Bounds on the Quenched Pressure and Main Eigenvalue of the Ruelle Operator for Brownian Type Potentials

Of course, the only issue here is about measurability and we show how to overcome this by using the Gelfand Formula and expression (?). Indeed, by applying iteratively the expression (?) one can see that \mathscr{L}_{B_{t(\cdot)}}^{n}(\varphi)(x) is a random variable for any choice of \varphi\in C(\Omega) and x\in\Omega. For any fixed n\in\mathbb{N} and \varphi\in C(\Omega) there exists, by the definition of the supremum, a sequence (x_k) in \Omega such that \| \mathscr{L}_{B_{t(\cdot)}}^{n}(\varphi) \|_{\infty} = \lim_{k\to\infty} |\mathscr{L}_{B_{t(\cdot)}}^{n}(\varphi)(x_k)| so proving that \| \mathscr{L}_{B_{t(\cdot)}}^{n}(\varphi) \|_{\infty} is a random variable. Since the Gelfand’s formula ensures that the spectral radius of \mathscr{L}_{B_{t(\cdot)}} is given by

we can argue similarly as above to conclude that \lambda_B is a random variable.

A typical trajectory of the Brownian motion in the unit interval [0,1] is \gamma-Hölder continuous function for any \gamma<1/2, see [MR1121940, MR2574430]. A simple computation shows that |t(x)-t(y)|\leq d(x,y), where d(x,y)=2^{-N} and N = \inf\{n: x_j=y_j\ \text{for}\ 1\leq j< n\ \text{and}\ x_n\neq y_n \}. Therefore almost certain we have

So our random potentials x\mapsto B_{t(x)} are almost certain \gamma-Hölder continuous for any \gamma<1/2. From the classical Ruelle-Perron-Fröbenius Theorem follows that \lambda_{B}, the random spectral radius of \mathscr{L}_{B_{t(\cdot)}}, is actually the main eigenvalue and it has geometric multiplicity one almost surely. From item iii) of Theorem A we have for each x\in\Omega that

Since the lhs above is a random variable it follows that h(x) is also a random variable.

From the Theorem 1 follows that \lambda_B is both the spectral radius and the main eigenvalue of \mathscr{L}_{B_{t(\cdot)}}. So the corollary follows from the almost certain \gamma-Hölder continuity of the mapping \Omega\ni x\mapsto B_{t(x)}, obtained in the proof of Theorem 1, together with the item ii) of Theorem A.

Let x\in\Omega be an arbitrary point and F\in \mathscr{D}[0,1]. In order to prove the continuity of \Theta(F) at x we split the analysis in two cases: whether F is continuous or not in t(x). Suppose that F is continuous in t(x). In this case independently whether t(x) belongs or not to \mathscr{D} we have \Theta(F)(x)=F(t(x)). Given \varepsilon>0 follows from the continuity of F that there is \delta>0 such that if |s-t(x)|<\delta then |F(s)-F(t(x))|<\varepsilon. From the continuity of t it is possible to find \eta>0 such that if d(y,x)<\eta then |t(x)-t(y)|<\delta. Suppose by contradiction that \Theta(F) is not continuous at x. So there is a sequence y_n\in\Omega such that y_n\to x but |\Theta(F)(y_n)-\Theta(F)(x)|=|\Theta(F)(y_n)-F(t(x))|\geq \varepsilon for all n\in\mathbb{N}. Because of the previous observations for n large enough \Theta(F)(y_n)\neq F(t(y_n)) otherwise we reach a contradiction. So the only possibility is \Theta(F)(y_n) = \lim_{s\uparrow t(y_n)}F(s) for all n\geq n_0. Again, we reach a contradiction since for large enough n we have t(y_n) close to t(x) and therefore by taking s close enough to t(x) we have F(s) close to F(t(x)) which is a contradiction with |\Theta(F)(y_n)-F(t(x))|\geq \varepsilon.

Now we assume that F has a jump at t(x). In this case by the definition of \mathscr{D}[0,1] there exist exactly one point y\in\Omega\setminus\{x\} such that t(x)=t(y). We give the argument for x\prec_{\mathrm{Lex}} y on the other case the analysis is similar. Note that

From the definition we have

Given \varepsilon>0 there is \delta>0 such that for all s satisfying t(x)-\delta<s\leq t(x) we have |F(s)-\Theta(F)(x)|<\varepsilon. Note that for every z\in\Omega such that d(z,x)\leq 2^{n+1} we have t(z)\leq t(x). By taking z close enough to x and proceed similarly to the previous case one can show that \Theta(F)(z) is close to \Theta(F)(x), thus proving the continuity of \Theta(F) at x. Since x is arbitrary the proof is complete.

We first construct the inverse operator \Theta^{-1} and then we proceed to show that \Theta is an isometry.

Let f\in C(\Omega) be an arbitrary continuous function. If s\in [0,1]\setminus\mathscr{D} we define F(s)=f(t^{-1}(s)). If s\in\mathscr{D} then t^{-1}(s)=\{x,y\} with x\neq y. If x\prec_{\mathrm{Lex}}y we put F(s)=f(y). We claim that F\in \mathscr{D}[0,1]. Indeed, if s\in [0,1]\setminus\mathscr{D}, then s has a unique binary expansion t^{-1}(s)=(x_1,\ldots,x_n,\ldots). For each n\in\mathbb{N} and j=1,\ldots,2^n we consider the following collection of open intervals

Note that \mathscr{D}\cup\{0,1\} = \cup_{n\geq 1}\cup_{j=1}^{2^n} \partial I_n^j. Note that if s\in [0,1] \backslash \mathscr{D}, then s belongs to the interior of infinitely many I_n^j’s. Given \varepsilon>0 there is \delta>0 such that for all y\in\Omega satisfying d(t^{-1}(s),y)<\delta we have |f(t^{-1}(s))-f(y)|<\varepsilon. As mentioned before we can choose n as large as we please so that s\in I_n^j, for some j=1,\ldots, 2^n. From the definition of I_n^j the first n terms of the binary expansion of any r\in I_n^j coincides with x_1,\ldots,x_n. For n such that 2^{-n}<\delta we have d(t^{-1}(s),t^{-1}(r))<\delta and therefore for all r\in I_n^j we have |F(r)-F(s)|\leq \max_{z\in t^{-1}(r)}|f(z)-f(x)| <\varepsilon.

Suppose that t(x)\in\mathscr{D} and \{x,y\}=t^{-1}(x). Without loss of generality we can assume that x\prec_{\mathrm{Lex}} y. For n\geq n_0 we have t(x)\in \partial I_n^j\cap \partial I_n^{j+1} for a unique value of j\in \{1,\ldots,2^n\}. Every element in t^{-1}(I_n^j) has its first n digits in the binary expansion equals to x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n. Therefore some small neighborhood of x is sent by t in I_n^j\cup \{t(x)\}. From the continuity of f at x it follows that the small neighborhood defined above is sent in a \varepsilon neighborhood of f(x) which proves the existence of the left limit of F at t(x). The right continuity of F at t(x)\in\mathscr{D} is proved in similar way.

Notice that the argument in the two previous paragraphs also proves that the mapping

is a left inverse of \Theta. Of course, \Theta is right inverse of this operator so \Theta is a bijection.

Remains to prove that \Theta is an isometry. From its very definition we have

If the supremum above is attained at certain point s\in [0,1]\setminus\mathscr{D}, take x \in \Omega such that t(x), then we have \|F\|_{\infty}=|F(s)|=|\Theta (F)(x)|\leq \|\Theta(F)\|_{\infty}. If the supremum is not attained for some s\in\mathscr{D} the conclusion is analogous, otherwise \|F\|_{\infty}= \lim_{n\to\infty}\lim_{r\uparrow s_n}|F(r)| =\lim_{n\to\infty}|\Theta(F)(x_n)|, where x_n is the smallest point, with respect to the lexicographic order, in t^{-1}(s_n) and the proposition follows.

We begin with the lower bound. To lighten the notation we use the symbol 1^{\infty} to denote the constant sequence (1,1,1,\ldots). By the definition of the supremum we have

By taking the n-th root, the limit when n\to\infty and the expectation in the above inequality we get that

To get the upper bound we will take advantage of the reflection principle of the Wiener process. We first observe that

By taking the n-th root and the limit when n\to\infty in the last inequality we get \lambda_{B} \leq 2\exp(M_1), where M_1\equiv\max\{B_{t}: 0\leq t\leq 1\}. From the reflection principle of the Wierner process it follows that