Talk:Lagrange, Euler, and Kovalevskaya tops

It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

It is requested that a video clip or video clips be included in this article to improve its quality.

Chaplygin's top[edit]

"(Redirected from Chaplygin's top) ... There are however three famous cases that are integrable ..."

Which is it? if Chaplygin's top is integrable, "three" should be changed to "four." (Or perhaps "three famous cases and one not-so-famous case" ... smiley-face )Jamesdowallen (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-integrability[edit]

A short introduction to non-integrability would be nice. I think this is entirely due to the KAM torus but am confused about the details. 67.198.37.17 (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't one of the 'conserved quantities' given in the article just identically 1?[edit]

In both the Lagrange and Kovalevskaya tops, the quantity $n^{2}=n_{1}^{2}+n_{2}^{2}+n_{3}^{2}$ is given as a conserved quantity. But by definition, the $n_{i}$ are just the components of the fixed basis vector ${\hat {z}}$ expanded in the dynamical basis ${\hat {e}}_{i}$ , so I think $n^{2}=|{\hat {z}}|^{2}\equiv 1$ . Which is a conserved quantity, but is not an interesting conserved quantity, and is not eligible as a conserved quantity for purposes of Arnold–Liouville integrability. If there's a mistake in my understanding I'd be happy to be corrected! Zephyr the west wind (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]