Exponential polynomials with Fatou and non-escaping sets of finite Lebesgue measure
Mareike Wolff

TL;DR
This paper establishes conditions under which exponential polynomials have Fatou and non-escaping sets of finite Lebesgue measure, focusing on growth conditions that control the size of the polynomial outside finite measure sets.
Contribution
It provides new criteria linking exponential polynomial growth to the finiteness of Lebesgue measure of Fatou and non-escaping sets.
Findings
Fatou set has finite Lebesgue measure under specified growth conditions
Non-escaping set also has finite Lebesgue measure with these conditions
Growth condition |f(z)| ≥ exp(|z|^α) outside finite measure sets
Abstract
We give conditions ensuring that the Fatou set and the complement of the fast escaping set of an exponential polynomial have finite Lebesgue measure. Essentially, these conditions are designed such that for some and all outside a set of finite Lebesgue measure.
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.
\cohead
Fatou and non-escaping sets of finite measure \ceheadMareike Wolff
Exponential polynomials with Fatou and non-escaping sets of finite Lebesgue measure
Mareike Wolff
Abstract
We give conditions ensuring that the Fatou set and the complement of the fast escaping set of an exponential polynomial have finite Lebesgue measure. Essentially, these conditions are designed such that for some and all outside a set of finite Lebesgue measure.
1 Introduction and results
Let be a transcendental entire function, and let denote the -th iterate of . The Fatou set of is the set of all such that the iterates form a normal family in a neighborhood of , and the Julia set is the complement of . These sets play an important role in complex dynamics. Clearly, is open, and is closed. Moreover, is always non-empty, and either , or has empty interior. An introduction to the dynamics of transcendental entire functions can be found in [2]. The escaping set of is defined by
[TABLE]
Eremenko [7] showed that is always non-empty, and that . For , let denote the maximum modulus of , and let be its -th iterate with respect to . The fast escaping set is a subset of the escaping set. It was introduced by Bergweiler and Hinkkanen [5], and is defined by
[TABLE]
where is chosen such that for .
We are interested in the Lebesgue measure of the sets defined above. McMullen [9] showed that the Julia set of , has positive Lebesgue measure. In fact, it can be seen from the proof that also has positive measure. Sixsmith [13] proved that if , where , and , then has positive measure. Sixsmith remarked without proof that his result remains true for
[TABLE]
where , , for , and , with the argument chosen in . Bergweiler and Chyzhykov [4] gave conditions ensuring that the Julia set and the escaping set of a transcendental entire function of completely regular growth have positive measure. These conditions are satisfied for the functions (1). In fact, they are also satisfied if one allows for some or . Further criteria for Julia sets and (fast) escaping sets to have positive measure are given in [1, 3].
For certain functions it is possible to obtain stronger results in the sense that one can bound the size of the complement of the Julia set or (fast) escaping set. Schubert [12] used McMullen’s methods to prove that if , then the Lebesgue measure of and is finite in any horizontal strip of width . In fact, the proof shows that one may replace by the fast escaping set here. Schubert’s result was generalized by Zhang and Yang [14] to functions of the form , where is a polynomial of degree at least satisfying .
There seem to be no papers whose main aim is to show that the Lebesgue measure of the Fatou set or the complement of the (fast) escaping set of certain transcendental entire functions is finite. However, there are some results occurring in papers mainly treating a different subject. We mention two of them. Hemke [8, Theorem 5.1] showed that if
[TABLE]
where are polynomials with and , then the Lebesgue measure of is finite. One example for such a function is . A result of Bock [6, Example 2] says that if , then , and tends to infinity for almost all .
This is different for , which is conjugate to the function considered by Schubert. From and it follows that , and that there exists a component of where tends to zero. Since is open and -periodic, the Lebesgue measure of and is infinite. Also, the Fatou set and non-escaping set of have infinite measure. To see this, note that has a superattracting fixed point at zero. Let such that is contained in the attractive basin of zero. There exists such that for all . Let and . Then is contained in the attractive basin of zero of the function . For a measurable set let denote the Lebesgue measure of . We get
[TABLE]
Summing up over all yields that the attractive basin of zero has infinite measure. See Figure 1 for an illustration of the non-escaping sets of , , and .
