Talk:Rank One Chaos

Reviewer B

Main question

The first part of the article, before the contents, is written in an informal way: 'we felt', 'we thought', 'our motivation', etc. Actually I like it, but I'm not sure that such a style is appropriated for an encyclopedia article. Definitely, for a standard encyclopedia it is not possible, but Scholarpedia is not so rigid. So, it is up to the editor to decide if the author should rewrite this part or not.

Small remarks

• On the line 2, 'development', on the line 3 'developed'. It is not good.
• Line 10 from above, it is better to replace 'concrete' by 'specific'.
• Line 14 from above, it is better to replace 'character' by 'type' since character is a mathematical notion that has nothing to do with the article.
• Line 19 from above, Diaz 1945?
• In the equation (2), one has to mention that Phy is periodic.
• In the equation (3) there is no Lambda 0, so in the line after this equation is better to write Lambda = Lambda 0, Gamma = Gamma 0.
• The subsection Supercritical Hopf Bifurcation. Many people think that it's more historically right to call it Andronov-Hopf Bifurcation. Of course, it's up to the author.
• In the title he called it supercritical, but inside the subsection he called it supcritical without explanation. It is not good.
• Replace everywhere 'Dirichelet' by 'Dirichlet'.

Summarizing: I have to say that the author did successfully a very difficult job and the article is definitively worth to be published in Scholarpedia.