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] |
From: Bob Sciamanda <trebor@VELOCITY.NET>
To: PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU
Subject: Re: speed and velocity
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 7:30 PM
Hi Brian,
I don't think we have a conceptual argument - only a language difference.
But in that vein, I would respond:
1) Since a vector is the sum of its components, those components must
also be vectors (apples and oranges).
2) I would accept calling the sign of a 1-d vector a "direction
indicator" instead of a subspace unit vector.
Bob Sciamanda
Physics, Edinboro Univ of PA (ret)
trebor@velocity.net
http://www.velocity.net/~trebor
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian McInnes <bmcinnes@PNC.COM.AU>
To: PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU <PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU>
Date: Thursday, November 26, 1998 1:54 AM
Subject: Re: speed and velocity
Bob Sciamanda sent three interesting e-mails to the list earlier today.is a
I have a problem with his definition of a one-dimensional vector as a
component of a three-dimensional vector, carrying a sign for direction.
As I understand it a component is obtained by a vector dot product and
scalar, not a vector. the sign is not the direction of a vector but aless
consequence of whether the angle involved in obtaining the component is
or greater than pi/2. In particular, vectors do not have signs, theyhave
directions; they are intrinsically positive.is to
What we can do (and this was the line that Tim Folkerts took as along)
associate the components with a unit vector along the specialone-dimension
line.own
I agree that "mathematical models are our own constructs, subject to our
definition and use" but
it's preferable if we have common definitions and use.
Brian McInnes