 Research
 Open access
 Published:
Continuumwise expansive homoclinic classes for robust dynamical systems
Advances in Difference Equations volumeÂ 2019, ArticleÂ number:Â 333 (2019)
Abstract
In the study, we consider continuumwise expansiveness for the homoclinic class of a kind of \(C^{1}\)robustly expansive dynamical system. First, we show that if the homoclinic class \(H(p, f)\), which contains a hyperbolic periodic point p, is Rrobustly continuumwise expansive, then it is hyperbolic. For a vector field, if the homoclinic class \(H(\gamma , X)\) does not include singularities and is Rrobustly continuumwise expansive, then it is hyperbolic.
1 Introduction
1.1 Continuumwise expansiveness for diffeomorphisms
Let M be a closed connected smooth Riemannian manifold. A point \(x\in M\) is called a periodic point if there is \(\pi (x)>0\) such that \(f^{\pi (x)}(x)=x\), where \(\pi (x)\) is the period of x. A periodic point p with period \(\pi (p)>0\) is considered hyperbolic if the derivative \(D_{p}f^{\pi (p)}\) has no eigenvalues with norm one. Let \(\operatorname{Per}(f)=\{x\in M: x\mbox{ is a periodic point of }f\}\), and let \(p\in \operatorname{Per}(f)\) be hyperbolic. Subsequently, there are \(C^{r}\) (\(r\geq 1\)) sets \(W^{s}(p)\) and \(W^{u}(p)\), which are called the stable manifold of p and the unstable manifold of p, respectively, such that \(f^{i\pi (p)}(x)\to p\) (as \(i\to \infty \)) for \(x\in W^{s}(p)\) and \(f^{i\pi (p)}(x)\to p\) (as \(i\to \infty \)) for \(x\in W^{u}(p)\).
Let \(p, q\in \operatorname{Per}(f)\) be hyperbolic. We say that p and q are homoclinically related if \(W^{s}(p)\pitchfork W^{u}(q) \neq\emptyset \) and \(W^{u}(p)\pitchfork W^{s}(q)\neq\emptyset \), and in such a case, we write \(p\sim q\). Let us denote \(H(p, f)=\overline{ \{q\in \operatorname{Per}(f): p\sim q\}}\). It is known that \(H(p, f)\) is a closed, finvariant, and transitive set. Here a closed finvariant set Î› is transitive if there is \(x\in \varLambda \) such that \(\omega (x)=\varLambda \), where \(\omega (x)\) is the omega limit set of x.
According to the result of Samle [27], if a diffeomorphism f satisfies Axiom A, that is, the nonwandering set \(\varOmega (f)=\overline{ \operatorname{Per}(f)}\) is hyperbolic, then this set can be written as the finite disjoint union of closed finvariant sets that are homoclinic classes of a periodic point inside them. An interesting problem is the hyperbolicity of homoclinic classes under various \(C^{1}\)perturbations of expansiveness (see [13, 22, 23, 25, 26, 29]).
Let d be the distance on M induced from a Riemannian metric \(\\cdot \\) on the tangent bundle TM. A closed finvariant set Î› (âŠ‚M) is expansive for f if there is \(e>0\) such that, for any distinct points \(x, y\in \varLambda \), there is \(n\in \mathbb{Z}\) such that \(d(f^{n}(x), f^{n}(y))\geq e\).
Let \(p\in \operatorname{Per}(f)\) be hyperbolic. Then there exist a \(C^{1}\)neighborhood \(\mathcal{U}(f)\) of f and a neighborhood U of p such that, for any \(g\in \mathcal{U}(f)\), \(p_{g}= \bigcap_{n\in \mathbb{Z}}g^{n}(U)\) is a unique hyperbolic periodic point of g, where \(p_{g}\) is said to be the continuation of p.
We say that the homoclinic class \(H(p, f)\) is \(C^{1}\)robustly expansive if there is a \(C^{1}\)neighborhood \(\mathcal{U}(f)\) of f such that, for any \(g\in \mathcal{U}(f)\), \(H(p_{g}, g)\) is expansive, where \(p_{g}\) is the continuation of p. Note that, in the definition, the expansive constant depends on \(g\in \mathcal{U}(f)\).
A closed finvariant set \(\varLambda \subset M\) is hyperbolic if the tangent bundle \(T_{\varLambda }M\) has a Dfinvariant splitting \(E^{s}\oplus E^{u}\) and there exist constants \(C>0\) and \(0<\lambda <1\) such that
for all \(x\in \varLambda \) and \(n\geq 0\).
Sambarino and Vieitez [25] proved that if the homoclinic class \(H(p, f)\) is \(C^{1}\)robustly expansive and germ expansive, then it is hyperbolic. Here \(H(p, f)\) is germ expansive for f indicating that if there is \(e>0\) such that, for any \(x\in H(p,f)\), \(y\in M\) if \(d(f^{i}(x), f^{i}(y))< e\) for all \(i\in \mathbb{Z}\), then \(x=y\). We say that the homoclinic class \(H(p, f)\) is \(C^{1}\)stably expansive if there exist a \(C^{1}\)neighborhood \(\mathcal{U}(f)\) of f and a neighborhood U of \(H(p, f)\) such that, for any \(g\in \mathcal{U}(f)\), \(\varLambda _{g}=\bigcap_{n\in \mathbb{Z}}g ^{n}(U)\) is expansive, where \(\varLambda _{g}\) is the continuation of Î›. Lee and Lee [13] proved that if the homoclinic class \(H(p, f)\) is \(C^{1}\)stably expansive, then it is hyperbolic.
For obtaining the results, we use a general notion of expansiveness (continuumwise expansive) and consider the hyperbolicity of the homoclinic class. Continuumwise expansiveness is a general notion of expansiveness (see [11, Example 3.5]). A set A is nondegenerate if it is not reduced to a point. We say that \(A\subset M\) is a nontrivial continuum if it is a compact connected nondegenerate subset of M.
Definition 1.1
Let \(f:M\to M\) be a diffeomorphism. A closed finvariant set Î› (âŠ‚M) is said to be a continuumwise expansive subset of f if there is a constant \(e>0\) such that, for any nondegenerate subcontinuum \(A\subset \varLambda \), there is \(n\in \mathbb{Z}\) such that
where \(\operatorname{diam} A = \sup \{d(x,y) : x, y \in A \}\) for any subset \(A\subset \varLambda \).
Thus the constant e is called a continuumwise expansive constant for f. In the definition a diffeomorphism f is continuumwise expansive if \(\varLambda =M\).
Das, Lee, and Lee [6] proved that if the homoclinic class \(H(p, f)\) is \(C^{1}\)robustly continuumwise expansive and satisfies the chain condition, then \(H(p, f)\) is hyperbolic. However, it is still an open question if the chain condition is omitted. Subsequently, we consider that the homoclinic class \(H(p, f)\) is a type of \(C^{1}\)robustly continuumwise expansiveness. Let \(\operatorname{Diff}(M)\) be the space of diffeomorphisms of M endowed with the \(C^{1}\) topology. We call a subset \(\mathcal{G}\subset \operatorname{Diff}(M)\) a residual subset if it contains a countable intersection of open and dense subsets of \(\operatorname{Diff}(M)\). A dynamic property is called a \(C^{1}\)generic property if it holds in a residual subset of \(\operatorname{Diff}(M)\). Sambarino and Vieitez [26] proved that if the homoclinic class \(H(p, f)\) is generically \(C^{1}\)robustly expansive, then it is hyperbolic. Lee [17] proved that if a locally maximal homoclinic class \(H(p, f)\) is homogeneous, then it is hyperbolic. Lee [16] proved that if a homoclinic class \(H(p, f)\) is continuumwise expansive, then it is hyperbolic. Using the \(C^{1}\)generic condition, we define a type of \(C^{1}\)robust expansiveness, which was introduced by Li [19].
Definition 1.2
Let p be a hyperbolic periodic point of f. We say that the homoclinic class \(H(p, f)\) is Rrobustly \(\mathfrak{P}\) if there exist a \(C^{1}\)neighborhood \(\mathcal{U}(f)\) of f and a residual set \(\mathcal{G}\subset \mathcal{U}(f)\) such that, for any \(g\in \mathcal{G}\), \(H(p_{g}, g)\) is \(\mathfrak{P}\), where \(p_{g}\) is the continuation of p.
In the definition, \(\mathfrak{P}\) is replaced by various types of expansiveness. Accordingly, we introduce a general type of expansiveness proposed by Morales and Sirvent [20]. For a Borel probability measure Î¼ on M, we consider that f is Î¼expansive if there is \(e>0\) such that \(\mu (\varGamma _{e}(x))=0\) for all \(x\in M\), where \(\varGamma _{e}(x)=\{y\in M: d(f^{i}(x), f^{i}(y))\leq e\mbox{ for all } i\in \mathbb{Z}\}\). We say that f is measure expansive if it is Î¼expansive for every nonatomic Borel probability measure Î¼ on M. According to Artigue and Carrasco [2], we know the following:
Lee [17] proved that if the homoclinic class \(H(p, f)\) is Rrobustly measure expansive, then it is hyperbolic. We can obtain the results for the Rrobustly expansive homoclinic classes. According to these results, the following is a general result of [17].
Theorem A
Let p be a hyperbolic periodic point of f. If the homoclinic class \(H(p, f)\) is Rrobustly continuumwise expansive, then \(H(p, f)\) is hyperbolic.
1.2 Continuumwise expansiveness for vector fields
Let M be defined as before, and let \(\mathfrak{X}(M)\) denote the set of \(C^{1}\)vector fields on M endowed with the \(C^{1}\)topology. Thus every \(X\in \mathfrak{X}(M)\) generates a \(C^{1}\)flow \(X_{t} : M \times \mathbb{R}\to M\), that is, a \(C^{1}\)map such that \(X_{t}:M \to M\) is a diffeomorphism satisfying (i) \(X_{0}(x)=x\), (ii) \(X_{t+s}(x)=X_{t}(X_{s}(x))\) for all \(t,s\in \mathbb{R}\) and \(x\in M\),, and (iii) it is generated by the vector field X if
for all \(x\in M\) and \(t\in \mathbb{R}\). A point \(\sigma \in M\) is singular if \(X_{t}(\sigma )=\sigma \) for all \(t\in \mathbb{R}\). We denote by \(\operatorname{Sing}(X)\) the set of all singular points of X. For any \(x\in M\), if x is not a singular point, then it is a regular point of X. Let \(R_{X}\) be the set of all regular points of X. A periodic orbit of X is an orbit \(\gamma = \operatorname{Orb}(p)\) such that \(X_{T}(p)=p\) for some minimal \(T>0\). We denote by \(\operatorname{Per}(X)\) the set of all periodic orbits of X. A point \(x\in M\) is a critical element if it is either a singular point or a periodic point of X. Let \(\operatorname{Crit}(X)= \operatorname{Sing}(X)\cup \operatorname{Per}(X)\) be the set of all critical elements of X. Let \(X_{t}\) be the flow of \(X\in \mathfrak{X}(M)\). A closed \(X_{t}\)invariant set Î› is considered hyperbolic for \(X_{t}\) if there are constants \(C>0\) and \(\lambda >0\) and a splitting \(T_{x}M=E^{s}_{x}\oplus \langle X(x) \rangle \oplus E^{u}_{x}\) such that the tangent flow \(DX_{t}: TM \to TM\) leaves the invariant continuous splitting and
for \(t>0\) and \(x\in \varLambda \), where \(\langle X(x)\rangle \) is the subspace generated by \(X(x)\).
An increasing homeomorphism \(h:\mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}\) with \(h(0)=0\) is called a reparameterization. Let \(\operatorname{Hom}(\mathbb{R})\) denote the set of all homeomorphisms of \(\mathbb{R}\). Let \(\operatorname{Rep}(\mathbb{R})=\{h\in \operatorname{Hom}( \mathbb{R}): h\mbox{ is a reparameterization} \}\). Bowen and Walters [4] introduced and studied expansiveness for vector fields. They showed that if a vector field X is expansive, then every singular point is isolated.
A closed invariant set \(\varLambda \subset M\) is expansive of \(X\in \mathfrak{X}(M)\) if, for every \(\epsilon >0\), there exist \(\delta >0\) and \(h\in \operatorname{Hom}(\mathbb{R})\) such that, for any \(x, y\in \varLambda \), if \(d(X_{t}(x), X_{h(t)}(y))\leq \delta \) for all \(t\in \mathbb{R}\), then \(y\in X_{(\epsilon , \epsilon )}(x)\). If \(\varLambda =M\), then X is called expansive.
Regarding the notion of expansiveness, Arbieto, Codeiro, and Pacifico [1] introduced and studied a general notion of expansiveness for vector fields. They proved that if a vector field X is continuumwise expansive, then every singular point is isolated. Here we explain continuumwise expansiveness for vector fields in further detail. For a subset A of M, \(C^{0}(A, \mathbb{R})\) denotes the set of real continuous maps defined on A. We define
and if \(t\in \mathbb{R}\) and \(h\in \mathcal{H}(A)\), then
For convenience, we set \(h(x)(t)=h_{x}(t)\) for all \(x\in A\) and \(t\in \mathbb{R}\). Let Î› be a closed set of M. A set A is called nondegenerate if it is not reduced to a point. We say that \(A\subset M\) is a continuum if it is a compact connected nondegenerate subset A of M.
Definition 1.3
Let \(X\in \mathfrak{X}(M)\). We say that X is continuumwise expansive if, for any \(\epsilon >0\), there is \(\delta >0\) such that if \(A\subset M\) is a continuum and \(h\in \mathcal{H}(A)\) satisfies
then \(A\subset X_{(\epsilon , \epsilon )}(x)\) for some \(x\in A\).
Let \(\gamma \in \operatorname{Per}(X)\) be hyperbolic. We consider that the dimension of the stable manifold \(W^{s}(\gamma )\) of Î³ is the index of Î³, denoted by \(\operatorname{index}(\gamma )\). The homoclinic class of X associated with a hyperbolic closed orbit Î³, denoted by \(H(\gamma , X)\), is defined as the closure of the transverse intersection of the stable and unstable manifolds of Î³, that is,
where \(W^{s}(\gamma )\) is the stable manifold of Î³, and \(W^{u}(\gamma )\) is the unstable manifold of Î³. It is evident that it is closed, \(X_{t}\)invariant, and transitive. Here, a closed invariant set Î› is transitive if there is \(x\in \varLambda \) such that \(\omega (x)=\varLambda \).
For two hyperbolic closed orbits Î³ and Î· of X, we say that Î³ and Î· are homoclinically related, denoted by \({\gamma }\sim {\eta }\), if
If Î³ and Î· are homoclinically related, then \(\operatorname{index}(\eta )=\operatorname{index}(\gamma )\). Let \(\gamma \in \operatorname{Per}(X)\) be hyperbolic. Thus there exist a \(C^{1}\)neighborhood \(\mathcal{U}(X)\) of X and a neighborhood U of Î³ such that, for any \(Y\in \mathcal{U}(X)\), there is a unique hyperbolic periodic orbit \(\gamma _{Y}=\bigcap_{t\in \mathbb{R}}Y_{t}(U)\). The hyperbolic periodic orbit \(\gamma _{Y}\) is called the continuation of Î³ with respect to Y.
We say that the homoclinic class \(H(\gamma , X)\) is \(C^{1}\)robustly expansive if there is a \(C^{1}\)neighborhood \(\mathcal{U}(X)\) of X such that, for any \(Y\in \mathcal{U}(X)\), \(H(\gamma _{Y}, Y)\) is expansive, where \(\gamma _{Y}\) is the continuation of Î³.
A subset \(\mathcal{G}\subset \mathfrak{X}^{1}(M)\) is called a residual subset if it contains a countable intersection of the open and dense subsets of \(\mathfrak{X}^{1}(M)\). A dynamic property is called a \(C^{1}\)generic property if it holds in a residual subset of \(\mathfrak{X}(M)\).
Lee and Park [18] proved that, for a \(C^{1}\)generic X, if an isolated homoclinic class \(H(\gamma , X)\) is expansive, then it is hyperbolic. Here, a closed \(X_{t}\)invariant set Î› is isolated if there is a neighborhood U of Î› such that \(\varLambda =\bigcap_{t\in \mathbb{R}}X_{t}(U)\). We consider that a closed invariant set Î› is germ expansive if, for any \(\epsilon >0\), there is \(\delta >0\) such that, for any \(x\in \varLambda \) and \(y\in M\), there is \(h\in \operatorname{Hom}(\mathbb{R})\) such that if \(d(X_{t}(x), X_{h(t)}(y))<\delta \) for all \(t\in \mathbb{R}\), then \(y\in X_{(\epsilon , \epsilon )}(x)\). It is evident that, if Î› is expansive, then it is germ expansive. However, the converse is not true. Note that if Î› is isolated germ expansive, then Î› is expansive.
Gang [10] proved that if the homoclinic class \(H(\gamma , X)\) is \(C^{1}\)robustly expansive and \(H(\gamma , X)\)germ expansive, then it is hyperbolic.
A vector field X has the shadowing property on Î› if, for any \(\epsilon >0\), there exists \(\delta >0\) such that, for any \((\delta , 1)\)pseudo orbit \(\xi =\{(x_{i}, t_{i}): t_{i}\geq 1, i \in \mathbb{Z}\}\subset \varLambda \), there exist \(y\in M\) and \(h\in \operatorname{Hom}(\mathbb{R})\) satisfying
for any \(s_{i}\leq t< s_{i+1}\), where \(s_{i}\) are defined as \(s_{0}=0\), \(s_{n}=\sum_{i=0}^{n1}t_{i}\), and \(s_{n}=\sum_{i=n}^{1}t _{i}\), \(n=1, 2, \ldots \)â€‰.
Lee, Lee, and Lee [14] proved that if the homoclinic class \(H(\gamma , X)\) is \(C^{1}\)robustly expansive and shadowable, then it is hyperbolic. According to the results, we consider the hyperbolicity of the homoclinic class \(H(\gamma , X)\) under a type of \(C^{1}\)robustly continuumwise expansiveness.
Definition 1.4
Let \(X\in \mathfrak{X}(M)\). We say that the homoclinic class \(H(\gamma , X)\) is Rrobustly continuumwise expansive if there exist a \(C^{1}\)neighborhood \(\mathcal{U}(X)\) of X and a residual set \(\mathcal{G}\subset \mathcal{U}(X)\) such that, for any \(Y\in \mathcal{G}\), \(H(\gamma _{Y}, Y)\) is continuumwise expansive, where \(\gamma _{Y}\) is the continuation of Î³.
Using this definition, we have the following theorem.
Theorem B
Let \(X\in \mathfrak{X}(M)\) and \(H_{X}( \gamma )\cap \operatorname{Sing}(X)=\emptyset \). If the homoclinic class \(H(\gamma , X)\) is Rrobustly continuumwise expansive, then it is hyperbolic for X.
2 Proof of Theorem A
Let M be defined as before, and let \(f:M\to M\) be a diffeomorphism. For any \(\delta >0\), a sequence \(\{x_{i}\}_{i\in \mathbb{Z}}\) is called a Î´pseudoorbit of f if \(d(f(x_{i}), x_{i+1})< \delta \) for all \(i\in \mathbb{Z}\). For a given \(x, y\in M\), we write \(x\rightsquigarrow y\) if for any \(\delta >0\), there is a finite Î´pseudoorbit \(\{x_{i}\}_{i=0}^{n}\) (\(n\geq 1\)) of f such that \(x_{0}=x\) and \(x_{n}=y\). We write \(x\leftrightsquigarrow y\) if \(x\rightsquigarrow y\) and \(y\rightsquigarrow x\). The set of points \(\{x\in M:x\leftrightsquigarrow x\}\) is called the chain recurrent set of f and is denoted by \(\mathcal{CR}(f)\). The chain recurrence class of f is the set of equivalent classes â† on \(\mathcal{CR}(f)\). Let p be a hyperbolic periodic point of f. Denote \(C(p, f)=\{x\in M : x\rightsquigarrow p \text{ and } p \rightsquigarrow x\}\), which is a closed invariant set.
It is known that \(C(p, f)\) is a closed finvariant set. Moreover, \(H(p, f)\subset C(p, f)\). A closed small arc \(\mathcal{I}\) of f is called a simply periodic curve if, for any \(\epsilon >0\),

(a)
there is \(k>0\) such that \(f^{k}(\mathcal{I})=\mathcal{I}\),

(b)
\(0< l(f^{i}(\mathcal{I}))<\epsilon \) for all \(0\leq i< k\),

(c)
the endpoints of \(\mathcal{I}\) are hyperbolic, and

(d)
\(\mathcal{I}\) is normally hyperbolic,
where \(l(A)\) denotes the length of A (see [29]). It is evident that \(\mathcal{I}\) is not a point set.
Lemma 2.1
There is a residual set \(\mathcal{G}_{1}\subset \operatorname{Diff}(M)\) such that, for any \(f\in \mathcal{G}_{1}\), we have the following:

(a)
f is Kupkaâ€“Smale, that is, every periodic point of f is hyperbolic, and the stable and unstable manifolds are transversal intersections (see [24]).

(b)
\(H(p, f)=C(p, f)\) (see [3]).

(c)
if, for any \(C^{1}\)neighborhood \(\mathcal{U}(f)\) of f, there is \(g\in \mathcal{U}(f)\) such that g has a simply periodic curve \(\mathcal{I}\), then f has a simply periodic curve \(\mathcal{J}\) (see [29]).
The following lemma is important for a \(C^{1}\) perturbation property, which is called Franksâ€™ lemma.
Lemma 2.2
([8])
Let \(\mathcal{U}(f)\) be a \(C^{1}\)neighborhood of f. Then there exist \(\epsilon >0\) and a \(C^{1}\)neighborhood \(\mathcal{U}_{0}(f)\subset \mathcal{U}(f)\) of f such that, for any \(g\in \mathcal{U}_{0}(f)\), a set \(\{x_{1}, x_{2}, \ldots , x_{N}\}\), a neighborhood U of \(\{x_{1}, x_{2}, \ldots , x_{N}\}\), and a linear map \(L_{i} : T_{x_{i}}M\rightarrow T_{g(x_{i})}M\) satisfying \(\L_{i}D_{x_{i}}g\\leq \epsilon \) for all \(1\leq i\leq N\), there is \(\widehat{g}\in \mathcal{U}(f)\) such that \(\widehat{g}(x)=g(x)\) if \(x\in \{x_{1}, x_{2}, \ldots , x_{N}\}\cup (M\setminus U)\) and \(D_{x_{i}}\widehat{g}=L_{i}\) for all \(1\leq i\leq N\).
For any hyperbolic \(p\in \operatorname{Per}(f)\), we say that p is weakly hyperbolic if, for any \(\eta >0\), there is an eigenvalue Î¼ of \(D_{p}f^{\pi (p)}\) such that
It is evident that if p is a weakly hyperbolic periodic point of f, then there is g \(C^{1}\)close to f such that \(p_{g}\) is not hyperbolic for g.
Lemma 2.3
Let \(p\in \operatorname{Per}(f)\) be hyperbolic. If \(q\in H(p, f) \cap \operatorname{Per}(f)\) with \(q\sim p\) is weakly hyperbolic, then there is g \(C^{1}\)close to f such that g has a simply periodic curve \(\mathcal{L}\subset C(p_{g}, g)\).
Proof
Suppose that \(q\in H(p, f)\cap \operatorname{Per}(f)\) with \(q\sim p\) is weakly hyperbolic. According to Lemma 2.2, there is g \(C^{1}\)close to f such that \(p_{g}\) is not hyperbolic. Thus \(D_{p_{g}}g^{\pi (p_{g})}\) has an eigenvalue Î¼ such that \(\mu =1\). For simplicity, we may assume that \(p_{g}\) is a fixed point of g. Let \(E_{p_{g}}\) be the vector space associated with the eigenvalue Î¼. For the proof, we consider the case of \(\mu \in \mathbb{R}\). Consider a nonzero vector v associated with Î¼. According to Lemma 2.2, there is \(g_{1}\) \(C^{1}\)close to g such that

(i)
\(g_{1}(p_{g})=g(p_{g})=p_{g}\), and

(ii)
\(g_{1}(\operatorname{exp}_{p_{g}}(v))=\operatorname{exp}_{p_{g}}\circ D_{p _{g}}g\circ \operatorname{exp}_{p_{g}}^{1}(\operatorname{exp}_{p}(v))= \operatorname{exp}_{p_{g}}(v)\).
For any small \(\beta >0\), we set \(E_{p_{g_{1}}}(\beta )=\{t\cdot v:  \beta /2\leq t\leq \beta /2\}\). Thus we have a closed small curve \(\mathcal{J}\) such that

(i)
\(\mathcal{J}=\operatorname{exp}_{p_{g_{1}}}(E_{p_{g_{1}}}(\beta ))\) with \(\operatorname{diam}\mathcal{J}=\beta \),

(ii)
\(g_{1}^{\pi (p_{g_{1}})}({\mathcal{J}})=\mathcal{J}\) is the identity map, and

(iii)
\(\mathcal{J}\) is normally hyperbolic.
It is evident that the identity map is contained in \(C(p_{g_{1}}, g _{1})\). As \(g_{1}^{\pi (p_{g_{1}})}({\mathcal{J}})=\mathcal{J}\) is the identity map, by Lemma 2.2 again, there is h \(C^{1}\)close to g such that h has a closed small curve \(\mathcal{L}\subset C(p _{h}, h)\). Thus the curve \(\mathcal{L}\) is such that \(h^{\pi (p_{h})}( {\mathcal{L}})=\mathcal{L}\) is the identity map, \(\operatorname{diam} \mathcal{L}=\beta \), \(\mathcal{L}\) is normally hyperbolic, and the endpoints of \(\mathcal{L}\) are hyperbolic. The closed small curve \(\mathcal{L}\) is a simply periodic curve of h, which is contained in \(C(p_{h}, h)\).â€ƒâ–¡
Note that, by Lemma 2.3, there is g \(C^{1}\)close to f such that g has a simply periodic curve \(\mathcal{L}\subset C(p_{g}, g)\). However, the simply periodic curve \(\mathcal{L}\) is not contained in \(H(p_{g}, g)\) (see [25]). Let \(\mathcal{WH}\) denote the set of all weakly hyperbolic periodic points of f.
Lemma 2.4
If the homoclinic class \(H(p, f)\) is Rrobustly continuumwise expansive, then \(H(p, f)\cap \mathcal{WH}=\emptyset \).
Proof
Suppose that \(H(p, f)\cap \mathcal{WH}\neq\emptyset \). Thus there is \(q\in H(p, f)\cap \operatorname{Per}(f)\) with \(q\sim p\) such that q is weakly hyperbolic. As \(H(p, f)\) is Rrobustly continuumwise expansive and \(q\in H(p, f)\cap \operatorname{Per}(f)\) with \(q\sim p\) such that q is weakly hyperbolic, there is \(g\in \mathcal{G}_{1}\cap \mathcal{U}(f)\) such that \(H(p_{g}, g)=C(p _{g}, g)\), and according to Lemma 2.3, there is \(\beta >0\) such that g has a simply periodic curve \(\mathcal{J}\subset C(p_{g}, g)\) with \(\operatorname{diam}\mathcal{J}=\beta /4\). As \(C(p_{g}, g)\) is continuumwise expansive, \(\mathcal{J}\) is continuumwise expansive. According to [12, Proposition 2.6], g is continuumwise expansive if and only if \(g^{n}\) is continuumwise expansive for any \(n\in \mathbb{Z}\setminus \{0\}\). Consider \(e=\beta \). By the definition of a simply periodic curve there is \(k>0\) such that
for all \(i\in \mathbb{Z}\). By the definition of continuumwise expansivity, \(\mathcal{J}\) should be a point. As \(\mathcal{J}\) is a simply periodic curve, this is a contradiction.â€ƒâ–¡
The following was proven by Wang [28]. He considered the Lyapunov exponents of the periodic point in the homoclinic class \(H(p, f)\).
Lemma 2.5
There is a residual set \(\mathcal{G}_{2}\subset \operatorname{Diff}(M)\) such that, for any \(f\in \mathcal{G}_{2}\), if \(H(p, f)\) is not hyperbolic, then there is \(q\in H(p, f)\cap \operatorname{Per}(f)\) with \(q\sim p\) such that q is a weakly hyperbolic periodic point.
Proof of Theorem A
Let \(\mathcal{U}(f)\) be a \(C^{1}\)neighborhood of f, and let \(\mathcal{G}=\mathcal{G}_{1} \cap \mathcal{G}_{2}\). As \(H(p, f)\) is Rrobustly continuumwise expansive, \(H(p_{g}, g)\) is continuumwise expansive for any \(g\in \mathcal{G}\cap \mathcal{U}(f)\). Assume that there is \(g\in \mathcal{G}\cap \mathcal{U}(f)\) such that \(H(p_{g}, g)\) is not hyperbolic. As \(g\in \mathcal{G}\cap \mathcal{U}(f)\), there is \(q\in H(p_{g}, g)\cap \operatorname{Per}(g)=C(p_{g}, g)\cap \operatorname{Per}(g)\) with \(q\sim p_{g}\) such that q is a weakly hyperbolic point. According to Lemma 2.4, this is a contradiction. Thus, if \(H(p, f)\) is Rrobustly continuumwise expansive, then, for any \(g\in \mathcal{G}\cap \mathcal{U}(f)\), \(H(p_{g}, g)\) is hyperbolic, and hence \(H(p, f)\) is hyperbolic.â€ƒâ–¡
3 Proof of Theorem B
Let M be defined as before, and let \(X\in \mathfrak{X}(M)\). We denote by \(T_{p}M(\delta )\) the ball \(\{v\in T_{p}M :\v\\leq \delta \}\). For every \(x\in R_{X}\), let \(N_{x}=\langle X(x)\rangle ^{\bot }\subset T _{x}M\), and let \(N_{x}(\delta )\) be the Î´ ball in \(N_{x}\). We set \(N_{x,r}=N_{x}\cap T_{x}M(r)\) (\(r>0\)) and \(\mathcal{N}_{x, r_{0}}= \operatorname{exp}(N_{x}(r_{0}))\) for \(x\in M\).
Let \(\operatorname{Sing}(X)=\emptyset \), and let \(N=\bigcup_{x\in R _{X}}N_{x}\). We define the linear PoincarÃ© flow
where \(\pi _{x}:T_{x}M\to N_{x}\) (âŠ‚N) is the natural projection along the direction of \(X(x)\), and \(D_{x}X_{t}\) is the derivative map of \(X_{t}\). The following is an important result to prove hyperbolicity.
Remark 3.1
([7])
Let \(\varLambda \subset M\) be a compact invariant set of \(X_{t}\). Then Î› is a hyperbolic set of \(X_{t}\) if and only if the linear PoincarÃ© flow restriction on Î› has a hyperbolic splitting \(N_{\varLambda }=N^{s}\oplus N^{u}\).
Let \(X\in \mathfrak{X}(M)\), and suppose \(p\in \gamma \in \operatorname{Per}(X)\) (\(X_{T}(p)=p\)), where \(T>0\) is the prime period. If \(f:\mathcal{N}_{p, r_{0}}\to \mathcal{N}_{p}\) is the PoincarÃ© map (\(r_{0}>0\)), then \(f(p)=p\). Accordingly, Î³ is hyperbolic if and only if p is a hyperbolic fixed point of f. The following is a vector field version of Franksâ€™ lemma.
Lemma 3.2
([21])
Let \(X\in \mathfrak{X}(M)\), \(p\in \gamma \in \operatorname{Per}(X)\) (\(X_{T}(p)=p\), \(T>0\)), and let \(f:\mathcal{N} _{p, r_{0}}\to \mathcal{N}_{p}\) be the PoincarÃ© map for some \(r_{0}>0\). Let \(\mathcal{U}(X)\subset \mathfrak{X}(M)\) be a \(C^{1}\)neighborhood of X, and let \(0< r\leq r_{0}\) be given. Then there exist \(\delta _{0}>0\) and \(0<\epsilon _{0}<r/2\) such that, for an isomorphism \(L: N_{p}\to N_{p}\) with \(\LD_{p}f\<\delta _{0}\), there is \(Y\in \mathcal{U}(X)\) having the following properties:

(a)
\(Y(x)=X(x)\) if \(x\notin F_{p}(X_{t}, r, T/2)\),

(b)
\(p\in \gamma \in \operatorname{Per}(Y)\),

(c)
$$g(x)=\textstyle\begin{cases} \operatorname{exp}_{p}\circ L\circ \operatorname{exp}_{p}^{1}(x) & \textit{if } x\in B_{\epsilon _{0}/4}(p)\cap \mathcal{N}_{p, r}, \\ f(x) & \textit{if } x\notin B_{\epsilon _{0}}(p)\cap \mathcal{N}_{p, r}, \end{cases} $$
where \(B_{\epsilon }(x)\) is a closed ball in M center at \(x\in M\) with radius \(\epsilon >0\), \(F_{p}(X_{t}, r, T/2)=\{X_{t}(y): y\in \mathcal{N}_{x, r} \textit{ and } 0\leq t\leq T\}\), and \(g:\mathcal{N}_{p, r}\to \mathcal{N}_{p}\) is the PoincarÃ© map defined by \(Y_{t}\).
Remark 3.3
Let \(\varLambda \subset M\) be a closed \(X_{t}\)invariant set, and let Î› be continuumwise expansive for X. If \(\varLambda \cap \operatorname{Sing}(X)\neq\emptyset \), then \(\varLambda \cap \operatorname{Sing}(X)\) is totally disconnected.
Proof
Suppose that \(\varLambda \cap \operatorname{Sing}(X)\) is not totally disconnected. Thus there is a set \(\mathcal{C}\subset \varLambda \cap \operatorname{Sing}(X)\) such that \(\mathcal{C}\) is closed and connected, that is, a nontrivial continuum. Let \(\epsilon >0\) be given. We assume that \(\operatorname{diam}(\mathcal{C})<\epsilon \). As \(\mathcal{C}\subset \varLambda \cap \operatorname{Sing}(X)\), \(X_{t}( \mathcal{C})=\mathcal{C}\) for all \(t\in \mathbb{R}\). Thus we know that
for all \(t\in \mathbb{R}\). Thus \(\mathcal{C}\) should be an orbit. This is a contradiction as \(\mathcal{C}\) is a nontrivial continuum.â€ƒâ–¡
For any \(x,y \in M\), we write \(x \rightharpoonup y\) if, for any \(\delta >0\), there is a Î´pseudoorbit \(\{(x_{i}, t_{i}) : t _{i} \geq 1\}_{i=1}^{n}\subset M\) such that \(x_{0}=x\) and \(d(X_{t_{n1}}(x _{n1}), y)< \delta \). Similarly, \(y \rightharpoonup x\). We can observe that x, y satisfy both conditions, and thus \(x \rightleftharpoons y\). Thus we have an equivalence relation on the set \(\mathcal{R}(X)\). Every equivalence class of â‡Œ is called a recurrence class of X. Let Î³ be a hyperbolic periodic point of X. For some \(p\in \gamma \), let \(C(\gamma , X)=\{x\in M: x\rightleftharpoons p\mbox{ denote the chain recurrence class of }X\}\). According to the definition, we can observe that \(C(\gamma , X)\) is closed and \(X_{t}\)invariant and that \(H(\gamma , X) \subset C(\gamma , X)\). Bonatti and Crovisier [3] showed that, for a \(C^{1}\)vector field X, the chain recurrence class \(C(\gamma , X)\) is the homoclinic class \(H(\gamma , X)\), which is a version of the vector field of diffeomorphisms. Note that if a vector field X does not contain singularities, then the \(C^{1}\)generic results of diffeomorphisms can be used for \(C^{1}\) generic vector fields (see [5, 9]).
Lemma 3.4
There is a residual set \(\mathcal{R}_{1}\subset \mathfrak{X}(M)\) such that every \(X\in \mathcal{R}_{1}\) satisfies the following conditions:

(a)
X is Kupkaâ€“Smale, that is, every critical point is hyperbolic and its invariant manifolds intersect transversally (see [12]).

(b)
the chain recurrence class \(C(\gamma , X)=H(\gamma , X)\) for any \(\gamma \in \operatorname{Per}(X)\) (see [3]).
We say that a vector field X is a local star on \(H(\gamma , X)\) if there is a \(C^{1}\)neighborhood \(\mathcal{U}(X)\) of X such that, for any \(Y\in \mathcal{U}(X)\), every \(\eta \in H(\gamma _{Y}, Y)\cap \operatorname{Crit}(Y)\) is hyperbolic, where \(\gamma _{Y}\) is the continuation of Y. Let \(\mathcal{G}^{*}(H( \gamma , Y))\) denote the set of all vector fields satisfying the local star on \(H(\gamma , X)\).
Proposition 3.5
Let \(H_{X}(\gamma )\cap \operatorname{Sing}(X)=\emptyset \), and let \(\gamma \in \operatorname{Per}(X)\) be hyperbolic. If the homoclinic class \(H(\gamma , X)\) is Rrobustly continuumwise expansive, then \(X\in \mathcal{G}^{*}(H(\gamma , X))\).
Proof
Since \(H_{X}(\gamma )\cap \operatorname{Sing}(X)\), we prove that if \(H(\gamma , X)\) is Rrobustly continuumwise expansive, then every \(\eta \in H_{X}(\gamma )\cap \operatorname{Per}(X)\) is hyperbolic. Suppose by contradiction that there exist \(Y\in \mathcal{U}(X)\) and \(\gamma \in H(\gamma _{Y}, Y)\cap \operatorname{Per}(Y)\) such that Î³ is not hyperbolic. Consider \(p\in \gamma \) such that \(Y_{T}(p)=p (T>0)\), and let \(f:\mathcal{N} _{p, r}\to \mathcal{N}_{p}\) (for some \(r>0\)) be the PoincarÃ© map associated with Y. As Î³ is not hyperbolic, p is not hyperbolic. Thus we assume that there is an eigenvalue Î» of \(D_{p}f\) such that \(\lambda =1\). Let \(\delta _{0}>0\) and \(0<\epsilon _{0}<r/4\) be given by Lemma 3.2, and let \(L:N_{p}\to N_{p}\) be a linear isomorphism with \(\LD_{p}f\<\delta _{0}\) such that L=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& O\\ O& B\end{array}\right) with respect to some splitting \(N_{p}=G_{p}\oplus H_{p}(=E ^{s}_{p}\oplus E^{u}_{p})\), where \(A:G_{p}\to G_{p}\) has an eigenvalue Î» such that \(\operatorname{dim} G_{p}=1\) if \(\lambda \in \mathbb{R}\) or \(\operatorname{dim} G_{p}=2\) if \(\lambda \in \mathbb{C}\) and \(B:H_{p}\to H_{p}\) is hyperbolic. According to Lemmas 3.2 and 3.4, there exists \(Z\in \mathcal{R}_{1}\) \(C^{1}\)close to Y (\(Z\in \mathcal{U}(X)\)) such that

(a)
\(Z(x)=Y(x)\) if \(x\notin F_{p}(Y, r_{0}, T)\),

(b)
\(p\in \gamma \in \operatorname{Per}(Z)\), and

(c)
$$ g(x)=\textstyle\begin{cases} \operatorname{exp}_{p}\circ L\circ \operatorname{exp}_{p}^{1}(x) & \text{if } x\in B_{\epsilon _{0}/4}(p)\cap \mathcal{N}_{p, r_{0}}, \\ f(x) & \text{if } x\notin B_{\epsilon _{0}}(p)\cap \mathcal{N}_{p, r _{0}}. \end{cases} $$
Here \(g:\mathcal{N}_{p, r_{0}}\to \mathcal{N}_{p}\) is the PoincarÃ© map associated with Z. Consider a nonzero vector \(u\in G_{p}\) such that \(\u\\leq \epsilon _{0}/8\). Then we have
Case 1. \(\operatorname{dim} G_{p}=1\). We may assume that \(\lambda =1\) for simplicity (the other case is similar). We set an arc \(\mathcal{I}_{u}=\{su:0\leq s\leq 1\}\) and \(\operatorname{exp}_{p}( \mathcal{I}_{u})=\mathcal{J}_{p}\). Then we know that

(a)
\(\mathcal{J}_{p}\subset B_{\epsilon _{0}}(p)\cap \mathcal{N}_{p, r_{0}}\), and

(b)
\(g_{\mathcal{J}_{p}}:\mathcal{J}_{p}\to \mathcal{J}_{p}\) is the identity map.
Let \(\operatorname{diam}(\mathcal{J}_{p})=\epsilon _{0}/2\). As \(g_{ \mathcal{J}_{p}}:\mathcal{J}_{p}\to \mathcal{J}_{p}\) is the identity map, according to Lemma 3.4, \(\mathcal{J}_{p}\subset C( \gamma _{Z}, Z)\), and hence \(g_{\mathcal{J}_{p}}:\mathcal{J}_{p} \to \mathcal{J}_{p}\) is continuumwise expansive. However, it is evident that the identity map \(g_{\mathcal{J}_{p}}\) is not continuumwise expansive, a contradiction.
Case 2. \(\operatorname{dim} G_{p}=2\). According to Lemma 3.2, we can find \(Z\in \mathcal{R}_{1}\cap \mathcal{U}(X)\) such that \(D_{p}g\) is a rational rotation. Thus there is \(l\neq 0\) such that \(D_{p}g^{l}\) has an eigenvalue of 1. As in the proof of case 1, we can derive a contradiction.â€ƒâ–¡
We say that \(p\in \gamma \in \operatorname{Per}(X)\) is a weakly hyperbolic periodic point if, for any \(\delta >0\), there is an eigenvalue Î» of \(D_{p}f\) such that
where \(f:\mathcal{N}_{p, r}\to \mathcal{N}_{p}\) is the PoincarÃ© map associated with X. We introduce the concept of a vector field version of diffeomorphisms (see [29]). Let \(\operatorname{Sing}(X)= \emptyset \). For any \(\eta >0\), we consider that a \(C^{1}\)curve \(\mathcal{J}\) is Î·simply periodic for X if

(a)
\(\mathcal{J}\) is periodic with period T,

(b)
the length of \(X_{t}(\mathcal{J})\) is less than Î· for any \(0 \leq t \leq T\), and

(c)
\(\mathcal{J}\) is normally hyperbolic.
Lemma 3.6
For any \(X\in \mathcal{R}_{1}\), if \(p\in \eta \in H(\gamma , X)\cap \operatorname{Per}(X)\) with \(\eta \sim \gamma \) is a weakly hyperbolic periodic point, then, for any \(C^{1}\)neighborhood \(\mathcal{U}(X)\) of X, there is \(Y\in \mathcal{R}_{1}\cap \mathcal{U}(X)\) such that f has an Ïµsimply periodic curve \(\mathcal{J}\subset H( \gamma _{Y}, Y)\) for some \(\epsilon >0\), where \(f:\mathcal{N}_{p, r} \to \mathcal{N}_{p}\) is the PoincarÃ© map defined by Y.
Proof
Let \(X\in \mathcal{R}_{1}\), and let \(\mathcal{U}(X)\) be a \(C^{1}\)neighborhood of X. Suppose that \(p\in \eta \in H(\gamma , X)\cap \operatorname{Per}(X)\) with \(\eta \sim \gamma \) is a weakly hyperbolic periodic point. As \(\eta \sim \gamma \), we consider two points \(x\in W^{s}(\eta )\pitchfork W^{u}(\gamma )\) and \(y\in W^{u}( \eta )\pitchfork W^{s}(\gamma )\). Consider \(Y\in \mathcal{R}_{1} \cap \mathcal{U}(X)\); thus, we have \(H(\gamma _{Y}, Y)=C(\gamma _{Y}, Y)\). Thus, as in the proof of [15, Proposition 4.1], there exist \(\epsilon >0\) and the PoincarÃ© map \(g:\mathcal{N}_{p,r}\to \mathcal{N}_{p}\) associated with Y such that

(i)
the map g is defined by Y,

(ii)
g has a closed arc \(\mathcal{I}\) or a disc \(\mathcal{D}\) such that \(g_{_{\mathcal{I}}}:\mathcal{I}\to \mathcal{I}\) is the identity map, or \(g_{_{\mathcal{D}}}:\mathcal{D}\to \mathcal{D}\) is a rotation map,

(iii)
\(0<\operatorname{diam}\mathcal{I}\leq \epsilon \) and \(0<\operatorname{diam}\mathcal{D}\leq \epsilon \),

(iv)
\(Y_{t}(x)\to \gamma \) and \(Y_{t}(y)\to \gamma \) as \(t\to \infty \), and \(g^{n}(x)\to \mathcal{J}\) (or \(\mathcal{D}\)) and \(g^{n}(y)\to \mathcal{I}\) (or \(\mathcal{D}\)) as \(n\to \infty \), and

