{"id":779,"date":"2009-06-12T08:57:02","date_gmt":"2009-06-12T08:57:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/scientopia.org\/blogs\/goodmath\/2009\/06\/12\/defining-dynamical-systems\/"},"modified":"2009-06-12T08:57:02","modified_gmt":"2009-06-12T08:57:02","slug":"defining-dynamical-systems","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/2009\/06\/12\/defining-dynamical-systems\/","title":{"rendered":"Defining Dynamical Systems"},"content":{"rendered":"<p> In my first <a href=\"http:\/\/scientopia.org\/blogs\/goodmath\/2009\/06\/chaos\">chaos post<\/a>, I kept talking about <em>dynamical systems<\/em> without bothering to define them. Most people who read this blog probably have at least an informal idea of what a dynamical system is. But today I&#8217;m going to do a quick walkthrough of what a dynamical system is, and what the basic relation of dynamical systems is to chaos theory.<\/p>\n<p> The formal definitions of dynamical systems are dependent on the notion of phase space. But before going all formal, we can walk through the basic concept informally.<\/p>\n<p> The basic idea is pretty simple. A dynamical system is a system that changes<br \/>\nover time, and whose behavior can be (in theory) described a function that takes<br \/>\ntime as a parameter. So, for example, if you have a gravitational system which<br \/>\nhas three bodies interacting gravitationally, that&#8217;s a dynamical system. If you<br \/>\nknow the initial masses, positions, and velocities of the planets, the positions of all three bodies at any future point in time is a function of the time.<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p> It&#8217;s important to understand, though, that as I mentioned in the first chaos<br \/>\npost: as is typical for mathematical things, most things are bad. Just because<br \/>\na function <em>exists<\/em> doesn&#8217;t mean that it&#8217;s <em>computable<\/em> or<br \/>\n<em>derivable<\/em>. For most dynamical systems, we know that the system<br \/>\nis parametric in time, but we don&#8217;t know an equation for it.<\/p>\n<p> The most common case for interesting dynamical system that aren&#8217;t linear is<br \/>\nto describe the system in terms of differential equations. A differential<br \/>\nequation for a dynamical system basically says &#8220;Given the state of the system at<br \/>\ntime t, this equation tells you what the state of the system will be at time<br \/>\nt+&epsilon;&#8221;, where &epsilon; is an infinitesimally small period of time.<\/p>\n<p> To get a precise answer out of a differential equation, you need to be able<br \/>\nto integrate it. But most of the time, we don&#8217;t know how to integrate it<br \/>\nsymbolically. The closest we can come is to evaluate it as a series of<br \/>\nsteps, keeping the steps as small as possible. The result of doing this is <em>not<\/em> exactly correct, but if you can get the time-steps short enough,<br \/>\nyou can get very close to the correct answer.<\/p>\n<p> For a lot of systems, this approach works really well. For one prominent<br \/>\nexample, it generally works quite well for N-body gravitational dynamics of<br \/>\nthings like the solar system. N-body systems are difficult and have some<br \/>\nseriously unstable points. But for many examples, with precise measurements and<br \/>\nsmall timesteps, you can get astonishingly accurate predictions using stepwise<br \/>\nevaluation of the differential equations. They&#8217;re very good, but far from<br \/>\nperfect. To give you a sense of what I mean by that: we can predict pretty much<br \/>\n<em>exactly<\/em> where the earth will be at any point for the next 10,000 years.<br \/>\nBut there are several asteroids whose orbits come very close to earth (very<br \/>\nclose in astronomical terms that is), and we can&#8217;t be absolutely certain of<br \/>\nwhere they&#8217;ll be 30 years from now. The best we can do is talk in terms of<br \/>\nprobabilities.<\/p>\n<p> To reiterate: a dynamical system is basically a system that&#8217;s parametric in time. But for chaos theory, we want to describe it in terms of a phase space. To get to the phase space, you need to think of it in terms of topology.<\/p>\n<p> Using topology, you can describe almost anything continuous in terms of a<br \/>\n<em>space<\/em>. A topological space is a tricky concept, but the gist of it is<br \/>\nthat it&#8217;s an infinite set of objects (called <em>points<\/em>), along with a<br \/>\nstructure that defines what objects are <em>close to<\/em> one another. If you<br \/>\nwant more detail than that, then I&#8217;ve got a whole series of posts on topology<br \/>\nthat you can look at, starting <a href=\"http:\/\/scienceblogs.com\/goodmath\/2006\/08\/topological_spaces.php\">here<\/a><\/p>\n<p> If you look at a complex system, you can define the set of states of that<br \/>\ncomplex system as the points of a space, and where points are close to each<br \/>\nother when there&#8217;s a short path through the states of the system from one<br \/>\nof those points to the other.  If you define it so that it&#8217;s got the right properties, you end up with a topological space.<\/p>\n<p> To get from there to the phase space of a dynamical system, you need to add<br \/>\n<em>time<\/em> &#8211; the defining characteristic of a dynamical system is that it&#8217;s<br \/>\nparametric in time. That&#8217;s done by providing an <em>evolution function<\/em>: a<br \/>\nmapping which, given any point p in the phase space of the dynamical system and<br \/>\nany interval of time, gives you <em>another<\/em> point, p&#8217; in the space. The meaning of the evolution function is that if you start the system in the<br \/>\nstate corresponding to the point p, and then you stop it after time t has passed, the state of the system will be p&#8217;.<\/p>\n<p> The evolution function is completely deterministic: given a precise point in<br \/>\nthe phase space, after a precise interval has passed, the system will<br \/>\n<em>always<\/em> wind up in a specific state. At this level of the system,<br \/>\nthere is nothing obviously chaotic, nothing uncertain, nothing random. The system is precise, fully defined, and fully deterministic.<\/p>\n<p> For many systems, the phase space is very clear and well defined, and<br \/>\nwe can perform computations in it with great precision. Just for example, there are lots of linear dynamical systems, and they&#8217;re perfectly stable. In fact, you can make the argument that the ease with which we can analyze linear<br \/>\ndynamical systems is why chaotic systems were such a shock.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In my first chaos post, I kept talking about dynamical systems without bothering to define them. Most people who read this blog probably have at least an informal idea of what a dynamical system is. But today I&#8217;m going to do a quick walkthrough of what a dynamical system is, and what the basic relation [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[77],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-779","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chaos"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4lzZS-cz","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/779","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=779"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/779\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=779"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=779"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=779"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}