An extremely large portion of mathematics is concerned with locating solutions to equations such as

for in some suitable domain space (either finite-dimensional or infinite-dimensional), and various maps or . To solve the fixed point iteration equation (1), the simplest general method available is the fixed point iteration method: one starts with an initial *approximate solution* to (1), so that , and then recursively constructs the sequence by . If behaves enough like a “contraction”, and the domain is complete, then one can expect the to converge to a limit , which should then be a solution to (1). For instance, if is a map from a metric space to itself, which is a contraction in the sense that

for all and some , then with as above we have

for any , and so the distances between successive elements of the sequence decay at at least a geometric rate. This leads to the contraction mapping theorem, which has many important consequences, such as the inverse function theorem and the Picard existence theorem.

A slightly more complicated instance of this strategy arises when trying to *linearise* a complex map defined in a neighbourhood of a fixed point. For simplicity we normalise the fixed point to be the origin, thus and . When studying the complex dynamics , , of such a map, it can be useful to try to conjugate to another function , where is a holomorphic function defined and invertible near with , since the dynamics of will be conjguate to that of . Note that if and , then from the chain rule any conjugate of will also have and . Thus, the “simplest” function one can hope to conjugate to is the linear function . Let us say that is *linearisable* (around ) if it is conjugate to in some neighbourhood of . Equivalently, is linearisable if there is a solution to the Schröder equation

for some defined and invertible in a neighbourhood of with , and all sufficiently close to . (The Schröder equation is normalised somewhat differently in the literature, but this form is equivalent to the usual form, at least when is non-zero.) Note that if solves the above equation, then so does for any non-zero , so we may normalise in addition to , which also ensures local invertibility from the inverse function theorem. (Note from winding number considerations that cannot be invertible near zero if vanishes.)

We have the following basic result of Koenigs:

Theorem 1 (Koenig’s linearisation theorem)Let be a holomorphic function defined near with and . If (attracting case) or (repelling case), then is linearisable near zero.

*Proof:* Observe that if solve (2), then solve (2) also (in a sufficiently small neighbourhood of zero). Thus we may reduce to the attractive case .

Let be a sufficiently small radius, and let denote the space of holomorphic functions on the complex disk with and . We can view the Schröder equation (2) as a fixed point equation

where is the partially defined function on that maps a function to the function defined by

assuming that is well-defined on the range of (this is why is only partially defined).

We can solve this equation by the fixed point iteration method, if is small enough. Namely, we start with being the identity map, and set , etc. We equip with the uniform metric . Observe that if , and is small enough, then takes values in , and are well-defined and lie in . Also, since is smooth and has derivative at , we have

if , and is sufficiently small depending on . This is not yet enough to establish the required contraction (thanks to Mario Bonk for pointing this out); but observe that the function is holomorphic on and bounded by on the boundary of this ball (or slightly within this boundary), so by the maximum principle we see that

on all of , and in particular

on . Putting all this together, we see that

since , we thus obtain a contraction on the ball if is small enough (and sufficiently small depending on ). From this (and the completeness of , which follows from Morera’s theorem) we see that the iteration converges (exponentially fast) to a limit which is a fixed point of , and thus solves Schröder’s equation, as required.

Koenig’s linearisation theorem leaves open the *indifferent case* when . In the *rationally indifferent* case when for some natural number , there is an obvious obstruction to linearisability, namely that (in particular, linearisation is not possible in this case when is a non-trivial rational function). An obstruction is also present in some *irrationally indifferent* cases (where but for any natural number ), if is sufficiently close to various roots of unity; the first result of this form is due to Cremer, and the optimal result of this type for quadratic maps was established by Yoccoz. In the other direction, we have the following result of Siegel:

Theorem 2 (Siegel’s linearisation theorem)Let be a holomorphic function defined near with and . If and one has the Diophantine condition for all natural numbers and some constant , then is linearisable at .

The Diophantine condition can be relaxed to a more general condition involving the rational exponents of the phase of ; this was worked out by Brjuno, with the condition matching the one later obtained by Yoccoz. Amusingly, while the set of Diophantine numbers (and hence the set of linearisable ) has full measure on the unit circle, the set of non-linearisable is generic (the complement of countably many nowhere dense sets) due to the above-mentioned work of Cremer, leading to a striking disparity between the measure-theoretic and category notions of “largeness”.

Siegel’s theorem does not seem to be provable using a fixed point iteration method. However, it can be established by modifying another basic method to solve equations, namely Newton’s method. Let us first review how this method works to solve the equation for some smooth function defined on an interval . We suppose we have some initial approximant to this equation, with small but not necessarily zero. To make the analysis more quantitative, let us suppose that the interval lies in for some , and we have the estimates

for some and and all (the factors of are present to make “dimensionless”).

Lemma 3Under the above hypotheses, we can find with such thatIn particular, setting , , and , we have , and

for all .

The crucial point here is that the new error is roughly the square of the previous error . This leads to extremely fast (double-exponential) improvement in the error upon iteration, which is more than enough to absorb the exponential losses coming from the factor.

*Proof:* If for some absolute constants then we may simply take , so we may assume that for some small and large . Using the Newton approximation we are led to the choice

for . From the hypotheses on and the smallness hypothesis on we certainly have . From Taylor’s theorem with remainder we have

and the claim follows.

We can iterate this procedure; starting with as above, we obtain a sequence of nested intervals with , and with evolving by the recursive equations and estimates

If is sufficiently small depending on , we see that converges rapidly to zero (indeed, we can inductively obtain a bound of the form for some large absolute constant if is small enough), and converges to a limit which then solves the equation by the continuity of .

As I recently learned from Zhiqiang Li, a similar scheme works to prove Siegel’s theorem, as can be found for instance in this text of Carleson and Gamelin. The key is the following analogue of Lemma 3.

Lemma 4Let be a complex number with and for all natural numbers . Let , and let be a holomorphic function with , , andfor all and some . Let , and set . Then there exists an injective holomorphic function and a holomorphic function such that

and

for all and some .

*Proof:* By scaling we may normalise . If for some constants , then we can simply take to be the identity and , so we may assume that for some small and large .

To motivate the choice of , we write and , with and viewed as small. We would like to have , which expands as

As and are both small, we can heuristically approximate up to quadratic errors (compare with the Newton approximation ), and arrive at the equation

This equation can be solved by Taylor series; the function vanishes to second order at the origin and thus has a Taylor expansion

and then has a Taylor expansion

We take this as our definition of , define , and then define implicitly via (4).

Let us now justify that this choice works. By (3) and the generalised Cauchy integral formula, we have for all ; by the Diophantine assumption on , we thus have . In particular, converges on , and on the disk (say) we have the bounds

In particular, as is so small, we see that maps injectively to and to , and the inverse maps to . From (3) we see that maps to , and so if we set to be the function , then is a holomorphic function obeying (4). Expanding (4) in terms of and as before, and also writing , we have

for , which by (5) simplifies to

From (6), the fundamental theorem of calculus, and the smallness of we have

and thus

From (3) and the Cauchy integral formula we have on (say) , and so from (6) and the fundamental theorem of calculus we conclude that

on , and the claim follows.

If we set , , and to be sufficiently small, then (since vanishes to second order at the origin), the hypotheses of this lemma will be obeyed for some sufficiently small . Iterating the lemma (and halving repeatedly), we can then find sequences , injective holomorphic functions and holomorphic functions such that one has the recursive identities and estimates

for all and . By construction, decreases to a positive radius that is a constant multiple of , while (for small enough) converges double-exponentially to zero, so in particular converges uniformly to on . Also, is close enough to the identity, the compositions are uniformly convergent on with and . From this we have

on , and on taking limits using Morera’s theorem we obtain a holomorphic function defined near with , , and

obtaining the required linearisation.

Remark 5The idea of using a Newton-type method to obtain error terms that decay double-exponentially, and can therefore absorb exponential losses in the iteration, also occurs in KAM theory and in Nash-Moser iteration, presumably due to Siegel’s influence on Moser. (I discuss Nash-Moser iteration in this note that I wrote back in 2006.)

