|
| > I think the word "projection" is, in general, used for both
| what you
| > call a component and what you call a projection.
|
| Actually it seems to me the word "component" is more
| overloaded than the word "projection".
I agree with both observations above. Hence, the discomfort I'm seeing
expressed regarding terminology.
|
| > Thomas Moore in his book /Six Ideas That Shaped Physics/ uses the
| > terminology "vector component" for the value-with-units and
| "component
| > vector" for what you call a projection.
|
| That's an interesting suggestion, but too ugly and confusing.
| I don't
| think I could keep that straight. I especially don't think
| students could keep that straight.
|
| > Perhaps the use of the following terms would help avoid confusion:
| > vector component value
| > component vector
| >
This is close to how I have resolved the matter nomenclature-wise (pun
intended). I.e. similar to Moore.
Component vector => self-describing I think
Component => inner product of vector with desired unit vector
I now think that the second term is probably too confusing in the sense
John D. mentions above; in this case too ambiguous.
How about:
Component vector => again I like this since it is self-describing
Component value => probably removes some ambiguity and is one word less
than vector component value
I'm still looking for the holy grail of terminology here . . .