Talk:Quaternions and spatial rotation: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:13, 5 July 2016

Revision as of 15:20, 5 July 2016

Line 805:

::: I did look at it before my first revert: I will check all links as they may be useful references or external links. I generally only revert without checking for obvious spam such as adding links to multiple articles. It's only after your posting that I tried looking at it more closely. Looking at it again I can see an error. It has "At this point a very small leap of intuition suggests that...", but you can't do that. You can't when you're trying to prove a result effectively intuit the main part of the result. Because yes, you know the result already, so it's in your mind. This makes your derivation even less impressive; all it's really doing is checking the result which is neither interesting or useful.--<small>[[User:JohnBlackburne|JohnBlackburne]]</small>^{[[User_talk:JohnBlackburne|words]]}<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/JohnBlackburne|deeds]]</sub> 19:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

::::The responding editor is correct; we do not allow external links in the body of an article and this is typically associated with spam and linkbait. On the other items, we would probably want independent secondary sources about the results if they were to be included, such as press articles, review articles in academic journals, etc. rather than getting the information directly from a paper publishing original research. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 19:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please give a reference and/or rewrite the section [[Quaternions_and_spatial_rotation#Quaternion-derived_rotation_matrix]] to actually give a derivation of a rotation matrix from a quaternion transformation, thank you. [[User:WinterSpw|WinterSpw]] ([[User talk:WinterSpw|talk]]) 15:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

== Error in rotation matrix formula ? ==