Topological conjugacy between dyadic map and tent map












4












$begingroup$


For trying to prove that the tent map
$$T(x)=
begin{cases}
2x &text{ if } xin[0,frac{1}{2}]\
2-2x &text{ if } xin[frac{1}{2},1]
end{cases}
$$

is ergodic, I have already shown that the dyadic map (period-doubling map) given by $E(x)=2x$ mod $1$ is ergodic using a Fourier transform of $f$ and comparing coefficients to show that any measurable $f:Xtomathbb{R}$ with $ f circ E = f$ almost everywhere implies $f$ is constant almost everywhere.



Anyways, to show that the tent map is ergodic, I tried topological conjugation with the dyadic map (which is ergodic); I've done the following:



Lemma.
The tent map $T$ is topologically semi-conjugate to the dyadic map $E(x)=2x$ mod 1.



Proof.
Let $E: [0,1] to [0,1]$ be the dyadic map $E(x) = 2x$ mod 1. Let $T$ be the tent map as before.



Let $varphi: [0,1] to [0,1]$ also be the tent map, the same as $T$; i.e. $varphiequiv T$. Since
begin{align*}
varphicirc E(x)=T(2xtext{ mod 1})
&=begin{cases}
2(2xtext{ mod 1}) &text{ if }0leqslant2xtext{ mod } 1leqslantfrac{1}{2}\
2-2(2xtext{ mod 1}) &text{ if }frac{1}{2}leqslant2xtext{ mod } 1leqslant1
end{cases}\
&=
begin{cases}
4x &text{ if }xin[0,frac{1}{4}]cup[frac{1}{2},frac{3}{4}]\
2-4x &text{ if }xin[frac{1}{4},frac{1}{2}]cup[frac{3}{4},1]
end{cases}\
&=T^2(x)=Tcircvarphi(x), %%Do not change, this is best way to write down, I noticed by trial and error
end{align*}

we have that $varphicirc E = Tcircvarphi$; i.e. $T$ is a factor of $E$ (or $E$ is an extension of $T$). $Box$.



I know that this is only semi-conjugation for $varphi$ is not invertible. I think the argument for ergodicty does not go wrong only using semi-conjugation, but I would like to have "full" conjugation. This is the ergodicity argument assuming ergodicity of $E$:



Theorem.
The tent map $T$ is ergodic.



Proof.
Let $A$ be an invariant set in $[0,1]$ for $T$; i.e. $T^{-1}(A)=A$. Since $varphicirc E = Tcircvarphi$ with $varphi, E$ and $T$ as in the lemma above, it follows that
begin{align*}
(varphicirc E)^{-1}&=(Tcircvarphi)^{-1}\ E^{-1}circvarphi^{-1}&=varphi^{-1}circ T^{-1}
end{align*}

which, after plugging in $A$, gives
begin{equation*}
E^{-1}(varphi^{-1}(A))=varphi^{-1}(T^{-1}(A))=varphi^{-1}(A);
end{equation*}

so $varphi^{-1}(A)$ is invariant for $E$. Now since $E$ is ergodic, we have that $varphi^{-1}(A)$ has zero or full Lebesgue measure. As $varphi=T$ (and $varphi^{-1}=T^{-1}$), we have that $varphi^{-1}(A)=T^{-1}(A)=A$
and hence also $A$ has zero or full Lebesgue measure; i.e. $T$ is ergodic.$Box$.



Question 1A: Is the proof of the theorem correct?



Question 1B: Does this last theorem proof that ergodicity is preserved under topological semi-conjugation?



Question 2: How does one prove topological conjugation between the tent map and the dyadic map?



Thanks in advance for time and help!










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    4












    $begingroup$


    For trying to prove that the tent map
    $$T(x)=
    begin{cases}
    2x &text{ if } xin[0,frac{1}{2}]\
    2-2x &text{ if } xin[frac{1}{2},1]
    end{cases}
    $$

    is ergodic, I have already shown that the dyadic map (period-doubling map) given by $E(x)=2x$ mod $1$ is ergodic using a Fourier transform of $f$ and comparing coefficients to show that any measurable $f:Xtomathbb{R}$ with $ f circ E = f$ almost everywhere implies $f$ is constant almost everywhere.



    Anyways, to show that the tent map is ergodic, I tried topological conjugation with the dyadic map (which is ergodic); I've done the following:



    Lemma.
    The tent map $T$ is topologically semi-conjugate to the dyadic map $E(x)=2x$ mod 1.



    Proof.
    Let $E: [0,1] to [0,1]$ be the dyadic map $E(x) = 2x$ mod 1. Let $T$ be the tent map as before.



    Let $varphi: [0,1] to [0,1]$ also be the tent map, the same as $T$; i.e. $varphiequiv T$. Since
    begin{align*}
    varphicirc E(x)=T(2xtext{ mod 1})
    &=begin{cases}
    2(2xtext{ mod 1}) &text{ if }0leqslant2xtext{ mod } 1leqslantfrac{1}{2}\
    2-2(2xtext{ mod 1}) &text{ if }frac{1}{2}leqslant2xtext{ mod } 1leqslant1
    end{cases}\
    &=
    begin{cases}
    4x &text{ if }xin[0,frac{1}{4}]cup[frac{1}{2},frac{3}{4}]\
    2-4x &text{ if }xin[frac{1}{4},frac{1}{2}]cup[frac{3}{4},1]
    end{cases}\
    &=T^2(x)=Tcircvarphi(x), %%Do not change, this is best way to write down, I noticed by trial and error
    end{align*}

    we have that $varphicirc E = Tcircvarphi$; i.e. $T$ is a factor of $E$ (or $E$ is an extension of $T$). $Box$.



    I know that this is only semi-conjugation for $varphi$ is not invertible. I think the argument for ergodicty does not go wrong only using semi-conjugation, but I would like to have "full" conjugation. This is the ergodicity argument assuming ergodicity of $E$:



    Theorem.
    The tent map $T$ is ergodic.



    Proof.
    Let $A$ be an invariant set in $[0,1]$ for $T$; i.e. $T^{-1}(A)=A$. Since $varphicirc E = Tcircvarphi$ with $varphi, E$ and $T$ as in the lemma above, it follows that
    begin{align*}
    (varphicirc E)^{-1}&=(Tcircvarphi)^{-1}\ E^{-1}circvarphi^{-1}&=varphi^{-1}circ T^{-1}
    end{align*}

    which, after plugging in $A$, gives
    begin{equation*}
    E^{-1}(varphi^{-1}(A))=varphi^{-1}(T^{-1}(A))=varphi^{-1}(A);
    end{equation*}

    so $varphi^{-1}(A)$ is invariant for $E$. Now since $E$ is ergodic, we have that $varphi^{-1}(A)$ has zero or full Lebesgue measure. As $varphi=T$ (and $varphi^{-1}=T^{-1}$), we have that $varphi^{-1}(A)=T^{-1}(A)=A$
    and hence also $A$ has zero or full Lebesgue measure; i.e. $T$ is ergodic.$Box$.



    Question 1A: Is the proof of the theorem correct?



    Question 1B: Does this last theorem proof that ergodicity is preserved under topological semi-conjugation?



    Question 2: How does one prove topological conjugation between the tent map and the dyadic map?



    Thanks in advance for time and help!










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      4












      4








      4





      $begingroup$


      For trying to prove that the tent map
      $$T(x)=
      begin{cases}
      2x &text{ if } xin[0,frac{1}{2}]\
      2-2x &text{ if } xin[frac{1}{2},1]
      end{cases}
      $$

      is ergodic, I have already shown that the dyadic map (period-doubling map) given by $E(x)=2x$ mod $1$ is ergodic using a Fourier transform of $f$ and comparing coefficients to show that any measurable $f:Xtomathbb{R}$ with $ f circ E = f$ almost everywhere implies $f$ is constant almost everywhere.



      Anyways, to show that the tent map is ergodic, I tried topological conjugation with the dyadic map (which is ergodic); I've done the following:



      Lemma.
      The tent map $T$ is topologically semi-conjugate to the dyadic map $E(x)=2x$ mod 1.



      Proof.
      Let $E: [0,1] to [0,1]$ be the dyadic map $E(x) = 2x$ mod 1. Let $T$ be the tent map as before.



      Let $varphi: [0,1] to [0,1]$ also be the tent map, the same as $T$; i.e. $varphiequiv T$. Since
      begin{align*}
      varphicirc E(x)=T(2xtext{ mod 1})
      &=begin{cases}
      2(2xtext{ mod 1}) &text{ if }0leqslant2xtext{ mod } 1leqslantfrac{1}{2}\
      2-2(2xtext{ mod 1}) &text{ if }frac{1}{2}leqslant2xtext{ mod } 1leqslant1
      end{cases}\
      &=
      begin{cases}
      4x &text{ if }xin[0,frac{1}{4}]cup[frac{1}{2},frac{3}{4}]\
      2-4x &text{ if }xin[frac{1}{4},frac{1}{2}]cup[frac{3}{4},1]
      end{cases}\
      &=T^2(x)=Tcircvarphi(x), %%Do not change, this is best way to write down, I noticed by trial and error
      end{align*}

      we have that $varphicirc E = Tcircvarphi$; i.e. $T$ is a factor of $E$ (or $E$ is an extension of $T$). $Box$.



      I know that this is only semi-conjugation for $varphi$ is not invertible. I think the argument for ergodicty does not go wrong only using semi-conjugation, but I would like to have "full" conjugation. This is the ergodicity argument assuming ergodicity of $E$:



      Theorem.
      The tent map $T$ is ergodic.



      Proof.
      Let $A$ be an invariant set in $[0,1]$ for $T$; i.e. $T^{-1}(A)=A$. Since $varphicirc E = Tcircvarphi$ with $varphi, E$ and $T$ as in the lemma above, it follows that
      begin{align*}
      (varphicirc E)^{-1}&=(Tcircvarphi)^{-1}\ E^{-1}circvarphi^{-1}&=varphi^{-1}circ T^{-1}
      end{align*}

      which, after plugging in $A$, gives
      begin{equation*}
      E^{-1}(varphi^{-1}(A))=varphi^{-1}(T^{-1}(A))=varphi^{-1}(A);
      end{equation*}

      so $varphi^{-1}(A)$ is invariant for $E$. Now since $E$ is ergodic, we have that $varphi^{-1}(A)$ has zero or full Lebesgue measure. As $varphi=T$ (and $varphi^{-1}=T^{-1}$), we have that $varphi^{-1}(A)=T^{-1}(A)=A$
      and hence also $A$ has zero or full Lebesgue measure; i.e. $T$ is ergodic.$Box$.



      Question 1A: Is the proof of the theorem correct?



      Question 1B: Does this last theorem proof that ergodicity is preserved under topological semi-conjugation?



      Question 2: How does one prove topological conjugation between the tent map and the dyadic map?



      Thanks in advance for time and help!










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      For trying to prove that the tent map
      $$T(x)=
      begin{cases}
      2x &text{ if } xin[0,frac{1}{2}]\
      2-2x &text{ if } xin[frac{1}{2},1]
      end{cases}
      $$

      is ergodic, I have already shown that the dyadic map (period-doubling map) given by $E(x)=2x$ mod $1$ is ergodic using a Fourier transform of $f$ and comparing coefficients to show that any measurable $f:Xtomathbb{R}$ with $ f circ E = f$ almost everywhere implies $f$ is constant almost everywhere.



      Anyways, to show that the tent map is ergodic, I tried topological conjugation with the dyadic map (which is ergodic); I've done the following:



      Lemma.
      The tent map $T$ is topologically semi-conjugate to the dyadic map $E(x)=2x$ mod 1.



      Proof.
      Let $E: [0,1] to [0,1]$ be the dyadic map $E(x) = 2x$ mod 1. Let $T$ be the tent map as before.



      Let $varphi: [0,1] to [0,1]$ also be the tent map, the same as $T$; i.e. $varphiequiv T$. Since
      begin{align*}
      varphicirc E(x)=T(2xtext{ mod 1})
      &=begin{cases}
      2(2xtext{ mod 1}) &text{ if }0leqslant2xtext{ mod } 1leqslantfrac{1}{2}\
      2-2(2xtext{ mod 1}) &text{ if }frac{1}{2}leqslant2xtext{ mod } 1leqslant1
      end{cases}\
      &=
      begin{cases}
      4x &text{ if }xin[0,frac{1}{4}]cup[frac{1}{2},frac{3}{4}]\
      2-4x &text{ if }xin[frac{1}{4},frac{1}{2}]cup[frac{3}{4},1]
      end{cases}\
      &=T^2(x)=Tcircvarphi(x), %%Do not change, this is best way to write down, I noticed by trial and error
      end{align*}

      we have that $varphicirc E = Tcircvarphi$; i.e. $T$ is a factor of $E$ (or $E$ is an extension of $T$). $Box$.



