Uniformization of gasket Julia sets

By Lemma 7.4, we have (2) \Leftrightarrow (3). We show that (1) \Rightarrow (3). Suppose that (3) does not hold. Then by Lemma 7.2, there exists a periodic contact point x that is either repelling or parabolic with multiplicity 2. In the first case, by Lemma 7.3 we obtain that \mathcal{J}(R) cannot be quasiconformally uniformized by a round gasket. In the second case, one of the Fatou components has a cusp at x, so it is not a quasidisk and \mathcal{J}(R) cannot be quasiconformally uniformized by a round gasket.

To show that (2) \Rightarrow (1), suppose that \mathcal{J}(R) is a fat gasket. By Lemma 7.4, there are no periodic parabolic points with multiplicity 2. Corollary 7.7 implies that the Fatou components of R are uniform quasidisks. By Theorem 9.1, the contact graph of the gasket \mathcal J(R) is a spherical subdivision graph for a simple, irreducible, acylindrical finite subdivision rule. Moreover, there exists a homeomorphism \phi\colon \widehat \mathbb{C}\to \widehat \mathbb{C} that maps \mathcal J(R) onto the limit set \Lambda(\mathcal P) of a circle packing \mathcal P such that \phi is quasiconformal in each Fatou component. By Theorem 4.6 we conclude that \phi is quasiconformal on \widehat \mathbb{C}.

Regarding uniqueness, the contact graph of the circle packing \mathcal P is a spherical subdivision graph \mathcal G(X). By the last part of Theorem 5.2, there exists a unique circle packing up to Möbius transformations with tangency graph \mathcal G(X). This implies the uniqueness of the map \phi|_{\mathcal{J}(R)}.

Suppose that R has a parabolic point a of multiplicity 2. Then the immediate basin \Omega of a is not a quasidisk as it has a cusp at a. Therefore, (2) \Rightarrow (3). More generally, by [LN24]*Theorem 1.7 (1), there is no David map \phi\colon \widehat\mathbb{C} \to \widehat\mathbb{C} so that \phi(\Omega) = \mathbb{D}. In particular, \mathcal{J}(R) cannot be mapped to a round gasket with a David map. Therefore, (1) \Rightarrow (3). By Lemma 7.2 ?, (3) \Rightarrow (2).

Finally, we show that (3) \Rightarrow (1) by arguing as in the previous proof. Corollary 7.7 implies that the Fatou components of R are uniform quasidisks. By Theorem 9.1, the contact graph of the gasket \mathcal J(R) is a spherical subdivision graph for a simple, irreducible, acylindrical finite subdivision rule. Moreover, there exists a homeomorphism \phi\colon \widehat \mathbb{C}\to \widehat \mathbb{C} that maps \mathcal J(R) onto the limit set \Lambda(\mathcal P) of a circle packing \mathcal P such that \phi is a David map in \widehat \mathbb{C}\setminus \mathcal J(R). By Theorem 4.6 we conclude that \phi is a David map on \widehat \mathbb{C}. The uniqueness of \phi|_{\mathcal{J}(R)} follows as in the proof of Theorem 1.2. Note here that the composition of a David map with a quasiconformal map is a David map; see Proposition 2.3.

Let \widetilde{U} = \widetilde{U}^+, where \widetilde U^+ is as in Theorem 10.1 (see Figure ?). By construction, the Fatou component of R associated to the vertex B is fixed under R^{\circ 2}. Let \widetilde{W} be the component of R^{-2}(\widetilde{U}) that contains that Fatou component. Then by the construction of R (see Figure ?), one can check that \widetilde{W}\cap \mathcal{J}(R) \subset \widetilde{U} and R^{\circ 2}\colon \widetilde{W} \to \widetilde{U} is a degree 2 branched covering map. The corollary follows by setting V = \widetilde{\phi}^+(\widetilde{U}), W = \widetilde{\phi}^+(\widetilde{W}), and f = \widetilde{\phi}^+ \circ R^2 \circ (\widetilde{\phi}^+)^{-1}. See Figure ?.

For ?, we replace \mathbb S^1 with \mathbb{R}/2\pi\mathbb{Z} and we treat f as a function of \theta\in \mathbb{R}/2\pi \mathbb{Z} so that f'(\theta)>0 for each \theta \in \mathbb{R}/2\pi\mathbb{Z}. We define the extension of f in \mathbb{D} by F(re^{i\theta}) = re^{if(\theta)}, 0\leq r<1, \theta\in [0,2\pi). We have

Since f' is continuous and positive, we have \|\mu_F\|_{L^\infty}(\mathbb{D})<1. Therefore, F is quasiregular. It follows from the construction that F(0)=0 and F is locally injective at each point of \mathbb{D}\setminus\{0\}, but not at 0.

Now we prove the conclusion under condition ?. The Beurling–Ahlfors extension theorem [BeurlingAhlfors:extension] gives a quasiconformal extension to \mathbb{D} of an orientation-preserving quasisymmetric map of \mathbb S^1. The extension is given by a local extension operator of continuous and increasing maps of \mathbb{R} to self-maps of the upper half-plane. The locality of the extension operator implies that a locally quasisymmetric map f\colon \mathbb S^1\to \mathbb S^1 extends to a map \widetilde{f} \colon \overline{\mathbb{D}} \to \overline{\mathbb{D}} with the following property: each point of \mathbb S^1 has a neighborhood in \mathbb{D} in which \widetilde f is injective and quasiconformal. Thus, \widetilde f is quasiregular in a neighborhood U of \mathbb S^1 in \mathbb{D}. We restrict \widetilde f to U\cup \mathbb S^1.

We also define \widetilde f(z)= 1/\overline{\widetilde f(1/\overline{z})} for points z\in \mathbb{C} with 1/\overline{z}\in U. The removability of \mathbb S^1 for quasiconformal maps implies that each point of \mathbb S^1 has a neighborhood in \widehat \mathbb{C} in which \widetilde f is quasiconformal. We define \widetilde \mu(z)=\mu_{\widetilde f}(z) whenever z\in U or 1/\overline{z}\in U and \widetilde \mu(z)=0 otherwise. By construction, \widetilde \mu is invariant under the reflection z\mapsto 1/\overline{z}. By the measurable Riemann mapping theorem ([AstalaIwaniecMartin:quasiconformal]*Theorem 5.3.4) there exists a quasiconformal map h of \widehat \mathbb{C} with \mu_h=\widetilde \mu. By symmetry, after post-composition with a Möbius map, we may assume that h(\mathbb S^1) = \mathbb S^1 and h(0) = 0; see e.g. [NtalampekosYounsi:rigidity]*Proposition 8.1 for a more general statement. In particular, h|_{\mathbb S^1} is orientation-preserving. Let g = \widetilde{f} \circ h^{-1}, and note that g is locally injective on \mathbb S^1 and g|_{\mathbb S^1} is orientation-preserving. By [AstalaIwaniecMartin:quasiconformal]*Theorem 5.5.1, g is analytic in a neighborhood of \mathbb S^1 in \widehat \mathbb{C}. Since g is locally injective on every point of \mathbb S^1, g has no critical point on \mathbb{S}^1. By the first part of the lemma, g|_{\mathbb S^1} has a quasiregular extension G on \mathbb{D} that has a unique critical point at 0 and G(0) = 0. We finally set F = G \circ h to obtain the desired extension.

By composing with Möbius transformations, we may assume that \infty \in J\setminus \bigcup_{i\in \mathbb{N}}\partial U_i, f(\infty)=\infty, and E_f(z)\leq H for all z\in J\setminus \bigcup_{i\in \mathbb{N}}\partial U_i. Note that the property of f being a quasiconformal or David map is not affected by such compositions in view of Proposition 2.3. Since J has area zero and Sobolev functions are characterized as functions that are absolutely continuous on almost every line parallel to a coordinate direction (see [Ziemer:Sobolev]*Theorem 2.1.4), if suffices to show that f is absolutely continuous on almost every such line.

By Theorem 2.5 and Proposition 2.6, we have \mathcal H^1(f(J\cap L))=0 for a.e. line L parallel to a coordinate direction. Moreover, the assumption that f is a quasiconformal or a David map implies that for each bounded open set V\subset \mathbb{C} we have f\in W^{1,1}(V\setminus J); see the argument in the proof of Lemma 2.9 in [LyubichMerenkovMukherjeeNtalampekos:David]. In particular, for a.e. line L parallel to a coordinate direction we have \int_{L\cap V\setminus J} \|Df\|\, d\mathcal H^1<\infty and f|_{L\cap V\setminus J} is absolutely continuous. We fix a line L satisfying all the above. We fix a segment (z_1,z_2)\subset L\cap V and denote by A_i, i\in I, the components of (z_1,z_2)\setminus J. We have

This implies that f is absolutely continuous on L\cap V, as desired.

Since \phi is orientation-preserving, by [McM88]*Proposition 5.2, \phi is the identity on the ideal boundary I(U), i.e., the space of prime ends of U. By conjugating \phi with the uniformization map \psi\colon \mathbb{D} \to U, we may assume that U = \mathbb{D} and \phi extends to the identity map on \partial \mathbb{D}. We extend \phi to \widehat\mathbb{C} by the identity map in \widehat \mathbb{C}\setminus \mathbb{D} to obtain a K-quasiconformal map on \widehat\mathbb{C}; here one uses the removability of the circle [LehtoVirtanen:quasiconformal]*Theorem I.8.3. Let z\in \mathbb{D} and M\colon \overline{\mathbb{D}}\to \overline{\mathbb{D}} be a Möbius transformation such that M(z)=0. Then \psi=M\circ \phi\circ M^{-1} is K-quasiconformal in \mathbb{D} and its restriction to \partial \mathbb{D} is the identity map. By replacing \phi with \psi, it suffices to show the statement at the origin z=0.

Since \phi|_{\partial \mathbb{D}} is the identity map, in particular, it fixes the points 1, i, -1. By compactness of the space of K-quasiconformal maps fixing 1, i, -1 (see [LehtoVirtanen:quasiconformal]*Theorem II.5.1), we conclude that d_{\mathbb{D}}(0,\phi(0)) \leq C(K). This proves the first part. For the second part, if K \leq K_0, then by the first part \phi(0) lies in the hyperbolic ball B_{d_\mathbb{D}}(0, C(K_0)). We set X=\widehat \mathbb{C} \setminus \{1, i, -1\}. In the ball B_{d_\mathbb{D}}(0, C(K_0)) the hyperbolic metrics d_X and d_\mathbb{D} are comparable with multiplicative constants depending on K_0. We apply Lemma 2.8 to the map \phi\colon X\to X to conclude that

Therefore, d_{\mathbb{D}}(0,\phi(0))\leq A\log K for some constant A = A(K_0).

Fix n\in \mathbb{N} and let \psi_n\colon \mathbb{D}\to \Omega_n be a conformal map with \psi_n(0)=q_{n-1}; note that q_{n-1}\in \Omega_{n-1}\subset \Omega_n. The hyperbolic ball B_{d_{\mathbb{D}}}(0,C\delta^n) is contained in a Euclidean ball B(0,C_1\delta^n), where C_1>0 does not depend on n. By Koebe’s distortion theorem ([Pommerenke:conformal]*Section 1.3), for each z\in B_{d_{\mathbb{D}}}(0,C\delta^n) we have

where C_2>0 does not depend on n. Equivalently, the above holds whenever \psi_n(z)\in B_{d_{\Omega_n}}(q_{n-1},C\delta^n). Since d_{\Omega_n}(q_{n},q_{n-1})<C\delta^n, we conclude that

where M=8C_2. Note that \operatorname{dist} (q_{n-1}, \partial \Omega_n)\leq n+|q_{n-1}| \leq 2\max\{n, |q_{n-1}|\}, so

Therefore,

for all n\geq 1.

Let N_0\in \mathbb{N} such that MN_0\delta^{N_0} < 1. Suppose that |q_{n-1}| \geq n for all n > N_0. Then by (Proof), we have

for n>N_0. This is a contradiction. Therefore, there exists n_0 > N_0 with |q_{n_0-1}| < n_0. By (Proof), we have

Inductively, we conclude that |q_{n_0+k-1}| \leq n_0+k for k\geq 0. Therefore, by (Proof) we have

for all k\geq 0. This implies that \{q_n\}_{n\in \mathbb{N}} is convergent in the Euclidean metric.

Let \psi_n(z)= 1/\phi_n(1/z), n\in \mathbb{N}, and note that \psi_n is (1+C\delta^n)-quasiconformal and \psi_n|_{[n,\infty]} is the identity map. Let \Omega_n=\mathbb{C}\setminus [n,\infty) and q_n=1/p_n, n\in \mathbb{N}\cup \{0\}. By Lemma 2.9, there exists a constant A>0 such that

for each n\in \mathbb{N}. By Lemma 2.10, \{q_n\}_{n\in \mathbb{N}} is bounded away from \infty, so \{p_n\}_{n\in \mathbb{N}} is bounded away from 0.

The hyperbolic density \rho_{X_1} of X_1 satisfies \rho_{X_1}\geq C^{-1} on (0,1) for some uniform constant C>0 (see e.g. [BeardonPommerenke]*Theorem 1). Therefore, \rho_{X_t}\geq C^{-1}/t on (0,t). By symmetry, the hyperbolic geodesic between two points z,w\in (0,t) in X_t is the segment [z,w]; e.g. this follows from [Kobayashi:transformation]*Theorem II.5.1. This gives the desired inequality.

Since J is a gasket, there are no multiple edges connecting two vertices, and no edge connecting a vertex to itself in \mathcal{G}, so \mathcal{R} is simple. We prove by contradiction that \mathcal{R} is acylindrical. Suppose that \mathcal{R} is cylindrical. Then by [LuoZhang:CirclePacking]*Proposition 4.5, there exist a number K>0, a polygon P_i of \mathcal R, and a pair of non-adjacent vertices v, w \in \partial P_i so that there are infinitely many paths \gamma_n, n\in \mathbb{N}, of combinatorial length at most K in \mathcal{G}(P_i) connecting v, w that are pairwise disjoint except at the endpoints; see Figure ? for an illustration.

Recall that \mathcal R is assumed to be a minimal finite subdivision rule that supports X, so P_i appears as the type of a 2-cell of \mathcal R^n(X) for some n\geq 0. By replacing \mathcal R with an iterate, we assume that a face F^0 of \mathcal{G}^0 is associated to the polygon P_i. Let a,b be the vertices of \partial F^0 associated to v,w, respectively. We remark that we might have a=b but for the simplicity of the presentation, we assume that a\neq b.

Let \Omega_a, \Omega_b be the complementary components of \widehat \mathbb{C}\setminus J associated to a, b, respectively. Let I_a,I_b be the intersection of \Omega_a,\Omega_b, respectively, with the embedding of the interior of the face F^0 in \widehat \mathbb{C}. Since v,w are not adjacent, we have \operatorname{dist}(I_a, I_b) > 0. For n\in \mathbb{N}, let aa_1^n, a_1^na_2^n, \dots , a_{k_n}^nb be the chain of edges in F^0 \cap \mathcal{G} associated to \gamma_n. Note that k_n \leq K-1. Let \Omega^n_j be the component of \widehat \mathbb{C}\setminus J that contains a_j^n, j\in \{1,\dots,k_n\}. Note that the chain of components \Omega^n_1,\dots, \Omega^n_{k_n} connects I_a and I_b. Thus one of the components has diameter at least \operatorname{dist}(I_a, I_b)/(K-1). Since the paths \gamma_n, n\in \mathbb{N}, are pairwise disjoint except at the endpoints, there exist infinitely many components of \widehat \mathbb{C}\setminus J with diameter larger than \operatorname{dist} (I_a, I_b)/(K-1). This contradicts the local connectivity of the gasket J; see [Milnor:dynamics]*Problem 19-f.

We remark that if a = b, then each path \gamma_n corresponds to a chain of components connecting \partial \Omega_a to itself. Given that v and w are not adjacent, we see that the union of the components in this chain has diameter uniformly bounded from below, so the above argument can be applied with appropriate modifications.

For the proof of ?, by replacing \mathcal R with an iterate, it suffices to assume that \mathcal R satisfies condition ?. We argue by contradiction. Suppose that there exists a sequence of faces F^n of \mathcal G^n, n\geq 0, such that \operatorname{diam} W(\operatorname{int} F^n) is bounded below away from 0. We may assume that F^{n+1}\subset F^n for all n\geq 0. In view of ?, there are three cases: (a) no vertex of \mathcal G lies in \partial F^n for infinitely many n\geq 0; (b) there exists a unique vertex v\in \mathcal G that lies in \partial F^n for all but finitely many n\geq 0; (c) there exist exactly two vertices v,w\in \mathcal G that lie in \partial F^n for all but finitely many n\geq 0, in which case, v and w are adjacent. By the definition of a subdivision rule (see Definition 4.1), \partial F^n consists of a uniformly bounded number of vertices for all n\geq 0. Thus, given that J is locally connected, the diameter of the union of components of \widehat \mathbb{C}\setminus J corresponding to vertices of \partial F^n, except for the ones corresponding to v and w in the cases (b) and (c), tends to 0 as n\to\infty. If (a) is true, then the above remark implies that \operatorname{diam} W(F^n)\to 0, a contradiction. If (b) is true, then one can see that W(\operatorname{int} F^n) would converge to a point on the boundary of the component of \widehat \mathbb{C}\setminus J corresponding to v, a contradiction to the initial assumption. Similarly, if (c) is true, then W(\operatorname{int} F^n) would converge to the intersection point of the boundaries of the components corresponding to v,w, a contradiction. This completes the proof of ?.

For the proof of ?, let z\in J be a point that does not lie on the boundary of any component of \widehat \mathbb{C}\setminus J. There exists a unique nested sequence of faces F^n of \mathcal G^n, n\geq 0, such that z lies in the embedding of the interior of F^n into \widehat \mathbb{C}. By performing the above analysis, we see that only alternative (a) can hold. Hence, \operatorname{diam} W(F^n)\to 0 and \{z\} = \bigcap_{n=0}^\infty W(F^n).

Let F^n be an arbitrary face of \mathcal G^n, n\geq 0. Let D^n be a largest component of \widehat \mathbb{C}\setminus J among components corresponding to the vertices of \partial F^n. Recall that \partial F^n consists of a uniformly bounded number of vertices, say at most K. Therefore, if W(\operatorname{int} F^n) is sufficiently small (given that we are dealing with subsets of the sphere), then

for any point w\in D^n. By ?, there exists N\in \mathbb{N} such that (?) holds for n\geq N. If, in addition J is quasiround, as in ?, then there exists a uniform L\geq 1 such that

for all n\geq N. Also, the above inclusions hold trivially with different constants for n<N. This proves ?.

Finally, we show ?. By ? we see that points of J that do not lie on the boundary of any component of \widehat \mathbb{C}\setminus J are not Lebesgue density points of J. Since, by assumption, the boundaries of the countably many components of \widehat \mathbb{C}\setminus J have area zero, we conclude that J has area zero.

Since the components of \widehat \mathbb{C}\setminus J and \widehat \mathbb{C}\setminus f(J) are uniform quasidisks, we see that the gaskets J and f(J) are quasiround; see [Bonk:uniformization]*Proposition 4.3 for an argument. By Lemma 4.5 ?, J has area zero. Let z\in J be a point that does not lie on the boundary of any component of \widehat \mathbb{C}\setminus J. By ? and ? in Lemma 4.5 there exists a sequence of faces F^n of \mathcal G^n, n\geq 0, shrinking to z such that E(W(F^n))\leq M for all n\geq 0, where M\geq 1 is a uniform constant. By applying Lemma 4.5 ? to the quasiround gasket f(J), we see that E(f(W(F^n)))\leq M' for all n\geq 0 and for a uniform constant M'\geq 1. We conclude that E_f(z)\leq \max\{M,M'\} for every such point z. Finally, we invoke Theorem 2.7 to obtain the conclusion.

Suppose that \mathcal G is a subdivision graph for \mathcal R; the proofs for spherical subdivision graphs are similar. We claim that for each n\geq 0, \overline{\Omega_n} contains all intersections of circles of \mathcal P with \overline{\Pi(\mathcal{P})}. Indeed, let C_v be a circle of \mathcal P corresponding to a vertex v of \mathcal G. If v is not a vertex of \mathcal{G}^n, then v is contained in a face F of \mathcal{G}^n. Lemma 5.3 5.3 implies that the circle C_v is disjoint from \partial \Omega_F so it is contained in \Omega_F. If v is a vertex of \mathcal G^n, we denote by F_1,..., F_j be the faces of \mathcal{G}^n that have v on their boundary. Again, Lemma 5.3 5.3 implies that each arc of C_v\cap \overline{\Pi(\mathcal{P})}\setminus \bigcup_{i=1}^j \partial \Omega_{F_i} is contained in some \Omega_{F_i}, so C_v \cap \overline{\Pi(\mathcal{P})}\subset \bigcup_{i=1}^j \overline{\Omega_{F_i}}.

Since \Lambda(\mathcal P) is the closure of the union of circles in \mathcal{P}, by the above claim we conclude that {\Lambda(\mathcal{P})\cap \overline{\Pi(\mathcal{P})}}\subset \bigcap_{n=0}^\infty\overline{\Omega_n}. Conversely, let x\in \bigcap_{n=0}^\infty \overline{\Omega_n}. Then there exists a nested sequence of faces F^n of \mathcal G^n, n\geq 0, so that x \in \bigcap_{n=0}^\infty \overline{\Omega_{F^n}}. By Proposition 5.4, \operatorname{diam} \Omega_{F^n} \to 0. Thus, there exists a sequence of distinct circles of \mathcal P converging to x. Since all but finitely many circles of \mathcal P lie in {\Lambda(\mathcal{P})\cap \overline{\Pi(\mathcal{P})}} and the latter is closed, we conclude that x\in {\Lambda(\mathcal{P})\cap \overline{\Pi(\mathcal{P})}}. This proves part ?. Note that ? follows from ? by repeating the above argument.

Let C be a circle in \mathcal P and x\in C\cap \overline{\Pi(\mathcal P)}. By ? there exists a nested sequence of faces F^n of \mathcal G^n, n\geq 0, so that \{x\}= \bigcap_{n=0}^\infty\overline{\Omega_{F^n}}. For all sufficiently large n\geq 0, the vertex of \mathcal G corresponding to C lies in \partial F^n, so the tile \overline{\Omega_{F^n}} contains a tangency point on C; see Lemma 5.3 5.3. Thus, we conclude that the tangency points of \mathcal P that lie on C are dense in C\cap \overline{\Pi(\mathcal{P})}, as in ?. Part ? follows from ? and the fact that the circles of \mathcal P are dense in \Lambda(\mathcal P) by definition.

Since the restriction of \Psi on the limit set \Lambda_{F} is a conjugation, one can extend the map \Psi|_{\Lambda_{F}} to a quasiconformal homeomorphism between \widehat\mathbb{C} \setminus \overline{\Omega_{F}} and \widehat\mathbb{C} \setminus \overline{\Omega'_{F}} sending the ideal polygon in \widehat\mathbb{C} \setminus \overline{\Omega_{F}} associated to the external face to the corresponding ideal polygon in \widehat\mathbb{C} \setminus \overline{\Omega'_{F}}, and whose dilatation K satisfies that \frac{1}{2}\log K is equal to the Teichmüller distance between the two ideal polygons. By Theorem 5.2, the Teichmüller distance between the two ideal polygons equals d(\mathcal{P}_{F}, \mathcal{P}_{F}'). The proposition now follows.

Let F be a face of \mathcal{G}^1 and F' = \psi_*(F) be the corresponding face of \mathcal{G}^0. Then \phi_{F'}^{-1} \circ \phi_F induces an identification of the tangency graph of \mathcal P_F with the tangency graph of \mathcal P_{F'}. Let \Omega_F and \Omega_{F'} be the corresponding Markov tiles. Then, by Theorem 5.13, there exists a map

that is the restriction of a Teichmüller mapping between \mathcal{P}_F and \mathcal{P}_{F'}. Repeating this process for each face F of \mathcal G^1 gives the desired map \Psi\colon \Omega^1 \to \Omega^0 satisfying ?.

Let F be a face of \mathcal G^{n+1} and let F^1 be the face of \mathcal G^1 containing F. The subdivision homomorphism \psi sends the face F^1 to a face \psi_*(F^1)=F^0 of \mathcal G^0. Note that by the definition of a subdivision homomorphism the faces F^1, F^0 are identified with the same polygon in the subdivision rule, say P_i. Also, the face F is identified with a face of \mathcal G^n(P_i). This face corresponds canonically to a face F' in F^0. By part ?, \Psi|_{\Omega_{F^1}} is the restriction of a Teichmüller mapping, and in particular of a homeomorphism, between the circle packings \mathcal{P}_{F^1} and \mathcal{P}_{F^0}. Given that the labeling is preserved and that \Psi conjugates \Gamma_{F} to \Gamma_{F'}, we conclude that \Psi(\Omega_F)=\Omega_{F'}. This proves ?.

To prove ?, suppose that two faces F_1, F_2 of \mathcal{G}^1 share part of their boundary. Then \psi sends \partial F_1 \cap \partial F_2 to \partial \psi_*(F_1) \cap \partial \psi_*(F_2). Let \Psi_i=\Psi|_{\Omega_{F_i}}, i=1,2. By the properties of a Teichmüller mapping, for i=1,2 the map \Psi_i extends to \Lambda_{F_i} such that \Psi_i|_{\Lambda_{F_i}} conjugates the dynamics of \Gamma_{F_i} and \Gamma_{\psi_*(F_i)}. In combination with Lemma 5.3, this implies that the extensions of \Psi|_{\Omega_{F_1}} and \Psi|_{\Omega_{F_2}} agree on \partial \Omega_{F_1} \cap \partial \Omega_{F_2}. Hence, \Psi has a continuous extension to \overline{\Omega^1}.

We now prove ?. Let F be a face of \mathcal G^1 such that v\in \partial F. Since \Psi|_{\Omega_F} extends to an orientation-preserving homeomorphism between \mathcal P_F and \mathcal P_{\psi_*(F)}, we see that it maps circles of \mathcal P_F to the corresponding circles of \mathcal P_{\psi_*(F)}. Thus, \Psi|_{\Omega_F} maps the arc \Omega_F\cap C_v injectively onto the arc \Omega_{\psi_*(F)}\cap C_{\psi(v)}. Moreover, the extension of \Psi|_{\Omega_F} maps the disk of \mathcal P_F bounded by C_v to the disk of \mathcal P_{\psi_*(F)} bounded by C_{\psi(v)}. This implies that if F_1,F_2 are faces of \mathcal G^1 such that \partial F_1\cap \partial F_2 contains an edge that has v as an endpoint, then \Psi|_{C_v} is locally injective at the common endpoint of the arcs \Omega_{F_1}\cap C_v and \Omega_{F_2}\cap C_v. Thus, \Psi|_{C_v} is a covering map. Finally, observe that ? follows from ? and ?.

Let F_U be the face of \mathcal G^{n+1} corresponding to the tile U and let F^1 be the face of \mathcal G^1 containing F_U. The subdivision homomorphism that induces the Markov map \Psi sends the face F^1 to a face F^0 of \mathcal G^0. Note that by the definition of a subdivision homomorphism the faces F^1, F^0 are identified with the same polygon in the subdivision rule, say P_i, so \mathcal{G} \cap F^1 and \mathcal{G} \cap F^0 are identified with \mathcal{G}(P_i). Also, the face F_U is identified with a face of \mathcal G^n(P_i). This face corresponds to a face F_V in F^0, where V is an open tile of level n, and we have V=\Psi(U) by Proposition 5.15 ?. By treating \mathcal P_{F^1},\mathcal P_{F^0} as elements of \mathcal M(\mathcal G(P_i)) and F_U,F_V as non-external faces of \mathcal G^n(P_i), we may apply Theorem 5.7 to deduce that d(\mathcal{P}_{F_U}, \mathcal{P}_{F_V}) = O(\delta^n) for some constant \delta\in (0,1). Moreover, by Proposition 5.15 ?, \Psi|_{\Omega_{F^1}} is the restriction of a Teichmüller mapping between \mathcal P_{F^1},\mathcal P_{F^0}\in \mathcal M(\mathcal G(P_i)). By Proposition 5.12, \Psi|_U has an extension to a quasiconformal homeomorphism of \widehat\mathbb{C} between \mathcal{P}_{F_U} and \mathcal{P}_{F_V} with dilatation K satisfying \frac{1}{2}\log K = d(\mathcal{P}_{F_U}, \mathcal{P}_{F_V})=O(\delta^n). This proves the first part. Since \sum_{n=1}^\infty \delta^n < \infty, the second part follows.

We will verify that a^+ is parabolic with multiplicity 2; see Definition 3.4. The proof for a^- is the same. First suppose that a is periodic. For simplicity of the presentation, we assume that a is fixed by \Psi. Then there exists a circle C_w of the circle packing \mathcal P such that C_v\cap C_w=\{a\} and C_w is fixed by \Psi. The edge [v,w] is on the 1-skeleton of a face F^0 of \mathcal G^0 such that the tile \Omega_{F^0} contains an arc of C_v with an endpoint at a towards the positive orientation. We also consider a face F^1\subset F^0 of \mathcal G^1 that contains [v,w] in its 1-skeleton. If \Psi arises from the subdivision homomorphism \psi\colon \mathcal G^1\to \mathcal G^0, then we have \psi_*(F^1)=F^0. Hence, \Psi(\Omega_{F^1})=\Omega_{F^0}; see Proposition 5.15 ?. Moreover, if, for each n\in \mathbb{N}, F^n is a face of \mathcal G^n that contains the edge [v,w] in its 1-skeleton, then we have F^{n}\subset F^{n-1} and \Psi(\Omega_{F^n})=\Omega_{F^{n-1}}. We define U^n=\Omega_{F^n}, n\geq 0.

After normalization by a Möbius map, we assume that C_v=C = \mathbb{R}\cup \{\infty\}, the disk D_v bounded by C_v is the upper half-plane, \overline{U^0}\subset \mathbb{C}, and a = 0. For each n\geq 0 we have U^{n+1}\subset U^{n}, \Psi(U^{n+1})=U^{n}, and a\in \partial U^{n} with (a, a+\epsilon) \subset U^{n} for some \epsilon > 0 depending on n. For n\geq 1, let

It suffices to show that there exists L\geq 1 such that for all n\geq 1 we have

Note that the faces \{F^n\}_{n\geq 0} corresponding to \{U^{n}\}_{n\geq 0} are periodic, and a is a tangency point of two circles C_v,C_w of \mathcal{P}. The edge [v,w] lies in \partial F^{n} for all n\geq 0. Thus, \{F^n\}_{n\geq 0} is parabolic, as in Definition 5.9. By Theorem 5.10 there exist

• the renormalization periodic circle packing \widetilde{\mathcal{P}} \in \mathcal{M}(F^0 \cap \mathcal{G}) associated to \{F^n\}_{n\geq 0}, a point \widetilde a\in \Lambda(\widetilde P), and for each n\geq 0 an open tile \widetilde U^n \coloneqq \widetilde{\Omega}_{F^n} of level n such that \widetilde a\in \partial \widetilde U^n and \widetilde{U}^{n+1}\subset \widetilde{U}^{n} for each n\geq 0, and

• the Möbius symmetry of \widetilde{\mathcal{P}} for \{F^n\}_{n\geq 0}, denoted by \widetilde \Psi, which maps \widetilde{U}^1 onto \widetilde{U}^0 and has a parabolic fixed point at \widetilde{a}.

Let \Phi be a Teichmüller mapping, as provided by Theorem 5.13, between \widetilde{\mathcal{P}},\mathcal{P}_{F^0}\in \mathcal{M}(F^0 \cap \mathcal{G}). Since \Phi^{-1} \circ \Psi \circ \Phi induces the identification of F^1 \cap \mathcal{G} with F^0\cap \mathcal{G}, by Corollary 5.6 we have \Phi^{-1} \circ \Psi \circ \Phi = \widetilde{\Psi} on {\Lambda(\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_{F^1})\cap \overline{\Pi(\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_{F^1})}}.

We normalize by some Möbius maps so that \widetilde{C} = \Phi^{-1}(C) = \mathbb{R}\cup \{\infty\}, \widetilde{a} = \Phi^{-1}(a) = 0, \widetilde{a}^+ corresponds to the positive real direction, \widetilde{\Psi}(z) = \frac{z}{z+1}, and \widetilde{a}_1 = \Phi^{-1}(a_1)= 1. In particular, \widetilde{a}_n =\Phi^{-1}(a_n)= \frac{1}{n}. Define \widetilde{I}^{n}=\Phi^{-1}(I_n)=[\widetilde{a}, \widetilde{a}_n], n\geq 0. By our normalization, we have

By Theorem 5.8, \Phi|_{\widetilde{I}^0} is C^{1+\alpha}-conformal at 0. Therefore, we have

This verifies the first condition in Definition 3.4. However, C^{1+\alpha}-conformality does not immediately imply that \operatorname{diam}(I^{n}\setminus I^{n+1}) \simeq \frac{1}{n^2}. We will show the latter using a similar argument as in [LuoZhang:CirclePacking]*Theorem 6.1.

By Proposition 5.12 and Theorem 5.7, \Phi|_{\widetilde U^n} extends to a (1+O(\delta^n))-quasiconformal homeomorphism f_n\colon \widehat \mathbb{C} \to \widehat \mathbb{C} between \widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_{F^n} and \mathcal{P}_{F^n}. Let p_n = f_n^{-1}(\infty) be the pole of f_n. By Corollary 2.11, applied to the map f_{n-1}^{-1}\circ f_n, we have

Let M_n(z)=\frac{A_nz}{1-z/p_n} be a Möbius map so that

By (?), we have |M_n(z)|\simeq |A_nz| in a fixed ball B(0,R)\subset B(0,|p_n|/2). By (?), we conclude that |A_n| \simeq 1. We have M_n'(z) = \frac{A_n}{(1-z/p_n)^2}, so |M_n'(z)|\simeq 1 on B(0,R). We conclude that

Since f_n is (1+O(\delta^n))-quasiconformal and agrees with M_n at the points 0, \frac{1}{n}, p_n, by Lemma 2.8 we have

where d_{X_n} is the hyperbolic metric on X_n \coloneqq \widehat \mathbb{C} \setminus \{0, a_n, \infty\}. By Lemma 2.12, there exists a uniform constant c'>0 such that

By combining (?) and (?), we conclude that

This completes the proof for the case of fixed points. The proof for the case of higher period is similar.

Now suppose that a is strictly pre-periodic. We continue to assume that C=\mathbb{R}\cup \{\infty\}. For n\geq 1, let I^n be the interval of level n (i.e., I^n is the intersection of a level n tile with the circle C) having a as an endpoint and so that (a,a+\epsilon)\subset I^n for some \epsilon>0 depending on n. Let b= \Psi(a), and \widetilde{I}^n = \Psi(I^{n+1}) be the corresponding interval of level n that has b as an endpoint. We argue by induction and suppose that we have

By applying the same argument as above and substituting the conjugacy map \Phi in the periodic case with the map \Psi in the strictly periodic case, we conclude that

This completes the proof.

Let x be the contact point of two Fatou components U, V; note that x is unique, since \mathcal J(R) is a gasket. Since there are no Julia critical points, R^{\circ n}(U) and R^{\circ n}(V) are two distinct Fatou components touching at R^{\circ n}(x) for each n\in \mathbb{N}. Since U, V are pre-periodic, x is pre-periodic. This proves part ?. Suppose that x is a periodic contact point. Since x is in the Julia set, by Theorem 7.1 it is either repelling or parabolic. Suppose x is parabolic with multiplicity strictly greater than 3. Then there are at least 3 attracting petals at x. Thus there are at least 3 Fatou components touching at x, which contradicts the definition of a gasket. This proves ?.

Finally, we prove ?. Since R has no Julia critical points, R is locally bi-Lipschitz on the Julia set. Hence, it suffices to prove the statement for periodic Fatou components. Also, by Theorem 7.1, every point in the Julia set that lies in the post-critical set of R is a parabolic periodic point. Let U be a periodic Fatou component.

Suppose that U is an immediate basin of an attracting point with period p. Suppose that \partial U intersects the post-critical set, so by the above it contains a parabolic periodic point a. By assumption, the multiplicity of this point is at least 3. This implies that there exist at least two parabolic basins in \widehat \mathbb{C}\setminus \overline U meeting at a. This is a contradiction, since \mathcal J(R) is a gasket and no point can be in the boundary of three Fatou components. Thus, the post-critical set is disjoint from \partial U. By applying Koebe’s distortion theorem locally to iterates of the map R^{\circ p}|_{\partial U} we conclude that \partial U is a quasidisk.

Next, suppose that U is an immediate basin of a parabolic point a. The above argument shows that the post-critical set intersects \partial U only at the point a. By [LN24]*Theorem 1.7 (3) we conclude that U is a quasidisk.

There exists a neighborhood W of z_0 and a conformal map \phi\colon W\to \mathbb{D} such that \phi(z_0)=0 and \phi conjugates R to z\mapsto \lambda z, where |\lambda|>1. By conformality the tangency is preserved. Specifically, we may assume that for each \varepsilon>0 there exists \delta>0 with the property that \{re^{i\theta}: r\in (0,\delta), |\theta|<\pi/2-\varepsilon\}\subset \phi(W\cap U) and \{re^{i\theta}: r\in (-\delta,0), |\theta|<\pi/2-\varepsilon\}\subset \phi(W\cap V). Given that R fixes U, we see that for each \theta\in (-\pi/2,\pi/2) and all sufficiently small r>0 the point \lambda re^{i\theta} cannot lie in the left half-plane \{z\in \mathbb{C}: \operatorname{Re}(z)<0\}. This implies that \lambda is a positive real number. Given a point in the right half-plane \{z\in \mathbb{C}: \operatorname{Re}(z)>0\}, we have \lambda^{-n}z\in \phi(W\cap U) for some n\in \mathbb{N}. The invariance of U implies that \mathbb{D}\cap \{z\in \mathbb{C}:\operatorname{Re}(z)>0\}\subset \phi(W\cap U). Similarly, \mathbb{D}\cap \{z\in \mathbb{C}:\operatorname{Re}(z)<0\}\subset \phi(W\cap V). Thus, \partial U\cap \partial V contains a Jordan arc E=W\cap \mathcal J(R). There exists N\in \mathbb{N} such that R^{\circ N}(W)\supset \mathcal{J}(R). The invariance of U and V implies that R does not have other Fatou components, so \mathcal{J}(R)=\partial U=\partial V.

Suppose that there exists a quasiconformal homeomorphism \psi\colon \widehat \mathbb{C}\to \widehat \mathbb{C} mapping U and V to disks that are tangent to each other. Consider the linearizing coordinate \phi as above. Since \psi is quasisymmetric, each arc in \phi(W\cap \partial U) and in \phi(W\cap \partial V) is a quasiarc. Using the dynamics of z\mapsto \lambda z we can show that each arc in \phi(W\cap \partial U)\cup \phi(W\cap \partial V) is also a quasiarc. This is a contradiction.

We first assume that \mathcal{J}(R) is a fat gasket. Let x be a periodic contact point between two Fatou components U, V. By Lemma 7.2 ?, x is either repelling or parabolic with multiplicity 2 or 3. If x is repelling, then by Lemma 7.3 ? the two Fatou components cannot intersect tangentially. Thus x is parabolic. If the multiplicity at x is 2, then there is a unique attracting petal at x and one Fatou component, say U, has a cusp at x. In particular, the components U, V cannot be tangent at x. Therefore, x must be parabolic with multiplicity 3. By Lemma 7.2 ?, every contact point is eventually mapped to a periodic contact point, which has to be a parabolic point with multiplicity 3 by the above.

Conversely, suppose that every periodic contact point is parabolic with multiplicity 3. Let x be such a point. By using the Fatou coordinate of x, we see that the two adjacent Fatou components are tangent at x (see also [CarlesonGamelin]*Section II.5). By Lemma 7.2 ?, every contact point is pre-periodic. Since the tangency condition is invariant under pull-back of local conformal maps, we conclude any two Fatou components with a common point at the boundary are tangent to each other. Thus, \mathcal{J}(R) is a fat gasket.

We now prove the last assertion. If U is a periodic Fatou component, then \partial U must contain some contact point because \mathcal J(R) is a gasket. By Lemma 7.2 ?, this contact point is pre-periodic, so there exists a periodic contact point x\in \partial U. By the above, x is parabolic with multiplicity 3 and attracts points in U; in particular the point x is the unique periodic contact point on \partial U. Each periodic point in \partial U\setminus \{x\} cannot attract orbits so it is not parabolic, but it is repelling by Theorem 7.1. In particular, \partial U has no periodic parabolic points with multiplicity 2. We conclude that R has no periodic parabolic points with multiplicity 2. By Lemma 7.2 ?, every Fatou component is a quasidisk. This concludes the lemma.

By conjugating R with an isometry of the sphere, we may assume that the point at \infty is a periodic point in the Fatou set. We define the rank r(W) of a Fatou component W to be the smallest index j\geq 0 such that R^{\circ j}(W) is a periodic Fatou component. Since there are no critical points on the Julia set, by Theorem 7.1 each critical point is attracted to a parabolic cycle or to an attracting cycle. Thus, there exist finitely many Fatou components that intersect the critical orbits of R. Note there are only finitely many Fatou components attached to a parabolic periodic point (namely, if a Fatou component contains a (parabolic) periodic point in its boundary, it must be itself periodic). Therefore, there exist finitely many Fatou components whose closure intersects the post-critical set. We also consider a given finite collection of Fatou components as in the very last part of the lemma. Let m\geq 0 be the maximum of the ranks among the given family of components and among components whose closure intersects the post-critical set. Denote by V_1,\dots,V_l the family of all Fatou components of R with rank at most m+1.

Let W be a Fatou component of rank r(W)>m+1. Then W is mapped onto V_j for some j\in \{1,\dots,l\} after n(W)=r(W)-m-1 iterations. Note that n(w) is the smallest number with this property, as required in ?. The Fatou components W,V_j are subsets of \mathbb{C} and they are both simply connected, since the Julia set is connected. By our choice of m, there is a neighborhood of \overline{V_j} that is disjoint from the the post-critical set of R. This implies that R^{\circ n(W)} maps a neighborhood of \overline{W} conformally onto a neighborhood of \overline{V_j}. Moreover, by Koebe’s distortion theorem, applied to a suitable branch of (R^{\circ n(W)})^{-1}, ? holds with the Euclidean rather than the spherical metric. Since the two metrics are comparable away from the periodic Fatou component that contains the point at \infty, we obtain the desired conclusion.

By Lemma 7.2, each Fatou component is a quasidisk. In particular, the Fatou components V_1,\dots,V_l from Lemma 7.6 are quasidisks. By Lemma 7.6, every other Fatou component is mapped to one of V_1,\dots,V_l with an iterate of R that is uniformly quasisymmetric in the spherical metric. Hence, all Fatou components are uniform quasidisks.

Let f be a rational map without Julia critical points whose Julia set \mathcal J(f) is a gasket. Let g be the hyperbolic post-critically finite rational map corresponding to f as provided by Lemma 8.2. Using the map g we will construct a spherical subdivision rule that has the contact graph \mathcal G of the gasket \mathcal J(g) as a spherical subdivision graph so that the conclusions of Proposition 8.1 are satisfied for g. Using the homeomorphism \phi from Lemma 8.2, which identifies the contact graph of \mathcal J(g) with the contact graph of \mathcal J(f) and is a conjugacy on the Julia sets, we will draw the desired conclusion for f.

Since the map g is post-critically finite, in each Fatou component, there exists a unique point whose orbit contains critical points, which is called the center of the corresponding Fatou component. Suppose U, V are two Fatou components whose boundaries intersect at a point x. By Lemma 7.2 ?, x is pre-periodic. Therefore, there is a pre-periodic internal ray connecting the center of U (resp. V) to x. Thus, any finite subgraph \mathcal{H} of the contact graph \mathcal{G} of the gasket \mathcal J(g) can be realized canonically as a plane graph by identifying

• the vertices of \mathcal{H} with the centers of the corresponding Fatou components of g, and

• each edge of \mathcal{H} with the closure of the union of two internal rays connecting the corresponding centers of the Fatou components and the contact point.

Abusing notation, we shall not distinguish a finite subgraph of \mathcal{G} from its canonical realization. Each component of \widehat\mathbb{C} \setminus \mathcal{H} gives rise to a CW complex consisting of one 2-cell that we call a face of \mathcal{H}. The interior of that 2-cell is naturally identified with the corresponding component of \widehat \mathbb{C}\setminus \mathcal H.

There exists a connected, induced, finite subgraph \mathcal G_0 of \mathcal{G} that is forward invariant and contains the post-critical set P(g). Here, induced means that \mathcal{G}^0 contains all edges in \mathcal{G} connecting vertices in \mathcal{G}^0. The graph \mathcal{G}^0 is not unique and can be constructed in the following way. Since \mathcal J(g) is a gasket, there exists a finite connected graph \mathcal{H}^0 containing all critical values of g. Since each Fatou component is eventually periodic, the union \bigcup_{n=0}^\infty g^n(\mathcal{H}^0) is a finite and forward invariant graph that contains the post-critical set. We obtain \mathcal{G}^0 by adding to the graph \bigcup_{n=0}^\infty g^n(\mathcal{H}^0) all edges of \mathcal G connecting vertices of \bigcup_{n=0}^\infty g^n(\mathcal{H}^0). We define

Since \mathcal{G}^0 is connected, each component of \widehat\mathbb{C}\setminus \mathcal G^0 is simply connected. Since \mathcal{G}^0 contains the post-critical set of g, each component of \widehat \mathbb{C}\setminus \mathcal{G}^1 is simply connected and is mapped conformally by g to a component of \widehat \mathbb{C}\setminus \mathcal{G}^0. Thus, \mathcal{G}^1 is also connected. Since \mathcal{G}^0 is forward invariant, we have \mathcal{G}^0 \subset \mathcal{G}^1. Therefore, each face of \mathcal{G}^0 is the union of the faces of \mathcal{G}^1 that are contained in that face.

We can construct a finite subdivision rule \mathcal{R} as follows. Associate to each face F_i of \mathcal{G}^0 a polygon P_i, whose number of sides is equal to the number of sides in the ideal boundary of the face. The polygon P_i is subdivided into finitely many polygons P_{i,j}, where each polygon P_{i,j} corresponds to a face F_{i,j} of \mathcal{G}^1 in F_i. Note that the image g(F_{i,j}) is a face F_{\sigma(i,j)} of \mathcal{G}^0. Each conformal map g^{-1}\colon \operatorname{int} F_{\sigma(i,j)} \to \operatorname{int} F_{i,j} induces a cellular map \psi_{i,j}\colon P_{\sigma(i,j)} \to P_{i,j}.

Since every vertex of \mathcal{G} is eventually mapped to a vertex in \mathcal{G}^0, every edge of \mathcal{G} is eventually mapped to an edge in \mathcal{G}^0 as well. Thus, the contact graph \mathcal{G} of the gasket \mathcal J(g) is the exactly the direct limit of the graphs \mathcal{G}^n, n\geq 0, so \mathcal{G} is a spherical subdivision graph for \mathcal{R}. Since \mathcal{G}^0 is an induced subgraph of \mathcal{G}, i.e., \mathcal{G}^0 contains all edges in \mathcal{G} connecting vertices in \mathcal{G}^0, we also conclude that \mathcal{R} is irreducible. By Lemma 4.4, the subdivision rule \mathcal R is simple and acylindrical.

Note that the faces of the graphs \mathcal G^n, n\geq 0, are not necessarily polygons. To amend this, we will modify the graph \mathcal G^0 and the subdivision rule \mathcal R.

By the above, \mathcal{R} is simple, irreducible and acylindrical. Thus, by Proposition 4.3, we can obtain a graph \widetilde {\mathcal G}^0 with

for some constant K\in \mathbb{N}, so that \widetilde{\mathcal{G}}^0 is connected, every face F of \widetilde{\mathcal{G}}^0 is a polygon and \partial F is an induced subgraph of \mathcal{G}. Note that \widetilde{\mathcal{G}}^0 is forward invariant under g^{\circ N} for all N \geq K and contains the post-critical set P(g^{\circ N}) = P(g). Thus, we can construct a subdivision rule \widetilde{\mathcal R} from \widetilde{\mathcal{G}}^0 using the map g^{\circ N} in the same way as we obtained \mathcal{R} from \mathcal G^0 using the map g. Since the 1-skeleton of every face of \mathcal G^0 is an induced subgraph of \mathcal G, we conclude that \widetilde{\mathcal R} is irreducible.

Since all faces of \widetilde{\mathcal G}^0 are polygons and all post-critical points are vertices of \widetilde{\mathcal G}^0, we conclude that every face F^1 of \widetilde{\mathcal{G}}^1 = g^{-N}(\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}^0) is a polygon and \partial F^1 is an induced subgraph of \mathcal{G}; see [BM17]*Lemma 5.12. Thus, inductively, for each n\geq 0, every face F^n of \widetilde{\mathcal{G}}^n is a polygon and \partial F^n is an induced subgraph of \mathcal{G}.

By construction, conditions ? and ? are satisfied. We can now invoke again Lemma 4.4 to show that \mathcal {\widetilde R} is simple and acylindrical. Finally, we may replace \widetilde {\mathcal R} and g^{\circ N} with a suitable iterate to ensure that condition ? is met and that each periodic Fatou component of g is fixed under that iterate.

By [CT18]*Theorem 1.3 and Theorem 1.4, there exists a sub-hyperbolic rational map \tilde{g} and a homeomorphism \tilde{\phi}\colon \mathcal J(f) \to \mathcal J(\tilde{g}) conjugating the dynamics of f and \tilde g. Moreover, \tilde{\phi} is a uniform limit of homeomorphisms of \widehat \mathbb{C}. If U is a complementary component of \mathcal{J}(f), then U is a Jordan region because \mathcal J(f) is a gasket. Since \tilde \phi|_{\mathcal J(f)} is a homeomorphism, \tilde \phi(\partial U) is a Jordan curve. Since \tilde \phi is a limit of homeomorphisms, there exists a Jordan region V bounded by \tilde \phi(\partial U) such that V is disjoint from \mathcal J(\tilde g). Thus, \tilde \phi extends to a homeomorphism from the \overline U to \overline V. We repeat this procedure for every complementary component of \mathcal J(f). Using the local connectivity of the gaskets \mathcal J(f),\mathcal J(\tilde g), we conclude that \tilde{\phi} extends to a homeomorphism of \widehat\mathbb{C}.

Since f has no Julia critical points, the topological conjugacy implies that \tilde{g} has no Julia critical points. Thus, \tilde{g} is hyperbolic. Since \mathcal J(\tilde{g}) is connected, there exists a hyperbolic post-critically finite rational map g and a homeomorphism of \widehat\mathbb{C} which restricts to a topological conjugacy between the Julia set \mathcal{J}(\tilde{g}) and \mathcal{J}(g) (see [McM88]*Corollary 3.6). This proves the lemma.

By Lemma 9.3, there exists a homeomorphism h^1\colon \overline{W^1}\to \overline{D^1} such that h^1=h_v on \overline{W_v} for each vertex v\in \mathcal G^1 and \Psi\circ h^1=h^1\circ R on \partial W^1. Note that the components of \widehat\mathbb{C} \setminus \overline{W^n} (or \widehat\mathbb{C} \setminus \overline{D^n}) are in correspondence with the faces of \mathcal G^n, n\geq 0, and each component is a Jordan region. For each component U_F of \widehat \mathbb{C}\setminus \overline{W^1} and for the corresponding component V_F of \widehat \mathbb{C}\setminus \overline {D^1} we extend h^1|_{\partial U_F}\colon \partial U_F\to \partial V_F arbitrarily to a homeomorphism between \overline {U_F} and \overline{V_F}. In this way, h^1 is extended to a homeomorphism of \widehat \mathbb{C}.

