Directional mean dimension and continuum-wise expansive \mathbb{Z}^k-actions

With the above preparation we are now ready to prove Theorem 1.2. We fix a nonzero vector \vec{v}\in\mathbb{R}^k and r>\frac{\sqrt{k}}{2}. We take \epsilon^\prime>0 arbitrarily. We choose a finite open cover \alpha of X, which consists of open balls of diameter smaller than \epsilon^\prime and which has a Lebesgue number \epsilon>0, with respect to the distance d on X. Note that we ensure \epsilon<\epsilon^\prime. Applying Lemma 4.3 (2) to \epsilon>0, there exists m=m(\epsilon)>0 such that for A\in C(X), if \max\{\operatorname{diam} T^{u+u^\prime}(A):u\in B_r(\langle\vec{v}\rangle^{\perp})\cap[-N,N]^k,u^\prime\in[-m,m]^k\}\le2c then \max\{\operatorname{diam} T^u(A):u\in B_r(\langle\vec{v}\rangle^{\perp})\cap[-N,N]^k\}<\epsilon. By Lemma 4.4, there is some constant K>0 such that for every N\in\mathbb{N} we can find a finite closed cover \mathcal{W}_{N+m}=\{W_i\}_{i\in I_N} of X satisfying \operatorname{mesh}(\mathcal{W}_{N+m},d^T_{[-N-m,N+m]^k})<2c and \operatorname{ord}(\mathcal{W}_{N+m})<K\cdot(N+m)^{k-1}. For each i\in I_N we denote by \mathcal{P}_i the set of all connected components of W_i. We put \mathcal{C}_N=\bigcup_{i\in I_N}\mathcal{P}_i. We notice that connected subsets in W_i (i\in I_N) are also connected in X. It follows that \operatorname{ord}(\mathcal{C}_N)=\operatorname{ord}(\mathcal{W}_{N+m}) and \operatorname{mesh}(\mathcal{C}_N,d_{B_r(\langle\vec{v}\rangle^{\perp})\cap[-N,N]^k}^T)<\epsilon. By a similar argument as in Claim 2 (in Lemma 4.4 above) we can find a finite closed cover \mathcal{C}^\prime_N of X satisfying that \operatorname{ord}(\mathcal{C}^\prime_N)=\operatorname{ord}(\mathcal{C}_N) and \operatorname{mesh}(\mathcal{C}^\prime_N,d_{B_r(\langle\vec{v}\rangle^{\perp})\cap[-N,N]^k}^T)<\epsilon. Clearly, \mathcal{C}_N^\prime refines \bigvee_{n\in B_r(\langle\vec{v}\rangle^{\perp})\cap[-N,N]^k}T^n\alpha. It follows from Lemma 2.1 that \mathcal{D}(\bigvee_{n\in B_r(\langle\vec{v}\rangle^{\perp})\cap[-N,N]^k}T^n\alpha)\le\operatorname{ord}(\mathcal{C}^\prime_N)<K\cdot(N+m)^{k-1} and thus

We remark that the constant K depends only on (X,\mathbb{Z}^k,T). Since m is independent of N and since \epsilon^\prime>0 is arbitrary, the definition (?) allows us to conclude.

(1) In the first part of the proof we shall use the notation \operatorname{mdim}(X,T,V;r) for the right hand side of (?) (instead of \operatorname{mdim}(X,T,V)), since our current goal is to show that this quantity does not depend on r>\sqrt{k}/2. Take \sqrt{k}/2<r_1<r_2. On the one hand, since

for all x,y\in X and N\in\mathbb{N}, we have

for all N\in\mathbb{N} and \epsilon>0. Thus \operatorname{mdim}(X,T,V;r_1)\le\operatorname{mdim}(X,T,V;r_2). On the other hand, there exists a finite subset F of \mathbb{Z}^k such that for any N\in\mathbb{N} the set B_{r_2}(V)\cap[-N,N]^k is contained in \bigcup_{m\in F}\left((B_{r_1}(V)\cap[-N,N]^k)+m\right). For a given \epsilon>0 there is \delta>0 such that d(x,y)<\delta implies d_F^T(x,y)<\epsilon. It follows that for any N\in\mathbb{N} we have \operatorname{Widim}_\epsilon(X,d_{B_{r_2}(V)\cap[-N,N]^k}^T)\le\operatorname{Widim}_\delta(X,d_{B_{r_1}(V)\cap[-N,N]^k}^T). This implies that \operatorname{mdim}(X,T,V;r_2)\le\operatorname{mdim}(X,T,V;r_1).

(2) To show

we take a finite open cover \mathcal{U} of X and let \lambda>0 be a Lebesgue number of \mathcal{U} with respect to a compatible metric d on X. It suffices to prove for every N\in\mathbb{N} that \mathcal{D}(\vee_{n\in B_r(V)\cap[-N,N]^k}T^n\mathcal{U})\le\operatorname{Widim}_\lambda(X,d_{B_r(V)\cap[-N,N]^k}^T). In fact, we take a compact metric space P with \dim(P)=\operatorname{Widim}_\lambda(X,d_{B_r(V)\cap[-N,N]^k}^T) and a \lambda-embedding f\colon X\to P with respect to d_{B_r(V)\cap[-N,N]^k}^T. Then it follows that \operatorname{diam} T^n(f^{-1}(p))<\lambda and hence T^n(f^{-1}(p)) is contained in some element in \mathcal{U} for every n\in B_r(V)\cap[-N,N]^k and every p\in P. Thus, f^{-1}(p) is contained in some element in \bigvee_{n\in B_r(V)\cap[-N,N]^k}T^n\mathcal{U} for every p\in P. For every U\in\bigvee_{n\in B_r(V)\cap[-N,N]^k}T^n\mathcal{U} we set \tilde{U}=\{p\in P:f^{-1}(p)\subset U\}. Clearly, f^{-1}(\tilde{U})\subset U, the sets \tilde{U}’s cover P, and each \tilde{U} is open in P. So f is \bigvee_{n\in B_r(V)\cap[-N,N]^k}T^n\mathcal{U}-compatible, and therefore by Lemma 2.1 we see that \mathcal{D}(\vee_{n\in B_r(V)\cap[-N,N]^k}T^n\mathcal{U})\le\dim(P).

To show

we let \epsilon>0, N\in\mathbb{N}, and take a finite open cover \mathcal{U} of X with \operatorname{mesh}(\mathcal{U},d)<\epsilon. By Lemma 2.1, we can find a compact metric space P with

and a continuous f\colon X\to P which is \bigvee_{n\in B_r(V)\cap[-N,N]^k}T^n\mathcal{U}-compatible. So we have \operatorname{Widim}_\epsilon(X,d_{B_r(V)\cap[-N,N]^k}^T)\le\dim(P), as required.

Statement (3) follows directly from definition.

Without loss of generality we assume \operatorname{mdim}(X,T,\langle\vec{e_k}\rangle^{\perp})<+\infty. For any positive integers N,M and j we put F(N,M;j)=[-jN,jN]^{k-1}\times[-jM,jM]. We set \mathcal{F}=\{F(N,M;1):N,M\ge1\}. Clearly, \{F(N,M;j)\}_{j=1}^\infty is a Fø lner sequence of \mathbb{Z}^k, for any positive integers N and M; and \mathcal{F}=\bigcup_{N,M\ge1}\{F(N,M;j)\}_{j=1}^\infty. We rewrite the definition of \operatorname{mdim}(X,T;\mathcal{U}) using \{F(N,M;j)\}_{j=1}^\infty in (?). By subadditivity of \mathcal{D} we have for any finite open cover \mathcal{U} of X and any N,M\ge1

Thus,

Since \bigvee_{m\in[-M,M]}T^{m\vec{e_k}}\mathcal{U} is independent of N, we have

Since \operatorname{mdim}(X,T,\langle\vec{e_k}\rangle^{\perp}) is finite and since \mathcal{U} is an arbitrary finite open cover of X, we conclude that \operatorname{mdim}(X,\mathbb{Z}^k,T)=0.

We provide a constructive proof, following the idea of Example 6.6 in [Boyle--Lind]. The case \rho=0 is trivial. We can suppose \rho=1. Indeed, we may replace (in the following argument) [0,1]^\mathbb{Z} by ([0,1]^\mathbb{N})^\mathbb{Z} if \rho=+\infty; or by a subshift (even minimal [Lindenstrauss--Weiss]) of some ([0,1]^d)^\mathbb{Z} (where d>\rho), whose mean dimension is equal to \rho, if 0<\rho<+\infty. So we assume \rho=1 for simplicity.

We let \sigma be the full shift on [0,1]^\mathbb{Z}, \sigma\colon \mathbb{Z}\times[0,1]^\mathbb{Z}\to[0,1]^\mathbb{Z}, (n,(x_m)_{m\in\mathbb{Z}})\mapsto(x_{m+n})_{m\in\mathbb{Z}}. We set Y=[0,1]^\mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{Z}. We consider an action on Y as follows:

Let X=Y\cup\{\infty\} be the one-point compactification of Y. By defining (m,n)\infty=\infty for all (m,n)\in\mathbb{Z}^2 (i.e. \infty is a fixed point) we may extend the action (?) of \mathbb{Z}^2 on Y continuously to a \mathbb{Z}^2-action T on X.

In the remaining part of the proof we shall compute the directional mean dimension of (X,\mathbb{Z}^2,T). We fix an arbitrary \vec{v}=(v_1,v_2)\in\mathbb{S}.

Case 1. Suppose v_2\ne0. We are going to prove \operatorname{mdim}(X,T,\langle\vec{v}\rangle^{\perp})=0.

In fact, for any finite open cover \mathcal{U} of X there exist M\in\mathbb{N} sufficiently large and a finite open cover \alpha of [0,1]^\mathbb{Z} such that \mathcal{V} refines \mathcal{U}, where \mathcal{V} is a finite open cover of X consisting of the following members:

Hence T^{(m,n)}\mathcal{V} ((m,n)\in\mathbb{Z}^2) consists of the following members:

We thus observe for any (m,n)\in\mathbb{Z}^2 with n\ge2M+1 that \mathcal{V}\vee T^{(m,n)}\mathcal{V} consists of the following members:

We note that any two elements coming from distinct lines (in the above three) are disjoint. So we have \mathcal{D}(\mathcal{V})\le\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{V}\vee T^{(m,n)}\mathcal{V})\le\max\{\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{V}),\mathcal{D}(T^{(m,n)}\mathcal{V})\}=\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{V}). Similarly, for any (m,n)\in\mathbb{Z}^2 with n\le-2M-1 we also have \mathcal{D}(\mathcal{V}\vee T^{(m,n)}\mathcal{V})=\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{V}). Therefore, by induction we deduce that if a finite subset F of \mathbb{Z}^2 satisfies that |q_1-q_2|\ge2M+1 whenever (p_1,q_1)\ne(p_2,q_2)\in F, then \mathcal{D}(\bigvee_{(p,q)\in F}T^{(p,q)}\mathcal{V})=\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{V}). Thus for any N\in\mathbb{N} we have

Notice that we are using r=1> \sqrt{2}/2 in the definition of directional mean dimension. It follows that,

Case 2. Suppose v_2=0. We are going to show \operatorname{mdim}(X,T,\langle\vec{v}\rangle^{\perp})=1.

In fact, by Proposition 3.1.(3), we have

where \mathcal{U}_{\alpha,M} is the finite open cover of X consisting of the following members:

and where \alpha ranges over finite open covers of [0,1]^\mathbb{Z} and M runs over \mathbb{N}. Meanwhile, it is clear that \mathcal{D}(\bigvee_{n\in[-N,N]}T^{(n,0)}\mathcal{U}_{\alpha,M})=\mathcal{D}(\bigvee_{n\in[-N,N]}\sigma^n\alpha). Thus we deduce

Without loss of generality we assume C\ne X. Fix x\in C. We denote by \mathcal{Q}_x the set of all clopen neighbourhoods of x in X and let Q=\bigcap_{V\in\mathcal{Q}_x}V be the quasi-component of x. It follows from classical results that C=Q (see for instance [Kuratowski, §47, Section II, Theorem 2]; we thank the anonymous referee for pointing us to this reference)·

Since C=Q, for every a\in X\setminus C there must be a clopen subset C_a of X such that C\subset C_a and a\notin C_a. This implies that there is an open neighbourhood U_a of a in X with U_a\subset X\setminus C_a\subset X\setminus C. We notice that X\setminus C is a Lindelöf space and that \{U_a:a\in X\setminus C\} is an open cover of X\setminus C. So we can find \{a_i\}_{i=1}^\infty\subset X\setminus C such that X\setminus C=\bigcup_{i=1}^\infty U_{a_i}. Let F=\bigcap_{i=1}^\infty C_{a_i}. Since for every c\in X\setminus C there is some i\in\mathbb{N} with c\in U_{a_i}\subset X\setminus C_{a_i}\subset X\setminus F, we see F\subset C. Thus, F=C. For each n\in\mathbb{N} we set F_n=\bigcap_{i=1}^nC_{a_i}. It is simple to check that \{F_n\}_{n=1}^\infty is as required.

(1) Suppose that the statement is false. There exist \{A_i\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}\subset C(X) and \{N_i\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}\subset\mathbb{N} satisfying that

Suppose that the sequence \{N_i\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}\subset\mathbb{N} is bounded by some 0<M<+\infty. We may assume (by the compactness of C(X)) that \{A_i\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}} converges to some A\in C(X). Hence (Proof) and (Proof) lead to a contradiction for \operatorname{diam} T^n(A) for some n\in[-M,M]^k. So we assume without loss of generality (by taking a subsequence) that N_i\to+\infty as i\to\infty.

We take a sequence \{n_i\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}, with n_i\in [-N_i,N_i]^k and such that \operatorname{diam} T^{n_i}(A_i) = \max \{\operatorname{diam} T^n(A_i):n\in[-N_i,N_i]^k\} for all i\in\mathbb{N}. We claim that the distance between n_i and \partial[-N_i,N_i]^k goes to +\infty as i\to\infty. In fact, if this assertion is not true, then there exists l\in\mathbb{N} such that n_i\notin[-N_i+l,N_i-l]^k for infinitely many i\in\mathbb{N}. For all these i\in\mathbb{N} we write n_i=p_i+q_i with p_i\in[-l,l]^k and q_i\in\partial[-N_i,N_i]^k. We take \epsilon>0 sufficiently small such that \operatorname{diam} T^n(A)<c/2 for all n\in[-l,l]^k whenever \operatorname{diam} A<\epsilon. It follows from (Proof) that \operatorname{diam} T^{n_i}(A_i)=\operatorname{diam} T^{p_i}(T^{q_i}(A_i))<c/2 for all sufficiently large i (with 1/i<\epsilon), which contradicts (Proof), and thus proves the claim.

We assume (by choosing a subsequence) that T^{n_i}(A_i) tends to B\in C(X) as i\to\infty. For any given m\in\mathbb{Z}^k there is some i_0\in\mathbb{N} such that m+n_i\in[-N_i,N_i]^k, for all i\ge i_0, which, together with (Proof), implies \operatorname{diam} T^{m+n_i}(A_i)\le\max\{\operatorname{diam} T^n(A_i):n\in[-N_i,N_i]^k\}\le2c. Letting i\to\infty in the above inequality we obtain \operatorname{diam} T^m(B)\le2c. Since B is nondegenerate, this is a contradiction.

(2) Suppose that the statement is false. There exist \epsilon_0>0 and a sequence \{A_i\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}\subset C(X) such that \max\{\operatorname{diam} T^n(A_i):n\in[-i,i]^k\}\le2c and \operatorname{diam} A_i\ge\epsilon_0 for all i\in\mathbb{N}. Choose a subsequence of \{A_i\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}} tending to some A\in C(X). Clearly, \operatorname{diam} T^n(A)\le2c for all n\in\mathbb{Z}^k, and \operatorname{diam} A\ge\epsilon_0. This is a contradiction.

Let \delta>0 be a constant introduced in Lemma 4.3 (1). Choose a finite open cover \mathcal{U}=\{U_1,\dots,U_L\} of X with \operatorname{mesh}(\mathcal{U},d)<\delta/2. For each N\ge1 we let \mathcal{U}_N be an open cover of X defined by \mathcal{U}_N=\bigvee_{u\in\partial[-N,N]^k}T^{-u}\mathcal{U}. By Lemma 2.2

By Lemma 2.1, for each N\ge1 there is a finite closed cover \mathcal{V}_N of X, which refines \mathcal{U}_N and which satisfies \operatorname{ord}(\mathcal{V}_N)=\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{U}_N). For every V\in\mathcal{V}_N we denote by \mathcal{C}_V the set of all connected components of V. We set \mathcal{C}_N=\{C\subset V:V\in\mathcal{V}_N,C\in\mathcal{C}_V\} and note that the sets in \mathcal{C}_V are pairwise disjoint. The set \mathcal{C}_N is a closed (not necessarily finite) cover of X, which refines \mathcal{V}_N and satisfies \operatorname{ord}(\mathcal{C}_N)=\operatorname{ord}(\mathcal{V}_N). Claim 1. For every N\ge1 we have \operatorname{mesh}(\mathcal{C}_N,d^T_{[-N,N]^k})<2c. Proof of Claim 1. If \operatorname{mesh}(\mathcal{C}_N,d^T_{[-N,N]^k})\ge2c for some N\ge1, then there exists C\in\mathcal{C}_N such that \max\{\operatorname{diam} T^n(C):n\in[-N,N]^k\}\ge2c which implies that d^T_{[-N,N]^k}(x,y)\ge2c for some x,y\in C. We assume C\in\mathcal{C}_V for some V\in\mathcal{V}_N. By Lemma 4.1, there is a continuous mapping \kappa\colon [0,1]\to C(V) satisfying \kappa(0)=\{x\}, \kappa(1)=C, and \kappa(s)\subset\kappa(t) whenever 0\le s\le t\le1. We define a continuous mapping F\colon [0,1]\to[0,+\infty) by sending t to \max\{\operatorname{diam} T^n(\kappa(t)):n\in[-N,N]^k\}. Clearly, F(0)=0 and F(1)\ge2c. So there is some 0<t_0<1 with F(t_0)=3c/2. By Lemma 4.3 (1) we get \max\{\operatorname{diam} T^n(\kappa(t_0)):n\in\partial[-N,N]^k\}>\delta and hence \max\{\operatorname{diam} T^n(C):n\in\partial[-N,N]^k\}>\delta. However, since \mathcal{C}_N refines \mathcal{U}_N and since \operatorname{mesh}(\mathcal{U}_N,d_{\partial[-N,N]^k}^T)<\delta/2, we have \max\{\operatorname{diam} T^n(C):n\in\partial[-N,N]^k\}<\delta/2, a contradiction. This shows Claim 1. Claim 2. For every N\ge1 there exists a finite closed cover \mathcal{W}_N of X satisfying that \operatorname{mesh}(\mathcal{W}_N,d^T_{[-N,N]^k})<2c and \operatorname{ord}(\mathcal{W}_N)=\operatorname{ord}(\mathcal{V}_N). Proof of Claim 2. We fix N\ge1. We take an arbitrary V\in\mathcal{V}_N for the moment. By Claim 1, \operatorname{mesh}(\mathcal{C}_V,d^T_{[-N,N]^k})<2c. Applying Lemma 4.2 to each connected component C of V we find a clopen subset F_C\supset C of V, whose diameter is strictly smaller than 2c with respect to d^T_{[-N,N]^k}. So we obtain a clopen cover \{F_C:C\in\mathcal{C}_V\} of V. Since V is compact, there is a finite subcover \{F_{C_1},F_{C_2},\dots,F_{C_{i(V)}}\} of \{F_C:C\in\mathcal{C}_V\}. We set W_1^V=F_{C_1}, W_2^V=F_{C_2}\setminus F_{C_1}, \dots, W_{i(V)}^V=F_{C_{i(V)}}\setminus\cup_{j=1}^{i(V)-1}F_{C_j}. It follows that \{W_1^V,W_2^V,\dots,W_{i(V)}^V\} is a finite closed cover of V satisfying that W_s^V\cap W_t^V=\emptyset for all 1\le s<t\le i(V). Thus, we know that \mathcal{W}_N=\{W_j^V:1\le j\le i(V),V\in\mathcal{V}_N\} is a finite closed cover of X. This shows Claim 2. Now by (Proof) and noting that \operatorname{ord}(\mathcal{W}_N)\le\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{U}_N) we finish the proof of the lemma.