Skip to main content
13 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Oct 4, 2023 at 12:58 vote accept mathoverflowUser
May 2, 2023 at 12:20 comment added mathoverflowUser follow up question in physics: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/762229/…
May 2, 2023 at 10:04 comment added mathoverflowUser @DanieleTampiere: I posted an answer to this question which tries to adress some of your findings. Thanks again.
May 2, 2023 at 10:04 answer added mathoverflowUser timeline score: 1
Apr 30, 2023 at 21:05 history edited LSpice CC BY-SA 4.0
Missing TeX; name of book; proofreading
Apr 30, 2023 at 11:31 comment added mathoverflowUser @DanieleTampieri: In the formulation where I divide through $F_N(x,y)+F_C(x,y)$ these should be the length of the corresponding force vectors. I will change the question to reflect your observation.
Apr 30, 2023 at 11:30 history edited mathoverflowUser CC BY-SA 4.0
fixed typo
Apr 30, 2023 at 11:18 history edited mathoverflowUser CC BY-SA 4.0
fixed typo
Apr 30, 2023 at 11:15 comment added mathoverflowUser @DanieleTampieri Thank you for your comment and kind suggestion. I will keep that in mind.
Apr 30, 2023 at 10:58 comment added Carlo Beenakker you asked this before, it was downvoted and deleted; please improve the existing question, rather than starting a new post: mathoverflow.net/q/445642/11260
Apr 30, 2023 at 9:14 comment added Daniele Tampieri Two points: 1. The idea of the measure $m(x)=\big(m_N(x), m_C(x)\big)$ as a vector charge (in the sense of signed measure) is intriguing, but you should take care of the sign "$-$" for the Newtonian part in an explicit way. 2. A weaker point: $F_N(x,y)$ and $F_C(x,y)$ are vectors thus you should define the inverse of a vector in order for the following development to make sense. Well, my two cents.
Apr 30, 2023 at 9:03 history edited Daniele Tampieri CC BY-SA 4.0
Math Jaxed a bit and formatted.
Apr 30, 2023 at 5:46 history asked mathoverflowUser CC BY-SA 4.0