      I know that this is only semi-conjugation for $varphi$ is not invertible. I think the argument for ergodicty does not go wrong only using semi-conjugation, but I would like to have "full" conjugation. This is the ergodicity argument assuming ergodicity of $E$:



      Theorem.
      The tent map $T$ is ergodic.



      Proof.
      Let $A$ be an invariant set in $[0,1]$ for $T$; i.e. $T^{-1}(A)=A$. Since $varphicirc E = Tcircvarphi$ with $varphi, E$ and $T$ as in the lemma above, it follows that
      begin{align*}
      (varphicirc E)^{-1}&=(Tcircvarphi)^{-1}\ E^{-1}circvarphi^{-1}&=varphi^{-1}circ T^{-1}
      end{align*}

      which, after plugging in $A$, gives
      begin{equation*}
      E^{-1}(varphi^{-1}(A))=varphi^{-1}(T^{-1}(A))=varphi^{-1}(A);
      end{equation*}

      so $varphi^{-1}(A)$ is invariant for $E$. Now since $E$ is ergodic, we have that $varphi^{-1}(A)$ has zero or full Lebesgue measure. As $varphi=T$ (and $varphi^{-1}=T^{-1}$), we have that $varphi^{-1}(A)=T^{-1}(A)=A$
      and hence also $A$ has zero or full Lebesgue measure; i.e. $T$ is ergodic.$Box$.



      Question 1A: Is the proof of the theorem correct?



      Question 1B: Does this last theorem proof that ergodicity is preserved under topological semi-conjugation?



      Question 2: How does one prove topological conjugation between the tent map and the dyadic map?



      Thanks in advance for time and help!







      general-topology measure-theory ergodic-theory






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Dec 2 '18 at 19:06







      Algebear

















      asked Nov 30 '18 at 12:16









      AlgebearAlgebear

      616319




      616319






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1












          $begingroup$

          1.A. The proof is correct, although in the computation of $varphi circ E(x)$, the cases $1/2leq xleq 3/4$ and $xgeq 3/4$ were forgotten.



          1.B. Yes, ergodicity of a system implies ergodicity of its factors. However, it must be pointed out that 'factor' must be understood as factor as for a measure preserving transformation (not topological semi-conjugacy): a system $(Y,nu,S)$ is a factor of $(X,mu,T)$ if there is a map $f:Xto Y$, measurable, such that $f_*mu=nu$, and $fcirc T=S circ f$.



          As a matter of fact, in your proof, you did not use the fact that $varphi$ is continuous. However, at the end, you used the specific of the situation ($varphi=T$) to conclude, but could easily have used the fact that $Leb(varphi^{-1}A)=Leb(A)$, i.e. $varphi_*(Leb)=Leb$, instead, and that would have been the general proof of the statement that a factor map is ergodic if the extension is.




          1. The answer depends on the precise topological model you choose.


          model $E_1$ : $E_1:[0,1]to [0,1]$,



          model $E_2$ : $E_2:mathbb{R}/mathbb{Z} to mathbb{R}/mathbb{Z}$,



          model $T_1$ : $T_1:[0,1]to [0,1]$,



          model $T_2$ : $T_2:mathbb{R}/mathbb{Z}to mathbb{R}/mathbb{Z}$.



          $E_1$ and $T_2$ cannot be topologically conjugate as a circle is not homeomorphic to a closed interval. Same for $T_1$ and $E_2$. $E_1$ cannot be conjugate to $T_1$, because $T_1$ is continuous but $E_1$ is not. $E_2$ and $T_2$ cannot be conjugate, because the degree of $E_2$ is two, and the degree of $T_2$ is zero.



