Access the full text.

Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.

Mathematics
, Volume 2020 (1609) – Sep 12, 2016

/lp/arxiv-cornell-university/open-sets-of-exponentially-mixing-anosov-flows-ihcrBnWPB0

- ISSN
- 1435-9855
- eISSN
- ARCH-3343
- DOI
- 10.4171/JEMS/964
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site

OPEN SETS OF EXPONENTIALLY MIXING ANOSOV FLOWS OLIVER BUTTERLEY AND KHADIM WAR Abstract. We prove that an Anosov ﬂow with C stable bundle mixes exponentially whenever the stable and unstable bundles are not jointly integrable. This allows us to show that if a ﬂow is suﬃciently close to a volume-preserving Anosov ﬂow and dimE = 1, dimE ≥ 2 then the s u ﬂow mixes exponentially whenever the stable and unstable bundles are not jointly integrable. This implies the existence of non-empty open sets of exponentially mixing Anosov ﬂows. As part of the proof of this result we show that C uniformly-expanding suspension semiﬂows (in any di- mension) mix exponentially when the return time in not cohomologous to a piecewise constant. 1. Introduction & Results Anosov ﬂows [1], which have been studied extensively since the 1960s, are arguably the canonical examples of chaotic dynamical systems and the rate of mixing (decay of correlation) is one of the most important statist- ical properties. Nevertheless our knowledge of the rate of mixing of Anosov ﬂows remains unsatisfactory. The study of the rate of mixing for hyperbolic systems goes back to the work of Sinai [33] and Ruelle [31] in the 1970s and plenty of results were obtained for maps during the subsequent years. How- ever various results for ﬂows have only been established relatively recently and several basic questions remain as open problems. Exponential mixing is interesting in its own right, it is a intrinsic property of a dynamical system which describes the rate at which initial information is lost, but also it is crucial for establishing other quantitative statistical properties and work on more intricate models (prominently in nonequilibrium statistical mechanics, e.g., questions of energy transport [18]). Let φ : M → M be an Anosov ﬂow on M, a smooth compact con- nected Riemannian manifold. That φ is Anosov means that there exists a φ -invariant continuous splitting of tangent space TM = E ⊕ E ⊕ E s 0 u where E is the line bundle tangent to the ﬂow, E is the stable bundle 0 s in which there is exponential contraction and E is the unstable bundle in which there is exponential expansion. It is known that each transitive Date: 20th November 2017. 2010 Mathematics Subject Classiﬁcation. Primary: 37A25; Secondary: 37C30. With pleasure we thank Matias Delgadino, Stefano Luzzatto, Ian Melbourne, Masato Tsujii and Sina Tu¨reli for stimulating discussions. We also thank Viviane Baladi, Franc¸ois Ledrappier and the anonymous referee for highlighting an issue in a previous version of this paper. We are grateful to the ESI (Vienna) for hospitality during the event “Mixing Flows and Averaging Methods” where this work was initiated. OB was partially supported by CNRS. KW was partially supported by DFG (CRC/TRR 191). arXiv:1609.03512v2 [math.DS] 17 Nov 2017 2 OLIVER BUTTERLEY AND KHADIM WAR Anosov ﬂow admits a unique SRB measure which will be denoted µ (see [38] for extensive information concerning SRB measures). This invariant measure is the one which is most relevant from a physical point of view. The focus of this text is to prove exponential mixing with respect to the SRB measure. By exponential mixing we mean the existence of C, γ > 0 R R R t −γt such that f · g ◦ φ dµ − f dµ g dµ ≤ C kfk kgk e for all 1 1 M M M C C f, g ∈ C (M,R) and for all t ≥ 0. (An approximation argument means that exponential mixing for C observables implies also exponential mixing for H¨older observables [17, Proof of Corollary 1].) In the following we will use the expression mixes exponentially to mean with respect to the unique SRB measure for the ﬂow, often without explicit mention of the measure. Not all Anosov ﬂows mix exponentially, indeed those which are constant time suspensions over Anosov maps are not mixing. One wonders if this degenerate case is the only way that Anosov ﬂows can fail to mix exponen- tially or if other slower rates are possible. Taking a suspensions over an Anosov diﬀeomorphism is one way to construct Anosov ﬂows but not all Anosov ﬂows are of this type. The geodesic ﬂow of any compact Rieman- nian manifold of strictly negative curvature is an Anosov ﬂow and these were a major motivation at the beginning of the study of Anosov ﬂows. Some initial progress was made proving exponential mixing for geodesic ﬂows in the case of constant curvature and low dimension (see the introduction of [27] for details and further references) but these methods, which are group theoretical in nature, were not suitable for adaption to the general case of variable curvature, let alone to the question for Anosov ﬂows which are not geodesic ﬂows. In the late 1990s a major advance was made by Dolgopyat [17] who, build- ing on the dynamical argument introduced by Chernov [14], showed that transitive Anosov ﬂows with C stable and unstable bundles mix exponen- tially whenever the stable and unstable bundles are not jointly integrable. In particular this means that geodesic ﬂows on surfaces of negative curvature mix exponentially (in this special case the regularity of the bundle is a res- ult of the low dimension and the preserved contact structure which exists naturally for geodesic ﬂows). However a question of foremost importance is to show that statistical properties hold for an open and dense set of systems and the problem here is that the requirement of regularity for both bundles simultaneously is not typically satisﬁed for Anosov ﬂows [24]. Both stable and unstable foliations are always H¨older but the regularity cannot in gen- eral be expected to be better than H¨older, a generic smooth perturbation will destroy the Lipschitz regularity of at least one of the foliations. Suspensions over Anosov diﬀeomorphisms by a return time that is cohomologous to a constant are also not mixing but these can always be written as constant time suspensions. A k-dimensional subbundle is said to be integrable if there exists a k-dimensional foliation whose leaves are tangent to the subbundle. 3 r Here and in the following, by perturbation of the ﬂow we mean a C (r ≥ 1) per- turbation of the vector ﬁeld associated to the ﬂow. The structural stability of Anosov ﬂows means that such a perturbed vector ﬁeld (under a small perturbation) also deﬁnes an Anosov ﬂow. Stoyanov [34] obtained results similar to Dolgopyat [17] for Axiom A ﬂows but, among other assumptions, required that local stable and unstable laminations are Lipschitz. OPEN SETS OF EXPONENTIALLY MIXING ANOSOV FLOWS 3 If a ﬂow preserves a contact form then it is said to be a contact ﬂow. Liv- erani [27] showed that all contact (with C contact form) Anosov ﬂows mix exponentially with no requirement on the regularity of the stable and un- stable bundles. This provides a complete answer for geodesic ﬂows on man- ifolds of negative curvature since all such geodesic ﬂows are contact Anosov 5 2 ﬂows with smooth contact form. Liverani’s requirement of a C contact form has two important consequences: Firstly it guarantees that E ⊕ E s u is not integrable and this is a property which is robust under perturbation; Secondly the smoothness of the contact form guarantees the smoothness of the subbundle E ⊕E and the smoothness of the temporal function [27, Fig- s u ure 2]. This smoothness is essential to Liverani’s argument. Unfortunately the existence of a C contact form cannot be expected to be preserved by perturbations of the Anosov ﬂow (the consequences of the existence of a smooth contact structure would contradict the prevalence of foliations with bad regularity which was mentioned above). In the case of Axiom A ﬂows there exist ﬂows which are mixing but mix arbitrarily slowly [32]. These are constructed as suspensions over Axiom A maps with piecewise constant (but not constant) return time and are con- sequently not Anosov ﬂows. It would be interesting to understand if this phenomena can only exist in the Axiom A case and not for Anosov ﬂows. The Bowen-Ruelle conjecture states that every mixing Anosov ﬂow mixes exponentially. At this present moment this conjecture remains wide open, there is a substantial distance between the above discussed results and the statement of the conjecture. One obvious possibility in order to proceed is to separate this conjecture into two separate conjectures: (A) If an Anosov ﬂow is mixing then E ⊕E is not integrable; (B) A transitive Anosov ﬂow mixes s u exponentially whenever E ⊕ E is not integrable. A related, but seemingly s u slightly easier problem is to understand whether exponential mixing is an open and dense property for Anosov ﬂows. Statement (A) was proved by Plante [29, Theorem 3.7] under the additional assumption that the Anosov ﬂow is codimension one but the general statement remains an open con- jecture. Our main aim is to show statement (B) in the greatest generality possible, i.e., to show exponential mixing under the assumption that E ⊕E s u is not integrable. The question of exponential mixing continues to be of signiﬁcant import- ance, beyond the (rather special) setting of Anosov ﬂows. In particular it would be easily argued that, from a physical point of view (e.g, the multi- tudes of uniformly hyperbolic billiard ﬂows [15]), discontinuities are natural. In such situations part (B) in the above division of the conjecture is the im- portant part. Given the Axiom A examples mentioned above, it would be Not every contact Anosov ﬂow is a geodesic ﬂow on a Riemannian manifold, for example the ﬂows constructed by Foulon & Hassleblatt [22]. Axiom A ﬂows are a generalization of Anosov ﬂows, they are uniformly hyperbolic but the maximal invariant set is permitted to be a proper subset of the underlying manifold (for further details see e.g., [10]). An Anosov ﬂow is said to be codimension-one if dimEs = 1 or dimEu = 1 In some settings (e.g., symbolic systems) it is not clear that the notion of integrability (or non-integrability) of E ⊕ E always makes sense. However for Axiom A attractors, s u using that unstable disks are contained within the maximal invariant set, the notion is 4 OLIVER BUTTERLEY AND KHADIM WAR surmised that part (A) is a peculiarity of the special properties of Anosov ﬂows. The main advance to date for ﬂows with discontinuities is the work of Baladi, Demers & Liverani [7] which proves exponential mixing for Sinai billiard ﬂows (three-dimensional) and, as in the work mentioned above, their argument uses crucially the contact structure which is present in such bil- liard ﬂows. Major progress on exponential mixing for ﬂows was made recently by 3 r Tsujii [36] who demonstrated the existence of a C -open and C -dense sub- set of volume-preserving three-dimensional Anosov ﬂows which mix expo- nentially. Interestingly the set Tsujii constructs doesn’t contain the ﬂows which have C stable and unstable bundles (and consequently doesn’t con- tain the ﬂows which preserve a C contact form). In some sense the new ideas introduced in his work are the main recent advance towards settling the Bowen-Ruelle conjecture. One of the consequences of this present text is to demonstrate that in certain higher dimensional settings the result analogous to Tsujii’s can, to some extent, be proved rather more easily. It is enlightening to take a moment to consider the three-dimensional case in more detail. As mentioned above it is known [17, 27] that any contact Anosov ﬂow (and hence any geodesic ﬂow of a negatively curved surface) mixes exponentially. Tsujii [36] uses the expression “twist of the stable subbundle along pieces of unstable manifolds” to describe the geometric mechanism which produces exponential mixing for ﬂows. For contact Anosov ﬂows a key part of the argument, and a part which is clear in the work of Liverani [27], is to use the contact structure to guarantee that (in the language of Tsujii) moving along the unstable manifold a prescribed distance guarantees a uniform amount of twist of the stable subbundle. On the other hand, Tsujii uses the fact that the twist “will be ‘random’ and ‘rough’ in generic cases”. The core of our work described in this paper will be to study the ﬂows by quotienting along stable manifolds. We will then take advantage of a twist in the sense discussed above but, since we have already quotiented, we will not distinguish between the two diﬀerent cases. Given the evidence currently available it is reasonable to conjecture that (B) is true, i.e., transitive Anosov ﬂows mix exponentially whenever E ⊕E s u is not integrable. However a complete solution of this problems appears to be a high order of diﬃculty and the path in this direction is not clear. It is also reasonable to hope that such holds more generally and that uni- formly hyperbolic ﬂows (with discontinuities permitted) mix exponentially whenever E ⊕ E is not integrable (assuming suﬃcient structure such that s u integrability of this bundle has meaning). One of the motives behind this present work is to better understand and enlarge the set of Anosov ﬂows which are known to be exponentially mixing in order to eventually improve our understanding of the general case. At this point it is worth noting that the mechanism which is behind the exponential mixing of Anosov ﬂows is also the mechanism which is important ﬁne and corresponds to the existence of a foliation of a neighbourhood of the attractor [2, §3]. Another relevant direction is to consider dispersing billiard ﬂows in the presence of a small external ﬁeld. In practice we will consider the picture with stable and unstable exchanged but this seems to be merely a preference and not signiﬁcant when studying Anosov ﬂows. OPEN SETS OF EXPONENTIALLY MIXING ANOSOV FLOWS 5 in some partially hyperbolic maps (see e.g., [16, Appendix C]) and is essential in semiclassical analysis (see e.g., [20]). Our ﬁrst result concerns exponential mixing under relatively weak regu- larity assumptions. t 1 10 Theorem 1. Suppose that φ : M → M is a transitive C Anosov ﬂow and that the stable bundle is C . If the stable and unstable bundles are not jointly integrable, then φ mixes exponentially with respect to the unique SRB measure. This result improves the result of Dolgopyat [17] since regularity is only required for the stable bundle whereas in the cited work regularity was required of both bundles. Although this change is small when measured in terms of the number of characters altered in the statement, we are required to completely redo the proof in a somewhat diﬀerent fashion (even though the essential ideas behind the argument are the same). More to the point, the improvement over Dolgopyat’s previous result is substantial in terms of the advantage it gives in ﬁnding open sets of exponentially mixing ﬂows. This is illustrated by the following theorem. t 2 Theorem 2. Suppose that φ : M → M is a C volume-preserving Anosov ﬂow and that dimE = 1 and dimE ≥ 2. There exists a C -neighbourhood s u of this ﬂow, such that, for all C Anosov ﬂows in the neighbourhood, if the stable and unstable bundles are not jointly integrable, then the ﬂow mixes exponentially with respect to the unique SRB measure. Since the set of Anosov ﬂows where the stable and unstable bundles are not 1 r jointly integrable is C -open and C -dense in the set of all Anosov ﬂows (see [21] and references within concerning the prior work of Brin) the above the- orem implies a wealth of open sets of exponentially mixing Anosov ﬂows. To the best of our knowledge, this is the ﬁrst proof of the existence of open sets of Anosov ﬂows which mix exponentially (observe that the neighbourhood in the statement of the theorem, although centred on a volume-preserving ﬂow, is a neighbourhood in the set of all Anosov ﬂows). Similarly the set of Anosov ﬂows where the stable and unstable bundles are not jointly integ- 1 r rable is C -open and C -dense in the set of volume-preserving Anosov ﬂows. This means that an open and dense subset of the volume-preserving Anosov ﬂows such that dimE = 1 and dimE ≥ 2 mix exponentially. The ideas s u used here and the application of Theorem 1 actually show exponential mix- ing for an even larger set of Anosov ﬂows than stated in the above theorem + + 10 k k+α k For any k ∈ N, the notation C means C for some α ∈ (0, 1]. That a ﬂow is C t k is shorthand for requiring that the map M × R → M; (x, t) 7→ φ x is C . Consider a volume-preserving Anosov ﬂow and assume that E ⊕ E is integrable. s u There exists a section such that the ﬂow can be described as a suspension with constant return time. We will perturb the ﬂow by smoothly modifying the magnitute of the associ- ated vector ﬁeld in a small ball. Following [21] we can do this in such a way to guarantee that, for the perturbed ﬂow, E ⊕ E is not integrable. Note that the perturbed system is s u still Anosov and as smooth as before. Since we only changed the magnitude of the vector ﬁeld the cross-section remains a cross-section and the return map also remains unchanged. Consequently we ensure that the perturbed ﬂow also preserves a smooth volume. 6 OLIVER BUTTERLEY AND KHADIM WAR but further details concerning this are postponed until the remarks in Sec- tion 2.2 (in particular we can prove the same conclusions in many cases where dimE > 1). Let us consider the particular case of four-dimensional volume-preserving ﬂows φ : M → M. Since the ﬂow is Anosov and four-dimensional, either dimE = 1 or dimE = 1. In the ﬁrst case Theorem 2 applies directly. s u For the other case observe that the SRB measure for a volume-preserving Anosov ﬂow is the preserved volume and consequently the SRB measure −t t for the time reversed ﬂow φ is equal to the SRB measure for φ . Since R R t −t f ·g◦φ dµ = f ◦φ ·g dµ and that stable and unstable are swapped M M for the time reversed ﬂow we can again apply Theorem 2. Consequently the above result implies the following statement: Suppose that φ : M → M is a C four-dimensional volume-preserving Anosov ﬂow. Then, if the stable and unstable bundles are not jointly integrable, the ﬂow mixes exponentially 1 r with respect to the volume. In particular a C -open and C -dense subset of four-dimensional volume-preserving ﬂows mix exponentially. This means that Tsujii’s result holds in four-dimensions. As discussed above, Plante demonstrated that mixing implies that E ⊕ E is not integrable in the s u codimension-one case. Consequently the results of this paper provide a complete resolution of the Bowen-Ruelle conjecture in the volume-preserving four-dimensional case. Remark. The proof of Theorem 2 requires the ﬂow to be transitive in order to apply Theorem 1. However, due to Verjovsky [37], codimension-one Anosov ﬂows on higher dimensional manifolds (dim M > 3) are transitive and so transitivity is automatic in the case of Theorem 2. Section 2 contains the proof of Theorem 1 and the details of how The- orem 2 is derived from it. The proof of the ﬁrst result rests heavily on a result (Theorem 3 below) concerning exponential mixing for C expanding semiﬂows. Our motive for proving Theorem 3 was proving Theorem 1 but Theorem 3 is also of interest in its own right. Details concerning past work on similar questions follows after we precisely introduce the setting. We observe that the ideas in this text are very much limited to the argu- ment presented here and will not suﬃce to fully answer the question of when in general Anosov ﬂows mix exponentially. For this progress we hope that the work of Dolgopyat [17], Liverani [27], Baladi & Vall´ee [8] and Tsujii [36] (among others) can eventually be extended and improved. We proceed by deﬁning the class of C expanding semiﬂows. Firstly we require two pieces of information concerning the geometry of the set. Let X be the disjoint union of a ﬁnite number of connected bounded open subsets of R (we use the convention that the distance between two points in diﬀerent connected components is inﬁnite). Deﬁnition 1.1. We say that X ⊂ R is almost John if there exist constants C, ǫ > 0, s ≥ 1 such that, for all ǫ ∈ (0, ǫ ) and for all x ∈ X, there exists 0 0 In the case where both the stable and unstable bundles are at least 2 dimensional there are examples of non-transitive Anosov ﬂows [23]. Also, as it is remarked in [23], the three dimensional case, where Verjovsky’s proof does not work, this question of transitivity of Anosov ﬂows remains open. OPEN SETS OF EXPONENTIALLY MIXING ANOSOV FLOWS 7 y ∈ X such that d(x, y) ≤ ǫ and such that the ball centred at y of radius s 13 Cǫ is contained in X. We will always assume that X is almost John and that the the boundary of X has upper box-counting dimension strictly less than d. Let T : X → X denote a uniformly expanding C Markov map. By this we mean that there exists P, a ﬁnite partition into connected open sets of a full measure subset of X such that, for each ω ∈ P, T is a C diﬀeomorphism from ω to Tω and that Tω is a full measure subset of one of the connected components of X. Remark. The conditions on X would be satisﬁed if the boundary of X were a ﬁnite union of C -submanifolds. However, in view of the intending applic- ation application, we must allow lower regularity of the boundary since such low regularity is the unfortunate reality for Markov partitions [12]. We require that there exist C > 0, λ > 0 such that n −1 −λn (1) (DT (x)) ≤ C e for all x ∈ X, n ∈ N, and there exist C > 0, α ∈ (0, 1) such that det(DT (x)) (2) ln ≤ C d(Tx, Ty) for all ω ∈ P, for all x, y ∈ ω. det(DT (y)) We also require T to be covering in the sense that for every open ball B ⊂ X there exists n ∈ N such that T B = X (modulo a zero measure set). For such maps it is known that there exists a unique T -invariant probability measure absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue. We denote this measure by ν. The density of the measure is H¨older (on each partition element) and bounded away from zero. Let τ : X → R denote the return 1+α time function. We require that τ is C , that there exists C > 0 such that −1 (3) Dτ(x)DT (x) ≤ C for all x ∈ ω, ω ∈ P, and that there exists C > 0 such that (4) τ(x) ≤ C for all x ∈ ω, ω ∈ P. The suspension semiﬂow T : X → X is deﬁned as usual, X := {(x, u) : t τ τ τ x ∈ X, 0 ≤ u < τ(x)} and T : (x, u) 7→ (x, a + t) modulo the identiﬁc- ations (x, τ(x)) ∼ (Tx, 0). The unique absolutely continuous T -invariant probability measure is denoted by ν . Baladi and Vall´ee [8] showed that semiﬂows similar to above, but with the C version of assumptions, typically mix exponentially when X is one dimensional. The same argument was shown to hold by Avila, Gou¨ezel & Yoccoz [6], again in the C case, irrespective of the dimension of X. Recently This condition on X is similar in spirit to the requirement of a John domain as used in [6]. However they are not equivalent, in our case we need only weaker properties and so we can make do with weaker assumptions. See the discussion in Appendix A for further details. I.e., the map is required to be Markov but it is not necessarily full-branch. 15 −1 In our setting (3) could be simpliﬁed by removing DT (x) from the equation. We choose to write it like this because this is the quantity which occurs naturally. R R τ(x) 16 1 ν (f) = f(x, u) du dν(x) ν(τ) X 0 8 OLIVER BUTTERLEY AND KHADIM WAR Arau´jo & Melbourne [3] showed that the argument still holds in the C case when X is one dimensional. This weight of evidence means that the following result is not unexpected. Theorem 3. Suppose that T : X → X is a uniformly expanding C t τ τ suspension semiﬂow as above. Then either τ is cohomologous to a piecewise constant function or there exists C, γ > 0 such that, for all f, g ∈ C (X ,R), t ≥ 0, Z Z Z −γt f · g ◦ T dν − f dν g dν ≤ C kfk kgk e . 1 1 t τ τ τ C C X X X τ τ τ The proof of the above is the content of Section 3. The estimate for ex- ponential mixing relies on estimates of the norm of the twisted transfer operator given in Proposition 3.16. In some sense Proposition 3.16 is the main result of this part of the paper and the exponential mixing which we use here is merely one consequence of it. For many other applications, for example, other statistical properties or the study of perturbations, the extra information contained in the functional analytic result is key. However we avoid giving the statement here because it relies on a signiﬁcant amount of notation which is yet to be introduced. The argument of [4] follows closely the argument of [6] which in turn follows closely the argument of [8]. Everything suggests that exactly this ar- gument could be used with minor modiﬁcation in order to prove Theorem 3. That the structure of the proof contained in Section 3 is superﬁcially rather diﬀerent is merely due to the aesthetic opinion of the present authors. 2. Anosov Flows This section is devoted to the proof of Theorem 1 and Theorem 2. The proof of Theorem 1 relies crucially on Theorem 3. The proof of Theorem 2 relies crucially on Theorem 1. t 1+α 2.1. Proof of Theorem 1. Suppose that φ : M → M is a C Anosov 1+α ﬂow and that the stable bundle is C for some α > 0. The proof is based (as per [5, 2, 3]) on quotienting along local stable manifolds and reducing the problem to the study of the corresponding expanding suspension semiﬂow. We then use the estimate which is given by Theorem 3. The argument is the same idea as used previously [2] for Axiom A ﬂows. The only diﬀerence being that some of the estimates are now H¨older and not 1 1+α C since here we have merely a C stable bundle whereas in the reference the bundle is C . One important consideration in this argument is the regu- larity of the boundary of the elements of the Markov partition. Appendix A is devoted to further details concerning the construction and various import- ant estimates which will be required, in particular estimate concerning the boundary of elements of the partition. We recall that Bowen constructed [9] Markov partitions for Axiom A dif- feomorphisms and then extended [10] this construction to Axiom A ﬂows, in Lemma 5 in [2] contains an inaccuracy: there it is claimed that the domain of the uniformly expanding map is a C disk whereas the reality is that it is a subset of such disks but with a boundary of poor smoothness. OPEN SETS OF EXPONENTIALLY MIXING ANOSOV FLOWS 9 particular for Anosov ﬂows. Ratner [30] also constructed Markov partitions for Anosov ﬂows, again based on Bowen’s previous work. We will take Rat- ner’s description of the construction as our primary reference since several parts of that presentation are more amenable to our present purposes. The main idea is that we can ﬁnd a section which consists of a family of 1+α local sections which are C and foliated by local stable manifolds. The return map is a uniformly hyperbolic Markov map on the family of local sections [10]. Let Y denote the union of the local sections and let S : Y → Y and τ : Y → R denote the return map and return time for φ to this section. Let η denote the unique SRB measure for S : Y → Y . Note that τ is constant [2, §3] along the local stable manifolds. We now quotient along the local stable manifolds (within the local sec- tions) letting π : Y → X denote the quotient map. Consequently we obtain a map T : X → X such that T ◦ π = π ◦ S. Since the original ﬂow is Anosov (in particular an attractor) the set X is the ﬁnite union of connected com- 1+α ponents. Each connected component is a subset of a C submanifold of the same dimension as the unstable bundle. However the boundary of these components, viewed as a subset of this submanifold, cannot be expected to be smooth [12]. That the assumptions on X which are required by Theorem 3 are satisﬁed is shown in Section A.1 and Lemma A.3. Because of the properties of S (in particular due to the use of the Markov partition in the above construction), the map T is a uniformly expanding Markov map and satisﬁes the conditions (1), (2), (3) and (4). Therefore, applying Theorem 3, we have that either the suspension semiﬂow T mixes exponentially or τ is cohomologous to a constant function. If τ is cohomologous to a constant function then [2, Lemma 12] the stable and unstable bundles are jointly integrable so for the rest of the proof, we suppose that τ is not cohomologous to a constant function and hence T mixes exponentially. Let ν denote the unique SRB measure for T (ν = π η). To proceed we observe that the measure ν admits a disintegration into conditional measures along local stable manifolds. We observe [13] that there exists a family of −1 conditional measures {ν } (ν supported on π x) such that x x x∈X η(v) = ν (v) dη(x) for all continuous functions v : Y → R. We also know [13, Proposition 6] that this disintegration has good regularity in the sense that x 7→ ν (v) is H¨older on each partition element and has uniformly bounded H¨older norm for any H¨older v : Y → R. Let Y , S , η be deﬁned analogously to X , T , ν . Suppose u, v : Y → R τ t τ τ t τ τ are H¨older continuous functions. Points in Y are denoted by (x, a) which is given by the product representation of Y by X times the local stable manifolds. To prove that S mixes exponentially, it is convenient to write Z Z Z (5) u · v ◦ S dη = u· (v ◦ S − v ◦ π ) ◦ S dη + u˜ · v ◦ T dν 2t τ t t τ t τ t t τ Y Y X τ τ τ 10 OLIVER BUTTERLEY AND KHADIM WAR where u˜ : X → R, v : X → R are deﬁned as τ t τ Z Z u˜(x, a) := u(y, a) dν (y), v (x, a) := v ◦ S (y, a) dν (y). x t t x −1 −1 π x π x The new observables u˜ and v are C on each partition element as observed above. To estimate the ﬁrst term of (5) we observe that (v ◦ S − v ◦ π )(y, u) = v ◦ S (y, u) − v ◦ S (z, u) dν (z). t t τ t t πy −1 π (πy) Consequently the function v is exponentially close to v ◦ S on each local t t stable manifold and so −γ˜t (6) u · (v ◦ S − v ◦ π ) ◦ S dη ≤ C kuk kvk e α α t t τ t τ C C where γ˜ > 0 depends on the contraction rate on the stable bundle. The second term of (5) is estimated using Theorem 3 which says that T mixes exponentially since τ is not cohomologous to a piecewise constant. We have Z Z Z −γt (7) u˜ · v ◦ T dν − u˜ dν · v dν ≤ C ku˜k kv k e . α α t t τ τ t τ t C C X X X τ τ τ Using estimates (6) and (7) in (5) gives that the ﬂow S : Y → Y mixes t τ τ exponentially. This in turn implies that the ﬂow φ is exponentially