This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

\marginsize

3.6cm3.6cm3.6cm3.6cm

Jordan mating is always possible for polynomials

Gaofei Zhang Department of Mathematics, QuFu Normal University, Qufu 273165, P. R. China [email protected]
Abstract.

Suppose ff and gg are two post-critically finite polynomials of degree d1d_{1} and d2d_{2} respectively and suppose both of them have a finite super-attracting fixed point of degree d0d_{0}. We prove that one can always construct a rational map RR of degree

D=d1+d2d0D=d_{1}+d_{2}-d_{0}

by gluing ff and gg along the Jordan curve boundaries of the immediate super-attracting basins. The result can be used to construct many rational maps with interesting dynamics.

Key words and phrases:
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary: 37F45; Secondary: 37F10, 37F30

1. Introduction

Polynomial mating was an operation proposed by Douady and Hubbard to understand the dynamics of rational maps. Very roughly speaking, for two post-critically finite polynomials PP and QQ of degree d2d\geq 2 with both the Julia sets being connected, we may glue ff and gg along the Julia sets to get a topological map FF. We say ff and gg are matable if FF is a branched covering map of the two sphere to itself, and moreover, FF is topologically conjugate to some rational map. Noting that the Julia set is the boundary of the immediate super-attracting basin of the infinity, the idea can be naturally extended to the situation of rational maps. Suppose ff and gg are two post-critically finite rational maps both of which have a simply connected immediate super-attracting basin of degree d02d_{0}\geq 2 such that there are no other critical orbits which intersect the immediate basins. Then one may construct a topological map by gluing ff and gg along the attracting basin boundaries and then copy this gluing for all the pre-images of the attracting basins. As in the case of polynomial mating, we say ff and gg are matable if FF is a branched covering of the two sphere to itself, and moreover, FF is topologically conjugate to some rational map GG.

A particularly important case is that both the super-attracting basins are Jordan domains (Noting that all bounded immediate attracting basins of polynomials are Jordan domain [4]). In this case, no pinching happens when gluing ff and gg along the Jordan boundary and the topological map is always a branched covering of the two sphere to itself. Let us describe this topological construction as follows. Let DfD_{f} and DgD_{g} denote the two Jordan super-attracting basins and Dfc,DgcD_{f}^{c},D_{g}^{c} be there complements respectively. Let ϕ:DfΔ\phi:D_{f}\to\Delta and ψ:DgΔ\psi:D_{g}\to\Delta be the holomorphic isomorphism which conjugate ff and gg to zzd0z\mapsto z^{d_{0}}. Then for each 1kd011\leq k\leq d_{0}-1,

(1.1) Φ=ϕ1(e2kπi/(d1)ψ):DgDf\Phi=\phi^{-1}\bigg{(}\frac{e^{2k\pi i/(d-1)}}{\psi}\bigg{)}:\partial D_{g}\to\partial D_{f}

is a homeomorphism which reverses the orientation. We can extend it to a homeomorphism of the sphere so that it maps Dg¯\overline{D_{g}} to DfcD_{f}^{c} and maps DgcD_{g}^{c} to Df¯\overline{D_{f}}. Now we glue DgcD_{g}^{c} and DfcD_{f}^{c} by identifying the points xx and Φ(x)\Phi(x). It is clear that DgcxΦ(x)DfcD_{g}^{c}\bigsqcup_{x\sim\Phi(x)}D_{f}^{c} is a topological two sphere. Define

F:DgcxΦ(x)DfcDgcxΦ(x)DfcF:D_{g}^{c}\bigsqcup_{x\sim\Phi(x)}D_{f}^{c}\to D_{g}^{c}\bigsqcup_{x\sim\Phi(x)}D_{f}^{c}

by setting

(1.2) F(z)={f(z) for zDfc and f(z)Dfc,Φ1f(z) for zDfc and f(z)Df,g(z) for zDgc and f(z)Dgc,Φg(z) for zDgc and f(z)Dg.F(z)=\begin{cases}f(z)&\text{ for $z\in D_{f}^{c}$ and $f(z)\in D_{f}^{c}$},\\ \Phi^{-1}\circ f(z)&\text{ for $z\in D_{f}^{c}$ and $f(z)\in D_{f}$},\\ g(z)&\text{ for $z\in D_{g}^{c}$ and $f(z)\in D_{g}^{c}$},\\ \Phi\circ g(z)&\text{ for $z\in D_{g}^{c}$ and $f(z)\in D_{g}$}.\end{cases}

Since by assumption no other critical orbits of ff and gg enter into DfD_{f} and DgD_{g} respectively, the way of extending Φ:DgDf\Phi:\partial D_{g}\to\partial D_{f} dose not affect the combinatorially equivalent class of FF. In the case that FF has no Thurston obstruction, we have a rational map GG which is combinatorially equivalent to FF (One can actually prove that GG is topologically conjugate to FF). Unlike the usual mating, whose Julia sets is the disjoint union of JfJ_{f} and JgJ_{g} with those points in a ray equivalent class being identified, the Julia set of GG contains infinitely many copies of JfJ_{f} and JgJ_{g}. To get JGJ_{G}, one may start from JgxΦ(x)JfJ_{g}\bigsqcup_{x\sim\Phi(x)}J_{f}, and then iteratively fill the pre-images of DfD_{f} and DgD_{g} by copies of JgJ_{g} and JfJ_{f} respectively. To make a distinction with the usual mating, we call such mating a Jordan mating.

In contrast to the usual mating, for which there exist cubic polynomials which are topologically matable but not matable [6], Jordan mating is always possible for two polynomials. We will actually prove a stronger result.

Definition.

For d02d_{0}\geq 2, let d0\mathcal{R}_{d_{0}} denote the family of all post-critically finite rational maps which have a marked immediate super-attracting basin DD which is a Jordan domain and of degree d0d_{0} such that all the other critical orbits do not intersect DD.

Main Theorem.

Let d02d_{0}\geq 2. Suppose f,gd0f,g\in\mathcal{R}_{d_{0}} such that at least one of them is a polynomial. Then ff and gg can be mated into a rational map RR of degree

D=d1+d2d0D=d_{1}+d_{2}-d_{0}

with d1d_{1} and d2d_{2} being the degrees of ff and gg respectively. In particular, Jordan mating is always possible for polynomials.

Since the topological map FF in our case is always a branched covering of the sphere to itself, all we need to do is to show that FF has no Thurston obstructions. up to now there is no general way to check if a given topological map has Thurston obstructions or not, although many tools and ideas haven been developed[1][3][6][7][8]. The idea of our proof is to associate each non-peripheral curve a quantity which is monotonically increasing as we iterate the topological map. This property will lead us to get a Levy cycle from an irreducible Thurston obstruction. We then show that such a Levy cycle can be deformed into a Levy cycle of the rational map gg, which is a contradiction. Our argument relies essentially on the assumption that one of the two rational maps is a polynomial.

Question 1.

Is the Jordan mating always possible for rational maps in d0\mathcal{R}_{d_{0}}?

2. Examples

In this section we give two examples of Jordan mating. Let ff be a cubic polynomial which has a degree two super-attracting fixed point at the origin so that the other finite critical point cc belongs to the boundary of the super-attracting basin, and moreover, f2(c)=f(c)f^{2}(c)=f(c). Let gg be a cubic polynomial which has a a degree two super-attracting fixed point at the origin so that the other finite critical point cc belongs to the boundary of the super-attracting basin, and moreover, g3(c)=g2(c)g(c)g^{3}(c)=g^{2}(c)\neq g(c). Let hh be a post-critically finite cubic rational map so that it has a degree two super-attracting fixed point at \infty and the Julia set is a Sierpinski carpet.

Refer to caption
Figure 1. The Julia set for ff
Refer to caption
Figure 2. The Julia set for gg
Refer to caption
Figure 3. The Julia set for hh
Refer to caption
Figure 4. Jordan mating of ff and gg
Refer to caption
Figure 5. Jordan mating of ff and hh

