It is known that the iterative roots of continuous functions are not necessarily unique, if it exist. In this note, by introducing the set of points of coincidence, we study the iterative roots of order preserving homeomorphisms. In particular, we prove a characterization of identical iterative roots of an order preserving homeomorphism using the points of coincidence of functions.
1. Introduction
Given a function and a positive integer , if there is a function such that
(where is times composition of ) then is called an th iterative root or fractional iterate of order of . The problem of finding the iterative root of functions was initiated in the classical works of Charles Babbage [1]. The iterative roots of continuous monotone and piecewise monotone function was developed in the works of Bödewadt [2], Łojasiewicz [7], Kuczma [4], Zhang [6,12] and many others. For a detailed study of recent results on iterative roots of continuous piecewise monotone functions can be found in the survey paper by Zdun and Solarz [11].
For the class of strictly increasing continuous functions, we have the following result.
Theorem 1.1 ([5] ). Let be any interval. Then every strictly increasing continuous function from into itself possesses a strictly increasing continuous iterative roots of order , for all .
Theorem 1.1 guarantees the existence of strictly increasing continuous iterative roots of a strictly increasing continuous functions. Moreover, this strictly increasing continuous th order iterative root depends on arbitrary strictly increasing homeomorphisms (see Theorem 11.2.2 [5]), and hence its iterative roots are not necessarily unique. In fact, every strictly increasing continuous function, other than identity, possesses infinitely many strictly increasing continuous th order iterative roots.
In fact, uniqueness of iterative roots of a special class of monotonic functions was conjectured by Bödewadt [2] and answered in negative by Smajdor [9]. Motivated by Bödewadt, suppose and are two iterative roots of order of a strictly increasing homeomorphism (i.e. ), it is reasonable to ask under what condition and are identically equal?
It is known that, if and commutes each other (i.e. ) then must be equal to (see [10]). In this article, we further investigate this problem. We give some sufficient conditions, using the set of points of coincidence of two functions. Also, for given order preserving homeomorphism from an interval onto itself, by generalizing the result in [10], we characterize the conditions of identical iterative roots of an order preserving homeomorphism.
2. Set of points of coincidence
Throughout our discussion we fix , where , and denotes the set of all order preserving homeomorphisms from onto itself. Here after we always assume all the functions are in the class unless otherwise stated.
Let and be two order preserving homeomorphisms from the interval onto . We say and are comparable, if either or for all , and if the inequalities are strict then we say and are strictly comparable.
Proposition 2.1. If and are two strictly comparable order preserving homeomorphisms from onto , then and are strictly comparable order preserving homeomorphisms, for all . In addition to that, if then and are also strictly comparable order preserving homeomorphisms, for all .
Proof. First we prove the result for positive integers using induction on . Assume for all . Suppose there exists such that . Since we have . Therefore
Since , by intermediate value theorem there exists such that , which is a contradiction. Hence on .
Assume for all and . Suppose there is a such that
Since we have . Therefore
Since , by intermediate value theorem there exists such that , which is a contradiction. Hence on .
Now, we prove the result for negative integers by assuming . First we prove if for all , then for all . Suppose there is a such that . If then there exists such that , which is not possible as for all . Therefore . But this implies
Since we have , which is a contradiction. Thus for all . Therefore, as above for all and for all . □
For any two functions and , we denote the set of points of coincidence of and by . i.e., .
Theorem 2.2. If is a finite set, then for all .
Proof. If is empty, then either or for all . Therefore by Proposition 2.1, for all and for all .
On the other hand, if is non empty, we argue as follows:
If and do not have a common fixed point, then there exists such that but . Without loss of generality, let . Therefore but which in turn implies for all .
If and have common fixed points, then the set must be finite. Let where be the common fixed points of and with
Now, to prove our result it is enough to prove on for some . Since on each both the functions and are self maps and has no fixed points, we may assume and do not have fixed points in .
Case 1. and for all .
Since for all , for any positive integer , . Moreover for any positive integer , for all as for all . Hence for any , .
Case 2. and for all .
Step 1: We prove the result for positive integers.
Let , then and for all . Without loss of generality assume for all . To prove on , we prove on for all .
Since and are self maps on , By Proposition 2.1, for all .
Step 2: We prove the result for negative integers.
Let , then and for all . We may assume for all . Since
replacing by in Eq. (2) we get for all . In particular,
To prove on , we prove on for all . Since, both and are self maps on , by Proposition 2.1, for all .
Moreover the cases and for all and and for all are similar to case 1 and case 2. □
Lemma 2.3. If , then for all .
Proof. First we prove for all . As and commute, we see that
Assume for all . Again, by using induction hypothesis and and commute, we see that
Therefore for all . Since , pre-multiplying by we get . Now, post multiply by to get . Hence by repeating the above process we get . Therefore for all .
Since for each , again by above argument, we have for all . □
Proposition 2.4. If and , then for all .
Proof. For , we have . Therefore . By repeating the above process we see that for all . Now, by applying Lemma 2.3, we see that
Therefore . Hence, by above argument, for all . i.e., for all . Similarly for all . □
Theorem 2.5. If , then for all
Proof. Step 1: We prove for all using induction on . First we prove .
For , we have
Let . If , without loss of generality, say then
which is not possible. Therefore .
Assume for . Therefore, by applying Proposition 2.4, for , we have
This shows that . Suppose with . Then, by applying Lemma 2.3
which is not possible. Therefore . This completes the proof of step 1.
Step 2: We prove for all .
It is clear from Step 1 that, for all . Therefore to prove Step 2, it is enough to prove .
Let . Suppose . Then, by applying Lemma 2.3 we see that,
which is not possible. On the other hand, if then
again a contradiction. Therefore whenever , i.e. . Now by replacing and by and respectively, we get . □
Corollary 2.6. If satisfy and for some then .
Proof. Since , by Theorem 2.5, we have . But as . Therefore on . □
Theorem 2.7. Let without fixed points such that . Suppose is an interval for some , then on .
Proof. Since , by Theorem 2.5, . Without loss of generality, let such that . Also by Proposition 2.4, . Since and as . Therefore
Let be arbitrary. Then there is an element such that . Since on we have . Therefore, by Lemma 2.3,
This completes the proof. □
3. Subcommuting and comparable iterative roots
Definition 3.1 ([3]). Let and be two order preserving homeomorphisms on . We say subcommutes with if , for all .
Note that every commuting functions are subcommuting, but the converse is not necessarily true. For example, consider the functions by and . Clearly subcommutes with as for all . But for all .
Let be an order preserving homeomorphism. We prove that it is not possible to have different iterative roots of which are either comparable or subcommuting.
Theorem 3.2. Let . Suppose satisfy for some . Then the following are equivalent.
1. subcommutes with .
2. and are comparable.
3. .
Proof. 3 implies 1 and 2 are trivial.
() In view of Corollary 2.6, it is enough to prove that on .
Suppose for some . Then
i.e., , a contradiction. Hence . Therefore by Corollary 2.6, on .
() Assume . If possible, let for some , therefore . Since , we have
where the last inequality holds since . But then as is an order-preserving homeomorphisms. Now
since . This implies , since is an order-preserving homeomorphisms. Continuing this process up to times we get
a contradiction to our assumption. Therefore on . □
Part of a theorem due to McShane [8] is observed below.
Corollary 3.3 ([8] ). The only order preserving iterative root of any order of the identity function on is the identity function.
Proof. Clearly, identity function is an iterative root of any order of the identity function, it follows from Theorem 3.2, that any order preserving homeomorphism whose iteration is identity becomes identity, as the identity function subcommutes (also commutes, so Corollary 2.6 also applicable) with any function. □
Further, if such that for all but is not the identity, then there exists an interval such that either or for all and . Since for all and is comparable with identity, by Theorem 3.2 on , which is a contradiction. This forces that identity is the only order preserving homeomorphism of the identity function.
From Theorem 3.2, we can conclude that the non-commuting, non-comparable iterative roots of an order preserving homeomorphism are all different. We provide an illustrative example. The construction given in this example is based on Theorem 11.2.2 in [5].
Example 1. Consider the order preserving homeomorphism defined by
In order to construct iterative roots of this function, first we define a sequence of disjoint intervals whose union is and on each interval we define homeomorphism which serves as an iterative root of order 2 of .
To start with, let and . Define for all and for all . Note that , in general
and , in general
Define for . Since , as we have . Let be the homeomorphism defined by for all . Now, define by for all and , also define by for all and . Consider the homeomorphism defined by if for all . By calculation we can show that
and . Now we construct another order preserving homeomorphism which do not subcommute and not comparable with but . For this, let be the homeomorphism defined by
Now, define by for all and , also define by for all and . Then the homeomorphism defined by if for all satisfies for all . Since,
and
we observe that
and
Moreover, and . Thus we have two order preserving homeomorphisms and such that they are neither comparable nor subcommuting but and .
Declaration of Competing Interest: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.The publisher wishes to inform readers that the article “Subcommuting and comparable iterative roots of order preserving homeomorphisms” was originally published by the previous publisher of the Arab Journal of Mathematical Sciences and the pagination of this article has been subsequently changed. There has been no change to the content of the article. This change was necessary for the journal to transition from the previous publisher to the new one. The publisher sincerely apologises for any inconvenience caused. To access and cite this article, please use Murugan, V., Kumar, M.S. (2019), “Subcommuting and comparable iterative roots of order preserving homeomorphisms”, Arab Journal of Mathematical Sciences, Vol. 26 No. 1/2, pp. 203-210. The original publication date for this paper was 31/10/2019.
