The blowing-up lemma says that if the probability with respect to a product measure of a set <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">A⊆ { X}ⁿ ({ X}</tex> finite, <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">n</tex> large) is not exponentially small, then its <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">lₙ</tex> -neighborhood has probability almost one for some <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">lₙ = O(n)</tex> . Here an information-theoretic proof of the blowing-up lemma, generalizing it to continuous alphabets, is given.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
K. Marton (1986) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: