This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
John Starrett
New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
Department of Mathematics
When the local vector ﬁelds associated to a parameterized (oriented) knot or link
are globalized, the global vector ﬁeld can generate sets of stable auxiliary knots and
links. One particular class of knots and links, the torus knots, generates inﬁnite sets
of knots and links that can be completely characterized.
In recent years tools from knot theory have become important to dynamicists, especially
the template construction of Sullivan. By ﬁnding templates associated with a strange attrac
tor, one can determine which knot and link types are represented by the unstable periodic
orbit set that forms the skeleton of the attractor. This analogy suggests a question: what
is the minimum set of periodic orbits (skeleton of knots) necessary to generate a strange
attractor?
The results below are unintended consequences of research on this question. Our attempts
to generate custom built strange attractors, designed to have certain built in sets of knots
and links among their solutions, led to the generation of interesting sets of auxiliary knots
and links. We start with a minimal set of simple parameterized knots and build diﬀerential
equations having those knots (approximately) as a solution by globalizing a local vector
ﬁeld. This process generate sets, sometimes inﬁnite sets, of additional knots and links which
we call the aura of the master knot or link.
The method is simple: we globalize a local vector ﬁeld by ﬁtting a set of basis functions
to the vector components of the tangent vector to a parameterized knot. In order to gain an
understanding of how the vector ﬁelds changed with the knot type and parameterization of
the periodic basis orbits, we tested many parameterized knots that were much simpler than
the knotted periodic orbits generated by a chaotic system.
Begin with a parameterized knot K or link L =
j
K
j
, which we call the master knot
or link. By ﬁtting global functions to the local vector ﬁeld (the tangent vectors to the
master knot or link), we construct a global vector ﬁeld, and thus a diﬀerential equation,
that generates the original knot (approximately) and usually additional knots or links as
2
periodic solutions. These additional knots
ˆ
K and links
ˆ
L we call auxiliary knots and links,
and the link consisting of all the auxiliary knots we call the aura A of the master link. The
master link is always a particular parameterized knot or link, and its aura is always relative
to the particular basis functions and ﬁtting procedure.
In contrast to the unstable periodic orbits of chaotic systems, the knots we investigate
are stable or Lyapunov stable [1]. While it is possible that there are additional unstable
periodic orbits for some of these systems, we did not attempt to ﬁnd them. For almost every
knot and link we tested, inﬁnite sets of auxiliary knots could be generated (and for some
parameterizations of unknots and simple links, strange attractors, which is the subject of
another paper).
I. ROLE OF THE BASIS FUNCTIONS
Given a particular parameterized knot K = f
1
(t), f
2
(t), f
3
(t), we would like to build a
global vector ﬁeld F
1
(x, y, z), F
2
(x, y, z), F
3
(x, y, z), with F
k
(x, y, z) =
df
k
dt

(f
1
,f
2
,f
3
)
along K.
We extend the local vector ﬁeld on K to the entire embedding space by expressing each F
k
as the sum of basis functions φ
i
(x, y, z), which may be orthogonal or orthonormal, chosen
from some complete set {φ
k
(x, y, z)} so that
F
1
(x, y, z) ≈
ˆ
F
1
(x, y, z) =
n
i=1
a
1i
φ
i
(x, y, z)
F
2
(x, y, z) ≈
ˆ
F
2
(x, y, z) =
n
i=1
a
2i
φ
i
(x, y, z)
F
3
(x, y, z) ≈
ˆ
F
3
(x, y, z) =
n
i=1
a
3i
φ
i
(x, y, z)
.
The coeﬃcients a
ki
are chosen to minimize the error over each tangent vector component
ε
x
=
m
j=1
df
x
dt

(x
j
,y
j
,z
j
)
−
n
i=1
a
x
i
φ
i
(x
j
, y
j
, z
j
)
ε
y
=
m
j=1
df
y
dt

(x
j
,y
j
,z
j
)
−
n
i=1
a
y
i
φ
i
(x
j
, y
j
, z
j
)
ε
z
=
m
j=1
df
z
dt

(x
j
,y
j
,z
j
)
−
n
i=1
a
x
i
φ
i
(x
j
, y
j
, z
j
)
.
over all m data points. We expect that in the limit as n, m → ∞ we can approximate the
master link arbitrarily well, so that the global vector ﬁeld F restricted to K is identical with
dK
dt
. Thus, for each complete set of basis functions {φ
j
}
k
, K or L has a unique limiting aura
A
k
. Of course, diﬀerent parameterizations of the same topological link can have topologi
3
cally distinct aurae, as in the case of a link, e.g. reversing the orientation of a single link
component.
We used several diﬀerent sets of basis functions, including polynomials [xyz]
k
where [xyz]
k
indicates the usual set of products of powers of x, y, z of maximum degree k, and radial basis
functions of the form e
−β((x−x
i
)
2
+(y−y
i
)
2
+(z−z
i
)
2
)
and (α+(x−x
i
)
2
+(y−y
i
)
2
+(z−z
i
)
2
)
−1
. The
radial basis functions {φ
i
} are local functions anchored at {(x
i
, y
i
, z
i
)}, where the anchor
points are usually data points, but can be located anywhere in P
3
. While polynomial basis
functions have the disadvantage of increasing divergences away from the master link with
the addition of higher order terms, they can be computed quickly and simpliﬁed models can
be easily extracted by inspection. Radial basis functions that go rapidly to zero away from
their centers do not have the divergence problems of polynomials, but their computation
is slower, and simple “lower order” models cannot be easily extracted. We set the total
number of sample points to 60, 120 or 240, which could be distributed evenly, or unevenly
between the components of the links if we wish to emphasize the contribution of one or more
components over the others.
The nature of the vector ﬁelds generated is highly dependent on the type and number of
basis functions used, the density and distribution of the data points, as well as the relation
between the parameterization and orientation of the links, and the relation between the
parameterization and the coordinate system in which the basis is written. A single master
link can generate an inﬁnite number of diﬀerent vector ﬁelds and thus, potentially, an inﬁnite
number of diﬀerent sets of auxiliary knots and links when the number of basis functions and
data points is ﬁnite.
As an example, we can parameterize a circular unknot of radius 3 in the xy plane by
< 3 sin t, 3 cos t, 0 > and ﬁt polynomial basis functions {1, x, y, z} to obtain the diﬀerential
equations ˙ x = y, ˙ y = −x, ˙ z = 0, whose solution set is the set of circles of all radii, centered
x = y = 0 in the planes z = c for −∞< c < ∞. These knots are neutrally stable. When the
“same” knot is rotated out of the plane by π/4 about the y axis, and a global vector ﬁeld
is ﬁt to the basis functions {1, x, y, z} then we get a set of attracting roughly circular cycles
with a small basin of attraction. If we build a vector ﬁeld from this same parameterized
circle using basis functions {1, x, y, z, x
2
, y
2
, z
2
, xy, xz, yz}, then we get a single attracting
unknot with a small basin of attraction, and if the tilt about the y axis is π/5 rather than
π/4 then there is an attracting ﬁxed point at the center of the knot. Doubling the number
4
of data points in the same knot destabilizes the ﬁxed point. Some of these are shown in
ﬁgure (1). Obviously, there are no simple general criteria to indicate when a particular
parameterization will produce a particular aura, at least in this example.
FIG. 1: On the left, the aura of an xy planar circle from a degree one polynomial ﬁt using 120
data points. Second from the left, view down the z axis of the ﬂow from the same master knot ﬁt
with a second degree polynomial – the aura is conﬁned to a region near the z axis, and the rest
of the space is unstable. In the middle, the same as the second from the left except using 60 data
points. Second from the right, a portion of the ﬂow associated with the circle rotated about the y
axis by π/4 using 120 data points – there is an attracting ﬁxed point surrounded by an attracting
limit cycle near the master knot, divided by an unstable limit cycle. On the right the same thing
but with 60 data points. Now we have a set of neutrally stable knots near the master in a small
basin of stability.
II. ORGANIZATION OF THE PAPER
We begin with a recipe for ﬁnding the aura of a knot, then describe a few simple cases.
We then analyze a special class of knots that is especially stable, in the sense that changes
in the number of data points and number of basis functions used does not have too great an
eﬀect on the type of aura produced. We show that, for a large number of diﬀerent knots in
the class, and for a large range of parameters, the auras produced are very similar. We end
the paper with a short tour through a bestiary of aurae. This is experimental mathematics
guided largely by artistic considerations. Although there are important applications to the
general technique of ﬁtting vector ﬁelds and diﬀerential equations to data [? ] [? ] [? ]
[? ], we know of no practical applications for the technique applied to parameterized knots,
other than the creation of interesting pictures to lure students from other departments.
5
III. GENERATING VECTOR FIELDS FROM KNOTS
1. Find a parameterization K = f
1
(t), f
2
(t), f
3
(t) or
j
K
j
for the master knot or link.
2. Compute the local vector ﬁeld
_
˙
f
1
,
˙
f
2
,
˙
f
3
_
=
¸
df
1
dt
,
df
2
dt
,
df
3
dt
_
, that is, ﬁnd the tangent
vectors to the components of the knot or link.
3. Discretize the data, making lists {K(t
i
)} of the x, y, and z coordinates of a set of
points along the link, and the x, y and z components of the tangent vectors
˙
f (t
i
)}
at those points. If we are working with a link L =
i
K
i
, put an ordering on the
components K
i
and place the data from all components into the lists in this order
{f (t
i
)} = {f
K
1
(t
i
), . . . f
K
n
(t
i
)} and {
˙
f (t
i
)} = {
˙
f
K
1
(t
i
), . . .
˙
f
K
n
(t
i
)}.
4. Fit three dimensional hypersurfaces X =
˙
f
1
(x, y, z), Y =
˙
f
2
(x, y, z), Z =
˙
f
3
(x, y, z) to
each of the the x, y and z components of the tangent vector data using a subset of
some complete set of basis functions {φ
i
} using a least squares method.
5. The three ﬁts X =
ˆ
F
1
(x, y, z), Y =
ˆ
F
2
(x, y, z), Z =
ˆ
F
3
(x, y, z) give the x, y and z
components of the vectors in the vector ﬁeld, and the diﬀerential equations
˙
X =
ˆ
F
1
(x(t), y(t), z(t)),
˙
Y =
ˆ
F
2
(x(t), y(t), z(t)),
˙
Z =
ˆ
F
3
(x(t), y(t), z(t)) generate the ﬂow
tangent to the vector ﬁelds.
6. Integrate the ﬂow forward from diﬀerent initial conditions to determine the knot and
links generated by the ﬂow.
IV. KNOTS GENERATED BY TORUS UNKNOTS
Using the general formula for a torus knot
_
¸
¸
¸
_
cos γt −sin γt 0
sin γt cos γt 0
0 0 1
_
¸
¸
¸
_
_
¸
¸
¸
_
R + cos t
0
sin t
_
¸
¸
¸
_
,
where γ =
n
m
scales the rotation around the z axis to get we a (m, n) torus know, we found
that there was no set of polynomial basis functions that gave a good representation of the
6
FIG. 2: A trefoil and its local vector ﬁeld on the left, and the same trefoil with its global vector
ﬁeld on the right.
(1, 0), (0, 1), (1, 1) and (1, 2) torus knot while generating auxiliary knots. The (n, 1), n > 1
torus knot, while unknotted, did generate auxiliary knots, while giving a good approximation
to the master knot as a solution using polynomial basis functions. There is a qualitative
change in the character of the aura with increasing n for (n, 1) knots, which can be seen in
the ﬁgure (7). For polynomial ﬁts of degrees two to ﬁve, the aura of the (2, 1), (3, 1) and
(4, 1) knots consists of knots on tori concentric with the master, while for (5, 1) and higher,
the tori on which the knots live are concentric with the unknot at the center of the torus on
which the master resides.
FIG. 3: On the left, the 2, 1 torus knot and its approximation by the ﬂow of a polynomial vector
ﬁeld of maximum degree 2. In the middle, the 2, 1 torus knot and several of its auxiliary knots.
The master knot is mostly hidden by the innermost knot. On the right, the (5, 1) knot, like all
(n, 1) knots, n ≥ 5, has a qualitatively diﬀerent aura.
7
FIG. 4: On the left, the 1, 3 torus knot and several of its auxiliary knots, in the middle the 1, 4
torus knot, on the right the 1, 7 torus knot and several of its auxiliary knots with the same initial
conditions.
V. KNOTS GENERATED BY HIGHER ORDER TORUS KNOTS
The ﬁrst nontrivial knot that usually comes to mind is the trefoil. We ﬁnd that the 3, 2
trefoil knot follows the general pattern for the n, 1 knots of the previous section, in that it
generates auxiliary knots that live on nested tori inside the torus of the master knot.
A least squares ﬁt to the x, y, z components of the tangent vector to the trefoil
x = cos(
2
3
t)(3 + cos(t))
y = sin(
2
3
t)(3 + cos(t))
z = sin(t)
using polynomials in x, y, z of maximum degree 2 and 3 can be found in the appendix.
When we truncate by throwing out terms with small coeﬃcients we ﬁnd (approximately)
this simple set of diﬀerential equations for both
˙ x = −4πy −2πxz
˙ y = 4πx −2πyz
˙ z = π(x
2
+ y
2
+ z
2
) −10π
. (1)
When these equations are numerically integrated the solutions appear to reside on a set of
8
nested tori, see ﬁgure (5). More generally, m, n torus knots generate equations of the form
˙ x = −ay −bxz
˙ y = ax −byz
˙ z = c(x
2
+ y
2
+ z
2
) −d
, (2)
where the relations of the coeﬃcients depend on K. Numerical experiments indicate that
there is a torroidal region inside of which orbits on a set of nested tori are stable in the sense
that a small perturbation of the orbit places it on a torus nearby.
FIG. 5: Some nested torus knots and the z isosphere on which orbits must exit and enter parallel
to the xy plane.
We can justify some of the experimental evidence by doing a qualitative analysis of
the vector ﬁeld. First, there is a constant rotation about the z axis. From (1) we can
see that there are two ﬁxed points, a complex saddle with repelling direction along the z
axis at (0, 0,
_
d/c) and a complex saddle with an attracting direction along the z axis at
(0, 0, −
_
d/c). Also, we have ˙ z = c(x
2
+y
2
+z
2
) −d, so the z component of the vector ﬁeld
is 0 on a sphere of radius
_
d/c (the z isosurface, as well as the x and y isosurfaces can be
seen in ﬁgure (V).
When z = 0, the x and y components of the vector ﬁeld are ˙ x = −ay, ˙ y = ax, so there
is an unknot K =
_
_
d/c cos t,
_
d/c sin t, 0
_
in the xy plane. Inside the sphere, the vector
ﬁeld has a negative z component, and outside a positive z component. The ﬂux of the vector
ﬁeld is everywhere inward on the upper half of the sphere and outward on the lower half,
9
FIG. 6: Isosurfaces indicate the sets on which the x, y, z components of the vector ﬁeld vanish,
colored red, blue and green respectively. The ﬁrst four are isosurfaces for (2, 1), (3, 1), (4, 1) and
(5, 1) torus knots ﬁt with a second degree polynomial, while the next three are a (7, 4) torus knot
ﬁt with second, third and fourth degree polynomials. The ﬁnal ﬁgure is a truncated model of the
form of (1) for a (2, 1) torus knot.
10
so orbits beginning inside the sphere will move downward, exiting through the lower half of
the sphere parallel to the xy plane, then move upward. Orbits near enough the outside of
the sphere in the upper half space will enter the sphere parallel to the xy plane, then move
downward. Because of the symmetry of the vector ﬁeld, and the upward ﬂow outside the
sphere, orbits leaving the bottom half of the sphere must reenter the top half of the sphere,
see ﬁgure (7).
FIG. 7: On the left, a generic cross section (a slice by a plane containing the z axis) of the vector
ﬁeld (light and dashed arrows) and the z isosphere (dark). On the right, a side view of some
solutions to the diﬀerential equation (1)
In order to determine more about the nature of the sphere piercing orbits, we will ﬁnd
a solution to a nearby dynamical system that is identical to equation (2) on the unknot
_
_
d/c cos t,
_
d/c sin t, 0
_
. We write the DE in toral coordinates
x = (R + r cos φ) cos θ
y = (R + r cos φ) sin θ
z = r sin φ
where R is the major radius, r the minor radius, θ the azimuthal angle and φ the meridional
angle. Solving to get diﬀerential equations in the new coordinates, we ﬁnd
˙ r = sin(φ)(c(R
2
+ r
2
) −d + rR(2c −b) cos(φ) −br
2
cos(φ)
2
)
˙
φ = Rb + ((R
2
c −d)/r + r(c + b)) cos(φ) + R(2c −b) cos(φ)
2
−br cos(φ)
3
˙
θ = a
. (3)
11
We see that there is a constant rotation around the z axis, and that the minor radius and
meridional angle have no dependence on the azimuthal angle. Orbits that pierce the sphere
must wrap around the unknot x
2
+y
2
=
_
d/c, z = 0, and their distance from the unknot is
independent of the azimuthal angle.
For small r, r is approximately constant, and with that assumption the system simpliﬁes
to
˙ r = 0
˙
φ = b(R + r cos φ)
˙
θ = a
,
with solution
r = r
0
φ = 2 arctan
__
R+r
R−r
tan
__
b
2
_ √
R
2
−r
2
(t + φ
0
)
_
_
θ = at + θ
0
. (4)
This system describes dynamics on a torus of major radius R, and for any particular minor
radius r, there is constant rotation in the θ direction and (for r = R) nonconstant rotation
in the φ direction. At least for small r, our assumptions appear to have been justiﬁed.
Solutions to the system (3) live on nested tori, and wind about these tori forming torus
knots or dense, nonperiodic orbits. Setting φ
0
= 0 and taking the limit as r → 0, we ﬁnd
φ = Rbt while in the limit as r →R, φ = 2 arctan Rbt. If the master knot is parameterized
so that it is traversed for 0 ≤ t ≤ 1, then each knot in the aura will also be traversed for
0 ≤ t ≤ 1. The minimum slope q/p for a (p, q) torus knot is Rb and the maximum slope is
2 arctan Rb −2 arctan 0 = 2 arctan Rb.
Thus, for ﬁxed R, r, a and b we can determine the knot and link types generated by the
system to “ﬁrst order”: Every knot is a torus knot, and every link is a link of torus knots
so that those residing on tori of smaller radii have smaller “slopes” than those residing on
tori of larger radii. For knots, the “slope” will be a ratio q/p.
Referring to ﬁgure (8), we see on the right a sampling of the nested torus knots generated
by diﬀerential equation (1); note that the slope decreases as the radius decreases. The ﬁgure
on the left shows the variation of the angle φ with time (equation (4)) for several diﬀerent
values of minor radius r. Figure (9) shows how we may manipulate sets of nested torus
knots to form a chain.
12
FIG. 8: The graph of φ versus time for three values of r with R = 3, b = 1/3. The dotdash line
corresponds to r = 0, the dashed line to r = 2 and the solid line to r = R. On the right, numerical
solutions to diﬀerential equation (1) show how the slope of inner knots is less than that of the outer
knots.
FIG. 9: Peeling open nested torus knots: we can arrange nested torus knots so that a portion of
each knot is wrapped around its torus, and a portion is ﬂattened. Then we can arrange the “toral”
portions in a circular chain so that only the ﬂattened portions of all the other knots in the link
pass through the “toral” portions.
VI. BESTIARY OF VARIOUS KNOTTY BEHAVIOR
Except for simply parameterized torus master knots using polynomial basis functions, we
have been unable to ﬁnd any unifying theme to the appearance of the aura. The aurae of
nontorus knots can be intriguing, though, so we have assembled a little zoo generated by
some simple master knots and links.
13
When we use radial basis functions rather than polynomial bases, the auras generated are
frequently cablings of the master knot, as demonstrated by the contrasting auras of ﬁgure
(10).
FIG. 10: On the left, three knots (red, blue and green) generated from a linked trefoil and un
knot (black) using polynomial basis functions, and on the right three knots (red, blue and green)
generated from a 3, 2 torus knot (black) using radial basis functions.
One interesting oddball among the torus knot aurae with polynomial ﬁtting was the (2, 3)
torus knot, which had in its aura, in addition to a “conventional” set of nested torus knots,
an additional set of nested torus knots cabling the outer most torus of the inner set (see
ﬁgure (VI)).
FIG. 11: The inner set of nested tori are cabled by an outer set for the (2, 3) torus knot.
14
FIG. 12: A sequence of solution paths residing on six nested tori inside the torus of the master
knot, and then four more solutions on knotted tori intersecting the master torus.
15
The Borromean rings provide and interesting example. For this parameterization,
x = cos(0π/3) + 7/4 cos t y = sin(0π/3) + 7/4 sin t z = 1/2 sin 3t
x = cos(2π/3) + 7/4 cos t y = sin(2π/3) + 7/4 sin t z = 1/2 sin 3t
x = cos(4π/3) + 7/4 cos t y = sin(4π/3) + 7/4 sin t z = 1/2 sin 3t
and for exponential radial basis functions with a scaling of β = 1/4, we found that all the
rings were stable and that there was one additional stable component that linked each pair
of original rings, wrapping once around the central axis. Using a polynomial ﬁt, we ﬁnd the
original link components are unstable, but that there is again an additional link component
generated by the vector ﬁeld that again links the original components in pairs, but wraps
twice around the central axis.
FIG. 13: Stable auxiliary knot generated from Borromean rings using radial basis functions on the
left and polynomial basis functions on the right. Several initial conditions, looking somewhat like
a comb, are shown nearby the attracting knot .
FIG. 14: Left and center, two views of stable knots generated by a trefoil (2, 3 torus knot) using
radial basis functions. On the right, stable knots (black) generated from linked rings.
16
FIG. 15: From left to right, a torus knot cabling a trefoil master using radial basis functions, the
trefoil torus after a boundary crisis, where the radius of the cable increased to the point that the
torus self intersected, forming a standardly embedded torus (we see its knot) and the pair together
on the right.
VII. SUMMARY
We have generated vector ﬁelds and their diﬀerential equations from knots and links given
by explicit parameterizations. We found that almost all of the master knots and links we
studied generated inﬁnite sets of Lyapunov stable auxiliary knots and links. We call the link
consisting of all the auxiliary knots the aura of the master knot or link, relative to a basis.
We found that relative to a manageable maximum degree polynomial basis (from degree one
to ﬁve) there is a large set of simply parameterized torus knots that generates basically the
same vector ﬁeld. We analyzed the vector ﬁeld to show that it generated an aura of nested
torus knots, and gave a strict lower bound on the “slopes” of the innermost torus knots.
VIII. APPENDIX
A. 3, 2 torus knot second and third degree polynomial 240 points
Second degree: ˙ x = 3313487970×10
−7
−0.4375591996×10
−8
x−12.53299941y+0.4395208820×
10
−7
z−0.5865814214×10
−8
x
2
−0.1093316211×10
−8
y
2
−0.3219485547×10
−8
z
2
+0.2818014241xy−
6.322816491xz + 0.1597052374 ×10
−7
yz
˙ y = 0.1291558711 × 10
−6
+ 12.53299938x + 0.5989061164 × 10
−8
y − 0.1037896974 × 10
−7
z +
0.1409007050x
2
−0.1409007207y
2
−0.8330242185×10
−7
z
2
−0.2519323962×10
−9
xy+0.6594435790×
10
−9
xz −6.322816480yz
17
˙ z = −31.41592799 + 0.1147722353 ×10
−7
x + 0.2385523291 ×10
−9
y −0.3895622312 ×10
−8
z +
3.141592750x
2
+3.141592793y
2
+3.141593132z
2
−0.6168552547×10
−8
xy+0.1270018952×10
−7
xz+
0.5823540194 ×10
−7
yz
Third degree:
˙ x = 0.1979013015×10
−8
−0.1841929437×10
−6
x−12.19880927y+0.7035004294×10
−4
z−
0.223161371910
−7
x
2
−0.5355214175 ×10
−8
y
2
+0.2380888608 ×10
−6
z
2
+0.7110229813xy −
6.879396147xz +0.6003053290×10
−7
yz +0.1934615916×10
−7
x
3
+0.7141605107×10
−1
y
3
+
0.6265728764 × 10
−4
z
3
+ 0.7142165242 × 10
−1
x
2
y − 0.1627898450x
2
z + 0.3015185438 ×
10
−8
y
2
x + 0.1627603199y
2
z + 0.4864858499 × 10
−7
z
2
x − 2.013561010z
2
y − 0.4556660253 ×
10
−7
xyz
˙ y = 0.3525418676 × 10
−6
+ 12.19880898x + 0.1585391326 × 10
−6
y − 0.4265001669 ×
10
−4
z + 0.3555115748x
2
− 0.3555115270y
2
− 0.1051076016 × 10
−5
z
2
− 0.1150993864 ×
10
−7
xy +0.4049891556×10
−7
xz −6.879396274yz −0.7141747505×10
−1
x
3
+0.8379193921×
10
−6
y
3
− 0.3829991534 × 10
−4
z
3
− 0.2566154155 × 10
−5
x
2
y + 0.9001227607 × 10
−5
x
2
z −
0.7141741300 × 10
−1
y
2
x + 0.8958689286 × 10
−5
y
2
z + 2.013561648z
2
x − 0.4030863902 ×
10
−7
z
2
y + 0.3255502338xyz
˙ z = −31.41592780+0.7067585666×10
−7
x+0.1052281916×10
−6
y−0.2038149503×10
−4
z+
3.141592747x
2
+3.141592879y
2
+3.141592038z
2
−0.2695439506 ×10
−7
xy +0.5313692275 ×
10
−7
xz + 0.2013151850 × 10
−6
yz − 0.2385730437 × 10
−8
x
3
+ 0.3924500226 × 10
−6
y
3
−
0.1817836124×10
−4
z
3
−0.1225230042×10
−5
x
2
y+0.4295191057×10
−5
x
2
z +0.6968966996×
10
−7
y
2
x + 0.4260948526 × 10
−5
y
2
z − 0.3881828621 × 10
−6
z
2
x + 0.3432515942 × 10
−7
z
2
y −
0.1048926421 ×10
−6
xyz
B. 4, 7 torus knot second and third degree polynomial 240 points
Second degree
˙ x = 0.3090195560×10
−6
+0.1196203678×10
−8
x−43.98229723y+0.2515103968×10
−7
z−
0.1025702844 ×10
−7
x
2
