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

Quadratic rational maps with a 22-cycle of Siegel disks

Yuming Fu College of Mathematics and Statistics, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518061, P. R. China [email protected] Fei Yang Department of Mathematics, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, P. R. China [email protected]  and  Gaofei Zhang Department of Mathematics, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, P. R. China [email protected]
Abstract.

For the family of quadratic rational functions having a 22-cycle of bounded type Siegel disks, we prove that each of the boundaries of these Siegel disks contains at most one critical point. In the parameter plane, we prove that the locus for which the boundaries of the 22-cycle of Siegel disks contain two critical points is a Jordan curve.

Key words and phrases:
Periodic Siegel disks; parameter space; Thurston equivalent
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary: 37F45; Secondary: 37F10, 37F20

1. Introduction

The hyperbolic components of rational maps have been studied a lot in the past 33 decades, and one important study object is their boundedness. For quadratic rational maps, Rees divided the hyperbolic components into 44 types (see also [Mil93]), and proved the boundedness of certain 11-dimension loci in hyperbolic components [Ree90]. Epstein proved that the hyperbolic component of quadratic rational maps possessing two distinct attracting cycles is bounded if and only if neither attractor is a fixed point [Eps00].

To understand the structures of the hyperbolic component of quadratic rational maps, one usually studies some specific 11-dimensional slices. Some other examples in this direction include [AY09] and [DFGJ14] etc. Moreover, understanding the maps on the boundaries of hyperbolic components is very helpful to grasp the characterizations of the hyperbolic components. See [DeM05] and [DeM07].

As a partial complement of Epstein’s study in [Eps00], a meaningful problem is to consider the quadratic rational maps possessing only one attracting cycle of period 22 for which each of the immediate attracting basin contains exactly one critical point. A natural question is, what will happen if the modulus of the multiplier of the 22-cycle attracting orbit tends to 11? A little bit similar situation has been considered in [BÉE13] for the rationally indifferent case. In this paper, we study the limit parameter slices of irrationally indifferent case and hope that the main results can shed some lights on the study of hyperbolic components of quadratic rational maps.

Let ff be a holomorphic function. A periodic Fatou component UU of ff is called a Siegel disk if there exists a minimal integer p1p\geq 1, such that fp:UUf^{\circ p}:U\to U is conformally conjugate to the irrational rotation Rθ(ζ)=e2πiθζR_{\theta}(\zeta)=e^{2\pi\textup{i}\theta}\zeta for some θ\theta\in\mathbb{R}\setminus\mathbb{Q}. The collection {U,f(U),,f(p1)(U)}\{U,f(U),\cdots,f^{\circ(p-1)}(U)\} is called a pp-cycle of Siegel disks of ff. In particular, UU contains a periodic point z0z_{0} satisfying (fp)(z0)=e2πiθ(f^{\circ p})^{\prime}(z_{0})=e^{2\pi\textup{i}\theta}, which is called a Siegel point. If p=1p=1, then UU is called a fixed Siegel disk and z0z_{0} is a fixed Siegel point.

In the dynamical plane, the topology of the boundaries of Siegel disks has been studied extensively. They are motivated by the prediction of Douady and Sullivan that every Siegel disk of a rational map with degree at least two is a Jordan domain. We refer to [PZ04], [Zak10], [Zha11], [SY21], [Che22] and the references therein for corresponding results.

In the parameter plane, the results relating to the Siegel disks are much less. Zakeri considered the cubic polynomials having a fixed bounded type Siegel disk, and proved that the locus for which the fixed Siegel disk contains the both critical points in the boundary is a Jordan curve [Zak99]. One may refer to [KZ09] and [Yan13] for the similar results in the parameter spaces of some other holomorphic families containing a fixed Siegel disk.

In this paper, we are interested in a special slice in the space of quadratic rational maps, they are maps containing a 22-cycle of bounded type Siegel disks. In some sense, these maps can be seen as the limit maps of the quadratic rational maps containing a 22-cycle of geometrically attracting periodic points as the multiplier tends to the point on the unit circle with irrational angle.

Let θ\theta be an irrational number of bounded type, i.e., the continued fraction expansion θ=[a0;a1,a2,,an,]\theta=[a_{0};a_{1},a_{2},\cdots,a_{n},\cdots] satisfies supn{an}<+\sup_{n}\{a_{n}\}<+\infty. Suppose that ff is a quadratic rational map having a 22-cycle of Siegel disks with rotation number θ\theta. By a direct calculation, ff is conformally conjugate to a map in the following family (see §2):

Σθ:={fα(z)=α1+e2πiθzz+z2:α{0}}.\Sigma_{\theta}:=\left\{f_{\alpha}(z)=\alpha\,\frac{1+e^{2\pi\textup{i}\theta}z}{z+z^{2}}:~{}\alpha\in\mathbb{C}\setminus\{0\}\right\}. (1.1)

On the other hand, one may verify that for any α{0}\alpha\in\mathbb{C}\setminus\{0\}, fαΣθf_{\alpha}\in\Sigma_{\theta} has a 22-cycle of Siegel disks {Δα0,Δα}\{\Delta_{\alpha}^{0},\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}\} which contains the 22-cycle {0,}\{0,\infty\} whose multiplier is λ=e2πiθ\lambda=e^{2\pi\textup{i}\theta} (see §2). Every fαf_{\alpha} has exactly two different critical points which are independent of α\alpha:

{c1,c2}={(1+1λ)1,(11λ)1}.\{c_{1},c_{2}\}=\left\{-(1+\sqrt{1-\lambda})^{-1},~{}-(1-\sqrt{1-\lambda})^{-1}\right\}. (1.2)

Here we do not specify which critical point is c1c_{1} temporarily. According to [Zha11], Δα0\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} and Δα\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} are quasicircles, and Δα0Δα\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}\cup\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} contains at least one critical point c1c_{1} or c2c_{2} (see also [GŚ03]).

For a Jordan curve Γ\Gamma in \mathbb{C}, we use Γext\Gamma_{\textup{ext}} to denote the unbounded component of Γ\mathbb{C}\setminus\Gamma and use Γint\Gamma_{\textup{int}} to denote the bounded. In this paper, we prove the following main result (see Figure 1).

Main Theorem.

For any bounded type θ\theta, each of Δα0\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} and Δα\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} contains at most one critical point for all fαΣθf_{\alpha}\in\Sigma_{\theta}, and there exist a marking c1=c1(θ)c_{1}=c_{1}(\theta), c2=c2(θ)c_{2}=c_{2}(\theta) and a Jordan curve Γ=ΓθΣθ\Gamma=\Gamma_{\theta}\subset\Sigma_{\theta} separating 0 from \infty such that

  1. (a)

    If αΓ\alpha\in\Gamma, then c1Δα0c_{1}\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} and c2Δαc_{2}\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty};

  2. (b)

    If αΓext\alpha\in\Gamma_{\textup{ext}}, then c1Δα0c_{1}\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} while Δα\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} contains no critical point; and

  3. (c)

    If αΓint{0}\alpha\in\Gamma_{\textup{int}}\setminus\{0\}, then c2Δαc_{2}\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} while Δα0\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} contains no critical point.

Moreover, Δα0\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} and Δα\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} depend continuously on fαΣθf_{\alpha}\in\Sigma_{\theta}.

Refer to caption
Figure 1. The parameter plane of Σθ\Sigma_{\theta} with θ=(51)/2\theta=(\sqrt{5}-1)/2. One may observe the Jordan curve Γ\Gamma clearly, which is the common boundary of the deeply and lightly colored parts. Some Siegel capture components and baby Mandelbrot sets can be seen also. Figure range: [2,2]×[2.7,1.3][-2,2]\times[-2.7,1.3].

In fact, we can clarify the marking of the critical points in the Main Theorem for some specific θ\theta’s (see §3.2). In particular, when θ(16,56)\theta\in(\tfrac{1}{6},\tfrac{5}{6}) is of bounded type, then the marking is

c1=(1+1λ)1 and c2=(11λ)1,c_{1}=-(1+\sqrt{1-\lambda})^{-1}\text{\quad and\quad}c_{2}=-(1-\sqrt{1-\lambda})^{-1}, (1.3)

where the square root branch is chosen as Re 1λ>0\textup{Re\,}\sqrt{1-\lambda}>0. We believe that the above marking holds for all bounded type irrational numbers. However, our method in this paper cannot imply this, especially when θ\theta is very close to 0 (i.e., when λ\lambda is very close to 11). In this situation, the two critical points c1c_{1}, c2c_{2} are very close and fαf_{\alpha} can be seen as a small perturbation of zα/zz\mapsto\alpha/z, whose second iteration is the identity. Therefore, we raise the following:

Question.

Does (1+1λ)1Δα0-(1+\sqrt{1-\lambda})^{-1}\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} (αΓθ\alpha\in\Gamma_{\theta}) hold for all bounded type θ\theta?

This paper is organized as following:

In §2 we study the location of the critical points and prove the continuous dependence of Δα0\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} and Δα\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} on αΣθ\alpha\in\Sigma_{\theta}. In particular, we prove that each of Δα0\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} and Δα\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} contains at most one critical point (Lemma 2.5) and the key point is to exclude a case by studying the Thurston obstruction.

In §3, we study the limit dynamics of fα2f_{\alpha}^{\circ 2} as α\alpha tends to the singularities 0 and \infty, and give a compactification of Σθ\Sigma_{\theta}. We prove that Δα0Δα\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}\cup\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} contains exactly one critical point if α\alpha is sufficiently large or small. In particular, there exists a marking of critical points c1=c1(θ)c_{1}=c_{1}(\theta) and c2=c2(θ)c_{2}=c_{2}(\theta) such that c1Δα0c_{1}\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} if α\alpha is large and c2Δαc_{2}\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} if α\alpha is small (Corollary 3.5). We also prove that the marking can be chosen as in (1.3) for some specific θ\theta’s (Proposition 3.6).

In §4, we analyze the combinations of the Fatou components of fαf_{\alpha} and prove that the Julia set of fαf_{\alpha} has zero Lebesgue measure for all αΓ\alpha\in\Gamma, where ΓΣθ\Gamma\subset\Sigma_{\theta} is the locus of α\alpha such that Δα0Δα\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}\cup\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} contains both of the critical points.

In §5 we prove that Γ\Gamma is a Jordan curve by an argument of rigidity. For any αΓ\alpha\in\Gamma, the combination of fαf_{\alpha} is determined by the conformal angle A(α)A(\alpha) of the two critical points c1c_{1} and c2c_{2}. A key ingredient in the proof of rigidity is to show that two maps in Γ\Gamma are Thurston equivalent if they have the same conformal angle (Lemma 5.3).

For the study of the parameter spaces of the holomorphic families containing a fixed Siegel disk, one may also refer to [BH01], [BF10], [BCOT21], [Zak18] and [Ché20].

Acknowledgements. The authors would like to thank Arnaud Chéritat for providing an algorithm to draw Figure 1, and the referee for very insightful and detailed comments and corrections. This work was supported by NSFC (grant Nos. 12071210, 12171276) and NSF of Jiangsu Province (grant No. BK20191246).

2. Cycle of Siegel disks

In this section, we first prove that Σθ\Sigma_{\theta} is the desired family, and then prove some basic properties of the 22-cycle of Siegel disks {Δα0,Δα}\{\Delta_{\alpha}^{0},\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}\}. Finally we prove that Δα0Δα\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}\cup\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} moves continuously as α\alpha varies in Σθ\Sigma_{\theta}.

2.1. The desired family

In the following, the irrational number θ\theta is assumed to be of bounded type, and we identify the parameter space Σθ\Sigma_{\theta} with {0}\mathbb{C}\setminus\{0\}.

Lemma 2.1.

Let ff be a quadratic rational map having a 22-cycle of Siegel disks with rotation number θ\theta. Then ff is conformally conjugate to fαΣθf_{\alpha}\in\Sigma_{\theta} for some α{0}\alpha\in\mathbb{C}\setminus\{0\}. Moreover, every fαΣθf_{\alpha}\in\Sigma_{\theta} has a 22-cycle of Siegel disks {Δα0,Δα}\{\Delta_{\alpha}^{0},\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}\} containing the 22-cycle {0,}\{0,\infty\} whose multiplier is e2πiθe^{2\pi\textup{i}\theta}.

Proof.

Up to a conformal conjugacy, we assume that ff has a 22-cycle of Siegel points {0,}\{0,\infty\} of rotation number θ\theta and that 1-1 is the other pole of ff. Then ff can be written as

f(z)=a1+bzz+z2,f(z)=a\,\frac{1+bz}{z+z^{2}}, (2.1)

for some a,b{0}a,b\in\mathbb{C}\setminus\{0\} and b1b\neq 1. Since f(z)azf(z)\sim\frac{a}{z} near 0 and f(z)abzf(z)\sim\frac{ab}{z} near \infty, we have (ff)(0)=b=e2πiθ(f\circ f)^{\prime}(0)=b=e^{2\pi\textup{i}\theta}. This implies that ff is conformally conjugate to fαΣθf_{\alpha}\in\Sigma_{\theta} for α=a\alpha=a.

For the second statement, we have fα(z)αzf_{\alpha}(z)\sim\frac{\alpha}{z} near 0 and f(z)αe2πiθzf(z)\sim\frac{\alpha e^{2\pi\textup{i}\theta}}{z} near \infty for any α{0}\alpha\in\mathbb{C}\setminus\{0\}. Hence (fα2)(0)=e2πiθ(f_{\alpha}^{\circ 2})^{\prime}(0)=e^{2\pi\textup{i}\theta} and fαf_{\alpha} has a 22-cycle of Siegel disks with rotation number θ\theta. ∎

2.2. The location of the critical points

The main aim in this subsection is to prove that each of Δα0\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} and Δα\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} cannot contain two critical points.

Lemma 2.2.

For any fαΣθf_{\alpha}\in\Sigma_{\theta}, Δα0Δα\partial{\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}}\cup\partial{\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}} contains at least one critical point c1c_{1} or c2c_{2}.

Proof.

Note that Δα0\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} and Δα\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} are fixed Siegel disks of fα2f_{\alpha}^{\circ 2} and the rotation numbers are both θ\theta, which is of bounded type. The set of critical points of fα2f_{\alpha}^{\circ 2} is

Crit(fα2)={c1,c2}fα1(c1)fα1(c2).\textup{Crit}(f_{\alpha}^{\circ 2})=\{c_{1},c_{2}\}\cup f_{\alpha}^{-1}(c_{1})\cup f_{\alpha}^{-1}(c_{2}). (2.2)

According to [GŚ03] or [Zha11], each of Δα0\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} and Δα\partial{\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}} must contain a point in Crit(fα2)\textup{Crit}(f_{\alpha}^{\circ 2}). In particular, this implies that (Δα0Δα){c1,c2}(\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}\cup\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty})\cap\{c_{1},c_{2}\}\neq\emptyset. ∎

The following result is important for us to locate the critical points and to prove the continuous dependence of Δα0Δα\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}\cup\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} on α\alpha. See [Zha11] for a proof.

Theorem 2.3.

Let d2d\geq 2 be an integer and 0<θ<10<\theta<1 be an irrational number of bounded type. Then there exists a constant 1<K(d,θ)<1<K(d,\theta)<\infty depending only on dd and θ\theta such that for any rational map ff of degree dd, if ff has a fixed Siegel disk with rotation number θ\theta, then the boundary of the Siegel disk is a K(d,θ)K(d,\theta)-quasicircle which passes through at least one critical point of ff.

As an immediate consequence, we have

Lemma 2.4.

There exists K=K(θ)>1K=K(\theta)>1 such that for any fαΣθf_{\alpha}\in\Sigma_{\theta}, Δα0\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}, Δα\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} are KK-quasicircles and Δα0¯Δα¯=\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}}\cap\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}}=\emptyset.

Proof.

By Theorem 2.3, Δα0\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} and Δα\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} are KK-quasicircles (where K>1K>1 is independent of α\alpha) since they are the boundaries of two fixed bounded type Siegel disks of fα2f_{\alpha}^{\circ 2}. The map fα2f^{\circ 2}_{\alpha} is topologically conjugate to the irrational rotation Rθ(ζ)=e2πiθζR_{\theta}(\zeta)=e^{2\pi\textup{i}\theta}\zeta on Δα0¯\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}} and Δα¯\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}}. Assume that Δα0Δα\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}\cap\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} contains a point z0z_{0}. Then the closure of the orbit {fα2n(z0):n}\{f^{\circ 2n}_{\alpha}(z_{0}):n\in\mathbb{N}\} is the common boundary of Δα0¯\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}} and Δα¯\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}}. This implies that the Julia set of fα2f_{\alpha}^{\circ 2} is empty, which is impossible. ∎

We now prove that any of Δα0\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} and Δα\partial{\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}} cannot contain two critical points.

Lemma 2.5.

For any fαΣθf_{\alpha}\in\Sigma_{\theta}, if Δα0Δα\partial{\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}}\cup\partial{\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}} contains both of c1c_{1} and c2c_{2}, then one of them is contained in Δα0\partial{\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}} while the other is contained in Δα\partial{\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}}.

Proof.

Suppose that Δα0\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} contains two critical points c1c_{1} and c2c_{2} (the proof for Δα\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} is similar). Note that deg(fα)=2\deg(f_{\alpha})=2, c1c2c_{1}\neq c_{2} and fα:Δα0Δαf_{\alpha}:\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}\to\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} is conformal. It implies that fα1(Δα)f^{-1}_{\alpha}(\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}) consists of exactly two distinct components Δα0\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} and Vα0V_{\alpha}^{0}, where Vα0V_{\alpha}^{0} is a simply connected Fatou component attached to Δα0\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} at c1c_{1} and c2c_{2} since fαf_{\alpha} is locally two-to-one at c1c_{1} and c2c_{2}. By Lemma 2.4, Vα0V_{\alpha}^{0} is a Jordan domain.

We claim that Vα0¯Δα¯=\overline{V_{\alpha}^{0}}\cap\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}}=\emptyset and Vα0¯Δα0¯={c1,c2}\overline{V_{\alpha}^{0}}\cap\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}}=\{c_{1},c_{2}\}. Indeed, if Vα0Δα\partial{V_{\alpha}^{0}}\cap\partial{\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}} contains a point z0z_{0}, then fα(z0)Δα0Δαf_{\alpha}(z_{0})\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}\cap\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}, which contracts Lemma 2.4. Any z1Vα0Δα0z_{1}\in\partial{V_{\alpha}^{0}}\cap\partial{\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}} is a critical point of fαf_{\alpha} since fα(Δα0)=fα(Vα0)=Δαf_{\alpha}(\Delta_{\alpha}^{0})=f_{\alpha}(V_{\alpha}^{0})=\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}. Hence Vα0¯Δα0¯={c1,c2}\overline{V_{\alpha}^{0}}\cap\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}}=\{c_{1},c_{2}\}. Since the critical values fα(c1)f_{\alpha}(c_{1}) and fα(c2)f_{\alpha}(c_{2}) are contained in Δα\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}, it implies that fα1(^Δα¯)f_{\alpha}^{-1}(\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\setminus\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}}) consists of two Jordan domains Uα0U_{\alpha}^{0} and UαU_{\alpha}^{\infty}, where UαU_{\alpha}^{\infty} is the disjoint union of Δα¯\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}} and the annulus AαA_{\alpha}. See Figure 2.

Refer to caption
Figure 2. A candidate of the location of the critical points and some components are marked. We shall prove that this configuration is impossible for any fαΣθf_{\alpha}\in\Sigma_{\theta}.

Let γ1\gamma_{1} be a Jordan curve in AαA_{\alpha} which is sufficiently close to Δα\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} and separates Δα\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} from Δα0\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}. Since the post-critical set of fαf_{\alpha} is P(fα)=Δα0ΔαP(f_{\alpha})=\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}\cup\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}, this implies that {γ1}\{\gamma_{1}\} forms a curve system in ^P(fα)\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\setminus P(f_{\alpha}), which is essential and nonperipheral (see [McM94, §B.2]). Note that fα:Aα^(Δα0¯Δα¯)f_{\alpha}:A_{\alpha}\to\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\setminus(\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}}\cup\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}}) is a conformal isomorphism. Then fα1(γ1)f_{\alpha}^{-1}(\gamma_{1}) has a connected component γ2Aα\gamma_{2}\subset A_{\alpha}, which is a Jordan curve lying close to the boundary of Δα0¯Uα0¯Vα0¯\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}}\cup\overline{U_{\alpha}^{0}}\cup\overline{V_{\alpha}^{0}} and separating Δα\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} from Δα0\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}. Since γ2\gamma_{2} is isotopic to γ1\gamma_{1} relative to P(fα)P(f_{\alpha}), then {γ1}\{\gamma_{1}\} determines a transition matrix A(γ1)A(\gamma_{1}) which is the unit matrix. This implies that the maximal eigenvalue of A(γ1)A(\gamma_{1}) is 11. According to [McM94, Theorem B.4], this is impossible. Therefore, any of Δα0\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} and Δα\partial{\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}} cannot contain two critical points. ∎

2.3. The Siegel disks move continuously

Let 𝔻\mathbb{D} be the unit disk. For any αΣθ\alpha\in\Sigma_{\theta}, there exist two conformal maps

hα0:𝔻Δα0 and hα:𝔻Δαh_{\alpha}^{0}:\mathbb{D}\to\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}\text{\quad and\quad}h_{\alpha}^{\infty}:\mathbb{D}\to\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} (2.3)

such that

(hα0)1fα2hα0(ζ)=Rθ(ζ),ζ𝔻, where hα0(0)=0,(hα0)(0)>0(hα)1fα2hα(ζ)=Rθ(ζ),ζ𝔻, where hα(0)=,(1/hα)(0)>0.\begin{split}(h_{\alpha}^{0})^{-1}\circ f^{\circ 2}_{\alpha}\circ h_{\alpha}^{0}(\zeta)=R_{\theta}(\zeta),&~{}\forall\,\zeta\in\mathbb{D},\text{ where }h_{\alpha}^{0}(0)=0,~{}(h_{\alpha}^{0})^{\prime}(0)>0\\ (h_{\alpha}^{\infty})^{-1}\circ f^{\circ 2}_{\alpha}\circ h_{\alpha}^{\infty}(\zeta)=R_{\theta}(\zeta),&~{}\forall\,\zeta\in\mathbb{D},\text{ where }h_{\alpha}^{\infty}(0)=\infty,~{}(1/h_{\alpha}^{\infty})^{\prime}(0)>0.\end{split} (2.4)

Note that such hα0h_{\alpha}^{0} and hαh_{\alpha}^{\infty} are unique.

Proposition 2.6.

Let α0Σθ\alpha_{0}\in\Sigma_{\theta} and (αn)n1(\alpha_{n})_{n\geq 1} be a sequence in Σθ\Sigma_{\theta} satisfying αnα0\alpha_{n}\to\alpha_{0} as nn\to\infty. Then Δαn0Δα00\partial{\Delta_{\alpha_{n}}^{0}}\to\partial{\Delta_{\alpha_{0}}^{0}} and Δαn0¯Δα00¯\overline{\Delta_{\alpha_{n}}^{0}}\to\overline{\Delta_{\alpha_{0}}^{0}}; meanwhile ΔαnΔα0\partial{\Delta_{\alpha_{n}}^{\infty}}\to\partial{\Delta_{\alpha_{0}}^{\infty}} and Δαn¯Δα0¯\overline{\Delta_{\alpha_{n}}^{\infty}}\to\overline{\Delta_{\alpha_{0}}^{\infty}} as nn\to\infty, with respect to the Hausdorff metric.

Proof.

It suffices to consider the Siegel disk Δα0\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} for αΣθ\alpha\in\Sigma_{\theta} since the argument for Δα\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} is similar. By Lemma 2.4, there is a constant K0>1K_{0}>1 which is independent of α\alpha, such that hα0:𝔻Δα0h_{\alpha}^{0}:\mathbb{D}\to\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} can be extended to a K0K_{0}-quasiconformal mapping from ^\widehat{\mathbb{C}} to itself, which we still denote by hα0:^^h_{\alpha}^{0}:\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\to\widehat{\mathbb{C}}, where hα0()=h_{\alpha}^{0}(\infty)=\infty.

According to [Leh87, Theorem 2.4, p. 17], there exists a constant c(K0)>1c(K_{0})>1 such that for all αΣθ\alpha\in\Sigma_{\theta}, we have

maxz𝔻|hα0(z)|minz𝔻|hα0(z)|=max{|z|:zΔα0}min{|z|:zΔα0}c(K0).\frac{\max_{z\in\partial\mathbb{D}}|h_{\alpha}^{0}(z)|}{\min_{z\in\partial\mathbb{D}}|h_{\alpha}^{0}(z)|}=\frac{\max\{|z|:z\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}\}}{\min\{|z|:z\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}\}}\leq c(K_{0}). (2.5)

Note that the two critical points {c1,c2}={(1+1λ)1,(11λ)1}\{c_{1},c_{2}\}=\{-(1+\sqrt{1-\lambda})^{-1},~{}-(1-\sqrt{1-\lambda})^{-1}\} of fαf_{\alpha} cannot be contained in the Siegel disk Δα0\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}, where λ=e2πiθ\lambda=e^{2\pi\textup{i}\theta}. Therefore, by (2.5) the size of Δα0\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} cannot be arbitrarily large, i.e., there exists a constant M=M(K0)>1M=M(K_{0})>1 such that Δα0¯{z:|z|<M}\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}}\subset\{z:|z|<M\} for all αΣθ\alpha\in\Sigma_{\theta}.

Let z0z_{0}\neq\infty be a point satisfying |z0|>M|z_{0}|>M. We assume further that the extended quasiconformal mapping hα0:^^h_{\alpha}^{0}:\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\to\widehat{\mathbb{C}} satisfies hα0(z0)=z0h_{\alpha}^{0}(z_{0})=z_{0}. Moreover, there exists K~0>1\widetilde{K}_{0}>1 such that hα0:^^h_{\alpha}^{0}:\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\to\widehat{\mathbb{C}} is K~0\widetilde{K}_{0}-quasiconformal for all αΣθ\alpha\in\Sigma_{\theta}. Since hα0h_{\alpha}^{0} also fixes 0 and \infty, it implies that {hα0:^^:αΣθ}\{h_{\alpha}^{0}:\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\to\widehat{\mathbb{C}}:\alpha\in\Sigma_{\theta}\} is a normal family (see [Leh87, Theorem 2.1, p. 14]).

Let αnα0Σθ\alpha_{n}\to\alpha_{0}\in\Sigma_{\theta} as nn\to\infty. Passing to a subsequence we assume that hαn0h_{\alpha_{n}}^{0} converges uniformly to a map h:^^h:\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\to\widehat{\mathbb{C}} as nn\to\infty. Since every hαn0h_{\alpha_{n}}^{0} fixes 0, z0z_{0} and \infty, it implies that hh is not a constant and hence is a quasiconformal mapping defined from ^\widehat{\mathbb{C}} onto itself. Note that every hαn0h_{\alpha_{n}}^{0} is holomorphic in 𝔻\mathbb{D} and (hαn0)(0)>0(h_{\alpha_{n}}^{0})^{\prime}(0)>0, it follows that h|𝔻h|_{\mathbb{D}} is also holomorphic and hence conformal, and h(0)>0h^{\prime}(0)>0. Taking the limit from the both sides of the equation fαn2hαn0(ζ)=hαn0Rθ(ζ)f_{\alpha_{n}}^{\circ 2}\circ h_{\alpha_{n}}^{0}(\zeta)=h_{\alpha_{n}}^{0}\circ R_{\theta}(\zeta) as nn\to\infty, we obtain fα02h(ζ)=hRθ(ζ)f_{\alpha_{0}}^{\circ 2}\circ h(\zeta)=h\circ R_{\theta}(\zeta), where ζ𝔻\zeta\in\mathbb{D}. Note that (hα00)1:Δα00𝔻(h_{\alpha_{0}}^{0})^{-1}:\Delta_{\alpha_{0}}^{0}\to\mathbb{D} is the unique conformal map which conjugates fα02f_{\alpha_{0}}^{\circ 2} to RθR_{\theta}, where hα00(0)=0h_{\alpha_{0}}^{0}(0)=0 and (hα00)(0)>0(h_{\alpha_{0}}^{0})^{\prime}(0)>0. It implies that h|𝔻=hα00|𝔻h|_{\mathbb{D}}=h_{\alpha_{0}}^{0}|_{\mathbb{D}}. By the continuity of hh and hα00h_{\alpha_{0}}^{0}, we have h|𝔻¯=hα00|𝔻¯h|_{\overline{\mathbb{D}}}=h_{\alpha_{0}}^{0}|_{\overline{\mathbb{D}}}. Therefore, hαn0(𝔻)hα00(𝔻)h_{\alpha_{n}}^{0}(\partial{\mathbb{D}})\to h_{\alpha_{0}}^{0}(\partial{\mathbb{D}}) and hαn0(𝔻¯)hα00(𝔻¯)h_{\alpha_{n}}^{0}(\overline{\mathbb{D}})\to h_{\alpha_{0}}^{0}(\overline{\mathbb{D}}) with respect to the Hausdorff metric as nn\to\infty.

Let (αnk)k(\alpha_{n_{k}})_{k\in\mathbb{N}} be any other subsequence of (αn)n(\alpha_{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}} which satisfies αnkα0\alpha_{n_{k}}\to\alpha_{0} and hαnk0h~h_{\alpha_{n_{k}}}^{0}\to\widetilde{h} as kk\to\infty. Similar to the arguments above, h~|𝔻\widetilde{h}|_{\mathbb{D}} is conformal and satisfies fα02h~(ζ)=h~Rθ(ζ)f_{\alpha_{0}}^{\circ 2}\circ\widetilde{h}(\zeta)=\widetilde{h}\circ R_{\theta}(\zeta), where h~(0)=0\widetilde{h}(0)=0 and h~(0)>0\widetilde{h}^{\prime}(0)>0. By the uniqueness of the normalized linearization map, we have h~=hα00\widetilde{h}=h_{\alpha_{0}}^{0}. This finishes the proof. ∎

3. Limit dynamics

3.1. Compactification and the symmetry of Σθ\Sigma_{\theta}

In this subsection, we first study the dynamics of fα2f_{\alpha}^{\circ 2} as α\alpha tends to \infty or 0. This allows us to give a compactification Σ^θ\widehat{\Sigma}_{\theta} of the parameter space Σθ\Sigma_{\theta}. Then we study the symmetry of Σ^θ\widehat{\Sigma}_{\theta} and the continuous dependence of the Siegel disks of the maps in Σ^θ\widehat{\Sigma}_{\theta}.

Lemma 3.1.

