Fractal necklaces with no cut points

Abstract: The fractal necklaces in R^d (d>1) introduced in this paper are a class of connected fractal sets generated by the so-called necklace IFSs, for which a lot of basic topology questions are interesting. We give two subclasses of fractal necklaces and prove that every necklace in these two classes has no cut points. Also, we prove that every stable self-similar necklace in R^2 has no cut points, whilst an analog for self-affine necklaces is false.

\section{Introduction}

Let $I=\{1,2,\cdots, n\}$. For each $k\in I$ let $f_k:\mathbb{R}^d\to\mathbb{R}^d$ be a contractive map satisfying $$|f_k(x)-f_k(y)|\leq c_k|x-y|$$ for all $x,y\in\mathbb{R}^d$, where $c_k\in(0,1)$.  According to Hutchinson \cite{H},
there is a unique nonempty compact subset $F$ of $\mathbb{R}^d$, called the attractor of $\{f_1,f_2,\cdots,f_n\}$, such that
\begin{equation}\label{qq1}
F=\bigcup_{k=1}^nf_k(F).
\end{equation}
We call $\{f_1,f_2,\cdots,f_n\}$ an iterated function system (IFS) of $F$.

\begin{defi}\label{de1}
An attractor $F$ with an IFS $\{f_1,f_2,\cdots,f_n\}$ on $\mathbb{R}^d$ is called a fractal necklace or a necklace for short,
if $n\geq 3$ and $f_k$'s are contractive homeomorphisms of $\mathbb{R}^d$ satisfying
\begin{equation*}
f_m(F)\cap f_k(F)=\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\mbox{a singleton} &\mbox{if\, $|m-k|=1$\mbox{ or }$n-1$}\\ \\
\emptyset &\mbox{if\, $2\leq|m-k|\leq n-2$}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation*}
for each pair of distinct digits $m, k\in I$. In this case, the ordered family $\{f_1,f_2,\cdots,f_n\}$ is called a necklace IFS or a NIFS. We say that $F$ is self-similar (self-affine), if $f_k$'s are similitudes (affine maps).
\end{defi}

Figure \ref{fig1} illustrates two planar self-similar necklaces. The first one is generated by $3$ similitudes of ratio $1/2$ and the second one is generated by $6$ similitudes of ratio $1/3$. They arise as examples of many papers for various purposes; see for example \cite{RWW,TW}. Among the results of \cite{TW}, Tyson and Wu proved that these two necklaces are of conformal dimension $1$.

\medskip

\begin{figure}[htbp]\label{fig1}
\centering
{\begin{minipage}{4.5cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{F0}
\end{minipage}}
\quad\quad\quad
{\begin{minipage}{4.5cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{F8}
\end{minipage}}
\caption{Two self-similar necklaces in $\mathbb{R}^2$.}
\end{figure}

It is not difficult to see that every fractal necklace is path-connected and locally path-connected; see \cite{Ha, K}. It is natural to ask whether every necklace has no cut points. The answer is no; see Section \ref{sec2}. Hereafter we say that a point $x$ of a connected topological space $X$ is a cut point, if $X\setminus\{x\}$ is not connected. The present paper is devoted to the following question. For a study on cut points of self-affine tiles we refer to \cite{AL}.

\begin{que}\label{q2}
Which necklaces in $\mathbb{R}^d$ have no cut points?
\end{que}

We start by notations. \emph{From now on denote by $F$ a necklace with a NIFS $\{f_1,f_2,\cdots,f_n\}$ on $\mathbb{R}^d$, if it is not specified.} For every integer $m\geq 0$ and every word $\sigma=i_1i_2\cdots i_m\in I^m$ we write $f_\sigma$ for $f_{i_1}\circ f_{i_2}\circ\cdots\circ f_{i_m}$ and $F_{\sigma}$ for $f_{\sigma}(F)$, where $I^0=\{\emptyset\}$ and $f_\emptyset=id$. The set $F_{\sigma}$ is called an $m$-level copy of $F$. Denote by $\mathcal{C}_m(F)$ the family of $m$-level copies of $F$ and let $$\mathcal{C}(F)=\bigcup_{m=0}^\infty \mathcal{C}_m(F).$$ A copy of $F$ always means a member of $\mathcal{C}(F)$.

For each $k\in I$ denote by $z_k$ the unique common point of the $1$-level copies $F_k$ and $F_{k+1}$. The ordered points $z_1,z_2,\cdots, z_n$ are called main nodes of $F$. For every subset $A$ of $F$ denote respectively by $\mbox{int}_FA$ and $\partial_F A$ the interior and the boundary of $A$ in the relative topology of $F$. Thus $\partial_FF_k=\{z_{k-1},z_k\}$ for every $k\in I$. Hereafter we prescribe
$$F_{n+1}=F_1\,\mbox{ and }\, z_0=z_n.$$

\begin{defi}\label{good}
We say a necklace $F$ is good, if $\partial_FF_k\not\subset F_{kj}$ for any $k,j\in I$.
\end{defi}

Equivalently, a necklace $F$ is good, if $F$ and $F_k$ are the only two copies containing $\partial_FF_k$ for each $k\in I$.

\medskip

Let $I^*=\cup_{m=0}^\infty I^m$ and let $\sigma\in I^*$. Since $f_k$'s have been assumed to be homeomorphisms of $\mathbb{R}^d$, $F_{\sigma}$ is a necklace with an induced NIFS
$$
\{f_{\sigma}\circ f_j\circ f_{\sigma}^{-1}:j\in I\}
$$
whose main nodes are $f_\sigma(z_1), f_\sigma(z_2), \cdots, f_\sigma(z_n)$. The phrase, $m$-level copies of $F_{\sigma}$, is now meaningful.

\begin{defi}\label{stab}
We say a necklace $F$ is stable, if for each $k\in I$
\begin{equation}\label{jq}
\sharp\{F_{kj}: F_{kj}\cap\partial_FF_k\neq\emptyset,\, j\in I\}\geq 2.
\end{equation}
Hereafter $\sharp$ denotes the cardinality.
\end{defi}

By the above definitions, every good necklace is stable. Additionally, every necklace $F$ with the condition
 that $z_{k-1}$ or $z_k$ is a main node of $F_k$ for each $k\in I$ is stable.

\medskip

For each $z\in F$ and for every integer $m\geq 0$ let
\begin{equation}\label{gs}
\mathcal{C}_m(F,z)=\{A\in\mathcal{C}_m(F): z\in A\}
\end{equation}
and $\mathcal{C}(F,z)=\cup_{m=0}^\infty\mathcal{C}_m(F,z)$. Let
\begin{equation}\label{dgs}
c_m(z):=c_m(F,z):=\sharp\,\mathcal{C}_m(F,z)
\end{equation}
denote the number of $m$-level copies containing $z$. Thus $c_1(z)=1$ or $2$, and $c_1(z)=2$ if and only if $z$ is a main node of $F$. Note that for each $A\in\mathcal{C}_m(F, z)$ there is one or two copies $B\in\mathcal{C}_{m+1}(F,z)$ lying in $A$. We have
$$c_m(z)\leq c_{m+1}(z)\leq 2c_m(z).$$
It then follows that $\{c_m(z)\}_{m=1}^\infty$ is a nondecreasing integer sequence satisfying $1\leq c_m(z)\leq 2^m$ for each $m\geq 1$.

\begin{defi}  We say a necklace $F$ is
\emph{of bounded ramification}, if the sequence $\{c_m(z_k)\}_{m=1}^\infty$ is bounded for each $k\in I$.
\end{defi}

Equivalently, a necklace $F$ is of bounded ramification, if $\pi^{-1}(x)$ is finite for any $x\in F$, where $\pi: I^\infty\to F$ is the code map (see \cite{Fa}). By the definition, if there is a main node $z_k$ such that it is a main node of each copy $A\in \mathcal{C}(F, z_k)$, then $F$ is not of bounded ramification. Such necklaces can be found in Figure 3 and Figure 4(b).

\medskip

The main results are as follows.

\begin{thm}\label{gothm}
Every good necklace in $\mathbb{R}^d$ has no cut points.
\end{thm}

\begin{thm}\label{mt1}
Every stable necklace of bounded ramification has no cut points.
\end{thm}

An attractor with an IFS $\{f_1,f_2,\cdots,f_n\}$ on $\mathbb{R}^d$ is said to satisfy the open set condition (OSC), if there is a nonempty bounded open subset $V$ of $\mathbb{R}^d$ such that $f_1(V),f_2(V),\cdots,f_n(V)$ are pairwise disjoint open subsets of $V$; see \cite{Fa,Sc}.

\begin{thm}\label{mp1}
Every stable self-similar necklace in $\mathbb{R}^d$ with the OSC has no cut points.
\end{thm}
Actually, we shall show that every self-similar necklace in $\mathbb{R}^d$ with the OSC is of bounded ramification, which together with Theorem \ref{mt1} implies Theorem \ref{mp1}.

\medskip

As a corollary of a theorem of Bandt and Rao \cite{BR}, every self-similar necklace in $\mathbb{R}^2$ satisfies the OSC.
Thus, Theorem \ref{mp1} gives the following corollary.

\begin{cor}\label{mt2}
Every stable self-similar necklace in $\mathbb{R}^2$ has no cut points.
\end{cor}

\begin{rem}{\rm
A self-similar necklace of bounded ramification in $\mathbb{R}^2$ may have cut points; see Example \ref{e21}.}
\end{rem}

\begin{rem}{\rm
A stable self-affine necklace in $\mathbb{R}^2$ may have cut points; see Example \ref{e22}.}
\end{rem}

\begin{rem}{\rm
Stable necklaces of bounded ramification and good necklaces are not mutually inclusive; see Example \ref{e23}.}
\end{rem}

Without assuming $F$ is self-similar, we have the following result.

\begin{thm}\label{mp2}
Every planar necklace with no cut points satisfies the OSC.
\end{thm}

The paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sec2}, we give examples of necklaces to show Remarks 1, 2 and 3. Then we prove Theorem \ref{gothm} in Section \ref{sec3}, Theorem \ref{mt1} in Section \ref{sec4}, and Theorems \ref{mp1} and \ref{mp2} in Section \ref{sec5}. In the light of our results we put some further questions in Section \ref{sec6}.

\section{Examples}\label{sec2}

We first show by an example that a planar self-similar necklace of bounded ramification may have cut points.

\begin{ex}\label{e21}
{\rm We use the complex number notation. Let $\{f_1, \cdots, f_{24}\}$ be a NIFS on the complex plane $\mathbb{C}$ defined by
\begin{equation*}
f_j(z)=\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{z}{3}+a_j  &\mbox{if \,} j\in\{1, 7, 13, 19\}\\ \\
\frac{z}{15}+a_j &\mbox{if\, }j\in\{1,2,\cdots, 24\}\setminus\{1, 7, 13, 19\},
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation*}
where $a_1, a_2, \cdots, a_{24}\in\mathbb{C}$ satisfy
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& f_{24}(1)=f_1\circ f_{13}(i),\,\,f_1\circ f_{13}(1)=f_2(i)\\
&& f_6(1+i)=f_7\circ f_{19}(0),\,\, f_7\circ f_{19}(1+i)=f_8(0)\\
&& f_{12}(i)=f_{13}\circ f_1(1),\,\, f_{13}\circ f_1(i)=f_{14}(1)\\
&& f_{18}(0)=f_{19}\circ f_7(1+i),\,\, f_{19}\circ f_7(0)=f_{20}(1+i)\\
&& f_j(1+i)=f_{j+1}(0),\,\, j\in\{2,4,9,11\}\\
&& f_j(1)=f_{j+1}(i),\,\, j\in\{3,5,20,22\} \\
&& f_j(i)=f_{j+1}(1),\,\, j\in\{8,10,15,17\}\\
&& f_j(0)=f_{j+1}(1+i),\,\, j\in\{14,16,21,23\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
The planar self-similar necklace $F$ generated by $\{f_1, f_2, f_3, \cdots, f_{24}\}$ is illustrated in Figure 2. It has the following properties.
\begin{figure}[htbp]\label{fig2}
\centering
{\begin{minipage}{12cm}
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{24}
\end{minipage}}
\caption{A planar self-similar necklace of bounded ramification and with cut points}
\end{figure}

(1) $F$ is not stable, in fact, for the $1$-level copy $F_1$ one has $$\{F_{1j}: F_{1j}\cap\partial_FF_1\neq\emptyset, j\in\{1,2,\cdots, 24\}\}=\{F_{1(13)}\},$$
so $F$ does not satisfy (\ref{jq}). Here the bracketed number in the subscript emphasises that it is a digit.

(2) $F$ is of bounded ramification, indeed, given a main node $z_k$ and an integer $m\geq 1$, $F$ has only two $m$-level copies containing $z_k$.

(3) $(1+i)/4$ is a cut point of $F$. In fact, $F\setminus F_{1(13)}$ is obviously not connected. By zooming we see that $$F\setminus F_{1(13)},\,\,F\setminus F_{1(13)1(13)},\,\, F\setminus F_{1(13)1(13)1(13)},\,\, \cdots,$$ are not connected and tend  to $F\setminus\{(1+i)/4\}$ increasingly, by which one easily shows that $F\setminus\{(1+i)/4\}$ is not connected, as desired.}
\end{ex}

Next we give an example of stable planar self-affine necklaces with cut points.

\begin{ex}\label{e22}
{\rm Let $T_0$ and $T_1$ be two closed solid isosceles triangles sharing a common vertex $z_0$ and of different sizes, whose angles at $z_0$ are a pair of vertical angles and whose opposite sides are parallel. Let $T=T_0\cup T_1$. Let $V$ be the set of the four extremal points of $T$. Let $\{f_1,f_2,\cdots, f_6\}$ be a family of invertible contractive affine maps of $\mathbb{R}^2$ satisfying the following conditions:

1) $V\subset \cup_{k=1}^6f_k(T)\subset T$.

2) $\sharp ( f_j(T)\cap V)=1$ for each $j\in\{1,2,5,6\}$.

3) $V\cap(f_3(T)\cup f_4(T))=\emptyset$.

4) $f_k(T)\cap f_{m}(T)=f_k(V)\cap f_{m}(V)$ if $k\neq m$ and $\{k,m\}\neq\{1,6\}$.

5)$f_1(T)\cap f_6(T)=\{z_0\}$ and $f_1(z_0)=f_6(z_0)=z_0$.

6) $\sharp\, (f_j(T)\cap f_{j+1}(T))=1$ for $j\in\{1,2,3,4,5\}$.

7) $f_k(T)\cap f_{m}(T)=\emptyset$ if $|m-k|\geq 2$.

\noindent Then $\{f_1,f_2,\cdots, f_6\}$ is a NIFS which generates a self-affine necklace $F$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$.  The first step construction of $F$ is illustrated in Figure 3, where the shadow part consists of $f_1(T), f_2(T),\cdots, f_6(T)$. Their connecting points are main nodes of $F$. $z_0$ is a main node and a cut point of $F$.

\begin{figure}[htbp]\label{fig3}
\centering
{\begin{minipage}{10cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{6}\\
\end{minipage}}
\caption{The first step construction of a stable planar self-affine necklace with cut points.}
\end{figure}

The necklace $F$ is not of bounded ramification, in fact, by condition 5) we have
$$
\mathcal{C}_m(F, z_0)=\{F_{i_1i_2\cdots i_m}: i_1i_2\cdots i_m\in\{1,6\}^m\}\mbox{\, and\, } c_m(z_0)=2^m
$$
for each integer $m\geq 0$, so $\{c_m(z_0)\}_{m=0}^\infty$ is unbounded.

\medskip

The necklace $F$ is stable. In fact, given $k\in\{1,6\}$, we have $z_0\in (\partial_FF_k)\cap F_{k1}\cap F_{k6}$, so
$$
\sharp\{F_{kj}: F_{kj}\cap\partial_FF_k\neq\emptyset,\, j\in \{1,2,\cdots, 6\}\}\geq 2.
$$
On the other hand, given $k\in\{2,3,4,5\}$, we have $\partial_FF_k\subset f_k(V)$ and $\sharp\,(f_k(V)\cap F_{kj})\leq 1$ for each $j\in\{1,2,3,4,5,6\}$, so $\sharp\,((\partial_F F_k)\cap F_{kj})\leq 1$, and so
$$
\sharp\{F_{kj}: F_{kj}\cap\partial_FF_k\neq\emptyset,\, j\in \{1,2,\cdots, 6\}\}\geq 2.
$$
This proves that $F$ is stable.}
\end{ex}

Finally, we show by examples that stable necklaces of bounded ramification and good necklaces are not mutually inclusive.

\begin{ex}\label{e23}
{\rm Let us see Figure 4. The left one is a planar self-similar necklace generated by $\{f_1, f_2, f_3\}$, where $$f_1(z)=\frac{e^{\pi i/6}\overline{z}}{\sqrt{3}},\, f_2(z)=\frac{z+1}{3},\, f_3(z)=\frac{e^{5\pi i/6}z}{\sqrt{3}}+\frac{2}{3},\, z\in\mathbb{C}.$$
Let $F$ be this necklace and let $I=\{1,2,3\}$. Then for each $k\in I$
$$
\sharp\{F_{kj}: F_{kj}\cap\partial_FF_k\neq\emptyset,\, j\in I\}=2,
$$
so $F$ is stable. On the other hand, it is of bounded ramification because
$$c_m(z_1)=c_m(z_2)=3\mbox{\, and \,}c_m(z_3)=2$$
for each integer $m\geq 1$, where $z_1,z_2,z_3$ are main nodes of $F$. In addition, noticing that $F_{13}\supset\partial_F F_1$, we conclude that $F$ is not good.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\subfigure[]
{\begin{minipage}{5.6cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5.6cm]{F00}
\end{minipage}}
\quad
\subfigure[]
{\begin{minipage}{5.6cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5.6cm]{do}
\end{minipage}}
\caption{Stable necklaces of bounded ramification and good necklaces are not mutually inclusive.}
\end{figure}

Next let $0<\alpha<{\sqrt{3}}/{6}$ be given. For $z=x+iy\in\mathbb{C}$ let
$$g_1(z)=\frac{x+i\alpha y}{2},\,g_2(z)=g_1(z)+\frac{1}{2},$$
$$g_3(z)=e^{\frac{2\pi i}{3}}g_1(z)+1,\,\,g_4(z)=e^{\frac{2\pi i}{3}}g_1(z)+\frac{3+i\sqrt{3}}{4}$$
$$g_5(z)=e^{\frac{\pi i}{3}}\overline{g_1(z)}+\frac{1+i\sqrt{3}}{4},\, \, g_6(z)=e^{\frac{\pi i}{3}}\overline{g_1(z)}.$$
Then $\{g_1,g_2,\cdots,g_6\}$ is a NIFS which generates is a self-affine necklace. It is illustrated on the right of Figure 4.
For each $k\in \{1,2,\cdots, 6\}$ we easily see that $F$ and $F_k$ are the only two copies containing $\partial_FF_k$ and that
$$c_m(z_k)=2^m$$ for each $m\geq 1$. Thus $F$ is good but not of bounded ramification.}
\end{ex}

\section{The Proof of Theorem \ref{gothm}}\label{sec3}

In this section we prove Theorem \ref{gothm}: Every good necklaces has no cut points. The following lemma will be used.

\begin{lem}\label{61}
Let $X$ be a connected metric space, $E$ be connected and dense in $X$, and $x\in X$. If $x$ is a cut point of $X$, then $x$ belongs to $E$ and is a cut point of $E$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} Suppose $E\setminus\{x\}$ is connected. Since $E$ is dense in $X$, $E\setminus\{x\}$ is so. It then follows from $E\setminus\{x\}\subset X\setminus\{x\}\subset X$ that $X\setminus \{x\}$ is connected, contradicting the assumption that $x$ is a cut point of $X$. Thus $x$ belongs to $E$ and is a cut point of $E$.
\end{proof}

\medskip

As prescribed, $F$ is a necklace with a NIFS $\{f_1,f_2,\cdots,f_n\}$ on $\mathbb{R}^d$. Let $x, u\in F$ and let $k$ be a positive integer. We say that a finite sequence $(A_1,A_2,\cdots, A_N)$ of $k$-level copies of $F$ is a $k$-level chain from $x$ to $u$, if
$$x\in A_1\setminus \bigcup_{j=2}^NA_j, \,u\in A_N\setminus \bigcup_{j=1}^{N-1}A_j,$$
and
\begin{equation*}
A_j\cap A_m=\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\mbox{a singleton} &\mbox{if\, $|j-m|=1$}\\ \\
\emptyset &\mbox{if\, $|j-m|\geq 2$}
\end{array}
\right.\quad j,m\in\{1,2,\cdots, N\}.
\end{equation*}
In this case, we also say that $\cup_{j=1}^NA_j$ is a $k$-level chain. By convention we prescribe $\cup_{j=2}^NA_j=\cup_{j=1}^{N-1}A_j=\emptyset$, if $N=1$.

\medskip

Let $(A_1,A_2,\cdots, A_N)$ be a $k$-level chain of $F$. Denote by $x_j$ the unique point of $A_j\cap A_{j+1}$ for each $j\in\{1,2,\cdots, N-1\}$. We call the ordered points $x_1,x_2,\cdots, x_{N-1}$  the connections of the chain.

\medskip

By Lemma \ref{61}, to prove a topological space has no cut points, it suffices to show that it has a connected dense subset with no cut points. We shall show that every good necklace has Property I and that every necklace with Property I has a connected dense subset with no cut points.
Here we say that a necklace $F$ has Property I, if each of its $1$-level copies $F_k$ has an arc from $z_{k-1}$ to $z_k$ which passes through at least two main nodes of $F_k$. By convention an arc means a subset homeomorphic with the unit interval $[0,1]$.

\medskip

The necklace $F$ in Example \ref{e21} does not have Property I, indeed, $F_1$ does not have a wanted arc with Property I. On the other hand, there are necklaces with  Property I, but they are not good. The left necklace in Figure 4 is one of such.

\medskip

Now we have made the preparations to prove Theorem 1.

\medskip

\noindent{\bf The proof of Theorem \ref{gothm}.} Let $x, u\in F$.

