Line 1,396: |
Line 1,396: |
| | | |
| ===Note 12=== | | ===Note 12=== |
| + | |
| + | It is common in algebra to switch around between different conventions of display, as the momentary fancy happens to strike, and I see that Peirce is no different in this sort of shiftiness than anyone else. A changeover appears to occur especially whenever he shifts from logical contexts to algebraic contexts of application. |
| + | |
| + | In the paper "On the Relative Forms of Quaternions" (CP 3.323), we observe Peirce providing the following sorts of explanation: |
| + | |
| + | <blockquote> |
| + | <p>If ''X'', ''Y'', ''Z'' denote the three rectangular components of a vector, and ''W' denote numerical unity (or a fourth rectangular component, involving space of four dimensions), and (''Y'':''Z'') denote the operation of converting the ''Y'' component of a vector into its ''Z'' component, then</p> |
| + | |
| + | <pre> |
| + | 1 = (W:W) + (X:X) + (Y:Y) + (Z:Z) |
| + | |
| + | i = (X:W) - (W:X) - (Y:Z) + (Z:Y) |
| + | |
| + | j = (Y:W) - (W:Y) - (Z:X) + (X:Z) |
| + | |
| + | k = (Z:W) - (W:Z) - (X:Y) + (Y:X) |
| + | </pre> |
| + | |
| + | <p>In the language of logic (''Y'':''Z'') is a relative term whose relate is a ''Y'' component, and whose correlate is a ''Z'' component. The law of multiplication is plainly (''Y'':''Z'')(''Z'':''X'') = (''Y'':''X''), (''Y'':''Z'')(''X'':''W'') = 0, and the application of these rules to the above values of 1, ''i'', ''j'', ''k'' gives the quaternion relations</p> |
| + | |
| + | <pre> |
| + | i^2 = j^2 = k^2 = -1, |
| + | |
| + | ijk = -1, |
| + | |
| + | etc. |
| + | </pre> |
| + | |
| + | <p>The symbol ''a''(''Y'':''Z'') denotes the changing of ''Y'' to ''Z'' and the multiplication of the result by ''a'''. If the relatives be arranged in a block</p> |
| + | |
| + | <pre> |
| + | W:W W:X W:Y W:Z |
| + | |
| + | X:W X:X X:Y X:Z |
| + | |
| + | Y:W Y:X Y:Y Y:Z |
| + | |
| + | Z:W Z:X Z:Y Z:Z |
| + | </pre> |
| + | |
| + | <p>then the quaternion ''w'' + ''xi'' + ''yj'' + ''zk'' is represented by the matrix of numbers</p> |
| | | |
| <pre> | | <pre> |
− | It is common in algebra to switch around
| + | w -x -y -z |
− | between different conventions of display,
| + | |
− | as the momentary fancy happens to strike,
| + | x w -z y |
− | and I see that Peirce is no different in
| + | |
− | this sort of shiftiness than anyone else.
| + | y z w -x |
− | A changeover appears to occur especially
| + | |
− | whenever he shifts from logical contexts
| + | z -y x w |
− | to algebraic contexts of application.
