Re:Controversies in field of mathematics
by pducks32 on Thursday October 05, 2017 @04:35PM
(#15412391)
I actually never really thought this was that big of an issue but your link is really interesting and brings up some great points. Hamiltonians I think solve the largest issues but I know from talking to people who learn mechanics that that becomes confusing to because dq/dt they think should be related to momentum simply by p=m*dq/dt but it's a tad more complicated than that because you're talking really about a manifold and fancy geometry talk not commonly know to physicists
Re:Controversies in field of mathematics
by mlevental on Thursday October 05, 2017 @05:03PM
(#15412574)
sicm is great. another subject I would kill to have get this formalized treatment is statistics - so many people play fast and loose with conditional probabilities and expectations it drives me insane.
https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/...
"Classical mechanics is deceptively simple. It is surprisingly easy to get the right answer with fallacious reasoning or without real understanding. Traditional mathematical notation contributes to this problem. Symbols have ambiguous meanings that depend on context, and often even change within a given context. For example, a fundamental result of mechanics is the Lagrange equations. ... The Lagrangian L must be interpreted as a function of the position and velocity components qi and i, so that the partial derivatives make sense, but then in order for the time derivative d/dt to make sense solution paths must have been inserted into the partial derivatives of the Lagrangian to make functions of time. The traditional use of ambiguous notation is convenient in simple situations, but in more complicated situations it can be a serious handicap to clear reasoning."
Footnote 2 is also fun to read.