Is it a good idea to define this concept (in a trivial manner, for now; not using exterior algebra and the like) for a linear transformation as well? It saves trouble in referring (one would need to invoke that $\det$ is invariant under change of basis of course). --Lord_Farin 08:05, 12 May 2012 (EDT)
- I would say yes. --prime mover 08:43, 12 May 2012 (EDT)
- Hmm, I just noticed some trouble appearing, in that one needs an inner product or so to define 'orthonormal basis' (or the determinant would be ill-defined). Of course, one can always pick an inner product on a finite dimensional vector space, but this is still allows for rescaling. So it will need to be defined with reference to a fixed inner product. --Lord_Farin 08:55, 12 May 2012 (EDT)
On the setting up of a disambiguation page
It's a suboptimal approach to create a disambiguation page before changing all the links. There are now a large number of outstanding pages with links to "determinant" which now all go to that disambiguation page. This is crappy.
If you feel strongly enough about the need to disambiguate a definition, then you'll feel strongly enough about it to do the hard work to change the links first. Just putting a fancy template on the page boasting gleefully that the disambiguation page has many incoming links is inadequate, especially when there hasn't even been a category defined for it yet. --prime mover (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2018 (EST)