Dynamics of interval maps generated by erasing substitutions

The first and last implications are trivial, so we just have to prove the middle one. Assume then that \sigma is completely erasing. Since \sigma is alternating, we can rewrite it by means of the simple substitutions \sigma_1,\dots \sigma_k as in Eq.(2.5). Applying \sigma to w_\epsilon we readily deduce that

Take then any w\in \{0,1\}^*. Set w^{(0)}=w and write |w| as n_0k+m_0, with n_0\in\mathbb{N}_0 and m_0\in\{0,\dots, k-1\}. Set w^{(1)}=\sigma(w^{(0)}e^{(0)}), where e^{(0)} is the unique k-extension of w^{(0)} such that (e^{(0)})_i={(w_\epsilon)}_{m_0+i} for every i \in\{1,\dots,k-m_0\}. Because of Eq.(Proof), we have that \sigma(w^{(0)}e^{(0)})=\sigma(w^{(0)}). We can proceed in this way for further \epsilon(w^{(0)})-1 steps, setting, for every j\in\{1,\dots,\epsilon(w)-1\}:

where |e^{(j)}|=k-m_j\ \text{and}\ \left(e^{(j)}\right)_i={(w_\epsilon)}_{m_j+i}\ \text{for every}\ i \in\{1,\dots,k-m_j\}.

Recalling Eq.(Proof), at each step we have \sigma(w^{(j)}e^{(j)})=\sigma(w^{(j)}), so that

which implies that \epsilon\in w^{[\epsilon(w)]}.

Take y\in \mathbb{I}. By the optimality condition, there exists a sequence h=h_1,h_2,\ldots \in \lbrace1,2,\ldots ,2^k \rbrace^\mathbb{N} such that u=\prod_{i=1}^\infty v_{(h_i)}, y=0.u and v_{(h_i)}\ne\epsilon for every i\in\mathbb{N}.

Suppose that w=\prod_{i=1}^\infty w_{(h_i)} does not end in 0^\infty. Then we can take x\in \mathbb{I} such that

so that \sigma(\widetilde{x})=\prod_{i=1}^\infty \sigma \left(w_{(h_i)}\right)=\prod_{i=1}^\infty v_{(h_i)}=u. Since \sigma(\widetilde{x})=u\in \lbrace0,1 \rbrace^\omega, we have x\notin \mathcal{E}^\sigma. It follows that f_\sigma(x)=0.\sigma(\widetilde{x})=0.u=y.

Suppose instead that w ends in 0^\infty and let a\in\{0,1\}^* be the shortest word such that w=a0^\infty (notice that this implies that w_{\epsilon}\ne 0^k, as w_{\epsilon} does not appear in the right hand side of (?)). Then we cannot find any x\in\mathbb{I} such that \widetilde{x}=w. However, we can insert infinitely many times w_\epsilon in w as a k-factor, obtaining a point whose image is y. More precisely, set: S_y=\{b\in\{0,1\}^\omega: b=a\prod_{i=1}^\infty 0^{n_i}w_\epsilon^{m_i}\}, where (m_i)_{i\in\mathbb{N}} and (n_i)_{i\in\mathbb{N}} are sequences of non-negative integers both not ultimately 0, and |a|+\sum_{j=1}^{i}n_j is a multiple of k for every i\in\mathbb{N}. Recalling that \sigma(w_\epsilon)=\epsilon, it follows that \emptyset\ne\{x\in\mathbb{I}:\widetilde{x}\in S_y\}\subseteq f_\sigma^{-1}(y).

Take x\in \mathcal{C}^\sigma and fix n\in \mathbb{N} . Then \widetilde{x}=\prod_{h=1}^\infty w_{(i_h)} (i_h\in \lbrace1,\ldots2^k\rbrace) and \widetilde{x} does not have w_\epsilon^\infty as a k-factor. Since |v_{(j)}|\ge 1 if w_{(j)}\ne w_\epsilon, there is a prefix p of \widetilde{x} such that \left| p \right|=m k (m\in \mathbb{N}) and \left| \sigma(p)\right| \ge n. Since x has a unique binary expansion, for every y\in\mathbb{I} such that \left|x-y \right|<2^{-mk}, we have that \widetilde{x},\widetilde{y} coincide at least up to the first mk digits. Then \left| f_\sigma(x) - f_\sigma(y)\right|\le 2^{-(\left|\sigma(p)\right|)}\le 2^{-n}. Since we assume w_{\epsilon} \neq 1^k, recalling that \sigma acts on the 1-periodic expansion of dyadic rationals, the argument above shows that f_\sigma is left continuous on \mathbb{Q}_2\setminus\{0\} (notice that, assuming instead w_{\epsilon} \ne 0^k, we would get right continuity on \mathbb{Q}_2\setminus \{1\}).

Finally, interval maps with countably many discontinuities are pointwise limit of continuous functions, that is Baire-1 (see for instance [van1982second]).

Suppose first that x\in \mathcal{S}^\sigma\setminus \mathcal{F}^\sigma. Then there is w\in\{0,1\}^\omega such that w does not end in 0^\infty and x=0.\sigma(w), so that there exists y\in\mathbb{I} such that w=\widetilde{y}, and thus y\in f_\sigma^{-1}(x). Moreover \widetilde{y} does not have w_\epsilon^\infty as a k-factor, because if so then |\sigma(w)| would be finite so that x\in\mathcal{Q}_2^0 against the hypothesis. Since every occurrence of w_\epsilon as a k-factor is mapped by \sigma to the empty word, we have f_\sigma(y^\circ)=f_\sigma(y), so that y^\circ\in f_\sigma^{-1}(x).

