Talk:The vector of a quaternion

Thanks for pointing out broken math tags

Your right, cornell broke a lot of math tags. It might be that people are starting to take a mild interest in 19th century math.

There are broken links in a lot of articles because of them, and I am working to replace them with links to google Books.

The citations are all still good but hard to check with out online material because a lot of these great old books went out of print a long time ago.

Anybody wanna help fix links?

Merge into Classical Hamiltonian quaternions (if not already there)?

In this article, I see material that's mostly already on the Classical Hamiltonian quaternions page. Also, I see no topic that would be outside a focus interest on Hamilton's original views and lifetime work. Thoughts? Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the merge proposal. I see no need for a separate article here - most of the material is already in Classical Hamiltonian quaternions. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, since this article contains 16 citations, the first step would be to fix the broken links, and then write a list of where each citation should go in the already over long main article. A subject I am currently researching is:Wikipedia:Editing_FAQ#How_long_should_the_ideal_article_be.3F

Another chore is to explain that all the terms in Hamilton's calculus have been taken out of context by other authors. At one time, there was an entire section dedicated to this subject which was deleted, Gandalf61, you expressed interest in contributing to that topic and I think that is wonderful, I have taken the liberty of replacing that section so that you can work on it. Be ware you will come under attack for original research as more recent authors rarely if ever admit that they have made drastic changes to Hamilton's definitions. Sorry if you were offended that I keep changing back a gross factual error in the definition of a tensor in Hamilton's calculus. It has a double meaning, as both a type of number, and as an operator. Properly by definition the tensor of a quaternion is defined as the quotient of the tensors of the two vectors. Recalling that a quaternion is the quotient of two vectors, it is the tensors of these two vectors that are used by definition to compute the tensor of a quaternion. Hamilton also proves several useful identities which are listed currently listed in the section on the operator of the same name. Homebum (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved a couple of sections already.Homebum (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes!

I know that two people commenting here believe that things are better with a single article, and maybe it was good that since there was some redundant content merging the two articles together was an important step, but now classical hamiltonian quaternions has grow to 72K and guidlines specify that an article over 60K needs to be divided.

But folk actually doing the work want to take a breather for now, got some tests coming up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotics lab (talk • contribs) 23:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Classical Hamiltonian quaternions is hugely overweight and needs to be trimmed down. It is rambling, repetitive and has an editorial slant (which is very inappropriate for a Wikipedia article). But it is easier to work on improving one poor article than two overlapping poor articles. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I have the impression that there's really only one person all along who is supporting separate pages on Hamilton's views and terms. I find no good reason to do so. As far as the Classical Hamiltonian quaternions article, we need to make sure that tags are up top while the current large editing effort is going on. Hopefully, I'll have the time later this year to work on it. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving the material into the Classical Hamiltonian quaternions article, I'll keep an eye on it and make sure it'll remain. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]