Talk:Chaos theory

message: This "theory" only shows the immaturity of the mathematical tools used in discrete computer modeling of real continuous processes. Chaos theory is nothing more than pseudoscientific propaganda.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emil Enchev BG (talk • contribs) 14:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chaos theory should be labeled as pseudoscience 

message: Isn't the point of chaos theory that there is no chaos? It is a euphemism that points out our inability to see complex patterns. And by complex I'm talking predicting the place and vector of any atom in a glass of warm milk. Chaos theory says it can't be done and I agree. But not because it is impossible but because we are incapable. The wingflap of a butterfly *does* set off a tornado in Texas but we will never(?) be able to point a finger at the animal and say: "She did it." Or more spesific: "She will do it and...that was the flap." --94.212.169.79 (talk) 10:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. "Chaos Theory" is one of the biggest misnomers in the history of science, since what it studies really isn't chaos at all, but simply another kind of order (nonlinear order). "Imaginary numbers" are also a misnomer too, since they aren't really imaginary (as those of us who have studied quantum mechanics know). LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 21:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weather and climate II 

message: Wouldnt be worthy mentioning this? Most chaotic attractors have fractal properties and there's a huge number of cases in which chaos can arrise from parameter perturbation such as Feigenbaum cascades and Shilinikov chaos?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbertolotti (talk • contribs) 19:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fractals and Bifurcations 

message: One of you smart people out there has got to be informed about the horseshoe map im talking about. I saw a picture of it once and had a brief explanation that left completely lost. I've look around the internet and can't find any reference of it. Essentially the concept is related to topology, it involved a process of folding a rectangle in a repeatative fashion that left it in the shape of a horseshoe. It was intended to show sensitive dependance on initial conditions. Two points that begin close to each other could end up far apart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.29.105 (talk • contribs) 
(moved from the article page William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Errm, did you mean Horseshoe map? Its, ermm, linked from the article William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  HorseShoe Map 

message: In the history section, some mention of catastrophe theory is needed, since a lot of it can be considered the precursor to modern chaos theory.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.185.145 (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catastrophe Theory 

message: is this really passing for science/mathematics? I'd vote to have this article removed. There is no such thing as chaos, nothing happens for no reason or out of order. If something happens there is a cause for it to happen. If you bounce a ball and the ball behaves a certain way, but you bounce it the same way as far as you can tell and it bounces different, then there's simply a calculation you are missing (the spin of the ball, temperature, static in the air etc) there is always a cause for an effect, to say otherwise is simply a chaotic statement. 50.47.105.167 (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you did not misunderstand.  Improved measurement accuracy increases the time predictions can be considered useful, but "chaos" would eventually occur.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

text: I think this is actually quite an interesting question, as the anonymous poster obviously has some wrong ideas of what science and maths do, and those ideas are quite likely widespread, but I find it hard to pin them down. Their views also appear to clash with quantum indeterminism. They do not seem to appreciate that chaos means that in the end no approximation is good enough: if I understand right this means that no margin of error on the initial state can rule out reaching any other state being reachable in the long term to within the same margin. That is an attempt to reformulate the conditions for chaos (mixing, dense periodic orbits) in less technical terms while still conveying their force, but I think it can be improved.
PJTraill (talk) 08:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing is chaos 

message: Is wrong. It can converge exponetialy to 0 and also computation looses precision.
-Comment added to article by 79.117.14.226 (talk), 18:16, 9 December 2013
:I'm not sure what the above comment means but the section "Distinguishing random from chaotic data" does look in need of improvement.  Yaris678 (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a better phrase all round: "The chaos equation cannot be solved, but it can still be useful."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.193.74 (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinguishing random from chaotic data 

message: I'm not keen on this edit,  which replaces one source with another.  The previous source wasn't the highest quality, but I think it was sufficient for the purposes we used it for.  The new source is available on Google books, and I can't find the quote mentioned in it.
The IP has made other, valuable edits to the article, but I don't know where this has come from.  Am I missing something?
Yaris678 (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had no response so I have reverted the change of source.  The source that the IP cited was a self-published book that doesn't appear to contain the quote.  Yaris678 (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of sources by an IP 

message: There is a section entitled such in the artcle Jerk (physics), which, imho, does not really fit to the physical content of that page. It just refers to the third derivative motivating the name from kinematics. Recently, I did some work on that physics page and would like to shift this content here, where, if I do not mistake this matter, it would fit better and were appropriate also. Certainly, it would require some adaptation to a more mathy lingo, and there are already simpler circuits published, with only one diode as non-linearity, but the discussion on in some sense minimal systems appears to me sufficiently interesting for this page. May I, please, ask for comments. Purgy (talk) 10:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I did as announced above, and hope, not to have deteriorated something.Purgy (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jerk systems 

message: The finding that universal computation would be almost surely chaotic is debated upon. I am the author of the paper, and after the paper went to press, 
they notified us saying other people have found flaw in the proof. In the light of the flaws therein ( unless we manage to hold our position ) the citation or argument should be removed.
**Furthermore, it has also been argued that universal computation is 'almost surely' chaotic.[73]**  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmondal (talk • contribs) 01:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chaos And Computation 

message: Hi, after writing a theory of interaction proposal, I set to consideration two new definitions to order & chaos. I think that current definitions are completely wrong. Please see the introductory videos about interaction and dimensionality on ydor.org. Over that basis:
* The Systems Theory is an objective approach of nature; but the Theory of Interaction is a subjective approach of systems, the modelization of how systems approach other systems in nature; science will not be able to understand natural systems until observing them from the interactional point of view.
* A dimension is an approach of contents processing (see the video). The redefinition of dimension permits applying the same rules of mathematical systems interactions to real systems, natural systems. A system of equations has a complete different set of dimensions than a natural system; notably, natural systems have compound complex dimensions; then:
** example 1: approach: compare a distance against a ruler; contents: two points; processing: measuring; that is a linear distance, a 1-dimensional space;
** example 2: approach: extracting nutrients by digestion; contents: milk; processing: drinking; that is the output content of a cow system, milk, from the subjective point of view of a human; the complex & compound dimension called milk.
* Interaction is the mechanism of exchange of subjective of dimensional contents between systems that causes a profit value.
** example 1: exchange: two atoms exchange stability by fundamental interactions; profit value: increase of the scale of existence; example of subjective dimensional content: the exchanged force.
** example 2: exchange: cow gives milk to farmer, farmer gives pasture; profit value: positive for the farmer, drinks & sells milk, positive for the cow, continues living)
* Order is the dimensional disposition that exists during interaction;
** example 1: H2O is 3 atoms holding repetitive interactions. The dimensional disposition could be the 104.45deg or the 95.84pm.
** example 2: To speak (interaction is speak over the air) with someone, you need to be @ 1m distance, no obstacles, etc. After speaking, order is lost.
* Chaos is the lack of interaction on a dimensional space. Order coexists with chaos on different dimensions.
** example 1: if the H2O molecule breaks, positional order is finished (order on the positional dimension). If the molecule was moving, the particles could
keep the same energy after splitting (despite there is chaos in positions, speeds continue to be the same; in other words, there is order on the energy dimension, but chaos on the positional dimension).
http://www.ydor.org/uploads/YDOR/TheoryOfInteraction087-Excerpt.pdf
Rodolfoap (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: While Wikipedia does occasionally allow some authors to cite themselves, it does not allow self published books to be cited.  I see that your work also cites Wikipedia, which is problematic in that it could result in circular sourcing.  Wikipedia is not the place for you to promote your ideas.  Go find an academic publisher and some peer-reviewed journal, get published in there, then your ideas might be presented.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order & Chaos definition 

message: The small section of spontaneous order if badly flawed. "Spontaneous" itself is part of the problem. If it is deterministic (as chaos is claimed to be) it cannot be spontaneous. Just because a set of cyclic phenomena occasionally appear to display coordinated does not mean there is any order. Set three lamps blinking at different rates. Occasionally two will flash at the same time. Rarely, all three will flash at the same time. There is no order here, there is only the initial disorder progressing as it was programmed to, and the asynchrony of the initial conditions produce an illusion of synchronization. There is no order here, any more than every tornado is Texas can be blamed on a Brazilian butterfly. Nor is there any spontenaity. The eventual coincidence of flashes was predictable when the flash periods were chosen.
The inclusion of neurons as examples is particularly egregious. The examples given in the referenced text are of artificial neural networks. While these produce results that appear similar to the action of living neural nets, such artifices operate on principles entirely different from the outcome models. Neurons do not spontaneously synchronize. For example 85% of the human brain performs inhibitory action. One such inhibitory action is pulses of transmitters such as GABA injected into collections of neurons, such as cortical pyramidal cells, each with its own spontaneous firing rate. The inhibitory pulse delay neural firing that was about to happen. Those that were closest to firing are delayed most. Their firing is pushed back until they begin to coincide with those just slightly behind the first in time. This repeats until the entire collection (ie. Hebbian cellular assembly) is firing together. The inhibitory pulses continue until that particular assembly is no longer needed for the task at hand (or some are called into action as members of other assemblies). The most obvious supposed synchrony was also the first EEG ever seen -- alpha waves. These occur not as a resting state but when enough of the local neural population (52% or more according to Nunez) is operating on a single task. It occurs when the eyes are closed, not because the cortex is taking a break, but because it's seeing a single thing -- the darkness behind the eyelids. The same result is obtained when the eyes are kept open but covered with halves of ping pong ball. All white or all dark field of vision doesn't matter. All the same does. This is not spontaneous, there is a very specific cause, and a very specific mechanism that provides that cause for a very specific kind of neural processing task.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmcclainphd (talk • contribs) 11:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia only cites mainstream academic sources without interpretation or elaboration, and only modifies articles accordingly.  If you cite some sources and propose specific changes (e.g. "change X to Y because it's in line with Z source"), you'll find that the article is more likely to change.  A wall of text without citations will have about has much effect as saying "the article is wrong."  Ian.thomson (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spontaneous Order? --> Simplexity 

message: This article does an admirable job of explaining what chaos theory is, but doesn't make it at all clear where it came from, other than a brief mention of Lorentz.  When was chaos theory first propounded or proposed as "chaos theory"?  By whom?  Was it Lorentz?  Did he publish his proposal somewhere?  How was it received?  Etc.
I'd suggest taking a look at the Quantum mechanics article.  The last paragraph of the introductory section gives a concise history of the development of the theory; something like that is needed here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  History? 

message: Dr. Gomes has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Gomes has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : Orlando Gomes, 2007. "Imperfect Demand Expectations and Endogenous Business Cycles," Money Macro and Finance (MMF) Research Group Conference 2006 127, Money Macro and Finance Research Group.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Gomes's comment on this article 

message: There's a draft for an outline on chaos theory at Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of chaos theory if anyone is interested. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft outline 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chaos theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091229042210/http://pb.math.univ.gda.pl:80/chaos/pdf/li-yorke.pdf to http://pb.math.univ.gda.pl/chaos/pdf/li-yorke.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071214033929/https://www.nslij-genetics.org/wli/1fnoise/1fnoise_square.html to http://www.nslij-genetics.org/wli/1fnoise/1fnoise_square.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070428110552/http://www.eng.ox.ac.uk:80/samp/ to http://www.eng.ox.ac.uk/samp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chaos theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130426201635/http://www.ccsr.illinois.edu/web/Techreports/2005-08/CCSR-05-4.pdf to http://www.ccsr.illinois.edu/web/Techreports/2005-08/CCSR-05-4.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Chaos theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612040821/http://cse.ucdavis.edu/~chaos/courses/ncaso/Readings/Chaos_SciAm1986/Chaos_SciAm1986.html to http://cse.ucdavis.edu/~chaos/courses/ncaso/Readings/Chaos_SciAm1986/Chaos_SciAm1986.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160310065017/http://lagrange.physics.drexel.edu/ to http://lagrange.physics.drexel.edu/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090307094012/http://www.mgix.com/snippets/?MackeyGlass to http://www.mgix.com/snippets/?MackeyGlass
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chaos theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051227123602/http://physics.mercer.edu/pendulum/ to http://physics.mercer.edu/pendulum/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Chaos "theory" is not theory at all. It is a product of the weaknesses of the mathematical tools we use to model real world processes. That we cannot yet find suitable mathematical means for a more accurate description of these natural phenomena does not give legitimacy to the crippled tools of calculus to create such shits as "Chaos theory". I look at this article more like yours "Alchemy" one, than of scientific section from Wikipedia. Probably not just me. A stable critical section must be added necessarily. 
P.s. I've seen other people to criticize you above, too.
"Small differences in initial conditions, such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation, can yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction of their behavior impossible in general."
It is strange how exactly "rounding errors" lead Edward Lorenz to this shit, but yet many people still take this fabrication for reality. The quality of Wikipedia articles has begun to fall under all criticism. You even consider tabloid information to be accurate, just because many people have distributed it. I think that with the gentleman in question above we are wasting our time. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/
Emil Enchev 84.238.148.54 (talk) 11:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. If you provide links to reliable sources of such criticism (satisfying WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFY), somebody could integrate them into such a section, in the spirit of WP:NEUTRAL. If not, it is not so likely to happen. I also notice you refer to "you", but you would be welcome to make that "we" if you were prepared to work in accordance with the Five pillars. PJTraill (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critics section must be added 

message: I improved the opening paragraph... Chaos theory is an interdisciplinary theory and branch of mathematics focusing on the study of chaos: dynamical systems whose apparently random states of disorder and irregularities are actually governed by underlying patterns and deterministic laws that are highly sensitive to initial conditions.<ref]</ref><ref></ref] Chaos theory states that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, interconnectedness, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, and self-organization. 99.169.79.198 (talk) 11:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chaos Theory - An Interdisciplinary Theory 

message: How they work,how to solve them , require various example of each.. Hasheela William (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boolean algebra and trigonometry, partitions and permutations  

message: "Topological mixing (or the weaker condition of topological transitivity)"
...
"Topological transitivity is a weaker version of topological mixing."
Which is it? GreatBigCircles (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction: which is weaker? 

message: The redirect Disorganized has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Duckmather (talk) 06:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Disorganized]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The video that is replicating a supposid chaos theory example is misleading as it is apparent upon viewing the video that the hand is providing different momentum to each segment of the six segment video. This seems more as a misrepresentation. B1blazin (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo/ Video example is misleading