Talk:Fermat's principle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Physics Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article is on a subject of High importance within physics.
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

The style here was taken from the style used at Poincare conjecture. Nice, isn't it?

it's revolting. A plain BLOCKQUOTE tag will suffice. When we one day switch to XML we'll be able to use tags like THEOREM and have a consistent look across Wikipedia. Until then, please don't impose your sense of aesthetics upon the reader -- Tarquin 10:56 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't like it. It's not my idea: I copied from another article, and various people seem to have propagated it to various other appropriate articles. I agree, a piece of Wiki syntax <theorem> </theorem>, which generates appropriately styled DIVs would be ideal. For the moment, IMHO, this makes various articles containing statements of theorems and axioms look much nicer -- The Anome 11:01 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Better image

I think this image should be translated and used or perhaps just added and leaving the original image. Any thoughts? Cristan 23:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proof?

Is there any proof of the principle that's worth putting in here? The discussion of variational principles didn't really talk about how this one was derived. --Joe (11/19/2006)

Here's a book that says it needs no proof because is the definition of a ray: book. What then needs proof is Snell's law as a consequence of this definition of ray. Dicklyon 22:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better statement

Since the very first edition of this article, the principle has been stated as "The actual path between two points taken by a beam of light is the one which is traversed in the least time." I see at least three things wrong with this statement, and would like to fix it or replace it with one from a verifiable source; but if this one has a source, someone please point it out. I would change the word order to avoid garden-path constructions like "two points taken", change beam to ray, change which to that, and maybe make it read easier. I'm looking for a better statement of it. Dicklyon 22:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)