Template talk:Linear algebra

Might I suggest the addition of Rank (linear algebra) and Minor (linear algebra)? Some criterion must be found for the inclusion of links in this template, to tell which belong in the template and for which the category will suffice. -- Itai 02:12, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of this template. With two votes for delete and two votes for keep there was no consensus. Joe D (t) 19:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Template:Linear algebra

Very nice template, created at the beginning of 2004. However, since May 2004 we have the categories system which takes care of grouping related items; in particular, we have Category:Linear algebra which contains all the articles listed in this template. As such, this template is obsolete, and is just a link farm. I suggest it be deleted. Oleg Alexandrov 18:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Note: instructions above (should not be removed from pages prior to listing) were not followed. The template can be viewed within any of the articles it references via the article history. -- Rick Block 03:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Right. I removed the template from all articles before I put it here for deletion. I was not awre of the requirement. Sorry. I also hope that my arguments for removing the template are still valid. Oleg Alexandrov 05:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Keep, navigational infobox. People from Wikiproject Maths won't be very happy to see this disappear... Alphax ^τεχ 10:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

I would not be so sure. See discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Template:Calculus -- is that needed? about a related template. Oleg Alexandrov 19:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Delete, offers no meaningful distinction from a category. R adiant _* 11:10, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. It does add meaningful distinction from a catagory. It's a very organized See also section for the LinAlg pages. I've found this useful in the past while simple browsing so I recommend it be kept. -SocratesJedi | Talk 14:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Does the cross product really belong here?

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was wondering, does the cross product really belong here? I have taken an applied college linear algebra course, and it was not covered. Really, the cross product is more used in physics and vector calculus than it is in linear algebra. In a linear algebra course, you generally talk about arbitrary vector spaces. The cross product is only defined in R³ and R⁷, which makes it quite unimportant in linear algebra. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 00:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Recent edits

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Before recents edits, the template was suboptimal. An editor has done a lot of unexplained edits that mix a reorganization of the template, and the addition of new links. In the whole the resulting template was worse than before for several reasons. The structure is not clear, even for a specialist of the subject. The template appears as a undiscriminate list of topics, which is the purpose of an infobox (categories and list articles exist for such a purpose). Over all, the basic topics, that are required as a background by all listed topics do not appear all at the beginning.

Therefore, I have first restored the old stable version. Then I have reorganized the groups into "Basic concepts", "Matrices", "Bilinear", "Multilinear". I have removed only one item that is not about linear algebra, and added only one link, Bilinear map.

If you disagree with this reorganization, please discuss it here.

My revert includes the removal of several recently added links. As edits mixing reorganization and addition of new links make difficult to extract the list of the new links, I have not a clear opinion whether these links must be added and, if they belong to this navbox, where they must be added. Nevertheless, several have been added to section "Matrices", and link to specific matrices. IMO, the section "Matrices" must be restricted to the study of matrices, and links to specific matrices do not belong to this section. If there is a consensus for adding them, this must be done in a new section "Specific matrices". D.Lazard (talk) 14:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Add topic