Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 48 references

Julia sets and bifurcation loci

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Three canonical fractals from complex dynamics in C2 are pairwise distinct.

desk verdict New and significant rigidity results, but the main case (cubic bifurcation locus vs endomorphism Julia set) has a real gap in Lemma 3.8; needs repair before I'd trust it. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16178 v1 pith:EMUQHHV2 submitted 2024-11-25 math.DS math.CV

Thomas Gauthier , Gabriel Vigny This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.DSmath.CV MSC 37F1037P3037F46
keywords JuliasetsbifurcationlociHénonmapspolynomialendomorphismsequilibriummeasurespreperiodicpointscomplexdynamicspost-criticallyfinitepolynomials
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proves that three canonically defined fractals arising from different polynomial dynamical systems cannot coincide: the small Julia set of a regular polynomial endomorphism of C2, the strong bifurcation locus (the closure of post-critically finite cubic parameters), and the Julia set of a generalized Hénon map. The authors reduce equality of the sets to equality of their equilibrium measures and Green functions, then show the measures differ by promoting local symmetries to algebraic curves. If correct, the result separates three a priori related 'maximal chaos' objects and yields finiteness of common preperiodic points between the different systems.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the equilibrium measures and Green functions attached to each fractal, together with a uniqueness principle (Fact 2.1) that turns equality of supports into equality of potentials. Local symmetries of bifurcation measures are promoted, via asymptotic similarity results and a rigidity theorem for rational maps with comparable measures, to algebraic curves that are preperiodic under the polynomial pair, and then a uniform bound on the number of intertwined polynomials (Proposition 3.7) yields the contradiction. For the Hénon-versus-endomorphism case, the laminar structure and extremality of the Green current of the Hénon map are the decisive tools.

What would settle it

Exhibit a regular polynomial endomorphism h and a generalized Hénon map f with equal Julia sets, or, more concretely, check whether Proposition 3.7's uniform bound N(d) holds by searching for a sequence of degree-d polynomials Pn with #Inter(Pn) unbounded, which would disprove the imported bound and undermine Theorem 1.1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.1: for any regular polynomial endomorphism h of P2(C) of degree D>1 and any generalized Hénon map f of degree d>1, one has Jh ≠ Sbif ≠ Jf ≠ Jh. The proof works through Theorem 2.3, which shows that the corresponding equilibrium measures µh, µbif, and µf are pairwise distinct, equivalently that their Green functions Gh, Gbif, and Gf are pairwise different. Along the way, the paper establishes Theorem 1.2: the bifurcation locus of a special one-parameter family of polynomials is never the Julia set of a polynomial map.

Load-bearing premise

The argument relies on an imported theorem (Proposition 3.7) stating that for each degree d there is a uniform bound N(d) on the number of polynomials intertwined with a given Pt; if that bound failed or had a larger constant, the counting contradiction that proves Sbif ≠ Jh would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is correct, the rigidity phenomenon known for the boundary of the Mandelbrot set extends to dimension two: no regular polynomial endomorphism has the strong bifurcation locus of cubic polynomials as its Julia set.
  • The Julia set of a generalized Hénon map can never equal the small Julia set of a polynomial endomorphism, so these two families of C2 maps produce genuinely different fractal supports.
  • As a corollary, for an endomorphism h and a Hénon map f with |Jac(f)| ≠ 1, the set Preper(h) ∩ Per(f) is finite, and Per(f) ∩ PCF is finite.
  • Under a number-field assumption and a mild condition at infinity, Preper(h) ∩ PCF is also finite for a polynomial endomorphism.
  • The bifurcation locus of any special family parametrized by C is not the Julia set of a polynomial map.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The proof's dependence on the uniform bound on intertwined polynomials (Proposition 3.7) is a natural target for scrutiny: if that bound were not uniform, the counting argument in Section 3.3 would fall apart.
  • Remark 3.9 suggests the method should generalize to polynomial endomorphisms of Pd−1(C) versus the bifurcation locus of degree-d polynomials, once the analogue of Lemma 2.2 is established in higher dimension.
  • The measure-rigidity framework may imply stronger statements than set inequality, such as the nonexistence of local biholomorphic conjugacies between small Julia sets and bifurcation loci, beyond measured equivalence.
  • A quantitative version of Corollary 1.3 could potentially be obtained by tracking the constants in Proposition 3.7 and the equidistribution speeds, though the paper does not attempt this.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves a higher-dimensional rigidity theorem for three canonical fractals: the small Julia set J_h of a regular polynomial endomorphism h of P^2(C), the strong bifurcation locus S_bif of cubic polynomials, and the Julia set J_f of a generalized Hénon map f. The main claim (Theorem 1.1) is that these three sets are pairwise distinct, which is reduced to proving that the associated Green functions G_h, G_bif, and G_f are pairwise different (Theorem 2.3). The proofs use pluripotential theory, local rigidity results for Julia sets, and deep quantitative results on intertwined polynomials. The paper also proves that the bifurcation locus of a special one-parameter family of polynomials is not the Julia set of a polynomial (Theorem 1.2) and derives finiteness results for intersections of preperiodic points (Corollaries 1.3 and 1.4).

Significance. If correct, the main theorem would be a striking contribution to the rigidity of Julia sets and bifurcation loci in higher-dimensional holomorphic dynamics, extending the one-dimensional results of Ghioca–Krieger–Nguyen and Luo. The paper carefully sets up a pluripotential framework and imports state-of-the-art rigidity results as black boxes, which is appropriate for this type of work. The corollaries on finiteness of common preperiodic points are also of independent interest. However, as written, several load-bearing arguments contain incorrect assertions about dominance regions and pulled-back currents; these gaps must be repaired before the central claims can be considered established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3, Lemma 3.8] The proof of Lemma 3.8 is not valid. For the cubic family considered here, the bifurcation potential is G_bif = max(3G1, G2), so the two dominance regions are {3G1 > G2 > 0} and {G2 > 3G1 > 0}, not {G1 > G2 > 0} and {G2 > G1 > 0} as written. Moreover, the identity G_bif ∘ h = D G_bif constrains only the maximum of 3G1 and G2; it does not imply that h preserves either dominance region, nor that h^*T_i = D T_i. Consequently the conclusion h({G_i=0}) ⊂ {G_i=0} is unproved, and the subsequent argument showing that h maps persistently preperiodic curves to persistently preperiodic curves (and the contradiction with Proposition 3.7) collapses.
  2. [Section 4.1, Theorem 4.1] The proof of Theorem 4.1 assumes h({G+_f=0}) = {G+_f=0} and then claims that h^*T+_f is supported on {G+_f=0}. This does not follow: the support of h^*T+_f is h^{-1}(J+_f), and the equality h(K+_f)=K+_f does not imply h^{-1}(J+_f) ⊂ J+_f. In addition, the cited uniqueness theorem of Fornæss–Sibony is normally stated for currents supported on the Julia set J+_f, not on the filled Julia set {G+_f=0}. As a result, the contradiction is not obtained, and Proposition 4.2, which depends on Theorem 4.1, is unproved.
  3. [Section 4.3, proof of (3) in Theorem 2.3] The identification U+ = {G1 > G2 > 0} is incorrect. From G_f = G_bif = max(3G1, G2), the region where G+_f dominates corresponds to {3G1 > G2 > 0}, not {G1 > G2 > 0}. The subsequent analytic-continuation step, which is essential to conclude G+_f = 3G1 on C^2, is therefore not justified.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, proof of Proposition 3.1] The boundedness of the sequence (log(ρ_{n_j,a}/ρ_{n_j,b})) is asserted with an unclear justification; a simple total-mass argument would suffice, but the sentence as written is confusing.
  2. [Section 4.1, Theorem 4.1 statement] The statement says 'h({G+_f = 0}) ⊈ {G+_f = 0}' but the proof begins with 'Assume h({G+_f = 0}) = {G+_f = 0}'. The proof should start from the negation of the statement, i.e., inclusion, not equality.
  3. [Section 2.3] The equivalence between the set S_bif defined in the introduction as the accumulation set of PCF cubic parameters and the support of the bifurcation measure µ_bif should be stated explicitly with a precise reference, since the proof relies on this identification.
  4. [Section 3.3, Lemma 3.8] The sentence 'Since {z ∈ C2, G2(z) = G1(z) > 0} is totally invariant by h' is not explained; even if it were true, with G_bif = max(3G1, G2) the relevant interface is {3G1 = G2}, not {G1 = G2}.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central set-inequality theorems are obtained by contradiction from independent imported rigidity results, not by re-importing the conclusions.

full rationale

The paper does not fit parameters and then rename them as predictions; the alternatives J_h, S_bif, and J_f are compared via their defining equilibrium measures, and the equalities μh = μbif or Gf = Gbif are assumed only to derive contradictions. Fact 2.1 legitimately converts equality of supports and zero sets into equality of the corresponding Green functions, and the equidistribution theorems of Yuan, Lee, and FG15 are external benchmarks. The most fragile inputs are self-cited rigidity results: Proposition 3.7 (from the authors' book [FG22]) and Theorem 3.4 (from [DFG23], including Gauthier). These are load-bearing, but they are published, parameter-free statements about intertwined polynomials and local Julia-set symmetries; their assumptions do not include the target conclusion S_bif ≠ J_h, and the paper's contradiction uses them as tools rather than as restatements of the conclusion. Thus the self-citation chain does not reduce the theorem to its input. A genuine mathematical concern is that Lemma 3.8 appears to derive h^*T_i = D T_i from the sets {G1 > G2 > 0} and {G2 > G1 > 0}, whereas G_bif = max(3G1,G2), so the switching locus is {3G1 = G2}; the claimed total invariance of {G1 = G2 > 0} is not established. That is an internal correctness gap, not a circularity, because nothing in the lemma is defined in terms of its conclusion. Overall the derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks, and no equation is equivalent to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a network of established theorems in pluripotential theory, higher-dimensional holomorphic dynamics, and arithmetic dynamics. No free parameters are fitted and no ad hoc entities are introduced: degrees d and D are arbitrary, and the constant N in Proposition 3.7 comes from FG22. The most load-bearing external inputs are FG22's uniform intertwined-polynomial bound (Proposition 3.7), DFG23's local rigidity theorem, Ji-Xie's asymptotic similarity theorem, and Cantat-Xie's conjugacy rigidity. These are cited as black boxes.

assumptions (8)
  • standard math Fact 2.1: uniqueness of the Green potential: for a compact K ⊂ C^2, there is at most one psh φ ∈ L^+(C^2) with supp(ddc φ)^2 ⊂ K and φ = 0 on K (Demailly; DF08, Prop. 6.14).
    This is the bridge from equality of fractal sets to equality of potentials: if J_h = S_bif, then G_h and G_bif are both the unique potential, so μ_h = μ_bif (Section 2.4).
  • domain assumption Equidistribution of periodic points to equilibrium measures: Briend-Duval (endomorphisms), Bedford-Smillie-Lyubich (Hénon maps), Yuan and Lee (small points).
    Identifies the supports J_h, J_f and the bifurcation locus with the supports of the canonical measures and gives the measure-theoretic translation of Theorem 1.1 (Section 2).
  • domain assumption Fornæss-Sibony: T_f^+ is the unique positive closed current of mass 1 supported on {G_f^+ = 0}, and T_f^+ is laminar in the sense of Bedford-Lyubich-Smillie.
    Used in Theorem 4.1 to force h^*(T_f^+) = D T_f^+ from the support condition and in the final argument of (3) to contradict the existence of algebraic curves in {G_f^+ = 0}.
  • domain assumption Cantat-Xie [CX20, Proposition 8]: birational conjugacies between endomorphisms of P^2 are affine.
    Provides the contradiction in Theorem 4.1 when h and h_1 = f∘h∘f^{-1} are both endomorphisms of P^2 but f is a genuine Hénon map.
  • domain assumption FG22 Theorem 3.46: for each degree d ≥ 2 there is N(d) such that any two intertwined degree-d polynomials have at most N(d) intertwined partners (uniform bound on Inter(P_t)).
    Implies Proposition 3.7, the quantitative bound against which the N+1 parameters h^n(p0) contradict in the proof of S_bif ≠ J_h (Section 3.3).
  • domain assumption DFG23 Theorem A: a measurable, non-constant conjugacy between equilibrium measures of two non-special CE polynomials is a local branch of an algebraic invariant curve.
    Core of Proposition 3.1, promoting local measure symmetries (from the asymptotic similarity maps h_a, h_b) to the existence of the algebraic curve Z.
  • domain assumption Ji-Xie [JX23a, Theorem 5.2]: asymptotic similarity of the parameter disk and the phase space for a polynomial pair satisfying CE, ParCE, and PR(s), with density 9/10 of good scales.
    Provides the normal limit maps h_a and h_b used in Proposition 3.1 to convert a biholomorphism of parameter spaces into a measurable conjugacy between Julia measures.
  • domain assumption FG22 Theorem 8.1: structure of the activity set on a special curve C: the set of non-active critical points is a proper subset and the inactive G_j are proportional to G_bif on C.
    Used in the proof of Theorem 3.6 to reduce a symmetry of μ_bif,C to a symmetry of a marked-point bifurcation measure μ_{P,c_i} for an active critical point.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Julia sets and bifurcation loci." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EMUQHHV2

@misc{pith2026241116178,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Julia sets and bifurcation loci},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EMUQHHV2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16178}
}
abstract

We prove that several dynamically defined fractals in $\mathbb{C}$ and $\mathbb{C}^2$ which arise from different type of polynomial dynamical systems can not be the same objects. One of our main results is that the closure of Misiurewicz PCF cubic polynomials (the strong bifurcation locus) cannot be the Julia set of a regular polynomial endomorphism of $\mathbb{C}^2$. We also show that the Julia set of a H\'enon map and a polynomial endomorphism cannot coincide.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16178 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: the Julia set of z 2 − 1. Right: ∂M. Many similar rigidity’s results were a driving force in complex dynamics, with striking applications in arithmetic dynamics. As in [GKN16] above, fractals in complex dynamics The first author’s research is partially supported by the Institut Universitaire de France. The second author’s research is partially supported by the ANR QuaSiDy, grant [ANR-21-CE40-0016]. 1 arXiv:241… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Exposants de L iapounoff et distribution des points p\'eriodiques d'un endomorphisme de C P ^k

    Jean-Yves Briend and Julien Duval. Exposants de L iapounoff et distribution des points p\'eriodiques d'un endomorphisme de C P ^k . Acta Math. , 182(2):143--157, 1999

    work page 1999

  2. [2]

    Deux caract\'erisations de la mesure d'\'equilibre d'un endomorphisme de P ^k(C)

    Jean-Yves Briend and Julien Duval. Deux caract\'erisations de la mesure d'\'equilibre d'un endomorphisme de P ^k(C) . Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes \'Etudes Sci. , (93):145--159, 2001

    work page 2001

  3. [3]

    Preperiodic points and unlikely intersections

    Matthew Baker and Laura DeMarco. Preperiodic points and unlikely intersections. Duke Math. J. , 159(1):1--29, 2011

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Xavier Buff and Adam L. Epstein. Bifurcation measure and postcritically finite rational maps. In Complex dynamics : families and friends / edited by Dierk Schleicher , pages 491--512. A K Peters, Ltd., Wellesley, Massachussets, 2009

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Alan F. Beardon. Symmetries of Julia sets. Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. , 22(6):576--582, 1990

    1990

  6. [6]

    A. F. Beardon. Polynomials with identical Julia sets. Complex Variables, Theory Appl. , 17(3-4):195--200, 1992

    work page 1992

  7. [7]

    Distribution of periodic points of polynomial diffeomorphisms of C^2

    Eric Bedford, Mikhail Lyubich, and John Smillie. Distribution of periodic points of polynomial diffeomorphisms of C^2 . Invent. Math. , 114(2):277--288, 1993

    work page 1993

  8. [8]

    Polynomial diffeomorphisms of C ^2

    Eric Bedford, Mikhail Lyubich, and John Smillie. Polynomial diffeomorphisms of C ^2 . IV . T he measure of maximal entropy and laminar currents. Invent. Math. , 112(1):77--125, 1993

    1993

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Polynomial diffeomorphisms of C ^2 : currents, equilibrium measure and hyperbolicity

    Eric Bedford and John Smillie. Polynomial diffeomorphisms of C ^2 : currents, equilibrium measure and hyperbolicity. Invent. Math. , 103(1):69--99, 1991

    1991

  2. [10]

    Polynomial diffeomorphisms of C ^2

    Eric Bedford and John Smillie. Polynomial diffeomorphisms of C ^2 . III : Ergodicity , exponents and entropy of the equilibrium measure. Math. Ann. , 294(3):395--420, 1992

    1992

  3. [11]

    Birational conjugacies between endomorphisms on the projective plane, 2020

    Serge Cantat and Junyi Xie. Birational conjugacies between endomorphisms on the projective plane, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Demailly

    J.-P. Demailly. Complex analytic and differential geometry, 2011. free accessible book (http://www-fourier.ujf-grenoble.fr/ demailly/manuscripts/agbook.pdf)

    2011

  5. [13]

    Distribution of rational maps with a preperiodic critical point

    Romain Dujardin and Charles Favre. Distribution of rational maps with a preperiodic critical point. Amer. J. Math. , 130(4):979--1032, 2008

    2008

  6. [14]

    Dujardin and C

    R. Dujardin and C. Favre. The dynamical Manin - Mumford problem for plane polynomial automorphisms. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) , 19(11):3421--3465, 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    When do two rational functions have locally biholomorphic Julia sets? Trans

    Romain Dujardin, Charles Favre, and Thomas Gauthier. When do two rational functions have locally biholomorphic Julia sets? Trans. Am. Math. Soc. , 376(3):1601--1624, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    On the dynamical Manin - Mumford conjecture for plane polynomial maps

    Romain Dujardin, Charles Favre, and Matteo Ruggiero. On the dynamical Manin - Mumford conjecture for plane polynomial maps. Preprint, arXiv :2312.14817 [math. DS ] (2023), 2023

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Sur les endomorphismes polynomiaux permutables de C ^2

    Tien-Cuong Dinh. Sur les endomorphismes polynomiaux permutables de C ^2 . Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) , 51(2):431--459, 2001

    2001

  10. [18]

    Dynamics on P ^1 : preperiodic points and pairwise stability

    Laura DeMarco and Niki Myrto Mavraki. Dynamics on P ^1 : preperiodic points and pairwise stability. Compos. Math. , 160(2):356--387, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Sur les endomorphismes holomorphes permutables de P ^k

    Tien-Cuong Dinh and Nessim Sibony. Sur les endomorphismes holomorphes permutables de P ^k . Math. Ann. , 324(1):33--70, 2002

    2002

  12. [20]

    Rigidity of J ulia sets for H \'enon type maps

    Tien-Cuong Dinh and Nessim Sibony. Rigidity of J ulia sets for H \'enon type maps. J. Mod. Dyn. , 8(3-4):499--548, 2014

    2014

  13. [21]

    Parametric Lyapunov exponents

    Henry De Th \'e lin, Thomas Gauthier, and Gabriel Vigny. Parametric Lyapunov exponents. Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. , 53(3):660--672, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    The intersection of laminar currents

    Romain Dujardin. The intersection of laminar currents. Publ. Mat., Barc. , 48(1):107--125, 2004

    2004

  15. [23]

    The supports of higher bifurcation currents

    Romain Dujardin. The supports of higher bifurcation currents. Ann. Fac. Sci. Toulouse Math. (6) , 22(3):445--464, 2013

    2013

  16. [24]

    Favre and T

    C. Favre and T. Gauthier. Distribution of postcritically finite polynomials. Israel Journal of Mathematics , 209(1):235--292, 2015

    2015

  17. [25]

    The arithmetic of polynomial dynamical pairs , volume 214 of Ann

    Charles Favre and Thomas Gauthier. The arithmetic of polynomial dynamical pairs , volume 214 of Ann. Math. Stud. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Complex dynamics in higher dimension

    John Erik Fornaess and Nessim Sibony. Complex dynamics in higher dimension. II . In Modern methods in complex analysis. The Princeton conference in honor of Robert C. Gunning and Joseph J. Kohn, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA, Mar. 16-20, 1992 , pages 135--182. Princ...

    1992

  19. [27]

    Complex dynamics in higher dimensions

    John Erik Forn ss and Nessim Sibony. Complex dynamics in higher dimensions. In Complex potential theory ( M ontreal, PQ , 1993) , volume 439 of NATO Adv. Sci. Inst. Ser. C: Math. Phys. Sci. , pages 131--186. Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 1994. Notes partially written by Estel...

    1993

  20. [28]

    Good height functions on quasi-projective varieties: equidistribution and applications in dynamics, 2021

    Thomas Gauthier . Good height functions on quasi-projective varieties: equidistribution and applications in dynamics, 2021. preprint

    2021

  21. [29]

    A case of the dynamical A ndr\' e - O ort conjecture

    Dragos Ghioca, Holly Krieger, and Khoa Nguyen. A case of the dynamical A ndr\' e - O ort conjecture. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN , (3):738--758, 2016

    2016

  22. [30]

    Hubbard and Ralph W

    John H. Hubbard and Ralph W. Oberste-Vorth. H \'e non mappings in the complex domain. I : The global topology of dynamical space. Publ. Math., Inst. Hautes \'E tud. Sci. , 79:5--46, 1994

    1994

  23. [31]

    DAO for curves

    Zhuchao Ji and Junyi Xie. DAO for curves. Preprint, arXiv :2302.02583 [math. DS ] (2023), 2023

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Local rigidity of Julia sets

    Zhuchao Ji and Junyi Xie. Local rigidity of Julia sets. Preprint, arXiv :2302.02562 [math. DS ] (2023), 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Commuting pairs of endomorphisms of P ^2

    Lucas Kaufmann. Commuting pairs of endomorphisms of P ^2 . Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems , 38(3):1025--1047, 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    L'alternative de T its pour Aut[ C ^2]

    St\'ephane Lamy. L'alternative de T its pour Aut[ C ^2] . J. Algebra , 239(2):413--437, 2001

    2001

  27. [35]

    The equidistribution of small points for strongly regular pairs of polynomial maps

    Chong Gyu Lee. The equidistribution of small points for strongly regular pairs of polynomial maps. Math. Z. , 275(3-4):1047--1072, 2013

    2013

  28. [36]

    G. M. Levin. On symmetries on a Julia set. Mat. Zametki , 48(5):72--79, 1990

    1990

  29. [37]

    Levin and F

    G. Levin and F. Przytycki. When do two rational functions have the same Julia set? Proc. Am. Math. Soc. , 125(7):2179--2190, 1997

    1997

  30. [38]

    On the inhomogeneity of the M andelbrot set

    Yusheng Luo. On the inhomogeneity of the M andelbrot set. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN , (8):6051--6076, 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    Cubic polynomial maps with periodic critical orbit

    John Milnor. Cubic polynomial maps with periodic critical orbit. I . In Complex dynamics , pages 333--411. A K Peters, Wellesley, MA, 2009

    2009

  32. [40]

    Pakovich

    F. Pakovich. On rational functions sharing the measure of maximal entropy. Arnold Math. J. , 6(3-4):387--396, 2020

    2020

  33. [41]

    Dynamique des applications rationnelles de P^k

    Nessim Sibony. Dynamique des applications rationnelles de P^k . In Dynamique et g\'eom\'etrie complexes ( L yon, 1997) , volume 8 of Panor. Synth\`eses , pages ix--x, xi--xii, 97--185. Soc. Math. France, Paris, 1999

    1997

  34. [42]

    Shub and D

    M. Shub and D. Sullivan. A remark on the L efschetz fixed point formula for differentiable maps. Topology , 13:189--191, 1974

    1974

  35. [43]

    Schmidt and N

    W. Schmidt and N. Steinmetz. The polynomials associated with a Julia set. Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. , 27(3):239--241, 1995

    1995

  36. [44]

    Similarity between the M andelbrot set and J ulia sets

    Lei Tan. Similarity between the M andelbrot set and J ulia sets. Comm. Math. Phys. , 134(3):587--617, 1990

    1990

  37. [45]

    Rational functions with identical measure of maximal entropy

    Hexi Ye. Rational functions with identical measure of maximal entropy. Adv. Math. , 268:373--395, 2015

    2015

  38. [46]

    Big line bundles over arithmetic varieties

    Xinyi Yuan. Big line bundles over arithmetic varieties. Invent. Math. , 173(3):603--649, 2008

    2008

  39. [47]

    The arithmetic Hodge index theorem for adelic line bundles

    Xinyi Yuan and Shou-Wu Zhang. The arithmetic Hodge index theorem for adelic line bundles. Math. Ann. , 367(3-4):1123--1171, 2017

    2017

  40. [48]

    Adelic line bundles over quasi-projective varieties, 2021

    Xinyi Yuan and Shou-Wu Zhang. Adelic line bundles over quasi-projective varieties, 2021

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.