Orbit , trajectory, dynamical system












5












$begingroup$


The orbit of $φ$ through $x_0$ is the set $O(x_0) equiv {φ_t(x_0) : −∞ < t < ∞}$. This is also called the trajectory through $x_0$. Then, what is the difference between an orbit and a trajectory?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I'm a little confused by your notation, but I'm more confused that you wrote the Orbit through a point is also called a trajectory. I believe it's standard to reserve the notion of orbit for trajectories that make a closed loop. Orbits are trajectories, but trajectories are not necessarily orbits.
    $endgroup$
    – breeden
    Jun 13 '14 at 6:50












  • $begingroup$
    I'm sorry, I have a definition from a paper. Thank you @Breeden :), but I'm still confused. In terms of where the difference of the orbit and trajectory..
    $endgroup$
    – user132624
    Jun 13 '14 at 7:24










  • $begingroup$
    @breeden thank you for your enlightenment. finally, I know where the difference of the trajectories and orbits :)
    $endgroup$
    – user132624
    Jun 14 '14 at 4:09










  • $begingroup$
    Great! @user132624
    $endgroup$
    – breeden
    Jun 14 '14 at 4:13






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    As far as I've seen earlier the set $O(x_0) = lbrace varphi^t(x_0) vert -infty < t < +infty rbrace$ can be called both ways. Term "orbit" seems to be linked with group-theoretic view of dynamical systems definition. And trajectory is a more physics-like name of this thing. I would appreciate any correction if I'm wrong.
    $endgroup$
    – Evgeny
    Jun 16 '14 at 8:49
















5












$begingroup$


The orbit of $φ$ through $x_0$ is the set $O(x_0) equiv {φ_t(x_0) : −∞ < t < ∞}$. This is also called the trajectory through $x_0$. Then, what is the difference between an orbit and a trajectory?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I'm a little confused by your notation, but I'm more confused that you wrote the Orbit through a point is also called a trajectory. I believe it's standard to reserve the notion of orbit for trajectories that make a closed loop. Orbits are trajectories, but trajectories are not necessarily orbits.
    $endgroup$
    – breeden
    Jun 13 '14 at 6:50












  • $begingroup$
    I'm sorry, I have a definition from a paper. Thank you @Breeden :), but I'm still confused. In terms of where the difference of the orbit and trajectory..
    $endgroup$
    – user132624
    Jun 13 '14 at 7:24










  • $begingroup$
    @breeden thank you for your enlightenment. finally, I know where the difference of the trajectories and orbits :)
    $endgroup$
    – user132624
    Jun 14 '14 at 4:09










  • $begingroup$
    Great! @user132624
    $endgroup$
    – breeden
    Jun 14 '14 at 4:13






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    As far as I've seen earlier the set $O(x_0) = lbrace varphi^t(x_0) vert -infty < t < +infty rbrace$ can be called both ways. Term "orbit" seems to be linked with group-theoretic view of dynamical systems definition. And trajectory is a more physics-like name of this thing. I would appreciate any correction if I'm wrong.
    $endgroup$
    – Evgeny
    Jun 16 '14 at 8:49














5












5








5


3



$begingroup$


The orbit of $φ$ through $x_0$ is the set $O(x_0) equiv {φ_t(x_0) : −∞ < t < ∞}$. This is also called the trajectory through $x_0$. Then, what is the difference between an orbit and a trajectory?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




The orbit of $φ$ through $x_0$ is the set $O(x_0) equiv {φ_t(x_0) : −∞ < t < ∞}$. This is also called the trajectory through $x_0$. Then, what is the difference between an orbit and a trajectory?







dynamical-systems






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jun 1 '15 at 10:39









pluton

244317




244317










asked Jun 13 '14 at 6:43









user132624user132624

263




263












  • $begingroup$
    I'm a little confused by your notation, but I'm more confused that you wrote the Orbit through a point is also called a trajectory. I believe it's standard to reserve the notion of orbit for trajectories that make a closed loop. Orbits are trajectories, but trajectories are not necessarily orbits.
    $endgroup$
    – breeden
    Jun 13 '14 at 6:50












  • $begingroup$
    I'm sorry, I have a definition from a paper. Thank you @Breeden :), but I'm still confused. In terms of where the difference of the orbit and trajectory..
    $endgroup$
    – user132624
    Jun 13 '14 at 7:24










  • $begingroup$
    @breeden thank you for your enlightenment. finally, I know where the difference of the trajectories and orbits :)
    $endgroup$
    – user132624
    Jun 14 '14 at 4:09










  • $begingroup$
    Great! @user132624
    $endgroup$
    – breeden
    Jun 14 '14 at 4:13






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    As far as I've seen earlier the set $O(x_0) = lbrace varphi^t(x_0) vert -infty < t < +infty rbrace$ can be called both ways. Term "orbit" seems to be linked with group-theoretic view of dynamical systems definition. And trajectory is a more physics-like name of this thing. I would appreciate any correction if I'm wrong.
    $endgroup$
    – Evgeny
    Jun 16 '14 at 8:49


















  • $begingroup$
    I'm a little confused by your notation, but I'm more confused that you wrote the Orbit through a point is also called a trajectory. I believe it's standard to reserve the notion of orbit for trajectories that make a closed loop. Orbits are trajectories, but trajectories are not necessarily orbits.
    $endgroup$
    – breeden
    Jun 13 '14 at 6:50












  • $begingroup$
    I'm sorry, I have a definition from a paper. Thank you @Breeden :), but I'm still confused. In terms of where the difference of the orbit and trajectory..
    $endgroup$
    – user132624
    Jun 13 '14 at 7:24










  • $begingroup$
    @breeden thank you for your enlightenment. finally, I know where the difference of the trajectories and orbits :)
    $endgroup$
    – user132624
    Jun 14 '14 at 4:09










  • $begingroup$
    Great! @user132624
    $endgroup$
    – breeden
    Jun 14 '14 at 4:13






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    As far as I've seen earlier the set $O(x_0) = lbrace varphi^t(x_0) vert -infty < t < +infty rbrace$ can be called both ways. Term "orbit" seems to be linked with group-theoretic view of dynamical systems definition. And trajectory is a more physics-like name of this thing. I would appreciate any correction if I'm wrong.
    $endgroup$
    – Evgeny
    Jun 16 '14 at 8:49
















$begingroup$
I'm a little confused by your notation, but I'm more confused that you wrote the Orbit through a point is also called a trajectory. I believe it's standard to reserve the notion of orbit for trajectories that make a closed loop. Orbits are trajectories, but trajectories are not necessarily orbits.
$endgroup$
– breeden
Jun 13 '14 at 6:50






$begingroup$
I'm a little confused by your notation, but I'm more confused that you wrote the Orbit through a point is also called a trajectory. I believe it's standard to reserve the notion of orbit for trajectories that make a closed loop. Orbits are trajectories, but trajectories are not necessarily orbits.
$endgroup$
– breeden
Jun 13 '14 at 6:50














$begingroup$
I'm sorry, I have a definition from a paper. Thank you @Breeden :), but I'm still confused. In terms of where the difference of the orbit and trajectory..
$endgroup$
– user132624
Jun 13 '14 at 7:24




$begingroup$
I'm sorry, I have a definition from a paper. Thank you @Breeden :), but I'm still confused. In terms of where the difference of the orbit and trajectory..
$endgroup$
– user132624
Jun 13 '14 at 7:24












$begingroup$
@breeden thank you for your enlightenment. finally, I know where the difference of the trajectories and orbits :)
$endgroup$
– user132624
Jun 14 '14 at 4:09




$begingroup$
@breeden thank you for your enlightenment. finally, I know where the difference of the trajectories and orbits :)
$endgroup$
– user132624
Jun 14 '14 at 4:09












$begingroup$
Great! @user132624
$endgroup$
– breeden
Jun 14 '14 at 4:13




$begingroup$
Great! @user132624
$endgroup$
– breeden
Jun 14 '14 at 4:13




2




2




$begingroup$
As far as I've seen earlier the set $O(x_0) = lbrace varphi^t(x_0) vert -infty < t < +infty rbrace$ can be called both ways. Term "orbit" seems to be linked with group-theoretic view of dynamical systems definition. And trajectory is a more physics-like name of this thing. I would appreciate any correction if I'm wrong.
$endgroup$
– Evgeny
Jun 16 '14 at 8:49




$begingroup$
As far as I've seen earlier the set $O(x_0) = lbrace varphi^t(x_0) vert -infty < t < +infty rbrace$ can be called both ways. Term "orbit" seems to be linked with group-theoretic view of dynamical systems definition. And trajectory is a more physics-like name of this thing. I would appreciate any correction if I'm wrong.
$endgroup$
– Evgeny
Jun 16 '14 at 8:49










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















4












$begingroup$

My impression is that, in dynamic systems theory, the two terms 'orbit' and 'trajectory' are often used interchangeably. They both seem to come from physics, e.g. orbits of planets, etc. Earlier, I had the impression that 'trajectory' was more commonly used when talking about continuous systems, and that 'orbit' was used for discrete ones. This distinction does not seem to be even nearly universally accepted however, and is probably more of a preference than anything else. Possibly this impression comes from the fact that you use 'orbit' in group theory, when a group is acting on elements of a set, see definition here. It therefore feels somewhat more natural to call the sequence emerging from a discrete system, orbit. Trajectory seems to be somewhat more common among physicists. I get a feeling that this is similar to the distinction (or non-distinction) between 'map' and 'function', see discussion here.



I find it hard to find any real distinction being made explicitly in dynamical systems literature (at least in the many books on my shelf). Three examples of the terms being explicitly used interchangeably by respected authorities are:




  1. At the Scholarpedia article Dynamical Systems by Prof. James Meiss, Applied Mathematics University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA, under the "Evolution Rule" section, §2.



"The forward orbit or trajectory of a state $s$ is the time-ordered collection of states that follow from $s$ using the evolution rule."





  1. In Robert C Hilborn's Chaos and Nonlinear Dynamics, An Introduction for Scientists and Engineers, Second Edition, p.20, §1.



The sequence of $x$-values generated by this iteration procedure will be called the trajectory or orbit in analogy to the sequence of position values for a planet or satellite taken at successive time intervals.





  1. In Mario Martelli's Introduction to Discrete Dynamical Systems and Chaos, Definition 1.1.1, p.11, §3.



The evolution of the system starting from $x_0$, is given by the sequence: $(x_0, x_1=F(x_0), x_2=F^2(x_0), ..., F^n(x_o), ...)$.



Definition 1.1.1 [3]. The sequence ${x_0,x_1,ldots, x_n,ldots}$ is denoted by $O(x_0)$ and is called the orbit or trajectory of the system starting from $x_0$.




I want to make clear that I am a mathematician and not a physicist, therefore my impression is very much based on literature about pure and applied mathematics. It might be the case that physicists make more of a distinction between the two, even though I doubt it.



Another, perhaps more important distinction that should be made when talking about orbits/trajectories, is whether one means orbit/trajectory a as defined in 1.1.1, as a sequence, or as a set. Often this does not pose any problems, as it is clear from context. Personally, dealing mostly with discrete systems, I usually write ${f^n}_{ngeq 0}$, with set braces, for the unordered set, which could be finite for a periodic orbit, and $(f^n)_{ngeq 0}$ for the ordered infinite sequence. This is somewhat OT, but nevertheless important to have in mind when reading about these things.



I hope that this either suffice as an answer, or at least makes things a bit more clear.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    1












    $begingroup$

    I admit this might be late, but for future reference:
    An orbit is the set of points of the manifold as you defined above. A trajectory is a function which has the orbit as image set.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f832571%2forbit-trajectory-dynamical-system%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      4












      $begingroup$

      My impression is that, in dynamic systems theory, the two terms 'orbit' and 'trajectory' are often used interchangeably. They both seem to come from physics, e.g. orbits of planets, etc. Earlier, I had the impression that 'trajectory' was more commonly used when talking about continuous systems, and that 'orbit' was used for discrete ones. This distinction does not seem to be even nearly universally accepted however, and is probably more of a preference than anything else. Possibly this impression comes from the fact that you use 'orbit' in group theory, when a group is acting on elements of a set, see definition here. It therefore feels somewhat more natural to call the sequence emerging from a discrete system, orbit. Trajectory seems to be somewhat more common among physicists. I get a feeling that this is similar to the distinction (or non-distinction) between 'map' and 'function', see discussion here.



      I find it hard to find any real distinction being made explicitly in dynamical systems literature (at least in the many books on my shelf). Three examples of the terms being explicitly used interchangeably by respected authorities are:




      1. At the Scholarpedia article Dynamical Systems by Prof. James Meiss, Applied Mathematics University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA, under the "Evolution Rule" section, §2.



      "The forward orbit or trajectory of a state $s$ is the time-ordered collection of states that follow from $s$ using the evolution rule."





      1. In Robert C Hilborn's Chaos and Nonlinear Dynamics, An Introduction for Scientists and Engineers, Second Edition, p.20, §1.



      The sequence of $x$-values generated by this iteration procedure will be called the trajectory or orbit in analogy to the sequence of position values for a planet or satellite taken at successive time intervals.





      1. In Mario Martelli's Introduction to Discrete Dynamical Systems and Chaos, Definition 1.1.1, p.11, §3.



      The evolution of the system starting from $x_0$, is given by the sequence: $(x_0, x_1=F(x_0), x_2=F^2(x_0), ..., F^n(x_o), ...)$.



      Definition 1.1.1 [3]. The sequence ${x_0,x_1,ldots, x_n,ldots}$ is denoted by $O(x_0)$ and is called the orbit or trajectory of the system starting from $x_0$.




      I want to make clear that I am a mathematician and not a physicist, therefore my impression is very much based on literature about pure and applied mathematics. It might be the case that physicists make more of a distinction between the two, even though I doubt it.



      Another, perhaps more important distinction that should be made when talking about orbits/trajectories, is whether one means orbit/trajectory a as defined in 1.1.1, as a sequence, or as a set. Often this does not pose any problems, as it is clear from context. Personally, dealing mostly with discrete systems, I usually write ${f^n}_{ngeq 0}$, with set braces, for the unordered set, which could be finite for a periodic orbit, and $(f^n)_{ngeq 0}$ for the ordered infinite sequence. This is somewhat OT, but nevertheless important to have in mind when reading about these things.



      I hope that this either suffice as an answer, or at least makes things a bit more clear.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$


















        4












        $begingroup$

        My impression is that, in dynamic systems theory, the two terms 'orbit' and 'trajectory' are often used interchangeably. They both seem to come from physics, e.g. orbits of planets, etc. Earlier, I had the impression that 'trajectory' was more commonly used when talking about continuous systems, and that 'orbit' was used for discrete ones. This distinction does not seem to be even nearly universally accepted however, and is probably more of a preference than anything else. Possibly this impression comes from the fact that you use 'orbit' in group theory, when a group is acting on elements of a set, see definition here. It therefore feels somewhat more natural to call the sequence emerging from a discrete system, orbit. Trajectory seems to be somewhat more common among physicists. I get a feeling that this is similar to the distinction (or non-distinction) between 'map' and 'function', see discussion here.



        I find it hard to find any real distinction being made explicitly in dynamical systems literature (at least in the many books on my shelf). Three examples of the terms being explicitly used interchangeably by respected authorities are:




        1. At the Scholarpedia article Dynamical Systems by Prof. James Meiss, Applied Mathematics University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA, under the "Evolution Rule" section, §2.



        "The forward orbit or trajectory of a state $s$ is the time-ordered collection of states that follow from $s$ using the evolution rule."





        1. In Robert C Hilborn's Chaos and Nonlinear Dynamics, An Introduction for Scientists and Engineers, Second Edition, p.20, §1.



