Irrational Rotations are Ergodic (Theorem # 3429)
Theorem
Fix $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$. Let $\lambda$ denote the restriction of one-dimensional [Lebesgue measure](/page/Lebesgue%20Measure) $\mathcal{L}^1$ to the [Borel](/page/Borel%20Sigma-Algebra) measurable space $([0,1), \mathcal{B}([0,1)))$, so that $([0,1), \mathcal{B}([0,1)), \lambda)$ is a probability space. Define the rotation by $\alpha$ modulo $1$
\begin{align*}
T_\alpha: [0,1) &\to [0,1) \\
x &\mapsto x + \alpha - \lfloor x + \alpha \rfloor.
\end{align*}
Then $T_\alpha$ is a [measure-preserving transformation](/page/Measure-Preserving%20Transformation) of $([0,1), \mathcal{B}([0,1)), \lambda)$, and $T_\alpha$ is [ergodic](/page/Ergodicity) with respect to $\lambda$ if and only if $\alpha \notin \mathbb{Q}$.
Analysis
Measure Theory
Discussion
Rotation by an irrational angle on the circle is ergodic with respect to Lebesgue measure. Exemplifies how irrationality ensures ergodicity despite the deterministic nature of rotations.
Proof
[proofplan]
We work on the probability space $([0,1),\mathcal{B}([0,1)),\lambda)$, where $\lambda$ is the restriction of one-dimensional Lebesgue measure $\mathcal{L}^1$ to $[0,1)$, and $T_\alpha$ acts as addition by $\alpha$ modulo $1$. We first verify that $T_\alpha$ preserves $\lambda$ by decomposing it into two pure translations on a partition of $[0,1)$. The Fourier characters $e_n(x)=e^{2\pi i n x}$ diagonalize the Koopman operator $U_{T_\alpha}$, so an $L^2$ function invariant under $U_{T_\alpha}$ can have nonzero Fourier coefficients only at frequencies $n$ satisfying $e^{2\pi i n\alpha}=1$. If $\alpha$ is irrational, only the zero frequency survives, so all invariant $L^2$ functions are constants $\lambda$-a.e., and the spectral characterization of ergodicity then gives ergodicity. If $\alpha$ is rational with denominator $q$, the character $e_q$ is a nonconstant invariant function, so $T_\alpha$ is not ergodic.
[/proofplan]
[step:Set up the Fourier basis on $L^2([0,1),\lambda;\mathbb{C})$]
For each $n \in \mathbb{Z}$, define the Fourier character
\begin{align*}
e_n: [0,1) &\to \mathbb{C} \\
x &\mapsto e^{2\pi i n x}.
\end{align*}
By the [Fourier Orthonormal Basis Theorem for $L^2$ on the Unit Interval](/theorems/fourier-basis-l2-unit-interval), the family $(e_n)_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}$ is an orthonormal basis of the complex Hilbert space $L^2([0,1),\lambda;\mathbb{C})$. Thus every $f \in L^2([0,1),\lambda;\mathbb{C})$ has the expansion
\begin{align*}
f = \sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}} \widehat f(n)\,e_n
\end{align*}
with convergence in $L^2([0,1),\lambda;\mathbb{C})$, where the Fourier coefficient function
\begin{align*}
\widehat f: \mathbb{Z} &\to \mathbb{C} \\
n &\mapsto \int_{[0,1)} f(x)\,\overline{e_n(x)}\,d\lambda(x)
\end{align*}
is defined by the Hilbert space inner product.
[guided]
The natural coordinates for a rotation are the Fourier characters. For every integer $n \in \mathbb{Z}$, define
\begin{align*}
e_n: [0,1) &\to \mathbb{C} \\
x &\mapsto e^{2\pi i n x}.
\end{align*}
The [Fourier Orthonormal Basis Theorem for $L^2$ on the Unit Interval](/theorems/fourier-basis-l2-unit-interval) applies to the probability space $([0,1),\mathcal{B}([0,1)),\lambda)$ from the theorem hypothesis and states that $(e_n)_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}$ is an orthonormal basis of $L^2([0,1),\lambda;\mathbb{C})$. Therefore, for each $f \in L^2([0,1),\lambda;\mathbb{C})$, there is an $L^2$-convergent Fourier expansion
\begin{align*}
f = \sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}} \widehat f(n)\,e_n,
\end{align*}
where the coefficient at frequency $n$ is
\begin{align*}
\widehat f(n)=\int_{[0,1)} f(x)\,\overline{e_n(x)}\,d\lambda(x).
\end{align*}
This basis is useful because rotations multiply each Fourier character by a scalar, so the invariant functions can be detected frequency by frequency.
[/guided]
[/step]
[step:Verify that $T_\alpha$ preserves Lebesgue measure on $[0,1)$]
Set $\beta := \alpha - \lfloor \alpha \rfloor \in [0,1)$. For every $x \in [0,1)$, $x + \alpha$ and $x + \beta$ differ by the integer $\lfloor \alpha \rfloor$, so $\lfloor x+\alpha \rfloor = \lfloor x+\beta \rfloor + \lfloor \alpha \rfloor$ and hence $T_\alpha(x) = x + \beta - \lfloor x+\beta\rfloor$. We may therefore assume $\alpha = \beta \in [0,1)$ throughout this step.
If $\beta = 0$, then $T_\alpha$ is the identity, which satisfies $T_\alpha^{-1}(A) = A$ for every Borel $A \subseteq [0,1)$, and so preserves $\lambda$.
Assume now $\beta \in (0,1)$. Partition $[0,1)$ as
\begin{align*}
[0,1) = [0, 1-\beta) \sqcup [1-\beta, 1).
\end{align*}
For $x \in [0,1-\beta)$ we have $0 \leq x+\beta < 1$, so $\lfloor x+\beta\rfloor = 0$ and $T_\alpha(x) = x+\beta$. For $x \in [1-\beta, 1)$ we have $1 \leq x+\beta < 2$, so $\lfloor x+\beta\rfloor = 1$ and $T_\alpha(x) = x+\beta-1$. Define the two restrictions
\begin{align*}
T_1: [0,1-\beta) &\to [\beta,1), & x &\mapsto x+\beta, \\
T_2: [1-\beta,1) &\to [0,\beta), & x &\mapsto x+\beta-1.
\end{align*}
Each $T_i$ is a Borel-measurable bijection between half-open intervals, and each is the restriction of a translation of $\mathbb{R}$.
Let $A \in \mathcal{B}([0,1))$. Split $A = (A \cap [\beta,1)) \sqcup (A \cap [0,\beta))$. Then
\begin{align*}
T_\alpha^{-1}(A) = T_1^{-1}(A \cap [\beta,1)) \sqcup T_2^{-1}(A \cap [0,\beta)).
\end{align*}
The preimage $T_1^{-1}(B)$ of any Borel $B \subseteq [\beta,1)$ equals $B - \beta$, and $T_2^{-1}(B')$ for any Borel $B' \subseteq [0,\beta)$ equals $B' + (1-\beta)$. By translation invariance of $\mathcal{L}^1$,
\begin{align*}
\lambda(T_\alpha^{-1}(A))
&= \lambda\big((A \cap [\beta,1)) - \beta\big) + \lambda\big((A \cap [0,\beta)) + (1-\beta)\big) \\
&= \lambda(A \cap [\beta,1)) + \lambda(A \cap [0,\beta)) \\
&= \lambda(A).
\end{align*}
Therefore $T_\alpha$ is a [measure-preserving transformation](/page/Measure-Preserving%20Transformation) of $([0,1),\mathcal{B}([0,1)),\lambda)$.
[guided]
Both the Koopman operator and the spectral characterization of ergodicity used below require $T_\alpha$ to preserve $\lambda$. We verify this directly rather than invoking it as a known fact.
Replace $\alpha$ by its fractional part $\beta := \alpha - \lfloor \alpha\rfloor \in [0,1)$. The two rotations $T_\alpha$ and $T_\beta$ coincide on $[0,1)$, because shifting $\alpha$ by the integer $\lfloor \alpha\rfloor$ shifts $\lfloor x+\alpha\rfloor$ by the same integer, so $x+\alpha-\lfloor x+\alpha\rfloor = x+\beta-\lfloor x+\beta\rfloor$. Hence it suffices to treat $\alpha = \beta \in [0,1)$.
If $\beta = 0$, then $T_\alpha$ is the identity, and every set is its own preimage, so $T_\alpha$ preserves $\lambda$.
Now suppose $\beta \in (0,1)$. The point $1-\beta$ is where the rotation crosses the upper boundary and wraps around. Split $[0,1)$ at this point:
\begin{align*}
[0,1) = [0,1-\beta) \sqcup [1-\beta,1).
\end{align*}
For $x \in [0,1-\beta)$ the sum $x+\beta$ stays in $[0,1)$, so no wrap occurs and $T_\alpha(x) = x+\beta$. For $x \in [1-\beta,1)$ the sum $x+\beta$ lies in $[1,2)$, so the floor equals $1$ and $T_\alpha(x) = x+\beta-1$. The rotation therefore decomposes into two pure translations:
\begin{align*}
T_1: [0,1-\beta) &\to [\beta,1), & x &\mapsto x+\beta, \\
T_2: [1-\beta,1) &\to [0,\beta), & x &\mapsto x+\beta-1.
\end{align*}
Now fix a Borel set $A \subseteq [0,1)$. To compute $\lambda(T_\alpha^{-1}(A))$, split $A$ at the boundary $\beta$:
\begin{align*}
A = (A \cap [\beta,1)) \sqcup (A \cap [0,\beta)).
\end{align*}
Points in $T_\alpha^{-1}(A \cap [\beta,1))$ come from $T_1$, because the codomain of $T_1$ is $[\beta,1)$, and points in $T_\alpha^{-1}(A \cap [0,\beta))$ come from $T_2$. Therefore
\begin{align*}
T_\alpha^{-1}(A) = T_1^{-1}(A \cap [\beta,1)) \sqcup T_2^{-1}(A \cap [0,\beta)).
\end{align*}
Each piece is a translate of a Borel subset of $[0,1)$, and translation preserves one-dimensional Lebesgue measure. Therefore
\begin{align*}
\lambda(T_\alpha^{-1}(A)) = \lambda(A \cap [\beta,1)) + \lambda(A \cap [0,\beta)) = \lambda(A).
\end{align*}
This is exactly the statement that $T_\alpha$ is $\lambda$-preserving on $\mathcal{B}([0,1))$. We use this fact below to define the [Koopman operator](/page/Koopman%20Operator) on $L^2$ and to apply the [Spectral Characterization of Ergodicity](/theorems/spectral-characterization-ergodicity).
[/guided]
[/step]
[step:Diagonalize the Koopman operator on the Fourier characters]
Because $T_\alpha$ preserves $\lambda$ by the previous step, the [Koopman operator](/page/Koopman%20Operator)
\begin{align*}
U_{T_\alpha}: L^2([0,1),\lambda;\mathbb{C}) &\to L^2([0,1),\lambda;\mathbb{C}) \\
f &\mapsto f\circ T_\alpha
\end{align*}
is well-defined: if $f = g$ $\lambda$-a.e. on $[0,1)$, then $\{x : f(T_\alpha x) \neq g(T_\alpha x)\} \subseteq T_\alpha^{-1}(\{f \neq g\})$ has $\lambda$-measure zero by $\lambda$-preservation, so $f\circ T_\alpha = g\circ T_\alpha$ $\lambda$-a.e. Moreover, the change-of-variables identity
\begin{align*}
\int_{[0,1)} |f\circ T_\alpha|^2\,d\lambda = \int_{[0,1)} |f|^2\,d\lambda,
\end{align*}
which is the pushforward identity for the measure-preserving map $T_\alpha$, shows that $f\circ T_\alpha \in L^2$ with the same $L^2$ norm. In particular $U_{T_\alpha}$ is an isometry.
For every $n \in \mathbb{Z}$ and every $x \in [0,1)$,
\begin{align*}
(U_{T_\alpha}e_n)(x)
&= e_n(T_\alpha x) \\
&= e^{2\pi i n(x+\alpha-\lfloor x+\alpha\rfloor)} \\
&= e^{2\pi i n\alpha}\,e^{2\pi i n x}\,e^{-2\pi i n\lfloor x+\alpha\rfloor} \\
&= e^{2\pi i n\alpha}\,e_n(x),
\end{align*}
because $n\lfloor x+\alpha\rfloor \in \mathbb{Z}$ and hence $e^{-2\pi i n\lfloor x+\alpha\rfloor}=1$. Thus $e_n$ is an eigenfunction of $U_{T_\alpha}$ with eigenvalue $e^{2\pi i n\alpha}$.
[guided]
The [Koopman operator](/page/Koopman%20Operator) is the linear translation of a measure-preserving map into an operator on $L^2$. Define
\begin{align*}
U_{T_\alpha}: L^2([0,1),\lambda;\mathbb{C}) &\to L^2([0,1),\lambda;\mathbb{C}) \\
f &\mapsto f\circ T_\alpha.
\end{align*}
Two checks make this well-defined on $L^2$ equivalence classes, and both rely on the measure preservation established in the previous step. First, if $f = g$ $\lambda$-a.e., then $\{x : f(T_\alpha x) \neq g(T_\alpha x)\}$ is contained in $T_\alpha^{-1}(\{f \neq g\})$, whose $\lambda$-measure equals $\lambda(\{f \neq g\}) = 0$ by $\lambda$-preservation. So the equivalence class of $f \circ T_\alpha$ depends only on the equivalence class of $f$. Second, the change-of-variables identity for the $\lambda$-preserving map $T_\alpha$ gives
\begin{align*}
\int_{[0,1)} |f\circ T_\alpha|^2\,d\lambda = \int_{[0,1)} |f|^2\,d\lambda,
\end{align*}
which shows $f \circ T_\alpha \in L^2$ and that $U_{T_\alpha}$ is an isometry on $L^2([0,1),\lambda;\mathbb{C})$.
Now compute its action on one Fourier character. For $n \in \mathbb{Z}$ and $x \in [0,1)$,
\begin{align*}
(U_{T_\alpha}e_n)(x)
&= e_n(T_\alpha x) \\
&= e^{2\pi i n(x+\alpha-\lfloor x+\alpha\rfloor)} \\
&= e^{2\pi i n\alpha}\,e^{2\pi i n x}\,e^{-2\pi i n\lfloor x+\alpha\rfloor}.
\end{align*}
The last factor equals $1$ because both $n$ and $\lfloor x+\alpha\rfloor$ are integers. Hence
\begin{align*}
(U_{T_\alpha}e_n)(x)=e^{2\pi i n\alpha}\,e_n(x).
\end{align*}
So every Fourier character is an eigenfunction of $U_{T_\alpha}$, with eigenvalue $e^{2\pi i n\alpha}$ at frequency $n$.
[/guided]
[/step]
[step:Translate invariance into Fourier coefficient equations]
Let $f \in L^2([0,1),\lambda;\mathbb{C})$ satisfy $U_{T_\alpha}f=f$. Write its Fourier expansion as
\begin{align*}
f=\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\widehat f(n)\,e_n
\end{align*}
in $L^2([0,1),\lambda;\mathbb{C})$. The Koopman operator $U_{T_\alpha}$ is bounded (it is an isometry by the previous step) and $U_{T_\alpha}e_n=e^{2\pi i n\alpha}e_n$, so applying $U_{T_\alpha}$ term by term to the $L^2$-convergent series gives
\begin{align*}
U_{T_\alpha}f
=
\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}} e^{2\pi i n\alpha}\,\widehat f(n)\,e_n
\end{align*}
in $L^2([0,1),\lambda;\mathbb{C})$. Comparing Fourier coefficients in the orthonormal basis $(e_n)_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}$ with the expansion of $f$ gives, for every $n \in \mathbb{Z}$,
\begin{align*}
e^{2\pi i n\alpha}\,\widehat f(n)=\widehat f(n),
\end{align*}
equivalently
\begin{align*}
(e^{2\pi i n\alpha}-1)\,\widehat f(n)=0.
\end{align*}
[guided]
Suppose $f \in L^2$ is invariant under the rotation in the $L^2$ sense: $U_{T_\alpha}f=f$. Expand $f$ in the Fourier basis:
\begin{align*}
f=\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\widehat f(n)\,e_n
\end{align*}
with convergence in $L^2([0,1),\lambda;\mathbb{C})$.
Because $T_\alpha$ preserves $\lambda$ (verified two steps above), the Koopman operator $U_{T_\alpha}$ is an isometry on $L^2([0,1),\lambda;\mathbb{C})$, hence bounded and continuous. Bounded linear operators commute with $L^2$-convergent series, so
\begin{align*}
U_{T_\alpha}f
=
\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\widehat f(n)\,U_{T_\alpha}e_n.
\end{align*}
Substituting the eigenvalue computation from the previous step,
\begin{align*}
U_{T_\alpha}f
=
\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}e^{2\pi i n\alpha}\,\widehat f(n)\,e_n.
\end{align*}
Since $U_{T_\alpha}f=f$, we have two Fourier expansions of the same $L^2$ function:
\begin{align*}
\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}e^{2\pi i n\alpha}\,\widehat f(n)\,e_n
=
\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\widehat f(n)\,e_n.
\end{align*}
Uniqueness of Fourier coefficients in an orthonormal basis then gives, for each integer $n$,
\begin{align*}
e^{2\pi i n\alpha}\,\widehat f(n)=\widehat f(n),
\end{align*}
or equivalently
\begin{align*}
(e^{2\pi i n\alpha}-1)\,\widehat f(n)=0.
\end{align*}
This equation is the entire spectral content of the proof: an invariant function can only have Fourier mass at frequencies whose eigenvalue is $1$.
[/guided]
[/step]
[step:Use irrationality to force invariant functions to be constant]
Assume $\alpha \notin \mathbb{Q}$. If $n \in \mathbb{Z}\setminus\{0\}$ and $e^{2\pi i n\alpha}=1$, then $n\alpha \in \mathbb{Z}$, so
\begin{align*}
\alpha=\frac{n\alpha}{n}\in \mathbb{Q},
\end{align*}
a contradiction. Hence $e^{2\pi i n\alpha}\neq 1$ for every $n\in\mathbb{Z}\setminus\{0\}$. The coefficient equation from the previous step then forces
\begin{align*}
\widehat f(n)=0
\end{align*}
for every $n\in\mathbb{Z}\setminus\{0\}$, so
\begin{align*}
f=\widehat f(0)\,e_0
\end{align*}
in $L^2([0,1),\lambda;\mathbb{C})$. Since $e_0(x)=1$ for every $x\in[0,1)$, every $U_{T_\alpha}$-invariant function in $L^2([0,1),\lambda;\mathbb{C})$ is constant $\lambda$-almost everywhere.
The [Spectral Characterization of Ergodicity](/theorems/spectral-characterization-ergodicity) states that a measure-preserving transformation of a probability space is [ergodic](/page/Ergodicity) if and only if every $U_T$-invariant function in $L^2$ is constant almost everywhere. Its hypotheses are satisfied: $([0,1),\mathcal{B}([0,1)),\lambda)$ is a probability space because $\lambda([0,1)) = 1$, and $T_\alpha$ preserves $\lambda$ by the step "Verify that $T_\alpha$ preserves Lebesgue measure on $[0,1)$". Therefore $T_\alpha$ is ergodic when $\alpha$ is irrational.
[guided]
Now assume $\alpha$ is irrational. The coefficient equation from the previous step forces every Fourier coefficient $\widehat f(n)$ to vanish unless the eigenvalue $e^{2\pi i n\alpha}$ equals $1$. We pin down exactly when that can happen.
If $n \neq 0$ and $e^{2\pi i n\alpha}=1$, then the exponent $n\alpha$ must be an integer. Therefore
\begin{align*}
\alpha=\frac{n\alpha}{n}.
\end{align*}
The numerator is an integer and the denominator is a nonzero integer, so this equation would force $\alpha\in\mathbb{Q}$, contradicting the hypothesis $\alpha\notin\mathbb{Q}$. Hence, for every nonzero integer $n$,
\begin{align*}
e^{2\pi i n\alpha}\neq 1.
\end{align*}
Returning to
\begin{align*}
(e^{2\pi i n\alpha}-1)\,\widehat f(n)=0,
\end{align*}
we conclude
\begin{align*}
\widehat f(n)=0
\end{align*}
for every $n\neq 0$. Only the zero Fourier mode remains:
\begin{align*}
f=\widehat f(0)\,e_0
\end{align*}
in $L^2([0,1),\lambda;\mathbb{C})$. Since $e_0$ is the constant function $1$, this says that $f$ is constant $\lambda$-almost everywhere.
We now invoke the [Spectral Characterization of Ergodicity](/theorems/spectral-characterization-ergodicity). Its hypotheses are (i) a probability space and (ii) a measure-preserving transformation. We verify both: $([0,1),\mathcal{B}([0,1)),\lambda)$ is a probability space because $\lambda([0,1)) = 1$, and the step "Verify that $T_\alpha$ preserves Lebesgue measure on $[0,1)$" established that $T_\alpha$ preserves $\lambda$. The theorem then states that ergodicity is equivalent to: every $U_{T_\alpha}$-invariant function in $L^2$ is constant almost everywhere. We have proved precisely that condition. Therefore $T_\alpha$ is [ergodic](/page/Ergodicity) for irrational $\alpha$.
[/guided]
[/step]
[step:Use rationality to construct a nonconstant invariant eigenfunction]
Assume $\alpha\in\mathbb{Q}$. Choose integers $p\in\mathbb{Z}$ and $q\in\mathbb{N}$ with $\alpha=p/q$. Then $q\alpha=p\in\mathbb{Z}$, so
\begin{align*}
e^{2\pi i q\alpha}=e^{2\pi i p}=1.
\end{align*}
The eigenvalue computation from the Koopman step gives
\begin{align*}
U_{T_\alpha}e_q=e^{2\pi i q\alpha}\,e_q=e_q,
\end{align*}
so $e_q \in L^2([0,1),\lambda;\mathbb{C})$ is $U_{T_\alpha}$-invariant. The function $e_q$ is not constant $\lambda$-almost everywhere: it is continuous on $[0,1)$ with
\begin{align*}
e_q(0)=1
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
e_q\!\left(\tfrac{1}{2q}\right)=e^{\pi i}=-1.
\end{align*}
The preimages $U_+ := e_q^{-1}(\{z \in \mathbb{C} : |z-1| < 1/2\})$ and $U_- := e_q^{-1}(\{z \in \mathbb{C} : |z+1| < 1/2\})$ are open subsets of $[0,1)$ containing $0$ and $1/(2q)$ respectively, hence each has positive $\lambda$-measure. The sets $U_+$ and $U_-$ are disjoint because $|z-1|<1/2$ and $|z+1|<1/2$ cannot hold simultaneously. So no constant $c \in \mathbb{C}$ can agree with $e_q$ on a set of full $\lambda$-measure: either $|c-1| \geq 1/2$, in which case $e_q$ disagrees with $c$ on $U_+$, or $|c+1| \geq 1/2$, in which case $e_q$ disagrees with $c$ on $U_-$. Hence $e_q$ is not $\lambda$-a.e. constant.
By the [Spectral Characterization of Ergodicity](/theorems/spectral-characterization-ergodicity), applied to the probability space $([0,1),\mathcal{B}([0,1)),\lambda)$ and the $\lambda$-preserving transformation $T_\alpha$ (preservation verified two steps above), the existence of a nonconstant $U_{T_\alpha}$-invariant $L^2$ function shows that $T_\alpha$ is not ergodic. Combined with the irrational case, this proves that $T_\alpha$ is ergodic with respect to $\lambda$ if and only if $\alpha\notin\mathbb{Q}$.
[guided]
Now assume $\alpha$ is rational. Choose integers $p\in\mathbb{Z}$ and $q\in\mathbb{N}$ such that
\begin{align*}
\alpha=\frac{p}{q}.
\end{align*}
Then $q\alpha=p$ is an integer, so
\begin{align*}
e^{2\pi i q\alpha}=e^{2\pi i p}=1.
\end{align*}
The Fourier character at frequency $q$ is
\begin{align*}
e_q: [0,1) &\to \mathbb{C} \\
x &\mapsto e^{2\pi i qx}.
\end{align*}
Using the eigenvalue computation from the Koopman step,
\begin{align*}
U_{T_\alpha}e_q=e^{2\pi i q\alpha}\,e_q=e_q,
\end{align*}
so $e_q$ is an invariant $L^2$ function.
We must check that this invariant function is not constant almost everywhere. Evaluate it at two points:
\begin{align*}
e_q(0)=1
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
e_q\!\left(\tfrac{1}{2q}\right)=e^{2\pi i q/(2q)}=e^{\pi i}=-1.
\end{align*}
Because $e_q$ is continuous, the preimages $U_+ := e_q^{-1}(\{z : |z-1| < 1/2\})$ and $U_- := e_q^{-1}(\{z : |z+1| < 1/2\})$ are open subsets of $[0,1)$ containing $0$ and $1/(2q)$ respectively. Nonempty open subsets of $[0,1)$ have positive $\lambda$-measure, so $\lambda(U_+) > 0$ and $\lambda(U_-) > 0$. The sets $U_+$ and $U_-$ are disjoint because the discs $\{|z-1|<1/2\}$ and $\{|z+1|<1/2\}$ are disjoint in $\mathbb{C}$. So no constant $c \in \mathbb{C}$ can agree with $e_q$ on a set of full $\lambda$-measure: either $|c-1| \geq 1/2$ (and $e_q$ disagrees with $c$ on $U_+$) or $|c+1| \geq 1/2$ (and $e_q$ disagrees with $c$ on $U_-$). Either way, $e_q$ differs from $c$ on a set of positive $\lambda$-measure, so $e_q$ is not constant $\lambda$-almost everywhere.
The [Spectral Characterization of Ergodicity](/theorems/spectral-characterization-ergodicity), applied to $([0,1),\mathcal{B}([0,1)),\lambda)$ and the $\lambda$-preserving transformation $T_\alpha$, says that ergodicity is equivalent to all invariant $L^2$ functions being constant $\lambda$-a.e. We have produced a nonconstant invariant function, so $T_\alpha$ is not ergodic when $\alpha$ is rational. Together with the irrational case, this proves the stated equivalence.
[/guided]
[/step]
Explore Further
Homotopy Invariance of de Rham Cohomology
analysis
Stein Exhaustion
analysis
Equivalence of Orientations and Maximal Oriented Atlases
analysis
Kodaira–Serre $L^2$ Estimate for High Tensor Powers
analysis
Tail Invariance of Series Convergence
analysis
Existence and Uniqueness of the Chern Connection
analysis
Kohn Subelliptic Estimate for Strongly Pseudoconvex Domains
analysis
Legendre Derivative Identities
analysis