Timeline for Proving non-existence of non-frictional CVTs?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 4 at 1:47 | comment | added | Peter Gerdes | Or you use it because you want to distinguish another operation, e.g., using $\cdot$ to represent an inner product, ordinal multiplication etc.. It sounds like you are saying it doesn't impair the ability to communicate the meaning at all but it's just a stylistic preference like the oxford comma or double spaces? Fair enough, I don't have the same intuition as you though so I'll have to wait until others chime in to confirm it's really a something the majority prefers. | |
| Jul 3 at 16:54 | history | edited | Peter Gerdes | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added qualification
|
| Jul 3 at 16:50 | comment | added | Michael Hardy | $\ldots\,$solve the equation $ax^2+bx+c=0$ for x, rather than that they want to solve it for $x. \qquad$ | |
| Jul 3 at 16:50 | comment | added | Michael Hardy | The use of an asterisk for ordinary multiplication was introduced for contexts in which one is limited to characters on the keyboard. Sometimes people use it because they don't know how to type $5\cdot3$ or $5\times3.$ Sometimes they use it because they have adopted an affected style. Does any publisher of books or scholarly papers use it? In the eyes of some readers, unless it is obvious that you're using a deliberately affected style, it will appear somewhat less than literate, somewhat like the say in which (as often happens here) someone writes that they want to$\,\ldots\qquad$ | |
| Jul 3 at 16:44 | comment | added | Peter Gerdes | @MichaelHardy Are those not just stylistic variants in your area of math? They are in mine? I meant real valued multiplication. | |
| Jun 29 at 11:50 | answer | added | Aaron Bergman | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jun 28 at 14:52 | comment | added | Michael Hardy | Where you wrote $\omega_i*c,$ I wonder whether you may have meant $\omega_i\cdot c.$ | |
| Jun 28 at 14:52 | history | edited | Michael Hardy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
typo
|
| Jun 28 at 10:03 | history | edited | gmvh |
Removed inappropriate tag
|
|
| Jun 28 at 9:16 | history | edited | Peter Gerdes | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 26 characters in body
|
| Jun 28 at 9:11 | history | edited | Peter Gerdes | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 26 characters in body
|
| Jun 28 at 9:10 | history | edited | YCor | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
formatting
|
| Jun 28 at 9:10 | comment | added | Peter Gerdes | If you search CVT transmission you can get an idea of what I mean and see they are all frictional rather than based on rigid geometric interactions -- sorry I'm sure that's not even the right term. | |
| Jun 28 at 9:08 | history | asked | Peter Gerdes | CC BY-SA 4.0 |