Does mobius transformation assume 3-D Euclidean space?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the validity of assumptions in Möbius transformations within the context of Newtonian physics. Participants explore the relationship between mathematical operations and physical concepts, particularly in relation to motion and geometry.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the assumptions in Möbius transformations are valid in Newtonian physics.
  • Another participant asserts that Möbius transformations are purely mathematical and cannot be deemed valid or invalid in a physical context, comparing it to questioning the validity of a number in physics.
  • A later reply suggests that considering rectilinear motion as circular motion along a circle of infinite radius may be mathematically correct, though it does not clarify its relevance to physics.
  • Some participants agree that the terminology used in describing motion does not affect the mathematical validity of the concepts being discussed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There appears to be disagreement regarding the relevance of Möbius transformations to physical concepts, with some participants emphasizing the mathematical nature of the transformations while others explore their implications in physics.

Contextual Notes

The discussion does not resolve the relationship between mathematical operations and physical interpretations, leaving open questions about the assumptions involved in both domains.

Layman FJ
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Are the assumptions in mobius transformation valid in Newtonian physics?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Möbius transformations are mathematical operations, they cannot be "valid in Newtonian physics". That's like asking "is the number 6 valid in Newtonian physics?"
 
mfb said:
Möbius transformations are mathematical operations, they cannot be "valid in Newtonian physics". That's like asking "is the number 6 valid in Newtonian physics?"
If we consider rectilinear motion as circular motion along a circle of infinite radius,will it be mathematically correct ?
 
You can do that, it has no relevance to physics how you call things.
 
mfb said:
You can do that, it has no relevance to physics how you call things.
Thanks for the reply.
 

Similar threads

High School Cartesian Space vs. Euclidean Space
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Undergrad What's the difference between Euclidean & Cartesian space?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
15K
Graduate Is there any theory that can be modeled in any type of space?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Graduate How Does Non-Euclidean Geometry Differ from Euclid's Postulates?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Undergrad Mobius Transformation: Physical Significance?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Undergrad 2-sphere manifold intrinsic definition
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
7K
Undergrad Round 3-sphere symmetries as subspace of 4D Euclidean space
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Undergrad The best ways to display a map of non-Euclidean 3-D space?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Undergrad Five points in space with rational distances that are not co-linear
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Undergrad How should we interpret the Möbius-strip image of spinors?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K