Sign up ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Lets say I have $f(z)=z^2+c$, with $c=0.35676274578 + 0.32858194507i$. Then $f(z)$ has a fixed point $\kappa_0=0.15450849719 + 0.47552825815i$, which is rationally indifferent with a period $m=5$. The "Complex Dynamics" book by Lennart Carleson says you can normalize $f^{[5]}(z)$, which is parabolic with $5$ attracting petals, and $5$ repelling petals, but what about generating a Fatou Coordinate for $f(z)$ itself, for the rational case?

I am interested in what is known about $g(z)=f^{[z]}(0)$, where $g(z)$ is generated from both fixed points of $f(z)$. (The other fixed point of $f(z)$ is repelling, $\kappa_1=0.84549150281 - 0.47552825815i$). I am interested in learning what the current theory says about such a Superfunction/Fatou coordinate, developed from both fixed points. I have a hunch that such a super function or Abel function of $f(z)$ exists, and has interesting properties, but I'm trying to find references for such problems.

Developed around the neutral $\kappa_0$ fixed point, we have $\lambda_0= \exp(\frac{2\pi i}{5})$, which would is a neutral fixed point with pseudo periodicity of 5. There is an Abel function, but only for $f^{\circ 5}(z)$, not for $f(z)$. Since 5 is a rational number, there is no Schroder function from the neutral fixed point. $$f(x+\kappa_0)= \lambda_0(x+\kappa_0) + (x+\kappa_0)^2 + \kappa_0$$

Developed around the other repelling $\kappa_1$ fixed point, we have $\lambda_1 \approx 1.691 - 0.9511i$, with a periodicity of $\approx 4.588 - 5.934i$. For this repelling fixed point, there is a well defined Schroder equation, which can be used to develop the the iterated function in the neighborhood of the fixed point.
$$f(x+\kappa_1)=\lambda_1(x+\kappa_1) + (x+\kappa_1)^2 + \kappa_1$$

The desired $g(x)=f^{\circ z}$ function would combine both of these fixed points into a single function. $g(x)$ would approach the $\kappa_1$ fixed point and the $\lambda_1$ periodicity as $\Im(z) \to -i\infty$, and as $\Im(z) \to +\infty$, $g(z)$ would approach the $\kappa_0$ neutral fixed point with the periodicity approaching 5.

Another way this question might be viewed, is as perturbation of the $f(x)=x+x^2$ parabolic fixed point, where $f(x)=x+x^2+\delta;\;\;\;\delta\approx 0.1068 + 0.3286i$, for the equivalent $f(x)$ for this question. I think the relevant mathematical term would be a perturbed Fatou coordinate (for the Abel function); but at that point I am over my mathematics skill level. The reason why I asked the question, is because unproven methods used for Tetration can also be used to calculate such a $g(x)=f^{\circ z}$ function without being able to prove a solution should exist, or converge.

share|cite|improve this question
Please explain the exact meaning of the expression "generated from both fixed points", and what is a "superfunction". – Alexandre Eremenko Aug 11 '12 at 14:03

1 Answer 1

I just taught Leau's Flower Theorem today...

Your best bet to understand this map is to read Milnor's book. Click here for a copy of the original notes (which are less polished than the book). The chapter on parabolic points is perhaps the most pedestrian, but even that is clearer than other books!

To give you an idea of the flow of ideas, Milnor considers an analytic function $f$ with a parabolic fixed point at 0. He first assumes the multiplier is $\lambda = 1$, and proves the attraction/repulsion picture directly from the power series (call this result T1). Some corollaries follow, and then he describes the case $\lambda = {\rm e}^{2\pi{\rm i}p/q}$, which is the same as before, except that the petals are permuted by $f$ instead of determining independent basins of attraction. THIS IS YOUR MAP. The multiplier is $\lambda = {\rm e}^{2\pi{\rm i}/5}$, so the petals map counterclockwise onto each other.

The fifth iterate of your $f$ has a fixed point with multiplier 1 so each petal maps into itself. This is the situation where the Abel function makes sense. Milnor shows how to construct explicitly this coordinate change by refining the computations from the proof of T1. THIS IS THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.