mixing. t 1 2.2. Proof of Theorem 2. The proof consists of showing that if φ is C - close to a volume preserving ﬂow and that dimE = 1, dimE ≥ 2 then the s u stable bundle is C . We then apply Theorem 1. We recall that the regularity of the invariant bundle of an Anosov ﬂow is given by Hirsch, Pugh & Shub [25] (see also [4, Theorem 4.12]) under the t 2 following bunching condition. Suppose that φ : M → M is a C Anosov ﬂow . If there exists t, α > 0 such that −1 1+α t t t (8) sup kDφ (x)k kDφ (x)k kDφ (x)k < 1, E E E s cu cu x∈M 1+α then the stable bundle is C (E = E ⊕ E and is called the central cu u 0 unstable sub-bundle). Following Plante [29, Remark 1], we observe that, in the case when the Anosov ﬂow is volume preserving, dimE = 1 and dimE ≥ 2, then the s u above bunching condition holds true and consequently that the stable bundle 1+α is C for some α > 0. This is because volume-preserving means that the contraction in E must equal the volume expansion in E . Since dimE ≥ 2 s u u the maximum expansion in any given direction must be dominated by the 1+α contraction. Consequently the stable bundle is C . From its deﬁnition the bunching condition (8) is robust under C perturbations of the Anosov ﬂow. Remark. This argument for the robust regularity of the stable bundle uses crucially that the unstable bundle has dimension at least 2 whilst the stable bundle has dimension 1. Such an argument is therefore not possible if the Anosov ﬂow is three dimensional (see [29] for a counter example). Of course + + 18 2 1 This is the only place where the ﬂow is required to be C , everywhere else C suﬃces. OPEN SETS OF EXPONENTIALLY MIXING ANOSOV FLOWS 11 regular bundles are possible in the three-dimensional case but not in a robust way. Remark. In general, when dimE < dimE it is again possible to ﬁnd open s u sets such that the bunching condition is satisﬁed although this will not be possible for all such ﬂows. A natural assumption to add would be isotropy of the hyperbolicity, i.e., that the expansion is of equal strength in all directions and similarly for the contraction. In this case we can again obtain (8) robustly and prove the analog of Theorem 2. Remark. In higher dimensions, with a large diﬀerence between the dimen- sions of the stable and unstable bundles, it is sometimes possible to obtain stronger bunching and therefore to guarantee that the stable bundle is C in a robust way. In this case results for C expanding semiﬂows [6] can be applied according to the same argument as in this paper and exponential mixing proved for the ﬂow [2]. A substantial part of this paper is to prove Theorem 3 which generalises prior work to the higher dimensional C case. This is required to be able to handle a signiﬁcantly larger set of Anosov ﬂows, in particular to hold for any ﬂow in dimension 4 and higher when dimE = 1. 3. Expanding Semiflows This section is devoted to the proof of Theorem 3. Throughout the sec- tion we suppose the setting of the theorem. Recall that the semiﬂow is a combination of a uniformly expanding map T : X → X and return time τ : X → R . Let m denote Lebesgue measure on X. We will assume, scaling if required, that the diameter of X is not greater than 1 and that m(X) ≤ 1. We will also assume that C = 1 in assumption (1). Suppose that this is not −λn the case originally, then there exists some iterate such that C e < 1. We choose some partition element such that returning to this partition element takes at least n iterates. We take X (which will replace X) to be equal to ˜ ˜ this partition element and choose for T the ﬁrst return map to X. The new return time τ is given by the corresponding sum of the return time. There is then a one-to-one correspondence between the new suspension semiﬂow and the original. It is simply a diﬀerent choice of coordinates for the ﬂow which has the eﬀect that the expansion per iterate is increased and the return time increases correspondingly. This is not essential but it is convenient because below we can choose a constant coneﬁeld which is invariant. We will also assume for notational simplicity that C ≤ 1, i.e., that τ(x) ≤ 1 for all x. This can be done without loss of generality, simply by scaling uniformly in the ﬂow direction. Let Λ > 0 be such that kDT (x)k ≤ e for all x. This relates to the maximum possible expansion whereas λ > 0 relates to the minimum expansion. After these considerations the suspension semiﬂow is controlled by the constants α ∈ (0, 1), Λ ≥ λ > 0 and C , C > 0. 2 3 Central to the argument of this section are Proposition 3.6, Proposi- tion 3.9 and Proposition 3.16. The ﬁrst describes how we see, in an ex- ponential way, a key geometric property. The second proposition uses this 12 OLIVER BUTTERLEY AND KHADIM WAR geometric property and the idea of oscillatory integrals in order to see cancel- lations on average. The third proposition is the combination of the previous estimates to produce the key estimate on the norm of the twisted operators. n−1 −λ j 3.1. Basic Estimates. Let C = 2C /(1− e ), let τ := τ ◦ T and 5 3 n j=0 th let P denote the n reﬁnement of the partition. For convenience we will n −1 systematically use the notation ℓ := (T | ) for any n ∈ N, ω ∈ P . Let ω n J (x) = 1/ det DT (x). 1 n Lemma 3.1. kD(τ ◦ ℓ )(x)k ≤ C for all n ∈ N, ω ∈ P , x ∈ T ω. n ω 5 n Proof. Let y = ℓ (x) and observe that n−1 k k k D(τ ◦ ℓ )(x) = Dτ(T y)D(T ◦ ℓ )(T y) n ω ω k=0 n−1 −λ(n−k) Consequently, using also (1) and (3), kD(τ ◦ ℓ )k ≤ C e . As n ω 3 k=0 −λk −λ −1 e = (1 − e ) the required estimate holds. k=0 Lemma 3.2. There exists C > 0 such that, for all n ∈ N, ω ∈ P 6 n det(Dℓ (x)) α n ln ≤ C d(x, y) for all x, y ∈ T ω. det(Dℓ (y)) Proof. We write ℓ = g ◦ ··· ◦ g where each g is the inverse of T restric- ω 1 n k k ted to the relevant domain. Let x = T ℓ x, y = T ℓ y. Consequently ω ω k k det(Dℓ (x)) = det(Dg (x )) and so ω k k k=1 det(Dℓ (x)) det(Dg (x )) ω k k ln ≤ ln . det(Dℓ (y)) det(Dg (y )) ω k k k=1 det(Dg (x )) k k α Assumption (2) implies that ln ≤ C d(x , y ) . Using also 2 k k det(Dg (y )) k k −λ(n−k) α α assumption (1) we obtain a bound C (e ) d(x, y) . To ﬁnish k=1 −λαj the estimate let C := C e . 6 2 j=0 Lemma 3.3. There exists C > 0 such that kJ k ≤ C for all n ∈ N. n 7 L (ω) ω∈P Proof. For each ω ∈ P there exists some x ∈ ω such that m(ω) = n ω −1 n n J (x )m(T ω). This means that J (x )) ≤ m(x) (inf m(T ω)) . n ω n ω ω ω∈P By Lemma 3.2 kJ k /J (x ) ≤ e . n ∞ n ω L (ω) C n Consequently kJ k ∞ ≤ C where C := e / inf m(T ω). n 7 7 ω ω∈P L (ω) 3.2. Twisted Transfer Operators. For z ∈ C, the twisted transfer oper- ∞ ∞ ator L : L (X) → L (X) is deﬁned as n −zτ L f = (e · f · J ) ◦ ℓ · 1 . n ω T ω ω∈P We use the standard notation for the H¨older seminorm |f| where J C (J) is any metric space. I.e., |f| is the supremum of C ≥ 0 such that C (J) |f(x) − f(y)| ≤ C d(x, y) for all x, y ∈ J, x 6= y. The H¨older norm is OPEN SETS OF EXPONENTIALLY MIXING ANOSOV FLOWS 13 deﬁned kfk := |f| + kfk . Recall that X is the disjoint union α α ∞ C (J) C (J) L (J) of a ﬁnite number of connected subsets of R . In this case |f(x) − f(y)| |f| := sup C (X) x,y d(x, y) where the supremun is taken over all x, y ∈ X which are in the same con- nected component as each other and x 6= y. As before let kfk := C (X) |f| + kfk . Let C (X) := {f : X → R : |f| < ∞}. This is a α ∞ α C (X) L (X) C (X) Banach space when equipped with the norm k·k . Deﬁne, for all b ∈ R, C (X) the equivalent norm kfk := |f| + kfk . α α ∞ (b) (1+|b| ) C (X) L (X) n −ℜ(z)n Observe that, using Lemma 3.3, kL fk ≤ C e kfk for all ∞ ∞ z L (X) L (X) n ∈ N, f ∈ L (X). The argument of this section depends on choosing σ > 0 suﬃciently small in a way which depends only on the system (X, T, τ). We suppose from now on that such a σ > 0 is ﬁxed (suﬃciently small) and the precise constraints on σ will appear at the relevant places in the following paragraphs. Lemma 3.4. There exists C > 0 such that, for all z = a + ib, a > −σ, f ∈ C (X), n ∈ N, n −(αλ−σ)n σn α kL fk ≤ C e |f| + C e (1 + |b| )kfk . α α ∞ z 8 8 C (X) C (X) L (X) α n Proof. Suppose that ω ∈ P , f ∈ C (X) and x, y ∈ T ω, x 6= y, then −zτ −zτ n n (e · f · J )(ℓ x) − (e · f · J )(ℓ y) = A + A + A + A n ω n ω 1 2 3 4 where −ibτn(ℓωx) −ibτn(ℓωy) −aτn A = (e − e )(e · f · J )(ℓ x) 1 n ω −ibτ (ℓ y) −aτ (ℓ x) −aτ (ℓ y) n ω n ω n ω A = e (e − e )(f · J )(ℓ x) 2 n ω −zτ (ℓ y) n ω A = e (f(ℓ x) − f(ℓ y)) · J (ℓ x) 3 ω ω n ω −zτ (ℓ y) n ω A = e f(ℓ y)(J (ℓ x) − J (ℓ y)). 4 ω n ω n ω −aτ C n 5 By Lemma 3.1 |A | ≤ (e · |f| · J )(ℓ x)2 min(|b| d(x, y), 1). Since 1 n ω α C α −aτ 5 α α min(u, 1) ≤ u for all u ≥ 0, |A | ≤ (e ·|f|·J )(ℓ x)2|b| ( ) d(x, y) . 1 n ω Again, by Lemma 3.1, −aτ (ℓ x) −a(τ (ℓ y)−τ (ℓ x)) n ω n ω n ω |A | ≤ e |1 − e | (|f| · J )(ℓ x) 2 n ω −aτ C n 5 ≤ (e · |f| · J )(ℓ x)|a| d(x, y). n ω −aτ −αλn α Using assumption (1) |A | ≤ (e ·J )(ℓ y)e d(x, y) |f| . Finally, 3 n ω C (ω) −aτ α by Lemma 3.2 |A | ≤ (e ·|f|·J )(ℓ y)C d(x, y) . Summing over ω ∈ P 4 n ω 6 n we obtain n n |L f(x) − L f(y)| z z (9) d(x, y) n α −λn ≤ kL 1k ((2|b| + |a|) + C )kfk + C e |f| ∞ ∞ α 6 7 a L (X) L (X) C (X) 2 14 OLIVER BUTTERLEY AND KHADIM WAR n n To ﬁnish the estimate we observe that kL fk ≤ kL 1k kfk , ∞ ∞ ∞ z σ L (X) L (X) L (X) n σn that kL 1k ≤ C e and choose C according to the above equa- 7 8 σ L (X) tion. Lemma 3.4, observing the deﬁnition of the k·k norm, implies the fol- (b) lowing uniform estimate. Lemma 3.5. For all z = a + ib, a > −σ, n σn −λn α kL fk ≤ C e e kfk + kfk for all f ∈ C (X), n ∈ N. z (b) (b) L (X) 3.3. Exponential transversality. The goal of this subsection is to prove Proposition 3.6 below. This is an extension of Tsujii [35, Theorem 1.4] to the present higher dimensional situation. Much of the argument follows the reasoning of the above mentioned reference with some changes due to the more general setting. n d+1 d+1 Deﬁne the (d + 1)-dimensional square matrix D (x) : R → R , DT (x) 0 D (x) = . Dτ (x) 1 This is notationally convenient since DT (x, s) = D (x) whenever τ (x) ≤ t n s + t < τ (x). To proceed it is convenient to establish the notion of an n+1 −λ invariant unstable cone ﬁeld. Recall that C = 2C /(1 − e ). We deﬁne 5 3 d+1 K ⊂ R as n o a d K = ( ) : a ∈ R , b ∈ R,|b| ≤ C |a| . We refer to K as a cone. We will see now that the width of the cone has been chosen suﬃciently wide to guarantee invariance. Note that DT (x) 0 a DT (x)a a = = Dτ(x) 1 b Dτ(x)a + b b Let ω ∈ P be such that a = Dℓ (Tx)a . Using conditions (1) and (3), we have ′ ′ (10) b = |Dτ(x) a + b| = D(τ ◦ ℓ )(Tx) a + b ′ −λ ′ 1 ′ ≤ C a + C e a ≤ C a . 3 5 5 n n Suppose that x , x ∈ X, n ∈ N such that T x = T x . We write 1 2 1 2 n n D (x )K ⋔ D (x )K 1 2 n n if D (x )K ∩ D (x )K does not contain a d-dimensional linear subspace. In 1 2 such a case we say that the image cones are transversal. Proposition 3.6. Let T : X → X be a C uniformly expanding Markov map and τ : X → R as above. Further suppose that there does not exist some θ ∈ C (X,R) such that τ = θ ◦ T − θ + χ where χ is constant on each If one wished to study the skew-product G : (x, u) 7→ (T x, u − τ(x)) this is also the n n relevant object to study since D = DG . OPEN SETS OF EXPONENTIALLY MIXING ANOSOV FLOWS 15 partition element. Then there exists C , γ > 0 such that, for all y ∈ X, −n x ∈ T y, −γn (11) J (x) ≤ C e . n 9 −n x∈T y n n D (x)K6⋔D (x )K The major part of the remainder of this subsection is devoted to the proof of this proposition but ﬁrst we record a consequence of transversality. n n Lemma 3.7. Suppose that ω, ̟ ∈ P , y ∈ X and that D (ℓ y)K ⋔ D (ℓ y)K. n ω ̟ Then there exists L ⊂ R , a 1-dimensional linear subspace, such that, for all v ∈ L |D(τ ◦ ℓ )(y)v − D(τ ◦ ℓ )(y)v| > C (|Dℓ (y)v| + |Dℓ (y)v|). n ω n ̟ 5 ω ̟ n n Proof. Let x = ℓ y, x = ℓ y. That D (x )K ⋔ D (x )K means there 1 ω 2 ̟ 1 2 exists L ⊂ R , a line which passes through the origin, such that, when d+1 restricted to the two dimensional subspace L × R ⊂ R , the image cones n n 20 D (x )K and D (x )K fail to intersect, except at the origin. Observe that 1 2 n o DT (x)a n n D (x)K ∩ L × R = : |b| ≤ C |a| , DT (x)a ∈ L Dτ (x)a+b −n −n = : v ∈ L,|b| ≤ C DT (x)v . Dτ (x)DT (x)v+b n n And consequently D (x )K ∩ D (x )K ∩ L × R = {0} implies that 1 2 −1 −1 (Dτ (x )DT (x ) − (Dτ (x )DT (x ) v n 1 1 n 2 2 −n −n > C DT (x )v + C DT (x )v . 5 1 5 2 For all n ∈ N, let φ(n) := sup sup J (x). −n y∈X x ∈T y −n x∈T y n n D (x)K6⋔D (x )K Let h denote the density of ν (the T -invariant probability measure). It is convenient to introduce the quantity h (x) (12) ϕ(n, P, y) := J (x) · , h (y) −n x∈T (y) D (x)K⊃P d+1 where P ⊂ R is a d-dimensional linear subspace. Let ϕ(n) := sup sup ϕ(n, P, y). The beneﬁt of this deﬁnition is that ϕ(n) is submultiplicative, i.e., ϕ(n + m) ≤ ϕ(n)ϕ(m) for all n, m ∈ N; and ϕ(n) ≤ 1 for all n ∈ N. In order to prove Proposition 3.6 it suﬃces to prove the following lemma. Lemma 3.8. The following statements are equivalent. Suppose this were false, then, for all L, restricted to L × R the cones intersect. If they intersect they intersect in a 1D subspace. We can do this for a set {L } which are k=1 all orthogonal. This constructs a d-dimensional subspace in the intersection of the images of the cones and this contradicts the assumed transversality. 16 OLIVER BUTTERLEY AND KHADIM WAR (i) lim inf φ(n) = 1; n→∞ (ii) lim ϕ(n) = 1; n→∞ (iii) For all n ∈ N and y ∈ X there exists a d-dimensional linear subspace n −n Q (y) ⊂ K such that D (x)K ⊃ Q (y) for all y and for all x ∈ T y; n n (iv) There exists θ ∈ C (X,R) such that τ = θ ◦ T − θ + χ where χ is constant on each partition element. Proof of (i) =⇒ (ii). Let m ∈ N, n = ⌈2 m ⌉. Since Λ ≥ λ, n > m . 2 2 2 n d Let m ∈ N be such that n = m + m . Let P (x ) := D (x )(R × {0}). 1 + 1 2 n 1 1 n n m m 2 1 We will ﬁrst show that D (x )K 6⋔ D (x )K implies that D (T x )K ⊃ 1 2 2 P (x ). Observe that n 1 n d −n D (x)K = : a ∈ R , b ∈ R,|b| ≤ C DT (x)a . −n Dτ (x)DT (x)a + b That transversality fails means that P (x ) (being contained in D (x )K) n 1 1 n −λn is close to the image cone D (x )K by a factor of C e . We also know 2 5 m m n 2 1 that D (T x ) is suﬃciently bigger than D (x )K in the sense that 2 2 a a m m n −λn 2 1 D (T x ) ⊃ : ∈ D (x )K,|b | ≤ C e |a| . 2 2 2 5 b + b b 1 2 1 d −n To prove this let a ∈ R and b , b , b ∈ R such that |b | ≤ C |DT (x )a|, 0 1 2 0 5 2 −n −λn b = Dτ (x )DT (x )a + b and |b | ≤ C e |a|. It will suﬃce to prove 1 n 2 2 0 2 5 that m −m m −m m 1 2 1 2 1 (b + b − Dτ (T x )DT (T x ))a ≤ C DT (T x ))a . 1 2 m 2 2 5 2 We estimate m −m m 1 2 1 (13) (b + b − Dτ (T x )DT (T x ))a 1 2 m 2 2 −m −m m 1 2 1 = (b + b + Dτ (x )DT (x ))DT (T x )a 0 1 m 2 2 2 1 −m m −λn 2 1 ≤ C DT (T x ))a + 2e |a| 5 2 −λn 1 −m m −m m 2 1 2 1 ≤ C 2e |a| − DT (T x ))a + C DT (T x ))a 5 2 5 2 −m m −Λm − n 1 −m m 2 1 2 2 1 That |DT (T x ))a| ≥ e ≥ e means |DT (T x ))a| ≥ 2 2 −λn 2e |a| for n suﬃcently large (dependent only on λ and Λ). We therefore m m −n 2 1 conclude that P (x ) ⊂ D (T x ). Suppose that x ∈ T y. n 1 2 1 X X J (x ) ≤ J (T x )J (x ) n 2 m 2 m 2 2 1 −n −n x ∈T y x ∈T y 2 2 n n m m 2 1 D (x )K6⋔D (x )K D (T x )K⊃P (x ) 2 1 2 n 1 X X ≤ J (x ) J (x ). m 3 m 2 2 1 −m −m 2 1 x ∈T y x ∈T x 3 2 3 D (x )K⊃P (x ) 3 n 1 f (x) nλ ν Consequently ϕ(n) ≤ Cφ(m (n)) where m (n) = ⌊ ⌋ and C = sup . 2 2 x,y 2Λ f (y) OPEN SETS OF EXPONENTIALLY MIXING ANOSOV FLOWS 17 Proof of (ii) =⇒ (iii). First observe that lim ϕ(n) = 1 implies ϕ(n) = n→∞ 1 for all n since ϕ(n) is submultiplicative and bounded by 1. Consequently the following statement holds: (ii’) For each n there exists some y ∈ X and some d- d+1 n dimensional linear subspace Q ⊂ R such that D (x)K ⊃ −n Q for every x ∈ T (y ). n n It remains to prove that this above statement implies the following. (iii) For all n ∈ N and y ∈ X there exists a d-dimensional linear subspace Q (y) ⊂ K such that D (x)K ⊃ Q (y) for n n −n all y and for all x ∈ T y. We will prove the contrapositive. Suppose the negation of (ii), i.e., there −n n n 0 0 0 exists n ∈ N, y ∈ X, x , x ∈ T (y ) such that D (x )K ∩ D (x )K 0 0 1 2 0 1 2 does not contain a d-dimensional linear subspace. Let ω , ω ∈ P be 1 2 n such that (x = ℓ y , x = ℓ y . These inverses are deﬁned on some 1 ω 0 2 ω 0 1 2 neighbourhood Δ containing y and due to the openness related to the n n 0 0 cones not intersecting we can assume that D (ℓ (y ))K ∩ D (ℓ (y ))K ω 0 ω 0 1 2 does not contain a d-dimensional linear subspace for all y ∈ Δ (shrinking Δ as required). There exists m ∈ N and ̟ ∈ P such that ℓ X ⊂ Δ (using the covering 0 m ̟ property of T ). Observe that, for all z ∈ X, n +m m n 0 0 0 0 D (ℓ (ℓ z))K ⊂ D (ℓ z)D (ℓ y)K ω ̟ ̟ ω 1 1 where y = ℓ z (and similarly for ω ). This means that for all z ∈ X ̟ 2 −(m +n ) m +n m +n 0 0 0 0 0 0 there exist x , x ∈ T (z) such that D (x )K ∩ D (x )K 1 2 1 2 fails to contain a d-dimensional linear subspace and consequently contradicts (i’). Proof of (iii) =⇒ (iv). Let (ω , ω , . . .) be a sequence of elements of the 1 2 partition P. For each n ∈ N let G := ℓ ◦ ··· ◦ ℓ ◦ ℓ . Consider n ω ω ω n 2 1 (14) D(τ ◦ G )(x) = D(τ ◦ ℓ )(G x)DG (x) n n ω k−1 k−1 k=1 and observe that, by (3) and (1) this series converges uniformly. Moreover this limit is independent of the choice of sequence of inverse branches. This is a consequence of (ii). Observe that n o n d −n −n D (x)K = : v ∈ R ,|b| ≤ C DT (x)v . Dτ (x)DT (x)v+b Therefore, for all n, y ∈ X, then −n −n −n Dτ (x )DT (x )v − Dτ (x )DT (x )v ≤ 2C kvk λ n 1 1 n 2 2 5 −n for all x , x ∈ T y. 1 2 Consequently we can denote by Ω(x) the limit of (14). It holds that, for all ω ∈ P, Ω(x) = D(τ ◦ ℓ )(x) + Ω(ℓ x)Dℓ (x). ω ω ω Fix x ∈ X. The series of functions (τ ◦ G − τ ◦ G (x )) is summable 0 n n 0 k=1 in C . Denote this sum by θ. By construction Ω(x) = Dθ(x). Consequently D(τ + θ − θ ◦ T ) = 0. 18 OLIVER BUTTERLEY AND KHADIM WAR Proof of (iv) =⇒ (i). Let n o Q(x) := : a ∈ R . Dθ(x)a n n Observe that Q(x) ⊂ K. Since Dτ (x) = Dθ(T x)DT (x) − Dθ, n o DT (x) 0 n d D(x) Q(x) = : a ∈ R Dθ(x)a Dτ (x) 1 n o DT (x)a d n = : a ∈ R = Q(T x). n n Dθ(T x)DT (x)a n −n This means that for all y ∈ X then D(x) K ⊃ Q(y) for all x ∈ T y. 3.4. Oscillatory Cancellation. In this subsection we take advantage of the geometric property established above and estimate the resultant can- cellations. The following estimate concerns the case when f is more or less −1 constant on a scale of |b| . The argument will depend on the following choice of constants (chosen conveniently but not optimally) 2 α αλ β := , β := , q := . 1 2 λ 8Λ 2 Let n = ⌊β ln|b|⌋, n = ⌊β ln |b|⌋ and n := n + n , β := β + β . The 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 ﬁrst n iterates will be so that the dynamics evenly spreads the function f across the space X. Then n iterates will be to see the oscillatory cancel- lations. The assumptions of the following proposition are identical to the assumptions of Proposition 3.6. Proposition 3.9. Let T : X → X be a C uniformly expanding Markov map and τ : X → R as above. Further suppose that there does not exist some θ ∈ C (X,R) such that τ = θ ◦ T − θ + χ where χ is constant on each partition element. Then there exists ξ > 0, b > 1, σ > 0 such that, for all z = a + ib, a ∈ (−σ, σ), |b| > b , n = ⌊β ln |b|⌋, for all f ∈ C (X) satisfying |f| ≤ 0 α C (X) qn e |b| kfk we have L (X) n −ξn kL fk ≤ e kfk . 1 ∞ z L (X) L (X) The proof follows after several lemmas. It is convenient to localize in space using a partition of unity. Using the assumption that the box-counting dimension of the boundary is strictly smaller than the ambient dimension we have the following partition of unity. Lemma 3.10. There exist C , C , r > 0, d ∈ [0, d) such that, for all 10 11 0 1 r 1 r ∈ (0, r ) there exists a set of points {x } and a C partition of unity 0 p p=1 {ρ } of X (i.e., ρ (x) = 1 for all x ∈ X, ρ ∈ C (X, [0, 1])) with the p p p p=1 p following properties. −d • N ≤ C r ; r 10 For each p, • ρ (x) = 1 for all x ∈ B(x , r); p p • Supp(ρ ) ⊂ B(x , C r); p p 10 −1 • kρ k ≤ C r ; p 1 10 And, letting R := {p : B(x , C r) ∩ ∂ω 6= ∅ for some ω ∈ P}, ∂ p 10 −d • #R ≤ C r . ∂ 11 OPEN SETS OF EXPONENTIALLY MIXING ANOSOV FLOWS 19 The construction of such a partition of unity and the proof of the above estimates are given in Appendix A.1. At each diﬀerent point of X we have a direction in which we see cancel- lations. One major use of the partition of unity is to consider the direction as locally constant. We choose r = r(b) = |b| . Take f ∈ C (X). Using Jensen’s inequality n −zτ kL fk = (J · f · e ) ◦ ℓ (x) · 1 (x) dx 1 n ω T ω L (X) ω∈P X X −zτ = ρ · (J · f · e ) ◦ ℓ (x) · 1 (x) dx p n ω T ω p=1 ω∈P X X ibθ ω,̟ ≤ (ρ · K ◦ ℓ · K ◦ ℓ · e )(x) dx p ω ̟ n n T ω∩T ̟ p6∈R ω,̟∈P ∂ n X X σn + e kfk kJ k ρ (x) dx ∞ n ∞ p L L (ω) T ω ω∈P p∈R n ∂ −aτ where K := (J · f · e ) and θ := τ ◦ ℓ − τ ◦ ℓ . Using Lemma 3.3 n ω,̟ n ω n ̟ and Lemma 3.10, the ﬁnal term of the above is bounded by d−d −( −σ)n d d−d σn d 2β (15) C 2 r C e kfk ≤ C 2 C e kfk . ∞ ∞ 11 7 11 7 L (X) L (X) It remains to estimate the other term. We estimate separately the set n n n n 2 1 2 1 Q := {̟ ∈ P : D (T ℓ x ) 6⋔ D (T ℓ x )} n,p,ω n ̟ p ω p and the set of ̟ where this is not the case. In the second case we see oscillatory cancellations. Lemma 3.11. There exists C > 0 such that |K ◦ ℓ (x) − K ◦ ℓ (y)| ω ω σn −αλn α ≤ e kJ k (C kfk + |f| e ) d(x, y) n ∞ 12 ∞ α L (ω) L (ω) C (ω) for all n ∈ N, ω ∈ P , x, y ∈ T ω. −aτ n Proof. Since K ◦ ℓ (x) = (J · f · e ) ◦ ℓ (x), for all x, y ∈ T ω, ω n ω −aτ (ℓ x) −aτ (ℓ y) n ω n ω K ◦ ℓ (x) − K ◦ ℓ (y) = (e − e )f(ℓ x) · J (ℓ x) ω ω ω n ω −aτ (ℓ y) n ω + e f(ℓ y)(J (ℓ x) − J (ℓ y)) ω n ω n ω −aτ (ℓ y) n ω + e (f(ℓ x) − f(ℓ y)) · J (ℓ x). ω ω n ω Using the estimates of Lemma 3.1, Lemma 3.2 and (1), |K ◦ ℓ (x) − K ◦ ℓ (y)| ω ω σn −αλn α ≤ e kJ k (σ + C )kfk + |f| e d(x, y) ∞ ∞ α n 6 L (ω) L (ω) C (ω) The lemma follows from choosing C := C + σ . 12 6 2 20 OLIVER BUTTERLEY AND KHADIM WAR Lemma 3.12. There exists C > 0 such that, for all n ∈ N, ω, ̟ ∈ P , 13 n kDθ k ≤ C . ω,̟ α 13 n−1 Proof. D(τ ◦ ℓ )(x) = Dτ(h x)Dh (x) where h := T ◦ ℓ . So n ω k k k ω k=0 n−1 kD(τ ◦ g)(x) − D(τ ◦ g)(y)k ≤ kDτk d(h x, h y) n n k k k=0 n−1 −λnα α ≤ kDτk e d(x, y) . k=0 −λnα And so kDθ k ≤ 2kDτk e . g,h α C C k=0 Lemma 3.13. Suppose the setting of Proposition 3.9. There exists C > 0 such that X X X ibθ ω,̟ (16) (ρ · K ◦ ℓ · K ◦ ℓ · e )(x) dx p ω ̟ p6∈R ω∈P ̟∈Q ∂ n n,p,ω γβ −( −σ)n 2β ≤ C e kfk . 14 ∞ Proof. Fixing for the moment p ∈/ R and ω ∈ P we want to perform the ∂ n sum over ̟. ibθ ω,̟ (17) (ρ · K ◦ ℓ · K ◦ ℓ · e )(x) dx p ̟ ω n n T ω∩T ̟ ̟∈Q n,p,ω 2σn 2 ≤ kJ k e kJ k kfk kρ k . ∞ ∞ ∞ 1 n n p L (̟) L (ω) L ̟∈Q n,p,ω Observe that X X X kJ k ≤ kJ k kJ k n ∞ n ∞ n ∞ L (̟) L (̟ ) L (̟ ) 1 2 ̟∈Q ̟ ∈P 2 n,p,ω 1 n where the second sum is over the set of ̟ ∈ P which satisfy 2 n n n n n 2 1 2 1 D (T ℓ x ) ⋔ D (T ℓ x ). ̟ p ω p Consequently, applying the estimate of Proposition 3.6, the term in (17) is bounded by −γn 2σn 2 C C e e kJ k kfk kρ k . 9 7 n ∞ ∞ p 1 L (ω) L L Using again Lemma 3.3, kJ k ≤ C and we sum over p. n ∞ 7 ω∈P L (ω) Now we turn our attention to the ̟ ∈ P where we observe oscillatory cancellations. The crucial technical part of the estimate is the following oscillatory integral bound. Lemma 3.14. Suppose that J ⊂ [0, 1] is an interval, k ∈ C (J), θ ∈ 1+α ′ α C (J), |θ | ≥ κ > 0, |b| > 1, k ∈ C (J). Then ibθ(x) e k(x) dx ≤ kkk . C (J) κ |b| J OPEN SETS OF EXPONENTIALLY MIXING ANOSOV FLOWS 21 ′ ′ where C = (kθ k + 6)(1 + |θ | ). ∞ α L (X) C (X) Proof. We assume that b > 1, the other case being identical. We also assume without loss of generality that θ ≥ κ otherwise we can exchange −θ for θ. k 21 1 Since is α-H¨older there exists g ∈ C (J,R) such that ′ b k −α k ′ 1−α k g − ≤ b , g ≤ 2b . b ′ ∞ ′ α ∞ ′ α θ L θ C L θ C Changing variables, y = θ(x), Z Z ibθ(x) −1 iby k(x) · e dx = ◦ θ (y)e dy J θ(J) −1 iby = g ◦ θ (y)e dy θ(J) k −1 iby + − g ◦ θ (y)e dy. ′ b θ(J) k ibθ(x) ′ Observe that the ﬁnal term is equal to ( − g )(x)e θ (x) dx. Integ- ′ b J θ rating by parts the penultimate term, h i −1 iby −1 iby g ◦ θ (y)e dy = − g ◦ θ (y)e b b b θ(J) θ(J) i g b −1 iby + ◦ θ (y)e dy b θ θ(J) h i i i ibθ ′ ibθ(x) = − g e + g (x)e dx. b J b Combining these estimates Z Z h i ibθ(x) ibθ(x) ′ ibθ e k(x) dx ≤ ( − g )(x)e θ (x) dx + g e b b J J ′ ibθ(x) + g (x)e dx kθ k |J| 2 2|J| k 2kkk ∞ ∞ ≤ + + + . α 1+α α ′ b b b θ bκ To ﬁnish we observe that ′ ′ k k k(x) − k(y) k(y)(θ (y) − θ (x)) (x) − (y) = + ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ θ θ θ (x) θ (x)θ (y) |k| kkk |θ | α ∞ α ≤ + |x − y| . κ κ R R 1 ′ Take a moliﬁer ρ ∈ C (R, [0, 1]) such that Supp(ρ) ⊂ (−1, 1), ρ = 1, |ρ | ≤ 2. Deﬁne g (x) := ρ (x − y) (y) dy b b ′ k k k where ρ (z) := bρ(bz). Observe that g (x) − (x) = ρ (x − y) (y) − (x) dy, that b b b ′ ′ ′ θ θ θ R R R ′ ′ k k ′ g (x) = ρ (x − y) (y) − (x) dy, that |ρ | = 1 and that |ρ | ≤ 2b. b b ′ ′ b θ θ 22 OLIVER BUTTERLEY AND KHADIM WAR Lemma 3.15. Suppose the setting of Proposition 3.9. There exists C > 0 such that 1 X X X ibθ ω,̟ (18) (ρ · K ◦ ℓ · K ◦ ℓ · e )(x) dx p ω ̟ p6∈R ω∈P n ̟∈P \Q ∂ n n,p,ω Λβ α 2 α − ( +σ)n −( −σ)n 4 β 8β ≤ C |b| e kfk ≤ C e kfk . ∞ ∞ 15 15 L L Proof. Fixing for the moment p and ω we want to perform the sum over ̟. I.e., we estimate ibθ ω,̟ (ρ · K ◦ ℓ · K ◦ ℓ · e )(x) dx p ω ̟ n n T ω∩T ̟ ̟∈Pn\Qn,p,ω n n n n 2 1 2 1 Since D (T ℓ x )K ⋔ D (T ℓ x )K there exists (Lemma 3.7) a 1- ̟ p ω p dimensional linear subspace L ⊂ R (which depends on ̟ and ω) such that, for all v ∈ L, n n n 1 1 1 |D(τ ◦ T ◦ ℓ )(x )v − D(τ ◦ T ◦ ℓ )(x )v| > C |D(T ◦ ℓ )(x )v| . n ̟ p n ω p 5 ̟ p 2 2 (We could also write another term on the right hand side of the above but this worse estimate suﬃces for what follows.) By Lemma 3.1 C n 5 1 |D(τ ◦ ℓ )(x )v| ≤ |D(T ◦ ℓ )(x )v| . n ̟ p ̟ p Consequently |D(τ ◦ ℓ )(x )v − D(τ ◦ ℓ )(x )v| n ̟ p n ω p C n n 5 1 1 > (|D(T ◦ ℓ )(x )v| + |D(T ◦ ℓ )(x )v|). ̟ p ̟ p Rotating and translating the axis, we choose an orthogonal coordinate sys- tem (y , y , . . . , y ) such that y corresponds to L and such that x = 1 2 d 1 p (0, . . . , 0). We have ∂θ ω,̟ ∂(τ ◦ℓ ) ∂(τ ◦ℓ ) −Λn n ̟ n ω (0, . . . , 0) = − (0, . . . , 0) ≥ C e . ∂y ∂y ∂y 1 1 1 Since r > 0 is suﬃciently small the transversality holds along this direction for the entire ball (using Lemma 3.12). In order to show this we will show α C −Λn 5 2 that C r(b) ≤ e since kDθ k ≤ C . This is equivalent to 13 ω,̟ α 13 2 C α 5 requiring exp(−[ − Λ]n ) ≤ which holds for |b| suﬃciently large 2β 2C 2 13 since β was chosen such that β ≤ . Here b is chosen suﬃciently large 2 2 0 2Λ to guarantee that |b| is large enough to satisfy the above condition. We have ∂θ ω,̟ ∂(τ ◦ℓ ) ∂(τ ◦ℓ ) n ̟ n ω C −Λn 5 2 (y , . . . , y ) = − (y , . . . , y ) ≥ e 1 d 1 d ∂y ∂y ∂y 2 1 1 1 for all (y , . . . , y ) ∈ B (0). To proceed we must estimate the H¨older norm 1 d r of ρ · K ◦ ℓ · K ◦ ℓ . By Lemma 3.11, since we assume that |f| ≤ p ω ̟ C (ω) (q+ )n α λ 1 e kfk in Proposition 3.9 and q + ≤ α( + ) = αλ (for some L (ω) β 2 β C > 0), σn α |K ◦ ℓ (x) − K ◦ ℓ (y)| ≤ Ce kJ k kfk d(x, y) ∞ ∞ ω ω n L (ω) L (ω) Consequently, using Lemma 3.11 and Lemma 3.10, −α σn |ρ · K ◦ ℓ · K ◦ ℓ | ≤ C 1 + r e kJ k kfk . p ω ̟ α n n ∞ ∞ C (T ω) L (ω) L (ω) OPEN SETS OF EXPONENTIALLY MIXING ANOSOV FLOWS 23 Using the estimate of Lemma 3.14, for (y , . . . , y ) ﬁxed, 2 d ibθ ω,̟ (ρ · K ◦ ℓ · K ◦ ℓ · e )(y , . . . , y ) dy p ω ̟ 1 d 1 −r −α 2Λn −α 2σn 2 ≤ Cr e |b| e kJ k kJ k kfk . n ∞ n ∞ ∞ L (ω) L (̟) L If d = 1 we are done, otherwise we integrate over the other directions. We also recall that r = |b| . ibθ ω,̟ (ρ · K ◦ ℓ · K ◦ ℓ · e )(x) dx p ω ̟ n n T ω∩T ̟ − 2 2Λn +2σn ≤ C |b| e kJ k kJ k kfk . ∞ ∞ ∞ n n L (ω) L (̟) L Using Lemma 3.3 we sum over ω and ̟ to obtain the estimate. Proof of Proposition 3.9. The estimates from (15), Lemma 3.15 and Lemma 3.13 imply that, for some C > 0, γβ d−d 2 1 n −( −σ)n −( −σ)n −( −σ)n 2β 8β 2β kL fk ≤ C e + e + e kfk . 1 ∞ z L (X) L (X) Here we insure that σ > 0 is suﬃciently small, dependent only on the system. Proposition 3.16. Let T : X → X be a C uniformly expanding Markov map and τ : X → R as above. Further suppose that there does not exist some θ ∈ C (X,R) such that τ = θ ◦ T − θ + χ where χ is constant on each partition element. Then there exists ζ, b , B > 0 such that, for all z = a + ib, a ≥ −σ, |b| ≥ b , n ≥ B ln |b| n −ζn kL k ≤ e . (b) Proof. We ﬁrst estimate kL k for n = β ln |b|. We will estimate this z (b) quantity in two separate cases. Firstly we consider the case when −qn kfk ≤ e kfk . L (X) (b) We apply Lemma 3.5: n σn −λn σn −λn −qn kL fk ≤ C e e kfk + kfk ≤ Ce (e + e )kfk 8 ∞ (b) (b) L (X) (b) −qn It remains to consider the case when kfk ≥ e kfk . This means that L (b) qn |f| ≤ e (1 + |b| )kfk . The interpolation result of Lemma A.4 α ∞ C (X) L (X) means that there exists C, ǫ > 0 such that, for any ǫ ∈ (0, ǫ ), 0 0 −d α (19) kfk ∞ ≤ Cǫ kfk 1 + ǫ |f| α . L (X) L (X) C (X) − n 2d Here we choose ǫ = e . Applying Lemma 3.5 twice 2n 2σn −λn σn n L f ≤ C e e kfk + C e kL fk . 8 8 z (b) z L (X) (b) Using also the above estimate (19) αξ ξ 2n −(λ−2σ)n − n (σ+ )n n 2d 2 L f ≤ C e + e kfk + C e kL fk . 8 8 z (b) z L (X) (b) 24 OLIVER BUTTERLEY AND KHADIM WAR The estimate of Proposition 3.9 means that αξ ξ 2n −(λ−2σ)n − n −( −σ)n 2d 2 L f ≤ C e + e kfk + C e kfk . 8 8 (b) (b) (b) Again we ensure that σ > 0 is suﬃciently small. We have obtained the n −ζn estimate kL k ≤ e when n = ⌊β ln |b|⌋. Iterating this estimate and z (b) choosing B > 0 suﬃciently large concludes the proof. 3.5. Rate of Mixing. It remains to complete the proof of Theorem 3. In the present setting, in particular that the twisted transfer operators satisfy a Lasota-Yorke style estimate (Lemma 3.5), the required conclusion of ex- ponential mixing follows in an established fashion (for example [3, §2.7] or [6, §7.5]) from the estimate of Proposition 3.16. In the ﬁrst cited reference 1 α the C norm is used whilst in our case the C norm is used but the same argument holds since it depends on the spectral properties of the twisted transfer operator and the norm estimate (Proposition 3.16) and these are identical in the present case. In the second cited reference the C norm is used but for functions of the interval and not the higher dimensional situ- ation of the present work. Again the argument presented there depends only on the spectral properties of the operator and so holds also in this setting. For the convenience of the reader we here summarise the general argument which was cited above, at each stage the relevant paragraph in one of the references is detailed. The main part of the argument is to observe that the Laplace transform of the correlation function can be written in terms of a sum of twisted transfer operators [3, Proposition A.3]. The Laplace transform of the correlation is then shown to admit an analytic extension to a neighbourhood of each point z = ib. For b 6= 0 this is because the existence of poles on the imaginary axis would contradict mixing since they form groups and for z = 0 this uses that the problem reduces to the case when one of the observables is zero average [3, Lemma 2.22]. This part of the argument uses the quasi-compactness of the twisted transfer operators. When |b| is large the main functional-analytic estimate (Proposition 3.16) is used to imply an analytic extension of uniform size [3, Lemma 2.23]. The above is done in a way which is independent on the choice of observables. Combining the above gives an analytic extension to the correlation function to a strip about the imaginary axis. The result of exponential mixing then follows from a Paley-Weiner type estimate [3, §2.7]. Appendix A. The Boundary of Markov Partitions In the early 1970s, Bowen [10] and Ratner [30] showed that it is possible to construct Markov partitions for Anosov ﬂows. However it is known [12] that the regularity of the boundary of these partitions is normally rather bad. This is unfortunate for our present purposes since we need some de- gree of regularity of the unstable part of the Markov construction in order to complete our argument. Ratner [30] showed that the boundary of the Markov partition has Lebesgue measure zero but this is not quite suﬃcient for our purposes. Fortunately, as shown by Horita & Viana [26, Proposition OPEN SETS OF EXPONENTIALLY MIXING ANOSOV FLOWS 25 3.5] we also have estimates for the box-counting dimension of the bound- ary. Section A.1 is devoted to reviewing this topic and the information on the dimension of the boundary is a key point in constructing the partition of unity of Lemma 3.10. Section A.2 is devoted to showing a diﬀerent control on the geometry of the Markov partition, namely that the set satisﬁes a generalisation of the notion of a John domain. This piece of information is used in order to have a convenient interpolation result (Lemma A.4). Note that the construction of Bowen [10] and Ratner [30] are very similar but that Bowen’s later description [11] of the construction of Markov partitions is described rather diﬀerently. The later method of construction is based on shadowing in a way that works elegantly for all Axiom A systems. However the geometry is rather lost in the construction and a clear hold of the geo- metry is precisely what we require for our present purposes. In this appendix we will follow the construction of Ratner [30] and for clarity use, whenever possible, identical notation as used in this reference. Throughout this section we assume the setting of a transitive Anosov ﬂow φ : M → M. First we recall the notation and the general idea be- hind the construction of the Markov partition. For any x let W (x) (resp. cs u cu W (x),W (x),W (x)) denote the ǫ-sized local stable (resp. centre-stable, ǫ ǫ ǫ unstable, centre-unstable) manifolds centred at x. As usual, we know that s cu there exists ǫ , γ > 0 such that, for all x and for all y ∈ W (x), z ∈ W (x) γ γ s cu the sets W (x) and W (x) intersect in exactly one point which we de- ǫ ǫ 0 0 note by [y, x], this deﬁnes the well known canonical coordinates. From now on we suppose that such a choice of ǫ , γ > 0 is ﬁxed. Let C ⊂ W (x), D ⊂ W (x). A parallelogram is a set A = [C, D] deﬁned as all the points [y, z] such that y ∈ C, z ∈ D. Observe that the set A is foliated by stable manifolds but, in general, will not be foliated by unstable manifolds. Let A = {A , . . . A }, A = [C , D ], A ∩A = ∅ for i 6= j, be a ﬁnite complete 1 i i i i j system of parallelograms. (Here complete means that for every point in M there is an interval on the trajectory of the point whose end points each lie in one of the parallelograms.) Let M be the set theoretic union of the parallelograms {A } with the induced topology. Let ℓ(x), x ∈ M , denote i A the length of the interval of the trajectory of the ﬂow φ extending from x to its ﬁrst intersection x with M . Let T denote the one-to-one mapping of M onto itself which maps x to x . A system A is said to be Markovian t −1 for the ﬂow φ if, whenever x ∈ Int A ∩ T (Int A ), i j (20) T (Int D (x)) ⊂ D (T (x)) and T (C (x)) ⊃ Int C (T (x)). i j i j As mentioned previously we rely on the following result. Theorem A.1 ([10, Theorem 2.5] or [30, Theorem 2.1]). For every ǫ > 0 the transitive Anosov ﬂow φ : M → M has a Markov partition with the size of the elements of the partition being at most ǫ. In general the upper box-counting dimension may diﬀer from the lower box-counting dimension. Throughout this text our only interest is in an upper bound for the upper box-counting dimension and for conciseness we consistently omit explicit mention of this detail. Note that in the reference cited [26] for the dimension result the term limit capacity is used for the same concept. As usual D (x) denotes the D such that x ∈ A = [C ,D ]. Similarly for C (x). i i i i i i 26 OLIVER BUTTERLEY AND KHADIM WAR Since we will need more details of the construction of the Markov par- tition, particularly some information on the geometry of the partition ele- ments we here recall the most relevant details of the construction. During the construction α, δ > 0 are chosen to satisfy, amongst other conditions, the requirement that 0 < α < δ < min(ǫ, γ, ǫ ). To start the construc- 0 0 0 tion we ﬁx A = {A , . . . A }, a complete ﬁnite system of parallelograms 0 0 0 0 α 0 α A = [C , D ], C = W (x ), D = W (x ). By a recursive procedure i i i i i i u i s n δ n δ [30, §2] we deﬁne the sets C ⊂ W (x ) and D ⊂ W (x ). This procedure i i i u i s involves applying a strong contraction to the sets already deﬁned in order to add small additional sets to the sets already deﬁned and consequently be- come closer to being Markov. At the beginning some m is chosen suﬃciently −m n large. For each i, j we consider if φ C contributes a part which should be added to the set C . The successive approximation means that these leaves converge to the Markov property. The unstable part of the partition element is deﬁned by a countable union n u C = C ⊂ W (x ). i i i δ n≥1 m −m The stable part, D , is deﬁned similarly but using φ in place of φ . A.1. Box-counting Dimension of the Boundary. The structure of the constructed Markov partition leads to the following result. Proposition A.2 ([26, Proposition 3.5]). The box-counting dimension of the union of the unstable boundaries of the elements of the Markov partition of an Anosov map is strictly smaller than the dimension of the unstable bundle. The proof of the above is based on estimates available in Bowen [11] and a standard relation [19] which connects the measure of a neighbourhood of a set to the box-counting dimension of that set. Although the result stated is for Anosov diﬀeomorphisms the same result holds without issue for the Markov structure of an Anosov ﬂow as described above. We will use this information about the box-counting dimension of the boundary to prove the previously stated Lemma 3.10 which concerns the existence of a partition of unity. This construction is essentially standard but since the details are crucial and the estimates concerning the boundary of the set are less common, we give here the details of the construction and the proof of the required estimates. 1 1 Fix a function Φ ∈ C (R, [0, 1]) such that Φ(u) = 1 whenever |u| ≤ , that Φ(u) = 0 whenever |u| ≥ and Φ(u − k) = 1 for all u ∈ R. k=−∞ (For any x ∈ R , r > 0 we denote by B(x, r) the ball which is centred at x and has radius r > 0.) For each ǫ > 0, ℓ = (ℓ , . . . , ℓ ) ∈ Z deﬁne 1 d (ǫ) 1 d Φ ∈ C (R , [0, 1]) by (ǫ) −1 Φ (x , . . . , x ) := Φ ǫ (x − ǫℓ ) . 1 d k k k=1 Such a function is “centred” at the point ǫℓ = (ǫℓ , . . . , ǫℓ ) ∈ R . Observe 1 d that OPEN SETS OF EXPONENTIALLY MIXING ANOSOV FLOWS 27 (ǫ) 3ǫ • The support of Φ is contained within B(ǫℓ, ), ℓ 4 • For all x ∈ B(ǫℓ, ) (ǫ) Φ (x) = 1, • For each x ∈ R , (ǫ) Φ (x) = 1, ℓ∈Z (ǫ) −1 • There exists some K > 0 such that kΦ k ≤ Kǫ for all ǫ > 0, ℓ C ℓ ∈ Z . We suppose that Ω ⊂ R is bounded and that ∂Ω has box-counting di- mension strictly less than d. That the set is bounded means there exists 3ǫ K > 0 such that the cardinality of the set {ℓ ∈ Z : B(ǫℓ, ) ∩ Ω 6= ∅} is −d bounded from above by Kǫ . Consider the ǫ-mesh where the cubes of the mesh are centred on the points d d {ǫℓ : ℓ ∈ Z }. For any set E ⊂ R let N (E) denote the number of cubes in the ǫ-mesh which intersect E. (There are several equivalent deﬁnitions of box-counting dimension [19, §3.1].) Since the boundary ∂Ω had box- counting dimension strictly less than d, we know that there exists K > 0, d ∈ [0, d) such that, for all ǫ > 0, −d N (∂Ω) ≤ Kǫ . d 3ǫ Consequently the cardinality of the set {ℓ ∈ Z : B(ǫℓ, ) ∩ ∂Ω 6= ∅} is −d bounded from above by Kǫ (increasing K > 0 if required, independently of ǫ). This completes the proof of Lemma 3.10. A.2. Markov partitions are almost John. The construction of the un- stable part of the Markov partition can be conveniently rephrased as follows (for full details consult [30]). There is a collection of sets {C } where i=1 d 0 each C is a bounded subset of R . For each set there is a subset C ⊂ C i i 0 1 which has nice geometry in the sense that the boundary of C is C . Let C denote the disjoin union C . There is a map T : C → C which corresponds to the Anosov ﬂow for some large time (after projecting along local stable manifolds). There is an index set A ⊂ {1, . . . , N} and, for each (j, k) ∈ A, a map h : C → C such that T ◦ h = id. Moreover these maps are j,k j k j,k strong contractions in the sense that there exist 0 < λ ≤ λ < 1 such that, 2 1 for all (j, k) ∈ A and x, y ∈ C , λ d(x, y) ≤ d(h (x), h (y)) ≤ λ d(x, y). 2 1 j,k j,k Deﬁne [ [ n n−1 n C = h C , C = C . j,k i j i n≥1 k:(j,k)∈A n n−1 Note that C ⊃ C for all n. That the sets have this above structure i i suﬃces to show some modest control on the geometry. Since 0 < λ ≤ λ < 1 there exists s ≥ 1 such that 2 1 (21) λ = λ . Observe that s ≥ 1 can be taken to be equal to 1 in the special case when the expansion is isotropic. This is the situation in the special case when the unstable bundle is one-dimensional. Recall (Deﬁnition 1.1) that a set 28 OLIVER BUTTERLEY AND KHADIM WAR Ω ⊂ R is almost John in the sense that there exist K , ǫ > 0 such that, 2 0 for all ǫ ∈ (0, ǫ ) and for all x ∈ Ω, there exists y ∈ Ω such that d(x, y) ≤ ǫ and B(y, K ǫ ) ⊂ Ω. Lemma A.3. Each set C is almost John. The exponent s ≥ 1 is that given by (21). 0 0 Proof. Let δ > 0 be such that diam(C ) ≤ δ for each i. Since the set C i i has smooth boundary there exists K > 0 and ǫ > 0 such that: For all i, 1 1 0 0 for all x ∈ C and for all ǫ ∈ (0, ǫ ) there exists y ∈ C such that i i B(y, K ǫ) ⊂ C , and d(x, y) ≤ ǫ. Fix the constants 2δ 1 −1 K = , K = min( , ǫ K ). 3 4 0 λ (1−λ ) 2 3 1 1 N +1 Let ǫ ∈ (0, ǫ ). Deﬁne N ∈ N by the requirement that K λ ≤ ǫ ≤ 0 ǫ 3 K λ . For x ∈ C , we will consider two cases. 3 i ǫ n Case 1 (x ∈ C ): Let j be such that T x ∈ C . We know that there ex- Nǫ N 0 N N ′ N ′ ǫ ǫ ǫ ǫ ists y ∈ C such that T y ∈ C , d(T x, T y) ≤ ǫ and B(T y, K ǫ ) ⊂ i j N N 0 ′ ǫ N ′ ǫ N ′ ǫ ǫ C . Consequently d(x, y) ≤ ǫ λ and T B(y, K ǫ λ ) ⊂ B(T y, K ǫ ) ⊂ 1 1 i 1 2 0 ′ −N C . We choose ǫ = ǫK λ ∈ (0, ǫ ). This means that 4 0 i 1 d(x, y) ≤ ǫK ≤ ǫ s−1 as required. Using also that the deﬁnition of s > 1 implies λ /λ = λ we 2 1 see that ′ Nǫ λ N N (s−1) ǫ s−1 K K s 2 ǫ ǫ 1 4 K ǫ λ = K K ( ) ǫ = K K λ ǫ ≥ K K ( ) ǫ = ǫ . 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 4 s−1 λ K 1 3 N K K ′ s ǫ ′ 1 4 This means that we have shown that B(y, K ǫ ) ⊂ C where K = . s−1 1 i 1 Case 2 (x ∈ C \ C ): In this case we know that there exists z ∈ C such that d(x, z) ≤ δ . This is because, from the construction, 1−λ n n the diameter of every component of C is not greater than δλ and must i 1 intersect some previously deﬁned set. Using now what we demonstrated in the other case we know that there exists some y ∈ C which satisﬁes ′ s ǫ d(z, y) ≤ K ǫ and B(y, K ǫ )) ⊂ C . Observe that 1 i δ 1 d(x, y) ≤ δ + K ǫ ≤ + ǫ ≤ ǫ 1−λ 2 λ (1−λ )K 1 1 1 3 as required. Remark. The work of Avila, Gou¨ezel & Yoccoz [6] required the domain of the expanding Markov map to be a John domain in a sense which corresponds to our deﬁnition if s = 1. However, when the expansion is not the same in all directions, it seems unlikely that a condition better than we use here could be satisﬁed. A weakening of the deﬁnition of a John domain in a similar way as we use has been studied in other contexts (see, e.g., [28] and references within). In the case s = 1 the John domain property implies [28, Corollary 6.2] the estimate on the box-counting dimension of the boundary. However, in general when s > 1, this is not suﬃcient [28, §7.3] for a useful estimate of the dimension. We therefore show independently the two properties which we require. OPEN SETS OF EXPONENTIALLY MIXING ANOSOV FLOWS 29 In our application we use the above lemma for the following key interpol- ation result. Lemma A.4. Let Ω ⊂ R be almost John with exponent s ≥ 1. Let γ = 1/s ∈ (0, 1]. There exists K > 0 and ǫ > 0 such that, for all ǫ ∈ (0, ǫ ) 5 1 1 and f ∈ C (Ω), −d γ kfk ≤ K ǫ kfk + ǫ |f| . ∞ 1 α L (Ω) L (Ω) C (Ω) Proof. Let x ∈ Ω, ǫ ∈ (0, ǫ ) and f ∈ C (Ω). Since Ω is almost John there exists some y ∈ Ω such that B(y, K ǫ) ⊂ Ω and d(x, y) ≤ ǫ . The volume of the d-ball of radius ǫ is equal to K ǫ and consequently there −1 −d must exist z ∈ B(y, ǫ) such that |f(z)| ≤ K ǫ kfk because other- L (Ω) wise there would be a contradiction for the L norm (if the statement were −1 −d false then |f(z)| > K ǫ kfk (Ω) for all z ∈ B(y, ǫ) and consequently kfk > kfk ). This means that 1 1 L (B(y,ǫ)) L (Ω) |f(x)| ≤ |f(z)| + |f(x) − f(z)| −1 −d α ≤ K ǫ kfk + |f| d(x, z) 1 α d L (Ω) C (Ω) −d γ ≤ K ǫ kfk 1 + ǫ |f| α . L (Ω) C (Ω) This estimate holds for all x ∈ Ω, ǫ ∈ (0, ǫ ) and f ∈ C (Ω). References [1] D.V. Anosov. Geodesic ﬂows on closed Riemannian manifolds of negative curvature. Trudy Mat. Inst. Steklov. (90), 1967 (A.M.S. translation, 1969). [2] V. Arau´jo, O. Butterley & P. Varandas. Open sets of Axiom A ﬂows with exponen- tially mixing attractors. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 144(7):2971–2984, 2016. [3] V. Arau´jo & I. Melbourne. Exponential decay of correlations for nonuniformly hy- 1+α perbolic ﬂows with a C stable foliation, including the classical Lorenz attractor. Annales Henri Poincar´e. 17:2975–3004, 2016. [4] V. Arau´jo & I. Melbourne. Existence and smoothness of the stable foliation for sec- tional hyperbolic attractors. Bull. London Math. Soc, 49:351–367, 2017. [5] V. Arau´jo & P. Varandas. Robust exponential decay of correlations for singular-ﬂows. Comm. Math. Phys., 311(1):215–246, 2012 (Errata: 341(2):729-731, 2016). [6] A. Avila, S. Gou¨ezel & J.-C. Yoccoz. Exponential mixing for the Teichmu¨ller ﬂow. Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Etudes Sci., 104:143–211, 2006. [7] V. Baladi, M. Demers & C. Liverani. Exponential decay of correlations for ﬁnite horizon Sinai billiard ﬂows. Invent. Math., (DOI 10.1007/s00222-017-0745-1), 2017. [8] V. Baladi & B. Vall´ee. Exponential decay of correlations for surface semi-ﬂows without ﬁnite Markov partitions. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 133(3):865–874, 2005. [9] R. Bowen. Markov partitions for Axiom A diﬀeomorphisms. Amer. J. Math. 92:725– 747, 1970. [10] R. Bowen. Symbolic dynamics for hyperbolic ﬂows. Amer. J. Math., 95:429–460, 1973. [11] R. Bowen. Equilibrium states and the ergodic theory of Anosov diﬀeomorphisms. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 470. Springer-Verlag, Berlin – New York, 1975. [12] R. Bowen. Markov partitions are not smooth. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 71(1):130–132, [13] O. Butterley & I. Melbourne. Disintegration of invariant measures for hyperbolic skew products. Israel J. Math., 219:171–188, 2017. [14] N.I. Chernov. Markov approximations and decay of correlations for Anosov ﬂows. Ann. of Math. (2), 147:269–324, 1998. [15] N.I. Chernov & R. Markarian. Chaotic billiards. Mathematical Surveys and Mono- graphs. Vol. 127, 2006. 30 OLIVER BUTTERLEY AND KHADIM WAR [16] J. De Simoi & C. Liverani. Limit Theorems for Fast-slow partially hyperbolic systems. ArXiv:1408.5453. [17] D. Dolgopyat. On decay of correlations in Anosov ﬂows. Ann. of Math. (2), 147(2):357–390, 1998. [18] D. Dolgopyat & C. Liverani. Energy transfer in a fast-slow Hamiltonian system. Commun. Math. Phys., 308(1):201–225, 2011. [19] K.J. Falconer. Fractal geometry: Mathematical foundations and applications (2nd ed.). Wiley, Chichester 2003. [20] F. Faure, & M. Tsujii. The semiclassical zeta function for geodesic ﬂows on negatively curved manifolds. Invent. Math., 208(3):851–998, 2017. [21] M. Field, I. Melbourne & A. T¨or¨ok. Stability of mixing and rapid mixing for hyper- bolic ﬂows. Ann. of Math. (2), 166(1):269–291, 2007. [22] P. Foulon & B. Hasselblatt. Contact Anosov ﬂows on hyperbolic 3–manifolds. Geo- metry & Topology, 17:1225–1252, 2013. [23] J. Franks & R. Williams. Anomalous Anosov ﬂows. In Global theory of dynamical systems, pages 158–174, Lect. Notes in Math., 819. Springer, Berlin, 1980. [24] B. Hasselblatt & A. Wilkinson. Prevalence of non-Lipschitz Anosov foliations. Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys., 19(3):643–656, 1999. [25] M. Hirsch, C. Pugh & M. Shub. Invariant manifolds, vol. 583 of Lect. Notes in Math. Springer Verlag, New York, 1977. [26] V. Horita & M. Viana. Hausdorﬀ dimension for non-hyperbolic repellers. II. DA diﬀeomorphisms. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., 13(5):1125–1152, 2005. [27] C. Liverani. On contact Anosov ﬂows. Ann. of Math. (2), 159:1275–1312, 2004. [28] T. Nieminen. Generalized mean porosity and dimension. Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. 31(1):143–172, 2006. [29] J.F. Plante. Anosov ﬂows. Amer. J. Math., 94:729–754, 1972. [30] M. Ratner. Markov partitions for Anosov ﬂows on n-dimensional manifolds. Israel J. Math., 15:92–114, 1973. [31] D. Ruelle. A measure associated with axiom A attractors. Amer. J. Math. 98:616–654, [32] D. Ruelle. Flots qui ne m´elangent pas exponentiellement. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Ser. I Math., 296(4):191–193, 1983. [33] Ya.G. Sinai. Gibbs measures in ergodic theory. Russian Math. Surveys. 27:21–69,1972. [34] L. Stoyanov. Spectra of Ruelle transfer operators for Axiom A ﬂows. Nonlinearity, 24:1089–1120, 2011. [35] M. Tsujii. Decay of correlations in suspension semi-ﬂows of angle multiplying maps. Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys., 28(1):291–317, 2008. [36] M. Tsujii. Exponential mixing for generic volume-preserving Anosov ﬂows in dimen- sion three. ArXiv:1601.00063. [37] A. Verjovsky. Codimension one Anosov ﬂows. Bol. Soc. Mat. Mexicana, 19(2):49-77, [38] L.S. Young What are SRB measures, and which dynamical systems have them? J. Stat. Phys. 108:733–754, 2002. (Oliver Butterley) Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics – Strada Costiera, 11 – Trieste – 34151 – Italy. E-mail address: oliver.butterley@ictp.it (Khadim War) Faculty of Mathematics – Ruhr-Universitat Bochum – Uni- versitatsstraße 150 – 44801 Bochum – Germany. E-mail address: khadim.war@rub.de

Mathematics – arXiv (Cornell University)

**Published: ** Sep 12, 2016

Loading...

You can share this free article with as many people as you like with the url below! We hope you enjoy this feature!

Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.

System error. Please try again!

Already have an account? Log in

Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.

To save an article, **log in** first, or **sign up** for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.

Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote

Access the full text.

Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.

All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.