1

As the majority of concepts in dynamical systems are based on Manifolds. How can one think/imagine about the concept of a manifolds intuitively? (A Lucid explanation is highly encouraged!!!)

stafusa
  • 12,435

2 Answers2

2

Someone asking about the intuition behind manifolds in dynamical systems is probably familiar with their definitions already, but for the sake of completeness, here it goes. For simplicity let's consider a fixed point $\mathbf{x}$ of a given dynamical system:

  • Manifold: a set that looks Euclidean if you zoom in enough, i.e., it locally resembles $\mathbb{R}^n$;
  • Stable manifold: the set of initial values that converge to $\mathbf{x}$ under the system dynamics;
  • Unstable manifold: the set of initial values that converge to $\mathbf{x}$ under the inverse system dynamics.

These sets are interesting on their on, but they're often also central in the description of a system, in that the stable manifolds might act as boundaries, separating regions with qualitatively different behavior (e.g., converging to $0$ and diverging); while unstable manifolds can drive long-term behavior. For that reason they've been called a dynamical system skeleton.


Let's consider a $2$D dynamical system and a fixed point $\mathbf{x}$ of it. The behavior in the immediate neighborhood of $\mathbf{x}$ is given by the linearization of the system equations around this point - let's say $\mathbf{x}$ is a saddle point, i.e., it has stable and unstable directions (straight lines in green and blue, respectively, in the figure below):

enter image description here

The green straight line is a boundary between two types of trajectories: those running to the top right and those running to the bottom left - which are the directions pointed by the (blue) unstable manifold arms.

If the system is linear, then these straight lines are already the stable and unstable manifolds of the fixed point, i.e.: any point on the green line converges asymptotically to the fixed point under the system dynamics, as do the points on the blue line, under its inverse dynamics. And most trajectories on the plane eventually diverge to either $+\infty$ or $-\infty$.

If the system is nonlinear, then typically the manifolds will coincide with these straight lines only on the point itself, smoothly curving away away from it, like displayed in this picture (source):

enter image description here

And, even further away from the fixed point, the manifolds might loose any relation to those straight lines, as for a damped pendulum:

enter image description here
(Source.)

If you're learning Dynamical Systems, though, it's highly recommended to go through a textbook. A few suggestions can be found in Self-study book for dynamical systems theory?.

See, for instance, the explanation found in Alligood, Sauer, and Yorke's Chaos. An Introduction to Dynamical Systems (e-print):

enter image description here

stafusa
  • 12,435
  • @JC I think you're mistaken. In the case of $2$D map, e.g., the stable and unstable manifolds of a saddle point are made up of an infinite number of orbits. Besides, the last system I mention, the damped pendulum, is non-conservative, and the definitions apply equally well. – stafusa Mar 09 '19 at 20:31
  • Sorry, My mistakes, deleted, it's been a long time. But I'm pretty much sure he's talking about space manifold(Coordinate system). The stable/unstable set(manifold) was purely mathematical in dynamics and easily to cause confusing with "the manifold" used in physics and modern geometry. – J C Mar 09 '19 at 20:34
  • @JC I'm lead to believe they mean it in the dynamical systems sense because they mention this explicitly in their question, and because their previous questions on the site were all (both) about dynamics systems (Lyapunov exponent and the such). And I must say, as a physicist specialized in dynamical systems, that I disagree that this is pure math. :-) – stafusa Mar 09 '19 at 21:32
  • Hey guys, so you are trying to say that, Manifold in math and in Dynamical systems are entirely different concept ?If Yes!I believed that they where the same.So can you guys help me,In understanding what is the real meaning of manifolds ?In the context of both Math &Physics (if i was wrong) – akhil krishnan Mar 09 '19 at 22:07
  • @akhilkrishnan No. Manifold was commonly mentioned with things like metrics/space-time e.t.c. or the usage of coordinate system in modern geometry. But if you are thinking of subjects like dynamical system stafusa 's answer should answer your questions. It's like saying field represented different subjects in algebra, quantum theory, and relativity. Math and Physics are consistent. – J C Mar 09 '19 at 22:33
  • Ok..I thank both of you for your efforts... – akhil krishnan Mar 09 '19 at 22:36
  • "under its inverse dynamics"-what do you meant by this???please give me a suitable example – akhil krishnan Mar 11 '19 at 15:25
  • @akhilkrishnan, We're considering a dynamical system: that means its state evolves with the passage of time - in the inverse dynamics you calculate for time running backwards. It's not always possible to invert the equations, but that is beyond the scope of the question. – stafusa Mar 11 '19 at 15:33
  • Since the curved lines marks stable and unstable Manifolds,what does the straight lines (red & Blue) represent?? – akhil krishnan Mar 11 '19 at 20:47
  • They are the stable and unstable manifolds of the linearized system (about the fixed point). Since the linearization is exact on the point, the (non-linearized) manifolds are tangent to these straight lines on the fixed point. – stafusa Mar 11 '19 at 20:50
  • Thanks! I got it! – akhil krishnan Mar 11 '19 at 20:55
  • In fig 2 as we can see that the straight lines (both red &blue) represent $R^n$ and the curved lines represent $c^n$,the smooth manifold is intersecting at one point in $R^n$,now what will happen if they couldn't intersect?. can we say that this type of dynamical system is not linearizable ? – akhil krishnan Mar 13 '19 at 18:36
  • @akhilkrishnan If the bent curves exist on a point (i.e., are defined), then, being manifolds, you can assign straight tangents to them. But, yes, you might have points where the system is non-smooth. – stafusa Mar 13 '19 at 19:03
  • In short,for non-smooth manifolds the$C^n$ Do not intersect with $R^n$ ?am I getting this correct? – akhil krishnan Mar 13 '19 at 19:20
  • I'm not sure what you mean, why are you bringing the complexes into that? Anyway, the site is not intended for long discussions. Take a look at a good book or online material and bring to us any question that remains unanswered. Good luck! – stafusa Mar 13 '19 at 21:53
1

First there's topology, a nice phrase I heard before was:"Topology was the geometry without numbers."

Second, there's geometry of space, which described by manifold as a quantitative representation as coordinates.

Third, in conservative fields in the manifold, there's potential conservation, uniqueness theorem and trajectories and orbits e.t.c.

Basically, you may consider draw a 2d grid on a piece of paper, then you what draw as pictures on the paper (flowers, squares, e.t.c.) was geometry. However, when you twist the paper, the grids in 3D perspective changes, the change of the grid was change of manifold. Think how pictures were changed when you manifold (geometry of paper/geometry of space, or say the grid of the paper) changed in the space.

J C
  • 1,038
  • 8
  • 23
  • Is there any book about conservative fields in the manifold? The topic seems to much related physics with differential geometry and dynamics. – Charlie Chang Oct 21 '21 at 10:32