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
    The lack of periodicity is precisely what is characterist... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Devaney's definition is counterintuitive as a characterization of chaos

    The lack of periodicity is precisely what is characteristic of chaos

    SkepticismTruth & 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

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Aperiodicity is a much better characterization of chaos than periodicityDevaney's definition emphasizes periodic orbits rather than aperiodicityDevaney's definition is counterintuitive as a characterization of chaos

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Aperiodicity is a much better characterization of chaos than periodici...88%Robinson (1995) argues that chaos can be characterized without requiri...81%Classical chaos itself has no fully agreed-upon definition and involve...79%A mark of chaos merely identifies that chaos is present, but does not ...77%

    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