        The sequence of $x$-values generated by this iteration procedure will be called the trajectory or orbit in analogy to the sequence of position values for a planet or satellite taken at successive time intervals.





        1. In Mario Martelli's Introduction to Discrete Dynamical Systems and Chaos, Definition 1.1.1, p.11, §3.



        The evolution of the system starting from $x_0$, is given by the sequence: $(x_0, x_1=F(x_0), x_2=F^2(x_0), ..., F^n(x_o), ...)$.



        Definition 1.1.1 [3]. The sequence ${x_0,x_1,ldots, x_n,ldots}$ is denoted by $O(x_0)$ and is called the orbit or trajectory of the system starting from $x_0$.




        I want to make clear that I am a mathematician and not a physicist, therefore my impression is very much based on literature about pure and applied mathematics. It might be the case that physicists make more of a distinction between the two, even though I doubt it.



        Another, perhaps more important distinction that should be made when talking about orbits/trajectories, is whether one means orbit/trajectory a as defined in 1.1.1, as a sequence, or as a set. Often this does not pose any problems, as it is clear from context. Personally, dealing mostly with discrete systems, I usually write ${f^n}_{ngeq 0}$, with set braces, for the unordered set, which could be finite for a periodic orbit, and $(f^n)_{ngeq 0}$ for the ordered infinite sequence. This is somewhat OT, but nevertheless important to have in mind when reading about these things.



        I hope that this either suffice as an answer, or at least makes things a bit more clear.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$
















          4












          4








          4





          $begingroup$

          My impression is that, in dynamic systems theory, the two terms 'orbit' and 'trajectory' are often used interchangeably. They both seem to come from physics, e.g. orbits of planets, etc. Earlier, I had the impression that 'trajectory' was more commonly used when talking about continuous systems, and that 'orbit' was used for discrete ones. This distinction does not seem to be even nearly universally accepted however, and is probably more of a preference than anything else. Possibly this impression comes from the fact that you use 'orbit' in group theory, when a group is acting on elements of a set, see definition here. It therefore feels somewhat more natural to call the sequence emerging from a discrete system, orbit. Trajectory seems to be somewhat more common among physicists. I get a feeling that this is similar to the distinction (or non-distinction) between 'map' and 'function', see discussion here.



          I find it hard to find any real distinction being made explicitly in dynamical systems literature (at least in the many books on my shelf). Three examples of the terms being explicitly used interchangeably by respected authorities are:




          1. At the Scholarpedia article Dynamical Systems by Prof. James Meiss, Applied Mathematics University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA, under the "Evolution Rule" section, §2.



          "The forward orbit or trajectory of a state $s$ is the time-ordered collection of states that follow from $s$ using the evolution rule."





          1. In Robert C Hilborn's Chaos and Nonlinear Dynamics, An Introduction for Scientists and Engineers, Second Edition, p.20, §1.



          The sequence of $x$-values generated by this iteration procedure will be called the trajectory or orbit in analogy to the sequence of position values for a planet or satellite taken at successive time intervals.





          1. In Mario Martelli's Introduction to Discrete Dynamical Systems and Chaos, Definition 1.1.1, p.11, §3.



          The evolution of the system starting from $x_0$, is given by the sequence: $(x_0, x_1=F(x_0), x_2=F^2(x_0), ..., F^n(x_o), ...)$.



          Definition 1.1.1 [3]. The sequence ${x_0,x_1,ldots, x_n,ldots}$ is denoted by $O(x_0)$ and is called the orbit or trajectory of the system starting from $x_0$.




          I want to make clear that I am a mathematician and not a physicist, therefore my impression is very much based on literature about pure and applied mathematics. It might be the case that physicists make more of a distinction between the two, even though I doubt it.



          Another, perhaps more important distinction that should be made when talking about orbits/trajectories, is whether one means orbit/trajectory a as defined in 1.1.1, as a sequence, or as a set. Often this does not pose any problems, as it is clear from context. Personally, dealing mostly with discrete systems, I usually write ${f^n}_{ngeq 0}$, with set braces, for the unordered set, which could be finite for a periodic orbit, and $(f^n)_{ngeq 0}$ for the ordered infinite sequence. This is somewhat OT, but nevertheless important to have in mind when reading about these things.



          I hope that this either suffice as an answer, or at least makes things a bit more clear.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          My impression is that, in dynamic systems theory, the two terms 'orbit' and 'trajectory' are often used interchangeably. They both seem to come from physics, e.g. orbits of planets, etc. Earlier, I had the impression that 'trajectory' was more commonly used when talking about continuous systems, and that 'orbit' was used for discrete ones. This distinction does not seem to be even nearly universally accepted however, and is probably more of a preference than anything else. Possibly this impression comes from the fact that you use 'orbit' in group theory, when a group is acting on elements of a set, see definition here. It therefore feels somewhat more natural to call the sequence emerging from a discrete system, orbit. Trajectory seems to be somewhat more common among physicists. I get a feeling that this is similar to the distinction (or non-distinction) between 'map' and 'function', see discussion here.



          I find it hard to find any real distinction being made explicitly in dynamical systems literature (at least in the many books on my shelf). Three examples of the terms being explicitly used interchangeably by respected authorities are:




          1. At the Scholarpedia article Dynamical Systems by Prof. James Meiss, Applied Mathematics University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA, under the "Evolution Rule" section, §2.



          "The forward orbit or trajectory of a state $s$ is the time-ordered collection of states that follow from $s$ using the evolution rule."





          1. In Robert C Hilborn's Chaos and Nonlinear Dynamics, An Introduction for Scientists and Engineers, Second Edition, p.20, §1.



          The sequence of $x$-values generated by this iteration procedure will be called the trajectory or orbit in analogy to the sequence of position values for a planet or satellite taken at successive time intervals.





          1. In Mario Martelli's Introduction to Discrete Dynamical Systems and Chaos, Definition 1.1.1, p.11, §3.



          The evolution of the system starting from $x_0$, is given by the sequence: $(x_0, x_1=F(x_0), x_2=F^2(x_0), ..., F^n(x_o), ...)$.



          Definition 1.1.1 [3]. The sequence ${x_0,x_1,ldots, x_n,ldots}$ is denoted by $O(x_0)$ and is called the orbit or trajectory of the system starting from $x_0$.




          I want to make clear that I am a mathematician and not a physicist, therefore my impression is very much based on literature about pure and applied mathematics. It might be the case that physicists make more of a distinction between the two, even though I doubt it.



          Another, perhaps more important distinction that should be made when talking about orbits/trajectories, is whether one means orbit/trajectory a as defined in 1.1.1, as a sequence, or as a set. Often this does not pose any problems, as it is clear from context. Personally, dealing mostly with discrete systems, I usually write ${f^n}_{ngeq 0}$, with set braces, for the unordered set, which could be finite for a periodic orbit, and $(f^n)_{ngeq 0}$ for the ordered infinite sequence. This is somewhat OT, but nevertheless important to have in mind when reading about these things.



          I hope that this either suffice as an answer, or at least makes things a bit more clear.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:21









          Community

          1




          1










          answered Apr 7 '17 at 11:28









          Christopher.LChristopher.L

          7811317




          7811317























              1












              $begingroup$

              I admit this might be late, but for future reference:
              An orbit is the set of points of the manifold as you defined above. A trajectory is a function which has the orbit as image set.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                1












                $begingroup$

                I admit this might be late, but for future reference:
                An orbit is the set of points of the manifold as you defined above. A trajectory is a function which has the orbit as image set.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  1












                  1








                  1





                  $begingroup$

                  I admit this might be late, but for future reference:
                  An orbit is the set of points of the manifold as you defined above. A trajectory is a function which has the orbit as image set.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  I admit this might be late, but for future reference:
                  An orbit is the set of points of the manifold as you defined above. A trajectory is a function which has the orbit as image set.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Dec 25 '18 at 14:42









                  DannyDanny

                  395




                  395






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f832571%2forbit-trajectory-dynamical-system%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Ellipse (mathématiques)

                      Quarter-circle Tiles

                      Mont Emei