Talk:Classification of Fatou components

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Systems (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the field of Chaos theory.


Should this be merged with the No Wandering Domains article? SmaleDuffin 15:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That is an idea, since both is about rational maps.
Maybe just call the page Iterations of rational functions
So that more facts can be added (such that the number of fatou components of a rational map can only be 0,1,2 or infinitley many) etc. I support the idea, but I am not so skilled with wiki yet so that I can
do the change. Be sure to check all incoming link, so they direct to the right part of the page.

Paxinum 18:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyone here that have examples of maps that contains any of the first 3? Attracting point-components are the most common, but what about the other ones? Paxinum 10:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I can write down some examples. This article is OK as far as it is better expressed (now I'm in a hurry but maybe I'll fix it later) as transcendental entire functions have wandering domains, which are part of Fatou components. (RBerenguel 10:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)).

Clauses are not sentences[edit]

In the section "Attracting Periodic Point" the first few lines are of the form:

The components of ... that contains the attracting points that ... .

Three clauses with a subject and no object. It is impossible for a native English speaker to make any sense of this totally apart from the math. I cannot fix it since I have no clue what the author was trying to say and I have no competence with the mathematics so I can't guess what it should say. (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Is now better ? --Adam majewski (talk) 07:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)