Folks are complaining about Wiki math. For what it's worth, and only on subjects that I have some applied knowledge, Wiki's views on math are very shallow and sometimes actually wrong, and provably so. For the former, I refer to Bessel Functions (that Jeffries and Jeffries called "a long sad tale"!) where their take is OK if you just want a number, but horrible if you want understanding, and behavior near singularities. Sort of like saying a numerical table of trig functions is the meaning of trigonometry!
For an error, their equations on gyroscopic precession are simply wrong. I know most people don't have an intuitive feeling for this, and there are many idiotic physical "explanations". And understanding it correctly doesn't matter so much, unless you are a spinning projectile. I use this stuff for real for actual spinning spacecraft. Hate to try to develope the equations of motion using Wiki's section!
I get the feeling that much of the mathy Wiki is written by "true believers" who are actually not professional, but have painfully learned algebra by rote, never been challenged by good profs, and delight in their "understanding". I suspicion the folks who know the "real" truth can't be bothered to correct the amateurs. This is a nice type of input for historical and literary matters, but not so good for rational science.
So don't take Wiki too seriously on math matters, unless you know how to unearth the truth.
Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures
Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for.
1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505,USA
tel:(505)983-7728
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org
Locked
