User talk:3p1416

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, 3p1416, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Hi, 3p1416. This is 2e7183 (just kidding ...)

Seriously, I ran across your new article Control of chaos, and noticed a red link for your talk page. So I just stopped by to say hello. Here's another page you might want to visit from time to time. A bunch of the mathematicians on Wikipedia get together there to kick things around.

Have a great day! DavidCBryant 13:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Control of Chaos[edit]

Hello! It's me again.

Say, I just edited Control of chaos. You might want to look it over to be sure you approve of my edits. I did want to point one thing out, which might not be obvious. You had coded a category tag as "Category:Chaos theory|*". I changed that to "Category:Chaos theory". The little "|*" bit identifies the article in which it's found as the primary article for that category. I think Chaos theory should be the main article for "Category:Chaos theory", and your new article should appear as a sub-heading within the category. DavidCBryant 14:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and UPOs[edit]

Hello David,

Thanks a lot for your warmth welcome, for your help, and for your advice that will be taken into account. As you will notice, I reversed only one of the changes that you did to “Control of Chaos”: the skeleton of a chaotic attractor is made of truly periodic orbits. Although unstable, these orbits are properly periodic. They are not more or less periodic as “almost-periodic” suggests. Anyway, I feel that the remainder of your editing has improved the article. Thank you again. 3p1416 11:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, 3p1416. Sorry to be so slow about writing back.

I don't want to argue, exactly, but I'm a little puzzled by your insistence that "almost-periodic" is wrong. I understand that there are periodic orbits inside of chaotic attractors. The problem is that in the real world one can't precisely control the trajectory of say a charged particle. One can make the particle approach the stable (periodic) orbit, but the error inherent in the real world mechanism does not permit one to nail the perfect orbit precisely.

I guess the distinction is between the periodic orbit (which can be shown to exist) and the almost-periodic orbit in which the real particle/system moves. Not that it's a big deal, but I'm still puzzled by your edit.

On another topic (in the same article), I notice that User:Tim.bounceback put a "noofootnote" tag on the article, and you promptly removed it. What Tim wanted you to do was to put a footnote^[1] or two in the body of the article. I can help you get that done, if you just let me know which of your two references describes the Pyragas method, and which describes OGY. Or are both methods covered in both books? I don't know, because I don't have either book handy.

Have a great day!^[2] DavidCBryant 13:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

^ A footnote is a small explanatory tag – see WP:FOOTNOTE for details on how to set these up.
^ I've put a couple of footnotes in this message, so you can see how it's done.

Hi David,

Thank you for your comment, which I respond here. Your term "almost-periodic" is not wrong; it just happens that it is not used in practice. "Unstable periodic orbit" is standard nomenclature found in papers and textbooks; while "almost-periodic", although arguably appropriate, is not. UPO is the name that has gained consensus among the specialists in the field: that is all. I think that we both agree that standard nomenclature and notation is to be used in the Wikipedia articles.

Regarding references, I have to tell you that the two books deal with both methods (and other derived from them, as well as applications). The material contained in the article is fully covered by the two books. The difference between them is not which method is covered in each book, but how the subject is addressed. As the titles of the books suggest one of them is introductory, while the other is advanced. It is because of this that I do not find the footnotes suggested by User:Tim.bounceback appropriate in this particular case.

Thanks again for your input.

3p1416 09:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Chaos communications for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chaos communications, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaos communications until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] A footnote is a small explanatory tag – see WP:FOOTNOTE for details on how to set these up.

[2] I've put a couple of footnotes in this message, so you can see how it's done.

[1]

[2]