This article was nominated for deletion on 11 December 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Very hard to understand.
Please do not delete this article. It is a very important concept for example in the physics of turbulence. It should be revised however a better explanation is neccesary.
The basic idea is that things are not always self-similar (repeating if you zoom in, like a broccoli or a christmas tree) but only in certain (intermittent) points. A good example is the devil's staircase which is self-similar if you take a stair but not in the region between the stairs (there you just see a flat line if you zoom in). http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~cdm/pics/Devils-staircase.jpg
-- Jaapkroe ( talk) 20:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Intermittency is indeed a widely discussed phenomenon in chaotic dynamics.
However, Wikipedians may need to be aware that the creator of this article, User:Lakinekaki, (REMOVED), has been involved in several AfDs:
These involve a fringe theory, bios theory, according to which natural selection is dominated by a murkily defined phenomenon the authors call "bios", a kind of neo- Lamarckian/ Chardinian "creative influence", allegedly founded in the theory of nonlinear dynamical systems. Note that User:Hector Sabelli, (REMOVED), and (REMOVED) have collaborated on several papers on this topic. (You sort of have to read the AfDs to understand the nature of my WP:COI/ WP:FRINGE concerns.) --- CH ( talk) 22:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
BTW, regarding the sentence (in the current version of the article), "In the apparently periodic phases the behaviour is not quite, but only nearly periodic", the appropriate technical term is quasiperiodic (or more precisely, almost periodic). See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Process_equation for some suggested reading which should be very helpful to anyone trying to improve dynamical systems stubs! HTH --- CH ( talk) 22:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I notice that Hillman no longer contributes to sci.physics, but that Uncle Al seems to regard his role as somewhat similarly "purifying" the field.
None of the Creative Geniuses in mathematics, physics, literature, or music that I know of were interested in "purifying the field" to any degree comparable to Chris Hillman and Uncle Al. Apparently Einstein, for example, whose year we celebrate currently, found it more useful to actually Create than to destroy. Ditto for Shakespeare, Socrates, Plato, Leonardo Da Vinci, Godel, Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, Chopin, the Strausses, etc.
At the present time, there is only one reference, with no indication it's reliable. Is it time to propose deletion (again) unless some sources can be provided? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)