Timeline for Could someone remind me what this means again? $\nabla U = \pm F$
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 16, 2013 at 14:46 | history | protected | Qmechanic♦ | ||
| Mar 16, 2013 at 14:44 | answer | added | sybtc | timeline score: 1 | |
| Aug 4, 2012 at 17:29 | vote | accept | Lemon | ||
| Dec 31, 2011 at 2:26 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/152938660856201217 | ||
| Dec 30, 2011 at 14:08 | comment | added | Qmechanic♦ | OP writes $\vec{\nabla}(\pm U) =\vec{F}$. The whole question seems to be just a sign flip $U\leftrightarrow -U$. | |
| Dec 30, 2011 at 2:51 | comment | added | David Z | Not just any calculus book, or at least not the ones I've used as far as I remember. If you give a specific reference I can elaborate... but that should be done in Physics Chat. | |
| Dec 30, 2011 at 2:37 | comment | added | Lemon | pretty much in any calculus book? | |
| Dec 30, 2011 at 1:40 | comment | added | David Z | I'm curious, where have you seen that equation with $\pm\vec{F}$? I have never seen it with a plus sign. | |
| Dec 30, 2011 at 1:40 | history | edited | David Z |
edited tags
|
|
| Dec 29, 2011 at 22:27 | answer | added | Chris Gerig | timeline score: 3 | |
| Dec 29, 2011 at 21:18 | history | asked | Lemon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |