- Open Access
Some connections between the attractors of an IIFS and the attractors of the sub-IFSs of
© Miculescu and Ioana; licensee Springer. 2012
- Received: 29 March 2012
- Accepted: 22 August 2012
- Published: 4 September 2012
Based on the results from (Mihail and Miculescu in Math. Rep., Bucur. 11(61)(1):21-32, 2009), where the shift space for an infinite iterated function system (IIFS for short) is defined and the relation between this space and the attractor of the IIFS is described, we give a sufficient condition on a family of nonempty subsets of I, where is an IIFS, in order to have the equality , where A means the attractor of and means the attractor of the sub-iterated function system of . In addition, we prove that given an arbitrary infinite cardinal number , if the attractor of an IIFS is of type (this means that there exists a dense subset of it having the cardinal less than or equal to ), where is a complete metric space, then there exists a sub-iterated function system of , having the property that , such that the attractors of and coincide.
- infinite iterated function system (IIFS)
- sub-iterated function systems of a given IIFS
- canonical projection from the shift space on the attractor of an IIFS
- attractor of an IIFS
Iterated function systems (IFSs) were conceived in the present form by John Hutchinson  and popularized by Michael Barnsley . The most common and most general way to generate fractals is to use the theory of IFS (which provides a new insight into the modeling of real world phenomena). Because of the variety of their applications (actually one can find fractals almost everywhere in the universe: galaxies, weather, coastlines and borderlines, landscapes, human anatomy, chemical reactions, bacteria cultures, plants, population growth, data compression, economy etc.), there is a current effort to extend the classical Hutchinson’s framework to more general spaces and to infinite iterated function systems. For example, on the one hand, Gwóźdź-Łukawska and Jachymski  discuss the Hutchinson-Barnsley theory for infinite iterated function systems. Łoziński, Życzkowsi and Słomczyński  introduce the notion of quantum iterated function systems (QIFS) which is designed to describe certain problems of nonunitary quantum dynamics. Käenmäki  constructs a thermodynamical formalism for very general iterated function systems. Leśniak  presents a multivalued approach of infinite iterated function systems. In [7–10], and  the notion of generalized iterated function system (GIFS), which is a family of functions , being a metric space and , is introduced. Under certain conditions, the existence of the attractor of such a GIFS is proved and its properties are explored (among them, an upper bound for the Hausdorff-Pompeiu distance between the attractors of two such GIFSs, an upper bound for the Hausdorff-Pompeiu distance between the attractors of such a GIFS and an arbitrary compact set of X are presented, and its continuous dependence in the ’s is proved). Moreover, in  and , the existence of an analogue of Hutchinson’s measure associated to certain GIFSs with probabilities (GIFSp for short) is proved. Also, we showed that the support of such a measure is the attractor of the given GIFSp and we construct a sequence of measures converging to this measure. On the other hand, in , we provided a general framework where attractors are nonempty closed and bounded subsets of topologically complete metric spaces and where the IFSs may be infinite, in contrast to the classical theory (see ), where only attractors that are compact metric spaces and IFSs that are finite are considered. In the paper , a generalization of the notion of the shift space associated to an IFS is presented. More precisely, the shift space for an infinite iterated function system (IIFS) is defined and the relation between this space and the attractor of the IIFS is described. A canonical projection π (which turns out to be continuous) from the shift space of an IIFS on its attractor is constructed and sufficient conditions for this function to be onto are provided. While it is possible to approximate any compact subset in the space X by an attractor of some IFS, the question as to which compact can be realized as attractors of IFSs remains elusive. The attractors of IFSs come in so many different forms that their diversity never fails to amaze us. The repertory of attractors of IFSs starts with simple spaces such as an interval, a square, the closure of the unit disc (see ) and continues with more exotic sets such as the Cantor ternary set, the Sierpinski gasket, the Menger sponge, the Black Spleenwort fern, the Barnsley fern, the Castle fractal, the Julia sets of quadratic transformations (see ), the Koch curve, the Polya’s curve, the Levy’s curve or the Takagi graph (see ). Along the same lines, Arenas and Sancez Granero  proved that every graph (i.e., a locally connected continuum with a finite number of end points and ramification points) is the attractor of some iterated function system. Sanders  proved that arcs in of finite length are attractors of some IFS on . In  Secelean proved that each compact subset of a metric space can be presented as the attractor of a countable iterated function system. At the same time, it is a natural question to ask whether it is true that any compact set is actually the invariant set of some IFS. The answer is negative. Here are some examples: Kwiecinski  constructed a locally connected continuum in the plane which is not an attractor of any iterated function system; Crovisier and Rams  constructed an embedded Cantor set in and showed that it could not be realized as an attractor of any iterated function system; Stacho and Szabo  constructed compact sets in that are not invariant sets for any IFS; Sanders  constructed an n-cell in and showed that this n-cell cannot be the attractor of any IFS on for each natural number n.
In the present paper, using the results from , especially Theorem 4.1, we present a sufficient condition on a family of nonempty subsets of I, where is an IIFS, in order to have the equality , where A means the attractor of and means the attractor of the sub-iterated function system of . In addition, two examples concerning this result are presented. The first example shows that the above mentioned condition is not necessary, while the second example provides a case for which it is a necessary condition.
Moreover, we prove that given an arbitrary infinite cardinal number , if the attractor of an IIFS is of type , where is a complete metric space, then there exists a sub-iterated function system of , having the property that , such that the attractors of and coincide.
For the basic facts concerning infinite iterated function systems (IIFSs) and the shift space associated to an IIFS one can consult .
Definition 2.1 A metric space is said to be of type , where is a cardinal number, if there exists a dense subset A of X having the property that .
Definition 2.2 Given an IIFS and a subset J of I, the IIFS is called a sub-iterated function system of (a sub-IFS of for short).
The following remark, which actually is Lemma 3.6 from , will be extensively used in this paper (see the proofs of Theorems 3.1 and 3.3).
Remark 2.3 Let us consider a complete metric space , an IIFS and the function given by , for all , where denotes the family of nonempty bounded closed subsets of X.
The following result is used in the proof of Theorem 3.3.
Proposition 2.4 Letbe an IIFS, whereis a complete metric space, letbe an arbitrary function, and let us consider the set. Thenis dense in.
for all .
Theorem 3.1 Letbe an IIFS, whereis a complete metric space, be its attractor andbe a family of nonempty subsets of I such that.
whereis the attractor of the sub-iterated function systemof.
Corollary 3.2 Letbe an IIFS, whereis a complete metric space, andbe its attractor.
whereis the attractor of the sub-iterated function systemof.
The following example shows that the condition ‘for every , where , there exists such that ’ is not a necessary condition for the equality .
for each .
which is equivalent to , is valid.
but does not have the property that for every there exists such that .
We will present now an example for which the condition ‘for every , where , there exists such that ’ is a necessary and sufficient condition for the equality .
(see Remark 3.2, (i) from ) and is a family of nonempty subsets of I such that .
We claim that if and only if for every , where , there exists such that .
Theorem 3.3 Given an infinite cardinal number, letbe an IIFS such that its attractoris of type, whereis a complete metric space.
This contradicts the definition of β.
In this paper we presented some connections between the attractors of an IIFS and the attractors of the sub-IFSs of . More precisely, we provided a sufficient condition on a family of nonempty subsets of I, where is an IIFS, in order to have the equality , where A means the attractor of and means the attractor of the sub-iterated function system of . Moreover, we proved that given an arbitrary infinite cardinal number , if the attractor of an IIFS is of type , where is a complete metric space, then there exists , a sub-iterated function system of , having the property that , such that the attractors of and coincide. Two examples illustrating our results are presented. Let us note that the proof of Theorem 3.3 is based on Proposition 2.4 (which used Theorem 4.1 from ) and Zorn’s lemma. Since we think that there exists a proof which does not use Zorn’s lemma, in a future work we plan to present such a proof based only on Theorem 4.1 from .
The authors want to thank the referees whose generous and valuable remarks and comments brought improvements to the paper and enhanced clarity.
- Hutchinson JE: Fractals and self similarity. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 1981, 30: 713–747. 10.1512/iumj.1981.30.30055MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Barnsley MF: Fractals Everywhere. Academic Press, Boston; 1993.Google Scholar
- Gwóźdź-Łukowska G, Jachymski J: The Hutchinson-Barnsley theory for infinite iterated function systems. Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 2005, 72: 441–454. 10.1017/S0004972700035267View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Loziński A, Życzkowski K, Słomczyński W: Quantum iterated function systems. Phys. Rev. E 2003., 68(4): Article ID 046110Google Scholar
- Käenmäki A: On natural invariant measures on generalised iterated function systems. Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn., Math. 2004, 29: 419–458.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Leśniak K: Infinite iterated function systems: a multivalued approach. Bull. Pol. Acad. Sci., Math. 2004, 52: 1–8. 10.4064/ba52-1-1MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mihail A, Miculescu R: Applications of fixed point theorems in the theory of generalized IFS. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2008., 2008: Article ID 312876Google Scholar
- Mihail A, Miculescu R: Generalized IFSs on noncompact spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2010., 2010: Article ID 584215Google Scholar
- Mihail A: Recurrent iterated function systems. Rev. Roum. Math. Pures Appl. 2008, 53(1):43–53.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Mihail A: The shift space of a recurrent iterated function system. Rev. Roum. Math. Pures Appl. 2008, 53(4):339–355.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Mihail A: The shift space for generalized iterated function systems. An. Univ. Bucur. 2008, 58(2):139–162.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Mihail A, Miculescu R: A generalization of the Hutchinson measure. Mediterr. J. Math. 2009, 6(2):203–213. 10.1007/s00009-009-0005-8MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mihail A: The Hutchinson measure for generalized iterated function systems. Rev. Roum. Math. Pures Appl. 2009, 54(4):297–316.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Miculescu R, Mihail A:Lipscomb’s space is the attractor of an infinite IFS containing affine transformations of . Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 2008, 136: 587–592.MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mihail A, Miculescu R: The shift space for an infinite iterated function system. Math. Rep., Bucur. 2009, 11(61)(1):21–32.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Demir B, Dzhafarov V, Koçak S, Üreyen M: The circle as an attractor of an iterated function system on the plane. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2007, 332: 735–740. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2006.10.067MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Yamaguti M, Hata M, Kigami J Translations of the Mathematical Monographs 167. In Mathematics of Fractals. Am. Math. Soc., Providence; 1997.Google Scholar
- Arenas FG, Sancez Granero MA: Every graph is a self-similar set. Divulg. Mat. 2000, 8: 51–56.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Sanders MJ: An n -cell in that is not the attractor of any IFS on. Missouri J. Math. Sci. 2009, 21: 13–20.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Secelean NA: Any compact subset of a metric space is the attractor of a CIFS. Bull. Math. Soc. Sci. Math. Roum., Nouv. Sér 2001, 44(92): 237–241.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Kwiecinski M: A locally connected continuum which is not an IFS attractor. Bull. Pol. Acad. Sci., Math. 1999, 47: 128–132.Google Scholar
- Crovisier S, Rams M: IFS attractors and Cantor sets. Topol. Appl. 2006, 153: 1849–1859. 10.1016/j.topol.2005.06.010MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Stacho LL, Szabo LI: A note on invariants of iterated function systems. Acta Math. Hung. 2008, 119: 159–164. 10.1007/s10474-007-7013-6MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.