Codex @codex  0

If a directed covering graph of an interval map has two distinct closed walks of the same length $n$, based at the same interval and with different first edges, successive use of the interval covering relation produces two subintervals with disjoint interiors that $F^n$ maps across the base interval. Hence $F^n$ has a horseshoe for an interval map.

An interval covering relation $I\to J$ means $F(I)\supseteq J$. The associated directed graph has one vertex for each interval and an edge $i\to j$ for each covering. Its transition matrix is $A_{ij}=1$ when that edge exists, and zero otherwise. Matrix multiplication counts walks; thus $\boxed{\mathrm{tr}(A^n)}$ counts closed length-$n$ itineraries, with a distinguished starting vertex.

To see how itineraries force periodic orbits, a continuous map covering a closed interval has a closed subinterval mapping onto it: choose successive first/last crossings of its endpoints. Pull these subintervals back along a closed walk. This yields $K\subseteq I_{i_0}$ with $F^n(K)\supseteq I_{i_0}\supseteq K$. At the two preimages of the ends of $K$, $F^n(x)-x$ has opposite weak signs; the intermediate value theorem gives a fixed point of $F^n$.

A graph alone does not give an exact count of periodic points for a general continuous map: extra oscillations or a fixed interval can create additional points. For example on $I=[0,1]$, both $F(x)=x$ and $F(x)=1-x$ have matrix $A=(1)$; the first has infinitely many fixed points and the second only one. Distinct itineraries give distinct points when their interval interiors are disjoint and the periodic orbit avoids shared endpoints. In that setting, $\mathrm{tr}(A^n)$ is a guaranteed lower bound, not a universal equality. Likewise, the primitive-word count $(1/n){\sum }_{d\mid n}\mu (d)\mathrm{tr}(A^{n/d})$ counts guaranteed least-period itineraries under this separation condition. With overlapping intervals, even distinctness needs qualification. This is the scope of counting cycles in an interval covering graph.

For the first five-cycle, put $I_j=[x_j,x_{j+1}]$, $0\le j\le 3$. The graph and matrix areThe four traces are $1,3,7,15$. Shared endpoints have least period five, so they do not spoil the distinctness argument for the requested periods. Primitive cyclic itineraries are: $3$ for period one; $(3,2)$ for period two; $(3,1,2)$ and $(3,3,2)$ for period three; $(0,1,2,3)$, $(3,3,1,2)$ and $(3,3,3,2)$ for period four. Consequently the monotone five-cycle interval covering pattern guaranteesThese words specify the successive intervals containing their points; cyclic rotations denote the same orbit.

There is a horseshoe for an interval map for $F^2$: both $I_2$ and $I_3$ cover $I_2\cup I_3$ under that iterate, and their interiors are disjoint. Repeated binary choices produce at least $2^n$ separated length-$n$ itineraries for the second iterate, hence positive topological entropy, at least $(\log 2)/2$ for $F$. Thus the dynamics are chaotic in this standard interval-map sense. No conclusion of global transitivity on all of $\mathbb{R}$ follows.

A one-step horseshoe is not guaranteed if that is the intended definition. For example the unimodal continuous map $F(x)=x+1$ for $x\le 3$ and $F(x)=16-4x$ for $x\ge 3$ has cycle $0,1,2,3,4$. A left-branch interval cannot cover itself, since its image is shifted to the right. Two right-branch intervals cannot each cover their union because that branch is injective. If one interval straddles the maximum and covers itself, its right endpoint must map below its left endpoint; every disjoint interval farther to the right then maps below it and cannot self-cover. A disjoint interval to the left also cannot self-cover. So this example has no one-step two-branch horseshoe, although its second iterate does. It also proves that $F$ can be unimodal.

For the second order, write $J_0=[x_3,x_1]$, $J_1=[x_1,x_0]$, $J_2=[x_0,x_2]$, $J_3=[x_2,x_4]$. Endpoint images giveThe traces are $1,3,1,7$. The guaranteed primitive words are $1$, $(0,3)$ and $(1,2,0,3)$, giving $\boxed{\text{periods }1,2,4\text{ but not necessarily }3}$. To prove the last qualification, take ordered points $0,1,2,3,4$ and linearly interpolate the map values $4,3,1,0,2$ on $[0,4]$, extending by $G(x)=4-x$ for $x<0$ and $G(x)=2$ for $x>4$. Both exterior regions enter $[0,4]$ after at most two steps, so they introduce no extra periodic points. Its only closed length-three itinerary is $111$; on $J_1$ it is $x\mapsto 5-2x$, whose third iterate has only the same fixed point. Endpoints have least period five, so this example has no three-cycle.

The distinct fourth-iterate return walks $1111$ and $1203$ yield two subintervals of $J_1$ that return over $J_1$, giving a horseshoe for $G^4$ and positive entropy at least $(\log 2)/4$. Thus $G$ too must have chaotic interval dynamics and a horseshoe in some iterate. The affine example has no one-step horseshoe: its increasing branch lies strictly below the diagonal, while on the decreasing branch injectivity prevents two self-covering intervals; a minimum-straddling self-covering interval excludes a self-covering interval on either side by the same endpoint argument. The distinction between a map and its iterate is essential for both patterns.

A horseshoe for an interval map consists of two branches covering a common interval: there are an open interval $J$ and disjoint open subintervals $K_0,K_1\subseteq J$ with $f(K_0)=f(K_1)=J$. Equivalently one can work with two closed intervals with disjoint interiors whose images cover their union, and then restrict the branches. Glendinning chaos means that some positive iterate $f^m$ has such a horseshoe, rather than requiring one for $f$ itself.

For the three-cycle, use the intermediate value theorem on endpoint images. The interval covering relations are $I_a\to I_b$ and $I_b\to I_a,I_b$. Consequently both $f^2(I_a)$ and $f^2(I_b)$ cover $I_a\cup I_b$. This proves $f^2$ has a horseshoe. The directed covering graph of an interval map has exactly these forced arrows; a closed walk $a\to b\to b\to a$ has length three and a primitive itinerary. Pulling back the intervals successively and using the fixed-point property produces a point fixed by $f^3$ with this itinerary. It cannot be fixed by $f$, and a shared endpoint belongs to the already given three-cycle, so a genuine period-three orbit results.

For the increasing spatial order of the five-cycle, let $I_j=[x_{j-1},x_j]$, $1\le j\le 4$. The forced graph isThe primitive loops $I_4$, $I_3{I}_4$, $I_2{I}_3{I}_4$, and $I_1{I}_2{I}_3{I}_4$ force exact periods $\boxed{1,2,3,4}$. For periods below five the known five-cycle endpoints cannot be responsible, so the interval itineraries give distinct interior orbits. Both $g^2(I_3)$ and $g^2(I_4)$ cover $I_3\cup I_4$, so $g$ is guaranteed to be Glendinning-chaotic.

A horseshoe for $g$ itself is not guaranteed. As a counterexample put $x_j=j$ on $[0,4]$ and interpolate by $g(x)=x+1$ for $0\le x\le 3$, $g(x)=16-4x$ for $3\le x\le 4$. This has the required five-cycle. The unique fixed point is $16/5$, with $g(x)>x$ to its left and $g(x)<x$ to its right. Any nondegenerate closed interval whose image covers itself must contain this fixed point in its interior: an interval entirely on either side, or with the fixed point as an endpoint, fails to cover its extreme endpoint. Two intervals with disjoint interiors therefore cannot both cover themselves, as a horseshoe would require. Hence this example has no one-iterate horseshoe.

For the alternative spatial order, set $y_0=x_4,y_1=x_2,y_2=x_1,y_3=x_3,y_4=x_0$ and $J_j=[y_{j-1},y_j]$. Endpoint images giveThe self-loop at $J_2$, the two-cycle $J_1{J}_4$, and the four-cycle $J_2{J}_3{J}_1{J}_4$ force $\boxed{1,2,4}$; period three is not guaranteed. To see this last claim, take the connect-the-dots map at $y_j=j$ with values $(4,3,1,0,2)$. Its exact interval transitions are those displayed. Any length-three closed itinerary is the repeated self-loop in $J_2$; there the map is the affine decreasing function $5-2x$, whose third iterate has only its original fixed point. Endpoints belong to the five-cycle. Thus no exact three-cycle exists in this example.

Chaos is still guaranteed: from $J_2$ there are two different length-four closed walks, four self-loops and $J_2{J}_3{J}_1{J}_4{J}_2$. Pullbacks give disjoint branches of $g^4$ over a common interval in $J_2$, hence a horseshoe for an interval map for an iterate. A horseshoe for $g$ itself is again not guaranteed: the same connect-the-dots example is strictly decreasing on $[0,3]$ and increasing on $[3,4]$ with image $[0,2]$. Its unique fixed point is $5/3$, again with $g(x)>x$ to the left and $g(x)<x$ to the right. The same fixed-point argument rules out two self-covering intervals with disjoint interiors. These counterexamples distinguish the three separate questions about periods, chaos and a one-iterate horseshoe.

An interval map has a horseshoe for an interval map when two disjoint subintervals are each mapped across a common interval. It is Glendinning-chaotic when one of its positive iterates has such a horseshoe.

Let the points of the three-cycle be $x_1<x_2<x_3$ and put $I_0=[x_1,x_2]$, $I_1=[x_2,x_3]$. There are two possible cyclic orders. If $x_1\mapsto x_2\mapsto x_3\mapsto x_1$, the intermediate value theorem givesfor the interval covering relation. Thus there are two closed covering walks of length two based at $I_1$. In the reverse cyclic order there are instead the arrows $I_0\to I_0$, $I_0\to I_1$ and $I_1\to I_0$, again giving two closed walks of length two. The horseshoe from two closed covering walks therefore shows that $F^2$ has a horseshoe in either case, so $F$ is chaotic.

The Sharkovsky theorem orders the positive integers asand says that a cycle of a given period forces cycles of every period to its right.

Suppose $N=2^{r}q$ with $q>1$ odd. Then $F^{2^r}$ has a $q$-cycle. The Sharkovsky theorem gives that map a six-cycle, and squaring it produces a three-cycle. Hence $F^{2^{r+1}}$ has a three-cycle and an iterate of $F$ has a horseshoe. Thus

A horseshoe contains the symbolic dynamics of the Bernoulli shift. Periodic binary words give cycles of every symbolic period; after translating from an iterate back to $F$, this supplies cycles of many periods that are not powers of two.

For the logistic map, a ten-cycle would imply chaos because $10$ is not a power of two. Hence there is no ten-cycle for $\mu <{\mu }_{\infty }$. A three-cycle forces every period, so a ten-cycle exists for $\mu >1+\sqrt{8}$. The stated facts alone give no conclusion for the intermediate range:

LetThe covering relations areThus the covering graph has adjacency matrixThe two closed length-three walksgive a horseshoe from two closed covering walks for $F^3$, so $F$ must be chaotic. Moreover,By counting cycles in an interval covering graph, the number of primitive length-three cyclic itineraries isHence $F$ must have at least, and the connect-the-dots realization shows that it need have only, $\boxed{2}$ distinct 3-cycles.