vectors, lines, points, null sets and navigation
JAXAshby
regarding sailing) are currently trying -- and utterly failing -- to claim
mathematical expertise as well.
Some are claiming that because vectors can be used in 3 dimensional space, they
are therefore "3 dimensional". They are wrong, for vectors have only direction
and magnitude. That's it. Period. End of definition.
Now, _they_ might argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue into
the next millenium, but let's the rest of us just remind _them_ that
lines/points/null sets also operate in 3 dimensional (as well as 4 and 5 and 6
and 10 and 317 and 19,094,764,834,25,329 dimensional) space, but that does NOT
mean that line/points/null sets are 3 (or 4 or 5 or 6 or 19 or 317 or
19,094,764,834,25,329) dimensional themselves. For sure, "3 dimensional"
vectors are not "used for navigation", for 3 dimensional vectors do not exist.
pony express
It started in a.s.a.
Why don't you do a search for "three dimensional vectors" then you can
call/E-mail everyone that uses the term and tell them that they are all wet.
You can come back when you're finished.
--
Steve & Suzanne
S/V Pony Express
Express 30
www.express-sailing.com/owners
"JAXAshby" <jaxa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011019172135...@mb-ck.aol.com...
Rich Hampel
Jax is correct.
One shouldn't confuse a scalar identity with a vector .... which does
have only direction and magnitude.
Score Jax 1, Group 0
Overall score (past questions, etc.)
Jax 1, Group 19,094,764,834,25,329
:->
David Smalley
Descriptive Geometry, Pare, Loving, Hill, Fourth edition
Page 187
"Vectors. ...these lines have definite lengths, relative positions, and
directions in space."
Page 191
"Resulatant of Concurrent Noncoplaner Vectors"
Naaaaa, these concepts would not have anything to do with the 3rd
dimension would they?
Split hairs all you want guys, but some of us who actually use
descriptive geometry to solve real-world problems occasionaly slip out
of perfection and use the term "3d vector".
And guess what? The other guys know what we are talking about!
--
DAVe
(I LOVE Descriptive Geometry)
Steven Shelikoff
>
> A couple of posters on this board (who frequently claim unusual expertise
> regarding sailing) are currently trying -- and utterly failing -- to claim
> mathematical expertise as well.
>
> Some are claiming that because vectors can be used in 3 dimensional space, they
> are therefore "3 dimensional". They are wrong, for vectors have only direction
> and magnitude. That's it. Period. End of definition.
Direction, magnitude, and duration. 3 dimensions.
Steve
Steven Shelikoff
I don't know which group you're talking about. I've never seen a "3
dimensional vector" discussion until Jax brought it up himself. If it's
Jax arguing against himself, then yes, he won the argument.
Steve
JAXAshby
>Hey brilliant, it was you that brought the vector discussion to this group.
>It started in a.s.a.
>Why don't you do a search for "three dimensional vectors" then you can
>call/E-mail everyone that uses the term and tell them that they are all wet.
>You can come back when you're finished.
hey, steviee, you can can do the same with points and/or lines and/or null sets
as well with the same google results, but that doesn't mean any of them are "3
dimensional", or 4 dimensional or 5 dimensional or 33 dimensional.
tweedledum, you are as plainly ignorant on the subject as capt moron who made
the original and stupid statement.
Geesh.
JAXAshby
>Jax is correct.
>One shouldn't confuse a scalar identity with a vector .... which does
>have only direction and magnitude.
>
>Score Jax 1, Group 0
>
>Overall score (past questions, etc.)
>
>:->
Thanks Rich.
>
>
>
>
>
>
JAXAshby
davee, *read* what *you* wrote again and again and again and again and again
and again until *you* understand what *you* wrote.
(hint: vectors have no dimensions other than magnitude and direction. The
phrase "relative positions" means relative to each other or some arbitrary
reference. Also note that "space" is n-dimensional space when n is greater
than 1.)
JAXAshby
he has no knowledge of:
>I've never seen a "3
>dimensional vector" discussion
tweedle's? ever see a discussion about 4 dimensional vectors either? Or 5?
or 6?
Up until yesterday, you didn't even remember that vectors existed and now you
are an "expert".
Why didn't you tell us of your great understanding when capt moron made his
dumb statement about "navigation"?
JAXAshby
Geesus Eightch Kriste, tweedle's! What ever are you smoking?
btw, would you might giving us the mathematical definition of "duration"? I
don't recal the term used in math.
btw-2 tweedle's, look up the term "sophistry" while you're at it (used a
biiiiiiiiiiiiig dictionary and take you time). You'll find the word describes
your behavior to a T.
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jeff Morris
"A 3-vector, used to describe direction and magnitude in 3-space, is itself
a one dimensional entity."
In a strict mathematical sense that's true, as most would probably agree.
In a more philosophical sense, however, one could argue that anything
described in three dimensions is three-dimensional. But focusing on issues
like that is best left to college sophomores. Most of us leave that behind
when we grow up.
This all started when Cap Mooron use the phrase "three dimensional vector"
when he meant 3-vector. Everyone else on the planet knew what he meant, but
you had to make a complete fool of yourself perusing a fruitless discussion.
-jeff
"JAXAshby" <jaxa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011019172135...@mb-ck.aol.com...
JAXAshby
>So Jax, Is this what you've been trying to say all along-
>"A 3-vector, used to describe direction and magnitude in 3-space, is itself
>a one dimensional entity."
no. I did not say that. I said that contrary to capt moron's (idiotic)
statement -- which he presented as fully informed -- there is not such thing as
a "3 dimensional" vector. I also thought I was saying that anyone who used the
term that way, i.e., capt moron, _plainly_ had no clew whatsoever about the
subject and was _plainly_ trying to ofuscate.
moron is, well, a moron. trust nothing he says about navigation without triple
checking it with reliable sources.
>In a strict mathematical sense that's true, as most would probably agree.
>In a more philosophical sense, however, one could argue that anything
>described in three dimensions is three-dimensional.
Oh? Really? Points can be described as operating in three dimensions (as can
lines and null sets) but does that make them "3 dimensional"? More imortantly,
just how much credance would _you_ give to anyone who told you that "3
dimensional" points are used "to navigate"?
>...But focusing on issues
>like that is best left to college sophomores. Most of us leave that behind
>when we grow up.
>This all started when Cap Mooron use the phrase "three dimensional vector"
>when he meant 3-vector.
What in the hell is a "3-vector"?
>...Everyone else on the planet knew what he meant, ...
Really? We are still waiting to hear what a "3-vector" is.
>...but
Steven Shelikoff
>
> tweedledum clearly telling he has been -- once again -- arguing about something
> he has no knowledge of:
>
> >I've never seen a "3
> >dimensional vector" discussion
>
> tweedle's? ever see a discussion about 4 dimensional vectors either? Or 5?
> or 6?
Nope. If it was in this NG, it's probably in a thread I killed early
on. If it wasn't in this NG or rec.boats, I wouldn't have seen it
anyway.
> Up until yesterday, you didn't even remember that vectors existed and now you
> are an "expert".
Why are you such a stupid idiot?
> Why didn't you tell us of your great understanding when capt moron made his
> dumb statement about "navigation"?
You are a stupid idiot who is so stupid, you don't even know when you're
wrong. You said there is no such thing as a 3 dimensional vector.
Well, you're wrong. Why can't you bring yourself to admit it. A three
dimensional vector has the dimensions of direction, magnitude, and
time. Now go in the corner and cry for a while.
Steve
Steven Shelikoff
>
> tweedledum writes:
>
> >JAXAshby wrote:
> >>
> >> A couple of posters on this board (who frequently claim unusual expertise
> >> regarding sailing) are currently trying -- and utterly failing -- to claim
> >> mathematical expertise as well.
> >>
> >> Some are claiming that because vectors can be used in 3 dimensional space,
> >they
> >> are therefore "3 dimensional". They are wrong, for vectors have only
> >direction
> >> and magnitude. That's it. Period. End of definition.
> >
> >Direction, magnitude, and duration. 3 dimensions.
>
> Geesus Eightch Kriste, tweedle's! What ever are you smoking?
>
> btw, would you might giving us the mathematical definition of "duration"? I
> don't recal the term used in math.
Time is well described in mathematical and physics texts. Look it up.
It's can be just as much a dimension of a vector as magnitude and
direction.
> btw-2 tweedle's, look up the term "sophistry" while you're at it (used a
> biiiiiiiiiiiiig dictionary and take you time). You'll find the word describes
> your behavior to a T.
Don't be such a stupid idiot, you moron. You can't admit when you're
wrong, even when it's obvious, so obvious to even yourself that you call
the proof of your ineptness sophistic. It's not sophistry to point out
that vectors can have 3 dimensions and that you were wrong when you said
they couldn't. Now go in the corner and don't come out until you can
play nicely with others.
Steve
JAXAshby
stupid, you don't even know when you're
>wrong. You said there is no such thing as a 3 dimensional vector.
>Well, you're wrong. Why can't you bring yourself to admit it. A three
>dimensional vector has the dimensions of direction, magnitude, and
>time. Now go in the corner and cry for a while.
>
>Steve
steveie, do yourself a favor (so you don't look like such cluck in the future)
and look up the definition of "vector". Then write it 100 times on the
blackboard.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Steven Shelikoff
jackie, do yourself a favor. Stop typing and you won't look like such a
moron.
Steve
JAXAshby
the facts are:
>Time is well described in mathematical and physics texts. Look it up.
>It's can be just as much a dimension of a vector as magnitude and
>direction.
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooo, you blithering idiot!
>t's not sophistry to point out
>that vectors can have 3 dimensions
That *IS* sophistry, by definition.
Steven Shelikoff
> >t's not sophistry to point out
> >that vectors can have 3 dimensions
>
> That *IS* sophistry, by definition.
In your feeble excuse for a mind, any argument pointing out the fact
that you're wrong about something is sophistic. Since you're wrong
about almost everything you've ever said, that means everyone in the
world except you is a sophist. You are such an anal moron.
Steve
Jeff Morris
> jeff, you are absolutely wrong.
Grownup people try to find a common language to communicate - you're arguing
over a point that no one cares about. I have no trouble understanding what
someone means when they say "three dimensional vector" - its a vector in a
three dimensional space. I would even understand three dimensional point,
though I admit would I would wince a bit. I would simply assume that the
speaker learned from a different book, or a different field, or just forgot
the precise term.
A 3-vector is simply a vector with three elements, used to describe
direction and magnitude in 3-space. 3-space is simply a shorthand for three
dimension space. Any more questions?
-jeff
Steven Shelikoff
>
> "JAXAshby" <jaxa...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20011020112126...@mb-de.aol.com...
> > jeff, you are absolutely wrong.
> Yes Jax, you're always right and I'm always wrong.
>
> Grownup people try to find a common language to communicate - you're arguing
> over a point that no one cares about. I have no trouble understanding what
That's because jackie is an anal retentive moron who doesn't like it
when the same precise language he uses to attack others is used against
him. He calls it sophistic when used against him. I think he actually
enjoys the feeling he gets when he thinks the entire world believes him
to be a fool.
Steve
JAXAshby
in a blue jacket with epaulets and braid on his sleeve tell you that and _you_
know the USPS would never ever lie to *you*?
tweedle's you're trying real hard to push scootss off the map as the stupidest
poster ever.
JAXAshby
>news:20011020112126...@mb-de.aol.com...
>> jeff, you are absolutely wrong.
>Yes Jax, you're always right and I'm always wrong.
>
>Grownup people try to find a common language to communicate - you're arguing
>over a point that no one cares about.
Jeff, jeff, jeff. If _you_ wish to accept the wisdom of capt moron as gospel
when he tells that in his unusually well informed opinion "3 dimensional"
vectors are used for "navigation", you certainly are free to do so. You are
not, however, free to claim that capt moron is correct, for doing that does
harm (potential and real) to at least some who might read it.
>... I have no trouble understanding what
>someone means when they say "three dimensional vector" - its a vector in a
>three dimensional space. I would even understand three dimensional point,
>though I admit would I would wince a bit.
Why the hell would you wince about the point when you wouldn't wince of the
vector. Each is equally wrong.
Now, listen to me, jeff. Vectors -- as well as points -- exist in 4
dimensional space, but does that mean that a "4 dimensional" vector exists?
How about a "4 dimensional" point?
>... I would simply assume that the
>speaker learned from a different book, or a different field, or just forgot
>the precise term.
>A 3-vector is simply a vector with three elements,
Listen now, jeff. *Vectors* don't have three elements. They have just
magnitude and direction. That's it. Period. To argue otherwise is the same
as argueing that unripe apples have hairy arms.
>...used to describe
JAXAshby
all.
>JAXAshby wrote:
>> no. I did not say that. I said that contrary to capt moron's (idiotic)
>
>> term that way, i.e., capt moron, _plainly_ had no clew whatsoever about
>
>> moron is, well, a moron. trust nothing he says about navigation without
>
>Would you take the word of an "expert" who feels it necessary to call
>anyone who disagrees with him a moron?
>
>Jax, you have no credibility.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Steven Shelikoff
>
> tweedle's, can we take a guess? Did you perhaps hear some old fart dressed up
> in a blue jacket with epaulets and braid on his sleeve tell you that and _you_
> know the USPS would never ever lie to *you*?
Yeah, that made a lot of sense.
> tweedle's you're trying real hard to push scootss off the map as the stupidest
> poster ever.
If I tried as hard as I possibly could, there's no way I could be
stupider than you.
See, that was me trying and still, I couldn't hold a candle to you. We
all bow to your stupidisicity.
Steve
JAXAshby
to learn something, that what he learned outways several centurues of
mathematicians and a hundred years of physicists.
Is that arrogance, or is it too little meds? Only steveie's doctor knows for
sure.
Jeff Morris
you'll see I was all over him for his claim that a GPS "knew which way was
North." I just chose to debate an issue that had some substance, not an
odd choice of terminology.
I also said several times that I thought his usage was incorrect, but that I
didn't think it was significant. You're the one who started the thread by
claiming that piloting (excuse me, pilotage) was a skill not useful in
protected waters such as the Chesapeake or L.I. Sound. That, everyone
agreed, was hogwash.
I would wince at "three dimension point" because its a blatant oxymoron, no
pun intended. But I would still understand what someone meant by it.
> Listen now, jeff. *Vectors* don't have three elements. They have just
> magnitude and direction. That's it. Period. To argue otherwise is the
same
> as argueing that unripe apples have hairy arms.
Now you're showing both your ignorance and your stupidity in arguing this
with someone whose spent the last 25 years writing navigation and graphics
software. The formal mathematical definition is surprisingly complex, but
the simple representation of a position or velocity vector in three
dimensional space (that's the one the rest of us live in) has three
elements. It is usually programmed as a 1 by 3 array, where the three
elements are the X, Y and Z coordinates. Magnitude is the square root of
the sum of the three squares. For some applications, a spherical system
might be used, where the three elements are azimuth, elevation, and distance
(or magnitude). In practice, we look for ways to reduce this to two
dimensions to save computation. For example, the Z coord is usually always
0 for surface navigation. In celestial, the distance to a star is not
generally useful. For some navigation problems we use would use azimuth and
distance (or bearing and speed, etc.). The would match your "magnitude and
direction" definition, but its a simplification, and not the general
three-dimensional representation.
Enough of this. I through arguing with a jackass.
-jeff
otnmbrd
Jeff Morris wrote:
> I also said several times that I thought his usage was incorrect, but that I
> didn't think it was significant. You're the one who started the thread by
> claiming that piloting (excuse me, pilotage) was a skill not useful in
> protected waters such as the Chesapeake or L.I. Sound. That, everyone
> agreed, was hogwash.
The gist was, Jax proved he didn't know what "piloting" was, and in a vain
attempt to cover his usual ignorance, he went off on one of his usual "Einstein"
tangents, to try to cover his latest ..... nonsense.
>
> Enough of this. I through arguing with a jackass.
> -jeff
LOL, Jeff, you were never in an argument, you were trading post with the male
version of a pregnant woman, in "transition".
otn
JAXAshby
>odd choice of terminology.
>
you can do anything you choose, of course, but that in no makes it
"insignificant" if capt moron causes harm to anyone who reads, and believes,
his words.
>I would wince at "three dimension point" because its a blatant oxymoron,
as I wince at "3 dimensional" vector.
[snip a bunch of stuff wherein jeff confuses -- badly -- a description of a how
the magnitude of a vector can be calculated with the vector -- and its
usefulness -- itself.]
jeff, doing something wrong for 25 years is no different than doing it wrong
one and then repeating it for 25 years. Stick with the computer coding and
stay away from the math, for when you say ...
>The would match your "magnitude and
>direction" definition, but its a simplification,
you're clearly outside your area of expertise for that is not a
"simplification" at all but rather IS the definition.
Jeff Morris
that's for surface navigation. And guess what? That's a two-dimensional
problem, and the vector has two elements. What if you worked in a three
dimensional space? Wouldn't you have to add another element (altitude, or
elevation, or Z depending on the coordinate system) ? Vectors are defined
in different ways for different situations. You've been insisting that your
way is the only way, and that anyone who uses any other definition is an
idiot.
And answer this, why is it that the world always divides neatly into two
groups - you, and those that think you're wrong?
-jeff
pony express
3-d vector'. Notice the subtle difference?
--
Steve & Suzanne
S/V Pony Express
Express 30
www.express-sailing.com/owners
"JAXAshby" <jaxa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011021091802...@mb-ba.aol.com...
JAXAshby
Bowditch is not the arbitrator of the definition of "vector". It's a precise
mathematical term. And yes, vectors can ge used to plot a course, but they are
still "vectors".
>But
>that's for surface navigation.
that's immaterial.
> And guess what? That's a two-dimensional
>problem, and the vector has two elements.
They are not related. Vectors have two, and only two, elements. Period.
>...What if you worked in a three
>dimensional space? Wouldn't you have to add another element (altitude, or
>elevation, or Z depending on the coordinate system) ?
You can work in 4 or 5 or 6 or 33 or 19,789,675 dimensions if you chose and
vectors still have just two elements, magnititude and direction.
>...Vectors are defined
>in different ways for different situations.
No, they are not any more than a Ford Escort is defined as an unripened apple
because it is green.
>... You've been insisting that your
>way is the only way,
"My" way? The term "vector" has been well and precisely defined by
mathematicians for centuries. Vectors can be used to plot a course and when
they are, they are still vectors. Nothing changes because you later use that
plotted course to float a boat.
>...and that anyone who uses any other definition is an
>idiot.
Would you prefer the term "ill-informed" instead? Actually, I prefer that term
to describe you until you keep insisting again and again and again and again
and again and again that *you* know more than centuries of mathematicians.
So. Was it the uniform or the money you paid?
JAXAshby
>3-d vector'. Notice the subtle difference?
>--
>
>
>Steve
steve, the term grossly misused by capt moron when he was trying to tell us of
his huge expertise in things navigational was "3 dimensional" vectors. Note
the "al" at the end of the word "dimensional" which makes the word an
adjective.
btw, for the discussion of navigation on the Earth's surface over small
distances, the surface can be consider planer.
Jeff Morris
studies with my math training), I went to my basement and pulled out a
college math text, "Elementary Linear Algebra" by Anton. Flipping a few
pages I read:
"Just as vectors in the plane can be described by pairs of real numbers,
vectors in 3-space can be described by triples of real numbers, by
introducing a rectangular coordinate system." and so on. I'm not ignoring
hundreds of years of math. You are just totally ignorant of it.
I don't know Jax, I'm searching for any faint glimmer that you are not a
complete, flaming, idiot, but I don't see it.
And what's this about uniforms and what I paid? Is this some paranoid
delusion of yours that the Power Squadron is subverting the American way by
misusing mathematical terminology?
-jeff
"JAXAshby" <jaxa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011021205754...@mb-mn.aol.com...
Rich Hampel
enhances the dummying down of the American educational process by
utilization of "actualization" methods (everybody feels good about
themselves but don't know or have absolutely NO ideas about what they
are speaking about).
Descriptive geometry is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT DISCIPLINE than vector analysis.
To describe Vector analysis by geometric methods is incongruous.... such
as stating vectors as ****LINES***** , which is totally incorrect or
ABSURD.
JAX defined the root definition of a vector: as a quantity having
magnitude and direction (NO OTHER QUANTITY INVOLVED).
I will give examples of vectors: displacement, velocity, force and
acceleration, etc.
I will give examples of scalars: mass, length, time, temperature and any
***REAL*** number.
Now go back and consult a correctly stated definition from a VECTOR
ANALYSIS book !!!!!!!! Kindly note .... a VECTOR analysis book and NOT
an elementry (feel good and incorrectly written) geometry book.
BTW - it is quite possible that the same author of your reference book
has also had something to do with ***revisionist*** history.
Descriptive geometry my ASS. SHOW ME THE FIRST **GEOMETRY** BOOK THAT
INVOLVES displacement, velocity, force or acceleration, etc.
... and guess what... there is an entire community of scientists and
engineers within the discipline of APPLIED MECHANICS who use VECTORS
everyday of their lives to make their living, and really KNOW what a
vector is.
Harrrrumpf !
David Smalley wrote:
>
> Rich Hampel wrote:
> >
> > mmmmm
> > Jax is correct.
> > One shouldn't confuse a scalar identity with a vector .... which does
> > have only direction and magnitude.
> >
> > Score Jax 1, Group 0
> >
> > Overall score (past questions, etc.)
> > Jax 1, Group 19,094,764,834,25,329
> >
> > :->
>
> Descriptive Geometry, Pare, Loving, Hill, Fourth edition
>
> Page 187
>
> "Vectors. ...these lines have definite lengths, relative positions, and
> directions in space."
>
> Page 191
>
> "Resulatant of Concurrent Noncoplaner Vectors"
>
> Naaaaa, these concepts would not have anything to do with the 3rd
> dimension would they?
>
> Split hairs all you want guys, but some of us who actually use
> descriptive geometry to solve real-world problems occasionaly slip out
> of perfection and use the term "3d vector".
>
> And guess what? The other guys know what we are talking about!
>
> --
> DAVe
> (I LOVE Descriptive Geometry)
Rich Hampel
within the last 20 years.
Time is a SCALAR identity NOT a VECTOR
your score: 66%, and no matter how many "dimensions" that you are
attemtping to validate.
(God help me, I'm defending JAX)
Steven Shelikoff wrote:
>
> JAXAshby wrote:
> >
> > A couple of posters on this board (who frequently claim unusual expertise
> > regarding sailing) are currently trying -- and utterly failing -- to claim
> > mathematical expertise as well.
> >
> > Some are claiming that because vectors can be used in 3 dimensional space, they
> > are therefore "3 dimensional". They are wrong, for vectors have only direction
> > and magnitude. That's it. Period. End of definition.
>
> Direction, magnitude, and duration. 3 dimensions.
>
> Steve
Rich Hampel
JAXAshby wrote:
>
> >mmmmm
> >Jax is correct.
> >One shouldn't confuse a scalar identity with a vector .... which does
> >have only direction and magnitude.
> >
> >Score Jax 1, Group 0
> >
> >Overall score (past questions, etc.)
> >Jax 1 x 10^2,103, Group 1.909476483425329 x 10^0
> >
> >:->
>
> Thanks Rich.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Steven Shelikoff
>
> WRONG WRONG WRONG you must have been educated in a 'feel good' US school
> within the last 20 years.
> Time is a SCALAR identity NOT a VECTOR
Yes, time is a scalar identity, not a vector. Magnitude is also a
scalar identity, not a vector. Are you saying that because magnitude is
a scalar identity and not a vector, that it cannot be one of the
dimensions of a vector? And if it can be, then so can time.
> your score: 66%, and no matter how many "dimensions" that you are
> attemtping to validate.
>
> (God help me, I'm defending JAX)
Not doing a very good job of it though.
Steve
Rich Hampel
Magnitude is a ***component/dimension*** of the VECTOR, defining that
between the origin and the terminus of the vector, .... direction is the
ONLY other component. 1+1=2
A vector is a quantity having BOTH .... MAGNITUDE and DIRECTION.....
this is the **root definition** of the entire mathematical system called
Vectors.
Magnitude is also a scalar identity, not a vector. Are you saying that
because magnitude is
> a scalar identity and not a vector, that it cannot be one of the
> dimensions of a vector? And if it can be, then so can time.
Time has NO direction, therefore can ONLY be a scalar identity.
*<:-p
Steven Shelikoff
>
> A scalar is a quantity having MAGNITUDE ..... but NO direction.
Yup.
> Magnitude is a ***component/dimension*** of the VECTOR, defining that
> between the origin and the terminus of the vector, .... direction is the
> ONLY other component. 1+1=2
So far, so good, for a 2 dimensional vector.
> A vector is a quantity having BOTH .... MAGNITUDE and DIRECTION.....
> this is the **root definition** of the entire mathematical system called
> Vectors.
Yup. But if a vector only exists for a certain period of time, you need
a third dimension to describe the VECTOR.
> Time has NO direction, therefore can ONLY be a scalar identity.
Agreed. But that doesn't mean it can't be a dimension of a vector. If
that were true, then since magnitude has NO direction, then it couldn't
be a dimension of a vector either.
Steve
Steven Shelikoff
space, i.e., it has no thickness, it exists in the 2d space of a plane.
However, just as time can be the 4th dimension of a 3d spatial object,
it can also be the 3rd dimension of a 2d spatial object.
Steve
lorendi
Rich Hampel
in mental masturbation?
Graham wrote:
>
> Rich Hampel wrote:
> > Time has NO direction, therefore can ONLY be a scalar identity.
