Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-04T19:18:40.480Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An extension of the ergodic closing lemma

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2009

SHUHEI HAYASHI
SHUHEI HAYASHI*
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Tokyo, 3-8-1 Komaba, Tokyo, Japan (email: shuhei@ms.u-tokyo.ac.jp)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An extended version of the ergodic closing lemma of Mañé is proved. As an application, we show that, C1 densely in the complement of the closure of Morse–Smale diffeomorphisms and those with a homoclinic tangency, there exists a weakly hyperbolic structure (dominated splittings with average hyperbolicity at almost every point on hyperbolic parts, and one-dimensional center direction when zero Lyapunov exponents are involved) over the supports of all non-atomic ergodic measures. As another application, we prove an approximation theorem, which claims that approximating the Lyapunov exponents of any non-atomic ergodic measure by those of an atomic ergodic measure by a C1 small perturbation is possible.

Type
Research Article
Information
Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , June 2010 , pp. 773 - 808
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1]Franks, J.. Necessary conditions for stability of diffeomorphisms. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 158 (1971), 301–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Hayashi, S.. Connecting invariant manifolds and the solution of the C 1 stability and Ω-stability conjectures for flows. Ann. of Math. (2) 145 (1997), 81–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Hayashi, S.. Hyperbolicity, stability, and the creation of homoclinic points. Doc. Math. ICM 98- II (1998), 789–796.Google Scholar
[4]Hayashi, S.. A C 1 make or break lemma. Bull. Braz. Math. Soc. 31 (2000), 337–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Hayashi, S.. Hyperbolicity, heterodimensional cycles and Lyapunov exponents for partially hyperbolic dynamics. Bull. Braz. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 38 (2007), 203–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Mañé, R.. An ergodic closing lemma. Ann. of Math. (2) 116 (1982), 503–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Mañé, R.. Oseledec’s theorem from the generic view point. Proc. International Congress of Mathematicians (ICM’83). PWN Publ., Warszawa, 1983, pp. 1269–1276.Google Scholar
[8]Mañé, R.. Ergodic Theory and Differentiable Dynamics. Springer, Berlin, 1987.Google Scholar
[9]Mañé, R.. A proof of the C 1 stability conjecture. Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Étucles Sci. 66 (1988), 161–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Palis, J.. A global view of dynamics and a conjecture on the denseness of finitude of attractors. Géométrie Complexe et Systèmes Dynamiques (Orsay, 1995) (Astérisque, 261). Société Mathématique de France, Paris, 2000, pp. 335–347.Google Scholar
[11]Pollicott, M.. Lectures on Ergodic Theory and Pesin Theory on Compact Manifold. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993.Google Scholar
[12]Pugh, C.. The closing lemma. Amer. J. Math. 89 (1967), 956–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Pugh, C.. An improved closing lemma and a general density theorem. Amer. J. Math. 89 (1967), 1010–1021.Google Scholar
[14]Pujals, E.. On the density of hyperbolicity and homoclinic bifurcations for 3D-diffeomorphisms in attracting regions. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 16 (2006), 79–226.Google Scholar
[15]Pujals, E.. Density of hyperbolicity and homoclinic bifurcations for attracting topologically hyperbolic sets. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 20 (2008), 335–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16]Pugh, C. and Robinson, C.. The C 1 closing lemma, including Hamiltonians. Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. 3 (1983), 261–313.Google Scholar
[17]Pujals, E. and Sambarino, M.. Homoclinic tangencies and hyperbolicity for surface diffeomorphisms. Ann. of Math. (2) 151 (2000), 961–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18]Wen, L.. Homoclinic tangencies and dominated splittings. Nonlinearity 15 (2002), 1445–1469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19]Wen, L.. Generic diffeomorphisms away from homoclinic tangencies and heterodimensional cycles. Bull. Braz. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 35 (2004), 419–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar