quaternions as orientation

Started by
60 comments, last by GameDev.net 18 years, 3 months ago
Quote:Original post by SiCrane
And your problem with it is? Non-abelian is easier to type than non-commutative and means the same thing.


Except for one thing, alot more people know what non-commutative means than they do abelian. Youre answering for a general audience here and not mathematicians who have had exposure to group theory. Sneftel, your girlfriend is sick. ;D
Advertisement
Any one who asks if something is a field has had exposure to group theory. Any one who can find gamedev and point their browser to it can throw the term "abelian" into a search engine and get five definitions without blinking.
Quote:Original post by SiCrane
Any one who asks if something is a field has had exposure to group theory. Any one who can find gamedev and point their browser to it can throw the term "abelian" into a search engine and get five definitions without blinking.


Not necessarily, Field theory is independent of group theory, it can stand on its own. ive seen works that refer loosely to fields to describe real numbers that do not require any exposure to group theory. Perhaps in a basic course in set theory and logic? In addition, people other than timw could be reading this and typing the few extra letters is alot less work than going to google to search for abelian and puzzling out a meaning which may or may not be correct.but yeah, whatever.
Aha!! A course in analysis or advanced calculus.
And you're trying to tell me that someone who made it advanced calculus or analysis would be so totally confused by the term "non-abelian" that they couldn't use the brains it obviously took them to get to those classes and look up the term that using "non-commutative" over "non-abelian" is such an infinitely superior choice? I'm sorry, I just don't think the people who read this forum are that stupid.
Quote:Original post by SiCrane
And you're trying to tell me that someone who made it advanced calculus or analysis would be so totally confused by the term "non-abelian" that they couldn't use the brains it obviously took them to get to those classes and look up the term that using "non-commutative" over "non-abelian" is such an infinitely superior choice? I'm sorry, I just don't think the people who read this forum are that stupid.


of course not.
Thanks. I'll take a look at these.
thanks for the replies.. *ducks punches* lol
Quote:Original post by Sneftel
Matrix and Quaternion FAQ

The most useful link in this thread. Rating ++

Programming since 1995.
I might be wrong, but I believe the most that can be said about quaternions is that they form a non-commutative ring with inverse. Also, unit quaternions are homomorphic to the set of 3D rotation matrices.

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement