Chronology |
Current Month |
Current Thread |
Current Date |

[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |

*From*: Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>*Date*: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 16:23:10 -0800

When I was growing up (ca. 1963). We called it box and it definitely was squared -- it's a dot product. A box in analogy w/ an inverted triangle. Since the the triangle both stands alone and is self dot producted, so should the box be squared when appropriate.

OTOH, P & P define the d'Alembertian w/o that little 2; bad.

bc, never noticed the confusion, bad.

p.s. Amazing success for a "foundling", or is it because?

Larry Smith wrote:

How widespread is the use of \Delta instead of \nabla^2 to mean the

Laplacian operator in 3-D?

In 4-D Minkowski space the Laplacian becomes the d'Alembertian. Should the

d'Alembertian operator be a square with or without a superscript 2? I've

seen it both ways.

Thanks,

Larry

_______________________________________________

Forum for Physics Educators

Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu

https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

**References**:**[Phys-l] math notation question***From:*Larry Smith <larry.smith@snow.edu>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: [Phys-l] math notation question** - Next by Date:
**Re: [Phys-l] math notation question** - Previous by thread:
**Re: [Phys-l] math notation question** - Next by thread:
**Re: [Phys-l] math notation question** - Index(es):