84:
74:
53:
22:
173:
Some nitpicks: Trace diagrams are said to be directed graphs, but several examples shown are undirected. And the example for tr(A) isn't even a graph, since it appears to have no nodes at all, just an edge. It may be a perfectly good trace diagram even so – I have no idea. Also, the other two
225:
Yes, I clarified this to state it explicitly under the "drawing conventions" section. I also clarified the remark for 3-diagrams. This is not meant to be an exhaustive explanation, so I'd recommend checking out one of the references if you'd like to know more.
197:
Are the orange dots on the matrix diagrams the ciliation marks? If so, should the Gibbs-vector diagrams have them on the Levi-Civita dots? Without them they have a sign-ambiguity if I have understood correctly.
240:
Thanks for the drawing conventions clarification. I was being dense regarding the 3D Levi-Civita dots; of course rotating the vectors does not change the sign in an odd-number of dimensions. --
140:
170:
how you compute using them, nor does it explain the notion of equivalence that tells you how it is used in proofs of multilinear identities. But maybe I am asking too much?
271:
130:
266:
106:
162:
I hadn't heard of trace diagrams before, and was severely disappointed when I came here to learn about them. The article gives me an
97:
58:
33:
231:
21:
39:
83:
227:
241:
211:
208:(Ciliations of degree-3 vertices are omitted here because they do not change a diagram's function.)
199:
105:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
245:
215:
203:
89:
73:
52:
183:
166:
of what trace diagrams are and how they are used in computation, but they don't properly
260:
178:
attached to them with no explanation. Ditto for the nodes marked with red asterisks.
179:
102:
79:
249:
235:
219:
187:
206:) 15:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC). I've just re-read it. It says
15:
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
8:
174:examples in the same figure have the letter
19:
47:
49:
7:
95:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
14:
272:Low-priority mathematics articles
115:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics
267:Start-Class mathematics articles
118:Template:WikiProject Mathematics
82:
72:
51:
20:
135:This article has been rated as
210:, which I don't understand. --
1:
220:15:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
188:22:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
109:and see a list of open tasks.
288:
250:13:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
236:12:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
134:
67:
46:
141:project's priority scale
98:WikiProject Mathematics
28:This article is rated
121:mathematics articles
90:Mathematics portal
34:content assessment
155:
154:
151:
150:
147:
146:
279:
123:
122:
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
287:
286:
282:
281:
280:
278:
277:
276:
257:
256:
228:Triathematician
195:
193:Ciliation marks
160:
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
88:
81:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
285:
283:
275:
274:
269:
259:
258:
255:
254:
253:
252:
194:
191:
159:
156:
153:
152:
149:
148:
145:
144:
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
284:
273:
270:
268:
265:
264:
262:
251:
247:
243:
239:
238:
237:
233:
229:
224:
223:
222:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
192:
190:
189:
185:
181:
177:
171:
169:
165:
157:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
85:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
207:
196:
175:
172:
167:
163:
161:
137:Low-priority
136:
96:
62:Low‑priority
40:WikiProjects
158:Needs work?
112:Mathematics
103:mathematics
59:Mathematics
30:Start-class
261:Categories
164:impression
242:catslash
212:catslash
200:catslash
139:on the
180:Hanche
168:define
36:scale.
246:talk
232:talk
216:talk
204:talk
184:talk
131:Low
263::
248:)
234:)
218:)
198:--
186:)
244:(
230:(
214:(
202:(
182:(
176:C
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
