I have never understood what's the meaning of the sentence "rolling without slipping". Let me explain.

I'll give an example. Yesterday my mechanics professor introduced some concepts of rotational dynamics. When he came to talk about spinning wheels he said something like: 


  "If the wheel is rolling without slipping, what's the velocity of the point at the base of the wheel?? It is... zero! Convince yourself that the velocity must be zero. Since if it wasn't zero, the wheel wouldn't be rolling without slipping. So the wheel is rolling without slipping if and only if the point at the base has velocity zero, i.e. if and only if the tangential speed equals the speed of the center of mass."


Well, what I really don't understand is this: is the "rolling without slipping" condition defined as "Point at the base has zero speed"? If not, what's the proper definition for that kind of motion?

Looking across the internet, I have found more or less the same ideas expressed in the quotation. Furthermore, if it was a definition, then it would be totally unnecessary to say "convince yourself" and improper to talk about necessary and sufficient conditions.

I'd like to point out that I'm not really confused about the mathematics behind this or with the meaning of the condition above. What puzzles me is why are those explanations always phrased as if the condition $v'=0$ (where $v'$ is the relative velocity beetween the point at base and the surface) is some necessary and sufficient condition to be "rolling without slipping". Seems to me that this is exactly the definition of "rolling without slipping" and not an "iff".

Any help is appreciated, thanks.

You can always decompose a motion like this into two parts: (1) rolling without slipping and (2) slipping without rolling.

What is slipping without rolling?  It means the object moves uniformly in one direction along the surface, with no angular velocity about the object's own center of mass.  For instance, a box that is pushed along the ground can easily slip without rolling.

Unfortunately, most people seem to assume that you can infer some physically important information from your own notion of what slipping is, without having to define it.  I believe this is done to try to connect to intuition, but in the process, things get a lot more nebulous and ill-defined.

To me, it's easier to think about this in terms of the object's rotation--it was never obvious to me that the point in contact with the ground doesn't have velocity at the instant it touches.  I prefer to think instead that an object that rolls without slipping travels 1 circumference along the ground for every for every full rotation it makes.  And object that travels more than this distance (or that doesn't rotate at all) is slipping in some way.

Then, eventually, we can get to the notion that the point in contact during rolling cannot have nonzero velocity through whatever logical or physical arguments necessary.

But as is usual in physics, it's not really clear what definition should be considered "fundamental" with other results stemming from it.  This emphasizes that physics is not built axiomatically.
