arxiv: v1 [q-bio.nc] 17 May 2008

Transcription

1 Contractive piecewise continuous maps modeling networks of inhibitory neurons. arxiv: v1 [q-bio.nc] 17 May 2008 ELEONORA CATSIGERAS, ÁLVARO ROVELLA, RUBEN BUDELLI April 30th., Abstract We prove that a generic network of three or more inhibitory neurons have periodic or quasi-periodic behavior with a finite number of limit cycles that persist under small perturbations of the set of parameter values. For bifurcating values of the parameters we prove that there exists a non persistent Cantor set attractor K, such that the dynamics restricted to K is chaotic and sensible to initial conditions. The network is modeled by the Poincaré transformation which is piecewise continuous and locally contractive on a compact region B of a finite dimensional manifold, with the separation property: it transforms homeomorphically the different continuity pieces of B into pairwise disjoint sets. PACS 2008 codes: lj, ll, lm Keywords: Neural network, piecewise continuous dynamics, chaotic attractor, limit cycles. 1 Introduction We study the dynamics of an abstract dynamical system modeling a network composed with n 3 neurons, with n arbitrarily large, that are reciprocally coupled by inhibitory synapsis. We consider each neuron modeled as an integrate and fire cell [1], or also as a relaxation oscillator. The internal variable V = V (t) describing each neuron s potential evolves linearly or non linearly, increasing on time t: V (t) has positive first derivative V (t) > 0 verifying a deterministic autonomous differential equation. When the potential reaches a given threshold value, the neuron produces an action potential which, through inhibitory synapses, acts on the other n 1 neurons producing sudden negative changes of their respective potentials. The amplitude s of each change is an increasing function s( ) of the phase of the respective neuron on which it acts. In [2] the networks of n inhibitory neuron cells, modeled as relaxation oscillators of the integrate and fire type [1], is translated to the dynamic of its Poincaré map, which is a locally contractive piecewise continuous map in a compact set of m = n 1 dimensions. For a seek of completeness we include an overview of the steps of this reduction in section 2 of this paper. The dynamical system modeling the network is translated mathematically to a system of iterates of a map F in a compact ball B of IR m. This map F is discontinuous, but piecewise continuous: the phase space can be partitioned into a finite number of pieces such that the map F restricted to each piece is an homeomorphism onto its image, and even a C - diffeomorhism, if the system is smooth in each continuity piece. Instituto de Matemática y Estadística Rafael Laguardia (IMERL), Fac. Ingeniería. Universidad de la República. Uruguay. Corresponding author. Address: Herrera y Reissig 565. C.P Montevideo. Uruguay. Tel-fax: eleonora@fing.edu.uy Centro de Matemática. Fac. de Ciencias. Universidad de la República. Uruguay. Departamento de Biomatemática. Fac. de Ciencias. Universidad de la República. Uruguay 1

2 The map F is also locally contractivewhen restricted to each continuity piece. If besides the m neurons of the network are not very different, then F verifies the separation property: the images of the compact continuity pieces are pairwise disjoint, and therefore they are pairwise separated by a positive minimum distance. In Section 4, we prove Theorem 4.1, which is the first abstract mathematical result: Locally contractive piecewise continuous maps with the separation property generically have only periodic asymptotic behavior, with up to a finite number of limit cycles that are persistent under small perturbations of the map. As a consequence we obtain the following applied result: Generic neuron networks composed by n 3 inhibitory cells exhibit only periodic behavior with a finite number of limit cycles taht are persistent under small perturbations of the set of parameter values. This is a result generalizing the conclusions obtained for two neurons networks in [3] and [4]. On the other hand we note that non generic dynamics are structurable inestable: they are destroyed if the parameters are perturbed, even if the perturbation is arbitrarily small. Therefore we should conclude that theoretically the generic finally periodic behavior described in Theorem 4.1 is the only behavior that exactly, and assympthotically with time going to infinite, could be seen in experiments. Nevertheless, fixed n (the dimension of the space B), fixed the number of continuity pieces of F : B F, and given any natural number N arbitrarily large, there are locally contractive piecewise continuous maps F with the separation property in B, such that are finally periodic with a finite number of persistent limit cycles of period larger than N. We conclude that the neural network, whose parameter values are significatively changed, may become into a periodic system of period arbitrarily large. Those neural systems shall be seen as if they were chaotic, although there is no generic chaos in the rigorous mathematical meaning, which theoretically requires T or +. The mathematical abstract dynamics of the models is indeed periodic, with a very large finite period in the future. But in the practice, its dynamics shall be seen as highly unpredictible, since the observer should wait a very large time T until its irregularity appears. The time T may be much larger than the time of any possible observation, and even than the whole life of the neurons. On the other hand, we find also chaos in the rigorous mathematical meaning, for non generic systems: in Theorem 5.3 of section 5 we prove that bifurcatin locally contractive and piecewise continuous maps with the separation property exhibit a Cantor set attractor such that the dynamics restricted to K is expansive, and therefore, chaotic and sensible to initial conditions. The results of this paper, which are proved theoretically, using classical qualitative mathematical tools to study the deterministic dynamical systems, fit with the experiments in computer simulations with 2 mutually coupled identical neurons as well as with neuronal networks of cells: In [5] it was observed the transition from periodic activity to chaos, indicating that the simulation data perfectly fit to experimental and clinical observations. In the computer simulated experiments the alterations of the discharge patterns when passing from one periodic cycle to another, arise from changes of the network parameters, changes in the connectivity between cells, and also of external modulation. In [6] the computer simulated experiment shows the dynamics of the network of a large number of coupled neurons in a more realistic model. It was observed to be significantly different from the original dynamics of the individual cells: the system can be driven through different synchronization states. Our thesis of Theorems 4.1 and 5.3 are only applicable to determinstic systems. Nevertheless they also qualitatively fit with computer simulations of neural systems with randomness [7], [8], which also show the generation of detectable preferred firing sequences. The topological chaotic systems (the expansivity, or sensibility to initial conditions), where classified in dimension two, in the case of homeomorphisms, by Lewowicz in [9]. In dimension three and greater, 2

3 although it is far from existing a complete classification, expansive or chaotic homeomorphisms were studied in [10], [11], [12]. Nevertheless, those known results about topological expansivity are referred to continuous systems, and besides in low dimensional spaces. In our case, the system is discontinuous, and also of large finite dimension n. In fact, real biological neural networks may have up to the order of neurons. In spite of being yet mostly unknown, the mathematical properties of discontinuous and large dimensional systems, piecewise continuity and local contractiveness, help us to obtain the thesis of non-chaotic persistent periodicity in Theorem 4.1 of this paper. On the other hand, the separation property and the local contractiveness, will play a fundamental role to obtain the thesis of expansivity and chaos in the Theorem 5.3. In Theorem 5.3, we prove that those non generic dynamics with a chaotic attractor evolve in an invariant Cantor set of the space. The Poincaré transformation F of the model can be more regular. It can be defined through C 1+ǫ - locally contractive maps: in each continuity piece it is contractive, differentiable and its derivative is Hölder continuous. Then the geometry structure of the Cantor set K will have bounded geometry, due to the classical proof of bounded distortion (See Lemma of [13]), which is applicable in our case because there exists a constant λ < 1 such that D(F 1 ) λ 1 > 1 (see Remark 2.5 and the assumption in Definition 3.3). Therefore, when one looks profoundly inside the microscopic geometry of the Cantor set attractor K, it exhibits self similarity in its spatial structure. This last result also fits with previous results in Neuroscience. In fact, the neural coding of some mathematical modeled real neurons networks, exhibits the self-similar geometric structure of a Cantor set, when coding the time series of its neural spikes, in dynamical systems modeling the cell behavior in the brain [14]. 2 A mathematical model of the inhibitory neurons network. We include here an overview of the mathematical translation of a model of the n inhibitory neurons network to the dynamics of iterations of a piecewise continuous contractive map F : B B with the separation property, as first posed in [2]. The model is applicable for any finite number n 3 of neurons in the network. The state of the system at time t is described as a point v(t) = (V 1 (t),..., V n (t)) Q depending on t, where V i (t) is the potential level at time t of the i-th. neuron, and Q = [0, 1] n is the n-dimensional cube. We have, by hypothesis, Vi > 0 1 i n, and therefore, the flux inside the cube Q has not singular points. Due to the classic Tubular Flux Theorem [15], after an adequate deffeomorphism of the cube Q, the evolution v(t) in the interior of Q may be assumed linear, without loss of generality. If the neurons were not pairwise radically different, then the diffeomorphism applied to get a linear flux inside the cube Q would be near the identity, and so it should not much modify the usual distance between trajectories. Let B be the set of points in the n faces of the cube Q where at least one of the potentials V i is zero. Analogously, let us call A the set of points in the n faces of the cube Q where at least one of the potentials V i is one. Each of the sets A and B are compact and described with n 1 variables, thus they are n 1 dimensional sets in Q, that are homeomorphic to a ball in R n 1. We shall call B, and also A, as the hexagon, because when n = 3 the 2-dimensional set B is seen as the plane hexagon obtained from the 3-dimensional cube Q after a projection on a plane orthogonal to the flux (see figure 1). From an initial state v(0) = v 0 in B the system evolves linearly through trajectories inside Q that are parallel lines, until they reach the set A, after a time t 1 that depends of the chosen trajectory v(t), i.e. of the initial point v 0. We define the transformation ρ : B A, ρ(v 0 ) = v 1 : v(0) = v 0 B, v(t 1 ) = v 1 A, 3

4 where t 1 is the first non negative time such that v(t 1 ) A. In figure 1 the hexagon B is identified with the hexagon A because the perspective is such that the flux inside the cube Q is orthogonal to the plane of the figure. Therefore, the map ρ in figure 1 is represented as the identity of the black points onto themselves: a ρ(a) = a, c ρ(c) = c, (e, g, i, k, m, o, q) (ρ(e), ρ(g), ρ(i), ρ(k), ρ(m), ρ(o), ρ(q) = (e, g, i, k, m, o, q). Definition 2.1 We define the metric (i.e. distance) d(v 0, w 0 ) = d(v 1, w 1 ) between points v 0, w 0 in B, or v 1, w 1 in A, as the distance between the parallel line trajectories v(t) and w(t) such that v(0) = v 0 and w(0) = w 0. For three neurons this distance is the usual distance in the projection of the three dimensional cube along a fixed direction. This projection is the hexagon of figure 1. With this definition of a new metric in the n 1-dimensional balls A and B, we have the following result: Lemma 2.2 The transformation ρ : B A is an isometry, i.e. d(ρ(v 0 ), ρ(w 0 )) = d(v 0, w 0 ) Proof: As the trajectories in the interior of the cube are all parallel segments, and due that the distance is defined along the orthogonal space of their direction (and not over the sets A or B of faces of the cube Q), we conclude that the distance is the same between the two points v 0 and w 0 of the faces B, that between the points ρ(v 0 ) and ρ(w 0 ) of intersection of their respective trajectories with the faces A. Observe that the timing between v 0 and ρ(v 0 ), and the timing between v 1 and ρ(v 1 ), along one or other trajectory, are in general different. Definition 2.3 The set B is partitioned in n subsets B 1,..., B n where B j = ρ 1 ({v 1 = (V 1,..., V n ) : (V 1,..., V n ) A, V j = 1}) In other words, the subset B j B is the set of initial states in the faces B of the cube Q, such that the first neuron to reach the threshold level 1 (which occurs when the trajectory had evolved and reached the faces A) will be the j-th. neuron. In figure 1 the three two-dimensional sets B 1, B 2 and B 3 are the plane projections of the three frontward faces of the cube (the only faces that could be seen if the cube were not transparent). We observe that the subsets B j have pairwise disjoint not void interiors in R n 1, but their frontiers may intersect. Let us fix the index j = 1, 2,..., n. Due to synapses, when v 0 B j, the state v(t) reaches A because the j-th. neuron reaches the threshold level 1, then it suddenly changes to 0 and produces a negative change s i < 0 in the other n 1 neurons potentials V i (i j), being s i strictly larger when the potential V i is larger, or being s i identically null if there were no sypnatic coupling from the spikes of neuron j to the potential level V i of neuron i. Definition 2.4 We define the synaptic map γ : A B : γ(v 1 ) = v 2, where v 1 = (V 1,..., V j 1, 1, V j+1,..., V n ) ρ(b j ) A, and v 2 = (V 1 s 1,...,V j 1 s j 1,...,0, V j+1 s j+1,...,v n s n ) 4

5 Figure 1: Model of a 3 neurons network in the 3-dimensional cube: Reaching the threshold level of neurons 1,2 and 3 corresponds to the front faces 1, 2 and 3 respectively of the cube. Points marked in black correspond to the linear evolution from backward faces to the front faces. Firing of neurons 1, 2 or 3 correspond to the jumping dotted lines from the respective front face to its parallel backwards face. The figure shows the evolution after 8 spikes of the neuronal system: 1,2,1,1,1,1,1 and 3. b 2 c n a p q f h i j k l m o g e d 1 3 where for any i j the function s i = s i (V i ) is either strictly increasing and continuous for all i, or identically null. We observe that the map s i not only depends on the index i but also on the fixed index j. There is no need to be symetric: the synaptic jump function s i,j = s i,j (V i ) produced in the i-th. neuron s potential V i, due to a spike of the neuron j, when V j reaches its threshold level 1, does not need to be equal to the converse synaptic coupling s j,i = s j,i (V j ) when V i reaches the threshold level 1. We note that γ is discontinuous in the frontier of each subset ρ(b j ) but it is continuous in each piece ρ(b j ). Lemma 2.5 The synaptic map γ : A B is piecewise continuous, and in each continuity piece ρ(b j ) A it is contractive, i.e. d(γ(v 1 ), γ(w 1 )) < d(v 1, w 1 ), v 1, w 1 ρ(b j ) Proof: For two different points v 1, w 1 in ρ(b j ) A we have: v 1 = (V 1,...,V j 1, 1, V j+1,..., V n ), w 1 = (W 1,..., W j 1, 1, W j+1,...,w n ) To v 1 w 1 correspond by γ two different points v 2 w 2 in B as follows: v 2 = γ(v 1 ) = (V 1 s 1,...,V j 1 s j 1, 0, V j+1 s j+1,..., V n s n ) w 2 = γ(w 1 ) = (W 1 u 1,..., W j 1 u j 1, 0, W j+1 u j+1,...,w n u n ) where (s 1,...,s n ) and (u 1,..., u n ) are the sudden changes in the n 1 neurons potentials V i, i j, produced by the threshold level 1 changing to 0 of the firing neuron j. 5

6 Then If for some index i j we had W i > V i, then u i > s i and 0 < (W i u i ) (V i s i ) = (W i V i ) (u i s i ) < W i V i (1) d(γ(v 1 ), γ(w 1 )) < d(v 1, w 1 ) (2) Analogously, if W i < V i we have the same strict inequality (2). In the network of neurons we do not consider those cells, if existed, such that their spikes do not produce a synaptic effect in any other neuron s potential. Therefore, for some index value i, the synaptic negative jumps u i and s i are not null, and the components V i, W i, V i s i, W i u i of the potential vectors v 1, w 1, γ(v 1 ), γ(w 1 ) respectively, will verify inequality (1), and so also (2). Therefore, the inequality (2) holds for any neuron of the system, and it finishes the proof of the lemma. Even more, the map γ, restricted to each of its continuity pieces, is one to one and continuous from a (n 1)- dimensional ball contained in A, to other of the same dimension contained in B. Therefore, it is an homeomorphism on the image of each of its continuity pieces. Even more, it may be considered as a piecewise C r - diffeomorphism, for some r 1, if the mathematic equations s i = s i (V i ), modeling the synapsis of the cells, are C r smooth. Definition 2.6 The Poincaré map is the first return map from B to B defined as follows: G : B B : G = γ ρ The second return map from B to B is F = G G From 2.2 and 2.5 we deduce the following result: Remark 2.7 The Poincaré map G : B B is a contractive piecewise continuous map. The second return map F : B B is a contractive piecewise continuous map. G and F are locally C r -diffeomorphisms, with r 0, when restricted to the continuity pieces of B. The cause to consider the second return map F instead the first one G, is that it may G(B i ) G(B j ) for some i j, and so G does not necessarily verify the so called separation property: Definition 2.8 We say that a piecewise continuous map F : B B, with continuity compact pieces B i B, i = 1,...,n has the separation property if F(B i ) F(B j ) = for all i j. Let us show that, if the neurons are not very different each from any other (i.e. the synapsis s i, for i = 1, 2,...,n, are in a neighborhood of the diagonal s 1 = s 2 = s 3 =... = s n ), then F = G G is injective and so it verifies the separation property. As the separation property is an open condition, it is enough to prove it when s 1 = s 2 =... = s n. Lemma 2.9 If G is non injective: G(v 0 ) = G(w 0 ) for some v 0 w 0 in B 0, then 0 1 V j < s i (V i ) for some j i (1) Proof: Consider B i and B j with i j, two continuity pieces of G such that G(B i ) G(B j ). This fact can occur only if, from some initial state v 0 B j the neuron j reaches the threshold level 1, when other neuron i has a potential level V i too low: V i is smaller than the negative change s i produced in it by synapses. Then, immediately after the synaptic change is produced, the neuron i will exhibit a negative 6

7 potential V i s i < 0. One should wait until it reaches potential 0 to see a point G(v 0 ) G(B j ) B with V i = 0 and V j > 0. This point may be coincident to the point G(w 0 ) B, coming from an initial state w 0 B i, whose orbit does not reach any negative potential after synapsis, and so gets sooner to the set B. We have G(v 0 ) = G(w 0 ) with w 0 B i (the first neuron to fire is the i-th.), V i = 0 and V j > 0. The situation described above occurs only if we start with some v 0 B j as initial state such that 1 V j is small, say v 0 = (V 1,..., V i 1, 0, V i+1,...,v j,...,v n ) B j 0 1 V j < ǫ = s i (V i ) for some j i (1) In fact: neuron j will reach its threshold level 1 without giving enough time to the neuron i, who had discharged immediately before j, increase its potential V i more than ǫ. As the negative change in the potential of neuron i is s i, greater in absolute value than ǫ, its potential will be negative immediately after the firing of neuron j. Theorem 2.10 The second return map F : B B of the dynamical system modeling the network of n neurons coupled with inhibitory synapsis, is a locally contractive piecewise continuous map with the separation property. Also F is a C r -diffeomorphism (for some r 0) in each of its continuity pieces B i B, and B and B i are homeomorphic to compact balls in the (n 1)-dimensional real space R n 1. Proof: Due to Lemmas 2.2, 2.5 and Remark 2.7 the double return map F = G G is locally contractive and piecewise continuous, being a C r diffeomorphism in each of its continuity pieces. It is left to prove that it has the separation property. Suppose, by contradiction that F is not injective: G G(B i ) G G(B j ) for some j i. Then the image w 1 = G(w 0 ) of some point w 0 B i verifies the necessary condition (1) of Lemma 2.9. On the other hand, the state w 1 = G(w 0 ), with w 0 B i, it is obtained after a discharge of the neuron i. Then, it verifies where V + k w 1 = (V 1 s 1,...,V i 1 s i 1, 0, V i+1 s i+1,...,v n s n ) G(B i ) = V k s k for all k i Then: w 1 = (V + 1,..., V + i 1, 0, V + i+1,..., V + n ) G(B i) V + k = V k s k, 1 V + k = (1 V k) + s k s k = s i k i To get the last equality, recall we are assuming s 1 = s 2 =... = s n. We deduce: 1 V + k s i(v i ) for all k i and we conclude that first return point w 1 = G(w 0 ) is not an initial position verifying the necessary condition in lemma 2.9, ending the proof of the Theorem. After Theorem 2.10, we shall study the abstract locally contractive piecewise continuous maps with the separation property in n 1 dimensional sets homeomorphic to compact balls, as the model of n inhibitory neurons networks with negative synapsis. We will not use in future the first return map G, but the second return map F instead. In what follows we may use the symbol G with other meanings. In the following sections the second return map F, verifying the thesis of the Theorem 2.10, will be our given transformation, whose iterates define a discrete dynamical deterministic system in the n 1- dimensional ball B. 7

8 Due to Theorem 2.10, all the general results that shall be proved in this paper about the dynamics of the maps F verifying the thesis of that Theorem, are applicable to neural inhibitory networks. But the reciprocal assertion of Theorem 2.10 is not necessarily true. Therefore our future assertions about the existence of some of such F exhibiting particular dynamical properties, are not necessarily true for the neural networks systems. 3 The abstract dynamical system. Let M be a C real Riemannian n-dimensional manifold. Let B M be a compact set of M which is homeomorphic (not necessarily diffeomorphic) to a compact ball in R n. Definition 3.1 We say that P is a finite partition of B if P = {B i } 1 i m is a finite collection of compact balls B i of B, such that 1 i m B i = B and int B i int B j =, for i j. We denote S = δp = i j B i B j, and call S the separation line, although it is not a line in the usual sense, but the union of sets contained in the homeomorphic images of the n 1-dimensional sphere S n 1 R n. Definition 3.2 Given a finite partition P = {B i } 1 i m of B, we call F a C r (r 0) piecewise continuous map on (B, P) with the separation property if F is a finite family F = {f i } 1 i m of C r diffeomorphisms f i : B i f i (B i ) B, such that f i (B i ) f j (B j ) = if i j. We note that F is multidefined on the separation line S = δp. Each B i shall be called continuity piece of F. Also note that F 1 exists defined in i f i(b i ). F 1 is one to one and a C r diffeomorphism, and for any point x i f i(b i ), its backward first iterate is uniquely defined as F 1 (x) = fi 1 (x), where i is the unique index value such that x f i (B i ). Definition 3.3 We say that F is locally contractive if dist(f i (x), f i (y)) < dist(x, y), for all x and y in the same B i, for all 1 i m. We note that, due to compactness, there exists a positive real constant λ < 1, independent of i, such that dist(f i (x), f i (y)) λdist (x, y) for all x, y B i for some i Given a point x B, take its image set F(x) = {f i (x) : x B i }. If H B, its image set is F(H) = x H F(x). We have that B F(B)...F k (B).... Definition 3.4 For any natural number k, we call atom of generation k to f ik... f i2 f i1 (B I ) where I = (i 1, i 2,..., i k ) {1, 2,..., m} k and B I is the subset of B i1 where the composed function above is defined. (If B I were an empty set, then the atom is empty.) Abusing of the notation we write the atom as: f ik... f i2 f i1 (B i1 ) We note that each atom of generation k is a compact, not necessarily connected set, whose diameter is smaller than λ k diamb. The set F k (B) is a compact set, formed by the union of all (at most m k and at least m) non empty atoms of generation k. Given a point x B, we define F(x 0 ) as the finite set of points f i (x) for all i such that x B i. We define F 2 (x) to finite set of points f i2 f i1 (x) for all i 1, i 2 such that x B i1 f 1 i 1 (B i2 ). Analogously, it is defined F n (x). Definition 3.5 A point y is in the limit set L + (x) of a point x 0 B if there exists n j and x n F n (x 0 ) such that x n F(x n 1 ) for all n 1 and x nj y. The limit set L + (B) is the union of the limit sets of all points x B. 8

9 Definition 3.6 We say that a point x is periodic of period p if there exists a first natural number p 1 such that F p (x) x. This is equivalent to x be a periodic point in the usual sense, for the uniquely defined map F p, i.e. F p (x) = x. In this case we call the orbit of x (i.e. F j (x), j = 1,..., p) a periodic orbit with period p. The limit set L + (F) is contained in the compact, totally disconnected set K = k 1 F k (B). It could be a Cantor set. But generically K shall be the union of a finite number of periodic orbits, as we shall prove in Theorem 4.1. Definition 3.7 We say that F is finally periodic with period p if the limit set L + (F) is the union of only a finite number of periodic orbits with minimum common multiple of their periods equal to p. In this case we call limit cycles to the periodic orbits of F. We call basin of attraction of each limit cycle L to the set of points x B whose limit set L + (x) is L. It is immediate to deduce that, if F is finally periodic, then the orbits in the basin of attraction of each limit cycle are quasi-periodic with period equal to a divisor of p. Topology in the space of C r -piecewise continuous maps on B. Let P = {B i } 1 i m and Q = {A i } 1 i m be finite partitions (see Definition 3.1) of the compact region B with the same number m of pieces. We define the distance between P and Q as d(p, Q) = max 1 i m Hdist(A i, B i ) where Hdist(A, B) denotes the Hausdorff distance between the two sets A and B. i.e. Hdist(A, B) = max{ dist(x, B), dist (y, A), x A, y B} Definition 3.8 Let F = {f i : B i B} 1 i m and G = {g i : A i B} 1 i m be C r (r 0) locally contractive piecewise continuous maps on (B, P) and (B, Q) respectively. For a given positive real number ǫ we say that G is a ǫ C r perturbation of F if max 1 i m C (g i f i ) Bi A i r < ǫ, and d(p, Q) < ǫ where C r (K) denotes the so called C r distance in the functional space C r functions in the set K: it is the maximum of the norm of the function and of its first r derivatives in the (compact) set K. (Let us recall that differentiabiliy of a function in a compact set K, assumes by definition, that the function can be extended differentiably to an open set larger than K). Definition 3.9 We say that the limit cycles of a finally periodic map F (see Definition 3.7) are persistent if: For all ǫ > 0 there exists ǫ > 0 such that all ǫ C r perturbations G of F are finally periodic with the same finite number of limit cycles (periodic orbits) than F, and such that each limit cycle L G of G has the same period and is ǫ -near of some limit cycle L F of F (i.e. the Hausdorff distance between L G and L F verifies Hdist(L G, L F ) < ǫ ). Definition 3.10 We say that a property P of the C r -piecewise continuous maps (for instance being finally periodic as will be shown in Theorem 4.1) is (topologically) generic if it is open and dense in the topology defined in 3.8. Being generic means: 1) The openness condition: For each C r -piecewise continuous map F that verifies the property P there exist ǫ > 0 such that all ǫ-perturbation of F also verifies P. 9

10 This openness condition implies that the property P shall be robust under small changes of the parameters of the system, and so the system should be structurably stable. When this robustness holds, the property P is still observed in experiments where the parameters of the system can not stay exactly fixed, but are changed a small quantity (smaller than ǫ), even randomless or in some unknown fashion. 2) The denseness condition: For each C r -piecewise continuous map F that does not verify the property P, given ǫ > 0, arbitrarily small, there exist some ǫ-perturbation G of F such that G does verify the property P. This density condition means that the only behaviors that have chance to be observed under experiments are those that verify the property P. In fact, if the system did not behave exhibiting the property P, then an arbitrarily small change in the parameters of the system would lead it to exhibit P. We note that the denseness condition implies that if the property P were generic, then the opposite property (Non-P) has null interior in the space of C r -piecewise continuous maps, i.e. Non-P is not robust at all: an arbitrarily small change in the parameters of the system would lead it to exhibit P. That is why we define the following: Definition 3.11 If the property P is generic, we say that any system that does not exhibit P is bifurcating, and that Non-P is a non-persistent property. 4 The generic persistent periodic behavior. Theorem 4.1 Let F be a locally contractive C r (r 0) piecewise continuous map with the separation property. Then generically F is finally periodic with persistent limit cycles We recall from Definition 3.10 that either F itself is finally periodic with persistent (robust) limit cycles, or given an arbitrarily small ǫ > 0 there exists a C r ǫ perturbation G of F that is finally periodic with persistent limit cycles. To prove Theorem 4.1 we shall use the following lemma: Lemma 4.2 If there exists an integer k 1 such that the compact set K = F k (B) does not intersect the separation line S of the partition into the continuity pieces of F, then F is finally periodic and its limit cycles are persistent. Proof: By hypothesis, the distance from K to S is positive. As the maximum diameter of the finite number of atoms of generation k converges to zero when k goes to infinite (because F is a contraction on each of its continuity pieces), there exists a sufficiently large k such that none of the atoms of generation larger or equal to k, intersect S. Therefore, their successive images by F are single atoms, and the number of atoms remains constant. We conclude that there is at least one atom of generation k that contains its whole image, by say F p with p M k, where M is the number of continuity pieces of F. As distances are contracted, all points of this atom converge to a periodic point of period p. The iterates of all the atoms of generation k are eventually periodic, so also converge to a periodic point. The condition of the hypothesis is open in the topology defined in 3.8. Besides, the itinerary of each atom of generation k remain unchanged with C r -small perturbations, because it is at positive distance from the separation line S. So the finite number of periodic orbits and their periods are persistent. Proof of Theorem 4.1. Let us take F being not necessarily finally periodic and prove that, for all ǫ > 0 there exists a C r ǫ perturbation G of F that is finally periodic with persistent limit cycles. The contractive diffeomorphisms f i of the finite family F = {f i : B i B} i can be C r extended, being still contractive diffeomorphisms, to small compact neighborhoods U i B i, in such a way that the extended map F ǫ, now multidefined on i j U i U j S, F ǫ = {f i,ǫ : U i R n } i still verifies f i (U i ) f j (U j ) = if 10

11 i j. We shall be given an arbitrarily small ǫ > 0, and eventually substitute it for a smaller value (still called ǫ) such that the distance from B i to the closure of the complement of U i is larger than ǫ, for all i = 1, 2,...m. For a fixed ǫ > 0, consider the compact, totally disconnected set K + = f ik... f i1 (U i1 ) K k 1 (i 1,...,i k ) {1,2...m} k The diameters of the atoms of generations k that form K + are all smaller that Dλ k, where D is the maximum diameter of the open sets U i, and λ < 1 is an upper bound of the distance contractions inside each continuity piece. Therefore for sufficiently large k all the atoms diameters are smaller that ǫ/2. If some of these atoms intersect S, consider a new finite partition Q = {A i } 1 i m of B such that the distance between Q and the given partition P is smaller than ǫ, and in such a way that S Q = i j (A i A j ) does not intersect the atoms of generation k of K +. The first condition implies that A i U i and therefore the extension F ǫ can be restricted to A i. Take G = {g i : A i B} 1 im where g i = f i,ǫ Ai. By construction G is a ǫ C r perturbation of the given F. Consider the limit set K G of G as follows: K G = g ik... g i1 (A i1 ) k 1 (i 1,...,i k ) {1,2...m} k As G is a restriction of F ǫ to the sets A i, we have that K G K +, and therefore K G S Q =. Then, applying lemma 4.2, G is finally periodic with persistent limit cycles. Remark 4.3 Note, from the proof of Lemma 4.2, that the integer k 1 such that F k (B) S = may be arbitrarily large, if initially the contractive map F k 1 has image that intersects the separation line S in the interior of the atoms of generation k 1. This means that the period of the limit cycles may be arbitrarily large, for some adequately chosen F. 5 The bifurcating chaotic Cantor attractor. Let F = {f i, B i } 1 i m be a C r -piecewise continuous map in the n-dimensional compact ball B as defined in 3.2. Definition 5.1 A Cantor set K in B is a non empty, compact, totally disconnected and perfect set contained in B. (We recall that K is totally disconnected if its connected components are single points, and it is perfect if it has not isolated points.) A Cantor attractor K of F is a Cantor set K such that it is F-invariant: F 1 (K) = K, and its basin of attraction B(K) is not empty. (We recall that the basin of attraction B(K) of K is the set of all points x B whose limit sets L + (x), defined as in 3.5, contain K.) Definition 5.2 The dynamics of F restricted to K is said to be expansive or (topologically) chaotic if it is sensitive to initial conditions, i.e. There exists a constant α > 0 (called expansivity constant) such that if x 0, y 0 K and there exists orbits {x j } j Z, x j F(x j 1 ), {y j } j Z, y j F(y j 1 ) such that dist(x j, y j ) α j Z, then x 0 = y 0 The expansivity or topological chaos means that if two initial states x 0 and y 0 in K were different, in spite of being as near as wanted, the state of the system from one and other initial conditions, along the orbit, in some time j would differ more than a positive and fixed distance α. 11

12 We note that the dynamical systems defined by iterations of homeomorphisms (continuous invertible maps with continuous inverse) on n-dimensional compact manifolds M, if not restricted to an invariant subset K M with empty interior, are never expansive considering only semi-trajectories to the future, nor to the past. [9] In those systems, if chaos exists, the orbits are not half restricted to the future nor to the past. Nevertheless, in our case the chaotic dynamics in K will be found in the semi-trajectories to the past, as we prove in Theorem 5.3. Three important facts are essential to justify this difference with classical continuous chaotic systems: K is a Cantor set, F is locally contractive, and F is discontinuous. Also we note that differentiable chaos, defined by the means of positive Lyapounov exponents, is much more restrictive than topological chaos or expansivity. In fact, one may observe expansivity, and thus sensitiveness to initial conditions and irregular dynamics, without existing exponential differential growing of the tangent vectors, as required when computing a positive Lyapounov exponent. Exponentially growing is not the only possible rate to enlarge distances. Nevertheless the mathematical approach to chaos in such conditions, without some uniformly exponential rate of growing (without hyperbolicity or partial hyperbolicity) is a very difficult mathematical problem that remains mostly open. Some partial results, in low dimensions, can be found in [9], [10], [11], [12], [16]. On the other hand, the approach with Lyapounov exponents [13], is only applicable for differentiable (at least C 1 ) systems, and is not useful when the system has discontinuities lines such that the backward iterates of these lines may be dense in some open region of the space. This last case of discontinuities may hold when F is the piecewise continuous (discontinuous along the separation lines) and locally contractive map, modeling a neuron network. To give the second main theorem of this paper, we recall the definition of bifurcating system and non-persistent phenomena in Theorem 5.3 If the limit set L + of a piecewise continuous and locally contractive map F with the separation property has some non periodic orbit, then F is a bifurcating system, exhibits a non-persistent invariant Cantor attractor K, and the dynamics of F restricted to K is expansive (i.e. topologically chaotic). We note in the thesis of Theorem 5.3, that a-priori may exist a dynamics in which periodic limit cycles and a chaotic Cantor attractor coexist. But, as a corollary of the genericity assertion of Theorem 4.1, that phenomena, as the existence of the chaotic Cantor attractor itself, shall be non-persistent (non robust with arbitrarily small changes of the parameters of the system), according to Definition Lemma 5.4 In the hypothesis of Theorem 5.3, the dynamics of the forward iterates of F exhibits a Cantor attractor K. Define the compact non empty set: K 0 = k 1 (i 1,...,i k ) {1,2...,m} k f ik... f i1 (B i1 ) By construction L + (B) K 0. Let us prove that F 1 (K 0 ) = K 0. First let us see that F 1 (K 0 ) K 0. In fact x K 0 if and only if for all k 1 there exists i k {1, 2..., m} such that x f i1... f ik (B ik ). On the other hand x B i0 for at least one value of the index i 0 {1, 2..., m}. Therefore F(x) f i0 (x) f i0 f i1... f ik (B ik ) K 0. We conclude that F(x) K 0, and then x F 1 (K 0 ) as wanted. The opposite condition F(K 0 ) K 0 is analogously proved, but easily because one shall apply the uniquely defined function F 1 to a point y F(K 0 ) instead of searching for some value of the multidefined function F as we did above. Define the set U 0 K 0 of all the isolated points x K 0. Clearly U 0 is an open set in the relative topology of K 0. Therefore K 0 \ U 0 = K 1 is compact, and by construction, a totally disconnected set. So, if K 1 were not empty and had no isolated points, it shall be a Cantor set. 12

13 The univocally defined map F 1 : K 0 K 0 is continuous, and transforms non-isolated points of K 0 onto non-isolated points of K 0. Therefore a point of K 0 does not belong to F 1 (K 1 ) if and only if it does not belong to K 1. So, F 1 (K 1 ) = K 1. In resume, K 1 is a compact totally disconnected set, which is invariant. If K 1 were non empty and had no isolated points, it should be a Cantor set. Let us prove that K 1 is not empty. By contradiction, if K 1 were empty, the compact set K 0 should be covered by a finite number m of disjoint open sets U x each of them containing a single point of K 0. Then, there would be exactly m atoms of generations k for all sufficiently large k. The atoms of generation k can not not divide when applying F, because their number m is constant. To achieve that, they must be all disjoint with the separation line S. Applying Lemma 4.2, we deduce that F would be finally periodic, and therefore, by Definition 3.7, its limit set should be composed by only a finite number of periodic or finally periodic orbits, in contradiction with the hypothesis of Theorem 5.3. We have proved that K 1 is not empty. The basin of attraction B(K 1 ) is also non-empty, because L + (B) K 0 and there are not periodic orbits in L + (B), so they are in K 0 \ U 0 = K 1. But K 1 may have isolated points. If it has, take U 1 K 1 the set of all isolated points of K 1, and define K 2 = K 1 \ U 1. Arguing as above, K 2 is a compact, not empty, totally disconnected set, and besides it is invariant and its basin of attraction is not empty. If K 2 has not isolated points, then it is a Cantor set attractor. If it has, by induction we construct a chain of compact, not empty and totally disconnected sets K i K i 1 i 1, each invariant by F. As any finite intersection of such {K i } is not empty, there exists a minimal non empty Cantor set K = i 1 K i that verifies the first assertion in the thesis of the lemma. Proof of Theorem 5.3: We observe that the hypothesis of our theorem is only verified for systems that are not finally periodic. Therefore the existence of the Cantor set attractor is included in the complement of the generic property of Theorem 4.1. By definition 3.11, the Cantor attractor is non-persistent and the systems which exhibit it are bifurcating. After Lemma 5.4 it is left to prove that the dynamics of F restricted to K is topologically chaotic. Take α the minimum distance between two different atoms of generation 1: α = min dist(f i(b i ), f j (B j ) > 0 1 i<j m We recall that α is strictly positive due to the separation property and to the compacity of the atoms. It is enough to prove that α is the expansivity constant of Definition 5.2. Let us take x, y K such that dist(f k (x), F k (y)) < α k 0 (3) Our final purpose is to prove that x = y. First note, applying (3) with k = 0, that the atom of generation one that simultaneously contain x and y, is uniquely defined, because the distance between x and y is smaller than the minimum distance α > 0 between two different atoms of the first generation. Therefore x f i (B i ) if and only if y f i (B i ) Therefore F 1 {x,y} = f i. Analogously, the atom of generation one that simultaneously contain F 1 (x) and F 1 (y), is uniquely defined. So the atoms of generation two that contain x and y are the same. By induction, the atoms of generation k, for all k 1, that contain x and y are the same A k, and then: dist(x, y) diam(a k ) λ k diam(b) 0. We deduce x = y as wanted. 13

14 6 Conclusions The discontinuities of the Poincaré transformation F, due to spike phenomena in the neural network, play an essential role to study these systems, although it is an obstruction to apply mostly previously known results of the Theory of Dynamics Systems, which is mostly developed for differentiable, or at least continuous dynamics. In the generic stable case, orbits are periodic or quasi-periodic, while in the bifurcating case most orbits are not quasi-periodic and are attracted by a chaotic Cantor set. Due to the non-genericity of the bifurcating examples, which is a consequence of Theorem 4.1, its precise chaotic dynamic would never be seen in experiments: in fact, arbitrarily small perturbations in the parameters of the system will lead it to periodic or quasi- periodic dynamics. These perturbations stabilize the system, to exhibit most of its orbits, that are indeed periodic or quasi-periodic, with a very large period N. Therefore, in spite of being generically periodic, the systems still may show irregularity in the number and timing of spikes, while the period N lasts. These two facts: extremely large periods, and irregularity inside the period, allow us to assert that those persistent systems shall be in fact unpredictible for the experimenter, and will be perceived by the observer as if they were chaotic, during transition between two or more low period stable states, when changing the parameters of the system. References [1] Stein R., French A., Holden A.: The frequency response, coherence and information capacity of two neuronal models. Biophys. J., 12, (1972) [2] Budelli R., Catsigeras E., Rovella A., Gómez L.: Dynamical behavior of pacemaker neurons networks. Proc. of the Second Congress of Nonlinear Analists, WCNA 96, Elsevier Science. (1996) [3] Budelli R., Torres J., Catsigeras E., Enrich H.: Two neurons network, I: Integrate and fire pacemaker models. Biol. Cybern. 66, (1991) [4] Catsigeras E., Budelli R.: Limit cycles of a bineuronal network model. Physica D, 56, (1992) [5] Postnova S, Voigt K, Braun HA : Neural Synchronization at Tonic-to-Bursting Transitions. J. Biol. Physics (In press, 2008) [6] Postnova S, Wollweber B, Voigt K, Braun HA : Neural Impulse Pattern in Biderectionally Coupled Model Neurons of Different Dynamics. Biosystems 89, (2007) [7] Iglesias J., Villa A.E.P.: Efects of stimulus-driven prunning on the detection of spatio temporal patterns of activity in large neural networks. Biosystems 89, (2007) [8] Turova T.S., Villa A.E.P.: On a phase diagram for random neural networks with embedded spike timing dependent plasticity. Biosystems 89, (2007) [9] Lewowicz J.: Expansive homeomorphisms of surfaces.bol. Soc. Bras. Mat. Vol.20, No. 1, pp (1989) [10] Vieitez, J: Expansive homeomorphisms and hyperbolic diffeomorphisms on three manifolds. Erg. Th. and Dyn. Syst. 16, pp (1996) [11] Vieitez, J: Lyapunov Functions and Expansive Diffeomorphisms on 3Dim-Manifolds. Erg. Th. and Dyn. Syst. 22, pp (2002) [12] Sambarino M., Vieitez J.: On C 1 -Persistently Expansive Homoclinic Classes. Disc. and Cont. Dyn. Syst. (in rev.) Preprint IMERL (2004) 14

15 [13] Katok A., Hasselblatt B.: Modern Theory of Dynamical Systems. Cambridge University Press. ISBN (1995) [14] Tsuda I., Kuroda S.: Cantor coding in the hippocampus. Japan Journ. of Ind. and Appl. Math. 18, pp (2001) [15] Palis J., de Melo W.: Geometric Theory of Dynamical Systems.small Springer Verlag. Berlín, New York [16] Catsigeras E., Enrich H.: SRB measures of certain almost hyperbolic diffeomorphisms with a tangency. Disc. and Cont. Dyn. Sys. Vol. 7, No. 1, pp