Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Continuous Semigroups of Holomorphic Self-Maps of The Unit Disc - Filippo Bracci, Manuel D. Contreras, Santiago Díaz-Madrigal
Continuous Semigroups of Holomorphic Self-Maps of The Unit Disc - Filippo Bracci, Manuel D. Contreras, Santiago Díaz-Madrigal
Continuous Semigroups of Holomorphic Self-Maps of The Unit Disc - Filippo Bracci, Manuel D. Contreras, Santiago Díaz-Madrigal
Filippo Bracci
Manuel D. Contreras
Santiago Díaz-Madrigal
Continuous
Semigroups of
Holomorphic
Self-maps of the
Unit Disc
Springer Monographs in Mathematics
Editors-in-Chief
Isabelle Gallagher, Paris, France
Minhyong Kim, Oxford, UK
Series Editors
Sheldon Axler, San Francisco, USA
Mark Braverman, Princeton, USA
Maria Chudnovsky, Princeton, USA
Tadahisa Funaki, Tokyo, Japan
Sinan C. Güntürk, New York, USA
Claude Le Bris, Marne la Vallée, France
Pascal Massart, Orsay, France
Alberto A. Pinto, Porto, Portugal
Gabriella Pinzari, Padova, Italy
Ken Ribet, Berkeley, USA
René Schilling, Dresden, Germany
Panagiotis Souganidis, Chicago, USA
Endre Süli, Oxford, UK
Shmuel Weinberger, Chicago, USA
Boris Zilber, Oxford, UK
This series publishes advanced monographs giving well-written presentations of
the “state-of-the-art” in fields of mathematical research that have acquired the
maturity needed for such a treatment. They are sufficiently self-contained to be
accessible to more than just the intimate specialists of the subject, and sufficiently
comprehensive to remain valuable references for many years. Besides the current
state of knowledge in its field, an SMM volume should ideally describe its relevance
to and interaction with neighbouring fields of mathematics, and give pointers to
future directions of research.
Santiago Díaz-Madrigal
Continuous Semigroups
of Holomorphic Self-maps
of the Unit Disc
123
Filippo Bracci Manuel D. Contreras
Dipartimento di Matematica Departamento de Matemática Aplicada II
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata” and IMUS
Roma, Italy Universidad de Sevilla
Sevilla, Spain
Santiago Díaz-Madrigal
Departamento de Matemática Aplicada II
and IMUS
Universidad de Sevilla
Sevilla, Spain
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
A Niccolò, che, da grande, prima vuole
guidare una ruspa e poi fare matematica.
Filippo
It was a sunny and hot day in Nahariya some years ago when we started discussing
the idea of writing a book about semigroups of holomorphic self-maps of the unit
disc. Since the wonderful books on the subject by Marco Abate, Mark Elin, Simeon
Reich, and David Shoikhet, there had been no sources in book form containing the
various advances of the intervening years, and many colleagues seemed interested
in having an updated complete reference source. We subsequently worked on the
raw material which finally became the present book. During the years needed to see
the “light at the end of the tunnel”, we profited from and very much enjoyed
discussions with colleagues and friends. It is our pleasant duty to thank all of those
who helped us.
Special thanks are due to our friend Pavel “Pasha” Gumenyuk who gave us
priceless comments, ideas, and constructive criticisms, besides offering much
philosophical advice about the book. Certainly this book—and life—would have
been very different without his help.
It was our great privilege to have the opportunity of knowing and profiting from
the experience, encouragement, and help of our friend Christian Pommerenke, from
whom we learned a lot.
We cannot forget our beloved friend Sasha Vasil’ev, whose constant encour-
agement was essential to us. Wherever you are now, we can imagine you are taking
a look at the book with a cerveza in your hand!
We wish to thank Hervé Gaussier, from whom we learned a lot about Gromov’s
hyperbolicity theory. The hours and hours spent at the coffee bar in Seville dis-
cussing hyperbolic geometry led us to simplify many proofs in the book, as well as
other aspects.
Thanks are also owed to Andy Zimmer, whose enthusiasm and skill allowed us
to understand much better part of the theory.
We would also like to thank Marco Abate: besides promising to read the book,
his work has always been a great inspiration for all of us.
Leandro Arosio helped us with many interesting comments and clever ideas.
Thanks!
vii
viii Acknowledgements
We further wish to thank the following great friends, collaborators, and masters,
who, in one way or another, contributed a lot to help us: Dimitri Betsakos, Mark
Elin, Pietro Poggi-Corradini, Simeon Reich, David Shoikhet, and Aristos Siskakis.
We also thank Graziano Gentili for his constant support and friendship.
Filippo wants to thank his parents, Renzo and Anna, for always being there, and
his wife Ele for her patience (at least, sometimes), support, and love.
Manolo wants to express his deepest gratitude to Mara José, his wife, for her
constant support and encouragement, especially during the time dedicated to
writing this book. Life would not be so beautiful without her. Thanks!
Santi is thankful and deeply indebted to his wife Flora for her endless patience
and love.
Last but not least, we want to express our gratitude to the institutions that have
supported us during these years of work: Departamento de Matemática Aplicada II
and the Instituto de Matemáticas IMUS, Universidad de Sevilla; Dipartimento di
Matematica, Università di Roma “Tor Vergata” (and the related MIUR Excellence
Department Project MATH@TOV), and the ERC grant “HEVO”.
has a unique smooth solution uðx0 ; Þ defined in some interval Ix0 of R containing 0
such that uðx0 ; 0Þ ¼ x0 . The map ðx; tÞ 7! uðx; tÞ is well-defined and smooth on
V J, where V is a neighborhood of x0 and J is a small interval containing 0. By
the uniqueness of solutions of the Cauchy problem, uðx; t þ sÞ ¼ uðuðx; tÞ; sÞ for all
s; t 2 J such that s þ t 2 J and uðx; tÞ 2 V. The family ðuð; tÞÞ is a one-parameter
local group, the flow of the vector field X. If Ix0 ¼ R for every x0 , then the maps
x 7! uðx; tÞ are diffeomorphisms of U for all t 2 R, and ðuð; tÞÞ is a one-parameter
group. In other words, X defines a continuous action of the group R on U. On the
other hand, if Ix0 contains ½0; þ 1Þ for every x0 2 U, then ðuð; tÞÞ is a
one-parameter semigroup and ut :¼ uð; tÞ is an injective smooth map of U into U
for each t 0. The semigroup equation, ut þ s ¼ ut us , t; s 0 implies that un ¼
un
1 ¼ u1 . . . u1 (n times composition of u1 with itself), and the behavior of the
orbits of fun1 g is strictly related to the analytic properties of the vector field X,
which can be easier to understand. Nevertheless, it is often the case that a dynamical
system is described by a single self-map f : U ! U, and one is interested in
ix
x Introduction
about semigroups, the book by Shoikhet [118] which is devoted to the so-called
generation theory and relations between semigroups and geometric function theory,
the book by Reich and Shoikhet [111], which contains extension of the theory to
Banach spaces, and the book by Elin and Shoikhet [65] where the emphasis is on
linearization models of semigroups.
In recent decades, applications of the theory of continuous one-parameter
semigroups of holomorphic self-maps of the unit disc appeared in mathematics and
other sciences. For instance, apart from Galton-Watson evolution type models
which we already mentioned, in the paper [96] the growth of leaves of the
Arabidopsis plant is modeled using semigroups of linear fractional maps of the unit
disc. A general Loewner theory, which is, in fact, the non-autonomous version
of the theory of continuous one-parameter semigroups, has been introduced in [26,
49, 28]. Semigroups of holomorphic self-maps are also strictly related to operator
theory, via the so-called composition operators. Indeed, every one-parameter
semigroup of holomorphic self-maps of the unit disc gives rise to a semigroup of
composition operators on Hardy spaces of holomorphic functions over the disc, or
on more general functional spaces. This connection between composition operators
and semigroups allows one to translate functional analytical questions (such as
spectral properties, operator ideal properties, compactness, cyclicity, and so on) into
corresponding dynamical questions for semigroups (see, e.g., [120, 92, 121, 4, 74]).
The theory of continuous one-parameter semigroups has also been studied for
holomorphic self-maps of complex spaces different from the unit disc. However, in
the category of Riemann surfaces, the theory essentially makes sense only for the
unit disc. In fact, Heins [82, 1] proved that Riemann surfaces with non-Abelian
fundamental group admit no non-trivial continuous one-parameter semigroups of
holomorphic self-maps, while for non-hyperbolic Riemann surfaces every contin-
uous one-parameter semigroup is a group of simple form. Finally, in the case of an
annulus, every semigroup is a group of rotations, and, in the case of the punctured
disc, every semigroup is just the restriction of a semigroup of the unit disc which
fixes the origin.
In higher dimensional complex manifolds, and in infinitely dimensional complex
Banach spaces, there are contributions to the theory from many authors, although
presently there is not a well-outlined and complete theory as in the unit disc. We
refer the reader to [23, 27, 1, 111] and references therein.
The beauty of the theory lies, in fact, in the interplay among dynamical prop-
erties of semigroups, analytical properties of infinitesimal generators, and geo-
metrical properties of Koenigs functions. The main objective of this book is to
study these relations.
The book includes precise descriptions of the behavior of trajectories, backward
orbits, petals, and boundary behavior in general, aiming to give a rather complete
picture of all interesting phenomena that occur. In order to fulfill this task, we
choose to introduce a new point of view, which is mainly based on the intrinsic
dynamical aspects of semigroups in relation with the Gromov hyperbolicity theory,
harmonic measure theory, and Carathéodory prime ends topology.
xii Introduction
Content of the book. The book is divided into two parts. Part I contains all
preliminary results, stated with detailed proofs and suitably adapted to our needs,
and introduces the core of the book, which is Part II. We briefly describe the content
of Part II.
A continuous one-parameter semigroup of holomorphic self-maps of the unit
disc, or, briefly from now on, a semigroup in D, is a family ð/t Þ depending on a
parameter t 2 ½0; þ 1Þ such that /t : D ! D is holomorphic for all t 0, /s þ t ¼
/s /t for s; t 2 ½0; þ 1Þ, /0 ¼ idD and ½0; þ 1Þ 3 t 7! /t is continuous with
respect to the Euclidean topology of ½0; þ 1Þ and the topology of uniform con-
vergence on compacta in the space of holomorphic maps of D.
The first main result is the continuous Denjoy-Wolff theorem, which says that if
ð/t Þ is a semigroup in D which is not a group of hyperbolic rotations, then there
exists a unique point s 2 D such that limt! þ 1 /t ðzÞ ¼ s for all z 2 D. The point s
is called the Denjoy-Wolff point of ð/t Þ. If s 2 D, then /t ðsÞ ¼ s and /0t ðsÞ ¼ ekt
for all t 0, where k 2 C is a number such that Re k [ 0. If s 2 @D, then /t has
non-tangential limit s at s for all t 0, so that s is, in a sense, a fixed point of the
semigroup, and /0t has non-tangential limit at s given by ekt , for some k 0. Thus
we have a first important classification of semigroups in D: elliptic if s 2 D, hy-
perbolic if s 2 @D and k [ 0, and parabolic if s 2 @D and k ¼ 0. The number k is
intrinsically related to the dynamics of the semigroup. Indeed, in the non-elliptic
case, it measures the rate of divergence of the trajectories of the semigroup in terms
of the hyperbolic distance of D.
Next, we exploit an abstract construction, known as basin of attraction or space
of orbits, which allows us to define a universal holomorphic model, i.e., roughly
speaking, a holomorphic conjugation of ð/t Þ to a group ðwt Þ of D or C, in such a
way that any holomorphic conjugation factorizes through this model. This idea is
somehow classical in dynamical systems and was used by Cowen [56] in order to
construct linear models for discrete iteration in the unit disc, and pushed forward in
[8] and by Arosio in [5, 6]. Since this model is defined using properties of the
hyperbolic metric, it allows us to move easily any intrinsic dynamical information
of ð/t Þ to ðwt Þ and conversely.
More concretely, the model’s construction gives an essentially unique univalent
function h : D ! C, which we call the Koenigs function of the semigroup ð/t Þ, in
such a way that either ðh /t ÞðzÞ ¼ ekt hðzÞ in the elliptic case, or ðh /t ÞðzÞ ¼
hðzÞ þ it for all z 2 D and t 0 in the non-elliptic case. In the elliptic case, hðDÞ is a
k-spirallike domain with respect to 0. In the hyperbolic case, hðDÞ is a domain
starlike at infinity which is contained in a strip of width p=k and cannot be con-
tained in any smaller strip. In the parabolic case, hðDÞ is a domain starlike at infinity
and either is contained in a half-plane with boundary parallel to the imaginary axis
(in the so-called positive hyperbolic step case) or cannot be contained in any such
half-plane (in the so-called zero hyperbolic step case).
Moreover, due to the universality of the model, any other holomorphic map
g : D ! C (or more generally any other complex manifold) which conjugates ð/t Þ
to a group of automorphisms can be factorized through h.
Introduction xiii
@xðtÞ hðxðtÞÞ
¼ GðxðtÞÞ :¼ dðh1 ÞhðxðtÞÞ ðHÞ ¼ k 0 ; xð0Þ ¼ h1 ðfÞ:
@t h ðxðtÞÞ
@/t ðzÞ
¼ Gð/t ðzÞÞ:
@t
Holomorphic vector fields G on D which define semigroups (that is, for which
the associated Cauchy problem admits a solution defined for every positive time
regardless of the initial data) can be characterized by means of various formulas and
inequalities. The basic one is the so-called Berkson-Porta Formula, which estab-
lishes that
@
1
Formally HðwÞ ¼ kw @w . However, since the tangent bundle of C is globally trivial and can be
@
naturally identified with C, in this book we omit writing the global base @w .
xiv Introduction
How to read this book. This book is intended both as a reference source for
researchers and as an introductory book for beginners with a (undergraduate)
background in real and complex analysis. For this purpose, the book is
self-contained and all non-standard (and, mostly, all standard) results are proved in
detail.
The core of the book is Part II, starting at Chap. 8. The reader, especially the
expert, could start reading from this chapter on and go back to Part I when needed.
However, we advise the reader to be familiar with the material of Chaps. 1–3 before
moving to Part II.
For instance, a first course on the theory of continuous one-parameter semigroups
of holomorphic maps in the unit disc could be done using Chaps. 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, and 10.
Chapters 11 to 15 and Chap. 18 are also based on Chaps. 4 and 5, while
Chaps. 16 and 17 strongly require the material contained in Chaps. 6 and 7.
The literature on the subject is quite wide. Nonetheless, we have tried to be as
precise as possible in attributing correct credits to the authors of the various results
presented in the book. Any missing reference is to be attributed solely to our lack of
knowledge.
Contents
Part I Preliminaries
1 Hyperbolic Geometry and Iteration Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 3
1.1 Riemann Surfaces, Riemann Sphere and the Group
of Möbius Transformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 3
1.2 The Schwarz Lemma and the Automorphism Group
of the Unit Disc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3 Hyperbolic Metric and Hyperbolic Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.4 Horocycles and Julia’s Lemma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.5 Non-Tangential Limits and Lindelöf’s Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1.6 Poisson Integral and Fatou’s Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1.7 Angular Derivatives and Julia-Wolff-Carathéodory’s
Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
1.8 Iteration in the Unit Disc and the Denjoy-Wolff Theorem . . . . . 48
1.9 Boundary Regular Contact Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
1.10 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
2 Holomorphic Functions with Non-Negative Real Part . . ......... 59
2.1 The Herglotz Representation Formula . . . . . . . . . . ......... 59
2.2 Growth Estimates for Functions with Non-Negative
Real Part . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 62
2.3 Finite Contact Points of Holomorphic Functions
with Non-Negative Real Part . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 64
2.4 Boundary Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 68
2.5 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 70
3 Univalent Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
3.1 Univalent Functions and Simply Connected Domains . . . . . . . . 71
3.2 No Koebe Arcs Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3.3 Boundary Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
3.4 Distortion Theorems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
xvii
xviii Contents
Part II Semigroups
8 Semigroups of Holomorphic Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
8.1 Semigroups in the Unit Disc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
8.2 Groups in the Unit Disc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
8.3 The Continuous Version of the Denjoy-Wolff Theorem . . . . . . . 218
8.4 Semigroups in Riemann Surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
Contents xix
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 557
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563
Notation
All non-standard (and often standard) notations are introduced in the book along
with the development of the theory. There are however certain standard notations
that we use throughout the book without introducing them explicitly along the way,
which we briefly introduce here.
The set2 N :¼ f1; 2; 3; . . .g. When we need to consider the set N together f0g,
we use the notation N0 :¼ f0g [ N. If we say that n is a natural number, the reader
can harmlessly choose either n 2 N or n 2 N0 according to her/his own taste.
The set of integer numbers is denoted by Z :¼ f0; 1; 2; . . .g, the set of
rational numbers is denoted by Q, the set of real numbers is R and C is the set of
complex numbers.
For a complex number z ¼ x þ iy, x; y 2 R, we denote by Re z :¼ x the real part
of z, and by Im z :¼ y the imaginary part. As usual, the modulus of z is
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
jzj :¼ x2 þ y2 . We denote by z :¼ x iy the complex conjugate of z.
For z 2 Cnf0g one can write z ¼ qeih with q [ 0 and h 2 ½p; pÞ. The (prin-
cipal) argument of z is
ArgðzÞ :¼ h:
2
Whether 0 has to be considered a natural number or not is a large source of debate, even among
the authors of the present book. We decided not to enter into this question, but just name the sets
we are using.
xxiii
xxiv Notation
þz
Cr ðzÞ :¼ rrz , Cayley transform
2
Eðr; RÞ :¼ fz 2 D : jrzj
1jzj2
\Rg, horocycle in the unit disc
E H ð1; RÞ :¼ fw 2 H : Re w [ Rg, horocycle at infinity in the right half-plane
EzX0 ðy; RÞ, horocycle in a simply connected domain
1
L½z :¼ fw 2 C : Re w ¼ Re zg
Sðr; RÞ :¼ fz 2 D : jrzj
1jzj \Rg, Stolz region
SX ðc; RÞ :¼ fw 2 X : kX ðw; cðða; þ1ÞÞÞ\Rg, hyperbolic sector around a geo-
desic c
TðrÞ, the life-time of r 2 @D under the action of a semigroup
Ta ðzÞ :¼ 1az
az
, canonical automorphism of D for jaj\1
U open set in the Carathéodory topology
Vða; r0 Þ :¼ fqeih : q [ r0 ; jhj\ag, horizontal sector
VðaÞ :¼ Vða; 0Þ ¼ fqeih : q [ 0; jhj\ag
Wða; bÞ :¼ fqeih : q [ 0; a\h\bg
ArgðzÞ, principal argument of a complex number
Argk ðwÞ :¼ h; the k-spirallike argument of w ¼ ekt þ ih
C1 , the Riemann sphere
D :¼ fz 2 C : jzj\1g, unit disc in C
Cðc; bÞ :¼ fp 2 C1 : 9ftn g ½a; bÞ : limn!1 tn ¼ b; limn!1 cðtn Þ ¼ pg, cluster
set of a curve c
GenðDÞ, set of infinitesimal generators
H :¼ fw 2 C : Re w [ 0g, the right half-plane
H :¼ fz 2 C : Re z\0g, the left half-plane
HolðS1 ; S2 Þ, the set of all holomorphic functions from S1 to S2
HolðD; CÞ, space of holomorphic functions in D
N :¼ f1; 2; 3; . . .g
N0 :¼ f0g [ N
Xa;b;R :¼ C n fz 2 C : Re z 2 fa; a þ Rg; Im z bg
xxv
xxvi Symbols
fVn g basis of open neighborhoods of a prime end given by interior parts of null
chains
cX ð/t Þ :¼ lims!þ1 kX ð/ssðzÞ;zÞ, divergence rate of the semigroup ð/t Þ
dS ðz; wÞ, the spherical distance in C1
kS ðz; wÞ, hyperbolic distance on a Riemann surface S
p 4 q, orientation on a contact arc
su ð/t ; zÞ :¼ limr!þ1 kX ð/r ðzÞ; /r þ u ðzÞÞ, the u-th hyperbolic step
2
1jzj
ur ðzÞ :¼ jrzj 2 , Poisson kernel
In this chapter we introduce some basic tools necessary for our study. We start
recalling the concept of Riemann surfaces, focus mainly on the geometry of the unit
disc, the complex plane and the Riemann sphere. Next, from Schwarz’s Lemma, we
define the hyperbolic metric and hyperbolic distance of the unit disc, and extend, à la
Kobayashi, the concept of hyperbolic distance to Riemann surfaces. We turn then our
attention to the analytical and dynamical properties of holomorphic self-maps of the
unit disc. We introduce the notion of horocycles and Stolz’s regions, and we prove the
Lindelöf Theorem, which allows one to infer the existence of non-tangential limits
provided the limit along some curve exists. Then we prove Julia’s Lemma and the
Julia-Wolff-Carathéodory Theorem, which can be seen as boundary version of the
Schwarz Lemma. With those tools at hand, we consider iteration of holomorphic
self-maps of the unit disc, and prove the Denjoy-Wolff Theorem, which says that,
except trivial cases, the orbits of a holomorphic self-map of the unit disc converge to
a same point on the closed unit disc. Finally, we discuss boundary fixed points (and,
more generally, boundary contact points) of holomorphic self-maps of the unit disc
when no continuous extension to the boundary is assumed.
Although we are mainly interested in studying maps from the unit disc into itself,
in some of our constructions we need to deal with Riemann surfaces and with the
geometry of the Riemann sphere. Therefore we briefly recall the definition and basic
properties of these objects in this section.
is holomorphic.
The family {Uα , ψα } is called a holomorphic atlas for S and ψα is a holomorphic
chart of S on Uα .
A continuous map f : S1 → S2 between two Riemann surfaces S1 and S2 is
holomorphic if for every p ∈ S1 there exist a holomorphic chart (U, ψ) of S1 with
p ∈ U and a holomorphic chart (V, η) of S2 with f ( p) ∈ V such that the function
η ◦ f ◦ ψ −1 : ψ(U ∩ f −1 (V )) → η(V ) is holomorphic.
If S1 , S2 are Riemann surfaces, we denote by Hol(S1 , S2 ) the set of all holomorphic
maps from S1 to S2 .
A holomorphic map f : S1 → S2 is a biholomorphism if it admits a holomorphic
inverse. This is equivalent to say that f is holomorphic, injective and surjective. A
holomorphic and injective map is also called univalent.
Every open subset U ⊆ C is a Riemann surface, with an atlas composed by only
one chart: (U, idU ), where idU denotes the identity map in U . In particular, the unit
disc D := {z ∈ C : |z| < 1} and C are Riemann surfaces.
Another important example of a Riemann surface is provided by the Riemann
sphere C∞ . Its construction is done as follows. On C2 \ {(0, 0)} define the following
equivalence relation: (w1 , w2 ) ∼ (w1 , w2 ) if w1 w2 − w2 w1 = 0. Let C∞ := (C2 \
{(0, 0)})/ ∼ be the set of equivalence classes, endowed with the natural quotient
topology. Let [w1 : w2 ] denote the equivalence classes of (w1 , w2 ) ∈ C2 \ {(0, 0)}.
Let π : C2 \ {(0, 0)} → C∞ be the surjective map defined by π((w1 , w2 )) := [w1 :
w2 ]. Then U ⊂ C∞ is open if and only if π −1 (U ) is open in C2 \ {(0, 0)}. It is
easy to see that C∞ is a connected, simply connected, Hausdorff, second countable
topological space, and it is compact. In fact, using the stereographic projection, one
can prove that C∞ is homeomorphic to the Euclidean sphere {(x1 , x2 , x3 ) ∈ R3 :
|x1 |2 + |x2 |2 + |x3 |2 = 1}.
We endow C∞ with a Riemann surface structure in the following way. Let
U1 := {[w1 : w2 ] ∈ C∞ : w1 = 0} and U2 := {[w1 : w2 ] ∈ C∞ : w2 = 0}. The two
sets U1 , U2 are open and
Using the holomorphic chart (U2 , ψ2 ) it is easy to check that the map ι : C →
C∞ given by ι(z) := [z : 1] is univalent and, in fact, ι = ψ2−1 , proving that ι is a
homeomorphism on its image.
This allows to consider C∞ as the holomorphic one-point compactification of C
by adding a point at infinity. To make this sentence rigorous, let ∞ := [1 : 0]. Then,
C∞ = ι(C) ∪ {∞}.
As customary, with a slight abuse of notation, we will forget to write ι and simply
write C∞ = C ∪ {∞}. This means that z ∈ C can be thought of as the point [z : 1] ∈
C∞ and ∞ = [1 : 0]. In particular, if R > 0 and VR := {z ∈ C : |z| > R} ∪ {∞}, the
family {VR } is a basis of open neighborhoods of ∞, and thus a sequence {z n } ⊂ C
converges to ∞ in C∞ if and only if |z n | → ∞.
One can define a distance on C∞ which is equivalent to the Euclidean distance
on bounded sets.
2|z − w|
d S (z, w) := .
(1 + |z|2 )(1 + |w|2 )
If w = ∞ and z = ∞, let
2
d S (z, ∞) = d S (∞, z) = ,
1 + |z|2
and d S (∞, ∞) = 0.
We call d S (z, w) the spherical distance between z and w.
The function d S is a distance, that is, it satisfies d S (z, w) = d S (w, z) for all
z, w ∈ C∞ , d S (z, w) = 0 if and only if z = w and d S (z, w) ≤ d S (z, u) + d S (u, w)
for all z, w, u ∈ C∞ . It is, in fact, induced by the spherical distance on the sphere
{(x1 , x2 , x3 ) ∈ R3 : |x1 |2 + |x2 |2 + |x3 |3 = 1} via the stereographical projection (see
e.g. [3, Sect. 2.4]).
Let K ⊂ C∞ . The spherical diameter diam S (K ) is defined by
1
d S (z, w) ≤ |z − w| ≤ C K d S (z, w)
2
6 1 Hyperbolic Geometry and Iteration Theory
for all z, w ∈ K . Namely, the spherical distance is equivalent to the Euclidean dis-
tance on bounded subsets of C. In particular, it is easy to see that the spherical
distance d S induces on C∞ the topology defined above.
By Liouville’s Theorem, the unit disc D can not be biholomorphic to the complex
plane C. Moreover, since C∞ is compact, it can not be biholomorphic to D or C.
Thus, D, C and C∞ are examples of non-biholomorphic simply connected Riemann
surfaces. The Uniformization Theorem assures that these are the only ones:
Theorem 1.1.4 (Uniformization Theorem) Every simply connected Riemann sur-
face is biholomorphic either to the unit disc D, or to the complex plane C, or to the
Riemann sphere C∞ .
A proof can be found in, e.g., [71, 72].
Now we turn our attention to the group of automorphisms of C∞ . Let a, b, c, d ∈ C
be such that ad − bc = 0. The map F : C∞ → C∞ defined by F : [w1 : w2 ] →
[aw1 + bw2 : cw1 + dw2 ] is well defined and invertible, and, using the holomorphic
charts previously introduced, one can easily see that it is holomorphic. Therefore, it
is an automorphism of C∞ . Using the decomposition C∞ = C ∪ {∞} one can write
such a map as z → az+b
cz+d
. In particular, taking into account the definition of C ∪ {∞},
we have F(∞) := lim z→∞ az+b cz+d
= ac , and BA = ∞ if A ∈ C \ {0} and B = 0.
Definition 1.1.5 A map F : C∞ → C∞ of the form
az + b
F(z) = , (1.1.1)
cz + d
Remark 1.1.9 Every Möbius transformation maps circles and lines in C onto either
circles or lines in C (circles can be mapped both onto circles and onto lines and
similarly for lines).
Proof If F is a Möbius transformation given by (1.1.1), the equation for fixed points
is az + b = z(cz + d), which has exactly two solutions (counting multiplicity) in
C∞ if c = 0 and one solution if c = 0.
If F has two distinct fixed points in C∞ , say σ1 , σ2 ∈ C∞ , and σ1 , σ2 = ∞, let
G(z) = z−σ z−σ1
2
. In case one of the fixed points is ∞, say σ2 = ∞, let G(z) = z − σ1 .
Then G(σ1 ) = 0 and G(σ2 ) = ∞. Therefore the Möbius transformation G ◦ F ◦
G −1 fixes 0 and ∞, hence it is of the form z → λz for some λ = 0.
If F has only one fixed point (regardless multiplicity), say σ ∈ C∞ , let H (z) =
1
z−σ
if σ = ∞, or let H (z) = z if σ = ∞. Hence H (σ ) = ∞. Therefore the Möbius
transformation H ◦ F ◦ H −1 fixes ∞ and it is of the form z → az + b. If a = 1
then H ◦ F ◦ H −1 would have two fixed points in C∞ , which would force F to
have two fixed points in C∞ . Hence a = 1 and necessarily b = 0. Finally, let S(z) =
z
−ib
. Hence (S ◦ H ◦ F ◦ H −1 ◦ S −1 )(z) = z + i and taking G = S ◦ H we have the
result.
The previous proposition has a direct consequence about the derivatives at fixed
points of Möbius transformations. We do not introduce the concept of derivative of
8 1 Hyperbolic Geometry and Iteration Theory
Corollary 1.1.12 Let F be a Möbius transformation. If F has only one fixed point
ζ ∈ C∞ then F (ζ ) = 1. If F has two distinct fixed points ζ0 , ζ1 ∈ C∞ then F (ζ0 ) ·
F (ζ1 ) = 1.
Using Möbius transformations one can simplify much computations. The typical
example is the so called Cayley transform, which often allows to transform non-linear
expressions into affine ones. We define it here for future reference.
Let H := {w ∈ C : Re w > 0} be the right half-plane. The Cayley transform
Cσ : D → H with respect to σ ∈ ∂D, is defined by
σ +z
Cσ (z) := . (1.1.2)
σ −z
w−1
Cσ−1 (w) = σ .
w+1
Moreover, Cσ (σ ) = ∞ in C∞ .
|φ(z)| 1
| f (z)| ≤ max | f (z)| = max | f (z)| = max ≤ .
|z|≤r |z|=r |z|=r r r
a−z
Ta (z) := . (1.2.1)
1 − az
It is easy to see that Ta (D) = D and Ta−1 (z) = Ta (z), that is, Ta is an automorphism
of D. Note also that Ta (a) = 0, Ta (0) = a.
Proposition 1.2.2 Let T ∈ Aut(D). Then there exists θ ∈ R and a ∈ D such that
Using automorphisms, one can prove a general version of the Schwarz Lemma:
Definition 1.3.1 The hyperbolic metric (or Poincaré metric) is defined for v, w ∈ C
and z ∈ D by
vw
κD2 (z; (v, w)) := .
(1 − |z|2 )2
From a differential geometric point of view, κD2 can be thought of as a Kähler metric
κD2 : T D ⊗ T D → C of constant Gaussian curvature −4. However, we are not going
to use this point of view in the rest of the book. We only point out that the function
κD2 (z; (v, w)) is continuous with respect to z, v, w and, when z is fixed, it gives a
Hermitian product on C. The hyperbolic norm of a vector v ∈ C at z ∈ D is defined by
|v|
κD (z; v) := κD2 (z; (v, v)) = .
1 − |z|2
Using hyperbolic length of curves we can define the hyperbolic distance as follows:
Definition 1.3.3 Let z, w ∈ D. The hyperbolic distance (or Poincaré distance) from
z to w is
ω(z, w) := inf D (γ ),
γ
where γ runs over all piecewise C 1 -smooth curves in D which join z and w.
and
1 − |a|2
|T (z)| = .
|1 − az|2
Hence,
|v|
= = κD (z; v),
1 − |z|2
12 1 Hyperbolic Geometry and Iteration Theory
1 1 + |Tw (z)|
ω(z, w) = log . (1.3.1)
2 1 − |Tw (z)|
Proof Since automorphisms are isometries for ω by Lemma 1.3.4, it follows that
Therefore, we only need to find the expression of ω(0, z) for z ∈ D. Since rota-
tions around the origin are automorphisms of D, hence isometries for the hyperbolic
distance, we can also assume that z = |z| > 0.
Therefore, we are left to find the expression of ω(0, r ) for r ∈ (0, 1). Let γ :
[a, b] → D be a piecewise C 1 -smooth curve such that γ (a) = 0 and γ (b) = r . Write
γ (t) := γ1 (t) + iγ2 (t), with γ j : [a, b] → R, j = 1, 2. Note that γ1 : [a, b] → D is
a piecewise C 1 -smooth curve which joins 0 to r . Then |γ (t)| ≥ |γ1 (t)| and 1 −
|γ (t)|2 ≤ 1 − |γ1 (t)|2 . Hence,
b
|γ (t)| b
|γ1 (t)|
D (γ ) = dt ≥ dt = D (γ1 ). (1.3.2)
a 1 − |γ (t)|2 a 1 − |γ1 (t)|2
Let [α, β] = γ ([a, b]). Note that α ≤ 0 and β ≥ r . By the usual rule of change of
variables in integrals (see, e.g., [122, (6.95) p. 325]),
b
b
|γ1 (t)| γ1 (t)
D (γ1 ) = dt ≥ dt
a 1 − |γ1 (t)| 2
a 1 − γ1 (t)
2
β r (1.3.3)
dt dt 1 1+r
= ≥ = log .
α 1−t 2
0 1−t
2 2 1−r
1 1+r
ω(0, r ) = inf D (γ ) = D (γ̃ ) = log ,
γ 2 1−r
ω(0, |Tz2 (w2 )|) = ω(0, Tz2 (w2 )) = ω(Tz2 (0), w2 ) = ω(z 2 , w2 )
≤ ω(z 1 , w1 ) = ω(Tz1 (0), w1 ) = ω(0, Tz1 (w1 )) = ω(0, |Tz1 (w1 )|).
Thus |Tz2 (w2 )| ≤ |Tz1 (w1 )|. This inequality implies that the function
Tz2 (w2 )
φ(z) = Tz2 Tz1 (z) , z ∈ D,
Tz1 (w1 )
is a holomorphic self-map of the unit disc and satisfies φ(z 1 ) = z 2 and φ(w1 ) = w2 . If
λ ∈ [0, 1], then the function ϕ(z) = λz + (1 − λ)φ(z), z ∈ D, is also a holomorphic
self-map of the unit disc. Hence, by Theorem 1.3.7,
For the aims of this book, we need to extend the definition of hyperbolic distance
to other Riemann surfaces. Let S be a Riemann surface and let z, w ∈ S. A finite
family C of holomorphic functions f j : D → S, j = 1, . . . , n, for some n ∈ N is
14 1 Hyperbolic Geometry and Iteration Theory
called a chain of holomorphic discs in S joining z and w if there exist t j ∈ (0, 1), j =
1, . . . , n, such that f 1 (0) = z, f 1 (t1 ) = f 2 (0), . . . , f n−1 (tn−1 ) = f n (0), f n (tn ) = w.
The hyperbolic length of the chain C is defined by
n
(C ) := ω(0, t j ).
j=1
We denote by Γ S (z, w) the set of all chains of holomorphic discs in S joining z and w.
Definition 1.3.9 Let S be a Riemann surface. Let z, w ∈ S. The hyperbolic distance
between z and w is defined as
Since S is connected by definition and hence each two points in S can be joined by
a compact curve in S which can be covered by a finite number of holomorphic charts,
it turns out that k S (z, w) < +∞ for all z, w ∈ S. Moreover, k S (z, z) = 0 for all z ∈ S.
Also, as a direct consequence of the definition we have that k S : S × S → [0, +∞)
is a symmetric function which satisfies the triangle inequality.
The hyperbolic distance is contracted by holomorphic functions, and preserved
by biholomorphisms:
Proposition 1.3.10 Let S, S̃ be Riemann surfaces. If φ : S → S̃ is holomorphic,
then for all z, w ∈ S
k S̃ (φ(z), φ(w)) ≤ k S (z, w).
1
f n (ζ ) := n(ζ z − (ζ − )w).
n
1
kC (z, w) ≤ ω(0, ) → 0 for n → ∞,
n
therefore kC ≡ 0.
(3) Let z, w ∈ C∞ , z = w. There exists a Möbius transformation T such that
T (z), T (w) ∈ C. Therefore, by Proposition 1.3.10 and Remark 1.3.11
In the following we will need two properties of the hyperbolic distance. The first
one is about continuity:
Let thus ε > 0 be fixed, and let C = { f j }nj=1 be a chain of holomorphic discs
in S joining z and w such that (C ) ≤ k S (z, w) + 2ε . By definition there exist t j ∈
(0, 1), j = 1, . . . , n, such that f 1 (0) = z, f 1 (t1 ) = f 2 (0), . . . , f n−1 (tn−1 ) = f n (0)
and f n (tn ) = w. Let 0 < r < 1, close to 1, be such that t j < r and
tj ε
ω(0, ) ≤ ω(0, t j ) +
r 2n
for all j = 1, . . . , n. Let Dr := {z ∈ C : |z| < r }. Since the set ∪nj=1 f j (Dr ) is com-
pact in S, it is contained in Sm r for some m r ≥ m 0 . Let f jr : D → Sm r be defined by
f jr (ζ ) = f j (r ζ ), j = 1, . . . , n. Then C r := { f jr } is a chain of holomorphic discs in
Sm r such that f 1r (0) = z, f 1r ( tr1 ) = f 2r (0), . . . , f n−1
r
( tn−1
r
) = f nr (0) and f nr ( trn ) = w.
Then
n n
tj ε ε
k Smr (z, w) ≤ (C r ) = ω(0, )≤ ω(0, t j ) + = (C ) + ≤ k S (z, w) + ε,
r 2 2
j=1 j=1
The story about Riemann surfaces and hyperbolic distance does not end here, and
we will come back to this in Chap. 5 where we define and study hyperbolic metric
and distance in simply connected domains. However, for the time being, the previous
simple facts are just those we need.
Using the uniformization theorem, one can show that every Riemann surface
is holomorphically covered by either D, or C or C∞ . The hyperbolic distance is
a genuine distance on a Riemann surface S—that is, k S (z, w) = 0 if and only if
z = w—which is complete and induces the natural topology of S if and only if S is
holomorphically covered by D (in this case S is also called hyperbolic). In the other
cases, k S ≡ 0. The interested reader can check, e.g., [71] or [1].
Definition 1.4.1 Let σ ∈ ∂D and R > 0. The horocycle E(σ, R) of center σ and
(hyperbolic) radius R > 0 is
|σ − z|2
E(σ, R) := {z ∈ D : < R}.
1 − |z|2
σ
It is easy to see that E(σ, R) is an Euclidean disc of center 1+R of radius R/(R + 1)
contained in D and tangent to ∂D at σ .
Horocycles can be expressed in terms of hyperbolic distance:
Proposition 1.4.2 Let σ ∈ ∂D. Then for every z ∈ D
18 1 Hyperbolic Geometry and Iteration Theory
1 |σ − z|2
lim [ω(z, w) − ω(0, w)] = log . (1.4.1)
w→σ 2 1 − |z|2
1
E(σ, R) = {z ∈ D : lim [ω(z, w) − ω(0, w)] < log R}. (1.4.2)
w→σ 2
Proof Let z ∈ D and let Tz be the canonical automorphism of D such that Tz (z) = 0
[see (1.2.1)]. Then
1 1 + |Tz (w)| 1 − |w|
ω(z, w) − ω(0, w) = ω(0, Tz (w)) − ω(0, w) = log · .
2 1 − |Tz (w)| 1 + |w|
Therefore,
1 1 − |w| 1 1 − |w|2
lim [ω(z, w) − ω(0, w)] = lim log = lim log .
w→σ 2 w→σ 1 − |Tz (w)| 2 w→σ 1 − |Tz (w)|2
1 |1 − zw|2 |1 − zw|2
(1 − |w|2 ) · = (1 − |w| 2
) · = ,
1 − |Tz (w)|2 (1 − |w|2 )(1 − |z|2 ) 1 − |z|2
1 − |φ(z)|
αφ (σ ) := lim inf .
z→σ 1 − |z|
1.4 Horocycles and Julia’s Lemma 19
1
log αφ (σ ) = lim inf [ω(0, w) − ω(0, φ(w))]. (1.4.5)
2 w→σ
Proof Since holomorphic maps contract the hyperbolic distance, and by the triangle
inequality, for every w ∈ D, we have
In particular,
lim inf [ω(0, w) − ω(0, φ(w))] > −∞. (1.4.6)
w→σ
Now,
1 1 − |φ(w)| 1 1 + |w|
ω(0, w) − ω(0, φ(w)) = log + log . (1.4.7)
2 1 − |w| 2 1 + |φ(w)|
Since 1
2
≤ 1+|w|
1+|φ(w)|
≤ 2 for every w ∈ D,
1 1 − |φ(w)| 1 1
log + log( ) ≤ ω(0, w) − ω(0, φ(w))
2 1 − |w| 2 2
1 1 − |φ(w)| 1
≤ log + log 2.
2 1 − |w| 2
Hence, αφ (σ ) = +∞ if and only if lim inf w→σ [ω(0, w) − ω(0, φ(w))] = +∞.
Moreover, from (1.4.6), it follows that αφ (σ ) > 0.
On the other hand, if {z n } ⊂ D is a sequence converging to σ such that either
n )|
limn→∞ 1−|φ(z
1−|z n |
exists finitely or limn→∞ [ω(0, z n ) − ω(0, φ(z n ))] exists finitely,
then |φ(z n )| → 1 as n → ∞ and, by (1.4.7),
1 1 − |φ(z n )|
lim [ω(0, z n ) − ω(0, φ(z n ))] = lim log .
n→∞ n→∞ 2 1 − |z n |
20 1 Hyperbolic Geometry and Iteration Theory
1
| log αφ (σ )| ≤ lim inf ω(z n , φ(z n )).
2 n→∞
|η − φ(z)|2 |σ − z|2
≤ αφ (σ ) . (1.4.9)
1 − |φ(z)|2 1 − |z|2
Moreover, there exists z ∈ ∂ E(σ, R) ∩ D such that φ(z) ∈ ∂ E(η, αφ (σ )R) if and
only if φ is an automorphism of D if and only if φ(E(σ, R)) = E(η, αφ (σ )R) for
some—and hence every—R > 0.
Finally, if {z n } ⊂ D is a sequence converging to σ such that
1 − |φ(z n )|
lim sup < +∞, (1.4.10)
n→∞ 1 − |z n |
1
lim [ω(0, wk ) − ω(0, φ(wk )] = log αφ (σ ). (1.4.11)
k→∞ 2
1
lim [ω(φ(z), φ(wk )) − ω(0, φ(wk ))] < log(αφ (σ )R). (1.4.12)
k→∞ 2
1.4 Horocycles and Julia’s Lemma 21
Using the contractiveness property of the hyperbolic distance with respect to holo-
morphic maps we have
Taking the limit as k → ∞, (1.4.12) follows at once from (1.4.2) and (1.4.11).
Note also that, if φ is an automorphism, then ω(φ(z), φ(wk )) = ω(z, wk ) for
all z ∈ D and k ∈ N. Hence, the previous inequality is indeed an equality and thus
φ(E(σ, R)) = E(η, αφ (σ )R) for all R > 0.
In order to show that η is the unique point with such a property, assume η̃ ∈
∂D \ {η} satisfies φ(E(σ, R)) ⊂ E(η̃, αφ (σ )R) for all R > 0. In particular, for all
R > 0,
φ(E(σ, R)) ⊂ E(η̃, αφ (σ )R) ∩ E(η, αφ (σ )R).
However, if η = η̃, there exists R > 0 such that E(η̃, αφ (σ )R) ∩ E(η, αφ (σ )R) = ∅,
a contradiction. Therefore η = η̃ and the uniqueness is proved.
Now, assume that φ(E(σ, R)) = E(η, αφ (σ )R) for some R > 0. By the Open
Mapping Theorem, for every p ∈ ∂ E(η, αφ (σ )R) \ {η} there exists q ∈ ∂ E(σ, R) \
{σ } such that φ(q) = p.
Assume that there exists z 0 ∈ ∂ E(σ, R) \ {σ } such that φ(z 0 ) ∈ ∂ E(η, αφ (σ )R).
Let u σ , u η be the Poisson kernels defined in (1.4.3). Let v : D → R− be the harmonic
function given by
1
v(z) := u η (φ(z)) − u σ (z).
αφ (σ )
Since (1.4.8) is equivalent to (1.4.9) for all z ∈ D, by (1.4.3) it follows that (1.4.8)
is equivalent to
v(z) ≤ 0 (1.4.13)
for all z ∈ D.
Since z 0 ∈ ∂ E(σ, R) \ {σ } is such that φ(z 0 ) ∈ ∂ E(η, αφ (σ )R), it follows that
v(z 0 ) = 0 and by the Maximum Principle for harmonic functions, v ≡ 0. By (1.4.3),
this is equivalent to
φ(z) + η 1 z+σ
Re − = 0.
φ(z) − η αφ (σ ) z − σ
φ(z) + η 1 z+σ
= + ib. (1.4.14)
φ(z) − η αφ (σ ) z − σ
22 1 Hyperbolic Geometry and Iteration Theory
where Cσ and Cη are the Cayley transforms introduced in (1.1.2), proving that φ is
an automorphism of D.
Finally, let {z n } ⊂ D be a sequence converging to σ which satisfies (1.4.10). Up
to extracting subsequences, we can assume limn→∞ φ(z n ) = η for some η ∈ D.
Clearly, (1.4.10) implies η ∈ ∂D. Then, repeating the previous argument substi-
tuting {wk } with {z k }, one can prove that φ(E(σ, R)) ⊆ E(η , L R) where L =
n )|
lim supn→∞ 1−|φ(z
1−|z n |
. But then, for all R > 0 it holds φ(E(σ, R)) ⊆ E(η , L R) ∩
E(η, αφ (σ )R). Since for R small enough E(η , L R) ∩ E(η, αφ (σ )R) = ∅ if η = η ,
this implies that η = η .
Remark 1.4.8 If φ is an automorphism of D, the point η ∈ ∂D in Theorem 1.4.7 is
just η = φ(σ ).
In the following we will need to consider horocycles at infinity in the right half-
plane H. Let σ ∈ ∂D and let Cσ : D → H be the Cayley transform with respect to
σ given by (1.1.2). Then Cσ (σ ) = ∞ and Cσ maps the horocycles of center σ onto
unbounded open subsets of H which we call horocycles of H at ∞. An explicit
computation shows that for R > 0
1
E H (∞, R) := Cσ (E(σ, )) = {w ∈ H : Re w > R}. (1.4.15)
R
lim f (r σ ) = L
(0,1)r →1
if lim(0,1)r →1 d S ( f (r σ ), L) = 0.
We say that L ∈ C∞ is the non-tangential limit of f at σ , and we write
∠ lim f (z) = L ,
z→σ
1.5 Non-Tangential Limits and Lindelöf’s Theorem 23
Proof Since
2
|σ − z|2 |σ − z| 1 − |z|
= · ,
1 − |z|2 1 − |z| 1 + |z|
and 1−|z|
1+|z|
≤ 1, the two statements follow at once.
Remark 1.5.4 A direct computation using (1.4.1) shows that for every M > 1 and
σ ∈ ∂D,
Stolz regions can be also describe in terms of geodesics for the hyperbolic metric
(see Sect. 6.2).
Stolz regions are well behaving under holomorphic self-maps of the unit disc at
boundary points where the boundary dilation coefficient is finite:
αφ (σ )
K := 4 .
1 − |φ(0)|2
By Theorem 1.4.7, there exists p ∈ ∂D such that f (E(σ, R)) ⊂ E( p, α f (σ )R) for
all R > 0 and, for what we already proved, f (S(σ, M)) ⊂ S( p, α f (σ )M) for all
M > 1. Therefore, recalling that Ta = Ta−1 , for every M > 1 it holds
φ(S(σ, M)) ⊂ Ta (S( p, α f (σ )M)) ⊆ Ta (S( p, αφ (σ )L M)). (1.5.1)
Moreover,
f (E(σ, R)) = Ta (φ(E(σ, R))) ⊂ Ta (E(η, αφ (σ )R)) = E(Ta (η), αTa (η)αφ (σ )R).
Thus, by the uniqueness statement in Theorem 1.4.7, it follows that p = Ta (η), and
hence Ta ( p) = η.
Finally, let
√ 4 αφ (σ )
K := αφ (σ ) L =4 .
|1 − a p| 1 − |φ(0)|2
Hence, by (1.5.1), it holds φ(S(σ, M)) ⊂ S(η, K M) for all M > 1, and we are done.
One of the basic results about the boundary behavior of holomorphic functions is
the Lindelöf Theorem. We start with a lemma:
Lemma 1.5.6 Let a > 0 and let a := {z ∈ C : |Re z| < a}. Let f : a → C be
a bounded holomorphic function. Let γ : [0, 1) → a be a continuous curve such
that limt→1 Im γ (t) = +∞. Suppose that limt→1 f (γ (t)) = L ∈ C exists. Then for
every 0 < δ < a it holds limRy→+∞ f (x + i y) = L uniformly in |x| < a − δ.
Proof Without loss of generality, up to composition with affine transformations, we
can assume a = 1, L = 0 and | f (z)| ≤ 1 for all z ∈ a . Set := 1 .
Fix δ ∈ (0, 1) and let 0 < ε < 1. Then there exists t0 ∈ (0, 1) such that | f (γ (t))| <
ε for all t ∈ (t0 , 1). Let y0 := maxt∈[0,t0 ] Im γ (t). Hence, if Im γ (t) > y0 , necessar-
ily t > t0 , and then | f (γ (t))| < ε. We claim that for all y > y0 and all |x| ≤ 1 − δ
it holds
26 1 Hyperbolic Geometry and Iteration Theory
δ
| f (x + i y)| ≤ ε 4 . (1.5.2)
The map gμ is holomorphic.Moreover, | f (z)| < 1 for all z ∈ , hence | f (z)| < 1
1+z
for all z ∈ , |ε 2 | < 1 and 1+μ(1+z)
1
< 1 for all z ∈ . Hence, |gμ (z)| < 1 for all
z ∈ . Moreover, | f (z)| < ε for z ∈ E and | f (z)| < ε for z ∈ E. Hence |gμ (z)| < ε
on E ∪ E. Also,
Finally,
1
lim sup |gμ (z)| ≤ lim sup = 0.
z∈,|Im z|→∞ z∈,|Im z|→∞ |1 + μ(1 + z)|
1 + μ(1 + x)
| f (x)|2 ≤ ε 1+x .
ε 2
Taking the limit for μ → 0 and bearing in mind that |x| ≤ 1 − δ we get
1−x δ
| f (x)|2 ≤ ε 2 ≤ ε2,
instead of gμ .
1.5 Non-Tangential Limits and Lindelöf’s Theorem 27
Proof Let H ⊂ C be a half-plane such that f (D) ⊆ H . Then there exists a Möbius
transformation C such that C(D) = H . The map g := C −1 ◦ f : D → D is holomor-
phic and limt→1 g(γ (t)) = C −1 (L) ∈ D exists. If we prove that g has non-tangential
limit C −1 (L) at σ , it follows at once that f has non-tangential limit L at σ . Therefore,
we can assume that f is bounded.
Let log : H → C denote the principal value of the logarithm on the right half-
plane H. Note that log : H → {z ∈ C : |Im z| < π/2} is a biholomorphism. Let Cσ
be the Cayley transform with respect to σ and let h : D → C be the univalent map
defined by
2i 2i σ +z
h(z) := log Cσ (z) = log . (1.5.4)
π π σ −z
Then := h(D) = {z ∈ C : |Re z| < 1}. Let γ̃ (t) := h(γ (t)). The continuous curve
γ̃ : [0, 1) → satisfies limt→1 Im γ̃ (t) = +∞. Let f˜ := f ◦ h −1 : → C. The
map f˜ is bounded, holomorphic and f˜(γ̃ (t)) → L as t → 1.
Using Remark 1.5.3, it is not difficult to see that a sequence {z n } ⊂ D converges
non-tangentially to σ if and only if there exists δ ∈ (0, 1) such that, setting xn :=
Re h(z n ) and yn := Im h(z n ), it holds yn → +∞ and |xn | ≤ 1 − δ for all n ∈ N.
The statement of the theorem is then equivalent to proving that for every
δ ∈ (0, 1) it holds lim y→∞ f˜(x + i y) = L, in |x| ≤ 1 − δ, and this follows from
Lemma 1.5.6.
The previous proof can be easily adapted to obtain a similar result for maps which
are not bounded, but are bounded on Stolz regions:
0 < b < a. Let h be given by (1.5.4). The function f ◦ h −1 |a : a → C and the
curve (0, 1) r → h(r σ ) satisfy the hypotheses of Lemma 1.5.6, and arguing as in
the proof of Theorem 1.5.7 the result follows.
In this section, if f is a real valued integrable function on ∂D, we denote its L 1 (∂D)-
norm by
2π
f 1 := | f (eiθ )|dθ.
0
We use the same notation f 1 to denote the L 1 ([a, b])-norm of any integrable
real valued function f : [a, b] → R, a < b. Moreover, if A ⊂ ∂D is a (Lebesgue)
measurable subset, we denote by λ(A) its Lebesgue measure. In other words, if
χ A : ∂D → R is the characteristic function of A defined by χ A ( p) = 1 if p ∈ A,
χ A ( p) = 0 otherwise, 2π
λ(A) = χ A (eiθ )dθ.
0
Definition 1.6.1 Let f be a real integrable function on ∂D. The Poisson integral of
f is
1 2π
eiθ + z 1 2π
P[ f ](z) := Re f (e )dθ = −
iθ
u eiθ (z) f (eiθ )dθ,
2π 0 eiθ − z 2π 0
where u eiθ is the negative Poisson kernel with pole at eiθ , see (1.4.3).
Therefore
1 2π
eiθ + z
Re dθ = 1. (1.6.1)
2π 0 eiθ − z
Then
1 + iθ0
lim P[ f ](r eiθ0 ) = f (e ) + f − (eiθ0 ) . (1.6.2)
r →1 2
Moreover, if f + (eiθ0 ) = f − (eiθ0 ), that is, if f is continuous at eiθ0 , then
(1.6.7)
(1.6.8)
Therefore,
1 1 − |z n |2 1 1 − |z n |2 1 1 1 − |z n |2
dθ = dθ = dθ.
2π I1 |e − z n |
iθ 2 2π I2 |e − z n |
iθ 2 2 2π I |eiθ − z n |2
Thus
1 1 − |z n |2
( f (eiθ ) − A)dθ =
I |e − z n |
2π iθ 2
1 1 − |z n |2
= ( f (eiθ ) − f − (eiθ0 ))dθ +
2π I1 |e iθ − z |2
n
1 − |z n |2 + iθ0 − iθ0 1 − |z n |2
+ ( f (e iθ
) − f (e ))dθ + f (e ) dθ +
I2 |e − z n | I1 |e − z n |
iθ 2 iθ 2
1 − |z n |2 1 − |z n |2
+ f + (eiθ0 ) dθ − A dθ
I2 |e − z n | I |e − z n |
iθ 2 iθ 2
1 1 − |z n |2
= ( f (eiθ ) − f − (eiθ0 ))dθ +
I1 |e − z n |
2π iθ 2
1 − |z n |2 + iθ0
+ ( f (e iθ
) − f (e ))dθ .
I2 |e − z n |
iθ 2
1.6 Poisson Integral and Fatou’s Theorem 31
Proof The function w(z) := u(z) − P[u](z) is harmonic in D and by Theorem 1.6.2,
w is continuous on D and w(eiθ ) = 0 for all θ ∈ R. Hence, by the Maximum Principle
for harmonic functions, w(z) = 0 for all z ∈ D, and we are done.
If the function f in the above theorem is not continuous at eiθ0 ∈ ∂D, then the limit
(1.6.3) might not exist. Nevertheless, the celebrated result known as Fatou’s Theorem
guarantees that non-tangential limits exist at almost every point of the boundary of
the unit disc. In order to prove such a result, we need some preliminary lemmas.
For each R > 1, the non-tangential maximal function of u : D → C at ζ ∈ ∂D is
Clearly, if u has a finite non-tangential limit at ζ , then u ∗R (ζ ) < +∞ for all R > 1.
Given a real-valued integrable function f on ∂D and ζ ∈ ∂D, let
1
M f (ζ ) := sup | f | dθ
I ζ λ(I ) I
32 1 Hyperbolic Geometry and Iteration Theory
where the supremum is taken over all open arcs I ⊂ ∂D that contains ζ . The function
M f is called the Hardy-Littlewood maximal function of f .
Lemma 1.6.4 Let f be a real valued integrable function on ∂D. Then, for every
R > 1 and ζ ∈ ∂D,
P[ f ]∗R (ζ ) ≤ 2(1 + R)M f (ζ ). (1.6.11)
The graph of k5 is drawn in Fig. 1.2. As we did with the function, qz , with a little
abuse of notation, we still denote by kn the 2π -periodic extension of kn .
Note that, kn+1 ≥ kn and the sequence {kn } converges pointwise to qz . Moreover,
it is clear that
n
kn 1 = 2πqz (π ) + 2θ nj cnj .
j=0
Therefore,
π π n θ nj
f (eiθ )kn (θ ) dθ = qz (π ) f (eiθ ) dθ + cnj f (eiθ ) dθ
−π −π j=0 −θ nj
n
≤ 2πqz (π )M f (1) + cnj 2θ nj M f (1) = kn 1 M f (1).
j=0
1.6 Poisson Integral and Fatou’s Theorem 33
The previous inequality trivially holds if θ0 = 0. If π/2 ≤ |θ0 | ≤ π and z ∈ S(1, R),
then |1 − z| ≥ 1 and
|θ0 | |θ0 |
≤R ≤ Rπ.
1−r |1 − z|
Proof We may assume that no I j is contained in the union of the others. Writing
I j = {eiθ : θ ∈ (a j , b j )} we may also assume that
Then b j+1 > b j , because otherwise I j+1 ⊂ I j , and b j−1 < a j+1 , because otherwise
I j ⊂ I j−1 ∪ I j+1 . If n > 1, then bn < b1 + 2π and bn−1 < a1 + 2π . Therefore, the
family of even-numbered arcs I j is pairwise disjoint. The family of odd-numbered
arcs I j is almost pairwise disjoint because only the first and last arcs—that is, I1 and
In —can intersect. If
1
μ(I j ) ≥ μ ∪I j ,
j even
3
2
μ(I j ) ≥ μ ∪I j .
j odd
3
In that case, if
1
μ(I1 ) ≤ μ(I j ),
2 j odd
1
μ(I1 ) > μ(I j ),
2 j odd
Proposition 1.6.6 Let f be a real valued integrable function on ∂D. Then, for every
α > 0,
3 f 1
λ({ζ ∈ ∂D : M f (ζ ) > α}) ≤ . (1.6.14)
α
Cover K by finitely many such arcs {I j : 1 ≤ j ≤ n} and let {Jk } be the pairwise
disjoint subfamily given by Lemma 1.6.5. Then
3 3
λ(K ) ≤ λ ∪I j ≤ 3 λ(Jk ) ≤ | f | dθ ≤ f 1 .
α Jk α
Since λ(E α ) = sup λ(K ) where the supremum is taken among all compact subset
K ⊆ E α , the result follows.
We are now ready to prove the main result of this section:
Theorem 1.6.7 (Fatou’s Theorem) Let f be a real valued integrable function on
∂D. Then at almost every ζ ∈ ∂D,
1+ R
λ({ζ ∈ ∂D : P[ f ]∗R (ζ ) > α}) ≤ 6 f 1 . (1.6.16)
α
Proof Inequality (1.6.16) follows from Lemma 1.6.4 and Proposition 1.6.6.
Let us show that (1.6.16) implies (1.6.15). If h is a real valued integrable function
on ∂D, for each ζ ∈ ∂D such that h(ζ ) ∈ R, we set
where v := P[h] is the Poisson integral of h. Then Wh,R (ζ ) ≤ v∗R (ζ ) + |h(ζ )|.
Let α > 0 and let Aα := {ζ ∈ ∂D : |h(ζ )| ≥ α}. Since
αλ(Aα ) = α dθ ≤ |h| dθ ≤ h1 ,
Aα Aα
we get
h1
λ({ζ : |h(ζ )| > α}) ≤ .
α
Therefore, by (1.6.16)
λ({ζ : Wh,R (ζ ) > α}) ≤ λ({ζ : v∗R (ζ ) > α/2}) + λ({ζ : |h(ζ )| > α/2})
7 + 6R
≤2 h1 .
α
(1.6.17)
36 1 Hyperbolic Geometry and Iteration Theory
Fix ε > 0. Since real valued continuous functions on ∂D are dense in L 1 (∂D), there
exists g ∈ C(∂D) such that f − g1 ≤ ε2 . By Theorem 1.6.2, Wg,R ≡ 0, and hence
W f,R = W f −g,R . Applying (1.6.17) to the function f − g we obtain
(7 + 6R)ε2
λ({ζ : W f,R (ζ ) > ε}) ≤ 2 = 2(7 + 6R)ε.
ε
has Lebesgue measure zero. Since S(ζ, R) ⊂ S(ζ, R ) for 1 < R < R , it follows
that ∠ lim z→ζ P[ f ](z) = f (ζ ) for all ζ ∈ ∂D \ (∪n∈N E n+1 ). Since the latter set has
full measure, we are done.
(2) u ∗ ∈ L ∞ (∂D),
(3) u is the Poisson integral of u ∗ , that is,
1 2π
1 − |z|2 ∗ iθ
u(z) = u (e )dθ, z ∈ D. (1.6.19)
2π 0 |eiθ − z|2
Proof Let {rn } be a sequence in [0, 1] converging to 1. Let u n (z) := u(rn z) for all
z ∈ D. Hence the u n ’s are continuous on D and harmonic in D. By Corollary 1.6.3,
for all z ∈ D
u(rn z) = P[u n ](z). (1.6.20)
Since the {u n }’s have L ∞ (∂D)-norm uniformly bounded by u∞ , by the Banach-
Alaoglu Theorem, there exists u ∗ ∈ L ∞ (∂D) such that u ∗ ∞ ≤ u∞ and {u n |∂D }
converges, up to extracting subsequences, in the weak-∗ topology to a function
u ∗ ∈ L ∞ (∂D). Since the linear functional L ∞ (∂D) v → P[v](z) is continuous,
it follows by (1.6.20) that for all z ∈ D,
f (0) = 0.
For 0 < r < 1, let fr (z) := f (r z), z ∈ D. For what we already proved, fr |∂D
converges to f ∗ a.e. in ∂D. By Fatou’s Lemma
2π 2π
1 1
| log | f ∗ (eiθ )|| dθ ≤ lim inf | log | fr (eiθ )|| dθ
2π 0 r →1 2π 0
2π (1.6.21)
1
≤ lim inf − log | fr (eiθ )| dθ .
r →1 2π 0
Fix r ∈ (0, 1) such that f has no zeros on |z| = r and let {a1 , a2 , ..., an } be the zeros of
z−a
f in the open disc r D, listed according to their multiplicities. Write B j (z) = r r 2 −a jj z ,
z ∈ D. Notice that |B j (0)| = |a j |/r < 1 and |B j (w)| = 1 whenever |w| = r . The
function F(z) := f (z)/( nj=1 B j (z)) is holomorphic in a neighborhood of r D and
it has no zeros in r D. Then log |F| is harmonic in r D. Therefore
⎛ ⎞
n
n
log | f (0)| = log ⎝|F(0)| |B j (0)|⎠ = log |F(0)| + log |B j (0)|
j=1 j=1
2π 2π
1 1
≤ log |F(0)| = log |F(r eiθ )| dθ = log | fr (eiθ )| dθ.
2πr 0 2πr 0
Hence 2π
1
| log | f ∗ (eiθ )|| dθ ≤ − log | f (0)| < +∞.
2π 0
Therefore log | f ∗ | ∈ L 1 (∂D) and in particular it assumes finite values almost every-
where on ∂D. However, by hypothesis f ∗ is zero on the set of positive Lebesgue
measure A, a contradiction, and we are done.
38 1 Hyperbolic Geometry and Iteration Theory
f (z) − f (σ )
f (σ ) := ∠ lim
z→σ z−σ
exists in C∞ .
Theorem 1.7.2 Let f : D → C be holomorphic and let σ ∈ ∂D. Then f has finite
angular derivative A at σ if and only if f has finite non-tangential limit B at σ . If
this is the case, A = B.
Proof Let us first assume that f has finite non-tangential limit B at σ . For all
z, w ∈ D
w 1
f (w) = f (z) + f (ζ )dζ = f (z) + (w − z) f (tw + (1 − t)z)dt.
z 0
Since for all z ∈ D there exists a Stolz region S(σ, Rz ) for some Rz > 1 such that
the segment {ζ ∈ D : ζ = tσ + (1 − t)z, 0 ≤ t ≤ 1} is contained in S(σ, Rz ), the
previous formula, together with the Lebesgue Dominated Convergence Theorem,
proves that f has finite non-tangential limit f (σ ) at σ given by
1
f (σ ) = f (z) + (σ − z) f (tσ + (1 − t)z)dt.
0
h(z)
∠ lim = 0. (1.7.1)
z→σ z−σ
Fix β ∈ (0, π/2) and let Vβ := {z ∈ D : |Arg(1 − σ z)| < β}. Note that Vβ is a region
in D bounded by two lines passing through σ and which form an angle of ±β with
the line passing through 0 and containing σ . Let z ∈ Vβ . Let β ∈ (β, π/2). Let
D(z, r (z)) ⊂ Vβ be the Euclidean disc of center z and radius r (z) > 0 which is
tangent to ∂ Vβ . Denote by Γ (z) its boundary. From Cauchy’s Formula we have
1 f (ζ ) − f (σ ) 1 h(ζ ) 1 A
f (z) = dζ = dζ + dζ
2πi Γ (z) (ζ − z)2 2πi Γ (z) (ζ − z)2 2πi Γ (z) ζ − z
1 A(z − σ ) 1 h(ζ )
+ dζ = dζ + A =: I (z) + A.
2πi Γ (z) (ζ − z)2 2πi Γ (z) (ζ − z)2
In order to prove (1.7.2), let ε > 0. Then, by (1.7.1), there exists δ > 0 such that for
every z ∈ Vβ ∩ {w ∈ D : |w − σ | < δ} it holds |h(ζ )| ≤ ε|ζ − σ | for all ζ ∈ Γ (z).
Therefore,
ε |ζ − σ | ε maxζ ∈Γ (z) |ζ − σ |
|I (z)| ≤ |dζ | ≤ |dζ |
2π Γ (z) |ζ − z|2 2π [r (z)]2 Γ (z)
maxζ ∈Γ (z) |ζ − σ | ε |z − σ |
=ε ≤ (r (z) + |z − σ |) = ε(1 + ).
r (z) r (z) r (z)
r (z)
Now, by simple geometric considerations, |z−σ |
≥ sin(β − β), hence,
1
|I (z)| ≤ ε(1 + ).
sin(β − β)
By the arbitrariness of ε, it follows that lim Vβ z→σ I (z) = 0. Since every sequence
{z n } ⊂ D which converges non-tangentially to σ is contained in Vβ for some β ∈
(0, π/2), equation (1.7.2) holds and we are done.
Moreover, if the previous conditions hold, then η is the point given by Theorem 1.4.7,
∠ lim z→σ φ(z) = η and
η − φ(z)
∠ lim = ∠ lim φ (z) = αφ (σ )ησ .
z→σ σ −z z→σ
Proof Assume (2) holds. This implies that ∠ lim z→σ φ(z) = η, and Theorem 1.7.2
implies (3) and the equality between the angular derivative of φ at σ and the non-
tangential limit of φ at σ . Also, since for every r ∈ (0, 1)
1 − |φ(r σ )| |η − φ(r σ )|
≤ ,
1 − |r σ | 1−r
α := α f (1) = αφ (σ ),
and ∠ lim z→1 f (z) = 1. Moreover, by Theorem 1.4.7, φ(E(σ, R)) ⊂ E(η, α R) and
hence f (E(1, R)) ⊂ E(1, α R), for all R > 0. It is easy to check that if f has angular
derivative α at 1, then (2) follows.
Therefore, we have to prove that f has angular derivative α at 1. Let r ∈ (0, 1).
Then by Theorem 1.4.7,
1 − | f (r )| |1 − f (r )|2 (1 − r )2 1−r
≤ ≤α =α . (1.7.3)
1 + | f (r )| 1 − | f (r )| 2 1−r 2 1+r
1 − | f (r )| 1 − | f (r )| 1 + | f (r )|
α ≤ lim inf ≤ lim sup ≤ lim sup α = α.
r →1 1−r r →1 1 − r r →1 1+r
Hence,
1 − | f (r )|
lim = α. (1.7.4)
(0,1)r →1 1−r
Now, by (1.7.3),
(1 − r )2 1 − | f (r )| 1 + | f (r )| 1 − r 2
≤α
1 − r2 1−r 1 + r (1 − r )2
1 − | f (r )| 1 + | f (r )|
=α .
1−r 1+r
|1− f (r )|
Hence, by (1.7.4), we obtain lim supr →1 1−r
≤ α. But,
1 − | f (r )| |1 − f (r )| |1 − f (r )|
α = lim ≤ lim inf ≤ lim sup ≤ α,
r →1 1−r r →1 1−r r →1 1−r
|1− f (r )|
proving that limr →1 1−r
= α. By (1.7.4), this implies that
|1 − f (r )|
lim = 1. (1.7.5)
r →1 1 − | f (r )|
|Im f (r )|
taking the limit for r → 1, by (1.7.5), it holds limr →1 1−| f (r )|
= 0. Therefore,
1− f (r )
limr →1 1−| f (r )|
= 1, and hence by (1.7.4)
1 − f (r ) 1 − f (r ) 1 − | f (r )|
lim = lim = α. (1.7.6)
(0,1)r →1 1−r (0,1)r →1 1 − | f (r )| 1−r
f (z)
Now, (1.7.6) implies that the holomorphic function 1−1−z : D → C has radial limit
f (z)
α at 1. If we prove that 1−1−z is bounded on every Stolz region, by Proposition 1.5.8,
f (z)
it follows that ∠ lim z→1 1−1−z = α and the proof is completed.
1− f (z)
In order to show that 1−z is bounded on each Stolz region, let us fix M > 1 and
let z ∈ S(1, M). Set R = M|1 − z|. Then, since |1 − z| < M(1 − |z|)
R
|1 − z|2 = |1 − z| < R(1 − |z|) < R(1 − |z|2 ).
M
Therefore, z ∈ E(1, R). By Theorem 1.4.7, f (z) ∈ E(1, α R). Now, the Euclidean
diameter of E(1, α R) is 1+α
2α R
R
, hence,
2α R
|1 − f (z)| ≤ ≤ 2α R = 2α M|1 − z|.
1 + αR
|1− f (z)|
Hence, |1−z|
≤ 2α M for z ∈ S(1, M), and we are done.
42 1 Hyperbolic Geometry and Iteration Theory
1 − |φ(z)| 1 − Re (ηφ(z))
ησ φ (σ ) = αφ (σ ) = ∠ lim = ∠ lim ,
z→σ 1 − |z| z→σ 1 − Re (σ z)
1 − |φ(z)|
lim = +∞.
z→σ 1 − |z|
Since,
|η − φ(z)| 1 − |z| 1 − |φ(z)|
≥ ,
|σ − z| |σ − z| 1 − |z|
1 − |φ(z n k )| 1 − Re (ηφ(z n k ))
αφ (σ ) = ∠ lim = ∠ lim .
k→∞ 1 − |z n k | k→∞ 1 − Re (σ z n k )
yn k
1 − σ znk 1 − i 1−xn 1 − ip
= lim 2 = 1 + p 2 .
k
lim (1.7.7)
k→∞ |1 − σ z n k | k→∞ y
1 + 1−xnkn
k
1.7 Angular Derivatives and Julia-Wolff-Carathéodory’s Theorem 43
1 − Re (σ z n ) 1 + |z n |
=
1 − |z n | 1 + xn − yn 1−xyn
n
1−Re (σ z n k )
implies limk→∞ 1−|z n k |
= 1. Hence, taking the real part in (1.7.7), we have
1 − Re (σ z n k ) 1 − |z n k | 1
lim = lim = . (1.7.8)
k→∞ |σ − z n k | k→∞ |σ − z n k | 1 + p2
1 − ηφ(z n k ) η − φ(z n k ) |σ − z n k | 1 − σ z n k 1 − ip
lim = ησ lim = .
k→∞ |1 − ηφ(z n k )| k→∞ σ − z n k |η − φ(z n k )| |σ − z n k | 1 + p2
1 − Re (ηφ(z n k )) 1 − |φ(z n k )| 1
lim = lim = . (1.7.9)
k→∞ |η − φ(z n k )| k→∞ |η − φ(z n k )| 1 + p2
and
Proof Let C := supr ∈[0,1) |φ (r σ )|. By hypothesis, C < +∞. Fix r ∈ [0, 1). For all
u ∈ (r, 1) we have
uσ
φ(uσ ) = φ(r σ ) + φ (z)dz
rσ
1 (1.7.10)
= φ(r σ ) + (u − r )σ φ ((ut + (1 − t)r )σ )dt.
0
lim φ (r σ ) = L ∈ C.
(0,1)r →1
Then there exists p ∈ D such that ∠ lim z→σ φ(z) = p. Moreover, if p ∈ ∂D then
αφ (σ ) < +∞ and L = 0.
Proof Using (1.7.10) with r = 0, and since [0, 1) s → φ (sσ ) extends continu-
ously on [0, 1], taking the limit as u → 1, we obtain
1
lim φ(uσ ) = φ(0) + σ φ (tσ )dt,
(0,1)u→1 0
and hence φ has radial limit at σ . By Theorem 1.5.7, there exists p ∈ D such that
∠ lim z→σ φ(z) = p. If p ∈ ∂D then αφ (σ ) < +∞ by Proposition 1.7.5, and L = 0
by Proposition 1.7.4.
(1) If αφ1 (σ1 ) = +∞ or αφ2 (σ2 ) = +∞, then αφ2 ◦φ1 (σ1 ) = +∞.
(2) If both αφ1 (σ1 ) and αφ2 (σ2 ) are finite, then αφ2 ◦φ1 (σ1 ) = αφ1 (σ1 )αφ2 (σ2 ).
Proof Since
1
αφ ◦φ (σ1 ) = lim inf [ω(0, z) − ω(0, φ2 (φ1 (z)))] ≥ lim inf [ω(0, z) − ω(0, φ1 (z))]
2 2 1 z→σ1 z→σ1
+ lim inf [ω(0, φ1 (z)) − ω(0, φ2 (φ1 (z)))],
z→σ1
and the boundary dilation coefficient is always strictly positive by Lemma 1.4.5, (1)
follows at once.
Now, assume that αφ1 (σ ) and αφ2 (σ2 ) are finite. By Theorem 1.4.7, there exists
σ3 := ∠ lim z→σ2 φ2 (z) ∈ ∂D. Take any sequence {z n } in D converging non-
tangentially to σ1 . Then, for every n,
σ3 − φ2 (φ1 (z n )) σ3 − φ2 (φ1 (z n )) σ2 − φ1 (z n )
= .
σ1 − z n σ2 − φ1 (z n ) σ1 − z n
σ3 − φ2 (φ1 (z n ))
lim = αφ2 (σ2 )σ3 σ2 αφ1 (σ1 )σ2 σ1 .
n→∞ σ1 − z n
Therefore, again by Theorem 1.7.3, we conclude that αφ2 ◦φ1 (σ1 ) = αφ1 (σ1 ) · αφ2 (σ2 ).
It is often useful to work in the right half-plane H instead of the unit disc. We
translate here the Julia-Wolff-Carathéodory Theorem into the right half-plane H
“centered at ∞”.
As a matter of notation, for θ0 ∈ (0, π/2), let
φ(w) 1
∠ lim = ∠ lim φ (w) = β = β̃ = ,
w→∞ w w→∞ α
and Re (φ(w) − βw) ≥ 0 for all w ∈ H, with equality at one—and hence any—
w ∈ H if and only if φ is an automorphism of H. In particular, for every R > 0,
Proof Let C1 : D → H be the Cayley transform given by (1.1.2) (with σ = 1), and
consider the holomorphic self-map φ̃ : D → D defined by φ̃ := C1−1 ◦ φ ◦ C1 .
Since ω(z, w) = kH (C1 (z), C1 (w)) for all z, w ∈ D by Proposition 1.3.10, it fol-
lows by (1.4.5) that
α = αφ̃ (1).
φ(w) 1 − z 1 + φ̃(z)
= , (1.7.11)
w 1 − φ̃(z) 1 + z
and 2
1−z
φ (w) = φ̃ (z) . (1.7.12)
1 − φ̃(z)
(1) implies (4). If αφ̃ (1) = α < +∞, then Theorem 1.7.3 and (1.7.11) imply at
once (4).
(4) implies (1), (2) and (5). Indeed, by (1.7.11) and Remark 1.5.3, if (4) holds,
then ∠ lim z→1 φ̃(z) = 1 and
φ(w) 1−z 1 1
∠ lim = ∠ lim = = ,
w→∞ w z→1 1 − φ̃(z) αφ̃ (1) α
where the penultimate equality follows from Theorem 1.7.3. In particular, by (4), α =
αφ̃ (1) < +∞ and (1) holds. Hence (5) follows at once by (1.7.12) and Theorem 1.7.3,
and (2) follows from Theorem 1.4.7 and (1.4.15).
(5) implies (4). Suppose not. We claim that
|1 − φ̃(z)|
∠ lim = +∞.
z→1 |1 − z|
1.7 Angular Derivatives and Julia-Wolff-Carathéodory’s Theorem 47
1 − |φ̃(z n )| |1 − φ̃(z n )| |1 − z n |
lim ≤ lim < +∞.
n→∞ 1 − |z n | n→∞ |1 − z n | 1 − |z n |
Therefore, αφ̃ (1) < +∞ and Theorem 1.7.3, together with (1.7.11) and Remark
1.5.3, implies (4). Therefore, the claim holds. By the claim, (1.7.11) and Remark 1.5.3,
φ(w)
∠ lim = 0.
w→∞ w
However, by (5), there exists r0 > 0 and c > 0 such that |u (s)| ≥ c for all s ≥ r0 .
Now, let sr ∈ (r0 , r ) be such that u(r ) − u(r0 ) = u (sr )(r − r0 ). Hence,
|u(r ) − u(r0 )|
0 = lim = lim |u (sr )| ≥ c,
r →+∞ r − r0 r →+∞
1 − |φ̃(r )| |1 − φ̃(r )|
α = αφ̃ (1) ≤ lim inf ≤ lim inf < +∞.
(0,1)r →1 1−r (0,1)r →1 1−r
Now, if (1)—(5) hold, then by (1.7.11), (1.7.12), Theorem 1.7.3 and Remark 1.5.3,
we have
φ(w) 1
∠ lim = ∠ lim φ (w) = β̃ = ,
w→+∞ w w→+∞ α
Re φ(w) ≥ β̃Re w
φ ◦n := (φ ◦ · · · ◦ φ) .
n -times
az 2 − (1 + λ)z + λa = 0.
If a = 0, since T is not the identity map, then the unique fixed point of T in C
is z = 0. If a = 0, the above equation has two solutions z 1 , z 2 ∈ C which satisfy
z 1 z 2 = λ aa ∈ ∂D (in particular, |z 1 ||z 2 | = 1) and az 1 + az 2 = 1 + λ. Moreover,
(1 − |a|2 )2
T (z 1 )T (z 2 ) = λ2 = 1.
((1 − az 1 )(1 − az 2 ))2
1−a
b for all w ∈ H,
it follows that {Φ (w)} converges to ∞ for all w ∈ H. Hence, {T ◦n (z)} converges
◦n
to τ for all z ∈ D. One can note that the convergence of {Φ ◦n } is in fact uniform on
compacta of H, hence, {T ◦n } converges uniformly on compacta to the constant map
D z → τ .
Finally assume that T is parabolic, with a unique fixed point τ ∈ ∂D. Notice that
T (τ )2 = 1. Arguing as in the hyperbolic case, the function Φ = Cτ ◦ T ◦ Cτ−1 is a
Möbius transformation in the Riemann sphere that has only one fixed point in C∞ ,
that is ∞, and Φ(H) = H. Hence, Φ(w) = aw + b, for all w ∈ H, with a = T 1(τ ) > 0
and Re b = 0. In particular, T (τ ) = 1. Thus Φ(w) = w + b and Φ ◦n (w) = w + nb,
which implies that Φ ◦n (w) converges to ∞ for all w ∈ H. Namely, {T ◦n (z)} converges
to τ for all z ∈ D, and, even in this case, {T ◦n } converges uniformly on compacta to
the constant map D z → τ .
After having analyzed the behavior of the iterates of automorphisms of D, we turn
our attention to general holomorphic self-maps of the unit disc. We start with the
case φ has a fixed point in D. By Corollary 1.2.4 a holomorphic self-map of the unit
disc has at most one fixed point in D, unless it is the identity.
Proposition 1.8.3 Let φ : D → D be holomorphic, not an automorphism. Suppose
there exists τ ∈ D such that φ(τ ) = τ . Then {φ ◦n } converges uniformly on compacta
to the constant map D z → τ .
Proof First assume that τ = 0, i.e., φ(0) = 0. Since φ is not an automorphism,
Theorem 1.2.1 implies that |φ(z)| < |z| for every z ∈ D, z = 0. Fix 0 < r < 1, let
M(r ) = max{|φ(z)| : |z| ≤ r } and write δ := M(r )/r . Theorem 1.2.1 guarantees
that δ < 1. Let ψ(z) := φ(r z)
M(r )
, z ∈ D. It is clear that ψ : D → D is holomorphic,
continuous up to D and fixes the origin. Again by Theorem 1.2.1, we deduce that
|ψ(z)| ≤ |z| for all z ∈ D. Thus, for z ∈ r D,
z M(r )
|φ(z)| = M(r )|ψ( )| ≤ |z| ≤ δ|z|.
r r
Iterating the last inequality yields:
for each z ∈ r D. Since δ < 1, it follows that φ ◦n tends to zero uniformly on r D. The
arbitrariness of r implies that {φ ◦n } converges to zero uniformly on compact subsets
of D.
50 1 Hyperbolic Geometry and Iteration Theory
In case φ fixes a point τ = 0, we only need to apply the previous argument to the
function ϕ = Tτ ◦ φ ◦ Tτ , where Tτ is given by (1.2.1). The resulting holomorphic
function ϕ maps D into itself, fixes the origin, and it is not an automorphism, therefore,
its iterates ϕ ◦n tends to zero uniformly on compacta of D. Hence, φ ◦n = Tτ ◦ ϕ ◦n ◦ Tτ
converges uniformly on compacta of D to Tτ (0) = τ .
φ(ζ ) − τ
∠ lim = ∠ lim φ (ζ ) = αφ (τ ).
ζ →τ ζ −τ ζ →τ
Proof First we claim that for every z ∈ D the sequence {|φ ◦n (z)|} converges to
1. Indeed, if this is not the case, there exist z 0 ∈ D and a subsequence such that
limk→∞ φ ◦n k (z 0 ) = p for some p ∈ D. In particular, by the previous discussion on
dynamical behavior of automorphisms, we deduce that φ is not an automorphism.
By Theorem 1.3.7, N n → ω(φ ◦n (z 0 ), φ ◦(n+1) (z 0 )) is not increasing. In particular,
there exists δ ≥ 0 such that limn→∞ ω(φ ◦n (z 0 ), φ ◦(n+1) (z 0 )) = δ. On the one hand,
Thus ω( p, φ( p)) = ω(φ( p), φ ◦2 ( p)). Since φ is not an automorphism, this is pos-
sible only if φ( p) = p, a contradiction.
Therefore, for every z ∈ D, the sequence {φ ◦n (z)} accumulates only on ∂D. In
particular, this holds for z = 0. Let wn := φ ◦n (0). Since {|wn |} converges to 1, and
wn+1 = φ(wn ), it is easy to see that there exists a subsequence {wn k } with the property
that |φ(wn k )| > |wn k | for all n k ∈ N. Up to extracting subsequences, we can assume
that {wn k } converges to a point τ ∈ ∂D. We claim that {φ(wn k )} converges to τ as
well. Indeed, if there were a subsequence {φ(wn k )} converging to some p = τ ,
then limn k →∞ ω(φ(wn k ), wn k ) = +∞. On the other hand, by Theorem 1.3.7, for all
nk ∈ N
ω(φ(wn k ), wn k ) = ω(φ ◦n k (0), φ ◦(n k +1) (0)) ≤ ω(0, φ(0)),
1.8 Iteration in the Unit Disc and the Denjoy-Wolff Theorem 51
1 − |φ(wn k )|
αφ (τ ) ≤ lim sup ≤ 1.
k→∞ 1 − |wn k |
By Theorem 1.4.7, for all R > 0 it holds φ(E(τ, R)) ⊆ E(τ, R), and there exists
p ∈ ∂ E(τ, R) \ {τ } such that φ( p) ∈ ∂ E(τ, R) if and only if φ is an automorphism,
and, in this case αφ (τ ) = 1 and φ is parabolic by our previous discussion on auto-
morphisms of D.
Now, we deal with the uniqueness of τ . Assume that there are two points τ, τ ∈ ∂D
such that (1.8.1) holds for both. Since horocycles are discs in D tangent to ∂D, given
R > 0 there exists R > 0 such that E(τ, R) ∩ E(τ , R ) = {z 0 }, for some z 0 ∈ D.
Therefore, using (1.8.1) for both τ and τ , we see that φ(z 0 ) ∈ E(τ, R) ∩ E(τ , R ) =
{z 0 }, that is, φ(z 0 ) = z 0 , a contradiction.
The last statement follows directly from Theorem 1.7.3. We are only left to prove
that {φ ◦n } converges uniformly on compacta to the constant map z → τ . By Vitali’s
theorem, it is enough to prove that for every z 0 ∈ D the sequence {φ ◦n (z 0 )} converges
to τ .
Let z 0 ∈ D. Then there exists R > 0 such that z 0 ∈ E(τ, R). Hence, by (1.8.1),
φ ◦n (z 0 ) ∈ E(τ, R) for all n ∈ N. Since {φ ◦n (z 0 )} accumulates only on ∂D and
E(τ, R) ∩ ∂D = {τ }, it follows that limn→∞ φ ◦n (z 0 ) = τ .
The previous results allow us to give the following basic definitions:
Definition 1.8.5 Let φ : D → D be holomorphic, not the identity.
(1) If φ has a fixed point in D, then its unique fixed point is called the Denjoy-Wolff
point of φ.
(2) If φ has no fixed points in D, then the unique point τ ∈ ∂D given by Theorem
1.8.4 is called the Denjoy-Wolff point of φ.
Moreover, φ is
(1) elliptic, if its Denjoy-Wolff point belongs to D,
(2) hyperbolic, if its Denjoy-Wolff point τ belongs to ∂D and αφ (τ ) ∈ (0, 1),
(3) parabolic, if its Denjoy-Wolff point τ belongs to ∂D and αφ (τ ) = 1.
The previous definition for an automorphism of D is coherent with the similar
classification given in Definition 1.8.2, according to the description of the dynamics
of automorphisms.
In the hyperbolic case, the information provided by the Denjoy-Wolff Theorem
1.8.4 about the convergence to the Denjoy-Wolff point can be improved as follows.
A preliminary lemma is needed.
Lemma 1.8.6 Let {z n } and {wn } be two sequences in D. Let
Proof (1) Take an accumulation point p ∈ D of the sequence {wn } and assume that
p = σ . Therefore, there exists a subsequence {wn k } such that limk→∞ wn k = p. By
hypothesis, supn ω (z n , wn ) < +∞ thus there exists c ∈ (0, 1) such that
z n k − wn k −rn k eiθnk + sn k eiξnk
δ≥ =
1 − z n k wn k rn k e−iθnk + sn k eiξnk − rn k sn k ei (ξnk −θnk )
rn k
− rn +s iθn k
+
sn k iξn k (1.8.2)
e rn k +sn k
e
= rn .
k nk
rn +sk n e−iθnk + rn +sk n eiξnk − rn k+skn ei (ξnk −θnk )
sn r n sn
k k k k k k
rn k
Since the terms of the sequence rn +s n
are in (0, 1), all of its accumulation points
k k
belong to [0, 1]. Let λ ∈ [0, 1] be one of them. Taking the limit in (1.8.2) along such
a subsequence, it follows that
|λeiα − (1 − λ)eiβ |
≤ δ.
|λe−iα + (1 − λ)eiβ |
From which, we deduce that, necessarily λ ∈ (0, 1), and |β| < π/2. In particular,
no subsequence of {wn } can converge to σ tangentially, i.e., {wn } converges non-
tangentially to σ .
zn −wn
(3) If C = 0, then limn→∞ 1−z n wn
= 0. Hence, the previous argument shows that
1−λ 1−λ
λeiα − (1 − λ)eiβ = 0. This implies ei(α−β) = . Since ∈ (0, +∞) and
λ λ
α − β ∈ [−π, π ], that equation shows that α = β as claimed.
1.8 Iteration in the Unit Disc and the Denjoy-Wolff Theorem 53
By (1.8.3) and (1.8.4), the closure of the set {qn − 1 : n ∈ N} is a compact subset
of H. Thus, there is M > 0 such that qn ∈ 1 + S, for all n, where S := {w ∈ H :
|Im w| ≤ MRe w}. We may assume that w1 ∈ S. Therefore, wn+1 ∈ wn + S for all
n. Iterating we obtain that wn ∈ w1 + S ⊂ S for all n. Since S + S ⊂ S, we deduce
that wn ∈ S for all n. Thus the points z n belong to the lens Cτ−1 (S).
Fix K ⊂ D a compact set. Assume that there is a sequence {z n } in K such that
{φ ◦n (z n )} does not converge non-tangentially to τ . Up to taking a subsequence, we
may assume that {z n k } converges to z 0 ∈ K ⊂ D. Notice that
Since, by the first part of the proof, the sequence {φ ◦k (z 0 )} converges non-tangentially
to τ , the sequence {φ ◦k (z n k )} also converges non-tangentially to τ (otherwise, apply
Lemma 1.8.6 to suitable subsequences). A contradiction. Therefore, {φ ◦n (z n )} con-
verges non-tangentially to τ .
For parabolic maps the situation is rather different as shows next example.
54 1 Hyperbolic Geometry and Iteration Theory
Example 1.8.8 Consider the linear fractional maps Φ1 (w) := w + i and Φ2 (w) :=
w + 1 and φk (z) := C1−1 ◦ Φk ◦ C1 , k = 1, 2, where C1 is the Cayley transform
C1 (z) := 1+z
1−z
, z ∈ D. Since Φk sends the right half-plane into itself, the function φk is
a holomorphic self-map of the unit disc for k = 1, 2. Moreover, limn→∞ Φk◦n (w) =
∞, for all w, and thus limn→∞ φk◦n (z) = 1, for all z ∈ D. That is, 1 is the Denjoy-
Wolff point of both φ1 and φ2 . In fact, φ1 (1) = φ2 (1) = 1, so that both are parabolic.
Finally, the sequence {φ1◦n (0)} = {C1−1 (1 + ni)} converges to 1 tangentially and the
sequence {φ2◦n (0)} = {C1−1 (1 + n)} converges to 1 orthogonally.
Holomorphic self-maps of the unit disc need not to be continuous up to the boundary.
Thus, strictly speaking, it makes sense to talk about fixed points of holomorphic self-
maps of D only for points in D. However, by Corollary 1.2.4, a holomorphic self-map
which is not the identity, can have at most one fixed point in D.
In this section we introduce a weaker notion of fixed points which makes sense
also for boundary points without assuming any extra hypothesis about continuity
up to the boundary.
Definition 1.9.1 Let φ : D → D be holomorphic. A point σ ∈ ∂D is called a bound-
ary fixed point of φ if
lim− φ(r σ ) = σ.
r →1
lim φ(r σ ) = η.
r →1−
φ(z) − η
φ (σ ) := ∠ lim ∈ C∞ \ {0}.
z→σ z−σ
1.9 Boundary Regular Contact Points 55
1 − |φ(z)|
lim = +∞.
z→σ 1 − |z|
Lemma 1.9.9 Let −∞ < a < b ≤ +∞. Let γ : [a, b) → C be a continuous curve.
Then the cluster set Γ (γ , b) is a compact connected subset of C∞ .
Proof For r ∈ [a, b), let K r be the closure in C∞ of the set γ ([r, b)). Let r ∈ [a, b).
Since γ ([r, b)) is connected, K r is connected. Moreover, K r ⊆ K s for a ≤ s < r
56 1 Hyperbolic Geometry and Iteration Theory
Γ (γ , b) = ∩r ∈[a,b) K r ,
By the same token, φ2 has limit φ(σ ) along the curve (0, 1) r → φ1 (r σ ) which
converges to φ1 (σ ), hence it has non-tangential limit φ(σ ) at φ1 (σ ).
We end the proof just applying Proposition 1.7.7.
Remark 1.9.11 The converse of above proposition does not hold even for boundary
fixed points. Namely, there exists a univalent function φ : D → D for which σ = 1
is a boundary fixed point of φ but it is not a boundary fixed point of φ ◦2 (see [52,
Example 1]).
The last proposition, which will be used in the next chapters, shows that holomor-
phic self-maps of the unit disc are “semi-conformal” at regular contact points:
Proof By Theorem 1.7.3, αφ (σ ) < +∞. First of all, consider the holomorphic self-
map of D given by D z → ϕ(z) := ησ φ(z) and note that σ is a boundary regular
fixed point of ϕ and αφ (σ ) = αϕ (σ ).
(1) A simple calculation shows that
cos2 (θ )
A := lim (1 − |Tzn (ϕ(z n ))|2 ) = 4 αϕ (σ ) ∈ [0, 1].
n→∞ αϕ (σ ) + e−2iθ 2
Therefore
√ αϕ (σ ) + e−2iθ 2 − 4 cos2 (θ )αϕ (σ )
lim |Tzn (ϕ(z n ))| = 1 − A =
n→∞ αϕ (σ ) + e−2iθ
αϕ (σ )2 + 2αϕ (σ ) cos(2θ ) + 1 − 4 cos2 (θ )αϕ (σ )
=
αϕ (σ ) + e−2iθ
|αϕ (σ ) − 1|
= .
αϕ (σ ) + e−2iθ
58 1 Hyperbolic Geometry and Iteration Theory
By Theorem 1.3.5,
√ # $
1 1+ 1− A 1 αϕ (σ ) + e−2iθ + αϕ (σ ) − 1
lim ω(z n , ϕ(z n )) = log √ = log .
n→∞ 2 1− 1− A 2 αϕ (σ ) + e−2iθ − αϕ (σ ) − 1
is equal to 1 log(αφ (σ )) only at θ = 0 for αφ (σ ) = 1.
2
1.10 Notes
The material of this chapter is essentially classical, although some results and some
proofs might be new and the exposition has been chosen to suitably fit our needs
in the next chapters. For the material of this chapter, we took our inspiration and
benefited very much from the books [1, 3, 75, 106]. The hyperbolic distance on
Riemann surfaces has been introduced using a “several complex variables” point of
view due to Kobayashi (see [90]), which avoids all technicalities with the classical
approach via covering maps. Also, the proof of the Lindelöf Theorem and the Julia-
Wolff-Carathéodory Theorem have been adapted from the book [114].
Chapter 2
Holomorphic Functions with
Non-Negative Real Part
In this section we state and prove the classical Herglotz Representation Formula.
Proof Let u = Re p and set u r (z) = u(r z) for 0 < r < 1. Every u r is harmonic in
D, continuous on D and non-negative. Thus, by the mean value property
2π
1
Re p(0) = u r (0) = u r (eiθ ) dθ.
2π 0
The set {Λr : 0 < r < 1} is bounded in C(∂D)∗ because the net {u r } is uniformly
bounded in L 1 (∂D). Since the unit ball of C(∂D)∗ endowed with the weak-* topology
is compact and metrizable (see [127, pp. 29 and 32]), given a sequence {rn } converging
to 1, there exist a subsequence (which, with a slight abuse of notation, we still denote
by {rn }) and a functional Λ ∈ C(∂D)∗ such that
2π
1
Λ( f ) = lim Λrn ( f ) = lim f (eiθ )u rn (eiθ ) dθ, f ∈ C(∂D).
n→∞ n→∞ 2π 0
Since u r is non-negative for all 0 < r < 1, it is clear that μ is a non-negative measure
on ∂D. In particular, μ(∂D) = Re p(0).
Then, integrating the (positive) Poisson kernel Re ζζ +z −z
we obtain
2π
ζ +z 1 eiθ + z
Re dμ(ζ ) = lim Re iθ u r (eiθ ) dθ
∂D ζ −z n→∞ 2π 0 e −z n
= lim u rn (z) = u(z) = Re p(z),
n→∞
the space of continuous real valued functions on [a, b] (see [83, Theorem 19.50]).
Therefore the above proof shows that if p : D → H is holomorphic, then there exists
a unique nondecreasing, real-valued, right continuous functions β : [0, 2π ] → R
such that β(0) = 0, β(2π ) = 2π Re p(0) and
1 2π
eiθ + z
p(z) = dβ(θ ) + iIm p(0), z ∈ D. (2.1.1)
2π 0 eiθ − z
where pσ (z) := λ2 σσ −z
+z
, for all z ∈ D.
(3) The function p − pσ has non-negative real part and
(4) The equality holds in (2.1.3) for some (and hence for all) z ∈ D if and only if
p = pσ + iIm p(0).
Let (Cn ) be a sequence of arcs in ∂D, centered at σ , with Cn+1 ⊆ Cn for all n, and
whose Euclidean lengths go to zero as n tends to ∞. Let us denote by m the Lebesgue
measure of ∂D. Notice that μ I ({σ }) = 0. Since μ I is a finite measure,
Therefore, given ε > 0 there exists δ > 0 such that μ I (C) < ε for any arc C of
Euclidean length less than or equal to δ and centered at σ . Let M > 1 and let Δ :=
S(σ, M) be the Stolz region of vertex σ and amplitude M. Then for any arc C of
length less than or equal to δ and centered at σ ,
ζ +z |z − σ |
lim sup |1 − σ z|
dμ I (ζ ) ≤ lim sup 2 dμ I (ζ ) ≤ 2Mε.
Δ z→σ C ζ −z Δ z→σ 1 − |z| C
Therefore
ζ +z
lim (1 − σ z) dμ I (ζ ) = 0.
Δ z→σ ∂D ζ −z
λ 1−|z|2
Since Re pσ (z) = 2 |σ −z|2
, for all z ∈ D, and p = q + pσ , we immediately obtain
(2), (3), and (4).
In this section we provide growth estimates for functions with non-negative real part
and obtain some useful consequences.
1 − |z| 1 + |z|
Re p(0) ≤ | p(z) − iIm p(0)| ≤ Re p(0) , (2.2.1)
1 + |z| 1 − |z|
2|z|
|Im p(z) − Im p(0)| ≤ Re p(0) , (2.2.2)
1 − |z|2
1
| p (z)| ≤ 2 Re p(0) . (2.2.3)
(1 − |z|)2
we deduce that
2r 1−r 1+r
|Im q(z)| ≤ , ≤ |q(z)| ≤ .
1 − r2 1+r 1−r
(1 − |z|2 )|q (z)| = (1 − |z|2 )|C1 (φ(z))||φ (z)| ≤ (1 − |φ(z)|2 )|C1 (φ(z))|, z ∈ D.
Therefore,
1 − |φ(z)|2 1 − |φ(z)|2 2
|q (z)| ≤ |C1 (φ(z))| = .
1 − |z| 2 1 − |z|2 |1 − φ(z)|2
for all z ∈ D.
64 2 Holomorphic Functions with Non-Negative Real Part
Proof Suppose that Re p(z) ≥ 0 for all z ∈ D. We may assume that Re p has no
zeros in the unit disc. By Theorem 2.2.1,
Re p(z)
| p (z)| ≤ 2 , z ∈ D.
1 − |z|2
Re p(0) ≥ 0, there is r1 ∈ (0, r0 ) such that Re p(r1 eiθ0 ) < 0 and Re p (r1 eiθ0 )eiθ0 =
1
r1
Re p (r1 eiθ0 )r1 eiθ0 < 0. But this contradicts (2.2.4).
p(z) − p(σ )
p (σ ) := ∠ lim ∈ C. (2.3.1)
z→σ z−σ
A (regular) finite contact point σ such that p(σ ) = 0 is also called a (regular) zero
of p.
hence, σ is a regular finite contact point of p if and only if it is a regular contact point
of φ and φ(σ ) = 1.
2.3 Finite Contact Points of Holomorphic Functions with Non-Negative Real Part 65
The choice if C1 is arbitrary, in the sense that, in the previous considerations, one
can replace C1 with Cτ for any τ ∈ ∂D and hence it turns out that σ ∈ ∂D is a finite
(regular) contact point of p if and only if σ is a (regular) contact point of Cτ−1 ◦ p
whose image is different from τ .
hence,
Im p(r σ ) − Im p(σ )
lim− = 0.
r →1 1−r
On the other hand, if p ≡ ai for some real number a, then every point σ ∈ ∂D is
a regular finite contact point of p and p (σ ) = 0. Note also that if p is identically
equal to some z 0 ∈ H, then p is a holomorphic function with non-negative real part
without contact points but p (σ ) = 0, for all σ ∈ ∂D.
Re p(r σ )
≤ 4 lim inf < +∞.
r →1 1−r
Therefore,
1+η
∠ lim p(z) = ∠ lim C1 (φ(z)) = ∈ iR ∪ {∞},
z→σ z→σ 1−η
p(r σ )
In particular this implies that limr →1 Re p(r σ ) = +∞, hence lim inf r →1 Re1−r =
+∞, against our hypothesis.
Therefore,
η ∈ ∂D \ {1} and ∠ lim z→σ p(z) exists and belongs to iR. Moreover,
p (z) = φ 2(z) ( p(z) + 1)2 and
2
φ (z) 1 1+η
∠ lim p (z) = ∠ lim ( p(z) + 1)2 = αφ (σ )ησ + 1 ∈ C.
z→σ z→σ 2 2 1−η
1
∂D ξ → ∈ [0, +∞]
|ξ − σ |2
2.3 Finite Contact Points of Holomorphic Functions with Non-Negative Real Part 67
and
Im (ξ σ )
Im p(σ ) = 2 dμ(ξ ) + Im p(0).
|ξ − σ |2
∂D
Proof If p is identically equal to ai for some real number a, then μ is the null measure
and the result is trivial. Thus, we assume p(D) ⊂ H. By Herglotz’s Representation
Formula (see Theorem 2.1.1),
ξ +z
p(z) = dμ(ξ ) + i Im p(0), z ∈ D. (2.3.2)
∂D ξ − z
Now, we consider for r ∈ (0, 1), the family of μ-integrable non-negative functions
r2
∂D ξ → fr (ξ ) := ∈ [0, +∞).
|ξ − r σ |2
1
∂D ξ → ∈ [0, +∞]
|ξ − σ |2
is μ-integrable and
Im (ξ σ )
Im p(0) = −2 dμ(ξ ).
|ξ − σ |2
∂D
1
= −2i sin θ, θ ∈ R.
h(eiθ )
f (r z)
For r ∈ (0, 1), let pr (z) := h(z)
. It is clear that pr is holomorphic on D \ {0}. More-
over,
f (r z) z
lim pr (z) = lim = r.
z→0 z→0 z h(z)
f (z)
pr (D) ⊆ H. Let p(z) := h(z) , z ∈ D. Hence p is holomorphic, and, since pr → p
uniformly on compacta, we also have Re p(z) ≥ 0 for all z ∈ D.
Proposition 2.4.2 Let p : D → H be holomorphic. Let A ∂D be a open arc with
end points x1 , x2 . Suppose that for all σ ∈ A,
lim Re p(z) = 0.
z→σ
Therefore, q (0) ≥ 0.
Let g : D → C be defined by g(z) = 1+z 2az
2 . It is easy to see that g is univalent
and g(D) = Ω. Moreover, g((−1, 1)) = (−a, a), g(0) = 0, g (0) > 0 and Im g(z) ·
Im z > 0 for all z ∈ D \ (−1, 1).
Let assume first that q (0) > 0. Let f := q ◦ g : D → C. By construction,
f ((−1, 1)) ⊂ R and Im f (z) · Im z > 0 for z ∈ D \ {(−1, 1)}. Moreover, f (0) =
q(0) and f (0) > 0. Let f˜(z) := f (z)−q(0)
f (0)
. By construction f˜ satisfies the hypothe-
sis of Lemma 2.4.1. Therefore there exists a holomorphic function p0 : D → H such
that f˜(z) = 1−z
z
2 p0 (z) for all z ∈ D. Namely,
z
f (z) = f (0) p0 (z) + q(0).
1 − z2
1
∠ lim (1 − z 2 ) = T ± ∈ [0, +∞).
z→±1 p0 (z)
it follows that lim(−a,a) x→±a q(x) = B ± . From this it follows easily that L j :=
lim A x→x j p(x) exists (finite or infinite), j = 1, 2.
Moreover, let γ : [0, 1) → D ∩ {w ∈ C : Im w > 0} be a continuous curve such
that limt→1− γ (t) = 1 and limt→1− Arg(1 − γ (t)) = π/4. Let η(t) := g(γ (t)). Note
that η(t) ∈ iH and limt→1− η(t) = a. We have
Since q(η(t)) = i p(C −1 (η(t))), it follows that p has limit along the curve [0, 1)
t → C −1 (η(t)) ∈ D, which converges to x2 for t → 1− , and such a limit equals L 2 .
By Theorem 1.5.7, p has non-tangential limit L 2 at x2 . A similar argument allows
to prove that p has non-tangential limit L 1 at x1 .
In case q (0) = 0, since q is not constant, we can find x0 ∈ (−a, a) such that
q (x0 ) = 0. Let r0 ∈ (−1, 1) be such that g(r0 ) = x0 . Then we can find a hyperbolic
automorphism T of D such that T (±1) = ±1 and T (0) = r0 . Since T ((−1, 1)) =
(−1, 1), we can consider g ◦ T instead of g and repeat the previous argument.
2.5 Notes
Holomorphic functions on the disc with non-negative real part and normalized so
that 0 is mapped to 1 form the so-called Carathéodory class, which is a classical
subject of study in geometric function theory.
Although they do not appear explicitly in this form, the results in Sect. 2.3 are
inspired by the book [115].
Lemma 2.4.1 is the “easy part” of the so-called Rogosinski’s Theorem, which
asserts, in fact, that also the converse to Lemma 2.4.1 is true. Proposition 2.4.2 has
been proved in [37], with the less stringent hypothesis that lim(0,1) r →1 Re p(r σ ) = 0
for all σ ∈ A.
Chapter 3
Univalent Functions
In this chapter we describe some properties of univalent functions from the unit disc
whose images are contained in C. The choice of the topics is based on the material
we need in this book and not on the intrinsic relevance of the topics themselves inside
the theory of univalent functions. We first prove the No Koebe Arcs Theorem, from
which we obtain several results about pre-images of slits via univalent maps. Then
we present the so-called Koebe Distortion Theorems. Finally, we consider families
of univalent functions and prove the Carathéodory Kernel Convergence Theorem.
hence w1 = w2 . The same argument shows that there do not exist w1 , w2 ∈ Ω such
that g(w1 ) = −g(w2 ). Let q ∈ Ω, and let z 0 = g(q). Note that z 0 = 0, for otherwise
w0 ∈ Ω. Since g is holomorphic, there exists r ∈ (0, |z 0 |) such that the Euclidean disc
D(z 0 , r ) of center z 0 and radius r is contained in g(Ω). Hence, D(−z 0 , r ) ∩ g(Ω) =
∅. Let h̃(w) := g(w)+z1
0
for w ∈ Ω. Then by construction, h̃ is univalent and bounded.
In particular, defining
1
h(z) := h̃( f (z)) = , z ∈ D,
g( f (z)) + z 0
1
Therefore, 0 f (t z + (1 − t)w)dt = 0, and, in particular,
1 1
0 = Re f (t z + (1 − t)w)dt = Re f (t z + (1 − t)w)dt,
0 0
diamE (H ) := sup{|z − w| : z, w ∈ H }.
lim f (z n ) = L .
n→∞
We say that f has no Koebe arcs if there does not exist any sequence of Koebe arcs
for f .
One of the basic facts about univalent functions which is going to be used in this
book is that univalent functions have no Koebe arcs. In order to prove the result we
need the following maximum principle:
√
Thus, | f (z)| ≤ max{N , N R} for all z ∈ G.
Theorem 3.2.4 (no Koebe Arcs Theorem) Let f : D → C be univalent. Then f has
no Koebe arcs.
3.2 No Koebe Arcs Theorem 75
lim rn = 1. (3.2.1)
n→1
Since diamE (Cn ) ≥ K , there exist an , bn ∈ Cn such that |an − bn | = K for all n ∈ N.
Let Γn denote the circle containing an and bn and orthogonal to ∂D.
By (3.2.1), if n is sufficiently large, then an and bn lie on different arcs of Γn ∩ {z ∈
D : rn ≤ |z| ≤ 1}. Hence we can find a subarc Bn ⊂ Cn such that Bn intersects each
arc of Γn ∩ {z ∈ D : rn ≤ |z| ≤ 1} in exactly one point. Thus Γn ∩ Bn = { pn , qn }.
Let An be the arc in Γn joining pn and qn and such that An ∩ {z ∈ D : |z| < rn } = ∅.
Then An ∪ Bn is a Jordan curve, and we denote by G n its bounded part (see Fig. 3.2).
Note that G n is relatively compact in D and its boundary satisfies the condition of
Lemma 3.2.3. Therefore, taking into account that by our hypothesis | f (z)| ≤ 1 for
all z ∈ D, by Lemma 3.2.3 we have
sup | f (z)| ≤ max | f (z)|. (3.2.2)
z∈G n z∈Bn
which implies limn→∞ h(z n ) = 0. Hence, {Cn } is also a sequence of Koebe arcs for
h, which is a contradiction because we already saw that bounded univalent functions
in D do not have Koebe arcs.
3.3 Boundary Behavior 77
∠ lim f (z) = L .
z→σ
Proof Let h, z 0 , w0 be given by Lemma 3.1.2. We claim that there exists A ∈ C such
that limt→b h(γ (t)) = A. By (3.1.1), for all t ∈ [a, b),
2
1
f (γ (t)) − w0 = − z0 .
h(γ (t))
Proof By Theorem 3.3.1, it is enough to prove that f has radial limit at almost every
point in ∂D. By Lemma 3.1.2, it is enough to show that every bounded univalent func-
tion has radial limit at almost every point in ∂D, and this follows immediately from
Proposition 1.6.9. The last statement follows again by Lemma 3.1.2 and Proposition
1.6.9 for bounded holomorphic maps.
78 3 Univalent Functions
The previous result says that the preimage of a continuous curve in Ω ending
at one boundary point is a continuous curve in D ending at one boundary point. In
fact, one can say a little bit more: the preimage of two continuous curves ending at
two different boundary points of Ω are two continuous curves in D ending at two
different points. The formal statement is the following:
Proof According to Proposition 3.3.3, there exist two points σ1 , σ2 ∈ ∂D such that
limt→b j f −1 (γ j (t)) = σ j and ∠ lim z→σ j f (z) = p j for j = 1, 2. Hence, if σ :=
σ1 = σ2 , then lim(0,1)r →1 f (r σ ) = p1 = p2 , a contradiction. Therefore,
σ1 = σ2 .
On the other hand, it is also sometimes useful to have conditions which imply that
the pre-image of two curves have the same ending point:
such that diamE (K n ) ≥ c for all n ≥ n 0 . On the other hand, by construction, for
every sequence {z n } such that z n ∈ K n , we have limn→∞ f (z n ) = p. Namely, {K n }
is a sequence of Koebe arcs for f , contradicting Theorem 3.2.4. Hence, σ1 = σ2 .
In case p = ∞, we can reduce to the previous case using Lemma 3.1.2.
80 3 Univalent Functions
In this section we will give useful estimates, which go under the name of “Distortion
Theorems”, about the growth of univalent functions and their derivatives. We are
going to prove only the estimates that we need for our aims, but we point out that
such estimates are also sharp, and the extremal functions which realize equality in
the estimates are just rotations of the Koebe function D z → z/(1 − z)2 .
We start with the two following Area Theorems. The first one deals with univalent
functions from the complement of the unit disc to the Riemann sphere, fixing ∞. As
it is well known, such functions can be written as power series in z and 1z at z = ∞.
Theorem 3.4.1 (Exterior Area Theorem) Let g : C∞ \ D → C∞ be univalent and
g(∞) = ∞. Moreover, assume that g has the following expansion at ∞
∞
1
g(z) = z + bn .
n=0
zn
Then
∞
0 ≤ Area(C \ g(C \ D)) = π 1 − n|bn |2 .
n=1
In particular, |b1 | ≤ 1.
Proof Fix r > 1 and let Δr := C \ g(Dr ), where Dr := {z ∈ C : |z| ≥ r }. Note that
∂Δr = g(∂ Dr ) for every r . Also, since ∂Δr is a closed curve, it follows that
xd x = ydy = 0.
∂Δr ∂Δr
Hence, by Green’s Theorem, and substituting the expression of g into the integrals—
and taking into account that we can integrate term by term because the series con-
verges uniformly on compacta of C∞ \ D—, we have
1 1
Area(Δr ) = d xd y = (xdy − yd x) = zdz
Δr 2 ∂Δr 2i ∂Δr
2π
1 1
= g(z)g (z)dz = g(r eit )g (r eit )r eit dt
2i ∂ Dr 2 0
2π ∞ ∞
1
= r eit − nbn r −n e−int r e−it + bn r −n eint dt
2 0 n=1 n=0
3.4 Distortion Theorems 81
∞
= π r2 − n|bn |2 r −2n .
n=1
every N . Thus, taking the limit for N → ∞, the series ∞ n=1 n|bn | is convergent.
2
Since Δr ⊂ Δr for 1 < r < r , and hence
f (z 2 )
Proof Let D z → .
Such a function is holomorphic and it is different from
z2
0 for every z ∈ D. Then, there exists a square root f (z
2)
z2
which is a holomorphic
function
in D which sends 0 to 1 (see, e.g., [113, Theorem 13.11]). Let h(z) =
f (z 2 )
z z2
. Then
∞
f (z 2 ) 1 a2
h(z) = z = z 1 + an z 2n−2 = z(1 + a2 z 2 + . . .) = z + z 3 + . . .
z 2 2 2
n=2
The previous result can be extended easily to provide estimates at points different
from the origin:
In particular,
2|z|2 − 4|z| f (z) 2|z|2 + 4|z|
≤ Re z ≤ , z ∈ D. (3.4.2)
1 − |z|2 f (z) 1 − |z|2
ζ f (z)
h(z) := .
ζ − f (z)
computation shows
1 2
h(z) = z + a2 + z + ....
ζ
from which |ζ | ≥ 1
4
and we are done.
Now we deal with the analytical form of the Koebe Distortion Theorem. We need
a simple lemma:
Lemma 3.4.5 Let p : [0, 1) → [0, +∞) be a continuous function and γ : [0, 1] →
D a Jordan arc from 0 to z ∈ D such that γ is absolutely continuous in [0, 1]. Then
|z| 1
p(t) dt ≤ p(|γ (t)|)|γ (t)| dt.
0 0
d γ (t)
(|γ (t)|) = Re γ (t) ≤ |γ (t)|.
dt |γ (t)|
Therefore,
|z| 1 1
d
p(t) dt = p(|γ (t)|) (|γ (t)|) dt ≤ p(|γ (t)|)|γ (t)| dt.
0 0 dt 0
Theorem 3.4.6 (Koebe’s Distortion Theorem) Let f : D → C be univalent. Sup-
pose f (0) = 0 and f (0) = 1. Let z ∈ D. Then
|z| |z|
≤ | f (z)| ≤ , (3.4.4)
(1 + |z|)2 (1 − |z|)2
1 − |z| 1 + |z|
≤ | f (z)| ≤ . (3.4.5)
(1 + |z|)3 (1 − |z|)3
84 3 Univalent Functions
2r − 4 ∂ 2r + 4
≤ log | f (r eiθ )| ≤ .
1 − r2 ∂r 1 − r2
By integrating in r , and taking into account that log f (0) = log 1 = 0, we have
1−r 1+r
log ≤ log | f (r eiθ )| ≤ log ,
(1 + r )3 (1 − r )3
which gives the upper bound. As for the lower bound, note that if z ∈ D then
|z|
(1+|z|)2
≤ 1/4 because the map [0, 1] t → t/(1 + t)2 is non-decreasing. There-
fore it suffices to establish the inequality under the assumption that | f (z)| < 1/4.
Fix z ∈ D with | f (z)| < 1/4. Koebe’s 1/4-Theorem 3.4.4 implies that {z : |z| <
1/4} ⊆ f (D). Thus, the curve γ (t) = f −1 (t f (z)) is well-defined for 0 ≤ t ≤ 1.
Since f (γ (t)) = t f (z) we have f (γ (t))γ (t) = f (z) for all t. Thus inequalities
(3.4.5) and Lemma 3.4.5 imply
1 1
1 − |γ (t)|
| f (z)| = f (γ (t))γ (t) dt ≥ |γ (t)|dt
0 0 (1 + |γ (t)|)3
|z|
1−t |z|
≥ dt = ,
0 (1 + t)3 (1 + |z|)2
1 | f (z 1 ) − f (z 2 )| tanh(ω(z 1 , z 2 ))
tanh(ω(z 1 , z 2 )) ≤ ≤ .
4 (1 − |z 1 |2 )| f (z 1 )| (1 − tanh(ω(z 1 , z 2 ))2
z 1 −z
Proof Take the automorphism of the unit disc T (z) := 1−z 1z
, z ∈ D, and denote
w := T (z 2 ) ∈ D. Notice tanh(ω(z 1 , z 2 )) = |T (z 2 )| = |w|. Consider the univalent
map f = f ◦ T . By Koebe’s Distortion Theorem 3.4.6,
|w| |w|
|
f (0)| ≤ |
f (w) −
f (0)| ≤ |
f (0)| .
(1 + |w|)2 (1 − |w|)2
|
f (0)| = | f (z 1 )||T (0)| = | f (z 1 )|(1 − |z 1 |2 ),
We end this section with two results that show how the derivative of a univalent
map control the distance to the boundary.
1
(1 − |z|2 )| f (z)| ≤ δΩ ( f (z)) ≤ (1 − |z|2 )| f (z)|.
4
86 3 Univalent Functions
Proof Let z ∈ D. Take the canonical automorphism of the unit disc T such that
T (z) = 0 (see (1.2.1)) and consider the univalent map
f = f ◦ T . By Koebe’s Dis-
tortion Theorem 3.4.6,
1 |w| |
f (w) − f (0)|
|w| ≤ ≤ , w∈D
4 (1 + |w|)2
| f (0)|
1
|T (u)|(1 − |z|2 )| f (z)| ≤ | f (u) − f (z)|, u ∈ D.
4
Since lim inf |u|→1 |T (u)| = 1, taking limits in the above expression and using Propo-
sition 3.4.8, we have
1
(1 − |z|2 )| f (z)| ≤ δΩ ( f (z)).
4
On the other hand, let g(w) := f (w)−
f (0)
f (0)
, w ∈ D and h(w) := g(w)
w
, if w = 0 and
h(0) := g (0) = 1. Since h(w) = 0 for all w ∈ D, the function 1/ h(w) is holomor-
phic in D. Hence, by the Maximum Principle
1 1
≤ lim sup ,
|h(0)| |w|→1 |h(w)|
or, equivalently,
lim inf |h(w)| ≤ |h(0)| = |g (0)| = 1.
|w|→1
Theorem 3.5.1 Let { f n } be a sequence of univalent functions in the unit disc which
converges uniformly on compacta of D to a function f . Then f is either univalent
or constant.
Definition 3.5.2 Let w0 ∈ C and let {Ωn } be a sequence of domains in C such that
w0 ∈ Ωn for every n. Let G be the (possibly empty) set of all points w ∈ C such that
there exists an open connected set Δ ⊂ C with the property that {w0 , w} ⊂ Δ and
Δ ⊂ Ωn for all but a finite number of n ∈ N. The kernel of {Ωn } with respect to w0
is the union of G and {w0 }. We say that {Ωn } kernel converges to Ω with respect to
w0 if every subsequence of {Ωn } has the same kernel.
Example 3.5.3 For n ∈ N, let Ω2n := D and let Ω2n−1 := D \ [1/2, 1). The kernel
of {Ωn } with respect to 0 is clearly D \ [1/2, 1). However, the kernel of {Ω2n } is D,
hence, {Ωn } is not kernel convergent.
Example 3.5.4 Let {Ωn } be a sequence of domains in C such that Ωn ⊆ Ωn+1 for all
n ∈ N and let w0 ∈ Ω1 . Then {Ωn } kernel converges with respect to w0 to ∪n∈N Ωn .
88 3 Univalent Functions
Proposition 3.5.5 Let {Ωn } be a sequence of domains in C such that Ωn+1 ⊆ Ωn for
all n ∈ N. Assume w0 ∈ ∩n∈N Ωn , and let Λ be the interior of ∩n∈N Ωn . Then either
w0 ∈ Λ and {Ωn } kernel converges with respect to w0 to the connected component
Ω of Λ that contains w0 or w0 ∈/ Λ and {Ωn } kernel converges with respect to w0 to
{w0 }.
Proof Due to the monotonicity of the sequence {Ωn }, the set Ω remains unchanged
if we replace {Ωn } by any subsequence {Ωn k }, n k → ∞. Therefore it is sufficient to
show that Ω is the kernel of {Ωn } with respect to {w0 }. If w0 ∈
/ Λ, it is clear that the
kernel is just the set {w0 }. Assume now that w0 ∈ Λ. The set Ω is a subset of the
kernel because we can choose Δ = Ω in Definition 3.5.2. Take w = w0 a point of
the kernel, and let Δ be chosen according to the Definition 3.5.2. Then Δ ⊂ ∩n∈N Ωn
because {Ωn } is decreasing. Since Δ is a connected and w0 ∈ Δ, it follows that
Δ ⊂ Ω and therefore w ∈ Ω.
Example 3.5.6 The kernel convergence depends on the choice of the point w0 . As
an example, if
{w ∈ C : Im w > 0}, if w0 = i;
{0}, if w0 = 0;
{w ∈ C : Im w < 0}, if w0 = −i.
3.6 Notes
The material in this chapter is classical and most of it can be found in any book
about univalent functions. We took inspirations mainly from Pommerenke’s books
[105, 106] and Duren’s book [59].
Chapter 4
Carathéodory’s Prime Ends Theory
The aim of this chapter is to introduce prime ends and the Carathéodory topology
of simply connected domains and see how impressions of prime ends are related
to unrestricted limits and principal parts of prime ends can be used to understand
the non-tangential behavior of univalent functions. Finally, we prove Carathéodory’s
extension theorems.
Note that, by definition, the end points of a cross cut might be equal.
Remark 4.1.2 Let Ω1 , Ω2 be two simply connected domains in C and let f : Ω1 →
Ω2 be a biholomorphism. Assume C is a cross cut in Ω1 , given by a Jordan arc
or Jordan curve γ : [0, 1] → C. The curve f ◦ γ : (0, 1) → Ω2 is continuous and
injective. In general, the limit of f ◦ γ at t = 0 or t = 1 does not exist. However,
in case both limits exist, then necessarily f (γ (0)), f (γ (1)) ∈ ∂∞ Ω2 and f ◦ γ :
[0, 1] → C is either a Jordan arc or a Jordan curve. In this case, with a slight abuse
of notation, we say that f (C) is a cross cut in Ω2 .
A cross cut divides a simply connected domain in two connected components:
Lemma 4.1.3 Let Ω ⊂ C be a simply connected domain, Ω = C. Let C be a cross
cut for Ω. Then Ω \ C consists of two open connected components A, B such that
∂ A ∩ Ω = ∂ B ∩ Ω = C ∩ Ω.
Hence, setting h(γ (0)) = h(γ (1)) = ∞, the curve h ◦ γ : [0, 1] → C∞ is a Jordan
curve in C∞ . By Theorem 3.2.1, it divides C∞ into two open connected components
Ã, B̃. Hence, A := h −1 ( Ã) and B = h −1 ( B̃) are two open connected components of
Ω such that A ∪ B = Ω \ C and ∂ A ∩ Ω = ∂ B ∩ Ω = C ∩ Ω.
If C is a cross cut of Ω and Q 1 , Q 2 ⊂ Ω are subsets of Ω, we say that C separates
Q 1 and Q 2 if, given the decomposition Ω \ C = A ∪ B from Lemma 4.1.3, it follows
that either Q 1 ⊂ A and Q 2 ⊂ B or Q 1 ⊂ B and Q 2 ⊂ A.
Definition 4.1.4 Let Ω ⊂ C be a simply connected domain, Ω = C. A null chain
(Cn ) for Ω is a sequence of cross cuts Cn for Ω, n ∈ N0 , such that
(1) Cn ∩ Cm = ∅, n = m,
(2) Cn separates C0 ∩ Ω and Cn+1 ∩ Ω for all n ≥ 1,
(3) limn→∞ diam S (Cn ) = 0.
The interior part Vn of Cn , n ≥ 1, is the connected component of Ω \ Cn which does
not contain C0 ∩ Ω.
If the domain Ω is bounded in C, we can replace the condition (3) on the spherical
diameter limn→∞ diam S (Cn ) = 0 with the equivalent condition on the Euclidean
diameter limn→∞ diamE (Cn ) = 0.
Moreover, if Vn is the interior part of Cn , condition (2) is equivalent to
Vn+1 ⊂ Vn , n ≥ 1. (4.1.1)
Remark 4.1.5 Note that, with the above the notation, we have
We stress out again that, according to our definition of cross cuts, if (Cn ) is a null
chain for Ω, then Cn might have coincident end points:
Example 4.1.6 Let Ω := D \ [0, 1). Define Cn := {z ∈ C : |z| = n+2 1
}. Then (Cn )
1
is a null chain and all the cross cuts Cn are Jordan curves whose ends points are n+2 ,
n ∈ N0 .
If (Cn ) is a null chain for Ω, although diam S (Cn ) → 0 as n → ∞, the spherical
diameter of Vn might not converge to 0.
4.1 Prime Ends 93
Remark 4.1.8 It is not hard to see that if (Cn ) is a null chain for D, then diam S (Vn ) →
0 as n → ∞. Moreover, Cn is a Jordan arc for n ≥ 1, that is, except at most C0 , the
end points of Cn are distinct for every n ≥ 1.
Definition 4.1.9 Let Ω be a simply connected domain, Ω = C. Let (Cn ) and (Cn ) be
two null chains for Ω. Denote by Vn the interior part of Cn and by Vn the interior part
of Cn , n ≥ 1. We say that (Cn ) and (Cn ) are equivalent, and we write (Cn ) ∼ (Cn ),
if for every n ≥ 1 there exists m ∈ N such that
Vm ⊂ Vn , Vm ⊂ Vn .
Remark 4.1.12 One can adapt the previous proof to show that if p ∈ ∂∞ Ω and
there exists a Jordan arc γ in Ω ∪ { p} which ends at p then one can construct a
4.1 Prime Ends 95
circular null chain centered at p (see also Theorem 4.4.14). Otherwise, the previous
construction can fail in general.
Now we examine the behavior of null chains under univalent maps. Recall our
slight abuse of notation explained in Remark 4.1.2. We first show that null chains
behave well under preimages:
Lemma 4.1.13 Let f : D → C be univalent and Ω := f (D). If (Cn ) is a null chain
for Ω then ( f −1 (Cn )) is a null chain for D. Moreover, two null chains (Cn ), (Cn ) for
Ω are equivalent if and only if ( f −1 (Cn )) and ( f −1 (Cn )) are equivalent.
Proof Let (Cn ) be a null chain for Ω. By Proposition 3.3.3, f −1 (Cn ) is a cross cut
of D for every n ∈ N0 and f −1 (Cn ) ∩ f −1 (Cm ) = ∅ for every n = m by Corollary
3.3.4. Hence, the sequence { f −1 (Cn )} satisfies conditions (1) and (2) of Definition
4.1.4. We are left to show that diam S ( f −1 (Cn )) → 0 as n → ∞. Suppose by con-
tradiction that there exists δ > 0 such that diam S ( f −1 (Cn k )) ≥ δ for a subsequence
{n k } ⊂ N converging to ∞. Since diam S (Cn ) → 0 as n → ∞, we can assume that
there exists L ∈ C∞ such that for every sequence {wn k } ⊂ Ω with wn k ∈ Cn k it holds
limn k →∞ wn k = L. Hence, { f −1 (Cn k )} is a sequence of Koebe arcs for f , contradict-
ing Theorem 3.2.4.
The last statement follows at once since f −1 is a homeomorphism and hence maps
the interior part of Cn onto the interior part of f −1 (Cn ).
The converse of the previous lemma is not true in general. Indeed, if C is a cross
cut in D, the closure of f (C ∩ D) might not be a Jordan arc or a Jordan curve.
However, for every null chain for D one can always find a suitable equivalent null
chain such that its image under f is again a null chain:
Lemma 4.1.14 Let f : D → C be univalent, Ω := f (D). For every null chain (Cn )
for D there exists an equivalent circular null chain (G n ) such that for every n ∈ N0
the closure of f (G n ∩ D), which we denote by f (G n ), is a cross cut of Ω and ( f (G n ))
is a null chain for Ω.
Proof By Proposition 4.1.11, we can assume that (Cn ) is circular. Hence, there
exist a sequence of positive numbers {rn } converging to 0 and σ ∈ ∂D such that
Cn = ∂ D(σ, rn ) ∩ D for all n ∈ N0 , where, D(σ, rn ) = {z ∈ C : |z − σ | < rn }. It
is clear that, if {tn } is a decreasing sequence of positive numbers converging to 0
such that t0 ≤ 1, then, setting G n := ∂ D(σ, tn ) ∩ D, the sequence of cross cuts (G n )
is a null chain for D equivalent to (Cn ). Therefore, we are left to show that we
can find the tn ’s in such a way that f (G n ) is a null chain for Ω. By Proposition
3.3.2, we can find t0 ∈ (0, 1) such that f (G 0 ) is a cross cut in Ω. Now, suppose
that we already found t0 > t1 > . . . > tn−1 > 0 such that f (G j ) is a cross cut in Ω
for j = 1, . . . , n − 1, f (G j ) ∩ f (G k ) = ∅ for j = k, f (G j ) separates f (G 0 ) from
f (G j+1 ) for all j = 1, . . . , n − 2 and diam S ( f (G j )) ≤ j+1
R
for j = 1, . . . , n − 1
and for some fixed constant R > 0. We show how to construct G n such that the
previous properties are satisfied for j = 0, . . . , n, and hence, by induction, we are
done.
96 4 Carathéodorys Prime Ends Theory
For q ∈ [ tn−1
r2
, tn−1
r
], denote by L(q) the curve D ∩ {z ∈ C : |z − σ | = q}. Note that
A(r ) = ∪q∈[ tn−1 , tn−1 ] L(q).
r2 r
Hence,
tn−1
r dρ dρ
inf L (q) 2
log r = inf L (q) 2
= inf L (q) 2
q∈W (r ) q∈W (r ) tn−1 ρ q∈W (r ) W (r ) ρ
r2
tn−1
dρ r dρ
≤ L (ρ)2 = L (ρ)2
W (r ) ρ tn−1 ρ
r2
tn−1
r
≤ 2π tn−1
|g (σ + ρeiθ )|2 ρdθ dρ
(σ +ρeiθ )∈D
r2
= 2π |g (z)|2 d xd y = 2π Area(g(A(r )) ≤ 2π 2 M 2 .
A(r )
Therefore,
4.1 Prime Ends 97
√
2π M
inf L (q) ≤ √ . (4.1.2)
q∈W (r ) log r
Now, since g(L(q)) is contained in the closed Euclidean disc of radius M, there
exists a constant K > 0 such that
R
diam S (g(L tn )) ≤ .
n+1
The equivalence class of a null chain (Cn ) is denoted by [(Cn )]. We denote by
∂C Ω the set of all equivalence classes of null chains for Ω.
Definition 4.1.15 Let Ω be a simply connected domain, Ω = C. The set ∂C Ω is
the Carathéodory boundary of Ω. The points of ∂C Ω are called prime ends of Ω.
We also let
:= Ω ∪ ∂C Ω.
Ω
Prime ends do not correspond to points of ∂∞ Ω in general, but they can be related
in a fruitful way to continuums of the boundary of Ω. In order to see this, we need
some preliminary work.
Definition 4.1.16 Let Ω be a simply connected domain, Ω = C. Let x ∈ ∂C Ω. The
impression of x is
∞
I (x) := ∩n≥1 Vn ,
where (Cn ) is any null chain for Ω representing x and Vn is the interior part of Cn .
By the definition of equivalence relation between null chains, I (x) is independent
of the null chain (Cn ) chosen to represent x.
Remark 4.1.17 The impression of every prime end in ∂C D is a single point in ∂D.
Indeed, if (Cn ) is a null chain for D, by Remark 4.1.8, the diameter of Vn tends to
0 as n → ∞. Since Vn ∩ ∂D = ∅ and Vn+1 ⊂ Vn for every n ≥ 1, it follows that
I ([(Cn )]) is a point in ∂D.
98 4 Carathéodorys Prime Ends Theory
K ∩ Vn = ∅ n ≥ n 0 . (4.1.3)
Proof If (Cn ) ∼ (Cn ) then (4.1.4) follows immediately from the very definition of
equivalent null-chains and Remark 4.1.5.
On the other hand, if for every n ∈ N there exists m n ∈ N such that Cm ∩ Ω ⊂ Vn
for all m ≥ m n , let n ∈ N and m ≥ m n . Taking into account that Cn divides Ω into
two connected components, Vn and Ω \ Vn , it is easy to see that either Vm ⊂ Vn
(and hence Vk ⊂ Vn for all k ≥ m) or Cn ∩ Ω ⊂ Vm (and hence Cn ∩ Ω ⊂ Vk for all
1 ≤ k ≤ m). However, if the second case occurs for all m ≥ m n , given z 0 ∈ Cn ∩ Ω,
it follows that {z 0 } ∩ Vm = ∅ for all m ≥ 1 contradicting Lemma 4.1.18. Hence,
there exists m n ≥ m n such that Vm ⊂ Vn for all m ≥ m n . Similarly, using the second
condition in (4.1.4), we see that for every n there exists m n ≥ m n such that Vm ⊂ Vn
for all m ≥ m n . Hence, (Cn ) ∼ (Cn ).
In general, the impression of a prime end is not a single point:
Example 4.1.20 Let Ω be the domain defined in Example 4.1.7 and let (Cn ) be the
null chain for Ω defined there. Then
However, if the boundary of Ω is good enough, the impression of each prime end
is just one point. In order to state the result, we need to recall two definitions from
topology, adapted to our aims:
4.1 Prime Ends 99
Now we aim to define a topology on Ω which coincides with the Euclidean topo-
logy of Ω when restricted to Ω and allows every univalent function to extend as a
homeomorphism up to the Carathéodory’s boundary.
If U ⊂ Ω is open, let U ∗ be the union of U with all prime ends x of ∂C Ω such
that there exist a null chain (Cn ) representing x and n 0 ∈ N such that Vn ⊂ U for
n ≥ n 0 , where Vn is the interior part of Cn . We let
In order to make the previous result useful, we need to relate the Carathéodory
topology and the Euclidean topology of the closure of the domain. This is the case
if the boundary is nice:
Theorem 4.2.4 Let Ω ⊂ C be a simply connected domain, Ω = C. Assume that
∂∞ Ω is locally connected. Then the impression of every prime end is a point, and
the map Φ : Ω → Ω ∞ defined by
z if z ∈ Ω,
Φ(z) := (4.2.1)
I (z) if z ∈ ∂C Ω,
is continuous.
pm ∈ Vumm ⊂ D( p, ε) ⊂ D( p, 2ε),
and Vn ( p) := D( p, n+11
) ∩ D.
We divide the proof in some steps:
Step (1): For every x ∈ ∂C D there exists p ∈ ∂D with I (x) = { p} such that (Cn ( p))
is a null chain representing x. Moreover, the interior part of Cn ( p) is Vn ( p).
Indeed, by Proposition 4.1.11, there exists a circular null chain (Cn ) centered at
some p ∈ ∂D which represents x. Then it is easy to see that (Cn ( p)) is a null chain
equivalent to (Cn ), and the proof of Step 1 is concluded.
Step (2): For every p ∈ ∂D there exists x p ∈ ∂C D such that I (x p ) = { p}.
Indeed, the sequence (Cn ( p)) is a null chain for D and the corresponding prime
end has impression { p}.
Step (3): Given x, y ∈ ∂C Ω, if I (x) = I (y) then x = y.
It follows at once from Step (1).
Step (4): Define the map Θ : D → D as follows:
z if z ∈ D,
Θ(z) :=
xz if z ∈ ∂D.
The map is well defined by Step (2). Moreover, it is easy to see that Φ ◦ Θ = id and,
by Step (3), Θ ◦ Φ = id. Therefore, Φ is bijective.
Step (5). The map Φ is a homeomorphism.
We already know that Φ is continuous by Theorem 4.2.4. Thus, we have only to
show that Θ = Φ −1 is continuous, and it is enough to show that it is sequentially
continuous. Recalling Remark 4.2.2, and Step (1), this is now a simple task. We only
prove that if { pm } ⊂ ∂D is a sequence converging to p ∈ ∂D, then Θ( pm ) → Θ( p)
in the Carathéodory topology, being the other cases similar and simpler. By Step (1),
Θ( pm ) is represented by (Cn ( pm )) and Θ( p) is represented by (Cn ( p)). Fix N ∈ N.
Then there exists m 0 ∈ N such that pm ∈ D( p, 10N 1
) for m ≥ m 0 . Hence, for every
m ≥ m 0 we can find u m ∈ N such that
1 1
Vu m ( pm ) = D( pm , ) ∩ D ⊂ D( p, ) ∩ D = VN ( p).
um + 1 N +1
By Remark 4.2.2 and by the arbitrariness of N , this means that {Θ( pn )} converges
to Θ( p) in the Carathéodory topology.
f˜ := ΦΩ ◦
f ◦ (ΦD )−1 .
Assume (4) holds. We preliminarily observe that if every point of ∂∞ Ω has a basis
of arcwise connected neighborhoods, then it is locally arcwise connected, that is, for
every point in ∂∞ Ω, one can find a basis of arcwise connected open neighborhoods.
Indeed, let p ∈ ∂∞ Ω and let W ⊂ ∂∞ Ω be an open neighborhood of p. Let W ⊆W
be the arcwise connected component of W which contains p. We show, and it is
enough, that W is open. Since we are assuming that p has a basis of arcwise connected
neighborhoods, for every q ∈ W there exists an arcwise connected neighborhood
V ⊂ W of q. Hence, every point of V can be joined by an arc to q and since q ∈ W ,
it can be joined by an arc to p. Therefore, V ⊂ W . Since V is a neighborhood of q,
it contains an open neighborhood of q. Hence W is a neighborhood of each of its
points, therefore it is open.
Now, arguing by contradiction, suppose that ∂∞ Ω is not locally arcwise connected.
Then, by the previous observation, there exists ζ0 ∈ ∂∞ Ω and a neighborhood W ⊂
∂∞ Ω of ζ0 such that W does not contain any arcwise connected neighborhood of ζ0 .
Let W be the arcwise connected component of W containing ζ0 . Hence there exists a
sequence {ζn } ⊂ W \ W converging to ζ0 . Since g : ∂D → ∂∞ Ω is surjective there
exists a sequence {σn } ⊂ ∂D such that g(σn ) = ζn for all n ∈ N. Up to extracting
subsequences, we can assume that {σn } converges to a point σ ∈ ∂D. Clearly g(σ ) =
ζ0 . Thus, since g is continuous, g −1 (W ) is a neighborhood of σ . Therefore, there
exists a connected arc A ⊂ g −1 (W ) containing σ . Now, g(A) is arcwise connected,
hence g(A) ⊂ W . However, for n sufficiently large, σn ∈ A, thus ζn = g(σn ) ∈ g(A),
obtaining a contradiction. Therefore, (1) holds.
In case the domain is a Jordan domain, one can say more. Recall that a simply
connected domain Ω ⊂ C∞ is a Jordan domain if ∂∞ Ω is a Jordan curve. Note that
the boundary of a Jordan domain is locally connected. Also, we give the following
definition of simple boundary points:
Definition 4.3.2 Let Ω ⊂ C be a domain. We say that a point p ∈ ∂∞ Ω is a sim-
ple boundary point if for every sequence {z n } ⊂ Ω converging to p there exists
a continuous curve γ : [0, 1) → Ω such that z n ∈ γ ([0, 1)) for all n ∈ N and
limt→1 γ (t) = p.
Theorem 4.3.3 Let f : D → C be univalent and let f (D) = Ω. The following are
equivalent:
∞
(1) there exists a homeomorphism f˜ : D → Ω such that f˜|D = f ,
(2) Ω is a Jordan domain,
(3) every point p ∈ ∂∞ Ω is a simple boundary point.
L = lim f (z n ) ∈ f (V ) ∩ ∂∞ Ω = U ∩ ∂Ω = {w0 },
n→∞
that is, lim z→z0 f (z) = w0 . In particular, the limit of f is constant on ∂D ∩ V , which
is a non-empty arc, against Proposition 3.3.2. Therefore, f˜ is injective and (1) holds.
If (1) holds, let p ∈ ∂∞ Ω and let {z n } ⊂ Ω be a sequence converging to p. Then
{ f −1 (z n )} is a sequence converging to f˜−1 ( p). It is clear that there exists a continu-
ous curve γ : [0, 1) → D such that f −1 (z n ) ∈ γ ([0, 1)) for every n ∈ N (simply take
the curve given by linear interpolation of the f −1 (z n )’s) and limt→1 γ (t) = f˜−1 ( p).
Hence, z n ∈ f (γ ([0, 1))) for all n ∈ N and limt→1 f (γ (t)) = p. Therefore, (3)
holds.
Finally, assume that (3) holds. First we prove that f extends to ∂D. To this aim,
let σ ∈ ∂D and let {z n }, {wn } ⊂ D be two sequences converging to σ . We claim
that there exists p ∈ ∂∞ Ω such that limn→∞ f (z n ) = limn→∞ f (wn ) = p. Assume
this is not the case. Up to extracting converging subsequences if necessary, we can
assume that limn→∞ f (z n ) = p1 = p2 = limn→∞ f (wn ). Since p1 , p2 ∈ ∂∞ Ω are
simple boundary points, there exist two continuous curves, γ1 , γ2 : [0, 1) → Ω such
that f (z n ) ∈ γ1 ([0, 1)) and f (wn ) ∈ γ2 ([0, 1)) for all n ∈ N and limt→1 γ j (t) = p j ,
j = 1, 2. By Proposition 3.3.3, the limit limt→1 f −1 (γ1 (t)) exists and, since z n ∈
f −1 (γ ([0, 1)) for all n ∈ N, it follows limt→1 f −1 (γ1 (t)) = limn→∞ z n = σ . Simi-
larly, limt→1 f −1 (γ2 (t)) = limn→∞ wn = σ . But this contradicts Corollary 3.3.4. By
the arbitrariness of the two sequences {z n } and {wn }, this means that lim z→σ f (z)
4.3 Carathéodory Extension Theorems 107
∞
exists. Thus, we can well define a function f˜ : D → Ω as follows: f˜(z) := f (z)
if z ∈ D and f˜(σ ) := lim z→σ f (z) if σ ∈ ∂D. Note that f˜(∂D) = ∂∞ Ω.
Next, we prove that f˜ is injective on D. By definition, it is injective on D, thus
we have only to show that it is injective on ∂D. Assume by contradiction that there
exist σ1 , σ2 ∈ ∂D such that p := f˜(σ1 ) = f˜(σ2 ). Let {z n } ⊂ D be a sequence con-
j
2
d S ( f˜(σ ), f˜(σn(m) )) ≤ d S ( f˜(σ ), f (z k(m) )) + d S ( f (z k(m) ), f˜(σn(m) )) < .
m
We end this section with a result which allows to count the number of preimages
of boundary points:
Proposition 4.3.5 Let f : D → C be univalent and let Ω = f (D). Suppose that
∂∞ Ω is locally connected, so that f extends continuously on ∂D and f (∂D) = ∂∞ Ω.
Let p ∈ ∂∞ Ω. Then f −1 ( p) is finite if and only if ∂∞ Ω \ { p} has finitely many
connected components. Moreover, if this is the case, the number of points in f −1 ( p)
equals the number of connected components of ∂∞ Ω \ { p}.
and we can write ∂D \ P = k≥1 Ak , where Ak are non-empty open arcs in ∂D,
pairwise disjoint. Since f is continuous, f (Ak ) is connected.
We claim that f (A j ) ∩ f (Ak ) = ∅ if j = k. Indeed, assume by contradiction that
q ∈ f (A j ) ∩ f (Ak ) and let q j ∈ A j , qk ∈ Ak be such that f (q j ) = f (qk ) = q. Let
C be the segment joining q j with qk . Let L be the segment joining the end points of
A j . Note that L and C intersect in exactly one point z 0 ∈ D and they are transverse
at z 0 . Hence, p ∈ f (L) and f (L) is a Jordan curve contained in Ω ∪ { p}. Thus,
C∞ \ f (L) is the union of two connected components, say U1 , U2 . Since q ∈ / f (L),
we can assume that q ∈ U1 . By construction, q ∈ f (C) and f (C) is a Jordan curve
contained in Ω ∪ {q} which intersects f (L) only at one point w0 = f (z 0 ) = q.
Hence, f (C) ⊂ U1 ∪ {w0 }. However, L and C intersect transversally at z 0 and since
f is conformal at z 0 , it follows that f (L) and f (C) intersect transversally at w0 ,
which implies that f (C) ∩ U2 = ∅, a contradiction.
Now, we have
∂∞ Ω \ { p} = f (∂D \ P) = f (Ak ).
k≥1
Therefore, since the f (Ak )’s are connected and pairwise disjoint, the number of con-
nected components of ∂∞ Ω \ { p} equals the number of Ak ’s. Call m ≥ 1 (possibly
∞) such a number.
Finally, note that P is finite if and only if m is finite, and, in this case, m is the
cardinality of P. By the previous argument, m equals also the number of connected
components of ∂∞ Ω \ { p}, and we are done.
It is often useful to localize the previous extension result. In order to do so, we need
a definition:
Definition 4.4.1 Let f : D → C be a function. Let σ ∈ ∂D. The cluster set of f at
σ is
Γ ( f, σ ) := {L ∈ C∞ : ∃{z n } ⊂ D, lim z n = σ, lim f (z n ) = L}.
n→∞ n→∞
In other words, the non-tangential cluster set of a f is the union of all the limit
values of f at σ along sequences converging non-tangentially to σ , while the radial
4.4 Cluster Sets at Boundary Points 109
cluster set of a f is the union of all the limit values of f at σ along sequences
converging radially to σ .
Remark 4.4.2 Clearly, Γ ( f, σ ), Γ N ( f, σ ) and Γ R ( f, σ ) are non-empty. Moreover,
the unrestricted limit of f at σ exists and it is equal to L ∈ C∞ if and only if
Γ ( f, σ ) = {L}. Similarly, the non-tangential limit of f at σ exists and it is equal to
L ∈ C∞ if and only if Γ N ( f, σ ) = {L}, while the radial limit of f at σ exists and it
is equal to L ∈ C∞ if and only if Γ R ( f, σ ) = {L}. Finally, Γ R ( f, σ ) ⊂ Γ N ( f, σ ) ⊂
Γ ( f, σ ).
As one might suspect, the cluster set of a univalent function at a boundary point
is related to the impression of the corresponding prime end. By Proposition 4.2.5, at
every point on the boundary of the unit disc one can associate a unique prime end
whose impression is the point itself, that is
Definition 4.4.3 Let σ ∈ ∂D. We denote by x σ ∈ ∂C D the unique prime end such
that I (x σ ) = {σ }.
Γ ( f, σ ) = I (
f (x σ )).
Non-tangential cluster sets are also related to prime ends. In order to see how, we
need to introduce the notion of principal part of a prime end:
Definition 4.4.5 Let Ω ⊂ C be a simply connected domain, Ω = C. Let x ∈ ∂C Ω.
The principal part of x, denoted by Π (x), is the set of points p ∈ C∞ with the
following property: there exists a null chain (Cn ) representing x such that for every
ε > 0 there exists n 0 ∈ N such that Cn ⊂ {z ∈ C∞ : d S (z, p) < ε} for all n ≥ n 0 .
Remark 4.4.6 In other words, since the spherical diameter of null chains tends to
zero, a point p ∈ ∂∞ Ω belongs to the principal part of a prime end x ∈ ∂C Ω if and
only if there exists a null chain (Cn ) representing x and a sequence {wn } ⊂ Ω such
that wn ∈ Cn for every n ∈ N and limn→∞ wn = p. Since Cn belongs to the closure
of its interior part, it follows at once from this that
Π (x) ⊂ I (x).
Example 4.4.8 The prime end defined by the null chain (Cn ) in Example 4.1.7 (see
also Example 4.1.20) has non trivial impression, the principal part is however one
point, the point 0 ∈ ∂∞ Ω.
Γ R ( f, σ ) = Γ N ( f, σ ) = Π (
f (x σ )).
Proof Let p ∈ Π ( f (x σ )). Let (Cn ) be a null chain for Ω representing f (x σ ) such
that for every sequence {wn } ⊂ Ω such that wn ∈ Cn , the sequence {wn } converges
to p. Then ( f −1 (Cn )) is a null chain for D by Lemma 4.1.13 representing x σ , hence
I (x σ ) = {σ }. By Lemma 4.1.11, there exists a circular null chain for D centered at σ
and equivalent to ( f −1 (Cn )). In particular, the interior part of f −1 (Cn ) contains the
intersection of an open disc centered at σ and D for n ≥ 1. Therefore, the radial curve
[0, 1) r → r σ intersects f −1 (Cn ) in at least one point z n for all n ∈ N sufficiently
large. Hence, { f (z n )} is a sequence converging to p. This implies that
Π(
f (x σ )) ⊂ Γ R ( f, σ ). (4.4.1)
Γ N ( f, σ ) ⊂ Π (
f (x σ )).
Π(
f (x σ )) ⊂ Γ R ( f, σ ) ⊂ Γ N ( f, σ ) ⊂ Π (
f (x σ )),
G n := D ∩ {|z − 1| = tn }
Note that, for n sufficiently large, T (n) is compact in D (see Fig. 4.1).
We claim that there exists a sequence {θn } ⊂ [α , α] such that
hence,
112 4 Carathéodorys Prime Ends Theory
Hence by (4.4.3),
√
8 π 1
lim inf L (θ̂, n) ≤ lim (Area( f (T (n)))) 2 = 0,
n→∞ θ̂∈[α ,α] α − α n→∞
Let
H (n) := {1 + r eiθ : r ∈ [tn , tn−1 ], θ ∈ [θn , ηn ]},
4.4 Cluster Sets at Boundary Points 113
and let n 0 ∈ N be such that for n ≥ n 0 the set H (n) is compact in D. Note that
diamE ( f (H (n)) = diamE ( f (∂ H (n)) for n ≥ n 0 . Moreover, the boundary ∂ H (n)
of H (n) is composed by a closed arc in G n , a closed arc in G n−1 and the two
segments L(θn , n) and L(ηn , n). Since the diameter of f (G n ) tends to zero and, by
(4.4.2), (4.4.4), the diameter of f (∂ H (n)) tends to zero,
By construction, there exists ε > 0 such that for every z ∈ {1 + r eiθ : r ∈ (0, 1],
θ ∈ (α, β)} ∩ {z ∈ D : |z − 1| < ε} there exists n(z) ∈ N such that z ∈ H (n(z)). In
particular, for every m ∈ N there exists n m ∈ N such that z m ∈ H (n m ). Moreover,
up to passing to a subsequence if necessary, we can assume that for every n ∈ N
there exists at most one m ∈ N such that z m ∈ H (n). With this assumption, if we
set Cm := G n m , the sequence (Cm ) is a null chain for D representing x 1 . Moreover,
by construction, ( f (Cm )) is a null chain for Ω representing f (x 1 ). Also, since Cm
intersects H (n m ) and z m ∈ H (n m ), by (4.4.5),
{∞} is a non-accessible point, and let ε > 0. Let D( p, ε) denote the Euclidean
disc of center p and radius ε. Then, since p ∈ ∂∞ Ω, there exists w ∈ Ω such that
w ∈ D( p, 2ε ). Let q ∈ ∂∞ Ω be such that |w − q| = minζ ∈∂∞ Ω |w − ζ |. Note that
|w − q| ≤ |w − p| < 2ε . Now, the segment joining w with q is contained in Ω ∪ {q},
and, since it is a Jordan arc, it follows that q is an accessible point. By the triangle
inequality, |q − p| ≤ |q − w| + | p − w| < ε. By the arbitrariness of ε, this shows
that p is in the closure of the accessible points of ∂∞ Ω. Finally, if ∞ ∈ ∂∞ Ω is a
non-accessible point, then for every ε > 0 the open set {z ∈ C : |z| > 1/ε} contains
points of ∂∞ Ω, and hence, it contains accessible points for what we already saw.
Therefore, the claim is proved.
Remark 4.4.13 By Remark 4.1.12, if p ∈ ∂∞ Ω is an accessible point via the Jordan
arc Γ , then one can create a circular null chain (Cn ) centered at p such that Γ
intersects Cn for all n ≥ 0. Thus, if x ∈ ∂C Ω is the prime end defined by (Cn ), it
follows that x is an accessible prime end and p ∈ Π (x).
Theorem 4.4.14 Let f : D → C be univalent, Ω = f (D). Let σ ∈ ∂D and let
f (x σ ) ∈ ∂C Ω be the corresponding prime end. Then the following are equivalent:
(1) f has radial limit p1 ∈ ∂∞ Ω at σ ,
(2) f has non-tangential limit p2 ∈ ∂∞ Ω at σ ,
(3) Π( f (x σ )) consists of a single point p3 ∈ ∂∞ Ω,
(4) the prime end f (x σ ) is accessible via a Jordan arc ending at p4 ∈ ∂∞ Ω.
If one—and hence any—of the previous occurs, then p := p1 = p2 = p3 = p4 is an
accessible point.
Proof We already saw that (1) is equivalent to (2) and p1 = p2 by Theorem 3.3.1.
(2) and (3) are equivalent by Theorem 4.4.9.
If (1) holds, the curve γ : [0, 1] r → f (r σ ) is a Jordan arc which lies in Ω
except for its end point f (σ ) which belongs to ∂∞ Ω. Let (G n ) be a circular null
chain for x σ such that ( f (G n )) is a null chain for Ω representing f (x σ ) (see Lemma
4.1.14). Then the curve (0, 1) r → r σ is eventually contained in the interior part
of G n for every n, so that γ is eventually contained in the interior part of f (G n ) for
every n, hence, γ converges to f (x σ ) in the Carathéodory topology, proving that
f (x σ ) is an accessible prime end, hence (4) holds and p1 = p4 .
Finally, assume that (4) holds. Let Γ be the Jordan arc which makes f (x σ )
accessible. Let p4 ∈ ∂∞ Ω be the end point of Γ outside Ω. Let (Cn ) be a null chain
representing f (x σ ). Then, by definition, Γ ∩ Cn = ∅ for all n sufficiently large.
Since diam S (Cn ) → 0, it is easy to see that for every ε > 0 there exists n 0 ∈ N such
that Cn ⊂ {z ∈ C∞ : d S (z, p) < ε}. This proves Π ( f (x σ )) = { p4 }, hence (3) holds
with p3 = p4 .
p ∈ C∞ : ∃σ ∈ ∂D : ∠ lim f (z) = p
z→σ
is dense in ∂∞ Ω.
4.4 Cluster Sets at Boundary Points 115
4.5 Notes
In this section we extend the notion of hyperbolic metric from the unit disc to simply
connected domains of C and we introduce the notion of geodesics.
Let Ω C be a simply connected domain. Recall that, by the Riemann Mapping
Theorem 3.1.1, for every z ∈ Ω there exists a unique univalent function f : D →
C such that f (D) = Ω, f (0) = z and f (0) > 0. Using this, we can extend the
definition of hyperbolic metric and hyperbolic norm to any simply connected domain.
vw
κΩ2 (z; (v, w)) := κD2 (0; (( f −1 ) (z)v, ( f −1 ) (z)v)) = .
( f (0))2
The definition makes use of the uniqueness of Riemann maps with prescribed
values at 0, but, as we immediately see, the same Riemann map gives the value of
the hyperbolic metric and norm at each point, namely:
κΩ2 (z; (v, w)) = κΩ̃2 (g(z); (g (z)v, g (z)w)), κΩ (z; v) = κΩ̃ (g(z); g (z)v).
In particular, if Ω̃ = D, then
|g (z)|2 vw |g (z)||v|
κΩ2 (z; (v, w)) = , κ Ω (z; v) = ,
(1 − |g(z)|2 )2 1 − |g(z)|2
Proof Let f : D → Ω be the biholomorphism such that f (0) = z and f (0) > 0
and let f˜ : D → Ω̃ be the biholomorphism such that f˜(0) = g(z) and f˜ (0) > 0.
Let φ := f˜−1 ◦ g ◦ f : D → D. Note that φ is an automorphism of D and φ(0) =
0. Moreover,
g (z)
φ (0) = ( f˜−1 ) ( f˜(0)) · g (z) · f (0) = f (0).
f˜ (0)
|g (z)| 1
= . (5.1.1)
˜
f (0) f (0)
vw |g (z)|2 vw
κΩ2 (z; (v, w)) = = = κΩ̃2 (g(z); (g (z)v, g (z)w)),
( f (0))2 ( f˜ (0))2
Definition 5.1.5 Let Ω C be a simply connected domain. Let −∞ < a < b <
+∞ and let γ : [a, b] → Ω be a piecewise C 1 -smooth curve. For a ≤ s ≤ t ≤ b,
we define the hyperbolic length of γ in Ω between s and t as
t
Ω (γ ; [s, t]) := κΩ (γ (u); γ (u))du.
s
In case the length is computed in all the interval [a, b] of definition of the curve, we
will simply write
Ω (γ ) := Ω (γ ; [a, b]).
The hyperbolic length of a curve does not depend on its parameterization. Indeed,
let γ : [a, b] → Ω be a C 1 -smooth curve defined in some interval [a, b] ⊂ R. Let
θ : [ã, b̃] → [a, b] be a C 1 -diffeomorphism, −∞ < ã < b̃ < +∞. We claim that
Ω (γ ; [a, b]) = Ω (γ ◦ θ ; [ã, b̃]). There are two possibilities: either θ (t) > 0 for
120 5 Hyperbolic Geometry in Simply Connected Domains
all t ∈ [ã, b̃] and θ (ã) = a, θ (b̃) = b (orientation preserving) or θ (t) < 0 for all
t ∈ [ã, b̃] and θ (ã) = b, θ (b̃) = a (orientation reversing). We deal with the second
case, the first being similar. By Remark 5.1.2,
b̃
Ω (γ ◦ θ ; [ã, b̃]) = κΩ (γ (θ (u)); γ (θ (u)))|θ (u)|du
ã
a
=− κΩ (γ (u); γ (u))du (5.1.2)
b
b
= κΩ (γ (u); γ (u))du = Ω (γ ; [a, b]).
a
Remark 5.1.7 The arc length parameter is essentially unique. Indeed, let γ :
(a, b) → Ω be a C 1 -smooth curve such that κΩ (γ (t); γ (t)) = 1 for all t ∈ (a, b)
and suppose θ : (ã, b̃) → (a, b) is a diffeomorphism such that κΩ (γ (θ (t)); (γ ◦
θ ) (t)) = 1 for all t ∈ (ã, b̃). Then by (5.1.2), for all t ∈ (ã, b̃) we have t − ã =
|θ (t) − θ (ã)|, from which it follows that θ (t) = θ (ã) ± (t − a).
is strictly decreasing because κΩ (γ (u); γ (u)) > 0 for all u ∈ [t, x0 ] since γ (u) = 0
for all u ∈ [t, x0 ] and κΩ (z; v) = 0 if and only if v = 0 by Lemma 5.1.3. Let A :=
limt→a + −Ω (γ ; [t, x0 ]). Similarly, [x0 , b) t → Ω (γ ; [x0 , b)) is strictly increas-
ing. Let B := limt→b− Ω (γ ; [x0 , b)).
5.1 Hyperbolic Metric and Geodesics in Simply Connected Domains 121
has the property that F (t) = κΩ (γ (t); γ (t)) > 0 for all t ∈ (a, b). Hence, F is an
orientation preserving diffeomorphism between (a, b) and (A, B). Therefore, we
can consider the new parameterization of γ given by γ ◦ F −1 : (A, B) → Ω. For
every A < s1 < s2 < B, using Remark 5.1.2, we have
s1
Ω (γ ◦ F −1 ; [s0 , s1 ]) = κΩ (γ (F −1 (u)), γ (F −1 (u)))(F −1 ) (u)du
s
0s1
= du = s1 − s0 ,
s0
As in the unit disc, the hyperbolic distance between two points of a simply con-
nected domain can be obtain as the infimum of the length of all piecewise smooth
curves which join the two points:
Proposition 5.1.10 Let Ω C be a simply connected domain. Let z, w ∈ Ω. Let
f : D → Ω be a biholomorphism. Then
where γ runs over all piecewise C 1 -smooth curves γ : [a, b] → Ω such that γ (a) =
z, γ (b) = w, for some −∞ < a < b < +∞.
Proof By Proposition 1.3.10, kD ( f −1 (z), f −1 (w)) = kΩ (z, w).
Let Γ denote the set of all piecewise C 1 -smooth curves γ : [a, b] → Ω such that
γ (a) = z and γ (b) = w, for some −∞ < a < b < +∞. Hence, by definition of
hyperbolic distance in D, Proposition 1.3.10 and Remark 5.1.9,
Moreover, if z, w ∈ Ω and there exist s < t such that γ (s) = z and γ (t) = w, we
say that γ |[s,t] is a geodesic which joins z and w.
With a slight abuse of notation, we call geodesic also the image of γ in Ω.
Remark 5.1.12 Let Ω, Ω̃ C be simply connected domains and let g : Ω → Ω̃ be
a biholomorphism. It follows immediately from Lemma 5.1.3 and Proposition 1.3.10
that if γ : (a, b) → Ω is a geodesic of Ω, then g ◦ γ : (a, b) → Ω̃ is a geodesic of Ω̃.
Now we are going to study some properties of geodesics in simply connected
domains. We start with the unit disc.
Lemma 5.1.13 Let −∞ ≤ a < b ≤ +∞.
(1) If η : (a, b) → D is a geodesic, then
(2) If η : (a, b) → D is a geodesic such that η(a), η(b) ∈ ∂D, then either η(a) =
−η(b) and η((a, b)) is the segment in D joining η(a) and η(b), or η(a) =
−η(b), η(a) = η(b) and η((a, b)) is the arc in D of the circle which contains
η(a) and η(b) and is orthogonal to ∂D at η(a) and η(b).
(3) For any z, w ∈ D, z = w, there exists a real analytic geodesic γ : (a, b) → D
such that γ (a) = z and γ (b) = w. Moreover, such a geodesic is essentially
unique, namely, if η : (ã, b̃) → D is another geodesic joining z and w, then
γ ([a, b]) = η([ã, b̃]).
(4) If γ : (a, b) → D is a geodesic such that either γ (a) ∈ D or γ (b) ∈ D (or both),
then there exists a geodesic η : (ã, b̃) → D such that η(ã), η(b̃) ∈ ∂D and such
that γ ([a, b]) ⊂ η([ã, b̃]).
Proof Let γ0 : (−1, 1) → D be defined by γ0 (t) = t. Using Theorem 1.3.5, we have
for every −1 < s < t < 1
t
D (γ0 ; [s, t]) = κD (γ0 (u); γ (u))du = ω(γ0 (s), γ0 (t)).
s
Therefore, γ0 is a geodesic in D. Note that, trivially, limt→±1 γ0 (t) exists and belongs
to ∂D.
5.1 Hyperbolic Metric and Geodesics in Simply Connected Domains 123
where γ runs the set of piecewise C 1 -smooth curves joining η(a ) and η(b ), it follows
that η(t) ∈ (−1, 1) for all t ∈ [a , b ].
Since, by definition of geodesics, η (t) = 0 for all t ∈ (a, b), it follows that
[a , b ] t → η(t) ∈ (−1, 1) is either strictly increasing or strictly decreasing.
In the first case η([a , b ]) = [η(a ), η(b )] and, in the second case, η([a , b ]) =
[η(b ), η(a )].
Summing up, we have proved:
(∗) for every −1 < s < t < 1, γ0 |[s,t] is a geodesic joining s and t and any other
geodesic η joining s and t has image [s, t].
Now, take z 0 , w0 ∈ D, z 0 = w0 . Let T (z) = eiθ Tz0 (z), z ∈ D, where Tz0 is the
automorphism of D defined in (1.2.1) and θ ∈ R is such that eiθ Tz0 (w0 ) = |Tz0 (w0 )|.
Note that T is an automorphism of D. Hence, by Lemma 1.3.4,
This proves (1). Also, parts (2) and (4) follows easily from what we have proved so
far.
As for (3), we already proved it in case z, w ∈ D. In case z ∈ D and w ∈ ∂D, we
can use an automorphism of D to map z to 0 and w to 1 (such an automorphism
being given by the composition of Tz with a rotation) to reduce to the case z = 0 and
w = 1, for which γ0 works. Finally, in case z, w ∈ ∂D, we can reduce to the case
z = 1 and w = −1 thanks to Proposition 1.2.2.
We can easily translate the previous lemma to any simply connected domain using
Carathéodory theory:
(2) If η : (a, b) → Ω is a geodesic such that η(a), η(b) ∈ ∂C Ω, then η(a) = η(b).
(3) For any z, w ∈ Ω, z = w, there exists a real analytic geodesic γ : (a, b) → Ω
such that γ (a) = z and γ (b) = w. Moreover, such a geodesic is essentially
unique, namely, if η : (ã, b̃) → Ω is another geodesic joining z and w, then
γ ([a, b]) = η([ã, b̃]) in Ω.
(4) If γ : (a, b) → Ω is a geodesic such that either γ (a) ∈ Ω or γ (b) ∈ Ω (or
both), then there exists a geodesic η : (ã, b̃) → Ω such that η(ã), η(b̃) ∈ ∂C Ω
and such that γ ([a, b]) ⊂ η([ã, b̃]) in Ω.
(5) If γ : (a, b) → Ω is a geodesic such that γ (a) ∈ ∂C Ω then the cluster set
Γ (γ , a) = Π (γ (a)), the principal part of the prime end γ (a) (and similarly
for b in case γ (b) ∈ ∂C Ω).
Proof Since every simply connected domain is biholomorphic to the unit disc, using
the Carathéodory topology, as a straightforward consequence of Lemma 5.1.13,
Proposition 5.1.10 and Theorem 4.2.3, (1)–(4) follow immediately.
(5) Let γ : (a, b) → Ω be a geodesic in Ω such that γ (a) ∈ ∂C Ω. Let f : D → Ω
be a biholomorphism. Hence, by Remark 5.1.12, f −1 ◦ γ is a geodesic of D.
Take a < s1 < s2 < b. Let T (z) = eiθ T f −1 (γ (s1 )) (z), z ∈ D, where T f −1 (γ (s1 )) is the
automorphism of D defined in (1.2.1) and θ ∈ R is such that
5.1 Hyperbolic Metric and Geodesics in Simply Connected Domains 125
Γ R ( f, 1) = Γ ( f ◦ f −1 ◦ γ , a) = Γ (γ , a),
we have limt→±∞ f −1 (γ (t)) ∈ ∂D, and hence, by Theorem 4.2.3, limt→±∞ γ (t) ∈
∂C Ω.
We end this section by studying convergence of sequences of geodesics with a
given fixed point.
Proposition 5.1.16 Let Ω C be a simply connected domain and let z 0 ∈ Ω. Let
{Rn } be an increasing sequence of positive real numbers converging to +∞. For
every n ∈ N, let γn : [0, Rn ) → Ω be a geodesic parameterized by arc length such
that γn (0) = z 0 . Then there exists p ∈ ∂C Ω and a subsequence {γn k } which converges
uniformly on compacta of [0, +∞) to a geodesic γ : [0, +∞) → Ω parameterized
by arc length such that limt→+∞ γ (t) = p in the Carathéodory topology of Ω.
Proof By Lemma 5.1.13 and Theorem 4.2.3, it is enough to prove the result for Ω =
D and z 0 = 0. Let then γn : [0, Rn ) → D be geodesics in D such that γn (0) = 0. By
Lemma 5.1.13 we can extend continuously γn up to Rn and ω(γn (s), γn (t)) = t − s
for all 0 ≤ s < t ≤ Rn . Let θn ∈ [0, 2π ] be such that eiθn γn (Rn ) = |γn (Rn )|.
Up to extracting a subsequence, we can assume that lim n→∞ θn = θ exists. Let ηn :
[0, Rn ] → D be defined by ηn (t) := eiθn γn (t). Since z → eiθn z is an automorphism
of D, it follows that ηn is a geodesic of D for all n ∈ N by Remark 5.1.12. Hence,
it is enough to prove that one can extract a sequence from {ηn } which converges
uniformly on compacta to a geodesic of D.
By Lemma 5.1.13, ηn ([0, Rn ]) ⊂ (−1, 1) and since ηn (t) = 0 for all t ∈ [0, Rn ]
and ηn (0) = 0, ηn (Rn ) > 0, it follows that [0, Rn ] t → ηn (t) ∈ [0, 1) is strictly
increasing. Moreover,
126 5 Hyperbolic Geometry in Simply Connected Domains
Indeed, since
1 1 + |ηn (s)|
log = ω(0, ηn (s)) = ω(ηn (0), ηn (s)) = s < R,
2 1 − |ηn (s)|
equation (5.1.4) follows at once. Moreover, by (5.1.3) and since the ηn ’s are non
negative and strictly increasing,
which, together with (5.1.4), implies that {|ηn |} is equibounded on [0, R] for all
n ≥ n 0 . Hence, {ηn } is equicontinuous on [0, R] for all n ≥ n 0 .
Therefore, Arzelà-Ascoli’s Theorem (see, e.g. [113, Theorem 11.28 pag. 245])
implies that there exists a subsequence {ηn k } converging uniformly on compacta of
[0, +∞) to some continuous function η : [0, +∞) → (−1, 1) such that η(0) = 0.
Since ω(·, ·) is continuous, we have for all 0 ≤ s < t < +∞
This proves that η is monotone and, in fact, it is strictly increasing since the ηn ’s are.
Moreover, η([0, +∞)) = [0, 1) and limt→+∞ η(t) = 1. Now, (5.1.5) implies that
{ηn k (s)} has pointwise limit at every s ∈ [0, +∞) and such a limit is 1 − η(s)2 > 0.
Since {ηn k } is equibounded on compacta, by Lebesgue’s Dominated Convergence
Theorem, we have for all t ∈ [0, +∞),
t t
η(t) = lim ηn k (t) = lim ηn k (u)du = (1 − η(u)2 )du.
k→∞ k→∞ 0 0
This proves that η is C 1 -smooth and η (t) = 1 − η(t)2 > 0 for all t ∈ [0, +∞).
Hence, κD (η(t); η (t)) = 1 for all t ∈ [0, +∞). This, together with (5.1.6), implies at
once that η is a geodesic parameterized by arc length, and the proof is
concluded.
5.2 Estimates for the Hyperbolic Metric 127
In this section we obtain lower and upper estimates for the hyperbolic norm of a
simply connected domain in C, and some better lower estimates for convex domains.
orem 3.4.9.
In case of convex domains, we have a better lower estimate. Recall that a domain
Ω ⊂ C is called convex if for every z, w ∈ Ω and for all t ∈ [0, 1] the point t z +
(1 − t)w ∈ Ω.
Also a direct computation, using the Cayley transform from D to H and Proposition
5.1.4, shows that
|v|
κH (z; v) = . (5.2.1)
2Re z
Theorem 5.2.2 Let Ω C be a convex simply connected domain. Then for every
z ∈ Ω and v ∈ C,
|v| |v|
≤ κΩ (z; v) ≤ .
2δΩ (z) δΩ (z)
Proof The right hand side estimate follows from Theorem 5.2.1. As for the left hand
side estimate, let z ∈ Ω and let p ∈ ∂Ω be such that | p − z| = δΩ (z).
Consider the affine transformation T : w → |z−z− p
p|
(w − p). The map T is a biholo-
morphism between Ω and T (Ω), and it is easy to see that T (Ω) is still convex. By
Lemma 5.1.3, T is an isometry for the hyperbolic metrics of Ω and T (Ω) and,
moreover, δΩ (z) = δT (Ω) (T (z)).
Therefore, we can assume without loss of generality that p = 0, z = r for some
r > 0 and r = δΩ (r ) (since 0 ∈ ∂Ω is the point of ∂Ω which is closest to r ).
We claim that Ω ⊂ H. Indeed, suppose there is a point ζ0 ∈ Ω \ H. Since Ω
is open, we can assume that Re ζ0 < 0. Consider the line L = {uζ0 : u ∈ R}. It is
clear that L ∩ {ζ ∈ C : |ζ − r | < r } = ∅. Let ζ1 ∈ L ∩ {ζ ∈ C : |ζ − r | < r }. By
definition of distance, {ζ ∈ C : |ζ − r | < r } ⊂ Ω, hence, ζ1 ∈ Ω. By convexity, the
segment between ζ0 and ζ1 is in Ω, hence, 0 ∈ Ω, a contradiction.
Therefore, Ω ⊂ H and by Proposition 5.1.4 and (5.2.1),
|v| |v|
κΩ (r ; v) ≥ κH (r ; v) = = ,
2r 2δΩ (r )
In this section, we use the estimates for the hyperbolic metric we discussed before
in order to obtain useful estimates for the hyperbolic distance.
Theorem 5.3.1 (Distance Lemma) Let Ω C be a simply connected domain. Then
for every w1 , w2 ∈ Ω,
1 |w1 − w2 | |dw|
log 1 + ≤ kΩ (w1 , w2 ) ≤ ,
4 min{δΩ (w1 ), δΩ (w2 )} Γ δΩ (w)
hence, δΩ (γ (t)) ≤ δΩ (w1 ) + |w1 − γ (t)| for all t ∈ (a, b). Moreover, if
t
E (t) := |γ (s)|ds
a
denotes the Euclidean length of γ ([a, t]) for t ∈ [a, b], then |w1 − γ (t)| ≤ E (t).
Hence, from (5.3.1),
E
1 b |γ (t)|dt 1 (b) dt
kΩ (w1 , w2 ) ≥ =
4 a δΩ (w1 ) + E (t) 4 0 δΩ (w1 ) + t
1 E (b) 1 |w1 − w2 |
= log 1 + ≥ log 1 + ,
4 δΩ (w1 ) 4 δΩ (w1 )
The same proof using Theorem 5.3.3 instead of Theorem 5.2.1 proves a better
estimate for convex domains:
and
|v|
κH (w; v) = , w ∈ H, v ∈ C. (5.4.1)
2Re w
Moreover, since a Cayley transform is a Möbius transformation, it follows from
Lemma 5.1.13 that the geodesics in H are either intervals contained in semi-lines
in H parallel to the real axis, or arcs in H of circles intersecting orthogonally the
imaginary axis.
(4) Let θ0 , θ1 ∈ (− π2 , π2 ) and ρ > 0. Then kH (ρeiθ0 , ρeiθ1 ) = kH (eiθ0 , eiθ1 ). More-
over, kH (1, eiθ ) = kH (1, e−iθ ) for all θ ∈ [0, π/2) and [0, π/2) θ → kH (1, eiθ )
is strictly increasing.
(5) Let β0 , β1 ∈ (− π2 , π2 ) and 0 < ρ0 < ρ1 . Then kH (ρ0 eiβ0 , ρ1 eiβ1 ) ≥ kH (ρ0 , ρ1 ).
1 1 1
(6) For all ρ > 0 we have kH (ρ, ρeiβ ) ≤ log + log 2.
2 cos β 2
1 1 + x2 + 1 + x 4 − 2x 2 cos(2β)
kH (ρ0 , ρ1 eiβ ) − kH (ρ0 , ρ1 ) = log .
2 2 cos β
Since the numerator inside the logarithm is strictly increasing in x and x ∈ (0, 1],
the estimate follows.
(3) We have iβ iα
ρ0 e −ρe
1 1 + ρ0 eiβ +ρe−iα
kH (ρe , ρ0 e ) = log
iα iβ iβ iα .
−ρe
2 1 − ρρ00eeiβ +ρe −iα
|eiθ0 −eiθ1 |
1 1+ |eiθ0 +e−iθ1 |
kH (ρe , ρe ) = log
iθ0 iθ1
|eiθ0 −eiθ1 |
= kH (eiθ0 , eiθ1 ).
2 1− |eiθ0 +e−iθ1 |
This proves the first part of the statement. Alternatively, this follows from the fact
that the multiplication by ρ is a biholomorphism of H. Next, since
iθ
e − 1 1 − cos θ
[0, π/2) θ → iθ = = tan(θ/2),
e + 1 1 + cos θ
is strictly increasing, using the fact that (0, 1) x → 21 log 1+x 1−x
is strictly increas-
ing in x and from the very definition of kH (1, eiθ ) it follows that [0, π/2) θ →
kH (1, eiθ ) is strictly increasing. Moreover, the previous formula also shows that
kH (1, eiθ ) = kH (1, e−iθ ) for all θ ∈ [0, π/2).
(5) Using the fact that (0, 1) x → 21 log 1+x
1−x
is strictly increasing in x and from
the very definition of kH , it is enough to prove that
|eiβ0 ρ0 − eiβ1 ρ1 | ρ1 − ρ0
≥ .
|eiβ0 ρ0 + e−iβ1 ρ1 | ρ0 + ρ1
Setting a := ρ02 + ρ12 and b = 2ρ0 ρ1 , and taking the square in the previous inequality,
this amounts to show that
a − b cos(β0 − β1 ) a−b
≥ .
a + b cos(β0 + β1 ) a+b
b
cos β1 cos β0 + sin β1 sin β0 ≤ 1.
a
Since b ≤ a, the result follows.
(6) Since the curve η : (−π/2, π/2) θ → ρeiθ is a geodesic in H, assuming
β > 0 (the case β < 0 is analogous), we have
β β
ρ
kH (ρ, ρe ) = iβ
κH (η(θ ); η (θ ))dθ = dθ
0 0 2Re ρeiθ
β
1 dθ 1 1
= = log + tan β
2 0 cos θ 2 cos β
1 1 1
≤ log + log 2.
2 cos β 2
132 5 Hyperbolic Geometry in Simply Connected Domains
5.5 Notes
The material of this chapter is rather classical. The proof of Theorem 5.3.1 is inspired
by Shapiro’s book [117].
One can define the notion of (hyperbolic) rectifiable curves in simply connected
domains as follows. Let Ω C be a simply connected domain and let γ : [a, b] →
Ω be a curve (no regularity required so far). For a partition P of [a, b] given by
a = t0 < . . . < t N = b of [a, b], one can define
N −1
Ω (P) := kΩ (γ (t j ), γ (t j+1 )).
j=0
We say that γ is rectifiable if L := supP Ω (P) < +∞. If this is the case, we define
the hyperbolic length of γ to be Ω (γ ; [a, b]) := L. Rectifiable curves can always
be parameterized by hyperbolic arc length, in the sense that for every a ≤ s ≤ t ≤ b,
we have t − s = Ω (γ ◦ F −1 , [s, t]). Indeed, the function F(t) := Ω (γ ; [a, t])
for t ≥ a is non-decreasing and constant only where γ is constant. Thus one
can “invert” F safely removing the interval where it is constant, and consider
γ ◦ F −1 : [0, Ω (γ ; [a.b])] → Ω, which turns out to be parameterized by hyper-
bolic arc length. By the very definition of hyperbolic length, it turns out that if γ is
rectifiable,
Ω (γ ; [a, b]) ≥ kΩ (γ (a), γ (b)).
In case γ is regular enough (for instance Lipschitz continuous), the hyperbolic length
of γ equals the integral of κΩ (γ (t); γ (t)) on [a, b]. In this book, we won’t use this
point of view, but, in the next chapter, we will define directly the hyperbolic length
of a Lipschitz curve as integral of the “hyperbolic norm” of its tangent.
Chapter 6
Quasi-Geodesics and Localization
The aim of this section is to provide an intrinsic way to define non-tangential limits
in simply connected domains. More precisely, the question we consider here is the
following: let Ω be a simply connected domain, Ω = C, and f : D → Ω a Riemann
map. Let {z n } ⊂ Ω be a sequence such that { f −1 (z n )} converges to σ ∈ ∂D. How is
it possible to determine whether { f −1 (z n )} converges non-tangentially to σ looking
at the geometry of Ω?
6.2 Hyperbolic Sectors and Non-Tangential Convergence 135
be a horizontal sector of angle 2β symmetric with respect to the real axis and with
height r0 .
Lemma 6.2.3 Let γ : [0, +∞) → H be a geodesic such that γ ([0, +∞)) = [r0 , +
∞) and γ (0) = r0 for some r0 > 0. Then for every R > 0 there exists β ∈ (0, π/2),
with kH (1, eiβ ) = R, such that
hyp
SH (γ , R) = V (β, r0 ) ∪ DH (r0 , R), (6.2.2)
hyp
where DH (r0 , R) := {w ∈ H : kH (r0 , w) < R} is the hyperbolic disc in H of center
r0 and radius R.
Proof Let w ∈ H, w = ρeiθ for some ρ > 0 and θ ∈ (−π/2, π/2). Hence, by
Lemma 5.4.1(3),
Let β ∈ (0, π/2) be such that kH (1, eiβ ) = R. Therefore, given ρ > 0, by
Lemma 5.4.1(4) and the previous equation, kH (ρeiθ , (0, +∞)) < R if and only if
|θ | < β. This implies at once that V (β, r0 ) ⊂ SH (γ , R).
hyp
Moreover, let w ∈ DH (r0 , R). Hence, M := kH (r0 , w) < R. Let r ∈ (r0 , +∞)
be such that kH (r, r0 ) < R − M. Hence, by the triangle inequality,
hyp
proving that w ∈ SH (γ , R). Therefore, V (β, r0 ) ∪ DH (r0 , R) ⊂ SH (γ , R).
On the other hand, let w = ρeiθ ∈ SH (γ , R) with ρ > 0 and θ ∈ (−π/2, π/2).
If ρ > r0 , by Lemma 5.4.1(3) and (4), it follows immediately that w ∈ V (β, r0 ).
If ρ ≤ r0 , the condition w ∈ SH (γ , R) implies that there exists r > r0 such that
kH (w, r ) < R. Hence, by Lemma 5.4.1(3), kH (ρeiθ , r0 ) < kH (ρeiθ , r ) < R and w ∈
hyp hyp
DH (r0 , R). This proves that SH (γ , R) ⊂ V (β, r0 ) ∪ DH (r0 , R).
Remark 6.2.4 It follows easily from Lemma 5.1.13 and using a Cayley transform
from D to H that every geodesic γ : [0, +∞) → H such that limt→+∞ γ (t) = ∞,
has the property that there exist x0 ∈ (0, +∞) and y0 ∈ R such that γ ([0, +∞)) =
[x0 , +∞) + i y0 . Therefore, by Lemma 6.2.3, it follows immediately for every R > 0
and for every geodesic γ : [0, +∞) → H such that limt→+∞ γ (t) = ∞ there exists
t0 ≥ 0 such that γ (t) ∈ SH (γ0 , R) for every t ≥ t0 , where γ0 : [1, +∞) → H is the
geodesic defined by γ0 (t) := t.
As a corollary we have:
6.3 Quasi-Geodesics
In this section we introduce the concept of quasi-geodesics. These are curves which
are closely related to geodesics, but much easier to detect and to use. For future aims,
we need to consider curves which are Lipschitz instead of just piecewise C 1 -smooth.
Given −∞ ≤ a < b ≤ +∞, recall that a curve γ : (a, b) → C is Lipschitz if there
exists C > 0 such that
|γ (t) − γ (s)| ≤ C|t − s|,
hence, the previous definition is well given. Note also that the previous definition
agrees with the one given for piecewise C 1 -smooth curves (see Definition 5.1.5).
Moreover, using a Riemann map to move to D and arguing exactly as in the proof
of Theorem 1.3.5, (since (1.3.2) and (1.3.3) hold for Lipschitz curves), one can easily
see that
Ω (γ ; [a, b]) ≥ kΩ (γ (a), γ (b)).
Finally, arguing as in (5.1.2) one can see that the hyperbolic length of a Lipschitz
curve does not depend on the parameterization (as long as the change of parameter-
ization is chosen to be a homeomorphism). Therefore, in the next sections, not to
burden the notation, we can always assume that the Lipschitz curves we deal with
are parameterized in [0, +∞).
Definition 6.3.2 Let Ω C be a simply connected domain. A Lipschitz curve
γ : [0, +∞) → Ω such that limt→+∞ kΩ (γ (0), γ (t)) = +∞, is a quasi-geodesic
if there exist A ≥ 1 and B ≥ 0 such that for every 0 ≤ s ≤ t < +∞,
138 6 Quasi-Geodesics and Localization
Remark 6.3.3 If γ : [0, +∞) → Ω is a Lipschitz curve such that there exists A ≥
1, B ≥ 0 and T > 0 such that γ |[T,+∞) is a (A, B)-quasi-geodesic, then, taking
B := Ω (γ ; [a, T ]), it is easy to see that γ is a (A, B + B )-quasi-geodesic.
Example 6.3.4 Let β0 ∈ (0, π/2), and let γ : [1, +∞) → H be given by
γ (t) = teiβ0 .
1 t
H (γ ; [s, t]) = log .
2 cos β0 s
1 t
kH (seiβ0 , teiβ0 ) ≥ kH (s, t) = log .
2 s
Example 6.3.5 Fix μ > 0 and consider the curve γμ : [0, +∞) → H defined as
γμ (t) = μ + it.
Note that |μ + i(t − s)| cos θ (s, t) = μ. Hence, by the previous inequality,
1 t −s 2
kH (μ + is, μ + it) ≤ log 2 1 + .
2 μ
If γμ were a quasi-geodesic, then there would exist A ≥ 1, B ≥ 0 such that for every
0 ≤ s ≤ t,
t −s A t −s 2
≤ log 2 1 + + B,
2μ 2 μ
The two previous examples are, in a sense, comprehensive of the possible behav-
iors of quasi-geodesics and non-quasi-geodesics. To better understand such a state-
ment, we need a couple of results which estimate how far can be a quasi-geodesic
from being the curve of Example 6.3.4 and how far a quasi-geodesic has to be from
the curve of Example 6.3.5.
First of all, we estimate how much “time” a quasi-geodesic can spend outside a
horosphere at infinity for H:
Lemma 6.3.6 Let A ≥ 1, B ≥ 0. Then, for every n, there exists Rn (A, B) > 0 and
n 0 (A, B) ∈ N with the following properties:
(1) if n ≥ n 0 (A, B),
Rn (A, B) ≤ n − 2
3
(6.3.1)
(2) If γ : [0, +∞) → H is any (A, B)-quasi-geodesic such that there exists [tn , tn+1 ]
⊂ [0, +∞) satisfying
• Re γ (t) ≤ n −2 for t ∈ [tn , tn+1 ],
• Re γ (tn ) ≥ (n + 1)−2 ,
• Re γ (tn+1 ) ≥ (n + 1)−2 ,
then
|Im γ (tn+1 ) − Im γ (tn )| ≤ Rn (A, B).
Proof We give the proof in case Im γ (tn+1 ) > Im γ (tn ), the other case being similar.
Let xn := Re γ (tn ), yn := Im γ (tn ), xn+1 := Re γ (tn+1 ), yn+1 := Im γ (tn+1 ).
Then, by hypotheses, (n + 1)−2 ≤ xn ≤ n −2 and (n + 1)−2 ≤ xn+1 ≤ n −2 . Let also
140 6 Quasi-Geodesics and Localization
h n := yn+1 − yn > 0.
Since δH (γ (t)) ≤ 1
n2
for all t ∈ [tn , tn+1 ], by Theorem 5.2.1,
tn+1
n2 n2 hn
H (γ ; [tn , tn+1 ]) ≥ |γ (t)|dt ≥ . (6.3.2)
2 tn 2
and
(n + 1)−4 + h 2n ≤ ρ 2 ≤ n −4 + h 2n .
n2 hn A 1
≤ 2 A log(n + 1) + log max n −4 + h 2n ,
2 4 (n + 1)−4 + h 2n
(6.3.3)
A A
+ log 2 + log(n −4 + h 2n ) + B.
2 4
Now, fix n ∈ N. Consider (6.3.3) as an inequality in the variable h n . It is easy to
see that there exists a value Rn (A, B) > 0 such that (6.3.3) is satisfied only for
h n ≤ Rn (A, B), and this proves (2).
As for (1), let h n = n − 2 . Consider again (6.3.3) as an inequality in n. Again, it is
3
easy to see that there exists n 0 (A, B) ∈ N such that for n ≥ n 0 (A, B) the inequality
is not verified. Hence, Rn (A, B) ≤ n − 2 for n ≥ n 0 (A, B).
3
6.3 Quasi-Geodesics 141
The following corollary explains why the curve in Example 6.3.5 is not a quasi-
geodesic:
Corollary 6.3.7 Let A ≥ 1, B ≥ 0 and T > 0. Then there exists C = C(A, B, T ) >
0 such that if γ : [0, +∞) → H is any (A, B)-quasi-geodesic with the properties
that γ (0) ∈ (0, T ) and Re γ (t) < T for all t ∈ [0, +∞) then |γ (t)| < C for all
t ∈ [0, +∞).
Proof Using the automorphism of H given by z → Tz , we can assume that T = 1
(and γ (0) ∈ (0, 1)).
For n ∈ N, let Rn := Rn (A, B) > 0 be given by Lemma 6.3.6. Note that, by
(6.3.1),
∞
R := Rn < +∞.
n=1
and 0 < |Im γ (t)| < |Im γ (t1 )| for all t ∈ (t0 , t1 ). Let
B1 := {z ∈ C : 0 < Re z ≤ n −2
1 , y1 − Rn 1 < Im z < y1 + Rn 1 }.
Since Re γ (t) ≤ n −2
1 for all t ∈ [t0 , t1 ], by Lemma 6.3.6 it follows that if Re γ (t) ≥
(n 1 + 1)−2 for some t ∈ [t0 , t1 ], then
|y1 − Im γ (t)| ≤ Rn 1 .
Namely, γ (t) ∈ B1 . Therefore, Re γ (t) < (n 1 + 1)−2 for all t ∈ [t0 , t1 ] such that
γ (t) ∈ / B1 .
Now, we proceed by induction in constructing the boxes B j as follows. Suppose
j−1
B1 , . . . , B j−1 have been constructed. If γ ([t0 , t1 ]) ⊂ k=1 Bk , the construction ends
at this point. Otherwise, let
j−1
r j := max{Re γ (t) : t ∈ [t0 , t1 ], γ (t) ∈
/ Bk }.
k=1
142 6 Quasi-Geodesics and Localization
B j := {z ∈ C : 0 < Re z ≤ n −2
j , y j − Rn j < Im z < y j + Rn j }.
Note that, by Lemma 6.3.6, if t ∈ [t0 , t1 ] is such that Re γ (t) ≥ (n j + 1)−2 , then
j
γ (t) ∈ k=1 Bk . In particular, n j > n j−1 and γ ([t0 , t1 ]) ⊂ Nj=1 B j , where either
N
N ∈ N in case γ ([t0 , t1 ]) ⊂ k=1 Bk or N = ∞ otherwise.
Therefore, since the height of B j is 2Rn j , it follows that the height of Nj=1 B j is
at most ∞ j=1 (2Rn j ) ≤ 2R. Thus,
We are now ready to state and prove the main result of this section:
Proof Since the statement is invariant under biholomorphisms, we can assume that
Ω = H and γ (0) = 1. By definition of quasi-geodesic, limt→+∞ kΩ (γ (0), γ (t)) =
+∞. Hence, the cluster set Γ (γ ; +∞) of γ (t) for t → +∞ is contained in ∂∞ H.
Up to composition with a suitable automorphism of H fixing 1, we can assume that
∞ ∈ Γ (γ ; +∞). Namely, lim supt→+∞ |γ (t)| = +∞.
In particular, Corollary 6.3.7 implies that lim supt→+∞ Re γ (t) = +∞.
Let θ0 ∈ (0, π/2) be such that
Write γ (t) = ρ(t)eiθ(t) , for ρ(t) > 0 and θ (t) ∈ (−π/2, π/2).
Step 1. There exists N = N (A, B) > 0 with the following property. Suppose there
exist t0 < t1 such that
(1) either ρ(t1 ) cos θ (t1 ) ≥ ρ(t0 ) and |θ (t0 )| = θ0 , or ρ(t0 ) cos θ (t0 ) ≥ ρ(t1 ) and
|θ (t1 )| = θ0 ,
(2) |θ (t)| ≥ θ0 for all t ∈ [t0 , t1 ].
Then, kH (ρ(t0 ), ρ(t1 )) ≤ N .
6.3 Quasi-Geodesics 143
We give the proof in case ρ(t1 ) cos θ (t1 ) ≥ ρ(t0 ), |θ (t0 )| = θ0 , the other being
similar. Note that ρ(t1 ) > ρ(t0 ) and, since | sin θ (t1 )| ≥ | sin θ (t0 )|, |Im γ (t1 )| ≥
|Im γ (t0 )|.
Hence, for every t ∈ [t0 , t1 ],
|Im γ (t)|
δH (γ (t)) = ρ(t) cos θ (t) ≤ .
tan θ0
Since z → z
ρ(t0 )
is an automorphism of H, by the triangle inequality and Lemma 5.4.1,
ρ(t1 ) iθ(t1 )
kH (γ (t0 ), γ (t1 )) = kH (eiθ0 , e )
ρ(t0 )
ρ(t1 ) ρ(t1 ) iθ(t1 ) ρ(t1 )
≤ kH (1, eiθ0 ) + kH (1, ) + kH ( ,e ) (6.3.6)
ρ(t0 ) ρ(t0 ) ρ(t0 )
1 4 1 ρ(t1 )
≤ log + log .
2 cos θ0 2 ρ(t0 ) cos θ (t1 )
By (6.3.4), it follows that there exists N > 0 (which depends only on A, B) such
ρ(t1 )
that ρ(t0)
≤ N . From Lemma 5.4.1(1), the statement of Step 1 follows at once.
Step 2. Suppose there exists t1 ∈ (0, +∞) such that |θ (t1 )| > θ0 . Let N > 0 be
given by Step 1 and let M := max{N , kH (1, cos θ0 )}. Then there exists [a, b] ⊂
[0, +∞) such that a < t1 < b, |θ (a)| = |θ (b)| = θ0 , |θ (t)| > θ0 for all t ∈ (a, b)
and kH (ρ(a), ρ(b)) ≤ M.
144 6 Quasi-Geodesics and Localization
Since the curve γ is continuous and γ (0) = 1, there exists a ∈ (0, +∞) such that
a < t1 , |θ (a)| = θ0 and |θ (t)| > θ0 for all t ∈ (a, t1 ].
Suppose |θ (t)| > θ0 for all t ≥ t1 . Since lim supt→+∞ Re γ (t) = +∞, there
exists a strictly increasing sequence {tn } ⊂ [t1 , +∞) converging to +∞ such that
limn→∞ ρ(tn ) cos θ (tn ) = +∞. Hence, there exists n ∈ N such that ρ(tn ) cos θ (tn ) ≥
ρ(a) for all n ≥ n . Then, by Step 1, kH (ρ(tn ), ρ(a)) ≤ N for all n ≥ n , which is a
contradiction since limn→∞ ρ(tn ) = +∞.
Therefore, there exists b > t1 such that |θ (b)| = θ0 and |θ (t)| > θ0 for all t ∈
(a, b).
If either ρ(b) cos θ0 ≥ ρ(a) or ρ(a) cos θ0 ≥ ρ(b), then kH (ρ(a), ρ(b)) ≤ N ≤
M by Step 1. Otherwise, assume ρ(a) ≤ ρ(b) (the case ρ(b) < ρ(a) is similar) and
suppose ρ(b) cos θ0 < ρ(a). Since (0, +∞) is a geodesic in H, and ρ(b) cos θ0 <
ρ(a) ≤ ρ(b), and taking into account that z → ρ(b) z
is an automorphism of H, we
have
kH (ρ(a), ρ(b)) < kH (ρ(b) cos θ0 , ρ(b)) = kH (cos θ0 , 1) ≤ M,
1 cos θ0 2
log > A log + AM + B. (6.3.7)
2 2 cos β cos θ0
1 cos θ0
log ≤ kH (γ (a), γ (t1 )) ≤ H (γ ; [a, t1 ])
2 2 cos β
2
≤ H (γ ; [a, b]) ≤ AkH (γ (a), γ (b)) + B ≤ A log + AM + B,
cos θ0
1 1
H (γ ; [0; t]) ≥ H (γ ; [0, s]) ≥ kH (1, γ (s)) ≥ log .
2 r
The latter two displayed inequalities, taking into account that γ is a (A, B)-quasi-
geodesic, imply
1 1 A 2
log ≤ log + B,
2 r 2 cos β
(1) { f −1 (η(tn ))} converges non-tangentially to σ if and only if there exists C > 0,
such that for all, n ∈ N,
Therefore, if kΩ (it, st ) ≤ M for all t ≥ 1 then lim supt→+∞ δΩ t(it) < +∞.
Assume now that δΩ t(it) ≤ C < +∞ for all t ≥ 1, and fix t ≥ 1. Let η1 (r ) :=
r + it, r ∈ [0, t]. Let η2 : [0, 1] → H be the geodesic in H such that η2 (0) = t (1 + i)
and η2 (1) = t. Hence, again by Theorem 5.3.1 and taking into account Lemma 5.4.1,
t
du
kΩ (it, t) ≤ Ω (η1 ) + Ω (η2 ) ≤ + H (η2 )
0 Ω 1 (u))
δ (η
t
du t
≤ + kH (t (1 + i), t) = + kH (1 + i, 1) ≤ C + kH (1 + i, 1).
0 δΩ (it) δΩ (it)
The aim of this section is to find conditions for ensuring that the pre-image of a slit
under a Riemann map converges orthogonally to the boundary. To this aim, we first
prove a preliminary result and then extend to the general setting by extending the
notion of horocycles to any simply connected domains.
Let A1 := {|eiβ ρ − 1|eiθ + 1 : |θ | ≤ β̃}. Note that A1 is the arc of the circle of
center 1, radius |eiβ ρ − 1| with end points p0 := eiβ ρ = |eiβ ρ − 1|ei β̃ + 1 and p1 :=
e−iβ ρ = |eiβ ρ − 1|e−i β̃ + 1.
Let A2 := {(ρ − 1)eiθ + 1 : |θ | ≤ β̃}. Note that A2 is the arc of the circle of center
1 and radius ρ − 1 with end points q0 := (ρ − 1)ei β̃ + 1 and q1 := (ρ − 1)e−i β̃ + 1.
Note that by construction, A1 , A2 are arcs of circles which intersect orthogonally
∂U , hence they are geodesics for the hyperbolic distance kU .
Let B1 := {r ei β̃ + 1 : ρ − 1 ≤ r ≤ |eiβ ρ − 1|} and let B2 := {r e−i β̃ + 1 : ρ −
1 ≤ r ≤ |eiβ ρ − 1|}.
By construction, A1 ∪ B1 ∪ A2 ∪ B2 is a Jordan curve which bounds a simply
connected domain Q ⊂ C. Moreover, by simple geometric considerations, the curve
Γ := {ρeiθ : |θ | ≤ β} ⊂ Q (see Fig. 6.1 with β = π/5 and ρ = 2). Hence,
and, by Lemma 5.4.1(4), kH (|eiβ ρ − 1|ei β̃ , |eiβ ρ − 1|e−i β̃ ) depends on β̃ and goes
to 0 as β goes to 0. Similarly, U (A2 ) goes to 0 as β goes to 0.
On the other hand, by (6.4.1) and Lemma 5.4.1(1),
1 |eiβ ρ − 1|
U (B1 ) = H (B1 − 1) = H ({r ei β̃ : ρ − 1 ≤ r ≤ |eiβ ρ − 1|}) = log .
2 cos β̃ ρ−1
√
Since sin(β̃) ≤ 2 sin(π/4)
|2eiπ/4 −1|
= 2√
5−2 2
, we have that cos(β̃) ≥ 3−2√2
5−2 2
and
√ √
5−2 2 |eiβ ρ − 1| 5−2 2
U (B1 ) ≤ √ log ≤ √ log |2eiβ − 1|,
3−2 2 ρ−1 3−2 2
for every ρ ≥ 2, which shows that U (B1 ) goes to 0 as β goes to 0. A similar argument
shows that also U (B2 ) goes to 0 as β goes to 0 and Step 1 follows.
Step 2. Let β ∈ (0, π/2). Let αβ := (1 − cos2 β)−1 . Then for every x1 > x0 ≥
max{2, αβ } the geodesic in Ω joining x0 and x1 is contained in V (β, 0).
Fix x0 ≥ 2 and x1 > x0 . Let σ : [0, 1] → Ω be the geodesic for Ω such that
σ (0) = x0 and σ (1) = x1 . Assume that σ ([0, 1]) is not contained in V (β, 0). Hence,
there exist 0 < t1 ≤ t2 < 0 such that σ (t j ) ∈ ∂ V (β, 0), j = 1, 2 and {σ (t) : t1 ≤
t ≤ t2 } ∩ V (β, 0) = ∅. Since V (β, 0) disconnects H in two connected components,
we can assume without loss of generality that σ (t1 ) = y1 eiβ and σ (t2 ) = y2 eiβ for
some y1 , y2 > 0 (possibly y1 = y2 ).
Let b := kH (1, eiβ ) and let R := {r : r > 0}. Hence, by Lemma 5.4.1(3) and (4),
kH (σ (t), R) ≥ b t1 ≤ t ≤ t2 ,
and
kH (σ (t j ), R) = kH (σ (t j ), y j ) = b, j = 1, 2.
where the penultimate inequality follows from the triangle inequality, and the last
inequality follows from Lemma 5.4.1(2). Moreover, a direct computation shows that
1 1− 1
x1
kH (x0 , x1 ) = kU (x0 , x1 ) − log .
2 1− 1
x0
Therefore, taking into account that U ⊂ Ω, from the previous inequality we have
1 1− 1
x1 1
kΩ (x0 , x1 ) = Ω (σ ) ≥ kU (x0 , x1 ) − log + log
2 1− 1
x0
cos β
1 1− 1
x1 1
≥ kΩ (x0 , x1 ) − log + log ,
2 1− 1
x0
cos β
which forces
1 1− 1
x1
log ≤ log .
cos2 β 1− 1
x0
However, if x0 ≥ αβ ,
1 1− 1
x1
1− 1
x1
log ≤ log ≤ log ,
cos β
2
1− 1
x0
cos2 β
Hence, log x0
c
≤ K (β), which contradicts the choice of c and Step 3 follows.
Step 4. For every δ > 0 there exists μδ ≥ 2 such that for every x1 > x0 ≥ μδ ,
if σ : [0, 1] → Ω is a geodesic of Ω such that σ (0) = x0 and σ (1) = x1 , then for
every x ∈ [x0 , x1 ] there exists tx ∈ [0, 1] such that kΩ (x, σ (tx )) < δ.
In order to prove Step 4, we first claim that for every ν ∈ (0, π4 ) there exists μν ≥ 2
such that for every x1 > x0 ≥ μν , σ ([0, 1]) ⊂ V (ν, 0) + 1.
If the claim is true, since σ is continuous, for every x ∈ [x0 , x1 ] there exist |θx | < ν
and tx ∈ [0, 1] such that σ (tx ) = (x − 1)eiθx + 1. Hence, by (6.4.1) and Lemma
5.4.1(4), and recalling that U ⊂ Ω,
By Step 4, for every t ∈ [μδ , xn ] there exists stn ∈ [0, Rn ] such that kΩ (σn (stn ), t) < δ.
We claim that, for every fixed x1 > μδ there exists C x1 > 0 such that for all
n ∈ N and all t ∈ [μδ , x1 ], we have stn ≤ C x1 . Indeed, since [μδ , x1 ] is compact in
Ω, C0 := maxx∈[μδ ,x1 ] kΩ (x, μδ ) < +∞. Hence, recalling that σn is parameterized
by arc length, for all t ∈ [μδ , x1 ], we have
Therefore, fix x1 > μδ , and set T := C x1 . By (6.4.2), for all t ∈ [μδ , x1 ] we have
Let t ≥ μδ be such that st ≥ s1 for all t ≥ t . Then by (6.4.3) and (6.4.4), for all
t ≥ t ,
ω(γ (rst ), f −1 (t)) ≤ ω( f −1 (σ (st )), γ (rst )) + ω( f −1 (t), f −1 (σ (st ))) < 3δ = ,
In order to extend the previous result to a more intrinsic setting, note that by
(1.4.15), the condition in Lemma 6.4.1 means that Ω is contained in H and contains
a horocycle at infinity of H. In order to replace H with a general simply connected
domain, we need to extend the notion of horocycles.
Remark 6.4.2 Let Ω C be a simply connected domain, z 0 ∈ Ω and let f : D →
Ω be a Riemann map such that f (0) = z 0 . Let y ∈ ∂C Ω be a prime end of Ω.
By Theorem 4.2.3 and Proposition 4.2.5, there exists exactly one σ ∈ ∂D which
corresponds to a prime end x σ ∈ ∂C D such that fˆ(x σ ) = y. Moreover, a sequence
{wn } ⊂ Ω converges to y in the Carathéodory topology of Ω if and only if { f −1 (wn )}
converges to σ (in the Euclidean topology). Therefore, if {z n } and {wn } are two
sequences in Ω which converge to y in the Carathéodory topology of Ω, taking into
account that f is an isometry for the hyperbolic distance, by (1.4.1), we have for
every z ∈ Ω,
lim [kΩ (z, wn ) − kΩ (z 0 , wn )] = lim [kD ( f −1 (z), f −1 (wn )) − kD (0, f −1 (wn ))]
n→∞ n→∞
= lim [kD ( f −1 (z), f −1 (z n )) − kD (0, f −1 (z n ))]
n→∞
= lim [kΩ (z, z n ) − kΩ (z 0 , z n )].
n→∞
1
E zΩ0 (y, R) := {z ∈ Ω : lim [kΩ (z, wn ) − kΩ (z 0 , wn )] < log R}.
n→∞ 2
1
log A := lim [kΩ (z 0 , wn ) − kΩ (z 1 , wn )].
2 n→∞
Proof By Remark 6.4.2, the limit exists and A ∈ (0, +∞). Moreover, by the same
remark, for every z ∈ Ω,
E zU0 (y, R) ⊂ Ω ⊆ U.
Proof Using a Riemann map from D onto U composed with a Cayley transform from
D onto H, we can assume that U = H, y ∈ ∂C H is the prime end which corresponds to
∞ and γ (t) = t + 1. Hence, by Lemma 6.4.4, (6.4.5) and (1.4.15), we have H + a ⊂
Ω ⊆ H, for some a > 0, and the result follows immediately from Lemma 6.4.1.
Example 6.4.6 Let H be the right half-plane. We denote by ∞ the prime end in
H corresponding to the null chain (Cn ) defined by Cn := {ζ ∈ H : |ζ | = n + 1} for
n ∈ N0 . Note that {n} converge to ∞ in the Carathéodory topology of H. Hence for
R>0
1
E 1H (∞, R) = {w ∈ H : lim [kH (w, n) − kH (wn , 1)] < log R}.
n→∞ 2
1 1
E 1H (∞, R) = E H (∞, ) = {z ∈ H : Re z > }.
R R
Example 6.4.7 Let p ∈ C. Consider the Koebe domain defined by
K p := C \ {ζ ∈ C : Re ζ = Re p, Im ζ ≤ Im p}.
f (z) := i z 2 + p.
−1
√
Clearly, f is a biholomorphism from H to K p . Its inverse
√ is f (w) = −i(w − p),
where the branch of the square root is chosen so that 1 = 1.
Note that f (1) = p + i and f maps the prime end ∞ in ∂C H (see Example
6.4.6) to the prime end ∞ in ∂C K p . Since f is an isometry between kH and kK p , by
Example 6.4.6, we have
K 1
E p+ip (∞, R) = f (E 1H (∞, R)) = {w ∈ K p : Re −i(w − p) > }.
R
K 2
E p+ip (∞, R) = {w ∈ K p : |w − p| + Im (w − p) > }.
R2
A simple computation shows that, in particular, there exist a > 0, b > Im p (depend-
ing on R and converging to +∞ as R → 0+ ) such that
K
E p+ip (∞, R) ⊂ C \ {ζ ∈ C : −a ≤ Re (ζ − p) ≤ a, Im ζ ≤ b}. (6.4.6)
In what follows, for not burdening the notation, we will consider geodesics param-
eterized by (hyperbolic) arc length, but, as it will be clear, this is not relevant, and
any parameterization of geodesics would work as well.
156 6 Quasi-Geodesics and Localization
The next proposition shows that the hyperbolic projection onto a geodesic is
uniquely defined and can be determined geometrically:
Proof Let C be a univalent map such that C(Ω) = H and such that C(γ ) = (0, +∞)
and C(z) = ρeiβ for some ρ > 0 and β ∈ (−π/2, π/2). By Lemma 5.4.1(3), ρ is the
closest point of C(γ ) to C(z). Since ρ is the intersection of C(γ ) with {w = ρeiθ :
|θ | < π2 }, which is the only geodesic in H containing C(z) and orthogonal to C(γ ),
the result follows by recalling that C is an isometry for the hyperbolic distance, maps
geodesics of Ω onto geodesics of H and preserves orthogonality.
Although hyperbolic projections onto geodesics are not holomorphic maps, they
do not increase the hyperbolic distance:
Proof Since the statement is invariant under isometries for the hyperbolic distance,
using a univalent map, we can assume Ω = H and the image of γ is (0, +∞). We
can write z = ρ0 eiβ0 with ρ0 > 0 and β0 ∈ (−π/2, π/2) and w = ρ1 eiβ1 with ρ1 > 0
and β1 ∈ (−π/2, π/2). By Lemma 5.4.1(3), πγ (z) = πγ (ρ0 eiβ0 ) = ρ0 and πγ (w) =
πγ (ρ1 eiβ1 ) = ρ1 . Hence the result follows immediately from Lemma 5.4.1(5).
Remark 6.5.4 Let x ∈ (0, 1) and denote by S − (respectively, S + ) the (image of the)
geodesic in D through −x (resp., x) and orthogonal to (−1, 1) at −x (resp., at x).
Let γ : R → D be a geodesic parameterized by arc length so that γ (R) = (−1, 1).
Then, as a direct consequence of Propositions 6.5.2 and 6.5.3, we have for every
z − ∈ S − and z + ∈ S + ,
The next result shows a uniform decomposition of the distance between two points
with respect to a given geodesic containing one of the points:
6.5 Hyperbolic Projections, Tangential and Orthogonal Speeds of Curves in the Disc 157
1
kΩ (x0 , πγ (z)) + kΩ (z, γ ) − log 2 ≤ kΩ (x0 , z) ≤ kΩ (x0 , πγ (z)) + kΩ (z, γ ),
2
where kΩ (z, γ ) := inf t∈R kΩ (z, γ (t)) = kΩ (z, πγ (z)).
Proof Since the statement is invariant under isometries for the hyperbolic distance,
using a univalent map, we can transfer our considerations to H, and we can assume
that γ (R) = (0, +∞) and x0 = 1.
Let z ∈ H, and write z = ρeiβ with ρ > 0 and β ∈ (−π/2, π/2). By
Lemma 5.4.1(3), πγ (ρeiβ ) = ρ. Hence, by the triangle inequality,
1 1
kH (1, ρeiβ ) ≥ kH (1, ρ) + log .
2 cos β
1 1 1
kH (1, ρeiβ ) ≥ kH (1, ρ) + log ≥ kH (1, ρ) + kH (ρ, ρeiβ ) − log 2
2 cos β 2
1
= kH (1, πγ (ρe )) + kH (γ , ρe ) − log 2,
iβ iβ
2
and we are done.
The previous proposition gives sense to the following definition and the subse-
quent remarks.
T
The tangential speed vΩ,z 0
(η; t) of η is
T
vΩ,z 0
(η; t) := kΩ (γ , η(t)).
158 6 Quasi-Geodesics and Localization
The actual orthogonal speed and tangential speed of a curve depend on the base
point chosen, but, asymptotically they do not:
Taking into account that limt→+∞ |η(t)| = +∞, a direct computation shows that
|vH,1
o
(η; t) − vH,x+i
o
y (η; t)| = |kH (1, πγ0 (η(t))) − kH (x + i y, πγ1 (η(t)))|
= |kH (1, πγ0 (η(t))) − kH (x + i y, πγ0 (η(t)))
+ kH (x + i y, πγ0 (η(t))) − kH (x + i y, πγ1 (η(t)))|
≤ kH (1, x + i y) + kH (πγ0 (η(t)), πγ1 (η(t)))
= kH (1, x + i y) + kH (|η(t)|, |η(t) − i y| + i y),
The reason for the name “tangential speed” follows from the following property:
In order to prove the other two equations, up to change η with σ η, we can assume
without loss of generality that σ = 1. Let C : D → H be the Cayley transform given
by C(z) = 1+z1−z
. For every t ≥ 0, let us write ρt eiθt := C(η(t)), with ρt > 0 and
θt ∈ (−π/2, π/2). This implies in particular, that ρt ≥ 1 for all t ≥ t0 . Then, for
t ≥ t0 we have
1
o
vD,0 (η; t) = vH,1
o
log ρt
(ρt eiθt ; t) = kH (1, ρt ) =
2
(6.5.2)
1 1 |1 + η(t)|
= log |C(η(t))◦ | = log ,
2 2 |1 − η(t)|
160 6 Quasi-Geodesics and Localization
where, the first equality follows from Remark 6.5.7(2), the second equality follows
from the definition of orthogonal speed and since the hyperbolic projection of ρt eiθt
onto the geodesic (0, +∞) is ρt by Lemma 5.4.1(3) and the third equality follows
from Lemma 5.4.1(1).
Therefore, by (6.5.2), and taking into account that for t ≥ t0 we have |1 + η(t)| ≥
1 + Re η(t) ≥ 1,
o 1
v (η; t) − 1 log 1 = log |1 + η(t)| ≤ 1 log 2.
D,0 2 |1 − η(t)| 2 2
1
ω(0, η(t)) − vD,0
o
(η; t) ≤ vD,0
T
(η; t) ≤ ω(0, η(t)) − vD,0
o
(η; t) + log 2,
2
and using the previous two inequalities for the estimates of ω(0, η(t)) and vD,0
o
(η; t),
we get the result.
Claim A: given R > 0 such that (tanh R)−1 < C, there exists an open set X ⊂ W ,
σ ∈ X , such that for every z ∈ X ∩ D the hyperbolic disc D hyp (z, R) ⊂ W ∩ D.
162 6 Quasi-Geodesics and Localization
Once Claim A is proved, it follows from Proposition 5.1.4 that for all z ∈ X ∩ D
and v ∈ C,
κW ∩D (z; v) ≤ κ D hyp (z,R) (z; v) = (tanh R)−1 κD (z; v) < CκD (z; v). (6.6.4)
By the arbitrariness of z, w, we have proved the result for the unit disc, setting
V ∗ := Φ −1 (Ỹ ∩ D), where Ỹ is any open set in C such that Ỹ ∩ D = Y .
Now, if Ω C is any simply connected domain, using a biholomorphism from
D to Ω, taking into account Theorem 4.2.3 and that biholomorphisms are isometries
for the hyperbolic metric and hyperbolic distance, we easily obtain the result from
the corresponding result for the unit disc.
Finally, if Ω is a Jordan domain, the result follows since, by Theorem 4.3.3 and
∞
Proposition 4.2.5, Ω and Ω are homeomorphic.
In this section we study hyperbolic geometry in the strip, proving some results which
will be used for localizing the hyperbolic metric and distance.
R R π(t − s)
kS R +a (a + + is, a + + it) = .
2 2 2R
The following result gives a link between the boundary behavior of a hyperbolic
holomorphic self-map of D and the geometry in the strip:
θ π θ π
lim ω(z n , φ(z n )) = kS π ( + + i, + ).
n→∞ λ λ 2λ λ 2λ
π
Proof Let L := λ
, and let S := S L − L2 . Fix θ ∈ (−π/2, π/2) and let θ̃ := λθ . Note
that
θ L θ L
kS L ( + + i, + ) = k S (θ̃ + i, θ̃ ).
λ 2 λ 2
Let
L 1+z
g(z) := i log , z ∈ D.
π 1−z
In particular,
⎛ ⎞
−1
1 1 + T −1
g (θ̃) (g ( θ̃ + i))
−1 −1
k S (θ̃ , θ̃ + i) = ω(g (θ̃), g (θ̃ + i)) = log ⎝ ⎠ .
2
1 − Tg−1 (θ̃) (g −1 (θ̃ + i))
164 6 Quasi-Geodesics and Localization
Moreover
g −1 (θ̃ ) − g −1 (θ̃ + i)
Tg−1 (θ̃) (g −1 (θ̃ + i)) =
1 − g −1 (θ̃ )g −1 (θ̃ + i)
2e−i πL θ̃ − 2e−i πL θ̃ e πL 1 − e− L
π
= =
2ei πL θ̃ + 2e−i πL θ̃ e πL |e−2 πL θ̃i + e− πL |
1 − e−λ
= .
|e−2θi+ e−λ |
Hence,
1 e−λ + e−2iθ + e−λ − 1
k S (θ̃, θ̃ + it) = log −λ . (6.7.1)
2 e + e−2iθ − e−λ − 1
Remark 6.7.4 From (6.7.1), it follows immediately that if a, b ∈ (−π/2, π/2) and
a π a π b π b π
kS π ( + + i, + ) = kS π ( + + i, + ),
λ λ 2λ λ 2λ λ λ 2λ λ 2λ
then a = ±b.
In this section we prove some localization results which will be used in the study of
the slope of convergence of orbits of semigroups.
Then, for all c > 1 and M > 0, there exists R > M such that for all p ∈ D, we have
+1
. Hence, D hyp (0, R) = {z ∈ D : |z| < m(R)}, and f : D →
D (0, R) given by f (z) = m(R)z is a biholomorphism. Then for every z, w ∈
hyp
where the limit is uniform on compacta. Therefore, given c > 1 and M > 0 there
exists R = R(c, M) > 0 such that
Fix c > 1. By Lemma 6.8.1 and since the Riemann mappings are an isometries for
the hyperbolic distance, there exists A > M such that, for all z, w ∈ K ,
hyp hyp
Since DS R (x0 , A) ⊂ S R , we can find r ∈ (T, R) such that DS R (x0 , A) ⊂ Sr . There-
fore, by (6.8.1) for all z, w ∈ K ,
Proposition 6.8.3 For every c > 1 there exists D = D(c) > 0, such that for every
R > 0, a, b ∈ R,
κΩa,b,R (z; v) ≤ κS R +a (z; v) ≤ cκΩa,b,R (z; v)
Proof The inequalities on the left hand side follow from Proposition 5.1.4 and
Remark 1.3.11, since S R + a ⊂ Ωa,b,R .
Assume now R = 1, a = b = 0 and let Ω := Ω0,0,1 .
For n ∈ N0 let Cn := {ζ ∈ C : 0 ≤ Re ζ ≤ 1, Im ζ = −n}. Clearly, (Cn ) is a null
defined
chain in Ω, which represents a prime end x of Ω. Let S∗ be the open set in Ω
by S (see Sect. 4.2). Hence, S∗ is an open neighborhood of x, since, by construction,
the interior part of Cn belongs to S for all n ≥ 1. Moreover, S∗ ∩ Ω = S, which is
simply connected. Therefore, we can apply Theorem 6.6.3 to x and S∗ and come up
with an open set V ∗ ⊂ S∗ in Ω which contains x and such that
The next localization result is similar to the previous one, and localizes the hyper-
bolic metric in a semi-strip contained in a strip. We start with a definition:
Proposition 6.8.5 For every c > 1 there exists D = D(c) > 0, such that for every
R > 0, a, M ∈ R, we have
Proof The proof is similar to the proof of Proposition 6.8.3. We first prove the result
for a = M = 0 and R = 1 and then, exactly as in the proof of Proposition 6.8.3, we
rescale using the transformation z → Rz + a + i M to handle the general case.
Suppose a = M = 0 and R = 1. For n ∈ N0 let Cn := {ζ ∈ C : 0 ≤ Re ζ ≤
1, Im ζ = n}. Clearly, (Cn ) is a null chain in S, which represents a prime end x
of S. Let (S01 )∗ be the open set in S defined by S01 (see Sect. 4.2). Hence, (S01 )∗ is
an open neighborhood of x, since, by construction, the interior part of Cn belongs
to S01 for all n ≥ 1. Moreover, (S01 )∗ ∩ S = S01 , which is simply connected. There-
fore, we can apply Theorem 6.6.3 to x and (S01 )∗ and come up with an open set
V ∗ ⊂ (S01 )∗ in S which contains x and such that κS MR +a (z; v) ≤ cκS R +a (z; v) and
kS MR +a (z, w) ≤ ckS R +a (z, w) hold for all z, w ∈ V := V ∗ ∩ S and v ∈ C. Note that
since V ∗ is an open neighborhood of x, by Remark 4.2.2, there exists n 0 ∈ N such
that the interior part of Cn is contained in V for all n ≥ n 0 . In particular, the estimate
hold with D = n 0 + 1.
The next localization result we need is a sort of converse of the previous one: we
choose the part we want to localize and come up with a constant for the localization.
Proposition 6.8.6 For every E > 0 there exists c = c (E) > 1 such that for every
a ∈ R, M ∈ R and R > 0, we have
Proof The left-hand side estimates follow immediately from Proposition 5.1.4 and
Remark 1.3.11.
In order to prove the right-hand side estimates, arguing as in Proposition 6.8.3, it
is enough to prove the result for R = 1, a = 0, M = 0 and then use the affine map
z → R1 (z − a − i M) to pass to the general case.
Fix E > 0. Let K := {z ∈ C : E ≤ Re z ≤ 1 − E, E ≤ Im z ≤ 1} (possibly K is
empty if E > 1). For z ∈ S01 such that Im z ≥ E and z ∈ / K , we have δS01 (z) = δS1 (z),
hence, from Theorem 5.2.2,
|v| |v|
κS01 (z; v) ≤ =2 ≤ 2κS1 (z; v).
δS01 (z) 2δS1 (z)
|v|Q |v|Q Q
κS01 (z; v) = |v|κS01 (z; 1) ≤ q≤ κS1 (z; 1) = κS1 (z; v).
q q q
6.9 Notes
In this chapter we introduce the last two tools we need in our study of semigroups
throughout the book. The first one comes from potential theory: the harmonic measure
of a simply connected domain in C related to a subset of its boundary. The second
one is the notion of Bloch function and related maximum principles and distortion
theorems.
Proof We may assume that Ω is bounded. If this is not the case, fix z 0 ∈ / Ω. Then
the map Ω z → f (z) := 1/(z − z 0 ) maps Ω into a bounded domain and we may
replace Ω with f (Ω) and u by u ◦ f .
If (7.1.1) holds for all ζ ∈ ∂Ω, then the result is nothing but the ordinary Maximum
Principle for harmonic functions. Write F = {ζ1 , ζ2 , . . . , ζ N }, take ε > 0 and let
N
diamE (Ω)
u ε (z) = u(z) − ε log , z ∈ Ω.
j=1
|z − ζ j |
Then u ε is harmonic on Ω and, since u is bounded from above, lim supz→ζ u ε (z) ≤ 0
for all ζ ∈ ∂Ω. Therefore, u ε ≤ 0 for all ε,
N
diamE (Ω)
u(z) ≤ lim ε log = 0, z ∈ Ω,
ε→0
j=1
|z − ζ j |
then u = v on Ω.
Now we can introduce the notion of harmonic measure and state its first properties.
Definition 7.1.3 Let A be a Borel set in ∂D. The harmonic measure1 of A at z ∈ D
is defined by
1 2π
1 − |z|2
μ(z, A, D) := P[χ A ](z) = χ A (eiθ )dθ,
2π 0 |eiθ − z|2
lim μ(z, A, D) = 0, ζ ∈ ∂D \ A.
z→ζ
1 Harmonic measure is usually denoted by ω(z, A, D). Since in this book we denote by ω(z, w) the
hyperbolic distance in D between z, w ∈ D, in order to avoid misunderstandings, we prefer to use
a less standard notation for the harmonic measure.
7.1 Harmonic Measures in the Unit Disc 173
1 − |T (z)|2 1 − |z|2
|T (ζ )| = , z ∈ D, ζ ∈ ∂D.
|T (ζ ) − T (z)|2 |ζ − z|2
Remark 7.1.5 Due to the previous proposition, given A ⊂ ∂D a Borel set and z ∈ D,
the harmonic measure μ(z, A, D) can be interpreted as the probability that one can
hit A starting from z with a random path.
E
Example 7.1.6 Let A be an arc in ∂D and z ∈ D. Denote by (A) the Euclidean
length of A. Then
2π
1 1 E
μ(0, A, D) = χ A (eiθ )dθ = (A). (7.1.2)
2π 0 2π
If θ0 ∈ (0, π ] and A ⊂ ∂D is the arc in the upper half-plane with end points 1 and
eiθ0 , then
iθ0
1 E θ0 1 |e − 1|
μ(0, A, D) = (A) = = arcsin . (7.1.3)
2π 2π π 2
In addition if B is the arc in ∂D with end points e−iθ0 and eiθ0 and containing 1, then
θ0
μ(0, B, D) = μ(0, A, D) + μ(0, A, D) = ,
π
1 E
μ(z, A, D) = μ(0, T (A), D) = (T (A)).
2π
174 7 Harmonic Measures and Bloch Functions
where, as usual throughout the book, Arg(z) denotes the principal argument of z.
Indeed, note that the Cayley transform C(z) = 1+z maps ∂D− onto −i[0, ∞) ∪
1−z
{∞}. Hence, the function v(z) := π1 π2 − Arg 1+z 1−z
is harmonic in the unit disc,
lim z→ζ v(z) = 1 for all ζ ∈ ∂D− \ {−1, 1} and lim z→ζ v(z) = 0 for all ζ ∈ ∂D \
∂D+ . Thus, by Propositions 7.1.4(2) and 7.1.2, μ(z, ∂D− , D) = v(z) for all z.
Proposition 7.1.8 Let φ : D → D be holomorphic and let A, B ⊂ ∂D be Borel sets.
If φ(ζ ) := ∠ lim z→ζ φ(z) ∈ B for almost every ζ ∈ A, then
By hypothesis, there exists a Borel set M of measure zero such that φ(ζ ) exists
for every ζ ∈ A \ M and φ(ζ ) ∈ B. Thus, up to removing a Borel set of measure
zero, we may assume that φ(ζ ) exists for all ζ ∈ A and φ(A) ⊂ B. Let V be any
open subset of ∂D such that B ⊂ V . Then z → μ(z, V, D) is continuous on D ∪ V
by Proposition 7.1.4. The function u(z) := μ(φ(z), V, D) is harmonic in D and
0 ≤ u ≤ 1. By Proposition 1.6.8, there exists the radial limit u ∗ (ζ ) := limr →1 u(r ζ )
for almost every ζ ∈ D and, for all z ∈ D,
1 2π
1 − |z|2 ∗ iθ
u(z) = u (e )dθ, z ∈ D.
2π 0 |eiθ − z|2
1
μ(x, A, D) = .
2
Moreover, let D ⊂ D be the bounded component of C \ {A ∪ S}. Then, for every
z ∈ D,
1
μ(z, A, D) > ,
2
1
μ(t, Ix+ , D) = μ(t, Ix− , D) > .
6
Proof Denote by A x the closed arc in ∂D containing 1 and with end points a and a.
Since t is real,
μ(t, Ix+ , D) = μ(t, Ix+ , D) = μ(t, Ix− , D).
176 7 Harmonic Measures and Bloch Functions
Now suppose 0 ≤ t < x (the argument for −x < t < 0 is similar). Recall that S
is a geodesic in D. Hence, by Lemma 7.1.10,
1
μ(t, A x , D) < . (7.1.6)
2
E
(A x )
μ(t, −A x , D) = μ(0, T (−A x ), D) < μ(0, −A x , D) = . (7.1.7)
2π
1
μ(t, Ix+ , D) = (1 − μ(t, A x , D) − μ(t, −A x , D))
2
E
1 1 (A x ) 1 1 π/3 1
> 1− − ≥ − = ,
2 2 2π 2 2 2π 6
√
E
where the penultimate inequality follows since x > 2
3
= cos(π/6) and (A x ) ≤
E
(A √3 ) = π/3.
2
is Borel.
Remark 7.2.1 Notice that by Lehto-Virtanen’s Theorem 3.3.1, the set f −1 (A)
defined in (7.2.1) coincides with
It follows from Proposition 7.1.4(4) that this definition does not depend on the
choice of the univalent function f mapping D onto Ω.
Proof (1) and (2) follow immediately from Proposition 7.1.4 and the very definition
of harmonic measure.
(3) If Ω is a Jordan domain, by Theorem 4.3.3, the Riemann map g : D → Ω
extends as a homeomorphism. Moreover, f ◦ g : D → Ω̃ is a Riemann map. Hence,
by definition of harmonic measure,
while,
μ(z, f −1 (B), Ω) = μ(g −1 (z), g −1 ( f −1 (B)), D).
Example 7.2.4 Let Ω = {z ∈ D : Im z > 0}. We want to compute μ(z, [−1, 1], Ω).
Let C(z) = 1+z
1−z
be the Cayley transform with respect to 1. It maps the unit disc onto
the right half-plane. A simple computation shows that C(Ω) = {w ∈ C : Re w >
0, Im w > 0} and C([−1, 1]) = [0, +∞) ∪ {∞}. Hence, Ω z → −iC(z)2 ∈ H is
a biholomorphism from Ω onto H which maps [−1, 1] onto −i[0, +∞) ∪ {∞}.
Therefore, k(z) := C −1 (−iC 2 (z)) is a univalent function from Ω onto D which maps
[−1, 1] onto ∂D− . Thus, by Proposition 7.2.3(3) and Example 7.1.7, for z ∈ Ω,
Example 7.2.5 Fix R > 0 and the let Γ1 := {is : s ≥ R} and Γ2 := {is : |s| ≥ R}.
The map H w → w−1 w+1
sends conformally H onto D and Γ1 onto the arc A in ∂D
i R−1
that joins 1 with 1+i R in the upper half-plane. Hence, by Proposition 7.2.3(3) and
Example 7.1.6
1 iR −1
μ(1, Γ1 , H) = μ(0, A, D) = Arg .
2π 1+iR
Notice that π μ(w, (a, b), Ω) measures the angle between the segments [w, a] and
[w, b] (see Fig. 7.2).
Moreover, since μ(w, ·, Ω) is a probability measure,
1 w−b
μ(w, R \ (a, b), Ω) = 1 − Arg , for all w ∈ Ω. (7.2.3)
π w−a
1
μ(w, (−∞, a], Ω) = Arg(w − a), for all w ∈ Ω,
π (7.2.4)
1
μ(w, [a, +∞), Ω) = 1 − Arg(w − a), for all w ∈ Ω.
π
Using the previous example one can characterize the angle of convergence of a
sequence to a boundary point in terms of harmonic measures:
Proposition 7.2.7 Let σ ∈ ∂D and ξ ∈ ∂D \ {σ }. Let J + be the open arc in ∂D that
goes clockwise from ξ to σ and let J − = ∂D \ J + be the open arc in ∂D that goes
counterclockwise from ξ to σ . Let {z n } be a sequence in D converging to σ . Let
k ∈ (0, 1). Then the following are equivalent:
(1) limn→∞ Arg(1 − σ z n ) = π k − π2 ,
(2) limn→∞ μ(z n , J + , D) = 1 − k,
(2) limn→∞ μ(z n , J − , D) = k.
Proof The Möbius transformation T (z) := i ξξ +z−z
is a biholomorphism from D onto
Ω := {w ∈ C : Im w > 0} and T (J + ) = (a, +∞), T (J − ) = (−∞, a), where a :=
T (σ ).
Since T is conformal at σ , we see that limn→∞ Arg(1 − σ z n ) = π k − π2 for some
0 < k < 1 if and only if limn→∞ Arg(T (z n ) − a) = π k. Indeed, if 1 − σ z n = ρn eiθn ,
with limn→∞ ρn = 0 and limn→∞ θn = θ := π k − π2 , then
Thus
Arg(T (z n ) − a) = Arg ieiθn 2 − 2Re (ξ σ ) − ρn e−iθn (1 − σ ξ )
This implies that the points of ∂D in the first quadrant {w ∈ C : Re w > 0, Im w > 0}
are mapped to the segment (0, 1), the points of r ∂D, with r > 1, in the first quadrant
are mapped to the arc of the ellipse
x2 y2
+ =1
(2 (r + 1/r )) 1/2
(2 (r − 1/r ))1/2
in the first quadrant and, finally, the points of r ∂D, with 0 < r < 1, in the first quad-
rant are mapped to the arc of the same ellipse in the fourth quadrant. Thus, J maps con-
182 7 Harmonic Measures and Bloch Functions
formally the first quadrant onto H \ [1, +∞). In addition, J ((0, +∞)) = [1, +∞)
and J ((0, +∞)i) = iR. Therefore, composing J with the principal branch of the
square root we see that the function H (w) = 21 w1/2 + w11/2 sends conformally the
upper-half plane onto H \ [1, +∞), H ((0, +∞)) = (1, +∞) and H ((−∞, 0)) =
iR. Thus, using (7.2.4) and the conformal invariance of harmonic measures, we
deduce that, for all w ∈ H \ [1, +∞),
μ(w, [1, +∞), H \ [1, +∞)) = μ(H −1 (w), [0, +∞), {z ∈ C : Im z > 0})
1
= 1 − Arg H −1 (w) .
π
(7.2.5)
If we take 0 < x < 1, then H −1 (x) = ei2 arccos(x) and
1
μ(x, [1, +∞), H \ [1, +∞)) = 1 − Arg H −1 (x)
π (7.2.6)
2 2
= 1 − arccos(x) = arcsin(x).
π π
Example 7.2.9 Let λ > 0 and consider the strip Sπ/λ and the arc Γ = i[R, +∞) for
some R ∈ R. The map w → exp (iλw) sends conformally Sπ/λ onto the upper half-
plane and Γ onto the segment (0, e−λR ]. Therefore, from (7.2.2) and since harmonic
measures are conformal invariant,
μ(z, A, Ω1 ) ≤ μ(z, A, Ω2 ), z ∈ Ω1 .
In the sequel we need the following topological fact, whose proof is based, as the
proof of Jordan’s Theorem, on Janiszewski’s Theorem (see, e.g. [105, p. 31]):
and
μ( f (z), Γ˜ ∩ Ω̃, Ω̃ \ Γ˜ ) = μ(g̃ −1 ( f (z)), g̃ −1 (Γ˜ ∩ Ω̃), D)
= μ(g −1 (z), ( f ◦ g)−1 (Γ˜ ∩ Ω̃), D).
Now, we can state and prove a basic result about harmonic measures which we
need in our study:
1 1 |ζ − 1|
μ(0, Γ, D \ Γ ) > μ(0, Γ , D \ Γ ) > μ(0, γ , D) > arcsin . (7.2.9)
2 π 2
Proof We assume that Im ζ ≥ 0, the other case being similar. Let us start by showing
that μ(0, Γ, D \ Γ ) > 21 μ(0, Γ , D \ Γ ). Let λ := 1−ζ
ζ −1
and f (z) := λTζ (z), z ∈ D,
ζ −z
where Tζ is the automorphism of the unit disc Tζ (z) := 1−ζ z
, z ∈ D. Note that f ∈
Aut(D), f (1) = 1 and f (ζ ) = 0. Let Γ1 := f (Γ ). Note that Γ1 is a Jordan arc
connecting 0 to 1. Let β1 = f (0). By Lemma 7.2.12,
μ(0, Γ, D \ Γ ) = μ(β1 , Γ1 , D \ Γ1 ).
Since D \ Γ1 is simply connected by Theorem 7.2.11 and does not contain 0, one can
define a holomorphic branch g of the square root in D \ Γ1 , in such a way that g(∂D \
{1}) = ∂D+ := ∂D ∩ {w ∈ C : Im w > 0}. Therefore, k := g ◦ f : D \ Γ → C is a
univalent map such that ∂k(D \ Γ ) is the union of ∂D+ and a Jordan arc Γ2 passing
through −1, 0, 1. In particular, k(D \ Γ ) is a Jordan domain and (k −1 )−1 (Γ ) = Γ2
in the sense of Proposition 7.2.3(3). Moreover, by definition, k 2 (z) = f (z) for all
z ∈ D\Γ.
Let ∂D− := {w ∈ ∂D : Im w ≤ 0} and β2 = k(0). Notice that β22 = f (0). Then,
by Proposition 7.2.3(3) (applied to k −1 : k(D \ Γ ) → D \ Γ ), we have
Moreover, taking into account that μ(β2 , ·, k(D \ Γ )) is a probability measure and
Proposition 7.2.10, we have
where the last equality follows from Example 7.2.4. Therefore, again by Exam-
ple 7.1.7,
− 1 π 1 + β2 1
μ(β2 , ∂D , D) = − Arg = μ(β2 , [−1, 1], Ω)
π 2 1 − β2 2
1
= μ(0, Γ , D \ Γ ).
2
1 1
μ(1, γ1 , H) = μ(i, (0, r ), iH) = Arg(1 + ir ) = arctan(r ).
π π
r 1 1/2 iα
+ i tan(φ) = ρ e + ρ −1/2 e−iα ,
cos(φ) 2
r
we deduce that cos(φ) = 21 cos(α)(ρ 1/2 + ρ −1/2 ) and tan(φ) = 1
2
sin(α)(ρ 1/2 − ρ −1/2 ).
Therefore, a simple calculation shows
r2 tan2 (φ)
− =1
cos2 (φ) cos2 (α) sin2 (α)
and
cos2 (α) 2
r2 = sin (φ) + cos2 (α) cos2 (φ)
sin2 (α)
cos2 (α) 2
= sin (φ) + sin2 (α) cos2 (φ) < cot 2 (α),
sin (α)
2
Reiθ +1
, with θ ∈ (−π/2, π/2). Now, there is
−1
θ ∈ (−π/2, π/2) such that ζ = C̃ (Re ) and, taking into account that C̃(ζ̃ ) = Ri,
iθ
we have
4 4
|ζ − 1|2 = = 2
|Re + 1|
iθ 2 R + 2R cos(θ ) + 1
4
< 2 = |ζ̃ − 1|2 ,
R +1
We devote this section to the so-called Bloch functions, a large family of holomorphic
maps from the unit disc into C satisfying non-trivial maximum and minimum prin-
ciples. As a byproduct of such principles, Bloch functions satisfy a Lehto-Virtanen
type Theorem and nice estimates of the diameters of the curves in the image.
Definition 7.3.1 A holomorphic function f : D → C is a Bloch function if
Note that · B defines a seminorm and Bloch functions form a Banach space B
where the norm is given by | f (0)| + f B .
188 7 Harmonic Measures and Bloch Functions
f ◦ T B = f B .
1−|T (z)|2
Proof By Proposition 1.2.2, |T (z)| = 1−|z|2
. Therefore
Therefore
log( f − a)B ≤ 4,
Proposition
7.3.4 Let f : D → C be univalent,
a∈/ f (D) and ξ ∈ ∂D. Then, z →
f (z)−a f (z)−a
log z−ξ is a Bloch function and log z−ξ B ≤ 8.
f (z)
(1 − |z|2 ) − 2z ≤ 4.
f (z)
Therefore
log f B ≤ 6,
Then:
(1) If there exists a ≥ ec such that | f (z)| ≥ a, for all z ∈ ∂G \ C, then | f (z)| ≥ ae ,
for all z ∈ G.
(2) If there exists 0 < a ≤ c such that | f (z)| ≤ a, for all z ∈ ∂G \ C, then
2c
| f (z)| ≤ , for all z ∈ G.
log(c/a) + 1
Proof We can assume that f is not constant, for otherwise the result is trivially true.
We may also assume that C intersects ∂D at the points ±i and G is contained
in the connected component of D \ C whose closure contains 1. Indeed, let M be
an automorphism of the unit disc which maps the two points of C ∩ ∂D to ±i (see
Proposition 1.2.2). Hence, M(C) is a circle or a line intersecting ∂D at ±i and
divides D into two connected components, call U the one whose closure contains
1. If M(G) ⊂ U , we replace f with f ◦ M −1 . If M(G) ⊂ D \ U , we replace f (z)
with f ((M −1 (−z))), z ∈ D. Since M preserves angles and the Bloch semi-norm by
Proposition 7.3.2, there is no loss of generality in making the previous assumption.
Now, let T : D → H be the Cayley transform T (z) := 1+i z
1−i z
. Note that T maps i
to 0 and −i to ∞ and T ((−1, 1)) = {eiθ : θ ∈ (−π/2, π/2)}.
Also, given θ ∈ (0, π ), denote by C(θ ) the unique circle or line intersecting ∂D
at ±i such that the angle formed by C(θ ) and ∂D in the connected component of
D \ C(θ ) whose closure contains 1 is θ . Then, T (C(θ )) = {ρei(π/2−θ) : ρ > 0}.
In particular, if we define u : D → (0, π ) as
π
u(z) = − Arg(T (z)),
2
it follows that u is harmonic and u(z) = θ for all z ∈ C(θ ) and θ ∈ (0, π ). Moreover,
π 2x π
u(x) = − arctg = − 2arctg(x), x ∈ (−1, 1).
2 1−x 2 2
Note also that for every θ ∈ (0, π ) there exists a unique x(θ ) ∈ (−1, 1) such that
C(θ ) ∩ (−1, 1) = {x(θ )}. Since u(x(θ )) = θ , it follows that
π 1 + i x(θ ) 1 + i x(θ )
sin θ = sin − Arg = cos Arg
2 1 − i x(θ ) 1 − i x(θ )
(7.3.1)
1 + i x(θ ) 1 − x(θ ) 2
= Re = .
1 − i x(θ ) 1 + x(θ )2
Finally, note that, given any θ ∈ (0, π ) and z 0 ∈ C(θ ), there exists an automorphism
Q z0 ,θ of D such that Q z0 ,θ (±i) = ±i, Q z0 ,θ (z) = x(θ ) and Q z0 ,θ (C(η)) = C(η) for
all η ∈ (0, π ). In fact, Q z0 ,θ (w) := T −1 ( |z10 | T (w)).
Moreover, consider the strictly increasing function
x
ϕ(x) := x log , x ∈ [a/e, +∞).
a
Note that ϕ(a/e) = −a/e and ϕ(a) = 0. Since lim x→+∞ ϕ(x) = +∞ and c > 0,
there exists b > a such that ϕ(b) = c. Moreover, since a ≥ ec, there exists b∗ ∈
[a/e, a) such that ϕ(b∗ ) = −c.
With all these preliminary considerations at hand, we can now prove (1). By
hypothesis, | f (z)| ≥ a for all z ∈ ∂G \ C. Since b∗ ≥ a/e, it is enough to check that
| f (z)| ≥ b∗ , for z ∈ G.
7.3 Bloch Functions 191
Assume this is not the case. Hence, there exists z ∈ G such that | f (z)| < b∗ .
Since by hypothesis | f (z)| ≥ a > b∗ on ∂G \ C, it follows that the compact set
K b∗ := {z ∈ G : | f (z)| = b∗ } is non-empty and K b∗ ∩ G = ∅. Let z 0 ∈ K b∗ be such
that γ := u(z 0 ) ≤ u(z) for all z ∈ K b∗ . Since K b∗ ∩ G = ∅, we have 0 < γ < γ .
Moreover, up to replace f with f ◦ Q −1 z 0 ,γ (as we remarked at the beginning of the
proof, composition with automorphisms does not change angles and the Bloch norm),
we can assume that x0 := z 0 ∈ (−1, 1). Note that x0 ∈ G because | f (x)| > b∗ for
all x ∈ (−1, 1) ∩ (∂G \ C).
Let C := C(γ ). The curve C divides D into two connected components. Call
U r the one whose closure contains 1 and let G := G ∩ U r .
By definition of x0 , we have that | f (z)| > b∗ for all z ∈ G . Let Z := {z ∈ D :
f (z) = 0}. Note that Z ∩ G = ∅. Let v : G → R be defined by
cu(z)
v(z) := + log | f (z)|.
b∗ γ
cu(z) −ϕ(b∗ )
v(z) = + log | f (z)| ≥ + log b∗ = log a.
b∗ γ b∗
Therefore, v(z) ≥ log a = v(x0 ) for all z ∈ G . Since x0 ∈ G, there exists δ > 0
such that (x0 , x0 + δ) ⊂ G . Thus, v(x) ≥ log a = v(x0 ) for all x0 < x < x0 + δ and
hence v (x0 ) ≥ 0. Then
2c 1 f (x0 ) 2c 1 f B
0 ≤ v (x0 ) = − ∗
+ Re ≤− ∗
+ .
b γ 1 + x02 f (x0 ) b γ 1 + x0
2
(1 − x02 )b∗
γ f B γ 1 + x02 γ f B
= c ≤ f B =
2 sin(γ ) 2 1 − x02 2 sin(γ )
Taking into account that a ≤ c, it follows that the right-hand side is positive and,
therefore, it is enough to check that | f (z)| ≤ b, for z ∈ G.
Assume by contradiction this is not the case. Arguing as before, we find 0 < γ <
γ and x0 ∈ G ∩ (−1, 1) ∩ C(γ ) with the following properties. Let C := C(γ ).
The curve C divides D into two connected components. Call U r the one whose
closure contains 1 and let G := G ∩ U r . Then | f (x0 )| = b and | f (z)| ≤ b for all
z∈G.
Let Z := {z ∈ D : f (z) = 0} and let
cu(z)
v∗ (z) := − + log | f (z)|.
bγ
cu(z) c
v(z) = − log | f (z)| ≥ − log b = − log a.
bγ b
γ f B γ 1 + x02 γ f B
= c ≤ f B = ,
2 sin(γ ) 2 1 − x02 2 sin(γ )
which contradicts γ < γ , since the function x/ sin(x) is strictly increasing in (0, π ).
Finally, in order to prove (3), we can assume c > 0 (the case c = 0 corresponds
to f constant). Let z ∈ G ∩ D and suppose that dist( f (z), f (∂G \ C)) > ec. Then
| f (z) − f (ξ )| ≥ ec, for all ξ ∈ ∂G \ C. Hence, by (1), | f (z) − f (ξ )| ≥ c > 0 for
all ξ ∈ G ∩ D, contradicting z ∈ G ∩ D.
7.3 Bloch Functions 193
Then:
(1) If there exists a > ec such that | f (z)| ≥ a, for all z ∈ ∂G \ C, then | f (z)| ≥ ae ,
for all z ∈ G \ {ξ1 , ξ2 }.
(2) If there exists 0 < a < c such that | f (z)| ≤ a, for all z ∈ ∂G \ C, then
2c
| f (z)| ≤ , for all z ∈ G \ {ξ1 , ξ2 }.
log(c/a) + 1
f B
| f (r ξ ) − f (0)| ≤ 4π e E (I )
, for 0 < r < 1.
Proof We can assume f is not constant, otherwise the result is trivially true. Up to
replace f (z) with ( f (z) − f (0))/ f B , z ∈ D, we can assume that f (0) = 0 and
f B = 1.
Suppose initially that E (I ) < π . Pre-composing f with a rotation if necessary,
and by Proposition 7.3.2, we may additionally assume that I is the closed arc between
eiθ and e−iθ passing through 1, for some θ ∈ (0, π/2).
194 7 Harmonic Measures and Bloch Functions
Let C be the circle passing through eiθ , e−iθ and 0. Let W be the connected
component of D \ C whose closure contains I and let γ be the angle formed by C
and ∂D at e±iθ in W . Note that γ = π − θ .
Let a := eπ
2θ
> 0 and let G be the connected component of U := {z ∈ W ∩ D :
| f (z)| < a} which contains (0, ε) for some small ε > 0 (recall that f (0) = 0). Let
A := ∂G \ C.
We claim that I ∩ ∂G = ∅. Since
π π −θ
≥ ,
θ sin(π − θ )
γ
we find a ≥ e 2 sin(γ )
. If the claim is false, ∂G ⊂ D and | f (z)| ≥ a, for all z ∈ A.
Therefore, by Theorem 7.3.6(1), | f (r )| ≥ ae , for r ∈ (0, ε). Since f (0) = 0, we
have a contradiction.
Therefore, there exists a sequence {z n } ⊂ G such that limn→∞ z n =: ξ ∈ I ∩ ∂G.
Fix r ∈ (0, 1). Fix n ∈ N. If r z n ∈ G, then
eπ eπ
| f (r z n )| ≤ a = = E
.
2θ (I )
and
t1 := min{t ∈ [0, 1] : γ (t) = uz n , u ∈ (r, 1]}.
2eπ 4eπ
| f (r ξ )| ≤ E (J )
= E ,
(I )
where Ω := f (D), Ix is any of the two closed arcs in ∂D, with Ix ∩ R = ∅, deter-
mined by the closure of the geodesic through −x and x orthogonal to R, and z
belongs to the geodesic in D determined by t and ξ (see Fig. 7.5).
Proof Fix x. Let J be a closed arc in ∂D and g : D → C a univalent map. Recall that,
by Example 7.1.6, 2π μ(0, J, D) = E (J ). By Proposition 7.3.5 and Theorem 7.3.8,
there exists ξ ∈ J such that, for every 0 < s < 1
|g (sξ )| g (sξ )
log ≤ log = | log g (sξ ) − log g (0)|
|g (0)| g (0)
4π e · 6 12π e
≤ = .
2π μ(0, J, D) μ(0, J, D)
Since the same inequality holds trivially if |g (sξ )| ≤ |g (0)|, by Theorem 3.4.9 we
have for all r ∈ (0, 1)
A similar argument holds for |Im g(r ξ ) − Im g(0)|, hence, for all r ∈ (0, 1),
√ 12π e
|g(r ξ ) − g(0)| ≤ 4 2δg(D) (g(0)) exp . (7.3.2)
μ(0, J, D)
Now, consider t ∈ (−x, x) and let Ix be the corresponding arc in the upper half-
plane (the other case is similar). Moreover, let T be an automorphism of the disc
such that T (0) = t. Applying the previous result to g := f ◦ T and J := T −1 (Ix ),
we find a point ξt, f := ξ ∈ J such that (7.3.2) holds for all r ∈ (0, 1). Hence, by
Proposition 7.1.4 and Theorem 7.1.11,
√ 12π e
|( f ◦ T )(r ξt, f ) − ( f ◦ T )(0)| ≤ 4 2δ( f ◦T )(D) (( f ◦ T )(0)) exp
μ(0, J, D)
√ 12π e
= 4 2δΩ ( f (t)) exp
μ(t, Ix , D)
√
≤ δΩ ( f (t))4 2 exp (12π e · 6) .
Since {T (r ξt, f ) : r ∈ (0, 1)}√is the geodesic in D which joins t and T (ξt, f ) ∈ Ix , we
are done by taking K 1 := 4 2 exp (72π e) and ξ := T (ξt, f ).
Now we are ready to show that every asymptotic value of a Bloch function is
taken as non-tangential limit at a suitable boundary point.
Theorem 7.3.10 Let Γ : [a, b] → C be a Jordan arc such that Γ ([a, b)) ⊂ D and
ξ := limt→b Γ (t) ∈ ∂D. If f : D → C is a Bloch function and L := limt→b f (Γ (t))
∈ C∞ exists, then ∠ lim z→ξ f (z) = L.
Proof We can assume f is not constant, for otherwise the result is trivially true.
We first deal with the case L = ∞. Up to pre-composing f with a rotation and
by Proposition 7.3.2, we assume ξ = 1.
If C is a circle which is the boundary of a Euclidean disc D, and C intersects ∂D
at two different points, we let Dom(C) := D ∩ D.
For θ ∈ (0, π/2) and γ ∈ (π/2, π ), we denote by C + (θ, γ ) (respectively
C (θ, γ )) the circle passing through 1 and eiθ (resp. 1 and e−iθ ) and forming with
−
∂D in those two points an angle γ in Dom(C + (θ, γ )) (respect., in Dom(C − (θ, γ ))).
Let Dom± (θ, γ ) := Dom(C ± (θ, γ )) and
For any R > 0, there exists γ ∈ (π/2, π ) with the property that for every θ ∈
(0, π/2) there is δ > 0 such that
Therefore, in order to prove the result it is enough to show that for every γ ∈ (π/2, π )
and ε > 0 there exists θ ∈ (0, π/2) such that | f (z) − L| < ε for all z ∈ Dom(θ, γ ).
γ
Fix γ ∈ (π/2, π ) and ε > 0. Since c := 2 sin(γ )
f − LB > 0, we can take 0 <
ε1 < min{c, ε} such that
2c
< ε.
1 + log εc1
Now, consider θ ∈ (0, π/2) close enough to 0 so that there exists a1 ∈ (a, b) with
and
Γ (a1 ) ∈ ∂Ω(θ, γ ).
Dom(θ, γ ) ⊂ G + ∪ G − ∪ Γ ∗ .
2c
| f (z) − L| ≤ < ε.
1 + log c
ε1
The case L = ∞ can be handled in a similar way using statement (1) in Corol-
lary 7.3.7 instead of (2).
As a direct consequence of Proposition 7.3.4 and Theorem 7.3.10 we have:
Corollary 7.3.11 Let f : D → C be univalent, ξ ∈ ∂D and a ∈
/ f (D). If there exist
a Jordan arc Γ : [a, b] → C such that Γ ([a, b)) ⊂ D and ξ = limt→b Γ (t), and
L ∈ C∞ with
f (Γ (t)) − a
L = lim ,
t→b Γ (t) − ξ
then
f (z) − a
L = ∠ lim .
z→ξ z−ξ
In this section we prove some distortion theorems for univalent functions related to
diameters of Jordan arcs.
Given x ∈ (−1, 1), let us denote by Sx the (only) geodesic containing x and
orthogonal to (−1, 1) at x.
Theorem√7.4.1 There exists a universal constant K 2 > 0 with the following prop-
erty. Let 23 < x < 1, and let C be a Jordan arc in D with end points z − ∈ S−x and
z + ∈ Sx . If f : D → C is univalent then
1
tanh(ω(z − , z + ))(1 − |z + |2 )| f (z + )| ≤ | f (z − ) − f (z + )| ≤ ρ.
4
A direct computation shows that ω(−x, x) ≥ 1. It follows then by Remark 6.5.4
that ω(z − , z + ) ≥ 1. Therefore, tanh(ω(z − , z + )) ≥ tanh 1 = ee2 −1
2
+1
. Thus, the previous
inequality implies
4(e2 + 1)
(1 − |z + |2 )| f (z + )| ≤ 2 ρ.
e −1
4(e2 + 1)
| p − f (z + )| = δ f (D) ( f (z + )) ≤ (1 − |z + |2 )| f (z + )| ≤ ρ. (7.4.1)
e2 − 1
7.4 Diameter Distorsion for Univalent Functions 199
Let now t ∈ [−x, x] and let g(z) := 1/( f (z) − p). Note that g : D → C is uni-
valent. Let Ix+ (respectively, Ix− ) be the closed arc in ∂D contained in the upper
(resp., lower) half-plane and whose end points are Sx ∩ ∂D ∩ {w ∈ C : Im w >
0} and S−x ∩ ∂D ∩ {w ∈ C : Im w > 0} (resp., Sx ∩ ∂D ∩ {w ∈ C : Im w < 0} and
S−x ∩ ∂D ∩ {w ∈ C : Im w < 0}).
Since 0 ∈ / g(D), we have δg(D) (g(t)) ≤ |g(t)|. Then, according to Theorem 7.3.9,
there exists ξt+ ∈ Ix+ (resp., ξt− ∈ Ix− ) such that for every z belonging to the geodesic
I1t (resp., I2t ) determined by t and ξt+ (resp., t and ξt− ), we have
Moreover, since I1t ∪ I2t is a cross cut for D which does not intersect S−x ∪ Sx , and
C connects S−x with Sx , it follows that there exists z t ∈ C such that z t ∈ I1t ∪ I2t .
Therefore, by (7.4.2) and (7.4.1),
Finally, if t1 , t2 ∈ [−x,x] are such that diamE ( f ([−x, x])) = | f (t1 ) − f (t2 )|, set-
2
+1)
ting K 2 := 2(1 + K 1 ) 1 + 4(ee2 −1 , from the previous inequality we have
Theorem 7.4.2 There exists a universal constant K 2 > 0 (in fact, the same as in
Theorem 7.4.1) with the following property. If ξ1 , ξ2 ∈ ∂D, ξ1 = ξ2 , γ : (0, 1) → D
is a continuous injective curve such that limt→0 γ (t) = ξ1 and limt→1 γ (t) = ξ2 ,
C = γ ((0, 1)), and f : D → C is univalent, then
diamE (
f ([−xn , xn ])) ≤ K 2 diamE ( n )) ≤ K 2 diamE ( f (C)).
f (C
Lemma 7.4.3 Let ξ = eiθ with 0 < θ ≤ π/2 and let S be the geodesic in D whose
closure contains ξ and ξ . Let a := S ∩ (−1, 1). Then
Re ξ
a= ∈ [0, 1).
1 + Im ξ
where the last equality follows taking into account that (Re ξ )2 + (Im ξ )2 = 1.
1
diamE ( f (S)) ≥ | f (z n ) − f (a)| ≥ (1 − a 2 )| f (a)| tanh(ω(z n , a))
4
1−a 1
≥ (1 − a 2 ) | f (0)| tanh(ω(z n , a)).
(1 + a)3 4
Re ξ
By Lemma 7.4.3, a = 1+Im ξ
∈ [0, 1). Hence, limn→∞ tanh(ω(z n , a)) = 1. There-
fore, passing to the limit as n → ∞ in the previous inequality and taking into account
Theorem 3.4.9, we have,
7.4 Diameter Distorsion for Univalent Functions 201
(1 − a)2 (1 − a)2
diamE ( f (S)) ≥ | f (0)| ≥ δΩ ( f (0))
24 24
1 (1 − Re ξ + Im ξ ) 2
≥ 4 δΩ ( f (0))
2 (1 + Im ξ )2
1 (Im ξ )2
≥ 4 δΩ ( f (0))
2 (1 + Im ξ )2
1 1
≥ 6 (Im ξ )2 δΩ ( f (0)) = 8 |ξ − ξ |2 δΩ ( f (0)).
2 2
Hence, by Theorem 7.4.2,
7.5 Notes
is continuous when [0, +∞) is endowed with the Euclidean topology and Hol(D, D)
with the topology of uniform convergence on compacta.
Remark 8.1.2 It is worth pointing out that, using Vitali’s Theorem, the continuity
of the map [0, +∞) t → φt ∈ Hol(D, D) at t0 ≥ 0 is equivalent to the pointwise
continuity at t0 of the maps [0, +∞) t → φt (z) ∈ D, for every z ∈ D.
In the rest of the book, the expression “semigroup in D” will always mean
a continuous semigroup of holomorphic self-maps of the unit disc.
Remark 8.1.3 If φt := idD , for all t ≥ 0, the family (φt ) defines a semigroup in D
which is called the trivial semigroup.
Definition 8.1.4 Let (φt ) be a semigroup in D and z ∈ D. The curve [0, +∞)
t → φt (z) is the orbit or trajectory of (φt ) with starting point z.
φt (z) := e−iωt z, t ≥ 0, z ∈ D.
Note that if we fix a point z ∈ D \ {0}, the curve t → φt (z) describes a rotation
around the origin; clockwise if ω > 0 and counterclockwise whenever ω < 0. Using
automorphisms of the unit disc, it is possible to generalize this type of semigroups.
Namely, take a ∈ D and consider Ta the canonical automorphism of the disc which
maps a to the origin (see (1.2.1)). Let
The main idea behind the above example can be stated in a more general context
and provides a fundamental way to generate semigroups in D.
Example 8.1.7 Consider the family of holomorphic self-maps of the right half-plane
H defined by
ϕt (w) := w + i2tα, t ≥ 0, w ∈ H,
where α is a non-zero real number. Note that for every w ∈ H, the curve t → ϕt (w)
describes a translation parallel to the imaginary axis; upwards if α > 0 and down-
wards whenever α < 0. If Cσ is the Cayley map with respect to σ ∈ ∂D (see (1.1.2)),
by Proposition 8.1.6, the family
φt := Cσ−1 ◦ ϕt ◦ Cσ , t ≥ 0,
Example 8.1.8 Fix a non-zero real number α and consider the family of holomorphic
self-maps of the right half-plane defined by
ϕt (w) := eαt w, t ≥ 0, w ∈ H.
Note that for every w ∈ H, the curve [0, +∞) t → ϕt (w) is a line from 0 to ∞ if
α > 0 and from ∞ to 0 whenever α < 0. Geometrically speaking, these maps are
dilations in the right half-plane of (normalized) factor α. Using again the Cayley map
with respect to σ ∈ ∂D and Proposition 8.1.6, we find that the family
φt := Cσ−1 ◦ ϕt ◦ Cσ , t ≥ 0,
is a semigroup in D. Note that all the φt ’s are Möbius transformations and {σ, −σ } ⊂
∂D are (the unique) two common fixed points of all the iterates of the semigroup in
the closed unit disc. This approach can be extended to two different and arbitrary
points σ1 , σ2 ∈ ∂D. Let T be a Möbius transformation such that T (D) = H with
T (σ1 ) = 0 and T (σ2 ) = ∞ (see Proposition 1.2.2). Then, by Proposition 8.1.6, the
family
φtT (z) := T −1 (eαt T (z)), t ≥ 0, z ∈ D
is also a semigroup in D. Moreover, {σ1 , σ2 } are the unique common fixed points of
all the iterates of (φtT ) in the closed unit disc. Also, for every t ≥ 0, (φtT ) (σ1 ) = eαt
and (φtT ) (σ2 ) = e−αt .
The next example also uses the technique described in Proposition 8.1.6 but this
time the domain Ω is not as simple as the right half-plane.
208 8 Semigroups of Holomorphic Functions
which maps injectively the unit disc onto C \ {it : t ∈ (−∞, −1/4]}. Then,
(1) e−t k(D) ⊂ k(D), for every t ≥ 0,
(2) k(D) + it ⊂ k(D), for every t ≥ 0.
Bearing in mind that k is univalent, these two geometric inclusions allows us to define
two different semigroups in D. Namely,
(1) φt(1) (z) := k −1 (e−t k(z)), t ≥ 0, z ∈ D;
(2) φt(2) (z) := k −1 (k(z) + it), t ≥ 0, z ∈ D.
We notice that all the iterates of (φt(1) ) fix the origin but none of the iterates of
(φt(2) )
(t > 0) has fixed points in D. As we will see in Chap. 9, these two examples
are quite significative and reflect in part the essential structure of all semigroups in D.
For our next example, and also for some further results in this section, we need
to study the Cauchy functional equation
Proof By inner regularity, there exists a compact subset K ⊂ A such that λ(K ) > 0
(here λ denotes the Lebesgue measure of R). Moreover, by outer regularity applied
to K , there exists an open subset U ⊃ K such that λ(U ) < 2λ(K ). Denote by δ ≥ 0,
the distance between K and R \ U . Since K ⊂ U , K is compact and U is open,
δ > 0. Therefore, (−δ, δ) + K ⊂ U .
We claim that (x + K ) ∩ K = ∅ for every x ∈ (−δ, δ). Otherwise, there would
exist |x0 | ≤ δ such that x0 + K and K are disjoint. Then
Hence, f (x) = cx, for every rational number x ≥ 0. Since Q is dense in R, and f
is continuous by Step (2), we deduce that f (x) = cx, for every x ≥ 0.
Remark 8.1.12 The argument given in the second step of the above proof can be
adapted to show that any solution of the Cauchy functional equation (8.1.1) which
is continuous at a point t0 ∈ [0, +∞) is in fact continuous in the whole interval.
f (r ) := qi0 xi0 ,
210 8 Semigroups of Holomorphic Functions
where r = i∈I qi xi and qi ∈ Q. Hence f is a well-defined Q-linear map and the
restriction of f (which we still denote by f ) to [0, +∞) verifies the Cauchy functional
equation (8.1.1). If f were measurable, then, by Theorem 8.1.11, there would exist a
real number c such that f (x) = cx, for any x ≥ 0. In particular, taking i ∈ I different
from i 0
xi0 = f (xi + xi0 ) = c(xi + xi0 ),
It is easy to check that (φt ) is an algebraic semigroup in D (note that f (0) = 0).
However, (φt ) is not continuous, since f is not continuous.
In this section, we will also consider some other functional equations related to
the Cauchy functional equation.
(1) If f : [0, +∞) → ∂D is Lebesgue measurable and solves the equation, then
there exists λ ∈ R such that f (x) = eiλx , for every x ≥ 0.
(2) If f : [0, +∞) → C is Lebesgue measurable and solves the equation, then either
f (x) = 0 for x > 0 and f (0) ∈ {0, 1}, or there exists λ ∈ C such that f (x) =
eλx , for every x ≥ 0.
(3) If f : [0, +∞) → R is Lebesgue measurable and solves the equation, then either
f (x) = 0 for x > 0 and f (0) ∈ {0, 1}, or there exists λ ∈ R such that f (x) =
eλx , for every x ≥ 0.
the continuity of f at zero would imply the continuity of f in the whole interval
[0, +∞). We also note that, for 0 ≤ y ≤ x, f (x) = f (x − y) f (y), and thus f (x −
y) = f (x) f (y). Let us check that f is continuous at zero. Fix ε > 0 and take θ0 > 0
such that the diameter of the arc A := {eiθ : |θ | < θ0 } is lessthan ε. Likewise, let
{qn } be an enumeration
∞ −1 of the rational numbers. Since ∂D = ∞ n=1 (e
iqn
A), we have
[0, +∞) = n=1 f (e A). The measurability hypothesis implies the existence of
iqn
Proof It is trivial that (1) implies (2) and (2) implies (3) thus only (3) implies (1)
requires a proof. The proof is divided in four steps.
Step (1): For every z ∈ D, the map [0, +∞) t → φt (z) ∈ D is continuous on the
right in [0, +∞).
Fix z ∈ D and T ≥ 0 and consider {tn } a sequence in [T, +∞) converging to T .
Then, by hypothesis,
Step (2): For every compact subset K ⊂ D, there exists TK > 0 and R K ∈ (0, 1)
such that
lim φt (a) = 1.
t→0
Proof Assume that the semigroup is continuous. Then, the implication follows from
Theorem 8.1.15 and Weierstrass’ Theorem.
Now, let us consider the reverse implication. We initially assume that a = 0.
Consider the Taylor expansion of each iterate:
∞
φt (z) = an (t)z n , t ≥ 0, z ∈ D.
n=0
Since every iterate belongs to the Hardy space H 2 (D), it holds ∞n=0 |an (t)| ≤ 1.
2
Then, for every t ≥ 0 and for every z ∈ D and using Schwarz’s Inequality,
∞ 1/2 ∞ 1/2
|φt (z) − z| ≤ |a0 (t)|2 + |a1 (t) − 1|2 + |an (t)|2 |z|2n
n=2 n=0
1
≤ (2 − 2Re (a1 (t)))1/2
(1 − |z|2 )1/2
√
2
≤ |1 − φt (0)|1/2 .
(1 − |z|2 )1/2
214 8 Semigroups of Holomorphic Functions
The last result of this section shows that non-injective self-maps cannot be imbed-
ded into a semigroup:
Proof Let (φt ) be a semigroup in D and suppose that there exist t0 > 0 and two differ-
ent points z 1 , z 2 ∈ D such that φt0 (z 1 ) = φt0 (z 2 ). Consider T := inf{t ≥ 0 : φt (z 1 ) =
φt (z 2 )}. By the continuity in t, the infimum is a minimum. Moreover, T > 0, since
φ0 is the identity. Denote ξ := φT (z 1 ) and take a sequence {tn } in [0, T ) converging
to T . Since {φT −tn } converges to idD in the topology of uniform convergence on
compacta and using Rouche’s Theorem, there exist an open disc D in D centered at
ξ and a natural number N such that φT −tn is injective in the disc D for every n ≥ N .
Moreover, we may also assume that φtn (z 1 ), φtn (z 2 ) ∈ D for every n ≥ N . Now,
Therefore, φtn (z 1 ) = φtn (z 2 ), for every n ≥ N and this contradicts the definition
of T .
Since each iterate of a group belongs to Aut(D), for every t ≥ 0, we can introduce
the notation
φt := (φ−t )−1 ∈ Aut(D), for t < 0.
is continuous, where R is endowed with the Euclidean topology and Aut(D) with
the topology of uniform convergence on compacta.
8.2 Groups in the Unit Disc 215
Proof (1) By the very definition φs+t = φs ◦ φt , for all s, t ≥ 0. Moreover, if both
s, t ≤ 0, then
φs+t = (φ−s−t )−1 = (φ−t ◦ φ−s )−1 = (φ−s )−1 ◦ (φ−t )−1 = φs ◦ φt .
If |s| > t, consider the expression φ−s = φt ◦ φ−s−t and repeat the argument.
(2) Since (φt ) is a group, we only have to check the continuity in (−∞, 0]. Fix
t0 ≤ 0 and consider a sequence {tn } converging to t0 on the left (that is, tn ≤ t0 ).
Then, {φt0 −tn } converges uniformly on compacta to idD . By Montel’s Theorem (see,
e.g., [113, Theorem 14.6, p. 282]), {φtn : n ∈ N} is a relatively compact subset of
Hol(D, C). Take any function g ∈ Hol(D, C), which is the limit of a subsequence
{φtnk } in the topology of uniform convergence on compacta. Therefore, for every
z ∈ D,
φt0 (z) = lim φt0 −tnk (φtnk (z)) = g(z).
k→∞
Proof (1) Note that, for z ∈ D, the expression φs+t (z) = φs (φt (z)) holds by Propo-
sition 8.2.2 and the other one by applying the Chain Rule for derivatives. Since
φs , φt and φs+t are univalent beyond the closed unit disc and φt (∂D) = ∂D, the
Identity Principle implies that both expressions in (1) still hold in some disc
D(0, r ) := {z ∈ C : |z| < r } where r = r (s, t) > 1.
(2) Fix t ∈ R and consider any sequence of real numbers {tn } converging to t.
Then, by Proposition 1.2.2, φt = λTa for some a ∈ D and λ ∈ ∂D and φt is well-
defined and univalent in |z| < r0 , for some r0 > 1. In the same way, φtn = λn Tan with
216 8 Semigroups of Holomorphic Functions
and thus φt (D) = D. On the other hand, if 0 < t0 < t, we can write t = kt0 + u for
some non-negative integer k and u ∈ (0, t0 ). Hence φt = φkt0 ◦ φu = φt◦k
0
◦ φu , and,
for what we have just shown, we find that φt is the composition of a finite number
of elements of Aut(D), hence it is also a member of Aut(D).
