arxiv: v2 [math.ca] 8 Oct 2014

Transcription

1 FUNCTIONS OF BOUNDED VARIATION, SIGNED MEASURES, AND A GENERAL KOKSMA HLAWKA INEQUALITY CHRISTOPH AISTLEITNER AND JOSEF DICK arxiv: v2 [math.ca] 8 Oct 204 Abstract. In this paper we prove a corresponence principle between multivariate functions of boune variation in the sense of Hary an Krause an signe measures of finite total variation, which allows us to obtain a simple proof of a generalize Koksma Hlawka inequality for non-uniform measures. Applications of this inequality to importance sampling in Quasi-Monte Carlo integration an tractability theory are given. Furthermore, we iscuss the problem of transforming a low-iscrepancy sequence with respect to the uniform measure into a sequence with low iscrepancy with respect to a general measure µ, an show the limitations of a metho suggeste by Chelson.. Introuction Letx,...,x N beasetofpointsinthe-imensionalunitcube[0,]. Thestar-iscrepancy DN of this point set is efine as () DN (x,...,x N ) = sup A (x n ) λ(a) A A N. Here, an in the sequel, we write A for the inicator function of a set A, λ for the (-imensional) Lebesgue measure an A for the class of all close axis-parallel boxes containe in [0,] which have one vertex at the origin. We generally write vectors in bol font. For vectors a,b we write a b an a < b if the respective inequalities hol in each coorinate, an we write [a,b] for the set {x : a x b}. We write 0 an for the -imensional vectors (0,...,0) an (,...,), respectively. Since the star-iscrepancy DN is the only iscrepancy mentione in this paper, we will use the wor iscrepancy synonymously with star-iscrepancy. n= The Koksma Hlawka inequality states that for any function f on [0,] which has boune variation in the sense of Hary an Krause an any point set x,...,x N [0,] we have (2) f(x n ) f(x) x N [0,] (Var HKf)DN (x,...,x N ). n= 200 Mathematics Subject Classification. 26B30, 65D30, 65C05, K38. The first author is supporte by a Schröinger scholarship of the Austrian Research Founation (FWF). The secon author is supporte by an Australian Research Council Queen Elizabeth 2 Fellowship.

2 2 CHRISTOPH AISTLEITNER AND JOSEF DICK A efinition of the variation in the sense of Hary an Krause (enote by Var HK an abbreviate as HK-variation in this paper) is given in Section 2 below. More precisely, by Var HK an HK-variation we mean the variation in the sense of Hary an Krause anchore at (later in this paper the HK-variation anchore at 0 will also play a role; however, the HK-variation anchore at is the usual HK-variation). The one-imensional version of the inequality (2) was first prove by Koksma [24] in 942, the multiimensional generalization by Hlawka [9] in 96. The Koksma Hlawka inequality suggests that point sets having small iscrepancy can be use for the approximation of the integral of a multivariate function - this observation is one of the cornerstones of the Quasi-Monte Carlo metho (QMC metho) for numerical integration, which uses cleverly esigne eterministic points as sampling points of a quarature rule (as oppose to the Monte Carlo metho, where ranomly generate points are use). Since there exist several constructions of point sets x,...,x N in [0,] which achieve a iscrepancy boune by (3) D N(x,...,x N ) c (logn) N, for large N the error estimates in QMC integration can be much better than the (ranomize) error of the Monte Carlo metho (MC metho), which is of orer N /2. More information on iscrepancy in the context of the previous paragraphs can be foun in the monographs [3, 4, 25]. Discrepancy theory in a more general context (geometric, combinatorial, etc.) is escribe in [, 29]. A comparison between MC an QMC methos can be foun in [26]. The QMC metho is wiely applie to numerical integration problems, for example to the problem of option pricing in financial mathematics. The general iea is that the problem of calculating the expecte value of a multiimensional ranom variable or the problem of calculating an integral over a general omain Ω R with respect to a general measure µ can be transforme into an integration problem with respect to the uniform measure on [0,]. However, this transformation process is not without its pitfalls, see [48, 49]. This is a particularly critical issue as the Koksma Hlawka inequality is extremely sensitive with respect to the smallest changes of the function f, since the slightest eformation can turn a function having small HK-variation into a function of infinite HK-variation. For example, if a smooth function f on a general integration omain Ω [0,] is simply embee into [0,] by efining f(x) = 0 on [0,] \Ω, then clearly Ω f(x) x = [0,] f(x) x but the Koksma Hlawka inequality is not applicable since the extene function is in general not of boune HK-variation (unless, roughly speaking, Ω itself is an axis-parallel box). Similar problems appear if one tries to switch from an integral with respect to a general measure to an integral with respect to the uniform measure. Consequently, it is esirable to fin a variant of QMC integration which is irectly applicable to integration with respect to general measures (this inclues the case of general omains Ω [0,], by taking a measure which is only supporte on Ω). Another motivation for stuying such general problems comes from the fact that they are closely relate to importance sampling for

3 BOUNDED VARIATION, SIGNED MEASURES, KOKSMA HLAWKA INEQUALITY 3 QMC; see Corollary below. Let µ be a normalize Borel measure on [0,]. The star-iscrepancy with respect to µ of a point set x,...,x N [0,] is efine as (4) DN (x,...,x N ;µ) = sup A (x n ) µ(a) A A N. Improving results of Beck [4], the authors of the present paper recently showe that for any µ an any N there exists a point set x,...,x N [0,] for which (5) D N (x,...,x N ;µ) c (logn) (3+)/2 N ; see [2]. There is a gap between this upper boun an that for the uniform measure in (3), an it is an interesting open problem whether the smallest possible iscrepancy with respect to general measures µ is asymptotically of the same orer as the smallest possible iscrepancy with respect to the uniform measure. It shoul be note that it is also unknown whether (3) is optimal or if the exponent of the logarithmic term can be further reuce; this is known as the Gran Open Problem of iscrepancy theory (see [5, 6]). To show that QMC integration is in principle also possible with respect to general measures, the estimate (5) is not sufficient. Aitionally one nees a generalize Koksma Hlawka inequality for non-uniform measures, which is given in Theorem below. Theorem. Let f be a measurable 2 function on [0,] which has boune HK-variation. Let µ be a normalize Borel measure on [0,], an let x,...,x N be a set of points in [0,]. Then (6) f(x n ) f(x) µ(x) N [0,] (Var HKf)DN(x,...,x N ;µ). n= Theorem irectly implies the following result, which shows that the metho of importance sampling can be use for Quasi-Monte Carlo integration. Corollary. Let f be a measurable function on [0,], an let g be the ensity of a normalizeborelmeasureµ g on [0,]. Assume further thatf/g hasboune HK-variation, an that g(x) > 0 for all x [0,]. Let x,...,x N be a set of points in [0,]. Then (7) N n= f(x n ) g(x n ) f(x) x [0,] n= ( Var HK ( f g )) D N (x,...,x N ;µ g ). Throughout this paper we unerstan that a measure is always non-negative, while a signe measure may also have negative values. 2 We use the wor measurable in the sense of Borel-measurable, that is in the sense of measurable with respect to Borel sets. It is possible that a function which has boune HK-variation is always Borel-measurable as well, an that the assumption of f being measurable can be omitte in the statement of the theorem. However, we have not foun any evience of the assertion that boune HK-variation implies Borel-measurability in the literature.

4 4 CHRISTOPH AISTLEITNER AND JOSEF DICK The iea of importance sampling is to fin a function g for which the HK-variation of f/g is significantly smaller than that of f; in this case the error boun in (7) can be much better than that in the stanar Koksma Hlawka inequality (2). Corollary was obtaine by Chelson [2] in his PhD thesis, which was publishe in 976; it is state there with the incorrect conclusion that on the right-han sie of (7) one can take the iscrepancy with respect to the uniform measure of a point set which is relate to x,...,x N by a simple transformation, instea of the iscrepancy of x,...,x N with respect to the measure inuce by g. Chelson s result an its correct an incorrect parts are escribe in etail in Section 5. Chelson s result is formulate in the language of Corollary, which can only be sensibly state with the assumption that g is the ensity of a measure; accoringly, a variant of Theorem can only be euce from Chelson s formulation with the aitional assumption that µ possesses a ensity, an not for general µ. Because of the issues mentione in the previous paragraph, the main impulse for writing this paper was to iscuss Chelson s result an metho, an to give a correct proof of Theorem without assuming that the measure µ possesses a ensity. However, when the present manuscript was almost finishe, we coincientally foun out that such a result ha alreay been obtaine by Götz [5]. Götz s paper was publishe in 2002, but apparently it was almost completely overlooke until now; we only foun it casually note in a short survey article of Nieerreiter [30]. Apparently Götz i not know of Chelson s result. It shoul be note that espite the remarks concerning Chelson s result in the previous paragraph, his metho of proof is in principle correct, an coul be moifie to give a correct proof of Corollary. Chelson s an Götz s results are both prove using the same metho which is usually use for proving the stanar Koksma Hlawka inequality, namely Abel partial summation. Our proof for Theorem is simpler; it can be seen as an application of a partial integration formula for the Stieltjes integral, which, however, is nothing other than the continuous analogue of the Abel summation formula. The proof is base on a corresponence principle between functions of boune HK-variation an signe measures of finite total variation, which is of some interest in its own right (see Theorem 3 below). Together with recent new results on the existence of low-iscrepancy point sets with respect to general measures µ, Theorem implies strong convergence results for QMC integration with respect to general measures (see Corollaries 2 an 3 below). A result somewhat similar to Theorem in the case when the measure µ is the uniform measure on the unit simplex was obtaine in [3, 37, 38]. A result similar to Theorem in the special case when µ is the uniform measure on a set Ω [0,] (or, more generally, for boune Ω R ) has been obtaine recently by Branolini et al. [0]; however, their error estimate contains multiplicative factors which epen exponentially on the imension, an which accoringly spoil all tractability results (the case of star-iscrepancy an HK-variationis the special case p = an q = of the more general result in their paper). Another result of Branolini et al. [9] gives a general Koksma Hlawka inequality for the

5 BOUNDED VARIATION, SIGNED MEASURES, KOKSMA HLAWKA INEQUALITY 5 uniform measure on compact parallelepipes or simplices. The following theorem establishes the existence of the Joran ecomposition of a multivariate function of boune HK-variation. It is a generalization of the well-known Joran ecomposition theorem for functions of boune variation in the one-imensional case (see for example [5, 2, Section III]). The key ingreient in its proof is a ecomposition theorem of Leonov [27, Theorem 3]. The statement of the theorem uses the notion of a completely monotone function, which is efine in Section 2 below. It also uses the notion of the HK-variation anchore at 0, which is also efine in Section 2, an which is enote by HK0-variation an Var HK0 in this paper. The HK0-variation of a function is in general ifferent from the usual HK-variation anchore at. However, a function which has boune HK-variation also has boune HK0-variation, an vice versa (see Lemma 2 below). Thus in the assumptions of Theorems -3 an throughout this paper the phrase f has boune HK-variation coul be replace by f has boune HK0-variation. However, the variations Var HK an Var HK0 must not be simply exchange in the conclusions of the respective theorems. Theorem 2. Let f be a function on [0,] which has boune HK-variation. Then there exist two uniquely etermine completely monotone functions f + an f on [0,] such that f + (0) = f (0) = 0 an an f(x) = f(0)+f + (x) f (x), x [0,], (8) Var HK0 f = Var HK0 f + +Var HK0 f. We call the unique ecomposition f = f + f having the properties escribe in Theorem2theJoran ecomposition ofthefunctionf. Wenotethatusing relation(20) belowit is easy to obtain a variant of Theorem 2 for the HK-variation instea of the HK0-variation. The following theorem shows, simply speaking, that any right-continuous function of boune HK-variation efines a finite signe measure an vice versa, an that the HK0- variation of the function an the total variation of the signe measure coincie. The Joran ecomposition of a signe measure an the total variation of a signe measure, enote by Var total, are efine in Section 2 below. Theorem 3. (a) Let f be a right-continuous 3 function on [0,] which has boune HK-variation. Then there exists a unique signe Borel measure ν on [0,] for which (9) f(x) = ν([0,x]), x [0,]. Then we have (0) Var total ν = Var HK0 f + f(0). 3 We call a multivariate function right-continuous if it is coorinatewise right-continuous in each coorinate, at every point.

6 6 CHRISTOPH AISTLEITNER AND JOSEF DICK Furthermore, if f(x) = f(0) + f + (x) f (x) is the Joran ecomposition of f, an ν = ν + ν is the Joran ecomposition 4 of ν, then () f + (x) = ν + ([0,x]\{0}) an f (x) = ν ([0,x]\{0}), x [0,]. (b) Let ν be a finite signe Borel measure on [0,]. Then there exists a unique rightcontinuous function of boune HK-variation f on [0,] for which (9) an (0) hol. Furthermore, if f(x) = f(0)+f + (x) f (x) is the Joran ecomposition of f an ν = ν + ν is the Joran ecomposition of ν, then () hols. This connection between functions of boune HK-variation an finite signe measures is quite natural, an has probably been observe an use in a less specific form before. For example, this is the same mechanism by which a multiimensional aitive set-function of boune variation efines a finite signe measure an a corresponing multiimensional Stieltjes-integral, as escribe in Chapter 3 of Stanis law Saks [43] classical monograph on the Theory of the Integral. In essence, this is also the same principle which has been use by Zaremba [52] for his proof of the Koksma Hlawka inequality by multiimensional Abel summation, which is now the stanar metho. However, the ecomposition in Theorem 2 an the corresponence between functions of boune variation an finite signe measures in Theorem 3, an in particular the relation between the HK0-variation of the function an the total variation of the corresponing signe measure, are far from being self-evient, anwehavenotfounanyexplicit statementliketheorem2ortheorem3intheliterature. A somewhat vague connection between functions of boune HK-variation an signe measures is casually note in [7]. A new notion of boune variation of a function (which has later been calle boune variation in the measure sense), which is efine in terms of a signe measure corresponing to a function, is efine in [8], an is use there to prove a general Koksma Hlawka inequality; however, it is not state which functions are of boune variation in this sense. A connection between functions of boune HK-variation an functions of boune variation in the measure sense (significantly weaker than our Theorem 3) is mentione as a Proposition (without proof) in [50], with reference to an unpublishe manuscript. The same result is state as a Theorem (without proof) in [34], an then, by the same author an several years later, in [35] as an unproven conjecture. As our Theorem 3 shows the notion of boune variation in the measure sense is superfluous, since it coincies with the notion of boune HK-variation (asie from continuity issues). Finally, we want to state two consequences of Theorem an the recent results obtaine by the authors in [2]. The first result shows that QMC integration with respect to general measures is possible with a convergence rate for the error which is almost the same as in 4 Note that contrary to the Joran ecomposition of a multivariate function of boune variation, which we have not foun in the literature an whose efinition is given an whose existence is establishe by Theorem 2, the Joran ecomposition of a signe measure is a well-known concept in measure theory; in particular, the Joran ecomposition of a signe measure always exists an is unique. See Section 2 for etails.

7 BOUNDED VARIATION, SIGNED MEASURES, KOKSMA HLAWKA INEQUALITY 7 the case of the uniform measure; the secon is a tractability result, which states that QMC integration is possible with a moerate number of sampling points in comparison with the imension, just as in the case of the uniform measure. Corollary 2. For any normalize Borel measure µ on [0,] an any N there exist points x,...,x N [0,] for which sup f(x n ) f(x) µ(x) f N [0,] 63 (2+log 2N) (3+)/2, N n= where the supremum is taken over all measurable functions f on [0,] which satisfy Var HK f. Corollary 3. Let ε > 0 be given. Then for any normalize Borel measure µ on [0,] there exists a point set x,...,x N [0,] such that (2) N 2 26 ε 2 an (3) sup f N f(x n ) f(x) µ(x) [0,] ε, n= where the supremum is taken over all measurable functions f on [0,] which satisfy Var HK f. The corollaries follow irectly from Theorem together with [2, Theorem ] an [2, Corollary ], respectively. Corollary 3 implies that the problem of integrating -imensional functions whose HK-variation is uniformly boune with respect to any normalize measure is polynomially tractable. For more information on tractability see the three volumes on Tractability of Multivariate Problems by Novak an Woźniakowski [3, 32, 33]. In the case of the function class being restricte to inicator functions of sets A A (that is, in the case of the left-han sie of (3) being the star-iscrepancy with respect to µ) Corollary 3 was prove in [8] (without an effective value for the constant in (2)). It shoul be note that the results in [2] are pure existence results, an that the problem of constructing point sets satisfying the conclusions of Corollary 2 an 3 is completely open. This problem is shortly aresse in Section 5. Theoutlineoftheremainingpartofthispaperisasfollows. Section2containsallnecessary efinitions, an some basic properties of the concepts neee for our proofs. In Section 3 the proof of Theorem 2 an 3 is given, as well as the proof of a lemma establishing a connection between the HK-variation an the HK0-variation (see Lemma 2 below). In Section 4 we euce Theorem from Theorem 3. In Section 5 we iscuss Chelson s result, which is formulate together with a transformation process which supposely transforms low-iscrepancy point sets with respect to λ into low-iscrepancy point sets with respect to a general measure µ. We show why this transformation oes not have the allege properties, an that it oes actually work when the measure µ is of prouct type.

8 8 CHRISTOPH AISTLEITNER AND JOSEF DICK 2. Definitions an basic properties To efine the variation in the sense of Hary an Krause, we follow the exposition in [27]; however, aitionally we pay attention to the fact that we can put the anchor either to the lower left corner 0 (as in [27]) or to the upper right corner (as is usually one in the context of iscrepancy theory; see for example [25]). Subsequently, we introuce completely monotone functions, following [27, Section 3]. We note that a comprehensive survey on HK-variation an its properties can be foun in [36]. Let f(x) be a function on [0,]. Let a = (a,...,a ) an b = (b,...,b ) be elements of [0,] such that a < b. We introuce the -imensional ifference operator (), which assigns to the axis-parallel box A = [a, b] a -imensional quasi-volume (4) () (f;a) = For s =,...,, let j =0 ( ) j + +j f(b +j (a b ),...,b +j (a b )). j =0 0 = x (s) 0 < x (s) < < x (s) m s = be a partition of [0,], an let P be the partition of [0,] which is given by {[ ] [ ] } (5) P = x () l,x () l + x () l,x () l +, l s = 0,...,m s, s =,...,. Then the variation of f on [0,] in the sense of Vitali is given by (6) V () (f;[0,] ) = sup () (f;a), P where the supremum is extene over all partitions of [0,] into axis-parallel boxes generate by one-imensional partitions of [0,], as in (5). For s an i < < i s, let V (s) (f;i,...,i s ;[0,] ) enote the s-imensional variation in the sense of Vitali of the restriction of f to the face (7) U (i,...,i s) = { } (x,...,x ) [0,] : x j = for all j i,...,i s of [0,]. Then the variation of f on [0,] in the sense of Hary an Krause anchore at, abbreviate by HK-variation, is given by (8) Var HK (f;[0,] ) = s= A P i < <i s V (s)( f;i,...,i s ;[0,] ). Note that for the efinition of the HK-variation in (8), we a the -imensional variation in the sense of Vitali plus the variation in the sense of Vitali on all lower-imensional faces of [0,] which are ajacent to. For the HK0-variation, we take instea the sum over those lower-imensional faces which are ajacent to 0. More precisely, let

9 BOUNDED VARIATION, SIGNED MEASURES, KOKSMA HLAWKA INEQUALITY 9 V (s;0) (f;i,...,i s ;[0,] ) enote the s-imensional variation in the sense of Vitali of the restriction of f to the face W (i,...,i s) = { (x,...,x ) [0,] : x j = 0 for all j i,...,i s }. Then the variation of f on [0,] in the sense of Hary an Krause anchore at 0, abbreviate by HK0-variation, is given by (9) Var HK0 (f;[0,] ) = V (s;0)( f;i,...,i s ;[0,] ). s= i < <i s For any a [0,], a 0, we can efine the variation in the sense of Vitali an the HK0-variation of f on [0,a] in a similar way as above, by consiering ecompositions of [0,a] into axis-parallel boxes instea of ecompositions of [0,], an again taking a sum over all lower-imensional faces ajacent to 0 as in (9). For notational convenience we also efine Var HK0 (f;[0,0]) = 0. Throughout this paper, we simply write Var HK f an Var HK0 f for Var HK (f;[0,] ) an Var HK0 (f;[0,] ), respectively. The HK-variation an the HK0-variation of a function are in general ifferent; for example, the inicator function f of the close axis-parallel box stretching from the point (/2,...,/2) to has HK-variation 2, but HK0-variation only. This ifference reflects the fact that on the one han the function f can be written as the sum/ifference of no less than 2 inicator functions of axis-parallel boxes which have one vertex at the origin (which affects the error term in the Koksma Hlawka inequality for f in Theorem ), but on the other han f is the istribution function of a measure whose total mass is only (namely the Dirac measure centere at (/2,...,/2); consequently this version of the variation appears in Theorem 3). This example represents the worst case : wewillshowinlemma2belowthatwealwayshavevar HK (2 )Var HK0 anviceversa. We note that by a simple mirroring argument for any function of boune HK-variation f we have (20) Var HK f = Var HK0 g, where g is efine by g(x) = f( x), x [0,] ; this relation will be neee in the proof of Theorem, an explains why the HK0-variation turns into the HK-variation when Theorem 3 is use to prove Theorem (see Section 4). We will also nee the following lemma. Lemma. Let f an g be functions on [0,] which have boune HK0-variation. Then for any a,b [0,], a b, we have Var HK0 (f +g;[0,b]) Var HK0 (f +g;[0,a]) Var HK0 (f;[0,b])+var HK0 (g;[0,b]) Var HK0 (f;[0,a]) Var HK0 (g;[0,a]). Note that as a special case of the lemma (for a = 0) we have (2) Var HK0 (f +g;[0,b]) Var HK0 (f;[0,b])+var HK0 (g;[0,b]),

10 0 CHRISTOPH AISTLEITNER AND JOSEF DICK which is just the triangle inequality for the HK0-variation. In a similar way we coul prove the (well-known) triangle inequality for the HK-variation: we have (22) Var HK (f +g) Var HK f +Var HK g. Proof of Lemma. There exist a number m an axis-parallel boxes [a i,b i ], i =,...,m, such that [a,b ] = [0,a] an such that m [a i,b i ] = [0,b] an [a i,b i ) [a j,b j ) = for i j. i= The system [a i,b i ], i m is calle a split of [0,b], an for any function h which has boune variation on [0,] we have m (23) V () (h;[0,b]) = V () (h;[a i,b i ]) i= (this is state, for example, in [36, Lemma ]). Thus by the triangle inequality for the variation in the sense of Vitali (which follows irectly from the orinary triangle inequality for real numbers) we have = V () (f +g;[0,b]) V () (f +g;[0,a]) m V () (f +g;[a i,b i ]) i=2 m ( V () (f;[a i,b i ])+V () (g;[a i,b i ]) ) i=2 = V () (f;[0,b]) V () (f;[0,a])+v () (g;[0,b]) V () (g;[0,a]). Similar inequalities hol for the variation in the sense of Vitali on all lower-imensional faces of [0,b] ajacent to 0. Since the HK0-variation is efine as the sum over these variations in the sense of Vitali, an since the requeste inequality hols in each summan, we obtain the conclusion of the lemma. The following lemma establishes the connection between HK-variation an HK0-variation, which was alreay announce before the statement of Theorem 2. Its proof relies upon Theorem 3, an will be given at the en of Section 3. Lemma 2. Let f be a function on [0,] which has boune HK0-variation. Then f has boune HK-variation as well, an Var HK f ( 2 ) Var HK0 f. The same statement hols if the roles of HK0-variation an HK-variation are interchange.

11 BOUNDED VARIATION, SIGNED MEASURES, KOKSMA HLAWKA INEQUALITY A function h on [0,] is calle completely monotone if for any close axis-parallel box A [0,] of arbitrary imension s (where s ) its s-imensional quasi-volume (s) generate by the function h is non-negative (other wors which are use for this property are quasi-monotone, monotonely monotone an entirely monotone). A function of boune HK-variation can be split into the ifference of two completely monotone functions; for the two-imensional case this is mentione in [], where it is attribute to Hobson [22]. The following result of Leonov [27] shows a way for obtaining such a ecomposition. Lemma 3 ([27, Theorem 3]). Let f(x) be a function on [0,], which has boune HK0- variation. Then the functions (24) f (x) = Var HK0 (f;[0,x]) an f 2 (x) = f (x) f(x) are completely monotone, an f(x) = f (x) f 2 (x), x [0,]. Note that the ecomposition into two completely monotone functions is not unique. If f has boune HK0-variation an g,h are completely monotone functions such that f = g h, then for any completely monotone function r the two functions f +r an g +r also form a ecomposition of f as the ifference of two completely monotone functions. Thus the ecomposition given in Lemma 3 is just one out of many possible ecompositions of f; in particular, it is not the outstaning ecomposition which is mentione in Theorem 2. For a completely monotone function h we have Var HK0 (h;[0,x]) = h(x) h(0) (as note after [27, Definition 2], this follows from Equations (6), (7) an Theorem of [27]). Consequently, for the functions f,f 2 in Lemma 3 we have Var HK0 f = Var HK0 f an Var HK0 f 2 = Var HK0 f f()+f(0), which implies thatbothfunctionsf,f 2 areofboune HK0-variation (an thus, by Lemma 2, also of boune HK-variation). A signe measure is a measure which is also allowe to have negative values. A formal efinition can be foun for example in [5, Chapter 0]. By the Joran Decomposition Theorem (see for example [5, Theorem 0.2]) any signe measure ν on a measurable space (Ω, A) can be uniquely ecompose into a positive an a negative part which are orthogonal to each other. More precisely, there exist measures ν + an ν such that ν + ν an ν = ν + ν. Here ν + ν means that there exist two sets C +,C A such that Ω = C + C an C + C =, an such that ν (C + ) = 0 an ν + (C ) = 0. Furthermore, at least one of the measures ν +,ν is finite; as a consequence, if ν is finite, then both ν + an ν must be finite. The pair (ν +,ν ) is calle the Joran ecomposition of ν. The measure ν = ν + + ν is calle the variation measure of ν, an the quantity Var total ν = ν (Ω) = ν + (Ω)+ν (Ω) is calle the total variation of ν.

12 2 CHRISTOPH AISTLEITNER AND JOSEF DICK 3. Functions of boune variation an signe measures: Proof of Theorem 2, Theorem 3 an Lemma 2 In the proofs of Theorem 2 an Theorem 3 below, only the variation anchore at 0 (that is, the HK0-variation) plays a role. Subsequently, in Lemma 2, the connection between HK0-variation an HK-variation is establishe. Proof of Theorem 2. Let f be a function on [0,] which has boune HK0-variation, an let f,f 2 be the functions efine in Lemma 3. These functions o not provie the esire ecomposition; in fact, we have Var HK0 f +Var HK0 f 2 = f () f (0)+f 2 () f 2 (0) = Var HK0 f +Var HK0 f f()+f(0) = 2Var HK0 f f()+f(0), an while for any function f of boune HK0-variation we have (25) f() f(0) Var HK0 f, there is in general no equality in (25). Consequently, the sum of the variations of the functions f an f 2 from Lemma 3 is in general larger than the variation of f. Instea, we efine the functions (26) (27) f + (x) = 2 (Var HK0(f;[0,x])+f(x) f(0)), f (x) = 2 (Var HK0(f;[0,x]) f(x)+f(0)) for x [0,]. Then obviously we have f(x) = f(0) + f + (x) f (x) for every x. Furthermore, since the function f 2 in Lemma 3 is completely monotone, the same is true for the function f in (27). Now set g = f. Then it is easily seen that for any x we have Var HK0 (g;[0,x]) = Var HK0 (f;[0,x]). Applying Lemma 3 to g we see that the function Var HK0 (g;[0,x]) g(x) = Var HK0 (f;[0,x])+f(x) = 2f + (x)+f(0) is completely monotone, which implies that the function f + is also completely monotone. Thus both f + an f are completely monotone, an we have an similarly Var HK0 f + = f + () f + (0) = 2 (Var HK0f +f() f(0)) Var HK0 f = 2 (Var HK0f f()+f(0)), which proves that Var HK0 f = Var HK0 f + +Var HK0 f.

13 BOUNDED VARIATION, SIGNED MEASURES, KOKSMA HLAWKA INEQUALITY 3 It is easily seen that f + (0) = f (0) = 0, an thus the functions f + an f from (26) an (27) have the properties requeste in Theorem 2. It remains to show that this ecomposition is the only one satisfying the statement of Theorem 2. Thus, suppose that g + an g are two completely monotone functions such that f(x) = f(0)+g + (x) g (x) for every x an g + (0) = g (0) = 0. Then for every x we have (28) g + (x)+g (x) = Var HK0 (g + ;[0,x])+Var HK0 (g ;[0,x]) Var HK0 (f;[0,x]) = f + (x)+f (x), where (28) follows from the triangle inequality for the HK0-variation, that is, from (2). By aing f + f = g + g to each line of this inequality we obtain (29) g + (x) f + (x), x [0,], an by subtracting the same quantity from each line we similarly get (30) g (x) f (x), x [0,]. Suppose that there exists a point x [0,] such that g + (x) f + (x). By (29) this implies g + (x) > f + (x), which together with (30) an the assumption that g + (0) = g (0) = 0 also implies (3) Var HK0 (g + ;[0,x])+Var HK0 (g ;[0,x]) = g + (x)+g (x) > Var HK0 (f;[0,x]). By Lemma we have Var HK0 (g + ;[0,])+Var HK0 (g ;[0,]) Var HK0 (g + ;[0,x]) Var HK0 (g ;[0,x]) Var HK0 (f;[0,]) Var HK0 (f;[0,x]). Combining this with (3) we have Var HK0 g + +Var HK0 g > Var HK0 f. Thus the ecomposition of f into g + an g violates (8), which means that it oes not have the properties requeste in Theorem 2. Consequently, the ecomposition of f escribe in Theorem 2 is unique. We note that the functions f + an f are the positive variation an the negative variation of f, respectively. They coul be also efine by taking into consieration only the positive or only the negative contributions in (6), respectively, instea of taking absolute values. However, this aspect is not important for our paper, so we o not pursue it any further. Proof of Theorem 3 (a). Assume that f is a right-continuous function on [0,] which has boune HK0-variation. Let f +,f be the functions in the Joran ecomposition of f as in Theorem 2. As note, both f + an f are completely monotone.

14 4 CHRISTOPH AISTLEITNER AND JOSEF DICK Now we will show that f + an f are right-continuous. We efine functions f + an f by setting (32) f+ (x) = limf + (x +ε,x 2,...,x ), f (x) = limf (x +ε,x 2,...,x ) εց0 εց0 for x = (x,...,x ) [0,) an f + (x) = f + (x) an f (x) = f (x) for x [0,] \[0,). Note that the limits in (32) exist since f + an f are monotone in every coorinate an boune. By construction, the functions f + an f are right-continuous in the first coorinate, at every point. Also, both functions f+ an f are completely monotone (this property is inherite from f + an f, respectively). Furthermore Var HK0f+ = f + () f + (0) f + () f + (0) = Var HK0 f +, an a similar inequality hols for f. We also have f + (x) f ( (x) = lim f + (x +ε,x 2,...,x ) f (x +ε,x 2,...,x ) ) εց0 (33) = limf(x +ε,x 2,...,x ) f(0) εց0 (34) = f(x) f(0), where we use the fact that f is right-continuous to get from (33) to (34). Thus by (2) we must actually have (35) Var HK0f+ = Var HK0 f + an Var HK0f = Var HK0 f, an Var HK0f+ +Var HK0f = Var HK0 f. Since by construction f + () = f + () an f () = f (), an since the functions f + an f are completely monotone, by (35) we have f + (0) = f + () Var HK0f+ = f + () Var HK0 f + = f + (0) = 0, ansimilarly f (0) = 0. Overall, thefunctions f + an f haveallthepropertiesrequeste from the ecomposition in Theorem 2. However, since this ecomposition is unique, we must have f + = f + an f = f. In other wors, the functions f + an f must alreay be right-continuous in the first coorinate. The same argument can be applie to show that f + an f must be right-continuous in all other coorinates as well. We can efine a set-function ν + f on the elements of A by setting ν + f ([0,x]) = f+ (x) for x [0,]. This function can be extene in a unique way into a countably aitive set-function on the algebra of all finite unions of elements of A (here it is important that f + is rightcontinuous, to ensure that the resulting set-function is countably aitive). Finally, by the Caratheoory extension theorem, this countably aitive set-function can be extene in a unique way into a measure ν + f on the sigma-fiel generate by A. Since the sigma-fiel generate by A consists of the Borel sets on [0,], the measure ν + f is a Borel measure. All the necessary extension theorems for this construction are containe in Chapter 5 of [5];

15 BOUNDED VARIATION, SIGNED MEASURES, KOKSMA HLAWKA INEQUALITY 5 however, this is just the stanar construction how a multivariate istribution function (namely the function f + ) efines a measure, as escribe for example in Chapter 3 of [23]. In the same way, we can construct a measure ν f from f. Note that both ν + f an ν f are finite. Let δ f(0) be the signe Borel measure on [0,] for which { f(0) if 0 A δ f(0) (A) = 0 otherwise. We efine (36) ν f = ν + f ν f +δ f(0). Then ν f is a finite signe Borel measure, an we have ν f ([0,x]) = f + (x) f (x)+f(0) = f(x) for x [0,]. By the Joran Decomposition Theorem (see the en of the previous section) there exist measures ν + an ν such that ν + ν an ν f = ν + ν. Furthermore there exist two (Borel-)sets C +,C such that [0,] = C + C an C + C =, an such that ν (C + ) = 0 an ν + (C ) = 0. It is not a priori clear that the Joran ecomposition of the measure ν f is in irect corresponence with the Joran ecomposition of the function f, that ν + f ν f, an that (36) alreay gives the Joran representation of ν f δ f(0). However, we will now show that this actually is the case. Let (ν +,ν ) be the Joran ecomposition of ν f. We efine functions g + (x) an g (x) on [0,] by setting g + (x) = ν + ([0,x]\{0}), x [0,], an g (x) = ν ([0,x]\{0})), x [0,]. Then it is easily seen that g + an g are completely monotone functions, an that we have f(x) = f(0) + g + (x) g (x) for all x [0,]. Furthermore g + (0) = g (0) = 0. Let C +,C be the two sets from above. Then Var HK0 g + = g + () g + (0) }{{} =0 = ν + ([0,]\{0})) = ν + (C + \{0}) = ν f (C + \{0}) = ν + f (C+ ) ν f (C+ ) ν + f ([0,]) = f + () = Var HK0 f +.

16 6 CHRISTOPH AISTLEITNER AND JOSEF DICK Similarly we obtain Var HK0 g Var HK0 f, which implies (37) Var HK0 g + +Var HK0 g Var HK0 f + +Var HK0 f = Var HK0 f. By (2) the inequality sign in (37) must actually be an equality sign. Consequently, the ecomposition f(x) = f(0)+g + (x) g (x) is a ecomposition having all the properties escribe in Theorem 2. Now since the ecomposition in Theorem 2 is unique, this implies that f + = g + an f = g. As a consequence, we have Var total ν f = ν +( [0,] ) +ν ( [0,] ) = f + ()+f ()+ f(0) = Var HK0 f + f(0). This proves part (a) of the theorem. Proof of Theorem 3 (b). Assume that a finite signe measure ν on [0,] is given. Then by the Joran ecomposition theorem there exist two finite measures ν + an ν such that ν = ν + ν, an such that ν + ν. We efine two functions f +,f on [0,] by setting f + (x) = ν + ([0,x]\{0}), f (x) = ν ([0,x]\{0}), x [0,]. Then f + an f are two finite, right-continuous, completely monotone functions. Furthermore, the function f(x) = f + (x) f (0) +ν({0}), x [0,], is a right-continuous function of boune HK0-variation (since it can be written as the ifference of two finite, completely monotone functions; see [27, Corollary 3]). As explaine in part (a) of this proof, the function f efines measures ν + f an ν f an a finite signe measure ν f. It is then easily seen that ν f coincies with ν, that the pair (ν + f,ν f ) is the unique Joran ecomposition of ν f δ f(0), an that consequently f + an f are the Joran ecomposition of the function f. As a consequence we have which proves the theorem. Var HK0 f = Var HK0 f + +Var HK0 f = ν +( [0,] \{0} ) +ν ( [0,] \{0} ) = Var total ν ν({0}), }{{} = f(0) Proof of Lemma 2. Let a function f on [0,] be given, an assume that f has boune HK0-variation. In the first step we assume that f is right-continuous. Then by Theorem 2 an Theorem 3 there exist completely monotone functions f + an f such that (8) hols, an there exists a signe measure ν which, together with its Joran ecomposition ν = ν + ν, satisfies (9)-(). To calculate the HK-variation of f, we have to calculate its variation in the sense of Vitali on faces of the form (7). However, the situation becomes much easier if we separately calculate the variations in the sense of Vitali of f + an f instea. For a completely monotone function h we have (38) V ()( h;[0,] ) = ()( h;[0,] ).

17 BOUNDED VARIATION, SIGNED MEASURES, KOKSMA HLAWKA INEQUALITY 7 This equality follows from the fact that for a completely monotone function all summans in the sum in (6) are non-negative, an consequently this sum is a sort of telescoping sum, no matter which partition P is chosen (alternatively, this equality may be euce from the fact that it trivially hols in the one-imensional case, an that the -imensional ifference operator () actually is the composition of one-imensional ifference operators). For the same reason, the same equality as (38) hols for the s-imensional variation in the sense of Vitali V (s) on every s-imensional face of [0,], for s. In particular we have (39) V (s) ( provie h is completely monotone. h;u (i,...,i s) ) = (s) ( h;u (i,...,i s) A little combinatorial reasoning now shows that the representation () implies that for any s-imensional face U (i,...,i s) of the form (7), s, we have ( ) (s) f + ;U (i,...,i s) = ν +({ (x,...,x ) [0,] : x i > 0,x i2 > 0,...,x is > 0 }) (this is how a istribution function is use to calculate the measure of a half-open axisparallel box). Together with (39) this implies ( ) V (s) f + ;U (i,...,i s) ν +({ (x,...,x ) [0,] : x i > 0,x i2 > 0,...,x is > 0 }) (40) ), ν + ([0,] \{0}) = f + () = Var HK0 f +. We note that the number of summans in the efinition of the HK-variation is 2. Since by (40) each of these summans is boune by ν + ([0,] ), we have In a similar way we obtain Using (8) an (22) we obtain Var HK f + ( 2 ) Var HK0 f +. Var HK f ( 2 ) Var HK0 f. Var HK f Var HK f + +Var HK f ( 2 ) Var HK0 f, which proves the lemma uner the aitional assumption that f is right-continuous. Without assuming that f is right-continuous we still can use Theorem 2 to fin a Joran ecomposition f = f + f of f, but the functions f + an f are (in general) not right-continuous an consequently cannot be use to efine a measure (as in Theorem 3). However, as (38) an (39) show, the variation in the sense of Vitali (on [0,] as well as on lower-imensional faces) of a completely monotone function h epens only on the values of h at thecorners of [0,] ; an consequently the same must betrue for the HK0-variation an the HK-variation of h. We set f + (x,...,x ) = f(τ(x ),...,τ(x )), for x = (x,...,x ) [0,],

18 8 CHRISTOPH AISTLEITNER AND JOSEF DICK where τ(y) = 0 for 0 y < an τ() =. Informally speaking, the value of f + at a point x is the value of f at the maximal corner of [0,] which is x. Trivially f + coincies with f + on all corners of [0,], an it is easy to see that f + is also completely monotone. Furthermore, f + (0) = 0 an f + is right-continuous. Thus, since we have alreay shown the lemma for right-continuous functions, we have Var HK f }{{ + } =Var HK f + ( 2 ) Var HK0 f }{{ +. } =Var HK0 f + A similar inequality hols for f. Together with (8) an (22) this proves the lemma also in the case when f is not right-continuous. To show that the statement of the lemma also hols when the role of the HK0-variation an the HK-variation are interchange, we efine g(x) = f( x) for x [0,]. Then by (20) an by the version of the lemma which we prove above we have Var HK0 f = Var HK g ( 2 ) Var HK0 g = ( 2 ) Var HK f. 4. A Koksma Hlawka inequality for general measures: a proof of Theorem The proof of Theorem follows similar proofs in [8, Theorem C..4] an [35, Theorem 3.2]. Let x,...,x N be given. Throughout the proof we may assume without loss of generality that f() = 0 (since otherwise we may replace f(x) by f(x) f(), which changes neither the left-han sie nor the right-han sie of (6)). In a first step, we assume that f is left-continuous. We efine the function g(x) = f( x) for x [0,]. Since we assume that f is left-continuous an f() = 0, this clearly implies that g is right-continuous an g(0) = 0. Furthermore, by (20), we have Var HK0 g = Var HK f. Now we apply Theorem 3 to the function g. Let ν be the signe measure from Theorem 3 which is efine by g. Let ˆν be the reflecte measure of ν, which satisfies ˆν(A) = ν( A), for any Borel set A [0,], where we write A = { x : x A}. It is easily verifie that the fact that ν is a signe Borel measure implies that ˆν is a signe Borel measure as well, an that they have the same total variation. Let ˆν be the variation measure of ˆν (see the en of Section 2); then accoring to the previous remarks an Theorem 3 we have (4) Var total ˆν = Var HK0 g + g(0) = Var HK f.

19 BOUNDED VARIATION, SIGNED MEASURES, KOKSMA HLAWKA INEQUALITY 9 Now on the one han we have f(x k ) = N N n= = = = g( x k ) n= [0,] N n= [0,] N n= [0,] N [0, xn](y)ν(y) [xn,](y)ˆν(y) [0,y] (x n )ˆν(y). On the other han, in a similar way, by Fubini s theorem we have f(x)µ(x) = [0, x] (y)ν(y)µ(x) [0,] [0,] [0,] = [x,] (y)ˆν(y)µ(x) [0,] [0,] = [0,y] (x)ˆν(y)µ(x) [0,] [0,] = [0,y] (x)µ(x)ˆν(y) [0,] [0,] = µ([0,y])ˆν(y). [0,] Consequently f(x k ) f(x)µ(x) N [0,] n= [0,] n= [0,y] (x n ) µ([0,y]) ˆν (y) N n= }{{} DN (x,...,x N ;µ) D N (x,...,x N ;µ) Var total ˆν. Together with (4) this proves the Theorem in the case that f is left-continuous. Now we show that we can reuce the general case to the case of f being left-continuous. Let f be given. By the strong law of large numbers an by the multiimensional Glivenko Cantelli theorem (see for example [45, Chapter 26]) for any ε > 0 there exist a number M an points y,...,y M [0,] such that the two inequalities M (42) f(y m ) f(x) µ M [0,] ε m=

20 20 CHRISTOPH AISTLEITNER AND JOSEF DICK an (43) D N (y,...,y M ;µ) ε are both satisfie. Set G = {0,,x,...,x N,y,...,y M }, an let H be the -imensional gri that is generate by the elements of G; that is, the set of all points in z [0,] such that the j-th coorinate of z appears as the j-th coorinate of an element of G, for j. For x [0,], let succ(x) enote the uniquely efine element z of H for which x z an for which z y for all y H : x y. Informally speaking, succ(x) isthesmallest element ofhwhich is x(thatis, succ(x)isthesuccessor of x within H). We efine a function f by setting f(x) = f(succ(x)), x [0,]. Note that by construction f(z) = f(z) for all points z G. Furthermore, by construction the function f is left-continuous. Aitionally, it is easily seen that Var HK f VarHK f. Since we have alreay prove the theorem for left-continuous functions, we get (44) (45) f(x n ) f(x) µ N }{{} n= [0,] = f(x n) f(x n ) f(x) µ N n= [0,] + M + f(y m ) f(x) µ M [0,]. m= [0,] f(x) µ M M f(y m ) }{{} m= =f(y m) The first term in (44) is at most (Var HK f)d N (x,...,x N ;µ), since f is left-continuous. The secon term in (44) is at most εvar HK f, also since f is left-continuous an by (43). Finally, the term in (45) is at most ε by (42). Since Var HK f VarHK f an since ε > 0 was arbitrary, this proves the Theorem. 5. Transformations of point sets an Chelson s general Koksma Hlawka inequality In this section we will present the transformation metho propose by Chelson [2], which supposely transforms a low-iscrepancy point set with respect to the uniform measure into a low iscrepancy point set with respect to a general measure µ. We will show, contrary to what is claime in [2], that this transformation metho generally fails, an only gives the esire result in the case when µ is of prouct type. Before turning to Chelson s metho, we want to note that the problem of transforming a low-iscrepancy sequence with respect to the uniform measure into a low-iscrepancy

21 BOUNDED VARIATION, SIGNED MEASURES, KOKSMA HLAWKA INEQUALITY 2 sequence with respect to another measure µ has been consiere by several other authors, for example in [6, 20, 2, 44]. Let x,...,x N be a point set in [0,]. If µ is of prouct type, that is if it is the -imensional prouct measure of one-imensional measures, an if µ hasaensity (with respect to λ), then in[6, 2] transformationmethos arepresente which (in a computationally tractable way) generate a sequence y,...,y N [0,] such that D N (y,...,y N ;µ) c(,µ)d N (x,...,x N ). In the case of more general measures, the known results are much less satisfactory. Even uner some technical assumptions on µ, the best known transformation [2] only gives D N (y,...,y N ;µ) c(,µ)(d N (x,...,x N )) /. Chelson claims that even in the general case one can reach D N (y,...,y N ;µ) = D N (x,...,x N ), but as note his proof of this assertion is incorrect an must be ismisse. Now we turn to the escription of the transformation metho suggeste in [2]. We change the notation (in such a way that it fits together with the rest of this paper) an simplify some statements, but our exposition is a truthful re-narration of the presentation in [2]. Let g(y,...,y ) be a probability ensity on [0,], let G(y,...,y ) be its istribution function, an let µ G be the corresponing probability measure. We require that g is nonzero on [0,]. Let g be efine by g (y ) =... g(y,...,y ) y 2...y ; 0 0 }{{} integrals that is, g is the marginal ensity for y. Let G (y ) be the istribution function of g, an let G be its inverse (which exists because g is positive). Similarly, for 2 s <, let g,...,s (y,...,y s ) =... g(y,...,y s )y s+...y 0 0 }{{} s integrals be the marginal ensity for y,...,y s. Note that g,..., = g. Then, for s, let g s (y s ) = g(y s y,...,y s ) = g,...,s(y,...,y s ) g,...,s (y,...,y s ). Furthermore, let G s (y s ) be the (conitional) istribution function of g s (y s ), that is (46) G s (y s ) = G s (y s y,...,y s ) = Let G s enote the inverse of G s. ys Now Chelson introuce the transformation as follows: 0 g(u s y,...,y s ) u s.

22 22 CHRISTOPH AISTLEITNER AND JOSEF DICK Let x = (x,...,x ) [0,] be given. First, set z = G (x ). Then set z 2 = G 2 (x 2 ), an so on, until z = G (x ). This gives a number z = (z,...,z ) [0,]. Note that the values z,z 2,... must be calculate sequentially, since each epens on those which are alreay chosen. 5 We write T for the transformation which maps x Tx = z in this way. It is not mentione in [2], but this transformation is the Rosenblatt transformation, which was introuce in [42]. ChelsonprovesthatifX isauniformlyistributeranomvariableon[0,], thenz = TX has istribution µ G. This is true, an was also shown in [42]. However, Chelson also claims the following ([2, Theorem 2-5]): Let x,...,x N be a sequence in [0,], an let z = Tx,...,z N = Tx N, be its image uner the transformation T escribe above. Then (47) D N (z,...,z N ;µ G ) = D N (x,...,x N ). For the proof, Chelson [2, p. 29] argues as follows: We efine a vector-value function G(z) : [0,] [0,] by (48) G(z) = (G (z ),...,G (z )). (49) Then, by construction, for any a [0,] [0,a] (z n ) = n= since by z a for z = Tx we mean [0, G(a)] (x n), n= z = G (x ) a,. z = G (x ) a, an this occurs if an only if x s G s (a s ) for s. This looks reasonable, but it is actually false. We will give a counterexample below. Chelson continues claiming that ([ (50) µ G ([0,a]) = λ 0, G(a) ]). This is also false (see also the counterexample below). The error comes from treating the epenent functions G (y ),G 2 (y 2 y ),...,G (y y,...,y ) 5 The epenent nature of the inverse functions is suppresse in Chelson s notation. What is meant is that z 2 = G 2 (x 2 z ),..., z = G (x z,...,z ), which explains why the values z,...,z have to be calculate consecutively.

23 BOUNDED VARIATION, SIGNED MEASURES, KOKSMA HLAWKA INEQUALITY 23 as inepenent functions G (y ),G 2 (y 2 ),...,G (y ). In the efinition (46) it is suggeste that the epenent nature of G,...,G is suppresse merely in orer to shorten formulas; however, it seems that by suppressing the epenent nature of G,...,G in the notation, Chelson mae the error of simply ignoring this epenence, which of course is not justifie. 6 A correct form of (49) an (50) woul require the set { G(y) : y [0,a]} instea of [0, G(a)] on the right-han sie of the equation; however, because of the epenent nature of G,...,G the set { G(y) : y [0,a]} is in general not an axis-parallel box, an consequently the iscrepancy of x,...,x N cannot be use to estimate the number of elements of the original point set which are containe in such a set (see the example below). In imension =, Chelson s claim is right (there are no conitional istributions in this case). The simplest counterexample can be given for = 2 an N =. For example, let the ensity g be given by { /2 if y y g(y) = 2 for y = (y 3/2 if y > y 2,,y 2 ) [0,] 2. Thus g = /2 on the upper left half of the unit square ivie by the iagonal linking 0 to, an g = 3/2 on the lower right half. Clearly g is a probability ensity, an g is positive. Note that g cannot be written as the prouct of two one-imensional ensities. Constructing g an g 2 in the way escribe above, we get Accoringly, we get g (y ) = g(y,y 2 ) y 2 = (3/2)y +(/2)( y ) = y g 2 (y 2 y ) = g(y {,y 2 ) +2y = if y y 2 3 g (y ) +2y if y > y 2. G (y ) = y2 +y, { 2 y2 +2y +2y G 2 (y 2 y ) = if y y 2 3y 2 +2y if y > y 2 Let x be the point x = (x,x 2 ) = (56/8,20/23). The transforme point is z = Tx = (7/9, 20/27), since ( ) 7 G = 56 ( 20 an G 2 7 ) = To be more precise, the epenent nature of G,...,G is only then irrelevant when G is of prouct form; in this case the conitional one-imensional istributions are just the (unconitional) oneimensional istributions of the prouct representation themselves, an the transformation metho works correctly; see Theorem 4 below.