### An immortal fumble by Androcles (27-Jan-2005)

##### Idiots and Vectors
 ``` "PD" wrote in message news:1106849198.488891.314880@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Androcles wrote: >> "Timo Nieminen" wrote in message >> news:Pine.LNX.4.50.0501271444400.14575-100000@localhost... > > [snip] > >> > >> > Do you know the difference between a vector and a component of a >> > vector? >> >> There isn't a difference. Components of vectors are themselves >> vectors. >> Why do you ask? Did you imagine there was a difference? >> > > No, they're not. Components are scalars. Nonsense. The position of the component in the vector denotes a vector. (0,0,0) is a vector, even if I mean (0z,0y,0x) , and z is a vector. Writing the scalars (1,2,3) is a conventional shorthand for 1x, 2y, 3z, but the x, y and z are still there. > Components are the scalars you > multiply by the basis vectors to compose a vector. That's right. They have no meaning without the BASIS VECTORS, which are of course vectors, as you've stated. Time is NOT a basis vector, it has no inverse, so if you want to call (x,y,z,t) an event, then do so, but don't call it a vector. > The product of a > component and a basis vector is a vector, but a component is not a > vector. Bullshit. You are an idiot. (1,1,1) is not a vector, (x,y,z) is. So is (z,x,y). Just because we drop the symbols x,y and z out for brevity doesn't mean they are not there. Next you'll be telling me (x,2,3) isn't a vector because I omitted the scalar, 1. > > V = Sum(i) [vi * ei] > where V is a vector, vi are the components, and ei are the basis > vectors. > Do you want a math website reference to verify that? No, I want a math website that says a scalar is a basis vector. Idiot. Androcles. ``` Fumble Index Original post & context: 0obKd.1644\$v8.1016@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk