Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas
At 11:46 AM -0700 12/8/08, Charles A. Grimes wrote:
>``...I remember thinking how stupid was this notion that `nature took
>the path of least action'...as physicists and applied mathematicians
>we had little interest in the quasi-relgious aspects of the
>theory...'' Les Schaffer
>
>-------
>
>This was over on pen-l from a thread on the irrelevance of workers in
>economic theory....
>
>In my fumbling through math hobby stuff, I always thought the
>prinicple of least action was considered part of the `conservation'
>laws, so that a point (i.e mass) took it's curve unless influenced by
>some external force...
>
>Is that a right or wrong way to think about the lagrangian or
>hamiltonian formulation?
>
>Please elaborate a little on the concept of least action...
>
>CG
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk