Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: vector components and
notation</title></head><body>
<div>At 6:14 PM -0400 9/16/02, Bob LaMontagne wrote:</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>One of the reasons that I have used
Serway (Physics for Scientists and Engineers) is because I feel he is
one of the few authors who really presents the concept of components
correctly and also very clearly explains the concept to the student.
...</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>I have problems with Serway's approach because the notation is
inherently inconsistent. He defines<i> A</i> as the magnitude
of<b> A</b>. He then defines the *vectors*<b> A</b>_x and<b>
A</b>_y. Logically, therefore,<i> A</i>_x and<i> A</i>_y would
be the *magnitudes* of the vectors<b> A</b>_x and<b> A</b>_y.
But in the next breath they are defined instead as the ordinary signed
scalar components of the vector<b> A</b>.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>While I like the idea of being able to talk about *vector*
components as well as *scalar* components, I think it almost
inevitably leads either to notational awkwardness or inconsistency,
both of which are potentially confusing to students.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>John</div>
<x-sigsep><pre>--
</pre></x-sigsep>
<div> A. John
Mallinckrodt
http://www.csupomona.edu/~ajm<br>
Professor of Physics
mailto:ajm@csupomona.edu<br>
Physics
Department
voice:909-869-4054<br>
Cal Poly
Pomona <span
</span> fax:909-869-5090<br> Pomona, CA 91768-4031
office:Building 8, Room 223</div>
</body>
</html>