Hi! A few months ago, my friend Carlos Gustavo (Gugu) Moreira posted at the IMPA’s preprint server an article entitled “Geometric properties of the Markov and Lagrange spectra” explaining the proofs of his results on the Markov and Lagrange spectrum (see this previous post for an introduction of these spectra and the statements of Gugu’s results). Today, we’ll discuss the dynamical aspects of Gugu’s results. However, before starting the discussion of this preprint, let me take the opportunity to congratulate Gugu: he managed to post the first version of his interesting article at the same time of his first son’s birth! Moreover, let me thank my wife Aline Gomes Cerqueira whose nice comments helped me to clarify my thoughts about Gugu’s argument (and also helped the improvement of this work by her PhD advisor) .
[Update: Ops, I forgot to congratulate Gugu also for his recent UMALCA Prize 2009!]
[Update (August 11, 2009): The mistakes pointed out by Yuri are now fixed.]
-Quick review of the Markov and Lagrange spectrum-
During this section, we review the discussion of the first section of the this post. Given an irrational number , Dirichlet’s theorem claims that the inequality
has infinitely many rational solutions (in fact, it is a simple exercise to the reader to check that this is a direct consequence of Dirichlet’s pigeonhole principle). Furthermore, Markov and Hurwitz proved that the inequality
has infinitely many rational solutions for all irrational
and
is the biggest constant with this property, namely, for every
,
has only a finite number of rational solutions.
Nevertheless, during the study of Diophantine properties of specific irrational numbers , it is interesting to introduce the function
assigning to each irrational number its best rational approximation constant
. Observe that Khintchine’s theorem says that the set of irrational numbers
with
has full Lebesgue measure.
In any case, we can consider the Lagrange spectrum
formed by the collection of finite best constants .
Concerning the structure of , Markov (1879) showed that
where are explicit quadratic irrationals (i.e.,
,
, i.e., by Lagrange theorem,
has periodic continued fraction expansion). In particular, the beginning of
is discrete. On the other hand, M. Hall (1947) showed that
and G. Freiman (1975) determined the biggest half-line
contained
, namely, he proved that
is
Therefore, it remains only to understand the structure of middle of . This is the content of Gugu’s preprint.
However, before entering this issue, let me mention that the arguments of Hall and Freiman use the study of arithmetic sums of dynamically defined Cantor sets. The interaction between the dynamically defined (regular) Cantor sets and the Lagrange spectrum occurs via the continued fraction expansion. We’ll explain this relationship later (when we introduce the dynamically defined Cantor sets associated to the Gauss map). In any case, we can reformulate the Lagrange spectrum in the language of Dynamical Systems as follows. We observe that, for any irrational number (where
(
) is the usual continued fraction notation), it holds
where and
. Indeed, this fact follows from the identity
(which can be checked by induction). Keeping this notation in mind, we can give an alternative definition of the Lagrange spectrum:
Definition 1 Denote by
the set of bi-infinite sequences of natural numbers. For each
, we put
and we introduce the function
given by
In this setting, the Lagrange spectrum
is
where
is the shift dynamics
.
Of course, this alternative definition of the Lagrange spectrum motivates the introduction of the Markov spectrum :
Remark 1
admits the following arithmetic characterization:
Remark 2 It is possible to prove that
and
are closed subsets of
such that
.
A nice reference for the theory of continued fractions and the Markov and Lagrange spectrum containing the proofs of all facts quoted above is the book of Cusick and Flahive.
At this point, let us state the main theorems of Gugu’s preprint (concerning about the middle part of ).
-Statements of the main results-
The main three results of Gugu’s preprint are:
Theorem 3 Given
, we have
(where
stands for the Hausdorff dimension of the set
). Furthermore,
is a continuous and surjective function from
to
. Moreover,
where
is a continuous function from
to
;
;
.
Remark 3 A very interesting consequence of theorem 3 is the fact that
is not Hölder continuous (with respect to any exponent
). Indeed,
sends the subset
of Hausdorff dimension
onto the interval
for every
. Thus, if
is
-Hölder continuous for some
, one would have
for all
, a contradiction (for a sufficiently small
).
Theorem 5 The set
of accumulation points of
is a perfect set, i.e.,
.
In the sequel, we’ll content ourselves with the discussion of the first part of theorem 3 only (i.e., the continuity of ). The starting point of Gugu’s argument is inspired by the proofs of the theorems of M. Hall and G. Freiman, namely, one consider the dynamically defined Cantor sets related to the Gauss map. Then, the basic idea during the proof of the continuity properties of the function
is the combination of some approximation arguments of the Lagrange spectrum by the arithmetic sum of two regular Cantor sets with the fact that the Hausdorff dimension of these arithmetic sums are well-behaved due to the so-called dimension formula. Now, let’s turn to the details.