3. Proof of the main theorem

The reader may refer to [2] [5] for the details of the Thurston’s theory for characterization of post-critically finite rational maps. Throughout the paper we use ^\widehat{\mathbb{C}}, \mathbb{C}, \mathbb{C}^{*}, 𝕋\mathbb{T} and 𝔻\mathbb{D} to denote the Riemann sphere, the complex plane, the puncture complex plane, the unit circle and the unit disk respectively. Assume that f,gd0f,g\in\mathcal{R}_{d_{0}} with ff being a polynomial. Then there are d01d_{0}-1 ways to glue ff and gg along the boundary of the marked attracting basin, see (1.1). Let FF be one of such topological maps. All we need to do is to show that FF has no Thurston obstructions. We may identify the boundaries of the two marked immediate attracting basins with 𝕋\mathbb{T}. We may assume that F:𝕋𝕋F:\mathbb{T}\to\mathbb{T} is given by zzd0z\mapsto z^{d_{0}}, and up to combinatorial equivalence, F=fF=f outside 𝕋\mathbb{T} and F=gF=g inside 𝕋\mathbb{T}. When a post-critical point xPFx\in P_{F} belongs to the forward orbit of some critical point of ff, we write xPfx\in P_{f}, and similarly, if it belongs to the forward orbit of some critical point of gg, we write xPgx\in P_{g}. In particular, we have

PF=PfPg.P_{F}=P_{f}\cup P_{g}.

Suppose γ\gamma is a non-peripheral curve of FF. In the following we only concern those γ\gamma so that γ𝕋\gamma\cap\mathbb{T}\neq\emptyset. By homotopy rel PFP_{F} we may assume that γ𝕋\gamma\cap\mathbb{T} is a finite set. Then γ𝕋\gamma-\mathbb{T} consists of finitely many curve segments. Let σ\sigma be any of such curve segments. We call σ\sigma of type P (polynomial type) if it is outside 𝕋\mathbb{T}, otherwise, we call it of type R (rational type). Let I𝕋I\subset\mathbb{T} be the arc so that I=σ\partial I=\partial\sigma and II is homotopic to σ\sigma rel σ\partial\sigma in \mathbb{C}^{*}. Let D(σ)D(\sigma) be the union of II and the bounded domain bounded by σ\sigma and II.

Refer to caption
Figure 6. curve segments of polynomial type
Lemma 3.1.

Suppose γ\gamma is non-peripheral curve in ^PF\widehat{\mathbb{C}}-P_{F} and η\eta is a non-peripheral component of F1(γ)F^{-1}(\gamma). Suppose σ\sigma is a type P curve segment of η\eta and xD(σ)PFx\in D(\sigma)\cap P_{F}. Then there is some type P curve segment τ\tau of γ\gamma such that F(x)D(τ)F(x)\in D(\tau).

Proof.

By assumption the orbit of the critical points of FF which belongs to ^𝔻\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\setminus\mathbb{D} does not enter 𝔻\mathbb{D}. So F(x)𝔻F(x)\notin\mathbb{D}. Since the action of FF on the outside of 𝕋\mathbb{T} is given by the polynomial ff, the image of D(σ)D(\sigma) is bounded whose boundaries is a subset of the union of 𝕋\mathbb{T} and finitely many curve segments of type P and R of γ\gamma. Since F(x)𝔻F(x)\notin\mathbb{D}, it follows that there is some type P curve segment τ\tau of γ\gamma so that F(x)D(τ)F(x)\in D(\tau). ∎

For xPfx\in P_{f} and γ\gamma a non-peripheral curve in ^PF\widehat{\mathbb{C}}-P_{F}, let Σx(γ)\Sigma_{x}(\gamma) denote the set of all the type P curve segments σ\sigma of γ\gamma so that xD(σ)x\in D(\sigma). Let N(Σx(γ))N(\Sigma_{x}(\gamma)) denote the number of the elements in Σx(γ)\Sigma_{x}(\gamma). Let

N(Σx([γ]))=minγN(Σx(γ))N(\Sigma_{x}([\gamma]))=\min_{\gamma^{\prime}}N(\Sigma_{x}(\gamma^{\prime}))

where min\min is taken over all non-peripheral curves γ\gamma^{\prime} which are homotopic to γ\gamma in ^PF\widehat{\mathbb{C}}-P_{F}. We need more notations.

  • Let 𝒪\mathcal{O} denote the set of periodic points in PfP_{f}.

  • Let Σ\Sigma denote the class of non-peripheral curves γ\gamma so that there is x𝒪x\in\mathcal{O} with N(Σx([γ]))>0N(\Sigma_{x}([\gamma]))>0 and let Π\Pi denote the class of other non-peripheral curves.

  • Let Λ\Lambda denote the class of non-peripheral curves γ\gamma so that Σx([γ])=0\Sigma_{x}([\gamma])=0 holds for any xPfx\in P_{f}.

Lemma 3.2.

There is some nn large such that for any γΠ\gamma\in\Pi, if η\eta is a non-peripheral component of Fn(γ)F^{-n}(\gamma), then ηΛ\eta\in\Lambda.

Proof.

Since every critical point of ff is eventually periodic, we have an integer n1n\geq 1 such that fn(x)𝒪f^{n}(x)\in\mathcal{O} for all xPfx\in P_{f}. Take an arbitrary γΠ\gamma\in\Pi and let η\eta be a non-peripheral component of Fn(γ)F^{-n}(\gamma). If ηΛ\eta\notin\Lambda, then there would be a type P curve segment of η\eta, say σ\sigma, such that D(σ)PfD(\sigma)\cap P_{f}\neq\emptyset. By applying Lemma 3.1 nn times, we would have some type P curve segment of γ\gamma, say τ\tau, such that D(τ)𝒪D(\tau)\cap\mathcal{O}\neq\emptyset. This implies that γΣ\gamma\in\Sigma which contradicts the assumption that γΠ\gamma\in\Pi.

Now suppose FF has an obstruction. Then by [5] FF has a canonical Thurston, say Γ\Gamma, which consists of all homotopy classes of the non-peripheral curves whose length go to zero as we iterate the Thurston pull back induced by FF. We claim that ΓΛ=\Gamma\cap\Lambda=\emptyset. Let us prove the claim. Suppose ΓΛ\Gamma\cap\Lambda\neq\emptyset. Then ΓΛ\Gamma\cap\Lambda must be FF-stable by Lemma 3.1. Since the length of every curve in ΓΛ\Gamma\cap\Lambda goes to zero as we iterate the Thurston pull back, the transformation matrix associated to ΓΛ\Gamma\cap\Lambda must have an eigenvalue 1\geq 1. By the definition of Λ\Lambda, one can deform the curves in ΓΛ\Gamma\cap\Lambda so that it is a stable family of gg and with the same transformation matrix. This is a contradiction because gg has no obstruction. This, together with Lemma 3.2, implies that ΓΠ=\Gamma\cap\Pi=\emptyset. We thus have

Lemma 3.3.

If there is an obstruction for FF, then there must be one which consists of curves in Σ\Sigma whose length go to zero as we iterate the Thurston pull back induced by FF.

Lemma 3.4.

Let γ\gamma be a non-peripheral curve. Let xPfx\in P_{f}. Then

ηN(Σx(η))N(Σf(x)(γ))\sum_{\eta}N(\Sigma_{x}(\eta))\leq N(\Sigma_{f(x)}(\gamma))

where the sum is taken over all the non-peripheral components of F1(γ)F^{-1}(\gamma). In particular,

ηN(Σx([η]))N(Σf(x)([γ])).\sum_{\eta}N(\Sigma_{x}([\eta]))\leq N(\Sigma_{f(x)}([\gamma])).
Proof.

Let

Σx=ηΣx(η)\Sigma_{x}=\bigcup_{\eta}\Sigma_{x}(\eta)

where the union is taken over all the non-peripheral components of F1(γ)F^{-1}(\gamma). We may introduce an order in Σx\Sigma_{x}: σ<σ\sigma<\sigma^{\prime} if and only if D(σ)D(σ)D(\sigma)\subset D(\sigma^{\prime}). Similarly we introduce an order in Σf(x)(γ)\Sigma_{f(x)}(\gamma) by setting τ<τ\tau<\tau^{\prime} if and only if D(τ)D(τ)D(\tau)\subset D(\tau^{\prime}).

Now for each σΣx\sigma\in\Sigma_{x}, as in the proof of Lemma 3.1, F(σ)𝕋F(\sigma)-\mathbb{T} has at least one component in Σf(x)(γ)\Sigma_{f(x)}(\gamma). Let M(σ)M(\sigma) denote the maximal one among these elements. It is sufficient to show that

σ<σM(σ)<M(σ).\sigma<\sigma^{\prime}\Longrightarrow M(\sigma)<M(\sigma^{\prime}).

