Timeline for Understanding $\mathrm dP_x$ in the derivation of Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 9 at 22:33 | vote | accept | Kintoke | ||
| Mar 7 at 2:30 | history | edited | naturallyInconsistent | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
LaTeX
|
| Mar 6 at 19:09 | vote | accept | Kintoke | ||
| Mar 7 at 17:28 | |||||
| Mar 6 at 18:39 | answer | added | Wolphram jonny | timeline score: 3 | |
| Mar 6 at 18:08 | comment | added | CommunityBot | Please clarify your specific problem or provide additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it's hard to tell exactly what you're asking. | |
| Mar 6 at 17:03 | comment | added | naturallyInconsistent | No, it is very understandable, just that it is pretty much non-rigorous. It simply is saying "The probability density of this particular x slice in velocity". The issue is that this is a handwavy definition, but it will suffice for now. | |
| Mar 6 at 16:55 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited title
|
| Mar 6 at 16:50 | comment | added | Kintoke | Should I give up on understanding it if I have not built enough mathematical background then? I have done till calc 2 and general statistics... | |
| Mar 6 at 16:44 | comment | added | naturallyInconsistent | Ah, if you want to scrutinise a textbook, that textbook must first be written in a rigorous enough way for that kind of scrutiny to make sense. The textbook you are reading is fudging enough to be correct, but not going to be rigorous enough for you to ask that question. You will need a lot more mathematics to actually be able to pose and answer that question. | |
| S Mar 6 at 16:39 | review | First questions | |||
| Mar 6 at 18:08 | |||||
| S Mar 6 at 16:39 | history | asked | Kintoke | CC BY-SA 4.0 |