Talk:Vector

---

(I can't draw parentheses big enuf to encompass the next couple dozen lines.) (Start of Jerzy's virtual parentheses)

This page has been returned to service as the talk page for the article Vector by removing a redirect directive that was its only line.

It's unclear how it got to the situation it was in, especially since it was redirected to

Talk:Vector_(classical_mechanics)

which redirects to

Talk:Three-vector

which redirects to

Talk:Vector_(spatial)

The last page's last 6 edits were on 3 consecutive days in early Aug, 2003, and one of them was commented "(I've been following the wacky page moves of the last two days with bemusement -- could someone step in and restore sanity please?)".

I arrive late on the scene, but i assume that only the most specialized and obscure points relating to the disamb. page Vector would be fruitful to take up there.

The links above will assist anyone who wants to visit any of those pages. --Jerzy 04:18, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC) (End of Jerzy's virtual parentheses)

---

But my comment is more prosaic:

The article says in part

Vector can mean: ... In computer science[:] ... In operating systems, a memory location

I am surprised at the idea of "vector" meaning "a memory location" in an operating system. In contrast, i would consider quite plausible either of two uses where discussion of operating system design, or trouble-shooting informed by awareness of OS internals, could refer via the term vector, to much more specific ways of using main-memory space, and refering to it by address:

1. A 1-D array containing one address per array element can be called a "fault vector" on the following logic: the Nth element of the array contains the address of an error handling routine suitable to the occurence of an error of the category designated as "fault type" N. The array is a tuple of addresses, and a tuple in linear algebra is called a vector, so the array is a vector whose job is the handling of faults by the routines currently in effect for doing so.
2. A single address-sized memory element could contain the address currently in effect for handling the error or errors of interest. This single memory element is a vector in the sense that vectors have direction, and this element points to the start of the error routine, so the single element is a "fault vector". --Jerzy 04:18, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

I'd like to move the definitions and discussions on Vector to their individual pages so it can be a true disambiguation page without incoming links. Skeetch

Yes, by all means fix the bad links. But creating a page which just says that a vector is an element of a vector space is not a useful thing to do. Mathematical articles need to link to Vector (spatial), which already has that definition, and much more besides. (The disambiguation page does need improving, however. Column vectors and row vectors should be mentioned somewhere on Vector (spatial), not on the disambiguation page. And we need to make it clearer that the mathematical information is to be found on Vector (spatial) and Vector space.) --Zundark 21:19, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Be careful: the point of Vector (spatial) is to describe a very specific kind of vector space used in physics and engineering, not e.g. generic row/column vectors (which need not have anything to do with spatial directions). Steven G. Johnson

That's true, but Vector (spatial) already gives the general definition of a vector, so I'm not sure it's inappropriate to mention row and column vectors there, especially as they are commonly used for the type of vector that the article is mainly concerned with. Or perhaps they should be mentioned in Vector space. But I don't really care if they stay on the disambiguation page, if that's where other people think they belong. --Zundark 09:56, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I would prefer to put examples of kinds of vector spaces under Vector space. Vector (spatial) should mention the generalization, but only to explain how it relates. Steven G. Johnson 19:40, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'd prefer to make Vector a true disambiguation page by moving its article content to appropriate destination pages. By moving the generic vector concept material to something like Vector (mathematics), the Generalization paragraph in Vector (spatial) could also point there. Currently many of the links pointing to Vector (spatial) are using that paragraph as a proxy for the similar information in the disambiguation page. The problem, as Zundark has pointed out, is the generic vector information currently only consists of 3-4 sentences. Is that enough material to support further development on a separate page and allow Vector be pure disambiguation? Skeetch 17:56, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)

What is the point of having a "pure disambiguation page" as opposed to the current Vector page? Steven G. Johnson

The point of a pure disambiguation page is clarity and ease of use for the reader. Because Vector has a significant number of substantial and distinct meanings, any information content will be irrelevant to a large number of readers directed here. We can avoid this by putting the actual content in appropriate destination pages and relocating all incoming links. Those links can go directly to the appropriate content and avoid a manual selection step here. A reader coming directly to Vector will still be able to choose from the list of available alternatives. Skeetch 19:51, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

I agree that things shouldn't link to Vector (spatial) when what they want is a more general concept, but if people want to link to what you call "generic" vectors, they can link to Vector space (which should probably have an expanded introduction to make it more accessible). I don't see anything especially wrong with the current disambiguation page per se. —Steven G. Johnson