Recent content by patfla

Yes. I can't find (at Amazon) this 19.80 thing you refer to Tony. Could you be more specific?

I found it (the book) on books.google.com Click on 'Google Product Search' on the right at the link below. I got 6 six hits. Not cheap, but well, there you are (anywhere you go - there you are [Kurt Vonnegut]): http://books.google.com/books?id=upYwZ6cQumoC

Hi Tony, Oh it's du Sautoy. That, for me, says a good deal right there. In spite of the name, he's English. And looking him up now on Wikipedia, he's a mathematician at Oxford. Heard an interview with him once and formed a fairly distinct impression. And I believe that at that time...

Hi Garrett, Any response to the Jan 23 "Symmetry Issues??" posting as found here? http://exceptionallysimpletheoryofeverything.blogspot.com/ Which I guess is actually a link to an article on telegraph.co.uk (haven't clicked through and read yet - but the blog explanation says that...

Thanx f-h - that's perfect. Although '4-n': is this just for Minkowski spacetime (that is: 3D+1)? From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hodge_dual I got the impression that the hodge star (aka dual) was, for any n dimensionial space, where you were 'projecting' (transforming, whatever)...

OK thanks f-h. Actually the JB link doesn't mention your full expression *d*F(A) = J but rather *d*F = J in combination with dF = 0. You said that current (J) is a 1-form. So I would assume the whole of the expression *d*F(A) reduces to a 1-form?

Oh also f-h Gauge Fields Knots and Gravity by John Baez is, unfortunately, a book. Unfortunate in the sense that I can't immediately lay my hands on it. But JB does seem to explain the terms and operators (in *d*F(A) = J) here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=141493 It would...

Yes of course. There are, as we've seen, various formulations (various ways of expressing the same mathemtical relations). I believe Maxwell's original '4' are these (at the top): http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations f-h: the *d*F(A) = J you referred to earlier is (I...

'set' or 'fix' (the values) might be better word choices (than 'demand'). And, of course, then work backwards.

Hi Justin, That was useful. So the answer (while more subtle than how I asked the question) is: yes. Yes that is: if one is trying the apply Maxwell's original equations from different coordinate systems. I.e. you would get different results (on the same observable). I would assume that...

Actually kurt you may have, in effect, answered a recent question in my mind. Was it (is it) the case that Maxwell's original equations were not spacetime (or frame-of-reference) invariant? That is, two different frames of reference with the same observable and Maxwell's original equations...

Hi rntsai - yes you're right. Not the .com site. I did get the software originally from the .uk site you mention. Later though I found this (and this is what I should have put up instead of the .com url): http://www.gap-system.org/ Lots of interesting looking, and possibly useful...

Thanx Tony Aaahhh. Actually if I’d thought a minute or two about what the tensor product does, I probably should have been able to arrive at the correct interpretation. I think I was distracted by this: I’m good at languages; speak several; and there was a way in which I thought this...

Unless I’m mistaken, we may have gone somewhat off-course from what Garrett originally intended for AESToE. Which isn’t to say that I’ll necessarily steer things back in some suitable direction, but I’ve been off doing a bunch of stuff and want to return and ask some questions. There are some...

Hello rntsai The dot product thing was just an analogy. Working my way upwards, as it were, from Linear Algebra I. The operator in the Lie algebra is the commutator (generic term I think) or Lie bracket. There seem to be several (mathematical) formulations of the Lie bracket on...