Re: TdS is not dQ or d(anything)

[Jack Uretsky <jlu@HEP.ANL.GOV>]

        Well, actually not quite.  Without needlessly complicating the
discussion, 0-forms bear the added responsibility of being "smooth", a
condition not usually imposed on all scalars.

On Wed, 14 May 2003, John S. Denker wrote:

> I wrote:
>  >>  Scalars and 0-forms are essentially synonymous.
>
>
>
> On 05/13/2003 08:36 PM, Bob Sciamanda wrote:
> > The qualification "essentially" is troubling - what does it mean?
>
> Operationally, when you are doing calculations,
> 0-forms and scalars are interchangeable.
>
> The distinction is epistemological: 0-forms
> are defined in terms of scalars, not the other
> way around.
>
> (This is splitting hairs, but if I hadn't put
> that qualification in there, I 'spect somebody
> would have called me on it.)

--
        "What did Barrow's lectures contain?  Bourbaki writes with some
scorn that in his book in a hundred pages of the text there are about 180
drawings.  (Concerning Bourbaki's books it can be said that in a thousand
pages there is not one drawing, and it is not at all clear which is
worse.)"
                                        V. I. Arnol'd in
                                Huygens & Barrow, Newton & Hooke