News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Monumental advance in number theory posted to the ArXiv b... by rtpg on Monday November 07, 2022 @07:35PM (#33514567)
While I get what you're saying, and clearly there is "more stuff", I think we shouldn't discount how progress can make things simpler on this front. Proofs we learn are usually much more refined than the original versions. Notational improvements and more interesting abstractions mean we can cover more ground more quickly.

Another angle here, I remember seeing a study where some children were just... taught algebra. Like given high school algebra classes in 3rd grade, and kids were able to absorb all that abstract reasoning "just fine" (according to the study).

Of course there's only so much abstraction that can be done, but I think we shouldn't assume we are at the end of history on much of anything (except for parsing algorithms)

Re:Monumental advance in number theory posted to the ArXiv b... by rnvannatta on Monday November 07, 2022 @09:44PM (#33515349)
To add to your comment, quaternions predate rotational matrix operators by a considerable amount (1843 vs not exactly clear, ~1900 with Peano or ~1920 with Weyl), despite quaternions being much more challenging to manipulate. There are definitely simpler ways to view the same things.

There was a cottage industry of exotic hypercomplex numbers that disappeared when linear algebra matured to eclipse them.

In fact, Maxwell's Equations were originally derived with quaternions.

Re:Monumental advance in number theory posted to the ArXiv b... by BlueTemplar on Monday November 07, 2022 @10:07PM (#33515466)
I am somewhat unconvinced that quaternions are more challenging, or at least a worse way to think about the issue :

https://eater.net/quaternions

And speaking of Maxwell's Equation"s" :

http://www.av8n.com/physics/maxwell-ga.htm#sec-preview

Re:Monumental advance in number theory posted to the ArXiv b... by rnvannatta on Monday November 07, 2022 @10:41PM (#33515658)
Well, a rotation matrix doesn't require doing 2 half rotations, and doesn't require reaching into the 4th dimension in such a way that it gets perfectly cancelled out. It doesn't require abstract analogies about cubes with strings glued to them or coffee cups.

With some familiarity with linear algebra, it's easy to derive the formula for constructing a rotation matrix. You just have to think about what the operation does to the axes. The derivation for quaternion rotation is far more abstract, by virtue of the operation we actually care about involving a sandwich of multiplications with unclear 4 dimensional meaning.

Augmenting your space to handle not just rotations & scaling, but translations is easy for matrices, just requires a homogeneous coordinate and you get 4x4 matrices with intuitive columns.

Augmenting quaternions to handle translations requires the 8 dimensional dual-quaternions.