/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9894715
>I must have misinterpreted
Misunderstood*, because you've obviously never read a single abstract algebra book in your entire pathetic life LMAO.
>OP said nothing about positive numbers
Neither did I in >>9894588 nor >>9894607.
>he just said NUMBERS
He said "multiplying" numbers, which implies that he's using the group structure from R*, like literally by fucking definition.
>you're just arbitrarily constricting the OP
You're the one who brought up positive numbers (i.e. R_+), or do you not understand what R* means? (this is a rhetorical question btw, don't answer this)
>reciprocal isn't MORE SPECIFIC AND CLEAR
It literally isn't. Even if we're clear that we're talking about the multiplicative inverse, "reciprocal' implies that the group is Abelian, which is NOT the case in the quarternion NUMBERS.
>I bet you're a pure maths major.
I'm doing a PhD actually.

>>7338904
>anything on /sci/
>entire thread is shitposting
Every time.