(v)
\(\mathcal{I}\subset C(\gamma _{Y}, Y)\) and \(\mathcal{D} \subset C(\gamma _{Y}, Y)\).
As \(H(\gamma _{Y}, Y)=C(\gamma _{Y}, Y)\), we have \(\mathcal{I}\subset H( \gamma _{Y}, Y)\) and \(\mathcal{D}\subset H(\gamma _{Y}, Y)\), and they are Ïµsimply periodic curves.â€ƒâ–¡
Lemma 3.7
If the homoclinic class \(H(\gamma , X)\) is continuumwise expansive, then there is no Î·simply periodic curve \(\mathcal{J}\subset H( \gamma , X)\).
Proof
Assume that there is an Î·simply periodic curve \(\mathcal{J}\subset H(\gamma , X)\). Thus there is \(T>0\) such that \(X_{T}(\mathcal{J})=\mathcal{J}\) and \(\operatorname{diam} (X_{t}( \mathcal{J}))\leq \eta \) for any \(0 \leq t \leq T\). It is evident that the curve \(\mathcal{J}\) is a nontrivial continuum. As \(X_{T}( \mathcal{J})=\mathcal{J}\), \(X_{T}(x)=x\) for all \(x\in \mathcal{J}\). We define \(h:\mathcal{J}\to \operatorname{Rep}(\mathbb{R})\) such that \(h_{x}(t)=t\) for all \(x\in \mathcal{J}\) and \(t\in \mathbb{R}\). Thus, for all \(t\in \mathbb{R}\), we have
If Î· is a continuumwise expansive constant, then it is a contradiction as \(\mathcal{J}\) contains no any single orbit of \(x\in \mathcal{J}\).â€ƒâ–¡
Lemma 3.8
Let \(\gamma \in \operatorname{Per}(X)\) be hyperbolic. If the homoclinic class \(H(\gamma , X)\) is Rrobustly continuumwise expansive, then, for any \(\eta \in H(\gamma , X)\cap \operatorname{Per}(X)\) with \(\eta \sim \gamma \), \(p\in \eta \) is not a weakly hyperbolic periodic point.
Proof
Suppose by contradiction that there is a hyperbolic \(\eta \in H(\gamma , X)\cap \operatorname{Per}(X)\) with \(\eta \sim \gamma \) such that \(p\in \eta \) is a weakly hyperbolic periodic point. According to Lemma 3.6, there is \(Y\in \mathcal{R}_{1}\cap \mathcal{U}(X)\) such that f has an Ïµsimply periodic curve \(\mathcal{J}\subset H(\gamma _{Y}, Y)\) for some \(\epsilon >0\), where \(f:\mathcal{N}_{p, r}\to \mathcal{N}_{p}\) is the PoincarÃ© map defined by Y. As \(H(\gamma , X)\) is Rrobustly continuumwise expansive, according to Lemma 3.7, this is a contradiction.â€ƒâ–¡
Let \(p\in \gamma \) be a hyperbolic periodic point of X with period \(\pi (p)\), and let \(f:\mathcal{N}_{p,r}\to \mathcal{N}_{p}\) be the PoincarÃ© map with respect to X. Subsequently, if \(\mu _{1}, \mu _{2}, \ldots , \mu _{d}\) are the eigenvalues of \(D_{p}f\), then
for \(i=1, 2, \ldots , d\) are called the Lyapunov exponents of p. Wang [28] proved that, for a \(C^{1}\)generic nonsingular vector field \(X\in \mathfrak{X}(M)\), if a homoclinic class \(H(\gamma , X)\) is not hyperbolic, then there is a periodic orbit \(\operatorname{Orb}(q)\) of f that is homoclinically related to \(\operatorname{Orb}(p)\) and has a Lyapunov exponent arbitrarily close to 0, which is a vector field version of the result of Wang [28]. Note that if a hyperbolic periodic orbit Î³ has a Lyapunov exponent arbitrarily close to 0, then there is a point \(p\in \gamma \) such that p is a weakly hyperbolic periodic point of X. Thus, we can rewrite the result of Wang [28] as follows.
Lemma 3.9
There is a residual set \(\mathcal{R}_{2}\subset \mathfrak{X}(M)\) such that, for any \(X\in \mathcal{R}_{2}\), if \(H(\gamma , X)\cap \operatorname{Sing}(X)=\emptyset \) and \(H(\gamma , X)\) is not hyperbolic, then there is \(\eta \in H(\gamma , X)\cap \operatorname{Per}(X)\) with \(\eta \sim \gamma \) such that \(p\in \eta \) is a weakly hyperbolic periodic point of X.
Proof of Theorem B
As \(H(\gamma , X)\) is continuumwise expansive, \(H(\gamma , X)\cap \operatorname{Sing}(X)=\emptyset \). To derive a contradiction, we assume that \(H(\gamma , X)\) is not hyperbolic. Consider \(Y\cap \mathcal{U}(X)\cap \mathcal{R}_{1}\cap \mathcal{R}_{2}\). Thus, according to Lemma 3.9, there is \(\eta \in H(\gamma _{Y}, Y)\cap \operatorname{Per}(X)\) with \(\eta \sim \gamma _{Y}\) such that \(p\in \eta \) is a weakly hyperbolic periodic point. As \(H(\gamma , X)\) is Rrobustly measure expansive, according to Lemma 3.8, Y has no weakly hyperbolic periodic points, a contradiction.â€ƒâ–¡
Remark 3.10
Let \(\varphi \equiv X_{1} : M \to M\) be a diffeomorphism, and let \(p\in \gamma \in \operatorname{Per}(X)\) with \(X_{\pi (p)}(p)=p\). We set \(X_{1}(p)=p_{1}\). Then we define the homoclinic class \(H_{\varphi }(p _{1})\) that contains \(p_{1}\). By assumption \(H_{X}(\gamma )\cap \operatorname{Sing}(X)=\emptyset \). According to [1, Theorem 3.2], a vector field X is continuumwise expansive if and only if a suspension map Ï† of X is continuumwise expansive. Thus as in the proof of Theorem A, we have that the homoclinic class \(H_{\varphi }(p_{1})\) is hyperbolic if \(H_{\varphi }(p_{1})\) is Rrobustly continuumwise expansive.
References
Arbieto, A., Cordeiro, W., Pacifico, M.J.: Continuumwise expansivity and entropy for flows. Ergod. Theory Dyn. Syst. 39, 1190â€“1210 (2019)
Artigue, A., CarrascoOlivera, D.: A note on measure expansive diffeomorphisms. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 428, 713â€“716 (2015)
Bonatti, C., Crovisier, S.: RÃ©currence et gÃ©nÃ©ricitÃ©. Invent. Math. 158, 180â€“193 (2004)
Bowen, R., Walters, P.: Expansive oneparameter flows. J. Differ. Equ. 12, 180â€“193 (1972)
Crovisier, S., Yang, D.: Homoclinic tangencies and singular hyperbolicity for threedimensional vector fields. arXiv:1702.05994v1
Das, T., Lee, K., Lee, M.: \(C^{1}\)Persistently continuumwise expansive homoclinic classes and recurrent sets. Topol. Appl. 160, 350â€“359 (2013)
Doering, C.I.: Persistently transitive vector fields on threedimensional manifolds. In: Dynamical Systems and Bifurcation Theory. Pitman Res. Notes Math. Ser., vol.Â 160, pp.Â 59â€“89. Longman, Harlow (1985)
Franks, J.: Necessary conditions for stability of diffeomorphisms. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 158, 301â€“308 (1971)
Gan, S., Yang, D.: Morseâ€“Smale systems and horseshoes for three dimensional singular flows. arXiv:1302.0946
Gang, L.: Persistently expansive homoclinic classes of \(C^{1}\) vector fields. Ph.D. Thesis (2011)
Kato, H.: Continuumwise expansive homeomorphisms. Can. J. Math. 45, 576â€“598 (1993)
Kupka, I.: Contribution Ã la thÃ©orie des champs gÃ©nÃ©riques. Contrib. Differ. Equ. 2, 457â€“484 (1963)
Lee, K., Lee, M.: Hyperbolicity of \(C^{1}\)stably expansive homoclinic classes. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 27, 1133â€“1145 (2010)
Lee, K., Lee, M., Lee, S.: Hyperbolicity of homoclinic classes of \(C^{1}\)vector fields. J. Aust. Math. Soc. 98, 375â€“389 (2015)
Lee, K., Tien, L., Wen, X.: Robustly shadowable chain components of \(C^{1}\) vector fields. J. Korean Math. Soc. 51, 17â€“53 (2014)
Lee, M.: Continuumwise expansive homoclinic classes for generic diffeomorphisms. Publ. Math. (Debr.) 88, 193â€“200 (2016)
Lee, M.: Locally maximal homoclinic classes for generic diffeomorphisms. Balk. J. Geom. Appl. 22, 44â€“49 (2017)
Lee, S., Park, J.: Expansive homoclinic classes of generic \(C^{1}\)vector fields. Acta Math. Sin. Engl. Ser. 32, 1451â€“1458 (2016)
Li, X.: On Rrobustly entropyexpansive diffeomorphisms. Bull. Braz. Math. Soc. 43, 73â€“98 (2012)
Morales, C.A., Sirvent, V.F.: Expansive Measures, Publicacoes Matematicas do IMPA (2013)
Moriyasu, K., Sakai, K., Sumi, N.: Vector fields with topological stability. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 353, 3391â€“3408 (2001)
Pacifico, M.J., Pujals, E.R., Sambarino, M., Vieitez, J.L.: Robustly expansive codimensionone homoclinic classes are hyperbolic. Ergod. Theory Dyn. Syst. 29, 179â€“200 (2009)
Pacifico, M.J., Pujals, E.R., Vieitez, J.L.: Robustly expansive homoclinic classes. Ergod. Theory Dyn. Syst. 25, 271â€“300 (2005)
Palis, J., de Melo, W.: Geometric Theory of Dynamical Systems: An Introduction. Springer, New York (1982)
Sambarino, M., Vieitez, J.L.: On \(C^{1}\)persistently expansive homoclinic classes. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 14, 465â€“481 (2008)
Sambarino, M., Vieitez, J.L.: Robustly expansive homoclinic classes are generically hyperbolic. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 24, 1325â€“1333 (2009)
Smale, S.: Differentiable dynamical systems. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 73, 747â€“817 (1967)
Wang, X.: Hyperbolicity versus weak periodic orbits inside homoclinic classes. Ergod. Theory Dyn. Syst. 38, 2345â€“2400 (2018)
Yang, D., Gan, S.: Expansive homoclinic classes. Nonlinearity 22, 729â€“733 (2009)
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the referees for many helpful comments.
Funding
This work was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning (No. 2017R1A2B4001892).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The author has contributed solely to the writing of this paper. He read and approved the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The author declares that he has no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisherâ€™s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Lee, M. Continuumwise expansive homoclinic classes for robust dynamical systems. Adv Differ Equ 2019, 333 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s1366201922493
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s1366201922493