Lyapunov maximizing measures for balanced pairs of matrices

Let \mathbb{A}\in\mathbf{H}^2 be a co-parallel pair. By reduction to absurdity, assume that the conclusion of Theorem 1.1 fails for \mathbb{A}. Then, since \mathbb{A} admits some maximizing measure, by Lemma 4.4, there exists a maximizing measure \mu of \mathbb{A} which is not Sturmian. By Lemma 4.1 (ii), any invariant measure supported in \operatorname{supp}\mu is also maximizing, so by Lemma 4.4 and ergodic decomposition, we may further assume that \mu is ergodic. Since \mu is ergodic and not Sturmian, by Lemma 2.1 and Lemma 2.2 (i), there exists s\in\operatorname{supp}\mu such that s is recurrent and not balanced.

Fixing s as above, let w_0,w_1,w_2 and \xi be as given in Proposition 3.1. Since s is recurrent and w_0 is a factor of s, for an arbitrarily large n, there exist words x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n such that

is a factor of s.

Now combining (Proof) with Lemma 4.1 and |t|=|t'|, we obtain that

Since n can be arbitrarily large, this leads to a contradiction.

Let us follow the proof in the co-parallel case, arguing by reduction to absurdity. Assuming that the conclusion of Theorem 1.1 fails for \mathbb{A}, then thanks to Lemma 4.6, we can still find an ergodic maximizing measure \mu of \mathbb{A} which is not Sturmian, and hence there exists s\in \operatorname{supp}\mu which is recurrent and not balanced. Then for every n, there exists a factor t of s of the form (Proof), and to get a contradiction as in the co-parallel case, it suffices to show that (Proof) still holds for some \delta>0 dependent only on \mathbb{A} and |w_0|. Due to Proposition 3.1 (i), |t|=|t'| and |t|_1=|t'|_1, so we may assume that \mathbb{A}\in \mathbf{A}^2. Moreover, w_0\ne 0^{|w_0|}, 1^{|w_0|}, so by Lemma 4.5, the problem is again reduced to establishing (Proof), which completes the proof.

See, for example, [MS13, Theorem 2.1].

For (i), see, for example, [MS13, Theorem 2.1]. For (ii), see, for example, [BM02, Corollary 1.4].

See, for example, [Lot02, Proposition 2.1.3].

We may assume that \mathbb{A} is in a normal form. Then assertions (i)(ii) follows from Lemma 2.4. To prove (iii)(iv), denote C=AB and D=BA below. We may further assume that the right end point of I_\mathbb{A}^+ is a fixed point of \underline{B}, so \underline{B}(x)>x holds for any x\in I_\mathbb{A}^+\cup I_\mathbb{A}^-.

(iii). By Lemma 2.4, C,D\in\mathbf{H}, s_C,s_D\in I_{\mathbb{A}}^+ and

so s_D=\underline{B}(s_C)>s_C. A similar argument shows that u_D=\underline{B}(u_C)>u_C. Therefore \{C,D\} is a crossing pair.

(iv). Since \{C,D\} is a crossing pair, it is known that \rho(C)\rho(D)>\rho(CD). See, for example, [PS21, Theorem 2.5], or the displayed line in the last paragraph of [Las25, Proof of Corollary 5.4]. Then it follows that

which is equivalent to \operatorname{tr} ((AB)^2) >\operatorname{tr} (A^2B^2).

Let u,v be factors of s given by Lemma 3.7. Since s is a recurrent infinite word over \{u,v\} and uu,vv are factors of s, there exist p,q\ge 1 and m\ge 0 such that w_0=uv^{q+1}(uv)^m u^{p+1}v is a factor of s; moreover, since s is not balanced, both 0 and 1 are factors of w_0. Take w_1=vuv^q(uv)^m u^pvu and w_2=uvu^p(vu)^m v^quv. Then assertion (i) holds.

To prove (ii), denote W_i=[w_i]_\mathbb{A} for i=0,1,2 and U=[u]_\mathbb{A},V=[v]_\mathbb{A}, X=UV,\tilde{X}=VU. Then by Lemma 3.7 (iii), (U,V)\in\mathbf{A}^2 is a balanced pair, so both (3.3) and (3.3) hold for \eta,t_1,t_2 given by Lemma 3.3.

To proceed, we may further assume that \mathbb{A} is in a normal form. Then both X and \tilde{X} are positive. As a result, there exists \delta>0 such that both X-\delta W_0 and \tilde{X}-\delta W_0 are non-negative. Now let us show that (3.1) holds for \xi=1+\eta\delta. Denote Z=[z]_{\mathbb{A}}, which is also non-negative. If \operatorname{tr} (\tilde{X} Z)\ge \operatorname{tr} (XZ), then by (3.3),

combining this with \operatorname{tr}((\tilde{X}-\delta W_0)Z)\ge 0 yields that \operatorname{tr} (W_1Z)\ge \xi\cdot\operatorname{tr} (W_0Z). Otherwise, a similar argument shows that \operatorname{tr} (W_2Z)\ge \xi\cdot\operatorname{tr} (W_0Z).

Let x\in\mathcal{X}_{l,n} and suppose that x^\infty is not balanced. It suffices to find x'\in \mathcal{X}_{l,n} such that \operatorname{tr} [x']_{\mathbb{A}}>\operatorname{tr}[x]_{\mathbb{A}}. To this end, let \tilde{x} and u,v be as given in Lemma A.1. Due to Lemma A.1 (i)(ii), there exists a factor y of \tilde{x}^\infty with |y|=|\tilde{x}| and p,q\ge 1,m\ge 0 such that:

• either y=w_0z for w_0=uv^{q+1}(uv)^m u^{p+1}v and some word z over \{u,v\};

• or y=w_0z for w_0=vu^{p+1}(vu)^m v^{q+1}u and some word z over \{u,v\};

• or y=u^{p+1}v^{q+1}.

Note that y\in \mathcal{X}_{l,n} and \operatorname{tr} [y]_{\mathbb{A}}=\operatorname{tr}[x]_{\mathbb{A}}. In the first case, we can choose w_1,w_2 as in the proof of Proposition 3.1, so that (3.1) holds for some \xi>1. Then w_1z,w_2z\in \mathcal{X}_{l,n} and the desired inequality holds for some x'\in\{w_1z,w_2z\}. The second case can be dealt with in the same way as the first one. In the last case, let us take x'=u^pv^quv \in \mathcal{X}_{l,n}. Then for U=[u]_\mathbb{A},V=[v]_\mathbb{A}, (U,V)\in\mathbf{A}^2 is a balanced pair, and we have:

where the latter “=" is due to Lemma 3.5 (ii), while the “>" is due to p,q\ge 1 and Lemma 2.5 (iv). The proof is done.

Denote \alpha_k=\Gamma_k(U),\beta_k=\Gamma_k(V),\gamma_k=\Gamma_k(X)=\Gamma_k(\tilde{X}) for each k\ge 0. We first claim that

To prove (Proof), first note that by Lemma 3.5 (i), \tilde{X}^m=\gamma_{m+1}\cdot I -\gamma_{m}\cdot\tilde{X}^{-1}, and hence

Similarly, we have:

Also note that by Lemma 2.5 (i), X,\tilde{X}\in\mathbf{H}. Then it follows that

where in the latter equality we have used Lemma 3.5 (ii). To see \delta>0, we only need to note that \Gamma_0(\cdot)=0 and \Gamma_k(\cdot) is strictly increasing in k.

Due to (Proof), we have:

Since (U,V)\in\mathbf{A}^2 is a balanced pair, by Lemma 2.5 (iv), it follows that \eta>0.

To proceed, note that by Lemma 3.4 (ii), we have:

Also note that by Lemma 3.6,

It follows that

That is to say, (3.3) holds for t_1:=\operatorname{tr}(XY); moreover, by Lemma 2.5 (i), t_1>2. On the other hand, due to Lemma 3.4 (i) and \operatorname{tr} Y =\operatorname{tr} \tilde{Y}, we have:

It follows that

which completes the proof.

Applying Cayley-Hamilton Theorem to X and XY respectively, the conclusion follows.

(i). It can either be found in [JS90] as Equation (2.4) or be verified directly.