\medskip

{\bf Claim 1.} For each $k\geq 1$, $F$ has a $k$-level chain $\Gamma_k$ from $x$ to $u$. They satisfy $\Gamma_{k+1}\subset\Gamma_k$ and
$$
\{x_1^{(k)}, x_2^{(k)}, \cdots, x_{N_k}^{(k)}\}\subseteq\{x_1^{(k+1)}, x_2^{(k+1)}, \cdots, x_{N_{k+1}}^{(k+1)}\},
$$
where $x_1^{(k)}, x_2^{(k)}, \cdots, x_{N_k}^{(k)}$ are the connections of $\Gamma_k$.

\medskip

{\it Proof.} It is obvious that $F$ has a $1$-level chain from $x$ to $u$.

Suppose $F$ has a $k$-level chain $(A_1,A_2,\cdots, A_N)$ from $x$ to $u$ for an integer $k\geq 1$. In the case where $N=1$, one has $x,u\in A_1$. As is known, $A_1$ has a $1$-level chain from $x$ to $u$. Such a chain of $A_1$ is clearly a $(k+1)$-level chain of $F$ from $x$ to $u$. For the case $N>1$ let $x_1, x_2, \cdots, x_{N-1}$ be the ordered connections of the chain $(A_1, A_2, \cdots, A_{N})$. Then $A_1$ has a $1$-level chain from $x$ to $x_1$, $A_{j}$ has a $1$-level chain from $x_{j-1}$ to $x_{j}$ for each $j\in\{2,3,\cdots, N-1\}$, and $A_N$ has a $1$-level chain from $x_{N-1}$ to $u$. These $N$ chains arranged in the evident order yield a $(k+1)$-level chain of $F$ from $x$ to $u$.

By induction, for each $k\geq 1$, $F$ has a $k$-level chain from $x$ to $u$ with the additional requirements.

\medskip

{\bf Claim 2.} $F$ has an arc from $x$ and $u$.

\medskip

{\it Proof.} For each $k\geq 1$ let $\Gamma_k$ be a $k$-level chain of $F$ from $x$ to $u$ and let $x_1^{(k)}, x_2^{(k)}, \cdots, x_{N_k}^{(k)}$ be its ordered connections as in Claim 1. Let $$\gamma=\bigcap_{k=1}^\infty\Gamma_k.$$
Then $\gamma$ is a compact subset of $F$ containing the connections of $\Gamma_k$ for all $k$. We are going to show that $\gamma$ is an arc from $x$ to $u$.

Let $$X=\bigcup_{k=1}^\infty\{x_1^{(k)}, x_2^{(k)}, \cdots, x_{N_k}^{(k)}\}.$$ Then $X$ is dense in $\gamma$. On the other hand, $X$ is a well ordered set with an ordering induced by those of $\{x_1^{(k)}, x_2^{(k)}, \cdots, x_{N_k}^{(k)}\}$, $k\geq 1$. We may choose a dense subset $$Y=\bigcup_{k=1}^\infty\{y_1^{(k)}, y_2^{(k)}, \cdots, y_{N_k}^{(k)}\}$$ of the interval $[0,1]$ such that the map $h: X\to Y$  defined by $$h(x_j^{(k)})=y_j^{(k)},\, j=1,2,\cdots, N_k, \, k\geq 1$$ is an order-preserving homeomorphism. Now we easily see that $h$ can be extended to a homeomorphism of $\gamma$ onto $[0,1]$.

\medskip

{\bf Claim 3.}  Every good necklace has Property I.

\medskip

{\it Proof.} By the proof of Claim 2, each chain $\Gamma$ of $F$ from $x$ to $u$ has an arc from $x$ to $u$ and such an arc contains the connections of $\Gamma$.

Suppose $F$ is good. To check  Property I, we fix $k\in I$. Note that the connections of every $1$-level chain of $F_k$ are main nodes of $F_k$.

Case 1. Either $z_{k-1}$ or $z_k$ is a main node of $F_k$. Let $\Gamma$ be $1$-level chain of $F_k$ from $z_{k-1}$ to $z_k$. Since $F$ is good, $\Gamma$ contains at least two $1$-level copies of $F_k$, so its connections are nonempty. Let $\gamma$ be an arc of $\Gamma$ from $z_{k-1}$ to $z_k$. Then $\gamma$ contains at least two main nodes of $F_k$.

Case 2. Neither $z_{k-1}$ nor $z_k$ is a main node of $F_k$. In this case, there is a unique pair $l,j\in I$ such that $z_{k-1}\in F_{kl}$ and $z_{k}\in F_{kj}$. Since $F$ is good, we have $l\neq j$.

Subcase 1. $F_{kl}\cap F_{kj}=\emptyset$. Let $\Gamma$ be $1$-level chain of $F_k$ from $z_{k-1}$ to $z_k$. Then $\Gamma$ contains at least three $1$-level copies of $F_k$, so $\Gamma$ has at least two connections. Let $\gamma$ be an arc of $\Gamma$ from $z_{k-1}$ to $z_k$. Then $\gamma$ contains at least two main nodes of $F_k$.

Subcase 2. $F_{kl}\cap F_{kj}\neq\emptyset$. In this subcase, $F_{kl}\cap F_{kj}$ is a singleton whose unique point is denoted by $w$. Let
$$L=\bigcup_{i\in I, i\neq l, i\neq j} F_{ki}.$$
Then $L$ can be regarded as a $1$-level chain of $F_k$ from $a$ to $b$, where $\{a, b\}=\partial_FL$. And we may assume that $a\in F_{kl}$ and $b\in F_{kj}$. Clearly, $a, b$ are main nodes of $F_k$. Since $F$ is good, $F_{kl}$ has a $1$-level chain $A$ from $z_{k-1}$ to $a$ and $F_{kj}$ has a $1$-level chain $B$ from $b$ to $z_{k}$ such that $w\not\in A\cup B$. Thus $A\cap L=\{a\}$, $L\cap B=\{b\}$, and $A\cap B=\emptyset$. Let $\gamma_A$ be an arc of $A$ from $z_{k-1}$ to $a$, $\gamma_L$ be an arc of $L$ from $a$ to $b$, and $\gamma_B$ be an arc of $B$ from $b$ to $z_k$. Then $\gamma_A\cup\gamma_L\cup\gamma_B$ is an arc from $z_{k-1}$ to $z_k$ which contains at least two main nodes of $F_k$.

\medskip

{\bf Claim 4.} Every necklace with  Property I has no cut points.

\medskip

{\it Proof.} Suppose $F$ satisfies  Property I. For each $k\in I$ let $\gamma^{(k)}$ be an arc of $F_k$ from $z_{k-1}$ to $z_k$ which passes through at least two main nodes of $F_k$. Let $$\gamma=\bigcup_{k\in I}\gamma^{(k)}.$$
Then $\gamma$ is a circle of $F$ passing through all main nodes of $F$, where a circle means a subset homeomorphic with the geometric circle.
Let $$E=\bigcup_{\sigma\in I^*} f_{\sigma}(\gamma).$$
Then each $f_\sigma(\gamma)$ is a circle with
\begin{equation}\label{yam1}
f_\sigma(\{z_1, z_2,\cdots, z_n\}\subset f_\sigma(\gamma)\subset F_\sigma
\end{equation} and $E$ is dense in $F$. In addition, by the construction of $\gamma$, we have
$$\sharp(f_\sigma(\gamma)\cap f_{\sigma j}(\gamma))\geq 2$$  for each $\sigma\in I^*$ and each $j\in I$,
from which we easily infer that $E$ is connected and has no cut points. Now, by Lemma \ref{61}, we get that $F$ has no cut points.

This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{gothm}.

\begin{rem}{\rm Let $F$ be a necklace. By Claim 2, $F$ is path-connected. We further conclude that $F$ is locally path-connected, indeed, for each $z\in F$ and each integer $m\geq 1$ the set $$\bigcup_{A\in\mathcal{C}_m(F,z)}A$$ is a path-connected neighborhood of $z$, where $\mathcal{C}_m(F,z)$ is a family of $m$-level copies of $F$ defined by (\ref{gs}).}
\end{rem}

\section{The proof of Theorem \ref{mt1}}\label{sec4}

In this section we prove Theorem \ref{mt1}: Every stable necklace of bounded ramification has no cut points.

\medskip

Let $F$ be a necklace with a NIFS $\{f_1,f_2,\cdots,f_n\}$ on $\mathbb{R}^d$. Let
\begin{equation}\label{orb}
M_F=\bigcup_{\sigma\in I^*}\{f_{\sigma}(z_1),f_{\sigma}(z_2),\cdots, f_{\sigma}(z_n)\}.
\end{equation}
Then $x\in M_F$ if and only if $x$ is a main node of some copy of $F$. Also, we use the notations $\mathcal{C}_m(F,z)$ and $c_m(F,z)$ from (\ref{gs}) and (\ref{dgs}). As each copy $A$ of $F$ is a necklace with an induced NIFS, the notations $M_A$, $\mathcal{C}_m(A,z)$ and $c_m(A,z)$ are self-evident.

\begin{lem}\label{t1}
Suppose $F$ is stable. Then every point of $F\setminus M_F$ is not a cut point of $F$.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof} Fix $z\in F\setminus M_F$. Then, by the definition of $M_F$, for each $m\geq 1$ there is a unique $m$-level copy containing $z$, so $c_m(F,z)=1$ and $z\in\mbox{int}_FV_m$, where $V_m$ denotes the unique member of $\mathcal{C}_m(F,z)$.
Let
\begin{equation}\label{gm0}
U_m=\bigcup_{A\in\,\mathcal{C}_m(F)\setminus\mathcal{C}_m(F,z)}A.
\end{equation}
Then $U_m\cup V_m=F$ and
\begin{equation}\label{kcb}
U_m\cap V_m=\partial_FU_m=\partial_FV_m.
\end{equation}
Furthermore $\{U_m\}_{m=1}^\infty$ is increasing with
\begin{equation}\label{F-x}
F\setminus \{z\}=\bigcup_{m=1}^\infty U_m.
\end{equation}
Let
\begin{equation}\label{L}
L_{m}=\bigcup_{B\in\mathcal{C}_1(V_m)\setminus\mathcal{C}_1(V_m,z)}B.
\end{equation}
Then $L_{m}$ is connected and
\begin{equation}\label{k+1j}
U_{m+1}=U_m\cup L_{m}.
\end{equation}

We claim that $U_m$ is connected for every $m\geq 1$. In fact, $U_1$ is a $1$-level chain of $F$, so it is connected. Assume that $U_m$ is connected for an integer $m\geq 1$. We are going to prove that $U_{m+1}$ is connected.

Since $F$ is stable, we may take two distinct copies $A, B\in\mathcal{C}_1(V_m)$ such that $A\cap\partial_FV_m\neq\emptyset$ and $B\cap\partial_FV_m\neq\emptyset$, so one has $A\cap U_m \neq\emptyset$ and $B\cap U_m \neq\emptyset$ by (\ref{kcb}). Without loss of generality assume $B\neq V_{m+1}$. Then $B\subset L_{m}$ by (\ref{L}). Therefore
\begin{equation}\label{dj}
U_{m}\cap L_{m}\neq\emptyset.
\end{equation}
Since $L_{m}$ is connected and $U_m$ has been assumed to be connected, we get from (\ref{k+1j}) and (\ref{dj}) that $U_{m+1}$ is connected.

