[seqfan] Re: detective work related to Creighton Dement's \\\"Floretions\\\"
Joerg Arndt
arndt at jjj.de
Sat Nov 21 01:25:53 CET 2009
* Creighton Kenneth Dement <creighton.k.dement at mail.uni-oldenburg.de> [Nov 21. 2009 10:41]:
> Joerg wrote:
> > Get rid of random letters for the components!
> > As it is, noone will ever dig through this messy notation.
>
> Getting rid of the "random letters for the components" is the whole
> purpose of introducting the projection operators
> ibase(X), jbase(X), etc. ...
Getting rid of a (rather random) symbol 'oink' by
introducting oinkfunc() defeats the purpose, right?
Name the components a0, a1, ..., a15.
a0 shall be the neutral element
(is there such an element?).
Replace oinkbase() by base_N() functions
where N is the index \in {0,1,...,15}.
You may want to use hex, i.e.
index \in {0,1,...,9,a,b,c,d,e,f}.
>
> What is your point other than making jokes?
No jokes, I just got slightly hysteric.
> I know you didn't just look at
> this stuff today, because you have kindly offered to help me before (if my
> memory serves me correctly) and I didn't hear any of this then.
In case you made any effort to clarify your construction:
I missed it.
Clarification is _not_ repeating over and over some
ad hoc terminology. I gave pertinent questions,
as in:
>
> > Does your algebra contain (e.g.) complex numbers, quaternions, octonions?
>
> If "my algebra" contains quaternions, which I believe I mentioned only a
> few days ago on this seqfan list, it certainly contains complex numbers.
>
[If you think I do not know that quaternions contain complex
numbers, then, well, ... what should I say?]
Now, does your algebra contain quaternions?
> Sincerely,
> Creighton
>
Last time I looked into the documentation of
the day (quite some time ago) I frankly was
put off by the terminology, which in my not
so humble opinion is atrociously obscure.
Now you seem to have missed some points.
>
> > * Creighton Kenneth Dement <creighton.k.dement at mail.uni-oldenburg.de> [Nov
> > 21. 2009 07:32]:
> >> [...]
> >
> > Oh dear, _this_ is obfuscation in perfection.
> > What about the scheme used in sect.37.14, p.831ff
> > of http://www.jjj.de/fxt/#fxtbook ?
> > It's an algebra, dammit.
Have you even looked?
> >
> > Get rid of random letters for the components!
> > As it is, noone will ever dig through this messy notation.
> >
As said above, this is step zero.
I will only check after this has been done.
> >
> >> [...rather random looking functions...]
> >
> > Can the specific definition be somehow motivated?
> >
Did you notice the question?
Can they?
> > [...]
> > Does your algebra contain (e.g.) complex numbers, quaternions, octonions?
> > Is it even isomorphic to the sedenions or some Clifford algebra?
> >
> > What are the sub-algebras (if it has any)?
> >
> > Is it (or are any sub-algebras) associative or commutative?
> >
> > Zero-divisors?
> >
Did you make _any_ attempt whatsoever to obtain
structural information about your algebra?
> >
> >> [...]
> >
cheers, jj
More information about the SeqFan
mailing list