Difference betw mathematical and physics definition of fields

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the definitions of "field" in mathematics and physics, particularly in relation to Markov Random Fields. The original poster expresses confusion over the applicability of these definitions to their project. A participant clarifies that the term "field" in Markov Random Fields does not align with either the mathematical or physics definitions. They suggest that the concept of a "vector field" is more relevant to physics but still distinct from Markov Random Fields. Overall, the conversation highlights the need for clarity on terminology across different disciplines.
zerok
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi,
I'm a computer science guy. I was searching the definition of 'Field' in the context of 'Markov Random Field' for my project work. I found mathematical ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_theory_(mathematics ) ) and physics ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics ) )definition of field. Though I am certain that physics definition is the correct one in the context of Markov Random Field. But somehow I find something related between these two definitions by searching over internet. I'm confused. Kindly clarify these things to me.

Thanks,
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
links are broken.
 
granpa said:
links are broken.

Add ')' at the end of links.
 
you add them. click on the 'edit' button below your post.
 
There is no relation between the algebraic meaning of "field" (the first Wikipedia citation) and the physics meaning of "field". The "vector field" is an abstraction of the physics meaning of "field".

But neither of those has anything to do with "Markov random field". I googled on that and got
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_network
 
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top