 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | The contents of the Velocity gradient page were merged into Strain-rate tensor on 31 March 2019. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Proposed merge with Velocity gradient
editLow-quality duplicate. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Doubt
editHi, why is L defined like transpose of nabla v? I find the definition without transpose more standard and common. A.j.rimmer.bdzp (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- I can't believe nobody fixed this in so long. The component definition should be correct now. Adigitoleo (talk) 08:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- You made the definitions within the article inconsistent (see definition of J in section Formal definition)
- The reason nobody touches this is likely, that physicists do not manage to agree what \nabla u means.
- Mathematically \nabla u_ij = \nabla_i u_j is more sensible, but its transpose is more widely used in physics.
- Several pages within Wikipedia containing such derivatives get edits based on “the indices seem odd”.
- There should probably be an explanation regarding the indices to avoid something like that.
- Also, please keep the article consistent. Richardk2n (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oops, I've reverted it for now. I checked a recent-ish physics textbook (2015) and indeed they use the transposed definition. I wasn't familiar with it but if it is common across other pages then we can keep it consistent. I may add some comments about the ambiguity in this definition later if I get a chance. Adigitoleo (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)