Talk:Vector space: Difference between revisions
imported>Barry R. Smith No edit summary |
imported>Barry R. Smith m (→Scalars) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
== Scalars == | == Scalars == | ||
I don't think the word "field" should appear on the main vector space page, but rather on an advanced version of the page. Many people need or want to know about vector spaces without ever needing to know about abstract fields. Questions: | I don't think the word "field" should appear on the main vector space page, but rather on an advanced version of the page. If it must be included, why not just go all the way to "division ring"? Many people need or want to know about vector spaces without ever needing to know about abstract fields. Questions: | ||
* Is there general agreement on this? | * Is there general agreement on this? | ||
Revision as of 16:30, 25 November 2008
Perhaps there needs to be a bit more introduction? Natalie Watson 14:58, 13 July 2007 (CDT)
I agree, and have attempted to add some introductory paragraphs, although I am finding it tricky to be precise but non-technical. If you have any ideas or suggestions, please add them! Michael Underwood 13:01, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
Scalars
I don't think the word "field" should appear on the main vector space page, but rather on an advanced version of the page. If it must be included, why not just go all the way to "division ring"? Many people need or want to know about vector spaces without ever needing to know about abstract fields. Questions:
- Is there general agreement on this?
- Which scalars should be discussed? Reals only, reals and complexes, or even reals, complexes and GF(2)?
I personally like defining things in terms of real scalars initially and through the bulk of the discussion, then adding a section about vector spaces over the complex numbers or over GF(2).Barry R. Smith 22:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)