Published paper
Role in dependence graphs
Proof-critical source
Winning property of counterexamples to Uniform Littlewood's Conjecture
This paper is included only for the following marked statement:
- Lemma 2 · VOR pp. 96–97; 1983 erratum checkedConstructs a finite-entropy partition with atom diameters adapted to the Lyapunov regularity scale.
AI-generated audit
Audit summary
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 ↗01Statements1 reported findingNo statement issues found
Lemma 2 gives exactly the finite-entropy, pointwise-diameter partition used in Ledrappier–Young's adapted-partition construction.
An integrable logarithmic radius admits a countable finite-entropy refinement
Version of record pp. 96–97 · Lemma 2 and proof
If is a probability measure and has integrable , Lemma 2 constructs a countable partition of finite entropy whose atom at almost every has diameter smaller than . 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.
The covering and summability estimates close internally
Version of record pp. 96–97 · Lemmas 1–2
The proof decomposes points by exponential levels of , 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.
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.