Talk:Clairaut's theorem (gravity)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dbisch47.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Entry is redundant

This page contains the same information as Symmetry_of_second_derivatives

Actually, it doesn't. This page contains a theorem, which the other page does not (it has only a counterexample). Charles Matthews 19:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Merger

I agree that it is not redundant, but the two articles should be merged. --Macrakis 01:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

New page

I have removed the redirect, put a disambiguation to the target of the redirect, and rewritten this page to refer to the primary subject where Clairaut's theorem originated: geodesy. Brews ohare (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Currently this page makes absolutely no mention of Clairaut's theorem (as defined by at least one external source [1]). If this can't be explained then I agree with the comments above; this page should either be merged or renamed. Cesiumfrog (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah. So there seem to be severable different laws named for Clairaut. I propose renaming this article "Clairaut's theorem (geodesy)" to differentiate it from "Clairaut's theorem (analysis)" (aka. Schwarz theorem). Any objections? Cesiumfrog (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Rename this article

This article hasn't relevance as Clairaut theorem in analysis. It should be named "Clairaut theorem (Geodesy)" And the other one (Analysis). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.128.156.57 (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Big mistake

This article starts with the desambiguation line: "For the interpretation of this theorem in terms of symmetry of second derivatives of a mapping ... see Symmetry of second derivatives." Sorry, this hasn't absolutely anithing to do with that. This isn't a "interpretation" of any theorem, because a theorem, first place, it's not "interpreted" specially because Clairaut theorem in analysis is a well stabilished and accepted truth, and there are no two ways to intepret him, just one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.128.156.57 (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Dead link

The link to reference 16 is dead. It should be replaced with https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19690003446, or with the link to the PDF found there. 129.247.247.239 (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)