Category Archives: Geometry

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.

Continue reading

Advertisements

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.

Continue reading

Notes-09-14

4. Borel–Cantelli Lemma(s). Let (X,\mathcal{X},\mu) be a probability space. Then

If \sum_n \mu(A_n)<\infty, then \mu(x\in A_n \text{ infinitely often})=0.

If A_n are independent and \sum_n \mu(A_n)=\infty, then for \mu-a.e. x, \frac{1}{\mu(A_1)+\cdots+\mu(A_n)}\cdot|\{1\le k\le n:x\in A_k\}|\to 1.

The dynamical version often involves the orbits of points, instead of the static points. In particular, let T be a measure-preserving map on (X,\mathcal{X},\mu). Then

\{A_n\} is said to be a Borel–Cantelli sequence with respect to (T,\mu) if \mu(T^n x\in A_n \text{ infinitely often})=1;

\{A_n\} is said to be a strong Borel–Cantelli sequence if \frac{1}{\mu(A_1)+\cdots+\mu(A_n)}\cdot|\{1\le k\le n:T^k x\in A_k\}|\to 1 for \mu-a.e. x.

3. Let H(q,p,t) be a Hamiltonian function, S(q,t) be the generating function in the sense that \frac{\partial S}{\partial q_i}=p_i. Then the Hamilton–Jacobi equation is a first-order, non-linear partial differential equation

H + \frac{\partial S}{\partial t}=0.

Note that the total derivative \frac{dS}{dt}=\sum_i\frac{\partial S}{\partial q_i}\dot q_i+\frac{\partial S}{\partial t}=\sum_i p_i\dot q_i-H=L. Therefore, S=\int L is the classical action function (up to an undetermined constant).

2. Let \gamma_s(t) be a family of geodesic on a Riemannian manifold M. Then J(t)=\frac{\partial }{\partial s}|_{s=0} \gamma_s(t) defines a vector field along \gamma(t)=\gamma_0(t), which is called a Jacobi field. J(t) describes the behavior of the geodesics in an infinitesimal neighborhood of a given geodesic \gamma.

Alternatively, A vector field J(t) along a geodesic \gamma is said to be a Jacobi field, if it satisfies the Jacobi equation:

\frac{D^2}{dt^2}J(t)+R(J(t),\dot\gamma(t))\dot\gamma(t)=0,

where D denotes the covariant derivative with respect to the Levi-Civita connection, and R the Riemann curvature tensor on M.

Continue reading

Collections again

8. Definition. Given a family of maps T_\epsilon:X\to X with corresponding invariant densities \phi_\epsilon. Then T_0 is said to be acim-stable if lim_{\epsilon\to 0}T_\epsilon=T_0 implies lim_{\epsilon\to 0}\phi_\epsilon=\phi_0.
The limits are taken with respect to properly chosen metrics on the space of maps and densities, respectively.

Functions of the bounded variation are continuous except at a most countable number of points, at which they have two one-sided limits.

7. Let \mathcal{H}=(\mathbb{R}^3,\ast) be the 3D Heisenberg group, with (a,b,c)\ast(x,y,z)=(a+x,b+y,c+z+ay). Let \Gamma=\langle\alpha,\beta,\gamma|\alpha\ast\beta=\beta\ast\alpha\ast\gamma,\alpha\ast\gamma=\gamma\ast\alpha,\beta\ast\gamma=\gamma\ast\beta\rangle be a cocompact discrete subgroup (for example \mathbb{Z}^3=\langle \mathbf{i},\mathbf{j},\mathbf{k}\rangle). Then M=\mathcal{H}/\Gamma is a 3D nilmanifold. A general non-toral
three-dimensional nilmanifold is also of this form. Suppose we have a homomorphism h:\mathcal{H}\to\mathbb{R}, which is of the form (x,y,z)\mapsto ax+by, which induces a 2D-foliation, say \mathcal{F}_h on \mathcal{H} and on M.

Theorem. Every Reebless foliation on M is almost aligned with some \mathcal{F}_h.
Plante for C^2, Hammerlindl and Potrie for C^{1,0}.

Theorem. Every partially hyperbolic system on M is accessible.
J. Rodriguez Hertz, F. Rodriguez Hertz and R. Ures (convervative), Hammerlindl and Potrie (general)

6. Let r\ge 1 and S:\mathbb{R}^{r+1}\to\mathbb{R} be a C^2 function. Consider the solutions x:\mathbb{Z}\to \mathbb{R} of the recurrence relation:
(\ast) \displaystyle R(x_{i-r},\cdots,x_{i+r}):=\sum_j \partial_{x_i}S(x_j,\cdots,x_{j+r})=0, for all i\in\mathbb{Z}.
Note that (\ast) is actually a finite sum of r+1 terms over j=i-r,\cdots,i. It is the derivative of formal series W(x)=\sum_j S(x_j,\cdots,x_{j+r}) with respect to \partial_{x_i}.
Example. Billiards, or generally twist maps, where r=1 and S is the generating function, the solution gives the configuration of an orbit.

There are some conditions:
Periodicity. S(x+1)=S(x). So S descends to a map on \mathbb{R}^{\mathbb{Z}}/\mathbb{Z}.
Monotone. \displaystyle\partial_{x_i,x_k}S(x_j,\cdot,x_{j+r})\le 0 for all j and all i\neq k, and \displaystyle\partial_{x_j,x_{j+1}}S(x_j,\cdot,x_{j+r}) < 0 for all j.
Coercivity. S is bounded from below and there exists k such that S(x_j,\cdots,x_{j+r})\to\infty as |x_k-x_{k+1}|\to\infty.
Under these conditions the (\ast) is called a monotone variational recurrence relation.

A sequence x is said to be a global minimizer, if W(x)\le W(x+v) (understand as over all intervals) for all sequences v. Clearly a global minimizer solves (\ast). The collection of global minimizers is also closed under coordinately convergence.

For a real number a, a sequence x with x_0=a is called an a-minimizer, if it is minimizes among all y‘s with y_0=a.
Ana-minimizers in general need not be solutions to (\ast).
Given a rational p/q, we consider the operator \tau_{p,q} (shift p and subtract q) and Birkhoff orbits of rotational number p/q prime sum W_{p,q}=S(x_0,\cdots, x_{r})+\cdots+S(x_{p-1},\cdots,x_{p-1+r}) over the periodic ones x=\tau_{p,q}(x).

Periodic Peierls barrier. Let a be a real and p,q be coprime. Then as
\displaystyle P_{p,q}(a):= \min_{\tau_{p,q}x=x,x_0=a} W_{p,q}(x)-\min_{\tau_{p,q}x=x}W_{p,q}(x).

It is easy to see that
There exists a periodic minimizer x\in M_{p,q} with x_0 =a if and only if P_{p,q}(a)=0.

M_{p,q} gives an invariant curve if and only if P_{p,q}(\cdot)\equiv 0.

Then the Peierls barrier at a general frequency is defined as P_{\omega}(a)=\lim_{p/q\to\omega}P_{p,q}(a) when the limit exists (see Mramor and Rink, arxiv:1308.3073).

Continue reading

Billiards

9. Victor Ivrii conjecture. Let Q be a strictly convex domain, F be the billiard map on the phase space \Omega=\partial Q\times(0,\pi). Let \omega be the Lebesgue measure of \Omega, and \ell be the Lebesgue measure on Q.

Conjecture 1. \omega(\text{Per}(F))=0 for all Q with C^\infty boundaries.

Remark. This is about a general domain Q, not a generic domain.

Definition. A point q\in\partial Q is said to be an absolute looping point, if \omega_q(\bigcup_{n\neq0}F^n\Omega_q)>0. Let L(Q) be the set of absolute looping points.

Conjecture 2. \ell(L(Q))=0 for all Q.

Question: When L(Q)=\emptyset?

8. In Boltzmann gas model, the identical round molecules are confined by a box. Sinai has replaced the box by periodic boundary conditions so that the molecules move on a flat torus.

On circular and elliptic billiard tables, for all p\ge 3, the (p,q)-periodic orbits forms a continuous family and hence all the trajectories have the same length.

An invariant noncontractible topological annulus, A\subset\Omega, whose interior contains no invariant circles, is a Birkhoff instability region. The dynamics in an instability region
has positive topological entropy. Hence Birkhoff conjecture implies
that any non-elliptical billiard has positive topological entropy.

How to construct a strictly convex C^1-smooth billiard table with metric positive entropy? b) How to construct a convex C^2-smooth billiard table with positive metric entropy?

Recall Bunimovich stadium is not C^2, and not strictly convex.

A periodic orbit of period q corresponds to an (oriented) closed polygon with q sides, inscribed in Q, and satisfying the condition on the angles it makes with the boundary. Birkhoff called these the harmonic polygons.

Then the maximal circumference of 2-orbit yields the diameter of Q. The minimax circumference of 2-orbit corresponds
to the width of Q.

Continue reading

Area of the symmetric difference of two disks

This post goes back to high school: the area \delta_d of the symmetric difference of two d-dimensional disks when one center is shifted a little bit. Let’s start with d=1. So we have two intervals [-r,r] and [x-r,x+r]. It is easy to see the symmetric difference is of length \delta_1(x)=2x.

Then we move to d=2: two disks L and R of radius r and center distance x=2a<r. So the angle \theta(x) satisfies \cos\theta=\frac{a}{r}.

difference

The symmetric difference is the union of R\backslash L and L\backslash R, which have the same area: \displaystyle (\pi-\theta)r^2+2x\sqrt{r^2-x^2}-\theta r^2=2(\frac{\pi}{2}-\arccos\frac{x}{r})r^2+2x\sqrt{r^2-x^2}. Note that the limit
\displaystyle \lim_{x\to0}\frac{\text{area}(\triangle)}{2a}=\lim_{a\to0}2\left(\frac{r^2}{\sqrt{1-\frac{a^2}{r^2}}}\cdot\frac{1}{r}+\sqrt{r^2-a^2}\right)=4r.
So \delta_2(x)\sim 4rx.

I didn’t try for d\ge3. Looks like it will start with a linear term 2d r^{d-1}x.

—————–

Now let {\bf r}(t)=(a\cos t,\sin t) be an ellipse with a>1, and {\bf r}'(t)=(-a\sin t,\cos t) be the tangent vector at {\bf r}(t). Let \omega be the angle from {\bf j}=(0,1) to {\bf r}'(t).
Let s(t)=\int_0^t |{\bf r}'(u)|du be the arc-length parameter and K(s)=|{\bf l}''(s)| be the curvature at {\bf l}(s)={\bf r}(t(s)). Alternatively we have \displaystyle K(t)=\frac{a}{|{\bf r}'(t)|^{3}}.

ellipse

The following explains the geometric meaning of curvature:

\displaystyle K(s)=\frac{d\omega}{ds}, or equivalently, K(s)\cdot ds=d\omega. (\star).

Proof. Viewed as functions of t, it is easy to see that (\star) is equivalent to K(t)\cdot \frac{ds}{dt}=\frac{d\omega}{dt}.

Note that \displaystyle \cos\omega=\frac{{\bf r}'(t)\cdot {\bf j}}{|{\bf r}'(t)|}=\frac{\cos t}{|{\bf r}'(t)|}. Taking derivatives with respect to t, we get
\displaystyle -\sin\omega\cdot\frac{d\omega}{dt}=-\frac{a^2\sin t}{|{\bf r}'(t)|^3}. Then (\star) is equivalent to

\displaystyle \frac{a}{|{\bf r}'(t)|^{3}}\cdot |{\bf r}'(t)|=\frac{a^2\sin t}{\sin\omega\cdot |{\bf r}'(t)|^3}, or
\displaystyle \sin\omega\cdot |{\bf r}'(t)|=a\sin t. Note that \displaystyle \sin^2\omega=1-\cos^2\omega=1-\frac{\cos^2 t}{|{\bf r}'(t)|^2}. Therefore \displaystyle \sin^2\omega\cdot |{\bf r}'(t)|^2= |{\bf r}'(t)|^2-\cos^2 t=a^2\sin^2 t, which completes the verification.

Continue reading

Invariant subsets of ACIP of partially hyperbolic diffeomorphism

4. (Notes from the paper Stable ergodicity for partially hyperbolic attractors with negative central exponents)
Let f\in\mathrm{Diff}^1(M) and L be a partially hyperbolic attractor. Then there exists a C^1 neighborhood \mathcal{U}\ni f such that every g\in\mathcal{U} possesses a partially hyperbolic attractor L_g near L. Moreover assume f_n\in\mathrm{Diff}^2(M)\to f\in\mathrm{Diff}^2(M) with Gibbs u-states \mu_n on L_n, then any weak limit is a Gibbs u-state on L.

Let \mu be an ergodic Gibbs u-state with negative central Lyapunov exponents. Then there exist an open set U such that \mu(U\Delta B(\mu))=0. The analog doesn’t hold for Gibbs u-states with positive central Lyapunov exponents, since the stable and unstable directions play different roles in dissipative systems.
Proof. We build a magnet K over A_r\cap F^u(x,\delta) with fiber W^s(\cdot,r). Then every nearby point y\in L with Birkhoff-regular plaque F^u(y,2\delta), the intersection F^u(y,2\delta)\cap K has positive leaf volume, and some point in there must be Birkhoff-regular, say p\in W^s(q,r) for some q\in A_r\cap F^u(x,\delta). Then Hopf test: for any z\in F^u(y,2\delta), \phi_-(z)=\phi_-(p)=\phi_+(p)=\phi_+(q)=\phi_-(q)=\phi_-(x). So all Birkhoff-regular plaques lie in the same ergodic omponent.

Moreover suppose \mu is the unique Gibbs u-state of (f,L). Then there exists a C^2 neighborhood \mathcal{U}\ni f such that for every g\in\mathcal{U}, (g,L_g) possesses a unique Gibbs u-state \mu_g. Moreover \mu_g has only negative central Lyapunov exponents and \mu_g\to \mu as g\to f. So we say (f,L,\mu) is stably ergodic. Since all these measures are hyperbolic, further analysis shows that (f,L,\mu) is indeed stably Bernoulli.

The key property they listed there is: for every \delta>0, there exists r>0 and \epsilon>0 depending continuously of f such that

– for every regular point x with \chi(x)\cap[-\delta,\delta]=\emptyset, the frequency of times n such that the size of local Pesin manifolds at f^nx is larger than r is larger than \epsilon.

– Moreover, for every ergodic hyperbolic measure \mu with \chi(\mu)\cap[-\delta,\delta]=\emptyset, theand hence the set A_r of points with large Pesin manifolds has positive measure: by Kac’s formula, \displaystyle \mu(A_r)=\int\frac{1}{n}\sum_{0\le k < n}1_{A_r}(x)d\mu\ge \epsilon.

3. In the continued paper here fundamental domains have been found for many invariant subsets, in particular for the set of (Birkhoff) heteroclinic points H_f(\mu,\nu)=B(\mu,f)\cap B(\nu,f^{-1}) (see Theorem 3.2 there, where \mu\neq \nu). It is unknown if the argument can be carried out to the set of (Birkhoff) homoclinic points H_f(\mu)=B(\mu,f)\cap B(\mu,f^{-1}) (for general invariant but nonergodic measure \mu). Here is an example where there does exist a fundamental domain. Consider a flow on the plate D with spiraling source o in the center and two saddles p,q at the corners.

fundhomo

Bowen

The second picture is from here, and is called Bowen eye-like attractor. Suppose the dynamics is symmetric and V_f(x)=\mu=\frac{\delta_p+\delta_q}{2} for every x\in D^o\backslash\{o\}, where f is the time-1 map. Then it is easy to see that there exists a fundamental domain E of B(f,\mu). We can blow up the center, identify the corresponding boundaries of two copies and reverse the flow direction on the second copy. Then the subset E turns out to be a fundamental domain of the set of (Birkhoff) homoclinic points H_{\hat f}(\mu).

2. Let f:M\to M be a C^2 partially hyperbolic diffeomorphism, \mu be an Absolutely Continuous, Invariant Probability measure. That is, the density function \phi=\frac{d\mu}{dm} is well defined in L^1(m), and the set E_\mu=\{x\in M:\phi(x)>0\} is well defined in the measure-class of \mathcal{M}(m).

It is proved (Proposition 3, here) that E_\mu is bi-essentially saturated (by a density argument). Similar argument shows that every invariant subset of E_\mu is also bi-essentially saturated. At that time I thought the classical Hopf argument can only claim the bi-essential \mu-saturation of E_\mu, and Proposition 3 might be out of the range of Hopf argument. Now it seems this is not the case if we combine some results in Gibbs u-measures, which states, for example, the conditional measures \mu_{W^u(x)} of \mu with respect to the unstable foliation \mathcal{W}^u is not only abs. cont., but also smooth: the canonical density (see here) \rho^u_{\text{can}}(x,y)=\frac{d\mu_{W^u(x)}(y)}{dm_{W^u(x)}} is Holder, bounded and bounded away from zero, since ACIP is automatically a Gibbs u-measure.

So let E be an invariant subset of E_\mu. Then Hopf argument implies that

  • \mu_{W^u(x)}(E\backslash W^u(x))=0 for \mu-a.e. x\in E, or equivalently,
  • m_{W^u(x)}(E\backslash W^u(x))=0 for \mu-a.e. x\in E (by the previous observation), and moreover
  • m_{W^u(x)}(E\backslash W^u(x))=0 for m-a.e. x\in E (since \mu\simeq m on E_\mu).
  • Then a standard argument shows that E is essentially u-saturated. Similarly ACIP is automatically a Gibbs s-measure and E is essentially s-saturated. This shows that E is bi-essentially saturated by Hopf argument and Gibbs theory.

    1. Let W be a plaque of the Pesin unstable manifold of f, and consider a function \rho(x) with the property that \displaystyle \frac{\rho(x)}{\rho(y)}=\prod_{k\ge1}\frac{J^u(f,f^{-k}y)}{J^u(f,f^{-k}x)} for all x,y\in W, and the normalizing condition \int_W \rho\,dm_W=1. Let \mu=\rho m_W be the induced probability on W. It is conditionally invariant under f: Consider its pushforward f\mu=\eta m_{fW}. Then: \mu(A)=(f\mu)(fA)=\int_{fA}\eta(y) dm_{fW}(y)=\int_{A}\eta(fx)\cdot J^u(f,x)dm_W(x) for any A\subset W. Hence \rho(x)=\eta(fx)\cdot J^u(f,x). In particular \displaystyle \frac{\eta(fx)}{\eta(fy)}=\frac{\rho(x)}{\rho(y)}\cdot\frac{J^u(f,y)}{J^u(f,x)}=\frac{\rho(fx)}{\rho(fy)}.
    Then by definition, both \rho and \eta induce probabilities and must coincide:
    f(\rho\cdot m_W)=(\rho\circ f)\cdot m_{fW}. Such measures are called the leafwise u-Gibbs measures.

    Some distinguished meausres

    This is a note taken from V. Kaimanovich’s paper Bowen-Margulis and Patterson measures on negatively curved compact manifolds.

    Let M be a simply connected negatively curved manifold (the exponential map \exp_x:T_xM\to M turns out to be a diffeomorphism for every x by Cartan-Hadamard Theorem). Two geodesic rays on M are called asymptotic if they they have a bounded distance in the future. Denote by \partial M the set of asymptotic classes of geodesic rays on M. Then \overline{M}=M\sqcup\partial M is called the visibility compactification of M. Let \partial^2 M=\partial M\times \partial^2 M\backslash \triangle.

  • For each pair (x,\alpha)\in M\times \partial M, there exists a unique geodesic ray \gamma=\gamma_{x,\alpha}\in\alpha with \gamma(0)=x.
  • For each pair (\alpha,\beta)\in \partial^2 M, there exists a unique complete geodesic \gamma with \gamma(R_+)\in\alpha and \gamma(R_-)\in\beta.
  • Each unit vector \xi\in SM corresponds to a complete geodesic \gamma_\xi, and hence two maps \xi\mapsto \alpha(\gamma_\xi) and \xi\mapsto \beta(\gamma_\xi). This induces a \mathbb{R}-fibration SM\to \partial^2 M, \xi\mapsto (\alpha(\gamma_\xi),\alpha(\gamma_\xi)).
  • For each pair (x,\alpha), we pick the geodesic ray \gamma and define Busemann function b_{\alpha,x}:y\in M\mapsto \lim_{t\to\infty}(d(x,\gamma(t))-t). The level sets of b_{\alpha,x} are the horospheres on M centered at \alpha\in\partial M.
  • More generally, let b_\alpha(y,z)=b_{\alpha,x}(y)-b_{\alpha,x}(z) (need to check it is independent of the choice of x and \gamma_{\alpha,x}) (Remark). Moreover, b_\alpha(y,z) gives the signed distance between the horospheres passing through y and z centered at \alpha.
    Remark: Another view point is b_\alpha(y,z)=b_{\alpha,z}(y). Clearly it is independent of x.
  • Define another function B_x:(\alpha,\beta)\in\partial ^2M \mapsto b_\alpha(x,y)+b_\beta(x,y), where y lies on the geodesic \gamma_{\alpha,\beta}. (Check it is independent of the choices of y on that geodesic). Geometrically, it measures the length of the segment cut out from \gamma by the horospheres passing through x and centered at \alpha and \beta. Moreover we have B_x(\alpha,\beta)-B_y(\alpha,\beta)=b_{\alpha}(x,y)+b_{\beta}(x,y).
  • Continue reading

    Short notes

    8. (Alejandro) Let f:X\to X be an arbitrary transitive homeomorphism and u:X\to(0,1/4) be an arbitrary non-constant continuous function. Then, let’s define c(x):=u(x)-u(fx)+1, x\in X, and consider the suspension flow f_t:X_c\to X_con X_c. Note that for each x\in X and t\in(0,1/4): f_1(x,t+u(x))=(x,t+u(x)+1)=(x,t+u(fx)+c(x))=(fx,t+u(fx)). So the compact set \lbrace(x,t+u(x)):x\in X\rbrace is f_1-invariant for every t\in(0,1/4), and f_1 is not transitive. Notice the function c is not constant because f is transitive and u is not constant itself.

    Continue reading

    Some short notes

    5. Let E be a locally convex topological linear space, K\subset E be a compact convex subset of E and \partial_e K be the set of the extreme points of K. Let A(K) be the set of all affine continuous functions on K. Endowed with the supremum norm, A(K) is a Banach space.

    Then K is said to be a (Choquet) simplex if

    —each point in K is the barycenter of a unique probability measure supported on \partial_e K, or equivalently
    —the dual space of A(K) is an L^1 space (in the dual ordering).

    A simplex K is said to be Bauer if \partial_e K is closed in K.
    Oppositely, K is said to be Poulsen if \partial_e K is dense in K. (Poulsen in 1961 proved the existence of such simplex.)

    Lindenstrauss, Olsen and Sternfeld showed in 1978 here that given two Poulsen simplices P and Q, there is an affine homeomorphism h:P\to Q. In other words, there exists a unique Poulsen simplex (up to affine homeomorphisms), say \mathcal{P}.

    Continue reading