| ▲ | ActorNightly 3 hours ago | |||||||
I just don't like this characterization of > "How shall I define multiplication, so that multiplication so defined is a group by itself and interacts with the addition defined earlier in a distributive way. Just the way addition and multiplication behave for reals." which eventually becomes > "Ah! It's just scaled rotation" and the implication is that emergent. Its like you have a set of objects, and defining operations on those objects that have properties of rotations baked in ( because that is the the only way that (0, 1) * (0, 1) = (-1, 0) ever works out in your definition), and then you are surprised that you get something that behaves like rotation. Meanwhile, when you define other "multiplicative" like operations on tuples, namely dot and cross product, you don't get rotations. | ||||||||
| ▲ | srean 3 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||
> I just don't like this characterization That's ok. It's a personal value judgement. However, the fact remains that rotations can "emerge" just from the desire to do additions and multiplications on tuples to be able to do polynomials with them ... which is more directly tied to its historical path of discovery, to solve polynomial equations, starting with cubic. | ||||||||
| ||||||||