 Research
 Open Access
 Published:
Volumepreserving diffeomorphisms with inverse shadowing
Journal of Inequalities and Applications volume 2012, Article number: 275 (2012)
Abstract
Let f be a volumepreserving diffeomorphism of a closed {C}^{\mathrm{\infty}} ndimensional Riemannian manifold M. In this paper, we prove the equivalence between the following conditions:
(a) f belongs to the {C}^{1}interior of the set of volumepreserving diffeomorphisms which satisfy the inverse shadowing property with respect to the continuous methods,
(b) f belongs to the {C}^{1}interior of the set of volumepreserving diffeomorphisms which satisfy the weak inverse shadowing property with respect to the continuous methods,
(c) f belongs to the {C}^{1}interior of the set of volumepreserving diffeomorphisms which satisfy the orbital inverse shadowing property with respect to the continuous methods,
(d) f is Anosov.
MSC:37C50, 34D10.
1 Introduction
Let M be a closed {C}^{\mathrm{\infty}} ndimensional Riemannian manifold, and let Diff(M) be the space of diffeomorphisms of M endowed with the {C}^{1}topology. Denote by d the distance on M induced from a Riemannian metric \parallel \cdot \parallel on the tangent bundle TM. Let f:M\to M be a diffeomorphism, and let \mathrm{\Lambda}\subset M be a closed finvariant set.
For \delta >0, a sequence of points {\{{x}_{i}\}}_{i=a}^{b} (\mathrm{\infty}\le a<b\le \mathrm{\infty}) in M is called a δpseudo orbit of f if d(f({x}_{i}),{x}_{i+1})<\delta for all a\le i\le b1. We say that f has the shadowing property on Λ if for any \u03f5>0, there is \delta >0 such that for any δpseudo orbit {\{{x}_{i}\}}_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}\subset \mathrm{\Lambda} of f, there is y\in M such that d({f}^{i}(y),{x}_{i})<\u03f5 for i\in \mathbb{Z}. Note that in this definition, the shadowing point y\in M is not necessarily contained in Λ. We say that f belongs to the {C}^{1}interior shadowing property if there is a {C}^{1}neighborhood \mathcal{U}(f) of f such that for any g\in \mathcal{U}(f), g has the shadowing property.
The shadowing property usually plays an important role in the investigation of stability theory and ergodic theory [1].
Now, we introduce the notion of the inverse shadowing property which is a ‘dual’ notion of the shadowing property. The inverse shadowing property was introduced by Corless and Pilyugin in [2], and the qualitative theory of dynamical systems with the property was developed by various authors (see [2–7]). In this paper, we introduce the various inverse shadowing properties.
Let {M}^{\mathbb{Z}} be the space of all twosided sequences \xi =\{{x}_{n}:n\in \mathbb{Z}\} with elements {x}_{n}\in M, endowed with the product topology. For any \delta >0, let {\mathrm{\Phi}}_{f}(\delta ) denote the set of all δpseudo orbits of f. A mapping \phi :M\to {\mathrm{\Phi}}_{f}(\delta )\subset {M}^{\mathbb{Z}} is said to be a δmethod for f if \phi {(x)}_{0}=x, and each \phi (x) is a δpseudo orbit of f through x, where \phi {(x)}_{0} denotes the 0th component of \phi (x). For convenience, write \phi (x) for {\{\phi {(x)}_{k}\}}_{k\in \mathbb{Z}}. The set of all δmethods for f will be denoted by {\mathcal{T}}_{0}(f,\delta ). We say that φ is a continuous δmethod for f if φ is continuous. The set of all continuous δmethods for f will be denoted by {\mathcal{T}}_{c}(f,\delta ). If g:M\to M is a homeomorphism with {d}_{0}(f,g)<\delta, then g induces a continuous δmethod {\phi}_{g} for f by defining
Let {\mathcal{T}}_{h}(f,\delta ) denote the set of all continuous δmethods {\phi}_{g} for f which are induced by a homeomorphism g:M\to M with {d}_{0}(f,g)<\delta, where {d}_{0} is the usual {C}^{0}metric. Let {\mathcal{T}}_{d}(f,\delta ) denote the set of all continuous δmethods {\phi}_{g} for f which are induced by g\in Diff(M) with {d}_{1}(f,g)<\delta. Then, clearly, we know that
{\mathcal{T}}_{\alpha}(f)={\bigcup}_{\delta >0}{\mathcal{T}}_{\alpha}(f,\delta ), \alpha =0,c,h,d. We say that f has the inverse shadowing property with respect to the class {\mathcal{T}}_{\alpha}(f), \alpha =0,c,h,d, if for any \u03f5>0, there exists \delta >0 such that for any δmethod \phi \in {\mathcal{T}}_{\alpha}(f,\delta ) and any point x\in M, there is a point y\in M, such that
We say that f has the weak inverse shadowing property with respect to the class {\mathcal{T}}_{\alpha}(f), \alpha =0,c,h,d, if for any \u03f5>0, there exists \delta >0 such that for any δmethod \phi \in {\mathcal{T}}_{\alpha}(f,\delta ) and any point x\in M, there is a point y\in M such that
where {B}_{\u03f5}(A)=\{x\in M:d(x,A)\le \u03f5\}. Note that if f\in Diff(M) has the inverse shadowing property with respect to the class {\mathcal{T}}_{\alpha}(f) (\alpha =0,c,h,d), then by the definition, it clearly has the weak inverse shadowing property with respect to the class {\mathcal{T}}_{\alpha}(f) (\alpha =0,c,h,d). We say that f has the orbital inverse shadowing property with respect to the class {\mathcal{T}}_{\alpha}(f), \alpha =0,c,h,d, if for any \u03f5>0, there is a \delta >0 such that for any δmethod \phi \in {\mathcal{T}}_{\alpha}(f,\delta ) and any point x\in M, there is a point y\in M such that
Note that if f has the inverse shadowing property with respect to the class {\mathcal{T}}_{\alpha}(f) (\alpha =0,c,h,d), then it has the orbital inverse shadowing property with respect to the class {\mathcal{T}}_{\alpha}(f) (\alpha =0,c,h,d). But the converse does not hold. Indeed, an irrational rotation on the unit circle has the orbital inverse shadowing property but does not have the inverse shadowing property with respect to the class {\mathcal{T}}_{d}(f). We say that f belongs to the {C}^{1}interior inverse (weak inverse or orbital inverse) shadowing property with respect to the class {\mathcal{T}}_{\alpha}(f), \alpha =0,c,h,d if there is a {C}^{1}neighborhood \mathcal{U}(f) of f such that for any g\in \mathcal{U}(f), g has the inverse (weak inverse or orbital inverse) shadowing property with respect to the class {\mathcal{T}}_{\alpha}(f), \alpha =0,c,h,d.
Lee [6], showed that a diffeomorphism belongs to the {C}^{1}interior inverse shadowing property with respect to the class {\mathcal{T}}_{d}(f) if and only if it is structurally stable. And Pilyugin [7] proved that a diffeomorphism belongs to the {C}^{1}interior inverse shadowing property with respect to the class {\mathcal{T}}_{c}(f) if and only if it is structurally stable. Thus, we can restate the above facts as follows.
Theorem 1.1 Let f\in Diff(M). A diffeomorphism f belongs to the {C}^{1}interior inverse shadowing property with respect to the class {\mathcal{T}}_{d}(f) (resp. {\mathcal{T}}_{c}(f)) if and only if it is structurally stable.
In [3] Choi, Lee and Zhang showed that a diffeomorphism belongs to the {C}^{1}interior weak inverse shadowing property with respect to the class {\mathcal{T}}_{d}(f) if and only if it satisfies both Axiom A and the nocycle condition. Moreover, they proved that a diffeomorphism belongs to the {C}^{1}interior orbital inverse shadowing property with respect to the class {\mathcal{T}}_{d}(f) if and only if it satisfies both Axiom A and the strong transversal condition. From the above facts, we get the following.
Theorem 1.2 Let f\in Diff(M). If a diffeomorphism f belongs to the {C}^{1}interior weak inverse shadowing property with respect to the class {\mathcal{T}}_{d}(f), then f satisfies both Axiom A and the nocycle condition. Moreover, if f belongs to the {C}^{1}interior orbital inverse shadowing property with respect to the class {\mathcal{T}}_{d}(f), then it is structurally stable.
By the theorem, even though a diffeomorphism is contained in the {C}^{1}interior of the set of diffeomorphisms possessing the weak inverse shadowing property with respect to the class {\mathcal{T}}_{d}(f), it does not necessarily satisfy the strong transversality condition.
A periodic point p of f is hyperbolic if D{f}^{\pi (p)} has eigenvalues with absolute values different from the one, where \pi (p) is the period of p. Denote by \mathcal{F}(M) the set of f\in Diff(M) such that there is a {C}^{1}neighborhood \mathcal{U}(f) of f such that for any g\in \mathcal{U}(f), every p\in P(g) is hyperbolic, where P(g) is the set of periodic points of g. It is proved by Hayashi [8] that f\in \mathcal{F}(M) if and only if f satisfies both Axiom A and the nocycle condition.
Let Λ be a closed f\in Diff(M)invariant set. We say that Λ is hyperbolic if the tangent bundle {T}_{\mathrm{\Lambda}}M has a Dfinvariant splitting {E}^{s}\oplus {E}^{u} and there exist constants C>0 and 0<\lambda <1 such that
for all x\in \mathrm{\Lambda} and n\ge 0. If \mathrm{\Lambda}=M, then we say that f is an Anosov diffeomorphism.
2 Statement of the results
A fundamental problem in differentiable dynamical systems is to understand how a robust dynamic property on the underlying manifold would influence the behavior of the tangent map on the tangent bundle. For instance, in [9], Mañé proved that any {C}^{1} structurally stable diffeomorphism is an Axiom A diffeomorphism. And in [10], Palis extended this result to Ωstable diffeomorphisms.
Let M be a compact {C}^{\mathrm{\infty}} ndimensional Riemannian manifold endowed with a volume form ω. Let μ denote the measure associated with ω that we call the Lebesgue measure, and let d denote the metric induced by the Riemannian structure. Denote by {Diff}_{\mu}(M) the set of diffeomorphisms which preserves the Lebesgue measure μ endowed with the {C}^{1}topology. In the volumepreserving case, the Axiom A condition is equivalent to the diffeomorphism being Anosov, since \mathrm{\Omega}(f)=M by the Poincaré recurrence theorem.
We define the set {\mathcal{F}}_{\mu}(M) as the set of diffeomorphisms f\in {Diff}_{\mu}(M) which has a {C}^{1}neighborhood \mathcal{U}(f)\subset {Diff}_{\mu}(M) such that for any g\in \mathcal{U}(f), every periodic point of g is hyperbolic. Note that {\mathcal{F}}_{\mu}(M)\subset \mathcal{F}(M) (see [[11], Corollary 1.2]).
Very recently, Arbieto and Catalan [11] proved that if a volumepreserving diffeomorphism is contained in {\mathcal{F}}_{\mu}(M), then it is Anosov. Indeed, at first they used the Mañé results ([[9], Proposition II.1]). Then they showed that \overline{P(f)} is hyperbolic, where P(f) is the set of periodic points of f. And they proved that the nonwandering set \mathrm{\Omega}(f)=\overline{P(f)} by Pugh’s closing lemma. Finally, by the Poincaré recurrence theorem, \mathrm{\Omega}(f)=M. From the above facts, we can restate the theorem as follows.
Theorem 2.1 Any diffeomorphism in {\mathcal{F}}_{\mu}(M) is Anosov.
In [12], Lee showed that if a volumepreserving diffeomorphism belongs to the {C}^{1}interior expansive or {C}^{1}interior shadowing property, then it is Anosov. And [13] proved that if a volumepreserving diffeomorphism belongs to the {C}^{1}interior weak shadowing property or {C}^{1}interior weak limit shadowing property, then it is Anosov. From these results, we study the cases when a volumepreserving diffeomorphism f is in {C}^{1}interior various inverse shadowing property with respect to the class {\mathcal{T}}_{d}(f), then it is Anosov. Let int{\mathcal{IS}}_{\mu}(M) denote the set of volumepreserving diffeomorphisms in {Diff}_{\mu}(M) satisfying the inverse shadowing property with respect to the class {\mathcal{T}}_{d}, and let int{\mathcal{WIS}}_{\mu}(M) (respect., int{\mathcal{OIS}}_{\mu}(M)) denote the set of volumepreserving diffeomorphisms in {Diff}_{\mu}(M) satisfying the weak inverse shadowing property with respect to the class {\mathcal{T}}_{d} (respect., the orbital inverse shadowing property with respect to the class {\mathcal{T}}_{d}). From now, we only consider the class {\mathcal{T}}_{d} when we mention the inverse shadowing property; that is, the ‘inverse shadowing property’ implies the ‘inverse shadowing property with respect to the class {\mathcal{T}}_{d}’. Now we are in a position to state the theorem of our paper.
