License: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
arXiv:2603.28577v1 [math.DS] 30 Mar 2026

Parabolic implosion in dimension 2

Matthieu Astorg Matthieu Astorg
Institut Denis Poisson, Université d’Orléans
matthieu.astorg@univ-orleans.fr
, Lorena López-Hernanz Lorena López-Hernanz
Departamento de Física y Matemáticas, Universidad de Alcalá
lorena.lopezh@uah.es
and Jasmin Raissy Jasmin Raissy, Univ. Bordeaux, CNRS, Bordeaux INP, IMB, UMR 5251, F-33400 Talence, France & Institut Universitaire de France (IUF) jasmin.raissy@math.u-bordeaux.fr
Abstract.

In this paper, we extend the theory of parabolic implosion in complex dimension 2 to the case of holomorphic maps tangent to the identity at order 2. We investigate the bifurcation phenomena that occur when a fully parabolic fixed point is perturbed. Under the assumption of a non-degenerate characteristic direction with a formal invariant curve and director α\alpha satisfying Reα>2\mathrm{Re}\,\alpha>2, we establish the existence of Lavaurs maps as limits of iterates fϵnnf_{\epsilon_{n}}^{n} for specific sequences of the perturbation parameter ϵn\epsilon_{n}. Finally, we apply these results to prove the discontinuity of the Julia sets J1J_{1} and J2J_{2} for holomorphic endomorphisms of 2\mathbb{P}^{2}, generalizing classical one-dimensional results to this higher-dimensional setting.

1. Introduction

Parabolic implosion is the study of the bifurcation phenomena which occur when a multiple (i.e., parabolic) fixed point is perturbed and splits into several fixed points or periodic cycles. It was first developed by Lavaurs in his PhD thesis ([Lav89]). A first consequence of this theory is a precise description of the discontinuity (enrichment) of Julia sets with respect to the parameter, in the presence of a non-persistent parabolic cycle. This was used by Shishikura ([Shi98]) to prove that the boundary of the Mandelbrot set has Hausdorff dimension 2. A refinement of parabolic implosion (near-parabolic renormalization), developed by Inou and Shishikura ([IS06]), has led to remarkable results, such as the construction of quadratic Julia sets with positive area by Buff and Chéritat ([BC12]) or progress towards the hyperbolicity conjecture ([CS15]).

More recently, the theory of parabolic implosion has started to develop and to find successful applications in higher dimension. In [BSU17], Bedford, Smillie and Ueda develop a parabolic implosion theory in the setting of semi-parabolic diffeomorphisms in dimension 2, i.e., in the case of a fixed point with one attracting direction and the other one with multiplier equal to 1. In particular, in the important case of a dissipative Hénon map, they were able to deduce the discontinuity of several dynamically defined sets (including the forward Julia set J+J^{+} and the closure JJ^{*} of the saddle periodic points) with respect to the parameter. Building on their result, Bianchi and the first named author proved in [AB25] the existence of perturbations of such Hénon maps whose forward Julia set J+J^{+} has large Hausdorff dimension.

In [DL15], Dujardin and Lyubich adapted the results of [BSU17] to construct homoclinic tangencies for perturbations of dissipative Hénon maps with a semi-parabolic periodic cycle, with applications to bifurcation theory. In [ABD+16], the authors used parabolic implosion techniques to construct the first examples of polynomial maps (in dimension 2) with a wandering Fatou component (see also [ABTP23], [ABT26]). The dynamical systems under consideration are polynomial skew-products, hence the techniques employed can be seen as a non-autonomous version of one-dimensional parabolic implosion. Finally, in [Bia19b], Bianchi obtained results analogous to those of [BSU17] but for the more difficult case of maps with a fully parabolic fixed point, i.e., in the case where the differential at the fixed point is the identity. The purpose of this article is to extend the results from [Bia19b].

Let us now provide a quick overview of classical parabolic implosion in dimension one, in the simplest case of a parabolic fixed point with just one attracting and one repelling petal. Let f:f:\mathbb{C}\to\mathbb{C} be a holomorphic map of the form f(z)=z+z2+𝒪(z3)f(z)=z+z^{2}+\mathcal{O}(z^{3}). By the classical Leau-Fatou theorem, there exists r>0r>0 and univalent maps ϕι:𝔻(r,r)\phi^{\iota}:\mathbb{D}(-r,r)\to\mathbb{C} and ϕo:𝔻(r,r)\phi^{o}:\mathbb{D}(r,r)\to\mathbb{C} such that

  1. (1)

    Pι:=𝔻(r,r)P^{\iota}:=\mathbb{D}(-r,r) is forward invariant under ff, and Po:=𝔻(r,r)P^{o}:=\mathbb{D}(r,r) is invariant under the branch of f1f^{-1} fixing the origin;

  2. (2)

    ϕιf=ϕι+1\phi^{\iota}\circ f=\phi^{\iota}+1, and ϕof=ϕo+1\phi^{o}\circ f=\phi^{o}+1.

The domains PιP^{\iota} and PoP^{o} are respectively called incoming and outgoing petals and the maps ϕι\phi^{\iota} and ϕo\phi^{o} are called incoming and outgoing Fatou coordinates. Let

:={z:fn(z)0 and fn(z)0n0}\mathcal{B}:=\{z\in\mathbb{C}:f^{n}(z)\to 0\text{ and }f^{n}(z)\neq 0\quad\forall n\geq 0\}

be the parabolic basin. Then PιP^{\iota}\subset\mathcal{B}, and moreover =n0fn(Pι)\mathcal{B}=\bigcup_{n\geq 0}f^{-n}(P^{\iota}). The incoming Fatou coordinate extends to a holomorphic map ϕι:\phi^{\iota}:\mathcal{B}\to\mathbb{C} and the inverse (ϕo)1(\phi^{o})^{-1} of the outgoing Fatou coordinate extends to a holomorphic map ψo:\psi^{o}:\mathbb{C}\to\mathbb{C}, called the outgoing Fatou parametrization. We refer the reader to [Mil11] for details. In particular, for any σ\sigma\in\mathbb{C}, the change of coordinate σ:=ψoTσϕι\mathcal{L}_{\sigma}:=\psi^{o}\circ T_{\sigma}\circ\phi^{\iota} is well-defined on \mathcal{B}, where Tσ(z):=z+σT_{\sigma}(z):=z+\sigma is the translation of vector σ\sigma. It is called the Lavaurs map of phase σ\sigma.111Fatou coordinates are in fact only unique up to addition by a constant; thus σ\mathcal{L}_{\sigma} may be thought of as (ϕo)1ϕι(\phi^{o})^{-1}\circ\phi^{\iota}, for a different choice of ϕι\phi^{\iota}. In practice, we will work with some unique normalizations of Fatou coordinates based on their formal expansion at 0.

Consider now the family of perturbations fε(z)=f(z)+ε2f_{\varepsilon}(z)=f(z)+\varepsilon^{2}, ε\varepsilon\in\mathbb{C}. For ε\varepsilon small but non-zero, the double fixed point at the origin for ff splits into 2 simple fixed points for fεf_{\varepsilon}, of the form z±(ε)=±iε+𝒪(ε2)z^{\pm}(\varepsilon)=\pm i\varepsilon+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2}). If we take say ε>0\varepsilon>0, then Lavaurs proved that orbits under fεf_{\varepsilon} starting from a point in PιP^{\iota} will approach the origin, then cross the "gate" given by the vertical segment [z(ε),z+(ε)][z^{-}(\varepsilon),z^{+}(\varepsilon)] between z(ε)z^{-}(\varepsilon) and z+(ε)z^{+}(\varepsilon) and then move away from the origin inside PoP^{o}. Since fεf_{\varepsilon} is close to the identity near 0, as ε0\varepsilon\to 0 it takes more and more iterations to do this. At the limit, we obtain in this way a "transit map" from PιP^{\iota} to PoP^{o}, which is useful for studying the dynamics of fεf_{\varepsilon}. It turns out that this transit map is exactly the Lavaurs map defined above. More precisely:

Theorem (Lavaurs, [Lav89]).

Let (εn)n(\varepsilon_{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}} be a sequence of complex numbers, and σ\sigma\in\mathbb{C}. Assume that limn(nπ/εn)=σ\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left(n-\pi/\varepsilon_{n}\right)=\sigma. Then fεnnσf_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n}\to\mathcal{L}_{\sigma} locally uniformly on \mathcal{B}.

We now move on to the setting of complex dimension 2. Let f:U22f:U{\subset\mathbb{C}^{2}}\to\mathbb{C}^{2} be a holomorphic map on a neighborhood UU of the origin, with a power series expansion of the form

f=Id+P2+P3+f=\mathrm{Id}+P_{2}+P_{3}+\ldots

where the PjP_{j} are homogeneous degree jj polynomial maps from 2\mathbb{C}^{2} to 2\mathbb{C}^{2}, and P20P_{2}\not\equiv 0. Such a map is called tangent to the identity at order 2. Following Hakim [Hak98] and Écalle [É85], we say that v2{(0,0)}v\in\mathbb{C}^{2}\setminus\{(0,0)\} is a characteristic direction for ff if there exists λ\lambda\in\mathbb{C} so that Pk(v)=λvP_{k}(v)=\lambda v. If λ0\lambda\neq 0 then vv is said to be non-degenerate. We shall denote by v[v]v\mapsto[v] the canonical projection of 2\{(0,0)}\mathbb{C}^{2}\backslash\{(0,0)\} onto 1\mathbb{P}^{1}. The director of a non-degenerate characteristic direction vv is the eigenvalue of the linear operator

d(P2)[v]Id:T[v]1T[v]1.d(P_{2})_{[v]}-\mathrm{Id}:T_{[v]}\mathbb{P}^{1}\rightarrow T_{[v]}\mathbb{P}^{1}.

If the real part of the director of a non-degenerate characteristic direction vv is strictly positive, Hakim proved in [Hak97] that for any C>0C>0 there exist incoming and outgoing petals PCιP_{C}^{\iota} and PCoP_{C}^{o} and incoming/outgoing Fatou coordinates Φι/o:PCι/o2\Phi^{\iota/o}:P_{C}^{\iota/o}\to\mathbb{C}^{2} conjugating ff to a translation of vector (1,0)(1,0) (see Propositions 3.2 and 3.3 for details). Let

U,v:={(x,y)U:fn(x,y)(0,0) tangentially to v}\mathcal{B}_{U,v}:=\{(x,y)\in U:f^{n}(x,y)\to(0,0)\text{ tangentially to }v\}

denote the parabolic basin associated to vv. Similarly to the one-dimensional case, we have that U,v=C>0n0fn(PCι)\mathcal{B}_{U,v}=\bigcup_{C>0}\bigcup_{n\geq 0}f^{-n}(P_{C}^{\iota}) (see [LHR25]).

We say that a formal non-singular curve 𝒞\mathcal{C} is invariant for ff if given a parametrization γ(t)\gamma(t) of 𝒞\mathcal{C} (i.e., γ(t)[[t]]2\gamma(t)\in\mathbb{C}[[t]]^{2} with γ(0)=(0,0)\gamma(0)=(0,0) and γ(0)(0,0)\gamma^{\prime}(0)\neq(0,0)) there exists ht[[t]]h\in t\mathbb{C}[[t]] with h(0)0h^{\prime}(0)\neq 0 such that

fγ=γh.f\circ\gamma=\gamma\circ h.

The tangent of 𝒞\mathcal{C} is, by definition, γ(0)\mathbb{C}\cdot\gamma^{\prime}(0).

From now on, we will assume that f:U22f:U{\subset\mathbb{C}^{2}}\to\mathbb{C}^{2} is a holomorphic map defined on a neighborhood UU of the origin and which satisfies the following assumption:

  1. (H1)(H_{1})

    The map ff is tangent to the identity at order 22 and has a non-degenerate characteristic direction vv, with a formal non-singular invariant curve 𝒞\mathcal{C} tangent to vv, and a director α\alpha such that Reα>2\mathrm{Re}\,\alpha>2.

It is worth mentioning that the existence of a non-singular formal invariant curve tangent to a non-degenerate characteristic direction vv is a generic hypothesis. It is equivalent to the existence of an analytic curve CC tangent to vv which is preserved up to order k=Reα+2k=\lfloor\mathrm{Re}\,\alpha\rfloor+2 in the following sense: if γ(t)\gamma(t) is a parametrization of CC then there exists ht{t}h\in t\mathbb{C}\{t\} such that

fγγhtk+1f\circ\gamma-\gamma\circ h\in\langle t^{k+1}\rangle

and this condition is always satisfied when α\alpha\not\in\mathbb{N} (see [[Hak98], Section 3]).

We now state a first, non-technical version of our main result:

Theorem 1 (Non-technical version).

Let f:U22f:U\subset\mathbb{C}^{2}\to\mathbb{C}^{2} be a holomorphic map satisfying (H1)(H_{1}). Then for any qq\in\mathbb{C} there exists a holomorphic family of holomorphic maps (fε:U2)ε𝔻(f_{\varepsilon}:U\to\mathbb{C}^{2})_{\varepsilon\in\mathbb{D}} with f0=ff_{0}=f such that for any σ\sigma\in\mathbb{C} and for any compact set KU,vK\subset\mathcal{B}_{U,v} there exist NN\in\mathbb{N} and a sequence εn0\varepsilon_{n}\to 0 such that fεnnN(Φo)1AσN,qΦιf_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n-N}\to(\Phi^{o})^{-1}\circ A_{\sigma-N,q}\circ\Phi^{\iota} uniformly on KK, where AσN,q(X,Y):=(X+σN,eπqY)A_{\sigma-N,q}(X,Y):=(X+\sigma-N,e^{\pi q}Y).

Since the maps ff and fεf_{\varepsilon} are only defined on UU, in general the iterates fεnnf_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n} may not be well-defined; however Theorem 1 implies that there is a constant integer NN such that fεnnNf_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n-N} is well-defined on KK for all nn large enough. Moreover, since the map

σN,q=(Φo)1AσN,qΦι\mathcal{L}_{\sigma-N,q}=(\Phi^{o})^{-1}\circ A_{\sigma-N,q}\circ\Phi^{\iota}

satisfies

fσN,q=σN,qf=σN+1,q,f\circ\mathcal{L}_{\sigma-N,q}=\mathcal{L}_{\sigma-N,q}\circ f=\mathcal{L}_{\sigma-N+1,q},

it is not difficult to see that we also have fεnnNσN,qf_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n-N^{\prime}}\to\mathcal{L}_{\sigma-N^{\prime},q} for any NN^{\prime}\in\mathbb{Z} such that σN,q(K)U\mathcal{L}_{\sigma-N^{\prime},q}(K)\subset U. In particular, in the case where the maps fεf_{\varepsilon} are global endomorphisms of a complex manifold we may simply take N=0N=0.

We can be more precise on the requirements for the family of perturbations (fε)ε𝔻(f_{\varepsilon})_{\varepsilon\in\mathbb{D}}, and interpret the constants σ\sigma and qq in terms of fεf_{\varepsilon}. We will make the following assumptions:

  1. (H2)(H_{2})

    The family (fε)ε𝔻(f_{\varepsilon})_{\varepsilon\in\mathbb{D}} preserves the formal curve 𝒞\mathcal{C} to order m+1m+1, where m:=Reα+1m:=\lfloor\mathrm{Re}\,\alpha\rfloor+1, in the following sense: if γ(t)\gamma(t) is a parametrization of 𝒞\mathcal{C}, there exists hε𝒪(𝔻)[[t]]h_{\varepsilon}\in\mathcal{O}(\mathbb{D})[[t]] such that f_εγ- γ∘h_ε∈⟨t^m+2, εt^m+1, …, ε^m+2 ⟩.

  2. (H3)(H_{3})

    For all ε\varepsilon in a neighborhood of 0, fεf_{\varepsilon} has exactly 4 fixed points zi(ε)z_{i}(\varepsilon) near the origin (1i41\leq i\leq 4) and counted with multiplicity, which depend holomorphically on ε\varepsilon and such that zi(0):=ddε|ε=0zi(ε)z_{i}^{\prime}(0):=\frac{d}{d\varepsilon}_{|\varepsilon=0}z_{i}(\varepsilon) are non-zero and pairwise distinct.

Note that the existence of 4 fixed points depending holomorphically on ε\varepsilon is always satisfied up to passing to a branched cover in parameter space (although doing so affects the derivatives zi(0)z_{i}^{\prime}(0)).

With a slight abuse of notation we will say that (fε)ε𝔻(f_{\varepsilon})_{\varepsilon\in\mathbb{D}} satisfies (H1)(H3)(H_{1})-(H_{3}) when f0f_{0} satisfies (H1)(H_{1}) and (fε)ε𝔻(f_{\varepsilon})_{\varepsilon\in\mathbb{D}^{*}} satisfies (H2)(H_{2}) and (H3)(H_{3}).

We can interpret the constants σ\sigma and qq in terms of the multipliers of the fixed points of fεf_{\varepsilon}. To make this precise, we first need the following Proposition, whose proof is deferred until the next section:

Proposition 1.

Assume that (fε:U2)ε𝔻(f_{\varepsilon}:U\to\mathbb{C}^{2})_{\varepsilon\in\mathbb{D}} satisfies (H1)(H3)(H_{1})-(H_{3}). Then there are exactly two fixed points of fεf_{\varepsilon}, say z1(ε),z2(ε)z_{1}(\varepsilon),z_{2}(\varepsilon), which are asymptotically tangent to vv for ε\varepsilon small, i.e.,

zi(0)v,1i2.z_{i}^{\prime}(0)\in\mathbb{C}^{*}v,\quad 1\leq i\leq 2.

Moreover, if the eigenvalues λi(ε),μi(ε)\lambda_{i}(\varepsilon),\mu_{i}(\varepsilon) of zi(ε)z_{i}(\varepsilon) satisfy that λi(0)μi(0)\lambda_{i}^{\prime}(0)\neq\mu_{i}^{\prime}(0) then one of the eigenspaces of zi(ε)z_{i}(\varepsilon) tends to v\mathbb{C}v as ε0\varepsilon\to 0, and the condition λi(0)μi(0)\lambda_{i}^{\prime}(0)\neq\mu_{i}^{\prime}(0) holds for at least one of the fixed points.

Remark 1.

If (H1)(H_{1}) and (H2)(H_{2}) are satisfied, then the proof of Proposition 1 will show that (H3)(H_{3}) can be replaced by the following slightly weaker condition:

  1. (H3)(H_{3}^{\prime})

    The jet of order m+1m+1 of hεh_{\varepsilon} has two fixed points w±(ε)w_{\pm}(\varepsilon), and w+(0)w(0)w_{+}^{\prime}(0)\neq w_{-}^{\prime}(0).

Note that even though the fixed points w±(ε)w_{\pm}(\varepsilon) depend on the higher order terms of hεh_{\varepsilon}, their derivatives at 0 do not.

We can now state a second version of our results, which is more explicit on the requirements on the family of perturbations (fε)ε𝔻(f_{\varepsilon})_{\varepsilon\in\mathbb{D}}. To do so, we will use the following convention: let z1(ε)z_{1}(\varepsilon) and z2(ε)z_{2}(\varepsilon) be the fixed points from Proposition 1 and let λ1(ε),μ1(ε)\lambda_{1}(\varepsilon),\mu_{1}(\varepsilon) and λ2(ε),μ2(ε)\lambda_{2}(\varepsilon),\mu_{2}(\varepsilon) be their eigenvalues. If λi(0)μi(0)\lambda_{i}^{\prime}(0)\neq\mu_{i}^{\prime}(0), we denote by ρTi(ε)\rho_{T}^{i}(\varepsilon) the eigenvalue whose eigenspace tends to v\mathbb{C}v as ε0\varepsilon\to 0 and by ρNi(ε)\rho_{N}^{i}(\varepsilon) the other one; if λi(0)=μi(0)\lambda_{i}^{\prime}(0)=\mu_{i}^{\prime}(0), we assign the names ρTi(ε)\rho_{T}^{i}(\varepsilon) and ρNi(ε)\rho_{N}^{i}(\varepsilon) indifferently to the two eigenvalues λi(ε)\lambda_{i}(\varepsilon) and μi(ε)\mu_{i}(\varepsilon).

Theorem 2 (Coordinate-free version).

Let (fε:U2)ε𝔻(f_{\varepsilon}:U\to\mathbb{C}^{2})_{\varepsilon\in\mathbb{D}} be a family of holomorphic maps satisfying (H1)(H3)(H_{1})-(H_{3}). Let z1(ε),z2(ε)z_{1}(\varepsilon),z_{2}(\varepsilon) be the fixed points from Proposition 1 and denote by ρTi(ε)\rho_{T}^{i}(\varepsilon) and ρNi(ε)\rho_{N}^{i}(\varepsilon) (1i21\leq i\leq 2) their eigenvalues, using the convention above. Let

q:=limε01ερN1(ε)+ρN2(ε)2ρT1(ε)+ρT2(ε).q:=\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0}\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\frac{\rho_{N}^{1}(\varepsilon)+\rho_{N}^{2}(\varepsilon)-2}{\rho_{T}^{1}(\varepsilon)+\rho_{T}^{2}(\varepsilon)}.

There exists a constant σ0\sigma_{0}\in\mathbb{C} such that for any 1i21\leq i\leq 2, for any σ\sigma\in\mathbb{C}, for any sequence (εn)n(\varepsilon_{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}} such that

2iπρTi(εn)1=nσ+o(1),\frac{2i\pi}{\rho_{T}^{i}(\varepsilon_{n})-1}=n-\sigma+o(1),

and for any compact set KU,vK\subset\mathcal{B}_{U,v}, there exists NN\in\mathbb{N} such that

fεnnN(Φo)1Aσ+σ0N,qΦιf_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n-N}\to(\Phi^{o})^{-1}\circ A_{\sigma+\sigma_{0}-N,q}\circ\Phi^{\iota}

uniformly on KK, where Aσ+σ0N,q(X,Y):=(X+σ+σ0N,eπqY)A_{\sigma+\sigma_{0}-N,q}(X,Y):=(X+\sigma+\sigma_{0}-N,e^{\pi q}Y).

We finally state a third version of our main result, explicitly expressed in coordinates:

Theorem 3 (Coordinate version).

Let

gε(x,y)=(x+(x2+ε2)aε(x)+ybε(x,y),y+ycε(x,y)+dε(x))g_{\varepsilon}(x,y)=(x+(x^{2}+\varepsilon^{2})a_{\varepsilon}(x)+yb_{\varepsilon}(x,y),y+yc_{\varepsilon}(x,y)+d_{\varepsilon}(x))

be a family of holomorphic maps defined on a neighborhood UU of (0,0)(0,0), where aε,bε,cεa_{\varepsilon},b_{\varepsilon},c_{\varepsilon} and dεd_{\varepsilon} depend holomorphically on ε\varepsilon, and assume that

  1. (1)

    a0(0)=1a_{0}(0)=1, b0(0,0)=0b_{0}(0,0)=0

  2. (2)

    cε(x,y)=ηx+qε+cy+𝒪2(x,y,ε)c_{\varepsilon}(x,y)=\eta x+q\varepsilon+cy+\mathcal{O}_{2}(x,y,\varepsilon), with Reη>3\mathrm{Re}\,\eta>3, q,cq,{c}\in\mathbb{C} and dε(x)=𝒪(xm+3)+ε𝒪m+1(x,ε)d_{\varepsilon}(x)=\mathcal{O}(x^{m+3})+\varepsilon\mathcal{O}_{m+1}(x,\varepsilon) where m=Reηm=\lfloor\mathrm{Re}\,\eta\rfloor.

Let (εn)(\varepsilon_{n}) be a sequence such that nπ/εn=σ+o(1)n-\pi/\varepsilon_{n}=\sigma+o(1). Then for any compact set KU,(1,0)K\subset\mathcal{B}_{U,(1,0)} there exists NN\in\mathbb{N} such that

gεnnN(Φo)1AσN,qΦιg_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n-N}\to(\Phi^{o})^{-1}\circ A_{\sigma-N,q}\circ\Phi^{\iota}

uniformly on KK, where AσN,q(X,Y):=(X+σN,eπqY)A_{\sigma-N,q}(X,Y):=(X+\sigma-N,e^{\pi q}Y).

Theorem 3 can be interpreted as a generalization of Bianchi’s main result in [Bia19b], Theorem 1.4. Let us comment here on the differences between Theorem 3 and [Bia19b, Theorem 1.4]. First, [Bia19b, Theorem 1.4] applies only to maps satisfying a strong assumption, namely that they leave invariant the 3 complex lines x=±iεx=\pm{i\varepsilon} and y=0y=0 (which amounts to taking bε(x,y)=dε(x)=0b_{\varepsilon}(x,y)=d_{\varepsilon}(x)=0 with our notations). If that is the case, then the formal curve corresponding to our assumptions (H1)(H_{1}) and (H2)(H_{2}) is the curve y=0y=0, and it is invariant for the whole family of perturbations. Secondly, [Bia19b, Theorem 1.4] only proves convergence near the line y=0y=0 (instead of the whole parabolic basin associated to v=(1,0)v=(1,0)), and only up to extraction. In particular, it does not rule out the possibility of the sequence (gεnn)n(g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}} having more than one limit value. Finally, in [Bia19b, Theorem 1.4] the possible limits of (gεnn)n(g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}} are not described explicitly as maps of the form (Φo)1Aσ,qΦι(\Phi^{o})^{-1}\circ A_{\sigma,q}\circ\Phi^{\iota}, and only depend on the parameter σ\sigma since in his case q=0q=0. On the other hand, we must note that [Bia19b, Theorem 1.4] only assumes Reη>1\mathrm{Re}\,\eta>1, compared to our assumption that Reη>3\mathrm{Re}\,\eta>3, so our results do not strictly imply his.

Let us now give an application case of our main results. A holomorphic endomorphism of 2\mathbb{P}^{2} is a map which may be written in homogeneous coordinates as

f([z0:z1:z2])=[P0(z):P1(z):P2(z)],f([z_{0}:z_{1}:z_{2}])=[P_{0}(z):P_{1}(z):P_{2}(z)],

where P0,P1,P2:3P_{0},P_{1},P_{2}:\mathbb{C}^{3}\to\mathbb{C} are homogeneous polynomials of degree dd with no common factors. The integer dd is called the algebraic degree of ff. Given such an endomorphism ff, one can define two distinct notions of Julia sets: the set J1(f)J_{1}(f), which may be defined as the non-normality locus; and the set J2(f)J_{2}(f), also sometimes called the small Julia set, which may be defined as the support of the unique measure of maximal entropy. Alternatively, Jm(f)J_{m}(f) (1m21\leq m\leq 2) may be defined as the support of TfmT_{f}^{\wedge m}, where TfT_{f} is the so-called Green current of ff (this construction is not specific to the case of dimension 2). In general, J2(f)J1(f)J_{2}(f)\subsetneq J_{1}(f), and even for very simple maps (such as product maps) there is no equality. We refer the reader to the survey [DS10] for more details.

In the following, for any (σ,q)2(\sigma,q)\in\mathbb{C}^{2} we will let σ,q:=ΨoAσ,qΦι\mathcal{L}_{\sigma,q}:=\Psi^{o}\circ A_{\sigma,q}\circ\Phi^{\iota}, where Ψo\Psi^{o} is the extension of (Φo)1(\Phi^{o})^{-1} to 2\mathbb{C}^{2}. For any endomorphism ff of 2\mathbb{P}^{2} satisfying (H1)(H_{1}), we will set

J1(f,σ,q):={z2:pJ1(f)nσ,qn(p)=z}¯J^{1}(f,\mathcal{L}_{\sigma,q}):=\overline{\{z\in\mathbb{P}^{2}:\,\exists p\in J_{1}(f)\ \exists n\in\mathbb{N}\ \,\mathcal{L}_{\sigma,q}^{n}(p)=z\}}
Corollary 1 (Compare to [Bia19b, Theorem 1.6]).

Let f:22f:\mathbb{P}^{2}\to\mathbb{P}^{2} be an endomorphism satisfying (H1)(H_{1}) and of algebraic degree d>Reα+1d>\mathrm{Re}\,\alpha+1. Then for any qq\in\mathbb{C} there exists a family (fε)ε𝔻(f_{\varepsilon})_{\varepsilon\in\mathbb{D}} of endomorphisms of 2\mathbb{P}^{2} of algebraic degree dd satisfying (H1)(H3)(H_{1})-(H_{3}), with qq as Theorem 2. Moreover, for any σ\sigma\in\mathbb{C},

lim infn+J1(fεn)J1(f,σ,q)\liminf_{n\to+\infty}J_{1}(f_{\varepsilon_{n}})\supset J_{1}(f,\mathcal{L}_{\sigma,q})

where (εn)n(\varepsilon_{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}} is as in Theorem 2.

Corollary 2.

Let f:22f:\mathbb{P}^{2}\to\mathbb{P}^{2} be an endomorphism satisfying (H1)(H_{1}) and of algebraic degree d>Reα+1d>\mathrm{Re}\,\alpha+1. Assume moreover that Ψo(2)J2(f)\Psi^{o}(\mathbb{C}^{2})\cap J_{2}(f)\neq\emptyset. Then the map d(2)gJ2(g)\mathcal{H}_{d}(\mathbb{P}^{2})\ni g\mapsto J_{2}(g) is discontinuous at ff, where d(2)\mathcal{H}_{d}(\mathbb{P}^{2}) denotes the space of degree dd endomorphisms of 2\mathbb{P}^{2}.

Even if we drop the assumption that Ψo(2)J2(f)\Psi^{o}(\mathbb{C}^{2})\cap J_{2}(f)\neq\emptyset, our arguments still prove the discontinuity of the closure of the set of repelling periodic points; however, as mentioned above, the Julia set J2J_{2} may be smaller than this closure. This hypothesis is not easy to check in practice; let us however give a concrete example. Let η\eta\in\mathbb{C} with Reη>3\mathrm{Re}\,\eta>3, and let d>Reηd>\mathrm{Re}\,\eta. Let

f(x,y)=(x+x2+axy+by2+xd,y+ηxy+cy2+yd).f(x,y)=(x+x^{2}+axy+by^{2}+x^{d},y+\eta xy+cy^{2}+y^{d}).

The polynomial map f:22f:\mathbb{C}^{2}\to\mathbb{C}^{2} extends to an endomorphism of 2\mathbb{P}^{2}. If (a,b)=(0,0)(a,b)=(0,0), then the map ff is a polynomial skew-product. In that case, Ψo\Psi^{o} is of the form Ψo(x,y)=(Ψpo(x),Ψ2o(x,y))\Psi^{o}(x,y)=(\Psi_{p}^{o}(x),\Psi_{2}^{o}(x,y)), where Ψpo\Psi_{p}^{o} is an outgoing Fatou parametrization of the base polynomial map p(z):=z+z2+zdp(z):=z+z^{2}+z^{d}. By [Jon99], J2(f):=zJ(p)Jz¯J_{2}(f):=\overline{\bigcup_{z\in J(p)}J_{z}}, where J(p)J(p) denotes the Julia set of pp and JzJ_{z} is the non-normality locus of {fn:n}\{f^{n}:n\in\mathbb{N}\} restricted to the vertical line x=zx=z. Since Ψpo\Psi_{p}^{o} is non-constant and entire, it omits at most one value, so there exists x0J(p)x_{0}\in J(p) and X0X_{0}\in\mathbb{C} such that Ψpo(X0)=x0\Psi_{p}^{o}(X_{0})=x_{0}. Similarly, the map YΨ2o(X0,Y)Y\mapsto{\Psi_{2}^{o}}(X_{0},Y) is entire and non-constant and Jx0J_{x_{0}} is uncountable; so Ψo(2)(J2(f))\Psi^{o}(\mathbb{C}^{2})\cap(J_{2}(f))\neq\emptyset. Now, the set J2(f)J_{2}(f) varies lower semi-continuously with respect to the parameters (a,b,c)(a,b,c); and the map Ψo\Psi^{o} depends holomorphically (hence continuously) on (a,b,c)(a,b,c). (For a proof of this fact in dimension one, see the Appendix in [ABD+16]; the argument remains valid in higher dimension). Therefore, there exists some open set W3W\subset\mathbb{C}^{3} such that for all (a,b,c)3(a,b,c)\in\mathbb{C}^{3}, the map ff satisfies Ψfo(2)J2(f)\Psi_{f}^{o}(\mathbb{C}^{2})\cap J_{2}(f)\neq\emptyset.

Acknowledgements

The first and third author are partially supported by the ANR PADAWAN /ANR-21-CE40-0012-01, ANR DynAtrois / ANR-24-CE40-1163, ANR TIGerS / ANR-24-CE40-3604 and the PHC Galileo program, under the project “From rational to transcendental: complex dynamics and parameter spaces”. The second author is partially supported by Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, Spain, PID2022-139631NB-I00 and by ANR TIGerS/ANR-24-CE40-3604. The third author is partially supported also by the Institut Universitaire de France (IUF).

Outline of the paper

In Section 2, we give a proof of Theorem 1 and Theorem 2 assuming Theorem 3. Sections 3 to 5 are devoted to the proof of Theorem 3. In Section 3, we introduce the incoming and outgoing petals for g0g_{0} and recall the construction of Fatou coordinates and compute their asymptotics. Section 4 is devoted to the construction of so-called approximate Fatou coordinates for gεg_{\varepsilon}, which are in a sense close to the actual Fatou coordinates of g0g_{0} and which nearly conjugate the dynamics of gεng_{\varepsilon_{n}} to a translation. In Section 5 we provide precise estimates of the orbit under gεng_{\varepsilon_{n}} in the parabolic basin and complete the proof of Theorem 3. Finally, Corollaries 1 and 2 are proved in Section 6.

2. Proof of Theorems 1 and 2 from Theorem 3

Let us first show how Theorem 3 implies Theorem 1. Let f:U22f:U\subset\mathbb{C}^{2}\to\mathbb{C}^{2} be a holomorphic map satisfying (H1)(H_{1}). If we choose coordinates (x,y)(x,y) such that v=(1,0)v=(1,0) we have that

f(x,y)=(x+λx2+𝒪(x3,xy,y2),y+ηxy+𝒪(x2y,y2,x3))f(x,y)=\left(x+\lambda x^{2}+\mathcal{O}(x^{3},xy,y^{2}),y+\eta xy+\mathcal{O}(x^{2}y,y^{2},x^{3})\right)

with λ0\lambda\neq 0 and η/λ=α+1\eta/\lambda=\alpha+1, where α\alpha is the director of vv. Up to conjugating by the linear map (x,y)(λx,y)(x,y)\mapsto(\lambda x,y), we can assume that λ=1\lambda=1, so η=α+1\eta=\alpha+1. In those coordinates, the formal invariant curve 𝒞\mathcal{C} has a parametrization γ(t)=(t,ζ(t))\gamma(t)=(t,\zeta(t)), with ζ(t)t2[[t]]\zeta(t)\in t^{2}\mathbb{C}[[t]]. If we take m:=Reηm:=\lfloor\mathrm{Re}\,\eta\rfloor and Ψ(x,y):=(x,yJm+2ζ(x))\Psi(x,y):=(x,y-J_{m+2}\zeta(x)), where Jm+2ζJ_{m+2}\zeta is the jet of order m+2m+2 of ζ\zeta, we have that g0(x,y)=ΨfΨ1g_{0}(x,y)=\Psi\circ f\circ\Psi^{-1} has the form

g0(x,y)=(x+x2a0(x)+yb0(x,y),y+yc0(x,y)+𝒪(xm+3)),g_{0}(x,y)=\left(x+x^{2}a_{0}(x)+yb_{0}(x,y),y+yc_{0}(x,y)+\mathcal{O}(x^{m+3})\right),

with a0(x)=1+𝒪(x)a_{0}(x)=1+\mathcal{O}(x), b0(0,0)=0b_{0}(0,0)=0 and c0(x,y)=ηx+𝒪(x2,y)c_{0}(x,y)=\eta x+\mathcal{O}(x^{2},y). Then Theorem 1 follows immediately considering a family (gε)(g_{\varepsilon}) and a sequence (εn)(\varepsilon_{n}) as in Theorem 3 and taking fε:=Ψ1gεΨf_{\varepsilon}:=\Psi^{-1}\circ g_{\varepsilon}\circ\Psi.

Let us now obtain Theorem 2 from Theorem 3. Consider a family (fε:U22)ε𝔻(f_{\varepsilon}:U\subset\mathbb{C}^{2}\to\mathbb{C}^{2})_{\varepsilon\in\mathbb{D}} of holomorphic maps satisfying (H1)(H3)(H_{1})-(H_{3}). We will start making several successive changes of coordinates until we obtain the form of Theorem 3.

As above, we first choose coordinates in which v=(1,0)v=(1,0) and the curve 𝒞\mathcal{C} has a parametrization γ(t):=(t,ζ(t))\gamma(t):=(t,\zeta(t)), with ζ(t)t2[[t]]\zeta(t)\in t^{2}\mathbb{C}[[t]]. Let m:=Reα+1m:=\lfloor\mathrm{Re}\,\alpha\rfloor+1 and Ψ(x,y):=(x,yJm+1ζ(x))\Psi(x,y):=(x,y-J_{m+1}\zeta(x)), where Jm+1ζJ_{m+1}\zeta is the jet of order m+1m+1 of ζ\zeta, and set g~ε:=ΨfεΨ1\widetilde{g}_{\varepsilon}:=\Psi\circ f_{\varepsilon}\circ\Psi^{-1}. Since the family (fε)(f_{\varepsilon}) preserves 𝒞\mathcal{C} up to order m+1m+1 by hypothesis (H2)(H_{2}), we have

g~ε(x,0)=(pε(x),𝒪m+2(x,ε)),\widetilde{g}_{\varepsilon}(x,0)=(p_{\varepsilon}(x),\mathcal{O}_{m+2}(x,\varepsilon)),

where pεp_{\varepsilon} depends holomorphically on ε\varepsilon, and p0(x)=x+λx2+𝒪(x3)p_{0}(x)=x+\lambda x^{2}+\mathcal{O}(x^{3}) for some constant λ0\lambda\neq 0 (as above, the fact that λ0\lambda\neq 0 follows from the assumptions of f0f_{0} having order 2 and vv being non-degenerate). Up to conjugating by the linear map (x,y)(λx,y)(x,y)\mapsto(\lambda x,y), we may assume without loss of generality that λ=1\lambda=1.

In particular, there exist holomorphic functions b~ε\widetilde{b}_{\varepsilon} and c~ε\widetilde{c}_{\varepsilon} such that

(1) g~ε(x,y)=(pε(x)+yb~ε(x,y),y(1+c~ε(x,y))+𝒪m+2(x,ε)).\widetilde{g}_{\varepsilon}(x,y)=(p_{\varepsilon}(x)+y\widetilde{b}_{\varepsilon}(x,y),y(1+\widetilde{c}_{\varepsilon}(x,y))+\mathcal{O}_{m+2}(x,\varepsilon)).

Since g~0\widetilde{g}_{0} is tangent to the identity, we also have b~0(0,0)=c~0(0,0)=0\widetilde{b}_{0}(0,0)=\widetilde{c}_{0}(0,0)=0. Moreover, by hypotheses (H3)(H_{3}), g~ε\widetilde{g}_{\varepsilon} has 4 fixed points z~i(ε)=Ψ(zi(ε))\widetilde{z}_{i}(\varepsilon)=\Psi(z_{i}(\varepsilon)) (1i41\leq i\leq 4) near the origin, which depend holomorphically on ε\varepsilon and satisfy that z~i(0)\widetilde{z}_{i}^{\prime}(0) are non-zero and pairwise different.

Lemma 2.1.

There are exactly two fixed points z~1(ε),z~2(ε)\widetilde{z}_{1}(\varepsilon),\widetilde{z}_{2}(\varepsilon) of g~ε\widetilde{g}_{\varepsilon} (counting multiplicity) which are asymptotically tangent to vv for ε\varepsilon small, i.e.,

z~i(0)v,1i2.\widetilde{z}_{i}^{\prime}(0)\in\mathbb{C}^{*}v,\quad 1\leq i\leq 2.

Moreover, if w±(ε)w_{\pm}(\varepsilon) denote the two fixed points of pεp_{\varepsilon}, then w±(ε)w_{\pm}(\varepsilon) depend holomorphically on ε\varepsilon and z~i(ε)=(w±(ε),0)+𝒪(ε2)\widetilde{z}_{i}(\varepsilon)=(w_{\pm}(\varepsilon),0)+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2}). In particular, w+(0)w(0)w_{+}^{\prime}(0)\neq w_{-}^{\prime}(0).

Proof.

Let us write g~ε(x,y)=n0Pn(x,y,ε)\widetilde{g}_{\varepsilon}(x,y)=\sum_{n\geq 0}P_{n}(x,y,\varepsilon), where Pn:32P_{n}:\mathbb{C}^{3}\to\mathbb{C}^{2} is homogeneous polynomial map of degree nn. Since g~0\widetilde{g}_{0} is tangent to the identity, we have P0=0P_{0}=0 and P1(x,y,ε)=(x,y)+(γε,δε)P_{1}(x,y,\varepsilon)=(x,y)+(\gamma\varepsilon,\delta\varepsilon) for some γ,δ\gamma,\delta\in\mathbb{C}. We claim that under our assumptions, we must have γ=δ=0\gamma=\delta=0. Indeed, since g~ε(z~i(ε))=n0Pn(z~i(ε),ε)\widetilde{g}_{\varepsilon}(\widetilde{z}_{i}(\varepsilon))=\sum_{n\geq 0}P_{n}(\widetilde{z}_{i}(\varepsilon),\varepsilon) and z~i(0)=0\widetilde{z}_{i}(0)=0, by differentiating g~ε(z~i(ε)\widetilde{g}_{\varepsilon}(\widetilde{z}_{i}(\varepsilon), we obtain

(γ,δ)=εg~ε(z~i(ε)|ε=0=(0,0).(\gamma,\delta)=\left.\partial_{\varepsilon}\widetilde{g}_{\varepsilon}(\widetilde{z}_{i}(\varepsilon)\right|_{\varepsilon=0}=(0,0).

In particular, this means that

pε(x)=x+x2+a1,1εx+a0,2ε2+𝒪3(x,ε).p_{\varepsilon}(x)=x+x^{2}+a_{1,1}\varepsilon x+a_{0,2}\varepsilon^{2}+\mathcal{O}_{3}(x,\varepsilon).

By Weierstrass’ Preparation Theorem applied to pεIdp_{\varepsilon}-\mathrm{Id}, there exists holomorphic maps εα(ε),εβ(ε)\varepsilon\mapsto\alpha(\varepsilon),\varepsilon\mapsto\beta(\varepsilon) and (ε,x)u(ε,x)(\varepsilon,x)\mapsto u(\varepsilon,x) with α(0)=β(0)=0\alpha(0)=\beta(0)=0 and u(0,0)=1u(0,0)=1 such that

pε(x)=x+(x2+α(ε)x+β(ε))u(ε,x).p_{\varepsilon}(x)=x+(x^{2}+\alpha(\varepsilon)x+\beta(\varepsilon))u(\varepsilon,x).

Moreover, α(ε)=a1,1ε+𝒪(ε2)\alpha(\varepsilon)=a_{1,1}\varepsilon+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2}) and β(ε)=a0,2ε2+𝒪(ε3)\beta(\varepsilon)=a_{0,2}\varepsilon^{2}+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{3}). The fixed points w±(ε)w_{\pm}(\varepsilon) of pεp_{\varepsilon} are the zeros of xx2+α(ε)x+β(ε)x\mapsto x^{2}+\alpha(\varepsilon)x+\beta(\varepsilon). It follows that w±(ε)=α(ε)±α(ε)24β(ε)2w_{\pm}(\varepsilon)=\frac{-\alpha(\varepsilon)\pm\sqrt{\alpha(\varepsilon)^{2}-4\beta(\varepsilon)}}{2}. In particular,

w±(ε)=a1,1±a1,124a0,22ε+𝒪(ε3/2),w_{\pm}(\varepsilon)=\frac{-a_{1,1}\pm\sqrt{a_{1,1}^{2}-4a_{0,2}}}{2}\varepsilon+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{3/2}),

and w±w_{\pm} are complex differentiable at ε=0\varepsilon=0, with w±(0)=a1,1±a1,124a0,22w_{\pm}^{\prime}(0)=\frac{-a_{1,1}\pm\sqrt{a_{1,1}^{2}-4a_{0,2}}}{2}.

It is not yet clear that w+w_{+} and ww_{-} are holomorphic near 0; note however that if

w+(0)w(0)=a1,124a0,20w_{+}^{\prime}(0)-w_{-}^{\prime}(0)=\sqrt{a_{1,1}^{2}-4a_{0,2}}\neq 0

then εα(ε)24β(ε)\varepsilon\mapsto{\alpha(\varepsilon)^{2}-4\beta(\varepsilon)} vanishes exactly at order 2 and in this case the two fixed points w±(ε)w_{\pm}(\varepsilon) depend holomorphically on ε\varepsilon.

Next, we write pε(x)=x+(xw(ε))(xw+(ε))(1+𝒪(x,ε))p_{\varepsilon}(x)=x+(x-w_{-}(\varepsilon))(x-w_{+}(\varepsilon))(1+\mathcal{O}(x,\varepsilon)), b~ε(x,y)=b1ε+b2x+b3y+𝒪2(x,y,ε)\widetilde{b}_{\varepsilon}(x,y)=b_{1}\varepsilon+b_{2}x+b_{3}y+\mathcal{O}_{2}(x,y,\varepsilon) and c~ε(x,y)=c1ε+c2x+c3y+𝒪2(x,y,ε).\widetilde{c}_{\varepsilon}(x,y)=c_{1}\varepsilon+c_{2}x+c_{3}y+\mathcal{O}_{2}(x,y,\varepsilon). Note that c2=α+1c_{2}=\alpha+1, where α\alpha is the director of vv, so c20c_{2}\neq 0 by our assumptions. Let

Hε(X,Y):=g~ε(εX,εY)(εX,εY)ε2H_{\varepsilon}(X,Y):=\frac{\widetilde{g}_{\varepsilon}(\varepsilon X,\varepsilon Y)-(\varepsilon X,\varepsilon Y)}{\varepsilon^{2}}

so that Hε(X,Y)=(0,0)H_{\varepsilon}(X,Y)=(0,0) if and only if (εX,εY)(\varepsilon X,\varepsilon Y) is a fixed point of g~ε\widetilde{g}_{\varepsilon}. Then

Hε(X,Y)=((Xw(0))(Xw+(0))+Y(b1+b2X+b3Y),Y(c1+c2X+c3Y))+𝒪(ε),H_{\varepsilon}(X,Y)=\left((X-w_{-}^{\prime}(0))(X-w_{+}^{\prime}(0))+Y(b_{1}+b_{2}X+b_{3}Y),Y(c_{1}+c_{2}X+c_{3}Y)\right)+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon),

so as ε0\varepsilon\to 0, the map HεH_{\varepsilon} converges locally uniformly to

H(X,Y)=((Xw(0))(Xw+(0))+Y(b1+b2X+b3Y),Y(c1+c2X+c3Y)).H(X,Y)=\left((X-w_{-}^{\prime}(0))(X-w_{+}^{\prime}(0))+Y(b_{1}+b_{2}X+b_{3}Y),Y(c_{1}+c_{2}X+c_{3}Y)\right).

Since c20c_{2}\neq 0, it is then straightforward to check that the set H1(0,0)H^{-1}(0,0) is finite and contains 4 elements counted with multiplicity. Moreover, H(X,0)=(0,0)H(X,0)=(0,0) if and only if X=w±(0)X=w_{\pm}^{\prime}(0).

Since proper intersections of analytic sets persist under perturbations, for all ε\varepsilon small enough the set Hε1(0,0)H_{\varepsilon}^{-1}(0,0) is has the same cardinality as H1(0,0)H^{-1}(0,0) and its elements are close to those of H1(0,0)H^{-1}(0,0). Therefore, for small ε\varepsilon the fixed points of the map g~ε\widetilde{g}_{\varepsilon} are of the form εvi+𝒪(ε2)\varepsilon v_{i}+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2}), where H(vi)=(0,0)H(v_{i})=(0,0).

In particular, g~ε\widetilde{g}_{\varepsilon} has exactly two fixed points z~i(ε)\widetilde{z}_{i}(\varepsilon) (with 1i21\leq i\leq 2) which are asymptotically tangent to v=(1,0)v=(1,0) and moreover, z~i(ε)=(w±(ε),0)+𝒪(ε2)\widetilde{z}_{i}(\varepsilon)=(w_{\pm}(\varepsilon),0)+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2}). Finally, the assertion that w+(0)w(0)w_{+}^{\prime}(0)\neq w_{-}^{\prime}(0) follows from the fact that z~1(0)z~2(0)\widetilde{z}_{1}^{\prime}(0)\neq\widetilde{z}_{2}^{\prime}(0). In particular, εw±(ε)\varepsilon\mapsto w_{\pm}(\varepsilon) are indeed holomorphic. ∎

Remark 2.2.

As we mentioned in Remark 1, in our results hypothesis (H3)(H_{3}) can be replaced by the weaker assumption (H3)(H_{3}^{\prime}). To show this, it suffices to note that if we impose hypothesis (H3)(H_{3}^{\prime}) then the jet or order m+1m+1 of pε(x)p_{\varepsilon}(x) has two fixed points w^±(ε)\hat{w}_{\pm}(\varepsilon) with w^+(0)w^(0)\hat{w}_{+}^{\prime}(0)\neq\hat{w}_{-}^{\prime}(0), so pε(x)p_{\varepsilon}(x) has two fixed points w±(ε)w_{\pm}(\varepsilon) with w+(0)w(0)w_{+}^{\prime}(0)\neq w_{-}^{\prime}(0) and then Lemma 2.1 also holds with the same proof.

Lemma 2.3.

Up to replacing ε\varepsilon by ε~:=με\widetilde{\varepsilon}:=\mu\varepsilon for some μ0\mu\neq 0, there is a family of polynomial automorphisms Θε:22\Theta_{\varepsilon}:\mathbb{C}^{2}\to\mathbb{C}^{2}, depending holomorphically on ε\varepsilon near 0 and such that Θ0=Id\Theta_{0}=\mathrm{Id}, such that the maps gε:=Θεg~εΘε1g_{\varepsilon}:=\Theta_{\varepsilon}\circ\widetilde{g}_{\varepsilon}\circ\Theta_{\varepsilon}^{-1} have the form

gε(x,y)=(x+(x2+ε2)aε(x)+ybε(x,y),y+ycε(x,y)+dε(x))g_{\varepsilon}(x,y)=(x+(x^{2}+\varepsilon^{2})a_{\varepsilon}(x)+yb_{\varepsilon}(x,y),y+yc_{\varepsilon}(x,y)+d_{\varepsilon}(x))

with aε,bε,cεa_{\varepsilon},b_{\varepsilon},c_{\varepsilon} and dεd_{\varepsilon} depending holomorphically on ε\varepsilon and

  1. (1)

    a0(0)=1a_{0}(0)=1, b0(0,0)=0b_{0}(0,0)=0

  2. (2)

    cε(x,y)=ηx+qε+cy+𝒪2(x,y,ε)c_{\varepsilon}(x,y)=\eta x+q\varepsilon+cy+\mathcal{O}_{2}(x,y,\varepsilon), with Reη>3\mathrm{Re}\,\eta>3, q,cq,c\in\mathbb{C} and dε(x)=𝒪(xm+3)+ε𝒪m+1(x,ε)d_{\varepsilon}(x)=\mathcal{O}(x^{m+3})+\varepsilon\mathcal{O}_{m+1}(x,\varepsilon) where m=Reηm=\lfloor\mathrm{Re}\,\eta\rfloor.

Proof.

By Lemma 2.1, the fixed points w±(ε)w_{\pm}(\varepsilon) of pεp_{\varepsilon} depend holomorphically on ε\varepsilon and satisfy w+(0)w(0)w_{+}^{\prime}(0)\neq w_{-}^{\prime}(0). Therefore, there exists μ\mu\in\mathbb{C}^{*} such that if we replace ε\varepsilon by ε~:=με\widetilde{\varepsilon}:=\mu\varepsilon then ddε~|ε~=0(w+(ε~)w(ε~))=2i\frac{d}{d\widetilde{\varepsilon}}_{|\widetilde{\varepsilon}=0}(w_{+}(\widetilde{\varepsilon})-w_{-}(\widetilde{\varepsilon}))=2i. By an abuse of notation, we will still denote ε~\widetilde{\varepsilon} by ε\varepsilon: in other words, we assume from now on that w+(ε)w(ε))=2iw_{+}^{\prime}(\varepsilon)-w_{-}^{\prime}(\varepsilon))=2i.

For ε0\varepsilon\neq 0, let NεN_{\varepsilon} be the unique affine automorphism of \mathbb{C} mapping w±(ε)w_{\pm}(\varepsilon) to ±iε\pm i\varepsilon (note that NεN_{\varepsilon} is well-defined for ε\varepsilon small since w+(ε)w(ε)w_{+}(\varepsilon)\neq w_{-}(\varepsilon)). More explicitly,

Nε(x)=2iεw+(ε)w(ε)(xw+(ε))+iεN_{\varepsilon}(x)=\frac{2i\varepsilon}{w_{+}(\varepsilon)-w_{-}(\varepsilon)}(x-w_{+}(\varepsilon))+i\varepsilon

and εNε\varepsilon\mapsto N_{\varepsilon} extends holomorphically to a neighborhood of 0 with

N0(x):=2iw+(0)w(0)x=x.N_{0}(x):=\frac{2i}{w_{+}^{\prime}(0)-w_{-}^{\prime}(0)}x=x.

Let Mε(x,y):=(Nε(x),y)M_{\varepsilon}(x,y):=(N_{\varepsilon}(x),y) and g^ε:=Mεg~εMε1\widehat{g}_{\varepsilon}:=M_{\varepsilon}\circ\widetilde{g}_{\varepsilon}\circ M_{\varepsilon}^{-1}. A direct computation using expression (1) shows that g^ε\widehat{g}_{\varepsilon} is of the form

g^ε(x,y)=(NεpεNε1(x)+yb^ε(x,y),y(1+c^ε(x,y))+d^ε(x))\widehat{g}_{\varepsilon}(x,y)=\left(N_{\varepsilon}\circ p_{\varepsilon}\circ N_{\varepsilon}^{-1}(x)+y\widehat{b}_{\varepsilon}(x,y),y(1+\widehat{c}_{\varepsilon}(x,y))+\widehat{d}_{\varepsilon}(x)\right)

with b^ε,c^ε,d^ε\widehat{b}_{\varepsilon},\widehat{c}_{\varepsilon},\widehat{d}_{\varepsilon} depending holomorphically on ε\varepsilon and d^ε(x)=𝒪(xm+2)\widehat{d}_{\varepsilon}(x)=\mathcal{O}(x^{m+2}). Moreover, by construction, NεpεNε1N_{\varepsilon}\circ p_{\varepsilon}\circ N_{\varepsilon}^{-1} has fixed points at ±iε\pm i\varepsilon so we can write NεpεNε1(x)=x+(x2+ε2)a^ε(x)N_{\varepsilon}\circ p_{\varepsilon}\circ N_{\varepsilon}^{-1}(x)=x+(x^{2}+\varepsilon^{2})\widehat{a}_{\varepsilon}(x), with a^ε\widehat{a}_{\varepsilon} depending holomorphically on ε\varepsilon. Therefore

g^ε(x,y)=(x+(x2+ε2)a^ε(x)+yb^ε(x,y),y+yc^ε(x,y)+d^ε(x)).\widehat{g}_{\varepsilon}(x,y)=\left(x+(x^{2}+\varepsilon^{2})\widehat{a}_{\varepsilon}(x)+y\widehat{b}_{\varepsilon}(x,y),y+y\widehat{c}_{\varepsilon}(x,y)+\widehat{d}_{\varepsilon}(x)\right).

Since N0=IdN_{0}=\mathrm{Id} and p0(x)=x+x2+𝒪(x3)p_{0}(x)=x+x^{2}+\mathcal{O}(x^{3}), we have a^0(0)=1\widehat{a}_{0}(0)=1. And since M0=IdM_{0}=\mathrm{Id}, we also have b^0(0,0)=c^0(0,0)=1\widehat{b}_{0}(0,0)=\widehat{c}_{0}(0,0)=1. Write

c^ε(x,y)=ηx+qε+𝒪(x2,y,xε,ε2);d^ε(x)=dxm+2+𝒪(xm+3)+ε𝒪m+1(x,ε)\displaystyle\widehat{c}_{\varepsilon}(x,y)=\eta x+q\varepsilon+\mathcal{O}(x^{2},y,x\varepsilon,\varepsilon^{2});\quad\widehat{d}_{\varepsilon}(x)=dx^{m+2}+\mathcal{O}(x^{m+3})+\varepsilon\mathcal{O}_{m+1}(x,\varepsilon)

for some q,dq,d\in\mathbb{C}, where η=α+1\eta=\alpha+1, so Reη>3\mathrm{Re}\,\eta>3 and m=Reηm=\lfloor\mathrm{Re}\,\eta\rfloor. Now, we consider the polynomial change of coordinates Ψε\Psi_{\varepsilon} given by

Ψε(x,y)=(x,ydm+1ηxm1(x2+ε2)).\Psi_{\varepsilon}(x,y)=\left(x,y-\frac{d}{m+1-\eta}x^{m-1}(x^{2}+\varepsilon^{2})\right).

Let gε:=Ψεg^εΨε1g_{\varepsilon}:=\Psi_{\varepsilon}\circ\widehat{g}_{\varepsilon}\circ\Psi_{\varepsilon}^{-1}. If we denote (x1,v1):=gε(x,v)(x_{1},v_{1}):=g_{\varepsilon}(x,v), we have that

x1=x+(x2+ε2)aε(x)+vbε(x,v)x_{1}=x+(x^{2}+{\varepsilon^{2}})a_{\varepsilon}(x)+vb_{\varepsilon}(x,v)

for some aεa_{\varepsilon} and bεb_{\varepsilon} depending holomorphically on ε\varepsilon and such that a0(0)=a^0(0)=1a_{0}(0)=\widehat{a}_{0}(0)=1 and b0(0,0)=b^0(0,0)=0b_{0}(0,0)=\widehat{b}_{0}(0,0)=0. Now, denote ε(x,y)=(x2+ε2)a^ε(x)+yb^ε(x,y)\ell_{\varepsilon}(x,y)=(x^{2}+\varepsilon^{2})\widehat{a}_{\varepsilon}(x)+y\widehat{b}_{\varepsilon}(x,y), so that x1=x+ε(x,y)x_{1}=x+\ell_{\varepsilon}(x,y). Given kk\in\mathbb{N}, we have that

x1k=xk+kxk1ε(x,y)+j=2k(kj)xkjε(x,y)j.x_{1}^{k}=x^{k}+kx^{k-1}\ell_{\varepsilon}(x,y)+\sum_{j=2}^{k}\binom{k}{j}x^{k-j}\ell_{\varepsilon}(x,y)^{j}.

Since ε(x,y)=x2+ε2+𝒪3(x,ε)+y𝒪(x,y,ε)\ell_{\varepsilon}(x,y)=x^{2}+\varepsilon^{2}+\mathcal{O}_{3}(x,\varepsilon)+y\mathcal{O}(x,y,\varepsilon), we have

xk1ε(x,y)=xk+1+xk1ε2+𝒪k+2(x,ε)+y𝒪k(x,y,ε)x^{k-1}\ell_{\varepsilon}(x,y)=x^{k+1}+x^{k-1}\varepsilon^{2}+\mathcal{O}_{k+2}(x,\varepsilon)+y\mathcal{O}_{k}(x,y,\varepsilon)

and since ε(x,y)=𝒪2(x,y,ε)\ell_{\varepsilon}(x,y)=\mathcal{O}_{2}(x,y,\varepsilon) we have

xkjε(x,y)j=𝒪k+2(x,y,ε)x^{k-j}\ell_{\varepsilon}(x,y)^{j}=\mathcal{O}_{k+2}(x,y,\varepsilon)

for all 2jk2\leq j\leq k. Therefore

x1k\displaystyle x_{1}^{k} =xk+kxk+1+kxk1ε2+𝒪k+2(x,ε)+y𝒪k(x,y,ε)+𝒪k+2(x,y,ε),\displaystyle=x^{k}+kx^{k+1}+kx^{k-1}\varepsilon^{2}+\mathcal{O}_{k+2}(x,\varepsilon)+y\mathcal{O}_{k}(x,y,\varepsilon)+\mathcal{O}_{k+2}(x,y,\varepsilon),

so

x1m+1+x1m1ε2=xm+1+(m+1)xm+2+xm1ε2+𝒪(xm+3)+ε𝒪m+1(x,ε)+y𝒪m+1(x,y,ε).x_{1}^{m+1}+x_{1}^{m-1}\varepsilon^{2}=x^{m+1}+(m+1)x^{m+2}+x^{m-1}\varepsilon^{2}+\mathcal{O}(x^{m+3})+\varepsilon\mathcal{O}_{m+1}(x,\varepsilon)+y\mathcal{O}_{m+1}(x,y,\varepsilon).

Then we have,

v1\displaystyle v_{1} =y(1+ηx+qε+𝒪(x2,y,xε,ε2))+dxm+2+𝒪(xm+3)+ε𝒪m+1(x,ε)+y𝒪m+1(x,y,ε)\displaystyle=y\left(1+\eta x+q{\varepsilon}+\mathcal{O}\left(x^{2},y,x\varepsilon,\varepsilon^{2}\right)\right)+dx^{m+2}+\mathcal{O}(x^{m+3})+\varepsilon\mathcal{O}_{m+1}(x,\varepsilon)+y\mathcal{O}_{m+1}(x,y,\varepsilon)
dm+1η(xm+1+(m+1)xm+2+xm1ε2)\displaystyle\qquad-\frac{d}{m+1-\eta}\left(x^{m+1}+(m+1)x^{m+2}+x^{m-1}\varepsilon^{2}\right)
=(v+dm+1η(xm+1+xm1ε2))(1+ηx+qε+𝒪(x2,v,xε,ε2))+dxm+2\displaystyle=\left(v+\frac{d}{m+1-\eta}\left(x^{m+1}+x^{m-1}\varepsilon^{2}\right)\right)\left(1+\eta x+q{\varepsilon}+\mathcal{O}\left(x^{2},v,x\varepsilon,\varepsilon^{2}\right)\right)+dx^{m+2}
dm+1η(xm+1+(m+1)xm+2+xm1ε2)+𝒪(xm+3)+ε𝒪m+1(x,ε)\displaystyle\qquad-\frac{d}{m+1-\eta}\left(x^{m+1}+(m+1)x^{m+2}+x^{m-1}\varepsilon^{2}\right)+\mathcal{O}(x^{m+3})+\varepsilon\mathcal{O}_{m+1}\left(x,\varepsilon\right)
=v(1+ηx+qε+𝒪(x2,v,xε,ε2))+dm+1η(xm+1+ηxm+2+xm1ε2)+dxm+2\displaystyle=v\left(1+\eta x+q{\varepsilon}+\mathcal{O}\left(x^{2},v,x\varepsilon,\varepsilon^{2}\right)\right)+\frac{d}{m+1-\eta}\left(x^{m+1}+\eta x^{m+2}+x^{m-1}\varepsilon^{2}\right)+dx^{m+2}
dm+1η(xm+1+(m+1)xm+2+xm1ε2)+𝒪(xm+3)+ε𝒪m+1(x,ε)\displaystyle\qquad-\frac{d}{m+1-\eta}\left(x^{m+1}+(m+1)x^{m+2}+x^{m-1}\varepsilon^{2}\right)+\mathcal{O}(x^{m+3})+\varepsilon\mathcal{O}_{m+1}\left(x,\varepsilon\right)
=v(1+ηx+qε+𝒪(x2,v,xε,ε2))+𝒪(xm+3)+ε𝒪m+1(x,ε)\displaystyle=v\left(1+\eta x+q{\varepsilon}+\mathcal{O}\left(x^{2},v,x\varepsilon,\varepsilon^{2}\right)\right)+\mathcal{O}(x^{m+3})+\varepsilon\mathcal{O}_{m+1}\left(x,\varepsilon\right)

and the Lemma is proved taking Θε:=ΨεMε\Theta_{\varepsilon}:=\Psi_{\varepsilon}\circ M_{\varepsilon}. ∎

We will also need the following result.

Lemma 2.4.

Let εA(ε)\varepsilon\mapsto A(\varepsilon) be a holomorphic map from 𝔻\mathbb{D} to 2()\mathcal{M}_{2}(\mathbb{C}). Assume that A(0)=IdA(0)=\mathrm{Id}, and A(0)=(uw0v)A^{\prime}(0)=\begin{pmatrix}u&w\\ 0&v\end{pmatrix}. Then, for ε0\varepsilon\neq 0 small enough, A(ε)A(\varepsilon) has two eigenvalues λ1(ε)=1+uε+𝒪(ε2)\lambda_{1}(\varepsilon)=1+u\varepsilon+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2}), λ2(ε)=1+vε+𝒪(ε2)\lambda_{2}(\varepsilon)=1+v\varepsilon+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2}). Moreover, if uvu\neq v then the eigenspace associated to λ1(ε)\lambda_{1}(\varepsilon) tends to (1,0)\mathbb{C}(1,0) as ε0\varepsilon\to 0.

Observe that the condition uvu\neq v is necessary: the matrices A(ε)=(1+uεε2ε21+uε)A(\varepsilon)=\begin{pmatrix}1+u\varepsilon&\varepsilon^{2}\\ \varepsilon^{2}&1+u\varepsilon\end{pmatrix} have eigenvectors (1,1)(1,1) and (1,1)(1,-1) for all ε0\varepsilon\neq 0.

Proof.

Write A(ε)=(aij(ε))1i,j2A(\varepsilon)=(a_{ij}(\varepsilon))_{1\leq i,j\leq 2}, and let

p(ε,μ):=1ε2|a11(ε)1μεa12(ε)a21(ε)a22(ε)1με|=χA(ε)(1+με)ε2.p(\varepsilon,\mu):=\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{2}}\begin{vmatrix}a_{11}(\varepsilon)-1-\mu\varepsilon&a_{12}(\varepsilon)\\ a_{21}(\varepsilon)&a_{22}(\varepsilon)-1-\mu\varepsilon\end{vmatrix}=\frac{\chi_{A(\varepsilon)}(1+\mu\varepsilon)}{\varepsilon^{2}}.

Then p(ε,μ)=|uμw0vμ|+𝒪(ε)p(\varepsilon,\mu)=\begin{vmatrix}u-\mu&w\\ 0&v-\mu\end{vmatrix}+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon); this proves that for ε0\varepsilon\neq 0 small enough the eigenvalues of A(ε)A(\varepsilon) satisfy λ1(ε)=1+uε+𝒪(ε2)\lambda_{1}(\varepsilon)=1+u\varepsilon+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2}), λ2(ε)=1+vε+𝒪(ε2)\lambda_{2}(\varepsilon)=1+v\varepsilon+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2}). In particular, if uvu\neq v then for ε0\varepsilon\neq 0 small enough they are simple.

Assume now that uvu\neq v and let us prove the assertion about the eigenspace associated to λ1(ε)\lambda_{1}(\varepsilon). Let X(ε)X(\varepsilon) be a family of eigenvectors associated to λ1(ε)=1+uε+𝒪(ε2)\lambda_{1}(\varepsilon)=1+u\varepsilon+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2}) for ε0\varepsilon\neq 0, and let εn0\varepsilon_{n}\to 0 be any sequence. Assume without loss of generality that X(εn)=1\|X(\varepsilon_{n})\|=1 for all nn\in\mathbb{N}. For every nn, we have

A(εn)X(εn)=λ1(εn)X(εn)A(\varepsilon_{n})X(\varepsilon_{n})=\lambda_{1}(\varepsilon_{n})X(\varepsilon_{n})

and then

A(εn)IdεnX(εn)=uX(εn)+𝒪(εn);\frac{A(\varepsilon_{n})-\mathrm{Id}}{\varepsilon_{n}}X(\varepsilon_{n})=uX(\varepsilon_{n})+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon_{n});

therefore any adherence value X2X\in\mathbb{C}^{2} of the sequence (X(εn))n0(X(\varepsilon_{n}))_{n\geq 0} satisfies A(0)X=uXA^{\prime}(0)X=uX. In particular, XX is in (1,0)\mathbb{C}(1,0). Therefore, limn[X(εn)]=[1:0]\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}[X(\varepsilon_{n})]=[1:0]. ∎

We can now conclude the proof of Proposition 1 and Theorem 2. The first statement of Proposition 1 follows from Lemma 2.1. Let us compute the differential of gεg_{\varepsilon} at the fixed points z^1(ε)=Θε(z~1(ε))=(iε,0)+𝒪(ε2)\widehat{z}_{1}(\varepsilon)=\Theta_{\varepsilon}(\widetilde{z}_{1}(\varepsilon))=(i\varepsilon,0)+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2}) and z^2(ε)=Θε(z~2(ε))=(iε,0)+𝒪(ε2)\widehat{z}_{2}(\varepsilon)=\Theta_{\varepsilon}(\widetilde{z}_{2}(\varepsilon))=(-i\varepsilon,0)+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2}).

We have

Jacgε(z^1(ε))=(1+2iε+𝒪(ε2)bε(iε,0)+𝒪(ε2)𝒪(ε2)1+qε+iηε+𝒪(ε2)).\mathrm{Jac}\,g_{\varepsilon}(\widehat{z}_{1}(\varepsilon))=\begin{pmatrix}1+2i\varepsilon+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2})&b_{\varepsilon}(i\varepsilon,0)+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2})\\ \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2})&1+q\varepsilon+i\eta\varepsilon+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2})\end{pmatrix}.

and

Jacgε(z^2(ε))=(12iε+𝒪(ε2)bε(iε,0)+𝒪(ε2)𝒪(ε2)1+qεiηε+𝒪(ε2)).\mathrm{Jac}\,g_{\varepsilon}(\widehat{z}_{2}(\varepsilon))=\begin{pmatrix}1-2i\varepsilon+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2})&b_{\varepsilon}(-i\varepsilon,0)+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2})\\ \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2})&1+q\varepsilon-i\eta\varepsilon+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2})\end{pmatrix}.

Then, by Lemma 2.4, Jacgε(z^1(ε))\mathrm{Jac}\,g_{\varepsilon}(\widehat{z}_{1}(\varepsilon)) has eigenvalues

ρT1(ε)=1+2iε+𝒪(ε2),ρN1(ε)=1+(q+iη)ε+𝒪(ε2)\rho_{T}^{1}(\varepsilon)=1+2i\varepsilon+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2}),\quad\rho_{N}^{1}(\varepsilon)=1+(q+i\eta)\varepsilon+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2})

and Jacgε(z^2(ε))\mathrm{Jac}\,g_{\varepsilon}(\widehat{z}_{2}(\varepsilon)) has eigenvalues

ρT2(ε)=12iε+𝒪(ε2),ρN2(ε)=1+(qiη)ε+𝒪(ε2).\rho_{T}^{2}(\varepsilon)=1-2i\varepsilon+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2}),\quad\rho_{N}^{2}(\varepsilon)=1+(q-i\eta)\varepsilon+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2}).

If (ρTi)(0)(ρNi)(0)(\rho_{T}^{i})^{\prime}(0)\neq(\rho_{N}^{i})^{\prime}(0) then again by Lemma 2.4 the eigenspace associated to ρTi(ε)\rho_{T}^{i}(\varepsilon) tends to (1,0)\mathbb{C}(1,0) as ε0\varepsilon\to 0. Moreover, this condition happens for at least one of the fixed points, since either q+iη2iq+i\eta\neq 2i or qiη2iq-i\eta\neq-2i (or both). This finishes the proof of Proposition 1.

Let us now prove Theorem 2. Observe first that

limε01ερN1(ε)+ρN2(ε)2ρT1(ε)+ρT2(ε)=limε01ε2qε+𝒪(ε2)2+𝒪(ε2)=q.\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0}\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\frac{\rho_{N}^{1}(\varepsilon)+\rho_{N}^{2}(\varepsilon)-2}{\rho_{T}^{1}(\varepsilon)+\rho_{T}^{2}(\varepsilon)}=\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0}\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\frac{2q\varepsilon+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2})}{2+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2})}=q.

Now, consider a sequence εn0\varepsilon_{n}\to 0 be such that 2iπρTi(εn)1=nσ+o(1)\frac{2i\pi}{\rho_{T}^{i}(\varepsilon_{n})-1}=n-\sigma+o(1) for some 1i21\leq i\leq 2 and for some constant σ\sigma\in\mathbb{C}. Up to replacing ε\varepsilon by ε-\varepsilon in the family (fε)(f_{\varepsilon}), we can assume without loss of generality that ρTi=ρT1\rho_{T}^{i}=\rho_{T}^{1}. Then, writing ρT1(ε)=1+2iεn+βεn2+𝒪(εn3)\rho_{T}^{1}(\varepsilon)=1+2i\varepsilon_{n}+\beta\varepsilon_{n}^{2}+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon_{n}^{3}) (where β\beta depends only on the family (fεn)(f_{\varepsilon_{n}})) we have

2iπ2iεn+βεn2+𝒪(εn3)=nσ+o(1),\frac{2i\pi}{2i\varepsilon_{n}+\beta\varepsilon_{n}^{2}+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon_{n}^{3})}=n-\sigma+o(1),

and therefore nπ/εn=σ+σ0+o(1)n-\pi/\varepsilon_{n}=\sigma+\sigma_{0}+o(1), with σ0=iπβ/2\sigma_{0}=i\pi\beta/2. By Theorem 3 we have that for any compact set KK contained in the parabolic basin of g0g_{0} associated to (1,0)(1,0) there exists NN\in\mathbb{N} such that

gεnnNσ+σ0N,q(g0)g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n-N}\to\mathcal{L}_{\sigma+\sigma_{0}-N,q}^{(g_{0})}

uniformly on KK, where σ+σ0N,q(g0):=(Φ(g0)o)1Aσ+σ0N,qΦ(g0)ι\mathcal{L}_{\sigma+\sigma_{0}-N,q}^{(g_{0})}:=(\Phi_{(g_{0})}^{o})^{-1}\circ A_{\sigma+\sigma_{0}-N,q}\circ\Phi_{(g_{0})}^{\iota} and Φ(g0)ι\Phi_{(g_{0})}^{\iota}, Φ(g0)o\Phi_{(g_{0})}^{o} denote respectively the incoming and outgoing Fatou coordinates for g0g_{0}. Since fε=Ψ1Θε1gεΘεΨf_{\varepsilon}=\Psi^{-1}\circ\Theta_{\varepsilon}^{-1}\circ g_{\varepsilon}\circ\Theta_{\varepsilon}\circ\Psi and Θ0=Id\Theta_{0}=\mathrm{Id}, we deduce that

limnfεnnN=Ψ1σ+σ0N,q(g0)Ψ.\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}f_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n-N}=\Psi^{-1}\circ\mathcal{L}_{\sigma+\sigma_{0}-N,q}^{(g_{0})}\circ\Psi.

It is straightforward to see that Φ(f0)ι,o:=Φ(g0)ι,oΨ\Phi_{(f_{0})}^{\iota,o}:=\Phi_{(g_{0})}^{\iota,o}\circ\Psi are respectively the incoming and outgoing Fatou coordinates for f0f_{0}. It follows that for any compact KK contained in the parabolic basin of f0f_{0} associated to vv there exists NN such that limnfεnnN=(Φ(f0)o)1Aσ+σ0N,qΦ(f0)ι\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}f_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n-N}=(\Phi_{(f_{0})}^{o})^{-1}\circ A_{\sigma+\sigma_{0}-N,q}\circ\Phi_{(f_{0})}^{\iota} and Theorem 2 is proved.

3. Asymptotics of Fatou coordinates

Consider a family (gε)(g_{\varepsilon}) as in Theorem 3, so g:=g0g:=g_{0} has the form

g(x,y)=(x+x2a0(x)+yb0(x,y),y+yc0(x,y)+d0(x))g(x,y)=(x+x^{2}a_{0}(x)+yb_{0}(x,y),y+yc_{0}(x,y)+d_{0}(x))

with a0(0)=1a_{0}(0)=1, b0(0,0)=0b_{0}(0,0)=0, c0(x,y)=ηx+cy+𝒪2(x,y,ε)c_{0}(x,y)=\eta x+cy+\mathcal{O}_{2}(x,y,\varepsilon) and d0(x)=𝒪(xm+3)d_{0}(x)=\mathcal{O}(x^{m+3}) with ρ=Reη>3\rho=\mathrm{Re}\,\eta>3 and m=ρm=\lfloor\rho\rfloor. Then, we can write

g(x,y)=(x+x2+ax3+𝒪(x4,xy,y2),y+ηxy+𝒪(x2y,y2,xm+3)).g(x,y)=\left(x+x^{2}+ax^{3}+\mathcal{O}\left(x^{4},xy,y^{2}\right),y+\eta xy+\mathcal{O}\left(x^{2}y,y^{2},x^{m+3}\right)\right).

In this section we recall the construction and asymptotics of Fatou coordinates for gg. Although these results are essentially contained in [Hak97] (see also [LHR25]) we provide all the proofs for the sake of completeness.

In the following, log\log refers to the principal branch of the complex logarithm, defined on (,0]\mathbb{C}\setminus(-\infty,0]. The expression (1x)η\left(-\frac{1}{x}\right)^{\eta} (defined in particular when Rex<0)\mathrm{Re}\,x<0) means by definition exp(ηlog(1x))\exp\left(\eta\log\left(-\frac{1}{x}\right)\right).

Denote, for any C>0C>0 and any r>0r>0

Pι(r,C)={(x,y)2:|x+r|<r,|y(x)η|<C}.P^{\iota}(r,C)=\left\{(x,y)\in\mathbb{C}^{2}:|x+r|<r,\left|\frac{y}{(-x)^{\eta}}\right|<C\right\}.

Although we will not mention it explicitly, in the following computations we always assume that rr is small enough such that Pι(r,C)UP^{\iota}(r,C)\subset U, where UU is the domain of definition of (gε)(g_{\varepsilon}).

Lemma 3.1.

For any C>0C>0 there exists r0(C)>0r_{0}(C)>0 such that if 0<rr0(C)0<r\leq r_{0}(C) and (x,y)Pι(r,C)(x,y)\in P^{\iota}(r,C) then

gn(x,y)Pι(r,C+1)g^{n}(x,y)\in P^{\iota}(r,C+1)

for every n0n\geq 0. Moreover, if (x,y)Pι(r,C)(x,y)\in P^{\iota}(r,C) and we denote (xn,yn):=gn(x,y)(x_{n},y_{n}):=g^{n}(x,y) we have that

(2) 1x1=1x+1+(a1)x+𝒪(x2),y1(x1)η=y(x)η+𝒪(x2)-\frac{1}{x_{1}}=-\frac{1}{x}+1+(a-1)x+\mathcal{O}\left(x^{2}\right),\quad\frac{y_{1}}{(-x_{1})^{\eta}}=\frac{y}{(-x)^{\eta}}+\mathcal{O}\left(x^{2}\right)

as (x,y)0(x,y)\to 0 (the constants in 𝒪\mathcal{O} being allowed to depend on CC),

limn1nxn=1 and |xn|(Re(1x)+n2)1 for any n1.\lim_{n\to\infty}\dfrac{-1}{nx_{n}}=1\quad\text{ and }\quad|x_{n}|\leq\left(\mathrm{Re}\,\left(-\frac{1}{x}\right)+\frac{n}{2}\right)^{-1}\text{ for any }n\geq 1.
Proof.

Fix C>0C>0 and set (x1,y1)=g(x,y)(x_{1},y_{1})=g(x,y). Let 0<r0<r110<r_{0}<r_{1}\leq 1 and consider (x,y)Pι(r,C)(x,y)\in P^{\iota}(r,C). By the expression of gg, if |y(x)η|<C+1|y(-x)^{-\eta}|<C+1 (so in particular y=𝒪(x3)y=\mathcal{O}(x^{3}) since ρ>3\rho>3) we have that x1=x+x2+ax3+𝒪(x4)x_{1}=x+x^{2}+ax^{3}+\mathcal{O}(x^{4}) and y1=y(1+ηx+𝒪(x2))+𝒪(xm+3)y_{1}=y(1+\eta x+\mathcal{O}(x^{2}))+\mathcal{O}(x^{m+3}) (where the constants in 𝒪(x4)\mathcal{O}(x^{4}) and 𝒪(x2)\mathcal{O}(x^{2}) depend on CC), so

1x1=1x(1+x+ax2+𝒪(x3))=1x+1+(a1)x+𝒪(x2)-\frac{1}{x_{1}}=-\frac{1}{x\left(1+x+ax^{2}+\mathcal{O}\left(x^{3}\right)\right)}=-\frac{1}{x}+1+(a-1)x+\mathcal{O}\left(x^{2}\right)

and, as long as Rex<0\mathrm{Re}\,x<0 and |x||x| is small enough so that (x1)η(-x_{1})^{\eta} is defined,

y1(x1)η\displaystyle\frac{y_{1}}{(-x_{1})^{\eta}} =y(1+ηx+𝒪(x2))+𝒪(xm+3)(x)η(1+x+𝒪(x2))η\displaystyle=\frac{y\left(1+\eta x+\mathcal{O}(x^{2})\right)+\mathcal{O}(x^{m+3})}{(-x)^{\eta}\left(1+x+\mathcal{O}(x^{2})\right)^{\eta}}
=y(x)η(1+𝒪(x2))+𝒪(xm+3ρ)=y(x)η+𝒪(x2),\displaystyle=\frac{y}{(-x)^{\eta}}\left(1+\mathcal{O}(x^{2})\right)+\mathcal{O}(x^{m+3-\rho})=\frac{y}{(-x)^{\eta}}+\mathcal{O}\left(x^{2}\right),

(using in the last equality that m+3ρ>2m+3-\rho>2 by definition of mm) so there exists a constant C~>0\widetilde{C}>0, depending on CC, such that

|y1(x1)η||y(x)η|+C~|x|2.\left|\frac{y_{1}}{(-x_{1})^{\eta}}\right|\leq\left|\frac{y}{(-x)^{\eta}}\right|+\widetilde{C}|x|^{2}.

By the expression of 1/x1-1/x_{1}, we can choose r0=r0(C)>0r_{0}=r_{0}(C)>0 small enough such that if 0<rr00<r\leq r_{0} and |x+r|<r|x+r|<r (so Re(1/x)>(2r)1\mathrm{Re}\,(-1/x)>(2r)^{-1}) then

Re(1x1)Re(1x)+12,\mathrm{Re}\,\left(-\frac{1}{x_{1}}\right)\geq\mathrm{Re}\,\left(-\frac{1}{x}\right)+\frac{1}{2},

so in particular |x1+r|<r|x_{1}+r|<r and moreover

|x1|(Re(1x)+12)1.|x_{1}|\leq\left(\mathrm{Re}\,\left(-\frac{1}{x}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\right)^{-1}.

Up to decreasing r0r_{0} if necessary, we can also assume that

C~n0(12r0+n2)2<1.\widetilde{C}\sum_{n\geq 0}\left(\frac{1}{2r_{0}}+\frac{n}{2}\right)^{-2}<1.

Take (x,y)Pι(r,C)(x,y)\in P^{\iota}(r,C) with 0<rr00<r\leq r_{0}. Since Pι(r,C)Pι(r,C+1)P^{\iota}(r,C)\subset P^{\iota}(r,C+1), we have by the previous computation that |x1+r|<r|x_{1}+r|<r (so in particular (x1)η(-x_{1})^{\eta} is defined) and

|y1(x1)η|<C+C~|x|2<C+C~(2r)2<C+1,\left|y_{1}(-x_{1})^{-\eta}\right|<C+\widetilde{C}|x|^{2}<C+\widetilde{C}(2r)^{2}<C+1,

so (x1,y1)Pι(r,C+1)(x_{1},y_{1})\in P^{\iota}(r,C+1). Arguing recursively, we obtain that |xn+r|<r|x_{n}+r|<r,

|xn|(Re(1x)+n2)1|x_{n}|\leq\left(\mathrm{Re}\,\left(-\frac{1}{x}\right)+\frac{n}{2}\right)^{-1}

and

|yn(xn)η|\displaystyle\left|\frac{y_{n}}{(-x_{n})^{\eta}}\right| |y(x)η|+C~j=0n1|xj|2<C+C~j=0n1(Re(1x)+j2)2\displaystyle\leq\left|\frac{y}{(-x)^{\eta}}\right|+\widetilde{C}\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}|x_{j}|^{2}<C+\widetilde{C}\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\left(\mathrm{Re}\,\left(-\frac{1}{x}\right)+\frac{j}{2}\right)^{-2}
C+C~j=0n1(12r+j2)2<C+1,\displaystyle\leq C+\widetilde{C}\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\left(\frac{1}{2r}+\frac{j}{2}\right)^{-2}<C+1,

for every n1n\geq 1, where (xn,yn)=gn(x,y)(x_{n},y_{n})=g^{n}(x,y), so (xn,yn)Pι(r,C+1)(x_{n},y_{n})\in P^{\iota}(r,C+1) for every n1n\geq 1. Moreover, since

1x1=1x+1+h(x,y)-\frac{1}{x_{1}}=-\frac{1}{x}+1+h(x,y)

where h(x,y)=𝒪(x)h(x,y)=\mathcal{O}(x), we have that

1xn=1x+n+j=0n1h(xj,yj)-\frac{1}{x_{n}}=-\frac{1}{x}+n+\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}h(x_{j},y_{j})

and therefore 1nxn1\frac{-1}{nx_{n}}\to 1 as nn\to\infty. ∎

Our next goal is to prove the following Propositions:

Proposition 3.2.

For any C>0C>0 there exists 0<rι(C)r0(C)0<r^{\iota}(C)\leq r_{0}(C) such that for any 0<rrι(C)0<r\leq r^{\iota}(C) there exists a holomorphic univalent map Φι:Pι(r,C)2\Phi^{\iota}:P^{\iota}(r,C)\to\mathbb{C}^{2} which is an incoming Fatou coordinate for gg (i.e., Φιg=Φι+(1,0)\Phi^{\iota}\circ g=\Phi^{\iota}+(1,0)) and satisfies

Φι(x,y)=(1x+(1a)log(x)+o(1),y(x)η+o(1)),\Phi^{\iota}(x,y)=\left(-\frac{1}{x}+(1-a)\log(-x)+o\left(1\right),\frac{y}{(-x)^{\eta}}+o\left(1\right)\right),

as Re(1/x)+\mathrm{Re}\,(-1/x)\to+\infty inside Pι(r,C)P^{\iota}(r,C). Moreover,

{Xr1:|ImX|<2|ReX|}×𝔻(0,C1)Φι(Pι(r,C)),\{X\in\mathbb{H}_{r^{-1}}:|\mathrm{Im}X|<2|\mathrm{Re}\,X|\}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C-1)\subset\Phi^{\iota}(P^{\iota}(r,C)),

where t:={X:ReX>t}\mathbb{H}_{t}:=\left\{X\in\mathbb{C}:\mathrm{Re}\,X>t\right\}.

Proposition 3.3.

For any C>0C>0 there exists ro(C)>0r^{o}(C)>0 such that for any 0<rro(C)0<r\leq r^{o}(C) there exists a holomorphic univalent map Φo:Po(r,C)2\Phi^{o}:P^{o}(r,C)\to\mathbb{C}^{2}, where

Po(r,C)={(x,y)2:|xr|<r,|yxη|<C},P^{o}(r,C)=\left\{(x,y)\in\mathbb{C}^{2}:|x-r|<r,\left|\frac{y}{x^{\eta}}\right|<C\right\},

which is an outgoing Fatou coordinate for gg (i.e., Φog=Φo+(1,0)\Phi^{o}\circ g=\Phi^{o}+(1,0)) and satisfies

Φo(x,y)=(1x+(1a)logx+o(1),yxη+o(1)),\Phi^{o}(x,y)=\left(-\frac{1}{x}+(1-a)\log x+o\left(1\right),\frac{y}{x^{\eta}}+o\left(1\right)\right),

as Re(1/x)\mathrm{Re}\,(-1/x)\to-\infty inside Po(r,C)P^{o}(r,C). Moreover,

{Xr1:|ImX|<2|ReX|}×𝔻(0,C1)Φo(Po(r,C)).-\{X\in\mathbb{H}_{r^{-1}}:|\mathrm{Im}X|<2|\mathrm{Re}\,X|\}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C-1)\subset\Phi^{o}(P^{o}(r,C)).

Set

Φ0ι(x,y):=(1x,y(x)η).\Phi_{0}^{\iota}(x,y):=\left(-\frac{1}{x},\frac{y}{(-x)^{\eta}}\right).

It is straightforward to check that Φ0ι\Phi_{0}^{\iota} is well-defined and univalent on {(x,y)2:Rex<0}\{(x,y)\in\mathbb{C}^{2}:\mathrm{Re}\,x<0\} and that

(Φ0ι)1(X,Y)=(1X,YXη).\left(\Phi_{0}^{\iota}\right)^{-1}(X,Y)=\left(-\frac{1}{X},\frac{Y}{X^{\eta}}\right).

By Lemma 3.1, for any C>0C>0 there exists r0(C)>0r_{0}(C)>0 such that for any 0<rr0(C)0<r\leq r_{0}(C) the map

G:=Φ0ιg(Φ0ι)1G:=\Phi_{0}^{\iota}\circ g\circ\left(\Phi_{0}^{\iota}\right)^{-1}

is well-defined on

Φ0ι(Pι(r,C))=(2r)1×𝔻(0,C),\Phi_{0}^{\iota}\left(P^{\iota}(r,C)\right)=\mathbb{H}_{(2r)^{-1}}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C),

where (2r)1={X:ReX>(2r)1}\mathbb{H}_{(2r)^{-1}}=\left\{X\in\mathbb{C}:\mathrm{Re}\,X>(2r)^{-1}\right\}, and Gn(X,Y)Φ0ι(Pι(r,C+1))G^{n}(X,Y)\in\Phi_{0}^{\iota}\left(P^{\iota}(r,C+1)\right) for any n1n\geq 1 and for any (X,Y)(2r)1×𝔻(0,C)(X,Y)\in\mathbb{H}_{(2r)^{-1}}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C). Moreover, using (2) we have that

(3) G(X,Y)=(X+1+1aX+𝒪(1X2),Y+𝒪(1X2))G(X,Y)=\left(X+1+\frac{1-a}{X}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{X^{2}}\right),Y+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{X^{2}}\right)\right)

in (2r)1×𝔻(0,C)\mathbb{H}_{(2r)^{-1}}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C) as ReX+\mathrm{Re}\,X\to+\infty (the constants in 𝒪\mathcal{O} being allowed to depend on CC).

Lemma 3.4.

For any C>0C>0 and any 0<rr0(C)0<r\leq r_{0}(C), where r0(C)r_{0}(C) is given by Lemma 3.1, the map

ψ(X,Y):=limnYn,\psi(X,Y):=\lim_{n\to\infty}Y_{n},

where (Xn,Yn)=Gn(X,Y)(X_{n},Y_{n})=G^{n}(X,Y), is well-defined in (2r)1×𝔻(0,C)\mathbb{H}_{(2r)^{-1}}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C), satisfies ψG=ψ\psi\circ G=\psi and has the form ψ(X,Y)=Y+o(1)\psi(X,Y)=Y+o(1) as ReX+\mathrm{Re}\,X\to+\infty. Moreover, the map Φ1ι:(2r)1×𝔻(0,C)2\Phi_{1}^{\iota}:\mathbb{H}_{(2r)^{-1}}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C)\to\mathbb{C}^{2} defined by

Φ1ι(X,Y):=(X,ψ(X,Y))\Phi_{1}^{\iota}(X,Y):=\left(X,\psi(X,Y)\right)

is injective.

Proof.

By (3), we have that Y1=Y+k(X,Y)Y_{1}=Y+k(X,Y) for some holomorphic map k(X,Y)=𝒪(X2)k(X,Y)=\mathcal{O}(X^{-2}) and for every (X,Y)(2r)1×𝔻(0,C)(X,Y)\in\mathbb{H}_{(2r)^{-1}}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C). Therefore, for every nn we have that

Yn=Y+j=0n1k(Xj,Yj).Y_{n}=Y+\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}k(X_{j},Y_{j}).

Using the bound |Xj|1(ReX+j/2)12/j|X_{j}|^{-1}\leq\left(\mathrm{Re}\,X+j/2\right)^{-1}\leq 2/j from Lemma 3.1 we have that the series j=0k(Xj,Yj)\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}k(X_{j},Y_{j}) is uniformly convergent in (2r)1×𝔻(0,C)\mathbb{H}_{(2r)^{-1}}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C), so YnY_{n} converges uniformly to a holomorphic function

ψ(X,Y)=Y+v(X,Y)\psi(X,Y)=Y+v(X,Y)

where v(X,Y)=j=0k(Xj,Yj).v(X,Y)=\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}k(X_{j},Y_{j}). The invariance of ψ\psi is immediate, by construction. Moreover, since

j=01|Xj|21(ReX)2+01(ReX+t/2)2𝑑t=1(ReX)2+2ReX\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{|X_{j}|^{2}}\leq\frac{1}{(\mathrm{Re}\,X)^{2}}+\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{(\mathrm{Re}\,X+t/2)^{2}}dt=\frac{1}{(\mathrm{Re}\,X)^{2}}+\frac{2}{\mathrm{Re}\,X}

we have that v(X,Y)=o(1)v(X,Y)=o(1) as ReX+\mathrm{Re}\,X\to+\infty. Finally, since YnY_{n} is injective when XX is fixed and ψ\psi is not constant, we obtain that Φ1ι\Phi_{1}^{\iota} is injective. ∎

By Lemma 3.4, for any C>0C>0 and any 0<rr0(C)0<r\leq r_{0}(C) the map

G~:=Φ1ιG(Φ1ι)1\widetilde{G}:=\Phi_{1}^{\iota}\circ G\circ\left(\Phi_{1}^{\iota}\right)^{-1}

is well-defined on Φ1ι((2r)1×𝔻(0,C))\Phi_{1}^{\iota}\left(\mathbb{H}_{(2r)^{-1}}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C)\right) and G~n(X,Y)Φ1ι((2r)1×𝔻(0,C+1))\widetilde{G}^{n}(X,Y)\in\Phi_{1}^{\iota}\left(\mathbb{H}_{(2r)^{-1}}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C+1)\right) for any n1n\geq 1 and for any (X,Y)Φ1ι((2r)1×𝔻(0,C))(X,Y)\in\Phi_{1}^{\iota}\left(\mathbb{H}_{(2r)^{-1}}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C)\right). Moreover, using (3) and Lemma 3.4 we have that

(4) G~(X,Y)=(X+1+1aX+𝒪(1X2),Y)\widetilde{G}(X,Y)=\left(X+1+\frac{1-a}{X}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{X^{2}}\right),Y\right)

in Φ1ι((2r)1×𝔻(0,C))\Phi_{1}^{\iota}\left(\mathbb{H}_{(2r)^{-1}}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C)\right) as ReX+\mathrm{Re}\,X\to+\infty. Observe also that since ψ(X,Y)=Y+o(1)\psi(X,Y)=Y+o(1) as ReX+\mathrm{Re}\,X\to+\infty, there exists 0<r1(C)r0(C)0<r_{1}(C)\leq r_{0}(C) such that for every 0<rr1(C)0<r\leq r_{1}(C)

Φ1ι((2r)1×𝔻(0,C))Φ0ι((2r)1×𝔻(0,C+1)).\Phi_{1}^{\iota}\left(\mathbb{H}_{(2r)^{-1}}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C)\right)\subset\Phi_{0}^{\iota}\left(\mathbb{H}_{(2r)^{-1}}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C+1)\right).
Lemma 3.5.

For any C>0C>0 there exists r2(C)>0r_{2}(C)>0 such that for any 0<rr2(C)0<r\leq r_{2}(C), the map

φ(X,Y):=limn[Xnn(1a)logn],\varphi(X,Y):=\lim_{n\to\infty}\left[X_{n}-n-(1-a)\log n\right],

where (Xn,Y):=G~n(X,Y)(X_{n},Y):=\widetilde{G}^{n}(X,Y), is well-defined in Φ1ι((2r)1×𝔻(0,C))\Phi_{1}^{\iota}\left(\mathbb{H}_{(2r)^{-1}}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C)\right), satisfies φG~=φ+1\varphi\circ\widetilde{G}=\varphi+1 and has the form φ(X,Y)=X(1a)logX+o(1)\varphi(X,Y)=X-(1-a)\log X+o(1) as ReX+\mathrm{Re}\,X\to+\infty. Moreover, the map Φ2ι:Φ1ι((2r)1×𝔻(0,C))2\Phi_{2}^{\iota}:\Phi_{1}^{\iota}\left(\mathbb{H}_{(2r)^{-1}}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C)\right)\to\mathbb{C}^{2} defined by

Φ2ι(X,Y):=(φ(X,Y),Y)\Phi_{2}^{\iota}(X,Y):=(\varphi(X,Y),Y)

is injective.

Proof.

Fix C>0C>0, set r2(C)=min{r0(C+1),r1(C)}r_{2}(C)=\min\{r_{0}(C+1),r_{1}(C)\} and take 0<rr2(C)0<r\leq r_{2}(C). Thanks to (4), for any (X,Y)Φ1ι((2r)1×𝔻(0,C))(X,Y)\in\Phi_{1}^{\iota}\left(\mathbb{H}_{(2r)^{-1}}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C)\right) we have that

X1(1a)logX1=X+1(1a)logX+h(X,Y)X_{1}-(1-a)\log X_{1}=X+1-(1-a)\log X+h(X,Y)

with h(X,Y)=𝒪(1/X2)h(X,Y)=\mathcal{O}\left(1/X^{2}\right), so

Xn(1a)logXn=X+n(1a)logX+j=0n1h(Xj,Y).X_{n}-(1-a)\log X_{n}=X+n-(1-a)\log X+\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}h(X_{j},Y).

Since Φ1ι((2r)1×𝔻(0,C))Φ0ι((2r)1×𝔻(0,C+1))\Phi_{1}^{\iota}\left(\mathbb{H}_{(2r)^{-1}}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C)\right)\subset\Phi_{0}^{\iota}\left(\mathbb{H}_{(2r)^{-1}}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C+1)\right) and 0<rr0(C+1)0<r\leq r_{0}(C+1), by Lemma 3.1 we have that |Xj|1(ReX+j/2)12/j|X_{j}|^{-1}\leq(\mathrm{Re}\,X+j/2)^{-1}\leq 2/j for every jj, so the series j=0h(Xj,Y)\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}h(X_{j},Y) is normally convergent and hence Xn(1a)logXnnX_{n}-(1-a)\log X_{n}-n converges uniformly to a holomorphic map of the form

X(1a)logX+H(X,Y).X-(1-a)\log X+H(X,Y).

Moreover, arguing as in the proof of Lemma 3.4, H(X,Y)=o(1)H(X,Y)=o(1) as ReX+\mathrm{Re}\,X\to+\infty. Now define

φn(X,Y):=Xnn(1a)logn.\varphi_{n}(X,Y):=X_{n}-n-(1-a)\log n.

Then, rewriting

φn(X,Y)=Xn(1a)logXnn+(1a)log(Xnn)\varphi_{n}(X,Y)=X_{n}-(1-a)\log X_{n}-n+(1-a)\log\left(\frac{X_{n}}{n}\right)

and using the fact that Xn/n1X_{n}/n\to 1 as nn\to\infty by Lemma 3.1, we have that the sequence φn\varphi_{n} converges uniformly in Φ1ι((2r)1×𝔻(0,C))\Phi_{1}^{\iota}\left(\mathbb{H}_{(2r)^{-1}}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C)\right) to a map φ\varphi of the form

φ(X,Y)=X(1a)logX+o(1)\varphi(X,Y)=X-(1-a)\log X+o(1)

as ReX+\mathrm{Re}\,X\to+\infty. Since φnG~=φn+1+1+(1a)log(1+1/n)\varphi_{n}\circ\widetilde{G}=\varphi_{n+1}+1+(1-a)\log(1+1/n), we obtain that φG~=φ+1\varphi\circ\widetilde{G}=\varphi+1. Injectivity of Φ2ι\Phi_{2}^{\iota} follows from the injectivity of φn\varphi_{n} when YY is fixed and the fact that φ\varphi is not constant. ∎

We are now ready to prove Proposition 3.2.

Proof of Proposition 3.2.

By Lemmas 3.4 and 3.5, for any C>0C>0 and any 0<rr2(C)0<r\leq r_{2}(C) the map ΦG:=Φ2ιΦ1ι\Phi_{G}:=\Phi_{2}^{\iota}\circ\Phi_{1}^{\iota} is well-defined on (2r)1×𝔻(0,C)\mathbb{H}_{(2r)^{-1}}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C) and

ΦG(X,Y)=(X(1a)logX,Y)+o(1),\Phi_{G}(X,Y)=\left(X-(1-a)\log X,Y\right)+o(1),

where the convergence in the o(1)o(1) term is uniform as ReX+\mathrm{Re}\,X\to+\infty in (2r2(C))1×𝔻(0,C)\mathbb{H}_{(2r_{2}(C))^{-1}}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C). Moreover, ΦGG=ΦG+(1,0)\Phi_{G}\circ G=\Phi_{G}+(1,0).

We will prove that there exists 0<rι(C)r2(C)0<r^{\iota}(C)\leq r_{2}(C) such that for all 0<rrι(C)0<r\leq r^{\iota}(C)

(5) {Xr1:|ImX|<2ReX}×𝔻(0,C1)ΦG((2r)1×𝔻(0,C))\{X\in\mathbb{H}_{r^{-1}}:|\mathrm{Im}X|<2\mathrm{Re}\,X\}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C-1)\subset\Phi_{G}\left(\mathbb{H}_{(2r)^{-1}}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C)\right)

Let us set u:=ΦGIdu:=\Phi_{G}-\mathrm{Id} and write u=(u1,u2)u=(u_{1},u_{2}). There exists 0<rι(C)r2(C)0<r^{\iota}(C)\leq r_{2}(C) such that for all (X,Y){X(2rι(C))1:|ImX|<5ReX}×𝔻(0,C)(X,Y)\in\{X\in\mathbb{H}_{(2r^{\iota}(C))^{-1}}:|\mathrm{Im}X|<5\mathrm{Re}\,X\}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C)

|u1(X,Y)|=|(1a)logX+o(1)|13ReXand|u2(X,Y)|1.|u_{1}(X,Y)|=|(1-a)\log X+o(1)|\leq\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{Re}\,X\quad\text{and}\quad|u_{2}(X,Y)|\leq 1.

Now, consider (X0,Y0){Xr1:|ImX|<2ReX}×𝔻(0,C1)(X_{0},Y_{0})\in\{X\in\mathbb{H}_{r^{-1}}:|\mathrm{Im}X|<2\mathrm{Re}\,X\}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C-1) with 0<rrι(C)0<r\leq r^{\iota}(C) and let us show that there exists (X,Y){X(2r)1:|ImX|<5ReX}×𝔻(0,C)(X,Y)\in\{X\in\mathbb{H}_{(2r)^{-1}}:|\mathrm{Im}X|<5\mathrm{Re}\,X\}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C) with ΦG(X,Y)=(X0,Y0)\Phi_{G}(X,Y)=(X_{0},Y_{0}). Let h0(X,Y):=(X0,Y0)u(X,Y)h_{0}(X,Y):=(X_{0},Y_{0})-u(X,Y), so ΦG(X,Y)=(X0,Y0)\Phi_{G}(X,Y)=(X_{0},Y_{0}) if and only if (X,Y)(X,Y) is a fixed point of h0h_{0}, and let K:=𝔻¯(X0,ReX0/2)×𝔻¯(Y0,1)K:=\overline{\mathbb{D}}(X_{0},\mathrm{Re}\,X_{0}/2)\times\overline{\mathbb{D}}(Y_{0},1). Observe that if (X,Y)K(X,Y)\in K we have that |Y|C|Y|\leq C, ReXReX0/2>(2r)1\mathrm{Re}\,X\geq\mathrm{Re}\,X_{0}/2>(2r)^{-1} and

|ImX||ImX0|+ReX02<52ReX05ReX|\mathrm{Im}X|\leq|\mathrm{Im}X_{0}|+\frac{\mathrm{Re}\,X_{0}}{2}<\frac{5}{2}\mathrm{Re}\,X_{0}\leq 5\mathrm{Re}\,X

so K{X(2r)1:|ImX|<5ReX}×𝔻(0,C)K\subset\{X\in\mathbb{H}_{(2r)^{-1}}:|\mathrm{Im}X|<5\mathrm{Re}\,X\}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C). Then if (X1,Y1)=h0(X,Y)(X_{1},Y_{1})=h_{0}(X,Y) we have

|X1X0|=|u1(X,Y)|13ReX12ReX0 and |Y1Y0|=|u2(X,Y)|1|X_{1}-X_{0}|=|u_{1}(X,Y)|\leq\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{Re}\,X\leq\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Re}\,X_{0}\quad\text{ and }\quad|Y_{1}-Y_{0}|=|u_{2}(X,Y)|\leq 1

so (X1,Y1)K(X_{1},Y_{1})\in K. Moreover, since u(X,Y)=((a1)logX,0)+o(1)u(X,Y)={((a-1)\log X,0)+}o(1) as ReX+\mathrm{Re}\,X\to+\infty in (2r2(C))1×𝔻(0,C)\mathbb{H}_{(2r_{2}(C))^{-1}}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C), using Cauchy’s estimate and the fact that log(X)=1/X\log^{\prime}(X)=1/X and reducing rι(C)r^{\iota}(C) if necessary we have that for all (X,Y)(2rι(C))1×𝔻(0,C)(X,Y)\in\mathbb{H}_{(2r^{\iota}(C))^{-1}}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C),

Xu(X,Y)12 and Yu(X,Y)12.\|\partial_{X}u(X,Y)\|\leq\frac{1}{2}\text{ \quad and \quad}\|\partial_{Y}u(X,Y)\|\leq\frac{1}{2}.

Then, the map h0:KKh_{0}:K\to K is contracting on KK, so by Banach fixed point theorem h0h_{0} has a fixed point in KK and (5) is proved.

Finally, Proposition 3.2 follows by defining Φι:=ΦGΦ0ι.\Phi^{\iota}:=\Phi_{G}\circ\Phi_{0}^{\iota}.

Proof of Proposition 3.3.

This follows immediately from Proposition 3.2. Since g1g^{-1} is of the form

g1(x,y)=(xx2+(2a)x3+𝒪(x4,xy,y2),yηxy+𝒪(x2y,y2,xm+3)),g^{-1}(x,y)=\left(x-x^{2}+(2-a)x^{3}+\mathcal{O}(x^{4},xy,y^{2}),y-\eta xy+\mathcal{O}(x^{2}y,y^{2},x^{m+3})\right),

if we take Ψ(x,y):=(1/x,y/xη)\Psi(x,y):=(1/x,-y/x^{\eta}) we have that

Ψg1Ψ1(X,Y)=(X+11aX+𝒪(1X2),Y+𝒪(1X2))\Psi\circ g^{-1}\circ\Psi^{-1}(X,Y)=\left(X+1-\frac{1-a}{X}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{X^{2}}\right),Y+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{X^{2}}\right)\right)

so repeating the construction above we find an incoming Fatou coordinate for g1g^{-1} in Po(r,C)P^{o}(r,C) of the form

Φg1ι(x,y)=(1x(1a)log(x)+o(1),yxη+o(1)),\Phi^{\iota}_{g^{-1}}(x,y)=\left(\frac{1}{x}-(1-a)\log(x)+o\left(1\right),-\frac{y}{x^{\eta}}+o\left(1\right)\right),

as (x,y)(0,0)(x,y)\to(0,0) inside Po(r,C)P^{o}(r,C). Then, to obtain Proposition 3.3 it suffices to define Φo:=Φg1ι\Phi^{o}:=-\Phi^{\iota}_{g^{-1}}. ∎

Finally, we will also need the following asymptotic expansion for (Φι)1\left({\Phi^{\iota}}\right)^{-1}:

Lemma 3.6.

Let C>0C>0, 0<rrι(C)0<r\leq r^{\iota}(C). If (X,Y)Φι(Pι(r,C))(X,Y)\in\Phi^{\iota}\left(P^{\iota}(r,C)\right), then

(Φι)1(X,Y)=(1X+𝒪(logXX2),YXη+o(1Xη)),(\Phi^{\iota})^{-1}(X,Y)=\left(-\frac{1}{X}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\log X}{X^{2}}\right),\frac{Y}{X^{\eta}}+o\left(\frac{1}{X^{\eta}}\right)\right),

as ReX+\mathrm{Re}\,X\to+\infty inside Φι(Pι(r,C))\Phi^{\iota}\left(P^{\iota}(r,C)\right), where the convergence in the term o(Xη)o(X^{-\eta}) and the implicit constant in the term 𝒪(X2logX)\mathcal{O}(X^{-2}\log X) are uniform on Φι(Pι(r,C))\Phi^{\iota}\left(P^{\iota}(r,C)\right).

Proof.

Take (x,y)Pι(r,C)(x,y)\in P^{\iota}(r,C) and set (X,Y):=Φι(x,y)(X,Y):=\Phi^{\iota}(x,y). By Proposition 3.2 we have

X=1x+(1a)log(x)+o(1)=1x+o(1x)\displaystyle X=-\frac{1}{x}+(1-a)\log(-x)+o(1)=-\frac{1}{x}+o\left(\frac{1}{x}\right)

as ReX+\mathrm{Re}\,X\to+\infty, so x=1/X+o(1/X)x=-1/X+o\left(1/X\right). Hence

X=1x+(1a)log(1X+o(1X))+o(1)=1x+𝒪(logX),\displaystyle X=-\frac{1}{x}+(1-a)\log\left(\frac{1}{X}+o\left(\frac{1}{X}\right)\right)+o(1)=-\frac{1}{x}+\mathcal{O}(\log X),

and so

x\displaystyle x =1X+𝒪(logX)=1X+𝒪(logXX2).\displaystyle=\frac{-1}{X+\mathcal{O}\left(\log X\right)}=-\frac{1}{X}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\log X}{X^{2}}\right).

Similarly:

Y=y(x)η+o(1),Y=\frac{y}{(-x)^{\eta}}+o(1),

so

y\displaystyle y =Y(x)η+o((x)η)=YXη(1+𝒪(logXX))η+o(1Xη)=YXη+o(1Xη).\displaystyle=Y(-x)^{\eta}+o((-x)^{\eta})=\frac{Y}{X^{\eta}}\left(1+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\log X}{{X}}\right)\right)^{{\eta}}+o\left(\frac{1}{X^{\eta}}\right)=\frac{Y}{X^{\eta}}+o\left(\frac{1}{X^{\eta}}\right).

Similarly, we can compute the asymptotics of (Φo)1\left(\Phi^{o}\right)^{-1}:

Lemma 3.7.

Let C>0C>0, 0<rr0(C)0<r\leq r^{0}(C). If (X,Y)Φo(Po(r,C))(X,Y)\in\Phi^{o}\left(P^{o}(r,C)\right), then

(Φo)1(X,Y)=(1X+𝒪(logXX2),Y(X)η+o(1Xη)),(\Phi^{o})^{-1}(X,Y)=\left(-\frac{1}{X}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\log X}{X^{2}}\right),\frac{Y}{(-X)^{\eta}}+o\left(\frac{1}{X^{\eta}}\right)\right),

as ReX\mathrm{Re}\,X\to-\infty inside Φo(Po(r,C))\Phi^{o}\left(P^{o}(r,C)\right), where the convergence in the term o(Xη)o(X^{-\eta}) and the implicit constant in the term 𝒪(X2logX)\mathcal{O}(X^{-2}\log X) are uniform on Φo(Po(r,C))\Phi^{o}\left(P^{o}(r,C)\right).

4. Approximate Fatou coordinates and estimation of the error terms

Consider a family (gε)(g_{\varepsilon}) as in Theorem 3, so

(6) gε(x,y)=(x+(x2+ε2)aε(x)+ybε(x,y),y+ycε(x,y)+dε(x)),g_{\varepsilon}(x,y)=(x+(x^{2}+\varepsilon^{2})a_{\varepsilon}(x)+yb_{\varepsilon}(x,y),y+yc_{\varepsilon}(x,y)+d_{\varepsilon}(x)),

where aε,bε,cεa_{\varepsilon},b_{\varepsilon},c_{\varepsilon} and dεd_{\varepsilon} depend holomorphically on ε\varepsilon, a0(0)=1a_{0}(0)=1, b0(0,0)=0b_{0}(0,0)=0,

cε(x,y)=ηx+qε+cy+𝒪2(x,y,ε)anddε(x)=𝒪(xm+3)+ε𝒪m+1(x,ε),c_{\varepsilon}(x,y)=\eta x+q\varepsilon+cy+\mathcal{O}_{2}(x,y,\varepsilon)\quad\text{and}\quad d_{\varepsilon}(x)=\mathcal{O}(x^{m+3})+\varepsilon\mathcal{O}_{m+1}(x,\varepsilon),

with Reη>3\mathrm{Re}\,\eta>3 and m=Reηm=\lfloor\mathrm{Re}\,\eta\rfloor. We consider a sequence (εn)(\varepsilon_{n}) such that nπ/εn=σ+o(1)n-\pi/\varepsilon_{n}=\sigma+o(1) (so εnπ/n\varepsilon_{n}\sim\pi/n) and write

aεn(x)=1+ax+pε+𝒪(x2,xεn,εn2);bεn(x,y)=bx+𝒪(x2,y,εn);\displaystyle a_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x)=1+ax+p\varepsilon+\mathcal{O}(x^{2},x\varepsilon_{n},\varepsilon_{n}^{2});\quad b_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x,y)=bx+\mathcal{O}(x^{2},y,\varepsilon_{n});
cεn(x,y)=ηx+qεn+𝒪(x2,y,xεn,εn2);dεn(x)=𝒪(xm+3)+εn𝒪m+1(x,εn)\displaystyle c_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x,y)=\eta x+q\varepsilon_{n}+\mathcal{O}(x^{2},y,x\varepsilon_{n},\varepsilon_{n}^{2});\quad d_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x)=\mathcal{O}(x^{m+3})+\varepsilon_{n}\mathcal{O}_{m+1}(x,\varepsilon_{n})

for some a,b,pa,b,p\in\mathbb{C}. As in [BSU17], up to considering the change of variables (x,y,ε)(x~,y,ε~)(x,y,\varepsilon)\mapsto(\widetilde{x},y,\widetilde{\varepsilon}) with

x=x~(1pε~);ε=ε~(1pε~),x=\widetilde{x}(1-p\widetilde{\varepsilon});\quad\varepsilon=\widetilde{\varepsilon}(1-p\widetilde{\varepsilon}),

we can assume that p=0p=0.

Define

wεn(x):\displaystyle w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x): =1εnarctan(xεn)+π2εn+1a2log(x2+εn2)\displaystyle=\frac{1}{{\varepsilon_{n}}}\arctan\left(\frac{x}{{\varepsilon_{n}}}\right)+\frac{\pi}{2{\varepsilon_{n}}}+\frac{1-a}{2}\log(x^{2}+{\varepsilon_{n}^{2}})
=12iεnlog(iεnxiεn+x)+π2εn+1a2log(x2+εn2)\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2i{\varepsilon_{n}}}\log\left(\frac{i{\varepsilon_{n}}-x}{i{\varepsilon_{n}}+x}\right)+\frac{\pi}{2\varepsilon_{n}}+\frac{1-a}{2}\log(x^{2}+{\varepsilon_{n}^{2}})

and

tεn(x,y)=y(x2+εn2)η/2.t_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x,y)=\frac{y}{(x^{2}+{\varepsilon_{n}^{2}})^{\eta/2}}.

We set

Φεnι(x,y):=(wεn(x),tεn(x,y)),Φεno(x,y):=Φεnι(x,y)(πεn,0)\Phi_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{\iota}(x,y):=(w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x),t_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x,y)),\qquad\Phi_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{o}(x,y):=\Phi_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{\iota}(x,y)-\left(\frac{\pi}{\varepsilon_{n}},0\right)

defined on (Lεn)×(\mathbb{C}\setminus L_{\varepsilon_{n}})\times\mathbb{C}, where Lεn:={itεn,t(,1][1,+)}L_{\varepsilon_{n}}:=\{it\varepsilon_{n},t\in(-\infty,-1]\cup[1,+\infty)\}, and we fix a constant γ(1/2,2/3)\gamma\in\left(1/2,2/3\right) chosen so that

γρ>2.\gamma\rho>2.
Definition 4.1.

Set kn:=nγk_{n}:=\lfloor n^{\gamma}\rfloor. We define, for any C>1C>1, the set n(C)(Lεn)×\mathcal{R}_{n}(C)\subset(\mathbb{C}\setminus L_{\varepsilon_{n}})\times\mathbb{C} as

n(C):={(x,y):Re(εnwεn(x))[πkn10n,ππkn10n],|Im(εnwεn(x))|Cπn and 1C<|tεn(x,y)|<C}.\mathcal{R}_{n}(C):=\left\{(x,y):\mathrm{Re}\,\left(\varepsilon_{n}w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x)\right)\in\left[\frac{\pi k_{n}}{10n},\pi-\frac{\pi k_{n}}{10n}\right],\left|\mathrm{Im}(\varepsilon_{n}w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x))\right|\leq C\frac{\pi}{n}\text{ and }\frac{1}{C}<|t_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x,y)|<C\right\}.
Remark 4.2.

Although we will not explicitly mention it, all the terms oo and OO appearing in the results in this Section are uniform on n(C)\mathcal{R}_{n}(C).

Proposition 4.3.

For all C>0C>0 and for all nn large enough, (Φεnι)1(\Phi_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{\iota})^{-1} is well-defined on Φεnι(n(C))\Phi_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{\iota}\left(\mathcal{R}_{n}(C)\right) and

(Φεnι)1(X,Y)=(εncot(εnX+𝒪(n1logn)),Yεnηsinη(εnX+𝒪(n1logn)))(\Phi_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{\iota})^{-1}(X,Y)=\left(-\varepsilon_{n}\cot\left(\varepsilon_{n}X+\mathcal{O}\left(n^{-1}\log n\right)\right),Y\frac{\varepsilon_{n}^{\eta}}{\sin^{\eta}\left(\varepsilon_{n}X+\mathcal{O}\left(n^{-1}\log n\right)\right)}\right)
Proof.

Let

Φ~εn(x,y):=(1εnarctan(xεn)+π2εn,y(x2+εn2)η/2).\widetilde{\Phi}_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x,y):=\left(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{n}}\arctan\left(\frac{x}{\varepsilon_{n}}\right)+\frac{\pi}{2\varepsilon_{n}},\frac{y}{(x^{2}+{\varepsilon_{n}^{2}})^{\eta/2}}\right).

We claim that the map Φ~εn:(Lεn)×{(X,Y)2:Re(εnX)(0,π)}\widetilde{\Phi}_{\varepsilon_{n}}:(\mathbb{C}\setminus L_{\varepsilon_{n}})\times\mathbb{C}\to\{(X,Y)\in\mathbb{C}^{2}:\mathrm{Re}\,(\varepsilon_{n}X)\in(0,\pi)\} is well-defined and bijective, and its inverse is given by

(Φ~εn)1(X,Y)=(εncot(εnX),Yεnηsinη(εnX)).(\widetilde{\Phi}_{\varepsilon_{n}})^{-1}(X,Y)=\left(-\varepsilon_{n}\cot(\varepsilon_{n}X),Y\frac{\varepsilon_{n}^{\eta}}{\sin^{\eta}(\varepsilon_{n}X)}\right).

Indeed, set (X,Y):=Φ~εn(x,y)(X,Y):=\widetilde{\Phi}_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x,y). We have εnX=arctan(x/εn)+π/2\varepsilon_{n}X=\arctan\left(x/\varepsilon_{n}\right)+\pi/2 and therefore

x=εntan(εnXπ2)=εncot(εnX).x=\varepsilon_{n}\tan\left(\varepsilon_{n}X-\frac{\pi}{2}\right)=-\varepsilon_{n}\cot(\varepsilon_{n}X).

On the other hand, since Y=y(x2+εn2)η/2Y=y\left(x^{2}+\varepsilon_{n}^{2}\right)^{-\eta/2} we get

y=Y(x2+εn2)η/2=Yεnη(1+cot2(εnX))η/2=Yεnηsinη(εnX).y=Y(x^{2}+\varepsilon_{n}^{2})^{\eta/2}=Y\varepsilon_{n}^{\eta}(1+\cot^{2}(\varepsilon_{n}X))^{\eta/2}=Y\frac{\varepsilon_{n}^{\eta}}{\sin^{\eta}(\varepsilon_{n}X)}.

This proves the claim.

Now denote 𝒢εn:=Φεnι(Φ~εn)1\mathcal{G}_{\varepsilon_{n}}:=\Phi_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{\iota}\circ(\widetilde{\Phi}_{\varepsilon_{n}})^{-1}, defined in {(X,Y)2:Re(εnX)(0,π)}\{(X,Y)\in\mathbb{C}^{2}:\mathrm{Re}\,(\varepsilon_{n}X)\in(0,\pi)\}. Since

Φεnι(x,y)=Φ~εn(x,y)+(1a2log(x2+εn2),0)\Phi_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{\iota}(x,y)=\widetilde{\Phi}_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x,y)+\left(\frac{1-a}{2}\log(x^{2}+\varepsilon_{n}^{2}),0\right)

we have by the claim above that

𝒢εn(X,Y)\displaystyle\mathcal{G}_{\varepsilon_{n}}(X,Y) =(X,Y)+(1a2log(εn2+εn2cot2(εnX)),0)\displaystyle=\left(X,Y\right)+\left(\frac{1-a}{2}\log(\varepsilon_{n}^{2}+\varepsilon_{n}^{2}\cot^{2}(\varepsilon_{n}X)),0\right)
=(X,Y)+(1a2log(εn2sin2(εnX)),0).\displaystyle=\left(X,Y\right)+\left(\frac{1-a}{2}\log\left(\frac{\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}{\sin^{2}(\varepsilon_{n}X)}\right),0\right).

Let us prove that 𝒢εn\mathcal{G}_{\varepsilon_{n}} is invertible in

Φεnι(n(C))={(X,Y)2:Re(εnX)[πkn10n,ππkn10n],|Im(εnX)|Cπn and 1C<|Y|<C}\Phi_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{\iota}(\mathcal{R}_{n}(C))=\left\{(X,Y)\in\mathbb{C}^{2}:\mathrm{Re}\,\left(\varepsilon_{n}X\right)\in\left[\frac{\pi k_{n}}{10n},\pi-\frac{\pi k_{n}}{10n}\right],\left|\mathrm{Im}(\varepsilon_{n}X)\right|\leq C\frac{\pi}{n}\text{ and }\frac{1}{C}<|Y|<C\right\}

for nn big enough. Choose (X0,Y0)Φεnι(n(C))(X_{0},Y_{0})\in\Phi_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{\iota}(\mathcal{R}_{n}(C)) and let us show that there is a unique (X,Y)(X,Y) with Re(εnX)(0,π)\mathrm{Re}\,(\varepsilon_{n}X)\in(0,\pi) such that 𝒢εn(X,Y)=(X0,Y0)\mathcal{G}_{\varepsilon_{n}}(X,Y)=(X_{0},Y_{0}). Since 𝒢εn(X,Y)=(X+un(X),Y)\mathcal{G}_{\varepsilon_{n}}(X,Y)=\left(X+u_{n}(X),Y\right), with un(X)=1a2log(εn2sin2(εnX))u_{n}(X)=\frac{1-a}{2}\log\left(\frac{\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}{\sin^{2}(\varepsilon_{n}X)}\right), we just need to show that, for nn large enough, there is a unique XX with Re(εnX)(0,π)\mathrm{Re}\,(\varepsilon_{n}X)\in(0,\pi) such that

X+un(X)=X0.X+u_{n}(X)=X_{0}.

By Rouché’s theorem, it is enough to prove that |un(X)|<|XX0||u_{n}(X)|<|X-X_{0}| for every XQnX\in\partial Q_{n} and for nn big enough, where

Qn={X:Re(εnX)(πkn20n,ππkn20n),|Im(εnX)|<Cπn+n}Q_{n}=\left\{X\in\mathbb{C}:\mathrm{Re}\,(\varepsilon_{n}X)\in\left(\frac{\pi k_{n}}{20n},\pi-\frac{\pi k_{n}}{20n}\right),|\mathrm{Im}(\varepsilon_{n}X)|<C\frac{\pi}{n}+n\right\}

Observe that Qn{X:Re(εnX)(0,π)}Q_{n}\subset\{X:\mathrm{Re}\,(\varepsilon_{n}X)\in(0,\pi)\} and if Re(εnX)(0,π)\mathrm{Re}\,(\varepsilon_{n}X)\in(0,\pi) then XQnX\in Q_{n} for nn big enough. Clearly |XX0|πkn20n|X-X_{0}|\geq\frac{\pi k_{n}}{20n} for every XQnX\in\partial Q_{n}. Moreover, since |sin(εnX)||sin(Re(εnX))||\sin(\varepsilon_{n}X)|\geq|\sin(\mathrm{Re}\,(\varepsilon_{n}X))| we have that εnsin(εnX)=𝒪(1kn)\frac{\varepsilon_{n}}{\sin(\varepsilon_{n}X)}=\mathcal{O}(\frac{1}{k_{n}}) for every XQnX\in\partial Q_{n} so

|un(X)|=|1a|2|log(εn2sin2(εnX))|=𝒪(logkn).|u_{n}(X)|=\frac{|1-a|}{2}\left|\log\left(\frac{\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}{\sin^{2}(\varepsilon_{n}X)}\right)\right|=\mathcal{O}(\log k_{n}).

Hence if nn is big enough then |un(X)|<|XX0||u_{n}(X)|<|X-X_{0}| for every XQnX\in\partial Q_{n}, so 𝒢εn\mathcal{G}_{\varepsilon_{n}} is invertible on Φεnι(n(C))\Phi_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{\iota}\left(\mathcal{R}_{n}(C)\right), which in turn implies that (Φεnι)1=(Φ~εn)1𝒢εn1(\Phi_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{\iota})^{-1}=(\widetilde{\Phi}_{\varepsilon_{n}})^{-1}\circ\mathcal{G}_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{-1} is well-defined on Φεnι(n(C))\Phi_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{\iota}\left(\mathcal{R}_{n}(C)\right).

Let us now prove the desired estimate. Since 𝒢εn(X,Y)=(X+un(X),Y)\mathcal{G}_{\varepsilon_{n}}(X,Y)=(X+u_{n}(X),Y), we know that

𝒢εn1(X,Y)=(X+𝒪(un),Y).\mathcal{G}_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{-1}(X,Y)=\left(X+\mathcal{O}(\|u_{n}\|_{\infty}),Y\right).

Since kn=nγk_{n}=\lfloor n^{\gamma}\rfloor, by the computations above and the maximum principle we have that |un(X)|=𝒪(logn)|u_{n}(X)|=\mathcal{O}(\log n) for every (X,Y)Φεnι(n(C))(X,Y)\in\Phi_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{\iota}(\mathcal{R}_{n}(C)), so

𝒢εn1(X,Y)=(X+𝒪(logn),Y)\displaystyle\mathcal{G}_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{-1}(X,Y)=\left(X+\mathcal{O}(\log n),Y\right)

and therefore

(Φεnι)1(X,Y)=(Φ~εn)1𝒢εn1(X,Y)=(Φ~εn)1(X+𝒪(logn),Y)\displaystyle(\Phi_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{\iota})^{-1}(X,Y)=(\widetilde{\Phi}_{\varepsilon_{n}})^{-1}\circ\mathcal{G}_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{-1}(X,Y)=(\widetilde{\Phi}_{\varepsilon_{n}})^{-1}(X+\mathcal{O}(\log n),Y)

so the Proposition follows. ∎

4.1. Estimation of the error terms

In this subsection we will give estimates for

Aεn(x,y):=wεn(x1)wεn(x)1 and Bεn(x,y):=logtεn(x1,y1)tεn(x,y),A_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x,y):=w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{1})-w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x)-1\quad\text{ and }\quad B_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x,y):=\log\frac{t_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{1},y_{1})}{t_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x,y)},

where (x1,y1):=gεn(x,y)(x_{1},y_{1}):=g_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x,y). Recall that nπ/εnσn-\pi/\varepsilon_{n}\to\sigma, so εnπ/n\varepsilon_{n}\sim\pi/n, ρ=Reη>3\rho=\mathrm{Re}\,\eta>3, m=ρm=\lfloor\rho\rfloor and γ(1/2,2/3)\gamma\in(1/2,2/3) satisfies γρ>2\gamma\rho>2.

Lemma 4.4.

Take (x,y)n(C)(x,y)\in\mathcal{R}_{n}(C) and denote (X,Y):=Φεnι(x,y)(X,Y):=\Phi_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{\iota}(x,y). If nn is big enough, we have the following estimates:

(7) x=εncot(εnX)+𝒪(lognn2γ)=𝒪(X1)x=-\varepsilon_{n}\cot(\varepsilon_{n}X)+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\log n}{n^{2\gamma}}\right)=\mathcal{O}\left(X^{-1}\right)
(8) 1x2+εn2sin2(εnX)εn2=𝒪(X2)\frac{1}{x^{2}+{\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}}\sim\frac{\sin^{2}(\varepsilon_{n}X)}{\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}=\mathcal{O}\left(X^{2}\right)
(9) yεnρsinρ(εnX)=𝒪(Xρ).y\asymp\frac{\varepsilon_{n}^{\rho}}{\sin^{\rho}(\varepsilon_{n}X)}=\mathcal{O}\left(X^{-\rho}\right).
Proof.

Thanks to Proposition 4.3, we have that if nn is big enough then

x=εncot(εnX+𝒪(lognn)).x=-\varepsilon_{n}\cot\left(\varepsilon_{n}X+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\log n}{n}\right)\right).

Since (x,y)n(C)(x,y)\in\mathcal{R}_{n}(C), we have that Re(εnX)[πkn10n,ππkn10n]\mathrm{Re}\,(\varepsilon_{n}X)\in\left[\frac{\pi k_{n}}{10n},\pi-\frac{\pi k_{n}}{10n}\right] and |Im(εnX)|Cπn\left|\mathrm{Im}(\varepsilon_{n}X)\right|\leq C\frac{\pi}{n}. Then using the mean value inequality we have that for nn big enough

x\displaystyle x =εncot(εnX+𝒪(lognn))=εncot(εnX)+𝒪(εnn22γlognn)\displaystyle=-\varepsilon_{n}\cot\left(\varepsilon_{n}X+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\log n}{n}\right)\right)=-\varepsilon_{n}\cot(\varepsilon_{n}X)+\mathcal{O}\left(\varepsilon_{n}n^{2-2\gamma}\frac{\log n}{n}\right)
=εncot(εnX)+𝒪(lognn2γ).\displaystyle=-\varepsilon_{n}\cot(\varepsilon_{n}X)+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\log n}{n^{2\gamma}}\right).

We have that εncot(εnX)=𝒪(X1)\varepsilon_{n}\cot(\varepsilon_{n}X)=\mathcal{O}(X^{-1}) and moreover, since γ>1/2\gamma>1/2, n2γlogn=o(1/n)=o(εn)n^{-2\gamma}\log n=o\left(1/n\right)=o(\varepsilon_{n}) so we get n2γlogn=o(X1)n^{-2\gamma}\log n=o(X^{-1}) for nn big enough, which proves (7). For (8), using again that εncot(εnX)=𝒪(X1)\varepsilon_{n}\cot(\varepsilon_{n}X)=\mathcal{O}(X^{-1}) and n2γlogn=o(X1)n^{-2\gamma}\log n=o(X^{-1}) we have

x2+εn2=εn2+εn2cot2(εnX)+o(X2)=εn2sin2(εnX)+o(X2)x^{2}+\varepsilon_{n}^{2}={\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}+{\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}\cot^{2}(\varepsilon_{n}X)+o\left(X^{-2}\right)=\frac{\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}{\sin^{2}(\varepsilon_{n}X)}+o\left(X^{-2}\right)

hence

1x2+εn2sin2(εnX)εn2=𝒪(X2).\displaystyle\frac{1}{x^{2}+{\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}}\sim\frac{\sin^{2}(\varepsilon_{n}X)}{{\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}}=\mathcal{O}\left(X^{2}\right).

Finally, using (8) and the fact that 1/C<|Y|<C1/C<|Y|<C by definition of n(C)\mathcal{R}_{n}(C) we get

y=Y(x2+εn2)η/2εnρsinρ(εnX)=𝒪(Xρ),y=Y(x^{2}+\varepsilon_{n}^{2})^{\eta/2}\asymp\frac{\varepsilon_{n}^{\rho}}{\sin^{\rho}(\varepsilon_{n}X)}=\mathcal{O}\left(X^{-\rho}\right),

proving (9). ∎

Remark 4.5.

Observe that n(C)U\mathcal{R}_{n}(C)\subset U for nn large enough, where UU is the domain of definition of the family (gε)(g_{\varepsilon}). If we take (x,y)n(C)(x,y)\in\mathcal{R}_{n}(C) and denote (X,Y):=Φεnι(x,y)(X,Y):=\Phi_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{\iota}(x,y), then |εnX|Re(εnX)πkn10n|\varepsilon_{n}X|\geq\mathrm{Re}\,(\varepsilon_{n}X)\geq\frac{\pi k_{n}}{10n} by definition of n(C)\mathcal{R}_{n}(C), so using (7), (9) and the fact that εnπ/n\varepsilon_{n}\sim\pi/n we have that (x,y)U(x,y)\in U for nn large enough (depending only on n(C)\mathcal{R}_{n}(C) and not on (x,y)(x,y).)

Lemma 4.6.

Consider (x,y)n(C)(x,y)\in\mathcal{R}_{n}(C) and denote (x1,y1)=gεn(x,y)(x_{1},y_{1})=g_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x,y). Then if nn is big enough

logx12+εn2x2+εn2=2x+o(1n)\log\frac{x_{1}^{2}+{\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}}{x^{2}+{\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}}=2x+o\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)
Proof.

Since x1=x+(x2+εn2)(1+𝒪(x,εn))+y𝒪(x,y,εn)x_{1}=x+\left(x^{2}+\varepsilon_{n}^{2}\right)\left(1+\mathcal{O}(x,\varepsilon_{n})\right)+y\mathcal{O}(x,y,\varepsilon_{n}) we have

x12=x2+2x(x2+εn2)+(x2+εn2)𝒪2(x,εn)+y𝒪2(x,y,εn)x_{1}^{2}=x^{2}+2x\left(x^{2}+\varepsilon_{n}^{2}\right)+\left(x^{2}+\varepsilon_{n}^{2}\right)\mathcal{O}_{2}(x,\varepsilon_{n})+y\mathcal{O}_{2}(x,y,\varepsilon_{n})

hence

x12+εn2x2+εn2=1+2x+𝒪2(x,εn)+yx2+εn2𝒪2(x,y,εn).\frac{x_{1}^{2}+\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}{x^{2}+\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}=1+2x+\mathcal{O}_{2}(x,\varepsilon_{n})+\frac{y}{x^{2}+\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}\mathcal{O}_{2}(x,y,\varepsilon_{n}).

If (X,Y):=Φεnι(x,y)(X,Y):=\Phi_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{\iota}(x,y), we have by definition of n(C)\mathcal{R}_{n}(C) that X=𝒪(n)X=\mathcal{O}(n) and X1=𝒪(nγ)X^{-1}=\mathcal{O}\left(n^{-\gamma}\right). Then using (7) and the fact that εnπ/n\varepsilon_{n}\sim\pi/n we get 𝒪2(x,εn)=𝒪(n2γ)=o(n1)\mathcal{O}_{2}(x,\varepsilon_{n})=\mathcal{O}\left(n^{-2\gamma}\right)=o\left(n^{-1}\right) since 2γ>12\gamma>1. Moreover thanks to (8) and (9) we have that (x2+εn2)1=𝒪(n2)\left(x^{2}+\varepsilon_{n}^{2}\right)^{-1}=\mathcal{O}\left(n^{2}\right) and y=𝒪(nγρ)y=\mathcal{O}\left(n^{-\gamma\rho}\right), so

yx2+εn2𝒪2(x,y,εn)=𝒪(1nγρ+2γ2)=o(1n)\frac{y}{x^{2}+\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}\mathcal{O}_{2}(x,y,\varepsilon_{n})=\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{n^{\gamma\rho+2\gamma-2}}\right)=o\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)

since γρ>2\gamma\rho>2. Hence

x12+εn2x2+εn2=1+2x+o(1n)\frac{x_{1}^{2}+{\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}}{x^{2}+{\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}}=1+2x+o\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)

and therefore

logx12+εn2x2+εn2=log(1+2x+o(1n))=2x+o(1n).\log\frac{x_{1}^{2}+{\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}}{x^{2}+{\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}}=\log\left(1+2x+o\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)\right)=2x+o\left(\frac{1}{n}\right).

Lemma 4.7.

If (x,y)n(C)(x,y)\in\mathcal{R}_{n}(C) then for nn big enough

(10) 1x±iεn=𝒪(n)\frac{1}{x\pm i\varepsilon_{n}}=\mathcal{O}(n)

and

(11) ybεn(x,y)x±iεn=bxyx±iεn+o(1n2)\frac{yb_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x,y)}{x\pm i\varepsilon_{n}}=\frac{bxy}{x\pm i\varepsilon_{n}}+o\left(\frac{1}{n^{2}}\right)
Proof.

If (X,Y):=Φεnι(x,y)(X,Y):=\Phi_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{\iota}(x,y), using (7) and the fact that n2γlogn=o(n1)=o(εn)n^{-2\gamma}\log n=o\left(n^{-1}\right)=o(\varepsilon_{n}) we have

1x±iεn=1εncot(εnX)+o(εn)±iεn\displaystyle\frac{1}{x\pm i\varepsilon_{n}}=\frac{1}{-\varepsilon_{n}\cot(\varepsilon_{n}X)+o(\varepsilon_{n})\pm i\varepsilon_{n}}

Since 1εn=𝒪(n)\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{n}}=\mathcal{O}(n) and 1cot(εnX)±i=𝒪(1)\frac{1}{\cot({\varepsilon_{n}}X)\pm i}=\mathcal{O}(1), because Re(εnX)(0,π)\mathrm{Re}\,(\varepsilon_{n}X)\in(0,\pi) and Im(εnX)=𝒪(1)\mathrm{Im}(\varepsilon_{n}X)=\mathcal{O}(1) by definition of n(C)\mathcal{R}_{n}(C), we get

1x±iεn1εn1cot(εnX)±i=𝒪(n),\frac{1}{x\pm i\varepsilon_{n}}\sim-\frac{1}{{\varepsilon_{n}}}\cdot\frac{1}{\cot({\varepsilon_{n}}X)\pm i}=\mathcal{O}(n),

proving (10). Then, to get (11) we just need to prove that ybεn(x,y)=bxy+o(n3)yb_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x,y)=bxy+o\left(n^{-3}\right). Since bεn(x,y)=bx+𝒪(x2,y,εn)b_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x,y)=bx+\mathcal{O}\left(x^{2},y,\varepsilon_{n}\right) we have, using (7), (9) and the fact that X1=𝒪(nγ)X^{-1}=\mathcal{O}(n^{-\gamma}),

ybεn(x,y)=bxy+𝒪(x2y,y2,εny)=bxy+𝒪(1nγρ+1),yb_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x,y)=bxy+\mathcal{O}\left(x^{2}y,y^{2},\varepsilon_{n}y\right)=bxy+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{n^{\gamma\rho+1}}\right),

so ybεn(x,y)=bxy+o(n3)yb_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x,y)=bxy+o\left(n^{-3}\right) because γρ>2\gamma\rho>2. ∎

Lemma 4.8.

Consider (x,y)n(C)(x,y)\in\mathcal{R}_{n}(C) and denote (x1,y1)=gεn(x,y)(x_{1},y_{1})=g_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x,y). Then for nn big enough

y1y=1+ηx+qεn+o(1n).\frac{y_{1}}{y}=1+\eta x+q{\varepsilon_{n}}+o\left(\frac{1}{n}\right).
Proof.

If (X,Y):=Φεnι(x,y)(X,Y):=\Phi_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{\iota}(x,y), we have by definition of n(C)\mathcal{R}_{n}(C) that X1=𝒪(nγ)X^{-1}=\mathcal{O}\left(n^{-\gamma}\right). Then using (7) and (9) we have

y1\displaystyle y_{1} =y+y(ηx+qεn+𝒪(x2,y,xεn,εn2))+𝒪(xm+3)+εn𝒪m+1(x,εn)\displaystyle=y+y\left(\eta x+q{\varepsilon_{n}}+\mathcal{O}(x^{2},y,x\varepsilon_{n},\varepsilon_{n}^{2})\right)+\mathcal{O}\left(x^{m+3}\right)+\varepsilon_{n}\mathcal{O}_{m+1}\left(x,\varepsilon_{n}\right)
=y[1+ηx+qεn+o(1n)+1y𝒪(xm+3)+1yεn𝒪m+1(x,εn)].\displaystyle=y\left[1+\eta x+q{\varepsilon_{n}}+o\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)+\frac{1}{y}\,\mathcal{O}\left(x^{m+3}\right)+\frac{1}{y}\,\varepsilon_{n}\mathcal{O}_{m+1}\left(x,\varepsilon_{n}\right)\right].

Moreover, using (9)

1ysinρ(εnX)εnρ=𝒪(Xρ).\dfrac{1}{y}\asymp\frac{\sin^{\rho}(\varepsilon_{n}X)}{\varepsilon_{n}^{\rho}}=\mathcal{O}\left(X^{\rho}\right).

Then, since ρ1<mρ\rho-1<m\leq\rho we obtain from (7) that

1y𝒪(xm+3)=𝒪(1Xm+3ρ)=𝒪(1n(m+3ρ)γ)=o(1n)\frac{1}{y}\mathcal{O}\left(x^{m+3}\right)=\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{X^{m+3-\rho}}\right)=\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{n^{(m+3-\rho)\gamma}}\right)=o\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)

and similarly

1y𝒪(xm+1εn)=𝒪(1Xm+1ρεn)=𝒪(1n(m+1ρ)γ+1)=o(1n).\frac{1}{y}\mathcal{O}\left(x^{m+1}\varepsilon_{n}\right)=\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{X^{m+1-\rho}}\,\varepsilon_{n}\right)=\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{n^{(m+1-\rho)\gamma+1}}\right)=o\left(\frac{1}{n}\right).

Finally, using the fact that X=𝒪(n)X=\mathcal{O}(n) by definition of n(C)\mathcal{R}_{n}(C),

1y𝒪(xmjεn2+j)=𝒪(Xρm+jεn2+j)=𝒪(1n2+mρ)=o(1n)\frac{1}{y}\mathcal{O}\left(x^{m-j}\varepsilon_{n}^{2+j}\right)=\mathcal{O}\left(X^{\rho-m+j}\varepsilon_{n}^{2+j}\right)=\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{n^{2+m-\rho}}\right)=o\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)

for every jj with 0jm0\leq j\leq m. Therefore we have

y1=y[1+ηx+qεn+o(1n)],y_{1}=y\left[1+\eta x+q{\varepsilon_{n}}+o\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)\right],

concluding the proof. ∎

Proposition 4.9.

We have, for (x,y)n(C)(x,y)\in\mathcal{R}_{n}(C) and nn big enough:

Aεn(x,y)=o(1n);Bεn(x,y)=qεn+o(1n).A_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x,y)=o\left(\frac{1}{n}\right);\quad B_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x,y)=q\varepsilon_{n}+o\left(\frac{1}{n}\right).
Proof.

Denoting (x1,y1)=gεn(x,y)(x_{1},y_{1})=g_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x,y), we have:

Aεn(x,y)\displaystyle A_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x,y) =wεn(x1,y1)wεn(x,y)1\displaystyle=w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{1},y_{1})-w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x,y)-1
=12iεnlog(x1iεnxiεnx+iεnx1+iεn)1+1a2logx12+εn2x2+εn2\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2i{\varepsilon_{n}}}\log\left(\frac{x_{1}-i{\varepsilon_{n}}}{x-i{\varepsilon_{n}}}\cdot\frac{x+i{\varepsilon_{n}}}{x_{1}+i{\varepsilon_{n}}}\right)-1+\frac{1-a}{2}\log\frac{x_{1}^{2}+\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}{x^{2}+\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}

By Lemma 4.6, we have

1a2logx12+εn2x2+εn2=(1a)x+o(1n).\frac{1-a}{2}\log\frac{x_{1}^{2}+{\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}}{x^{2}+{\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}}=(1-a)x+o\Bigl(\frac{1}{n}\Bigr).

On the other hand, we compute:

logx1iεnxiεn\displaystyle\log\frac{x_{1}-i\varepsilon_{n}}{x-i\varepsilon_{n}} =logxiεn+(x2+εn2)aεn+ybεnxiεn=log(1+(x+iεn)aεn+ybεnxiεn)\displaystyle=\log\frac{x-i\varepsilon_{n}+(x^{2}+{\varepsilon_{n}^{2}})a_{\varepsilon_{n}}+yb_{\varepsilon_{n}}}{x-i\varepsilon_{n}}=\log\left(1+(x+i\varepsilon_{n})a_{\varepsilon_{n}}+\frac{yb_{\varepsilon_{n}}}{x-i\varepsilon_{n}}\right)
=(x+iεn)aεn+bxyxiεn12(x+iεn)2aεn2+13x3+o(1n2)\displaystyle=(x+i\varepsilon_{n})a_{\varepsilon_{n}}+\frac{bxy}{x-i\varepsilon_{n}}-\frac{1}{2}(x+i\varepsilon_{n})^{2}a_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{2}+\frac{1}{3}x^{3}+o\left(\frac{1}{n^{2}}\right)

using Lemmas 4.4 and 4.7 in the last line (and, as in the previous lemmas, the fact that X1=𝒪(nγ)X^{-1}=\mathcal{O}\left(n^{-\gamma}\right) by definition of n(C)\mathcal{R}_{n}(C), where (X,Y):=Φεnι(x,y)(X,Y):=\Phi_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{\iota}(x,y)). Similarly, we also have:

logx1+iεnx+iεn\displaystyle\log\frac{x_{1}+i\varepsilon_{n}}{x+i\varepsilon_{n}} =logx+iεn+(x2+εn2)aεn+ybεnx+iεn=log(1+(xiεn)aεn+ybεnx+iεn)\displaystyle=\log\frac{x+i\varepsilon_{n}+(x^{2}+{\varepsilon_{n}^{2}})a_{\varepsilon_{n}}+yb_{\varepsilon_{n}}}{x+i\varepsilon_{n}}=\log\left(1+(x-i\varepsilon_{n})a_{\varepsilon_{n}}+\frac{yb_{\varepsilon_{n}}}{x+i\varepsilon_{n}}\right)
=(xiεn)aεn+bxyx+iεn12(xiεn)2aεn2+13x3+o(1n2)\displaystyle=(x-i\varepsilon_{n})a_{\varepsilon_{n}}+\frac{bxy}{x+i\varepsilon_{n}}-\frac{1}{2}(x-i\varepsilon_{n})^{2}a_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{2}+\frac{1}{3}x^{3}+o\left(\frac{1}{n^{2}}\right)

so that

12iεnlog(x1iεnxiεnx+iεnx1+iεn)\displaystyle\frac{1}{2i\varepsilon_{n}}\log\left(\frac{x_{1}-i\varepsilon_{n}}{x-i\varepsilon_{n}}\cdot\frac{x+i\varepsilon_{n}}{x_{1}+i\varepsilon_{n}}\right) =12iεn[2iεnaεn+2iεnbxyx2+εn22iεnxaεn2+o(1n2)]\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2i\varepsilon_{n}}\left[2i\varepsilon_{n}a_{\varepsilon_{n}}+2i\varepsilon_{n}\frac{bxy}{x^{2}+\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}-2i\varepsilon_{n}xa_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{2}+o\left(\frac{1}{n^{2}}\right)\right]
=aεn+bxyx2+εn2xaεn2+o(1n)\displaystyle=a_{\varepsilon_{n}}+\frac{bxy}{x^{2}+\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}-xa_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{2}+o\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)
=1+(a1)x+o(1n)\displaystyle=1+(a-1)x+o\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)

using again Lemma 4.4 in the last line.

Finally, note that we have

Bεn(x,y)=logtεn(x1,y1)tεn(x,y)=logy1yη2logx12+εn2x2+εn2B_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x,y)=\log\frac{t_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{1},y_{1})}{t_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x,y)}=\log\frac{y_{1}}{y}-\frac{\eta}{2}\log\frac{x_{1}^{2}+\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}{x^{2}+\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}

Using Lemma 4.8 we have

logy1y=log(1+ηx+qεn+o(1n))=ηx+qεn+o(1n)\log\frac{y_{1}}{y}=\log\left(1+\eta x+q{\varepsilon_{n}}+o\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)\right)=\eta x+q{\varepsilon_{n}}+o\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)

and using Lemma 4.6 we conclude that Bεn(x,y)=qεn+o(n1)B_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x,y)=q\varepsilon_{n}+o\left(n^{-1}\right). ∎

5. Controlling the orbit

The goal of this section is to provide accurate estimates for the position of the orbit {gεnk(x,y):0knN}\{g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{k}(x,y):0\leq k\leq n-N\} of a point (x,y)(x,y) in the parabolic basin of g:=g0g:=g_{0}.

The strategy, similar to that of [ABD+16], is to split this orbit in three regions:

  1. (1)

    A first one where gεnk(x,y)g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{k}(x,y) approaches (0,0)(0,0) shadowing closely the orbit gk(x,y)g^{k}(x,y), which we call "approaching the eggbeater"; this will occur for 0kkn0\leq k\leq k_{n}, where kn=nγk_{n}=\lfloor n^{\gamma}\rfloor as in Section 4.

  2. (2)

    A second one which we call "in the eggbeater", in which gεnk(x,y)g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{k}(x,y) is close to (0,0)(0,0) and where the effect of the perturbation is relevant. This will be the case for knknknk_{n}\leq k\leq n-k_{n}.

  3. (3)

    A third one where gεnk(x,y)g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{k}(x,y) gets away from (0,0)(0,0) again shadowing the dynamics of gg, which we call "leaving the eggbeater". This will happen for the last knNk_{n}-N iterates.

Let us fix some constant C>0C>0. Recall that by Lemma 3.1 and Proposition 3.2, there exists rι(C)>0r^{\iota}(C)>0 such that for all 0<rrι(C)0<r\leq r^{\iota}(C) small enough the incoming petal

Pι(r,C):={(x,y)2:|x+r|<r,|y(x)η|<C}P^{\iota}(r,C):=\left\{(x,y)\in\mathbb{C}^{2}:|x+r|<r,\left|\frac{y}{(-x)^{\eta}}\right|<C\right\}

has the property that if (x,y)Pι(r,C)(x,y)\in P^{\iota}(r,C), then gk(x,y)Pι(r,C+1)g^{k}(x,y)\in P^{\iota}(r,C+1) for all kk\in\mathbb{N} and moreover the incoming Fatou coordinate Φι\Phi^{\iota} is well-defined on Pι(r,C)P^{\iota}(r,C). Recall that we have the following asymptotic expansion for Φι\Phi^{\iota} as Re(1/x)+\mathrm{Re}\,(-1/x)\to+\infty in Pι(r,C)P^{\iota}(r,C):

Φι(x,y)=:(wι(x,y),tι(x,y))=(1x+(1a)log(x)+o(1),y(x)η+o(1)).\Phi^{\iota}(x,y)=:(w^{\iota}(x,y),t^{\iota}(x,y))=\left(-\frac{1}{x}+(1-a)\log(-x)+o(1),\frac{y}{(-x)^{\eta}}+o(1)\right).

The map

Φ0ι(x,y):=(1x,y(x)η)\Phi_{0}^{\iota}(x,y):=\left(-\frac{1}{x},\frac{y}{(-x)^{\eta}}\right)

maps Pι(r,C)P^{\iota}(r,C) biholomorphically to R×𝔻(0,C)\mathbb{H}_{R}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C), where R:={X:ReX>R}\mathbb{H}_{R}:=\{X\in\mathbb{C}:\mathrm{Re}\,X>R\} and R:=(2r)1R:=(2r)^{-1}.

In a similar way, by Proposition 3.3 there exists ro(C)>0r^{o}(C)>0 such that for all 0<rro(C)0<r\leq r^{o}(C) the outgoing Fatou coordinate Φo\Phi^{o} is well-defined on

Po(r,C):={(x,y)2:|xr|<r,|yxη|<C}P^{o}(r,C):=\left\{(x,y)\in\mathbb{C}^{2}:|x-r|<r,\left|\frac{y}{x^{\eta}}\right|<C\right\}

and satisfies

Φo(x,y)=(1x+(1a)logx+o(1),yxη+o(1)),\Phi^{o}(x,y)=\left(-\frac{1}{x}+(1-a)\log x+o\left(1\right),\frac{y}{x^{\eta}}+o\left(1\right)\right),

as Re(1/x)\mathrm{Re}\,(-1/x)\to-\infty inside Po(r,C)P^{o}(r,C). We set

Φ0o(x,y):=(1x,yxη),\Phi_{0}^{o}(x,y):=\left(-\frac{1}{x},\frac{y}{x^{\eta}}\right),

which maps Po(r,C)P^{o}(r,C) biholomorphically to R×𝔻(0,C)-\mathbb{H}_{R}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C), where R:={X:ReX<R}-\mathbb{H}_{R}:=\{X\in\mathbb{C}:\mathrm{Re}\,X<-R\}.

Throughout this section, we will use the following notations: given (x0,y0)(x_{0},y_{0}), we will denote (when defined)

(xj,yj):=gj(x0,y0),(Xj,Yj):=Φ0ι(xj,yj),(Xjo,Yjo):=Φ0o(xj,yj)(x_{j},y_{j}):=g^{j}(x_{0},y_{0}),\quad(X_{j},Y_{j}):=\Phi_{0}^{\iota}(x_{j},y_{j}),\quad(X_{j}^{o},Y_{j}^{o}):=\Phi_{0}^{o}(x_{j},y_{j})
(xjεn,yjεn):=gεnj(x0,y0),(Xjεn,Yjεn):=Φ0ι(xjεn,yjεn),(Xjεn,o,Yjεn,o):=Φ0o(xjεn,yjεn).(x_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n}}):=g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{j}(x_{0},y_{0}),\quad(X_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n}},Y_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n}}):=\Phi_{0}^{\iota}(x_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n}}),\quad(X_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n},o},Y_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n},o}):=\Phi_{0}^{o}(x_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n}}).

We will also denote, for any t,st,s\in\mathbb{C},

At,s(X,Y):=(X+t,eπsY).A_{t,s}(X,Y):=\left(X+t,e^{\pi s}Y\right).

Given C>0C>0, we choose 0<r<2/50<r<2/5 small enough (or equivalently R=(2r)1>5/4R=(2r)^{-1}>5/4 large enough) such that

  1. (R1)(R_{1})

    Pι(r,C),Po(r,Ce1+π|Req|)UP^{\iota}(r,C),P^{o}(r,Ce^{1+\pi|\mathrm{Re}\,q|})\subset U, where UU is the domain of definition of (gε)(g_{\varepsilon}), and there exists a constant K1>0K_{1}>0 such that |X_1-X-1|<1/4,  |Y_1-Y|<K_11|X|2 for all (X,Y)Φ0ι(Pι(r,C))(X,Y)\in\Phi_{0}^{\iota}(P^{\iota}(r,C)), where (X1,Y1):=Φ0ιg(Φ0ι)1(X,Y)(X_{1},Y_{1}):=\Phi_{0}^{\iota}\circ g\circ\left(\Phi_{0}^{\iota}\right)^{-1}(X,Y), and |X_1^o-X-1|<1/4,   |Y_1^o-Y|<K_11|X|2 for all (X,Y)Φ0o(Po(r,Ce1+π|Req|))(X,Y)\in\Phi_{0}^{o}(P^{o}(r,Ce^{1+\pi|\mathrm{Re}\,q|})), where (X1o,Y1o):=Φ0og(Φ0o)1(X,Y)(X_{1}^{o},Y_{1}^{o}):=\Phi_{0}^{o}\circ g\circ\left(\Phi_{0}^{o}\right)^{-1}(X,Y).

The existence of such RR is guaranteed by the expression (3) for Φ0ιg(Φ0ι)1\Phi_{0}^{\iota}\circ g\circ\left(\Phi_{0}^{\iota}\right)^{-1} and the fact that Φ0og(Φ0o)1\Phi_{0}^{o}\circ g\circ\left(\Phi_{0}^{o}\right)^{-1} has the same expansion.

We will also later in this section need to possibly increase RR further to meet some extra conditions (see Definition 5.5). To ensure the lack of circular definitions, we will explicitly mention that several constants appearing in the following computations do not depend on RR (but are allowed to depend on CC).

Definition 5.1.

We let

Un(R,C):={(X,Y)R×𝔻(0,C):|X|<10kn}Φ0ι(Pι((2R)1,C)).U_{n}(R,C):=\{(X,Y)\in\mathbb{H}_{R}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C):|X|<10k_{n}\}\subsetneq\Phi_{0}^{\iota}\left(P^{\iota}\left((2R)^{-1},C\right)\right).
Lemma 5.2.

For any C>0C>0 and any RR satisfying hypothesis (R1)(R_{1}), the map Gεn:=Φ0ιgεn(Φ0ι)1G_{\varepsilon_{n}}:=\Phi_{0}^{\iota}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}\circ\left(\Phi_{0}^{\iota}\right)^{-1} is well-defined on Un(R,C)U_{n}(R,C) for all nn large enough. Moreover, there exists a constant Cι>0C^{\iota}>0 depending on CC but not on RR (in the sense that it does not increase when we increase RR) such that if (X,Y)Un(R,C)(X,Y)\in U_{n}(R,C) and nn is large enough then

|X1εnX1|Cι(1n+|X|2n2)and|Y1εnY1|Cι1n|X_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}-X_{1}|\leq C^{\iota}\left(\frac{1}{n}+\frac{|X|^{2}}{n^{2}}\right)\quad\text{and}\quad|Y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}-Y_{1}|\leq C^{\iota}\frac{1}{n}

where (X1εn,Y1εn):=Gεn(X,Y)(X_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}},Y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}):=G_{\varepsilon_{n}}(X,Y) and (X1,Y1):=Φ0ιg(Φ0ι)1(X,Y)(X_{1},Y_{1}):=\Phi_{0}^{\iota}\circ g\circ\left(\Phi_{0}^{\iota}\right)^{-1}(X,Y).

Proof.

Let us first prove that GεnG_{\varepsilon_{n}} is well-defined on Un(R,C)U_{n}(R,C) for nn large enough. It suffices to show that if (X,Y)Un(R,C)(X,Y)\in U_{n}(R,C) and nn is large enough then Re(x1εn)<0\mathrm{Re}\,(x_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}})<0, where (x1εn,y1εn):=gεn(Φ0ι)1(X,Y)(x_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}):=g_{\varepsilon_{n}}\circ\left(\Phi_{0}^{\iota}\right)^{-1}(X,Y). Set (x,y):=(Φ0ι)1(X,Y)(x,y):=\left(\Phi_{0}^{\iota}\right)^{-1}(X,Y) and (x1,y1):=g(x,y)(x_{1},y_{1}):=g(x,y). By the expression (6) of gεng_{\varepsilon_{n}}, we have

(12) x1εn=x1+𝒪(x2εn,yεn,εn2);y1εn=y1+𝒪(yεn)+εn𝒪m+1(x,εn)x_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}=x_{1}+\mathcal{O}\left(x^{2}\varepsilon_{n},y\varepsilon_{n},\varepsilon_{n}^{2}\right);\qquad y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}=y_{1}+\mathcal{O}(y\varepsilon_{n})+\varepsilon_{n}\mathcal{O}_{m+1}(x,\varepsilon_{n})

so using the fact that y=𝒪(x2)y=\mathcal{O}(x^{2}) because (x,y)Pι((2R)1,C)(x,y)\in P^{\iota}\left((2R)^{-1},C\right) we get

1x1εn\displaystyle-\frac{1}{x_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}} =1x1+𝒪(x2εn,yεn,εn2)=1x1+𝒪(1n2,x2n)=11X1+𝒪(1n2,1nX2)\displaystyle=-\frac{1}{x_{1}+\mathcal{O}\left(x^{2}\varepsilon_{n},y\varepsilon_{n},\varepsilon_{n}^{2}\right)}=-\frac{1}{x_{1}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{n^{2}},\frac{x^{2}}{n}\right)}=-\frac{1}{-\frac{1}{X_{1}}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{n^{2}},\frac{1}{nX^{2}}\right)}
=X11𝒪(X1n2,X1nX2)=X1+𝒪(X12n2,X12nX2).\displaystyle=\frac{X_{1}}{1-\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{X_{1}}{n^{2}},\frac{X_{1}}{nX^{2}}\right)}=X_{1}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{X_{1}^{2}}{n^{2}},\frac{X_{1}^{2}}{nX^{2}}\right).

Since |X1X1|<1/4|X_{1}-X-1|<1/4 by our choice of RR, we have that X1=𝒪(X)X_{1}=\mathcal{O}(X) so we get

1x1εn=X1+𝒪(1n,X2n2).-\frac{1}{x_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}}=X_{1}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{n},\frac{X^{2}}{n^{2}}\right).

Note that in all the previous computations, the implicit constants in 𝒪\mathcal{O} depend only on CC, not on RR, in the sense that the do not increase if we increase RR. By definition of Un(R,C)U_{n}(R,C), we have

|X|2n2100kn2n2.\frac{|X|^{2}}{n^{2}}\leq\frac{100k_{n}^{2}}{n^{2}}.

Moreover, since ReX1>ReX+3/4\mathrm{Re}\,X_{1}>\mathrm{Re}\,X+3/4, there exists a constant C1>0C_{1}>0 independent from RR such that

Re(1x1εn)>ReX+34C1(1n+100n22γ)\mathrm{Re}\,\left(-\frac{1}{x_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}}\right)>\mathrm{Re}\,X+\frac{3}{4}-C_{1}\left(\frac{1}{n}+\frac{100}{n^{2-2\gamma}}\right)

so Re(x1εn)<0\mathrm{Re}\,\left(x_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}\right)<0 for nn large enough, as desired. This computation also gives the first estimate.

Let us prove the second estimate. By the mean value inequality,

|Y1εnY1|\displaystyle|Y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}-Y_{1}| =|y1εn(x1εn)ηy1(x1)η|\displaystyle=\left|\frac{y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}}{(-x_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}})^{\eta}}-\frac{y_{1}}{(-x_{1})^{\eta}}\right|
supx[x1,x1εn]|ηy1(x)η+1||x1εnx1|+|1(x1εn)η||y1εny1|\displaystyle\leq\sup_{x\in[x_{1},x_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}]}\left|\eta\frac{y_{1}}{(-x)^{\eta+1}}\right|\cdot|x_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}-x_{1}|+\left|\frac{1}{(-x_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}})^{\eta}}\right|\cdot|y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}-y_{1}|
C2|y1||x|ρ+1|x1εnx1|+C21|x|ρ|y1εny1|\displaystyle\leq C_{2}\frac{|y_{1}|}{|x_{*}|^{\rho+1}}|x_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}-x_{1}|+C_{2}\frac{1}{|x_{*}|^{\rho}}|y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}-y_{1}|

for some C2>0C_{2}>0, where |x|:=min{|z|,z[x1,x1εn]}|x_{*}|:=\min\{|z|,z\in[x_{1},x_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}]\}. By the expression of gg,

x1=x(1+𝒪(x,y))+𝒪(y2)=x(1+𝒪(x)),x_{1}=x\left(1+\mathcal{O}(x,y)\right)+\mathcal{O}(y^{2})=x\left(1+\mathcal{O}(x)\right),

using again the fact that y=𝒪(x)y=\mathcal{O}(x) because (x,y)Pι((2R)1,C)(x,y)\in P^{\iota}\left((2R)^{-1},C\right). Since RR was taken large enough so that |X1|<|X|+2|X_{1}|<|X|+2, we have that we have that

|x1||x|>11+4r,\frac{|x_{1}|}{|x|}>\frac{1}{1+4r},

where r=(2R)1r=(2R)^{-1}. Moreover, using (12) we have that x1εn=x1+𝒪(x2εn,εn2)x_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}=x_{1}+\mathcal{O}\left(x^{2}\varepsilon_{n},\varepsilon_{n}^{2}\right), so

xx=x1+𝒪(x2εn,εn2)x=x1x+𝒪(1n,Xn2).\frac{x_{*}}{x}=\frac{x_{1}+\mathcal{O}\left(x^{2}\varepsilon_{n},\varepsilon_{n}^{2}\right)}{x}=\frac{x_{1}}{x}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{n},\frac{X}{n^{2}}\right).

Since (X,Y)Un(R,C)(X,Y)\in U_{n}(R,C), we have that |X|<10kn|X|<10k_{n}, so we can take nn big enough so that

(13) |x||x|>1211+4r.\frac{|x_{*}|}{|x|}>\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{1+4r}.

Hence using the expression of gg we have that for nn large enough

|y1||x|ρ+1C3|y1||x|ρ+1C31|x|ρ+1|y(1+𝒪(x,y))+𝒪(xm+3)|C41|x|\frac{|y_{1}|}{|x_{*}|^{\rho+1}}\leq C_{3}\frac{|y_{1}|}{|x|^{\rho+1}}\leq C_{3}\frac{1}{|x|^{\rho+1}}\left|y(1+\mathcal{O}(x,y))+\mathcal{O}(x^{m+3})\right|\leq C_{4}\frac{1}{|x|}

for some constants C3,C4>0C_{3},C_{4}>0, so

|y1||x|ρ+1|x1εnx1|C41|x||x1εnx1|C5(|x|1n+|X|n2)C61n\frac{|y_{1}|}{|x_{*}|^{\rho+1}}|x_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}-x_{1}|\leq C_{4}\frac{1}{|x|}|x_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}-x_{1}|\leq C_{5}\left(|x|\frac{1}{n}+\frac{|X|}{n^{2}}\right)\leq C_{6}\frac{1}{n}

for some constants C5,C6>0C_{5},C_{6}>0, where we used in the last inequality the fact that |X|<10kn|X|<10k_{n}. Finally, using (12) and (13) we have

|y1εny1||x|ρ=𝒪(yεn)+εn𝒪m+1(x,εn)|x|ρ=𝒪(1n)\frac{|y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}-y_{1}|}{\left|x_{*}\right|^{\rho}}=\frac{\mathcal{O}(y\varepsilon_{n})+\varepsilon_{n}\mathcal{O}_{m+1}(x,\varepsilon_{n})}{|x|^{\rho}}=\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)

using again in the last identity the fact that |X|10kn|X|\leq 10k_{n}. Putting everything together, we obtain

Y1εnY1=𝒪(1n),Y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}-Y_{1}=\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{n}\right),

and the Lemma is proved. ∎

For the outgoing petal, we have the following analogous Lemma:

Definition 5.3.

We let

Uno(R,Ce1+π|Req|):={(X,Y)R×𝔻(0,Ce1+π|Req|):|X|<10kn}.U_{n}^{o}(R,Ce^{1+\pi|\mathrm{Re}\,q|}):=\{(X,Y)\in-\mathbb{H}_{R}\times\mathbb{D}(0,Ce^{1+\pi|\mathrm{Re}\,q|}):|X|<10k_{n}\}.

Note that Uno(R,Ce1+π|Req|)Φ0o(Po((2R)1,Ce1+π|Req|)).U_{n}^{o}(R,Ce^{1+\pi|\mathrm{Re}\,q|})\subsetneq\Phi_{0}^{o}\left(P^{o}\left((2R)^{-1},Ce^{1+\pi|\mathrm{Re}\,q|}\right)\right).

Lemma 5.4.

For any C>0C>0 and any RR satisfying hypothesis (R1)(R_{1}), the map Gεno:=Φ0ogεn(Φ0o)1G_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{o}:=\Phi_{0}^{o}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}\circ\left(\Phi_{0}^{o}\right)^{-1} is well-defined on Uno(R,Ce1+π|Req|)U_{n}^{o}(R,Ce^{1+\pi|\mathrm{Re}\,q|}) for all nn large enough. Moreover, there exists a constant Co>0C^{o}>0 depending on CC but not on RR (in the sense that it does not increase when we increase RR) such that if (X,Y)Uno(R,Ce1+π|Req|)(X,Y)\in U_{n}^{o}(R,Ce^{1+\pi|\mathrm{Re}\,q|}) and nn is large enough then

|X1εn,oX1o|Co(1n+|X|2n2)and|Y1εn,oY1o|Co1n|X_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n},o}-X_{1}^{o}|\leq C^{o}\left(\frac{1}{n}+\frac{|X|^{2}}{n^{2}}\right)\quad\text{and}\quad|Y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n},o}-Y_{1}^{o}|\leq C^{o}\frac{1}{n}

where (X1εn,o,Y1εn,o):=Gεno(X,Y)(X_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n},o},Y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n},o}):=G_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{o}(X,Y) and (X1o,Y1o):=Φ0og(Φ0o)1(X,Y)(X_{1}^{o},Y_{1}^{o}):=\Phi_{0}^{o}\circ g\circ\left(\Phi_{0}^{o}\right)^{-1}(X,Y).

Proof.

The proof follows essentially the same steps as the previous one. The only modification concerns the argument showing that Re(x1εn)>0\mathrm{Re}\,(x_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}})>0. In this case, we have

Re(1x1εn)<ReX+54+C1(1n+100n22γ)\mathrm{Re}\,\left(-\frac{1}{x_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}}\right)<\mathrm{Re}\,X+\frac{5}{4}+C_{1}\left(\frac{1}{n}+\frac{100}{n^{2-2\gamma}}\right)

for some constant C1>0C_{1}>0. Hence, for nn sufficiently large, we have Re(1/x1εn)<0\mathrm{Re}\,(-1/x_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}})<0, since by assumption R>5/4R>5/4. ∎

We will now state explicitly in which sense RR must be taken large enough, or equivalently r=(2R)1r=(2R)^{-1} small enough. By Lemma 5.2, there exists Cι>0C^{\iota}>0, depending on CC but not on RR, such that for all (X,Y)Un(R,C)(X,Y)\in U_{n}(R,C) and for nn large enough

|X1εnX1|Cι(1n+|X|2n2)and|Y1εnY1|Cι1n|X_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}-X_{1}|\leq C^{\iota}\left(\frac{1}{n}+\frac{|X|^{2}}{n^{2}}\right)\quad\text{and}\quad|Y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}-Y_{1}|\leq C^{\iota}\frac{1}{n}

where (X1εn,Y1εn):=Φ0ιgεn(Φ0ι)1(X,Y)(X_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}},Y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}):=\Phi_{0}^{\iota}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}\circ\left(\Phi_{0}^{\iota}\right)^{-1}(X,Y) and (X1,Y1):=Φ0ιg(Φ0ι)1(X,Y)(X_{1},Y_{1}):=\Phi_{0}^{\iota}\circ g\circ\left(\Phi_{0}^{\iota}\right)^{-1}(X,Y). Since |X|<10kn|X|<10k_{n}, we have that for nn large enough |X1εnX1|<1/4.|X_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}-X_{1}|<1/4. Then by our standing assumption (R1)(R_{1}) there exists Mι>0M^{\iota}>0 (depending on CC but not on RR) such that for all (X,Y)Un(R,C)(X,Y)\in U_{n}(R,C) and for nn large enough we have

(14) |X1εnX1|<12;|Y1εnY|<Mι(1n+1|X|2).|X_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}-X-1|<\frac{1}{2};\qquad|Y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}-Y|<M^{\iota}\left(\frac{1}{n}+\frac{1}{|X|^{2}}\right).

Moreover, by Lemma 5.4, similar estimates also hold on the outgoing petal; more precisely, there exists a constant Mo>0M^{o}>0 (also depending on CC but not on RR) such that for all (X,Y)Uno(R,Ce1+π|Req|)(X,Y)\in U_{n}^{o}(R,Ce^{1+\pi|\mathrm{Re}\,q|}) and for nn large enough we have

(15) |X1εn,oX1|<12;|Y1εn,oY|<Mo(1n+1|X|2)|X_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n},o}-X-1|<\frac{1}{2};\qquad|Y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n},o}-Y|<M^{o}\left(\frac{1}{n}+\frac{1}{|X|^{2}}\right)

where (X1εn,o,Y1εn,o):=Φ0ogεn(Φ0o)1(X,Y)(X_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n},o},Y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n},o}):=\Phi_{0}^{o}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}\circ\left(\Phi_{0}^{o}\right)^{-1}(X,Y). We let M:=max(Mι,Mo)M:=\max(M^{\iota},M^{o}).

From now on, we fix a compact KU,vK\subset\mathcal{B}_{U,v}, where U,v\mathcal{B}_{U,v} is the parabolic basin associated to v=(1,0)v=(1,0). Recall that U,v:=C>0n0fn(Pι(r,C))\mathcal{B}_{U,v}:=\bigcup_{C>0}\bigcup_{n\geq 0}f^{-n}(P^{\iota}(r,C)) for any r>0r>0. Then there exists a constant C>2C>2 (depending only on KK) such that for any r>0r>0 small enough there exists n0=n0(r)n_{0}=n_{0}(r)\in\mathbb{N} such that L:=gn0(K)Pι(r,C1)L:=g^{n_{0}}(K)\Subset P^{\iota}(r,C-1).

Definition 5.5 (Choice of RR).

From now on, we fix R>5/2R>5/2 (equivalently, 0<r=(2R)1<1/50<r=(2R)^{-1}<1/5 small enough) satisfying hypothesis (R1)(R_{1}) and large enough such that

  1. (R2)(R_{2})

    rrι(C)r\leq r^{\iota}(C) and rro(Ce1+π|Req|)r\leq r^{o}(Ce^{1+\pi|\mathrm{Re}\,q|}).

  2. (R3)(R_{3})

    Mj=0(R+j/2)21/10.M\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}(R+j/2)^{-2}\leq 1/10.

  3. (R4)(R_{4})

    For all (X,Y)R1×𝔻(0,C+1)(X,Y)\in\mathbb{H}_{R-1}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C+1) Φ^ι(Φ_0^ι)^-1(X,Y)-(X-(1-a)logX,Y)∥≤1C2 and for all (X,Y)R5/2×𝔻(0,Ce1+π|Req|+2)(X,Y)\in-\mathbb{H}_{R-5/2}\times\mathbb{D}(0,Ce^{1+\pi|\mathrm{Re}\,q|}+2) Φ^o(Φ_0^o)^-1(X,Y)-(X-(1-a)log(-X),Y)∥≤1C2.

Observe that conditions (R2)(R_{2}) and (R4)(R_{4}) are satisfied for RR large enough by Propositions 3.2 and 3.3.

Definition 5.6.

Let π1:2\pi_{1}:\mathbb{C}^{2}\to\mathbb{C} denote the projection on the first coordinate. We define

MC:={(x,y)2:xπ1(L) and 1C1|y(x)η|C1}M_{C}:=\displaystyle\left\{(x,y)\in\mathbb{C}^{2}:x\in\pi_{1}(L)\text{ and }\frac{1}{C-1}\leq\left|\frac{y}{(-x)^{\eta}}\right|\leq C-1\right\}

and

NC:={(x,y)2:xπ1(L) and |y(x)η|C1}.N_{C}:=\displaystyle\left\{(x,y)\in\mathbb{C}^{2}:x\in\pi_{1}(L)\text{ and }\left|\frac{y}{(-x)^{\eta}}\right|\leq C-1\right\}.

Observe that, by definition, MCNCM_{C}\subset N_{C} and LNCPι(r,C1)L\subset N_{C}\subset P^{\iota}(r,C-1).

5.1. Approaching the eggbeater

Lemma 5.7.

For all nn large enough and for all 0jkn0\leq j\leq k_{n} we have that

Φ0ιgεnj(MC)Un(R,C).\Phi_{0}^{\iota}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{j}\left(M_{C}\right)\subset U_{n}(R,C).

In particular, gεnj(MC)Pι(r,C)g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{j}\left(M_{C}\right)\subset P^{\iota}\left(r,C\right) for all nn large enough and all 0jkn0\leq j\leq k_{n}.

Proof.

Since MCPι(r,C1)M_{C}\subset P^{\iota}(r,C-1) is compact, we can assume that nn is large enough such that Φ0ι(MC)Un(R,C)\Phi_{0}^{\iota}(M_{C})\subset U_{n}(R,C). Take (x0,y0)MC(x_{0},y_{0})\in M_{C}, set (X0,Y0):=Φ0ι(x0,y0)(X_{0},Y_{0}):=\Phi_{0}^{\iota}(x_{0},y_{0}) and denote, for all jj\in\mathbb{N} such that it is well-defined, (Xjεn,Yjεn):=Φ0ιgεn(Φ0ι)1(X0,Y0)(X_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n}},Y_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n}}):=\Phi_{0}^{\iota}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}\circ\left(\Phi_{0}^{\iota}\right)^{-1}(X_{0},Y_{0}). Set

Kn:=min{j:(Xjεn,Yjεn)Un(R,C)}>0K_{n}:=\min\{j\in\mathbb{N}:(X_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n}},Y_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n}})\notin U_{n}(R,C)\}>0

and let us prove that Kn>knK_{n}>k_{n}.

First, recall that by (14) there exists a constant M>0M>0 such that for all jKnj\leq K_{n} and for nn large enough we have

|XjεnXj1εn1|<12|X_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n}}-X_{j-1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}-1|<\frac{1}{2}
|YjεnYj1εn|<M(1n+1|Xj1εn|2).|Y_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n}}-Y_{j-1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}|<M\left(\frac{1}{n}+\frac{1}{|X_{j-1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}|^{2}}\right).

From those inequalities, we get:

(16) |XjεnX0j|j2|X_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n}}-X_{0}-j|\leq\frac{j}{2}

and

(17) |YjεnY0|Mjn+Mk=0j11|Xkεn|2|Y_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n}}-Y_{0}|\leq\frac{Mj}{n}+M\sum_{k=0}^{j-1}\frac{1}{|X_{k}^{\varepsilon_{n}}|^{2}}

for all 0jKn0\leq j\leq K_{n}. Using (16) in (17) we get, for all 0jKn0\leq j\leq K_{n},

|YjεnY0|Mjn+Mk=0j11(ReX0+k/2)2Mjn+Mk=0j11(R+k/2)2.\displaystyle|Y_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n}}-Y_{0}|\leq\frac{Mj}{n}+M\sum_{k=0}^{j-1}\frac{1}{(\mathrm{Re}\,X_{0}+k/2)^{2}}\leq\frac{Mj}{n}+M\sum_{k=0}^{j-1}\frac{1}{(R+k/2)^{2}}.

Recall that by condition (R3)(R_{3}) we have that Mk=0(R+k/2)21/10M\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}(R+k/2)^{-2}\leq 1/10: from now on, we also assume that nn is large enough so that Mknn1/10.\frac{Mk_{n}}{n}\leq 1/10. Suppose by contradiction that KnknK_{n}\leq k_{n}. By definition (XKnεn,YKnεn)Un(R,C)(X_{K_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},Y_{K_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})\notin U_{n}(R,C); but on the other hand, we have

|XKnεnX0Kn|Kn2 and |YKnεnY0|210.|X_{K_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}-X_{0}-K_{n}|\leq\frac{K_{n}}{2}\quad\text{ and }\quad|Y_{K_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}-Y_{0}|\leq\frac{2}{10}.

Therefore: |YKnεn|<C1+2/10<C|Y_{K_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}|<C-1+2/10<C, R+Kn/2Re(XKnεn)R+K_{n}/2\leq\mathrm{Re}\,\left(X_{K_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}\right), and

|XKnεn||X0|+32Knmax{|1x|:(x,y)MC}+32kn<10kn|X_{K_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}|\leq|X_{0}|+\frac{3}{2}K_{n}\leq\max\left\{\left|-\frac{1}{x}\right|:(x,y)\in M_{C}\right\}+\frac{3}{2}k_{n}<10k_{n}

(again, up to taking nn large enough such that max{|1/x|:(x,y)MC}+3kn/2<10kn\max\left\{\left|-1/x\right|:(x,y)\in M_{C}\right\}+3k_{n}/2<10k_{n}). Therefore (XKnεn,YKnεn)Un(R,C)(X_{K_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},Y_{K_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})\in U_{n}(R,C), a contradiction. This proves that Kn>knK_{n}>k_{n}, hence that (Xkεn,Ykεn)Un(R,C)(X_{k}^{\varepsilon_{n}},Y_{k}^{\varepsilon_{n}})\in U_{n}(R,C) for all 0kkn0\leq k\leq k_{n}. ∎

Lemma 5.8.

For nn large enough

Φιgεnkn|MC=Akn,0Φι|MC+o(1),\Phi^{\iota}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{k_{n}}\bigr|_{M_{C}}=A_{k_{n},0}\circ\Phi^{\iota}\bigr|_{M_{C}}+o(1),

where the convergence of the term o(1)o(1) is uniform on MCM_{C} (recall that At,s(X,Y)=(X+t,eπsY)A_{t,s}(X,Y)=(X+t,e^{\pi s}Y) for any t,st,s\in\mathbb{C}).

Proof.

First note that, by Lemma 5.7, we have Φ0ιgεnj(MC)Un(R,C)\Phi_{0}^{\iota}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{j}\left(M_{C}\right)\subset U_{n}(R,C) for nn large enough and for all 0jkn0\leq j\leq k_{n}. In particular, for nn large enough and for all 0jkn0\leq j\leq k_{n} we have that gεnj(MC)Pι((2R)1,C)g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{j}\left(M_{C}\right)\subset P^{\iota}\left((2R)^{-1},C\right), so Φιgεnj(x0,y0)\Phi^{\iota}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{j}(x_{0},y_{0}) is well-defined for any (x0,y0)MC(x_{0},y_{0})\in M_{C}.

Take (x0,y0)MC(x_{0},y_{0})\in M_{C} and denote (X0,Y0):=Φ0ι(x0,y0)(X_{0},Y_{0}):=\Phi_{0}^{\iota}(x_{0},y_{0}), (X1,Y1):=Φ0ιg(x,y)×𝔻(0,C)(X_{1},Y_{1}):=\Phi_{0}^{\iota}\circ g(x,y)\in\mathbb{H}_{\mathbb{R}}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C) and (X1εn,Y1εn):=Φ0ιgεn(x0,y0)R×𝔻(0,C)(X_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}},Y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}):=\Phi_{0}^{\iota}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{0},y_{0})\in\mathbb{H}_{R}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C). Set ΦG:=Φι(Φ0ι)1:R1×𝔻(0,C+1)2\Phi_{G}:=\Phi^{\iota}\circ(\Phi_{0}^{\iota})^{-1}:\mathbb{H}_{R-1}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C+1)\to\mathbb{C}^{2}, so

ΦG(X1,Y1)=ΦG(X0,Y0)+(1,0)\Phi_{G}(X_{1},Y_{1})=\Phi_{G}(X_{0},Y_{0})+(1,0)

and hence

Φιgεn(x0,y0)Φι(x0,y0)(1,0)=ΦG(X1εn,Y1εn)ΦG(X1,Y1).\Phi^{\iota}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{0},y_{0})-\Phi^{\iota}(x_{0},y_{0})-(1,0)=\Phi_{G}(X_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}},Y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}})-\Phi_{G}(X_{1},Y_{1}).

By Proposition 3.2 and condition (R4)(R_{4}), there exists a holomorphic map u:R1×𝔻(0,C+1)2u:\mathbb{H}_{R-1}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C+1)\to\mathbb{C}^{2} such that

ΦG(X,Y)=(X(1a)logX,Y)+u(X,Y)\Phi_{G}(X,Y)=(X-(1-a)\log X,Y)+u(X,Y)

with u(X,Y)1\|u(X,Y)\|\leq 1 for all (X,Y)R1×𝔻(0,C+1)(X,Y)\in\mathbb{H}_{R-1}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C+1). By Cauchy estimates, we have

Xu(X,Y)1andYu(X,Y)1\|\partial_{X}u(X,Y)\|\leq 1\quad\text{and}\quad\|\partial_{Y}u(X,Y)\|\leq 1

for all (X,Y)R×𝔻(0,C)(X,Y)\in\mathbb{H}_{R}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C) and hence, by the mean value inequality,

u(X1εn,Y1εn)u(X1,Y1)|X1εnX1|+|Y1εnY1|.\|u(X_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}},Y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}})-u(X_{1},Y_{1})\|\leq|X_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}-X_{1}|+|Y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}-Y_{1}|.

On the other hand, also by the mean value inequality, we have

|logX1εnlogX1|<|X1εnX1|.|\log X_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}-\log X_{1}|<|X_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}-X_{1}|.

Therefore

ΦG(X1εn,Y1εn)ΦG(X1,Y1)\displaystyle\|\Phi_{G}(X_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}},Y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}})-\Phi_{G}(X_{1},Y_{1})\| |X1εnX1|+|1a||logX1εnlogX1|+|Y1εnY1|\displaystyle\leq|X_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}-X_{1}|+|1-a||\log X_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}-\log X_{1}|+|Y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}-Y_{1}|
+u(X1εn,Y1εn)u(X1,Y1)\displaystyle\qquad\quad+\|u(X_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}},Y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}})-u(X_{1},Y_{1})\|
(2+|1a|)(|X1εnX1|+|Y1εnY1|).\displaystyle\leq(2+|1-a|)\left(|X_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}-X_{1}|+|Y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}-Y_{1}|\right).

Then using Lemma 5.2 we obtain that for nn large enough

Φιgεn(x0,y0)Φι(x0,y0)(1,0)K2(1n+1|x0|2n2),\|\Phi^{\iota}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{0},y_{0})-\Phi^{\iota}(x_{0},y_{0})-(1,0)\|\leq K_{2}\left(\frac{1}{n}+\frac{1}{|x_{0}|^{2}n^{2}}\right),

where K2=2(2+|1a|)CιK_{2}=2(2+|1-a|)C^{\iota}. By an immediate induction, we have

Φιgεnkn(x0,y0)Φι(x0,y0)(kn,0)K2knn+K2n2j=0kn11|xjεn|2,\|\Phi^{\iota}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{k_{n}}(x_{0},y_{0})-\Phi^{\iota}(x_{0},y_{0})-(k_{n},0)\|\leq\frac{K_{2}k_{n}}{n}+\frac{K_{2}}{n^{2}}\sum_{j=0}^{k_{n}-1}\frac{1}{|x_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n}}|^{2}},

where (xjεn,yjεn):=gεnj(x0,y0)(x_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n}}):=g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{j}(x_{0},y_{0}). By definition of Un(R,C)U_{n}(R,C) we have |xjεn|1<10kn|x_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n}}|^{-1}<10k_{n} for all 0jkn0\leq j\leq k_{n}; therefore

Φιgεnkn(x0,y0)Φι(x0,y0)(kn,0)K2knn+100K2kn3n2\|\Phi^{\iota}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{k_{n}}(x_{0},y_{0})-\Phi^{\iota}(x_{0},y_{0})-(k_{n},0)\|\leq\frac{K_{2}k_{n}}{n}+\frac{100K_{2}k_{n}^{3}}{n^{2}}

and using the fact that kn/n=o(1)k_{n}/n=o(1) and kn3/n2=o(1)k_{n}^{3}/n^{2}=o(1) the Lemma follows. ∎

Recall from Section 4 that

Φεnι(x,y)=(wεn(x),tεn(x,y))\Phi_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{\iota}(x,y)=(w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x),t_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x,y))

where

wεn(x)=1εnarctan(xεn)+π2εn+1a2log(x2+εn2);tεn(x,y)=y(x2+εn2)η/2.w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x)=\frac{1}{{\varepsilon_{n}}}\arctan\left(\frac{x}{{\varepsilon_{n}}}\right)+\frac{\pi}{2{\varepsilon_{n}}}+\frac{1-a}{2}\log(x^{2}+{\varepsilon_{n}^{2}});\quad t_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x,y)=\frac{y}{(x^{2}+\varepsilon_{n}^{2})^{\eta/2}}.
Lemma 5.9.

For nn large enough we have

Φεnιgεnkn|MC=Φιgεnkn|MC+o(1),\Phi_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{\iota}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{k_{n}}\bigr|_{M_{C}}=\Phi^{\iota}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{k_{n}}\bigr|_{M_{C}}+o(1),

where the convergence of the term o(1)o(1) is uniform on MCM_{C}.

Proof.

Take (x0,y0)MC(x_{0},y_{0})\in M_{C} and let (xknεn,yknεn):=gεnkn(x0,y0)(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}):=g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{k_{n}}(x_{0},y_{0}). By Lemmas 5.8, 5.7 and 3.6,

xknεn=1kn+𝒪(lognkn2) and yknεn=tι(x0,y0)1knη+o(1knρ),x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}=-\frac{1}{k_{n}}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\log n}{k_{n}^{2}}\right)\quad\text{ and }\quad y_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}=t^{\iota}(x_{0},y_{0})\frac{1}{k_{n}^{\eta}}+o\left(\frac{1}{k_{n}^{\rho}}\right),

where the terms 𝒪(kn2logn)\mathcal{O}(k_{n}^{-2}\log n) and o(knρ)o(k_{n}^{\rho}) are uniform on MCM_{C}. In particular xknεn1/knx_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}\sim-1/k_{n} uniformly on MCM_{C} and

εnxknεn=εn1kn+𝒪(lognkn2)=εnkn+εn𝒪(logn)=o(1).\frac{\varepsilon_{n}}{x_{k_{n}}^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}}=\frac{\varepsilon_{n}}{-\frac{1}{k_{n}}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\log n}{{k_{n}^{2}}}\right)}=-{\varepsilon_{n}k_{n}+\varepsilon_{n}\mathcal{O}\left(\log n\right)}=o(1).

Since xknεn1/knx_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}\sim-1/k_{n} uniformly on MCM_{C}, for nn large enough depending only on MCM_{C} we have that Re(xknεn/εn)<0\mathrm{Re}\,(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}/\varepsilon_{n})<0. Then, using the relation arctanz+arctan(1/z)=π/2\arctan z+\arctan\left(1/z\right)=-\pi/2 whenever Rez<0\mathrm{Re}\,z<0 we have that

wεn(xknεn)\displaystyle w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}) =1εnarctan(xknεnεn)+π2εn+1a2log((xknεn)2+εn2)\displaystyle=\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{n}}\arctan\left(\frac{x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}}{\varepsilon_{n}}\right)+\frac{\pi}{2\varepsilon_{n}}+\frac{1-a}{2}\log((x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})^{2}+\varepsilon_{n}^{2})
=1εnarctanεnxknεn+1a2log((xknεn)2+εn2)\displaystyle=-\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{n}}\arctan\frac{\varepsilon_{n}}{x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}}+\frac{1-a}{2}\log\left((x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})^{2}+{\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}\right)

and therefore

wεn(xknεn)\displaystyle w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}) =1εnarctanεnxknεn+1a2log((xknεn)2+εn2)\displaystyle=-\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{n}}\arctan\frac{\varepsilon_{n}}{x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}}+\frac{1-a}{2}\log\left((x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})^{2}+{\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}\right)
=1εn(εnxknεn+𝒪(εn3kn3))+(1a)log(xknεn)+1a2log(1+εn2kn2)+o(1)\displaystyle=-\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{n}}\left(\frac{\varepsilon_{n}}{x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}}+{\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon_{n}^{3}k_{n}^{3})}\right)+(1-a)\log\left(-x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}\right)+\frac{1-a}{2}\log\left(1+\frac{{\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}}{k_{n}^{2}}\right)+o(1)
=1xknεn+(1a)log(xknεn)+o(1)=wι(xknεn,yknεn)+o(1).\displaystyle=-\frac{1}{x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}}+(1-a)\log\left(-x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}\right)+o(1)=w^{\iota}(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})+o(1).

Similarly:

tεn(xknεn,yknεn)\displaystyle t_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}) =yknεn((xknεn)2+εn2)η/2=yknεn(xknεn)η(1+εn2(xknεn)2)η/2\displaystyle=\frac{y_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}}{\left((x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})^{2}+{\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}\right)^{{\eta}/2}}=\frac{y_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}}{(-x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})^{\eta}}\left(1+\frac{\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}{(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})^{2}}\right)^{-{\eta}/2}
=(tι(xknεn,yknεn)+o(1))(1+o(1))=tι(xknεn,yknεn)+o(1)\displaystyle=\left(t^{\iota}(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})+o(1)\right)(1+o(1))=t^{\iota}(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})+o(1)

(in the last line, we used the fact that tι(xknεn,yknεn)=𝒪(1)t^{\iota}(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})=\mathcal{O}(1) by Lemma 5.8). ∎

5.2. In the eggbeater

Definition 5.10.

Let C^:=Ce1/2+π|Req|>C\hat{C}:=Ce^{1/2+\pi|\mathrm{Re}\,q|}>C and C~:=Ce1+π|Req|>C\tilde{C}:=Ce^{1+\pi|\mathrm{Re}\,q|}>C (recall that CC was fixed when we fixed the compact KU,vK\subset\mathcal{B}_{U,v}).

Lemma 5.11.

For all nn large enough, we have gεnkn(MC)n(C)g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{k_{n}}(M_{C})\subset\mathcal{R}_{n}(C) (recall that n(C)\mathcal{R}_{n}(C) is the set from Definition 4.1 and that for nn large enough n(C)U\mathcal{R}_{n}(C)\subset U, where UU is the domain of definition of (gεn)(g_{\varepsilon_{n}})).

Proof.

Let (x0,y0)MC(x_{0},y_{0})\in M_{C} and (xknεn,yknεn):=gεnkn(x0,y0)(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}):=g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{k_{n}}(x_{0},y_{0}). By Lemmas 5.8 and 5.9, we have

Φεnιgεnkn(x0,y0)=Φι(x0,y0)+(kn,0)+o(1),\Phi_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{\iota}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{k_{n}}(x_{0},y_{0})=\Phi^{\iota}(x_{0},y_{0})+(k_{n},0)+o(1),

where the convergence of the term o(1)o(1) is uniform on MCM_{C}. Therefore

tεn(xknεn,yknεn)=tι(x0,y0)+o(1).t_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})=t^{\iota}(x_{0},y_{0})+o(1).

Since (C1)1|y0(x0)η|C1(C-1)^{-1}\leq|y_{0}(-x_{0})^{-\eta}|\leq C-1 by definition of MCM_{C} and |tι(x0,y0)y0(x0)η|<1/C2<1/4|t^{\iota}(x_{0},y_{0})-y_{0}(-x_{0})^{-\eta}|<1/C^{2}<1/4 by condition (R4)(R_{4}), we have that (C1)1C2|tι(x0,y0)|C1/4(C-1)^{-1}-C^{-2}\leq|t^{\iota}(x_{0},y_{0})|\leq C-1/4 and then C1<|tεn(xknεn,yknεn)|<CC^{-1}<|t_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})|<C for all nn large enough (depending only on MCM_{C} and not on the choice of (x0,y0)(x_{0},y_{0})). Similarly

wεn(xknεn)\displaystyle w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}) =wι(x0,y0)+kn+o(1)\displaystyle=w^{\iota}(x_{0},y_{0})+k_{n}+o(1)

and therefore, since εn=π/n+o(1/n)\varepsilon_{n}=\pi/n+o(1/n),

εnwεn(xknεn)=εnkn+𝒪(εn)=πknn+𝒪(εn).\varepsilon_{n}w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})=\varepsilon_{n}k_{n}+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon_{n})=\frac{\pi k_{n}}{n}+\mathcal{O}\left(\varepsilon_{n}\right).

where the implicit constants in the 𝒪\mathcal{O} terms only depend on MCM_{C} and not on the choice of (x0,y0)(x_{0},y_{0}). In particular, for all nn large enough (depending only on MCM_{C})

Re(εnwεn(xknεn))[πkn10n,ππkn10n]and|Im(εnwεn(xknεn))|Cπn,\mathrm{Re}\,(\varepsilon_{n}w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}))\in\left[\frac{\pi k_{n}}{10n},\pi-\frac{\pi k_{n}}{10n}\right]\quad\text{and}\quad|\mathrm{Im}(\varepsilon_{n}w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}))|\leq C\frac{\pi}{n},

hence (xknεn,yknεn)n(C)(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})\in\mathcal{R}_{n}(C) for nn large enough. ∎

Recall that Φεno:=Φεnι(π/εn,0)\Phi_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{o}:=\Phi_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{\iota}-\left(\pi/\varepsilon_{n},0\right).

Proposition 5.12.

For nn large enough we have that gεnnkn(MC)n(C^)g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n-k_{n}}(M_{C})\subset\mathcal{R}_{n}(\hat{C}) and

Φεnogεnnkn|MC=Aσ2kn,qΦεnιgεnkn|MC+o(1),\Phi_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{o}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n-k_{n}}\bigr|_{M_{C}}=A_{\sigma-2k_{n},q}\circ\Phi_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{\iota}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{k_{n}}\bigr|_{M_{C}}+o(1),

where the convergence of the term o(1)o(1) is uniform on MCM_{C}.

Proof.

Take (x0,y0)MC(x_{0},y_{0})\in M_{C} and let (xjεn,yjεn):=gεnj(x0,y0)(x_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n}}):=g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{j}(x_{0},y_{0}). Let us start by proving that for nn large enough (depending only on MCM_{C}) and for 0jn2kn0\leq j\leq n-2k_{n} we have (xkn+jεn,ykn+jεn)n(C^)(x_{k_{n}+j}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{k_{n}+j}^{\varepsilon_{n}})\in\mathcal{R}_{n}(\hat{C}) and

wεn(xkn+jεn)=wεn(xknεn)+j+k=0j1Aεn(xkn+kεn,ykn+kεn)w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}+j}^{\varepsilon_{n}})=w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})+j+\sum_{k=0}^{j-1}A_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}+k}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{k_{n}+k}^{\varepsilon_{n}})

and

tεn(xkn+jεn,ykn+jεn)=tεn(xknεn,yknεn)exp(k=0j1Bεn(xkn+kεn,ykn+kεn))t_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}+j}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{k_{n}+j}^{\varepsilon_{n}})=t_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})\exp\left(\sum_{k=0}^{j-1}B_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}+k}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{k_{n}+k}^{\varepsilon_{n}})\right)

where, as in subsection 4.1,

Aεn(x,y):=wεn(x1)wεn(x)1 and Bεn(x,y):=logtεn(x1,y1)tεn(x,y),A_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x,y):=w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{1})-w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x)-1\quad\text{ and }\quad B_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x,y):=\log\frac{t_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{1},y_{1})}{t_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x,y)},

with (x1,y1):=gεn(x,y)(x_{1},y_{1}):=g_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x,y).

We argue by induction on jj. Indeed, the assertions hold for j=0j=0 by Lemma 5.11 and the fact that n(C)n(C^)\mathcal{R}_{n}(C)\subset\mathcal{R}_{n}(\hat{C}). Moreover, if they hold for some 0jn2kn10\leq j\leq n-2k_{n}-1, then thanks to Proposition 4.9 (applied on n(C^)\mathcal{R}_{n}(\hat{C})), we have

wεn(xkn+j+1εn)\displaystyle w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}+j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}) =wεn(xkn+jεn)+1+Aεn(xkn+jεn,ykn+jεn)\displaystyle=w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}+j}^{\varepsilon_{n}})+1+A_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}+j}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{k_{n}+j}^{\varepsilon_{n}})
=wεn(xknεn)+j+1+k=0jAεn(xkn+kεn,ykn+kεn)\displaystyle=w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})+j+1+\sum_{k=0}^{j}A_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}+k}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{k_{n}+k}^{\varepsilon_{n}})
=wεn(xknεn)+j+1+o(1)\displaystyle=w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})+j+1+o(1)
=kn+j+1+𝒪(1),\displaystyle=k_{n}+j+1+\mathcal{O}(1),

where the terms o(1)o(1) and 𝒪(1)\mathcal{O}(1) are uniform, and using in the last line that wεn(xknεn)=wι(x0,y0)+kn+o(1)w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})=w^{\iota}(x_{0},y_{0})+k_{n}+o(1) by Lemmas 5.8 and 5.9. Moreover,

tεn(xkn+j+1εn,ykn+j+1εn)\displaystyle t_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}+j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{k_{n}+j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}) =tεn(xkn+jεn,ykn+jεn)eBεn(xkn+jεn,ykn+jεn)\displaystyle=t_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}+j}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{k_{n}+j}^{\varepsilon_{n}})e^{B_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}+j}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{k_{n}+j}^{\varepsilon_{n}})}
=tεn(xknεn,yknεn)exp(k=0jBεn(xkn+kεn,ykn+kεn))\displaystyle=t_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})\exp\left(\sum_{k=0}^{j}B_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}+k}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{k_{n}+k}^{\varepsilon_{n}})\right)
=tεn(xknεn,yknεn)eqjεn+o(1),\displaystyle=t_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})e^{qj\varepsilon_{n}+o(1)},

where the term o(1)o(1) is uniform on MCM_{C}. Therefore, using the fact that n(εnπ/n)=𝒪(εn)n\left(\varepsilon_{n}-\pi/n\right)=\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon_{n}) we have, for nn big enough depending only on MCM_{C}, εnwεn(xkn+j+1εn)=πn(kn+j+1+𝒪(1))\varepsilon_{n}w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}+j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n}})=\frac{\pi}{n}(k_{n}+j+1+\mathcal{O}(1)), hence

πkn10nRe(εnwεn(xkn+j+1εn))ππkn10n.\frac{\pi k_{n}}{10n}\leq\mathrm{Re}\,(\varepsilon_{n}w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}+j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}))\leq\pi-\frac{\pi k_{n}}{10n}.

And since εnwεn(xkn+j+1εn)=εn[wεn(xknεn)+j+1+o(1)]\varepsilon_{n}w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}+j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n}})=\varepsilon_{n}\left[w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})+j+1+o(1)\right] and |Im(εnwεn(xknεn))|Cπ/n|\mathrm{Im}(\varepsilon_{n}w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}))|\leq C\pi/n by Lemma 5.11, for nn large enough depending only on MCM_{C} we get, using the fact that εn=π/n+o(1)\varepsilon_{n}=\pi/n+o(1),

|Im(εnwεn(xkn+j+1εn))|<C^πn.|\mathrm{Im}(\varepsilon_{n}w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}+j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}))|<\hat{C}\frac{\pi}{n}.

Moreover, since

|tεn(xkn+j+1εn,ykn+j+1εn)|=|tεn(xknεn,yknεn)eqjεn+o(1)|,|t_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}+j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{k_{n}+j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n}})|=|t_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})e^{qj\varepsilon_{n}+o(1)}|,

and

1C<|tεn(xknεn,yknεn)|<C\frac{1}{C}<|t_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})|<C

for nn large enough, by Lemma 5.11, we get that

1C^<|tεn(xkn+j+1εn,ykn+j+1εn)|<C^\frac{1}{\hat{C}}<|t_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}+j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{k_{n}+j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n}})|<\hat{C}

for nn large enough depending only on MCM_{C}, and the statement is proved.

Taking j=n2knj=n-2k_{n} we obtain that (xnknεn,ynknεn)n(C^)(x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})\in\mathcal{R}_{n}(\hat{C}) for nn large enough and

wεn(xnknεn)=wεn(xknεn)+n2kn+k=0n2kn1Aεn(xkn+kεn,ykn+kεn)w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})=w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})+n-2k_{n}+\sum_{k=0}^{n-2k_{n}-1}A_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}+k}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{k_{n}+k}^{\varepsilon_{n}})

and

tεn(xnknεn,ynknεn)=tεn(xknεn,yknεn)exp(k=0n2kn1Bεn(xkn+kεn,ykn+kεn))t_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})=t_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})\exp\left(\sum_{k=0}^{n-2k_{n}-1}B_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}+k}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{k_{n}+k}^{\varepsilon_{n}})\right)

so using again Proposition 4.9 and the fact that εn=π/n+o(1/n)\varepsilon_{n}=\pi/n+o(1/n) we get

(wεn(xnknεn),tεn(xnknεn,ynknεn))=(wεn(xknεn)+n2kn+o(1),eπq+o(1)tεn(xknεn,yknεn)),\left(w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}),t_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})\right)=\left(w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})+n-2k_{n}+o(1),e^{\pi q+o(1)}t_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})\right),

where the terms o(1)o(1) are uniform on MCM_{C}. Finally, since Φεno(x,y)=Φεnι(x,y)(π/εn,0)\Phi_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{o}(x,y)=\Phi_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{\iota}(x,y)-(\pi/\varepsilon_{n},0) we obtain, using the fact that nπ/εn=σ+o(1)n-\pi/\varepsilon_{n}=\sigma+o(1),

Φεnogεnnkn(x0,y0)=(wεn(xknεn)+σ2kn,eπqtεn(xknεn,yknεn))+o(1),\Phi_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{o}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n-k_{n}}(x_{0},y_{0})=\left(w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})+\sigma-2k_{n},e^{\pi q}t_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})\right)+o(1),

where the term o(1)o(1) is uniform on MCM_{C}. ∎

5.3. After the eggbeater

We will now estimate the orbit of gεng_{\varepsilon_{n}} as it gets away from the origin in the outgoing petal. Recall that C~:=Ce1+π|Req|\tilde{C}:=Ce^{1+\pi|\mathrm{Re}\,q|} and

Uno(R,C~):={(X,Y)R×𝔻(0,C~):|X|<10kn}.U_{n}^{o}(R,\tilde{C}):=\left\{(X,Y)\in-\mathbb{H}_{R}\times\mathbb{D}(0,\tilde{C}):|X|<10k_{n}\right\}.
Lemma 5.13 (Compare to Lemma 5.9).

For nn large enough Φ0ogεnnkn(MC)Uno(R,C~)\Phi_{0}^{o}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n-k_{n}}(M_{C})\subset U_{n}^{o}(R,\tilde{C}) (so in particular gεnnkn(MC)Po(r,C~)g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n-k_{n}}(M_{C})\subset P^{o}(r,\tilde{C})) and

Φεnogεnnkn|MC=Φogεnnkn|MC+o(1),\Phi_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{o}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n-k_{n}}\bigr|_{M_{C}}=\Phi^{o}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n-k_{n}}\bigr|_{M_{C}}+o(1),

where the convergence of the term o(1)o(1) is uniform on MCM_{C}.

Proof.

Take (x0,y0)MC(x_{0},y_{0})\in M_{C} and let (xnknεn,ynknεn):=gεnnkn(x0,y0)(x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}):=g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n-k_{n}}(x_{0},y_{0}). By Proposition 5.12, we have that (xnknεn,ynknεn)n(C^)(x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})\in\mathcal{R}_{n}(\hat{C}) and

wεn(xnknεn)πεn\displaystyle w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})-\frac{\pi}{\varepsilon_{n}} =wεn(xknεn)+σ2kn+o(1)\displaystyle=w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})+\sigma-2k_{n}+o(1)

so using Lemmas 5.8 and 5.9 we get

wεn(xnknεn)πεn\displaystyle w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})-\frac{\pi}{\varepsilon_{n}} =wι(x0,y0)+σkn+o(1)=kn+𝒪(1)\displaystyle=w^{\iota}(x_{0},y_{0})+\sigma-k_{n}+o(1)=-k_{n}+\mathcal{O}(1)

for nn large enough, where the term 𝒪(1)\mathcal{O}(1) is uniform on MCM_{C}. By Lemma 4.4 (applied on n(C^)\mathcal{R}_{n}(\hat{C})) we have

xnknεn=εncot(εnwεn(xnknεn))+𝒪(lognn2γ).x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}=-\varepsilon_{n}\cot(\varepsilon_{n}w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}))+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\log n}{n^{2\gamma}}\right).

Therefore for nn large enough

xnknεn=εncot(πεnkn+𝒪(εn))+𝒪(lognn2γ)1knx_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}=-\varepsilon_{n}\cot\left(\pi-\varepsilon_{n}k_{n}+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon_{n})\right)+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\log n}{n^{2\gamma}}\right)\sim\frac{1}{k_{n}}

uniformly on MCM_{C}. Therefore, for nn large enough depending only on MCM_{C} we have that

Re(1xnknεn)<R,and|1xnknεn|<10kn.\mathrm{Re}\,\left(\frac{-1}{x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}}\right)<-R,\quad\text{and}\quad\left|\frac{1}{x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}}\right|<10k_{n}.

Moreover, since

tεn(xnknεn,ynknεn)=ynknεn((xnknεn)2+εn2)η/2=ynknεn(xnknεn)η(1+εn2(xnknεn)2)η2\displaystyle t_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})=\frac{y_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}}{((x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})^{2}+{\varepsilon_{n}^{2}})^{\eta/2}}=\frac{y_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}}{(x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})^{\eta}}\left(1+\frac{\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}{(x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})^{2}}\right)^{-\frac{\eta}{2}}

we obtain, using the fact that xnknεn1/knx_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}\sim 1/k_{n} and the definition of n(C^)\mathcal{R}_{n}(\hat{C}), that

|ynknεn(xnknεn)η|<C^e1/2=C~\left|\frac{y_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}}{(x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})^{\eta}}\right|<\hat{C}e^{1/2}=\tilde{C}

for nn large enough depending only on MCM_{C}, so Φ0o(xnknεn,ynknεn)Uno(R,C~)\Phi_{0}^{o}(x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})\in U_{n}^{o}(R,\tilde{C}) and in particular (xnknεn,ynknεn)Po(r,C~)(x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})\in P^{o}(r,\tilde{C}) for nn large enough.

Now, if we denote (wo(x,y),to(x,y)):=Φo(x,y)(w^{o}(x,y),t^{o}(x,y)):=\Phi^{o}(x,y), we want to prove that

wεn(xnknεn)πεn=wo(xnknεn,ynknεn)+o(1)w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})-\frac{\pi}{\varepsilon_{n}}=w^{o}(x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})+o(1)

and

tεn(xnknεn,ynknεn)=to(xnknεn,ynknεn)+o(1).t_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})=t^{o}(x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})+o(1).

Since xnknεn1/knx_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}\sim 1/k_{n} uniformly on MCM_{C}, for nn large enough depending only on MCM_{C} we have that Re(xnknεn/εn)>0\mathrm{Re}\,(x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}/\varepsilon_{n})>0. Then, using the relation arctanz+arctan(1/z)=π/2\arctan z+\arctan\left(1/z\right)=\pi/2 whenever Rez>0\mathrm{Re}\,z>0 and the definition of wεnw_{\varepsilon_{n}} we have that for nn large enough

wεn(xnknεn)πεn\displaystyle w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})-\frac{\pi}{\varepsilon_{n}} =1εnarctan(xnknεnεn)π2εn+1a2log((xnknεn)2+εn2)\displaystyle=\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{n}}\arctan\left(\frac{x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}}{\varepsilon_{n}}\right)-\frac{\pi}{2\varepsilon_{n}}+\frac{1-a}{2}\log((x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})^{2}+{\varepsilon_{n}^{2}})
=1εnarctan(εnxnknεn)+1a2log((xnknεn)2+εn2).\displaystyle=-\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{n}}\arctan\left(\frac{\varepsilon_{n}}{x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}}\right)+\frac{1-a}{2}\log((x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})^{2}+{\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}).

Since εnxnknεn=o(1)\frac{\varepsilon_{n}}{x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}}=o(1) because xnknεn1/knx_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}\sim 1/k_{n}, we get

wεn(xnknεn)πεn\displaystyle w_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})-\frac{\pi}{\varepsilon_{n}} =1εnarctan(εnxnknεn)+1a2log((xnknεn)2+εn2)\displaystyle=-\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{n}}\arctan\left(\frac{\varepsilon_{n}}{x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}}\right)+\frac{1-a}{2}\log((x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})^{2}+{\varepsilon_{n}^{2}})
=1xnknεn+(1a)log(xnknεn)+o(1)\displaystyle=-\frac{1}{x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}}+(1-a)\log(x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})+o(1)
=wo(xnknεn,ynknεn)+o(1).\displaystyle=w^{o}(x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})+o(1).

using in the second line that kn3/n2=o(1)k_{n}^{3}/n^{2}=o(1) and in the last line the asymptotic expansion of wow^{o}. Similarly, by the computation above,

tεn(xnknεn,ynknεn)=ynknεn(xnknεn)η(1+εn2(xnknεn)2)η2=to(xnknεn,ynknεn)+o(1)\displaystyle t_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})=\frac{y_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}}}{(x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})^{\eta}}\left(1+\frac{\varepsilon_{n}^{2}}{(x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})^{2}}\right)^{-\frac{\eta}{2}}=t^{o}(x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})+o(1)

using in the last line the asymptotic expansion of tot^{o} and the fact that to(xnknεn,ynknεn)=𝒪(1)t^{o}(x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})=\mathcal{O}(1) because (xnknεn,ynknεn)n(C^)(x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})\in\mathcal{R}_{n}(\hat{C}). ∎

Lemma 5.14 (Compare to Lemma 5.8).

There exists N1>0N_{1}>0 such that for nn large enough Φ0ogεnnN1(MC)Uno(r,C)\Phi_{0}^{o}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n-N_{1}}(M_{C})\subset U_{n}^{o}(r,C) (so in particular gεnnN1(MC)Po(r,C~)g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n-N_{1}}(M_{C})\subset P^{o}(r,\widetilde{C})) and

ΦogεnnN1|MC=AknN1,0Φogεnnkn|MC+o(1),\Phi^{o}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n-N_{1}}\bigr|_{M_{C}}=A_{k_{n}-N_{1},0}\circ\Phi^{o}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n-k_{n}}\bigr|_{M_{C}}+o(1),

where the convergence of the term o(1)o(1) is uniform on MCM_{C}.

Proof.

From the asymptotic expansion of (Φo)1(\Phi^{o})^{-1} (see Lemma 3.7), Proposition 3.3 and the definitions of Φ0o\Phi_{0}^{o} and Uno(R,C~)U_{n}^{o}(R,\tilde{C}), there exists a constant R0>0R_{0}>0 such that

(18) (Φo)1{(X,Y)R0,2×𝔻(0,Ce1/2+π|Req|):|X|<5kn}(Φ0o)1(Uno(R,C~)),(\Phi^{o})^{-1}\{(X,Y)\in-\mathcal{H}_{R_{0},2}\times\mathbb{D}(0,Ce^{1/2+\pi|\mathrm{Re}\,q|}):|X|<5k_{n}\}\subset(\Phi_{0}^{o})^{-1}(U_{n}^{o}(R,\tilde{C})),

where R0,2:={XR0:|ImX|<2ReX}.\mathcal{H}_{R_{0},2}:=\left\{X\in\mathbb{H}_{R_{0}}:|\mathrm{Im}X|<2\mathrm{Re}\,X\right\}. Up to increasing R0R_{0} if necessary, we assume that 2R0K~+12R_{0}\geq\widetilde{K}+1, where K~:=max{|wι(x,y)|:(x,y)MC}\widetilde{K}:=\max\{|w^{\iota}(x,y)|:(x,y)\in M_{C}\}. We fix some integer N1>K~+Reσ+2+R0N_{1}>\widetilde{K}+\mathrm{Re}\,\sigma+2+R_{0}.

Let us first prove that there exists a constant K3>0K_{3}>0 such that for nn large enough and for all (x0,y0)(Φ0o)1(Uno(R,C~))(x_{0},y_{0})\in(\Phi_{0}^{o})^{-1}(U_{n}^{o}(R,\tilde{C})) such that (x1εn,y1εn):=gεn(x0,y0)Po((2(R3/2))1,C~+1)(x_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}):=g_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x_{0},y_{0})\in P^{o}((2(R-3/2))^{-1},\widetilde{C}+1) we have

(19) Φo(x1εn,y1εn)Φo(x0,y0)(1,0)K3(1n+1|x0|2n2).\|\Phi^{o}(x_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}})-\Phi^{o}(x_{0},y_{0})-(1,0)\|\leq K_{3}\left(\frac{1}{n}+\frac{1}{|x_{0}|^{2}n^{2}}\right).

The computation is analogous to the one in the proof of Lemma 5.8. Fix (x0,y0)(x_{0},y_{0}) such that (X0,Y0):=Φ0o(x0,y0)Uno(r,C~)(X_{0},Y_{0}):=\Phi_{0}^{o}(x_{0},y_{0})\in U_{n}^{o}(r,\tilde{C}) and (x1εn,y1εn)Po((2(R3/2))1,C~+1)(x_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}})\in P^{o}((2(R-3/2))^{-1},\widetilde{C}+1). Set ΦGo:=Φo(Φ0o)1:R5/2×𝔻(0,C~+2)2\Phi_{G}^{o}:=\Phi^{o}\circ(\Phi_{0}^{o})^{-1}:-\mathbb{H}_{R-5/2}\times\mathbb{D}(0,\widetilde{C}+2)\to\mathbb{C}^{2}, so

ΦGo(X1o,Y1o)=ΦGo(X0,Y0)+(1,0),\Phi_{G}^{o}(X_{1}^{o},Y_{1}^{o})=\Phi_{G}^{o}(X_{0},Y_{0})+(1,0),

where (X1o,Y1o):=Φ0og(Φ0o)1(X0,Y0)(X_{1}^{o},Y_{1}^{o}):=\Phi_{0}^{o}\circ g\circ(\Phi_{0}^{o})^{-1}(X_{0},Y_{0}). Then

Φo(x1εn,y1εn)Φo(x,y)(1,0)=ΦGo(X1εn,o,Y1εn,o)ΦGo(X1o,Y1o)\Phi^{o}(x_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}})-\Phi^{o}(x,y)-(1,0)=\Phi_{G}^{o}(X_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n},o},Y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n},o})-\Phi_{G}^{o}(X_{1}^{o},Y_{1}^{o})

where (X1εn,o,Y1εn,o):=Φ0o(x1εn,y1εn)(X_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n},o},Y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n},o}):=\Phi_{0}^{o}(x_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}). By Proposition 3.3 and condition (R4)(R_{4}), there exists a holomorphic map v:R5/2×𝔻(0,C~+2)2v:-\mathbb{H}_{R-5/2}\times\mathbb{D}(0,\widetilde{C}+2)\to\mathbb{C}^{2} such that

ΦGo(X,Y)=(X(1a)log(X),Y)+v(X,Y),\Phi_{G}^{o}(X,Y)=(X-(1-a)\log(-X),Y)+v(X,Y),

with v(X,Y)1\|v(X,Y)\|\leq 1 for all (X,Y)R5/2×𝔻(0,C~+2)(X,Y)\in-\mathbb{H}_{R-5/2}\times\mathbb{D}(0,\widetilde{C}+2). By Cauchy estimates, we have

Xv(X,Y)1andYv(X,Y)1\|\partial_{X}v(X,Y)\|\leq 1\quad\text{and}\quad\|\partial_{Y}v(X,Y)\|\leq 1

for all (X,Y)R3/2×𝔻(0,C~+1)(X,Y)\in-\mathbb{H}_{R-3/2}\times\mathbb{D}(0,\widetilde{C}+1) and hence, by the mean value inequality,

v(X1εn,o,Y1εn,o)v(X1o,Y1o)|X1εn,oX1o|+|Y1εn,oY1o|.\|v(X_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n},o},Y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n},o})-v(X_{1}^{o},Y_{1}^{o})\|\leq|X_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n},o}-X_{1}^{o}|+|Y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n},o}-Y_{1}^{o}|.

On the other hand, also by the mean value inequality, we have

|log(X1εn,o)log(X1o)|<|X1εn,oX1o|.|\log(-X_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n},o})-\log(-X_{1}^{o})|<|X_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n},o}-X_{1}^{o}|.

Therefore

ΦGo(X1εn,o,Y1εn,o)ΦGo(X1o,Y1o)\displaystyle\|\Phi_{G}^{o}(X_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n},o},Y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n},o})-\Phi_{G}^{o}(X_{1}^{o},Y_{1}^{o})\| |X1εn,oX1o|+|1a||log(X1εn,o)log(X1o)|\displaystyle\leq|X_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n},o}-X_{1}^{o}|+|1-a||\log(-X_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n},o})-\log(-X_{1}^{o})|
+|Y1εn,oY1o|+v(X1εn,o,Y1εn,o)v(X1o,Y1o)\displaystyle+|Y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n},o}-Y_{1}^{o}|+\|v(X_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n},o},Y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n},o})-v(X_{1}^{o},Y_{1}^{o})\|
(2+|1a|)(|X1εn,oX1o|+|Y1εn,oY1o|).\displaystyle\leq(2+|1-a|)\left(|X_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n},o}-X_{1}^{o}|+|Y_{1}^{\varepsilon_{n},o}-Y_{1}^{o}|\right).

Then using Lemma 5.4 we obtain (19) for nn large enough, with K3=2(2+|1a|)CoK_{3}=2(2+|1-a|)C^{o}.

Now take (x0,y0)MC(x_{0},y_{0})\in M_{C}. We will prove by induction on jj that for all nn large enough and for all nknjnN1n-k_{n}\leq j\leq n-N_{1} we have

  1. (1)

    Φ0o(xjεn,yjεn)Uno(R,C~)\Phi_{0}^{o}(x_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n}})\in U_{n}^{o}(R,\tilde{C})

  2. (2)

    Φo(xjεn,yjεn)Φo(xnknεn,ynknεn)(j(nkn),0)K3k=nknj1(1n+1|xkεn|2n2)\displaystyle\|\Phi^{o}(x_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n}})-\Phi^{o}(x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})-(j-(n-k_{n}),0)\|\leq K_{3}\sum_{k=n-k_{n}}^{j-1}\left(\frac{1}{n}+\frac{1}{|x_{k}^{\varepsilon_{n}}|^{2}n^{2}}\right).

For j=nknj=n-k_{n}, the first statement follows from Lemma 5.13, and there is nothing to prove for the second one. Let nknj<nN1n-k_{n}\leq j<n-N_{1} such that (1) and (2) hold for all nknkjn-k_{n}\leq k\leq j and denote (Xjεn,o,Yjεn,o):=Φ0o(xjεn,yjεn)(X_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n},o},Y_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n},o}):=\Phi_{0}^{o}(x_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n}}). By equation (15) we have

|Xj+1εn,oXjεn,o1|<12and|Yj+1εn,oYjεn,o|<M(1n+1|Xjεn,o|2).|X_{j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n},o}-X_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n},o}-1|<\frac{1}{2}\quad\text{and}\quad|Y_{j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n},o}-Y_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n},o}|<M\left(\frac{1}{n}+\frac{1}{|X_{j}^{\varepsilon_{n},o}|^{2}}\right).

Therefore, by definition of Uno(R,C~)U_{n}^{o}(R,\tilde{C}), we have for nn large enough

Re(Xj+1εn,o)<R+32,|Yj+1εn,o|<C~+1.\mathrm{Re}\,(X_{j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n},o})<-R+\frac{3}{2},\quad|Y_{j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n},o}|<\widetilde{C}+1.

It follows that (xj+1εn,yj+1εn)Po((2(R3/2))1,C~+1)(x_{j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n}})\in P^{o}((2(R-3/2))^{-1},\widetilde{C}+1) so using (19) and the induction hypothesis we get

Φo(xj+1εn,yj+1εn)Φo(xnknεn,ynknεn)(j+1(nkn),0)K3k=nknj(1n+1|xkεn|2n2)\|\Phi^{o}(x_{j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n}})-\Phi^{o}(x_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{n-k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})-(j+1-(n-k_{n}),0)\|\leq K_{3}\sum_{k=n-k_{n}}^{j}\left(\frac{1}{n}+\frac{1}{|x_{k}^{\varepsilon_{n}}|^{2}n^{2}}\right)

and condition (2) is proved.

By definition of Uno(R,C~)U_{n}^{o}(R,\tilde{C}), we have |xkεn|1<10kn|x_{k}^{\varepsilon_{n}}|^{-1}<10k_{n} for all nknkjn-k_{n}\leq k\leq j, therefore

k=nknj(1n+1|xkεn|2n2)knn+100kn3n2=o(1).\displaystyle\sum_{k=n-k_{n}}^{j}\left(\frac{1}{n}+\frac{1}{|x_{k}^{\varepsilon_{n}}|^{2}n^{2}}\right)\leq\frac{k_{n}}{n}+\frac{100k_{n}^{3}}{n^{2}}=o(1).

Therefore, by Lemma 5.13 and Proposition 5.12 we have for nn large enough

Φo(xj+1εn,yj+1εn)=Φεnι(xknεn,yknεn)+(σ+j+1nkn,0)+o(1)\Phi^{o}(x_{j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n}})=\Phi_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{\iota}(x_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{k_{n}}^{\varepsilon_{n}})+(\sigma+j+1-n-k_{n},0)+o(1)

so by Lemmas 5.9 and 5.8

Φo(xj+1εn,yj+1εn)=(wι(x0,y0)+σ+j+1n,eπqtι(x0,y0))+o(1).\Phi^{o}(x_{j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n}})=(w^{\iota}(x_{0},y_{0})+\sigma+j+1-n,e^{\pi q}t^{\iota}(x_{0},y_{0}))+o(1).

Let (wo(x,y),to(x,y)):=Φo(x,y)(w^{o}(x,y),t^{o}(x,y)):=\Phi^{o}(x,y). We then have, for nn large enough,

Re(wo(xj+1εn,yj+1εn))\displaystyle\mathrm{Re}\,(w^{o}(x_{j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n}})) Re(wι(x0,y0))+Reσ+j+2nK~+Reσ+j+2n\displaystyle\leq\mathrm{Re}\,(w^{\iota}(x_{0},y_{0}))+\mathrm{Re}\,\sigma+j+2-n\leq\widetilde{K}+\mathrm{Re}\,\sigma+j+2-n
K~+Reσ+2N1<R0\displaystyle\leq\widetilde{K}+\mathrm{Re}\,\sigma+2-N_{1}<-R_{0}

and

|Im(wo(xj+1εn,yj+1εn))||Im(wι(x0,y0))|+1K~+12R02Re(wo(xj+1εn,yj+1εn))\displaystyle|\mathrm{Im}(w^{o}(x_{j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}))|\leq|\mathrm{Im}(w^{\iota}(x_{0},y_{0}))|+1\leq\widetilde{K}+1\leq 2R_{0}\leq 2\mathrm{Re}\,(-w^{o}(x_{j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n}}))

so Φo(xj+1εn,yj+1εn)R0,2\Phi^{o}(x_{j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n}})\in-\mathcal{H}_{R_{0},2}. Similarly, for nn large enough,

|wo(xj+1εn,yj+1εn)||wι(x0,y0)|+|σ|+njK~+|σ|+nj<5kn.|w^{o}(x_{j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n}})|\leq|w^{\iota}(x_{0},y_{0})|+|\sigma|+n-j\leq\widetilde{K}+|\sigma|+n-j<5k_{n}.

Finally, using the fact that |y0(x0)η|C1|y_{0}(-x_{0})^{-\eta}|\leq C-1 by definition of MCM_{C} and |tι(x0,y0)y0(x0)η|<1|t^{\iota}(x_{0},y_{0})-y_{0}(-x_{0})^{-\eta}|<1 by condition (R4)(R_{4}), we have that |tι(x0,y0)|C|t^{\iota}(x_{0},y_{0})|\leq C and then for nn large enough

|to(xj+1εn,yj+1εn)|Ce1/2+π|Req|.|t^{o}(x_{j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n}})|\leq Ce^{1/2+\pi|\mathrm{Re}\,q|}.

Therefore, by (18), (xj+1εn,yj+1εn)Uno(R,C~)(x_{j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n}},y_{j+1}^{\varepsilon_{n}})\in U_{n}^{o}(R,\tilde{C}) and (1) is proved. Taking j=nN1j=n-N_{1}, the Lemma 5.14 is proved. ∎

5.4. Conclusion

Proof of Theorem 3.

We have

ΦogεnnN1|MC\displaystyle\Phi^{o}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n-N_{1}}\bigr|_{M_{C}} =AknN1,0Φogεnnnk|MC+o(1) by Lemma 5.14\displaystyle=A_{k_{n}-N_{1},0}\circ\Phi^{o}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n-n_{k}}\bigr|_{M_{C}}+o(1)\text{ \quad by Lemma\penalty 10000\ \ref{lem:takeRbigo}}
=AknN1,0Φεnogεnnkn|MC+o(1) by Lemma 5.13\displaystyle=A_{k_{n}-N_{1},0}\circ\Phi_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{o}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n-k_{n}}\bigr|_{M_{C}}+o(1)\text{ \quad by Lemma\penalty 10000\ \ref{prop:afteregg} }
=AknN1,0Aσ2kn,qΦεnιgεnkn|MC+o(1) by Proposition 5.12\displaystyle=A_{k_{n}-N_{1},0}\circ A_{\sigma-2k_{n},q}\circ\Phi_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{\iota}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{k_{n}}\bigr|_{M_{C}}+o(1)\text{ \quad by Proposition\penalty 10000\ \ref{prop:passing} }
=AknN1,0Aσ2kn,qΦιgεnkn|MC+o(1) by Lemma 5.9\displaystyle=A_{k_{n}-N_{1},0}\circ A_{\sigma-2k_{n},q}\circ\Phi^{\iota}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{k_{n}}\bigr|_{M_{C}}+o(1)\text{\quad by Lemma \ref{lem:apprfatou}}
=AknN1,0Aσ2kn,qAkn,0Φι|MC+o(1) by Lemma 5.8\displaystyle=A_{k_{n}-N_{1},0}\circ A_{\sigma-2k_{n},q}\circ A_{k_{n},0}\circ\Phi^{\iota}\bigr|_{M_{C}}+o(1)\text{\quad by Lemma \ref{lem:firstkn}}
=AσN1,qΦι|MC+o(1)\displaystyle=A_{\sigma-N_{1},q}\circ\Phi^{\iota}\bigr|_{M_{C}}+o(1)

where the convergence of the terms o(1)o(1) is uniform in MCM_{C}. Therefore

gεnnN1|MC=(Φo)1AσN1,qΦι|MC+o(1)g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n-N_{1}}\bigr|_{M_{C}}=(\Phi^{o})^{-1}\circ A_{\sigma-N_{1},q}\circ\Phi^{\iota}\bigr|_{M_{C}}+o(1)

where the convergence of the term o(1)o(1) is uniform on MCM_{C}. This proves that gεnnN1σN1,qg_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n-N_{1}}\to\mathcal{L}_{\sigma-N_{1},q} uniformly on MCM_{C}, where σN1,q:=(Φo)1AσN1,qΦι\mathcal{L}_{\sigma-N_{1},q}:=(\Phi^{o})^{-1}\circ{A}_{\sigma-N_{1},q}\circ\Phi^{\iota}.

Let us now explain how we can deduce the same convergence statement first for all (x,y)L(x,y)\in L, then for all (x,y)K(x,y)\in K. First, assume without loss of generality that the domain UU on which the maps gεng_{\varepsilon_{n}} are defined is a bi-disk 𝔻(0,δ)2\mathbb{D}(0,\delta)^{2}.

Let πi:2\pi_{i}:\mathbb{C}^{2}\to\mathbb{C} (1i21\leq i\leq 2) denote the projections on each coordinate of 2\mathbb{C}^{2}. Let xπ1(L)x\in\pi_{1}(L). Recall that rr and CC are the constants introduced in Definition 5.5. Let

Mx(C):={y:(x,y)MC}=𝔻¯(0,(C1)|(x)η|)𝔻(0,(C1)1|(x)η|)M_{x}(C):=\{y\in\mathbb{C}:(x,y)\in M_{C}\}=\overline{\mathbb{D}}\left(0,(C-1)|(-x)^{\eta}|\right)\setminus\mathbb{D}(0,(C-1)^{-1}|(-x)^{\eta}|)

and

Nx(C):={y:(x,y)NC}=𝔻¯(0,(C1)|(x)η|).N_{x}(C):=\{y\in\mathbb{C}:(x,y)\in N_{C}\}=\overline{\mathbb{D}}\left(0,(C-1)|(-x)^{\eta}|\right).

Let us prove inductively on 0jnN10\leq j\leq n-N_{1} that gεnj(NC)Ug_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{j}(N_{C})\subset U. For j=0j=0, there is nothing to prove, since NCPι(r,C)UN_{C}\subset P^{\iota}(r,C)\subset U. Let 0jnN110\leq j\leq n-N_{1}-1 be such that gεnj(NC)Ug_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{j}(N_{C})\subset U, so that gεnj+1g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{j+1} is well-defined on NCN_{C}.

By the maximum principle, for all xπ1(L)=π1(NC)x\in\pi_{1}(L)=\pi_{1}(N_{C}), we have

supyNx(C)|π1gεnj+1(x,y)|maxyNx(C)|π1gεnj+1(x,y)|maxyMx(C)|π1gεnj+1(x,y)|δ.\sup_{y\in N_{x}(C)}|\pi_{1}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{j+1}(x,y)|\leq\max_{y\in\partial N_{x}(C)}|\pi_{1}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{j+1}(x,y)|\leq\max_{y\in M_{x}(C)}|\pi_{1}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{j+1}(x,y)|\leq\delta.

Similarly, we also have

supyNx(C)|π2gεnj+1(x,y)|maxyNx(C)|π2gεnj+1(x,y)|maxyMx(C)|π2gεnj+1(x,y)|δ.\sup_{y\in N_{x}(C)}|\pi_{2}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{j+1}(x,y)|\leq\max_{y\in\partial N_{x}(C)}|\pi_{2}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{j+1}(x,y)|\leq\max_{y\in M_{x}(C)}|\pi_{2}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{j+1}(x,y)|\leq\delta.

Therefore, gεnjg_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{j} is well-defined on NCN_{C} for every 0jnN10\leq j\leq n-N_{1}. Moreover, (gεnnN1:NC2)n0(g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n-N_{1}}:N_{C}\to\mathbb{C}^{2})_{n\geq 0} is a normal family in the sense of Montel. Let (nk)k0(n_{k})_{k\geq 0} be any extracted sequence such that gεnknkN1g_{\varepsilon_{{n_{k}}}}^{{n_{k}}-N_{1}} converges on NCN_{C} to some holomorphic function GG. We have proved that G=σN1,qG=\mathcal{L}_{\sigma-N_{1},q} on MCM_{C}, therefore, by the identity principle, G=σN1,qG=\mathcal{L}_{\sigma-N_{1},q} on all of NCN_{C}. Since this is true for any converging subsequence, we conclude that gεnnN1σN1,qg_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n{-N_{1}}}\to\mathcal{L}_{\sigma-N_{1},q} on all of NCN_{C}, hence on LL (since LNCL\subset N_{C}).

Let us now prove that gεnnNσN,qg_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n-N}\to\mathcal{L}_{\sigma-N,q} on KK, where N:=N1n0N:=N_{1}-n_{0}. Indeed, by the definition of LL, we have that for all nn large enough gεnn0(K)Lg_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n_{0}}(K)\subset L; therefore, if (x,y)K(x,y)\in K then

limngεnnN1+n0(x,y)=limngεnnN1gεnn0(x,y)=σN1,qgn0(x,y)=σN1+n0,q(x,y),\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n-N_{1}+n_{0}}(x,y)=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n-N_{1}}\circ g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n_{0}}(x,y)=\mathcal{L}_{\sigma-N_{1},q}\circ{g}^{n_{0}}(x,y)=\mathcal{L}_{\sigma-N_{1}+n_{0},q}(x,y),

using in the last two equalities the fact that gεnn0g_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n_{0}} converges uniformly to gn0{g}^{n_{0}} on KK and that σ+1,q=gσ,q=σ,qg\mathcal{L}_{\sigma+1,q}=g\circ\mathcal{L}_{\sigma,q}=\mathcal{L}_{\sigma,q}\circ g. ∎

6. Proof of Corollaries 1 and 2

The goal of this section is to prove Corollaries 1 and 2. We start with a general observation about Fatou coordinates for globally defined maps.

Proposition 6.1.

Assume that the germ g:=g0g:=g_{0} from Theorem 3 extends to a holomorphic self-map of a complex manifold. Then the incoming Fatou coordinate Φι\Phi^{\iota} extends to a holomorphic map on the parabolic basin v\mathcal{B}_{v} associated to v=(1,0)v=(1,0), and the map (Φo)1\left(\Phi^{o}\right)^{-1} extends to a holomorphic map Ψo\Psi^{o} on 2\mathbb{C}^{2}. Moreover, if ff has discrete fibers, then so do Φι\Phi^{\iota} and Ψo\Psi^{o}.

Proof.

Recall that v=C>0n0gn(Pι(r,C))\mathcal{B}_{v}=\bigcup_{C>0}\bigcup_{n\geq 0}g^{-n}(P^{\iota}(r,C)) for any 0<rrι(C)0<r\leq r^{\iota}(C). Then, using the functional equation Φιg=Φι+(1,0)\Phi^{\iota}\circ{g}=\Phi^{\iota}+(1,0) we can extend Φι\Phi^{\iota} to \mathcal{B} by

Φι(z):=Φιgn(z)(n,0)\Phi^{\iota}(z):=\Phi^{\iota}\circ g^{n}(z)-(n,0)

for any nn such that gn(z)Pι(r,C)g^{n}(z)\in P^{\iota}(r,C). Moreover, by Proposition 3.3 we have that for any C>0C>0 there exists r=ro(C)>0r=r^{o}(C)>0 such that

{Xr1:|Im(X)|<2|Re(X)|}×𝔻(0,C1)Φo(Po(r,C))\{X\in-\mathbb{H}_{r^{-1}}:|\mathrm{Im}(X)|<2|\mathrm{Re}\,(X)|\}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C-1)\subset\Phi^{o}(P^{o}(r,C))

so we can extend (Φo)1(\Phi^{o})^{-1} to a map Ψo:×𝔻(0,C1)\Psi^{o}:\mathbb{C}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C-1)\to\mathbb{C} by

Ψo(X,Y):=gn(Φo)1(Xn,Y)\Psi^{o}(X,Y):=g^{n}\circ(\Phi^{o})^{-1}(X-n,Y)

for any nn\in\mathbb{N} such that (Xn,Y)r1×𝔻(0,C1)(X-n,Y)\in-\mathbb{H}_{r^{-1}}\times\mathbb{D}(0,C-1). Since we can do this for any C>0C>0, the map Ψo\Psi^{o} extends to a holomorphic map on 2\mathbb{C}^{2}.

Let us now prove the claim about the discreteness of fibers. Take pp\in\mathcal{B} and let Fp:=(Φι)1({Φι(p)})F_{p}:=(\Phi^{\iota})^{-1}(\{\Phi^{\iota}(p)\}) be the corresponding fiber. Let nn be large enough such that gn(p)Pι(r,C)g^{n}(p)\in P^{\iota}(r,C) for some C>0C>0 and rrι(C)r\leq r^{\iota}(C). Then

Φιgn(Fp)=Φι(Fp)+(n,0)={Φι(p)}+(n,0).\Phi^{\iota}\circ g^{n}(F_{p})=\Phi^{\iota}(F_{p})+(n,0)=\{\Phi^{\iota}(p)\}+(n,0).

Since Φι\Phi^{\iota} is injective on Pι(r,C)P^{\iota}(r,C), the point fn(p)f^{n}(p) is isolated in fn(Fp)f^{n}(F_{p}). Since gg (hence gng^{n}) has discrete fibers, pp must also be isolated in FpF_{p}.

Similarly, if (X0,Y0)2(X_{0},Y_{0})\in\mathbb{C}^{2} then there exists nn\in\mathbb{N} such that (X0n,Y0)Φo(Po(r,C))(X_{0}-n,Y_{0})\in\Phi^{o}(P^{o}(r,C)) for some C>0C>0 and rro(C)r\leq r^{o}(C). In order to prove that (X0,Y0)(X_{0},Y_{0}) is isolated in its fiber F(X0,Y0):=(Ψo)1({Ψo(X0,Y0)})F_{(X_{0},Y_{0})}:=(\Psi^{o})^{-1}(\{\Psi^{o}(X_{0},Y_{0})\}), it suffices to prove that (X0n,Y0)(X_{0}-n,Y_{0}) is isolated in F(X0,Y0)(n,0)F_{(X_{0},Y_{0})}-(n,0). By the relation gnΨo(Xn,Y)=Ψo(X,Y)g^{n}\circ\Psi^{o}(X-n,Y)=\Psi^{o}(X,Y), we have that F(X0,Y0)(n,0)=(Ψo)1(En)F_{(X_{0},Y_{0})}-(n,0)=(\Psi^{o})^{-1}(E_{n}), where En:=gn({Ψo(X0,Y0)})E_{n}:=g^{-n}(\{\Psi^{o}(X_{0},Y_{0})\}). Since gg (hence gng^{n}) has discrete fibers, EnE_{n} is discrete. Since (X0n,Y0)Φo(Po(r,C))(X_{0}-n,Y_{0})\in\Phi^{o}(P^{o}(r,C)) and Φo\Phi^{o} is injective, (X0n,Y)(X_{0}-n,Y) is therefore isolated in (Ψo)1(En)=F(X0,Y0)(n,0)(\Psi^{o})^{-1}(E_{n})=F_{(X_{0},Y_{0})}-(n,0). Thus F(X0,Y0)F_{(X_{0},Y_{0})} is indeed discrete. ∎

Next, we prove the following Lemma:

Lemma 6.2.

Let ff be an endomorphism of 2\mathbb{P}^{2} of algebraic degree dd, satisfying (H1)(H_{1}) and such that d>Reα+1d>\mathrm{Re}\,\alpha+1. Then for any qq\in\mathbb{C} there exists a family (fε)ε𝔻(f_{\varepsilon})_{\varepsilon\in\mathbb{D}} of endomorphisms of degree dd satisfying (H1)(H3)(H_{1})-(H_{3}), with f0=ff_{0}=f and qq as in Theorem 2.

Proof.

We work in some affine coordinates in which the fixed point of ff is the origin and in which the non-degenerate characteristic direction is [1:0][1:0] so the non-singular formal invariant curve 𝒞\mathcal{C} admits a parametrization of the form γ(t)=(t,ζ(t))\gamma(t)=(t,\zeta(t)). As in Section 2, we let Ψ(x,y):=(x,yJm+1ζ(x))\Psi(x,y):=(x,y-J_{m+1}\zeta(x)), where Jm+1ζJ_{m+1}\zeta is the jet of order m+1m+1 of ζ\zeta, where m:=Reα+1m:=\lfloor\mathrm{Re}\,\alpha\rfloor+1 of ζ\zeta, and we let g:=ΨfΨ1g:=\Psi\circ f\circ\Psi^{-1}. Then gg is of the form

g(x,y)=(x+x2a(x)+yb(x,y),y(1+c(x,y))+𝒪(xm+2)),g(x,y)=(x+x^{2}a(x)+yb(x,y),y(1+c(x,y))+\mathcal{O}(x^{m+2})),

where a(0)=1a(0)=1 and b(0,0)=c(0,0)=0b(0,0)=c(0,0)=0. We now let

gε(x,y):=(x+(x2+ε2)a(x)+yb(x,y),y(1+c(x,y)+qε)+𝒪(xm+2)),g_{\varepsilon}(x,y):=(x+(x^{2}+\varepsilon^{2})a(x)+yb(x,y),y(1+c(x,y)+q\varepsilon)+\mathcal{O}(x^{m+2})),

and f~ε:=Φ1gεΦ\widetilde{f}_{\varepsilon}:=\Phi^{-1}\circ g_{\varepsilon}\circ\Phi. By construction, (f~ε)ε𝔻(\widetilde{f}_{\varepsilon})_{\varepsilon\in\mathbb{D}} satisfies (H1)(H3)(H_{1})-(H_{3}) and f0=ff_{0}=f. However, the maps f~ε\widetilde{f}_{\varepsilon} need not be endomorphisms of 2\mathbb{P}^{2}, since Ψ\Psi is not an automorphism of 2\mathbb{P}^{2}; we will therefore need to make one last modification. Let us write f~ε(x,y)=f(x,y)+εh(ε,x,y)\widetilde{f}_{\varepsilon}(x,y)=f(x,y)+\varepsilon h(\varepsilon,x,y), where h(ε,x,y)=i,j,kai,j,kεixjykh(\varepsilon,x,y)=\sum_{i,j,k\in\mathbb{N}}a_{i,j,k}\varepsilon^{i}x^{j}y^{k} is a holomorphic map defined on some neighborhood of 0 in 3\mathbb{C}^{3}. Let hm+1(ε,x,y):=i,j,km+1ai,j,kεixjykh_{m+1}(\varepsilon,x,y):=\sum_{i,j,k\leq m+1}a_{i,j,k}\varepsilon^{i}x^{j}y^{k} be the jet of order m+1m+1 of hh and fε(x,y):=f(x,y)+εhm+1(ε,x,y)f_{\varepsilon}(x,y):=f(x,y)+\varepsilon h_{m+1}(\varepsilon,x,y). It is not difficult to see that conditions (H1)(H3)(H_{1})-(H_{3}) only depend on the jet of order m+1m+1 of fεf_{\varepsilon} at (0,0,0)(0,0,0); therefore, the family of maps (fε)ε𝔻(f_{\varepsilon})_{\varepsilon\in\mathbb{D}} still satisfies (H1)(H3)(H_{1})-(H_{3}), and since m<dm<d by assumption, the maps fεf_{\varepsilon} are endomorphisms of 2\mathbb{P}^{2} for all ε\varepsilon in a neighborhood of 0.

Finally, for the fixed points z1(ε)=1+2iε+𝒪(ε2)z_{1}(\varepsilon)=1+2i\varepsilon+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2}) and z2(ε)=12iε+𝒪(ε2)z_{2}(\varepsilon)=1-2i\varepsilon+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2}) we have that

Jacfε(z1(ε))=(1+2iε+𝒪(ε2)𝒪(ε)𝒪(ε2)1+qε+iηε+𝒪(ε2))\mathrm{Jac}\,f_{\varepsilon}(z_{1}(\varepsilon))=\begin{pmatrix}1+2i\varepsilon+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2})&\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon)\\ \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2})&1+q\varepsilon+i\eta\varepsilon+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2})\end{pmatrix}

and

Jacfε(z2(ε))=(12iε+𝒪(ε2)𝒪(ε)𝒪(ε2)1+qεiηε+𝒪(ε2)).\mathrm{Jac}\,f_{\varepsilon}(z_{2}(\varepsilon))=\begin{pmatrix}1-2i\varepsilon+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2})&\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon)\\ \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2})&1+q\varepsilon-i\eta\varepsilon+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2})\end{pmatrix}.

so clearly qq is as in Theorem 2 by Lemma 2.4. ∎

We now complete the proof of Corollary 1, which is essentially the same done by Bianchi in [Bia19b] or the one due to Lavaurs ([Lav89]) in dimension 1:

Proof of Corollary 1.

If we take qq\in\mathbb{C}, the existence of a family (fε)ε𝔻(f_{\varepsilon})_{\varepsilon\in\mathbb{D}} of endomorphisms of degree dd satisfying (H1)(H3)(H_{1})-(H_{3}) and such that q:=limε01ερN1(ε)+ρN2(ε)2ρT1(ε)+ρT2(ε)q:=\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0}\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\,\frac{\rho_{N}^{1}(\varepsilon)+\rho_{N}^{2}(\varepsilon)-2}{\rho_{T}^{1}(\varepsilon)+\rho_{T}^{2}(\varepsilon)} is guaranteed by Lemma 6.2. Now, take σ\sigma\in\mathbb{C} and z0J1(f,σ,q)z_{0}\in J_{1}(f,\mathcal{L}_{\sigma,q}). Without loss of generality, assume that z0=σ,qN(p0)z_{0}=\mathcal{L}_{\sigma,q}^{N}(p_{0}), for some NN\in\mathbb{N} and some p0J1(f)p_{0}\in J_{1}(f). Consider a sequence (εn)(\varepsilon_{n}) as in Theorem 2. We will find a sequence znJ1(fεn)z_{n}\in J_{1}(f_{\varepsilon_{n}}) such that limnzn=z0\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}z_{n}=z_{0}.

By lower semicontinuity of εJ1(fε)\varepsilon\mapsto J_{1}(f_{\varepsilon}), there exists a sequence pnJ1(fεn)p_{n}\in J_{1}(f_{\varepsilon_{n}}) such that limnpn=p0\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}p_{n}=p_{0}. Let zn:=fεnnN(pn)J1(fεn)z_{n}:=f_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{nN}(p_{n})\in J_{1}(f_{\varepsilon_{n}}): by Theorem 2, we have limnzn=σ,qN(p0)=z0\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}z_{n}=\mathcal{L}_{\sigma,q}^{N}(p_{0})=z_{0}, and we are done. ∎

We can now prove Corollary 2. The idea is that thanks to the Main Theorem, we can find a suitable sequence of perturbations fεnf_{\varepsilon_{n}} such that fεnnf_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n} maps a point in \mathcal{B} to a repelling periodic point in J2(fεn)J_{2}(f_{\varepsilon_{n}}). Since J2(fεn)J_{2}(f_{\varepsilon_{n}}) is completely invariant, this will mean that \mathcal{B} contains some points in J2(fεn)J_{2}(f_{\varepsilon_{n}}) for all nn large enough, thus proving the lack of upper semicontinuity of εJ2(fε)\varepsilon\mapsto J_{2}(f_{\varepsilon}). There is however a technical issue: contrary to the case of rational maps on 1\mathbb{P}^{1}, not all repelling periodic points belong to J2(fε)J_{2}(f_{\varepsilon}).

Proof of Corollary 2.

Let r(0)r(0) denote a repelling periodic point for ff contained in Ψo(2)\Psi^{o}(\mathbb{C}^{2}). Let (X1,Y1)2(X_{1},Y_{1})\in\mathbb{C}^{2} be such that Ψo(X1,Y1)=r(0)\Psi^{o}(X_{1},Y_{1})=r(0). Let z0z_{0}\in\mathcal{B} be such that Φι(z0)×{0}\Phi^{\iota}(z_{0})\in\mathbb{C}\times\{0\} if Y1=0Y_{1}=0, and Φι(z0)×\Phi^{\iota}(z_{0})\in\mathbb{C}\times\mathbb{C}^{*} if Y10Y_{1}\neq 0. Then there exists a unique (σ,q)2(\sigma,q)\in\mathbb{C}^{2} such that Aσ,qΦι(z0)=(X1,Y1)A_{\sigma,q}\circ\Phi^{\iota}(z_{0})=(X_{1},Y_{1}), or in other words, σ,q(z0)=r(0)\mathcal{L}_{\sigma,q}(z_{0})=r(0). Let (fε)ε𝔻(f_{\varepsilon})_{\varepsilon\in\mathbb{D}} be the corresponding family of perturbations of ff constructed in Lemma 6.2 for that value of qq. Let r(ε)r(\varepsilon) be the repelling periodic point of fεf_{\varepsilon}, which moves holomorphically with ε\varepsilon for |ε||\varepsilon| small. For |ε||\varepsilon| small, we have r(ε)J2(fε)r(\varepsilon)\in J_{2}(f_{\varepsilon}) by [Bia19a, Lemma 4.9].

Let σ0\sigma_{0}\in\mathbb{C} be given by Theorem 2, and let εn0\varepsilon_{n}\to 0 be such that

2iπρT1(εn)1=n(σσ0)+o(1).\frac{2i\pi}{\rho_{T}^{1}(\varepsilon_{n})-1}=n-(\sigma-\sigma_{0})+o(1).

Let UU be a neighborhood of z0z_{0} in \mathcal{B}, small enough such that σ,q(z)=r(0)\mathcal{L}_{\sigma,q}(z)=r(0) and zUz\in U implies that z=z0z=z_{0}. Then the maps Gn(z)=fεnn(z)r(εn)G_{n}(z)=f_{\varepsilon_{n}}^{n}(z)-r(\varepsilon_{n}) converge locally uniformly to G(z)=σ,q(z)r(0)G(z)=\mathcal{L}_{\sigma,q}(z)-r(0) by Theorem 2. Since (0,0)(0,0) is an isolated point in G1({(0,0)})G^{-1}(\{(0,0)\}) by Proposition 6.1, there is a sequence zn(0,0)z_{n}\to(0,0) such that Gn(zn)=(0,0)G_{n}(z_{n})=(0,0). By the backward invariance of the small Julia set, znJ2(fεn)z_{n}\in J_{2}(f_{\varepsilon_{n}}), but UJ2(f)=U\cap J_{2}(f)=\emptyset since UU\subset\mathcal{B}. ∎

References

  • [AB25] Matthieu Astorg and Fabrizio Bianchi. Horn maps of semi-parabolic Hénon maps. Math. Ann., 392(1):837–860, 2025.
  • [ABD+16] Matthieu Astorg, Xavier Buff, Romain Dujardin, Han Peters, and Jasmin Raissy. A two-dimensional polynomial mapping with a wandering Fatou component. Ann. of Math. (2), 184(1):263–313, 2016.
  • [ABT26] Matthieu Astorg and Luka Boc Thaler. Dynamics of skew-products tangent to the identity. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS), 28(2):559–618, 2026.
  • [ABTP23] Matthieu Astorg, Luka Boc Thaler, and Han Peters. Wandering domains arising from Lavaurs maps with Siegel disks. Anal. PDE, 16(1):35–88, 2023.
  • [BC12] Xavier Buff and Arnaud Chéritat. Quadratic julia sets with positive area. Annals of Mathematics, pages 673–746, 2012.
  • [Bia19a] Fabrizio Bianchi. Misiurewicz parameters and dynamical stability of polynomial-like maps of large topological degree. Mathematische Annalen, 373(3):901–928, 2019.
  • [Bia19b] Fabrizio Bianchi. Parabolic implosion for endomorphisms of 2\mathbb{C}^{2}. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS), 21(12):3709–3737, 2019.
  • [BSU17] Eric Bedford, John Smillie, and Tetsuo Ueda. Semi-parabolic bifurcations in complex dimension two. Comm. Math. Phys., 350(1):1–29, 2017.
  • [CS15] Davoud Cheraghi and Mitsuhiro Shishikura. Satellite renormalization of quadratic polynomials. arXiv preprint arXiv:1509.07843, 2015.
  • [DL15] Romain Dujardin and Mikhail Lyubich. Stability and bifurcations for dissipative polynomial automorphisms of 2\mathbb{C}^{2}. Invent. Math., 200(2):439–511, 2015.
  • [DS10] Tien-Cuong Dinh and Nessim Sibony. Dynamics in several complex variables: endomorphisms of projective spaces and polynomial-like mappings. In Holomorphic Dynamical Systems: Cetraro, Italy, July 7-12, 2008, pages 165–294. Springer, 2010.
  • [É85] Jean Écalle. Les fonctions résurgentes. Tome III, volume 85 of Publications Mathématiques d’Orsay [Mathematical Publications of Orsay]. Université de Paris-Sud, Département de Mathématiques, Orsay, 1985. L’équation du pont et la classification analytique des objects locaux. [The bridge equation and analytic classification of local objects].
  • [Hak97] Monique Hakim. Transformations tangent to the identity. stable pieces of manifolds. Prépublication d’Orsay, (30), 1997.
  • [Hak98] Monique Hakim. Analytic transformations of (p,0)(\mathbb{C}^{p},0) tangent to the identity. Duke Math. J., 92(2):403–428, 1998.
  • [IS06] Hiroyuki Inou and Mitsuhiro Shishikura. The renormalization for parabolic fixed points and their perturbation. preprint, 2006.
  • [Jon99] Mattias Jonsson. Dynamics of polynomial skew products on. Mathematische Annalen, 314(3):403–447, 1999.
  • [Lav89] Pierre Lavaurs. Systemes dynamiques holomorphes: explosion de points périodiques paraboliques. PhD thesis, Paris 11, 1989.
  • [LHR25] Lorena López-Hernanz and Rudy Rosas. A flower theorem in dimension two. Ergodic Theory Dyn. Syst., 45(10):3223–3254, 2025.
  • [Mil11] John Milnor. Dynamics in one complex variable, volume 160. Princeton University Press, 2011.
  • [Shi98] Mitsuhiro Shishikura. The hausdorff dimension of the boundary of the mandelbrot set and julia sets. Annals of Mathematics, pages 225–267, 1998.
BETA