![Arxiv:2105.00301V2 [Math.DS] 8 May 2021 T Ual Sets Surable Below](http://data.docslib.org/img/b05eb48c17bc4f56e0199b3a821b0249-1.webp)
arXiv:2105.00301v2 [math.DS] 8 May 2021 T ual sets surable below. 1.3 1.2. Definition Definition in property this formulate We paper. transformations rsrigdnmclsystem dynamical preserving euneo esrbest in sets measurable of sequence uhthat such for hoe 1.1 Theorem eesr odto i.e. condition necessary i x hswl etentrlstigo h hikn agtprob target shrinking the of setting natural the be will This nti ae esuya study we paper this In 2010 2 If (2) 1 If (1) µ ∈ -a.e. B ahmtc ujc Classification. Subject Mathematics fixed a.e. where R eswt iegn u.Gvna IET an Given sum. divergent with bers Abstract. µ i S ( α o nntl many infinitely for n i µ T P µ x ∞ =1 [0 : ∞ ∩ =1 x HIKN AGTTERMFRIETS FOR THEOREM TARGET SHRINKING A ( ( ( b b B B B ∈ µ ∈ , B x , i 1 n vr roi IET ergodic every and 1) n = ∞ ( µ i ∪ [0 ( B , X B ) = ) (Borel-Cantelli) n ,r x, yia hikn agtpolmivle probability a involves problem target shrinking typical A . ( ∩ , → { → i B h eodpr fcasclBrlCnel em ie st us gives lemma Borel-Cantelli classical of part second The . 1) ie esr rsrigsystem preserving measure a Given ) 2 x B Let ) { ... , i . [0 < 1 = ) ( ∈ 0 j stebl fradius of ball the is , ,α y, = ) 1) ∞ wihaecalled are (which b X ⊂ = ) for i P ∞ : . =1 then X ∈ { T µ b α [0 µ µ hikn agtproblem target shrinking i ( ssi obe to said is n } , B ( ∈ x i i ∞ 1) B =1 ( µ Equivalently, . i [0 ,µ T µ, X, ∈ ) X . n ( × n 1. µ , HE SANADHYA SHREY n eoe eraigsqec fpstv elnum- real positive of sequence decreasing a denotes ∞ = ) ∩ =1 1) Let ∞ B . ∩ ( =1 [0 T B econsider we , n , Introduction ): 1) i j h set the i ∞ = ∞ = ∪ ∞ ∪ o nntl many infinitely for ) ( ) ,µ X, n n r 70,3A0 37E10. 37A10, 37A05, . o all for y T B n euneo esrbeset measurable of sequence a and hikn targets shrinking about Borel-Cantelli ∈ 1 − i 0 = ) ) S i T ( T T − eapoaiiysaeand space probability a be B ( i b [0 : x i B ) i x , . ( ∈ R c , 6= ) 1) α i [0 a ulLbsu esr for measure Lebesgue full has ,b x, , 0 = j → 1) ncnetof context in i ( epoeta o any for that prove We . then ) ,µ T µ, X, [0 . if o nntl many infinitely for , n .W s if ask We ). 1) µ ∈ ams every -almost i n oainby rotation and P ∞ =1 N ) } µ e esuyi this in study we lem euneo mea- of sequence a , 1 = ) ( B nevlexchange interval i = ) { B i ∞ } x i } { α measure i ∞ satisfies B =1 implies n } ea be n ∈ he N 2 SHREY SANADHYA
Definition 1.3. We say that a measure preserving system (X,µ,T ) satisfies the Monotone Shrinking Target Property (MSTP) if the sequence of measurable sets given by Bi = B(y, bi) is Borel-Cantelli for any y, and any decreasing sequence of ∞ ∞ positive numbers {bi}i=1, with µ(B(y, bi)) = ∞. iP=1 We refer readers interested in Monotone Shrinking Target Property to survey paper [Ath09]. In 1955 J. Kurzweil proved following shrinking target result for irrational rotations. Define Rα : [0, 1) → [0, 1) to be Rα(x) = x + α − ⌊x + α⌋, rotation by α ∈ [0, 1). We denote by λ the Lebesgue measure on [0, 1). Theorem 1.4 (J. Kurzweil [Kur55]). For any decreasing sequence of positive real ∞ numbers {bi}i=1 with divergent sum there exists V ⊂ [0, 1), a full measure set of α, such that for all α ∈V we have
∞ ∞ i λ ∩ ∪ B(Rα(x), bi) = 1 n=1 i=n for every x. On the other hand,
∞ ∞ i λ ∩ ∪ B(Rα(x), bi) = 1 n=1 i=n ∞ for every x and every decreasing sequence of positive real numbers {bi}i=1 with divergent sum if and only if α is badly approximable. An irrational number α is called badly approximable if its continued fraction expansion terms are bounded uniformly. Recall that the set of badly approximable numbers have zero measure hence the second part of Kurzweil’s theorem shows that λ-a.e. Rα does not satisfy MSTP. The second part of Kurzweil’s result was reproved in [Fay06], where the author provides example of a dynamical system which is mixing but does not satisfies MSTP. H.Kim [Kim07] built upon Kurzweil’s result to obtain a metric inhomogeneous diophantine approximation in almost everywhere sense. In particular, Kim showed that Theorem 1.5 (H. Kim [Kim07]). For any irrational α ∈ [0, 1) the set of y for which
i lim i. ||Rα(x) − y|| = 0, for a.e x i→∞ has full measure. Like rotations, a typical interval exchange transformation (see Definition 2.1) does not satisfy MSTP. It was shown by J. Chaika [Cha11] (see Theorem 2.2) that as a family they satisfy shrinking target property. This paper is motivated by results in [Cha11]. In particular, we provide a partial answer to Question 3 of [Cha11]. We mention the question below for completion. ASHRINKINGTARGETTHEOREMFORIETS 3
∞ ∞ Question : Let {yi}i=1 be a sequence of points is [0, 1) and {bi}i=1 be a sequence of positive real numbers with divergent sum. Is it true that for almost every IET ∞ ∞ −i T , we have λ( ∩ ∪ T (B(yi, bi))) = 1? n=1 i=n In this paper, we answer the above question for the case when the sequence {yi} is an orbit under irrational rotations (see Corollary 2.6). The outline of the paper is as follows. In Section 2, we provide background and state the main results (Theorem 2.5 and Corollary 2.6). Section 3 is dedicated to the proof of Theorem 2.5.
2. Preliminaries and statement of results
Definition 2.1. Let P = (p1,p2, ..., pd), where pi ≥ 0 for each i ∈ {1, 2, ..., d} be a d d-dimensional vector which defines interval I = [0, pi), with d sub intervals iP=1 I1 = [0,p1),I2 = [p1,p1 + p2), ...., Id = [p1 + ... + pd−1,p1 + ... + pd−1 + pd). Let π be a fixed permutation on the set {1, 2, ..., d} then an interval exchange transformation (IET) is a map T : I → I which permutes the d sub intervals Ii by π. In other words for x ∈ Ij
T (x)= x − lt + lt′ . Xt
∞ ∞ −i ∩ ∪ T (B(y, bi)) has full λ-measure for every y. n=1 i=n Following logarithm law is due to S. Galatolo [Gal06]. Theorem 2.3 (S. Galatolo [Gal06] ). Given an IET T let n τr(x,y) = min{n ∈ N,n> 0 : |T x − y| < r}. log(τr(x,y)) For almost every IET T , lim inf − log r = 1 for almost every x. r→0 Following result is due to L. Marchese [Mar11]. ∞ Theorem 2.4 (L. Marchese [Mar11]). Let {bi}i=1 be a decreasing sequence with ∞ divergent sum and with the additional property that {ibi}i=1 is decreasing. For almost every IET T ∞ ∞ i ′ δ ∈ ∩ ∪ B(T (δ ), bi)) n=1 i=n where δ and δ′ are any discontinuities of T . Our main result is the following : Theorem 2.5. Let f : [0, 1) → [0, 1) be an ergodic measure preserving transfor- ∞ mation (with respect to λ). Then for a decreasing sequence {bi}i=1 of real numbers ∞ such that λ (B(x, bi)) diverges for all x i=1 P ∞ ∞ −i i λ( ∩ ∪ f (B(Rαx, bi))) = 1 n=1 i=n for almost every x ∈ [0, 1) and almost every α ∈ [0, 1). Corollary 2.6 follows directly from Theorem 2.5. ∞ Corollary 2.6. For every ergodic IET T , a decreasing sequence {bi}i=1 of real ∞ numbers such that λ (B(x, bi)) diverges for all x i=1 P ∞ ∞ −i i λ( ∩ ∪ T (B(Rαx, bi))) = 1 n=1 i=n for almost every x ∈ [0, 1) and almost every α ∈ [0, 1).
3. Proof of the Theorem 2.5 Let f : [0, 1) → [0, 1) be an ergodic measure preserving transformation (with respect to λ). For n ∈ N, m ∈ Z, we define sets Un,m, Vn and W as follows:
n Un,m = {(α, y) ∈ [0, 1) × R : |f y − nα − m|≤ bn}; n ∈ N, m ∈ Z. (3.1)
Remark 3.1. For the definition of Un,m to make sense we need to extend the domain of f n to R. We do it as follows : Let y ∈ R, and ⌊y⌋ = y (mod 1), then y = ⌊y⌋ + k for some k ∈ Z. We define f n(y)= f n(⌊y⌋)+ k. With this new definition f n is well defined over entire R. ASHRINKINGTARGETTHEOREMFORIETS 5
∞ Vn = Un,m. (3.2) m=[−∞ ∞ ∞ W = Vn. (3.3) s\=1n[=s ′ ′ bi ′ 1 N Let {bi} be a sequence such that lim = 0 and bi < for every i ∈ . By i→∞ bi 8i ′ ′ ′ ′ replacing {bn} with {bn} we define Un,m, Vn and W in the same manner as above. Let S be the unit square S = {(α, y) : 0 ≤ α < 1, 0 ≤ y < 1} and K be the strip 2 K = {(α, y) : 0 ≤ α< 1,y ∈ R}. We denote by λ2 the Lebesgue measure on (0, 1] . Proposition 3.2. For every n ∈ N
′ ′ ′ λ2(S ∩ Vn)= λ2(K ∩ Un,0) = 2bn. Proof. For n ∈ N, m ∈ Z, we define following sets:
′ n R n ′ N Z Pn,m = {(α, f y) ∈ [0, 1) × : |f y − nα − m|≤ bn}; n ∈ , m ∈ . (3.4)
∞ ′ ′ Qn = Pn,m. (3.5) m=[−∞ n Denote by zy = f y, for all y ∈ R. Thus we can write
∞ ′ R ′ ′ ′ Pn,m = {(α, zy ) ∈ [0, 1) × : |zy − nα − m| < bn}; Qn = Pn,m. (3.6) m=[−∞ We will show
′ ′ ′ λ2(Sz ∩ Qn)= λ2(Kz ∩ Pn,0) = 2bn. (3.7) Where Sz is the square Sz = {(α, zy ) : 0 ≤ α < 1, 0 ≤ zy < 1} and Kz is the strip Kz = {(α, zy ) : 0 ≤ α < 1, zy ∈ R} on the α × Z plane. Note that ′ ′ ′ Pn,0 = {(α, zy ) : |zy − nα| < bn}. Thus λ2(Kz ∩ Pn,0) is the area of the region ′ |zy − nα| < bn, α ∈ [0, 1). This area is given by
1 ′ ′ ′ (bn + nα) − (nα − bn) dα = 2bn Z0 n ′ ′ Since f is measure preserving λ2(S ∩ Vn)= λ2(Sz ∩ Qn). Proposition 3.3. For j, k ∈ N such that j < k we have
′ ′ ′ ′ λ2(S ∩ Vj ∩ Vk) = 4bjbk. 6 SHREY SANADHYA
Proof. Observe that for j < k,
′ ′ ′ ′ λ2(Sz ∩ Qj ∩ Qk)= λ2((Kz ∩ Pk,0) ∩ Qj). (3.8) Since f n is measure preserving (3.8) is equivalent to
′ ′ ′ ′ λ2(S ∩ Vj ∩ Vk)= λ2((K ∩ Uk,0) ∩ Vj ). (3.9) n R ′ Again put zy = f y, for all y ∈ and consider the definition of Pn,m as given in ′ ′ (3.6). Observe that set (Kz ∩ Pk,0) ∩ Qj consists of k − j parallelograms each of ′ ′ 4bjb area equal to k . Thus (k − j) ′ ′ ′ ′ λ2((Kz ∩ Pk,0) ∩ Qj) = 4bjbk. (3.10) The equivalence of (3.8) and (3.9) completes the proof.
Lemma 3.4. Let t ∈ N be a fixed positive integer. Then for every N0 ∈ N, there exists a positive integer N such that
N 1 λ S ∩ V ′ > . 2 tn 8 [n=N0 Proof. Note the following inequality:
N N ′ ′ ′ ′ λ2 S ∩ Vtn ≥ λ2(S ∩ Vtn) − λ2(S ∩ Vtj ∩ Vtk). (3.11) [n=N0 nX=N0 N0≤Xj ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ λ2(S ∩ Vtn) = 2btn ; and λ2(S ∩ Vtj ∩ Vtk) = 4 btj btk. Which implies N N N N 2 ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ λ2 S ∩ Vtn ≥ 2 btn − 4 btj btk ≥ 2 btn − 2 btn . [n=N0 nX=N0 N0≤Xj ∞ ∞ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ bn ≤ tbt + tb2t + tb3t + ...+= t btn ≤ t c Xn=t nX=1 which is a contradiction. ASHRINKINGTARGETTHEOREMFORIETS 7 1 1 1 By definition for n ∈ N, b′ < . Thus, b′ < ≤ for t,n ∈ N. Hence n 16 n tn 16 tn 16 we can choose the index N such that N 3 3 1 1 < 2 b′ < + 2. = . 8 tn 8 16 2 nX=N0 Thus we have N 3 1 3 1 1 λ S ∩ V ′ > − ( )2 > − = . 2 tn 8 2 8 4 8 [n=N0 Proposition 3.5. For almost all α ∈ [0, 1) and a positive measure set of x ∈ [0, 1) ∞ ∞ −i i ′ λ( ∩ ∪ f (B(Rαx, bi))) > 0. (3.12) n=1 i=n Before we prove Proposition 3.5 we discuss following lemma: Lemma 3.6. Let B ⊂ [0, 1) be a set such that λ(B) > σ for some 0 <σ< 1. Assume that there exists k ∈ N such that 1 B = B + (mod 1) k 100 101 Let J ∈ [0, 1) be an interval such that < l(J) < , where l(J) denotes the k k length of J. Then there exists a constant C (independent of J and k) such that λ(J ∩ B) >C.σ.l(J). n(x) Proof. Let x ∈ B then there exists n(x) ∈ N, such that y := x+ (mod 1) ∈ J. x k 1 100 This is true since l(J) is much larger than . Since l(J) > y is not unique, k k x in fact there are at least 99 such points (taking into consideration end points of J). Define n D = {y ∈ J : y = x + , for some n ∈ N}. x x x k 1 As discussed above |D | is at least 99. Since B is invariant under we have x k Dx ⊂ B. Observe that k−1 1 j B = B ∩ (0, ) + k k jG=0 Thus we get 8 SHREY SANADHYA λ(B ∩ J)= |Dx| dx 1 ZB∩(0, k ) 1 σ 99 101 99 = |Dx| µ B ∩ (0, ) ≥ 99 = σ > σ l(J). k k 101 k 101 99 Put C = , we get 101 λ(B ∩ J) >C.σ.l(J). Proof of Proposition 3.5. Note that by definition for t ∈ N, ′ R tn ′ N Z Utn,m = {(α, y) ∈ [0, 1) × : |f y − tnα − m|≤ btn}; n ∈ , m ∈ . (3.13) ∞ ′ ′ Vtn = Utn,m. (3.14) m=[−∞ For t ∈ N we define ∞ ∞ ′ ′ Wt = Vtn. (3.15) s\=1n[=s ′ ′ By Lemma 3.4 we have λ2(S ∩ Wt ) > 0. If we think of Utn,m as ′ R tn ′ N Z Utn,m = {(α, y) ∈ [0, 1) × : |f y − tn(α) − m|≤ btn}; n ∈ , m ∈ . ′ N Then λ2(S ∩ Wt ) > 0 implies that for every t ∈ , for a positive measure set of α ∈ [0, 1) and a positive measure set of x ∈ [0, 1) ∞ ∞ −ti ti ′ λ( ∩ ∪ f (B(Rα