1: \documentclass{amsart}

2: 

3: %VT

4: \usepackage{fullpage}

5: 

6: \numberwithin{equation}{section} 

7: 

8: 

9: %%%%%%%packages

10: \usepackage{amssymb}

11: \usepackage{enumerate}

12: %\usepackage{showkeys}

13: %\usepackage[bottom,first]{draftcopy}

14: \usepackage{changebar}

15: %\usepackage{xspace}

16: 

17: %%%%%%%%%Pagination

18: \hfuzz=15pt

19: 

20: %%%%%%%%%Theorems

21: \newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}[section]

22: \newtheorem{lem}[thm]{Lemma}

23: \newtheorem{cor}[thm]{Corollary} 

24: \newtheorem{sublem}[thm]{Sub-lemma}

25: \newtheorem{prop}[thm]{Proposition}

26: \newtheorem{conj}{Conjecture}\renewcommand{\theconj}{}

27: \newtheorem{defin}{Definition}

28: \newtheorem{cond}{Condition}

29: \newtheorem{exmp}{Example}

30: \newtheorem{rem}[thm]{Remark}

31: 

32: %%%%%%%%%%mathcal

33: \newcommand\B{{\mathcal B}}

34: \newcommand\Co{{\mathcal C}}

35: \newcommand\D{{\mathcal D}}

36: \newcommand\F{{\mathcal F}}

37: \newcommand\Ka{{\mathcal K}}

38: \newcommand\Lp{{\mathcal L}}

39: \newcommand\Or{{\mathcal O}}

40: \newcommand\M{{\mathcal M}}

41: \newcommand\T{{\mathcal T}}

42: 

43: %%%%%%%%%%%%mathbb

44: \newcommand\A{{\mathbb A}}

45: \newcommand\C{{\mathbb C}}

46: \newcommand\E{{\mathbb E}}

47: \newcommand\N{{\mathbb N}}

48: \newcommand\R{{\mathbb R}}

49: \newcommand\To{{\mathbb T}}

50: \newcommand\Z{{\mathbb Z}}

51: 

52: %%%%%%%%%%%greek

53: \newcommand\ve{\varepsilon}

54: \newcommand\eps{\epsilon}

55: \newcommand\vf{\varphi}

56: 

57: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%vaious

58: \newcommand\Id{\text{\bf Id}}

59: \newcommand{\marginnote}[1]

60:            {\mbox{}\marginpar{\raggedright\hspace{0pt}{$\blacktriangleright$ #1}}}

61: \newcommand{\cs}{\operatorname{C}}

62: \newcommand\nn{\nonumber}

63: 

64: 

65: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%Figures

66: \setlength{\unitlength}{1mm}

67: 

68: \begin{document}

69: 

70: \title[Convergence to equilibrium for intermittent symplectic

71: maps]{Convergence to equilibrium for intermittent symplectic maps}  

72: 

73: \author{Carlangelo Liverani, Marco Martens}

74: \address{Carlangelo Liverani\\

75: Dipartimento di Matematica\\

76: II Universit{\`a} di Roma (Tor Vergata)\\

77: Via della Ricerca Scientifica, 00133 Roma, Italy.}

78: \email{{\tt liverani@mat.uniroma2.it}} 

79: \address{Marco Martens\\

80: University of Groningen, Department of Mathematics

81: P.O. Box 800, 9700 AV Groningen, The Netherlands}

82: \email{{\tt m.martens@math.rug.nl}} 

83: \date{\today}

84: \thanks{One of us (C.L.) would like to thank S.Vaienti and M.Benedicks

85: for helpful discussions. In addition, we acknowledge the support from

86: the ESF Program  PRODYN, I.B.M., M.I.U.R. and NSF} 

87: \begin{abstract}

88: We investigate a class of area preserving non-uniformly hyperbolic

89: maps of the two torus. First we establish some results on the

90: regularity of the invariant foliations, then we use this knowledge

91: to estimate the rate of mixing.

92: \end{abstract}

93: \maketitle

94: 

95: %VT

96: \thispagestyle{empty} 

97: \input{imsmark}

98: \SBIMSMark{2005/01}{January 2005}{}

99: 

100: \section{Introduction}

101: \label{sec:intro}

102: In recent years the physics community has devoted an increasing

103: attention to anomalous properties of physical systems (e.g., anomalous

104: transport, anomalous diffusion, anomalous conductivity, etc.). Such

105: properties have proven 

106: relevant in many fields such as thermal conductivity, kinetic

107: equations, plasma physics, etc. and they are widely believed to be

108: dynamical in nature. In fact, such phenomena seem to depend on the

109: weak chaotic properties of the underling dynamics, see \cite{Za} and

110: references therein for a detailed discussion. The 

111: basic idea is that, while uniformly hyperbolic dynamics gives rise to

112: normal transport properties (consider for example the diffusive

113: behavior in a finite horizon Lorentz gas \cite{BuSi})

114: non-uniform hyperbolicity gives rise to different behavior

115: (e.g. the anomalous diffusion believed to occur in infinite horizon

116: Lorentz gas \cite{Bl}) due to weaker

117: mixing properties (e.g. polynomial decay of correlations) and regions

118: in which the motions is rather regular and where the systems spend a

119: substantial fraction of time ({\em sticky} regions).  

120: 

121: Unfortunately, the theoretical understanding of dynamical models with

122: polynomial decay of correlations is extremely limited, hence the

123: necessity to rigorously investigate relevant toy models. The only well

124: understood cases are expanding one dimensional maps with a neutral

125: fixed point. Such maps were proposed as a model of intermittent

126: behavior in fluids (\cite{PM}) and have been widely studied. It has been

127: proven that such maps enjoy polynomial decay of correlations with the

128: rate depending on the behavior of the fixed point \cite{LSV, Yo1,

129: Hu1, Hu2, Sa, Go1}. In addition, when the

130: decay of correlation is sufficiently slow, the observables do not

131: satisfy the Central Limit Theorem or the Invariance Principle but

132: rather, when properly rescaled, some stable law (\cite{Zw, Go2, PoSh}).

133: 

134: Some, more partial, results exist for multidimensional expanding

135: maps \cite{PoYu} as well. Yet, the usual physically relevant models are

136: connected to Hamiltonian dynamics and, to our knowledge, no rigorous

137: results are available in such a situation. The simplest case which

138: retain some Hamiltonian flavor is clearly a two dimensional area

139: preserving map. In fact, mixing area preserving maps of the two

140: dimensional torus with a neutral fixed point (the simplest type of

141: sticky set) have been investigated

142: numerically \cite{ArPr} predicting the possibility of a polynomial decay

143: of correlations. 

144: In this paper we consider a class of non-uniformly hyperbolic symplectic maps \eqref{eq:map}

145: of the two torus where the hyperbolicity breaks down because of a non-hyperbolic fixed point. In fact, the linearized

146: dynamics at the fixed point is a shear \eqref{eq:der}. We prove that

147: the decay of correlations is polynomial and, more precisely, decays at

148: least as $n^{-2}$ and, in some sense, one cannot expect much

149: more. Note that the example treated numerically in \cite{ArPr} is a

150: special case of the present setting. In \cite{ArPr} the predicted

151: decay was $n^{-2.5}$. This emphasizes the difficulty to investigate

152: such issues and the strong need for more theoretical work on the subject.

153: 

154: 

155: The result in the present paper is based on a precise quantitative

156: analysis of the angle between the stable and the unstable

157: direction. This angle turns out to degenerate approaching the origin

158: (where the non hyperbolic fixed point is located). Once such a control

159: is achieved it is possible to obtain a bound on the expansion and

160: contraction in the system. Such expansion turns out to be only

161: polynomial, in contrast with the uniformly hyperbolic case where it is

162: exponential. In turn, the bound on the expansion allows to study the

163: regularity of the stable and unstable foliation. It turns out that

164: they are $\Co^1$ away from the origin. This suffice to apply a simple

165: random approximation technique that allows estimating the speed of the

166: correlations. 

167: 

168: As the rate of convergence to equilibrium is of order $n^{-2}$, see Theorem

169: \ref{thm:main}, the

170: Central Limit Theorem holds for zero average observable, see Corollary 

171: \ref{cor:clt},

172: so the model does not exhibit anomalous statistical behavior in this

173: respect. Yet, it clearly exhibits an intermittent behavior and it shows the

174: mechanism whereby slow decay of correlations may arise. The present

175: work emphasizes the need to carry out similar studies in cases where the

176: set producing intermittency has a more complex structure than a simple

177: isolated point.

178: 

179: The paper is organized as follows: section \ref{sec:results} details

180: the model and makes precise the results. Section \ref{sec:fix} studies

181: the local dynamics at the fixed point and, in particular the

182: properties of its stable and unstable manifolds. This can be achieved

183: in many way, here we find most efficient to apply a variational

184: technique. Section \ref{sec:narrow} establishes a precise bound for

185: the angle between the stable and the unstable direction at each

186: point. As anticipated, such a bound yields an a priory bound on the

187: expansion and contractions rates in the systems, these are obtained in

188: section \ref{sec:expansion}. The latter result suffices to apply

189: standard distortion estimates that, in turn, allow to prove precise

190: results on the regularity of the invariant foliation and the

191: holonomies, see section \ref{sec:regularity} and section

192: \ref{sec:holo} respectively.  Next, in section

193: \ref{sec:random} we introduce a random perturbation of the above map

194: and investigate its statistical properties that, thanks to the added

195: randomness, can be addressed fairly easily. The relevance of the above

196: random perturbation is that the limit of zero noise allows to easily obtain a

197: bound on the rate of mixing in the original map, we do this in section

198: \ref{sec:decay}. Finally, in section \ref{sec:lower}, we show that the

199: obtained bound is close to being optimal. The paper ends with Remark

200: \ref{rem:problems} pointing to the unsatisfactory nature of some of

201: the present results and the need to investigate the related open

202: problems.

203: 

204: 

205: 

206: \section{The model and the results}

207: \label{sec:results}

208: For each $h\in\Co^{\infty}(\To^1,\To^1)$ we define the map

209: $T:\To^2\to\To^2$ by\footnote{\label{foot:uno} Note that the following formula is

210: equivalent, by the symplectic change of variable $q=x-y$, $p=y$, to

211: the map

212: \[

213: \widetilde T(q,p)=\begin{cases}

214:               q+p&\quad\mod 1\\

215:               p+h(q+p)&\quad \mod 1

216:               \end{cases}

217: \]

218: which belongs to the standard map family. Yet, the functions $h$

219: considered here differ substantially from the sine function which would

220: correspond to the classical Chirikov-Taylor well known example.}

221: \begin{equation}\label{eq:map}

222: T(x,y)=\begin{cases}

223:               x+h(x)+y&\quad\mod 1\\

224:               h(x)+y&\quad\mod 1

225:               \end{cases}

226: \end{equation} 

227: We moreover require the following properties

228: \begin{enumerate}

229: \item $h(0)=0$  (zero is a fixed point);

230: \item $h'(0)=0$ (zero is a neutral fixed point)

231: \item $h'(x)>0$ for each $x\neq 0$ (hyperbolicity)

232: \end{enumerate}

233: Note that conditions (2--3) imply that zero is a minimum for $h'$, which forces 

234: \[

235: h''(0)=0;\quad h'''(0)\geq 0.

236: \]

237: We will restrict to the generic case

238: \begin{enumerate}

239: \item[(4)] $h'''(0)>0$.

240: \end{enumerate}

241: In order to simplify the discussion we will also assume the following

242: symmetry

243: \begin{enumerate}

244: \item[(5)] $h(-x)=-h(x)$.

245: \end{enumerate}

246: 

247: This means that we can write

248: \begin{equation}

249: \label{eq:h}

250: h(x)=bx^3+\Or(x^5).

251: \end{equation}

252: \begin{rem}

253: Note that two facts implied by the above assumptions are not necessary and could be

254: done away with at the price of more extra work: the hypothesis that

255: there is only one neutral fixed point (finitely many neutral periodic

256: orbits would make little difference) and the symmetry (5). We assume

257: such facts only to simplify the presentation of the arguments.

258: \end{rem}

259: Since the derivative of the map is given by

260: \begin{equation}\label{eq:der}

261: DT=\begin{pmatrix}

262:    1+h'(x)&1\\

263:    h'(x)&1

264:    \end{pmatrix}

265: \end{equation}

266: $\det(DT)=1$, thus the Lebesgue measure $m$ is an invariant measure (the

267: maps are symplectic). From now on we will consider the dynamical

268: systems $T: (\To^2,m)\rightarrow (\To^2,m)$. 

269: 

270: Formula \eqref{eq:der} and property (3) imply that 

271: the cone $\Co_+=\{v\in\R^2\;|\;Q(v):=\langle v_1,\,v_2\rangle\geq 0\}$

272: is invariant for $DT$. In additions, it is easy to check that $D_\xi

273: T^2 \Co_+\subset \hbox{int }\Co_+\cup\{0\}$ for all

274: $\xi\in\To^2\backslash \{0\}$. From

275: this and the general theory, see \cite{LW}, follows immediately

276: 

277: \begin{thm}

278: The above described dynamical systems are non-uniformly hyperbolic and mixing.

279: \end{thm} 

280: \begin{exmp}

281: An interesting concrete example for the above setting is given by the function 

282: $h(x):=x-\sin x$.

283: \end{exmp}

284: The question remains about the rate of mixing, this is the present

285: topic. 

286: \begin{rem}

287: In the following by $\cs$ we designate a generic

288: constant depending only on $T$. Accordingly, its value may vary from

289: an occurrence to the next. In the instances when we will need a constant

290: of the above type but with a fixed value we will use sub-superscripts.

291: \end{rem}

292: \begin{thm}\label{thm:main}

293: For each $f,g\in\Co^{1}(\To^2,\R)$, $\int f=0$, holds

294: true\footnote{In fact, a slightly sharper bound holds, see \eqref{eq:sharp}.}

295: \[

296: \left|\int f g\circ T^n\right|\leq \cs

297: \|f\|_{\Co^{1}}\|g\|_{\Co^{1}}n^{-2}(\ln n)^4.

298: \]

299: \end{thm}

300: \begin{rem}

301: As in other similar cases \cite{LSV, L, Po} the logarithmic

302: correction is almost certainly 

303: an artifact of the technique of the proof. It could probably be

304: removed by using a more sophisticated (and thus more technically

305: involved) approach. See also section \ref{sec:lower}.

306: \end{rem}

307: Form Theorem \ref{thm:main} many facts follow, just to give an

308: example let us mention the following result that can be obtained from

309: Theorem 1.2 in \cite{L3}.

310: \begin{cor}[CLT]\label{cor:clt}

311: Given $f\in\Co^1$, $\int f=0$, the random variable

312: \[

313: \frac 1{\sqrt n}\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}f\circ T^i

314: \]

315: converges in distribution to a Gaussian variable with zero mean and

316: finite variance $\sigma$. In addition, $\sigma=0$ iff there exists

317: $\vf\in L^1$ such that $f=\vf-\vf\circ T$.\footnote{In particular this means

318: that the average of $f$ on each periodic orbit must be zero.}

319: \end{cor}

320: The rest of the paper is devoted to the proof of

321: Theorem \ref{thm:main} that will find its conclusion in section

322: \ref{sec:decay}. The basic 

323: fact needed in the proof, a fact of independent 

324: interest and made quantitatively precise in Lemma \ref{lem:distreg1}, is

325: the following. 

326: \begin{thm}\label{thm:mainlem}

327: The stable and unstable distributions are $\Co^1$ in $\To^2\backslash\{0\}$.

328: \end{thm}

329: 

330: 

331: 

332: \section{The fixed point manifolds}\label{sec:fix}

333: 

334: 

335: As usual we start by studying the local dynamics near the fixed

336: point. The first basic fact is the existence of stable and unstable

337: manifolds. This is rather standard, yet since we need some

338: quantitative information we will construct them explicitly.

339: 

340: Instead of constructing them via usual fixed point arguments it turns

341: out to be faster to use a variational method.

342: 

343: \subsection{A variational argument}

344: 

345: Let us consider, in a neighborhood of zero, the function

346: \begin{equation}\label{eq:generating}

347: L(x,x_1):=\frac 12 (x-x_1)^2+G(x)\;;\quad G(x):=\int_0^xh(z) dz.

348: \end{equation}

349: By setting

350: \[

351: \begin{split}

352: &y:=-\frac{\partial L}{\partial x}=x_1-x-h(x)\\

353: &y_1:=\frac{\partial L}{\partial x_1}=x_1-x

354: \end{split}

355: \]

356: we have $(x_1,y_1)=T(x,y)$, that is {\sl $L$ is a generating function

357: for the map \eqref{eq:map}}.

358: 

359: Then, for each $a\in\R$, we define the Lagrangian $\Lp_a:\ell^2(\N)\to\R$ by

360: \begin{equation}\label{eq:lagrange}

361: \Lp_a(x):=\sum_{n=1}^\infty L(x_n,x_{n+1})+L(a,x_1).

362: \end{equation}

363: The justification of the above definition rests in the following

364: Lemma.

365: \begin{lem}\label{lem:critical}

366: For each $a\in(-1,1)$, holds true $\Lp_a\in\Co^1(\ell^2(\N))$. In addition, if

367: $x\in \ell^2(\N)$ is such that $D_x\Lp_a=0$, then setting $x_0=a$ and 

368: $y_n:=x_{n+1}-x_n-h(x_n)$, we have $T^n(x_0,y_0)=(x_n,y_n)$.

369: \end{lem}

370: \begin{proof}

371: First of all \eqref{eq:h} implies that there exists $\cs>0$ such that

372: $|G(x)|\leq \cs x^4$. It is then easy to see that $\Lp_a$ is well defined

373: for each sequence in $\ell^2(\N)$.

374: 

375: Next, for each $n\in\N$ let us define

376: $(\nabla\Lp_a)_n:=\partial_{x_n}\Lp_a$.

377: Clearly,

378: \[

379: \begin{split}

380: (\nabla\Lp_a)_1(x)&=2x_1-x_2+h(x_1)-a\\

381: (\nabla\Lp_a)_n(x)&=2x_n-x_{n+1}-x_{n-1}+h(x_n).

382: \end{split}

383: \]

384: Of course, for $x\in\ell^2(\N)$, $ \nabla\Lp_a(x)\in\ell^2(\N)$, it is

385: then trivial to check 

386: that $D_x\Lp_a(v)=\langle \nabla\Lp_a(x), v\rangle$.

387: The last statement follows by a direct computation.

388: \end{proof}

389: 

390: By the above Lemma it is clear that one can obtain the stable

391: manifolds of the fixed point from the critical points of $\Lp_a$, it

392: remains to prove that such critical points do exist. We will start by

393: considering the case $a\geq 0$.

394: 

395: Define

396: \begin{equation}\label{eq:fixedset}

397: Q_B:=\{x\in\ell^2(\N)\;|\;\,|x_n-\frac A{n+c}|\leq B(n+c)^{-\frac

398: 32}\}

399: \end{equation}

400: where $A:=\sqrt{\frac 2b}$; $c:=\frac Aa$.

401: 

402: It is immediate to check that $Q_B$ is compact and convex. In

403: addition, if $a$ is sufficiently small, then $G$ is strictly convex on

404: $[-2a,2a]$ which implies that $\Lp_a|_{Q_B}$ is strictly

405: convex. Accordingly, $\Lp_a$ has minimum in $Q_B$, moreover the strict

406: convexity implies that such a minimum is unique, for $a$ fixed.

407: 

408: Let us call $x(a)$  the point in $Q_B$ where $\Lp_a$ attains its

409: minimum.

410: \begin{lem}\label{lem:stab}

411: For $a$ small enough, $D_{x(a)}\Lp_a=0$.

412: \end{lem}

413: \begin{proof}

414: Suppose that $\partial_{x_n}\Lp_a(x(a))\neq 0$ for some $n\in\N$, for

415: example suppose it is negative. Then $x(a)$ is on the border of $Q_B$,

416: say $x(a)_n=A(n+c)^{-1}+B(n+c)^{-\frac 32}$, otherwise we could increase

417: $x(a)_n$ and decrease $\Lp_a$ still remaining in $Q_B$, contrary to

418: the assumption. But then

419: \[

420: \begin{split}

421: \partial_{x_n}\Lp_a(x(a))&=2x(a)_n-x(a)_{n-1}-x(a)_{n+1}+h(x(a)_{n})\\

422: &=\frac {2A}{n+c}+\frac{2B}{(n+c)^{\frac

423: 32}}-x(a)_{n-1}-x(a)_{n+1}+h(\frac {A}{n+c}+\frac{B}{(n+c)^{\frac

424: 32}}) \\

425: &\geq -\frac{2A}{[(n+c)^2-1](n+c)}+\frac

426: {2A}{(n+c)^3}+\frac{3bA^2B}{(n+c)^\frac 72}+\Or((n+c)^{-4})\\

427: &+\frac{B(n+c)^3\{2(1-(n+c)^{-2})^{\frac 32}-(1-(n+c)^{-1})^{\frac

428: 32} -(1+(n+c)^{-1})^{\frac 32}}{(n+c)^{\frac 32}[(n+c)^2-1]^{\frac

429: 32}}\\

430: &=\frac{(6-\frac {15}4)B}{(n+c)^{\frac 72}}+\Or((n+c)^{-4})\geq 0

431: \end{split}

432: \]

433: provided $a$ is sufficiently small. We have thus a contradiction. The

434: other possibilities are analyzed similarly.

435: \end{proof}

436: 

437: To conclude we need some information on the regularity of $x(a)$ as a

438: function of $a$. Unfortunately, the

439: implicit function theorem does not applies since $D^2\Lp_a$ does not

440: have a spectral gap, yet for our purposes a simple estimate

441: suffices.

442: \begin{lem}\label{lem:lipman}

443: $x_1(a)$ is a Lipschitz function of $a$. Moreover, when derivable,

444: \[

445: |y_0(a)'|\leq \cs |x(a)_0|.

446: \]

447: \end{lem}

448: \begin{proof}

449: By Lemma \ref{lem:stab} it follows, for each $a,a'$ sufficiently small

450: \[

451: \partial_{x_n}\Lp_{a'}(x(a'))=\partial_{x_n}\Lp_{a}(x(a))=0

452: \]

453: that is

454: \[

455: \partial_{x_n}\Lp_{a'}(x(a'))-\partial_{x_n}\Lp_{a'}(x(a))=\partial_{x_n}\Lp_{a}(x(a))

456: -\partial_{x_n}\Lp_{a'}(x(a))

457: \]

458: which yields

459: \begin{equation}\label{eq:strange}

460: \begin{split}

461: &(2+h'(\xi_1))\zeta_1-\zeta_2=a'-a\\

462: &(2+h'(\xi_n))\zeta_n-\zeta_{n+1}-\zeta_{n-1}=0,

463: \end{split}

464: \end{equation}

465: where $\zeta_n:=x(a')_n-x(a)_n$ and $\xi_n\in[x(a)_n,x(a')_n]$.

466: 

467: Notice that, if $|\zeta_n|\geq|\zeta_{n-1}|$, then

468: \[

469: |\zeta_{n+1}|=|(2+h'(\xi_n))\zeta_n-\zeta_{n-1}|\geq

470: 2|\zeta_n|-|\zeta_{n-1}|\geq |\zeta_n|.

471: \]

472: 

473: Thus, by induction, if $|\zeta_n|\geq |\zeta_{n-1}|$, then $|\zeta_m|\geq

474: |\zeta_{n-1}|$ for each $m\geq n$, which would imply $\zeta_{n-1}=0$ since

475: $\zeta\in\ell^2(\N)$. But then

476: $(2+h'(\xi_n))\zeta_n=\zeta_{n+1}$, that is

477: $|\zeta_{n+1}|\geq|\zeta_n|$. Accordingly, again by induction,

478: $\zeta_m=0$ for each $m\geq n-1$. This means that we can restrict

479: ourselves to the case $\zeta_n\neq 0$, $|\zeta_n|\geq |\zeta_{n+1}|$.

480: Hence,

481: \[

482: |a'-a|=|(2+h'(\xi_1))\zeta_1-\zeta_2|\geq 2|\zeta_1|-|\zeta_2|\geq

483: |\zeta_1|.

484: \]

485: That is $|x(a')_n-x(a)_n|\leq |x_1(a')-x_1(a)|\leq |a'-a|$.

486: 

487: Finally, summing \eqref{eq:strange} over $n\in\N$, 

488: \[

489: \sum_{n=1}^\infty h'(\xi_n)\zeta_n=-\zeta_1+a'-a.

490: \]

491: Thus, where all the $x(a)_n$ are differentiable (a full measure set),

492: $|x(a)_n'|\leq|x(a)_1'|\leq 1$ and

493: \begin{equation}\label{eq:derivxy}

494: \begin{split}

495: x(a)_1'&=1-\sum_{n=1}^\infty h'(x(a)_n)x(a)_n'\\

496: y(a)_0'&=-\sum_{n=0}^\infty h'(x_n)x(a)_n'.

497: \end{split}

498: \end{equation}

499: Accordingly,

500: \[

501: |y_0(a)'|\leq 6b\sum_{n=0}^\infty x_n^2\leq \cs a.

502: \]

503: \end{proof}

504: 

505: Clearly, the above Lemma implies that, calling $(x,\gamma_s(x))$ the

506: graph of the stable manifold, $\gamma_s\in Lip(-1,1)$. The case $a\leq

507: 0$ and the unstable manifolds can be treated similarly, yet there

508: exists a faster--and more

509: instructive--way.

510: 

511: \subsection{Reversibility}

512: 

513: Notice that the map $T$ is {\sl reversible}

514: with respect to the transformations\footnote{While the reversibility for

515: $\Pi$ is a general fact, the one for $\Pi_1$ depends on the simplifying

516: symmetry hypothesis (5).}

517: \begin{equation}\label{eq:invol}

518: \Pi(x,y):=(x, -y-h(x)); \quad \Pi_1(x,y):=(-x, y+h(x))

519: \end{equation}

520: Indeed, $\Pi^2=\Pi_1^2=\Id$ and $\Pi T\Pi=\Pi_1 T\Pi_1=T^{-1}$. 

521: 

522: \begin{rem}\label{rem:rev}

523: The reversibility implies that, for $x\geq 0$,

524: $(x,\gamma_u(x))=\Pi(x,\gamma_s(x))$, and, for $x\leq 0$,

525: $(x,\gamma_u(x))=\Pi_1(-x,\gamma_s(-x))$ is the unstable manifold of

526: zero. 

527: \end{rem}

528: 

529: \subsection{A quasi-Hamiltonian}

530: 

531: To study the motion near the fixed point it is helpful to find a local

532: ``Hamiltonian'' function. By Hamiltonian function we mean a function

533: that is locally invariant for the dynamics. Such a function can be

534: computed as a formal power series starting by the relation $H\circ

535: T=H$. In fact, we are interested only in a suitable approximation. A

536: direct computation yields that, by defining $G(x):=\int_0^x h(z)dz$ and

537: \begin{equation}\label{eq:hamiltonian}

538: H(x,y):=\frac 12 y^2-G(x)+\frac 12 h(x)y-\frac 1{12}h'(x)y^2+\frac 1 {12}h(x)^2,

539: \end{equation}

540: holds true\footnote{In fact, setting $(x_1,y_1):=T(x,y)$, holds

541: \[

542: \begin{split}

543: &H(x_1,y_1)-H(x,y)=yh(x)+\frac 12 h(x)^2-h(x)y-h(x)^2-\frac

544: 12h'(x)y_1^2-\frac 16 h''(x)y_1^3+\frac 12h'(x)y_1^2\\

545: &+\frac 12 h(x)^2

546: +\frac 14 h''(x)y_1^3-\frac 1{12}h''(x)y_1^3-\frac

547: 16h'(x)h(x)y_1+\frac 16 h'(x)h(x)y_1+\Or(x^8+x^4y^2+y^4).

548: \end{split}

549: \]

550: }

551: \begin{equation}\label{eq:appham}

552: H(T(x,y))-H(x,y)=\Or (x^8+y^4).

553: \end{equation}

554: This approximate conservation law suffices to obtain rather precise

555: information on the near fixed point dynamics.\footnote{The reader

556:   should be aware that it is possible to do much better, that is to

557:   obtain an exponentially precise conservation law, see \cite{L2},

558:   \cite{BG}.} 

559: The first application 

560: is given by the following information on the stable manifold.

561: \begin{lem}\label{lem:manifzero}

562: For $x\geq 0$ sufficiently small holds

563: \[

564: \gamma_s(x)= -A^{-1}x^2+\Or(x^3).

565: \] 

566: \end{lem}

567: \begin{proof}

568: Using the notation of Lemma \ref{lem:stab}, for fixed $a$ we get

569: \begin{equation}\label{eq:unoy}

570: y_n=x_{n+1}-x_n-h(x_n)=\Or((n+c)^{-\frac 32}).

571: \end{equation}

572: Hence

573: \[

574: H(x_n,y_n)=\Or((n+c)^{-3}).

575: \]

576: Using equation \eqref{eq:appham} we have

577: \[

578: H(x_0,y_0)=H(x_n,y_n)+\Or(\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}x_i^8+y_i^4)

579: \]

580: that is

581: \[

582: |H(x_0,y_0)|\leq \cs \left\{(n+c)^{-3}+

583: \sum_{i=0}^{\infty}(n+c)^{-6}\right\}\leq \cs

584: \left\{(n+c)^{-3}+c^{-5}\right\}.

585: \]

586: Taking the limit for $n$ to infinity in the above expression and

587: remembering the definition of $c$ follows

588: \[

589: |H(x_0,y_0)|\leq\cs x_0^{5}.

590: \]

591: Since equation \eqref{eq:unoy} implies $|y_0|=\Or(x_0^{\frac 32})$,

592: from \eqref{eq:hamiltonian} we have

593: \[

594: y_0^2-\frac b2 x_0^4+bx_0^3y_0=\Or(x_0^5)

595: \]

596: from which the lemma follows.

597: \end{proof}

598: According to Lemma \ref{lem:manifzero}, the local picture of the

599: manifolds is given by Figure \ref{fig:man}.

600: \begin{figure}[ht]\

601: \centering

602: \put(-40,0){\line(1,0){80}}

603: \put(0,-20){\line(0,1){40}}

604: \put(-6.5,-15){{\tt Fat sector}}

605: \put(30,2){{\tt Thin sector}}

606: \thicklines

607: \qbezier(-40, 10)(0,-10)(40,10)

608: \qbezier(-40, -10)(0,10)(40,-10)

609: \put(-39,10){$W^s$}

610: \put(-39,-14){$W^u$}

611: \put(40,11){$W^u$}

612: \put(40,-9){$W^s$}

613: \put(0,-24){\ }

614: \caption{The manifolds of the fixed point}\label{fig:man}

615: \end{figure}

616: 

617: \subsection{Manifold regularity}

618: Since in the previous section we have seen that the manifold are

619: Lipschitz curves, we can define the dynamics restricted to the unstable

620: manifold:

621: \begin{equation}\label{eq:fu}

622: f_u(x):=x+h(x)+\gamma_u(x).

623: \end{equation}

624: 

625: Our next task is to obtain sharper information on the manifolds

626: regularity.\footnote{Of course, the manifold should be as smooth as $h$, but

627: this results is not needed in the following while we do need an

628: explicit bound on the curvature.}

629: \begin{lem}\label{lem:manifoldreg}

630: The unstable manifold of the fixed point is $\Co^2$, apart from zero.

631: \end{lem}

632: \begin{proof}

633: It is clearly enough to show that $\gamma_u\in \Co^2$ apart from

634: zero. To do so call $u(x)=\gamma_u'(x)$ (the derivative exists almost

635: everywhere since $\gamma_u$ is Lipschitz). The tangent vector to the

636: unstable manifold has the form $(1,u)$. On the other hand

637: \[

638: \begin{split}

639: \lambda_u(f_u^{-1}(x))

640: \begin{pmatrix}1\\u(x)\end{pmatrix}&:=\begin{pmatrix}

641:                                     1+h'(f_u^{-1}(x))&1\\

642:                                      h'(f_u^{-1}(x))&1

643:                                     \end{pmatrix}

644:                           \begin{pmatrix}1\\u(f_u^{-1}(x))\end{pmatrix}\\

645: &=:\lambda_u(f_u^{-1}(x))\begin{pmatrix}1\\F(f_u^{-1}(x),u(f_u^{-1}(x)))

646: \end{pmatrix}

647: \end{split}

648: \]

649: where

650: \begin{equation}\label{eq:unsdef}

651: \begin{split}

652: &\lambda_u(x):=1+h'(x)+u(x)=f'_u(x)\\

653: &F(x,u):=1-\frac{1}{1+h'(x)+u}.

654: \end{split}

655: \end{equation}

656: Accordingly, setting $x_i:=f_u^{-i}(x)$, holds

657: $u(x_i)=F(x_{i+1},u(x_{i+1}))$. Next, let $v_i:=2A^{-1}x_i$, then a

658: direct computation yields $F(x_i,v_i)-v_{i-1}=\Or(x_i^3)$, thus

659: \[

660: |u(x_i)-v_i|\leq |F(x_{i+1},u(x_{i+1}))-F(x_{i+1}, v_{i+1})|+\cs x_i^3

661: \leq |u(x_{i+1})- v_{i+1}|+\cs x_i^3.

662: \]

663: By induction, and equation \eqref{eq:fixedset}, it follows

664: $|u(x)-2A^{-1}x|\leq \cs\sum_{i=0}^\infty x_i^3\leq \cs x^2$.

665: 

666: On the other hand, given a different

667: point $z$, it holds

668: \[

669: \begin{split}

670: u(x)-u(z)&=F(x_1,u(x_1))-F(z_1,u(z_1))\\

671: &=\lambda_u(x_1)^{-1}\lambda_u(z_1)^{-1}

672: \left\{(u(x_1)-u(z_1))+h'(x_1)-h'(z_1))\right\}.

673: \end{split}

674: \]

675: Iterating the above equation yields

676: \begin{equation}\label{eq:unstreg}

677: \begin{split}

678: u(x)-u(z)=&\lambda_{u,n}(x)^{-1}\lambda_{u,n}(z)^{-1}(u(x_n)-u(z_n))\\

679: &\ \ +\sum_{k=1}^{n}\lambda_{u,k}(x)^{-1}\lambda_{u,k}(z)^{-1}(h'(x_k)-h'(z_k))

680: \end{split}

681: \end{equation}

682: where $\lambda_{u,n}(x):=\prod_{k=1}^{n}\lambda_u(f_u^{-k}(x))$.

683: Next, let $x=a$, then, accordingly to Lemma

684: \ref{lem:stab}, equation \eqref{eq:fixedset} and Remark \ref{rem:rev}, we have

685: $x_i= A(i+c)^{-1}+\Or((i+c)^{3/2})$. This means that, in a

686: sufficiently small neighborhood of zero, and for $z$ sufficiently

687: close to $x$ holds

688: \[

689: \begin{split}

690: \lambda_{u,n}(x)&\geq

691: \prod_{k=1}^{n}\left(1+v_k-\cs x_i^2\right)

692: \geq \prod_{k=1}^{n}\left(1+\frac 2{k+c}-\cs (k+c)^{-3/2}\right)\\

693: &\geq e^{\sum_{k=1}^{n}\frac{2}{k+c}-\cs (k+c)^{-3/2}}

694: \geq \cs (A^{-1}an+1)^{2}

695: \end{split}

696: \]

697: provided $x$ is close  

698: enough to zero. The same estimate holds for $\lambda_{u,n}(z)$. 

699: 

700: This implies that $u$ is continuous. Indeed, for each $\ve>0$ choose

701: $n_0(x)\in\N$ such that $\lambda_{u,n_0(x)}(x_n)^{-1}\leq \ve$, then

702: \[

703: |u(x)-u(z)|\leq \sum_{k=1}^{n_0(x)}|h'(x_k)-h'(z_k)|+\ve 

704: \]

705: and we can thus choose $z$ close enough to $x$ such that

706: $|u(x)-u(z)|\leq 2\ve$. Note that this implies the continuity of the

707: $\lambda_{u,n}$ as well.

708: 

709: To conclude, we choose $n(z)$ such that $\cs(A^{-1}an(z)+1)^{-4}\geq

710: |x-z|^{1+\alpha}$, for some $\alpha>0$, 

711: accordingly 

712: \[

713: u(x)-u(z)=\sum_{k=1}^{n(z)}\lambda_{u,k}(x)^{-1}

714: \lambda_{u,k}(z)^{-1}(h'(x_k)-h'(z_k))+{\mathcal

715: O}(|x-z|^{1+\alpha})

716: \]

717: Since the series is uniformly convergent we have

718: \begin{equation}\label{eq:unstder}

719: u'(x)=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\lambda_{u,k}(x)^{-3}h''(x_k)

720: \end{equation}

721: from which the lemma follows.\footnote{Remark that to obtain the 

722: result on a larger neighborhood it suffices to iterate the unstable  

723: manifold forward.}

724: \end{proof}

725: 

726: 

727: \begin{rem}

728: All the above results for the unstable manifold $\gamma_u$ have the

729: obvious counterpart for the stable manifold $\gamma_s$ that can be

730: readily obtained via reversibility, see Remark \ref{rem:rev}.

731: \end{rem} 

732: 

733: 

734: \section{A narrower cone field}\label{sec:narrow}

735:  

736: Here our goal is to estimate the angle between stable and unstable manifolds.

737: 

738: 

739: More precisely, we wish to prove that there exists two constants $K_+,K_-

740: \in\R^+$ such that the cone field

741: $\Co_*(\xi):=\{(1,u)\in\R^2\;|\;K_-(|x|+\sqrt{|y|})\leq u\leq

742: K_+(|x|+\sqrt{|y|})\}$ contains the unstable direction (by

743: reversibility we can also define 

744: the stable cone field $\Co^-_*$). 

745: 

746: \begin{prop}\label{prop:dista}

747: For each $\xi\in\To^2$ holds true $E^u(\xi)\in\Co_*(\xi)$,

748: $E^s(\xi)\in\Co_*^-(\xi)$.

749: \end{prop}

750: 

751: The rest of the section is devoted to the proof of Proposition

752: \ref{prop:dista}.

753: 

754: Clearly a problem arises only in a neighborhood of zero. Accordingly

755: the first step is to gain a better understanding of the dynamics near

756: zero.  

757: 

758: 

759: \subsection{Near fixed point dynamics}\label{sub:nearfix}

760: For each $\delta>0$ let $Q_\delta:=[-\delta,\delta]^2$ be a square

761: neighborhood of zero. The manifolds of the fixed point divide

762: $Q_\delta$ into four sectors: two thin and two fat (see Figure

763: \ref{fig:man}). We will discuss explicitly the dynamics in the two

764: sectors below the unstable manifold (the other two being identical by

765: symmetry).

766: 

767: \begin{lem}\label{lem:zdyn1}

768: For each $(x,y)\in\To^2$, $y\leq \gamma_u(x)$, let

769: $(x_n,y_n):=T^n(x,y)$, then it holds true 

770: \[

771: x_n\leq f_u^n(x)\quad \forall n\geq 0.

772: \]

773: \end{lem}

774: \begin{proof}

775: First note that the trajectory will always remain below the unstable

776: manifold. Hence, by induction,

777: \[

778: \begin{split}

779: x_{n+1}&=x_n+h(x_n)+y_n\leq x_n+h(x_n)+\gamma_u(x_n)\\

780: &\leq f_u^n(x)+

781: h(f_u^n(x))+\gamma_u( f_u^n(x))=f_u^{n+1}(x). 

782: \end{split}

783: \]

784: \end{proof}

785: The above lemma will suffice to control the dynamics in the thin

786: sector, more work is needed for the fat one. In fact, when the

787: trajectories are close to the stable or the unstable manifolds the

788: above result can still be used (possibly remembering reversibility). On the

789: other hand when the trajectory is close enough to zero its behavior

790: is drastically different from the one on the invariant manifolds.

791: 

792: To define more precisely the meaning of ``close to zero'' let us

793: introduce the parabolic sector $P_M:=\{(x,y)\in Q_1\;|\;|y|\geq Mx^2\}$.

794: We consider a backward trajectory starting from $x\leq 0$, $y\leq

795: \gamma_u(x)$, the other possibilities follow by reversibility. Let, as usual, $(x_{n},

796: y_n):=T^n(x,y)$, $n\in\Z$. Let  $m_+$ be the smallest integer for which

797: $(x_{-n},y_{-n})\in P_M$, $m$ the largest integer such that

798: $x_{-m}\leq 0$, and $m_-$ the largest integer for which

799: $(x_{-n},y_{-n})\in P_M$. Define, see \eqref{eq:hamiltonian}, 

800: \[

801: E:=H(x_{-m},y_{-m}).

802: \]

803: In addition, define the function $\Upsilon_E: [-1,1]\to\R^-$,

804: by\footnote{Computing for $y\leq0$ yields

805: \[

806: \begin{split}

807: \Upsilon_E(x)&=-\frac {h(x)}2-\sqrt{\frac{h(x)^2}4+2[G(x)+E-\frac

808: 1{12}h(x)^2](1-\frac 16 h'(x))}\\

809: &=-\sqrt{2(E+G(x))}(1+\Or(x^2))+\Or(x^3).

810: \end{split}

811: \]

812: }

813: \begin{equation}\label{eq:upsi}

814: H(x,\Upsilon_E(x))=E.

815: \end{equation}

816: Then, by \eqref{eq:appham}, and since $|y_{-n}|\geq \cs x_{-n}^2$,

817: \[

818: \begin{split}

819: H(x_{-n},y_{-n})-&H(x_{-n},\Upsilon_E(x_{-n}))=H(x_{-n},y_{-n})-H(x_{-m},y_{-m})\leq

820: \cs \sum_{k=n}^m y_{-k}^4\\

821: &\leq\cs \sum_{k=n}^m |y_{-k}^3|(x_{-k-1}-x_{-k})

822: \leq  \cs|y_{-n}^3| |x_{-n}|. 

823: \end{split}

824: \]

825: Accordingly, for $n\leq m$ it holds true

826: \begin{equation}\label{eq:dyny}

827: |y_{-n}-\Upsilon_E(x_{-n})|\leq \cs|y_{-n}|^2|x_{-n}|.

828: \end{equation}

829: \begin{lem}\label{lem:zdyn2}

830: In the above described situation, setting $M=\sqrt b$,  the following holds true

831: \begin{enumerate}

832: \item $f_u^{-n}(x)\leq x_{-n}\quad \forall\; n\leq m$;

833: \item $f_s^{k}(x_{-n})\geq x_{-n+k}\quad \forall\;  n\geq m_-,\ k\leq

834:   n-m_-$;

835: \item $\sqrt{E}\leq |y_{-n}|\leq 3\sqrt{E}$ for all

836:   $n\in\{m_+,\dots, m_-\}$;

837: \item $m_+\leq 2A(Eb^{-1})^{-\frac 14}$;

838: \item $ 2(12Eb)^{-\frac 14}\leq m_--m_+\leq 4(Eb)^{-\frac 14}$.

839: \end{enumerate}

840: \end{lem}

841: \begin{proof}

842: The first fact is proven as in Lemma \ref{lem:zdyn1}, the second

843: follows by reversibility. Hence, by

844: the results of section \ref{sec:fix}, for $n\leq m$, it follows 

845: \begin{equation}\label{eq:nest}

846: |x_{-n}|\leq |f_u^{-n}(x)|\leq \frac{2A|x|}{|x|n+A}.

847: \end{equation}

848: Next we want to determine the points $x_{m_+}$ and $x_{m_-}$. The idea

849: is to use $\eqref{eq:dyny}$ that determines with good precision the

850: geometry of the trajectories. Let $\bar x$ be defined by

851: $\Upsilon_E(\bar x)=-M\bar x^2$. Then

852: \[

853: \bar x=-\left[\frac{2E}{M^2-\frac b2}\right]^{\frac 14}+\Or(E^{\frac

854:   54}).

855: \]  

856: On the other hand, since by definition $|y_{-m_+}|\geq Mx_{-m_+}^2$

857: and $|y_{-m_++1}|\leq Mx_{-m_++1}^2$, holds

858: $|y_{-m_+}-Mx_{-m_+}^2|\leq \cs|x_{-m_+}^3|$.

859: Hence, by \eqref{eq:dyny} it follows 

860: \[

861: |x_{-m_+}-\bar x|\leq \cs\frac{x_{-m_+}^3}{\min\{\bar

862: x,x_{-m_+}\}}\leq \cs \frac{x_{-m_+}^3}{x_{-m_+}-|x_{-m_+}-\bar x|}.

863: \]

864: Solving the above inequality yields

865: \[

866: |x_{-m_+}-\bar x|\leq\cs x_{-m_+}^2\leq \cs\bar x^2\leq\cs

867: \sqrt E.

868: \]

869: Analogously $|x_{-m_-}+\bar x|\leq \cs \sqrt E$.

870: \relax From this (3) and (4) easily follows. Finally,

871: \[

872: 2|\bar x|\geq |x_{m_-}-x_{m_+}|=|\sum_{n=m_+}^{m_-}y_n|\geq

873: \cs(m_+-m_-)\sqrt E.

874: \]

875: Which implies (5).

876: \end{proof}

877: 

878: We are now ready to refine our knowledge of the stable and unstable

879: direction. Let us fix $\varrho\in(0,1/2)$.

880: 

881: \subsection{The cone field--Outside $Q_\varrho$}

882: 

883: The general idea is to take the positive cone field $\Co_+$ (which is

884: invariant and contains the unstable direction) and to push it forward

885: in order to obtain a narrower cone 

886: field. First of all outside $Q_{\sqrt\varrho}$ we have (see \eqref{eq:unsdef})

887: \[

888: 1\geq F(x,u)\geq F(x,0)\geq 2b \varrho,

889: \]

890: where we have chosen $\varrho$ small enough.

891: Hence the cone field $\Co_0=\{(1,u)\;|\;1\geq u\geq 2b\varrho\}$ is invariant

892: outside $Q_{\sqrt\varrho}$. It remains to understand what

893: happens in a neighborhood of the origin of order $\sqrt\varrho$. 

894: 

895: Let us define $\bar u(\xi)$ by the equation $u=F(\xi,u)$. An easy

896: computation shows

897: \[

898: \bar u(\xi)= \frac{-h'(x)+\sqrt{h'(x)^2+4h'(x)}}2= \sqrt{3b}|x|+\Or(x^2).

899: \]

900: By reversibility we can restrict ourselves to the case $x\geq 0$, in this

901: case the only possibility to enter the region $Q_{\sqrt\varrho}$ is

902: via the fourth quadrant. 

903: 

904: Note that $F(\xi,u)\geq u$ provided $0\leq u\leq \bar u(\xi)$.

905: This means that if $\xi\not\in Q_{\sqrt\varrho}$ but $T\xi\in

906: Q_{\sqrt\varrho}$, then the lower bound of the cone $D_\xi T^n\Co_0$

907: does not decreases until $\sqrt{3b}x_i\leq 2b\varrho$, where

908: $(x_i,y_i):=T^i\xi$. 

909: 

910: Accordingly, the cone field $\Co_0$ is invariant

911: also in the fourth quadrant, outside the set $Q_{2\sqrt{\frac b3}\varrho}$.

912: Now consider the cone field $\Co_1(\xi):=\{(1,u)\;|\;2b\varrho\leq

913: u\leq L \bar u(\xi)\}$, $L=(3b\varrho)^{-\frac 12}$, for $\xi\in

914: Q_{\sqrt\varrho}\backslash Q_{2\sqrt{\frac b3}\varrho}$. Clearly, if

915: $|x|\geq \sqrt \varrho$, then $L\bar u(\xi)\geq 1$. Hence, as the

916: point enters $Q_{\sqrt\varrho}$, the image of $\Co_0$ is contained in

917: $\Co_1$, moreover we have already seen that the lower bound is

918: invariant provided $\xi_i\not\in Q_{2\sqrt{\frac b3}\varrho}$. Let us follow the

919: upper edge, if $u\leq L\bar u(\xi_i)$, then\footnote{Note that this

920: computation holds for all $\xi_i\in Q_{\sqrt{\varrho}}\backslash P_M$.}

921: \[

922: \begin{split}

923: F&(\xi_i,u)=F(\xi_i,u)-F(\xi_i,\bar u(\xi_i))+\bar u(\xi_i)\\

924: &\leq \frac{(L-1)\bar u(\xi_i)}{(1+h'(x_i)+L\bar u(\xi_i))(1+h'(x_i)+\bar

925: u(\xi_i))}+\bar u(\xi_i)\\

926: &\leq L\bar u(\xi_i)-(L^2-1)\bar u(\xi_i)^2+\Or(x^3_i)\\

927: &\leq L\bar u(\xi_{i+1})+\sqrt{3b}|y_{i+1}|-(L^2-1)\bar u(\xi_i)^2+\Or(x^3_i)\\

928: &\leq L\bar u(\xi_{i+1}),

929: \end{split}

930: \]

931: provided $\xi_{i+1}\not\in P_M$, with $M\leq \sqrt{3b}(L^2-1)$, which is

932: fine provided $\varrho$ is chosen small enough. The above discussion

933: can be summarized as follows.

934: \begin{lem}

935: \label{lem:conefield-one}

936: There exists $\varrho>0$: For $\xi\not\in Q_{2\sqrt{\frac b3}\varrho}$

937: the unstable distribution is contained in $\Co_0$. In addition, in the

938: set $\{\xi=(x,y)\in Q_{\sqrt{\varrho}}\setminus (P_M\cup

939: Q_{2\sqrt{\frac b3}\varrho})\;:\; xy\leq 0\}$ the unstable direction

940: is contained in $\Co_1$.

941: \end{lem}

942: 

943: To conclude we need to study what happens in a neighborhood of the

944: origin of order $\varrho$. It is necessary to 

945: distinguish two possibilities: one can enter below the stable

946: manifold, and hence be confined in the fat sector, or one can enter

947: above the stable manifold, thereby being bound to the thin sector.

948: We will start with the easy case: the second.

949:  

950: \subsection{The cone field--Thin sector}

951: 

952: If $x>0$, as soon as the trajectory, at some time $n$, enters

953: $Q_{2\sqrt{\frac b3}\varrho}$ we have that 

954: $(1,u)\in\Co_0$ implies $u\geq 2b\varrho\geq \gamma_u'(x_n)$.

955: Let us consider in $Q_{2\sqrt{\frac b3}\varrho}$ the cone field

956: $\Co_2:=\{(1,u)\;|\; L\bar u(\xi)\geq u(x)\geq \gamma_u'(x)\}$. Note

957: that, upon entering in $Q_{2\sqrt{\frac b3}\varrho}$ such a cone contains 

958: $\Co_1$.\footnote{Note that, in such a case, the trajectory cannot enter in $P_M$.}

959: Now

960: \[

961: F(x,u)\geq F(x,\gamma_u'(x))=\gamma_u'(x+h(x)+\gamma_u(x))\geq

962: \gamma_u'(x+h(x)+y), 

963: \]

964: where we have use that $\gamma_u''(x)\geq 0$ for $x\in[0,\varrho]$,

965: provided $\varrho$ has been chosen small enough.

966: \begin{lem}

967: \label{lem:conefield-two}

968: In the region $Q_{2\sqrt{\frac b3}\varrho}\setminus(

969: P_M\cup\{\xi=(x,y)\in\To^2\;:\; y\geq \gamma^u(x) \text{ for }x>0;

970: y\leq \gamma^u(x) \text{ for }x<0\})$ the

971: unstable direction is contained in the cone field $\Co_2$. 

972: \end{lem}

973: Note that the above lemma suffices for trajectories in the thin sector.

974: The situation it is not so simple in the fat sector since the lower

975: bound would deteriorate to zero. A more detailed analysis is needed.

976: 

977: For each $\xi=(x,y)\in\To^2$, for which the unstable direction is defined,

978: let $(1,u(\xi))$ be the vector in the unstable direction. Define then

979: $\lambda_{u,n}(\xi, u)$ and $F_n(\xi,u)$ as in formulae \eqref{eq:unsdef}

980: and \eqref{eq:unstreg} and similarly define the stable

981: quantities. That is

982: \begin{equation}\label{eq:constex}

983: \begin{split}

984: &D_{T^{-n}\xi} T^{n}(1,u)=:\lambda_{u,n}(\xi,u)(1,F_n(\xi,u))\\

985: &D_{\xi} T^{-n}(1,-v)=:\mu_{s,n}(\xi,v)(1,-F^-_n(\xi,v))

986: \end{split}

987: \end{equation}

988: 

989: \subsection{The cone field--Fat sector}

990: First of all notice that the trajectory can enter

991: $Q_{2\sqrt {\frac b3} \varrho}$ either in $P_M$ or outside.

992: Since the cone field $\Co_2$ for $x\geq

993: 0$, $\xi\not\in P_M$ contains the unstable vector (Lemma

994: \ref{lem:conefield-two}), we have a good control on the 

995: unstable vector in both cases until we enter in $P_M$. 

996: Upon entering $P_M$, we will obtain a very sharp control on the

997: evolution of the edges of the cone. Let $\xi\not\in P_M$, $T\xi\in

998: P_M$, and let $\ell_+-1>0$ be the smallest integer such that

999: $\xi_n\not\in P_M$. By equation \eqref{eq:unsdef}, we have

1000: \[

1001: u_n:=F_n(\xi_n,u)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}

1002: \lambda_{u,i}(\xi_{n-i},u_{n-i})^{-1}h'(x_{n-i})+\lambda_{u,n}(\xi_n,u)^{-1}

1003: u. 

1004: \]

1005: Then, for each $n< \ell_+$, holds true

1006: \[

1007: u_n\leq \sum_{i=1}^n h'(x_{n-i})+u\leq \frac {\cs }{M} 

1008: \left|\sum_{i=1}^n y_i\right|+u. 

1009: \]

1010: By Lemma \ref{lem:zdyn2}-(3),(5), it follows that

1011: we have, for $u\in\Co_2(\xi)$,

1012: \[

1013: u_n\leq \cs_+\sqrt{|y_n|}.

1014: \]

1015: Moreover, remembering \eqref{eq:unsdef} and that  $u\in\Co_2(\xi)$, yields

1016: \[

1017: u_n\geq e^{-2n\cs_+\sqrt{|y_n|}}u\geq \cs u\geq \cs_-\sqrt{|y_n|}. 

1018: \]

1019: Consequently, if for $\xi=(x,y)$ we define the cone

1020: $\Co_3(\xi)=\{\cs_-\sqrt{|y|}\leq u\leq \cs_+\sqrt{|y|}\}$., then the

1021: above results can be written as follows.

1022: \begin{lem}

1023: \label{lem:conefield-three}In $P_M$ the unstable direction

1024: is contained in the cone field $\Co_3$.

1025: \end{lem}

1026: Finally we have to follow the trajectory outside $P_M$ until it exits

1027: from $Q_{2\sqrt{\frac b3}\varrho}$. The upper bound can be treated as

1028: before. Not so for the lower bound.

1029: 

1030: Let $\xi=(x,y)$ be a point in the

1031: fat sector, $x\leq 0$, $x_{-1}\geq 0$. Then, remembering subsection

1032: \ref{sub:nearfix}, let $E:=H(x,y)$, $u_0=0$ and $u_{n+1}:=F(x_n,

1033: u_n)$. Clearly, $D_{(x,y)}T^n\Co_+\subset\{(1,u)\in\R^2\;|\; u\geq

1034: u_n\}\cup\{0\}$.

1035: \begin{lem}

1036: \label{lem:flowdir}

1037: In the situation described above, for each $n\in\N$, holds true

1038: \[

1039: F(x_n,\Upsilon_E'(x_n))-\Upsilon_E'(x_{n+1})=\Or(|y_n|^{3/2}).

1040: \]

1041: \end{lem}

1042: \begin{proof}

1043: Notice that, since the trajectory lies below the unstable manifold, 

1044: $|y|\geq \cs x^2$. It is then convenient to keep track of the orders

1045: of magnitude only in terms of powers of $y$.

1046: \[

1047: F(x_n,\Upsilon_E'(x_n))=\Upsilon_E'(x_n)-\Upsilon_E'(x_n)^2

1048: +h'(x_n)+\Or(|y_n|^{3/2}).

1049: \]

1050: On the other hand, differentiating \eqref{eq:upsi}, one gets 

1051: \[

1052: \Upsilon_E'(x)=\frac{h(x)}{\Upsilon_E(x)}

1053: -\frac{h(x)^2}{2\Upsilon_E(x)^2} -\frac{h'(x)}2+\Or(|\Upsilon_E|^{3/2}). 

1054: \]

1055: Accordingly, by \eqref{eq:dyny}, 

1056: \[

1057: \begin{split}

1058: \Upsilon_E'(x_{n+1})&=\frac{h(x_n)+h'(x_n)\Upsilon_E(x_n)}{\Upsilon_E(x_n)+h(x_n)}

1059: -\frac{h(x_n)^2}{2\Upsilon_E(x_n)^2}-\frac{h'(x_n)}2 

1060: +\Or(|y_n|^{3/2})\\

1061: &=\Upsilon_E'(x_{n})-\Upsilon_E'(x_{n})^2 +h'(x_n)+\Or(|y_n|^{3/2}),

1062: \end{split}

1063: \]

1064: from which the Lemma easily follows.

1065: \end{proof}

1066: Since $F$ is a contraction in $u$, 

1067: we can estimate

1068: \[

1069: \begin{split}

1070: |u_n-\Upsilon_E'(x_n)|&=|F(x_{n-1}, u_{n-1})-F(x_{n-1},\Upsilon_E'(x_{n-1}))|

1071: +\Or(|y_{n-1}|^{3/2})\\

1072: &\leq |u_{n-1}-\Upsilon_E'(x_{n-1})|+\Or(|y_{n-1}|^{3/2})\\

1073: &\leq|\Upsilon_E'(x_0)|+\Or\left(\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}|y_k|^{3/2}\right)\\

1074: &=\Or\left(|y_0|+\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\sqrt{|y_k|}(x_{k}-x_{k+1})\right)

1075: =\Or(|y_n|).

1076: \end{split}

1077: \]

1078: We have thus proved that there exists a constant $\cs_0>0$ such that

1079: \begin{equation}\label{eq:fatcone}

1080: u_n\geq \Upsilon_E'(x_n)-\cs_0\Upsilon_E(x_n).

1081: \end{equation}

1082: Hence outside $P_M$ the image of the cone will belong to the

1083: cone field $\Co_3:=\{(1,u)\in\R^2\;|\; u(\xi)\geq

1084: \Upsilon'_{E(\xi)}(x)-\cs_0 \Upsilon_{E(\xi)}(x)\}$. Note that, upon exiting $P_M$,

1085: $\Upsilon_E'(x_n)-\cs_0\Upsilon_E(x_n)\geq \cs_-'\sqrt{|y_n|}$,

1086: provided $\varrho$ is chosen small enough.

1087: The Proposition follows by choosing $\varrho$ small enough and

1088: remembering Lemmata \ref{lem:conefield-one}, \ref{lem:conefield-two}

1089: and \ref{lem:conefield-three}.

1090: 

1091: 

1092: \section{An a priori expansion bound}

1093: \label{sec:expansion}

1094: 

1095: The results of the previous section allow to obtain the following nice

1096: estimate on the expansion in the system.

1097: \begin{lem}\label{lem:expansion}

1098: There exists $K>0$ such that, for each

1099: $\xi=(x,y)\in\To^2\backslash \{0\}$, $n\in\N$ and

1100: $(1,u)\in\Co_*(T^{-n}\xi)=\Co_*(\xi_{-n})$, holds true 

1101: \[

1102: \lambda_{u,n}(\xi,u)\geq e^{-K|x|} \left(K^{-1}

1103: |x|n+1\right)^2 . 

1104: \]

1105: \end{lem}

1106: \begin{proof}

1107: Let us fix $\delta>0$. On the one hand, if the trajectory lies outside

1108: of $Q_\delta$, then 

1109: we have an exponential expansion, on the other hand, if the backward

1110: trajectory enjoys $|x_{-n}|\geq |x_0|$, then equation \eqref{eq:unsdef}

1111: and Proposition \ref{prop:dista} imply

1112: \begin{equation}

1113: \label{eq:trivialexp}

1114: \lambda_{u,n}(\xi,u)\geq (1+K_-|x_0|)^n\geq  e^{-K|x_0|} \left(K^{-1}

1115: |x_0|n+1\right)^2 .

1116: \end{equation}

1117: We say that  the backward orbit of $\xi$ (up to time $n$)  passes $p$ times 

1118: thru

1119: $Q_\delta$ if $\{0\leq k\leq n\;:\;\xi_{-k}\in Q_\delta\}$ consists of

1120: $p$ intervals. The Lemma holds for orbits that pass zero-times thru

1121: $Q_\delta$. Suppose it holds for orbits that pass $p$ times. Let

1122: $\xi_{-n}\in Q_\delta$ and let $m<n$ be the last time $\xi_{-m}\not\in

1123: Q_\delta$ but it passed already $p$ times in $Q_\delta$. Moreover,

1124: suppose that the Lemma holds in $Q_{2\delta}$. Accordingly, for each

1125: $n\geq l$ such that $\xi_{-n}\in Q_\delta$ holds

1126: \[

1127: \begin{split}

1128: \lambda_{u,n}(\xi,u)&\geq e^{-K|x_0|} \left(K^{-1}

1129: |x_0|m+1\right)^2e^{-2K\delta} \left(2K^{-1}

1130: \delta(n-m)+1\right)^2\\

1131: &\geq e^{-K|x_0|} \left(K^{-1}

1132: |x_0|m+1\right)^2\left(K^{-1}\delta(n-m)+1\right)^2\\

1133: &\geq e^{-K|x_0|} \left(K^{-1}|x_0|n+1\right)^2,

1134: \end{split}

1135: \]

1136: provided $\delta$ has been chosen small enough and since it must be $n-m\geq \cs

1137: \delta^{-1}$.  

1138: Thus to prove the Lemma it suffices to prove it for the pieces of

1139: trajectories in $Q_\delta$. There are two cases: a trajectory enters in the thin

1140: sector or in the fat one. Let us consider the thin sector first. 

1141: Set $u_{-j}:=F_{n-j}(\xi_{-j},u)$.

1142: By the usual distortion estimates follows

1143: \[

1144: \begin{split}

1145: \lambda_{u,n}(\xi,u)&=\prod_{j=1}^n(1+h'(x_{-j})+u_{-j})\geq

1146: \prod_{j=1}^n(1+h'(x_{-j})+\gamma_u'(x_{-j}))\\

1147: &\geq

1148: \prod_{j=1}^n(1+h'(f_u^{-j}(x))+\gamma_u'(f_u^{-j}(x)))

1149: =\prod_{j=1}^n(f_u)'(f_u^{-j}(x))\\

1150: &\geq\prod_{j=1}^n\frac

1151: {|f_u^{-j+1}(x)-f_u^{-j}(x)|}{|f_u^{-j}(x)-f_u^{-j-1}(x)|}

1152: e^{-\cs|f_u^{-j+1}(x)-f_u^{-j}(x)|}\\

1153: &\geq e^{-\cs|x_0|}\frac{|x_0|^2}{|f_u^{-n}(x_0)|^2}.

1154: \end{split}

1155: \]

1156: Now, notice that $f_u^{-1}(x)\leq \frac{x}{1+\cs x}$, hence

1157: $f_u^{-n}(x_0)\leq \frac{|x_0|}{1+\cs n|x_0|}$. Thus,

1158: \begin{equation}

1159: \label{eq:bah}

1160: \lambda_{u,n}(\xi,u)\geq e^{-\cs|x_0|}(1+n\cs|x_0|)^2.

1161: \end{equation}

1162: \relax For the fat sector we need only to consider the cases in which $x_0\not\in

1163: Q_\delta$ and $x_0\in Q_\delta$, $x_0\leq 0$ since if $x_0>0$ the

1164: backward trajectory increases the $x$ coordinate. In such cases we

1165: have\footnote{Again, $E$ is chosen to be the energy associated

1166: to the point of the orbit closer to the origin.} 

1167: \[

1168: \begin{split}

1169: \lambda_{u,n}(\xi,u)&=\prod_{j=1}^n(1+h'(x_{-j})+u_{-j})\geq

1170: \prod_{j=1}^n(1+\Upsilon_E'(x_{-j})-\cs_0\Upsilon_E(x_{-j}))\\

1171: &\geq e^{\sum_{j=1}^n\Upsilon_E'(x_{-j})-2\cs_0\Upsilon_E(x_{-j})}\\

1172: &\geq e^{-\sum_{j=1}^n\frac{\Upsilon_E'(x_{-j})}{\Upsilon_E(x_{-j})}

1173: (x_{-j-1}-x_{-j}) -3\cs_0\sum_{j=1}^n(x_{-j-1}-x_{-j})} \\

1174: &\geq e^{-\cs|x_0|}e^{-\int_{x_0}^{x_{-n}}\frac{\Upsilon_E'(z)}{\Upsilon_E(z)}dz}

1175: = e^{-\cs|x_0|}\frac{\Upsilon_E(x_0)}{\Upsilon_E(x_{-n})}.

1176: \end{split}

1177: \]

1178: 

1179: Let $n_*\in\N$ be the last integer for which $|G(x_{-n})|\geq

1180: E$, then for $n\leq n_*$ we have 

1181: \[

1182: \lambda_{u,n}(\xi)\geq e^{-\cs|x_0|}\sqrt{\frac

1183: {E+G(x_0)}{E+G(x_{-n})}} 

1184: \geq e^{-\cs|x_0|}\sqrt{\frac

1185: {G(x_{-n})+G(x_0)}{2G(x_{-n})}}.

1186: \]

1187: On the other hand comparing the backward motion with the

1188: backward motion on the stable manifold, as we did before with the

1189: unstable,\footnote{Here we use the inequality  

1190: \[

1191: \sqrt{\frac{1+(1+a)^4}2}\geq (1+\frac a2)^2.

1192: \]

1193: }

1194: \[

1195: \lambda_{u,n}(\xi,u)\geq

1196: e^{-\cs|x_0|}\sqrt{\frac{1+(n|x_0|\cs+1)^4}2}

1197: \geq e^{-\cs|x_0|}(1+n|x_0|\cs)^2.

1198: \]

1199: Next, let us consider $n\in\{n_*,\dots, m\}$, where $m$ is the larger

1200: integer such that $x_{-m}\leq 0$, we have $2\sqrt E\geq 

1201: \Upsilon_E(x_{-n})\geq \sqrt {2E}$. 

1202: \[

1203: \begin{split}

1204: \lambda_{u,n-n_*}(\xi,u)

1205: &\geq e^{-\cs_2|x_{n_*}|}

1206: e^{-\int_{x_{-n_*}}^{x_{-n}}\frac{\Upsilon_E'(z)}{\Upsilon_E(z)}dz} 

1207: \geq e^{-\cs|x_0|}\frac{\Upsilon_E(x_{-n_*})}

1208: {\Upsilon_E(x_{-n})}\\

1209: &\geq  e^{-\cs|x_0|}\sqrt{\frac 32}\geq e^{-\cs|x_0|}(1+\cs

1210: |x_{-n_*}|(n-n_*))^2, 

1211: \end{split}

1212: \]

1213: where, in the last line, we used Lemma \ref{lem:zdyn2}-(5).

1214: By symmetry it will be enough to wait another time $m$ to have

1215: $|x_{-2m}|\geq \frac 12|x_0|$, after which the expansion is assured by

1216: the estimate \eqref{eq:trivialexp}.

1217: \end{proof}

1218: 

1219: Next we need to have similar estimates for the stable contraction. By

1220: \eqref{eq:constex} 

1221: \begin{equation}\label{eq:stabdef}

1222: \begin{split}

1223: \mu_s(v)&:=1+v=\mu_{s,1}(\xi,v)\\

1224: F^-_1(\xi,v)&=h'(x-y)+\frac v{1+v}.

1225: \end{split}

1226: \end{equation}

1227: It is immediate to check that

1228: $D_{(x,y)}T^{-1}(1,-v)=\mu_s(v)(1,-F^-_1((x,y),v))$ and

1229: $\mu_{s,n}(\xi,v_{0}):=\prod_{i=0}^{n-1}\mu_s(v_{-i})$, where 

1230: $v_0=v$ and $v_{-i-1}:=F^-_1(T^{-i}\xi,v_{-i})$.

1231: 

1232: An interesting way to transform information on expansion into information on

1233: contraction is to use area preserving. 

1234: \begin{lem}\label{lem:areap}

1235: Let $\xi\in\To^2$, then for each $n\in\N$, $u,v\geq 0$ let $u_{-n}=u$,

1236: $v_0=v$, $\xi_{-n}=T^{-n}\xi$ and $u_{-k+1}=F(\xi_{-k+1}, u_{-k})$,

1237: $v_{-k-1}=F^-(\xi_{-k},v_{-k})$. Then

1238: \[

1239: \mu_{s,n}(\xi, v_0)(v_{-n}+u_{-n})=\lambda_{u,n}(\xi, u_{-n})(u_0+v_0).

1240: \]

1241: \end{lem}

1242: \begin{proof}

1243: Calling $\omega$ the standard symplectic form we have

1244: \[

1245: \begin{split}

1246: \mu_{s,n}(\xi,v_0)(v_{-n}+u_{-n})&=\omega(D_{\xi}T^{-n}(1,-v_0),(1,u_{-n}))\\

1247: &= \omega((1,-v_0), D_{\xi_{-n}} T^n(1,u_{-n}))=\lambda_{u,n}(\xi,

1248: u_{-n})(u_0+v_0). 

1249: \end{split}

1250: \]

1251: \end{proof}

1252: %\begin{changebar}

1253: The following is an immediate corollary of Lemmata \ref{lem:areap} and

1254: \ref{lem:expansion}. 

1255: \begin{cor}\label{lem:contraction}

1256: For each $\xi=(x,y)\in \To^2$ and $n\in\N$  holds

1257: \[

1258: \mu_{s,n}(\xi, v_0)\geq e^{-\cs|x_{0}|} (\cs^{-1}|x_{0}|n+1)^2\frac

1259: {u_0+v_0}{u_{-n}+v_{-n}} \quad\forall n\in\N.

1260: \]

1261: \end{cor}

1262: %\end{changebar}

1263: 

1264: All the other expansion estimates can be obtained by reversibility.

1265: 

1266: \section{Distributions--regularity}

1267: \label{sec:regularity}

1268: 

1269: Let $(1,u(\xi)),\,(1,-v(\xi))$ be the unstable and stable directions,

1270: respectively. We will then use the short hand

1271: $\lambda_{u,n}(\xi):=\lambda_{u,n}(\xi,u(\xi_{-n}))$ and

1272: $\mu_{s,n}(\xi):=\mu_{s,n}(\xi,v(\xi_{n}))$. 

1273: \begin{lem}\label{lem:distreg0}

1274: The unstable distribution is continuous in $\To^2$.

1275: \end{lem}  

1276: \begin{proof}

1277: Notice that, for $\xi=(x,y)$, $\xi_n:=T^n\xi$, iterating formula

1278: \eqref{eq:unsdef}, in analogy with \eqref{eq:unstreg}, holds true

1279: \begin{equation}\label{eq:unstreg-bis}

1280: \begin{split}

1281: u(x)-u(z)=&\lambda_{u,n}(x)^{-1}\lambda_{u,n}(z)^{-1}(u(x_{-n})-u(z_{-n}))\\

1282: &\ \ +\sum_{k=1}^{n}\lambda_{u,k}(x)^{-1}\lambda_{u,k}(z)^{-1}

1283: (h'(x_{-k})-h'(z_{-k}))

1284: \end{split}

1285: \end{equation}

1286: By Lemma \ref{lem:expansion}, we can take the limit $n\to\infty$ in

1287: the above formula provided  $x\neq 0$, and obtain a

1288: uniformly convergent series from which the continuity follows.

1289: If $\xi\neq 0$ then $x_{-1}\neq 0$ and \eqref{eq:unsdef} implies

1290: \begin{equation}

1291: \label{eq:uma}

1292: u(\xi)=\lambda_{u}(\xi_{-1})^{-1}h'(x_{-1})

1293: +\lambda_{u}(\xi_{-1})^{-1}u(\xi_{-1}) ,

1294: \end{equation}

1295: hence the continuity at $\xi\neq 0$ follows. We are left with the

1296: continuity at the origin, but this is already implied by Proposition

1297: \ref{prop:dista}. 

1298: \end{proof}

1299: 

1300: This means that we can extend the invariant unstable distribution

1301: (that, up to now, where defined--by Pesin theory--only almost everywhere) to a

1302: continuous everywhere defined vector field. The same statement holds

1303: for the stable vectors by reversibility.

1304: 

1305: Given a continuous vector field there exists integral curves. Since

1306: we do not know yet if the vector fields are Lipschitz, it does not

1307: follows automatically that from a given point there exits only one

1308: integral curve, yet this follows by standard dynamical

1309: arguments. Clearly such integral curves are nothing else than the

1310: stable and unstable manifolds that are therefore everywhere

1311: defined. In addition, remember that, by general hyperbolic theory, the

1312: foliations are absolutely continuous, it follows that the above

1313: everywhere defined foliations are continuous. Unfortunately, for the

1314: following much sharper regularity information is  needed, this is

1315: obtained in the rest of the section.

1316: 

1317: Let us call $\partial^u, \partial^s$ the derivative along the unstable

1318: and the stable vector fields, respectively. 

1319: 

1320: \begin{lem}\label{lem:uderbound}

1321: The vector field $u$ is $\Co^1$ along the unstable manifolds, apart from the

1322: origin, moreover

1323: \[

1324: |\partial^u

1325: u(\xi)|\leq C\quad

1326: \forall \xi\neq 0. 

1327: \]

1328: \end{lem}

1329: \begin{proof}

1330: If $\xi$ is outside of a 

1331: neighborhood of the origin of size $\delta$, then by Lemma

1332: \ref{lem:expansion}, \eqref{eq:unstreg-bis} we have, in analogy with

1333: the arguments leading to \eqref{eq:unstder},

1334: \begin{equation}

1335: \label{eq:uder-u-bond}

1336: |\partial^u

1337: u(\xi)|=\left|\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\lambda_{u,k}(x)^{-3}h''(x_k)\right| \leq \cs

1338: \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(\delta n+1)^{-6}\leq \cs. 

1339: \end{equation}

1340: Since the series converges uniformly the $\Co^1$ property follows. To

1341: obtain a uniform bound more work is needed.

1342: If $|\xi|<\delta$, formula \eqref{eq:uma} implies

1343: \[

1344: |\partial^u u(\xi)|\leq\lambda_u(\xi_{-1})^{-3}|h''(x_{-1})|+

1345: \lambda_u(\xi_{-1})^{-3} |\partial^u u(\xi_{-1})|=:\Psi(\xi_{-1},

1346: |\partial^u u(\xi_{-1})|).

1347: \]

1348: A simple computation, remembering Proposition \ref{prop:dista}, shows

1349: that 

1350: \[

1351: \Psi(\xi,\varrho)\leq7b|x|+\frac{\varrho}{1+3|u(\xi)|}\leq

1352: 7b|x|+\frac{\varrho}{1+3K_-|x|} \leq \varrho ,

1353: \]

1354: provided $\varrho\geq \frac{7b(1+3K_-)}{3K_-}$. Accordingly, for $\rho$

1355: large enough, we have 

1356: $|\partial^u u(\xi)|\leq \rho$, for all $\xi$. 

1357: \end{proof}

1358: 

1359: It remains to investigate the regularity of the unstable distribution

1360: along the stable direction.

1361: 

1362: \begin{lem}\label{lem:distreg1}

1363: The unstable distributions are $\Co^1$ along stable manifolds, apart

1364: from the origin. Moreover

1365: \[

1366: |\partial^s u(\xi)|\leq \cs \quad \forall \xi\neq 0.

1367: \]

1368: \end{lem}  

1369: \begin{proof}

1370: Let us fix some arbitrary neighborhood of the origin.

1371: Let $x,z\in W^s$ outside such a neighborhood. Let $W^s_0$ be the

1372: piece of stable manifold between such two points. Clearly

1373: $W^s_{n}:=T^nW^s_0$ grows for negative $n$. Let $n(x,z)$ be the largest

1374: integer for which $|W^s_{-n}|\leq |W^s_0|^{\frac 14}$. Our first

1375: result is a distortion bound.

1376: \begin{sublem}\label{slem:dist}

1377: For each $n\leq n(x,z)$ and $\xi\in

1378: W^s_{0}$, holds

1379: \[

1380: \cs^{-1}\frac{|W^s_{-n}|}{|W^s_{0}|}\leq \mu_{s,n}(\xi)\leq

1381: \cs\frac{|W^s_{-n}|}{|W^s_{0}|} .

1382: \]

1383: \end{sublem}

1384: \begin{proof}

1385: If the backward orbit spends at least half of the time outside the

1386: neighborhood, then $W^s_{-n}$

1387: grows exponentially fast, hence $n(x,z)\leq \cs\ln|W^s_0|^{-1}$ and

1388: $\sum_{i=0}^{n(x,z)}|W^s_{-i}|\leq \cs$. If this is not the case,

1389: the worst possible situation is when $W^s_{-m}$ is the closest

1390: to the origin and all the trajectory lies in the neighborhood. In such a

1391: case, letting $m:=n(x,z)$, 

1392: \[

1393: |W^s_{m}|=\int_{W^s_0}\mu_{s,m}(z)dz\geq

1394: \int_{W^s_0}\frac{\theta(z)(\cs^{-1}|z|m+1)^2}{2\theta(T^{-m}z)} dz,

1395: \]

1396: where $\theta(\zeta)=u(\zeta)+v(\zeta)$ is the separation between the

1397: stable and the unstable directions at the point $\zeta$ and we have

1398: used Lemma \ref{lem:contraction}. Now  Proposition \ref{prop:dista} and

1399: Lemma \ref{lem:zdyn2}-(1) imply $\theta(T^{-m}z)\leq \cs m^{-1}$

1400: outside the parabolic sector, while Lemma \ref{lem:zdyn2}-(3,4,5) show

1401: that the same estimates remain in $P_M$ as well. Accordingly,

1402: \[

1403: |W^s_{-m}|\geq \cs m^3|W^s_0|.

1404: \]

1405: That is $m\leq \cs |W^s_0|^{-\frac 14}$, and

1406: \[

1407: \sum_{i=0}^{n(x,z)}|W^s_{-i}|\leq n(x,z)|W^s_0|^{\frac 14}\leq \cs.

1408: \]

1409: The above estimate readily implies that, for each $\xi,\eta\in W^0_s$,

1410: \[

1411: e^{-\cs |W^s_{-i}|}

1412: \leq\frac{\mu_s(\xi_{-i},v(\xi_{-i}))}{\mu_s(\eta_{-i},v(\eta_{-i}))}

1413: \leq e^{\cs |W^s_{-i}|},

1414: \]

1415: where we have used Lemma \ref{lem:uderbound} for the stable manifold.

1416: Accordingly,

1417: \[

1418: e^{-\cs\sum_{i=0}^m |W^s_{-i}|}

1419: \leq\frac{\mu_{s,n}(\xi)}{\mu_{s,n}(\eta)}

1420: \leq e^{\cs \sum_{i=0}^m|W^s_{-i}|},

1421: \]

1422: from which the Lemma readily follows.

1423: \end{proof}

1424: By Lemma \ref{lem:areap} it follows, letting again $m:=n(x,z)$,

1425: \[

1426: \begin{split}

1427: \lambda_{u,m}(x)^{-1}\lambda_{u,m}(z)^{-1}

1428: &=\lambda_{u,m}(x)^{-1}\sqrt{\lambda_{u,m}(z)^{-2}}\\

1429: &\leq

1430: \cs\left(\theta(x_{-m})\mu_{s,m}(x)

1431: \sqrt{\lambda_{u,m}(z)\theta(z_{-m})\mu_{s,m}(z)}\right)^{-1}

1432: \end{split}

1433: \]

1434: As before the worst case is clearly when $W^s_{-m}$ is the closest to

1435: the origin.

1436: In such a case, consider that at least one of the two end points of

1437: $W^s_{-n(x,z)}$ must be at a distance $\cs |W^s_{-n(x,z)}|$ from the

1438: fixed point, let us say $T^{-n(x,z)}z$, hence

1439: $\theta(T^{-n(x,z)}z)\geq \cs|W^s_{-n(x,z)}|$. In addition,

1440: $\theta(x_{-m})\geq \cs m^{-1}$. Indeed, this follows from Lemma

1441: \ref{lem:zdyn2}-(3,4,5) if the trajectory ends in $P_M$. If the

1442: trajectory lies outside $P_M$ then it approaches the origin slower than

1443: the dynamics $x-\cs x^2$, which implies $x_{-m}\geq \cs

1444: m^{-1}$. Furthermore by using the above facts, Lemma \ref{lem:expansion}, Sub-lemma

1445: \ref{slem:dist} and the definition of the stopping time $m$ yields

1446: \[

1447: \lambda_{u,m}(x)^{-1}\lambda_{u,m}(z)^{-1}\leq \cs|x-z|^{\frac

1448: 34}m\frac 1{m} \sqrt{\frac{|x-z|^{\frac 

1449: 34}}{|x-z|^{\frac 14}}} \leq \cs|x-z|.

1450: \]

1451: Since we know that $u$ is a uniformly continuous function it follows

1452: \[

1453: \lim_{z\to

1454: x}\lambda_{u,m}(x)^{-1}\lambda_{u,m}(z)^{-1}

1455: \frac{|u(T^{-m}x)-u(T^{-m}z)|} 

1456: {|x-z|}=0.

1457: \]

1458: Accordingly, by formula  \eqref{eq:unstreg}, 

1459: \[

1460: \begin{split}

1461: u'(x)=&\lim_{z\to x}

1462: \sum_{n=0}^{m}\lambda_{u,n}(x)^{-1}\lambda_{u,n}(z)^{-1}

1463: \frac{h'(T^{-n}x)-h'(T^{-n}z)}{x-z}\\

1464: =& \lim_{z\to x}

1465: \sum_{n=0}^{m}\lambda_{u,n}(x)^{-1}\lambda_{u,n}(z)^{-1}

1466: h''(T^{-n}\zeta_{n}) \mu_{s,n+1}(\zeta_n),

1467: \end{split}

1468: \]

1469: for some $\zeta_n\in W_0$.

1470: But $|h''(T^{-n}\zeta_n)|\leq \cs\theta(T^{-n}z)$, hence

1471: \[

1472: \begin{split}

1473: &\lambda_{u,n}(x)^{-1}\lambda_{u,n}(z)^{-1}\theta(T^{-n}x)

1474: \mu_{s,n+1}(x)\leq \cs\lambda_{u,n}(z)^{-1}\\

1475: &\lambda_{u,n}(x)^{-1}\lambda_{u,n}(z)^{-1}\theta(T^{-n}z)

1476: \mu_{s,n+1}(z)\leq \cs\lambda_{u,n}(x)^{-1}.

1477: \end{split}

1478: \]

1479: Remembering Sub-Lemma \ref{slem:dist} the uniform convergence of the

1480: series follows and yields the formula

1481: \begin{equation}

1482: \label{eq:uder-s-bound}

1483: \partial^s u(x)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\lambda_{u,n}(x)^{-2}\mu_{s,n+1}(x)

1484: h''(T^{-n}x).

1485: \end{equation}

1486: Given the arbitrariness of the neighborhood of zero, the above formula

1487: holds for each $x\neq 0$ and, since the series converges uniformly,

1488: the $\Co^1$ property follows. We can now conclude the Lemma.

1489: By Lemma \ref{lem:areap} follows

1490: \[

1491: \begin{split}

1492: |\partial^s u(x)|&\leq\cs \sum_{n=0}^\infty

1493: \lambda_{u,n}(x)^{-2}\mu_{s,n}(x)\theta(T^{-n}x) \\

1494: &\leq \cs \sum_{n=0}^\infty\lambda_{u,n}(x)^{-1}\theta (x)

1495: \leq \cs \sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{|x|}{(|x|n+1)^2}\leq \cs .

1496: \end{split} 

1497: \]

1498: \end{proof}

1499: \begin{rem}

1500: Notice that the symmetrical statements follow by reversibility.

1501: \end{rem}

1502: The final result on the regularity of the foliations can be  stated as

1503: follows.

1504: \begin{lem}

1505: \label{lem:c1-reg}

1506: The stable and unstable vector fields are $\Co^1(\To^2\setminus\{0\})$ and, more

1507: precisely, for each $\xi\in\To^2\setminus\{0\}$,

1508: \[

1509: |Du(\xi)|\leq \cs \theta(\xi)^{-1}.

1510: \]

1511: \end{lem}

1512: \begin{proof}

1513: The $\Co^1$ property follows from Lemma 19.1.10 of \cite{KH}.

1514: Then the size of the derivative can be easily estimated by the size of

1515: the partial derivatives in the stable and unstable directions divided by

1516: the angle between them.

1517: \end{proof}

1518: \begin{rem}

1519: In fact, it is likely that with a little more work one can show that

1520: the foliations are $\Co^{\frac 32-\ve}$, but we do not investigate this

1521: possibility since it is not needed in the following.

1522: \end{rem}

1523: \section{Holonomy}

1524: \label{sec:holo}

1525: There exists $\cs_1>0$ such that, given two close by stable manifolds

1526: $W^s_1$, $W^s_2$ we can define the {\em unstable holonomy}

1527: $\Psi^u:W^s_1\to W^s_2$ by $\{\Psi^u(\xi)\}:=W^u(\xi)\cap W^s_2$. 

1528: Let $D_r:=\{\zeta=(z_1,z_2)\in\R^2\;:\;|z_1|\leq r;|z_2|\leq r^2\}$.

1529: \begin{lem}\label{lem:holo}

1530: For each $W^s_1,W^s_2$ disjoint from $D_r$ and $\xi\in W^s_1$, holds

1531: \[

1532: |J\Psi^u(\xi)-1|\leq \cs r^{-1}\|\Psi^u(\xi)-\xi\|.

1533: \]

1534: Provided $\|\Psi^u(\xi)-\xi\|\leq \cs_1 r$.

1535: \end{lem}

1536: \begin{proof}

1537: Let $\gamma_s,\tilde\gamma_s:[-\delta,\delta]\to\R^2$ be $W^s_1,

1538: W^s_2$, respectively, parametrized by arc-length. Also, let

1539: $\Gamma:[-\delta,\delta]^2\to\R^2$, be such that $\Gamma(0,0)=\xi$,

1540: $\Gamma(s,0)=\gamma_s(s)$ 

1541: and $\Gamma(s,t)$ be the unstable manifold, parametrized by

1542: arc-length, of $\Gamma(s,0)$ and, finally,

1543: $\Gamma(0,\rho):=\Psi^u(\xi)$. Note that $\Gamma(s,t)$ can be obtained

1544: integrating the unstable vector field starting from $\Gamma(s,0)$,

1545: hence Lemma \ref{lem:c1-reg} and the standard results on the continuity

1546: with respect to the initial data imply $\Gamma\in\Co^1$. By the

1547: transversality of the stable and unstable manifolds there exist

1548: $\tau,\sigma:[-\delta,\delta]\to\R$ such that

1549: $\Gamma(s,\tau(s))=\Psi^u(\gamma_s(s))=\tilde\gamma(\sigma(s))\in

1550: W^s_2$. Calling $\eta(s)$ the unit vector perpendicular to $\tilde

1551: \gamma'(s)$, by the implicit function theorem, it follows 

1552: \begin{equation}

1553: \label{eq:implicit}

1554: \begin{split}

1555: \tau'(s)&=-\frac{\langle \eta(s),\partial^s\Gamma(s,\tau(s))\rangle}

1556: {\langle\eta(s), \partial_t\Gamma(s,\tau(s))\rangle}\\

1557: \sigma'(s)&=\langle\tilde\gamma_s'(s),\partial^s\Gamma(s,\tau(s))\rangle

1558: -\frac{\langle\tilde 

1559: \gamma'_s(s),\partial_t\Gamma(s,\tau(s))\rangle\;\langle

1560: \eta(s),\partial^s\Gamma(s,\tau(s))\rangle} 

1561: {\langle\eta(s), \partial_t\Gamma(s,\tau(s))\rangle}

1562: \end{split}

1563: \end{equation}

1564: where, clearly, $\sigma'(s)=J\Psi^u(\gamma_s(s))$. Calling

1565: $v^u(\eta)$, $\eta\in\To^2$,

1566: the unit vector in the unstable direction at $\eta$ and $v^s(\eta)$ the

1567: stable one, one has

1568: $\partial_t\Gamma(s,\tau(s))=v^u(\Gamma(s,\tau(s)))$. On the other

1569: hand, setting $V(s,t):=\partial^s\Gamma(s,t)-v^s(\Gamma(s,t))$, holds

1570: $V(s,t)=0$ for $t=0$, but for $t\neq 0$, in general, it will be

1571: $V(s,t)\neq 0$. Yet, it is possible to estimate it by differentiating

1572: $

1573: \Gamma(s,t)=\Gamma(s,0)+\int_0^tv^u(\Gamma(s,t'))dt'

1574: $

1575: which yields

1576: \[

1577: \partial^s\Gamma(s,t)=v^s(\Gamma(s,0))+\int_0^t Dv^u(\Gamma(s,t'))

1578: \partial^s\Gamma(s,t')dt'.

1579: \]

1580: Lemmata \ref{lem:c1-reg} and \ref{lem:distreg1}

1581: imply that $\|Dv^u\|\leq \cs r^{-1}$ and  $\|Dv^u v^s\|=|\partial^s

1582: v^u|\leq \cs$, hence 

1583: \[

1584: \|V(s,t)\|\leq \cs r^{-1}\int_0^t\|V(s,t')\|dt'+\cs t.

1585: \]

1586: By Gronwal, it follows,  provided $t\leq \cs \rho$ and $\rho\leq \cs_1

1587: r$, for $\cs_1$ small enough,

1588: \begin{equation}

1589: \label{eq:Vest}

1590: \|V(s,t)\|\leq \cs t.

1591: \end{equation}

1592: Accordingly, by the second of \eqref{eq:implicit} and \eqref{eq:Vest},

1593: it follows

1594: \[

1595: |\sigma'(0)-1|\leq \cs r^{-1}\rho.

1596: \]

1597: \vskip-.5cm

1598: \end{proof}

1599: 

1600: \section{Random perturbations}

1601: \label{sec:random}

1602: 

1603: The density of a measure with respect to Lebesgue evolves as

1604: \[

1605: \Lp f:=f\circ T^{-1}.

1606: \]

1607: We will then construct a random perturbation by introducing the

1608: convolution operator

1609: \begin{equation}\label{eq:conv}

1610: Q_\ve f(x):=\int_{\To^2}q_\ve(x-y)f(y)dy.

1611: \end{equation}

1612: Where we assume

1613: \begin{enumerate}

1614: \item $q_\ve(\xi):=\ve^{-2}\bar q(\ve^{-1}\xi)$; $\bar q\in\Co^{\infty}(\R^2,\R^+)$;

1615: \item $\int_{\R^2}\bar q(\xi)d\xi=1$;

1616: \item $\bar q(\xi)=0$ for each $\|\xi\|\geq 1$;

1617: \item $\bar q(\xi)=1$ for each $\|\xi\|\leq \frac 12$.

1618: \end{enumerate}

1619: We define then

1620: \begin{equation}\label{eq:random}

1621: \Lp_\ve:=Q_\ve\Lp^{n_\ve},

1622: \end{equation}

1623: where $n_\ve$ will be chosen later.

1624: 

1625: Notice that 

1626: \begin{equation}\label{eq:ker1}

1627: \Lp_\ve^2f(x)=\int_{\To^4} q_\ve(x-y)q_\ve(T^{-n_\ve}y-T^{n_\ve}z)f(z)

1628: dz dy :=\int_{\To^2}\Ka_\ve(x,z)f(z)dz.

1629: \end{equation}

1630: 

1631: We have thus a kernel operator that can be investigated with rather

1632: coarse techniques. It turns out to be convenient to define the

1633: associated kernel

1634: \begin{equation}\label{eq:kernel2}

1635: \bar\Ka_\ve(x,z):=\Ka_\ve(x,T^{-n_\ve}z)=\int_{\To^2}q_{\ve}(x-y)

1636: q_\ve(T^{-n_\ve}y-z)m(dy). 

1637: \end{equation}

1638: For further use let us define

1639: \begin{equation}\label{eq:levelset}

1640: \begin{split}

1641: &D_r:=\{z=(z_1,z_2)\in\To^2\;|\;|z_1|\leq r;\; |z_2|\leq r^2\}\\

1642: &B_r(\xi):=\{\eta\in\To^2\;;\;\|\xi-\eta\|<r\}.

1643: \end{split}

1644: \end{equation}

1645: The following is a relevant fact used extensively in the sequel.

1646: \begin{lem}

1647: \label{lem:levelset-escape}

1648: There exists $\cs_3,R>0$ such that, for each $\delta<R^2$, if

1649: $B_\delta(\xi)\subset D_{R/2}$, then there exists $\eta\in

1650: B_{\frac 34\delta}(\xi)$ such that $T^n B_{\frac \delta 4} (\eta)\cap

1651: D_{R}=\emptyset$ for some $n\leq \cs_3 \delta^{-\frac 12}$.

1652: \end{lem}

1653: \begin{proof}

1654: %\begin{changebar}

1655: If $\xi$ belongs to the first or third

1656: quadrant, then $T^n\xi$ is escaping from the origin. 

1657: In such a case, if $B_{\frac 58\delta}(\xi)$ belongs to the thin sector we choose

1658: $\eta\in B_{\frac{\delta}2} (\xi)$, $|y|\geq \frac 38 \delta $.

