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

The following question came up while constructing delay embeddings of time series data.

Consider an unknown topological space $X$ and an unknown continuous function $f:X \to X$. We are given a combinatorial representation $S_X$ of $X$ via a finite simplicial complex and an unknown isomorphism $\gamma_* $ from the simplicial homology $\text{H}^\Delta_*(S_X)$ (which is computable) to the singular homology $\text{H}_*(X)$.

Similarly, instead of any direct knowledge of $f$, we have a simplicial map $\phi:S_X \to S_X$ and the commuting relation

$$f_* \circ \gamma_* \equiv \gamma_* \circ \phi_*$$

where the star subscripts indicate maps induced on homology groups.

So from the matrix representations of $\phi_*$ one can deduce how $f$ maps cycles in $X$. Perhaps more non-trivially, one could compute the Lefschetz number of $f$ via the alternating sum of traces formula and deduce the existence of fixed points. Here's my question:

What else can one infer about $f$ from the $\phi_*$ matrices?

Do the determinants, characteristic polynomials and other matrix invariants of the $\phi_*$'s also carry useful information about $f$?

Update: Since a clarification has been requested, here are the details of how one might construct $S_X$ from $X$. To begin with, $X \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is a $k$-dimensional Riemannian submanifold of Euclidean space. One assumes the existence of a finite point set $P \subset \mathbb{R}^n$.

It is easy to see that if $P$ is sufficiently dense in $X$ then there is a radius $\epsilon > 0$ so that the union $U_\epsilon(P)$ of $n$-dimensional $\epsilon$-balls around points in $P$ covers $X$; in addition, if $\epsilon$ is small relative to the curvature of $X$, the map sending any point in $U_\epsilon(P)$ to its nearest point in $X$ is a strong deformation retraction, and so there is a homotopy equivalence between $U_\epsilon(P)$ and $X$.

In the question, $S_X$ is the Cech nerve of the obvious cover $\lbrace B_\epsilon(p)~|~p \in P\rbrace$ of $U_\epsilon(P)$. The map $\gamma_*$ comes from the fact that $S_X$ has the homology isomorphic to that of $U_\epsilon(P)$ by the nerve theorem, and that $U_\epsilon(P)$ in turn has the same homology as $X$ via the retraction outlined above. So in particular, there is no need to worry about which ring the homology coefficients come from: any PID will suffice.

share|improve this question
    
Hoping to clarify, in what sense is $X$ unknown, and in what sense is $S_X$ a "representation" of $X$? Do you mean that the only known connection is the given isomorphism $H(S) \simeq H(X)$? Is $|S_X|$ weak homotopy equivalent to $X$? Does the isomorphism work for all (constant) coefficients or only your-favourite-ring? –  some guy on the street Jun 11 '12 at 18:01
1  
Done! See the update in the question... –  Vidit Nanda Jun 11 '12 at 18:55
    
One comment: since the matrices of $f_\ast$ and $\phi_\ast$ are similar, one can ask the same question without introducing $S_X$. (Probably one should then assume $H_\ast(X)$ is finitely generated in each degree.) –  Mark Grant Jun 12 '12 at 6:10

1 Answer 1

When $X$ is a surface, then the moduli of the eigenvalues of $\phi_{\star}$ give lower bounds on the log of the dilatation of $f$, and therefore on the entropy of $f$. If we know additionally that the train track associated to $f$ is orientable, then the larger eigenvalue is the log of the dilatation. A more precise statement can be found in the following paper by Birman, Brinkman and Kawamuro http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.5094 where they associate several polynomials to $f$, one of them being actually associated to $\phi_\star$.

share|improve this answer
2  
Pierre, could you please mention which statement from the Birman, Brinkman and Kawamuro paper you are referring to? I am slightly worried that their global assumption (requiring $f$ to be pseudo-Asonov and hence at least a homeomorphism) is perhaps too strong to be useful in the context of the question even when we restrict to surfaces. –  Vidit Nanda Jun 11 '12 at 16:22
    
Well, I was assuming that you have an homeomorphism. Then the thing is that pseudo-Anosov maps minimize the entropy in their isotopy class, so that the bound on the entropy in the main theorem of Birman et al is a fortiori valid for any homeo. But I have no idea about the non-homeo case. –  Pierre Dehornoy Jun 11 '12 at 21:41

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.