But this follows from the polynomial property: as we make D(σ)D(\sigma) larger, the polynomial image of D(σ)D(\sigma) will become larger, and therefore, M(σ)M(\sigma) will become strictly larger. See Figure 7 for an illustration. ∎

Refer to caption
Figure 7. σ<σM(σ)<M(σ)\sigma<\sigma^{\prime}\Longrightarrow M(\sigma)<M(\sigma^{\prime})
Corollary 3.5.

Suppose γ\gamma is a non-peripheral curve and η\eta is a non-peripheral component of F1(γ)F^{-1}(\gamma). Then for any xPfx\in P_{f}, we have

N(Σx([η]))N(Σf(x)([γ]))N(\Sigma_{x}([\eta]))\leq N(\Sigma_{f(x)}([\gamma]))

Now let us prove the main theorem. Suppose FF has an obstruction and let Γ\Gamma be an obstruction guaranteed by Lemma 3.3. We may assume that it is an irreducible one. That is, for any γ,ηΓ\gamma,\eta\in\Gamma, there is an n1n\geq 1 such that η\eta is homotopic to a component of fn(γ)f^{-n}(\gamma). Now let us prove Γ\Gamma is a Levy cycle.

Claim: for each γΓ\gamma\in\Gamma, there exists exactly one non-peripheral component of F1(γ)F^{-1}(\gamma). Suppose this were not true. Then we would have two non-peripheral components γ1η1\gamma_{1}\neq\eta_{1} of F1(γ)F^{-1}(\gamma) and two sequence:

(3.1) γ=γ0γ1γ2γlγl+1=γ\gamma=\gamma_{0}\to\gamma_{1}\to\gamma_{2}\to\cdots\to\gamma_{l}\to\gamma_{l+1}=\gamma

and

(3.2) γ=η0η1η2ηkηk+1=γ,\gamma=\eta_{0}\to\eta_{1}\to\eta_{2}\to\cdots\to\eta_{k}\to\eta_{k+1}=\gamma,

where γi+1\gamma_{i+1} is homotopic to some component of f1(γi)f^{-1}(\gamma_{i}), 0il+10\leq i\leq l+1, and ηj+1\eta_{j+1} is homotopic to some component of f1(ηj)f^{-1}(\eta_{j}), 0jk0\leq j\leq k. Since γΣ\gamma\in\Sigma, we have some x𝒪x\in\mathcal{O} such that N(Σx([γ]))>0N(\Sigma_{x}([\gamma]))>0. Let y𝒪y\in\mathcal{O} such that x=F(y)x=F(y). Let pp be the period of the xx. Repeating (3.1) pp times,

γ0γ1γ2γlγ0γ0γ1γ2γlγ0\gamma_{0}\to\gamma_{1}\to\gamma_{2}\to\cdots\to\gamma_{l}\to\gamma_{0}\to\cdots\to\gamma_{0}\to\gamma_{1}\to\gamma_{2}\to\cdots\to\gamma_{l}\to\gamma_{0}

Apply Corollary 3.5 to the above sequence, we get

N(Σx([γ])N(Σy([γ1]))N(Σx([γ])),N(\Sigma_{x}([\gamma])\geq N(\Sigma_{y}([\gamma_{1}]))\geq N(\Sigma_{x}([\gamma])),

which implies that

N(Σy([γ1]))=N(Σx([γ])).N(\Sigma_{y}([\gamma_{1}]))=N(\Sigma_{x}([\gamma])).

Similarly, we may repeat (3.2) pp times and then apply Corollary 3.5, we get

N(Σx([γ]))N(Σy([γ1]))N(Σx([γ])),N(\Sigma_{x}([\gamma]))\geq N(\Sigma_{y}([\gamma_{1}]))\geq N(\Sigma_{x}([\gamma])),

which implies that

N(Σy([η1]))=N(Σx([γ])).N(\Sigma_{y}([\eta_{1}]))=N(\Sigma_{x}([\gamma])).

But by Lemma 3.4 and γ1η1\gamma_{1}\neq\eta_{1}, we also have

N(Σx([γ]))N(Σy([γ1]))+N(Σy([η1])).N(\Sigma_{x}([\gamma]))\geq N(\Sigma_{y}([\gamma_{1}]))+N(\Sigma_{y}([\eta_{1}])).