For any z^z\in\widehat{\mathbb{C}}, we have

limαfα2(z)=g(z):=e2πiθ(z+z2)1+e2πiθz and limα0fα2(z)=g0(z):=z+z21+e2πiθz,\lim_{\alpha\to\infty}f_{\alpha}^{\circ 2}(z)=g_{\infty}(z):=\frac{e^{2\pi\textup{i}\theta}(z+z^{2})}{1+e^{2\pi\textup{i}\theta}z}\text{\quad and\quad}\lim_{\alpha\to 0}f_{\alpha}^{\circ 2}(z)=g_{0}(z):=\frac{z+z^{2}}{1+e^{2\pi\textup{i}\theta}z}, (3.1)

where the first convergence is uniform on any compact subset of ^{,1/e2πiθ}\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\setminus\{\infty,-1/e^{2\pi\textup{i}\theta}\}, and the second is uniform on any compact subset of ^{0,1}\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\setminus\{0,-1\}.

Proof.

Denote λ=e2πiθ1\lambda=e^{2\pi\textup{i}\theta}\neq 1. By a direct calculation, we have

fα2(z)=α(1+λfα(z))fα(z)+(fα(z))2=z+z21+λzz+z2+αλ(1+λz)z+z2+α(1+λz).f_{\alpha}^{\circ 2}(z)=\frac{\alpha(1+\lambda f_{\alpha}(z))}{f_{\alpha}(z)+(f_{\alpha}(z))^{2}}=\frac{z+z^{2}}{1+\lambda z}\cdot\frac{z+z^{2}+\alpha\lambda(1+\lambda z)}{z+z^{2}+\alpha(1+\lambda z)}. (3.2)

Therefore, for any z^z\in\widehat{\mathbb{C}}, we have fα2(z)g(z)f_{\alpha}^{\circ 2}(z)\to g_{\infty}(z) as α\alpha\to\infty and fα2(z)g0(z)f_{\alpha}^{\circ 2}(z)\to g_{0}(z) as α0\alpha\to 0. If z+z2z+z^{2}\neq\infty and 1+λz01+\lambda z\neq 0, then the convergence fα2gf_{\alpha}^{\circ 2}\to g_{\infty} is uniform in a neighborhood of zz as α\alpha\to\infty. In particular, the convergence is uniform on any compact subset of ^{,1/λ}\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\setminus\{\infty,-1/\lambda\}. Similarly, the convergence fα2g0f_{\alpha}^{\circ 2}\to g_{0} is uniform on any compact subset of ^{0,1}\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\setminus\{0,-1\} as α0\alpha\to 0. ∎

By adding the limit maps to Σθ\Sigma_{\theta} at two singularities \infty and 0, we obtain a compactification of the parameter space Σθ\Sigma_{\theta}:

Σ^θ:=Σθ{g,g0}.\widehat{\Sigma}_{\theta}:=\Sigma_{\theta}\cup\{g_{\infty},g_{0}\}. (3.3)

Note that the limit maps can be written as

g(z)=αe2πiθ/fα(z) and g0(z)=α/fα(z),g_{\infty}(z)=\alpha e^{2\pi\textup{i}\theta}/f_{\alpha}(z)\text{\quad and\quad}g_{0}(z)=\alpha/f_{\alpha}(z), (3.4)

and they have the following properties:

  • gg_{\infty} has a fixed Siegel disk Δ0\Delta_{\infty}^{0} centered at 0 with rotation number θ\theta, and a fixed parabolic basin UU_{\infty} attaching at the 11-parabolic fixed point \infty;

  • g0g_{0} has a fixed Siegel disk Δ0\Delta_{0}^{\infty} centered at \infty with rotation number θ\theta, and a fixed parabolic basin U0U_{0} attaching at the 11-parabolic fixed point 0; and

  • The critical points of g0g_{0} and gg_{\infty} are both {c1,c2}\{c_{1},c_{2}\}, which is the same to that of fαf_{\alpha} for all αΣθ\alpha\in\Sigma_{\theta}.

The parameter space Σθ\Sigma_{\theta} and its compactification Σ^θ\widehat{\Sigma}_{\theta} have some kind of symmetry, which is shown in the following result and the proof is based on direct calculations:

Lemma 3.2.

Let τ(z)=1/(e2πiθz)\tau(z)=1/(e^{2\pi\textup{i}\theta}z). Then

  1. (a)

    τfατ1=fα\tau\circ f_{\alpha}\circ\tau^{-1}=f_{\alpha^{\prime}}, where αΣθ\alpha\in\Sigma_{\theta} and α=e6πiθ/α\alpha^{\prime}=e^{-6\pi\textup{i}\theta}/\alpha;

  2. (b)

    τg0τ1=g\tau\circ g_{0}\circ\tau^{-1}=g_{\infty}; and

  3. (c)

    τ(c1)=c2\tau(c_{1})=c_{2} and τ(c2)=c1\tau(c_{2})=c_{1}.

By the symmetry of Lemma 3.2, the following result is an immediate consequence of Theorem 2.3 and Leau-Fatou’s flower theorem ([Mil06, §10]):

Corollary 3.3.

There exists a marking c1=c1(θ)c_{1}=c_{1}(\theta), c2=c2(θ)c_{2}=c_{2}(\theta) such that

  1. (a)

    c1Δ0c_{1}\in\partial\Delta_{\infty}^{0} and c2Uc_{2}\in U_{\infty}; and

  2. (b)

    c2Δ0c_{2}\in\partial\Delta_{0}^{\infty} and c1U0c_{1}\in U_{0}.

The following result shows that the Siegel disks move continuously in the compactified parameter space Σ^θ\widehat{\Sigma}_{\theta}.

Proposition 3.4.

We have

  1. (a)

    If α\alpha\to\infty, then Δα0Δ0\partial{\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}}\to\partial{\Delta_{\infty}^{0}}, Δα0¯Δ0¯\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}}\to\overline{\Delta_{\infty}^{0}} and Δα¯{}\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}}\to\{\infty\}, with respect to the Hausdorff metric; and

  2. (b)

    If α0\alpha\to 0, then ΔαΔ0\partial{\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}}\to\partial{\Delta_{0}^{\infty}}, Δα¯Δ0¯\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}}\to\overline{\Delta_{0}^{\infty}} and Δα0¯{0}\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}}\to\{0\}, with respect to the Hausdorff metric.

Proof.

We only prove (a) since the proof of Part (b) is similar. By Lemma 2.4, Δ0\partial\Delta_{\infty}^{0} is a quasicircle. By Lemma 3.1, the statements Δα0Δ0\partial{\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}}\to\partial{\Delta_{\infty}^{0}} and Δα0¯Δ0¯\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}}\to\overline{\Delta_{\infty}^{0}} as α\alpha\to\infty follow from a completely similar proof of Proposition 2.6.

By the continuity of Δα0\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} as α\alpha\to\infty, there exist two constants ε0>0\varepsilon_{0}>0 and M>1M>1, such that if |α|1/ε0|\alpha|\geq 1/\varepsilon_{0}, then

Δα0{z:1/M<|z|<M}.\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}\subset\{z\in\mathbb{C}:1/M<|z|<M\}. (3.5)

Note that fα(Δα¯)=Δα0¯f_{\alpha}(\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}})=\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}}. By the formula of fαf_{\alpha} in (1.1), the spherical diameter of Δα¯\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}} tends to 0 as α\alpha\to\infty. Since Δα\infty\in\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}, we have Δα¯{}\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}}\to\{\infty\} as α\alpha\to\infty. ∎

As an immediate corollary, we have:

Corollary 3.5.

Under the same marking of critical points as in Corollary 3.3, there exists δ=δ(θ)>1\delta=\delta(\theta)>1 such that

  1. (a)

    If δ|α|<+\delta\leq|\alpha|<+\infty, then c1Δα0c_{1}\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} and Δα\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} contains no critical point; and

  2. (b)

    If 0<|α|1/δ0<|\alpha|\leq 1/\delta, then c2Δαc_{2}\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} and Δα0\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} contains no critical point.

3.2. Location of the critical points, for specific θ\theta’s

Based on Corollary 3.5, we know that when α\alpha is sufficiently large or small, then Δα0Δα\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}\cup\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} contains exactly one critical point. However, we still cannot determine which critical point (This depends on the marking) is contained in the boundary of the Siegel disks. In this subsection, we study this problem for some specific given rotation number θ\theta.

Proposition 3.6.

If θ(16,56)\theta\in(\tfrac{1}{6},\tfrac{5}{6}) is a bounded type irrational number, then under the marking (1.3), we have

  • If δ|α|<+\delta\leq|\alpha|<+\infty, then c1Δα0c_{1}\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}; and

  • If 0<|α|1/δ0<|\alpha|\leq 1/\delta, then c2Δαc_{2}\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}.

Proof.

By Lemma 3.2 and Proposition 3.4, it suffices to prove that for gg_{\infty}, the critical point c2=(11λ)1c_{2}=-(1-\sqrt{1-\lambda})^{-1} is contained in the parabolic basin UU_{\infty}, where λ=e2πiθ\lambda=e^{2\pi\textup{i}\theta}. A direct calculation shows that

g(z)=λ(z+z2)1+λz=z+λ1λλ1λ11+λz.g_{\infty}(z)=\frac{\lambda(z+z^{2})}{1+\lambda z}=z+\frac{\lambda-1}{\lambda}-\frac{\lambda-1}{\lambda}\cdot\frac{1}{1+\lambda z}. (3.6)

Denote η=(λ1)/λ\eta=(\lambda-1)/\lambda and φ(ζ)=ηζ\varphi(\zeta)=\eta\zeta. Then

g~(ζ)=φ1gφ(ζ)=ζ+111+(λ1)ζ.\widetilde{g}_{\infty}(\zeta)=\varphi^{-1}\circ g_{\infty}\circ\varphi(\zeta)=\zeta+1-\frac{1}{1+(\lambda-1)\zeta}. (3.7)

Since θ(16,56)\theta\in(\tfrac{1}{6},\tfrac{5}{6}), we have 1<|λ1|21<|\lambda-1|\leq 2. If Re ζ>2\textup{Re\,}\zeta>2, then

Re g~(ζ)Re ζ+11|λ1||ζ|1>Re ζ.\textup{Re\,}\widetilde{g}_{\infty}(\zeta)\geq\textup{Re\,}\zeta+1-\frac{1}{|\lambda-1|\cdot|\zeta|-1}>\textup{Re\,}\zeta. (3.8)

This implies that {ζ:Re ζ>2}\{\zeta\in\mathbb{C}:\textup{Re\,}\zeta>2\} is contained in the immediate parabolic basin of g~\widetilde{g}_{\infty}. The corresponding critical point of g~\widetilde{g}_{\infty} is c~2=φ1(c2)=c2/η\widetilde{c}_{2}=\varphi^{-1}(c_{2})=c_{2}/\eta and we have

g~(c~2)=1+11λ+211λ.\widetilde{g}_{\infty}(\widetilde{c}_{2})=1+\frac{1}{1-\lambda}+2\sqrt{\frac{1}{1-\lambda}}. (3.9)

Note that Re (11λ)=12\textup{Re\,}(\tfrac{1}{1-\lambda})=\tfrac{1}{2} for all λ𝔻{1}\lambda\in\partial\mathbb{D}\setminus\{1\}. Hence

Re g~(c~2)>1+12+212>2.\textup{Re\,}\widetilde{g}_{\infty}(\widetilde{c}_{2})>1+\frac{1}{2}+2\cdot\frac{1}{2}>2. (3.10)

Therefore, c~2\widetilde{c}_{2} is contained in the immediate parabolic basin of g~\widetilde{g}_{\infty}. In particular, c2c_{2} is contained in UU_{\infty}. ∎

The result of Proposition 3.6 can be strengthened if one considers the several iterations g~n(c~2)\widetilde{g}_{\infty}^{\circ n}(\widetilde{c}_{2}) in (3.9) for some n2n\geq 2. One can see that the two critical points c1c_{1} and c2c_{2} are arbitrarily close provided θ\theta is arbitrarily close to 0. Hence it is hard to distinguish the two critical orbits in this case. But we believe that Proposition 3.6 holds for all bounded type irrational numbers. See Figure 3.

Refer to caption
Figure 3. The Julia set of fαΣθf_{\alpha}\in\Sigma_{\theta} and its zoom near Δα0\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}, where θ=2/(39+5)=[0;20,1,1,1,]\theta=2/(39+\sqrt{5})=[0;20,1,1,1,\cdots] and α0.30689283+0.11243024i\alpha\approx 0.30689283+0.11243024\textup{i} are chosen such that fα3(c1)=c1f_{\alpha}^{\circ 3}(c_{1})=c_{1}. The critical points c1c_{1} and c2c_{2} are colored by blue and red respectively. One can observe that c2=(11λ)1Δαc_{2}=-(1-\sqrt{1-\lambda})^{-1}\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}.

In the rest of this paper, without loss of generality, we always assume that the critical points c1=c1(θ)c_{1}=c_{1}(\theta) and c2=c2(θ)c_{2}=c_{2}(\theta) are marked such that Proposition 3.6 holds, i.e., c1Δα0c_{1}\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} if α\alpha is large enough while c2Δαc_{2}\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} if α\alpha is small enough. Otherwise, one can exchange the subscripts of the critical points by the symmetry of the parameter space as stated in Lemma 3.2.

4. Dynamics of fαf_{\alpha} for αΓ\alpha\in\Gamma

Based on Corollary 3.5, we consider the following set:

Γ:={αΣθ:Δα0Δα contains c1 and c2}.\Gamma:=\{\alpha\in\Sigma_{\theta}:\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}\cup\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}\text{ contains }c_{1}\text{ and }c_{2}\}. (4.1)

It is easy to see that Γ\Gamma\neq\emptyset. Indeed, there exists a unique αΓ\alpha\in\Gamma satisfying fα(c1)=c2f_{\alpha}(c_{1})=c_{2} (or fα(c2)=c1f_{\alpha}(c_{2})=c_{1}). In this section, we give a combinatorial description of the Fatou set of fαf_{\alpha} and prove that the Julia set of fαf_{\alpha} has zero two-dimensional Lebesgue measure for all αΓ\alpha\in\Gamma.

4.1. The addresses of the Fatou components

We first prove the following result:

Lemma 4.1.

For any αΓ\alpha\in\Gamma, we have

  1. (a)

    c1Δα0c_{1}\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} and c2Δαc_{2}\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty};

  2. (b)

    The Fatou set F(fα)F(f_{\alpha}) of fαf_{\alpha} equals to F(fα2)=n=0fα2n(Δα0Δα)F(f^{\circ 2}_{\alpha})=\bigcup_{n=0}^{\infty}f^{-2n}_{\alpha}(\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}\cup\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}); and

  3. (c)

    (n=0fα2n(Δα0¯))(n=0fα2n(Δα¯))=\big{(}\bigcup_{n=0}^{\infty}f^{-2n}_{\alpha}(\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}})\big{)}\cap\big{(}\bigcup_{n=0}^{\infty}f^{-2n}_{\alpha}(\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}})\big{)}=\emptyset.

Proof.

(a) Let γ\gamma be a simple curve connecting δ\delta with a given αΓ\alpha\in\Gamma, where δ>1\delta>1 is the number introduced in Corollary 3.5. By the assumption at the end of last section, we have c1Δδ0c_{1}\in\partial\Delta_{\delta}^{0}. According to Proposition 2.6, the 22-cycle of Siegel disks move continuously as the parameter varies on γ\gamma. By Lemma 2.4, we have c1Δα0c_{1}\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} and hence c2Δαc_{2}\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}.

(b) Since both critical points are contained in boundaries of the cycle {Δα0,Δα}\{\Delta_{\alpha}^{0},\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}\}, it implies that all Fatou components of fαf_{\alpha} are iterated eventually onto this cycle of Siegel disks. The statement follows since fα2(Δα0)=Δα0f_{\alpha}^{\circ 2}(\Delta_{\alpha}^{0})=\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} and fα2(Δα)=Δαf_{\alpha}^{\circ 2}(\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty})=\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}.

(c) If fα2m(Δα0¯)fα2n(Δα¯)f_{\alpha}^{-2m}(\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}})\cap f_{\alpha}^{-2n}(\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}})\neq\emptyset for some mm, n0n\geq 0, then Δα0¯Δα¯\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}}\cap\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}}\neq\emptyset. This contradicts Lemma 2.4. ∎

In the rest of this subsection, we give a description of the combination of the Fatou components which are iterated eventually onto Δα0\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} (resp. Δα\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}) under fα2f^{\circ 2}_{\alpha}. Specifically, we shall give an address to every component of n=0fα2n(Δα0Δα)\bigcup_{n=0}^{\infty}f^{-2n}_{\alpha}(\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}\cup\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}) by following [Pet96, §0].

Since fα2f_{\alpha}^{\circ 2} is a rational map of degree 44, it has 66 critical points (counted with multiplicity): c1c_{1}, c1c_{1}^{\prime}, c1′′c_{1}^{\prime\prime} and c2c_{2}, c2c_{2}^{\prime}, c2′′c_{2}^{\prime\prime}, where

fα(c1)=fα(c1′′)=c2 and fα(c2)=fα(c2′′)=c1.f_{\alpha}(c_{1}^{\prime})=f_{\alpha}(c_{1}^{\prime\prime})=c_{2}\text{\quad and\quad}f_{\alpha}(c_{2}^{\prime})=f_{\alpha}(c_{2}^{\prime\prime})=c_{1}. (4.2)

Moreover, c1c_{1}, c1Δα0c_{1}^{\prime}\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} and c2c_{2}, c2Δαc_{2}^{\prime}\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}. Since c1c_{1} and c2c_{2} cannot be periodic, we have

fαn(c1)c2 and fαn(c2)c1, for any n0.f_{\alpha}^{\circ n}(c_{1})\neq c_{2}^{\prime}\text{\quad and\quad}f_{\alpha}^{\circ n}(c_{2})\neq c_{1}^{\prime},\text{\quad for any }n\geq 0. (4.3)

It is easy to see that there is a Fatou component in ^(Δα0¯Δα¯)\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\setminus(\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}}\cup\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}}) attaching at zΔα0Δαz\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}\cup\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} if and only if

zΥα:=n0fαn({c1,c2})(Δα0Δα)=(n0fα2n({c1,c1})Δα0)(n0fα2n({c2,c2})Δα).\begin{split}z\in\Upsilon_{\alpha}:=&~{}\bigcup_{n\geq 0}f_{\alpha}^{-n}(\{c_{1},c_{2}\})\cap(\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}\cup\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty})\\ =&~{}\Big{(}\bigcup_{n\geq 0}f_{\alpha}^{-2n}(\{c_{1},c_{1}^{\prime}\})\cap\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}\Big{)}\cup\Big{(}\bigcup_{n\geq 0}f_{\alpha}^{-2n}(\{c_{2},c_{2}^{\prime}\})\cap\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}\Big{)}.\end{split} (4.4)

For zΔα0z\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}, we define

χ(z):={U:U¯Δα0¯={z}, where U is a Fatou component of fα}.\chi(z):=\sharp\,\{U:\,\overline{U}\cap\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}}=\{z\},\text{ where }U\text{ is a Fatou component of }f_{\alpha}\}. (4.5)

Similarly, one can define χ(z)\chi(z) for all zΔαz\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}. Therefore, χ(z)1\chi(z)\geq 1 if and only if zΥαz\in\Upsilon_{\alpha}.

Lemma 4.2.

Let αΓ\alpha\in\Gamma. Then one of the following three cases happens:

  1. (a)

    fα(2m+1)(c1)=c2f_{\alpha}^{\circ(2m+1)}(c_{1})=c_{2} for some m0m\geq 0 and fα(2n+1)(c2)c1f_{\alpha}^{\circ(2n+1)}(c_{2})\neq c_{1} for any n0n\geq 0. Then χ(z)=1\chi(z)=1 if z(k=02mfαk(c2))Υαz\in\big{(}\bigcup_{k=0}^{2m}f_{\alpha}^{-k}(c_{2})\big{)}\cap\Upsilon_{\alpha} and χ(z)=3\chi(z)=3 if zk0fαk(c1)=Υαk=02mfαk(c2)z\in\bigcup_{k\geq 0}f_{\alpha}^{-k}(c_{1})=\Upsilon_{\alpha}\setminus\bigcup_{k=0}^{2m}f_{\alpha}^{-k}(c_{2});

  2. (b)

    fα(2m+1)(c2)=c1f_{\alpha}^{\circ(2m+1)}(c_{2})=c_{1} for some m0m\geq 0 and fα(2n+1)(c1)c2f_{\alpha}^{\circ(2n+1)}(c_{1})\neq c_{2} for any n0n\geq 0. Then χ(z)=1\chi(z)=1 if z(k=02mfαk(c1))Υαz\in\big{(}\bigcup_{k=0}^{2m}f_{\alpha}^{-k}(c_{1})\big{)}\cap\Upsilon_{\alpha} and χ(z)=3\chi(z)=3 if zk0fαk(c2)=Υαk=02mfαk(c1)z\in\bigcup_{k\geq 0}f_{\alpha}^{-k}(c_{2})=\Upsilon_{\alpha}\setminus\bigcup_{k=0}^{2m}f_{\alpha}^{-k}(c_{1});

  3. (c)

    fα(2n+1)(c1)c2f_{\alpha}^{\circ(2n+1)}(c_{1})\neq c_{2} and fα(2n+1)(c2)c1f_{\alpha}^{\circ(2n+1)}(c_{2})\neq c_{1} for any n0n\geq 0. Then χ(z)=1\chi(z)=1 for all zΥαz\in\Upsilon_{\alpha}.

Proof.

(a) If fα(2m+1)(c1)=c2f_{\alpha}^{\circ(2m+1)}(c_{1})=c_{2} for some m0m\geq 0, then fα(2n+1)(c2)f_{\alpha}^{\circ(2n+1)}(c_{2}) cannot be c1c_{1} for any n0n\geq 0 since otherwise, c1c_{1} and c2c_{2} would be periodic, which is impossible. Moreover, we have fαn(c1)c1f_{\alpha}^{\circ n}(c_{1})\neq c_{1} and fαn(c2)c2f_{\alpha}^{\circ n}(c_{2})\neq c_{2} for any n1n\geq 1. This implies that χ(c2)=1\chi(c_{2})=1. Since the local degree of fα(2m+1)f_{\alpha}^{\circ(2m+1)} at c1c_{1} is 22, we have χ(fαk(c1))=1\chi\big{(}f_{\alpha}^{\circ k}(c_{1})\big{)}=1 for 1k2m+11\leq k\leq 2m+1 and χ(c1)=3\chi(c_{1})=3. The rest statement follows immediately.

(b) The proof is completely similar to (a).

(c) If fα(2n+1)(c1)c2f_{\alpha}^{\circ(2n+1)}(c_{1})\neq c_{2} and fα(2n+1)(c2)c1f_{\alpha}^{\circ(2n+1)}(c_{2})\neq c_{1} for any n0n\geq 0, then χ(c1)=χ(c2)=1\chi(c_{1})=\chi(c_{2})=1. This implies that χ(z)=1\chi(z)=1 for all zΥαz\in\Upsilon_{\alpha}. ∎

In the following, we focus our attention on the combination of the components of n0fα2n(Δα0)\bigcup_{n\geq 0}f_{\alpha}^{-2n}(\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}). The configuration of the components of n0fα2n(Δα)\bigcup_{n\geq 0}f_{\alpha}^{-2n}(\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}) can be described in the same way. Note that fα2(Δα0)f^{-2}_{\alpha}(\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}) consists of 44 components: Δα0\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} and 33 other components U00U_{0}^{0}, U01U_{0}^{1} and U02U_{0}^{2}, where fα(U00)=Δαf_{\alpha}(U_{0}^{0})=\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}, U00U_{0}^{0} and U01U_{0}^{1} are attached to Δα0\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} at c1c_{1} and c1c_{1}^{\prime} respectively, and U02U_{0}^{2} is attached to U00\partial U_{0}^{0} at c1′′c_{1}^{\prime\prime}. Based on Lemma 4.2, there are following 33 cases (see Figure 4):

  • (i)

    If fα(c1)=c2f_{\alpha}(c_{1})=c_{2}, then c1=c1=c1′′c_{1}=c_{1}^{\prime}=c_{1}^{\prime\prime} and χ(c1)=3\chi(c_{1})=3;

  • (ii)

    If fα(2m+1)(c1)=c2f_{\alpha}^{\circ(2m+1)}(c_{1})=c_{2} for some m1m\geq 1, then c1c_{1}, c1c_{1}^{\prime}, c1′′c_{1}^{\prime\prime} are pairwise different, χ(c1)=3\chi(c_{1})=3 and χ(c1)=1\chi(c_{1}^{\prime})=1;

  • (iii)

    If fα(2n+1)(c1)c2f_{\alpha}^{\circ(2n+1)}(c_{1})\neq c_{2} for any n0n\geq 0, then c1c_{1}, c1c_{1}^{\prime}, c1′′c_{1}^{\prime\prime} are pairwise different and χ(c1)=χ(c1)=1\chi(c_{1})=\chi(c_{1}^{\prime})=1.

Refer to caption
Figure 4. The locations of some preimages of Δα0\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} under fα2f_{\alpha}^{\circ 2}.

In the following, we only give a detailed description of the locations of the components of n0fα2n(Δα0)\bigcup_{n\geq 0}f_{\alpha}^{-2n}(\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}) of Case (iii), i.e., the forward orbit of c1c_{1} does not touch c2c_{2}. The rest two cases can be handled completely similarly. For t{0,1,2}t\in\{0,1,2\}, fα2(U0t)f_{\alpha}^{-2}(U_{0}^{t}) consists of 44 components U1tU_{1}^{t}, V1tV_{1}^{t}, W1tW_{1}^{t} and X1tX_{1}^{t} (see Figure 4), where

  • {U10,U11}\{U_{1}^{0},U_{1}^{1}\}, {V10,V11}\{V_{1}^{0},V_{1}^{1}\}, {W10,W11}\{W_{1}^{0},W_{1}^{1}\}, {X10,X11}\{X_{1}^{0},X_{1}^{1}\} are attached to Δα0\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}, U00U_{0}^{0}, U01U_{0}^{1} and U02U_{0}^{2} respectively; and

  • U12U_{1}^{2}, V12V_{1}^{2}, W12W_{1}^{2}, X12X_{1}^{2} are attached to U10U_{1}^{0}, V10V_{1}^{0}, W10W_{1}^{0}, X10X_{1}^{0} respectively.

For integers s1s\geq 1 and t{0,1,2}t\in\{0,1,2\}, let UstU_{s}^{t}, VstV_{s}^{t}, WstW_{s}^{t} and XstX_{s}^{t} be the unique components of fα2s(U0t)f_{\alpha}^{-2s}(U_{0}^{t}) such that

  • {Us0,Us1}\{U_{s}^{0},U_{s}^{1}\}, {Vs0,Vs1}\{V_{s}^{0},V_{s}^{1}\}, {Ws0,Ws1}\{W_{s}^{0},W_{s}^{1}\}, {Xs0,Xs1}\{X_{s}^{0},X_{s}^{1}\} are attached to Δα0\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}, U00U_{0}^{0}, U01U_{0}^{1} and U02U_{0}^{2} respectively; and

  • Us2U_{s}^{2}, Vs2V_{s}^{2}, Ws2W_{s}^{2}, Xs2X_{s}^{2} are attached to Us0U_{s}^{0}, Vs0V_{s}^{0}, Ws0W_{s}^{0}, Xs0X_{s}^{0} respectively.

Inductively, for any m2m\geq 2 and sequences (s1,,sm)(s_{1},\cdots,s_{m}), (t1,,tm)(t_{1},\cdots,t_{m}), where si1s_{i}\geq 1 and ti{0,1,2}t_{i}\in\{0,1,2\} with 1im1\leq i\leq m, let Us1,,smt1,,tmU_{s_{1},\cdots,s_{m}}^{t_{1},\cdots,t_{m}}, Vs1,,smt1,,tmV_{s_{1},\cdots,s_{m}}^{t_{1},\cdots,t_{m}}, Ws1,,smt1,,tmW_{s_{1},\cdots,s_{m}}^{t_{1},\cdots,t_{m}} and Xs1,,smt1,,tmX_{s_{1},\cdots,s_{m}}^{t_{1},\cdots,t_{m}} be the unique components of fα2(s1++sm+1)(Δα0)f_{\alpha}^{-2(s_{1}+\cdots+s_{m}+1)}(\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}) satisfying

  • {Us1,,sm1,smt1,,tm1,0,Us1,,sm1,smt1,,tm1,1}\{U_{s_{1},\cdots,s_{m-1},s_{m}}^{t_{1},\cdots,t_{m-1},0},U_{s_{1},\cdots,s_{m-1},s_{m}}^{t_{1},\cdots,t_{m-1},1}\} are attached to Us1,,sm1t1,,tm1U_{s_{1},\cdots,s_{m-1}}^{t_{1},\cdots,t_{m-1}};

  • Us1,,sm1,smt1,,tm1,2U_{s_{1},\cdots,s_{m-1},s_{m}}^{t_{1},\cdots,t_{m-1},2} is attached to Us1,,sm1,smt1,,tm1,0U_{s_{1},\cdots,s_{m-1},s_{m}}^{t_{1},\cdots,t_{m-1},0};

  • The above relations hold similarly for Vs1,,smt1,,tmV_{s_{1},\cdots,s_{m}}^{t_{1},\cdots,t_{m}}, Ws1,,smt1,,tmW_{s_{1},\cdots,s_{m}}^{t_{1},\cdots,t_{m}} and Xs1,,smt1,,tmX_{s_{1},\cdots,s_{m}}^{t_{1},\cdots,t_{m}};

  • There are following mapping relations:

    fα2(Ys1,s2,,smt1,t2,,tm)={Us11,s2,smt1,t2,,tm,ifs12,Vs2,,smt2,,tm,ifs1=1 and t1=0,Ws2,,smt2,,tm,ifs1=1 and t1=1,Xs2,,smt2,,tm,ifs1=1 and t1=2,f_{\alpha}^{\circ 2}(Y_{s_{1},s_{2},\cdots,s_{m}}^{t_{1},t_{2},\cdots,t_{m}})=\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}U_{s_{1}-1,s_{2}\cdots,s_{m}}^{t_{1},t_{2},\cdots,t_{m}},&~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}\text{if}~{}s_{1}\geq 2,\\ V_{s_{2},\cdots,s_{m}}^{t_{2},\cdots,t_{m}},&~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}\text{if}~{}s_{1}=1\text{ and }t_{1}=0,\\ W_{s_{2},\cdots,s_{m}}^{t_{2},\cdots,t_{m}},&~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}\text{if}~{}s_{1}=1\text{ and }t_{1}=1,\\ X_{s_{2},\cdots,s_{m}}^{t_{2},\cdots,t_{m}},&~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}\text{if}~{}s_{1}=1\text{ and }t_{1}=2,\end{array}\right. (4.6)

    where Y=UY=U, VV, WW or XX.

Based on the above setting, every connected component of n0fα2n(Δα0)\bigcup_{n\geq 0}f_{\alpha}^{-2n}(\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}) which is different from Δα0\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}, U00U_{0}^{0}, U01U_{0}^{1} and U02U_{0}^{2}, corresponds to a unique address {(s1,,sm),(t1,,tm)}\{(s_{1},\cdots,s_{m}),(t_{1},\cdots,t_{m})\} (together with the marking UU, VV, WW or XX), where si1s_{i}\geq 1 and ti{0,1,2}t_{i}\in\{0,1,2\}. Moreover, the relative positions of these components are uniquely determined by the rotation number θ\theta. Such kind of addresses can be marked also for the components of n0fα2n(Δα)\bigcup_{n\geq 0}f_{\alpha}^{-2n}(\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}) similarly. The locations of the Fatou components of fαf_{\alpha} are uniquely determined by these addresses and the rotation number θ\theta. We shall use these information to study the rigidity of fαf_{\alpha} when α\alpha moves in Γ\Gamma.

4.2. Lebesgue measure of the Julia sets

The main aim in this subsection is to prove the following result:

Lemma 4.3.

For each αΓ\alpha\in\Gamma, the Julia set of fαf_{\alpha} has zero Lebesgue measure.

To prove Lemma 4.3, we shall prove that the set of points whose forward orbits under fα2f_{\alpha}^{\circ 2} tend to the post-critical set

P(fα2)=P(fα)=Δα0ΔαP(f_{\alpha}^{\circ 2})=P(f_{\alpha})=\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}\cup\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} (4.7)

has zero Lebesgue measure. Since for almost all points in the Julia set of fα2f_{\alpha}^{\circ 2}, the forward orbits tend to the post-critical set, we conclude that the whole Julia set has zero Lebesgue measure.

For fα2f_{\alpha}^{\circ 2}, we first provide a quasi-Blaschke product model FF, such that the unit disk 𝔻\mathbb{D} corresponds to Δα0\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} (a similar model can be established such that 𝔻\mathbb{D} corresponds to Δα\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}). For any point zz whose forward orbit tending to 𝔻\partial\mathbb{D} by FF, we pull back the geometry near a critical point on 𝔻\partial\mathbb{D} to a neighborhood of zz by a bounded distortion. This implies that zz is a not a Lebesgue density point of the points whose forward orbits tending to 𝔻\partial\mathbb{D}. The main idea of the proof of Lemma 4.3 is inspired by [McM98] and [Zha08].

For rational maps, the typical behaviors of the forward orbits of the points are characterized in the following result. See [Lyu83] and also [McM94, §3.3].

Lemma 4.4.

Let ff be a rational map of degree at least two. Then either

  • The Julia set J(f)J(f) is equal to the whole Riemann sphere; or

  • The spherical distance between fk(z)f^{\circ k}(z) and the post-critical set P(f)P(f) tends to 0 for almost every zJ(f)z\in J(f) as kk\to\infty.

In the following we assume that fα2f_{\alpha}^{\circ 2} has exactly two different critical points c1c_{1} and c1c_{1}^{\prime} on Δα0\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}. The case that c1=c1c_{1}=c_{1}^{\prime} can be treated completely similarly (This case happens only when fα(c1)=c2f_{\alpha}(c_{1})=c_{2}, see §4.1). We now define the model map FF. Let Z00Z_{0}^{0} be a quasidisk in 𝔻¯\mathbb{C}\setminus\overline{\mathbb{D}} which is attached to 𝔻\partial\mathbb{D} at c=1c=1 such that Z00\partial Z_{0}^{0} is smooth in a neighborhood of 11 except at 11 itself and the two angles formed by Z00\partial Z_{0}^{0} and 𝔻\partial\mathbb{D} are both π3\frac{\pi}{3}. Let ψ:^(Δα0U00)^(𝔻Z00)\psi:\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\setminus(\Delta^{0}_{\alpha}\cup U_{0}^{0})\to\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\setminus(\mathbb{D}\cup Z_{0}^{0}) be a continuous map such that

ψ:^(Δα0U00¯)^(𝔻Z00¯)\psi:\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\setminus(\overline{\Delta^{0}_{\alpha}\cup U_{0}^{0}})\to\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\setminus(\overline{\mathbb{D}\cup Z_{0}^{0}}) (4.8)

is conformal and satifies ψ()=\psi(\infty)=\infty, ψ(c1)=1\psi(c_{1})=1, ψ(Δα0)=𝔻\psi(\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0})=\partial\mathbb{D} and ψ(U00)=Z00\psi(\partial U_{0}^{0})=\partial Z_{0}^{0}. Since Δα0\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} and Z00\partial Z_{0}^{0} are both quasicircles, ψ\psi can be extend to a quasiconformal mapping ψ:^^\psi:\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\to\widehat{\mathbb{C}} such that ψ(Δα0)=𝔻\psi(\Delta_{\alpha}^{0})=\mathbb{D} and ψ(U00)=Z00\psi(U_{0}^{0})=Z_{0}^{0}.

For z^z\in\widehat{\mathbb{C}}, we use z=1/z¯z^{*}=1/\overline{z} to denote the symmetric image of zz about the unit circle. Let Z={z:zZ}Z^{*}=\{z^{*}:z\in Z\}, where

Z:=ψ(U00U01U02).Z:=\psi(U_{0}^{0}\cup U_{0}^{1}\cup U_{0}^{2}).

We define the model map

F(z):={ψfα2ψ1(z) if |z|1,(ψfα2ψ1(z)) if |z|<1.F(z):=\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}\psi\circ f_{\alpha}^{\circ 2}\circ\psi^{-1}(z)&\text{\quad if }|z|\geq 1,\\ (\psi\circ f_{\alpha}^{\circ 2}\circ\psi^{-1}(z^{*}))^{*}&\text{\quad if }|z|<1.\end{array}\right. (4.9)

Then F:^^F:\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\to\widehat{\mathbb{C}} is a quasiregular map and F:^(ZZ)^F:\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\setminus(Z\cup Z^{*})\to\widehat{\mathbb{C}} is holomorphic. Moreover, FF has two double critical points 11 and ψ(c1)\psi(c_{1}^{\prime}) on 𝔻\partial\mathbb{D}.

For zz\in\mathbb{C}, we use 𝔻r(z)\mathbb{D}_{r}(z) to denote the Euclidean disk centered at zz with radius r>0r>0. Take 0<ε<1/120<\varepsilon<1/12. Let 1\ell_{1} and 1\ell_{1}^{\prime} be the two rays starting from the critical point c=1c=1 of FF such that the angles between 𝔻\partial\mathbb{D} and 1\ell_{1}, 𝔻\partial\mathbb{D} and 1\ell_{1}^{\prime} are both equal to επ\varepsilon\pi. Let SεcS_{\varepsilon}^{c} be the open cone spanned by 1\ell_{1} and 1\ell_{1}^{\prime} which attaches at cc from the outside of 𝔻\mathbb{D}.

Note that ψ:^^\psi:\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\to\widehat{\mathbb{C}} is a quasiconformal homeomorphism satisfying ψ(Δα0)=𝔻\psi(\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0})=\partial\mathbb{D} and ψ(c1)=1\psi(c_{1})=1. This implies that the boundaries of ψ(U01)\psi(U_{0}^{1}) and ψ(U02)\psi(U_{0}^{2}) are quasicircles. Define

Ωε,rc:=Sεc𝔻r(c)((Z𝔻¯)) and Ω:=(𝔻¯ψ(Δα¯)).\Omega_{\varepsilon,r}^{c}:=S_{\varepsilon}^{c}\cap\mathbb{D}_{r}(c)\cap(\mathbb{C}\setminus(\overline{Z\cup\mathbb{D}}))\text{\quad and\quad}\Omega:=\mathbb{C}\setminus\big{(}\overline{\mathbb{D}}\cup\psi(\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}})\big{)}. (4.10)

Note that the two angles formed by Z00\partial Z_{0}^{0} and 𝔻\partial\mathbb{D} are both π3\frac{\pi}{3}. There exists a small r>0r>0 such that 𝔻r(c)ψ(U01U02)=\mathbb{D}_{r}(c)\cap\psi(U_{0}^{1}\cup U_{0}^{2})=\emptyset and Ωε,rc\Omega_{\varepsilon,r}^{c} consists of two simply connected domains. In the following, we always assume that r>0r>0 is small such that the above properties are satisfied. See the picture in Figure 5 on the left.

Refer to caption
Figure 5. Left: The contraction region Ωε,rc\Omega_{\varepsilon,r}^{c} of F1F^{-1}. Right: Construction of the sequence (An,Bn,Cn,wm(n)1)(A^{n},B^{n},C^{n},w_{m(n)-1}).

Let ρΩ(z)|dz|\rho_{\Omega}(z)|dz| be the hyperbolic metric on Ω\Omega. By a similar proof to [Zha08, Lemma 3.2], for the given small r>0r>0, there exists ν=ν(ε,r)>0\nu=\nu(\varepsilon,r)>0 such that for any zΩε,rcz\in\Omega_{\varepsilon,r}^{c}, we have

ρΩ(F(z))|F(z)|(1+ν)ρΩ(z).\rho_{\Omega}(F(z))|F^{\prime}(z)|\geq(1+\nu)\rho_{\Omega}(z). (4.11)
Proof of Lemma 4.3.

We only consider the case that fα2f_{\alpha}^{\circ 2} has exactly two different critical points c1c_{1} and c1c_{1}^{\prime} on Δα0\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}. The case c1=c1c_{1}=c_{1}^{\prime} corresponds to fα(c1)=c2f_{\alpha}(c_{1})=c_{2}, which can be proved completely similarly. To prove that J(fα)J(f_{\alpha}) has zero Lebesgue measure, by Lemma 4.4, it suffices to prove that

Π:={zJ(fα):fαn(z) tends to P(fα) as n}=Π0Π\Pi:=\{z\in J(f_{\alpha}):f_{\alpha}^{\circ n}(z)\text{ tends to }P(f_{\alpha})\text{ as }n\to\infty\}=\Pi_{0}\cup\Pi_{\infty} (4.12)

has zero Lebesgue measure, where

Π0:={zJ(fα2):fα(2n)(z) tends to Δα0 as n}, andΠ:={zJ(fα2):fα(2n)(z) tends to Δα as n}.\begin{split}\Pi_{0}:=&~{}\{z\in J(f_{\alpha}^{\circ 2}):f_{\alpha}^{\circ(2n)}(z)\text{ tends to }\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}\text{ as }n\to\infty\},\text{ and}\\ \Pi_{\infty}:=&~{}\{z\in J(f_{\alpha}^{\circ 2}):f_{\alpha}^{\circ(2n)}(z)\text{ tends to }\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}\text{ as }n\to\infty\}.\end{split} (4.13)

In the following we prove that Π0\Pi_{0} has zero Lebesgue measure. The case for Π\Pi_{\infty} is completely similar. Since the restriction of the quasiconformal map ψ:^^\psi:\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\to\widehat{\mathbb{C}} on the Julia set of fα2f_{\alpha}^{\circ 2} is a conjugacy between fα2f_{\alpha}^{\circ 2} and FF, it suffices to prove that the following set has zero Lebesgue measure:

Π0:={w^k0Fk(𝔻¯):Fn(w) tends to 𝔻 as n}.\Pi_{0}^{\prime}:=\{w\in\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\setminus\bigcup_{k\geq 0}F^{-k}(\overline{\mathbb{D}}):F^{\circ n}(w)\text{ tends to }\partial\mathbb{D}\text{ as }n\to\infty\}. (4.14)

Let w0Π0w_{0}\in\Pi_{0}^{\prime} and denote wn=Fn(w0)w_{n}=F^{\circ n}(w_{0}). By a completely similar argument as [Zha08, Lemma 4.11] (see also [Zha22, Lemma 6.1]), for the given small ε>0\varepsilon>0 and r>0r>0, there exists a large integer n01n_{0}\geq 1, such that for any nn0n\geq n_{0}, there exists an integer 1m(n)n1\leq m(n)\leq n satisfying

wm(n)1Ωε,rc,w_{m(n)-1}\in\Omega_{\varepsilon,r}^{c}, (4.15)

where m(n)m(n) is an increasing sequence tending to \infty as nn\to\infty.

For small r>0r>0, there are two domains contained in 𝔻r(c)𝔻¯\mathbb{D}_{r}(c)\setminus\overline{\mathbb{D}} which are tangent to 𝔻\partial\mathbb{D} at cc and are mapped by FF into the outside of 𝔻¯\overline{\mathbb{D}}. We may assume wm(n)1w_{m(n)-1} lies in one of them, say UU, whose boundary contains an arc of 𝔻\partial\mathbb{D} in the lower half plane. Meanwhile there is exactly one domain V𝔻r(c)𝔻¯V\subset\mathbb{D}_{r}(c)\setminus\overline{\mathbb{D}}, which is attached to 𝔻\partial\mathbb{D} at cc and mapped by FF into the inside of 𝔻\mathbb{D}. Let 2\ell_{2} and 3\ell_{3} be the two half rays which are tangent with UU at cc. When viewed from wm(n)1w_{m(n)-1}, UU is approximately an angle domain with boundary 2\ell_{2} and 3\ell_{3}. It follows that the angle between 2\ell_{2} and 3\ell_{3} is π/3\pi/3. Recall that 1\ell_{1} is the straight segment between 2\ell_{2} and 3\ell_{3} which coincides with a part of the boundary of Ωε,rc\Omega_{\varepsilon,r}^{c}. The angle between 1\ell_{1} and 2\ell_{2} is επ\varepsilon\pi.

We consider the polar coordinate system formed by (c,2)(c,\ell_{2}). Since wm(n)1Ωε,rcw_{m(n)-1}\in\Omega_{\varepsilon,r}^{c}, we have wm(n)1=r0eβ0πiw_{m(n)-1}=r_{0}e^{\beta_{0}\pi\textup{i}} for some ε<β0<1/3\varepsilon<\beta_{0}<1/3 and 0<r0<r0<r_{0}<r. We define the following 33 simply connected domains:

An={reβπi:r02<r<3r02 and ε2<β<13+ε},Bn={reβπi:3r04<r<5r04 and 3ε4<β<13+ε2}, andCn=BnV=Bnψ(U00).\begin{split}A^{n}=&~{}\{re^{\beta\pi\textup{i}}:\tfrac{r_{0}}{2}<r<\tfrac{3r_{0}}{2}\text{ and }\tfrac{\varepsilon}{2}<\beta<\tfrac{1}{3}+\varepsilon\},\\ B^{n}=&~{}\{re^{\beta\pi\textup{i}}:\tfrac{3r_{0}}{4}<r<\tfrac{5r_{0}}{4}\text{ and }\tfrac{3\varepsilon}{4}<\beta<\tfrac{1}{3}+\tfrac{\varepsilon}{2}\},\text{ and}\\ C^{n}=&~{}B^{n}\cap V=B^{n}\cap\psi(U_{0}^{0}).\end{split} (4.16)

This implies that there exist constants M1M_{1}, M2M_{2}, M3>0M_{3}>0 which are independent of nn, such that for every nn0n\geq n_{0}, we have CnBnAnΩC^{n}\subset B^{n}\Subset A^{n}\Subset\Omega and

  • ωm(n)1Bn\omega_{m(n)-1}\in B^{n} and F(Cn)𝔻F(C^{n})\subset\mathbb{D}; and

  • mod(AnBn)M1\textup{mod}(A^{n}\setminus B^{n})\geq M_{1}, area(Cn)/diam(Bn)2M2\textup{area}(C^{n})/\textup{diam}(B^{n})^{2}\geq M_{2} and diamΩ(An)M3\textup{diam}_{\Omega}(A^{n})\leq M_{3}.

See the picture in Figure 5 on the right.

We consider the pull backs of (An,Bn,Cn,wm(n)1)(A^{n},B^{n},C^{n},w_{m(n)-1}) along the orbit {wl:0lm(n)1}\{w_{l}:0\leq l\leq m(n)-1\}, where n>n0n>n_{0}. For 0lm(n)10\leq l\leq m(n)-1, let AlnA_{l}^{n} be the connected component of F(m(n)1l)(An)F^{-(m(n)-1-l)}(A^{n}) containing wlw_{l}. We use BlnB_{l}^{n} and ClnC_{l}^{n} to denote the pull backs of BnB^{n} and CnC^{n} by F(m(n)1l)F^{\circ(m(n)-1-l)} in AlnA^{n}_{l}. Then ClnBlnAlnΩC^{n}_{l}\subset B^{n}_{l}\Subset A^{n}_{l}\Subset\Omega. In particular, A0nA^{n}_{0} is the connected component of F(m(n)1)(An)F^{-(m(n)-1)}(A^{n}) containing w0w_{0}, and Am(k)1nA^{n}_{m(k)-1} is the connected component of F(m(n)m(k))(An)F^{-(m(n)-m(k))}(A^{n}) containing wm(k)1w_{m(k)-1} for n0k<nn_{0}\leq k<n.

By Schwarz-Pick’s lemma, for all 0lm(n)10\leq l\leq m(n)-1, we have diamΩ(Aln)M3\textup{diam}_{\Omega}(A^{n}_{l})\leq M_{3}. Since wnw_{n} tends to 𝔻\partial{\mathbb{D}} and m(n)m(n)\to\infty as nn\to\infty, there exist n1n0n_{1}\geq n_{0} and a constant 0<μ<10<\mu<1 such that for all kn1k\geq n_{1},

wm(k)1Am(k)1nΩμε,rc.w_{m(k)-1}\in A^{n}_{m(k)-1}\subset\Omega_{\mu\varepsilon,r}^{c}. (4.17)

By (4.11) and (4.17), it follows that there is a positive number ν~=ν~(με,r)<1\widetilde{\nu}=\widetilde{\nu}(\mu\varepsilon,r)<1 which is independent of nn such that for every kk with n1knn_{1}\leq k\leq n, we have

diamΩ(Am(k)1n)(1ν~)diamΩ(Am(k)n).\textup{diam}_{\Omega}(A^{n}_{m(k)-1})\leq(1-\widetilde{\nu})\,\textup{diam}_{\Omega}(A^{n}_{m(k)}). (4.18)

Since {m(k):kn1}\{m(k):k\geq n_{1}\} is an infinite sequence, it follows that diam(A0n)0\textup{diam}(A^{n}_{0})\to 0 as nn\to\infty. Hence diam(B0n)0\textup{diam}(B^{n}_{0})\to 0 as nn\to\infty.

Note that F(m(n)1):A0nAnF^{\circ(m(n)-1)}:A_{0}^{n}\to A^{n} is conformal. By Koebe’s distortion theorem, we obtain a constant 0<C<0<C<\infty such that for all nn1+1n\geq n_{1}+1, the following properties hold:

  • w0B0nw_{0}\in B_{0}^{n}, C0nB0nC^{n}_{0}\subset B_{0}^{n} and Fm(n)(C0n)𝔻F^{\circ m(n)}(C_{0}^{n})\subset\mathbb{D}; and

  • area(C0n)Cdiam(B0n)2\textup{area}(C_{0}^{n})\geq C\textup{diam}(B_{0}^{n})^{2}.

This implies that w0w_{0} is not a Lebesgue density point of Π0\Pi_{0}^{\prime}. By the arbitrariness of w0w_{0}, Π0\Pi_{0}^{\prime} has zero Lebesgue measure and the proof is complete. ∎

5. Proof of the Main Theorem

Let Γ\Gamma be the set defined in (4.1). In this section we first define a map A(α)A(\alpha) on the set Γ\Gamma, which measures the conformal angle between the two critical points on the boundaries of the Siegel disks. Then we prove that AA is a homeomorphism between Γ\Gamma and a circle. The Main Theorem then follows immediately.

To find points on Γ\Gamma, let η:(0,1)Σθ\eta:(0,1)\to\Sigma_{\theta} be any simple (hence continuous) curve satisfying

limt0+η(t)=0 and limt1η(t)=.\lim_{t\to 0^{+}}\eta(t)=0\text{\quad and\quad}\lim_{t\to 1^{-}}\eta(t)=\infty. (5.1)

Define

t0=t0(η):=sup{0<t<1:c2Δη(t) and c1Δη(t)0}.t_{0}=t_{0}(\eta):=\sup\{0<t<1:\,c_{2}\in\partial{\Delta_{\eta(t)}^{\infty}}\text{ and }c_{1}\not\in\partial{\Delta_{\eta(t)}^{0}}\}.

As mentioned at the end of §3, c2Δαc_{2}\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} and c1Δα0c_{1}\not\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} if α\alpha is small enough, and c1Δα0c_{1}\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} and c2Δαc_{2}\not\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} if α\alpha is large enough. By Corollary 3.5, we have 0<t0<10<t_{0}<1 and 1/δη(t0)δ1/\delta\leq\eta(t_{0})\leq\delta for a constant δ=δ(θ)>1\delta=\delta(\theta)>1.

Lemma 5.1.

We have α0:=η(t0)Γ\alpha_{0}:=\eta(t_{0})\in\Gamma.

Proof.

By Proposition 2.6, we have

dH(Δη(t)0,Δα00)0 and dH(Δη(t),Δα0)0d_{H}(\partial{\Delta^{0}_{\eta(t)}},\partial{\Delta^{0}_{\alpha_{0}}})\to 0\text{\quad and\quad}d_{H}(\partial{\Delta^{\infty}_{\eta(t)}},\partial{\Delta^{\infty}_{\alpha_{0}}})\to 0

as tt0t\to t_{0}, where dH(,)d_{H}(\cdot,\cdot) denotes the Hausdorff distance in \mathbb{C}. By the definition of t0t_{0}, there is a sequence tnt0t_{n}\to t_{0}^{-} such that Δη(tn)\partial{\Delta^{\infty}_{\eta(t_{n})}} passes through c2c_{2} for every n1n\geq 1. Thus c2Δα0c_{2}\in\partial{\Delta^{\infty}_{\alpha_{0}}}.

If c1Δα00c_{1}\not\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha_{0}}^{0}, then by the continuous dependence of the boundaries of the Siegel disks, there exists a small neighborhood WW of α0\alpha_{0} such that c1Δα0Δαc_{1}\not\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}\cup\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} for any αW\alpha\in W. This implies that c2Δαc_{2}\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} and c1Δα0c_{1}\not\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} for all αW\alpha\in W, which contradicts the definition of α0\alpha_{0}. Therefore, c1Δα00c_{1}\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha_{0}}^{0} and hence α0Γ\alpha_{0}\in\Gamma. ∎

Let hα0h_{\alpha}^{0} and hαh_{\alpha}^{\infty} be the conformal mapping defined in (2.3). They can be homeomorphically extended to

hα0:𝔻¯Δα0¯ and hα:𝔻¯Δα¯.h_{\alpha}^{0}:\overline{\mathbb{D}}\to\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}}\text{\quad and\quad}h_{\alpha}^{\infty}:\overline{\mathbb{D}}\to\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}}. (5.2)

For αΓ\alpha\in\Gamma, the map fαf_{\alpha} has two critical points c1Δα0c_{1}\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} and c2Δαc_{2}\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}, and two critical values fα(c1)Δαf_{\alpha}(c_{1})\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} and fα(c2)Δα0f_{\alpha}(c_{2})\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}. In this section we assume that hα0h_{\alpha}^{0} and hαh_{\alpha}^{\infty} are normalized (which are different from §2.3) such that

hα0(0)=0,hα0(1)=c1 and hα(0)=,hα(1)=fα(c1).h_{\alpha}^{0}(0)=0,~{}h_{\alpha}^{0}(1)=c_{1}\text{\quad and\quad}h_{\alpha}^{\infty}(0)=\infty,~{}h_{\alpha}^{\infty}(1)=f_{\alpha}(c_{1}). (5.3)

Note that fαhα0:𝔻¯Δα¯f_{\alpha}\circ h_{\alpha}^{0}:\overline{\mathbb{D}}\to\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty}} is the homeomorphic extension of the conformal map fαhα0:𝔻Δαf_{\alpha}\circ h_{\alpha}^{0}:\mathbb{D}\to\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} satisfying fαhα0(0)=f_{\alpha}\circ h_{\alpha}^{0}(0)=\infty and fαhα0(1)=fα(c1)f_{\alpha}\circ h_{\alpha}^{0}(1)=f_{\alpha}(c_{1}). By the uniqueness of Riemann maps, we have fαhα0(ζ)=hα(ζ)f_{\alpha}\circ h_{\alpha}^{0}(\zeta)=h_{\alpha}^{\infty}(\zeta) for all ζ𝔻¯\zeta\in\overline{\mathbb{D}}. Let

A(α):=arg(hα0)1(fα(c2)) and A~(α):=arg(hα)1(c2)A(\alpha):=\arg\,(h_{\alpha}^{0})^{-1}(f_{\alpha}(c_{2}))\text{\quad and \quad}\widetilde{A}(\alpha):=\arg\,(h_{\alpha}^{\infty})^{-1}(c_{2}) (5.4)

respectively, be the conformal angle between c1c_{1} and fα(c2)f_{\alpha}(c_{2}) (in the conformal coordinate (hα0)1(h_{\alpha}^{0})^{-1}), and the conformal angle between fα(c1)f_{\alpha}(c_{1}) and c2c_{2} (in the conformal coordinate (hα)1(h_{\alpha}^{\infty})^{-1}) measured counterclockwise. Since (hα)1fα(z)=(hα0)1(z)(h_{\alpha}^{\infty})^{-1}\circ f_{\alpha}(z)=(h_{\alpha}^{0})^{-1}(z) for all zΔα0¯z\in\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}}, we have

A(α)=arg(hα0)1fα(c2)=arg(hα)1fα2(c2)=A~(α)+2πθ.\begin{split}A(\alpha)=&~{}\arg\,(h_{\alpha}^{0})^{-1}\circ f_{\alpha}(c_{2})\\ =&~{}\arg\,(h_{\alpha}^{\infty})^{-1}\circ f_{\alpha}^{\circ 2}(c_{2})=\widetilde{A}(\alpha)+2\pi\theta.\end{split} (5.5)
Lemma 5.2.

The map αA(α)\alpha\mapsto A(\alpha) is continuous on Γ\Gamma.

Proof.

By Proposition 2.6, Δα0\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} moves continuously as α\alpha varies continuously on Γ\Gamma. Since the map hα0:𝔻¯Δα0¯h_{\alpha}^{0}:\overline{\mathbb{D}}\to\overline{\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}} is normalized by hα0(0)=0h_{\alpha}^{0}(0)=0 and hα0(1)=c1h_{\alpha}^{0}(1)=c_{1}, it follows from Carathéodory that hα0h_{\alpha}^{0} depends continuously on αΓ\alpha\in\Gamma. In particular, αA(α)\alpha\mapsto A(\alpha) is continuous on Γ\Gamma. ∎

The next lemma implies that αΓ\alpha\in\Gamma is uniquely determined by the angle A(α)A(\alpha).

Lemma 5.3.

If A(α1)=A(α2)A({\alpha_{1}})=A({\alpha_{2}}) for α1,α2Γ\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2}\in\Gamma, then α1=α2\alpha_{1}=\alpha_{2}.

Proof.

Based on the preparations in §4, we prove that fα12f_{\alpha_{1}}^{\circ 2} is conformally conjugate to fα22f_{\alpha_{2}}^{\circ 2} by a rigidity argument from A(α1)=A(α2)A(\alpha_{1})=A(\alpha_{2}). To distinguish the objects corresponding to different parameters, we shall use c1,αc_{1,\alpha} and c2,αc_{2,\alpha} to denote the critical points of fαf_{\alpha}.

Since A(α1)=A(α2)A(\alpha_{1})=A(\alpha_{2}), we have A~(α1)=A~(α2)\widetilde{A}(\alpha_{1})=\widetilde{A}(\alpha_{2}) by (5.5). Define ϕ0:=hα20(hα10)1:Δα10¯Δα20¯\phi_{0}:=h_{\alpha_{2}}^{0}\circ(h_{\alpha_{1}}^{0})^{-1}:\overline{\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{0}}\to\overline{\Delta_{\alpha_{2}}^{0}} and ϕ0:=hα2(hα1)1:Δα1¯Δα2¯\phi_{0}:=h_{\alpha_{2}}^{\infty}\circ(h_{\alpha_{1}}^{\infty})^{-1}:\overline{\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{\infty}}\to\overline{\Delta_{\alpha_{2}}^{\infty}}. Then

ϕ0:Δα10¯Δα1¯Δα20¯Δα2¯\phi_{0}:\overline{\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{0}}\cup\overline{\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{\infty}}\to\overline{\Delta_{\alpha_{2}}^{0}}\cup\overline{\Delta_{\alpha_{2}}^{\infty}}

is a continuous map satisfying

  • ϕ0:Δα10Δα20\phi_{0}:\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{0}\to\Delta_{\alpha_{2}}^{0} and ϕ0:Δα1Δα2\phi_{0}:\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{\infty}\to\Delta_{\alpha_{2}}^{\infty} are conformal;

  • ϕ0(c1,α1)=c1,α2\phi_{0}(c_{1,\alpha_{1}})=c_{1,\alpha_{2}} and ϕ0(fα1(c2,α1))=fα2(c2,α2)\phi_{0}(f_{\alpha_{1}}(c_{2,\alpha_{1}}))=f_{\alpha_{2}}(c_{2,\alpha_{2}});

  • ϕ0(c2,α1)=c2,α2\phi_{0}(c_{2,\alpha_{1}})=c_{2,\alpha_{2}} and ϕ0(fα1(c1,α1))=fα2(c1,α2)\phi_{0}(f_{\alpha_{1}}(c_{1,\alpha_{1}}))=f_{\alpha_{2}}(c_{1,\alpha_{2}}); and

  • ϕ0fα12(z)=fα22ϕ0(z)\phi_{0}\circ f_{\alpha_{1}}^{\circ 2}(z)=f_{\alpha_{2}}^{\circ 2}\circ\phi_{0}(z) for all zΔα10¯Δα1¯z\in\overline{\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{0}}\cup\overline{\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{\infty}}.

We have the following:

Claim.

The two maps fα1f_{\alpha_{1}} and fα2f_{\alpha_{2}} are Thurston equivalent. Specifically, there exist two quasiconformal mappings ϕ0:^^\phi_{0}:\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\to\widehat{\mathbb{C}} and ψ0:^^\psi_{0}:\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\to\widehat{\mathbb{C}} such that

  • ϕ0:^^\phi_{0}:\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\to\widehat{\mathbb{C}} and ψ0:^^\psi_{0}:\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\to\widehat{\mathbb{C}} are extensions of ϕ0\phi_{0} on Δα10¯Δα1¯\overline{\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{0}}\cup\overline{\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{\infty}}; and

  • ψ0\psi_{0} is isotopic to ϕ0\phi_{0} relative to Δα10Δα1\partial{\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{0}}\cup\partial{\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{\infty}}, and the following diagram is commutative:

    ^ψ0^fα1fα2^ϕ0^.\begin{CD}\widehat{\mathbb{C}}@>{\psi_{0}}>{}>\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\\ @V{}V{f_{\alpha_{1}}}V@V{}V{f_{\alpha_{2}}}V\\ \widehat{\mathbb{C}}@>{\phi_{0}}>{}>\widehat{\mathbb{C}}.\end{CD} (5.6)

In fact, since Δα0\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} and Δα\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} are quasicircles for all αΣθ\alpha\in\Sigma_{\theta}, there are quasiconformal mappings χi:^^\chi_{i}:\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\to\widehat{\mathbb{C}}, where i=1,2i=1,2, such that

  • χi:Δαi0𝔻r\chi_{i}:\Delta_{\alpha_{i}}^{0}\to\mathbb{D}_{r} and χi:Δαi^𝔻¯\chi_{i}:\Delta_{\alpha_{i}}^{\infty}\to\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\setminus\overline{\mathbb{D}} are conformal, where 𝔻r={ζ:|ζ|<r}\mathbb{D}_{r}=\{\zeta:|\zeta|<r\} for some 0<r<10<r<1; and

  • χi(c1,αi)=r\chi_{i}(c_{1,\alpha_{i}})=r, χi(fαi(c1,αi))=1\chi_{i}\big{(}f_{\alpha_{i}}(c_{1,\alpha_{i}})\big{)}=1, χi(0)=0\chi_{i}(0)=0 and χi()=\chi_{i}(\infty)=\infty.

Then for i=1,2i=1,2, each f~i:=χifαiχi1\widetilde{f}_{i}:=\chi_{i}\circ f_{\alpha_{i}}\circ\chi_{i}^{-1} is a quasiregular map and

f~i(ζ)=r/ζ:𝔻¯r^𝔻 and f~i(ζ)=re2πiθ/ζ:^𝔻𝔻¯r.\widetilde{f}_{i}(\zeta)=r/\zeta:\overline{\mathbb{D}}_{r}\to\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\setminus\mathbb{D}\text{\quad and\quad}\widetilde{f}_{i}(\zeta)=re^{2\pi\textup{i}\theta}/\zeta:\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\setminus\mathbb{D}\to\overline{\mathbb{D}}_{r}. (5.7)

Let U00(αi)Δαi0U_{0}^{0}(\alpha_{i})\neq\Delta_{\alpha_{i}}^{0} be the connected component of fαi1(Δαi)f_{\alpha_{i}}^{-1}(\Delta_{\alpha_{i}}^{\infty}) attaching at c1,αic_{1,\alpha_{i}}. We use U~00(αi)Δαi\widetilde{U}_{0}^{0}(\alpha_{i})\neq\Delta_{\alpha_{i}}^{\infty} to denote the connected component of fαi1(Δαi0)f_{\alpha_{i}}^{-1}(\Delta_{\alpha_{i}}^{0}) attaching at c2,αic_{2,\alpha_{i}}. Denote 𝔸r={ζ:r<|ζ|<1}\mathbb{A}_{r}=\{\zeta:r<|\zeta|<1\}. Then f~i1(𝔸r)=𝔸r(χi(U00(αi)U~00(αi)))\widetilde{f}_{i}^{-1}(\mathbb{A}_{r})=\mathbb{A}_{r}\setminus(\chi_{i}(U_{0}^{0}(\alpha_{i})\cup\widetilde{U}_{0}^{0}(\alpha_{i}))) is an annulus and f~i:f~i1(𝔸r)𝔸r\widetilde{f}_{i}:\widetilde{f}_{i}^{-1}(\mathbb{A}_{r})\to\mathbb{A}_{r} is a covering map of degree two for i=1,2i=1,2. Hence f~2\widetilde{f}_{2} is homotopic to Tkf~1T^{\circ k}\circ\widetilde{f}_{1} relative to 𝔸r\partial\mathbb{A}_{r} for some kk\in\mathbb{Z}, where

T(ζ):={ζe2πi|ζ|r1r if z𝔸r,ζ otherwise.T(\zeta):=\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}\zeta e^{2\pi\textup{i}\frac{|\zeta|-r}{1-r}}&\text{\quad if }z\in\mathbb{A}_{r},\\ \zeta&\text{\quad otherwise}.\end{array}\right. (5.8)

is the Dehn twist in the annulus 𝔸r\mathbb{A}_{r}. See Figure 6.

Refer to caption
Figure 6. The Dehn twist TT in the annulus 𝔸r=𝔻𝔻¯r\mathbb{A}_{r}=\mathbb{D}\setminus\overline{\mathbb{D}}_{r}. The segment [r,1][r,1] and its image under TT are colored red.

For i=1,2i=1,2, we denote

c~2,αi:=χi(c2,αi) and v~2,αi:=f~i(χi(c2,αi))=χi(fi(c2,αi)).\widetilde{c}_{2,\alpha_{i}}:=\chi_{i}(c_{2,\alpha_{i}})\text{\quad and\quad}\widetilde{v}_{2,\alpha_{i}}:=\widetilde{f}_{i}\big{(}\chi_{i}(c_{2,\alpha_{i}})\big{)}=\chi_{i}\big{(}f_{i}(c_{2,\alpha_{i}})\big{)}. (5.9)

Since χi(c1,αi)=r\chi_{i}(c_{1,\alpha_{i}})=r and χi(fαi(c1,αi))=1\chi_{i}\big{(}f_{\alpha_{i}}(c_{1,\alpha_{i}})\big{)}=1, by (5.4) we have A(αi)=argv~2,αiA(\alpha_{i})=\arg\widetilde{v}_{2,\alpha_{i}} and A~(αi)=argc~2,αi\widetilde{A}(\alpha_{i})=\arg\widetilde{c}_{2,\alpha_{i}}. Since A(α1)=A(α2)A(\alpha_{1})=A(\alpha_{2}) and A~(α1)=A~(α2)\widetilde{A}(\alpha_{1})=\widetilde{A}(\alpha_{2}), we have v~2,α1=v~2,α2\widetilde{v}_{2,\alpha_{1}}=\widetilde{v}_{2,\alpha_{2}} and c~2,α1=c~2,α2\widetilde{c}_{2,\alpha_{1}}=\widetilde{c}_{2,\alpha_{2}}.

In the following, we use ‘\simeq’ to denote the homotopy. Let ϕ~0\widetilde{\phi}_{0} and ϕ^1\widehat{\phi}_{1} be two quasiconformal mappings of ^\widehat{\mathbb{C}} such that

  • ϕ~0=ϕ^1=id\widetilde{\phi}_{0}=\widehat{\phi}_{1}=\textup{id} in ^𝔸r\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\setminus\mathbb{A}_{r}; and

  • ϕ~0ϕ^1Tk:𝔸r𝔸r\widetilde{\phi}_{0}\simeq\widehat{\phi}_{1}\simeq T^{-k}:\mathbb{A}_{r}\to\mathbb{A}_{r} rel 𝔸r\partial\mathbb{A}_{r}.

Note that for i=1,2i=1,2, 𝔸rf~i1(𝔸r)\partial\mathbb{A}_{r}\subset\widetilde{f}_{i}^{-1}(\partial\mathbb{A}_{r}) and f~i:f~i1(𝔸r)𝔸r\widetilde{f}_{i}:\widetilde{f}_{i}^{-1}(\mathbb{A}_{r})\to\mathbb{A}_{r} is a covering map of degree two. From f~2Tkf~1\widetilde{f}_{2}\simeq T^{\circ k}\circ\widetilde{f}_{1} rel 𝔸r\partial\mathbb{A}_{r} for some kk\in\mathbb{Z}, we have

f~2ϕ^1Tkf~1ϕ^1Tkf~1ϕ~0f~1 rel 𝔸r.\widetilde{f}_{2}\circ\widehat{\phi}_{1}\simeq T^{\circ k}\circ\widetilde{f}_{1}\circ\widehat{\phi}_{1}\simeq T^{-k}\circ\widetilde{f}_{1}\simeq\widetilde{\phi}_{0}\circ\widetilde{f}_{1}\text{\quad rel }\partial\mathbb{A}_{r}. (5.10)

Hence there exists a quasiconformal mapping ϕ~1:^^\widetilde{\phi}_{1}:\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\to\widehat{\mathbb{C}} such that ϕ~1=id\widetilde{\phi}_{1}=\textup{id} in ^𝔸r\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\setminus\mathbb{A}_{r}, ϕ~1Tkϕ~0\widetilde{\phi}_{1}\simeq T^{-k}\simeq\widetilde{\phi}_{0} rel 𝔸r\partial\mathbb{A}_{r}, and the following diagram is commutative:

^ϕ~1^f~1f~2^ϕ~0^.\begin{CD}\widehat{\mathbb{C}}@>{\widetilde{\phi}_{1}}>{}>\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\\ @V{}V{\widetilde{f}_{1}}V@V{}V{\widetilde{f}_{2}}V\\ \widehat{\mathbb{C}}@>{\widetilde{\phi}_{0}}>{}>\widehat{\mathbb{C}}.\end{CD} (5.11)

See Figure 7 for an illustration when k=1k=1. Then the claim that fα1f_{\alpha_{1}} and fα2f_{\alpha_{2}} are Thurston equivalent holds if we set ϕ0:=χ21ϕ~0χ1\phi_{0}:=\chi_{2}^{-1}\circ\widetilde{\phi}_{0}\circ\chi_{1} and ψ0:=χ21ϕ~1χ1\psi_{0}:=\chi_{2}^{-1}\circ\widetilde{\phi}_{1}\circ\chi_{1}.

Refer to caption
Figure 7. An illustration of the construction of the quasiconformal mappings ϕ~0\widetilde{\phi}_{0} and ϕ~1\widetilde{\phi}_{1} of ^\widehat{\mathbb{C}} under the condition f~2Tkf~1\widetilde{f}_{2}\simeq T^{\circ k}\circ\widetilde{f}_{1} rel 𝔸r\partial\mathbb{A}_{r} when k=1k=1.

Note that fαi2(Δαi0)f_{\alpha_{i}}^{-2}(\Delta_{\alpha_{i}}^{0}) is the union of 44 connected components Δαi0\Delta_{\alpha_{i}}^{0} and U0t(αi)U_{0}^{t}(\alpha_{i}) with t{0,1,2}t\in\{0,1,2\}. Similarly, we use U~0t(αi)\widetilde{U}_{0}^{t}(\alpha_{i}) with t{0,1,2}t\in\{0,1,2\} to denote the components of fαi2(Δαi)Δαif_{\alpha_{i}}^{-2}(\Delta_{\alpha_{i}}^{\infty})\setminus\Delta_{\alpha_{i}}^{\infty}. From the above claim we know that ψ0\psi_{0} is conformal in every component of fα11(Δα10Δα1)=Δα10Δα1U00(α1)U~00(α1)f_{\alpha_{1}}^{-1}(\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{0}\cup\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{\infty})=\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{0}\cup\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{\infty}\cup U_{0}^{0}(\alpha_{1})\cup\widetilde{U}_{0}^{0}(\alpha_{1}), and there exists a quasiconformal mapping ϕ1:^^\phi_{1}:\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\to\widehat{\mathbb{C}} which is the lift of ψ0\psi_{0} such that

  • ϕ1=ϕ0\phi_{1}=\phi_{0} on Δα10¯Δα1¯\overline{\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{0}}\cup\overline{\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{\infty}};

  • ϕ1ϕ0\phi_{1}\simeq\phi_{0} rel Δα10Δα1\partial{\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{0}}\cup\partial{\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{\infty}};

  • ϕ0fα12=fα22ϕ1\phi_{0}\circ f_{\alpha_{1}}^{\circ 2}=f_{\alpha_{2}}^{\circ 2}\circ\phi_{1}; and

  • ϕ1\phi_{1} is holomorphic in every component of fα12(Δα10Δα1)f_{\alpha_{1}}^{-2}(\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{0}\cup\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{\infty}), and maps U0t(α1)U_{0}^{t}(\alpha_{1}) to U0t(α2)U_{0}^{t}(\alpha_{2}) and U~0t(α1)\widetilde{U}_{0}^{t}(\alpha_{1}) to U~0t(α2)\widetilde{U}_{0}^{t}(\alpha_{2}) for t{0,1,2}t\in\{0,1,2\}.

From §4.1 we know that every connected component of fαi2n(Δαi0)f_{\alpha_{i}}^{-2n}(\Delta_{\alpha_{i}}^{0}) which is different from Δαi0\Delta_{\alpha_{i}}^{0}, can be written as exactly one of Us1,,smt1,,tm(αi)U_{s_{1},\cdots,s_{m}}^{t_{1},\cdots,t_{m}}(\alpha_{i}), Vs1,,smt1,,tm(αi)V_{s_{1},\cdots,s_{m}}^{t_{1},\cdots,t_{m}}(\alpha_{i}), Ws1,,smt1,,tm(αi)W_{s_{1},\cdots,s_{m}}^{t_{1},\cdots,t_{m}}(\alpha_{i}) or Xs1,,smt1,,tm(αi)X_{s_{1},\cdots,s_{m}}^{t_{1},\cdots,t_{m}}(\alpha_{i}), where n=s1++sm+1n=s_{1}+\cdots+s_{m}+1, si1s_{i}\geq 1 and ti{0,1,2}t_{i}\in\{0,1,2\}. Similarly, we use U~s1,,smt1,,tm(αi)\widetilde{U}_{s_{1},\cdots,s_{m}}^{t_{1},\cdots,t_{m}}(\alpha_{i}), V~s1,,smt1,,tm(αi)\widetilde{V}_{s_{1},\cdots,s_{m}}^{t_{1},\cdots,t_{m}}(\alpha_{i}), W~s1,,smt1,,tm(αi)\widetilde{W}_{s_{1},\cdots,s_{m}}^{t_{1},\cdots,t_{m}}(\alpha_{i}) and X~s1,,smt1,,tm(αi)\widetilde{X}_{s_{1},\cdots,s_{m}}^{t_{1},\cdots,t_{m}}(\alpha_{i}) to denote the connected components of fαi2n(Δαi)f_{\alpha_{i}}^{-2n}(\Delta_{\alpha_{i}}^{\infty}).

Now let us assume that for every 1kn1\leq k\leq n, we have a quasiconformal homeomorphism ϕk:^^\phi_{k}:\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\to\widehat{\mathbb{C}} so that

  • ϕk=ϕk1\phi_{k}=\phi_{k-1} on fα12(k1)(Δα10¯Δα1¯)f_{\alpha_{1}}^{-2(k-1)}(\overline{\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{0}}\cup\overline{\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{\infty}});

  • ϕkϕk1\phi_{k}\simeq\phi_{k-1} rel Δα10Δα1\partial{\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{0}}\cup\partial{\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{\infty}};

  • ϕk1fα12=fα22ϕk\phi_{k-1}\circ f_{\alpha_{1}}^{\circ 2}=f_{\alpha_{2}}^{\circ 2}\circ\phi_{k}; and

  • ϕk\phi_{k} is holomorphic in every connected component of fα12k(Δα10Δα1)f_{\alpha_{1}}^{-2k}(\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{0}\cup\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{\infty}), and maps every component to the corresponding one with the same address, i.e., Us1,,smt1,,tm(α1)U_{s_{1},\cdots,s_{m}}^{t_{1},\cdots,t_{m}}(\alpha_{1}) to Us1,,smt1,,tm(α2)U_{s_{1},\cdots,s_{m}}^{t_{1},\cdots,t_{m}}(\alpha_{2}) etc, where k=s1++sm+1k=s_{1}+\cdots+s_{m}+1.

