Skip to main content
http --> https
Source Link
Carlo Beenakker
  • 188.3k
  • 18
  • 448
  • 651

In his 1939 book Weyl indeed did not use the notation SO but $O^+$, and called it the proper orthogonal group, but he did use the notation SU, or more precisely $^s$U with a tiny superscript s.

http://ilorentz.org/beenakker/MO/sU.png

The name "special unitary group" does not appear, it is always "unimodular".

The footnote on the name "symplectic group", from the same book, is amusing:

http://ilorentz.org/beenakker/MO/symplectic.png

In his 1939 book Weyl indeed did not use the notation SO but $O^+$, and called it the proper orthogonal group, but he did use the notation SU, or more precisely $^s$U with a tiny superscript s.

http://ilorentz.org/beenakker/MO/sU.png

The name "special unitary group" does not appear, it is always "unimodular".

The footnote on the name "symplectic group", from the same book, is amusing:

http://ilorentz.org/beenakker/MO/symplectic.png

In his 1939 book Weyl indeed did not use the notation SO but $O^+$, and called it the proper orthogonal group, but he did use the notation SU, or more precisely $^s$U with a tiny superscript s.

The name "special unitary group" does not appear, it is always "unimodular".

The footnote on the name "symplectic group", from the same book, is amusing:

added 12 characters in body
Source Link
Carlo Beenakker
  • 188.3k
  • 18
  • 448
  • 651

In his 1939 book Weyl indeed useddid not use the notation SO but $O^+$ instead of SO, and called it the proper orthogonal group, but he did use the notation SU, or more precisely $^s$U with a tiny superscript s.

http://ilorentz.org/beenakker/MO/sU.png

The name "special unitary group" does not appear, it is alswaysalways "unimodular".

The footnote on the name "symplectic group", from the same book, is amusing:

http://ilorentz.org/beenakker/MO/symplectic.png

In his 1939 book Weyl indeed used $O^+$ instead of SO, and called it the proper orthogonal group, but he did use the notation SU, or more precisely $^s$U with a tiny superscript s.

http://ilorentz.org/beenakker/MO/sU.png

The name "special unitary group" does not appear, it is alsways "unimodular".

The footnote on the name "symplectic group", from the same book, is amusing:

http://ilorentz.org/beenakker/MO/symplectic.png

In his 1939 book Weyl indeed did not use the notation SO but $O^+$, and called it the proper orthogonal group, but he did use the notation SU, or more precisely $^s$U with a tiny superscript s.

http://ilorentz.org/beenakker/MO/sU.png

The name "special unitary group" does not appear, it is always "unimodular".

The footnote on the name "symplectic group", from the same book, is amusing:

http://ilorentz.org/beenakker/MO/symplectic.png
added 133 characters in body
Source Link
Carlo Beenakker
  • 188.3k
  • 18
  • 448
  • 651

In his 1939 book Weyl indeed used $O^+$ forinstead of SO, and called it the proper orthogonal group, but he did use the notation SU, or more precisely $^s$U with a tiny superscript s.

http://ilorentz.org/beenakker/MO/sU.png

The name "special unitary group" does not appear, it is alsways "unimodular".

The footnote on the name "symplectic group", from the same book, is amusing:

http://ilorentz.org/beenakker/MO/symplectic.png

In his 1939 book Weyl indeed used $O^+$ for SO, and called it the proper orthogonal group, but he did use the notation SU, or more precisely $^s$U with a tiny superscript s.

http://ilorentz.org/beenakker/MO/sU.png

The name "special unitary group" does not appear, it is alsways "unimodular".

In his 1939 book Weyl indeed used $O^+$ instead of SO, and called it the proper orthogonal group, but he did use the notation SU, or more precisely $^s$U with a tiny superscript s.

http://ilorentz.org/beenakker/MO/sU.png

The name "special unitary group" does not appear, it is alsways "unimodular".

The footnote on the name "symplectic group", from the same book, is amusing:

http://ilorentz.org/beenakker/MO/symplectic.png
Source Link
Carlo Beenakker
  • 188.3k
  • 18
  • 448
  • 651
Loading