Anonymous user
Talk:Quaternion type: Difference between revisions
→Imaginary parts (plural): how would imagine be used?
m (grammar) |
(→Imaginary parts (plural): how would imagine be used?) |
||
Line 110:
: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)
::Hi, Looking through the function names are came across image. It just seemed wrong to access only one of the three imaginary parts of a quaternion via that name - especially when the other imaginary parts seem to be adjacent indices away.
::Why the use of the name? What would imagine be used for? It seems odd to single out I over j over k in such a way. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 18:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
| |||