We define ϕn+1\phi_{n+1} as follows. First we set ϕn+1=ϕn\phi_{n+1}=\phi_{n} on fα12n(Δα10¯Δα1¯)f_{\alpha_{1}}^{-2n}(\overline{\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{0}}\cup\overline{\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{\infty}}). Note that 0kn+1fαi2k(Δαi0¯)\bigcup_{0\leq k\leq n+1}f_{\alpha_{i}}^{-2k}(\overline{\Delta_{\alpha_{i}}^{0}}) and 0kn+1fαi2k(Δαi¯)\bigcup_{0\leq k\leq n+1}f_{\alpha_{i}}^{-2k}(\overline{\Delta_{\alpha_{i}}^{\infty}}) are connected and disjoint to each other, where i=1,2i=1,2. By induction, ϕn+1\phi_{n+1} can be extended to a quasiconformal mapping ϕn+1:^^\phi_{n+1}:\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\to\widehat{\mathbb{C}} which satisfies

  • ϕn+1ϕn\phi_{n+1}\simeq\phi_{n} rel Δα10Δα1\partial{\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{0}}\cup\partial{\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{\infty}};

  • ϕnfα12=fα22ϕn+1\phi_{n}\circ f_{\alpha_{1}}^{\circ 2}=f_{\alpha_{2}}^{\circ 2}\circ\phi_{n+1}; and

  • ϕn+1\phi_{n+1} is holomorphic in every connected component of fα12(n+1)(Δα10Δα1)f_{\alpha_{1}}^{-2(n+1)}(\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{0}\cup\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{\infty}), and maps every component to the corresponding one with the same address, i.e., Us1,,smt1,,tm(α1)U_{s_{1}^{\prime},\cdots,s_{m^{\prime}}^{\prime}}^{t_{1}^{\prime},\cdots,t_{m^{\prime}}^{\prime}}(\alpha_{1}) to Us1,,smt1,,tm(α2)U_{s_{1}^{\prime},\cdots,s_{m^{\prime}}^{\prime}}^{t_{1}^{\prime},\cdots,t_{m^{\prime}}^{\prime}}(\alpha_{2}) etc, where n=s1++smn=s_{1}^{\prime}+\cdots+s_{m^{\prime}}^{\prime}.

By induction, we have a sequence of quasiconformal homeomorphisms {ϕn:n}\{\phi_{n}:n\in\mathbb{N}\} of the complex sphere such that each ϕn:^^\phi_{n}:\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\to\widehat{\mathbb{C}} is conformal in every component of fα12n(Δα10Δα1)f^{-2n}_{\alpha_{1}}(\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{0}\cup\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{\infty}) and its Beltrami coefficient satisfies

μϕnμϕ0<1.\|\mu_{\phi_{n}}\|_{\infty}\leq\|\mu_{\phi_{0}}\|_{\infty}<1. (5.12)

Since ϕn=ϕ0\phi_{n}=\phi_{0} on Δα10Δα1\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{0}\cup\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{\infty} for all n1n\geq 1, it follows that {ϕn:n}\{\phi_{n}:n\in\mathbb{N}\} is a normal family.

Passing to the convergent subsequences of {ϕn}n0\{\phi_{n}\}_{n\geq 0} two times, we obtain two limit quasiconformal mappings ϕ\phi and ψ\psi, which fix 0, c1c_{1}, c2c_{2} and \infty, and satisfy ϕfα12=fα22ψ\phi\circ f_{\alpha_{1}}^{\circ 2}=f_{\alpha_{2}}^{\circ 2}\circ\psi since ϕnfα12=fα22ϕn+1\phi_{n}\circ f_{\alpha_{1}}^{\circ 2}=f_{\alpha_{2}}^{\circ 2}\circ\phi_{n+1} for each n0n\geq 0. From the construction it follows that ϕ(z)=ψ(z)\phi(z)=\psi(z) for zn0fα12n(Δα10Δα1)z\in\bigcup_{n\geq 0}f_{\alpha_{1}}^{-2n}(\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{0}\cup\Delta_{\alpha_{1}}^{\infty}). Then ϕ=ψ\phi=\psi on a dense set of ^\widehat{\mathbb{C}} since the Fatou set of fα12f_{\alpha_{1}}^{\circ 2} is dense on ^\widehat{\mathbb{C}}. This implies that ϕ\phi coincides with ψ\psi on ^\widehat{\mathbb{C}} because of the continuity. Then fα12f_{\alpha_{1}}^{\circ 2} and fα22f_{\alpha_{2}}^{\circ 2} are quasiconformally conjugate to each other on ^\widehat{\mathbb{C}} and they are conformally conjugate in the Fatou set.

By Lemma 4.3, the Julia set of fα1f_{\alpha_{1}} has zero Lebesgue measure. Hence ϕ:^^\phi:\widehat{\mathbb{C}}\to\widehat{\mathbb{C}} is conformal everywhere and must be the identity. This implies that fα12=fα22f^{\circ 2}_{\alpha_{1}}=f^{\circ 2}_{\alpha_{2}}. By (3.2), we get α1=α2\alpha_{1}=\alpha_{2}. ∎

Note that A(α)=0A(\alpha)=0 if and only if fα(c2)=c1f_{\alpha}(c_{2})=c_{1}. This is equivalent to α=α:=c1/f1(c2)\alpha=\alpha_{*}:=c_{1}/f_{1}(c_{2}). Hence we identify the two choices of images A(α)=0A(\alpha_{*})=0 and A(α)=2πA(\alpha_{*})=2\pi and assume that A(α)(0,2π)A(\alpha)\in(0,2\pi) for all αΓ{α}\alpha\in\Gamma\setminus\{\alpha_{*}\}.

Lemma 5.4.

The map A:Γ/(2π)A:\Gamma\to\mathbb{R}/(2\pi\mathbb{Z}) is a homeomorphism.

Proof.

By Proposition 2.6 and a similar proof to Lemma 5.1, the set Γ\Gamma is compact in {0}\mathbb{C}\setminus\{0\}. By Lemmas 5.2 and 5.3, AA is a continuous injection. Since /(2π)\mathbb{R}/(2\pi\mathbb{Z}) is a Hausdorff space, it suffices to prove that AA is a surjection.

Assume that A(Γ)A(\Gamma) is a proper subset of /(2π)\mathbb{R}/(2\pi\mathbb{Z}). Since Γ\Gamma is compact and A:ΓA(Γ)A:\Gamma\to A(\Gamma) is a homeomorphism, it follows that A(Γ)A(\Gamma) is a compact subset of /(2π)\mathbb{R}/(2\pi\mathbb{Z}) and every component of A(Γ)A(\Gamma) is a singleton or a closed arc. Considering the homeomorphism A1:A(Γ)ΓA^{-1}:A(\Gamma)\to\Gamma, we know that every component of Γ\Gamma is a singleton or a simple arc with two end points.

By Lemma 5.1, Γ\Gamma is a compact set separating 0 from \infty. Let Λ0\Lambda_{0} be the connected component of (Γ{0})\mathbb{C}\setminus(\Gamma\cup\{0\}) containing a small punctured neighborhood of 0. Then Λ¯0\overline{\Lambda}_{0} is a connected compact set and Λ¯0Γ\partial\overline{\Lambda}_{0}\subset\Gamma. We claim that Λ¯0\partial\overline{\Lambda}_{0} is connected. Otherwise, Λ¯0\partial\overline{\Lambda}_{0} has at least two components, and each of them is contained in a singleton or a simple arc since Λ¯0Γ\partial\overline{\Lambda}_{0}\subset\Gamma. This is impossible by the definition of Λ¯0\overline{\Lambda}_{0}. Hence Λ¯0\partial\overline{\Lambda}_{0} is a connected compact set separating 0 from \infty. However, still by Λ¯0Γ\partial\overline{\Lambda}_{0}\subset\Gamma, we conclude that Λ¯0\partial\overline{\Lambda}_{0} is contained in singleton or a simple arc, which cannot separate 0 from \infty. Hence we have A(Γ)=/(2π)A(\Gamma)=\mathbb{R}/(2\pi\mathbb{Z}) and AA is a homeomorphism. ∎

Proof of the Main Theorem.

By Lemma 2.5 and Proposition 2.6, each of Δα0\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} and Δα\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} contains at most one critical point, and they move continuously as α\alpha varies continuously in Σθ\Sigma_{\theta}. It suffices to prove the properties of Γ\Gamma.

By Lemma 5.4, Γ\Gamma is a Jordan curve in Σθ\Sigma_{\theta} separating 0 from \infty. For αΣθΓ\alpha\in\Sigma_{\theta}\setminus\Gamma, Δα0Δα\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0}\cup\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} contains exactly one critical point c1c_{1} or c2c_{2}. We have assumed that the critical points c1=c1(θ)c_{1}=c_{1}(\theta) and c2=c2(θ)c_{2}=c_{2}(\theta) are marked such that c1Δα0c_{1}\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} if α\alpha is large enough while c2Δαc_{2}\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} if α\alpha is small enough. In particular, by Corollary 3.5, c1Δα0c_{1}\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} if |α|δ|\alpha|\geq\delta and c2Δαc_{2}\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} if 0<|α|1/δ0<|\alpha|\leq 1/\delta for some δ>1\delta>1.

We claim that c1Δα0c_{1}\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} for all αΓext\alpha\in\Gamma_{\textup{ext}}. Otherwise, assume that c1Δα0c_{1}\not\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha^{\prime}}^{0} for some αΓext\alpha^{\prime}\in\Gamma_{\textup{ext}}. Since c1Δαc_{1}\not\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} and c2Δα0c_{2}\not\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{0} for all αΣθ\alpha\in\Sigma_{\theta}, this implies that c2Δαc_{2}\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha^{\prime}}^{\infty}. Let η\eta be a simple curve in Γext\Gamma_{\textup{ext}} connecting δ\delta with α\alpha^{\prime}. Since the boundaries of Siegel disks move continuously, similar to the proof of Lemma 5.1, there must exist a point α′′η\alpha^{\prime\prime}\in\eta such that Δα′′0Δα′′\partial\Delta_{\alpha^{\prime\prime}}^{0}\cup\partial\Delta_{\alpha^{\prime\prime}}^{\infty} contains the both critical points c1c_{1} and c2c_{2}. This implies that α′′Γ\alpha^{\prime\prime}\in\Gamma, which is a contradiction since α′′ηΓext\alpha^{\prime\prime}\in\eta\subset\Gamma_{\textup{ext}}. This proves the claim. By a similar argument, we have c2Δαc_{2}\in\partial\Delta_{\alpha}^{\infty} for all αΓint{0}\alpha\in\Gamma_{\textup{int}}\setminus\{0\}. This completes the proof of the Main Theorem. ∎

References

  • [AY09] M. Aspenberg and M. Yampolsky, Mating non-renormalizable quadratic polynomials, Comm. Math. Phys. 287 (2009), no. 1, 1–40.
  • [BCOT21] A. Blokh, A. Chéritat, L. Oversteegen, and V. Timorin, Location of Siegel capture polynomials in parameter spaces, Nonlinearity 34 (2021), no. 4, 2430–2453.
  • [BÉE13] X. Buff, J. Écalle, and A. Epstein, Limits of degenerate parabolic quadratic rational maps, Geom. Funct. Anal. 23 (2013), no. 1, 42–95.
  • [BF10] R. Berenguel and N. Fagella, An entire transcendental family with a persistent Siegel disc, J. Difference Equ. Appl. 16 (2010), no. 5-6, 523–553.
  • [BH01] X. Buff and C. Henriksen, Julia sets in parameter spaces, Comm. Math. Phys. 220 (2001), no. 2, 333–375.
  • [Ché20] A. Chéritat, On the size of Siegel disks with fixed multiplier for cubic polynomials, arXiv: 2003.13337, 2020.
  • [Che22] D. Cheraghi, Topology of irrationally indifferent attractors, arXiv: 1706.02678v3, 2022.
  • [DeM05] L. DeMarco, Iteration at the boundary of the space of rational maps, Duke Math. J. 130 (2005), no. 1, 169–197.
  • [DeM07] by same author, The moduli space of quadratic rational maps, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 20 (2007), no. 2, 321–355.
  • [DFGJ14] R. L. Devaney, N. Fagella, A. Garijo, and X. Jarque, Sierpiński curve Julia sets for quadratic rational maps, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. 39 (2014), no. 1, 3–22.
  • [Eps00] A. L. Epstein, Bounded hyperbolic components of quadratic rational maps, Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 20 (2000), no. 3, 727–748.
  • [GŚ03] J. Graczyk and G. Świa̧tek, Siegel disks with critical points in their boundaries, Duke Math. J. 119 (2003), no. 1, 189–196.
  • [KZ09] L. Keen and G. Zhang, Bounded-type Siegel disks of a one-dimensional family of entire functions, Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 29 (2009), no. 1, 137–164.
  • [Leh87] O. Lehto, Univalent functions and Teichmüller spaces, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 109, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1987.
  • [Lyu83] M. Lyubich, Some typical properties of the dynamics of rational maps, Russian Math. Surveys 38 (1983), no. 5, 154–155.
  • [McM94] C. T. McMullen, Complex dynamics and renormalization, Annals of Mathematics Studies, vol. 135, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1994.
  • [McM98] by same author, Self-similarity of Siegel disks and Hausdorff dimension of Julia sets, Acta Math. 180 (1998), no. 2, 247–292.
  • [Mil93] J. Milnor, Geometry and dynamics of quadratic rational maps, with an appendix by the author and Lei Tan, Experiment. Math. 2 (1993), no. 1, 37–83.
  • [Mil06] by same author, Dynamics in one complex variable, third ed., Annals of Mathematics Studies, vol. 160, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2006.
  • [Pet96] C. L. Petersen, Local connectivity of some Julia sets containing a circle with an irrational rotation, Acta Math. 177 (1996), no. 2, 163–224.
  • [PZ04] C. L. Petersen and S. Zakeri, On the Julia set of a typical quadratic polynomial with a Siegel disk, Ann. of Math. (2) 159 (2004), no. 1, 1–52.
  • [Ree90] M. Rees, Components of degree two hyperbolic rational maps, Invent. Math. 100 (1990), no. 2, 357–382.
  • [SY21] M. Shishikura and F. Yang, The high type quadratic Siegel disks are Jordan domains, arXiv: 1608.04106v4, 2021.
  • [Yan13] F. Yang, On the dynamics of a family of entire functions, Acta Math. Sin. (Engl. Ser.) 29 (2013), no. 11, 2047–2072.
  • [Zak99] S. Zakeri, Dynamics of cubic Siegel polynomials, Comm. Math. Phys. 206 (1999), no. 1, 185–233.
  • [Zak10] by same author, On Siegel disks of a class of entire maps, Duke Math. J. 152 (2010), no. 3, 481–532.
  • [Zak18] by same author, Rotation sets and complex dynamics, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 2214, Springer, Cham, 2018.
  • [Zha08] G. Zhang, On the non-escaping set of e2πiθsin(z)e^{2\pi i\theta}\sin(z), Israel J. Math. 165 (2008), 233–252.
  • [Zha11] by same author, All bounded type Siegel disks of rational maps are quasi-disks, Invent. Math. 185 (2011), no. 2, 421–466.
  • [Zha22] by same author, Topological characterisation of rational maps with Siegel disks, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 172 (2022), no. 1, 1–41.