3 ms·
Here's the Wiki article. It points to the lack of Lipschitz continuity at the peak, which contrary to the author, I would call out as a dead straight reason for
by whatshisface 5y ago
Here's the Wiki article. It points to the lack of Lipschitz continuity at the peak, which contrary to the author, I would call out as a dead straight reason for the behavior to be non-deterministic; because the proof of determinacy depends on Lipschitz continuity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton%27s_dome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton%27s_dome
- davrosthedalek 5y agoCan somebody ELI5 how the "simple criticism" works in the Indeterminate derivatives section? a) h=F/2m deltat^2 only if F is in the direction of h, which it certainly isn't. (Also, if anything, that should be a delta h). b) F is well defined at r=0 (F=0)
- whatshisface 5y agoThe kinematics don't really impact the argument, all it's saying is that the second derivative of the surface does not exist at the peak, which means the change in force with respect to motion is undefined.