Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
sci.math.*
»
sci.math
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
Topic:
Is Wilipedia right?
Replies:
1
Last Post:
Oct 25, 2012 8:10 PM




Re: Is Wilipedia right?
Posted:
Oct 25, 2012 8:10 PM


On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 5:45:53 PM UTC4, Dr J R Stockton wrote: > Wikipedia page section > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point#History_and_concepts> > > currently contains (please read the page for context, if needed) : > > > > "Lagrange, however, wanted to make this simpler. He did so with a simple > > hypothesis: The trajectory of an object is determined by finding a path > > that minimizes the action over time. This is found by subtracting the > > potential energy from the kinetic energy. With this way of thinking, > > Lagrange reformulated the classical Newtonian mechanics to give rise > > to Lagrangian mechanics." > > > > Lagrange's only writing relevant to the Points is in chapters 1 and 2 of > > <http://www.ltasvis.ulg.ac.be/cmsms/uploads/File/Lagrange_essai_3corps.pdf> > > which is translated in <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/essai3c.htm>. > > > > QUESTION : Is that Wikipedia paragraph correct, or is it wrong? GRANTED (I > > suppose) that Lagrange did find/use minimisation of action; but the question > > is whether he did so IN THAT WORK. > > > > I cannot see it myself; but it's a long time since I was taught such things. > > I is plutonium archimedis. please email me at:
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com > >  > > (c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Mail via homepage. Turnpike v6.05 MIME. > > Web <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/>  FAQqish topics, acronyms and links; > > Astro stuff via astron1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc..



