Talk:Hyperbolic orthogonality

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Physics: Relativity Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the relativity task force.

Tale of two hyperbolas[edit]

The initial statement of this concept presumes the analytic hyperbola

\ x^{2}-y^{2}=1

to set the context.

A more general approach in terms of conjugate hyperbola and conjugate diameters is stated later. When this approach is invoked for the algebraic hyperbola $\ xy=1$ then hyperbolic-orthogonality corresponds to additive inverse slopes. The article requires editing to give the correct slope interpretation regardless of initial hyperbola taken, the analytic or the algebraic.Rgdboer (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reflection in asymptote of given hyperbola now taken as primary. See the new Felsager link for visuals and related concepts. Graphic contributions could enhance this article.Rgdboer (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archaic?[edit]

The term "hyperbolic orthogonality" appears to have been subsumed in the more general term "orthogonality", and I suspect that it is only used in limited (mainly historical) contexts. For example, one does not single out the timelike element of an orthogonal basis of a Lorentzian vector space as being "hyperbolic orthogonal" to the others. The most recent two references do not use the term, and the remainder are all are over a century old. It would be useful if this article made the standing and usage of the term "hyperbolic orthogonality" clear, or perhaps this article should be merged into a "History" section of Orthogonality. —Quondum 17:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is relativity archaic? Is Simultaneity a relative concept? No and Yes. Minkowski used the term normal, and his lead has not been followed. Orthogonal has been adopted by authors, and the modifier Hyperbolic makes the distinction:

Suppose (x,y) and (u,v) are in ℝ² and we presume hyperbola (B). Then

(x,y)\perp (u,v)\equiv xu-yv=0\equiv Re((x+iy)(u+iv))=0,

and

(x,y)\ h.o.(u,v)\equiv xu+yv=0\equiv Re((x+jy)(u+jv))=0,

where the arithmetics of complex numbers and split-complex numbers are used.

While Orthogonality has no History section, there is a link to bring readers here when they deem that important. Relativity is only possible by using some concepts of hyperbolic geometry such as hyperbolic angle (rapidity) and the mathematics of this article that provides the basis of modern simultaneity. Note the redirect Hyperbolic number in this regard. Rgdboer (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I in no way implied that relativity is archaic; I only suggested that the terminology has changed. For example, one refers to an "orthogonal basis" of a Lorentzian vector space, not to "a basis in which the space-like elements are mutually orthogonal and the time-like element is hyperbolic-orthogonal to the space-like elements". The examples given above do not generalize naturally to an arbitrary number of dimensions other than through quadratic or bilinear forms, which deal with all cases without distinguishing them. I will simply leave my comments here for others more familiar with modern usage to consider. —Quondum 23:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]