Re: [Phys-l] zero width?

[Michael Porter <listmoe@gmail.com>]

On Oct 15, 2007, at 5:45 PM, John Denker wrote:

> Step 1:  Atoms do have reasonably well-defined centers.

...Assuming you are reasonably unsure of their momenta... ;-)
> ...
>
> Step 2b:  More generally, you can define some sort of
> smoothing spline.

etc.

I guess this is my objection -- if you are going to go for  
approximations and mathematical descriptions anyway, why do you need  
the chalk? Whether Ben drew something with zero width really depends  
on your tolerance for the above mentioned uncertainty, and if you're  
going to wiggle on that, what's the difference between the so-called  
zero-width edge and a really thin line of chalk, accompanied by a  
liberal tolerance for non-zero behaviour?

Grain of salt to accompany this:  .

Mike

---
Michael Porter
Colonel By Secondary School
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada