text:
# On the resolvent technique for stability of plane Couette flow

## 1 Introduction

We discuss stability of plane Couette flow via the resolvent method. Applying this method, one can derive lower bounds for the norms of perturbations that can lead to turbulence. Our aim is to discuss and clarify a point that has been overseen so far, which is to determine how much control over the perturbations one should assume to derive the stability result via the resolvent technique. We discuss the two dimensional case, but all the considerations can be used for the three dimensional case with minor technical changes. The main difference between the two and three spatial dimensions is that different resolvent estimates hold for each case, leading to different thresholds. This point will be made clear later on. We begin describing the problem and discussing previous works using the resolvent method.

## 2 The problem and known results

We are interested in the following initial boundary value problem:

$$\{\begin{array}{c}u_t+(u)u+p=\frac{1}{R}\mathrm{\Delta }u\hfill \\ u=0\hfill \\ u(x,0,t)=(0,0)\hfill \\ u(x,1,t)=(1,0)\hfill \\ u(x,y,t)=u(x+1,y,t)\hfill \\ u(x,y,0)=f(x,y)\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
where $`u:\times [0,1]\times [0,\mathrm{})^2`$ is the unknown function $`u(x,y,t)=(u_1(x,y,t),u_2(x,y,t))`$. The positive parameter $`R`$ is the Reynolds number. The initial condition $`f(x,y)`$ is assumed to be smooth, divergence free and compatible with the boundary conditions. The pressure $`p(x,y,t)`$ can be determined in terms of $`u`$ by the elliptic problem

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }p=((u)u)\hfill \\ p_y(x,0,t)=\frac{1}{R}u_{2yy}(x,0,t)\hfill \\ p_y(x,1,t)=\frac{1}{R}u_{2yy}(x,1,t).\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
It can be easily seen that $`U(x,y)=(y,0)`$, $`P=constant`$ is a steady solution of problem (1). The vector field $`U(x,y)=(y,0)`$ is known as Couette flow.

Using the resolvent technique, one can prove and quantify asymptotic stability for this flow. By quantification we mean the derivation a number $`M(R)`$ such that disturbances of the flow with norm less than $`M(R)`$ will tend to zero as time $`t`$ tends to infinity. In other words, deriving a lower bound for the norm of perturbations that can lead to turbulence. For general discussion about the resolvent technique, see  and .

This problem has been studied for the 3 spatial dimensions case in , and a threshold amplitude for perturbations was found to be of order $`𝒪`$$`(R^{\frac{21}{4}})`$. The estimates of the resolvent of the linearized equations governing perturbations where those found numerically in  and , predicting the resolvent constant of the linear operator associated with the problem to be proportional to $`R^2`$. In , the resolvent technique was used again to prove the stability of the 3 dimensional problem but the estimates for the resolvent constant were those in . By using modified norms, the authors achieve $`M(R)`$ of order $`𝒪`$$`(R^3)`$ for two of the components of the perturbation, and of order $`𝒪`$$`(R^4)`$ for the remaining component. Our approach uses again the resolvent technique, and we use the same norms as , with the obvious modifications for the 2 spatial dimensions case. We show that this approach leads, in our case, to a threshold amplitude of order $`𝒪`$$`(R^3)`$. We note that our argument is the same used in , with some minor differences. The only reason for the better exponent in our case is the better dependence of the resolvent constant on $`R`$ for the 2 dimensional case. In this case, the resolvent constant is proportional to $`R`$, as found in . We carry out the argument in details again only because it is important for our aim, which is to clarify a subtle point that has been overseen in previous works: In , it was said that one needs control over the sobolev norm $`H^2`$ of the perturbation to assure stability. Later on, in , the authors note that the $`H^2`$ is not enough, and claim that one needs control over the norm $`H^4`$. Actually, this is not enough yet, since in one of the directions, one needs control over six derivatives of the perturbation. This necessity is due to the pressure terms appearing in the problem. In section 5, we show in details estimates for these terms, and clarify the reason of this requirement. Moreover, our argument shows that derivatives of different orders of the perturbation scale differently with the Reynolds number. In other words, to assure decay of the perturbations via the resolvent method, one should require the perturbation to be small in some weighted norm involving six derivatives, where the weights depend on the Reynolds number $`R`$.

This work is divided in 4 sections: in section 3, we introduce some basic notation and derive the equations for perturbations of the Couette flow; in section 4 we derive estimates for the solution of the linearized equations for the perturbations; in 5, we use those estimates to prove asymptotic stability for the flow, and to derive the threshold amplitude $`M(R)`$. In section 6, we derive carefully the estimates for the pressure terms involved in the problem.

## 3 Notation and equations for the perturbations

We denote by $`,`$ and $``$ the $`L_2`$ inner product and norm over $`\mathrm{\Omega }=[0,1]\times [0,1]`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}u,w=_\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{u}w𝑑x𝑑y\hfill & ;& \hfill u^2=u,u.\end{array}$$

All the matrix norms that appear in this paper are the usual Frobenius norms. The usual sobolev norm of $`u`$ over $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is denoted by

$$u_{H^n(\mathrm{\Omega })}^2=\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}D^ju^2$$

where $`D^j`$ denotes the $`j`$-th derivative of $`u`$ with respect to the space variables. Unless stated otherwise, all norms in the space variables will be calculated over $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and therefore we will write $`_{H^n(\mathrm{\Omega })}`$ as $`_{H^n}`$. We make use of a 2 dimensional version of the weighted norm $`_{\stackrel{~}{H}}`$ used in Kreiss:

$$u_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2=u^2+\frac{1}{R}Du^2+\frac{1}{R^2}u_{xy}^2.$$
(3)
We also define another weighted norm $`_{H_m^6}`$ by

$`u_{H_m^6}^2`$ $`=`$ $`u_{H^2}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}D^3u^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}D^4u^2`$ (4)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^4}}u_{2xxyyy}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^4}}u_{2yyyyy}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^4}}u_{2yyyyyy}^2,`$
where $`u=(u_1,u_2)`$.

The maximum norm over $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is denoted by $`||_{\mathrm{}}`$. The norm $`_{\stackrel{~}{H}}`$ is related with the maximum norm by the sobolev type inequality (see , Appendix 3, Theorem A.3.14)

$$||_{\mathrm{}}^2\stackrel{~}{C}R_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2.$$

Since we are interested in functions which are also dependent on time, we use that

$$|u(,t)|_{\mathrm{}}^2\stackrel{~}{C}Ru(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2,t0,$$
(5)
where $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ is a constant independent of any of the parameters.

We are interested first in proving asymptotic stability for the Couette flow, which is a stationary solution of (1), that is, to prove that perturbations of the stationary solution that are small enough in some norm will tend to $`0`$ as $`t`$ tends to infinity. More specifically, we will show that perturbations having norm $`_{H_m^6}`$ of order $`R^3`$ decay with time.

To this end, let $`U=U(x,y)`$, $`P=P(x,y)`$ be a stationary solution of (1). We can obviously use the Couette flow, but we think that the structure of the argument is easier to be understood if one uses any stationary solution. This will not change the estimates we will prove. We derive the equations satisfied by perturbations of this base flow. Let $`u(x,y,t)`$ , $`p(x,y,t)`$ be a solution of (1) with initial condition $`f(x,y)=U(x,y)+ϵf^{}(x,y)`$, where $`f^{}`$ is divergence free and $`f^{}_{H_m^6(\mathrm{\Omega })}=1`$. Then, $`ϵ`$ defines a unique perturbation amplitude. Write $`u(x,y,t)=U(x,y)+ϵu^{}(x,y,t)`$ and $`p(x,y,t)=P(x,y)+ϵp_1^{}(x,y,t)+ϵ^2p_2^{}(x,y,t)`$. Then $`u^{}`$,$`p_1^{}`$,$`p_2^{}`$ satisfy the system

$$\{\begin{array}{c}u_t^{}+(u^{})U+(U)u^{}+p_1^{}+ϵ(u^{})u^{}+ϵp_2^{}=\frac{1}{R}\mathrm{\Delta }u^{}\hfill \\ u^{}=0\hfill \\ u^{}(x,0,t)=(0,0)\hfill \\ u^{}(x,1,t)=(0,0)\hfill \\ u^{}(x,y,t)=u^{}(x+1,y,t)\hfill \\ u^{}(x,y,0)=f^{}(x,y).\hfill \end{array}$$

The functions $`p_1^{}`$ and $`p_2^{}`$ are given in terms of $`u^{}`$ by

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }p_1^{}=((u^{})U)((U)u^{})\hfill \\ p_{1y}^{}(x,0,t)=\frac{1}{R}u_{2yy}^{}(x,0,t)\hfill \\ p_{1y}^{}(x,1,t)=\frac{1}{R}u_{2yy}^{}(x,1,t)\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }p_2^{}=((u^{})u^{})\hfill \\ p_{2y}^{}(x,0,t)=0\hfill \\ p_{2y}^{}(x,1,t)=0.\hfill \end{array}$$

As we show in section 6, the functions $`p_1^{}`$ and $`p_2^{}`$ can be estimated in terms of $`u^{}`$ by

$`p_1^{}(,,t)^2`$ $``$ $`C\left(u^{}(,,t)_{H^1}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}u_{2yy}^{}(,,t)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}u_{2yyy}^{}(,,t)\right),t0,`$
$`p_2^{}(,,t)^2`$ $``$ $`(u^{})u^{}(,,t)^2,t0.`$
From now on, to simplify the notation, we drop the  in the equations above, and just write $`u`$, $`p_1`$, $`p_2`$. With this notation, the equations above are

$$\{\begin{array}{c}u_t+(u)U+(U)u+p_1+ϵ(u)u+ϵp_2=\frac{1}{R}\mathrm{\Delta }u\hfill \\ u=0\hfill \\ u(x,0,t)=(0,0)\hfill \\ u(x,1,t)=(0,0)\hfill \\ u(x,y,t)=u(x+1,y,t)\hfill \\ u(x,y,0)=f(x,y),\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
$$\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }p_1=((u)U)((U)u)\hfill \\ p_{1y}(x,0,t)=\frac{1}{R}u_{2yy}(x,0,t)\hfill \\ p_{1y}(x,1,t)=\frac{1}{R}u_{2yy}(x,1,t)\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
and

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }p_2=((u)u)\hfill \\ p_{2y}(x,0,t)=0\hfill \\ p_{2y}(x,1,t)=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
Note that $`p_1`$ depends linearly on $`u`$. Moreover, for all $`t0`$, we have

$`p_1(,,t)^2`$ $``$ $`C\left(u(,,t)_{H^1}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}u_{2yy}(,,t)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}u_{2yyy}(,,t)\right),`$ (9)
$`p_2(,,t)^2`$ $``$ $`(u)u(,,t)^2.`$ (10)
When the initial data is divergence free and the terms of pressure are given by the equations (7) and (8) above, the solution $`u`$ of problem (6) remains divergence free for all time $`t`$. Therefore, we drop the continuity equation and write problem (6) as

$$\{\begin{array}{c}u_t=uϵ(u)uϵp_2\hfill \\ u(x,0,t)=(0,0)\hfill \\ u(x,1,t)=(0,0)\hfill \\ u(x,y,t)=u(x+1,y,t)\hfill \\ u(x,y,0)=f(x,y),\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
where $``$ is a linear operator depending on the parameter $`R`$, defined by

$$u=\frac{1}{R}\mathrm{\Delta }u(u)U(U)up_1,$$
(12)
with $`p_1`$ given by (7). It is very important to note that this linear operator has also an integral part, which is the term $`p_1`$. Moreover, as inequality (9) shows, to estimate $`p_1`$ one needs three space derivatives of the second component of $`u`$, at least in one of the directions.

This integral part of the operator $``$ seems to be the point which was so far overseen. If one neglects that and consider only to the differential part of $``$, one will be led to conclude that $`_{H^2}`$ will be enough to estimate the right hand side of (12).

We first apply the resolvent technique to prove stability of the stationary flow. For that end, it is convenient to have homogeneous initial conditions. Therefore, we transform the problem (11) to a similar problem with homogeneous initial condition by defining

$$v(x,y,t):=u(x,y,t)e^tf(x,y).$$
(13)
Note that $`v`$ and $`u`$ have the same behavior as $`t\mathrm{}`$. Moreover, $`v`$ given by (13) satisfies

$$\{\begin{array}{c}v_t=vϵ\{(v)v+e^t(v)f+e^t(f)v\}ϵp_2+F(x,y,t)\hfill \\ v(x,0,t)=(0,0)\hfill \\ v(x,1,t)=(0,0)\hfill \\ v(x,y,t)=v(x+1,y,t)\hfill \\ v(x,y,0)=(0,0),\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
where $`F(x,y,t)=e^t((+I)fϵe^t(f)f)`$. Note that $`F`$, $`F_tL_2([0,\mathrm{});L_2(\mathrm{\Omega }))`$, that is, both $`F(,,t)^2`$ and $`F_t(,,t)^2`$ are integrable over $`[0,\mathrm{})`$.

## 4 Linear Problem

We first consider the general linear problem

$$\{\begin{array}{c}v_t=v+F(x,y,t)\hfill \\ v(x,0,t)=(0,0)\hfill \\ v(x,1,t)=(0,0)\hfill \\ v(x,y,t)=v(x+1,y,t)\hfill \\ v(x,y,0)=(0,0),\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
where $`F(,t)^2`$ and $`F_t(,t)^2`$ integrable over the domain $`[0,\mathrm{})`$:

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\left(F(,t)^2+F_t(,t)^2\right)𝑑t<\mathrm{}.$$

In our case of two spatial dimensions, resolvent estimates were found in :

$$\stackrel{~}{v}(,s)^2C_1R^2\stackrel{~}{F}(,s)^2,\text{Re}s0,$$
(16)
where $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ stands for the Laplace transform with respect to $`t`$ , $`s`$ is its variable and $`C_1`$ is an absolute constant, that is, it does not depend on any of the parameters or functions. One can prove, as in , Appendix A, that (16) implies

$$\stackrel{~}{v}(,s)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2CR^2\stackrel{~}{F}(,s)^2$$
(17)
where $`C`$ depends on $`C_1`$ and on $`U`$ and its first derivative. Since for our problem $`U`$ is fixed as the Couette flow, $`C`$ is an absolute constant as well. From now on, we will use $`C`$ for any absolute constant, and replace its value as necessary keeping the notation $`C`$. No attempt is made to optimize those constants, since the most important result is the dependence of the threshold amplitude on the Reynolds number.

Using Parseval’s relation, inequality (17) for the transformed functions is translated to the original functions as

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}v(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2𝑑tCR^2_0^{\mathrm{}}F(,t)^2𝑑t.$$
(18)
Obviously, $`{\displaystyle _0^T}v(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2𝑑t{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}v(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2𝑑t`$ , $`T0`$. Moreover, since the solution of the equation up to time $`T`$ does not depend on the forcing $`F(x,y,t)`$ for $`t>T`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_0^Tv(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2𝑑tCR^2_0^TF(,t)^2𝑑t\hfill & ,& \hfill T0.\end{array}$$
(19)
For our argument, we also need similar estimates for $`v_t`$. To this end, differentiate equation (15) to get

$$\{\begin{array}{c}v_{tt}=v_t+F_t(x,y,t)\hfill \\ v_t(x,0,t)=(0,0)\hfill \\ v_t(x,1,t)=(0,0)\hfill \\ v_t(x,y,t)=v_t(x+1,y,t)\hfill \\ v_t(x,y,0)=F(x,y,0)=:g(x,y),\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
that is, $`v_t`$ satisfies an equation of the same type as (15), but with non-homogeneus initial conditions $`g(x,y)=F(x,y,0)`$. Performing the same type of initialization as before, that is, defining $`\phi :=v_te^tg`$, we get a similar problem for $`\phi `$, with homogeneus initial conditions and an extra forcing term. Using the estimates for the resolvent, and writing those in terms of $`v_t`$, we get

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_0^Tv_t(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2𝑑t\hfill & \hfill & F(x,y,0)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2+CR^2(+I)F(x,y,0)^2\hfill \\ & & +CR^2_0^TF_t(,t)^2𝑑t,T0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
Combining (19) and (21) gives, for $`v`$ the solution of (15),

$$\begin{array}{c}_0^T\left(v(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2+v_t(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2\right)𝑑tF(x,y,0)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2+CR^2(+I)F(x,y,0)^2\hfill \\ +CR^2_0^T\left(F(,t)^2+F_t(,t)^2\right)𝑑t,T0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
Now, using these estimates for the solution of the linear problem, we can prove a stability result for the nonlinear equation.

## 5 Stability for the Nonlinear Problem

The nonlinear problem (14) is

$$\{\begin{array}{c}v_t=vϵ\{(v)v+e^t(v)f+e^t(f)v\}ϵp_2+F(x,y,t)\hfill \\ v(x,0,t)=(0,0)\hfill \\ v(x,1,t)=(0,0)\hfill \\ v(x,y,t)=v(x+1,y,t)\hfill \\ v(x,y,0)=(0,0),\hfill \end{array}$$
(23)
where $`F(x,y,t)=e^t((+I)fϵe^t(f)f)`$. We prove the following:

###### Theorem 5.1

There exists $`ϵ_0>0`$, $`ϵ_0=ϵ_0(R)`$, such that if $`0|ϵ|<ϵ_0`$, then the solution $`v(x,y,t)`$ of (23) satisfies

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}|v(,t)|_{\mathrm{}}=0.$$

Moreover, $`ϵ_0=𝒪(R^3)`$.

### Proof:

We consider problem (23) as a linear problem with forcing

$$G(x,y,t):=F(x,y,t)ϵ\{(v)v+e^t(v)f+e^t(f)v\}ϵp_2.$$
(24)
Applying inequality (22) with forcing term $`G`$ gives

$`{\displaystyle _0^T}\left(v(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2+v_t(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2\right)𝑑tG(x,y,0)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2+CR^2(+I)G(x,y,0)^2+`$
$`+CR^2{\displaystyle _0^T}\left(G(,t)^2+G_t(,t)^2\right)𝑑tT0.`$ (25)
From the definition of $`G`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{c}_0^T\left(v(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2+v_t(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2\right)𝑑t2F(x,y,0)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2+2ϵ^2p_2(x,y,0)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2\hfill \\ +CR^2(_R+)F(x,y,0)^2+CR^2(_R+)p_2(x,y,0)^2\hfill \\ +CR^2_0^T\left(Fϵ\{(v)v+e^t(v)f+e^t(f)v\}ϵp_2^2\right)𝑑t\hfill \\ +CR^2_0^T\left((Fϵ\{(v)v+e^t(v)f+e^t(f)v\}ϵp_2)_t^2\right)𝑑t.\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
Since $`p_2`$ is given by (8), we have (see section 6)

$$\begin{array}{ccc}p_2(u)u\hfill & ;& \hfill (p_2)_t((u)u)_t.\end{array}$$

Thus, using (13), we can estimate $`p_2`$ by $`f`$ and $`v`$. Moreover,

$$p_2(,,0)^2(u)u(,,0)^2=(f)f^2,$$

and since $`f_{H_m^6}^2=1`$, inequality (26) gives

$$\begin{array}{c}_0^T\left(v(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2+v_t(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2\right)𝑑tF(x,y,0)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2+CR^2(+I)F(x,y,0)^2\hfill \\ +CR^2_0^{\mathrm{}}\left(F^2+F_t^2\right)𝑑t+CR^2ϵ^2_0^T\left((v)v^2+(v_t)v^2+(v)v_t^2\right)𝑑t\hfill \\ +CR^2ϵ^2_0^T\left(e^t(v)f^2+e^t(f)v^2+e^t(v_t)f^2+e^t(f)v_t^2\right)𝑑t.\hfill \end{array}$$

Since

$$F(x,y,t)=e^t((+I)fϵe^t(f)f),$$

we have $`F(x,y,0)=(+I)fϵ(f)f:=𝒫f`$. With this notation, the inequality above is

$$\begin{array}{c}_0^T\left(v(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2+v_t(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2\right)𝑑t𝒫f_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2+CR^2(+I)𝒫f^2+CR^2(+I)f^2\hfill \\ +CR^2ϵ^2(f)f^2+CR^2ϵ^2_0^T\left((v)v^2+(v_t)v^2+(v)v_t^2\right)𝑑t\hfill \\ +CR^2ϵ^2_0^T(e^t(v)f^2+e^t(f)v^2+e^t(v_t)f^2++e^t(f)v_t^2)dt.\hfill \end{array}$$
(27)
To apply the resolvent method, one needs control over the terms depending on $`f`$ of the right hand side of inequality (27). Its second term is

$$(+I)𝒫f=(+I)((+I)fϵ(f)f).$$

To estimate $`^2f`$ it is necessary to have, at least in the $`y`$ direction, control over six derivatives of $`f_2`$, the second component of $`f`$. The reason is that three derivatives of $`f_2`$ in the $`y`$ direction are necessary to control $`f`$, due to the integral part of the operator $``$. Moreover, derivatives of different orders of the perturbation may have different scales with respect to the Reynolds number. These facts are shown in details in section 6. As already mentioned, clarifying and showing these estimates in details is our aim, since it is a point that has been overseen in previous works, and lead to mistakes about the necessary assumptions on $`f`$.

We now continue the proof of stability. As mentioned above, since $`f_{H_m^6}^2=1`$, we can replace all the terms depending on $`f`$ by an absolute constant and write inequality (27) as

$`{\displaystyle _0^T}\left(v_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2+v_t_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2\right)𝑑tCR^2+CR^2ϵ^2{\displaystyle _0^T}(v)v^2𝑑t`$
$`+CR^2ϵ^2{\displaystyle _0^T}\left((v_t)v^2+(v)v_t^2\right)𝑑t`$
$`+CR^2ϵ^2{\displaystyle _0^T}\left(e^t(v)f^2+e^t(f)v^2\right)𝑑t`$
$`+CR^2ϵ^2{\displaystyle _0^T}\left(e^t(v_t)f^2+e^t(f)v_t^2\right)𝑑t.`$
From now on, we fix the constant $`C`$. To finish the proof, we use the following Lemma, which is proved later:

###### Lemma 5.1

There exists $`ϵ_0>0`$, $`ϵ_0=𝒪(R^3)`$, such that if $`0ϵ<ϵ_0`$ then

$$_0^T\left(v(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2+v_t(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2\right)𝑑t<2CR^2,T0.$$
(29)
Now, using (5) and a simple one dimensional sobolev inequality, we have

$$\underset{atb}{\mathrm{max}}|v(,t)|_{\mathrm{}}^2\stackrel{~}{C}R\underset{atb}{\mathrm{max}}v(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2\stackrel{~}{C}R\left(1+\frac{1}{ba}\right)_a^bv(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2𝑑t+_a^bv_t(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2𝑑t.$$

This implies

$$\underset{at}{sup}|v(,t)|_{\mathrm{}}^2\stackrel{~}{C}R_a^{\mathrm{}}\left(v(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2+v_t(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2\right)𝑑t.$$
(30)
Note that in view of Lemma 5.1, the right hand side of inequality (30) is finite. Letting $`a\mathrm{}`$ in (30), we have that $`\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}|v(,t)|_{\mathrm{}}^2=0`$, which proves the theorem.

### Proof of Lemma 5.1:

First, note that for $`T>0`$ small enough, inequality (29) obviously holds. Now, suppose it does not hold for all $`T0`$, that is, there exists $`T_0>0`$ such that

$$_0^{T_0}\left(v(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2+v_t(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2\right)𝑑t=2CR^2.$$
(31)
Using (5), we have:

$$\begin{array}{c}2CR^2=_0^{T_0}\left(v_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2+v_t_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2\right)𝑑tCR^2\hfill \\ +CR^2ϵ^2_0^{T_0}\left((v)v^2+(v_t)v^2+(v)v_t^2\right)𝑑t\hfill \\ +_0^{T_0}\left(e^t(v)f^2+e^t(f)v^2+e^t(v_t)f^2+e^t(f)v_t^2\right)𝑑t.\hfill \end{array}$$
(32)
We now estimate the integrands on the right hand side of inequality (32) by the integral on its left hand side. To this end, we will use the inequalities (5) and

$$\underset{0tT_0}{\mathrm{max}}v(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2_0^{T_0}\left(v(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2+v_t(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2\right)𝑑t=2CR^2.$$
(33)
Since $`v_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2=v^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}Dv^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}v_{xy}^2`$ , we have $`Dv^2Rv_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2`$. Therefore, for each $`0tT_0`$:

$`\left\{(v)v\right\}(,t)^2`$ $``$ $`|v(,t)|_{\mathrm{}}^2Dv(,t)^2`$
$``$ $`\left(\stackrel{~}{C}Rv(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2\right)\left(Rv(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2\right)2\stackrel{~}{C}CR^4v(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2,`$
$`\left\{(v_t)v\right\}(,t)^2`$ $``$ $`|v_t(,t)|_{\mathrm{}}^2Dv(,t)^2`$
$``$ $`\left(\stackrel{~}{C}Rv_t(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2\right)\left(Rv(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2\right)2\stackrel{~}{C}CR^4v_t(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2,`$
$`\left\{(v)v_t\right\}(,t)^2`$ $``$ $`|v(,t)|_{\mathrm{}}^2Dv_t(,t)^2`$
$``$ $`\left(\stackrel{~}{C}Rv(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2\right)\left(Rv_t(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2\right)2\stackrel{~}{C}CR^4v_t(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2,`$
$`e^t\left\{(v)f\right\}(,t)^2e^{2t}|v(,t)|_{\mathrm{}}^2Df^2\stackrel{~}{C}Rv(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2,`$ (37)
$`e^t\left\{(f)v\right\}(,t)^2e^{2t}|f|_{\mathrm{}}^2Dv(,t)^2Rv(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2,`$ (38)
$`e^t\left\{(v_t)f\right\}(,t)^2e^{2t}|v_t(,t)|_{\mathrm{}}^2Df^2\stackrel{~}{C}Rv_t(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2,`$ (39)
$`e^t\left\{(f)v_t\right\}(,t)^2e^{2t}|f|_{\mathrm{}}^2Dv_t(,t)^2Rv_t(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2.`$ (40)
Applying (5), (5), (5), (37), (38), (39), (40) to (32) gives

$$\begin{array}{c}2CR^2CR^2+CR^2ϵ^2\left\{6\stackrel{~}{C}CR^4_0^{T_0}\left(v(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2+v_t(,t)_{\stackrel{~}{H}}^2\right)𝑑t\right\}\hfill \\ =CR^2+CR^2ϵ^2\left\{12\stackrel{~}{C}C^2R^6\right\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(41)
This implies

$$112\stackrel{~}{C}C^2R^6ϵ^2,$$
(42)
which is equivalent to

$$ϵ\frac{1}{CR^3\sqrt{12\stackrel{~}{C}}}=\frac{1}{KR^3}$$
(43)
where $`K:=C\sqrt{12\stackrel{~}{C}}`$. Therefore, if $`ϵ<{\displaystyle \frac{1}{KR^3}}`$, equality (31) never holds. This proves the Lemma.

## 6 Estimates for the pressure terms

We now turn our attention to our main objective, which is to show why one needs to assume control over at least six derivatives of $`f_2`$ in the $`y`$ direction to apply the method above. This necessity follows from estimates (9) and (10) for the pressure terms $`p_1(x,y,t)`$ and $`p_2(x,y,t)`$. So, we begin by showing these estimates.

###### Theorem 6.1

If $`p_1(x,y,t)`$, $`p_2(x,y,t)`$ are the solutions of

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }p_1=((u)U)((U)u)\hfill \\ p_{1y}(x,0,t)=\frac{1}{R}u_{2yy}(x,0,t)\hfill \\ p_{1y}(x,1,t)=\frac{1}{R}u_{2yy}(x,1,t)\hfill \end{array}$$
(44)
and

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }p_2=((u)u)\hfill \\ p_{2y}(x,0,t)=0\hfill \\ p_{2y}(x,1,t)=0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(45)
then

$`p_1(,,t)^2`$ $``$ $`C\left(u(,,t)_{H^1}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}u_{2yy}(,,t)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}u_{2yyy}(,,t)\right)`$ (46)
$`p_2(,,t)^2`$ $``$ $`(u)u(,,t)^2.`$ (47)
for all $`t0`$, where $`C`$ is an absolute constant.

Note that the inequalities above are for norms with respect to the space variables $`x`$ and $`y`$. Therefore, to simplify the notation, we prove them for functions depending only on these variables. As before, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=[0,1]\times [0,1]`$, and all norms are over $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. For clarity of the presentation, we separate the proof of Theorem 6.1 into two Lemmas.

###### Lemma 6.1

Let $`g:\times [0,1]^2`$, $`g(x,y)=(g_1(x,y),g_2(x,y))`$, be a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ function satisfying

$`g(x,1)=g(x,0)=(0,0)`$ (48)
$`g(x,y)=g(x+1,y)x.`$ (49)
If $`h:\times [0,1]`$ is the solution of

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }h=g\hfill \\ h_y(x,0)=0\hfill \\ h_y(x,1)=0\hfill \\ h(x,y)=h(x+1,y),\hfill \end{array}$$
(50)
then

$$h^2g^2.$$
(51)
### Proof:

If $`\mathrm{\Delta }h=g`$, then

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }(h_{xx}+h_{yy})h𝑑x𝑑y=_\mathrm{\Omega }(g_{1x}+g_{2y})h𝑑x𝑑y.$$

Through integration by parts,

$`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}(h_x^2+h_y^2)𝑑x𝑑y+{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}h_xh\nu ^x𝑑S+{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}h_yh\nu ^y𝑑S=`$
$`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}g_1h_x𝑑x𝑑y{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}g_2h_y𝑑x𝑑y+{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}g_1h\nu ^x𝑑S+{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}g_2h\nu ^y𝑑S,`$
where $`\nu ^x`$ and $`\nu ^y`$ denote the components of the outer normal to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions respectively. From the conditions satisfied by $`h`$ and $`g`$ at the boundary, the boundary integrals above vanish. Then,

$$h^2=_\mathrm{\Omega }(h_x^2+h_y^2)𝑑x𝑑y=_\mathrm{\Omega }g_1h_x𝑑x𝑑y+_\mathrm{\Omega }g_2h_y𝑑x𝑑y.$$

Using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality,

$`h^2g_1h_x+g_2h_y`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h_x^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h_y^2`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h^2.`$
This implies the desired estimate

$$h^2g^2.$$

The Lemma above gives inequality (47) for $`p_2(x,y,t)`$, the solution of (45).

As mentioned before, the estimates to be proved do not depend on the variable $`t`$. Therefore, we write simply $`u(x,y)=(u_1(x,y),u_2(x,y))`$, for $`u`$ the solution of problem (6). We remind the reader that $`U(x,y)=(y,0)`$. We prove the following lemma, completing the proof of Theorem 6.1:

###### Lemma 6.2

If $`h:\times [0,1]`$ is the solution of

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }h=(u)U(U)u\hfill \\ h_y(x,0)=\frac{1}{R}u_{2yy}(x,0)\hfill \\ h_y(x,1)=\frac{1}{R}u_{2yy}(x,1)\hfill \\ h(x,y)=h(x+1,y),\hfill \end{array}$$
(52)
then

$$h^2C\left(u_{H^1}^2+\frac{1}{R^2}u_{2yy}^2+\frac{1}{R^2}u_{2yyy}^2\right).$$
(53)
### Proof:

We begin by noting that if $`h_1`$, $`h_2`$ are the solutions of

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }h_1=(u)U(U)u\hfill \\ h_{1y}(x,0)=0\hfill \\ h_{1y}(x,1)=0\hfill \\ h_1(x,y)=h_1(x+1,y),\hfill \end{array}$$
(54)
and

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }h_2=0\hfill \\ h_{2y}(x,0)=\frac{1}{R}u_{2yy}(x,0)\hfill \\ h_{2y}(x,1)=\frac{1}{R}u_{2yy}(x,1)\hfill \\ h_2(x,y)=h_2(x+1,y),\hfill \end{array}$$
(55)
then $`h=h_1+h_2`$ is the solution of problem (52). Therefore, to prove (53), it is sufficient to prove estimates for $`h_1`$ and $`h_2`$, solutions of (54) and (55) respectively. For $`h_1`$, lemma 6.1 implies

$$h_1^2(u)U+(U)u^22u^2+2Du^2=2u_{H^1}^2.$$
(56)
To prove the estimates for $`h_2`$, expand in a Fourier series in the $`x`$ direction. The Fourier coefficients $`\widehat{h}_2(k,y)`$ satisfy

$`k^2\widehat{h}_2+\widehat{h}_2^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (57)
$`\widehat{h}_{2y}(k,0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}\widehat{u}_{2yy}(k,0)`$ (58)
$`\widehat{h}_{2y}(k,1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}\widehat{u}_{2yy}(k,1),`$ (59)
where  denotes the derivative with respect to $`y`$. Consider first the case $`k0`$. To simplify notation, let

$`\alpha _k`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}\widehat{u}_{2yy}(k,0)`$
$`\beta _k`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}\widehat{u}_{2yy}(k,1).`$
Using a one-dimensional sobolev type inequality, we estimate $`\alpha _k`$ and $`\beta _k`$ by

$`|\alpha _k|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}\underset{0y1}{\mathrm{max}}|\widehat{u}_{2yy}(k,y)|^2{\displaystyle \frac{C}{R^2}}\left(\widehat{u}_{2yy}(k,)^2+\widehat{u}_{2yyy}(k,)^2\right)`$ (60)
$`|\beta _k|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}\underset{0y1}{\mathrm{max}}|\widehat{u}_{2yy}(k,y)|^2{\displaystyle \frac{C}{R^2}}\left(\widehat{u}_{2yy}(k,)^2+\widehat{u}_{2yyy}(k,)^2\right),`$ (61)
where $`C`$ is an absolute constant. As before, we keep the notation simple by using $`C`$ to represent any absolute constant, whose value can possibly change for different inequalities.
The general solution of the differential equation (57) is

$$\widehat{h}_2(k,y)=a_ke^{|k|(y1)}+b_ke^{|k|y}.$$
(62)
Imposing the boundary conditions (58) and (59), we determine the coefficients $`a_k`$ and $`b_k`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}a_k=\frac{e^{|k|}}{e^{|k|}e^{|k|}}\frac{\beta _k}{|k|}\frac{1}{e^{|k|}e^{|k|}}\frac{\alpha _k}{|k|}\hfill & ;& \hfill b_k=\frac{1}{e^{|k|}e^{|k|}}\frac{\beta _k}{|k|}\frac{e^{|k|}}{e^{|k|}e^{|k|}}\frac{\alpha _k}{|k|}.\end{array}$$

Therefore,

$`|a_k|^2`$ $``$ $`C\left({\displaystyle \frac{|\alpha _k^2|}{k^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{|\beta _k|^2}{k^2}}\right)`$ (63)
$`|b_k|^2`$ $``$ $`C\left({\displaystyle \frac{|\alpha _k^2|}{k^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{|\beta _k|^2}{k^2}}\right).`$ (64)
Using (60), (61), (62), (63), (64), we have

$`k^2\widehat{h}_2(k,)^2`$ $``$ $`Ck^2(|a_k|^2e^{|k|(y1)}^2+|b_k|^2e^{|k|y}^2){\displaystyle \frac{C}{|k|}}(|\alpha _k|^2+|\beta _k|^2)`$ (65)
$``$ $`C(|\alpha _k|^2+|\beta _k|^2){\displaystyle \frac{C}{R^2}}\left(\widehat{u}_{2yy}(k,)^2+\widehat{u}_{2yyy}(k,)^2\right)`$
and

$`\widehat{h}_{2y}(k,)^2`$ $``$ $`Ck^2(|a_k|^2e^{|k|(y1)}^2+|b_k|^2e^{|k|y}^2){\displaystyle \frac{C}{|k|}}(|\alpha _k|^2+|\beta _k|^2)`$ (66)
$``$ $`C(|\alpha _k|^2+|\beta _k|^2){\displaystyle \frac{C}{R^2}}\left(\widehat{u}_{2yy}(k,)^2+\widehat{u}_{2yyy}(k,)^2\right).`$
For the $`k=0`$ mode, we solve equation (57) under boundary conditions (58), (59) directly. Note that the divergence free condition satisfied by $`u`$ assures that this problem is solvable, as expected. Differentiating the solution with respect to $`y`$, we get

$$\widehat{h}_{2y}(0,y)=\frac{1}{R}\widehat{u}_{2yy}(0,1).$$

Then

$$\widehat{h}_{2y}(0,)^2\frac{1}{R^2}\underset{0y1}{\mathrm{max}}|\widehat{u}_{2yy}(0,y)|^2\frac{C}{R^2}\left(\widehat{u}_{2yy}(0,)^2+\widehat{u}_{2yyy}(0,)^2\right).$$
(67)
Using (65), (66) and (67),

$$\begin{array}{ccc}h_2^2& \hfill =& \underset{k}{}\left(k^2\widehat{h}_2(k,)^2+\widehat{h}_{2y}(k,)^2\right)\hfill \\ & \hfill & \frac{C}{R^2}\underset{k}{}\left(\widehat{u}_{2yy}(k,)^2+\widehat{u}_{2yyy}(k,)^2\right)\hfill \\ & \hfill =& \frac{C}{R^2}\left(u_{2yy}^2+u_{2yyy}^2\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(68)
Therefore, by (56) and (68), we have that $`h=h_1+h_2`$, solution of (52), satisfies

$$h^2C\left(u_{H^1}^2+\frac{1}{R^2}u_{2yy}^2+\frac{1}{R^2}u_{2yyy}^2\right).$$
(69)
This finishes the proof of the Lemma. This Lemma applied to $`p_1(x,y,t)`$ completes the proof of theorem 6.1.

In section 5, we used that the terms depending only on $`f`$ on the right hand side of (27) can be estimated by $`Cf_{H_m^6}^2`$. This fact is a consequence of Theorem 6.1. In fact, it is easy to see that the term that requires highest derivatives of $`f`$ to be estimated is $`^2f^2`$. Therefore, we should bound this term in a sharp way, that is, estimate it using a norm for $`f`$ that involves derivatives of lowest possible order. We show this norm to be $`f_{H_m^6}`$.

Recall that

$$f=\frac{1}{R}\mathrm{\Delta }f(f)U(U)fp,$$
(70)
where $`U=(y,0)`$, and $`p`$ is the solution of

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }p=((f)U)((U)f)\hfill \\ p_y(x,0)=\frac{1}{R}f_{2yy}(x,0)\hfill \\ p_y(x,1)=\frac{1}{R}f_{2yy}(x,1).\hfill \end{array}$$
(71)
Using Theorem 6.1, we get that

$$f^2C\left(f_{H^1}^2+\frac{1}{R^2}f_{xx}^2+\frac{1}{R^2}f_{yy}^2+\frac{1}{R^2}f_{2yyy}^2\right).$$
(72)
Therefore,

$$^2f^2C\left(f_{H^1}^2+\frac{1}{R^2}f_{xx}^2+\frac{1}{R^2}f_{yy}^2+\frac{1}{R^2}(f)_{2yyy}^2\right).$$
(73)
Straightforward computations show that

$`f_{H^1}^2`$ $``$ $`C\left(f_{H^2}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}D^3f^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}D^4f^2\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}f_{xx}^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C}{R^2}}\left(f_{H^2}^2+D^3f^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}D^4f^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}f_{2yyyxx}^2\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}f_{yy}^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C}{R^2}}\left(f_{H^2}^2+D^3f^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}D^4f^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}f_{2yyyyy}^2\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}(f)_{2yyy}^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C}{R^2}}\left(f_{2yyy}^2+f_{2xyyy}^2\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{C}{R^4}}\left(f_{2yyyxx}^2+f_{2yyyyy}^2+f_{2yyyyyy}^2\right).`$
The inequalities above, together with (73), imply

$`^2f^2`$ $``$ $`C(f_{H^2}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}D^3f^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}D^4f^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^4}}f_{2xxyyy}^2`$ (74)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^4}}f_{2yyyyy}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^4}}f_{2yyyyyy}^2)=Cf^2_{H_m^6}.`$
Note that this estimate is sharp in view of theorem 6.1 and the arguments above: one needs at least six derivatives of $`f_2`$ to be able to estimate $`^2f^2`$.

## 7 conclusions

As showed in section 5, perturbations with norm $`_{H_m^6}`$ of order $`R^3`$ decay with time. Note that this also shows that even though one needs control over derivatives of high order of the perturbation, there are different scales for those derivatives. In fact, if

$`f_{H_m^6}^2`$ $`=`$ $`f_{H^2}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}D^3f^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}D^4f^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^4}}f_{2xxyyy}^2`$ (75)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^4}}f_{2yyyyy}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^4}}f_{2yyyyyy}^2=𝒪(R^6),`$
then $`f_{H^2}`$ is of order $`R^3`$, $`D^3f`$ and $`D^4f`$ are of order $`R^2`$, and $`f_{2xxyyy}`$, $`f_{2yyyyy}`$ and $`f_{2yyyyyy}`$ are of order $`R^1`$.

In applications, control over this many derivatives is too restrictive. One possible way to avoid this requirement is to incorporate a smoothing property of the system to the argument. We hope to address this question in the future.


format: text

text:
# Hierarchy of one and many-parameter families of elliptic chaotic maps of cn and sn types

## 1 Introduction

In the past twenty years dynamical systems, particularly one dimensional iterative maps have attracted much attention and have become an important area of research activity  specially elliptic maps . Here in this paper we propose a new hierarchy of families of one and many-parameter elliptic chaotic maps of the interval $`[0,1]`$. By replacing trigonometric functions with Jacobian elliptic functions of $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐧}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐧}`$ types, we have generalized the maps presented in references  such that for small values of k the parameter of the elliptic function these maps are topologically conjugate to the maps of references , where using this we have been able to obtain the invariant measure of these maps for small k and thereof it is shown that these maps have the same Kolmogorov-Sinai (KS) entropy  or equivalently Lyapunov characteristic exponent of the trigonometric chaotic maps of references . As this parameter vanishes, these maps are reduced to trigonometric chaotic maps. Also it is shown that just like the maps of references , the new hierarchy of elliptic chaotic maps displays a very peculiar property, that is, contrary to the usual maps, these maps do not display period doubling or period-n-tupling, cascade transition to chaos  as their parameter $`\alpha `$ (parameters) varies, but instead they have single fixed point attractor at certain region of parameters values, where they bifurcate directly to chaos without having period-n-tupling scenario exactly at the values of parameter whose Lyapunov characteristic exponent begins to be positive.
The paper is organized as follows: In section 2 we introduce new hierarchy of one-parameter families of elliptic chaotic maps of $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐧}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐧}`$ types, then in order to make more general class of these families, by composing these maps, we generate hierarchy of families of many-parameters elliptic chaotic maps. For small values of the parameter of the elliptic functions, we have presented, in section 3, the equivalence of the elliptic chaotic maps with the trigonometric chaotic maps of . In section 4 we obtain Sinai-Rulle-Bowen measure for hierarchy of one and many-parameter of elliptic chaotic maps for small $`𝐤`$. Section 5 is devoted to explain KS-entropy of elliptic chaotic maps. Paper ends with a brief conclusion.

## 2 One-parameter and many-parameter families of elliptic chaotic maps of $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐧}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐧}`$ types

The families of one-parameter elliptic chaotic maps of $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐧}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐧}`$ at the interval $`[0,1]`$ are defined as the ratio of Jacobian elliptic functions of $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐧}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐧}`$ types  through the following equation:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(1)}(x,\alpha )=\frac{\alpha ^2\left(cn(Ncn^1(\sqrt{x}))\right)^2}{1+(\alpha ^21)\left(cn(Ncn^1(\sqrt{x}))\right)^2},$$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(2)}(x,\alpha )=\frac{\alpha ^2\left(sn(Nsn^1(\sqrt{x}))\right)^2}{1+(\alpha ^21)\left(sn(Nsn^1(\sqrt{x}))\right)^2}.$$
(2.1)
Obviously, these equations map the unit interval $`[0,1]`$ into itself. Defining shwarzian derivative  $`S\mathrm{\Phi }_N^\omega (x),\omega =1,2`$ as:

$$S\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(\omega )}(x)\right)=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(\omega )\prime \prime \prime }(x)}{\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(\omega )}(x)}\frac{3}{2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(\omega )\prime \prime }(x)}{\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(\omega )}(x)}\right)^2=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(\omega )\prime \prime }(x)}{\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(\omega )}(x)}\right)^{}\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(\omega )\prime \prime }(x)}{\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(\omega )}(x)}\right)^2,$$
(2.2)
with a prime denoting a single differential, one can show that:

$$S\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(\omega )}(x)\right)=S(sn(Nsn^1(\sqrt{x})^2)))0,$$

since $`\frac{d}{dx}(sn(Nsn^1(\sqrt{x})^2)))`$ can be written as:

$$\frac{d}{dx}(sn(Nsn^1(\sqrt{x})^2)))=A^{N1}_{i=1}(xx_i),$$

with $`0x_1<x_2<x_3<\mathrm{}.<x_{N1}1`$, then we have:

$$S(sn(Nsn^1(\sqrt{x})^2)))=\frac{1}{2}^{N1}_{J=1}\frac{1}{(xx_j)^2}(\underset{J=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\frac{1}{(xx_j)})^2<0.$$

Therefore, the maps $`\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(\omega )}(\alpha ,x),`$ $`\omega =1,2`$ are (N-1)-nodal maps, that is, they have $`(N1)`$ critical points in unit interval $`[0,1]`$  and they have only a single period one stable fixed point or they are ergodic (See Figure 1).
As an example, we give below some of these maps $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{(1)}(x,\alpha )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{(2)}(x,\alpha )`$:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{(1)}(x,\alpha )=\frac{\alpha ^2\left((1k^2)(2x1)+k^2x^2\right)^2}{\left(1k^2+2k^2xk^2x^2\right)^2+(\alpha ^21)\left((1k^2)(2x1)+k^2x^2\right)^2},$$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{(2)}(x,\alpha )=\frac{4\alpha ^2x(1k^2x)(1x)}{(1k^2x^2)^2+4x(1x)(\alpha ^21)(1k^2x)}.$$

Below we also introduce their conjugate or isomorphic maps which can be very useful in derivation of their invariant measure and calculation of their KS-entropy for small values of parameter k. Conjugacy means that the invertible map $`h(x)=\frac{1x}{x}`$ (which maps $`I=[0,1]`$ into $`[0,\mathrm{})`$) transform maps $`\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(\omega )}(x,\alpha )`$ into $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_N^{(\omega )}(x,\alpha ),\omega =1,2`$ defined as:

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_N^{(1)}(x,\alpha )=\left(h\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(1)}h^1\right)(x,\alpha )=\frac{1}{\alpha ^1}\mathrm{𝐬𝐜}^2(N\mathrm{𝐬𝐜}^1(\sqrt{x})),\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_N^{(2)}(x,\alpha )=\left(h\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(2)}h^1\right)(x,\alpha )=\frac{2}{\alpha ^2}\mathrm{𝐜𝐬}^2(N\mathrm{𝐜𝐬}^1(\sqrt{x})).\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.3)
Finally, by composing the maps introduced in $`(2.1)`$ we can define many-parameter families of elliptic chaotic maps, where these many-parameter maps belong to different universal class than the single parameters ones ( as it is shown at the end of section 5). Therefore, by denoting their composition by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{N_1,N_2,\mathrm{},N_n}^{(\omega _1,\alpha _1),(\omega _2,\alpha _2),\mathrm{},(\omega _n,\alpha _n)}(x)`$ we can write:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{N_1,N_2,\mathrm{},N_n}^{(\omega _1,\alpha _1),(\omega _2,\alpha _2),\mathrm{},(\omega _n,\alpha _n)}(x)=\stackrel{n}{\stackrel{}{\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_{N_1}^{(\omega _1)}\mathrm{\Phi }_{N_2}^{(\omega _2)}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{N_n}^{(\omega _n)}(x)\right)}}=`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{N_1}^{(\omega _1)}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{N_2}^{(\omega _2)}(\mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{N_n}^{(\omega _n)}(x,\alpha _n),\alpha _{(n1)})\mathrm{},\alpha _2),\alpha _1)`$ (2.4)
Thus obtained maps are many-parameter generalization of Ulam and von Neumann maps . Since these maps consist of the composition of the $`(N_k1)`$-nodals $`(N_k=1,2,\mathrm{},n)`$ with negative shwarzian derivative, they are $`N_1N_2\mathrm{}N_n1`$-nodals map and their shwarzian derivative is negative, too . Therefore, these maps have at most $`N_1N_2\mathrm{}N_N+1`$ attracting periodic orbits . Once again the composition maps have also a single period one fixed point or they are ergodic (see Figure 2).
As an example, we give below some of them: $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{2,2}^{(1,\alpha _1),(1,\alpha _2)}(x)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{2,2}^{(1,\alpha _1),(2,\alpha _2)}(x)`$:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{2,2}^{(1,\alpha _1),(1,\alpha _2)}(x)=\frac{\alpha _1^2\left(𝐘^2+2\mathrm{𝐗𝐘}+k_1^2(𝐘𝐗)^2\right)^2}{\left(𝐘^2k_1^2(𝐘𝐗)^2\right)^2+(\alpha _1^21)\left(𝐘^2+2\mathrm{𝐗𝐘}+k_1^2(𝐘𝐗)^2\right)^2},$$

where:

$$𝐗=\alpha _2^2\left(1+2x+k_1^2(1x)^2\right)^2\text{and}𝐘=\left(1k_1^2(1x)^2\right)^2+(\alpha _2^21)(1+2x+k_1^2(1x)^2)^2$$

and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{2,2}^{(1,\alpha _1),(2,\alpha _2)}(x)=\frac{\alpha _1^2\left(𝐘^2+2\mathrm{𝐗𝐘}+k_1^2(𝐘𝐗)^2\right)^2}{\left(𝐘^2k_1^2(𝐘𝐗)^2\right)^2+(\alpha _1^21)\left(𝐘^2+2\mathrm{𝐗𝐘}+k_1^2(𝐘𝐗)^2\right)^2},$$

where:

$$𝐗=4\alpha _2^2x(1x)(1k_2^2x)\text{and}𝐘=(1k_2^2x^2)^2+4(\alpha _2^21)x(1x)(1k_2^2x).$$

## 3 Topological conjugacy of elliptic chaotic maps with trigonometric ones for small values of elliptic parameter $`𝐊`$

In order to obtain the SRB-measure of one and many-parameter families of elliptic chaotic maps for small value of elliptic parameter $`𝐤`$, we prove that elliptic chaotic maps are topologically conjugated with trigonometric chaotic maps of references  for small value of elliptic parameter.
To do so, we consider the first order differential equation of elliptic chaotic maps given in $`(2.1)`$. This differential equation can be obtained simply by taking derivation with respect to $`𝐱`$ from both sides of the relations $`(2.1)`$, so we have:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_N^{(\omega )}}{dx}}={\displaystyle \frac{N}{\alpha }}\times `$
$`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_N^{(\omega )}(1+\alpha ^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_N^{(\omega )})(1+\alpha ^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_N^{(\omega )}\frac{k^2}{2}((1(1)^\omega )\alpha ^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_N^{(\omega )}+(1+(1)^{(\omega )})))}{x(1+x)(1+x\frac{k^2}{2}((1(1)^\omega )x+(1+(1)^\omega )))}}}`$
For small values of $`𝐤`$, the above differential equation is reduced to:

$$\frac{d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_N^{(\omega )}(x,\alpha )}{dx}=\frac{N}{\alpha }\times \frac{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_N^{(\omega )}(x,\alpha )}\left(1+\frac{(1\frac{k^2}{4}(1(1)^\omega ))\alpha ^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_N^{(\omega )}(x,\alpha )}{1\frac{(}{k^2}4(1+(1)^\omega )}\right)}{\sqrt{x}\left(1+\frac{(1\frac{k^2}{4}(1(1)^\omega ))\alpha ^2x}{1\frac{k^2}{4}(1+(1)^\omega )}\right)}.$$
(3.2)
Now, the dilatation map:

$$x^{}=\frac{(1\frac{k^2}{4}(1(1)^\omega ))\alpha ^2x}{1\frac{k^2}{4}(1+(1)^\omega )},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_N^\omega (x^{},\alpha )=\frac{(1\frac{k^2}{4}(1(1)^\omega ))\alpha ^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_N^\omega (x,\alpha )}{1\frac{k^2}{4}(1+(1)^\omega )},$$

reduces the differential equation $`(3.1)`$ to:

$$\frac{d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_N^{(\omega )}(x^{},\alpha )}{dx^{}}=\frac{N}{\alpha }\frac{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }^{}}_N^\omega (x^{},\alpha )}\left(1+\alpha ^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }^{}}_N^\omega (x^{},\alpha )\right)}{\sqrt{x^{}}(1+x^{})}.$$

Integrating it, we get:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_N^{(1)}(x^{},\alpha )=\frac{1}{(1\frac{k^2}{2})}\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(1)}((1\frac{k^2}{2})x,\alpha )=\frac{1}{\alpha ^2}\mathrm{tan}^2\left(N\mathrm{arctan}(\sqrt{x^{}})\right),$$
(3.3)
$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_N^{(2)}(x^{},\alpha )=(1\frac{k^2}{2})\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(2)}(\frac{x}{1\frac{k^2}{2}},\alpha )=\frac{1}{\alpha ^2}\mathrm{cot}^2\left(N\mathrm{arctan}(\sqrt{\frac{1}{x^{}}})\right).$$
(3.4)
Therefore, for small values of $`𝐤`$ (the parameter of the elliptic functions) elliptic chaotic maps are topologically conjugate with trigonometric chaotic maps. Hence, for small $`𝐤`$ their KS-entropy or equivalently Lyapunov characteristic exponent is the same with the KS-entropy and Lyapunov exponent of chaotic maps of reference , where the numerical simulations of section 5 approve the above assertion. Actually, the simulations of section 5 indicate that, except for the values of $`𝐤`$ near one, the elliptic and trigonometric maps are topologically conjugate. With a reasoning similar to one given above, we can prove that the combination of elliptic maps given in section 2 is almost topologically conjugate with the combination of trigonometric maps of reference .

## 4 Invariant measure

Characterizing invariant measure for explicit nonlinear dynamical systems is a fundamental problem which connects dynamical theory to statistics and statistical mechanics. A well-known example is Ulam and von Neumann map which has an ergodic measure $`\mu =\frac{1}{\sqrt{x(1x)}}`$ . The probability measure $`\mu `$ on $`[0,1]`$ is called an SRB or invariant measure . For deterministic system such as $`\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(\omega )}(x,\alpha )`$-map, the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(\omega )}(x,\alpha )`$-invariance means that, its invariant measure $`\mu (x)`$ fulfills the following formal Frobenius-Perron(FP) integral equation:

$$\mu (y)=_0^1\delta (y\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(1,2)}(x,\alpha ))\mu (x)𝑑x.$$

This is equivalent to:

$$\mu (y)=\underset{x\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{1(\omega )}(y,\alpha )}{}\mu (x)\frac{dx}{dy},$$
(4.1)
defining the action of standard FP operator for the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }_N(x)`$ over a function as:

$$P_{\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(\omega )}}f(y)=\underset{x\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{1(\omega )}(y,\alpha )}{}f(x)\frac{dx}{dy}.$$
(4.2)
We see that, the invariant measure $`\mu (x)`$ is actually the eigenstate of the FP operator $`P_{\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(\omega )}}`$ corresponding to the largest eigenvalue 1.
One can show that $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }(x)`$, the invariant measure of conjugate map, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}=h\mathrm{\Phi }h^1`$ can be written in terms of $`\mu (x)`$, the invariant measure of chaotic map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, as:

$$(\stackrel{~}{\mu }h^{})(x)=\mu (x)$$
(4.3)
Therefore, considering the conjugacy relation (3.3) between the maps $`\mathrm{\Phi }_N^1(x,\alpha )`$ and
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_N^1(x,\alpha )=\frac{1}{\alpha ^2}\mathrm{tan}^2\left(N\mathrm{arctan}(\sqrt{x^{}})\right)`$ and using the relation (4.3) with invertible map $`h(x)=\frac{1}{(1\frac{k^2}{2})}`$ together with taking into account that the former one, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\alpha )`$, one has the following invariant measure

$$\mu (x,\beta )=\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{\sqrt{\beta }}{\sqrt{x(1x)}(\beta +(1\beta )x)}\beta >0,$$
(4.4)
we obtain the following expression for the invariant measure of chaotic maps $`\mathrm{\Phi }_N^1(x,\alpha )`$:

$$\mu (x)=\frac{2\sqrt{2\beta }}{(2+(2+k^2)\beta x)\sqrt{(2k^2)x}},$$
(4.5)
for small values of k, where:

$$\alpha =\sqrt{\beta }\mathrm{tan}\left(N\mathrm{arctan}(\sqrt{\frac{1}{\beta }})\right).$$
(4.6)
With the same prescription as mentioned above, we can, for small values of elliptic parameter k, obtain the invariant measure of all other types of elliptic chaotic maps which are generalizations of trigonometric chaotic maps. It should be mentioned that for trigonometric chaotic maps , their composition  and their coupling  the invariant measure has already been obtained and presented in our previous papers.

## 5 KS-Entropy and Lyapounve exponent

KS-entropy or metric entropy measures how chaotic a dynamical system is and it is proportional to the rate at which information about the state of system is lost in the course of time or iteration . As it is proved in Appendix A, for small values of k, the KS-entropy of elliptic chaotic maps $`h(\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }_N^\omega (x,\alpha ))`$ is equal to KS-entropy of trigonometric chaotic maps , where for one-parameter elliptic chaotic maps we have:

$$h(\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(\omega )}(x,\alpha ))=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{N(1+\beta +2\sqrt{\beta })^{N1}}{(_{k=0}^{[\frac{N}{2}]}C_{2k}^N\beta ^k)(_{k=0}^{[\frac{N1}{2}]}C_{2k+1}^N\beta ^k)}\right).$$
(5.1)
Also, in order to study discrete dynamical system, we could refer to Lyapunov exponent which is, in fact, the characteristic exponent of the rate of average magnificent of the neighborhood of an arbitrary point $`x_0`$ and it is shown by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_0)`$ which is written as:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_0)=lim_n\mathrm{}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{d}{dx}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(\omega )}(x,\alpha )\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(w)}(x,\alpha )\mathrm{}.\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(\omega )}(x,\alpha )}\right)$$

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_0)=lim_n\mathrm{}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\mathrm{ln}\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(\omega )}(x_k,\alpha )}{dx},$$
(5.2)
where $`x_k=\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }_N\mathrm{\Phi }_N\mathrm{}.\mathrm{\Phi }_N^k(x_0)}`$. It is obvious that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_0)<0`$ for an attractor, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_0)>0`$ for a repeller and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_0)=0`$ for marginal situation . Also, the Lyapunov number is independent of initial point $`x_0`$, provided that the motion inside the invariant manifold is ergodic, thus $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_0)`$ characterizes the invariant manifold of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(\omega )}`$ as a whole.
For small values of the elliptic parameter, the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(\omega )}`$ and its combination are measurable. Birkohf ergodic theorem implies the equality of KS-entropy and Lyapunov number, that is :

$$h(\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(\omega )}(x,\alpha ))=\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_0,\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(\omega )}(x,\alpha )).$$
(5.3)
A comparison of analytically calculated KS-entropy of maps $`\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(\omega )}(x,\alpha )`$ $`(5.1)`$ and their combinations ( first kind ) for small values of the elliptic parameter, with the corresponding Lyapunov characteristic exponent obtained by simulation (see Figures $`13`$ ), indicates that in chaotic region these maps are ergodic as Birkohf ergodic theorem predicts. In non-chaotic regions of the parameters, Lyapunov characteristic exponent is negative, since in this region we have only a single period fixed point without transition to chaos.
Also, numerical calculation shows that this class of maps have different asymptotic behavior. Actually one can show that the KS-entropy of one-parameter family of elliptic chaotic maps of $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐧}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐧}`$ types $`(5.1)`$ have the following asymptotic behavior:

$$\{\begin{array}{c}h(\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(\omega )}(x,\alpha =N+0^{}))(N\alpha )^{\frac{1}{2}}\hfill \\ h(\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(\omega )}(x,\alpha =\frac{1}{N}+0^+))(\alpha \frac{1}{N})^{\frac{1}{2}},\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.4)
Therefore, the above relation $`(5.4)`$ implies that: all one-parameter elliptic chaotic maps belong to the same universal class, which is different from the universality class of pitch fork bifurcation maps, actually the asymptotic behavior elliptic ones is similar to the class of intermittent maps . But intermittency can not occur in this family of maps for any values of parameter $`\alpha `$ and for small values of parameter k since elliptic chaotic maps and their n-composition do not have minimum values other than zero and maximum values other than one in the interval $`[0,1]`$.
It is interesting that the numerical and theoretical calculations predict different asymptotic behavior for many-parameter elliptic chaotic maps. As an example of asymptotic of the composed maps, the KS-entropy of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{2,2}^{(1,\alpha _1)(1,\alpha _2)}(x)`$ is presented below :

$$h(\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }_{2,2}^{(1,\alpha _1)(1,\alpha _2)}(x))=\mathrm{ln}\frac{(1+\sqrt{\beta })^2(2\sqrt{\beta }+\alpha _2(1+\beta ))^2}{(1+\beta )(4\beta +\alpha _2^2(1+\beta )^2)},$$
(5.5)
With choosing $`\beta =\alpha _2^\nu ,0<\nu <2`$, entropy given by $`(5.5)`$ reads:

$$h(\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }_{2,2}^{(1,\alpha _1)(1,\alpha _2)}(x))=\mathrm{ln}\frac{(1+\alpha _2^{\frac{\nu }{2}})^2(2\alpha _2^{\frac{\nu }{2}}+\alpha _2(1+\alpha _2^\nu ))^2}{(1+\alpha _2^\nu )(4\alpha _2^\nu +\alpha _2^2(1+\alpha _2^\nu )^2)},$$

which has the following asymptotic behavior near $`\alpha _20`$ and $`\alpha _2\mathrm{}`$:

$$\{\begin{array}{c}h(\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }_{2,2}^{(1,\alpha _1)(1,\alpha _2)}(x))\alpha _2^{\frac{\nu }{2}}\text{as}\alpha _20,\hfill \\ h(\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }_{2,2}^{(1,\alpha _1)(1,\alpha _2)}(x))(\frac{1}{\alpha _2})^{\frac{\nu }{2}}\text{as}\alpha _2\mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

The above asymptotic behaviours indicate that, for an arbitrary value of $`0<\nu <2`$, the maps $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{2,2}^{(1,\alpha _1)(1,\alpha _2)}(x)`$ belong to the universal class which is different from that of one-parameter elliptic chaotic maps $`(5.4)`$ or that of pitch fork bifurcating maps.
In summary, combining the analytic discussion of section 2 with the numerical simulation, we deduce that these maps are ergodic in certain values of their parameters as explained above and in the complementary interval of parameters they have only a single period one attractive fixed point in a way that, in contrary to the most of usual one-dimensional one-parameter families of maps, they have only a transition to chaos from a period one attractive fixed points to chaotic state or vise versa.

## 6 Conclusion

We have given hierarchy of one and many-parameter families of one-dimensional elliptic chaotic maps having the interesting property of being either chaotic (proper to say ergodic ) or having stable period one fixed point and they go to chaotic state from a stable single periodic state without having usual period doubling or period-n-tupling scenario. Perhaps this interesting property is again due to existence of invariant measure for small values of the elliptic parameter.

Appendix A: KS-entropy of ellptic chaotic maps:
In order to prove that KS-entropy for one and many-parameter elliptic chaotic maps for small values of elliptic parameter would be equal to KS-entropy of trigonometric chaotic maps , the following statement should be considered taking into account that $`y=\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(\omega )}(x,\alpha )`$:

$$\mu (x)dy=\underset{x_if^1(y)}{}\mu (x_i)dx_i,$$

$$\stackrel{~}{y}=h(y)\stackrel{~}{x}=h(x)\stackrel{~}{y}=\stackrel{~}{f}(\stackrel{~}{x}),$$

with

$$\stackrel{~}{f}=hfh^1,$$

$$(\stackrel{~}{\mu }h^{})(x)=\mu (x),$$

$$\stackrel{~}{h}(\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }_N^{(\omega )}(x,\alpha ))=d\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{\mu }(x)\mathrm{ln}(\frac{d\stackrel{~}{y}}{dx})$$

$$=𝑑x(\stackrel{~}{\mu }h)(x)h^{}(x)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{dy}{dx}\frac{h^{}(y)}{h^{}(x)}\right)$$

$$=𝑑x\mu (x)\mathrm{ln}(\frac{dy}{dx})+𝑑x\mu (x)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{dy}{dx}\frac{h^{}(y)}{h^{}(x)}\right)$$

$$=h(\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }_N^\omega (x,\alpha )).$$

since

$$𝑑x\mu (x)\mathrm{ln}h^{}(y)=\mathrm{ln}\left(\underset{x_iinf^1(y)}{}\mu (x_i)dx_i\right)=𝑑x\mu (x)\mathrm{ln}(h^{}(y))=𝑑x\mu (x)\mathrm{ln}(h^{}(x)).$$

In the same way, one can show that for small values of elliptic parameters, the KS-entropy of many-parameter families of elliptic chaotic maps would be equal to KS-entropy of many-parameter families of trigonometric chaotic maps of Reference

Figures Captions
Fig.1. The plot of Lyapunov exponent of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{(1)}(x,\alpha )`$, versus the parameters $`\alpha `$.
Fig.2. The plot of Lyapunov exponent of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{(2)}(x,\alpha )`$, versus the parameters $`\alpha `$.
Fig.3. The plot of Lyapunov exponent of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{2,2}^{(1,\alpha _1),(1,\alpha _2)}(x)`$, versus the parameters $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$.