> | I suspect something like the following may be going on:
> |
> | 1) Fact: any exact one-form can be written as d(something).
> | 2) Fact: a non-exact one-form cannot be written as d(anything).
> | 3) Non-experts think it would be nice to write all
> | one-forms as d(something), perhaps thinking that
> | the "d" shows it is a one-form.
> | 4) They've been told they can't write d(W) so they
> | write dbar(W).
On 05/12/2003 01:51 PM, Bob Sciamanda wrote:
>
> Broaden your vocabulary, John. dbar is a long-time honored notation
> meaning delta in the sense of a quantity of something. In fact the "bar"
> expressly denotes that it is not the differential of any function.
Please clarify:
If dbar(W) is a "long-time honored notation meaning ... a
quantity of something", what is the "something" here?
Is dbar(W) a quantity of W? If so, what is W?
P is a function of state
V is a function of state
P dV is a function of state
W is not a function of state
> It is so well understood in the context of the FLT that many of us
> feel free to simply write dQ and dW, when restricted to ASCII.
I still think writing dbar(W) invites people to
form a wrong impression of the physics, and writing
d(W) virtually requires wrong physics.
There are many words in my vocabulary that I decline
to use. Racial slurs, for example. I know exactly
what they mean. I decline to use them because what
they mean is not what I want to say.