Does Noether's theorem apply to constrained system?
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
The Lagrangian of a constrained system will be
$$L-lambda_1f_1-lambda_2f_2-...lambda_kf_k.$$
If a transformation will not affect the constrained Lagrangian, the there is some corresponding conservative quantities. E.g. If a the transformation is in position, then momentum conservative.
But consider the simple case that two balls $m_1,m_2$ are connected by a rod with length $l$ placed in the empty space. Then the Lagrangian is $$L=frac{1}{2}(m_1dot{textbf{r}}_1^2+m_2dot{textbf{r}}_2^2)-lambda(l^2-(textbf{r}_1-textbf{r}_2)^2).$$
With some Newtonian intuition, this system has apparently conservative momenta. But now if we transform a bit in $textbf{r}_1to textbf{r}_1+delta$, but $textbf{r}_2$ is related. Are sure that $L$ is invariant under symmetric transformation of positions?
So I am think may be Noether's theorem does not hold for constrained system?
classical-mechanics lagrangian-formalism symmetry noethers-theorem constrained-dynamics
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
The Lagrangian of a constrained system will be
$$L-lambda_1f_1-lambda_2f_2-...lambda_kf_k.$$
If a transformation will not affect the constrained Lagrangian, the there is some corresponding conservative quantities. E.g. If a the transformation is in position, then momentum conservative.
But consider the simple case that two balls $m_1,m_2$ are connected by a rod with length $l$ placed in the empty space. Then the Lagrangian is $$L=frac{1}{2}(m_1dot{textbf{r}}_1^2+m_2dot{textbf{r}}_2^2)-lambda(l^2-(textbf{r}_1-textbf{r}_2)^2).$$
With some Newtonian intuition, this system has apparently conservative momenta. But now if we transform a bit in $textbf{r}_1to textbf{r}_1+delta$, but $textbf{r}_2$ is related. Are sure that $L$ is invariant under symmetric transformation of positions?
So I am think may be Noether's theorem does not hold for constrained system?
classical-mechanics lagrangian-formalism symmetry noethers-theorem constrained-dynamics
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
The Lagrangian of a constrained system will be
$$L-lambda_1f_1-lambda_2f_2-...lambda_kf_k.$$
If a transformation will not affect the constrained Lagrangian, the there is some corresponding conservative quantities. E.g. If a the transformation is in position, then momentum conservative.
But consider the simple case that two balls $m_1,m_2$ are connected by a rod with length $l$ placed in the empty space. Then the Lagrangian is $$L=frac{1}{2}(m_1dot{textbf{r}}_1^2+m_2dot{textbf{r}}_2^2)-lambda(l^2-(textbf{r}_1-textbf{r}_2)^2).$$
With some Newtonian intuition, this system has apparently conservative momenta. But now if we transform a bit in $textbf{r}_1to textbf{r}_1+delta$, but $textbf{r}_2$ is related. Are sure that $L$ is invariant under symmetric transformation of positions?
So I am think may be Noether's theorem does not hold for constrained system?
classical-mechanics lagrangian-formalism symmetry noethers-theorem constrained-dynamics
New contributor
The Lagrangian of a constrained system will be
$$L-lambda_1f_1-lambda_2f_2-...lambda_kf_k.$$
If a transformation will not affect the constrained Lagrangian, the there is some corresponding conservative quantities. E.g. If a the transformation is in position, then momentum conservative.
But consider the simple case that two balls $m_1,m_2$ are connected by a rod with length $l$ placed in the empty space. Then the Lagrangian is $$L=frac{1}{2}(m_1dot{textbf{r}}_1^2+m_2dot{textbf{r}}_2^2)-lambda(l^2-(textbf{r}_1-textbf{r}_2)^2).$$
With some Newtonian intuition, this system has apparently conservative momenta. But now if we transform a bit in $textbf{r}_1to textbf{r}_1+delta$, but $textbf{r}_2$ is related. Are sure that $L$ is invariant under symmetric transformation of positions?
So I am think may be Noether's theorem does not hold for constrained system?
classical-mechanics lagrangian-formalism symmetry noethers-theorem constrained-dynamics
classical-mechanics lagrangian-formalism symmetry noethers-theorem constrained-dynamics
New contributor
New contributor
edited 3 hours ago
Qmechanic♦
101k121821135
101k121821135
New contributor
asked 5 hours ago
CO2
161
161
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
When you are dealing with constrained systems, you need to make sure that the symmetries you propose respect this constraint. In the example that you have given, the transformation $r_1 to r_1 + delta r_1$ is not a symmetry of the system because it does not respect the constraint. That is, you cannot move only one of the balls by $delta r_1$ without also moving the other ball because of the rod between them. Mathematically, let's decompose the Lagrangian as $L = L_{dynamics} + L_{constraint}$ then we have:
$$ delta L_{constraint} = 2 lambda, (delta vec r_1) cdot (vec r_1 -vec r_2 )neq 0$$
For example, if we varied both of the coordinates, you see that $r_i to r_i + delta r_i$ is only a symmetry of the system iff
$$ delta L_{constraint} = 2 lambda, (delta vec r_1) cdot (vec r_1 -vec r_2 ) - 2 lambda, (delta vec r_2) cdot (vec r_1 -vec r_2 ) = 0 iff delta vec r_1 = delta vec r_2$$
telling you that the only transnational symmetry permitted by the constraint is the one, where you display both of the balls the same amount. Intuitively this also makes sense. Note that this doesn't yet mean that it is a symmetry of the system but that it is the only kind of permitted symmetry; you need to additionally check that $delta L_{dynmaics}$ is also zero or a total derivative.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Noether's theorem doesn't discriminate between dynamical and auxiliary variables (meaning: with and without the presence of their corresponding time derivatives, respectively). As long as the extended action functional $S$ has a (quasi)symmetry, there is a conservation law.
In OP's concrete case, the infinitesimal symmetry is given by
$$ delta {bf r}_1~=~varepsilon~=~delta {bf r}_2, qquad deltalambda~=~0~~=~delta t, $$
and it leads to total momentum conservation.
@Gonenc Mogol: Thanks.
– Qmechanic♦
1 hour ago
note that, to make this work, the given infinitesimal transformation has to, as in this case, respect the constraint.
– Jerry Schirmer
30 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
To calculate the equations of motion and the constraint forces, we use the Euler Lagrange function:
begin{align*}
&boxed{frac{partial L}{partial vec{r}}-frac{d}{dt}left(frac{partial L}{partial dot{vec{r}}}right)=left(frac{partial vec{R}}{partial vec{r}}right)^Tvec{f}_a+left(frac{partial vec{F}_c}{partial vec{r}}right)^Tvec{lambda}}&(1)
end{align*}
With:
$vec{r}$ Unconstraint coordinates
$vec{F}_c$ Constraint equations
$vec{lambda}$ Generalized constraint forces
$vec{f}_a$ External forces
To get the EOM's for generalized coordinates, we transfer the velocity vector $vec{dot{r}}$ to:
$vec{dot{r}}mapsto J,vec{dot{q}}$
with $J$ the jacobi matrix and $vec{q}$ the generalized coordinates.
to eliminate the constraint froces from equation (1) , we multiply equation (1) from the left with $J^T$ .
D’Alembert approach:
$J^T,left(frac{partial vec{F}_c}{partial vec{r}}right)^T=0qquad(2)$
Conclusion:
Each transformation of the coordinates $vec{r}mapsto R,vec{r}$ must fulfill
equation (2)
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
CO2 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f448707%2fdoes-noethers-theorem-apply-to-constrained-system%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
When you are dealing with constrained systems, you need to make sure that the symmetries you propose respect this constraint. In the example that you have given, the transformation $r_1 to r_1 + delta r_1$ is not a symmetry of the system because it does not respect the constraint. That is, you cannot move only one of the balls by $delta r_1$ without also moving the other ball because of the rod between them. Mathematically, let's decompose the Lagrangian as $L = L_{dynamics} + L_{constraint}$ then we have:
$$ delta L_{constraint} = 2 lambda, (delta vec r_1) cdot (vec r_1 -vec r_2 )neq 0$$
For example, if we varied both of the coordinates, you see that $r_i to r_i + delta r_i$ is only a symmetry of the system iff
$$ delta L_{constraint} = 2 lambda, (delta vec r_1) cdot (vec r_1 -vec r_2 ) - 2 lambda, (delta vec r_2) cdot (vec r_1 -vec r_2 ) = 0 iff delta vec r_1 = delta vec r_2$$
telling you that the only transnational symmetry permitted by the constraint is the one, where you display both of the balls the same amount. Intuitively this also makes sense. Note that this doesn't yet mean that it is a symmetry of the system but that it is the only kind of permitted symmetry; you need to additionally check that $delta L_{dynmaics}$ is also zero or a total derivative.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
When you are dealing with constrained systems, you need to make sure that the symmetries you propose respect this constraint. In the example that you have given, the transformation $r_1 to r_1 + delta r_1$ is not a symmetry of the system because it does not respect the constraint. That is, you cannot move only one of the balls by $delta r_1$ without also moving the other ball because of the rod between them. Mathematically, let's decompose the Lagrangian as $L = L_{dynamics} + L_{constraint}$ then we have:
$$ delta L_{constraint} = 2 lambda, (delta vec r_1) cdot (vec r_1 -vec r_2 )neq 0$$
For example, if we varied both of the coordinates, you see that $r_i to r_i + delta r_i$ is only a symmetry of the system iff
$$ delta L_{constraint} = 2 lambda, (delta vec r_1) cdot (vec r_1 -vec r_2 ) - 2 lambda, (delta vec r_2) cdot (vec r_1 -vec r_2 ) = 0 iff delta vec r_1 = delta vec r_2$$
telling you that the only transnational symmetry permitted by the constraint is the one, where you display both of the balls the same amount. Intuitively this also makes sense. Note that this doesn't yet mean that it is a symmetry of the system but that it is the only kind of permitted symmetry; you need to additionally check that $delta L_{dynmaics}$ is also zero or a total derivative.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
When you are dealing with constrained systems, you need to make sure that the symmetries you propose respect this constraint. In the example that you have given, the transformation $r_1 to r_1 + delta r_1$ is not a symmetry of the system because it does not respect the constraint. That is, you cannot move only one of the balls by $delta r_1$ without also moving the other ball because of the rod between them. Mathematically, let's decompose the Lagrangian as $L = L_{dynamics} + L_{constraint}$ then we have:
$$ delta L_{constraint} = 2 lambda, (delta vec r_1) cdot (vec r_1 -vec r_2 )neq 0$$
For example, if we varied both of the coordinates, you see that $r_i to r_i + delta r_i$ is only a symmetry of the system iff
$$ delta L_{constraint} = 2 lambda, (delta vec r_1) cdot (vec r_1 -vec r_2 ) - 2 lambda, (delta vec r_2) cdot (vec r_1 -vec r_2 ) = 0 iff delta vec r_1 = delta vec r_2$$
telling you that the only transnational symmetry permitted by the constraint is the one, where you display both of the balls the same amount. Intuitively this also makes sense. Note that this doesn't yet mean that it is a symmetry of the system but that it is the only kind of permitted symmetry; you need to additionally check that $delta L_{dynmaics}$ is also zero or a total derivative.
When you are dealing with constrained systems, you need to make sure that the symmetries you propose respect this constraint. In the example that you have given, the transformation $r_1 to r_1 + delta r_1$ is not a symmetry of the system because it does not respect the constraint. That is, you cannot move only one of the balls by $delta r_1$ without also moving the other ball because of the rod between them. Mathematically, let's decompose the Lagrangian as $L = L_{dynamics} + L_{constraint}$ then we have:
$$ delta L_{constraint} = 2 lambda, (delta vec r_1) cdot (vec r_1 -vec r_2 )neq 0$$
For example, if we varied both of the coordinates, you see that $r_i to r_i + delta r_i$ is only a symmetry of the system iff
$$ delta L_{constraint} = 2 lambda, (delta vec r_1) cdot (vec r_1 -vec r_2 ) - 2 lambda, (delta vec r_2) cdot (vec r_1 -vec r_2 ) = 0 iff delta vec r_1 = delta vec r_2$$
telling you that the only transnational symmetry permitted by the constraint is the one, where you display both of the balls the same amount. Intuitively this also makes sense. Note that this doesn't yet mean that it is a symmetry of the system but that it is the only kind of permitted symmetry; you need to additionally check that $delta L_{dynmaics}$ is also zero or a total derivative.
answered 4 hours ago
Gonenc Mogol
2,85011332
2,85011332
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Noether's theorem doesn't discriminate between dynamical and auxiliary variables (meaning: with and without the presence of their corresponding time derivatives, respectively). As long as the extended action functional $S$ has a (quasi)symmetry, there is a conservation law.
In OP's concrete case, the infinitesimal symmetry is given by
$$ delta {bf r}_1~=~varepsilon~=~delta {bf r}_2, qquad deltalambda~=~0~~=~delta t, $$
and it leads to total momentum conservation.
@Gonenc Mogol: Thanks.
– Qmechanic♦
1 hour ago
note that, to make this work, the given infinitesimal transformation has to, as in this case, respect the constraint.
– Jerry Schirmer
30 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Noether's theorem doesn't discriminate between dynamical and auxiliary variables (meaning: with and without the presence of their corresponding time derivatives, respectively). As long as the extended action functional $S$ has a (quasi)symmetry, there is a conservation law.
In OP's concrete case, the infinitesimal symmetry is given by
$$ delta {bf r}_1~=~varepsilon~=~delta {bf r}_2, qquad deltalambda~=~0~~=~delta t, $$
and it leads to total momentum conservation.
@Gonenc Mogol: Thanks.
– Qmechanic♦
1 hour ago
note that, to make this work, the given infinitesimal transformation has to, as in this case, respect the constraint.
– Jerry Schirmer
30 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Noether's theorem doesn't discriminate between dynamical and auxiliary variables (meaning: with and without the presence of their corresponding time derivatives, respectively). As long as the extended action functional $S$ has a (quasi)symmetry, there is a conservation law.
In OP's concrete case, the infinitesimal symmetry is given by
$$ delta {bf r}_1~=~varepsilon~=~delta {bf r}_2, qquad deltalambda~=~0~~=~delta t, $$
and it leads to total momentum conservation.
Noether's theorem doesn't discriminate between dynamical and auxiliary variables (meaning: with and without the presence of their corresponding time derivatives, respectively). As long as the extended action functional $S$ has a (quasi)symmetry, there is a conservation law.
In OP's concrete case, the infinitesimal symmetry is given by
$$ delta {bf r}_1~=~varepsilon~=~delta {bf r}_2, qquad deltalambda~=~0~~=~delta t, $$
and it leads to total momentum conservation.
edited 1 hour ago
answered 3 hours ago
Qmechanic♦
101k121821135
101k121821135
@Gonenc Mogol: Thanks.
– Qmechanic♦
1 hour ago
note that, to make this work, the given infinitesimal transformation has to, as in this case, respect the constraint.
– Jerry Schirmer
30 mins ago
add a comment |
@Gonenc Mogol: Thanks.
– Qmechanic♦
1 hour ago
note that, to make this work, the given infinitesimal transformation has to, as in this case, respect the constraint.
– Jerry Schirmer
30 mins ago
@Gonenc Mogol: Thanks.
– Qmechanic♦
1 hour ago
@Gonenc Mogol: Thanks.
– Qmechanic♦
1 hour ago
note that, to make this work, the given infinitesimal transformation has to, as in this case, respect the constraint.
– Jerry Schirmer
30 mins ago
note that, to make this work, the given infinitesimal transformation has to, as in this case, respect the constraint.
– Jerry Schirmer
30 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
To calculate the equations of motion and the constraint forces, we use the Euler Lagrange function:
begin{align*}
&boxed{frac{partial L}{partial vec{r}}-frac{d}{dt}left(frac{partial L}{partial dot{vec{r}}}right)=left(frac{partial vec{R}}{partial vec{r}}right)^Tvec{f}_a+left(frac{partial vec{F}_c}{partial vec{r}}right)^Tvec{lambda}}&(1)
end{align*}
With:
$vec{r}$ Unconstraint coordinates
$vec{F}_c$ Constraint equations
$vec{lambda}$ Generalized constraint forces
$vec{f}_a$ External forces
To get the EOM's for generalized coordinates, we transfer the velocity vector $vec{dot{r}}$ to:
$vec{dot{r}}mapsto J,vec{dot{q}}$
with $J$ the jacobi matrix and $vec{q}$ the generalized coordinates.
to eliminate the constraint froces from equation (1) , we multiply equation (1) from the left with $J^T$ .
