Talk:Dynamical system

Proposed merge of Dynamical system (definition) into Dynamical system

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was Merge. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

---

"definition" is the main aspect of any topic fgnievinski (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Ergodic systems" section organization

Finite time solutions are an extreme opposite of ergodic behavior. Nonlinear and chaotic systems are not a subclass of ergodic systems. Finite time solutions do require nonlinearity. The organization here therefore makes very little sense. RowanElder (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Tone

See specifically WP:PRONOUN. fgnievinski (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

let me know extra feedback if needed thx;) Flyredeagle (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Formal definition

I feel that semi group is much more general than monoid. This current formal definition is full of bias and damaging the article.

One reason is due to the self reference. People discussed across the internet for last 12 years what the heck this formal definition means, the preceding page was deleted and the original history is not public, to prove that the guy adding the self reference was actually the guy in Cagliari.

Second reason is the community of math stack exchange attached to category theory, they don't like semi groups cause categories are typically defined top down with identity in axiomatic manner. There is a big thing with the pull back from the monoid to the semi-group, to make equality working in the extended semi-group. It is also unclear how much this category theory comes back useful as in the reference from Harvard.

Third reason semi groups are constructivist typically too where you add a different identity on the basis of need, there is a wealth of dynamical system such as finite state automata and reset mechanics that comes with multiple identities, and others with left or right identities.

Proof that this bias is damaging for example is that it was removed from the competition ... https://grokipedia.com/page/Dynamical_system}} Which ends up to be more consistent.

This difficulty is ultimately due to good Research and bogus research, and different philosophical approaches which lurks in the article.

The thing that is actually good is the measure theoretic stuff which is actually robust and sound with major theorems attached.

Finally I was listening Deutsch stating that Wikipedia is recently dying due to quality, and is unclear how it didn't die before. There's no bias, there's just error either intentional or not intentional. Flyredeagle (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

One Section Doesn't Function in Dark Mode

This is a great article. I just want to mention that some of the equations in the following section appear in white font in white background:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dynamical_system&gesuggestededit=1#Classical_definition Starlighsky (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2026 (UTC)