Definition talk:Bilinear Mapping

Confused about this... presumably the $G_i$'s should be $A_i$'s, but I can't figure what $A$ in the third `segment' represents. --Linus44 09:01, 19 March 2011 (CDT)
 * Think that's right --Linus44 09:13, 19 March 2011 (CDT)


 * Yowchy, that was a bit of a mess, wasn't it? I must have written it with my eyes closed or something. Nice one.


 * I posted it up so as to be able to make a start documenting Clifford algebras, but I got bogged down before I got going. --prime mover 09:39, 19 March 2011 (CDT)


 * What has to be done in the refactoring? Treat it as multiple definitions? --barto (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2017 (EDT)


 * "New contributors: Refactoring is a task which is expected to be undertaken by experienced editors only. Because of the underlying complexity of the work needed, it is recommended that you do not embark on a refactoring task until you have become familiar with the structural nature of pages of Pr∞fWiki."


 * We can't leave everything beyond writing text to you. That's too much work. If you see any problem with the way I do refactoring, I'm happy to hear it. --barto (talk) 04:52, 3 May 2017 (EDT)


 * There are complexities. Several contributors have taken it upon themselves to restructure several areas of the site, compromising a considerable amount of complex structure. Some of those have disagreed with our house rules and styles, and have deliberately attempted to change our structures to suit how they think they should be.


 * A willingness to adhere to the house style is one of the prerequisites for being "allowed" to do refactoring (I say "allowed" here with an ironic twist to my fingers, as we can't really control this without blocking a user from editing completely -- a user is technically free to do as they want). There are aspects of our style and philosophy (admittedly minor) which you appear to be uncomfortable with, and have not taken on board.


 * In this case, there are two major tasks to be done: 1) Split the page up into multiple definitions, and to add an equivalence proof. 2) Extract the "simplified notation" section into a separate transcluded page again, and its context explained appropriately. 3) Extract the separate section for the "non-commutative rings" and extract that once more into a separate transcluded page. That's a fair amount of work which needs careful thought and attention to detail which is probably best left to someone who has a sold grasp on the existing structure and way of doing things.


 * Consider this to be more of a "polite request" than anything more fascistic. I appreciate that I have an over-inflated idea of my own importance on this site, just because I've been around for a year or so, and edited one or two of the pages here, but there are things which I think should go "one way" rather than "another way" for no other reason than because I think the site would be "better". --prime mover (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2017 (EDT)