yuval
Reputation
Top tag
Next privilege 250 Rep.
 Oct13 awarded Popular Question Aug4 accepted Topologist's Sine Curve not a regular submanifold of $\mathbb{R^2}$? Aug4 comment Topologist's Sine Curve not a regular submanifold of $\mathbb{R^2}$? Very helpful answer, thank you. Aug3 revised Topologist's Sine Curve not a regular submanifold of $\mathbb{R^2}$? added 12 characters in body Aug3 asked Topologist's Sine Curve not a regular submanifold of $\mathbb{R^2}$? Jul18 awarded Nice Question Jan15 awarded Teacher Jan14 revised Need some help on baby Rudin theorem 6.15 added 4 characters in body Jan14 revised Need some help on baby Rudin theorem 6.15 deleted 4 characters in body Jan14 revised Need some help on baby Rudin theorem 6.15 added 2 characters in body Jan14 answered Need some help on baby Rudin theorem 6.15 Dec25 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 $\star(T(\mathbf a \wedge \mathbf b))$? Dec25 awarded Scholar Dec25 accepted Cross product and pseudovector confusion. Dec25 awarded Supporter Dec25 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. Dec24 asked Cross product and pseudovector confusion. Aug14 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? Aug12 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? Aug12 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