arXiv:1801.08698v2 [math.PR] 19 Feb 2018

Average values of functionals and concentration
without measure
Cheng-shi Liu
Department of Mathematics
Northeast Petroleum University
Daqing 163318, China
Email:chengshiliu-68@126.com
February 20, 2018
Although there doesn’t exist the Lebesgue measure in the ball M of C[0, 1]
with p−norm, the average values (expectation) EY and variance DY of some
functionals Y on M can still be defined through the procedure of limitation from
finite dimension to infinite dimension. In particular, the probability densities of
coordinates of points in the ball M exist and are derived out even though the
density of points in M doesn’t exist. These densities include high order normal
distribution, high order exponent distribution. This also can be considered as
the geometrical origins of these probability distributions. Further, the exact
values (which is represented in terms of finite dimensional integral) of a kind of
infinite-dimensional functional integrals are obtained, and specially the variance
DY is proven to be zero, and then the nonlinear exchange formulas of average
values of functionals are also given. Instead of measure, the variance is used to
measure the deviation of functional from its average value. DY = 0 means that
a functional takes its average on a ball with probability 1 by using the language
of probability theory, and this is just the concentration without measure. In
addition, we prove that the average value depends on the discretization.
Keywords: concentration of measure; probability distribution; infinitedimensional integral; average value of functional; variance

1

Introduction

In complexity science and statistical physics in special, we often need to deal
with high dimensional data and a large number of free degrees. Sometimes these
data and free degrees can be considered as infinite-dimensional variables, and
some physical quantities can be represented by infinite dimensional integrals.
Therefore, we need study the infinite-dimensional integrals. The computations
of integrals on functions with infinite number of variables is still an important
and interesting topic in quantum and statistical physics or even in finance(see,
1

for example, [1-3]). In 1920’s, in the works of Gâteaux and Lévy [4], the infinitedimensional integrals had been considered and computed from the view of the
point of probability theory. Further, Wiener integral became an important
tool in stochastic processes theory[5-16]. Today, there exist a large number of
papers devoting to the computations and applications of functional integrals.
In particular, recently, some new algorithms such as multilevel and changing
dimension algorithms or dimension-wise quadrature methods, are proposed to
approximate such integrals efficiently[17-29]. From the popular viewpoint, the
foundation of functional integration such as Wiener’s integral should be obtained
on the theory of measure. However, Feynman’s path integral is still lacking of a
satisfied measure theory. On the other hand, there are some interesting problems
in infinite dimensional space so that we have to consider infinite dimensional
integrations under the condition of nonexistence of Lebesque measure, while
other measure such as Gauss measure is not suitable to our aims. For example,
if we randomly take a continuous function x(t) ∈ M where M = {x|a ≤ x(t) ≤
R1
b, x(t) ∈ C[0, 1]}, what is the average value of area Y = 0 x(t)dt? Here the
randomness means that we take the points in M by equal possibility, and hence
we need a Lebesque measure on M . But it is well-known that there doesn’t
exist the Lebesque measure on M at all, While, conceptually, this problem is
rather natural. Without measure theory, we can also use a limit procedure to
give a rigorous definition of the average value (see below definition 1), and the
average value of Y is easily solved. In the paper, we consider a more complex
case in which M is taken as the ball in C[0, 1] with p−norm, that is, M =
R1
{x| 0 |xp (t)|dt ≤ R, x(t) ∈ C[0, 1]}.
Although there doesn’t exist the Lebesque measure and then the density
of points in M doesn’t exist, we show that the probability densities of coordinates of points in the ball M do exist and are derived out with forms of
high order normal and exponent distributions. Further, we define and compute
the exact average values (which are represented by the finite dimensional integrals)(expectation) and variances of some functionals. If we formally consider
these functionals as the infinite-dimensional random variables, the considered
infinite-dimensional integral is just the expectation of the infinite-dimensional
random variable. We show that the variances are zeros to prove that these functionals satisfy the property of the complete concentration of ”measure”. This
is because if the measure exists, DY = 0 means that a functional takes its average value on an infinite-dimensional ball with probability 1. In our cases of
no Lebesque measure, we use DY = 0 to replace the complete concentration
of measure under the probability meaning. Corresponding, we give the nonlinear exchange formulas for averages of functionals. The usual concentration
of measure is described by some inequalities such as Lévy lemma[30-32], which
is different with the complete concentration of ”measure” which is shown by
variance being zero.
Abstractly, a functional f (x) is a function of x where x is an element in an
infinite-dimensional space such as C[0, 1]. In general, there are two basic ways
to construct functionals. One method is to use the values of x(t) on some points

2

t1 , · · · , tm such that

f (x) = g(x(t1 ), · · · , x(tm )),

where g is a usual function in Rn . Essentially, such functionals all are finite
dimensional functions. Another method is to use integral of x(t) on some sets
such that
Z
Z
g(x(t1 ), · · · , x(tm ))dt1 · · · dtm ,
···
Y = f (x) =
Im

I1

where I1 , · · · , Im are subsets of the interval [0, 1]. Such functionals all are really
infinite-dimensional
functions. Therefore, there are two kinds of basic elements
R
x(ti ) and Ii g(x(t))dt such that many interesting functionals can be constructed
in terms of them by addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, composition
and limitation.
For the first kind of functionals, the functional integral is just the usual finitedimensional integral. Thus we only consider the second kind of functionals f (x).
If the domain of the functional f is M , the integral of f on M can be formally
written as
Z
f (x)D(x),
(1)
M

where D(x) represents formally the differential element of the volume
R of M .
D(x)
But, in general, under the meaning of Lebesque’s measure, the volume
M
R
of M is zero or infinity, and the infinite-dimensional integral M f (x)D(x) is
also respectively zero or infinity. However, the average value of functional f on
M,
R
f (x)D(x)
(2)
Ef = MR
D(x)
M

perhaps exists and is finite or infinite in general. Firstly, we need a reasonable definition of the average value of functional. Since there doesn’t exist the
Lebesque measure in infinite-dimensional space in general, our approach is to
use a limit procedure to define the average value of functionals. For example,
similar to Gâteaux and Lévy (see, [4]), we give the following definition.
Definition 1: For M = {x|a ≤ x(t) ≤ b, x(t) ∈ C[0, 1]} and Y = f (x) =
R1
g(x(t))dt
where g(x) is a continuous function on [a, b], we can define the
0
average value of f as
Ef = lim

n→∞

Rb
a

···

Rb

1 Pn
k=1 g(xk )dx1 · · · dxn
a n
Rb
Rb
· · · a dx1 · · · dxn
a

(3)

where xk = x( nk ). If the limitation exists and is finite or infinite, we call it the
average value of functional f on M .
Remark 1. Since g(x) is continuous on [a, b], for any xk = x(tk ) where
tk ∈ [ nk , k+1
n ), the above limitation is independent to the choice of tk . Of
important is that Y and M must take the same tk and xk . From theorem 7
in section 4, we can see that the average value depends on the discretization!
3

In addition, for m variables function g(x1 , · · · , xm ), the average value of the
R1
R1
functional Y = f (x) = 0 · · · 0 g(x(t1 ), · · · , x(tm ))dt1 · · · dtm can be defined
similarly. More general, if a = a(t), b = b(t) are two fixed continuous functions,
we can give corresponding definition of the average value of f for M = {x|a(t) ≤
x(t) ≤ b(t), x(t) ∈ C[0, 1]},
R b1
R bn 1 Pn
k=1 g(xk )dx1 · · · dxn
a1 · · · an n
Ef = lim
,
R b1
R bn
n→∞
a1 · · · an dx1 · · · dxn

where ai = a(ti ), bi = b(ti ), xk = x(tk ).
Here, we must point out that the equiprobability (or equal possibility) hypothesis is implicated in the definition, that is, the points in M are taken by
equiprobability. This is a natural assumption. For example, for the aforementioned problem, if we take randomly a continuous function x(t) ∈ M = {x|0 ≤
R1
x(t) ≤ 1}, t ∈ [0, 1], what is the average value of its area Y = 0 x(t)dt? In
the problem, we have implicitly supposed that we take the function x(t) in M
by equiprobability. However, this is just an intuitive and formal explanation in
infinite-dimensional cases because in general there exists no Lebesque measure
on M as the probability measure to give the meaning of equiprobability ([16]).
But in finite dimensional cases this assumption has strict mathematical foundation since there exists the Lebesque’s measure as the corresponding probability
measure such that we can talk about reasonably equiprobability. In the whole
paper, when we say equiprobability, it is just the meaning here. Below we give
such definition.
Definition 2. Let M be a bounded set in the space of all continuous
functions on [0, 1] with some norm. If for any finite-dimensional subset M0
of M , the points in M0 are taken by equiprobability, we say that the points in
M are taken by equiprobability (or equal possibility).
In the paper, since we consider the average values of functionals on infinitedimensional ball, we need a definition of the average value on the ball. Below
we give such definitions.
Definition 3: For M = {x|||x||p ≤ R, x(t) ∈ C[0, 1]} where C[0, 1] is
R1
R1
1
equipped p−norm ||x||p = ( 0 |x(t)|p dt) p for p ≥ 1 and Y = f (x) = 0 g(x(t))dt
where g(x) is a continuous function, and p = pq00 where p0 is even and (p0 , q0 ) = 1,
we can define the average value of Y on M as
R
Pn
1
g(xk )dvn
Mn n
R k=1
EY = lim
(4)
n→∞
Mn dvn
where xk = x( nk ), Mn = {(x1 , · · · , xn )|xp1 + · · · + xpn ≤ nRp } and dvn =
dx1 · · · dxn is the volume element of Mn . If the limitation exists and is finite or infinite, we call it the average value of functional f on M . We often use
EY to denote the average value of functional Y = f (x).
Definition 4: For M + = {x|||x||p ≤ R, x(t) ≥ 0, x(t) ∈ C[0, 1]} where
R1
C[0, 1] is equipped p−norm and Y = f (x) = 0 g(x(t))dt where g(x) is a continuous function, and p ≥ 1 or specially p = pq00 where p0 is odd and (p0 , q0 ) = 1,
4

we can define the average value of Y on M + as
R
Pn
1
g(xk )dvn
+
n
Mn
R k=1
EY = lim
n→∞
+ dvn
Mn

(5)

where xk = x( nk ), Mn+ = {(x1 , · · · , xn )|xp1 + · · · + xpn ≤ nRp , xk ≥ 0, k =
1, · · · , n} and dvn = dx1 · · · dxn is the volume element of Mn+ . If the limitation
exists and is finite or infinite, we call it the average value of functional f on
M +.
For m variables function g(x1 , · · · , xm ), the average value of the functional
R1
R1
f (x) = 0 · · · 0 g(x(t1 ), · · · , x(tm ))dt1 · · · dtm on infinite-dimensional balls can
be defined similarly.
In addition, since there doesn’t exist the Lebesque measure on M , the probability theory based on the lebesque measure also doesn’t exist. Therefore, under
the rigorous mathematical meaning, we cannot say what is the probability of
the functional Y deviating its average value EY . However, in order to measure
the deviation of Y from EY , we can still define the variance DY to do this
because the variance DY is also average value of the functional (Y − EY )2 , that
is, DY = E(Y − EY )2 = E(Y 2 ) − E 2 Y .
For the purpose of discussion on nonlinear exchange formula, we need the
definition of average value of h(Y ) where h(Y ) is a continuous or analytic function of Y .
R1
Definition 5. Denote M as the previous M or M + , Y = f (x) = 0 g(x(t))dt
where g(x) is a continuous function, then for a continuous function h(Y ), we
can define the average value of h(Y ) on M as
R
Pn
h( n1 k=1 g(xk ))dvn
Mn
R
(6)
Eh(Y ) = lim
n→∞
dvn
Mn
where xk = x( nk ), and Mn is also previous Mn or Mn+ . If the limitation exists
and is finite or infinite, we call it the average value of functional h(Y ) on M .
This paper is outlined as follows. In section 2, we drive out some probability
densities of coordinates of points in infinite-dimensional balls by two ways of
analysis and geometry. In section 3, we give the exact values of some infinitedimensional integrals. Furthermore, we discuss the concentration without measure, and obtain the nonlinear exchange formulas for infinite-dimensional integrals. In section 4, we give some further results and definitions. The last section
is short conclusion.

2

The probability densities of the coordinates of
points in infinite-dimensional balls

We first derive several interesting probability densities from a geometrical way
based on the consideration in infinite dimensional space. These results have also
independent values.
5

Consider the continuous functions space C[0, 1] and define some norms such
R1
1
as ||x||0 = maxt∈[0,1] |x(t)|, and ||x||p = ( 0 |x(t)|p dt) p for p ≥ 1. For p = pq00
where p0 is even and (p0 , q0 ) = 1, we consider the whole ball M = {x|||x||p ≤ R},
while for p ≥ 1 being a general real number or specially p = pq00 where p0
is odd and (p0 , q0 ) = 1, we only consider the ”first quadrant” of M , that is
M + = {x|x ≥ 0, ||x||p ≤ R}.
The following lemma is important.
Lemma 1([33]). The following generalized Dirichlet formula holds
Z
Z
p
p
1 Γ( 21 ) · · · Γ( 2n )
,
(7)
x1p1 −1 x2p2 −1 · · · xpnn −1 dx1 · · · dxn = n
···
n
2 Γ(1 + p1 +···+p
)
B+
2
where pi > 0 for i = 1, · · · , n and B + = {(x1 , · · · , xn )|x21 + · · · + x2n ≤ 1, xk ≥
0, k = 1, · · · , n}.
Next we give the following results.
Theorem 1(Version of analysis). For the set Mn = {(x1 , · · · , xn )|xp1 + · · · +
p
xn ≤ nRp } where p = pq00 and p0 is even and (p0 , q0 ) = 1, when we suppose that
the points in Mn are taken by equiprobability, the density of every coordinate
xk of x as a random variable is given by
ρn (xk ) =

pΓ(1 + np )
1

2Rn p Γ( p1 )Γ(1 +

n−1
p )

(1 −

xpk n−1
) p .
nRp

(8)

In particular, the limitation of ρn (x) as n tending to infinity is given by
ρ(x) =

1

xp

1
2RΓ( p1 )p p −1

e− pRp , x ∈ (−∞, +∞).

(9)

In general, for any k distinct coordinates xi1 , · · · , xik , where (i1 , · · · , ik ) ⊂
{1, · · · , n}, their union density is given by
pk Γ(1 + np )

xpi1 + · · · + xpik n−k
ρn (xi1 , · · · , xik ) =
(1 −
) p ,
k
nRp
)
2k Rk n p Γk ( p1 )Γ(1 + n−k
p

(10)

and the limitation of ρn (xi1 , · · · , xik ) as n approaching to infinity is
ρ(xi1 , · · · , xik ) =

x

1
k

2k Rk Γk ( 1p )p p −k

e−

p
p
+···+x
ik
i1
pRp

, xij ∈ (−∞, +∞), j = 1, · · · , k,
(11)

that is,
ρ(xi1 , · · · , xik ) = ρ(xi1 ) · · · ρ(xik ),

(12)

which means that when n tends to infinity, any finite coordinates of point in
Mn as random variables are independent.

6

Proof. By symmetry, we only consider the density of (x1 , · · · , xk ). Denote
Mn′ = {(xk+1 , · · · , xn )|xpk+1 + · · · + xpn ≤ nRp − xp1 − · · · − xpk }. According to
the assumption of equiprobability, we have
R
M ′ dxk+1 · · · dxn
ρn (x1 , · · · , xk ) = R n
.
(13)
Mn dx1 · · · dxn
1

2

Further, by taking the transformation xk = Rn p ykp , we have from the lemma
1,
ρn (x1 , · · · , xk ) =

pk Γ(1 + np )
k

2k Rk Γk ( p1 )n p Γ(1 +

n−k
p )

(1 −

xp1 + · · · + xpk n−k
) p .
nRp

(14)

Taking the limitation of n approaching to √
+∞, and using the Stirling’s asymp1
totic formula of Gamma function, Γ(s) ∼ 2πss− 2 e−s , we get,
√ q
n
n
pk 2π np ( np ) p e− p
xp1 + · · · + xpk n−k
q
) p
ρ(x1 , · · · , xk ) = lim
(1−
n−k
k
p
n→+∞ k k k 1 √
− n−k
n−k n−k
nR
p
p
p
n e
2 R Γ ( p ) 2π
p ( p )
pk
= lim

n→+∞

q

k
n
n
p
n−k ( n−k )
n
p

2k Rk Γk ( p1 )( n−k
n ) e
=

k
p

(1 −

1
k

2k Rk p p −k Γk ( p1 )

e−

xp1 + · · · + xpk n−k
) p
nRp

p
p
x1 +···+x
k
pRp

.

(15)

The proof is completed.
R1
Now we consider the infinite-dimensional ball M = {x| 0 xp (t)dt ≤ Rp }
in C[0, 1] with p−norm. Although a uniform distribution mathematically does
not exist on the ball M because the dimension on M is infinite, the density
of coordinates of points in M does exist! Fortunately, we needn’t this uniform
distribution to derive our the result. What we only need is a limit procedure
from finite dimension to infinite dimension so that we can avoid the trouble of
nonexistence of uniform distribution. The following is the version of geometry
of theorem 1 under the meaning of definition 2. In other words, this is just a
probability ”explanation” in formal.
R1
Theorem 1(Version of geometry). For the ball M = {x| 0 xp (t)dt ≤ Rp }
in C[0, 1] where p = pq00 and p0 is even and (p0 , q0 ) = 1, when we suppose that
the points in the ball M are taken by equiprobability under the meaning of
definition 2, the density of x(t) as a random variable for fixed t is given by
ρ(x) =

1
2RΓ( p1 )p

xp

1
p −1

e− pRp , x ∈ (−∞, +∞).

7

(16)

In general, for any k distinct coordinates xt1 , · · · , xtk , where 0 < t1 < · · · <
tk < 1, their union density is given by
ρ(x1 , · · · , xk ) =

1
2k Rk Γk ( p1 )p

k
p −k

e−

p
p
x1 +···+x
k
pRp

, xj ∈ (−∞, +∞), j = 1, · · · , k,
(17)

that is,
ρ(x1 , · · · , xk ) = ρ(x1 ) · · · ρ(xk ),

(18)

which means that any finite coordinates of point X in M as random variables
are independent.
Proof. Firstly, by discretization(it is reasonable by the continuity of x(t)),
we have Mn = {(x1 , · · · , xn )|xp1 + · · · + xpn ≤ nRp } where xk = x( nk ). We direct
compute the density ρn (x1 , · · · , xk ) of (x1 , · · · , xk ) as the random variables in
the ball Mn . According to the assumption of equiprobability and the version of
analysis of the theorem 1, the theorem is proven.
This result is different to the finite case essentially. In finite ball, coordinates
are not independent each other since they are constrained on the ball and there
exists a certain relation. But in infinite dimensional ball, for any finite number of
coordinates of point in the ball, from its discretization Mn = {(x1 , · · · , xn )|xp1 +
· · · + xpn ≤ nRp }, we can easily see that as n tending to infinity, the radius tends
to also infinity, so, for any finite number of coordinates such as x1 , · · · , xk , their
value ranges will become the whole n dimensional space Rn . This means that the
constraint has disappeared and hence these coordinates are really independent.
In other words, essentially, the ball M contains all finite dimensional linear
spaces Rn for any positive integer n.
Similarly, we have the following theorems.
Theorem 2(Version of analysis). For the ”first quadrant” Mn+ = {(x1 , · · · , xn )|xp1 +
· · ·+xpn ≤ nRp , xk ≥ 0, k = 1, · · · , n} where p is a general real number and p ≥ 1
or specially p = pq00 where p0 is odd and (p0 , q0 ) = 1, when we suppose that the
points in Mn+ are taken by equiprobability, the density of every coordinate xk
of x as a random variable is given by
ρn (xk ) =

pΓ(1 + np )
1

Rn p Γ( p1 )Γ(1 +

n−1
p )

(1 −

xpk n−1
) p .
nRp

(19)

In particular, the limitation of ρn (x) as n tending to infinity is given by
ρ(x) =

1

xp

1
RΓ( p1 )p p −1

e− pRp , x ∈ [0, +∞).

(20)

In general, for any k distinct coordinates xi1 , · · · , xik , where (i1 , · · · , ik ) ⊂
{1, · · · , n}, their union density is given by
ρn (xi1 , · · · , xik ) =

pk Γ(1 + np )
k

Rk n p Γk ( p1 )Γ(1 +
8

n−k
p )

(1 −

xpi1 + · · · + xpik n−k
) p ,
nRp

(21)

and the limitation of ρn (xi1 , · · · , xik ) as n approaching to infinity is
ρ(xi1 , · · · , xik ) =

x

1
k

Rk Γk ( p1 )p p −k

e

−

p
p
+···+x
i1
ik
pRp

, xij ∈ [0, +∞), j = 1, · · · , k, (22)

that is,
ρ(xi1 , · · · , xik ) = ρ(xi1 ) · · · ρ(xik ),

(23)

which means that when n tends to infinity, any finite coordinates of point in
Mn as random variables are independent.
Proof. According to the assumption of equiprobability, we have from the
lemma 1,
R
R
· · · Mn′+ dxk+1 · · · dxn
R
ρn (x1 , · · · , xk ) =
+ dx1 · · · dxn
Mn
=

pΓ(1 + np )

1
xp1 ) p

Γ( p1 )Γ(1 +

n−1
p
p )(nR −
, xn )|xpk+1 + · · · +

(1 −

xp1 np
) ,
nRp

(24)

where Mn′+ = {(xk+1 , · · ·
xpn ≤ nRp − xp1 − · · · − xpk , xk ≥
0, k = 1, · · · , n}. Taking the limitation of n approaching to +∞, and using the
Stirling’s asymptotic formula of Gamma function, we get,
√ q
n
n
pk 2π np ( np ) p e− p
xp1 + · · · + xpk n−k
q
(1−
ρ(x1 , · · · , xk ) = lim
) p
n−k
n−k
k
n→+∞ k k k 1 √
n−k
nRp
p n p e− p
(
)
2 R Γ ( p ) 2π n−k
p
p
pk
= lim

n→+∞

q

k
n
n
p
n−k ( n−k )
n

k (1 −

p
p
Rk Γk ( p1 )( n−k
n ) e

=

1
Rk p

k
p −k

Γk ( p1 )

e−

xp1 + · · · + xpk n−k
) p
nRp

p
p
x1 +···+x
k
pRp

.

(25)

The proof is completed.
Similar to the theorem 1, we have the version of geometry of the theorem 2.
Theorem 2(Version of geometry). For the ”first quadrant” M + = {x|x(t) ≥
R1 p
0, 0 x (t)dt ≤ Rp } of M where p is a general real number and p ≥ 1 or specially
p = pq00 where p0 is odd and (p0 , q0 ) = 1, when we suppose that the points in
M + are taken by equiprobability, the density of x(t) as a random variable on
M + for fixed t is given by
ρ(x) =

1
Rp

1
p −1

xp

Γ( p1 )

e− pRp , x ∈ [0, +∞).

(26)

In general, for any k distinct coordinates xt1 , · · · , xtk , where 0 < t1 < · · · <
tk < 1, their union density is given by
ρ(x1 , · · · , xk ) =

1
k

Rk Γk ( p1 )p p −k

e−

p
p
x +···+x
1
k
pRp

9

, xj ∈ [0, +∞), j = 1, · · · , k,

(27)

that is,
ρ(x1 , · · · , xk ) = ρ(x1 ) · · · ρ(xk ),

(28)

which means that any finite coordinates of point X in M as random variables
are independent.
Remark 2. If we take some special values of p and suitable variable transformation, we will gain some interesting and important probability distributions.
When p is even, the density looks like a normal distribution, and thus we call
it high order normal distribution or normal-like distribution. If R = 1, a simple
form is
xp
1
ρ(x) =
e− p , x ∈ (−∞, +∞).
(29)
1
−1
1
2Γ( p )p p
Further, for example, if p = 2, we get the standard normal distribution
x2
1
ρ(x) = √ e− 2 , x ∈ (−∞, +∞),
2π

(30)

which gives the Gâteaux and Lévy’s result [4]. If p = 4, we get a 4-order normal
distribution
√
2 − x44
, x ∈ (−∞, +∞).
(31)
ρ(x) =
1 e
Γ( 4 )
When p is odd, the density looks like an exponent distribution, and thus
we call it high order exponent distribution or exponent-like distribution. For
1
example, if p = 1 and R = λ− p , we get the usual exponent distribution
ρ(x) =

1 −λx
e
, x ∈ [0, +∞).
λ

(32)

1

If p = 3 and R = (3λ)− p , we get the 3-order exponent distribution
1

ρ(x) =

3λ 3 −λx3
e
, x ∈ [0, +∞).
Γ( 31 )

(33)

By a simple transformation, we can obtain the famous Gamma distribution
in statistics. Indeed, we take a transformation
Z=

xp
,
pβ

(34)

then the density of Z is just
1

β p p1 −1 −βy
e
.
ρ(z) =
z
Γ( p1 )
Further, taking α =

1
p

(35)

gives the Gamma distribution
ρ(z, α, β) =

β α α−1 −βy
z
e
.
Γ(α)
10

(36)

This is a geometrical origin of the Gamma distribution. We can see that this is
a rather natural way to derive the Gamma distribution.
Based on the maximum non-symmetrical entropy principle, we can also derive out some distributions [34,35]. But the above geometrical origin is more
natural.

3

The average values of some functionals and
the concentration without measure

In the section, according to the above results, we study a kind of infinitedimensional functionals with the form of integral. Our main results are summarized in theorems 3 and 4. The considered infinite-dimensional integrals arise
from the infinite-dimensional probability theory[36]. An elementary and rough
introduction on such topic can be seen in [36] in which we give more examples
and another way to compute the exact average values of some functionals.
Lemma 2. If f (x) satisfies one of the following two conditions,
H1 . (Differential condition): f (x) ∈ C k [0, +∞), limx→+∞ f (j) (x)e−x = 0
for j = 0, · · · , k − 1, and there is a positive constant number A such that
|f (k) (x)| ≤ A;
H2 . (Integral condition):
Z

0

+∞

x

|f (x)|e− p dx < +∞,

Z

0

+∞

x

x2 |f (x)|e− p dx < +∞;

(37)

then we have
lim

n→+∞

Z

0

n

x n
f (x)(1 − ) p dx =
n

Z

+∞

x

f (x)e− p dx.

(38)

0

In general, for any finite integer n0 , we also have
Z n
Z +∞
x
0
x n−n
p
lim
f (x)(1 − )
dx =
f (x)e− p dx.
n→+∞ 0
n
0

(39)

Proof. Case (i). We prove the general formula. Under the condition H1 .
From integration by parts, we have
Z n
Z n
pn
x n−n0
pn
x n−n0
f (0)+
f ′ (x)(1− ) p +1 dx
f (x)(1− ) p dx =
n
n − n0 + p
n − n0 + p 0
n
0
=

p2 n2
pk nk
pn
f (0)+
f ′ (0)+· · ·+
f (k−1) (0)
n − n0 + p
(n − n0 + p)(n − n0 + 2p)
(n − n0 + p) · · · (n − n0 + kp)
Z n
pk nk
x n−n0
+
f (k) (x)(1 − ) p +k dx,
(40)
(n − n0 + p) · · · (n − n0 + kp) 0
n

11

and
Z +∞

f (x)e

0

−x
p

2 ′

k (k−1)

dx = pf (0)+ p f (0)+ · · ·+ p f

(0)+ p

k

Z

+∞

x

f (k) (x)e− p dx.

0

It is easy to see that we only need to prove
Z n
Z +∞
x
x n−n0
lim
f (k) (x)(1 − ) p +k dx =
f (k) (x)e− p dx.
n→+∞ 0
n
0
Indeed, by mean value theorem of integral, we have
Z n
x
x n−n0
lim |
f (k) (x)((1 − ) p +k − e− p )dx|
n→+∞
n
0
Z n
x
x n−n0
= lim |f (k) (ξn )||
((1 − ) p +k − e− p )dx|
n→+∞
n
0
Z n
x
x n−n0
{(1 − ) p +k − e− p }dx|
≤ A lim |
n→+∞
n
0
n
np
= A lim |
− p + pe− p | = 0,
n→+∞ n − n0 + (k + 1)p

(41)

(42)

(43)

where ξn ∈ (0, n). The lemma is proven under the first condition (i).
Case (ii). Under the condition H2 . For 0 ≤ x ≤ n, we know
1+

x
x
1
≤ en ≤
n
1−

x
n

,

(44)

and then for p > 0
(1 +

x
x
x np
x n
) ≤ e p , (1 − ) p ≤ e− p .
n
n

Therefore,
x

0 ≤ e− p − (1 −

x
x
x np
x n
) = e− p {1 − e p (1 − ) p }
n
n
x

≤ e− p {1 − (1 −
x

= e− p (1 − (1 −

(45)

x2 np
) }
n2

x2 p1
x2 1
x2 n−1
) ){1 + (1 − 2 ) p + · · · + (1 − 2 ) p }
2
n
n
n
x

≤ ne− p (1 − (1 −

x2 p1
) ).
n2

(46)

In addition, we have
lim

n→+∞

1 − (1 −
x2
pn2

12

1
x2 p
n2 )

= 1,

(47)

and hence for arbitrary 0 < ǫ < 1, there exists constant N1 , such that for
n > N1 ,
2 1
1 − (1 − nx2 ) p
|
− 1| < ǫ.
(48)
x2
pn2

by which, we have for n > N1 ,
Z n
x
x n
|
f (x)(e− p − (1 − ) p )dx|
n
0
1
≤
pn

Z

n
2

0

x |f (x)|e

≤

1
pn

Z

0

+∞

−x
p

1
dx +
pn

Z

n

n
2

0

x |f (x)|e

x

x2 |f (x)|e− p dx +

ǫ
pn

Z

0

−x
p

+∞

|

1 − (1 − nx ) p
x2
pn2

x

x2 |f (x)|e− p dx.

− 1|dx
(49)

Since there exists an enough large number N2 such that for n > N2 , we have
Z +∞
x
ǫ
1
(50)
x2 |f (x)|e− p dx < ,
pn 0
2
taking N = max{N1 , N2 }, for n > N , we get
Z n
x
ǫ2
x n
ǫ
< ǫ.
|
f (x)(e− p − (1 − ) p )dx| < +
n
2
2
0

(51)

n0
R +∞
x
Since limn→+∞ (1 − nx )− p = 1 and 0 |f (x)|e− p dx < +∞, there exists an
enough number N3 such that for n > N3 ,
Z n
Z n
x
x np
x − np0
x n0
|
f (x)(1 − ) {(1 − )
− 1}dx| ≤
|f (x)|e− p |(1 − )− p − 1|dx| < ǫ.
n
n
n
0
0
(52)
Thus, we have for n > max{N1 , N2 , N3 }
Z n
x
x n−n0
|
f (x)(e− p − (1 − ) p )dx|
n
0
Z n
x
x n
≤|
f (x)(e− p − (1 − ) p )dx|
n
0
Z n
x n0
x n
(53)
f (x)(1 − ) p {(1 − )− p − 1}dx| < 2ǫ.
+|
n
n
0

The lemma is proven.
It is easy to generalize the lemma 2 to the case of f (x) depending on n.
Lemma 3. Suppose fn (x) satisfies one of the following two conditions:
(j)
H1 . (Differential condition): limn→+∞ fn (x) = f (j) (x) for j = 0, · · · , k,
(j)
fn (x) ∈ C k [0, +∞), limx→+∞ fn (x)e−x = 0 for j = 0, · · · , k − 1, and there is
(k)
a positive constant number A such that |fn (x)| ≤ A;
13

H2 . (Integral condition): Suppose that limn→+∞ fn (x) = f (x) uniformly
for x, and
Z +∞
Z +∞
x
x
|f (x)|e− p dx < +∞,
(54)
x2 |f (x)|e− p dx < +∞.
0

0

Then we have for any finite integer n0 ,
Z n
Z +∞
x
x n−n0
lim
fn (x)(1 − ) p dx =
f (x)e− p dx.
n→+∞ 0
n
0

(55)

Proof. The proof in the condition H1 is similar completely to the lemma 2,
only replacing f (x) by fn (x). In the condition H2 , we have
Z n
x
x n−n0
{f (x)e− p − fn (x)(1 − ) p }dx|
|
n
0
Z n
Z n
x
x n−n0
x n−n0
≤|
f (x)(e− p − (1 − ) p )dx| + |
(f (x) − fn (x))(1 − ) p dx|. (56)
n
n
0
0
The first term is the same as that in lemma 2, and the second term tends to
n−n0
Rn
zero by the assumption of uniform convergence of fn (x) and 0 (1− nx ) p dx =
p
n−n0 +p . The proof is complete.
Now, for convenience, we define a symmetrization operator S for m variables
function g(x1 , · · · , xm ) by
X
g(x),
(57)
(Sg)(x1 , · · · , xm ) =
x∈S(m)

where
S(m) = {x1 , −x1 } × {x2 , −x2 } × · · · × {xm , −xm }.

(58)

S(1) = {x1 , −x1 }, (Sg)(x) = g(x) + g(−x)

(59)

S(2) = {(x1 , x2 ), (x1 , −x2 ), (−x1 , x2 ), (−x1 , −x2 )},

(60)

For example,

(Sg)(x1 , x2 ) = g(x1 , x2 ) + g(x1 , −x2 ) + g(−x1 , x2 ) + g(−x1 , −x2 )}.

(61)

Theorem 3. Denote for m variables function g
1

1

G(z1 , · · · , zm−1 , z) = (Sg)(Rz1p , · · · , R(z − z1 − · · · − zm−1 ) p )
1

× {z1 (z2 − z1 ) · · · (z − z1 − · · · − zm−1 )} p −1 ,
and
fn (z) =
f (z) =

Z

0

Z

n

0

···

+∞

···

Z

Z

n

0

0

(62)

G(z1 , · · · , zm−1 , z))dz1 · · · dzm−1 ,

(63)

+∞

G(z1 , · · · , zm−1 , z))dz1 · · · dzm−1 .
14

(64)

Suppose that g satisfies one of the following two conditions
(j)
(H1 ). (Differential condition): limn→+∞ fn (x) = f (j) (x) for j = 0, · · · , k,
(j)
fn (x) ∈ C k [0, +∞), limx→+∞ fn (x)e−x = 0 for j = 0, · · · , k − 1, and there is
(k)
a positive constant number A such that |fn (x)| ≤ A;
(H2 ). (Integral condition): Suppose that limn→+∞ fn (x) = f (x) uniformly
for x, and
Z +∞
Z +∞
x
x
|f (x)|e− p dx < +∞,
x2 |f (x)|e− p dx < +∞.
(65)
0

0

R1

Take the ball M = {x| 0 xp (t)dt ≤ Rp } in C[0, 1] with norm ||x||p when p = pq00
where p0 is even and (p0 , q0 ) = 1. Then for functional
Z 1
Z 1
Y =
···
g(x(t1 ), · · · , x(tm ))dt1 · · · dtm ,
(66)
0

0

the average value of Y on M satisfies
Z +∞
Z +∞
p
p
x
x
1
− p1 −···− pm
g(Rx
,
·
·
·
,
Rx
)e
·
·
·
dx1 · · · dxm .
EY =
m
1
m
2m Γm ( p1 )p p −m −∞
−∞
(67)
Proof. By discretization of Y , we have
n
n
X
1 X
g(xi1 , · · · , xim ).
...
nm i =1 i =1

Yn =

(68)

m

1

By symmetry and consideration in combinatorics, we get
lim EYn = Eg(x1 , · · · , xm ).

(69)

n→+∞

On the other hand, we know that
R

Mn

Eg(x1 , · · · , xm ) = lim

n→∞

g(x1 , · · · , xm )dx1 · · · dxn
R
.
dx1 · · · dxn
Mn

According to the theorem 1, we have
Z
Eg(x1 , · · · , xm ) = lim
g(x1 , · · · , xm )ρn (x1 , · · · , xm )dvm ,
n→∞

(70)

(71)

M′

where M ′ = {(x1 , · · · , xm )|xp1 + · · · + xpm ≤ nRp }. Therefore, we need to prove
lim

n→∞

=

Z

M′

g(x1 , · · · , xm )

pk Γ(1 + np )
m
p

2m Rm n Γm ( p1 )Γ(1 +

1
m
2m Rm Γm ( p1 )p p −m

Z

+∞

−∞

···

Z

n−m
p )

(1−

xp1 + · · · + xpm n−m
) p dvm ,
nRp

+∞
−∞

g(x1 , · · · , xm )e−

p
p
x +···+xm
1
nRp

dx1 · · · dxm .
(72)

15

It is equivalent to prove
lim

n→∞

=

Z

pm
g(x1 , · · · , xm )

M′

1
2m Rm Γm ( p1 )p

m
p −m

q

m
n
n
p
n−m ( n−m )
n
p

2m Rm Γm ( p1 )( n−m
n ) e
Z

+∞

−∞

···

Z

m
p

(1 −

xp1 + · · · + xpm n−m
) p dvm ,
nRp

+∞
−∞

g(x1 , · · · , xm )e−

p
p
x1 +···+xm
nRp

dx1 · · · dxm .
(73)

It is enough to prove
Z
xp + · · · + xpm n−m
lim
g(x1 , · · · , xm )(1 − 1
) p dvm ,
n→∞ M ′
nRp
Z +∞
Z +∞
p
p
x +···+xm
1
=
···
g(x1 , · · · , xm )e− nRp dx1 · · · dxm .
−∞

(74)

−∞

For the purpose of simplicity, we reduce the integration on the whole ball M ′ to
the first quadrant M ′+ = {(x1 , · · · , xm )|xp1 + · · · + xpm ≤ nRp , xj ≥ 0, 1 ≤ j ≤
m}. By the symmetrization operator S, we have
Z
xp + · · · + xpm n−m
) p dvm
g(x1 , · · · , xm )(1 − 1
nRp
M′
Z
xp + · · · + xpm n−m
) p dvm .
=
(Sg)(x1 , · · · , xm )(1 − 1
(75)
nRp
M ′+
1

Further, we take the transformation xj = Ryjp for j = 1, · · · , m, and hence
Z
xp + · · · + xpm n−m
) p dvm .
(Sg)(x1 , · · · , xm )(1 − 1
nRp
M ′+
Z
1
1
1
Rm
y1 + · · · + ym n−m
p
p
) p dy1 · · · dym ,
(Sg)(Ry
)(y1 · · · ym ) p −1 (1 −
,
·
·
·
,
y
m
1
pm ∆ m
n
(76)
where ∆m = {(y1 , · · · , ym )|y1 + · · · + ym ≤ n, yj ≥ 0, 1 ≤ j ≤ m}.
By the same transformation and symmetrization, we reduce the integration
from Rn to R+n
Z +∞
Z +∞
p
p
x1 +···+xm
···
g(x1 , · · · , xm )e− nRp dx1 · · · dxm
−∞

m

=

R
pm

Z

0

+∞

···

−∞

Z

0

+∞

1

(Sg)(y1 , · · · , ym )(y1 · · · ym ) p −1 e−

y1 +···+ym
n

dy1 · · · dym .

(77)
Further, by variables transformations zj = y1 + · · · + yk , 1 ≤ j ≤ m and
denoting z = zm , we have
Z
1
1
1
y1 + · · · + ym n−m
p
) p dy1 · · · dym ,
(Sg)(Ry1p , · · · , ym
)(y1 · · · ym ) p −1 (1 −
n
∆m
16

=

Z

n
0

···

Z

0

n

1

1

(Sg)(Rz1p , · · · , R(z − z1 − · · · − zm−1 ) p )
1

{z1 (z2 − z1 ) · · · (z − z1 − · · · − zm−1 )} p −1 (1 −

z n−m
) p dz1 · · · dzm−1 dz,
n

(78)

and
Z

0

Z

+∞

···
=

+∞

0

Z

1

(Sg)(y1 , · · · , ym )(y1 · · · ym ) p −1 e−

+∞

···

0

Z

+∞

y1 +···+ym
n

1

dy1 · · · dym .
1

(Sg)(Rz1p , · · · , R(z − z1 − · · · − zm−1 ) p )

0

z

1

× {z1 (z2 − z1 ) · · · (z − z1 − · · · − zm−1 )} p −1 e− p dz1 · · · dzm−1 dz,

(79)

Denote fn (z) and f (z) by
Z n
Z n
1
1
(Sg)(Rz1p , · · · , R(z − z1 − · · · − zm−1 ) p )
···
fn (z) =
0

0

1

× {z1 (z2 − z1 ) · · · (z − z1 − · · · − zm−1 )} p −1 dz1 · · · dzm−1 ,
Z +∞
Z +∞
1
1
f (z) =
···
(Sg)(Rz1p , · · · , R(z − z1 − · · · − zm−1 ) p )
0

(80)

0

1

× {z1 (z2 − z1 ) · · · (z − z1 − · · · − zm−1 )} p −1 dz1 · · · dzm−1 .

(81)

Under the conditions and by the lemma 3, we get the conclusion. The proof is
completed.
Theorem 4. Suppose that g satisfies one of the following two conditions:
1
1
1
H1 : Let g(x) ∈ C k (−∞, +∞). Denote r(x) = x p −1 {g(Rx p ) + g(−Rx p )},
k
(j)
−x
and r(x) ∈ C [0, +∞), and limx→+∞ r (x)e = 0 for j = 0, · · · , k − 1, and
there is a positive number A such that |r(k) (x)| ≤ A.
R +∞ 1
1
1
x
H2 : 0 x p +1 |g(Rx p ) + g(−Rx p )|e− p dx < +∞.
R1 p
Take the ball M = {x| 0 x (t)dt ≤ Rp } in C[0, 1] with norm ||x||p when
p = pq00 where p0 is even and (p0 , q0 ) = 1. Then we have
(i). The average value and variance on M of the functional
Z 1
g(x(t))dt,
(82)
Y =
0

satisfy
EY =

Z

1
2Γ( p1 )p

1
p −1

+∞

g(Rx)e−

xp
p

dx,

(83)

−∞

DY = 0.
(ii) For the functionals Y1 , · · · , Yn with the form
Z
g(x(t))dt,
Yk =
Ik

17

(84)

(85)

where Ik for k = 1, · · · , n are subintervals of the interval [0, 1], then
Z +∞
p
l(Ik )
− xp
EYk =
dx,
g(Rx)e
1
2Γ( p1 )p p −1 −∞
DYk = 0,

(86)
(87)

where l(Ik ) is the length of interval Ik .
(iii) Given a function h ∈ C k (−∞, +∞), and there is a positive constant A
such that |h(k) (y)| < A, we have the nonlinear exchange formula for the average
value of h(Y ) on M ,
Eh(Y ) = h(EY ).
(88)
Proof. By the theorem 3, we can derive the first conclusion. Here we give
a proof for the first result by lemma 2. We only consider the first case of H1 ,
while the second condition can be similarly proven according to the case (ii) in
lemma 2.
(i) We direct use the theorem 1 and the lemma 2 to give a simple proof. In
fact, by definition 3, we take the same partition of t for both M and Y , we have
R
Pn
1
g(xk )dvn
Mn n
R k=1
EY = lim
,
(89)
n→∞
dvn
Mn

where Mn is the same that in theorem 1. By symmetry and theorem 1, we know
that
EY = lim

n→∞

= lim

n→∞

Z

= lim

n→∞

Z

1

Rn p
1

g(x)ρn (x)dx = lim

n→∞

−Rn p

1

Z

{g(x) + g(−x)}

{g(x) + g(−x)}ρn (x)dx

0

2Γ( p1 )Γ(1 +

n−1
p
p )(nR

− xp )

1
p

(1 −

xp np
) dx
nRp

1

n
0

1

Rn p

pΓ(1 + np )

Rn p

0

Z

1
p

x p −1 Γ(1 + np )

1
p

{g(Rx ) + g(−Rx )}

2Γ( p1 )Γ(1

+

1
n−1
p
p )n

(1 −

x n−1
) p dx.
n

(90)

Further, by Stirling formula of Gamma function and the lemma 2 in which we
take n0 = 1, we obtain
Z +∞
1
1
x
1
1
EY =
x p −1 {g(Rx p ) + g(−Rx p )}e− p dx
1
1
p
2p Γ( p ) 0
=

1
2p

1
p −1

=

Γ( p1 )

Z

+∞

0

1
2p

1
p −1

Γ( p1 )

{g(Rx) + g(−Rx)}e−
Z

+∞

g(Rx)e−

−∞

18

xp
p

dx.

xp
p

dx

(91)

In the last step, we use the property of xp being even function by the value of
p. Then we have proven the first conclusion. This also means the linearity of
the expectation E,
Z 1
Z +∞
xp
1
− pR
p
EY =
E(g(x(t))dt = E(g(x(t)) =
dx. (92)
g(x)e
1
0
2RΓ( p1 )p p −1 −∞
Similarly,
n
n
1 XX
E(g(xi )g(xj ))
n→+∞ n2
i=1 j=1

E(Y 2 ) = lim E(Yn2 ) = lim
n→+∞

= lim {
n→+∞

n−1
1
E(g(x1 )g(x2 )) + E(g 2 (x1 ))}
n
n
= E(g(x1 )g(x2 )).

(93)

By the theorem 3 in which we take m = 2 and g(x1 , x2 ) = g(x1 )g(x2 ), we get .
= E(g(x1 )g(x2 )) = E(g(x1 ))E(g(x2 )) = E 2 Y,

(94)

which means DY = 0.
Note: Formally, this conclusion is obvious. Indeed, by the two-dimensional
measure of the set {(t, s)|t = s} as a subset of [0, 1]2 being zero, and the independence of x(t) and x(s) for t 6= s, we have from the theorem 1,
Z 1Z 1
E(Y 2 ) =
E(g(x(t)g(x(s))dtds = E(g(x(t))E(g(x(s)) = E 2 (Y ).
0

0

(ii) Next we prove the formula of EYk . Without loss of generality, we only
discuss the case k = 1, and suppose I = [0, a] where a is a rational number or
an irrational number. When a is an rational number, that is, a = rs , (r, s) = 1,
we divide [0, 1] by sn equal parts, and hence the discretization of the functional
Rr
1 Prn
Y = 0s g(x(t))dt is given by Yn = sn
i=1 g(xi ). So we have
rn

EYn =

r
1 X
Eg(xi ) = E(g(x1 )).
sn i=1
s

(95)

When a is an irrational number, we can use the rational numbers sequence {ar }
to approach it, and then by limitation, we get the result.
Further we have DYk = 0 by the same reason with the case (i).
(iii) Similar to case (i), with operations of combinatorics, by the theorem 3,
we have E(Y k ) = E k (Y ) for any positive integer k. Therefore, we have for any
m ≥ 1,
lim E(Yn − EY )m = 0.
(96)
n→+∞

In fact, we have
(Yn − EY )m =

m  
X
m
(−1)j (EYn )m−j (EY )j ,
j
j=0

19

(97)

and hence from E(Y k ) = limn→+∞ E(Ynk ) = E k (Y ),
lim E(Yn − EY )m =

n→+∞

m  
X
m
(−1)j (EY )m−j (EY )j = (1 − 1)m = 0. (98)
j
j=0

Next, by definition 5,
n

Eh(Y ) = lim Eh(Yn ) = lim Eh(
n→+∞

n→+∞

1X
g(xk )).
n

(99)

k=1

Further, from the mean value theorem, there is a point ξn ∈ (Yn , EY ) or ξn ∈
(EY, Yn ) such that
h(Yn ) = h(EY ) + h′ (EY )(Yn − EY ) + · · ·
+
and then

h(k−1) (EY )
h(k) (ξn )
(Yn − EY )k−1 +
(Yn − EY )k ,
(k − 1)!
(k)!

(100)

Eh(Yn ) = Eh(EY ) + h′ (EY )E(Yn − EY ) + · · ·

+

h(k) (ξn )
h(k−1) (EY )
E(Yn − EY )k−1 + E(
(Yn − EY )k ).
(k − 1)!
(k)!

(101)

For the last term, we have as n → +∞,
|E(

h(k) (ξn )
(Yn − EY )k )| < A|E(Yn − EY )k | → 0.
(k)!

(102)

So, taking the limitation as n tending to +∞, and using limn→+∞ E(Yn −
EY )m = 0, we get Eh(Y ) = h(EY ). The proof is completed.
In general, we have the following theorem.
Theorem 5. For n functions gi of m variables, suppose that every function Gi of gi satisfies the same conditions in theorem 3. Take the ball M =
R1
{x| 0 xp (t)dt ≤ Rp } in C[0, 1] with norm ||x||p where p ≥ 1 when p = pq00 where
p0 is even and (p0 , q0 ) = 1. Consider the functionals Y1 , · · · , Yn with the form
Z
Z
gk (x(t1 ), · · · , x(tmk ))dt1 · · · dtmk ,
(103)
···
Yk =
Ik1

Ikmk

where Ikj for j = 1, · · · , mk , k = 1, · · · , n are subintervals of [0, 1]. We have
(i) The average values satisfy
Z
Z +∞
p
p
x
x
vol(Ik1 × · · · × Ikmk ) +∞
− p1 −···− pm
·
·
·
g
(Rx
,
·
·
·
,
Rx
)e
dx1 · · · dxm ,
EYk =
m
k
1
m
2m Γm ( p1 )p p −m
−∞
−∞
(104)
DYk = 0,
(105)
where vol(Ik1 × · · · × Ikmk ) = l(Ik1 ) × · · · × l(Ikmk ).
20

(ii). Given a function h of n variables, h ∈ C k (−∞, +∞)n , and there is
k
a positive constant A such that | ∂∂xhk | < A, we have the nonlinear exchange
j

formula for the average value of h(Y1 , · · · , Yn ) on M ,

Eh(Y1 , · · · , Yn ) = h(EY1 , · · · , EYn ).

(106)

Proof. (i). Without loss of generality, we only take n = 2. The proofs of (i)
in the theorem can be give by the theorem 3 and the similar method in theorem
4. For the general case of Ik being
R subinterval of [0, 1], weR only need a proof
of the following formula for Y1 = I1 g1 (x(t))dt and Y2 = I2 g2 (x(t))dt where
I1 = [0, rs ] and I2 = [ rs1 , rs2 ] being the intervals of [0, 1] where r, r1 , r2 , s all are
positive integers,
E(Y1 Y2 ) = E(Y1 )E(Y2 ).
(107)
Indeed, we divide [0, 1] into sn equal parts, and then
rn

1 X
g1 (xi ),
sn i=1

(108)

r2 n
1 X
g2 (xj ).
sn j=r n

(109)

rn r2 n
1 X X
g1 (xi )g2 (xj ).
= 2 2
s n i=1 j=r n

(110)

Y1n =

Y2n =

1

Therefore,
Y1n Y2n

1

Without loss of generality, suppose r1 < r < r2 . By symmetry, we have
E(Y1n Y2n ) =

rn r2 n
1 X X
E(g1 (xi )g2 (xj ))
s2 n2 i=1 j=r n
1

1
{(r(r1 −r2 )n2 +r2 n−1)E(g1 (xi )g2 (xj ))+(rn−r2 n+1)E(g1 (x1 )g2 (x1 ))}
s2 n2
(111)
By theorem 3 and taking limitation as n approaching to infinity, we get the
result. For the case of the endpoints of Ik being irrational numbers, we can
prove it by using rational numbers to approach irrational number.
(ii). Here in order to prove the nonlinear exchange formula, we only consider
the case of n = 2 and I1 = I2 = [0, 1], while general case can be similarly proven.
By definition 5,
=

n

Eh(Y1 , Y2 ) = lim Eh(Y1n , Y2n ) = lim Eh(
n→+∞

n→+∞

n

1X
1X
g1 (xi ),
g2 (xj )).
n i=1
n j=1
(112)

21

Further, from the mean value theorem, there are ξ1n and ξjn being respectively
between EYj and Yjn for j = 1, 2, that is ξn ∈ (Yn , EY ) or ξn ∈ (EY, Yn ) such
that
h(Y1n , h2n ) = h(EY1 , EY2 )+

+···+

∂h
∂h
(EY1 , EY2 )(Y1n −EY1 )+
(EY1 , EY2 )(Y2n −EY2 )
∂Y1
∂Y2

k−1
X ∂ k−1 h(EY1 , EY2 )
1
(Y1n − EY1 )i (Y2n − EY2 )k−1−i
(k − 1)! i=0 ∂Y1i ∂Y2k−1−i
k

+

1 X ∂ k h(ξ1n , ξ2n )
(Y1n − EY1 )i (Y2n − EY2 )k−i .
(k)! i=0 ∂Y1i ∂Y2k−i

(113)

And then
Eh(Y1n , h2n ) = h(EY1 , EY2 )+

∂h
∂h
(EY1 , EY2 )E(Y1n −EY1 )+
(EY1 , EY2 )E(Y2n −EY2 )
∂Y1
∂Y2

k−1

+···+

X ∂ k−1 h(EY1 , EY2 )
1
E((Y1n − EY1 )i (Y2n − EY2 )k−1−i )
(k − 1)! i=0 ∂Y1i ∂Y2k−1−i
k

+

1 X
∂ k h(ξ1n , ξ2n )
(Y1n − EY1 )i (Y2n − EY2 )k−i },
E{
(k)! i=0
∂Y1i ∂Y2k−i

(114)

Firstly, by the similar method of proving limn→+∞ E(Yn − EY )m = 0, we can
easily prove limn→+∞ E((Y1n − EY1 )i (Y2n − EY2 )j ) = 0. Then, for the last
term, we have as n → +∞,
|

k
X

E{

i=0

≤ A|

∂ k h(ξ1n , ξ2n )
(Y1n − EY1 )i (Y2n − EY2 )k−i }|
k−i
i
∂Y1 ∂Y2

k
X
i=0

E{(Y1n − EY1 )i (Y2n − EY2 )k−i }| → 0.

(115)

Therefore, taking the limitation as n tending to +∞, and using limn→+∞ E((Y1n −
EY1 )i (Y2n − EY2 )j ) = 0, we get the nonlinear exchange formula Eh(Y1 , Y2 ) =
h(EY1 , EY2 ). The proof is completed.
Similarly, we can prove the following theorem and omit its proof.
Theorem 6. Denote for m variables function g
1

1

G(z1 , · · · , zm−1 , z) = g(Rz1p , · · · , R(z − z1 − · · · − zm−1 ) p )
1

× {z1 (z2 − z1 ) · · · (z − z1 − · · · − zm−1 )} p −1 ,
and
fn (z) =

Z

n
0

···

Z

0

(116)

n

G(z1 , · · · , zm−1 , z))dz1 · · · dzm−1
22

(117)

f (z) =

Z

+∞

···

0

Z

+∞

G(z1 , · · · , zm−1 , z))dz1 · · · dzm−1

0

(118)

Suppose that g satisfies one of the following two conditions
(j)
H1 . (Differential condition): limn→+∞ fn (x) = f (j) (x) for j = 0, · · · , k,
(j)
fn (x) ∈ C k [0, +∞), limx→+∞ fn (x)e−x = 0 for j = 0, · · · , k − 1, and there is
(k)
a positive constant number A such that |fn (x)| ≤ A;
H2 . (Integral condition): Suppose that limn→+∞ fn (x) = f (x) uniformly
for x, and
Z +∞
Z +∞
x
x
|f (x)|e− p dx < +∞,
x2 |f (x)|e− p dx < +∞.
(119)
0

0

R1
Take the ”first quadrant” M + = {x|x(t) ≥ 0, 0 xp (t)dt ≤ Rp } of M where
p0
p ≥ 1 or in special p = q0 where p0 is odd and (p0 , q0 ) = 1. Then the average
value and variance on M of the functional
Z
Z
g(x(t1 ), · · · , x(tm ))dt1 · · · dtm ,
(120)
···
Y =
Im

I1

satisfy
EY =

l(I1 ) × · · · × l(Im )
m
Γm ( p1 )p p −m

Z

0

+∞

···

Z

+∞

g(Rx1 , · · · , Rxm )e−

0

DY = 0,

p
x1
p

−···−

p
xm
p

dx1 · · · dxm ,
(121)
(122)

where Ii for i = 1, · · · m are subintervals of [0, 1], l(Ii ) is the length of Ii . Further,
given a function h of n variables, h ∈ C k (−∞, +∞)n , and there is a positive
k
constant A such that | ∂∂xhk | < A, we have the nonlinear exchange formula for
j

the average value of h(Y1 , · · · , Yn ) on M ,

Eh(Y1 , · · · , Yn ) = h(EY1 , · · · , EYn ),

(123)

where Yk is the same with that in theorem 5.
Formally, the above theorems 3-6 show the complete concentration of measure phenomenon which means that a functional takes its average value on
an infinite-dimensional ball with probability 1. However, we have no measure
and hence no corresponding probability. Therefore, instead of measure, we use
DY = 0 to character the so-called concentration of measure phenomenon.
If we consider infinite-dimensional sphere as the limitation of finite dimensional balls, we have formally
routine concentration of measure. Indeed,
R 1 the
p
for the sphere M (R) = {x| 0 x (t)dt ≤ Rp } (p = pq00 where p0 is even and
R1
(p0 , q0 ) = 1) or M (R) = {x| 0 xp (t)dt ≤ Rp , x(t) ≥ 0} (p = pq00 where p0
is odd and (p0 , q0 ) = 1) in C[0, 1] with p−norm, we can easily see that the
measure concentrates completely on the surface of sphere M since VV (M(R))
(M(r)) =
r n
limn→+∞ ( R ) = 0 for r < R. Therefore, the average value of the functional in
23

the set M (or M + ) can be reduced to and equal to the average value on the
surface of M (or M + ).
It is easy to see that other functionals don’t always satisfy DY = 0. For
example, for the functional
Z
Z
g(x(t1 ), · · · , x(tm ), t1 , · · · , tm )dt1 · · · dtm ,
(124)
···
Y = f (x) =
I1

Im

in general, the average value on M or M + will be respectively
Z Z +∞
Z
Z +∞
l(I1 ) × · · · × l(Im )
E(Y ) =
·
·
·
·
·
·
g(Rx1 , · · · , Rxm , t1 , · · · , tm )
m
2m Γm ( p1 )p p −m I1
Im −∞
−∞
× e−

p
x
1
p

−···−

p
xm
p

dx1 · · · dxm dt1 · · · dtm ,

(125)

or
E(Y ) =

l(I1 ) × · · · × l(Im )
m
Γm ( p1 )p p −m
× e−

Z

p
x1
p

I1

···

−···−

Z

Im

p
xm
p

Z

+∞

0

···

Z

0

+∞

g(Rx1 , · · · , Rxm , t1 , · · · , tm )

dx1 · · · dxm dt1 · · · dtm .

(126)

But in general DY 6= 0 and then the complete concentration of measure don’t
hold.
Remark 3. How to compute the average value is dependent to how to
define it. From the theorems 1 and 2, we have obtained the densities of the
coordinates of the points in M and M + , thus it seems that a natural way of
getting the average value of Y is just to define it as the formulas (125) and (126)
respectively only if the integrals in the right sides exist and are finite or infinite.
However, from the above theorems 3-6, we can see that we need some restrictive
conditions on g to prove the corresponding formulas of average values for integral
form functionals. This is because that we use the same discretization of interval
[0, 1] of t in both M and Y such that we must deal with simultaneously the
limitation of n appearing in integrand and upper limit of integral, according to
the definitions 3 and 4. For the purpose of consistency, this is a necessary step.

4

Further results and discussions

In the section, I will give some further results and discussions on average values
of functionals for some general cases, including the average value depending
on discretiization, the definition of average values of the general continuous
functionals, and the definition of average values on the whole space C[0, 1] with
p−norm. Our discussions will focus on the M , while it is similar for M + . In
addition, we mainly discuss the case of g is a single variable function, and the
general case can be easily given. Specially, we prove an important result which
means that the average value depends on the partition of [0, 1].
24

4.1

The average value depends on the discretization

From these definitions of average value of functionals, it seems that the average
value should be independent to the partition of [0, 1]. But it is not the case.
Rb
It is well known that the stochastic integral a X(t)dW (t) is defined by the
mean square limitation of the following summation
n
X

k=1

X(t′k )(W (tk ) − W (tk−1 )),

(127)

where a = t0 < t1 < · · · < tn = b, and t′k ∈ [tk−1 , tk ). However, if t′k is taken
arbitrarily, the limitation doesn’t exist. Therefore, in general, we take t′k = tk−1
t +t
to give the Ito integral, and take t′k = k 2k−1 to give Stratonovich integral.
Being analogous to the stochastic integral, our definition of average values of
functionals also depends on the discritizations.
For any partition
[0, 1], 0 = t0 < t1 < · · · < tn−1 < tn = 1, we use
Pof
n
discrete summation k=1 g(xk )∆tk as λ → 0 to replace the integral Y = f (x) =
R1
g(x(t))dt where ∆tk = tk − tk−1 , λ = max1≤k≤n ∆tk and xk = x(ξk ) for
0
arbitrary number ξk ∈ (tk−1 , tk ).This is reasonable by the continuity of g. The
discretization Mn of the ball M is given by Mn = {(x1 , · · · , xn )|xp1 ∆t1 + · · · +
xpn ∆tn ≤ Rp }. We will obtain a theorem and then give an example to show that
the different dsicretization yields the different
R 1 average value.
Theorem 7. Take the ball M = {x| 0 xp (t)dt ≤ Rp } in C[0, 1] with norm
||x||p where p ≥ 1 when p = pq00 where p0 is even and (p0 , q0 ) = 1. Suppose
that the partition 0 = t0 < t1 < · · · < tn−1 < tn = 1 of [0, 1] satisfies the
r
following conditions: ∆tk = nj for k = sj−1 n + 1, · · · , sj n, j = 1, . . . , m, where
s0 = 0, sj > 0, rj > 0, s1 + · · · + sm = 1 and s1 r1 + · · · + sm rm = 1. Then the
R1
average value of functional Y = 0 g(x(t))dt on the ball M is given by
EY =

1
2RΓ( p1 )p

1
p −1

Z

+∞

−∞

{

m
X

−1

xp

sk rk g(rk p x)}e− pRp dx,

(128)

k=1

where g satisfies the same conditions in theorem 4. This means that the average
values of functionals depend on the discretizations.
Proof. The main ideas and steps of the proof are similar to the theorem
4, so we only give main steps without detailed process. By the simultaneous
discretization of Y and M as above, we have the average value of Yn as
R Pn
k=1 g(xk )dvn ∆tk
R
EYn = lim Mn
(129)
λ→0
Mn dvn
Since λ → 0 implying n → ∞, we have
R
n
X
Mn g(xk )dvn ∆tk
R
.
EY = lim
n→∞
Mn dvn
k=1

25

(130)

By the similar process with the theorem 4, we get
EYn =

=

2RΓ( p1 )p
1

2RΓ( p1 )p
=

m Z
X

1

1
p −1

1
p −1

1
2RΓ( p1 )p

1
p −1

Z

n−1
1
xpk
∆tk ) p (n∆tk ) p dxk ∆tk
p
R

1
1

1

{g(xk (n∆tk )− p )+g(−xk (n∆tk )− p )}(1−
1

Rn p

0

{g(xk )+g(−xk )}(1−

Rn p

0

j=1

−1
p

0

k=1

m Z
X

R(∆tk )

m
X
j=1

−1

−1

sk rk {g(xk rk p ) + g(−xk rk p )}(1 −

xpk n−1
) p dxk ∆tk
nRp

xpk n−1
) p dxk .
nRp

(131)
By lemma 2, we take the limitation as n tending to infinity and get the conclusion. The proof is completed.
Pm
−1
From the above theorem, if g(x) 6= j=1 sj rj g(rj p x), we will obtain two
different average values of EY . For example, we take m = 2, s1 = s2 = 12 , r1 =
1
3
2 , r2 = 2 , then we get from theorem 7
Z +∞
1
xp
2 1
3
1
1
(132)
{ g(2 p x) + g(( ) p x)}e− pRp dx,
(EY )1 =
1
−1
4
4
3
−∞
2RΓ( 1 )p p
p

and from theorem 4 or from theorem 7 for m = 1, s1 = r1 = 1,
Z +∞
xp
1
(EY )2 =
g(x)e− pRp dx.
1
−1
1
−∞
2RΓ( p )p p

(133)

In general (EY )1 6= (EY )2 .
In the paper, the reason of taking uniform partition is based on the symmetry and simplicity and maybe esthetics. From the theorem, we also see the
complexity of the topic.

4.2

The average values of analytic functionals

Firstly, we need the following theorem. Its proof is similar to the theorem 4, so
we omit it for simplicity.
Theorem 8. Suppose that the function a(t1 , · · · , tm ) is integrable, and g
R1
satisfies the same conditions in theorem 5. Take the ball M = {x| 0 xp (t)dt ≤
Rp } in C[0, 1] with norm ||x||p where p ≥ 1 when p = pq00 where p0 is even and
(p0 , q0 ) = 1. Then for the functional
Z 1
Z 1
Y =
···
a(t1 , · · · , tm )g(x(t1 ), · · · , x(tmk ))dt1 · · · dtm ,
(134)
0

0

we have
EY =

1
2m Γm ( p1 )p

m
p −m

Z

0

1

···
26

Z

0

1

a(t1 , · · · , tm )dt1 · · · dtm

×

Z

+∞

−∞

···

Z

+∞

g(Rx1 , · · · , Rxm )e−

−∞

p
x
1
p

−···−

p
xm
p

dx1 · · · dxm .

(135)

Next we consider the average values of analytic functionals on the ball M .
According to [4], the analytic functional Y = f (x) can be expanded as the power
series
Z 1
Z 1
+∞
X
1
δ m f (0)
f (x) =
x(t1 ) · · · x(tm )dt1 · · · dtm ,
···
m! 0
0 δx(t1 ) · · · δx(tm )
m=0
where

δf
δx(t)

(136)

is the Fréchet derivative. By discretization, we have

Yn = fn (x1 , · · · , xn ) =

+∞
X

n
n
X
1 X
a(ti1 , · · · , tim )x(ti1 ) · · · x(tim ),
·
·
·
m!nm i =1
m=0
i =1
m

1

(137)
f (0)
where we denote a(ti1 , · · · , tim ) = δx(tiδ )···δx(t
.
If
we
suppose
that
Y
satisfies
n
im )
1
some strict conditions such as uniform convergence and uniform continuousness,
from the theorem 8, we can get the formula of the average value of Y on the
ball M
Z 1
Z 1
+∞
X
1
δ m f (0)
dt1 · · · dtm
···
EY =
m! 0
0 δx(t1 ) · · · δx(tm )
m=0
Z +∞
xp
1
xe− pRp dx}m .
×{
(138)
1
−1
−∞
2RΓ( p1 )p p
m

In fact, if for any fixed n, Yn = fn (x1 , · · · , xn ) as the functions series is uniform
convergent in Mn on the variables (x1 , · · · , xn ), we can exchange the order of
summation and expectation operations, that is
EYn =

+∞
X

n
n
X
1 X
a(ti1 , · · · , tim )E(x(ti1 ) · · · x(tim )),
·
·
·
m!nm i =1
m=0
i =1
1

(139)

m

and then if EYn as a constant series is uniform convergent for all n, we have
+∞
X

n
n
X
1 X
a(ti1 , · · · , tim )E(x(ti1 ) · · · x(tim ))
lim EYn =
lim
···
n→+∞
n→+∞ m!nm
m=0
i =1
i =1

=

m

1

Z 1
Z 1
+∞
X
1
δ m f (0)
dt1 · · · dtm
···
m! 0
0 δx(t1 ) · · · δx(tm )
m=0
Z +∞
xp
1
×{
xe− pRp dx}m .
1
−1
1
−∞
2RΓ( p )p p

27

(140)

4.3

The average values on bounded set and the whole
space

From the average values on the ball M , we can compute the average values on
the bounded set M0 = {x|r ≤ ||x||p ≤ R} and define the average values on the
whole space C[0, 1]. Denote EM Y to be the average value of Y on M . In fact,
we have
R1
Theorem 9. Take the ball M0 = {x|rp ≤ 0 xp (t)dt ≤ Rp } in C[0, 1] with
norm ||x||p where p ≥ 1 when p = pq00 where p0 is even and (p0 , q0 ) = 1, and
R1
R1
denote MR = {x| 0 xp (t)dt ≤ Rp } and Mr = {x| 0 xp (t)dt ≤ rp }, r < R.
Suppose g satisfies the same conditions in theorem 4. Then for the functional
Y =

Z

1

(141)

g(x(t))dt,

0

we have
(142)

EM0 Y = EMR Y.

