Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Let $f$ and $g$ be complex rational functions (of degree $\geq 2$ if that helps). What can be said about the relationship between $J(fg)$ and $J(gf)$, the Julia sets of the composite functions $f \circ g$ and $g \circ f$?

If I'm not mistaken, $f$ restricts to a map $J(gf) \to J(fg)$, and $g$ restricts to a map $J(fg) \to J(gf)$. So $J(fg)$ and $J(gf)$ surject onto each other in a particular way (and, indeed, in a way that commutes with the actions of $fg$ on $J(fg)$ and $gf$ on $J(gf)$). Since Julia sets are completely invariant, the restricted map $f: J(gf) \to J(fg)$ is $deg(f)$-to-one, and similarly the other way round.

So there's some kind of relationship between the two sets.

If $f$ or $g$ has degree one then $J(fg)$ and $J(gf)$ are "isomorphic", in the sense that there's a Möbius transformation carrying one onto the other. Thus, the simplest nontrivial example would be to take $f$ and $g$ to be of degree 2. I don't know a way of computing, say, the example $f(z) = z^2$ and $g(z) = z^2 + 1$. That would mean computing the Julia sets of $gf(z) = z^4 + 1$ and $fg(z) = z^4 + 2z^2 + 1$.

My question isn't completely precise, I'm afraid. But here are some of the things that I would value in an answer: theorems on what $J(fg)$ and $J(gf)$ have in common, examples showing how different they can be, pictures of $J(fg)$ and $J(gf)$ for particular functions $f$ and $g$, and references to where I can find out more (especially those accessible to a non-specialist). Thanks.

share|improve this question
    
This might not be true if the functions have poles. Suppose you had a point such that $f$ kept taking it very close to infinity and $g$ kept taking it back near $0$, then it would be in $J(gf)$ but $f$ of it would not be in $J(fg)$. Are they allowed to have poles? –  Will Sawin Jan 2 '12 at 22:52
3  
As to whether they can have poles: f and g are rational functions with complex coefficients, so they do in general have poles in the usual complex analysis sense. However, I think it's usually better to interpret them as holomorphic maps from the Riemann sphere to itself, in which case there's nothing special about the point $\infty$. –  Tom Leinster Jan 3 '12 at 0:33
    
Will, I don't get your argument. Can you produce a specific counterexample? When I try to turn what you wrote into a counterexample, I don't get one. And I thought I had a proof (which I'll supply if you want). –  Tom Leinster Jan 3 '12 at 1:35
1  
I was thinking of the wrong definition of a Julia set, the one that only makes sense for polynomials because it looks at bounded orbits –  Will Sawin Jan 3 '12 at 4:04
2  
What kinds of properties are you interested in? As you point out, each Julia set is a branched cover of the other, so the local structures will be very similar, but the global structures may be very different. –  Jim Belk Jan 3 '12 at 18:10
show 4 more comments

3 Answers

up vote 18 down vote accepted

I'm not sure if this is helpful, but here is an example. The following picture shows the filled Julia set for $z^6 - 1$.

alt text

and the following picture shows the filled Julia set for $(z^2-1)^3$:

alt text

This is the case where $f(z) = z^2 - 1$ and $g(z) = z^3$. Note that the bottom image is a double cover of the top, while the top image is a triple cover of the bottom.

(These images were produced using Mathematica.)

share|improve this answer
    
That's very helpful! Thanks so much! –  Tom Leinster Jan 4 '12 at 8:59
add comment

Answer. $J(fg)$ is the full $g$-preimage of $J(gf)$. (And vise versa with interchange of $f$ and $g$).

Proof. Let $A=fg$ and $B=gf$. Then we have a semi-conjugacy $gA=Bg$. Now it is a general fact, that whenever you have such a semi-conjugacy (of rational functions) the Julia set of $A$ is the $g$-preimage of the Julia set of $B$.

Proof. The semi-conjugacy can be iterated: $gA^n=B^ng$. Now, $z\in J(A)$, iff the family $gA^n$ is not normal, iff $B^ng$ is not normal, that is $z\in g^{-1}(J(B))$.

Added on 8.6.12. By the way, this demonstrates an amazing fact: for every $f$ and $g$, there exist sets $F$ and $G$ such that $G=f^{-1}(F)$ and $F=g^{-1}(G)$. This looks surprising to me. Finite sets $F$ and $G$ of cardinality greater than $2$ with such properties cannot exist, as a simple count shows. Are there other examples of such $F$ and $G$ ?

Added on 8.7.12. Let $f$ and $g$ be two rational functions. Let $F$ be a closed set, containing more than 2 points, and such that $(g^{-1}f^{-1}(F))=F$, then $F$ contains the Julia set of $fg$. And $J(fg)$ does have this property. (I am writing compositions $fg=f(g)$.) Trivial, but funny.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks, Alexandre. Just to check: by "full g-preimage", you just mean "g-preimage" (i.e. preimage under g), right? So the word "full" is redundant? –  Tom Leinster Aug 4 '12 at 19:37
    
"Preimage" should be understood as "full preimage" in what I wrote. I think the general facts that a) the family $g(f_n)$ is normal on the set where $f_n$ is normal, and b) the family $f_n(g)$ is normal on the full $g$-preimage of the set where $f_n$ is normal are immediate consequences of definition of normality. –  Alexandre Eremenko Aug 4 '12 at 19:54
    
Sorry, Alexandre, I'm still not certain that I understand you. I simply don't know what the term "full preimage" means (and my attempts to look it up have come to nothing). So: what is the definition of full preimage? –  Tom Leinster Aug 4 '12 at 21:41
    
Full $f$-preimage of a point $w$ is the set of all $z$ such that $f(z)=w$. Full preimage of a set is the union of full preimages of its points. –  Alexandre Eremenko Aug 5 '12 at 8:27
    
OK, thanks. So "full preimage" is a synonym for "preimage". –  Tom Leinster Aug 5 '12 at 18:37
add comment

Hy I'm not shure that your restriction map $f: J(gf)\rightarrow J(fg)$ is right. Insted of looking at Julia set it is equivalent to look at Fatou set where is more natural work with mapings. Since you've put $f:\{(gf)^n\}_n \rightarrow \{(fg)^n\}_n$ it clearly does not work. Insted you have to use conjugation $f\circ-\circ f^{-1}$, since you have rational function of deg>1 the inverse is not properly defined. So in the neighbour of the periodic points of $gf$ which are not critical (you dont have inverse) for $f$ you get same dynamics.

As you know fixed points play important role in this theory so you can try to compare fixed points (or periodic) of $fg$ and $gf$.

I think there are some results if you have $g$ an $f$ that commutes and than you compare dimaics of $f$ and $g$ with dynamics of $fg$.

share|improve this answer
2  
Luka, lease edit your message: I have difficulties reading it. –  Alexandre Eremenko Aug 4 '12 at 17:09
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.