<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Parallel Parking at Rigorous Trivialities</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.arsmathematica.net/archives/2007/10/01/parallel-parking-at-rigorous-trivialities/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.arsmathematica.net/archives/2007/10/01/parallel-parking-at-rigorous-trivialities/</link>
	<description>Dedicated to the mathematical arts.</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:09:45 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mark Dominus</title>
		<link>http://www.arsmathematica.net/archives/2007/10/01/parallel-parking-at-rigorous-trivialities/#comment-55766</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Dominus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:04:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arsmathematica.net/archives/2007/10/01/parallel-parking-at-rigorous-trivialities/#comment-55766</guid>
		<description>In the state of Pennsylvania, you a re required to parallel park in order to be issued a driver's license, and---this is the important part---you are not allowed to reverse direction more than three times while doing so.

So I must agree with the comments that there is an important disconnect here between theory and practice.

Moreover, the theory completely fails to explain why it is easier to parallel-park a car by backing into the space than by driving forward into the space.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the state of Pennsylvania, you a re required to parallel park in order to be issued a driver&#8217;s license, and&#8212;this is the important part&#8212;you are not allowed to reverse direction more than three times while doing so.</p>
<p>So I must agree with the comments that there is an important disconnect here between theory and practice.</p>
<p>Moreover, the theory completely fails to explain why it is easier to parallel-park a car by backing into the space than by driving forward into the space.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andres Corrada-Emmanuel</title>
		<link>http://www.arsmathematica.net/archives/2007/10/01/parallel-parking-at-rigorous-trivialities/#comment-55678</link>
		<dc:creator>Andres Corrada-Emmanuel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2007 23:16:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arsmathematica.net/archives/2007/10/01/parallel-parking-at-rigorous-trivialities/#comment-55678</guid>
		<description>I have confirmed that the commutator of Drive and Slide is not a linear combination of Steer, Drive, Wriggle and Slide. This means that either the operators are wrong or they do not form a Lie algebra as claimed. I've posted this problem to the original blog in "Rigorous Trivialities". Can someone clarify where the problem lies?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have confirmed that the commutator of Drive and Slide is not a linear combination of Steer, Drive, Wriggle and Slide. This means that either the operators are wrong or they do not form a Lie algebra as claimed. I&#8217;ve posted this problem to the original blog in &#8220;Rigorous Trivialities&#8221;. Can someone clarify where the problem lies?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andres Corrada-Emmanuel</title>
		<link>http://www.arsmathematica.net/archives/2007/10/01/parallel-parking-at-rigorous-trivialities/#comment-55673</link>
		<dc:creator>Andres Corrada-Emmanuel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2007 08:03:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arsmathematica.net/archives/2007/10/01/parallel-parking-at-rigorous-trivialities/#comment-55673</guid>
		<description>Years ago I encountered this argument in Nelson's book (as quoted in the blog post). I was teaching a class on mathematical physics at Swarthmore College and had introduced Lie algebras so I thought it was the perfect, cute example of the utility of the formalism.

Don't quote me on this, but I remember trying to check out if the operators as defined where indeed a Lie algebra by making sure that their commumators were closed. But I failed to convince myself that this was indeed the case.

Has someone gone to the trouble of confirming this? I would be interested in seeing where my calculations went wrong, since the example is indeed very compelling.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Years ago I encountered this argument in Nelson&#8217;s book (as quoted in the blog post). I was teaching a class on mathematical physics at Swarthmore College and had introduced Lie algebras so I thought it was the perfect, cute example of the utility of the formalism.</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t quote me on this, but I remember trying to check out if the operators as defined where indeed a Lie algebra by making sure that their commumators were closed. But I failed to convince myself that this was indeed the case.</p>
<p>Has someone gone to the trouble of confirming this? I would be interested in seeing where my calculations went wrong, since the example is indeed very compelling.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sigfpe</title>
		<link>http://www.arsmathematica.net/archives/2007/10/01/parallel-parking-at-rigorous-trivialities/#comment-55662</link>
		<dc:creator>sigfpe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2007 00:14:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arsmathematica.net/archives/2007/10/01/parallel-parking-at-rigorous-trivialities/#comment-55662</guid>
		<description>&#62; Again this demonstrates the significant difference between theory and practice. 

I don't know about that. I think it works quite well. I know my wife starts getting a bit annoyed with me when I'm on around the 20th iteration so maybe impatience should be factored in somewhere...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt; Again this demonstrates the significant difference between theory and practice. </p>
<p>I don&#8217;t know about that. I think it works quite well. I know my wife starts getting a bit annoyed with me when I&#8217;m on around the 20th iteration so maybe impatience should be factored in somewhere&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.arsmathematica.net/archives/2007/10/01/parallel-parking-at-rigorous-trivialities/#comment-55659</link>
		<dc:creator>anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2007 20:22:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arsmathematica.net/archives/2007/10/01/parallel-parking-at-rigorous-trivialities/#comment-55659</guid>
		<description>Again this demonstrates the significant difference between theory and practice. We all know this is pretty much impossible all the time :)

So, maybe the practical theorem would be of the form -- assuming reasonable lower bounds on the distances moved, turn radius etc, whats the factor $\delta$ such that it is possible to park car in $L \delta $ gap.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Again this demonstrates the significant difference between theory and practice. We all know this is pretty much impossible all the time <img src='http://www.arsmathematica.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>So, maybe the practical theorem would be of the form &#8212; assuming reasonable lower bounds on the distances moved, turn radius etc, whats the factor $\delta$ such that it is possible to park car in $L \delta $ gap.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mathesis</title>
		<link>http://www.arsmathematica.net/archives/2007/10/01/parallel-parking-at-rigorous-trivialities/#comment-55655</link>
		<dc:creator>mathesis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:04:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arsmathematica.net/archives/2007/10/01/parallel-parking-at-rigorous-trivialities/#comment-55655</guid>
		<description>I thought this was simpler - isn't the commutator product of two rotations a translation, and isn't that all there is to it?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I thought this was simpler - isn&#8217;t the commutator product of two rotations a translation, and isn&#8217;t that all there is to it?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: anonym</title>
		<link>http://www.arsmathematica.net/archives/2007/10/01/parallel-parking-at-rigorous-trivialities/#comment-55653</link>
		<dc:creator>anonym</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:36:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arsmathematica.net/archives/2007/10/01/parallel-parking-at-rigorous-trivialities/#comment-55653</guid>
		<description>i am afraid it is ont a very good post. it should have at least mentioned the buzz-words for this kind of arguments, i.e. holonomy (systems) and h-principle.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i am afraid it is ont a very good post. it should have at least mentioned the buzz-words for this kind of arguments, i.e. holonomy (systems) and h-principle.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