>
> What is entropy?
Armond Perretta
"Graham" <zeb...@alphalink.com.au> wrote ...
>
> Rich Hampel wrote:
> > Time has NO direction, therefore can ONLY be a scalar identity.
>
In the days when I actually used to think about these things, we used to say
that entropy was time's arrow. Of course things _could_ have changed since
then.
--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://members.tripod.com/kerrydeare
Doug Dotson
JAXAshby wrote:
> A couple of posters on this board (who frequently claim unusual expertise
> regarding sailing) are currently trying -- and utterly failing -- to claim
> mathematical expertise as well.
>
> Some are claiming that because vectors can be used in 3 dimensional space, they
> are therefore "3 dimensional". They are wrong, for vectors have only direction
> and magnitude. That's it. Period. End of definition.
>
> Now, _they_ might argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue into
> the next millenium, but let's the rest of us just remind _them_ that
> lines/points/null sets also operate in 3 dimensional (as well as 4 and 5 and 6
> and 10 and 317 and 19,094,764,834,25,329 dimensional) space, but that does NOT
> mean that line/points/null sets are 3 (or 4 or 5 or 6 or 19 or 317 or
> 19,094,764,834,25,329) dimensional themselves. For sure, "3 dimensional"
> vectors are not "used for navigation", for 3 dimensional vectors do not exist.
Doug Dotson
I think you need to use your "Phone A Friend". You clearly have
used up your "Ask The Audience" and don't believe them. Don't
cry, there's always the 50/50 left.
doug
pony express wrote:
> Hey brilliant, it was you that brought the vector discussion to this group.
> It started in a.s.a.
> Why don't you do a search for "three dimensional vectors" then you can
> call/E-mail everyone that uses the term and tell them that they are all wet.
> You can come back when you're finished.
> --
>
> Steve & Suzanne
> S/V Pony Express
> Express 30
> www.express-sailing.com/owners
>
> "JAXAshby" <jaxa...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20011019172135...@mb-ck.aol.com...
Doug Dotson
in dimensions >1. Without a direction specified, the vector is
essentually
undefined (or at the very least, useless). Although the vector itself is
1
dimensional since it is a line.
doug
Rich Hampel wrote:
> mmmmm
> Jax is correct.
> One shouldn't confuse a scalar identity with a vector .... which does
> have only direction and magnitude.
>
> Score Jax 1, Group 0
>
> Overall score (past questions, etc.)
> Jax 1, Group 19,094,764,834,25,329
>
> :->
Doug Dotson
to 3-space".
David Smalley wrote:
> Rich Hampel wrote:
> >
> > mmmmm
> > Jax is correct.
> > One shouldn't confuse a scalar identity with a vector .... which does
> > have only direction and magnitude.
> >
> > Score Jax 1, Group 0
> >
> > Overall score (past questions, etc.)
> > Jax 1, Group 19,094,764,834,25,329
> >
> > :->
>
David Smalley
<snip silly rant>
> Now go back and consult a correctly stated definition from a VECTOR
> ANALYSIS book !!!!!!!! Kindly note .... a VECTOR analysis book and NOT
> an elementry (feel good and incorrectly written) geometry book.
I will infer from your dogmatic attitude that since Motors were not
invented for boats that they should not be referred to by a book on
boating, and if they are then they are invariably wrong in any and all
of their statements.
Sheesh!
--
DAVe
(analyze this!)
Doug Dotson
about his Roman ancestors.
Doug Dotson
course in Vector Analysis but I've used vectors quite alot. I thought
that Vector Analysis was a discipline that explored the use of
vectors to solve various problems. No necessarily the definition
of a vector. Maybe my 8th grade geometry book had a sections
on Vector Analysis. My dad would have been proud to tell his friends
his son was studying Vector Analysis in eighth grade.
doug
ps. Stop yelling so much, you might pop something.
Doug Dotson
How about the rate of passage of time.
Graham wrote:
> Rich Hampel wrote:
> > Time has NO direction, therefore can ONLY be a scalar identity.
>
> What is entropy?
Doug Dotson
JAXAshby
>studies with my math training), I went to my basement and pulled out a
>college math text, "Elementary Linear Algebra" by Anton. Flipping a few
>pages I read:
>"Just as vectors in the plane can be described by pairs of real numbers,
>vectors in 3-space can be described by triples of real numbers, by
>introducing a rectangular coordinate system." and so on. I'm not ignoring
>hundreds of years of math. You are just totally ignorant of it.
jeffie, you read but you didn't understand. Vectors have "magnitude" which
_can_ be represented (note that representation is not reality, just as the word
"apple" is not the apple itself) by the length of the line and direction which
_can_ be represented by the explicit statement that one moves _from_ one point
in space _to_ another. However, the choice for space does not define the
vector and in fact means nothing at all to the vector. People who are
conversant with nav plotting understand what a vector is. People who cookbook
nav problems might not.>
> I don't know Jax, I'm searching for any faint glimmer that you are not a
>complete, flaming, idiot, but I don't see it.
But you don't "see" what a vector is either.
>
>And what's this about uniforms and what I paid? Is this some paranoid
>delusion of yours that the Power Squadron is subverting the American way by
>misusing mathematical terminology?
I asked if people on this board came to their erroneous and obstinate belief
regarding "3 dimensional" vectors because of a USPS course they took. Nobody
denied it. As far as the compass/log navigators, many stated up front that not
only did they learn that "fact" from the USPS but that is had to be a fact
because they learned it from the USPS.
JAXAshby
JAXAshby
>
don't worry about it, Rich. These guys just don't have a clue what a vector is
and don't wish to admit it.
JAXAshby
JAXAshby
asking if there is any hope for American youth.
JAXAshby
that is true, what's the fifth? The sixth? The seventh?
btw, vectors exist in all of those dimensions, but in none of them is a vector
actually a line.
JAXAshby
>in mental masturbation?
Good one, Rich. Crackers does indeed prefer the latter.
JAXAshby
>Wrong JAX. Your just playing with semantics again.
not in the slightest.
JAXAshby
difference whatsoever how ignorant you are, a vector IS a vector.
JAXAshby
>in dimensions >1. Without a direction specified, the vector is
>essentually
>undefined (or at the very least, useless). Although the vector itself is
>1
>dimensional since it is a line.
not true at all. give it up, dougies, you're way out of your league and,
apparantly, to ignorant to even bother to check a dictionary to learn the
meaning of the word.
Did you graduate high school? If you did, didn't they require you to take a
couple of math classes? Did you skip a lot of classes after your freshman
year?
JAXAshby
>"3D Vector" is alot easier to say than "A vector defined relative
>to 3-space".
Vectors are NOT defined "relative to 3-space". They ARE defined by magnitude
and direction. Vectors can and do exist in 4 (and 5 and 6 and 7 and 33 and
1,938,784,645) dimensional space.
Jeff Morris
But you missed what it said - the entire vector may be represented by
triples, not just the magnitude. And what do you mean by "the
representation is not reality"? Does it matter to solving the problem?
In order to manipulate a vector don't we have to choose a representation?
And since there are different representations isn't it appropriate to
specify what form of representation we are using? And couldn't "3 dimension
vector" be understood by millions of scientists, engineers, and programmers
as shorthand, though perhaps not accurate, for a vector represented in three
dimensional space?
The thing is Jax, no one is saying your definition is wrong. Its just not
as important to solving real world problems as you seem to claim. And I'll
admit I'm not a mathematician - although it was my first major, I quickly
changed to naval architecture - then astrophysics - but I'm really a
programmer. To me, and millions of others, a vector is an array with
coordinates as elements that represents an entity that has direction and
length. If you got up in a meeting of engineers and started ranting that
the term vector is being misused, you'd be laughed out of the room. To
claim that this isn't true is foolish - get over it -
-jeff
"JAXAshby" <jaxa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011022154041...@mb-mg.aol.com...
JAXAshby
>But you missed what it said - the entire vector may be represented by
>triples, not just the magnitude.
Really? What vector is represented by 3.4.5 and 6.7.3? What is it's
direction? And what is the "triples" for the vector sine 20 degrees off the
bow at 20 knots?
>...And what do you mean by "the
>representation is not reality"? Does it matter to solving the problem?
Yes, indeed it does. In fact, it impacted your understanding for the problem.
>In order to manipulate a vector don't we have to choose a representation?
but that does not define the vector.
>And since there are different representations isn't it appropriate to
>specify what form of representation we are using? And couldn't "3 dimension
>vector" be understood by millions of scientists, engineers, and programmers
>as shorthand, though perhaps not accurate, for a vector represented in three
>dimensional space?
No.
>
>The thing is Jax, no one is saying your definition is wrong. Its just not
>as important to solving real world problems as you seem to claim. And I'll
>admit I'm not a mathematician - although it was my first major, I quickly
>changed to naval architecture - then astrophysics - but I'm really a
>programmer. To me, and millions of others, a vector is an array with
>coordinates as elements that represents an entity that has direction and
>length. If you got up in a meeting of engineers and started ranting that
>the term vector is being misused, you'd be laughed out of the room. To
>claim that this isn't true is foolish - get over it -
the point was -- and it seems to have been completely missed by you -- is that
a poster (capt moron) claimed exceptional marine navigational experience and
then made a statement about "3 dimensional" vectors which completely made a lie
of his expertise claim. All he claimed about anything past or future had to be
-- and has to be -- filtered through bullshit-filtering glasses. It seems you
missed that point.
David Smalley
> I asked if people on this board came to their erroneous and obstinate belief
> regarding "3 dimensional" vectors because of a USPS course they took. Nobody
> denied it.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I would love to be a fly on the wall as you make your sales
presentations. I'll bet your ass has the world's thickest calluss from
getting doors slammed on it. Hope you enjoy your Fiero.
PS, how about posting that amazing web address where you attempt to pick
up women? Based on tat pathetic attempt my guess is that your vector
hangs limp most of the time.
David Smalley
>
> >Interesting point. But no direction can be specified without working
> >in dimensions >1. Without a direction specified, the vector is
> >essentually
> >undefined (or at the very least, useless). Although the vector itself is
> >1
> >dimensional since it is a line.
>
> not true at all. give it up, dougies, you're way out of your league and,
> apparantly, to ignorant to even bother to check a dictionary to learn the
> meaning of the word.
>
> Did you graduate high school? If you did, didn't they require you to take a
> couple of math classes? Did you skip a lot of classes after your freshman
> year?
Last time you tried that tack you tried to skirt the answer.
Do you have a Bachelors? If so where?
Steven Shelikoff
>
> davee writes something so stupid it needs no further comment.
Then why did you comment, dummy?
Steve
Steven Shelikoff
> >BTW, I'm in total agreement that a vector only has 2 dimensions in
> >space, i.e., it has no thickness, it exists in the 2d space of a plane.
> >However, just as time can be the 4th dimension of a 3d spatial object,
> >it can also be the 3rd dimension of a 2d spatial object.
> >
> >Steve
>
> that is true, what's the fifth? The sixth? The seventh?
I didn't say it *is* the 4th dimension. I said it can be the 4th
dimension, which it certainly can be. And there certainly can be a
fifth, sixth and seventh dimension. Didn't you know that?
> btw, vectors exist in all of those dimensions, but in none of them is a vector
> actually a line.
That's true. A line has 1 spatial dimension. A vector has 2. A vector
cannot exist in 1 dimensional space (line space), just as a sphere
cannot exist in 2 dimensional space (planar space.) An n dimensional
spatial object must have at least n dimensional space to exist in. It
can exist in greater than n dimensional space, but not less. If a
vector were to try to exist in line space, it would only have 1
dimension (magnitude) and thus wouldn't be a vector.
Steve
Steven Shelikoff
> PS, how about posting that amazing web address where you attempt to pick
> up women? Based on tat pathetic attempt my guess is that your vector
> hangs limp most of the time.
Trust me, you don't want to see it.
Steve
Jeff Morris
"JAXAshby" <jaxa...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Finally - a glimmer from jax -
> >But you missed what it said - the entire vector may be represented by
> >triples, not just the magnitude.
>
> Really? What vector is represented by 3.4.5 and 6.7.3? What is it's
> direction? And what is the "triples" for the vector sine 20 degrees off
the
> bow at 20 knots?
OK, I'll play your game - well first of all, I don't know your notation
3.4.5 - rather than spending the next week debating this point I'll assume
you meant 3,4,5 as a triple. I'll assume cartesian, so the simple way to
say it would be a vector whose direction is from the origin towards the
location 3,4,5 in the XYZ system. The magnitude is the square root of
9+16+25, or 7.something. A more precise description is something like "the
vector that is the vector sum of the 3 times the unit X vector, 4 times the
unit Y vector, and 5 times the unit Z vector." But only a math dork would
bother doing that twice.
For your next example, well gosh, I don't think your meant to say "vector
sine 20 degrees off the bow" either - you ARE having a bad day aren't you?
(Or am I being set up here? Are you going to reveal that these are
"vectors" mentioned by other Bozos? ) This is only a 2D problem, so I
could use a double in a radial system, boat relative, that would be 20,20 .
I know this is tough concept, but in some systems the magnitude is one of
the vector elements.
> >...And what do you mean by "the
> >representation is not reality"? Does it matter to solving the problem?
>
> Yes, indeed it does. In fact, it impacted your understanding for the
problem.
Yes, Yes you finally understand!!! Choosing the proper representation is
the first step towards solving a problem. (but you wouldn't have known this
...)
>
>
> >In order to manipulate a vector don't we have to choose a representation?
>
> but that does not define the vector.
OK, but for my purposes you can go back and forth, so it doesn't matter
which is the 'true' definition.
>
> >And since there are different representations isn't it appropriate to
> >specify what form of representation we are using? And couldn't "3
dimension
> >vector" be understood by millions of scientists, engineers, and
programmers
> >as shorthand, though perhaps not accurate, for a vector represented in
three
> >dimensional space?
>
> No.
I didn't ask whether you could understand it, I asked if millions of others
could. Since I've worked with, well, maybe a thousand or so over the years,
and never met any that had trouble with this, I think I can safely speak for
them.
>
> >
> >The thing is Jax, no one is saying your definition is wrong. Its just
not
> >as important to solving real world problems as you seem to claim. And
I'll
> >admit I'm not a mathematician - although it was my first major, I quickly
> >changed to naval architecture - then astrophysics - but I'm really a
> >programmer. To me, and millions of others, a vector is an array with
> >coordinates as elements that represents an entity that has direction and
> >length. If you got up in a meeting of engineers and started ranting that
> >the term vector is being misused, you'd be laughed out of the room. To
> >claim that this isn't true is foolish - get over it -
>
> the point was -- and it seems to have been completely missed by you -- is
that
> a poster (capt moron) claimed exceptional marine navigational experience
and
> then made a statement about "3 dimensional" vectors which completely made
a lie
> of his expertise claim. All he claimed about anything past or future had
to be
> -- and has to be -- filtered through bullshit-filtering glasses. It seems
you
> missed that point.
>
Ah yes, back to Mooron - a well meaning guy, a bit confused on some of the
terminology. Well I did disagree with some of his points - you might have
noticed that he thanked us (well, I'm not sure he included you) for the
informative thread. No, I try not to judge someone forever based on a few
ill conceived comments. You of all people should understand this. I
certainly not going to defend all of the comments made by everyone - I have
enough trouble with my own.
-jeff
David Smalley
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I owe you a beer (or any other drink of your choosing) for that one.
David Smalley
Oh i've seen it already. Just wanted to avail the newbies of the chance
to gag properly.
Steven Shelikoff
>
> Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> >
> > JAXAshby wrote:
> > >
> > > davee writes something so stupid it needs no further comment.
> >
> > Then why did you comment, dummy?
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
> I owe you a beer (or any other drink of your choosing) for that one.
Beer's fine.:) A Yeungling Lager.
Steve
David Smalley
Wow, now _that's_ a true tongue twister!
Betcha can't say it fast after drinking a few. 8^)
Steven Shelikoff
>
> Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> >
> > David Smalley wrote:
> > >
> > > Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> > > >
> > > > JAXAshby wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > davee writes something so stupid it needs no further comment.
> > > >
> > > > Then why did you comment, dummy?
> > >
> > > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> > >
> > > I owe you a beer (or any other drink of your choosing) for that one.
> >
> > Beer's fine.:) A Yeungling Lager.
>
> Wow, now _that's_ a true tongue twister!
>
> Betcha can't say it fast after drinking a few. 8^)
Just had one tonight, watching the 1st half. Now watching the 2nd half
from home. As bad as the offense looks, we're only down by 6.
E-A-G-L-E-S!!
Oh, and Yeungling is pronounced Yingling. Not to hard to say. But in
these parts, just ask for a Lager and they'll know what you're talking
about. The stuff tastes great. It's what I drank long before it became
chic.
Steve
Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen
> A scalar is a quantity having MAGNITUDE ..... but NO direction.
> Magnitude is a ***component/dimension*** of the VECTOR, defining that
> between the origin and the terminus of the vector, .... direction is the
> ONLY other component. 1+1=2
> A vector is a quantity having BOTH .... MAGNITUDE and DIRECTION.....
> this is the **root definition** of the entire mathematical system called
> Vectors.
>
An alternative definition of a vector is an ordered N-tuple of
numbers. This definition is free from any geometrical or physical
interpretation, and makes it easier to think of vectors in vector
spaces which are not Euclidian, or with dimensions not related
to any physical quantity.
> Magnitude is also a scalar identity, not a vector. Are you saying that
> because magnitude is
> > a scalar identity and not a vector, that it cannot be one of the
> > dimensions of a vector? And if it can be, then so can time.
>
> Time has NO direction, therefore can ONLY be a scalar identity.
>
> *<:-p
True. But there is nothing prohibiting you using time as one of
the dimensions in N-space, as it's commonly done in electrical
engineering and physics.
Anyway, as vectors are essentially ordered n-tuples of scalars with
the algebraic operations of vector additions and multiplication of
vectors by scalars defined, it makes sense to define the algebraic
structure vector space, which is an abstract concept, not necessarily
related to any physical entity.
The elements of a N-dimensional vector space are called (surprise) vectors.
Personally, I don't care whether you want to call those elements
N-dimensional vectors or vectors in N-space, but I concede that the
latter is probably more correct.
The use of the term "direction" implies that there is a geometrical
interpretation of the vector, which is not at all necessary.
Anyone who cannot think of vectors in higher dimensions than 3 has a
severely limited imagination.
--
Kabelsalat ist gesund.
Ole-Hj. Kristensen
Pyro
So define, write, show, demonstrate, whatever, a vector to us by your
(sorry, _the_) definition JAX. Or is it just going to be 20 miles that
way. *points over his left shoulder* After all, you won't be able to
use N, S, E, or W, or 030 degrees, or grid points, or lat/long, or a
cartesian co-ordinate system, or polar, or any definition of space,
because, for JAX, vectors are existential. They just exist, they have
no reason, or framework in which they exist,they just do. Don't they
JAX. They are just magnitude (no units, because that would imply
space) and direction (but no co-ordinate system because that would
also imply space).
Actually, I understand JAX now, he doesn't understand the concept of
space, because he can't get out of the inside of his own head.
Pyro.
Who would love to see direction and magnitude defined without trying
to define a space or surface first. *laughs*
brian whatcott
<o...@clustra.com> wrote:
>An alternative definition of a vector is an ordered N-tuple of
>numbers. This definition is free from any geometrical or physical
>interpretation, and makes it easier to think of vectors in vector
>spaces which are not Euclidian, or with dimensions not related
>to any physical quantity.
>... there is nothing prohibiting you using time as one of
>the dimensions in N-space, as it's commonly done in electrical
>engineering and physics.
>
>Anyway, as vectors are essentially ordered n-tuples of scalars with
>the algebraic operations of vector additions and multiplication of
>vectors by scalars defined, it makes sense to define the algebraic
>structure vector space, which is an abstract concept, not necessarily
>related to any physical entity.
>
>The elements of a N-dimensional vector space are called (surprise) vectors.
>Personally, I don't care whether you want to call those elements
>N-dimensional vectors or vectors in N-space, but I concede that the
>latter is probably more correct.
>
>The use of the term "direction" implies that there is a geometrical
>interpretation of the vector, which is not at all necessary.
...
>Kabelsalat ist gesund.
>
>Ole-Hj. Kristensen
The 'vector' tag for an ordered scalar array is popular in
descriptions of neural nets configured as pattern recognizers.
The net designates a weight for each scalar in the array
.er..vector, the sum of products defining the probability of a
pattern match.
Thought you'd want to know this.
:-)
Brian Whatcott Altus OK
<in...@intellisys.net>
Eureka!
Steven Shelikoff
>
> Rich Hampel <rhm...@att.net> writes:
>
> > A scalar is a quantity having MAGNITUDE ..... but NO direction.
> > Magnitude is a ***component/dimension*** of the VECTOR, defining that
> > between the origin and the terminus of the vector, .... direction is the
> > ONLY other component. 1+1=2
> > A vector is a quantity having BOTH .... MAGNITUDE and DIRECTION.....
> > this is the **root definition** of the entire mathematical system called
> > Vectors.
> >
>
> An alternative definition of a vector is an ordered N-tuple of
> numbers. This definition is free from any geometrical or physical
> interpretation, and makes it easier to think of vectors in vector
> spaces which are not Euclidian, or with dimensions not related
> to any physical quantity.
Of course, this is the definition we use when we're talking about math,
programming, etc. Vector operators operate on at least 1 ordered
N-tuple of numbers, without any necessary geometric connotation.
Steve
Doug Dotson
Doug Dotson
Doug Dotson
Steven Shelikoff
>
> Harrisburg?
Philly.
Steve
Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen
> I liked you up until the last arrogant sentence.
>
Hmmm. Sorry about that, although it was really aimed at JAX. It was
not meant as a general slur on people who are not accustomed to reason
about abstract alegbra.
David Smalley
>
> Doug Dotson wrote:
> >
> > Harrisburg?
>
> Philly.
Hey, my adult kids are about to move to Philly. Be careful out there!
Steven Shelikoff
> Hey, my adult kids are about to move to Philly. Be careful out there!
> 8^)
Thanks for the warning.:)
Steve
Doug Dotson
Doug Dotson
Doug Dotson
pm
<3BD1D835...@alphalink.com.au>:
>Jax, you have no credibility.
I think "credibility" is where I came in here last week.
It looks like Jax has hit bottom and is proceeding to dig deeper. Someone
should take that spade away before the sides of his logic caves in and
buries him forever.
pm
Steven Shelikoff
>
> I that where Yeungling is hatched?
It's actually in Pottsville. But Philly is the closest big city.
Steve
JAXAshby
won't accept that what he heard in a USPS course is wrong.
Why is that, do you suppose? Was it the blue jacket or that fact he paid money
to learn something that wasn't true?
JAXAshby
>Anyone who cannot think of vectors in higher dimensions than 3 has a
>severely limited imagination.
>
and anyone insists that vectors _are_ 3 dimensional doesn't understand what
they are, and has no right to claim navigation expertise because they use the
term.
You can "think" of vector in any space you wish, but that does not change the
nature or vectors nor their use.
JAXAshby
JAXAshby
>I'll assume cartesian, so the simple way to
>say it would be a vector whose direction is from the origin towards the
>location 3,4,5 in the XYZ system.
you lose. (how doe it feel to have a fish hook in your mouth?) There is no
indication whatsoever as to direction, therefore there is no vector.
>For your next example, well gosh, I don't think your meant to say "vector
>sine 20 degrees off the bow" either - you ARE having a bad day aren't you?
I did indeed mean that. sorry if you didn't understand it. (btw, I used that
because I was just prior discussing with a colleague his job offer with a
company that makes pattern recognition equipment and software based on
fractals, said recognition being useful in target acquisition in missle
guidance systems.) If the "sine 20 degrees" confused you, try "20 degrees" as
it also works.
So, jeffie the coder, are you now going to tell us the "3 mimensional" vector
for, say, 20 degrees off the bow of a boat at 20 knots? Tell us, if you can,
to the extend that vector changes as boat speed changes?
We wait for your informed knowledge.
JAXAshby
>... so it doesn't matter
>which is the 'true' definition.
Yup, jeffie is telling us "it doesn't matter".
Then he goes on to also tell us:
>I
>certainly not going to defend all of the comments made by everyone - I have
>enough trouble with my own.
>-jeff
David Smalley
>
> Was it the blue jacket
Isn't it amazing how the blue in the face jackass keeps spouting off
about blue jackets? Do you think they won't let him past the door?
JAXAshby
jeffie.
>> Steve, where in the hell did you "learn" that time is the 4th dimension?
>If
>> that is true, what's the fifth? The sixth? The seventh?
>
>I didn't say it *is* the 4th dimension. I said it can be the 4th
>dimension, which it certainly can be. And there certainly can be a
>fifth, sixth and seventh dimension. Didn't you know that?
>
>> btw, vectors exist in all of those dimensions, but in none of them is a
>vector
>> actually a line.
>
>That's true. A line has 1 spatial dimension. A vector has 2.
No. How many times to _you_ have to hear it, steveie? No.
>...A vector
>cannot exist in 1 dimensional space (line space), just as a sphere
>cannot exist in 2 dimensional space (planar space.) An n dimensional
>spatial object must have at least n dimensional space to exist in.
Listen up, steveie, a vector is NOT a "spacial object".
>... It
>can exist in greater than n dimensional space, but not less. If a
>vector were to try to exist in line space, it would only have 1
>dimension (magnitude) and thus wouldn't be a vector.
steveie, give it up. Go daysailing on a small lake.
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>