@unpublished{Dandekar2008,
  author    = {Dandekar, Thomas},
  title     = {Why are nature´s constants so fine-tuned? The case for an escalating complex universe},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-34488},
  year      = {2008},
  abstract  = {Why is our universe so fine-tuned? In this preprint we discuss that this is not a strange accident but that fine-tuned universes can be considered to be exceedingly large if one counts the number of observable different states (i.e. one aspect of the more general preprint http://www.opus-bayern.de/uni-wuerzburg/volltexte/2009/3353/). Looking at parameter variation for the same set of physical laws simple and complex processes (including life) and worlds in a multiverse are compared in simple examples. Next the anthropocentric principle is extended as many conditions which are generally interpreted anthropocentric only ensure a large space of different system states. In particular, the observed over-tuning beyond the level for our existence is explainable by these system considerations. More formally, the state space for different systems becomes measurable and comparable looking at their output behaviour. We show that highly interacting processes are more complex then Chaitin complexity, the latter denotes processes not compressible by shorter descriptions (Kolomogorov complexity). The complexity considerations help to better study and compare different processes (programs, living cells, environments and worlds) including dynamic behaviour and can be used for model selection in theoretical physics. Moreover, the large size (in terms of different states) of a world allowing complex processes including life can in a model calculation be determined applying discrete histories from quantum spin-loop theory. Nevertheless there remains a lot to be done - hopefully the preprint stimulates further efforts in this area.},
  subject      = {Natur},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Trumpf2002,
  author    = {Trumpf, Jochen},
  title     = {On the geometry and parametrization of almost invariant subspaces and observer theory},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-5034},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t W{\"u}rzburg},
  year      = {2002},
  abstract  = {In my Ph.D. thesis "On the geometry and parametrization of almost invariant subspaces and observer theory" I consider the set of almost conditioned invariant subspaces of fixed dimension for a given fixed linear finite-dimensional time-invariant observable control system in state space form. Almost conditioned invariant subspaces were introduced by Willems. They generalize the concept of a conditioned invariant subspace requiring the invariance condition to hold only up to an arbitrarily small deviation in the metric of the state space. One of the goals of the theory of almost conditioned invariant subspaces was to identify the subspaces appearing as limits of sequences of conditioned invariant subspaces. An example due to {\"O}zveren, Verghese and Willsky, however, shows that the set of almost conditioned invariant subspaces is not big enough. I address this question in a joint paper with Helmke and Fuhrmann (Towards a compactification of the set of conditioned invariant subspaces, Systems and Control Letters, 48(2):101-111, 2003). Antoulas derived a description of conditioned invariant subspaces as kernels of permuted and truncated reachability matrices of controllable pairs of the appropriate size. This description was used by Helmke and Fuhrmann to construct a diffeomorphism from the set of similarity classes of certain controllable pairs onto the set of tight conditioned invariant subspaces. In my thesis I generalize this result to almost conditioned invariant subspaces describing them in terms of restricted system equivalence classes of controllable triples. Furthermore, I identify the controllable pairs appearing in the kernel representations of conditioned invariant subspaces as being induced by corestrictions of the original system to the subspace. Conditioned invariant subspaces are known to be closely related to partial observers. In fact, a tracking observer for a linear function of the state of the observed system exists if and only if the kernel of that function is conditioned invariant. In my thesis I show that the system matrices of the observers are in fact the corestrictions of the observed system to the kernels of the observed functions. They in turn are closely related to partial realizations. Exploring this connection further, I prove that the set of tracking observer parameters of fixed size, i.e. tracking observers of fixed order together with the functions they are tracking, is a smooth manifold. Furthermore, I construct a vector bundle structure for the set of conditioned invariant subspaces of fixed dimension together with their friends, i.e. the output injections making the subspaces invariant, over that manifold. Willems and Trentelman generalized the concept of a tracking observer by including derivatives of the output of the observed system in the observer equations (PID-observers). They showed that a PID-observer for a linear function of the state of the observed system exists if and only if the kernel of that function is almost conditioned invariant. In my thesis I replace PID-observers by singular systems, which has the advantage that the system matrices of the observers coincide with the matrices appearing in the kernel representations of the subspaces. In a second approach to the parametrization of conditioned invariant subspaces Hinrichsen, M{\"u}nzner and Pr{\"a}tzel-Wolters, Fuhrmann and Helmke and Ferrer, F. Puerta, X. Puerta and Zaballa derived a description of conditioned invariant subspaces in terms of images of block Toeplitz type matrices. They used this description to construct a stratification of the set of conditioned invariant subspaces of fixed dimension into smooth manifolds. These so called Brunovsky strata consist of all the subspaces with fixed restriction indices. They constructed a cell decomposition of the Brunovsky strata into so called Kronecker cells. In my thesis I show that in the tight case this cell decomposition is induced by a Bruhat decomposition of a generalized flag manifold. I identify the adherence order of the cell decomposition as being induced by the reverse Bruhat order.},
  subject      = {Invarianter Unterraum},
  language  = {en}
}