Talk:Horseshoe map

message: (William M. Connolley 16:42, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)) Umm, is the page correct? If x>0.5, 1-2x<0 and the point leaves the unit square. Or have I missed something? Quite likely...
The second-to-last paragraph seems redundant; at least the beginning of it does.  What do you think? Cluster 01:47, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk 2004 

message: This page describes what is known as the Baker map.  The Smale horseshoe compresses a square into a horseshoe shaped region.  I suggest that the content be moved to a new Baker_map page. Moved (XaosBits).    The page now described the Smale horseshoe.
: Horseshoe map is NOT Baker map. For example, one can extend horseshoe map to the diffeomorphism of sphere, that cannot be done with Baker map, because of it's nonsmoothness. -- 85.140.10.27 19:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baker x Horseshoe 

message: This article should give the formula for this map. --MarSch 13:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The horseshoe map is defined geometrically and is really a class of maps.   The actual formula for any one of them does not matter much and is quite messy.  If there is interest, I could paste the code I used for the illustrations (which contains a definition of one member from the class of horseshoe maps).   XaosBits 17:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  formula 

message: Something about the embedding of the horseshoe into other systems
(in particlar into the restricted three-body problem) would help
explain why it's important. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.17.27.38 (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Embeddings? 

message: The article begins by saying that a horseshoe map is a map of a square into itself, but illustrations immediately below use an oval (not even a rectangle). On the other hand, the later, more technical section operates with a region of the plane of a fairly special kind and, while consistent with the illustration, it doesn't match the usual conventions about what constitutes a Smale's horseshoe. All this needs to be explained better. Arcfrk 02:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the domain? 

message: Thanks Arcfrk.  I have similar concerns.  The description has "... defined geometrically by squishing the square, ..." whereas the diagram shows an oblong. Is this map applied to a unit square in R2 or to a unit square slab in R3?  The "square" in the description refers to the plan view of R2? The oblong in the illustration represents the side view of a batch of dough?  The description and illustration should be consistent.  If the intention is to illustrate an object in three dimensions, an isometric view or orthographic projection should be used; or least the description should mention which view the illustration portrays.  Regards, PeterEasthope (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency of Description and Illustration 

message: It is curious that the variant map in its curled up form is that used to make puff pastry! I fear, however, that it is probably not really worth mentioning in the article — nor indeed worth mentioning this map in that article. PJTraill (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curiosity: pastry