Talk:Shadowing lemma

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Systems: Chaos theory Low‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the field of Chaos theory.

"Formal statement" part

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)Reply

This page was redesigned at the edge.

"Formal statement" part