Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Horseshoe map
View on Wikipedia

In the mathematics of chaos theory, a horseshoe map is any member of a class of chaotic maps of the square into itself. It is a core example in the study of dynamical systems. The map was introduced by Stephen Smale while studying the behavior of the orbits of the van der Pol oscillator. The action of the map is defined geometrically by squishing the square, then stretching the result into a long strip, and finally folding the strip into the shape of a horseshoe.
Most points eventually leave the square under the action of the map. They go to the side caps where they will, under iteration, converge to a fixed point in one of the caps. The points that remain in the square under repeated iteration form a fractal set and are part of the invariant set of the map.
The squishing, stretching and folding of the horseshoe map are typical of chaotic systems, but not necessary or even sufficient.[1]
In the horseshoe map, the squeezing and stretching are uniform. They compensate each other so that the area of the square does not change. The folding is done neatly, so that the orbits that remain forever in the square can be simply described.
For a horseshoe map:
- there are an infinite number of periodic orbits;
- periodic orbits of arbitrarily long period exist;
- the number of periodic orbits grows exponentially with the period; and
- close to any point of the fractal invariant set there is a point of a periodic orbit.
The horseshoe map
[edit]The horseshoe map f is a diffeomorphism defined from a region S of the plane into itself. The region S is a square capped by two semi-disks. The codomain of (the "horseshoe") is a proper subset of its domain . The action of f is defined through the composition of three geometrically defined transformations. First the square is contracted along the vertical direction by a factor a < 1/2. The caps are contracted so as to remain semi-disks attached to the resulting rectangle. Contracting by a factor smaller than one half assures that there will be a gap between the branches of the horseshoe. Next the rectangle is stretched horizontally by a factor of 1/a; the caps remain unchanged. Finally the resulting strip is folded into a horseshoe-shape and placed back into S.
The interesting part of the dynamics is the image of the square into itself. Once that part is defined, the map can be extended to a diffeomorphism by defining its action on the caps. The caps are made to contract and eventually map inside one of the caps (the left one in the figure). The extension of f to the caps adds a fixed point to the non-wandering set of the map. To keep the class of horseshoe maps simple, the curved region of the horseshoe should not map back into the square.
The horseshoe map is one-to-one, which means that an inverse f−1 exists when restricted to the image of S under f.
By folding the contracted and stretched square in different ways, other types of horseshoe maps are possible.

To ensure that the map remains one-to-one, the contracted square must not overlap itself. When the action on the square is extended to a diffeomorphism, the extension cannot always be done in the plane. For example, the map on the right needs to be extended to a diffeomorphism of the sphere by using a “cap” that wraps around the equator.
The horseshoe map is an Axiom A diffeomorphism that serves as a model for the general behavior at a transverse homoclinic point, where the stable and unstable manifolds of a periodic point intersect.
Dynamics of the map
[edit]The horseshoe map was designed to reproduce the chaotic dynamics of a flow in the neighborhood of a given periodic orbit. The neighborhood is chosen to be a small disk perpendicular to the orbit. As the system evolves, points in this disk remain close to the given periodic orbit, tracing out orbits that eventually intersect the disk once again. Other orbits diverge.
The behavior of all the orbits in the disk can be determined by considering what happens to the disk. The intersection of the disk with the given periodic orbit comes back to itself every period of the orbit and so do points in its neighborhood. When this neighborhood returns, its shape is transformed. Among the points back inside the disk are some points that will leave the disk neighborhood and others that will continue to return. The set of points that never leaves the neighborhood of the given periodic orbit form a fractal.
A symbolic name can be given to all the orbits that remain in the neighborhood. The initial neighborhood disk can be divided into a small number of regions. Knowing the sequence in which the orbit visits these regions allows the orbit to be pinpointed exactly. The visitation sequence of the orbits provide a symbolic representation of the dynamics, known as symbolic dynamics.
Orbits
[edit]It is possible to describe the behavior of all initial conditions of the horseshoe map. An initial point u0 = (x, y) gets mapped into the point u1 = f(u0). Its iterate is the point u2 = f(u1) = f 2(u0), and repeated iteration generates the orbit u0, u1, u2, ...