Theorem 2.2 Let f\in {Diff}_{\mu}(M). We have
where {\mathcal{AN}}_{\mu}(M) is the set of Anosov volumepreserving diffeomorphisms in {Diff}_{\mu}(M).
3 Proof of Theorem 2.2
Let M be a compact {C}^{\mathrm{\infty}} ndimensional Riemannian manifold endowed with a volume form ω, and let f\in {Diff}_{\mu}(M). To prove the results, we will give the following wellknown Franks lemma for the conservative case, stated and proved in [[14], Proposition 7.4].
Lemma 3.1 Let f\in {Diff}_{\mu}^{1}(M) and \mathcal{U} be a {C}^{1}neighborhood of f in {Diff}_{\mu}^{1}(M). Then there exist a {C}^{1}neighborhood {\mathcal{U}}_{0}\subset \mathcal{U} of f and \u03f5>0 such that if g\in {\mathcal{U}}_{0}, for any finite finvariant set E=\{{x}_{1},\dots ,{x}_{m}\}, any neighborhood U of E and any volumepreserving linear maps {L}_{j}:{T}_{{x}_{j}}M\to {T}_{g({x}_{j})}M with \parallel {L}_{j}{D}_{{x}_{j}}g\parallel \le \u03f5 for all j=1,\dots ,m, there is a conservative diffeomorphism {g}_{1}\in \mathcal{U} coinciding with f on E and out of U, and {D}_{{x}_{j}}{g}_{1}={L}_{j} for all j=1,\dots ,m.
Remark 3.2 From the Moser theorem (see [15]), there is a smooth conservative change of coordinates {\phi}_{x}:U(x)\to {T}_{x}M such that , where U(x) is a small neighborhood of x\in M.
Proposition 3.3 If f\in int{\mathcal{IS}}_{\mu}(M), then every periodic point of f is hyperbolic.
Proof Take f\in int{\mathcal{IS}}_{\mu}(M) and \mathcal{U}(f) is a {C}^{1}neighborhood of f\in int{\mathcal{IS}}_{\mu}(M). Let \u03f5>0 and \mathcal{V}(f)\subset {\mathcal{U}}_{0}(f) be a corresponding number and a {C}^{1}neighborhood given by Lemma 3.1. Suppose that there exists a nonhyperbolic periodic point p\in P(g) for some g\in \mathcal{V}(f). To simplify the notation of the proof, we may assume that g(p)=p. Then there is at least one eigenvalue λ of {D}_{p}g such that \lambda =1. Denote by {E}_{p}^{c} the eigenspace corresponding to λ. Then we see that if \lambda \in \mathbb{R}, then dim{E}_{p}^{c}=1, and if \lambda \in \mathbb{C}, then dim{E}_{p}^{c}=2.
First, we consider dim{E}_{p}^{c}=1. For simplicity, we may assume that \lambda =1 (the other case is similar). By making use of Lemma 3.1, we linearize g at p with respect to the Moser theorem; that is, by choosing \alpha >0 sufficiently small, we construct {g}_{1} {C}^{1}nearby g such that
Then {g}_{1}(p)=g(p)=p. Since the eigenvalue λ of {D}_{p}{g}_{1} is one, {D}_{p}{g}_{1}(v)=v for any v\in {E}_{p}^{c}(\alpha ). Take {v}_{0}\in {E}_{p}^{c}(\alpha ) such that \parallel {v}_{0}\parallel =\alpha /4. Then we set
Take {\u03f5}_{1}=\alpha /8. Let 0<\delta <{\u03f5}_{1} be the number of the inverse shadowing property of {g}_{1}. Then by our construction of {g}_{1}, {\phi}_{p}^{1}({\mathcal{I}}_{{v}_{0}})\subset {B}_{\alpha}(p). Put {\mathcal{J}}_{p}={\phi}_{p}^{1}({\mathcal{I}}_{{v}_{0}}). Then we see that {g}_{1}({\mathcal{J}}_{p})={\mathcal{J}}_{p} and it is the identity map. For the above \delta >0, we can define {\mathcal{T}}_{d}({g}_{1})method as follows. For any x\in M, we set {\phi}_{p}(x)=({v}_{1},\dots ,{v}_{n}) and {D}_{p}g({v}_{1},\dots ,{v}_{n})=({v}_{1},A({v}_{2},\dots ,{v}_{n})). Here A is corresponding to \lambda \ne 1. Then we define
where {\phi}_{p}^{1}(A({v}_{2},\dots ,{v}_{n}))={x}^{\prime}=({x}_{2},\dots ,{x}_{n}). Clearly, {d}_{1}({g}_{1},h)<\delta, and h\in {\mathcal{T}}_{d}({g}_{1}). Let p be identified with \mathbf{0}=(0,\dots ,0). Then choose x=({x}_{1},0,\dots ,0)\in {\mathcal{J}}_{p} such that d(\mathbf{0},x)=2{\u03f5}_{1}. Then
Thus, {g}_{1} does not have the inverse shadowing property.
