Talk:Quaternion type: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
m (grammar) |
|||
| Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
I had to mark both jq and Julia as incorrect as they both had the imaginary parts of a quaternion defined as just i by their definition of <code>imag</code>. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 15:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC) |
I had to mark both jq and Julia as incorrect as they both had the imaginary parts of a quaternion defined as just i by their definition of <code>imag</code>. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 15:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC) |
||
:I am confused - why should the internal details of the implementation constitute a problem if the results are correct? I spot checked the julia results and the examples I looked at looked fine. I have not studied the julia code, but it sounds like it might be using a [[wp:Cayley–Dickson_construction|Cayley-Dickson]] representation of quaternions - which would be completely correct. But I have not studied those languages in depth, and I might have overlooked something important. Can you please go into more detail about what specifically is wrong here? --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 17:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC) |
:I am confused - why should the internal details of the implementation constitute a problem if the results are correct? I spot checked the julia results and the examples I looked at looked fine. I have not studied the julia code, but it sounds like it might be using a [[wp:Cayley–Dickson_construction|Cayley-Dickson]] representation of quaternions - which would be completely correct. But I also have not studied those languages in depth, and I might have overlooked something important. Can you please go into more detail about what specifically is wrong here? --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 17:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC) |
||