Under repeated iteration of the horseshoe map, most orbits end up at the fixed point in the left cap. This is because the horseshoe maps the left cap into itself by an affine transformation that has exactly one fixed point. Any orbit that lands on the left cap never leaves it and converges to the fixed point in the left cap under iteration. Points in the right cap get mapped into the left cap on the next iteration, and most points in the square get mapped into the caps. Under iteration, most points will be part of orbits that converge to the fixed point in the left cap, but some points of the square never leave.
Iterating the square
[edit]
Under forward iterations of the horseshoe map, the original square gets mapped into a series of horizontal strips. The points in these horizontal strips come from vertical strips in the original square. Let S0 be the original square, map it forward n times, and consider only the points that fall back into the square S0, which is a set of horizontal stripes
The points in the horizontal stripes came from the vertical stripes
- ,
which are the horizontal strips Hn mapped backwards n times. That is, a point in Vn will, under n iterations of the horseshoe, end up in the set Hn of vertical strips.
Invariant set
[edit]

If a point is to remain indefinitely in the square, then it must belong to a set Λ that maps to itself. Whether this set is empty or not has to be determined. The vertical strips V1 map into the horizontal strips H1, but not all points of V1 map back into V1. Only the points in the intersection of V1 and H1 may belong to Λ, as can be checked by following points outside the intersection for one more iteration.
The intersection of the horizontal and vertical stripes, Hn ∩ Vn, are squares that in the limit n → ∞ converge to the invariant set Λ (this set is an intersection of a Cantor set of vertical lines with a Cantor set of horizontal lines[2]). The structure of this set can be better understood by introducing a system of labels for all the intersections—a symbolic dynamics.
Symbolic dynamics
[edit]
Since Hn ∩ Vn ⊂ V1, any point that is in Λ under iteration must land in the left vertical strip A of V1, or on the right vertical strip B. The lower horizontal strip of H1 is the image of A and the upper horizontal strip is the image of B, so H1 = f(A) ∪ f(B). The strips A and B can be used to label the four squares in the intersection of V1 and H1:
The set ΛB•A consist of points from strip A that were in strip B in the previous iteration. A dot is used to separate the region the point of an orbit is in from the region the point came from.
The notation can be extended to higher iterates of the horseshoe map. The vertical strips can be named according to the sequence of visits to strip A or strip B. For example, the set ABB ⊂ V3 consists of the points from A that will all land in B in one iteration and remain in B in the iteration after that:
Working backwards from that trajectory determines a small region, the set ABB, within V3.
The horizontal strips are named from their vertical strip pre-images. In this notation, the intersection of V2 and H2 consists of 16 squares, one of which is
All the points in ΛAB•BB are in B and will continue to be in B for at least one more iteration. Their previous trajectory before landing in BB was A followed by B.
Periodic orbits
[edit]Any one of the intersections ΛP•F of a horizontal strip with a vertical strip, where P and F are sequences of As and Bs, is an affine transformation of a small region in V1. If P has k symbols in it, and if f −k(ΛP•F) and ΛP•F intersect, the region ΛP•F will have a fixed point. This happens when the sequence P is the same as F. For example, ΛABAB•ABAB ⊂ V4 ∩ H4 has at least one fixed point. This point is also the same as the fixed point in ΛAB•AB. By including more and more ABs in the P and F part of the label of intersection, the area of the intersection can be made as small as needed. It converges to a point that is part of a periodic orbit of the horseshoe map. The periodic orbit can be labeled by the simplest sequence of As and Bs that labels one of the regions the periodic orbit visits.
For every sequence of As and Bs there is a periodic orbit.
See also
[edit]Notes
[edit]- ^ David Ruelle (2006). "What is a strange attractor?" (PDF). Notices of the American Mathematical Society. 53 (7): 764–765.
- ^ Ott, Edward (2002). Chaos in Dynamical Systems (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
References
[edit]- David Ruelle (2006). "What is a strange attractor?" (PDF). Notices of the American Mathematical Society. 53 (7): 764–765.
- Stephen Smale (1967). "Differentiable dynamical systems". Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society. 73 (6): 747–817. doi:10.1090/S0002-9904-1967-11798-1.
- P. Cvitanović; G. Gunaratne; I. Procaccia (1988). "Topological and metric properties of Hénon-type strange attractors". Physical Review A. 38 (3): 1503–1520. Bibcode:1988PhRvA..38.1503C. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.38.1503. PMID 9900529.
- André de Carvalho (1999). "Pruning fronts and the formation of horseshoes". Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems. 19 (4): 851–894. arXiv:math/9701217. doi:10.1017/S0143385799133972. S2CID 17153861.
- André de Carvalho; Toby Hall (2002). "How to prune a horseshoe" (PDF). Nonlinearity. 15 (3): R19 – R68. Bibcode:2002Nonli..15R..19D. doi:10.1088/0951-7715/15/3/201. S2CID 53417965. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-03-02.
External links
[edit]- "Smale Horseshoe". Scholarpedia.
- Evgeny Demidov (2007). "Homoclinic structures in the standard map". ibiblio.org. Retrieved 2016-07-11.
- ChaosBook.org Chapter "Stretch, fold, prune"
- CHAOS VI - Chaos and Horseshoe Chapter from Jos Leys, Étienne Ghys and Aurélien Alvarez movie Chaos
- Richeson, David (2022-03-02). "How Mathematicians Make Sense of Chaos". Quanta Magazine .
Horseshoe map
View on GrokipediaBackground and Definition
Historical development
The foundations of the horseshoe map trace back to early 20th-century developments in dynamical systems theory, particularly Henri Poincaré's exploration of recurrence and homoclinic tangles in celestial mechanics. Poincaré's 1890 analysis of the three-body problem revealed the complexity arising from transverse intersections of stable and unstable manifolds, laying groundwork for understanding the stretching and folding mechanisms central to chaotic behavior.[4] Building on this, George David Birkhoff's ergodic theory in the 1920s and 1930s, including his 1931 pointwise ergodic theorem, provided tools for studying long-term statistical properties of orbits, influencing later models of hyperbolic dynamics.[5] In the 1960s, Stephen Smale advanced these ideas through his work on structural stability, conceiving the horseshoe map as a canonical example of hyperbolic behavior during a 1960 visit to Rio de Janeiro.[3] Smale was motivated by the earlier analyses of forced oscillations in the van der Pol equation by Mary Cartwright, Norman Levinson, and John Edensor Littlewood, which demonstrated chaotic behavior and the existence of infinitely many periodic orbits. He formalized the horseshoe in his seminal 1967 paper "Differentiable Dynamical Systems," where it served as a model for robust chaotic dynamics in smooth systems, demonstrating the persistence of homoclinic structures under perturbations.[6] The horseshoe map gained broader recognition in the 1970s as chaos theory emerged, with David Ruelle and Floris Takens incorporating similar hyperbolic structures into their 1971 analysis of strange attractors to explain the onset of turbulence in dissipative systems.[7] This work highlighted the horseshoe's role in producing structurally stable chaotic attractors, bridging Smale's topological insights with applications in nonlinear physics.[8] Symbolic dynamics, initially developed by Marston Morse and others, was later adapted to encode the horseshoe's itineraries, reinforcing its paradigmatic status.[3]Mathematical formulation
The horseshoe map is a piecewise linear homeomorphism defined on the unit square .[3] It is given by the formula This can be expressed as , where is the one-dimensional tent map that projects and expands horizontally, and contracts vertically while folding the right half of the square. The map arises as a composition of three operations: horizontal stretching by a factor of 2 (via the expanding tent map ), vertical contraction by a factor of , and a folding that bends the stretched and contracted rectangle into a horseshoe shape fitting within the original square.[3] This construction models the local dynamics near a hyperbolic fixed point in a differentiable dynamical system, where the eigenvalues of the linearized map at the fixed point satisfy with no resonance conditions, leading to transversal intersections of the stable and unstable manifolds.[2] Smale introduced the horseshoe map in 1967 to illustrate the robust chaotic behavior arising from such homoclinic tangles near hyperbolic fixed points.[2]Construction and Geometry
Initial transformation of the square
