Re: non-vectors

["RAUBER, JOEL" <JOEL_RAUBER@SDSTATE.EDU>]

> Note that I was not asked to "define" a vector, nor
> did I attempt to do so.  I mentioned some examples, and
> I mentioned the transformation properties because I
> was answering a question about the transformation
> properties.

Understood and noted, I just thought it was useful to clarify that for
others.  As I have heard people to claim to define them by transformation
properties and I thought you might be easily misinterpreted.


> If I were going to define a vector, I would say something
> about a normed Euclidean space.  The transformation
> properties are not the axioms of the space, but are fairly
> direct consequences of the axioms.