One of the most powerful and versatile tools in the study of invariant surfaces for conservative dynamical systems relies upon KAM theory (, , , , , , , ). However, because of the apparently stringent quantitative requirements, such theory has been (and often still is) considered not too well suited for concrete applications. Nevertheless, in , , ,  and especially in , , , , it has been shown how refinements and implementations of KAM theory may yield quantitative rigorous results that are in good agreement with the numerical expectations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access
De La Llave R., Rana D., Proof of accurate bounds in small denominators problems, preprint (1986).Google Scholar
Escande D.F., Doveil F., Renormalization method for computing the threshold of the large-scale stochastic instability in two degrees of freedom Hamiltonian systems, J. Stat. Physics 26, 257 (1981).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene J.M., A method for determining a stochastic transition, J. of Math. Phys. 20, 1183 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herman M., Sur le courbes invariantes par le diffeomorphismes de l’anneau, Asterisque 2, 144 (1986).MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
Herman M., Recent results and some open questions on Siegels linearization theorems of germs of complex analytic diffeomorphisms ofCnnear a fixed point, preprint (1987).Google Scholar
Kolmogorov A.N., On the conservation of conditionally periodic motions under small perturbation of the Hamiltonian, Dokl. Akad. Nauk. SSR 98, 469 (1954).MathSciNetGoogle Scholar