## 14 comments

Comments feed for this article

14 April, 2015 at 11:11 pm

Anonymousi like that concept sir….i have new operators and spaces and any new conecpt i need this month…i doing project

15 April, 2015 at 1:04 am

AnonymousIs it possible to extend the (local) linearization theory to some class of – valued smooth functions over some region in ? (perhaps under some condition on , like the Cauchy-Riemann equations for the case of holomorphic ).

16 April, 2015 at 8:34 am

Terence TaoI don’t know of any work in this direction, but there is some literature on p-adic versions of Siegel’s linearisation theorem, in which the complex plane is replaced by the p-adic completion of .

27 April, 2015 at 3:41 am

AnonymousSome related results are given by Rodrigues and Sola-Morales in “Known results and open problems on linearization in Banach Spaces”, Sao Paulo J. Math. Sci. 6, 2(2012), 375-384.

15 April, 2015 at 2:53 am

AnonymousIs the sufficient (Diophantine) condition in theorem 2 also a necessary one?

[No; see the comments following that theorem. -T.]15 April, 2015 at 4:41 am

JJGCould one use the super-quadratic modified Newton methods (e.g., Weerakoon & Fernando, ‘A variant of Newton’s method with accelerated third-order convergence’, Appl. Math. Let. 13, 87–93, 2000) to similar (or improved!) affect?

16 April, 2015 at 2:08 am

AnonymousIn the proof of lemma 3, “large ” (third line) may be replaced by “” (which is needed for the estimate ).

16 April, 2015 at 8:45 am

Terence TaoThis is true; however, in my post I wish to emphasise that the precise value of C is not terribly important for this type of argument, and can change in different instances of that argument (e.g. in Lemma 4, the requirement on C will be a little different).

17 April, 2015 at 7:48 am

arch1Theorem 2: As a beginner I am trying to see how with phase could violate the Diophantine condition in the irrationally indifferent case. Is it true that this requires the nonzero sequence to have a nonuniformly-spaced subsequence which converges to zero?

21 April, 2015 at 1:58 am

AnonymousIn theorem 1, is linearized only locally over a sufficiently small neighborhood of .

Consider the possibility of linearizing globally over its whole domain in the attractive case where is simply connected:

A necessary condition seems to be that is the only(!) fixed point for in U. Is this the only obstruction for the global linearization of over ?

22 April, 2015 at 8:40 am

Terence TaoWell, another obvious obstruction would be that would have to be injective.

If one requires all maps to be holomorphic, then any global linearising map must be an analytic continuation of a local linearising map , which one can show to be unique once one normalises . So it’s basically a question of how far one can analytically continue and keep it invertible.

30 April, 2015 at 7:26 am

Ricardo Pérez-MarcoHi Terry, Nice entry. About your comment that “Siegel’s theorem does not seem to be provable using a fixed point iteration method” There is a paper of Michael Herman proving Siegel’s linearization using an elementary fixed point argument (not iterative, and only for certain rotation numbers). Can’t check the reference right now, but may be this one: “M.R. Herman – Simple proofs of local conjugacy theorems for diffeomorphisms of the circle with almost every rotation number, Bol. Soc. Bras. Mat.16 (1985), 45-83. ” (the same type of arguments work for linearization of circle maps, and you can indeed prove a rigorous dictionary between both problems through a construction using Hedgehogs, see “Fixed points and circle maps,” Acta Mathematica, vol. 179, no. 2, pp. 243–294, 1997). You may also like in the spirit of elementary proofs Yoccoz’s proof for almost all rotation numbers for quadratic maps only needing Fatou’s radial limit theorem. Cheers.

31 May, 2015 at 9:52 am

E.L. WistyReblogged this on Pink Iguana.

11 May, 2016 at 1:05 pm

Notes on the Nash embedding theorem | What's new[…] theorem with a much more rapidly convergent scheme that generalises Newton’s method; see this previous blog post for a similar idea. The other way out, due to Gunther, is to observe that can be factored […]