Li-Yorke chaos in weak topology of the \(n\)-dimensional linear systems (Q6050957)

The paper under review fits within the framework of the study of Li-Yorke chaos. Let us recall that a given continuous self-map \(T\) of a metric space \((M,d)\), a pair \((x,y)\) of points of \(M\) is called a \emph{Li-Yorke pair} for \(T\) if \[ \limsup_{n\to+\infty}\,d(T^{n}x,T^{n}y)=\delta >0\quad \textrm{and}\quad \liminf_{n\to+\infty}\,d(T^{n}x,T^{n}y)=0. \] The map \(T\) itself is called \emph{Li-Yorke chaotic} if there exists an uncountable subset \(S\) of \(M\) such that any pair \((x,y)\) of distinct points of \(S\) is a Li-Yorke pair. \par\medskip The study of Li-Yorke chaos in the linear setting was initiated in the paper [\textit{T. Bermúdez} et al., J. Math. Anal. Appl. 373, No. 1, 83--93 (2011; Zbl 1214.47012)], where they prove in parti\-cular the following result: given a bounded linear operator \(T\) on a Banach space \(X\), the following assertions are equivalent: \begin{itemize} \item [(i)] \(T\) is Li-Yorke chaotic; \item[(ii)] \(T\) admits a Li-Yorke pair; \item[(iii)] \(T\) admits an irregular vector, i.~e. a vector \(x\in X\) such that \end{itemize} \[ \liminf_{n\to+\infty}\|T^{n}x\|=0\quad \textrm{and}\quad \limsup_{n\to+\infty}\|T^{n}x\|=+\infty. \] The aim of the paper is to study a notion of Li-Yorke chaos for \(T\) acting on \(X\) endowed with the weak topology. What it means exactly is not clear from the definition, as the notions presented in Definitions 2.1 and 2.2 seem to depend on a fixed functional \(f\in X^{*}\). However, in some arguments, it seems to be required that the properties under consideration hold for some/all \(f\in X^{*}\setminus\{0\}\). The proof of Lemma 2.1 relies on wrong arguments: if \(\varphi \) and \(\psi \) are two functions on a space \(Y\), the negation of the fact that \(\varphi (y)>\psi (y)\) for all \(y\in Y\) seems to be, in the authors's view, that \(\varphi (y)\le\psi (y)\) for all \(y\in Y\); the end of the argument uses the ``fact'' that the intersection of two dense subsets of a topological space should be dense. Lemma 2.1 is crucial to the proof of Theorem 2.1 (whose statement is also unclear, as a functional \(f\) appears in a rather random way in some part of it). Since Theorem 2.1 is used repeatedly in the rest of the paper, none of the results presented afterwards can be safely considered as having been proved.