This implies that N(Σx([γ]))=0N(\Sigma_{x}([\gamma]))=0. This contradicts the assumption that Σx([γ])>0\Sigma_{x}([\gamma])>0. The Claim has been proved.

Refer to caption
Figure 8. Two homotopic type P curve segments

Now for any non-peripheral curve γ\gamma, let K(γ)K(\gamma) denote the number of the type P curve segments of γ\gamma and let

K([γ])=minK(η)K([\gamma])=\min K(\eta)

where min\min is taken over all the non-peripheral curves which are homotopic to γ\gamma. From the claim above, it follows that Γ\Gamma must be a Levy cycle for FF. Let Γ={γ1,,γn}\Gamma=\{\gamma_{1},\cdots,\gamma_{n}\} so that

K(γ1)=min1inK([γi])K(\gamma_{1})=\min_{1\leq i\leq n}K([\gamma_{i}])

and for 1in11\leq i\leq n-1, γi+1\gamma_{i+1} is the unique non-peripheral component of F1(γi)F^{-1}(\gamma_{i}). Since the image of a type P curve segment contains at least one type P curve segment, we must have

K(γ1)==K(γn).K(\gamma_{1})=\cdots=K(\gamma_{n}).

So all type P curve segments of γi\gamma_{i}, 1in1\leq i\leq n, are non-trivial in the sense that D(σ)PFD(\sigma)\cap P_{F}\neq\emptyset. So for any type P curve segment σ\sigma of γi+1\gamma_{i+1}, there is a type P curve segment σ\sigma^{\prime} which is homotopic to σ\sigma (Figure 8 illustrates the meaning that two type P curve segments are homotopic), such that σ\sigma^{\prime} is mapped homeomorphically to some type P curve segment τ\tau of γi\gamma_{i}. We thus get a cycle of type P curve segments {σi}\{\sigma_{i}\}, 1im1\leq i\leq m with n|mn|m, such that for each σi\sigma_{i}, there is a type P curve segment μi+1\mu_{i+1} which is homotopic to σi+1\sigma_{i+1} so that F:μi+1σiF:\mu_{i+1}\to\sigma_{i} is a homeomorphism. Since ff is post-critically finite which expands the orbifold metric, it follows that D(σi)D(\sigma_{i}) contains exactly one point in PFP_{F}, say xix_{i}, which lies in Ii=D(σi)𝕋I_{i}=D(\sigma_{i})\cap\mathbb{T}, and moreover, {xi}\{x_{i}\} is a periodic cycle. But one may then deform each D(σi)D(\sigma_{i}) into a small neighborhood of xix_{i}. In this way Γ={γi}\Gamma=\{\gamma_{i}\} becomes into a Levy cycle of gg. This is impossible. The proof of the main theorem is completed.

𝔸𝕔𝕜𝕟𝕠𝕨𝕝𝕖𝕕𝕘𝕖𝕞𝕖𝕟𝕥𝕤.\mathbb{Acknowledgements.} The author would like to thank Fei Yang who provides all the computer generating pictures in the paper.

References

  • [1] B. Bielefeld, Y. Fisher, and J. Hubbard, The classification of critically preperiodic polynomials, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 5 (1992), no. 4, 721–762.
  • [2] A. Douady and J. Hubbard, A proof of Thurston’s topological characterization of rational functions, Acta Math. 171 (1993), no. 2, 263–297.
  • [3] M. Rees, Realization of matings of polynomials as rational maps of degree two, manuscript, 1986.
  • [4] P. Roesch and Y. Yin, The boundary of bounded polynomial Fatou components, C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris 346 (2008), no. 15-16, 877–880.
  • [5] K. Pilgrim, Canonical Thurston obstructions, Adv. Math. 158 (2001), no. 2, 154–168.
  • [6] M. Shishikura and L. Tan, A family of cubic rational maps and matings of cubic polynomials, Experiment. Math. 9 (2000), no. 1, 29–53.
  • [7] L. Tan, Matings of quadratic polynomials, Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 12 (1992), no. 3, 589–620.
  • [8] D. P. Thurston, A positive characterization of rational maps, Ann. Math. 192 (2020), no. 1, 1–46.