Talk:Legendre transformation
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Legendre transformation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Legendre transform of is well-defined regardless of whether is convex?
[edit]Possible copyright problem
[edit]The exposition quite closely follows the reference Rockafellar. I hope this is not a copyright problem. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 84.239.128.9 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC1)
Name for this property?
[edit]Does anybody know how the property
is refered to in the literature? —the preceding unsigned comment is by Tobias Bergemann (talk • contribs) 12:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC1)
for clarity
[edit]In the definition, I would switch the to (or something else) for clarity. Hvstms (talk) 10:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Circularity in definition
[edit]The definitions provided are phrased in a confusing way, with the domain of the function depending on itself. One can avoid this by saying, for example, 'defined where this supremum is finite', or simply by repeating the function's definition in the definition for , ie . Happy to make this edit myself if others agree, but this is not my area of expertise and if this circularity is common in related texts and papers it probably makes sense to keep it here. Corlio5994 (talk) 06:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)