          So unless one considers another topological model for these maps, they do not seem to be topologically conjugated.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            First of all, thank for considering the proof. 1A: I should have formulated it better, yes, but the mapping just repeats itself after [0,1/2]. It's a subtility well found by you. 1B: why is it not a semi-conjugation since $varphi$ is a surjection? Also, $lambda(varphi^{-1}A)=lambda(A)$ does need $varphi$ to be measure preserving by definition; that may be needed in the proof that a factor map is ergodic.
            $endgroup$
            – Algebear
            Nov 30 '18 at 13:32










          • $begingroup$
            Moreover, on wikipedia it says (in part 1) that the tent map and the dyadic map are topologically conjugate (without proof). How is that different from your statement at 2 that one should use "another topological model"?
            $endgroup$
            – Algebear
            Nov 30 '18 at 13:35












          • $begingroup$
            My answer of 2 may be incomplete: I just wanted to say that one can call "dyadic map" several different map defined on several different spaces (e.g $[0,1]$, $[0,1)$ or $mathbb{R}/mathbb{Z}$ - all of which are measurably isomorphic, but not homeomorphic, what I called a topological model. And for the ones that spring to mind, dyadic map and tent map are not topologically conjugate, but perhaps I missed an obvious model that works...
            $endgroup$
            – user120527
            Nov 30 '18 at 13:58











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3020027%2ftopological-conjugacy-between-dyadic-map-and-tent-map%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          1












          $begingroup$

          1.A. The proof is correct, although in the computation of $varphi circ E(x)$, the cases $1/2leq xleq 3/4$ and $xgeq 3/4$ were forgotten.



          1.B. Yes, ergodicity of a system implies ergodicity of its factors. However, it must be pointed out that 'factor' must be understood as factor as for a measure preserving transformation (not topological semi-conjugacy): a system $(Y,nu,S)$ is a factor of $(X,mu,T)$ if there is a map $f:Xto Y$, measurable, such that $f_*mu=nu$, and $fcirc T=S circ f$.



          As a matter of fact, in your proof, you did not use the fact that $varphi$ is continuous. However, at the end, you used the specific of the situation ($varphi=T$) to conclude, but could easily have used the fact that $Leb(varphi^{-1}A)=Leb(A)$, i.e. $varphi_*(Leb)=Leb$, instead, and that would have been the general proof of the statement that a factor map is ergodic if the extension is.




          1. The answer depends on the precise topological model you choose.


          model $E_1$ : $E_1:[0,1]to [0,1]$,



          model $E_2$ : $E_2:mathbb{R}/mathbb{Z} to mathbb{R}/mathbb{Z}$,



          model $T_1$ : $T_1:[0,1]to [0,1]$,



          model $T_2$ : $T_2:mathbb{R}/mathbb{Z}to mathbb{R}/mathbb{Z}$.



          $E_1$ and $T_2$ cannot be topologically conjugate as a circle is not homeomorphic to a closed interval. Same for $T_1$ and $E_2$. $E_1$ cannot be conjugate to $T_1$, because $T_1$ is continuous but $E_1$ is not. $E_2$ and $T_2$ cannot be conjugate, because the degree of $E_2$ is two, and the degree of $T_2$ is zero.



          So unless one considers another topological model for these maps, they do not seem to be topologically conjugated.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            First of all, thank for considering the proof. 1A: I should have formulated it better, yes, but the mapping just repeats itself after [0,1/2]. It's a subtility well found by you. 1B: why is it not a semi-conjugation since $varphi$ is a surjection? Also, $lambda(varphi^{-1}A)=lambda(A)$ does need $varphi$ to be measure preserving by definition; that may be needed in the proof that a factor map is ergodic.
            $endgroup$
            – Algebear
            Nov 30 '18 at 13:32










          • $begingroup$
            Moreover, on wikipedia it says (in part 1) that the tent map and the dyadic map are topologically conjugate (without proof). How is that different from your statement at 2 that one should use "another topological model"?
            $endgroup$
            – Algebear
            Nov 30 '18 at 13:35












          • $begingroup$
            My answer of 2 may be incomplete: I just wanted to say that one can call "dyadic map" several different map defined on several different spaces (e.g $[0,1]$, $[0,1)$ or $mathbb{R}/mathbb{Z}$ - all of which are measurably isomorphic, but not homeomorphic, what I called a topological model. And for the ones that spring to mind, dyadic map and tent map are not topologically conjugate, but perhaps I missed an obvious model that works...
            $endgroup$
            – user120527
            Nov 30 '18 at 13:58
















          1












          $begingroup$

          1.A. The proof is correct, although in the computation of $varphi circ E(x)$, the cases $1/2leq xleq 3/4$ and $xgeq 3/4$ were forgotten.



