Re: chaos

[P8475423@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Re Lisa's query:
Are you both using chaos in the technical sense?  Should we use some
way to distinguish between casual and technical uses?  Maybe it'll be
...
to myself and Paul, I was using it in the technical sense (and there
are several, ranging from conditions under which a single variable
iterative system makes the transition to chaos), through to the
necessity for chaos in nonlinear continuous time models with 3 or
more variables, to characterisations of the final paths (single
point convergence, convergence to a limit cycle, the presence of
strange attractors, etc.)

I think the best overall rubric is that such systems display
"far from equilibrium" behaviour: what happens at the equilibrium
point(s) of such a system is irrelevant in one sense, because
the systems will never get to equilibrium. Of course, most
conservative (and a fair bit of Marxist!) economics assumes
equilibrium processes.
Cheers,
Steve Keen


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------