Now, we define a homeomorphism h^2 as follows. Let F be a face of \mathcal{G}^1 that is mapped to a face F' of \mathcal{G}^0 under the map induced by R. Let U_F and U_{F'} be the components of \widehat\mathbb{C} \setminus \overline{W^1} and \widehat\mathbb{C} \setminus \overline{W^0} associated to F and F'. Similarly, let V_F and V_{F'} be the corresponding components of \widehat\mathbb{C} \setminus \overline{D^1} and \widehat\mathbb{C} \setminus \overline{D^0}. Then R\colon U_F \to U_{F'} and \Psi\colon V_F \to V_{F'} are homeomorphisms. Moreover, we have h_1(U_{F'}) = V_{F'} and \Psi \circ h_1 = h_1 \circ R on \partial U_F. We define

By construction, h^2 is a homeomorphism on \widehat\mathbb{C} that sends W^2 to D^2 and satisfies \Psi\circ h^2=h^1\circ R on \widehat \mathbb{C}\setminus W^1. Inductively, for each n\geq 1 we construct a homeomorphism h^{n+1} that sends W^{n+1} to D^{n+1}, satisfies \Psi \circ h^{n+1}= h^{n}\circ R on \widehat \mathbb{C}\setminus W^n, and satisfies h^{n+1} = h^m on W^m if n+1\geq m. By Lemma 4.5 ? (see also Proposition 5.4), the diameter of each component of \widehat\mathbb{C} \setminus \overline{W^n} and \widehat\mathbb{C} \setminus \overline{D^n} is shrinking to 0. Thus, we conclude that h^n converges to some homeomorphism h\colon \widehat\mathbb{C} \to \widehat\mathbb{C} such that

By construction, we have h(\mathcal J(f)) = \Lambda(\mathcal P) and h conjugates the dynamics of R|_{\mathcal J(R)} and \Psi|_{\Lambda(\mathcal P)}. It remains to verify the last two conditions of the theorem.

We assume that each Fatou component is a quasidisk. Let \mu be the Beltrami coefficient of h on \widehat\mathbb{C}\setminus \mathcal J(f). Let V_1,\dots , V_l be the collection of Fatou components in Lemma 7.6. By the last part of the lemma, we may also include in this collection all Fatou components associated to vertices in \mathcal{G}^1. Let W_v\in \{V_1,\dots,V_l\} be a Fatou component corresponding to a vertex v of \mathcal G. If v is a vertex of \mathcal G^1, by Lemma 9.3 we see that \mu is a David–Beltrami coefficient on W. Suppose v is a vertex of \mathcal G_{n+1}\setminus \mathcal G_n for some n\geq 1. The disk D_v is contained in an open tile \Omega_F of level n and the map \Psi^{\circ n} is uniformly quasiconformal on \Omega_F by Proposition 5.16. Hence, by (?) and Proposition 2.3 (i) and (iii), we conclude that \mu is also a David–Beltrami coefficient on W_v. In particular, \mu is a David–Beltrami coefficient in \bigcup_{i=1}^l V_l and satisfies

for some constants M,\alpha>0 and for all \varepsilon \in (0,1).

We now check the David condition on the union of all Fatou components. Let W\notin \{V_1,\dots,V_l\} be a Fatou component and D be the corresponding disk of \mathcal P. Note that W and D correspond to a vertex of \mathcal G^{n+1}\setminus \mathcal G^n for some n\geq 1. Thus, D is contained in an open tile \Omega_F of level n. By Lemma 7.6, there exists a minimal n(W)\geq 1 such that W is mapped onto V_j for some j\in \{1,\dots,l\} after n(W) iterations. Let D_j be the corresponding disk of \mathcal{P}. By the minimality of n(W), V_j and D_j correspond to a vertex of \mathcal G^k for some k\geq 1, thus n\geq n(W). Then by Proposition 5.16, \Psi^{n(W)}\colon D \to D_j is K-quasiconformal for some uniform K\geq 1.

By Remark 2.4, the conjugation relation (?), and Lemma 7.6, we have

Since W is a quasidisk with a uniform constant by Corollary 7.7, we conclude (see [Bonk:uniformization]*Proposition 4.3) that there exists a uniform constant C>0 such that

Therefore, by (?), (?), and (?), we have

for \varepsilon \in (0,1/K). This completes the proof that \mu is a David–Beltrami coefficient.

In the case that \mathcal J(R) is a fat gasket, then |\mu| is bounded away from 1 by Lemma 9.3 and Proposition 5.16. Thus, we conclude that h is quasiconformal on \widehat\mathbb{C}\setminus \mathcal J(f).

Since R has no critical points on the Julia set, it is a covering map from \partial W_v onto itself. By Proposition 8.1 ?, R induces a subdivision homomorphism between \mathcal G^1 and \mathcal G^0. This implies that the set \{a_0,\dots,a_r\} gives a Markov partition for R|_{\partial W_v} (see also the proof of Theorem 6.1 ?). Consider the preimages under R^{\circ n} of the arcs A_k=\mathpalette \sbox0{$} \vbox{ \hbox{\resizebox{\wd0}{\height}{{\usefont{U}{tipa}{m}{n}\symbol{62}}}} \nointerlineskip \box0 } . Each preimage is contained in the boundary ofW(int F^n)for some faceF^nofG^n(recall the notation from Section \ref{section:gasket_subdivision}). Lemma \ref{lemma:gasket_sub} \ref{gs:0} implies that the diameters of those sets converge to0. In combination with \ref{expansive:diameters}, we see thatR|_W_vis expansive. By Theorem \ref{thm:cmc},|_D_vis an expansive covering map and the set{b_0,…,b_r}defines a Markov partition for|_D_v. Consider the maph_v{a_0,…,a_r}{b_0,…,b_r}defined byh_v(a_i)=b_i,i{0,…,r}. By Proposition \ref{prop:induceMarkovMap} \ref{ma:4} and Proposition \ref{prop:subdivision_g} \ref{sg:3}, we see thath_vconjugatesRtoon{a_0,…,a_r}. The expansivity of the maps implies thath_vextends to a topological conjugacy betweenR|_W_vand|_D_v(see \cite{LN24}*{Lemma 3.4} or \cite{CovenReddy:expansive}*{Property(2’), p.~99}). We have therefore proved \ref{f:1}, \ref{f:2}, and \ref{f:3}. Suppose thatW_vis a quasidisk, as in \ref{f:4}. Let_vW_v Dbe a conformal map that extends homeomorphically to the closures so thatB_v_v R _v^-1D Dis a Blaschke product of degreed=d_v. Let{a_0,…, a_r} = _v({a_0, …, a_r})be the corresponding Markov partition ofB_vinS^1. SinceW_vis a quasidisk,W_vcontains no parabolic point of multiplicity2(otherwise,W_vwould contain a cusp). We claim that{a_0,…, a_r}contains the parabolic fixed point ofB_vonS^1, if there exists one. Suppose thatais the parabolic fixed point ofB_vinS^1, so it attracts orbits ofD. Thenacorresponds to a parabolic point_v^-1(a)inW_vthat has multiplicity3by Lemma \ref{lem:pt}. So it is a contact point betweenW_vand another fixed Fatou componentW_u(recall that every periodic Fatou component ofRis fixed). Note that[v,u]must be an edge ofG^0 G^1, soa {a_0,…, a_r}, as claimed. By \cite{LN24}*{Theorem 1.4} and the above claim, the Markov partition{a_0,…, a_r}satisfies conditions \ref{condition:hp}, \ref{condition:uv}, \ref{condition:qs}, as defined in Section \ref{section:extension}. By Theorem \ref{thm:cmc},{b_0,…,b_r}satisfies conditions \ref{condition:hp}, \ref{condition:uv}, \ref{condition:qs} and \ref{condition:qs_strong} with every point in{b_0,…, b_r}being symmetrically parabolic. Consider the mapH_v=h_v_v^-1DD_v, which is a topological conjugacy betweenB_vand. By Theorem \ref{theorem:extension_generalization},H_vextends to a David homeomorphism map fromDonto the diskD_v. SinceW_vis a quasidisk, by Proposition \ref{prop:david_qc_invariance} (iv),h_vextends to a David map fromW_vontoD_v, as required in \ref{f:4}. IfJ (f)and thusJ(R)is a fat gasket, as in \ref{f:5}, thenW_vis a quasidisk by Lemma \ref{lem:tpp}. We can obtain a quasiconformal extension ofH_vas follows. By Remark \ref{remark:hyp_par_analytic}, each point in{a_0,…, a_r}is either symmetrically hyperbolic or symmetrically parabolic forB_v. Since each point in{a_0,…, a_r}corresponds to a contact point of two Fatou components, by Lemma \ref{lem:tpp} there is a unique periodic pointa{a_0,…, a_r}. By the same lemma, this point corresponds to a parabolic contact pointaW_vwith multiplicity3, which therefore attracts orbits inW_v(given thatJ(R)is a gasket soacan be on the boundary of at most two Fatou components). We conclude that the pointaS^1is symmetrically parabolic. Each other point in{a_0,…, a_r}is mapped toawith an iterate ofB_v, which is locally bi-Lipschitz. Hence, each point in{a_0,…, a_r}is symmetrically parabolic. Also, as discussed above, each point in{b_0,…,b_r}is symmetrically parabolic by Theorem \ref{thm:cmc}. By Theorem \ref{theorem:extension_generalization}, the topological conjugacyH_vD D_vextends to a quasiconformal homeomorphism between the disksDandD_v. Therefore,h_vextends to a quasiconformal homeomorphism fromW_vontoD_v$.

