Talk:Shadowing lemma
Add topicLatest comment: 16 years ago by Burivykh in topic "Formal statement" part
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
"Formal statement" part
[edit]I think the formal statement for hyperbolic sets should be replaced. There have been proofs that deal with non-hyperbolic sets. one of which I have cited. I think the formal statement needs to be updated? -- Praharsh
Gandalf61, thanks for correcting my English!
However -- it seems to me that it's better to preserve "Shadowing lemma" as an "environment" around the statement. (In fact, in ruwiki, there are "Lemma" and "Theorem" environments; is there something alike in enwiki?)
One of the reasons is to separate the definition of the pseudo-orbit from the statement of the lemma: well, I was taught that a good style is to never give definitions _inside_ statements...
What do you think? --Burivykh (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)