This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mathematics Mid‑priority 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale. Physics Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Systems Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the field of Dynamical systems.

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) reply

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) reply

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

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

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

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) reply

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) reply