Talk:3D rotation group

message: In "properties" it is said that the standard inner product can be written purely in terms of lengths;
this is (the so-called polar identity (?)) valid for any inner product space (in fact, for any symmetric bilinear form, I think).
Btw, I didn't find much on this on any of the pages I searched, just some quite well hidden remarks on quadratic form. If s.o. has an idea, it would be nice to have this added somewhere (eg in bilinear form). — MFH: Talk 21:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase it?  What is it that you want more information on? In a standard real vector space, the "purely in terms of lengths" is just some simple vector space math, trigonometry, nothing deeper than that? linas 22:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, all of those statements appear to be correct; I detect no question.  Traditional, narrow formal usage has the rotation group being SO(n) only, although you will occasionally find the broader usage you refer to, e.g. SO(3,1) might be called the "group of hyperbolic rotations".  I've seen other non-SO(N) things called roatations as well, although the usage is informal and speaker-listener-context-dependent.  linas 00:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotations and inner product spaces 

message: The sentence "This follows from the fact that every R ∈ SO(3), since every rotation leaves an axis fixed (Euler's rotation theorem), and is conjugate to a block diagonal matrix of the form..." doesn't make sense, because it doesn't say what property every R has.  If they meant that every R is in S0(3), then they need to define R.  I not sure of the original intent and thus how to fix it.  Maybe:  "... every since every rotation R ∈ SO(3) leaves an axis fixed ...
Chris2crawford (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Surjective property. R is a generic rotation matrix throughout the article.Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Exponential Map section

message: I realize that this subject has been studied and documented for years, and TL;DR What OTHER groups are there SU(2) and SO(3) are the only ones with a connection?  Otherwise, this is a little what I know...
So there's the beginning of a mention of an axis of rotation.... 3D_rotation_group#Axis_of_rotation
this might be just another 'orthogonal' group, since I'm proposing that using this rotation method, that all axii minus 1 are rotated around the axis of rotation; and that rotation is not itself properly reflected as 2D compositions... although the mechanics of conversion to various scalars remains the same.  It does have to know what is orthogonal to the axii.  A consequence of this is that a rotation in (W,X,Y,Z) around (W) would affect (X,Y,Z) moving them toward 0.  (I read lots of books on hypergeometries growing up)
Rotations in 3D can be done by picking an axis (a line) and rotating the space around that line; that there is a computed tangent and bi-tangent on a perpendicular plane is incidental... and simply the composite of A+B+C as in Lie_product_formula of the rotations around X Y and Z axii.  The length of this vector is the angle of rotation, and the scalar to normalize the vector to a direction normal, and have a proper unit vector for the axis of rotation and angle.  This can be simply encoded in the D*(A,B,C) or (AD,BD,CD).  Every point becomes a valid SU(2) quaternion with the cos/sin of the angle (D) and the direction vector (A/D,B/D,C/D) (sorry, inconsistent); and that in turn can map to a rotation matrix; though there is some computation saved going directly from axis-angle instead to matrix instead of through quaternion.
This is also called Euler Axis  ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrigues%27_rotation_formula ) 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_formalisms_in_three_dimensions#Rodrigues_vector
reformulation...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_formalisms_in_three_dimensions#Rodriguez_Rotation_(Rotation_Composition)
D3x0r (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Rotation Group 

message: The lead is not very accessible to the general reader and could be improved.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScientistBuilder (talk • contribs) 15:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead needs to be more accessible

message: some uncorrupted souls might get confused 192.12.184.7 (talk) 03:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  please fix the commutation relations --