This note is mostly based on parts of (RH)^2U (2006) and conversations with R. Ures while he was visiting Northwestern.
Let be a foliation of the manifold , for , a plaque in of through is a small open neighborhood of in the leaf that’s pre-image of a disc via a local foliation chart. (i.e. plaques stuck nicely to make open neighborhoods where the foliation chart is defined.) For small enough, whenever the leaves of are , the path component of containing is automatically a plaque, we denote this by .
Given a partially hyperbolic diffeomorphism , suppose the center integrates to foliation .
Definition: An -pseudo orbit w.r.t. is a sequence where for any , .
i.e. is the -image of except we are allowed to move along the center plaque for a distance less than .
Definition: is plaque expansive at if there exists s.t. for all -pseudo orbits w.r.t. , for all then .
i.e. any two pseudo-orbits in different plagues will eventually (under forward or backward iterates) be separated by a distance .
In the book Invariant Manifolds (Hirsch-Pugh-Shub), it’s proven that
Theorem: If a partially hyperbolic system has plaque expansive center foliation, then the center being integrable and plaque expansiveness are stable under perturbation (in the space of diffeos). Furthermore, the center foliation of the perturbed system is conjugate to the center foliation of the origional system in the sense that there exists homeomorphism where
1) sends leaves of to leaves of i.e. for all ,
2) conjugates the action of and on the set of center leaves i.e. for all ,
(both sides produce a leaf)
Morally this means plaque expansiveness implies structurally stable in terms of permuting the center leaves.
It’s open whether or not any partially hyperbolic diffeomorphism with integrable center is plaque expansive w.r.t. its center foliation.
Another problem, stated in HPS about plaque expansiveness is:
Question: If is partially hyperbolic and plaque expansive w.r.t. center foliation , then is the
unique −invariant foliation tangent to ?
(RH)^2U has recently gave a series of super cool examples where the 1-dimensional center bundles of a partially hyperbolic diffeomorphism 1) does not integrate OR 2) integrates to a foliation but leaves through a given point is not unique (there is other curves through the point that’s everywhere tangent to the bundle). I will say a few words about the examples without spoil the paper (which is still under construction).
Start with the cat map on the -torus (matrix with entries , take the direct product with the source-sink map on the circle, we obtain a diffeo on the torus. For the purpose of our map, we make the expansion in the source-sink map weaker than that of the cat map and the contraction stronger.
Then we perturb the map by adding appropriate small rotations to the system, the perturbation vanish on the fibers corresponding to the two fixed points in the source-sink map. This will make our system partially hyperbolic, with center bundles as shown below:
To construct a non-integrable center, we make a perturbation that gives center boundle (inside the unstable direction of the cat map times the circle):
For intergrable but have non-unique center leaves, we simply rotate the upper and bottom half in opposite directions and obtain:
Note that in this case, all center leaves are merely copies of . The example is plaque expansive due to to fact that all centers leaves are compact (and of uniformly bounded length). However, although the curve through any given point tangent to the bundle is non-unique, there is only one possible foliation of the center. Hence this does not give a counter example to the above mentioned question in HPS.
I think there are hopes to modify the example and make one that has similar compact leafs but non-unique center foliation, perhaps by making the unique integrability fail not only on a single line.