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 and the closure 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 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 be a holomorphic map of the form .
By the classical Leau-Fatou theorem, there exists and univalent maps and such that
-
(1)
is forward invariant under , and is invariant under the branch of fixing the origin;
-
(2)
, and .
The domains and are respectively called incoming and outgoing petals and the maps and are called incoming and outgoing Fatou coordinates.
Let
|
|
|
be the parabolic basin.
Then , and moreover . The incoming Fatou coordinate extends to a holomorphic map and the inverse of the outgoing Fatou coordinate extends to a holomorphic map , called the outgoing Fatou parametrization. We refer the reader to [Mil11] for details.
In particular, for any , the change of coordinate is well-defined on ,
where is the translation of vector . It is called the Lavaurs map of phase .
Consider now the family of perturbations , .
For small but non-zero, the double fixed point at the origin for splits into 2 simple fixed points for , of the form .
If we take say , then Lavaurs proved that orbits under starting from a point in will approach the origin, then cross the "gate" given by the vertical segment between and and then move away from the origin inside . Since is close to the identity near , as it takes more and more iterations to do this. At the limit, we obtain in this way a "transit map" from to , which is useful for studying the dynamics of .
It turns out that this transit map is exactly the Lavaurs map defined above.
More precisely:
Theorem (Lavaurs, [Lav89]).
Let be a sequence of complex numbers, and . Assume that . Then locally uniformly on .
We now move on to the setting of complex dimension 2.
Let be a holomorphic map on a neighborhood of the origin, with a power series expansion of the form
|
|
|
where the are homogeneous degree polynomial maps from to , and . Such a map is called tangent to the identity at order 2.
Following Hakim [Hak98] and Écalle [É85], we say that is a characteristic direction for if there exists so that
.
If then is said to be non-degenerate. We shall denote by the canonical projection of
onto . The director of a non-degenerate characteristic direction is the eigenvalue of the linear operator
|
|
|
If the real part of the director of a non-degenerate characteristic direction is strictly positive, Hakim proved in [Hak97] that for any there exist incoming and outgoing petals and and incoming/outgoing Fatou coordinates conjugating to a translation of vector
(see Propositions 3.2 and 3.3 for details).
Let
|
|
|
denote the parabolic basin associated to .
Similarly to the one-dimensional case, we have that
(see [LHR25]).
We say that a formal non-singular curve is invariant for if given a parametrization of (i.e., with and ) there exists with such that
|
|
|
The tangent of is, by definition, .
From now on, we will assume that is a holomorphic map defined on a neighborhood of the origin and which satisfies the following assumption:
-
The map is tangent to the identity at order and has a non-degenerate characteristic direction , with a formal non-singular invariant curve tangent to , and a director such that .
It is worth mentioning that the existence of a non-singular formal invariant curve tangent to a non-degenerate characteristic direction is a generic hypothesis. It is equivalent to the existence of an analytic curve tangent to which is preserved up to order in the following sense: if is a parametrization of then there exists such that
|
|
|
and this condition is always satisfied when (see [[Hak98], Section 3]).
We now state a first, non-technical version of our main result:
Theorem 1 (Non-technical version).
Let be a holomorphic map satisfying . Then for any there exists a holomorphic family of holomorphic maps with such that for any and for any compact set there exist and a sequence
such that
uniformly on , where
.
Since the maps and are only defined on , in general the iterates may not be well-defined; however Theorem 1 implies that there is a constant integer such that is well-defined on for all large enough. Moreover, since the map
|
|
|
satisfies
|
|
|
it is not difficult to see that we also have
for any such that . In particular, in the case where the maps are global endomorphisms of a complex manifold we may simply take .
We can be more precise on the requirements for the family of perturbations , and interpret the constants and in terms of . We will make the following assumptions:
-
The family preserves the formal curve to order , where , in the following sense: if is a parametrization of , there exists such that
f_ε∘γ- γ∘h_ε∈⟨t^m+2, εt^m+1, …, ε^m+2 ⟩.
-
For all in a neighborhood of , has exactly 4 fixed points near the origin () and counted with multiplicity, which depend holomorphically on and such that are non-zero and pairwise distinct.
Note that the existence of 4 fixed points depending holomorphically on is always satisfied up to passing to a branched cover in parameter space (although doing so affects the derivatives ).
With a slight abuse of notation we will say that satisfies when satisfies and satisfies and .
We can interpret the constants and in terms of the multipliers of the fixed points of . To make this precise, we first need the following Proposition, whose proof is deferred until the next section:
Proposition 1.
Assume that satisfies . Then there are exactly two fixed points of , say , which are asymptotically tangent to for small, i.e.,
|
|
|
Moreover, if the eigenvalues of satisfy that then one of the eigenspaces of tends to as , and the condition holds for at least one of the fixed points.
We can now state a second version of our results, which is more explicit on the requirements on the family of perturbations . To do so, we will use the following convention: let and be the fixed points from Proposition 1 and let and be their eigenvalues. If ,
we denote by the eigenvalue whose eigenspace tends to as and by the other one; if
, we assign the names and indifferently to the two eigenvalues and .
Theorem 2 (Coordinate-free version).
Let be a family of holomorphic maps satisfying . Let be the fixed points from Proposition 1 and denote by and () their eigenvalues, using the convention above. Let
|
|
|
There exists a constant such that for any , for any , for any sequence such that
|
|
|
and for any compact set , there exists such that
|
|
|
uniformly on , where
.
We finally state a third version of our main result, explicitly expressed in coordinates:
Theorem 3 (Coordinate version).
Let
|
|
|
be a family of holomorphic maps defined on a neighborhood of , where and depend holomorphically on ,
and assume that
-
(1)
,
-
(2)
, with , and where .
Let be a sequence such that .
Then for any compact set there exists such that
|
|
|
uniformly on , where .
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 and (which amounts to taking with our notations). If that is the case, then the formal curve corresponding to our assumptions and is the curve , and it is invariant for the whole family of perturbations. Secondly, [Bia19b, Theorem 1.4] only proves convergence near the line (instead of the whole parabolic basin associated to ), and only up to extraction. In particular, it does not rule out the possibility of the sequence having more than one limit value. Finally, in [Bia19b, Theorem 1.4] the possible limits of are not described explicitly as maps of the form , and only depend on the parameter since in his case .
On the other hand, we must note that [Bia19b, Theorem 1.4] only assumes , compared to our assumption that , so our results do not strictly imply his.
Let us now give an application case of our main results. A holomorphic endomorphism of is a map which may be written in homogeneous coordinates as
|
|
|
where are homogeneous polynomials of degree with no common factors. The integer is called the algebraic degree of .
Given such an endomorphism , one can define two distinct notions of Julia sets: the set , which may be defined as the non-normality locus; and the set , also sometimes called the small Julia set, which may be defined as the support of the unique measure of maximal entropy. Alternatively, () may be defined as the support of , where is the so-called Green current of (this construction is not specific to the case of dimension 2). In general, , 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 we will let , where is the extension of to .
For any endomorphism of satisfying , we will set
|
|
|
Corollary 1 (Compare to [Bia19b, Theorem 1.6]).
Let be an endomorphism satisfying and of algebraic degree . Then for any there exists a family of endomorphisms of of algebraic degree satisfying , with as Theorem 2. Moreover, for any ,
|
|
|
where is as in Theorem 2.
Corollary 2.
Let be an endomorphism satisfying and of algebraic degree . Assume moreover that .
Then the map is discontinuous at , where
denotes the space of degree endomorphisms of .
Even if we drop the assumption that , our arguments still prove the discontinuity of the closure of the set of repelling periodic points; however, as mentioned above, the Julia set may be smaller than this closure.
This hypothesis is not easy to check in practice;
let us however give a concrete example. Let with , and let .
Let
|
|
|
The polynomial map extends to an endomorphism of . If , then the map is a polynomial skew-product.
In that case, is of the form , where is an outgoing Fatou parametrization of the base polynomial map . By [Jon99], , where denotes the Julia set of and
is the non-normality locus of restricted to the vertical line . Since is non-constant and entire, it omits at most one value, so there exists and such that . Similarly, the map is entire and non-constant and is uncountable; so .
Now, the set varies lower semi-continuously with respect to the parameters ; and the map depends holomorphically (hence continuously)
on . (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 such that for all , the map satisfies .
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 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 , which are in a sense close to the actual Fatou coordinates of and which nearly conjugate the dynamics of to a translation. In Section 5 we provide precise estimates of the orbit under 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 be a holomorphic map satisfying . If we choose coordinates such that we have that
|
|
|
with and , where is the director of . Up to conjugating by the linear map , we can assume that , so . In those coordinates, the formal invariant curve has a parametrization , with . If we take and , where is the jet of order of , we have that has the form
|
|
|
with , and . Then Theorem 1 follows immediately considering a family and a sequence as in Theorem 3 and taking .
Let us now obtain Theorem 2 from Theorem 3. Consider a family of holomorphic maps satisfying . 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 and the curve has a parametrization , with .
Let and , where is the jet of order of , and set . Since the family preserves up to order by hypothesis , we have
|
|
|
where depends holomorphically on , and
for some constant (as above, the fact that follows from the assumptions of having order 2 and being non-degenerate). Up to conjugating by the linear map , we may assume without loss of generality that .
In particular, there exist holomorphic functions and such that
| (1) |
|
|
|
Since is tangent to the identity, we also have . Moreover, by hypotheses , has 4 fixed points () near the origin, which depend holomorphically on and satisfy that are non-zero and pairwise different.
Lemma 2.1.
There are exactly two fixed points of (counting multiplicity) which are asymptotically tangent to for small, i.e.,
|
|
|
Moreover, if denote the two fixed points of , then depend holomorphically on and . In particular, .
Proof.
Let us write , where is homogeneous polynomial map of degree . Since is tangent to the identity, we have and
for some .
We claim that under our assumptions, we must have . Indeed, since and , by differentiating , we obtain
|
|
|
In particular, this means that
|
|
|
By Weierstrass’ Preparation Theorem applied to , there exists holomorphic maps and
with and such that
|
|
|
Moreover, and .
The fixed points of are the zeros of .
It follows that .
In particular,
|
|
|
and are complex differentiable at ,
with .
It is not yet clear that and are holomorphic near ; note however that if
|
|
|
then vanishes exactly at order 2 and in this case the two fixed points depend holomorphically on .
Next, we write , and
Note that , where is the director of , so by our assumptions. Let
|
|
|
so that if and only if
is a fixed point of . Then
|
|
|
so as , the map converges locally uniformly to
|
|
|
Since , it is then straightforward to check that the set
is finite and contains 4 elements counted with multiplicity. Moreover, if and only if .
Since proper intersections of analytic sets persist under perturbations, for all small enough the set is has the same
cardinality as and its elements are close to those of
. Therefore, for small the fixed points of the map are of the form
, where .
In particular, has exactly two fixed points (with )
which are asymptotically tangent to and moreover, . Finally, the assertion that follows from the fact that .
In particular, are indeed holomorphic.
∎
Remark 2.2.
As we mentioned in Remark 1, in our results hypothesis can be replaced by the weaker assumption . To show this, it suffices to note that if we impose hypothesis then the jet or order of has two fixed points with , so has two fixed points with and then Lemma 2.1 also holds with the same proof.
Lemma 2.3.
Up to replacing by for some ,
there is a family of polynomial automorphisms , depending holomorphically on near and such that , such that the maps have the form
|
|
|
with and depending holomorphically on and
-
(1)
,
-
(2)
, with , and where .
Proof.
By Lemma 2.1, the fixed points of depend holomorphically on and satisfy . Therefore, there exists such that if we replace by then . By an abuse of notation, we will still denote by : in other words, we assume from now on that .
For , let be the unique affine automorphism of mapping to (note that is well-defined for small since ). More explicitly,
|
|
|
and extends holomorphically to a neighborhood of with
|
|
|
Let and . A direct computation using expression (1) shows that is of the form
|
|
|
with depending holomorphically on and . Moreover, by construction, has fixed points at so we can write , with depending holomorphically on .
Therefore
|
|
|
Since and , we have . And since , we also have
. Write
|
|
|
for some , where , so and . Now, we consider the polynomial change of coordinates given by
|
|
|
Let . If we denote , we have that
|
|
|
for some and depending holomorphically on and such that and .
Now, denote , so that . Given , we have that
|
|
|
Since , we have
|
|
|
and since we have
|
|
|
for all . Therefore
|
|
|
|
so
|
|
|
Then we have,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and the Lemma is proved taking .
∎
We will also need the following result.
Lemma 2.4.
Let be a holomorphic map from to . Assume that , and .
Then, for small enough, has two eigenvalues , . Moreover, if then the eigenspace associated to tends to as .
Observe that the condition is necessary: the matrices have eigenvectors and for all .
Proof.
Write , and let
|
|
|
Then ; this proves that for small enough the eigenvalues of satisfy , . In particular, if then for small enough they are simple.
Assume now that and let us prove the assertion about the eigenspace associated to . Let be a family of eigenvectors associated to for , and let be any sequence. Assume without loss of generality that for all .
For every , we have
|
|
|
and then
|
|
|
therefore any adherence value of the sequence satisfies . In particular, is in .
Therefore, .
∎
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 at the fixed points and .
We have
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
Then, by Lemma 2.4, has eigenvalues
|
|
|
and has eigenvalues
|
|
|
If then again by Lemma 2.4 the eigenspace associated to tends to as . Moreover, this condition happens for at least one of the fixed points, since either or (or both). This finishes the proof of Proposition 1.
Let us now prove Theorem 2. Observe first that
|
|
|
Now, consider a sequence be such that for some and for some constant . Up to replacing by in the family , we can assume without loss of generality that . Then, writing (where depends only on the family ) we have
|
|
|
and therefore , with . By Theorem 3 we have that for any compact set contained in the parabolic basin of associated to there exists such that
|
|
|
uniformly on , where and , denote respectively the incoming and outgoing Fatou coordinates for . Since
and , we deduce that
|
|
|
It is straightforward to see that are respectively the incoming and outgoing Fatou coordinates for . It follows that for any compact contained in the parabolic basin of associated to there exists such that and Theorem 2 is proved.
3. Asymptotics of Fatou coordinates
Consider a family as in Theorem 3, so has the form
|
|
|
with , , and
with and . Then, we can write
|
|
|
In this section we recall the construction and asymptotics of Fatou coordinates for . Although these results are essentially contained in [Hak97] (see also [LHR25]) we provide all the proofs for the sake of completeness.
In the following, refers to the principal branch of the complex logarithm, defined on . The expression
(defined in particular when means by definition .
Denote, for any and any
|
|
|
Although we will not mention it explicitly, in the following computations we always assume that is small enough such that , where is the domain of definition of .
Lemma 3.1.
For any there exists such that if and then
|
|
|
for every . Moreover, if and we denote we have that
| (2) |
|
|
|
as (the constants in being allowed to depend on ),
|
|
|
Proof.
Fix and set . Let and consider . By the expression of , if (so in particular since ) we have that and (where the constants in and depend on ), so
|
|
|
and, as long as and is small enough so that is defined,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(using in the last equality that by definition of ) so there exists a constant , depending on , such that
|
|
|
By the expression of , we can choose small enough such that if and (so ) then
|
|
|
so in particular and moreover
|
|
|
Up to decreasing if necessary, we can also assume that
|
|
|
Take with . Since , we have by the previous computation that (so in particular is defined) and
|
|
|
so . Arguing recursively, we obtain that ,
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for every , where , so for every . Moreover, since
|
|
|
where , we have that
|
|
|
and therefore as .
∎
Our next goal is to prove the following Propositions:
Proposition 3.2.
For any there exists such that for any there exists a holomorphic univalent map which is an incoming Fatou coordinate for (i.e., ) and satisfies
|
|
|
as inside .
Moreover,
|
|
|
where .
Proposition 3.3.
For any there exists such that for any there exists a holomorphic univalent map , where
|
|
|
which is an outgoing Fatou coordinate for (i.e., ) and satisfies
|
|
|
as inside .
Moreover,
|
|
|
Set
|
|
|
It is straightforward to check that is well-defined and univalent on and that
|
|
|
By Lemma 3.1, for any there exists such that for any the map
|
|
|
is well-defined on
|
|
|
where , and for any and for any . Moreover, using (2) we have that
| (3) |
|
|
|
in as (the constants in being allowed to depend on ).
Lemma 3.4.
For any and any , where is given by Lemma 3.1, the map
|
|
|
where , is well-defined in , satisfies and has the form as . Moreover, the map defined by
|
|
|
is injective.
Proof.
By (3), we have that
for some holomorphic map and for every . Therefore, for every we have that
|
|
|
Using the bound from Lemma 3.1 we have that the series
is uniformly convergent in , so converges uniformly to a holomorphic function
|
|
|
where The invariance of is immediate, by construction. Moreover, since
|
|
|
we have that as . Finally, since is injective when is fixed and is not constant, we obtain that is injective.
∎
By Lemma 3.4, for any and any the map
|
|
|
is well-defined on and for any and for any .
Moreover, using (3) and Lemma 3.4 we have that
| (4) |
|
|
|
in as . Observe also that since as , there exists such that for every
|
|
|
Lemma 3.5.
For any there exists such that for any , the map
|
|
|
where , is well-defined in , satisfies and has the form as .
Moreover, the map defined by
|
|
|
is injective.
Proof.
Fix , set and take .
Thanks to (4), for any we have that
|
|
|
with , so
|
|
|
Since and , by Lemma 3.1 we have that for every , so the series
is normally convergent and hence converges uniformly to a holomorphic map of the form
|
|
|
Moreover, arguing as in the proof of Lemma 3.4, as .
Now define
|
|
|
Then, rewriting
|
|
|
and using the fact that as by Lemma 3.1, we have that the sequence converges uniformly in to a map of the form
|
|
|
as . Since , we obtain that . Injectivity of follows from the injectivity of when is fixed and the fact that 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 and any the map is well-defined on and
|
|
|
where the convergence in the term is uniform as in . Moreover, .
We will prove that there exists such that for all
| (5) |
|
|
|
Let us set and write . There exists such that for all
|
|
|
Now, consider with and let us show that there exists with . Let , so if and only if is a fixed point of , and let . Observe that if we have that , and
|
|
|
so . Then if we have
|
|
|
so . Moreover, since as in , using Cauchy’s estimate and the fact that and reducing if necessary we have that for all ,
|
|
|
Then, the map is contracting on , so by Banach fixed point theorem has a fixed point in and (5) is proved.
Finally, Proposition 3.2 follows by defining
∎
Proof of Proposition 3.3.
This follows immediately from Proposition 3.2. Since is of the form
|
|
|
if we take we have that
|
|
|
so repeating the construction above we find an incoming Fatou coordinate for in of the form
|
|
|
as inside . Then, to obtain Proposition 3.3 it suffices to define .
∎
Finally, we will also need the following asymptotic expansion for :
Lemma 3.6.
Let , . If , then
|
|
|
as inside , where the convergence in the term and the implicit constant in the term are uniform on .
Proof.
Take and set . By Proposition 3.2 we have
|
|
|
as , so . Hence
|
|
|
and so
|
|
|
|
Similarly:
|
|
|
so
|
|
|
|
∎
Similarly, we can compute the asymptotics of :
Lemma 3.7.
Let , . If , then
|
|
|
as inside , where the convergence in the term and the implicit constant in the term are uniform on .
5. Controlling the orbit
The goal of this section is to provide accurate estimates for the position of the orbit
of a point in the parabolic basin of .
The strategy, similar to that of [ABD+16], is to split this orbit in three regions:
-
(1)
A first one where approaches shadowing closely the orbit , which we call "approaching the eggbeater"; this will occur for , where as in Section 4.
-
(2)
A second one which we call "in the eggbeater", in which is close to and where the effect of the perturbation is relevant. This will be the case for .
-
(3)
A third one where gets away from again shadowing the dynamics of , which we call "leaving the eggbeater". This will happen for the last iterates.
Let us fix some constant . Recall that by Lemma 3.1 and Proposition 3.2, there exists such that for all small enough the incoming petal
|
|
|
has the property that if , then for all and moreover the incoming Fatou coordinate is well-defined on .
