v + O(1). (2.3)
The reason for considering K insteadð ð of ðCðis that theð ð former has some technical advantages in comparison to the latter. Most importantly it satisfies the subadditivity property K(vw) ≤ K(v) + K(w) + O(1) for all v, w ∈ Σ∗ and some constant O(1), which is useful in many situ- ations. However, the difference between K(v) and C(v) is always bounded by 2 log v + O(1). This makes it irrelevant, which one of the measures is used when passing to complexity rates of ð ð 4 infinite sequences. More precisely, defining Kn(!) ∶= K(!0...!n−1) and Cn(!) ∶= C(!0...!n−1), −1 −1 −1 −1 we obtain lim sup n Kn(!) = lim sup n Cn(!) and lim inf n Kn(!) = lim inf n Cn(!) for all ! ∈ Σℕ. The respective values are called the upper and lower algorithmic complexity of ! and denoted by (!) and (!). By the above upper bounds of C and K it is clear that (!) and (!) take values in [0, log Σ ]. Recall that the difference resulting from underlying different universal Turing machines in the definition of K and C is bounded by a constant, so the arbitrariness in the definition of K and Cð discussedð earlier does not matter at all for the definition of (!) and (!).
Conditional complexity. For the generalization of Brudno’s theorem proposed in Theorem 1.2 we need an extension of the concepts discussed so far. More specifically we will use a conditional version of Kolmogorov complexity. Such a version can be obtained in terms of oracle Turing machines. The idea of an oracle Turing machine is that we have a Turing machine with an additional one-sided tape containing an infinite sequence, the so called oracle, to which the machine has access during the computation. So it may question the oracle for information that is not given within the input word. To this end it goes through the oracle tape from the left to the right scanning one symbol per step and executes the actions on the input tape in dependence of the scanned symbols. Again, we shall confine ourselves with an informal description of oracle Turing machines. For a more rigorous treatment see [DH10]. Similarly as before we shall always assume the input alphabet to be {0, 1} and some output and oracle alphabets Σ and Λ to be fixed. Given an oracle TM M we shall denote the set of words on which M terminates with oracle by dom(M, ) and denote the output of M on some u ∈ dom(M, ) by M (u). We shall call M prefix free in case dom(M, ) is a prefix free set for every oracle . Bya universal (prefix free) oracle TM we mean a (prefix free) oracle TM U with the property that for every oracle TM M there exists some word w ∈ {0, 1}∗ such that for every oracle we have wu ∈ dom(U, ) if and only if u ∈ dom(M, ) and M (u) coincides with U (wu) for every u ∈ dom(M, ). The existence of universal (prefix free) oracle Turing machines is also well known, see e.g. [DH10, Prop. 3.5.1]. Using oracle Turing machines a conditional variant of Kolmogorov complexity can be defined as follows. Given an oracle TM M the conditional complexity of a word v ∈ Σ∗ with respect to M relative to an oracle is defined as
CM (v ) ∶= min u ∶ u ∈ dom(M, ) and M (u) = v .
Proceeding as before we defineð the conditionalð ð Kolmogorov complexity C(v ) of a word v relative to by C(v ) = CU (v ), where U is some fixed universal oracle TM. Using a prefix free universal oracle TM P instead of U one obtains the prefix free conditional Kolmogorovð complexity K(v ) =
CP (v ) ofðv relative toð . As in the ordinary case the definitions are invariant under the choice of the universal machines up to an additive constant. Moreover we have ð ð
C(v ) ≤ CM (v ) + O(1) (2.4) for every oracle TM M and K(v ) ≤ CðM (v ) + Oð(1) for every prefix free oracle TM M, where
ð ð 5 in both cases the constants only depend on the machines M. Furthemore, in the prefix free case, we obtain the subadditivity property
K(vw ) ≤ K(v ) + K(w ) + O(1), (2.5) while the difference of C(v ) and Kð (v ) is againð boundedð by 2 log v + O(1). As a consequence it makes no difference, which measure is used for defining the conditional complexity of an infinite ð ð ð ð sequence. In particular, setting Kn(! ) ∶= K(!0...!n−1 ) and Cn(! ) ∶= C(!0...!n−1 ), we −1 −1 −1 obtain lim sup n K(!0...!n−1 ) = lim sup n C(!0...!n−1 ) and lim inf n K(!0...!n−1 ) = −1 ð ℕ ð ð ℕ ð lim inf n C(!0...!n−1 ) for every sequence ! ∈Σ and every oracle ∈Λ . We shall call the respective values the upper andð lower algorithmic complexityð of ! relative to and denoteð them by (! ) and (! )ð. Note that as before the values are independent of the choice of the under- lying universal machine. It is easy to see that C(v ) ≤ C(v) + O(1) for all v ∈Σ∗, which implies that (!ð ) and (!ð ) take again values in [0, log Σ ]. Furthermore, it is not difficult to verify that (!) = (! ∞) and (!) = (! ∞) forð every ∈ Λ, where ∞ denotes the sequence ... ∈ð Λℕ. Thus,ð unconditional algorithmic complexitiesð ð arise from conditional algorithmic complexities as a specialð case. ð
Entropy of a dynamical system. Consider an MDS (X, A, , T ) consisting of a standard proba- bility space (X, A,) and a measure preserving transformation T on X. In the following we will often omit the specification of the -algebra A. Given a finite partition of X the Shannon entropy of is defined as
H() ∶= − (P ) log (P ) . P ∈ É Note that this definition is independent of the base of the logarithm up to a factor. Throughout this paper we will always work with the binary logarithm, which is more convenient in the context of complexities than the natural logarithm. Denote by
n−1 n −i H() ∶= H T () Hi=0 I Ë the Shannon entropies of the refinements of under T . Then, by a standard subadditivity argument, −1 n the limit ℎ(,T ) ∶= lim n H() exists und coincides with the infimum of the sequence. It is called the entropy of with respect to T . The (Kolmogorov-Sinai) entropy ℎ(T ) of T is defined as the supremum of ℎ(,T ) over all finite partitions of X. A finite partition is called a one-sided (two-sided) generator for T in case A is up to null sets the smallest -algebra containing the partitions T −n() for all n ∈ ℕ (ℤ). By a fundamental theorem due to Kolmogorov and Sinai ℎ(T ) equals ℎ(,T ) whenever is a one- or two-sided generator, see [Wal82]. Moreover, Krieger’s finite generator theorem garantuees the existence of two-sided generators for for all ergodic, invertible and aperiodic transformations with finite entropy, see [Dow11]. Thus, by Brudno’s theorem, for such systems the Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy can
6 be interpreted as quantifying the algorithmic complexity of a typical trajectory with respect to a generating partition.