Pn

Proof. By the same discretization of x(t) on [0, 1], we have Yn = n1 k=1 g(xk ),
M0n = {(x1 , · · · , xn )|nrp ≤ xp1 + · · · + xpn ≤ nRp }, M1n = {(x1 , · · · , xn )|xp1 +
· · · + xpn ≤ nrp } and M1n = {(x1 , · · · , xn )|xp1 + · · · + xpn ≤ nRp }. Then
R
R
R
Y dvn
Y dvn − M1n Yn dvn
M0n n
M2n n
R
R
EM0n = R
=
M0n dvn
M2n dvn − M1n dvn
R

=

M2n
R

Yn dvn

M2n

dvn

R

RM1n

−

M2n

1−
From as n → +∞,

we have

R

RM1n
M2n

dvn
dvn

R

dvn
dvn

RM1n

M2n

=(

R

M1n
R

Yn dvn

M1n

dvn

dvn

.

(143)

dvn

r n
) → 0,
R

EM0 Y = lim EM0n Yn = EMR Y.
n→+∞

(144)

(145)

The proof is completed.
From the theorem, we can see that the integrations on the ball is the most
basic, by which we not only compute the average values on bounded set, but
also we can define and compute the integrations on the whole space C[0, 1].
Indeed, a natural definition for the average value of functional Y on the whole
space C[0, 1] is given as
EC[0,1] Y = lim EMR Y.
R→+∞

(146)

In other words, we first find the average value on the ball with radius R, and
then let R to tend to infinity.
28

4.4

The definition of average value of a general continuous
functional

In previous sections, all results are about the functionals with integral forms.
Here we will discuss how to define the average values for a general continuous
functionals on the ball M . From the theorem 7, we have known that the average
values depend on the discretizations, therefore, we only consider the uniform
dscretization. We take the uniform partition 0 = t0 < t1 < · · · < tn−1 < tn = 1
of [0, 1], and tk = nk for 0 ≤ k ≤ n. For any x(t) ∈ C[0, 1], we use the piecewise
linear function x
fn (t) to replace it, where
x
fn (t) =

x(tk ) − x(tk−1 )
(t − tk−1 ) + x(tk−1 ), tk−1 ≤ t ≤ tk , 0 ≤ k ≤ n. (147)
tk − tk−1

Then a continuous functional f (x) can be discretized as Yn = fn (x1 , · · · , xn ) =
f (f
xn ). Now we can define the average value of f on the ball M as follows,
R
fn (x1 , · · · , xn )dvn
,
(148)
EY = lim Mn R
n→+∞
dvn
Mn
where Mn is the discretization of M in terms of the same partition of [0, 1].
If we take the limitation as the radius R of M tending to infinity, we can
define the average value of f on the whole space. Although we can give the
definition, we cannot give the general method to compute exactly the average
values for general continuous functionals. For the concrete functional, we can
always find method to compute its average value exactly or approximately.
For those functionals of x(t) and x′ (t), such as Y = f (x, x′ , · · · ), by discretization and replacing derivative x′ by difference quotient, we can define and
compute their average value on M and C[0, 1].

5

Conclusion

Essentially, the concept of average value depends on how to define it. Without
measure, we also give such definitions on infinite dimensional balls. In particular, we prove that the average value depends on the discretization. This is an
important and interesting result from which we know that the definition and
computation of average values of functional on C[0, 1] with p−norm is subtle.
In addition, we use variance to describe the deviation of functional from its
average value. Borrowing the language of probability, we give versions of geometry for main theorems, and we can also see that it is just the geometrical
versions to provide more convenient and simple viewpoint for understanding the
infinite dimensional problem. Among those, we use the variance being zero to
character concentration without measure. However, a puzzled problem for me
is how to give an exact explanation for DY = 0. The simplicity of the result is
unexpected but reasonable, and hence it is interesting for us. It is well known
that in general few dimension means simple. However, from the above results,
29

we can see that in some degree infinite-dimensional integrals are more easy to
compute than the finite dimensional integrals. This also means that sometimes
infinite dimension contains simplicity. In other words, more free and more simple! This is also the essence of statistical physics. On the other hand, since the
average values of functionals depend on the discretizations, there exist subtle
complexity in infinite dimensional cases.
Acknowledgments: Thanks to Professor Erich Novak for his helpful comments on theorems 1 and 2 in the first version so that I can improve the whole
manuscript. In particular, due to his valuable comments to each version, I can
think about the whole topic and then find more results.

References
[1] Feynman R P, Hibbs A R. Quantum mechanics and path integrals: Emended
edition. Courier Dover Publications, 2012.
[2] Kleinert H. Path integrals in quantum mechanics, statistics, polymer physics,
and financial markets. World Scientific, 2009.
[3] Baaquie B E. Quantum finance: Path integrals and Hamiltonians for options
and interest rates. Cambridge University Press, 2007.
[4] Lévy P. Problems concrets d’analyse fonctionnelle. Gauthier-Villars. Paris,
1951.
[5] Wiener N. Differential space. Journal of Mathematical Physics. 1923,2: 131174.
[6] Wiener N. The mean of a functional of arbitrary elements. Annals of Mathematics. 1920, 22: 66-72.
[7] Wiener N. The average of an analytic functional and the Brownian movement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
of American. 1921, 7: 294-298.
[8] Wiener N. The average of an analytic functional. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of American. 1921, 7: 253-260.
[9] Kac M. On the average of a certain Wiener functional and a related limit theorem in calculus of probability. Transactions of the American Mathematical
Society. 1946, 59: 401-414.
[10] Cameron R H, Martin W T. Transformations of Weiner integrals under
translations. Annals of Mathematics. 1944,45: 386-396.
[11] Cameron R H, Martin W T. Evaluation of various Wiener integrals by use
of certain Sturm-Liouville differential equations. Bulletin of the American
Mathematical Society. 1945, 51: 73-90.

30

[12] Cameron R H, Martin W T. Transformations of Wiener integrals under a
general class of linear transformations. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society. 1945, 58: 184-219.
[13] Gelfand I M, Vilenkin N Y. Generalized functions. Vol. 4, Applications of
harmonic analysis. Moscow: Academic Press. 1964.
[14] Albeverio S, Hoegh-Krohn R, Mazzucchi S. Mathematical theory of Feynman path integrals: an introduction. New York: Springer-verlag, 2008.
[15] Skorokhod A V. (1974). Integration in Hilbert space. New York: SpringerVerlag, 1974.
[16] Hui-Hsiung Kuo, Gaussian measures in Banach spaces, Lect. Notes in Math
463, Springer, Berlin, 1975.
[17] Giles M B. Multilevel Monte Carlo path simulation, Oper. Res. 2008, 56:
607-617.
[18] Giles M B, Waterhouse B J. Multilevel quasi-Monte Carlo path simulation.
Advanced Financial Modelling, Radon Series on Computational and Applied
Mathematics, 2009, 8: 165-181.
[19] Novak E, Wo?niakowski H. Tractability of Multivariate Problems: Standard information for functionals. European Mathematical Society, 2008.
[20] Novak E, Ritter K. High dimensional integration of smooth functions over
cubes. Numerische Mathematik, 1996, 75(1): 79-97.
[21] Novak E, Wozniakowski H. When are integration and discrepancy
tractable?. LONDON MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY LECTURE NOTE SERIES, 2001: 211-266.
[22] Novak E, Ritter K, Schmitt R, Steinbauer A. On an interpolatory method
for high dimensional integration. Journal of computational and applied
mathematics, 1999, 112(1-2): 215-228.
[23] Gnewuch M. Weighted geometric discrepancies and numerical integration
on reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces, J. Complexity. 2012, 28: 2-17.
[24] Gnewuch M. Infinite-dimensional integration on weighted Hilbert spaces,
Math. Comp. 2012, 81: 2175-2205.
[25] Wasilkowski G W, Wözniakowski H. On tractability of path integration, J.
Math. Physics. 1996, 37:2071-2088.
[26] Kuo F Y, Nuyensb D, Plaskotac L, Sloana I H, Wasilkowski G W. Infinitedimensional integration and the multivariate decomposition method. Journal
of Computational and Applied Mathematics. 2017, 326(15):217-234.

31

[27] Gnewuch M, Mayer S, Ritter K. On weighted Hilbert spaces and integration
of functions of infinitely many variables. Journal of Complexity. 2014), 30(2):
29-47.
[28] Plaskota L, Wasilkowski G W. Efficient algorithms for multivariate and
∞−variate integration with exponential weight. Numerical Algorithms.
2014, 67(2): 385-403.
[29] Dick J, Gnewuch M. Infinite-dimensional integration in weighted Hilbert
spaces: anchored decompositions, optimal deterministic algorithms, and
higher-order convergence. Foundations of Computational Mathematics.
2014, 14(5): 1027-1077.
[30] Milman V D, Schechtman G. Asymptotic Theory of Finite Dimensional
Normed Spaces: Isoperimetric Inequalities in Riemannian Manifolds. New
York: Springer-verlag, 1986.
[31] Ledoux M. The concentration of measure phenomenon. American Mathematical Soc., 2005.
[32] Talagrand M.A new look at independence. The Annals of probability. 1996,
24: 1-34.
[33] Fikhtengol’ts G M. A Course of Differential and Integral Calculus. Moscow:
Science Pres. 1969.
[34] Liu Cheng-shi. Maximal non-symmetric entropy leads naturally to zipf’s
Law. Fractals, 2008, 16(01): 99-101.
[35] Liu Cheng-shi. Nonsymmetric entropy and maximum nonsymmetric entropy principle. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, 2009, 40(5): 2469-2474.
[36] Liu Cheng-shi. Lectures on the mean values of functionals–An elementary introduction to infinite-dimensional probability. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1705.03584, 2017.

32

