Introduce "potential" and then use it.#3829
Conversation
…t is instead formulated to first define "potential" variable and then use it.
henrikt-ma
left a comment
henrikt-ma
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't see any immediate issue, but it would be best to request a review someone which more experience of connection set handling. @qlambert-pro is probably more familiar with the terminology after his recent study of local balance?
henrikt-ma
left a comment
henrikt-ma
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we at least need to avoid having two definitions which look like they might be conflicting.
Co-authored-by: Henrik Tidefelt <henrikt@wolfram.com>
Co-authored-by: Henrik Tidefelt <henrikt@wolfram.com>
henrikt-ma
left a comment
henrikt-ma
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me. If @qlambert-pro would find something subtle that I can't see, we can always fix this later.
henrikt-ma
left a comment
henrikt-ma
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In a private conversation, @qlambert-pro indeed pointed out that the current text is not great with regard to overdetermined connectors. The old formulation actually had a point when making number of potential variables its own concept, and this wasn't so much of a problem until we also made a separate definition of the potential variables. I'll make some suggestions for how this can be fixed.
Co-authored-by: Henrik Tidefelt <henrikt@wolfram.com>
Cleaner handling of degrees of freedom with focus on the important case.
HansOlsson
added
M37
3 participants
In the previous text it looked as if "potential" was redundant, now it is instead formulated to first define "potential" variable and then use it.