Talk:Degrees of freedom (mechanics)

message: Article contains DoF and DOF.
should be aligned, but this is will end up in an philiosphical discussion...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.56.34.7 (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uniq Abbreviation 

message: The word "engineering" is too diffuse here.  The title should be Degrees of Freedom (mechanics).  For example, the reference to the Elec Engg concept of Antenna DOFs is perhaps more appropriate in the DOF(physics) discussion than here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mukerjee (talk • contribs) 10:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what about 'statics'? --Leladax (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not statics since d.o.f. implies motion.  Also statics and dynamics are generally associated with engineering mechanics.  Keeping it as "mechanics" is probably a more appropriate choice.  - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 07:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to "mechanics" 

message: The degrees of freedom in this context refer to motion, so should be renamed in this way. A 2D motion has two degrees of freedom for example like a land vehicle and aircraft has 3 degrees of freedom. --89.122.167.251 (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename to "motion"

message: I think it would be highly beneficial to include a more applied example to this article (or wherever is most appropriate) - something like http://www.robotics.utexas.edu/rrg/learn_more/low_ed/dof/ - or at the very least, link to such a resource in the external links.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.137.129 (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I can imagine the current picture being quite confusing for the average joe. 78.82.140.122 (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of Degrees of Freedom in Robotics 

message: The image Robot arm model 1.png is missing. 
Bloody Viking (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Degrees of freedom of a mechanical system is the number of parameters that prescribes its configuration.  It is also the dimension of its configuration space.  If the mechanical system consists only of holonomic constraints, such as a system of articulated links that forms a linkage or robot, then the degrees of freedom is defined by the mobility formula.  Discussion of these topics should be a useful addition to this article. Prof McCarthy (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I increased the importance because it is difficult to talk about robotic systems without considering their degrees of freedom.  Also while still in the beginning this article does not seem to be a stub any longer. Prof McCarthy (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed revisions 

message: Is there a typo in:
:"There are two important special cases: (i) a simple open chain, and (ii) a simple closed chain. A single open chain consists of"
Shouldn't it be "simple" instead of "single"? -- Obradović Goran  (talk 16:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends, I suppose, on whether simple is always single.  The simple open chain must have only a single branch, and the simple closed chain must only have a single loop.  If this is true, then I agree with simple. Prof McCarthy (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo? 

message: The non-TeX math notation in this article was done with great ineptitude.  Lots of things like
: c-f+1
instead of
: c − f + 1
and n x n instead of n × n, etc.
: 
WP:MOSMATH exists.  So do standard conventions in the world outside Wikipedia.  Note that in non-TeX notation
* Variables should be italicized but digits, parentheses, etc., should not, nor things like det, log, sin, max, etc.
* Spaces precede and follow things like "+", "−", "=", etc.
* A minus sign is not a stubby little hyphen.
* This is all codified in WP:MOSMATH.
* This matches the style used in TeX, LaTeX, MathJax, etc.
Michael Hardy (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Math notation cleanup 

message: The definition in this article conflicts with the current Wikipedia aritcle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_freedom_%28physics_and_chemistry%29 where the "degrees fo freedom" are the state variables themselves rather than the cardinality of the set of state variables.   It would be useful to mention the ambiguous use of the term "degrees of freedom" in the physical sciences.   Tashiro (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Mention conflict with Degrees Of Freedom (Physics and Chemistry)

message: Reference 2, Summary of ship movement, is no longer available.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.139.245.222 (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken link

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Degrees of freedom (mechanics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111125015923/http://www.pomorci.com:80/Zanimljivosti/Ship's%20movements%20at%20sea.pdf to http://www.pomorci.com/Zanimljivosti/Ship's%20movements%20at%20sea.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Italic 95.85.100.176 (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified