Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Spectral bounds for ergodic Jacobi operators

Burak HatiΜ‡noğlu Department of Mathematics, Michigan State University, East Lansing MI 48829, U.S.A. hatinogl@msu.edu
Abstract.

We consider ergodic Jacobi operators and obtain estimates on the Lebesgue measure and the distance between maximum and minimum points of the spectrum in terms of the Lyapunov exponent. Our proofs are based on results from logarithmic potential theory and their connections with spectral theory of Jacobi operators.

Key words and phrases:
ergodic Jacobi operators, spectral estimates, logarithmic capacity, Lyapunov exponent, density of states measure
2020 Mathematics Subject Classification:
47B36, 47B80, 47E05

1. Introduction

The Jacobi operator J𝐽Jitalic_J acting on the Hilbert space l2⁒(β„•)superscript𝑙2β„•l^{2}(\mathbb{N})italic_l start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_N ) is the self-adjoint operator associated with the infinite Jacobi matrix

(b1a100a1b2a200a2b3β‹±00β‹±β‹±),matrixsubscript𝑏1subscriptπ‘Ž100subscriptπ‘Ž1subscript𝑏2subscriptπ‘Ž200subscriptπ‘Ž2subscript𝑏3β‹±00β‹±β‹±\begin{pmatrix}b_{1}&a_{1}&0&0\\ a_{1}&b_{2}&a_{2}&0\\ 0&a_{2}&b_{3}&\ddots\\ 0&0&\ddots&\ddots\end{pmatrix},( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL β‹± end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL β‹± end_CELL start_CELL β‹± end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) ,

given by

(J⁒ψ)n=anβˆ’1⁒ψnβˆ’1+bn⁒ψn+an⁒ψn+1,subscriptπ½πœ“π‘›subscriptπ‘Žπ‘›1subscriptπœ“π‘›1subscript𝑏𝑛subscriptπœ“π‘›subscriptπ‘Žπ‘›subscriptπœ“π‘›1(J\psi)_{n}=a_{n-1}\psi_{n-1}+b_{n}\psi_{n}+a_{n}\psi_{n+1},( italic_J italic_ψ ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,

where a0=0subscriptπ‘Ž00a_{0}=0italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0, an>0subscriptπ‘Žπ‘›0a_{n}>0italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 and bnβˆˆβ„subscript𝑏𝑛ℝb_{n}\in\mathbb{R}italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_R for any nβˆˆβ„•π‘›β„•n\in\mathbb{N}italic_n ∈ blackboard_N. Discrete SchrΓΆdinger operators on the real line give a subclass, where an=1subscriptπ‘Žπ‘›1a_{n}=1italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 for any nβˆˆβ„•π‘›β„•n\in\mathbb{N}italic_n ∈ blackboard_N. When the index set is β„€β„€\mathbb{Z}blackboard_Z one gets the two-sided Jacobi matrix, but for simplicity of the formulation we will stick with the index set β„•β„•\mathbb{N}blackboard_N.

If (Ξ©,d⁒μ)Ξ©π‘‘πœ‡(\Omega,d\mu)( roman_Ξ© , italic_d italic_ΞΌ ) is a probability measure space and T:Ξ©β†’Ξ©:𝑇→ΩΩT:\Omega\rightarrow\Omegaitalic_T : roman_Ξ© β†’ roman_Ξ© is an ergodic transformation, then one defines Jacobi parameters for Ο‰βˆˆΞ©πœ”Ξ©\omega\in\Omegaitalic_Ο‰ ∈ roman_Ξ© and nβˆˆβ„•π‘›β„•n\in\mathbb{N}italic_n ∈ blackboard_N as

an⁒(Ο‰)=f⁒(Tn⁒ω)andbn⁒(Ο‰)=g⁒(Tn⁒ω),formulae-sequencesubscriptπ‘Žπ‘›πœ”π‘“superscriptπ‘‡π‘›πœ”andsubscriptπ‘π‘›πœ”π‘”superscriptπ‘‡π‘›πœ”a_{n}(\omega)=f(T^{n}\omega)\qquad\text{and}\qquad b_{n}(\omega)=g(T^{n}\omega),italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ ) = italic_f ( italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ο‰ ) and italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ ) = italic_g ( italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ο‰ ) ,

where f𝑓fitalic_f and g𝑔gitalic_g are measurable functions from ΩΩ\Omegaroman_Ξ© to ℝℝ\mathbb{R}blackboard_R with f𝑓fitalic_f positive, bounded and invertible, and g𝑔gitalic_g bounded. Then {JΟ‰}Ο‰βˆˆΞ©subscriptsubscriptπ½πœ”πœ”Ξ©\{J_{\omega}\}_{\omega\in\Omega}{ italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ο‰ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ο‰ ∈ roman_Ξ© end_POSTSUBSCRIPT defines an ergodic family of Jacobi operators with parameters {an⁒(Ο‰),bn⁒(Ο‰)}nβˆˆβ„•subscriptsubscriptπ‘Žπ‘›πœ”subscriptπ‘π‘›πœ”π‘›β„•\{a_{n}(\omega),b_{n}(\omega)\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}{ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ ) , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ ) } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n ∈ blackboard_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Ergodic Jacobi, and specifically ergodic SchrΓΆdinger operators appear in solid state physics and quantum Hall effect, serving various models such as crystals, disordered systems or quasi-crystals, see [CFKS87, DF22] and references therein. Besides appearing in models from mathematical physics, the study of ergodic Jacobi and SchrΓΆdinger operators have been an active research area, combining ideas from dynamical systems, analysis, potential theory and topology. Moreover, Jacobi operators with stochastic parameters show unusual spectral behavior like dense point spectrum, singular continuous spectrum and Cantor spectrum. For example, the almost Mathieu operator is one of the well-studied ergodic Jacobi operators, where the Jacobi parameters are an=1subscriptπ‘Žπ‘›1a_{n}=1italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 and bn⁒(Ο‰)=2⁒λ⁒cos⁑(2⁒π⁒(Ο‰+n⁒α))subscriptπ‘π‘›πœ”2πœ†2πœ‹πœ”π‘›π›Όb_{n}(\omega)=2\lambda\cos(2\pi(\omega+n\alpha))italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ ) = 2 italic_Ξ» roman_cos ( 2 italic_Ο€ ( italic_Ο‰ + italic_n italic_Ξ± ) ) with Ξ±,Ο‰βˆˆπ•‹:=ℝ/β„€π›Όπœ”π•‹assignℝ℀\alpha,\omega\in\mathbb{T}:=\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}italic_Ξ± , italic_Ο‰ ∈ blackboard_T := blackboard_R / blackboard_Z and Ξ»βˆˆβ„βˆ–{0}πœ†β„0\lambda\in\mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\}italic_Ξ» ∈ blackboard_R βˆ– { 0 }. For any Ξ»β‰ 0πœ†0\lambda\neq 0italic_Ξ» β‰  0, the spectrum of the almost Mathieu operator is a Cantor set. This is known as the Ten Martini Problem and was solved by Avila and Jitomirskaya [AJ09]. For |Ξ»|=1πœ†1|\lambda|=1| italic_Ξ» | = 1, the spectrum of the almost Mathieu operator is purely singular continuous, which was also proved by Jitomirskaya [J21].

The spectrum of JΟ‰subscriptπ½πœ”J_{\omega}italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ο‰ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is nonrandom as follows: For an ergodic family {JΟ‰}Ο‰βˆˆΞ©subscriptsubscriptπ½πœ”πœ”Ξ©\{J_{\omega}\}_{\omega\in\Omega}{ italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ο‰ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ο‰ ∈ roman_Ξ© end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, there exists a set ΣΣ\Sigmaroman_Ξ£ independent of Ο‰πœ”\omegaitalic_Ο‰ such that σ⁒(JΟ‰)=Σ𝜎subscriptπ½πœ”Ξ£\sigma(J_{\omega})=\Sigmaitalic_Οƒ ( italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ο‰ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = roman_Ξ£ for almost every Ο‰πœ”\omegaitalic_Ο‰ with respect to the measure ΞΌπœ‡\muitalic_ΞΌ [CFKS87]. Throughout the paper we call this set ΣΣ\Sigmaroman_Ξ£ the spectrum of JΟ‰subscriptπ½πœ”J_{\omega}italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ο‰ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Same nonrandomness is valid for the absolutely continuous, the singular continuous and the pure point spectra [CFKS87].

In this paper we consider bounds on the Lebesgue measure and the distance between maximum and minimum points of the spectrum ΣΣ\Sigmaroman_Σ. Similar bounds were obtained for periodic Jacobi matrices [H24]. Our bounds depend on two fundamental object, the Lyapunov exponent and the density of states measure, both of which are introduced in Section 2. These bounds are obtained using tools from logarithmic potential theory, which are also introduced in Section 2.

The paper is organized as follows.

Section 2 includes preliminaries required for our results, namely some basics of logarithmic potential theory, and the definitions and some properties of the density of states measure and the Lyapunov exponent for ergodic Jacobi operators.

Section 3 includes proofs of the following results and some remarks on them.

  • β€’

    In Theorem 3.2, we consider an almost sure nonrandom upper bound for the Lebesgue measure of the spectrum in terms of the Lyapunov exponent and the off-diagonal parameters of an ergodic Jacobi operator.

  • β€’

    Theorem 3.5 shows an almost sure nonrandom lower bound on the difference between maximum and minimum energies in terms of the logarithmic energy of the density of states measure, or equivalently the Lyapunov exponent and the off-diagonal parameters of an ergodic Jacobi operator.

  • β€’

    In Theorem 3.9, we prove that in the case that the Lyapunov exponent is HΓΆlder continuous on the spectrum, the difference between maximum and minimum energies is almost surely bounded below by nonrandom numbers depending on the Lyapunov exponent and the off-diagonal parameters of an ergodic Jacobi operator and HΓΆlder continuity parameters of the Lyapunov exponent.

2. Preliminaries

We obtain our results using estimates on logarithmic capacity, so let’s recall some basics of logarithmic potential theory, which can be found e.g. in [R95].

Definition 2.1.

Let ΞΌπœ‡\muitalic_ΞΌ be a finite Borel measure, supported on a compact subset of the complex plane. Then logarithmic potential of ΞΌπœ‡\muitalic_ΞΌ is the function UΞΌ:β„‚β†’(βˆ’βˆž,∞]:superscriptπ‘ˆπœ‡β†’β„‚U^{\mu}:\mathbb{C}\rightarrow(-\infty,\infty]italic_U start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : blackboard_C β†’ ( - ∞ , ∞ ] defined by

Uμ⁒(z):=∫log⁑1|zβˆ’Ο‰|⁒d⁒μ⁒(Ο‰)assignsuperscriptπ‘ˆπœ‡π‘§1π‘§πœ”π‘‘πœ‡πœ”U^{\mu}(z):=\int\log\frac{1}{|z-\omega|}d\mu(\omega)italic_U start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) := ∫ roman_log divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG | italic_z - italic_Ο‰ | end_ARG italic_d italic_ΞΌ ( italic_Ο‰ )
Definition 2.2.

Let ΞΌπœ‡\muitalic_ΞΌ be a finite Borel measure, supported on a compact subset of the complex plane. Its logarithmic energy I⁒(ΞΌ)∈(βˆ’βˆž,∞]πΌπœ‡I(\mu)\in(-\infty,\infty]italic_I ( italic_ΞΌ ) ∈ ( - ∞ , ∞ ] is defined by

I⁒(ΞΌ):=∫Uμ⁒(z)⁒𝑑μ⁒(z)=∫∫log⁑1|zβˆ’Ο‰|⁒d⁒μ⁒(Ο‰)⁒𝑑μ⁒(z)assignπΌπœ‡superscriptπ‘ˆπœ‡π‘§differential-dπœ‡π‘§1π‘§πœ”π‘‘πœ‡πœ”differential-dπœ‡π‘§I(\mu):=\int U^{\mu}(z)d\mu(z)=\int\int\log\frac{1}{|z-\omega|}d\mu(\omega)d% \mu(z)italic_I ( italic_ΞΌ ) := ∫ italic_U start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) italic_d italic_ΞΌ ( italic_z ) = ∫ ∫ roman_log divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG | italic_z - italic_Ο‰ | end_ARG italic_d italic_ΞΌ ( italic_Ο‰ ) italic_d italic_ΞΌ ( italic_z )
Definition 2.3.

Let K𝐾Kitalic_K be a compact subset of β„‚β„‚\mathbb{C}blackboard_C and M⁒(K)𝑀𝐾M(K)italic_M ( italic_K ) be the set of Borel probability measures compactly supported inside K𝐾Kitalic_K. The measure ΞΌK∈M⁒(K)subscriptπœ‡πΎπ‘€πΎ\mu_{K}\in M(K)italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_M ( italic_K ) is called the equilibrium measure for K𝐾Kitalic_K if

I⁒(ΞΌK)=infμ∈M⁒(K)I⁒(ΞΌ).𝐼subscriptπœ‡πΎsubscriptinfimumπœ‡π‘€πΎπΌπœ‡I(\mu_{K})=\displaystyle\inf_{\mu\in M(K)}I(\mu).italic_I ( italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = roman_inf start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ ∈ italic_M ( italic_K ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I ( italic_ΞΌ ) .

Now we are ready to define the logarithmic capacity.

Definition 2.4.

The logarithmic capacity of a subset E𝐸Eitalic_E of the complex plane is given by

C⁒a⁒p⁒(E):=supμ∈M⁒(E)exp⁑(βˆ’I⁒(ΞΌ)).assignπΆπ‘Žπ‘πΈsubscriptsupremumπœ‡π‘€πΈπΌπœ‡Cap(E):=\sup_{\mu\in M(E)}\exp(-I(\mu)).italic_C italic_a italic_p ( italic_E ) := roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ ∈ italic_M ( italic_E ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_exp ( - italic_I ( italic_ΞΌ ) ) .

In particular if K𝐾Kitalic_K is compact with equilibrium measure ΞΌKsubscriptπœ‡πΎ\mu_{K}italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, then C⁒a⁒p⁒(K)=exp⁑(βˆ’I⁒(ΞΌK))πΆπ‘Žπ‘πΎπΌsubscriptπœ‡πΎCap(K)=\exp(-I(\mu_{K}))italic_C italic_a italic_p ( italic_K ) = roman_exp ( - italic_I ( italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ).

We will use following properties of the logarithmic capacity in our results:

Theorem 2.5.

([R95] Theorem 5.1.2(a), Corollary 5.2.4, Theorem 5.3.1, Theorem 5.3.2(c))

  • (a)

    If K1βŠ‚K2subscript𝐾1subscript𝐾2K_{1}\subset K_{2}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βŠ‚ italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, then C⁒a⁒p⁒(K1)≀C⁒a⁒p⁒(K2)πΆπ‘Žπ‘subscript𝐾1πΆπ‘Žπ‘subscript𝐾2Cap(K_{1})\leq Cap(K_{2})italic_C italic_a italic_p ( italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≀ italic_C italic_a italic_p ( italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ).

  • (b)

    If a≀bπ‘Žπ‘a\leq bitalic_a ≀ italic_b, then C⁒a⁒p⁒([a,b])=(bβˆ’a)/4πΆπ‘Žπ‘π‘Žπ‘π‘π‘Ž4Cap([a,b])=(b-a)/4italic_C italic_a italic_p ( [ italic_a , italic_b ] ) = ( italic_b - italic_a ) / 4.

  • (c)

    Let K𝐾Kitalic_K be a compact subset of β„‚β„‚\mathbb{C}blackboard_C, and let T:Kβ†’β„‚:𝑇→𝐾ℂT:K\rightarrow\mathbb{C}italic_T : italic_K β†’ blackboard_C be a map satisfying

    |T⁒(z)βˆ’T⁒(w)|≀A⁒|zβˆ’w|Ξ±,𝑇𝑧𝑇𝑀𝐴superscript𝑧𝑀𝛼|T(z)-T(w)|\leq A|z-w|^{\alpha},| italic_T ( italic_z ) - italic_T ( italic_w ) | ≀ italic_A | italic_z - italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

    where z,w∈K𝑧𝑀𝐾z,w\in Kitalic_z , italic_w ∈ italic_K, and A𝐴Aitalic_A and α𝛼\alphaitalic_Ξ± are positive constants. Then

    (2.1) C⁒a⁒p⁒(T⁒(K))≀A⁒C⁒a⁒p⁒(K)Ξ±.πΆπ‘Žπ‘π‘‡πΎπ΄πΆπ‘Žπ‘superscript𝐾𝛼Cap(T(K))\leq A~{}Cap(K)^{\alpha}.italic_C italic_a italic_p ( italic_T ( italic_K ) ) ≀ italic_A italic_C italic_a italic_p ( italic_K ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .
  • (d)

    Let K𝐾Kitalic_K be a compact subset of ℝℝ\mathbb{R}blackboard_R. Then

    (2.2) C⁒a⁒p⁒(K)β‰₯|K|/4,πΆπ‘Žπ‘πΎπΎ4Cap(K)\geq|K|/4,italic_C italic_a italic_p ( italic_K ) β‰₯ | italic_K | / 4 ,

    where |K|𝐾|K|| italic_K | denotes the Lebesgue measure of K𝐾Kitalic_K.

Next, we introduce two fundamental objects related with ergodic Jacobi operators: the density of states measures and the Lyapunov exponent. These two objects and more on the spectral theory of ergodic Jacobi operators can be found e.g. in [CFKS87, DF22, T00].

Definition 2.6.

Let {JΟ‰}Ο‰βˆˆΞ©subscriptsubscriptπ½πœ”πœ”Ξ©\{J_{\omega}\}_{\omega\in\Omega}{ italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ο‰ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ο‰ ∈ roman_Ξ© end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be a family of ergodic Jacobi operators defined as in the Introduction section. The density of states measure is the measure d⁒N𝑑𝑁dNitalic_d italic_N defined by

(2.3) ∫h⁒𝑑N=𝔼⁒(⟨δ0,h⁒(JΟ‰)⁒δ0⟩)β„Ždifferential-d𝑁𝔼subscript𝛿0β„Žsubscriptπ½πœ”subscript𝛿0\int h~{}dN=\mathbb{E}(\langle\delta_{0},h(J_{\omega})\delta_{0}\rangle)∫ italic_h italic_d italic_N = blackboard_E ( ⟨ italic_Ξ΄ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_h ( italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ο‰ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_Ξ΄ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ )

for bounded measurable hβ„Žhitalic_h, where 𝔼⁒(f)=∫f⁒(Ο‰)⁒𝑑μ⁒(Ο‰).π”Όπ‘“π‘“πœ”differential-dπœ‡πœ”\mathbb{E}(f)=\int f(\omega)~{}d\mu(\omega).blackboard_E ( italic_f ) = ∫ italic_f ( italic_Ο‰ ) italic_d italic_ΞΌ ( italic_Ο‰ ) .

The density of states measure is a probability measure supported on the spectrum.

Given an ergodic family {JΟ‰}Ο‰βˆˆΞ©subscriptsubscriptπ½πœ”πœ”Ξ©\{J_{\omega}\}_{\omega\in\Omega}{ italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ο‰ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ο‰ ∈ roman_Ξ© end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of Jacobi operators, the solutions of the eigenvalue problem

anβˆ’1⁒(Ο‰)⁒ψnβˆ’1+bn⁒(Ο‰)⁒ψn+an⁒(Ο‰)⁒ψn+1=z⁒ψnsubscriptπ‘Žπ‘›1πœ”subscriptπœ“π‘›1subscriptπ‘π‘›πœ”subscriptπœ“π‘›subscriptπ‘Žπ‘›πœ”subscriptπœ“π‘›1𝑧subscriptπœ“π‘›a_{n-1}(\omega)\psi_{n-1}+b_{n}(\omega)\psi_{n}+a_{n}(\omega)\psi_{n+1}=z\psi_% {n}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ ) italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ ) italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ ) italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_z italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT

for nβ‰₯1𝑛1n\geq 1italic_n β‰₯ 1 and a0:=0assignsubscriptπ‘Ž00a_{0}:=0italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := 0 are represented by the transfer matrices as

(ψn+1ψn)=Azn⁒(Ο‰)⁒(ψ1ψ0),matrixsubscriptπœ“π‘›1subscriptπœ“π‘›superscriptsubscriptπ΄π‘§π‘›πœ”matrixsubscriptπœ“1subscriptπœ“0\begin{pmatrix}\psi_{n+1}\\ \psi_{n}\end{pmatrix}=A_{z}^{n}(\omega)\begin{pmatrix}\psi_{1}\\ \psi_{0}\end{pmatrix},( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) = italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ ) ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) ,

where

(2.4) Azn⁒(Ο‰)=Az⁒(Tnβˆ’1⁒ω)⁒Az⁒(Tnβˆ’2⁒ω)⁒⋯⁒Az⁒(T⁒ω)⁒Az⁒(Ο‰)superscriptsubscriptπ΄π‘§π‘›πœ”subscript𝐴𝑧superscript𝑇𝑛1πœ”subscript𝐴𝑧superscript𝑇𝑛2πœ”β‹―subscriptπ΄π‘§π‘‡πœ”subscriptπ΄π‘§πœ”A_{z}^{n}(\omega)=A_{z}(T^{n-1}\omega)A_{z}(T^{n-2}\omega)\cdots A_{z}(T\omega% )A_{z}(\omega)italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ ) = italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ο‰ ) italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ο‰ ) β‹― italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T italic_Ο‰ ) italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ )

for nβˆˆβ„•π‘›β„•n\in\mathbb{N}italic_n ∈ blackboard_N, Ο‰βˆˆΞ©πœ”Ξ©\omega\in\Omegaitalic_Ο‰ ∈ roman_Ξ©, zβˆˆβ„‚π‘§β„‚z\in\mathbb{C}italic_z ∈ blackboard_C and

(2.5) An⁒(Ξ»):=1an⁒(Ο‰)⁒(Ξ»βˆ’bn⁒(Ο‰)βˆ’anβˆ’1⁒(Ο‰)an⁒(Ο‰)0).assignsubscriptπ΄π‘›πœ†1subscriptπ‘Žπ‘›πœ”matrixπœ†subscriptπ‘π‘›πœ”subscriptπ‘Žπ‘›1πœ”subscriptπ‘Žπ‘›πœ”0\displaystyle A_{n}(\lambda):=\frac{1}{a_{n}(\omega)}\begin{pmatrix}\lambda-b_% {n}(\omega)&-a_{n-1}(\omega)\\ a_{n}(\omega)&0\end{pmatrix}.italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ» ) := divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ ) end_ARG ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_Ξ» - italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ ) end_CELL start_CELL - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ ) end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) .

Following result introduces the Lyapunov exponent.

Theorem 2.7.

([DF22], Proposition 4.4.1) For every zβˆˆβ„‚π‘§β„‚z\in\mathbb{C}italic_z ∈ blackboard_C, there is a number L⁒(z)∈[0,∞)𝐿𝑧0L(z)\in[0,\infty)italic_L ( italic_z ) ∈ [ 0 , ∞ ), called the Lyapunov exponent satisfying

L⁒(z)𝐿𝑧\displaystyle L(z)italic_L ( italic_z ) =infnβ‰₯11n⁒𝔼⁒(log⁒‖Azn⁒(Ο‰)β€–)absentsubscriptinfimum𝑛11𝑛𝔼normsuperscriptsubscriptπ΄π‘§π‘›πœ”\displaystyle=\inf_{n\geq 1}\frac{1}{n}\mathbb{E}\big{(}\log||A_{z}^{n}(\omega% )||\big{)}= roman_inf start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n β‰₯ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG blackboard_E ( roman_log | | italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ ) | | )
=limnβ†’βˆž1n⁒𝔼⁒(log⁒‖Azn⁒(Ο‰)β€–)absentsubscript→𝑛1𝑛𝔼normsuperscriptsubscriptπ΄π‘§π‘›πœ”\displaystyle=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{n}\mathbb{E}\big{(}\log||A_{z}% ^{n}(\omega)||\big{)}= roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n β†’ ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG blackboard_E ( roman_log | | italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ ) | | )
=limnβ†’βˆž1n⁒log⁒‖Azn⁒(Ο‰)β€–absentsubscript→𝑛1𝑛normsuperscriptsubscriptπ΄π‘§π‘›πœ”\displaystyle=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log||A_{z}^{n}(\omega)||= roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n β†’ ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG roman_log | | italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ ) | |

for ΞΌβˆ’a.e.formulae-sequenceπœ‡π‘Žπ‘’\mu-a.e.italic_ΞΌ - italic_a . italic_e . Ο‰βˆˆΞ©πœ”Ξ©\omega\in\Omegaitalic_Ο‰ ∈ roman_Ξ© with the notations (2.4) and (2.5).

The Lyapunov exponent is subharmonic on the complex plane. It is harmonic and positive on β„‚βˆ–Ξ£β„‚Ξ£\mathbb{C}\setminus\Sigmablackboard_C βˆ– roman_Ξ£. The famous Thouless formula relates the Lyapunov exponent and the density of states measure.

Theorem 2.8.

(Thouless Formula) ([S07], Theorem 7.1(f)) For every zβˆˆβ„‚π‘§β„‚z\in\mathbb{C}italic_z ∈ blackboard_C, we have

(2.6) L⁒(z)=∫log⁑|Eβˆ’z|⁒d⁒N⁒(E)βˆ’log⁑(A),𝐿𝑧𝐸𝑧𝑑𝑁𝐸𝐴L(z)=\int\log|E-z|~{}dN(E)-\log(A),italic_L ( italic_z ) = ∫ roman_log | italic_E - italic_z | italic_d italic_N ( italic_E ) - roman_log ( italic_A ) ,

where A:=limnβ†’βˆž(a1⁒(Ο‰)⁒⋯⁒an⁒(Ο‰))1/nassign𝐴subscript→𝑛superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ž1πœ”β‹―subscriptπ‘Žπ‘›πœ”1𝑛A:=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}(a_{1}(\omega)\cdots a_{n}(\omega))^{1/n}italic_A := roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n β†’ ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ ) β‹― italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for ΞΌβˆ’a.e.formulae-sequenceπœ‡π‘Žπ‘’\mu-a.e.italic_ΞΌ - italic_a . italic_e . Ο‰βˆˆΞ©πœ”Ξ©\omega\in\Omegaitalic_Ο‰ ∈ roman_Ξ©.

Thouless Formula also relates spectral theory with potential theory as the right hand side of (2.6) is the negative of the logarithmic potential of the density of states measure.

3. Results, proofs and some remarks

In our results, the following lemma will be a main tool that represents the logarithmic capacity of the spectrum of an ergodic family of Jacobi operators in terms of the Lyapunov exponent and the equilibrium measure of the spectrum.

Lemma 3.1.

([S07] Equation (1.37)) Let {JΟ‰}Ο‰βˆˆΞ©subscriptsubscriptπ½πœ”πœ”Ξ©\{J_{\omega}\}_{\omega\in\Omega}{ italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ο‰ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ο‰ ∈ roman_Ξ© end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be a family of ergodic Jacobi operators with parameters {an⁒(Ο‰),bn⁒(Ο‰)}nsubscriptsubscriptπ‘Žπ‘›πœ”subscriptπ‘π‘›πœ”π‘›\{a_{n}(\omega),b_{n}(\omega)\}_{n}{ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ ) , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ ) } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and L𝐿Litalic_L be its Lyapunov exponent. Then for a.e. Ο‰πœ”\omegaitalic_Ο‰,

(3.1) C⁒a⁒p⁒(Ξ£)=A⁒exp⁑(∫L⁒(E)⁒𝑑μΣ⁒(E)),πΆπ‘Žπ‘Ξ£π΄πΏπΈdifferential-dsubscriptπœ‡Ξ£πΈCap(\Sigma)=A\exp\Big{(}\int L(E)d\mu_{\Sigma}(E)\Big{)},italic_C italic_a italic_p ( roman_Ξ£ ) = italic_A roman_exp ( ∫ italic_L ( italic_E ) italic_d italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ξ£ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_E ) ) ,

where A:=limnβ†’βˆž(a1⁒(Ο‰)⁒⋯⁒an⁒(Ο‰))1/nassign𝐴subscript→𝑛superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ž1πœ”β‹―subscriptπ‘Žπ‘›πœ”1𝑛A:=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}(a_{1}(\omega)\cdots a_{n}(\omega))^{1/n}italic_A := roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n β†’ ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ ) β‹― italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and ΞΌΞ£subscriptπœ‡Ξ£\mu_{\Sigma}italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ξ£ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the equilibrium measure of the spectrum.

Theorem 3.2.

Let {JΟ‰}Ο‰βˆˆΞ©subscriptsubscriptπ½πœ”πœ”Ξ©\{J_{\omega}\}_{\omega\in\Omega}{ italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ο‰ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ο‰ ∈ roman_Ξ© end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be a family of ergodic Jacobi operators with parameters {an⁒(Ο‰),bn⁒(Ο‰)}nsubscriptsubscriptπ‘Žπ‘›πœ”subscriptπ‘π‘›πœ”π‘›\{a_{n}(\omega),b_{n}(\omega)\}_{n}{ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ ) , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ ) } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and L𝐿Litalic_L be its Lyapunov exponent. Then for a.e. Ο‰πœ”\omegaitalic_Ο‰,

(3.2) |Ξ£|≀4⁒A⁒exp⁑(supE∈Σ|L⁒(E)|)Ξ£4𝐴subscriptsupremum𝐸Σ𝐿𝐸|\Sigma|\leq 4A\exp\Big{(}\sup_{E\in\Sigma}|L(E)|\Big{)}| roman_Ξ£ | ≀ 4 italic_A roman_exp ( roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E ∈ roman_Ξ£ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_L ( italic_E ) | )

where A:=limnβ†’βˆž(a1⁒(Ο‰)⁒⋯⁒an⁒(Ο‰))1/nassign𝐴subscript→𝑛superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ž1πœ”β‹―subscriptπ‘Žπ‘›πœ”1𝑛A:=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}(a_{1}(\omega)\cdots a_{n}(\omega))^{1/n}italic_A := roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n β†’ ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ ) β‹― italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and |K|𝐾|K|| italic_K | denotes the Lebesgue measure of the set K𝐾Kitalic_K.

Proof.

Using Lemma 3.1 and the fact that ΞΌΞ£subscriptπœ‡Ξ£\mu_{\Sigma}italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ξ£ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a probability measure supported on ΣΣ\Sigmaroman_Ξ£, we get

C⁒a⁒p⁒(Ξ£)≀A⁒exp⁑(supE∈Σ|L⁒(E)|).πΆπ‘Žπ‘Ξ£π΄subscriptsupremum𝐸Σ𝐿𝐸Cap(\Sigma)\leq A\exp\Big{(}\sup_{E\in\Sigma}|L(E)|\Big{)}.italic_C italic_a italic_p ( roman_Ξ£ ) ≀ italic_A roman_exp ( roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E ∈ roman_Ξ£ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_L ( italic_E ) | ) .

On the other hand, ΣΣ\Sigmaroman_Σ is a compact subset of the real line, so by item (d) of Theorem 2.5 we get the desired result as

|Ξ£|4≀C⁒a⁒p⁒(Ξ£)≀A⁒exp⁑(supE∈Σ|L⁒(E)|).Ξ£4πΆπ‘Žπ‘Ξ£π΄subscriptsupremum𝐸Σ𝐿𝐸\frac{|\Sigma|}{4}\leq Cap(\Sigma)\leq A\exp\Big{(}\sup_{E\in\Sigma}|L(E)|\Big% {)}.divide start_ARG | roman_Ξ£ | end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG ≀ italic_C italic_a italic_p ( roman_Ξ£ ) ≀ italic_A roman_exp ( roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E ∈ roman_Ξ£ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_L ( italic_E ) | ) .

∎

Remark 3.3.

The equality is obtained for the discrete Laplacian, i.e. an=1,bn=0formulae-sequencesubscriptπ‘Žπ‘›1subscript𝑏𝑛0a_{n}=1,b_{n}=0italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0, since Ξ£=[βˆ’2,2]Ξ£22\Sigma=[-2,2]roman_Ξ£ = [ - 2 , 2 ] and L⁒(E)=0𝐿𝐸0L(E)=0italic_L ( italic_E ) = 0 for E∈Σ𝐸ΣE\in\Sigmaitalic_E ∈ roman_Ξ£.

Remark 3.4.

For some important classes of ergodic Jacobi operators, the Lyapunov exponent is zero on the spectrum, so inequality (3.2) becomes

|Ξ£|≀4⁒A.Ξ£4𝐴|\Sigma|\leq 4A.| roman_Ξ£ | ≀ 4 italic_A .

Some of these classes are as follows:

  1. (1)

    subcritical or critical almost Mathieu operator: The almost Mathieu operator is one of the best-understood examples of ergodic SchrΓΆdinger operators, where the potential is bn(Ο‰)=2Ξ»cos(2Ο€(Ο‰+nΞ±)b_{n}(\omega)=2\lambda\cos(2\pi(\omega+n\alpha)italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ ) = 2 italic_Ξ» roman_cos ( 2 italic_Ο€ ( italic_Ο‰ + italic_n italic_Ξ± ) with frequency α𝛼\alphaitalic_Ξ± and phase Ο‰πœ”\omegaitalic_Ο‰ in 𝕋:=ℝ/β„€assign𝕋ℝ℀\mathbb{T}:=\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}blackboard_T := blackboard_R / blackboard_Z and coupling constant Ξ»βˆˆβ„βˆ–{0}πœ†β„0\lambda\in\mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\}italic_Ξ» ∈ blackboard_R βˆ– { 0 }. When 0<|Ξ»|<10πœ†10<|\lambda|<10 < | italic_Ξ» | < 1 (subcritical) or Ξ»=Β±1πœ†plus-or-minus1\lambda=\pm 1italic_Ξ» = Β± 1 (critical), the Lyapunov exponent is zero everywhere on the spectrum.

  2. (2)

    periodic SchrΓΆdinger operators: By Floquet-Bloch theory the spectrum of a periodic SchrΓΆdinger operator has band-gap structure and purely absolutely continuous spectrum [Kuc16, T00]. Since the essential closure of the zero set of the Lyapunov exponent is the ac-spectrum [DF22], Lyapunov exponents for periodic Jacobi operators are zero on the spectrum.

