Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:08:41.405Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Joint spectral radius, Sturmian measures and the finiteness conjecture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 May 2017

OLIVER JENKINSON
Affiliation:
School of Mathematical Sciences, Queen Mary, University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, UK email [email protected]
MARK POLLICOTT
Affiliation:
Mathematics Institute, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK email [email protected]

Abstract

The joint spectral radius of a pair of $2\times 2$ real matrices $(A_{0},A_{1})\in M_{2}(\mathbb{R})^{2}$ is defined to be $r(A_{0},A_{1})=\limsup _{n\rightarrow \infty }\max \{\Vert A_{i_{1}}\cdots A_{i_{n}}\Vert ^{1/n}:i_{j}\in \{0,1\}\}$, the optimal growth rate of the norm of products of these matrices. The Lagarias–Wang finiteness conjecture [Lagarias and Wang. The finiteness conjecture for the generalized spectral radius of a set of matrices. Linear Algebra Appl.214 (1995), 17–42], asserting that $r(A_{0},A_{1})$ is always the $n$th root of the spectral radius of some length-$n$ product $A_{i_{1}}\cdots A_{i_{n}}$, has been refuted by Bousch and Mairesse [Asymptotic height optimization for topical IFS, Tetris heaps, and the finiteness conjecture. J. Amer. Math. Soc.15 (2002), 77–111], with subsequent counterexamples presented by Blondel et al [An elementary counterexample to the finiteness conjecture. SIAM J. Matrix Anal.24 (2003), 963–970], Kozyakin [A dynamical systems construction of a counterexample to the finiteness conjecture. Proceedings of the 44th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, and the European Control Conference (Seville, Spain, December 2005). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, pp. 2338–2343] and Hare et al [An explicit counterexample to the Lagarias–Wang finiteness conjecture. Adv. Math.226 (2011), 4667–4701]. In this article, we introduce a new approach to generating finiteness counterexamples, and use this to exhibit an open subset of $M_{2}(\mathbb{R})^{2}$ with the property that each member $(A_{0},A_{1})$ of the subset generates uncountably many counterexamples of the form $(A_{0},tA_{1})$. Our methods employ ergodic theory; in particular, the analysis of Sturmian invariant measures. This approach allows a short proof that the relationship between the parameter $t$ and the Sturmian parameter ${\mathcal{P}}(t)$ is a devil’s staircase.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press, 2017 

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.)

References

Blondel, V. D.. The birth of the joint spectral radius: an interview with Gilbert Strang. Linear Algebra Appl. 428 (2008), 22612264.Google Scholar
Blondel, V. D., Theys, J. and Vladimirov, A. A.. An elementary counterexample to the finiteness conjecture. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. 24 (2003), 963970.Google Scholar
Bousch, T.. Le poisson n’a pas d’arêtes. Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Probab. Stat. 36 (2000), 489508.Google Scholar
Bousch, T. and Mairesse, J.. Asymptotic height optimization for topical IFS, Tetris heaps, and the finiteness conjecture. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 15 (2002), 77111.Google Scholar
Bullett, S. and Sentenac, P.. Ordered orbits of the shift, square roots, and the devil’s staircase. Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 115 (1994), 451481.Google Scholar
Daubechies, I. and Lagarias, J. C.. Sets of matrices all infinite products of which converge. Linear Algebra Appl. 162 (1992), 227261.Google Scholar
Gurvits, L.. Stability of Linear Inclusions–Part 2. NECI Technical Report, 1996, pp. 96–173.Google Scholar
Hare, K. G., Morris, I.  D., Sidorov, N. and Theys, J.. An explicit counterexample to the Lagarias–Wang finiteness conjecture. Adv. Math. 226 (2011), 46674701.Google Scholar
Jenkinson, O.. Ergodic optimization. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 15 (2006), 197224.Google Scholar
Jungers, R.. The Joint Spectral Radius (Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, 385) . Springer, Berlin, 2009.Google Scholar
Kannan, R. and Krueger, C. K.. Advanced Analysis on the Real Line. Springer, New York, 1996.Google Scholar
Kozyakin, V. S.. A dynamical systems construction of a counterexample to the finiteness conjecture. Proc. 44th IEEE Conf. Decision and Control and European Control Conf. (Seville, Spain, December 2005). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, pp. 23382343.Google Scholar
Kozyakin, V. S.. An annotated bibliography on convergence of matrix products and the theory of joint/generalized spectral radius. Preprint, 2013, available online at https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f650/fcd2954934f3c9c9414c37f276cff4909b94.pdf.Google Scholar
Lagarias, J. C. and Wang, Y.. The finiteness conjecture for the generalized spectral radius of a set of matrices. Linear Algebra Appl. 214 (1995), 1742.Google Scholar
Maesumi, M.. Optimal norms and the computation of joint spectral radius of matrices. Linear Algebra Appl. 428 (2008), 23242338.Google Scholar
Morris, I. D. and Sidorov, N.. On a devil’s staircase associated to the joint spectral radii of a family of pairs of matrices. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 15 (2013), 17471782.Google Scholar
Morse, M. and Hedlund, G. A.. Symbolic dynamics II. Sturmian trajectories. Amer. J. Math. 62 (1940), 142.Google Scholar
Parthasarathy, K. R.. On the category of ergodic measures. Illinois J. Math. 5 (1961), 648656.Google Scholar
Rota, G.-C. and Strang, G.. A note on the joint spectral radius. Indag. Math. (N.S.) 22 (1960), 379381.Google Scholar
Sigmund, K.. Generic properties of invariant measures for Axiom A diffeomorphisms. Invent. Math. 11 (1970), 99109.Google Scholar
Strang, G.. The joint spectral radius, commentary by Gilbert Strang on paper number 5, in Collected Works of Gian-Carlo Rota, 2001; available online from http://www-math.mit.edu/∼gs.Google Scholar
Walters, P.. An Introduction to Ergodic Theory. Springer, Berlin, 1981.Google Scholar