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

On the boundary of the central quadratic
hyperbolic component 1112010 Mathematics Subject Classification: 37F10, 37F20

Guizhen Cui The first author is supported by National Key R&D Program of China No. 2021YFA1003203, and the NSFC Grant Nos. 12131016 and 12071303.    Wenjuan Peng The second author is supported by the NSFC Grant Nos. 12122117, 12271115 and 12288201.
(April 10, 2025)
Abstract

We give a concrete description for the boundary of the central quadratic hyperbolic component. The connectedness of the Julia sets of the boundary maps are also considered.

1 Introduction

Let d{\mathcal{M}}_{d} denote the complex orbifold of holomorphic conjugate classes of rational maps of degree d2d\geq 2. A rational map is hyperbolic if the orbit of every critical point converges to attracting (or super-attracting) periodic cycles under iteration. Hyperbolic maps form an open subset of d{\mathcal{M}}_{d} and conjecturally they are dense in d{\mathcal{M}}_{d} [7]. A connected component of this open subset is called a hyperbolic component. Any two maps in the same hyperbolic component are quasiconformally conjugate in a neighborhood of their Julia sets [7].

The hyperbolic components of quadratic rational maps have been intensively studied and fruitful results have been obtained. For example, Rees [9] gave a classification of the hyperbolic components (see also [5]), and proved the boundedness of certain one real dimension loci in hyperbolic components. Epstein [4] provided a boundedness result for a hyperbolic component of quadratic rational maps possessing two distinct attracting cycles. The closure of the set of quadratic rational maps having a degenerate parabolic fixed point was investigated by Buff-Écalle-Epstein in [2].

In this work, we consider the boundary of the hyperbolic component 𝐇{\mathbf{H}} in 2{\mathcal{M}}_{2} containing zz2z\mapsto z^{2}, which is called the central quadratic hyperbolic component. Every rational map in 𝐇{\mathbf{H}} has two fixed attracting (or super-attracting) points and its Julia set is a quasicircle.

Each quadratic rational map has exactly three fixed points (counting the multiplicity). Let λ1,λ2,λ3\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2},\lambda_{3} be the eigenvalues at fixed points. These three eigenvalues determine the quadratic rational map up to holomorphic conjugacy ([5, Lemma 3.1]). If the three fixed points are distinct, then by the Rational Fixed Point Theorem ([6, Theorem 12.4]), we have

11λ1+11λ2+11λ3=1.\displaystyle\frac{1}{1-\lambda_{1}}+\frac{1}{1-\lambda_{2}}+\frac{1}{1-\lambda_{3}}=1. (1)

If a quadratic rational map has at least two distinct fixed points, conjugating the map by a Möbius transformation if necessary, we may assume that 0 and \infty are the two fixed points and the eigenvalues at them are λ1\lambda_{1} and λ2\lambda_{2} respectively. Thus the holomorphic conjugacy class of the map can be represented by

fλ1,λ2(z)=λ1z+z2λ2z+1f_{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}}(z)=\frac{\lambda_{1}z+z^{2}}{\lambda_{2}z+1}

with λ1λ21\lambda_{1}\lambda_{2}\neq 1. Note that fλ1,λ2f_{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}} is holomorphically conjugated to fλ2,λ1f_{\lambda_{2},\lambda_{1}}. Therefore the central quadratic hyperbolic component can be expressed by

𝐇={[fλ1,λ2]:(λ1,λ2)𝔻×𝔻},{\mathbf{H}}=\{[f_{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}}]:\,(\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2})\in\mbox{$\mathbb{D}$}\times\mbox{$\mathbb{D}$}\},

where 𝔻\mathbb{D} denotes the unit disk.

Recall that

Per1(1)\displaystyle\mathrm{Per}_{1}(1) =\displaystyle= {[f]2:fhas a fixed point with eigenvalue 1} and\displaystyle\{[f]\in{\mathcal{M}}_{2}:\,f\ \text{has a fixed point with eigenvalue 1}\}\text{ and}
𝐌1\displaystyle\mathbf{M}_{1} =\displaystyle= {[f]Per1(1):J(f)is connected},\displaystyle\{[f]\in\mathrm{Per}_{1}(1):\,J(f)\ \text{is connected}\},

where J(f)J(f) denotes the Julia set of ff. One may refer to [1, 5, 8] for more properties about 𝐌1\mathbf{M}_{1}, see Figure 1 for a picture of 𝐌1{\mathbf{M}}_{1} parameterized by the eigenvalue of the other fixed point.

Refer to caption
Figure 1: A picture of 𝐌1{\mathbf{M}}_{1}

Denote

𝐁0\displaystyle{\mathbf{B}}_{0} =\displaystyle= {[fλ1,λ2]:(λ1,λ2)𝔻¯×𝔻, but λ11,λ21 and λ1λ21},\displaystyle\{[f_{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}}]:\,(\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2})\in\overline{\mbox{$\mathbb{D}$}}\times\partial\mbox{$\mathbb{D}$},\text{ but }\lambda_{1}\neq 1,\lambda_{2}\neq 1\text{ and }\lambda_{1}\lambda_{2}\neq 1\},
𝐁1\displaystyle{\mathbf{B}}_{1} =\displaystyle= {[f1,λ]:λ𝔻¯\{1}},\displaystyle\{[f_{1,\lambda}]:\,\lambda\in\overline{\mbox{$\mathbb{D}$}}{\backslash}\{1\}\},
𝐁2\displaystyle{\mathbf{B}}_{2} =\displaystyle= {[f1,λ]:Reλ>1}.\displaystyle\{[f_{1,\lambda}]:\,\mathrm{Re}\,\lambda>1\}.

From the definitions, we easily make the following deductions.

  • (a)

    Obviously, 𝐁0{\mathbf{B}}_{0}, 𝐁1{\mathbf{B}}_{1} and 𝐁2{\mathbf{B}}_{2} are pairwise disjoint.

    For any [g]𝐁0𝐁1[g]\in{\mathbf{B}}_{0}\cup{\mathbf{B}}_{1}, either gg has three distinct fixed points or gg has no repelling fixed points. Note that

    𝐁¯2={[f1,λ]:Reλ1 but λ1}{[R]},\overline{{\mathbf{B}}}_{2}=\{[f_{1,\lambda}]:\,\mathrm{Re}\,\lambda\geq 1\text{ but }\lambda\neq 1\}\cup\{[R]\},

    where R(z)=z+1/zR(z)=z+1/z. So for any [g]𝐁¯2[g]\in\overline{{\mathbf{B}}}_{2}, either gg has exactly two fixed points and one of them is repelling, or gg has a unique fixed point. Thus (𝐁0𝐁1)𝐁¯2=({\mathbf{B}}_{0}\cup{\mathbf{B}}_{1})\cap\overline{{\mathbf{B}}}_{2}=\emptyset.

  • (b)

    It is clear that 𝐁0Per1(1)={\mathbf{B}}_{0}\cap\mathrm{Per}_{1}(1)=\emptyset and 𝐁1𝐁¯2Per1(1){\mathbf{B}}_{1}\cup\overline{{\mathbf{B}}}_{2}\subset\mathrm{Per}_{1}(1).

  • (c)

    By [5, Lemma 8.2], for any [f]2[f]\in{\mathcal{M}}_{2}, either J(f)J(f) is connected or J(f)J(f) is a Cantor set. In the latter case, both critical orbits of ff converge to an attracting or a parabolic fixed point. If [g]𝐁0𝐁1[g]\in{\mathbf{B}}_{0}\cup{\mathbf{B}}_{1}, then gg has two distinct non-repelling fixed points. Thus J(g)J(g) is connected. Actually, 𝐁1{[R]}{\mathbf{B}}_{1}\cup\{[R]\} is the closure of the central component of the interior of 𝐌1{\mathbf{M}}_{1}.

Our main result is the following.

Theorem 1.1.

The following statements hold:

  • (1)

    𝐇=𝐁0𝐁1𝐁¯2\partial{\mathbf{H}}={\mathbf{B}}_{0}\cup{\mathbf{B}}_{1}\cup\overline{{\mathbf{B}}}_{2};

  • (2)

    𝐁2𝐌1={\mathbf{B}}_{2}\cap\mathbf{M}_{1}=\emptyset;

  • (3)

    𝐇(Per1(1)\𝐌1)Per1(1)\𝐌1\partial{\mathbf{H}}\cap(\mathrm{Per}_{1}(1){\backslash}\mathbf{M}_{1})\neq\mathrm{Per}_{1}(1){\backslash}\mathbf{M}_{1}.

Remark. 1. We highly appreciate that the referee makes us aware of Buff-Epstein’s example which illustrates that

𝐌1{λ:|λ+1|2},{\mathbf{M}}_{1}\subset\{\lambda\in\mbox{$\mathbb{C}$}:\,|\lambda+1|\leq 2\},

where 𝐌1{\mathbf{M}}_{1} is parameterized by the eigenvalue of the other fixed point. Refer to [1, pp. 272: Example]. Theorem 1.1 (2) could be obtained directly by their illustration, and moreover, one could conclude that

𝐁¯2𝐌1={[R]}\overline{{\mathbf{B}}}_{2}\cap{\mathbf{M}}_{1}=\{[R]\}

from their example.

In Section 3, we exploit twist surgery to prove

𝐁2𝐇(Per1(1)\𝐌1),{\mathbf{B}}_{2}\subset\partial{\mathbf{H}}\cap(\mathrm{Per}_{1}(1){\backslash}\mathbf{M}_{1}),

which is the main part of this work.

To prove Theorem 1.1 (3), we discuss the boundedness of 𝐌1{\mathbf{M}}_{1} in Section 4 and give a bound on 𝐌1{\mathbf{M}}_{1} in Lemma 4.1. The bound given by Buff-Epstein is stronger than Lemma 4.1. We would like to point out that, compared to their result, Lemma 4.1 is obtained by quite simple and elementary computations. For self-containedness, we include Lemma 4.1 in this article.

Obviously, 𝐇Per1(1)=𝐁1𝐁¯2\partial{\mathbf{H}}\cap\mathrm{Per}_{1}(1)={\mathbf{B}}_{1}\cup\overline{{\mathbf{B}}}_{2} by Theorem 1.1 (1).

2. One typical way to produce boundary maps of hyperbolic components is pinching. It is proved in [3] that under certain conditions, the pinching path {ft}\{f_{t}\} starting from a geometrically finite rational map ff converges uniformly to a geometrically finite rational map gg, and the quasiconformal conjugacy from ff to ftf_{t} converges uniformly to a semi-conjugacy from ff to gg. Moreover, M[g,J]M[f,J]M[g,J]\subset\partial M[f,J], where M[f,J]dM[f,J]\subset{\mathcal{M}}_{d} is defined as [h]M[f,J][h]\in M[f,J] if hh is quasiconformally conjugate to ff in a neighborhood of the Julia sets.

It turns out that any geometrically finite rational map gg with [g]𝐁0𝐁1[g]\in{\mathbf{B}}_{0}\cup{\mathbf{B}}_{1} is the limit of a pinching path starting from a rational map in 𝐇{\mathbf{H}}. By Theorem 1.1 (2), if [g]𝐁2[g]\in{\mathbf{B}}_{2}, then J(g)J(g) is disconnected. Thus it can not be obtained by pinching from 𝐇{\mathbf{H}}.

It is obvious that 𝐇=M[f,J]{\mathbf{H}}=M[f,J] for any [f]𝐇[f]\in{\mathbf{H}}; and Per1(1)\𝐌1=M[g,J]\mathrm{Per}_{1}(1){\backslash}\mathbf{M}_{1}=M[g,J] for any [g]Per1(1)\𝐌1[g]\in\mathrm{Per}_{1}(1){\backslash}\mathbf{M}_{1} ([7]). By Theorem 1.1 (3), for [g]𝐁2[g]\in{\mathbf{B}}_{2}, [g]M[f,J][g]\in\partial M[f,J] but M[g,J]M[g,J] is not contained in M[f,J]\partial M[f,J].

2 A direct description of 𝐇\partial{\mathbf{H}}

In this section, we give a direct description of the boundary 𝐇\partial{\mathbf{H}} by a basic discussion.

Lemma 2.1.

For any [fλ1,λ2]𝐇[f_{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}}]\in{\mathbf{H}}, let λ3\lambda_{3} be the eigenvalue of fλ1,λ2f_{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}} at the unique repelling fixed point. Then Reλ3>1\mathrm{Re}\,\lambda_{3}>1.

Proof.

Let γ(z)=1/(1z)\gamma(z)=1/(1-z). Then γ\gamma maps 𝔻\mathbb{D} onto {w:Rew>1/2}\{w\in\mbox{$\mathbb{C}$}:\,\mathrm{Re}\,w>1/2\}. Combining with the equation (1), we have

Re(111λ3)=Re(11λ1+11λ2)>1.\mathrm{Re}\left(1-\frac{1}{1-\lambda_{3}}\right)=\mathrm{Re}\left(\frac{1}{1-\lambda_{1}}+\frac{1}{1-\lambda_{2}}\right)>1.

So Re(1/(1λ3))<0\mathrm{Re}\leavevmode\nobreak\ (1/(1-\lambda_{3}))<0 and hence Reλ3>1\text{Re}\,\lambda_{3}>1. ∎

Lemma 2.2.

Let fnf_{n} be quadratic rational maps with eigenvalues λ1(fn),λ2(fn),λ3(fn)\lambda_{1}(f_{n}),\lambda_{2}(f_{n}),\lambda_{3}(f_{n}) at the fixed points. Then {[fn]}\{[f_{n}]\} converges to [g][g] in 2{\mathcal{M}}_{2} if and only if by a suitable ordering, ((λ1(fn),λ2(fn),λ3(fn))((\lambda_{1}(f_{n}),\lambda_{2}(f_{n}),\lambda_{3}(f_{n})) converges to (λ1,λ2,λ3)(\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2},\lambda_{3}) in 3\mbox{$\mathbb{C}$}^{3}, where λ1,λ2,λ3\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2},\lambda_{3} are the eigenvalues of gg at the fixed points.

Proof.

Assume that [fn][f_{n}] converges to [g][g] in 2{\mathcal{M}}_{2}. Since gg always has a fixed point with non-zero eigenvalue, we may represent [g][g] by

g(z)=λ1z+B+1/z,g(z)=\lambda_{1}z+B+1/z,

with λ10\lambda_{1}\neq 0. Note that gg is holomorphically conjugate to zλ1zB+1/zz\mapsto\lambda_{1}z-B+1/z.

As n>0n>0 is large enough, λ1(fn)0\lambda_{1}(f_{n})\neq 0. So [fn][f_{n}] can also be represented by

fn(z)=λ1(fn)z+Bn+1/z.f_{n}(z)=\lambda_{1}(f_{n})z+B_{n}+1/z.

Consequently, {Bn2}\{B_{n}^{2}\} converges to B2B^{2} as nn\to\infty.

The eigenvalues of the other two fixed points of fnf_{n} are

1Bn22±BnBn24[λ1(fn)1].1-\frac{B_{n}^{2}}{2}\pm B_{n}\sqrt{\frac{B_{n}^{2}}{4}-[\lambda_{1}(f_{n})-1]}. (2)

Thus (λ2(fn),λ3(fn))(\lambda_{2}(f_{n}),\lambda_{3}(f_{n})) converges to (λ2,λ3)(\lambda_{2},\lambda_{3}) since {Bn2}\{B_{n}^{2}\} converges to B2B^{2}.

Conversely, assume ((λ1(fn),λ2(fn),λ3(fn))((\lambda_{1}(f_{n}),\lambda_{2}(f_{n}),\lambda_{3}(f_{n})) converges to (λ1,λ2,λ3)(\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2},\lambda_{3}) in 3\mbox{$\mathbb{C}$}^{3}. Then at least one of them, say λ1\lambda_{1} is non-zero. Thus as n>0n>0 is large enough, λ1(fn)0\lambda_{1}(f_{n})\neq 0. As above, [fn][f_{n}] can also be represented by fn(z)=λ1(fn)z+Bn+1/zf_{n}(z)=\lambda_{1}(f_{n})z+B_{n}+1/z. By equation (2), we have

λ2(fn)+λ3(fn)=2Bn2.\lambda_{2}(f_{n})+\lambda_{3}(f_{n})=2-B_{n}^{2}.

From the condition ((λ1(fn),λ2(fn),λ3(fn))((\lambda_{1}(f_{n}),\lambda_{2}(f_{n}),\lambda_{3}(f_{n})) converges to (λ1,λ2,λ3)(\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2},\lambda_{3}) in 3\mbox{$\mathbb{C}$}^{3}, we obtain {Bn2}\{B_{n}^{2}\} converges to B2B^{2}. This yields that {[fn]}\{[f_{n}]\} is convergent in 2{\mathcal{M}}_{2}. ∎

The reader may also refer to [5, Section 3] or [4, Lemma 3] for the above lemma. The statement here is slightly different from them.

Lemma 2.3.

The following statements hold:

  • (i)

    𝐇𝐁0𝐁1𝐁¯2\partial{\mathbf{H}}\subset{\mathbf{B}}_{0}\cup{\mathbf{B}}_{1}\cup\overline{{\mathbf{B}}}_{2};

  • (ii)

    𝐁0𝐁1𝐇{\mathbf{B}}_{0}\cup{\mathbf{B}}_{1}\subset\partial{\mathbf{H}}.

Proof.

(i) Assume that [g]𝐇[g]\in\partial{\mathbf{H}}. Then there is a sequence {[fn]}\{[f_{n}]\} in 𝐇{\mathbf{H}} which converges to [g][g]. Let λj(fn)\lambda_{j}(f_{n}) (j=1,2,3j=1,2,3) be the eigenvalues of fnf_{n} at the three fixed points with |λ3(fn)|>1|\lambda_{3}(f_{n})|>1. Then (λ1(fn),λ2(fn),λ3(fn))(\lambda_{1}(f_{n}),\lambda_{2}(f_{n}),\lambda_{3}(f_{n})) converges to (λ1,λ2,λ3)(\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2},\lambda_{3}) in 3\mbox{$\mathbb{C}$}^{3} by Lemma 2.2.

If λ11\lambda_{1}\neq 1 or λ21\lambda_{2}\neq 1, then the two attracting fixed points of {fn}\{f_{n}\} converge to two distinct fixed points of gg. Moreover λ1λ21\lambda_{1}\lambda_{2}\neq 1. Thus [g]=[fλ1,λ2]𝐁0𝐁1[g]=[f_{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}}]\in{\mathbf{B}}_{0}\cup{\mathbf{B}}_{1}. If λ1=λ2=1\lambda_{1}=\lambda_{2}=1, then Reλ31\mathrm{Re}\,\lambda_{3}\geq 1 by Lemma 2.1. Thus [g]𝐁¯2[g]\in\overline{{\mathbf{B}}}_{2}. Now we have proved 𝐇𝐁0𝐁1𝐁¯2\partial{\mathbf{H}}\subset{\mathbf{B}}_{0}\cup{\mathbf{B}}_{1}\cup\overline{{\mathbf{B}}}_{2}.

(ii) For any [fλ1,λ2]𝐁0𝐁1[f_{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}}]\in{\mathbf{B}}_{0}\cup{\mathbf{B}}_{1}, one can choose a sequence in 𝐇{\mathbf{H}} which converges to [fλ1,λ2][f_{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}}]. Thus 𝐁0𝐁1𝐇{\mathbf{B}}_{0}\cup{\mathbf{B}}_{1}\subset\partial{\mathbf{H}}. ∎

3 Dynamics of maps in 𝐁2{\mathbf{B}}_{2}

In this section, we will apply twist deformation to study the dynamics of maps in 𝐁2{\mathbf{B}}_{2}.

Let [fλ1,λ2]𝐇[f_{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}}]\in{\mathbf{H}} with λ1,λ20\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}\neq 0. Denote by UU the set of points in the Fatou set F(fλ1,λ2)F(f_{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}}) with infinite forward orbits. Then the quotient space U/U/\sim is a disjoint union of two tori T1T_{1} and T2T_{2} under the equivalence relation z1z2z_{1}\sim z_{2} if fn(z1)=fm(z2)f^{n}(z_{1})=f^{m}(z_{2}) for some integers n,m0n,m\geq 0. Denote by π:UU/\pi:U\to U/\sim the natural projection. Then each torus TjT_{j} contains a unique point xjx_{j} such that π(cj)=xj\pi(c_{j})=x_{j}, where c1c_{1} and c2c_{2} are the critical points of fλ1,λ2f_{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}}.

By the Koenigs Linearization Theorem ([6]), for j=1,2j=1,2, there is a conformal map ιj:/ΛjTj\iota_{j}:\,\mbox{$\mathbb{C}$}/\Lambda_{j}\to T_{j}, where Λj\Lambda_{j} is the lattice generated by 2πi2\pi i and ωj\omega_{j} with eωj=λje^{\omega_{j}}=\lambda_{j}, such that for any simple closed curve β/Λj\beta\subset\mbox{$\mathbb{C}$}/\Lambda_{j} corresponding to ζζ+2πi\zeta\mapsto\zeta+2\pi i, each component of π1(ιj(β))\pi^{-1}(\iota_{j}(\beta)) is a Jordan curve in UU if ιj(β)Tj\iota_{j}(\beta)\subset T_{j} is disjoint from the point xjx_{j}.

For j=1,2j=1,2, let γjTj\{xj}\gamma_{j}\subset T_{j}{\backslash}\{x_{j}\} be a simple closed curve such that ιj1(γj)\iota_{j}^{-1}(\gamma_{j}) is homotopic to the curve corresponding to ζζ+ωj\zeta\mapsto\zeta+\omega_{j} in /Λj\mbox{$\mathbb{C}$}/\Lambda_{j}. Then each component of π1(γj)\pi^{-1}(\gamma_{j}) is an open arc. In particular, π1(γj)\pi^{-1}(\gamma_{j}) has a unique component whose endpoints contain the attracting fixed points.

Let τj\tau_{j} be the Dehn twist along γj\gamma_{j}. We will consider the quasiconformal deformation of fλ1,λ2f_{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}} whose projection to T1T2T_{1}\cup T_{2} realizes the repeated Dehn twist τ1nτ2n\tau_{1}^{-n}\circ\tau_{2}^{n}. Such quasiconformal deformation can be defined as follows.

Take an annulus AjTj\{xj}A_{j}\subset T_{j}{\backslash}\{x_{j}\} for j=1,2j=1,2, such that Aj\partial A_{j} consists of two disjoint simple closed curves homotopic to γj\gamma_{j} in Tj\{xj}T_{j}{\backslash}\{x_{j}\}. Let χj\chi_{j} be a conformal map from AjA_{j} onto {z: 1<|z|<rj}\{z:\,1<|z|<r_{j}\}. Define a quasiconformal map Φj\Phi_{j} from {z: 1<|z|<rj}\{z:\,1<|z|<r_{j}\} onto itself by

Φj(reiθ)=rexp[i(θ+(1)j2πlogrlogrj)].\Phi_{j}(re^{i\theta})=r\exp\left[i\left(\theta+(-1)^{j}2\pi\frac{\log r}{\log r_{j}}\right)\right].

Now we define

Φ={χj1Φjχj on Aj,id otherwise.\Phi=\begin{cases}\chi_{j}^{-1}\Phi_{j}\chi_{j}\,&\text{ on }A_{j},\\ \text{id}\,&\text{ otherwise}.\end{cases}

For every n1n\geq 1, let μn\mu_{n} be the Beltrami differential of Φn\Phi^{\circ n}. Let μ~n\widetilde{\mu}_{n} be the pullback of μn\mu_{n} under π\pi, i.e.,

μ~n(z)={μn(π(z))π(z)¯π(z) for zπ1(A1A2),0 otherwise.\widetilde{\mu}_{n}(z)=\begin{cases}\mu_{n}(\pi(z))\frac{\overline{\pi^{\prime}(z)}}{\pi^{\prime}(z)}\,&\text{ for }z\in\pi^{-1}(A_{1}\cup A_{2}),\\ \text{0}\,&\text{ otherwise}.\end{cases}

Then there exists a quasiconformal map ϕn:¯¯\phi_{n}:\overline{\mbox{$\mathbb{C}$}}\to\overline{\mbox{$\mathbb{C}$}} with Beltrami differential μ~n\widetilde{\mu}_{n}. Set fn=ϕnfλ1,λ2ϕn1f_{n}=\phi_{n}\circ f_{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}}\circ\phi_{n}^{-1}. Then fnf_{n} is a rational map. We call {[fn]}\{[f_{n}]\} a twist sequence of fλ1,λ2f_{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}} along (ω1,ω2)(\omega_{1},\omega_{2}).

Theorem 3.1.

The twist sequence {[fn]}\{[f_{n}]\} converges to [f1,λ][f_{1,\lambda}] as nn\to\infty, where λ\lambda satisfies

11λ=1ω1+1ω2,\displaystyle\frac{1}{1-\lambda}=\frac{1}{\omega_{1}}+\frac{1}{\omega_{2}}, (3)

and [f1,λ]𝐁2[f_{1,\lambda}]\in{\mathbf{B}}_{2}. Conversely, any [f]𝐁2[f]\in{\mathbf{B}}_{2} is the limit of a twist sequence in 𝐇{\mathbf{H}}.

Proof.

