MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I have in front of me a proof of this lemma:

If $f$ and $g$ are free $\mathbb{Z}_2$-actions on $S^1$, then $f(x)=g(x)$ for some $x \in S^1$.

A $\mathbb{Z}_2$-action on the unit circle $S^1$ is a homeomorphism $f \;:\; S^1 \rightarrow S^1$ such that $f(f(x))=x$ for all $x \in S^1$; and $f$ is free if $f(x) \neq x$ for all $x \in S^1$.

The proof (in a paper I'm refereeing) is clear but somewhat laborious. It would be nice to either have a succinct proof, or a reference, rather than a detailed proof from first principles. Has anyone seen this before? Thanks!

share|cite|improve this question
I wonder why this false notation, $\mathbb{Z}_n$ instead of $\mathbb{Z}/n$, is so common. – Martin Brandenburg Nov 25 '11 at 17:00
What do you mean by "false notation"? For many places it is the one true notation, and saying "zee-p" is a lot easier than "zee-mod-p-zee", which has only become popular in the last twenty years, probably due to bourbakist influence... – Igor Rivin Nov 25 '11 at 20:09
@Martin: I agree with Igor, what's a "false notation"? A notation is a notation, once it's generally agreed upon it's not false. If anything the notation ℤ/n is a bad one IMO. If you want to be precise then you should write something like $\mathbb Z/\langle n\rangle$ or ℤ/nℤ. The latter is fairly common but I like $\mathbb Z_n$ just fine. – Vitali Kapovitch Nov 25 '11 at 21:28
How could ${\mathbf Z}/n$ be considered bad while ${\mathbf Z}_n$ is fine? They both have the same amount of content. (I know what you mean about ${\mathbf Z}/n{\mathbf Z}$ being more precise, but if you can handle the idea of writing ${\mathbf Z}_n$ then ${\mathbf Z}/n$ should be okay too.) – KConrad Nov 26 '11 at 1:31
It seemed to me at some point, probably when I was in grad school (late fifties and early sixties) that the topologists used the notation ${\mathbb{Z}}_n$ while we number-theorists used the notations ${\mathbb{Z}}/n$ or ${\mathbb{Z}}/(n)$ or ${\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}}$. – Lubin Nov 26 '11 at 6:05

we can clearly assume that $f(z)=-z$ in the standard metric on $S^1\subset \mathbb C$ (as we can assume that $f$ is isometric with respect to some Riemannnian metric on $S^1$). Then $g(z)=z\cdot e^{i\alpha(z)}$ with $0<\alpha(z)<2\pi$. If $\alpha(z_0)<\pi$ then $\alpha(g(z_0))>\pi$ and there is a point $z_1$ with $\alpha(z_1)=\pi$ by the intermediate value theorem.

share|cite|improve this answer
@Vitali: Thanks!!! And apologies re $\mathbb{Z}^2$ vs. $\mathbb{Z}_2$. – Joseph O'Rourke Nov 25 '11 at 16:14
Is it completely clear that we can choose $\alpha$ to be continuous? – Martin Brandenburg Nov 25 '11 at 17:03
@ Martin: yes, it's completely clear. $i\alpha(z)=log(\frac{g(z)}{z})$ and its branch is well defined since $g$ is is fixed point free. – Vitali Kapovitch Nov 25 '11 at 17:13
Alright. Thanks :) – Martin Brandenburg Nov 25 '11 at 18:04

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.