arxiv:math/ v1 [math.ds] 19 Jan 2007

arXiv:math/0701541v1 [math.DS] 19 Jan 2007

INFINITE GRAPH DIRECTED MARKOV SYSTEMS

1MARC KESSEBÖHMER AND²MARIUSZ URBA ´NSKI

ABSTRACT. We give a description of the level sets in the higher dimensional multifractal formalism for infinite conformal graph directed Markov systems. If these systems possess a certain degree of regularity this description is complete in the sense that we identify all values with non-empty level sets and determine their Hausdorff dimension. This result is also new for the finite alphabet case.

1. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENTS OF MAIN RESULTS

In this paper we study Graph Directed Markov System (GDMS) as defined in [1] consisting of a directed multigraph(V, E, i,t, A) with incidence matrix A together with a family of non- empty compact metric spaces(Xv)_v∈V, a number s∈ (0, 1), and for every e ∈ E, an injective contractionφe: X_t(e)→ X_i(e)with Lipschitz constant not exceeding s. Briefly, the family

Φ= φe: X_t(e)→ X_i(e)

e∈E

is called a GDMS. Throughout this paper we will assume that the system is conformal (Def.

2.2), finitely irreducible (Def. 2.1), and co-finitely regular (Def. 2.7). The necessary details will be postponed to Section 2. Let E_A^∞denote the set of admissible infinite sequences for A andσ: E_A^∞→ E_A^∞the shift map given by(σ(x))_i:= (xi+1)_i. Withπ: E_A^∞→ X :=^L_v∈VX_v we denote the natural coding map from the subshift E_A^∞ to the disjoint union X of the compact sets X_v(see (2.1)). Its imageΛ:=ΛΦ:=π(E_A^∞) denotes the limit set ofΦ. An important tool for studyingΦis the following geometric potential function given by the conformal derivatives of the contractions(φi)_i∈E

I= IΦ: E_A^∞→ R⁺, IΦ(ω) := − log

φ^′_ω1(π(σ(ω)))  .

We are going to set up a multifractal analysis for I with respect to another bounded Hölder continuous function

J : E_A^∞→ R^k.

Date: May 10, 2008.

1991 Mathematics Subject Classification. 37C45, 28A80, 82B05.

1

That is for v∈ V andα∈ R^kwe investigate the level sets Fα(v) :=



π(ω) :ω∈ E_A^∞, i (ω1) = v, and lim

n→∞

S_nJ(ω) S_nI(ω) =α

, andFα=^L_v∈VFα(v) ⊂Λ. Let

Q :M (E_A^∞,σ) → R^k, Q(µ) := 1 RI dµ

Z J dµ,

whereM (E_A^∞,σ) denotes the set of shift invariant Borel probability measures on E_A^∞. We are now interested in the following three subsets of R^k.

K := n

α∈ R^k:Fα6=/0o ,

L :=

( Q(µ) =

_Z I dµ

−1Z

J dµ : µ∈M (E_A^∞,σ) )

, (1.1)

M := ∇β

R^k

 ,

whereβ: R^k→ R is the convex differentiable function defined in terms of some pressure function within Proposition 3.1. Since I> − log s, the sets K, L, M ⊂ R^kare all bounded.

Since E_A^∞is finitely irreducible (see Def. 2.1) we have for all v∈ V K= {α:Fα(v) 6=/0} .

Our first main theorem relates the three sets in (1.1).

Theorem 1.1. The set K is compact and we have Int L⊂ M ⊂ L and M ⊂ K ⊂ L.

Remark. For the finite alphabet case (i.e. E is a finite set) the inclusion K⊂ L is well- known for the one dimensional situation (i.e. k= 1) and equality of K and L is also proved for k≥ 1 in [2]. The proof uses the fact that for x ∈Fα6=/0the set of measures

µ_n:= n⁻¹∑ⁿ⁻¹_i=0δ_σix: n∈ N

always possesses a weak convergent subsequence with limit measure µ such that Q(µ) =α. This givesα∈ L. Also, since in the finite alphabet case M (E_A^∞,σ) is compact and Q is continuous with respect to the weak-* topology we have Int L= L. Hence the above theorem gives in this situtation L = Int L ⊂ M ⊂ K. This shows that L= K in the finite alphabet case.

If some additional regularity conditions are satisfied we get the following stronger results.

Theorem 1.2. Suppose that J_iare linearly independent as cohomology classes. Then M is an open convex domain, L⊂ Int L, and in particular

L= M = K.

If additionally 0∈ M then L = M = K.

Our third theorem gives the multifractal formalism in the higher-dimensional situation. If 0∈ M then our description is complete in the sense that the formula for the Hausdorff

dimension holds not only forαform the interior of K but for allα∈ R^k. This result is also new in the finite alphabet case. Recall that the (negative) Legendre transform bβ: R^k→ R ofβis given by

bβ(a) := inf

t∈^Rk(β(t) − ht, ai) .

For the following let HD(A) denotes the Hausdorff dimension of the set A.

Theorem 1.3. Suppose that Jiare linearly independent as cohomology classes. Then we have forα∈ M and v ∈ V

HD(F_α(v)) = bβ(α) and for allα∈ R^kwe have

(1.2) HD(Fα(v)) ≤ maxn

bβ(α) , 0o . If additionally 0∈ M then equality holds in (1.2).

A detailed study of the multifractal level sets and variational formulae for the entropy in the finite alphabet setting can be found in [2]. Compairing the finite with the infinite alphabet case we mainly encounter the following obstacles. The shift space E_A^∞is not even locally compact and hence alsoM (E_A^∞,σ) is not compact with respect to the weak-* topology.

The function Q is in general not continuous but only upper semi-continuous with respect to the weak-* topology onM (E_A^∞,σ). This follows from the fact that

(1.3) µ7→

Z

−I dµ

is upper semi-continuous and I≥ const. > 0. In Remark 4.1 we take as an example mea- sures µ, µ1, µ2, . . . ∈M (E_A^∞,σ) such that µn

→ µ,∗ ^RI dµ< +∞,^RI dµ_n< +∞, n∈ N, but nevertheless lim inf^RI dµ_n>^RI dµ. Finally, the entropy map µ7→ hµ(σ) is not even upper semi-continuous (cf. [3]) and the pressure functions under consideration (cf. Proposition 3.1) is only defined in some open region.

We would finally like to remark that the study of higher dimensional multifractal value sets for infinite GDMS naturally arose in [4] where a multifractal formalism has been developed in order to study the distributions of limiting modular symbols introduced by Manin and Marcolli in [5].

2. CONFORMALGRAPHDIRECTEDMARKOVSYSTEMS

In this section we begin our study of graph directed Markov systems. Let us recall the definition of these systems taken from [1]. Graph directed Markov systems are based upon a directed multigraph and an associated incidence matrix, (V, E, i,t, A). The multigraph consists of a finite set V of vertices and a countable (either finite or infinite) set of directed edges E⊂ N and two functions i,t : E → V . For each edge e, i(e) is the initial vertex of

the edge e and t(e) is the terminal vertex of e. The edge goes from i(e) to t(e). Also, a function A : E× E → {0, 1} is given, called an (edge) incidence matrix. It determines which edges may follow a given edge. So, the matrix has the property that if Auv= 1, then t(u) = i(v). We will consider finite and infinite walks through the vertex set consistent with the incidence matrix. Thus, we define the set of infinite admissible words E_A^∞on an alphabet A,

E_A^∞= {ω∈ E^∞: A_ωiωi+1= 1 for all i ≥ 1},

by E_Aⁿwe denote the set of all subwords of E_A^∞of length n≥ 1, and by E_A^∗we denote the set of all finite subwords of E_A^∞. We will consider the left shift mapσ: E_A^∞→ E_A^∞defined byσ(ωi) := (ωi+1)_i≥1. Sometimes we also consider this shift as defined on words of finite length. Givenω∈ E^∗by|ω| we denote the length of the wordω, i.e. the unique n such thatω∈ E_Aⁿ. Ifω∈ E_A^∞and n≥ 1, then

ω|n=ω1. . .ωn. Forω∈ E_A^∞, orω∈ E_A^∗with|ω| ≥ n we will denote with

C_n(ω) := {x ∈ E_A^∞: x|n=ω|n} the cylinder set of length n containingω.

Definition 2.1. E_A^∞ (or equivalently the GDMS Φ) is called finitely irreducible if there exists a finite set W⊂ E_A^∗such that for eachω,η∈ E we find w ∈ W such that the concate- nationωwη∈ E_A^∗.

We recall from the introduction that a Graph Directed Markov System (GDMS) now con- sists of a directed multigraph and incidence matrix together with a family of non-empty compact metric spaces(Xv)_v∈V, a number s∈ (0, 1), and for every e ∈ E, a injective con- tractionφe: X_t(e)→ X_i(e) with a Lipschitz constant not exceeding s. We now describe its limit set. For eachω∈ E_A^∗, sayω∈ E_Aⁿ, we consider the map coded byω,

φω:=φω1◦ · · · ◦φωn: X_t(ωn)→ X_i(ω1). Forω∈ E_A^∞, the setsφ_ω|n X_t(ωn)

n≥1form a descending sequence of non-empty compact sets and therefore^T_n≥1φω|n X_t(ωn)

6=/0. Since for every n∈ N, diam φω|n X_t(ωn)

≤ sⁿdiam X_t(ωn)

≤ sⁿmax{diam(Xv) : v ∈ V }, we conclude that the intersection

\φ_ω|n X_t(ωn)

∈ X_i(ω1)

is a singleton and we denote its only element byπ(ω). In this way we have defined the coding map

(2.1) π=πΦ: E_A^∞→ X :=^M

v∈V

X_v

from E^∞to^L_v∈VX_v, the disjoint union of the compact sets X_v. The set Λ=ΛΦ=π(E_A^∞)

will be called the limit set of the GDMSΦ.

Definition 2.2. We call a GDMS conformal (CGDMS) if the following conditions are satisfied.

(a) For every vertex v∈ V , Xvis a compact connected subset of a Euclidean space R^d (the dimension d common for all v∈ V ) and Xv= Int(Xv).