Remark 8.2.5 As a consequence of Theorem 8.2.4, if (φt ) is a semigroup in D
which is not a group, then φt is not surjective for every t > 0. In particular, φt = idD
for every t > 0.
Theorem 8.2.6 Let (φt ) be a non-trivial group in D. Then, (φt ) has one of the
following three mutually exclusive forms:
(1) There exist τ ∈ D and ω ∈ R \ {0} such that
(e−iωt − |τ |2 )z + τ (1 − e−iωt )
φt (z) = , t ≥ 0, z ∈ D.
τ (e−iωt − 1)z + 1 − |τ |2 e−iωt
Moreover, if (ωt)/(2π ) ∈
/ Z, φt is not the identity and it is the unique elliptic
automorphism of D with τ as Denjoy-Wolff point and φt (τ ) = e−iωt .
(2) There exist τ, σ ∈ ∂D (τ = σ ) and α > 0 such that
(σ − τ eαt )z + τ σ (eαt − 1)
φt (z) = , t ≥ 0, z ∈ D.
(1 − eαt )z + σ eαt − τ
(1 − iαt)z + iαtτ
φt (z) = , t ≥ 0, z ∈ D.
−iατ t z + 1 + iαt
8.2 Groups in the Unit Disc 217
Proof In this proof, we will repeatedly appeal to Proposition 8.2.2. For t ∈ R, let
Ft := {z ∈ D : φt (z) = z} be the set of fixed points of φt in the closed unit disc. If
z ∈ Ft , then for every s ∈ R it holds
τ +z τ +σ
C(z) := − , z ∈ D.
τ −z τ −σ
Then C is a Möbius transformation which maps D onto the right half-plane and sends
τ to ∞ and σ to 0. Therefore, ϕt := C ◦ φt ◦ C −1 is a family of automorphisms
of the right half-plane and the unique fixed points (in the Riemann sphere) of ϕt
(t > 0) are 0 and ∞. Hence, there exists λt ∈ R such that ϕt (w) = λt w for every
w ∈ H and every t ≥ 0. Moreover, [0, +∞) t → λt ∈ R is a continuous function
verifying λs+t = λs λt . Therefore, by Proposition 8.1.14, there exists α ∈ R such that
ϕt (w) = eαt w. Since ϕt (∞) = φt (τ ) < 1, for all t > 0, we find α > 0. In order to
obtain the formula in (2) just compute explicitly φt (z) = C −1 (eαt C(z)).
If φt0 is parabolic, then Ft0 = {τ } ⊂ ∂D. Then, τ is also a fixed point of all of
the iterates of the group. Let Cτ be the Cayley transform with respect to τ . Then,
ϕt := Cτ ◦ φt ◦ Cτ−1 is a family of automorphisms of the right half-plane (hence
Möbius transformations) and the unique fixed point (in the Riemann sphere) of every
218 8 Semigroups of Holomorphic Functions
ϕt (t > 0) is ∞. Therefore, there exists λt ∈ R such that ϕt (w) = w + iλt for every
w ∈ H and every t ≥ 0. Moreover, [0, +∞) t → λt ∈ R is a continuous function
verifying λs+t = λs + λt . Therefore, by Theorem 8.1.11, there exists α ∈ R such
that ϕt (w) = w + i2αt. Since the group is non-trivial, α = 0. The formula in (3)
follows immediately computing explicitly φt (z) = Cτ−1 (Cτ (z) + i2αt).
By the uniqueness in the statements of the above theorem, it follows at once that
every automorphism of the unit disc can be embedded into a semigroup of D:
Corollary 8.2.7 Let φ be an element of Aut(D) different from the identity in D. Then,
there exists a unique group (φt ) in D such that φ = φ1 .
Remark 8.2.9 Elliptic groups are the (semi)groups discussed in Example 8.1.5.
The semigroups introduced in Example 8.1.8 are the hyperbolic groups and those in
Example 8.1.7 are the parabolic groups.
The concept of Denjoy-Wolff point also plays a prominent role in the theory of
semigroups.
Theorem 8.3.1 Let (φt ) be a non-trivial semigroup in D. Then, all iterates different
from the identity have the same Denjoy-Wolff point τ ∈ D. Moreover:
8.3 The Continuous Version of the Denjoy-Wolff Theorem 219
In particular, either |φt (τ )| = 1, for every t > 0, or |φt (τ )| < 1, for every t > 0.
(2) If τ ∈ ∂D, then there exists λ ≥ 0 such that
In particular, either αφt (τ ) = 1, for every t > 0, or αφt (τ ) ∈ (0, 1), for every
t > 0.
Proof By Theorem 8.2.6, we may assume that (φt ) is not a group in D. Thus, by
Remark 8.2.5, none of the iterates of (φt ) is the identity. For t > 0 let us denote by
τt ∈ D the Denjoy-Wolff point of φt .
Let s, t > 0. Let us assume first that τs ∈ D. Then
Therefore, φt (τs ) is a fixed point of φs and since φs is not the identity map, it turns
out that φt (τs ) = τs . By the same token, τt = τs . Now, denote by τ ∈ D the common
Denjoy-Wolff point of the semigroup and consider a(t) := φt (τ ) (t ≥ 0). Using
Weierstrass’ Theorem and the Chain Rule, we find that a is a continuous function
from [0, +∞) into C \ {0} and satisfies a(s + t) = a(s)a(t), for every s, t ≥ 0. Then,
by Proposition 8.1.14, there exists λ ∈ C such that a(t) = e−λt , for every t ≥ 0. Since
|φt (τ )| ≤ 1, for all t ≥ 0, we conclude Re λ ≥ 0. Since the semigroup is non-trivial,
λ = 0.
Now, we assume that τs ∈ ∂D. Fix z 0 ∈ D and consider the compact subset
K 0 := {φu (z 0 ) : 0 ≤ u ≤ s} ⊂ D. By the (discrete) Denjoy-Wolff Theorem 1.8.4,
τs = limn→∞ φson (z) = limn→∞ φns (z) uniformly on z ∈ K 0 . Fix t > 0. For every
natural number n, there exists a non-negative integer kn and u n ∈ (0, s) such that
nt = kn s + u n . Bearing in mind that limn→∞ kn = +∞, we have
Since z 0 was arbitrary and applying again Theorem 1.8.4, we find that τs is the
Denjoy-Wolff point of φt , so τs = τt . Denote by τ ∈ ∂D the common Denjoy-
Wolff point of the semigroup and consider α(t) := ∠ lim z→τ φt (z) (t ≥ 0). Note
that by Theorem 1.7.3, α(t) is just the boundary dilation coefficient of φt at τ . Since
α(t) = limn→∞ φt ((1 − 1/n)τ ) and using Weierstrass’ Theorem, we find that α is
a measurable function from [0, +∞) into (0, 1]. Moreover, for every s, t ≥ 0 and
every r ∈ (0, 1), the Chain Rule gives
As we have seen in Sect. 8.1 (see Examples 8.1.8 and 8.1.7), some semigroups in D
are better understood when they are conjugated to other semigroups defined in other
domains of the complex plane. This suggests to introduce and study the notions of
algebraic and continuous semigroups in general Riemann surfaces. However, the
results of this section clearly show that a really rich theory of semigroups is only
possible for the unit disc or, obviously, for those Riemann surfaces biholomorphically
equivalent to the unit disc.
is continuous when [0, +∞) is endowed with the Euclidean topology and Hol(S, S)
with the topology of uniform convergence on compacta.
The semigroup (in fact, a group) where all the iterates are the identity in S is
called the trivial semigroup in S.
The proof of Theorem 8.1.17 can be adapted to this general context.
Theorem 8.4.3 All the iterates of a continuous semigroup in a Riemann surface are
univalent.
Theorem 1.1.4 shows that, up to biholomorphisms, there are exactly three non-
equivalent simply connected Riemann surfaces: the unit disc D, the complex plane
C and the Riemann sphere C∞ . Here we describe the semigroups in C and C∞ .
8.4 Semigroups in Riemann Surfaces 223
According to Proposition 8.1.14, there exists a complex number a such that a(t) =
eat , for every t ≥ 0. If a = 0, then b(t + s) = b(t) + b(s) thus, by Theorem 8.1.11
there exists μ ∈ C such that b(t) = μt, for every t ≥ 0. Since the semigroup is
non-trivial, μ = 0. Therefore, φt (z) = z + μt. Take ξ ∈ ∂D such that ξ μ = i|μ|
ξ
and consider the affine map T (z) = |μ| z. Then, T ◦ φt ◦ T −1 (z) = z + it, for every
t ≥ 0.
If a = 0, take t0 > 0. Then, b(t + t0 ) = a(t)b(t0 ) + b(t) = a(t0 )b(t) + b(t0 ), for
every t ≥ 0. Therefore
b(t0 )
b(t) = at (eat − 1).
e 0 −1
0)
at0 −1 . Hence, φt (z) = e z + b(e
Let b := eb(t at at
− 1). Consider the affine map T (z) =
−1
z + b. Then, T ◦ φt ◦ T (z) = e z, for every t ≥ 0.
at
Theorem 8.4.6 Let (φt ) be a non-trivial continuous semigroup of C∞ . Then, there
exists a Möbius transformation T such that either
(1) T ◦ φt ◦ T −1 (z) = z + it, or
(2) T ◦ φt ◦ T −1 (z) = eat z, for some non-zero a ∈ C.
In particular, every continuous semigroup in C∞ is a continuous group.
Proof By Theorem 8.4.3, every φt is univalent. Since C∞ is compact and by the
Open Mapping Theorem φt is open, it follows that φt (C∞ ) is an open and closed
subset of C∞ , hence φt (C∞ ) = C∞ for every t ≥ 0. Therefore, φt is surjective for all
t ≥ 0, thus φt is an automorphism of C∞ and we conclude that φt is in fact a Möbius
transformation by Proposition 1.1.8. Since the semigroup is non-trivial, there exists
t0 > 0 such that φt0 is different from the identity. According to Proposition 1.1.10,
φt0 admits either two different fixed points or just a unique fixed point.
If φt0 has a unique fixed point z 0 ∈ C∞ , applying Proposition 1.1.10, there exists
a Möbius transformation T1 that sends z 0 to ∞ such that T1 ◦ φt0 ◦ T1−1 (z) = z + i.
Since every iterate φt commutes with φt0 , z 0 is also the unique fixed point of φt except
in case φt is the identity. Hence φt is either the identity or a Möbius transformation
224 8 Semigroups of Holomorphic Functions
which fixes z 0 and we deduce that, for every t ≥ 0, T1 ◦ φt ◦ T1−1 (z) = z + a(t),
for some complex number a(t). Moreover, [0, +∞) t → a(t) ∈ C is a contin-
uous function satisfying a(s + t) = a(s) + a(t). Therefore, by Theorem 8.1.11
there exists a complex number a such that a(t) = at. Moreover, since a(t0 ) = i,
a = i/t0 = 0. Consider the Möbius transformation T2 (z) = −t0 z. Let T := T2 ◦ T1 .
Then, T ◦ φt ◦ (T )−1 (z) = z + it, for every t ≥ 0.
If φt0 has two different fixed points—say z 1 , z 2 ∈ C∞ —applying again Propo-
sition 1.1.10, there exist a Möbius transformation T and λ ∈ C \ {0} such that
T ◦ φt0 ◦ T −1 (z) = λz. Now, every iterate φt commutes with φt0 , hence, either
z 1 and z 2 are fixed points of φt or φt (z 1 ) = z 2 and φt (z 2 ) = z 1 . Therefore, the
map [0, +∞) t → φt (z 1 ) ∈ C∞ is continuous with discrete range, thus constant.
Hence, T ◦ φt ◦ T −1 fixes 0 and ∞ for every t ≥ 0, and T ◦ φt ◦ T −1 (z) = a(t)z,
for some non-zero complex number a(t). Moreover, [0, +∞) t → a(t) ∈ C \ {0}
is a continuous function satisfying a(s + t) = a(s)a(t). By Proposition 8.1.14, there
exists a complex number a such that a(t) = eat . Since the semigroup is not trivial,
we conclude that a = 0.
The previous results show that the theory of continuous semigroups in C and C∞
is quite simple. In the unit disc, the situation is much richer and more complicated as
we will see in the next chapters of this book. One might wonder what the story is in
other Riemann surfaces. By the Uniformization Theorem, every Riemann surface is
holomorphically covered by D, C or C∞ . Using this and the theory of covering spaces,
one can classify all the Riemann surfaces covered by D, C and C∞ . It follows that,
apart from those biholomorphic to D, every Riemann surface which is covered by D is
either a Riemann surface with non-Abelian fundamental group, or it is biholomorphic
to the punctured unit disc or to an annulus. A Riemann surface not biholomorphic
to C and covered by C is either biholomorphic to the punctured complex plane or
to a torus. Finally, every Riemann surface covered by C∞ is, in fact, biholomorphic
to C∞ . The next theorem, whose proof can be found, e.g., in [1, Sect. 1.4.3], shows
that the theory of semigroups is really interesting only for those Riemann surfaces
biholomorphic to the unit disc.
Proposition 8.5.1 Let D and Δ be two Riemann surfaces such that D ⊂ Δ. Let (φt )
be a continuous semigroup in D. Assume there exists an automorphism ψ of Δ with
the following properties:
(1) ψ(D) ⊂ D,
(2) for every compact subset K ⊂ Δ there exists n ∈ N such that ψ ◦n (K ) ⊂ D,
(3) for every t ∈ [0, +∞) it holds ψ ◦ φt = φt ◦ ψ.
Then there exists a continuous semigroup (φt ) in Δ such that φt | D = φt .
The definition does not depend on the number n ∈ N such that ψ ◦n (z) ∈ D. Indeed,
assume m ≥ n, then
Proposition 8.5.2 Let F ∈ LFM(D) \ Aut(D). Then there exists a simply connected
open set Δ ⊂ C∞ , D ⊂ Δ, such that
226 8 Semigroups of Holomorphic Functions
Now we can state the rigidity theorem for linear fractional maps:
Theorem 8.5.3 Let (φt ) be a semigroup in D. Suppose there exists t0 > 0 such that
φt0 ∈ LFM(D). Then φt ∈ LFM(D) for all t ≥ 0.
8.5 Semigroups of Linear Fractional Maps 227
Proof If φt0 is an automorphism, then (φt ) is a group by Theorem 8.2.4 and the
theorem follows from Theorem 8.2.6. Therefore we can assume φt0 ∈ / Aut(D).
Let Δ be the simply connected open set containing D relative to the Möbius
transformation φt0 given by Proposition 8.5.2. Then we are in the hypotheses of
Proposition 8.5.1 with D = D and ψ = φt0 . Thus, there exists a continuous semi-
group (φt ) of Δ such that φt |D = φt for all t ≥ 0. Since φt0 is an automorphism of Δ,
by Theorem 8.4.4, it follows that φt is an automorphism of Δ for all t ≥ 0. But Δ is
biholomorphic to either D or C via a Möbius transformation G, hence G ◦ φt ◦ G −1
is an automorphism of either C or D for all t ≥ 0, hence a Möbius transformation
by Corollary 1.1.7 and Proposition 1.2.2. Therefore, φt , and hence φt , is a Möbius
transformation for all t ≥ 0.
8.6 Notes
It is hard to trace back the birth of the theory of continuous semigroups in the unit disc.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, Tricomi [124] dealt with problems which,
translated in modern language, were related to the asymptotic behavior of continu-
ous semigroups. In 1923, Loewner [95] introduced the nowadays called “Loewner
theory” to tackle extremal problems in complex analysis. Such a theory, as devel-
oped in particular by Pommerenke [102], contains the germ of elliptic semigroups
theory and relate semigroups to certain ordinary differential equations. Later on, in
1943, Kufarev [94] introduced an ordinary differential equation whose solutions are
pretty much related to continuous non-elliptic semigroups. A general theory con-
taining both the classical Loewner-Kufarev theory and semigroups theory has been
introduced in [28].
In 1939, Wolff [128], studied continuous iteration in the half-plane and proved
a type of continuous Denjoy-Wolff theorem. The first paper systematically dealing
with the theory of continuous semigroups in the unit disc is due to Berkson and Porta
[11]. They proved Theorem 8.3.6 and related every semigroup in D with a certain
holomorphic vector field, called the infinitesimal generator of the semigroup, via an
autonomous ordinary differential equation (we will discuss infinitesimal generators
in Chap. 10).
Another context where continuous semigroups appear naturally is the so-called
problem of embedding which is strictly related to the existence of fractional iterates.
More precisely, given φ : D → D holomorphic, the problem of embedding is to find
a continuous semigroup (φt ) in D such that φ1 = φ. The question about existence
of fractional iterates is whether and how it makes sense to define a holomorphic
function φ ◦t for every positive real number t in such a way that it satisfies the
natural composition properties. By Theorem 8.1.17, a necessary condition to solve
the embedding problem is that φ be univalent. A complete answer to this problem
can be obtained by using models, as explained in the Notes of the next chapter, but
an answer in terms of analytical properties of φ is still unknown. This point of view
has been taken in [56, 123].
228 8 Semigroups of Holomorphic Functions
The proof of Theorem 8.1.16 was told in a private conversation with the authors
by Ch. Pommerenke. Siskakis in his PhD Thesis (see [120, Theorem 1.7]) proved
Theorem 8.3.1 in a slightly different form. The material in Sect. 8.4 was first proved
in [82]. Theorem 8.5.3 was proved, with different methods, in [24].
Chapter 9
Models and Koenigs Functions
We are going to introduce a quantity, called divergence rate, which, roughly speaking,
measures the average hyperbolic speed of escape of an orbit of a semigroup. In order
to do this, we need to use the following version of Fekete’s Theorem. Recall that a
function v : [0, +∞) → R is subadditive provided v(x + y) ≤ v(x) + v(y) for all
x, y ≥ 0.
Lemma 9.1.1 Let v : [0, +∞) → [0, +∞) be a continuous subadditive function.
Then limt→+∞ v(t)
t
exists finitely and
v(t) v(t)
lim = inf .
t→+∞ t t>0 t
Thus
v(t) nt0 v(t0 ) M
β≤ ≤ + .
t t t0 t
v(t) v(t)
β ≤ lim inf ≤ lim sup ≤ b,
t→+∞ t t→+∞ t
kΩ (φs (z), z)
cΩ (φt ) = inf . (9.1.2)
s>0 s
Proof Fix z ∈ Ω. The function [0, +∞) t → kΩ (z, φt (z)) is continuous (see
Proposition 1.3.14). Moreover, for s, t ≥ 0, using the triangle inequality and the
contractiveness property of kΩ under holomorphic maps (see Proposition 1.3.10),
9.1 The Divergence Rate and Hyperbolic Steps 231
Hence, the function [0, +∞) t → kΩ (z, φt (z)) is a non-negative continuous sub-
additive function. By Lemma 9.1.1, the limit
exists finitely.
It remains to show that c(z) is independent of z ∈ Ω. To this aim, let w ∈ Ω be
another point. Then, using again the triangle inequality and the contractiveness of
the hyperbolic distance, we have
Therefore, dividing by t and taking the limit as t → +∞, we see that c(z) ≤ c(w).
Changing z with w and repeating the previous argument we get c(z) = c(w).
Remark 9.1.4 It is clear from the definition that if (φt ) is a continuous semigroup in
Ω such that there exists z ∈ Ω with φt (z) = z for all t ≥ 0, then the divergence rate
of (φt ) is cΩ (φt ) = 0. In particular, elliptic semigroups in D have zero divergence
rate.
kΩ (φr (z), φr +u (z)) = kΩ (φr (z), φr (φu (z))) = kΩ (φr −r (φr (z)), φr −r (φr (φu (z))))
≤ kΩ (φr (z), φr (φu (z))) = kΩ (φr (z), φr +u (z)).
Hence, the function r → kΩ (φr (z), φr +u (z)) is decreasing in r and therefore the limit
exists. Taking this into account, we can define the hyperbolic step of a semigroup:
Proof Clearly kΩ (z, φu (z)) ≥ su (φt , z) for all u ≥ 0 because of the contractiveness
of the hyperbolic distance with respect to holomorphic functions. Then,
su (φt , z)
cΩ (φt ) ≥ lim sup .
u→+∞ u
In order to prove the converse, let m ∈ N and u > 0. By the triangle inequality,
1
m−1
kΩ (z, φum (z))
≤ kΩ (φu j (z), φu( j+1) (z)).
um um j=0
Note that kΩ (φu j (z), φu( j+1) (z)) → su (φt , z) as j → ∞, hence, by the Cesàro Means
Theorem the right-hand side of the previous inequality converges to su (φut ,z) as m →
∞. Therefore, for any u > 0,
1
a m+k
1
m
(am+k ) m+k ≥ T .
Tm
Hence a m+k
1
1 1 m
lim inf (ak ) k = lim inf (am+k ) m+k ≥ T lim inf = T.
k→∞ k→∞ k→∞ Tm
1
cD (φt ) = λ. (9.1.3)
2
In particular, if (φt ) is hyperbolic then cD (φt ) > 0 while if (φt ) is parabolic then
cD (φt ) = 0.
Proof Set c := cD (φt ). Let z m := φm (0), m ∈ N. By the Denjoy-Wolff
Theorem 8.3.6, limm→∞ z m = τ . Moreover, e−λ is the boundary dilatation coeffi-
cient of φ1 at its Denjoy-Wolff point τ . Hence
1 − |z m+1 | 1 − |φ1 (z m )|
lim inf = lim inf ≥ e−λ ,
m→∞ 1 − |z m | m→∞ 1 − |z m |
1 − |φ1 (z m )|
lim inf (1 − |z m |)1/m ≥ lim inf ≥ e−λ .
m→∞ m→∞ 1 − |z m |
Thus,
Now, 0 ∈ ∂ E(τ, 1), and by Theorem 1.4.7, z m = φm (0) = φ1◦m (0) ∈ E(τ, e−mλ ) for
all m ∈ N. Hence, by (9.1.5),
1 1 1 − e−mλ 1 1
ω(0, z m ) ≥ ω(0, −mλ
τ) = − log e−mλ = λ.
m m 1+e 2m 2
Therefore,
1 1
c = lim ω(0, z m ) ≥ λ,
m→∞ m 2
which, together with (9.1.4), implies the statement.
Formula (9.1.3) allows easily to see how the spectral value of a semigroup behaves
under conjugacy. To set up properly the terminology, we give the following definition:
φt
D D
g g
ϕt
Ω Ω.
Dividing by t and taking the limit as t → +∞, formula (9.1.6) follows at once.
Corollary 9.1.12 Let (φt ), (ϕt ) be two semigroups in D and suppose that (φt ) is
semi-conjugated to (ϕt ). If (ϕt ) is hyperbolic with spectral value η > 0, then (φt ) is
hyperbolic and its spectral value λ satisfies λ ≥ η.
9.1 The Divergence Rate and Hyperbolic Steps 235
Proof Let c denote the divergence rate of (φt ) and c̃ that of (ϕt ). By (9.1.3), c̃ = 21 η >
0. Hence, by (9.1.6), c ≥ c̃ > 0, which implies in particular that (φt ) is non-elliptic.
Therefore, again by (9.1.3),
λ = 2c ≥ 2c̃ = η > 0,
The idea underlying the construction of models for semigroups is to find simple
groups in some domains in C such that every continuous semigroup in D is conjugated
to one of such groups, and in such a way that the information on the dynamical
behavior of the original semigroup is encoded both in the model group and in the
geometrical properties of the image of the conjugating map. In particular, if one
succeeds in such a construction using very simple model groups such as rotations
and translations, then the core of the dynamical behavior of the original semigroup
is encrypted in the shape of the image of the unit disc via the conjugation map.
Despite the simplicity of this idea, one has to be very careful in defining what a
model is and how representative it should be. In order to explain this, consider the
following example:
Example 9.2.1 Let ϕt (z) = z + it, for t ≥ 0. Note that (ϕt ) is a group of automor-
phisms of C.
Let C1 : D → H be the Cayley transform with respect to 1 defined in (1.1.2).
Then define φt := C1−1 ◦ ϕt ◦ C1 , t ≥ 0. Since (ϕt ) is a group of automorphisms in
H without fixed points, then (φt ) is a non-elliptic group in D.
Define φ̃t (z) := C1−1 (−iϕt (iC1 (z))). Then (φ̃t ) is a non-elliptic semigroup in D,
which is not a group since for t > 0 the map φ̃t is not surjective.
By construction, both (φt ) and (φ̃t ) are conjugated with the group of automor-
phisms (ϕt ) of C, the first via the intertwining map C1 and the second via the map
z → iC1 (z).
Therefore, if we considered the group (ϕt ) of C a “model” for both semigroups, we
could not hope to obtain too much information. However, note that ∪t≤0 ϕt (C1 (D)) =
H = C while ∪t≤0 ϕt (iC1 (D)) = C.
In a sense that will be clear in a while, the group of automorphisms (ϕt ) of
C is representative of the semigroup (φ̃t ), but not of (φt ), because the condition
∪t≤0 ϕt (iC1 (D)) = C tells somewhat that the dynamical behavior in iC1 (D) can be
extended to all C.
The previous example should make clear the reason for the following definition:
Definition 9.2.2 Let (φt ) be a semigroup in D. A holomorphic semi-model for (φt )
is a triple (Ω, h, ψt ) where Ω is a Riemann surface, h : D → Ω is holomorphic,
236 9 Models and Koenigs Functions
h ◦ φt = ψt ◦ h, t ≥ 0, (9.2.1)
and
ψ−t (h(D)) = Ω. (9.2.2)
t≥0
We call the manifold Ω the base space and the mapping h the intertwining map-
ping.
If h : D → Ω is univalent we call the triple (Ω, h, ψt ) a holomorphic model for
(φt ).
Proof First, we note that h is not constant. Otherwise, there exists a ∈ Ω such that
h(z) = a, for every z ∈ D. Using (9.2.1), it follows that a = h(φt (z)) = ψt (h(z)) =
ψt (a) for all t ≥ 0. By (9.2.2), this implies that Ω = {a} a contradiction.
Next, since ψt (h(D)) = h(φt (D)) ⊂ h(D) for all t ≥ 0, it follows that ((ψt )|h(D) )
is an algebraic semigroup in h(D).
We claim that ((ψt )|h(D) ) is a continuous semigroup in h(D).
Assuming the claim for the moment, we show how to obtain the continuity of
(ψt ) in all Ω. Let K ⊂ Ω be a compact set. By (9.2.2) there exists u ∈ [0, +∞)
such that ψu (K ) ⊂ h(D). The set ψu (K ) is compact, and, by the claim, ψt → ψs
uniformly on ψu (K ) as t → s. Since ψt = ψ−u ◦ ψt ◦ ψu , for every t ≥ 0, it follows
immediately that ψt → ψs uniformly on K as t → s.
Now we are left to prove the claim. Let Dr := h({z ∈ D : |z| < r }) for r ∈ (0, 1).
Since h : D → Ω is holomorphic and non-constant, it is open, hence {Dr } is an
open covering of h(D). In particular, for every compact set K ⊂ h(D) there exists
r (K ) ∈ (0, 1) such that K ⊂ Dr (K ) .
Assume by contradiction the claim is not true. Hence, there exist a sequence of
non-negative real numbers {tn } converging to s ≥ 0 and a sequence {wn } included
in some compact subset K of h(D) such that inf n |ψtn (wn ) − ψs (wn )| ≥ δ > 0. Our
previous remark shows that there is r ∈ (0, 1) and z n ∈ D (not necessarily unique)
with |z n | ≤ r such that h(z n ) = wn for all n ∈ N. Without loss of generality, we
may assume that {z n } converges to some z 0 ∈ D (in fact, |z 0 | ≤ r ). In particular,
limn→∞ φtn (z n ) = φs (z 0 ). Then, using (9.2.1),
If we take, for instance, λ = 4, then h̃ is not univalent but h̃(D) = C∗ = C \ {0}. Thus
(h̃, C∗ , z → e4t z) is a holomorphic semi-model for (φt ), and it is not a model. Note
238 9 Models and Koenigs Functions
also that, on the one hand, the divergence rate of (φt ) is 1 (since it is a group of hyper-
bolic automorphisms of D with spectral value 1). On the other hand, kC∗ ≡ 0—as it
can be easily seen from the definition of hyperbolic distance by using holomorphic
discs of the form D z → exp( f (z)) where f : D → C is holomorphic. Hence,
limt→+∞ kC∗ (z,e
4t
t
z)
= 0.
At a first sight the previous example might induce to think that the notion of
(semi-)models is not so useful, since, even for a simple case, there are plenty of
different semi-models. However, all (semi-)models are pleasantly related each other.
In order to see this, we need to introduce the notion of morphisms of semi-models:
Definition 9.2.6 Let (Ω, h, ψt ) and (Ω, t ) be two holomorphic semi-models for
h, ψ
a semigroup (φt ) in D. A morphism of holomorphic semi-models η̂ : (Ω, h, ψt ) →
(Ω, t ) is given by a holomorphic map η : Ω → Ω
h, ψ such that
h = η ◦ h, (9.2.4)
and
t ◦ η = η ◦ ψt , t ≥ 0.
ψ (9.2.5)
Remark 9.2.7 Let η̂ : (Ω, h, ψt ) → (Ω, t ) be a morphism of holomorphic
h, ψ
semi-models for a semigroup in D. Then
t ◦ η = η ◦ ψt , t ∈ R.
ψ (9.2.6)
t ◦ η = η ◦ ψt . Therefore
Indeed, let t > 0. Then by (9.2.5), it holds ψ
t−1 ◦ ψ
η ◦ (ψt )−1 = ψ t ◦ η ◦ (ψt )−1 = ψ
t−1 ◦ η ◦ ψt ◦ (ψt )−1 = ψ
t−1 ◦ η,
t−1 = ψ
and, since (ψt )−1 = ψ−t , ψ −t , formula (9.2.6) holds.
η̂2 ◦ η̂1 := η
2 ◦ η1 : (Ω1 , h 1 , ψt ) → (Ω3 , h 3 , ψt )
1 3
Morphisms among semi-models are very rigid, as the following results show.
Lemma 9.2.11 Let (φt ) be a semigroup in D. Let (Ω, h, ψt ) and (Ω, t ) be two
h, ψ
holomorphic semi-models for (φt ). Suppose η̂, μ̂ : (Ω, h, ψt ) → (Ω, h, ψt ) are two
morphisms of semi-models. Then η̂ = μ̂.
t ◦ η ◦ h = ψ
η ◦ ψt ◦ h = ψ t ◦ μ ◦ h = μ ◦ ψt ◦ h.
Now, if z ∈ Ω, by (9.2.2) there exist ζ ∈ D and t ≥ 0 such that z = ψ−t (h(ζ )), and
the previous equation then shows that η(z) = μ(z). Hence, η = μ and η̂ = μ̂.
Proof Assume (1) holds. Then it is easy to see that η−1 defines a morphism of
semi-models η−1 : (Ω, t ) → (Ω, h, ψt ) which inverts η̂. Hence (2) holds.
h, ψ
If (2) holds then (3) follows trivially.
Assume (3) holds. Then μ̂ ◦ η̂ : (Ω, h, ψt ) → (Ω, h, ψt ) is a morphism of semi-
models. Hence μ̂ ◦ η̂ = idΩ by Lemma 9.2.11. Therefore, μ ◦ η = idΩ . This implies
that η is injective. By Lemma 9.2.10, η is also surjective. Hence (1) holds.
The previous result shows that one can give a natural partial order among iso-
morphism classes of semi-models for a given semigroup (φt ) in D, defined in the
following way: (Ω, h, ψt ) ≥ (Ω, t ) if there exists a morphism of semi-models
h, ψ
η̂ : (Ω, h, ψt ) → (Ω, t ).
h, ψ
240 9 Models and Koenigs Functions
The main basic result is that there exists a unique (up to isomorphisms of semi-
models) maximal element for this partial ordering, and such a maximal element is a
holomorphic model.
In order to see this, we first deal with uniqueness by showing that holomorphic
models, if exist, are indeed maximal:
−t ◦
ηt := ψ h ◦ h −1 |h(D) ◦ ψt .
Since ψt (Ωt ) = h(D) and h is univalent, the map ηt is well defined and holomorphic.
Let s ≥ t ≥ 0. Then
−s ◦
η s | Ωt = ψ −s ◦
h ◦ h −1 |h(D) ◦ ψs |Ωt = ψ h ◦ h −1 |h(D) ◦ ψs−t ◦ ψt |Ωt
(9.2.3)
= ψ−s ◦ h ◦ φs−t ◦ h −1 |h(D) ◦ ψt |Ωt = ψ s−t ◦
−s ◦ ψ h ◦ h −1 |h(D) ◦ ψt |Ωt
=ψ−t ◦
h ◦ h −1 |h(D) ◦ ψt |Ωt = ηt .
η(z) := ηt (z) if z ∈ Ωt .
In order to conclude the proof, we have to show that η defines a morphism of holo-
morphic semi-model η̂ : (Ω, h, ψt ) → (Ω, t ).
h, ψ
To start with, note that for all t ≥ 0
−t
η◦h =ψ ◦ −t ◦
h ◦ h −1 |h(D) ◦ ψt ◦ h = ψ h ◦ h −1 |h(D) ◦ h ◦ φt
−t
=ψ ◦
h ◦ φt = ψ −t ◦ ψt ◦
h =h,
t ◦ η = ψ
ψ −s ◦
t ◦ ψ h ◦ h −1 |h(D) ◦ ψs
=ψ−(s−t) ◦
h ◦ h −1 |h(D) ◦ ψs−t ◦ ψt = ηs−t ◦ ψt = η ◦ ψt .
Corollary 9.2.15 Let (φt ) be a semigroup in D. Then a holomorphic model for (φt ),
if it exists, is unique up to isomorphisms of holomorphic semi-models. In particular,
the base space of the model is unique up to biholomorphisms.
Proof Assume that (Ω, h, ψt ) and (Ω, t ) are two holomorphic models for (φt ).
h, ψ
By Proposition 9.2.14, there exist a morphism of semi-models η̂ : (Ω, h, ψt ) →
(Ω, t ) and a morphism of semi-model μ̂ : (Ω,
h, ψ t ) → (Ω, h, ψt ). Hence, by
h, ψ
is a biholomorphism and the two models
Corollary 9.2.12 it follows that η : Ω → Ω
are isomorphic.
Corollary 9.2.17 Let (φt ) be a semigroup in D. Suppose (φt ) admits two models
with the same base and same automorphisms group, say (Ω, h, ψt ) and (Ω,
h, ψt ).
Then there exists an automorphism ν : Ω → Ω such that ν ◦ ψt = ψt ◦ ν for all
t ≥ 0 and h̃ = ν ◦ h.
Proof Uniqueness of the model follows from Corollary 9.2.15. Thus we can con-
centrate on the existence of the model.
Endow [0, +∞) with the discrete topology and consider the relation ∼ on
D × [0, +∞) defined as follows: (z, t) ∼ (w, s) if there exists u ∈ [0, +∞), u ≥
max{t, s} such that φu−t (z) = φu−s (w). It is easy to see that ∼ is an equivalence
relation on D × [0, +∞).
Let Ω := D × [0, +∞)/ ∼ be the quotient space, endowed with the quotient
topology. Let π : D × [0, +∞) → Ω be the natural projection which maps (z, t) ∈
D × [0, +∞) to its equivalence class π((z, t)) in Ω.
For t ∈ [0, +∞), define h t : D → Ω by h t (z) := π((z, t)). Clearly, h t is contin-
uous and it is also open because [0, +∞) is endowed with the discrete topology.
Also, h t is injective. Indeed, if h t (z) = h t (w) for some z, w ∈ D, then there exists
u ∈ [0, +∞), u ≥ t such that φu−t (z) = φu−t (w). But then, z = w since φu−t is
injective by Theorem 8.1.17. Let Ωt := h t (D). Therefore, h t : D → Ωt ⊂ Ω is a
homeomorphism for all t ∈ [0, +∞).
Since clearly (φt−s (z), t) ∼ (z, s) for all t ≥ s,
h s = h t ◦ φt−s , 0 ≤ s ≤ t. (9.2.8)
(9.2.8)
h t−s ◦ h −1 −1 −1
t |Ωs = h t−s ◦ h t ◦ h s ◦ h s = h t−s ◦ φt−s ◦ h −1
s
(9.2.8)
= (h t−s ◦ φt−s ◦ h −1 −1
0 ) ◦ h0 ◦ hs = h 0 ◦ h −1 −1
s = h ◦ hs .
ψs (z) := (h t−s ◦ h −1
t )(z), z ∈ Ωt ,
for t ≥ s.
The map ψs is injective. Indeed, assume z, w ∈ Ω and ψs (z) = ψs (w). Then there
exists t ≥ s such that z, w ∈ Ωt . Hence
h t−s (h −1 −1
t (z)) = ψs (z) = ψs (w) = h t−s (h t (w)),
ψs (z) = ψs (h t (ζ )) = h t−s (ζ ) = w,
(9.2.8)
ψt ◦ h = (h ◦ h −1 −1
t ) ◦ h = h ◦ (h t ◦ h) = h ◦ φt ,
(9.2.9)
∪t≥0 ψ−t (h(D)) = ∪t≥0 h t (h −1 (h(D))) = ∪t≥0 h t (D) = ∪t≥0 Ωt = Ω,
ψ−s (h(D)) = ψ−t (ψt−s (h(D))) = ψ−t (h(φt−s (D))) ⊂ ψ−t (h(D)),
hence the Riemann surface Ω is the growing union of the open sets {ψ−t (h(D))}t≥0 .
Therefore, by Proposition 1.3.15 and taking into account that h is an isometry between
ω and kh(D) , we have
kΩ (h(z), h(w)) = lim kψ−t (h(D)) (h(z), h(w)) = lim kh(D) (ψt (h(z)), ψt (h(w)))
t→+∞ t→+∞
= lim kh(D) (h(φt (z)), h(φt (w))) = lim ω(φt (z), φt (w)),
t→+∞ t→+∞
su (φt , z) = lim ω(φv (z), φv+u (z)) = lim ω(φv (z), φv (φu (z)))
v→+∞ v→+∞
(9.3.1)
= kΩ (h(z), h(φu (z))) = kΩ (h(z), ψu (h(z)))
= kΩ (ψv (h(z)), ψv+u (h(z))) = lim kΩ (ψv (h(z)), ψv+u (h(z)))
v→+∞
= su (ψt , h(z)),
where we used that ψv is an isometry for kΩ for all v ≥ 0. Hence, cD (φt ) = cΩ (ψt )
by Proposition 9.1.7.
A first consequence of the previous result and the results of the previous section
is that holomorphic models detect the type of the semigroups:
Assume su (φt , z) = 0 for some u > 0 and z ∈ D, and let w := φu (z). Note that w =
z, since (φt ) is not elliptic. Moreover, h is injective, hence h(z) = h(w). Therefore,
by (9.3.2), the domain Ω has two different points whose hyperbolic distance is
zero. Hence Ω = C and kΩ ≡ 0 by Proposition 1.3.12. Then by (9.3.2) the result
holds.
Definition 9.3.4 Let (φt ) be a semigroup in D. We say that (φt ) is of positive hyper-
bolic step (or it is of automorphic type) if there exist z ∈ D and u ≥ 0 such that
su (φt , z) > 0. Otherwise, we say that (φt ) is of zero hyperbolic step (or it is of
non-automorphism type).
By Remark 9.1.6, groups of automorphisms of D are of positive hyperbolic step,
while elliptic semigroups in D which are not groups, are always of zero hyperbolic
step. By Remark 9.1.6 and Corollary 9.3.3, (φt ) is of positive hyperbolic step if and
only if su (φt , z) > 0 for all u > 0 and z ∈ D, z different from the Denjoy-Wolff point
of the semigroup.
Let us recall that H := {ζ ∈ C : Re ζ > 0}, H− := {ζ ∈ C : Re ζ < 0} and,
given ρ > 0, Sρ := {ζ ∈ C : 0 < Re ζ < ρ}. For ρ = 1 we simply write S := S1 .
Theorem 9.3.5 Let (φt ) be a semigroup in D. Then
(1) (φt ) is the trivial semigroup if and only if (φt ) has a holomorphic model
(D, idD , z → z).
246 9 Models and Koenigs Functions
(2) (φt ) is a group of elliptic automorphisms with spectral value iθ , for θ ∈ R \ {0},
if and only if (φt ) has a holomorphic model (D, h, z → e−iθt z).
(3) (φt ) is elliptic, not a group, with spectral value λ, for λ ∈ C with Re λ > 0, if
and only if (φt ) has a holomorphic model (C, h, z → e−λt z).
(4) (φt ) is hyperbolic with spectral value λ > 0 if and only if it has a holomorphic
model (S πλ , h, z → z + it).
(5) (φt ) is parabolic of positive hyperbolic step if and only if it has a holomorphic
model either of the form (H, h, z → z + it) or of the form (H− , h, z → z + it).
(6) (φt ) is parabolic of zero hyperbolic step if and only if it has a holomorphic model
(C, h, z → z + it).
Proof (1) It is obvious.
(2) If (φt ) is an elliptic group in D, with common fixed point τ ∈ D and spec-
tral value iθ , the model is given by (D, Tτ , z → e−iθt z). On the other hand, if the
model is given by (D, h, z → e−iθt z) it follows that e−itθ h(D) ⊂ h(D) by Proposi-
tion 9.2.4, showing that h(D) is a disc centered at 0. Hence, using (9.2.2), it holds
D = ∪t≥0 eiθt h(D) = h(D). By Corollary 9.2.16 it follows that (φt ) is a group of
automorphisms. Equation (9.2.3) implies that (φt ) is an elliptic group with fixed
point h −1 (0). Moreover, differentiating (9.2.3) in z at h −1 (0) it follows immediately
that the spectral value of (φt ) is iθ .
(3) If (φt ) is a semigroup, not a group, in D with Denjoy-Wolff point τ ∈ D and
spectral value λ, by Theorem 9.2.18, there exists a holomorphic model (Ω, h, ψt ),
with either Ω = D or Ω = C. By Theorem 8.3.6, for every z, w ∈ D it holds
limt→+∞ ω(φt (z), φt (w)) = 0, hence, by (9.3.1), the hyperbolic distance of Ω is
identically zero, therefore, Ω = C. By Proposition 9.2.4, the group ψt has a fixed
point in C that, up to conjugation with a translation, we can assume to be 0. There-
fore, by Theorem 8.4.5, ψt (z) = eμt z for some μ ∈ C. Differentiating (9.2.3) in z at
τ it follows immediately that μ = λ.
On the other hand, if (φt ) has a holomorphic model of the form (C, h, z → e−λt z),
by (9.2.2), the point 0 belongs to h(D), say h(τ ) = 0 for some τ ∈ D. By (9.2.1),
φt (τ ) = τ for all t ≥ 0, hence (φt ) is elliptic with Denjoy-Wolff point τ . As before,
it follows easily that the spectral value of (φt ) is λ.
(4) Suppose (φt ) is hyperbolic, with Denjoy-Wolff point τ ∈ ∂D and spectral
value λ > 0. By Theorem 9.2.18, there exists a holomorphic model (Ω, h, ψt ) for
(φt ) with Ω = C or Ω = D. By (9.1.3) and Lemma 9.3.1, it holds
1
0< λ = cD (φt ) = cΩ (ψt ).
2
In particular, the hyperbolic distance of Ω is not identically zero, and therefore
Ω = D. Moreover, since cD (ψt ) > 0, the group (ψt ) can not be elliptic (see Remark
9.1.4). Thus, again by (9.1.3), (ψt ) is a hyperbolic group of automorphisms of D with
the same spectral value λ. Using a Möbius transformation C such that C(D) = H
(see Proposition 8.3.8), we can find an isomorphic holomorphic model for (φt ) given
by (H, C ◦ h, z → eλt z). Let log z denote the principal branch of the logarithm on
H, and let f : H → S πλ be the biholomorphism given by
9.3 Canonical Models and Koenigs Functions 247
i π
f (z) := log z + . (9.3.3)
λ 2λ
Note that f (eλt z) = f (z) + it for all z ∈ H and t ≥ 0. Therefore it is easy to see
that (S πλ , f ◦ C ◦ h, z → z + it) is a holomorphic model for (φt ).
On the other hand, if (S πλ , h, z → z + it) is a holomorphic model for (φt ), let f
be the map defined in (9.3.3). Then (H, f −1 ◦ h, z → eλt z) is a holomorphic model
for (φt ). By Proposition 8.3.8, the group (z → eλt z) is conjugated via a Möbius
transformation C which maps D onto H to a hyperbolic group (ψt ) of D with spectral
value λ. Therefore, (D, C −1 ◦ f −1 ◦ h, ψt ) is a holomorphic model for (φt ). By
(9.1.3) and Lemma 9.3.1, it follows that cD (φt ) = λ2 > 0 and hence, since (φt ) can
not be elliptic by Remark 9.1.4, (φt ) is a hyperbolic semigroup in D with spectral
value λ.
(5) Assume (φt ) is parabolic with positive hyperbolic step. By Theorem 9.2.18,
there exists a holomorphic model (Ω, h, ψt ), with Ω = D or C. By (9.3.1),
kΩ (h(z), ψ1 (h(z))) = kΩ (h(z), h(φ1 (z))) = lim ω(φt (z), φt+1 (z)) = s1 (φt , z) > 0,
t→+∞
hence Ω = D. The group (ψt ) has divergence rate cD (ψt ) = cD (φt ) = 0 by Lemma
9.3.1. Hence (ψt ) is either elliptic or parabolic. The first case is excluded by the
previous point (1) for otherwise (φt ) would be a group of elliptic automorphisms.
Hence, (ψt ) is a group of parabolic automorphisms of D. By Proposition 8.3.8,
conjugating with a suitable Möbius transformation, it follows that a holomorphic
model for (φt ) is either (H, h, z → z + it) or (H− , h, z → z + it). Conversely, if
(φt ) admits a holomorphic model of the forms (H, h, z → z + it) or (H− , h, z →
z + it), then by conjugating with a Möbius transformation (see Proposition 8.3.8), it
follows that (φt ) has a holomorphic model (D, h, ψt ) with (ψt ) a group of parabolic
automorphisms of D. By Lemma 9.3.1, it follows then that (φt ) is parabolic with
positive hyperbolic step.
(6) The proof follows from an argument similar to (5), just noting that by Lemma
9.3.1, (φt ) is of zero hyperbolic step if and only if the domain Ω given in Theorem
9.2.18 is C. Moreover, (ψt ) can not have a fixed point in C, for otherwise (φt ) would
be elliptic for what we already proved (2). Therefore (ψt ) is a group of translations
in C by Theorem 8.4.5.
Remark 9.3.6 The two holomorphic models appearing in (5) are not isomorphic. To
see this, assume that (H− , h, z → z + it) is a holomorphic model of a semigroup (φt )
in D. Let g : H− → H be the biholomorphism given by g(z) = −z. Then (H, g ◦
h, z → z − it) is isomorphic to (H− , h, z → z + it) via ĝ, and then it is also a
holomorphic model for (φt ). If (H, h̃, z → z + it) were a holomorphic model for
(φt ), then by Corollary 9.2.15, there would exist an isomorphism of models ν̂ :
(H, h̃, z → z + it) → (H, h, z → z − it) defined by a biholomorphism ν : H →
H, which is a linear fractional map. In particular, the oriented line R r → ir having
H on the right would be mapped onto the oriented line R r → ν(ir ) having H on the
right. However, by (9.2.6), it holds ν(ir ) = ν(0) − ir for all r ∈ R, a contradiction.
248 9 Models and Koenigs Functions
s1 (φt , 0) = lim ω(φt (0), φt+1 (0)) = kSρ (h(0), h(φ1 (0))) = kSρ (h(0), h(0) + i) > 0,
t→+∞
(4) If (φt ) is parabolic of zero hyperbolic step, then h̃ is a Koenigs function for (φt )
if and only if there exists a ∈ C such that h̃(z) = h(z) + a for all z ∈ D.
Proof The “if” implications of the statements are clear. Thus, assume h̃ is a Koenigs
function for (φt ). By Corollary 9.2.17, there exists an automorphism ν : Ω → Ω
such that h̃ = ν ◦ h and ν ◦ ψt = ψt ◦ ν for all t ≥ 0.
In case (φt ) is elliptic, being Ω = C (or Ω = D in case (φt ) is a group) and
ψt (z) = e−λt z for some λ ∈ C \ {0}, with Re λ ≥ 0, it follows that ν(0) = 0. Hence,
ν is a linear map and the statements (1) and (2) hold.
Now we examine the case (φt ) is non-elliptic. In this case, for all z ∈ Ω and all
t ≥ 0,
ν(z + it) = ν(z) + it. (9.3.4)
a(h(z) + it) − i 2z + at (τ − z)
φt (z) = h −1 (h(z) + it) = τ =τ .
a(h(z) + it) + i 2τ + at (τ − z)
4τ 2 8τ 2 at
φt (z) = , φ (z) = , z ∈ D, t ≥ 0.
(2τ + at (τ − z))2 t
(2τ + at (τ − z))3
In this case, a = τ φ1 (τ ).
Proof Assume (φt ) is a hyperbolic group with Denjoy-Wolff point τ ∈ ∂D and other
fixed point σ ∈ ∂D. Let C(z) := ττ +z
−z
− ττ +σ
−σ
. Then C is a Möbius transformation such
that C(D) = H and C(τ ) = ∞ and C(σ ) = 0. Therefore, (C ◦ φt ◦ C −1 ) is a group
(whose iterates are Möbius transformations) in H which fixes 0 and ∞. It follows
that (C ◦ φt ◦ C −1 )(w) = μt w for some μt > 0. By the Chain Rule for derivatives
μt+s = μt μs for every s, t ≥ 0 hence by Proposition 8.1.14, μt = eλt for all t ≥ 0.
Now, if f is given by (9.3.3), then f (eλt w) = f (w) + it. Hence, h := f ◦ C : D →
S πλ is the Koenigs function of (φt ).
Conversely, if (φt ) is a hyperbolic semigroup with canonical model (Ω, h, z →
z + it) with h as in (1), then h(D) = S πλ . Since this domain is invariant under the
map z → z + it for t ∈ R, it follows by (9.2.2) that Ω = h(D). Hence, by Corollary
9.2.16, (φt ) is a group.
Now, assume (φt ) is a parabolic group. Let Cτ : D → H be the Cayley trans-
form with respect to τ . Then (Cτ ◦ φt ◦ Cτ−1 ) is a group (whose iterates are Möbius
transformations) in H which fixes ∞ and has no other fixed points in H. Therefore,
ψt (w) := (Cτ ◦ φt ◦ Cτ−1 )(w) = w + iμt . Hence, μt+s = μt + μs for all s, t ≥ 0,
and μt = itα for some α ∈ R \ {0} and all t ≥ 0 by Theorem 8.1.11. Let A(w) := wα .
Then A is a Möbius transformation such that A(H) = H if α > 0 and A(H) = H− if
α < 0. Moreover, (A ◦ ψt ◦ A−1 )(w) = w + it. Hence, h = A ◦ Cτ is the Koenigs
function of (φt ) and setting a = αi we have the claimed form of h in (2).
9.3 Canonical Models and Koenigs Functions 251
The aim of this section is to give both a geometric and an analytic characterization
of those (univalent) functions which are Koenigs functions of a semigroup with a
prescribed Denjoy-Wolff point. We first consider the case of an interior Denjoy-Wolff
point, and then of a boundary Denjoy-Wolff point.
We start with the following simple fact:
Proof Let h be the Koenigs function of an elliptic semigroup (φt ) in D with Denjoy-
Wolff point τ ∈ D and spectral value λ. By Theorem 9.3.5 for all t > 0
d x(t)
= −x(t) p(x(t)), x(0) = z, (9.4.1)
dt
has a solution x z (t) with strictly decreasing modulus on the interval 0 ≤ t < +∞,
tending to zero as t → +∞.
Proof It is clear that the initial value problem (9.4.1) has a maximal solution x
defined in [0, δz ) for some δz > 0. We prove that δz = +∞.
Take u(t) = |x(t)|2 , for all t ∈ [0, δz ). Then
d
(u(t)) = −2u(t)Re p(x(t))
dt
and, integrating,
t
u(t) = |z| exp −2 Re p(x(s)) ds , t ∈ [0, δz ).
0
Thus |x(t)| decreases strictly as t increases. In particular, the set {x(t) : t ∈ [0, δz )}
is contained in the compact set D := {w ∈ D : |w| ≤ |z|} and this implies that δz =
+∞. Moreover, since Re p(z) > 0 for all z ∈ D and p is continuous in D, there exists
ε > 0 such that Re p(w) ≥ ε for all w ∈ D. In particular, Re p(x(t)) ≥ ε for all
t ∈ [0, +∞). Hence, |u(t)| ≤ |z|e−2εt → 0, as t → +∞. Therefore,
limt→+∞ x(t) = 0.
9.4 Basic Properties of Koenigs Functions 253
Moreover, equality holds at some—and hence any—z ∈ D, with h(z) = 0, if and only
if Re λ = 0 and
ζ −z
h(z) = aTζ (z) = a (9.4.3)
1 − ζz
∂φt (z)
Since h is univalent, we have that ∂t
= 0. Differentiating now both sides of
t=0
(9.4.4) in t, we obtain
∂φt (z)
h (φt (z)) = −λe−λt h(z), z ∈ D.
∂t
Thus, by (9.4.5),
1 zh (z) zh (z)
Re = −Re
λ h(z) eλt h (φt (z)) ∂φ∂tt (z)
⎛ ⎞
zh (z) ⎜ 1 ⎟
= −Re lim+ ∂φt (z)
= −Re ⎝ ⎠ ≥ 0,
t→0 λt
e h (φt (z)) ∂t 1 ∂φt (z)
z ∂t t=0
Now suppose (9.4.2) holds for ζ = 0. Let Z = {z ∈ D : h(z) = 0}. Notice that
Z is a discrete subset of D since h ≡ 0. Hence, by (9.4.2) the holomorphic func-
(z)
tion q : D \ Z z → λ1 zhh(z) has range in H. Let C : D → H be a Cayley transform.
−1
Then ψ := C ◦ q : D \ Z → D is holomorphic. By the Riemann Removable Sin-
gularities Theorem, ψ extends to a holomorphic function from D to D.
There are two cases: either there exists σ ∈ ∂D such that ψ(z) = σ for all z ∈ D,
or ψ(D) ⊆ D.
In the first case, q(z) = C(ψ(z)) = C(σ ) for all z ∈ D. In particular, C(σ ) =
(z)
q(0) = lim z→0 λ1 zhh(z) = λ1 for all z ∈ D. Hence, it follows that this is the case if and
only if Re λ = 0 and σ = C −1 (1/λ). Moreover, since q(z) = q(0) for all z ∈ D, it
follows that h(z) = zh (z) for all z ∈ D and thus h = a idD for some a ∈ C \ {0}.
Hence h is λ-spirallike and h satisfies (9.4.3).
In the second case, ψ(D) ⊆ D. Hence, Re q(z) = Re C(ψ(z)) > 0 for all z ∈ D.
Therefore, the function p(z) := q(z) 1
is well defined and holomorphic from D to H.
For each z ∈ D, let x : [0, +∞) → D be the solution of the Eq. (9.4.1) and let
z
w z (t) := h(x z (t)) for all t ≥ 0. Then w z (0) = h(z) and, for all t ≥ 0,
d z d
(w (t)) = h (x z (t)) (x z (t)) = −x z (t) p(x z (t))h (x z (t))
dt dt
= −λh(x z (t)) = −λw z (t),
which implies that w z (t) = e−λt h(z) for all t ≥ 0. This shows that for each z ∈ D,
the function h maps the curve [0, +∞) t → x z (t) onto the arc of the λ-spiral from
h(z) to 0. Thus h(D) is a λ-spirallike domain.
Now we show that h is univalent. Suppose by contradiction that h(z 1 ) = h(z 2 ) for
some points z 1 , z 2 ∈ D. Then w z1 (t) = w z2 (t) for all t ≥ 0. Since h (0) = 0, there
is ε > 0 such that h is univalent in the disc εD. By Lemma 9.4.4, limt→+∞ x z1 (t) =
limt→+∞ x z2 (t) = 0. Hence, if t is large enough in such a way that |x z1 (t)| < ε and
|x z2 (t)| < ε, the univalency of h in εD implies that x z1 (t) = x z2 (t). By the uniqueness
of solutions for the problem (9.4.1), it follows that x z1 (t) = x z2 (t) for all t ≥ 0, which,
in turn, implies z 1 = z 2 . Hence h is univalent in D. Therefore, h is λ-spirallike with
respect to 0. Thus the result holds in case ζ = 0.
The general case ζ = 0 can be deduced from the previous one by considering the
auxiliary function g : D → D defined by
where Tζ is the canonical automorphism of D which maps ζ to 0, see (1.2.1). Note that
g(D) = h(D), g(0) = 0 and g (0) = (|ζ |2 − 1)g (ζ ). Hence, g is λ-spirallike with
respect to 0 if and only if h is λ-spirallike with respect to ζ . Moreover, write w =
Tζ (z). Since Tζ ◦ Tζ = idD , it holds g(Tζ (z)) = h(z). Hence, a direct computation
shows
9.4 Basic Properties of Koenigs Functions 255
1 wg (w) 1 Tζ (z) g (Tζ (z))Tζ (z)
Re = Re
λ g(w) λ Tζ (z) g(Tζ (z))
1 (z − ζ )(1 − ζ z) h (z)
= Re .
λ 1 − |ζ |2 h(z)
Proof Let γ : [0, ∞) → D be the continuous curve defined by γ (t) := φt (0). Note
that limt→+∞ γ (t) = τ by Theorem 8.3.6. Hence,
lim Im h(γ (t)) = lim Im h(φt (0))) = lim Im (h(0) + it) = +∞,
t→+∞ t→+∞ t→+∞
where the limit has to be understood in C∞ . However, such a condition by itself does
not characterize the Denjoy-Wolff point of (φt ), while (9.4.6) does, as we will see
later on.
For hyperbolic semigroups, one can say something more:
Proposition 9.4.8 Let (φt ) be a hyperbolic semigroup in D with Denjoy-Wolff point
τ ∈ ∂D and Koenigs function h. Then
Proof By Theorem 9.3.5, |Re h(z)| ≤ π/λ for all z ∈ D, where λ > 0 is the spectral
value of (φt ). Hence, by Remark 9.4.7, ∠ lim z→τ Im h(z) is either +∞ or −∞.
Since, by Proposition 8.3.7, the curve [0, +∞) t → φt (0) converges to τ non-
tangentially as t → +∞, arguing as in the proof of Proposition 9.4.6, we see that
∠ lim supz→τ Im h(z) = +∞. Hence ∠ lim z→τ Im h(z) = +∞ and we are done.
256 9 Models and Koenigs Functions
Maps which are starlike at infinity and Koenigs functions of non-elliptic semi-
groups in D are one and the same:
From this and from Theorem 9.3.5, taking into account that h + α satisfies (9.2.1)
for all α ∈ R, implications (1), (2), (3) and (4) follow easily. As an example, let us
prove (2). In this case, Ω = {z ∈ C : Re z < b}. Therefore, if we let h̃ := h − b, it
follows that h̃ satisfies (9.2.1), and since ∪t≥0 (h̃(D) − it) = H− , (9.2.2) is satisfied
as well. Therefore, (H− , h − b, z → z + it) is the canonical model of (φt ), and (φt )
is a parabolic semigroup with positive hyperbolic step by the Theorem 9.3.5.
9.4 Basic Properties of Koenigs Functions 257
In particular, for every R > 0 there exists n R ∈ N such that Im ζ ≥ R for all n ≥ n R
and all ζ ∈ Γn . This implies that if {ζn } is a sequence such that ζn ∈ Γn for all n ∈ N,
then
lim ζn = ∞ in C∞ . (9.4.8)
n→∞
σ +z
h(z) = a + c, z ∈ D (9.4.10)
σ −z
h (z) σ
g (w) = h (Cσ−1 (w)) (Cσ−1 (w)) = = (σ − z)2 h (z).
Cσ (z) 2
∂
Re g(y + ir ) = Re (ig (y + ir )) = −Im g (y + ir ) < 0,
∂r
ir0 ) = Re g(y + ir1 ). Since g is univalent, Im g(y + ir0 ) = Im g(y + ir1 ) and we
can assume that Im g(y + ir0 ) > Im g(y + ir1 ). Let t := Im g(y + ir0 ) − Im g(y +
ir1 ) > 0. By (9.4.12),
which is a contradiction since g(y + ir0 ) ∈ g(∂ E H (∞, y)). Therefore, if not con-
stant, the function R r → Re g(y + ir ) is strictly monotone. Moreover, by (9.4.12),
it is clear that g maps E H (∞, y) onto the connected component of C \ g(∂ E H (∞, y))
which contains the curve (0, +∞) r → g(y + ir ). Since univalent maps preserve
orientation, this implies that, if not constant, the function R r → Re g(y + ir )
is strictly decreasing. In particular, Im g (y + ir ) = − ∂r∂ Re g(y + ir ) ≥ 0, and
(9.4.11) holds.
Now, we show that claim (∗) holds. Fix y > 0. By Theorem 9.4.10, there exists
α ∈ R such that h + α is the Koenigs function of a non-elliptic semigroup (φt ) in D
with Denjoy-Wolff point σ . Note that (φt ) is not a group since Im g > 0. Therefore,
for all t > 0, taking into account that φt (z) = h −1 (h(z) + it) and Julia’s Theorem
1.4.7,
1 1
h −1 h(∂ E(σ, )) + it ⊆ E(σ, ).
y y
Hence, by (1.4.15),
1
g(∂ E H (∞, y)) + it = h(Cσ−1 (∂ E H (∞, y))) + it = h(∂ E(σ, )) + it
y
1 1
⊆ h(E(σ, )) = g(Cσ (E(σ, ))) = g(E H (∞, y)),
y y
where σ ∈ C∞ \ D is the other common fixed point of (φt ) (and, with the usual
notation, we set σz ≡ 0 in case σ = ∞).
(2) If (φt ) is hyperbolic, with Denjoy-Wolff point τ ∈ ∂D and spectral value λ > 0
then its canonical model is (S πλ , h, z → z + i), with the Koenigs function h given
by
i τ +z 1 + τ/σ π
h(z) = log + + , (9.5.2)
λ τ −z 1 − τ/σ 2λ
where log denotes the principal branch of the logarithm and σ ∈ C∞ \ D is the
other common fixed point of (φt ) (and, with the usual notation, we set στ = 0 in
case σ = ∞).
(3) If (φt ) is parabolic with Denjoy-Wolff point τ ∈ ∂D, then (φt ) is of zero hyper-
bolic step and its canonical model is (C, h, z → z + i), with the Koenigs function
h given by
i τ +z
h(z) = , (9.5.3)
aτ −z
Proof (1) Let us assume (φt ) is elliptic. By Proposition 8.5.2, there exists σ ∈ C∞ \
D such that φ1 (σ ) = σ . Note that φ1 ◦ φt = φt ◦ φ1 in C∞ for all t ≥ 0 since the
same relation holds in the open disc D. Since
9.5 Semigroups of Linear Fractional Maps 261
Now, h(∂D) is a line L in C, and h(D) is contained in one of the two half-planes
bounded by L, let A := h(D) be such a half-plane. The half-plane A is invariant under
the transformation z → z + it, for all t ≥ 0 since h(φt (z)) = h(z) + it for all t ≥ 0.
Hence, (9.5.4) holds if and only if L is not a vertical line. If L were a vertical line, then
h(D) = A were invariant also under the transformation z → z − it, t ≥ 0. Therefore,
262 9 Models and Koenigs Functions
There is another interesting question that can be completely solved for linear
fractional self-maps of the unit disc, the question of embedding: given a holomorphic
self-map φ : D → D, does there exist a semigroup (φt ) in D such that φ1 = φ?
Clearly, the map φ has to be univalent in D by Theorem 8.1.17, but such a condition
is not sufficient. In this section we solve the following question:
Let φ : D → D be linear fractional. Does there exist a semigroup (φt ) in D such
that φ1 = φ?
By Theorem 8.5.3, if such a semigroup exists, all its iterates are linear fractional.
We first examine the non-elliptic case, where the previous question has always a
positive answer:
1 1 1
g (τ ) = lim = lim
β z→τ βg(z)(z − τ ) z→τ g(φ(z))(z − τ )
1 φ(z) − τ
= lim · = g (τ )φ (τ ).
z→τ g(φ(z))(φ(z) − τ ) z−τ
Thus, β1 = φ (τ ) = e−λ and eλ g(z) = g(φ(z)) for all z ∈ D. Let h(z) = λi log g(z) +
π
2λ
, z ∈ D. Then it is easy to check that h(φ(z)) = h(z) + i for all z ∈ D, and h(D)
is invariant under the transformation z → z + it for all t ≥ 0. Hence, the setting
φt (z) := h −1 (h(z) + it) for t ≥ 0 defines a semigroup in D such that φ1 = φ.
If φ is parabolic with Denjoy-Wolff point τ ∈ ∂D. Let g(z) := z−τ 1
. Since the
−1
Möbius transformation g ◦ φ ◦ g has only one fixed point in C∞ and fixes ∞
then (g ◦ φ ◦ g −1 )(z) = z + b for some b ∈ C \ {0}. Thus h(z) := bi g(z) satisfies
h(φ(z)) = h(z) + i for all z ∈ D. The domain h(D) is a half-plane whose boundary
is given by the line L = h(∂D) and it is invariant under the transformation z →
z + it for all t ≥ 0. Hence, the setting φt (z) := h −1 (h(z) + it) for t ≥ 0 defines a
semigroup in D such that φ1 = φ.
For elliptic linear fractional self-maps of D, the question of embeddability does not
always have a positive answer. Every elliptic automorphism of D can be embedded
9.5 Semigroups of Linear Fractional Maps 263
τ −z 1
Tτ (∞) = lim = ,
z→∞ 1 − τz τ
while, if τ = 0, T0 (∞) = ∞. With this convention, we can now state and prove the
following embedding result:
|σ − τ |
|λ| ≤ Re λ , (9.5.5)
|1 − σ τ |
|σ −τ |
where, with a slight abuse of notation, we let Re λ |1−σ τ|
= +∞ in case τ = 0 and
σ = ∞.
Thus, the statement of the theorem is equivalent to: φ̃ is embeddable into a semi-
group in D if and only if (9.5.6) holds.
Assume first that φ̃ is embeddable into a semigroup (φ̃t ) in D. Then, by Theorem
8.5.3, φ̃t is a linear fractional map with 0 and β as fixed points for all t ≥ 0. Moreover,
by (9.5.1), the Koenigs function h of (φ̃t ) is given by
z
h(z) = . (9.5.7)
1− z
β
β
with the usual convention that z−β = −1 if β = ∞. In particular, if β = ∞, the
previous equation reduces to Re λ ≥ 0, which is always the case.
Otherwise, in case β = ∞, the previous equation is equivalent to
|λ||β| = sup Re λβz ≤ |β|2 Re λ,
z∈D
In Theorem 9.3.5 we have seen that every semigroup in D admits a canonical model,
and that canonical models are unique (up to isomorphisms of holomorphic mod-
els). One might be interested in understanding the other possible holomorphic semi-
conjugations. In this section we examine semi-conjugations with prescribed simple
base spaces.
Let (φt ) be a semigroup in D. Let X be a Riemann surface, (ϕt ) a group of auto-
morphisms of X and let η : D → X be a holomorphic map such that for all t ≥ 0 it
holds η ◦ φt = ϕt ◦ η. If the map η is not constant, the image η(D) is an open subset of
X and Λ := t≥0 ϕ−t (η(D)) is thus a Riemann surface which is completely invari-
ant under the action of (ϕt ). Therefore, (Λ, η, ϕt |Λ ) is a holomorphic semi-model
for (φt ). Hence, in order to study (non-trivial) holomorphic semi-conjugations, it is
enough to study holomorphic semi-models and, by Proposition 9.2.14, this amounts
to study morphisms of holomorphic semi-models from the canonical models.
As Example 9.2.1 shows, in general semi-models can be quite wild, however, if
the prescribed base space is as simple as D or C, semi-models are very rigid. In
fact, we classify all possible non-trivial holomorphic semi-models with base space
D or C. It follows that for non-elliptic semigroups there exist no holomorphic semi-
models which are not models (thus, up to isomorphisms of semi-models, the only
possible holomorphic semi-model is the canonical one). While, for the elliptic case,
holomorphic semi-models are essentially powers of the canonical model:
(1) If (φt ) is an elliptic semigroup with spectral value λ, for some λ ∈ C \ {0} with
Re λ ≥ 0, then there exists m ∈ N such that (Λ, η, ϕt ) is isomorphic to the
holomorphic semi-model (Ω, h m , z → e−mλt z).
(2) If (φt ) is a non-elliptic semigroup then (Λ, η, ϕt ) is a holomorphic model, iso-
morphic to (Ω, h, ψt ).
Proof Case (I). Assume (φt ) is an elliptic group. In this case, according to Theo-
rem 9.3.5, Ω = D and there exists θ ∈ R with λ = iθ and such that ψt (z) = e−iθt z
for all t ≥ 0.
First, we want to show that Λ cannot be equal to C. Indeed, assume by con-
tradiction that Λ = C. By Proposition 9.2.4, (ϕt ) is a group of automorphisms of
C with a common fixed point z 0 ∈ C. Hence, the automorphism A of C, defined
as A(z) := z − z 0 , satisfies (A ◦ ϕt ◦ A−1 )(z) = eμt z for all t ≥ 0, and for some
μ ∈ C \ {0}. Therefore, A defines an isomorphism  of semi-models between
(C, η, ϕt ) and (C, A ◦ η, z → eμt z).
By Proposition 9.2.14 there exists a morphism of holomorphic semi-models fˆ :
(D, h, z → e−iθt z) → (C, A ◦ η, z → eμt z). By the functional equation (9.2.6), we
have
f (e−iθt z) = eμt f (z), (9.6.1)
a j e−iθt j = a j eμt ,
which holds for all j ≥ j0 and t ∈ R. Hence, μ = −iθ j0 , and a j = 0 for all j > j0 .
This implies that f (z) = a j0 z j0 , and then f (D) = C. In particular, f is not surjective,
contradicting Lemma 9.2.10. Therefore, Λ cannot be equal to C.
In case Λ = D, by Proposition 9.2.4, (ϕt ) is a group of automorphisms of D
with a common fixed point z 0 ∈ D. If A := Tz0 is the canonical automorphism of
D given by (1.2.1), then, as before, A defines an isomorphism  of semi-models
between (D, η, ϕt ) and (D, A ◦ η, z → eμt z), for some μ ∈ iR \ {0}. By Proposi-
tion 9.2.14 there exists a morphism of holomorphic semi-models fˆ : (D, h, z →
e−iθt z) → (D, A ◦ η, z → eμt z). Then, arguing exactly as before, one can show that
μ = −iθ j0 , and f (z) = a j0 z j0 for some j0 ∈ N, a j0 = 0. Since by Lemma 9.2.10,
f (D) = D, it follows that |a j0 | = 1.
Set m := j0 and q := a j0 . Then, by definition of morphism of holomorphic semi-
models and for what we proved above, A ◦ η = f ◦ h = qh m and μ = −iθ m. Thus,
the holomorphic semi-model (D, η, ϕt ) is isomorphic to the holomorphic semi-model
(D, qh m , z → e−iθmt z). Finally, this latter holomorphic semi-model is clearly iso-
morphic to the holomorphic semi-model (D, h m , z → e−iθmt z) via the isomorphism
of semi-model induced by the automorphism of D given by z → qz. Hence, in case
(φt ) is an elliptic group, the result is proved.
Case (II). If (φt ) is an elliptic semigroup which is not a group, then, according to
Theorem 9.3.5, Ω = C and ψt (z) = e−λt z. The argument is very similar to the one
266 9 Models and Koenigs Functions
given in Case (I), and we omit it. We only note that in this case Λ cannot be equal
to D. Indeed, by Proposition 9.2.14 there exists a morphism of holomorphic semi-
models fˆ : (C, h, z → e−λt z) → (Λ, η, ϕt ). Since f : Ω → Λ is a holomorphic
and surjective map by Lemma 9.2.10, Liouville’s Theorem implies that, in fact,
Λ = C.
Case (III). Assume that (φt ) is non-elliptic and Λ = C. According to Theorem 9.3.5,
ψt (z) = z + it for all t ≥ 0.
Since Λ = C, then by Theorem 8.4.5, there exists an automorphism T of C
such that either (T ◦ ϕt ◦ T −1 )(z) = z + it or (T ◦ ϕt ◦ T −1 )(z) = eat z for some
a ∈ C \ {0}.
In the first case, T defines an isomorphism of holomorphic semi-models T̂ :
(C, η, ϕt ) → (C, T ◦ η, z → z + it) and, by Proposition 9.2.14, there exists a mor-
phism of holomorphic semi-models fˆ : (Ω, h, z → z + it) → (C, T ◦ η, z → z +
it). The holomorphic map f : Ω → C is surjective by Lemma 9.2.10 and by (9.2.6)
it satisfies
f (z + it) = f (z) + it,
Arguing as in Case (III), we see that the only possibility is that ϕ̃t (z) = z + it for all
t ≥ 0 and that f : Ω → Θ be a biholomorphism. Therefore, in this case, (Λ, η, ϕt )
is isomorphic to (Ω, h, ψt ).
The concept of holomorphic models allows also to detect semigroups in D which are
holomorphically conjugated. We officially start with a definition:
Definition 9.7.1 Let (φt ) and (φ t ) be two semigroups in D. We say that (φt ) and
(φt ) are holomorphically conjugated if there exists an automorphism T of D such
that T ◦ φt = φt ◦ T for all t ≥ 0.
There is a very simple and useful criterion for detecting when two semigroups are
holomorphically conjugated using holomorphic models. In order to state it, we need
a definition:
Definition 9.7.2 Let (φt ) and (φ̃t ) be two semigroups in D. Let (Ω, h, ψt ) be a holo-
morphic model for (φt ) and (Ω, t ) a holomorphic model for (φ
h, ψ t ). We say that
(Ω, h, ψt ) and (Ω, t ) are holomorphically conjugated if there exists a biholo-
h, ψ
morphism g : Ω → Ω such that g ◦ ψt = ψ t ◦ g and g(h(D)) =
h(D). The map g
is called a holomorphic conjugation of models.
Conjugated semigroups correspond to conjugated models:
Proposition 9.7.3 Let (φt ), (φt ) be two semigroups in D, with holomorphic models
(Ω, h, ψt ) and (Ω, h, ψt ). The following are equivalent:
(1) the holomorphic models (Ω, h, ψt ) and (Ω, t ) are holomorphically conju-
h, ψ
gated;
t ) are holomorphically conjugated.
(2) the semigroups (φt ) and (φ
Proof (1) implies (2). Let g be a holomorphic conjugation of models between
(Ω, h, ψt ) and (Ω, t ), that is, g : Ω → Ω
h, ψ is a biholomorphism such that
g ◦ ψt = ψt ◦ g and g(h(D)) = h(D). Define T :=
h −1 ◦ g ◦ h. It is easy to see that
T is a holomorphic conjugation between (φt ) and (φt ).
(2) implies (1). Let T be a holomorphic conjugation between (φt ) and (φ t ). Let
−1 −1
Ωt := ψt (h(D)) and Ωt := ψt (h(D)), t ≥ 0. Note that, if t ≥ s then Ωs ⊆ Ωt ,
since ψt = ψt−s ◦ ψs and h(D) is invariant under ψt for all t ≥ 0. Moreover,
ψt (Ωt ) = h(D) and, by the definition of model, Ω = ∪t≥0 Ωt . Similarly for Ω.
For t ≥ 0, define gt : Ωt → Ωt by
t−1 ◦
gt := ψ h ◦ T ◦ h −1 ◦ ψt .
t . Also, by definition, ψ
Clearly, gt is a biholomorphism from Ωt and Ω t ◦ g0 =
g0 ◦ ψt |Ω0 for all t ≥ 0.
268 9 Models and Koenigs Functions
Corollary 9.7.4 Let (φt ), (φt ) be two semigroups in D. Assume (Ω, h, ψt ) is the
t ) are holomorphically conjugated if and
canonical model for (φt ). Then, (φt ) and (φ
only if there exists an automorphism T of D such that (Ω, h ◦ T, ψt ) is the canonical
model for (φ t ).
t = (h ◦ φt ) ◦ T = ψt ◦ (h ◦ T ).
(h ◦ T ) ◦ φ
Moreover, since h(T (D)) = h(D) it is easy to see that (Ω, h ◦ T, ψt ) is the canonical
model for (φt ).
Conversely, if there exists an automorphism T such that (Ω, h ◦ T, ψt ) is the
canonical model for (φt ), then the identity function idΩ : Ω → Ω defines a holo-
morphic conjugation between the holomorphic model (Ω, h, ψt ) for (φt ) and the
holomorphic model (Ω, h ◦ T, ψt ) for (φ t ). Hence the result follows from Proposi-
tion 9.7.3.
The careful reader might have realized that in the constructions of semi-models, the
property of being holomorphic does not play any fundamental role. In fact, one can
repeat all the constructions in Sect. 9.2 assuming just continuity of the intertwining
maps. We do not repeat all those constructions, but concentrate on “topological
models”:
h = η ◦ h, (9.8.1)
and
t ◦ η = η ◦ ψt , t ≥ 0.
ψ (9.8.2)
Lemma 9.8.3 Let (φt ) be a semigroup in D. Then there exists a topological model
for (φt ), unique up to isomorphisms of topological models.
Proof Since every holomorphic model is in particular a topological model, the exis-
tence follows at once from Theorem 9.2.18. The uniqueness up to isomorphisms of
topological models follows arguing exactly as in the proof of Corollary 9.2.15 and
Proposition 9.2.14.
Proof If (φt ) is an elliptic group, it has the canonical model (D, h, z → e−itθ z) by
Theorem 9.3.5. If θ > 0, the map z → z conjugates the holomorphic model to the
model (D, h, z → eit|θ| z).
In case (φt ) is elliptic, not a group, let (C, h, z → e−λt z) be the canonical model
for (φt ) given by Theorem 9.3.5, with λ = a + ib, a > 0 and b ∈ R. Define
1 b
ϕ(ρeiθ ) := exp +i log ρ eiθ , ρ = 0,
a a
it for all t ∈ R. Now, let ϕ := ϕ ◦ h. It is then easy to see that (S, ϕ , z → z + it)
is a topological model for (φt ). In case Ω = H, it is enough to replace θ with any
homeomorphism θ : (0, +∞) → (0, 1). While, if Ω = H− one can replace θ with
any homeomorphism θ : (−∞, 0) → (0, 1). If Ω = Sρ , just define ϕ(x + i y) =
x/ρ + i y.
To prove the converse implications, by Lemma 9.8.3, it is enough to show that
the various topological models are not topologically isomorphic each other. In fact,
let (φt ) be a semigroup in D, and assume that (S, h, z → z + it) and (Ω, h̃, z →
eμt z) are two topological models for (φt ), with Ω = D or Ω = C and μ ∈ C \ {0}.
By Lemma 9.8.3 there exists a homeomorphism η : S → Ω such that η(z + it) =
eμt η(z) for all t ≥ 0 (see (9.8.2)). Since η is surjective, there exists ζ ∈ C such that
h(ζ ) = 0. But then, for all t ≥ 0 it holds
Definition 9.8.5 Let (φt ) and (φ t ) be two semigroups in D. We say that (φt ) and
t ) are topologically conjugated if there exists a homeomorphism T : D → D such
(φ
that T ◦ φt = φ t ◦ T for all t ≥ 0.
Also,
Definition 9.8.6 Let (φt ) and (φ̃t ) be two semigroups in D. Let (Ω, h, ψt ) be a
topological model for (φt ) and (Ω, t ) a topological model for (φ
h, ψ t ). We say that
(Ω, h, ψt ) and (Ω, h, ψt ) are topologically conjugated if there exists a homeomor-
phism τ : Ω → Ω such that τ ◦ ψt = ψ t ◦ τ and τ (h(D)) = h(D). The map τ is
called a topological conjugation of models.
Proposition 9.8.7 Let (φt ), (φt ) be two semigroups in D, with topological models
(Ω, h, ψt ) and (Ω, t ). The following are equivalent:
h, ψ
(1) the topological models (Ω, h, ψt ) and (Ω, t ) are topologically conjugated;
h, ψ
9.8 Topological Models and Topological Conjugations 271
Hence, the canonical model of (φ̃t ) is (S, h̃, z → z + it). By Theorem 9.3.5, it fol-
lows that (φ̃t ) is a hyperbolic semigroup with spectral value π .
Finally, by Proposition 9.8.7, in order to show that (φt ) and (φ̃t ) are topologically
conjugated, we have to show that their models (S, h, z → z + it) and (S, h̃, z → z +
it) are topologically conjugated. Since h(D) = h̃(D), the identity map idS : S → S
provides the needed topological conjugation.
9.9 Notes
In 1884, Koenigs [91] proved that given a holomorphic self-map φ of D such that
φ(0) = 0 and 0 < |φ (0)| < 1 there exists a unique holomorphic map h : D → C
satisfying the Schröder equation [116] h ◦ φ = φ (0)h and such that h(0) = 0,
h (0) = 1. Clearly ∪m∈N φ (0)−m h(D) = C.
If the function φ is hyperbolic with Denjoy-Wolff point τ ∈ ∂D, in 1931, Valiron
[125] proved that there exists a holomorphic map h : D → H which satisfies the Val-
iron equation h ◦ f = αφ (τ )h. The solution h also satisfies ∪m∈N αφ (τ )−m h(D) = H
272 9 Models and Koenigs Functions
and is essentially unique in the sense that any other holomorphic solution is a positive
multiple of h by [38, Proposition 2.4].
In 1979, Pommerenke and Baker [9, 104] dealt with the parabolic case, proving
that in such a case the Abel equation h ◦ φ = h + i admits a holomorphic solution
h : D → C. For any solution h of the Abel equation the domain ∪m∈N (h(D) − mi)
is either the whole C or is biholomorphic to D, depending on whether φ is of zero
hyperbolic step or of nonzero hyperbolic step. The uniqueness of the solutions of the
Abel functional equations has been investigated in [53, 101].
These three functional equations are examples of intertwining models, and since
φ is intertwined with linear fractional maps, they are called linear fractional models.
There is a geometric way of approaching the problem of intertwining models which
was proposed in 1981 by Cowen [56] exploiting a categorial construction (the tail
space, also known as the abstract basin of attraction). His approach allows to treat
the three previous functional equations in a unique framework. Cowen’s approach
has been refined in the categorial sense presented in this book in [8].
In 1996, Bourdon and Shapiro [19] considered the case of holomorphic self-maps
of the unit disc with no interior fixed points having some regularity at the Denjoy-
Wolff point. Assuming regularity at the Denjoy-Wolff point allows one to obtain
better knowledge of the intertwining map and of the shape of the corresponding
image domain.
Such results, aside an intrinsic interest, have been applied in many ways, for
instance to study dynamics, commuting maps and properties of the associated com-
position operators, see, e.g., [18, 40, 57, 58, 65, 107, 117].
In 1939, Wolff [128], studying continuous iteration, proved the existence of the
Koenigs function of a semigroup in the elliptic case. Heins [82] in 1981 and Siskakis
[120] in 1985 proved, using infinitesimal generators (see Chap. 10), the existence of
Koenigs functions for continuous semigroups of D.
The existence of linear fractional models for univalent functions allows to solve
the embedding problem in a geometric way. Indeed, a univalent self-map of D is
embeddable into a semigroup of D if and only if the intertwining map of its linear
fractional model is the Koenigs function of a semigroup in D (for studies on the
embedding problem following this point of view, see [65, pp. 96–99], [56, 88, 123]).
The material in Sects. 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 has been elaborated from [8] (see also [31]).
The proof of Lemma 9.1.1, which holds more generally for measurable subadditive
functions, is taken from [93, Theorem 16.2.9]. The proof of Theorem 9.4.5 was taken
from [59]. Theorem 9.4.11 was first proved under slightly different hypotheses in
[80] for holomorphic functions from the upper half-plane and in [43] for the unit disc
case. The material in Sect. 9.5 is taken from [24]. Sections 9.7 and 9.8 are taken from
[30]. Corollary 9.8.8(1) follows also from Naishul’s theorem (see, e.g., [21, Theorem
2.29]), which states that two germs of elliptic holomorphic maps in C fixing 0 which
are topologically conjugated by an orientation preserving map, must have the same
derivative at 0. The proof of such a result is however much more complicated than
the corresponding results for groups.
Chapter 10
Infinitesimal Generators
After having defined the Koenigs function of a semigroup in the previous chapter,
now we turn our attention to the second characteristic feature of a semigroup: the
infinitesimal generator. We see how to relate semigroups to Cauchy problems, show-
ing that every semigroup is completely determined by a holomorphic vector field in
the unit disc, its infinitesimal generator. Once shown the existence of such a vector
field, we will focus on different descriptions and characterizations of infinitesimal
generators and discuss several of their properties and examples.
Cauchy problem (10.1.1) contains [0, +∞) for all z ∈ D. We say that G is a complete
vector field if the maximal interval of existence of the solution of the Cauchy problem
(10.1.1) is R for all z ∈ D.
is real analytic and there exists a unique holomorphic semicomplete vector field
G : D → C such that
∂φt (z)
= G(φt (z)), z ∈ D, t ∈ [0, +∞). (10.1.2)
∂t
Conversely, given a holomorphic semicomplete vector field G, there exists a unique
semigroup (φt ) in D such that (10.1.2) is satisfied.
Moreover, if h is the Koenigs function of (φt ), then
(1) in case (φt ) is the trivial semigroup, G ≡ 0,
(2) in case (φt ) is an elliptic semigroup with spectral value λ, for all z ∈ D,
h(z)
G(z) = −λ ,
h (z)
i
G(z) = .
h (z)
Proof Assume that (φt ) is a semigroup in D. According to Theorem 9.3.5, the semi-
group (φt ) has a canonical model. If (φt ) is either trivial or elliptic, then its canonical
model is (Ω, h, z → e−λt z), where λ is the spectral value of (φt ) and either Ω = D
or Ω = C. Hence φt (z) = h −1 (e−λt h(z)). Clearly, the map (t, z) → φt (z) is real
analytic in [0, ∞) × D. Let G(z) := ∂φ∂tt (z) = −λ hh(z) (z) , z ∈ D. This function is
t=0
holomorphic and
has a solution x z : [0, +∞) → D. Define φt (z) := x z (t). Fix t, s > 0. By uniqueness
of solutions of Cauchy problems, x z (t + s) = x x (s) (t). Therefore φt+s = φt ◦ φs .
z
Proof It is clear that (2) implies (3) taking s = 0. Moreover, by Theorem 8.1.15,
(3) implies (1). Let us assume (1) holds. We want to show that (2) holds as well.
Assume this is not the case. Then there exist T ∈ [0, +∞), ε > 0, two sequences
{sn }, {tn } ⊂ [0, T ] and a sequence {z n } ⊂ D such that limn→∞ |sn − tn | = 0 and for
all n ∈ N,
|φtn (z n ) − φsn (z n )| ≥ ε. (10.1.3)
Let (Ω, h, ψt ) be the canonical model for (φt ) given by Theorem 9.3.5. Then, either
ψt (z) = e−λt z for some λ ∈ C with Re λ ≥ 0, or ψt (z) = z + it for all t ≥ 0. We
give the proof for the case ψt (z) = z + it, being the other similar. Equations (9.2.3)
and (10.1.3) imply that for all n ∈ N
Theorem 10.1.4 shows that the trajectories of every semigroup are solutions of a
Cauchy problem. It is also possible to show that they are the solutions of a partial
differential equation, known as Kolmogorov’s Backward Equation. Moreover, this
equation leads to a useful expression of the derivatives of the iterates of a semigroup
in terms of the derivative of the infinitesimal generator.
Proof Consider the equation φs+t (z) = φt (φs (z)). Differentiating with respect to s,
we obtain
∂φs+t (z) ∂φs (z)
= φt (φs (z)) .
∂s ∂s
Taking s = 0, we deduce (10.1.5).
By Theorem 10.1.4, the function (t, z) → φt (z) is real analytic in [0, +∞) × D
and, in particular,
∂ ∂φt (z) ∂ ∂φt (z) ∂φt (z)
= = .
∂z ∂t ∂t ∂z ∂t
∂φt (z)
= G (φt (z))φt (z), z ∈ D, t ≥ 0.
∂t
Fix z ∈ D. Since φt is univalent for all t ≥ 0, the curve [0, +∞) t → φt (z)
admits a smooth selection of the argument θ : [0, +∞) → R. Moreover, we may
assume θ (0) = 0 because φ0 (z) = 1. Using real logarithms, we define
[0, +∞) t → f (t) := log |φt (z)| + iθ (t).
Notice that φt (z) = e f (t) and f (0) = 0. Then, for all t ≥ 0
∂
φ (z)
∂t t
f (t) = = G (φt (z)).
φt (z)
Proof Clearly G ≡ 0 is the infinitesimal generator associated with the trivial semi-
group. Let assume that G is an infinitesimal generator and let G(z) = c for all z ∈ D.
From (10.1.2) it follows that φt (z) = z + ct. Since φt (D) ⊂ D then c = 0.
The point τ and the function p are univocally determined by G and the decomposition
formula (10.1.7) is unique.
Moreover, if G ∈ Gen(D) and (φt ) is the associated semigroup, then the point τ
in (10.1.7) is the Denjoy-Wolff point of (φt ).
Proof Assume firstly that G is the infinitesimal generator of a semigroup (φt ). Let
τ be its Denjoy-Wolff point. We split the proof in two cases.
Case I: (φt ) is elliptic. Let h be the Koenigs function of (φt ). By Theorem 10.1.4,
G(z) = −λ hh(z) (z) where λ is the spectral value of (φt ). Let τ ∈ D be the Denjoy-Wolff
point of (φt ). Since by Proposition 9.4.1, h(τ ) = 0, it follows that G(τ ) = 0. Hence
the function p : D \ {τ } → C defined by
Then
1 zh (z) 1
= , z ∈ D.
λ h(z) p(z)
(z)
Since Re p(z) ≥ 0 for all z ∈ D, this clearly implies that Re λ1 zhh(z) ≥ 0, for all z ∈ D.
Hence, by Theorem 9.4.5, h is λ-spirallike with respect to 0. By Theorem 9.4.3, up to
a factor, the function h is the Koenigs function of the semigroup with Denjoy-Wolff
point 0 defined by φt (z) = h −1 (e−λt h(z)), t ≥ 0, z ∈ D. A direct computation shows
that G and (φt ) satisfy (10.1.2), and hence G is an infinitesimal generator.
If τ ∈ D \ {0}, let q := (1 − |τ |2 ) p ◦ Tτ , where Tτ is the canonical automorphism
of D given by (1.2.1). Since Re q(z) ≥ 0 for all z ∈ D, for what we already proved, the
holomorphic function F(z) = −zq(z) is the infinitesimal generator of a semigroup
(ϕt ) with Denjoy-Wolff point 0. Consider the family of functions φt = Tτ ◦ ϕt ◦ Tτ
for all t ≥ 0. Clearly, (φt ) is a semigroup with Denjoy-Wolff point τ . Moreover
i 1
Im τ (z − τ )2 h (z) = Im = Re ≥ 0, z ∈ D.
p(z) p(z)
When the Denjoy-Wolff point of the semigroup belongs to the boundary of the
unit disc, Berkson-Porta’s Formula can be interpreted in terms of the Poisson kernel
introduced in (1.4.3):
280 10 Infinitesimal Generators
G(z)
∠ lim G(z) = 0, and − λ = ∠ lim = ∠ lim G (z) ∈ (−∞, 0].
z→τ z→τ z−τ z→τ
h(z)h (z)
G (z) = −λ 1 − .
h (z)2
Thus,
G(z)
∠ lim = ∠ lim (τ z − 1) p(z) = β.
z→τ z−τ z→τ
Then, clearly, ∠ lim z→τ G(z) = 0 and, by Theorem 1.7.2, β = ∠ lim z→τ G (z).
By (10.1.6),
t
log(φt (r τ )) = G (φs (r τ )) ds, 0 < r < 1.
0
Now, αφs (τ ) ≤ 1 for all 0 ≤ s ≤ t and {φs (0)}s∈[0,t] is compact. Therefore, by Propo-
sition 1.5.5, there exists a Stolz region S(τ, L) for some L > 1 such that the curves
10.1 Infinitesimal Generators and the Berkson-Porta Formula 281
r → φs (r τ ) are contained in S(τ, L) for all r ∈ [0, 1) and all 0 ≤ s ≤ t. Hence, the
Lebesgue Dominated Convergence Theorem implies
t t
−λt = lim− log(φt (r τ )) =
lim− G (φs (r τ )) ds = β ds = βt.
r →1 0 r →1 0
Thus β = −λ.
G(z)
−λ = ∠ lim ∈ (−∞, 0].
z→τ z−τ
i
∠ lim = −λ.
z→τ h (z)(z − τ)
Im h(r τ ) g(r )
lim = lim = lim g (r )(1 − r )
r →1 − log(1 − r ) r →1 − log(1 − r ) r →1
rτ − τ
= lim Im τ h (r τ )(1 − r ) = − lim Re ,
r →1 r →1 G(r τ )
from which we get the equivalence between (1) and (2), and also that ρ −1 = λ.
for all z ∈ D. Thus Corollary 2.2.2 shows that Re p(z) ≥ 0 for all z ∈ D.
is differentiable at t = 0 and
Proof Let
γ2 (t) − γ1 (t)
h(t) := Tγ2 (t) (γ1 (t)) = .
1 − γ2 (t)γ1 (t)
we have
w − z
γ2 (0) − γ1 (0) w−z
h (0)h(0) = + γ (0)z + wγ1 (0) .
1 − wz (1 − wz)2 2 1 − wz
Dividing by g(0) we get the first expression of g (0). For the second one, consider
the identity:
(1 − |γ1 (t)|2 )(1 − |γ2 (t)|2 )
g(t)2 = 1 − .
|1 − γ2 (t)γ1 (t)|2
Differentiating again at t = 0, and taking into account that γ1 (0) = z and γ2 (0) = w,
we obtain
γ1 (0)z(1 − |w|2 ) + γ2 (0)w(1 − |z|2 )
2g (0)g(0) = 2Re
|1 − zw|2
(1 − |z|2 )(1 − |w|2 )(γ1 (0)w + γ2 (0)z)(1 − zw)
− 2Re ,
|1 − zw|4
Lemma 10.2.3 Let T > 0 and let g : [0, T ] → R be a function such that
(1) for all a, b ∈ [0, T ] and λ ∈ [0, 1] we have
(2) there exists ε > 0 such that the restriction g|[0,ε] is C 1 -smooth and g (0) > 0.
Then g is non decreasing.
Proof By (2), there is 0 < δ < T such that g is strictly increasing in [0, δ].
Assume that there are δ ≤ t1 < t2 ≤ T such that g(t1 ) > g(t2 ). Take t3 < δ so
that g(t3 ) < g(δ). Since t3 < δ ≤ t1 < t2 , (1) implies that
where, in the last inequality, we have used that g(t1 ) > g(t2 ). Thus g(t1 ) = g(δ).
Applying (1) again, we have that
But this is impossible because g(δ) > g(t3 ) and g(δ) = g(t1 ) > g(t2 ).
284 10 Infinitesimal Generators
f t (z) − z
G(z) = lim+ , for all z ∈ D;
t→0 t
(3) (d
ω)(z,w) · (G(z), G(w)) ≤ 0 for all z, w ∈ D, z = w;
(4) (dω)(z,w) · (G(z), G(w)) ≤ 0 for all z, w ∈ D, z = w;
(5) the function G is ω-monotone, i.e., for all z, w ∈ D and for all r > 0 such that
z − r G(z), w − r G(w) ∈ D it holds ω(z − r G(z), w − r G(w)) ≥ ω(z, w);
(6) for all z, w ∈ D, z = w,
G(z) − G(w) G(z)w + zG(w)
Re + Re ≤ 0. (10.2.1)
z−w 1 − zw
Proof Clearly (1) implies (2) with f t = φt , t ∈ [0, +∞) where (φt ) is the semigroup
generated by G.
Assume that (2) holds. Fix z, w ∈ D, z = w, and let g(t) := ω( f t (z), f t (w)) for
t ∈ [0, ε]. By Schwarz-Pick Lemma (see Theorem 1.2.3), g(t) ≤ g(0). Since g is
differentiable at t = 0, it follows
g(t) − g(0)
ω)(z,w) · (G(z), G(w)) = g (0) = lim+
(d ≤ 0,
t→0 t
is defined in some interval (az , δz ) for some az < 0 < δz . We have to prove that
δz = +∞ for all z ∈ D.
To this aim, let z, w ∈ D with z = w and let δ = min{δz , δw } > 0. Let g : [0, δ)
t → ω(x z (t), x w (t)). By the uniqueness of solutions of the above Cauchy problems,
x (t) = x w (t) for all t ∈ [0, δ). Differentiating with respect to t we obtain
z
g (t) = (d
ω)(x z (t),x w (t)) · (G(x z (t)), G(x w (t))) ≤ 0.
δ = +∞. Indeed, if δ < +∞, let 2δ > t0 ≥ δ and let s ≥ 0 be such that t0 − s < δ,
s < δ. Define γ (t) := x z (t) for 0 ≤ t ≤ s and γ (t) = x x (s) (t − s) for s ≤ t ≤ t0 .
z
Then γ is well defined and solves the Cauchy problem with initial data z in the
interval [0, t0 ], against the definition of δ.
Thus we have proved that (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) are equivalent.
The equivalence between (3) and (6) is clear bearing in mind that given two
different points z, w in the unit disc and considering the curves γ1 (t) = z + t G(z)
286 10 Infinitesimal Generators
and γ2 (t) = w + t G(w), defined for t ∈ [0, r ] for some small r > 0 such that z +
r G(z), w + r G(w) ∈ D, by Lemma 10.2.2, we have
Note that such a function is continuous and smooth outside the points z ∈ D such
that G(z) = 0.
Theorem 10.2.6 (Abate’s Formula) Let G : D → C be a holomorphic function. The
following are equivalent:
(1) G ∈ Gen(D);
(2) d(κD ◦ G)z · G(z) ≤ 0 for all z ∈ D such that G(z) = 0;
(3) for all z ∈ D,
Re 2zG(z) + (1 − |z|2 )G (z) ≤ 0. (10.2.4)
Proof Assume that (1) holds. Letting w converge to z in (10.2.1), we obtain (3).
Now, assume (3) holds. Fix z ∈ D such that G(z) = 0 and let γ : [0, ε) → D be
a curve such that γ (t) = G(γ (t)) and γ (0) = z. In other words, γ is a solution of
the Cauchy Problem (10.2.2). Hence, by (10.2.4), for all t ∈ [0, ε),
dγ (t) 2
d dt 2|G(γ (t))|2
= Re 2γ (t)G(γ (t)) + (1 − |γ (t)| 2 )G (γ (t)) ≤ 0.
dt (1 − |γ (t)|2 )2 (1 − |γ (t)|2 )3
dγ (t)
dt
Thus the function t → κD (γ (t); γ (t)) = 1−|γ (t)|2
is not increasing. In particular,
d
d(κD ◦ G)z · G(z) = κD (γ (t); γ (t))|t=0 ≤ 0.
dt
10.2 Characterizations of Infinitesimal Generators 287
d
κD (x(t); x (t)) = d(κD ◦ G)x(t) · G (x(t)) ≤ 0.
dt
Therefore, [0, δ) t → κD (x(t); x (t)) is non increasing. Now, given s < δ, let γ
be the C 1 -smooth curve [0, s] t → x(t). By definition of hyperbolic distance,
s
ω(z, x(s)) ≤ D (γ ) = κD (γ (t); γ (t))dt
s 0
Therefore, if δ < +∞, it would follow that x([0, δ)) is contained in a compact subset
of D, contradicting the maximality of the solution x (see, for example, [44]). Hence,
δ = +∞ and G is semicomplete.
hence αG + β H ∈ Gen(D).
eiθ + z
G(z) = a − az 2 = (z − eiθ )(e−iθ z − 1)ρ
eiθ − z
−z
, it follows that p : D → H and Theorem 10.1.10 guar-
antees that G ∈ Gen(D).
In Sect. 10.3 we will see that, in fact, the function G in above lemma is the
infinitesimal generator of a hyperbolic group, but this additional information is not
relevant right now.
Next corollary gives another useful explicit description of Gen(D). In fact, it
shows that any generator is the sum of the infinitesimal generator of an hyperbolic
group and the infinitesimal generator of a semigroup that fixes the origin:
Proof First, we show that (1) implies (4). Take two points z, w ∈ D, z = w, and
consider the curves γ1 (t) = z − t G(z) and γ2 (t) = w − t G(w), defined for t ∈ [0, r ]
10.2 Characterizations of Infinitesimal Generators 289
for some small r > 0 such that z − r G(z), w − r G(w) ∈ D. By Lemma 10.2.2, the
ω(γ1 (t), γ2 (t)) at t = 0 is
derivative of the function g(t) =
By Theorem 10.2.4, (1) implies that g(t) ≥ g(0) for t ∈ [0, r ]. In particular g (0) ≥ 0
and, since γ1 (0) = −G(z) and γ2 (0) = −G(w), we obtain (4).
If (4) holds, setting w = 0, (3) holds at once. Moreover, it is clear that (3) implies
(2).
Assume that (2) holds. Write a = G(0) and define p : D → C by p(z) =
−az 2 +a−G(z)
z
. Clearly, the function p is holomorphic in the unit disc. Moreover,
By the Maximum Principle for harmonic functions, Re p(z) ≥ 0, for all z ∈ D. Thus,
by Corollary 10.2.9, G ∈ Gen(D). Hence, (1) holds.
where the closure is taken in the topology of uniform convergence on compact subsets
of D.
Proof As we saw in Sect. 8.2, if (φt ) is a group in the unit disc, then (ϕt ) := (φ−t )
is also a group. A simple computations shows that if G is the infinitesimal generator
(φt ), then −G is the infinitesimal generator of (ϕt ). Therefore, G ∈ Gen(D) is the
infinitesimal generator of a group if and only if −G also belongs to Gen(D). As an
immediate consequence of this and the main results in Sect. 10.2, it follows that (1),
(2), (3), (4) and (5) are equivalent.
Now, if there exist a ∈ C and b ∈ R such that G(z) = az 2 + ibz − a, for all
z ∈ D, then
Therefore, Re p(z) = 0 for all z ∈ D, and thus there exists b ∈ R such that Re p(z) =
ib for all z and we are done.
iω
G(z) = (z − τ )(τ z − 1) . (10.3.1)
1 − |τ |2
λ
G(z) = (z − τ )(z − σ ). (10.3.2)
σ −τ
10.3 Infinitesimal Generators of Groups 291
That is, −2g(r ) + (1 − r 2 )g (r ) = 0 for −1 < r < 1. Integrating this ordinary dif-
ferential equation we find Re p(r τ ) = g(r ) = c 1+r1−r
for −1 < r < 1 and for some
c ∈ R. It follows that p(z) = c 1+zτ 1−zτ
+ ib for some b ∈ R. In particular, since
Re p > 0, we deduce that c > 0, and then G is of the form
1 + zτ
G(z) = (z − τ )(τ z − 1) c + ib = (z − τ ) [−c(1 + zτ ) + ib(τ z − 1)]
1 − zτ
c + ib 2c
= τ (ib − c)(z − τ ) z − τ = (z − τ )(z − σ ),
ib − c σ −τ
The above result also shows that G is the infinitesimal generator of a hyperbolic
group if and only if there are τ ∈ ∂D and two real numbers a, b, with a > 0, such
that
G(z) = aτ (z 2 − τ 2 ) + ibτ (z − τ )2 , z ∈ D.
In this section we consider semigroups of linear fractional maps and provide a com-
plete characterization of their infinitesimal generators.
For further reference we state here the following simple fact.
Our first result shows that the infinitesimal generators of semigroups of linear
fractional maps are polynomials of degree at most two.
(5) The map G is a polynomial of degree at most two and satisfies the following
condition
Re (G(σ )σ ) ≤ 0, for all σ ∈ ∂D.
ad−cb
. In both cases, G is a
polynomial of degree at most two. In case (φt ) is hyperbolic, not a group, by (9.5.2)
its Koenigs function is given by
i τ +z τ +σ π
h(z) = log − + ,
λ τ −z τ −σ 2λ
for some λ > 0, where log denotes the principal branch of the logarithm. Since
G(z) = h i(z) , it follows also in this case that G is a polynomial of degree at most
two. Finally, if (φt ) is the trivial semigroup then G ≡ 0. Thus, (1) implies (2).
Let us prove that (2) implies (1). Let (φt ) be the semigroup generated by G. If
G is constant, by Lemma 10.1.9, G ≡ 0 and (φt ) is the trivial semigroup, thus (1)
holds in this case. If G is not constant, let τ ∈ D be the Denjoy-Wolff point of (φt ).
Assume that G ∈ Gen(D) is a polynomial of degree one. Being G(τ ) = 0,
G(z) = −λ(z − τ ) for some λ ∈ C \ {0} and, by Corollary 10.1.12, λ is the spec-
tral value of (φt ). If τ ∈ D, by Theorem 10.1.4, h (z)λ(z − τ ) = λh(z), where h
is the Koenigs function of (φt ). Hence, h(z) = c(z − τ ), for some c ∈ C \ {0}, and
φt (z) = h −1 (e−λt h(z)) = e−λt z + τ (1 − e−λt ) for all z ∈ D. If τ ∈ ∂D, by Theo-
rem 10.1.4, the Koenigs function h of the semigroup (φt ) satisfies
i
−λ(z − τ ) = , z ∈ D.
h (z)
Then h(z) = − λi log(1 − τ z), where log denotes the principal branch of the loga-
rithm. Then a direct computation, keeping in mind that h −1 (w) = τ (1 − exp(iλw)),
shows that φt (z) = h −1 (h(z) + it) = τ (1 − (1 − τ z)e−λt ) = e−λt z + τ (1 − e−λt )
for t ≥ 0 and z ∈ D. Hence, (1) holds in case G is a polynomial of degree one.
Assume now that G ∈ Gen(D) is a polynomial of degree two. Since G(τ ) = 0,
it follows that G(z) = μ(z − τ )(z − β) for some μ ∈ C \ {0} and β ∈ C. We claim
that β ∈ / D. Indeed, if β ∈ D by Remark 10.1.6, β would be a common fixed point
of (φt )—implying in particular that (φt ) is either trivial or elliptic. But, if (φt ) is
trivial, then G ≡ 0, hence, (φt ) has to be elliptic and τ = β. However, if this is the
294 10 Infinitesimal Generators
case, then G (τ ) = 0 and by Corollary 10.1.12 the spectral value of (φt ) would be
0, forcing (φt ) to be trivial, again, a contradiction. Therefore, β ∈ C \ D.
If τ ∈ D, since G (τ ) = μ(τ − β), by Corollary 10.1.12 the spectral value of
(φt ) is −μ(τ − β), and then the Koenigs function h of the semigroup satis-
fies h (z)μ(z − τ )(z − β) = μ(τ − β)h(z) by Theorem 10.1.4. Therefore h(z) =
(β − τ ) β−z
z−τ
. Since h is a linear fractional map, so is each iterate of the semi-
group. If τ ∈ ∂D and β = τ , then μ(z − τ )2 = h i(z) by Theorem 10.1.4. Thus
h(z) = −i 1
μ z−τ
+ c for some constant c. Again h is a linear fractional map and hence
the iterates of the semigroup are linear fractional maps. Finally, if τ ∈ ∂D and β = τ ,
then μ(z − τ )(z − β) = h i(z) and
i 1 − τz
h(z) = log ,
μ(τ − β) 1 − β −1 z
where log denotes the principal branch of the logarithm. Since h −1 (w) = τ −β 1−γ
−1 γ ,
−1
where γ = exp(μ(β − τ )iw), an easy computation shows that φt (z) = h (h(z) +
it) is a linear fractional map for all t ≥ 0. Therefore, (2) implies (1).
Assume that G ∈ Gen(D) is a polynomial of degree at most two. By Corol-
lary 10.2.9, there is a holomorphic function p with non-negative real part such
that G(z) = a − az 2 − zp(z), z ∈ D. Since G is a polynomial of degree two,
p(z) = mz + n for some m, n ∈ C. By Lemma 10.4.1, Re (n) ≥ |m|. Therefore,
(2) implies (3). Clearly, again by Corollary 10.2.9, the converse implication holds.
Identifying the coefficients in statements (3) and (4), we have that α = −a − m
and β = −n. Hence, (3) is equivalent to (4).
If G is a polynomial of the form G(z) = αz 2 + βz + γ and |σ | = 1, then
This equality, which holds for every σ ∈ ∂D, implies at once that (4) and (5) are
equivalent.
The previous theorem shows that not every complex polynomial of degree two is an
infinitesimal generator of a semigroup in D. In the next two propositions we analyze
in details the complex polynomials of degree one and two which are infinitesimal
generators. We start with degree one polynomials:
Moreover,
10.4 Infinitesimal Generators of Semigroups of Linear Fractional Maps 295
The previous proposition shows that there is a one to one correspondence between
infinitesimal generators which are complex polynomials of degree one and affine
semigroups in D. Now, we examine infinitesimal generators which are complex
polynomials of degree two.
Re (eiθ c1 + eiθ c2 ) ≥ 0 and (|c1 |2 − 1)(1 − |c2 |2 ) ≥ [Im (eiθ c1 − eiθ c2 )]2 .
(10.4.2)
In this case, if (φt ) is the semigroup in D generated by G with Denjoy-Wolff point
τ ∈ D, then the following are the only possible cases:
(1) if c1 ∈ D, then τ = c1 , (φt ) is an elliptic semigroup and c2 ∈ C \ D. Moreover:
(a) if c2 ∈ ∂D, then the semigroup is not a group, it has two fixed points in D
and eiθ (c2 − c1 ) ∈ (0, +∞);
(b) if c2 ∈ C \ D, and c2 c1 = 1 then the semigroup is not a group, it has only
one fixed point in D and
and
2
Re eiθ (c1 + c2 ) = |c1 |2 + |c2 |2 − [Im (eiθ c1 − eiθ c2 )]2 + 2Re (e2iθ c1 c2 ),
inequality (10.4.2) holds if and only if (10.4.3) does and (10.4.2) is therefore equiv-
alent to G being an infinitesimal generator.
Now assume that the complex polynomial of degree two G is the infinitesimal
generator of a semigroup (φt ) in D, necessarily formed by linear fractional maps by
Theorem 10.4.2. Let τ ∈ D be its Denjoy-Wolff point.
First, we prove (1). Bearing in mind that any non constant infinitesimal generator
has at most one zero in D by Remark 10.1.6, if c1 ∈ D, then τ = c1 and |c2 | ≥ 1. By
Corollary 10.3.2, if (φt ) is an elliptic group, then c1 c2 = 1. If |c2 | = 1, by (10.4.2),
eiθ (c1 − c2 ) is a positive real number, and hence c1 c2 = 1, which implies that (φt )
cannot be a group, and a) follows. Similarly, we deduce b) and c).
If c1 = c2 , then necessarily |c1 | = 1, for otherwise G(c1 ) = G (c1 ) and Corollary
10.1.12 implies that the Denjoy-Wolff point of (φt ) is c1 and the spectral value is
0, that is, (φt ) is the trivial semigroup and hence G ≡ 0. Therefore, c1 = c2 ∈ ∂D
again by Corollary 10.1.12, (φt ) is a parabolic semigroup. By Corollary 10.3.2, it is
a group if and only if Re (eiθ c1 ) = 0. Therefore (2) holds.
Finally, if c1 ∈ ∂D and c2 ∈ C \ (D ∪ {c1 }) then by Corollary 10.1.12, (φt ) is a
hyperbolic semigroup. Since G (c1 ) = |λ|eiθ (c1 − c2 ) and G (c2 ) = |λ|eiθ (c2 − c1 ),
it follows that the Denjoy-Wolff point is c1 if and only if eiθ (c1 − c2 ) < 0. Also, by
Corollary 10.3.2, the semigroup is a group if and only if c2 ∈ D.
10.5 Convergence of Infinitesimal Generators 297
In the next propositions we give two simple conditions for a sequence of infinites-
imal generators to have a converging subsequence.
Proposition 10.5.2 Let {G n } be a sequence in Gen(D) such that there are two
different points z 0 , z 1 ∈ D and two sequences {u n } and {vn } in D with limn u n = z 0
and limn vn = z 1 such that
Notice that G n (0) = − pn (0). So by Theorem 2.2.1 and Montel’s Theorem (see, e.g.,
[113, Theorem 14.6, p. 282]), there is a subsequence {G n k } that converges uniformly
on compacta to a holomorphic function G : D → C such that
G(z) = a − az 2 − zp(z)
with Re p(z) ≥ 0 for all z ∈ D (a is the limit of G n k (0) and p is the limit of { pn k } in
Hol(D, C)). Using again Corollary 10.2.9, we deduce that G ∈ Gen(D).
z n −z
Let us pass to the general case. Let Tzn (z) = 1−z nz
, for all z ∈ D. If (φt(n) ) is the
semigroup with associated infinitesimal generator G n , write ϕt(n) = Tzn ◦ φt(n) ◦ Tzn .
10.5 Convergence of Infinitesimal Generators 299
Remark 10.5.4 It is worth noticing that Propositions 10.5.2 and 10.5.3 are sharp, in
the sense that the given conditions for convergence are minimal. The first one would
not be true if we assumed that there is only one point z 0 ∈ D and one sequence (u n )
in D with limn u n = z 0 such that
The last result of this section shows that the pointwise convergence of a sequence
of infinitesimal generators not only implies that the limit is an infinitesimal generator
but also the convergence of the associated semigroups. The main two ingredients in
the proof are Proposition 10.5.2 and the following Gronwall’s Lemma:
then t
θ (t) ≤ f (t) exp k(s) ds , for all t ∈ [a, b]. (10.5.2)
a
Proof Consider the auxiliary function g(t) = exp(− a k(s) ds). Note that g (t) =
t
−g(t)k(t) for all t ∈ [a, b] and g(a) = 1. Then, for all t ∈ [a, b],
300 10 Infinitesimal Generators
t t
d
g(t) k(s)θ (s) ds = g (t) k(s)θ (s) ds + g(t)k(t)θ (t)
dt a a
t
= −g(t)k(t) k(s)θ (s) ds + g(t)k(t)θ (t)
a
t
= g(t)k(t) − k(s)θ (s) ds + θ (t) ≤ g(t)k(t) f (t),
a
where the last inequality follows from (10.5.1). Integrating between a and t, we have
t t
g(t) k(s)θ (s) ds ≤ g(s)k(s) f (s) ds.
a a
Proof (1) Take z 0 = 0 and z 1 = 1/2 and consider the constant sequences {u n } = {z 0 }
and {vn } = {z 1 }. By Proposition 10.5.2, every subsequence of {G n } has a subsequence
that converges uniformly on compact subsets of the unit disc to an infinitesimal
generator. Necessarily such infinitesimal generator has to be the function G and the
pointwise convergence of {G n } is then uniformly on compacta.
(2) First of all, we claim the following: given R ∈ (0, 1) there exists M(R) > 0
such that
Let |z|, |z | ≤ R. Since R < R ∗ , for all n, the Cauchy Integral Formula gives
1 G n (ξ ) G n (ξ )
G n (z) − G n (z ) = − dξ
2πi ∂ D(0,R ∗ ) ξ − z ξ − z
z − z G n (ξ )
= dξ.
2πi ∂ D(0,R ∗ ) (ξ − z)(ξ − z )
Therefore
2π R ∗ MR 2(1 + R)M R
|G n (z) − G n (z )| ≤ |z − z | ∗
= |z − z |
2π (R − R) 2 (1 − R)2
Fix T > 0, r ∈ (0, 1) and ε > 0. Consider the compact subset of D given by
∗ R ∗K − R K ∗
ε1 e M(R K )T < and ε1 e M(R K )T < ε.
2
Since {G n } converges to G uniformly on compacta, there exists a natural number N
such that, for all n ≥ N , t ∈ [0, T ] and |z| ≤ r ,
ε1
|G(φt (z)) − G n (φt (z))| ≤ ,
T
which also implies αn (T, z) ≤ ε1 .
For each n ≥ N , consider
302 10 Infinitesimal Generators
Since (φt(n) ) tends to the identity on compact subsets of D when t goes to zero and
r < R ∗K , we see that tn is well defined, tn > 0 and, by continuity, max{|φt(n)
n
(z)| :
|z| ≤ r } = R ∗K .
We claim that tn = T for all n ≥ N . Suppose on the contrary that there exists
n ≥ N with tn < T . Then, for |z| ≤ r and t ∈ [0, tn ],
t
|φt (z) − φt(n) (z)| = G(φs (z)) − G n (φs (z)) ds
(n)
0
t
≤ αn (t, z) + G n (φs (z)) − G n (φs (z)) ds
(n)
0
t
≤ αn (T, z) + M(R ∗K ) φs (z) − φ (n) (z) ds
s
0
t
≤ ε1 + M(R ∗K ) φs (z) − φ (n) (z) ds.
s
0
By Lemma 10.5.5
R ∗K − R K
|φt (z) − φt(n) (z)| ≤ ε1 e M(R K )t ≤ ε1 e M(R K )T <
∗ ∗
. (10.5.3)
2
Therefore, taking t = tn ,
|φt(n)
n
(z)| < R ∗K , for |z| ≤ r,
f t (z) − z
G(z) := lim+ .
t→0 t
Proof By Corollaries 10.2.11 and 10.2.7, for each t > 0, the function 1t ( f t − idD )
belongs to Gen(D). Thus, by Theorem 10.5.6, limt→0+ ft (z)−z t
= G(z) uniformly on
compact subsets of D, G is holomorphic and G ∈ Gen(D).
Let (φt ) be the semigroup generated by G. Fix t0 ∈ [0, δ) and r ∈ (0, 1). We have
to show that, if {tn } is a sequence of positive real numbers converging to t0 then
φt0 (z) = limn→∞ f t◦n n /n
(z) uniformly in |z| ≤ r .
◦l
Let T > t0 . Taking into account that φt/m = φlt/m and since [0, T ] × {z ∈ D :
|z| ≤ r } is compact in [0, +∞) × D, by Theorem 8.1.15 there exists R > 0 such
that for all m ∈ N, l ∈ N0 , 0 ≤ l ≤ m, 0 ≤ t ≤ T and z ∈ D such that |z| ≤ r , we
have
◦l
ω(φt/m (z), 0) ≤ R. (10.6.2)
Now, we claim that for each ε > 0 there exists η ∈ (0, δ) such that for all z ∈ D
with ω(z, 0) ≤ R,
ω(φs (z), f s (z)) ≤ sε, 0 ≤ s ≤ η. (10.6.3)
uniformly on compacta.
In order to prove (10.6.4), we note that
304 10 Infinitesimal Generators
φh (z) − z f h (z) − z
G(z) = lim+ = lim+
h→0 h h→0 h
and both limits are uniform on compact subsets of D. Hence, for any compact
K ⊂ D there exists s0 > 0 such that, for all z ∈ K , φs (z) = z + sG(z) + q1 (s, z)
q (s,z)
and f s (z) = z + sG(z) + q2 (s, z), with lims→0+ j s = 0 uniformly in z ∈ K ,
j = 1, 2. Therefore,
1 φs (z) − f s (z) |q1 (s, z) − q2 (s, z)|
lim = lim+ = 0,
s→0+ s 1 − φs (z) f s (z) s→0 s|1 − φs (z) f s (z)|
◦(m−k)
where we set z k := φt/m (z) and the last inequality follows from (10.6.3) because
ω(z k , 0) ≤ R for every k = 1, . . . , m by (10.6.2).
Now let {tm } be a sequence converging to t0 such that tm < δ for all m ∈ N. Since
t0 < T , we can assume that tm < T for all m ∈ N. Then, for m ≥ N ,
ω( f t◦m
m /m
(z), φt0 (z)) ≤ ω( f t◦m
m /m
(z), φtm (z)) + ω(φtm (z), φt0 (z))
≤ tm ε + ω(φtm (z), φt0 (z)).
∂ f t (z)
= G(φt (ϕt (z))) + φt (ϕt (z))H (ϕt (z)).
∂t
10.7 Notes
Proposition 10.7.1 Let (φt ) be a non-trivial semigroup with the Denjoy-Wolff point
τ = 0. Let h be its Koenigs function and G its infinitesimal generator. Then there
exists a unique semigroup (φ̃t ) in the right half-plane H with the Denjoy-Wolff
point τ̃ = ∞ such that for all t ≥ 0 and all z̃ ∈ H we have
exp − φ̃t (z̃) = φt exp(−z̃) .
306 10 Infinitesimal Generators
Moreover, the Koenigs function h̃ 0 and the infinitesimal generator G̃ of the one-
parameter semigroup (φ̃t ) are given by
h̃(z̃) G exp(−z̃)
h̃ 0 (z̃) = − , G̃(z̃) = − for all z̃ ∈ H,
G (0) exp(−z̃)
where h̃ : H → C is a holomorphic lifting of H z̃ → h exp(−z̃) ∈ C∗ with
respect to the covering map C w̃ → exp(−w̃) ∈ C∗ .
By means of the above proposition one can often reduce the study of boundary
behavior of elliptic semigroups to that of non-elliptic ones. We are not using this
argument in the book, but we refer the reader to the papers [37, 42, 81].
Chapter 11
Extension to the Boundary
In this chapter we study the boundary extension of the iterates of a semigroup and
of the associated Koenigs function. After studying the impression and the principal
part of prime ends of domains defined by Koenigs functions, we prove that every
Koenigs function and every iterate of a semigroup have non-tangential limit at every
boundary point. Moreover, the semigroup functional equation and the functional
equation defined by the canonical model extend in the non-tangential limits sense
up to the boundary. In the last part of the chapter we analyze conditions for a tout
court continuous extension of iterates of a semigroup up to the boundary.
The aim of this section is to describe the impressions and principal parts of every
prime end of the range of a Koenigs function. We start with a topological lemma
which we will use several times:
Lemma 11.1.1 Let Ω ⊂ C be a simply connected domain. Let C be a cross cut for
Ω. Let Ω \ C = A ∪ B, where A, B are the open nonempty and connected sets given
by Lemma 4.1.3, such that A ∩ B = ∅. Assume there exists a Jordan curve Γ ⊂ C∞
such that C ⊂ Γ and Γ \ C ⊂ C∞ \ Ω. Let U + , U − denote the two connected
components of C∞ \ Γ given by Jordan’s Theorem 3.2.1. Then, either A = U + ∩ Ω
and B = U − ∩ Ω or A = U − ∩ Ω and B = U + ∩ Ω.
A ∪ B = Ω \ C = Ω \ Γ = (Ω ∩ C∞ ) \ Γ = Ω ∩ (C∞ \ Γ )
= Ω ∩ (U + ∪ U − ) = (Ω ∩ U + ) ∪ (Ω ∩ U − ).
Let h : D → C be a univalent map and let Ω = h(D). Recall that by Theorem 4.2.3
there exists a homeomorphism ĥ : D→Ω which extends h. Moreover, for every
prime end ζ ∈ ∂C D there exists a unique point σ ∈ ∂D such that ΦD (ζ ) = σ by
Proposition 4.2.5. Therefore, h defines a bijective correspondence between prime
ends of Ω and points of ∂D given by ∂C Ω x → ΦD ( h −1 (x)). In order to avoid
burdening the notation, we say that a prime end x ∈ ∂C Ω corresponds to σ ∈ ∂D
under h if ΦD (
h −1 (x)) = σ .
Given λ ∈ C with Re λ > 0 and c ∈ C, c = 0, we define the spiral
spir λ [c] = e−λs c : s ∈ R ∪ {0} ∪ {∞} .
C∞ in two connected regions, let us call Un the one which does not contain 0. If
q2n ∈ spir λ [q1n ], we may assume, up to switch q1n with q2n , that |q1n | ≤ |q2n |. In this
case, let L n := spir λ [q1n ] ∩ {w ∈ C : |q1n | ≤ |w| ≤ |q2n |}. Hence L n ∪ Cn is a Jordan
curve which divides C in two connected components, and we let Un be the one which
does not contain 0.
11.1 Prime Ends and Koenigs Functions 309
Since I (x) is connected and compact, this proves the assertion about the impression.
By construction, p ∈ Π (x). If q is another point of Π (x), then q ∈ C, for oth-
erwise I (x) = Π (x) = {∞}. By Remark 4.4.7, there exists a circular null chain cen-
tered at q. Repeating the previous argument, we deduce that I (x) =
∞
{w ∈ spir λ [q] : |q| ≤ |w| ≤ R } for some R ∈ [|q|, +∞]. Hence p = q, and we
are done.
Now we turn our attention to the case of the Koenigs function of a non-elliptic
semigroup. As a matter of notation, given z ∈ C, we denote by
L[z] := {w ∈ C : Re w = Re z} ∪ {∞}.
L[w0 ] ∩ {w ∈ C : Im w ≥ Im w0 } ∩ Cn = ∅, n ≥ n 0 . (11.1.1)
Proof Let us prove that (2) implies (3). Note that, if w0 ∈ Ω, since Ω is starlike at
infinity by Theorem 9.4.10, the curve Γ := L[w0 ] ∩ {w ∈ C : Im w ≥ Im w0 } ⊂ Ω.
Assume by contradiction that (11.1.1) does not hold for some w0 ∈ Ω. Hence there
exists a subsequence {n m } ⊂ N such that Cn m ∩ Γ = ∅. Since (Cn m ) is equivalent to
310 11 Extension to the Boundary
(Cn ), we can assume that Cn ∩ Γ = ∅ for all n ≥ 0. Let q1n , q2n be the end points of
Cn , which we may assume to be in C.
If q1n = q2n , then Cn is a Jordan curve and divides C into two connected compo-
nents, Un+ , Un− , such that Un− is bounded in C. Hence, by Lemma 11.1.1, either
Vn = Un+ ∩ Ω or Vn = Un− ∩ Ω. If Vn ⊂ Un− , then Cm ∩ Ω ⊂ Vn ⊂ Un− for all
m > n, and hence sup{Im w : w ∈ Cn , n ≥ m} < +∞, a contradiction. Therefore,
Vn = Un+ ∩ Ω. Note also that Γ ⊂ Un+ because Γ is unbounded and by hypothesis
it does not intersect Cn .
If q1n = q2n and Re q1n = Re q2n , we can assume Im q1n < Im q2n . Since Ω is starlike
at infinity, it follows that L n := L[q1n ] ∩ {w ∈ C : Im q1n ≤ Im w ≤ Im q2n } ⊂ C \ Ω.
The curve L n ∪ Cn is a Jordan curve and divides C into two connected components,
Un+ , Un− , where Un− is the bounded one. Arguing as before, we see that Vn = Un+ ∩ Ω
and Γ ⊂ Un+ .
If Re q1n = Re q2n , since Ω is starlike at infinity, the line L nj := (L[q nj ] ∩ {w ∈ C :
Im w ≤ Im q nj }) ∪ {∞} satisfies L nj ⊂ C∞ \ Ω for j = 1, 2. The curve L n1 ∪ L n2 ∪ Cn
is thus a Jordan curve in C∞ dividing C∞ into two connected components, let us
say Un+ and Un− , and we let Un− be the one such that supw∈Un− Im w < +∞. By
Lemma 11.1.1, it follows that either Vn = Un− ∩ Ω or Vn = Un+ ∩ Ω. If it were
Vn ⊂ Un− then it would follow that Cm ∩ C ⊂ Vn ⊂ Un− and hence supw∈Cm Im w ≤
supw∈Un− Im w < +∞, for all m > n, a contradiction. Therefore, Vn = Un+ ∩ Ω.
Moreover, since supw∈Γ Im w = +∞, Γ ⊂ Un+ .
Summing up, we have proved that, if (11.1.1) does not hold, then Vn = Un+ ∩ Ω
and Γ ⊂ Un+ . Therefore, Γ ⊂ Vn for all n. In particular, w0 ∈ Vn for all n, against
Lemma 4.1.18. Hence, (11.1.1) holds.
(3) implies (1). Let y ∈ ∂C Ω be the prime end represented by (Cn ). Let σ ∈
∂D be the point corresponding to y under h. Let w0 ∈ Ω. Since w0 + it ∈ Ω for
all t ≥ 0, by (11.1.1), there exist a sequence {n m } of natural numbers converging
to ∞, and a sequence {tm } of positive real numbers converging to +∞ such that
w0 + itm ∈ Cn m for all m ∈ N. The null chain (Cn m ) is equivalent to (Cn ). The null
chain (h −1 (Cn m )) for D represents then the prime end ĥ −1 (y) by Lemma 4.1.13
and according to the definition of the map ĥ in Theorem 4.2.3. In particular, σ =
I (ĥ −1 (y)) and every sequence {z m } ⊂ D such that z m ∈ h −1 (Cn m ) converges to σ .
Therefore, limm→∞ h −1 (w0 + itm ) = σ . However, since h(φt (z)) = h(z) + it for all
z ∈ D and t ≥ 0, it follows that
(1) implies (2). By hypothesis, ΦD (ĥ −1 (x)) = τ . Thus, (h −1 (Cn ∩ Ω)) is a null
chain in D with the property that for every wn ∈ h −1 (Cn ∩ Ω), limn→∞ wn =
τ . By the Denjoy-Wolff Theorem 8.3.1, there exists a sequence {tn } of posi-
tive real numbers converging to +∞ such that φtn (0) ∩ h −1 (Cn ∩ Ω) = ∅ for n
large enough. Since h(0) + itn = h(φtn (0)) ∈ Cn , we clearly obtain that
limn→∞ supw∈Cn ∩C Im w = +∞.
11.1 Prime Ends and Koenigs Functions 311
Moreover,
(1) if p ∈ C then there exists R ∈ [−∞, Im p] such that
∞
I (x) = {w ∈ L[ p] : R < Im w ≤ Im p} ;
I (x) ⊂ L[0];
divides C∞ in two connected components, let us call Un the one which does not
contain h(0). If q2n ∈ L[q1n ], we may assume, up to switch q1n with q2n , that Im q1n ≤
Im q2n . In this case, let L n := L[q1n ] ∩ {w ∈ C : Im q1n ≤ Im w ≤ Im q2n }. Hence L n ∪
Cn is a Jordan curve which divides C in two connected components, and we let Un
be the one which does not contain h(0).
We claim that Vn = Un ∩ Ω. Indeed, if q2n ∈ / L[q1n ], since Ω is starlike at infin-
ity by Theorem 9.4.10, it follows that L j ⊂ C∞ \ Ω, j = 1, 2, and hence, by
n
312 11 Extension to the Boundary
∞
Lemma 11.1.1, either Vn = Un ∩ Ω or Vn = (C∞ \ Un ) ∩ Ω. Since h(0) ∈ / Vn
and h(0) ∈ / Un , it follows that indeed Vn = Un ∩ Ω. Similarly, we can argue for the
case q2n ∈ L[q1n ].
Now, we claim that Un+1 ⊂ Un . Indeed, since Cn+1 ∩ Ω ⊂ Vn ⊂ Un , the end
points q1n+1 , q2n+1 of Cn+1 belong to Un . Since Ω is starlike at infinity and Cn is
circular, it is easy to see that Un+1 is contained in Un .
If there exists n such that q2n ∈ L[q1n ], then Un is bounded, q1m , q2m ∈ L[q1n ], Um
∞ ∞
is bounded and contained in Un for all m ≥ n. Hence Vn ⊆ Un = { p} and
I (x) = Π (x) = { p}.
Otherwise, Un is not bounded for all n and
∞ ∞ ∞
Vn ⊆ Un = L[ p] ∩ {w ∈ C : Im w ≤ Im p} .
Since I (x) is connected and compact, this proves the assertion about the impression.
By construction, p ∈ Π (x). If q is another point of Π (x) ∩ C, repeating the
previous argument with a circular null chain centered at q, we deduce that I (x) =
∞
L[q] ∩ {w ∈ C : R < Im w ≤ Im q} for some R ∈ [−∞, Im q]. Hence p = q.
Finally, since Π (x) is connected by Corollary 4.4.10, we deduce that ∞ ∈ / Π (x),
for otherwise Π (x) = { p, ∞}.
(2) Assume now that Π (x) = {∞} and that x does not correspond to τ under h. By
Remark 4.4.7, there exists a circular null chain (Cn ) centered at ∞ which represents
x. Hence, there exists a sequence of positive real numbers {rn } converging to 0 such
that Cn ⊆ {z ∈ C : |z| = r1n } for all n ≥ 0. Let q1n , q2n be the end points of Cn , n ≥ 0.
By Lemma 11.1.3,
K := sup sup Im w < +∞. (11.1.2)
n w∈Cn
Hence, since diam S (Cn ) → 0, for every R ∈ R there exists n R such that Un− ⊂ {w ∈
C : Im w < R} for all n ≥ n R . Therefore,
∞ ∞
I (x) = Vn ⊂ Un− = {∞}.
s := sup{Im w : w ∈ L[ p] ∩ (C \ Ω)}.
lim Im h(z) = −∞, −∞ < lim inf Re h(z) ≤ lim sup Re h(z) < +∞.
z→σ z→σ z→σ
Indeed, in the proof of case (2) of Theorem 11.1.4 we saw that Vn ⊂ U1− for all
n ≥ 1. The set U1− is contained in a strip {w ∈ C : a < Re w < b} for some −∞ <
a < b < +∞. Let {z m } ⊂ D be a sequence converging to σ . Let ΦD : D → D be the
homeomorphism given by Proposition 4.2.5. Then, by Theorem 4.2.3, {ĥ(ΦD−1 (z m ))}
converges to x in the Carathéodory topology of Ω. Therefore, by Remark 4.2.2,
−
{h(z m )} eventually belongs to Vn and hence to U1 for every n ∈ N. Therefore, a ≤
lim inf n→∞ Re h(z n ) ≤ lim supn→∞ Re h(z n ) ≤ b. Moreover, since I (x) = {∞},
by Proposition 4.4.4, it follows that for every sequence {z n } ⊂ D converging to σ ,
limn→∞ |h(z n )| = ∞. Since a ≤ Re h(z n ) ≤ b and Im h(z n ) is bounded from above
because h(z m ) ∈ U1− , it follows that necessarily lim z→σ Im h(z) = −∞.
By Theorems 11.1.2 and 11.1.4, the principal parts of every prime end of the
image of a Koenigs function is a singleton. Therefore, by Theorem 4.4.9 we have:
11.1 Prime Ends and Koenigs Functions 315
Corollary 11.1.7 Let (φt ) be a semigroup in D with Koenigs function h. Then, for
every σ ∈ ∂D, there exists ∠ lim z→σ h(z) ∈ C∞ .
In the non-elliptic case, one can detect the Denjoy-Wolff point by using h:
(2) If ∠ lim z→σ h(z) = ∞, then lim z→σ h(z) = ∞, lim z→σ Im h(z) = −∞, and
The next example shows that it is possible to have two lines as impression of
a prime end corresponding to the Denjoy-Wolff point of a hyperbolic semigroup.
Similar constructions can be performed in case of parabolic semigroups of positive
hyperbolic steps.
cut given by the segment [1/n + in, (1 − 1/n) + in]. Then (Cn ) is a null chain such
that supn supw∈Cn Im w = +∞. Hence, by Lemma 11.1.3, the prime end represented
by (Cn ) corresponds under h to the Denjoy-Wolff point τ of (φt ). A simple argument
shows that
I ([(Cn )]) = L[0] ∪ L[1].
This section is devoted to a first analysis of the boundary behavior of the iterates of a
semigroup. In particular, we prove that every iterate can be extended to the boundary
in the non-tangential sense.
Theorem 11.2.1 Let (φt ) be a semigroup. Then for any t ≥ 0 and any σ ∈ ∂D there
exists the non-tangential limit φt (σ ) := ∠ lim z→σ φt (z). Moreover, for each σ ∈ ∂D
and each Stolz region S of vertex σ the convergence φt (z) → φt (σ ) as S z → σ
is locally uniform in t ∈ [0, +∞), i.e., for every ε > 0 and T > 0 there exists δ > 0
such that
|φt (z) − φt (σ )| < ε,
Proof Let h be the Koenigs function of (φt ). Fix σ ∈ ∂D. By Corollary 11.1.7 the
non-tangential limit ∠ lim z→σ h(z) = L ∈ C∞ exists. We divide the proof in two
steps.
Step (1): Let σ ∈ ∂D and t ≥ 0. Then φt (σ ) := ∠ lim z→σ φt (z) exists.
Indeed, let (D, h, z → ψt (z)) be the canonical model of (φt ) given by Theorem
9.3.5, where D = D, C, H, H− or a strip and ψt (z) = e−λt z for some λ ∈ C \ {0} or
ψt (z) = z + it. Since h has non-tangential limit at σ , there exists L ∈ C∞ such that
lim(0,1) r →1 h(r σ ) = L. On the one hand, φt (z) = h −1 (ψt (h(z))) for all z ∈ D. On
the other hand, lim(0,1) r →1 ψt (h(r σ )) = ψt (L) (where we set ψt (L) = ∞ if L =
∞). We claim that lim(0,1) r →1 h −1 (ψt (h(r σ ))) exists. This is clear if ψt (L) ∈ h(D),
and it follows from Proposition 3.3.3 if ψt (L) ∈ ∂h(D). In any case, there exists
interval in R with extreme points tn and t0 . Let Cn be the Jordan arc in D parameterized
by γn : In → D, where γn (t) = φt (z n ), n ∈ N. By construction, Cn has end points
φtn (z n ) and φt0 (z n ) and, in particular, diamE (Cn ) ≥ ε/2. Moreover, given u n ∈ In
we have
lim h(γn (u n )) = lim ψu n (h(z n )) = ψt0 (h(σ )) ∈ C∞ .
n→∞ n→∞
Using the above theorem, we can extend the iterates of a semigroup (φt ) up to ∂D
in a non-tangential sense. In order to avoid burdening notations, we still denote this
extension by φt . More precisely, if σ ∈ ∂D, we let
φt (σ ) := ∠ lim φt (z).
z→σ
As we will see in the Sect. 11.3, the φt ’s do not need to be continuous on ∂D.
However, The curve t → φt (z) is continuous in t for any z ∈ D. In fact, this is a
straightforward byproduct of above theorem and Proposition 10.1.7.
f (σ ) := ∠ lim f (z).
z→σ
Theorem 11.2.3 Let (φt ) be a semigroup in D. Let (Ω, h, z → ψt (z)) be the canon-
ical model of (φt ) given by Theorem 9.3.5. Let σ ∈ ∂D, then
(1) φt (φs (σ )) = φt+s (σ ) for all t, s ≥ 0.
(2) If h(σ ) ∈ C then h(φt (σ )) = ψt (h(σ )) for all t ≥ 0.
(3) If h(σ ) = ∞ then φt (σ ) ∈ ∂D and h(φt (σ )) = ∞ for all t ≥ 0.
Since limr →1− φs (r σ ) = φs (σ ), by Theorem 1.5.7 and the previous equation it fol-
lows limr →1− φt (φs (r σ )) = φt (φs (σ )).
318 11 Extension to the Boundary
(2–3) We may assume that the semigroup is not an elliptic group. By Corollary
11.1.7, there exists h(σ ) = ∠ lim z→σ h(z) ∈ ∂∞ h(D). Taking into account that for
all t ≥ 0, lim z→∞ ψt (z) = ∞ ∈ C∞ , we have, for all t ≥ 0,
h(φt (σ )) = ψt (h(σ )) t ≥ 0.
In spite of the remarkable results of the previous sections, the extension of φt to the
boundary using non-tangential limits is not necessarily continuous on ∂D. In other
words, the unrestricted limits of iterates do not need to exist in general on ∂D. In
this section, we analyze when the non-tangential extension to the boundary can be
replaced by a tout court extension and when the iterates of a semigroup belong to
the disc algebra, that is, are continuous up to the boundary.
The next result shows that the continuity of the Koenigs function at a boundary
point implies as well the continuity of z → φt (z), locally uniformly in t. The proof
is essentially the same of Theorem 11.2.1, so we only sketch it.
Proposition 11.3.1 Assume that the Koenigs function h of a semigroup (φt ) has
unrestricted limit, finite or infinite, at a point σ ∈ ∂D. Then φt also has unrestricted
limit at σ for every t ≥ 0. Moreover, the convergence φt (z) → φt (σ ) as D z → σ
is locally uniform with respect to t ≥ 0, namely, for every ε > 0 and every T > 0
there exists δ > 0 such that |φt (z) − φt (σ )| < ε for all t ∈ [0, T ] and all z ∈ D such
that |z − σ | < δ.
Proof In order to show that the function φt has unrestricted limit at σ , using an
elementary argument of reductio ad absurdum, we reduce ourselves to prove that
given any continuous curve γ : [0, 1) → D converging at σ , the function φt has a
limit φt (σ ) at σ along γ . This can be done as in Step (1) of Theorem 11.2.1 replacing
r σ with γ (r ).
The proof of the locally uniform convergence in t is exactly the same of Step (2)
in Theorem 11.2.1, simply replace {z n } ⊂ S by any sequence {z n } ⊂ D converging
to σ .
Except at the Denjoy-Wolff point, the converse to the above proposition is also
true:
Proposition 11.3.2 Let (φt ) be a semigroup with Koenigs function h and Denjoy-
Wolff point τ . Let σ ∈ ∂D, σ = τ . Then the following are equivalent:
11.3 Continuous Boundary Extensions of Semigroups 319
(1) the unrestricted limit lim z→σ φt (z) exists for every t ≥ 0,
(2) there exists t0 > 0 such that the unrestricted limit lim z→σ φt0 (z) exists,
(3) the unrestricted limit lim z→σ h(z) exists.
Proof Clearly (1) implies (2), and (3) implies (1) by Proposition 11.3.1. Therefore,
we are left to show that (2) implies (3).
Suppose (2) holds. We first show that for every n ∈ N0 , the unrestricted limit
lim z→σ φt0 /2n (z) exists.
We prove it by induction. It is true for n = 0. Assume it is true for n ∈ N. Hence,
Q := lim z→σ φt0 /2n (z) exists. By contradiction, we assume that lim z→σ φt0 /2n+1 (z)
j
does not exist. Hence, there exist two sequences {ζm } ⊂ D, j = 1, 2 such that
j j
limm→∞ ζm = σ and limm→∞ φt0 /2n+1 (ζm ) = p j ∈ D, j = 1, 2 with p1 = p2 . Let
G̃ m be the segment joining ζm1 to ζm2 . Note that for every sequence {z̃ m } such that
z̃ m ∈ G̃ m it follows limm→∞ z̃ m = σ , hence, limm→∞ φt0 /2n (z̃ m ) = Q.
Let G m := φt0 /2n+1 (G̃ m ). Since φt0 /2n+1 is injective, it follows that {G m } is a
sequence of Jordan arcs in D. Moreover, since p1 = p2 , there exists K > 0 such
that diamE (G m ) > K for all m ∈ N. Now, let am ∈ G m for all m ∈ N. By construc-
tion, for every m ∈ N there exists ãm ∈ G̃ m such that φt0 /2n+1 (ãm ) = am . Therefore,
lim φt0 /2n+1 (am ) = lim φt0 /2n+1 (φt0 /2n+1 (ãm )) = lim φt0 /2n (ãm ) = Q.
m→∞ m→∞ m→∞
This implies that {G m } is a sequence of Koebe arcs for φt0 /2n+1 , contradicting Theorem
3.2.4. Therefore, for every n ∈ N0 , the unrestricted limit lim z→σ φt0 /2n (z) exists.
Now, we suppose (2) holds but the limit lim z→σ h(z) does not exist. Suppose first
that (φt ) is non-elliptic.
Let x be the prime end in h(D) such that ĥ −1 (x) is the prime end in D corresponding
to σ . Let (Cm ) be a circular null chain representing x.
By Proposition 4.4.4, I (x) is not a single point and, therefore, since σ = τ , by
Theorem 11.1.4, there exist a, b ∈ R and R ∈ [−∞, b) such that
∞
I (x) = {w ∈ C : Re w = a, R < Im w ≤ b} .
By Proposition 4.2.5, this implies that {h −1 (wn + it)} and {h −1 (h(z n ) + it)} con-
verge to a same point y in the Carathéodory topology of D. Hence, by Theorem 4.2.3,
{wn + it} and {h(z n ) + it} converge to ĥ(y) in the Carathéodory topology of h(D).
Since a + i(t + b) ∈ / I (x), it follows from the definition of impression of a prime
end and Remark 4.2.2 that {wn + it} does not converge to x in the Carathéodory
topology, that is, ĥ(y) = x.
On the other hand, we claim that {h(z n ) + it} converges to x in the Carathéodory
topology, giving a contradiction.
In fact, by Remark 4.4.7, since Π (x) = {a + ib}, there exists a decreasing
sequence {rm } of positive real numbers converging to 0 such that Cm ⊂ {ζ ∈ C :
|ζ − (a + ib)| = rm }. Let Vm be the interior part of Cm , m ≥ 1. Since {h(z n )} con-
verges to x, by Remark 4.2.2, it follows that for every m ∈ N there exists n m ∈ N
such that h(z n ) ∈ Vm for all n ≥ n m .
On the other hand, since {h(z n ) + it} is converging to ĥ(y) = x, by Remark 4.2.7
there exist m 0 ∈ N and n 0 ∈ N0 such that h(z n ) + it ∈ / Vm for every m ≥ m 0 and
n ≥ n0.
Let Nm := max{n m , n 0 }, m ≥ m 0 . Since h(D) is starlike at infinity, the segment
{h(z n ) + is : 0 ≤ s ≤ t} ⊂ h(D) for all n ∈ N. Therefore, since h(z Nm ) ∈ Vm and
h(z Nm ) + it ∈/ Vm for all m ≥ m 0 , there exists sm ∈ (0, t] such that h(z Nm ) + sm i ∈
Cm for all m ≥ m 0 . Namely, |h(z Nm ) + sm i − (a + ib)| = rm for all m ≥ m 0 . Up to
extracting subsequences, we can assume that limm→∞ sm = s0 ∈ [0, t]. Hence,
The request that σ = τ in Proposition 11.3.2 is necessary for proving that (2)
implies (3), as the following example shows:
Example 11.3.3 Let us consider again Example 11.1.10. With the notation intro-
duced there, consider the semigroup (φt ) where φt (z) := h −1 (h(z) + it), for all t ≥ 0
and z ∈ D. Using the symmetry of the domain, we may assume that Re h(r ) =
1/2 for all r ∈ (−1, 1) and Im h(r ) increases with r . Hence φt (r ) ∈ R for all
r ∈ (−1, 1). Thus, it is easy to deduce that the Denjoy-Wolff point of (φt ) is τ = 1. In
11.3 Continuous Boundary Extensions of Semigroups 321
Example 11.1.10, we saw that h does not extend continuously to 1. Let Vn be the inte-
rior part of Cn . Fix t > 0. If {z n } is a sequence in the unit disc that converges to 1, for
each m ∈ N, there is n 0 ∈ N such that if n ≥ n 0 , then h(z n ) ∈ Vm . Thus h(z n ) + it ∈
Vm for all n ≥ n 0 . Therefore limn→∞ φt (z n ) = limn→∞ h −1 (h(z n ) + it) = 1. That
is, all the iterates of the semigroup have a continuous extension to D ∪ {1}. Indeed,
it is not difficult to show that the functions φt belong to the disc algebra for all t.
Example 11.3.4 We construct a semigroup (φt ) in the unit disc such that every
iterate φt (t > 0) has no unrestricted limit at an uncountable number of points of ∂D.
Let C be the classical ternary Cantor set in [0, 1]. It is known that [0, 1] \ C
is the union of an infinite countable number of disjoint open subintervals (In ) of
[0, 1]. Moreover, if E denotes the collection of the extremes of every In , then E ⊂ C
and, for every point p ∈ C \ (E ∪ {0, 1}) there exists a strictly increasing sequence
{an ( p)} ⊂ E converging to p and a strictly decreasing sequence {bn ( p)} ⊂ E also
converging to p.
Consider the following simply connected domain of the complex plane
∞
Ω := {x + yi ∈ C : 0 < x < 1, y > 0} ∪ {x + yi ∈ C : x ∈ In }
n=1
and let h be a Riemann map from D onto Ω. Let φt (z) := h −1 (h(z) + it), for z ∈ D
and t ≥ 0. By Theorem 9.3.5, we see that (φt ) is a hyperbolic semigroup in D with
spectral value π and h is its Koenigs function. Note that C \ {0, 1} ⊂ ∂Ω and for
every p ∈ C \ {0, 1}, p + it ∈ Ω for all t > 0. Hence, by Proposition 3.3.3, for each
p ∈ C \ {0, 1} the limit σ p := limt→0+ h −1 ( p + it) ∈ ∂D exists.
For each p ∈ C \ {0, 1}, by Theorem 11.1.4, there exists the limit ∠ lim z→σ p h(z).
Taking into account that limt→0+ h(h −1 ( p + it)) = p, we deduce, from Corollary
3.3.4, that ∠ lim z→σ p h(z) = p and σ p = σq for p = q. Moreover, for every point
p ∈ C \ (E ∪ {0, 1}), consider the cross cuts given by
i i i
Cn = an ( p), an ( p) + ∪ an ( p) + , bn ( p) + ∪
n+1 n+1 n+1
i
∪ bn ( p) + , bn ( p) .
n+1
Clearly, (Cn ) is a null chain for Ω which represents a prime end p ∈ ∂C Ω. Moreover,
Π ( p) = { p} and I ( p) = p − i[0, +∞). Thus, by Proposition 4.4.4, the unrestricted
limit of h does not exist at σ p .
Therefore, using Proposition 11.3.2, we conclude every iterate φt (t > 0) has no
unrestricted limit at every σ p . Since, as we already notice, C \ {0, 1} p → σ p is
bijective, it turns out that every φt , t > 0 cannot be extended continuously at an
uncountable number of points of ∂D.
322 11 Extension to the Boundary
The remarkable fact we are going to prove now is that every iterate of a semigroup
is continuous at its Denjoy-Wolff point, regardless the continuity of the associated
Koenigs function. We start with the following:
In Case (A), the sets Cn are of the form Cn = (xn + in, xn + in), where −∞ <
xn< xn < +∞, and we set Cn := [xn + in, xn + in] for all n ∈ N. Since Ω + it ⊂
Ω, (xn , xn ) ⊂ (xn+1 , xn+1 ) for every n ∈ N.
In Case (B), condition (1) implies that there exists a strictly increasing unbounded
sequence (xn ) ⊂ (0, +∞) such that xn + in ∈ Ω for all n and L[xn ] is not a subset
of Ω for every n ≥ n 0 . Now, set xn := inf{Re w : w ∈ Cn }, yn := inf{Im w : w ∈
L[xn ] ∩ Ω} and let
Note that again we have (xn , xn ) ⊂ (xn+1 , xn+1 ) for every n ≥ n 0 .
The construction in Case (C) is similar to Case (B) and we omit it.
In Case (D), there exist a strictly increasing unbounded sequence (xn ) ⊂ (0, +∞)
and a strictly decreasing unbounded sequence (xn ) ⊂ (−∞, 0) such that xn +
in, xn + in ∈ Ω for all n and L[xn ] and L[xn ] are not included in Ω for n ≥ n 0 .
Now, set yn := inf{Im w : w ∈ L[xn ] ∩ Ω}, yn := inf{Im w : w ∈ L[xn ] ∩ Ω} and
let
Cn := [xn + i yn , xn + in] ∪ [xn + in, xn + in] ∪ [xn + in, xn + i yn ].
Clearly, in all the cases, (Cn )n≥n 0 is a null chain for Ω. By Lemma 11.1.3, (Cn )
represents the prime end in Ω corresponding to τ under h. For each n ≥ n 0 , let
By construction Cn+1 ∩ G n = ∅, while Cn−1 ∩ Ω ⊂ G n because (xn−1 , xn−1 )⊂
(xn , xn ). Hence, for each n ≥ n 0 + 1, the interior of Cn is given by Vn = Ω \ G n
(see Lemma 11.1.1).
Since G n ⊂ G n + it for any t ≥ 0, we see that Vn + it ⊂ Vn for t ≥ 0. Hence,
φt (Un ) ⊂ Un for all t ≥ 0 and all n ≥ n 0 , where Un := h −1 (Vn ).
Now, let x τ ∈ ∂C D be the prime end defined by τ , and let ĥ : D→Ω be the
homeomorphism defined by h. By Remark 4.2.2, {Vn∗ } is a basis of open neighbor-
hoods of ĥ(x τ ), hence, {Un∗ } is a basis of open neighborhoods of x τ . In particular, if
{z m } ⊂ D is a sequence converging to τ , then for any n ∈ N, there exists m n ∈ N0
such that z m ∈ Un for all m ≥ m n .
The previous considerations imply that, given any sequence {tm } ⊂ [0, +∞) con-
verging to +∞, φtm (z m ) ∈ Un for all m ≥ m n . Thus {φtm (z m )} converges to τ .
Therefore (2) holds and we are done.
In case h(D) contains a half-plane with boundary parallel to the imaginary axis,
the continuity of the iterates of a semigroup at the Denjoy-Wolff point is still granted,
but, in general, not (globally) uniform in t:
324 11 Extension to the Boundary
Proof Denote by h the Koenigs function of the semigroup and write Ω = h(D). If
the semigroup is parabolic of zero hyperbolic step, by Theorem 11.1.4, the function
h has a unrestricted limit at τ . Therefore, the result follows by Proposition 11.3.1.
Proposition 11.3.5 guarantees that the conclusion of the theorem holds if Ω does
not contain any half-plane bounded by a line parallel to iR. In particular, the result
holds if the semigroup is hyperbolic.
Assume now that the semigroup is parabolic of positive hyperbolic step and there
exist a half-plane H with ∂ H parallel to iR such that H ⊂ Ω. Hence, there is a real
number x0 such that either H := {w ∈ C : Re w > x0 } or H := {w ∈ C : Re w <
x0 }. As the two cases are similar, we just consider the first. Note that, in this case,
h(D) ⊂ H by Theorem 9.3.5.
For each m ∈ Z, let Cm be the connected component of {w = x + im ∈ Ω : x ≤
x0 } that contains the point x0 + im. Let xm := inf{Re w : w ∈ Cm } ≥ 0. By the trans-
lational invariance of Ω, we have xm ≤ xk whenever m > k. For n ∈ N, let
Clearly, (Cn ) is a null chain for Ω that, by Lemma 11.1.3, represents the prime end
in Ω corresponding to τ under h.
It follows that for any n ≥ 2, Cn+1 ∩ Ω ⊂ Ω \ G n and Cn−1 ⊂ G n , where
with the convention that the last set is empty if xn = x−n
. The interior of each Cn is
thus given by Vn = Ω \ G n (see Lemma 11.1.1).
We also notice that if k > n, then G n ⊂ G k + it for all t ∈ [0, k − n]. It follows
that
Note that Ω is a simply connected domain, 0 ∈ Ω and the boundary of Ω is not locally
connected. Let h : D → Ω be a Riemann map such that h(0) = 0. By Theorem 4.3.1,
the map h does not extend continuously to ∂D. Since Ω is starlike with respect to
0, h is the Koenigs function of an elliptic semigroup (φt ) in D with Denjoy-Wolff
point 0 by Theorem 9.4.3. Theorem 11.3.8 implies that none of the iterates of (φt )
belongs to the disc algebra.
11.4 Notes
The results in this chapter are mainly based on the recent papers [47] and [81].
The impressions of a prime end for spirallike functions was described in [47]
and for starlike functions at infinity in [81]. In those papers the proofs are based on
representation formulas while in this book we rely only on Carathéodory’s theory.
Based on classical ideas of starlike functions, Kim and Sugawa obtained Corollary
11.1.7 for the elliptic case in [89]. The non-elliptic case is due to Gumenyuk [81].
With the exception of Theorem 11.3.8 and Corollary 11.3.9 (that appeared firstly
in [47]), the results of Sects. 11.2 and 11.3 were first proved by Gumenyuk [81].
Chapter 12
Boundary Fixed Points and Infinitesimal
Generators
φt (σ ) := ∠ lim φt (z).
z→σ
Remark 12.1.2 Every point of D is an inner fixed point and every point in ∂D is a
boundary fixed point of the trivial semigroup. Moreover, by Theorem 8.3.6, Corollary
1.2.4 and Theorem 8.2.4, a non-trivial semigroup in D is either elliptic and the only
inner fixed point is its Denjoy-Wolff point or is non-elliptic and has no inner fixed
points.
Remark 12.1.3 The analysis of boundary fixed points is only interesting for semi-
groups in D different from elliptic groups. In fact, Proposition 8.3.8 shows that if (φt )
is an elliptic group, then either (φt ) is an irrational rotation—and hence no iterate has
boundary fixed points—or it is a rational rotation—and hence every iterate different
from the identity has no boundary fixed points.
Remark 12.1.5 The proof of the above theorem shows that if σ ∈ ∂D is a fixed
point of φt for some t > 0 then ∠ lim z→σ h(z) = ∞.
Proposition 12.1.6 Let (φt ) be a semigroup in D which is not an elliptic group and
let σ ∈ ∂D be a boundary fixed point of the semigroup different from the Denjoy-Wolff
point. Then,
12.1 Inner and Boundary Fixed Points 329
Proof Suppose there exists t > 0 such that φt (σ ) = ∞. By Theorem 1.7.3, αφt (σ ) =
+∞. This implies, using repeatedly Proposition 1.7.7, that αφt/2n (σ ) = +∞, for
every natural n. Fix s > 0 and take n such that T := 2tn < s. Since φs = φT ◦ φs−T ,
by Proposition 1.7.7, we have αφs (σ ) = +∞ and, again by Theorem 1.7.3, φs (σ ) =
∞.
If φt (σ ) = ∞ for some t > 0, the previous argument also shows that φs (σ ) = ∞,
for all s > 0. Since σ is not the Denjoy-Wolff point of the semigroup, by Remark
1.9.7, M(s) := φs (σ ) ∈ (1, +∞), for all s > 0. Moreover, M(s) = limn→∞ φs ((1 −
1/n)σ ) by Theorem 1.7.3, and, using Weierstrass’ Theorem, we find that M is a
measurable function from [0, +∞) into (1, +∞). For every s, t ≥ 0 and every r ∈
(0, 1), the Chain Rule gives
Definition 12.1.7 Let (φt ) be a semigroup in D which is not an elliptic group, and let
σ ∈ ∂D be a boundary fixed point of the semigroup different from the Denjoy-Wolff
point.
If φt (σ ) is finite for some t > 0, we say that σ is a repelling fixed point of the
semigroup and call the number λ defined in Proposition 12.1.6 the repelling spectral
value of the semigroup at σ .
If φt (σ ) = ∞ for some t > 0, we say that σ is a super-repelling fixed point and
we say that its spectral value at σ is −∞.
generator (see Corollary 10.1.12). In this section we see to which extent this result
holds for boundary fixed points other than the Denjoy-Wolff point.
G(z) p(z)
= σ (z − τ )(τ z − 1) .
z−σ σz − 1
G(z)
G (σ ) := ∠ lim ∈ (0, +∞) ∪ {∞}. (12.2.1)
z→σ z−σ
Proof We assume that the semigroup is non-trivial so that G is not identically van-
ishing. If σ is the Denjoy-Wolff point of the semigroup, Corollary 10.1.12 shows that
statements (1)–(4) hold with G (σ ) = ∠ lim z→σ G (z) ∈ R. Therefore, we assume
that σ is not the Denjoy-Wolff point of the semigroup.
By Theorem 1.7.2, statements (1) and (2) are equivalent and, in fact, G (σ ) =
∠ lim z→σ G (z) ∈ R by (12.2.1).
It is clear that (1) implies (3) and that (2) implies (4).
Now, by (12.2.1),
|G(r σ )| G(r σ )
lim inf = lim inf = ∠ lim G(z) .
r →1− 1−r r →1− σ − rσ z→σ z − σ
Taking limit when s goes to 1, we get |G(r σ )| ≤ (1 − r )M. Thus, (3) is satisfied,
and we are done.
For boundary regular fixed points of a semigroup, the relationship with critical
points of the infinitesimal generator is quite natural and we have:
If one—and hence any—of the previous holds, and φt (σ ) = e−λt for all t ≥ 0, then
−λ = ∠ lim z→σ G(z)
z−σ
and
2|σ − z|2 σ G(z)
λ = max μ ∈ R : μ ≤ Re , for all z ∈ D . (12.2.3)
1 − |z|2 (σ − z)2
Proof We assume that the semigroup is non-trivial so that G is not identically van-
ishing.
1−|z|2
Let us see that (3) implies (2). Since |σ −z|2
= Re σσ +z
−z
for all z ∈ D, we have
that
σ G(z) μσ +z
Re − ≥0
(σ − z)2 2 σ −z
G(z) μ
∠ lim = −∠ lim (1 − σ z) p(z) + σ (σ + z) = −(β + μ) ∈ R.
z→σ z−σ z→σ 2
(12.2.4)
That is,
|σ − φt (z)|2 −λt |σ − z|
2
≤ e for all t > 0 and z ∈ D.
1 − |φt (z)|2 1 − |z|2
This means that the function [0, +∞) t → g(t) := eλt |σ −φt (z)| 2
1−|φt (z)|2
satisfies g(t) ≤
g(0) for all t ≥ 0. Hence, g (0) ≤ 0. A direct computation shows that
12.2 Boundary Fixed Points and Infinitesimal Generators 333
Thus
|σ − z|2 σ G(z)
λ−2 Re ≤0
1 − |z|2 (σ − z)2
and
σ G(z) λ 1 − |z|2
Re ≥ , for all z ∈ D, (12.2.5)
(σ − z)2 2 |σ − z|2
Therefore,
∂φt (xσ )
∂ ∂t
log (1 − σ φt (xσ )) =
∂t |1 − σ φ (xσ )| ≤ 2c,
t
where log denotes the principal branch of the logarithm. Since φ0 = idD , we obtain
334 12 Boundary Fixed Points and Infinitesimal Generators
That is, σ is a boundary regular fixed point of φt for t small enough. By Theo-
rem 12.1.4 and Proposition 12.1.6, σ is a boundary regular fixed point of the semi-
group. Moreover, −G (σ ) is either the spectral value of the semigroup—in case σ is
the Denjoy-Wolff point—or the repelling spectral value at σ —in case σ is a repelling
fixed point.
In the first part of the proof [see (12.2.4)], we got that −λ = G (σ ) ≤ −μ for
μ satisfying (12.2.2).
any But equality
(12.2.5) shows that λ belongs to the set
2|σ −z|2 σ G(z)
μ ∈ R : μ ≤ 1−|z|2 Re (σ −z)2 , for all z ∈ D . Thus (12.2.3) holds.
λσ +z
G(z) = (σ z − 1)(z − σ ) p(z) + , for all z ∈ D. (12.2.7)
2σ −z
If one—and hence any—of the previous holds, then φt (σ ) = e−λt , for every t ≥ 0.
Proof Assume that σ is a boundary regular fixed point of the semigroup with spectral
λ. By Theorem 12.2.5, −λ = ∠ lim z→σ G(z)
z−σ
and
σ G(z) λ 1 − |z|2
Re ≥ , for all z ∈ D.
(σ − z)2 2 |σ − z|2
1−|z|2
Since |σ −z|2
= Re σσ +z
−z
for all z ∈ D, we have that p(z) := (σσ G(z)
−z)2
− λ σ +z
2 σ −z
is a
holomorphic function in the unit disc with non-negative real part and
σ G(z) λ
∠ lim (z − σ ) p(z) = ∠ lim + (σ + z) = −λσ + λσ = 0.
z→σ z→σ z−σ 2
Assume that there exist another real number μ ∈ R and a holomorphic function
q : D → H, with ∠ lim z→σ (z − σ )q(z) = 0, such that
μσ +z
G(z) = (σ z − 1)(z − σ ) q(z) + , for all z ∈ D. (12.2.8)
2 σ −z
G(z) μ
−λ = ∠ lim = ∠ lim (σ z − 1)q(z) − σ (σ + z) = −μ.
z→σ z−σ z→σ 2
Assume that (2) holds. Let τ ∈ D be the Denjoy-Wolff point of the semigroup. By
Berkson-Porta’s Theorem 10.1.10, there exists a holomorphic function p : D → H
such that
G(z) = (z − τ )(τ z − 1) p(z), z ∈ D.
Re (σ G(r σ )) Br Re ( p(r σ ))
−Ar + Im (σ G(r σ )) = (Ar2 + Br2 ) ,
r −1 1−r 1−r
Re (σ G(r σ ))
and limr →1 Ar = −|σ − τ |2 < 0, we have that lim inf r →1 r −1
< +∞ if and
p(r σ )
only if lim inf r →1 Re1−r < +∞. Moreover,
Remark 12.2.8 The proof of above proposition shows that the condition
σ G(r σ )
lim inf Re < +∞,
r →1 − r −1
12.2 Boundary Fixed Points and Infinitesimal Generators 337
by itself does not guarantee that σ is a boundary regular critical point. For example,
consider the function with non-negative real part p(z) := 1 − z + i, z ∈ D, and the
semigroup in the unit disc with infinitesimal generator G(z) = −zp(z). Clearly,
)
limr →1− Re G(r r −1
= 1 < +∞ and 1 is not a boundary regular critical point of G
because G(1) = −i = 0.
Proof The equivalence between (1) and (2) is nothing but Proposition 12.2.7. (1)
implies (3) follows from Proposition 12.2.4.
Let us see that (3) implies (2). By hypothesis, c := supr ∈(0,1) Re G (r σ ) < +∞.
Fix 0 < r < s < 1. Then
s
∂
|Re (σ G(sσ )) − Re (σ G(r σ ))| = (Re (σ G(xσ ))) d x
r ∂x
s
= Re (G (xσ )) d x ≤ c(s − r ).
r
In particular, taking z = r σ ,
σ G(r σ )
(1 − r )(du σ )r σ · G(r σ ) = 2 Re , z ∈ D.
r −1
Moreover, if σ is a repelling fixed point of (φt ) and λ is the repelling spectral value
of (φt ) at σ , then,
Therefore, given z ∈ D,
G(z) z+σ
(du σ )z · G(z) − βu σ (z) = −2 Re − βRe
(z − σ )(σ z − 1) z−σ
G(z) β z+σ σ G(z) β 1 − |z|2
= −2 Re − = −2 Re −
(z − σ )(σ z − 1) 2σ −z (z − σ )2 2 |σ − z|2
In this section we are going to prove a representation formula for infinitesimal gen-
erators, involving several boundary regular fixed points.
Definition 12.3.1 Let p : D → C be a non-zero holomorphic function with non-
negative real part and σ ∈ ∂D. We say that σ is a regular zero of p if ∠ lim z→σ p(z) =
p(z)
0 and p (σ ) = ∠ lim z→σ z−σ ∈ C.
By Proposition 2.1.3 (applied to the function 1/ p) we have ∠ lim z→σ p(z)
1−σ z
∈
[0, +∞). Thus σ is a regular zero of p if and only if
p(z)
σ p (σ ) = −∠ lim ∈ (−∞, 0).
z→σ 1 − σz
(1) σk is a regular zero of p for each kn = 1, . . . , n and nk=1 σk p (σk ) = −β,
(2) there are λ1 , . . . , λn > 0 with j=1 λ j = 2β and there exists a holomorphic
1
p(z) 1 1
∠ lim = ∠ lim n = > 0.
z→σ j 1 − σjz z→σ j
(1 − σ j z) λ σk +z
+ q(z) 2λ j
k=1 k σk −z
Therefore each σ j is a regular zero of the function p and −σ j p (σ j ) = 2λ1 j , for each
j = 1, . . . , n. Since nk=1 λ1k = 2β, we conclude that (1) holds.
Assume (1) holds. Suppose firstly that n = 1 so that σ1 p (σ1 ) = −β. Therefore,
1 σ1 +z
∠ lim z→σ1 1−σ 1z
p(z)
= β1 . Write p̃(z) := 2β σ1 −z
, z ∈ D. By Proposition 2.1.3, the func-
tion q := p − p̃ has non-negative real part and ∠ lim z→σ1 (1 − σ 1 z)q(z) = 0. Thus
1
1 1 1 1
n n n
1
= = qk (z) + pk (z), z ∈ D.
p(z) n k=1 p(z) n k=1 n k=1
Write q̃ := n1 nk=1 qk . Clearly q̃ is a holomorphic function in the unit disc with
non-negative real part and, by Proposition 2.1.3, there exists μ j := ∠ lim z→σ j (1 −
σ j z)q̃(z) ≥ 0, for j = 1, . . . , n.
Since every σk is a regular zero of p,
p(z) 1
−σk p (σk ) = ∠ lim = ∠ lim
z→σk 1 − σk z z→σk 1 n σ j +z
(1 − σ k z) q̃(z) − 2n j=1
1
σ j p (σ j ) σ j −z
1 1
= = .
μk − 1 1
2n σk p (σk )
2 μk − 1 1
n σk p (σk )
1
Hence, μk = −1 for k = 1, . . . , n. Applying n times Proposition 2.1.3,
1
σk p (σk )
n
μ σ +z
we see that the function q(z) := q̃(z) − nj=1 2j σ jj −z , z ∈ D, has non-negative real
part and ∠ lim z→σ j (1 − σ j z)q(z) = 0, for j = 1, . . . , n. Finally, for z ∈ D,
340 12 Boundary Fixed Points and Infinitesimal Generators
1
n
1 1 σj + z
= q̃(z) −
p(z) 2n j=1 σ j p (σ j ) σ j − z
n
μj σj + z 1
n
1 σj + z
= q(z) + −
j=1
2 σ j − z 2n σ
j=1 j
p (σ j ) σ j −z
n
1 1 1
n
1 σj + z 1 σj + z
= q(z) + −1 −
2 j=1 n σk p (σk ) σ j − z 2n j=1 σ j p (σ j ) σ j − z
1
n
1 σj + z
= q(z) − ,
2 j=1 σ j p (σ j ) σ j − z
Proof Let us see that (1) implies (2). By Theorem 10.1.10, there is a non-zero
holomorphic function P : D → H such that G(z) = (z − τ )(τ z − 1)P(z) for all
z ∈ D. Since σk is a repelling fixed point, σk = τ for every k. By Proposition 2.1.3
(applied to the function 1/P), for each l, there exists μl := ∠ lim z→σl (1 − σ l z) P(z)
1
∈
[0, +∞). Since each σl is a boundary regular critical point of G, using Theorem
12.2.5, we have
Thus, μl = |τ −σ l|
2
|λl |
= 0, for l = 1, . . . , n. In particular, each σl is a regular zero of
P. Applying Proposition 12.3.2, we obtain the decomposition (12.3.2).
Conversely, assume that (2) holds. Then, for each z ∈ D,
1 |τ − σk |2 σk + z 1 |τ − σk |2 1 − |z|2
n n
Re p(z) + = Re p(z) + ≥ 0.
2 k=1 |λk | σk − z 2 k=1 |λk | |σk − z|2
12.3 Synchronization Formulas 341
−1
Thus, Re p(z) + 21 nk=1 |τ −σ k | σk +z
2
|λk | σk −z
≥ 0, for all z ∈ D. Hence, by Theorem
10.1.10, G is the infinitesimal generator of a semigroup in D with Denjoy-Wolff
point τ . Moreover,
G(z) (z − τ )(τ z − 1)
∠ lim = ∠ lim
z→σl z − σl z→σl
(z − σl ) p(z) + 21 nk=1 |τ −σ k | σk +z
2
|λk | σk −z
(σl − τ )(τ σl − 1)
= 1 |τ −σl |2
= |λl |.
0− 2 |λl |
2σl
Therefore, Theorem 12.2.5 shows that each σl is a boundary regular critical point of
G with repelling spectral value λl , and (1) holds.
Conversely, assume that (2) holds. Then, for each z ∈ D,
1 |τ − σk |2 σk + z 1 |τ − σk |2 1 − |z|2
n n
Re p(z) + = Re p(z) + ≥ 0.
2 k=1 |λk | σk − z 2 k=1 |λk | |σk − z|2
−1
Thus, Re p(z) + 21 nk=1 |τ −σ k | σk +z
2
|λk | σk −z
≥ 0, for all z ∈ D. Hence, by
Theorem 10.1.10, G is the infinitesimal generator of a semigroup in D with Denjoy-
Wolff point τ . Moreover,
G(z) (z − τ )(τ z − 1)
∠ lim = ∠ lim
z→σl z − σl z→σl
(z − σl ) p(z) + 21 nk=1 |τ −σ k | σk +z
2
|λk | σk −z
(σl − τ )(τ σl − 1)
= 1 |τ −σl |2
= |λl |.
0− 2 |λl |
2σl
Therefore, Theorem 12.2.5 shows that each σl is a boundary regular critical point of
G with repelling spectral value λl , and (1) holds.
This inequality is sharp and equality holds if and only if the infinitesimal generator
of the semigroup is
−1
2τ |τ − σk |2 σk + z
n
G(z) = 2(z − τ )(τ z − 1) iIm + , z ∈ D.
G(0) k=1 |λk | σk − z
Proof By Theorems 10.1.10 and 12.3.3, there are two holomorphic functions p, q :
D → H, with ∠ lim z→σk (z − σk )q(z) = 0, for k = 1, ..., n, p non-zero, such that,
for all z ∈ D,
⎡ ⎤−1
1
n
|τ − σ | 2 σ +z
G(z) = (z − τ )(τ z − 1) p(z) = (z − τ )(τ z − 1) ⎣q(z) + ⎦ .
k k
2 |λk | σk − z
k=1
Therefore
1 |τ − σk |2 σk + z
n
1
= q(z) + , z ∈ D.
p(z) 2 k=1 |λk | σk − z
By Theorem 2.2.1,
2|τ |
|Im q(τ ) − Im q(0)| ≤ Re q(0) , (12.3.5)
1 − |τ |2
n
Since 21 nk=1 |τ −σ k| |τ −σk |2
2
|λk |
is real, we have that Re 1
p(0)
= Re q(0) + 1
2 k=1 |λk |
and
Im p(0) = Im q(0). On the other hand,
1
n
1 1 |τ − σk |2 σk + τ
Im = Im q(τ ) + Im
p(τ ) 2 k=1
|λk | σk − τ
n
Im (σk τ )
= Im q(τ ) + .
k=1
|λk |
τ
Clearly, Im G(0) = β. This ends the proof.
In particular,
n
1 1
≤ 2 Re . (12.3.7)
k=1
|λ k | λ
This inequality is sharp and equality holds if and only if the infinitesimal generator
of the semigroup is
−1
2 1 σk + z
n
G(z) = −2z −iIm + , z ∈ D.
λ k=1 |λk | σk − z
G j (z) 1 G(z)
∠ lim = ∠ lim (z − r j )(r j z − 1)
z→σk z − σk z→σk (−z) z − σk
= (σk − r j )(r j σk − 1)(−σ k )(−λk ) = −|σk − r j |2 λk .
That is, σk is a repelling fixed point of the semigroup generated by G j with repelling
spectral value |σk − r j |2 λk .
344 12 Boundary Fixed Points and Infinitesimal Generators
Since
1 1 1 1 p(0) − p(r j ) p (0) 1 G (0) 1 G (0)
lim − = lim =− = = ,
r
j→∞ j p(r j ) p(0) r
j→∞ j p(r j ) p(0) p(0) 2 2 G (0) 2 2 λ2
G(z)
∈ [0, +∞) and
n
|τ − σk |2 τ
β+ ≤ 2 Re . (12.3.9)
k=1
|λ k | G(0)
12.3 Synchronization Formulas 345
n |τ −σk |2
This inequality is sharp. In fact, k=1 |λk |
= Re 2τ
G(0)
if and only if the infinitesimal
generator of the semigroup is
−1
2τ |τ − σk |2 σk + z n
G(z) = 2(z − τ )(τ z − 1) iIm + , z ∈ D.
G(0) k=1 |λk | σk − z
1 − τz (τ − z)3
β := ∠ lim = ∠ lim 2 ∈ [0, +∞).
z→τ p(z) z→τ τ G(z)
Take a sequence {r j } in the interval (0, 1) such that lim j→∞ r j = 1 and, for each j,
consider the holomorphic function G j (z) = (z − r j τ )(r j τ z − 1) p(z), for all z ∈ D.
By Theorem 10.1.10, G j is the infinitesimal generator of a semigroup in the unit
disc with Denjoy-Wolff point r j τ .
Since σk is a repelling fixed point of (φt ) with spectral value λk , by Theorem
12.2.5, we have
That is, σk is a repelling fixed point of the semigroup generated by G j with spectral
|σk −r j τ |2
value λk |σk −τ |2
. By Corollary 12.3.4, we get that
n
|τ − σk |2 rjτ rjτ τ
≤ 2 Re = 2 Re = 2 Re .
k=1
|λk | G j (0) r j G(0) G(0)
G j (z) p(z) (1 − r j )2
∠ lim = ∠ lim (z − r j τ )(r j τ z − 1) = ∈ (0, +∞).
z→τ z−τ z→τ z−τ β
These means that τ is another repelling fixed point of the semigroup generated by
(1−r )2
G j with spectral value − β j . Therefore, Corollary 12.3.4 implies that
n
|τ − σk |2 |r j τ − τ |2
n
|τ − σk |2 rjτ τ
β+ = + ≤ 2 Re = 2 Re ,
k=1
|λk | (1 − r j ) /β k=1 |λk |
2 G j (0) G(0)
The equality nk=1 |τ −σ k|
2
|λk |
= Re G(0)
2τ
holds if and only if the equality holds in
(12.3.4) for each j and if and only if, for each j,
−1
2τ |τ − σk |2 σk + z
n
G j (z) = 2(z − r j τ )(r j τ z − 1) iIm + , z ∈ D.
G(0) k=1 |λk | σk − z
n |τ −σk |2 σk +z
This holds if and only if 1
p(z)
= iIm 2τ
G(0)
+ k=1 |λk | σk −z
, z ∈ D, finishing the
proof.
Remark 12.3.7 Following the proof of Corollary 12.3.6, it can be seen that, if β = 0,
equality holds in (12.3.9) if and only if the infinitesimal generator of the semigroup is
⎡ ⎤−1
2τ
n
|τ − σ | 2 σ +z 1 τ + z
G(z) = 2(z − τ )(τ z − 1) ⎣iIm ⎦ ,
k k
+ + z ∈ D,
G(0) |λk | σk − z β τ −z
k=1
G(z) τ 2 G(z) (z − τ )2 1
∠ lim = −∠ lim = − 0 = 0.
z→τ z−τ z→τ (τ − z)3 τ2 β
Remark 12.3.8 The right hand side terms of the inequalities (12.3.4), (12.3.7), and
(12.3.9) are zero if and only if the Berkson-Porta’s Decomposition Formula of the
infinitesimal generator is given by
for some a ∈ R \ {0}. In particular, the above corollaries show that the associated
semigroup has no repelling fixed point. In fact, by Corollary 10.3.2, if τ ∈ D, then
G is the infinitesimal generator of an elliptic group while, by Proposition 10.4.4,
if τ ∈ ∂D, then G is the infinitesimal generator of a parabolic semigroup of linear
fractional maps.
Proposition 12.3.9 Let (φt ) be a semigroup in D which is not an elliptic group. Let
σ ∈ ∂D be a repelling fixed point of (φt ), with repelling spectral value λ ∈ (−∞, 0).
Then there exists an open neighborhood U of σ such that, if p ∈ ∂D ∩ U \ {σ } is a
repelling fixed point of (φt ) with repelling spectral value μ ∈ (−∞, 0), then μ ≤ λ.
This inequality is sharp and equality holds if and only if the infinitesimal generator
of the semigroup is
−1
n
|τ − σk |2 σk + z
G(z) = 2(z − τ )(τ z − 1) ai + , z ∈ D,
k=1
|λk | σk − z
for some a ∈ R.
Proof Let G be the infinitesimal generator of the semigroup. We know that −λ =
∠ lim z→τ G(z)
z−τ
. Moreover, Re λ ≥ 0 and λ = 0. By Theorem 12.3.3, there is a holo-
morphic function q : D → H, with ∠ lim z→σk (z − σk )q(z) = 0, for k = 1, ..., n,
such that, for all z ∈ D,
−1
1 |τ − σk |2 σk + z
n
G(z) = (z − τ )(τ z − 1) q(z) + , z ∈ D.
2 k=1 |λk | σk − z
Therefore
G(z) τz − 1
= n |τ −σk |2 σk +z , z ∈ D.
z−τ q(z) + 2 k=1 |λk | σk −z
1
|τ |2 − 1 |τ |2 − 1
−λ = 1 n |τ −σk |2 σk +τ
= n 1−|τ |2 +2iIm (σ k τ )
.
q(τ ) + 2 k=1 |λk | σk −τ
q(τ ) + 1
2 k=1 |λk |
Thus
2 2 1 1n n
Re = Re q(τ ) + ≥ .
