Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

2-fold and 3-fold mixing: why 3-dot-type counterexamples are impossible in one dimension

2-fold and 3-fold mixing: why 3-dot-type counterexamples are impossible in one dimension V.A. Rohlin asked in 1949 whether 2-fold mixing implies 3-fold mixing for a stationary process (ξ i ) i2ℤ, and the question remains open today. In 1978, F. Ledrappier exhibited a counterexample to the 2-fold mixing implies 3-fold mixing problem, the socalled 3-dot system, but in the context of stationary random fields indexed by ℤ2. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Bulletin of the Brazilian Mathematical Society, New Series Springer Journals

2-fold and 3-fold mixing: why 3-dot-type counterexamples are impossible in one dimension

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/2-fold-and-3-fold-mixing-why-3-dot-type-counterexamples-are-impossible-Cwi4TAMFvK

References (24)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 by Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
Subject
Mathematics; Mathematics, general; Theoretical, Mathematical and Computational Physics
ISSN
1678-7544
eISSN
1678-7714
DOI
10.1007/s00574-006-0024-z
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

V.A. Rohlin asked in 1949 whether 2-fold mixing implies 3-fold mixing for a stationary process (ξ i ) i2ℤ, and the question remains open today. In 1978, F. Ledrappier exhibited a counterexample to the 2-fold mixing implies 3-fold mixing problem, the socalled 3-dot system, but in the context of stationary random fields indexed by ℤ2.

Journal

Bulletin of the Brazilian Mathematical Society, New SeriesSpringer Journals

Published: Jan 1, 2006

There are no references for this article.