(b) (Open set condition (OSC)) For all a, b ∈ E, a 6= b, φa Int(X_t(a)

∩φb Int(X_t(b)

=/0.

(c) For every vertex v∈ V there exists an open connected set Wv⊃ Xvsuch that for every e∈ I with t(e) = v, the mapφeextends to a C¹conformal diffeomorphism of W_vinto W_i(e).

(d) (Cone property) There existγ, l > 0,γ<π/2, such that for every x ∈ X ⊂ R^dthere exists an open cone Con(x,γ, l) ⊂ Int(X) with vertex x, central angle of measureγ, and altitude l.

(e) There are two constants L≥ 1 andα> 0 such that |φ^′_e(y)| − |φ^′_e(x)| ≤ Lk(φ ^′_e)⁻¹k⁻¹ky − xk^α

for every e∈ I and every pair of points x, y ∈ X_t(e), where|φ^′_ω(x)| means the norm of the derivative.

The following remarkable fact was proved in [1].

Proposition 2.3. If d≥ 2 and a familyΦ= (φe)_e∈Isatisfies conditions (a) and (c), then it also satisfies condition (e) withα= 1.

The following rather straightforward consequence of (4e) was proved in [1].

Lemma 2.4. IfΦ= (φe)_e∈Iis a CGDMS, then for allω∈ E^∗and all x, y ∈ W_t(ω), we have log|φ^′_ω(y)| − log|φ^′_ω(x)|

 ≤ L

1− sky − xk^α. As a straightforward consequence of (e) we get the following.

(f) (Bounded distortion property). There exists K≥ 1 such that for allω∈ E^∗and all x, y ∈ X_t(ω)

|φ^′_ω(y)| ≤ K|φ^′_ω(x)|.

Next we define the geometrical potential function associated withΦby I= IΦ: E_A^∞→ R⁺, IΦ(ω) := − log

φ^′_ω1(π(σ(ω)))  .

It was proved in [1] that for each t≥ 0 the following limit exists (possibly be equal to +∞).

p(t) :=P(−tI) := lim

n→∞

1 nlog

∑

ω∈E_Aⁿ

exp(−tSnI(ω)) = lim

n→∞

1 nlog

∑

ω∈Eⁿ_A

||φ^′_ω||^t,

where S_nI(ω) := sup_{x:x|n=ω}∑ⁿ⁻¹_i=0 I σⁱx

. This number is called the topological pressure of the parameter t. The function p is always non-increasing and convex. In [1] a useful parameter associate with a CGDMS has been introduced. Namely,

θ(Φ) := inf{t : p(t) < +∞} = sup{t : p(t) = +∞}.

Let Fin(E) denote the family of all finite subsets of E. The following characterization of h_Φ= HD(ΛΦ) (also denoted by hE), the Hausdorff dimension of the limit setΛΦ, being a variant of Bowen’s formula, was proved in [1] as Theorem 4.2.13.

Theorem 2.5. If the a CGDMSΦis finitely irreducible, then

HD(ΛΦ) = inf{t ≥ 0 : p(t) < 0} = sup{hF: F∈ Fin(I)} ≥θ(Φ).

If p(t) = 0, then t is the only zero of the function p(t), t = HD(ΛΦ) and the systemΦis called regular.

In fact it was assumed in [1] that the systemΦis finitely primitive but the proof can be easily improved to this slightly more general setting. It will be convenient for us to recall and make use of the following definitions.

Definition 2.6. A CGDMS is said to be strongly regular if there exists t ≥ 0 such that 0< p (t) <∞. A family(φi)_i∈Fis said to be a co-finite subsystem of a system ofΦ= (φi)_i∈E if F⊂ E and the difference E \ F is finite.

Definition 2.7. A CGDMS is said to be co-finitely regular if each of its co-finite subsystem is regular.

The following fact relating all these three notions can be found in [1].

Proposition 2.8. Each co-finitely regular system is strongly regular and each strongly regular system is regular.

Note that the systemΦis strongly regular if and only if HD(ΛΦ) >θ(Φ).

3. HIGHER-DIMENSIONAL THERMODYNAMIC FORMALISM

From now on let us assume that the CGDMS is infinite, i.e. card(E) =∞ and hence θ(Φ) ≥ 0, and co-finitely regular. Recall that forω,τ∈ E_A^∞, we defineω∧τ∈ E_A^∞∪ E_A^∗to be the longest initial block common to bothωandτ. We say that a function g : E_A^∞→ R is Hölder continuous with an exponentα> 0 if

v_α( f ) := sup{V_α,n( f ) : n ≥ 1} <∞, where

V_α,n( f ) = sup{| f (ω) − f (τ)|e^α(n−1):ω,τ∈ E_A^∞and|ω∧τ| ≥ n}.

For everyα> 0 let K_α be the set of all real-valued Hölder continuous (not necessarily bounded) functions on E_A^∞. Set

K_α^s:=

(

f ∈Kα:

∑

e∈E

exp sup f|_C1(e)

< +∞

) . Each member ofK_α^sis called anα-Hölder summable potential.

For fixed k∈ N let J : E_A^∞→ R^ksuch that J_i∈Kαis a bounded Hölder continuous function for i= 1, . . . , k. The following proposition will be of central importance throughout this paper.

