Timeline for Coordinate free computation of the second derivative of a functional [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Jul 15, 2023 at 19:23 | history | unlocked | CommunityBot | ||
| S Jul 15, 2023 at 19:23 | history | locked | CommunityBot | ||
| S Jul 15, 2023 at 19:23 | history | closed |
M.G. Daniele Tampieri Bugs Bunny Alec Rhea Sam Sanders |
Not suitable for this site | |
| Jun 19, 2023 at 14:53 | vote | accept | Gauge | ||
| Jun 18, 2023 at 23:45 | answer | added | Michael Engelhardt | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jun 18, 2023 at 23:18 | comment | added | Michael Engelhardt | The $\nabla \cdot \nabla $ term doesn't correspond to what's on the Wikipedia page and just seems simply wrong to me. The correct form on the Wikipedia page refers to the case that $g$, in your notation, contains $\nabla f$ (which it doesn't in your concrete example), and then one has to take into account $\partial g/\partial (\nabla f)$. | |
| Jun 18, 2023 at 20:55 | comment | added | Gauge | Yea that's the one | |
| Jun 18, 2023 at 20:49 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jul 15, 2023 at 19:23 | |||||
| Jun 18, 2023 at 19:33 | comment | added | LSpice | I didn't see your exact formula on the Wikipedia article, but it seemed quite close to the formula linked at "Functional derivative > Formula", so I changed the link to point there (while also fixing up some TeX). I hope that was correct. | |
| Jun 18, 2023 at 19:32 | history | edited | LSpice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
TeX
|
| Jun 18, 2023 at 19:18 | history | edited | Gauge | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 5 characters in body
|
| S Jun 18, 2023 at 19:18 | review | First questions | |||
| Jun 19, 2023 at 5:15 | |||||
| S Jun 18, 2023 at 19:18 | history | asked | Gauge | CC BY-SA 4.0 |