Re: vector notation

[Roger Haar <haar@PHYSICS.ARIZONA.EDU>]

Hi,

        Certainly my preference for teaching, is the
arrow.  My reasons include:

1. On the board or overhead I cannot do boldface.
2. Students when working problems cannot do
boldface. So teach them in the manner in which
they will be working.
3. When reading boldface impies to the student
emphasis not a vector. But using something that is
new and unique may at least hint different.


        The rules for typesetting are quite old and
predate much of the modern wordprocessing.  Also
they might have to increase the line spacing a bit
to fit in the arrows.

        Of course, Knight is letting the application be
his guide in what he does.  We are not training
students in introductory classes to produce
publications.

Thanks
Roger Haar



Larry Smith wrote:
> Randy Knight's new textbook says on page 9, "Some textbooks represent
> vectors with boldface type....  This book will consistently display the
> vector arrow over vector symbols, just as you should do in handwritten
> work."
>
> The NIST special publication 811 on page 34 says "symbols for vectors are
> boldface italic."  http://physics.nist.gov/Document/typefaces.pdf
>
> I always thought the vector arrow over the letter (or the squiggly under
> it) was employed in handwritten work precisely because it is hard to do
> boldface by hand.  The CRC says "vectors should be printed in bold type, by
> preference bold italic (sloping) type... when this is not available,
> vectors may be indicated by an arrow...on top of the symbol."
>
> Is Knight letting the tail wag the dog?
>
> How authoritative should the NIST/ISO/IPU publications be considered?
>
> Do you have a clear preference on vector notation (arrow above vs boldface
> italic) in your printed material, or don't you care?
>
> Does anyone still use the squiggly under the symbol?
>
> Cheers,
> Larry