Sufficient conditions for distributional chaos of type I

Noriaki Kawaguchi Department of Mathematical and Computing Science, School of Computing, Institute of Science Tokyo, 2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8552, Japan [email protected]
Abstract.

Distributional chaos of type I (DC1) is a stronger variant of Li–Yorke chaos. In this paper, we consider the fact that the time-one map of a mixing Anosov flow exhibits DC1 and generalize it to obtain simple sufficient conditions for DC1.

Key words and phrases:
distributional chaos, mixing Anosov flow, minimal, equicontinuous, Furstenberg family
2020 Mathematics Subject Classification:
37B05, 37B20, 37D45

1. Introduction

The concept of chaos plays a central role in the modern theory of dynamical systems. A mathematical definition of chaos, so-called Li–Yorke chaos, was given in [12]. In [16], three statistical variants of Li–Yorke chaos, collectively called distributional chaos, were introduced (initially) for interval maps. Among the three, distributional chaos of type I (DC1) is the strongest one, representing a stronger variant of Li–Yorke chaos. While the Li–Yorke type chaos has been generalized in terms of Furstenberg families, this paper focuses specifically on DC1 (see [11, 15] for background). We show that the time-one map of a mixing Anosov flow exhibits DC1 and generalize it to obtain sufficient conditions for DC1.

We begin by defining DC1 which is generalized for n𝑛nitalic_n-tuples, n2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n ≥ 2, in [10, 17]. Throughout, X𝑋Xitalic_X denotes a compact metric space endowed with a metric d𝑑ditalic_d.

Definition 1.1.

Given a continuous map f:XX:𝑓𝑋𝑋f\colon X\to Xitalic_f : italic_X → italic_X, an n𝑛nitalic_n-tuple (x1,x2,,xn)Xnsubscript𝑥1subscript𝑥2subscript𝑥𝑛superscript𝑋𝑛(x_{1},x_{2},\dots,x_{n})\in X^{n}( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, n2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n ≥ 2, is said to be DC1-n𝑛nitalic_n-δ𝛿\deltaitalic_δ-scrambled for δ>0𝛿0\delta>0italic_δ > 0 if

lim supm1m|{0im1:min1j<knd(fi(xj),fi(xk))>δ}|=1,subscriptlimit-supremum𝑚1𝑚conditional-set0𝑖𝑚1subscript1𝑗𝑘𝑛𝑑superscript𝑓𝑖subscript𝑥𝑗superscript𝑓𝑖subscript𝑥𝑘𝛿1\limsup_{m\to\infty}\frac{1}{m}|\{0\leq i\leq m-1\colon\min_{1\leq j<k\leq n}d% (f^{i}(x_{j}),f^{i}(x_{k}))>\delta\}|=1,lim sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_m end_ARG | { 0 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_m - 1 : roman_min start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≤ italic_j < italic_k ≤ italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) > italic_δ } | = 1 ,

and

lim supm1m|{0im1:max1j<knd(fi(xj),fi(xk))<ϵ}|=1subscriptlimit-supremum𝑚1𝑚conditional-set0𝑖𝑚1subscript1𝑗𝑘𝑛𝑑superscript𝑓𝑖subscript𝑥𝑗superscript𝑓𝑖subscript𝑥𝑘italic-ϵ1\limsup_{m\to\infty}\frac{1}{m}|\{0\leq i\leq m-1\colon\max_{1\leq j<k\leq n}d% (f^{i}(x_{j}),f^{i}(x_{k}))<\epsilon\}|=1lim sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_m end_ARG | { 0 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_m - 1 : roman_max start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≤ italic_j < italic_k ≤ italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) < italic_ϵ } | = 1

for all ϵ>0italic-ϵ0\epsilon>0italic_ϵ > 0. Let DC1nδ(X,f)superscriptsubscriptDC1𝑛𝛿𝑋𝑓{\rm DC1}_{n}^{\delta}(X,f)DC1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_f ) denote the set of DC1-n𝑛nitalic_n-δ𝛿\deltaitalic_δ-scrambled n𝑛nitalic_n-tuples and let

DC1n(X,f)=δ>0DC1nδ(X,f).subscriptDC1𝑛𝑋𝑓subscript𝛿0superscriptsubscriptDC1𝑛𝛿𝑋𝑓{\rm DC1}_{n}(X,f)=\bigcup_{\delta>0}{\rm DC1}_{n}^{\delta}(X,f).DC1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_f ) = ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ > 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT DC1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_f ) .

A subset S𝑆Sitalic_S of X𝑋Xitalic_X is said to be DC1-n𝑛nitalic_n-scrambled (resp. DC1-n𝑛nitalic_n-δ𝛿\deltaitalic_δ-scrambled) if

(x1,x2,,xn)DC1n(X,f)(resp. DC1nδ(X,f))subscript𝑥1subscript𝑥2subscript𝑥𝑛subscriptDC1𝑛𝑋𝑓(resp. DC1nδ(X,f))(x_{1},x_{2},\dots,x_{n})\in{\rm DC1}_{n}(X,f)\>\text{(resp.\>${\rm DC1}_{n}^{% \delta}(X,f)$)}( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ DC1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_f ) (resp. DC1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_f ) )

for all distinct x1,x2,,xnSsubscript𝑥1subscript𝑥2subscript𝑥𝑛𝑆x_{1},x_{2},\dots,x_{n}\in Sitalic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_S. We say that f𝑓fitalic_f exhibits the distributional n𝑛nitalic_n-chaos of type I (DC1nsubscriptDC1𝑛{\rm DC1}_{n}DC1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT) if there is an uncountable DC1-n𝑛nitalic_n-scrambled subset of X𝑋Xitalic_X.

We recall a simplified version of a theorem of Mycielski [14]. Mycielski’s theorem is used in [4] to prove that positive topological entropy implies Li–Yorke chaos. A comprehensive treatment of Mycielski’s theorem and some of its applications to topological dynamics are given in [1].

For a topological space Z𝑍Zitalic_Z, a subset S𝑆Sitalic_S of Z𝑍Zitalic_Z is said to be residual if S𝑆Sitalic_S contains a countable intersection of dense open subsets of Z𝑍Zitalic_Z. By Baire category theorem, if Z𝑍Zitalic_Z is a complete metric space, then every countable intersection of residual subsets of Z𝑍Zitalic_Z is dense in Z𝑍Zitalic_Z. A topological space Z𝑍Zitalic_Z is said to be perfect if Z𝑍Zitalic_Z has no isolated point. For a complete metric space Z𝑍Zitalic_Z, a subset S𝑆Sitalic_S of Z𝑍Zitalic_Z is said to be a Mycielski set if S𝑆Sitalic_S is a union of countably many Cantor sets (see [4]). Note that for a Mycielski set S𝑆Sitalic_S in Z𝑍Zitalic_Z and an open subset U𝑈Uitalic_U of Z𝑍Zitalic_Z with SU𝑆𝑈S\cap U\neq\emptysetitalic_S ∩ italic_U ≠ ∅, SU𝑆𝑈S\cap Uitalic_S ∩ italic_U is an uncountable set.

Theorem (Mycielski).

Let Z𝑍Zitalic_Z be a perfect complete separable metric space. If Rnsubscript𝑅𝑛R_{n}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a residual subset of Znsuperscript𝑍𝑛Z^{n}italic_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for each n2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n ≥ 2, then there is a Mycielski set S𝑆Sitalic_S which is dense in Z𝑍Zitalic_Z and satisfies (x1,x2,,xn)Rnsubscript𝑥1subscript𝑥2subscript𝑥𝑛subscript𝑅𝑛(x_{1},x_{2},\dots,x_{n})\in R_{n}( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for all n2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n ≥ 2 and distinct x1,x2,,xnSsubscript𝑥1subscript𝑥2subscript𝑥𝑛𝑆x_{1},x_{2},\dots,x_{n}\in Sitalic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_S.

Remark 1.1.

Let f:XX:𝑓𝑋𝑋f\colon X\to Xitalic_f : italic_X → italic_X be a continuous map. By the above theorem, for a sequence (δn)2n<b+1subscriptsubscript𝛿𝑛2𝑛𝑏1(\delta_{n})_{2\leq n<b+1}( italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 ≤ italic_n < italic_b + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of positive numbers, where 2b2𝑏2\leq b\leq\infty2 ≤ italic_b ≤ ∞, if

DC1nδn(X,f)superscriptsubscriptDC1𝑛subscript𝛿𝑛𝑋𝑓{\rm DC1}_{n}^{\delta_{n}}(X,f)DC1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_f )

is a residual subset of Xnsuperscript𝑋𝑛X^{n}italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for each 2n<b+12𝑛𝑏12\leq n<b+12 ≤ italic_n < italic_b + 1, then there is a dense Mycielski set S𝑆Sitalic_S in X𝑋Xitalic_X such that S𝑆Sitalic_S is DC1-n𝑛nitalic_n-δnsubscript𝛿𝑛\delta_{n}italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-scrambled for all 2n<b+12𝑛𝑏12\leq n<b+12 ≤ italic_n < italic_b + 1, in particular, f𝑓fitalic_f exhibits DC1nsubscriptDC1𝑛{\rm DC1}_{n}DC1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for all 2n<b+12𝑛𝑏12\leq n<b+12 ≤ italic_n < italic_b + 1.

Let M𝑀Mitalic_M be a closed differentiable manifold endowed with a Riemannian metric d𝑑ditalic_d and let F:×MM:𝐹𝑀𝑀F\colon\mathbb{R}\times M\to Mitalic_F : blackboard_R × italic_M → italic_M be a mixing Anosov flow. Anosov means that M𝑀Mitalic_M is a hyperbolic set for F𝐹Fitalic_F (see [6] for details and background information). Let Ft(x)=F(t,x)superscript𝐹𝑡𝑥𝐹𝑡𝑥F^{t}(x)=F(t,x)italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) = italic_F ( italic_t , italic_x ) for all (t,x)×M𝑡𝑥𝑀(t,x)\in\mathbb{R}\times M( italic_t , italic_x ) ∈ blackboard_R × italic_M and let g=F1:MM:𝑔superscript𝐹1𝑀𝑀g=F^{1}\colon M\to Mitalic_g = italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : italic_M → italic_M, the time-one map for F𝐹Fitalic_F. Let

Wss(x)={yM:limtd(Ft(x),Ft(y))=0},superscript𝑊𝑠𝑠𝑥conditional-set𝑦𝑀subscript𝑡𝑑superscript𝐹𝑡𝑥superscript𝐹𝑡𝑦0W^{ss}(x)=\{y\in M\colon\lim_{t\to\infty}d(F^{t}(x),F^{t}(y))=0\},italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) = { italic_y ∈ italic_M : roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d ( italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) , italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_y ) ) = 0 } ,

xM𝑥𝑀x\in Mitalic_x ∈ italic_M, and note that

Wss(x)={yM:limid(gi(x),gi(y))=0}superscript𝑊𝑠𝑠𝑥conditional-set𝑦𝑀subscript𝑖𝑑superscript𝑔𝑖𝑥superscript𝑔𝑖𝑦0W^{ss}(x)=\{y\in M\colon\lim_{i\to\infty}d(g^{i}(x),g^{i}(y))=0\}italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) = { italic_y ∈ italic_M : roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d ( italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) , italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_y ) ) = 0 }

for all xM𝑥𝑀x\in Mitalic_x ∈ italic_M. By results in Chapter 6 of [6], a periodic point p𝑝pitalic_p for F𝐹Fitalic_F satisfies M=Wss(p)¯𝑀¯superscript𝑊𝑠𝑠𝑝M=\overline{W^{ss}(p)}italic_M = over¯ start_ARG italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) end_ARG. Let τ𝜏\tauitalic_τ denote the period of p𝑝pitalic_p, i.e.,

τ=min{t>0:Ft(p)=p}>0,𝜏:𝑡0superscript𝐹𝑡𝑝𝑝0\tau=\min\{t>0\colon F^{t}(p)=p\}>0,italic_τ = roman_min { italic_t > 0 : italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) = italic_p } > 0 ,

and let ΛΛ\Lambdaroman_Λ denote the orbit of p𝑝pitalic_p:

Λ={Ft(p):t}={Ft(p):t[0,τ)}.Λconditional-setsuperscript𝐹𝑡𝑝𝑡conditional-setsuperscript𝐹𝑡𝑝𝑡0𝜏\Lambda=\{F^{t}(p)\colon t\in\mathbb{R}\}=\{F^{t}(p)\colon t\in[0,\tau)\}.roman_Λ = { italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) : italic_t ∈ blackboard_R } = { italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) : italic_t ∈ [ 0 , italic_τ ) } .

We have

Wss(Ft(p))¯=Ft(Wss(p))¯=Ft(Wss(p)¯)=Ft(M)=M¯superscript𝑊𝑠𝑠superscript𝐹𝑡𝑝¯superscript𝐹𝑡superscript𝑊𝑠𝑠𝑝superscript𝐹𝑡¯superscript𝑊𝑠𝑠𝑝superscript𝐹𝑡𝑀𝑀\overline{W^{ss}(F^{t}(p))}=\overline{F^{t}(W^{ss}(p))}=F^{t}(\overline{W^{ss}% (p)})=F^{t}(M)=Mover¯ start_ARG italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) ) end_ARG = over¯ start_ARG italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) ) end_ARG = italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( over¯ start_ARG italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) end_ARG ) = italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_M ) = italic_M

for all t𝑡t\in\mathbb{R}italic_t ∈ blackboard_R; therefore, M=Wss(x)¯𝑀¯superscript𝑊𝑠𝑠𝑥M=\overline{W^{ss}(x)}italic_M = over¯ start_ARG italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_ARG for all xΛ𝑥Λx\in\Lambdaitalic_x ∈ roman_Λ. Let S1={z:|z|=1}superscript𝑆1conditional-set𝑧𝑧1S^{1}=\{z\in\mathbb{C}\colon|z|=1\}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = { italic_z ∈ blackboard_C : | italic_z | = 1 } and note that

g|Λ:ΛΛ:evaluated-at𝑔ΛΛΛg|_{\Lambda}\colon\Lambda\to\Lambdaitalic_g | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : roman_Λ → roman_Λ

is topologically conjugate to the circle rotation

Rτ1:S1S1:subscript𝑅superscript𝜏1superscript𝑆1superscript𝑆1R_{\tau^{-1}}\colon S^{1}\to S^{1}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

defined by Rτ1(z)=ze2πiτ1subscript𝑅superscript𝜏1𝑧𝑧superscript𝑒2𝜋𝑖superscript𝜏1R_{\tau^{-1}}(z)=z\cdot e^{2\pi i\tau^{-1}}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) = italic_z ⋅ italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_π italic_i italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for all zS1𝑧superscript𝑆1z\in S^{1}italic_z ∈ italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, i.e., there is a homeomorphism h:ΛS1:Λsuperscript𝑆1h\colon\Lambda\to S^{1}italic_h : roman_Λ → italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT such that

hg|Λ=Rτ1h.evaluated-at𝑔Λsubscript𝑅superscript𝜏1h\circ g|_{\Lambda}=R_{\tau^{-1}}\circ h.italic_h ∘ italic_g | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∘ italic_h .

If τ𝜏\tau\in\mathbb{Q}italic_τ ∈ blackboard_Q, then every zS1𝑧superscript𝑆1z\in S^{1}italic_z ∈ italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a periodic point for Rτ1subscript𝑅superscript𝜏1R_{\tau^{-1}}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and so every xΛ𝑥Λx\in\Lambdaitalic_x ∈ roman_Λ is a periodic point for g|Λevaluated-at𝑔Λg|_{\Lambda}italic_g | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. If τ𝜏\tau\notin\mathbb{Q}italic_τ ∉ blackboard_Q, then Rτ1subscript𝑅superscript𝜏1R_{\tau^{-1}}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is minimal and so is g|Λevaluated-at𝑔Λg|_{\Lambda}italic_g | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. In both cases, Rτ1subscript𝑅superscript𝜏1R_{\tau^{-1}}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is equicontinuous and so is g|Λevaluated-at𝑔Λg|_{\Lambda}italic_g | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

We prove the following claim.

Claim.

There is a sequence (δn)n2subscriptsubscript𝛿𝑛𝑛2(\delta_{n})_{n\geq 2}( italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n ≥ 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of positive numbers such that

DC1nδn(M,g)superscriptsubscriptDC1𝑛subscript𝛿𝑛𝑀𝑔{\rm DC1}_{n}^{\delta_{n}}(M,g)DC1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_M , italic_g )

is a residual subset of Mnsuperscript𝑀𝑛M^{n}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for all n2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n ≥ 2.

Remark 1.2.

As stated in Remark 1.1, it follows from Mycielski’s theorem and the above claim that g𝑔gitalic_g exhibits DC1nsubscriptDC1𝑛{\rm DC1}_{n}DC1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for all n2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n ≥ 2.

We say that a map f:XX:𝑓𝑋𝑋f\colon X\to Xitalic_f : italic_X → italic_X is equicontinuous if for every ϵ>0italic-ϵ0\epsilon>0italic_ϵ > 0, there is δ>0𝛿0\delta>0italic_δ > 0 such that d(x,y)δ𝑑𝑥𝑦𝛿d(x,y)\leq\deltaitalic_d ( italic_x , italic_y ) ≤ italic_δ implies

supi0d(fi(x),fi(y))ϵsubscriptsupremum𝑖0𝑑superscript𝑓𝑖𝑥superscript𝑓𝑖𝑦italic-ϵ\sup_{i\geq 0}d(f^{i}(x),f^{i}(y))\leq\epsilonroman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_y ) ) ≤ italic_ϵ

for all x,yX𝑥𝑦𝑋x,y\in Xitalic_x , italic_y ∈ italic_X. We know that if an equicontinuous map f:XX:𝑓𝑋𝑋f\colon X\to Xitalic_f : italic_X → italic_X is surjective, then f𝑓fitalic_f is a homeomorphism and f1superscript𝑓1f^{-1}italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is also equicontinuous (cf. [2, 13]). If f:XX:𝑓𝑋𝑋f\colon X\to Xitalic_f : italic_X → italic_X is an equicontinuous homeomorphism, then f𝑓fitalic_f is distal, i.e.,

infi0min1j<knd(fi(xj),fi(xk))>0subscriptinfimum𝑖0subscript1𝑗𝑘𝑛𝑑superscript𝑓𝑖subscript𝑥𝑗superscript𝑓𝑖subscript𝑥𝑘0\inf_{i\geq 0}\min_{1\leq j<k\leq n}d(f^{i}(x_{j}),f^{i}(x_{k}))>0roman_inf start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_min start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≤ italic_j < italic_k ≤ italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) > 0

for all n2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n ≥ 2 and distinct x1,x2,,xnXsubscript𝑥1subscript𝑥2subscript𝑥𝑛𝑋x_{1},x_{2},\dots,x_{n}\in Xitalic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_X.

We recall the basic definition of minimality.

Definition 1.2.

For a continuous map f:XX:𝑓𝑋𝑋f\colon X\to Xitalic_f : italic_X → italic_X, a subset S𝑆Sitalic_S of X𝑋Xitalic_X is said to be f𝑓fitalic_f-invariant if f(S)S𝑓𝑆𝑆f(S)\subset Sitalic_f ( italic_S ) ⊂ italic_S. A closed f𝑓fitalic_f-invariant subset K𝐾Kitalic_K of X𝑋Xitalic_X is called a minimal set for f𝑓fitalic_f if closed f𝑓fitalic_f-invariant subsets of K𝐾Kitalic_K are only \emptyset and K𝐾Kitalic_K. This is equivalent to that K={fi(x):i0}¯𝐾¯conditional-setsuperscript𝑓𝑖𝑥𝑖0K=\overline{\{f^{i}(x)\colon i\geq 0\}}italic_K = over¯ start_ARG { italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) : italic_i ≥ 0 } end_ARG for all xK𝑥𝐾x\in Kitalic_x ∈ italic_K. We say that a continuous map f:XX:𝑓𝑋𝑋f\colon X\to Xitalic_f : italic_X → italic_X is minimal if X𝑋Xitalic_X is a minimal set for f𝑓fitalic_f.

Remark 1.3.

Since a minimal continuous map f:XX:𝑓𝑋𝑋f\colon X\to Xitalic_f : italic_X → italic_X is surjective, every minimal equicontinuous map f:XX:𝑓𝑋𝑋f\colon X\to Xitalic_f : italic_X → italic_X is an equicontinuous homeomorphism. We know that if f:XX:𝑓𝑋𝑋f\colon X\to Xitalic_f : italic_X → italic_X is an equicontinuous homeomorphism, then X𝑋Xitalic_X is a disjoint union of minimal sets for f𝑓fitalic_f. We also know that every minimal equicontinuous homeomorphism f:XX:𝑓𝑋𝑋f\colon X\to Xitalic_f : italic_X → italic_X is topologically conjugate to a minimal rotation

Ra:GG:subscript𝑅𝑎𝐺𝐺R_{a}\colon G\to Gitalic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_G → italic_G

of a compact Abelian group (G,+)𝐺(G,+)( italic_G , + ) where aG𝑎𝐺a\in Gitalic_a ∈ italic_G and Ra(z)=z+asubscript𝑅𝑎𝑧𝑧𝑎R_{a}(z)=z+aitalic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) = italic_z + italic_a for all zG𝑧𝐺z\in Gitalic_z ∈ italic_G (see Theorem 2.42 of [8]).

Let f:XX:𝑓𝑋𝑋f\colon X\to Xitalic_f : italic_X → italic_X be a continuous map. We say that a subset S𝑆Sitalic_S of X𝑋Xitalic_X is a distal set for f𝑓fitalic_f if

infi0min1j<knd(fi(xj),fi(xk))>0subscriptinfimum𝑖0subscript1𝑗𝑘𝑛𝑑superscript𝑓𝑖subscript𝑥𝑗superscript𝑓𝑖subscript𝑥𝑘0\inf_{i\geq 0}\min_{1\leq j<k\leq n}d(f^{i}(x_{j}),f^{i}(x_{k}))>0roman_inf start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_min start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≤ italic_j < italic_k ≤ italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) > 0

for all n2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n ≥ 2 and distinct x1,x2,,xnSsubscript𝑥1subscript𝑥2subscript𝑥𝑛𝑆x_{1},x_{2},\dots,x_{n}\in Sitalic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_S. Note that a subset S𝑆Sitalic_S of X𝑋Xitalic_X with |S|1𝑆1|S|\leq 1| italic_S | ≤ 1 is by definition a distal set for f𝑓fitalic_f. For xX𝑥𝑋x\in Xitalic_x ∈ italic_X and ϵ>0italic-ϵ0\epsilon>0italic_ϵ > 0, we define a subset Vϵs(x)superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥V_{\epsilon}^{s}(x)italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) of X𝑋Xitalic_X by

Vϵs(x)={yX:lim supid(fi(x),fi(y))ϵ}.superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥conditional-set𝑦𝑋subscriptlimit-supremum𝑖𝑑superscript𝑓𝑖𝑥superscript𝑓𝑖𝑦italic-ϵV_{\epsilon}^{s}(x)=\{y\in X\colon\limsup_{i\to\infty}d(f^{i}(x),f^{i}(y))\leq% \epsilon\}.italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) = { italic_y ∈ italic_X : lim sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_y ) ) ≤ italic_ϵ } .

In order to prove the above claim, it is sufficient to show the following lemma.

Lemma 1.1.

Let f:XX:𝑓𝑋𝑋f\colon X\to Xitalic_f : italic_X → italic_X be a continuous map and let S𝑆Sitalic_S be a subset of X𝑋Xitalic_X. If

  • S𝑆Sitalic_S is a distal set for f𝑓fitalic_f,

  • X=Vϵs(x)¯𝑋¯superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥X=\overline{V_{\epsilon}^{s}(x)}italic_X = over¯ start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_ARG for all xS𝑥𝑆x\in Sitalic_x ∈ italic_S and ϵ>0italic-ϵ0\epsilon>0italic_ϵ > 0,

then for any 2n<|S|+12𝑛𝑆12\leq n<|S|+12 ≤ italic_n < | italic_S | + 1, DC1nδn(X,f)superscriptsubscriptDC1𝑛subscript𝛿𝑛𝑋𝑓{\rm DC1}_{n}^{\delta_{n}}(X,f)DC1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_f ) is a residual subset of Xnsuperscript𝑋𝑛X^{n}italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for some δn>0subscript𝛿𝑛0\delta_{n}>0italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0.

Proof.

Given 2n<|S|+12𝑛𝑆12\leq n<|S|+12 ≤ italic_n < | italic_S | + 1, let

Aδsubscript𝐴𝛿\displaystyle A_{\delta}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ={(x1,x2,,xn)Xn:\displaystyle=\{(x_{1},x_{2},\dots,x_{n})\in X^{n}\colon= { ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT :
lim supm1m|{0im1:min1j<knd(fi(xj),fi(xk))>δ}|=1}\displaystyle\qquad\qquad\qquad\limsup_{m\to\infty}\frac{1}{m}|\{0\leq i\leq m% -1\colon\min_{1\leq j<k\leq n}d(f^{i}(x_{j}),f^{i}(x_{k}))>\delta\}|=1\}lim sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_m end_ARG | { 0 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_m - 1 : roman_min start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≤ italic_j < italic_k ≤ italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) > italic_δ } | = 1 }
=p1q1mq{(x1,x2,,xn)Xn:\displaystyle=\bigcap_{p\geq 1}\bigcap_{q\geq 1}\bigcup_{m\geq q}\{(x_{1},x_{2% },\dots,x_{n})\in X^{n}\colon= ⋂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p ≥ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q ≥ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m ≥ italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT { ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT :
1m|{0im1:min1j<knd(fi(xj),fi(xk))>δ}|>11p},\displaystyle\qquad\qquad\qquad\frac{1}{m}|\{0\leq i\leq m-1\colon\min_{1\leq j% <k\leq n}d(f^{i}(x_{j}),f^{i}(x_{k}))>\delta\}|>1-\frac{1}{p}\},divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_m end_ARG | { 0 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_m - 1 : roman_min start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≤ italic_j < italic_k ≤ italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) > italic_δ } | > 1 - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG } ,

δ>0𝛿0\delta>0italic_δ > 0, and let

B𝐵\displaystyle Bitalic_B =ϵ>0{(x1,x2,,xn)Xn:\displaystyle=\bigcap_{\epsilon>0}\{(x_{1},x_{2},\dots,x_{n})\in X^{n}\colon= ⋂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ > 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT { ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT :
lim supm1m|{0im1:max1j<knd(fi(xj),fi(xk))<ϵ}|=1}\displaystyle\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\limsup_{m\to\infty}\frac{1}{m}|\{0\leq i% \leq m-1\colon\max_{1\leq j<k\leq n}d(f^{i}(x_{j}),f^{i}(x_{k}))<\epsilon\}|=1\}lim sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_m end_ARG | { 0 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_m - 1 : roman_max start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≤ italic_j < italic_k ≤ italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) < italic_ϵ } | = 1 }
=l1p1q1mq{(x1,x2,,xn)Xn:\displaystyle=\bigcap_{l\geq 1}\bigcap_{p\geq 1}\bigcap_{q\geq 1}\bigcup_{m% \geq q}\{(x_{1},x_{2},\dots,x_{n})\in X^{n}\colon= ⋂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l ≥ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p ≥ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q ≥ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m ≥ italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT { ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT :
1m|{0im1:max1j<knd(fi(xj),fi(xk))<1l}|>11p}.\displaystyle\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\frac{1}{m}|\{0\leq i\leq m-1\colon\max_{% 1\leq j<k\leq n}d(f^{i}(x_{j}),f^{i}(x_{k}))<\frac{1}{l}\}|>1-\frac{1}{p}\}.divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_m end_ARG | { 0 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_m - 1 : roman_max start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≤ italic_j < italic_k ≤ italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) < divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_l end_ARG } | > 1 - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG } .

Note that

DC1nδ(X,f)=AδBsuperscriptsubscriptDC1𝑛𝛿𝑋𝑓subscript𝐴𝛿𝐵{\rm DC1}_{n}^{\delta}(X,f)=A_{\delta}\cap BDC1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_f ) = italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_B

for all δ>0𝛿0\delta>0italic_δ > 0. Since S𝑆Sitalic_S is a distal set for f𝑓fitalic_f, there are (a1,a2,,an)Snsubscript𝑎1subscript𝑎2subscript𝑎𝑛superscript𝑆𝑛(a_{1},a_{2},\dots,a_{n})\in S^{n}( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and δn,ϵn>0subscript𝛿𝑛subscriptitalic-ϵ𝑛0\delta_{n},\epsilon_{n}>0italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 such that

infi0min1j<knd(fi(aj),fi(ak))>δn+ϵn.subscriptinfimum𝑖0subscript1𝑗𝑘𝑛𝑑superscript𝑓𝑖subscript𝑎𝑗superscript𝑓𝑖subscript𝑎𝑘subscript𝛿𝑛subscriptitalic-ϵ𝑛\inf_{i\geq 0}\min_{1\leq j<k\leq n}d(f^{i}(a_{j}),f^{i}(a_{k}))>\delta_{n}+% \epsilon_{n}.roman_inf start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_min start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≤ italic_j < italic_k ≤ italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) > italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Since

Vϵns(a1)×Vϵns(a2)××Vϵns(an)superscriptsubscript𝑉subscriptitalic-ϵ𝑛𝑠subscript𝑎1superscriptsubscript𝑉subscriptitalic-ϵ𝑛𝑠subscript𝑎2superscriptsubscript𝑉subscriptitalic-ϵ𝑛𝑠subscript𝑎𝑛V_{\epsilon_{n}}^{s}(a_{1})\times V_{\epsilon_{n}}^{s}(a_{2})\times\cdots% \times V_{\epsilon_{n}}^{s}(a_{n})italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) × italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) × ⋯ × italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )

is a dense subset of Xnsuperscript𝑋𝑛X^{n}italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and contained in

mq{(x1,x2,,xn)Xn:\displaystyle\bigcup_{m\geq q}\{(x_{1},x_{2},\dots,x_{n})\in X^{n}\colon⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m ≥ italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT { ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT :
1m|{0im1:min1j<knd(fi(xj),fi(xk))>δn}|>11p}\displaystyle\qquad\qquad\qquad\frac{1}{m}|\{0\leq i\leq m-1\colon\min_{1\leq j% <k\leq n}d(f^{i}(x_{j}),f^{i}(x_{k}))>\delta_{n}\}|>1-\frac{1}{p}\}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_m end_ARG | { 0 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_m - 1 : roman_min start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≤ italic_j < italic_k ≤ italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) > italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } | > 1 - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG }

for all p,q1𝑝𝑞1p,q\geq 1italic_p , italic_q ≥ 1, we see that Aδnsubscript𝐴subscript𝛿𝑛A_{\delta_{n}}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a residual subset of Xnsuperscript𝑋𝑛X^{n}italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. By taking aS𝑎𝑆a\in Sitalic_a ∈ italic_S, since V14ls(a)nsuperscriptsubscript𝑉14𝑙𝑠superscript𝑎𝑛V_{\frac{1}{4l}}^{s}(a)^{n}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 italic_l end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, l1𝑙1l\geq 1italic_l ≥ 1, is a dense subset of Xnsuperscript𝑋𝑛X^{n}italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and contained in

mq{(x1,x2,,xn)Xn:\displaystyle\bigcup_{m\geq q}\{(x_{1},x_{2},\dots,x_{n})\in X^{n}\colon⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m ≥ italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT { ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT :
1m|{0im1:max1j<knd(fi(xj),fi(xk))<1l}|>11p}\displaystyle\qquad\qquad\qquad\frac{1}{m}|\{0\leq i\leq m-1\colon\max_{1\leq j% <k\leq n}d(f^{i}(x_{j}),f^{i}(x_{k}))<\frac{1}{l}\}|>1-\frac{1}{p}\}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_m end_ARG | { 0 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_m - 1 : roman_max start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≤ italic_j < italic_k ≤ italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) < divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_l end_ARG } | > 1 - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG }

for all l,p,q1𝑙𝑝𝑞1l,p,q\geq 1italic_l , italic_p , italic_q ≥ 1, we see that B𝐵Bitalic_B is a residual subset of Xnsuperscript𝑋𝑛X^{n}italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. It follows that DC1nδn(X,f)superscriptsubscriptDC1𝑛subscript𝛿𝑛𝑋𝑓{\rm DC1}_{n}^{\delta_{n}}(X,f)DC1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_f ) is a residual subset of Xnsuperscript𝑋𝑛X^{n}italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, thus the proof has been completed. ∎

Remark 1.4.

We should note that, in the context of shadowing, a similar argument was presented by Li, Li, and Tu in Section 3 of [9] (see, in particular, Lemma 3.2; Lemma 3.3; and Theorem 3.4 of [9]).

Remark 1.5.

For a continuous map f:XX:𝑓𝑋𝑋f\colon X\to Xitalic_f : italic_X → italic_X, let Per(f)𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑓Per(f)italic_P italic_e italic_r ( italic_f ) denote the set of periodic points for f𝑓fitalic_f:

Per(f)={yX:fi(y)=yfor some i>0}.𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑓conditional-set𝑦𝑋superscript𝑓𝑖𝑦𝑦for some i>0Per(f)=\{y\in X\colon f^{i}(y)=y\>\>\text{for some $i>0$}\}.italic_P italic_e italic_r ( italic_f ) = { italic_y ∈ italic_X : italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_y ) = italic_y for some italic_i > 0 } .

For xX𝑥𝑋x\in Xitalic_x ∈ italic_X, the ω𝜔\omegaitalic_ω-limit set ω(x,f)𝜔𝑥𝑓\omega(x,f)italic_ω ( italic_x , italic_f ) is defined as the set of yX𝑦𝑋y\in Xitalic_y ∈ italic_X such that

limjfij(x)=ysubscript𝑗superscript𝑓subscript𝑖𝑗𝑥𝑦\lim_{j\to\infty}f^{i_{j}}(x)=yroman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) = italic_y

for some sequence 0i1<i2<0subscript𝑖1subscript𝑖20\leq i_{1}<i_{2}<\cdots0 ≤ italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ⋯. Given any xX𝑥𝑋x\in Xitalic_x ∈ italic_X, {fi(x):i0}conditional-setsuperscript𝑓𝑖𝑥𝑖0\{f^{i}(x)\colon i\geq 0\}{ italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) : italic_i ≥ 0 } is a distal set for f𝑓fitalic_f exactly if

  • |{fi(x):i0}|<conditional-setsuperscript𝑓𝑖𝑥𝑖0|\{f^{i}(x)\colon i\geq 0\}|<\infty| { italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) : italic_i ≥ 0 } | < ∞ and xPer(f)𝑥𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑓x\in Per(f)italic_x ∈ italic_P italic_e italic_r ( italic_f ); or

  • |{fi(x):i0}|=conditional-setsuperscript𝑓𝑖𝑥𝑖0|\{f^{i}(x)\colon i\geq 0\}|=\infty| { italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) : italic_i ≥ 0 } | = ∞ and ω(x,f)Per(f)=𝜔𝑥𝑓𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑓\omega(x,f)\cap Per(f)=\emptysetitalic_ω ( italic_x , italic_f ) ∩ italic_P italic_e italic_r ( italic_f ) = ∅.

If f𝑓fitalic_f is minimal, then {fi(x):i0}conditional-setsuperscript𝑓𝑖𝑥𝑖0\{f^{i}(x)\colon i\geq 0\}{ italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) : italic_i ≥ 0 } is a distal set for f𝑓fitalic_f for all xX𝑥𝑋x\in Xitalic_x ∈ italic_X. We also remark that if f𝑓fitalic_f is surjective, then for any xX𝑥𝑋x\in Xitalic_x ∈ italic_X and ϵ>0italic-ϵ0\epsilon>0italic_ϵ > 0, X=Vϵs(x)¯𝑋¯superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥X=\overline{V_{\epsilon}^{s}(x)}italic_X = over¯ start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_ARG implies X=Vϵs(fi(x))¯𝑋¯superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠superscript𝑓𝑖𝑥X=\overline{V_{\epsilon}^{s}(f^{i}(x))}italic_X = over¯ start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) ) end_ARG for all i0𝑖0i\geq 0italic_i ≥ 0.

By this remark, we obtain the following corollary of Lemma 1.1.

Corollary 1.1.

Let f:XX:𝑓𝑋𝑋f\colon X\to Xitalic_f : italic_X → italic_X be a continuous map and let ΛΛ\Lambdaroman_Λ be a minimal set for f𝑓fitalic_f. If

  • f𝑓fitalic_f is surjective,

  • there is xΛ𝑥Λx\in\Lambdaitalic_x ∈ roman_Λ such that X=Vϵs(x)¯𝑋¯superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥X=\overline{V_{\epsilon}^{s}(x)}italic_X = over¯ start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_ARG for all ϵ>0italic-ϵ0\epsilon>0italic_ϵ > 0,

then for any 2n<|Λ|+12𝑛Λ12\leq n<|\Lambda|+12 ≤ italic_n < | roman_Λ | + 1, DC1nδn(X,f)superscriptsubscriptDC1𝑛subscript𝛿𝑛𝑋𝑓{\rm DC1}_{n}^{\delta_{n}}(X,f)DC1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_f ) is a residual subset of Xnsuperscript𝑋𝑛X^{n}italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for some δn>0subscript𝛿𝑛0\delta_{n}>0italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0.

We have observed that the time-one map of a mixing Anosov flow exhibits DC1nsubscriptDC1𝑛{\rm DC1}_{n}DC1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for all n2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n ≥ 2. The proof presented above is based on the fact that the strong stable manifold of a periodic point is dense in the phase space. By relaxing this condition, we can derive sufficient conditions for DC1nsubscriptDC1𝑛{\rm DC1}_{n}DC1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, n2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n ≥ 2.

The main result of this paper is the following theorem. A continuous map f:XX:𝑓𝑋𝑋f\colon X\to Xitalic_f : italic_X → italic_X is said to be transitive if for any non-empty open subsets U,V𝑈𝑉U,Vitalic_U , italic_V of X𝑋Xitalic_X, it holds that fi(U)Vsuperscript𝑓𝑖𝑈𝑉f^{i}(U)\cap V\neq\emptysetitalic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_U ) ∩ italic_V ≠ ∅ for some i0𝑖0i\geq 0italic_i ≥ 0.

Theorem 1.1.

Given a continuous map f:XX:𝑓𝑋𝑋f\colon X\to Xitalic_f : italic_X → italic_X and a closed f𝑓fitalic_f-invariant subset ΛΛ\Lambdaroman_Λ of X𝑋Xitalic_X, if the following conditions are satisfied

  • (1)

    f|Λ:ΛΛ:evaluated-at𝑓ΛΛΛf|_{\Lambda}\colon\Lambda\to\Lambdaitalic_f | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : roman_Λ → roman_Λ is minimal and equicontinuous,

  • (2)

    X=xΛVϵs(x)¯𝑋¯subscript𝑥Λsuperscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥X=\overline{\bigcup_{x\in\Lambda}V_{\epsilon}^{s}(x)}italic_X = over¯ start_ARG ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x ∈ roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_ARG for all ϵ>0italic-ϵ0\epsilon>0italic_ϵ > 0,

  • (3)

    f|Λ×f:Λ×XΛ×X:evaluated-at𝑓Λ𝑓Λ𝑋Λ𝑋f|_{\Lambda}\times f\colon\Lambda\times X\to\Lambda\times Xitalic_f | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_f : roman_Λ × italic_X → roman_Λ × italic_X is transitive,

then for any 2n<|Λ|+12𝑛Λ12\leq n<|\Lambda|+12 ≤ italic_n < | roman_Λ | + 1, DC1nδn(X,f)superscriptsubscriptDC1𝑛subscript𝛿𝑛𝑋𝑓{\rm DC1}_{n}^{\delta_{n}}(X,f)DC1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_f ) is a residual subset of Xnsuperscript𝑋𝑛X^{n}italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for some δn>0subscript𝛿𝑛0\delta_{n}>0italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0.

Remark 1.6.

In [3], it is shown that for a non-trivial transitive continuous map f:XX:𝑓𝑋𝑋f\colon X\to Xitalic_f : italic_X → italic_X, if there is a closed f𝑓fitalic_f-invariant subset ΛΛ\Lambdaroman_Λ of X𝑋Xitalic_X such that

f|Λ×f:Λ×XΛ×X:evaluated-at𝑓Λ𝑓Λ𝑋Λ𝑋f|_{\Lambda}\times f\colon\Lambda\times X\to\Lambda\times Xitalic_f | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_f : roman_Λ × italic_X → roman_Λ × italic_X

is transitive, then f𝑓fitalic_f exhibits (dense and uniform) Li–Yorke chaos (see Theorem 3.1 of [3]).

Remark 1.7.

Let f:XX,g:YY:𝑓𝑋𝑋𝑔:𝑌𝑌f\colon X\to X,g\colon Y\to Yitalic_f : italic_X → italic_X , italic_g : italic_Y → italic_Y be continuous self-maps of compact metric spaces X,Y𝑋𝑌X,Yitalic_X , italic_Y. It is known that f×g:X×YX×Y:𝑓𝑔𝑋𝑌𝑋𝑌f\times g\colon X\times Y\to X\times Yitalic_f × italic_g : italic_X × italic_Y → italic_X × italic_Y is transitive if

  • (1)

    f𝑓fitalic_f is totally transitive; and Y𝑌Yitalic_Y is a periodic orbit or an odometer,

  • (2)

    f𝑓fitalic_f is weakly scattering; and g𝑔gitalic_g is minimal and equicontinuous,

  • (3)

    f𝑓fitalic_f is scattering; and g𝑔gitalic_g is minimal

(see, e.g., [3, 7] and also Remark 1.8 for details).

We recall the notion of Furstenberg families.

Definition 1.3.

Let 0={0}={0,1,2,}subscript00012\mathbb{N}_{0}=\{0\}\cup\mathbb{N}=\{0,1,2,\dots\}blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { 0 } ∪ blackboard_N = { 0 , 1 , 2 , … } and let 20superscript2subscript0\mathcal{F}\subset 2^{\mathbb{N}_{0}}caligraphic_F ⊂ 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. We say that \mathcal{F}caligraphic_F is a Furstenberg family if the following conditions are satisfied

  • (hereditary upward) For any A,B0𝐴𝐵subscript0A,B\subset\mathbb{N}_{0}italic_A , italic_B ⊂ blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, A𝐴A\in\mathcal{F}italic_A ∈ caligraphic_F and AB𝐴𝐵A\subset Bitalic_A ⊂ italic_B implies B𝐵B\in\mathcal{F}italic_B ∈ caligraphic_F,

  • (proper) \mathcal{F}\neq\emptysetcaligraphic_F ≠ ∅ and 20superscript2subscript0\mathcal{F}\neq 2^{\mathbb{N}_{0}}caligraphic_F ≠ 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

For a Furstenberg family \mathcal{F}caligraphic_F, we define its dual family superscript\mathcal{F}^{\ast}caligraphic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT by

={A0:ABfor all B},superscriptconditional-set𝐴subscript0𝐴𝐵for all B\mathcal{F}^{\ast}=\{A\subset\mathbb{N}_{0}\colon A\cap B\neq\emptyset\>\>% \text{for all $B\in\mathcal{F}$}\},caligraphic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = { italic_A ⊂ blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_A ∩ italic_B ≠ ∅ for all italic_B ∈ caligraphic_F } ,

which is also a Furstenberg family. For A0𝐴subscript0A\subset\mathbb{N}_{0}italic_A ⊂ blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with 0A0𝐴0\in A0 ∈ italic_A, let Δ(A)Δ𝐴\Delta(A)roman_Δ ( italic_A ) (or AA𝐴𝐴A-Aitalic_A - italic_A) denote the set of i0𝑖subscript0i\in\mathbb{N}_{0}italic_i ∈ blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that i=kj𝑖𝑘𝑗i=k-jitalic_i = italic_k - italic_j for some j,kA𝑗𝑘𝐴j,k\in Aitalic_j , italic_k ∈ italic_A. For a Furstenberg family \mathcal{F}caligraphic_F, we define a Furstenberg family Δ()Δ\Delta(\mathcal{F})roman_Δ ( caligraphic_F ) by

Δ()={B0:Δ(A)B for some A}.Δconditional-set𝐵subscript0Δ(A)B for some A\Delta(\mathcal{F})=\{B\subset\mathbb{N}_{0}\colon\text{$\Delta(A)\subset B$ % for some $A\in\mathcal{F}$}\}.roman_Δ ( caligraphic_F ) = { italic_B ⊂ blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : roman_Δ ( italic_A ) ⊂ italic_B for some italic_A ∈ caligraphic_F } .

Let f:XX:𝑓𝑋𝑋f\colon X\to Xitalic_f : italic_X → italic_X be a continuous map and let \mathcal{F}caligraphic_F be a Furstenberg family. For xX𝑥𝑋x\in Xitalic_x ∈ italic_X and ϵ>0italic-ϵ0\epsilon>0italic_ϵ > 0, let

N(x,ϵ)={i0:d(x,fi(x))ϵ}.𝑁𝑥italic-ϵconditional-set𝑖subscript0𝑑𝑥superscript𝑓𝑖𝑥italic-ϵN(x,\epsilon)=\{i\in\mathbb{N}_{0}\colon d(x,f^{i}(x))\leq\epsilon\}.italic_N ( italic_x , italic_ϵ ) = { italic_i ∈ blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_d ( italic_x , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) ) ≤ italic_ϵ } .

We say that xX𝑥𝑋x\in Xitalic_x ∈ italic_X is \mathcal{F}caligraphic_F-recurrent if N(x,ϵ)𝑁𝑥italic-ϵN(x,\epsilon)\in\mathcal{F}italic_N ( italic_x , italic_ϵ ) ∈ caligraphic_F for all ϵ>0italic-ϵ0\epsilon>0italic_ϵ > 0. We denote by R(f,)𝑅𝑓R(f,\mathcal{F})italic_R ( italic_f , caligraphic_F ) the set of \mathcal{F}caligraphic_F-recurrent points for f𝑓fitalic_f. For subsets A,B𝐴𝐵A,Bitalic_A , italic_B of X𝑋Xitalic_X, let

N(A,B)={i0:fi(A)B}.𝑁𝐴𝐵conditional-set𝑖subscript0superscript𝑓𝑖𝐴𝐵N(A,B)=\{i\in\mathbb{N}_{0}\colon f^{i}(A)\cap B\neq\emptyset\}.italic_N ( italic_A , italic_B ) = { italic_i ∈ blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_A ) ∩ italic_B ≠ ∅ } .

We say that f𝑓fitalic_f is \mathcal{F}caligraphic_F-transitive if N(U,V)𝑁𝑈𝑉N(U,V)\in\mathcal{F}italic_N ( italic_U , italic_V ) ∈ caligraphic_F for all non-empty open subsets U,V𝑈𝑉U,Vitalic_U , italic_V of X𝑋Xitalic_X.

We obtain the following corollary of Theorem 1.1.

Corollary 1.2.

Given a continuous map f:XX:𝑓𝑋𝑋f\colon X\to Xitalic_f : italic_X → italic_X, a closed f𝑓fitalic_f-invariant subset ΛΛ\Lambdaroman_Λ of X𝑋Xitalic_X, and a Furstenberg family \mathcal{F}caligraphic_F, if the following conditions are satisfied

  • (1)

    f|Λ:ΛΛ:evaluated-at𝑓ΛΛΛf|_{\Lambda}\colon\Lambda\to\Lambdaitalic_f | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : roman_Λ → roman_Λ is minimal and equicontinuous,

  • (2)

    X=xΛVϵs(x)¯𝑋¯subscript𝑥Λsuperscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥X=\overline{\bigcup_{x\in\Lambda}V_{\epsilon}^{s}(x)}italic_X = over¯ start_ARG ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x ∈ roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_ARG for all ϵ>0italic-ϵ0\epsilon>0italic_ϵ > 0,

  • (3)

    ΛR(f,)Λ𝑅𝑓\Lambda\cap R(f,\mathcal{F})\neq\emptysetroman_Λ ∩ italic_R ( italic_f , caligraphic_F ) ≠ ∅,

  • (4)

    f𝑓fitalic_f is Δ()Δsuperscript\Delta(\mathcal{F})^{\ast}roman_Δ ( caligraphic_F ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-transitive,

then for any 2n<|Λ|+12𝑛Λ12\leq n<|\Lambda|+12 ≤ italic_n < | roman_Λ | + 1, DC1nδn(X,f)superscriptsubscriptDC1𝑛subscript𝛿𝑛𝑋𝑓{\rm DC1}_{n}^{\delta_{n}}(X,f)DC1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_f ) is a residual subset of Xnsuperscript𝑋𝑛X^{n}italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for some δn>0subscript𝛿𝑛0\delta_{n}>0italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0.

In fact, this corollary is a direct consequence of Theorem 1.1 and the following two lemmas.

Lemma 1.2.

Let f:XX:𝑓𝑋𝑋f\colon X\to Xitalic_f : italic_X → italic_X be a continuous map and let ΛΛ\Lambdaroman_Λ be a closed f𝑓fitalic_f-invariant subset of X𝑋Xitalic_X. If f|Λ:ΛΛ:evaluated-at𝑓ΛΛΛf|_{\Lambda}\colon\Lambda\to\Lambdaitalic_f | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : roman_Λ → roman_Λ is minimal and equicontinuous, then for any Furstenberg family \mathcal{F}caligraphic_F, ΛR(f,)Λ𝑅𝑓\Lambda\cap R(f,\mathcal{F})\neq\emptysetroman_Λ ∩ italic_R ( italic_f , caligraphic_F ) ≠ ∅ implies ΛR(f,)Λ𝑅𝑓\Lambda\subset R(f,\mathcal{F})roman_Λ ⊂ italic_R ( italic_f , caligraphic_F ).

Lemma 1.3.

Let f:XX,g:YY:𝑓𝑋𝑋𝑔:𝑌𝑌f\colon X\to X,g\colon Y\to Yitalic_f : italic_X → italic_X , italic_g : italic_Y → italic_Y be continuous self-maps of compact metric spaces X,Y𝑋𝑌X,Yitalic_X , italic_Y. For a Furstenberg family \mathcal{F}caligraphic_F, if

  • f𝑓fitalic_f is Δ()Δsuperscript\Delta(\mathcal{F})^{\ast}roman_Δ ( caligraphic_F ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-transitive,

  • g𝑔gitalic_g is transitive and satisfies Y=R(g,)𝑌𝑅𝑔Y=R(g,\mathcal{F})italic_Y = italic_R ( italic_g , caligraphic_F ),

then f×g:X×YX×Y:𝑓𝑔𝑋𝑌𝑋𝑌f\times g\colon X\times Y\to X\times Yitalic_f × italic_g : italic_X × italic_Y → italic_X × italic_Y is transitive.

In Section 2, we prove these lemmas. We should note that Lemma 1.3 can be prove by a similar argument as in the proof of Theorem 4.9 in [7], however we prove it for the sake of completeness.

Remark 1.8.

Let f:XX:𝑓𝑋𝑋f\colon X\to Xitalic_f : italic_X → italic_X be a continuous map and let ΛΛ\Lambdaroman_Λ be a closed f𝑓fitalic_f-invariant subset of X𝑋Xitalic_X.

  • (1)

    For k1𝑘1k\geq 1italic_k ≥ 1, let k0={0,k,2k,3k,}𝑘subscript00𝑘2𝑘3𝑘k\mathbb{N}_{0}=\{0,k,2k,3k,\dots\}italic_k blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { 0 , italic_k , 2 italic_k , 3 italic_k , … }. We define a Furstenberg family rrsubscriptrr\mathcal{F}_{\rm rr}caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_rr end_POSTSUBSCRIPT by

    rr={A0:k0A for some k1}.subscriptrrconditional-set𝐴subscript0k0A for some k1\mathcal{F}_{\rm rr}=\{A\subset\mathbb{N}_{0}\colon\text{$k\mathbb{N}_{0}% \subset A$ for some $k\geq 1$}\}.caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_rr end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { italic_A ⊂ blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_k blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊂ italic_A for some italic_k ≥ 1 } .

    Every xR(f,rr)𝑥𝑅𝑓subscriptrrx\in R(f,\mathcal{F}_{\rm rr})italic_x ∈ italic_R ( italic_f , caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_rr end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) is called a regularly recurrent point for f𝑓fitalic_f. If f|Λevaluated-at𝑓Λf|_{\Lambda}italic_f | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is minimal and equicontinuous, then by Lemma 1.2, ΛR(f,rr)Λ𝑅𝑓subscriptrr\Lambda\cap R(f,\mathcal{F}_{\rm rr})\neq\emptysetroman_Λ ∩ italic_R ( italic_f , caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_rr end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≠ ∅ implies ΛR(f,rr)Λ𝑅𝑓subscript𝑟𝑟\Lambda\subset R(f,\mathcal{F}_{rr})roman_Λ ⊂ italic_R ( italic_f , caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). We know that whenever f|Λevaluated-at𝑓Λf|_{\Lambda}italic_f | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is minimal, ΛR(f,rr)Λ𝑅𝑓subscriptrr\Lambda\subset R(f,\mathcal{F}_{\rm rr})roman_Λ ⊂ italic_R ( italic_f , caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_rr end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) holds exactly if ΛΛ\Lambdaroman_Λ is a periodic orbit for f𝑓fitalic_f (if |Λ|<Λ|\Lambda|<\infty| roman_Λ | < ∞) or an odometer (if |Λ|=Λ|\Lambda|=\infty| roman_Λ | = ∞) (see Corollary 2.5 of [5] in which an odometer is called an adding machine). In both cases, f|Λevaluated-at𝑓Λf|_{\Lambda}italic_f | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is equicontinuous. It is easy to see that f𝑓fitalic_f is rrsuperscriptsubscriptrr\mathcal{F}_{\rm rr}^{\ast}caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_rr end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-transitive if and only if f𝑓fitalic_f is totally transitive, i.e., fksuperscript𝑓𝑘f^{k}italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is transitive for all k1𝑘1k\geq 1italic_k ≥ 1. We also see that f𝑓fitalic_f is totally transitive if and only if

    f×g:X×YX×Y:𝑓𝑔𝑋𝑌𝑋𝑌f\times g\colon X\times Y\to X\times Yitalic_f × italic_g : italic_X × italic_Y → italic_X × italic_Y

    is transitive for every continuous self-map g:YY:𝑔𝑌𝑌g\colon Y\to Yitalic_g : italic_Y → italic_Y such that Y𝑌Yitalic_Y is a periodic orbit or an odometer.

  • (2)

    We define a Furstenberg family bsubscriptb\mathcal{F}_{\rm b}caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT as the set of A0𝐴subscript0A\subset\mathbb{N}_{0}italic_A ⊂ blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that there are

    • a minimal equicontinuous self-map g:YY:𝑔𝑌𝑌g\colon Y\to Yitalic_g : italic_Y → italic_Y of a compact metric space Y𝑌Yitalic_Y,

    • yY𝑦𝑌y\in Yitalic_y ∈ italic_Y and δ>0𝛿0\delta>0italic_δ > 0

    such that N(y,δ)A𝑁𝑦𝛿𝐴N(y,\delta)\subset Aitalic_N ( italic_y , italic_δ ) ⊂ italic_A. If f|Λevaluated-at𝑓Λf|_{\Lambda}italic_f | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is minimal and equicontinuous, then ΛR(f,b)Λ𝑅𝑓subscriptb\Lambda\subset R(f,\mathcal{F}_{\rm b})roman_Λ ⊂ italic_R ( italic_f , caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). We know that f𝑓fitalic_f is Δ(b)Δsuperscriptsubscriptb\Delta(\mathcal{F}_{\rm b})^{\ast}roman_Δ ( caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-transitive if and only if f𝑓fitalic_f is weakly scattering, i.e.,

    f×g:X×YX×Y:𝑓𝑔𝑋𝑌𝑋𝑌f\times g\colon X\times Y\to X\times Yitalic_f × italic_g : italic_X × italic_Y → italic_X × italic_Y

    is transitive for every minimal equicontinuous self-map g:YY:𝑔𝑌𝑌g\colon Y\to Yitalic_g : italic_Y → italic_Y of a compact metric space Y𝑌Yitalic_Y (see Theorem 4.12 of [7]).

  • (3)

    We define two Furstenberg families ssubscripts\mathcal{F}_{\rm s}caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and tsubscriptt\mathcal{F}_{\rm t}caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT by

    s={A0:k1 s.t. A{i,i+1,,i+k1} for i0}subscriptsconditional-set𝐴subscript0k1 s.t. A{i,i+1,,i+k1} for i0\mathcal{F}_{\rm s}=\{A\subset\mathbb{N}_{0}\colon\text{$\exists k\geq 1$ s.t.% \>$A\cap\{i,i+1,\dots,i+k-1\}\neq\emptyset$ for $\forall i\geq 0$}\}caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { italic_A ⊂ blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : ∃ italic_k ≥ 1 s.t. italic_A ∩ { italic_i , italic_i + 1 , … , italic_i + italic_k - 1 } ≠ ∅ for ∀ italic_i ≥ 0 }

    and

    t={B0:for j1 ij0 s.t. {ij,ij+1,,ij+j1}B}.subscripttconditional-set𝐵subscript0for j1 ij0 s.t. {ij,ij+1,,ij+j1}B\mathcal{F}_{\rm t}=\{B\subset\mathbb{N}_{0}\colon\text{for $\forall j\geq 1$ % $\exists i_{j}\geq 0$ s.t.\>$\{i_{j},i_{j}+1,\dots,i_{j}+j-1\}\subset B$}\}.caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { italic_B ⊂ blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : for ∀ italic_j ≥ 1 ∃ italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 s.t. { italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 , … , italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_j - 1 } ⊂ italic_B } .

    Note that s=tsuperscriptsubscriptssubscriptt\mathcal{F}_{\rm s}^{\ast}=\mathcal{F}_{\rm t}caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. It is well-known that if f|Λevaluated-at𝑓Λf|_{\Lambda}italic_f | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is minimal, then ΛR(f,s)Λ𝑅𝑓subscripts\Lambda\subset R(f,\mathcal{F}_{\rm s})roman_Λ ⊂ italic_R ( italic_f , caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). We know that

    • f𝑓fitalic_f is Δ(s)Δsuperscriptsubscripts\Delta(\mathcal{F}_{\rm s})^{\ast}roman_Δ ( caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-transitive if and only if f𝑓fitalic_f is scattering, i.e.,

      f×g:X×YX×Y:𝑓𝑔𝑋𝑌𝑋𝑌f\times g\colon X\times Y\to X\times Yitalic_f × italic_g : italic_X × italic_Y → italic_X × italic_Y

      is transitive for every minimal continuous self-map g:YY:𝑔𝑌𝑌g\colon Y\to Yitalic_g : italic_Y → italic_Y of a compact metric space Y𝑌Yitalic_Y (see Theorem 4.10 of [7]),

    • f𝑓fitalic_f is tsubscriptt\mathcal{F}_{\rm t}caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-transitive if and only if f𝑓fitalic_f is weakly mixing, i.e.,

      f×f:X×XX×X:𝑓𝑓𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋f\times f\colon X\times X\to X\times Xitalic_f × italic_f : italic_X × italic_X → italic_X × italic_X

      is transitive (see Proposition 7.2 of [1]).

  • (4)

    Since

    rrΔ(b)Δ(s)s,subscriptrrΔsubscriptbΔsubscriptssubscripts\mathcal{F}_{\rm rr}\subset\Delta(\mathcal{F}_{\rm b})\subset\Delta(\mathcal{F% }_{\rm s})\subset\mathcal{F}_{\rm s},caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_rr end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊂ roman_Δ ( caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ⊂ roman_Δ ( caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ⊂ caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,

    we have

    tΔ(s)Δ(b)rr,subscripttΔsuperscriptsubscriptsΔsuperscriptsubscriptbsuperscriptsubscript𝑟𝑟\mathcal{F}_{\rm t}\subset\Delta(\mathcal{F}_{\rm s})^{\ast}\subset\Delta(% \mathcal{F}_{\rm b})^{\ast}\subset\mathcal{F}_{rr}^{\ast},caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊂ roman_Δ ( caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊂ roman_Δ ( caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊂ caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

    which implies that for any continuous map f:XX:𝑓𝑋𝑋f\colon X\to Xitalic_f : italic_X → italic_X, f𝑓fitalic_f is

    weakly mixing  scattering  weakly scattering  totally transitive.weakly mixing  scattering  weakly scattering  totally transitive\text{weakly mixing $\implies$ scattering $\implies$ weakly scattering $% \implies$ totally transitive}.weakly mixing ⟹ scattering ⟹ weakly scattering ⟹ totally transitive .

This paper consists of two sections. In the next section, we prove Theorem 1.1, Lemmas 1.2 and 1.3.

2. Proofs of Theorems 1.1, Lemmas 1.2 and 1.3

In this section, we prove Theorems 1.1, Lemmas 1.2 and 1.3. The proof of Theorem 1.1 is structured as a step-by-step proof of a series of lemmas, the meaning of each of which should be clear.

Let f:XX:𝑓𝑋𝑋f\colon X\to Xitalic_f : italic_X → italic_X be a continuous map and let ΛΛ\Lambdaroman_Λ be a closed f𝑓fitalic_f-invariant subset of X𝑋Xitalic_X such that f|Λ:ΛΛ:evaluated-at𝑓ΛΛΛf|_{\Lambda}\colon\Lambda\to\Lambdaitalic_f | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : roman_Λ → roman_Λ is minimal and equicontinuous.

Lemma 2.1.

For every ϵ>0italic-ϵ0\epsilon>0italic_ϵ > 0, X=xΛVϵs(x)¯𝑋¯subscript𝑥Λsuperscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥X=\overline{\bigcup_{x\in\Lambda}V_{\epsilon}^{s}(x)}italic_X = over¯ start_ARG ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x ∈ roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_ARG implies X=xΛV2ϵs(x)¯𝑋subscript𝑥Λ¯superscriptsubscript𝑉2italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥X=\bigcup_{x\in\Lambda}\overline{V_{2\epsilon}^{s}(x)}italic_X = ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x ∈ roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_ARG.

Proof.

If X=xΛVϵs(x)¯𝑋¯subscript𝑥Λsuperscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥X=\overline{\bigcup_{x\in\Lambda}V_{\epsilon}^{s}(x)}italic_X = over¯ start_ARG ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x ∈ roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_ARG, then for every yX𝑦𝑋y\in Xitalic_y ∈ italic_X, there are sequences xjΛsubscript𝑥𝑗Λx_{j}\in\Lambdaitalic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ roman_Λ, yjVϵs(xj)subscript𝑦𝑗superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠subscript𝑥𝑗y_{j}\in V_{\epsilon}^{s}(x_{j})italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), j1𝑗1j\geq 1italic_j ≥ 1, and xΛ𝑥Λx\in\Lambdaitalic_x ∈ roman_Λ such that limjxj=xsubscript𝑗subscript𝑥𝑗𝑥\lim_{j\to\infty}x_{j}=xroman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_x and limjyj=ysubscript𝑗subscript𝑦𝑗𝑦\lim_{j\to\infty}y_{j}=yroman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_y. Since f|Λ:ΛΛ:evaluated-at𝑓ΛΛΛf|_{\Lambda}\colon\Lambda\to\Lambdaitalic_f | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : roman_Λ → roman_Λ is equicontinuous, we have δ>0𝛿0\delta>0italic_δ > 0 such that d(x,z)δ𝑑𝑥𝑧𝛿d(x,z)\leq\deltaitalic_d ( italic_x , italic_z ) ≤ italic_δ implies

supi0d(fi(x),fi(z))ϵsubscriptsupremum𝑖0𝑑superscript𝑓𝑖𝑥superscript𝑓𝑖𝑧italic-ϵ\sup_{i\geq 0}d(f^{i}(x),f^{i}(z))\leq\epsilonroman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) ) ≤ italic_ϵ

and so Vϵs(z)V2ϵs(x)superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠𝑧superscriptsubscript𝑉2italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥V_{\epsilon}^{s}(z)\subset V_{2\epsilon}^{s}(x)italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) ⊂ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) for all zΛ𝑧Λz\in\Lambdaitalic_z ∈ roman_Λ. It follows that yjVϵs(xj)V2ϵs(x)subscript𝑦𝑗superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠subscript𝑥𝑗superscriptsubscript𝑉2italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥y_{j}\in V_{\epsilon}^{s}(x_{j})\subset V_{2\epsilon}^{s}(x)italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ⊂ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) for all sufficiently large j1𝑗1j\geq 1italic_j ≥ 1, which implies yV2ϵs(x)¯𝑦¯superscriptsubscript𝑉2italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥y\in\overline{V_{2\epsilon}^{s}(x)}italic_y ∈ over¯ start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_ARG. Since yX𝑦𝑋y\in Xitalic_y ∈ italic_X is arbitrary, we obtain X=xΛV2ϵs(x)¯𝑋subscript𝑥Λ¯superscriptsubscript𝑉2italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥X=\bigcup_{x\in\Lambda}\overline{V_{2\epsilon}^{s}(x)}italic_X = ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x ∈ roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_ARG, proving the lemma. ∎

Lemma 2.2.

