Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The definition (calling those unit vectors which are members of the standard basis “standard unit vectors”) sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

You haven’t given any good reason why you think it’s “completely bogus” or “plain wrong”.



What is your personal definition of the term "unit vector?" Do you suppose there's a reason why no other textbook or Web site defines it the way these authors do?

Are there only N unit N-vectors, as the book says, or are there an infinite number of them?


My definition of unit vectors is the same as yours. However, the book does not say there are only N unit N-vectors. It says there are only N STANDARD unit N-vectors.

In math, “Adjective X” usually means something more specific than “X”. “Prime numbers” are a subset of “numbers”, and so on. Just like in this case, “standard unit vectors” are a subset of “unit vectors”.


So why don't they tell readers what unit vectors actually are, in the general case? It's a rather important elementary concept, isn't it?

Why bother describing a specific case using ambiguous language (the parentheses) and omit the one property that actually makes a unit vector a unit vector?

Bad writing in a math textbook is a weird thing to defend.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: