The Student Room Group

Dynamical Systems: Period Orbits

Just want a quick check that my proof holds and I'm not missing something :smile:

Question: Consider an orbit with period mm whose minimal period is pp. Prove that mp\dfrac{m}{p} is an integer.

Proof: Suppose x0x_0 is our fixed period point. Since pp is the minimal period, we have that pmp \leq m and fp(x0)=x0f^p(x_0) = x_0 and fpk(x0)x0f^{p-k}(x_0) \neq x_0 for k{1,2,...,p1}k\in \{1, 2, ..., p-1\}. Since mm is a period of this orbit, then fm(x0)=x0f^m(x_0) = x_0.

If m=pm=p then the statement is automatically true.

If m>pm > p, then denote m=rp+sm = rp + s where rNr \in \mathbb{N} and s{0,1,,p1}s \in \{ 0, 1, \ldots, p-1 \}.

Hence

Unparseable latex formula:

$\begin{align*} x_0 = f^{m}(x_0) & = f^{rp+s}(x_0) \\ & = f^{s}(f^{rp}(x_0)) \\ & = f^s(f^{p+p+...+p}(x_0)) \\ & = f^{s}(f^p(f^p\ldots \underbrace{f^p(x_0)}_{=x_0} \ldots)) \\ & = f^{s}(x_0) \end{align*}$



Hence fs(x0)=x0f^s(x_0) = x_0.

But this is a contradiction if 0<s<p0 < s < p where pp is the minimal period, hence s=0s=0 is the only possibility.

Thus m=rp    mp=rNm=rp \implies \dfrac{m}{p} = r \in \mathbb{N} as required.
Reply 1
Original post by RDKGames
Just want a quick check that my proof holds and I'm not missing something :smile:

Question: Consider an orbit with period mm whose minimal period is pp. Prove that mp\dfrac{m}{p} is an integer.

Proof: Suppose x0x_0 is our fixed period point. Since pp is the minimal period, we have that pmp \leq m and fp(x0)=x0f^p(x_0) = x_0 and fpk(x0)x0f^{p-k}(x_0) \neq x_0 for k{1,2,...,p1}k\in \{1, 2, ..., p-1\}. Since mm is a period of this orbit, then fm(x0)=x0f^m(x_0) = x_0.

If m=pm=p then the statement is automatically true.

If m>pm > p, then denote m=rp+sm = rp + s where rNr \in \mathbb{N} and s{0,1,,p1}s \in \{ 0, 1, \ldots, p-1 \}.

Hence

Unparseable latex formula:

$\begin{align*} x_0 = f^{m}(x_0) & = f^{rp+s}(x_0) \\ & = f^{s}(f^{rp}(x_0)) \\ & = f^s(f^{p+p+...+p}(x_0)) \\ & = f^{s}(f^p(f^p\ldots \underbrace{f^p(x_0)}_{=x_0} \ldots)) \\ & = f^{s}(x_0) \end{align*}$



Hence fs(x0)=x0f^s(x_0) = x_0.

But this is a contradiction if 0<s<p0 < s < p where pp is the minimal period, hence s=0s=0 is the only possibility.

Thus m=rp    mp=rNm=rp \implies \dfrac{m}{p} = r \in \mathbb{N} as required.


Looks good to me.
Original post by mqb2766
Looks good to me.


Thanks :smile:


OK so I'm having trouble getting somewhere here. The layout heavily hints at MVT but I'm having trouble incorporating it.

Suppose we have a period-2 orbit for which 2 is the minimal period; {x0,x1}\{ \overline{x_0,x_1} \}.
So we have that f(x0)=x1f(x_0) = x_1 and f(x1)=x0f(x_1) = x_0, where x0x1x_0 \neq x_1 and x0,x1(a,b)x_0,x_1 \in (a,b)

The multiplier here is μ=f(x0)f(x1)\mu = f'(x_0) f'(x_1).

