No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Quasisymmetric conjugacy between quadratic dynamics and iterated function systems
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 November 2009
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 consider linear iterated function systems (IFS) with a constant contraction ratio in the plane for which the ‘overlap set’ 𝒪 is finite, and which are ‘invertible’ on the attractor A, in the sense that there is a continuous surjection q:A→A whose inverse branches are the contractions of the IFS. The overlap set is the critical set in the sense that q is not a local homeomorphism precisely at 𝒪. We suppose also that there is a rational function p with the Julia set J such that (A,q) and (J,p)are conjugate. We prove that if A has bounded turning and p has no parabolic cycles, then the conjugacy is quasisymmetric. This result is applied to some specific examples including an uncountable family. Our main focus is on the family of IFS {λz,λz+1} where λ is a complex parameter in the unit disk, such that its attractor Aλ is a dendrite, which happens whenever 𝒪 is a singleton. C. Bandt observed that a simple modification of such an IFS (without changing the attractor) is invertible and gives rise to a quadratic-like map qλ on Aλ. If the IFS is post-critically finite, then a result of A. Kameyama shows that there is a quadratic map pc (z)=z2 +c, with the Julia set Jc such that (Aλ,qλ)and (Jc,pc)are conjugate. We prove that this conjugacy is quasisymmetric and obtain partial results in the general (not post-critically finite) case.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009
References
[1]Aikawa, H., Lundh, T. and Mizutani, T.. Martin boundary of a fractal domain. Potential Anal. 18(4) (2003), 311–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Bandt, C.. On the Mandelbrot set for pairs of linear maps. Nonlinearity 15 (2002), 1127–1147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Bandt, C. and Keller, K.. Self-similar sets 2. A simple approach to the topological structure of fractals. Math. Nachr. 154 (1991), 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Bandt, C. and Rao, H.. Topology and separation of self-similar fractals in the plane. Nonlinearity 20 (2007), 1463–1474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Barnsley, M. F. and Harrington, A. N.. A Mandelbrot set for pairs of linear maps. Phys. D 15 (1985), 421–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Beaucoup, F., Borwein, P., Boyd, D. W. and Pinner, C.. Multiple roots of [−1,1] power series. J. Lond. Math. Soc. 57 (1998), 135–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Bousch, T.. Connexité locale et par chemins hölderiens pour les systèmes itérés de fonctions. Preprint, 1993, http://topo.math.u-psud.fr/∼bousch.Google Scholar
[8]Bruin, H. and Schleicher, D.. Symbolic dynamics of quadratic polynomials. Institut Mittag–Leffler, Preprint, 2002.Google Scholar
[9]Bruin, H. and Schleicher, D.. Admissibility of kneading sequences and structure of Hubbard trees for quadratic polynomials. Preprint, 2008, arXiv:0801.4662v1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Carleson, L., Jones, P. and Yoccoz, J.-Ch.. Julia and John. Bol. Soc. Bras. Mat. 25 (1994), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Devaney, R. L., Rocha, M. M. and Siegmund, S.. Rational maps with generalized Sierpiński gasket Julia sets. Topology Appl. 154 (2007), 11–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Douady, A. and Hubbard, J.. Études dynamiques des polynômes complexes. Publications Mathématiques d’Orsay 84-02 and 85-04, Département de Mathématiques d’Orsay, Université Paris-Sud 11, 1984 and 1985.Google Scholar
[13]Ghamsari, M., Näkki, R. and Väisälä, J.. John disks and extension of maps. Monatsh. Math. 117(1–2) (1994), 63–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14]Haïssinsky, P. and Pilgrim, K.. Coarse expanding conformal dynamics. Astérisque to appear, Preprint, 2006, arXiv: math.DS/0612617.Google Scholar
[15]Hata, M.. On the structure of self-similar sets. Japan J. Appl. Math. 2 (1985), 381–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16]Heinonen, J.. Lectures on Analysis on Metric Spaces. Springer, New York, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17]Hutchinson, J. E.. Fractals and self-similarity. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 30 (1981), 713–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18]Kaffl, A.. On the structure of abstract Hubbard trees and the space of abstract kneading sequences of degree two. Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. 27 (2007), 1215–1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19]Kameyama, A.. Julia sets and self-similar sets. Topology Appl. 54 (1993), 241–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[20]Kameyama, A.. Julia sets of post-critically finite rational maps and topologically self-similar sets. Nonlinearity 13 (2000), 165–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[21]Keller, K.. Invariant factors. Julia Equivalences and the (Abstract) Mandelbrot Set (Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 1732). Springer, Berlin, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[22]McMullen, C. and Sullivan, D.. Quasiconformal homeomorphisms and dynamics. III. The Teichmüller space of a holomorphic dynamical system. Adv. Math. 135 (1998), 351–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[23]Milnor, J.. Dynamics in One Complex Variable (Annals of Mathematics Studies, 160). Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2006.Google Scholar
[26]Przytycki, F. and Rohde, S.. Rigidity of holomorphic Collet–Eckmann repellers. Ark. Mat. 37 (1999), 357–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[27]Solomyak, B.. On the ‘Mandelbrot set’ for pairs of linear maps: asymptotic self-similarity. Nonlinearity 18(5) (2005), 1927–1943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[28]Solomyak, B. and Xu, H.. On the ‘Mandelbrot set’ for a pair of linear maps and complex Bernoulli convolutions. Nonlinearity 16 (2003), 1733–1749.Google Scholar
[29]Tukia, P. and Väisälä, J.. Quasisymmetric embeddings of metric spaces. Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. 5 (1980), 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You have
Access
- 8
- Cited by