Definition talk:Variation of Admissible Curve

I see the introduction of $\Gamma_0$ but I can't see what its relevance is. It's introduced without any reference to anything.

If it *is* a "convention", then this convention needs to be explained in another section, because where it is, all it does is add confusion to the mind of the reader, who wonders what it's doing there. --prime mover (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

In the line above I introduce $\map {\Gamma_s} t$. Then for $s = 0$ we have $\map {\Gamma_0} t$ which by convention we set to $\map \gamma t$ because $\gamma$ has to be somewhere in this family of curves. Are you saying that setting $s=0$ is not explained well enough, or that $0$ does not look like zero?--Julius (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

And what about the convention? Do you prefer not to have $s$ as a subscript parameter?--Julius (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

No you're all right, I understand what's going on now. I have restructured the definition to make it much clearer as to what the conditions actually are here. Hope this is okay, I think I get it now. --prime mover (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I was drunk last night. Looked at this again. I understand what's going on, but there's a detail which I think needs to be resolved still. --prime mover (talk) 05:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I will look into the issue of domains. This is what the book says, but it is equally confusing to me. Probably my mistake.--Julius (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)