(ii). It follows directly from (i). See also [JS90, Lemma 5-2].

The proof is based on the following self-evident observation with an inductive argument.

Now let us prove the lemma. Since s is not balanced, by Lemma 2.3, there exists a word w_0 such that for u_0=0,v_0=1, both u_0w_0u_0 and v_0w_0v_0 are factors of s. Now suppose that for some k\ge 0, words u_k,v_k,w_k have been defined to satisfy the following induction hypothesis:

• u_k and v_k are distinct factors of both s and w_k;

• s and w_k are words over \{u_k,v_k\};

• u_kw_ku_k and v_kw_kv_k are factors of s.

Considering s as an infinite word over \{u_k,v_k\}, if v_kv_k is not a factor of s, then take a=u_k,b=v_k; otherwise, if u_ku_k is not a factor of s, then take a=v_k,b=u_k. In both cases, we can apply the Claim to t=s,w=w_k (as words over \{a,b\}), so that for u_{k+1}=a,v_{k+1}=ba,w_{k+1}=w', u_{k+1},v_{k+1},w_{k+1} still satisfy the induction hypothesis above. Since in this process the length of w_k (as a word over \{0,1\}) is strictly decreasing in k, the induction must be terminated at some step k\ge 0. Taking u=u_k,v=v_k for such k, assertions (i) and (ii) in the lemma are satisfied; assertion (iii) follows from the construction of u,v and Lemma 2.5 (ii).

A balanced pair is irreducible in the sense of [Jun09, Page 16], and hence (i) follows from [Jun09, Theorem 2.1]. (ii) follows from (i) and [Mor13, Theorem 2.3 (iv)]; see also [BG19, Proposition 6.2].

(i). It follows from Vieta’s Formula.

(ii). Since (\operatorname{tr} X)^2-2=a^2+2bc+d^2 and since 2bc\ge \theta(b^2+c^2), the conclusion follows.

Denote X=[x]_{\mathbb{A}}=\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d\end{pmatrix}. We may assume that x\ne\epsilon and \mathbb{A} is in a normal form, i.e., case (h) in Definition 1.1. Then by Lemma 2.4, X\in\mathbf{H}, s_X\in [s_1,s_2] and u_X\in [u_2,u_1], so by Lemma 4.2 (i), -s_1u_1\le b/c\le -s_2u_2. Thus the conclusion follows from Lemma 4.2 (ii).

We may assume that \mathbb{A} is in a normal form. For each x\in\mathcal{H}_N, denote X=[x]_{\mathbb{A}}\in\mathbf{H}. Denote \mathcal{X}_N=\{x\in\mathcal{H}_N:|x|=N\}. By Lemma 2.4 (i)(iv), there exist real numbers u_2<u_1<0<s_1<s_2 such that

Then both s_X\in [s_1,s_2] and u_X\in [u_2,u_1] hold for any x\in\mathcal{H}_N, and hence the conclusion follows from Lemma 4.2.

Note that if \mathbb{A}=(aA,bB) for some (A,B)\in\mathbf{A}^2 and a,b\in\mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\}, then by (?) and Lemma 2.2 (ii),

Therefore, we may assume that \mathbb{A}\in \mathbf{A}^2. We may further assume that \mathbb{A} is in a normal form, so that I_\mathbb{A}^+ introduced in (2.4) is well-defined. Define f(\alpha)=\chi(\mathbb{A},\mu_\alpha), \alpha\in[0,1]. Given N\ge 3, let us first show that f is (continuous and) strictly concave on J_N=(\frac{1}{N},1-\frac{1}{N}). To this end, we shall follow the argument of Laskawiec in the second paragraph of [Las25, Proof of Theorem 9.8], which consists of two steps: firstly, prove that f is strictly mid-point concave on J_N\cap \mathbb{Q}; secondly, prove that f is continuous on J_N.

For the first step, it suffices to show that, under our settings, for t_1,t_2\in J_N\cap \mathbb{Q} with t_1<t_2, the corresponding words w_1,w_2,w_3 and associated matrices \Pi_i=[w_i]_\mathbb{A}, i=1,2,3 defined in [Las25, Proof of Theorem 9.8] still satisfy

Since |w_1w_2|=|w_3|,|w_1w_2|_1=|w_3|_1 and since w_3^\infty is balanced, by Theorem 3.2, \rho(\Pi_3)\ge \rho(\Pi_1\Pi_2) holds. On the other hand, by following the proofs of the “furthermore" part of [Las25, Lemma 9.4] and [Las25, Corollary 9.5], it can be directly checked that (\Pi_1,\Pi_2) is a balanced pair; moreover, by Lemma 2.5 (i), \Pi_1,\Pi_2\in\mathbf{H}. Therefore, (\Pi_1,\Pi_2) is a co-parallel pair, so by Lemma 4.4, \rho(\Pi_1\Pi_2)>\rho(\Pi_1)\cdot\rho(\Pi_2).

For the second step, let

and let \mathcal{M}_N=\{\mu\in\mathcal{M}:\operatorname{supp}\mu\subset \Sigma_N\}. By Lemma 2.2 (ii), \operatorname{supp}\mu_\alpha\subset \Sigma_N holds for every \alpha\in J_N. Therefore, to prove that f is continuous on J_N, it suffices to replace the role of [Las25, Lemma 9.6] there with the following claim.

Since N can be arbitrarily large, we have proved that f is strictly concave on (0,1). On the other hand, it is easy to see that as n\to \infty, f(\frac{1}{n+1})=\frac{1}{n+1}\log\rho(A^nB)\to \log\rho(A) = f(0) and f(\frac{n}{n+1})=\frac{1}{n+1}\log\rho(AB^n)\to \log\rho(B) = f(1). Combining this with f being concave on (0,1), we conclude that f is continuous at 0,1, which completes the proof.

Thanks to Lemma 4.6, we can apply Lemma 5.2 below to the function f(\mathbb{A},\alpha)=\chi(\mathbb{A},\mu_\alpha),(\mathbb{A},\alpha)\in\mathbf{B}\times[0,1] by taking D=[0,1]\cap\mathbb{Q}. Then the conclusion follows.

Given x_0\in X and \varepsilon>0, it suffices to show that there exists an open neighborhood U of x_0 such that |\tau(x)-\tau(x_0)|<\varepsilon for any x\in U. Let us only prove the statement under the additional assumption \tau(x_0)\in (0,1); the special cases \tau(x_0)=0,1 are similar and omitted.

Since \tau(x_0)\in (0,1) and D is dense in [0,1], there exist \alpha_1,\alpha_2,\beta_1,\beta_2\in D with \tau(x_0)-\varepsilon <\alpha_1<\alpha_2<\tau(x_0)<\beta_1<\beta_2<\tau(x_0)+\varepsilon. Since the function \alpha\mapsto f(x_0,\alpha) is strictly concave and since it attains its maximum at \tau(x_0), we have f(x_0,\alpha_1)<f(x_0,\alpha_2) and f(x_0,\beta_1)>f(x_0,\beta_2). Then by continuity, there exists an open neighborhood U of x_0 such that both f(x,\alpha_1)<f(x,\alpha_2) and f(x,\beta_1)>f(x,\beta_2) hold for any x\in U. For such x, by the concavity of \alpha\mapsto f(x,\alpha), we have \alpha_1<\tau(x)<\beta_2.

Let us prove the “only if" part first. For every t>0, since (A,tB) is a balanced pair, by Theorem 1.1, there exists a unique \alpha(t)\in [0,1] such that \mu_{\alpha(t)} is the unique maximizing measure of (A,tB). By Proposition 5.1, the function t\mapsto\alpha(t) is continuous on (0,+\infty). By the definition of \alpha(t), it is easy to see that \lim_{t\to 0^+}\alpha(t)=0 and \lim_{t\to +\infty}\alpha(t)=1. Then there exists (uncountably many) t>0 with \alpha(t)\notin\mathbb{Q}, and (A,tB) is a finiteness counter-example for such t.

For the “if" part, we may assume that A,B\in\mathbf{G} are both non-negative. Since for r,s,t>0, (A,tB) is a balanced pair iff (rA,sB) is a balanced pair, it suffices to prove the following statement.

It remains to prove the claim. To begin with, note that if C\in\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{R})\setminus\{I\} is non-negative, then C\in\mathbf{A}, and hence either C is in the form of (?), or C\in\{P_x,P_x^t\} for some x>0. If A and B share a common eigenvector, it is well-known (and easy to see) that either A or B is a spectrum maximizing product of \mathbb{A}. Then we may assume that A and B share no common eigenvector, so there are three cases as follows.

• \{A,B\}=\{H_{s_1,u_1}^{\lambda_1},H_{s_2,u_2}^{\lambda_2}\} with s_1\ne s_2 and u_1\ne u_2.

• \{A,B\}=\{H_{s,u}^\lambda,P_x\} or \{H_{s,u}^\lambda,P_x^t\}.

• \{A,B\}=\{P_x,P_y^t\}.

Therefore, \mathbb{A} is either a balanced pair or a crossing pair (recall its definition ahead of Lemma 2.5). According to [PS21, Theorem 3.4] or [Las25, Corollary 5.4], for a crossing pair (A,B), either A or B is a spectrum maximizing product. The proof is done.

For A,B given in the lemma, it is not difficult to prove the following statement directly: there exists T\in\mathrm{GL}(2,\mathbb{R}) such that T^{-1}AT=B and T^{-1}BT=A. Alternatively, this statement follows easily from a more general result of Friedland [Fri83, Theorem 2.1, Theorem 2.9]; see also [Koz25, Lemma 2.2].

Now suppose that \mu_\alpha is the unique maximizing measure of (A,B) for some \alpha\in[0,1]. Then \mu_{1-\alpha} is the unique maximizing measure of (B,A). However, from (T^{-1}AT,T^{-1}BT)=(B,A) we know that \mu_\alpha is also a maximizing measure of (B,A), so \alpha=1/2.

For each \lambda\in [\lambda',+\infty), let \mu_{f(\lambda)} be the unique maximizing measure of \mathbb{A}_{\lambda}. By Proposition 5.1, this defines a continuous function f:[\lambda',+\infty)\to [0,1]. By Lemma 5.4, f(\lambda')=1/2. On the other hand, \chi(\mathbb{A}_\lambda,\mu_0)=\log\lambda, and it is easy to see that there exists C>0 such that

Then \lim_{\lambda\to +\infty}f(\lambda)=0, and the conclusion follows.

Similar to Lemma 3.7, the proof is based on the following self-evident observation with an inductive argument.

Now let us prove the lemma. Since x^\infty is not balanced, it is known that there exists a factor x_0 of x^\infty with |x_0|=|x| such that x_0 is not balanced; see, for example, “(i) implying (iii)" in [HMST11, Lemma 4.7]. Then by Lemma 2.3, there exists a word w_0 such that for u_0=0,v_0=1, both u_0w_0u_0 and v_0w_0v_0 are factors of x_0. Now suppose that for some k\ge 0, words x_k,u_k,v_k,w_k have been defined to satisfy the following induction hypothesis:

• x_k is a factor of x^\infty with |x_k|=|x| (as words over \{0,1\});

• u_k and v_k are distinct factors of both x_k and w_k;

• x_k and w_k are words over \{u_k,v_k\};

• u_kw_ku_k and v_kw_kv_k are factors of x_k.

Considering x_k^\infty as an infinite word over \{u_k,v_k\}, if v_kv_k is not a factor of x_k^\infty, then take a=u_k,b=v_k; otherwise, if u_ku_k is not a factor of x_k^\infty, then take a=v_k,b=u_k. In both cases, we can apply the Claim to z=x_k,w=w_k (as words over \{a,b\}), so that for x_{k+1}=z',u_{k+1}=a,v_{k+1}=ba,w_{k+1}=w', x_{k+1},u_{k+1},v_{k+1},w_{k+1} still satisfy the induction hypothesis above. Since in this process the length of w_k (as a word over \{0,1\}) is strictly decreasing in k, the induction must be terminated at some step k\ge 0. Taking \tilde{x}=x_k,u=u_k,v=v_k for such k, assertions (i) and (ii) in the lemma are satisfied; assertion (iii) follows from the construction of u,v and Lemma 2.5 (ii).