1659: Clearly, if $(x,y)\in B_{\frac \delta 4}(\eta)$, $\cs x^2\geq |y|\geq

1660: \frac \delta 4$. On the other hand 

1661: $|y_n|\geq n|x|^3$ while $|x_n|\leq |x|+n\cs|x_n|^2$. So, if $n\leq

1662: \cs |x|^{-1}\leq \cs\delta^{-\frac 12}$, we have $|y_n|\geq

1663: \cs|x_n|^2$. After that we can compare the dynamics with one of the

1664: type $x\mapsto x+\cs x^2$, hence after a time at most $\cs

1665: \delta^{-\frac 12}$ the $T^n B_{\frac \delta 4}(\eta)$ will exit $D_R$.

1666: If the above does not apply, then

1667: one can take a ball of radius $\delta/4$ belonging completely to the

1668: fat sector and centered at a point in $B_\delta(\xi)$. Then the results

1669: of subsection \ref{sub:nearfix} easily implies the lemma. 

1670: %\end{changebar}

1671: If, on the contrary, $\xi$ belong to the second or fourth quadrant, then its

1672: trajectory may approach the origin in an arbitrary manner (even

1673: asymptotically, if the point belongs to the stable manifold). In such

1674: a case we can take a point $\eta\in B_{\delta}(\xi)$ at, at least, a vertical

1675: distance $\frac 34\delta$ from the stable manifold and such that

1676: $B_{\frac 34\delta}(\eta) \subset B_\delta(\xi)$. Again from the

1677: results of subsection \ref{sub:nearfix} it follows that such a ball

1678: will exit $D_R$ in a time at most $\cs_3\delta^{-\frac12}$.

1679: \end{proof}

1680: 

1681: 

1682: \begin{lem}\label{lem:estim}

1683: There exit constants $\sigma,\cs_3>0$ such that if $n_\ve=\cs_3\ve^{-\frac 12}$ holds

1684: \[

1685: \bar\Ka_\ve(x,z)\geq \sigma\quad \forall x,z\in\To^2.

1686: \]

1687: \end{lem}

1688: \begin{proof}

1689: It is trivial to see that

1690: \[

1691: \bar\Ka_\ve(x,z)\geq \ve^{-4}m(B_{\ve/2}(x)\cap T^{n_\ve}B_{\ve/2}(z)).

1692: \]

1693: Accordingly, by Lemma \ref{lem:levelset-escape} there exists two

1694: balls, of radius $\frac \ve 8$, $\bar B_1\subset B_{\ve/2}(z)$ and

1695: $\bar B_2\subset B_{\ve/2}(x)$ that are outside of $D_{r}$, $r\geq

1696: \sqrt{\frac \ve 2}$, and whose images will be outside

1697: of a neighborhood of the origin or order one in a time less than $\cs

1698: \ve^{-\frac 12}$, forward and backward in time, respectively. Given two 

1699: unstable manifolds in $B_1$ at a distance larger than $\bar c r\ve$, for

1700: some appropriate $\bar c$, then no stable 

1701: manifold will intersect both manifolds inside the ball  $B_1$. We

1702: can thus consider $\cs r^{-1}$ unstable manifolds such that no stable

1703: manifolds intersect two of them in $B_1$. Around each such

1704: manifold we can construct a strip by moving along the stable manifold

1705: by $\cs \ve$. We obtain in this way $\cs r^{-1}$ disjoint strips

1706: each of area $\cs r\ve^2$, whose union covers a fixed fraction of the area of

1707: $B_1$. After a time less that $\cs \ve^{-\frac 12}$ such strips will be outside a

1708: neighborhood of zero, their length may have increase considerable, if so

1709: we will subdivide them into strips of length $\ve$. Since now the

1710: stable and unstable manifold are at a fixed angle and by the usual

1711: distortion arguments, such strips are essentially rectangular. At this point,

1712: by Lemma \ref{lem:expansion}, it will suffice to wait a time

1713: $\ve^{-\frac 12}$ to insure that each such strip will acquire length

1714: at least $\frac 12$ in the unstable direction. We thus iterate for such

1715: a time and, if one strip becomes longer than one, we subdivide it into

1716: pieces of length between $\frac 12$ and one. Finally, fix some box

1717: $\Lambda$ of some fixed size $C$ away from  the origin with sides

1718: approximately parallel either to the stable or to the unstable

1719: directions. 

1720: By mixing it suffices to wait a fixed time to be sure that a fixed

1721: percentage of each one of the above mentioned strips will intersect

1722: the box. In addition, it is possible to insure that such strips cut

1723: the box from one stable side to the other.

1724: 

1725: We can then write $m(B_{\ve/2}(x)\cap

1726: T^{n_\ve}B_{\ve/2}(z))=m(T^{-n_\ve/2}B_{\ve/2}(x)\cap

1727: T^{n_\ve/2}B_{\ve/2}(z))$ since the same considerations done above for

1728: the unstable manifold can be done, iterating 

1729: backward, for the stable manifold it follows that a fixed percentage of

1730: $T^{-n_\ve/2}B_{\ve/2}(x)$ and a fixed percentage of

1731: $T^{n_\ve/2}B_{\ve/2}(z))$ will intersect $\Lambda$ and hence each

1732: other. In fact each one of the above constructed strips in the unstable

1733: direction will intersects each one of the strips in the stable

1734: direction. By the usual distortion estimates, this implies that the

1735: intersection among any two such strip has a measure proportional to the

1736: product of the measure of the two strips, hence

1737: \[

1738: m(B_{\ve/2}(x)\cap T^{n_\ve}B_{\ve/2}(z))\geq \cs

1739: m(B_{\ve/2}(x))m(B_{\ve/2}(z)),

1740: \]

1741: and the lemma.

1742: \end{proof}

1743: 

1744: \begin{lem}\label{lem:l1}

1745: For each $f\in L^1$, $\int f=0$ holds

1746: \[

1747: \|\Lp_\ve^n f\|_1\leq (1-\sigma)^{n/2}\|f\|_1.

1748: \]

1749: \end{lem}

1750: \begin{proof}

1751: Note that $\Lp_\ve 1=

1752: \Lp_\ve^*1=1$ and let $\M^+_\ve=\{x\in\To^2\;|\;\Lp_\ve^2 f\geq 0\}$;

1753: $\M_+=\{x\in\To^2\;|\; f\geq 0\}$, 

1754: then, since $\int \Lp_\ve f=\int f=0$,

1755: \[

1756: \begin{split}

1757: \|\Lp_\ve^2 f\|_1&=2\int_{\M^+_\ve}dx\,\Lp_\ve^2 f

1758: =2\int_{\M^+_\ve}dx\int_{\To^2}dy\, \Ka_\ve(x,\,y) 

1759: f(y)\\

1760: &=2\int_{\To^2}dy\, f(y)\int_{\M^+_\ve}dx[ \Ka_\ve(x,\,y)-\sigma]\\

1761: &\leq 2\int_{\M_+}dy\, f(y)\int_{\To^2}dx [\Ka_\ve(x,\,y)-\sigma]

1762: =2(1-\sigma)\int_{\M_+}dy\, f(y)\\

1763: &=(1-\sigma)\|f\|_1.

1764: \end{split}

1765: \]

1766: \end{proof}

1767: Let $v^{u,s}=(v^{u,s}_1,v^{u,s}_2)$ be the unit tangent vector fields in the

1768: unstable and stable direction, respectively. Clearly

1769: $|\partial^u(\Lp^i f)|\leq |\partial^u f|$, while 

1770: $|\partial^s(g\circ T^i)\leq |\partial^s g|$.

1771: \begin{lem}\label{lem:appr}

1772: For each $f,g\in\Co^{1}(\To^2,\R)$ holds

1773: \[

1774: \left|\int Q_\ve f g-\int f g\right|\leq \cs

1775: \ve\{\|f\|_\infty+\|\partial^u f\|_{L^1(\nu)}\}

1776: \{\|g\|_\infty+\|\partial^s g\|_{L^1(\nu)}\}, 

1777: \] 

1778: where $\nu$ is the measure defined by $\nu(h):=\int

1779: d\rho \int_{\partial D_{\rho}}h$.

1780: \end{lem}

1781: \begin{proof}

1782: It is convenient to introduce the following change of

1783: variables. For each $x,y\in\To^2$ close enough, let us call

1784: $[x,y]=W^u_\delta(x)\cap W^s_\delta(y)$, note that by Lemma

1785: \ref{prop:dista} such a point is

1786: always well defined provided $d(x,y)\leq \cs \delta^2$. We consider then

1787: the change of variable $\Phi:\To^2\times \To^2\to\R^2\times\To^2$,

1788: \begin{equation}\label{eq:changv}

1789: \begin{split}

1790: \xi:&=x-y\\

1791: \eta:&=[x,y].

1792: \end{split}

1793: \end{equation}

1794: Due to the absolute continuity of the holonomies the above change of

1795: variable is absolutely continuous. Clearly, $\partial^u_x \eta=0$ since

1796: moving along $W^u(x)$ 

1797: does not change the intersection point with $W^s(y)$. On the other

1798: hand $\partial^s_x \eta=J\Psi^u_x v^s(\eta)$, since moving $x$ along

1799: $W^s(x)$ moves $\eta$ on $W^s(y)$ by an amount determined exactly by the unstable

1800: holonomy $\Psi^u$ between $W^s(x)$ and $W^s(y)$. By similar arguments

1801: and a straightforward computations 

1802: \[

1803: \begin{split}

1804: \partial_{x_1}\eta&=v_2^u(x)\det\begin{pmatrix} v^s(x)

1805: &v^u(x)\end{pmatrix}^{-1}J\Psi^u_x v^s(\eta)\\

1806: \partial_{x_2}\eta&=v_1^u(x)\det\begin{pmatrix} v^u(x)

1807: &v^s(x)\end{pmatrix}^{-1}J\Psi^u_x v^s(\eta)\\

1808: \partial_{y_1}\eta&=v_2^s(y)\det\begin{pmatrix} v^u(y)

1809: &v^s(y)\end{pmatrix}^{-1}J\Psi^s_y v^u(\eta)\\

1810: \partial_{y_2}\eta&=v_1^s(y)\det\begin{pmatrix} v^s(y)

1811: &v^u(y)\end{pmatrix}^{-1}J\Psi^s_y v^u(\eta).

1812: \end{split}

1813: \]

1814: In fact, calling $\theta(x)$ the sine of the angle between stable and

1815: unstable directions at the point $x$ and $v_\perp$ the orthogonal

1816: unit vector to $v$, holds 

1817: \[

1818: \begin{split}

1819: \partial_x\eta&=J\Psi^u_x\theta(x)^{-1}\,  |v^s(y)\rangle\langle v^u_\perp(x)|\\

1820: \partial_y\eta&=J\Psi^s_y\theta(y)^{-1}\, |v^u(x)\rangle\langle v^s_\perp(y)|.

1821: \end{split}

1822: \]

1823: Accordingly,

1824: \begin{equation}\label{eq:jactot}

1825: \begin{split}

1826: J\Phi&:=\det\begin{pmatrix}

1827:             \Id &-\Id\\

1828:             \partial_{x}\eta&

1829:            \partial_{y}\eta 

1830:            \end{pmatrix}=\det\begin{pmatrix}

1831:                          \partial_{x}\eta+

1832:                           \partial_{y}\eta 

1833:                          \end{pmatrix}\\

1834: &=J\Psi^u_x\, J\Psi^s_y\,\theta(x)^{-1}\theta(y)^{-1}\langle v^s_\perp(y),\,

1835: v^u(x)\rangle^2\\

1836: &=J\Psi^u_x\, J\Psi^s_y\,\theta(x)^{-1}\theta(y)^{-1}\det\begin{pmatrix}

1837:                                                          v^u(x)&v^s(y)

1838:                                                          \end{pmatrix}^2.  

1839: \end{split}

1840: \end{equation}

1841: Before starting computing we need to collect some facts.

1842: \begin{sublem}

1843: \label{slem:domains}

1844: If $x\in\partial D_{2\rho}$, $\rho\geq r\geq \cs_4\sqrt\ve$, then, for

1845: $C_4$ large enough,

1846: \begin{enumerate}[i)]

1847: \item if $\|x-y\|\leq \ve$, then $y\not\in D_\rho$.

1848: \item $\|x-\eta\|\leq \frac\ve\rho$.

1849: \item if $\zeta\in W^u(x)$ and $\|\zeta-x\|\leq\frac\ve\rho$, then

1850: $\zeta\not\in D_\rho$.

1851: \end{enumerate}

1852: \end{sublem}

1853: \begin{proof}

1854: The first inequality follows since $D_{2\rho}$ has a vertical size

1855: $4\rho^2$. Thus $2\rho^2-\ve\geq 2\rho^2-\frac

1856: 1{\cs_4^2}\rho^2\geq\rho^2$. Such an estimate and Proposition

1857: \ref{prop:dista} imply that the angle between $W^u(x)$ and $W^u(y)$ is

1858: at least $4K_-\rho^{-1}$, thus (ii). Finally, Proposition

1859: \ref{prop:dista} implies that, if $\zeta=(z_1,z_2)$,

1860: $z_2>2\rho^2-\frac{\ve^2}{\rho^2}\geq\rho^2$. 

1861: \end{proof}

1862: We can now start computing the integral.

1863: \[

1864: \begin{split}

1865: \int_{\To^4}dxdy f(x)g(y)q_\ve(x-y)&=\int_{D_{\cs_4 r}^c}dx\int_{\To^2}dy

1866: f(x)g(y)q_\ve(x-y) +\Or(\|f\|_\infty\|g\|_\infty r^3)\\

1867: &\geq\int_{\Phi(D_{\cs_4 r}^c\times \To^2)}\!\!\!\!\!\! d\eta d\xi

1868: f(x)g(y)q_\ve(\xi)J\Phi^{-1}+ 

1869: \|f\|_\infty\|g\|_\infty \Or(r^3)

1870: \end{split}

1871: \]

1872: Next, from formula \eqref{eq:jactot} and Sub-lemma \ref{slem:domains}-$(i)$

1873: follows 

1874: \begin{equation}\label{eq:jac-bound}

1875: |J\Phi(x,y)-1|\leq \cs\frac\ve{\rho^2}.

1876: \end{equation}

1877: Hence,

1878: \[

1879: \begin{split}

1880: \int_{\To^4}dxdy f(x)g(y)q_\ve(x-y)

1881: &=\int_{\To^2} d\eta

1882: f(\eta)g(\eta)+\|f\|_\infty\|g\|_\infty\Or\left(\int_{D_r^c}|1-J\Phi^{-1}|\right)\\  

1883: &\quad+\Or\left(\int_{\Phi(D_{\cs_4 r}^c\times \To^2)} d\eta d\xi

1884: [f(x)-f(\eta)]g(y)q_\ve(\xi)\right) \\

1885: &\quad+\Or\left(\int_{\Phi(D_{\cs_4 r}^c\times \To^2)} d\eta d\xi

1886: f(\eta)[g(y)-g(\eta)]q_\ve(\xi)\right)\\

1887: &\quad +\|f\|_\infty\|g\|_\infty \Or(r^3).

1888: \end{split}

1889: \]

1890: To conclude we must compute the various error terms. 

1891: For each $f\in L^\infty$, holds

1892: \[

1893: \int_{D_R}dx\,f(x)=\frac 23\int_0^Rd\rho\, \frac \rho{1+\rho}\int_{\partial

1894: D_\rho}ds\, f(s).

1895: \]

1896: Remembering

1897: \eqref{eq:jac-bound} and applying Fubini

1898: \[

1899: \int_{D_r^c}|1-J\Phi^{-1}|\leq \cs\|f\|_\infty\int_r^1 d\rho\,

1900: \rho^2\frac\ve{\rho^2}\leq \cs\|f\|_\infty\ve.

1901: \]

1902: Next, let $\gamma_u^\eta:[-\delta,\delta]\to\To^2$ be the unstable manifold

1903: of $\eta$, parametrized by arc-length, and let $s(\eta,\xi)$ be such

1904: that $\gamma_u^\eta(s(\eta,\xi))=x$. Recalling Sub-lemma \ref{slem:domains},

1905: \[

1906: \begin{split}

1907: \left|\int_{\Phi(D_{\cs_4 r}^c\times \To^2)}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! d\eta d\xi\,

1908: [f(x)-f(\eta)]g(y)q_\ve(\xi)\right|&\leq

1909: \|g\|_\infty\int_{\Phi(D_{\cs_4 r}^c\times \To^2)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!d\eta d\xi

1910: \int_0^{s(\eta,\xi)}dt\,|\partial^u f(\gamma_u^\eta(t))|q_\ve(\xi)\\

1911: &\leq\cs \|g\|_\infty\int_{D_{r}^c\times

1912: \To^2} d\eta' d\xi\, |\partial^u f(\eta')|\frac{\|\xi\|}{|\theta(\eta')|}q_\ve(\xi)\\

1913: &\leq \cs \|g\|_\infty\int_0^1 d\rho \;\ve\int_{\partial

1914: D_\rho}|\partial^uf|\\

1915: &\leq  \cs \|g\|_\infty\|\partial^uf\|_{L^1(\nu)}\ve.

1916: \end{split}

1917: \]

1918: Analogously,

1919: \[

1920: \left|\int_{D_{r}^c\times \To^2} d\eta d\xi

1921: f(\eta)[g(y)-g(\eta)]q_\ve(\xi)\right|\leq  \cs

1922: \|f\|_\infty\|\partial^sg\|_{L^1(\nu)}\ve.

1923: \]

1924: We can finally collect all the above estimates and obtain

1925: \[

1926: \begin{split}

1927: \int_{\To^4}dxdy &f(x)g(y)q_\ve(x-y)=\int_{\To^2} d\eta

1928: f(\eta)g(\eta)\\

1929: &+(\|f\|_\infty+\|\partial^uf\|_{L^1(\nu)})(\|g\|_\infty

1930: +\|\partial^sg\|_{L^1(\nu)}) \Or(r^3+\ve)

1931: \end{split}

1932: \]

1933: from which the lemma follows by choosing $r=\ve^{\frac 13}$.

1934: \end{proof}

1935: 

1936: 

1937: \section{Decay of correlations}

1938: \label{sec:decay}

1939: Here we put together the results of the previous section to prove

1940: Theorem \ref{thm:main}. 

1941: 

1942: Let $f,g\in\Co^{1}(\To^2,\R)$, $\int f=0$, then

1943: \[

1944: \begin{split}

1945: \int\Lp^{kn_\ve}f g&=\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\int\Lp^{n_\ve

1946: i}(\Lp^{n_\ve}-\Lp_\ve)\Lp_\ve^{k-i-1}f g+\int\Lp^k_\ve fg\\

1947: &=\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\int(\Lp^{n_\ve}-\Lp_\ve)\Lp_\ve^{k-i-1}f g\circ T^{n_\ve

1948: i}+\Or(e^{-\cs k}\|f\|_1\,\|g\|_\infty)\\

1949: &=\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\int(\Id-Q_\ve)\Lp^{n_\ve}\Lp_\ve^{k-i-1}f g\circ T^{n_\ve

1950: i}+\Or(e^{-\cs k}\|f\|_1\,\|g\|_\infty) ,

1951: \end{split}

1952: \]

1953: where we have used Lemma \ref{lem:l1}. To conclude, by using Lemma

1954: \ref{lem:appr}, we need to estimate the $L^1$ norm of

1955: $\partial^u(\Lp^{n_\ve}\Lp_\ve^{j}f)$. Since $|D\Lp_\ve^{j}f|\leq \cs

1956: \ve^{-1}|f|_\infty$, for $j>0$,

1957: \[

1958: \begin{split}

1959: \|\partial^u(\Lp^{n_\ve}\Lp_\ve^{j}f)\|_{L^1(\nu)}&\leq

1960: \int_0^{\cs_4\sqrt \ve}d\rho\int_{\partial

1961: D_\rho}|\partial^u(\Lp^{n_\ve}\Lp_\ve^{j}f)|

1962: +\int_{\cs_4\sqrt \ve}^1d\rho\int_{\partial

1963: D_\rho}|\partial^u(\Lp^{n_\ve}\Lp_\ve^{j}f)|\\

1964: &\leq \cs\|f\|_\infty \int_0^{\cs_4\sqrt \ve}d\rho\,\ve^{-1}\rho+

1965: \cs|f|_\infty\int_{\cs_4\sqrt \ve}^1d\rho\int_{\partial

1966: D_\rho}\frac{\ve}{\rho^2}\ve^{-1}\\

1967: &\leq \cs \|f\|_\infty\ln\ve^{-1},

1968: \end{split}

1969: \]

1970: where we have used Lemma \ref{lem:expansion} and Sub-lemma

1971: \ref{slem:domains}.\footnote{The above estimate is not sharp. With

1972: some extra work one could avoid the $\ln\ve^{-1}$, yet this would not

1973: change in any substantial way the result, so we chose to keep the

1974: presentation as short as possible.}

1975: 

1976: 

1977: Thus

1978: \begin{equation}

1979: \label{eq:sharp}

1980: \begin{split}

1981: \left|\int\Lp^{n}f

1982: g\right|=(\|f\|_{\infty}+\|\partial^u f\|_{L^1(\nu)})\|g\|_{\Co^1}\Or(n\ve^{\frac

1983: 32}\ln\ve^{-1}+ 

1984: e^{-\cs n\sqrt \ve}).

1985: \end{split}

1986: \end{equation}

1987: Clearly the best choice is $\ve=\cs (n^{-1}\ln n)^2$ which implies the

1988: Theorem.

1989: 

1990: 

1991: 

1992: \section{Lower bound}

1993: \label{sec:lower}

1994: In this section we prove a lower bound.

1995: \begin{lem}\label{lem:lower}

1996: If there exists a sequence $\gamma_n$ such that, for each

1997: $f,g\in\Co^1$ holds

1998: \[

1999: \left|\int_{\To^2}f\circ T^{-n} g-\int_{\To^2}f\int_{\To^2}g\right| \leq

2000: (\|\partial^u f\|_{L^1(\nu)}+\|f\|_{L^1(\nu)})|g|_{\Co^1}\gamma_n,

2001: \]

2002: then there exists $\cs>0$ such that

2003: \[

2004: \gamma_n\geq n^{-2}\cs.

2005: \]

2006: \end{lem}

2007: \begin{proof}

2008: Let $g\geq 0$ be a smooth function supported away from zero (let us say that

2009: the support of $g$ does not intersect $D_{\frac 12}$). Next, let

2010: $\xi_0=(x_0,y_0)=(\frac 12,y_0)\in W^u(0)$, $\xi_n=T^{-n}\xi_0$. For

2011: each point $\eta$ in a neighborhood of $\xi_n$ let $z_1$ be the

2012: distance, along $W^u(0)$, between $\xi_n$ and $W^u(0)\cap W^s(\eta)$,

2013: and $z_2$ the distance, along $W^s(\xi_n)$, between $\xi_n$ and

2014: $W^u(\xi_n)\cap W^s(\eta)$. By construction 

2015: $\Xi_n(\eta):=(z_1,z_2)$ is a map from a neighborhood of $\xi_n$ to a

2016: neighborhood of the origin with the property that the map transforms

2017: the stable and unstable foliation into the standard foliation given by

2018: the Cartesian coordinates. Clearly, $\Xi_n^{-1}(s,0)=\gamma^u(s)$ (the

2019: unstable manifold of the origin parametrized by arc length and such that

2020: $\gamma^u(0)=\xi_n$), while $\Xi_n^{-1}(0,s)=\gamma_n^s(s)$ (the unstable

2021: manifold of $\xi_n$ parametrized by arc length). Finally we define

2022: $f_n:=(\alpha_n\beta_n)\circ \Xi_n$ with

2023: $\alpha_n(z_1):=\varsigma(\cs_5 n z_1)$, $\beta_n(z_2):=\varsigma(\cs_5n^{-1}

2024: z_2)$, for $C_5$ small enough, and 

2025: \[

2026: \varsigma(x):=\begin{cases}

2027:              1-|x+1|\quad &|x+1|\leq 1\\

2028:              0&|x+1|> 1.

2029:              \end{cases}

2030: \]

2031: In other words, $f_n$ is a function essentially supported on a

2032: neighborhood left of $\xi_n$ of order $n^{-1}$ in the unstable direction

2033: and the stable.  Accordingly, the supports of $f_n\circ T^{-k}$ and $g$

2034: are disjoint for all $k\leq \cs n$. Lemma \ref{lem:holo} implies that

2035: the the support is essentially a rhombus of size $n^{-1}$ and angle

2036: $n^{-1}$.

2037: 

2038: Thus we have

2039: \[

2040: |g|_{\Co^1}(\|\partial^u f_n\|_{L^1(\nu)}+\|f_n\|_{L^1(\nu)})\gamma_n\geq

2041: \int_{\To^2}f_n\int_{\To^2}g\geq \cs n^{-3}.

2042: \]

2043: On the other hand, using again  Lemma \ref{lem:holo},

2044: \[

2045: \|\partial^u f_n\|_{L^1(\nu)}\leq \cs n\|(\alpha'\beta)\circ

2046: \Xi_n\|_{L^1(\nu)}\leq \cs n^{-1}

2047: \]

2048: which yields the Lemma.

2049: \end{proof}

2050: 

2051: \begin{rem}

2052: \label{rem:problems} Note that the norms in Lemma \ref{lem:lower} and

2053: in Theorem \ref{thm:main} (even in the stronger version given by

2054: \eqref{eq:sharp}) are different. It is not obvious that, putting the

2055: $L^\infty$ norm instead of the $L^1(\nu)$ one keeps the same rate of

2056: mixing. More generally, it is well known that in the uniformly

2057: hyperbolic setting the smoothness of the function can have an influence

2058: on the mixing rate. An analogous effect may arise in the present

2059: setting but it remains to be investigate. A related problem that needs to be

2060: addressed is the higher dimensional analogous of the present model

2061: where the fixed point has different possibility of losing full

2062: hyperbolicty. It is clear that the present

2063: result is only the starting point and not the end of the story.

2064: \end{rem}

2065: 

2066: 

2067: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

2068: \footnotesize

2069: \bibitem{ArPr} Artuso, R., Prampolini, A., {\em Correlation decay for

2070: an intermittent area-preserving map}, Physics Letters A, {\bf 246}

2071: (1998) 407--411.

2072: \bibitem {BG} G.Benettin, A.Giorgilli, {\em On the Hamiltonian

2073: interpolation of near-to-identity symplectic mappings with application

2074: to symplectic integration algorithms}, Journal of Statistical Physics,

2075: {\bf 74}, n. 5/6, (1994), 1117--1143.

2076: \bibitem {Bl} Bleher, P. M., {\em Statistical properties of

2077: two-dimensional periodic Lorentz gas with infinite horizon},  

2078: J. Statist. Phys. {\bf 66} (1992), no. 1-2, 315--373.

2079: \bibitem {BuSi}Bunimovich, L. A.; Sinai, Ya. G., {\em Statistical

2080: properties of Lorentz gas with periodic configuration of scatterers},

2081: Comm. Math. Phys. {\bf 78} (1980/81), no. 4, 479--497.

2082: \bibitem{Go1} Gou\"ezel, S., {\em Sharp polynomial estimates for the

2083: decay of correlations},  Israel J. Math.  {\bf 139}  (2004), 29--65. 

2084: \bibitem{Go2} Gou\"ezel, S., {\em Central limit theorem and stable laws

2085: for intermittent maps}, Probab. Theory Related Fields {\bf 128}

2086: (2004), no. 1, 82--122.

2087: \bibitem{KH} A.Katok, B.Hasselblatt, {\em Introduction to the Modern

2088: Theorey of Dynamical Systems}, Encyclpedia of Mathematical and its

2089: Applicatios, {\bf 54}, Cambridge University press, Cambridge (1995).

2090: \bibitem{Hu1} Hu, H., {\em Decay of correlations for piecewise smooth

2091: maps with indifferent fixed points},  Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems

2092: {\bf 24}  (2004),  no. 2, 495--524.

2093: \bibitem{Hu2}Hu, H., {\em Statistical properties of some almost

2094: hyperbolic systems}  Smooth ergodic theory and its applications

2095: (Seattle, WA, 1999),  367--384, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., {\bf 69},

2096: Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2001. 

2097: \bibitem{L} Liverani C., {\em Flows, Random Perturbations and Rate of

2098:     Mixing},  Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems, 18, 6,

2099:     pp. 1421--1446 (1998). 

2100: \bibitem{L2} Liverani C.,{\em Birth of an elliptic island in a chaotic

2101:     sea}, Mathematical Physics Electronic Journal, {\bf 10}, 1

2102: (2004).e

2103: \bibitem{L3} Liverani C.,{\em Central Limit Theorem for Deterministic

2104: Systems}, International Conference on Dynamical Systems, Montevideo

2105: 1995, a tribute to Ricardo Ma\~ne, Pitman Research Notes in Mathemaics

2106: Series,  {\bf 362}, editors F.Ledrappier, J.Levovicz, S.Newhouse, (1996). 

2107: \bibitem{LSV} Liverani C.,, Saussol B., Vaienti S., {\em A Probabilistic

2108: Approach to Intermittency}, Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems, {\bf

2109: 19}, pp. 671--685 (1999). 

2110: \bibitem{LW} Liverani C., Wojtkowski M., {\em Ergodicity in Hamiltonian

2111: Systems}, in Dynamics Reported {\bf 4}, Springer, Berlin, Heidelbeg,

2112: (1995). 

2113: \bibitem{Ma} Maume, V. {\em Projective metrics and mixing properties

2114: on towers}, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. {\bf 353}, 3371--3389 (2001).

2115: \bibitem{Po} Pollicott, M., {\em Rates of mixing for potentials of

2116: summable variation} Trans. Am. Math. Soc. {\bf 352}, 843--853 (2000).

2117: \bibitem{PoSh}  Pollicott, M., Sharp, R. {\em Invariance principles

2118: for interval maps with an indifferent fixed point},

2119: Comm. Math. Phys. {\bf 229} (2002), no. 2, 337--346.

2120: \bibitem{PoYu} Pollicott, M., Yuri, M. {\em Statistical properties of

2121: maps with indifferent periodic points},  Commun. Math. Phys. {\bf

2122: 217}, 503--520 (2001).  

2123: \bibitem{PM} Y. Pomeau, P. Manneville, {\em Intermittent transition to

2124: turbulence in dissipative dynamical systems}, Communication in

2125: Mathematical Physics, {\bf 74}, 189--197 (1980).

2126: \bibitem{Sa} Sarig, O.M., {\em Thermodynamic Formalism for Countable

2127: Markov Shifts}, Ergodic Theory Dyn. Syst. {\bf 19}, 1565--1593 (1999) 

2128: \bibitem{Wa} Wang X.J., {\em Statistical physics of temporal

2129: intermittency}, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 40}, 6647 (1989).

2130: \bibitem{Yo1} Young L.-S., {\em  Recurrence times and rates of

2131: mixing}.  Israel J. Math.  {\bf 110}  (1999), 153--188.  

2132: \bibitem{Yu} Yuri M.,

2133: {\em Decay of correlations for certain multi-dimensional maps},

2134: Nonlinearity, {\bf 9}, n. 6 (1996) 1439--1461.

2135: \bibitem{Za} Zaslavsky, G. M.,

2136: {\em Chaos, fractional kinetics, and anomalous transport},

2137: Phys. Rep. {\bf 371} (2002), no. 6, 461--580.

2138: \bibitem{Zw} Zweim\"uller, R., {\em  Stable limits for probability

2139: preserving maps with indifferent fixed points}, Stoch. Dyn. {\bf 3}

2140: (2003), no. 1, 83--99. 

2141: \end{thebibliography}

2142: \end{document}

2143: