HAVING a vivid recollection of the pleasure I derived born Prof. Gibbs's attacks upon the quaternionic system in the rather one-sided discussion that took place about two years ago in this journal, I have delayed replying to the letters of Profs. MacAulay and Tait, from an expectation that Prof. Gibbs would have something to say. In this I have not been mistaken; and, as there is a general agreement between us on the whole, I have merely to add some supplementary remarks. Prof. MacAulay refers to me as having raised the question again. I can assure him it has never been dropped. Apart from the one-sided discussion, it has been a live question with Prof. Gibbs and myself since about 1882, and is now more alive than ever. I cannot help thinking that Prof. MacAulay's letter was overhastily written, and feel sure that if he knew as much about the views and methods of those to whom he appeals as he does about Quaternions, he would have written it somewhat differently, or perhaps not have written it at all, from a conviction of the uselessness of his appeal. There is no question of suicide with us on the contrary, quite the reverse. I am asked whether the “spoonfeeding,” as he terms it, of Maxwell, Fitzgerald, &c., is not good enough for me. Why, of course not. It is quaternionic, and that is the real point concerned. Again, he thinks nothing of the inscrutable negativity of the square of a vector in Quaternions; here, again, is the root of the evil. As regards a uniformity of notation amongst antiquaternionists, I dare say that will come in time, but the proposal is premature. We have fist to get people to study the matter and think about it. I have developed my system, such as it is, quite independently of Prof. Gibbs. Nevertheless, I would willingly adopt his notation (as I have adopted his dyadical notion of the linear operator) if I found it better. But I do not. I have been particularly careful in my notation to harmonise as closely as possible with ordinary mathematical ideas, processes, and notation; I do not think Gibbs has succeeded so well. But that matters little now; the really important thing is to depose the quaternion from the masterful position it has so long usurped, whereby the diffusion of vector analysis has been so lamentably impeded. I have been, until lately, very tender and merciful towards quaternionic fads, thinking it possible that Prof. Tait might modify his obstructive attitude. But there is seemingly no chance of that. Whether this be so or not, I think it is practically certain that there is no chance whatever for Quaternions as a practical system of mathematics for the use of physicists. How is it possible, when it is so utterly discordant with physical notions, besides being at variance with common mathematics? A vector is not a quaternion; it never was, and never will be, and its square is not negative; the supposed proofs are perfectly rotten at the core. Vector-analysis should have a purely vectorial basis, and the quaternion will then, if wanted at all, merely come in as an occasional auxiliary, as a special kind of operator. It is to Prof. Tait's devotion to his master that we should look for the reason of the little progress made in the last 20 years in spreading vector-analysis.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $3.90 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
About this article
Cite this article
HEAVISIDE, O. Vectors Versus Quaternions. Nature 47, 533–534 (1893). https://doi.org/10.1038/047533c0