About one week ago (May 23, 2013), I saw a very nice talk of Serge Cantat on *Dynamical degrees* at the seminar of the Topology and Dynamics team of Orsay.

Before entering on the details of Serge’s talk, let me mention that, generally speaking, this Topology and Dynamics seminar has a very interesting format: indeed, prior to the “main” talk, some local member makes an *informal* talk (where we are served with coffee and tea during the exposition…) to make the audience more comfortable with the topic of the main talk. An important feature of this format is that the main speaker is usually *not* allowed to see the informal talk, so that the main talk usually has some overlaps with the informal talk. Of course, this is a really nice feature since the audience is able to pose more questions after seeing the same idea for the second time (with different perspectives as they were presented by distinct persons).

In the case of Serge’s talk, the informal talk was delivered by Yves de Cornulier who introduced us to several aspects of the so-called *Cremona group* (the central object in Serge’s talk).

Below the fold, I will reproduce my notes from Serge’s talk around his joint work with Jérémy Blanc, while using from time to time my notes from Yves de Cornulier’s talk. As usual, any mistakes/typos in this post are my entire responsibility.

**1. Preliminaries **

Let be an algebraically closed field, e.g., . Denote by , resp. , the affine, resp. projective plane.

The so-called Cremona group is the group of birational transformations of the plane, i.e.,

Here, one has to be careful when defining the compositions and as they only make sense outside certain *indetermination sets*. In other words, we want to consider our birational transformations to be defined outside certain proper, Zariski closed subsets of and/or . In particular, this explains the equality : indeed, can be viewed as a Zariski open and dense subset of via , where are the homogenous coordinates on .

In what follows, we’ll denote a birational transformation by or , where the dashed arrow serves to indicate that we think of as well-defined outside some indetermination set (that will be a small set; see the next paragraph).

Note that, by definition, a birational transformation has the form , in affine coordinates, while a birational transformation has the form , where are *homogeneous* polynomials of the *same degree* without common factors of degree . In this setting, we define the *degree* of is the common degree of the rational functions . Also, we note that the set of indetermination of is (where is the set of zeros of ). In particular, this indetermination set is *finite* (because , and have no common factors of degree ).

Let us now give some concrete examples of elements of the Cremona group .

Example 1From the point of view of function fields, and itcontainsthe projective linear group of automorphisms (i.e., birational transformations of degree ) of the projective plane . For sake of comparison, recall that the Cremona group (of birational transformations) of the projectivelineis and itcoincideswith the projective linear group ofautomorphisms(degree ) of the projective line (by thinking of a matrix as a Moebius transformation ). Note that the set of indetermination of any automorphism of a projective plane (of any dimension) is empty.

Example 2The standard quadratic involution is an element ofnotbelonging to . In particular, doesnotcoincide with (contrary to the case of the projective line ). Nevertheless, Max Noether showed that isgeneratedby and . Note that the set of indetermination of consists of the three points , and .

Example 3Let or, more generally, with . Note that the standard quadratic involution from Example 2 is where .

Example 4Let , (or in homogenous coordinates). In the literature, is known as the complex Hénon map.

**2. Dynamical degree **

Geometrically, the degree of a birational transformation is the intersection of a generic line with . Thus, the quantity gives some coarse information on how acts on .

Hence, from the point of view of Dynamical Systems, it is natural to try to capture more information on the action of on the projective plane by investigating the sequence of degrees of the iterates , , of . Here, it is not hard to show that the degree is a submultiplicative quantity (i.e., ), so that the limit

exists.

The quantity is called the *dynamical degree* of .

Example 5By direct computation, one can check that for the complex Hénon maps in Example 4 it holds for all . Therefore, the dynamical degree of complex Hénon maps is .

Example 6The degree is a submultiplicative quantity but it isnotmultiplicative in general. Indeed, the standard quadratic involution from Example 2 has degree , but the degree of is . In particular, .

Example 7The dynamical degrees of the maps , , from Example 3 are easy to determine: because of the functorial relation , the degree of is the maximum of and where , so that is comparable to (with a multiplicative comparison constant depending only on the choice of ); in particular, is the spectral radius of .

Example 8By applying the discussion of the previous example to with , we find that . More generally, by considering the matrices and to make be the roots of the polynomials for and for . In particular, the gold number is the dynamical degree of , .

The main question guiding Serge’s talk was:

*What is the structure of the set ?*

Remark 1As Serge pointed out, besides the intrinsic interest of , the analog of for other algebraic varieties might be an useful birational invariant in general. In other words, this dynamical invariant could be useful for treating classification problems in Algebraic Geometry.

Before discussing this question, let us list some basic properties of the dynamical degree:

- the dynamical degree is not larger than the (algebraic) degree: ;
- the dynamical degree is invariant under conjugation: ;
- the logarithm of the dynamical degree is an upper bound for the topological entropy: .

Remark 2In some sense, an element with is comparable to a pseudo-Anosov element in the mapping class group of a genus surface (and plays the role of the dilation of a pseudo-Anosov or the volume of the hyperbolic 3-manifold obtained by suspension). In fact, this comparison is partly supported by the following result of Diller and Favre showing (among other things) that one of the following possibility occurs:

- the sequence is bounded (and, a fortiori, ) if and only if there is an iterate conjugated to an automorphism isotopic to the identity;
- the sequence is a linear function of (and, a fortiori, ) if and only if preserves a rational fibration;
- the sequence is a quadratic function of (and, a fortiori, ) if and only if preserves an elliptic fibration;
- the sequence is an exponential function of (and, a fortiori, ).

Coming back to the main question, we will discuss in next section some results of Diller and Favre saying that consists of Pisot and Salem numbers.

**3. The structure of after Diller and Favre **

In this section we will sketch the proof of the following result:

Here, ‘Pisot’ and ‘Salem’ stand for the sets of Pisot and Salem numbers. For sake of convenience, let us recall the definitions and some facts about these sets:

Definition 2We say that is a Pisot number if is an algebraic integer such that and all its Galois conjugates have moduli .Similarly, we say that is a Salem number if is an algebraic integer such that , all its Galois conjugates have moduli , and there is at least one Galois conjugate of of modulus .

Among the basic features of Pisot and Salem numbers, we have:

- every positive integer is a Pisot number;
- the smallest Pisot number is the root of ;
- the smallest Pisot number that is accumulated by other Pisot numbers (from both sides) is the golden ratio (and, actually, the discrete set of Pisot numbers between and is “known”);
- the set of Pisot numbers is closed;
- the closure of the set of Salem numbers contains the set of Pisot numbers;
- it is
*conjectured*that the infimum of the set of Salem numbers is , and, more precisely, this infimum is*believed*to be the Lehmer number (that is, the largest root of ).

Let us give briefly sketch the proof of Theorem 1. First, we will try to convince ourselves that, for any , the quantity is an algebraic integer. Very roughly speaking, the idea is that is the spectral radius of a matrix with integer coefficients corresponding to a certain action on homology/cohomology.

In principle, it is tempting to try to relate to the action of on homology, but this naive idea does not work because the action of on the (second) cohomology group occurs by multiplication by but, in general, we might have that is *strictly* smaller than the spectral radius of the action of in cohomology because it might happen that (cf. Example 2).

In order to overcome this difficulty, it is clear that we need to understand “what goes wrong” when . Here, we invoke the general fact that the equality holds except if contracts a curve into an indetermination point of : for instance, the reader is invited to think about this in the particular case of the standard quadratic involution from Example 2 (while keeping in mind the fact that is the intersection of a line with ). In particular, if , this means that some curve meets an indetermination point of . Fortunately, there is a well-known method to get around the difficulty created by the indetermination set: each time we see a curve being contracted to an indetermination point, we blow-up it (i.e., we replace the point by a projective plane).

By doing this blowing up procedure in a systematic (and careful) way, Diller and Favre end up by showing that, after finitely many blow-ups, one obtains a surface such that

- the sequence of “degrees” of the iterates of is multiplicative, i.e., the action of on the “cohomology” ( for and the Neron-Severi group of for a general algebraically closed field ) is the -power of the action of on cohomology; in other words, by passing from to and replacing by , we got rid of the annoying technical problem that might happen.
- is the spectral radius of .

Of course, the last item readily implies that is an algebraic integer: indeed, is the spectral radius of (when ).

Actually, one can *improve* the information on by noticing that the surface was obtained from a finite number of blow-ups from . In particular, , where is the class associated to a generic line of and are the classes of the exceptional divisors introduced during the blowing up procedure. Furthermore, carries an intersection form such that , , for and , that is, carries an intersection form of signature . Thus, *if* preserved the intersection form, then would have at most eigenvalue of modulus by an elementary linear algebra argument (see, e.g., this previous post here), and hence would , Pisot or Salem. As it turns out, in general does *not* preserve the intersection, but it is possible to show that it “increases” it (i.e., there is some monotonicity phenomenon) and this is sufficient to conclude that has at most eigenvalue of modulus .

In any case, this completes the sketch of proof of Theorem 1 of Diller and Favre. In the next (final) section of this post, we will state some of the main results obtained by Serge (Cantat) and Jérémy Blanc.

**4. The structure of after Blanc-Cantat **

Once we know that , there are several natural questions that one can pose: What are the birational transformations leading to Pisot and/or Salem numbers? What is the infimum of ? Do all Pisot and/or Salem numbers belong to ?

Concerning the first question, Blanc and Cantat proved the following theorem:

Theorem 3If (with algebraically closed) and is Salem, then there exists a birational morphism such that .

By combining this result with some previous works by Nagata and McMullen, they obtain the following corollary answering the second question posed above:

Corollary 4The minimum of is Lehmer’s number .

Another interesting corollary of Blanc-Cantat theorem is:

Corollary 5Let such that . If and are conjugated, then it is possible to conjugate them via a birational transformation whose degree is “bounded”: more precisely, there exists such that and .

In a similar spirit, Blanc and Cantat showed that the *minimal degree* of , that is, , is “comparable” to the dynamical degree in most cases:

Theorem 6For all such that , one has that . In particular, there are universal constants and such that .

Using this theorem, Blanc and Cantat show that, given a sequence converging to some , then, up to replacing by some of element in its conjugacy class, we can assume that the degrees are *uniformly bounded*. From this, they prove the following result answering the third question posed above:

Theorem 7is a well ordered set (i.e., every subset has a least element) and it is closed if the field is uncountable (e.g., ). In particular, since the golden ratio is accumulated from the right by Pisot and Salem numbers, it follows that there are Pisot and Salem numbers that do not belong to .

Parabens pelo blog. Ta bem legal!

By:

thiagoon June 29, 2013at 4:08 pm