Talk:Split-quaternion

message: I think split-quaternion would be a better name for this page; mostly for naming consistency with split-complex number. We could then do split-octonion as well. As you've pointed out all these structures have numerous names; we should, however, strive for some consistency. -- Fropuff 16:52, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
I believe the hyphen goes against standard mathematical practice.  It should be "split quaternion", "split octonion", "split complex number", etc.   See mathematics papers like this:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24898658
or this:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.0688
or many more.   John Baez (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: (19 June 2006)
I see that there is a potential ambiguity about the term "Hyperbolic quaternion". The reference I've added to the split-quaternion site refers to hyperbolic quaternions from the hypernumbers program only, and not to the hyperbolic quaternions as they were defined in the 19th century. I hope that my wording is clear and the reference is therefore not ambiguous. In addition, I've explicitely added hyperbolic quaternions to the referenced hypernumbers page (as an example), and am also referencing split-quaternions / coquaternions from there.
While I am open to any wording or placement adjustment, I see this as a correct and valid statement, and see the reference therefore as applicable, useful, and reasonable. I would be glad to discuss any concern. Hypernumbers in general are actively discussed in the "hypernumbers" Yahoo(R) group. Thanks, Jens.
:I've done some layout clean-up, as a step in the right direction, hopefully. Comments are invited. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger 02:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hyperbolic Quaternion" ambiguity 

message: The title of this article should be coquaternion because:
* The split prefix signifies reducibility of the algebra to a direct sum of smaller algebras, and this algebra is not so reducible.
* The discoverer named the algebra "coquaternions", and the only reference for "split-quaternion", Rosenfeld (1988), does not justify that name. Though Rosenfeld poses as a historian, the History does not mention the 1849 discovery.
Respectfully,Rgdboer (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: i^2 = -1,\  e^2 = 1,\ i e = e i = f.
However, the next sentence says "This algebra is isomorphic to the algebra R2 of real matrices of the second order." Without this sentence he would appear to contradict himself since the equations are appropriate for tessarines. Neither of these Rosenfeld sources have a methodical development of algebra; rather they both string along a text of historical references. Thus they are not helpful for a reader studying structure. The call for consistency in terminology should outweigh the flawed Rosenfeld sources.Rgdboer (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: editingRgdboer (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reconsider name 

message: I have completely rewritten the section "Profile" which was not understandable, even for a professional mathematician. I have extracted from this mess the results that are of encyclopedic value, but I have presented them in a completely different way (WP:TNT). I have no source for my presentation, but the results are natural enough for having certainly been published before. So, I have tagged it as .
I have removed the parts that seem WP:OR and those that are out-of-scope here. If needed, be free to add content that is relevant to this article, but, if you do that, it should be clear for everybody that the added content is relevant here and is of encyclopedic nature. This means that the removed text must not be added again. D.Lazard (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete rewrite of section "Profile"