Talk:Vector space

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Vector space has been listed as one of the Mathematics good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 12, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
January 13, 2009 Peer review Reviewed
January 25, 2009 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject Mathematics
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.
Mathematics rating:
GA Class
Top Importance
 Field:  Algebra
One of the 500 most frequently viewed mathematics articles.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 GA  Quality: GA-Class
 ???  Importance: not yet rated

Two binary ops[edit]

Hey, @Slawekb:! Thanks for picking me up on my incorrect edit. From the article:

"A vector space over a field F is a set V together with two operations…"
"The requirement that vector addition and scalar multiplication be binary operations…"

I agree only the one operation is binary (vector addition obviously, since scalar multiplication takes a field element and vector and spits out a vector), but there are a good number of editors of maths articles who have studied more maths in more detail than I have (I'm a physics boy), so I am hesitant to correct things. Field multiplication and vector addition are binary ops; scalar multiplication is not. This is my understanding, but the second emboldened statement above seems to be wrong, since it says that scalar multiplication is a binary operation. Your thoughts? --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Similar titles of article-sections[edit]

  • Re this edit: It is not so much a matter of style (hence covered by the WP:FNNR rule: "Editors may use any section title that they choose.") as it is a matter of clarity. WP:FNNR says that two possible article-sections are "explanatory footnotes" that give information which is too detailed or awkward to be in the body of the article and "citation footnotes" that connect specific material in the article with specific sources. Usually, you can tell which is which by glancing the contents. In "Vector space", "explanatory footnotes" were called "Notes", while "citation footnotes" were called "Footnotes". It was not clear which is which (which section contained "explanatory footnotes" and which section contained "citation footnotes"). --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Vector redirect[edit]

I really dislike it that vector (mathematics) redirects here. Matrix (mathematics) gets its own page, and vector is similarly primitive.

When you encounter a page such as row and column vectors, which ought to be a topic of vector (mathematics), but seems ridiculous as a topic of vector space, it becomes apparent that this misguided parsimony is missing something important under the kilt. — MaxEnt 20:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

You're right, I think; am in support of the above. This really should have its own articles, directed at a basic, nontechnical/nonspecilaist audience. Ema--or (talk) 03:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC) PS So, I redirected the redirect. (It) Now goes to vector (mathematics and physics). Ema--or (talk) 03:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)