Ergodic theory of Random Anosov systems mixing on fibers

By Lemma 5.1, we have that there exists \epsilon'_0>0 such that for any \epsilon'\in(0,\epsilon'_0) the following holds

Let \epsilon'_1=\min\left\{\frac12\beta_0,\epsilon'_0\right\}, where \beta_0 is as in Lemma 3.7. Taking \beta=\frac16\epsilon'_1, there exists an \alpha>0 corresponding to \beta as in Lemma 3.4. Again, for the sake of convenience, we assume that \alpha<\beta. Now we fix an \epsilon\in(0,\beta), and also fix a set of open balls in M with radius equaling \min\{\frac13\alpha,\frac16\epsilon\}, \{U_i,0\le i\le p\}, where \{U_i\}_{1\le i\le p} forms an open cover of M.

By Condition H2), there exists N_1\in\mathbb N such that the following holds

By (Proof) and \beta\le \frac16 \epsilon_0', for any \omega\in\Omega, there exist l(\omega),m(\omega)\in \mathbb N, and a 3\beta-separated set \{z_i(\omega)\}_{1\le i\le l(\omega)} with respect to d^\phi_{M\times \Omega,m(\omega)} satisfies that

Since \phi is continuous and \Omega is compact, the 3\beta-separated set can be chosen properly to make m(\omega) being uniformly bounded on \Omega. The bound is denoted by N_2. Let N=L(N_2+2N_1), where L is a prefixed large positive integer.

Note that, by the choice of \alpha and \beta, if two (\omega,\alpha)-pseudo orbits have a 3\beta-separation on time n, then the corresponding true orbits which are (\omega,\beta)-shadowing them respectively have a \beta-separation on time n. Therefore, here instead of constructing specific pseudo orbits, we would like to count the number of (\omega,\frac23\alpha)-pseudo orbits which have 3\beta-separations happened during time interval [0,N].

First, we describe the procedure defining the pseudo orbits. For a given \omega\in\Omega, by (?), we can use a segment of a true orbit to connect (U_0,\omega) to any one of \{(U_i,\theta^{N_1})\}_{1\le i\le p}. This orbit segment of connecting U_0 to some U_i is the first piece of the (\omega,\frac23\alpha)-pseudo orbit. The second piece of the (\omega,\frac23\alpha)-pseudo orbit is one of the orbit segments

which is a segment of a true orbit. So in order to ensure that these two pieces can be merged with variation \le \frac23\alpha, U_i chosen in the first step should contains the z_i(\theta^{N_1}\omega) chosen in the second step. The third piece of these (\omega,\frac23\alpha)-pseudo orbits is to connect \phi^{m(\theta^{N_1}\omega)}(z_i(\theta^{N_1}\omega),\theta^{N_1}\omega) to U_0 by a true orbit segment with length N_1, which can be done again by (?). We repeat this procedure and derive a sequence of integers in the following way

Let

The above procedure of constructing pseudo orbits repeats s times in the time interval [0,\sum_{i=1}^sR_i]. For the time interval [\sum_{i=1}^sR_i,N], we use only one orbit segment to connect (U_0,\theta^{\sum_{i=1}^sR_i}\omega) to (U_0,\theta^{N}\omega). It is not hard to see that the number of (\omega,\frac23\alpha)-pseudo orbits which are 3\beta-separated in the time interval [0,N] is

Let N_3=N-\sum_{i=1}^sR_i, then N_3\le 2(N_2+2N_1). Therefore, by (?), we have that

The largeness of L is to ensure the following

For any given \omega\in \Omega, let \{y_j(\theta^i\omega)\}_{0\le i\le N-1}, 1\le j\le K(\omega), be the segments of (\omega,\frac23\alpha)-pseudo orbits of \phi defined above. By the uniform continuous of \phi, there exist \delta_1,\delta_2> such that (?) and (?) hold, where n in (?) is replaced by N. Let \{\Omega_s'\}_{s\in S} be a finite Borel measurable partition of \Omega with diameter less than \delta_2. We fix an \omega'_s\in \Omega'_s for each s\in S, and let K=\min\{K(\omega'_s)\}_{s\in S}. Note that we

Define the simple functions as follows

where \chi_{\theta^i(\Omega'_s)} is the characteristic function of \theta^i(\Omega'_s). It is not hard to see that (?) and (?) imply that

and

Also note that for 1\le j,j'\le K with j\neq j' and each \omega\in\Omega, \{y_j(\theta^i\omega)\}_{0\le i\le N-1} and \{y_{j'}(\theta^i\omega)\}_{0\le i\le N-1} are 3\beta-separated with respect to d^\phi_{M\times \Omega,m(\omega)}, thus we have that

Now, we are ready to construct the strong full random horseshoe.

For \hat a=(a_k)_{k\in\mathbb Z}\in \mathcal S_k, let

where \left[\frac iN\right] is the largest integer less than \frac iN. By (?) and (?), we have that \{ g^{\hat a}_i\}_{1\in\mathbb Z} forms an \alpha-pseudo orbit of \tilde \phi, thus Lemma 3.7 implies a true orbit of \tilde \phi, \{\tilde\phi^i(g^{\hat a})\}_{i\in\mathbb Z}, which is \beta-shadowing \{ g^{\hat a}_i\}_{1\in\mathbb Z}.

Define \Psi:\mathcal S_k\to L^\infty(\Omega, M) by letting

where the continuity of \Psi follows from Lemma 3.8 immediately. It is obvious that (?) and the argument for (?) imply Condition i) of Definition 2.6 with \Delta=\beta L^{-N}. ii) of Definition and the continuity of \Psi^{-1} follow exactly from the same arguments as (?), thus we do not repeat it here. This completes the proof of Part A. of Theorem 2.2.

For a given \gamma>0, by the definition of \overline h(M\times \Omega|\Omega), we have that there exist \omega_0\in\Omega and \epsilon_0>0 such that for any 0<\epsilon<\epsilon_0, there exist infinitely many n\in \mathbb N and corresponding 5\epsilon-separated set in M_{\omega_0} with respect to the Bowen metric d_{M\times \Omega,n}^{\phi}, whose cardinality is greater than e^{n(\overline h(M\times\Omega|\Omega)-\frac13\gamma)}.

Firstly, we fix an such \epsilon as above. Without loss of generality, we assume that \epsilon<\frac12\beta_0, where \beta_0 is as in Lemma 3.4. Letting \beta=\frac13\epsilon and applying Lemma 3.4, we have that there exists \alpha>0 corresponding to \beta, which is taken to be smaller than \beta. Then we fix a \delta such that \delta<\frac12\epsilon and

Let \{U_0,U_1,\cdot,U_p\} be a collection of \frac13\alpha-balls in M such that M=\cup_{i=1}^pU_i. By Condition H2), there exists N_1\in \mathbb N such that the following holds

Now we fix an N_2>> N_1 such that there exists a 5\epsilon-separated set in M_{\omega_0} with respect to the Bowen metric d_{M\times \Omega,N_2}^{\phi}, whose cardinality is greater than e^{N_2(\overline h(M\times\Omega|\Omega)-\frac13\gamma)}. By the continuity of \phi, one can easily obtain the following technical lemma:

Actually, O can be taken to be a small open neighborhood of \omega_0. For the sake of convenience and without loss of generality, we assume that the following hold:

• a1) O is in a \frac12\delta-ball with respect to d^{\theta}_{\Omega,N_2}, where \delta is as in (?);

• a2) \frac{\log k}{N_2}> \overline h(M\times \Omega|\Omega)-\frac23\gamma;

• a3) \{y_i\}_{1\le i\le k}\subset U_0 (Note that M is compact).

Let N=N_2+N_1. Note that both \Omega_1:=\bigcup_{i\in\mathbb Z}\theta^{iN}(O) and \Omega_2:=\Omega\setminus \Omega_1 are \theta^N-invariant sets since \theta is invertible. Clearly, \Omega_1 and \Omega_2 are both measurable ( actually \Omega_1 is open and \Omega_2 is closed). We will deal with \Omega_1 and \Omega_2 separately.

Following exactly the same procedure as the proof of Lemma 5.2, we can construct a finite Borel measurable partition of \Omega, which is denoted by \xi:=\{\Omega'_t, t\in T\}, Borel measurable simple functions \{g^{0,0},g^{i,0},\ 1\le i\le p\}, and a finite set \{\omega_t\in \Omega'_t,t\in T\} satisfying the following properties:

• b1) For any \omega,\omega' fall in an element of \xi, the following holds

  d_\Omega(\theta^{ n}\omega,\theta^{ n}\omega')<\delta,\ \forall 0\le n\le N-1,

  where \delta satisfies (?);

• b2) For 1\le i\le p, g^{i,0}=\sum_{t\in T}g^{i,0}_t\chi_{\Omega'_t}, where

  g^{i,0}_t\in U_i\text{ and }\pi_M\phi^{N_1}(g^{i,0}_t,\omega_t)\in U_0;

• b3) g^{0,0}=\sum_{t\in T}g^{0,0}_t\chi_{\Omega'_t}, where

  g^{0,0}_t\in U_0\text{ and } \pi_M\phi^{N}(g^{0,0}_t,\omega_t)\in U_0 \text{ for some }\omega_t\in \Omega'_t.

For each i\in[1,k]\cap \mathbb N, there exists a finite Borel partition of O, which is denoted by \eta_i:=\left\{O^i_q|q\in\{0,1,\cdots, p\}\right\}, such that the following holds:

• c1) \pi_M\phi^{N_2}(\{y_{i}\}\times O^i_{q})\subset U_q, where \{y_i\}_{1\le i\le k} is as in Lemma ?.

Now, we are ready to construct the full random horseshoe by constructing proper pseudo orbits.

Step 1. For each \omega\in \Omega_1=\bigcup_{i\in\mathbb Z}\theta^{iN}(O), we first collect all the hitting time of orbit \{\theta^{iN}\omega\}_{i\in\mathbb Z} with set O, which is denoted by \{n_i(\omega)\}_{i\in I(\omega)}\subset \mathbb Z\cup\{\pm \infty\}. We arrange I(\omega) and n_i(\omega) in the following way:

Case (1.1). n_i(\omega) has the same sign as i, and for any i,j\in I (\omega),

Case (1.2). For the positive part of I(\omega), if \{\theta^{iN}\omega\}_{i\in\mathbb N} hits O infinitely many times, let

otherwise, let

where m^+(\omega) is the number of times \{\theta^{iN}\omega\}_{i\in\mathbb N} hits O;

Case (1.3). Similarly, for the negative part of I(\omega), if \{\theta^{-iN}\omega\}_{i\in\mathbb N} hits O infinitely many times, let

otherwise, let

where m^-(\omega) is the number of how many times \{\theta^{-iN}\omega\}_{i\in\mathbb N} hitting O;

Case (1.4). If \omega\in \theta^{-N_1}O, put 0 in I(\omega) and let n_0(\omega)=0; otherwise, 0\notin I(\omega).

We remark here that I(\omega) is always non-empty for \omega\in \Omega_1, however, each of I(\omega)\cap \mathbb N, I(\omega)\cap \{0\}, and I(\omega)\cap -\mathbb N could be an empty set.

Step 2. For a given \omega\in\Omega_1 and \hat a=(a_n)\in \mathcal S^k, we define a pseudo orbit as in the following:

Case 1. For n=n_i(\omega), i\in I(\omega), suppose that

then define

Case 2. For n\notin\{n_i(\omega)\}_{i\in I(\omega)}, suppose that \theta^{nN}\omega\in \Omega'_{t_2}, then define

For Case 1., note that \{(y'_{\hat a,\omega}(nN+j),\theta^{nN+j}\omega\}_{0\le j\le N_2-1} is a true orbit, and \theta^{nN}\in O^{a_n}_q, therefore

thus

By b1) and (?), we have that for N_2\le j\le N-1,

which implies that \{(y'_{\hat a,\omega}(nN+j),\theta^{nN+j}\omega\}_{N_2\le j\le N-1} is a segment of an (\omega,\frac16\alpha)-pseudo orbit. Hence \{(y'_{\hat a,\omega}(nN+j),\theta^{nN_j}\omega\}_{0\le j\le N-1} is a segment of an (\omega,\frac23\alpha)-pseudo orbit with length N.

For Case 2., by b3), (?), and using the same argument as for N_2\le j\le N-1 in Case 1., we have that \{(y'_{\hat a,\omega}(nN+j),\theta^{nN_j}\omega\}_{0\le j\le N-1} is a segment of an (\omega,\frac16\alpha)-pseudo orbit with length N.

Also note that, all the segments of (\omega,\alpha)-pseudo orbit defined in both Case 1. and Case 2. start and end in U_0 which has diameter \frac23\alpha. Hence, the pseudo orbit \{(y'_{\hat a,\omega}(j),\theta^{j}\omega\}_{j\in \mathbb Z} is an (\omega,\frac23\alpha)-pseudo orbit.

It is clear that \{(y'_{\hat a,\omega}(j),\theta^{j}\omega\}_{j\in \mathbb Z},\ \omega\in\Omega induces an \alpha-pseudo orbit of \tilde\phi by letting

The Borel measurability of each g'_{\hat a,j} follows from (?) and (?) immediately, since each g'_{\hat a,j} is either a simple function or an image of a simple function under iterations of \phi or \phi^{-1}. Therefore, by applying Theorem 3.7 for \tilde\phi|_{L^\infty(\Omega_1)}, we have that there exists a unique true orbit of \tilde\phi|_{L^\infty(\Omega_1)}, \{(\tilde\phi|_{L^\infty(\Omega_1)})^n(g_{\hat a})\}_{n\in\mathbb Z}, which is \beta-shadowing \{g'_{\hat a,j}\}_{j\in \mathbb Z}.

Now we define the desired horseshoe map by the letting

The continuity of \Psi|_{\Omega_1} follows from Lemma 3.6 straightforwardly. The next, we prove that Condition i) of Definition 2.5 for \Psi|_{\Omega_1} holds.

For \hat a'\neq\hat a'' (\in \mathcal S_k), let s=\min\left\{|n|\big |\ a'_n\neq a''_n\right\} and r be such that |r|=s and a'_r\neq a''_r . By the choice of O,y_i,U_i,\epsilon,\alpha,\beta at the beginning of this section, we have that

where d^\phi_{M\times \Omega,N_1} is the Bowen metric. Note that there is a constant L>1 such that for any \omega\in\Omega and x,y\in M with d(x,y)>0, we have

Therefore, for any \omega from the non-empty open set \theta^{-rN}(O), the following holds,

which implies Condition i) of Definition 2.5 by taking \Delta= \epsilon L^{-N}. The continuity of \Psi^{-1} follows from the same argument as (?).

Final Step. To complete the proof, we need to address the following issues:

Firstly, Condition ii) in Definition 2.5 for \Psi|_{\Omega_1} simply follows from the uniqueness of g_{\hat a} and the same argument used in the proof of Lemma 5.2.

Secondly, we need to extend the definition of g_{\hat a} properly to the whole \Omega. This can be done by Theorem 2.1. Since \Omega_1 and \Omega_2=\Omega\setminus \Omega_2 are both \theta^N-invariant, we can view \Omega_2 independently, and give up to capture entropy from the system \phi^N|_{\Omega_2} (as the entropy captured from \phi^N|_{\Omega_1} is already enough). Theorem 2.1 implies that for large N, there exists a Borel function g:\Omega_2\to M such that

We simply extend g_{\hat a} to \tilde g_{\hat a} by letting

It is not hard to see that such an extension is harmless for Conditions i) and ii) of Definition 2.5. So the map \Psi:\mathcal S_k\to L^\infty which takes \hat a to \tilde g_{\hat a} gives a full random horseshoe.

Finally, as we required at the beginning of this section that N_2>>N_1, a2) yields

This completes the proof of theorem.

This simply follows from iii) of Lemma 3.1, the continuous (thus uniformly continuous) dependence of W^s_\epsilon(x,\omega),W^u_\epsilon(x,\omega) on (x,\omega), and the uniform continuity of the invariant splitting E^u_{(x,\omega)}\oplus E^s_{(x,\omega)}. For details, we refer to [Bow4].

Take \epsilon smaller than \epsilon_0 as in Lemma 3.1. Otherwise, (y,\omega)\in W^s_\epsilon(x,\omega)\cap W^u_\epsilon(x,\omega), therefore y=x.

The proof follows from the proof of Proposition 3.6 in [GK], thus is omitted here.

By i) and iii) of Lemma 3.1, for any \epsilon_1>0, there exist \delta_1, L_1>0 such that the following properties hold

• P1) For any x,y\in M with d_M(x,y)<\delta_1, [x,y]_\omega=W^s_{\epsilon}(x,\omega)\cap W^u_{\epsilon}(y,\omega) is well defined, where \epsilon is as in Lemma 3.1;

• P2) For any x,y\in M with d_M(x,y)<\delta_1

  \max\left\{d_M([x,y]_\omega,x),d_M([x,y]_\omega,y)\right\}\le L_1d_M(x,y);

• P3) For any x,y\in M with d_M(x,y)<\delta_1

  \max\left\{\left|d_M([x,y]_\omega,x)-d_M([y,x]_\omega,y)\right|,\ \left|d_M([y,x]_\omega,x)-d_M([x,y]_\omega,y)\right|\right\}\le \epsilon_1d_M(x,y).

It is obvious that P1) holds when taking \delta_1<\delta where \delta is as in Lemma 3.2. The proof of the existence of such \delta_1 and L_1 to fit P2) and P3) may be standard, nevertheless, we sketch the proof briefly for the sake of completeness. Note that the above properties only appear in a local scenario, for the sake of simplicity, we fix an atlas of the manifold and always keep our discussion in one single local chart in the rest of the proof. Without causing any confusion, we identify T_xM_\omega and T_yM_\omega to \mathbb R^n for d_M(x,y) small, thus such x and y are considered to be two points in \mathbb R^n thus x-y are well defined, and \exp{(E^u_{(x,\omega)})},\ \exp{(E^s_{(x,\omega)})} are considered to be hyperplanes in \mathbb R^n, which contain the point x\in \mathbb R^n. We also note that the distance in the local chart \mathbb R^n is equivalent to the metric d_M and the comparison constant is some system constant, therefore we will not distinguish them in the local argument.

Now we propose the condition of \delta_1 and L_1 which make P2) valid. As discussed in Remark 2.1, the splitting T_xM_\omega=E^u_{(x,\omega)}\oplus E^s_{(x,\omega)} is uniformly continuous on (x,\omega), thus one can make E^u_{(x,\omega)}\oplus E^s_{(x,\omega)} closed enough to E^u_{(y,\omega)}\oplus E^s_{(y,\omega)} by taking d_M(x,y) small enough. Precisely, consider the splittings

and

then we request that for any d_M(x,y)<\delta_1, the following hold

where \epsilon'>0 is a prefixed small constant.

Let z_1=[x,y]_\omega and z_2=\exp(E^u_{(y,\omega)})\cap \exp(E^s_{(x,\omega)}). Note that, locally, z_1-z_2, \pi^s_{y,x}(z_1-z_2) and \pi^u_{y,x}(z_1-z_2) are well defined and satisfy the following:

and

Since |z_1-z_2|\le |\pi^u_{y,x}(z_1-z_2)|+|\pi^s_{y,x}(z_1-z_2)|, without losing generality, we assume that |\pi^s_{y,x}(z_1-z_2)|>\frac12|z_1-z_2|. By i) of Lemma 3.1, we have that

Also note that

Then we have

which implies that

Thus, by taking L_1=L_1'+P+\epsilon', we have that

The other part follows exactly from the same argument. Proof for P2) is completed.

Next, we sketch the proof for P3). Let z_2=\exp(E^u_{(y,\omega)})\cap \exp(E^s_{(x,\omega)}) which is the same as above and z_3=\exp(E^s_{(y,\omega)})\cap \exp(E^u_{(x,\omega)}). Then we have

where \epsilon'>0 is a prefixed small number from (?. To complete the proof of P3), we need to estimate the distance between z_1=[x,y]_\omega and z_2 (similarly the distance betwwen z_4:=[y,x]_\omega and z_3), which has been given by (?) and (?). The last step is to take \delta_1>0 small enough such that the constant "10\mathcal P" in (?) and (?) can be replaced by a large enough constant K>0 so that L'_1<\frac14\epsilon_1. This can be done, because of "LipDg^\tau_{(x,\omega)}<L" from i) and iii) of Lemma 3.1. Combining with (?), we have that P3) holds when we take \epsilon'<\frac18\epsilon_1.

We now are ready to prove the lemma.

By the setting of \phi, there exists L_2\ge 1 such that the Lipschitz constants of f_\omega and f^{-1}_\omega are less that L_2 for all \omega\in\Omega.

Set C_0:=\frac{(\epsilon_1+L_1)(L_2+1)}{1-\epsilon_1-(1+\epsilon_1)e^{-\lambda}}, where we require the smallness of \epsilon_1 to ensure the positivity of C_0. Now take \alpha_0>0 with 4C_0\alpha_0<\delta_1, we will show that there exists C\ge 1 satisfying the required properties.

We call a subset R_\omega\subset M_\omega a rectangle if its diameter is small and [x,y]_\omega\in R_\omega for all x,y\in R_\omega. Let A,B\subset M be Borel sets with diameter less than 2\epsilon and their Hausdorff distance are smaller than \delta_1. It is not hard to see that [A,B]_\omega:=\{[x,y]_\omega|\ x\in A, y\in B\} is a rectangle in M_\omega. For a rectangle R_\omega\subset M_\omega, define that

For a given \alpha\in(0,\alpha_0), x,y\in M_\omega and z\in M_{\theta\omega} satisfying that d_M(x,y)<\alpha and d_M(f_\omega(x),z)<\alpha, we have the following:

• p1) d_M(f_\omega(y),z)\le d_M(f_\omega(y),f_\omega(x))+d_M(f_\omega(x),z) \le (L_2+1)\alpha.

• p2) \max\{d_M([z,f_\omega(y)]_{\theta\omega},z),d_M([f_\omega(y),z]_{\theta\omega},y)\}\le L_1(L_2+1)\alpha by P2).

• p3) For any y'\in f_\omega(W^s_{C_0\alpha}(y,\omega)), by P2), p1) and p2),

  \begin{aligned} d_M([z,y']_{\theta\omega},z) &\le d_M([z,y']_{\theta\omega},[z,f(y)]_{\theta\omega})+d_M([z,f(y)]_{\theta\omega},z)\\ &\le d_M(y',f_\omega(y))+\epsilon_1d_M(y',[z,f(y)]_{\theta\omega})+d_M([z,f(y)]_{\theta\omega},z)\\ &\le C_0\alpha e^{-\lambda}+\epsilon_1(d_M(y',f_\omega(y))+d_M(f_\omega(y),z))+L_1(L_2+1)\alpha\\ &\le (1+\epsilon_1)C_0\alpha e^{-\lambda}+(\epsilon_1+L_1)(L_2+1)\alpha\\ &= (1-\epsilon_1)C_0\alpha. \end{aligned}

• p4) Similar to the arguments for p3), we have that for any z'\in f_{\theta\omega}^{-1}(W^u_{C_0\alpha}(z,\theta\omega))

  d_M([z',y]_\omega,y)\le (1-\epsilon_1)C_0\alpha.

Let R_\omega(y):=\overline {[W^u_{C_0\alpha}(y,\omega),W^s_{C_0\alpha}(y,\omega)]_\omega}. By P1) and P3), we have that for any x\in R_\omega(y)

Next, define two complete metric spaces \mathcal V^s_\omega(y) and \mathcal V^u_\omega(y) as follows:

where the metric in \mathcal V^\tau_\omega(y) is the Hausdorff distance.

Define a map \mathcal F^u_\omega(y,z):\mathcal V^u_\omega(y)\to\mathcal V^u_{\theta\omega}(z) by letting

By the choice of C_0 and p3), we can see that the above map is well defined. Moreover, p3) also implies that \mathcal \mathcal F^u_\omega(y,z) is a contraction on \mathcal V^u_\omega(y) with contracting rate 1-\epsilon_1. Similarly, we can define a contracting map \mathcal F^s_{\theta\omega}(z,y):\mathcal V^s_{\theta\omega}(z)\to\mathcal V^s_{\omega}(y) by p4).

Now for a given (\omega,\alpha)-pseudo orbit \{(x_i,\theta^i\omega)\}_{i\in\mathbb Z} and i,j\in\mathbb Z with i<j, define that

which are both contractions. Thus the following set consists of only one point which is denoted by y_i

It is clear that \{(y_i,\theta^i\omega)\}_{i\in \mathbb Z} is a true orbit and y_i\in R_{\theta^i\omega}(x_i). Therefore, (?) tells that taking C=(2L_1+1)C_0 will fit the need.

Note that if x_i=x_i',\ \forall i\in[-N,N], then d_M(y_i,y_i')<2\beta,\ \forall i\in[-N,N]. Let z=[y_0,y'_0]_\omega, where [\cdot,\cdot]_\cdot is defined in 3.2 for a fixed \delta corresponding to \epsilon=\frac12\epsilon_0. By the definition of local unstable manifold and ii) of Lemma 3.1, we have that

The same argument is applicable to d_M(z,y_0) if we reverse the time. Therefore,

where L_1 is a constant given by P2) at beginning of the proof of Lemma 3.5. The proof is completed.

First, we note that each \alpha-pseudo orbit \{g'_i\}_{i\in \mathbb Z} induces an (\omega,\alpha)-pseudo orbit

for each \omega\in \Omega. Thus Lemma 3.4 is applicable and produces a map g:\Omega\to M such that \{(g(\theta^i\omega),\theta^i\omega)\}_{i\in \mathbb Z} is (\omega,\beta)-shadowing \{(g_i(\theta^i\omega),\theta^i\omega)\}_{i\in \mathbb Z}, where \alpha and \beta are as in Lemma 3.4. Once g is Borel measurable, the proof follows from Lemma 3.4 and 3.5.

Next, we prove that g is Borel measurable. For h\in L^\infty(\Omega, M) and r>0, denote B_\Omega(h,r) the open tubular neighborhood of graph(h), i.e.,

It is not hard to see that B_\Omega(h,r) is a Borel subset of M\times\Omega. In fact, since M is compact, there exists a sequence of simple functions \{h_i:\Omega\to M\}_{i\in \mathbb N} such that

Note that each B_\Omega(h_i,\frac{ir}{i+2}) is a Borel subset of M\times\Omega because it is a union of finite rectangle sets, thus B_\Omega(h,r)=\cup_{i\in N}B_\Omega(h_i,\frac{ir}{i+2}) implies the Borel measurability of B_\Omega(h,r).

Coming back to g and g_i', by the uniqueness of g, we have that

For k\in\mathbb N, let

By the continuity of \phi and \phi^{-1}, S_k is a Borel subset in M\times\Omega. Also note that for each \omega\in\Omega,

which is a nonempty open subset of M_\omega. By applying Theorem B.1 to each S_k, we have that for each k\in\mathbb N, there exists a Borel measurable map g_k:\Omega\to M such that

By the uniqueness of g and Lemma 3.3, we have that

which implies that g is Borel measurable. The proof is completed.

Recall that the original definition of \underline h(M\times \Omega|\Omega) is given by

This lemma simply states that the above order of \inf and \lim_{\epsilon\to0^+} can be exchanged. First, we clearly have that

Next, we show that the opposite inequality also holds. To see this, we claim

Claim:There exists \eta >0 such that

Proof of the Claim: It is obvious that h_{top}(\phi|M_\omega)\ge \limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac1n\log N(\omega,\eta,n) by definition. Hence, it remains to prove the opposite inequality.

Firstly, we fix an \eta>0 satisfying the following property: for any x,y\in M_\omega

The existence of such \eta follows from the expansive property of \phi, where one only requires \eta<\epsilon for the \epsilon from Lemma 3.3.

Secondly, by Lemma 3.6, we have that for any \epsilon'\in(0,\eta), there exists L(\epsilon')\in \mathbb N such that for any x,y\in M_\omega

By (?), we have for any \omega\in\Omega, n\in\mathbb N, and x,y\in M_\omega,

which yields

Note that

(?) and (?) imply that

Therfore (?) holds, which yields

which completes the proof of this lemma.

Let \{x_i\}_{1\le i\le k} be an 3\epsilon-separated finite subset of M. Such a set exists for small enough \epsilon>0, and we fix this \epsilon. Without loss of generality, we assume that \epsilon<\frac12\beta_0, where \beta_0 is as in Lemma 3.7. For \beta=\frac13\epsilon, there exists an \alpha>0 corresponding to \beta as in Lemma 3.7. Again, for the sake of convenience, we assume that \alpha<\beta. For any i\in \{1,\cdots,k\}, let U_i=B(x_i,\frac13\alpha).

By Condition H2), there exists an N\in\mathbb N such that the following holds

By the uniform continuity of \phi and \theta, there exist \delta_1,\delta_2>0 such that (?) and (?) hold. Let \{\Omega_s'\}_{s\in S} be a finite Borel measurable partition of \Omega with diameter less than \delta_2. By (?), for any s\in S and i,j\in\{1\cdots,k\}, there exists (y^{i,j}_s,\omega^{i,j}_s)\in U_i\times \Omega'_s such that

We define a simple function y^{i,j}=\sum_{s\in S}y^{i,j}_s\chi_{\Omega'_s} for all i,j\in\{1,\cdots,k\}.

Now, we are ready to build the strong random horseshoe by constructing a proper \alpha-pseudo-orbits of \tilde\phi associated to elements from \mathcal S_k:=\{1,\cdots, k\}^{\mathbb Z}.

For a given \hat a=(a_i)_{i\in\mathbb Z}\in \mathcal S_k, and a given \omega\in\Omega, we denote q_\omega:\mathbb Z\to S the function satisfying that for any l\in \mathbb Z, \theta^{lN}(\omega)\in \Omega_{q(l)}'. Then, we define

Set

It is clear that each g_i:\Omega\to M is Borel measurable since g_i is either a simple function or the image of a simple function under \phi or \phi^{-1}’s iterations.

For l\in\mathbb Z and i\in [lN,(l+1)N-1], by the choice of \delta_2 and (?), we have that

Therefore, by (?), we have that, for i\in [lN,(l+1)N-2],
(to save space, let z=\pi_M\phi^{i-lN}\left(y^{a_l,a_{l+1}}(\theta^{lN}\omega),\omega^{a_l,a_{l+1}}_{q_\omega(l)}\right))

while for i=(l+1)N-1,

This concludes that for any \omega\in \Omega, \{(y'_{\hat,\omega}(i),\theta^i\omega)\}_{i\in\mathbb Z} forms an (\omega,\alpha)-pseudo orbit of \phi. Thus \{g_i\}_{i\in\mathbb Z} forms an \alpha-pseudo orbit of \tilde \phi. Thereafter, Lemma 3.7 implies the existence of a unique true orbit \{\phi^i(\tilde )\}_{i\in\mathbb Z} which is \beta-shadowing \{g_i\}_{i\in\mathbb Z}.

We define the map \Psi:\mathcal S_k\to L^\infty(\Omega, M) by letting

where the continuity of \Psi follows from Lemma 3.8.

Note that \{\tilde\phi^i(\tilde g_{\hat a})\}_{i\in\mathbb Z} and \{\tilde\phi^i(\tilde g_{\sigma \hat a})\}_{i\in\mathbb Z} are two true orbits and

therefore, by Lemma 3.8, we have that

which implies (ii) in Definition 2.6.

Now we prove i) in Definition 2.6. For any \hat a_1=(a_1(i))_{i\in \mathbb Z},\hat a_2=(a_2(i))_{i\in \mathbb Z}\in\mathcal S_k with \hat a_1\neq \hat a_2, let s=\min\{|i||\ a_1(i)\neq a_2(i)\}. Then, by the choice of x_i,U_i,\epsilon,\alpha,\beta at the beginning of this section, we have that

where a_1(r)\neq a_2(r) with |r|=s and d^{\phi}_{M\times\Omega,N} is the Bowen metric. Note that there is a constant L>1 such that for any \omega\in\Omega and x,y\in M with d(x,y)>0, we have

Therefore

which implies Condition i) of Definition 2.6 by taking \Delta =\epsilon L^{-N}.

Finally, the continuity of \Psi^{-1} can be obtained by the following estimate:

The proof is completed.

This result simply follows from Lemma 4.1 and the shadowing property (Lemma 3.7). We omit the detailed proof here.

We remark that the connecting time "\tau" in the definition of specification above only depends on the scale "\epsilon" and the given system. More precisely, the connecting time is determined by the accuracy of shadowing and the speed of mixing.

By Lemma 3.1, 3.2, and P2) in the proof of Lemma 3.5, for a fixed positive number \lambda\in(0,\lambda_0), there exist \epsilon>0, \delta\in(0,\epsilon), L>1 such that for any x,y\in M with d_M(x,y)<\delta, the following hold

For (g,n)\in \mathcal G and h\in B_n(g,\epsilon), we have that for any \omega\in\Omega and 0\le i\le n-1

Then

which is independent on n, g and h.

For the average Bowen property, we need only to replace the \sup_{\mathbb P} in (?) by integration on \Omega with respect to \mathbb P and obtain the following

which is independent on n, g and h. This completes the proof of this lemma.

At first, we prove a the following technical lemma:

Now we define a functional on \{\tilde \phi^n(g)\}_{n\ge 0} by the following

From Lemma 7.1 and the second part of Lemma 7.2, it follows that \hat \Psi '' is bounded on \{\tilde \phi^n(g)\}_{n\ge 0}. In fact, there exist N\in\mathbb N and \epsilon\in (0,\epsilon_0) (where \epsilon_0 is as in Lemma 7.2) such that for any n\in \mathbb N, there exists a periodic point h\in L^\infty(\Omega, M) such tha the following hold:

Therefore, by (?) we have that

which is independent on n.

Let \alpha_0>0 and C be the constants as in the second part of Lemma 3.7. We have that for any \alpha\in(0,\alpha_0) each \alpha-pseudo orbit of \tilde\phi can be C\alpha-shadowed. Without loss of generality, we assume that C\alpha_0<\epsilon_0, where \epsilon_0 is as in Lemma 7.2. Suppose that for n,k\in\mathbb N d_{L^\infty(\Omega, M)}(\tilde \phi^{n+k}(g),\tilde \phi^{n}(g))<\alpha_0. By applying Lemma 3.7, there exists a random periodic point g_0\in L^\infty(\Omega, M) such that the following holds

Therefore, we obtain that

where C_1=\frac{2\left(4L(C+1)\right)^\alpha}{1-e^{-\alpha\lambda}}\int_{\Omega}\|\Phi\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(M_\omega)}d\mathbb P and L is as in (?).

So far, we have shown that \hat \Psi ' is \alpha-Hölder continuous and bounded on \{\tilde \phi^n(g)\}_{n\ge 0}. As \{\tilde \phi^n(g)\}_{n\ge 0} being dense in C(\Omega,M), \hat \Psi ' defined by (?) has a unique \alpha-Hölder extension \hat\Psi on C(\Omega,M), which completes the proof.

Since \hat \Psi' is bounded, it suffices to consider the case when \rho and \mathbb P\left(\Omega\setminus \Omega_{h_1,h_2,\rho}\right) are small.

Let g\in L^\infty(\Omega, M) be the point that the closure of whose orbit contains C(\Omega,M), and \alpha_0 be as in the second part of Lemma 3.7, and \alpha_1\in (0,\frac16\alpha_0). By Lemma 4.1, there exists an N_1\in \mathbb N such that

where B(h,r) is the r-ball centered at h in L^\infty(\Omega, M).

Given \rho\in (0,\alpha_1) and h_1,h_2\in C(\Omega,M), we denote \Omega_1=\Omega\setminus \Omega_{h_1,h_2,\rho}. For \alpha_2\in(0,\frac12\rho), let n,k\in\mathbb N be such that \tilde \phi^n(g)\in B(h_1,\alpha_2) and \tilde \phi^{n+k}(g)\in B(h_2,\alpha_2). Without loss of generality, we assume that n,k>>N_1. By the choice of \alpha_1 and N_1, there exists h_3\in L^\infty(\Omega, M) satisfying the following

Define a periodic sequence \{g_i\}_{i\in \mathbb Z}\subset L^\infty(\Omega, M) with period k by the following:

where \chi_{O} is the characteristic function of O\subset \Omega. It is clear that

Thus, using \alpha_1,\alpha_2, \rho\in(0,\frac16\alpha_0) and Lemma 3.7, we obtain that there exists a random periodic point g' satisfying that

where C is the one as in Lemma 3.7.

Note that for each \omega\in \Omega\setminus \Omega' where \Omega'= \Omega_1\cup \theta^{-k}\Omega_1\cup \theta^{-2k}\Omega_1, we have that

Thus, we have a (\rho+\alpha_1,\omega)-pseudo orbit \{(y_i,\theta^i\omega)\}_{i\in \mathbb Z} by letting

Here \{(y_i,\theta^i\omega)\}_{i\in\mathbb Z} is a (\rho+2\alpha_2,\omega)-pseudo orbit because \{\left(g_i(\theta^i\omega),\theta^i\omega\right)\}_{-k\le i\le 2k-1} is a segment of a (\rho+2\alpha_2,\omega)-pseudo orbit. By Lemma 3.5 and the choice of \alpha_2 and \rho, we have that there exists a true orbit \{\phi^i(y',\omega)\}_{i\in\mathbb Z} which is (C(\rho+2\alpha_2),\omega)-shadowing \{(y_i,\theta^i\omega)\}_{i\in\mathbb Z}. Recall that \{\phi^i(g'(\omega),\omega)\}_{-k\le i\le 2k} is (C(\rho+2\alpha_1+2\alpha_2),\omega)-shadowing \{\left(g_i(\theta^i\omega),\theta^i\omega\right)\}_{-k\le i\le 2k-1}, which means that

Note that k can be chosen arbitrarily large. Hence Lemma 3.6 implies that one can make d_M\left(\pi_M\phi^{k-1}(g'(\omega),\omega),\pi_M\phi^{k-1}(y',\omega)\right) and d_M\left(g'(\omega),y'\right) arbitrarily small by taking k large enough. It is worth to point out that the largeness of k is depending on C(2\alpha_1+4\alpha_2+2\rho) only while it is nothing to do with the choice on specific \omega as long as \omega\in \Omega\setminus \Omega'. Now we choose k large enough so that the following holds

Thus

here we used the fact that C(2\rho+2\alpha_2)\le 4C\rho.

Therefore, by using the same argument as in (Proof), we obtain that

Now we are ready to estimate \left|\hat\Psi'(h_2)-\hat\Psi'(h_1)\right|:

where the fact that 0<\alpha_2<\rho<\alpha_1 is used.

Note that, in the last line of above estimate, \alpha_1 and N_1 are fixed while \alpha_2 can be chosen arbitrarily small which consequentially forces n and k tend to +\infty. Thus

where L'=\max\left\{\frac{2\left(16C\right)^\alpha}{1-e^{-\alpha\lambda}},\frac{2\left(20C\alpha_1\right)^\alpha}{1-e^{-\alpha\lambda}}+2N_1\right\}. The proof is complete.

Actually, this proposition still holds when \theta is assumed to be equicontinuous only. We say \theta is equicontinuous if there exist c>1 and \delta>0 such that for any \omega_1,\omega_2\in \Omega with d_\Omega(\omega_1,\omega_2)<\delta,

When \theta is equicontinuous, if we set

then \widetilde{d}_\Omega is a metric on \Omega satisfying that

• \widetilde{d}_\Omega and d_\Omega are equivalent;

• \widetilde{d}_\Omega(\theta^n\omega_1,\theta^n\omega_2)=\widetilde{d}_\Omega(\omega_1,\omega_2) for any \omega_1,\omega_2\in \Omega and n\in \mathbb{Z}.

Therefore, without loss of generality, for an equicontinuous \theta, we always assume that

For a given g\in C(\Omega,M), we define a neighborhood of its graph as follows. We consider a finite Borel partition \xi=\{\xi_i\}_{1\le i\le p} of \Omega, of which each element contains an nonempty open subset. Such a partition exists because of compactness of \Omega. For any \omega\in\Omega, we define \xi(\omega) the element in \xi which contains \omega, and also denote that

which induces a \delta-neighborhood of graph(g): \bigcup_{\xi_i\in\xi} B_g(\xi_i,\delta). We denote it by B_g(\delta).

Next, we will construct a (\upsilon,\delta)-pseudo orbit for \upsilon\in \Omega, g\in C(\Omega,M), and \delta>0. Given \delta>0, by Lemma ?, there exist m=m(\delta,g,\phi) >0 and (x_i,\omega_i)\in B_g(\xi_i,\delta) for 1\le i\le p such that

For l\in\mathbb Z, suppose that \theta^{lm}\upsilon\in \xi_{i_l}, then we define

Now we are ready to prove Proposition 8.1. For a given small \epsilon>0 and g\in C(\Omega,M), choose 0<\beta<\min\{\frac12\epsilon,\beta_0\}. By Lemma 3.7, there exists a corresponding \alpha>0 for \beta. Then, by applying Lemma ? and ?, for \epsilon'=\alpha there exists a \delta'>0 such that for any \upsilon\in\Omega and \delta\in(0,\delta'), there exists m\in \mathbb N which is depending on \delta,g,\phi only and a (\upsilon,\alpha)-pseudo orbit defined by (?), which is denoted by \{(y_i,\theta^n\upsilon)\}_{n\in\mathbb Z}, such that

Define g_i:\Omega\to M for i\in \mathbb Z as follows

It is clear that each g_i is measurable since g_i is either a continuous function or a pre-image of a simple function under continuous iterations. Also note that

Thus \{g_i\}_{i\in\mathbb Z} is an \alpha-pseudo orbit of \tilde\phi. By applying Lemma 3.7, there is a true orbit \{\tilde\phi(\tilde g)\}_{i\in\mathbb Z} which is \beta-shadowing \{g_i\}_{i\in\mathbb Z}. The uniqueness of such a \tilde g and the periodicity of \{g_i\}_{i\in\mathbb Z} imply that \tilde g is a periodic point of \tilde \phi.

This completes the proof of Proposition 8.1.

Let f_\omega \binom{x}{y}= A\binom{x}{y}+h(\omega) for \omega\in \mathbb{T}. Then \phi\left(\binom{x}{y},\omega\right)=\left(f_\omega \binom{x}{y},\omega+\alpha\right). Note that Df_\omega \binom{x}{y}=A for any (\binom{x}{y},\omega)\in \mathbb{T}^2\times \mathbb{T} and A is a hyperbolic matrix. Hence (\mathbb{T}^2\times \mathbb{T},\phi) is Anosov on fibers.

Let \mu be the Lebesgue measure on \mathbb{T}^2\times \mathbb{T}. To show that T is transitive, it is sufficient to show that (\mathbb{T}^2\times \mathbb{T},\mathcal{B}_{\mathbb{T}^2\times \mathbb{T}}, \phi,\mu) is an ergodic measure-preserving system. First, it is clear that (\mathbb{T}^2\times \mathbb{T},\mathcal{B}_{\mathbb{T}^2\times \mathbb{T}}, \phi,\mu) is a measure-preserving system. In the following we show that (\mathbb{T}^2\times \mathbb{T},\mathcal{B}_{\mathbb{T}^2\times \mathbb{T}}, \phi,\mu) is ergodic.

Let f\in L^2(\mu) with f\circ \phi=f \mu-a.e.. Let

be the Fourier series of f on \mathbb{T}^2\times \mathbb{T}. Then

Fix (n',l')\in \mathbb{Z}^2. For any g\in L^2(m_{\mathbb{T}}), where m_{\mathbb{T}} is the Lebesgue measure on \mathbb{T}, we have

Since the above equality holds for any g\in L^2(m_{\mathbb{T}}), we have

in L^2(m_{\mathbb{T}}). Thus

Hence

When (l',n')\neq (0,0), (l',n')A^m\neq (l',n')A^k for m,k\in \mathbb{N} with m\neq k. Hence if (l',n')\neq (0,0) then for any N\in \mathbb{N},

Let N\nearrow +\infty, we get \sum_{k\in \mathbb{Z}} |c_{k,l',n'}|^2=0 for (l',n')\neq (0,0). When (l',n')= (0,0), by (?) we have

in L^2(m_{\mathbb{T}}). Thus c_{k,0,0}=c_{k,0,0}e^{-2\pi i k\alpha} for k\in \mathbb{Z}. When k\neq 0, we have c_{k,0,0}=0 as \alpha \in \mathbb{R}\setminus \mathbb{Q}. Summing over we get f=c_{0,0,0}. This shows that (\mathbb{T}^2\times \mathbb{T},\mathcal{B}_{\mathbb{T}^2\times \mathbb{T}}, \phi,\mu) is ergodic. The proof of this lemma is complete.

If this is not true, then there are g(\omega)=\binom{g_1(\omega)}{g_2(\omega)}\in C(\mathbb{T},\mathbb{T}^2) and positive integer n such that \phi^n (graph(g))=graph(g), i.e.

for \omega\in \mathbb{T}. Let deg(g_i)=k_i for i=1,2. Note that

Hence

Compare the degree of continuous functions from \mathbb{T} to \mathbb{T} appearing in the above equation, we have

That is

Since \det(I-A^n)\neq 0 and (I-A)(I+A+\cdots+A^{n-1})=I-A^n, we have

This implies k_1=-\frac{n_2}{2}\not \in \mathbb{Z}, a contradiction. The proof is complete.

Unlike the case of S1) systems, the proof for S2) is based on the measure preserving property of f_\omega, which leads to a much more direct approach.

For a given \omega\in \Omega, an open subset V\subset M, and a real number r>0, we inductively define a sequence of subsets V^r_n(\omega)\subset M, n=0,1,2,\cdots as follows:

where B_M(x,r) is the ball in M with radius r centered at x. It is not hard to see that each V^r_n(\omega) is open and \{\nu(V^r_n(\omega))\}_{n=0,1,\cdots} is non-decreasing on both n and r since \nu is f-invariant and f is invertible. Thus \lim_{n\to\infty}\nu(V^r_n(\omega)) exists.

Next, we show that

Since supp\ \nu=M, we know that any open subset of M is not a \nu-null set. Additionally, because M is compact, for any R>0, M can be covered by finitely many balls with radius \frac13R, each of which has a positive \nu-measure. Thus,

For a given n\ge 1, let t^r_n(\omega)=\min\{\sup\{d_H(x,f_{\theta^{n-1}\omega}(V^r_{n-1}(\omega))|\ x\in M\},r\}, where for x\in M and A\subset M

is the Hausdoff distance. Since d_H(x,V^r_n(\omega)) is continuous on x and M is connected, we have that there exists x'\in M such that

Therefore, B\left(x',\frac12t^r_n(\omega)\right)\subset V^r_n(\omega)\setminus f_{\theta^{n-1}\omega}(V^r_{n-1}(\omega)) which implies that

Because of the existence of \lim_{n\to\infty} \nu (V^r_n(\omega)) and (?), we have that

By the definition of V_n^r(\omega) as in (Proof), once t_n^r<r, V_n^r(\omega)=M, thus (?) holds.

Now, we are ready to show that S2)-type systems are topological mixing on fibers.

Let U_1, U_2\subset M be two nonempty open sets. Choose two open balls B_M(x_i,3R)\subset U_i, i=1,2, with R>0. Applying Lemma 3.4 by setting \beta=R, we have an \alpha>0, such that any (\omega,\alpha)-pseudo orbit can be (\omega,\beta)-shadowed by a true orbit.

For a given \omega\in\Omega, take V=B_M(x_1,R) and r=\alpha, and define V^r_n(\omega) as in (Proof). By (?), there exists an N_1(\omega) such that for any n\ge N_1(\omega), V_n^r(\omega)=M. By continuity of \phi, we have that for any \omega\in\Omega, there exists \delta(\omega)>0 such that the following holds:

where B_\Omega(\omega,\delta(\omega)) is the ball in \Omega with radius \delta(\omega) centered at \omega.

Since \Omega is compact, and \{B_\Omega(\omega,\delta(\omega))\}_{\omega\in\Omega} forms an open cover on M, there exists a finite sub-cover, \{B_\Omega(\omega_j,\delta(\omega_j)\}_{1\le j\le q},\ q\in\mathbb N. Take N=\max\{N_1(\omega_1),\cdots, N_1(\omega_q)\}+1, then the following holds

Next, we show that

This can be done by constructing an (\omega,r)-pseudo orbit, \{(y'_{n,i},\theta^i\omega)\}_{i\in\mathbb Z}, connecting two balls B_M(x_1,R)\times \{\omega\} and B_M(x_2,R)\times \{\theta^n\omega\}, which is (\omega,R)-shadowed by a true orbit

Thus this true orbit, \{(y_{n,i},\theta^i\omega)\}_{i\in\mathbb Z}, will hit both B_M(x_1,3R)\times \{\omega\} and B_M(x_2,3R)\times \{\theta^n\omega\}. Hence (?) holds. Actually, the existence of such an (\omega,r)-pseudo orbits (\forall\ \omega\in \Omega), \{(y'_{n,i},\theta^i\omega)\}_{i\in\mathbb Z}, follows from (?), which can be constructed in the following:

For any n\ge N and \omega\in\Omega, since V_N^r(\omega)=M, we have that there exists z_{N-1}(\omega)\in V_{N-1}^r(\omega) such that

Inductively, we have that for any i\in\{0,\cdots, N-2\}, there exists z_i(\omega)\in V_i^r(\omega) such that

Also note that V_0^r(\omega)=B_M(x_1,R), then we have that \{z_i(\omega)\}_{1 \le i\le N-1} satisfies the following properties:

We define

By (?), it is not hard to see that the above y'_{n,i}’s fit all the requirements. The proof is complete.

Denote \mathbb R^{2+}:=\left\{(x,y)\in \mathbb R^2\setminus \{(0,0)\}\Big|\ x\ge 0, y\ge 0\right\}. For any v_i=\left(\begin{matrix}x_i\\y_i\end{matrix}\right)\in \mathbb R^{2+}, i=1,2, by a straightforward computation, we have that

where \angle(v_1,v_2) is the angle between v_1 and v_2.

By a straightforward computation, we have that, for any j\in\{1,\cdots,p\}, i=1,2,

Let Proj^+:=\left\{\mathrm{span}\{v\}|\ v\in \mathbb R^{2+}\right\} which is a compact subset of the projective space \mathbb P^2. It is not hard to see that the second inequality of (?) yields that for any \hat a\in \mathcal S_k and n\in\mathbb N the map \phi(\cdot,\hat a) induces a contraction map on Proj^+ with a uniform contracting rate. By the contracting mapping theorem, we have that there is a unique 1-dimensional space E_{\hat a} such that

where we denote \bar \phi(\cdot,\hat a) the induced map on \mathbb P^2 by \phi(\cdot,\hat a). By the uniqueness, we have that

The first inequality of (?) yields that \phi(|_{E_{\hat a}},\hat a) is expanding with rate at least \kappa. The continuity of E_{\hat a} on \hat a simply follows from the second inequality of (?).

By applying exactly the same argument, we can obtain that for any \hat a\in \mathcal S_k there exists a unique 1-dimensional space F_{\hat a}\notin Proj^+ such that F_{\hat a} varies continuously on \hat a and the following holds

Note that \phi itself is linear on \mathbb T^2, therefore the linearization of \hat \phi^n, D_{\mathbb T^2}\hat \phi^n, can be identified by \phi. Hence, \hat \phi is an S2)-type system with continuous co-invariant splitting \mathbb R^2=E_{\hat a}\oplus F_{\hat a} for \hat a\in\mathcal S_k.

The proof of Theorem 8.3 can be derived by employing the exact same paradigm used in the proof of Part B. of Theorem 2.2. To adapt the proof of Part B. of Theorem 2.2 into the current circumstance, one needs only to replace \overline h(M\times\Omega|\Omega) by h_{top}(M\times\Omega|\mathbb P), and make the "O" in Lemma ? satisfy \mathbb P(O)>0 rather than "nonempty open subset", which is guaranteed by the definition of h_{top}(M\times\Omega|\mathbb P). We omit the detailed proof here.

This theorem follows from Part A. of Theorem 2.2 and the following lemma:

To end the proof, it suffices to note that

and

Let U and V be random open sets with U(\omega),V(\omega)\neq \emptyset for \mathbb P-a.e. \omega\in\Omega. Let \{x_i\}_{ i\in\mathbb N} be a countable dense set of \mathbb E. For i,j\in\mathbb N, define

It is not hard to see that each \Omega^U_{i,j} or \Omega^V_{i,j} is measurable, and \mathbb P(\cup_{i,j}\Omega^U_{i,j})=\mathbb P(\cup_{i,j}\Omega^V_{i,j})=1. Without loss of generality, we suppose that \mathbb P(\Omega^U_{i_0,j_0})>0 for some i_0,j_0\in\mathbb N. Since F is topological mixing on fibers, for any i,j\in \mathbb N, there exists N_{i,j}\in\mathbb N such that for any k>N_{i,j}

By the ergodicity of \theta^{-1} and Poincare Recurrence Theorem, we have that for \mathbb P-a.s. \omega\in\Omega, \{\theta^{-k}\omega\}_{k\in\mathbb N} will visit \Omega^U_{i_0,j_0} infinitely many times. Given i,j\in\mathbb N, for \omega\in \Omega^V_{i,j}, define that

It is not hard to see that n:\Omega_{i,j}^V\to\mathbb N is measurable and n(\omega)<\infty for \mathbb P-a.s. \omega. Additionally, (Proof) implies that for \mathbb P-a.s. \omega\in \Omega^V_{i,j}, the following holds

Although we only give the definition of the integer valued function n on \Omega_{i,j}^V, it is not hard to extend n onto \Omega for which (Proof) still holds for \mathbb P-a.e. \omega\in\Omega, since there are only countable many \Omega^V_{i,j}s. Thus F is random topological transitive.