x, bti))) > 0. (3.16) n=1 i=n For t ∈ N we call such positive set of α ∈ [0, 1) by At. Thus in particular for α ∈ A1, we have ∞ ∞ −i i ′ λ( ∩ ∪ f (B(Rαx, bi))) > 0. (3.17) n=1 i=n for a positive measure set of x ∈ [0, 1). Note that for every t ∈ N the set At is 1 invariant under addition by (mod 1); and A ⊆ A . Lemma 3.4 implies that for t t 1 1 every t ∈ N, λ(At) > . We want to show that A has full measure. 8 1 100 101 For any 2r ∈ (0, 1), we can find appropriate tr ∈ N such that < 2r < . tr tr For any x ∈ (0, 1] by using Lemma 3.6 we get 1 λ(A r ∩ B(x, r)) > C . . 2r t 8 ASHRINKINGTARGETTHEOREMFORIETS 9 where B(x, r) denotes a ball of radius r centered at x. Since Atr ⊂ A1 we get 1 C λ(A ∩ B(x, r)) > C . . 2r = r. (3.18) 1 8 4 c Assume λ(A1) < 1 and let x be a Lebesgue density point for A1 then λ(Ac ∩ B(x, r)) lim 1 = 1. r→0 λ(B(x, r)) Thus for every ǫ> 0 we can find r> 0 such that c λ(A1 ∩ B(x, r)) > (1 − ǫ) 2r. C Choose ǫ = (for C as in (3.18)) we get 8 C C C λ(Ac ∩ B(x, r)) > (1 − ) 2r = 2r − 2r. = 2r − r. 1 8 8 4 Hence we get, C λ(A ∩ B(x, r)) < r. 1 4 which is a contradiction thus λ(A1) = 1. This completes the proof of Proposition 3.5. Lemma 3.7. For almost all α ∈ [0, 1) and a.e x ∈ [0, 1) ∞ ∞ −i i ′ λ( ∩ ∪ f (B(Rαx, bi))) = 1. n=1 i=n Proof. So far we have shown that for almost every α ∈ [0, 1), and a positive measure set of x ∈ [0, 1) ∞ ∞ −i i ′ λ( ∩ ∪ f (B(Rαx, bi))) > 0. (3.19) n=1 i=n Fix an irrational α ∈ [0, 1) and define the set Hα as follows ∞ ∞ 2 −i i ′ Hα = {(x,y) ∈ [0, 1) : y ∈ ∩ ∪ f (B(Rαx, bi))} n=1 i=n Note that (3.19) implies that λ2(Hα) > 0 where λ2 is the Lebesgue measure on 2 [0, 1) . We show that if (x,y) ∈ Hα then (Rαx,f(y)) ∈ Hα. To see this, let (x,y) ∈ Hα then i i ′ f y belongs to an infinite number of sets B(Rαx, bi). ′ ′ Since bi ≤ bi−1 i i ′ f y belongs to an infinite number of sets B(Rαx, bi−1). Thus we get i−1 i−1 ′ f f(y) belongs to an infinite number of sets B(Rα (Rαx), bi−1). Hence −(i−1) i−1 ′ f(y) belongs to an infinite number of sets f B(Rα (Rαx), bi−1). 10 SHREY SANADHYA In other words −i i ′ f(y) belongs to an infinite number of sets f B(Rα(Rαx), bi) which implies (Rαx,f(y)) ∈ Hα. Now we mention a condition for ergodicity of cartesian product of two ergodic measure preserving transformations of probability space. We refer our readers to [Qua12, Theorem 12] for a detailed proof. In the theorem below UT (resp. US) denotes the Koopman operator associated with the transformation T (resp. S). Theorem (Ergodicity of product). Let T and S be two probability measure pre- serving transformations. If T and S are ergodic, then T × S is ergodic if and only if US and UT have no common eigenvalues other than 1. Since f is a probability measure preserving transformation Uf has at most count- ably many eigenvalues. Hence Uf shares non-trivial eigenvalue with Rα for at most countably many α. Thus by the result above Rα × f is ergodic for almost every α ∈ [0, 1). This implies λ2(Hα) = 1 for almost every α ∈ [0, 1). This completes the proof of the lemma. ′ N Proof of Theorem 2.5. Observe that bi < bi, for every i ∈ , hence ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ i ′ i ∩ ∪ (B(Rαx, bi)) ⊂ ∩ ∪ (B(Rαx, bi)). n=1 i=n n=1 i=n Thus we get, ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ −i i ′ −i i ∩ ∪ f (B(Rαx, bi)) ⊂ ∩ ∪ f (B(Rαx, bi)). n=1 i=n n=1 i=n Hence Lemma 3.7 implies Theorem 2.5. Acknowledgments. I would like to thank Jon Chaika for suggesting this prob- lem and many helpful discussions. References [Ath09] J. S. Athreya. Logarithm laws and shrinking target properties. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. Math. Sci., 119(4):541–557, 2009. [Cha11] Jon Chaika. Shrinking targets for IETs: extending a theorem of Kurzweil. Geom. Funct. Anal., 21(5):1020–1042, 2011. [Fay06] Bassam Fayad. Mixing in the absence of the shrinking target property. Bull. London Math. Soc., 38(5):829–838, 2006. [Gal06] Stefano Galatolo. Hitting time and dimension in axiom A systems, generic interval ex- changes and an application to Birkoff sums. J. Stat. Phys., 123(1):111–124, 2006. [Kea75] Michael Keane. Interval exchange transformations. Math. Z., 141:25–31, 1975. [Kim07] Dong Han Kim. The shrinking target property of irrational rotations. Nonlinearity, 20(7):1637–1643, 2007. [KMS86] Steven Kerckhoff, Howard Masur, and John Smillie. Ergodicity of billiard flows and quadratic differentials. Ann. of Math. (2), 124(2):293–311, 1986. [Kur55] J. Kurzweil. On the metric theory of inhomogeneous diophantine approximations. Studia Math., 15:84–112, 1955. [Mar11] Luca Marchese. The Khinchin theorem for interval-exchange transformations. J. Mod. Dyn., 5(1):123–183, 2011. ASHRINKINGTARGETTHEOREMFORIETS 11 [Qua12] Anthony Quas. Ergodicity and mixing properties. In Mathematics of complexity and dynamical systems. Vols. 1–3, pages 225–240. Springer, New York, 2012. Department of Mathematics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, 52242 IA, USA Email address: [email protected]