Talk:Nekhoroshev estimates

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Estimate formula

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The formula presented just can't be right! Obviously, the closer our trajectory should stay to the invariant torus, the shorter the possible time. Thus upper bound should decrease with $\varepsilon \to 0$ , while it increases! I changed the sign so that makes now more sense (exponentially fast drift away), but the whole formula should be revised, 'cause there's the same mistake in the cited source!

By the way, when $\varepsilon \to \infty$ T should go to infinity (farther distance requires more time, on compact manifold there's even an upper distance bound!) It's *very* strange that in the current formula upper time bound tends to a constant. --Anton (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the buzz, I didn't get the first time that there's the same epsilon in Hamiltonian and estimates. Well, maybe the statement should be clarified a bit? --Anton (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Add topic