Difference between revisions of "User talk:Jaycall"

From VistrailsWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Joel adds comment on Killing vector approach)
(Express summary integral in terms of cylindrical coordinates)
Line 10: Line 10:
==Killing Vector Approach==
==Killing Vector Approach==
Thanks for writing out all the terms in the expression for <math>d\Xi/dt</math> in your "[[User:Jaycall/KillingVectorApproach|Killing Vector Approach]]" discussion.  On the one hand, I'm happy that the term I mentioned cancels with another one because that means we have fewer terms to integrate.  On the other hand, it was one term that I thought we might actually be able to manipulate analytically.  Of the two terms that remain, one is relatively simple &#8212; the one that is proportional to <math>\dot{\lambda}_2</math> &#8212; but the first term is a bear!  That will take some thinking! --[[User:Tohline|Tohline]] 10:50, 30 May 2010 (MDT)
Thanks for writing out all the terms in the expression for <math>d\Xi/dt</math> in your "[[User:Jaycall/KillingVectorApproach|Killing Vector Approach]]" discussion.  On the one hand, I'm happy that the term I mentioned cancels with another one because that means we have fewer terms to integrate.  On the other hand, it was one term that I thought we might actually be able to manipulate analytically.  Of the two terms that remain, one is relatively simple &#8212; the one that is proportional to <math>\dot{\lambda}_2</math> &#8212; but the first term is a bear!  That will take some thinking! --[[User:Tohline|Tohline]] 10:50, 30 May 2010 (MDT)
:I know it seems like the wrong direction, but unless we can express this summary integral entirely in terms of <math>\lambda_1</math>, <math>\lambda_2</math>, <math>\dot{\lambda}_1</math> and <math>\dot{\lambda}_2</math>, I think that in order to make progress we're going to have to write things out in terms of <math>\varpi</math>, <math>z</math>, <math>\dot{\varpi}</math> and <math>\dot{z}</math>.  Of course, that will make the expression much messier, but I think it will be very difficult to recognize this quantity as an exact derivative unless everything's in terms of the same coordinates. --[[User:Jaycall|Jaycall]] 12:55, 30 May 2010 (MDT)

Revision as of 18:55, 30 May 2010

Joel's First Talk Message to Jay

Jay: In the email message that you sent to me today, you indicated that you had added the 3rd component to the dx/dt equation. I don't see that modification in the current T3Coordinates page. --Tohline 15:05, 29 May 2010 (MDT)

Joel: It's at the bottom of the section entitled "Time-Derivative of Position and Velocity Vectors". Under the history tab, can you see the edits that I made? It was the very first edit and was fairly minor. I only added a couple terms. --Jaycall 20:17, 29 May 2010 (MDT)
The mediaWiki "talk" page recommends that when you reply to a query, you should not start a new subsection but, rather, just indent (using one or more colons) immediately following the query. Also, it recommends that you "sign" each "talk" message. You do this by typing 2 dashes followed by 4 tildes! I'm going to edit your "reply" (and this additional one from me) to put it in this recommended format. But you have to "sign" your own remark. --Tohline 16:23, 29 May 2010 (MDT)
By the way, I can see the edits that you made to add the 3rd component to the dx/dt equation. I did not spot the changes earlier, but via the history "diff" function, I'm able to see the edits clearly. --Tohline 16:41, 29 May 2010 (MDT)

Killing Vector Approach

Thanks for writing out all the terms in the expression for <math>d\Xi/dt</math> in your "Killing Vector Approach" discussion. On the one hand, I'm happy that the term I mentioned cancels with another one because that means we have fewer terms to integrate. On the other hand, it was one term that I thought we might actually be able to manipulate analytically. Of the two terms that remain, one is relatively simple — the one that is proportional to <math>\dot{\lambda}_2</math> — but the first term is a bear! That will take some thinking! --Tohline 10:50, 30 May 2010 (MDT)

I know it seems like the wrong direction, but unless we can express this summary integral entirely in terms of <math>\lambda_1</math>, <math>\lambda_2</math>, <math>\dot{\lambda}_1</math> and <math>\dot{\lambda}_2</math>, I think that in order to make progress we're going to have to write things out in terms of <math>\varpi</math>, <math>z</math>, <math>\dot{\varpi}</math> and <math>\dot{z}</math>. Of course, that will make the expression much messier, but I think it will be very difficult to recognize this quantity as an exact derivative unless everything's in terms of the same coordinates. --Jaycall 12:55, 30 May 2010 (MDT)