By induction, $U_m$ is connected for every $m\geq 1$, which together with (\ref{F-x}) implies that $F\setminus\{z\}$ is connected, so $z$ is not a cut point. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}

\noindent{\bf The proof of Theorem \ref{mt1}.} Suppose $F$ is stable and of bounded ramification. We are going to prove that $F$ has no cut points. As Lemma \ref{t1} was proved, it suffices to prove that every point of $M_F$ is not a cut point of $F$.

Let $z\in M_F$ be given. Then there is a copy $E$ of $F$ such that $z$ is a main node of $E$. In what follows we assume that $E$ is the biggest copy of $F$ with this property. Then $z$ is a main node of $E$ and $z\in\mbox{int}_FE$. To show that $F\setminus\{z\}$ is connected, it suffices to prove that $E\setminus\{z\}$ is connected.

Since $F$ is of bounded ramification, $\{c_m(E,z)\}_{m=1}^\infty$ is bounded.
Thus we may take an integer $k\geq 1$ such that $$c_m(E,z)=c_k(E,z)$$ for all integers $m\geq k$, which in turn implies that $z$ is not a main node of any copy $A\in \mathcal{C}_k(E, z)$.

Therefore $z\in A\setminus M_A$ for each $A\in\mathcal{C}_k(E, z)$.
Since $A$ is stable by the assumption condition, we have by Lemma \ref{t1} that $A\setminus\{z\}$ is connected.

Now that $A\setminus\{z\}$ is connected for each $A\in\mathcal{C}_k(E, z)$, by which we easily see that $B\setminus\{z\}$ is connected for each $B\in\mathcal{C}_{k-1}(E, z)$. Step by step, we get that $E\setminus\{z\}$ is connected. This completes the proof.

\section{The proofs of Theorems \ref{mp1} and \ref{mp2}}\label{sec5}

\noindent{\bf Proof of Theorem \ref{mp1}.}
Let $F$ be a self-similar necklace with a NIFS $\{f_1,f_2,\cdots, f_n\}$ on $\mathbb{R}^d$ satisfying the OSC. We are going to show that $F$ is of boundary ramification.

Let $\mathcal{C}_m(F,z)$ and $c_m(z)$ be defined as (\ref{gs}) and (\ref{dgs}).
We have to show that $\{c_m(z_k)\}_{m=1}^\infty$ is bounded for each main node $z_k$ of $F$.

Given $z_k$ and $m$, let $\tau\in I^m$ be a word such that
$$F_\tau\in\mathcal{C}_m(F,z_k)\mbox{\, and \,}\mbox{diam}(F_{\tau})=\min_{A\in\mathcal{C}_m(F,z_k)}\mbox{diam}(A).$$
For each $A\in \mathcal{C}_m(F,z_k)$ we may take a copy $\widetilde{A}\in\mathcal{C}(F,z_k)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{po}
\widetilde{A}\subseteq A\, \mbox{ and }\,c_*\mbox{diam}(F_\tau)<\mbox{diam}(\widetilde{ A})\leq \mbox{diam}(F_\tau),
\end{equation}
where $c_*=\min_{1\leq j\leq n}c_j$ and $c_1,c_2,\cdots,c_n\in(0,1)$ are respectively the similarity ratios of $f_1,f_2,\cdots,f_n$. Then we get $c_m(z_k)$ copies of comparable diameters, which are denoted as
\begin{equation}\label{cpis}
F_{\sigma_1}, F_{\sigma_2}, \cdots, F_{\sigma_{c_m(z_k)}}
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_1, \sigma_2, \cdots, \sigma_{c_m(z_k)}\in I^*$ are the corresponding words.  It follows from (\ref{po}) that
$$\bigcup_{j=1}^{c_m(z_k)}F_{\sigma_j}\subset B(z_k,\mbox{diam}(F_\tau)),$$
where $B(z_k,\mbox{diam}(F_\tau))$ is the closed ball of radius $\mbox{diam}(F_\tau)$ centred at $z_k$.
Since the NIFS satisfies the OSC, there is a nonempty bounded open set $V$ of $\mathbb{R}^d$ such that $f_1(V),f_2(V),\cdots,f_n(V)$ are pairwise disjoint subsets of $V$. Thus $$f_{\sigma_1}(V), f_{\sigma_2}(V), \cdots, f_{\sigma_{c_m(z_k)}}(V)$$ are pairwise disjoint.
On the other hand, as $V$ is bounded, we may take a constant $H\geq 1$ such that $V\subset B(z_k, H\mbox{diam}(F))$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{inc}
\bigcup_{j=1}^{c_m(z_k)}f_{\sigma_j}(V)\subset B(z_k,H\mbox{diam}(F_\tau)).
\end{equation}
By comparing volumes we get from (\ref{inc}) that
\begin{equation}\label{RB}
c_m(z_k)\min_{1\leq j\leq c_m(z_k)}\mbox{Vol}(f_{\sigma_j}(V))\leq w_d (H\mbox{diam}(F_\tau))^d,
\end{equation}
where $w_d$ denotes the volume of the $d$-dimensional unit ball. Since the NIFS consists of similitudes of $\mathbb{R}^d$, one has by (\ref{po})
\begin{equation}\label{Sca}
\frac{\mbox{Vol}(f_{\sigma_j}(V))}{\mbox{Vol}(f_{\tau}(V))}
=\left(\frac{\mbox{diam}(f_{\sigma_j}(V))}{\mbox{diam}(f_{\tau}(V))}\right)^d=\left(\frac{\mbox{diam}(F_{\sigma_j})}{\mbox{diam}(F_{\tau})}\right)^d\geq c_*^d
\end{equation}
for every $j\in\{1,2,\cdots, c_m(z_k)\}$,
which together with (\ref{RB}) yields
\begin{equation}\label{RBB}
c_m(z_k)c_*^d\mbox{Vol}(f_\tau(V))\leq w_d (H\mbox{diam}(F_\tau))^d.
\end{equation}
Therefore $$c_m(z_k)\leq \frac{w_d (H\mbox{diam}(F_\tau))^d}{c_*^d\mbox{Vol}(f_\tau(V))}=\frac{w_d(H\mbox{diam}(F))^d}{c_*^d\mbox{Vol}(V)}.$$
Thus the sequence $\{c_m(z_k)\}_{m=1}^\infty$ is bounded. This proves that $F$ is of bounded ramification. Now Theorem \ref{mp1} follows by Theorem \ref{mt1}.

\medskip

\noindent{\bf Proof of Theorem \ref{mp2}.} Let $F$ be a planar necklace with no cut points. We are going to show that $F$ satisfies the OSC.

By the proof of Theorem \ref{gothm}, $F$ has a circle. Thus $\mathbb{R}^2\setminus F$ has infinitely many bounded components by the definition of $F$ and Jordan's curve theorem. Let $U$ be a fixed bounded component of $\mathbb{R}^2\setminus F$.
Then
$$\partial U\subset F\mbox{ and } U\cap F=\emptyset.$$
Let $\{f_1,f_2,\cdots, f_n\}$ be a NIFS of $F$. Since $f_k$'s have been assumed to be contracting homeomorphisms of $\mathbb{R}^2$, we have that, for every $\sigma\in I^*$, the image $f_\sigma(U)$ of $U$ under $f_\sigma$ is a bounded component of $\mathbb{R}^2\setminus F_\sigma$ with
\begin{equation}\label{am0}
\partial (f_\sigma (U))\subset F_\sigma\mbox{ and } f_\sigma(U)\cap F_\sigma=\emptyset.
\end{equation}

We are going to show that  $f_\sigma(U)$ is a bounded component of $\mathbb{R}^2\setminus F$ for each word $\sigma\in I^*$.
First, we have by (\ref{am0}) and the definition of $F$
$$\bigcup_{j=3}^{n-1}F_j\subset f_1(U) \mbox{ or }\left(\bigcup_{j=3}^{n-1}F_j\right)\cap f_1(U)=\emptyset.$$
Moreover, since $\mbox{diam}(F)>\mbox{diam}(F_1)$, we have $$F_2\setminus\overline{f_1(U)}\neq\emptyset \mbox{ or }F_n\setminus\overline{f_1(U)}\neq\emptyset.$$

Next we show that $f_1(U)\cap F=\emptyset$ under the assumption that $F$ has no cut points. In fact, if not, we encounter several different cases
and, in each case, there is a digit $k\in\{2,n\}$ such that $$f_1(U)\cap F_k\neq\emptyset \mbox{ and }F_k\setminus\overline{f_1(U)}\neq\emptyset,$$ which implies that either $z_1$ or $z_n$ is a cut point of $F$, contradicting the assumption on $F$.

Similarly, for each $k\in I$ we have $f_k(U)\cap F=\emptyset$, which together with (\ref{am0}) implies that $f_k(U)$ is a bounded component of $\mathbb{R}^2\setminus F$. For each word $\sigma\in I^*$, arguing as above step by step, we get
$f_\sigma(U)\cap F=\emptyset$, so $f_\sigma(U)$ is a bounded component of $\mathbb{R}^2\setminus F$.

Let $m,k\in I$ be distinct and let $\sigma,\tau\in I^*$. By the above conclusions, $f_m(f_\sigma(U))$ and $f_k(f_\tau(U))$ are two distinct components of $\mathbb{R}^2\setminus F$, so
\begin{equation}\label{os1}
f_m(f_\sigma(U))\cap f_k(f_\tau(U))=\emptyset.
\end{equation}

Now let
$$
V=\bigcup_{\sigma\in I^*}f_\sigma(U).
$$
It is obvious that $f_k(V)\subset V$ for every $k\in I$. On the other hand, we see by (\ref{os1}) that $f_m(V)$ and $f_k(V)$ are disjoint for distinct $m,k\in I$. This proves that, with the open set $V$, the NIFS satisfies the OSC. The proof is completed.

\section{Some further questions}\label{sec6}

\subsection{The OSC problem}

We just proved that every planar necklace with no cut points satisfies the OSC. However, the proof is invalid for necklaces in $\mathbb{R}^d$, $d\geq 3$. Actually, we easily check that every necklace is of topological dimension $1$.  Therefore, for a necklace $F$ in $\mathbb{R}^d$, $d\geq 3$, we see that $\mathbb{R}^d\setminus F$ does not have any bounded components. We do not know if every necklace with no cut points satisfies the OSC in the higher dimensional case. It is open even for self-similar necklaces.

\subsection{Conformal dimension of self-similar necklaces} Tyson and Wu \cite{TW} proved that the two necklaces in Figure 1 are of conformal dimension $1$. We thus ask: Can one develop a unified method to prove that a big class of self-similar necklaces are of conformal dimension $1$?

\subsection{Topological rigidity of necklaces}

Roughly speaking, a topological space is rigid, if the group of its (topological) automorphisms is small.  A further study on good necklaces and their topological rigidity can be found in \cite{Wen}.

\bigskip

\noindent{\bf Acknowledgement.} The author thanks Professors Fang Fuquan and Shigeki Akiyama for their suggestions and encouragement.

Fractal necklaces with no cut points


The Zero Number Diminishing Property under General Boundary Conditions

Abstract: The so-called {\it zero number diminishing property} (or {\it zero number argument}) is a powerful tool in qualitative studies of one dimensional parabolic equations, which says that, under the zero- or non-zero-Dirichlet boundary conditions, the number of zeroes of the solution $u(x,t)$ of a linear equation is finite, non-increasing and strictly decreasing when there are multiple zeroes (cf. \cite{Ang}). In this paper we extend the result to the problems with more general boundary conditions: $u= 0$ sometime and $u\not= 0$ at other times on the domain boundaries. Such results can be applied in particular to parabolic equations with Robin and free boundary conditions.

\section{Introduction}
Consider the following one dimensional linear parabolic equation:
\begin{equation}\label{linear}
u_t=a(x,t) u_{xx}+b(x,t) u_x+c(x,t) u\quad \mbox{ in } \Omega := \{(x,t) \mid \xi_1 (t) <x < \xi_2 (t),\ t\in (0,T]\},
\end{equation}
where $T>0$ is a constant, $\xi_1$ and $\xi_2$ are continuous functions to be specified below.
For each $t\in [0,T]$, denote by
$$
\Z(t) := \#\{x\in I(t)\mid u(x,t)=0\}
$$
the number of zeroes of $u(\cdot,t)$ in the interval $I(t) := [\xi_1(t), \xi_2(t)]$.
Sometimes we also write $\Z(t)$ as $\Z_{I(t)} [u(\cdot, t)]$ to emphasize the interval $I(t)$.
A point $x_0\in I(t)$ is called a {\it multiple zero} (or {\it degenerate zero}) of
$u(\cdot, t)$ if $u(x_0,t) = u_x (x_0,t)=0$.
In 1988, Angenent \cite{Ang} proved the following properties of the zero number of $u$:

\vskip 3mm

\noindent
{\bf Theorem A} (\cite{Ang}). {\it Assume $\xi_i(t)\equiv \xi^0_i\ (i=1,2)$ are constants with $\xi^0_1 <\xi^0_2$, and
\begin{equation}\label{smoothy}
a, a^{-1}, a_t, a_x, a_{xx}, b, b_t, b_x, c \in L^\infty.
\end{equation}
If $u$ is a classical solution of \eqref{linear} satisfying the following boundary conditions:
\begin{equation}\label{bdry}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
u (\xi^0_1,t )\equiv 0, \mbox{\ \  or\ \  }  u(\xi^0_1,t )\not= 0 \ (t\in [0,T]),\\
u (\xi^0_2,t )\equiv 0, \mbox{\ \  or\ \  }  u(\xi^0_2,t )\not= 0 \ (t\in [0,T]),
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}\label{bdry-Neumann}
u_x (\xi^0_1,t )\equiv u_x (\xi^0_2,t )\equiv 0,\quad \mbox{ when } a\equiv 1,\ b\equiv 0,
\end{equation}
then
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $\Z(t) <\infty$ for each $t \in (0,T)$;
\item[(b)] $\Z (t)$ is non-increasing in $t\in (0, T)$;
\item[(c)] if, $x_0 \in I$ is a multiple zero of $u(\cdot,s)$ for some $s\in (0, T)$, then $\Z (t_1) > \Z (t_2)$ for
all $t_1, t_2$ satisfying $0 < t_1< s< t_2 <T$.
\end{itemize}
}
\vskip 3mm
\noindent
Roughly speaking, this theorem says that $\Z (t)$ is finite and non-increasing in time $t$,
and is decreasing strictly when $u(\cdot,t)$ has multiple zeroes. Hence the zero number is also
called by some authors as {\it discrete Lyapunov functional}, which indicates that the solution
becomes more and more simple. We refer the references in \cite{Ang},
in particular, Henry \cite{Henry}, Matano \cite{Ma1982} and Nickel \cite{Ni} for related results.

The Dirichlet boundary conditions in \eqref{bdry} requires that $u$ is either identical or never to be zero on both sides of $\Omega$.
This is true of course in the problems with some Dirichlet boundary conditions, but not necessarily to be true
in the problems with Robin or free boundary conditions, since in these cases the following may occur:
$$
{\rm (R)}\hskip 10mm w_i(t):= u(\xi_i(t),t) =0 \mbox{ for some } t,\quad  w_i(t) := u(\xi_i(t),t) \not= 0 \mbox{ for other }t,\quad i=1,2.
\ \hskip 20mm
$$
The main purpose of this paper is to extend Theorem A to such cases.  One example
is the problem with Neumann or Robin boundary conditions. For such problems we will
prove the following result.

\begin{thm}\label{thm:Robin}
Under the assumptions of Theorem A, if the boundary condition is replaced by a Robin one:
\begin{equation}\label{bdry-Robin}
u_x (\xi^0_i , t) + (-1)^i \beta_i(t) u(\xi^0_i ,t) =0,\quad t\in [0,T],
\end{equation}
for $i=1$ and/or $i=2$, where $\beta_i(t)\geq 0$, then the conclusions in Theorem A remain hold.
\end{thm}

Note that this theorem includes the problem with Neumann boundary conditions, without the
additional assumptions $a\equiv 1,\ b\equiv 0$.
Besides the Neumann and Robin boundary conditions, we will actually consider much more general cases,
where the distribution of zeroes of $w_i$ can be very complicated, and the problems with
Dirichlet, Neumann or Robin boundary conditions are just some special examples of our general result
(see Theorem \ref{thm:main} and Remark \ref{rem:cond} below).

For convenience, we give some notation. Let $w(t)$ be a continuous function in $[0,T]$.
We call $s\in [0,T]$  a {\it Z-moment of $w$} if $w (s)=0$,
otherwise call it  a {\it N-moment of $w$}.
It is easily seen that, any time near a N-moment is also a N-moment, but this is not
the case for a Z-moment. If fact, there are three possibilities before/after a
Z-moment $s$:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] each $t$ in a left/right neighborhood of $s$ is a N-moment;
\item[(2)] each $t$ in a left/right neighborhood of $s$ is a Z-moment;
\item[(3)] there always exist a Z-moment and a N-moment in any left/right neighborhood of $s$.
\end{itemize}
Totally we have 9 alternatives. So we call a Z-moment more precisely as a
{\it NZN-, NZZ-, NZX-, ZZN-, ZZZ-, ZZX-, XZN-, XZZ- or XZX-moment of $w$}.
For example, a NZX-moment $s$ means (1) and (3) hold before and after $s$ respectively.
(For an arbitrary function $w$, all of these cases might be possible.
However, we will see below that, XZ*- and *ZX-moments actually do not exist
for the \lq\lq good functions" $w_i(t):= u(\xi_i(t),t)$, where * represents N, Z or X).

To extend Theorem A to the case (R), we use some assumptions.
Assume $u(x,t)$ is a classical solution of \eqref{linear}.
Then all the Z-moments of $w_i(t):= u(\xi_i(t),t)\ (i=1,2)$ form closed intervals
$[p^i_k, q^i_k]$ ($k\in K^i \subset \mathbb{N}$), when $p^i_k < q^i_k$ we assume
$$
{\rm (H1)} \hskip 45mm \xi_i(t)\in C^1 ([p^i_k, q^i_k])\ \ \ (k\in K^i).\hskip 65mm
$$
Next, for any NZ*-moment $s\in (0,T)$ of $w_i$, we assume
$$
{\rm (H2)} \hskip 20mm
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\xi'_i(s-0)\mbox{ exists},\\
(-1)^i \cdot u_x (\xi_i(s),s)\geq 0, \mbox{ when } u(\xi_i(t),t)>0 \mbox{ for } 0<s-t\ll 1,\\
(-1)^i \cdot u_x (\xi_i(s),s)\leq 0, \mbox{ when } u(\xi_i(t),t)<0 \mbox{ for } 0<s-t\ll 1.
\end{array}
\hskip 30mm
\right.
$$
Finally, for a Z-moment $s\in (0,T)$ of $w_i$, assume
$$
{\rm (H3)} \hskip 20mm
(-1)^i \cdot u(\xi_i(t),t)\cdot u(x,s) \leq 0 \mbox{\ \ for\ \ } 0<t-s \ll 1,\ 0<x-\xi_1(s)\ll 1. \hskip 35mm
$$

For a general solution of \eqref{linear} satisfying (H1)-(H3), we have the following result.

\begin{thm}\label{thm:main}
Let $T>0$, $\xi_1(t) < \xi_2(t)$ be two continuous functions in $[0,T]$ and $u(\cdot ,t)\not\equiv 0$
for any $t\in [0,T]$ be a classical solution of \eqref{linear}.
Assume \eqref{smoothy}, and further that {\rm (H1)} holds, {\rm (H2)} holds
for NZ*-moments of $u(\xi_i(t),t)$ and {\rm (H3)} holds for Z-moments of $u(\xi_i(t),t)$. Then

\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\Z (t) <\infty$ for all $t\in (0,T)$;

\item[(ii)] $\Z (t)$ is non-increasing in $t\in (0,T)$;

\item[(iii)] the interval $(0,T)$ consists of N-, ZZZ-, NZZ-, ZZN- and NZN-moments,
and only finitely many ZZN- and NZN-moments. Moreover, $\Z(t)$ decreases strictly at $s\in (0,T)$:
\begin{equation}\label{strictly-decreasing}
\Z (t_1)  >\Z (t_2) \mbox{\ \ for any\ \ } 0<t_1 < s < t_2<T,
\end{equation}
if {\rm (1)} $s$ is a N-, ZZZ- or NZZ-moment, and $u(\cdot,s)$
has multiple zeroes  in $I(s)$; or {\rm (2)} $s$ is a NZN- or ZZN-moment.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}

To understand the above theorems we give some remarks.

\begin{remark}\label{rem:cond}\rm
We first remark that the assumption (H3) can be replaced by
$$
{\rm (H3)^*} \hskip 30mm
(-1)^i \cdot u(\xi_i(t),t)\cdot u_x(\xi_i (t),t) \leq 0 \mbox{\ \ for\ \ } 0<t-s \ll 1, \hskip 35mm
$$
since, as can be seen in Lemmas \ref{lem:*ZN}, \ref{lem:*ZZ and *ZX} and Remark \ref{rem:H3-H3*} below,
(H3)$^*$ is a sufficient condition of (H3) in some sense.
On the other hand, it is easy to verify that (H2) and (H3)$^*$ are satisfied for $u(\xi_i (t),t)$ if $u$
satisfies one of the following typical boundary conditions: (1) the zero Dirichlet boundary condition $u(\xi_i(t),t)\equiv 0$;
(2) non-zero Dirichlet condition $u(\xi_i(t),t)\not= 0\ (t\in [0,T])$;
(3) the zero  Neumann condition $u_x (\xi_i(t),t)\equiv 0$;
(4) Robin condition \eqref{bdry-Robin}.
In other words, under any of these boundary conditions, the conclusions in Theorem
\ref{thm:main} hold automatically without additional assumptions (H2), (H3) or (H3)$^*$.
As a consequence, Theorem \ref{thm:Robin} follows from Theorem \ref{thm:main} directly.
However, in some free boundary problems, (H3) holds but (H3)$^*$ might not
(see Proposition \ref{prop:free} and Remark \ref{rem:free}). Hence we use (H3) instead
of (H3)$^*$ in Theorem \ref{thm:main} so that our theorem includes all of these cases.

Moreover, under the special boundary conditions like Neumann or Robin ones, at any Z-moment $s$ of $w_i$,
$\xi_i(s)$ is a multiple zero, and so it must be isolated by (iii). Hence, not only *ZX- and XZ*-moments
but also ZZZ-, NZZ- and ZZN-moments do not exist in such cases.
\end{remark}

\begin{remark}\rm
In 1998, the conditions \eqref{smoothy} in Theorem A was weakened by Chen in \cite{ChXY} as
\begin{equation}\label{smoothy1}
a, a^{-1}, a_t, a_x, b, c\in L^\infty.
\end{equation}
In fact, by using the new variables
$$
\alpha(t):= \int_{\xi^0_1}^{\xi^0_2} a(z,t)^{-\frac12} dz,\quad
y(x,t):= \alpha(t)^{-1} \int_{\xi^0_1}^x a(z,t)^{-\frac12} dz,\quad
s(t) := \int_0^t \alpha(t)^{-2}  dt
$$
as in \cite{Ang}, the new unknown $w(y,s) = w(y(x,t),s(t)) :=u(x,t)$ solves
$$
w_s = w_{yy} +\tilde{b}(y,s) w_y + \tilde{c}(y,s) w,\quad y\in (0,1), s \in (0,S),
$$
for some $S>0$, and $\tilde{b},\ \tilde{c}$ depending on $a, a^{-1}, a_t, a_x, b, c$.
Hence, under the assumption \eqref{smoothy1}, $w$ satisfies the inequality $|w_s - w_{yy}|\leq M_1 |w_y| +M_0 |w|$
for some $M_0,\ M_1 >0$.
By the strong unique continuation property for $W^{2,1}_{p, loc}$ solution $w$,
Chen showed in \cite{ChXY} that (a)-(c) of Theorem A hold for $w$, so does for $u$.
Using the results in \cite{ChXY}, we see that the assumption \eqref{smoothy} in both Theorems
\ref{thm:Robin} and \ref{thm:main} can be weakened as \eqref{smoothy1}
(if necessary, one needs $\xi_1 (t), \xi_2(t)\in C^1$ so that two sides of $\Omega$ can be straightened).
\end{remark}

In 1996, Chen and Pol\'{a}\v{c}ik \cite{ChPo} proved the analogue of Theorem A for radially symmetric
solution in a ball in $\R^N$: $u(x,t)= u(|x|,t) =u(r,t)$ of the problem
\begin{equation}\label{RN-P}
 u_t = \Delta u + c(|x|,t) u =  u_{rr} + \frac{N-1}{r} u_r + c(r,t)u, \quad 0<r< \xi^0, 0<t<T,
\end{equation}
with Dirichlet boundary $u(\xi^0, t)\equiv 0$, where $c\in L^\infty$. Using the results in
\cite{ChPo} and using a similar idea as in the next section one can prove the following result.

\begin{thm}\label{thm:RN}
Let $T>0$, $\xi(t) >0$ be a continuous function in $[0,T]$ and $u(\cdot ,t)\not\equiv 0$
for any $t\in [0,T]$ is a classical
solution of \eqref{RN-P}, with $\xi^0$ being replaced by $\xi(t)$. Assume $c\in L^\infty$
and {\rm (H1)} hold. Assume further that {\rm (H2)} holds
for NZ*-moments of $u(\xi(t),t)$, {\rm (H3)} holds for Z-moments of $u(\xi(t),t)$. Then
all the conclusions in Theorem \ref{thm:main} remain valid.
\end{thm}

In particular, when $u$ satisfies \eqref{RN-P} and a Robin boundary condition
$u_r (x,t) + \beta(t) u(x,t)=0$ for $x=\xi^0,\ t\in (0,T)$ and some $\beta(t)\geq 0$,
then (H2) and (H3) hold and so the conclusions in Theorem \ref{thm:main} hold.

In section 2 we prove Theorem \ref{thm:main}, and in section 3 we apply it to study
some convergence results in parabolic equation with nonlinear or free boundary conditions.

\section{Proof of the Main Theorems}
Since Theorem \ref{thm:Robin} is a consequence of Theorem \ref{thm:main}, and
the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:RN} is similar as that for Theorem \ref{thm:main}.
In this section we only prove Theorem \ref{thm:main}.

\subsection{Some preliminary lemmas}
In this subsection we first consider a special case: $\xi_2(t)\equiv X$ and
$u(X,t)\not= 0$ for all $t\in (0,T)$.  Denote $I(t):= [\xi_1 (t), X]$ as before.

\begin{lem}\label{lem:NNN and ZZZ}
Assume $s\in (0,T)$ is a N- or ZZZ-moment of $w_1(t)$. Then the conclusions {\rm (a)-(c)}
in Theorem A hold in the neighborhood of $s$.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
When $s$ is a N-moment of $w_1$, we have $w_1(t) = u(\xi_1 (t),t) \not=0$ for $t\in (s-\epsilon_0,s+\epsilon_0)$,
for some $\epsilon_0>0$. By continuity we can find $\tilde{x}$ with $ 0< \tilde{x} -
\xi_1 (s) \ll 1$ and a small $ \epsilon_1 \in (0,\epsilon_0)$ such that $\xi_1 (t) < \tilde{x} < X$
for $t\in J_1:= [s-\epsilon_1 , s + \epsilon_1]$, and $u (x,t)\not= 0$ for all $x\in [\xi_1 (t), \tilde{x}]$
and $t\in J_1$. Therefore, $\Z_{I(t)} [u(\cdot,t)] = \Z_{[\tilde{x}, X]} [u(\cdot,t)] $
for all $t\in J_1$. The conclusions then follow from Theorem A.

When $s$ is a ZZZ-moment of $w_1$, we have $u(\xi_1 (t),t) =0$ for
$t\in J_2 := [s-\epsilon_2 ,s+\epsilon_2]$, for some $\epsilon_2>0$.  Using the new variable
\begin{equation}\label{variable change}
y= \frac{x-\xi_1 (t)}{X - \xi_1 (t)} \ \ \Leftrightarrow \ \ x= \varphi(y,t) :=  \xi_1 (t) + (X -\xi_1 (t)) y
\end{equation}
we see that the new unknown $w(y,t):= u \big( \varphi(y,t), t\big)$ solves
\begin{equation}\label{eq-w}
 w_t = \tilde{a}(y,t) w_{yy} + \tilde{b}(y,t) w_y + \tilde{c}(y,t) w, \quad  0<y<1,\ t\in J_2,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}\label{tilde a cond}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle \tilde{a}(y,t) := \frac{a(\varphi(y,t), t)}{( X - \xi_1 (t))^2 }
\mbox{ satisfying } \tilde{a},\ \tilde{a}^{-1},\ \tilde{a}_t,\ \tilde{a}_y\in L^\infty, \\
\displaystyle  \tilde{b}(y,t) := \frac{\xi'_1 (t) - \xi'_1(t) y }{ X - \xi_1 (t) }
+\frac{b(\varphi (y,t),t)} {X -\xi_1 (t)} \in L^\infty, \\
\tilde{c}(y,t) := c(\varphi (y,t),t) \in L^\infty.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Since
$$
u(\xi_1 (t),t)=0 \Leftrightarrow w(0,t)=0 \mbox{ and } w(1,t)\not= 0 \mbox{ for }t\in J_2,
$$
we see that, in the interval $J_2$, $\Z_{[0,1]}[w(\cdot,t)]$ satisfies the conclusions in
Theorem A. So does $u$ since $\Z_{I(t) } [u(\cdot,t)] = \Z_{[0,1]}[w(\cdot,t)]$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}\label{rem:degenerate}\rm
From this lemma we know that on each side of $\Omega$, $u$ can not identically
to be {\it multiple zeroes} in a time interval. Otherwise, if, there is an interval $J$
such that $x=\xi_i(t)$ is a multiple zero of $u(\cdot,t)$ for all $t\in J$, then
by the above lemma the number of zeroes
decreases strictly at each $t\in J$. This is impossible.
Consequently, under the Neumann condition \eqref{bdry-Neumann} or the Robin condition
\eqref{bdry-Robin}, there are no ZZ*- and *ZZ-moments.
\end{remark}

By the above lemma we can prove the following fact, which says that the number of zeroes
in the interval $[\xi_1(t), \xi_2(t)]$ is finite from the \lq\lq very beginning".

\begin{lem}\label{lem:Z<infty}
There exists a sequence $\{\tau_j\}\subset (0,T)$ decreasing to $0$ such that
$\Z_{[\xi_1(\tau_j), \xi_2(\tau_j)]} [u(\cdot, \tau_j)]$ $ <\infty$.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
{\it Case 1. There exists $\epsilon>0$ such that all $t\in (0,\epsilon)$ are
Z-moments of $w_1$}. If $(0,\epsilon)$ consists only Z-moments of $w_2$,
then as in the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:NNN and ZZZ} we can straighten the boundaries
$x=\xi_i(t)\ (i=1,2)$ and use Theorem A to conclude that $\Z_{[\xi_1(t), \xi_2(t)]}[u(\cdot, t)] <\infty$
for $t\in (0,\epsilon)$.
On the other hand, if $(0,\epsilon)$ contains a sequence of N-moments $\{t_j\}$ of $w_2$
decreasing to $0$, then it actually contains a sequence of open intervals $R_j$ (with
$t_j \in R_j$ and $R_j$ consists of N-moments of $w_2$) decreasing to $0$.
In each interval $R_j$ we can use Lemma \ref{lem:NNN and ZZZ} to conclude that
$\Z_{[\xi_1(t), \xi_2(t)]}[u(\cdot, t)] <\infty$ for $t\in R_j$.

{\it Case 2. There is a sequence of open intervals $\{L_j\}$ (each one consists of N-moments
of $w_1$) decreasing to $0$}. No matter $L_j$ contains a N-moment $s_j$ of $w_2$, or $L_j$
contains only Z-moment of $w_2$, by Lemma \ref{lem:NNN and ZZZ} we conclude that
$\Z_{[\xi_1(t), \xi_2(t)]}[u(\cdot, t)] <\infty$ for $t\in L_j$.
\end{proof}

Now we consider NZ*-moment $s$ of $w_1 (t):= u(\xi_1 (t),t)$.  In this case, $u$ has no zeroes
on the boundary $x=\xi_1(t)$ in a short period before $s$, but has a zero $\xi_1(s)$
at time $s$.  We will show that, the condition (H2) guarantees that
$\xi_1(s)$ is not a new zero, it actually comes from an interior zero of $u(\cdot, t)$ for $t<s$.
Again we consider the zeroes in the interval $I(t):= [\xi_1(t), X]$.

\begin{lem}\label{lem:NZ*}
Assume $s$ is a NZ*-moment of $w_1$ satisfying {\rm (H2)}. Then
\begin{equation}\label{NZ*-non-increasing}
\Z(s) \leq \Z(t) < \infty \mbox{\ \ for\ \ }t \mbox{ with } 0<s-t \ll 1.
\end{equation}
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
(1) Since, for some $\epsilon>0$, any $t\in (s-\epsilon, s)$ is a N-moment of $w_1$, by the above lemmas,
$\Z (t)<\infty$, and there can exist at most finitely many values of $t\in (s-\epsilon, s)$ such that $u(\cdot,t)$
has multiple zeroes
in $I(t)$. Thus we can find $\epsilon_1 \in (0,\epsilon)$ such that for $t\in J_1:=
(s-\epsilon_1 , s)$, $u(\cdot,t)$ has only simple zeroes  in $I(t)$.
Due to the simplicity, the zeroes  of $u(\cdot,t)$, with $t\in J_1$, can be expressed as
smooth curves:
 \[
 \mbox{$x=\gamma_1(t),..., x=\gamma_m(t)$, with $ \xi_1(t) <\gamma_k (t)<\gamma_{k+1}(t)< X$ for $k=1,..., m-1$.}
 \]

\medskip
(2) For each $k\in\{1,..., m\}$, we show the existence of the limit of $\gamma_k(t)$ as $t\nearrow s$. Clearly
 \[
 \mbox{ $x_k :=\liminf_{t\nearrow s}\gamma_k (t)\geq \xi_1 (s)$ \ \ and \ \ $x_k^*:=\limsup_{t\nearrow s}\gamma_k (t)< X$.}
  \]
  If $x_k< x_k^*$, then $u(x,s)\equiv 0$ for $x\in [x_k, x_k^*]$.
  We may now apply \cite[Theorem 2]{F} or the results in \cite[section 3]{ChXY} to $u$
  over the region $\{(x,t) \mid \xi_1(t)\leq x \leq X, s-\epsilon_2 \leq t \leq s\}$,
  with $\epsilon_2 >0$ sufficiently small, to conclude that $u(x,s)\equiv 0$ for $x\in  I(s)$,
  contradicting our assumption $u(\cdot,s)\not\equiv 0$. Therefore $x_k:=\lim_{t\nearrow s}\gamma_k (t)$ exists for every $k\in \{1,..., m\}$.

\medskip
(3) To show $x_1= \xi_1(s)$. Assume without loss of generality that $u(\xi_1(t),t)>0$ for
$t\in (s-\epsilon, s)$. Arguing indirectly we assume that $\xi_1 (s) < x_1$. Then in the region $D_1
:=\{(x,t) \mid \xi_1(t) < x <\gamma_1 (t), s-\epsilon_1 <t \leq s\}$, by the maximum principle, we have
$u(x,t)>0$. Since $u(\xi_1(s), s)=0$ and since $\xi'_1(s-0) $ exists by (H2), we can apply
the Hopf boundary lemma to deduce that $u_x (\xi_1(s),s) >0$, contradicting our assumption (H2).
This proves $\xi_1(s)= x_1$.

\medskip
(4) Using the strong maximum principle in the region $D_k :=\{(x,t): \gamma_k(t)<x<
\gamma_{k+1}(t),\;  t\in J_1\}$, we conclude that $u(x,s)\not=0$ for $x\in (x_k, x_{k+1})$ when $x_k < x_{k+1}$.

\medskip
(5) From (3) and (4) we immediately see that $\Z (t) = m \geq \Z (s)$ for $t\in J_1 $.
This proves \eqref{NZ*-non-increasing} for $t\in J_1$.
\end{proof}

Next we consider *ZN-, *ZZ- and *ZX-moments of $w_1$. We will show that the assumption (H3)
guarantees the following facts: the number of zeroes  decreases strictly after a *ZN-moment, and
remains non-increasing after a *ZZ- or *ZX-moment.  First we consider *ZN-moments.

\begin{lem}\label{lem:*ZN}
Assume $s$ is a *ZN-moment of $w_1$: for some $\epsilon>0$, $u(\xi_1(t),t)\not= 0$ in $(s, s+\epsilon)$.
Assume further that {\rm (H3)} and $\Z (s) <\infty$ hold. Then
\begin{equation}\label{*ZN-strict-decrease}
\Z (s)  > \Z (t) \mbox{ for }t \mbox{ with } 0<t -s \ll 1.
\end{equation}
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
Since $\Z (s)  <\infty$, we write $\xi_1 (s) = z_1 < z_2 <...< z_n < X$
as the distinguishing zeroes of $u(\cdot, s)$ in $I(s):= [\xi_1(s), X]$.
Denote $z^*=(z_1 +z_2)/2$. We claim that there exists a small $\epsilon_1 >0$ such that
$u(x,t)\not=0$ in the domain $D := \{(x,t) \mid \xi_1 (t)\leq x \leq z^*, s<t< s +\epsilon_1 \}$.
In fact, $u(z^*, s)\not=0$. For definiteness, we assume that $u(z^*,s)>0$. Hence
$u(x,s)>0$ for $x\in (\xi_1(s), z^*]$, and, by continuity, there exists $\epsilon_1 \in (0, \epsilon)$
such that $u(z^*,t)>0$ for $t\in J := [s, s+\epsilon_1]$. Using the assumption (H3) we have
$u(\xi_1(t), t) \geq 0$ in $J$, which is actually positive since $t$ is N-moment.
Then our claim follows from the maximum principle.
This claim shows that the zero $\xi_1(s)$ of $u(\cdot, s)$ will disappear in $D$.
On the other hand, in the region $[z^*,X]\times [s,s+\epsilon_1]$, the zero number diminishing property
follows from Theorem A. This proves \eqref{*ZN-strict-decrease}.
\end{proof}

Then we consider *ZZ- and *ZX-moments.

\begin{lem}\label{lem:*ZZ and *ZX}
Assume $s$ is a *ZZ- or *ZX-moment of $w_1$. Assume further that {\rm (H3)} and $\Z (s) <\infty$ hold. Then
\begin{equation}\label{*Z*-non-increasing}
\Z (s)  \geq \Z (t)  \mbox{\ \ for\ \ }t \mbox{ with } 0<t -s \ll 1.
\end{equation}
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
The proof is similar as in the previous lemma. The difference is the number of zeroes  in the
domain $D := \{(x,t) \mid \xi_1 (t)\leq x \leq z^*, s<t< s +\epsilon_1 \}$.
We assume as above $u>0$ on the bottom and right side of $D$.
The assumption (H3) then implies that $u\geq 0$ on the left boundary of $D$.
Using the maximum principle in $D$ we see that $u>0$ in the interior of $D$.
Thus, for each $t\in (s,s+\epsilon_1)$, $u(\cdot,t)$ has at most one zero $\xi_1(t)$ in the interval $[\xi_1 (t),z^*]$.
The conclusion then follows.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}\label{rem:H3-H3*}\rm
The above two lemmas remain valid if we replace the assumption (H3) by (H3)$^*$.
In fact, though (H3)$^*$ itself is not enough to derive (H3), with the help of
$\Z(s)<\infty$, it is easily seen that at a *ZN-, *ZZ- or *ZX-moment the condition
(H3) is always true when (H3)$^*$ holds.  In this sense we say that (H3)$^*$
is a \lq\lq sufficient condition" of (H3).
\end{remark}

Using the above lemmas we prove the diminishing property of the number of zeroes
when $t$ passes an {\it A-type interval of $w_1$}, which means an interval of the form
$$
A := (r,s)\cup [s,r_1] \cup (r_1, s_1),
$$
where both $(r,s)$ and $(r_1, s_1)$ consist of only N-moments of $w_1$,
$s$ and $r_1$ are Z-moments of $w_1$ and
$$
[s,r_1] \left\{
 \begin{array}{ll}
 = \{s\}, & \mbox{ if } s \mbox{ is a NZN-moment},\\
 \mbox{consists of only Z-moments,} & \mbox{ if } s \mbox{ is a NZZ-moment and $r_1$ is a ZZN-moment},\\
 \mbox{consists of Z- and N-moments,} & \mbox{ if } s \mbox{ is a NZX-moment}.
 \end{array}
 \right.
$$
Moreover, in the third case, $[s, r_1]$ is chosen so small that \eqref{*Z*-non-increasing} holds
for $t \in (s, r_1]$.  Using the above lemmas we obtain the following result.

\begin{lem}\label{lem:A-type}
Let $A$ be an A-type interval of $w_1$. Then we have
\begin{equation}\label{strictly-decreasing-A-type}
\Z (t_1)  \geq \Z (s) \geq \Z (t_2) > \Z (t_3)\quad \mbox{for } t_1\in (r,s),\ t_2 \in (s,r_1],\ t_3\in (r_1, s_1).
\end{equation}
\end{lem}

As a consequence we can prove that $w_1$ actually has no *ZX- or XZ*-moments.

\begin{prop}\label{prop:no-X}
The interval $(0,T)$ consists of only N-, ZZZ-, NZZ-, ZZN- and NZN-moments of $w_1$, and only finitely
many ZZN- and NZN-moments of $w_1$.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
Assume $s$ is an XZ*-moment of $w_1$. Then there are infinitely many A-type intervals
$$
A_k := (r_k, s_k) \cup [s_k, r_{k+1}]\cup (r_{k+1}, s_{k+1}), \quad k=1,2,...
$$
in $(r_1, s)$. By Lemma \ref{lem:NNN and ZZZ} we can assume $\Z(r_1) <\infty$ without loss of generality.
Each $A_k$ intersects with the next $A_{k+1}$ in an open interval $(r_{k+1}, s_{k+1})$.
By the previous lemma, $\Z (t) $ decreases strictly when $t$ passes
each interval $A_k$. This clearly contradicts $\Z (r_1)  <\infty$.

Next we assume $s$ is a *ZX-moment of $w_1$ and $\Z (s) \leq m$.
By Lemma \ref{lem:*ZZ and *ZX} we have $\Z (t) \leq m$ for $t\in
(s, s+\epsilon)$, where $\epsilon>0$ can be as small as possible. We take $\epsilon>0$
so small that there are more than $m+1$ A-type intervals on the right side of $s+\epsilon$
(this is possible since $s$ is a *ZX-moment). Then as $t$ passes these intervals
$\Z (t) $ decreases strictly more than $m+1$ times, a contradiction.

Therefore, in $(0,T)$ there are no *ZX- and XZ*-moments, but only N-, ZZZ-, NZZ-, ZZN- and
NZN-moments. Since $\Z (t) $ also decreases strictly when $t$ passes
a ZZN- or NZN-moment, we see that there are only finitely
many of such moments. This proves the proposition.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main}}
First, we explain that to prove (ii) and (iii) in $(0,T)$ is equivalent to prove them locally in time,
that is, to prove them for any $s\in (0,T)$ and any $t_1, t_2$ near $s$: $0<s-t_1 \ll 1,\ 0<t_2-s \ll 1$.
In fact, the conclusions (ii) and (iii) in $(0,T)$ follow by using such local results successively.

Second, for any $s\in (0,T)$, by our assumption $u(\cdot, s)\not\equiv 0$ we can find an
$X= X(s)\in (\xi_1(s), \xi_2(s))$ satisfying $u(X,s)\not=0$. By continuity, there exists
$\epsilon = \epsilon(X,s)$ such that
$$
\xi_1(t) < X < \xi_2(t) \mbox{ and } u(X,t)\not=0 \mbox{ for all } t\in [s-\epsilon, s+\epsilon].
$$
Therefore, to prove the conclusions of (i)-(iii) of Theorem \ref{thm:main} near $s$,
we only need to prove them in two domains
$\Omega_1 (s,\epsilon) := \{(x,t)\mid \xi_1 (t)\leq x\leq X, t\in [s-\epsilon, s+\epsilon]\}$
and
$\Omega_2 (s,\epsilon) := \{(x,t)\mid X\leq x \leq \xi_2 (t), t\in [s-\epsilon, s+\epsilon]\}$,
respectively.
In $\Omega_1 (s,\epsilon)$, the conclusions have been proved in the previous subsection.
The proof in $\Omega_2 (s, \epsilon)$ is similar.
This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main}. \hfill $\Box$

\section{Applications to problems with nonlinear or free boundary conditions}
In this section we use the main theorem to prove some convergence results in
parabolic equations with nonlinear or free boundary conditions.

\subsection{A problem with nonlinear boundary conditions}
Consider
\begin{equation}\label{nonl-bdry-p}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
u_t = a(x,t) u_{xx} + b(x,t)u_x + f(x,t,u), & x>0, t>0,\\
u_x(0,t) = g(t, u(0,t)) , & t>0,\\
u(x,0)=u_0(x)\geq 0 , & x\geq 0 ,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Assume, with $\Omega := [0,\infty)\times (0,\infty)$, $\alpha \in (0,1)$,
$$
{\rm (H4)}\hskip 15mm
\left\{
 \begin{array}{l}
 a, a^{-1}, a_t, a_x, b \in L^\infty(\Omega),\ a, b\in C^\alpha_{loc} (\Omega),\\
 f\in C^1 (\R^3),\ f(x,t,0)\geq 0 \mbox{ and } f(x,t,u)<0 \mbox{ for } t, x\in \R,\ u > 1,\\
 g\in C^1(\R^2) \mbox{ with } g_u(t,u)\geq 0 \mbox{ for }t\in \R,\ u\geq 0.
 \end{array}
\right. \hskip 30mm
$$

\begin{prop}\label{prop:ex1}
Assume {\rm (H4)} and that $a,b,f,g$ are all $T$-periodic in $t$. Then when $u_0$
is a compactly supported continuous function, the solution $u(x,t)$ of \eqref{nonl-bdry-p}
converges as $t\to \infty$ to a time periodic solution in the topology $C^{2,1}_{loc}
([0,\infty)\times [0,T])$.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
By comparison it is easily seen that
$$
0< u(x,t)\leq 1+\|u_0\|_{L^\infty},\quad t>0,\ x\geq 0.
$$
For each $s\in (-T,T)$ we compare $u_1(x,t;s):= u(x,t-s)$ with its time shift
$u_2(x,t;s) := u(x,t-s+T)$. Define $\eta^s(x,t) := u_2 (x, t;s) -u_1(x,t;s)$, then $\eta^s $
solves
\begin{equation}\label{eq-eta}
\left\{
 \begin{array}{ll}
 \eta^s_t = a(x,t-s)\eta^s_{xx} +b(x,t-s)\eta^s_x +c(x,t,s)\eta^s, & x>0,\ t>s,\\
 \eta^s_x  (0,t)= g_u (t-s, \theta)  \eta^s (0,t), & t>s,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $\theta = \theta_1 u_1 (0,t;s) + (1-\theta_1) u_2 (0,t;s)$ for some $\theta_1\in (0,1)$,
and
$$
c (x,t,s)  =  [f (x,t-s, u_2 ) - f (x,t-s, u_1) ]/(u_2 -u_1)\quad \mbox{for } u_1 \not= u_2,
$$
and extended continuously to the case where $u_1 = u_2$. Note that $a, b, c$ satisfies the
conditions in \eqref{smoothy1} by the hypothesis (H4) and the boundedness of $u$.
Taking $L>1$ large with ${\rm spt}(u_0) \subset [0, L-1]$, we see that $\eta^s (L,t)>0$ for
$t$ with $t-s>0$ small.  By the maximum principle we have $\eta^s (x,t)>0$ for $x\geq L$ and $t-s>0$ small.
Since $\eta^s$ satisfies a Robin condition in \eqref{eq-eta}, using Theorem \ref{thm:Robin} on $[0,L]$
for small $t-s$, we conclude that $\Z_{[0,\infty) }[\eta^s (\cdot,t)]$ is finite, non-increasing and
decreasing strictly at most finitely many times. Hence, for large $t$,
$\eta^s (\cdot, t)$ has fixed number of zeroes and all of them are simple ones.
In the rest, one can use a similar argument as in \cite{BPS, Lou} to prove the conclusion.
(In \cite{Lou} a more general parabolic equation with Dirichlet boundary condition was considered).
\end{proof}

\subsection{Reaction diffusion equations with Stefan free boundary conditions}
Consider the following problem
\begin{equation}\label{free-p}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
u_t = u_{xx} + f(t,u), & g(t)<x<h(t), t>0,\\
u(g(t),t)=0,\ \ g'(t)= - u_x(g(t),t), & t>0,\\
u(h(t),t)=0,\ \ h'(t)= - u_x(h(t),t), & t>0,\\
h(0)=h_0,\ u(x,0)= u_0(x)\geq 0, & g_0\leq x \leq h_0,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Assume $f\in C^1$, $T$-periodic in $t$ and satisfies $f(t,0)\equiv 0$. Such problems can be used to model
the spreading of a new species, and have been studied in \cite{DGP, DuLin, DuLou} etc..
It was proved that, for any $C^2$ function $u_0$ with support in $[g_0, h_0]$, the solution $u$ of \eqref{free-p}
exists globally; $u_x (x,t) >0$ for $x\in (g(t),g_0)$ and $u_x(x,t)<0$ for $x\in (h_0, h(t))$.
In some examples, $-g(t),\ h(t)\to \infty$ and the solution $u$ may has an $\omega$-limit
$P(x,t)$ (that is, $u(x,t_n +t) \to P(x,t)$ as $t_n\to \infty$ locally uniformly in $x,t\in \R$) which
has an isolated local maximum $\gamma(t) \in [g_0, h_0]$ (The existence of such limit solution can be found in the problems with
temporal homogeneous multistable $f(u)$ (cf. \cite{DuLou}), time-periodic bistable $f$
(cf. \cite{Pol1}) etc.). We now use our main theorems to show that $\gamma(t)$ is actually a constant.

\begin{prop}\label{prop:free}
Assume $u(x,t)$ is a solution of \eqref{free-p} and $P(x,t)$ is an $\omega$-limit of $u$.
If $P(\cdot ,t)$ has an isolated local maximum point $\gamma(t)\in [g_0, h_0]$,
then $\gamma(t)\equiv x_0\in [g_0, h_0]$.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
Arguing indirectly we assume
\begin{equation}\label{osc}
g_0\leq x_*:= \inf\gamma(t)< x_0 < x^*:= \sup \gamma(t) \leq h_0.
\end{equation}
Then there exist $t_* <t_0< t^*$ such that $\gamma(t_*) <x_0 =\gamma(t_0) <\gamma(t^*)$.
Since $u(x,t_n +t)-P(x,t)\to 0$ as $t_n\to \infty$, we see that, for large $t_n$, $x_0$ is also
a local maximum of $u(\cdot, s_n)$ for a time sequence $\{s_n\}$. Hence, $u_x( x_0, s_n) =0$.

Consider the functions
$$
u_1(x,t) := u(x+x_0,t),\quad x\in [g_1(t), h_1(t)] := [g(t)-x_0, h(t)-x_0],
$$
$$
u_2(x,t) := u(-x+x_0,t),\quad x\in [g_2(t), h_2(t)] := [x_0 -h(t), x_0 -g(t)],
$$
and
$$
\eta(x,t):= u_1 (x,t)- u_2(x,t),\quad \xi_1 (t):= \max\{g_1(t),g_2(t)\},\quad
\xi_2 (t):=\min\{h_1(t), h_2(t)\}.
$$
From \cite{DuLou} we know that $g_i(t),h_i(t)$ are all $C^{1+\alpha}_{loc}$ functions,
hence $\xi_i(t)$ satisfies the assumption (H1) in Section 1.
Now we examine (H2) and (H3) by showing that all the Z-moments of
$w_i(t) := \eta(\xi_i (t),t)\ (i=1,2)$ are NZN-moments. Since the proof is similar, we only consider $w_1$.

Change $x_0$ slightly if necessary, we assume that $w_1(t) = \eta(\xi_1(t),t)\not= 0$ for small $t$
(assume $w_1(t)<0$ without loss of generality), and that
this remains true till $t=s_1$. So $s_1$ is the first NZ*-moment of $w_1$.
As $t$ increases and tends to $s_1$, $g_1(t)$ moves leftward faster and catches up with
$g_2 (t)$ at $t=s_1$, so
$$
-u_{1x} (\xi_1(s_1), s_1) = g'_1 (s_1)\leq g'_2 (s_1) = - u_{2x} (\xi_1(s_1), s_1).
$$
This implies that $\eta_x (\xi_1(s_1),s_1) \geq 0$. This verifies (H2) for $i=1$
in case $w_1 (t)<0$ before $s_1$. The opposite case $w_1(t)>0$ before $s_1$ is proved similarly.
From Lemma \ref{lem:NZ*} and its proof we know that $\eta(\cdot, s_1)$ has finitely many zeroes ,
$\xi_1(s_1)=g_1 (s_1)= g_2 (s_1)$ is the
leftmost one. Denote $\hat{x}$ the second zero from left (if there is no such zero, just choose
$\hat{x}=\xi_2(s_1)$) and write $z:= (\xi_1(s_1)+\hat{x})/2$.
When $\eta(z,s_1)>0$, we have $\eta(x,s_1)>0$ for $x\in (\xi_1(s_1), z]$.
By the comparison principle for free boundary problems as in \cite{DuLin, DuLou} we have $g_1 (t)<
g_2 (t)$ and $\eta(x,t)>0$ for $(x,t)$ with $\xi_1(t)= g_2 (t)\leq x< z,\ 0<t-s\ll 1$.
Therefore, (H3) holds and any $t$ with $0<t-s\ll 1$ is a N-moment of $w_1$.
Similarly, when $\eta(z,s_1)<0$ we have $ g_2 (t)< g_1 (t)$ and so any $t$ with $0<t-s\ll 1$
is a N-moment of $w_1$, and (H3) holds too.

Now we can use Theorem \ref{thm:main} to conclude that $\eta(\cdot, t)$ has fixed number
of zeroes  for large $t$, and each zero is a simple one. This, however, contradicts
our assumption
$$
\eta(0,s_n) = 0,\quad \eta_x(0,s_n)= 2 u_x(x_0, s_n) =0.
$$
Therefore, $\gamma(t)$ must be a constant.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}\label{rem:free}\rm
From the above proof we see that in such free boundary problems (H3) is satisfied,
while (H3)$^*$ is not easy to be verified though it is true in the problems with
Dirichlet, Neumann and Robin boundary conditions (see Remark \ref{rem:cond}).
Since (H3)$^*$ implies (H3) (see Remark \ref{rem:H3-H3*}), roughly speaking,
(H3) is satisfied in the problems with all kinds of boundary conditions we mentioned.
This is the reason we use (H3) instead of (H3)$^*$ in Theorem \ref{thm:main}.
\end{remark}