In case of an ergodic transformation the entropy ℎ(,T ) can also be obtained as the limit of an individual information function. Given a finite partition of X, the information I()(x) of x with respect to is defined as I()(x) ∶= − log ((x)), where (x) denotes the unique element
Q ∈ with x ∈ . It is not difficult to see that I() defines a measurable function. Denote by
n−1 n −i I() ∶= I T () Hi=0 I Ë the information functions of the refinements of under T . If T is ergodic, we have almost sure −1 n convergence of n I()(x) to ℎ(,T ), see [Par69]. This is the statement of the famous Shannon- McMillan-Breiman (SMB) theorem. An important class of dynamical systems for us are shifts. In the following a shift will always consist of a shift space Λℕ over some finite alphabet Λ equipped with the -algebra generated by cylindersets and a probability measure , which is invariant under the shift map S on Λℕ given by
S 0 1 2... ∶= 1 2 3...
ℕ ∗ ℕ for ∈ Λ . For a word v ∈ Λ we denote by [v] the cylinderset ∈Λ 0... v −1 = v consisting of all sequences beginning with v. We shall often write [v] to denote the probability ð ð [v] of [v]. It is well known that a one-sided generator for S is given by the ðnatural partition of ℕ. In particular the entropy ℎ S of a shift equals the entropy ℎ , S ∶= {[ ] ∈ Λ} Λ ( ) of with respect to S. ð 3 Entropy theory of step skew-products
Random dynamics. The notion of a random dynamical system goes back to work of Ulam and van Neumann, see [UvN45] and Kakutani, see [Kak51]. For a comprehensive treatment of random dynamical systems see [Arn98] and [KL06]. Having its origin in the paper [AR62] of Abramov and Rokhlin, where a formula for the entropy of certain skew products is derived, the entropy theory of random dynamical systems was developed among others by Morita, Bogenschütz and Nakamura in [Mor86], [Bog90], [Bog93] and [Nak91] building on work of Kifer in [Kif86].
Let (Y, ℬ,,) be an ergodic MDS, (X, A) be a measurable space and (Ty)y∈Y be a family of transformations on X. Consider the skew product T on Y × X given by
T (y, x) = y, Ty x and let denote a T -invariant probability measure on ℬ⊗A such that the marginal measure Y of on Y equals . Thenthe MDS (Y ×X, , T ) is called a random dynamical system (RDS). It is called invertible in case the transformations Ty as well as the transformation are invertible and ergodic
7 in case the skew product T is an ergodic transformation with respect to . It is common to assume that (Y, ℬ, ) is a standard probability space and (X, A) is a standard Borel space. Accordingly the measure disintegrates over Y , i.e. there is a -a.s. uniquely determined measurable family of probability measures (y)y∈Y on X such that d(y, x) = ∫Y dy(x)d(y), see [Arn98]. A natural class of random dynamical systems is given as follows. Consider an ergodic shift ℕ (Λ ,,S) over an alphabet Λ together with a family of measure preserving transformations (T)∈Λ acting on a standard probability space (X,). As already discussed we may think of (Λℕ,,S) as a stochastic process choosing randomly one of the transformations T in every step of time. Setting T ∶= T for ∈Λℕ this gives rise to a skew-product T on Λℕ × X taking the form 0
T ( , x) = S , T x 0 for ( , x)∈Λℕ × X. Such a skew product is often called a step skew product. It is not difficult to see that T preserves the product measure ⊗. The corresponding RDS (Λℕ ×X, ⊗, T ) will be called a step skew-product system (SSPS) in the following. Special cases of such systems were the first instances of random dynamical systems that have been studied systematically. However, the ergodic theory of step skew-products attracts continous attention. It plays for instance an important role for obtaining weighted ergodic theorems as well as asymptotic equipartition properties for actions of certain hyperbolic groups, see e. g. [Gri99], [Buf00a], [Buf00b] and [NP21]. An important special case of an SSPS is given by a random shift. For finite alphabets Λ and Σ consider the set Σ(Λ∗) of maps from Λ∗ to Σ. Thinking of Λ∗ as a regular tree and of Σ as a finite set of colors, one may think of Σ(Λ∗) as the set of possible tree colorings with colors in Σ. For ∈Λ (Λ∗) let S denote the shift map given by S(!)(u) ∶= !(u) for ! ∈ Σ . Then S is measurable with respect to the standard -algebra on Σ(Λ∗) generated by the cylindersets. Let S denote the corresponding step skew-product. Let furthermore be an ergodic S-invariant probability mea- ℕ (Λ∗) sure on Λ and a probability measure on Σ , which is invariant under all S. Then the SSPS Λℕ ×Σ(Λ∗),⊗, S is called a random shift. Fiber entropy. The entropy of a random system can be defined as follows. Let (Y × X, , T ) be an RDS and be a finite partition of X. Setting Ty,0 ∶= Id and Ty,n ∶= Tn−1(y)◦...◦T(y)◦Ty we denote by n−1 In( )(y, x) ∶= I T −1( )(x) y y,i Hi=0 I Ë the information function and by
n−1 Hn( ) ∶= H T −1( ) d(y) y y,i ÊY H i=0 I Ë the averaged entropies of the random refinements of along the fibers in Y . It is easily seen that
n n H () = I ()(y, x) d(y, x). ÊY ×X
8 −1 n As is shown in [Bog93], for an invertible RDS the limit h(,T ) ∶= lim n H () exists and coincides with the infimum of the sequence. It is called the fiber entropy of the RDS with respect to . The (fiber) entropy h(T ) of the RDS is then defined as the supremum of h(,T ) over all finite partitions . A partition is called a random one-sided (two-sided) generator for T if for -almost all y −1 the -algebra A equals up to null sets the smallest -algebra containing the partitions Ty,n () for n ∈ ℕ (ℤ). A generalization of the Kolmogorov-Sinai theorem yields that for a random one-sided or two-sided generator we have h(T ) = h(,T ). Using a representation of fiber entropy as a certain relative entropy of the corresponding skew product Bogenschütz could also obtain a random version of the SMB theorem, which states that for an ergodic invertible RDS we have -almost sure −1 n convergence of n I ()(y, x) to h(,T ). See also the closely related results in [Nak91]. These statements hold even without an invertibility condition in the case of a product measure
= ⊗ as was already shown by T. Morita in [Mor86]. In particular the entropy ℎ⊗(,T ) is well defined for every finite partition and the supremum is attained if is a random generator. −1 n Moreover, we have almost sure convergence of the normalized informations functions n I⊗() to ℎ(,T ), whenever the RDS is ergodic. These results apply in particular to the case of a step skew-product. Accordingly, Theorem 1.2 provides an interpretation of fiber entropy as a measure of conditional complexity of a typical random orbit with respect to a random generator (if such a generator exists). Indeed, in the case of a step skew-product there are much more elementary arguments are at hand, on which we will later partially rely. They shall therefore be shortly presented. Let (Λℕ × X, ⊗ , T ) be a SSPS and be a finite partition of X. Observing that
n−1 n−1 n−1 −i −i −1 T ( × )( , x) = S ( )( ) × T ,i ()(x) i=0 i=0 i=0 Ë Ë Ë it is not difficult to verify that we have
n n n I⊗()( , x) = I⊗( × )( , x) − I ( ) (3.1) for all ( , x) and n ≥ 1 in this setting. Via integration we obtain as a consequence the relation n n n H⊗(,T ) = H⊗( × ,T ) − H ( , S), which implies that the fiber entropy h⊗(,T ) is well defined and equals
h⊗(,T ) = ℎ⊗( × ,T ) − ℎ(S). (3.2)
This may be seen as a partitionwise version of the so called Abramov-Rokhlin formula, which states that h⊗(T ) = ℎ⊗(T ) − ℎ(S), and was proved by Abramov and Rokhlin in [AR62] for general product measures. Moreover, if T is ergodic, the classical SMB theorem yields that −1 n n I⊗( × )( , x) converges to ℎ⊗( × ,T ) ⊗-almost surely. Furthermore, as S is −1 n ergodic by assumption, we obtain that n I ( ) converges to ℎ( , S) = ℎ(S) for -almost
9 all ∈Λℕ. Thus, as a consequence of (3.1) and (3.2), the statement
1 n lim I ()( , x) = h⊗(,T ) (3.3) n→∞ n ⊗ of the SMB theorem holds for ⊗-almost all ( , x), whenever the system is ergodic.
Examples. In the remaining part of this section we shall discuss some examples of step skew- product systems arising from actions of finitely generated groups and compute their entropy. Let Γ be a countable group with neutral element ℯ and (X, A,) be a standard probability space. By ↷ a pointwise measure preserving (pmp) action Γ X of Γ on X we mean a family (Tg)g∈Γ of measure preserving transformations Tg on X such that Tℯ = Id and Tg◦Tℎ = Tgℎ for g, ℎ ∈ Γ. We call a set A ∈ A Γ-invariant if up to null sets gA = A for every g ∈ Γ. The action Γ ↷ X is called ergodic in case (A)∈{0, 1} for every Γ-invariant set A ∈ A. ↷ Let Γ0 be a finite set of generators for Γ and Γ X be a pmp action of Γ. Given an ergodic ℕ T ℕ X shift invariant measure on Γ0 we may consider the step skew-product on Γ0 × given by T ( , x) = S , T x for ( , x) ∈ Γℕ × X. A natural question is, whether ergodicity of the 0 0 group action implies ergodicity of the skew-product. In the case is Markov measure an important criterion for the validity of this implication is given by Bufetov in [Buf00b, Thm. 5]. We shall use the following special case.
3.1 Proposition. Let be an ergodic Markov measure on ℕ such that s > for every s Γ0 [ ] 0 ∈ Γ0 ¨ ¨¨ ¨¨ ¨¨ ¨ and for all s, s ∈ Γ0 there is some s ∈ Γ0 such that [s s] > 0 and [s s ] > 0. Then the skew product T is ergodic if and only if the group action Γ ↷ X is ergodic.
Two commuting automorphisms. We shall first discuss the case of two commuting automorphisms, ℤ2 which corresponds to an action of . In this case a canonical set of generators is given by Γ0 = ℤ2 {±ei ∶ i = 1, 2}, where ei denotes the i-th standard basis vector of . One natural probability ℕ ℕ measure on the space Γ0 is given by the Bernoulli measure = corresponding to the uniform ℤ2 ↷ distribution on Γ0 given by (±ei) ∶= 1∕4 for i = 1, 2. Let X be an ergodic pmp action of ℤ2 on some standard probability space (X,). Since every Bernoulli measure is also a Markov ¨ ¨ measure and [ss ] > 0 for all s, s ∈ Γ0 by definition, we may apply Proposition 3.1 to obtain that ℕ X, ⊗ , T the corresponding SSPS Γ0 × is ergodic. We may think of Γℕ as the path space of a simple recurrent random walk in ℤ2. For n 1 let 0 ≥ Rn( )∶={ 0, 0+ 1,..., 0+ 1+...+ n−1} denote the set of points visited by the path up to time n n−1 R ℕ . By a theorem of Spitzer we obtain lim n( ) = 0 for -almost all ∈ Γ0 , see [Spi76, p. 38-40]. Since we have ð ð n−1 1 −1 Rn( ) 1 −1 H T ,i () = ⋅ H Tg () n n Rn( ) Hi=0 I Hg∈Rn( ) I Ë ð ð R ( ) Ë Rn( ) log n Rn( ) ≤ ð ð = log n Rn(ð ) ð n ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð ð 10 this implies n−1 1 −1 lim H T () = 0 n→∞ n ,i H i=0 I Ë ℕ for -almost all ∈ Γ0 . Note that the left hand side is bounded by log , so we may apply dominated convergence to obtain h⊗(,T ) = 0 for every finite partition of X and therefore h⊗(T ) = 0. ð ð
Two non commuting automorphisms. As a second example we consider the case of two non com- F muting automorphisms, which corresponds to an action of the free groups 2 over the symmetric a±1,b±1 v ∗ e ∗ v −1 − v +1 ∗ generator set Γ0 ∶= { }. For ∈ Γ0 ⧵ { } define [ ] ∶= 4 3 . Then extends ℕ uniquely to a probability measure on Γ0 , which is obviously Markov, seeð [Wal82,ð Thm. 0.2 and 0.3]. The construction garantues that we only obtain uncancellable words over Γ0, so we get a one F v ∗ ∗ v > to one correspondence between the elements of 2 and the words ∈ Γ0 with [ ] 0. F Given an alphabet Σ we consider the space Σ 2 equipped with the -algebra generated by cylin- F F dersets. Let = 2 be the Bernoulli measure on Σ 2 corresponding to the equidistribution on Σ F −1 F ↷ 2 F given by () = Σ for ∈Σ. Let furthermore 2 Σ be the action of 2 on the probability F F F space Σ 2 , defined by g! ∶= (! −1 ) F for ! ∈Σ 2 . Then it is well known that F ↷ Σ 2 is g ℎ ℎ∈ 2 2 ð ð ∗ pmp and ergodic. By construction satisfies the condition of Proposition 3.1, so we may conclude ℕ F that the corresponding SSPS F ×Σ 2 , ∗ ⊗ , T is also ergodic. F Let denote the partition of Σ 2 into the cylindersets sets {! !ℯ = }, ∈ Σ, and denote F F by Fin 2 the set of finite subsets of 2. It is not difficult to see that ð −1 H g = F H ( ) = F log Σ Hg∈F I Ë ð ð ð ð ð ð for every F ∈ Fin(matℎbbF2) and therefore
1 −1 inf H g = log Σ > 0, F F F ∈Fin( 2) Hg∈F I Ë ð ð so by the non-amenability of the freeð groupð and a theorem of Bowen, see [Bow20, Thm. 2.13], we have 1 −1 sup inf H g = ∞. F F F ∈Fin( 2) Hg∈F I Ë Denoting by R ( ) the set { , ,..., ... } in F we obtain n 0 0 1 0ð 1ð n−1 2 n−1 1 −1 1 −1 1 −1 H T ,i () = H g ≥ inf H g n R ( ) F ∈Fin F F Hi=0 I n Hg∈R ( ) I ( 2) Hg∈F I Ë Ën Ë ð ð ð ð
11 ℕ n for all ∈ Γ0 and ≥ 1. Integrating and taking the limit yields
1 −1 h⊗(T ) = sup h⊗(,T ) ≥ sup inf H g = ∞. F F F ∈Fin( 2) Hg∈F I Ë In particular, as a consequence of the random Kolmogorov-Sið ð nai theorem, there can be no random generator for the above system.
4 Fiber entropy and conditional algorithmic complexity
ℕ Let (Λ × X, ⊗ , T ) be an SSPS and be a finite partition of X. As already indicated we define the upper and lower conditional orbit complexity of a state x relative to a fiber as the upper and lower conditional algorithmic complexity (x ) ∶= ! (x) and (x ) ∶= ! (x) of the - -name ! (x) of x relative to . It is not difficult to see that one has (! ) = (S! S ) as well as (! ) = (S! S ) for any sequenceð!. This shows thatð the conditionalð orbit complexityð of x relative to depends indeed only on the orbit of ( , x) under T , i. e. its valueð remains constantð irrespectiveð which particularð point we choose in this orbit. A deterministic dynamical system (X, , T ) can be identified with the special case of a 1-ary alphabet Λ={} with being the trivial probability measure on Λℕ = {∞}. It is not difficult to see that in this case we have h⊗(,T ) = ℎ(T ). Furthermore, by the definition and the ∞ properties of conditional complexity rates discussed above we have ! (x) = ! (x) and therefore (x ∞) = (x) as well as (x ∞) = (x) for all x ∈ X. Thus Theorem 1.2 contains Brudno’s classical theorem, Theorem 1.1, as a special case. Weð will now turn to the proof of ourð main Theorem, Theorem 1.2. As we shall see it will suffice to restrict to the case of a random shift. Let Λ and Σ be finite alphabets. For u ∈ Λk and v ∈ Σk we define the set [u v] by
∗ [u v] ∶= ! ∈Σ(Λ ) ∶ ! = v ,! = v ,...,! = v . ð e 0 u0 1 u0...uk−2 k−1 $ % (The specificationð of the last symbol of u in the notation of [u v] may seem superflous. However, this notation will turn out to be very useful in the following.) We shall often write [u v] instead of [u v]. Given ! ∈Σ(Λ∗) and ∈Λℕ we shall write ! to denoteð the sequence (! ,! ,! ,...)in e 0 0 1 ℕ ∗ Σ . Let ∗ denote the partition of Σ(Λ ) consisting of the sets [e ] for ∈ Σ. Thenð obviously, theð complexity of ! (!) relative to equals the complexity of ! relative to for all ! ∈Σ(Λ∗) ∗ and ∈Λℕ. Thus, the following is indeed a special case of Theoremð 1.2.
4.1 Theorem. Let Λℕ ×Σ(Λ∗),⊗, S be an ergodic random shift. Then for ⊗-almost all ,! ℕ (Λ∗) we have ( )∈Λ ×Σ
∗ (! ) = (! ) = h⊗( , S).
It will turn out that Theorem 4.1ð is actuallyð equivalent to Theorem 1.2. To see this, we fix an
12 arbitrary SSPS Λℕ×X, ⊗, T together with a finite partition of X. Setting T = T ◦...◦T u u u −1 u0 for a word u ∈Λ∗, let ∶ X → Σ(Λ∗) denote the map sending a state x ∈ X to the unique element ð ð (Λ∗) ∗ ! ∈ Σ with !(u) = P if and only if Tu(x) ∈ P for u ∈ Λ . Then is measurable. Denote by
∗ the push-forward measure of under . Then, by the definition of , we obtain ◦T = S◦ for all ∈Λ, which
−1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 ∗ S (B) = S (B) = T (B) = (B) = ∗(B) for all measurable sets B. Thus, ∗ is invariant under all S. Accordingly we may consider the ℕ (Λ∗) random shift Λ ×Σ ,⊗ ∗, S . Furthermore, consider the map Φ = Id ⊗ , where Id denotes the identity map on ℕ, and note that ⊗ ⊗ . By the above observation Λ Φ∗( ) = ∗ Φ commutes with the skew-products T and S. This implies that the preimage Φ−1(B) of an S- invariant set is T -invariant, so we get
−1 ⊗ ∗(B) = Φ∗(⊗)(B) = ⊗(Φ (B)) ∈ {0, 1} by the ergodicity of T . Accordingly S is an ergodic transformation. Moreover, we have
Hn ∗ = − [u] [u v] log [u v] ⊗ ∗ ∗ ∗ u =n v =n É É −1 −1 = − ð ð [u] ð ð [ðu v] log ð[u v] u =n v =n É É n−1 ð ð n−1 = − ð ð [v] ð ð T −1 v log T −1 v u0...ui i u0...ui i v =n v =n Hi=0 I Hi=0 I É É Ì Ì n = Hð⊗ð ð ð for every n 1, which implies h ( ,T ) = h ( ∗, S). So by Theorem 4.1 we find a set A ≥ ⊗ ⊗ ∗ with ⊗ (A) = 1 such that for all ( ,!) ∈ A we have (! ) = (! ) = h ( ∗, S). ∗ ⊗ ∗ Accordingly we obtain ð ð (x ) = ! (x) = h ( ,T ) = ! (x) = (x ) (4.1) ⊗
−1 −1 for all ( , x) ∈ Φ (Að ). Since by definitionð one has ⊗(Φ (A)) =ð Φ∗(⊗)(Að ) = ⊗ ∗(A) = 1, this shows that (4.1) is actually valid for ⊗-almost all ( , x)∈Λℕ × X. This verifies that Theorem 4.1 implies Theorem 1.2. Consequently we are reduced to show Theorem 4.1. We shall split the proof into two lem- mas, which together will imply the assertion. The proof of the first lemma mimics to some extend Brudno’s original proof in [Bru82]. However, instead of using frequency sets we rely on a block- wise prefix free coding to approximate the conditional complexity of infinite sequences. By a prefix free code of a finite set A ⊆ Σ∗ of words over some alphabet Σ we mean an injective map ∶ A → {0, 1}∗ such that the set of codewords (A) is prefix free. A very useful tool for con-
13 ℕ structing prefix free codes is Kraft’s inequality, which states that for a sequence r1,...,rm ∈ the 1 m ∗ i existence of a prefix free set of words v , ..., v ∈ {0, 1} with length v = ri is equivalent to the m −ri condition that the numbers ri satisfy i=1 2 ≤ 1, see [Rom92, Thm. 2.1.2]. ð ð 4.2 Lemma. Let Λℕ ×Σ(Λ∗), ⊗,∑S be an ergodic random shift. Then for ⊗-almost all ,! ℕ (Λ∗) we have ( )∈Λ ×Σ ∗ (! ) ≤ h⊗( , S).
k ⊗ ,! Proof: We will show that for every ≥ð 1 and -almost all ( ) we obtain the upper bound 1 1 (! ) ≤ Hk ( ∗) + . (4.2) k ⊗ k
ð ∗ → Since the right hand side converges to h⊗( , S) as k ∞, this will suffice to prove the assertion. To this end we fix k ≥ 1 and think of the sequences ! and as decomposed into k ! ,i ! ...! i k ! i blocks of length . We shall write ∶= (i−1)k ik−1 for the -th -block of and ∶= k (i−1)k... ik−1 for the i-th k-block of . Note that for every u ∈ Λ we have v =n [u v] = 1, so by Kraft’s inequality we obtain a prefix free code of Σk such that u ∑ ð ð ð
u(v) ≤ − log [u v] + 1 (4.3) for every v ∈ Σk. This allows us toð codeð the k-blocksð of ! in dependence of the corresponding ,i ,i k-blocks of , coding the block ! by i (! ). Now consider an oracle TM M decoding the initial segment !0...!m−1 from the concatenation 0 m−1 of codewords 0 (! ).... m−1 (! ), when given the sequence as oracle. Such an oracle TM could work as follows: Beginning with i = 0 it scans the input symbol per symbol unless the scanned prefix matches a codeword of the form i (v), where it knows from the oracle which codewords are allowed. In this case it writes v at the end of the output and iterates the procedure with the remaining part of the input and the updated counter i+1, unless the end of the input is reached. Since the set of possible codewords is prefix free in every step, there can be no mismatch. To secure that the machine terminates only on those inputs, which are of the required form, we may require that it goes into an infinite loop, whenever it reaches the end of the input without having found an appropriate codeword. Next, consider a window of length k sliding simultanously through and ! with a stepwidth of d and denote the frequency of the pair (u, v) under the first m scans by
1 ad (u, v, , !) ∶= 0 ≤ i ≤ m−1 ∶ Sdi ∈ [u], Sdi! ∈ [v] . m m $ % ó ó Then, by definition, ak (u, v, , !) denotesó the frequency of (u, v) under the first mó k-blocks, which m ó ó k implies u , v =k mam(u, v, , !) = m. Thus, by (2.4), we obtain
∑ð ð ð ð Kmk ! ≤ Cmk ! + 2 log mk + O(1)
≤ CM !0...!mk−1 + 2 log mk + O(1) ð ð 14ð k ≤ mam(u, v, , !) u(v) + 2 log mk + O(1). u , v =k É ð ð Defining ð ð ð ð k k Hm( ,!) ∶= − am(u, v, , !) log [u v] u , v =k É and using (4.3) and the above observationð thisð ð ð yields ð
k Kmk ! ≤ mHm( ,!) + m + o(m). (4.4)
k k It seems natural to think of am(u, v, , !ð) as an estimator of [u][u, v] and representing am(u, v, , !) in the form m−1 1 ki ak (u, v, , !) = 11 S ( ,!) m m [u]×[u v] i=0 É ð k → E k → k ∗ we are tempted to write am(u, v, , !) 11[u]×[u v] = [u][u v] and thus Hm( ,!) H⊗( ) for m → ∞ in the light of Birkhoff’s ergodic theorem, see [Wal82, Thm. 1.14]. Unfortunately we k ð ð k cannot justify this here directly. Although S is measure preserving and thus am(u, v, , !) and k k therefore Hm( ,!) is indeed converging for ⊗-almost all ( ,!), S will in general not be E ergodic and therefore we may not infer that the limit equals 11[u]×[u v] as we would like to do. (Note that under the stronger assumption that S is weakly mixing we could draw this conclusion.) ð However, with a little trick we obtain the desired result in a way that suffices for our purposes. The crucial observation is
1 a1 (u, v, , !) = 0 ≤ i ≤ km−1 ∶ Si ∈ [u], Si! ∈ [v] mk km k$−1 % 1 ó ó = ó 0 ≤ i ≤ m−1 ∶ Sr+ik ∈ [u], Sr+ik! ó ∈ [v] kmó ó r=0 $ % k−1É ó ó 1 ó ó = akó (u, v, Sr , Sr! ) . ó k m r=0 É k k −1 So evaluating Hm on the tuples ( ,!), S( ,!),..., S ( ,!) and averaging over the values yields
k−1 1 r H k S ( ,!) = − a1 (u, v, , !) log [u v]. k m mk r=0 u , v =k É É ð Since by assumption S is ergodic we may nowð ð applyð ð Birkhoff’s theorem to obtain
mk−1 1 1 i lim a (u, v, , !) = lim 11 u u v S ( ,!) m→∞ mk m→∞ mk [ ]×[ ] i=0 É E ð = 11[u]×[u v] = [u][u v]
ð ð
15 and therefore
k−1 j−1 1 r 1 r lim H k S ( ,!) = lim H k S ( ,!) k m→∞ m m→∞ k m r=0 r=0 É É = − [v] [u v] log [u v] u =k v =k É É Hk ∗ = ð⊗ð ( )ð ð ð ð for ⊗-almost all ( ,!). So for every such pair ( ,!) there is at least one r ∈ {0,...,k−1} such that r lim H k S ( ,!) ≤ Hk ( ∗). m→∞ m ⊗ By (4.4) this yields
1 1 r 1 lim sup K ! ...! Sr lim H k S ( ,!) + r r+mk−1 ≤ → m m→∞ mk k m ∞ k 1 1 ≤ Hk ( ∗) + . ð k ⊗ k
To finish the argument let n ≥ 1 be arbitrary. Then, by (2.3) and (2.5), we have
K ! ...! Sr K ! ...! Sr K ! ...! Sr O r r+n−1 ≤ r r+ n∕k k−1 + r+ n∕k k n−1 + (1) ≤ K ! ...! Sr + k log Σ + 2 log k + O(1), ð r r+⌊n∕k⌋k−1 ð ⌊ ⌋ ð which implies ⌊ ⌋ ð ð ð
r r 1 r S ! S = lim sup K !r ...!r+n−1 S n→∞ n 1 K ! ...! Sr ð ≤ lim sup r ð r+ n∕k k−1 n→∞ n∕k k 1 ⌊ r⌋ ó ≤ lim sup K !r ...!r+mk−1 S ó m→∞ ⌊mk ⌋ ó 1 k ∗ 1 ó ≤ H ( ) + . ó k ⊗ k ó
As mentioned earlier we have (Sr! Sr ) = (! ) for all !, and r ≥ 0. This implies that (4.2) holds in fact for ⊗-almost all ( ,!)∈Λℕ ×Σ(Λ∗). □
∗ ð ð 4.3 Lemma. Let Λℕ ×Σ(Λ ), ⊗, S be an ergodic random shift. Then for ⊗-almost all ,! ℕ (Λ∗) we have ( )∈Λ ×Σ ∗ (! ) ≥ h⊗( , S). Proof: We will show that for ⊗-almost all ( ,!) there exists an N ≥ 1 such that we have ð n ∗ Kn (! ) ≥ I⊗( )( ,!) − 2 log n (4.5) for all n ≥ N. Since by the randomð SMB theorem the right hand side divided by n converges to
16 ∗ h⊗( , S) almost surely, this will suffice to prove the assertion. To this end let E be the set of all ( ,!), where (4.5) fails. For fixed denote by E ∶= {! ∶ ( ,!) ∈ E} the -fiber of E. Defining n ∗ En ∶= ! ∶ Kn (! )
E = En . N=1 n≥N Ì Í Noting that n ∗ I⊗( )( ,!) = − log 0... n−1 !0 ...!n−1 we obtain ð ⇔ −2 −Kn(! ) ! ∈ En 0... n−1 !0 ...!n−1 < n 2 . n ð Set D ∶= v ∈Σ [ ... n v] ∩ E ≠ ç . Then obviously E ⊆ [ ... n v], so we n 0 −1 n ð n v∈Dn 0 −1 obtain the upper bound ⋃ ð ð ð −2 −K(v ) En ≤ 0... n−1 v ≤ n 2 .
v∈Dn v∈Dn É É ð ð Since by the definition of K(⋅ ) the numbers K(v ), v ∈ Dn , are the lengths of a set of prefix free −K(v ) ∞ −2 words, Kraft’s inequality implies 2 ≤ 1. Thus, for n < ∞, an application of v∈Dn n=1 the Borel-Cantelli lemma yieldsð E = 0. Sinceð was arbitrary, this implies ∑ ð ∑ ⊗(E) = E d( ) = 0, ÊΛℕ which proves the claim. □
This finishes the proof of Theorem 4.1 and thereby Theorem 1.2. Theorem 1.3 is now easily ℕ obtained. Consider an ergodic SSPS (Λ × X, ⊗ , T ) and let be a finite partition of X. Then × is a finite partition of Λℕ × X. Note that ( ) = ( ) and ( ) = ( ) and recall that ℎ( , S) = ℎ(S). Thus, since S and T are ergodic, the values ( ), × ( , x) and (x ) exist by Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.2 and satisfy ð
(x ) = h⊗(,T ) = ℎ⊗( × ,T ) − ℎ(S) = × ( , x) − ( )
ℕ for ⊗-almostð all ( , x)∈Λ × X by (3.1). This proves the claim.
