Discounted Gottschalk-Hedlund theorem
Xifeng Su, Philippe Thieullen

TL;DR
This paper investigates the convergence of discounted transfer functions in ergodic optimization, establishing that convergence occurs if and only if the observable is balanced, thus linking weak KAM theory and ergodic properties.
Contribution
It provides a new characterization of convergence for discounted transfer functions in the context of ergodic optimization, specifically for coboundary observables over minimal systems.
Findings
Discounted transfer function converges if and only if the observable is balanced.
Convergence is characterized within the framework of ergodic optimization and weak KAM theory.
The result links the convergence property to the balanced nature of the observable.
Abstract
Ergodic optimization and discrete weak KAM theory are two parallel theories with several results in common. For instance, the Mather set is the locus of orbits which minimize the ergodic averages of a given observable. In the favorable cases, the observable is cohomologous to its ergodic minimizing value on the Mather set, and the discrete weak KAM solution plays the role of the transfer function. One possibility of construction of such a coboundary is by using the non linear Lax-Oleinik operator. The other possibility is by using a discounted cohomological equation. It is known that the discounted discrete weak KAM solution converges to some selected weak KAM solution. We show that, in the ergodic optimization case for a coboundary observable over a minimal system, the discounted transfer function converges if and only if the observable is balanced.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsQuantum chaos and dynamical systems · Mathematical Dynamics and Fractals · Markov Chains and Monte Carlo Methods
Discounted Gottschalk-Hedlund theorem
Xifeng Su 111School of Mathematical Sciences, Beijing Normal University, No. 19, XinJieKouWai St., HaiDian District, Beijing 100875, P. R. China, [email protected]
Philippe Thieullen 222Institut de Mathématiques de Bordeaux, Université de Bordeaux, 351, cours de la Libération - F 33405 Talence, France, [email protected]
Abstract
Ergodic optimization and discrete weak KAM theory are two parallel theories with several results in common. For instance, the Mather set is the locus of orbits which minimize the ergodic averages of a given observable. In the favorable cases, the observable is cohomologous to its ergodic minimizing value on the Mather set, and the discrete weak KAM solution plays the role of the transfer function. One possibility of construction of such a coboundary is by using the non linear Lax-Oleinik operator. The other possibility is by using a discounted cohomological equation. It is known that the discounted discrete weak KAM solution converges to some selected weak KAM solution. We show that, in the ergodic optimization case for a coboundary observable over a minimal system, the discounted transfer function converges if and only if the observable is balanced.
1 Notations and main statements
We consider a topological dynamical system where is a compact metric space and is a continuous map. We denote by the set of probability -invariant measures, and for every continuous function , by , the ergodic minimizing value of
[TABLE]
A minimizing measure is a probability invariant measure realizing the minimum in (1). We denote by the set of minimizing measures.
Given a continuous function , we want to solve the following cohomological equation where are the two unknowns,
[TABLE]
A function of the form is called a coboundary, and is usually called a transfer function.
Notice that such an invariant measure giving a unit mass to is necessarily a minimizing measure and satisfies . As we are interested in the “largest” set for which such a transfer function exists, it is hence natural to consider the following set, called Mather set and defined by
[TABLE]
It is easy to see that the Mather set is closed, invariant, and is equal to the support of some minimizing measure. The terminology “Mather set”, following Mather [10] (where it is denoted before proposition 3), comes from the weak KAM theory initiated by Mañé [9] (Theorem B, cohomological equation on each ), then extended by Fathi [4] (theorem 1, sub-cohomological equation on the whole set ) and later thoroughly studied by Fathi in [5] (the final terminology in section 4.12).
For strongly regular systems, if the dynamical system is a Smale space [12] (for example a sub-shift of finite type) and the function is Walters [14] (for example Hölder), then the cohomological equation (CE) admits a solution where and is Walters, see Bousch [1]. In an opposite direction, if is a topological dynamical system admitting invariant measures with different supports, for generic function , every minimizing measure has full support, , and there is no solution of (CE) with a continuous , see Bousch [1]. There also exists lacunary functions on the torus and Liouville numbers such that on the minimal and uniquely ergodic dynamical system , ( denotes the rotation by ), there is no solution of (CE) with a Borel , see Katok-Robinson [8] (remarks 1 after theorem 3.5) and Herman [7].
Our first result is the following.
Theorem 1**.**
Let be a topological dynamical system and be a continuous function. Assume
[TABLE]
Let . Define a Borel set
[TABLE]
Then is a solution of the cohomological equation (CE):
- i.
* is lower semi-continuous,* 2. ii.
, 3. iii.
, 4. iv.
* is residual in .*
The following corollary is an extension of Gottschalk-Hedlund theorem [6] for every minimal subsets of the Mather set.
Corollary 2**.**
Let be a topological dynamical system, and be a continuous function. Assume
[TABLE]
Then
- i.
, 2. ii.
if is invariant and then is minimizing, 3. iii.
there exists a lower semi-continuous function such that
- (a)
, 2. (b)
, 3. (c)
for every minimal subset , is continuous on and
[TABLE]
If is minimal, the Mather set must be equal to and we recover the classical Gottshalk-Hedlund theorem. The following statement is a slightly improved extension.
Theorem 3** (Gottschalk-Hedlund [6]).**
If is minimal, , and
[TABLE]
then .
Notice that if is uniquely ergodic, and for a unique ergodic measure .
We now consider a weaker form of the cohomological equation that we call discounted cohomological equation:
[TABLE]
Notice that (DCE) has a unique solution, called discounted transfer function, and given by
[TABLE]
We question whether the discounted solution converges to some solution of (CE) as . We give a complete answer when is a coboundary over a minimal system.
Definition 4**.**
Let be a topological dynamical system, and be a continuous function.
- i.
We say that is a regular coboundary if there exists a continuous function such that . 2. ii.
We say that is a balanced coboundary if there exists a continuous function such that and is independent of .
Our second result is the following.
Theorem 5**.**
Let be a topological dynamical system, and be a regular coboundary.
- i.
If is balanced, then there exists a unique such that and , and uniformly in . 2. ii.
If is minimal and is not balanced, then there exist satisfying , two ergodic invariant measures satisfying , and a residual set such that, for every , there exists a decreasing sequence converging to 0 such that
[TABLE]
The notion of discounted cohomological equation is reminiscent of the notion of discounted weak KAM solution discussed in [3] in the continuous setting and in [2, 13] in the discrete setting. Contrary to the phenomenon observed in theorem 5, the discounted weak KAM solution converges to some selected weak KAM solution, called balanced weak KAM solution, see [13] proposition 18 in the discrete setting.
2 Proofs for the cohomological equation
Proof of theorem 1.
Item (i) is a consequence of the fact that the supremum of continuous functions is lower semi-continuous.
Item (ii) is an immediate consequence of the following identity:
[TABLE]
Indeed let . Either
[TABLE]
or
[TABLE]
We have proved in particular,
[TABLE]
Notice that it implies and .
The proof of item (iii) will follow from the fact that for every . Let and be a minimizing measure. We have
[TABLE]
which implies .
The proof of item (iv) will follow from the fact that on the set of points of continuity of belonging to the Mather set, and that is residual in the Mather set thanks to the lower semi-continuity of . Indeed let . Then for some minimizing measure . By contradiction, if , we would have on a neighborhood containing . Since , we would have , contradicting a.e. Therefore, for any , which implies (4) holds with instead of . Hence, the residual set is contained in , which completes the proof of (iv). ∎
Proof of corollary 2.
Theorem 1 implies the existence of a lower semi-continuous function and a residual subset such that
- •
,
- •
,
- •
.
The proof of item (i) follows from,
[TABLE]
and from the fact that is residual and in particular dense in the Mather set.
The proof of item (ii) follows from item (i). If , then
[TABLE]
The proof of item (iii) follows from theorem 1 applied to on any . Indeed, thanks to item (i), we have
[TABLE]
There exists a non-positive upper semi-continuous function such that
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
Since is lower semi-continuous on , attains its infimum on . Define
[TABLE]
Since , is compact, -invariant, therefore by minimality is equal to : on , and restricted to the are continuous and on . ∎
We will need the following lemma for the proof of theorem 3. See proposition A.7 in Morris [11] for a proof.
Lemma 6**.**
Let be a topological dynamical system and . Then
[TABLE]
Proof of theorem 3.
It follows from lemma 6 and by assumption of the theorem, there exists and a constant such that
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
By minimality of , the orbit of \big{(}\sigma^{k}(\omega_{*})\big{)}_{k\geq 0} is dense,
[TABLE]
We conclude the proof by using corollary 2. ∎
3 Proofs for the discounted cohomological equation
Notice that the unique solution of (DCE), equation (3), can be written as
[TABLE]
where is a probability measure not necessarily invariant.
The proof of item (i) of theorem 5 follows from the following lemma.
Lemma 7**.**
Let be .
- i.
If , then uniformly in . 2. ii.
If , then .
Proof of item (i).
We first prove that
[TABLE]
Let be a sequence tending to 0 and realizing the above . Let be a sequence of points of realizing the supremum of for each . Choose a sub-sequence of , that we denote in the same way, such that converges to some probability measure . Notice that
[TABLE]
Taking , we obtain and
[TABLE]
Similarly we show . Item (i) is proved. ∎
Proof of item (ii).
We observe
[TABLE]
Proof of item (i) of theorem 5.
If is a balanced coboundary, for some satisfying . Then, thanks to lemma 7,
[TABLE]
In particular, such a transfer function is unique. ∎
The proof of the second item of theorem 5 will be given after the two following lemmas.
Lemma 8**.**
Let be a minimal dynamical system, and be two ergodic measures. Then there exists a residual subset such that for every there exists a sequence of integers such that
[TABLE]
where .
Proof.
Let . As is ergodic, thanks to Birkhoff’s ergodic theorem, for every ,
[TABLE]
is an open and dense set of . As is minimal, . The set is thus a residual set of . Define . Then is a residual set. If , we construct by induction a sequence of integers satisfying the properties of the above lemma:
[TABLE]
and so on. ∎
Denote by the empirical measure.
Lemma 9**.**
For every
[TABLE]
Proof.
We have
[TABLE]
Proof of item (ii) of theorem 5.
Let be a minimal dynamical system and be a non-balanced coboundary: , for some ergodic measures . Let be the residual set given by lemma 8. Let and be the sequence of integers given by lemma 8. Let . Define
[TABLE]
Then, using lemma 9,
[TABLE]
We conclude the proof of the theorem using item (ii) of lemma 7. ∎
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] T. Bousch, La condition de Walters, Ann. Scient. Ec. Norm. Sup. 4 e e {{}^{\text{e}}} série, Vo. 34 (2001), 287–311.
- 2[2] A. Davini, A. Fathi, R. Iturriaga, M. Zavidovique, Convergence of the solutions of the discounted equation: the discrete case Mathematische Zeitschrift, Vol. 284 (2016), 1021–1034.
- 3[3] A. Davini, A. Fathi, R. Iturriaga, M. Zavidovique, Convergence of the solutions of the discounted Hamilton–Jacobi equation: convergence of the discounted solutions, Inventiones Mathematicae, Vol. 206, No. 1 (2016), 29–55.
- 4[4] A. Fathi, Théorèmes KAM faible et théorie de Mather sur les systèmes lagrangiens, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Vol. 324, Série I (1997), 1043–1046.
- 5[5] A. Fathi, Weak KAM Theorem in Lagrangian Dynamics, Preliminary Version 10 (2008)
- 6[6] W.H. Gottschalk, G.A. Hedlund, Toplogical Dynamics, American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, Vol. 36 (1955), American Mathematical Society, Providence, R. I.
- 7[7] M.R. Herman, L 2 superscript 𝐿 2 L^{2} regularity of measurable solutions of a finite-difference equation of the circle, Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems, Vol. 24 (2004), 1277–1281.
- 8[8] A. Katok, Cocycles, cohomology and combinatorial constructions in ergodic theory, In collaboration with E. A. Robinson, Jr. Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Vol. 69, Smooth ergodic theory and its applications (Seattle, WA, 1999), 107–173, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2001.