A fundamental tool in Gugu’s article is the so-called dimension formula (which will appear in a forthcoming paper by Gugu). Basically, it says that the Hausdorff dimension of the arithmetic sum of generic Cantor sets
,
is
. In order to properly state this theorem, we introduce the notion of non essentially affine regular Cantor sets. We recall that a
-regular (i.e., dynamically defined) Cantor set
is the maximal invariant set of a transitive expanding map
from a disjoint finite union of compact intervals
to the real line verifying the Markov partition property (see this post for more details). Observe that, for every periodic point
of period
of
, one can find a
diffeomorphism of the convex hull
of
such that
is affine in
, where
is the connected component of the domain of
containing
.
Definition 6 We say that
is non essentially affine whenever we can find a periodic point
(as above) such that the map
verifies
for some
.
In other words, is non essentially affine if it is not possible to perform a conjugation of the dynamics
so that it becomes affine near the corresponding Cantor set. Using this notion, Gugu will show (in a forthcoming article) the following theorem:
Theorem 7 (Dimension formula) If
and
are
-regular Cantor sets and
is non essentially affine, then
Remark 4 The proof of this result uses in a crucial way the previous work of Gugu and J.C. Yoccoz about the stable intersections of
-Cantor sets. More precisely, Gugu plans to use the so-called Scale Recurrence Lemma of this paper to prove the dimension formula. In fact, the curious reader can consult the article of P. Shmerink (15 pages) for a complete proof (along these lines) of Gugu’s dimension formula under slightly stronger assumptions (of non-resonance).
Remark 5 The appearance of the term
on the right-hand side of the dimension formula has a natural explanation: as we saw in a previous post about Marstrand’s theorem, the arithmetic sum
is (essentially) the orthogonal projection of the product set
into the diagonal
of
(making angle of
with the
-axis). Hence, the dimension formula says that, for generic Cantor sets, this projection has the correct dimension, i.e.,
(the Hausdorff dimension of
).
Assuming the validity of the dimension formula, we can begin the discussion of the proof of theorem 3.
-Regular Cantor sets associated to the Gauss map-
In Number Theory, the Gauss map is
the fractional part of
(this should not be confused with the Gauss map from the Differential Geometry). Of course, the iterates of
are intimately related to the continued fraction algorithm. A central role in the subsequent arguments will be played by the regular Cantor sets associated to complete shifts via the Gauss map. More precisely, given a finite set
(
) of finite sequences
(
) of positive integers such that
doesn’t start with
for every
, we introduce
Definition 8 The complete shift
associated to
is the subset of
formed by the sequences
obtained by concatenations of the elements
for every
.
Using the complete shift and the Gauss map, we can construct a regular Cantor set:
Definition 9 We denote by
the Cantor set of real numbers whose continued fractions are sequences of
, that is,
Exercise 1 Show that
is a regular Cantor set. (Hint: For each
,
, consider the interval
where
and
and define
)
In view of the shape of the graph of the Gauss map, the following proposition is very natural:
Proof: For each (say
), let us denote by
be the fixed point of
. From the theory of continued fractions (see Cusick and Flahive), we know that
where is the
-th rational approximation of
(for
). It follows that
is a positive solution of
.
On the other hand, since is a Möbius transformation with an expanding fixed point
, we can find a Möbius function
such that
,
and
is affine. This reduces our task to show that
is not affine (because the second derivative of a non-affine Möbius transformation never vanishes).
Assuming that is affine, we see that
is a common fixed point of
and
(since the point
at infinity is a common fixed point of the affine maps
and
) and, a fortiori, it is a common solution of the quadratic equations
for
. Because these two quadratic polynomials of
are irreducible (since
and
are irrational numbers), they must coincide. In particular, this forces
, a contradiction with
.
Once we know that the regular Cantor sets are non essentially affine, we’ll try to combine this information with the dimension formula (for the arithmetic sum of Cantor sets) in order to show the continuity of
. Note that this is a natural approach because the Lagrange and Markov spectra are naturally related to the values of a certain (sum) function over the orbits of bi-infinite sequences by the shift map. Before starting the discussion of this topic, let us close this section with some remarks and interesting facts.
Remark 6 Given a sequence
, we define its transposition
by
. Of course, this notion extends to finite sets of sequences
(via
. In this notation, we have the classical fact
about the continuants of the continued fractions associated to
and
(see the appendix of Cusick and Flahive). Using this fact, it is not hard to prove that
.
Putting together the previous remark 6 with the proposition 10, we conclude:
Remark 7 This corollary is related to the fact that
(see the theorem 3).
-Lagrange/Markov spectrum of complete shifts-
Denote by where
and
and let
be the shift operator. Recall that the Lagrange spectrum is
and the Markov spectrum is
, where
and
(see the definition 1 for the definition of
and
).
Remark 8 If
, then
. In particular, if
, we have that
belongs to M. Hall’s ray (since
).
Therefore, since we are interested in the continuity properties of the function , the previous remark allows us to make the following assumption:
From now on, we’ll always assume that for every
,
and
.
In our approach to and
, it is convenient to introduce the Lagrange and Markov spectrum associated to a complete shift
:
Definition 12 Let
be a complete shift. Its Lagrange spectrum is
and its Markov spectrum is
.
A nice feature of the Lagrange and Markov spectrum of complete shifts is:
Lemma 13 (lemma 2 of Gugu’s paper) Let
be a complete shift. Then, it holds
Proof: The reader clearly sees that , where $R$ is the length of the biggest word of $B$, so that
On the other hand, given , it suffices to construct two regular Cantor sets
and
such that
and
. In this direction, we note that, up to replacing
by
for a large
, one can assume that
for any
with
. Next, we order the elements of
(resp.
) as follows: given
(resp.
), we say that
if and only if
. Using this total order, we can select
and
(resp.
and
) the minimal and maximal elements of
(resp.
). We define
and
Observe that and
(here we used the remark 6). Of course, since we removed the minimal and maximal elements of
and
, we expect that the values of
on
decrease in view of the following classical comparison result of the theory of continued fractions:
if and only if , where
is the smallest integer such that
(this parity issue during the comparison of two continued fractions justifies the exclusion of the minimal and maximal elements of
).
Unfortunately, the exclusion of the minimal and maximal elements of and
is not sufficient to ensure that
(in fact, although the values of
on
decrease, this doesn’t guarantees that they belong to
. However, this technical problem can be solved by considering some smaller replicas of
and
. Pick
,
, a point of
where the maximum of
is attained (in a position associated to
). Using
, for each
, we construct the subsets
formed of the sequences
where for every
and
for every
. By a compactness argument (involving the fact that we can eventually increase the value of
by replacing some of its elements by
or
), Gugu shows that there exists
and a large
such that, for every
, the value
is attained at a position
associated to the central
block
and at any position outside
. Next, we pick an arbitrary
such that
and we associated to each
the sequence
Observe that, for each position of the central block,
doesn’t depend on
, so that
, the function
is a Möbius transformation (for such positions
). Moreover, these functions are mutually distinct. In particular, the values
(for the positions
of
) are distinct except for a finitely many choices of
. This allows us to take
such that
for every two distinct positions
and
of
. Let’s denote by
the position of
where the value
is maximum.
Now, we take large such that the enlarged block
verifies the following property: we have
for any with
and
(
), where
The existence of is a consequence of the choice of
(so that the
is attained at some position
of
), the fact that the values of
are mutually distinct at the positions
associated to
(so that
for every position
of
) and the fact that the values of
are very close to
for a sufficiently large
.
Finally, we define
and
Observe that is a (diffeomorphic) copy of
and
is a (diffeomorphic) copy of
, so that
and
.
We claim that . Indeed, given
and
it is not hard to check that where
and where
and . This ends the proof of the lemma.
-Approximation of Lagrange/Markov spectrum by complete shifts-
During the study of the function , it is interesting to introduce the subshifts
given by
and the associated Cantor sets
where is the natural projection. For later use (in the arguments related to Hausdorff dimension), we’ll say that the size
of a finite sequence
of strictly positive integers is the length of the interval
Note that the extremities of are
and
, so that
.
We also introduce ,
for each , and
The cardinatily of is denoted by
. In this setting, it is possible to show that the box dimension
of
is
This is expected since the collection corresponds to the natural intervals (with respect to the continued fraction algorithm) of scale
covering the set
. For more details see Gugu’s preprint.
Proof: In fact, from the theory of continued fractions, we have that for any finite sequences
and any
. It follows that one can cover
using the
intervals of the form
, where
,
,
. Furthermore, these intervals verifies
. In particular,
, so that
In other words, the sequence is sub-aditive. Hence,
Using this information, we can conclude that is continuous: otherwise, one can find some
and
such that
for every
(since
is monotone). In view of the previous identity, it follows that we can select some large integer
such that
for every and
. On the other hand, because
for any
and
(by a simple compactness argument), by taking the limit when
, we see that the previous estimate implies
a contraction. This completes the proof of the proposition.
