Talk:Lyapunov function

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think that http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LyapunovFunction.html gives a much better definition than the one provided by http://planetmath.org/?op=getobj&from=objects&id=4386 . The planetmath definition does not specifiy that V is a scalar function, and it uses an example in only two independent variables (x,y) when in general V is a function in n variables. Also it is proving instability when the much more common utility of a Lyapunov function is to prove stability. I would say that the planetmath "definition" is really more of an example than a definition.

[edit] ==============================================================================================

I agree the definition in this article is pretty abysmal - as are most mathematical definitions on Wikipedia. The concept of a Lyapunov Function could be explained with much more clarity, and without sacrificing precision. While the definition given here is precise and technically correct, the size of the audience capable of understanding and appreciating it - and furthermore the size of the audience it would actually benefit - is almost negligible. What then, is the point of having an article which benefits only a miserable fraction of the entire population, and an even more insignificant portion of the mathematical community? Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of having a Wikipedia article in the first place?

Definitions such as these may be appropriate for Mathworld, but they don't belong in an open, global community such as Wikipedia. Is anyone aware that persons other than graduate students and elitist Mathematicians reference these articles? Most of the mathematical definitions I've read on here are written in the most advanced, arcane way possible... heaven forbid we ever write something accessible to the "laymen" out there who seek useful descriptions for the mathematical entities they encounter.