The general question I am interested is roughly what is in the title; more concretely:
Fix a positive integer $n$, and $m\in(\Bbb Z/n\Bbb Z)^\times$. For each $b\in\Bbb Z/n\Bbb Z$, define the invertible map $f_b:\Bbb Z/n\Bbb Z \to \Bbb Z/n\Bbb Z$ by $f(x)=mx+b$. What is the cycle structure of $f_b$ as $b$ varies?
For instance, if $n$ is prime, then every $f_b$ has a unique fixed point, $b$, and every other element fits into a cycle whose length is the multiplicative order of $m$ in $(\Bbb Z/n\Bbb Z)^\times$. In particular, every $f_b$ has the same cycle structure.
My particular interest is in a more difficult example, where there is some variability, but computer search seems to suggest much less than I expected. Let $n$ be even and $m$ be a number such that the cycle structure of $f_0$ is $[k,k,k,\dots, k,1,1]$ for some $k$ [or, equivalently, for $k=\text{ord}_{(\Bbb Z/n\Bbb Z)^\times}(m)$]. I claim the following:
Claim: Given the previous setup, the cycle structure of $f_b$ is one of the following:
- $[k,k,k,\dots, k,1,1]$
- $[k,k,k,\dots, k, 2]$
- $[2k,\dots, 2k, 2]$
- $[4,4,\dots, 4]$
- $[2,2,2,2,\dots, 2,2]$
(For what it's worth, I have some guesses as to when these occur. For instance, it seems that you get all 4s precisely when $8|n$ and $m=n/2-1$. The second case happens seems to happen only when $k$ is even, $n/2$ is odd, and every prime factor of $n$ is equivalent to $1$ mod $k$.)
I suspect that proving this claim would be quite tedious, so I am not seeking a proof of it per se (although I certainly would welcome one). Rather, I am looking for techniques with which to solve problems that are similar, in the sense that they require understanding cycle structures of affine functions.
(In case it sparks a memory: The group of affine transformations over $\Bbb Z/n\Bbb Z$ is isomorphic to the normalizer $N_{S_n}(C_n)$, where $C_n$ is the cyclic subgroup generated by the long cycle $c=(1\,2\cdots n)$. Varying $b$ is equivalent to considering right-translations of a given element by powers of $c$.)
Since it seems that this will remain Unanswered otherwise, I am posting this as a answer. I'm not sure this will interest anyone else, but perhaps my blogger's instincts are kicking in from a few years back.
For what it's worth, I ended up resolving the claim in my question statement (in the context that I asked it) as Lemma 4.5 in this preprint. To my past self, I would say that the solution to that particular problem was mostly "Shut up and calculate!" However, perhaps some small lessons:
I do like joriki's idea; now that I am not so focused on overcoming this particular hurdle, perhaps I should turn some attention to it...