Talk:Caustic (mathematics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject Mathematics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mathematics rating:
Start Class
Low Importance
 Field:  Analysis

References[edit]

Is it normal to only reference a website which references other sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedzdog (talkcontribs) 12:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Personal style[edit]

" I have checked it against the parametric equations" - is this personal style appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.66.68 (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Major rewrite[edit]

This article is in need of a major rewrite. Caustics are critical value sets of Lagrangian mappings. This follows from the work of V. I. Arnold and his school. We are able to classify the generic local structure of caustics and the generic bifurcations of families of caustics because of his work and the work that followed. A caustic as the envelope of light rays is a very, very special example of a caustic. I'm going to rewrite this article in the next week. But before I start I would like some input. Indeed: I would like come collaborators. Take a look at this section and this section that I've just written. They give the very general definition for a caustic. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 16:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The current version of the lead paragraph is much too technical for someone who might be expected to read this article. Not every knows what a symplectic manifold or a Lagrangian fibration is and they should not be expected to look up these terms to learn what a caustic is. It's good to include this theoretical viewpoint in the article, but please put it at the end.--RDBury (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Warning: The second formula motivated as being derived from the formula for enveloppes seems to be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.194.58.187 (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Too technical[edit]

I think it necessary something less technical or, at least, a better explanation of what Caustic is.--JuancitoxTw (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)