Proposition 3.1. Each member of the family ht, Ji −βI : t∈ R^k,β>θ

is an element of K_α^s. The pressure functional

p : R^k× (θ,∞) → R, p (t,β) :=P(ht, Ji −βI)

is a well-defined, real-analytic, convex function. For each t∈ R^k there exists a unique numberβ(t) such that p (t,β(t)) = 0. Also t 7→β(t) defines a real-valued, real-analytic convex function on R^k. Its gradient is given by

(3.1) ∇β(t) = 1

RI dµ_t Z

J dµ_t,

where µ_t = µ_t,β(t) denotes the unique invariant Gibbs measure for the potentialht, Ji − β(t) I, i.e. there exists C > 0 such that for allω∈ E_A^∞we have

(3.2) C⁻¹≤ µtCn(ω)

exp S_n(ht, Ji −β(t) I) (ω)≤ C.

Proof. The properties of the family ht, Ji −βI : t∈ R^k,β>θ

follows immediately from the boundedness of J and the Hölder continuity of I. From [1] we then know that p is a well-defined and real-analytic function. Since the system is infinite and co-finitely regular we have lim_βցθp(t,β) = +∞. Furthermore for every t∈ R^k, we have

∂βp(t,β) = −^Z I dµ_t,β≤ log s < 0.

Hence for every t∈ R^k,β7→ p (t,β) is a strictly decreasing function and lim_β→+∞p(t,β) =

−∞. From this we conclude that for each t ∈ R^k there exists a unique numberβ(t) >θ such that p(t,β(t)) = 0. By the implicit function theorem alsoβ: R^k→ R is real-analytic and convex. The formula for the gradient ofβfollows again from the implicit function

theorem. 

Lemma 3.2. Any set of measures M⊂M (E_A^∞,σ) such that sup_µ∈M^RI dµ< +∞is tight.

Proof. For every i, ℓ ∈ N put

E_i,ℓ:= {ω∈ E_A^∞:ωi≥ ℓ} . Then we have for all µ∈ M

const.≥ Z

I dµ≥ Z

E_1,ℓ

I dµ≥ µ (E1,ℓ) inf

E_1,ℓI.

Combining this with the fact that E_i,ℓ⊂σ⁻ⁱ⁺¹(E1,ℓ) and that µ isσ–invariant we get µ(Ei,ℓ) ≤ µ (E1,ℓ) ≤ const.

inf_E1,ℓI.

Now, fix ε> 0. It follows from the above estimate that for every i ≥ 1 there exists ℓi≥ 1 such that µ (E_i,ℓi) < 2⁻ⁱε. Then ^S∞_i=1E_i,ℓi is the complement of the compact set {ω∈ E_A^∞:∀i ∈ N : ωi< ℓi} and

µ

∞ [

i=1

E_i,ℓi

!

≤

∑

µ(Ei,ℓi) ≤

∑

2⁻ⁱε=ε for all µ∈ M.

From this the tightness of M follows. 

4. PROOFS

Clearly since I> − log s and J is bounded, the sets K, L, M ⊂ R^kare all bounded.

Proof of Theorem 1.1. The inclusion M⊂ L follows immediately from the definitions and (3.1).

Let us first show thatα= 0 is always an element of K and L. To see this we construct a Bernoulli measure µ_p(which is invariant and ergodic) with probability vector p := (pi) chosen in such a way that∑p_iinf I|_C1(i)= +∞, which is always possible. Then|Q (µp)| = 

RJ dµp RI dµp

 ≤ ^const.+∞ = 0 and also for µp–almost all pointsω∈ E_A^∞ we have by the ergodic theorem that lim_n→∞^S_S^nJ(ω)

nI(ω) = Q (µp) = 0.

Proof of ’Int L⊂ M’.

Here we follow some ideas from [2]. Letα∈ Int L. Then there exists r > 0 such that

B_r(α) ⊂ L. Let

D_α:= sup

µ∈Q⁻¹(α)

h(µ) RI dµ

 ,α6= 0.

By the variational principle (cf. [1, Theorem 2.1.7]) it follows that 0=P(HD (ΛΦ) I) ≥ h (µ) − HD (ΛΦ)

Z I dµ

and hence D_α is always dominated by the Hausdorff dimension HD(ΛΦ). Let us now consider the family of potentials

(hq, Ji − (hq,αi + Dα) I : q ∈ Gα) , where G_α:=

x∈ R^k:hx,αi + Dα>θ

. Firstly, we show for all q∈ Gα

p_α(q) := P(hq, Ji − (hq,αi + D_α) I) ≥ 0.

Indeed, by the variational principle we have p_α(q) ≥ sup

µ∈Q⁻¹(α)

 h_µ+

 q,

Z J dµ

− (hq,αi + Dα) Z

I dµ



≥ sup

µ∈Q⁻¹(α)

_Z I dµ

 h_µ RI dµ− Dα



≥ const. sup

µ∈Q⁻¹(α)

 h_µ RI dµ− Dα



= 0.

Here we used the fact that sup_µ∈Q−1(α)R

I dµ is bounded above by some constant forα6= 0.

Next we show that the infimum inf_q∈Gαp_α(q) is attained at some point q ∈ Gα. This follows from the fact that p_α(qn) diverges to infinity whenever either hqn,αi + Dα→θ, n→∞, which is clear, or|qn| →∞which can be seen as follows. For q= (q1, . . . , qk) let βi:=αi+ r/2 signqi, i= 1, . . . , k and µ ∈ Q⁻¹(β). Then we have

p_α(q) ≥ h_µ+

 q,

Z

(J −αI) dµ

− Dα Z

I dµ

= h_µ+ hq, (β−α)i^Z I dµ− Dα Z

I dµ

= h_µ+ (hq, (β−α)i − Dα) Z

I dµ

≥ r

2

∑

|qi| − HD(ΛΦ)

!

(− log s) . (4.1)

Now the right hand side diverges to infinity for|q| →∞showing that the infimum must be attained in some uniformly bounded region, say in q_α∈ Gα. Since p_αis real-analytic on G_αwe have

(4.2) 0=∇pα(qα) = Z

J−αI dµq_α =⇒ α=

RJ dµ_qα RI dµ_qα,

where µ_qαis the Gibbs measure for the potential(hqα, Ji − (hqα,αi + Dα) I). And hence, by the variational principle, we have

p(qα) = hµ_qα− Dα Z

I dµq_α≥ 0 =⇒ Dα≤ h_µqα RI dµ_qα.

By definition of D_αwe actually have equality and hence p(qα) = 0. This, (4.2) and Propo- sition 3.1 show thatα=∇β(q_α) forα6= 0.

Now we consider the caseα= 0. If 0 ∈∂L then nothing has to be shown. If 0∈ Int (L) then also B_r(0) ⊂ Int(L) for some small r > 0 and by the above we have Br(0) \ {0} ⊂ M.

The convexity ofβthen implies thatβhas a minimum in R^d and sinceβis real-analytic this minimum is unique, say in t₀, with∇β(t0) = 0. This shows that also 0 ∈ M.

Proof of ’K⊂ L’.

Let α∈ K and without loss of generality not equal to zero. Then there exist ω∈ E_A^∞ such that lim_n→∞^S_S^nJ(ω)

nI(ω) =α. Now, for every n∈ N there exists by the finite irreducibility condition a word w_n∈ W such that the periodic element xn:= (ω|nw_n)^∞ belongs to E_A^∞. The point x_ngives then rise to the invariant probability measure

µ_n:= 1 kn

kn−1 j=0

∑

δ_σ^j_xn∈M (E_A^∞,σ) ,

where k_n:= n + |wn| . By the Hölder continuity (bounded distortion) and the finiteness of W we estimate

RJ dµ_n RI dµn

= S_knJ(xn)

S_knI(xn)=S_nJ(xn) + O (1)

SnI(xn) + O(1) =S_nJ(ω) + O(1) SnI(ω) + O(1), (4.3)

where O denotes the Landau symbol. Since S_nI growth at least like−n log s the above quotient converges toαas n→∞. This showsα∈ L.

Proof of compactness of K.

Since we know that K is bounded, we are left to show that the set is closed. As mentioned above 0∈ K, hence we may consider without loss of generality a sequence (αk) ∈ K^N converging toα∈ R^k\ {0}. We are going to construct inductively an elementω∈ E_A^∞ such that lim^S_S^nJ(ω)

nI(ω) =α. Fix a sequenceεkց 0 such that |αk−α| <εk/2. Using the observation in (4.3) we find for each k∈ N a periodic element xk= p^∞_k ∈ E_A^∞, m_k:= |pk|, such that

^SS^mk_mk^J(xI(x^kk⁾)−αk

 <^ε2^k which gives  

S_mkJ(xk) S_mkI(xk)−α

  <εk

We begin the induction by definingω1:= p^l₁¹w1with l1= 1.

Suppose we have already definedωk:= p^l₁¹w₁· · · p^l_k^kw_kfor some k∈ N and let N_k:=

∑

l_im_i+ |wi| .

Then choose w_k+1∈ W such thatωkw_k+1p_k+1∈ E_A^∗and l_k+1∈ N large enough such that 1

− log s· 1

l_k+1k_k+1max

S_mk+2I(xk+2) , Sm_k+2|J (xk+2)|

≤εk+1.

In this way we define inductively the infinite wordω:= p^l_iⁱw_i∞

i=1∈ E_A^∞.

We will need the following observation. Suppose we have two sequences(an) ∈ R^d
N and(bn) ∈ (R⁺)^N such that b⁻¹_n a_n→α and lim inf_nb_n> 0. Define AN :=∑^N_k=1a_k and B_N :=∑^N_k=1b_k. Let o denote the Landau symbol. Then for any two sequences(cn) and (dn) given by cn:= Akn+ o (Bkn) and dn:= Bkn+ o (Bkn) for some sequence (kn) ∈ N^N tending to infinity, we have d_n⁻¹c_n→α.

