120 reputation
6
bio website
location
age
visits member for 1 year, 8 months
seen Mar 29 at 16:15

Aug
4
accepted Topologist's Sine Curve not a regular submanifold of $\mathbb{R^2}$?
Aug
4
comment Topologist's Sine Curve not a regular submanifold of $\mathbb{R^2}$?
Very helpful answer, thank you.
Aug
3
revised Topologist's Sine Curve not a regular submanifold of $\mathbb{R^2}$?
added 12 characters in body
Aug
3
asked Topologist's Sine Curve not a regular submanifold of $\mathbb{R^2}$?
Jul
18
awarded  Nice Question
Jan
15
awarded  Teacher
Jan
14
revised Need some help on baby Rudin theorem 6.15
added 4 characters in body
Jan
14
revised Need some help on baby Rudin theorem 6.15
deleted 4 characters in body
Jan
14
revised Need some help on baby Rudin theorem 6.15
added 2 characters in body
Jan
14
answered Need some help on baby Rudin theorem 6.15
Dec
25
comment Cross product and pseudovector confusion.
Very helpful reply, thanks! I read up a bit on wedge products and their relation to the cross product via the Hodge dual. Is there any meaningful relationship between, say, $T(\star(\mathbf a \wedge \mathbf b))$ and $\star(T(\mathbf a \wedge \mathbf b))$?
Dec
25
awarded  Scholar
Dec
25
accepted Cross product and pseudovector confusion.
Dec
25
awarded  Supporter
Dec
25
comment Cross product and pseudovector confusion.
Thanks, I will take a look at Frenkel's book, although I don't really have any experience with differential geometry yet.
Dec
24
asked Cross product and pseudovector confusion.
Aug
14
comment How come in classical mechanics we can get away with writing $a=v(dv/dx)$, treating $v$ as a function of $x$?
I'm unfamiliar with ODE theory, is it possible to illustrate what this would mean for a specific example?
Aug
12
comment How come in classical mechanics we can get away with writing $a=v(dv/dx)$, treating $v$ as a function of $x$?
Wouldn't $v=(+/-)sqrt(1-x^2)$ (depending on whether the mass is moving in or out)? Of course in this case the velocity is well defined up to a sign, and $dv/dx$ has the same sign, so the term $v(dv/dx)$ ends up being well defined for all $t$. But in general why does this method work?
Aug
12
revised How come in classical mechanics we can get away with writing $a=v(dv/dx)$, treating $v$ as a function of $x$?
added 279 characters in body
Aug
12
awarded  Editor