Talk:Configuration space (physics)

Physics Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mathematics Low‑priority

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

PCI Configuration space[edit]

I removed the distinguish template that identified the PCI configuration space. It may be that general readers often confuse the configuration space of PCI form factors with the configuration space of mathematics. If necessary, i will put it back. Prof McCarthy (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "PCI configuration space" is often simply referred to as "configuration space". Shouldn't this article be split into one the physical concept and the mathematical concepts (and perhaps even a separate one for the concept in robotics)? —Ruud 12:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Configuration manifold[edit]

I revised the introduction in an attempt to distinguish between generalized coordinates, configuration space and configuration manifold. I hope this helps. Prof McCarthy (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong definition (I believe)[edit]

Hey guys. I believe, the definition of the configuration space in the section Configuration_space#Rigid_body is wrong. I don't have access to the given source, but at least the Springer Handbook of Robtics (one of the most reliable sources I know) says completely different. It says ″the range of values available for the joint parameters, called the configuration space of the robot″ (page 71, further definition of ″configuration space″ on page 11). This is opposed to this article stating, the configuration space is the ″set of coordinates that define the position of a reference point and the orientation of a coordinate″, so the set of end-effector positions rather than the set of joint configurations. Can someone check the source given in this article, or provide further sources? Cheers, Norro (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have watched this definition evolve in Robotics for almost 30 years. In Analytical Dynamics configuration space is defined by the space of coordinates that define the configuration of the system, however, in Robotics this has been called the joint space. Because most path planning algorithms focus on the position of the end-effector as a rigid body. The coordinates that define the position of the end-effector was termed configuration space. However, it is better to consider both of these spaces as configuration spaces, which seems to be what you have found in the Handbook on Robotics. Please make the necessary revisions. Prof McCarthy (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting[edit]

I suggest splitting this page or providing more detail about the relationship between the mathematical and physical concepts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddharthist (talk • contribs) 03:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formal definition[edit]

Currently the "formal definition" for a configuration space is just one sentence, and says a configuration space is "the positions had by all components subject to kinematical constraints." This seems like a fairly informal definition which belongs in the intro rather than its own section.

E.g., let ${\mathcal {C}}$ be the configuration space of $n$ distinct points in ${\mathbb {R}}^{n}$ . It's not clear from this definition whether ${\mathcal {C}}$ is ${\mathbb {R}}^{n}$ or space of $n$ -tuples of distinct points in ${\mathbb {R}}^{n}$ . As a mathematician, I would definitely assume the latter, but it looks like this convention is different for physicists. This point (pun lol) is addressed in the intro, but is another reason to either clarify or remove the "formal definition" section.

Also, this is the only section which uses the word "components." I'm assuming "a component" here means something like "a point in a given ambient manifold or vector space along with given properties," but it seems like should be stated. Again, I'm not a physicist, so maybe this is standard language, and I'm the one out-of-the-loop.

Pancaique (talk) 06:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]