Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quaternion rotation biradial


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Quaternion rotation biradial

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A lengthy reworking of material covered in other articles already, in particular articles on quaternions, geometric algebra, and 3D rotations. It looks novel as the 'biradial' is not part of modern algebra but it is just a very archaic name for a rotor or a rotation quaternion, and the theory is just their theory, and later the theory of geometric algebra. JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 19:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. The subject is not related to modelling rotations. To model rotations of $$S^{2}$$, the pure quaternion $$q$$ acts by conjugation, $$u \mapsto quq^{-1}$$, fixing the plane spanned by the real axis and $$q$$ and rotating the orthogonal plane through an angle $$2 Arg (q)$$. The term "biradial" seems to have historical significance, and unlike most math articles of this length, the contents seem to be mostly legitimate. Some of the language used does indicate the author was not an expert, but well, it's Wikipedia. I have to look at it more carefully to determine how much of it should be kept, as well as if the term has sufficient notability for its own article, but at the very worst, the useful parts should be merged into quaternion, not just deleted. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Selective merge A biradial representation of a quaternion treats a quaternion as a object that transforms one vector, or radial, into another vector. It has both versor components that represent a rotation and a scaling component that match the two vector lengths. While I could not find secondary sources sufficient for notability (just one, here), this representation is verifiable. Hence a selective merge of say, just the definition, to Versor or Quaternions and spatial rotation is an obvious alternative to deletion. Quaternion would be an OK merge target, too. The article itself has good content, but is overly detailed. It would be a good candidate for transfer to Wikibooks. --Mark viking (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * One last thing: I had commented here (which I removed now) that I was going to support making the page into a wikibook, but now I do not support that idea. I have already moved on to writing my things as PDF files. Trying to edit a web wiki format would be too difficult anyway compared to PDF. I should have been writing PDF in the first place. I'm out.Twy2008 (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. I wrote the article up for deletion. The versor, a widely accepted terminology, was invented by Hamilton by starting from his concept of vector biradial. The versor is built from the unit biradial. In a footnote at the end of the preface to Hamilton's book, Lectures on Quaternions, Hamilton even gives a "hint" about a triradial which he suggested would assist in understanding the geometrical interpretation of his biquaternions. Hamilton seems to have thought that these bi/tri-radials are an important concept for understanding the math. I have also used the biradial concept in a very rough draft article subsection (possible mistakes) User:Twy2008/sandbox/STA on special relativity (SR) velocity-addition formula. I found the biradial to be a useful starting concept to construct Lorentz transformations as hyperbolic versors in Space-Time Algebra (see same-titled book by author David Hestenes, recently published in 2015). By starting with the biradial, the draft immediately derives the Lorentz factor, rapidity, and other values and the unit biradial is the hyperbolic versor of a Lorentz transformation between frames. Versors are mathematical operators that will likely gain usage in the years ahead (see Conformal geometric algebra or Quadric geometric algebra also by me), and the biradial is (I guess, arguably) a useful underlying building block of versors. I understand that the article is large and needs trimming. I could start working on that, but others can also. I wanted to write on this site, but I'm probably going to give up and consider switching to writing small PDF papers on stuff for submission into a web archive. I think the encylopedic writing style that this site enforces is not a good match for how I want to write. The math/sci site editors/admins (a certain handfull of accounts) are kind of harsh on new wiki writers and make the process discouraging. The web format of this site is also difficult to edit with math in it.Twy2008 (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Possible personal bias for AfD I see that JohnBlackburne is the author of Plane of rotation. It looks like he may have some personal issue against my article since the subject matter is closely ralated. Perhaps a strong sense of priority or other similar feeling that could be cultural to his location in the UK. His article covers bivectors and some similar rotational math, but does not appear (I only glanced it over) to discuss the biradial approach nor the many other (I guess excessive) details I also include in my article on both the quaternion and geometric algebra approaches to rotation. The Plane of rotation article takes only the geometric algebra approach to rotation, referencing to works of the Cambridge geometric algebra group. Arguably, the Plane of rotation article could also be put up for deletion since much of the material there is likely also found in other existing articles. I see how things really work around here.Twy2008 (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. "Quaternion rotation biradial" appears to be an obsolete historical term for the product of an imaginary quaternion and the multiplicative inverse of another imaginary quaternion and, as such, is an unnecessary content fork of the main article quaternion.  I could not find a single reputable use of the term after about 1920, with most google books hits from before 1900, mostly to Hamilton himself.  Wikipedia should not be in the business of promoting new terms for things (WP:NEOLOGISM) and, by extension, should not be in the business of resurrecting obsolete terms for things as if they were still in wide use.  Many of the terms in the article have this character: "quadrantal versor", etc.  The notation, too, is unwieldy and unexplained, and seems almost deliberately calculated to produce an impenetrable text.  The fact that quaternions can be understood "actively" as rotations (and dilations) is elementary in modern mathematics, without the need to dust off old unused concepts from the 19th century. It is, in fact, already the subject of the article quaternions and spatial rotation.  I would not object to pointing out there the geometrical interpretation of $$ab^{-1}$$, but I don't see that a separate article written in an impenetrable archaic style is warranted.  The second section of the paper, on the "geometric algebra" perspective, appears to be entirely the author's own original research, and as such is not allowed here anyway.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not care very much if the article is actually deleted, but I wanted to comment that your perspective on what is archaic is probably distorted. In the history of mathematics, Hamilton's work is still considered relatively recent and has been very important. Prior to Hamilton's work, people studied Euclid's Elements unchanged for about 2000 years under candlelight with virtually no technology or progress of any kind. Do you realize that Hamilton's work on quaternions, starting from what he called biradials, kicked off our modern technological age by providing the mathematical tools needed for Maxwell to express his electromagnetic theory. Also realize that 100 years after relativity theory was invented, education on it is still very poor due to suppressed mathematical development, partly that of quaternions and Clifford algebras. There is no resurrecting of a term that is perfectly defined in a book which is now also free on archive.org, and this suggests more that you would like to bury the information for some reason I can't really understand. In mathematics, any author is always free to invent whatever terminology and notation they like, so your opinion on that is not very relevant. Your opinion of it being impenetrable is not likely shared by many who would make use of the article and the subject in general. You are one of those certain handful of accounts that speaks up negatively quite often in ways not entirely justified. Your comments are a lot of arrogant hand waving. Technically, the article may be in violation some WP rules, because I jumped in not knowning them all and there are so many rules that it isn't too hard for a nitpicker to find some rule an article is breaking. The article has problems, and so do you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twy2008 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I will overlook the ad hominem personal attacks. I do not mean to criticize Hamilton's work.  But his terminology simply did not survive the test of time.  We should not write encyclopedia articles on concepts that remain in wide use, using old unused terms for them. There is no comparison with Euclid.  Any concept in Euclid can be found in thousands of more modern sources If we absolutely must, we should indicate that the terminology in the article is never used outside the encyclopedia and a few texts that are mostly of historical interest now.  And we should presumably have a good reason for doing that.  But if the purpose is just to have an article on concepts that are already covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia in a more standard way, just in a language that no one has used in over 100 years&mdash;just because it's "out there"&mdash;this is not very compelling.  Secondly, you have here said that the article is not impenetrable to those who would have use of it.  So presumably I am not included in the target audience.  Yet I wonder who that audience could be, as you use strange notation, like "Sq", "Vq", etc, which is never made clear, and strange terminology which I cannot find in any sources written in over one hundred years.  When an article on elementary mathematics is written in a way that it cannot be understood by mathemticians, one has to seriously wonder what the target audience is.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 06:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure, no personal attacks... but you clearly have something personal against the article and subject. To quote you, "GA people... some of them are a little wacky" is what you said in the talk page of this article for deletion. I am for delete now, but still I felt it necessary to point out the hipocracy and some unexpected politics around here about articles which have competing/overlapping content. This whole AfD is like a turf war within the enclopedia, because the format doesn't allow for overlapping content, although the article has other issues also. You are acting in defense of the other articles on quaternions and spatial rotations of which you have done some editing. It's okay, I just found this aspect of the site surprising. Twy2008 (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad you brought up the conversation on the talk page, because I had forgotten about that. I see how my own comment could give the impression of a "turf war", but the intent was the opposite.  I had wanted to encourage involvement of other editors to assist with an article that was clearly unsuitable in its present form.  (Crude but obvious issues are WP:LENGTH, WP:MTAA.)  Unfortunately, that comment did not successfully recruit any experts to help.  Instead, three editors knowledgeable about geometric algebra and abstract algebra suggested deletion as a possible outcome instead.
 * I am astonished at the claim that I have edited the article quaternions and spatial rotation. I can find no evidence that I have ever edited that page.  (Indeed, if I had, I think the article would be rather better than it is now.)
 * But anyway, my reasons for voting deletion here have nothing at all to do with any real or imagined "turf war", articles that I have or have not edited. I have already given those reasons, but here they are again. (1) Wikipedia should not be in the business of inventing neologisms (WP:NEOLOGISM).  The present article contains a number of those neologisms, for explaining concepts that are usually referred to by other terms and in other ways (WP:POVFORK, WP:NPOV).  (2) Wikipedia should not contain original research.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. I support the deletion of the article, and all of my other contributions on this site while we're at it. I could explain why, but it is a waste of time here.Twy2008 (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Apart from making you look like a diva, this comment is unlikely to achieve much to form consensus, be it for or against deletion of the article.
 * Let me tell you that feuds between editors are resolved (when they are) most often by external intervention. Instead of arguing against the characters, plead the facts - not to the opponent's lawyer, but to the court. Tigraan (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Very simply, this comment of yours was out of line. This is not a discussion for you to enter into only to make a trolling statement. I entered a delete because it seemed to be the best way to concede that the article has problems and I'm okay with deletion. I explained enough already that the format of this site is at odds with how I wanted to write, and am not threatening to quit as a diva or whatever, I am in fact leaving this site because I want to write in another style. I misunderstood how this site works. It was a mistake to write here. The writing on this site is mainly of a librarian nature, to summarize or paraphrase verbatim abstracts of subjects with only basic definitions and then lots of references to verify notability. The articles here do not actually require subject experts to write them when the article is written strictly according to expected encyclopedic standards. I tried to write too far beyond the format limits. Congrats on making your seemingly clever usage of the diva article. This is probably my last comment here, because I can see that this discussion has lost its true point, ad nauseam.Twy2008 (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  &#40; Talk &#41;  15:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 11:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.