Since f(x)<1|f'(x)| < 1 for x(a,b)x \in (a,b) we must have that μ=f(x0)f(x1)<1|\mu| =| f'(x_0) f'(x_1) | < 1. So the orbit is an attractor (is linearly stable).

By MVT, c(a,b)\exists c \in (a,b) such that f(c)=f(b)f(a)baf'(c) = \dfrac{f(b)-f(a)}{b-a}.

Past this I'm unsure how to reach a contradiction that says x0=x1x_0 = x_1.
Original post by RDKGames


OK so I'm having trouble getting somewhere here. The layout heavily hints at MVT but I'm having trouble incorporating it.

Suppose we have a period-2 orbit for which 2 is the minimal period; {x0,x1}\{ \overline{x_0,x_1} \}.
So we have that f(x0)=x1f(x_0) = x_1 and f(x1)=x0f(x_1) = x_0, where x0x1x_0 \neq x_1 and x0,x1(a,b)x_0,x_1 \in (a,b)

The multiplier here is μ=f(x0)f(x1)\mu = f'(x_0) f'(x_1).

Since f(x)<1|f'(x)| < 1 for x(a,b)x \in (a,b) we must have that μ=f(x0)f(x1)<1|\mu| =| f'(x_0) f'(x_1) | < 1. So the orbit is an attractor (is linearly stable).

By MVT, c(a,b)\exists c \in (a,b) such that f(c)=f(b)f(a)baf'(c) = \dfrac{f(b)-f(a)}{b-a}.

Past this I'm unsure how to reach a contradiction that says x0=x1x_0 = x_1.


Think about

f(x1)f(x0)x1x0\dfrac{f(x_{1})-f(x_{0})}{x_{1}-x_{0}}
Original post by Gregorius
Think about

f(x1)f(x0)x1x0\dfrac{f(x_{1})-f(x_{0})}{x_{1}-x_{0}}


Can’t do this on paper at the moment, but are you saying that I can use MVT on the region (x_0, x_1) ?

In which case I can see that, by the th, there is a point in between these two points whose gradient is exactly -1 (evaluating the gradient you gave), which is a contradiction since all points has gradients with magnitude less than 1.

Is this what you have in mind?
Original post by RDKGames

Is this what you have in mind?


Yup!
Original post by Gregorius
Yup!


Ah neat, I was unsure about applying MVT on that interval, but in hindsight the theorem still seems to hold under that condition. :smile:

I suspect the proof for the second part flows somewhat the same?

Suppose we have a period orbit with minimal period p>1p > 1; {x1,x2,,xp1}\{ \overline{x_1,x_2, \ldots, x_{p-1}} \}, with xixjx_i \neq x_j for i,j{1,2,,p1}i,j \in \{ 1, 2, \ldots, p-1 \}.

Then considering regions in between two neighbouring period points xi,xi+1x_i, x_{i+1}, we have that MVT gives us the existance of wi(xi,xi+1)w_i \in ( x_i, x_{i+1} ) such that

f(w1)=f(x2)f(x1)x2x1=x3x2x2x1f'(w_1) = \dfrac{f(x_2)-f(x_1)}{x_2-x_1} = \dfrac{x_3-x_2}{x_2-x_1}

f(w2)=f(x3)f(x2)x3x2=x4x3x3x2f'(w_2) = \dfrac{f(x_3)-f(x_2)}{x_3-x_2} = \dfrac{x_4 - x_3}{x_3 - x_2}

and so on until

f(wp1)=f(xp)f(xp1)xpxp1=x2x1xpxp1f'(w_{p-1}) = \dfrac{f(x_p)-f(x_{p-1})}{x_p-x_{p-1}} = \dfrac{x_2 - x_1}{x_p-x_{p-1}}

Then if we take the product of all of these derivatives, then we find that

f(w1)f(w2)f(wp1)=1| f'(w_1) f'(w_2) \cdots f'(w_{p-1}) | = 1

which again is a contradiction since each f(wi)(a,b)f'(w_i) \in (a,b) must have f(wi)<1|f'(w_i)| < 1, hence their product must be <1<1.

Quick Reply

Latest