For n∈ N we define a sequence (kn) ∈ N^Nsuch that N_kn ≤ n < Nkn+1, and r_n,ℓnsuch that n= Nkn+ qn· mkn+1+ rnwith 0≤ rn≤ mkn+1and 0≤ qn≤ ℓkn+1. Then applying the above observation to

SnJ(ω) =

∑

i=1

liSm_iJ(xi) + qnSm_kn+1J(xkn+1) + O(SrnJ(xkn+1)) + O(kn) and

S_nI(ω) =

∑

i=1

l_iS_miI(xi) + qnS_mkn+1I_n(xkn+1) + O (SrnI(xkn+1)) + O(kn) and observing the definition of(ℓk) the claim follows.

Proof of ’M⊂ K’.

Since we have already seen that K is closed it suffices to prove M⊂ K. Letα=∇β(t) ∈ M.

Then for the Gibbs measure µ_twe haveα= (^RI dµ_t)^−1RJ dµ_t. By the ergodicity of µ_t we have for µt-a.e. x∈ E_A^∞that lim_n→∞^S_S^nJ(x)

nI(x) =αand henceα∈ K. 

Proof of Theorem 1.2. For J_ilinearly independent as cohomology classes it is well known thatβis strictly convex, or equivalently the Hessian Hess(β) is strictly positive definite.

From this it follows that∇β: R^k→∇β R^k

is a diffeomorphism and hence M :=∇β R^k
is an open and connected subset of R^k.

Proof of ’L⊂ Int L’.

Since /06= M ⊂ Int L we may use similar arguments as in [2] to prove that in this situ- ation we have L⊂ IntL. Let α= Q (m0) ∈ L. Since Int L is not empty we find mea- sures m₁, . . . , mksuch that

R J dm₁

RI dm₁ −α, . . . ,^{RRJ dm}_{I dm}^k

k−α

form a basis of R^k. For p∈∆:=

u∈ R^k: u_i≥ 0 ∧∑lu_l≤ 1

we define µ_p:=∑^k_l=1p_lm_l+ (1 −∑p_l) m0. Then the deriva- tive of b :∆→ R^k, b(p) = Q (µp) is given by

∂b_i

∂p_j(0) = (^RJ_idm_j−^RJ_idm₀) RI dm₀ −

RJ_idm₀(^RI dm_j−^RI dm₀) (^RI dm₀)²

=

RJ_idm_j−αiR I dm_j RI dm₀ . By our assumption alsoR

I dm₁ RI dm₀

R J dm₁ RI dm₁−α

, . . . ,^{RRI dm}_{I dm}^k

0

R J dm_k RI dm_k−α

are linearly inde- pendent, and hence_{d p}^db is invertible. This shows that there exists an open set U⊂∆such that 0∈ U and b : U → b (U) is an diffeomorphism. We finish the argument by observing thatα∈ b (U) ⊂ IntL.

Proof of ’L= M for 0 ∈ M’.

Since Int L⊂ M ⊂ L ⊂ IntL we have M = L. It now suffices to show that M ⊂ L since the inclusion L= M ⊂ L ⊂ L would then imply that L = M. To see that indeed M ⊂ L we proceed as follows. Recall that by our assumptions 0∈ M. Let α∈∂M, which is then necessary different from 0. Let(αn) ∈ M^Nbe a sequence converging toα. For this sequence we find a sequence of Gibbs measures µ_sk

(for the potentialhsk, Ji −β(sk) I) such that ^RI dµ_sk
−1R

J dµ_sk converges to α and|sk| →∞. In particular, we have that RI dµ_sk

is bounded . By Lemma 3.2 this sequence of measures is tight and hence there is a weak convergent subsequence µt_k→ µ ∈M (E_A^∞,σ). Now we have to show that Q (µ) = α. We clearly have^RJ dµ_tk→^RJ dµ= v since J is bounded and by (1.3) we also have

(4.4) lim inf

k→∞

Z

I dµt_k≥ Z

I dµ.

To show that also lim sup_k→∞^RI dµ_tk ≤^RI dµ we make use of the variational principle.

Indeed we have 0= h µt_k

+

 t_k,

Z J dµ_tk

−β(tk) Z

I dµ_tk≥ hµ+

 t_k,

Z J dµ

−β(tk) Z

I dµ This gives

(4.5)

Z

I dµ≥h_µ− hµ_tk

β(tk) +

β(tk)⁻¹· tk, Z

J dµ− Z

J dµ_tk

 +

Z I dµ_tk. Since

0≤ hµ_t≤ HD (ΛΦ) Z

I dµt

and^RI dµ_tkis bounded we conclude that h_µtis bounded. The assumption 0∈ M implies that

|tk| /β(tk) is bounded (cf. [6, Theorem 3.26]). As J is a bounded function we also have RJ dµ−^RJ dµ_tk → 0 and hence taking limits in (4.5) gives lim sup_k→∞^RI dµ_tk≤^RI dµ.

Combining this with (4.4) finally proves Q(µ) =α.

The remaining parts of the theorem are an immediate application of Theorem 1.1. 

Remark 4.1. We would like to emphasis that, unlike above, for µ, µ1, µ2, . . . ∈M (Σ^∞_E,σ) with µ_n→ µ and^{∗ R}I dµ< +∞,^RI dµ_n< +∞, n ∈ N, the convergence^RI dµ_n→^RI dµ does not hold in general. For a counter example we consider the iterated function system generated by continued fractions, i.e.

Φ:= (φk:[1, 0] → [1, 0], x 7→ 1/(x + k) : k ∈ N) . Fix M> 0 to be large; cn:= 1 − M/ log (n), n > exp (M); S :=∑^∞_k=1k⁻²and

 p⁽ⁿ⁾_k



k∈^Na probability vector such that

p⁽ⁿ⁾_k :=









0 if k> n,

S⁻¹cnk⁻² if k< n,



1− S⁻¹cn∑ⁿ⁻¹_j=1j⁻²



if k= n.

Let µ_nbe the Bernoulli measure associated with

 p⁽ⁿ⁾_k



k∈^N. Then(µn)_{n>exp M} converges weakly to the Bernoulli measure associated with the probability vector S⁻¹k⁻²

k∈^N. We then have

Z

I dµ ≤ 2S⁻¹

∑

k∈^N

log(k + 1) k² < +∞

Z

I dµ_n ≤ 2 1− S⁻¹c_n

n−1

∑

j=1

j⁻²

!

log(n + 1) +

n−1

∑

k=1

2S⁻¹c_nlog(k + 1) k²

≤ 2

1− S⁻¹c_n

 S−c

n



log(n + 1) + 2S⁻¹

n−1

∑

k=1

c_nlog(k + 1) k²

≤ 2

 M

log n+cS⁻¹ n



log(n + 1) + 2S⁻¹

n−1

∑

k=1

c_nlog(k + 1) k²

≤ 4M + 2S⁻¹

n−1

∑

k=1

c_nlog(k + 1) k² < +∞,

for some constant c> 0 and M sufficiently large. On the other hand Z

I dµ_n ≥ Z

C₁([1,...])I dµ≥ 2 1− S⁻¹c_n

∑

j⁻²

! log n

≥ 2(1 − cn) log n = 2M ≥ 2 Z

I dµ, for M large enough. Hence in this example, we have

lim inf

k→∞

Z

I dµn>

Z I dµ.

For the proof of Theorem 1.3 we need the following lemma from convex analysis adapted to our situation. For an extended real-valued function f : R^k→ R we define the effective domain

dom f :=n

x∈ R^k: f(x) > −∞o .

Lemma 4.2. Under the conditions of Theorem 1.3 we have M= Int dombβ

is a non- empty convex set. Furthermore for each a∈ M andα∈∂M we have

(4.6) λα+ (1 −λ)a ∈ M for allλ∈ [0, 1), and lim

λ→1bβ(λα+ (1 −λ)a) = bβ(α) . In particular, we have

(4.7) M= dom bβ.

Proof. Since Int

 dombβ

⊂ M ⊂ dom bβ(cf. [7, Theorem 23.4]) and M is open we have M= Int

dombβ

and hence the convexity of dombβimplies the convexity of M. Conse- quently, (4.6) immediately follows from [7, Theorem 6.1] and [7, Corollary 7.5.1].

Clearly by the definition of dombβ, we have bβ(α) = −∞forα6∈ M = dombβ. The finiteness of bβon M follows from (4.6) and the fact that 0≤ bβ(a) ≤ HD (ΛΦ) for all a ∈ M. This

shows (4.7). 

Now we are in the position to give a proof of the first part of Theorem 1.3.

Proof of the first part of Theorem 1.3. We split the proof of this theorem in two parts - upper bound and lower bound.

For the upper bound we actually show a little more. Namely, forλ∈ (0, 1) andα∈ M we consider a_λ:=α0+λ(α−α0), whereα0:=∇β(0) is the unique maximum of bβ. For

Ga_λ(v) :=



ω∈ E_A^∞: i(ω1) = v, ∃ℓ ≥λ: lim

k→∞

S_kJ(ω)

S_kI(ω) =α0+ ℓ (α−α0)



we prove

(4.8) HD Ga_λ(v)

≤ bβ(a_λ) .

Because then we have by the monotonicity of the Hausdorff dimension and (4.6) HD(F_α(v)) ≤ HD Ga_λ(v)

≤ bβ(a_λ) → bβ(α) forλ→ 1.

To prove (4.8) let us first define b :(0, 1) → R,λ7→ bβ(a_λ). Then b^′(λ) = − ht (a_λ) ,α−α0i is non-positive sinceα0is the unique maximum of the strictly concave function bβ. Let µ_t(aλ)denote the Gibbs measure forht (a_λ) , Ji −β(t (a_λ)) I. Then by the above we have for everyω∈Ga_λ(v), say limk→∞S_kJ(ω)

S_kI(ω) =α0+ ℓ (α−α0) for some ℓ ≥λ, and someε≥ 0 µ_t(aλ)(Cn(ω)) ≫ exp (ht (a_λ) , SnJ(ω)i −β(t (a_λ)) SnI(ω))

= exp



−SnI(ω)

−

t(a_λ) ,S_nJ(ω) S_nI(ω)

+β(t (a_λ))



≫ exp

−SnI(ω)

bβ(a_λ) +ε− (ℓ −λ)ht (aλ) ,α−α0i

≫ |π(Cn(ω))|^bβ(aλ)+ε.

Now consider a sequence of balls(B (π(ω) , rn))_n∈Nwith center inπ(ω) ∈ Xvand radius r_n:= |π(Cn(ω))|, where |A| denotes the diameter of the set A ⊂ R^k. Then we have for all ε> 0

µ_t(aλ)◦π⁻¹(B (π(ω) , rn)) ≫ µ_t(aλ)(Cn(ω)) ≫ r^bβ(an ^λ)+ε.

Hence by standard arguments from geometric measure theory (cf. [8, 9]), the upper bound in (4.8) follows.

For the lower bound we first considerα=∇β(t) ∈ M. Since^RI dµ_t< +∞we have by [1, Theorem 4.4.2] and the variational principle that

HD µ_t◦π⁻¹

= hµt

RI dµ_t =β(t)^RI dµ_t− ht,^RJ dµ_ti

RI dµ_t = bβ(α) . Since by Birkhoff’s ergodic theorem we have µ_t π⁻¹(Fα)

= 1 the above equality gives bβ(α) = HD µt◦π⁻¹

≤ HD (F_α) .

The fact that by finite irreducibility HD(F_α) = HD (F_α(v)) for all v ∈ V finishes the proof of the lower bound forα∈ M.

Forα∈ ∁M we have on the one hand that bβ(α) = −∞by (4.7) and on the other hand by Theorem 1.2 that HD(F_α(v)) = HD (/0) = 0. This proves the theorem forα∈ ∁M.  Before giving the proof of the remaining part of Theorem 1.3 we need the following propo- sition. Since from [3] we know that the entropy map is in our situation not upper semi- continuous in general this proposition might be of some interest for itself.

Proposition 4.3. We assume that 0∈ M and let (tk) be a sequence in R^k with |tk| → +∞such that the sequence of Gibbs measures µ_k:= µtk converge weakly to some µ∈ M (E_A^∞,σ). Then µ is supported on a subshift of finite type over a finite alphabet and we have

(4.9) lim sup

k

h_µk≤ hµ.

Proof. Since 0∈ M guarantees that |tk| /β(tk) stays bounded for k →∞(cf. “Proof of

’L= M for 0 ∈ M”’) , J is a bounded, and I an unbounded function we find for n ∈ N and D> 0 an N ∈ N such that for

ω∈ {x ∈Σⁿ_A:∃m ∈ {1, . . . , n} xm≥ N} =:Σⁿ_A(N) we have

(4.10)

 1

β(tk)t_k, SnJ(ω)

− SnI(ω)



< −D.

Using estimates from the proof of Theorem 2.3.3 in [1] (Gibbs property) one verifies that the constant C in (3.2) is always less or equal to exp(K(β(t) + |t|)) for some positive

constant K. Combining this fact, the Gibbs property (3.2) and (4.10) then gives that (4.11) µ(Cn(ω)) = 0 for all ω∈Σⁿ_A(N) .

Since µ is shift invariant it must be supported on a subshift contained in the full shift {1, . . . , N − 1}^N.

To show (4.9) we set forν∈M (Σ^∞_A,σ) H_n(ν) := −

∑

ω∈Σⁿ_A

ν(Cn(ω)) logν(Cn(ω)) .

It then suffices to verify for all n∈ N

(4.12) H_n(µk) → Hn(µ) for k→∞.

To see this note that h_µ= lim¹_nH_n(µ) = inf¹_nH_n(µ). For m, k ∈ N we have h_µk = inf

n

1

nH_n(µk) −1 mH_m(µk)

| {z }

≤0

+1

mH_m(µk) −1

mH_m(µ) +1 mH_m(µ)

≤ 1

mH_m(µk) −1 mH_m(µ)

| {z }

→0, as k→∞

+1 mH_m(µ)

implying lim sup h_µk≤_m¹H_m(µ). Taking the infimum over m ∈ N gives (4.9). Indeed we have

H_n(µk) = −

∑

ω∈Σⁿ_A

µ_k(Cn(ω)) log µk(Cn(ω))

= −

∑

ω∈Σⁿ_A\Σⁿ_A(N)

µ_k(Cn(ω)) log µk(Cn(ω))

−

∑

ω∈Σⁿ_A(N)

µ_k(Cn(ω)) log µk(Cn(ω)) .

The first sum has only finitely many summands and will therefore converge to the sum

−∑ω∈Σⁿ_A\Σⁿ_A(N)µ(Cn(ω)) log µ (Cn(ω)) as k tends to infinity. Using the Gibbs property with constant C= exp (K(β(t) + |t|)) one finds that the second sum is summable and dominated by

exp(K (|tk| +β(tk)))

∑

ω∈Σⁿ_A(N)

(Sn(− htk, Ji +β(tk) I) (ω) + K (|tk| +β(tk)))

× exp(Sn(htk, Ji −β(tk) I) (ω))

The inequality in (4.10) guarantees that for N sufficiently large this upper bound converges to 0 as k→∞. Hence, using (4.11) we conclude Hn(µk) → Hn(µ) for k →∞.