If W_v is a fixed Fatou component of R, then h_v is provided by Lemma 9.2 and satisfies ?, ?, and ?. Moreover, if u is a vertex of \mathcal G^1 different from v such that \partial W_v\cap \partial W_u=\{a\}, then by Lemma 9.2, h_v maps the point a to the point b=\partial D_{v}\cap \partial D_u. Hence ? is also true in that case.

Next, we define h_v for components W_v that are not fixed, where v is a vertex of \mathcal G^1. Note that W_v is eventually mapped to a fixed component. Suppose that W_u=R(W_v) is a fixed component. Let h_u\colon W_u \to D_u be the David or quasiconformal homeomorphism provided by Lemma 9.2, which extends to a homeomorphism of the closures, and define H_u = h_u \circ \phi_u^{-1}\colon \overline{\mathbb{D}} \to \overline{D_u}. Let \phi_u, \phi_v be conformal maps from W_u, W_v to \mathbb{D}, which extend to homeomorphisms from \overline{W_u}, \overline{W_v} to \overline \mathbb{D}, respectively. By Schwarz reflection we see that the map H_{{v\to u}}= \phi_u \circ R \circ \phi_v^{-1}\colon \partial \mathbb{D} \to \partial \mathbb{D} is an orientation-preserving analytic covering map of degree d_v \geq 1. Therefore, by Lemma 2.2 (if d_v\geq 2) or by the Beurling–Ahlfors extension theorem [BeurlingAhlfors:extension] (if d_v=1), we can extend H_{v\to u} to a quasiregular map \widetilde{H_{v\to u}}\colon \mathbb{D} \to \mathbb{D} with \widetilde{H_{v\to u}}(0) = 0 so that 0 is the unique critical point if d_v\geq 2.

We will also extend the map \Psi\colon \partial D_v \to \partial D_u, which is a covering map of degree d_v (see Proposition 5.15 ?). By the properties of a Markov map (see Proposition 5.15 ?), \Psi is quasisymmetric on each arc of the partition of \partial D_v induced by the tiles \Omega_F, where F is a face of \mathcal G^1. Let I^\pm be two adjacent such arcs. By Theorem 5.8, \Psi|_{\overline {I^+}} and \Psi_{\overline {I^-}} are C^{1+\alpha}-conformal at the common endpoint b = \overline {I^+} \cap \overline {I^-}. By Lemma 2.1, we conclude that \Psi|_{\overline {I^+\cup I^-}} is quasisymmetric. Thus, \Psi|_{\partial D_v} is locally quasisymmetric. By Lemma 2.2, we can extend \Psi|_{\partial D_v} to a quasiregular map \widetilde{\Psi}\colon D_v\to D_u having a unique branch point at the center x_v of D_v if d_v \geq 2. If d_v=1, we obtain a quasisymmetric extension as in the previous paragraph by the Beurling–Ahlfors theorem. By post-composing with a Möbius transformation of D_u, we may also assume that \widetilde \Psi(x_v)=H_u(0).

Then H_u\circ \widetilde{H_{v\to u}}\colon \overline{\mathbb{D}} \setminus \{0\} \to \overline{D_u} \setminus \{H_u(0)\} and \widetilde{\Psi}\colon \overline{D_v} \setminus\{x_v\} \to \overline{D_u} \setminus \{H_u(0)\} are both coverings of degree d_v. Therefore, by the lifting property of covering maps, we can lift H_u to a homeomorphism H_v \colon \overline{\mathbb{D}} \setminus \{0\} \to \overline{D_v} \setminus\{x_v\}; see the diagram in Figure ?. We remark that the deck transformations of the covering \widetilde{\Psi}\colon \overline{D_v} \setminus\{x_v\} \to \overline{D_u} \setminus \{H_u(0)\} are isomorphic to the group \mathbb{Z}/(d_v\mathbb{Z}), so there are d_v different choices of a lift of H_u, and any two of them differ by post-composition with an element of \mathbb{Z}/(d_v\mathbb{Z}). Let [u,q] be an edge of \mathcal{G}^0 adjacent to u and let [v,q'] be an edge of \mathcal{G}^1 adjacent to v that is mapped to [u,q]; equivalently, there exist points a,a' such that \partial W_u\cap \partial W_q=\{a\}, \partial W_v\cap\partial W_{q'}=\{a'\}, and R maps W_{q'} to W_q. Let \widetilde{a}=\phi_u(a), \widetilde a'=\phi_v(a'), \{b\}=\partial D_u\cap \partial D_q, and \{b'\}=\partial D_v\cap \partial D_{q'}. Note that H_u(\widetilde{a}) = b and H_{v\to u}(\widetilde a')=\widetilde a. We choose the lift H_v so that H_v(\widetilde{a}') = b'. Then H_v extends to a homeomorphism between \overline{\mathbb{D}} and \overline{D_v}. We define h_v= H_v \circ \phi_v\colon \overline{W_v} \to \overline{D_v}. On \partial W_v we have \Psi\circ h_v= h_u\circ R by construction, so ? holds. By this equality and the fact that the map h_v preserves the cyclic ordering of the points associated to the edges adjacent to v, we see that ? holds by our choice of the lift.

If each Fatou component is a quasidisk, then H_u is a David homeomorphism (see Lemma 9.2 ? and its proof). Note that locally away from 0, H_v can be expressed as the composition of quasiconformal maps and a David map. By Proposition 2.3 (i) and (iii), we conclude that H_v is locally away from 0 a David homeomorphism. Let \mu be the Beltrami coefficient of H_v. Note that the preimage of \mathbb{D} \setminus [0,1) under \widetilde{H_{v\to u}} consists of d_v components, denoted by U_1,\dots, U_{d_v}. Then H_v|_{U_i} is a composition of quasiconformal and David maps. Thus, by Proposition 2.3 (i) and (iii), there exist constants C,\alpha>0 so that for all i=1,\dots, d_v and any 0 < \varepsilon < 1, we have

We conclude that

Thus, H_v is a David homeomorphism on \mathbb{D}. By Proposition 2.3 (iv), we conclude that h_v is a David homeomorphism on W_v. Thus, ? holds.

If \mathcal J(f) is a fat gasket, then H_u is a quasiconformal homeomorphism. Therefore, H_v, and hence h_v, is quasiconformal. Thus, ? holds.

The general case that R^{\circ n}(W_v) is a fixed component for some n\geq 1 is treated similarly by induction.

Recall that for i=1,2, we denote by \mathcal{P}_i the circle packing for the spherical subdivision graph \mathcal{G}_i. By Theorem 1.2, the fat gasket Julia set \mathcal{J}(R) is quasiconformally homeomorphic to a circle packing with tangency graph \mathcal G_1. By Theorem 5.2, \mathcal J(R) is quasiconformally homeomorphic to the circle packing \mathcal{P}_1. Therefore, in order to prove the theorem, it suffices to construct appropriate quasiconformal maps between \mathcal{P}_1 and \mathcal{P}_2. Recall that

where each graph \mathcal{G}_{i, \pm} and \widetilde{\mathcal{G}}_{1,+} is isomorphic to the initial subdivision graph \mathcal{G}. We now construct open sets U^\pm and maps \phi^\pm associated to \mathcal{G}_{1,\pm} as follows. Let \mathcal{P}_{i, \pm} and \widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_{1, \pm} be the corresponding sub-circle packings of \mathcal{P}_i, i=1,2. Note these circle packings all have the same combinatorics. Let \widehat{U}^\pm (resp. V^\pm) be the Jordan domains bounded by the limit set of the group generated by reflections along the circles in \mathcal{P}_1 (resp. \mathcal{P}_2) associated to A, B, C, D as illustrated in Figure ?. By Theorem 5.13, there exist quasiconformal maps \widehat{\phi}^\pm\colon (\widehat\mathbb{C}, \widehat{U}^\pm) \to (\widehat\mathbb{C}, V^\pm) so that \widehat{\phi}^\pm(\overline{\widehat{U}^\pm} \cap \Lambda(\mathcal{P}_1)) = \overline{V^\pm} \cap \Lambda(\mathcal{P}_2). By pulling back \widehat{U}^\pm and \widehat{\phi}^\pm under the quasiconformal map between \mathcal{J}(R) and \Lambda(\mathcal{P}_1), we obtain regions U^\pm and maps \phi^\pm that satisfy the desired conclusion. Similarly, we can construct regions \widetilde{U}^\pm and maps \widetilde{\phi}^\pm for \widetilde{\mathcal{G}}_{1,+}. By construction we have \mathcal{J}(R) \subset U^+ \cup U^- \cup \widetilde{U}^+ \cup \widetilde{U}^- and the theorem follows.