Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry beauty bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf sheaves simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2011

    the brief idea at kinematics and dynamics

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJul 23rd 2011

    Cf. the idea section of classical mechanics where the classical division into statics, kinematics and dynamics is also commented on.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeJul 23rd 2011

    I added a bit to kinematics and linked to the pictures from dynamics.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 23rd 2011

    Thanks, looks good!

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 23rd 2011

    I have started two new subsections at kinematics and dynamics: one on formalizations of the notion, and the other on examples, indicating what kinematics and dynamics corresponds to under quantization of classical data.

    Much more discussion could be given here eventually, of course.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJul 24th 2011

    Kinematics and dynamics are not necessarily about classical mechanics, they are well defined in quantum mechanics as well. Statics as well.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 24th 2011

    Kinematics and dynamics are not necessarily about classical mechanics, they are well defined in quantum mechanics as well.

    Zoran, I have a similar problem with the apparent disagreement of this sentence as I had before in another thread: I can’t see which statement it is that you are disagreeing with. Nobody seems to have said that kinematics and dynamics is “necessarily about classical mechanics”. On the contrary. In the entry you find first a general definition in mechanics, then a formalization in quantum mechanics, and finally an example that illustrates the concept under quantization.

    If you disagree with anything, please make clear what it is.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJul 24th 2011

    I did not say that I disagreed.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 24th 2011

    Oh, I see. Let’s try to sort this out generally, then, it seems to me that you and me repeatedly misunderstand each other in this way, which is unfortunate.

    So the thing is that if I start a thread here and then you leave a comment saying “X is not Y” then I assume that you are taking it that I asserted that “X is Y” and are disagreeing with it. But maybe that’s not what you mean. I’ll try to remember it next time.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJul 24th 2011
    • (edited Jul 24th 2011)

    Yes, you repeatedly ask me for the purpose of some comments and the purpose what I wanted in some nnLab entry. I am not much of a goal oriented personality and this usually does not make sense to me. If I see that I can say something to emphasize, to complement or to clarify in the discussion I say it; it is most often more about the discussion in the thread than about the corresponding nnLab entry. Usually the motivation to everything to what one says in a thread is associated to something said earlier in the thread, or what is reminded by that, but not with big intentions which you are looking in there. It is useful however to have in mind what has been said in the very thread (in my view, even more than what is said in the nnLab).

    One should also have in mind that for somebody when remarking about the nnLab comment that it is appropriate to be asked to implement it himself, as it is your mantra. I mean it is good mantra in some other contexts, like the large scale complaining of people who are not involved. But in nnForum it is inappropriate because one person is at some point thinking deeply and concentrated about one circle of entries. Others are concentrated on some other topic in the moment. They may have background or read before on the topic and can give useful pointers to literature, to forgotten aspects, to possible errors. It is easier for the person who is currently working on the entry to take notice of such remarks, then for the person who remarked in passing, to switch his daily subject completely, and trash an afternoon to switch the topic and to implement himself. Of course, the person who currently works on an entry may not find the remark clear enough to absorb it, may disagree or may simply not have even a single minute to do little adjustments. So the remark is not obligatory for anybody. But still, I find be sent to do it myself and to be reminded to put the remark into nnLab rather than noting it in nnForum (for everybody to see, and even oneself to come back to it much much later!), somewhat of a burden which messed many of my afternoons when I accepted to do the required homework, although it was not in the line of my needs at the moment. Those of us who work a lot on adding things to nnLab should not be pressed to do that in addition whenever giving a side remark which we find useful already at the level of a remark.

    Personally, back to the thread, I think that the entry kinematics and dynamics does not need to stay separate as nnLab topic (though I do not have a strong opinion o such). It would be more systematic to have the distinction as a paragraph at mechanics while the separate features of each should be at single topic entries kinematics and at dynamics, classical kinematics, etc. Especially when statics is also traditionally contrasted to the other two. The advantage of nnLab over the cafe is to have things classified by single notion rather than by the noncanonical discussion title.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMar 4th 2019

    Recently I was reading on the Bohr topos which led me to the kinematics and dynamics article. Just wanted to recall to attention the ellipsis under AQFT, in case anyone wants to fill it in. No rush, obviously.

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)