Talk:Lagrangian dynamics

Article
Does the article look good so far? My plans are as follows:

That OK with everyone? Sorry if it's not too good. Andy Frankinson (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Derive Hamilton's principle from Newtonian dynamics
 * Derive the necessary tools in the calculus of variations (i.e. Euler's equation)
 * Apply it to our specific problem
 * Give a few illustrative examples
 * It's not a bad article but I can't really see how it fits in with the mission. Sam  212  00:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was wondering that myself. but we do have lots of math and science articles.  as long as it's complete and quality and accurate, it's probably as "on mission" as the rest of the math & sci articles.  --[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot   Tue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 00:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you! Andy Frankinson (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Mission
There is no connection that I see, even indirect. We don't need it to explain any other articles. Is this interesting enough to keep as a separate article? I am in favor of merging its content with Isaac Newton or physics if we must keep it. 23:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm in favour of it bein' esplained to me in words (of one syllable?) that I can understand. WHAT'S IT ABOUT? [I am a bear of little brain wot never did calculululus @skool] Scream!! (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, essentially what it says is that things are inherently lazy and will take the path that minimizes action. Andy Frankinson (talk) 14:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Should we keep this...?
Ok, should I keep writing this or should I delete it...? Andy Frankinson (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)