          1.B. Yes, ergodicity of a system implies ergodicity of its factors. However, it must be pointed out that 'factor' must be understood as factor as for a measure preserving transformation (not topological semi-conjugacy): a system $(Y,nu,S)$ is a factor of $(X,mu,T)$ if there is a map $f:Xto Y$, measurable, such that $f_*mu=nu$, and $fcirc T=S circ f$.



          As a matter of fact, in your proof, you did not use the fact that $varphi$ is continuous. However, at the end, you used the specific of the situation ($varphi=T$) to conclude, but could easily have used the fact that $Leb(varphi^{-1}A)=Leb(A)$, i.e. $varphi_*(Leb)=Leb$, instead, and that would have been the general proof of the statement that a factor map is ergodic if the extension is.




          1. The answer depends on the precise topological model you choose.


          model $E_1$ : $E_1:[0,1]to [0,1]$,



          model $E_2$ : $E_2:mathbb{R}/mathbb{Z} to mathbb{R}/mathbb{Z}$,



          model $T_1$ : $T_1:[0,1]to [0,1]$,



          model $T_2$ : $T_2:mathbb{R}/mathbb{Z}to mathbb{R}/mathbb{Z}$.



          $E_1$ and $T_2$ cannot be topologically conjugate as a circle is not homeomorphic to a closed interval. Same for $T_1$ and $E_2$. $E_1$ cannot be conjugate to $T_1$, because $T_1$ is continuous but $E_1$ is not. $E_2$ and $T_2$ cannot be conjugate, because the degree of $E_2$ is two, and the degree of $T_2$ is zero.



          So unless one considers another topological model for these maps, they do not seem to be topologically conjugated.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            First of all, thank for considering the proof. 1A: I should have formulated it better, yes, but the mapping just repeats itself after [0,1/2]. It's a subtility well found by you. 1B: why is it not a semi-conjugation since $varphi$ is a surjection? Also, $lambda(varphi^{-1}A)=lambda(A)$ does need $varphi$ to be measure preserving by definition; that may be needed in the proof that a factor map is ergodic.
            $endgroup$
            – Algebear
            Nov 30 '18 at 13:32










          • $begingroup$
            Moreover, on wikipedia it says (in part 1) that the tent map and the dyadic map are topologically conjugate (without proof). How is that different from your statement at 2 that one should use "another topological model"?
            $endgroup$
            – Algebear
            Nov 30 '18 at 13:35












          • $begingroup$
            My answer of 2 may be incomplete: I just wanted to say that one can call "dyadic map" several different map defined on several different spaces (e.g $[0,1]$, $[0,1)$ or $mathbb{R}/mathbb{Z}$ - all of which are measurably isomorphic, but not homeomorphic, what I called a topological model. And for the ones that spring to mind, dyadic map and tent map are not topologically conjugate, but perhaps I missed an obvious model that works...
            $endgroup$
            – user120527
            Nov 30 '18 at 13:58














          1












          1








          1





          $begingroup$

          1.A. The proof is correct, although in the computation of $varphi circ E(x)$, the cases $1/2leq xleq 3/4$ and $xgeq 3/4$ were forgotten.



          1.B. Yes, ergodicity of a system implies ergodicity of its factors. However, it must be pointed out that 'factor' must be understood as factor as for a measure preserving transformation (not topological semi-conjugacy): a system $(Y,nu,S)$ is a factor of $(X,mu,T)$ if there is a map $f:Xto Y$, measurable, such that $f_*mu=nu$, and $fcirc T=S circ f$.



          As a matter of fact, in your proof, you did not use the fact that $varphi$ is continuous. However, at the end, you used the specific of the situation ($varphi=T$) to conclude, but could easily have used the fact that $Leb(varphi^{-1}A)=Leb(A)$, i.e. $varphi_*(Leb)=Leb$, instead, and that would have been the general proof of the statement that a factor map is ergodic if the extension is.




          1. The answer depends on the precise topological model you choose.


          model $E_1$ : $E_1:[0,1]to [0,1]$,



          model $E_2$ : $E_2:mathbb{R}/mathbb{Z} to mathbb{R}/mathbb{Z}$,



          model $T_1$ : $T_1:[0,1]to [0,1]$,



          model $T_2$ : $T_2:mathbb{R}/mathbb{Z}to mathbb{R}/mathbb{Z}$.



          $E_1$ and $T_2$ cannot be topologically conjugate as a circle is not homeomorphic to a closed interval. Same for $T_1$ and $E_2$. $E_1$ cannot be conjugate to $T_1$, because $T_1$ is continuous but $E_1$ is not. $E_2$ and $T_2$ cannot be conjugate, because the degree of $E_2$ is two, and the degree of $T_2$ is zero.



          So unless one considers another topological model for these maps, they do not seem to be topologically conjugated.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          1.A. The proof is correct, although in the computation of $varphi circ E(x)$, the cases $1/2leq xleq 3/4$ and $xgeq 3/4$ were forgotten.



          1.B. Yes, ergodicity of a system implies ergodicity of its factors. However, it must be pointed out that 'factor' must be understood as factor as for a measure preserving transformation (not topological semi-conjugacy): a system $(Y,nu,S)$ is a factor of $(X,mu,T)$ if there is a map $f:Xto Y$, measurable, such that $f_*mu=nu$, and $fcirc T=S circ f$.



          As a matter of fact, in your proof, you did not use the fact that $varphi$ is continuous. However, at the end, you used the specific of the situation ($varphi=T$) to conclude, but could easily have used the fact that $Leb(varphi^{-1}A)=Leb(A)$, i.e. $varphi_*(Leb)=Leb$, instead, and that would have been the general proof of the statement that a factor map is ergodic if the extension is.




          1. The answer depends on the precise topological model you choose.


          model $E_1$ : $E_1:[0,1]to [0,1]$,



          model $E_2$ : $E_2:mathbb{R}/mathbb{Z} to mathbb{R}/mathbb{Z}$,



          model $T_1$ : $T_1:[0,1]to [0,1]$,



          model $T_2$ : $T_2:mathbb{R}/mathbb{Z}to mathbb{R}/mathbb{Z}$.



          $E_1$ and $T_2$ cannot be topologically conjugate as a circle is not homeomorphic to a closed interval. Same for $T_1$ and $E_2$. $E_1$ cannot be conjugate to $T_1$, because $T_1$ is continuous but $E_1$ is not. $E_2$ and $T_2$ cannot be conjugate, because the degree of $E_2$ is two, and the degree of $T_2$ is zero.



          So unless one considers another topological model for these maps, they do not seem to be topologically conjugated.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Nov 30 '18 at 13:52

























          answered Nov 30 '18 at 13:21









          user120527user120527

          1,910215




          1,910215












          • $begingroup$
            First of all, thank for considering the proof. 1A: I should have formulated it better, yes, but the mapping just repeats itself after [0,1/2]. It's a subtility well found by you. 1B: why is it not a semi-conjugation since $varphi$ is a surjection? Also, $lambda(varphi^{-1}A)=lambda(A)$ does need $varphi$ to be measure preserving by definition; that may be needed in the proof that a factor map is ergodic.
            $endgroup$
            – Algebear
            Nov 30 '18 at 13:32










          • $begingroup$
            Moreover, on wikipedia it says (in part 1) that the tent map and the dyadic map are topologically conjugate (without proof). How is that different from your statement at 2 that one should use "another topological model"?
            $endgroup$
            – Algebear
            Nov 30 '18 at 13:35












          • $begingroup$
            My answer of 2 may be incomplete: I just wanted to say that one can call "dyadic map" several different map defined on several different spaces (e.g $[0,1]$, $[0,1)$ or $mathbb{R}/mathbb{Z}$ - all of which are measurably isomorphic, but not homeomorphic, what I called a topological model. And for the ones that spring to mind, dyadic map and tent map are not topologically conjugate, but perhaps I missed an obvious model that works...
            $endgroup$
            – user120527
            Nov 30 '18 at 13:58


















          • $begingroup$
            First of all, thank for considering the proof. 1A: I should have formulated it better, yes, but the mapping just repeats itself after [0,1/2]. It's a subtility well found by you. 1B: why is it not a semi-conjugation since $varphi$ is a surjection? Also, $lambda(varphi^{-1}A)=lambda(A)$ does need $varphi$ to be measure preserving by definition; that may be needed in the proof that a factor map is ergodic.
            $endgroup$
            – Algebear
            Nov 30 '18 at 13:32










          • $begingroup$
            Moreover, on wikipedia it says (in part 1) that the tent map and the dyadic map are topologically conjugate (without proof). How is that different from your statement at 2 that one should use "another topological model"?
            $endgroup$
            – Algebear
            Nov 30 '18 at 13:35












          • $begingroup$
            My answer of 2 may be incomplete: I just wanted to say that one can call "dyadic map" several different map defined on several different spaces (e.g $[0,1]$, $[0,1)$ or $mathbb{R}/mathbb{Z}$ - all of which are measurably isomorphic, but not homeomorphic, what I called a topological model. And for the ones that spring to mind, dyadic map and tent map are not topologically conjugate, but perhaps I missed an obvious model that works...
            $endgroup$
            – user120527
            Nov 30 '18 at 13:58
















          $begingroup$
          First of all, thank for considering the proof. 1A: I should have formulated it better, yes, but the mapping just repeats itself after [0,1/2]. It's a subtility well found by you. 1B: why is it not a semi-conjugation since $varphi$ is a surjection? Also, $lambda(varphi^{-1}A)=lambda(A)$ does need $varphi$ to be measure preserving by definition; that may be needed in the proof that a factor map is ergodic.
          $endgroup$
          – Algebear
          Nov 30 '18 at 13:32




          $begingroup$
          First of all, thank for considering the proof. 1A: I should have formulated it better, yes, but the mapping just repeats itself after [0,1/2]. It's a subtility well found by you. 1B: why is it not a semi-conjugation since $varphi$ is a surjection? Also, $lambda(varphi^{-1}A)=lambda(A)$ does need $varphi$ to be measure preserving by definition; that may be needed in the proof that a factor map is ergodic.
          $endgroup$
          – Algebear
          Nov 30 '18 at 13:32












          $begingroup$
          Moreover, on wikipedia it says (in part 1) that the tent map and the dyadic map are topologically conjugate (without proof). How is that different from your statement at 2 that one should use "another topological model"?
          $endgroup$
          – Algebear
          Nov 30 '18 at 13:35






          $begingroup$
          Moreover, on wikipedia it says (in part 1) that the tent map and the dyadic map are topologically conjugate (without proof). How is that different from your statement at 2 that one should use "another topological model"?
          $endgroup$
          – Algebear
          Nov 30 '18 at 13:35














          $begingroup$
          My answer of 2 may be incomplete: I just wanted to say that one can call "dyadic map" several different map defined on several different spaces (e.g $[0,1]$, $[0,1)$ or $mathbb{R}/mathbb{Z}$ - all of which are measurably isomorphic, but not homeomorphic, what I called a topological model. And for the ones that spring to mind, dyadic map and tent map are not topologically conjugate, but perhaps I missed an obvious model that works...
          $endgroup$
          – user120527
          Nov 30 '18 at 13:58




          $begingroup$
          My answer of 2 may be incomplete: I just wanted to say that one can call "dyadic map" several different map defined on several different spaces (e.g $[0,1]$, $[0,1)$ or $mathbb{R}/mathbb{Z}$ - all of which are measurably isomorphic, but not homeomorphic, what I called a topological model. And for the ones that spring to mind, dyadic map and tent map are not topologically conjugate, but perhaps I missed an obvious model that works...
          $endgroup$
          – user120527
          Nov 30 '18 at 13:58


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3020027%2ftopological-conjugacy-between-dyadic-map-and-tent-map%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          How to change which sound is reproduced for terminal bell?

          Can I use Tabulator js library in my java Spring + Thymeleaf project?

          Title Spacing in Bjornstrup Chapter, Removing Chapter Number From Contents