Content deleted Content added
Rainwarrior (talk | contribs) |
Endomorphic (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 208:
:I think the example of non-commutative rotations is good to have in the article, but I don't think the current explanation is clear enough. For someone who is good at thinking in spatial terms, it's easy to follow, but many people will not be, especially people who are new to quaternions. A diagram would really help here, maybe an animated GIF? Does anyone have the ability to make a good one? - [[User:Rainwarrior|Rainwarrior]] 20:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with a lot of the intent in the above posts. Representing rotations with quaternions is a specific technical idea. I'm not saying that the article should be filled with jargon; merely that handwaving descriptions of rotating books won't be useful to someone who arrives at Wikipedia wanting to know how to rotate with quarternions. That being said, the book analogy is good, but perhaps it should go at "Non-commutativity" itself, which currently redirects to commutativity. Add a little ''For a technical discussion of non-commutativity, see [[Commutativity]].'' line, and you have the perfect place to explain why Rubics Cube's are so difficult. [[User:Endomorphic|Endomorphic]] 20:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
| |||