Now, we are able to state the following lemma about the approximation of the Lagrange/Markov spectrum by regular Cantor sets associated to complete shifts:
Lemma 15 (lemma 1 of Gugu’s paper) Given
and
, we can find
and a regular Cantor set
associated to a complete shift
such that
and
.
Proof: Of course, it is not hard to approximate by a complete shift
(in order to ensure
is close to
). Indeed, consider
and fix
large so that
for any . Now, define
and put
. Take
and we introduce
It is not hard to check that the Hausdorff dimension of is close to
: firstly, a simple counting argument shows that
; in particular, since the intervals
,
are a covering of
such that
(exercise), we see that
, but the main problem is the fact that we don’t have any control on the values of
on
(since we would like to decrease them from
to
). In order to overcome this difficulty, Gugu introduces the notion of lef-good and right-good positions of a given
.
More precisely, we say that is a right-good position of
whenever one can find two elements
(
) of
such that the following inequality holds
Similarly, is a left-good position of
whenever one can find two elements
(
) of
such that
Finally, we say that is a good position of
if it is both a left-good and a right-good position.
By a crude bound on the number of bad positions (namely, given a position, there are only two choices of making
a bad position:
), it is possible to prove that the quantity of words of
with
good positions is
. Such words are called excellent words by Gugu. Of course, we can hope to decrease the values of
on any excellent words (by some fixed amount
), but a new problem emerges: it may happen that the subset of
formed by excellent words doesn’t give a complete subshift (e.g., it may be not possible to concatenate excellent words). At this stage, Gugu employs a exclusion procedure combined with a double counting argument to show that we can build a complete shift by focusing at a large portion of the good positions of
and fixing the words of
appearing into these good positions. Namely, Gugu shows that there are special good positions
(i.e., they are good positions such that
are also good positions) such that the subset
of excellent words
whose entries at these good positions are equal to conveniently chosen words
(i.e.,
and
verifies
Furthermore, Gugu proves that there are two integers such that the image
of the projection
of the form
is the desired subset of words such that (essentially by the definition of good position) and
(since
,
, is a covering of
composed of
intervals verifying
).
This completes the proof of the lemma.
Once we have the lemmas 13, 15 and the proposition 14 in our toolbox, we can prove the first part of theorem 3.
-End of the proof of theorem 3-
We claim that . Indeed, using the lemma 13 to the complete shift
constructed in the lemma 15, we see that
Nevertheless,
On the other hand,
Also,
Furthermore,
Putting these four estimates together and letting , we conclude the proof of the claim. Observe that this argument also shows that
.
Finally, the continuity of follows from the formula
and the fact that
is continuous (see the proposition 14).
Remark 9 From the identity
, we see that the first item of theorem 3 is equivalent to
(where
). Although this is not terribly difficult to show, we are not going to prove this fact here.
Dear Matheus,
I do think that the dimension formula for sums of non-essentially affine Cantor sets does not have the minus 1. In fact, the projection l_{\pi/4} should not necessarily make the Hausdorff Dimension smaller. It must have total Hausdorff Dimension or the expected one for products of Cantor sets, which is just the sum HD(K)+HD(K’).
By: Yuri on August 10, 2009
at 5:53 pm
In the proof of Lemma 13, you must saturate the first inclusion by sufficiently large iterates of g. Specifically, the inclusion should be
$$m(\sigma(B))\subset \cup_{1\le a\le 4 and 1\le i,j\le R} (a+g^i(K(B)))+g^j(K(B^t)),$$
where R is the lenght of the biggest word of B. This happens because we don’t know for sure that the supremum is attained at the beggining of each word \beta_i.
By: Yuri on August 10, 2009
at 6:06 pm
In the following inequality, the correct term is HD(K(B)).
By: Yuri on August 10, 2009
at 6:08 pm
After considering B^n, the correct term is HD(K(B)) instead of HD(HD(B)).
Observe that, FOR EACH POSITION {n} OF THE CENTRAL BLOCK, {\beta_n(\theta(x))} doesn’t depend on {x}, so that the function {g_n(x):=\alpha(\theta(x)) + \beta(\theta(x))}.
(on the above definition, \alpha and \beta must be indexed by n).
In the section -Approximation of Lagrange/Markov spectrum by complete shifts-, it remains to say that r(a_1,\ldots,a_n)<r.
By: Yuri on August 10, 2009
at 7:12 pm
Dear Yuri,
thank you very much for the careful list of corrections!
By: matheuscmss on August 11, 2009
at 12:35 pm