2

Let $x \in [0,1]$ and $r>2$. Define the Tent map by

$$T(x) = \left\{ \begin{array}{lr} xr & : x \in [0,\frac{1}{2}]\\ r(1-x) & : x \in (\frac{1}{2},1] \end{array} \right.$$

A point $y$ is said to escape the tent map in one iteration if $T(y)>1$. It is said to escape in two iterations if $T(T(y))=T^{(2)}(y)>1$, etc. What I need to show is that the set of points that never escape the tent map, $$C=\{x \in [0,1]:\lim_{n \to +\infty}T^{(n)}(x)\leq 1 \}$$ is a Cantor Set. By "a Cantor Set" I mean a set where we begin by removing the middle $\frac{1}{s}th$ (where $s>2$) portion of the unit interval, then proceed by removing the middle $\frac{1}{s}th$ from the remaining two intervals, then we move to the next four intervals and do the same, etc. In this way it may help to first choose $s$ and then let $r=\frac{2s}{s-1}$ so that $r$ will whittle away the desired portion of the unit interval. In the case of THE Cantor set, we would have $s=3$ for example, since THE Cantor set is built by removing the middle open set of length $\frac{1}{3}$ from $[0,1]$ and each subsequent interval thereafter. I believe proof by induction will lead to the solution. The definition of Cantor Set I am using is taken from the case of $s=3$ $$C_{n} = \frac{C_{n-1}}{3} \cup \left(\frac{2}{3}+\frac{C_{n-1}}{3}\right), \ \ C_{0}=[0,1]$$ where I tweak it to reflect my definition of $r$ from above so that $$C_{n} = \left(C_{n-1}\frac{s-1}{2s}\right) \bigcup \left(\frac{s+1}{2s}+C_{n-1}\frac{s-1}{2s}\right), \ \ C_{0}=[0,1]$$ Again, note that plugging $s=3$ into my result above will take you back to THE Cantor set. At any rate, my approach is showing that $C_{n}$ is the set up points that do not escape the tent map after $n$ iterations. If I succeed in the proof by induction, this should establish that $\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}C_{n}=C$ as desired. Can anyone provide a proof of this?

graydad
  • 14,077
  • what's a Cantor set ? – mercio Sep 03 '14 at 19:03
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor_set – graydad Sep 03 '14 at 19:06
  • this gives a definition of "the" Cantor set (and of course yours is not this precise set for $r \neq 3$), but it doesn't say what "a" Cantor set is. (or maybe I can't read) – mercio Sep 03 '14 at 19:37
  • I see what you mean.. there isn't really a solid definition there. I guess what I'm going for is a set with the middle $\frac{1}{r}^{th}$ removed from each subsequent interval. And as you pointed out, the case of $r=3$ is THE Cantor set, but a Cantor set is the case of $r \neq 3$. – graydad Sep 03 '14 at 19:43
  • what you can do is show there is a homeomorphism of $[0;1]$ that sends $C$ onto the cantor set. That should probably be satisfactory. – mercio Sep 03 '14 at 21:12
  • Any ideas for defining such a homeomorphism? – graydad Sep 03 '14 at 21:27
  • http://gowers.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/just-do-it-proofs/ – mercio Sep 03 '14 at 21:51

3 Answers3

0

I have a relatively simple proof for all $r>2$. There is no need for $r$ to be odd, nor integer, rational, etc. We only need $r$ to be real and greater than two. I think Epsilon's answer confused $s$ with $r$, since he thought $\frac{r-1}{2r}\in C\;(wrong)$, which it doesn't, the point he describes is $\frac{1}{r}\in C$. As stated in the question, the set of $x$ with bounded orbits is in fact a Cantor set with $r=\frac{2s}{s-1}$, but, in order to avoid the confusion of the previous post, I will provide the definition of the Cantor set in terms of $r$. First, $C_0 =[0,1]$. Then, $$\forall n\in \mathbb{Z_+}:C_n=\left(\frac{1}{r}C_{n-1} \right)\cup\left(\frac{r-1}{r}+\frac{1}{r}C_{n-1} \right)\;.\;(1)$$ You can check that this definition coincides with the one of the question if $r=\frac{2s}{s-1}$. We need $r>2$ so that the Cantor set just defined is a proper subset of the $[0,1]$ interval. In fact:

  • If $1\le r \le 2$, then $\forall n \in \mathbb{N}: C_n =[0,1]$.
  • If $r<1$ then $C_1 \not\subset [0,1]$.

The sketch of the proof is as follows:

  1. $\forall n \in\mathbb{N}: C_n=1-C_n$. Easily proved by induction.
  2. $\forall n\in\mathbb{Z}_+ : C_n =T^{-1}(C_{n-1})=\left(\frac{1}{r}C_{n-1} \right)\cup\left(1-\frac{1}{r}C_{n-1} \right)$. Use the definition of $T(x)$, Eq. (1), and the previous step.
  3. $T^{(n)}(x)$ is bounded iff $x\in C=\bigcap_{n=0}^{\infty}C_n$. Because $T^{(n)}(x)$ is unbounded iff $\exists k\in\mathbb{N}: T^{(k)}(x)\notin [0,1]$. The previous step proved that $x\in C \iff \forall n\in \mathbb{N}:T^{(n)}(x)\in [0,1]$. $\square$
olaphus
  • 111
0

EDIT :

Using the new formulation described in your comments below, we introduce a new parameter $s > 2$ and define the Tent Map parameter $r$ as $$r = \frac{2s}{s-1}.$$ The Cantor-type set thus defined is completely determined by the (internal) endpoints obtained after each set of removals of the inner $s'th$ open intervals. Let us say that an endpoint has rank n if the endpoint is one of those obtained by the n'th set of removals.

$$ $$

To prove that members of this Cantor-type set never escape we would argue using induction on the rank. Key to this is that if $a = \frac pq $ is an endpoint, then the Tent Map will map $a$ to an endpoint of lower rank because $2s$ always divides $q$ and $(s-1)$ always divides $p$, and similarly for $(1-a)$. $$ $$ The tricky part is obtaining a recursion formula for the endpoints. Each endpoint of rank $n$ determines two endpoints of rank $n+1$. The exact recursion is very fussy and it depends on whether an endpoint's children are to the left or right of the original endpoint. It think each endpoint will looks something like this : $$a = \frac 12 \pm \frac {1}{2s} \pm \frac {1}{4s} \pm \dots$$ where NOT ALL $\pm$ - combinations are permitted.

Unfortunately this is all a bit too time consuming for me presently but it is doable with a bit of patience. $$ $$ This would get us as far as showing the points in the Cantor-type set do not escape. Proving that those outside of the set do escape is another matter all together since it does not appear that induction would be possible and we would need to rely on $\lt$ and $\gt$ order relations.

So, I'm afraid that is all the time I can spend on this right now. I hope it is of some help. This is a very clever and interesting problem and whoever formulated it clearly knows their stuff. Good Luck! $$ $$

Following is my answer to the problem as originally formulated, which I leave for the sake of completeness.

The generalised definition of a Cantor set that you are assuming requires $r$ be an odd number, for otherwise there is no middle $r'th$.

If $r > 2$ is odd, note that $$\frac{(r-1)}{2r} \in \mathcal C_r,$$ since it is the rightmost point of the left interval resulting from the first removal of the middle $r'th$, and cannot be excluded by subsequent removals.

Further $$T\left(\frac{(r-1)}{2r}\right) = \frac{(r-1)}{2}.$$ So whenever $r$ is odd and greater than $3$, this generalized Cantor set member escapes on the first iteration.

This leaves the case $r=3$ as a possibility, the Cantor Ternary Set itself. The argument I have given above would not apply here since $T(T(\frac13)) = 0.$ So if your Tent set is a Cantor set, it must be The Cantor set.

gamma
  • 1,957
  • r does not have to be odd.. I could remove the middle $\frac{1}{4}$ of every interval should I choose – graydad Sep 07 '14 at 01:35
  • @graydad If you divide [0,1] into 4 subintervals as per Cantor, then you have (e.g.) [0, 0.25), [0.25, 0.5), [0.5, 0.75), [0.75, 1]. Which one is the middle interval? – gamma Sep 07 '14 at 01:53
  • @graydad If you mean removing an interval of lenght 0.25 from the center, then you can identify the same point - in this case 3/8, which would again escape on the first iteration. – gamma Sep 07 '14 at 01:57
  • @graydad Doing a bit of scribbling, I believe that your Tent set corresponds to the case r=2. I'm not sure why you exclude the case r=2 in your OP. If you sit down and look at the end-points remaining after each removal, you will convince yourself that all of these points map to zero. By the case r=2 I mean the case with the first removal leaving [0,1/4] and [3/4,1] ; the second [0,1/16], [3/16, 1/4], etc.. – gamma Sep 07 '14 at 02:39
  • I mean what you said in the second case: After the first iteration, you will be left with $[0,\frac{3}{8}] \cup [\frac{5}{8},1]$ and then proceed by removing the same proportion from the middles of the consequent intervals. The case of $r=2$ is important, but points do not escape the tent map when $r=2$; that only happens for $r>2. – graydad Sep 07 '14 at 02:48
  • @graydad Oh, I see. Well that's a pretty good reason to exclude the case r = 2. I guess that just leaves r = 3. – gamma Sep 07 '14 at 02:51
  • I don't suppose I can convince you that this result is true for all $r>2$.. Not that I have been able to prove it yet, but it was posed as a challenge to my nonlinear class by one of the most brilliant profs I have ever had. He poses this challenge to his students every year and said nobody has succeeded in getting it yet. I'm pretty sure he is correct. It's just very difficult to show. At any rate, working through the case of $r=3$ would still be a valuable experience as it might lead to the general result. – graydad Sep 07 '14 at 02:57
  • @graydad The endpoints left after each removal cannot be excluded by subsequent removals. Perhaps you should seek to verify with your prof exactly what is meant by a Cantor set. It cannot be the removal of closed intervals, since that would remove everything. – gamma Sep 07 '14 at 03:04
  • End points are not excluded. Only the open intervals are. For example, in the case of $r=3$, any $x$ where $\frac{1}{3}<x<\frac{2}{3}$ will escape in one iteration. That is to say, any $x \in (\frac{1}{3},\frac{2}{3})$ – graydad Sep 07 '14 at 03:17
  • I also figured something (useful?) out. The case of $r=4$ does not correspond to removing the middle $\frac{1}{4}^{th}s$ from each interval. To do that, you need the case of $r=\frac{8}{3}$. In general, if you want to remove the middle $\frac{1}{s}^{th}$ portion from each interval, choose your $s>2$ and then let $r=\frac{2s}{s-1}$. – graydad Sep 07 '14 at 03:23
  • @graydad For r > 3, the endpoint that remains after the first removal (specified as in my answer/comments) escape after one iteration. So it must be something to do with your profs definition of a Cantor Set. It is a very interesting problem and the case r = 3 looks very convincing for our working definition of a Cantor Set. Induction looks like the correct method of proof since the endpoints appear to be in arithmetic progression. I've just read your last comment. I'll have a look. Too many comments now, I'll post an edit to my answer if I can think of anything useful. Cheers. – gamma Sep 07 '14 at 03:26
  • I agree, induction is the way to go. Thank you for putting time and thought into this problem. – graydad Sep 07 '14 at 03:31
  • @graydad Wow! Now you have formulated r as a function of s, this is a really clever question. And it does look to be true. It doesn't look easy. I'll give a bit more thought and maybe post and edit to my answer above. Maybe update your question. Be clear to mark the definition of r = f(s) as an edit so my original answer doesn't look too dumb. – gamma Sep 07 '14 at 03:59
  • Just noticed you edited your post. Thank you for giving it a shot! My current game plan is showing that the points that escapes after $n$ iterations is precisely $C_{n}$ as I have defined it above. I think this will work after I spend a while longer on it. – graydad Sep 14 '14 at 01:56
0

Succeeded with a proof by induction.

graydad
  • 14,077