Recall that we have the following asymptotic expansion for as in :
|
|
|
The map
|
|
|
maps biholomorphically to , where and
.
In a similar way, by Proposition 3.3 there exists such that for all the outgoing Fatou coordinate is well-defined on
|
|
|
and satisfies
|
|
|
as inside . We set
|
|
|
which maps biholomorphically to , where .
Throughout this section, we will use the following notations: given , we will denote (when defined)
|
|
|
|
|
|
We will also denote, for any ,
|
|
|
Given , we choose small enough (or equivalently large enough) such that
-
, where is the domain of definition of , and there exists a constant such that
|X_1-X-1|<1/4, |Y_1-Y|<K_11|X|2
for all , where , and
|X_1^o-X-1|<1/4, |Y_1^o-Y|<K_11|X|2
for all , where .
The existence of such is guaranteed by the expression (3) for and the fact that has the same expansion.
We will also later in this section need to possibly increase 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 (but are allowed to depend on ).
Definition 5.1.
We let
|
|
|
Lemma 5.2.
For any and any satisfying hypothesis , the map is well-defined on for all large enough. Moreover, there exists a constant depending on but not on (in the sense that it does not increase when we increase ) such that if and is large enough then
|
|
|
where and .
Proof.
Let us first prove that is well-defined on for large enough. It suffices to show that if and is large enough then , where . Set and . By the expression (6) of , we have
| (12) |
|
|
|
so using the fact that because we get
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since by our choice of , we have that so we get
|
|
|
Note that in all the previous computations, the implicit constants in depend only on , not on , in the sense that the do not increase if we increase .
By definition of , we have
|
|
|
Moreover, since , there exists a constant independent from such that
|
|
|
so for large enough, as desired. This computation also gives the first estimate.
Let us prove the second estimate. By the mean value inequality,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for some , where .
By the expression of ,
|
|
|
using again the fact that because .
Since was taken large enough so that , we have that
we have that
|
|
|
where . Moreover, using (12) we have that , so
|
|
|
Since , we have that , so we can take big enough so that
| (13) |
|
|
|
Hence using the expression of we have that for large enough
|
|
|
for some constants , so
|
|
|
for some constants , where we used in the last inequality the fact that .
Finally, using (12) and (13) we have
|
|
|
using again in the last identity the fact that .
Putting everything together, we obtain
|
|
|
and the Lemma is proved. ∎
For the outgoing petal, we have the following analogous Lemma:
Definition 5.3.
We let
|
|
|
Note that
Lemma 5.4.
For any and any satisfying hypothesis , the map is well-defined on for all large enough. Moreover, there exists a constant depending on but not on (in the sense that it does not increase when we increase ) such that if and is large enough then
|
|
|
where and .
Proof.
The proof follows essentially the same steps as the previous one. The only
modification concerns the argument showing that . In this case, we have
|
|
|
for some constant . Hence, for sufficiently large, we have , since by assumption .
∎
We will now state explicitly in which sense must be taken large enough, or equivalently small enough. By Lemma 5.2, there exists , depending on but not on , such that for all and for large enough
|
|
|
where and .
Since , we have that for large enough
Then by our standing assumption there exists (depending on but not on ) such that for all and for large enough we have
| (14) |
|
|
|
Moreover, by Lemma 5.4, similar estimates also hold on the outgoing petal; more precisely, there exists a constant (also depending on but not on ) such that for all and for large enough we have
| (15) |
|
|
|
where .
We let .
From now on, we fix a compact , where is the parabolic basin associated to . Recall that for any . Then there exists a constant (depending only on ) such that for any small enough there exists such that
.
Definition 5.5 (Choice of ).
From now on, we fix (equivalently, small enough) satisfying hypothesis and large enough such that
-
and .
-
-
For all
∥Φ^ι∘(Φ_0^ι)^-1(X,Y)-(X-(1-a)logX,Y)∥≤1C2
and for all
∥Φ^o∘(Φ_0^o)^-1(X,Y)-(X-(1-a)log(-X),Y)∥≤1C2.
Observe that conditions and are satisfied for large enough by Propositions 3.2 and 3.3.
Definition 5.6.
Let denote the projection on the first coordinate.
We define
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
Observe that, by definition, and .
5.1. Approaching the eggbeater
Lemma 5.7.
For all large enough and for all we have that
|
|
|
In particular, for all large enough and all .
Proof.
Since is compact, we can assume that is large enough such that . Take , set and denote, for all such that it is well-defined,
. Set
|
|
|
and let us prove that .
First, recall that by (14) there exists a constant such that for all and for large enough we have
|
|
|
|
|
|
From those inequalities, we get:
| (16) |
|
|
|
and
| (17) |
|
|
|
for all .
Using (16) in (17) we get, for all ,
|
|
|
Recall that by condition we have that : from now on, we also assume that is large enough so that
Suppose by contradiction that . By definition ; but on the other hand, we have
|
|
|
Therefore: , , and
|
|
|
(again, up to taking large enough such that ).
Therefore , a contradiction. This proves that , hence that
for all .
∎
Lemma 5.8.
For large enough
|
|
|
where the convergence of the term is uniform on (recall that for any ).
Proof.
First note that, by Lemma 5.7, we have for large enough and for all . In particular, for large enough and for all we have that , so is well-defined for any .
Take and denote , and . Set , so
|
|
|
and hence
|
|
|
By Proposition 3.2 and condition , there exists a holomorphic map such that
|
|
|
with for all . By Cauchy estimates, we have
|
|
|
for all and hence, by the mean value inequality,
|
|
|
On the other hand, also by the mean value inequality, we have
|
|
|
Therefore
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then using Lemma 5.2 we obtain that for large enough
|
|
|
where . By an immediate induction, we have
|
|
|
where .
By definition of we have for all ; therefore
|
|
|
and using the fact that and the Lemma follows.
∎
Recall from Section 4 that
|
|
|
where
|
|
|
Lemma 5.9.
For large enough we have
|
|
|
where the convergence of the term is uniform on .
Proof.
Take and let . By Lemmas 5.8, 5.7 and 3.6,
|
|
|
where the terms and are uniform on . In particular uniformly on and
|
|
|
Since uniformly on , for large enough depending only on we have that . Then, using the relation whenever we have that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and therefore
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similarly:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in the last line, we used the fact that by Lemma 5.8).
∎
5.2. In the eggbeater
Definition 5.10.
Let and (recall that was fixed when we fixed the compact ).
Lemma 5.11.
For all large enough, we have (recall that is the set from Definition 4.1 and that for large enough , where is the domain of definition of ).
Proof.
Let and . By Lemmas 5.8 and 5.9, we have
|
|
|
where the convergence of the term is uniform on . Therefore
|
|
|
Since by definition of and by condition , we have that and then for all large enough (depending only on and not on the choice of ). Similarly
|
|
|
|
and therefore, since ,
|
|
|
where the implicit constants in the terms only depend on and not on the choice of .
In particular, for all large enough (depending only on )
|
|
|
hence for large enough.
∎
Recall that .
Proposition 5.12.
For large enough we have that and
|
|
|
where the convergence of the term is uniform on .
Proof.
Take and let . Let us start by proving that for large enough (depending only on ) and for we have
and
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
where, as in subsection 4.1,
|
|
|
with .
We argue by induction on . Indeed, the assertions hold for by Lemma 5.11 and the fact that . Moreover, if they hold for some , then thanks to Proposition 4.9 (applied on ), we have
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where the terms and are uniform, and using in the last line that by Lemmas 5.8 and 5.9. Moreover,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where the term is uniform on . Therefore, using the fact that we have, for big enough depending only on , ,
hence
|
|
|
And since and by Lemma 5.11, for large enough depending only on we get, using the fact that ,
|
|
|
Moreover, since
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
for large enough, by Lemma 5.11, we get that
|
|
|
for large enough depending only on , and the statement is proved.
Taking we obtain that for large enough and
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
so using again Proposition 4.9 and the fact that we get
|
|
|
where the terms are uniform on . Finally, since we obtain, using the fact that ,
|
|
|
where the term is uniform on .
∎
5.3. After the eggbeater
We will now estimate the orbit of as it gets away from the origin in the outgoing petal. Recall that and
|
|
|
Lemma 5.13 (Compare to Lemma 5.9).
For large enough (so in particular ) and
|
|
|
where the convergence of the term is uniform on .
Proof.
Take and let . By Proposition 5.12, we have
that and
|
|
|
|
so using Lemmas 5.8 and 5.9 we get
|
|
|
|
for large enough, where the term is uniform on . By Lemma 4.4 (applied on ) we have
|
|
|
Therefore for large enough
|
|
|
uniformly on . Therefore, for large enough depending only on we have that
|
|
|
Moreover, since
|
|
|
we obtain, using the fact that and the definition of , that
|
|
|
for large enough depending only on , so and in particular for large enough.
Now, if we denote , we want to prove that
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
Since uniformly on , for large enough depending only on we have that . Then, using the relation whenever and the definition of we have that for large enough
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since because , we get
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
using in the second line that and in the last line the asymptotic expansion of . Similarly, by the computation above,
|
|
|
using in the last line the asymptotic expansion of and the fact that because .
∎
Lemma 5.14 (Compare to Lemma 5.8).
There exists such that for large enough (so in particular ) and
|
|
|
where the convergence of the term is uniform on .
Proof.
From the asymptotic expansion of (see Lemma 3.7), Proposition 3.3 and the definitions of and , there exists a constant such that
| (18) |
|
|
|
where Up to increasing if necessary, we assume that , where .
We fix some integer .
Let us first prove that there exists a constant such that for large enough and for all such that we have
| (19) |
|
|
|
The computation is analogous to the one in the proof of Lemma 5.8. Fix such that and . Set , so
|
|
|
where . Then
|
|
|
where .
By Proposition 3.3 and condition , there exists a holomorphic map such that
|
|
|
with for all . By Cauchy estimates, we have
|
|
|
for all and hence, by the mean value inequality,
|
|
|
On the other hand, also by the mean value inequality, we have
|
|
|
Therefore
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then using Lemma 5.4 we obtain (19) for large enough, with .
Now take . We will prove by induction on that for all large enough and for all we have
-
(1)
-
(2)
.
For , the first statement follows from Lemma 5.13, and there is nothing to prove for the second one. Let such that (1) and (2) hold for all and denote .
By equation (15) we have
|
|
|
Therefore, by definition of , we have for large enough
|
|
|
It follows that so using (19) and the induction hypothesis we get
|
|
|
and condition (2) is proved.
By definition of , we have for all , therefore
|
|
|
Therefore, by Lemma 5.13 and Proposition 5.12 we have for large enough
|
|
|
so by Lemmas 5.9 and 5.8
|
|
|
Let . We then have, for large enough,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
so . Similarly, for large enough,
|
|
|
Finally, using the fact that by definition of and by condition , we have that and then for large enough
|
|
|
Therefore, by (18), and (1) is proved. Taking , the Lemma 5.14 is proved.
∎
5.4. Conclusion
Proof of Theorem 3.
We have
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where the convergence of the terms is uniform in . Therefore
|
|
|
where the convergence of the term is uniform on . This proves that uniformly on , where .
Let us now explain how we can deduce the same convergence statement first for all , then for all .
First, assume without loss of generality that the domain on which the maps are defined
is a bi-disk .
Let () denote the projections on each coordinate of .
Let . Recall that and are the constants introduced in Definition 5.5. Let
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
Let us prove inductively on that .
For , there is nothing to prove, since .
Let be such that , so that is well-defined on .
By the maximum principle, for all , we have
|
|
|
Similarly, we also have
|
|
|
Therefore, is well-defined on for every .
Moreover, is a normal family in the sense of Montel.
Let be any extracted sequence such that converges on to some holomorphic function . We have proved that on , therefore, by the identity principle, on all of . Since this is true for any converging subsequence, we conclude that on
all of , hence on (since ).
Let us now prove that on , where . Indeed, by the definition of , we have that for all large enough ; therefore, if then
|
|
|
using in the last two equalities the fact that converges uniformly to on and that
.
∎