Counterexamples for IFS-attractors

Nowak, Magdalena; Fernández–Martínez, M.

doi:10.1016/j.chaos.2015.12.006

Cited by 11 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However there are known examples of attractors for wIFSs, which are not attractors for IFSs (see [6]), in our considerations we will need one in wL d Proof. By Lemma 2.2 it suffices to find…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of the sets of attractors for systems of contractions and weak contractions

Klinga,

Kwela

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For n, d ∈ N we consider the families:• L d n of attractors for iterated function systems (IFS) consisting of n contractions acting on [0, 1] d ,• wL d n of attractors for weak iterated function systems (wIFS) consisting of n weak contractions acting on [0, 1] d .We study closures of the above families as subsets of the hyperspace K([0, 1] d ) of all compact subsets of [0, 1] d equipped in the Hausdorff metric. In particular, we show thatWhat is more, we construct a compact set belonging to L d 2 which is not an attractor for any wIFS. We present a diagram summarizing our considerations.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Obviously, each attractor of some IFS is an attractor of some wIFS. The reverse inclusion is not true by [6].…”

Section: Preliminariesmentioning

confidence: 93%

Comparison of the sets of attractors for systems of contractions and weak contractions

Klinga,

Kwela

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Clearly, an IFS attractor is a weak IFS attractor. However, the reverse inclusion is not true by [11].…”

Section: S(a)mentioning

confidence: 95%

Porosities of the sets of attractors

Klinga¹,

Kwela²

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is another attempt to measure the difference between the family A[0, 1] of attractors for iterated function systems acting on [0, 1] and a broader family, the set A w [0, 1] of attractors for weak iterated function systems acting on [0, 1].It is known that both A[0, 1] and A w [0, 1] are meager subsets of the hyperspace K([0, 1]) (of all compact subsets of [0, 1] equipped in the Hausdorff metric). Actually, A[0, 1] is even σ-lower porous while the question about σ-lower porosity of A w [0, 1] is still open.We prove that A[0, 1] is not σ-strongly porous in K([0, 1]). Moreover, we show that A w [0, 1] \ A[0, 1] is dense in K([0, 1]).

show abstract

“…Obviously, each attractor of some IFS is an attractor of some wIFS. However, the reverse inclusion is not true -see [7] for counterexamples.…”

Section: Weak Ifs Attractorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Borel complexity of the family of attractors for weak IFSs

Klinga¹,

Kwela²

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is an attempt to measure the difference between the family of iterated function systems attractors and a broader family, the set of attractors for weak iterated function systems. We discuss Borel complexity of the set wIFS d of attractors for weak iterated function systems acting on [0, 1] d (as a subset of the hyperspace K([0, 1] d ) of all compact subsets of [0, 1] d equipped in the Hausdorff metric). We prove that wIFS d is G δσ -hard in K([0, 1] d ), for all d ∈ N. In particular, wIFS d is not F σδ (in contrast to the family IFS d of attractors for classical iterated function systems acting on [0, 1] d , which is F σ ). Moreover, we show that in the one-dimensional case, wIFS 1 is an analytic subset of K([0, 1]).

show abstract

Counterexamples for IFS-attractors

Cited by 11 publications

References 15 publications

Comparison of the sets of attractors for systems of contractions and weak contractions

Comparison of the sets of attractors for systems of contractions and weak contractions

Porosities of the sets of attractors

Borel complexity of the family of attractors for weak IFSs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About