I'm looking forward to continuing our discussions here.
And apologies, but I'm still trying to understand why [unless I've got this totally wrong, unsurprisingly, since I haven't done "chaos theory" in years] why the difference between an "attractor" and an equilibrium, given that when the n-dimensional vector of values describing the system remains relatively unchanged under small perturbations when "sufficiently close" (in epsilon-delta formulation) to the attractor; which is the "informal" definition of an equilibrium.
Similarly, given a system with (say) two attractors (or equilibrium positions), a sufficiently large perturbation may send the the system into a chaotic regime, from which may evolve close enough to the other attractor and be "captured" by it.
I am keeping in mind that the vector space of the system variables is likely multidimensional.
The analogy with a vertical pendulum with two equilibria is simplistic but instructional.
Cheers, td
up
0 users have voted.
—
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
Late for the east coast but just about right for me. I always liked you at dkos so welcome aboard. Make yourself comfortable and kick off your shoes and enjoy being able to be yourself.
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
"Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it."
-- John Lennon
I'm in, too. I discovered the approval in my spam box, no idea why. But I am now set up (sorta) too.
up
0 users have voted.
—
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Comments
good to see you here
An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the time. It stands or it falls on its own merits.
Welcome aboard!
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Thank you, Don.
I'm looking forward to continuing our discussions here.
And apologies, but I'm still trying to understand why [unless I've got this totally wrong, unsurprisingly, since I haven't done "chaos theory" in years] why the difference between an "attractor" and an equilibrium, given that when the n-dimensional vector of values describing the system remains relatively unchanged under small perturbations when "sufficiently close" (in epsilon-delta formulation) to the attractor; which is the "informal" definition of an equilibrium.
Similarly, given a system with (say) two attractors (or equilibrium positions), a sufficiently large perturbation may send the the system into a chaotic regime, from which may evolve close enough to the other attractor and be "captured" by it.
I am keeping in mind that the vector space of the system variables is likely multidimensional.
The analogy with a vertical pendulum with two equilibria is simplistic but instructional.
Cheers, td
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
OOps, sorry!
Meant as a reply to Don.
getting used to the site ...
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
Welcome tapu dali...
glad you made it over. Relax and enjoy.
Welcome tapu dali
Late for the east coast but just about right for me. I always liked you at dkos so welcome aboard. Make yourself comfortable and kick off your shoes and enjoy being able to be yourself.
Great!
See you around.
to all who commented:
thank you for the welcoming words!
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
Welcome, tapu dali!
Welcome to the saneitarium!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Awesome!!! Welcome!
So glad to see so many who have become near and dear to my heart!!!
“I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell.”
― Harry Truman
Yay!
Yay!
Shaylors Provence
Nice to see you here....
And looking forward to your participation
Welcome aboard, Matey
"Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it."
-- John Lennon
Good to see familiar handles
I'm in, too. I discovered the approval in my spam box, no idea why. But I am now set up (sorta) too.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Old home week. Literally.
Old home week. Literally.
Don't believe everything you think.
Happy to see you, tapu dali.