Field

Dynamics — page 2

One rule, applied over and over, and what the sequence does in the end.

the right triangle at an eighth of a turn: 16 directions, and a surface of genus 2. A polygonal billiard table with a long trajectory drawn on it, the finite set of directions that trajectory takes, and the arithmetic of the surface it unfolds into.

A table folded into a surface

Unfolding a square billiard gives a straight line on a torus. Unfolding any table whose angles are whole fractions of half a turn gives a straight line on some surface — and which surface it is decides how hard the dynamics will be.

A room a trajectory cannot get out of, and one it can. A mushroom-shaped billiard table with two long trajectories: one confined to the cap by a conserved quantity, and one that enters the stem.

A room that cannot be lit

Mirror the walls of a room and put a lamp inside it. Every point should be lit, since light bounces forever — and there are rooms with a dark spot no ray from the lamp ever reaches.

One disc, and two paths that stop being near each other. Two nearly identical billiard paths drawn on an empty square and on a square with a circular obstacle, with the separation between them plotted against distance travelled.

The obstacle that makes a table chaotic

Put one round post in the middle of a square table and every trace of order goes. Two paths that start a hundred-thousandth of a degree apart end up on opposite sides of the table, and the reason is that a wall curving outwards multiplies a gap where a flat one only adds to it.

A path of 4 bounces that closes, in a triangle of 100°, 40°, 40°. A triangular billiard table with a periodic path found by an exhaustive sweep of starting positions and directions.

The triangle nobody can settle

Does every triangular billiard table have a path that closes on itself? Acute triangles do, right triangles do, triangles with rational angles do — and for the rest the question has been open since it was asked.

The flow, reduced to one dimension. A scatter of 2395 points: each successive maximum of the Lorenz trajectory's third coordinate against the one before it. The points lie along a single curve with a sharp peak, which is the one-dimensional map the flow induces.

The flow that is really a map

A trajectory wandering through three dimensions is hard to reason about. Record only the successive maxima of one coordinate and the wandering collapses onto a curve — a map of an interval to itself, with a corner in the middle, which is a thing the theory can handle.

A closer start buys time and nothing else. The logarithm of the separation between two Lorenz trajectories plotted against time, for three different initial separations. The three curves are straight and parallel over most of their length, with the same fitted slope.

A closer start buys only time

Two trajectories from almost the same place separate exponentially, and the rate does not depend on how close they began. Halving the initial error buys one fixed interval of extra agreement, and no amount of precision buys more than a fixed number of those.

Stretch, fold, and what is left

A system that pushes every pair of nearby points apart and keeps them all inside a bounded region has only one option, and it is the one a baker uses. Stretching and folding is the mechanism, and what survives infinitely many folds is a Cantor set.

The same banding at every magnification. The Hénon attractor drawn from 26000 points, followed by 2 magnifications of one part of it. Each magnification resolves what looked like a single curve into several parallel ones.

Neither a surface nor a solid

The attractor has no volume, because the flow shrinks volumes at a rate that can be read off the equations. It is also not a surface, because a surface cannot carry chaotic dynamics. What is left is an object of dimension a little over two, and that number is measurable.

Almost every number comes down

The Collatz conjecture is open and a great deal about it is not. Whether a number falls below its own start in the first few steps is decided entirely by its remainder on division by a power of two, and the share of numbers for which it happens can be counted exactly.

Downhill on average, and never on purpose. The logarithms of 4 Collatz orbits plotted against step number, each wandering upward and downward and each ending at one. A separate sample of four thousand starts gives an average fall of -0.15 per step.

The heuristic that cannot be a proof

There is a two-line argument that the Collatz conjecture is true, it is convincing, and everybody who works on the problem believes it. It also cannot be turned into a proof, and understanding exactly where it fails is more instructive than the argument itself.

$The only fractions that could be a cycle's shape. A table of the convergents of the base-two logarithm of three, with the approximation error, the exact value of two to the n less three to the k, and that value as a fraction of three to the k.$

How short a cycle could be

The drift argument cannot see cycles at all, which is why it is not a proof. What can see them is arithmetic — a cycle's shape has to be a fraction that approximates the logarithm of three to base two extraordinarily well, and there are very few such fractions.

Every parity pattern of length up to 12, and each occurring exactly once. A bar for each pattern length, showing the number of distinct parity patterns produced by all remainders of that power of two, which equals the number of remainders at every length.

Every pattern happens exactly once

Choose any sequence of odds and evens and there is exactly one residue class whose orbit follows it, and exactly one fraction that cycles through it forever. The Collatz conjecture is then the statement that only one of those infinitely many cycles is made of whole numbers.

Infinite below 0.6309, nought above it. The total of the s-th powers of the diameters in the natural cover of the middle-thirds Cantor set, plotted against s for 4 depths. Every curve passes through one at s = 0.6309 and they separate either side of it.

Infinite on one side and nought on the other

Box counting returns a growth rate. Hausdorff's definition returns a measure — a quantity that is infinite for every exponent below the dimension and zero for every exponent above it, and the dimension is the one place where it is neither.

A carpet whose two dimensions differ by 0.076. A self-affine carpet built by keeping 5 cells of a 4 by 2 grid and repeating 4 times. Its box dimension is 1.6610 and its Hausdorff dimension 1.5850.

A carpet with two dimensions

For every set on this ladder so far the two definitions of dimension agree, and the agreement is a theorem about sets built from copies of themselves scaled equally. Stretch one direction more than the other and the two numbers come apart, by an amount that can be computed exactly.

A dimension of 1.2576, from two stretching rates. The running averages of the Hénon map's two Lyapunov exponents, settling at 0.4177 and -1.6217. Kaplan and Yorke's formula turns them into a dimension of 1.2576 without counting a single box.

A dimension from the stretching rates

An attractor has no construction rule, so its dimension has to be counted — that was the rung below's argument for defining dimension by counting at all. Kaplan and Yorke's formula computes it instead, from two numbers that describe the map and never look at the set.

All essays