 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Merge
editSee also Talk:Coordinate vector Melchoir 05:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
you dont agree you just dont wanna have ur article erased
merge or delete straight out. there is no vector that does not have coordinates. in my view 'vector' and 'coordinate vector' are synonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmbolle (talk • contribs) 19:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's not true that "there is no vector that does not have coordinates". A Euclidean vector does not, but it can be represented in coordinates as a coordinate vector. Duoduoduo (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The merging discussion seems to have been dead for five years, I don't know wether there's a guideline for this but maybe remove the notification from the page? Mverleg (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Expert
editAn expert is needed here. First, merge to Coordinate vector or not? If so, we need an expert to actually do it. Second, an editor at Talk:Coordinate vector believes both pages are confusing and non-standard. We need a math whiz to help with that. Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Wrong
editI do not know what to do with coordinate vector, but the article about a space is entirely wrong. A coordinate space has not necessarily to be Fn. It has not necessarily to be a Cartesian power of something. It has not necessarily any algebraic structure, a linear space over something or else. Different coordinates may have different nature. A separate coordinate can have whatever structure or to be just a finite set without any structure. A coordinate space can perfectly consist of one real, one complex, one 2-adic, and one discrete coordinate.
A related discussion about real coordinate space is there: talk: Euclidean space #Making two good articles instead of one poor. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- I was about to make the same observation and happened upon this comment, with which I agree strongly: this article makes the mistake of endowing a class of objects with structure that belongs to only one of its subclasses. This is no better than saying: "a group is a prototypical example of ring". As the most glaring (but not the only) point is that vector space structure is by no means implied. —Quondum 15:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- I rewrote the article along the lines suggested by Incnis above. I have not been successful in sourcing a clear definition, but its usage in different disciplines, e.g. general relativity, linear algebra and elementary geometry, seems to be consistent with the definition that I've given, but sometimes with additional structure of interest to the specific area. At least now the definition in the article is consistent with the name. —Quondum 03:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- I totally disagree. Maybe F^n of n-tuples over a field F is only a special case of a coordinate space. But nevertheless it is the most common. (In fact, usually the field in question is the field of real numbers or the field of complex numbers.) The new version of the article contains virtually no information at all. And in fact, I think, it is wrong. A coordinate space is not a set together with coordinate mappings. Rather a coordinate space is the target space of a coordinate mapping. Therefore I am going to revert the article to the former version. --Digamma (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)