17 References
[Alp20] A. Alpeev. Kolmogorov complexity and entropy of amenable group actions. preprint, 2020.
[AR62] L. M. Abramov and V. A. Rokhlin. Entropy of a skew product of mappings with invariant measure. Vestnik Leningrad. Univ., 17(7):5–13, 1962.
[Arn98] L. Arnold. Random dynamical systems. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998.
[Ben07] F. Benatti. Entropy and algorithmic complexity in quantum information theory. Nat. Comput., 6(2):133–150, 2007.
[BKM+06] F. Benatti, T. Krüger, M. Müller, R. Siegmund-Schultze, and A. Szkoła. Entropy and quantum Kolmogorov complexity: a quantum Brudno’s theorem. Commun. Math. Phys., 265(2):437–461, 2006.
[Bog90] T. Bogenschütz. Entropy for random dynamical systems. volume 235 of Report. Universität Bremen, 1990.
[Bog93] T. Bogenschütz. Entropy, pressure, and a variational principle for random dynamical systems. Random Comput. Dynam., 1(1):99–116, 1992/93.
[Bow20] L. Bowen. Examples in the entropy theory of countable group actions. Ergodic Theory Dyn. Syst., 40(10):2593–2680, 2020.
[Bru78] A. A. Brudno. The complexity of trajectories of a dynamical system. Usp. Mat. Nauk, 33(1):207–208, 1978. Translated in: Russ. Math. Surv., 33(1):197-198, 1978.
[Bru82] A. A. Brudno. Entropy and the complexity of trajectories of a dynamical system. Tr. Mosk. Mat. Obs., 44:124–49, 1982. Translated in: Trans. Mosc. Math. Soc. (2):127- 151, 1983.
[Buf00a] A. I. Bufetov. Operator ergodic theorems for actions of free semigroups and groups. Funct. Anal. Appl., 34(4):239–251, 2000.
[Buf00b] A. I. Bufetov. Skew products and ergodic theorems for group actions. Zap. Nauchn. Semin. POMI, 266(5):13–28, 2000. Translated in: J. Math. Sci. 113(4):548–557, 2003.
[DH10] R. G. Downey and D. R. Hirschfeldt. Algorithmic randomness and complexity. Theory and Applications of Computability. Springer, New York, 2010.
[Dow11] T. Downarowicz. Entropy in dynamical systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. ℤd ℤd [FT17] T. Fuda and M. Tonozaki. Brudno’s theorem for (or +) subshifts. Inf. Comput., 253:155–162, 2017.
[GHR10] S. Galatolo, M. Hoyrup, and C. Rojas. Effective symbolic dynamics, random points, statistical behavior, complexity and entropy. Inf. Comput., 208(1):23–41, 2010.
[Gri99] R. I. Grigorchuk. Ergodic theorems for the actions of a free group and a free semi- group. Mat. Zametki, 65(5):779–783, 1999.
18 [HU79] J. E. Hopcroft and J. D. Ullman. Introduction to automata theory, languages and computation. Addison-Wesley, 1979.
[Kak51] S. Kakutani. Random ergodic theorems and Markoff processes with a stable distribu- tion. In Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, 1950, pages 247–261. University of California Press, 1951.
[Kif86] Y. Kifer. Ergodic theory of random transformations, volume 10 of Progress in Prob- ability and Statistics. Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., 1986.
[KL06] Y. Kifer and P. Liu. Random dynamics. In Handbook of dynamical systems. Vol. 1B, pages 379–499. Elsevier B. V., 2006.
[Mor86] T. Morita. Entropy of random dynamical systems. Proc. Japan Acad. Ser. A Math. Sci., 62(4):121–124, 1986.
[Mor20] N. Moriakov. Computable følner monotilings and a theorem of Brudno. 2020. To appear in Ergodic Theory Dyn. Syst.
[Nak91] M. Nakamura. Invariant measures and entropies of random dynamical systems and the variational principle for random Bernoulli shifts. Hiroshima Math. J., 21(1):187–216, 1991.
[NP21] A. Nevo and F. Pogorzelski. The SMB theorem along geodesics, 2021. Manuscript in preparation.
[Par69] W. Parry. Entropy and generators in ergodic theory. W. A. Benjamin, Inc., 1969.
[Rom92] S. Roman. Coding and information theory. Springer, 1992.
[Sim15] S. G. Simpson. Symbolic dynamics: entropy = dimension = complexity. Theory Comput. Syst., 56(3):527–543, 2015.
[Spi76] F. Spitzer. Principles of random walk. 2nd ed. Springer, 1976.
[UvN45] S. M. Ulam and J. von Neuman. Random ergodic theorems. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 51:660, 1945.
[Wal82] P. Walters. An introduction to ergodic theory. Springer, 1982.
[Whi91] H. White. On the algorithmic complexity of trajectories of points in dynamical systems. PhD Dissertation. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1991.
[Whi93] H. S. White. Algorithmic complexity of points in dynamical systems. Ergodic Theory Dyn. Syst., 13(4):807–830, 1993.
MATHEMATICAL INSTITUTE,LEIPZIG UNIVERSITY,AUGUSTUSPLATZ 10, 04109 LEIPZIG E-MAIL: [email protected]
19