Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quaternionic matrix: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Quaternionic matrix: comment |
→Quaternionic matrix: not on 2x2 only |
||
Line 8:
*'''Keep''': A trivial [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22quaternionic%20matrix%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=ws Google Scholar search] returns tons of academic papers on the subject (the Google of the nominator must have been broken {{=)}}). The information on the matrix multiplication is far from being trivial (at least for non-mathematicians). --[[User:Cyclopia|<font color="green">Cycl</font><big>o</big><font color="green">pia</font>]][[User talk:Cyclopia|<font color="red"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 18:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
* '''comment''' I did search, though a normal one not a scholar one, and turned up some of the same papers. But I could not find a definition, other than it's just a matrix of quaternions, or find anything that looked like this article (most of the articles seemed to be on more general n×n matrices). [http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Hamiltonian+product%22+%22quaternionic+matrix%22 A search] on both "Hamiltonian product" and "quaternionic matrix" turns up only mirrors of this page and [http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=%22Hamiltonian%20product%22%20%22quaternionic%20matrix%22 a scholar search] turns up nothing. So while the term exists much of the article seems unsourced. It would be good to hear from the page creator on this, as although as it stands it looks like OR it also looks like reasonable maths that could be sourced somewhere.--<small>[[User:JohnBlackburne|JohnBlackburne]]</small><sup>[[User_talk:JohnBlackburne|words]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/JohnBlackburne|deeds]]</sub> 19:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
** I don't understand where did you get the impression that the article is only on 2x2 matrices. --[[User:Cyclopia|<font color="green">Cycl</font><big>o</big><font color="green">pia</font>]][[User talk:Cyclopia|<font color="red"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 19:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
** The definition is a bit of a tautology, and the sources were probably assuming readers would fill in the gaps. I'm thinking [http://books.google.com/books?id=Un_15Im3NhUC&pg=PA31#v=onepage&f=false] probably covers the subject enough to establish notability. The article doesn't list any sources though, and it's unclear to me how much of the material should be removed. The definition alone isn't enough to justify the existence of the article.--[[User:RDBury|RDBury]] ([[User talk:RDBury|talk]]) 20:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
*** There is definitely material that can bring the article beyond a mere definition: e.g. here it is an article [http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=HuSqsKIzTSYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA19&dq=%22quaternionic+matrix%22&ots=lYRkWSoKRR&sig=rTC7e_rXQpq1tgSjinS1dhHGAbE#v=onepage&q=%22quaternionic%20matrix%22&f=false on eigenvalues of a quaternionic matrix]. I am unfortunately far from having the mathematical competence to properly do that, I'm going to notify the appropriate Wikiproject. --[[User:Cyclopia|<font color="green">Cycl</font><big>o</big><font color="green">pia</font>]][[User talk:Cyclopia|<font color="red"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 19:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
| |||