λ 1 − |τ |2 k=1
|λk | k=1
|λk |
Notice that, in particular, the equality holds if and only if Re q(τ ) = 0 if and only if
there is constant c ∈ R such that q(z) = ci for all z ∈ D.
Corollary 12.3.11 Let (φt ) be a hyperbolic semigroup in D with Denjoy-Wolff point
τ ∈ ∂D, spectral value λ > 0, and different repelling fixed points σ1 , ..., σn ∈ ∂D
with repelling spectral values λ1 , ...., λn ∈ (−∞, 0). Then
n
1 1
≤ .
k=1
|λ k | λ
348 12 Boundary Fixed Points and Infinitesimal Generators
This inequality is sharp and equality holds if and only if the infinitesimal generator
of the semigroup is
−1
n
Im (τ σk ) n
|τ − σk |2 σk + z
G(z) = 2(z − τ )(τ z − 1) 2i + , z ∈ D.
k=1
|λk | k=1
|λk | σk − z
Therefore
G(z) τz − 1
= 1 n
, z ∈ D.
z−τ q(z) + 2 k=1 |τ −σ k | σk +z
2
|λk | σk −z
n Im (τ σk )
That is, q(τ ) := ∠ lim z→τ q(z) = k=1 |λk |
i ∈ iR. To simplify, we write β :=
n Im (τ σk )
k=1 |λk | . Moreover
1 |τ − σk |2 σk + z
n
1
+ βi
τz − 1 2 k=1 |λk | σk − z
n
1 |τ − σk |2 σk + z 1 |τ − σk |2 σk + τ
n
1
= −
τ z − 1 2 k=1 |λk | σk − z 2 k=1 |λk | σk − τ
n
1 1 |τ − σk |2 σk + z σk + τ
= −
τ z − 1 2 k=1 |λk | σk − z σk − τ
n
1 (σk − τ )(σ k − τ ) 2σk (z − τ ) n
τ 1
= =− .
z − τ 2 k=1 |λk | (σk − z)(σk − τ ) k=1
|λk |
12.3 Synchronization Formulas 349
Since
1 |τ − σk |2 σk + z
n
z−τ q(z) − iβ 1
= + + βi ,
G(z) τz − 1 τz − 1 2 k=1 |λk | σk − z
τ)
In fact, A = Re A = limr →1 Rer q(r
−1
≤ 0. Thus, λ1 ≥ nk=1 |λ1k | and the equality
holds if and only if A = 0. On the one hand, if q − iβ is the null function then
A = 0. On the other hand, if q − iβ is not the null function, we can apply Proposi-
tion 2.1.3 to the holomorphic function D z → q(z)−iβ
1
to deduce that
1 τz − 1
= ∠ lim ∈ [0, +∞)
A z→τ q(z) − iβ
G(z n ) + λ(z n − σ ) + 21 λσ (z n − σ )2
lim = 0. (12.3.10)
n→∞ (z n − σ )3
Then
λ
G(z) = σ (σ 2 − z 2 ), z ∈ D. (12.3.11)
2
In particular, if λ = 0, G is the infinitesimal generator of an hyperbolic group with
fixed points σ and −σ .
λσ +z
G(z) = (z − σ )(σ z − 1) p(z) + , z ∈ D.
2σ −z
350 12 Boundary Fixed Points and Infinitesimal Generators
Thus
1 λσ +z σ 1
G(z) + λ(z − σ ) + λσ (z − σ )2 = σ (z − σ )2 p(z) + +λ + λ
2 2σ −z z−σ 2
= σ (z − σ )2 p(z).
That is,
G(z) + λ(z − σ ) + 21 λσ (z − σ )2 p(z)
=σ , z ∈ D.
(z − σ )3 z−σ
Assume that p is not identically zero. By Proposition 2.1.3, applied to the function
with non-negative real part 1/ p, we have
1 − σz (z − σ )3
∠ lim = −σ 2 ∠ lim ∈ [0, +∞).
z→σ p(z) z→σ G(z) + λ(z − σ ) + 1 λσ (z − σ )2
2
This fact clearly contradicts (12.3.10) and, thus, p must be zero. Hence
λσ +z λ
G(z) = (z − σ )(σ z − 1) 0 + = σ (σ 2 − z 2 ), z ∈ D.
2σ −z 2
Remark 12.3.13 The hypotheses of above theorem are satisfied if G has second
and third derivatives at σ with values −λσ and 0, respectively.
φ(z n ) − z n
lim = 0,
n→∞ (z n − σ )3
then φ = idD .
√ 2
φt (z) = 1 − 1 − e−t/2 + e−t/2 1 − z .
It is clear that φt is holomorphic for all t ≥ 0 and that φ0 (z) = z for all z ∈ D.
Moreover,
∂φt (z)
= G(φt (z)).
∂t
√ √
On the other hand, 1 − φs (z) = 1 − e−s/2 + e−s/2 1 − z and
2
φt (φs (z)) = 1 − 1 − e−t/2 + e−t/2 1 − φs (z)
√ 2
= 1 − 1 − e−t/2 + e−t/2 (1 − e−s/2 + e−s/2 1 − z)
√ 2
= 1 − 1 − e−(t+s)s/2 + e−(t+s)/2 1 − z) = φt+s (z), z ∈ D, t, s ≥ 0.
n
Ωα = {w ∈ C : |Im w| < 1} \ L[− j, α j ] ∪ L[− j, −α j ] ;
j=1
Finally, if α ∈ I , let h α stand for the Riemann mapping of D onto Ωα such that
h α (0) = 0 and h α (0) > 0. Using the symmetry of the domain Ωα , we see that
the function g(z) := h α (z) is another Riemann map of Ωα with g(0) = 0 and
g (0) > 0. Thus g = h α and h α ((−1, 1)) = R. Moreover, since h α (0) > 0, we have
limRu→+∞ h −1 −1 −1
α (u) = 1, lim Ru→−∞ h α (u) = −1 and (h α ) (u) > 0 for all u ∈ R.
In the following lemma and example, we will make use of this notation and properties
without making any explicit mention to them.
Lemma 12.4.2 Fix n ∈ N and 0 < αn < αn−1 < ... < α1 < 1. Then there is δ =
δ(α1 , ..., αn ) ∈ (0, αn ) such that if 0 < αn+1 < δ and β = {βm } ∈ I is such that
βm = αm for all m ≤ n + 1 and βm = 0 for all m > n + 1, then there exists a point
u n ∈ (−(n + 1), −n) such that (h −1 β ) (u n ) > n.
Proof Assume the result is not true. Then there are αm such that αm > αm+1 for all
m ≥ n, with limm→∞ αm = 0, and a sequence {βm } in I with the n + 1 first terms
given by α1 , ..., αn , αm and βm = 0 for all m > n + 1, such that h −1
βm (u) ≤n
for all u ∈ (−(n + 1), −n).
Denote by Ω0 the limit of {Ωβm } with respect to 0 in the sense of kernel conver-
gence. Then
⎡ ⎤
n
Ω0 = {w ∈ C : |Im w| < 1} \ ⎣ L[− j, α j ] ∪ L[− j, −α j ] ∪ L[−(n + 1), 0]⎦ .
j=1
Let us denote by h the univalent map from D onto Ω0 such that h(0) = 0 and h (0) >
0. Arguing as above, we can prove that h((−1, 1)) = (−(n + 1), +∞). Moreover,
since h (0) > 0, we have that (h −1 ) (u) > 0 for all u > −(n + 1), limRu→+∞ h −1
(u) = 1 and limRu→−(n+1)+ h −1 (u) = −1. We claim that
Since the Koebe map D z → is univalent and maps D onto C \ L[−1/4, 0],
z
(1−z)2
1/2
the map g : D → C given by g(z) = αn π2 log (1−z)
z
2 + 4
5
− 1 − n is a Riemann
map of Ω that sends the segment (−1, 1) onto the half-line (−(n + 1), +∞) and
−1
αn x 5 x +1
g (x) = + > 0, x ∈ (−1, 1).
π (1 − x)2 4 (1 − x)3
Finally, since (h −1 ) (h(x))h (x) = 1 for all x ∈ (−1, 1), we have (12.4.1).
and let h be the conformal mapping of D onto Ω such that h(0) = 0 and h (0) > 0.
By Lemma 12.4.2, there exist points u n ∈ (−(n + 1), −n) such that h −1 (u n ) > n,
for all n. Using the symmetry of the domain, we have that the function g(z) := h(z)
is another Riemann map of Ω with g(0) = 0 and g (0) > 0. Thus g = h and
h((−1, 1)) = R. Moreover, since h (0) > 0, we have that limRu→+∞ h −1 (u) = 1
354 12 Boundary Fixed Points and Infinitesimal Generators
and limRu→−∞ h −1 (u) = −1. Consider the function φt (z) := h −1 (h(z) + t), for z ∈
D and t ≥ 0. It is clear that (φt ) is a semigroup in D which satisfies limr →1 φt (−r ) =
limr →1 h −1 (h(−r ) + t) = −1 and limt→+∞ φt (0) = limt→+∞ h −1 (t) = 1. Thus
τ = 1 is the Denjoy-Wolff point of the semigroup and σ = −1 is a boundary fixed
point. Its infinitesimal generator G is given by G(z) = h 1(z) . Writing vn := h −1 (u n )
we have limn→∞ vn = −1 and G(vn ) = h (v1 n ) = (h −1 ) (u n ). Thus limn→∞ G(vn ) =
∞ and ∠ lim z→−1 G(z) = 0. That is, −1 is not a critical point of the infinitesimal
generator G.
12.5 Notes
The main result in Section 12.1 states that a boundary fixed point of an iterate of a
semigroup which is not an elliptic group is a boundary fixed point of the semigroup
(Theorem 12.1.4). This result appeared, with a different proof, for the first time in
[56] and [51].
The connection between boundary fixed points of a semigroup and boundary
critical points of its infinitesimal generator has been a very active research topic in
recent decades. There is an important number of papers addressing this relationship.
For listing some of them we mentioned [25, 37, 52, 68, 77–79, 119]. Some proofs
of Sects. 12.2 and 12.3 are inspired from [48, 52, 78, 79, 119] and Example 12.4.3
is taken from [37].
Theorem 12.3.12 and Corollary 12.3.14 are examples of the so-called Burns-
Krantz’ rigidity theorems (see [10]). Theorem 12.3.12 was proved in [39].
Chapter 13
Fixed Points, Backward Invariant
Sets and Petals
In this chapter, we study the behavior at the boundary of semigroups from a dynamical
point of view. Given a semigroup (φt ) in D and a point z ∈ D, one can follow the
“backward” trajectory up to a boundary point. The union of the backward trajectory
and the forward trajectory of z is a maximal invariant curve for the semigroup. In
case the backward trajectory is defined for all negative times, it is called a backward
orbit. In the first section we study such backward orbits and prove that every repelling
fixed point admits a special regular backward orbit landing at such a point. Using
this special backward orbits, we construct pre-models at repelling fixed points. Next,
we examine the backward invariant set of (φt ), namely, the set of points which admit
a maximal invariant curve defined for all negative times. We prove that this set is
formed by petals, which are the images of pre-models, and “isolated” backward
orbits. We show that the boundary of a petal is locally connected (and, in fact, except
a very special case, a Jordan curve), always contains the Denjoy-Wolff point and can
contain at most another fixed point of the semigroup which has to be repelling. Next,
using these tools, we characterize petals and repelling fixed points via the geometry
of the image of the Koenigs function. This allows also to completely describe the
analytic behavior of the Koenigs function at boundary fixed points.
Explicit examples are provided in the last section of the chapter when, the theory
being previously sufficiently developed, we will be able to get precise information
on the dynamics near fixed points just looking at the picture of a domain which is
either spirallike or starlike at infinity.
φs (γ (t)) = γ (t − s).
Remark 13.1.2 Let (φt ) be a semigroup in D and let γ : [0, +∞) → D be a back-
ward orbit for (φt ). Let (Ω, h, ψt ) be the canonical model of (φt ) given by Theorem
9.3.5. For all t ≥ 0, h(γ (t)) ∈ h(D), hence, ψt (h(γ (t))) = h(φt (γ (t))) = h(γ (0))
and
h(γ (t)) = ψ−t (h(γ (0))), for all t ≥ 0.
In particular, if (φt ) is elliptic, not a group, and λ ∈ C, Re λ > 0 is its spectral value,
then
h(γ ([0, +∞))) = spir λ [h(γ (0))] ∩ {w ∈ C : |w| ≥ |h(γ (0))|}.
Lemma 13.1.3 Let (φt ) be a non-trivial group in D and let τ ∈ D be the Denjoy-
Wolff point of (φt ). Let γ : [0, +∞) → D be a backward orbit. Then γ is regular.
Moreover,
(1) if (φt ) is elliptic, then either γ (t) ≡ τ or the image of γ is the boundary of a
hyperbolic disc centered at τ .
(2) If (φt ) is hyperbolic and σ ∈ ∂D \ {τ } is the other fixed point of (φt ),
then limt→+∞ γ (t) = σ and there exists α ∈ (−π/2, π/2) such that
limt→+∞ Arg(1 − σ γ (t)) = α.
(3) If (φt ) is parabolic, then limt→+∞ γ (t) = τ and the image of γ is contained in
∂ E(τ, R) for some R > 0. In particular, γ (t) converges to τ tangentially.
Proof Let z 0 := γ (0). Then, φt (γ (t)) = γ (0) = z 0 , hence γ (t) = φ−t (z 0 ) for all
t ≥ 0. In particular,
ω(γ (t), γ (t + 1)) = ω(φ−t (z 0 ), φ−t (φ−1 (z 0 ))) = ω(z 0 , φ−1 (z 0 )) < +∞.
If (φt ) is hyperbolic and σ ∈ ∂D \ {τ } is the other fixed point of (φt ), then ψt (z) =
eλt z for some λ > 0, and T (τ ) = ∞, T (σ ) = 0. Hence
from which it follows at once that limt→+∞ Arg(1 − σ γ (t)) = α for some α ∈
(−π/2, π/2).
Finally, if (φt ) is a parabolic group then, ψt (z) = z + it, and the statement follows
at once.
Remark 13.1.4 Let (φt ) be a hyperbolic group with Denjoy-Wolff point τ ∈ ∂D and
other fixed point σ ∈ ∂D \ {τ }. Then for every α ∈ (−π/2, π/2) there exists z 0 ∈ D
such that [0, +∞) t → φ−t (z 0 ) is a regular backward orbit which converges to
σ and such that limt→+∞ Arg(1 − σ φ−t (z 0 )) = α. Indeed, let C : D → H be the
Cayley transform such that C(τ ) = ∞ and C(σ ) = 0. Hence C(φt (C −1 (w))) =
eλt w, where λ > 0 is the spectral value of (φt ). It follows that if w0 ∈ H is such that
Arg(w0 ) = α, the curve [0, +∞) t → e−λt w0 converges to 0 forming an angle of
α with the real axis. Let z 0 := C −1 (w0 ). Hence, φ−t (z 0 ) = C −1 (e−λt w0 ) forms an
angle α with the segment C −1 ([0, +∞)) at σ . Since C −1 ([0, +∞)) is tangent to the
segment [0, σ ], the result follows.
Now, we examine the case of semigroups which are not groups. We start with two
lemmas:
Lemma 13.1.5 Let (φt ) be a semigroup in D which is not a group. Let τ ∈ D be its
Denjoy-Wolff point. Let γ : [0, +∞) → D be a backward orbit for (φt ). Then,
• either τ ∈ D and γ (t) ≡ τ for all t ≥ 0,
• or there exists σ ∈ ∂D (possibly σ = τ ) such that σ is a fixed point of (φt ) and
limt→+∞ γ (t) = σ .
Proof Let (Ω, h, ψt ) be the canonical model for (φt ), where Ω is either C, H, H− or
the strip Sρ for some ρ > 0 and either ψt (w) = w + it or ψt (w) = e−λt w for some
λ ∈ C with Re λ > 0. Let w0 := h(γ (0)). Let t ≥ 0. By Remark 13.1.2, h(γ (t)) =
ψ−t (w0 ) for all t ≥ 0. In particular, by the form of ψt , it follows that either ψ−t (w0 ) ≡
w0 = 0 (and hence γ (t) ≡ τ ∈ D) or limt→+∞ ψ−t (w0 ) = ∞ in C∞ . Therefore, by
Proposition 3.3.3, there exists σ ∈ ∂D such that
Therefore, by Theorem 1.5.7, ∠ lim z→σ φs (z) = σ for all s ≥ 0, hence σ is a bound-
ary fixed point of (φt ).
358 13 Fixed Points, Backward Invariant Sets and Petals
γ (t) = γ (n − s) = φs (γ (n)) = φs (z n ).
1 − |z n | 1 − |φ(z n+1 )|
lim inf = lim inf ≥ φ (σ ) > 1.
n→∞ 1 − |z n+1 | n→∞ 1 − |z n+1 |
This inequality also implies that |z n+1 | > |z n |, for all n ≥ N ; in particular z n = z n+1 .
Since supn∈N ω(z n , z n+1 ) < +∞, there exists δ2 ∈ (0, 1) such that for every n ∈
N,
z n − z n+1
1 − z z ≤ δ2 (13.1.2)
n n+1
This means that z n+1 belongs to the closed Euclidean disc Tz−1 n (D(0, δ2 )) =
z n −z
Tzn (D(0, δ2 )), where Tzn is the automorphism given by Tzn (z) = 1−z nz
, z ∈ D, and
D(0, δ2 ) denotes the Euclidean disc centered at 0 and radius δ2 . Given θ ∈ R,
|z n |2 +δ22 −2δ2 x
where the inequality follows from the fact that the function x → 1+|z n |2 δ22 −2δ2 x
is
decreasing in the interval [−|z n |, |z n |]. Therefore
|z n | + δ2
|z n+1 | ≤ .
1 + δ2 |z n |
Hence
1 − |z n | 1 − δ2
1 − |z n+1 | ≥ (1 − δ2 ) ≥ (1 − |z n |).
1 + δ2 |z n | 1 + δ2
Moreover, by (13.1.2),
(1 − |z n |2 )(1 − |z n+1 |2 ) z n − z n+1 2
=1− ≥ 1 − δ2 .
|1 − z n z n+1 |2 1 − z n z n+1 2
δ1 (1−δ2 )
Therefore, denoting δ := 2δ2
> 0, we find that, for every m > n ≥ N ,
m−1
|z m | − |z n | = (|z k+1 | − |z k |)
k=n
m−1
≥δ |z k+1 − z k | ≥ δ|z m − z n |.
k=n
Taking limits when m goes to ∞, this implies that the whole sequence {z n }
is included in a Stolz region S(σ, R) for some R ≥ 1δ thus {z n } converges non-
tangentially to σ .
Proof Suppose γ ≡ τ . Hence, by Lemma 13.1.5 there exists a boundary fixed point
σ ∈ ∂D of (φt ) such that limt→+∞ γ (t) = σ . By Lemma 1.4.5 and since γ is regular,
1
log αφ1 (σ ) ≤ lim sup[ω(0, γ (t)) − ω(0, φ1 (γ (t)))]
2 t→+∞
(13.1.3)
≤ lim sup ω(γ (t), γ (t − 1)) = V (γ ) < +∞.
t→+∞
for all w ∈ H.
Moreover, for 0 ≤ s ≤ t,
ψs (γ̃ (t)) = Cτ (φs (Cτ−1 (Cτ (γ (t))))) = Cτ (φs (γ (t))) = Cτ (γ (t − s)) = γ̃ (t − s).
γ (t − s) = Re ψs (
Re γ (t)) > Re
γ (t),
Proposition 13.1.9 Let (φt ) be a semigroup, not a group, in D. Let σ ∈ ∂D. Assume
σ is a repelling fixed point of (φt ) with repelling spectral value λ ∈ (−∞, 0). Then
there exists a non-exceptional regular backward orbit γ : [0, +∞) → D for (φt )
such that limt→+∞ γ (t) = σ and with hyperbolic step V (γ ) = − 21 λ.
Proof By Proposition 12.3.9, there exists ∈ (0, 21 ) such that the Euclidean disc D
of center σ and radius has the property that A := D ∩ ∂D does not contain repelling
fixed points for (φt ) with repelling spectral value greater than or equal to λ. Without
loss of generality, we can also assume that the Denjoy-Wolff point τ ∈ D of (φt ) is
not contained in D. Let B := ∂ D ∩ D.
362 13 Fixed Points, Backward Invariant Sets and Petals
Let α < 0 be such that E(σ, eλn+α ) ⊂ D for all n ∈ N0 . Let rn ∈ (0, 1) be such
that rn σ ∈ ∂ E(σ, eλn+α ). Since limt→+∞ φt (rn σ ) = τ ∈
/ D,
and φsn (rn σ ) ∈ B. We claim that sn > n. Indeed, by Theorem 1.4.7, taking into
account that (φt ) is not a group, for 0 ≤ t ≤ n,
lim sup ω(z n k , φ1 (z n k )) = lim sup ω(φsnk (rn k σ ), φsnk (φ1 (rn k σ )))
k→∞ k→∞
λ (13.1.5)
≤ lim sup ω(rn k σ, φ1 (rn k σ )) = − ,
k→∞ 2
where the last equality follows from Proposition 1.9.12 and the fact that αφ1 (σ ) =
e−λ . In particular this implies that limk→∞ φ1 (z n k ) = p by Lemma 1.8.6. Moreover,
since by Lemma 1.4.5
1
log αφ1 ( p) ≤ lim sup[ω(0, z n k ) − ω(0, φ1 (z n k ))] ≤ lim sup ω(z n k , φ1 (z n k )),
2 k→∞ k→∞
Theorem 1.4.7 and (13.1.5) imply that p is a boundary regular fixed point for φ1 with
αφ1 ( p) ≤ e−λ . Hence, by Theorem 12.1.4 and Proposition 12.1.6, the point p ∈ ∂D
is a boundary regular fixed point for (φt ) with repelling spectral value greater than
or equal to λ. This contradicts the definition of D. Hence {z n } is relatively compact
in D.
Therefore, there exists an infinite subset I0 ⊂ N0 such that {z n }n∈I0 converges to
a point w0 ∈ D.
Since sn > n for all n ∈ N0 , given j ∈ N, φsn − j (rn σ ) is well defined for all n ≥ j.
We claim that for every j ∈ N there exists an infinite subset I j of N0 such that
I j ⊂ I j−1 and {φsn − j (rn σ )}n∈I j converges to a point w j ∈ D. Indeed, fix j ∈ N and
suppose we constructed I j . Arguing as in (13.1.5), we see that
λ
lim ω(φsn −( j+1) (rn σ ), φsn − j (rn σ )) ≤ lim ω(rn σ, φ1 (rn σ )) = − .
I j n→∞ I j n→∞ 2
Hence, by the same argument as for {z n k }, it follows that {φsn −( j+1) (rn σ )}n∈I j is
relatively compact in D and thus we can extract an infinite subset I j+1 from I j such
that {φsn −( j+1) (rn σ )}n∈I j+1 converges to a point w j+1 ∈ D.
13.1 Backward Orbits 363
We have
for every j ∈ N. Also, by the definition of sn , we have φsn −( j+1) (rn σ ) ∈ D for all
j ∈ I j , and for all j ∈ N. Hence, w j ∈ D for all j ∈ N0 .
For every t > 0, let jt ∈ N0 be such that jt < t ≤ jt + 1. Now, let γ (0) = w0 and
define, for every t > 0
γ (t) = φ jt +1−t (w jt +1 ).
Therefore, as before,
Hence,
λ
ω(γ (t), γ (t + 1)) = ω(φ jt +1−t (w jt +1 ), φ jt +2−(t+1) (w jt +2 )) ≤ ω(w jt +1 , w jt +2 ) ≤ − ,
2
The previous results show that that for every repelling fixed point of a semigroup,
there exists a regular backward orbit converging to such a point. Moreover, every
backward orbit lands at a boundary fixed point of the semigroup. One might won-
der whether, to close the circle, for every super-repelling fixed point there exists a
backward orbit converging to it. In fact, this is not the case, as we will see later in
the next chapter.
364 13 Fixed Points, Backward Invariant Sets and Petals
1 − ηg(z)
∠ lim Arg = 0.
z→σ 1 − σz
Proof Suppose by contradiction that there exist > 0 and M > M > 1 and a
sequence {z n } ⊂ S(η, M) converging to η such that
zn ∈
/ g(S(σ, M ) ∩ {ζ ∈ D : |ζ − σ | < })
for all n ∈ N.
Let 0 < α0 < π/2 be such that S(σ, M) ⊂ {σ (1 − ρeiθ ) : ρ > 0, |θ | < α0 }.
Moreover, let ρ0 ∈ (0, 1) and β ∈ (α0 , π/2) be such that the set U := {σ (1 − ρeiθ ) :
ρ ∈ (0, ρ0 ), |θ | < β} satisfies
U ⊂ S(σ, M ) ∩ {ζ ∈ D : |ζ − σ | < } ∪ {σ }.
where (ψt ) is a hyperbolic group in D with Denjoy-Wolff point σ and other fixed
point −σ .
2 1−z
1 − ψt (z) = .
eλt − 1 eλt −1 + z
e λt +1
ω(z n , ψtn (C −1 (eiα ))) = kH (C(z n ), C(ψtn (C −1 (eiα )))) = kH (ρn eiθn , e−λtn eiα )
= kH (ρn eiθn , ρn eiα ) = kH (eiθn , eiα ).
lim ω(g(z n ), g(ψtn (C −1 (eiα )))) ≤ lim ω(z n , ψtn (C −1 (eiα ))) = 0,
n→∞ n→∞
1 − C −1 (eiα )
lim Arg(1 − g(z n )) = lim Arg(1 − g(ψtn (C −1 (eiα )))) = Arg = α,
n→∞ n→∞ 1 + C −1 (eiα )
and g is semi-conformal.
(1) (ηt ) is the unique hyperbolic group with Denjoy-Wolff point −σ , other fixed
point σ and spectral value −λ,
(2) g : D → D is univalent, ∠ lim z→σ g(z) = σ , and g is semi-conformal at σ , i.e.,
1 − σ g(z)
∠ lim Arg = 0,
z→σ 1 − σz
The next result shows that pre-models always exist at repelling fixed points. They
are also (essentially) unique, as we will see in Corollary 13.4.13.
Note that {Tt } is a family of automorphisms of the unit disc, Tt (γ (t)) = 0 and
z + γ (t)
Tt−1 (z) = .
1 + γ (t)z
(1 + e−λt )z + (1 − e−λt )
ηt (z) := .
(1 − e−λt )z + (1 + e−λt )
1 − γ (t) 1 − γ (t)
lim = 1 and lim = 1. (13.2.2)
t→+∞ 1 − γ (t) t→+∞ |1 − γ (t)|
13.2 Pre-Models at Repelling Fixed Points 367
Indeed, let {tn } ⊂ [0, +∞) be an increasing sequence converging to +∞ and let
wn := γ (tn ), n ∈ N0 . By Proposition 13.1.7, {wn } converges to 1 non-tangentially.
Moreover, V (γ ) = − λ2 and Lemma 1.4.5 imply
λ 1 1
− = log e−λ = log αφ1 (1) = lim inf [ω(0, z) − ω(0, φ1 (z))]
2 2 2 z→1
Therefore,
1
lim ω(φ1 (wn+1 ), wn+1 ) = log αφ1 (1).
n→∞ 2
Hence, by Proposition 1.9.12, limn→∞ Arg(1 − γ (tn )) = 0. Therefore, if we write
γ (tn ) = 1 − ρn eiθn with ρn > 0 and limn→1 ρn = 0 and θn ∈ (−π/2, π/2), we have
limn→0 θn = 0. Hence,
1 − γ (tn ) eiθn
lim = lim = 1.
n→∞ 1 − γ (tn ) n→∞ e−iθn
Also,
1 − γ (tn )
lim = lim eiθn = 1.
n→∞ |1 − γ (tn )| n→∞
1 − γ (t)
lim = e−λs . (13.2.3)
t→+∞ 1 − γ (t + s)
Indeed,
1 − γ (t) 1 − φs (γ (t + s))
= ,
1 − γ (t + s) 1 − γ (t + s)
and, taking into account that γ (t) converges to 1 non-tangentially, (13.2.3) follows
at once from Theorem 1.7.3. A direct computation shows that
1−γ (t+s)γ (t) γ (t)−γ (t+s)
1−γ (t+s)
z+ 1−γ (t+s)
Tt+s (Tt−1 (z)) = .
γ (t)−γ (t+s) 1−γ (t+s)γ (t)
1−γ (t+s)
z+ 1−γ (t+s)
368 13 Fixed Points, Backward Invariant Sets and Petals
and hence {Tt+s ◦ Tt−1 } converges uniformly on compacta to ηs . Finally, since Tt+s ◦
−1
Tt−1 ◦ Tt ◦ Tt+s = idD for all t ≥ 0 and limt→∞ Tt+s ◦ Tt−1 = ηs , it follows that {Tt ◦
−1
Tt+s } converges to η−s .
Claim B. For every s ≥ 0, the family {Tt+s ◦ ηs−1 ◦ Tt−1 } converges uniformly on
compacta to idD as t → +∞.
Indeed, a direct computation shows
Divide both the numerator and the denominator by 1 − γ (t) and take the limit as
t → +∞. Note that, taking into account (13.2.2), we have
Tt+s ◦ η−s ◦ Tt−1 = (Tt+s ◦ Tt−1 ) ◦ (Tt ◦ η−s ◦ Tt−1 ) → ηs ◦ η−s = idD ,
ω(γ (t), Tt−1 (z)) = ω(Tt−1 (0), Tt−1 (z)) = ω(0, z) < +∞.
ω(φtk +s (Tt−1
k +s
(z)), φtk (Tt−1
k
(z)) ≤ ω(φs (Tt−1
k +s
(z)), Tt−1
k
(z)))
≤ ω(φs (η−s (Tt−1
k
(z))), Tt−1
k
(z)) + ω(φs (η−s (Tt−1
k
(z))), φs (Tt−1
k +s
(z))) (13.2.4)
≤ ω(φs (η−s (Tt−1
k
(z))), Tt−1
k
(z)) + ω(η−s (Tt−1
k
(z)), Tt−1
k +s
(z)).
Note that ∠ lim z→1 φs ◦ η−s (z) = 1 and αφs ◦η−s (1) = e−λs eλs = 1 by
Proposition 1.7.7. Therefore, taking into account that Tt−1
k
(z) → 1 non-tangentially,
we have limk→∞ ω(φs (η−s (Tt−1k
(z))), T −1
tk (z)) = 0 by Proposition 1.9.12. Moreover,
by Claim B,
g ◦ ηs = φs ◦ g.
We are left to prove that g is non constant, ∠ lim z→1 g(z) = 1 and that g is semi-
conformal at 1. We have
ω(φt (Tt−1 (η−s (0))), γ (s)) = ω(φt (Tt−1 (η−s (0))), φt (γ (t + s)))
≤ ω(Tt−1 (η−s (0)), γ (t + s)) = ω(Tt−1 (η−s (0)), Tt+s
−1
(0))
−1
= ω(η−s (0), Tt (Tt+s (0))) → ω(η−s (0), η−s (0)) = 0,
From here it follows that g is not constant. Hence, as a limit of univalent functions,
g is univalent. Since lims→+∞ η−s (0) = 1 and lims→+∞ γ (s) = 1, Theorem 1.5.7
implies ∠ lim z→1 g(z) = 1.
370 13 Fixed Points, Backward Invariant Sets and Petals
−1
By Claim A, Tt (Tt−1 (0)) → η1 (0) for t → +∞. Therefore, every limit of { f t } for
t → +∞ fixes both 0 and η1 (0), hence by Schwarz’s Lemma (see Theorem 1.2.1)
{ f t } converges to the identity for t → +∞. That is, Tt ◦ g ◦ η−t → idD uniformly
on compacta for t → +∞. This implies that for t → +∞,
Now,
and, taking into account (13.2.2), passing to the limit for t → +∞, we obtain
1−z
lim Arg(1 − Tt−1 (z)) = Arg .
t→+∞ 1+z
Given a pre-model (D, g, ηt ) for (φt ) at σ , the map g is in general not regular (or
conformal) at σ (see Example 13.7.11).
A consequence of Theorem 13.2.7 is the following:
Proof By Remark 13.1.4 there exists z 0 ∈ D such that [0, +∞) t → η−t (z 0 ) con-
verges to σ and limt→+∞ Arg(1 − σ η−t (z 0 )) = α. Let γ (t) := g(η−t (z 0 )). Note that
for 0 ≤ s ≤ t,
lim sup ω(γ (t), γ (t + 1)) ≤ lim sup k g(D) (γ (t), γ (t + 1))
t→+∞ t→+∞
and γ is regular.
Finally, since g −1 ◦ γ is a backward orbit for (ηt ), by Lemma 13.1.3, it converges
to σ with a certain angle. But g is semi-conformal at σ , hence γ converges to σ with
the same angle, that is, (13.2.7) holds.
372 13 Fixed Points, Backward Invariant Sets and Petals
The aim of this section is to study curves which are invariant and maximal, and
see how these curves read the boundary dynamics of a semigroup. We start with a
definition:
Definition 13.3.1 Let (φt ) be a semigroup, not a group, in D, with Denjoy-Wolff
point τ ∈ D. Let a ∈ [−∞, 0). A continuous curve γ : (a, +∞) → D is called
a maximal invariant curve for (φt ) if φs (γ (t)) = γ (t + s) for all s ≥ 0 and t ∈
(a, +∞), limt→+∞ γ (t) = τ and there exists p ∈ ∂D such that limt→a + γ (t) = p.
We call p the starting point of γ .
Remark 13.3.2 Let a ∈ [−∞, 0). Let γ : (a, +∞) → D be a maximal invariant
curve for a semigroup (φt ) which is not a group and let lim t→a + γ (t) = p ∈ ∂D. Then
γ is injective. Indeed, if not, say γ (t) = γ (s) for some a < s < t. Then φt−s (γ (s)) =
γ (t) = γ (s), implying that γ (s) = τ ∈ D, the Denjoy-Wolff point of (φt ). But then,
for all a < t0 < s, φs−t0 (γ (t0 )) = γ (s) = τ . Since φs−t0 is injective in D, this forces
γ (t0 ) = τ for all a < t0 < s, a contradiction since limt→a + γ (t) ∈ ∂D.
Let h : (0, 1) → (a, +∞) be any orientation preserving homeomorphism. Then,
setting (0) = p, (t) := γ (h(t)) and (1) = τ , it follows that : [0, 1] → D is a
Jordan arc (or a Jordan curve if p = τ ).
Remark 13.3.3 Every non-constant backward orbit gives rise to a maximal invariant
curve with starting point a boundary fixed point. Indeed, if (φt ) is a semigroup
in D, not a group, and γ : [0, +∞) → D is a non-constant backward orbit for φt ,
then define the continuous curve μ : (−∞, +∞) → D as follows: μ(t) = γ (−t) for
t ≤ 0 and μ(t) = φt (γ (0)) for t ≥ 0. By Lemma 13.1.5, limt→−∞ μ(t) = p ∈ ∂D,
where p is a boundary fixed point for (φt ) and by Theorem 8.3.1, limt→+∞ μ(t) = τ .
Moreover, for all s ≥ 0, t ≥ 0,
W := ∩t≥0 φt (D).
Proof First we show that if there exists a maximal invariant curve γ for (φt ) such
that γ (0) = z 0 , then it is unique. Assume γ̃ : (ã, +∞) → D is another maximal
invariant curve such that γ̃ (0) = z 0 , for some ã < 0. Then for t ≥ 0,
lim γ (t) = lim h −1 (ψt (w0 )) = lim h −1 (ψt (ψ−a (q))) = lim h −1 (ψt−a (q)) = p.
t→a + t→a + t→a + t→a +
Hence, limt→a + φs (γ (t)) = h −1 (ψs (q)) ∈ D. Therefore, by Theorem 1.5.7, for all
s > 0,
φs ( p) = h −1 (ψs (q)) = h −1 (ψs+a (w0 )) = γ (s + a).
It is clear that φs ( p) ∈
/ W for all s > 0, hence, γ (t) ∈
/ W for all t > a.
Assume now a = −∞. Clearly, [0, +∞) t → γ (−t) is a backward orbit for
(φt ), hence either it is constantly equal to τ ∈ D, which implies at once that z 0 = τ ,
against our hypothesis, or it converges to a point p ∈ ∂D which is fixed for (φt )
by Proposition 13.1.7. Now, let t ∈ R and s ≥ 0. Then γ (t) = φs (γ (t − s)), which
implies that γ (t) ∈ W for all t ∈ R, in particular, z 0 ∈ W .
The previous argument shows that for all t ≥ 0
Remark 13.3.6 The previous proof shows that if (φt ) is a non-elliptic semigroup in
D and h : D → C is its Koenigs function, then every maximal invariant curve of (φt )
is of the form {z ∈ D : Re h(z) = b}, for some b ∈ R. In fact, if γ is such a maximal
invariant curve, then h(γ ) is a line of a half-line.
Remark 13.3.8 Let (φt ) be a semigroup, not a group, in D. Let z 0 ∈ D \ {τ } and let
γ : (a, +∞) → D be the unique maximal invariant curve for (φt ) such that γ (0) =
z 0 , a < 0. Let t0 ∈ (a, +∞). It is easy to check that γ̃ : (a + t0 , +∞) → D (where,
if a = −∞, we set a + t0 = −∞) is a maximal invariant curve for (φt ) such that
γ̃ (0) = γ (t0 ). In other words, for every z ∈ γ ((a, +∞)), the image of the maximal
invariant curve for (φt ) which values z at time 0 is γ ((a, +∞)).
Remark 13.3.9 The uniqueness of a maximal invariant curve holds also at the
starting point in case this is not a fixed point. More precisely, let (φt ) be a semi-
group, not a group. Let γ : (a, +∞) → D be a maximal invariant curve for (φt )
with a < 0 and starting point σ ∈ ∂D. Assume a > −∞. If γ̃ : (ã, +∞) → D is a
maximal invariant curve for (φt ), ã < 0, such that limt→ã + γ̃ (t) = σ then ã > −∞
and γ ((a, +∞)) = γ̃ ((ã, +∞)).
Indeed, by Proposition 13.3.5, a > −∞ implies σ is not a fixed point of (φt ) which
in turn, by the same token, implies ã > −∞. Then, by Proposition 13.3.5(1), γ (t +
a) = φt (σ ) = γ̃ (t + ã) for all t ≥ 0, from which the previous statement follows at
once.
13.4 Petals
In this section we deeply examine the interior part of the backward invariant set of a
semigroup.
Proof (1) Seeking for a contradiction, we assume is not simply connected. Hence,
there exists a Jordan curve ⊂ such that the bounded connected component of C \
contains a point z 0 ∈
/ W , the backward invariant set of (φt ). By Proposition 13.3.5,
there exists a maximal invariant curve γ : (a, +∞) → D such that lim z→a − γ (t) =
p ∈ ∂D and γ (0) = z 0 . Moreover, γ (t) ∈/ W for all t > a. But γ ((a, +∞)) has to
intersect , a contradiction. Therefore, is simply connected.
◦
(2) By Proposition 13.3.5, φt () ⊂W for all t ≥ 0. Hence, since is connected,
if z 0 ∈ then [0, +∞) t → φt (z 0 ) is contained in . That is, φt () ⊆ for all
t ≥ 0. On the other hand, if z 0 ∈ \ {τ }, let γ : (−∞, +∞) → be the maximal
invariant curve such that γ (0) = z 0 , given by Proposition 13.3.5. Hence, since
◦
is connected and γ ((−∞, +∞)) ⊂W , it follows that γ (t) ∈ for all t ∈ R. Thus,
φt (γ (t)) = γ (0) = z 0 for every t ≥ 0. Namely, φt () = for all t ≥ 0. There-
fore, (φt | ) is a continuous semigroup whose iterates are automorphisms of . By
Theorem 8.4.4, it extends to a continuous group (φt | ) of .
(3) If z ∈ , then φt (z) ∈ for all t ≥ 0 and φt (z) → τ . Hence, τ ∈ . In partic-
ular, if (φt ) is not elliptic, then τ ∈ ∂. Assume (φt ) is elliptic and τ ∈ . If τ = 0,
let T : D → D be an automorphism such that T (0) = τ . Then (T −1 ◦ φt ◦ T ) is a
semigroup in D with Denjoy-Wolff point 0 and T −1 () is a petal of (T −1 ◦ φt ◦ T ).
Clearly, 0 ∈ T −1 () if and only if τ ∈ . Therefore, we can assume τ = 0. Since
is simply connected, there exists a univalent map f : D → C such that f (D) =
and f (0) = 0. Hence, by (2), ( f −1 ◦ φt ◦ f ) is a group of D with Denjoy-Wolff point
0. In particular, by Proposition 8.3.8,
ω((φt | )−1 (z), (φt+1 | )−1 (z)) ≤ k ((φt | )−1 (z), (φt+1 | )−1 (z))
= k (z, (φ1 | )−1 (z)) < +∞.
Moreover, φs ((φt | )−1 (z)) = (φt−s | )−1 (z) for all 0 ≤ s ≤ t. Therefore, [0, +∞)
t → (φt | )−1 (z) is a regular backward orbit for (φt ). Hence, by Proposition 13.1.7,
there exists σ ∈ ∂D ∩ ∂ such that limt→+∞ (φt | )−1 (z) = σ —and, if σ = τ then
(φt ) is parabolic.
Finally, if w ∈ , for all t ≥ 0,
ω((φt | )−1 (z), (φt | )−1 (w)) ≤ k ((φt | )−1 (z), (φt | )−1 (w)) = k (z, w) < +∞,
Our aim now is to describe the boundary of petals. We start with the following
result which, taking into account Remark 13.3.3, shows that exceptional backward
orbits have to be necessarily contained in the closure of a parabolic petal:
Now, we focus on the boundary of petals. To this aim, and for the subsequent
results, we need a lemma:
Lemma 13.4.7 Let (φt ) be a semigroup, not a group, in D with Denjoy-Wolff point
τ ∈ D. Suppose ⊂ D is a petal and z 0 ∈ ∂ ∩ (D \ {τ }). Let γ : (a, +∞) →
D, a < 0, be the maximal invariant curve of (φt ) such that γ (0) = z 0 . Then
γ ((a, +∞)) ⊂ ∂.
Proof Let W be the backward invariant set of (φt ). Since z 0 ∈ ∂, it follows that
◦ ◦
/ W . By Proposition 13.3.5, γ (t) ∈
z0 ∈ / W for all t ∈ (a, +∞). In particular, γ (t) ∈
/
for all t ∈ (a, +∞).
Let t ≥ 0 and fix δ > 0. Since z 0 ∈ ∂, there exists w ∈ such that ω(z 0 , w) < δ.
Then
ω(φt (w), γ (t)) = ω(φt (w), φt (z 0 )) ≤ ω(w, z 0 ) < δ.
378 13 Fixed Points, Backward Invariant Sets and Petals
We first consider the case in which the boundary of a petal contains a maximal
invariant curve starting at the Denjoy-Wolff point:
Let p1 be the starting point of the maximal invariant curve whose closure defines
C1 . As before, p1 = τ . By construction, ⊂ G := B0 ∩ B1 ∩ U . Note that G is a
simply connected domain whose boundary is given by J ∪ C0 ∪ C1 ∪ T , where T is
a closed arc in ∂D with end points p0 and p1 (we set T = { p0 } in case p0 = p1 ). We
claim that G = , and hence the claim is proved by setting A = G ∪ (J ∩ D) ∪ V .
Indeed, if there were a point ζ2 ∈ G ∩ ∂, the Jordan curve C2 , defined as before
by ζ2 , would divide G into two connected components and would belong to one of
the two connected components. But this is impossible because J, C0 , C1 ⊂ ∂.
Every case given by Proposition 13.4.9 actually happens, as we will see in the
examples of the last section.
Let p ∈ ∂D be such that g( p) is a fixed point of (φt ). Hence, by (13.4.1), g(ψt ( p)) =
g( p) for all t ≥ 0. We claim that this implies that ψt ( p) = p for all t ≥ 0. Other-
wise, the image [0, +∞) t → ψt ( p) would be an arc in ∂D where g is constant,
contradicting Proposition 3.3.2.
Since (ψt ) is a non-elliptic group in D, it has at most two fixed points on ∂D,
hence, there exist at most two fixed points for (φt ) on ∂. From this, (1) follows at
once.
Now, assume that is parabolic. By Remark 13.4.5, (φt ) is necessarily parabolic,
and τ ∈ ∂D. Hence, by Proposition 13.4.9, is a Jordan domain and Theorem 4.3.3
implies that, in fact, g : D → is a homeomorphism. Now, by Proposition 13.4.2(4),
there exists a regular backward orbit γ : [0, +∞) → such that limt→+∞ γ (t) = τ .
It is easy to see that g −1 ◦ γ is a backward orbit for (ψt ) which converges to g −1 (τ ).
Since ψt (0) = g −1 (φt (g(0))) → g −1 (τ ), it follows that (ψt ) has a backward orbit
which converges to its Denjoy-Wolff point. Hence, (ψt ) is a parabolic group by
Lemma 13.1.3. Therefore, (ψt ) has only one fixed point on ∂D, and so (φt ) has a
unique fixed point on ∂ which is τ .
The previous results show that the closure of every hyperbolic petal contains
exactly one repelling fixed point, now we show the converse:
Proof By Theorem 13.2.7, there exists a pre-model (D, g, ηt ) for (φt ) at σ . For all
t ≥ 0,
φt (g(D)) = g(ηt (D)) = g(D). (13.4.2)
This implies that g(D) ⊂ W , the backward invariant set of (φt ). Since g(D) is
open and simply connected, there exists a petal such that g(D) ⊂ . Moreover,
η−t (0) converges non-tangentially to σ as t → +∞ by Lemma 13.1.3, hence, since
∠ lim z→σ g(z) = σ , we have
that is, σ ∈ g(D). Since contains no fixed points of (φt ) by Remark 13.4.5, it
follows that σ ∈ ∂, proving the first part of the statement.
Now we show that g(D) = . Let z 0 ∈ . By Proposition 13.4.2, the curve
[0, +∞) t → (φt | )−1 (z 0 ) is a regular backward orbit for (φt ) which converges
to σ , and, by Proposition 13.1.7, the convergence to σ is non-tangential. Therefore,
by Theorem 13.2.8, (φt | )−1 (z 0 ) ∈ g(D) for all t ≥ 0. In particular, z 0 ∈ g(D) and
hence = g(D) by the arbitrariness of z 0 . Moreover, by Lemma 13.2.3, for all
M > 1 there exists > 0 such that
Finally, we are left to show that is the unique petal which contains σ on its
boundary. Assume by contradiction this is not the case and let be a petal different
from such that σ ∈ ∂ . Note that ∩ = ∅ (since they are different open
connected components of the interior of the backward invariant set of (φt )). We
claim that has to be a Jordan domain. Indeed, looking at Proposition 13.4.9, we
see if is not a Jordan domain, then is the only petal of (φt ), forcing = . Let
f : D → C be univalent such that f (D) = . Hence, by Theorem 4.3.3, f extends
as a homeomorphism—which we still denote by f —from D to . By Proposition
13.4.2, τ ∈ ∂ and (φt | ) is a continuous group of automorphisms of . Hence,
arguing as in the proof of Proposition 13.4.10, it is easy to see that ( f −1 ◦ φt ◦ f ) is
a group in D, with fixed points f −1 (τ ) and f −1 (σ ). Therefore, ( f −1 ◦ φt ◦ f ) is a
hyperbolic group and by Remark 13.1.4, it has a regular backward orbit γ converging
to f −1 (σ ). It is easy to see that f ◦ γ is a backward orbit for (φt ) converging to σ
and it is regular because for all t ≥ 0,
g̃ ◦ ηt ◦ g̃ −1 | = g ◦ ηt ◦ g −1 | .
With the results obtained so far we can studied the rate of convergence when
approaching a repelling fixed point. Recall that, given a petal for a semigroup
(φt ), (φt | ) is a continuous group of automorphisms of by Proposition 13.4.2.
Therefore, given z ∈ , it is well-defined φt | (z) for all t ∈ R. With a slight abuse
of notation, we write φt (z) to denote φt | (z) for all t ∈ R when z ∈ .
1
lim log (1 − σ φt (z)) = −λ. (13.4.3)
t→−∞ t
G(z)
−λ = ∠ lim ∈ (0, ∞).
z→σ z−σ
Moreover, by Lemma 13.1.6, the regular backward orbit [0, +∞) t → φ−t (z)
converges to σ non-tangentially, so that
G(φt (z))
−λ = lim , z ∈ .
t→−∞ φt (z) − σ
384 13 Fixed Points, Backward Invariant Sets and Petals
Given z ∈ and t ∈ R,
t
−σ G(φs (z)) s=t
ds = log(1 − σ φs (z)) s=0
0 1 − σ φs (z)
= log(1 − σ φt (z)) − log(1 − σ z).
1 t
−σ G(φs (z 0 )) G(φt (z 0 ))
lim ds = lim = −λ.
t→−∞ t 0 1 − σ φs (z 0 ) t→+∞ φt (z 0 ) − σ
As a last result of this section we prove that a super-repelling fixed point can be
the limit of at most one backward orbit:
Proposition 13.4.15 Let (φt ) be a semigroup, not a group, in D with Denjoy-Wolff
point τ ∈ D. Suppose σ ∈ ∂D is a super-repelling fixed point of (φt ). Assume γ j :
[0, +∞) → D, j = 1, 2, are backward orbits of (φt ) converging to σ . Then, either
γ1 ([0, +∞)) ⊆ γ2 ([0, +∞)) or γ2 ([0, +∞)) ⊆ γ1 ([0, +∞)).
In particular, up to re-parameterization, there is at most one maximal invariant
curve for (φt ) with starting point σ .
Proof Suppose by contradiction that the statement is not true. Let define η j (t) =
γ j (−t) for t ≥ 0 and η j (t) = φt (γ j (0)) for t > 0, j = 1, 2. By Remark 13.3.3,
η1 , η2 are maximal invariant curves for (φt ). Hence, by Remark 13.3.8, either
η1 ((−∞, +∞)) = η1 ((−∞, +∞)) or they are disjoint, and by our hypothesis, the
latter case holds. Since limt→+∞ η j (t) = τ and limt→−∞ η j (t) = σ , j = 1, 2, by
Remark 13.3.2 it follows that the closure of η1 ((−∞, +∞)) ∪ η2 ((−∞, +∞)), call
it J , is a Jordan curve such that J ∩ ∂D = {τ, σ }. Let D be the bounded connected
component of C \ J . We claim that D ⊂ W , the backward invariant set of (φt ).
Assuming the claim, it follows at once that D is contained in a petal . But σ ∈
∂, hence, by Proposition 13.4.10, is hyperbolic and σ is repelling, contradiction.
In order to prove the claim, let z 0 ∈ D and let η : (a, +∞) → D be the max-
imal invariant curve such that η(0) = z 0 , with a ∈ [−∞, 0). Let p ∈ ∂D be the
starting point of η. Since D ∩ ∂D = {σ, τ }, it follows that p ∈ {τ, σ }, hence, Propo-
sition 13.3.5 implies that z 0 belongs to the backward invariant set of (φt ).
The last statement follows at once from what we already seen and
Remark 13.3.3.
In this section we see how the geometry of the image of the Koenigs function of
a semigroup detects petals. Recall that by Proposition 13.4.12 for every repelling
fixed point of a semigroup there exists a unique hyperbolic petal whose boundary
13.5 Petals and the Geometry of Koenigs Functions 385
contains that fixed point. Moreover, the restriction of the semigroup to any petal is a
continuous group of automorphisms of such a petal (Proposition 13.4.2). The basic
observation is contained in the following lemma:
Lemma 13.5.1 Let (φt ) be a semigroup, not a group, in D. Let (Ω, h, ψt ) be the
canonical model of (φt ) (where Ω and ψt are given by Theorem 9.3.5). Suppose σ ∈
∂D is a repelling fixed point for (φt ) with repelling spectral value λ ∈ (−∞, 0). Let
be the hyperbolic petal of (φt ) such that σ ∈ ∂. Let A := h(). Then ψt (A) = A
for all t ≥ 0 and (ψt | A ) is a continuous group of automorphisms of A. Moreover, the
divergence rate satisfies
λ
c (φt | ) = c A (ψt | A ) = − .
2
Proof Let (D, g, ηt ) be a pre-model for (φt ) at σ . By Proposition 13.4.12, g(D) = .
Hence, (, g, φt | ) is a model for (ηt ). By Lemma 9.3.1, cD (ηt ) = c (φt | ). By
Theorem 9.1.9, it follows that cD (ηt ) = − λ2 , since, by definition of pre-model, (ηt )
is a hyperbolic group with spectral value −λ. Hence,
λ
c (φt | ) = − . (13.5.1)
2
Now, let A = h(). From
In order to properly set the results, we need to introduce spirallike sectors. See
Section 11.1 for the definition of the spiral spir μ [eiθ ].
Definition 13.5.2 Let μ ∈ C, Re μ > 0, α ∈ (0, π ] and θ0 ∈ [−π, π ). A μ-
spirallike sector of amplitude 2α and center eiθ0 is
Remark 13.5.3 Notice that a μ-spirallike sector is not a μ-spirallike domain in the
sense of Definition 9.4.2 since the point 0 is in the boundary of the domain, but not
inside.
386 13 Fixed Points, Backward Invariant Sets and Petals
Spir
Fig. 13.1 μ-spirallike sector
|μ|2 π
c D (ψt | D ) = .
4αRe μ
Proof The map z → e−iθ0 z is a biholomorphism between D and Spir[μ, 2α, 0] and
conjugates (ψt | D ) to (ψt |Spir[μ,2α,0] ). Since a biholomorphism is an isometry with
respect to the hyperbolic distance, the divergence rate of (ψt | D ) and (ψt |Spir[μ,2α,0] )
is the same. Hence, we can assume θ0 = 0.
It is clear that ψt (D) = D for all t ≥ 0, hence, (ψt | D ) is a continuous group of
automorphisms of D. Since D is simply connected and 0 ∈ / D, it is well defined a
Im μ
holomorphic branch of f : D w → w 1−i Re μ ∈ C. A straightforward computation
shows that
D := f (D) = {ρeiθ : ρ > 0, θ ∈ (−α, α)}.
π
for all t ≥ 0. Now, consider the function g : D z → z − 2α ∈ C. Then g(D ) = H
and (g ◦ ψ̃t ◦ g −1 ) is a continuous group of automorphisms of H. A direct computa-
π|μ|2
tion shows that ηt (z) := (g ◦ ψ̃t ◦ g −1 )(z) = et 2αRe μ z for all t ≥ 0. By Proposition
8.3.8, (ηt ) is a group in H which is conjugated via the Cayley transform C : D → H,
given by C(z) = (1 + z)/(1 − z), to a hyperbolic group (η̃t ) in D with spectral value
π|μ|2
2αRe μ
. Hence, by Theorem 9.1.3,
π |μ|2
cD (η̃t ) = .
4αRe μ
We are now ready to relate petals of a semigroup with the shape of the image of
the corresponding Koenigs function. As a matter of notation, if D ⊂ C is a μ-starlike
domain with respect to 0 for some μ ∈ C, Re μ > 0, we say that a μ-spirallike sector
Spir[μ, 2α, θ0 ] ⊂ D (for some α ∈ [0, π ) and θ0 ∈ [−π, π )) is maximal in D if there
exist no θ1 ∈ [−π, π ), β ∈ (0, 2π ] such that Spir[μ, 2α, θ0 ] ⊂ Spir[μ, β, θ1 ] ⊂ D
and Spir[μ, 2α, θ0 ] = Spir[μ, β, θ1 ].
Similarly, if D ⊂ C is starlike at infinity, z 0 ∈ C, ρ > 0, the strip (Sρ + z 0 ) ⊂ D is
maximal in D if there exist no r > 0 and z 1 ∈ C such that (Sρ + z 0 ) ⊂ (Sr + z 1 ) ⊂ D
and (Sρ + z 0 ) = (Sr + z 1 ).
|μ|2 π
h() = Spir[μ, − , θ0 ].
λRe μ
(2) If τ ∈ ∂D, then there exists z 0 ∈ C such that h() is a maximal strip z 0 + S− πλ
in h(D), i.e.,
h() = z 0 + S− πλ .
Proof We first consider the elliptic case. The canonical model is (C, h, z → e−μt z).
Since φt () = for all t ≥ 0, it follows that e−μt h() = h() and z → e−μt z is
an automorphism of h() for all t ≥ 0. In particular, e−μt h() = h() for all t ∈ R.
It follows easily that h() = Spir[μ, 2α, θ0 ] for some θ0 ∈ [−π, π ) and α ∈ (0, π ].
|μ|2 π
By Lemma 13.5.1 and Lemma 13.5.4 it follows at once that 2α = − λRe μ
.
388 13 Fixed Points, Backward Invariant Sets and Petals
2
|μ| π
We are left to prove that Spir[μ, − λRe μ
, θ0 ] is maximal. Suppose this is not the
case. Therefore, there exist θ1 ∈ [−π, π ), β ∈ (0, 2π ] such that D := Spir[μ, β, θ1 ]
|μ|2 π
⊂ h(D) and Spir[μ, − λRe μ
, θ0 ] is properly contained in D. Therefore, (e−μt z| D ) is a
continuous group of automorphisms of D. Since D ⊂ h(D), it follows φt (h −1 (z)) =
h −1 (e−μt z) for every z ∈ h(D), hence φt (h −1 (D)) = h −1 (D) for all t ≥ 0. This
implies that h −1 (D) is an open connected component in the backward invariant set
of (φt ) which properly contains , a contradiction.
The proof in case (φt ) is non-elliptic is similar and we just sketch it. In this
case the model is (Ω, h, z → z + it), where Ω = C, H, H− or Sμ . Hence, either
h() = z 0 + Sρ for some ρ > 0 or h() is a half-plane. In this latter case however,
by Proposition 9.3.2, the divergence rate of (z + it) on h() is 0 against Lemma
13.5.1. Hence, h() = z 0 + Sρ for some ρ > 0. By Lemma 13.5.1, (z → z + it) is
a continuous group of automorphisms of z 0 + Sρ whose divergence rate is −λ/2. Up
to a translation of z 0 , by Theorem 9.3.5, this is the canonical model of a hyperbolic
group of D with divergence rate −λ/2, that is, with spectral value −λ by Theorem
9.1.9. Hence, by Theorem 9.3.5, ρ = −π/λ. Arguing as in the elliptic case, one can
easily see that such a strip is maximal in h(D).
Proof (1) The canonical model is (C, h, z → e−μt z). Let D := Spir[μ, β, θ0 ]. Since
φt (h −1 (z)) = h −1 (e−μt z) for all z ∈ h(D) and t ≥ 0, it follows at once that, for all
t ≥ 0, φt (h −1 (D)) = h −1 (D). Hence, there exists a petal such that h −1 (D) ⊆
. However, if = h −1 (D), then by Theorem 13.5.5, h() is a spirallike sector
properly containing D, against the maximality of D. Therefore, = h −1 (D) and,
the result follows from Theorem 13.5.5.
(2) The argument is similar and we omit it.
Finally, we turn our attention to parabolic petals. Recall that only parabolic semi-
groups can have parabolic petals (Remark 13.4.5).
As a matter of notation, if W ⊂ C is a domain starlike at infinity and a ∈ R, we say
that a half-plane {w ∈ C : Re w > a} ⊂ W (respectively {w ∈ C : Re w < a} ⊂ W )
13.5 Petals and the Geometry of Koenigs Functions 389
Theorem 13.5.7 Let (φt ) be a parabolic semigroup, not a group, in D, with Denjoy-
Wolff point τ ∈ ∂D. Let h be the Koenigs function of (φt ). If is a parabolic petal
for (φt ) then h() is a maximal half-plane in h(D). Conversely, if H ⊂ h(D) is a
maximal half-plane in h(D) then h −1 (H ) is a parabolic petal for (φt ).
Moreover, (φt ) can have at most two parabolic petals and, if this is the case, (φt )
has zero hyperbolic step.
In this section we study the analytic behavior of Koenigs functions at boundary fixed
points. We start with the following characterization:
Proof By Remark 12.1.5, if σ ∈ ∂D is a fixed point of (φt ) then ∠ lim z→σ h(z) = ∞.
The converse is essentially contained in the proof of Theorem 12.1.4: suppose
∠ lim z→σ h(z) = ∞. Then by Theorem 11.2.3, φt (σ ) ∈ ∂D and h(φt (σ )) = ∞ for
390 13 Fixed Points, Backward Invariant Sets and Petals
Proof Assume that σ is a boundary fixed point of the semigroup other than τ . By
Proposition 13.6.1, lim z→σ h(z) = ∞, and (3) follows from Proposition 11.1.9.
Being clear that (3) implies (2), it remains to show that (2) implies (1). Taking into
account that h has non-tangential limit at σ by Corollary 11.1.7, condition (2) clearly
implies ∠ lim z→∞ h(z) = ∞, hence, by Proposition 13.6.1, σ is a boundary fixed
point of (φt ). If σ = τ , let (0, 1) r → g(r ) := Im h(r σ ). Then Theorem 9.4.11
implies
1
g (r ) = Im σ h (r σ ) = Im σ (r σ − σ )2 h (r σ ) ≥ 0, 0 < r < 1.
(1 − r )2
Now we characterize repelling and super-repelling fixed points via Koenigs func-
tions. In order to properly deal with the elliptic case we need to introduce some
terminology.
Let λ ∈ C, Re λ > 0. Every point w ∈ C \ {0} can be written in a unique way in
λ-spirallike coordinates as w = e−λt+iθ , where t ∈ R and θ ∈ [−π, π ). We define
Argλ (w) := θ,
Theorem 13.6.3 Let (φt ) be an elliptic semigroup in D, not a group, with Denjoy-
Wolff point τ ∈ D and spectral value λ ∈ C with Re λ > 0. Let h be the associated
Koenigs function and σ ∈ ∂D. The following are equivalent:
(1) σ is a repelling fixed point of (φt ),
(2) lim z→σ |h(z)| = ∞ and
Moreover, if σ is a repelling fixed point for (φt ) with repelling spectral value
ν ∈ (−∞, 0), then there exists θ0 ∈ [−π, π ) such that if {z n } ⊂ D is a sequence
converging to σ and limn→∞ Arg(1 − σ z n ) = β ∈ (−π/2, π/2), then
β|λ|2
lim Argλ (h(z n )) = θ0 + mod [−π, π ).
n→∞ νRe λ
Proof (1) implies (2). Suppose σ is a repelling fixed point for (φt ) with spectral
value ν ∈ (−∞, 0). By Proposition 13.6.1, lim z→σ |h(z)| = ∞. By Theorem 13.5.5
there exists a hyperbolic petal such that σ ∈ ∂ and h() = Spir[λ, 2α, θ0 ] is
a maximal λ-spirallike sector of amplitude 2α and center eiθ0 in h(D), where θ0 ∈
[0, 2π ) and 2α = −π |λ|2 /νRe λ. Let (D, g, ηt ) be a pre-model for (φt ) at σ . By
Im λ
Proposition 13.4.12, g(D) = . Now, take a holomorphic branch of f : z → z 1−i Re λ
such that the image of Spir[λ, 2α, θ0 ] is V = {ρeiθ : ρ > 0, θ ∈ (θ0 − α, θ0 + α)}.
Let then k : V → H be defined by k(w) = w−π/2α . By construction, C := k ◦ f ◦
h ◦ g : D → H is a biholomorphism. Hence, C is a Möbius transformation, and,
looking at the definition and taking into account that lim z→σ |h(z)| = ∞, we see
that C(σ ) = 0 and C(−σ ) = ∞. Therefore,
σ −z
C(z) =
σ +z
Taking into account that k −1 (z) = eiθ0 z −2α/π , the previous equation gives immedi-
ately
2αβ
lim Argλ (h(z n )) = θ0 − mod [−π, π ).
n→∞ π
This proves (2) and, since 2α = −π |λ|2 /νRe λ, the final part of the statement.
Clearly, (2) implies (3).
(3) implies (1). Since lim z→σ |h(z)| = ∞ implies lim z→σ h(z) = ∞ in C∞ ,
Proposition 13.6.1 immediately implies that σ is a boundary fixed point of (φt ).
We have to show that σ is repelling. Let x σ ∈ ∂C D be the prime end representing
be the homeomorphism in the
σ , given by Proposition 4.2.5, and let ĥ : D → h(D)
Carathéodory topology defined by h. Since lim z→σ h(z) = ∞, by Proposition 4.4.4,
we have I (ĥ(x σ )) = {∞}. Hence, by Proposition 4.1.11, we can find a circular null
chain (Cn ) representing ĥ(x σ ) such that there exists an increasing sequence of pos-
itive real numbers {Rn } converging to +∞ such that Cn ⊂ {z ∈ C : |z| = Rn } for
every n ∈ N0 . For every n ∈ N0 , let e−λtn +iθn and e−λtn +iθn be the end points of Cn ,
1 2
−tn Re λ j
where tn ∈ R is such that e = Rn and θn ∈ [−π, π ) j = 1, 2 with θn1 ≤ θn2 .
If θn1 = θn2 for all n ∈ N, then Cn ∩ h(D) = {z ∈ C : |z| = Rn } \ {e−λtn +iθn } for
1
Hence, the only possibility is that θn1 is constant for all n, say, θn1 =: θ0 . That is,
h(D) = C \ (spir λ [eiθ0 ] ∩ {w ∈ C : |w| ≥ R}), for some R ∈ (0, R0 ]. It is then clear
that C \ spir λ [eiθ0 ] is a maximal λ-spirallike sector in h(D) of amplitude 2π . By The-
orem 13.5.6, there exists a hyperbolic petal ⊂ D such that h() = C \ spir λ [eiθ0 ].
Moreover, if J := (spir λ [eiθ0 ] ∩ {w ∈ C : |w| < R}), then = D \ h −1 (J ). Note
that, by Proposition 3.3.3, the closure of h −1 (J ) is a Jordan arc with end points
τ ∈ D and a point p ∈ ∂D. Hence, ∂ = h −1 (J ) ∪ ∂D. By Proposition 13.4.10, ∂
contains only one boundary fixed point of (φt ), which is repelling. Since σ ∈ ∂ is
a fixed point, it follows that σ is repelling.
Now, we assume that there exists n 0 ∈ N such that θn10 < θn20 . Up to considering
the equivalent null chain (Cn )n≥n 0 , we can assume n 0 = 0. Since h(D) is λ-spirallike,
j
h(D) ∩ (spir λ [eiθ0 ] ∩ {w ∈ C : |w| ≥ R0 }) = ∅, j = 1, 2. Hence, it is easy to see that
1
θn1 < θn2 for all n ≥ 0. Let Vn be the interior part of Cn , n ≥ 1. Since spir λ [eiθ0 ] ∪
2
spir λ [eiθ0 ], forms a Jordan curve J in C∞ containing 0 and ∞, taking into account
that h(D) is λ-spirallike, it follows that Vn is contained in one of the connected
component of C \ J . Thus, taking also into account that for every w ∈ Cn , we have
(spir λ [w] ∩ {w ∈ C : |w| < Rn }) ⊂ h(D), we have two possibilities. Either
θn2 + θn1
Vn ⊆ (Spir[λ, θn2 − θn1 , ] ∩ {w ∈ C : |w| > Rn }),
2 (13.6.1)
θ 2 + θn1
(Spir[λ, θn2 − θn1 , n ] ∩ {w ∈ C : |w| < Rn }) ⊂ h(D)
2
13.6 Analytic Properties of Koenigs Functions at Boundary Fixed Points 393
Let θ0 := (β + α)/2 and a ∈ (0, β − α). Equation in (13.6.3) implies at once that
Spir[λ, a, θ0 ] ∩ {w ∈ C : |w| > Rn } ⊂ Vn for all n ∈ N and Spir[λ, a, θ0 ] ⊂ h(D).
By Theorem 13.5.6 there exists a hyperbolic petal ⊂ D such that Spir[λ, a, θ0 ] ⊆
h(). Moreover, by Proposition 13.4.10, ∂ contains only one boundary fixed point
of (φt ) which is repelling. Thus, if we prove that σ ∈ ∂, it follows that σ is repelling.
To this aim, consider the curve γ : (−∞, 0) t → e−tλ+iθ0 . Since for all n ∈ N
there exists tn ∈ (−∞, 0) such that γ (t) ∈ Spir[λ, a, θ0 ] ∩ {w ∈ C : |w| > Rn } ⊂
Vn for all t ≤ tn , it follows by Remark 4.2.2 that γ (t) converges in the Carathéodory
topology of h(D) to ĥ(x σ ) as t → −∞. Hence, by Proposition 4.2.5, h −1 (γ (t)) → σ
as t → −∞, proving that σ ∈ ∂.
Corollary 13.6.4 Let (φt ) be an elliptic semigroup in D, not a group. Let h be the
associated Koenigs function and σ ∈ ∂D. The following are equivalent:
(1) σ is a super-repelling fixed point of (φt ),
(2) lim z→σ |h(z)| = ∞ and lim z→σ Argλ (h(z)) = θ0 for some θ0 ∈ [−π, π ].
Proposition 13.6.5 Let (φt ) be an elliptic semigroup in D, not a group, with Denjoy-
Wolff point τ ∈ D, Koenigs function h and infinitesimal generator G. Let σ ∈ ∂D.
Then the following are equivalent:
394 13 Fixed Points, Backward Invariant Sets and Petals
|G(r σ )|
:= lim > 0,
r →1 1 − r
h (z)(z − σ ) G (τ )
ρ −1 = and ∠ lim = .
z→σ h(z)
Proof By Proposition 12.2.4 and Theorem 12.2.5, σ is a boundary regular fixed
point of the semigroup if and only if
G(z)
G (σ ) = ∠ lim ∈ R.
z→σ z−σ
Moreover, since σ is not the Denjoy-Wolff point of the semigroup, G (σ ) ∈ (0, +∞).
By Theorem 10.1.4, G(z) = −λ hh(z) (z)
for all z ∈ D, where λ is the spectral value of
(φt ). Therefore, σ is a boundary regular fixed point of the semigroup if and only if
h(z)
∠ lim (−λ) ∈ (0, +∞).
z→σ h (z)(z − σ )
|G(r σ )| |h(r σ )|
lim inf = lim inf < +∞
(0,1) r →1 |λ|(1 − r ) (0,1) r →1 |h (r σ )|(1 − r )
and Proposition 12.2.4 guarantees that σ is a boundary regular fixed point of the
semigroup.
Since the function D z → z−τ h(z)
has no zeros, the function
h(r σ )
g(r ) := Re log r σ −τ , r ∈ (0, 1), is well-defined. By L’Hôpital’s Rule [122, p.
180], it follows that
from which we get the equivalence between (1) implies (2), and also that ρ −1 =
and ∠ lim z→σ h (z)(z−σ
h(z)
)
= G (τ ) .
13.6 Analytic Properties of Koenigs Functions at Boundary Fixed Points 395
Now we turn our attention to non-elliptic semigroups. The proofs of the next
results are similar in spirit to those for the elliptical case. In fact, roughly speaking,
in the non-elliptic case, the role of the modulus is played by the imaginary part and
that of the λ-argument by the real part.
Theorem 13.6.6 Let (φt ) be a non-elliptic semigroup in D, not a group, with Denjoy-
Wolff point τ ∈ ∂D and spectral value λ ≥ 0. Let h be the associated Koenigs function
and σ ∈ ∂D. The following are equivalent:
(1) σ is a repelling fixed point of (φt ),
(2) lim z→σ Im h(z) = −∞ and
−∞ < ∠ lim inf Re h(z) = ∠ lim sup Re h(z) < +∞,
z→σ z→σ
(3) lim z→σ Im h(z) = −∞ and
−∞ < lim inf Re h(z) = lim sup Re h(z) < +∞.
z→σ z→σ
Moreover, if σ is a repelling fixed point for (φt ) with repelling spectral value ν ∈
(−∞, 0), then there exists a ∈ R such that if {z n } ⊂ D is a sequence converging to
σ and limn→∞ Arg(1 − σ z n ) = β ∈ (−π/2, π/2), then
β
lim Re h(z n ) = a + .
n→∞ ν
Proof (1) implies (2). Assume σ is a repelling fixed point for (φt ) with repelling spec-
tral value ν ∈ (−∞, 0). By Proposition 13.6.2, lim z→σ Im h(z) = −∞. Moreover,
by Proposition 11.1.9, lim inf z→σ Re h(z) > −∞ and lim supz→σ Re h(z) < +∞.
We are left to prove that ∠ lim inf z→σ Re h(z) = ∠ lim supz→σ Re h(z). By The-
orem 13.5.5 there exists a hyperbolic petal such that σ ∈ ∂ and h() =
Sρ + z 0 is a maximal strip in h(D) with ρ = − πν . Let (D, g, ηt ) be a pre-model
for (φt ) at σ . By Proposition 13.4.12, g(D) = . Let f (z) := −i ν
π
log z − 2ν + z0 .
−1
Then f : H → Sρ + z 0 is a biholomorphism. Thus, C := f ◦ h ◦ g : D → H is a
biholomorphism, hence, it is a Möbius transformation. By construction (taking into
account that lim z→σ Im h(z) = −∞) it follows that C(σ ) = 0 and C(−σ ) = ∞, i.e.,
C(z) = σσ −z +z
.
Now, let {z n } ⊂ D be a sequence converging to σ such that limn→∞ Arg(1 −
σ z n ) = β ∈ (−π/2, π/2). By Proposition 13.4.12, {z n } is eventually contained
in g(D) and, without loss of generality, we can assume {z n } ⊂ g(D). Let wn :=
g −1 (z n ). By Lemma 13.2.3, the sequence {wn } converges non-tangentially to σ .
Since ∠ lim z→σ g(z) = σ and g is semi-conformal at σ , it follows at once that
limn→∞ Arg(1 − σ wn ) = β. Hence, limn→∞ Arg C(wn ) = β. Therefore, we have
β π
lim Re h(z n ) = lim Re ( f ◦ C ◦ g −1 )(z n ) = lim Re ( f ◦ C)(wn ) = + Re z 0 − .
n→∞ n→∞ n→∞ ν 2ν
π
Setting a := Re z 0 − 2ν
∈ R we have (2) and the final part of the statement.
396 13 Fixed Points, Backward Invariant Sets and Petals
and
{w ∈ C : an1 < Re w < an2 , Im w > max{bn1 , bn2 }} ⊂ h(D). (13.6.5)
By (13.6.5), taking into account that limn→∞ max{bn1 , bn2 } = −∞, we see that the
strip Sβ−α + (α + β)/2 is contained in h(D). Moreover, since h(D) is starlike
j j
at infinity and {z = a0 + it, t ∈ (−∞, b0 )} ⊂ C \ h(D), j = 1, 2 it follows that
Sβ−α + (α + β)/2 cannot be contained in a maximal half-plane of h(D). Hence,
there exists a maximal strip S of h(D) which contains Sβ−α + (α + β)/2. By The-
orem 13.5.6 there exists a hyperbolic petal ⊂ D such that (Sβ−α + α) ⊆ h().
Moreover, by Proposition 13.4.10, ∂ contains only one boundary fixed point of
(φt ) which is repelling. Thus, if we prove that σ ∈ ∂, it follows that σ is repelling.
To this aim, consider the curve γ : (0, +∞) t → (α + β)/2 − it. Since for all
13.6 Analytic Properties of Koenigs Functions at Boundary Fixed Points 397
|G(r σ )|
:= lim > 0,
r →1 1−r
1
ρ −1 = and ∠ lim h (z)(z − σ ) = .
z→σ
Proof By Proposition 12.2.4 and Theorem 12.2.5, σ is a boundary regular fixed
point of the semigroup if and only if
G(z)
G (σ ) = ∠ lim ∈ R.
z→σ z−σ
Moreover, since σ is not the Denjoy-Wolff point of the semigroup, G (σ ) ∈ (0, +∞).
By Theorem 10.1.4, G(z) = h i(z) for all z ∈ D. Therefore, σ is a boundary regular
fixed point of the semigroup if and only if
i
∠ lim ∈ (0, +∞).
z→σ h (z)(z − σ )
398 13 Fixed Points, Backward Invariant Sets and Petals
|G(r σ )| 1
lim inf = lim inf < +∞
(0,1) r →1 1−r (0,1) r →1 |h (r σ )|(1 − r )
and Proposition 12.2.4 guarantees that σ is a boundary regular fixed point of the
semigroup.
Consider the function g(r ) := Im h(r σ ), r ∈ (0, 1). By L’Hôpital’s Rule [122,
page 180], it follows that
Im h(r σ ) g(r )
lim = lim = lim g (r )(1 − r )
r →1 − log(1 − r ) r →1 − log(1 − r ) r →1
rσ − σ
= lim Im σ h (r σ )(1 − r ) = − lim Re ,
r →1 r →1 G(r σ )
from which we get the equivalence between (1) and (2), and also that ρ −1 = and
∠ lim z→σ h (z)(z−σ
h(z)
)
= G (τ ) .
We end this section with a characterization of points which are not boundary
regular fixed points.
Corollary 13.6.9 Let (φt ) be a semigroup, not an elliptic group, in D with Denjoy-
Wolff point τ ∈ D and let h be its Koenigs function. Let σ ∈ ∂D.
(1) If τ ∈ D and λ is the spectral value of (φt ), then lim z→σ Argλ h(z) exists if and
only if σ is not a boundary regular fixed point.
(2) If τ ∈ ∂D, then lim z→σ Re h(z) exists finitely if and only if σ is not a boundary
regular fixed point.
Proof (1) Theorem 13.6.3 implies that if lim z→σ Argλ h(z) exists then σ is not a
boundary regular fixed point. Conversely, if σ is super-repelling, by Corollary 13.6.4,
lim z→σ Argλ h(z) exists. If σ is not a boundary fixed point, by Proposition 13.6.1 and
Theorem 11.1.2, ∠ lim z→σ h(z) = p ∈ C and I (ĥ(x σ )) is contained in a λ-spiral so
that lim z→σ Argλ h(z) exists by Proposition 4.4.4.
(2) Assume that lim z→σ Re h(z) = a ∈ R. By Theorem 13.6.6, σ is not a repelling
fixed point. If σ = τ and z ∈ D, then
13.7 Examples
With all the theory developed in the previous sections, we are finally able to provide
examples. The main point here is to use the geometry of the image of a Koenigs
function to reconstruct properties of the associated semigroup.
Let (φt ) be a semigroup, not a group, in D and let h be its Koenigs function. Recall
that, by Theorem 13.5.5 and Theorem 13.5.6 there is a one-to-one correspondence
between hyperbolic petals of (φt ) and maximal strips in the non-elliptic case (or
maximal spirallike sectors in the elliptic case) in h(D). Moreover, the repelling
spectral value can be read by the width of the strip (or the angle of the spirallike
sector). Also, by Theorem 13.5.7, there is a one-to-one correspondence between
parabolic petals and maximal half-planes. The previous developed theory allows
also to read information on the boundary of a petal using directly the image of h. We
summarize and translate here the results in a suitable handable way. We start with
the elliptic case:
Proposition 13.7.1 Let (φt ) be an elliptic semigroup, not a group, with Denjoy-Wolff
point τ ∈ D and spectral value μ ∈ C, Re μ > 0 and let h be its Koenigs function.
Let be a hyperbolic petal which corresponds to the maximal μ-spirallike sector
Spir[μ, 2α, θ0 ], for some α ∈ [0, π ) and θ0 ∈ [−π, π ). Let σ ∈ ∂D ∩ ∂ be the only
repelling fixed point of (φt ) contained in . Let S := spir μ [ei(θ0 +α )] ∩ (C \ {0}) or
S := spir μ [ei(θ0 −α )] ∩ (C \ {0}). Then one and only one of the following happens:
(1) There exists a > 0 such that S ∩ {w ∈ C : |w| < a} ⊂ h(D) and S ∩ {w ∈ C :
|w| ≥ a} ∩ h(D) = ∅. This is the case if and only if h −1 (S ∩ {w ∈ C : |w| < a})
is a connected component of ∂ ∩ (D \ {τ }) whose closure is a Jordan arc with
end points τ and a non-fixed point p ∈ ∂D such that ∠ lim z→ p h(z) = S ∩ {w ∈
C : |w| = a}.
(2) S ⊂ h(D). This is the case if and only if h −1 (S) is a connected component of
∂ ∩ (D \ {τ }) whose closure is a Jordan arc with end points τ and σ .
Proposition 13.7.2 Let (φt ) be a non-elliptic semigroup, not a group, with Denjoy-
Wolff point τ ∈ ∂D and let h be its Koenigs function. Let be a hyperbolic petal which
400 13 Fixed Points, Backward Invariant Sets and Petals
holomorphic in the unit disc and, by Theorem 9.4.5, it is starlike with respect to 0
because
h (z) 1+z
Re z = Re > 0, z ∈ D.
h(z) 1−z
In particular, it is univalent and it is easy to see that h(D) = C \ (−∞, −1/4]. Con-
sider the semigroup whose model is (C, h, z → e−t z), that is, φt (z) := h −1 (e−t h(z)),
for all z ∈ D and t ≥ 0. Since ∩t≥0 e−t h(D) \ {0} = C \ (−∞, 0] = Spir[1, 2π, −π ]
and it is a maximal spirallike sector of h(D), Theorem 13.5.6 shows that
13.7 Examples 401
is a hyperbolic petal for (φt ). Clearly, it is the unique petal of the semigroup. There-
fore, (φt ) has a unique boundary fixed point σ ∈ ∂D, which is repelling with repelling
spectral value −1/2. Since lim(0,1) r →1 h(r ) = ∞, we get σ = 1 by Proposition
13.4.10. This petal is an example of the type described in Proposition 13.4.9(1).
Ω = {w ∈ S : Im w(Re w − 1) < Re w} ∪ (H + 1) ⊂ H.
Lemma 13.7.10 There exist two strictly decreasing sequences {yk } and {αk } of real
numbers, both converging to −∞, such that, for each k ∈ N,
1 1 1 1 1
kΩ αk + i, αk − i ≤ 1+ k Ωk αk + i, αk − i ,
2 2 2k 2 2
where, for k ∈ N,
L k+ := {w ∈ C : Re w = 1 + 1/k, Im w ≤ yk },
L k− := {w ∈ C : Re w = −(1 + 1/k), Im w ≤ yk },
Ωk := C \ (L k+ ∪ L k− ),
and Ω := ∩k∈N Ωk .
1 π
kΩk ((αk + 1/2)i, αk i) ≤ k Sk ((αk + 1/2)i, αk i) = < π. (13.7.1)
2 4(1 + 1/k)
In particular, by (13.7.1),
1
k B1 (−i/2,R1 ) (0, −i) ≤ 1 + kΩ1 (0, −i).
2
From now on, we choose y j < β1 for all j ≥ 2. Hence, B1 (−i/2, R1 ) ⊂ Ω, for any
admissible choice of the sequence {yk }. Therefore,
404 13 Fixed Points, Backward Invariant Sets and Petals
1
kΩ (0, −i) ≤ k B1 (−i/2,R1 ) (0, −i) ≤ 1 + kΩ1 (0, −i),
2
That is,
B2 (α2 i, R2 ) ⊂ Ω1 ∩ Ω2 .
Let β2 = inf{Im w : w ∈ B2 (α2 i, R2 )} > −∞. Since α2 < y2 < β1 , we get that
β2 < β1 and the lemma is proved repeating this argument by induction.
Example 13.7.11 Let {yk } and {αk } be the sequences given by Lemma 13.7.10.
Let h : D → C be univalent such that h(D) = Ω, h(0) = 0 and −i h (0) > 0. Since
Ω is symmetric with respect to iR, then h((−1, 1)) = iR by Proposition 6.1.3 and
limr →1 Im h(r ) = +∞ and limr →1 Im h(−r ) = −∞. Consider the semigroup given
by φt (z) := h −1 (h(z) + it), for all z ∈ D and t ≥ 0. Then τ = 1 is its Denjoy-Wolff
point and σ = −1 is a repelling fixed point associated with the maximal strip S :=
{w ∈ C : −1 < Re w < 1} = S2 − 1.
Let (D, g, ηt ) be a pre-model for (φt ) at σ given by Theorem 13.2.7. Notice that
g(0) = 0 and h(g(D)) = S. We claim that g is not regular at σ . Assume on the
contrary that
1 − |g(z)|
αg (σ ) = lim inf < +∞
z→σ 1 − |z|
1 − |g(z)|
αg (σ ) = ∠ lim .
z→σ 1 − |z|
1 − |g(η−t (0))|
lim = αg (σ ).
t→+∞ 1 − |η−t (0)|
1
lim ω(0, η−t (0)) − ω(0, g(η−t (0))) = log αg (σ ).
t→+∞ 2
Notice that, by the very definition, h(g(ηt (0))) = h(φt (g(0))) = h(g(0)) + it = it
for all t ≥ 0. Therefore, h(g(ηt (0))) = it for all t ∈ R. Since
ω(0, η−t (0)) − ω(0, g(η−t (0))) = k g(D) (g(0), g(η−t (0))) − ω(0, g(η−t (0)))
= kh(g(D)) (h(g(0)), h(g(η−t (0)))) − kh(D) (h(0), h(g(η−t (0))))
= k S (0, −it) − kΩ (0, −it),
we conclude that
1
lim [k S (0, −it) − kΩ (0, −it)] = log αg (σ ) < +∞. (13.7.2)
t→+∞ 2
On the other hand, since R t → −it is a geodesic for the hyperbolic distance of
S, we have that for any u 1 < u 2 < u 3
k−1
1
≥ k S (i(α j − 1/2), i(α j + 1/2)) − 1 + kΩ j (i(α j − 1/2), i(α j + 1/2)) ]
2j
j=1
k−1
1
≥ k S (i(α j − 1/2), i(α j + 1/2)) − 1 + k S j (i(α j − 1/2), i(α j + 1/2)) ]
2j
j=1
⎡ ⎤
π
k−1
1
π π 1
k−1
= ⎣ − 1+ ⎦ = .
4 2j 4 1 + 1 8 1+ j
j=1 j j=1
406 13 Fixed Points, Backward Invariant Sets and Petals
Thus
lim [k S (0, i(αk + 1/2)) − kΩ (0, (αk + 1/2)t)] = +∞,
k→∞
13.8 Notes
In the previous chapters we studied boundary points which are either fixed or the
initial points of maximal invariant curves for a semigroup. In this chapter we examine
the other points, which turn out to be contact points, and we show that super-repelling
fixed points can be divided into two separated sets: those which are the landing point
of a backward orbit and those which are the initial point of a maximal contact arc
(in the latter case they are also critical points for the infinitesimal generators). We
also discuss the behavior of the Koenigs function and the infinitesimal generator
at the end points of maximal contact arcs. The chapter ends with some examples
and, in particular, with the construction of a semigroup with an uncountable set of
super-repelling fixed points.
Theorem 14.1.1 Let (φt ) be a semigroup in D which is not an elliptic group. Let
τ ∈ D be its Denjoy-Wolff point. Let σ ∈ ∂D. If σ is not a boundary fixed point of
(φt ), then the curve [0, +∞) t → φt (σ ) is continuous, injective and
lim φt (σ ) = τ.
t→+∞
and, since ψt (h(σ )) = ∞ for all t ≥ 0, it follows again by Proposition 13.6.1 that
for all t ≥ 0, φt (σ ) is not a boundary fixed point of (φs ).
We claim that [0, +∞) t → φt (σ ) in injective. Indeed, if this is not the case,
then φt (σ ) = φs (σ ) for some 0 ≤ s < t. Hence, by Theorem 11.2.3,
φt−s (φs (σ )) = φt (σ ) = φs (σ ),
which proves that φs (σ ) is a fixed point of (φt ). For what we saw before, the only
possibility is τ = φs (σ ) ∈ D and (φt ) is elliptic. But, h(σ ) ∈ ∂h(D), hence h(σ ) = 0
and, if λ ∈ C, Re λ > 0, is the spectral value of (φt ),
Remark 14.1.2 The previous proof shows that if (φt ) is an elliptic semigroup (not a
group) or a parabolic of zero hyperbolic step semigroup in D, then for every σ ∈ ∂D
which is not a fixed point of (φt ) there exists t > 0 such that φt (σ ) ∈ D.
We stress that by definition contact arcs are open and contains no fixed points.
Clearly, every contact arc is contained in a maximal contact arc.
By Theorem 14.1.1, every non-elliptic group (φt ) defines a natural orientation on
every contact arc A. That is, if p, q ∈ A, we say that p q if there exists s ≥ 0 such
that φs ( p) = q.
This natural orientation allows to select initial and final points of a contact arc.
More precisely, if A ∂D, is a contact arc for (φt ), with the natural orientation
induced by (φt ), let x0 (A) and x1 (A) be the end points of A. We say that x0 (A) is
the starting point of A if limn→∞ pn = x0 (A) for one—and hence any—sequence
{ pn } ⊂ A such that pn+1 pn and { pn } has no accumulation points in A. Similarly,
one can define the final point x1 (A) of a contact arc.
If (φt ) is an elliptic group, then ∂D is a maximal contact arc.
If (φt ) is a hyperbolic group with Denjoy-Wolff point τ ∈ ∂D and other fixed point
σ ∈ ∂D, then there are two maximal contact arcs given by the connected components
of ∂D \ {τ, σ }, the starting point of any such maximal arc is σ and the final point is
τ.
412 14 Contact Points
Semigroups having (maximal) contact arcs with the same starting and final points
are very special:
Proposition 14.2.7 Let (φt ) be a semigroup in D. Then (φt ) has a contact arc A
with x0 (A) = x1 (A) if and only if (φt ) is a parabolic group with Denjoy-Wolff point
x0 (A).
Proof One direction is clear. So we assume that A is a contact arc for a semigroup
(φt ) in D with q := x0 (A) = x1 (A).
Suppose (φt ) is not a group. By Proposition 14.2.6, q = x0 (A) is either a fixed
point of (φt ) or a contact point which is not fixed. However, by the same proposition,
q = x1 (A) is either the Denjoy-Wolff point of (φt ) or a non-fixed point which is the
starting point of a maximal invariant curve. In the latter case, in particular, q is not
a contact point. Therefore the only possibility is that q is the Denjoy-Wolff point of
(φt ), which is thus non-elliptic.
Now, let z ∈ D and let γ : (a, +∞) → D, a ∈ [−∞, 0), be the maximal invariant
curve of (φt ) such that γ (0) = z. Let p := limt→a + γ (t) ∈ ∂D be the starting point
of γ . By Proposition 13.3.5, p can not be a contact point of (φt ), hence the only
possibility is p = x0 (A) = x1 (A). Again by Proposition 13.3.5, it follows that z
belongs to the backward invariant set W of (φt ). By the arbitrariness of z, it follows
W = D and hence D is a petal for (φt ), against Remark 13.4.3. Thus (φt ) is a group
which clearly is parabolic.
Theorem 14.2.10 Let (φt ) be a semigroup in D which is not an elliptic group, with
Denjoy-Wolff point τ ∈ D, Koenigs function h and infinitesimal generator G. Let
A ∂D be an open non-empty arc. Then the following are equivalent:
(1) A is a contact arc of (φt ),
(2) In case τ ∈ D,
where λ ∈ C, Re λ > 0 is the spectral value of (φt ), w0 ∈ C \ {0} and 0 < a <
b ≤ +∞. In case τ ∈ ∂D,
1
lim Re p(z) = lim Re (G(z)σ ) = 0.
z→σ −|1 − σ τ |2 z→σ
1 h (z)
=− ,
G(z) λh(z)
(z)
which implies that hh(z) extends holomorphically through A and it is different from
0. Fix a point σ ∈ A and let z 0 ∈ D and ε > 0 be such that σ ∈ D(z 0 , ε) := {ζ ∈
(z)
C : |ζ − z 0 | < ε} and hh(z) is holomorphic and non-zero in D(z 0 , ε). Then, for all
z ∈ D(z 0 , ε), z
h (ζ )
log h(z) − log h(z 0 ) = dζ,
z 0 h(ζ )
which implies that log h(z) extends holomorphically through σ , and so does h.
Finally, using again Theorem 10.1.4 and arguing as in the proof of “(1) implies
(3)”, we see that the condition Re (σ G(σ )) = 0 implies that h(A) is either a segment
on a spiral (in case τ ∈ D) or a segment on a half-line (in case τ ∈ ∂D), and (2)
holds.
14.2 Maximal Contact Arcs 415
(2) If (φt ) is parabolic of positive hyperbolic step, and hence either I = (0, +∞)
or I = (−∞, 0), and A is an exceptional maximal contact arc, then
h(A) ⊂ L[0].
(3) If (φt ) is parabolic of zero hyperbolic step, and hence I = R, then (φt ) has no
exceptional maximal contact arc.
Proof Let A be an exceptional maximal contact arc for (φt ). By Theorem 14.2.10,
h(A) ⊂ L[r ] for some r ∈ I . Since h(D) is simply connected and t≥0 (h(D) −
it) = I × R, it follows at once that if r belongs to the interior of I , then there exists
a ∈ R such that
max Im h(x) ≤ a.
x∈A
Taking into account that h extends holomorphically through A and h(φt (x)) =
h(x) + it for all x ∈ A and t ≥ 0 by Theorem 11.2.3, it follows that h(x1 (A)) =
r + ia. Hence, by Proposition 11.1.8, x1 (A) = τ , a contradiction. Therefore, h(A) ⊆
L(r ) with r ∈ ∂ I , from which the statement follows at once.
Remark 14.2.12 Let (φt ) be a semigroup in D which is not an elliptic group, with
infinitesimal generator G. Let A ⊂ ∂D be a contact arc for (φt ). By Theorem 14.2.10,
G extends holomorphically through A and Re (G(σ )σ ) = 0 for all σ ∈ A. This
means that the vector field G(σ ) is tangent to ∂D at σ . For σ ∈ ∂D, let xσ : (a, b) →
D, −∞ ≤ a < 0 < b ≤ +∞ be the maximal solution to the Cauchy problem
d x(t)
= G(x(t)), x(0) = σ.
dt
Since G is holomorphic at σ , and hence the solution to the Cauchy problem depends
holomorphically on the initial data, it follows that φt (σ ) = xσ (t) for all t ≥ 0. In
other words, the semigroup differential equation ∂φ∂tt (z) = G(φt (z)) holds also for all
z ∈ A.
We end this section by studying the behavior of the Koenigs function at starting
and final points of maximal contact arcs:
Proposition 14.2.13 Let (φt ) be a semigroup in D which is not an elliptic group,
with Denjoy-Wolff point τ ∈ D and Koenigs function h. Let A ∂D be a maximal
contact arc for (φt ). Then for j = 0, 1,
416 14 Contact Points
In particular, the starting point x0 (A) of A is a fixed point of (φt ) if and only if
• in case τ ∈ D,
h(A) = spir λ [w0 ] ∩ {w ∈ C : |w| > a},
Proof We can assume that (φt ) is not a parabolic group, as in this case the result is
clear.
According to Theorem 14.2.10, h extends holomorphically through A and, more-
over, by Corollary 11.1.7, ∠ lim z→x j (A) h(z) exists, finite or infinite, for j = 0, 1. Fix
j ∈ {0, 1}.
Since h(A) is a connected subset of either a line or a spiral, and h(φt ( p)) =
ψt (h( p)) for all t ≥ 0 and p ∈ A, where either ψt (z) = e−λt z (in the elliptic case,
λ being the spectral value of (φt )) or ψt (z) = z + it (in the non-elliptic case) by
Theorem 11.2.3, it follows that the limit Q := lim Ax→x j (A) h(x) exists in C∞ and
h( p) = Q for all p ∈ A.
Fix p ∈ A. Let A j be the open subarc in A that joins p and x j (A). Let
U := {ζ ∈ D : ζ = r x, x ∈ A j , r ∈ (0, 1)}.
Note that U is a Jordan domain, hence, by Theorem 4.3.3, there exists a homeo-
morphism g : D → U such that g|D : D → U is a biholomorphism. The map h ◦ g :
∞
D → h(U ) is a biholomorphism. Moreover, let Γ j := {h(r x j (A)) : r ∈ [0, 1)} and
∞
Γ := {h(r p) : r ∈ [0, 1)} . Note that, since h admits non-tangential limit at every
point in ∂D, Γ j and Γ are Jordan arcs.
Therefore (h(A j ) ∪ Γ j ∪ Γ ∪ {Q}) is closed and (h(A j ) ∪ Γ j ∪ Γ ∪ {Q}) ⊆
∂∞ h(U ) = ∂∞ (h(g(D)). Applying Corollary 4.4.15 to h ◦ g, we get that h(A j ) ∪
Γ j ∪ Γ is dense in ∂∞ h(U ), hence,
∞
h(A) ∪ Γ j ∪ Γ ∪ {Q} = h(A) ∪ Γ j ∪ Γ = ∂∞ h(U ). (14.2.2)
Now we turn our attention to the behavior of infinitesimal generators at the end points
of a maximal contact arc.
Theorem 14.3.1 Let (φt ) be a semigroup, not a group, in D with Denjoy-Wolff point
τ ∈ D. Let G be the infinitesimal generator of (φt ). Suppose A ∂D is a maximal
contact arc with starting point x0 (A) and final point x1 (A). Then
(1) L 0 := ∠ lim z→x0 (A) G(z) exists finite,
(2) if x0 (A) is a boundary fixed point of (φt ) then L 0 = 0,
(3) L 1 := ∠ lim z→x1 (A) G(z) exists, finite or infinite,
(4) L 1 = 0 if and only if x1 (A) = τ (in particular, (φt ) is non-elliptic).
Proof By Theorem 14.2.10, G extends holomorphically through A and for every
σ ∈ A we have Re (σ G(σ )) = 0 and G(σ ) = 0. Moreover, by the Berkson-Porta
formula (see Theorem 10.1.10), G(z) = (z − τ )(τ z − 1) p(z), where p : D → H is
holomorphic. Note that lim z→σ (z − τ )(τ z − 1)σ = −|1 − σ τ |2 = 0. Hence,
1
lim Re p(z) = lim Re (G(z)σ ) = 0.
z→σ −|1 − σ τ |2 z→σ
Therefore, Proposition 2.4.2 implies that ∠ lim z→x j (A) p(z) = lim Ax→x j (A) p(z)
exists, finite or infinite, j = 0, 1. Hence,
418 14 Contact Points
Therefore, by (14.3.1),
λh(x) i
L0 = lim or L0 = lim . (14.3.2)
Ax→x0 (A) h (x) Ax→x0 (A) h (x)
lim |h(x)| = ∞
Ax→x0 (A)
it follows that lim supθ→θ0+ |Im h (eiθ )| = +∞ and, in turn, lim sup Ax→x0 (A) |h (x)|
= +∞. Thus, by (14.3.2), L 0 = 0. This proves (2).
In order to prove (1), we need to show that |L 0 | < +∞ and, thanks to (2), we
can assume that x0 := x0 (A) is not a fixed point of (φt ). Hence, Proposition 13.6.1
implies that h(x0 ) ∈ C (and h(x0 ) = 0 in case (φt ) is elliptic). Thus, (14.3.1) and
Theorem 10.1.4 imply that ∠ lim z→x0 h (z) exists, finite or infinite, and |L 0 | < +∞
if and only if
∠ lim h (z) = 0.
z→x0
14.3 Infinitesimal Generators and Maximal Contact Arcs 419
Suppose by contradiction that ∠ lim z→x0 h (z) = 0. For α > 0, in case (φt ) is elliptic,
let
Rα := spir λ [h(x0 )] ∩ {w ∈ C : |w| ≥ |h(x0 )| − α},
Taking into account that either h(D) is λ-spirallike (in case (φt ) is elliptic) or starlike
at infinity (in case (φt ) is non-elliptic), Theorem 14.2.10 and Proposition 14.2.13
imply that there exists α > 0 such that Rα ∩ h(D) = ∅.
Fix such an α, and let g : D → C \ Rα be a Riemann map. Hence, ϕ := g −1 ◦ h is
a well defined univalent self-map of D. Moreover, let γ : [0, 1) → h(D) be defined
by γ (r ) = h(r x0 ). Note that limr →1 γ (r ) = h(x0 ) and there exists σ ∈ ∂D such that
g extends holomorphically in a neighborhood of σ , g (σ ) = lim z→σ g (z) exists and
it is different from 0, and limr →1 g −1 (γ (r )) = σ (this follows at once by looking at
g(D) = C \ Rα and using Schwarz’s Reflection Principle). Also, note that
h(x0 ) − h(r x0 )
0= lim h (r x0 ) = lim
(0,1)r →1 (0,1)r →1 1−r
g(σ ) − g(ϕ(r x0 )) σ − ϕ(r x0 )
= lim = g (σ )ϕ (x0 ) = 0,
(0,1)r →1 σ − ϕ(r x0 ) 1−r
Now, in case (φt ) is elliptic, let θ1 := Argλ (h(x1 )). For α > 0 let
be the λ-spirallike sector of amplitude 2α and center ei(θ1 −α) . Similarly, define the
λ-spirallike sector Spir[λ, 2α, θ1 + α].
420 14 Contact Points
By Theorem 14.2.10 and taking into account that h(D) is λ-spirallike, it follows that
+ −
there exist α ∈ (0, π ] and a > |h(x1 )| such that either Sα,a ⊂ h(D) or Sα,a ⊂ h(D).
+
We can assume, without loss of generality, that Sα,a ⊂ h(D).
In case (φt ) is non-elliptic, again by Theorem 14.2.10 and taking into account that
h(D) is starlike at infinity, there exist a < Im h(x1 ) and α > 0 such that, setting
+
Sα,a : = {w ∈ C : Im w > a, Re h(x1 ) < Re w < Re h(x1 ) + α}
−
Sα,a : = {w ∈ C : Im w > a, Re h(x1 ) − α < Re w < Re h(x1 )},
+ −
we have that either Sα,a ⊂ h(D) or Sα,a ⊂ h(D). We can assume, without loss of
+
generality, that Sα,a ⊂ h(D).
+
In both the elliptic and non-elliptic case, let S := Sα,a . Note that S is simply
connected, and let g : D → S be a Riemann mapping. Since h(x1 ) belongs to a
real analytic curve on ∂ S, it follows by the Schwarz Reflection Principle that there
exists a point σ ∈ ∂D such that g extends holomorphically through σ , g (σ ) = 0 and
g(σ ) = h(x1 ).
Now, let ϕ := h −1 ◦ g : D → D. Since S ⊂ h(D), the map ϕ is well defined and
univalent and it is easy to see that ∠ lim z→σ ϕ(z) = x1 . Therefore, σ is a contact
point of ϕ, and hence, by Proposition 1.9.3 and since h ◦ ϕ = g, we have
g(σ ) − g(r σ )
g (σ ) = lim
(0,1)r →1 1−r
h(ϕ(σ )) − h(ϕ(r σ )) x1 − ϕ(r σ )
= lim
(0,1)r →1 x1 − ϕ(r σ ) 1−r
h(x1 ) − h(ϕ(r σ ))
= ϕ (σ ) lim .
(0,1)r →1 x1 − ϕ(r σ )
h(x1 ) − h(ϕ(r σ ))
L := lim
(0,1)r →1 x1 − ϕ(r σ )
h(x1 ) − h(z)
∠ lim = L.
z→x1 x1 − z
14.3 Infinitesimal Generators and Maximal Contact Arcs 421
∠ lim h (z) = L = ∞,
z→x1
Step 3. Suppose that τ ∈ ∂D and σ is not the starting point of a maximal invariant
curve for (φt ). Then σ is the starting point of a maximal contact arc.
Since by Proposition 1.2.2 the group Aut(D) acts double transitively on ∂D, there
exists T ∈ Aut(D) such that T (τ ) = 1 and T (σ ) = −1. Taking into account that T
is a Möbius transformation, it is easy to see that −1 is a super-repelling fixed point of
the semigroup (T ◦ φt ◦ T −1 ) and 1 is its Denjoy-Wolff point. Moreover, −1 is the
starting point of a maximal contact arc (respectively, of a maximal invariant curve)
for (T ◦ φt ◦ T −1 ) if and only if σ is the starting point of a maximal contact arc
(resp., of a maximal invariant curve) for (φt ). In other words, we can assume without
loss of generality that τ = 1 and σ = −1.
Let (Ω, h, z → z + it) be the canonical model of (φt ) given by Theorem 9.3.5,
where Ω is either C, H, H− or a strip Sρ for some ρ > 0. By Proposition 13.6.7,
there is α ∈ R such that lim z→−1 Re h(z) = α and lim z→−1 Im h(z) = −∞. Fix r ∈
(0, 1). If Re h(−r ) = α, let Sr := {h(−r )}. If Re h(−r ) < α, let Sr := {ζ ∈ C :
Re h(−r ) ≤ Re ζ < α, Im ζ = Im h(−r )}, while, if Re h(−r ) > α, let Sr := {ζ ∈
C : α < Re ζ ≤ Re h(−r ), Im ζ = Im h(−r )}.
Claim (): Sr ⊂ h(D) for all r ∈ (0, 1).
The claim is obviously true if Sr := {h(−r )}, so assume this is not the case. Note
that, by Proposition 9.4.12, Im [(1 + r )2 h (−r )] ≥ 0. That is,
eiθ1 is not a fixed point of (φt ). If the life-time T (eiθ1 ) = 0, then set p1 := eiθ1 . If
T (eiθ1 ) > 0, then there exists a maximal contact arc A ∂D whose closure contains
eiθ1 . Let q be the starting point of A. If q = σ we are done. Otherwise, q = eiθ2
for some θ2 ∈ (θ0 , θ1 ]. Let Z := {eiθ : θ ∈ (θ0 , θ2 )}. As before, we can find θ3 ∈
(θ0 , θ2 ) such that T (eiθ3 ) < +∞. If T (eiθ3 ) = 0, set p1 = eiθ3 , otherwise, there exists
a maximal contact arc A ∂D whose closure contains eiθ3 ; let p1 be its end point.
Since A ∩ A = ∅, it follows that p1 = eiθ4 for some θ4 ∈ (θ0 , θ2 ).
In any case, if σ is not the starting point of a maximal contact arc of (φt ), there
exists p1 = eiβ1 for some β1 ∈ (θ0 , θ0 + ε) which is the starting point of a maximal
invariant curve of (φt ).
424 14 Contact Points
A similar argument shows that there exists p2 = eiβ2 for some β2 ∈ (θ0 − ε, θ0 )
which is the starting point of a maximal invariant curve of (φt ). Note that p1 = p2 .
Consider the Jordan curve J given by the union of the maximal invariant curve
starting at p1 , the one starting at p2 and the arc in ∂D with end points p1 and p2
and containing σ . Note that τ ∈ J . Let V be the bounded connected component of
C \ J . By Remark 13.3.8, for all z 0 ∈ V , φt (z 0 ) ∈ V for all t ≥ 0. Namely, φt (V ) ⊆
V . Let g : D → V be a Riemann map. Since V is a Jordan domain, g extends as
a homeomorphism—still denoted by g—from D onto V by Theorem 4.3.3. Let
φ̃t := g −1 ◦ φt ◦ g, t ≥ 0. Then (φ̃t ) is a semigroup in D and, since
also saw that in general boundary critical points do not correspond to boundary fixed
points. However, for super-repelling fixed points of the second and third types, the
result continues to hold. Indeed, as an immediate consequence of Theorems 14.3.1
and 14.4.1, we have:
Corollary 14.4.3 Let (φt ) be a semigroup, not a group, in D with associated infinites-
imal generator G. If σ ∈ ∂D is a super-repelling fixed point of (φt ) of second or third
type, then σ is a boundary critical point of G.
In particular, if σ ∈ ∂D is a super-repelling fixed point of (φt ) and there are no
backward orbits of (φt ) converging to σ then σ is a boundary critical point of G.
14.5 Examples
In this section we construct some examples in order to illustrate the objects defined
and studied in this chapter.
Example 14.5.1 Let (φt ) be the semigroup constructed in Example 13.7.5. Namely,
let h be a Riemann map of the domain
and let φt (z) := h −1 (h(z) + it), for all z ∈ D and t ≥ 0. Let us denote by τ ∈ ∂D
its Denjoy-Wolff point. The arc J constructed in Example 13.7.5 is an exceptional
maximal contact arc with starting point σ and final point τ .
Example 14.5.2 Example 13.7.6 provides an exceptional maximal contact arc with
starting point a contact point which is not fixed, namely with the notation introduced
there, the arc is B = h −1 (i[0, +∞)) ⊂ ∂D.
Example 14.5.3 Consider the set of rational numbers of the interval (0, 1), say
{α(n) : n ∈ N} . For each n, let Γn := α(n) + i(−∞, −n] and define the domain
Ω := S \ (∪n∈N Γn ) .
Take a Riemann map h of the domain Ω. Consider the semigroup (φt ) whose canon-
ical model is (S, h, z → z + it), that is, φt (z) := h −1 (h(z) + it), for all z ∈ D and
t ≥ 0. Let τ be the Denjoy-Wolff point of (φt ). For each irrational number x ∈ (0, 1)
the curve R t → h −1 (x − it) is a maximal invariant curve for (φt ). By Lemma
13.1.5, there is a boundary fixed point σx such that limt→+∞ h −1 (x − it) = σx . Since
the semigroup is hyperbolic, by Proposition 13.4.6, σx = τ .
426 14 Contact Points
In the next two examples we construct semigroups with super-repelling fixed point
of the second and third type.
Ω := {w ∈ H : Im w Re w > −1} ,
and take a Riemann map h from D onto Ω. Let (φt ) be the semigroup in D defined
by
φt (z) := h −1 (h(z) + it), z ∈ D, t ≥ 0.
Let τ be its Denjoy-Wolff point. Since there is no vertical line in Ω, the backward
invariant set of (φt ) is empty. Let (0, 1] t → γ (t) := h −1 (t + i(−1/t + 1)) and
let σ := limt→0 γ (t) ∈ ∂D (see Proposition 3.3.3). Then limt→0 Im h(γ (t)) = −∞.
By Theorem 11.1.4 and Proposition 11.1.9, lim z→σ Im h(z) = −∞. Thus Proposi-
tion 13.6.2 implies that σ is a boundary fixed point of the semigroup (φt ). Since the
semigroup has no petals, σ is a super-repelling fixed point. Let J be the Jordan arc
in ∂D joining σ with τ such that h(J ) = iR. The final point of J is τ and σ is its
starting point. Thus J is an exceptional maximal contact arc with final point τ , hence
σ is a super-repelling fixed point of the third type.
and take a Riemann map h from D onto Ω. Now, let (φt ) be the semigroup defined
by
φt (z) := h −1 (h(z) + it), z ∈ D, t ≥ 0.
14.5 Examples 427
Let us denote by τ its Denjoy-Wolff point. Since there is no vertical line in Ω, the
backward invariant set of (φt ) is empty.
Take (0, 1] t → γ (t) := h −1 (t + 1 + i(log(t) + 1)) and let σ := limt→0 γ (t)
∈ ∂D (see Proposition 3.3.3). Then limt→0 Im h(γ (t)) = −∞. By Theorem 11.1.4
and Proposition 11.1.9, lim z→σ Im h(z) = −∞. Thus Proposition 13.6.2 implies that
σ is a boundary fixed point of the semigroup. Since the semigroup has no petal, it turns
out that σ is a super-repelling fixed point. Take σ̃ the point in ∂D such that h(σ̃ ) = 1
and J the Jordan arc in ∂D joining σ with σ̃ such that h(J ) = 1 + i(−∞, 0]. Hence,
σ is a super-repelling fixed point of the second type.
14.6 Notes
Theorem 14.1.1 was first proved in [81]. The rest of the chapter is taken basically
from [30, 37].
Condition (3) in Theorem 14.2.10 can be weaken assuming that for every σ ∈ A
lim(0,1)r →1 Re (σ G(r σ )) = 0 and lim sup(0,1)r →1 |Im G(r σ )| = 0 (see [37, Propo-
sition 3.6]).
Chapter 15
Poles of the Infinitesimal Generators
In this chapter, we introduce the notion of regular (boundary) poles for infinitesimal
generators of semigroups. We characterize such regular poles in terms of β-points
(i.e. pre-images of values with a positive (Carleson-Makarov) β-numbers) of the
associated semigroup and of the associated Koenigs function. We also define a natural
duality operation in the cone of infinitesimal generators and show that the regular
poles of an infinitesimal generator correspond to the regular critical points of the
dual generator. Finally we apply such a construction to study radial multi-slits and
give an example of a non-isolated radial slit semigroup whose tip has not a positive
(Carleson-Makarov) β-number.
In order to study radial multi-slits semigroup, we exploit a representation formula
for starlike functions which we are going to prove in this chapter.
∠ lim G(z)(σ − z) = a
z→σ
∠ lim |G(z)| = ∞.
z→σ
∠ lim G(z)(z − σ )α = 0.
z→σ
Proof Note that p is not constant, for otherwise ∠ lim z→σ j |G(z)| < +∞ and then
∠ lim z→σ j |G(z)(σ j − z)| = 0, for j = 1, . . . , m. For j = 1, . . . , m, let
1−r
L j := lim p(r σ j ).
(0,1)r →1 2
By Proposition 2.1.3 such a limit exists finite, it is non-negative, and the function
m
σj + z
f (z) := p(z) − Lj
j=1
σj − z
m
inequality (15.1.1) follows at once because Re f (0) = Re p(0) − j=1 L j ≥ 0.
| f (z)|
∠ lim sup = L < +∞.
z→σ |σ − z|
φt (z) G(φt (σ ))
∠ lim φt (z) = ∠ lim = .
z→σ z→σ z−σ A
Proof By Lemma 15.1.2, (1) is equivalent to (2). Moreover, clearly, (3) implies (6).
Assume (6) holds. In particular, lim(0,1)r →1 φt0 (r σ ) = 0. Hence, φt0 (σ ) ∈ D by
Corollary 1.7.6. By Proposition 10.1.8, for each r ∈ (0, 1), we obtain
432 15 Poles of the Infinitesimal Generators
φt0 (r σ )
G(r σ )(1 − r ) = G(φt0 (r σ )). (15.1.2)
1−r
A := ∠ lim G(z)(σ − z) = 0.
z→σ
For t ≥ 0, let
M(t) := lim sup |φt (r σ )|.
(0,1)r →1
We claim that
M(t) = 0, for all t > 0. (15.1.3)
Assume for the moment that (15.1.3) holds. Fix t > 0. Then lim(0,1)r →1 φt (r σ ) = 0
and hence Corollary 1.7.6 implies that φt (σ ) ∈ D. By Proposition 10.1.8,
proving that σ ∈ Bβ (φt ) for all t > 0, that is, (3) holds. Moreover, Theorem 1.7.2
(applied to φt ) implies that (4) and (b) hold as well.
In order to prove that (15.1.3) holds, we argue by contradiction. Suppose there
exists t0 > 0 such that M(t0 ) > 0. Let {rn } ⊂ (0, 1) be a sequence converging to 1
such that
lim |φt0 (rn σ )| = M(t0 ).
n→∞
for all n ∈ N. Thus (15.1.4) shows that M(t0 ) < +∞. By Proposition 1.7.5, σ is a
regular contact point of φt0 .
If σ is a boundary regular fixed point for φt0 then it is a boundary regular fixed
point for the semigroup by Theorem 12.1.4 and Proposition 12.1.6. Therefore, by
Theorem 12.2.5, ∠ lim z→σ |G(z)| = 0, against σ ∈ P(G).
Hence, σ is a regular non-fixed contact point for φt0 . This implies that T (σ ) > 0
so that σ is a contact point of (φt ). Moreover, since the curve [0, +∞) t → φt (σ )
is injective by Theorem 14.1.1, it follows that φt (σ ) = φs (σ ) for all t = s.
Let t ∈ (0, t0 ). Since φt0 = φt ◦ φt0 −t , by Proposition 1.7.7, αφt (σ ) < +∞ for all
t ∈ (0, t0 ). Namely, σ is a regular non-fixed contact point of φt for all t ∈ (0, t0 ].
By Proposition 1.5.5, the curve (0, 1) r → φt (r σ ) converges non-tangentially
to φt (σ ) as r → 1. Therefore, taking into account Lemma 15.1.2 and Theorem 1.7.3,
we have by Proposition 10.1.8
Taking into account that αφt0 (σ ) > 1 by Remark 1.9.7, it follows that the φt (σ )’s are
distinct regular poles of G of mass strictly greater than |A| for t ∈ (0, t0 ), contradict-
ing Corollary 15.1.5. Therefore, (15.1.3) holds.
So far, we have seen that (1), (2), (3), and (6) are equivalent, that (2) implies (4)
and (b). Note also, that, by Corollary 1.7.6, (6) implies (a).
If (4) holds for some t0 > 0, then, clearly, (5) holds for t = t0 .
Finally, if (5) holds for some t0 > 0, arguing exactly as in the proof of Proposi-
tion 1.7.5 one can see that for all 0 < r < u < 1,
where C := sups∈[0,1) |φt0 (sσ )| < +∞. Hence, taking the limit for u → 1, we have
|φt0 (r σ )|
≤ C,
1−r
Now we are going to relate the regular poles of an infinitesimal generator to the
β-points of the associated Koenigs function:
434 15 Poles of the Infinitesimal Generators
h (z) h(σ )G (τ )
∠ lim h (z) = ∠ lim = = 0,
z→σ z→σ z−σ A
h (z) i
= . (15.1.5)
z−σ G(z)(z − σ )
From this equation and Lemma 15.1.2 it follows at once that (1) is equivalent to (2)
and (3).
In the case τ ∈ D, G(z) = G (τ )h(z)/ h (z) and h(τ ) = 0. Therefore
h (z) 1 G (τ )
= . (15.1.6)
z − σ h(z) G(z)(z − σ )
Assume (1) holds and let (φt ) be the semigroup generated by G. Since h(φt (z)) =
e G (τ )t h(z), from Theorem 15.1.7(a), it follows that φt (σ ) ∈ D and φt (σ ) = τ , for
all t > 0, hence
∠ lim h(z) = e−G (τ )t h(φt (σ )) ∈ C.
z→σ
Now, if (1)–(3) hold, then (a) and (b) follow from (15.1.6), (15.1.5) and Theorem
1.7.2. Hence, (4) and (5) hold as well.
Clearly, (4) implies (5). Finally, if (5) holds, arguing as in the last part of the proof
of Theorem 15.1.7, we get (3).
We say that Γ defines an isolated λ-spiral slit of Ω if there exists ε > 0 such that
We first describe the behavior of Riemann maps close to the tip of an isolated
spiral slit.
h(U ) = {ζ ∈ C : |ζ − T | < δ} \ Γ,
and h(σ ) = T .
436 15 Poles of the Infinitesimal Generators
Proof Let Ω := h(D). Up to rotation and translation and dilation, we can assume
that
Γ := {z = eλs ∈ C : s ≥ 0}.
for some a > 0 such that |eλa − 1| = ε. Let δ ∈ (0, ε/2) be such that C := {ζ ∈
C : |ζ − 1| = δ} has the property that C intersects Γ at one point eλs0 for some
s0 ∈ (0, a). Hence, C := C \ {eλs0 } ⊂ Ω.
By Proposition 3.3.3, the closure of h −1 (C ) is a Jordan arc (or a Jordan curve) in
D which intersects ∂D in either one or two points. We claim that the first possibility
cannot occur, that is, h −1 (C ) ∩ ∂D = {q1 , q2 } with q1 = q2 . Indeed, let G := {ζ ∈
C : |ζ − eλs0 | = 4δ }. By construction, G intersects Γ in two points, say c− , c+ , and
G \ {c− , c+ } is formed by two connected components, G + , G − such that G + , G − ⊂
Ω. Moreover, since G + intersects transversally C at exactly one point in Ω, it follows
by Corollary 3.3.4, that h −1 (G + ) is a Jordan arc in D which intersects ∂D in two
different points and h −1 (C ) intersects transversally h −1 (G + ) at exactly one point in
D. Since h −1 (G + ) divides D in two connected components, and h −1 (C ) intersects
both of them, it follows easily from the previous considerations that h −1 (C ) intersects
∂D in two points.
Now, by construction, C divides Ω in two connected components, one of them
being D(1, δ) \ {z = eλs : s ∈ [0, a)}. Hence, h −1 (C ) divides D into two connected
components, one of them, say U , being such that
K p := C \ Γ.
15.2 Tips of Isolated Radial and Spiral Slits 437
Note that Γ is an isolated radial slit of K p and its tip is p. A Riemann map of this
domain is given by the Koebe function
z i
k p (z) := i + + p, z ∈ D.
(1 − z)2 4
|k p (z)| 1 1
∠ lim sup = ∠ lim sup = < +∞,
z→−1 |1 + z| z→−1 |1 − z|3 8
By Theorem 1.5.7, ∠ lim z→η φ(z) = η . In order to prove that φ extends contin-
uously at η, let {z n } ⊂ D be a sequence converging to η. We need to show that
limn→∞ φ(z n ) = η . We already know that the result is true for sequences con-
verging non-tangentially to η, therefore we can reduce to consider the case that
either Im (ηz n ) > 0 for all n ∈ N or Im (ηz n ) < 0 for all n ∈ N, and Re (ηz n ) is
strictly increasing. We deal with the case Im (ηz n ) > 0 for all n ∈ N, the other
being similar. We set z 0 = 0. Let γ : [0, +∞) → D be the curve given by γ (t) =
(1 + n − t)z n + (t − n)z n+1 for t ∈ [n, n + 1), n ≥ 0. By contruction, γ is an injec-
tive continuous curve, γ (0) = 0, limt→+∞ γ (t) = η and γ ((0, +∞)) ∩ (0, 1)η = ∅.
Hence, Γ := γ ([0, +∞)) ∪ [0, 1]η is a Jordan curve. Let V be the bounded con-
nected component of C∞ \ Γ . Note that V ⊂ D. Moreover, since h 2 is continuous at
η, h 2 (V ) is a simply connected domain contained in h 2 (D) and ∂∞ (h 2 (V )) = h 2 (Γ ).
Moreover, limt→+∞ h 2 (γ (t)) = p. Therefore, by Proposition 3.3.5, it follows that
438 15 Poles of the Infinitesimal Generators
Since by Proposition 1.5.5, φ maps Stolz regions of vertex σ into Stolz regions of
vertex σ , it follows at once from (15.2.2) and Theorem 1.7.3, that, if σ is a β-point
of h 1 , then σ is a β-point of h 2 .
Conversely, assume σ is a β-point of h 2 . Then, by (15.2.2) and Theorem 1.7.3,
|h 1 (φ(z))|
∠ lim sup =: L < +∞.
z→σ |σ − φ(z)|
|h 1 (z n )| |h (φ(wn ))|
lim sup = lim sup 1 ≤ L,
n→∞ |σ − z n | n→∞ |σ − φ(wn )|
|g (z)| |g (z)| 1
= 2 .
|z − σ | |z − σ | |g1 (g1 (g2 (z)))|
Since lim z→σ |g1 (g1 (g2 (z)))| = |g1 (g1 (1))| = |g1 (1)| = 0, it follows from the pre-
vious equality that σ is a β-point of g if and only if it is a β-point of g2 . By Case 1,
σ is a β-point of g2 , and we are done.
440 15 Poles of the Infinitesimal Generators
1
ξ ∈ ∂D → ∈ [0, +∞]
|ξ − σ |2
is μ-integrable and
Im (ξ σ )
Im p(0) = −2 dμ(ξ ).
|ξ − σ |2
∂D
represents a starlike function with respect to zero, for every A > 0 and
2π
1
lim arg(h(r e )) = β̃(θ ) + π −
iθ
β̃(s)ds. (15.3.6)
(0,1)r →1 2π 0
Proof Let h be a starlike function with respect to zero such that h(0) = 0 and h (0) >
(z)
0. By Theorem 9.4.5, the holomorphic function q(z) := zhh(z) satisfies Re q(z) ≥ 0
for all z ∈ D and q(0) = 1, thus Re q(z) > 0 for all z ∈ D. Since the holomorphic
function D \ {0} z → h(z)z
has no zeros and can be extended holomorphically at 0 as
h (0) > 0, considering the branch of the logarithm of h(z)z
such that Im (log h (0)) =
0, we have
h(z) q(z) − 1
log = , z ∈ D.
z z
Hence z
h(z) 1
log − log h (0) = (q(ξ ) − 1)dξ, (15.3.7)
z 0 ξ
where the above integral must be understood in the Riemann-Stieltjes sense. Being
V integrable in [0, 2π ] in the Riemann sense,
2π
C := (V (θ ) − θ ) dθ ∈ R.
0
442 15 Poles of the Infinitesimal Generators
C
Let U (θ ) := V (θ ) − , θ ∈ [0, 2π ]. Note that U is increasing, U (2π ) − U (0) =
2π
2π , 2π iθ
1 e +z
q(z) = dU (θ ), z ∈ D, (15.3.10)
2π 0 eiθ − z
and 2π
(U (θ ) − θ ) dθ = 0. (15.3.11)
0
U (2π)−U (0) 2π
Since 1 = 2π
= 1
2π 0 dU (θ ), by (15.3.10),
q(z) − 1 1 1 2π
eiθ + z 1 2π 1
= − 1 dU (θ ) = dU (θ ), z ∈ D.
z z 2π 0 eiθ − z π 0 eiθ − z
Bearing in mind that U (2π ) − 2π = U (0) − 0, integration by parts for the Riemann-
Stieltjes integral shows
2π 2π
d
log(1 − e−iθ z)d (U (θ ) − θ ) = − log(1 − e−iθ z)dθ
(U (θ ) − θ )
0 0 dθ
2π
e−iθ z
= −i (U (θ ) − θ ) dθ.
0 1 − e−iθ z
Then, arg(h(r eiθ )) is a selection of the argument of h(r eiθ ) which is continuous for
(r, θ ) ∈ (0, 1) × [0, 2π ] and limr →0+ arg(h(r )) = 0.
Taking into account that U is increasing, the following limits exist:
1 + 1
( f (θ ) + f − (θ )) = (U + (θ ) + U − (θ )) − θ, θ ∈ (0, 2π );
2 2
1 + 1 1
( f (2π ) + f (2π )) = ( f + (0) + f − (0)) = (U + (0) + U − (2π ) − 2π ).
−
2 2 2
Therefore, by Theorem 1.6.2 and for all θ ∈ [0, 2π ], there exists the limit
f + (θ ) + f − (θ )
β(θ ) := θ + lim P[ f ](r eiθ ) = θ + .
r →1 2
1 +
β(θ ) =(U (θ ) + U − (θ )), θ ∈ (0, 2π ),
2
1 1
β(2π ) = 2π + (U + (0) + U − (2π ) − 2π ) = (U + (2π ) + U − (2π )),
2 2
1 1
β(0) = (U + (0) + U − (2π ) − 2π ) = (U + (0) + U − (0)).
2 2
444 15 Poles of the Infinitesimal Generators
equations (15.3.3) and (15.3.4) follow immediately from the previous considerations.
Conversely, let A > 0 and let β̃ : [0, 2π ] → R be an increasing function with
β̃(2π ) − β̃(0) = 2π and
1 2π −iθ
h(z) := Az exp − log 1 − e z d β̃(θ ) , z ∈ D.
π 0
Clearly, h defines a holomorphic function in the disc such that h(0) = 0 and
h (0) = A. Let
1 2π
g(z) := − log 1 − e−iθ z d β̃(θ ), z ∈ D.
π 0
Therefore, in order to see that h is a starlike function with respect to zero, we only
have to check that Re (1 + zg (z)) ≥ 0 for all z ∈ D (see Theorem 9.4.5).
Now, since β̃(2π ) − β̃(0) = 2π , for each z ∈ D,
2π
1 1 2π −e−iθ
1 + zg (z) = d β̃(θ ) + z − d β̃(θ )
2π 0 π 0 1 − e−iθ z
2π
1 2e−iθ z 1 e +z
2π iθ
= 1+ −iθ
d β̃(θ ) = d β̃(θ ).
2π 0 1−e z 2π 0 eiθ − z
Example 15.3.4 Let α > 0. Let β(θ ) := −π 1−α (−θ + π )α , for 0 ≤ θ ≤ π , and
β(θ ) := π 1−α (θ − π )α , for π ≤ θ ≤ 2π . Note that β is increasing, absolutely con-
tinuous and β (θ ) = απ 1−α |θ − π |α−1 > 0 for θ ∈ [0, 2π ] \ {π }. Therefore (15.3.5)
defines a starlike function h, with h (0) = 1. Consider the elliptic semigroup (φt )
with Denjoy-Wolff point 0, spectral value 1 and Koenigs function h, defined as
φt (z) := h −1 (e−it h(z)), t ≥ 0. Let G(z) = −zp(z) denote the infinitesimal genera-
tor of (φt ). Then, by (15.3.6) and (15.3.4),
π
1 eiθ + z 1 zh (z)
dβ(θ ) = = .
2π −π e −z
iθ p(z) h(z)
2π
sin(π − θ )β (θ )dθ
= 0,
0 |eiθ + 1|2
for all α. Thus, by Corollary 15.3.3, σ ∈ P(G) if and only if α > 2. In Fig. 15.1,
using (15.3.5) and numerical integration, we draw the boundary of h(D) for α = 0.5
(left), α = 1.5 (center), and α = 2.5 (right).
446 15 Poles of the Infinitesimal Generators
In this section we introduce the concept of “dual infinitesimal generator”, and show
how regular critical points of an infinitesimal generator are related to regular poles
of its dual.
1
Ĝ(z) := (τ − z)(1 − τ z) , z ∈ D.
p(z)
m
σj + z 1 ξj + z
m
p(z) = μj , = αj . (15.5.1)
j=1
σj − z p(z) j=1
ξj − z
σ +z
Conversely, if p(z) is given by p(z) = mj=1 μ j σ jj −z with σ j ∈ ∂D, σ j = σk , for
m
k = j, μ j > 0 with j=1 μ j = 1, then the infinitesimal generator G(z) = −zp(z)
generates a radial m-slits semigroup.
Proof First of all, notice that p(0) = 1. By Proposition 15.3.2, there exists a selection
of the argument of h(r eiθ ) which is continuous for (r, θ ) ∈ (0, 1) × [0, 2π ] and
limr →0+ arg(h(r )) = 0 such that
m
m
r = p(ξ1 ) − μ j (σ j + ξ1 )/(σ j − ξ1 ) = − μ j (σ j + ξ1 )/(σ j − ξ1 ) ∈ iR,
j=1 j=1
In the following example we show that the tip of a non-isolated radial slit might
not correspond to a regular pole:
Example 15.5.2 Let {θ j } ⊂ (0, 1/2) be a sequence monotonically decreasing to 0.
Let T∞ := 1 and let T j := e2πiθ j for j ∈ N. Let Γ j := {sT j : s ≥ 1} for j ∈ N ∪ {∞}
and set
m
Ωm := C \ Γk ∪ Γk ∪ Γ∞ , m ∈ N ∪ {∞}.
k=1
For a fixed m ∈ N, the domain Ωm is a radial (2m + 1)-slit domain symmetric with
respect to the real axis, and, as m → ∞, the sequence {Ωm } converges in the kernel
sense to the simply connected domain Ω∞ , which has infinitely many isolated radial
slits collapsing to a non-isolated one, Γ∞ .
Fix m ∈ N ∪ {∞}. Let h m : D → Ωm be the unique Riemann mapping normal-
ized so that h m (0) = 0, h m (0) > 0. Since Ωm is symmetric with respect to the real
axis, it follows that h m (z) = h m (z) for all z ∈ D. From this, it is not difficult to
see that lim(0,1)r →1 h m (r ) = T∞ for all m ∈ N ∪ {∞}. By Carathéodory Extension
Theorem 4.3.1, h m is continuous up to ∂D for m ∈ N while h ∞ is continuous on
15.5 Radial Multi-Slits Semigroups 449
|1 − σ j,m |2 ≤ K |1 − T j |, j = 1, . . . , m, (15.5.3)
1 (1 − 2θ1 ) 1 − z
=
pm (z) 2 1+z
m−1
1 − z2 1 − z2
+ (θ j − θ j+1 ) + θ∞,m .
j=1
(z − ξ j,m )(z − ξ j,m ) (z − ξm,m )(z − ξm,m )
(15.5.4)
As the sequence of domains {Ωm } kernel converges to Ω∞ , the Carathéodory Kernel
Convergence Theorem 3.5.8 implies that {h m } converges uniformly on compacta of
D to h ∞ . As a consequence, { pm } converges uniformly on compacta to p∞ , which,
from (15.5.4), it is not difficult to be seen having the form
∞
1 (1 − 2θ1 ) 1 − z 1 − z2
= + (θ j − θ j+1 ) , (15.5.5)
p∞ (z) 2 1+z j=1
(z − ξ j )(z − ξ j )
where ξ j = limm→∞ ξ j,m . By Theorem 13.5.6, the semigroup (φt∞ ) has a sequence
of boundary regular fixed points with dilation θ j − θ j+1 , j ∈ N. From this and from
the fact that the function p∞ extends meromorphic on C \ {1} and its zeros are the
450 15 Poles of the Infinitesimal Generators
ξ j ’s, it follows that the ξ j ’s are actually boundary regular fixed points and also ξ j
belongs to the arc with extremes σ j,∞ and σ j+1,∞ for each j ∈ N.
Now we want to show that, for a suitable choice of {θ j }, the point 1, which
corresponds to the (non isolated) tip h ∞ (1) = T∞ is not a regular pole of G ∞ . This
is the case if and only if
1
lim = ∞.
(0,1)r →1 p∞ (r )(1 − r )
∞
θ j − θ j+1
= ∞.
j=1
|1 − ξ j |2
However, by (15.5.3)
∞ ∞ ∞ ∞
θ j − θ j+1 θ j − θ j+1 θ j − θ j+1 θ j − θ j+1
≥ ≥ ,
j=1
|1 − ξ j | 2
j=1
|1 − σ j,∞ | 2
j=1
K |1 − T j | j=1
θj
15.6 Notes
The results included in this chapter are based on [29]. In [37] it was obtained a
complete characterization of regular poles in terms of the geometry of the Koenigs
function. In order to state properly the result, we have to introduce some notation.
Let h be a univalent map, and σ ∈ ∂D a point such that ξ := ∠ lim z→σ h(z) exists
finitely. Fix γ > 1 and, for k ∈ N, denote with αk the opening of the smallest angle
with vertex at ξ containing the set
The aim of this chapter is to study the rate, or speed, of convergence of orbits of non-
elliptic semigroups to the Denjoy-Wolff point, considering both “orthogonal speed”
and “total speed” as introduced in Definition 6.5.6. As we see, in the hyperbolic
case the speed of convergence follows strict rules, while, in the parabolic case the
situation is more complicated.
To start with, we recall that in Proposition 6.5.9 we showed that the speed of conver-
gence can be studied in terms of the euclidean distance. Namely, given a non-elliptic
semigroup in D with Denjoy-Wolff point τ ∈ ∂D, a point z ∈ D and t0 such that
Re (τ φt (z)) ≥ 0 for all t ≥ t0 (such a point t0 exists due to the Denjoy-Wolff Theo-
rem 8.3.6), then
1
ω(0, φt (z)) − 1 log 1 ≤ log 2,
2 1 − |φt (z)| 2
o 1
v (η; t) − 1 log 1 ≤ log 2, (16.1.1)
D,0 2 |τ − φt (z)| 2
T
v (η; t) − 1 log |τ − φt (z)| ≤ 3 log 2,
D,0 2 1 − |φt (z)| 2
Next, we show that the orthogonal speed and the tangential speed of an orbit of a
semigroup do not depend on the starting point:
|vD,0
o
(η1 ; t) − vD,0
o
(η2 ; t)| ≤ ω(z 1 , z 2 ),
|vD,0
T
(η1 ; t) − vD,0
T
(η2 ; t)| ≤ 2ω(z 1 , z 2 ).
|vD,0
o
(η1 ; t) − vD,0
o
(η2 ; t)| = |ω(0, πγ (η1 (t))) − ω(0, πγ (η2 (t)))|
≤ ω(πγ (η1 (t)), πγ (η2 (t))) ≤ ω(η1 (t), η2 (t))
= ω(φt (z 1 ), φt (z 2 )) ≤ ω(z 1 , z 2 ).
T (η ; t) = ω(φ (z ), π (φ (z )))
vD,0 1 t 1 γ t 1
≤ ω(φt (z 1 ), φt (z 2 )) + ω(φt (z 2 ), πγ (φt (z 2 ))) + ω(πγ (φt (z 2 )), πγ (φt (z 1 )))
T (η ; t) + ω(π (φ (z )), π (φ (z )))
= ω(φt (z 1 ), φt (z 2 )) + vD,0 2 γ t 2 γ t 1
T (η ; t).
≤ 2ω(z 1 , z 2 ) + vD,0 2
T
That is, vD,0 (η1 ; t) − vD,0
T
(η2 ; t) ≤ 2ω(z 1 , z 2 ). Changing the role of z 1 and z 2 , we
obtain the second inequality of the statement.
Lemmas 16.1.2 and 6.5.8 show that, in order to study the asymptotic behavior
of the speed of convergence of semigroups’ orbits to the Denjoy-Wolff point, it is
enough to study the orbit starting at 0 and considering the speed with respect to 0.
In other words, the following definition makes sense:
vo (t) := vD,0
o
(φs (0); t) := ω(0, πγ (φt (0))),
16.1 Speeds of Convergence of Orbits 455
v T (t) := vD,0
T
(φs (0); t) := ω(φt (0), πγ (φt (0))),
Remark 16.1.4 It follows immediately from Remark 6.5.10 that the orbit [0, +∞)
t → φt (z) converges non-tangentially to τ for some—and hence any—z ∈ D if and
only if lim supt→+∞ v T (t) < +∞.
1
vo (t) + v T (t) − log 2 ≤ v(t) ≤ vo (t) + v T (t). (16.1.2)
2
A second less immediate relation between the orthogonal speed and the tangential
speed is contained in the following proposition:
Proof Let τ ∈ ∂D be the Denjoy-Wolff point of (φt ) and let λ ≥ 0 be its spectral
value. We first note that, by Proposition 1.5.5, for every t ≥ 0
|τ − φt (0)| e−λt
≤4 ,
1 − |φt (0)| 1 − |φt (0)|2
which is equivalent to
1 + |φt (0)| 16
eλt ≤ .
1 − |φt (0)| |τ − φt (0)|2
1 1 λt 1 1 1
log ≤ + log + log(1 + |φt (0)|)
2 1 − |φt (0)| 2 2 1 − |φt (0)| 2
1 1
≤ log 16 + log .
2 |τ − φt (0)|
1 1 1
v(t) ≤ log + log 2
2 1 − |φt (0)| 2
1 1 1
≤ log 16 + log + log 2
2 |τ − φt (0)| 2
1 3 7
≤ log 16 + log 2 + 2vo (t) = 2vo (t) + log 2.
2 2 2
Hence, by (16.1.2), we have for all t ≥ 0,
1 7 1
vo (t) + v T (t) ≤ v(t) + log 2 ≤ 2vo (t) + log 2 + log 2.
2 2 2
Finally, the previous equation implies that v T (t) ≤ vo (t) + 4 log 2 for all t ≥ 0, and
we are done.
Proposition 16.1.6 Let (φt ) and (ψt ) be two non-elliptic semigroups in D. Suppose
there exists M ∈ Aut(D) such that φt = M −1 ◦ ψt ◦ M for all t ≥ 0. Denote by
v(t), vo (t), v T (t) (respectively, ṽ(t), ṽo (t), ṽ T (t)) the total speed, orthogonal speed
and tangential speed of (φt ) (resp. of (ψt )). Then there exists C > 0 such that for all
t ≥0
|v(t) − ṽ(t)| < C,
|vo (t) − ṽo (t)| < C,
|v T (t) − ṽ T (t)| < C.
Proof Let τ ∈ ∂D be the Denjoy-Wolff point of (φt ) and τ̃ ∈ ∂D that of (ψt ). Let γ :
(0, +∞) → D (respectively, γ̃ : (0, +∞) → D) be the geodesic in D parameterized
by arc length such that γ (0) = 0 (resp., γ̃ (0) = 0) and limt→+∞ γ (t) = τ (resp.,
limt→+∞ γ (t) = τ̃ ).
Since M is an isometry for the hyperbolic distance, for all t ≥ 0,
By Lemma 6.5.8, limt→+∞ |ṽ T (t) − ω(ψt (M(0)), γ1 )| = 0, thus there exists C1 > 0
such that |v T (t) − ṽ T (t)| < C1 for all t ≥ 0.
Finally, by (16.1.2) we have for all t ≥ 0,
1 1
vo (t) − ṽo (t) ≤ v(t) − v T (t) + log 2 − ṽ(t) + ṽ T (t) ≤ C0 + C1 + log 2.
2 2
The same argument proves that ṽo (t) − vo (t) ≤ C0 + C1 + 21 log 2, and we are
done.
and
4
|w − 1|2 = (1 − |w|)2 + 4|w| sin2 (Arg(w)/2) ≥ (1 − |w|)2 + 2 |w|Arg(w)2
π
√ 2
1 2 |w|
≥ 1 − |w| + |Arg(w)| .
2 π
Bearing in mind (16.1.1), (16.1.4) and Remark 16.1.4, it follows that the orbit
[0, +∞) t → φt (z) converges non-tangentially to τ if and only if lim supt→+∞
v T (t) < +∞ if and only if lim supt→+∞ |Arg(τ φt (z))|
1−|φt (z)|
< +∞. In addition, if there is a
|Arg(τ φtn (0))|
sequence {tn } such that either limn→∞ v T (tn ) = +∞ or limn→∞ 1−|φtn (0)|
= +∞,
then
T 1 |Arg(τ φtn (0))|
sup v (tn ) − log < +∞.
n 2 1 − |φtn (0)|
458 16 Rate of Convergence at the Denjoy-Wolff Point
In this section we consider the total speed of convergence of orbits of hyperbolic and
parabolic semigroups to the Denjoy-Wolff point.
v(t) vo (t) 1 1 λ
lim = lim = − lim log (1 − τ φt (z)) = , (16.2.1)
t→+∞ t t→+∞ t 2 t→+∞ t 2
and
v T (t)
lim = 0.
t→+∞ t
In case λ > 0, that is, when (φt ) is hyperbolic, by Proposition 8.3.7 the curve t →
φt (0) converges to τ non-tangentially and then lim supt→+∞ v T (t) < +∞. Thus
from (16.1.2) we have limt→+∞ v t(t) = limt→+∞ v(t) and limt→+∞ v t(t) = 0.
o T
t
Finally, the second equation of (16.1.1) implies that
1 1 λ
− lim log (1 − τ φt (z)) = ,
2 t→+∞ t 2
According to the type of the semigroup, we have also a simple lower bound on
the total speed:
λ
lim inf [v(t) − t] > −∞,
t→+∞ 2
1
lim inf [v(t) − log t] > −∞.
t→+∞ 4
Proof Let (φt ) be hyperbolic with spectral value λ > 0. The canonical model of (φt )
is (S πλ , h, z → z + it). Hence, for every t ≥ 0,
Now, assume that (φt ) is parabolic of positive hyperbolic step. We can assume
that its canonical model is (H, h, z → z + it) (in case the canonical model is
(H− , h, z → z + it) the argument is similar). Arguing as in the hyperbolic case,
we see that
v(t) ≥ kH (1, 1 + it) + C,
Remark 16.2.3 The bounds given by Proposition 16.2.2 are sharp. Indeed, as it is
clear from the proof, if (φt ) is a hyperbolic group in D with spectral value λ > 0
then there exists C > 0 such that |v(t) − λ2 t| < C for every t ≥ 0, while, if (φt )
is a parabolic group then there exists C > 0 such that |v(t) − log t| < C for every
t ≥ 0—so that, in this sense, non-elliptic groups in D have the lowest total speed.
Moreover, the semigroup (φt ) in D defined as φt (z) := h −1 (h(z) + it), z ∈ D, where
h : D → K0 is a Riemann map for the Koebe domain K0 , has the property that there
exists C > 0 such that |v(t) − 14 log t| < C for all t ≥ 0.
As it is clear from the proof of the previous theorem, one can get lower or upper
estimates on the total speed of convergence according to the geometry of the image
of the Koenigs function using the domain monotonicity of the hyperbolic distance.
We provide here an example of such situation.
In order to state the result, we need the following notation for non-symmetric
sectors: for α, β ∈ [0, π ], with α + β > 0, we denote
W (α, β) := r eiθ : r > 0, −α < θ < β .
π +α+β
lim inf [v(t) − log t] > −∞.
t→+∞ 2(α + β)
16.2 Total Speed of Convergence 461
• Assume that h(D) contains a sector p + i W (α, β), for some p ∈ C and α, β ∈
[0, π ], with α + β > 0.
(1) If α and β are both positive then
π
lim sup[v(t) − log t] < +∞.
t→+∞ 2(α + β)
π +α+β
lim sup[v(t) − log t] < +∞.
t→+∞ 2(α + β)
v(t) = ω(0, φt (0)) = kh(D) (h(0), h(0) + it) ≥ k V (h(0), h(0) + it),
The results then follow by computing k V (h(z 0 ), h(z 0 ) + it) for z 0 ∈ D such that
h(z 0 ) ∈ V . In fact, it is enough to compute k V (w, w + it) for any w ∈ V . Indeed,
taking into account that z → z + it is a holomorphic self-map of V , we have
Hence,
k V (i, i + it) = k W (ei(α−β)/2 , ei(α−β)/2 (1 + t)).
By Proposition 6.5.5,
π 1 1
|k V (h(z 0 ), h(z 0 ) + it) − log ρt − log | < C.
2α 2 cos( θαt π )
Now,
1 + cos(α/2)t
ρt = t 2 + 2 cos(α/2)t + L 2 , cos θt = .
ρt
α 1
θt − = − (cos(θt ) − cos(α/2)).
2 1 − ξt2
cos(θt ) − cos(α/2)
lim = − lim 1 − ξt2 = − sin(α/2).
t→+∞ θt − α2 t→+∞
Therefore
θπ
θt π π α cos( αt ) π α
lim t cos( )= lim t θt − π π =− lim t θt −
t→+∞ α α t→+∞ 2 θt α − 2 α t→+∞ 2
π
= lim t (cos θt − cos(α/2))
α sin(α/2) t→+∞
π t
= lim (1 + cos(α/2)(t − ρt ))
α sin(α/2) t→+∞ ρt
π π
= 1 − cos2 (α/2) = sin(α/2) ∈ (0, +∞).
α sin(α/2) α
Thus, 1
2
log cos(1θt π ) goes like 1
2
log t as t → +∞ and the result follows.
α
• Assume that h(D) is contained in a sector p + i W (α, β), for some p ∈ C and
α, β ∈ [0, π ], with α + β > 0.
(1) If α and β are both positive then for every z ∈ D, there exist C = C(α, β, z) > 0
such that, for all t ≥ 0,
C
1 − |φt (z)| ≤ π/(α+β) .
t
(2) If α or β is zero then for every z ∈ D, there exist C = C(α, β, z) > 0 such that,
for all t ≥ 0,
1 C
1 − |φt (z)| ≤ .
t t π/(α+β)
• Assume that h(D) contains a sector p + i W (α, β), for some p ∈ C and α, β ∈
[0, π ], with α + β > 0.
(1) If α and β are both positive then for every z ∈ D, there exist C = C(α, β, z) > 0
such that, for all t ≥ 1,
C
1 − |φt (z)| ≥ π/(α+β) .
t
(2) If α or β is zero then for every z ∈ D, there exist C = C(α, β, z) > 0 such that,
for all t ≥ 1,
1 C
1 − |φt (z)| ≥ .
t t π/(α+β)
Another consequence of Proposition 16.2.4 is the following:
Corollary 16.2.6 Let (φt ) be a non-elliptic semigroup in D with Koenigs function
h. Suppose h(D) = p + i W (α, β) for some α, β ∈ [0, π ] with α + β > 0.
(1) If α > 0, β > 0 then there exists C > 0 such that v T (t) ≤ C and
π π
|vo (t) − log t| ≤ C, |v(t) − log t| ≤ C,
2(α + β) 2(α + β)
for all t ≥ 1.
(2) If either α = 0 or β = 0 then there exists C > 0 such that for all t ≥ 1
π +α+β
|v(t) − log t| ≤ C,
2(α + β)
π
|vo (t) − log t| ≤ C,
2(α + β)
1
|v T (t) − log t| ≤ C.
2
Proof Up to a translation, we can assume that p = 0.
Let τ ∈ ∂D be the Denjoy-Wolff point of (φt ) and let T : D → H, T (z) = (τ +
z)/(τ − z) be the Cayley transform which maps τ to ∞.
16.2 Total Speed of Convergence 465
Let
W := {ρeiθ : ρ > 0, |θ | < (α + β)/2}.
Note that W (α, β) = R(W ), where R(z) = iei(β−α)/2 z. Moreover, the map f : W →
H given by f (w) := wπ/(α+β) is a biholomorphism. Therefore, g := R ◦ f −1 ◦ T is
a biholomorphism from D onto W (α, β). Note that the geodesic (−1, 1)τ in D is
mapped by g onto the geodesic Γ := iei(β−α)/2 (0, +∞) in W (α, β) (which is, in
fact, the symmetry axis of W (α, β)). Therefore, by the invariance under isometries
of the tangential and orthogonal speeds and by Lemma 6.5.8, for every w ∈ W (α, β)
there exists K ≥ 0 such that for all t ≥ 0,
and
The asymptotic behavior of those quantities has been computed in the last part of the
proof of Proposition 16.2.4, and (2) follows.
v(t) v(t)
lim inf > 0, lim sup < +∞.
t→+∞ log t t→+∞ t
466 16 Rate of Convergence at the Denjoy-Wolff Point
v(t)
lim sup = +∞.
t→+∞ g(t)
Indeed, set b1 = 1. Let x1 > 1 be such that |i x1 − (a1 + ib1 )| = a2 . Notice that for
any later choice of b j , j ≥ 3, simple geometric consideration shows that, if we
take b2 > x1 then δΩ (it) = a2 for every t ∈ [x1 , b2 ]. Moreover, since g(t)/t → 0 as
t → +∞, we can find b2 > x1 such that
a2 g(b2 ) + x1
< 1.
b2
16.2 Total Speed of Convergence 467
Therefore,
v(b j+1 ) j
≥ ,
g(b j+1 ) 4
|ω(0, φt (z)) − ω(0, f (φt (z)))| ≤ ω(φt (z), f (φt (z))) ≤ C . (16.2.11)
λ π π
v(t) − t = ω(0, φt (0)) − kSπ/λ ( , + it)
2 2λ 2λ (16.2.12)
1 1 + |φt (0)| λt 1 1 + |φt (0)|
= log − = log e−λt .
2 1 − |φt (0)| 2 2 1 − |φt (0)|
1 − f (z) 1 2
τ α f (τ ) = ∠ lim = ∠ lim . (16.2.14)
z→τ τ −z z→τ τ − z ie−iλh(z) + 1
eiλh(z) i
∠ lim = − τ α f (τ ) ∈ C \ {0}.
z→τ z−τ 2
Namely, (4) holds. Notice that, in fact, the above argument shows that the confor-
mality of g is equivalent to α f (τ ) < +∞. Hence, (4) is equivalent to (2).
Now, assume (4) holds. Using again the non-tangential convergence of the orbits
to the Denjoy-Wolff point in the hyperbolic case (Proposition 8.3.7), we obtain
immediately that
Therefore,
−2ieiλh(z)
lim eλt (1 − τ φt (z)) = .
t→+∞ α f (τ )
Since Re eλt (1 − τ φt (z)) > 0 for all z and t, and the limit is not constant, we deduce
that the function K (z) = −2ieiλh(z) /α f (τ ) has non-negative real part, it is not con-
stant and then univalent, hence (5) holds.
Clearly (5) implies (6). Assume now that (6) holds and let B = limn→∞ eλtn (1 −
τ φtn (z)). Since
1 − f (φtn (z)) 1 2
= λt ,
τ − φtn (z) e n (1 − τ φtn (z)) ie−iλh(z) + e−λtn
470 16 Rate of Convergence at the Denjoy-Wolff Point
it follows immediately from (16.2.14) and Proposition 8.3.7 that τ α f (τ ) = Bi2 iλh(z)
e
∈ C. In particular, α f (τ ) < +∞. Hence, (2) holds.
Thus, the first six statements are equivalent.
Since (6) implies (7) and (8) is a particular case of (7), we are left to show that
(8) implies (6). Take z ∈ D and {tn } converging to +∞ such that the limit (16.2.9)
is not zero. Denote by G the infinitesimal generator of the semigroup. Then, by
Proposition 10.1.8,
τ − φtn (z)
K tn (z) = eλtn (1 − τ φtn (z)) = τ eλtn G(φtn (z))
G(φtn (z))
τ − φtn (z)
= τ eλtn φtn (z)G(z) .
G(φtn (z))
Consider the strip S2 = {w ∈ C : 0 < Re w < 2}. Given 0 < x < 1, we let Sx =
(k+1)2
{w ∈ C : x < Re w < 2 − x}. Take ck := (k+1) 2 −1 and x k := 1/(k + 1) for all k ∈
N.
Fix k and assume we have chosen y1 , y2 , . . . , yk−1 . Write
yk > k + 1 + Dk 2(1 − xk ).
Let
Ω = S2 \ ∪k∈N L k− ∪ L k+ ,
where
L k+ := {w ∈ C : Re w = 2 − xk , Im w ≤ yk },
L k− := {w ∈ C : Re w = xk , Im w ≤ yk }.
16.2 Total Speed of Convergence 471
Since the curve iR is a geodesic in Ω and kS2 (z, w) ≤ kΩ (z, w) for all z, w ∈ Ω,
Proposition 6.7.2 and (16.2.16) imply that, for all N ∈ N,
the orthogonal speeds of hyperbolic semigroups have the same asymptotic behavior.
Therefore, we concentrate on parabolic semigroups.
Following the notation introduced in Chap. 5 and in order to simplify the notation,
for any α ∈ (0, π ], we write
Theorem 16.3.1 Let (φt ) be a parabolic semigroup, not a group, in D with Denjoy-
Wolff point τ ∈ ∂D and Koenigs function h. Suppose that h(D) is contained in a
sector p + i V (α), p ∈ C, α ∈ (0, π ]. Then for every z ∈ D, there exists a constant
C = C( p, α, z) > 0 such that
C
|φt (z) − τ | ≤ , t ∈ (0, +∞). (16.3.1)
t π/(2α)
In particular,
π
lim inf [vo (t) − log t] > −∞. (16.3.2)
t→+∞ 4α
Notice that h(Γt ) = i[t + t0 , +∞). By Remark 16.1.1, Γt ⊂ D ∩ H for all t > 0. By
Theorem 7.2.13,
|φt (0) − 1|
|φt (0) − 1| ≤ 2 arcsin ≤ 2π μ(0, Γt , D \ Γt ).
2
Let k be a Riemann map of the domain D \ Γt . Notice that h ◦ k is a Riemann map
of the domain h(D) \ h(Γt ) and, since h is univalent, we deduce that
The map w → (w/t0 )π/(2α) sends V (α) to the right half-plane, the point t0 to 1 and
the half-line [t + t0 , +∞) to [(1 + t/t0 )π/(2α) , +∞). Thus, bearing in mind (7.2.6),
we obtain
|φt (0) − 1| ≤ 2π μ(1, [(1 + t/t0 )π/(2α) , +∞), H \ [(1 + t/t0 )π/(2α) , +∞))
= 2π μ((1 + t/t0 )−π/(2α) , [1, +∞), H \ [1, +∞))
= 4 arcsin((1 + t/t0 )−π/(2α) ).
π
Since arcsin(x) ≤ 2
x for 0 ≤ x ≤ 1,
Finally, (16.3.2) follows at once from (16.1.1) and (16.3.1). This conclude the proof
for the particular case we have considered.
In order to deal with the general case, let z 0 ∈ D be such that h(z 0 ) = it0 and take
T ∈ Aut(D) such that T (0) = z 0 and T (1) = τ . Note that T (z) = Tz0 (λz), where
Tz0 is given by (1.2.1) and λ = Tz0 (τ ).
By Proposition 16.1.6 the orthogonal speed of the semigroup (φ̃t ) := (T −1 ◦ φt ◦
T ) is comparable to that of (φt ), hence (16.3.2) holds in the general case as well.
Finally, (16.3.1) follows from (16.1.1) and (16.3.2).
Remark 16.3.2 The previous bounds are sharp, as shown by Corollary 16.2.6.
In general, we have the following bounds:
Theorem 16.3.3 Let (φt ) be a parabolic semigroup in D with Denjoy-Wolff point
τ ∈ ∂D.
(1) For each z ∈ D, there exists a constant C = C(z) > 0 such that, for every t ≥ 0,
In particular,
1
lim inf [vo (t) − log t] > −∞. (16.3.4)
t→+∞ 4
(2) If, in addition, the semigroup is of positive hyperbolic step, then for each z ∈ D,
there exists a constant C = C(z) > 0 such that, for every t ≥ 0,
474 16 Rate of Convergence at the Denjoy-Wolff Point
In particular,
1
lim inf [vo (t) − log t] > −∞. (16.3.6)
t→+∞ 2
1 1
lim inf [vo (t) − log t] ≥ lim inf [v(t) − log t − 2 log 2] > −∞.
t→+∞ 2 2 t→+∞
Thus, (16.3.6) holds. Finally, (16.3.5) follows at once by Lemma 16.1.2 and (16.1.1).
Remark 16.3.4 The bounds given by Theorem 16.3.3 are sharp (see Corollary
16.2.6).
Remark 16.3.5 Proposition 16.2.2, (16.3.4) and (16.1.2) imply at once that if (φt )
is a non-elliptic semigroup in D and there exists a constant C > 0 such that for all
t ≥0
1
|vo (t) − log t| < C,
4
then lim supt→+∞ v T (t) < +∞ and hence [0, +∞) t → φt (z) converges non-tan-
gentially to the Denjoy-Wolff point for every z ∈ D.
Lemma 16.3.6 Let p : D → H be holomorphic and σ ∈ ∂D. Assume that for some
k ∈ R, the angular limit
∠ lim (1 − σ z)k p(z) = a (16.3.7)
z→σ
π
exists finitely and is different from zero. Then k ∈ [−1, 1] and |Arg(a)| ≤ 2
(1 − |k|).
Proof Assume firstly that p is constant. Then k = 0 and the result is clear. Thus, let
us assume that p is not constant. By Theorem 2.2.1, taking z = r σ , we have
1+r
| p(r σ ) − iIm p(0)| ≤ Re p(0) , r ∈ [0, 1).
1−r
16.3 Orthogonal Speed of Convergence of Parabolic Semigroups 475
If k > 1, then
1 1
∠ lim (1 − σ z)−k =
z→σ p(z) a
exists finitely and is different from zero. Thus, the previous argument shows that
−k ≤ 1. Hence k ∈ [−1, 1].
Define the holomorphic function q : H → H by q = p ◦ Cσ−1 , where Cσ is the
Cayley transform given in (1.1.2). Recall that Cσ−1 (w) = σ w−1
w+1
for w ∈ H. Since
(1 − σ Cσ−1 (w))k p(Cσ−1 (w)) = 2k
(1+w)k
q(w), Eq. (16.3.7) can be rewritten as
a 1 1
= ∠ lim q(w) = ∠ lim k q(w). (16.3.8)
2k w→∞ (1 + w)k w→∞ w
In particular, 2ak = limRr →+∞ r1k q(r ) ∈ H and thus a ∈ H \ {0}. Therefore, |Arg(a)|
≤ π/2. Now fix β ∈ − π2 , π2 . Using again (16.3.8), we deduce that
a 1
k
= lim q(r eiβ )e−iβk .
2 Rr →+∞ r k
Hence
|Arg(a) + βk| = |Arg(aeiβk )| ≤ π/2.
If (1) or (2)—and hence both—holds, α ∈ (0, 2], the semigroup (φt ) is parabolic,
abα = i, and |Arg(a)| ≤ π2 min{α, 2 − α}.
τ G(z)
∠ lim (1 − τ z)1−α p(z) = ∠ lim = a ∈ C \ {0}.
z→τ z→τ (1 − τ z)1+α
1 (1 − τ z)−α ατ (1 − τ z)−1−α
∠ lim = ∠ lim = ∠ lim = −iaα.
z→τ h(z)(1 − τ z)α z→τ h(z) z→τ h (z)
we have,
and
τ G(z) τi i
∠ lim = ∠ lim = .
z→τ (1 − τ z)1+α z→τ h (z)(1 − τ z)1+α αb
τ G(z) τ G(z)
∠ lim = ∠ lim (1 − τ z)α = 0
z→τ 1 − τz z→τ (1 − τ z)1+α
Notice that the above proposition does not hold if α = 0. Indeed, by Theorem
τ G(z)
11.1.4, ∠ lim z→τ h(z) = ∞ while ∠ lim z→τ (1−τ z)
is always a finite real number.
Moreover,
(1) If there exists z 0 such that φt (z 0 ) converges to τ non-tangentially at t → +∞,
then limt→+∞ t (1 − τ φt (z 0 ))α = −ib.
(2) If
b = lim h(z)(1 − τ z)α ∈ C \ {0},
z→τ
1
|vo (t) − log t| < C.
2α
Proof Theorem 11.1.4 shows that ∠ lim z→τ h(z) = ∞. Thus, α = 0. By Proposi-
tion 16.3.7, the semigroup (φt ) is parabolic, α ∈ (0, 2] and |Arg(i/b)| ≤ π2 min{α,
2 − α}. Therefore,
π π
|1 − α| ≤ Arg(b) ≤ π − |1 − α|.
2 2
Fix z ∈ D. Then
t
t (1 − τ φt (z))α = h(φt (z))(1 − τ φt (z))α
h(φt (z))
we deduce immediately (1) and the first statement of (2). Finally, from the first
statement of (2) and (16.1.1) we obtain the final statement in (2).
As a corollary we have the following result (which could also be proved directly
by a straightforward computation).
Corollary 16.3.9 Let (φt ) be a parabolic group in D with Denjoy-Wolff point τ ∈
∂D. Then, for every z ∈ D,
2
lim t (1 − τ φt (z)) = .
t→+∞ τ φ1 (τ )
1
|vo (t) − log t| ≤ C,
2
and
1
|v T (t) − log t| ≤ C.
2
478 16 Rate of Convergence at the Denjoy-Wolff Point
2i
lim h(z)(1 − τ z) = ∈ C \ {0}.
z→τ a
Therefore, the limit and the first equation in the statement follow at once from Corol-
lary 16.3.8.
Finally, since by Remark 16.2.3, there exists C > 0 such that |v(t) − log t| ≤ C
for all t ≥ 0, the last equation in the statement follows from the previous ones and
(16.1.2).
Example 16.3.10 Fix 0 < α ≤ 2 and consider the holomorphic function h(z) =
α
i 1+z
1−z
, z ∈ D. Since
α−1
1+z
Im [(1 − z)2 h (z)] = 2αRe ≥ 0, z ∈ D,
1−z
Moreover, h(D) = i V ( απ 2
) (where, as usual, V (q) := {z ∈ C : |z| > 0, |Arg(z)| <
q}, q ∈ (0, π ]). Hence, it is symmetric with respect to iR and by Proposition 6.1.3,
it follows that [0, +∞) t → i + it is a geodesic in h(D). Therefore, [0, +∞)
t → φt (h −1 (i)) is a geodesic in D and converges non-tangentially to 1. In particular,
by Remark 16.1.4, [0, +∞) t → φt (z) converges to 1 non-tangentially for all
z ∈ D. Hence, Corollary 16.3.8 implies that lim t→+∞ t (1 − φt (z))α = 2α . Moreover,
there exists C > 0 such that |vo (t) − 2α1
log t| < C (cfr. Corollary 16.2.6 taking into
απ
account that h(D) = i V ( 2 )).
φt (σ ) := ∠ lim φt (z)
z→σ
for every z ∈ D. If z ∈ ∂D and the trajectory γz enters the unit disc (namely, for some
t > 0, γz (t) ∈ D), then the study of the rate of convergence to the Denjoy-Wolff point
is reduced to the same problem for trajectories starting from an interior point. In case
the trajectory stays on ∂D for all t ≥ 0 (i.e., if (φt ) has an exceptional maximal
contact arc), one cannot estimate the speeds of convergence as they are defined in
terms of hyperbolic distance, but can still estimate the Euclidean counterparts.
Recall that only hyperbolic semigroups and parabolic semigroups of positive
hyperbolic step can have exceptional maximal contact arcs (see Corollary 14.2.11).
C2
|φt (σ ) − τ | ≤ , t ∈ (0, +∞). (16.4.2)
t
By Corollary 14.2.11, h(Γt ) is a vertical half-line starting from the point h(φt (σ )) ∈
C and lies on the boundary of h(D). Therefore, the whole vertical line passing from
the point h(φt (σ )) is contained in the complement of h(D).
Assume that the semigroup is hyperbolic with spectral value λ so that Ω = Sπ/λ .
We may assume that Re h(σ ) = 0, and h(Γt ) = {y : y ≥ Im h(σ ) + t}. By the
domain monotonicity of the harmonic measure and Example 7.2.9,
1 C2
μ(h(0), h(Γt ), h(D)) ≤ μ(h(0), h(Γt ), H) = μ(1, h(Γt ), H) ≤ ,
h(0) t
16.5 Notes
The point of view of considering hyperbolic “speeds” is taken from [22]. Theo-
rem 16.3.3 is due to Betsakos [12]. Betsakos (see [12–14]) was the first author who
used harmonic measures to tackle different open problems concerning semigroups
of holomorphic self-maps of the unit disc.
The rate of convergence in the Euclidean sense, under certain hypotheses on the
infinitesimal generator of the semigroup, has been also investigated in [63].
Theorem 16.3.1 is taken from [16] where a more general results for non-symmetric
sectors is proven. Also, Theorem 16.4.1 is in [16]. Proposition 16.2.4 is a general-
ization of a result in [16]. A related result to Corollary 16.3.8 appeared in [61] (see
also [60, 67]).
Chapter 17
Slopes of Orbits at the Denjoy-Wolff
Point
In this section we define the “right” and “left” distance for points of a domain starlike
at infinity.
Definition 17.1.1 Let Ω C be a domain starlike at infinity and p ∈ C. For t ≥ 0,
let
+
δ̃Ω, p (t) := inf{|z − ( p + it)| : Re z ≥ Re p, z ∈ C \ Ω},
−
δ̃Ω, p (t) := inf{|z − ( p + it)| : Re z ≤ Re p, z ∈ C \ Ω}.
+ −
Note that, if p + it ∈ C \ Ω then δ̃Ω, p (t) = δ̃Ω, p (t) = 0. While, for p ∈ Ω and
t ≥ 0,
+ −
δΩ ( p + it) = min{δ̃Ω, p (t), δ̃Ω, p (t)}.
+
The function δ̃Ω, p (t) can be equal to +∞, in case {z ∈ C : Re z ≥ Re p} ⊂ Ω. For
instance, if Ω = C \ {z ∈ C : Re z = 0, Im z ≤ 0}, for every point p = x + i y with
+ −
x > 0, δ̃Ω, p (t) = +∞ for all t > 0. Similarly, the function δ̃Ω, p (t) can be equal to
+ −
+∞. However, if Ω = C, either δ̃Ω, p (t) or δ̃Ω, p (t) has to be finite.
Remark 17.1.2 Let p ∈ C. The distance function [0, +∞) t → δΩ ( p + it) ∈
[0, +∞) is continuous and, since Ω is starlike at infinity, non-decreasing.
±
The functions δ̃Ω, p (t) are continuous and non-decreasing as well. Indeed, it is
easy to see that, if we let Ω −
p := Ω ∪ {z ∈ C : Re z > Re p}, then
−
δ̃Ω, p (t) = δΩ p ( p + it),
−
+
and similarly for δ̃Ω, p (t).
In order to avoid to deal with the value +∞, we introduce the following:
Definition 17.1.3 Let Ω C be a domain starlike at infinity. For p ∈ C and t ≥ 0
we let
+ + − −
δΩ, p (t) := min{δ̃Ω, p (t), t}, δΩ, p (t) := min{δ̃Ω, p (t), t}.
±
Note that, by Remark 17.1.2, (0, +∞) t → δΩ, p (t) is non-decreasing.
Lemma 17.1.4 Let Ω be a domain starlike at infinity. For all p, q ∈ Ω there exist
0 < c < C such that for all t ≥ 0
± ± ±
cδΩ, p (t) ≤ δΩ,q (t) ≤ CδΩ, p (t). (17.1.1)
± ±
Proof Notice that since p, q ∈ Ω, there is t0 > 0 such that δΩ,q (t) = δΩ, p (t) = t
± ±
for t ≤ t0 . Since δΩ,q (t) and δΩ, p (t) are positive for t ≥ t0 , we can prove (17.1.1)
for t large enough.
17.1 Euclidean Geometry of Domains Starlike at Infinity 483
+ +
Assume Re p ≤ Re q. Hence, δΩ, p (t) ≤ δΩ,q (t) + | p − q|. Therefore, for t ≥ t0
+
δΩ, p (t) | p − q| | p − q|
+ ≤1+ + ≤1+ + ,
δΩ,q (t) δΩ,q (t) δΩ,q (t0 )
C := min{| p − w| : Im w = B, Re p ≤ Re w ≤ Re q} = B − Im p ≥ 0.
Thus
+ +
δ̃Ω, p (t) ≥ δΩ,q (t) − C.
+ + +
Since t ≥ δΩ,q (t), we also have that δΩ, p (t) ≥ δΩ,q (t) − C, and the converse inequal-
ity follows.
−
A similar argument holds for δΩ , and we are done.
Lemma 17.2.1 The curve σ is 2-Lipschitz. In particular, |σ (t)| ≤ 2 for almost every
t ≥ 1.
±
Proof For all s, t ≥ 1, using the triangle inequality we have δΩ,0 (t) ≤ |t − s| +
± ± ±
δΩ,0 (s) and δΩ,0 (t) ≥ −|t − s| + δΩ,0 (s). Therefore,
± ±
|δΩ,0 (t) − δΩ,0 (s)| ≤ |t − s|.
Let
+ −
ω(t) := δΩ,0 (t) + δΩ,0 (t).
Then √
|z| ≤ z1 ≤ 2|z|.
If z ∈ ∂Ω and Re z ≤ 0, then
1
|z − σ (t)| ≥ √ z − σ (t)1 .
2
Hence
1
|z − σ (t)| ≥ √ ω(t).
2 2
17.2 Quasi-Geodesics in Starlike Domains at Infinity 485
+ −
The case when δΩ,0 (t) ≤ δΩ,0 (t) is similar.
As a direct consequence of the previous lemma, Lemma 17.2.1 and Theorem 5.3.1,
we have:
√ b
1
Ω (σ ; [a, b]) ≤ 4 2 dt.
a ω(t)
ω(t) ≥ αt
+ − + −
|δΩ,0 (t) − δΩ,0 (t)| |δΩ,0 (t)| |δΩ,0 (t)|
≤ + ≤ 2.
t t t
Therefore, for all t ≥ 1,
t ≤ |σ (t)| ≤ 2t.
From this last inequality, (17.2.2) and Remark 6.3.3, it follows at once that σ is a
quasi-geodesic in Ω.
Remark 17.2.5 For future reference, we make the following observations. If there
exist α, T0 > 0 such that
ω(t) ≥ αt
1 b 1
max{kΩ (ia, σ (b)), kΩ (σ (a), ib)} ≥ log − log 2.
4 a 4
Hence, by (17.2.3), there exist constants A, B > 0 such that for every T0 ≤ a ≤ b
we have
± ±
δΩ,0 (t) ≤ t − T0 + δΩ,0 (T0 ) < t − T0 + T0 = t.
1 + −
tn := max t ≥ tn−1 : ω(s) ≥ min{|σ (s) − z n−1 |, |σ (s) − z n−1 |}
6
(17.2.7)
for all s ∈ [tn−1 , t] .
Re (an ) ≤ 0 ≤ Re (bn ),
−
|an − itn | = δΩ,0 (tn ),
+
|bn − itn | = δΩ,0 (tn ).
z n+ := Re (bn ) + i yn , z n− := Re (an ) + i yn .
488 17 Slopes of Orbits at the Denjoy-Wolff Point
We now verify that the resulting sequences have the desired properties.
Claim 1: a = t0 < t1 < t2 < · · · .
First, note that Property (4) implies that the set in (17.2.7) is non-empty. Hence
each tn exists. We next show that tn < +∞. If n = 0, then tn = a < +∞. If n > 0,
then the definition of σ implies that
+ −
min{|σ (t) − z n−1 |, |σ (t) − z n−1 |} ≥ t − tn−1
for all t ≥ tn−1 . Then, since we assume that there does not exist α, T0 > 0 such that
ω(t) ≥ αt for all t ≥ T0 , we see that tn < +∞. Finally, we show that if n > 0, then
tn−1 < tn . By Property (4)
+ −
min |σ (tn−1 ) − z n−1 |, |σ (tn−1 ) − z n−1 | ≤ 2ω(tn−1 ).
Also, clearly |σ (tn ) − itn | ≤ ω(tn ). This last inequality, together with (17.2.8),
implies
|σ (tn ) − z n± | ≤ |σ (tn ) − itn | + |itn − z n± | ≤ 2ω(tn ).
In particular,
t0 < y1 ≤ t1 < y2 ≤ t2 < · · ·
and limn→∞ yn = ∞.
17.2 Quasi-Geodesics in Starlike Domains at Infinity 489
yn − tn−1 = |i yn − itn−1 |
+ +
≥ |σ (tn ) − z n−1 | − |σ (tn ) − i yn | − |itn−1 − z n−1 |
≥ 6ω(tn ) − 2ω(tn ) − ω(tn−1 ) ≥ (6 − 3) ω(tn ) = 3ω(tn ).
By Property (3) in Step 1, yn − tn−1 ≤ min{tn − tn−1 , yn − yn−1 }. The case when
−
|σ (tn ) − z n−1 | = 6ω(tn ) is essentially the same.
Finally, the previous estimates show that {yn } is an increasing sequence and
Hence limn→∞ yn = ∞.
for every n ≥ 1.
Proof The first inequality follows from the fact that Ω is starlike at infinity.
Since tn−1 < yn ≤ tn it follows from (17.2.7) and the fact that σ is 2-Lipschitz
(see Lemma 17.2.1) that
1 + −
ω(t) ≥ min{|σ (t) − z n−1 |, |σ (t) − z n−1 |}
6
1 + − 1
≥ min{|σ (tn ) − z n−1 |, |σ (tn ) − z n−1 |} − |σ (tn ) − σ (t)|
6 6
1 1 1 1
≥ ω(tn ) − 2 (tn − t) ≥ ω(tn ) − |itn − i yn | ≥ 1 − ω(tn ) ≥ ω(tn ),
6 3 3 2
δn := Re (z n+ ) − Re (z n− ).
If N ≥ 1, then
N −1
1 y1 − y0 yk+1 − yk
kΩ (u, v) ≥ − log 2 + log + log
4 ω(a) k=1
δk
b − yN
+ log max 1, .
δN
and hence
1 b − yN
kΩ (γ (τ N ), v) ≥ log max 1, . (17.2.17)
4 δN
N −1
kΩ (u, v) = kΩ (u, γ (τ1 )) + kΩ (γ (τk ), γ (τk+1 )) + kΩ (γ (τ N ), v),
k=1
y0 ≤ a ≤ y0 + ω(a)
1 1
ω(t) ≥ min{|σ (t) − z 0+ |, |σ (t) − z 0− |} ≥ (t − y0 ).
6 6
So if T ≥ y0 + ω(a), then
T
dt T
dt T − y0
≤6 = 6 log ,
y0 +ω(a) ω(t) y0 +ω(a) t − y0 ω(a)
1 1
ω(t) ≥ min{|σ (t) − z k+ |, |σ (t) − z k− |} ≥ (t − yk ).
6 6
Therefore,
yk+1
dt yk+1
dt yk+1 − yk
dt ≤ 6 = 6 log . (17.2.19)
yk +ω(tk ) ω(t) yk +ω(tk ) t − yk ω(tk )
√ b
1
Ω (σ ; [a, b]) ≤ 4 2 dt.
a ω(t)
is comparable to the lower bounds in Lemma 17.2.8. This can be done using the
estimates in the previous three lemmas.
Indeed, recall that a, b ∈ [T0 , ∞) with a < b and N ≥ 0 is a natural number such
that y N ≤ b < y N +1 .
If N = 0, then Lemma 17.2.9 implies
√ √ b − y0
Ω (σ ; [a, b]) ≤ 4 2 + 24 2 log max 1, , (17.2.20)
ω(a)
Finally, Lemma 17.2.8 and the fact that δk ≤ ω(tk ) imply that there exist A > 1
and B > 0 such that for every T0 ≤ a ≤ b,
ω(t) ≤ C δΩ (it).
Therefore, in case there exist α, T0 > 0 such that ω(t) ≥ αt for all t ≥ T0 , Eq. (17.2.5)
implies that βi is a quasi-geodesic.
On the other hand, if there exist no α, T0 > 0 such that ω(t) ≥ αt for all t ≥ T0 ,
Lemmas 17.2.8, 17.2.9, 17.2.10 and 17.2.11 imply again that βi is a quasi-geodesic.
We end this section with a useful estimate. For t ≥ 1, let st ∈ [1, +∞) be such
that
17.2 Quasi-Geodesics in Starlike Domains at Infinity 495
Proposition 17.2.15 There exist α > 1, β > 0 such that for every t ≥ 1,
Therefore
In this section we establish results which relate the type of convergence of orbits of
a non-elliptic semigroup with the shape of the image of its Koenigs function.
(2) limn→∞ Arg(1 − τ φtn (z)) = π2 (in particular, {φtn (z)} converges tangentially to
τ as n → ∞) for some—and hence any—z ∈ D if and only if for some—and
hence any— p ∈ Ω,
+
δΩ, p (tn )
lim − = 0,
n→∞ δ
Ω, p (tn )
while, limn→∞ Arg(1 − τ φtn (z)) = − π2 (in particular, {φtn (z)} converges tan-
gentially to τ as n → ∞) for some—and hence any—z ∈ D if and only if for
some—and hence any— p ∈ Ω,
496 17 Slopes of Orbits at the Denjoy-Wolff Point
+
δΩ, p (tn )
lim − = +∞.
n→∞ δΩ, p (tn )
±
Proof From Lemma 17.1.4 it follows that the conditions on δΩ, p (t) do not depend
on p ∈ Ω.
We can suppose that (φt ) is not a group of automorphisms of D, for otherwise the
result is clear.
In this case, there exists p ∈ C such that p ∈ / Ω and p + it ∈ Ω for all t > 0. Up to
± ±
a translation, we can assume p = 0. In particular, this implies that δ̃Ω,0 (t) = δΩ,0 (t)
for every t > 0.
Step 1. The sequence {φtn (h −1 (i))} converges to τ as n → +∞ non-tangentially
(respectively, tangentially) if and only if for every z ∈ D the sequence {φtn (z)} con-
verges to τ as n → +∞ non-tangentially (resp., tangentially).
Since kD (φtn (h −1 (i)), φtn (z))) ≤ kD (h −1 (i), z) < +∞ for every n ∈ N, it follows
that φtn (z) is contained in a fixed hyperbolic neighborhood of {φtm (h −1 (i)) : m ∈ N}
for all n ∈ N. Therefore the result follows at once from the triangle inequality and
from Proposition 6.2.5 (respectively, Corollary 6.2.6) with f = id and γ : [0, 1) →
D the geodesic γ (r ) := r τ .
Step 2. Let now σ be the curve defined in (17.2.1). We claim that
Note that C̃n ⊂ Ω for all n ∈ N and C̃n (1) = σ (n). In particular, h −1 (C̃n (1)) → x
as n → ∞. On the other hand, since h(φn (h −1 (i))) = i + in, we have for n ≥ 1,
Then, by Proposition 17.2.15 and the Distance Lemma (see Theorem 5.3.1), we have
for all t ≥ 1,
1 β
kΩ (it, σ ([1, +∞))) ≥ kΩ (it, σ (t)) −
α α
+ −
1 |δΩ,0 (t) − δΩ,0 (t)| β
≥ log − .
4α 2 min{δΩ (it), δΩ (σ (t))} α
+ −
|δΩ,0 (t) − δΩ,0 (t)|
kΩ (it, σ ([1, +∞)) ≥ A log − B. (17.3.2)
2δΩ (it)
We want to estimate Ω (ηt ; [0, 1]). In order to do so, we claim that for every t ≥ 1
and for every r ∈ [0, 1] we have
+
On the other hand, if z ∈ C \ Ω and Re z > 0, then |it − z| ≥ δΩ,0 (t). Therefore,
+
|ηt (r ) − z| ≥ +
inf |ηt (r ) − w| = δΩ,0 (t) − Re ηt (r )
|w−it|=δΩ,0 (t),Re w>0
+ 1 + −
≥ δΩ,0 (t) − Re σ (t) = δ (t) + δΩ,0 (t) ≥ δΩ (it),
2 Ω,0
and we are done.
By (17.3.4) and the Distance Lemma (Theorem 5.3.1), for every t ≥ 1,
+ −
1 |δΩ,0 (t) − δΩ,0 (t)| 1
dr
Ω (η; [0, 1]) = κΩ (η(r ); η (r ))dr ≤
0 2 0 δΩ (η(r ))
+ −
|δΩ,0 (t) − δΩ,0 (t)|
≤ .
2δΩ (it)
This latter inequality together with (17.3.3) and (17.3.2) implies that for every t ≥ 1,
+ −
|δΩ,0 (t) − δΩ,0 (t)|
A log − B ≤ kΩ (it, σ ([1, +∞)))
2δΩ (it)
(17.3.5)
+ −
|δΩ,0 (t) − δΩ,0 (t)|
≤ .
2δΩ (it)
Part (1) of Theorem 17.3.1 follows now directly from Step 3 and (17.3.5).
δ + (tn )
Also, by the same token, we see that φtn (z) → τ tangentially if and only if δΩ,0
−
Ω,0 (tn )
converges either to 0 or +∞ as n → ∞.
We are left to show that
+
δΩ,0 (tn )
lim − = +∞ (17.3.6)
n→∞ δ
Ω,0 (tn )
if and only if
π
lim Arg(1 − τ φtn (z)) = − . (17.3.7)
n→∞ 2
To this aim, we extend σ to all of (0, ∞) in the obvious way:
+ −
δΩ,0 (t) − δΩ,0 (t)
σ (t) = + it.
2
Since 0 ∈/ Ω and it ∈ Ω for all t > 0, limt→0+ σ (t) = 0. Then σ ((0, ∞)) divides
Ω into the connected domains
U + = {x + i y ∈ Ω : x > Re σ (y)}
17.3 Convergence to the Denjoy-Wolff Point for Non-Elliptic Semigroups 499
and
U − = {x + i y ∈ Ω : x < Re σ (y)}.
for some θ ∈ (0, π/2). Notice that this set is an angular sector of amplitude 2θ with
vertex τ symmetric with respect to segment joining −τ with τ .
Since h preserves orientation, it follows that D + contains all the sequences con-
verging tangentially to τ with slope π/2 while D − contains all the sequences con-
verging tangentially to τ with slope −π/2.
Therefore, if (17.3.6) holds, then itn ∈ U − for n sufficiently big, hence, φtn (z) ∈
D eventually and (17.3.7) holds. Conversely, if (17.3.7) holds then φtn (z) ∈ D −
−
The previous result allows to study the slope of non-elliptic semigroups according
to their types (hyperbolic, parabolic of positive hyperbolic step, parabolic of zero
hyperbolic step). This will be the aim of the next sections. In this section we content
ourselves to state a couple of consequences.
The first one follows immediately from part (2) of Theorem 17.3.1:
Corollary 17.3.2 Let (φt ) be a non-elliptic semigroup in D with Denjoy-Wolff point
τ ∈ ∂D and Koenigs function h and let Ω := h(D). Then the following are equiva-
lent:
(1) limt→+∞ Arg(1 − τ φt (z)) = π/2 (respectively = −π/2) for some—and hence
any—z ∈ D, and, in particular, [0, +∞) t → φt (z) converges tangentially to
τ as t → +∞,
δ + p (t) δ + p (t)
(2) limt→+∞ δΩ,−
(t)
= 0 (resp. limt→+∞ δΩ,
−
(t)
= +∞).
Ω, p Ω, p
(2) for some—and hence any—z ∈ D, the curve [0, +∞) t → φt (z) is a quasi-
geodesic in D,
(3) for some—and hence any— p ∈ Ω there exist 0 < c < C such that for all t ≥ 0,
+ − +
cδΩ, p (t) ≤ δΩ, p (t) ≤ CδΩ, p (t).
Proof (1) and (3) are equivalent as a consequence of part (1) in Theorem 17.3.1.
Moreover, by Theorem 6.3.8 and Proposition 6.2.5, (2) implies (1).
In order to end the proof, we show that (3) implies (2).
We need to prove that the orbit [0, +∞) t → φt (z) is a quasi-geodesic in D
for every z ∈ D. Since h is an isometry between ω and kΩ , the latter statement is
equivalent to proving that, setting p = h(z), the curve
β p : [0, +∞) t → p + it
is a quasi-geodesic in Ω.
We can assume that (φt ) is not a group, the result being clear otherwise. Hence,
up to a translation, we can assume 0 ∈ / Ω and it ∈ Ω for all t > 0.
We need to prove that for every p ∈ Ω, there exists A p > 1 and B p > 0 such that
for all 0 ≤ s ≤ t,
where the last inequality follows from the fact that Ω z → z + it is a holomorphic
self-map of Ω. Therefore, there exists B1 > 0 such that for all s, t ≥ 0,
By Lemma 17.1.4 there exists c > 0 such that δΩ (i + it) ≤ cδΩ ( p + it) for all
t ≥ 0. Hence, by the Distance Lemma (Theorem 5.3.1), for 0 ≤ s ≤ t,
t t
dr
Ω (β p ; [s, t]) = κΩ (β p (r ); β p (r ))dr ≤
s s δΩ ( p + ir )
t t
dr
≤c ≤ 4c κΩ (βi (r ); βi (r ))dr = 4cΩ (βi ; [s, t]).
s δΩ (i + ir ) s
17.3 Convergence to the Denjoy-Wolff Point for Non-Elliptic Semigroups 501
Ω (β p ; [s, t]) ≤ 4cΩ (βi ; [s, t]) ≤ 4c AkΩ (i + is, i + it) + 4cB
≤ 4c AkΩ ( p + is, p + it) + 4c AB1 + 4cB,
for all 0 ≤ s ≤ t.
In this and the next section, we study the slope of the curve [0, +∞) t → φt (z)
as t → +∞ for non-elliptic semigroups (φt ) in D. We start with a definition:
Definition 17.4.1 Let γ : [a, b) → D be a continuous curve, −∞ < a < b ≤ +∞
and assume there exists σ ∈ ∂D such that limt→b γ (t) = σ . The slope of γ at σ , is
the cluster set of the real curve [a, b) t → Arg(1 − σ γ (t)) at t = b. Namely,
Im (σ z n ) 1 − σ zn
tan(Arg(1 − σ z n )) = − and eiArg(1−σ zn ) = ,
1 − Re (σ z n ) |1 − σ z n |
Proof By Lemma 17.4.2, this is equivalent to prove that the function γ : [0, +∞) →
Im (τ φt (z))
R given by γ (t) := 1−Re (τ φt (z))
has a limit when t goes to +∞. Take a sequence
{tn } in [0, +∞) going to +∞ such that there exists μ := limn→∞ γ (tn ). Write u n :=
Re (τ φtn (z)) and vn := Im (τ φtn (z)). Then,
vn
lim = μ, lim u n = 1, lim vn = 0.
n→∞ 1 − un n→∞ n→∞
Let an := Re (τ φtn +1 (z)) and bn := Im (τ φtn +1 (z)). Since φt (z) converges to τ non-
tangentially,
Therefore
1 − an bn
lim 1−i = (1 − iμ)φ1 (τ ).
n→∞ 1 − u n 1 − an
Hence
1 − an bn
lim = φ1 (τ ), lim = μφ1 (τ ).
n→∞ 1 − u n n→∞ 1 − u n
we conclude that
1 − 1 − an + i bn − i vn
1 − un 1 − un 1 − un
1 − an vn bn vn
= f (tn ) 1 + u n − ian + iu n − bn .
1−u n 1−u 1−u n 1−u n n
Thus
(φ (τ ) − 1)(1 − iμ) = l 1 + φ (τ ) + iμ(φ (τ ) − 1) .
1 1 1
Therefore
(φ1 (τ ) − 1)2 (1 + μ2 ) = l 2 (1 + φ1 (τ ))2 + μ2 (φ1 (τ ) − 1)2
2
1+φ (τ )
and μ =2 1
1−l 2
l 2 1−φ1 (τ ) − 1 . This shows that the cluster set of the curve γ
1
has at most two points. Since the cluster set is connected (see Lemma 1.9.9), it has
to be a singleton.
Moreover, if h is the Koenigs function of (φt ) and λ > 0 is the spectral value of
(φt ), then for all z ∈ D,
θ (z) π
Re h(z) = + .
λ 2λ
Proof Let (S πλ , h, z → z + it) be the canonical model of (φt ) and let θ (z) be the
function given by Lemma 17.4.3 such that
Step 1. Let β ∈ (−π/2, π/2). Then there exists z 0 ∈ D such that θ (z 0 ) = β. In parti-
cular, θ : D → (−π/2, π/2) is surjective.
504 17 Slopes of Orbits at the Denjoy-Wolff Point
But, since we are assuming that Re h(z n ) converges either to 0 or to π/λ, it follows
that δSπ/λ (h(z n )) = δSπ/λ (Re h(z n )) → 0 as n → +∞, contradicting the previous
inequality.
Therefore, x ∈ (0, π/λ). Let yn := Im h(z n ). By Proposition 9.4.8, yn → +∞,
and we can assume, passing to a subsequence if necessary, that {yn } is strictly increas-
ing. Since by definition of canonical model, for every compact set K ⊂ Sπ/λ there
exists t0 such that K + it0 ⊂ h(D), we can find 0 < r1 < r2 < π/λ, n 0 ∈ N, M ∈ R
such that
TM,r1 ,r2 := {z ∈ C : r1 < Re z < r2 , Im z > M} ⊂ h(D),
x + i yn 0 ∈ TM,r1 ,r2 and h(z n ) ∈ TM,r1 ,r2 for all n ≥ n 0 . Fix c > 1. Let S r1 ,r2 := {z ∈
C : r1 < Re z < r2 }. By Proposition 6.8.5, there exists n 1 ≥ n 0 such that for all
n ≥ n1,
Fix t ≥ 0 and c > 1. Note that Re h(φt+s (z)) = Re h(z) = Re h(φs (z)) for all s ≥
0, and
|Im h(φt+s (z)) − Im h(φs (z))| = |Im (h(z) + i(t + s)) − Im (h(z) + is)| = t.
Therefore, Proposition 6.8.2 implies that there exists r ∈ (0, π/λ) such that for all
s ≥ 0,
kSr (h(φt+s (z)), h(φs (z))) ≤ ckS π (h(φt+s (z)), h(φs (z))).
λ
On the other hand, arguing as in Step 1, (and possibly taking r larger, but still in
(0, π/λ)) there exists s0 ≥ 0 such that for all s ≥ s0
kh(D) (h(φt+s (z)), h(φs (z))) ≤ ckSr (h(φt+s (z)), h(φs (z))).
lim ω(φt+s (z), φs (z)) = lim kh(D) (h(φt+s (z)), h(φs (z)))
s→+∞ s→+∞
θ (z) π θ (z) π
kS π (Re h(z) + i, Re h(z)) = kS π ( + + i, + ). (17.4.3)
λ λ λ 2λ λ 2λ
By Theorem 9.3.5, αφ1 (τ ) = e−λ . Hence, the result follows at once from (17.4.1),
Lemma 17.4.3 and Proposition 6.7.3.
506 17 Slopes of Orbits at the Denjoy-Wolff Point
Hence, since γ is continuous, the previous consideration shows that θ (γ (t)) is con-
stant for every t ∈ (a, +∞).
Let γ0 : (a0 , +∞) → D be the maximal invariant curve such that θ (γ0 (t)) = 0 for
π
some—hence any—t ∈ (a0 , +∞). Note that Re h(γ0 (t)) = 2λ for all t ∈ (a0 , +∞).
Moreover, γ0 ((a, +∞)) divides D into two connected components, say D + , D −
in such a way that if {z n } ⊂ D converges to τ and limn→∞ Arg(1 − τ z n ) = β ∈
(−π/2, π/2), then {z n } is eventually contained in D + if β > 0 and eventually con-
tained in D − if β < 0.
π
Let b ∈ (0, 2λ ) and let γb : (ab , +∞) → D be the maximal invariant curve of (φt )
such that Re h(γb (t)) = b for all t ∈ (ab , +∞). In particular, this implies that θb :=
θ (γb (t)) = 0. Since h preserves orientation, it follows at once that γb ((ab , +∞)) ⊂
D − and θb < 0. That is, for all t ∈ (ab , +∞),
θ (γb (t)) π
Re h(γb (t)) = + .
λ 2λ
π π
A similar argument works for b ∈ ( 2λ , λ ). Hence, since every z ∈ D belongs to a
maximal invariant curve of (φt ), Step 4 follows.
Step 1 and Step 4 imply that θ : D → (−π/2, π/2) is surjective and its level sets
are maximal invariant curves for (φt ). Moreover, (17.4.4) implies that θ is harmonic.
In order to conclude the proof we are left to show that if {z n } ⊂ D is such that
limn→∞ Arg(1 − τ z n ) = β ∈ (−π/2, π/2) then
lim θ (z n ) = β.
n→∞
β π
lim Re h(z n ) = + .
n→∞ λ 2λ
Remark 17.4.6 By Proposition 6.7.3 and a direct computation of the hyperbolic
distance in S πλ , it follows that if (φt ) is a hyperbolic semigroup of D with spectral
value λ > 0 then for every z ∈ D
2
1 + e2s(z)
sin(2θ (z)) = 4 sinh(λ/2) 2
+ 2 sinh(λ)
1 − e2s(z)
1
Re ( h(z) − h̃(z)) = 0,
α
508 17 Slopes of Orbits at the Denjoy-Wolff Point
G̃(z) = αG(z),
∂φαt (z)
= αG(φαt (z)) = G̃(φαt (z)),
∂t
it follows by the uniqueness of solutions to ordinary differential equations that (1) is
equivalent to (2).
g(z) = −ieiλh(z) , z ∈ D,
has non-negative real part and ∠ lim z→τ g(z) = 0. By Proposition 2.1.3, there exists
1 − τz
∠ lim ∈ [0, +∞),
z→τ g(z)
Proof Given z ∈ D,
g(z) eiλh(z)−iπ/2
= log(1−τ z) = e f (z) ,
1 − τz e
17.4 The Slope of Hyperbolic Semigroups 509
and
π π
∠ lim (iλh(z) − log(1 − τ z)) = ∠ lim f (z) + i = log β + i
z→τ z→τ 2 2
π
= log(−g (τ )τ ) + i .
2
That is, (i) implies (ii). Clearly (ii) implies (iii).
Since by Theorem 17.4.4 we have that limr →1 Re h(r τ ) = π/(2λ) ∈ R, it follows
that (iii) is equivalent to (iv).
Assume that (iii) holds. Then
g(r τ )
lim = lim e f (r τ ) ∈ C \ {0}.
r →1 1−r r →1
In case of parabolic semigroups, the slope does not depend on the initial point of the
orbit:
Slope[t → φt (z 1 ), τ ] = Slope[t → φt (z 2 ), τ ].
Proof If (φt ) is parabolic of positive hyperbolic step, its canonical model is either
(H, h, z → z + it) or (H− , h, z → z + it). In the first case, for all p ∈ h(D) there
− +
exists C p > 0 such that δh(D), p (t) ≤ C p for all t < 0, while δh(D), p (t) → +∞ as
t → +∞. Therefore, according to Corollary 17.3.2,
π
lim Arg(1 − τ φt (z)) = −
t→+∞ 2
In the case of a parabolic semigroups of zero hyperbolic step, the slope (which
according to the previous theorem does not depend on z ∈ D) can be either a sin-
gle point or a closed interval in [−π/2, π/2], and the convergence of the orbits to
the Denjoy-Wolff point can be both non-tangential and tangential, as the following
examples show.
Example 17.5.2 Let Ω1 := {ζ ∈ C : Im (ζ ) > (Re (ζ ))2 } (see Fig. 17.2). Note that
Ω1 is starlike at infinity. Let h : D → C be a Riemann map of Ω1 , and φt (z) :=
h −1 (h(z) + it), z ∈ D. Since
17.5 The Slope of Parabolic Semigroups 511
(Ω1 + it) = C,
t≤0
it follows that (C, h, z → z + it) is the canonical model of (φt ). Namely, (φt ) is a
parabolic semigroup of zero hyperbolic step.
Note that Ω1 is symmetric with respect to the imaginary axis, hence, by Proposi-
tion 6.1.3 γ : [0, +∞) t → (1 + t)i is a geodesic in Ω1 . It follows then from The-
orem 6.4.5 (with U = Ω = h(D)) that h −1 (γ (t)) = φt (h −1 (i)) converges orthogo-
nally to τ . Hence, by Theorem 17.5.1, Slope[t → φt (z), τ ] = {0} for all z ∈ D.
It follows from Theorem 17.3.1 that Slope[t → φt (z), τ ] = {−π/2} for all z ∈ D.
In particular, the orbits of the semigroup φt (z) converge tangentially to the Denjoy-
Wolff point τ ∈ ∂D.
Ω3 := Ω2 ∪n≥1 Sn ,
where for every n ≥ 1, Sn is the vertical strip Sn := {ζ ∈ C : an < Re (ζ ) < bn < 0},
and the sequences (an ) and (bn ) are constructed inductively asfollows.
−
First consider t1 > 4. Then δΩ (t ) = |it1 − ζ1 | = t1 − 14 with ζ1 =
2 ,0 1
− t1 − 21 + i(t1 − 21 ).
Let b1 = −1 − t1 − 21 and η1 := b1 + ib12 . Select the unique s1 > t1 such that
|is1 − η1 | = 21 s1 . We can now choose a1 < b1 such that for every ζ ∈ {z ∈ C :
Re (z) ≤ a1 , Im (z) = (Re (z))2 }, we have |is1 − ζ | > 21 s1 . In particular we will
have
− 1 1 +
δΩ 3 ,0
(s1 ) = |is1 − η1 | = s1 = δΩ (s1 ).
2 2 3 ,0
−
Now, we may choose t2 > s1 and ζ2 ∈ ∂Ω2 , with Re (ζ2 ) < a1 , such that δΩ (t )
2 ,0 2
− 1 1 +
δΩ 3 ,0
(s2 ) = |is2 − η2 | = s 2 = δΩ (s2 ).
2 2 3 ,0
The construction of sequences (an ) and (bn ) is completed by induction.
By construction, limn→∞ an = limn→∞ bn = −∞ and limn→∞ tn = limn→∞ sn
= +∞.
Let h : D → C be a Riemann map of Ω3 , and φt (z) := h −1 (h(z) + it), z ∈ D.
Then, (φt ) is a parabolic semigroup of zero hyperbolic step.
514 17 Slopes of Orbits at the Denjoy-Wolff Point
+ −
Note that, for every t ≥ 0, δΩ,0 (t) ≥ δΩ,0 (t), which, according to Theorem 17.3.1,
means that there are no subsequences of any orbit of (φt ) converging to τ with slope
π/2. On the other hand, for every n ≥ 1, we have:
+
δΩ (t )
3 ,0 n
tn
− = → +∞ as n → ∞,
δΩ (t )
3 ,0 n tn − 1
4
which, again by Theorem 17.3.1, implies that φtn (z) → τ with slope −π/2. Finally,
since
−
δΩ 3 ,0
(sn ) sn /2 1
+ = = ,
δΩ 3 ,0
(s n ) s n 2
τi
lim h(z)(1 − τ z) = .
z→τ μ
1
lim t (1 − τ φt (z)) = ,
t→+∞ τμ
17.5 The Slope of Parabolic Semigroups 515
from which it follows immediately that limt→+∞ Arg(1 − τ φt (z)) = Arg(1/(τ μ)),
and we are done.
We end this section with some sufficient conditions in terms of the image of the
Koenigs function forcing the orbits to converge orthogonally to the Denjoy-Wolff
point. For β ∈ (0, π ), we let
K
E p+ip (∞, R) ⊂ h(D).
The aim of this section is to show that for every −π/2 ≤ a < b ≤ π/2 there exists
a parabolic semigroup of zero hyperbolic step whose slope is [a, b].
The construction of such examples depends on a characterization of the slope in
terms of the values of a certain harmonic measure evaluated along the trajectory and
the existence of suitable starlike domains with prescribed asymptotic behavior of
such harmonic measure.
516 17 Slopes of Orbits at the Denjoy-Wolff Point
1 1
Slope[t → φt (z), τ ] = [π(a1 − ), π(a2 − )]. (17.6.1)
2 2
Proof This result is a straightforward consequence of the equivalence between (1)
and (3) in Proposition 7.2.7 (with σ = τ ) and the very definition of Slope[t →
φt (z), τ ]. Indeed, if {tn } converges to +∞ and limn→∞ Arg(1 − σ φtn (z)) = θ , by
Proposition 7.2.7, limn→∞ μ(φtn (z), J, D) = 21 + πθ . Thus
1 θ
a1 ≤ + ≤ a2 .
2 π
The above result can be re-written in terms of the Koenigs function. Given a
domain Ω and w ∈ C, we let
+ +
In particular, h −1 (∂h(z) h(D)) is a Borel set, since ∂h(z) h(D) is open in ∂∞ h(D).
By Remark 13.3.6, h −1 (L) is (the image of) a maximal invariant curve for (φt ). Let
η ∈ ∂D be its starting point.
If η = τ , by Proposition 13.3.5, there exists a maximal invariant curve γ :
(−∞, +∞) → D such that γ ((−∞, +∞)) = h −1 (L). Since limt→−∞ γ (t) = η =
τ , it follows from Proposition 13.4.6 that (φt ) has a parabolic petal Δ such that
h −1 (L) ⊂ Δ. By Theorem 13.5.7, H := h(Δ) is a maximal half-plane. Since L ⊂ H ,
it follows that either H := {w ∈ C : Re w > a} ⊂ h(D) for some a ≤ Re h(z)
or H := {w ∈ C : Re w < a} ⊂ h(D) for some a ≥ Re h(z). In the first case,
+ +
∂h(z) h(D) = ∅, while, in the second case, ∂h(z) h(D) = ∂h(D). Hence, both cases
lead to a contradiction, and therefore ξ = τ .
Therefore, h −1 (L) is (the image of) a maximal invariant curve starting from η = τ
and ending at τ . The closure h −1 (L) is a cross cut in D and by Lemma 4.1.3 divides
D into two connected components, say U + , U − , such that ∂U + = h −1 (L) ∪ J + and
∂U − = h −1 (L) ∪ J − , where J + ⊂ ∂D is the open arc which goes clockwise from
η to τ and J − ⊂ ∂D is the open arc which goes counterclockwise from η to τ . Since
h preserves orientation,
+
h −1 (∂h(z) h(D)) ⊆ J − . (17.6.4)
by contradiction that Re h(σ ) = Re h(z). Note that since h(D) is starlike at infinity,
s < Im h(σ ). Let t0 ∈ (s, Im h(z)) be such that
Let Γ be union of h −1 (Re h(z) + i(s, t0 ]) and the closed segment joining h −1
(Re h(z) + t0 i) with σ .
By construction, Γ is a cross cut for D with end points η, σ and Γ ⊂ U − . Hence,
Γ divides D into two connected components, one of them, say A, has the property
that A ⊂ U − and ∂ A ∩ ∂D is the closed arc I ⊂ J − which goes counterclockwise
from η to σ . Let
1 1
Slope[t → φt (z), τ ] = [π(a1 − ), π(a2 − )]. (17.6.5)
2 2
A simple computation from the definition of harmonic measure and the biholomor-
phism f : D → S(wl , wr ) given by f (z) = wl +w
π
r
(log 1+z
1−z
+ i π2 ) − wl i, allows to
see that
Re (w) + wl
μ(w, iR + wr , S(wl , wr )) = , w ∈ S(wl , wr ). (17.6.6)
wr + wl
We denote by R the family of all such rectangles and call v, wl and wr , respectively,
the height, the left width and the right width of R(u, v, wl , wr ). Moreover, we define
v
c(R(u, v, wl , wr )) := i(u + ) (17.6.7)
2
and call it the pseudocenter of the rectangle R(u, v, wl , wr ) with respect to wl and
wr . Finally, we let
Lemma 17.6.4 Let wl , wr > 0. Then for any ε > 0 there exists v0 = v0 (wl , wr , ε) >
0 with the following property. Fix v > v0 , and u ∈ R. Then for every domain Ω ⊂ C
starlike at infinity such that
(1) R(u, v, wl , wr ) ⊂ Ω, and
(2) ∂V R(u, v, wl , wr ) ⊂ ∂Ω,
it holds
wl
μ(i(u + v ), ∂ + Ω, Ω) − < ε, (17.6.8)
2 wr + wl
where ∂ + Ω := ∂Ω ∩ H.
Similarly, lim z→x μ(z, L , R) = 0 for all x ∈ ∂ R \ L. With a similar argument we see
that μ(z, A0 ∪ Av , R) → 1 as Im z → 0 or Im z → v, Re z → x ∈ (−wl , wr ) and
μ(z, A0 ∪ Av , R) → 0 as z → x ∈ ∂ R \ (A0 ∪ Av ). Also, μ(z, wr + iR, S(wl , wr ))
→ 1 as Re z → wr and μ(z, wr + iR, S(wl , wr )) → 0 as Re z → −wl . Therefore,
the harmonic function
17.6 Parabolic Semigroups of Zero Hyperbolic Step with Prescribed Slopes 521
has the property that lim z→x θ (z) = −μ(x, iR + wr , S(wl , wr )) < 0 for all x ∈
(A0 ∪ Av ) \ {−wl , wr , wr + iv, −wl + iv}, lim z→x θ (z) = 0 for all x = −wl + is
or x = wr + is, s ∈ (0, v). In other words, lim z→x θ (z) ≤ 0 for all x ∈ ∂ R \ {−wl ,
wr , wr + iv, −wl + iv}. By Lindelöf’s Maximum Principle (see Lemma 7.1.1),
θ (z) ≤ 0 for all z ∈ R. Hence,
v v
0 ≤ μ(y + i , A0 ∪ Av ∪ Bv , R(0, v, wl , wr )) − μ(y + i , iR + wr , S(wl , wr ))
2 2
v
≤ μ(y + i , A0 ∪ Av , R(0, v, wl , wr )) ≤ α(v).
2
In other words,
v v
− μ(y + i , iR + wr , S(wl , wr )) ≤ −μ(y + i , A0 ∪ Av ∪ Bv , R(0, v, wl , wr )) + α(v).
2 2
(17.6.9)
To prove the claim, let t0 := inf{s ∈ R : is ∈ Ω}. By hypothesis (1), and taking into
account that u = 0, t0 ∈ [−∞, 0]. Let
0 ≤ μ(z, ∂ + Ω, Ω) ≤ μ(z, ∂ + Ω, H ).
Now, let x ∈ K and let {z n } ⊂ H be such that lim n→∞ z n = x and limn→∞ g −1 (z n ) =
σ . Since eventually {z n } ⊂ H− − η, it follows that σ ∈ J − . Up to extracting sub-
sequences, we can assume that Re z n < −η for all n and either Re z n > −wl
or Re z n = −wl or Re z n < −wl for all n ∈ N. We consider the first case, the
others being similar. Let γ : [1, +∞) → H be such that γ (n) = z n and γ (t) =
γ (n)(1 − t + n) + γ (n + 1)(t − n) for t ∈ [n, n + 1), n ∈ N. Note that −wl <
Re γ (t) < −η for all t. Hence, γ is a continuous curve and γ ([1, +∞)) ⊂ H .
Moreover, limt→+∞ γ (t) = x. Hence, by Proposition 3.3.3 and Lehto-Virtanen’s
Theorem 3.3.1, limt→+∞ g −1 (γ (t)) exists—and it has to be equal to σ since
g −1 (γ (n)) → σ —and g(σ ) := ∠ lim z→σ g(z) = x. Therefore, σ ∈ g −1 (K ) and, by
(17.6.16) and (17.6.17),
lim μ(z n , ∂ + Ω, H ) = 0.
n→∞
and lim z→x ω(z) = 0 for all x ∈ ∂ S(wl , wr ). By the Lindelöf Maximum Principle,
ω ≡ 0. Hence, for all z ∈ R(0, v, wl , wr ),
Lemma 17.6.5 For every 0 ≤ a1 ≤ a2 ≤ 1 there exist two sequences {αn }, {βn } of
positive real numbers converging to +∞ such that
αn αn
lim = a1 , lim = a2 .
n→∞ αn + βn+1 n→∞ αn + βn
Proof We consider four cases: (A) 0 < a1 < a2 < 1, (B) 0 = a1 < a2 < 1, (C) 0 <
a1 < a2 = 1, (D) 0 = a1 < a2 = 1.
Case (A): Set c := 1−a
a2
2
∈ (0, +∞). Since 0 < a1 < a2 < 1, we have
1 − a1 a2
γ := ∈ (1, +∞).
a1 1 − a2
Then, we define
αn := cγ n , βn := γ n , n ∈ N.
Since γ > 1, the sequences {αn }, {βn } are increasing and converge to +∞. Moreover,
for all n αn c αn c
= = a1 , = = a2 .
αn + βn+1 c+γ αn + βn c+1
αn := cn!, βn := n!, n ∈ N.
Hence, {αn }, {βn } are two increasing sequences of positive real numbers converging
to +∞. Moreover,
αn c n→∞ αn c
= −→ 0 and = = a2 , for all n.
αn + βn+1 c+n+1 αn + βn c+1
αn := cn γ1 · · · γn , βn := γ1 · · · γn , n ∈ N.
17.6 Parabolic Semigroups of Zero Hyperbolic Step with Prescribed Slopes 525
Hence, {αn }, {βn } are two increasing sequences of positive real numbers converging
to +∞. Moreover,
αn cn n+1+ p 1
= = = = a1 , for all n,
αn + βn+1 cn + γn+1 n + 1 + p + c(n + 1 + p) 1+c
and
αn cn n + 1 + p n→∞
= = −→ 1.
αn + βn cn + 1 n+1+ p+1
αn := n(n!)2 , βn := (n!)2 , n ∈ N.
Clearly, {αn }, {βn } are two increasing sequences of positive real numbers converging
to +∞. Moreover
αn n n→∞ αn n n→∞
= −→ 0 and = −→ 1,
αn + βn+1 n + (n + 1)2 αn + βn n+1
L l [ξ ] := {ξ + it : t ≤ 0}.
Moreover, given two complex sequences {ξn+ }, {ξn− } such that {Re ξn+ } is a strictly
increasing sequence of positive real numbers converging to +∞ and {Re ξn− } is a
strictly decreasing sequence of negative real numbers converging to −∞, we define
∞
Ω[{ξn+ }, {ξn− }] := C \ L l [ξn+ ] ∪ L l [ξn− ] .
n=1
Observe that Ω[{ξn+ }, {ξn− }] is a domain starlike at infinite containing the imaginary
axis and
∞
∂ + Ω[{ξn+ }, {ξn− }] = L l [ξn+ ].
n=1
Theorem 17.6.6 Given 0 ≤ a1 < a2 ≤ 1, there exists two complex sequences {ξn+ },
{ξn− } such that {Re ξn+ } is a strictly increasing sequence of positive numbers converg-
ing to +∞ and {Re ξn− } is a strictly decreasing sequence of negative real numbers
converging to −∞ and
Proof Fix 0 ≤ a1 ≤ a2 ≤ 1 and let {αn } and {βn } be the sequences given by
Lemma 17.6.5.
By Lemma 17.6.4, for every k ∈ N, there exists vk > 0 such that:
(C1 ) for every domain Ω ⊂ C starlike at infinite with ∂ + Ω = ∅ and every rectangle
R ∈ R (see page 520) with height v ≥ vk , left width αk and right width βk
such that R ⊂ Ω and ∂V R ⊂ ∂Ω,
μ(c(R), ∂ + Ω, Ω) − αk ≤ 1 ,
αk + βk 2k
Moreover, again by Lemma 17.6.4, we may assume that {vk } is strictly increasing
and converges to +∞.
Let ρ0 = 0 and, for n ∈ N, let ρn := nj=1 v j and
Note that
∞
+
∂ Ω0 = L l [βn + iρ2n−1 ].
n=1
On the other hand, from (C1 ), and taking into account that v2k−1 ≥ vk , for k ∈ N,
we have
μ(c(R2k−1 ), ∂ + Ω0 , Ω0 ) − αk ≤ 1 .
αk + βk 2k
In particular,
x = lim μ(itn , ∂ + Ω0 , Ω0 ).
n→∞
(1) (1)
Note that the pseudocenter of R2k−1 is it. By construction, R2k−1 ⊂ Ω0(1) and
(1)
∂V R2k−1 ⊂ ∂Ω0(1) . Therefore, by (C1 ),
ω(it, ∂ + Ω (1) , Ω (1) ) − αk ≤ 1 .
0 0
αk + βk 2k
Therefore,
α jn 1
x = lim μ(itn , ∂ + Ω0 , Ω0 ) ≤ lim + = a2 .
n→∞ n→∞ α jn + β jn 2 jn
(2) (2)
Note that it is the pseudocenter of R2k−1 . By construction, R2k−1 ⊂ Ω0(2) and
(2)
∂V R2k−1 ⊂ ∂Ω0(2) . Therefore, by (C2 ),
αk
μ(it, ∂ + Ω (2) , Ω (2) ) − ≤ 1 .
0 0
αk + βk+1 2k
Note ∂Ω0 \ ∂ + Ω0 = ∂Ω0(2) \ ∂ + Ω0(2) . Hence, using again the domain monotonicity
of harmonic measures,
Therefore,
+ α jn 1
x = lim μ(itn , ∂ Ω0 , Ω0 ) ≥ lim − = a1 .
n→∞ n→∞ α jn + β jn +1 2 jn
Corollary 17.6.7 Given −π/2 ≤ c1 < c2 ≤ π/2, there exists a parabolic semi-
group (φt ) in D of zero hyperbolic step such that
lim inf [kH (1, w) − kH (1, Φt (w))] = lim inf [ω(0, Cτ−1 (w)) − ω(0, φt (Cτ−1 (w)))]
w→+∞ w→+∞
R + 1 ≤ lim Re Φt (R + 1) = L ≤ R.
t→+∞
The previous discussions imply that the notion of finite shift really makes sense
only for parabolic semigroups of positive hyperbolic step. For such semigroups,
the orbits converge tangentially to the Denjoy-Wolff point (Theorem 17.5.1). This
is the reason why, sometimes, semigroups of finite shift are also called “strongly
tangential”. We see in a moment that one can characterize finite shift in terms of
regularity of the Koenigs function. Before this, we prove that the finiteness of the
shift does not depend on the chosen point.
1
lim [ω(φt (z 0 ), w) − ω(0, w)] ≥ log R.
w→τ 2
1
ω(φt (z), w) − ω(φt (z 0 ), w) ≥ −ω(φt (z), φt (z 0 )) ≥ −ω(z, z 0 ) = log β,
2
we have for all t ≥ 0,
17.7 The Shift of Non-Elliptic Semigroups 531
1
[ω(φt (z), w) − ω(0, w)] ≥ [ω(φt (z 0 ), w) − ω(0, w)] + log β.
2
Taking the limit for w → τ , the previous inequality implies that φt (z) ∈
/ E(τ, β R)
for all t ≥ 0.
Proof We assume that the canonical model of (φt ) is (H, h, z → z + it), the other
case being similar.
(1) implies (2). Let h̃ := h ◦ C −1 : H → H. Note that C(0) = 1. Since C is an
isometry between ω and kH , we have for all z ∈ D
1
log α := lim inf [kH (1, w) − kH (1, h̃(w))] < +∞.
2 Hw→∞
Let R > 0. By Theorem 1.7.8 and (1.4.15), this latter condition implies
1
h(E(τ, R)) = h̃(C(E(τ, R))) = h̃(E H (∞, ))
R
1 1
⊆ E H (∞, ) = {w ∈ H : Re w > }.
αR αR
Since t≥0 (h(D) + it) = H, it follows that there exists p ∈ h(D) such that Re p <
1
αR
. Hence, by the previous equation, φt (h −1 ( p)) = h −1 ( p + it) ∈
/ E(τ, R) for all
t ≥ 0, and (2) holds.
(2) implies (1). Let h̃ : H → H be the holomorphic map introduced before. By
(17.7.2), it is enough to show that lim inf Hw→∞ [kH (1, w) − kH (1, h̃(w))] < +∞
and, by Theorem 1.7.8, the latter condition is equivalent to inf w∈H ReReh̃(w)
w
> 0.
Let ψt := C ◦ φt ◦ C −1 . Then (ψt ) is a continuous semigroup of holomorphic
self-maps of H and (H, h̃, z → z + it) is a model for (ψt ). Moreover, taking into
account (1.4.15), by Theorems 8.3.1 and 1.8.4 we have
532 17 Slopes of Orbits at the Denjoy-Wolff Point
Re ψt (w) ≥ Re w, (17.7.3)
for all t ≥ 0 and w ∈ H. In particular, since Re ψt+s (w) = Re ψt (ψs (w)) for all
0 ≤ s, t and w ∈ H, the previous equation implies that [0, +∞) t → Re ψt (w)
is non-decreasing for all w ∈ H. Thus, x∞ (w) := limt→+∞ Re ψt (w) exists and
belongs to (0, +∞]. However, since (φt ) is of finite shift (see Remark 17.7.2), for
every w ∈ H
lim Re ψt (w) = x∞ (w) ∈ (0, +∞).
t→+∞
lim kH (ψt (w0 ), ψt (w1 )) = lim ω(φt (C −1 (w0 )), φt (C −1 (w1 )))
t→+∞ t→+∞
(17.7.4)
−1 −1
= kh(D) (h(C (w0 )), h(C (w1 )) = kh̃(H) (h̃(w0 ), h̃(w1 )).
kH (ψt (1), ψt (w)) = kH (xt (1), xt (w) + i(yt (w) − yt (1))). (17.7.5)
Hence, (17.7.4) implies that yt (w) − yt (1) is bounded. We claim that, in fact, there
exists c(w) ∈ R such that
Indeed, let c ∈ R be a point in the cluster set of yt (w) − yt (1) at +∞. By (17.7.4)
and (17.7.5), we have then
= lim [ψt+s (w) − i ys+t (1) + i(yt (ψs (1)) − yt (1))] (17.7.7)
t→+∞
= g(w) + iβs .
Note that, in particular, iβs = g(ψs (1)) − g(1). Hence, [0, +∞) s → βs is con-
tinuous. Moreover, for s, t ≥ 0
g(1) + iβs+t = g(ψs+t (1)) = g(ψs (ψt (1))) = g(ψt (1)) + iβs
= g(1) + i(βt + βs ).
Since we are assuming that the canonical model of (φt ) is (H, h, z → z + it), by
Remark 9.3.6 we have a > 0.
Moreover, by Proposition 9.3.10, there exists q ∈ R such that for every w ∈ H
Re g̃(w)
inf > 0.
w∈H Re w
Re g(w) Re ψt (w)
= lim ≥ 1.
Re w t→+∞ Re w
g(w) Re g(w)
∠ lim = inf ≥ 1.
w→∞ w w∈H Re w
Since
g̃(w) 1 g(w)
∠ lim = ∠ lim ,
w→∞ w a w→∞ w
Re g̃(w)
again Theorem 1.7.8 implies that Re w
≥ a for all w ∈ H, and we are done.
Wβ+ := i V (β) ∩ H,
Wβ− := i V (β) ∩ H− .
Proof (1) We assume that the canonical model of (φt ) is (H, h, z → z + it) (the
case when the canonical model is (H− , h, z → z + it) is similar).
17.7 The Shift of Non-Elliptic Semigroups 535
+∞ > lim inf [ω(0, w) − ω(0, C −1 (h(w)))] = lim inf [ω(0, w) − kH (C(0), h(w))]
w→τ w→τ
= lim inf [kh(D) (h(0), h(w)) − kH (C(0), h(w))],
w→τ
and, by Proposition 1.7.4 and Eq. (1.4.7), it is, in fact, equivalent to the existence of
L ∈ R such that
Now, arguing by contradiction, we assume that (φt ) is of finite shift, that is, (17.7.8)
holds. Since h(D) H, there exists p ∈ H \ h(D) such that p + it ∈ h(D) for all
t > 0. Let a := Re p > 0 and let Ω := h(D) − p. Then Ωis starlike at infinity, 0 ∈ /
Ω and it ∈ Ω for all t > 0. Moreover, Ω ⊂ (H − a) and t≥0 (Ω − it) = H − a.
Since h(D) does not contain a vertical semi-sector, then Ω does not contain a
−
vertical semi-sector. Since δΩ,0 (t) ≤ a for all t > 0, the latter condition implies
+
δΩ,0 (t)
lim inf = 0. (17.7.9)
t→+∞ t
+ −
The curve σ : [1, +∞) → Ω defined by σ (t) = (δΩ,0 (t) − δΩ,0 (t))/2 + it is a
quasi-geodesic in Ω by Theorem 17.2.12. Hence, [1, +∞) t → σ (t) + p is a
quasi-geodesic in h(D) and, by (17.3.1), limt→+∞ h −1 (σ (t) + p) = τ . Moreover, by
Theorem 6.3.8, h −1 (σ (t) + p) converges to τ non-tangentially as t → +∞. There-
fore, by (17.7.8),
L = lim [kh(D) (h(0), h(h −1 (σ (t) + p))) − kH (C(0), h(h −1 (σ (t) + p)))]
t→+∞
lim sup[kΩ (i, σ (t)) − kH (1, σ (t) + p)] < +∞. (17.7.10)
t→+∞
Now, write σ (t) + p = ρt eiθt , with ρt > 0 and θt ∈ (−π/2, π/2). By Lemma
5.4.1(1) and (6),
1 2ρt
kH (1, σ (t) + p) ≤ kH (ρt , ρt eiθt ) + kH (1, ρt ) ≤ log . (17.7.11)
2 cos θt
536 17 Slopes of Orbits at the Denjoy-Wolff Point
+ −
Note that Re σ (t) + a → +∞ as t → +∞, since δΩ,0 (t) → +∞ and δΩ,0 (t) ≤ a.
Therefore, there exists t0 ≥ 1 such that, for t ≥ t0 ,
1 ρt
= ≤ ρt .
cos θt Re σ (t) + a
±
Moreover, taking into account that δΩ,0 (t) ≤ t, a straightforward computation shows
that for t ≥ a, √
ρt ≤ 2 2 t.
1
e1/n < 1 + . (17.7.14)
8A
We claim that there exists a sequence {tn }n≥n 0 converging to +∞ such that tn 0 ≥ 1,
tn+1 ≥ e1/n tn for all n ≥ n 0 , and such that for every t ∈ [tn , e1/n tn ],
+ t
δΩ,0 (t) + a ≤ .
8A
Indeed, fix n ≥ n 0 and T ≥ 1. Let also
17.7 The Shift of Non-Elliptic Semigroups 537
1
Cn := .
1 − 8A(e1/n − 1)
+ + tn
δΩ,0 (stn ) + a ≤ δΩ,0 (tn ) + (s − 1)tn + a ≤ + (s − 1)tn
8ACn
tn tn stn
≤ + (e1/n − 1)tn = ≤ ,
8ACn 8A 8A
B
kΩ (i, σ (n)) ≥ 2 log n − + D,
A
and hence, by (17.7.12),
Moreover, γ ((a + 1, +∞)) ∩ η((0, +∞)) = ∅ and the simply connected region in
∞ ∞
C∞ bounded by γ ([a + 1, +∞)) ∪ η([0, +∞)) which contains a + 2 + i is con-
tained in H + a, hence, in h(D). Therefore, by Proposition 3.3.5,
Remark 17.7.7 By Theorem 13.5.7, h(D) contains a vertical half-plane if and only
if (φt ) has a parabolic petal. Therefore (2) in Theorem 17.7.6 can be rephrased as
follows. If (φt ) is a parabolic semigroup in D of positive hyperbolic step which has
a parabolic petal, then (φt ) is of finite shift.
17.8 Notes
The results in Sect. 17.2, Theorem 17.3.1 and its consequences, are taken from [35].
The asymptotic behavior of orbits of hyperbolic semigroups and parabolic semi-
groups of positive hyperbolic step was first studied in [46, 54, 62, 66].
Corollary 17.4.7, with a different proof, is in [64, Theorem 7.4].
The first examples of parabolic semigroups such that the slope of a trajectory is not
a singleton appear in the papers [14, 50]. Indeed, in those examples the slope is the
interval [−π/2, π/2]. An example of a parabolic semigroup with slope [c1 , c2 ], for
some −π/2 < c1 < c2 < π/2, was constructed in [34], using methods of localization
17.8 Notes 539
E(φt ) := M(φt ) ∪ {τ }.
∠ lim z→ p h(z) ∈
/ W for all p ∈ ∂D \ B, and ∠ lim z→ p h(z) ∈ R for all p ∈ B. We
reach then a contradiction.
Thus, U ⊂ h(D). But then, by Proposition 3.3.5, σ = x0 (M).
Summing up, we proved that if = 0 then σ is contained in the closure of an
exceptional maximal contact arc of (φt ), hence = 0, and we are done.
Lemma 18.1.2 Let (φt ) and (φ̃t ) be two non-elliptic semigroups in D. Let (Ω1 , h 1 ,
z → z + it) be the holomorphic model of (φt ) and let (Ω2 , h 2 , z → z + it) be the
holomorphic model of (φ̃t ). Write Ω j = I j × R, j = 1, 2, where I j is R, (−∞, 0),
(0, +∞), or (0, ρ), with ρ > 0. Then (φt ) and (φ̃t ) are topologically conjugated
if and only if there exist a homeomorphism u : I1 → I2 and a continuous function
v : I1 → R such that
Proof Let Q 1 := h 1 (D) and Q 2 := h 2 (D). By Proposition 9.8.7, (φt ) and (φ̃t ) are
topologically conjugated if and only if there exists a homeomorphism g : Ω1 → Ω2
such that g(z + it) = g(z) + it for all t ∈ R, z ∈ Ω1 and g(Q 1 ) = Q 2 .
Assume that (φt ) and (φ̃t ) are topologically conjugated. Write z = x + i y with x ∈
I1 and y ∈ R. Then g(x + i y) = g(x) + i y. Define u(x) := Re (g(x)) and v(x) =
Im (g(x)), for all x ∈ I1 . Then u : I1 → I2 and v : I1 → R are continuous. Since also
g −1 : Ω2 → Ω1 satisfies g −1 (z + it) = g −1 (z) + it for all t ∈ R, it follows that u
is one-to-one. Indeed, if u(x1 ) = u(x2 ), then
x = g(g −1 (x)) = g(Re g −1 (x) + iIm g −1 (x)) = g(Re g −1 (x)) + iIm g −1 (x)
= u(Re g −1 (x)) + i(Im g −1 (x) + v(Re g −1 (x))),
satisfying g(h 1 (D)) = h 2 (D), it is clear that g and the map z → z + it commute and
g : Ω1 → Ω2 is a homeomorphism.
Theorem 18.1.3 Let (φt ) and (φ̃t ) be two non-elliptic semigroups of holomorphic
self-maps of D. Suppose (φt ) and (φ̃t ) are topologically conjugated via the homeo-
morphism f : D → D. Then f extends to a homeomorphism
f : D \ E(φt ) → D \ E(φ̃t ).
Proof Let (Ω1 = I1 × R, h 1 , z → z + it) be the holomorphic model of (φt ) and let
(Ω2 = I2 × R, h 2 , z → z + it) be the holomorphic model of (φ̃t ), where I1 , I2 are
intervals of the form (−∞, 0), (0, +∞), (0, ρ), with ρ > 0, or R. As usual, let ĥ 1
denote the homeomorphism from ∂D to the Carathéodory prime-ends boundary of
h 1 (D) defined by h 1 .
Let σ ∈ ∂D \ E(φt ). Let (Cn ) be a null chain in h 1 (D) representing the prime
end corresponding to σ under h 1 and denote by Vn the interior part of Cn . By
Lemma 4.1.13, (h −1 (Cn )) is a null chain for D such that I ([(h −1 (Cn ))]) = {σ }. Since
σ is not the Denjoy-Wolff point of (φt ), by Proposition 11.1.8, lim supz→σ Im h 1 (z) <
K for some constant K < +∞. By Theorem 11.1.4, it follows that
By Proposition 18.1.1, we can assume that Vn ⊂ I1 × R for some compact subin-
terval I1 ⊂ I1 and for all n ∈ N. By Proposition 9.7.3, f = h −1 2 ◦ g ◦ h 1 , where, by
Lemma 18.1.2, g is given by (18.1.1). In particular, setting g(∞) := ∞, it follows
∞
that g is uniformly continuous on I1 × R . From this it follows easily that g(Cn ) is a
null chain in h 2 (D). Moreover, if Wn is the interior part g(Cn ), then Wn = g(Vn ) and
Wn is contained in u(I1 ) × R for all n ∈ N, with u(I1 ) being a compact subinterval
of I2 . Let σ̃ ∈ ∂D be such that (g(Cn )) represents the prime end corresponding to
h 2 (σ̃ ) under h 2 . Then g(I ([(Cn )])) = I ([(g(Cn ))]), and by (18.1.2),
which, in turns, implies that lim supz→σ̃ Im h 2 (z) < +∞. Since the non-tangential
limit of Im h 2 at the Denjoy-Wolff point of (φ̃t ) is +∞, this implies that σ̃ is not the
Denjoy-Wolff point of (φ̃t ). Hence, by Proposition 18.1.1, σ̃ does not belong to the
closure of an exceptional maximal compact arc for (φ̃t ).
Now we show that, in fact, lim z→σ f (z) = σ̃ . Let {z n } be a sequence converging
to σ . Then {h 1 (z n )} is eventually contained in Vm for all m ∈ N. Thus {g(h 1 (z n ))}
is eventually contained in g(Vm ) = Wm for all m ∈ N, which implies that { f (z n )} =
{h −1
2 (g(h 1 (z n )))} converges to σ̃ , that is, lim z→σ f (z) = σ̃ .
Next, if σ1 , σ2 ∈ ∂D \ E(φt ) are two different points, the null chains (Cn1 ), (Cn2 )
in h 1 (D) are not equivalent. Therefore, if we choose those null chains satisfying
condition (L) in Proposition 18.1.1 for all n ∈ N, it follows easily that (g(Cn1 )) and
546 18 Topological Invariants
j
(g(Cn2 )) are not equivalent. Thus, if σ̃ j ∈ ∂D is such that (g(Cn )) represents ĥ 2 (σ̃ j ),
j = 1, 2, it follows that σ̃1 = σ̃2 . Hence, the extension of f to ∂D \ E(φt ) is injective.
Finally, we prove that f : D \ E(φt ) → D \ E(φ̃t ) is continuous. In order to prove
continuity of f , it is enough to show that if {σm } ⊂ ∂D \ E(φt ) converges to σ ∈
∂D \ E(φt ) then limm→∞ f (σm ) = f (σ ). Let σ̃m := f (σm ), σ̃ := f (σ ).
For each m ∈ N, let (Cnm ) be a null chain in h 1 (D) representing ĥ 1 (σm ), chosen so
that condition (L) of Proposition 18.1.1 is satisfied for all m, and similarly let (Cn )
be a null chain which satisfies condition (L) and represents ĥ 1 (σ ).
As shown before, (g(Cnm )) is a null chain in h 2 (D) representing ĥ 2 (σ̃m ) and
(g(Cn )) is a null chain in h 2 (D) representing ĥ 2 (σ̃ ).
Fix an open subset U ⊂ h 2 (D) such that g(Cn ) ⊂ U for all large enough n. Then,
g −1 (U ) eventually contains (Cn ). Since σm → σ , this implies that for every big
enough m, (Cnm ) is eventually contained in g −1 (U ). Hence (g(Cnm )) is eventually
contained in U for big enough m. Therefore, σ̃m → σ and f is continuous.
Since the same applies to f −1 , it follows that f : D \ E(φt ) → D \ E(ϕt ) is a
homeomorphism.
In order to prove the last equations, fix σ ∈ D \ E(φt ) and fix t ≥ 0. Let r ∈
(0, 1). Then φ̃t ( f (r p)) = f (φt (r σ )) → f (φt (σ )) as r → 1. Therefore, the limit of
φ̃t along the continuous curve r → f (r σ ) (which converges to f (σ )) is f (φt (σ )). By
Theorem 3.3.1, φ̃t ( f (σ )) = ∠ lim z→ f (σ ) φ̃t (z) = f (φt (σ )), and thus the functional
equation holds at σ . From this, it follows at once that T (σ ) = T ( f (σ )).
Proposition 18.2.1 Let (φt ) and (φ̃t ) be two non-elliptic semigroups in D. Suppose
(φt ) and (φ̃t ) are topologically conjugated via the homeomorphism f : D → D. Then
Δ ⊂ D is a petal of (φt ) if and only if f (Δ) is a petal of (φ̃t ).
Proof Let W be the backward invariant set of (φt ) and W˜ the backward invariant
set of (φ̃t ). Since f is a homeomorphism, f (D) = D and f ◦ φt ◦ f −1 = φ̃t , t ≥ 0,
we have
Proposition 18.2.2 Let (φt ) and (φ̃t ) be two non-elliptic semigroups in D. Suppose
(φt ) and (φ̃t ) are topologically conjugated via the homeomorphism f : D → D. If
M is a maximal contact arc for (φt ) which is not exceptional, then f extends to a
18.2 Topological Invariants for Non-Elliptic Semigroups 547
homeomorphism from M onto f (M) and f (M) is a maximal contact arc for (φ̃t )
which is not exceptional.
Proposition 18.2.3 Let (φt ) and (φ̃t ) be two non-elliptic semigroups in D. Suppose
(φt ) and (φ̃t ) are topologically conjugated via the homeomorphism f : D → D.
Let σ ∈ ∂D be a boundary fixed point for (φt ). Suppose that σ ∈ / E(φt ). Then the
unrestricted limit
f (σ ) := lim f (z) ∈ ∂D
z→σ
Proof First assume σ is a boundary fixed point which does not belong to the closure
of an exceptional maximal contact arc. By Theorem 18.1.3, f extends continuously
at σ , f (σ ) is not in the closure of any exceptional maximal contact arc and T (σ ) =
T ( f (σ )). Therefore, f (σ ) is a boundary fixed point for (φ̃t ) different from the
Denjoy-Wolff point of (φ̃t ).
If σ is a repelling fixed point of (φt ) then by Proposition 13.4.12, there exists
a unique hyperbolic petal Δ for (φt ) such that σ ∈ ∂Δ. Moreover, by Proposi-
tion 13.4.10, ∂Δ does not contain any boundary fixed point of (φt ) but σ and the
Denjoy-Wolff point of (φt ). By Proposition 18.2.1, f (Δ) is a petal for (φ̃t ). Since
f (σ ) ∈ ∂ f (Δ) and f (σ ) is a fixed point of (φ̃t ) different from the Denjoy-Wolff
point of (φ̃t ), it follows again by Proposition 13.4.10 that f (σ ) is a repelling fixed
point.
If σ is a super-repelling fixed point of first type for (φt ), then it is the initial point
of a maximal invariant curve Γ , hence it is easy to see that f (σ ) is a super-repelling
fixed point for (φ̃t ) which starts the maximal invariant curve f (Γ ), therefore it is of
first type.
548 18 Topological Invariants
The same argument implies that f −1 maps repelling fixed points onto repelling
fixed points and super-repelling fixed points of the first type onto super-repelling fixed
points of the first type. Therefore, f maps super-repelling fixed points of second type
for (φt ) onto super-repelling fixed points of second type for (φ̃t ).
Proposition 18.2.4 Let (φt ) and (φ̃t ) be two non-elliptic semigroups in D. Suppose
(φt ) and (φ̃t ) are topologically conjugated via the homeomorphism f : D → D. Let
σ ∈ ∂D \ E(φt ) be such that the unrestricted limit lim z→σ φt (z) exists for all t ≥ 0.
Then the unrestricted limit f (σ ) = lim z→σ f (z) ∈ ∂D \ E(φ̃t ) and the unrestricted
limit lim z→ f (σ ) φ̃t (z) exist for all t ≥ 0.
In this section we examine exceptional maximal contact arcs and boundary Denjoy-
Wolff points under topological conjugation. Roughly speaking, we will see that the
behavior of the topological intertwining map on an exceptional maximal contact arc
can be quite wild.
We start with the following result:
Proposition 18.3.1 Let (φt ) and (φ̃t ) be two non-elliptic semigroups in D. Suppose
(φt ) and (φ̃t ) are topologically conjugated via the homeomorphism f : D → D.
(1) If σ ∈ ∂D is a repelling fixed point for (φt ) which starts an exceptional maxi-
mal contact arc, then the non-tangential limit f (σ ) = ∠ lim z→σ f (z) exists and
f (σ ) is a boundary regular fixed point for (φ̃t ) (possibly the Denjoy-Wolff point
of (φ̃t )).
(2) If σ ∈ ∂D is the Denjoy-Wolff point of (φt ) then the non-tangential limit f (σ ) =
∠ lim z→σ f (z) exists and f (σ ) ∈ ∂D is the Denjoy-Wolff point of (φ̃t ).
Proof (1) Let (Ω1 = I1 × R, h 1 , z → z + it) be the holomorphic model of (φt ) and
let (Ω2 = I2 × R, h 2 , z → z + it) be the holomorphic model of (φ̃t ), where I1 , I2
are (possibly unbounded) open intervals in R.
Assume M is the exceptional maximal contact arc for (φt ) such that σ is its initial
point. By Corollary 14.2.11, I = R and we can assume without loss of generality
that I1 = (0, ρ), with 0 < ρ ≤ +∞ and h(M) = {it : t ∈ R}.
18.3 Exceptional Maximal Contact Arcs and the Denjoy-Wolff Point 549
The arbitrariness of the curve γ implies that ∠ lim z→σ f (z) = σ ( D̃).
(2) In case σ is the Denjoy-Wolff point of (φt ), the argument is similar and we
omit the proof.
In the following examples we show that the unrestricted limit of the homeomor-
phism f might no exist at the Denjoy-Wolff point or at boundary regular fixed points
which start an exceptional maximal contact arc.
Proof (1) By Remark 18.3.2, f (σ ) := ∠ lim z→σ f (z) is a repelling fixed point of
(φ̃t ). If f (σ ) does not belong to the closure of an exceptional maximal contact arc
for (φ̃t ), by Theorem 18.1.3, f −1 has unrestricted limit at f (σ ) and
σ = lim f −1 ( f (r σ )) = f −1 ( f (σ )) ∈
/ E(φt ),
(0,1) r →1
λn = sup{y : s + i y ∈
/ Q, s ∈ (0, 1/n]}.
it follows that f maps the exceptional maximal contact arc M to the Denjoy-Wolff
point of (φ̃t ).
Next, suppose that σ is not a boundary fixed point. Then, by Theorem 11.1.4, there
exists limr →1 h(r σ ) = i y0 with y0 ∈ R. Therefore there exist points xn + i yn ∈ Ω \
Q such xn goes to 0 and yn goes to y0 . Take a continuous function v : (0, ρ) → R such
that lim x→0 v(x) = +∞. As before, define g : Ω → Ω by g(x + i y) := x + i(y +
v(x)) and let h 2 : D → g(Q) be any Riemann map. By construction, g(xn + i yn ) ∈
Ω \ h 2 (D) and Im g(xn + i yn ) goes to +∞. Therefore the semigroup (φ̃t ) defined by
φ̃t (z) := h −1
2 (h 2 (z) + it) for t ≥ 0 is topologically conjugated to (φt ) and f maps
the exceptional maximal contact arc M to the Denjoy-Wolff point of (φ̃t ).
Proposition 18.3.7 Let (φt ) and (φ̃t ) be two non-elliptic semigroups in D with
holomorphic models (Ω1 = I1 + iR, h 1 , z → z + it) and (Ω2 = I2 + iR, h 2 , z →
z + it), respectively. Suppose (φt ) and (φ̃t ) are topologically conjugated via the
homeomorphism f : D → D. Let τ and τ̃ be the Denjoy-Wolff points of (φt ) and
(φ̃t ), respectively. Assume that M is an exceptional maximal contact arc for (φt ).
Denote by S = {z ∈ D \ {0} : z/|z| ∈ M} and let σ be the initial point of M. Then
the set
E(M) = w ∈ D : ∃{z n } ⊂ S, z n → z ∈ M, f (z n ) → w
Proof Let Q 1 := h 1 (D) and let Q 2 := h 2 (D). By Lemma 18.1.2, (φt ) and (φ̃t ) are
topologically conjugated if and only if there exists a homeomorphism g : Ω1 → Ω2
given by (18.1.1) and g(Q 1 ) = Q 2 . By Proposition 9.7.3, f = h −1
2 ◦ g ◦ h1.
18.3 Exceptional Maximal Contact Arcs and the Denjoy-Wolff Point 553
Since ∠ lim z→τ f (z) = τ̃ by Proposition 18.3.1, it follows that τ̃ ∈ E(M). More-
over, it is easy to see that E(M) is a compact subset of ∂D. Therefore we are left to
check that E(M) is connected. Indeed, assume this is not the case. Then there exist
two compact sets A and B such that E(M) = A1 ∪ A2 and A1 ∩ A2 = ∅. Denote by
k > 0 the euclidean distance between A and B. For j = 1, 2, take w j ∈ A j , z n, j ∈ D,
z
for all n, with |zn,n, jj | ∈ M, {z n, j } → z j ∈ M and { f (z n, j )} → w j . We may assume
z n,1
that | f (z n, j ) − w j | < k/4 for all j and n. Let Cn be the arc in M that joins |z n,1 |
with
z n,2
|z n,2 |
and
Γn = [z n,1 , rn z n,1 ] ∪ rn Cn ∪ [z n,2 , rn z n,2 ]
where rn = max{|z n,1 |, |z n,2 |}. Notice that Γn is connected. Consider the contin-
uous function l : Γn → R being l(z) the distance between f (z) and A1 . Since
l(z n,1 ) < k/4 and w2 ∈ A2 , we have l(z n,2 ) ≥ k − |z n,2 − w2 | ≥ k − k/4 = 3k/4.
Thus there is αn ∈ Γn such that l(αn ) = k/2. Since |αn | ≥ min{|z n,1 |, |z n,2 |}, we can
take a subsequence such that αn k → z ∈ M and f (αn k ) → w. Clearly, w ∈ E(M)
and l(w) = k/2. A contradiction. Hence E(M) is connected.
Finally, if E(M) = {τ̃ }, E(M) is contained in the closure of an exceptional max-
imal contact arc for (φ̃t ), for otherwise f −1 would map points of ∂D \ E(φ̃t ) into
E(φt ).
Example 18.3.8 Let Ω1 = {z ∈ S : Im z > 0} and h 1 : D → Ω1 a Riemann map of
Ω1 . Consider the semigroup (φt ) defined by φt (z) := h −1
1 (h 1 (z) + it), t ≥ 0. The arc
M = h −1 1 ([0, ∞)i) is an exceptional maximal contact arc for (φt ). Define g : S → S
as g(x + i y) := x + i(y − 1/x), Ω2 := g(Ω1 ) = {z ∈ S : Im z Re z > −1} and let
h 2 : D → Ω2 be a Riemann map of Ω2 . The semigroup (φ̃t ) defined by φ̃t (z) :=
h −1
2 (h 2 (z) + it), t ≥ 0, is topological conjugated to (φt ) via the homeomorphism
f = h −1
2 ◦ g ◦ h 1 . The semigroup (φ̃t ) has an exceptional maximal contact arc M̃ =
h −1
2 (Ri) with initial point a fixed point σ . Notice that for all w ∈ M it holds σ =
lim z→w f (z), namely, the map f sends the arc M to the point σ . This does not
contradict the previous proposition, since M̃ is the cluster set of f at the Denjoy-
Wolff point of (φt ).
In this final section we show how to recover the results of Sects. 18.1 and 18.2 in
case of elliptic semigroups which are not groups. The key point is to replace Lemma
18.1.2 by the following lemma (whose proof is similar to that of Lemma 18.1.2):
Lemma 18.4.1 Let (φt ) and (φ̃t ) be two elliptic semigroups in D, which are not
groups. Let (C, h 1 , z → eλ1 t z) be a holomorphic model of (φt ) and let (C, h 2 , z →
eλ2 t z) be a holomorphic model of (φ̃t ). Then, (φt ) and (φ̃t ) are topologically
conjugated if and only if there exist a homeomorphism u of the unit circle ∂D
and a continuous map v : ∂D → (0, +∞) such that g := θλ−1 2
◦ g0 ◦ θλ1 satisfies
554 18 Topological Invariants
As already remarked, if the semigroup (φt ) is elliptic, the set E(φt ) = ∅. Using
the previous lemma and mimicking the proof of Theorem 18.1.3, one can prove the
following extension result:
Theorem 18.4.2 Let (φt ) and (φ̃t ) be two elliptic semigroups in D, which are not
groups. Suppose (φt ) and (φ̃t ) are topologically conjugated via the homeomorphism
f : D → D. Then f extends to a homeomorphism
f : D → D.
And also,
Proposition 18.4.3 Let (φt ) and (φ̃t ) be two elliptic semigroups in D, which are not
groups. Suppose (φt ) and (φ̃t ) are topologically conjugated via the homeomorphism
f : D → D.
(1) If M is a maximal contact arc for (φt ), then f extends to a homeomorphism from
M onto f (M) and f (M) is a maximal contact arc for (φ̃t ).
(2) Let σ ∈ ∂D be a boundary fixed point for (φt ). Then the unrestricted limit
f (σ ) := lim f (z) ∈ ∂D
z→σ
We end this section showing that Theorem 18.4.2 is no longer true for groups of
elliptic automorphisms.
18.4 Elliptic Case 555
Example 18.4.4 Consider the group of automorphisms (φt ) where φt (z) = eit z
for all t ∈ R and z ∈ D and the continuous function f : D → D given by f (z) =
z exp(i ln(1 − |z|)) for all z ∈ D. It is clear that f is a homeomorphism of the unit
disc with inverse function f −1 (z) = z exp(−i ln(1 − |z|)) and
18.5 Notes
1. Abate, M.: Iteration Theory of Holomorphic Maps on Taut Manifolds. Mediterranean Press,
Rende (1989)
2. Aharonov, D., Elin, M., Reich, S., Shoikhet, D.: Parametric representation of semi-complete
vector fields on the unit balls in Cn and in Hilbert space. Rend. Mat. Acc. Lincei 10, 229–253
(1999)
3. Ahlfors, L.V.: Complex Analysis: An Introduction to the Theory of Analytic Functions of
One Complex Variable, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY (1979)
4. Arendt, W., Chalendar, I.: Generators of semigroups on Banach spaces inducing holomorphic
semiflows. Israel J. Math. 229, 165–179 (2019)
5. Arosio, L.: The stable subset of a univalent self-map. Math. Z. 281, 1089–1110 (2015)
6. Arosio, L.: Canonical models for the forward and backward iteration of holomorphic maps.
J. Geom. Anal. 27, 1178–1210 (2017)
7. Arosio, L., Bracci, F.: Infinitesimal generators and the Loewner equation on complete hyper-
bolic manifolds. Anal. Math. Phys. 4, 337–350 (2012)
8. Arosio, L., Bracci, F.: Canonical models for holomorphic iteration. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.
368, 3305–3339 (2016)
9. Baker, I.N., Pommerenke, Ch.: On the iteration of analytic functions in a half plane II. J.
London Math. Soc. (2), 20, 255–258 (1979)
10. Baracco, L., Zaitsev, D., Zampieri, G.: A Burns-Krantz type theorem for domains with corners.
Math. Ann. 336, 491–504 (2006)
11. Berkson, E., Porta, H.: Semigroups of holomorphic functions and composition operators.
Michigan Math. J. 25, 101–115 (1978)
12. Betsakos, D.: On the rate of convergence of parabolic semigroups of holomorphic functions.
Anal. Math. Phys. 5, 207–216 (2015)
13. Betsakos, D.: On the rate of convergence of hyperbolic semigroups of holomorphic functions.
Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 47, 493–500 (2015)
14. Betsakos, D.: On the asymptotic behavior of the trajectories of semigroups of holomorphic
functions. J. Geom. Anal. 26, 557–569 (2016)
15. Betsakos, D.: Geometric description of the classification of holomorphic semigroups. Proc.
Am. Math. Soc. 144, 1595–1604 (2016)
16. Betsakos, D., Contreras, M.D., Díaz-Madrigal, S.: On the rate of convergence of semigroups
of holomorphic functions at the Denjoy-Wolff point. To appear in Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana
17. Bertilsson, D.: On Brennan’s Conjecture in Conformal Mapping. Ph.D. Dissertation, Royal
Institute of Technology, Stockholm (1999)
18. Bisi, C., Gentili, G.: Commuting holomorphic maps and linear fractional models. Complex
Var. Theory Appl. 45, 47–71 (2001)
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 557
F. Bracci et al., Continuous Semigroups of Holomorphic Self-maps
of the Unit Disc, Springer Monographs in Mathematics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36782-4
558 References
19. Bourdon, P.S., Shapiro, J.H.: Cyclic phenomena for composition operators. Mem. Am. Math.
Soc. 125 (1997)
20. Bracci, F.: Fixed points of commuting holomorphic mappings other than the Wolff point.
Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 355, 2569–2584 (2003)
21. Bracci, F.: Local holomorphic dynamics of diffeomorphisms in dimension one. Contemp.
Math. 525, 1–42 (2010)
22. Bracci, F.: Speeds of convergence of orbits of non-elliptic semigroups of holomorphic self-
maps of the unit disc. To appear in Ann. Univ. Mariae Curie-Sklodowska Sect. A
23. Bracci, F., Contreras, M.D., Díaz-Madrigal, S.: Classification of semigroups of linear frac-
tional maps in the unit ball. Adv. Math. 208, 318–350 (2007)
24. Bracci, F., Contreras, M.D., Díaz-Madrigal, S.: Infinitesimal generators associated with semi-
groups of linear fractional maps. J. d’Anal. Math. 102, 119–142 (2007)
25. Bracci, F., Contreras, M.D., Díaz-Madrigal, S.: Aleksandrov-Clark measures and semigroups
of analytic functions in the unit disc. Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. 33, 231–240 (2008)
26. Bracci, F., Contreras, M.D., Díaz-Madrigal, S.: Evolution Families and the Loewner Equation
II: complex hyperbolic manifolds. Math. Ann. 344, 947–962 (2009)
27. Bracci, F., Contreras, M.D., Díaz-Madrigal, S.: Pluripotential theory, semigroups and bound-
ary behavior of infinitesimal generators in strongly convex domains. J. Eur. Math. Soc. 12,
23–53 (2010)
28. Bracci, F., Contreras, M.D., Díaz-Madrigal, S.: Evolution Families and the Loewner Equation
I: the unit disc. J. Reine Angew. Math. (Crelle’s Journal) 672, 1–37 (2012)
29. Bracci, F., Contreras, M.D., Díaz-Madrigal, S.: Regular poles and β-numbers in the theory
of holomorphic semigroups. Constr. Approx. 37, 357–381 (2013)
30. Bracci, F., Contreras, M.D., Díaz-Madrigal, S.: Topological invariants for semigroups of
holomorphic self-maps of the unit disc. J. de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées 107, 78–99
(2017)
31. Bracci, F., Contreras, M.D., Díaz-Madrigal, S.: On the Koenigs function of semigroups of
holomorphic self-maps of the unit disc. Anal. Math. Phys. 8, 521–540 (2018)
32. Bracci, F., Contreras, M.D., Díaz-Madrigal, S., Gaussier, H.: Backward orbits and petals of
semigroups of holomorphic self-maps of the unit disc. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 198, 411–441
(2019)
33. Bracci, F., Contreras, M.D., Díaz-Madrigal, S., Gaussier, H.: A characterization of orthogonal
convergence in simply connected domains. J. Geom. Anal. 29, 3160–3175 (2019)
34. Bracci, F., Contreras, M.D., Díaz-Madrigal, S., Gaussier, H.: Non-tangential limits and the
slope of trajectories of holomorphic semigroups of the unit disc. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.
373, 939–969 (2020)
35. Bracci, F., Contreras, M.D., Díaz-Madrigal, S., Gaussier, H., Zimmer, A.: Asymptotic behavior
of orbits of holomorphic semigroups. J. de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées 133, 263–286
(2020)
36. Bracci, F., Elin, M., Shoikhet, D.: Growth estimates for pseudo-dissipative holomorphic maps
in Banach spaces. J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. 15, 191–198 (2014)
37. Bracci, F., Gumenyuk, P.: Contact points and fractional singularities for semigroups of holo-
morphic self-maps in the unit disc. J. Anal. Math. 130, 185–217 (2016)
38. Bracci, F., Poggi-Corradini, P.: On Valiron’s theorem. Future trends in geometric function
theory. In: RNC Workshop Jyvaskyla 2003, Rep. Univ. Jyvaskyla Dept. Math. Stat., vol. 92,
pp. 39–55 (2003)
39. Bracci, F., Shoikhet, D.: Boundary behavior of infinitesimal generators in the unit ball. Trans.
Am. Math. Soc. 366, 1119–1140 (2014)
40. Bracci, F., Tauraso, R., Vlacci, F.: Identity principles for commuting holomorphic self-maps
of the unit disc. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 270, 451–473 (2002)
41. Burckel, R.B.: An Introduction to Classical Complex Analysis. Academic Press, New York
(1979)
42. Casavecchia, T., Díaz-Madrigal, S.: A non-autonomous version of the Denjoy-Wolff theorem.
Complex Anal. Oper. Theory 7, 1457–1479 (2013)
References 559
43. Ciozda, K.: Sur la classe des fonctions convexes vers l’axe réel négatif. Bull. Acad. Polon.
Sci. Sér. Sci. Math. 27, 255–261 (1979)
44. Coddington, E.A., Levinson, N.: Theory of Ordinary Differential Equations. McGraw-Hill,
New York (1955)
45. Collingwood, E.F., Lohwater, A.J.: The Theory of Cluster Sets. Cambridge Tracts in Mathe-
matics and Mathematical Physics, No. 56 Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (1966)
46. Contreras, M.D., Díaz-Madrigal, S.: Analytic flows on the unit disk: angular derivatives and
boundary fixed points. Pacific J. Math. 222, 253–286 (2005)
47. Contreras, M.D., Díaz-Madrigal, S.: Fractional iteration in the disk algebra: prime ends and
composition operators. Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana 21, 911–928 (2005)
48. Contreras, M.D., Díaz-Madrigal, S.: Boundary fixed points vs. critical points in semigroups
of holomorphic self-maps of the unit disc. Preprint (2019)
49. Contreras, M.D., Díaz-Madrigal, S., Gumenyuk, P.: Loewner chains in the unit disk. Rev.
Mat. Iberoamericana 26, 975–1012 (2010)
50. Contreras, M.D., Díaz-Madrigal, S., Gumenyuk, P.: Slope problem for trajectories of holo-
morphic semigroups in the unit disk. Comput. Methods Funct. Theory 15, 117–124 (2015)
51. Contreras, M.D., Díaz-Madrigal, S., Pommerenke, Ch.: Fixed points and boundary behavior
of the Koenigs function. Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. 29, 471–488 (2004)
52. Contreras, M.D., Díaz-Madrigal, S., Pommerenke, Ch.: On boundary critical points for semi-
groups of analytic functions. Math. Scand. 98, 125–142 (2006)
53. Contreras, M.D., Díaz-Madrigal, S., Pommerenke, Ch.: Some remarks on the Abel equation
in the unit disk. J. Lond. Math. Soc. 75(2), 623–634 (2007)
54. Contreras, M.D., Díaz-Madrigal, S., Pommerenke, Ch.: Second angular derivatives and
parabolic iteration in the unit disk. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 362, 357–388 (2010)
55. Conway, J.B.: Functions of One Complex Variable. Second edition. Graduate Texts in Math-
ematics, vol. 11. Springer, New York-Berlin (1978)
56. Cowen, C.C.: Iteration and the solution of functional equations for functions analytic in the
unit disk. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 265, 69–95 (1981)
57. Cowen, C.C.: Commuting analytic functions. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 283, 685–695 (1984)
58. Cowen, C.C., MacCluer, B.D.: Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Composition operators on
spaces of analytic functions. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL (1995)
59. Duren, P.L.: Univalent Functions, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, 259.
Springer, New York (1983)
60. Elin, M., Jacobson, F.: Parabolic type semigroups: asymptotic and order of contact. Anal.
Math. Phys. 4, 157–185 (2014)
61. Elin, M., Khavinson, D., Reich, S., Shoikhet, D.: Linearization models for parabolic dynamical
systems via Abel’s functional equation. Ann. Acad. Sci. Fen. Math. 35, 439–472 (2010)
62. Elin, M., Reich, S., Shoikhet, D., Yacobson, F.: Asymptotic behavior of one-parameter semi-
groups and rigidity of holomorphic generators. Complex Anal. Oper. Theory 2, 55–86 (2008)
63. Elin, M., Reich, S., Shoikhet, D., Yacobzon, F.: Rates of convergence of one-parameter semi-
groups with boundary Denjoy-Wolff fixed points. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 43–58, Yokohama
Publ., Yokohama (2008)
64. Elin, M., Shoikhet, D.: Semigroups of holomorphic mappings with boundary fixed points
and spirallike mappings. In: Geometric Function Theory in Several Complex Variables, pp.
82–117, World Sci. Publ., River Edge, NJ (2004)
65. Elin, M., Shoikhet, D.: Linearization Models for Complex Dynamical Systems. Topics in
Univalent Functions, Functional Equations and Semigroup Theory. Birkhäuser Basel (2010)
66. Elin, M., Shoikhet, D.: Boundary behavior and rigidity of semigroups of holomorphic map-
pings. Anal. Math. Phys. 1, 241–258 (2011)
67. Elin, M., Shoikhet, D., Yacobson, F.: Linearization models for parabolic type semigroups. J.
Nonlinear Convex Anal. 9, 205–214 (2008)
68. Elin, M., Shoikhet, D., Tarkhanov, N.: Separation of boundary singularities for holomorphic
generators. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 190, 595–618 (2011)
560 References
69. Elin, M., Shoikhet, D., Zalcman, L.: A flower structure of backward flow invariant domains
for semigroups. C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris 346, 293–296 (2008)
70. Elin, M., Shoikhet, D., Zalcman, L.: A flower structure of backward flow invariant domains
for semigroups. Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. 33, 3–34 (2008)
71. Farkas, H.M., Kra, I.: Riemann Surfaces. Springer, Berlin (1980)
72. Forster, O.: Lectures on Riemann Surfaces. Springer, New York (1981)
73. Gaier, D.: Estimates of conformal mappings near the boundary. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 21,
581–595 (1972)
74. Gallardo-Gutiérrez, E., Yakubovitch, D.: On generators of C0 -semigroups of composition
operators. Israel J. Math. 229, 487–500 (2019)
75. Garnett, J.B., Marshall, D.E.: Harmonic Measure. Cambridge University Press, New York
(2005)
76. Ghys,E., de La Harpe, P.: Sur les groupes hyperboliques d’après Mikhael Gromov. Progr.
Math. 83, Birkhäuser
77. Goryaı̆nov, V.V.: Fractional iterates of functions analytic in the unit disk, with given fixed
points. Math. USSR Sbornik 74, 29–46 (1993)
78. Goryaı̆nov, V.V.: Semigroups of analytic functions in analysis and applications. Uspekhi Mat.
Nauk, 67(6(408)), 5–52 (2012); translation in Rus. Math. Surv. 67(6), 975–1021 (2012)
79. Goryaı̆nov, V.V., Kudryavtseva, O.S.: One-parameter semigroups of analytic functions, fixed
points, and the Koenigs function. Sb. Math. 202, 971–1000. Translated from Mat. Sb. 202,
43–74 (2011)
80. Grunsky, H.: Zur konformen Abbildung von Gebieten, die in einer Richtung konvex sind. J.
Math. Anal. Appl. 34, 685–701 (1971)
81. Gumenyuk, P.: Angular and unrestricted limits of one-parameter semigroups in the unit disk.
J. Math. Anal. Appl. 417, 200–224 (2014)
82. Heins, M.: Semigroups of holomorphic maps of a Riemann surface into itself which are homo-
morphs of the set of positive reals considered additively. E. B. Christoffel (Aachen/Monschau,
1979), pp. 314–331, Birkhäuser, Basel-Boston, Mass. (1981)
83. Hewitt, E., Stromberg, K.: Real and Abstract Analysis. Graduate texts in Mathematics, vol.
25. Springer, New York-Berlin (1965)
84. Karamanlis, N.: Angular derivatives and semigroups of holomorphic functions. Illinois J.
Math. 63, 403–424 (2019)
85. Karlin, S., McGregor, J.: Embeddability of discrete time simple branching processes into
continuous time branching processes. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 132, 115–136 (1968)
86. Karlin, S., McGregor, J.: Embedding iterates of analytic functions with two fixed points into
continuous groups. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 132, 137–145 (1968)
87. Kelgiannis, G.: Trajectories of semigroups of holomorphic functions and harmonic measure.
J. Math. Anal. Appl. 474, 1364–1374 (2019)
88. Khatskevich, V., Reich, S., Shoikhet, D.: Abel-Schröder equations for linear fractional map-
pings and the Koenigs embedding problem. Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged) 69, 67–98 (2003)
89. Kim, Y.C., Sugawa, T.: Correspondence between spirallike functions and starlike functions.
Math. Nachr. 285, 322–331 (2012)
90. Kobayashi, S.: Hyperbolic Complex Spaces. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (1998)
91. Koenigs, G.: Recherches sur les integrales de certains equations fonctionnelles. Ann. Sci. cole
Norm. Sup. 1, 3–41 (1884)
92. König, W.: Semicocycles and weighted composition semigroups on H p . Michigan Math. J.
37(3), 469–476 (1990)
93. Kuczma, M.: An Introduction to the Theory of Functional Equations and Inequalities.
Birkhäuser Basel (2009)
94. Kufarev, P.P.: On one-parameter families of analytic functions. Rec. Math. [Mat. Sbornik]
N.S., 13(55), 87–118 (1943)
95. Löwner, K.: Untersuchungen über schlichte konforme Abbildungen des Einheitskreises. Math.
Ann. 89, 103–121 (1923)
96. Mitchison, G.: Conformal growth of Arabidopsis leaves. J. Theor. Biol. 408, 155–166 (2016)
References 561
97. Poggi-Corradini, P.: Angular derivatives at boundary fixed points for self-maps of the disk.
Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 126, 1697–1708 (1998)
98. Poggi-Corradini, P.: Canonical conjugation at fixed points other than the Denjoy-Wolff point.
Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. 25, 487–499 (2000)
99. Poggi-Corradini, P.: Backward-iteration sequences with bounded hyperbolic steps for analytic
self-maps of the disk. Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana 19, 943–970 (2003)
100. Poggi-Corradini, P.: Iteration of analytic self-maps of the disk: an overview. Cubo 6(1), 73–80
(2004)
101. Poggi-Corradini, P.: On the uniqueness of classical semiconjugations for self-maps of the
disk. Comput. Methods Funct. Theory 6, 403–421 (2006)
102. Pommerenke, Ch.: Über dis subordination analytischer funktionen. J. Reine Angew Math.
218, 159–173 (1965)
103. Pommerenke, Ch.: On Bloch functions. J. Lond. Math. Soc. 2(2), 689–695 (1979)
104. Pommerenke, Ch.: On the iteration of analytic functions in a half plane I. J. Lond. Math. Soc.
19(2), 439–447 (1979)
105. Pommerenke, Ch.: Univalent Functions. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen (1975)
106. Pommerenke, Ch.: Boundary Behaviour of Conformal Mappings. Springer, Berlin, New York
(1992)
107. Pranger, W.A.: Iteration of functions analytic on a disk. Aequationes Math. 4, 201–204 (1970)
108. Ransford, Th.: Potential Theory in the Complex Plane, vol. 28. London Mathematical Society
Student Texts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1995)
109. Reich, S., Shoikhet, D.: Semigroups and generators on convex domains with hyperbolic
metric. Rend. Mat. Acc. Lincei 9, 231–250 (1997)
110. Reich, S., Shoikhet, D.: Metric domains, holomorphic mappings and nonlinear semigroups.
Abstr. Appl. Anal. 3, 203–228 (1998)
111. Reich, S., Shoikhet, D.: Nonlinear Semigroups, Fixed Points, and Geometry of Domains in
Banach Spaces. Imperial College Press, London (2005)
112. Rodin, B., Warschawski, S.E.: Extremal length and univalent functions I. The angular deriva-
tive. Math. Z. 153, 1–17 (1977)
113. Rudin, W.: Real and Complex Analysis, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York (1987)
114. Rudin, W.: Function theory in the unit ball of C n . Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wis-
senschaften, vol. 241, Springer, New York (1980)
115. Sarason, D.: Sub-Hardy Hilbert Spaces in the Unit Disk, vol. 10. University of Arkansas
Lecture Notes in the Mathematical Sciences, Wiley, Inc., New York (1994)
116. Schröder, E.: Über itiere Funktionen. Math. Ann. 3, 296–322 (1871)
117. Shapiro, J.H.: Composition Operators and Classical Function Theory. Springer, New York
(1993)
118. Shoikhet, D.: Semigroups in Geometrical Function Theory. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht (2001)
119. Shoikhet, D.: Representations of holomorphic generators and distortion theorems for spirallike
functions with respect to a boundary point. Int. J. Pure Appl. Math. 5, 335–361 (2003)
120. Siskakis, A.G.: Semigroups of composition operators and the Cesàro operator on H p (D).
Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois (1985)
121. Siskakis, A.G.: Semigroups of composition operators on spaces of analytic functions, a review.
Contemp. Math. 213, 229–252; Am. Math. Soc., Providence, RI (1998)
122. Stromberg, K.R.: An Introduction to classical Real Analysis. Wadsworth International Math-
ematics Series. Wadsworth International, Belmont, Calif. (1981)
123. Szekeres, G.: Regular iteration of real and complex functions. Acta Math. 100, 203–258
(1958)
124. Tricomi, F.: Sull’iterazione delle funzioni di linee. Giorn. Mat. Battaglini 55, 1–8 (1917)
125. Valiron, G.: Sur l’itération des fonctions holomorphes dans un demi-plan. Bull. Sci. Math.
55, 105–128 (1931)
126. Watson, H.W., Galton, F.: On the probability of the extinction of families. J. Anthropol. Inst.
Great Br. Irel. 4, 138–144 (1875)
562 References
127. Wojtaszczyk, P.: Banach Spaces for Analysts, vol. 25. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Math-
ematics, Cambridge University Press (1991)
128. Wolff, J.: L’équation différentielle dz/dt = w(z) =fonction holomprphe à partie réelle posi-
tive dans un demi-plan. Compos. Math. 6, 296–304 (1939)
Index
E
C Elliptic function, 51
Canonical model, 248 Elliptic groups, 218
Carathéodory boundary of a simply con- Elliptic semigroups, 220
nected domain, 97 Embedding, 262
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 563
F. Bracci et al., Continuous Semigroups of Holomorphic Self-maps
of the Unit Disc, Springer Monographs in Mathematics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36782-4
564 Index
M
Maximal half-plane, 389 R
Maximal invariant curve, 372 Radial cluster set, 108
Maximal spirallike sector, 387 Radial cluster set of a function, 108
Maximal strip, 387 Radial limit of a function f : D → C, 22
Möbius transformation, 6 Reflection through a line, 134
Multiplier of an inner fixed point, 54 Regular backward orbit, 356
Multiplier of a self-map at a boundary point, Regular contact point of a self-map, 55
55 Regular finite contact point of a holomorphic
function with non-negative real part,
64
Regular pole of a infinitesimal generator, 429
N
Regular zero, 338
Non-elliptic groups, 218
Regular zeros of a holomorphic function
Non-elliptic semigroups, 220
with non-negative real part, 64
Non-exceptional regular backward orbit,
Repelling fixed point of the semigroup, 329
361
Repelling spectral value of a semigroup at a
Non-tangential cluster set of a function, 108
boundary fixed point, 329
Non-tangential converges to ∞ in H, 45
Riemann sphere, 5
Non-tangential limit of a function f : D →
Riemann surface, 4
C, 22
Non-tangential limit of a function f : H →
C at ∞, 45 S
Non-tangential limit of a sequence, 22 Semicomplete vector field, 273
Non-tangential maximal function, 31 complete, 274
Null chain, 92 Semi-conformality at a boundary point, 364
Semi-conjugation map, 234
Semigroup, 206
O algebraic in the unit disc, 205
Open arc, xxiv characterizations, 211, 213, 275
Orbit of a semigroup, 206 elliptic, 220
Orthogonal speed of a curve in the disc, 157 hyperbolic, 220
Orthogonal speed of a non-elliptic semi- in D, 206
group, 455 iterate, 205
non-elliptic, 220
of hyperbolic rotations, 206
P of positive hyperbolic type, 245
Parabolic function, 51 of zero hyperbolic type, 245
Parabolic groups, 218 parabolic, 220
Parabolic petal of a semigroup, 377 semi-conjugated, 234
Parabolic semigroups, 220 trivial, 206
Petal of a semigroup, 375 Semigroup of automorphic type, 245
Poisson integral, 28 Semigroup of non-automorphism type, 245
Poisson kernel, 18, 280 Semigroups of linear fractional maps, 226
Pole of a infinitesimal generator, 429 Semi-strip of width R and height M, 167
Positive hyperbolic step, 245 Shift of a semigroup, 529
Prime end, 97 Simple boundary point, 105
Prime end impression, 97 Slope of a curve, 501
Principal part of a prime end, 110 Spectral value of the semigroup, 220
Product Formula, 303 Spherical diameter, 5
566 Index
Spherical diameter d S , 5 T
Spherical distance, 5 Tangential speed of a curve in a simply con-
Spirallike, 251, 253 nected domain, 157
Spirallike argument, 390 Tangential speed of a non-elliptic semi-
Spirallike sector, 385 group, 455
Starlike, 251 Tip of an isolated spiral or radial slit, 435
Starlike at infinity, 256, 257 Topological conjugation of topological mod-
Starting point of a contact arc, 411 els, 270
Starting point of a maximal invariant curve, Topologically conjugated semigroups, 270
372 Total speed of a non-elliptic semigroup, 454
Stolz region, 23 Trajectory of a semigroup, 206
Strip, 162
Subadditive, 230
Super-repelling fixed point of the first type,
424 U
Super-repelling fixed point of the second Univalent, 4
type, 424 Unrestricted limit of a function f : D → C,
Super-repelling fixed point of the semigroup, 23
329
Super-repelling fixed point of the third type,
424
Symmetry of a simply connected domain Z
with respect to a line, 134 Zero hyperbolic step, 245