Talk:Unitary transformation

Why write to show off your terminology? Articles like this show off the author's savvy. But the purpose of an encyclopedia is to educate those who don't yet have that savvy. Technical terminology should be present, but it shouldn't replace an adequate explanation of the topic at hand. There is a difference between an exposure to a topic, and exposure to the terminology used in that topic. This article exposes us to the terminology in the topic, and completely fails to explain the topic itself.

Someone who understands there is a difference between communicating with experts in the field and communicating with learners, please rewrite this article. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.192.212 (talk • contribs)

I tried something, by adding a new sentence at the beginning of the introduction, see how it is now. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That first sentence makes such a difference. It is exactly what I meant by 'explaining the topic'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.192.212 (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding something about the unitary transformation of an operator. I am not sure of what I am writing, so please correct me, and/or expand what I am adding. Thank you Oakwood (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rotations = Unitary?

Following on from the above complaint, my question is simple: If (as I understand it) all rotational transformations are unitary, are all unitary transformations just rotations? If so, can we please say this in this article? ~~Or, perhaps simple translations (from one position to another) are unitary (though not rotations)?~~ Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A day later ... I believe that reflections through the origin and across an axis would be unitary. Again, some illumination in the article would be useful. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]