We take a point y=({y}_{1},0,\dots ,0)\in {\mathcal{J}}_{p} such that d(y,x)<{\u03f5}_{1} and {h}^{i}(y)=({\phi}_{p}^{1}({w}_{1})+i\delta /2,{\phi}_{p}^{1}({A}^{i}({w}_{2},\dots ,{w}_{n})))=({y}_{1}+i\delta /2,{y}^{\mathrm{\prime}i}), where {\phi}_{p}(y)=({w}_{1},\dots ,{w}_{n}), {y}^{\prime}={\phi}_{p}^{1}(A({w}_{2},\dots ,{w}_{n})) and A corresponding to \lambda \ne 1. Then d({g}^{i}(x),{h}^{i}(y))=d(x,{y}_{1}+i\delta /2) and for some k\in \mathbb{Z},
This is a contradiction.
Therefore, we can choose a point y\in M\setminus {\mathcal{J}}_{p} such that d(x,y)<{\u03f5}_{1}. Since d({g}_{1}^{i}(x),{h}^{i}(y))=d(({x}_{1},0,\dots ,0),({y}_{1}+i\delta /2,{y}^{\mathrm{\prime}i})), we can find k\in \mathbb{Z} such that
where {y}^{\mathrm{\prime}k}={\phi}_{p}^{1}({A}^{k}({w}_{1},\dots ,{w}_{n})). This is a contradiction since f\in int{\mathcal{IS}}_{\mu}(M).
Finally, if \lambda \in \mathbb{C}, then dim{E}_{p}^{c}=2. To avoid the notational complexity, we may assume that g(p)=p. As in the first case, by Lemma 3.1, there are \alpha >0 and {g}_{1}\in \mathcal{V}(f) such that {g}_{1}(p)=g(p)=p and
With a {C}^{1}small modification of the map {D}_{p}g, we may suppose that there is l>0 (the minimum number) such that {D}_{p}{g}^{l}(v)=v for any v\in {\phi}_{p}({B}_{\alpha}(p))\subset {T}_{p}M. Take {v}_{0}\in {\phi}_{p}({B}_{\alpha}(p)) such that \parallel {v}_{0}\parallel =\alpha /4, and set
Then {\mathcal{L}}_{p} is an arc such that

{g}_{1}^{i}({\mathcal{L}}_{p})\cap {g}_{1}^{j}({\mathcal{L}}_{p})=\mathrm{\varnothing} for 0\le i\ne j\le l1,

{g}_{1}^{l}({\mathcal{L}}_{p})={\mathcal{L}}_{p}, and

{g}_{1}^{l}{}_{{\mathcal{L}}_{p}} is the identity map.
Note that {g}_{1} has the inverse shadowing property if and only if {g}_{1}^{k} has the inverse shadowing property for all k\in \mathbb{Z} (see [6]). As in the first case, we can show that {g}_{1} does not have the inverse shadowing property, which contradicts the fact that {g}_{1}\in \mathcal{U}(f). Thus, every periodic point of f\in int{\mathcal{IS}}_{\mu}(M) is hyperbolic. □
Proposition 3.4 If f\in int{\mathcal{WIS}}_{\mu}(M), then every periodic point of f is hyperbolic.
Proof Take f\in int{\mathcal{WIS}}_{\mu}(M), and \mathcal{U}(f) is a {C}^{1}neighborhood of f\in int{\mathcal{WIS}}_{\mu}(M). Let \u03f5>0 and \mathcal{V}(f)\subset {\mathcal{U}}_{0}(f) be a corresponding number and a {C}^{1}neighborhood given by Lemma 3.1. Suppose that there exists a nonhyperbolic periodic point p\in P(g) for some g\in \mathcal{V}(f). To simplify the notation of the proof, we may assume that g(p)=p. Then, as in the proof of Proposition 3.3, we can take \alpha >0 sufficiently small and a smooth map {\phi}_{p}:{B}_{\alpha}(p)\to {T}_{p}M. Then we can make an arc {\mathcal{J}}_{p}\subset {B}_{\alpha}(p) and for some {g}_{1}\in \mathcal{V}(f). Take {\u03f5}_{1}=(\mathrm{length}{\mathcal{J}}_{p})/4. Let 0<\delta <{\u03f5}_{1} be the number of the weak inverse shadowing property for some {g}_{1}. Then we can construct a map h\in Diff(M) as in the proof of Proposition 3.3. Let p be identified with \mathbf{0}=(0,\dots ,0). Then choose a point x=({x}_{1},0,\dots ,0)\in {\mathcal{J}}_{p} such that d(\mathbf{0},x)=2{\u03f5}_{1}. Since {g}_{1} has the weak inverse shadowing property,
However, for any y\in {\mathcal{J}}_{p},
where {y}^{\mathrm{\prime}i}={\phi}_{p}^{1}({A}^{i}({w}_{2},\dots ,{w}_{n})) is as in the proof of Proposition 3.3. Thus, it is easily seen that
If y=({y}_{1},0,\dots ,0)\in {\mathcal{J}}_{p}\setminus \{p\}, then
where {y}^{\mathrm{\prime}k}={\phi}_{p}^{1}({A}^{k}({w}_{2},\dots ,{w}_{n})). Thus, we know that
This is a contradiction.
Finally, we can choose a point y\in M\setminus {\mathcal{J}}_{p} such that d(x,y)<{\u03f5}_{1}. Then we know that
where {y}^{\mathrm{\prime}k}={\phi}_{p}^{1}({A}^{k}({w}_{2},\dots ,{w}_{n})). Therefore,
for some l\in \mathbb{Z}. Then
Thus, {g}_{1} does not have the weak inverse shadowing property. This is a contradiction.
If \lambda \in \mathbb{C}, then as in the proof of Proposition 3.3, for {g}_{1}\in \mathcal{V}(f), we can take l>0 such that {D}_{p}{g}_{1}^{l}(v)=v for any v\in {\phi}_{p}({B}_{\alpha}(p))\subset {T}_{p}M. As in the previous argument, we get a contradiction. Thus, every periodic point of f\in int{\mathcal{WIS}}_{\mu}(M) is hyperbolic. Consequently, if f\in int{\mathcal{WIS}}_{\mu}(M), then f\in {\mathcal{F}}_{\mu}(M). □
Proposition 3.5 If f\in int{\mathcal{OIS}}_{\mu}(M), then every periodic point of f is hyperbolic.
Proof The proof is almost the same as that of Proposition 3.4. Indeed, let f\in int{\mathcal{OIS}}_{\mu}(M) and \mathcal{U}(f) be a {C}^{1}neighborhood of f\in int{\mathcal{OIS}}_{\mu}(M). Let \u03f5>0 and \mathcal{V}(f)\subset {\mathcal{U}}_{0}(f) be a corresponding number and a {C}^{1}neighborhood given by Lemma 3.1. Suppose that there exists a nonhyperbolic periodic point p\in P(g) for some g\in \mathcal{V}(f). To simplify the notation of the proof, we may assume that g(p)=p. Then, as in the proof of Proposition 3.4, we can take \alpha >0 sufficiently small and a smooth map {\phi}_{p}:{B}_{\alpha}(p)\to {T}_{p}M. Then we can make an arc {\mathcal{J}}_{p}\subset {B}_{\alpha}(p) and for some {g}_{1}\in \mathcal{V}(f). Take {\u03f5}_{1}=(\mathrm{length}{\mathcal{J}}_{p})/4. Let 0<\delta <{\u03f5}_{1} be the number of the orbital inverse shadowing property for some {g}_{1}. Then we can construct a map h\in Diff(M) as in the proof of Proposition 3.4. Let p be identified with \mathbf{0}=(0,\dots ,0). Then choose a point x=({x}_{1},0,\dots ,0)\in {\mathcal{J}}_{p} such that d(\mathbf{0},x)=2{\u03f5}_{1}. Since {g}_{1} has the orbital inverse shadowing property,
However, for any y\in {\mathcal{J}}_{p},
where {y}^{\mathrm{\prime}i}={\phi}_{p}^{1}({A}^{i}({w}_{2},\dots ,{w}_{n}))=({y}_{2},\dots ,{y}_{n}) is as in the proof of Proposition 3.3. Thus, it is easily seen that
This is a contradiction since f\in int{\mathcal{OIS}}_{\mu}(M).
