Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
Research Article

Proof of the Ergodic Theorem

By George D. Birkhoff
  1. Department of Mathematics, Harvard University

See allHide authors and affiliations

PNAS December 1, 1931 17 (12) 656-660; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.17.2.656
George D. Birkhoff
Department of Mathematics, Harvard University
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  1. Communicated December 1, 1931

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Letdxidt=Xi(x1,…xn)    (i=1,…n)

be a system of n differential equations valid on a closed analytic manifold M, possessing an invariant volume integral, and otherwise subject to the same restrictions as in the preceding note, except that the hypothesis of strong transitivity is no longer made.

We propose to establish first that, without this hypothesis, we havelimn=∞tn(P)n=τ(P)(1)

for all points P of the surface σ save for points of a set of measure 0. In other words, there is a “mean time τ(P), of crossing” of σ for the general trajectory.

The proof of the “ergodic theorem,” that there is a time-probability p that a point P of a general trajectory lies in a given volume v of M, parallels that of the above recurrence theorem, as will be seen.

The important recent work of von Neumann (not yet published) shows only that there is convergence in the mean, so that (1) is not proved by him to hold for any point P, and the time-probability is not established in the usual sense for any trajectory. A direct proof of von Neumann’s results (not yet published) has been obtained by E. Hopf.

Our treatment will be based upon the following lemma: If Sλ[Sλ′] is a measurable set on σ, which is invariant under T, except possibly for a set of measure 0, and if for any point P of this setlimn=∞suptn(P)n≧λ>0[limn=∞inftn(P)n≦λ>0](2)

then∫Sλtn(P)dP≧λ ∫SλdP [∫Sλ′t(P)dP≦λ ∫SλdP.(3)

We consider only the first case, for the proof of the second case is entirely similar. In analogy with the preceding note, define the distinct measurable sets U1, U2, … on Sλ so that for P in Untn(P)>n(λ−ϵ) (P not in U1,U2,…,Un−1)(4)

The quantity ϵ > 0 is taken arbitrarily. It is, of course, clear that for every point P of Sλtn(P)>n(λ−ϵ)

for infinitely many values of n, so that all such points belong to at least one of the sets U1, U2, …. Now, by the argument of the earlier note, we infer∫Sλkt(P)dP>(λ−ϵ) ∫SλkdP

where Sλk=U1+U2+…+Uk. But Sλk is, for every value of k, a measurable part of the invariant set Sλ and increases toward a limit U1 + U2 + … which contains every point of Sλ. Consequently we obtain by a limiting process∫Sλt(P)dP≧(λ−ϵ)∫SλdP

for any ϵ > 0, whence the inequality of the lemma.

The recurrence theorem stated results directly from this lemma. Consider the measurable invariant set of points P on σ for whichtn(P)≧nλ(5)

for infinitely many values of n (see the preceding note). This is a set Sλ to which the lemma applies. Similarly the set of points P on σ for whichtn(P)<nλ(6)

for infinitely many values of n is a set Sλ′ of the kind specified in the lemma.

The set Sλ diminishes and the set Sλ′ increases with σ, and both sets taken together exhaust σ. The measure of the set Sλ must tend toward 0 as λ increases. Otherwise it would tend toward an invariant measurable set of positive measure, S∗, for which the inequality of the lemma holds for λ = ∧, an arbitrarily large positive quantity, and we should infer∫S*t(P)dP≧∧∫S*dP

for any ∧, which is absurd. Moreover, when λ tends toward 0, Sλ becomes vacuous, since there is a least time of crossing, λ0. In a similar way, Sλ′ increases with λ from a set of zero measure for λ < λ0 toward the set σ.

If then Sλ and Sλ′ are not essentially complementary parts of σ, one decreasing, the other increasing, they must, for certain values of λ, have a common measurable component Sλ* of positive measure, also invariant under T.

Consider the set of points belonging to Sλ* such thattn(P)>nμ  (μ>λ)

for infinitely many values of n. These form an invariant measurable subset Sλμ* of Sλ*, which must be of measure 0 for any such μ. Otherwise the inequalities of the lemma would give us simultaneously∫Sλμ*t(P)dP≧μ ∫Sλμ*dP, ∫Sλμ*t(P)dP≦λ ∫Sλμ*dP,

which are mutually contradictory.

Hence we infer that all of the points P of Sλ* save for a set of measure 0, satisfy the inequalitytn(P)≦nμ

for any μ > λ and for n = nP sufficiently large, that is,limn=∞suptn(P)n≦λ.

Likewise we infer that for all of the points of Sλ*, save for a set of measure 0, we havelimn=∞inftn(P)n≧λ.

It follows then that for points P of Sλ*, with the usual exception,limn=∞tn(P)n=λ.(7)

Two such sets Sλ* belonging to different λ’s are evidently distinct except for a set of measure 0. Hence there can exist only a numerable set Sλi*(i=1, 2,…) of such sets since each has a positive measure. Except for these values λi of λ, Sλ′ and Sλ are complementary parts of σ aside from a set of measure 0.

Choose now any two values of λ, say λ,μ with λ < μ, not belonging to this numerable set, and consider the points of Sλ which do not belong to Sμ. These form an invariant measurable set Sλ,μ, such that for any point P of this setλ≦limn=∞suptn(P)nμ(8)

and alsoλ≦limn=∞inftn(P)n≦μ,(9)

since Sλ,μ is essentially identical with the part of Sμ′ not in Sλ. We infer then that tn(P)/n oscillates between λ and μ as n tends toward ∞, for all points P of Sλ,σ except a set of measure 0.

By choosing a set of values such as λ,μ sufficiently near together we infer then that for all of the points of σ except a set of measure 0, the oscillation of tn(P)/n, as n becomes infinite, is less than an arbitrary δ > 0.

Obviously then the stated recurrence theorem is true.

It should also be noted that if tn/P denotes the time to the nth crossing as time decreases, the same result holds if n tends toward ± ∞, with the same limit except for a set of points P of measure 0. This follows at once from the fact that (8) may be writtenλ≦limn=−∞suptn(P)n⋅≦μ,

where P of Sλ,μ is replaced by Tn(P); and (9) may be given a corresponding form.

This theorem of recurrence admits of certain evident extensions. In the first place there is no need to restrict attention to the analytic case. Moreover, instead of a single surface σ, any measurable set σ∗, imbedded in a numerable set of distinct ordinary surface elements with vcosθ > d > 0, throughout, will serve, in which case t∗(P) denotes the time from P on σ∗ to the first later crossing of σ∗.

In order to prove the “ergodic theorem” we observe first that a set σ∗ can be found which cuts every trajectory except those corresponding to equilibrium and others of total measure 0. This is possible; for a numerable set of distinct ordinary surface elements σ1, σ2, … with vcosθ > d > 0 can be found which cut every trajectory not corresponding to equilibrium. If we define σk as the limit ofσ1+σ12+σ123+…+σ1…k

where σ12 denotes the set of points P of σ2 not on a trajectory cutting σ1, σ123 denotes the set of points of σ3 not on a trajectory cutting σ1, or σ2, etc., it will have the desired properties.

Now let v denote any “measurable” volume in the manifold M, and let t¯(P) denote the interval of time during which the point on the trajectory which issues from P on such a set σ∗ lies in v before the point T(P) of σ∗ is reached. Thus t¯(P)≦t(P) in all cases. In addition, t¯n(P) satisfies the same functional equation as t(P)t¯n(P)=t¯(Tn−1(P))+t¯n−1(P).

Hence the same reasoning as before is applicable to show that, except for a set of points P of measure,limn=±∞t¯n(P)n=t¯(P),

where τ¯(P)≦τ(P); while at the same time, of course,limn±∞tn(P)n=τ(P)>0.

We conclude that the following “ergodic theorem” holds

For any dynamical system of type (1) there is a definite “time probability” p that any moving point, excepting those of a set of measure will lie in a region v; that is,limt=±∞t¯t=p≦1

will exist, where t denotes total elapsed time measured from a fixed point and t¯ the elapsed time in v.

For a strongly transitive system p is, of course, the ratio of the volume of v to V.

Evidently the germ of the above argument is contained in the lemma. The abstract character of this lemma is to be observed, for it shows that the theorem above will extend at once to function space under suitable restrictions.

It is obvious that τ(P) and τ¯(P) as defined above satisfy functional relations of the following type:∫0λλdm(Sλ)=∫Sλt(P)dP

where the integral on the left is a Stieltjes integral, m(Sλ) being the measure of Sλ.

PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Proof of the Ergodic Theorem
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Proof of the Ergodic Theorem
George D. Birkhoff
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Dec 1931, 17 (12) 656-660; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.17.2.656

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Proof of the Ergodic Theorem
George D. Birkhoff
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Dec 1931, 17 (12) 656-660; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.17.2.656
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Related Article

  • The ergodic theorem and statistical mechanics
    - Feb 17, 2015
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Reflection of clouds in the still waters of Mono Lake in California.
Inner Workings: Making headway with the mysteries of life’s origins
Recent experiments and simulations are starting to answer some fundamental questions about how life came to be.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Radoslaw Lecyk.
Depiction of the sun's heliosphere with Voyager spacecraft at its edge.
News Feature: Voyager still breaking barriers decades after launch
Launched in 1977, Voyagers 1 and 2 are still helping to resolve past controversies even as they help spark a new one: the true shape of the heliosphere.
Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech.
Drop of water creates splash in a puddle.
Journal Club: Heavy water tastes sweeter
Heavy hydrogen makes heavy water more dense and raises its boiling point. It also appears to affect another characteristic long rumored: taste.
Image credit: Shutterstock/sl_photo.
Mouse fibroblast cells. Electron bifurcation reactions keep mammalian cells alive.
Exploring electron bifurcation
Jonathon Yuly, David Beratan, and Peng Zhang investigate how electron bifurcation reactions work.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Panda bear hanging in a tree
How horse manure helps giant pandas tolerate cold
A study finds that giant pandas roll in horse manure to increase their cold tolerance.
Image credit: Fuwen Wei.

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
  • List of Issues

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Subscribers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Cozzarelli Prize
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates
  • FAQs
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Rights & Permissions
  • About
  • Contact

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490