Denote by λj(fn)\lambda_{j}(f_{n}) (j=1,2j=1,2) the eigenvalues of fnf_{n} at the two attracting fixed points. The quotient space of fnf_{n} is the disjoint union of two tori T1,nT_{1,n} and T2,nT_{2,n}. By the Koenigs Linearization Theorem, for j=1,2j=1,2, Tj,nT_{j,n} is holomorphically isomorphic to /Λj,n\mbox{$\mathbb{C}$}/\Lambda_{j,n}, where Λj,n\Lambda_{j,n} is the lattice generated by 2πi2\pi i and ωj,n\omega_{j,n} with eωj,n=λj(fn)e^{\omega_{j,n}}=\lambda_{j}(f_{n}). Since fnf_{n} is the quasiconformal deformation of fλ1,λ2f_{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}} whose projection to T1T2T_{1}\cup T_{2} realizes the repeated Dehn twist τ1nτ2n\tau_{1}^{-n}\circ\tau_{2}^{n}, we have Tj,nT_{j,n} is also holomorphically isomorphic to /Λ~j,n\mbox{$\mathbb{C}$}/\tilde{\Lambda}_{j,n}, where Λ~j,n\tilde{\Lambda}_{j,n} is the lattice generated by 2πi+(1)jnωj2\pi i+(-1)^{j}n\omega_{j} and ωj\omega_{j}, for j=1,2j=1,2. Thus

2πi+(1)jnωj2πi=ωjωj,n.\frac{2\pi i+(-1)^{j}n\omega_{j}}{2\pi i}=\frac{\omega_{j}}{\omega_{j,n}}.

Equivalently, we have

1ωj,n=1ωj+(1)jn2πi.\frac{1}{\omega_{j,n}}=\frac{1}{\omega_{j}}+\frac{(-1)^{j}n}{2\pi i}.

Thus

1ω1,n+1ω2,n=1ω1+1ω2,\frac{1}{\omega_{1,n}}+\frac{1}{\omega_{2,n}}=\frac{1}{\omega_{1}}+\frac{1}{\omega_{2}},

and ωj,n0\omega_{j,n}\to 0 as nn\to\infty. Note that

limω0(1ω+11eω)=12.\lim_{\omega\to 0}\left(\frac{1}{\omega}+\frac{1}{1-e^{\omega}}\right)=\frac{1}{2}.

Thus

1ω1+1ω2\displaystyle\frac{1}{\omega_{1}}+\frac{1}{\omega_{2}} =\displaystyle= limn(1ω1,n+1ω2,n)\displaystyle\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(\frac{1}{\omega_{1,n}}+\frac{1}{\omega_{2,n}}\right)
=\displaystyle= 1limn(11eω1,n+11eω2,n)\displaystyle 1-\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(\frac{1}{1-e^{\omega_{1,n}}}+\frac{1}{1-e^{\omega_{2,n}}}\right)
=\displaystyle= limn11λ3(fn),\displaystyle\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{1-\lambda_{3}(f_{n})},

where λ3(fn)\lambda_{3}(f_{n}) denotes the eigenvalue of fnf_{n} at the repelling fixed point. Let λ=limnλ3(fn)\lambda=\displaystyle\lim_{n\to\infty}\lambda_{3}(f_{n}). Then the equation (3) holds.

Since (λ1(fn),λ2(fn),λ3(fn))(1,1,λ)(\lambda_{1}(f_{n}),\lambda_{2}(f_{n}),\lambda_{3}(f_{n}))\to(1,1,\lambda), {[fn]}\{[f_{n}]\} converges to [f1,λ][f_{1,\lambda}]. Note that λ1,λ2𝔻\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}\in\mbox{$\mathbb{D}$}. Thus Reωj<0\mathrm{Re}\,\omega_{j}<0 for j=1,2j=1,2. By the equation (3), we have Re 1/(1λ)<0\mathrm{Re}\,1/(1-\lambda)<0. So Reλ>1\mathrm{Re}\,\lambda>1 and hence [f1,λ]𝐁2[f_{1,\lambda}]\in{\mathbf{B}}_{2}.

Conversely, notice that the map

λ(ω1,ω2)=1ω1ω2ω1+ω2\lambda(\omega_{1},\omega_{2})=1-\frac{\omega_{1}\omega_{2}}{\omega_{1}+\omega_{2}}

from {ω1:Reω1<0}×{ω2:Reω2<0}\{\omega_{1}:\,\mathrm{Re}\,\omega_{1}<0\}\times\{\omega_{2}:\,\mathrm{Re}\,\omega_{2}<0\} to {λ:Reλ>1}\{\lambda:\,\mathrm{Re}\,\lambda>1\} is surjective. Thus for any λ\lambda\in\mbox{$\mathbb{C}$} with Reλ>1\mathrm{Re}\,\lambda>1, there exist ω1,ω2\omega_{1},\omega_{2}\in\mbox{$\mathbb{C}$} with Reω1,Reω2<0\mathrm{Re}\,\omega_{1},\mathrm{Re}\,\omega_{2}<0, such that

11λ=1ω1+1ω2.\frac{1}{1-\lambda}=\frac{1}{\omega_{1}}+\frac{1}{\omega_{2}}.

Choose λ1=eω1\lambda_{1}=e^{\omega_{1}} and λ2=eω2\lambda_{2}=e^{\omega_{2}}. Let {[fn]}\{[f_{n}]\} be the twist sequence of fλ1,λ2f_{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}} along (ω1,ω2)(\omega_{1},\omega_{2}). Then {[fn]}\{[f_{n}]\} converges to [f1,λ][f_{1,\lambda}] by previous argument. ∎

Lemma 3.2.

