Talk:Rotation number

Does it really makes sense?

Does it really make sense to define the rotation number for a map that is not on the circle?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's supposed to be a generalization of the more traditional idea of rotation number for a circle. See [1] for example. VectorPosse (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the concept can be generalized but the formula in the article:

$\omega (x)=\lim _{n\to \infty }{\frac {f^{n}(x)-x}{n}}.$

is incorrect for the definition of the rotation number on the torus.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what it was supposed to be in general, but for a circle, the only case I am familiar with, the definition was completely wrong; I've replaced it with the standard one. Arcfrk (talk) 07:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

intro

Hi. Here is a intro : In mathematics, the rotation number is an invariant of homeomorphisms of the circle." Isn't it to technical ? May better : "it is a number which describes property of transformnation" ? ( or smth like that ) --Adam majewski (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)