Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Banks et al. (1992) proved that conditions (2) and (3) im... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Truth & Knowledge
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Devaney's condition (1) is redundant given conditions (2) and (3) when the set K has infinitely many elements

    Banks et al. (1992) proved that conditions (2) and (3) imply condition (1) for infinite sets K

    All sources support itTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Truth & KnowledgeAll sources support it

    Connections

    2 topics

    Proof of definition segments1 linked

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Truth & Knowledge
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Modality & Possibility
    1 linked

    Related

    Devaney's condition (1) is redundant given conditions (2) and (3) when the set K...Devaney's definition requires all three conditions (1), (2), and (3)

    Similar

    Devaney's condition (1) is redundant given conditions (2) and (3) when...79%Zermelo's axioms for set theory are insufficient to prove the Axiom of...77%The Union axiom is true for sets75%The Power Set axiom is true for sets.75%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: chaos
    View source passageHide passage
    Devaney’s definition has the virtues of being precise and compact. However, objections have been raised against it. Since the time he proposed his definition, it has been shown that (2) and (3) imply (1) if the set \(K\) has an infinite number of elements (see Banks et al. 1992), although this result does not hold for sets with finite elements. More to the point, the definition seems counterintuitive in that it emphasizes periodic orbits rather than aperiodicity, but the latter seems a much bett

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective