ehrenfest
- 2,001
- 1
Homework Statement
should there be a d/dt in equation 12.17? there is not in my book?
The discussion revolves around the presence of a derivative term in equation 12.17 of a physics textbook, specifically regarding whether a d/dt notation should be included. Participants are examining differences in their copies of the book, which may have variations in the text.
The conversation is ongoing, with participants sharing their observations about the text and attempting to clarify the differences in their copies. There is no clear consensus on the printing status of the books, but some participants are providing insights based on their experiences.
Participants note the absence of printing numbers in their copies, which complicates the determination of which version is more recent. There is also mention of previous discussions related to the content of the book, indicating a broader context of inquiry.
Yes, there should be a dot over the \xi on the l.h.s. and in my copy there is. Perhaps your copy is older than mine. This would shed light on a earlier thread.ehrenfest said:should there be a d/dt in equation 12.17? there is not in my book?
ehrenfest said:Sorry, I see the dot now. It just kind of blends in with the top of the \xi. I am pretty sure I have the most recent version.
My recollection of that thread is different.nrqed said:And it was clear that you had an earlier version than what Jimmy has (and you had the same version I own). Did you get your hands on a more recent copy now?
Thanks. What you have is definitely later than mine which simply says:ehrenfest said:Here is a quote from my copyright page:
"
First Published 2004
Reprinted 2004, 2005
Reprinted 2005 (twice), once with corrections.
"
I am not sure whether I put that in the other post. I bought my book from amazon in August.