In this paper, we consider exponential polynomials of the form
[TABLE]
where and are polynomials with . We give conditions ensuring that the Lebesgue measure of the complement of is finite.
Theorem 1.1**.**
Let
[TABLE]
where with , and are polynomials with and , and are distinct numbers satisfying for all and , with the argument chosen in . Then the Lebesgue measure of is finite.
Note that the conditions on the imply that . Recall that Sixsmith’s result for the functions (1) remains true if for some or . This is not true in general for Theorem 1.1, as the following example shows.
Example 1.2**.**
Let
[TABLE]
Then has a superattracting fixed point at zero, and the attractive basin of zero has infinite Lebesgue measure. In particular, the Lebesgue measure of is infinite.
We will verify this in Section 5. However, under certain additional conditions on the polynomials , the statement of Theorem 1.1 remains true if for some or . This is the following result.
Theorem 1.3**.**
Let
[TABLE]
where with , and are polynomials with and , and are distinct numbers satisfying for all and , with the argument chosen in .
If there exists such that , or if , in addition suppose that there are with and , or and , respectively, such that the polynomials can be written in the form
[TABLE]
with polynomials satisfying and .
Then the Lebesgue measure of is finite.
Note that the conditions on the imply that . Theorem 1.1 is a special case of Theorem 1.3. Also, the functions (2) considered by Hemke satisfy the assumptions of Theorem 1.3.
Throughout the rest of the paper, let be an entire function satisfying the assumptions of Theorem 1.3. In Section 2, we will show that can be approximated by simpler functions in large parts of the complex plane, and use this to prove that is large outside a set of finite measure. Then, in Section 3, we show that is injective in certain small disks. We finish the proof of Theorem 1.3 in Section 4, using a construction similar to one that occurred in McMullen’s paper [9], and has since then been used by various authors. Finally, in Section 5, we verify the properties of Example 1.2
2 The behaviour of
In this section, we prove several properties of the function . We first introduce some notations. For with let
[TABLE]
Let
[TABLE]
and define the sets
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Moreover, define “exceptional sets”
[TABLE]
for (see Figure 2).
Lemma 2.1**.**
The Lebesgue measure of and is finite.
We will later prove that the function behaves “nicely” outside . For and , we denote by the open disk of radius around . Lemma 2.1 follows directly from
Lemma 2.2**.**
Let be a polynomial of degree , with as before. Then the Lebesgue measure of is finite.
Proof.
Write
[TABLE]
Fix such that all critical values of are contained in , and let be a component of . Then the restriction is biholomorphic. Let denote the corresponding inverse function. Then . Let
[TABLE]
We have, with ,
[TABLE]
If is sufficiently large, then
[TABLE]
Thus,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Using (4) and
[TABLE]
we get
[TABLE]
Since there are only finitely many such components , and also has finite Lebesgue measure, the claim follows. ∎
The next Lemma yields that if is large, then in each component of , behaves like one of its summands .
Lemma 2.3**.**
Let . If is sufficiently large, then for each connected component of there is an , such that, for all and all with , we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let such that all zeros of the polynomials are contained in . Let with . Then, for all with ,
[TABLE]
Thus, there exists such that, for all with ,
[TABLE]
By continuity, depends only on the connected component of containing , and not on itself. We get
[TABLE]
if and hence is sufficiently large. This is the result for .
Moreover,
[TABLE]
The result for now follows from similar estimates as above and the fact that
[TABLE]
Analogously, the result for follows from
[TABLE]
∎
Remark**.**
In order to prove Lemma 2.3, we did not need any assumptions on the arguments of the . In particular, the statement remains true without the additional condition (3) in the case that for some or .
This is different for the next result.
Lemma 2.4**.**
Let . If and is sufficiently large, then
[TABLE]
Remark**.**
Without the additional condition (3) in the case that for some or , the statement of Lemma 2.4 is not true in general. We will prove in Section 5 that the function given in Example 1.2 is bounded in a set of infinite Lebesgue measure.
Proof of Lemma 2.4.
We prove the statement for . The proof for is analogous. Let , and let with
[TABLE]
By Lemma 2.3,
[TABLE]
if is sufficiently large. Thus, it suffices to show that there exists with
[TABLE]
We first consider the case that satisfies the assumptions of Theorem 1.1, that is,
[TABLE]
Then there is a constant , such that for all there exists with . Since , we get
[TABLE]
if is sufficiently large.
Now suppose that does not satisfy the assumptions of Theorem 1.1. Then the assumptions of Theorem 1.3 imply that there are satisfying , and polynomials with and , such that
[TABLE]
With we have
[TABLE]
Thus,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Moreover, we assume without loss of generality that
[TABLE]
Then . Since , we get
[TABLE]
Hence,
[TABLE]
Since if is large, and since , we deduce that
[TABLE]
if is sufficiently large. This completes the proof. ∎
3 Injectivity
The aim of this section is to prove that is injective in certain disks contained in . We start with a basic injectivity criterion (see, e.g., [10, Proposition 1.10]).
Lemma 3.1**.**
Let be a convex domain, and let be holomorphic. If for all , then is injective in .
We also require the following criterion.
Lemma 3.2**.**
Let and . Let be holomorphic in . Suppose that for all and
[TABLE]
Then is injective in .
This follows directly from Becker’s univalence criterion (see, e.g., [11, Theorem 6.7]). However, Lemma 3.2 may also be proved by much more elementary arguments using Lemma 3.1. We sketch the proof here.
Sketch of proof.
We may assume without loss of generality that . Let be the branch of in satisfying . Then, for all ,
[TABLE]
Thus, . In particular, . Hence, is injective in by Lemma 3.1. ∎
We now state the main result of this section.
Lemma 3.3**.**
Let . Let such that . If is sufficiently large, then is injective in .
Proof.
Let . By Lemma 2.3, there exists such that
[TABLE]
if is sufficiently large. Thus, is injective in by Lemma 3.2. ∎
For and let denote the Euclidean distance of and .
Lemma 3.4**.**
There is a constant such that, if and is sufficiently large, then
[TABLE]
The following Corollary is an immediate consequence of Lemma 3.4 and Lemma 3.3.
Corollary 3.5**.**
If and is large, then is injective in , for as in Lemma 3.3.
Proof of Lemma 3.4.
Let . It suffices to show that if is sufficiently large, then
[TABLE]
for some constant . Let . Then there are with such that . If is sufficiently large, then and
[TABLE]
On the other hand,
[TABLE]
Thus,
[TABLE]
for . ∎
4 Proof of Theorem 1.3
In this section, we prove Theorem 1.3. First, we collect several results that we require. For consider the function
[TABLE]
We will use the following result [3, Lemma 2.1].
Lemma 4.1**.**
Let . Then there exists such that
[TABLE]
The next Lemma is due to Sixsmith [13, Theorem 3.1].
Lemma 4.2**.**
Let be a transcendental entire function and . Let for all . Suppose that there exist and such that
[TABLE]
Then either is in a multiply connected Fatou component of , or .
The following result is due to Zheng [15, Corollary 6 and Remark (J)].
Lemma 4.3**.**
Let be a transcendental entire function of the form
[TABLE]
with polynomials and . Then the Fatou set of has no multiply connected components.
For a curve we denote by the Euclidean length of .
Lemma 4.4**.**
Let be a curve of positive length, and let . Then
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let such that . We divide into subcurves satisfying for all . Then, for , there is an such that . We have
[TABLE]
Thus,
[TABLE]
Using , we get
[TABLE]
∎
The next result is a direct consequence of the well-known Koebe distortion theorem (see, e.g., [11, Theorem 1.6]).
Lemma 4.5**.**
Let , , and . Suppose that is holomorphic and injective. Then, for all ,
[TABLE]
Moreover,
[TABLE]
Proof of Theorem 1.3.
Let be a large open square centred at zero with sides parallel to the real and imaginary axis. Let be a collection of closed squares in with sides parallel to the real and imaginary axis such that
- •
,
- •
for all with , we have , and
- •
for all , the side length of satisfies
[TABLE]
with as in Lemma 3.3.
If the side length of is sufficiently large, this can be achieved as follows. First, divide into squares of a fixed size so that the side length of all squares satisfies the lower bound. If the side length of a square does not satisfy the upper bound, divide it into four squares of side length , and then continue this procedure until the side length of the squares satisfies the upper bound.
Let be the collection of all such that . By Lemma 3.4 and the definition of ,
[TABLE]
if is sufficiently large.