Let us write y^\circ as \prod_{i=1}^\infty w_{(h_i)} (w_{(h_i)}\ne w_\epsilon for every i). By definition of the map \xi, we have that, for every a\in \Xi, y_{(a)}:=\xi_{\widetilde{y^\circ}}(a)=0.\prod_{i=1}^{\infty}w_\epsilon^{a_i}w_{(h_i)}, which implies that every point y_{(a)} (a\in\Xi) is in f_\sigma^{-1}(x). Recalling the definition of \Xi, it follows that the \xi_{\widetilde{y^\circ}}-image of every sequence a\in\Xi is obtained by \widetilde{y^\circ} inserting, infinitely many times, finite and nonempty concatenations of w_\epsilon with itself, so that we are ensured that, for u=\widetilde{y^\circ}, the product in the right hand side of Eq.(3.3) will never end with 0^\infty (both if w_\epsilon=0^k or not). Since in the binary expansion of y^\circ there is never w_\epsilon as a k-factor, it follows that \xi_{\widetilde{y^\circ}} is injective, which implies that f_\sigma^{-1}(x) is uncountable.

Suppose now that x\in \mathcal{S}^\sigma\cap \mathcal{F}^\sigma. Since x\in\mathcal{F}^\sigma, there exists a word w\in\{0,1\}^\omega ending in 0^\infty such that 0.\sigma(w)=x. Notice that x\in \mathcal{S}^\sigma implies that |\sigma(w)|=\infty, so that we can exclude w_\epsilon=0^k. Consider now the restriction \xi^+_w to \Xi^+ of the map \xi_w defined in Definition 3.3. Since every a\in \Xi^+ is not ultimately 0, we have that

will never end in 0^\infty, so that w_{(a)}=\widetilde{\xi_w(a)}. Moreover, \sigma(w_{(a)})=\sigma(w), so that \xi_w(a) belongs to f_\sigma^{-1}(x) for every a\in\Xi^+. The same argument as above shows that \xi^+_w is injective, which concludes the proof.

Under the assumption, for every x\in\mathbb{I} there are an infinite binary word u and y\in\mathbb{I} such that 0.\sigma(\widetilde{y})=0.u=x. Then the thesis easily follows from the argument used in the proof of the previous Lemma.

We divide the proof in four cases.

1. y\notin \mathcal{Q}_2\cup\mathcal{F}^\sigma.

   Then y has a unique binary expansion u and, by hypothesis, there exists a unique sequence h_1, h_2,\dots such that u=\prod_{i=1}^\infty v_{(h_i)}. We can assume v_{(h_i)} \ne\epsilon for every i\in\mathbb{N}. Moreover, since y\notin \mathcal{F}^\sigma, w=\prod_{i=1}^\infty w_{(h_i)} does not end in 0^\infty. Therefore, the point x=0.w belongs to f_\sigma^{-1}(y) and it coincides with x^\circ. By uniqueness of the sequence h_1, h_2\dots, it follows that f_\sigma^{-1}(y) can be written as

   \bigcup_{a\in {\mathbb{N}_0}^{\mathbb{N}}} \xi_{\widetilde{x^\circ}} (a)

   where \xi_{\widetilde{x^\circ}}:{\mathbb{N}_0}^{\mathbb{N}}\to \mathbb{I} is the map defined in 3.3. If z is a limit point of f_\sigma^{-1}(y), there exists a sequence \lbrace a^{(n)} \rbrace_{n\ge1} of elements of {\mathbb{N}_0}^{\mathbb{N}} such that \xi_{\widetilde{x^\circ}}(a^{(n)})\xrightarrow[n \to \infty]{} z. Notice that, since \widetilde{x^\circ} does not end with 0^\infty, neither does \widetilde{\xi_{\widetilde{x^\circ}}}(a) for every a\in\mathbb{N}_0^\mathbb{N}.

   We indicate by a_{i}^{(n)} the i-th element of the sequence a^{(n)}. Let us first prove that, for every i\in\mathbb{N}, there exists a_i=\lim_{n\to\infty} a_i^{(n)}\le\infty. Indeed, suppose that m is the smallest positive integer such that a_m^{(n)} admits two distinct sublimits, i.e. such that there exist two subsequences n_h and n_j such that a_m^{(n_h)}\to\overline{a_m} and a_m^{(n_j)}\to\overline{\overline{a_m}}. Set q=w_\epsilon^{a_1}w_{(h_1)}\dots w_\epsilon^{a_{m-1}}w_{(h_{m-1})} w_\epsilon^{\min\{\overline{a_i},\overline{\overline{a_i}}\}} and \delta=|\overline{a_i}-\overline{\overline{a_i}}|. Then the points

   \{\xi_{\widetilde{x^\circ}}(a^{(n_h)})\}_{h\in\mathbb{N}},\ \{\xi_{\widetilde{x^\circ}}(a^{(n_j)})\}_{j\in\mathbb{N}}

   ultimately belong respectively to the (closed) intervals [qw_\epsilon^\delta w_{(h_m)}] and [qw_{(h_m)}], which, recalling that w_\epsilon\ne w_{h_m}, have nonempty intersection only if either 1) \delta=0 or 2) \delta\in\mathbb{N} and w_{(h_m)}=p0 and w_\epsilon=p1, or alternatively w_{(h_m)}=p1 and w_\epsilon=p0 for some p\in\{0,1\}^{k-1}. We can assume the former (in the other case the reasoning is completely analogous). A point z in [qw_\epsilon^\delta w_{(h_m)}]\cap [qw_{(h_m)}] must then admit the two binary forms z=0.qp10^\infty and z=0.qp01^\infty. The first one can be only achieved if \delta=1, w_{(h_m)}=0^k and w_{(h_j)}=w_{(h_m)} for all j>m. This in turn implies that the second binary form, ending in 1^\infty, can be only obtained if w_\epsilon=1^k. But then w_{(h_m)} and w_\epsilon differ on every digit, which contradicts the existence of the word p required before. It follows that it has to be \delta=0, which implies \overline{a_i}=\overline{\overline{a_i}}.

   Assume now that it is nonempty the set A of i\in \mathbb{N} such that a_i=\infty, and set z=0.u. Then

   u=pw^\infty_{\epsilon},

   where p\in \lbrace0,1\rbrace^* is the word p=w_{\epsilon}^{a_1}w_{(h_1)}w_{\epsilon}^{a_2}w_{(h_2)}\ldots w_{\epsilon}^{a_{\bar{i}-1}}w_{(h_{\bar{i}-1})} with \bar{i}=\min A. Therefore, it falls under point 2. in the statement of the Lemma.

   Suppose instead that \lim_{n\to\infty} a^{(n)}_i\ne\infty for every integer positive i. Then u=\prod_{i=1}^\infty w_{\epsilon}^{a_i}w_{(h_i)}, which implies that z\in f_\sigma^{-1}(y). Therefore, it falls under point 1. in the statement of the Lemma. Notice also that in this case, since u is obtained from \widetilde{x} by inserting (infinitely many times) finite concatenations of w_\epsilon with itself in a word not having w_\epsilon as a k-factor, u cannot end in 0^\infty either if w_\epsilon=0^k or if not, so that u=\widetilde{z}.

2. y\in \mathcal{Q}_2\setminus\mathcal{F}^\sigma.

   By hypothesis y has two binary expansions, \widetilde{y} and u\in\{0,1\}^\omega such that u=v0^\infty.

   Then: i) by assumption there exist two words w^{(1)},w^{(2)}\in\{0,1\}^\omega not having w_\epsilon as a k-factor, such that \sigma(w^{(1)})=\widetilde{y} and \sigma(w^{(2)})=u; ii) there is a countable family of finite integer sequences

   J=\cup_{j\in\mathbb{N}_0} \{j_i\}_{i=1\dots m_j}

   such that there are words w^{(3)}_{(j)}=\prod_{i=1}^{m_j} w_{(j_i)} (m_j\in\mathbb{N}) having the property that \sigma\left(w^{(3)}_{(j)}\right)=v0^{g_j} for suitable non-negative integers g_0,g_1,\dots\in \mathbb{N}_0. Notice that the family J is infinite, because the optimality condition ensures that there are arbitrarily large integers h such that we can write v0^h as a concatenation of the words v_{(i)}=\sigma(w_{(i)}). Recalling the definition of f_\sigma (Eq. (?)), it follows that any point of type 0.w^{(3)}_{(j)} belongs to f_\sigma^{-1}(y).

   Then the set f_\sigma^{-1}(y) decomposes as S_1\cup S_2 \cup S_3, where

   \begin{aligned} &S_1=\bigcup_{a\in {\mathbb{N}_0}^{\mathbb{N}}} \xi_{w^{(1)}} (a)\ \ ,\ \ S_2=\bigcup_{a\in {\mathbb{N}_0}^{\mathbb{N}}} \xi_{w^{(2)}} (a)\\ &\\ &S_3= \bigcup_{a\in \mathbb{N}_0^{m}, j\in\mathbb{N}_0} \{x\in \mathbb{I} : x=0.\left(\prod_{i=1}^{m_j}w_\epsilon^{a_i}w_{(j_i)}\right)w_\epsilon^\infty\}, \end{aligned}

   where \xi_{w^{(i)}} (i=1,2) is the map defined in 3.3. Since a limit point of a finite union of sets is limit point of (at least) one of the sets, we can repeat the argument used in Case 1. separately for S_1 and S_2. A similar argument shows that also the set S_3 has always limit points of the form (?).

3. y\in \mathcal{F}^\sigma\setminus \mathcal{Q}_2.

   Then there is no x\in\mathbb{I} such that f_\sigma(x)=y and \widetilde{x} does not have w_\epsilon as a k-factor. Indeed, by definition of \mathcal{F}^\sigma, there is a\in\{0,1\}^* such that 0.\sigma(a0^\infty)=y. Recalling that f_\sigma is defined by the action of \sigma on the 1-periodic expansion of dyadic rationals, it follows that

   x\in f^{-1}_\sigma(y)\implies x=0.a\prod_{i=1}^\infty 0^{n_i}w_\epsilon^{m_i}

   where \{m_i\} is a sequence of non-negative integers which is not ultimately zero and n_i are positive integers such that |a|+\sum_{j=1}^{i}n_j is a multiple of k for every i\in\mathbb{N}. Let us define the set \mathcal{B} as:

   \mathcal{B}=\{b\in\{0,1\}^*: b=a\prod_{i=1}^N 0^{n_i}w_\epsilon^{m_i}\ \text{for some $N\in\mathbb{N}_0$}.\}

   Recalling Case 1., it follows that the set

   \mathcal{B}^\sigma_1=\{0.bw_\epsilon^{\infty} ,\ b\in\mathcal{B}\}

   belongs to \overline{f_\sigma^{-1}(y)}, and its points fall under point 2. in the statement of the Lemma. Moreover, it follows that the set

   \mathcal{B}^\sigma_2=\{0.b0^{\infty} ,\ b\in\mathcal{B}\}

   belongs to \overline{f_\sigma^{-1}(y)}, and its points fall under point 3. in the statement of the Lemma.

4. y\in \mathcal{Q}_2\cap\mathcal{F}^\sigma.

   Suppose first that w_\epsilon\ne 0^k. By assumption y has two infinite binary expansions, \widetilde{y} and u\in\{0,1\}^\omega such that u=v0^\infty for some finite word v.

   Since y\in \mathcal{F}^\sigma and is a dyadic rational, we have that \sigma(0^k)=0^{N_1} or \sigma(0^k)=1^{N_2} for some N_1,N_2 \in \mathbb{N}. In the following we consider the first case, a similar argument applies in the other one switching the roles of \widetilde{y} and u.

   Then: i) there exists a word w^{(1)} \in \{0,1\}^\omega not having w_\epsilon as a k-factor, such that \sigma(w^{(1)}) = \widetilde{y}; ii) moreover, recalling that f_\sigma is defined by the action of \sigma on the 1-periodic expansion of dyadic rationals and that \sigma(0^k) is a string of 0s, there is no x\in\mathbb{I} such that \sigma(\widetilde{x})=u and \widetilde{x} does not have w_\epsilon as a k-factor, while, by definition of \mathcal{F}^\sigma, there is c\in\{0,1\}^* such that \sigma(c0^\infty)=u=v0^\infty; iii) finally, there is a countable family of finite integer sequences J=\cup_{j\in\mathbb{N}_0} \{j_i\}_{i=1\dots m_j} such that there are words w^{(2)}_{(j)}=\prod_{i=1}^{m_j} w_{(j_i)} (m_j\in\mathbb{N}) having the property that \sigma\left(w^{(2)}_{(j)}\right)=v0^{g_j} for suitable non-negative integers g_j\in \mathbb{N}_0. It follows that f_\sigma^{-1}(y) decomposes as S_1 \cup S_2 \cup S_3, where

   \begin{aligned} &S_1=\bigcup_{a\in {\mathbb{N}_0}^{\mathbb{N}}} \xi_{w^{(1)}} (a)\ \ ,\ \ S_2=\{x\in \mathbb{I} : x=0.c\prod_{i=1}^\infty 0^{n_i}w_\epsilon^{m_i}\} \\ &\\ &S_3= \bigcup_{a\in \mathbb{N}_0^{m},j\in \mathbb{N}_0} \{x\in \mathbb{I} : x=0.\left(\prod_{i=1}^{m_j}w_\epsilon^{a_i}w_{(j_i)}\right)w_\epsilon^\infty\}, \end{aligned}

   where \{m_i\} and \{n_i\} have the same properties of Case 3. and \xi_{w^{(1)}} is the map defined in 3.3. Then we can repeat the argument of Case 2. for S_1 and S_3 and the argument of Case 3. for S_2.

   Finally, notice that, if w_\epsilon=0^k, the sets S_2 and S_3 do not belong to f_\sigma^{-1}(y), since \sigma acts on the 1-periodic expansion of dyadic rationals.

Suppose y\notin \mathcal{Q}_2\cup \mathcal{F}^\sigma and take the point x^\circ\in f_\sigma^{-1}(y). By the previous Lemma, f_\sigma^{-1}(y)=\bigcup_{ a\in \mathbb{N}_0^{\mathbb{N}}} \xi_{\widetilde{ x^\circ}}(a), where \xi_{\widetilde{x^\circ}}:{\mathbb{N}_0}^{\mathbb{N}}\to \mathbb{I} is the map defined in 3.3, and Q=\overline{f_\sigma^{-1}(y)}\setminus f_\sigma^{-1}(y) is a countable set. If a,b\in \mathbb{N}_0^{\mathbb{N}} agree up to the n-th element, then |\xi_{\widetilde{x^\circ}}(a)-\xi_{\widetilde{x^\circ}}(b)|\le 2^{-nk-\sum_{i=1}^n a_ik}, which implies that f_\sigma^{-1}(y) is dense in itself, and since the points in Q are limit points of f_\sigma^{-1}(y) by construction, so is \overline{f_\sigma^{-1}(y)}. Moreover if, in the binary expansion w_{\epsilon}^{a_1}w_{(h_1)}w_{\epsilon}^{a_2}w_{(h_2)}\dots of \xi_{\widetilde{x^\circ}}(a), we replace w_{(h_m)} by a word v\in\{0,1\}^k which is distinct from both w_{\epsilon} and w_{(h_m)}(recall that we assume k\ge2), we get a point which, by Lemma 3.4, does not belong to \overline{f_\sigma^{-1}(y)}. Since m can be arbitrarily large, it follows that \overline{f_\sigma^{-1}(y)} cannot contain any interval, so that it is nowhere dense and we can conclude.

Suppose now that y\in\mathcal{F}^\sigma\setminus\mathcal{Q}_2. Then in the last member of (?) we can choose a sequence \{h_i\} coinciding with \{m_i\} up to an arbitrarily large index \bar{i} to define a new point in f^{-1}_\sigma(y) which will be arbitrarily close to x. This shows that f_\sigma^{-1}(y) is dense in itself, and since the points in \mathcal{B}_1^\sigma \cup \mathcal{B}_2^\sigma are limit points of f_\sigma^{-1}(y) by construction, so is \overline{f_\sigma^{-1}(y)}. Moreover, it can be seen with the same argument applied above that \overline{f_\sigma^{-1}(y)} does not contain any interval.

Set \mathcal{M}=\left\lbrace x\in \mathbb{I}: \widetilde{x}\ \text{does not havew_as ak-factor}\right\rbrace. Let V\subset \mathbb{I} be a Vitali set. The optimality condition 2.4 implies that f_{\sigma}(\mathcal{M})=\mathbb{I}. Therefore, there is \Gamma\subset \mathcal{M} : f_\sigma (\Gamma)=V. Observe then that the points in \mathcal{M} are not normal real numbers, in the sense (equivalent to the usual definition, see for instance [niven1951definition]) that, partitioning their binary expansion in words of length k, the asymptotic frequency of the block w_\epsilon is evidently 0. Therefore we have m(\mathcal{M})=0 (see for instance [harman2003one]). By completeness of the Lebesgue measure, we have m(\Gamma)=0.

Since \sigma is boundedly erasing, there exists n=\max_{w\in\{0,1\}^*}\epsilon(w) (as \epsilon(\cdot)\ge 0 is integer and bounded by assumption). Then, for every u\in\{0,1\}^\omega and for every m>0, \sigma^n(u_1\dots u_m)=\epsilon, whence, by induction on m, we have

Take w^{(0)}\in\{0,1\}^{\omega}. Suppose by absurde that \sigma verifies the optimality condition. Then there exists w^{(1)}\in\{0,1\}^\omega such that \sigma(w^{(1)})=w^{(0)}. Iterating the argument, it follows that we can construct a sequence of nonempty infinite words \{w^{(m)}\}_{m\in\mathbb{N}} such that, for every m\in\mathbb{N}, \sigma(w^{(m)})=w^{(m-1)}. But then the word w^{(N)} contradicts (Proof) for N large enough. Take now x\in\mathbb{I} such that its f_\sigma-orbit is does not contain dyadic rationals other than 0 and 1. Suppose that f_\sigma^j(x)\ne 0 for every j\in\{1,\dots,n-1\}. Then \sigma^{n-1}(\widetilde{x})=w_{\epsilon}^{\infty} which implies f_\sigma^{n}(x)=0. Recalling that 0 is a fixed point of f_\sigma by definition, we have our thesis.

We start fixing w\in \{0,1\}^* and u\in \{0,1\}^\infty.

1. |u|<\infty.

   It follows from the optimality condition 2.4 that, for every finite sequence of non-negative integers \{n_0,\dots,n_{h-1}\}\in(\mathbb{N}_0)^{h}, we can find h finite binary words p_{(0)},p_{(1)},\ldots,p_{(h-1)} such that, for suitable q_{(i)}\in \{0,1\}^* (i=0,\ldots,h-1), we have

   \sigma(p_{(0)})=uq_{(0)}\ , \ \sigma(p_{(i)})=e_{(h-i)}w_\epsilon^{n_{h-i}}p_{(i-1)}q_{(i)} \quad \forall i=1,\ldots,h-1.

   It follows that the integer h and the word v=e_{(0)}w_\epsilon^{n_0}p_{(h-1)} verify the claim, because \sigma^h(wv) has u q_{(0)} as a prefix and, for every i\in\{0,\dots, h-1\}, \sigma^{i}_w(v) has e_{(i)}w_\epsilon^{n_i} as a prefix. Notice that this occurrence of w_\epsilon^{n_i} will be a k-factor in \sigma^{(i)}(wv) by construction.

2. |u|=\infty.

   It follows from the optimality condition 2.4, and in particular from Remark 1, that, for every finite sequence of non-negative integers

   \{n_0,\dots,n_{h-1}\}\in(\mathbb{N}_0)^{h},

   we can find h finite binary words p_{(0)},p_{(1)},\ldots,p_{(h-1)} such that \sigma(p_{(0)})=u and \sigma(p_{(i)})=e_{(h-i)}w_\epsilon^{n_{h-i}}p_{(i-1)} for i=1,\ldots,h-1. It follows that the integer h and the word v=e_{(0)}p_{(h-1)} verify the claim.

Finally, recalling that completely erasing substitutions are always strongly erasing, a) and b) are obviously true also for them, and since \sigma in this case is alternating, we can take as erasing k-extension e_{(i)} the word

which readily implies that h can be taken equal to \epsilon(w), proving point c).

Let us indicate by \{w^{(n)}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}_0} an enumeration of all finite binary words. We will construct inductively a point x=0.\widetilde{x} with the property that there exists a sequence of integers \{h_n\}_{n\in \mathbb{N}_0} such that \sigma^{h_n}(\widetilde{x}) has w^{(n)} as a prefix for every n.

By Lemma 4.2, there exists u^{(1)}\in\{0,1\}^+ and h_1\in\mathbb{N} such that \sigma^{h_1}(w^{(0)}u^{(1)}) has w^{(1)} as a prefix. Let \{e_{(j)}^{(0)}\}_{j\in\{0,\dots,h_{1}-1\}} be the erasing k-extensions of w^{(0)}. By Lemma 4.2, for \{n^1_0,\dots,n^1_{h_1-1}\}\in (\mathbb{N}_0)^h, we can select u^{(1)} so that the word \sigma_{w^{(0)}}^j\left(u^{(1)}\right) has e_{(j)}^{(0)}w_\epsilon^{n_j^1} as a prefix for j\in\{0,\dots,h_1-1\}.

Set p^{(1)}=w^{(0)}u^{(1)}. Suppose that we arrived at the step i-1 and we have defined p^{(i-1)}=w^{(0)}u^{(1)}\dots u^{(i-1)}. At the i-th step we have that, again by Lemma 4.2, there exists u^{(i)}\in \{0,1\}^+ and h_i\in\mathbb{N} such that \sigma^{h_i}(p^{(i-1)}u^{(i)}) has w^{(i)} as a prefix. Let \{e_{(j)}^{(i-1)}\}_{i\in\{0,\dots,h_{1}-1\}} be the erasing k-extensions of w^{(i-1)}. By Lemma 4.2, for \{n^i_0,\dots,n^i_{h_i-1}\}\in (\mathbb{N}_0)^h, we can select u^{(i)} so that the word \sigma_{p^{(i)}}^j\left(u^{(i)}\right) has e_{(j)}^{(i-1)}w_\epsilon^{n^i_j} as a prefix for j\in\{0,\dots,h_i-1\}. By the construction made in Lemma 4.2, we have \sigma^{h_i}(p^{(i)})=\epsilon, and since p^{(i-1)} is always a prefix of p^{(i)}, it follows that h_i\ge h_{i-1} for every i. We can then define the word v as

so that by construction the \sigma-orbit of v has w^{(n)} as a prefix for every n\in\mathbb{N}_0. Notice further that different choices for n_0^i (i\in\mathbb{N}) produce different words in Eq.(?), which proves that we have uncountably many choices for v. If, for every j\in\mathbb{N}_0, we take the sequence (n_j^i)_{i\in\mathbb{N}} in the set \Xi^+, we are ensured that \sigma^j(v) will not end in 0^\infty for every j (either in case w_\epsilon=0^k or not). Therefore, the point x=0.v=0.\widetilde{x} has a dense f_\sigma-orbit and the set \mathcal{D} of points with a dense f_\sigma-orbit is uncountable. Finally, by the arbitrariness of the prefix w^{(0)}, the set \mathcal{D} is dense in \mathbb{I}.

Take x\in\mathbb{I}. If y\in\mathbb{I} is such that \widetilde{x} and \widetilde{y} have in common a prefix p long enough, then \left|x-y \right|<\delta for arbitrarily small \delta>0. By Lemma 4.2, there exists a positive integer n (depending only on p) such that, for every u\in\{0,1\}^\infty, there is v\in \{0,1\}^\infty such that \sigma^n(pv) has u as a prefix. Set u=0^\infty if 0.\sigma^n(\widetilde{x})>1/2 and u=1^\infty if 0.\sigma^n(\widetilde{x})\le 1/2. Then, if we take z\in \mathbb{I} such that \widetilde{z} has pv as a prefix, we have |f_\sigma^n(x)-f_\sigma^n(z)|\ge 1/2. The thesis follows from the arbitrariness of \delta and of the point x\in \mathbb{I}.

Let be u\in\{0,1\}^\omega and w\in\{0,1\}^* such that \sigma^h(w)=p\in \{0,1\}^*. Set w^{(j)}=\sigma^j(w), n_jk+m_j=|w^{(j)}| for 0\le j\le h, n_j\in\mathbb{N}_0, 0\le m_j<k (notice that w^{(0)}=w). By the optimality condition, there is q^{(1)}\in\{0,1\}^\omega such that \sigma\left(q^{(1)}\right)=u. Therefore, \sigma(aq^{(1)})=\sigma(a)u for every a\in\{0,1\}^{nk}, n\in\mathbb{N}_0. Set v^{(1)}=\epsilon_{m_{h-1}+1}\dots\epsilon_{k}q^{(1)}, so that, recalling Eq.(Proof), \sigma(w^{(h-1)}v^{(1)})=w^{(h)}u=pu.

Iterating the argument, we get the existence of words v^{(j)} (1\le j\le h) such that \sigma(w^{(h-j)}v^{(j)})=w^{(h-j+1)}{v^{(j-1)}}, so that \sigma^h(wv^{(h)})=pu, and therefore v=v^{(h)} verifies the claim.

Take u^{(0)}\in\{0,1\}^{\ge k}. Since \sigma is alternating, we can apply it to finite words of any length (without dropping any digit for words of length not multiple of k). We will show an iterative construction leading to a periodic point belonging to [u^{(0)}].

Set |u^{(0)}|=n_0k+m_0 with n_0\in\mathbb{N} and 0\le m_0 <k. By Lemma 4.2, there exists a binary word u\in\{0,1\}^\omega such that \sigma^{\epsilon(u^{(0)})}\left(u^{(0)}u\right)=u^{(0)}\prod_{j=m_0+1}^{\infty}\epsilon_{j}, so that there must be p_0,s_0\in\mathbb{N}_0 such that

Set then s_0=r_0k+q_0 for r_0\in\mathbb{N}_0, 0\le q_0<k and define

where the product can be replaced by the empty word if q_0=0. Recalling Eq.(Proof), we have \sigma(u^{(0)})=\sigma(w^{(0)}), so that \epsilon(u^{(0)})=\epsilon(w^{(0)}). Since by construction s_0+k-q_0 is a multiple of k, we have thus \sigma\left(w^{(0)}u^{(1)}\right)=\sigma \left(u^{(0)}u_1\dots u_{p_0}\right) and therefore \sigma^{\epsilon(w^{(0)})}(w^{(0)}u^{(1)})=w^{(0)}.

Suppose now that there are i+2 finite binary words w^{(0)},\dots,w^{(i)},u^{(i+1)} such that \sigma^{\epsilon(w^{(0)})}(w^{(0)}\dots w^{(i)}u^{(i+1)})=w^{(0)}\dots w^{(i)}. Set |w^{(0)}\dots w^{(i)}u^{(i+1)}|=n_{i+1}k+m_{i+1} with n_{i+1}\in\mathbb{N} and 0\le m_{i+1} <k. By Lemma 4.5, there exists a binary word u\in\{0,1\}^\omega such that \sigma^{\epsilon(w^{(0)})}\left(w^{(0)}\dots w^{(i)}u^{(i+1)}u\right)=w^{(0)}\dots w^{(i)}u^{(i+1)}\prod_{j=m_{i+1}+1}^{\infty}\epsilon_{j}, so that there must be p_{i+1},s_{i+1}\in\mathbb{N}_0 such that

Set then s_{i+1}=r_{i+1}k+q_{i+1} for r_{i+1}\in\mathbb{N}_0, 0\le q_{i+1}<k and define

where the product can be replaced by the empty word if q_{i+1}=0. Since by construction s_{i+1}+k-q_{i+1} is a multiple of k, we have thus

and therefore \sigma^{\epsilon(w^{(0)})}(w^{(0)}\dots w^{(i+1)}u^{(i+2)})=w^{(0)}\dots w^{(i+1)}.

By induction on i we get the existence of a countable family of words verifying, for every i\in\mathbb{N}_0,

It follows that the word w=\prod_{i=0}^\infty w^{(i)} is \sigma-periodic with period \epsilon(w^{(0)}). As observed multiple times, in the applications of Lemma 4.2 (as well as of Lemma 4.5) we can ensure that, for every h\in\mathbb{N}, \sigma^h(w) does not end in 0^\infty, so it follows that the point x=0.\prod_{i=0}^\infty w^{(i)} is an f_\sigma-periodic point of period \epsilon(w^{(0)}).

The density of the set \mathcal{P} of f_\sigma-periodic points follows from the arbitrariness of the word u^{(0)}. The uncountability of \mathcal{P}_p (p\in\mathbb{N}) follow from the same argument used in Lemma 4.3.

By Corollary 3, there is a word w^{(1)} such that \sigma(w^{(1)})=w_\epsilon q^{(1)}, with \sigma_{w_\epsilon}(q^{(1)})=\sigma(q^{(1)})=\epsilon. Applying further n-1 times the same argument one gets the existence of w^{(2)},\dots,w^{(n)} such that \sigma(w^{(i+1)})=w^{(i)}q^{(i)} with \sigma_{w^{(i)}}(q^{(i)})=\epsilon for 1\le i\le n-1, so that \sigma^n(w^{(n-1)})=\epsilon and therefore \epsilon(w^{(n-1)})=n.

By Lemma 4.2, for every w\in\{0,1\}^* there is h\in\mathbb{N} such that, for every y\in \mathbb{I} there is v\in\{0,1\}^\omega such that y=0.\sigma^{h}(wv), where we can take \sigma^i_w(v) not ultimately constantly 0 for every i\in\{0,\dots,h-1\} by exploiting point b) of Lemma 4.2 to insert, if necessary, the words w_\epsilon as k-factors. Therefore, f_\sigma^{h}(x)=y if wv=\widetilde{x}, which implies that f_\sigma^{h}([w])=\mathbb{I}. Take now A,B open subsets of \mathbb{I}. Since open sets in the interval are countable union of (disjoint) open intervals, there is w\in\{0,1\}^+ such that [w]\subset A. If h\in\mathbb{N} is that of the previous argument, by Lemma 3.1, f_\sigma^n(A)\cap B\ne \emptyset for every n\ge h, which means that f_\sigma is topologically mixing.

Consider a sequence W=\{w^{(n)}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}} of finite binary words such that \{|w^{(n)}|\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}} is an unbounded sequence of positive integers. By Corollary ?, we can find x\in\mathbb{I} such that its f_\sigma-orbit visits [w^{(n)}] for every n\in\mathbb{N}, and since \sigma is completely erasing, we can write \widetilde{x} as: \widetilde{x}=\prod_{i=1}^\infty v^{(i)} where, for every positive integer n there is q^{(n)}\in\{0,1\}^* such that

Moreover, by Corollary 3, we can choose q^{(n)} such that \epsilon(w^{(n)}q^{(n)})=\epsilon(w^{(n)}).

Notice that (Proof) is the only property used to define v^{(n)}, which means that in fact we can define a family of points X\subset\mathbb{I} as follows:

In particular, by Lemma 4.5, we are free to choose v^{(n)} so as to have that

where \sigma(u^{(n)})=w^{(n)}q^{(n)} and u^{(n)} does not have w_{\epsilon} as a k-factor (notice that we do not have to insert a suffix after q^{(n)} because we know that Eq.(Proof) holds).

On the other hand, we can also make the choice

We underline that, for every n\ge 1, we can make choice \eqref{choice1} or choice (?) while still retaining the property (Proof). We want to use this to construct an uncountable scrambled subset of \mathbb{I}. For \alpha=\alpha_{(1)}\alpha_{(2)}\dots \in\Omega (see Definition 3.1), let us define the set X_{\alpha}\subset X of points in \mathbb{I} such that, for every x\in X_\alpha,

Pick now exactly one point x_\alpha from every set X_\alpha and set X_{\Omega}=\bigcup_{\alpha\in\Omega}\{x_{\alpha}\}. We will show now that X_\Omega is an uncountable scrambled set. Indeed, let \alpha\ne\beta be two elements of \Omega. Since both \widetilde{x_\alpha} and \widetilde{x_\beta} verify (Proof) for every n, we have that f_\sigma^n(x_\alpha),f_\sigma^n(x_\beta)\in [w^{(n)}]. Since |w^{(n)}| is unbounded, it follows that

Moreover, only for finitely many integers n the word u^{(n)} is shorter than 2k, so that w_\epsilon is different from both u^{(n)}_1\dots u^{(n)}_k and u^{(n)}_{k+1}\dots u^{(n)}_{2k} for large enough n. It follows from Eqs. (?) and (?) that, if n is such that \alpha_{(n)}\ne\beta_{(n)}, then q=\epsilon(v^{(1)}\dots v^{(n-1)})-1 implies |f^q_\sigma(x_\alpha)-f_\sigma^q(x_\beta)|> 2^{-2k}. Since \alpha and \beta are not ultimately coinciding, it follows that \limsup_{n\to\infty}|f_\sigma^n(x_\alpha)-f_\sigma^n(x_\beta)|>0. Finally, X_\Omega is uncountable as \alpha\ne\beta implies that x_\alpha\ne x_\beta because by construction they have distinct f_\sigma-orbits.

For every w\in\{0,1\}^+, set F({\left| w \right|})=\max_{u\in\{0,1\}^{|w|}} \varepsilon(u). For x_1,x_2 \in \mathbb{I} let us introduce the metric:

We say that a subset S\subset \mathbb{I} is (n,\varepsilon)-separated in the metric d_n if for all x_1,x_2\in S, x_1 \neq x_2 we have that d_N(x_1,x_2)\ge \varepsilon and we indicate by \left| (n,\epsilon) \right| the maximum cardinality of an (n,\varepsilon)-separeted set. We recall that the topological entropy h of the map f_\sigma can be written as ([dinaburg1970correlation, bowen1971entropy]):

Fix now \varepsilon=2^{-(k+1)}.

1. Step 1. If f_\sigma^t(x_1)\in [w_{(i)}\overline{w_\epsilon}] and f_\sigma^t(x_2)\in [w_{(r)}\overline{w_\epsilon}], for some 0\le t\le N (i\neq r), then d_N(x_1,x_2)>\epsilon. Indeed, we have the smallest possible difference between f_\sigma^t(x_1) and f_\sigma^t(x_2) when w_{(i)} and w_{(r)} differ at the k-th digit and f_\sigma^t(x_1)=0.w_{(i)}\overline{w_\epsilon} 0^\infty\ ,\ f_\sigma^t(x_2)=0.w_{(r)}\overline{w_\epsilon} 1^\infty (or vice-versa), so that we have \left|f_\sigma^t(x_1)-f_\sigma^t(x_2) \right|\ge\left| \frac{1}{2^k}-\frac{1}{2^{2k}} \right|\ge \frac{1}{2\cdot 2^k}=\epsilon.

   Set t=F(k).

2. Step 2. For any i,r\in \{1,\ldots, 2^k\}, there exists x\in [w_{(i)}\overline{w_\epsilon}] such that f_\sigma^t(x)\in [w_{(r)}\overline{w_\epsilon} q^{(r)}] with \sigma_{w_{(r)}\overline{w_\epsilon}}q^{(r)}=\epsilon.

   Indeed, let us fix i,r\in \{1,\ldots, 2^k\}. Since by assumption \epsilon(w) \le F(|w|) for every w\in\{0,1\}^*, we have \epsilon(w_{(i)})=\epsilon(w_{(i)}\overline{w_{\epsilon}})\le t. By Lemma 4.7, there exists a word p\in \{0,1\}^* such that \epsilon(p)=t-\epsilon(w_{(i)}\overline{w_\epsilon}), and by Corollary 3, there is q\in\{0,1\}^* such that \sigma^{\epsilon(w_{(i)}\overline{w_\epsilon})}(w_{(i)}\overline{w_\epsilon} q)=pp', with p'\in\{0,1\}^* such that \epsilon(pp')=\epsilon(p), and therefore \epsilon(w_{(i)}\overline{w_\epsilon} q)=t. Then the thesis follows by applying Lemma 4.2, where w=w_{(i)}\overline{w_\epsilon} q, u=w_{(r)}\overline{w_\epsilon} and h=t.

3. Step 3. We will define now a family of sets \{S^i \subset [w_{(i)}\overline{w_\epsilon}]\}_{i=1,\dots,2^k}, each containing 2^{nk} (n\in \mathbb{N}) distinct points of \mathbb{I}, such that \cup_{1\le i\le 2^k}S^i will be an (n,\varepsilon)-separated set. We will indicate by x_l^i (l\in \{1,\ldots, 2^{nk}\}) the points of S^i, where the subscript l identifies their standard order as real numbers, and we will construct them iteratively, requesting properties which will be ensured by increasingly long prefixes of their binary expansion. By Step 2., for i_1 \in\{1,\ldots, 2^k\} the points x_l^{i_1} can be taken such that:

   f_\sigma^t(x_l^{i_1})\in S^{i_2} \quad \text{for } l\in \{(i_2-1)2^{(n-1)k}+1,\ldots, i_22^{(n-1)k}\}

   where i_2\in \{1,\ldots, 2^k\}. Hence we can define the set

   S^{i_1i_2}=\{x:x\in S^{i_1}, f_\sigma^t(x)\in S^{i_2}\}

   and we have \left| S^{i_1i_2} \right|=2^{(n-1)k}. Moreover, notice that after further t iterates of f_\sigma, the prefix w_{i_2}\overline{w_\epsilon} of every point f_\sigma^t(x_l^{i_1}) is mapped again in the empty word. Therefore for every i_1,i_2\in \{1,\ldots, 2^k\} and for l\in \{(i_2-1)2^{(n-1)k}+1,\ldots, i_22^{(n-1)k}\}, Step 2. allows us to have:

   f_\sigma^{2t}(x_l^{i_1i_2})\in S^{i_3} \quad \text{for } l\in \{(i_3-1)2^{(n-2)k}+1,\ldots, i_32^{(n-2)k}\}

   where \{x^{i_1i_2}_l \}_{l=1,\ldots, 2^{(n-1)k}}\in S^{i_1 i_2}, the subscript l indicates their standard order as reals and i_3 \in \{1,\ldots,2^k \}. Hence we can define the set

   S^{i_1 i_2 i_3}=\{x:x\in S^{i_1}, f_\sigma^t(x)\in S^{i_2}, f_\sigma^{2t}(x)\in S^{i_3}\}

   and we have \left| S^{i_1 i_2 i_3} \right|=2^{(n-2)k}. We can proceed in this way for further n-3 steps in order to obtain that

   f_\sigma^{jt}(x_l^{i_1\ldots i_j})\in S^{i_{j+1}} \quad \text{for } l\in \{(i_{j+1}-1)2^{(n-j)k}+1,\ldots, i_{j+1}2^{(n-j)k}\}

   for all j\in \{1,\ldots,n-1\}, where \{x^{i_1\ldots i_j}_l\}_{l=1,\ldots, 2^k}\in S^{i_1 \ldots i_j}, the subscript l indicates their standard order as reals and i_{j+1}\in \{1\ldots,2^k\}. We finally arrive at the set

   S^{i_1\ldots i_{j+1}}=(\{x: x\in S^{i_1}, f_\sigma^t(x)\in S^{i_2}, \ldots, f_\sigma^{jt}(x)\in S^{i_{j+1}}\})_{j\in \{1,\ldots,n-1\}}

   such that \left| S^{i_1\ldots i_{j+1}} \right|=2^k.

4. Step 4. Recalling Step 1., the last argument implies that \bigcup_{i\in \{1,\ldots, 2^k\}} S^i is an (nt,\epsilon)-separated set, so that \left|(nt,\varepsilon) \right| \ge 2^{(n+1)k}. From this it follows that

   h(f_\sigma)\ge \lim_{k\to +\infty}\limsup_{n\to\infty} \frac{\log 2^{(n+1)k}}{(n+1)t}=\lim_{k\to +\infty} \frac{k\log 2}{F(k)}

   which immediately implies the thesis.

Take any x\in\mathbb{I}. For every closed neighborhood K of x, there is w\in\{0,1\}^* such that \widetilde{x}=wv for some v\in\{0,1\}^\omega, and that [w]\subset K. If \sigma is completely erasing and verifies the optimality condition, by Theorem 4 we have f_\sigma^{\epsilon(w)}([w])=\mathbb{I}. Therefore, there exists S^0\subset [w] such that f_\sigma^{\epsilon(w)}(S^0)=\cup_{i} S^i (where S^i are the same as in the previous proof). Then the same argument as above implies the following bounds:

If \sigma is not erasing, then the map f_\sigma admits right and left limits, say x^r and x^l, at every x\in\mathbb{I} (and they coincide outside \mathbb{Q}_2). In this case, the topological interior of R^-(f_\sigma,x) and R^+(f_\sigma,x) is empty.

For every \varepsilon>0, there is a positive integer m so large that every point in [w_\epsilon^m] is less than \varepsilon apart from x_0. By the optimality condition, there is v\in\{0,1\}^\omega such that \sigma(v)=\sigma(w_\epsilon^m v)=w_\epsilon^\infty. We can suppose that v_1\dots v_k is strictly larger than w_\epsilon in lexicographic order (the argument is analogous if it is strictly smaller), so that x_0\in R^+(f_\sigma,x_0). Since the optimality condition also ensures that [\sigma(v_1\dots v_k)] belongs to R^+(f_\sigma,x_0), the point x_0 belongs to its topological interior. Notice that this also applies if w_\epsilon=0^k or 1^k, as the interior is meant with respect to the natural topology on \mathbb{I}.