[dawnofdusk]

Skimmed some of the articles, particularly those nearer to my field. Seems like a generally good set of informal notes.

Random comments:

>when the states evolve in time and the observables don’t we are using Liouville’s picture; when the observables evolve in time and the states don’t we are using Hamilton’s picture.

I have never heard this terminology, I have only heard Schrodinger's picture vs. Heisenberg's picture.

>This means that, very unlike on a Riemannian manifold, a symplectic manifold has no local geometry, so there’s no symplectic analogue of anything like curvature.

Perhaps the only enlightening comment I have ever heard about the tautological 1-form/symplectic approach to Hamiltonian mechanics.

[nicf]

> I have never heard this terminology, I have only heard Schrodinger's picture vs. Heisenberg's picture.

I wrote the QM article a very long time ago at this point, and I actually can't reconstruct at the moment why I used those two names! I've also heard Schrodinger and Heisenberg much more frequently. Might be worth an edit.

[Someone]

Maybe because Liouville and Hamilton, being mathematicians, are better known to the target audience than the physicists Schrödinger and Heisenberg?

I know the difference between mathematicians and theoretical physicists can be small, but I think that categorization is valid.

To verify my intuition, I checked Wikipedia. It calls

- Liouville a mathematician and engineer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Liouville)

- Hamílton a mathematician, astronomer and physicist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rowan_Hamilton)

- Schrödinger a physicist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Schrödinger)

- Heisenberg a theoretical physicist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg)