Functional envelopes of dynamical systems old and new results - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Functional envelopes of dynamical systems – old and new results Functional envelopes of dynamical systems – old and new results Based on: AKS J. Auslander, S. Kolyada, L ’. Snoha, Functional envelope of a L ’ubom´ ır Snoha dynamical system. Nonlinearity 20 (2007), no. 9, 2245–2269. Matej Bel University, Bansk´ a Bystrica A E. Akin, Personal communication M M. Matviichuk, On the dynamics of subcontinua of a tree. J. Difference Equ. Appl. iFirst article, 2011, 1–11 ICDEA 2012, Barcelona July 23-27, 2012 DSS T. Das, E. Shah, L ’. Snoha, Expansivity in functional envelopes. Submitted. Functional envelopes of dynamical systems – old and new 1. Definition results ( X , f ) ...... dyn. system ( X – compact metric, f : X → X cont.) S ( X ) ....... all cont. maps X → X ; with compact-open topology 1. Definition ( S U ( X ) ... unif. metric, S H ( X ) ... Hausdorff metric) topol. semigroup with respect to the comp. of maps 2. Motivation F f : S ( X ) → S ( X ) 3. Some of the results on properties related to the simplicity of a F f ( ϕ ) = f ◦ ϕ uniformly cont. (for each of the two metrics) system 4. Some of the results on orbit closures, ω -limit sets and range properties ( S ( X ) , F f ) ...... functional envelope of ( X , f ) 5. Some of the results on dense orbits ϕ, f ◦ ϕ, f 2 ◦ ϕ, . . . trajectory of ϕ : 6. Some of the results on topological entropy 7. Some of the results on expansivity ( S U ( X ) , F f ) and ( S H ( X ) , F f ) are topol. conjugate, but in general 1.-4. by [AKS], 5. by [AKS]+[A], 6. by [AKS]+[M], 7. by [DSS]. not compact ⇒ the same topological properties, but not necessarily the same metric properties

2. Motivation 2. Motivation 2) Semigroup theory 1) Functional difference equations (Sharkovsky et al.) S - topological semigroup ...... density index D ( S ) = least n such that S contains a dense subsemigroup with n generators ( ∞ if no x ( t + 1) = f ( x ( t )) , t ≥ 0 , f : [ a , b ] → [ a , b ] continuous such finite n exists). Every ϕ : [0 , 1) → [ a , b ] gives a solution x : [0 , ∞ ) → [ a , b ]:  if X = I k (Schreier, Ulam, Sierpinski ... x ( t ) = ϕ ( t ) , t ∈ [0 , 1) 2 ,    x ( t + 1) = f ( ϕ ( t ))   ... Cook, Ingram, Subbiah (35 years story)) x ( t + 2) = f 2 ( ϕ ( t )) D ( S ( X )) = 2 , if X = Cantor set  we see here ϕ, f ◦ ϕ, f 2 ◦ ϕ, . . .  . . .   if X = S k .  ∞ , x continuous ⇐ ⇒ ϕ continuous and ϕ (1 − ) = f ( ϕ (0)) D ( S ( X )) = 2 ..... ∃ ϕ, f such that the family of maps In such a case we can view the boxed maps as continuous maps [0 , 1] → [ a , b ], rather than [0 , 1) → [ a , b ]. ϕ , f , ϕ 2 , f ◦ ϕ , ϕ ◦ f , f 2 , ϕ 3 , f ◦ ϕ 2 , ϕ ◦ f ◦ ϕ, f 2 ◦ ϕ , . . . Finally, if [ a , b ] = [0 , 1] =: I , the boxed sequence is the is dense in S ( X ). Can the smaller family of boxed maps be dense trajectory of ϕ in ( S ( I ) , F f ) (i.e. in the fc. envelope of ( I , f )). in S ( X ) ? (i.e., can the orbit of ϕ in the fc. envelope ( S ( X ) , F f ) be dense?) 2. Motivation 2. Motivation 3) Dynamical systems theory 2 X = closed subsets of the cpct. space X , with Hausdorff metric Quasi-factor of ( X , f ) = (closed, here) any subsystem of (2 X , f ). No distinction between maps and their graphs ⇒ F f quasi − f . id × f S H ( X ) − − − − → S H ( X ) ← − − − − − X × X − − − − → X × X ( S H ( X ) , F f ) = a quasi-factor of ( X × X , id × f ) .         range � ( a , b ) �→ b � � � R X := { range ( ϕ ) : ϕ ∈ S ( X ) } with Hausdorff metric. Then quasi − f . f f R X − − − − → R X ← − − − − − X − − − − → X ( R X , f ) = a quasi-factor of ( X , f ) . � �� � � �� � commutes commutes Moreover, ( R X , f ) is a factor of ( S ( X ) , F f ) [ f ( range ( ϕ )) = range ( f ◦ ϕ ) and so ϕ �→ range ( ϕ ) is a homomorphism of ( S ( X ) , F f ) onto ( R X , f )]. ⇒ connection between properties of ( S ( X ) , F f ) and ( R X , f ).

3. Some of the results on properties related to the 4. Some of the results on orbit closures, ω -limit sets and simplicity of a system range properties Fact. ( S ( X ) , F f ) contains an isomorphic copy of ( X , f ) (the copy is made of constant maps). Hence the name ‘functional envelope’. Corollary. All properties which are hereditary down (i.e. are Definition. Let P be a property a map from S ( X ) may or may not inherited by subsystems) carry over from ( S ( X ) , F f ) to ( X , f ) have. It is said to be a range property if (if the property is metric, then regardless of whether S U or S H ). range θ = range ϕ = ⇒ ( ϕ has P ⇔ θ has P ) Examples: isometry, equicontinuity, uniform rigidity, distality, asymptoticity, proximality. and it is said to be a range down property if Direction from f to F f : range θ ⊆ range ϕ = ⇒ ( ϕ has P ⇒ θ has P ) . ( X , f ) isom. equi. u.rig. dist. asymp. prox. Obviously, a range down property is a range property. ( S U ( X ) , F f ) + + + + – – ( S H ( X ) , F f ) + + + – – – ( X , f ) distal ........... ( S H ( X ) , F f ) may contain asymptotic pairs ( X , f ) asymptotic ... ( S U ( X ) , F f ) and ( S H ( X ) , F f ) may contain distal pairs 4. Some of the results on orbit closures, ω -limit sets and 5. Some of the results on dense orbits range properties D ( S ( X )) > 2 ⇒ no dense orbits in ( S ( X ) , F f ) D ( S ( X )) = 2 ⇒ ? Answer: – dense orbits in functional envelopes may exist Some of many results for the illustration: (Example: Fc. envelope of the full shift on A N contains dense orbits. (A = { 0 , 1 } ⇒ A N = Cantor, Theorem. The following are range down properties: A = [0 , 1] ⇒ A N = Hilbert cube) (i) the compactness of an orbit closure, – for many X, even if D ( S ( X )) = 2 , there are no (ii) having a nonempty ω -limit set, dense orbits in the functional envelope ( S ( X ) , F f ) (iii) recurrence, regardless of the choice of f : (iv) the simultaneous compactness and minimality of an orbit clo- sure (the minimality of an orbit closure is only a range prop.) Theorem. Let X be a nondegenerate compact metric space satisfying (at least) one of the following conditions: (a) X admits a stably non-injective continuous selfmap, (b) X contains no homeo. copy of X with empty interior in X . Then there are no dense orbits in the functional envelope ( S ( X ) , F f ). – covers all manifolds etc.

� � � � � � � � 5. Some of the results on dense orbits 6. Some of the results on topological entropy F f is uniformly continuous on S U ( X ) and S H ( X ) and so one can study the topological entropy of fc. envelopes. In particular, we see: If K is a Cantor set, then ( S ( K ) , F f ) may d U ≥ d H = ⇒ ent U ( F ) ≥ ent H ( F ) ≥ ent ( f ) contain dense orbits (i.e. may be topologically transitive). Examples and theorem: Theorem (Akin 2007, personal communication): If K is a Cantor ◮ ent ( f ) = 0 (even an asymptotic countable system or a set and ( K , f ) is weakly mixing, then ( S ( K ) , F f ) is also weakly nondecreasing interval map), ent U ( F f ) = + ∞ mixing. So: ent ( f ) = 0 � ent U ( F f ) = 0 (even on the interval) ◮ ent ( f ) = 0 (even an asymptotic countable system), ent H ( F f ) = + ∞ However: Theorem (Matviichuk 2011): If f is a tree map, then ent ( f ) = 0 ⇒ ent H ( F f ) = 0 ent ( f ) > 0 ⇒ ent H ( F f ) = + ∞ 7. Some of the results on expansivity 7. Some of the results on expansivity homeo f : X → X ... expansive if ∃ ε > 0 ∀ x , y ∈ X , x � = y ∃ n ∈ Z : d ( f n ( x ) , f n ( y )) > ε Theorem ... continuum-wise expansive or c-w expansive if Let X be a compact metric space. ∃ ε > 0 ∀ K - a subcontinuum of X 1. If X contains an infinite, zero dimensional subspace Z such ∃ n ∈ Z : diam f n ( K ) > ε that Z is open in X, then ( S H ( X ) , F f ) is never exp./pos. exp. map f : X → X ... positively expansive ( pos. c-w expansive ) if 2. If X contains an arc, then ( S H ( X ) , F f ) is never c-w exp./pos. ... ∃ n ≥ 0 ... c-w exp. (hence, never exp./pos. exp.). ( S H ( X ) , F f ) exp. ( X , f ) exp. ( S U ( X ) , F f ) exp. ( S H ( X ) , F f ) c-w exp. ( X , f ) c-w exp. ( S U ( X ) , F f ) c-w exp.