November 27, 2006
Work carried out at the Federal University of Bahia (Brazil) and ICTP (Italy) Partially supported by PADCT
.
SRB measures for weakly expanding maps
Vilton Pinheiro
Departamento de Matematica, Universidade Federal da Bahia, Av. Ademar de Barros s/n, 40170-110 Salvador, Brazil. E-mail address : viltonj@ufba.br
-
Abstract.
We construct SRB measures for endomorphisms satisfying conditions far weaker than the non-uniformly expansion.
As a consequence, the definition of non-uniformly expanding map can be weakened. We also prove the existence of an absolutely continuous invariant measure for local diffeomorphisms, only assuming the existence of hyperbolic times for Lebesgue almost all point of the manifold.
1 Introduction
In [9] Keller proved for any non-flat
-unimodal map
the existence of an absolutely continuous invariant measure whenever there exists a constant
such that for Lebesgue almost all
|
(1)
|
This measure is called a physical or SRB (Sinai-Ruelle-Bowen) measure.
The result of Keller was somewhat generalized by Alves-Bonatti-Viana [4] in the context of non-flat maps with slow recurrence to the critical set defined on a compact Riemannian manifold
. For this, they assumed that
|
(2)
|
for Lebesgue almost all
. Of course, if the dimension of
is one we have
. Observe that
means that
expands in all directions, that is,
(where
). Systems satisfying ( 2 ) are called non-uniformly expanding, they generalize the expanding systems. As particular examples of this kind of systems we can mention one-dimensional maps with positive Lyapunov exponents ( like quadratic maps and, more in generally, non-flat multimodal maps [11] ), and in higher dimension, the Viana maps [12] .
The purpose of this paper is to generalize the result of Keller in the context of [4] with the far more weak condition of
as it appears in Keller's theorem, i.e.,
|
(3)
|
Moreover, we prove that the condition ( 3 ) indeed implies ( 2 ) and so, the definition of non-uniformly expanding map can be weakened.
Statement of results
Let
be a compact Riemannian manifold of dimension
and
a normalized Riemannian volume form on
that we call Lebesgue measure.
A map
will be called non-flat if
is local
diffeomorphism in the whole manifold except in a non-degenerate critical set
.
The definition of a non-degenerate critical set is given in the beginning of the section 2 ( If
this definition is the usual definition of non-flatness, see [11] ).
We say that
satisfies the slow approximation condition if given any
there exists
such that for Lebesgue almost every point
we have
|
(*)
|
where
denotes the
-truncated distance from
to
defined as
if
and
otherwise.
We call the basin of some invariant measure
the set
of the points
such that the average of Dirac measures along the orbit of converge in the weak
topology to
, that is,
Theorem 1.
Let
be a non-flat map satisfying the slow approximation condition. If
( or some fixed iterate ) satisfies
|
(4)
|
(or equivalently satisfies ( 3 )) for Lebesgue almost every point
then there exists a finite collection of ergodic absolutely continuous invariant measures such that almost every point in
belongs to the basin of one of these measures.
Theorem 1 is in fact a consequence of the Main Theorem below which assures the existence of a global Markov structure with integrable time function. A global Markov structure is composted by a time function
, an induced map
defined almost everywhere and a countably partition refining a finite triangulation of
. Each element of this partition is sent by
, with good properties ( see section 2 for details ), onto an element of the triangulation. One can prove that such
has an absolutely continuous invariant measure
. Moreover, whenever
is
-integrable it gives rise to an absolutely continuous
-invariant finite measure. We observe that the existence of a Markov structure allows a more deep study of the dynamical's properties the map
. For instance, it was used in [5, 7, 8, 13, 14] to study the decay of correlations and prove the Central Limit Theorem for a large class of maps.
Main Theorem.
Every map satisfying the hypothesis of theorem 1 has a global Markov Structure with integrable time function.
The proof of the main theorem is a mix of the strategy adopted by Alves-Luzzatto-Pinheiro in [5] for non-uniform expanding maps ( inspired in Young's paper [13] ) and the proof of Keller's theorem in [11] . Here we are able to simplify the proof of the existence of the Markov Structure that appears in [5, 8, 13] and make it closer to the one dimensional case.
