High entropy measures on the space of lattices with escape of mass

When (m,n)=(1,1), it follows from [Kad12, Theorem 1.2]. Assume (m,n)\neq (1,1). Using Proposition 3.1 with \epsilon=1/k for k\in\mathbb{N}, we obtain a sequence of a-invariant probability measures (\mu_k)_{k\geq 1} on X such that \operatorname{Supp} \mu_k \subset \{x\in X : \rho_{1/k} \leq \lambda_1(x) \leq \eta_{1/k}\} and h_{\mu_k}(a)\geq m+n-1 -\frac{m+n}{mnk}. Hence, it follows that \liminf_{k\to\infty}h_{\mu_k}(a) \geq m+n -1 and any weak^\ast limit measure is the zero measure since \rho_{1/k}, \eta_{1/k}\to 0 as k\to\infty.

On the other hand, if \limsup_{k\to\infty}h_{\mu_k}(a)>m+n-1, it follows from Theorem 1.1 that there is a subsequence of (\mu_k)_{k\geq 1} such that any weak^\ast limit measure along this subsequence cannot be the zero measure, which is a contradiction. Therefore, \lim_{k\to\infty}h_{\mu_k}(a) = m+n -1.

Let (\mu_k)_{k\geq 1} be as in Theorem 1.2. Denote by m_X the Haar probability measure on X. Note that h_{m_X} (a) = m+n (see e.g. [EL, Theorem 7.9]). Given h\in [m+n-1,m+n], define

It follows from [ELW, Theorem 2.33] that

hence \lim_{k\to\infty}h_{\nu_k}(a) =h. Since the weak^\ast limit measure of (\nu_k)_{k\geq 1} is (h-(m+n-1))m_X, this completes the proof.

We will use the following notation: given any template \mathbf{g} and interval [T_1,T_2], we denote

Fix \epsilon>0 and let C_\epsilon>0 be as in the statement of Theorem 2.3. We may assume that C_\epsilon \to \infty as \epsilon \to 0 by replacing C_\epsilon with \max(C_\epsilon, 1/\epsilon). Fix large t>0 to be determined later. Define the template \mathbf{f} by

Note that if t>0 is large enough, then the formulas (2.4), (2.4), and (2.4) hold for all the above standard templates since (m,n) \neq (1,1).

Following [DFSU, Section 9], we have that for each k\geq 1

By Theorem 2.3, \dim_H(\mathcal{D}(\mathbf{f},C_\epsilon)) \geq mn-\frac{mn}{m+n}-\epsilon-O\left(\frac{C_\epsilon}{t}\right). Take t=t_\epsilon\in\mathbb{N} large so that \dim_H(\mathcal{D}(\mathbf{f},C_\epsilon)) \geq mn-\frac{mn}{m+n}-2\epsilon.

Fix any A \in \mathcal{D}(\mathbf{f},C_\epsilon) and let \mathbf{h}_A = (h_1,\dots,h_d). Observe that

for all t\geq t_\epsilon. Note that \mathbf{f} is a bounded template. Setting D_\epsilon = \max_{t} (-f_1(t)),

for all t\geq t_\epsilon. Hence, it follows that

Since -D_\epsilon -C_\epsilon and -C_\epsilon \to -\infty as \epsilon \to 0, taking \rho_\epsilon = e^{-D_{\epsilon/2} -C_{\epsilon/2}} and \eta_\epsilon = e^{-C_{\epsilon/2}}, we can conclude Proposition 2.6.

Given \epsilon>0, let \rho_\epsilon,\eta_\epsilon>0 and t_\epsilon\in\mathbb{N} be as in Proposition 2.6. Denote

where \mathbb{T}^{mn}=\mathbb{R}^{mn}/\mathbb{Z}^{mn} with the metric \|\cdot\| on \mathbb{T}^{mn} induced by the supremum norm \|\cdot\| on \mathbb{R}^{mn}=M_{m,n}(\mathbb{R}). For each N\in\mathbb{N}, let S_N be a maximal e^{-(\frac{1}{m}+\frac{1}{n})N}-separated subset of E(\epsilon). Since the value \lambda_1(a_t u_A \mathbb{Z}^d) is invariant under \mathbb{Z}^{mn}-translations, i.e. \lambda_1(a_t u_{A+Z} \mathbb{Z}^d)=\lambda_1(a_t u_A \mathbb{Z}^d) for any Z\in\mathbb{Z}^{mn}, it follows from Proposition 2.6 that

Define the measures \nu_N and \mu_N by

Extracting a subsequences if necessary, we may assume that the sequence (\mu_N)_{N\in\mathbb{N}} converges weak^\ast to some measure \mu on X. Note that \mu could be not a probability measure since X is non-compact.

First, observe that \mu is clearly a-invariant since a_\ast \mu_N - \mu_N goes to the zero measure. Next, we claim that \mu is a probability measure on X and

Indeed, writing X(\epsilon) = \{x\in X : \rho_\epsilon \leq \lambda_1(x) \leq \eta_\epsilon \}, it follows from the definition of E(\epsilon) that

By taking N\to\infty, we have \mu(X\smallsetminus X(\epsilon)) = 0 and the claim follows since X(\epsilon) is compact in X.

Finally, we claim that

In order to prove the claim, we fix small r>0 which will be determined

and consider a finite partition \mathcal{P} of X satisfying

• \mathcal{P} contains an atom P_\infty such that X\smallsetminus P_\infty contains X(\epsilon) and has compact closure;

• For any P\in \mathcal{P}\smallsetminus \{P_\infty\}, \operatorname{diam} P<r;

• For any P \in \mathcal{P}, the boundary of P is \mu-null, i.e. \mu(\partial P) =0.

We can build such \mathcal{P} following the procedure in the proof of [LSS, Proposition 2.3]. For any q\in\mathbb{N}, let \mathcal{P}^{(q)} = \bigvee_{k=0}^{q-1}a^{-k}\mathcal{P}. Write the Euclidean division of large enough N-1 by q as

By subadditivity of entropy of the partition it follows that for each p\in\{0,\dots,q-1\}

Summing those inequalities for p=0,\dots,q-1, and using concavity of entropy of the measure, it follows that

Therefore, we have

Now we will take r >0 small enough. For this denote by r_1 the injectivity radius of X\smallsetminus P_\infty. See [EW, Proposition 9.14] for the definition and existence of an injectivity radius. Recall the constants 0<r_0<1 and C_0\geq 1 given in the beginning of Section ?. We take r < \min\{r_0, r_1,C_0^{-1}e^{-\left(\frac{1}{m}+\frac{1}{n}\right)}\} and claim that for any non-empty atom P of \mathcal{P}^{(N)}, there is at most one element A\in S_N such that u_A\Gamma \in P.

To prove the claim, suppose that A_1,A_2\in S_N satisfy u_{A_1}\Gamma, u_{A_2}\Gamma \in P, that is, a^ku_{A_1}\Gamma, a^k u_{A_2}\Gamma are contained in the same atom of \mathcal{P} for each k=0,\dots,N-1. It follows from A_1,A_2 \in E(\epsilon) that a^k u_{A_1}\Gamma, a^k u_{A_2}\Gamma \notin P_\infty for all k\geq t_\epsilon. In particular, we have d_X(a^{N-1} u_{A_1} \Gamma, a^{N-1} u_{A_2} \Gamma) <r, which implies d_G(a^{N-1}u_{A_1-A_2}a^{-(N-1)},id) <r due to r<r_1. It follows from r<r_0 that

hence \|A_1-A_2\| < C_0 r e^{-\left(\frac{1}{m}+\frac{1}{n}\right)(N-1)}. Since r< C_0^{-1}e^{-\left(\frac{1}{m}+\frac{1}{n}\right)} and A_1,A_2 are e^{-\left(\frac{1}{m}+\frac{1}{n}\right)N}-separated, it follows that A_1=A_2, which completes the proof of the claim.

It follows from (?) and the above claim that

Since the boundary of the atoms of \mathcal{P}, hence of \mathcal{P}^{(q)}, is of zero \mu-measure, taking N\to\infty and using (?), we have

Therefore, we have