Let ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ be a countable dense subset of ΛΛ\Lambdaroman_Λ. For every ϵ>0italic-ϵ0\epsilon>0italic_ϵ > 0, X=xΛVϵs(x)¯𝑋subscript𝑥Λ¯superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥X=\bigcup_{x\in\Lambda}\overline{V_{\epsilon}^{s}(x)}italic_X = ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x ∈ roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_ARG implies X=xΓV2ϵs(x)¯𝑋subscript𝑥Γ¯superscriptsubscript𝑉2italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥X=\bigcup_{x\in\Gamma}\overline{V_{2\epsilon}^{s}(x)}italic_X = ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x ∈ roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_ARG.

Proof.

Let ϵ>0italic-ϵ0\epsilon>0italic_ϵ > 0. Given any xΛ𝑥Λx\in\Lambdaitalic_x ∈ roman_Λ, since f|Λ:ΛΛ:evaluated-at𝑓ΛΛΛf|_{\Lambda}\colon\Lambda\to\Lambdaitalic_f | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : roman_Λ → roman_Λ is equicontinuous, there is δ>0𝛿0\delta>0italic_δ > 0 such that d(x,z)δ𝑑𝑥𝑧𝛿d(x,z)\leq\deltaitalic_d ( italic_x , italic_z ) ≤ italic_δ implies

supi0d(fi(x),fi(z))ϵsubscriptsupremum𝑖0𝑑superscript𝑓𝑖𝑥superscript𝑓𝑖𝑧italic-ϵ\sup_{i\geq 0}d(f^{i}(x),f^{i}(z))\leq\epsilonroman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) ) ≤ italic_ϵ

and so Vϵs(x)V2ϵs(z)superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥superscriptsubscript𝑉2italic-ϵ𝑠𝑧V_{\epsilon}^{s}(x)\subset V_{2\epsilon}^{s}(z)italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) ⊂ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) for all zΛ𝑧Λz\in\Lambdaitalic_z ∈ roman_Λ. Since ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ is dense in ΛΛ\Lambdaroman_Λ, by taking zΓ𝑧Γz\in\Gammaitalic_z ∈ roman_Γ with d(x,z)δ𝑑𝑥𝑧𝛿d(x,z)\leq\deltaitalic_d ( italic_x , italic_z ) ≤ italic_δ, we obtain Vϵs(x)V2ϵs(z)superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥superscriptsubscript𝑉2italic-ϵ𝑠𝑧V_{\epsilon}^{s}(x)\subset V_{2\epsilon}^{s}(z)italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) ⊂ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) and so

Vϵs(x)¯V2ϵs(z)¯.¯superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥¯superscriptsubscript𝑉2italic-ϵ𝑠𝑧\overline{V_{\epsilon}^{s}(x)}\subset\overline{V_{2\epsilon}^{s}(z)}.over¯ start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_ARG ⊂ over¯ start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) end_ARG .

Since xΛ𝑥Λx\in\Lambdaitalic_x ∈ roman_Λ is arbitrary, it follows that

xΛVϵs(x)¯zΓV2ϵs(z)¯.subscript𝑥Λ¯superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥subscript𝑧Γ¯superscriptsubscript𝑉2italic-ϵ𝑠𝑧\bigcup_{x\in\Lambda}\overline{V_{\epsilon}^{s}(x)}\subset\bigcup_{z\in\Gamma}% \overline{V_{2\epsilon}^{s}(z)}.⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x ∈ roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_ARG ⊂ ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z ∈ roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) end_ARG .

If X=xΛVϵs(x)¯𝑋subscript𝑥Λ¯superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥X=\bigcup_{x\in\Lambda}\overline{V_{\epsilon}^{s}(x)}italic_X = ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x ∈ roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_ARG, then we obtain

X=xΛVϵs(x)¯=zΓV2ϵs(z)¯,𝑋subscript𝑥Λ¯superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥subscript𝑧Γ¯superscriptsubscript𝑉2italic-ϵ𝑠𝑧X=\bigcup_{x\in\Lambda}\overline{V_{\epsilon}^{s}(x)}=\bigcup_{z\in\Gamma}% \overline{V_{2\epsilon}^{s}(z)},italic_X = ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x ∈ roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_ARG = ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z ∈ roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) end_ARG ,

completing the proof. ∎

Lemma 2.3.

For any xΛ𝑥Λx\in\Lambdaitalic_x ∈ roman_Λ and ϵ>0italic-ϵ0\epsilon>0italic_ϵ > 0, if int[Vϵs(x)¯]intdelimited-[]¯superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥{\rm int}[\overline{V_{\epsilon}^{s}(x)}]\neq\emptysetroman_int [ over¯ start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_ARG ] ≠ ∅, and if

f|Λ×f:Λ×XΛ×X:evaluated-at𝑓Λ𝑓Λ𝑋Λ𝑋f|_{\Lambda}\times f\colon\Lambda\times X\to\Lambda\times Xitalic_f | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_f : roman_Λ × italic_X → roman_Λ × italic_X

is transitive, then X=V2ϵs(x)¯𝑋¯superscriptsubscript𝑉2italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥X=\overline{V_{2\epsilon}^{s}(x)}italic_X = over¯ start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_ARG.

Proof.

Let V𝑉Vitalic_V be a non-empty open subset of X𝑋Xitalic_X. Since xΛ𝑥Λx\in\Lambdaitalic_x ∈ roman_Λ and f|Λevaluated-at𝑓Λf|_{\Lambda}italic_f | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is equicontinuous, there is δ>0𝛿0\delta>0italic_δ > 0 such that d(x,b)δ𝑑𝑥𝑏𝛿d(x,b)\leq\deltaitalic_d ( italic_x , italic_b ) ≤ italic_δ implies

supi0d(fi(x),fi(b))ϵsubscriptsupremum𝑖0𝑑superscript𝑓𝑖𝑥superscript𝑓𝑖𝑏italic-ϵ\sup_{i\geq 0}d(f^{i}(x),f^{i}(b))\leq\epsilonroman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_b ) ) ≤ italic_ϵ

and so Vϵs(b)V2ϵs(x)superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠𝑏superscriptsubscript𝑉2italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥V_{\epsilon}^{s}(b)\subset V_{2\epsilon}^{s}(x)italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_b ) ⊂ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) for all bΛ𝑏Λb\in\Lambdaitalic_b ∈ roman_Λ. Again since xΛ𝑥Λx\in\Lambdaitalic_x ∈ roman_Λ and f|Λevaluated-at𝑓Λf|_{\Lambda}italic_f | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is equicontinuous, there is γ>0𝛾0\gamma>0italic_γ > 0 such that d(x,a)γ𝑑𝑥𝑎𝛾d(x,a)\leq\gammaitalic_d ( italic_x , italic_a ) ≤ italic_γ implies

supi0d(fi(x),fi(a))δ/2subscriptsupremum𝑖0𝑑superscript𝑓𝑖𝑥superscript𝑓𝑖𝑎𝛿2\sup_{i\geq 0}d(f^{i}(x),f^{i}(a))\leq\delta/2roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a ) ) ≤ italic_δ / 2

for all aΛ𝑎Λa\in\Lambdaitalic_a ∈ roman_Λ. Since int[Vϵs(x)¯]intdelimited-[]¯superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥{\rm int}[\overline{V_{\epsilon}^{s}(x)}]\neq\emptysetroman_int [ over¯ start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_ARG ] ≠ ∅ and f|Λ×fevaluated-at𝑓Λ𝑓f|_{\Lambda}\times fitalic_f | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_f is transitive, there are zΛ𝑧Λz\in\Lambdaitalic_z ∈ roman_Λ, pX𝑝𝑋p\in Xitalic_p ∈ italic_X, and i0𝑖0i\geq 0italic_i ≥ 0 such that

  • d(x,z)γ𝑑𝑥𝑧𝛾d(x,z)\leq\gammaitalic_d ( italic_x , italic_z ) ≤ italic_γ and d(x,fi(z))δ/2𝑑𝑥superscript𝑓𝑖𝑧𝛿2d(x,f^{i}(z))\leq\delta/2italic_d ( italic_x , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) ) ≤ italic_δ / 2,

  • pint[Vϵs(x)¯]𝑝intdelimited-[]¯superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥p\in{\rm int}[\overline{V_{\epsilon}^{s}(x)}]italic_p ∈ roman_int [ over¯ start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_ARG ] and fi(p)Vsuperscript𝑓𝑖𝑝𝑉f^{i}(p)\in Vitalic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) ∈ italic_V.

By fi(x)Λsuperscript𝑓𝑖𝑥Λf^{i}(x)\in\Lambdaitalic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) ∈ roman_Λ and

d(x,fi(x))d(x,fi(z))+d(fi(x),fi(z))δ/2+δ/2=δ,𝑑𝑥superscript𝑓𝑖𝑥𝑑𝑥superscript𝑓𝑖𝑧𝑑superscript𝑓𝑖𝑥superscript𝑓𝑖𝑧𝛿2𝛿2𝛿d(x,f^{i}(x))\leq d(x,f^{i}(z))+d(f^{i}(x),f^{i}(z))\leq\delta/2+\delta/2=\delta,italic_d ( italic_x , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) ) ≤ italic_d ( italic_x , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) ) + italic_d ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) ) ≤ italic_δ / 2 + italic_δ / 2 = italic_δ ,

we obtain Vϵs(fi(x))V2ϵs(x)superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠superscript𝑓𝑖𝑥subscriptsuperscript𝑉𝑠2italic-ϵ𝑥V_{\epsilon}^{s}(f^{i}(x))\subset V^{s}_{2\epsilon}(x)italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) ) ⊂ italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ). Since

pint[Vϵs(x)¯]Vϵs(x)¯𝑝intdelimited-[]¯superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥¯superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥p\in{\rm int}[\overline{V_{\epsilon}^{s}(x)}]\subset\overline{V_{\epsilon}^{s}% (x)}italic_p ∈ roman_int [ over¯ start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_ARG ] ⊂ over¯ start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_ARG

we have fi(q)Vsuperscript𝑓𝑖𝑞𝑉f^{i}(q)\in Vitalic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_q ) ∈ italic_V for some qVϵs(x)𝑞superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥q\in V_{\epsilon}^{s}(x)italic_q ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ). It follows that

fi(q)fi(Vϵs(x))Vϵs(fi(x))V2ϵs(x)superscript𝑓𝑖𝑞superscript𝑓𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠superscript𝑓𝑖𝑥superscriptsubscript𝑉2italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥f^{i}(q)\in f^{i}(V_{\epsilon}^{s}(x))\subset V_{\epsilon}^{s}(f^{i}(x))% \subset V_{2\epsilon}^{s}(x)italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_q ) ∈ italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) ) ⊂ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) ) ⊂ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x )

and so

fi(q)VV2ϵs(x).superscript𝑓𝑖𝑞𝑉superscriptsubscript𝑉2italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥f^{i}(q)\in V\cap V_{2\epsilon}^{s}(x).italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_q ) ∈ italic_V ∩ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) .

Since V𝑉Vitalic_V is arbitrary, we obtain X=V2ϵs(x)¯𝑋¯superscriptsubscript𝑉2italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥X=\overline{V_{2\epsilon}^{s}(x)}italic_X = over¯ start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_ARG, proving the lemma. ∎

Lemma 2.4.

Let x,yΛ𝑥𝑦Λx,y\in\Lambdaitalic_x , italic_y ∈ roman_Λ and ϵ>0italic-ϵ0\epsilon>0italic_ϵ > 0. If X=Vϵs(x)¯𝑋¯superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥X=\overline{V_{\epsilon}^{s}(x)}italic_X = over¯ start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_ARG, and if f𝑓fitalic_f is surjective, then X=V2ϵs(y)¯𝑋¯superscriptsubscript𝑉2italic-ϵ𝑠𝑦X=\overline{V_{2\epsilon}^{s}(y)}italic_X = over¯ start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_y ) end_ARG.

Proof.

Let V𝑉Vitalic_V be a non-empty open subset of X𝑋Xitalic_X. Since yΛ𝑦Λy\in\Lambdaitalic_y ∈ roman_Λ and f|Λevaluated-at𝑓Λf|_{\Lambda}italic_f | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is equicontinuous, there is δ>0𝛿0\delta>0italic_δ > 0 such that d(y,z)δ𝑑𝑦𝑧𝛿d(y,z)\leq\deltaitalic_d ( italic_y , italic_z ) ≤ italic_δ implies

supi0d(fi(y),fi(z))ϵsubscriptsupremum𝑖0𝑑superscript𝑓𝑖𝑦superscript𝑓𝑖𝑧italic-ϵ\sup_{i\geq 0}d(f^{i}(y),f^{i}(z))\leq\epsilonroman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_y ) , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) ) ≤ italic_ϵ

and so Vϵs(z)V2ϵs(y)superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠𝑧superscriptsubscript𝑉2italic-ϵ𝑠𝑦V_{\epsilon}^{s}(z)\subset V_{2\epsilon}^{s}(y)italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) ⊂ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_y ) for all zΛ𝑧Λz\in\Lambdaitalic_z ∈ roman_Λ. Since xΛ𝑥Λx\in\Lambdaitalic_x ∈ roman_Λ and f|Λevaluated-at𝑓Λf|_{\Lambda}italic_f | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is minimal, we have

Λ={fi(x):i0}¯,Λ¯conditional-setsuperscript𝑓𝑖𝑥𝑖0\Lambda=\overline{\{f^{i}(x)\colon i\geq 0\}},roman_Λ = over¯ start_ARG { italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) : italic_i ≥ 0 } end_ARG ,

which implies d(y,fi(x))δ𝑑𝑦superscript𝑓𝑖𝑥𝛿d(y,f^{i}(x))\leq\deltaitalic_d ( italic_y , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) ) ≤ italic_δ and so Vϵs(fi(x))V2ϵs(y)superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠superscript𝑓𝑖𝑥superscriptsubscript𝑉2italic-ϵ𝑠𝑦V_{\epsilon}^{s}(f^{i}(x))\subset V_{2\epsilon}^{s}(y)italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) ) ⊂ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_y ) for some i0𝑖0i\geq 0italic_i ≥ 0. Since f𝑓fitalic_f is surjective, we have fi(p)Vsuperscript𝑓𝑖𝑝𝑉f^{i}(p)\in Vitalic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) ∈ italic_V for some pX𝑝𝑋p\in Xitalic_p ∈ italic_X. By X=Vϵs(x)¯𝑋¯superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥X=\overline{V_{\epsilon}^{s}(x)}italic_X = over¯ start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_ARG, we obtain fi(q)Vsuperscript𝑓𝑖𝑞𝑉f^{i}(q)\in Vitalic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_q ) ∈ italic_V for some qVϵs(x)𝑞superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥q\in V_{\epsilon}^{s}(x)italic_q ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ). It follows that

fi(q)fi(Vϵs(x))Vϵs(fi(x))V2ϵs(y);superscript𝑓𝑖𝑞superscript𝑓𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠superscript𝑓𝑖𝑥superscriptsubscript𝑉2italic-ϵ𝑠𝑦f^{i}(q)\in f^{i}(V_{\epsilon}^{s}(x))\subset V_{\epsilon}^{s}(f^{i}(x))% \subset V_{2\epsilon}^{s}(y);italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_q ) ∈ italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) ) ⊂ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) ) ⊂ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_y ) ;

therefore,

fi(q)VV2ϵs(y).superscript𝑓𝑖𝑞𝑉superscriptsubscript𝑉2italic-ϵ𝑠𝑦f^{i}(q)\in V\cap V_{2\epsilon}^{s}(y).italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_q ) ∈ italic_V ∩ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_y ) .

Since V𝑉Vitalic_V is arbitrary, we obtain X=V2ϵs(y)¯𝑋¯superscriptsubscript𝑉2italic-ϵ𝑠𝑦X=\overline{V_{2\epsilon}^{s}(y)}italic_X = over¯ start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_y ) end_ARG, completing the proof. ∎

Lemma 2.5.

If X=xΛVϵs(x)¯𝑋¯subscript𝑥Λsuperscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥X=\overline{\bigcup_{x\in\Lambda}V_{\epsilon}^{s}(x)}italic_X = over¯ start_ARG ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x ∈ roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_ARG for all ϵ>0italic-ϵ0\epsilon>0italic_ϵ > 0, and if

f|Λ×f:Λ×XΛ×X:evaluated-at𝑓Λ𝑓Λ𝑋Λ𝑋f|_{\Lambda}\times f\colon\Lambda\times X\to\Lambda\times Xitalic_f | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_f : roman_Λ × italic_X → roman_Λ × italic_X

is transitive, then X=Vϵs(x)¯𝑋¯superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥X=\overline{V_{\epsilon}^{s}(x)}italic_X = over¯ start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_ARG for all xΛ𝑥Λx\in\Lambdaitalic_x ∈ roman_Λ and ϵ>0italic-ϵ0\epsilon>0italic_ϵ > 0.

Proof.

Given any ϵ>0italic-ϵ0\epsilon>0italic_ϵ > 0, by Lemma 2.1, we have X=xΛV2ϵs(x)¯𝑋subscript𝑥Λ¯superscriptsubscript𝑉2italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥X=\bigcup_{x\in\Lambda}\overline{V_{2\epsilon}^{s}(x)}italic_X = ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x ∈ roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_ARG. By Lemma 2.2, taking a countable dense subset ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ of ΛΛ\Lambdaroman_Λ, we have X=xΓV4ϵs(x)¯𝑋subscript𝑥Γ¯superscriptsubscript𝑉4italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥X=\bigcup_{x\in\Gamma}\overline{V_{4\epsilon}^{s}(x)}italic_X = ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x ∈ roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_ARG. By Baire category theorem, we obtain

int[V4ϵs(p)¯]intdelimited-[]¯superscriptsubscript𝑉4italic-ϵ𝑠𝑝{\rm int}[\overline{V_{4\epsilon}^{s}(p)}]\neq\emptysetroman_int [ over¯ start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) end_ARG ] ≠ ∅

for some pΓ𝑝Γp\in\Gammaitalic_p ∈ roman_Γ. Since

f|Λ×f:Λ×XΛ×X:evaluated-at𝑓Λ𝑓Λ𝑋Λ𝑋f|_{\Lambda}\times f\colon\Lambda\times X\to\Lambda\times Xitalic_f | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_f : roman_Λ × italic_X → roman_Λ × italic_X

is transitive, Lemma 2.3 implies X=V8ϵs(p)¯𝑋¯superscriptsubscript𝑉8italic-ϵ𝑠𝑝X=\overline{V_{8\epsilon}^{s}(p)}italic_X = over¯ start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 8 italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) end_ARG. Note that f𝑓fitalic_f is surjective because f|Λ×fevaluated-at𝑓Λ𝑓f|_{\Lambda}\times fitalic_f | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_f and so f𝑓fitalic_f is transitive. By Lemma 2.4, we obtain X=V16ϵs(x)¯𝑋¯superscriptsubscript𝑉16italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥X=\overline{V_{16\epsilon}^{s}(x)}italic_X = over¯ start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 16 italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_ARG for all xΛ𝑥Λx\in\Lambdaitalic_x ∈ roman_Λ. Since ϵ>0italic-ϵ0\epsilon>0italic_ϵ > 0 is arbitrary, we obtain X=Vϵs(x)¯𝑋¯superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥X=\overline{V_{\epsilon}^{s}(x)}italic_X = over¯ start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_ARG for all xΛ𝑥Λx\in\Lambdaitalic_x ∈ roman_Λ and ϵ>0italic-ϵ0\epsilon>0italic_ϵ > 0, thus the lemma has been proved. ∎

Let us prove Theorem 1.1.

Proof of Theorem 1.1.

If a continuous map f:XX:𝑓𝑋𝑋f\colon X\to Xitalic_f : italic_X → italic_X and a closed f𝑓fitalic_f-invariant subset ΛΛ\Lambdaroman_Λ of X𝑋Xitalic_X satisfy conditions (1)–(3) in Theorem 1.1, then by Lemma 2.5, we have X=Vϵs(x)¯𝑋¯superscriptsubscript𝑉italic-ϵ𝑠𝑥X=\overline{V_{\epsilon}^{s}(x)}italic_X = over¯ start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_ARG for all xΛ𝑥Λx\in\Lambdaitalic_x ∈ roman_Λ and ϵ>0italic-ϵ0\epsilon>0italic_ϵ > 0. From Lemma 1.1, it follows that for any 2n<|Λ|+12𝑛Λ12\leq n<|\Lambda|+12 ≤ italic_n < | roman_Λ | + 1, DC1nδn(X,f)superscriptsubscriptDC1𝑛subscript𝛿𝑛𝑋𝑓{\rm DC1}_{n}^{\delta_{n}}(X,f)DC1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_f ) is a residual subset of Xnsuperscript𝑋𝑛X^{n}italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for some δn>0subscript𝛿𝑛0\delta_{n}>0italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0. This completes the proof of Theorem 1.1. ∎

Finally, we prove Lemmas 1.2 and 1.3.

Proof of Lemma 1.2.

Given any qΛ𝑞Λq\in\Lambdaitalic_q ∈ roman_Λ and ϵ>0italic-ϵ0\epsilon>0italic_ϵ > 0, since f|Λ:ΛΛ:evaluated-at𝑓ΛΛΛf|_{\Lambda}\colon\Lambda\to\Lambdaitalic_f | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : roman_Λ → roman_Λ is equicontinuous, there is δ>0𝛿0\delta>0italic_δ > 0 such that d(q,y)δ𝑑𝑞𝑦𝛿d(q,y)\leq\deltaitalic_d ( italic_q , italic_y ) ≤ italic_δ implies

supj0d(fj(q),fj(y))ϵ/3subscriptsupremum𝑗0𝑑superscript𝑓𝑗𝑞superscript𝑓𝑗𝑦italic-ϵ3\sup_{j\geq 0}d(f^{j}(q),f^{j}(y))\leq\epsilon/3roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_q ) , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_y ) ) ≤ italic_ϵ / 3

for all yΛ𝑦Λy\in\Lambdaitalic_y ∈ roman_Λ. Note that f(x)R(f,)𝑓𝑥𝑅𝑓f(x)\in R(f,\mathcal{F})italic_f ( italic_x ) ∈ italic_R ( italic_f , caligraphic_F ) for all xR(f,)𝑥𝑅𝑓x\in R(f,\mathcal{F})italic_x ∈ italic_R ( italic_f , caligraphic_F ). By taking pΛR(f,)𝑝Λ𝑅𝑓p\in\Lambda\cap R(f,\mathcal{F})italic_p ∈ roman_Λ ∩ italic_R ( italic_f , caligraphic_F ), we obtain fi(p)R(f,)superscript𝑓𝑖𝑝𝑅𝑓f^{i}(p)\in R(f,\mathcal{F})italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) ∈ italic_R ( italic_f , caligraphic_F ) for all i0𝑖0i\geq 0italic_i ≥ 0. Since f|Λ:ΛΛ:evaluated-at𝑓ΛΛΛf|_{\Lambda}\colon\Lambda\to\Lambdaitalic_f | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : roman_Λ → roman_Λ is minimal, p𝑝pitalic_p satisfies

Λ={fi(p):i0}¯Λ¯conditional-setsuperscript𝑓𝑖𝑝𝑖0\Lambda=\overline{\{f^{i}(p)\colon i\geq 0\}}roman_Λ = over¯ start_ARG { italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) : italic_i ≥ 0 } end_ARG

and so d(q,fi(p))δ𝑑𝑞superscript𝑓𝑖𝑝𝛿d(q,f^{i}(p))\leq\deltaitalic_d ( italic_q , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) ) ≤ italic_δ for some i0𝑖0i\geq 0italic_i ≥ 0. By fi(p)R(f,)superscript𝑓𝑖𝑝𝑅𝑓f^{i}(p)\in R(f,\mathcal{F})italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) ∈ italic_R ( italic_f , caligraphic_F ), we obtain

N(fi(p),ϵ/3).𝑁superscript𝑓𝑖𝑝italic-ϵ3N(f^{i}(p),\epsilon/3)\in\mathcal{F}.italic_N ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) , italic_ϵ / 3 ) ∈ caligraphic_F .

Since fi(p)Λsuperscript𝑓𝑖𝑝Λf^{i}(p)\in\Lambdaitalic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) ∈ roman_Λ and d(q,fi(p))δ𝑑𝑞superscript𝑓𝑖𝑝𝛿d(q,f^{i}(p))\leq\deltaitalic_d ( italic_q , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) ) ≤ italic_δ, we have

d(q,fj(q))d(q,fi(p))+d(fi(p),fj(fi(p)))+d(fj(fi(p)),fj(q))ϵ/3+ϵ/3+ϵ/3=ϵ𝑑𝑞superscript𝑓𝑗𝑞𝑑𝑞superscript𝑓𝑖𝑝𝑑superscript𝑓𝑖𝑝superscript𝑓𝑗superscript𝑓𝑖𝑝𝑑superscript𝑓𝑗superscript𝑓𝑖𝑝superscript𝑓𝑗𝑞italic-ϵ3italic-ϵ3italic-ϵ3italic-ϵd(q,f^{j}(q))\leq d(q,f^{i}(p))+d(f^{i}(p),f^{j}(f^{i}(p)))+d(f^{j}(f^{i}(p)),% f^{j}(q))\leq\epsilon/3+\epsilon/3+\epsilon/3=\epsilonitalic_d ( italic_q , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_q ) ) ≤ italic_d ( italic_q , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) ) + italic_d ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) ) ) + italic_d ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) ) , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_q ) ) ≤ italic_ϵ / 3 + italic_ϵ / 3 + italic_ϵ / 3 = italic_ϵ

for all jN(fi(p),ϵ/3)𝑗𝑁superscript𝑓𝑖𝑝italic-ϵ3j\in N(f^{i}(p),\epsilon/3)italic_j ∈ italic_N ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) , italic_ϵ / 3 ). It follows that

N(fi(p),ϵ/3)N(q,ϵ)𝑁superscript𝑓𝑖𝑝italic-ϵ3𝑁𝑞italic-ϵN(f^{i}(p),\epsilon/3)\subset N(q,\epsilon)italic_N ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) , italic_ϵ / 3 ) ⊂ italic_N ( italic_q , italic_ϵ )

and so

N(q,ϵ).𝑁𝑞italic-ϵN(q,\epsilon)\in\mathcal{F}.italic_N ( italic_q , italic_ϵ ) ∈ caligraphic_F .

Since qΛ𝑞Λq\in\Lambdaitalic_q ∈ roman_Λ and ϵ>0italic-ϵ0\epsilon>0italic_ϵ > 0 are arbitrary, we obtain ΛR(f,)Λ𝑅𝑓\Lambda\subset R(f,\mathcal{F})roman_Λ ⊂ italic_R ( italic_f , caligraphic_F ), completing the proof. ∎

Proof of Lemma 1.3.

For A0𝐴subscript0A\subset\mathbb{N}_{0}italic_A ⊂ blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and j0𝑗0j\geq 0italic_j ≥ 0, let A+j={i+j:iA}𝐴𝑗conditional-set𝑖𝑗𝑖𝐴A+j=\{i+j\colon i\in A\}italic_A + italic_j = { italic_i + italic_j : italic_i ∈ italic_A }. Let U1,V1subscript𝑈1subscript𝑉1U_{1},V_{1}italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be non-empty open subsets of Y𝑌Yitalic_Y. Since g𝑔gitalic_g is transitive, there are yU1𝑦subscript𝑈1y\in U_{1}italic_y ∈ italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and j0𝑗0j\geq 0italic_j ≥ 0 such that gj(y)V1superscript𝑔𝑗𝑦subscript𝑉1g^{j}(y)\in V_{1}italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_y ) ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We take δ>0𝛿0\delta>0italic_δ > 0 such that Bδ(y)U1subscript𝐵𝛿𝑦subscript𝑈1B_{\delta}(y)\in U_{1}italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_y ) ∈ italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and gj(Bδ(y))V1superscript𝑔𝑗subscript𝐵𝛿𝑦subscript𝑉1g^{j}(B_{\delta}(y))\subset V_{1}italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_y ) ) ⊂ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT where Bδ(y)subscript𝐵𝛿𝑦B_{\delta}(y)italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_y ) is the closed δ𝛿\deltaitalic_δ-ball centered at y𝑦yitalic_y. It follows that

N(Bδ(y),Bδ(y))+jN(U1,V1)𝑁subscript𝐵𝛿𝑦subscript𝐵𝛿𝑦𝑗𝑁subscript𝑈1subscript𝑉1N(B_{\delta}(y),B_{\delta}(y))+j\subset N(U_{1},V_{1})italic_N ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_y ) , italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_y ) ) + italic_j ⊂ italic_N ( italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )

because for every iN(Bδ(y),Bδ(y))𝑖𝑁subscript𝐵𝛿𝑦subscript𝐵𝛿𝑦i\in N(B_{\delta}(y),B_{\delta}(y))italic_i ∈ italic_N ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_y ) , italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_y ) ), there is pBδ(y)𝑝subscript𝐵𝛿𝑦p\in B_{\delta}(y)italic_p ∈ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_y ) such that gi(p)Bδ(y)superscript𝑔𝑖𝑝subscript𝐵𝛿𝑦g^{i}(p)\in B_{\delta}(y)italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) ∈ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_y ) which implies pU1𝑝subscript𝑈1p\in U_{1}italic_p ∈ italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and gi+j(p)=gj(gi(p))gj(Bδ(y))V1superscript𝑔𝑖𝑗𝑝superscript𝑔𝑗superscript𝑔𝑖𝑝superscript𝑔𝑗subscript𝐵𝛿𝑦subscript𝑉1g^{i+j}(p)=g^{j}(g^{i}(p))\in g^{j}(B_{\delta}(y))\subset V_{1}italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i + italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) = italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) ) ∈ italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_y ) ) ⊂ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT; therefore, i+jN(U1,V1)𝑖𝑗𝑁subscript𝑈1subscript𝑉1i+j\in N(U_{1},V_{1})italic_i + italic_j ∈ italic_N ( italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). Note that 0N(y,δ)0𝑁𝑦𝛿0\in N(y,\delta)0 ∈ italic_N ( italic_y , italic_δ ). We have

Δ(N(y,δ))N(Bδ(y),Bδ(y))Δ𝑁𝑦𝛿𝑁subscript𝐵𝛿𝑦subscript𝐵𝛿𝑦\Delta(N(y,\delta))\subset N(B_{\delta}(y),B_{\delta}(y))roman_Δ ( italic_N ( italic_y , italic_δ ) ) ⊂ italic_N ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_y ) , italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_y ) )

because it holds for any k,lN(y,δ)𝑘𝑙𝑁𝑦𝛿k,l\in N(y,\delta)italic_k , italic_l ∈ italic_N ( italic_y , italic_δ ) with kl𝑘𝑙k\leq litalic_k ≤ italic_l, gk(y)Bδ(y)superscript𝑔𝑘𝑦subscript𝐵𝛿𝑦g^{k}(y)\in B_{\delta}(y)italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_y ) ∈ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_y ) and glk(gk(y))=gl(y)Bδ(y)superscript𝑔𝑙𝑘superscript𝑔𝑘𝑦superscript𝑔𝑙𝑦subscript𝐵𝛿𝑦g^{l-k}(g^{k}(y))=g^{l}(y)\in B_{\delta}(y)italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_l - italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_y ) ) = italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_y ) ∈ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_y ); therefore, lkN(Bδ(y),Bδ(y))𝑙𝑘𝑁subscript𝐵𝛿𝑦subscript𝐵𝛿𝑦l-k\in N(B_{\delta}(y),B_{\delta}(y))italic_l - italic_k ∈ italic_N ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_y ) , italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_y ) ). Let U,V𝑈𝑉U,Vitalic_U , italic_V be non-empty open subsets of X𝑋Xitalic_X. Since yY𝑦𝑌y\in Yitalic_y ∈ italic_Y and Y=R(g,)𝑌𝑅𝑔Y=R(g,\mathcal{F})italic_Y = italic_R ( italic_g , caligraphic_F ), we have N(y,δ)𝑁𝑦𝛿N(y,\delta)\in\mathcal{F}italic_N ( italic_y , italic_δ ) ∈ caligraphic_F and so Δ(N(y,δ))Δ()Δ𝑁𝑦𝛿Δ\Delta(N(y,\delta))\in\Delta(\mathcal{F})roman_Δ ( italic_N ( italic_y , italic_δ ) ) ∈ roman_Δ ( caligraphic_F ). Since f𝑓fitalic_f is Δ()Δsuperscript\Delta(\mathcal{F})^{\ast}roman_Δ ( caligraphic_F ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-transitive, we obtain

N(U,fj(V))Δ(N(y,δ))𝑁𝑈superscript𝑓𝑗𝑉Δ𝑁𝑦𝛿N(U,f^{-j}(V))\cap\Delta(N(y,\delta))\neq\emptysetitalic_N ( italic_U , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_V ) ) ∩ roman_Δ ( italic_N ( italic_y , italic_δ ) ) ≠ ∅

and so

N(U,fj(V))N(Bδ(y),Bδ(y)),𝑁𝑈superscript𝑓𝑗𝑉𝑁subscript𝐵𝛿𝑦subscript𝐵𝛿𝑦N(U,f^{-j}(V))\cap N(B_{\delta}(y),B_{\delta}(y))\neq\emptyset,italic_N ( italic_U , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_V ) ) ∩ italic_N ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_y ) , italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_y ) ) ≠ ∅ ,

implying

[N(U,fj(V))+j][N(Bδ(y),Bδ(y))+j]delimited-[]𝑁𝑈superscript𝑓𝑗𝑉𝑗delimited-[]𝑁subscript𝐵𝛿𝑦subscript𝐵𝛿𝑦𝑗[N(U,f^{-j}(V))+j]\cap[N(B_{\delta}(y),B_{\delta}(y))+j]\neq\emptyset[ italic_N ( italic_U , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_V ) ) + italic_j ] ∩ [ italic_N ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_y ) , italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_y ) ) + italic_j ] ≠ ∅

and so

[N(U,fj(V))+j]N(U1,V1).delimited-[]𝑁𝑈superscript𝑓𝑗𝑉𝑗𝑁subscript𝑈1subscript𝑉1[N(U,f^{-j}(V))+j]\cap N(U_{1},V_{1})\neq\emptyset.[ italic_N ( italic_U , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_V ) ) + italic_j ] ∩ italic_N ( italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≠ ∅ .

We have

N(U,fj(V))+jN(U,V)𝑁𝑈superscript𝑓𝑗𝑉𝑗𝑁𝑈𝑉N(U,f^{-j}(V))+j\subset N(U,V)italic_N ( italic_U , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_V ) ) + italic_j ⊂ italic_N ( italic_U , italic_V )

because for every iN(U,fj(V))𝑖𝑁𝑈superscript𝑓𝑗𝑉i\in N(U,f^{-j}(V))italic_i ∈ italic_N ( italic_U , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_V ) ), there is xU𝑥𝑈x\in Uitalic_x ∈ italic_U such that fi(x)fj(V)superscript𝑓𝑖𝑥superscript𝑓𝑗𝑉f^{i}(x)\in f^{-j}(V)italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) ∈ italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_V ) and so fi+j(x)=fj(fi(x))Vsuperscript𝑓𝑖𝑗𝑥superscript𝑓𝑗superscript𝑓𝑖𝑥𝑉f^{i+j}(x)=f^{j}(f^{i}(x))\in Vitalic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i + italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) = italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) ) ∈ italic_V; therefore i+jN(U,V)𝑖𝑗𝑁𝑈𝑉i+j\in N(U,V)italic_i + italic_j ∈ italic_N ( italic_U , italic_V ). It follows that

N(U,V)N(U1,V1).𝑁𝑈𝑉𝑁subscript𝑈1subscript𝑉1N(U,V)\cap N(U_{1},V_{1})\neq\emptyset.italic_N ( italic_U , italic_V ) ∩ italic_N ( italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≠ ∅ .

Since U1,V1,U,Vsubscript𝑈1subscript𝑉1𝑈𝑉U_{1},V_{1},U,Vitalic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_U , italic_V are arbitrary, we conclude that

f×g:X×YX×Y:𝑓𝑔𝑋𝑌𝑋𝑌f\times g\colon X\times Y\to X\times Yitalic_f × italic_g : italic_X × italic_Y → italic_X × italic_Y

is transitive, proving the lemma. ∎

References

  • [1] E. Akin, Lectures on Cantor and Mycielski sets for dynamical systems. Contemporary Mathematics 356 (2004), 21–79.
  • [2] E. Akin, E. Glasner, Residual properties and almost equicontinuity. J. Anal. Math. 84 (2001), 243–286.
  • [3] E. Akin, E. Glasner, W. Huang, S. Shao, X. Ye, Sufficient conditions under which a transitive system is chaotic. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 30 (2010), 1277–1310.
  • [4] F. Blanchard, E. Glasner, S. Kolyada, A. Maass, On Li–Yorke pairs. J. Reine Angew. Math. 547 (2002), 51–68.
  • [5] L. Block, J. Keesling, A characterization of adding machine maps. Topology Appl. 140 (2004), 151–161.
  • [6] T. Fisher, B. Hasselblatt, Hyperbolic flows. Zurich Lectures in Advanced Mathematics, Berlin: European Mathematical Society (EMS), 2019.
  • [7] W. Huang, X. Ye, An explicit scattering, non-weakly mixing example and weak disjointness. Nonlinearity 15 (2002), 849–862.
  • [8] P. Kůrka, Topological and Symbolic Dynamics. Societe Mathematique de France, Paris, 2003.
  • [9] J. Li, J. Li, S. Tu, Devaney chaos plus shadowing implies distributional chaos. Chaos 26 (2016), 093103, 6 pp.
  • [10] J. Li, P. Oprocha, On n𝑛nitalic_n-scrambled tuples and distributional chaos in a sequence. J. Differ. Equations Appl. 19 (2013), 927–941.
  • [11] J. Li, X. Ye, Recent development of chaos theory in topological dynamics. Acta Math. Sin., Engl. Ser. 32 (2016), 83–114.
  • [12] T.Y. Li, J.A. Yorke, Period three implies chaos. Amer. Math. Monthly 82 (1975), 985–992.
  • [13] J.H. Mai, The structure of equicontinuous maps. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 355 (2003), 4125–4136.
  • [14] J. Mycielski, Independent sets in topological algebras. Fund. Math. 55 (1964), 139–147.
  • [15] P. Oprocha, Distributional chaos revisited. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 361 (2009), 4901–4925.
  • [16] B. Schweizer, J. Smítal, Measures of chaos and a spectral decomposition of dynamical systems on the interval. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 344 (1994), 737–754.
  • [17] F. Tan, H. Fu, On distributional n𝑛nitalic_n-chaos. Acta Math. Sci., Ser. B, Engl. Ed. 34 (2014), 1473–1480.