Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quaternionic matrix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RDBury (talk | contribs) at 20:16, 31 August 2010 (Quaternionic matrix: Comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Quaternionic matrix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced with no indication of notability. Seems like fairly trivial OR to me: quaternions in a 2x2 matrix, and a Google search turns up nothing like this. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: A trivial Google Scholar search returns tons of academic papers on the subject (the Google of the nominator must have been broken ). The information on the matrix multiplication is far from being trivial (at least for non-mathematicians). --Cyclopiatalk 18:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I did search, though a normal one not a scholar one, and turned up some of the same papers. But I could not find a definition, other than it's just a matrix of quaternions, or find anything that looked like this article (most of the articles seemed to be on more general n×n matrices). A search on both "Hamiltonian product" and "quaternionic matrix" turns up only mirrors of this page and a scholar search turns up nothing. So while the term exists much of the article seems unsourced. It would be good to hear from the page creator on this, as although as it stands it looks like OR it also looks like reasonable maths that could be sourced somewhere.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The definition is a bit of a tautology, and the sources were probably assuming readers would fill in the gaps. I'm thinking [1] probably covers the subject enough to establish notability. The article doesn't list any sources though it's unclear to me how much of the material should be removed. The definition alone isn't enough to justify the existence of the article.--RDBury (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]