Talk:Tautological one-form

Untitled
The canonical 1-form is always a symplectic potential, but the converse is not true, as a symplectic potential is a local object that exists on a contractible subset of a symplectic manifold such that d theta = omega. Thus they only coincide if the symplectic manifold is contractible and only up to the addition of an exact 1-form. 93.222.57.53 (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I added the above remark to the article. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Deleting the "physical interpretation" section
The "Physical interperation" section seems very misleading to me, because the claim that "the tautological one-form is a device that converts velocities into momenta" seems to imply that the tautological one-form establishes a canonical isomorphism between $$TQ$$ and $$T^*Q$$ that allows one to convert between vectors and one-forms on Q. But this is not true; instead, the tautological one-form establishes a canonical isomorphism between $$TM$$ and $$T^*M$$, where M is the cotangent bundle $$T^*Q$$ of Q, rather than Q itself. The tautological one-form by itself is not enough to convert between velocities (vectors) and momenta (one-forms) on the configuration space; for that, one needs to define either a Lagrangian function on $$TQ$$ or a Hamiltonian function on $$T^*Q$$. I've deleted this entire section, because it seems fundamentally misleading. Ted.tem.parker (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)