Role in dependence graphs

AI-generated audit

Audit summary

Audited against the exact journal version of record

Not a correctness certificate. These reports do not replace expert scrutiny or formal verification.

Exact reviewed source

Cambridge version of record · Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems 1 (1981), 95–102

Ricardo Mañé. A proof of Pesin's formula. Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems 1 (1981), 95–102.

Open audited source ↗
Generated August 28, 2026
01Statements1 reported findingNo statement issues found

Lemma 2 gives exactly the finite-entropy, pointwise-diameter partition used in Ledrappier–Young's adapted-partition construction.

Lemma 2No issue found

An integrable logarithmic radius admits a countable finite-entropy refinement

Version of record pp. 96–97 · Lemma 2 and proof

If μ\mu is a probability measure and ρ:M→(0,1)\rho:M\to(0,1) has integrable log⁡ρ\log\rho, Lemma 2 constructs a countable partition of finite entropy whose atom at almost every xx has diameter smaller than ρ(x)\rho(x). Ledrappier–Young invokes this lemma in Lemma 2.4.2 to make its regularity-adapted partition finite-entropy.

02Proofs2 reported findingsNo proof issues found

The selected lemma is proved directly by dyadic-level decomposition and elementary entropy estimates.

Lemma 2 proofNo issue found in the reviewed proof

The covering and summability estimates close internally

Version of record pp. 96–97 · Lemmas 1–2

The proof decomposes points by exponential levels of ρ\rho, refines each level by a bounded-cardinality small-diameter partition, and bounds the resulting entropy using the integrability sum and the elementary Lemma 1. No later use of Shannon–McMillan–Breiman, stable manifolds, or the Pesin-formula argument is needed for this selected claim, and no further ordinary-paper parent is opened.

Correction checkCorrect and unaffected by known corrections

The published 1983 erratum does not affect Lemma 2

Erratum DOI 10.1017/S0143385700001863 checked against selected locator

The later correction concerns a different part of the article and does not modify the statement or proof of Lemma 2 on pages 96–97.

03Novelty0 reported findingsNo novelty concerns found

No non-novelty findings.

Detailed audit reportFull reasoning, exact locations, and sources checked.
Open report PDF ↗