Next, we construct a subset of as an intersection of nested sets. Fix a square . Let
[TABLE]
and, for , let
[TABLE]
We first show that
[TABLE]
To do so, let . Then for all . Let and . Using Lemma 2.4, Lemma 4.1, and the fact that for all large , we get
[TABLE]
for all , if is sufficiently large. This yields . For , let . By Lemma 2.3 and Lemma 2.4,
[TABLE]
if is large. By Lemma 4.2 and Lemma 4.3, . Thus, , provided the square is chosen sufficiently large.
For define
[TABLE]
Moreover, for with , let
[TABLE]
denote the density of in . We will show that for any square ,
[TABLE]
where, as before, . See Figure 3 for an illustration of .
By Lemma 3.3, is injective in . We have
[TABLE]
Moreover,
[TABLE]
By (5) and Lemma 2.1, the Lebesgue measure of the union of all squares is at most . We now consider the union of all squares with . The length of satisfies
[TABLE]
Analogously,
[TABLE]
By Lemma 2.4, for all . In particular, . For with , we have
[TABLE]
By Lemma 4.4,
[TABLE]
Altogether, we get
[TABLE]
provided the square is sufficiently large. Thus,
[TABLE]
Let be the centre of . Then , and by Lemma 3.3, is injective in . By the Koebe distortion theorem (Lemma 4.5) and Lemma 2.4,
[TABLE]
if is large.
Let and . Then . By (4) applied to and Lemma 2.4,
[TABLE]
We use this to prove that the set has small density in . For all , there is a square such that . In particular, is injective in . Thus,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Hence,
[TABLE]
To estimate , let . Then
[TABLE]
By Lemma 3.3, is injective in . The Koebe distortion theorem (Lemma 4.5) yields that, for all ,
[TABLE]
By Lemma 2.4, . Thus,
[TABLE]
Induction yields
[TABLE]
In particular, for ,
[TABLE]
Since is injective in , the Koebe distortion theorem (Lemma 4.5) yields
[TABLE]
Since , we get
[TABLE]
where . Together with (4), this implies
[TABLE]
Thus,
[TABLE]
For all large , , and thus
[TABLE]
Induction yields
[TABLE]
Thus,
[TABLE]
To conclude that , fix such that . For define
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
We get
[TABLE]
if is sufficiently large. Applying this to the annuli , , yields
[TABLE]
This completes the proof. ∎
5 Verification of the properties of Example 1.2
In this section, we consider the function
[TABLE]
given in Example 1.2. Note that satisfies all assumptions of Theorem 1.3 except for condition (3). Moreover, the function has a superattracting fixed point at zero. Recall that we want to prove that the attractive basin of zero has infinite Lebesgue measure, so that in particular the Lebesgue measure of is infinite.
To do so, fix such that is contained in the attractive basin of zero. For large , let
[TABLE]
We have
[TABLE]
We now show that if is sufficiently large, then , and hence is contained in the attractive basin of zero. Let . Then
[TABLE]
We have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Since , this implies
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
if is sufficiently large. Thus,
[TABLE]
if is sufficiently large. So , if is sufficiently large.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Walter Bergweiler for helpful suggestions.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] M. Aspenberg and W. Bergweiler , Entire functions with Julia sets of positive measure, Math. Ann. 352 (2012), 27-54
- 2[2] W. Bergweiler , Iteration of meromorphic functions, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N. S.) 29 (1993), 151-188
- 3[3] W. Bergweiler , Lebesgue measure of Julia sets and escaping sets of certain entire functions, Fund. Math. 242 (2018), 281-301
- 4[4] W. Bergweilwer and I. Chyzhykov , Lebesgue measure of escaping sets of entire functions of completely regular growth, J. Lond. Math. Soc. 94 (2016), 639-661
- 5[5] W. Bergweiler and A. Hinkkanen , On semiconjugation of entire functions, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 126 (1999), 565-574
- 6[6] H. Bock , On the dynamics of entire functions on the Julia set, Results Math. 30 (1996), 16-20
- 7[7] A. E. Eremenko , On the iteration of entire functions, in: Dynamical systems and ergodic theory (Warsaw 1986) , 339-345, Banach Center Publ. 23, PWN, Warsaw, 1989
- 8[8] J.-M. Hemke , Recurrence of entire transcendental functions with simple post-singular sets, Fund. Math. 187 (2005), 255-289
