Suppose $X$ is a compact metric space, and that $\varphi: X\to X$ is a homeomorphism of $X$.

We say a subset $A$ of $X$ is $\varphi$-invariant if $\varphi(A) = A$. A $\varphi$-invariant set is minimal if it is closed, $\varphi$-invariant, nonempty and the smallest of all such sets. We say $(X,\varphi)$ is essentially minimal if $X$ contains a unique minimal $\varphi$-invariant set.

An orbit of $x \in X$ is the set $O_\varphi(x)= \{ \varphi^n(x) \;|\; n\in\mathbb{Z} \}$.

My Question

Now suppose that $\varphi: X\to X$ is a homeomorphism such that $X$ contains exactly two minimal $\varphi$-invariant subsets $M_1,M_2\subset X$. Moreover, $\varphi$ has the property that for all $x\in X$ either $M_1\subset\overline{O_\varphi(x)}$ or $M_2\subset\overline{O_\varphi(x)}$ but not both.

Does it follow that $X=X_1\dot{\cup} X_2$ splits into two clopen $\varphi$-invariant subsets?

If not, I would be thankful for a counter example.

More generally, I would like to answer the following more general question. Suppose $\varphi: X\to X$ is a homeomorphism and let $\mathcal{M}$ be the set of all minimal $\varphi$-invariant sets in $X$. Suppose also that $\varphi$ satisfies the following property: $$\forall\; x\in X: \exists !\; M\in\mathcal{M}: M\subset\overline{O_\varphi(x)}. $$

For $M_1,M_2\in\mathcal{M}$, can one find $\varphi$-invariant open subsets $U_1,U_2\subset X$ such that $M_i\subset U_i$ for $i=1,2$ and $U_1\cap U_2=\emptyset$ ?

My motivation is, among other things, to show that certain homeomorphisms with this property can be decomposed into essentially minimal systems, i.e. $X=\bigcup E_\alpha$ and the $E_\alpha$ are closed, $\varphi$-invariant, essentially minimal and pairwise disjoint. For the case I am interested in, a positive answer to the above (more general) question would be sufficient. But since I cannot even answer the more specific question, an answer to that would already be very helpful.

| cite | improve this question | | | | |
  • $\begingroup$ In the second paragraph, when you define the minimal $\varphi$-invariant sets, you say that they should be "smallest", but I think you mean merely that they should be minimal here. Right? (Smallest = contained in all other instances; minimal = no strictly smaller instance) $\endgroup$ – Joel David Hamkins Nov 26 '12 at 0:50
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, that is exactly what I mean. Thank you $\endgroup$ – Gabor Szabo Nov 26 '12 at 12:19

The answer is no.

For each pair $(n,k) \in \mathbb{Z}^+ \times \mathbb{Z}$ we define a point $p(n,k) \in \mathbb{R^2}$ as: $$p(n,k)=\left(1+\frac{1}{n},\frac{k}{n^2} \right)$$ if $|k| \leq n$, and $$p(n,k)=\left( \frac{1}{k}\cos(1/n), \frac{1}{k} \sin(1/n) \right)$$ otherwise.

We let $$X= \left\{ p(n,k): (n,k) \in \mathbb{Z}^+ \times \mathbb{Z} \right\} \cup \left\{(0,0), (1,0) \right\}$$ viewed as a (compact) subspace of $\mathbb{R}^2$, and define $\varphi:X \to X$ by $\varphi(0,0)=(0,0)$, $\varphi(1,0)=(1,0)$ and $\varphi(p(n,k))=p(n,k+1)$.

It is easy to check that all the requirements are met (note that the two minimal $\varphi$-invariant sets are $M_1=\{(0,0)\} $ and $M_2=\{(1,0)\}$). However, if $U$ is an open subset of $X$ containing $(0,0)$ then for each $n$ there is a $k$ such that $p(n,k) \in U$; so if $U$ is also $\varphi$-invariant then it must contain every $p(n,k)$; therefore, if $U$ is also closed, it must contain $(1,0)$. In other words, the only $\varphi$-invariant clopen is $X$.

| cite | improve this answer | | | | |

No. Let $X$ be a closed interval and let $\phi:X\to X $ be an order-preserving bijection that fixes only the endpoints.

Edit: This is an answer to a trivial question which is not the intended one.

| cite | improve this answer | | | | |
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Don't you need still to have only the two fixed points (the endpoints), as in your original answer? Otherwise, this won't satisfy the hypothesis of having exactly two minimal invariant sets. $\endgroup$ – Joel David Hamkins Nov 26 '12 at 1:33
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, sorry. In correcting a typo I also messed it up. Fixed now. $\endgroup$ – Tom Goodwillie Nov 26 '12 at 4:08
  • $\begingroup$ I don't see how these maps satisfy the given property. Without loss of gerenality, we can work with $X=[0,1]$. If the endpoints are the only fixed points, either $\varphi(x)>x$ for all $x\neq 0,1$ or $\varphi(x)< x$ for all $x\neq 0,1$. Assume the latter. So for a given $x_0\in (0,1)$, the sequence $x_n=\varphi^n(x_0)$ is decreasing and bounded, hence it converges. Since the limit will be a fixed point, the limit is 0. Similarly, the sequence $y_n=\varphi^{-n}(x_0)$ will converge to 1. In particular, almost all orbit closures contain both minimal sets, which is ruled out from the beginning. $\endgroup$ – Gabor Szabo Nov 26 '12 at 12:38
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I see. I misunderstood the question because you used "or" to mean exclusive "or". I have taken the liberty of editing the end of your "My Question" for clarity. $\endgroup$ – Tom Goodwillie Nov 26 '12 at 13:17

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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