Talk:Fractional coordinates

Article reads like a mathematical proof instead of an encyclopedia article

I don't think that this article is written in an appropriate style for non-experts. I know there's a rule about this somewhere, but I never do anything but extremely minor edits, so I'm unsure about how to go about fixing this. Also, while an expert in Chemistry or Physics might be of some kind of help, this particular topic is more the realm of materials science and/or mineralogy/crystallography. If anybody with more experience is willing to guide me a bit, mention it on my user/talk page and I'll see about taking up the task of fixing it up for those of us who don't live and breathe numbers. -- Cronanius (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate transformation matrix in "Conversion to cartesian coordinates" section

Serious errors - the matrix that is provided is not correct, it should be the transpose of given matrix. I think this should be pointed out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.82.7.55 (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 18.82.7.55, and thanks for your suggestion! Everyone is welcome to help improve Wikipedia (please see WP:BEBOLD). I've left more information on your talk page, but please feel free to drop a note on my talk page if I can help you with any editing questions. Cheers! -- Bgpaulus (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In an attempt to direct discussion here, I've replaced 18.82.7.55's comments from this edit with the {{Expert-subject}} template at the top of the article. Cheers! -- Bgpaulus (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the matrix is correct - I used it for my program and it works. I just don't like notations. I would write it

\mathbf {{\begin{bmatrix}x\\y\\z\\\end{bmatrix}}={\begin{bmatrix}a&b\cos(\gamma )&c\cos(\beta )\\0&b\sin(\gamma )&c{\frac {\cos(\alpha )-\cos(\beta )\cos(\gamma )}{\sin(\gamma )}}\\0&0&c{\frac {v}{\sin(\gamma )}}\\\end{bmatrix}}} {\begin{bmatrix}x_{frac}\\y_{frac}\\z_{frac}\\\end{bmatrix}}

Bor75 (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with either of the matrices. I wrote a program using those matrices, and the results match the cif file coordinates and the coordinates output by the chemistry program Avogadro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.186.25.18 (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The matrices are correct; but not the matrix that is given on the cited angelfire.com page even though the way of derivation that is given there is correct. there only the ab prefactor of one term of c3 has to be removed. possible citation for the correct matrix: Mathematical techniques in crystallography and material science / Edward Prince / Springer 1994 (see chapter "metric tensor"). the definitions of the cited angelfire page are equal to the definitions here, there is just one error in calculus.

by the way: no chemist is needed here. every scientist can proof these matrices to be correct.

For whatever it is worth, I can also confirm that the transformations here are correct. I just got done coding this up for the Psi4 electronic structure package and they work like a charm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.207.37.137 (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

129.69.120.176 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fractional coordinates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081004101125/http://www.ccdc.cam.ac.uk/support/documentation/mercury_csd/portable/mercury_portable-4-70.html to http://www.ccdc.cam.ac.uk/support/documentation/mercury_csd/portable/mercury_portable-4-70.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]