Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-m9pkr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T09:56:05.236Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Markov measures determine the zeta function

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2008

Selim Tuncel
Selim Tuncel
Affiliation:
Mathematics Institute, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, England
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

With the purpose of understanding when two subshifts of finite type are equivalent from the point of view of their spaces of Markov measures we propose the notion of Markov equivalence. We show that a Markov equivalence must respect the cycles (periodic orbits) of the subshifts. In particular, Markov equivalent subshifts of finite type have the same zeta function.

Type
Research Article
Information
Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , June 1987 , pp. 303 - 311
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

References

REFERENCES

[1]Adler, R. L. & Marcus, B.. Topological entropy and equivalence of dynamical systems. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 219 (1979).Google Scholar
[2]Bowen, R. & Lanford, O. E.. Zeta functions of the restrictions of the shift transformation. Proc. Symp. Pure. Math. Amer. Math. Soc. 14 (1970), 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Boyle, M. & Tuncel, S.. Infinite-to-one codes and Markov measures. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 285 (1984), 657–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Effros, E. G.. Dimensions and C* -algebras. C.B.M.S. Regional Conference Seires 46, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, 1981.Google Scholar
[5]Kitchens, B.. Linear algebra and subshifts of finite type. In Proceedings of the Conference on Modern Analysis and Probability, Contemp. Math. 26, Amer. Math. Soc, Providence, 1984.Google Scholar
[6]Parry, W. & Schmidt, K.. Natural coefficients and invariants for Markov shifts. Invent. Math. 76 (1984), 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Parry, W. & Tuncel, S.. On the classification of Markov chains by finite equivalence. Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. 1 (1981), 303–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Parry, W. & Tuncel, S.. On the stochastic and topological structure of Markov chains. Bull. London Math. Soc. 14 (1982), 16–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Parry, W. & Tuncel, S.. Classification Problems in Ergodic Theory. London Math. Soc. Lecture Notes 67, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Schmidt, K.. Invariants for finitary isomorphisms with finite expected code lengths. Invent. Math. 76 (1984), 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Schmidt, K.. Hyperbolic structure preserving isomorphisms of Markov shifts. To appear in Israel J. Math.Google Scholar
[12]Schmidt, K.. Hyperbolic structure preserving isomorphisms of Markov shifts, II. Preprint.Google Scholar
[13]Walters, P.. An Introduction to Ergodic Theory. Graduate Texts in Math. 79, Springer, New York, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar