3-dimensional Hopf bifurcation via averaging theory
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the Lorenz system $\dot x = \s (y-x)$, $\dot y =rx -y-xz$ and $\dot z = -bz + xy$; and the Rössler system $\dot x = -(y+z)$, $\dot y = x +ay$ and $\dot z = b-cz + xz$. Here, we study the Hopf bifurcation which takes place at $q_{\pm}=(\pm\sqrt{br-b},\pm\sqrt{br-b},r-1),$ in the Lorenz case, and at $s_{\pm}=(\frac{c+\sqrt{c^2-4ab}}{2},-\frac{c+\sqrt{c^2-4ab}}{2a}, \frac{c\pm\sqrt{c^2-4ab}}{2a})$ in the Rössler case. As usual this Hopf bifurcation is in the sense that an one -parameter family in ε of limit cycles bifurcates from the singular point when ε=0. Moreover, we can determine the kind of stability of these limit cycles. In fact, for both systems we can prove that all the bifurcated limit cycles in a neighborhood of the singular point are either a local attractor, or a local repeller, or they have two invariant manifolds, one stable and the other unstable, which locally are formed by two $2$-dimensional cylinders. These results are proved using averaging theory. The method of studying the Hopf bifurcation using the averaging theory is relatively general and can be applied to other $3$- or $n$-dimensional differential systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it