Re: Re: Ansatz?
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg101091] Re: [mg101071] Re: Ansatz?
- From: Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 06:28:45 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <200906231106.HAA08181@smc.vnet.net>
On 23 Jun 2009, at 20:06, M.Roellig wrote:
> So, to assume something without any prior derivation could be an
> ansatz, but
> usually an ansatz would be based on some reasonable assumptions or
> knowledge, so "not based on ANY underlying theory or principle" sounds
> much like a crystal ball.
Actually, in almost all cases known to me "Ansatz" refers to a
principle or a form of a solution that is known to work but at the
stage when it is introduced it is magically "pulled out of a
hat" (like a rabbit) without any justification except that the
magicians knowledge that it will give the right answer.
I wrote in almost all cases, because in pure mathematics ansatz
sometimes refers to a method of solving certain kind of problems that
has actually been proved; in other words, it's a kind of theorem. One
example that comes to my mind is the so called Sinai-Chemov Ansatz in
ergodic theory of billiards.
Prev by Date:
Re: Using fractions in axis labels
Next by Date:
Previous by thread:
Next by thread:
- Re: Ansatz?
- From: "M.Roellig" <email@example.com>