| ²é¿´: 113 | »Ø¸´: 1 | |||
| µ±Ç°Ö÷ÌâÒѾ´æµµ¡£ | |||
[½»Á÷]
[ÌÖÂÛ] Any difference between Smooth and nonsmooth chaos?
|
|||
|
±¾ÈË´ÓÊÂһЩ»ìãçѧ·½ÃæµÄÑо¿£¬¸Ð¾õ»ìãçѧ¿ÉÒÔ¹éΪ¡°Àí¹¤°æ¡±¡£ ËùÒÔÏë°ÑÎÒµÄһЩ¶ÔÓÚsmooth chaos ºÍ nonsmooth chaos µÄһЩ¿´·¨ÕûÀíÈçÏ¡£ÓÉÓÚÔÀ´Ê¹ÓõÄÊÇÓ¢ÎÄ£¬¾Í²»·Òë´ÓÖÐÎÄÁË£¨ÓÐЩÊõÓï·ÒëÆðÀ´±È½ÏÂé·³£©¡£ Èç¹ûÓÐÄÄλ¸ÐÐËȤ£¬ÎÒÃÇ¿ÉÒÔÌÖÂÛһϡ£ÔÚ´ËÏÈлÁË¡£ Given a smooth dynamical system, two initially-nearby orbits remain close as least in a short time interval. However, a chaotic attractor is an asymptotic product of the system. So it is very doubtful that smoothness plays a vital role in the occurrence of a chaotic attractor. It appears more natural that smoothness plays no role in this phenomenon. If this is true, rigorous proof regarding to chaos based on smoothness (or more weakly, continuity) is merely a tool to show the existence of chaos, in another word, they are merely sufficient, but not necessary. If we deem this is correct, then we may believe that there must be some deeper roles underlying the existence of chaos, and hopefully these roles are also applicable to non-smooth chaos. This seems quite natural and appealing to me. |
» ²ÂÄãϲ»¶
304Çóµ÷¼Á£¨085602£¬¹ýËļ¶£¬Ò»Ö¾Ô¸985£©
ÒѾÓÐ18È˻ظ´
Èí¹¤Ñ§Ë¶299Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ6È˻ظ´
Ò»Ö¾Ô¸211£¬»¯Ñ§Ñ§Ë¶£¬310·Ö£¬±¾¿ÆÖصãË«·Ç£¬Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ6È˻ظ´
»¯¹¤µ÷¼Á303·Ö£¬¹ýËļ¶
ÒѾÓÐ30È˻ظ´
264Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ4È˻ظ´
ÉúÎ﹤³ÌÇóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ9È˻ظ´
266Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ23È˻ظ´
283Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ15È˻ظ´
22408 һ־Ը˫һÁ÷È˹¤ÖÇÄÜ300·Ö ËÄÁù¼¶£¬Êý¾Ý·ÖÎö¹ú½±
ÒѾÓÐ5È˻ظ´
286Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ17È˻ظ´
±¿±¿Äñ
ÈÙÓþ°æÖ÷ (ÖªÃû×÷¼Ò)
good good study, day day up
- Ó¦Öú: 0 (Ó×¶ùÔ°)
- ¹ó±ö: 14.5
- ½ð±Ò: 4277.2
- Ìû×Ó: 9961
- ÔÚÏß: 2.9Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 73271
- ×¢²á: 2005-06-06

2Â¥2006-02-03 03:03:41














»Ø¸´´ËÂ¥