Changes

MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Saturday November 23, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to search
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===
12,080

edits

Navigation menu