Talk:Holonomic constraints

This definition doesn't make sense

Without a smoothness guarantee, or some regularity condition on the function, the defintion that the constraint is the root locus of some function says literally nothing. Any set is the root locus of the constant function one minus its indicator function! Can anyone clarify what sorts of regularity conditions are typically imposed? 18.111.94.107 (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

What is C1

Where it says "provided that $f_{i}\,\!$ is $C^{1}\,\!$", what is "$C^{1}\,\!$" ? - Rod57 (talk) 08:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

See Smoothness#Order_of_continuity --J B 13:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Misleading example in introduction

The example of a barrier in the introduction is a bad example because the main thrust of nonholonomic constraints is not inequalities, but functional constraints that involves the velocities.

Poorly written subsection

The subsection "Holonomic system - Introduction" is poorly written. The language is slightly abstract, yet the entities involved are not sharply defined, so it is hard to know what is meant without already knowing the subject.

For example, what is a "component"?

What does this sentence mean:

"a holonomic system is (simply speaking) a system in which one can deduce the state of a system by knowing only the change of positions of the components of the system over time, but not needing to know the velocity or in what order the components moved relative to each other"

Does it have something to do with path-independence?

When do these velocities occur? Is it just one "velocity" or is it a function v(t)?

Why have we shifted the definition from a (clear and precise) restriction on the generalized positions q, as described in the introduction, to a (vague and verbal) statement about the ontology of states of the system?

I can't relate these characterizations to each other. 194.230.148.166 (talk) 00:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)