2

I'm currently studying Brin and Stuck book "Introduction to dynamical systems", especially the part of Hadamard-Perron theorem. I'm actually stuck on some arguments presented by the authors, that usually don't go explaining with length what they do (which makes the book both beautiful and somewhat hard to follow). Once they've introduced the graph transformation, they go on to prove that this transformation is a contraction. Here's the proof : enter image description here

I'm really looking for some help to write formally and prove some of the claims:

  1. That if $\epsilon$ is small enough, then the tangent vectors to $f_n(c_u)$ lies in the cone $K^u_L(n+1)$ and the tangent vectors to the graph of $\phi_{n+1}$ lies in $K^s_L(n+1)$ ?
  2. The calculation made at the end. I don't fathom how they are done, honestly. I did some calculation on my side, which yields similar results but I believe them to be false.

My infinite gratitude to any of you for helping me out.


I believe the following two hypothesis should be used:

  1. The angle between $E^s(n)$ and $E^u(n)$ are uniformly bounded away from $0$,
  2. The sequence $(df_n(\cdot))_n$ is equicontinous.
Hermès
  • 2,647
  • The book is "beautiful" because they don't explain what they do? If it is because they avoid complications, this makes the book beautiful for the wrong reason... – John B Nov 09 '18 at 20:48
  • Now seriously: write $$f_n(v^s,v^u)=(d_0f_nv^s+g_n(v),d_0f_nv^u+h_n(v))$$ (they use the peculiar notation $df_n(0)$ which makes no sense) and note that you have a uniform bound for the derivatives of $g_n$ and $h_n$ (uniform on $n$ and on a small ball) because of the two things that you mention at the end. The rest are just the usual computations on cones. – John B Nov 09 '18 at 20:54
  • That's indeed not really my own definition of "beautiful", but I guess it is for folks that appreciate quick arguments without to much technicality. That being said, I do not really enjoy my time reading this book, but it seems to be the most simple I found when it comes to the proof on the stable manifold theorem :/... Now, thank you a lot for your answer !, but could you elaborate a bit...I'm so sorry about that, but I'm not sure I'm following the argument here. I don't see how to prove your claim and how things follow from that... – Hermès Nov 09 '18 at 21:10
  • Ok, no problem, I will look it up! Thanks for the intel ! – Hermès Nov 09 '18 at 21:14
  • 1
    See my answer now. The inequalities that you need to use are always of this type, although you will need to adapt the notation and little more. – John B Nov 09 '18 at 21:28
  • Thanks a lot! I get your arguments, but I still have two questions : what you wrote allows us to prove the first claim (claim 1. in my question), but how does this relates to claim 2., which seems to be a mere geometrical problem (the one about the curvilinear triangle). Also, when do we use that the angle between the subspaces are bounded away from $0$? Thanks a lot again for your answer ! – Hermès Nov 09 '18 at 21:34

1 Answers1

1

Let me be specific and illustrate the type of inequalities that you need to use.

For simplicity of the writing I will assume that $f_n=f$ for all $n$, but it is really the same because of the uniform conditions. Consider the cone $$ C =\{(x,y) \in E^s \times E^u : \lVert x \rVert \le L \lVert y \rVert \}. $$ Let me show that for any sufficiently small $\varepsilon>0$, we have $df C \subset C$ on the ball $B_\varepsilon(0)$.

Given $(x,y) \in E^s \times E^u$, write $$ df(x,y) =(A x +dg(x,y), B y +dh(x,y) ). $$ We have $$ \lVert A x +dg(x,y) \rVert \le \lambda \lVert x \rVert + c \lVert (x,y) \rVert $$ and $$ \lVert B y +dh(x,y) \rVert \ge \lambda^{-1} \lVert y \rVert -c \lVert (x,y) \rVert, $$ where $c$ is some constant that tends to $0$ when $\varepsilon\to0$. For $(x,y) \in C$, we have $\lVert x\rVert \le L \lVert y \rVert$ and so $$ \lVert Ax +dg(x,y) \rVert \le \lambda L \lVert y \rVert + c (1+L) \lVert y\rVert $$ and $$ L \lVert B y +dh(x,y) \rVert \ge \lambda^{-1} L \lVert y \rVert -c L (1+L) \lVert y \rVert. $$ For $\varepsilon$ sufficiently small so that $c$ is sufficiently we get $$\lVert A x +dg(x,y) \rVert \le L\lVert B y +dh(x,y)\rVert,$$ and we are done.

John B
  • 16,854
  • 1
    @Hermès The condition of the angles is hidden in the coordinates. When we pass from my $f$ to $f_n$ the coordinates $x,y$ will depend on $n$, but say the norms $|x|+|y|$ will all be equivalent with uniform constants between them! As for the second inequality it can be obtained "repeating" the argument leading to my centered formula with $L(1+L)$ which is the same constant after the "Therefore" in Brin-Stuck. Or if you want, let me know the step that you are missing. – John B Nov 09 '18 at 21:39
  • I will look that up more thoroughly tomorrow, and I'll let you know! Thanks !!! – Hermès Nov 09 '18 at 22:06
  • Sorry, but I'm totally lost with this inequality. I don't see how it relates to the discussion above, and where do the $1/(1 + 2L)$ comes from... – Hermès Nov 09 '18 at 22:37