Re: vector notation

[Jack Uretsky <jlu@HEP.ANL.GOV>]

Hi all-
        I have nothing against theee squiggly, BUT more importantly:
In my experience, the BF doesn't work with students.  On the whole they do
not distinguish between vectors and scalars in written work.  I think that
one reason is because they cannot write in BF, so they ignore the
difference.  I think, therefore, the the new textbook is taking a healthy
step.
                                Regards,
                                        Jack


On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, 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

--
"Trust me.  I have a lot of experience at this."
                General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
                just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley