On non-singular transformations of a measure space. I

  • Wolfgang Krieger


We consider a Lebesgue measure space (M, ∇, m). By an automorphism of (M, ∇, m) we mean a bi-measurable transformation of (M, ∇, m) that together with its inverse is non-singular with respeot to m. We study an equivalence relation between these automorphisms that we call the weak equivalence. Two automorphisms S and T are weakly equivalent if there is an automorphism U such that for almost all xε M U maps the S-orbit of x onto the T-orbit of U x. Ergodicity, the existence of a finite invariant measure, the existenoe of a σ-finite infinite invariant measure, and the non-existence of such measures are invariants of weak equivalenoe. In this paper and in its sequel we solve the problem of weak equivalenoe for a class of automorphisms that comprises all ergodic automorphisms that admit a σ-finite invariant measure, and also certain ergodic automorphisms that do not admit such a measure.


Stochastic Process Probability Theory Equivalence Relation Lebesgue Measure Invariant Measure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Arnold, L. K.: On σ-finite invariant measures. Doctoral Thesis, Brown University,June 1966.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beunel, A.: Sur les mesures invariantes. Z. Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie verw. Geb. 5, 300–303 (1966).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chacon, R.V.: A class of linear transformations. Proc. Amer. math. Soc. 15, 560–564 (1964).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dye, H.A.: On groups of measure preserving transformations I. Amer. J. Math. 81, 119–159 (1959).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    —: On groups of measure preserving transformations II. Amer. J. Math. 85, 551–576 (1963).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Feller, W.: An introduction to probability theory and its applications, Vol. II. New York: Wiley 1966.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Halmos, B. P.: Lectures on ergodic theory. Publications of the Mathematical Society of Japan 3, Tokyo 1956.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jacobs, K.: Lecture notes on ergodic theory. Aarhus Universitet 1962/63.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krieger, W.: On non-singular transformations of a measure space II. Z. Wahrscheinlich-keitstheorie verw. Geb. 11, 98–119 (1969).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moore, C.: Invariant measures on product spaces, Proc. Fifth Berkeley Sympos. math.Statist. Probability II, Part 2, 447–459 (1967).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Neumann, J. Von: On rings of operators III. Ann. of Math., II. Ser. 41, 94–161 (1940).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ornstein, D.: On invariant measures. Bull. Amer. math. Soc. 66, 297–300 (1960)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Powers, R. T.: Representations of uniformly hyperfinite algebras and their associatedvon Neumann rings. Ann. of Math., II. Ser. 86, 138–171 (1967).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pukánszky, L.: Some examples of factors. Publ. math., Debrecen 4, 135–156 (1955/56). The results of Arnold's thesis have appeared in: Arnold, L. K.: On σ-finite invariant measures. Z. Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie verw. Geb. 9, 85–97 (1968).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1969

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wolfgang Krieger
    • 1
  1. 1.Mathematisches Institut der UniversitÄtMünchen

Personalised recommendations