This article gives no context whatsoever. It would definitely be confusing to people who don't know what it's about. Can someone slap one of those "confusing" tags on it? --WikiDonn (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The context is dynamical systems which is linked in the first sentence. Since attractors only make sense as a property of a dynamical system it's natural to assume the reader has some knowledge of them since it would be impractical to explain every concept from scratch.--RDBury (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes... absolutely. This is one of those articles which makes perfect sense if you know all about the topic already, but is otherwise meaningless gobbledegook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Strange attractors are described in several ways in the article:
"a complicated set with a fractal structure known as a strange attractor."
"when these sets...cannot be easily described as simple combinations...then the attractor is called a strange attractor."
"An attractor is called strange if it has non-integer dimension."
This last seems incorrect. Consider an initial variable point P in three-space, along with tetrahedron ABCD. If P is repeatedly moved half-way toward a randomly-chosen vertex (one of A, B, C, and D) the attractor is a Sierpinski tetrahedron, which has a dimension of 2 even though it is indeed a fractal. Consider replacing this sentence with the first description? "An attractor is called strange if it has a fractal structure." By linking "fractal" to the fractal article, the reader would be referred to a more accurate description: "A fractal is a mathematical set that has a fractal dimension that usually exceeds its topological dimension and may fall between the integers." (This is my first edit, so I've posted my reasoning here before actually editing the article.] Scottsteketee (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)