Changes related to "Versor"

Versor
Jump to: navigation, search

This is a list of recent changes to pages linked from a specified page (or to members of a specified category). Changes to pages on your watchlist are shown with a green bullet.

Recent changes options
Legend (help) :
N
This edit created a new page   
m
This is a minor edit
b
This edit was made by a bot
D
This edit was made at Wikidata
(±123)
Page size change in bytes
Show last 50 | 100 | 250 | 500 changes in last 1 | 3 | 7 | 14 | 30 days
Hide minor edits | Show bots | Hide unregistered users | Hide registered users | Hide my edits | Show Wikidata

Show new changes starting from 15:40, 28 April 2015
   
Page name:

28 April 2015

27 April 2015

26 April 2015

25 April 2015

24 April 2015

23 April 2015

  • (diff | hist) . . m Angle‎; 23:53 . . (-407,198). .I dream of horses (talk | contribs)(Reverted edits by Akrben (talk) (HG))
  • (diff | hist) . . Angle‎; 23:53 . . (+407,198). .Akrben (talk | contribs)
  • (diff | hist) . . Special unitary group‎; 23:33 . . (+1). .217.28.13.229 (talk)
  • (diff | hist) . . Vector space‎; 16:23 . . (-413). .Slawekb (talk | contribs)(take it to the discussion page. the planetmath source (not a WP:RS) implicitly uses uniqueness of inverses (else one is not able to conclude (a^{-1})^{-1}=a, e.g. Let's keep the definition to what appears in sources, not our WP:OR.)
  • (diff | hist) . . Vector space‎; 16:02 . . (+413). .David815 (talk | contribs)(Sorry for revert, but it works. There is no OR, esp. given that math is a priori. Full proof for unique inverses:http://planetmath.org/redundancyoftwosidednessindefinitionofgroup. And two-sided inverses are unique, as explained in the group article.)
  • (diff | hist) . . Vector space‎; 10:52 . . (-413). .Slawekb (talk | contribs)(It is still WP:OR. The argument is unconvincing. You do implicitly use uniqueness of additive inverses. No, uniqueness doesn't follow from existence, unless we assume two-sidedness of the inverse.)
  • (diff | hist) . . Vector space‎; 04:08 . . (+413). .David815 (talk | contribs)(Well, no. I don't use uniqueness of inverse. All I need is for an inverse to exist. Uniqueness actually follows without commutativity anyhow. Also, the thing with -1 follows from 0v=0, which is elementary.)

22 April 2015

21 April 2015