If y=({y}_{1},0,\dots ,0)\in {\mathcal{J}}_{p}\setminus \{p\}, then
where {y}^{\mathrm{\prime}k}={\phi}_{p}^{1}({A}^{k}({w}_{2},\dots ,{w}_{n})). Thus, we know that
This is a contradiction.
Finally, we can choose a point y\in M\setminus {\mathcal{J}}_{p} such that d(x,y)<{\u03f5}_{1}. Then we know that
where {y}^{\mathrm{\prime}k}={\phi}_{p}^{1}({A}^{k}({w}_{2},\dots ,{w}_{n})). Therefore,
for some l\in \mathbb{Z}. Then
Thus, {g}_{1} does not have the orbital inverse shadowing property. This is a contradiction.
If \lambda \in \mathbb{C}, then as in the proof of Proposition 3.4, for {g}_{1}\in \mathcal{V}(f), we can take l>0 such that {D}_{p}{g}_{1}^{l}(v)=v for any v\in {\phi}_{p}({B}_{\alpha}(p))\subset {T}_{p}M. As in the previous argument, in order to reach the same contradiction. Thus, every periodic point of f\in int{\mathcal{OIS}}_{\mu}(M) is hyperbolic. □
References
Pilyugin S Lecture Notes in Math. 1706. In Shadowing in Dynamical Systems. Springer, Berlin; 1999.
Corless R, Pilyugin S: Approximate and real trajectories for generic dynamical systems. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1995, 189: 409–423. 10.1006/jmaa.1995.1027
Choi T, Lee K, Zhang Y: Chracterisations of Ωstability and structural stability via inverse shadowing. Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 2006, 74: 185–196. 10.1017/S0004972700035632
Diamond P, Lee K, Han Y: Bishadowing and hyperbolicity. Int. J. Bifurc. Chaos Appl. Sci. Eng. 2002, 12: 1779–1788. 10.1142/S0218127402005455
Kloeden P, Ombach J, Porkrovskii A: Continuous and inverse shadowing. Funct. Differ. Equ. 1999, 6: 137–153.
Lee K: Continuous inverse shadowing and hyperbolicity. Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 2003, 67: 15–26. 10.1017/S0004972700033487
Pilyugin S: Inverse shadowing by continuous methods. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 2002, 8: 29–38.
Hayashi S:Diffeomorphisms in {\mathcal{F}}^{1}(M) satisfy Axiom A. Ergod. Theory Dyn. Syst. 1992, 12: 233–253.
Mañé R:A proof of the {C}^{1}stability conjecture. Publ. Math. IHÉS 1987, 66: 161–210.
Palis J:On the {C}^{1} Ωstability conjecture. Publ. Math. IHÉS 1988, 66: 211–215.
Arbieto, A, Catalan, T: Hyperbolicity in the volume preserving scenario. Preprint
Lee, M: Volume preserving diffeomorphisms with expansive and shadowing. Preprint
Lee, M: Volume preserving diffeomorphisms with weak and weak limit shadowing. Preprint
Bonatti C, Diáz LJ, Pujals ER:A {C}^{1}generic dichotomy for diffeomorphism: weak forms of hyperbolicity or infinitely many sinks or sources. Ann. Math. 2003, 116: 355–418.
Moser J: On the volume elements on a manifold. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 1965, 120: 286–294. 10.1090/S00029947196501829275
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to express their appreciation to the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and valuable suggestions. This work is supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Korea (No. 20110007649).
Author information
Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The author declares that they have no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
About this article
Cite this article
Lee, M. Volumepreserving diffeomorphisms with inverse shadowing. J Inequal Appl 2012, 275 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1186/1029242X2012275
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1029242X2012275
Keywords
 shadowing
 inverse shadowing
 weak inverse shadowing
 orbital inverse shadowing
 Anosov
 volumepreserving