Revision as of 21:13, 30 April 2017 edit Ybungalobill (talk \| contribs) 211 edits →Derivation (COI Edit Request) ← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:12, 7 February 2018 edit undo 130.232.105.232 (talk) →"May be more efficient"?: new section Next edit →
Line 878: http://web.cs.iastate.edu/~cs577/handouts/quaternion.pdf <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/23.119.121.46\|23.119.121.46]] ([[User talk:23.119.121.46#top\|talk]]) 00:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> == "May be more efficient"? == What struck me was this part in the first paragraph, third sentence. "Compared to rotation matrices they are more compact, more numerically stable, and may be more efficient." As it is, I think it's just confusing. If they are more efficient in some specific situations, then it should read "more numerically stable, and more efficient in some specific situations". If it is disputed or unknown whether they are more efficient, it should read "more numerically stable.", plus possibly something about research/disputes regarding their efficiency compared to rotation matrices. If it depends on the platform or programming language, it should read "more numerically stable, and on some platforms/in some programming languages, more efficient". As the sentence is, it is just jarring and almost anything else would be better in my opinion.

Talk:Quaternions and spatial rotation: Difference between revisions