/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8404965
Will we have the notion of an attractomorphism soon? I don't know much anything about attractors, but this is how I'd try constructing such maps in a way analogous to the homomorphisms between covering spaces: take the points around which the stuff spins and does what ever it does (let's call them attracting points for a while), and map each attracting point of an attractor A to an attracting point of an attractor B, and then somehow send the active part of A into the active part of B preserving whatever properties there are for them. These would be composed associatively, identities would satisfy these conditions, and it would also be necessary for A and B to have the same number of attracting points to be equivalent. I don't know if this makes any sense, though.

The stuff you are doing on your own sounds cool, too. You mean you would use a diagrammatic scheme or just the diagram? Since the scheme would give internal structure to these generalized elements!

I've been doing fine. I feel pretty energetic for some uncertain reason, and so I've basically written on paper my master's excluding the study of localization. I have some ideas regarding it I want to pursue the most. If there are these formal inverses, then there are arrows being functored into those in the original category; what if the ring of endomorphisms happened to be a localization of another ring, what could we conclude from this? I haven't had time to think about that stuff yet, though, and next week I'll be mostly unable to do anything related to it, too.

[math](^{-} \smile ^{-} )[/math]