Talk:Regularization (physics)

Regularization/Renormalization techniques[edit]

There is also Implicit Regularization —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.146.30 (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vague inadequate article[edit]

This article is written vaguely, as if by someone who was widely read and copying without quite understanding what they had read. It is ridiculous to have a citation from Bertrand Russell off-topic, and the sentence "The difficulty with a realistic regularization is that so far there is none, although nothing could be destroyed by its bottom-up approach; and there is no experimental basis for it" is so ungrammatical it is incomprehensible, although a very vague impression gets across that the parson is agin' it... 64.105.137.249 (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bertrand Russell citation seems to be part of a quote from Salam. The citation might be off topic but the quote isn't and the citation cannot be removed from the quote without seriously altering it. I don't know about the other phrase you objected to. Dauto (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simpler Example[edit]

Could you please add a simpler example to this article? I landed here via n-body problem, which cites the use of regularization to handle collisions in the n=3 case. The examples here all treat quantum mechanics, whereas the mathematical situation evidently also arises in far more familiar Newtonian situations. 83.160.106.234 (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]