Talk:First class constraint

	Mathematics portal 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The layout of this article is confusing and this article is too technical. Bodera 21:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps it would be best to start off slow and then go crazy with constraints. But I don't understand why first class and second class constraints are different articles? Perhaps that's just stylistic choice, but I would have made them one article. At any rate, I'll try fixing this in my spare time... pqnelson —Preceding comment was added at 20:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that First class constraint, Second class constraints, and Dirac bracket should be more tightly related. Perhaps, there should be one article "Dirac's modified Hamiltonian formalism" (clunky, I know) which just goes through first class constraints, second class constraints, primary constraints, secondary constraints, Dirac brackets etc, and have corresponding redirects to it. Then again, that may become too large an article. So it could have links off to more detailed articles on Dirac brackets and first class vs. second class functions of phase space (note that the terms are defined for any functions on phase space). I think I wrote a good portion of useful material in the Dirac bracket article, but the result was a long lead into the definition of the Dirac brackets. It would also be good to see the connection between first class constraints and gauge transformations illuminated.Steve Avery (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geometric theory[edit]

The section called "Geometric theory" goes by too quickly. It doesn't define things fully enough to understand it. For example, the "extended bracket" is introduced so quickly that the reader has no idea why it might be nonzero even if the original bracket was zero. Also, it's hard to tell what we need the level set of f for. Also, what is a "smooth section of f "?

2001:67C:10EC:5787:8000:0:0:231 (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]