Re: positive and negative work

[John Mallinckrodt <ajmallinckro@CSUPOMONA.EDU>]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, John S. Denker wrote:

> There are innumerable idiosyncratic generalizations of the
> notion of "work", but the assertion that they worth learning
> is unproven and implausible.

I disagree.  The "proof" stares us in the face *every* time phys-l
resurrects this thread:  The reason they are worth learning (or at
least recognizing the existence of) is that we USE them
interchangeably without recognizing that they are NOT
interchangeable.

>  They are are an impediment (not an aid) to communication.

Au contraire.  They are the only hope for communication.*

John Mallinckrodt      mailto:ajm@csupomona.edu
Cal Poly Pomona          http://www.csupomona.edu/~ajm

*Other than, perhaps, adopting your suggestion that we simply
never talk about work except in conjunction with point particles.