Re: [Phys-l] bound vectors ... or not

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 09/06/2010 11:27 AM, Jeffrey Schnick wrote:
> Last I checked the calculus book used at my college is Calculus by James
> Stewart, 6th Ed. Thomson, Brooks/Cole.  I see it listed at several web
> sites as a best seller.  In the following quotes,....

Thanks for the useful quote and citation.

==============

Here is another quote, 
      Jean Alexandre Dieudonné,  _Infinitesimal calculus_ (1971)

> > Modern linear algebra is not concerned with the ridiculous notions
> > of "free vector", "bound vector", "polar vector" etc., accumulated
> > by generations of pedants; there is now only one notion of vector
> > (or point of a vector space).

IMHO what he says about linear algebra is true, but the 
rest is over-the-top.  The "bound vector" idea persists
because it is not "ridiculous".  I increasingly suspect it
is a bad idea, but that's not the same as "ridiculous".

As always, ridiculous ideas are not dangerous.  The trouble
comes from ideas that are plausible but fallacious, and from
ideas that are sometimes useful but sometimes treacherous.