1
$\begingroup$

I want to prove the proposition:

Proposition- Let $f:I \to I$ be continuos, and let f have a (2n+1)- periodic orbit {$x_{k}=f^{k}(x_{0})$, $k=0,1,\dots,2n$}, but no (2m+1)-periodic orbit for $1\leqslant m < n$. Suposse $x_{0}$ is in the middle of all $x_{i}$'. Then one of the two permutations

$$ (i) \ x_{2n}<x_{2n-2}<\dots<x_{2}<x_{0}<x_{1}<\dots<x_{2n-3}<x_{2n-1}$$

$$ (i) \ x_{2n-1}<x_{2n-3}<\dots<x_{1}<x_{0}<x_{2}<\dots<x_{2n-2}<x_{2n}$$

is valid.

Remark: I is an interval in the real line.

At the beginning of the proof he makes this statement that I can not justify

Supose n>1. Reorder {$x_{k}=f^{k}(x_{0})$, $k=0,1,\dots,2n$} as {$z_{i}$, $i=1,\dots,2n+1$} such that $$z_{1}<z_{2}<\dots<z_{2n+1}$$

Why i this is correct? What I win with this?

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I think that this is possible, because the orbit is an invariant set, then $f(\{z_{i}, i=1,2,\dots,2n+1\}) \subset \{x_{k}, i=0,2,\dots,2n\}$. However i don't know if this is answer $\endgroup$
    – user80064
    Sep 9, 2015 at 1:36
  • $\begingroup$ Nothing is happening here. He/she is just taking the set $\{x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_{2n}\}$ and writing it in increasing order as $\{z_1,z_2,\ldots,z_{2n+1}\}$ with $z_1<z_2<\ldots$. The remainder of the proof will show either $z_1=x_{2n}$, $z_2=x_{2n-2}$ etc. or $z_1=x_{2n-1}$, $z_2=x_{2n-3}$ etc. $\endgroup$ Sep 9, 2015 at 5:33

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.