Now we are drilling down to the real issue (thanks, Alexei, with whom I had
almost the same
discussion off board earlier):
The fact is (and here I follow in some form Ian's line of argument) that
geometric
vectors in R2 and R3 have properties beyond the axiomatic definition of a
vector space.
Alas, that is what we are dealing with (at least the students of
crystallography in BMC)
here, and the warning not to treat complex numbers the same as what students
know as 'vectors' seems appropriate.
But I concede that this should be made more clear in the second edition of
the offending
side bar (where regurgitations of Wikipedia usually don't cut it). In this
instance more accuracy
at the expense of some parsimony can be justified.
Cheers, BR
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Gruene [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 2:13 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc: Bernhard Rupp; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Structure factor equation
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Dear Bernhard,
I don't need to because the vector product is not a requirement for a vector
space.
It is something very specific to R^3, i.e. in most vector spaces you would
have trouble defining a vector product - do you know the angle between two
polynomials?
Cheers,
Tim
On 04/02/2014 01:58 PM, Bernhard Rupp wrote:
>> complex numbers together with the operation '+' defined in the
>> canonical
> way fulfill the axioms of a vector space, hence complex number are
> vectors.
>
> Axiomatically yes but could you please define the vector products for
> complex numbers?
>
> Thx, BR
>
- --
- --
Dr Tim Gruene
Institut fuer anorganische Chemie
Tammannstr. 4
D-37077 Goettingen
GPG Key ID = A46BEE1A
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/
iD8DBQFTO/7OUxlJ7aRr7hoRAnB3AJ0b9aI3TAVwama892RwLr8hQJAvQgCfRrDo
fdADewbtB9zyOpgGXuZkULM=
=t9ZA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|