Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-ks5gx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-20T07:55:07.311Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weak forms of topological and measure-theoretical equicontinuity: relationships with discrete spectrum and sequence entropy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 March 2016

FELIPE GARCÍA-RAMOS
FELIPE GARCÍA-RAMOS*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia, Canada email felipegra@math.ubc.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We define weaker forms of topological and measure-theoretical equicontinuity for topological dynamical systems, and we study their relationships with sequence entropy and systems with discrete spectrum. We show that for topological systems equipped with ergodic measures having discrete spectrum is equivalent to $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}$-mean equicontinuity. In the purely topological category we show that minimal subshifts with zero topological sequence entropy are strictly contained in diam-mean equicontinuous systems; and that transitive almost automorphic subshifts are diam-mean equicontinuous if and only if they are regular (i.e. the maximal equicontinuous factor map is one–one on a set of full Haar measure). For both categories we find characterizations using stronger versions of the classical notion of sensitivity. As a consequence, we obtain a dichotomy between discrete spectrum and a strong form of measure-theoretical sensitivity.

Type
Research Article
Information
Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , June 2017 , pp. 1211 - 1237
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press, 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Akin, E., Auslander, J. and Berg, K.. When is a transitive map chaotic? Ohio State Univ. Math. Res. Inst. Publ. 5(2) (1996), 25–40.Google Scholar
Auslander, J.. Mean-l-stable systems. Illinois J. Math. 3(4) (1959), 566–579.Google Scholar
Auslander, J.. Minimal Flows and Their Extensions (North-Holland Mathematics Studies) . Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 1988.Google Scholar
Auslander, J. and Yorke, J. A.. Interval maps, factors of maps, and chaos. Tohoku Math. J. 32(2) (1980), 177–188.Google Scholar
Blanchard, F.. A disjointness theorem involving topological entropy. Bull. Soc. Math. France 121(4) (1993), 465–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanchard, F., Formenti, E. and Kurka, P.. Cellular automata in the Cantor, Besicovitch, and Weyl topological spaces. Complex Systems 11(2) (1997), 107–123.Google Scholar
Cadre, B. and Jacob, P.. On pairwise sensitivity. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 309(1) (2005), 375–382.Google Scholar
Cortez, M.. G-odometers and their almost one-to-one extensions. J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) 78(1) (2008), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downarowicz, T.. Survey of odometers and Toeplitz flows. Contemp. Math. 385 (2005), 7–38.Google Scholar
Downarowicz, T. and Lacroix, Y.. Forward mean proximal pairs and zero entropy. Israel J. Math. 191(2) (2012), 945–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fomin, S.. On dynamical systems with pure point spectrum. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 77(4) (1951), 29–32.Google Scholar
García-Ramos, F.. A characterization of $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}$ -equicontinuity for topological dynamical systems. Preprint, 2014, arXiv:1309.0467.Google Scholar
García-Ramos, F.. Limit behaviour of $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}$ -equicontinuous cellular automata. Preprint, 2014. Theoret. Comput. Sci., to appear.Google Scholar
Gilman, R.. Periodic behavior of linear automata. Dynamical Systems (Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 1342) . Ed. Alexander, J.. Springer, Heidelberg, 1988, pp. 216–219.Google Scholar
Gilman, R. H.. Classes of linear automata. Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. 7 (1987), 105–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glasner, E.. On tame dynamical systems. Colloq. Math. 105 (2006), 283–295.Google Scholar
Glasner, E. and Ye, X.. Local entropy theory. Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. 29(2) (2009), 321–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, T.. Topological sequence entropy. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3) 29(3) (1974), 331–350.Google Scholar
Gorodnik, A. and Nevo, A.. The Ergodic Theory of Lattice Subgroups (Annals of Mathematics Studies, 172) . Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gouere, J.-B.. Quasicrystals and almost periodicity. Comm. Math. Phys. 255(3) (2005), 655–681.Google Scholar
Halmos, P. R. and von Neumann, J.. Operator methods in classical mechanics, II. Ann. of Math. (2) 43(2) (1942), 332–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, W.. Tame systems and scrambled pairs under an abelian group action. Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. 26(5) (2006), 1549–1568.Google Scholar
Huang, W., Li, S., Shao, S. and Ye, X.. Null systems and sequence entropy pairs. Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. 23(5) (2003), 1505–1523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, W., Lu, P. and Ye, X.. Measure-theoretical sensitivity and equicontinuity. Israel J. Math. 183 (2011), 233–283.Google Scholar
Huang, W., Maass, A. and Ye, X.. Sequence entropy pairs and complexity pairs for a measure. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 54(4) (2004), 1005–1028.Google Scholar
Kerr, D. and Li, H.. Independence in topological and C*-dynamics. Math. Ann. 338(4) (2007), 869–926.Google Scholar
Kerr, D. and Li, H.. Combinatorial independence in measurable dynamics. J. Funct. Anal. 256(5) (2009), 1341–1386.Google Scholar
Köhler, A.. Enveloping semigroups for flows. Proc. R. Ir. Acad. A 95 (1995), 179–191.Google Scholar
Krengel, U. and Brunel, A.. Ergodic Theorems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kushnirenko, A. G.. On metric invariants of entropy type. Russian Math. Surveys 22(5) (1967), 53–61.Google Scholar
Li, J., Tu, S. and Ye, X.. Mean equicontinuity and mean sensitivity. Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. 35(8) (2015), 2587–2612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindenstrauss, E.. Pointwise theorems for amenable groups. Invent. Math. 146(2) (2001), 259–295.Google Scholar
Mackey, G. W.. Ergodic transformation groups with a pure point spectrum. Illinois J. Math. 8(4) (1964), 593–600.Google Scholar
Moothathu, T. K. S.. Stronger forms of sensitivity for dynamical systems. Nonlinearity 20(9) (2007), 2115–2126.Google Scholar
Ornstein, D. and Weiss, B.. Mean distality and tightness. Proc. Steklov Math. Inst.Google Scholar
Pier, J.-P.. Amenable Locally Compact Groups. Wiley, New York, 1984.Google Scholar
Scarpellini, B.. Stability properties of flows with pure point spectrum. J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) 2(3) (1982), 451–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonnet, M.. Measures and Probabilities (Universitext) . Springer, Berlin, 1996.Google Scholar
Walters, P.. An Introduction to Ergodic Theory (Graduate Texts in Mathematics) . Springer, Berlin, 2000.Google Scholar