Jump to content

Talk:Butterfly effect

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kakawkkk (talk | contribs) at 18:26, 9 May 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Henri Poincaré Prediction on Metereology's relation w/ Chaos Theory

Hello all, I am not a usual participant in editing Wikipedia, but I thought I'd help citing the claim that Poincaré did in fact foresee the relation which Lorenz proved in the 60s.

“A very small unknown cause determines a considerable effect which we cannot understand. We therefore say that the effect is due to chance. If we knew exactly the laws of nature and the situation of the universe at the initial moment, we could predict exactly the situation of that same universe at a succeeding moment. but even if it were the case that the natural laws had no longer any secret for us, we could still only know the initial situation approximately. If that enabled us to predict the succeeding situation with the same approximation, that is all we require, and we should say that the phenomenon had been predicted, that it is governed by laws. But it is not always so; it may happen that small differences in the initial conditions produce very great ones in the final phenomena. A small error in the former will produce an enormous error in the latter. Prediction becomes impossible, and we have the fortuitous phenomenon.”

"Why do meteorologists have such a hard time in foreseeing the weather with a reasonable degree of precision? Why do showers and storms seem to occur at random, so that many people find it absolutely natural to pray for rain or good weather while they would praying for an eclipse utterly ridiculous? We see that great perturbations generally occur in regions where the atmosphere is unstable. Meteorologists are well aware of the instability of the equilibrium and that somewhere there will be a hurricane, but where? They cannot tell, because a tenth of a degree more or less at any point will determine a hurricane here instead of there, and there will be devastations in areas that would have been spared. If one had known this tenth of a degree one could have foreseen the event, but observations were neither sufficiently frequent nor sufficiently precise, and for this reason everything seems to be due to the intervention of hazard. "

Poincaré Science et méthode 1903


I really hope I helped!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus for or against. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 07:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's really no need for the topic to be separate. Popular culture articles are just used as dumping grounds for trivia. It should be an extension of the main article, but such trivial content would simply be removed from the main article. The end goal of the section should be some kind of non-OR discussion on how the butterfly effect has been used in media, how that may have impacted how people view it, and the inclusion of carefully selected examples. TTN (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you completely on the end goal, but alas others are less discerning than you and me -- in practice the dreaded IPC sections tend to get overrun with piffle. The argument can be made that a separate "in popular culture" article helps to keep all the trivial crap out of this article. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, I fail to see how a merge discussion after a no consensus result is somehow a bad thing. That's quite often the recommended route in such a case, further discussion instead of yet another renomination in three months. It would be different in the case of a speedy keep or something. TTN (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge. I see that Butterfly effect in popular culture has become a battleground recently. Better to leave the battle over there than bring it over here. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Merge or no merge, unsourced and "self-sourced" examples should be removed. Reverting the removal of unsourced and poorly-sourced material feels like BRD misuse. Instead of adding unsourced material and irrelevant sources, add good sources that discuss the examples within the context of the article. Just saying "this exists, it's an example" Kakaw is unencyclopedic. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of deleting everything, just tag it with a "citation needed" tag and over time the citations will come. Why the rush to gut the article by deleting everything? And of course media sources are always sources about themselves. That's because it's easily verified through the film/book/television show. JOJ Hutton 21:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rush. The article sat without citations for eight years. Eight years is not a rush for cleaning up an article. More importantly, it's Wikipedia policy not to restore uncited material: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source". As for "sources about themselves", there is consensus that "in popular culture" examples are not "self-sourcing". BrightRoundCircle (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support selective merge. The spinoff article fails WP:LISTN. We've got one reliable source we can use to describe the use of the butterfly effect in popular culture, and it can comfortably fit in here without bloating this article. The poorly-sourced example farm doesn't belong here (or there, for that matter), so don't merge that in. Reliably sourced examples can be briefly summarized in prose format, as in Barbarella (film)#Legacy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Butterfly effect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Butterfly_effect&oldid=779573412"