Talk:Chaos theory/Archive 4

message: Dear gentlmen, I think that we may need a help here from a mediator. It seems that all of us have certain emotions on the subject and ideas about importance/validity of this line. We are being subjective. Do you agree that we decide on this line thru mediation process?Lakinekaki 16:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation?

message: FYI, I started an article on the circle map; I'll try to add better graphics as the weeks go by, including a devils staircase and the "biotic motion" graph, as well as the subharmonic path to chaos, which will make Lakinekaki spin, because in the subharmonic case, there are three!! branches that period-double in one cell, before eventually going "biotic". However, a non-zero Ω is needed to see that behaviour. Anyone have good refs on these subharmonic routes? linas 19:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you mean something like this...Lakinekaki 00:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Circle map

message: If I have a spectrum, is there some way of telling if its "chaotic"? To the eyeballs, the eigenvalues seem to be occurring at "random" values, but I was wondering if there's some better way of classifying beyond just a "gee this looks random" result.  linas 14:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine the spectrum is some smooth decaying curve with "noise" in it.  If you take your time series, Fourier transform it, replace all the phases by random numbers, transform back, you end up with a series with the same spectrum but with unrelated dynamics.   This randomization game shows that there is not enough dynamical information in the spectrum.  If the spectrum has a whole bunch of peaks that are not "harmonically" related, then they are a reflection of unstable periodic orbits.  XaosBits 17:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Not sure I understood. I know that spectra provide incomplete info: "you can't hear the shape of a drum", it turns out. I don't have a time series, I just have a spectrum, and I'm don't know what the corresponding iterated function system/Poincare map is. The spectrum is just a bunch of discrete eigenvalues, each larger than the last; no smooth decaying curve. (This is from a Hamiltonian, and not from a transfer operator). I am assuming that this is indeed a quantized chaotic system; I'm just hunting for tools or "well-known techniques" to characterize it with. Whatever; I'll have to meditate on it some more. linas 01:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chaotic spectrum 

message: I just realized that my scepticism regarding your counting of researchers who distinguish bios in the Web of Science was justified. At the website of the Journal of Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences  you can see that this journal IS abstracted in the ISI Web of Science (through PsycINFO). I was right when I claimed that you conducted research (although a very poor one that would not pass peer review), and you were incompetent of finding the journal in the list (although you had access to ISI while I didn't and could not verify your claim).
FYI, here  they show that NDPLS has an impact factor of 1.90. 
NDPLS is currently abstracted in: 
PsycINO (American Psychological Association) 
ISI Web of Science (through PsycINFO) 
JEL/Econlit (American Economic Association) 
Medline (National Library of Medicine) 
Proquest (1997-2003 issues at the present time) 
ScienceDirect (Elsevier) 
Scopus (Elsevier) 
FYI, Cybernetics and Systems is 7th out of 18 journals in Computer Science, Cybernetics (Science), with an impact factor of 0.768. 
It was very interesting for me to observe your (other editors included) behaviour regarding this whole bios thing. (I wanted to see how far you would go, and I was keeping some arguments just in case - like the one with the video game) You were so resistant to this new idea that you were not familiar with that you rewrote the whole section in order to eliminate biotic motion link from it (because you could not find argument that would justify its deletion in the past form). I am certain that anyone who is not specialized in chaos theory would not react like few of you did. If an intelligent person (non-specialized in these areas) would read chaos and bios articles, that person would not had biases that you had. You tried to attack me personally for adding this bios thing (that I did because I was familiar with it - I cannot add things I am not familiar with, while you wanted to substract things you were unfamiliar with!), while it is so obvious that all of you are chaos fans. linas for example goes often to chaos related seminars - so he said. What are chances that he is not doing research in that field? XaosBits has access to ISI, why would non-researcher have this? From his contributions to wikipedia, it is obvious what is his area of research - chaos. Gandalf61 has also contributed with so many chaos related articles. 
Linas told me somewhere I should try to make friends on wikipedia. I don't need this kind of friends. What was friendly in your actions. Maybe generosity that XaosBits mentioned by allowing 'Bios theory' to be an article in wikipedia and also a link in 'See also' section here. He is not in a position to be generous. Wikipedia is not his petpedia!
PS. Gandalf61, we had biotic debate, not chaotic. You should know this by now :) Also, convergence to a steady state is rarely a good idea! Constant interaction, feedbacks and generation of novel things (aka bios) is far more appealing.
So much from me. Lakinekaki 00:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  XaosBits