Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-g96k6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T02:08:19.800Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Combinatorial models of expanding dynamical systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2013

VOLODYMYR NEKRASHEVYCH
VOLODYMYR NEKRASHEVYCH*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA (email: nekrash@math.tamu.edu)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

We prove homotopical rigidity of expanding dynamical systems, by showing that they are determined by a group-theoretic invariant. We use this to show that the Julia set of every expanding dynamical system is an inverse limit of simplicial complexes constructed by inductive cut-and-paste rules. Moreover, the cut-and-paste rules can be found algorithmically from the algebraic invariant.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , June 2014 , pp. 938 - 985
Copyright
©2013 Cambridge University Press 

References

[1]Aleshin, S. V.. A free group of finite automata. Moscow Univ. Math. Bull. 38(4) (1983), 10–13.Google Scholar
[2]Alexandroff, P.. Über Gestalt und Lage abgeschlossener Mengen beliebiger Dimension. Ann. of Math. (2) 30 (1928–1929), 101–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Bartholdi, L., Grigorchuk, R. and Nekrashevych, V.. From fractal groups to fractal sets. Fractals in Graz 2001. Analysis – Dynamics – Geometry – Stochastics. Eds. Grabner, P. and Woess, W.. Birkhäuser, Basel, 2003, pp. 25–118.Google Scholar
[4]Bass, H. and Lubotzky, A.. Tree Lattices (Progress in Mathematics, 176). Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, MA, 2001, with appendices by H. Bass, L. Carbone, A. Lubotzky, G. Rosenberg and J. Tits.Google Scholar
[5]Bonk, M. and Meyer, D.. Expanding Thurston maps. Preprint, 2010, arXiv:1009.3647v1.Google Scholar
[6]Brady, T.. A partial order on the symmetric group and new K(π,1)’s for the braid groups. Adv. Math. 161(1) (2001), 20–40.Google Scholar
[7]Brauer, W.. Automates topologiques et ensembles reconnaissables. Séminaire M. P. Schützenberger, A. Lentin et M. Nivat, 1969/70: Problèmes Mathématiques de la Théorie des Automates. Secrétariat mathématique, Paris, 1970, Exp. 18, p. 24.Google Scholar
[8]Bridson, M. R. and Haefliger, A.. Metric Spaces of Non-Positive Curvature (Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, 319). Springer, Berlin, 1999.Google Scholar
[9]Bruin, H. and Schleicher, D.. Symbolic dynamics of quadratic polynomials. Report No. 7, Institut Mittag-Leffler, 2001/2002.Google Scholar
[10]Bullett, S.. Dynamics of quadratic correspondences. Nonlinearity 1(1) (1988), 27–50.Google Scholar
[11]Bullett, S.. Dynamics of the arithmetic–geometric mean. Topology 30(2) (1991), 171–190.Google Scholar
[12]Bullett, S.. Critically finite correspondences and subgroups of the modular group. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3) 65(2) (1992), 423–448.Google Scholar
[13]Bullett, S. and Penrose, C.. A gallery of iterated correspondences. Exp. Math. 3(2) (1994), 85–105.Google Scholar
[14]Cannon, J. W., Floyd, W. J. and Parry, W. R.. Finite subdivision rules. Conform. Geom. Dyn. 5 (2001), 153–196 (electronic).Google Scholar
[15]Cannon, J. W., Floyd, W. J. and Parry, W. R.. Constructing subdivision rules from rational maps. Conform. Geom. Dyn. 11 (2007), 128–136 (electronic).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16]Cox, D. A.. The arithmetic–geometric mean of Gauss. Enseign. Math. (2) 30(3–4) (1984), 275–330.Google Scholar
[17]Culler, M. and Vogtmann, K.. Moduli of graphs and automorphisms of free groups. Invent. Math. 84(1) (1986), 91–119.Google Scholar
[18]Douady, A. and Hubbard, J. H.. Étude Dynamiques des Polynômes Complexes (Première Partie) (Publications Mathematiques d’Orsay, 02). Université de Paris-Sud, 1984.Google Scholar
[19]Douady, A. and Hubbard, J. H.. Étude Dynamiques des Polynômes Complexes (Deuxième Partie) (Publications Mathematiques d’Orsay, 04) Université de Paris-Sud, 1985.Google Scholar
[20]Douady, A. and Hubbard, J. H.. A proof of Thurston’s topological characterization of rational functions. Acta Math. 171(2) (1993), 263–297.Google Scholar
[21]Eilenberg, S.. Automata, Languages and Machines. Vol. A. Academic Press, New York, 1974.Google Scholar
[22]Fried, D. L.. Finitely presented dynamical systems. Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. 7 (1987), 489–507.Google Scholar
[23]Glasner, Y. and Mozes, S.. Automata and square complexes. Geom. Dedicata 111 (2005), 43–64.Google Scholar
[24]Grigorchuk, R. I., Nekrashevich, V. V. and Sushchanskii, V. I.. Automata, dynamical systems and groups. Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. 231 (2000), 128–203.Google Scholar
[25]Gromov, M.. Hyperbolic groups. Essays in Group Theory (Mathematical Sciences Research Institute Publications, 8). Ed. Gersten, S. M.. Springer, 1987, pp. 75–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[26]Ishii, Y. and Smillie, J.. Homotopy shadowing. Amer. J. Math. 132(4) (2010), 987–1029.Google Scholar
[27]Jeandel, E.. Topological automata. Theory Comput. Syst. 40(4) (2007), 397–407.Google Scholar
[28]Kaimanovich, V. A. and Lyubich, M.. Conformal and harmonic measures on laminations associated with rational maps. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 173(820) (2005), vi+119.Google Scholar
[29]Katsura, T.. A class of C*-algebras generalizing both graph algebras and homeomorphism C*-algebras. I. Fundamental results. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 356(11) (2004), 4287–4322 (electronic).Google Scholar
[30]Katsura, T.. A class of C*-algebras generalizing both graph algebras and homeomorphism C*-algebras. II. Examples. Internat. J. Math. 17(7) (2006), 791–833.Google Scholar
[31]Katsura, T.. A class of C*-algebras generalizing both graph algebras and homeomorphism C*-algebras. III. Ideal structures. Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. 26(6) (2006), 1805–1854.Google Scholar
[32]Katsura, T.. A class of C*-algebras generalizing both graph algebras and homeomorphism C*-algebras. IV. Pure infiniteness. J. Funct. Anal. 254(5) (2008), 1161–1187.Google Scholar
[33]Koch, S.. Teichmüller theory and endomorphisms of ℙn. PhD Thesis, Université de Provence, 2007.Google Scholar
[34]Lubotzky, A., Mozes, S. and Zimmer, R. J.. Superrigidity for the commensurability group of tree lattices. Comment. Math. Helv. 69 (1994), 523–548.Google Scholar
[35]Lyubich, M. and Minsky, Y.. Laminations in holomorphic dynamics. J. Differential Geom. 47(1) (1997), 17–94.Google Scholar
[36]Macedońska, O., Nekrashevych, V. V. and Sushchansky, V. I.. Commensurators of groups and reversible automata. Dopov. Nats. Akad. Nauk Ukr. Mat. Pryr. Tekh. Nauky 12 (2000), 36–39.Google Scholar
[37]Nekrashevych, V.. Self-similar Groups (Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 117). American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2005.Google Scholar
[38]Nekrashevych, V.. Symbolic dynamics and self-similar groups. Holomorphic Dynamics and Renormalization. A Volume in Honour of John Milnor’s 75th Birthday (Fields Institute Communications, 53). Eds. Lyubich, M. and Yampolsky, M.. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2008, pp. 25–73.Google Scholar
[39]Nekrashevych, V.. Iterated monodromy groups. Groups St. Andrews in Bath. Vol. 1 (London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, 387). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011, pp. 41–93.Google Scholar
[40]Shub, M.. Endomorphisms of compact differentiable manifolds. Amer. J. Math. 91 (1969), 175–199.Google Scholar
[41]Shub, M.. Expanding maps. Global Analysis (Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, 14). American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1970, pp. 273–276.Google Scholar
[42]Spanier, E. H.. Algebraic Topology. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1966.Google Scholar
[43]Vorobets, M. and Vorobets, Y.. On a free group of transformations defined by an automaton. Geom. Dedicata 124(1) (2007), 237–249.Google Scholar