It seems to cover the essentials as well as introducing the
philosophical problems of QM.
Mike
Do they subscribe to your thesis that
| "Events in spacetime do not form a vector space because
| they do not have an inverse. A requirement of a vector
| space V is that its elements have an inverse:
| (X)+(-X) = 0
| as Androcles already pointed out to deaf ears. Translation
| symmetry does not imply there is such inverse."
?
Dirk Vdm
Do you have any objection that mathematical artifacts do not
necessarily correspond to physical reality?
Do you agree that:
A. A requirement of a vector space V is that its elements have an
inverseb(X)+(-X) = 0
B. That time translation symmetry does not imply time reversal?
also
C. Do you have to say anything about the book?
All my theses in these ng's are clear whether right or wrong. YOu only
thesis it seems to ne criticism.
Criticism without offering a counerargument is a sign of lower life
forms.
Dink-Donk, the bell tolls for thee...
Mike
I usually don't engage in discussion with proven trolls and/or
imbeciles.
Squeal, pig, squeal :-)
Dirk Vdm
Causality does.
You got nothing to say, proven fact. You spend your whole misearable
days maintaining a site where you store your impotence and psychotic
behavior.
I had enough with you schizo, a killfile will do it and then a clean of
the Dirt you left around making pooppies all over the place.
Mike
Griffith's E&M book is nice.
>
> It seems to cover the essentials as well as introducing the
> philosophical problems of QM.
I wonder if you have the math for it.
>
> Mike
Thanks for the link Fred
Mike
I am just over with factorials
Dinky! = Donkey
Ha ha ha ha ha
If you need any help with math let me know Goosse
Mike
You do know that the factorial function has a more general form for
non-integers, right? Do you know the name of the function?
>
> Dinky! = Donkey
>
>
> Ha ha ha ha ha
>
> If you need any help with math let me know Goosse
Gisse. People have such a hard time spelling what is right in front of
them. Then again, reading is hard.
Anyway, lets see.
Complex analysis? nah. too fucking easy. I'm sure you know de Moivre's
identity...
computational? na. unless you don't know euler's method, that is...
intro to proofs? even the bubbleheads that inspired "math is hard" get
that class.
How about differential geometry? That class, while not breaking my
balls, is giving me discomfort. It rocks.
Here...you should be able to do this problem, even without any exposure
to differential geometry.
This is cribbed from "Differential Geometry of Curves and Surfaces" by
Manfredo P. Docamro.
pg 11, #10
Let alpha: I ---> R^3 be a parameterized curve. Let [a,b] C I and set
alpha(a) = p, alpha(b) = q
a) Show that, for any constant vector v, modulus(v)=1, that (q-p) *DOT*
v = int(b,a,alpha'(t)*DOT*v * dt <= int(b,a,modulus(alpha'(t))dt)
This shit doesn't translate into ACSII very well, so I will leave you
with that part of the problem. If you have had any exposure to
calculus, you shouldn't have any problem.
>
> Mike
Your welcome. You will need to study up on matrix and linear algebra a bit
to more fully understand this text. I hired a tutor from Cal Tech to help
me with it for a few weeks. It was well worth it.
FrediFizzx