| ²é¿´: 118 | »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»¶
295·ÖÇóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ4È˻ظ´
294Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ8È˻ظ´
ɽ¶«Ë«·ÇԺУ¿¼ºË³¬¼¶ÎÞµ×Ïߣ¬Áìµ¼ÐÒÔÖÀÖ»ö£¬½ÌʦÔâÑê¿Ö
ÒѾÓÐ8È˻ظ´
0854Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ25È˻ظ´
Ò»Ö¾Ô¸»¦9£¬326ÇóÉúÎïѧµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ11È˻ظ´
322Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ6È˻ظ´
±¾ÈËÅ®º¢
ÒѾÓÐ10È˻ظ´
¶þ±½¼×ͪËáÀàÑÜÉúÎï
ÒѾÓÐ4È˻ظ´
Ò»Ö¾Ô¸Öпƴó²ÄÁÏÓ뻯¹¤£¬353·Ö»¹Óе÷¼ÁѧУÂð
ÒѾÓÐ11È˻ظ´
335Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ23È˻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¥