| + | </pre> |
| | | |
− | In the paper "On the Relative Forms of Quaternions" (CP 3.323),
| + | <p>The multiplication of such matrices follows the same laws as the multiplication of quaternions. The determinant of the matrix = the fourth power of the tensor of the quaternion.</p> |
− | we observe Peirce providing the following sorts of explanation:
| |
| | | |
− | | If X, Y, Z denote the three rectangular components of a vector, and W denote
| + | <p>The imaginary x + y(-1)^(1/2) may likewise be represented by the matrix</p> |
− | | numerical unity (or a fourth rectangular component, involving space of four
| |
− | | dimensions), and (Y:Z) denote the operation of converting the Y component
| |
− | | of a vector into its Z component, then
| |
− | |
| |
− | | 1 = (W:W) + (X:X) + (Y:Y) + (Z:Z)
| |
− | |
| |
− | | i = (X:W) - (W:X) - (Y:Z) + (Z:Y)
| |
− | |
| |
− | | j = (Y:W) - (W:Y) - (Z:X) + (X:Z)
| |
− | |
| |
− | | k = (Z:W) - (W:Z) - (X:Y) + (Y:X)
| |
− | |
| |
− | | In the language of logic (Y:Z) is a relative term whose relate is
| |
− | | a Y component, and whose correlate is a Z component. The law of
| |
− | | multiplication is plainly (Y:Z)(Z:X) = (Y:X), (Y:Z)(X:W) = 0,
| |
− | | and the application of these rules to the above values of
| |
− | | 1, i, j, k gives the quaternion relations
| |
− | |
| |
− | | i^2 = j^2 = k^2 = -1,
| |
− | |
| |
− | | ijk = -1,
| |
− | |
| |
− | | etc.
| |
− | |
| |
− | | The symbol a(Y:Z) denotes the changing of Y to Z and the
| |
− | | multiplication of the result by 'a'. If the relatives be
| |
− | | arranged in a block
| |
− | |
| |
− | | W:W W:X W:Y W:Z
| |
− | |
| |
− | | X:W X:X X:Y X:Z
| |
− | |
| |
− | | Y:W Y:X Y:Y Y:Z
| |
− | |
| |
− | | Z:W Z:X Z:Y Z:Z
| |
− | |
| |
− | | then the quaternion w + xi + yj + zk
| |
− | | is represented by the matrix of numbers
| |
− | |
| |
− | | w -x -y -z
| |
− | |
| |
− | | x w -z y
| |
− | |
| |
− | | y z w -x
| |
− | |
| |
− | | z -y x w
| |
− | |
| |
− | | The multiplication of such matrices follows the same laws as the
| |
− | | multiplication of quaternions. The determinant of the matrix =
| |
− | | the fourth power of the tensor of the quaternion.
| |
− | |
| |
− | | The imaginary x + y(-1)^(1/2) may likewise be represented by the matrix
| |
− | |
| |
− | | x y
| |
− | |
| |
− | | -y x
| |
− | |
| |
− | | and the determinant of the matrix = the square of the modulus.
| |
− | |
| |
− | | C.S. Peirce, 'Collected Papers', CP 3.323, (1882).
| |
− | |'Johns Hopkins University Circulars', No. 13, p. 179.
| |
| | | |
− | This way of talking is the mark of a person who opts
| + | <pre> |
− | to multiply his matrices "on the right", as they say.
| + | x y |
− | Yet Peirce still continues to call the first element
| |
− | of the ordered pair (i:j) its "relate" while calling
| |
− | the second element of the pair (i:j) its "correlate".
| |
− | That doesn't comport very well, so far as I can tell,
| |
− | with his customary reading of relative terms, suited
| |
− | more to the multiplication of matrices "on the left".
| |
| | | |
− | So I still have a few wrinkles to iron out before
| + | -y x |
− | I can give this story a smooth enough consistency.
| |
| </pre> | | </pre> |
| + | |
| + | <p>and the determinant of the matrix = the square of the modulus.</p> |
| + | |
| + | <p>C.S. Peirce, ''Collected Papers'', CP 3.323, (1882). ''Johns Hopkins University Circulars'', No. 13, p. 179.</p> |
| + | </blockquote> |
| + | |
| + | This way of talking is the mark of a person who opts to multiply his matrices "on the right", as they say. Yet Peirce still continues to call the first element of the ordered pair (''i'':''j'') its "relate" while calling the second element of the pair (''i'':''j'') its "correlate". That doesn't comport very well, so far as I can tell, with his customary reading of relative terms, suited more to the multiplication of matrices "on the left". |
| + | |
| + | So I still have a few wrinkles to iron out before I can give this story a smooth enough consistency. |
| | | |
| ===Note 13=== | | ===Note 13=== |