On plaque expansiveness

This note is mostly based on parts of (RH)^2U (2006) and conversations with R. Ures while he was visiting Northwestern.

Let \mathcal{F} be a foliation of the manifold M, for p \in M, a plaque in of \mathcal{F} through p is a small open neighborhood of p in the leaf \mathcal{F}_p 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 \varepsilon small enough, whenever the leaves of \mathcal{F} are C^1, the path component of B(p, \varepsilon) containing p is automatically a plaque, we denote this by \mathcal{F}_\varepsilon(p).

Given a partially hyperbolic diffeomorphism f: M \rightarrow M, suppose the center integrates to foliation \mathcal{F}^c.

Definition: An \varepsilon-pseudo orbit w.r.t. \mathcal{F}^c is a sequence (p_n) where for any n \in \mathbb{Z}, f(x_n) \in \mathcal{F}^c_\varepsilon(x_{n+1}).

i.e. p_{n+1} is the f-image of p_n except we are allowed to move along the center plaque for a distance less than \varepsilon.

Definition: f is plaque expansive at \mathcal{F}^c if there exists \varepsilon>0 s.t. for all \varepsilon-pseudo orbits (p_n),  (q_n) w.r.t. \mathcal{F}^c, d(p_i, q_i)<\varepsilon for all i \in \mathbb{Z} then p_0 \in \mathcal{F}^c_\varepsilon(q_0).

i.e. any two pseudo-orbits in different plagues will eventually (under forward or backward iterates) be separated by a distance \varepsilon.

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 g is conjugate to the center foliation of the origional system f in the sense that there exists homeomorphism h: M \rightarrow M where

1) h sends leaves of \mathcal{F}^c_f to leaves of \mathcal{F}^c_g i.e. for all p \in M,

h(\mathcal{F}^c_f(p)) = \mathcal{F}^c_g(p)

2) h conjugates the action of f and g on the set of center leaves i.e. for all p \in M,

h \circ f \ (\mathcal{F}^c_f(p)) = g \circ h \ ( \mathcal{F}^c_f(p))

(both sides produce a \mathcal{F}^c_g 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 f is partially hyperbolic and plaque expansive w.r.t. center foliation \mathcal{F}_c, then is \mathcal{F}_c the
unique f−invariant foliation tangent to E^c?

(RH)^2U has recently gave a series of super cool examples where the 1-dimensional center bundles of a C^1 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 2-torus (matrix with entries ( 2, 1, 1, 1), take the direct product with the source-sink map on the circle, we obtain a diffeo on the 3 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 \mathbb{t}^2 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 S^1. 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.

Generic Accessibility (part 1) – Andy Hammerlindl

Pugh-Shub Conjecture: Generic measure preserving partially hyperbolic diffeomorphism is ergodic. [PS (2000)]

The accessibility approach breaks this into two conjectures (and both are open):

Conjecture A: Generic partially hyperbolic diffeomorphism (measure preserving or not) is accessible.

Conjecture B: All measure preserving accessible partially hyperbolic diffeomorphisms are ergodic.

Note that if both conjecture A and conjecture B are true, then the Pugh-Shub Conjecture is true, but the failure of either won’t imply the conjecture being wrong.

Here we discuss the recent result of RHRHU (2008) which proves Pugh-Shub conjecture in the case where \dim (E^c)=1 by using accessibility.

We are going to focus on the proof of Conjecture A, here’s a sketch of proof of Conjecture B when \dim (E^c)=1 is assumed:

Theorem B: Let M be compact manifold, f: M \rightarrow M be a measure preserving accessible partially hyperbolic diffeomorphism, \dim (E^c)=1, then f is ergodic.

Proof: Let \phi: M \rightarrow \mathbb{R} be f invariant

Let A = \phi^{-1}(( - \infty, c]), if m(A)>0 then \exists p \in A s.t. p is a density point of A.

At this point there are some technical details in the paper which we are going to skip, but the main idea is to the fact that \dim (E^c)=1 (or in this case even the weaker hypothesis center brunching would work) to prove that in our case y \in M is a density point iff y is a “leaf density point” in both its center-stable and center-unstable leaves. Hence by accessibility from p to y, we can “push” the point p along the us-path that joins p to y and induce that y is a “leaf density point” in A hence a density point in A.

\therefore all points y \in M are density points of A hence m(A)=1.

Note that here if we replace accessibility by essential accessibility, we still get m(A)=1.

Hence \forall c \in \mathbb{R}, either m(\phi^{-1}(( - \infty, c]))=0 or m(\phi^{-1}(( - \infty, c])) = 1

\therefore \ \phi is essentially constant. \therefore f is ergodic.

This establishes theorem B.

Let PH^r(M) be the set of measure preserving diffeomorphisms on M that are of class C^r

Theorem A: Accessibility is open dense in the space of diffeomorphisms in PH^r(M) with \dim(E^c) = 1.

For any x \in M, let AC(x) denote the set of points that’s accessible from x

Let \mathcal{D} = \{ f \in {PH}^r (M) | \forall \ x \in Per(f),  AC(x) is open \}

Fact: \mathcal{D} \subseteq PH^r(M) with \dim(E^c) = 1 is G_\delta and \mathcal{D} = \mathcal{A} \sqcup \mathcal{B}
where \mathcal{A} = \{ \ f \ | \ f is accessible \} and
\mathcal{B} = \{ \ f \ | \ per(f) = \phi and E^u \oplus E^s is integrable \}

Note that this actually requires some rather technical work which was done in the paper, here we skip the proof of this.

Let U(f) = \{ \ x \in M \ | \ AC(x) is open \}

It’s easy to see that U(f) is automatically open hence V(f) = M \setminus U(f) is compact.

Proposition: Let x \in M, the following are equivalent:

1) AC(x) has non-empty interior

2) AC(x) is open

3) AC(x) \cap \mathcal{W}^c_{loc}(x) has non-empty interior in \mathcal{W}^c_{loc}(x)

Proof: 1) \Rightarrow 2) \Rightarrow 3) \Rightarrow 1)

Mainly by drawing pictures and standard topology.

Unweaving lemma: \forall x \in Per(f), \ \exists g \in latex PH^r(M)$ with \dim(E^c) = 1 s.t. the C^r distance between f and g is arbitrarily small, x \in Per(g) and AC_g(x) is open.

The proof is left to the second part of the talk…