−0.1170251496 ×10
−7
y
2
−0.3913126873 ×10
−6
z
2
+0.1208151661 ×
10
−8
xy−8.151159325xz −0.3787509522×10
−8
yz ˙ y = 0.1315799981×10
−7
+43.98229719x+
0.1770065454 × 10
−8
y − 0.2273767100 × 10
−7
z − 0.7234480668 × 10
−9
x
2
− 0.5036705302 ×
10
−8
y
2
+ 0.3934667805 × 10
−7
z
2
+ 0.2221743140 × 10
−8
xy − 0.1004534098 × 10
−7
xz −
8.151159327yz ˙ z = −41.88790177 + 0.1775531389 × 10
−8
x + 0.1645520580 × 10
−8
y +
18
0.1813688605 ×10
−8
z + 4.188790181x
2
+ 4.188790176y
2
+ 4.188790201z
2
+ 0.9697088513 ×
10
−10
xy −0.1698821050 ×10
−9
xz + 0.2163752569 ×10
−8
yz
Third degree
˙ x = 0.3090195554×10
−6
+0.8039299028×10
−7
x−43.98229698y+0.5854449484×10
−6
z−
0.1025702846 ×10
−7
x
2
−0.1170251500 ×10
−7
y
2
−0.3913126854 ×10
−6
z
2
+0.1208151647 ×
10
−8
xy −8.151159325xz −0.3787509198×10
−8
yz −0.4327178055×10
−8
x
3
−0.2583125456×
10
−7
y
3
− 0.3518406452 × 10
−6
z
3
− 0.2264926584 × 10
−7
x
2
y − 0.3377872890 × 10
−7
x
2
z −
0.7180127615×10
−8
y
2
x−0.3031066000×10
−7
y
2
z−0.4456528627×10
−7
z
2
x+0.7790509116×
10
−7
z
2
y + 0.4926833646 ×10
−8
xyz
˙ y = 0.1315799949×10
−7
+43.98229730x+0.3188080707×10
−7
y−0.3267336749×10
−6
z−
0.7234480581 ×10
−9
x
2
−0.5036705278 ×10
−8
y
2
+0.3934667839 ×10
−7
z
2
+0.2221743142 ×
10
−8
xy −0.1004534093×10
−7
xz −8.151159327yz −0.9168003696×10
−8
x
3
−0.1413280414×
10
−8
y
3
+ 0.4516706380 × 10
−6
z
3
− 0.4624140779 × 10
−8
x
2
y − 0.7841745952 × 10
−8
x
2
z −
0.2107626243×10
−8
y
2
x+0.3267240129×10
−9
y
2
z−0.4210675953×10
−7
z
2
x−0.9922925892×
10
−8
z
2
y + 0.7148712260 ×10
−8
xyz
˙ z = −41.88790177+0.5035715679×10
−7
x+0.1289110529×10
−6
y+0.1639003724×10
−7
z+
4.188790181x
2
+4.188790176y
2
+4.188790201z
2
+0.9697090219×10
−10
xy −0.1698821316×
10
−9
xz + 0.2163752566 × 10
−8
yz − 0.3169504911 × 10
−8
x
3
− 0.5923762730 × 10
−8
y
3
+
0.7104966349×10
−9
z
3
−0.7342948216×10
−8
x
2
y−0.3343944961×10
−8
x
2
z −0.2731587718×
10
−8
y
2
x + 0.7708634157 ×10
−10
y
2
z −0.2808544116 ×10
−7
z
2
x −0.1142883705 ×10
−6
z
2
y +
0.1158871363 ×10
−8
xyz
[1] An orbit x(t) of a dynamical system is said to be stable under the ﬂow Ψ if all suﬃciently nearby
initial conditions are asymptotic to x(t), while an orbit is Lyapunov stable if all suﬃciently
nearby initial conditions ˆ x(t
0
) result in orbits ˆ x(t) remain “nearby” x
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.