I’m posting this thread reopening request here in keeping with the procedures outlined in the Meta post "How do you reopen a closed question?" I only learned fairly recently that my question “What are the known existing practical applications of chaos theory in data mining?” had been closed on the grounds of being too broad. There are several reasons why this no longer applies. As per the Meta reopening checklist, I did an extensive rewrite of the post before Christmas in order to sharply limit the question solely to known, existing implementations of chaos theory, specifically in data mining and related fields, not ordinary scientific inquiry. Secondly, I’ve put a significant amount of effort since I posted it two years ago to acquiring the knowledge to answer it myself; as a result, I now know the reasons why the list of implementations in data mining etc. are so short in comparison to other scientific applications (with the Three-Body Problem being one of the classic examples of the latter). I retained the numbered list of potential applications in the post precisely because the striking contrast with the paucity of existing implementations is the story; if I can get this reopened, I can provide an insightful, detailed answer to my own question that will explain precisely why this contrast exists. There some inherent, overarching limitations on the scope of possible applications to data mining and related fields like neural nets, pattern recognition etc., which arise by logical necessity from certain broad characteristics of chaos theory. These characteristics neatly separate the implementations in ordinary scientific studies from the kind of use cases we face in data mining and the like.
If I can get the green light to get this question reopened, my intention is to answer it myself within a week or two (give me a little leeway to craft my post) and accept my own answer, in order to bring this intriguing question (which generated a lot of interest) to a more constructive closure. The answer will reference case studies from sources like A.B. Cambel's Applied Chaos Theory: A Paradigm for Complexity and Alligood, et al.'s Chaos: An Introduction to Dynamical Systems (the latter is incredibly useful as a sourcebook for this topic).
The major issues with overly broad Stack Exchange questions is that they may encourage rambling, far-ranging, sometimes opinionated discussions without a clear direction or focus, often without approaching a conclusion. Now that I’ve researched this thoroughly and narrowed the focus to existing implementations, I can explain why such implementations of chaos theory in these particular fields are almost certain to remain few and far between in comparison to general scientific applications. There is no longer a danger of clutter from a wide-ranging discussion, since I intend to answer it and close it myself, by delving into the rather clear reasons for this strange dichotomy. I hate to see the question go to waste and remain forever closed and unanswered, especially since a clear answer is at hand, one I went to great trouble to find. I made an effort to contact the closers first, as mentioned in the Meta checklist on question reopening, but couldn’t find any direct contact info; I even started a chatroom the other day, but have been unable to invite them there to talk to them directly.
Let me know if there’s anything further I can do to get the thread reopened just briefly enough for me to close it myself. If necessary, I can go into more detail here about how certain aspects of chaos theory constrict its applicability, but I’d rather save the bulk of the detail for my answer. If necessary, I suppose I could even submit my answer to moderators first, if that sort of thing’s allowed. I’d also like to retain the numbered list of potential applications in the original post precisely because they’re germane to the answer, which won’t be overtly obvious till I’ve posted it. This thread may help other users like myself who initially had a “the sky’s the limit!” mentality about the applications of chaos theory to these fields understand more quickly just why they’re likely to remain relatively rare, in contrast to other scientific uses. Thanks.