## Category Archives: Dynamics

### Equilibrim states

Let $S=\{1,\dots, l\}$ be the space of symbols, $A=(a_{ij})$ be an $l\times l$ matrix with $a_{ij}\in\{0,1\}$, $\Sigma_A$ be the set of sequences $x=(x_n)$ that is $A$-admissible. Consider the dynamical system $(\Sigma_A, \sigma)$ We assume this system is mixing.

Let $f:\Sigma_A \to \mathbb{R}$ be a Holder potential, which induces a transfer operator $L_f$ on the space of continuous functions: $\phi(x) \mapsto L_f\phi(x):=\sum_{\sigma y =x} e^{f(x)}\phi(x)$.

Let $\lambda$ be the spectral radius of $L_f$. Then $\lambda$ is also an eigenvalue of $L_f$, which is called the principle eigenvalue. Moreover, there exists a positive eigenfunction $h$ such that $L_f h =\lambda h$. Replacing $f$ by $f-\log\lambda$, we will assume $\lambda =1$.

Consider the conjugate action $L_f^{\ast}$ on the space of functional (or sign measures). There is a positive eigenmeasure $\nu$ such that $L_f^{\ast} \nu =\nu$.

We normalize the pair $(h,\nu)$ such that $\int h d\nu =1$. Then the measure $\mu:= h \nu$ is a $\sigma$-invariant probability measure. It is called the equilibrium state of $(\Sigma_A, \sigma, f)$.

Two continuous functions $f, g:\Sigma_A \to \mathbb{R}$ is called cohomologous if there exists a continuous function $\phi:\Sigma_A \to \mathbb{R}$ such that
$f(x)-g(x) =\phi(\sigma x) -\phi(x)$.

Let $f, g:\Sigma_A \to \mathbb{R}$ be cohomologous. Then the two operators $L_f$ and $L_g$ are different, but $\lambda(f) =\lambda(g)=1$.
Their eigenfunctions and eigenmeasures are different, but the associated equilibrium states are the same.

To find a natural representative in the class $[f]$ of functions that are cohomologous to $f$, we set $g(x)=f(x)+ \log h(x) -\log h(\sigma x)$. Then we have

1). $\displaystyle L_g1(x)=\sum_{\sigma y =x} e^{g(y)}\cdot 1= \sum_{\sigma y =x} e^{f(y)}h(y)/h(x)=\frac{L_fh(x)}{h(x)}=1$. So $1$ is the eigenfunction of $L_g$.

2). $\displaystyle \int \phi dL_g^{\ast} \mu=\int L_g\phi d\mu =\int L_f(\phi h)d\nu =\int \phi\cdot h dL_f^{\ast}\nu =\int \phi h d\nu =\phi d\mu$.
So $\mu$ is the eigenmeasure of $L_g$.

From this point of view, we might pick $g(x)=f(x)+ \log h(x) -\log h(\sigma x)$ as the representative of $[f]$.

### There is no positively expansive homeomorphism

Let $f$ be a homeomorphism on a compact metric space $(X,d)$. Then $f$ is said to be $\mathbb{Z}$-expansive, if there exists $\delta>0$ such that for any two points $x,y\in X$, if $d(f^nx,f^ny)<\delta$ for all $n\in\mathbb{Z}$, then $x=y$. The constant $\delta$ is called the expansive constant of $f$.

Similarly one can define $\mathbb{N}$-expansiveness if $f$ is not invertible. An interesting phenomenon observed by Schwartzman states that

Theorem. A homeomorphism $f$ cannot be $\mathbb{N}$-expansive (unless $X$ is finite).

This result was reported in Gottschalk–Hedlund’s book Topological Dynamics (1955), and a proof was given in King’s paper A map with topological minimal self-joinings in the sense of del Junco (1990). Below we copied the proof from King’s paper.

Proof. Suppose on the contrary that there is a homeo $f$ on $(X,d)$ that is $\mathbb{N}$-expansive. Let $\delta>0$ be the $\mathbb{N}$-expansive constant of $f$, and $d_n(x,y)=\max\{d(f^k x, f^k y): 1\le k\le n\}$.

It follows from the $\mathbb{N}$-expansiveness that $N:=\sup\{n\ge 1: d_n(x,y)\le\delta \text{ for some } d(x,y)\ge\delta\}$ is a finite number. Pick $\epsilon\in(0,\delta)$ such that $d_N(x,y)<\delta$ whenever $d(x,y)<\epsilon$.

Claim. If $d(x,y)<\epsilon$, then $d(f^{-n} x, f^{-n}y)<\delta$ for any $n\ge 1$.

Proof of Claim. If not, we can prolong the $N$-string since $f^{k}=f^{k+n}\circ f^{-n}$.

Recall that a pair $(x,y)$ is said to be $\epsilon$-proximal, if $d(f^{n_i}x, f^{n_i}y)<\epsilon$ for some $n_i\to\infty$. The upshot for the above claim is that any $\epsilon$-proximal pair is $\delta$-indistinguishable: $d(f^{n}x, f^{n}y)<\delta$ for all $n$.

Cover $X$ by open sets of radius $< \epsilon$, and pick a finite subcover, say $\{B_i:1\le i\le I\}$. Let $E=\{x_j:1\le j\le I+1\}$ be a subset consisting of $I+1$ distinct points. Then for each $n\ge 0$, there are two points in $f^n E$ share the room $B_{i(n)}$, say $f^nx_{a(n)}$, and $f^nx_{b(n)}$. Pick a subsequence $n_i$ such that $a(n_i)\equiv a$ and $b(n_i)\equiv b$. Clearly $x_a\neq x_b$, and $d(f^{n_i}x_a,f^{n_i}x_b)<\epsilon$. Hence the pair $(x_a,x_b)$ is $\epsilon$-proximal and $\delta$-indistinguishable. This contradicts the $\mathbb{N}$-expansiveness assumption on $f$. QED.

### An interesting lemma about the Birkhoff sum

A few days ago I attended a lecture given by Amie Wilkinson. She presented a proof of Furstenberg’s theorem on the Lyapunov exponents of random products of matrices in $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$.

Let $\lambda$ be a probability measure on $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$, $\mu=\lambda^{\mathbb{N}}$ be the product measure on $\Omega=SL(2,\mathbb{R})^{\mathbb{N}}$. Let $\sigma$ be the shift map on $\Omega$, and $A:\omega\in\Omega\mapsto \omega_0\in SL(2,\mathbb{R})$ be the projection. We consider the induced skew product $(f,A)$ on $\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^2$. The (largest) Lyapunov exponent of $(f,A)$ is defined to be the value $\chi$ such that $\displaystyle \lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log\|A_n(\omega)\|=\chi$ for $\mu$-a.e. $\omega\in \Omega$.

To apply the ergodic theory, we first assume $\int\log\|A\| d\lambda < \infty$. Then $\chi(\lambda)$ is well defined. There are cases when $\chi(\lambda)=0$:

(1) the generated group $\langle\text{supp}\lambda\rangle$ is compact;

(2) there exists a finite set $\mathcal{L}=\{L_1,\dots, L_k\}$ of lines that is invariant for all $A\in \langle\text{supp}\lambda\rangle$.

Furstenberg proved that the above cover all cases with zero exponent:
$\chi(\lambda) > 0$ for all other $\lambda$.

### Symplectic and contact manifolds

Let $(M,\omega)$ be a symplectic manifold. It said to be exact if $\omega=d\lambda$ for some one-form $\lambda$ on $M$.

(1) If $\omega=d\lambda$ is exact, then there is a canonical isomorphism between the v.f. and 1-forms. In particular, there exists a v.f. $X$ such that $\lambda=i_X\omega$. Then we have $\lambda(X)=\omega(X,X)=0$, and $L_X\lambda=i_X d\lambda+d i_X\lambda=i_X\omega +0=\lambda$, and $L_X\omega=d i_X\omega=d\lambda=\omega$.

(2) Suppose there exists a vector field $X$ on $M$ such that its Lie-derivative $L_X\omega=\omega$ (notice the difference with $L_X\omega=0$). Then Cartan’s formula says that $\omega=i_X d\omega+ di_X\omega=d\lambda$, where $\lambda=i_X\omega$. So $\omega=d\lambda$ is exact, and $L_X\lambda=i_Xd\lambda+di_X\lambda=i_X\omega+0=\lambda$.

### Collections

10. Let $f_a:S^1\to S^1$, $a\in[0,1]$ be a strictly increasing family of homeomorphisms on the unit circle, $\rho(a)$ be the rotation number of $f_a$. Poincare observed that $\rho(a)=p/q$ if and only if $f_a$ admits some periodic points of period $q$. In this case $f_a^q$ admits fixed points.

Note that $a\mapsto \rho(a)$ is continuous, and non-decreasing. However, $\rho$ may not be strictly increasing. In fact, if $\rho(a_0)=p/q$ and $f^q\neq Id$, then $\rho$ is locked at $p/q$ for a closed interval $I_{p/q}\ni a_0$. More precisely, if $f^q(x) > x$ for some $x$, then $\rho(a)=p/q$ on $[a_0-\epsilon,a_0]$ for some $\epsilon > 0$; if $f^q(x) 0$; while $a_0\in \text{Int}(I_{p/q})$ if both happen.

Also oberve that if $r=\rho(a)\notin \mathbb{Q}$, then $I_r$ is a singelton. So assuming $f_a$ is not unipotent for each $a\in[0,1]$, the function $a\mapsto \rho(a)$ is a Devil’s staircase: it is constant on closed intervals $I_{p/q}$, whose union $\bigcup I_{p/q}$ is dense in $I$.

9. Let $X:M\to TM$ be a vector field on $M$, $\phi_t:M\to M$ be the flow induced by $X$ on $M$. That is, $\frac{d}{dt}\phi_t(x)=X(\phi_t(x))$. Then we take a curve $s\mapsto x_s\in M$, and consider the solutions $\phi_t(x_s)$. There are two ways to take derivative:

(1) $\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}\phi_t(x_s)=X(\phi_t(x_s))$.

(2) $\displaystyle \frac{d}{ds}\phi_t(x_s)=D\phi_t(\frac{d}{ds}x_s))$, which induces the tangent flow $D\phi_t:TM\to TM$ of $\phi_t:M\to M$.

Combine these two derivatives together:

$\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}D_x\phi_t(x_s')=\frac{d}{dt}\frac{d}{ds}\phi_t(x_s) =\frac{d}{ds}\frac{d}{dt}\phi_t(x_s)=\frac{d}{ds}X(\phi_t(x_s)) =D_{\phi_t(x)}X\circ D_x\phi_t(x_s').$

This gives rise to an equation $\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}D_x\phi_t=D_{\phi_t(x)}X\circ D_x\phi_t.$

Formally, one can consider the differential equation along a solution $x(t)$:
$\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}D(t)=D_{\phi_t(x)}X\circ D(t)$, $D(0)=Id$. Then $D(t)$ is called the linear Poincare map along $x(t)$. Suppose $x(T)=x(0)$. Then $D(T)$ determines if the periodic orbit is hyperbolic or elliptic. Note that the path $D(t)$, $0\le t\le T$ contains more information than the above characterization.

### The real decay rate

Let $f$ be a $C^2$ uniform expanding map on the 1-torus $\mathbb{T}$, $\mu$ be the unique ACIP of $f,$ which is exponentially mixing. That is, there exists $\lambda\in(0,1)$ such that $|C(\phi,\psi,f^n)|\le C\lambda^n$ for any two Lipschitz functions $\phi,\psi$ on $\mathbb{T}$, where
$C(\phi,\psi,f^n,\mu)=\int \phi\circ f^n\cdot \psi d\mu -\mu(\phi)\cdot\mu(\psi)$ be the correlation function.

Let $h$ be a $C^2$ diffeomorphism on $\mathbb{T}$, $g=h^{-1}fh$ be the induced map, and $h_\ast \nu=\mu.$ The new correlation function

$C(\phi,\psi,g^n,\nu)=\int \phi\circ g^n\cdot \psi d\nu-\nu(\phi)\cdot\nu(\psi)$
$=\int \hat\phi\circ f^n(hx)\cdot \hat\psi(hx) d\nu-\nu(\phi)\cdot\nu(\psi)$
$=\int \hat\phi\circ f^n \cdot \hat\psi d\mu-\mu(\hat\phi)\cdot\mu(\hat\psi)$,

where $\hat\phi=\phi\circ h^{-1}$. Therefore, the two smoothly conjugate systems $(g,\nu)$ and $(f,\mu)$ have the same mixing rate.

Assuming $h$ is close to identity, we see that $g=h^{-1}fh$ is also $C^2$ uniformly expanding, and one may derive the mixing rate of $(g,\nu)$ independently. However, this new rate may be different (better or worse) from $\lambda$. For example, $f$ could be the linear expanding ones and archive the best possible rate among its conjugate class. Could one detect this rate from $(g,\nu)$ itself?

In the general case, two expanding maps on $\mathbb{T}$ are only topologically conjugate (via full shifts). So it is possible that the decay rate varies in the topologically conjugate classes.

### Some notes

Let $M$ be a complete manifold, $\mathcal{K}_M$ be the set of compact/closed subsets of $M$. Let $X$ be a complete metric space.

A map $\phi: X\to \mathcal{K}_M$ is said to be upper-semicontinuous at $x$, if
for any open neighbourhood $U\supset \phi(x)$, there exists a neighbourhood $V\ni x$, such that $\phi(x')\subset U$ for all $x' \in V$.
or equally,
for any $x_n\to x$, and any sequence $y_n\in \phi(x_n)$, the limit set $\omega(y_n:n\ge 1)\subset \phi(x)$.
Viewed as a multivalued function, let $G(\phi)=\{(x,y)\subset X\times M: y\in\phi(x)\}$ be the graph of $\phi$. Then $\phi$ is u.s.c. if and only if $G(\phi)$ is a closed graph.

And $\phi$ is said to be lower-semicontinuous at $x$, if
for any open set $U$ intersecting $\phi(x)$, there exists neighbourhood $V\ni x$ such that $\phi(x')\cap U\neq\emptyset$ for all $x'\in V$.
or equally, for any $y\in \phi(x)$, and any sequence $x_n\to x$, there exists $y_n\in \phi(x_n)$ such that $y\in \omega(y_n:n\ge 1)$.

Let $\mathrm{Diff}^r(M)$ be the set of $C^r$ diffeomorphisms, and $H(f)$ be the closure of transverse homoclinic intersections of stable and unstable manifolds of some hyperbolic periodic points of $f$. Then $H$ is lower semicontinuous.

Given $f_n\to f$. Note that it suffices to consider those points $x\in W^s(p,f)\pitchfork W^u(q,f)$. Let $p_n$ and $q_n$ be the continuations of $p$ and $q$ for $f_n$. Pick $\rho$ large enough such that $x\in W^s_\rho(p,f)\pitchfork W^u_\rho(q,f)$. Then for $f_n$ sufficiently close to $f$, $W^s_\rho(p_n,f_n)$ and $W^u_\rho(q_n,f_n)$ are $C^1$ close to $W^s_\rho(p,f)$ and $W^u_\rho(q,f)$. In particular $x_n\in W^s_\rho(p_n,f_n)\pitchfork W^u_\rho(q_n,f_n)$ is close to $x$.

### Admissible perturbations of the tangent map

Franks’s Lemma is a major tool in the study of differentiable dynamical systems. It says that along a simple orbit segment $E=\{x,fx,\cdots,f^nx\}$, the perturbation of $A\sim D_xf^n$ can be realized via a perturbation of the map $g\sim f$ (which preserves the orbit segment). Moreover, such a perturbation is localized in a neighborhood of $E$, and it can be made arbitrarily $C^1$-close to $f$.

There have been various generalizations of Franks’ Lemma. Some constraints have been noticed when generalizing to geodesic flows and billiard dynamics, since one can’t perturb the dynamics directly, but have to make geometric deformations. See D. Visscher’s thesis for more details.

Let $Q$ be a strictly convex domain, $x$ be the orbit along the/a diameter of $Q$. Clearly $x$ is 2-period. Let $r\le R$ be the radius of curvatures at $x, fx$, respectively. Then
$D_xf^2=\frac{1}{rR}\begin{pmatrix}2d(d-r-R)+rR & 2d(d-R)\\ 2(d-r)(d-r-R) & 2d(d-r-R)+rR\end{pmatrix}$, where $d$ stands for the diameter of $Q$.
Note that the two entries on the diagonal are always the same. Therefore any linearization with different entries on the diagonal can’t be realized as the tangent map along a periodic billiard orbit of period 2. In other words, even through there are three parameters that one can change: the distance $d$, the radii of curvature at both ends $r,R$, the effects lie in a 2D-subspace $\{\begin{pmatrix}a & b \\ c & d\end{pmatrix}:ad-bc=1, a=d\}$ of the 3D $\{\begin{pmatrix}a & b \\ c & d\end{pmatrix}:ad-bc=1\}$.

Visscher was able to prove that generically, for each periodic orbit of period at least 3, every small perturbation of $D_xF^3$ is actually realizable by deforming the boundary of billiard table. For more details, see Visscher’s paper:

A Franks’ lemma for convex planar billiards.

### Regularity of center manifold

Let $X:\mathbb{R}^d\to \mathbb{R}^d$ be a $C^\infty$ vector field with $X(o)=0$. Then the origin $o$ is a fixed point of the generated flow on $\mathbb{R}^d$. Let $T_o\mathbb{R}^d=\mathbb{R}^s\oplus\mathbb{R}^c\oplus\mathbb{R}^u$ be the splitting into stable, center and unstable directions. Moreover, there are three invariant manifolds (at least locally) passing through $o$ and tangent to the corresponding subspaces at $o$.

Theorem (Pliss). For any $n\ge 1$, there exists a $C^n$ center manifold $C^n(o)=W^{c,n}(o)$.

Generally speaking, the size of the center manifold given above depends on the pre-fixed regularity requirement. Theoretically, there may not be a $C^\infty$ center manifold, since $C^n(o)$ could shrink to $o$ as $n\to\infty$. An explicit example was given by van Strien (here). He started with a family of vector fields $X_\mu(x,y)=(x^2-\mu^2, y+x^2-\mu^2)$. It is easy to see that $(\mu,0)$ is a fixed point, with $\lambda_1=2\mu<\lambda_2=1$. The center manifold can be represented (locally) as the graph of $y=f_\mu(x)$.

Lemma. For $n\ge 3$, $\mu=\frac{1}{2n}$, $f_\mu$ is at most $C^{n-1}$ at $(\frac{1}{2n},0)$.

Proof. Suppose $f_\mu$ is $C^{k}$ at $(\frac{1}{2n},0)$, and let $\displaystyle f_\mu(x)=\sum_{i=1}^{k}a_i(x-\mu)^i+o(|x-\mu|^{k})$ be the finite Taylor expansion. The vector field direction $(x^2-\mu^2, y+x^2-\mu^2)$ always coincides with the tangent direction $(1,f'_\mu(x))$ along the graph $(x,f_\mu(x))$, which leads to

$(x^2-\mu^2)f_\mu'(x)=y+x^2-\mu^2=f_\mu(x)+x^2-\mu^2$.

Note that $x^2-\mu^2=(x-\mu)^2+2\mu(x-\mu)$. Then up to an error term $o(|x-\mu|^{k})$, the right-hand side in terms of $(x-\mu)$: $(a_1+2\mu)(x-\mu)+(a_2+1)(x-\mu)^2+\sum_{i=3}^{k}a_i(x-\mu)^i$; while the left-hand side in terms of $(x-\mu)$:

$(x-\mu)^2f_\mu'(x)+2\mu(x-\mu)f_\mu'(x)=\sum_{i=1}^{k}ia_i(x-\mu)^{i+1}+\sum_{i=1}^{k}2\mu i a_i(x-\mu)^i$

$=\sum_{i=2}^{k}(i-1)a_{i-1}(x-\mu)^{i}+\sum_{i=1}^{k}2\mu i a_i(x-\mu)^i$.

So for $i=1$: $2\mu a_1=a_1+2\mu$, $a_1=\frac{-2\mu}{1-2\mu}\sim 0$;

$i=2$: $a_2+1=a_1+4\mu a_2$, $a_2=\frac{a_1-1}{1-4\mu}\sim -1$;

$i=3,\cdots,k$: $a_i=(i-1)a_{i-1}+2i\mu a_i$, $(1-2i\mu)a_i=(i-1)a_{i-1}$.

Note that if $k\ge n$, we evaluate the last equation at $i=n$ to conclude that $a_{n-1}=0$. This will force $a_i=0$ for all $i=n-2,\cdots,2$, which contradicts the second estimate that $a_2\sim -1$. Q.E.D.

Consider the 3D vector field $X(x,y,z)=(x^2-z^2, y+x^2-z^2,0)$. Note that the singular set $S$ are two lines $x=\pm z$, $y=0$ (in particular it contains the origin $O=(0,0,0)$). Note that $D_OX=E_{22}$. Hence a cener manifold $W^c(O)$ through $O$ is tangent to plane $y=0$, and can be represented as $y=f(x,z)$. We claim that $f(x,x)=0$ (at least locally).

Proof of the claim. Suppose on the contrary that $c_n=f(x_n,x_n)\neq0$ for some $x_n\to 0$. Note that $p_n=(x_n,c_n,x_n)\in W^c(O)$, and $W^c(O)$ is flow-invariant. However, there is exactly one flow line passing through $p_n$: the line $L_n=\{(x_n,c_nt,x_n):t>0\}$. Therefore $L_n\subset W^c(O)$, which contradicts the fact that $W^c(O)$ is tangent to plane $y=0$ at $O$. This completes the proof of the claim.

The planes $z=\mu$ are also invariant under the flow. Let’s take the intersection $W_\mu=\{z=\mu\}\cap W^c(O)=\{(x,f(x,\mu),\mu)\}$. Then we check that $\{(x,f(x,\mu))\}$ is a (in fact the) center manifold of the restricted vector field in the plane $z=\mu$. We already checked that $f(x,\mu)$ is not $C^\infty$, so is $W^c(O)$.

### The volume of uniform hyperbolic sets

This is a note of some well known results. The argument here may be new, and may be complete.

Proposition 1. Let $f\in\mathrm{Diff}^2_m(M)$. Then $m(\Lambda)=0$ for every closed, invariant hyperbolic set $\Lambda\neq M$.

See Theorem 15 of Bochi–Viana’s paper. Note that Proposition 1 also applies to Anosov case, in the sense that $m(\Lambda)>0$ implies that $\Lambda=M$ and $f$ is Anosov.

Proof. Suppose $m(\Lambda)>0$ for some hyperbolic set. Then the stable and unstable foliations/laminations are absolutely continuous. Hopf argument shows that $\Lambda$ is (essentially) saturated by stable and unstable manifolds. Being a closed subset, $\Lambda$ is in fact saturated by stable and unstable manifolds, and hence open. So $\Lambda=M$.

Proposition 2. There exists a residual subset $\mathcal{R}\subset \mathrm{Diff}_m^1(M)$, such that for every $f\in\mathcal{R}$, $m(\Lambda)=0$ for every closed, invariant hyperbolic set $\Lambda\neq M$.

Proof. Let $U\subset M$ be an open subset such that $\overline{U}\neq M$, $\Lambda_U(f)=\bigcap_{\mathbb{Z}}f^n\overline{U}$, which is always a closed invariant set (maybe empty). Given $\epsilon>0$, let $\mathcal{D}(U,\epsilon)$ be the set of maps $f\in\mathrm{Diff}_m^1(M)$ that either $\Lambda_U(f)$ is not a uniformly hyperbolic set, or it’s hyperbolic but  $m(\Lambda_U(f))<\epsilon$. It follows from Proposition 1 that $\mathcal{D}(U,\epsilon)$ is dense. We only need to show the openness. Pick an $f\in \mathcal{D}(U,\epsilon)$. Since $m(\Lambda_U(f))<\epsilon$, there exists $N\ge 1$ such that $m(\bigcap_{-N}^N f^n\overline{U})<\epsilon$. So there exists $\mathcal{U}\ni f$ such that $m(\bigcap_{-N}^N g^n\overline{U})<\epsilon$. In particular, $m(\Lambda_U(g))<\epsilon$ for every $g\in \mathcal{U}$. The genericity follows by the countable intersection of the open dense subsets $\mathcal{D}(U_n,1/k)$.

The dissipative version has been obtained in Alves–Pinheiro’s paper

Proposition 3. Let $f\in\mathrm{Diff}^2(M)$. Then $m(\Lambda)=0$ for every closed, transitive hyperbolic set $\Lambda\neq M$. In particular, $m(\Lambda)>0$ implies that $\Lambda=M$ and $f$ is Anosov.

See Theorem 4.11 in R. Bowen’s book when $\Lambda$ is a basic set.