A map
is called non-uniformly expanding if
is a non-flat map satisfying the slow approximation condition and it ( or some fixed iterate ) satisfies for Lebesgue almost every point
the following condition,
|
(5)
|
(or equivalently satisfies ( 2 )).
Theorem 2.
A map is non-uniformly expanding if and only if it satisfies the hypothesis of theorem 1 .
A crucial ingredient in the proof of these results is the existence, for almost all point
, of moments
such that
looks like an expanding map on some neighborhood of
, that is, this neighborhood
is sent by
, with good properties of expansion and distortion, to some definitively big ball
centered in
.
The last result of this paper is about hyperbolic times which are associated with theses moments of expansion mentioned above ( see Proposition 2.4 ). In [3] Alves-Araujo proved the existence of a SRB measure when the critical set is empty and the first hyperbolic time is Lebesgue integrable . Here, we were able to remove the hypothesis of integrability.
Theorem 3.
Let
be a
covering map (local diffeomorphism) on a compact manifold M. If the first hyperbolic time function is defined for Lebesgue almost every point of M then
is a non-uniformly expanding map.
2 Hyperbolic Times
Definition 2.1.
Let
be a
local diffeomorphism in the whole manifold except in a critical set
. We say that
is a non-degenerate critical set, more precisely, a
-non-degenerate critical set if
such that the following three conditions hold.
-
(1)
for all
.
For every
with
we have
-
(2)
;
-
(3)
.
Let us fix
. If
be a
local diffeomorphism outside a
-non-degenerate critical set
then, given
and
, we will say that
is a
-hyperbolic time for a point
if for all
we have
. We denote the set of points of
such that
is
-hyperbolic time by
.
Proposition 2.2.
[
4]
Let
be a
non-flat map satisfying the slow approximation condition. Given
there exists
and
, depending only on
and
, such that
whenever
.
Corollary 2.3.
Let
be a
non-flat map satisfying the slow approximation condition. Given
there exists
and
, depending only on
and
, such that if
with
for Lebesgue almost all
then
for Lebesgue almost all
We want to finish this section enunciating a proposition that assures a good behavior, with respect to
, of a neighborhood of a point
when
is a hyperbolic time to this point.
Proposition 2.4.
Let
be a
local diffeomorphism outside a non-degenerate critical set
. Given
and
, there exist
, depending only on
and on the map
, such that for any
and
a
-hyperbolic time for
, there exists a neighborhood
of
with the following properties:
-
(1)
maps
diffeomorphically onto the ball
;
-
(2)
and
;
-
(3)
and
.
We shall often refer to the sets
as hyperbolic pre-balls and to their images
as hyperbolic balls. Notice that the latter are indeed balls of radius
.
-
Proof.
For the proofs of items 1 and 2 see Lemma 5.2 in [4] . Let
and
. As
is a hyperbolic time for
, it follows from the item 2 above that
. Now, using the condition 3 of the definition of a non-degenerate critical set we get
□
Markov Structures and The Partitioning Algorithm
In this section we will define what we mean by a Global Markov Structure and prove the first part of the Main Theorem. A Global Markov Structure for a map
is a piecewise expanding Markovian map induced by it, that is, there exists a open subset
with Lebesgue total measure (
) and a function
(called time function) such that the induced map
given by
is a piecewise expanding Markovian map.
Piecewise expanding Markovian map
Let
be a map defined a open subset of
with full Lebesgue measure.
will be called a piecewise expanding Markovian map if there is a countable partition
of its domain into open sets and a finite collection of
of topological balls of
( for instance, a triangulation of M ) such that:
-
(1)
Expansion: there is
such that for each
and
-
(2)
Bounded distortion: there is
such that for each
and
-
(3)
Long branches:
-
(a)
Each
have a piecewise
boundary with a finite
-dimensional volume. Moreover, there is some
such that the
components of the boundary of each
meet at angles greater than
.
-
(b)
For each
,
is a
diffeomorphism onto some element of
.
The theorem below assures that every
piecewise expanding Markovian map
has some absolutely continuous invariant measure
whose density belongs to
; see e.g. Lemma
of [1] .
Moreover, it is straightforward to check that if
is
-integrable then
is an absolutely continuous
-invariant measure. Here
denotes the measure given by
, and
denotes the push-forward of the measure by
.
We will say that the Markov Structure has integrable time function if
is integrable with respect to any absolutely continuous
-invariant measures. As a consequence to the the theorem below, if we want to show that Markov Structure has integrable time function , we need only to verify the integrability of
with respect to the finite collection of ergodic absolutely continuous invariant measures gives by this theorem.
Theorem 4.
[
1,
2,
6]
If
is a
piecewise expanding Markovian map, then there exists a finite set of ergodic absolutely continuous invariant measures such that Lebesgue almost all point of
belongs to the basin of one of these measures. Moreover, the density of each of these measure with respect to Lebesgue is uniformly bounded by some constant.
The Partitioning Algorithm
Let
be a
non-flat map satisfying the slow approximation condition and
. Suppose that
for Lebesgue almost every
. In this section we will show how one can construct a Markovian Structure on
.
Replacing, if is necessary,
by some
we may assume, without loss of generality, that
.
Let
and
be fixed from now on. Let
be given by the Proposition 2.2 and let
be the radius of the hyperbolic ball given by Proposition 2.4 . For short, let's put for
,
.
Choose some
and a finite partition
of
(mod 0) generated by the interior of the elements of a triangulation of
with diameter smaller then
, that is,
. Given
and
define the
-neighborhood of
as
. For each element
set
and consider the follows collections of rings. The first collection,
, is a partition (mod 0) of
defined by
The second one,
, is a partition (mod 0) of
established by
Let us fix an element
and set
. Let
be the first integer such that
. For each
we will set
and
. Define the function
by
if
. Inductively, set for every
the functions
by
. We will define by induction the sets
,
,
and functions
for every
. For this, let us assume that for some
the sets
,
,
and functions
are defined for all
.
For Lebesgue almost every point
there exists some
such that
. As the diameter of
is smaller then
we also have
. Proposition 2.4 assures that there exists a hyperbolic pre-ball
such that
is a diffeomorphism with uniform bounded distortion ( not depending on
or
). Denote by
the collections of all sets
where
and
. It is easy to check that the elements of
are two by two disjoints.
Given
, with
and
, let's put
and
. Now, let's set
and define the function
by
With the function
we define
and
by
At this point we have completely described the inductive construction restrict to
of the sets
,
and
. Doing the same construction to the other elements of
we obtain
Let
. As
is a diffeomorphism Lebesgue almost everywhere, we have
. Finally, let's define a time function
putting
when
.
We can think of the set
as the set of allowed points of the stage
, that is, the set of points
which in the stage
can be used, if
is a hyperbolic time to
, as the center of a new element of the partition ( a component of
). The set
is the forbidden points of the stage
, i.e., if
then, although
does not belong to a constructed element (
), we can not use
to be the “center” of a new element even if
. In fact,
in a union of “protection collars” associated to the components of
and we can not use the points of
in the stage
because in this time the pre-image of the elements of the triangulation associated to some hyperbolic pre-ball
(with
) may be big compared with these collars and probably there will be overlaps of this pre-image with some ahead constructed element.
Remark 2.6.
It is important to emphasize that we only constructed a new element of the partition as a pre-image, associated to a hyperbolic time, of some element of the triangulation.
That is, if
is a component of
, for some
, then
for some
. In consequence,
is mapped diffeomorphically, with bounded distortion and good properties of expansion (see proposition 2.4 ), to some element of the triangulation. This control of distortion and expansion is fundamental to obtain the properties required from the Piecewise expanding Markovian map associated to the Markov structure.
The lemma below is important for preventing the overlaps on the sets of the partition. Indeed, in the stage
, associated to each component
of
, for some
, there is a collar
around it. By the lemma, the new components of
do not intersect “too much” the collar and in consequence, there will be no overlaps.
Lemma 2.7.
If
then
.
-
Proof.
Take some
and let
be a component of
such that its collar
(the part of
that is mapped by
onto
for some
) intersects
. Recall that
is precisely the collar around
on which
takes the value 1. Letting
and
be any two points in distinct components of the boundary of
, we have by Proposition 2.4
|
(6)
|
We also have
| |
| |
which combined with ( 6 ) gives
On the other hand, since
we conclude that
but this is impossible as
and
. □
Corollary 2.8.
If
and
are distinctly components of
and
then
-
Proof.
Suppose that
and
, with
and
.
As we observed during the presentation of the algorithm, if
and
we will have
. Indeed, as
are small compared with
or
(
) we will have
and so,
. Of course, if
, with
, than
and so,
. Finally, assuming that
, it follows from the lemma above that
. We know that
is protected by some collar
, i.e., there is a connected component
of
such that
and
. In consequence, as
and
, it follows from connectivity of
that
. □
Proposition 2.9 and Lemma 2.10 will be used to prove that the sum of the Lebesgue measure of all forbidden sets is finite (proposition 2.11 ).
This finiteness is fundamental to assure that almost all point of
will belongs to an construct element, i.e.,
.
Proposition 2.9.
There exists
such that for every
.
-
Proof.
It is enough to see this for each component of
at a time.
Let
be a component of
and
be its outer ring corresponding to
. Observe that by Lemma 2.7 we have
. Moreover, there must be some
, an element
of
and a component
of
such that
maps
diffeomorphically onto some
and
onto
, both with uniform bounded distortion (not depending
). Thus, it is sufficient to compare the Lebesgue measures of
and
. As
is the interior of an element of a triangulation of
, the boundary of
is a finite union of smooth submanifolds with codimension one. Thus, for smalls
we have
. As
is a finite collection one can find
such that
and
. In consequence, setting
(see proposition 2.4 ), we have
□
Lemma 2.10.
There exist a constant
such that
.
-
Proof.
By construction, each component
of
is a ring given (mod 0) by the union of rings
that appears when construct the element
of
associated to an element
of
and can be written as
where
,
,
and
. Moreover,
and
are contained in the hyperbolic pre-ball
associated a which are mapped onto
by
. By the bounded distortion property, there is an universal
such that
and by disjointness two by two of the elements
we get
where
. □
Proposition 2.11.
.
-
Proof.
We may write
which by Proposition 2.9 gives
.
Thus, using Lemma 2.10 ,
. Summing in both sides of this inequality, we obtain for every
Thus,
□
Now, we are going to prove that this algorithm does indeed produce a partition mod 0 of
. As Corollary 2.8 assures that the elements constructed by this algorithm are two by two disjointed, we have only to check that
(
is a nested sequence).
To prove this, first observe that, as
, it follows from Fubini's argument that Lebesgue almost every point of
belongs only to a finite many
, that is, defining the function
by
|
(7)
|
we will have
for Lebesgue almost all
(because
). Moreover, as any Lebesgue generic point has infinity many hyperbolic times, one can find for almost all
the first time
such that
. In this case, if
still belongs to
we will have
. In other words, almost every point of
( and in consequence of
) will belong to some
. So,
.
Markov Structures
Let
be given by
, where
. By construction, the map
is a piecewise expanding Markovian map (see remark 2.6 ) and we conclude the proof of the first part of the Main Theorem.
3 Integrability of The Time Function
In this section we will finish the proof of the Main Theorem showing the integrability of the time function of the Markov Structure constructed in the previous section. We will use the objects and notation of the Partition Algorithm. Let
be one of the
-invariant measure given by the Markov Structure and assume by contradiction that
. It follows from Birkhoff`s Ergodic Theorem that
for
-almost every point
.
As the density of
is uniformly bounded from above, its follows from proposition 2.11 that
. In consequence, for
-generic points
we get
Let
. It is clear that
. Let
. Set, for every
,
, that is,
. Given
there exists a unique integer
such that
. Let's set
and suppose that
. In this case,
, where
. By construction, if
( i.e.
) is because
. On the other hand,
implais that
and so,
.
As the number of integers
between
and
such that
is bounded by the number of integers
such that
, we have
Thus, for each
we can write
Therefore,
|
(8)
|
By construction, if
, that is,
, then
|
(9)
|
As
it follows from the equations 8 and 9
. But this is an absurd as one can see in Remark 2.5 . So, we necessarily have the time function
-integrable and so, we conclude the proof of the Main Theorem.
To prove theorems 1 , 2 and 3 let
be the set of ergodic absolutely continuous invariant measures given by Theorem 4 .
Proof of Theorem 1
As we observed before it is straightforward to check that as the time function
is
-integrable, then
is an ergodic absolutely continuous
-invariant measure. Here
denotes the measure given by
, and
denotes the push-forward of the measure by
. Moreover, it follows from the theorem 4 that almost every point of
belongs to the basin of one of the
. In consequence, almost all point
also belongs to the basin of one of the measure
.
Remark 3.1.
In the beginning of the Partitioning Algorithm we could have replaced, if necessary,
by some iterated
and so, the measures
may be only
invariant.
In such case we consider the induced
-invariant measures
given by
Proof of Theorem 2
As any non-uniformly expanding map satisfies the hypothesis of theorem 1 we have only to check that every non-flat map and with the slow recurrence satisfying the equation 3 for almost all
also satisfies the equation 2 . This result is a consequence of the integrability of
with respect to any absolutely continuous invariant measure ( see Lemma 3.2 below ). Indeed, as
, if
it follows from Birkhoff 's Ergodic Theorem that we will have for
almost all
As Lebesgue almost every point
belongs to the basin of some
we will conclude that the equality above between
and
holds to Lebesgue almost all
.
Lemma 3.2.
If
is a
endomorphism then
is integrable with respect to any absolutely continuous invariant measure.
-
Proof.
In [10] (see remark 1.2 of [10] ) it was proved that
with respect to any absolutely continuous invariant measure
. Let's show how this result implies the integrability of
. It is easy to see that
for any eigenvalue
of the matrix
.
Thus,
and in consequence,
We know that
, where
in the adjoint matrix and
is the identity. So,
and in consequence
. Moreover, as
is bounded, we get
Finally, from
we get
□
Proof of Theorem 3
Suppose that there exists
and
such that Lebesgue almost every point
has a
-hyperbolic time. So, we have
, where
. Given a Lebesgue generic point
we will have
. Let
be such that
and
such that
. By the properties of hyperbolic times we get
where
.
Therefore, by induction, one can conclude that Lebesgue almost all point of
will have infinitely many
-hypebolic times. Remembering that
implies
, we will have, for generic
,
for infinitely many integers
. In consequence,
for Lebesgue almost all
. As the critical set is empty, the map
satisfies the hypothesis of the theorem 1 . So, by the theorem 2 ,
is a non-uniformly expanding map.
References
-
J. Aaronson, An introduction to infinite ergodic theory. Math. Surv. Monographs 50, AMS, Providence R.I. US (1997).
-
J. F. Alves, SRB measures for non-hyperbolic systems with multidimensional expansion, Ann. Scient. Éc. Norm. Sup.,
série, 33 (2000), 1-32.
-
J. F. Alves, V. Araújo, Random perturbations of nonuniformly expanding maps, Astérisque 286 (2003), 25-62.
-
J. F. Alves, C. Bonatti, M. Viana, SRB measures for partially hyperbolic systems whose central direction is mostly expanding, Invent. Math. 140 (2000), 351-398.
-
J. F. Alves, S. Luzzatto, V. Pinheiro, Markov structures and decay of correlations for non-uniformly expanding dynamical systems, Annales Inst. Henri Poincaré (to appear), arXiv:math.DS/0205191.
-
J. F. Alves, M. Viana, Statistical stability for robust classes of maps with non-uniform expansion, Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. 22 (2002), 1-32.
-
M. Benedicks, L.-S. Young, Markov extensions and decay of correlations for certain Hénon maps, Astérisque 261 (2000), 13-56.
-
S. Gouezel, Decay of correlations for nonuniformly expanding systems, arXiv:math.DS/0401184 v1 15 Jan 2004.
-
G. Keller, Exponents, attractors and Hopf decompositions for interval maps. Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. (1990), 10, 717-744.
-
P.-D. Liu, Pesin's entropy formula for endomorphisms. Nagoya Math. J. Vol. 150 (1998), 197-209.
-
Melo, W. C., Strien, S. V. One Dimensional Dynamics, Springer-Verlag, 1993.
-
M. Viana, Multidimensional non-hyperbolic attractors, Publ. Math. IHES 85 (1997), 63-96.
-
L.-S. Young, Statistical properties of dynamical systems with some hyperbolicity, Ann. Math. 147 (1998), 585-650.
-
L.-S. Young, Recurrence times and rates of mixing, Israel J. Math. 110 (1999), 153-188.
Departamento de Matematica, Universidade Federal da Bahia, Av. Ademar de Barros s/n, 40170-110 Salvador, Brazil. E-mail address : viltonj@ufba.br