I Does mobius transformation assume 3-D Euclidean space?

AI Thread Summary
Möbius transformations are purely mathematical operations and do not have validity within the framework of Newtonian physics. The discussion emphasizes that questioning their validity in a physical context is akin to questioning the relevance of a number in physics. The concept of rectilinear motion being treated as circular motion along an infinite radius is mathematically permissible but holds no significance in physical terms. The conversation highlights the distinction between mathematical constructs and their application in physical theories. Ultimately, the nature of mathematical operations remains independent of physical interpretations.
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.
 

Thread 'What Exactly is Dirac’s Delta Function? - Insight'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Fermat's Last Theorem'

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...
View full post »
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

B Cartesian Space vs. Euclidean Space
Replies
10
Views
2K
A Is there any theory that can be modeled in any type of space?
Replies
1
Views
1K
I What's the difference between Euclidean & Cartesian space?
Replies
5
Views
14K
I 2-sphere manifold intrinsic definition
Replies
44
Views
5K
How can visualizing abstract spaces aid in understanding mathematical concepts?
Replies
29
Views
3K
I Mobius Transformation: Physical Significance?
Replies
2
Views
1K
How would you define a mathematical space?
Replies
11
Views
2K
A How Does Non-Euclidean Geometry Differ from Euclid's Postulates?
Replies
3
Views
2K
I How should we interpret the Möbius-strip image of spinors?
Replies
1
Views
2K
I Round 3-sphere symmetries as subspace of 4D Euclidean space
Replies
7
Views
852

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top