1. Introduction
According to an article in Quanta Magazine [
3] Wood writes, "No known mathematical procedure can meaningfully average an infinite number of objects covering an infinite expanse of space in general. The path integral is more of a physics philosophy than an exact mathematical recipe." The cited paper [
4] presents a constructive approach to Wood’s statement using filters over families of finite set; however, the average in the approach is not unique: the method determines the average value of functions with a range that lies in any algebraic structure for which the finite averages make sense. In this paper, we will explore a more constructive approach where the average unique, finite, and "natural" (defined in
3.3 &
3.4) for a prevalent subset [
6] of the set of all functions.
We begin with describing "the infinite objects" which cover "an infinite expanse of space" as unbounded functions, since the definition is more approachable from a mathematical standpoint. Moreover, for , set and function ; suppose we get a prevalent subset of a function-space means "almost all" functions are in that space, and a shy subset of a function-space means "almost no" functions are in that space. Using the Hausdorff outer measure (for A measurable in the Carathèodory sense); we then get the set of unbounded f where the expected value is infinite or undefined, forms a prevalent subset of . Furthermore, the set of all f with finite expected values forms only a shy subset of , meaning "almost no" functions have finite expected values.
Therefore, after we define prevalent and shy sets with mathematics in
2.1; we define two attempts to answer the thesis
1 of the first paragraph in
2.2. Note neither attempts give complete answers: they extend the Hausdorff measure of
A to be positive and finite but do not guarantee unbounded functions will have finite expected values. Infact, the expected value from both attempts are positive and finite for
only a shy subset of
.
Hence, we define a sequence of sets called ★-sequence of sets (def. 4) whose properties allow for finite expected values for all f in a prevalent subset . Note these ★-sequences of sets converge to the graph of f i.e. rather than A; otherwise, the generalized expected value of f w.r.t to their own ★-sequence (def. 5) cannot be finite for all f in a prevalent subset of . Moreover, since there are functions where there are multiple ★-sequences of sets which we may choose, with the generalized expected values of f w.r.t each ★-sequence different and non-unique—we must have a choice function choosing a unique set of equivalent ★-sequences with the same, unique expected value.
For defining the choice function, we ask a question in
3.4 where with previous sections; we define equivalent & non-equivalent ★-sequences of sets for
3.1, and "natural" expected values for
3.3. We attempt to answer the question in
3.4 by redefining linear/super-linear convergence (def. 8) in terms of Entropy and Samples, where the samples are derived by taking points of each partitions of the domain of a ★-sequence of sets, such that the partitions have equal Hausdorff measure. Since all samples have finite points; we order the
x-values of the points from least to greatest, take the difference between consecutive pairs of
x-values in the sample, multiply the differences by a constant so they add up to one (i.e. a discrete probability distribution), and use the Entropy of the distribution [
5] to redefine def. 8 as def. 12. We then use the redefined definition to create a choice function.
In the case that a choice function does not give a unique expected value in equation 20; we’ll use iterations of choice function C (eq. 18) in 5.2, to increase the chance of choosing non-equivalent ★-sequences of sets, such that the generalized expected values of f w.r.t each ★-sequence is the same.
2. Preliminary Definitons/Motivation
Other than integration with filters [
4], there is no constructive approach to finding a meaningful average of functions covering an infinite expanse of space; however, there are two constructive approaches to making the average unique, finite, and "natural". Before beginning, consider the following mathematical definitions:
2.1. Preliminary Definitions
Let X be a completely metrizable topological vector space.
Definition 1
(Prevalent Subset of X). A Borel set is said to be prevalent if there exists a Borel measure μ on X such that:
-
1.
for some compact subset C of X, and
-
2.
the set has full μ-measure (that is, the complement of has measure zero).
More generally, a subset F of X is prevalent if F contains a prevalent Borel Set. Also note:
Definition 2
(Shy Subset of X). The complement of a prevalent set is called a shy set.
Therefore, we can use definitions 1 and 2 to prove or disprove:
Theorem 1. The set of unbounded functions forms a prevalent subset of the set of all functions.
Moreover, let be a metric space. If set , where we restrict A using Hausdorff outer measure to sets measurable in the Carathèodory sense; let be the -dimensional Hausdorff measure on A, where and is the Hausdorff dimension of set A. In addition, when , suppose equals the -dimensional Lebesgue measure with the expected value w.r.t the Hausdorff measure defined to be the following:
Definition 3 (Expected Value of
f).
If , where set , the expected value of function is
where we can see there are cases where is undefined or infinite (e.g. is zero, or f is unbounded). In this case, if topological vector space X is (see 2.1), we also must prove:
Theorem 2. The expected value is finite for all f in only a shy subset of
2.2. Extended Expected Values
Two solutions to getting a finite expected value for "larger" subset of is:
Theorem 3. The extended expected value in (1) and (2) is finite for all f in only a shy subset of
The suspicion is either extensions extend the Hausdorff measure to be positive and finite for the most subsets A of . However, if every subset of had positive and finite measure; when f is unbounded, the expected value w.r.t these measures/densities are still infinite or undefined for all f in a prevalent subset of . This means all unbounded f with finite expected values and bounded f form only a shy subset of the set of all f.
3. Attempt to Answer Thesis
Suppose h is the dimension function and is the h-Hausdorff measure (2.2, crit. 1).
Definition 4 (★-Sequence of Sets). If we define a sequence of sets , where h is the dimension function, then when:
-
1.
-
the set theoretic limit of a sequence of sets is (i.e. converges to
) where:
-
2.
For all ,
-
3.
-
we define sequence of functions where such that
we have is a ★-sequence of sets or starred-sequence of sets.
Note this will lead to a new extension of the expected value where when there’s at least one starred-sequence of sets where the extension is finite, the extension could be finite for all f in a prevalent subset of .
Definition 5
(Generalized Expected Value). If is a ★-sequence of sets (def. 4), the generalized expected value of f w.r.t is where:
3.1. Equivalent and Non-Equivalent ★-sequences of Sets
Next, we define set , where we want the generalized expected value to exist for all w.r.t at least one sequence (in a set of ★-sequences of sets) where
Definition 6 (Equivalent Starred-Sequences of Sets). All starred-sequences of sets are equivalent (in the set of ★-sequences of sets), if we get for all ; the generalized expected value of f w.r.t each starred-sequence of sets has the same value.
Definition 7
(Non-Equivalent Starred-Sequences of Sets). All starred-sequences of sets are non-equivalent (in a set of ★-sequences of sets), if there exists an , where the generalized expected values of f w.r.t each starred-sequence of sets has two or more different values; e.g., defined vs undefined values.
However, proving that two or more starred-sequences of sets are equivalent or non-equivalent (using def. 6 or 7) is tedious. Therefore, we ask the following:
3.1.1. Question 1
Is there are a simpler definition of equivalent and non-equivalent ★-sequences of sets.
3.2. Motivation for Question
For all f in a prevalent subset of (def. 1), we may choose a ★-sequence of sets where the generalized expected value of f w.r.t least one starred-sequence is finite. However, consider the following problem:
Theorem 4. The set of all f, where the generalized expected values of f w.r.t two or more non-equivalent ★-sequences of sets has different values, form a prevalent subset of .
This means "almost all" functions have several generalized expected values depending on the starred-sequence chosen. Therefore, we need to choose a unique ★-sequence of sets where the new extended expected value is also "natural" and unique:
3.3. Essential Definitions for a "Natural" Expected Value
Suppose and are non-equivelant starred-sequences of sets (def. 4 & 7): we have the following is essential for a "natural" expected value.
Definition 8
(Linear & Super-linear Convergence of a ★-Sequence of Sets To That Of Another ★-Sequence of Sets). If we define function , where such that:
where we have as the Big-O notation and , then converges to the graph of f:
at a
linear or super-linear rate compared to that of .
Now we may combine the previous definitions into a main question with an answer that solves the thesis
2.
3.4. Main Question
Does there exist a choice function that chooses a unique set (of equivalent ★-sequences of sets) such that:
The chosen starred-sequences of sets converge to at a rate linear or super-linear (def. 8) to the rate non-equivalent ★-sequences of sets converge to
The generalized expected value (def. 5) of f w.r.t the chosen (and equivalent) starred-sequences of sets is finite.
The choice function chooses a unique set of equivalent ★-sequences of sets which satisfy (1) and (2), for all such that Q is a prevalent subset of .
Out of all the choice functions which satisfy (1), (2) and (3), we choose the one with the simplest form, meaning for each choice function fully expanded, we take the one with the fewest variables/numbers (excluding those with quantifiers)?
Note 1
(Notes On Question)
Note, the unique set of equivalent and chosen starred-sequences of sets is defined using notation, where
is a starred-sequence in
. Therefore, after we define the choice function, the answer should be:
Also, consider the following: if the solution to the main question is extraneous, what other criteria can be included to get a unique choice function? (Note if the solution is always extraneous, we want to replace “equivelant starred-sequences of sets” with the following: ”the set of all ★-sequences of sets, where the generalized expected values of f w.r.t each starred-sequence is the same”.)
4. Solution To The Main Question Of Section 2.4
Suppose h is the dimension function, is the h-Hausdorff measure (2.2, crit. 1), and is the starred-sequence of sets (def. 4). We will use an alternative approach to definition 8 or def. 12 so we can define a choice function which solves the main question. Read from the second sentence of second-to-last paragraph of the intro of 1 for a summary.
4.1. Preliminary Definitions
Definition 9
(Uniform ε coverings of each term of a ★-sequence of sets). We define the uniform ε coverings of each term of ( for some r) as a group of pair-wise disjoint sets covering , such that when taking dimension function h of , we want of each of the sets covering to have the same value , where and the total sum of of the coverings is minimized. In shorter notation, if
and set Ω
is defined as:
then for every , the set of uniform ε coverings is defined using where ω “enumerates" all possible uniform ε coverings of for every .
Definition 10
(Sample of the uniform ε coverings of each term of a ★-sequence of sets). The sample of uniform ε coverings of each term of (or for some r) is the set of points where for every and , we take a point from each pair-wise disjoint set in the uniform ε coverings of (def. 9). In shorter notation, if
and set is defined as:
then for every , the set of all samples of the set of uniform ε coverings is defined using , such that ψ “enumerates" all possible samples of .
Definition 11
(Entropy on the sample of uniform coverings of each term of ★-sequence of sets).Since there are finitely many points in the sample of the uniform ε coverings of each term of (def. 10), we:
-
1.
Arrange the x-value of the points in the sample of uniform ε coverings from least to greatest. This is defined as:
-
2.
Take the multi-set of the absolute differences between each consecutive pairs of elements in (1). This is defined as: ∇
-
3.
Normalize (2) into a discrete probability distribution. This is defined as:
-
4.
Take the entropy of (3), (for further reading, see [5] pp. 61–95). This is defined as:
where (4) is the entropy on the sample of uniform coverings of .
Definition 12
(Starred-Sequence of sets converging Sublinearly, Linearly, or Superlinearly to A compared to that of another ★-Sequence). Suppose we define starred-sequences of sets and , where for every , we get and such that:
-
(a)
-
From def. 10 and 11, suppose we have:
then (using) we have:
-
(b)
-
Using def. 10 and 11, suppose we have:
then (using) we get
-
1.
-
If using and we have that:
we say converges to A at a rate superlinear rate to that of .
-
2.
-
If using equations and we have either:
-
(a)
-
-
(b)
-
-
(c)
-
-
(d)
-
we then say converges to A at a rate
linear
to that of .
-
3.
If using equations and we have that:
we say converges uniformly to A at a rate sublinear to that of .
5. Attempt to Answer Main Question Of Section 2.4
5.1. Choice Function
Suppose is the set of the starred-sequences of sets that have finite generalized expected values (def. 5). We shall attempt to define a ★-sequence of sets (i.e. ) which satisfy (1), (2), and (3) of the main question 3.4 and include ★-sequence which is an element but not an element of the set of equivalent starred-sequences of sets of i.e. , where .
Further note from def. 4, if we take:
and from def. 4, we take:
Then, using def. 10 with equations
and
, if:
where, using absolute value function
, we have:
such that we define:
then using equations
,
,
,
,
with the nearest integer function
, we want:
where using
, if set
and
is the power-set, then set
is the largest element of:
w.r.t to inclusion, such that the
choice function is
if the following only contains sequences of sets equivelant to
(see original post).
Otherwise, for
, suppose we say
represents the
k-th iteration of the choice function of
A, e.g.
, where the infinite iteration of
(if it exists) is
. Therefore, when taking the following:
we say
is the
choice function and the
chosen expected value, using the generalized expected value in the original post, is
, i.e.:
5.2. Increasing the Chances of A Unique Expected Value
In case
, in equation
19, does not exist; if there exists a unique and finite
where:
Then
is the
generalized expected value w.r.t choice function C, which answers criteria (1), (2) and (3) of the question in the OP; however, there is still a chance that the equation above fails to give an unique
. Hence; if
, we take the
s-th iteration of the choice function
, such [that] there exists a
, where for all
, if
is unique and finite then the following is the
generalized expected value w.r.t finitely iterated C.
In other words, if the
s-th iteration of
C is represented as
(where e.g.
), we want a unique and finite
where:
If this still does not give a unique and finite expected value, we then take the
most generalized expected value w.r.t an infinitely iterated C where if the
infinite iteration of
C is stated as
, we then want a unique
where:
5.3. Notes on Answer
If either of the attempts answer criteria 1., 2., 3. (or even 4.) of the question on the original post, we can apply either attempts when A has no dimension function, A is non-fractal, or the points on the graph of f cover an infinite expanse of space.
References
- Bedford, B.; Fisher, A. Analogues of the lebesgue density theorem for fractal sets of reals and integers. Available online: https://www.ime.usp.br/~afisher/ps/Analogues.pdf.
- Bedford, B.; Fisher, A. Ratio geometry, rigidity and the scenery process for hyperbolic cantor sets. Available online: https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/9405217.pdf.
- Wood, C. Mathematicians prove 2d version of quantum gravity really works. Quanta Magazine. Available online: https://www.quantamagazine.org/mathematicians-prove-2d-version-of-quantum-gravity-really-works-20210617/.
- Bottazi, E.; Eskew, M. Integration with filters. Available online: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.09103.pdf.
- Gray, M. Springer New York, New York [America];, 2 edition, 2011. Available online: https://ee.stanford.edu/~gray/it.pdf.
- William Ott and James A. Yorke. Prevelance. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 2005, 42, 263–290. Available online: https://www.ams.org/journals/bull/2005-42-03/S0273-0979-05-01060-8/S0273-0979-05-01060-8.pdf.
1 |
We want to find an extension of the expected value, w.r.t the Hausdorff measure, that’s unique, finite and "natural" for all f in a prevalent subset of
|
2 |
We want to find an extension of the expected value, w.r.t the Hausdorff measure, that’s unique, finite and "natural" for all f in a prevalent subset of
|
|
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2020 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).