  3. (3)

    analytic quasi-periodic SchrΓΆdinger operators without supercritical-regime: For analytic quasi-periodic SchrΓΆdinger operators, the potential bn⁒(Ο‰)=f⁒(α⁒n+Ο‰)subscriptπ‘π‘›πœ”π‘“π›Όπ‘›πœ”b_{n}(\omega)=f(\alpha n+\omega)italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ ) = italic_f ( italic_Ξ± italic_n + italic_Ο‰ ) is generated from the real valued analytic function f𝑓fitalic_f defined on 𝕋𝕋\mathbb{T}blackboard_T with phase Ο‰βˆˆπ•‹πœ”π•‹\omega\in\mathbb{T}italic_Ο‰ ∈ blackboard_T and irrational frequency Ξ±βˆˆπ•‹π›Όπ•‹\alpha\in\mathbb{T}italic_Ξ± ∈ blackboard_T. Avila obtained spectral characterizations for analytic potentials using complexified Lyapunov exponents [Avi15]. He considers the Lyapunov exponent with

    Azn⁒(Ο‰+i⁒ϡ)=(zβˆ’bn⁒(Ο‰+i⁒ϡ)βˆ’110),superscriptsubscriptπ΄π‘§π‘›πœ”π‘–italic-Ο΅matrix𝑧subscriptπ‘π‘›πœ”π‘–italic-Ο΅110A_{z}^{n}(\omega+i\epsilon)=\begin{pmatrix}z-b_{n}(\omega+i\epsilon)&-1\\ 1&0\end{pmatrix},italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ + italic_i italic_Ο΅ ) = ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_z - italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ + italic_i italic_Ο΅ ) end_CELL start_CELL - 1 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 1 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) ,

    which is obtained by complexifying the phase Ο‰πœ”\omegaitalic_Ο‰ using analyticity of the potential f𝑓fitalic_f. We denote this complexified Lyapunov exponent by Lϡ⁒(z)subscript𝐿italic-ϡ𝑧L_{\epsilon}(z)italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ο΅ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ). Then the spectrum with an analytic potential decomposes into three mutually disjoint sets as follows:

    • β€’

      The energy E𝐸Eitalic_E is subcritical if Lϡ⁒(E)subscript𝐿italic-ϡ𝐸L_{\epsilon}(E)italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϡ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_E ) is zero in a neighborhood of ϡ=0italic-ϡ0\epsilon=0italic_ϡ = 0.

    • β€’

      The energy E𝐸Eitalic_E is critical if Lϡ⁒(E)subscript𝐿italic-ϡ𝐸L_{\epsilon}(E)italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϡ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_E ) is zero at ϡ=0italic-ϡ0\epsilon=0italic_ϡ = 0, but E𝐸Eitalic_E is not subcritical.

    • β€’

      The energy E𝐸Eitalic_E is supercritical if Lϡ⁒(E)subscript𝐿italic-ϡ𝐸L_{\epsilon}(E)italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϡ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_E ) is positive at ϡ=0italic-ϡ0\epsilon=0italic_ϡ = 0.

    According to this classification of energies, if the supercritical regime is empty, then the Lyapunov exponent is zero everywhere on the spectrum.

  4. (4)

    strictly ergodic subshift operators: This class of ergodic SchrΓΆdinger operators are given by strictly ergodic subshifts on finite alphabets [Dam07, S07]. It is expected that the majority of these operators have purely singular continuous spectrum as a Cantor set of zero Lebesgue measure and zero Lyapunov exponent on the spectrum [Dam07].

Theorem 3.5.

Let {JΟ‰}Ο‰βˆˆΞ©subscriptsubscriptπ½πœ”πœ”Ξ©\{J_{\omega}\}_{\omega\in\Omega}{ italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ο‰ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ο‰ ∈ roman_Ξ© end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be a family of ergodic Jacobi operators with Jacobi parameters {an⁒(Ο‰),bn⁒(Ο‰)}nsubscriptsubscriptπ‘Žπ‘›πœ”subscriptπ‘π‘›πœ”π‘›\{a_{n}(\omega),b_{n}(\omega)\}_{n}{ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ ) , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ ) } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Also let Ξ»m:=minE∈Σ⁑Eassignsubscriptπœ†π‘šsubscript𝐸Σ𝐸\lambda_{m}:=\min_{E\in\Sigma}Eitalic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := roman_min start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E ∈ roman_Ξ£ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E and Ξ»M:=maxE∈Σ⁑Eassignsubscriptπœ†π‘€subscript𝐸Σ𝐸\lambda_{M}:=\max_{E\in\Sigma}Eitalic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := roman_max start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E ∈ roman_Ξ£ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E, and I⁒(ΞΌ)πΌπœ‡I(\mu)italic_I ( italic_ΞΌ ) denote the logarithmic energy of the measure ΞΌπœ‡\muitalic_ΞΌ. Then

(3.3) Ξ»Mβˆ’Ξ»mβ‰₯4⁒exp⁑(βˆ’I⁒(d⁒N)),subscriptπœ†π‘€subscriptπœ†π‘š4𝐼𝑑𝑁\lambda_{M}-\lambda_{m}\geq 4\exp(-I(dN)),italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰₯ 4 roman_exp ( - italic_I ( italic_d italic_N ) ) ,

where d⁒N𝑑𝑁dNitalic_d italic_N is the density of states measure of J𝐽Jitalic_J. Equivalently we have

(3.4) Ξ»Mβˆ’Ξ»mβ‰₯4⁒A⁒exp⁑(∫L⁒(E)⁒𝑑N⁒(E)),subscriptπœ†π‘€subscriptπœ†π‘š4𝐴𝐿𝐸differential-d𝑁𝐸\lambda_{M}-\lambda_{m}\geq 4A\exp\Big{(}\int L(E)~{}dN(E)\Big{)},italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰₯ 4 italic_A roman_exp ( ∫ italic_L ( italic_E ) italic_d italic_N ( italic_E ) ) ,

where A:=limnβ†’βˆž(a1⁒(Ο‰)⁒⋯⁒an⁒(Ο‰))1/nassign𝐴subscript→𝑛superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ž1πœ”β‹―subscriptπ‘Žπ‘›πœ”1𝑛A:=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}(a_{1}(\omega)\cdots a_{n}(\omega))^{1/n}italic_A := roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n β†’ ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ ) β‹― italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for a.e. Ο‰πœ”\omegaitalic_Ο‰ and L𝐿Litalic_L is the Lyapunov exponent of JΟ‰subscriptπ½πœ”J_{\omega}italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ο‰ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Proof.

Using Lemma 3.1 and the Thouless formula (Theorem 2.8) and recalling that UΞΌsuperscriptπ‘ˆπœ‡U^{\mu}italic_U start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT denotes the logarithmic potential of a measure ΞΌπœ‡\muitalic_ΞΌ we get

(3.5) C⁒a⁒p⁒(Ξ£)πΆπ‘Žπ‘Ξ£\displaystyle Cap(\Sigma)italic_C italic_a italic_p ( roman_Ξ£ ) =A⁒exp⁑(∫L⁒(E)⁒𝑑μΣ⁒(E))absent𝐴𝐿𝐸differential-dsubscriptπœ‡Ξ£πΈ\displaystyle=A\exp\Big{(}\int L(E)~{}d\mu_{\Sigma}(E)\Big{)}= italic_A roman_exp ( ∫ italic_L ( italic_E ) italic_d italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ξ£ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_E ) )
(3.6) =A⁒exp⁑(βˆ«βˆ’Ud⁒N⁒(E)⁒d⁒μΣ⁒(E)βˆ’βˆ«log⁑(A)⁒𝑑μΣ⁒(E))absent𝐴superscriptπ‘ˆπ‘‘π‘πΈπ‘‘subscriptπœ‡Ξ£πΈπ΄differential-dsubscriptπœ‡Ξ£πΈ\displaystyle=A\exp\Big{(}\int-U^{dN}(E)~{}d\mu_{\Sigma}(E)-\int\log(A)~{}d\mu% _{\Sigma}(E)\Big{)}= italic_A roman_exp ( ∫ - italic_U start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_E ) italic_d italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ξ£ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_E ) - ∫ roman_log ( italic_A ) italic_d italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ξ£ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_E ) )
(3.7) =A⁒exp⁑(βˆ«βˆ’UμΣ⁒(E)⁒d⁒N⁒(E)βˆ’log⁑(A))absent𝐴superscriptπ‘ˆsubscriptπœ‡Ξ£πΈπ‘‘π‘πΈπ΄\displaystyle=A\exp\Big{(}\int-U^{\mu_{\Sigma}}(E)~{}dN(E)-\log(A)\Big{)}= italic_A roman_exp ( ∫ - italic_U start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ξ£ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_E ) italic_d italic_N ( italic_E ) - roman_log ( italic_A ) )
(3.8) β‰₯exp⁑(βˆ«βˆ’Ud⁒N⁒(E)⁒d⁒N⁒(E))absentsuperscriptπ‘ˆπ‘‘π‘πΈπ‘‘π‘πΈ\displaystyle\geq\exp\Big{(}\int-U^{dN}(E)~{}dN(E)\Big{)}β‰₯ roman_exp ( ∫ - italic_U start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_E ) italic_d italic_N ( italic_E ) )
(3.9) =exp⁑(βˆ’I⁒(d⁒N)).absent𝐼𝑑𝑁\displaystyle=\exp(-I(dN)).= roman_exp ( - italic_I ( italic_d italic_N ) ) .

The inequality above follows from the definition of the equilibrium measure and the fact that density of states measure d⁒N𝑑𝑁dNitalic_d italic_N is a probability measure supported on ΣΣ\Sigmaroman_Ξ£.

Note that the logarithmic energy of the density of states measure I⁒(d⁒N)𝐼𝑑𝑁I(dN)italic_I ( italic_d italic_N ) is given in terms of the Lyapunov exponent by Thouless formula as

(3.10) I⁒(d⁒N)=βˆ’βˆ«L⁒(E)⁒𝑑N⁒(E)βˆ’log⁑A,𝐼𝑑𝑁𝐿𝐸differential-d𝑁𝐸𝐴I(dN)=-\int L(E)~{}dN(E)-\log A,italic_I ( italic_d italic_N ) = - ∫ italic_L ( italic_E ) italic_d italic_N ( italic_E ) - roman_log italic_A ,

so we can replace (3.9) by

A⁒exp⁑(∫L⁒(E)⁒𝑑N⁒(E)).𝐴𝐿𝐸differential-d𝑁𝐸A\exp\Big{(}\int L(E)dN(E)\Big{)}.italic_A roman_exp ( ∫ italic_L ( italic_E ) italic_d italic_N ( italic_E ) ) .

On the other hand logarithmic capacity is monotone and the logarithmic capacity of an interval is the one fourth of the size of that interval (Theorem 2.5 (a),(b)), so we have

(3.11) C⁒a⁒p⁒(Ξ£)≀C⁒a⁒p⁒([Ξ»m,Ξ»M])=(Ξ»Mβˆ’Ξ»m)/4πΆπ‘Žπ‘Ξ£πΆπ‘Žπ‘subscriptπœ†π‘šsubscriptπœ†π‘€subscriptπœ†π‘€subscriptπœ†π‘š4Cap(\Sigma)\leq Cap([\lambda_{m},\lambda_{M}])=(\lambda_{M}-\lambda_{m})/4italic_C italic_a italic_p ( roman_Ξ£ ) ≀ italic_C italic_a italic_p ( [ italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ) = ( italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) / 4

and hence get the desired results. ∎

Remark 3.6.

The equality for (3.4) is obtained for the discrete Laplacian, i.e. an=1,bn=0formulae-sequencesubscriptπ‘Žπ‘›1subscript𝑏𝑛0a_{n}=1,b_{n}=0italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0, since Ξ£=[βˆ’2,2]Ξ£22\Sigma=[-2,2]roman_Ξ£ = [ - 2 , 2 ] and L⁒(E)=0𝐿𝐸0L(E)=0italic_L ( italic_E ) = 0 for E∈Σ𝐸ΣE\in\Sigmaitalic_E ∈ roman_Ξ£.

Remark 3.7.

If the Lyapunov exponent is zero everywhere on the spectrum, specifically for the classes we discussed in Remark 3.4 we have

(3.12) Ξ»Mβˆ’Ξ»mβ‰₯4⁒A.subscriptπœ†π‘€subscriptπœ†π‘š4𝐴\lambda_{M}-\lambda_{m}\geq 4A.italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰₯ 4 italic_A .
Remark 3.8.

If the Lyapunov exponent is zero everywhere on ΣΣ\Sigmaroman_Σ, then we showed that

(3.13) |Ξ£|≀4⁒A≀λMβˆ’Ξ»m.Ξ£4𝐴subscriptπœ†π‘€subscriptπœ†π‘š|\Sigma|\leq 4A\leq\lambda_{M}-\lambda_{m}.| roman_Ξ£ | ≀ 4 italic_A ≀ italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Therefore if the spectrum is a continuum set in this case, then

(3.14) Ξ»Mβˆ’Ξ»m=|Ξ£|=4⁒A.subscriptπœ†π‘€subscriptπœ†π‘šΞ£4𝐴\lambda_{M}-\lambda_{m}=|\Sigma|=4A.italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = | roman_Ξ£ | = 4 italic_A .

If the Lyapunov exponent is HΓΆlder continuous, then we obtain another lower estimate for the logarithmic capacity of the spectrum and hence for the difference between maximum and minimum energies in terms of the Lyapunov exponent and HΓΆlder continuity parameters.

Theorem 3.9.

Let {JΟ‰}Ο‰βˆˆΞ©subscriptsubscriptπ½πœ”πœ”Ξ©\{J_{\omega}\}_{\omega\in\Omega}{ italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ο‰ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ο‰ ∈ roman_Ξ© end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be a family of ergodic Jacobi operators with parameters {an⁒(Ο‰),bn⁒(Ο‰)}nsubscriptsubscriptπ‘Žπ‘›πœ”subscriptπ‘π‘›πœ”π‘›\{a_{n}(\omega),b_{n}(\omega)\}_{n}{ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ ) , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο‰ ) } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and L𝐿Litalic_L be its Lyapunov exponent. Also let Ξ»m:=minE∈Σ⁑Eassignsubscriptπœ†π‘šsubscript𝐸Σ𝐸\lambda_{m}:=\min_{E\in\Sigma}Eitalic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := roman_min start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E ∈ roman_Ξ£ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E and Ξ»M:=maxE∈Σ⁑Eassignsubscriptπœ†π‘€subscript𝐸Σ𝐸\lambda_{M}:=\max_{E\in\Sigma}Eitalic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := roman_max start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E ∈ roman_Ξ£ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E. If L𝐿Litalic_L is α𝛼\alphaitalic_Ξ±-HΓΆlder continuous on the spectrum ΣΣ\Sigmaroman_Ξ£ for 0<Ξ±<10𝛼10<\alpha<10 < italic_Ξ± < 1, i.e.

(3.15) |L⁒(z)βˆ’L⁒(w)|≀C⁒|zβˆ’w|α𝐿𝑧𝐿𝑀𝐢superscript𝑧𝑀𝛼|L(z)-L(w)|\leq C|z-w|^{\alpha}| italic_L ( italic_z ) - italic_L ( italic_w ) | ≀ italic_C | italic_z - italic_w | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

for z,wβˆˆΞ£π‘§π‘€Ξ£z,w\in\Sigmaitalic_z , italic_w ∈ roman_Ξ£ and C>0𝐢0C>0italic_C > 0, then

(3.16) Ξ»Mβˆ’Ξ»mβ‰₯(|L⁒(Ξ£)|C⁒41βˆ’Ξ±)1/Ξ±subscriptπœ†π‘€subscriptπœ†π‘šsuperscript𝐿Σ𝐢superscript41𝛼1𝛼\lambda_{M}-\lambda_{m}\geq\Big{(}\frac{|L(\Sigma)|}{C4^{1-\alpha}}\Big{)}^{1/\alpha}italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰₯ ( divide start_ARG | italic_L ( roman_Ξ£ ) | end_ARG start_ARG italic_C 4 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 - italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

where L⁒(Σ):={L⁒(E)|E∈Σ}assign𝐿Σconditional-set𝐿𝐸𝐸ΣL(\Sigma):=\{L(E)~{}|~{}E\in\Sigma\}italic_L ( roman_Σ ) := { italic_L ( italic_E ) | italic_E ∈ roman_Σ } and |K|𝐾|K|| italic_K | denotes the Lebesgue measure of a set K𝐾Kitalic_K.

Proof.

Using items (a),(b),(c) of Theorem 2.5, our assumption and the estimate (3.11) we get

(3.17) C⁒a⁒p⁒(L⁒(Ξ£))≀C⁒(C⁒a⁒p⁒(Ξ£))α≀C⁒(Ξ»Mβˆ’Ξ»m4)Ξ±.πΆπ‘Žπ‘πΏΞ£πΆsuperscriptπΆπ‘Žπ‘Ξ£π›ΌπΆsuperscriptsubscriptπœ†π‘€subscriptπœ†π‘š4𝛼Cap(L(\Sigma))\leq C(Cap(\Sigma))^{\alpha}\leq C\Big{(}\frac{\lambda_{M}-% \lambda_{m}}{4}\Big{)}^{\alpha}.italic_C italic_a italic_p ( italic_L ( roman_Ξ£ ) ) ≀ italic_C ( italic_C italic_a italic_p ( roman_Ξ£ ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≀ italic_C ( divide start_ARG italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

On the other hand, the Lyapunov exponent is real-valued and we assumed it to be continuous on the spectrum, so L⁒(Σ)𝐿ΣL(\Sigma)italic_L ( roman_Σ ) is a compact subset of the real line. Therefore by item (d) of Theorem 2.5 we get

(3.18) |L⁒(Ξ£)|/4≀C⁒a⁒p⁒(L⁒(Ξ£))𝐿Σ4πΆπ‘Žπ‘πΏΞ£|L(\Sigma)|/4\leq Cap(L(\Sigma))| italic_L ( roman_Ξ£ ) | / 4 ≀ italic_C italic_a italic_p ( italic_L ( roman_Ξ£ ) )

and hence the desired result. ∎

Remark 3.10.

It is known that C⁒a⁒p⁒(Ξ£)β‰₯1πΆπ‘Žπ‘Ξ£1Cap(\Sigma)\geq 1italic_C italic_a italic_p ( roman_Ξ£ ) β‰₯ 1 [DF22], so (3.16) is non-trivial if |L⁒(Ξ£)|β‰₯4⁒C𝐿Σ4𝐢|L(\Sigma)|\geq 4C| italic_L ( roman_Ξ£ ) | β‰₯ 4 italic_C.

Remark 3.11.

If the image of the spectrum under the Lyapunov exponent is a continuum set, then the measure of L⁒(Σ)𝐿ΣL(\Sigma)italic_L ( roman_Σ ) is the difference between maximum and minimum values of L𝐿Litalic_L over ΣΣ\Sigmaroman_Σ. Therefore inequality (3.16) becomes

(3.19) Ξ»Mβˆ’Ξ»mβ‰₯(supE∈Σ|L⁒(E)|βˆ’infE∈Σ|L⁒(E)|C⁒41βˆ’Ξ±)1/Ξ±.subscriptπœ†π‘€subscriptπœ†π‘šsuperscriptsubscriptsupremum𝐸Σ𝐿𝐸subscriptinfimum𝐸Σ𝐿𝐸𝐢superscript41𝛼1𝛼\lambda_{M}-\lambda_{m}\geq\Bigg{(}\frac{\displaystyle\sup_{E\in\Sigma}|L(E)|-% \inf_{E\in\Sigma}|L(E)|}{C4^{1-\alpha}}\Bigg{)}^{1/\alpha}.italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰₯ ( divide start_ARG roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E ∈ roman_Ξ£ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_L ( italic_E ) | - roman_inf start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E ∈ roman_Ξ£ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_L ( italic_E ) | end_ARG start_ARG italic_C 4 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 - italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Moreover if the Lyapunov exponent is zero at some energy, e.g. if the ac-spectrum is non-empty, then from the non-negativity of the Lyapunov exponent, inequality (3.16) becomes

(3.20) Ξ»Mβˆ’Ξ»mβ‰₯(supE∈Σ|L⁒(E)|C⁒41βˆ’Ξ±)1/Ξ±.subscriptπœ†π‘€subscriptπœ†π‘šsuperscriptsubscriptsupremum𝐸Σ𝐿𝐸𝐢superscript41𝛼1𝛼\lambda_{M}-\lambda_{m}\geq\Bigg{(}\frac{\sup_{E\in\Sigma}|L(E)|}{C4^{1-\alpha% }}\Bigg{)}^{1/\alpha}.italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰₯ ( divide start_ARG roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E ∈ roman_Ξ£ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_L ( italic_E ) | end_ARG start_ARG italic_C 4 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 - italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

References