The construction of the horseshoe map begins with a linear transformation applied to the unit square , which distorts it into a thin vertical rectangle through simultaneous stretching and contraction. This initial phase emphasizes the hyperbolic nature of the dynamics, separating expansion and contraction directions essential for chaos. The transformation expands the square vertically by a factor along the y-axis, increasing the height from 1 to , while contracting horizontally by a factor of along the x-axis. This results in the entire unit square being mapped onto an elongated rectangle of dimensions . Points are redistributed such that the transformation preserves the separation that will later contribute to the map's topological complexity. The coordinate changes during this phase are given by the affine map: This definition ensures uniform contraction in the x-direction and expansion in the y-direction.[3] The linearity of this transformation guarantees that it preserves areas, as the Jacobian matrix has determinant . This property maintains the measure of sets under the mapping, a key feature that aligns with the volume-preserving dynamics of the full horseshoe map.[3]Folding mechanism
Following the initial stretching of the unit square into a thin vertical rectangle, the folding mechanism in the horseshoe map involves bending this rectangle to create the characteristic overlapping structure that introduces chaotic dynamics. Specifically, the upper half of the stretched rectangle is folded to the right and downward, while the lower half is folded to the left and upward, resulting in two parallel horizontal bands that traverse the original square.[3] This bending operation, as described by Smale, transforms the rectangle into a configuration where the bands partially overlap in the central region, producing the iconic "horseshoe" appearance with the ends of the bands protruding beyond the square's boundaries. Geometrically, the top band maps onto the region [0,1] × [0.5,1], and the bottom band onto [0,1] × [0,0.5], with the folding ensuring their intersection in the vertical middle third of the square to facilitate re-injection for subsequent iterations. The boundaries undergo precise remapping during this fold: the top horizontal edge of the stretched rectangle is directed toward the right vertical edge of the square, while the bottom horizontal edge is folded toward the left vertical edge, akin to tying a loose knot in a strip or bending a horseshoe.[9] This overlap and boundary redirection are essential for the map's topological properties, as they embed the dynamics within the square while discarding material outside it.[10] The folding also initiates a thinning process, where each application of the map effectively removes the middle third vertically from the bands, mirroring the construction of a Cantor set and progressively concentrating the surviving set into a fractal-like structure. This vertical excision occurs because the central non-overlapping portion of the bands is excluded from the next iteration's domain, ensuring exponential contraction in one direction while preserving expansion in the other.[3]Core Dynamics
Forward orbits
The forward orbit of a point in the unit square under the horseshoe map is the sequence , where each subsequent point is obtained by applying the map iteratively.[3] For most starting points in the square, the forward orbit eventually escapes the region that remains under the map's action, but points in the invariant Cantor set have orbits that remain bounded forever, exhibiting chaotic behavior.[3] In the invariant set , forward orbits are dense due to the map's hyperbolicity, which causes exponential separation of nearby points in the expanding direction. The Lyapunov exponent in the horizontal direction is , quantifying this stretching by a factor of 2 per iteration, while the vertical direction contracts by , with exponent .[3] This leads to sensitive dependence on initial conditions: two points starting close together in diverge exponentially along their forward orbits, with separation growing as after iterations.[3] Consider a point starting in the left half of the square, such as one mapped to the lower band under the first iteration. Subsequent applications of alternate the orbit between the thinning horizontal bands, with the vertical coordinate contracting toward the center, causing rapid divergence from a nearby point that follows a slightly different path through the bands.[3] The unstable manifolds correspond to the horizontal fibers, which expand under forward iteration, while the vertical fibers contract, illustrating the map's hyperbolic structure. This directional asymmetry ensures that forward orbits in fill the set densely, with trajectories stretching along unstable directions and folding back via the map's geometry.[3] For a numerical illustration, consider the point under the standard piecewise linear horseshoe map, where if , and if :- (enters the upper band),
- (shifts to lower band),
- (remains in lower band),
- (enters upper band),
- (stays in upper band).