# Talk:Vector (mathematics and physics)

Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disambiguation
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
WikiProject Physics (Rated Disambig-class)
This page 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.
Disambig  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

## Possible Error in Definition

The article currently states, "If n is an integer and K is either the field of the real numbers or the field of the complex number, then K^n is naturally endowed with a structure of vector space, where K^n is the set of the ordered sequences of n elements of K." The case where n = -1 (or any other negative number) doesn't seem to make sense, as you can't select a negative number of elements from K to order and construct K^n. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.195.106 (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. D.Lazard (talk) 07:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

## Ambiguous Disambiguation Page

This disambiguation page is confusing. The primary analogate of all these uses of "vector" is the mathematical "Euclidean vector." I'm a physicist who's never heard "vectors" called by a name that makes it sound like they don't exist in non-Euclidean geometries. Whatever the provenance of that name, it will be intuitively obvious to few people what that means, so people will putz around the page looking for the page on "vector" before clicking on a guess. I'm not sure what the solution is, but the current situation (with, e.g., so many links duplicated in the appropriate places in the "Euclidean vector" article) is just silly. JKeck (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

One of these people looking for the definition of vector as used in statistical programs like R. I was also only familiar with vector as used in physics (i.e. atribute with both value and direction) and could not figure out how to relate this to the vector data type in R. Not sure this page helped me at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.3.173.252 (talk) 11:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. This is why I have added the preamble recently. In my opinion, the remaining of the article has to be completely rewritten. About vectors as atributes with both value and direction, this is the intuitive definition of vector bundle. Your remark suggest to add to the preamble something like a vector may be a pair of a point in some space and a direction associated to the point, lying in a vector space which may or not depend on the point. This meaning has been formalized in the notions of vector bundle and vector field. D.Lazard (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

## Definition of the gradient vector

For the definition of the gradient vector, I would prefer Gradient vector, the vector which has, as coordinates, the partial derivatives of a multivariate function. It is equivalent with the present definition (Gradient vector, the vector giving the magnitude and direction of maximum increase of a scalar field), but does not need to know what is a scalar field, and it precise what is the "magnitude". Maybe both definitions should be given as Gradient vector, the vector which has, as coordinates, the partial derivatives of a multivariate function, of, equivalently, the vector giving the magnitude and direction of maximum increase of a scalar field. D.Lazard (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

## A CONCEPTDAB article is needed

The WT: WikiProject Mathematics ‎#“Vector” redirects discussion convinced me that there should be no disambiguation (set index) page here. There should be a WP:CONCEPTDAB article to which numerous redirects like component (vector) and vector sum could point. Instead of Vector (mathematics and physics), it also can be titled as outline of vectors. The current index content IMHO has to me moved to something like list of vector topics or list of vector quantities. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

## Does Editorial Stupidity Never End?

Some anonymus editor has interjected "It has been suggested that some portions of this article be split into a new article titled list of vector quantities. Please discuss this on the article's talk page. (April 2013)"

"It has been suggested" certainly fits one's normal idea of weasel words, but I'm afraid I don't know how to interject one of those fun boxes on the sorry spot. Who suggested it? Where is there anyone silly enough to make that specific stupid suggestion?

The actual suggestion is inane: where in this universe would there be enough space for such a list? It might be thought useful to put an example in some of the classes of vectors, I suppose; I'm not one of the people who think so.

Could someone remove the stupid box, and then this, my comment on it, please?

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Please maintain a civil tone. Calling other editors names is not acceptable.
The wording in the box is boilerplate. If you want to complain about the specific wording, the appropriate forum would be the talk page for the template.
You can always find out who added any item to a page on Wikipedia. Just click the "View History" tab at the top of the page. A quick skim down the list (since the text tells you the box was added in April) shows that it was added by Incnis Mrsi on April 24.
If you had clicked on the link that says "Discuss this", you would have been taken to the section above, where Incnis explains why he thought splitting this page would be a good idea.--Srleffler (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
This is already essentially a list, specifically a set index article. I'm removing the tag. 8ty3hree (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)