D’Alembert approach:
$J^T,left(frac{partial vec{F}_c}{partial vec{r}}right)^T=0qquad(2)$
Conclusion:
Each transformation of the coordinates $vec{r}mapsto R,vec{r}$ must fulfill
equation (2)
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
To calculate the equations of motion and the constraint forces, we use the Euler Lagrange function:
begin{align*}
&boxed{frac{partial L}{partial vec{r}}-frac{d}{dt}left(frac{partial L}{partial dot{vec{r}}}right)=left(frac{partial vec{R}}{partial vec{r}}right)^Tvec{f}_a+left(frac{partial vec{F}_c}{partial vec{r}}right)^Tvec{lambda}}&(1)
end{align*}
With:
$vec{r}$ Unconstraint coordinates
$vec{F}_c$ Constraint equations
$vec{lambda}$ Generalized constraint forces
$vec{f}_a$ External forces
To get the EOM's for generalized coordinates, we transfer the velocity vector $vec{dot{r}}$ to:
$vec{dot{r}}mapsto J,vec{dot{q}}$
with $J$ the jacobi matrix and $vec{q}$ the generalized coordinates.
to eliminate the constraint froces from equation (1) , we multiply equation (1) from the left with $J^T$ .
D’Alembert approach:
$J^T,left(frac{partial vec{F}_c}{partial vec{r}}right)^T=0qquad(2)$
Conclusion:
Each transformation of the coordinates $vec{r}mapsto R,vec{r}$ must fulfill
equation (2)
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
To calculate the equations of motion and the constraint forces, we use the Euler Lagrange function:
begin{align*}
&boxed{frac{partial L}{partial vec{r}}-frac{d}{dt}left(frac{partial L}{partial dot{vec{r}}}right)=left(frac{partial vec{R}}{partial vec{r}}right)^Tvec{f}_a+left(frac{partial vec{F}_c}{partial vec{r}}right)^Tvec{lambda}}&(1)
end{align*}
With:
$vec{r}$ Unconstraint coordinates
$vec{F}_c$ Constraint equations
$vec{lambda}$ Generalized constraint forces
$vec{f}_a$ External forces
To get the EOM's for generalized coordinates, we transfer the velocity vector $vec{dot{r}}$ to:
$vec{dot{r}}mapsto J,vec{dot{q}}$
with $J$ the jacobi matrix and $vec{q}$ the generalized coordinates.
to eliminate the constraint froces from equation (1) , we multiply equation (1) from the left with $J^T$ .
D’Alembert approach:
$J^T,left(frac{partial vec{F}_c}{partial vec{r}}right)^T=0qquad(2)$
Conclusion:
Each transformation of the coordinates $vec{r}mapsto R,vec{r}$ must fulfill
equation (2)
To calculate the equations of motion and the constraint forces, we use the Euler Lagrange function:
begin{align*}
&boxed{frac{partial L}{partial vec{r}}-frac{d}{dt}left(frac{partial L}{partial dot{vec{r}}}right)=left(frac{partial vec{R}}{partial vec{r}}right)^Tvec{f}_a+left(frac{partial vec{F}_c}{partial vec{r}}right)^Tvec{lambda}}&(1)
end{align*}
With:
$vec{r}$ Unconstraint coordinates
$vec{F}_c$ Constraint equations
$vec{lambda}$ Generalized constraint forces
$vec{f}_a$ External forces
To get the EOM's for generalized coordinates, we transfer the velocity vector $vec{dot{r}}$ to:
$vec{dot{r}}mapsto J,vec{dot{q}}$
with $J$ the jacobi matrix and $vec{q}$ the generalized coordinates.
to eliminate the constraint froces from equation (1) , we multiply equation (1) from the left with $J^T$ .
D’Alembert approach:
$J^T,left(frac{partial vec{F}_c}{partial vec{r}}right)^T=0qquad(2)$
Conclusion:
Each transformation of the coordinates $vec{r}mapsto R,vec{r}$ must fulfill
equation (2)
answered 55 mins ago
Eli
42916
42916
add a comment |
add a comment |
CO2 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
CO2 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
CO2 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
CO2 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f448707%2fdoes-noethers-theorem-apply-to-constrained-system%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown