Mathematics of Classical Mechanics - Revision history

Ruslan at 10:57, 4 November 2018

2018-11-04T10:57:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:57, 4 November 2018
Line 31:		Line 31:

	(Add picture with cartesian, radial and moving coordinates here.)		(Add picture with cartesian, radial and moving coordinates here.)

			== Test section ==
			Here we test mathematical formulas.
			<math>
			\frac{1}{2}
			</math>

Ruslan at 10:55, 4 November 2018

2018-11-04T10:55:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:55, 4 November 2018
Line 19:		Line 19:
	* Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics Second Edition, V.I. Arnold. I prefer the Russian Version. There are are also translations to German and English		* Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics Second Edition, V.I. Arnold. I prefer the Russian Version. There are are also translations to German and English
	** PRO: More mathematical formalism.		** PRO: More mathematical formalism.
	** CON: I feel that I miss some ~~mathematics~~ and ~~physics~~ knowledge to understand it.		** CON: I feel that I miss some mathematical and physical knowledge to understand it. Example: I did not know additive groups of type AxB->C and did not work a lot with affine spaces.
	* Курс теоретической физики Ландау и Лифшица (Course of Theoretical Physics from L. Landau and E. Lifshitz), Volume 1, Mechanics. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Course_of_Theoretical_Physics]		* Курс теоретической физики Ландау и Лифшица (Course of Theoretical Physics from L. Landau and E. Lifshitz), Volume 1, Mechanics. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Course_of_Theoretical_Physics]
	** PRO: More physics.		** PRO: More physics.
	** PRO: Good quality, as a classical teaching book in Soviet Union.		** PRO: Good quality, as a classical teaching book in Soviet Union.
	** CON: Too sloppy mathematical formalism for me. Too view intermediate steps.		** CON: Too sloppy mathematical formalism for me. Too view intermediate steps.

			== System of coordinates ==
			(Under construction)

			Image we want to describe a two dimensional motion of a printing head in X-Y plane. For simplicity, we ignore the Z axis. It does not matter how want measure the position of the head. The printer will work always in the same way.

			(Add picture with cartesian, radial and moving coordinates here.)

Ruslan at 10:48, 4 November 2018

2018-11-04T10:48:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:48, 4 November 2018
Line 13:		Line 13:
	* [[https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/sicm_edition_2/book.html Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics]].		* [[https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/sicm_edition_2/book.html Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics]].
	** PRO: Is it is publicly available		** PRO: Is it is publicly available
	** PRO: It use programming for ~~demonstration and experinats~~.		** PRO: It use programming for experiments.
	** PRO: The authors care about ~~didactitics~~.		** PRO: The authors care about didactics.
	** PRO: Operator notation. D_1(f) instead of df/dx (I need mathematical notation here)		** PRO: Operator notation. D_1(f) instead of df/dx (I need mathematical notation here)
	** CON: They use an old version of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheme_%28programming_language%29 Scheme] which you need to install first.		** CON: They use an old version of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheme_%28programming_language%29 Scheme] which you need to install first.

Ruslan: /* Books */

2018-11-04T10:48:09Z

Books

Ruslan: /* Books */

2018-11-04T10:46:58Z

Books

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
   * PRO: It use programming for demonstration and experinats.
   * PRO: The authors care about didactitics.
   * CON: They use an old version of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheme_%28programming_language%29 Scheme] which you need to install first.

Ruslan at 09:01, 4 November 2018

2018-11-04T09:01:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:01, 4 November 2018
Line 8:		Line 8:

	But maybe there is a more elegant way to do it? I hope to use a more mathematical approach, like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_mechanics Langrangian] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton%27s_principle Hamiltonian] mechanics.		But maybe there is a more elegant way to do it? I hope to use a more mathematical approach, like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_mechanics Langrangian] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton%27s_principle Hamiltonian] mechanics.

			== Books ==
			I will use a couple of books.
			* [[https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/sicm_edition_2/book.html Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics]].
			* PRO: Is it is publicly available
			* PRO: It use programming for demonstration and experinats.
			* PRO: The authors care about didactitics.
			* CON: They use an old version of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheme_%28programming_language%29 Scheme] which you need to install first.

Ruslan: Created page with "The mechanics of rigid bodies which I learned in engineering classes was mostly: * Draw a system. * Draw a lot of forces and constraints. * Select a coordinate system. Mostly..."

2018-11-04T08:54:34Z

Created page with "The mechanics of rigid bodies which I learned in engineering classes was mostly: * Draw a system. * Draw a lot of forces and constraints. * Select a coordinate system. Mostly..."

New page

The mechanics of rigid bodies which I learned in engineering classes was mostly:
* Draw a system.
* Draw a lot of forces and constraints.
* Select a coordinate system. Mostly XYZ.
* Calculate. When something strange happen, check your forces again.

Using this approach for moving parts was pretty annoying.

But maybe there is a more elegant way to do it? I hope to use a more mathematical approach, like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_mechanics Langrangian] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton%27s_principle Hamiltonian] mechanics.

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:48, 4 November 2018
Line 12:		Line 12:
	I will use a couple of books.		I will use a couple of books.
	* [[https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/sicm_edition_2/book.html Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics]].		* [[https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/sicm_edition_2/book.html Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics]].
	* PRO: Is it is publicly available		** PRO: Is it is publicly available
	* PRO: It use programming for demonstration and experinats.		** PRO: It use programming for demonstration and experinats.
	* PRO: The authors care about didactitics.		** PRO: The authors care about didactitics.
	* PRO: Operator notation. D_1(f) instead of df/dx (I need mathematical notation here)		** PRO: Operator notation. D_1(f) instead of df/dx (I need mathematical notation here)
	* CON: They use an old version of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheme_%28programming_language%29 Scheme] which you need to install first.		** CON: They use an old version of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheme_%28programming_language%29 Scheme] which you need to install first.
	* Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics Second Edition, V.I. Arnold. I prefer the Russian Version. There are are also translations to German and English		* Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics Second Edition, V.I. Arnold. I prefer the Russian Version. There are are also translations to German and English
	* PRO: More mathematical formalism.		** PRO: More mathematical formalism.
	* CON: I feel that I miss some mathematics and physics knowledge to understand it.		** CON: I feel that I miss some mathematics and physics knowledge to understand it.
	* Курс теоретической физики Ландау и Лифшица (Course of Theoretical Physics from L. Landau and E. Lifshitz), Volume 1, Mechanics. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Course_of_Theoretical_Physics]		* Курс теоретической физики Ландау и Лифшица (Course of Theoretical Physics from L. Landau and E. Lifshitz), Volume 1, Mechanics. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Course_of_Theoretical_Physics]
	* PRO: More physics.		** PRO: More physics.
	* PRO: Good quality, as a classical teaching book in Soviet Union.		** PRO: Good quality, as a classical teaching book in Soviet Union.
	* CON: Too sloppy mathematical formalism for me. Too view intermediate steps.		** CON: Too sloppy mathematical formalism for me. Too view intermediate steps.