For any [f1,λ]𝐁2[f_{1,\lambda}]\in{\mathbf{B}}_{2}, J(f1,λ)J(f_{1,\lambda}) is a Cantor set.

Proof.

We will exploit the process of the twist deformation as above to study the dynamics of [f1,λ][f_{1,\lambda}]. Denote the two invariant attracting Fatou domains of fλ1,λ2f_{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}} by D1D_{1} and D2D_{2}. Denote Ωj=Dj\π1(A¯j)\Omega_{j}=D_{j}{\backslash}\pi^{-1}(\overline{A}_{j}). Then both Ω1\Omega_{1} and Ω2\Omega_{2} are domains containing a critical orbit by the choice of AjA_{j}. The quasiconformal map ϕn\phi_{n} is conformal in Ω1Ω2\Omega_{1}\cup\Omega_{2} for n1n\geq 1. We normalize ϕn\phi_{n} by fixing the repelling fixed point of fλ1,λ2f_{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}} and two points in the backward orbit of it such that fn=ϕnfλ1,λ2ϕn1f_{n}=\phi_{n}\circ f_{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}}\circ\phi_{n}^{-1} converges uniformly to f1,λf_{1,\lambda}. Since such three points are not contained in Ω1Ω2\Omega_{1}\cup\Omega_{2}, the sequence {ϕn}\{\phi_{n}\} is a normal family in Ω1Ω2\Omega_{1}\cup\Omega_{2}. Thus there exists a subsequence {ϕnk}\{\phi_{n_{k}}\} locally uniformly convergent to a map φ\varphi defined on Ω1Ω2\Omega_{1}\cup\Omega_{2} which is either conformal or a constant. If φ\varphi is a constant in some Ωj\Omega_{j}, then one of the critical point of f1,λf_{1,\lambda} is a fixed point. This is impossible. Thus φ\varphi is conformal in Ω1Ω2\Omega_{1}\cup\Omega_{2} and f1,λ(φ(Ωj))=φ(Ωj)f_{1,\lambda}(\varphi(\Omega_{j}))=\varphi(\Omega_{j}). Therefore φ(Ωj)\varphi(\Omega_{j}) is contained in an invariant Fatou domain of f1,λf_{1,\lambda}. So each of the two critical points of f1,λf_{1,\lambda} lie in an invariant Fatou domain of f1,λf_{1,\lambda}. Note that f1,λf_{1,\lambda} has no attracting fixed points. So both of the critical points lie in the fixed parabolic Fatou domain. Thus J(f1,λ)J(f_{1,\lambda}) is a Cantor set [5, Lemma 8.1]. ∎

Refer to caption
Figure 2: The dynamics near J(hn)J(h_{n})

In order to illustrate the deformation of the dynamics of the twist sequence {fn}\{f_{n}\} and its limit map near the Julia sets, we choose a map [fλ1,λ2]𝐇[f_{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}}]\in{\mathbf{H}} such that λ1=λ¯2\lambda_{1}=\bar{\lambda}_{2}. Then

fλ1,λ2(1/z¯)fλ1,λ2(z)¯1,f_{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}}(1/\bar{z})\cdot\overline{f_{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}}(z)}\equiv 1,

i.e., fλ1,λ2f_{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}} is symmetric about the unit circle and J(fλ1,λ2)J(f_{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}}) is the unit circle.

Since λ1=λ¯2\lambda_{1}=\bar{\lambda}_{2}, we may choose ω1,ω2\omega_{1},\omega_{2} such that eω1=λ1e^{\omega_{1}}=\lambda_{1}, eω2=λ2e^{\omega_{2}}=\lambda_{2} and ω1=ω¯2\omega_{1}=\bar{\omega}_{2}. Let λ1,n,λ2,n\lambda_{1,n},\lambda_{2,n} be the eigenvalues of the attracting fixed points of the twist sequence {[fn]}\{[f_{n}]\} of fλ1,λ2f_{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}} along (ω1,ω2)(\omega_{1},\omega_{2}). Then λ1,n=λ2,n¯\lambda_{1,n}=\overline{\lambda_{2,n}} by the definition of twist deformation. Thus fλ1,n,λ2,nf_{\lambda_{1,n},\lambda_{2,n}} is also symmetric about the unit circle. By making a holomorphic conjugacy, we may choose a representative hn[fn]h_{n}\in[f_{n}] such that hnh_{n} is still symmetric about the unit circle, but the two attracting fixed points of hnh_{n} are |λ1,n|-|\lambda_{1,n}| and 1/|λ1,n|-1/|\lambda_{1,n}|. Then as nn\to\infty, {hn}\{h_{n}\} uniformly converges to a quadratic rational map hh_{\infty}. See Figure 2 for the dynamics of hnh_{n} and Figure 3 for the dynamics of hh_{\infty} near Julia sets.

Refer to caption
Figure 3: The dynamics near J(h)J(h_{\infty})

4 The boundedness of 𝐌1{\mathbf{M}}_{1}

We may parameterize Per1(1)\mathrm{Per}_{1}(1) by its eigenvalue at another fixed point.

Lemma 4.1.

𝐌𝟏{λ:|λ1|9}\mathbf{M_{1}}\subset\{\lambda\in\mbox{$\mathbb{C}$}:\,|\lambda-1|\leq 9\}.

Proof.

Each map in Per1(1)\mathrm{Per}_{1}(1) can be represented by gB(z)=z+B+1/zg_{B}(z)=z+B+1/z with BB\in\mbox{$\mathbb{C}$}. The infinity is a parabolic fixed point of gBg_{B} with eigenvalue 11. When B=0B=0, gB(z)g_{B}(z) has no other else fixed point. Otherwise, 1/B-1/B is the another fixed point of gBg_{B} with eigenvalue 1B21-B^{2}. Thus gBg_{B} is holomorphically conjugate to f1,λf_{1,\lambda} for λ=1B2\lambda=1-B^{2}.

Assume |B|>3|B|>3. From

gB(z)BzB=1+1Bz,\frac{g_{B}(z)}{B}-\frac{z}{B}=1+\frac{1}{Bz},

we see that if |z|>1|z|>1 and Re(z/B)>0\mathrm{Re}\,(z/B)>0, then

Re(gB(z)BzB)=1+Re1Bz>23.\mathrm{Re}\,\left(\frac{g_{B}(z)}{B}-\frac{z}{B}\right)=1+\mathrm{Re}\,\frac{1}{Bz}>\frac{2}{3}.

Thus

|gB(z)B|>RegB(z)B>23+RezB>23,\left|\frac{g_{B}(z)}{B}\right|>\mathrm{Re}\,\frac{g_{B}(z)}{B}>\frac{2}{3}+\mathrm{Re}\,\frac{z}{B}>\frac{2}{3},

and hence |gB(z)|>2|B|/3>1|g_{B}(z)|>2|B|/3>1.

Inductively, we obtain that if |z|>1|z|>1 and Re(z/B)>0\mathrm{Re}\,(z/B)>0, then |gBn(z)|>1|g^{n}_{B}(z)|>1 and Re(gBn(z)/B)>0\mathrm{Re}\,(g_{B}^{n}(z)/B)>0 for all n1n\geq 1. Consequently {gBn(z)}\{g_{B}^{n}(z)\}\to\infty as nn\to\infty.

The critical points of gBg_{B} are located at ±1\pm 1 and the corresponding critical values are v±=B±2v_{\pm}=B\pm 2. Thus when |B|>3|B|>3, we have |v±|>1|v_{\pm}|>1 and

Rev±B=1±Re2B>0.\mathrm{Re}\,\frac{v_{\pm}}{B}=1\pm\mathrm{Re}\frac{2}{B}>0.

Therefore the two critical points of gBg_{B} converges to the infinity. So J(gB)J(g_{B}) is disconnected. Thus if |λ1|=|B2|>9|\lambda-1|=|B^{2}|>9, then J(f1,λ)J(f_{1,\lambda}) is disconnected. Now the lemma is proved. ∎

Proof of Theorem 1.1.

Combining Lemma 2.3, Theorem 3.1 and Lemma 3.2, we derive the statements (1) and (2) in Theorem 1.1.

From (1) and (2), we have 𝐁2𝐇(Per1(1)\𝐌1)𝐁¯2{\mathbf{B}}_{2}\subset\partial{\mathbf{H}}\cap(\mathrm{Per}_{1}(1){\backslash}{\mathbf{M}}_{1})\subset\overline{{\mathbf{B}}}_{2}. Lemma 4.1 shows that 𝐇(Per1(1)\𝐌1)Per1(1)\𝐌1\partial{\mathbf{H}}\cap(\mathrm{Per}_{1}(1){\backslash}{\mathbf{M}}_{1})\neq\mathrm{Per}_{1}(1){\backslash}{\mathbf{M}}_{1}. ∎

Acknowledgements. The authors would like to express the sincere gratitude to the anonymous referee for all the valuable and helpful suggestions and comments.

References

  • [1] X. Buff and A. Epstein, A parabolic Pommerenke-Levin-Yoccoz inequality, Fundamenta Mathematicae, 172 (2002), 249-289.
  • [2] X. Buff, J. Écalle and A. Epstein, Limits of degenerate parabolic quadratic rational maps, Geom. Funct. Anal. 23 (2013), No. 1, 42-95.
  • [3] G. Cui and L. Tan, Hyperbolic-parabolic deformations of rational maps, Sci. China: Math., 61 (2018), No. 12, 2157-2220.
  • [4] A. Epstein, Bounded hyperbolic components of quadratic rational maps, Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 20 (2000), No. 3, 727-748.
  • [5] J. Milnor, Geometry and dynaimcs of quadratic rational maps, With an appendix by the author and Lei Tan, Experiment. Math., 2 (1993), No. 1, 37-83.
  • [6] J. Milnor, Dynamics in One Complex Variable, 3rd edition, Princeton University Press, 2006.
  • [7] R. Mañe, P. Sad and D. Sullivan, On the dynamics of rational maps, Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Sup. 16 (1983), 193-217.
  • [8] C. L. Petersen and P. Roesch, The Parabolic Mandelbrot Set, arXiv:2107.09407v1.
  • [9] M. Rees, Components of degree two hyperbolic rational maps, Invent. Math., 100 (1990), 357-382.

Guizhen Cui
School of Mathematical Sciences,
Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, 518052, P. R. China
and
Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science,
Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100190, P. R. China.
[email protected]

Wenjuan Peng
Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science,
Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, P. R. China.
[email protected]