§6.3... Milnor’s definition of “attractors” which has been criticized above by us).
The work of [KSS2] of asserting the existence of “nice open set” of Ω(p.148) would be likely not verified, for example we think the first sentence “… since f is nontrivial, it has infinitely many periodic orbit…” in deducing Lemma 6.1 of [KSS1] needs to be explained. In [K1](p.748, the last paragraph) the author talked the existence of “nice intervals”, but we think his assertion would be only verified for certain quadratic-polynomial mappings, whereas [K1] is under certain general settings(see also [K2], p.7). ...
§6.5 We think the “Axiom A mappings” may not exist, because such mappings are required that “all periodic points are hyperbolic” which cannot be verified in general(see p.302 of [S]), and thus all involved works would be in vain.
[K1]O.Kozlovski, Getting rid of the negative Schwarzian derivative condition, Ann.of Math.152(2000),743-762.
[K2]O.Kozlovski, Axiom A mappings are dense in the space of unimodal maps in the
topology, ibid, 157(2003), 1-43.
[KSS1]O.Kozlovski, W,Shen and S.v.Strien, Rigidity for real oplynomials, ibid,165(2007), 749-841.
[KSS2]O.Kozlovski, W,Shen and S.v.Strien, Density of hyperbolicity in dimension one, ibid, 166(2007), 145-182.
[S]W.Shen, On the metric properties of multimodal interval maps and density of Axiom A, Invent. Math. 156(2004), 301-403.