Talk:Dynamical system

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dynamical system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Dynamical system (definition) into Dynamical system

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was Merge. — MarkH21talk 08:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"definition" is the main aspect of any topic fgnievinski (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Ergodic systems" section organization

Finite time solutions are an extreme opposite of ergodic behavior. Nonlinear and chaotic systems are not a subclass of ergodic systems. Finite time solutions do require nonlinearity. The organization here therefore makes very little sense. RowanElder (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tone

See specifically WP:PRONOUN. fgnievinski (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

let me know extra feedback if needed thx;) Flyredeagle (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Formal definition

I feel that semi group is much more general than monoid. This current formal definition is full of bias and damaging the article.

One reason is due to the self reference. People discussed across the internet for last 12 years what the heck this formal definition means, the preceding page was deleted and the original history is not public, to prove that the guy adding the self reference was actually the guy in Cagliari.

Second reason is the community of math stack exchange attached to category theory, they don't like semi groups cause categories are typically defined top down with identity in axiomatic manner. There is a big thing with the pull back from the monoid to the semi-group, to make equality working in the extended semi-group. It is also unclear how much this category theory comes back useful as in the reference from Harvard.

Third reason semi groups are constructivist typically too where you add a different identity on the basis of need, there is a wealth of dynamical system such as finite state automata and reset mechanics that comes with multiple identities, and others with left or right identities.

Proof that this bias is damaging for example is that it was removed from the competition ... https://grokipedia.com/page/Dynamical_system}} Which ends up to be more consistent.

This difficulty is ultimately due to good Research and bogus research, and different philosophical approaches which lurks in the article.

The thing that is actually good is the measure theoretic stuff which is actually robust and sound with major theorems attached.

Finally I was listening Deutsch stating that Wikipedia is recently dying due to quality, and is unclear how it didn't die before. There's no bias, there's just error either intentional or not intentional. Flyredeagle (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.