Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

Jump to content

Talk:Standard basis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Skoosh in topic 3D Vector figure is potentially confusing

Ordered basis

[edit]

A basis: isn't the usual convention to take an ordered basis? Well, I think it is in the finite-dimensional case, anyway. This becomes awkward in other cases, though. Charles Matthews 16:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ordered and orthonormal basis

[edit]

I added a section in which I explaied that a standard basis is an ordered and orthonormal basis, but not necessarily vice versa. This can be deduced from the definition given in the introduction. So, it is a property, and I prefer to keep it separated from the definition (provided in the introduction). Paolo.dL (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Misconception about Euclidean space

[edit]

The definition of a standard basis given here (see the lead) makes the assumption that a Euclidean space is defined by or has a unique Cartesian coordinate system. In general, a coordinate system for a Euclidean space is not unique any more than an orthogonal basis is unique. Hence, a standard basis (in the sense of this article) is only defined in terms of a specified Cartesian coordinate system, and does not exist for the general (coordinate-independent) Euclidean space. The article will have to be reworded with this in mind; I'm not sure whether I will do this. — Quondum 09:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

The sentence "where ei denotes the vector with a 1 in the th coordinate and 0's elsewhere". Last sentence in the first paragraph.

[edit]

Sentence needs rephrasing or clarification. It's very poor and hard to understand. To me at least. I had to read it five times although it's very simple. 1Minow (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Can you suggest something better? It is difficult to see how to improve it. —Quondum 04:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Well at least we could add an example matrix. I don't have much ideas. That's why I asked. ...Terribly sorry about the wrong edit. I didn't know. Thanks for correcting. 1Minow (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Single-entry matrix merge

[edit]

It was suggested back in November 2019 that Single-entry matrix should merge here. Perhaps, but does a Single-entry matrix have to be a Standard basis? For example, (0,1) is a single-entry matrix, but is (0,2)? If so, then perhaps sparse matrix is a better target. Klbrain (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Closing, given the absence of support for the proposal (over the course of a year). Klbrain (talk) 11:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

3D Vector figure is potentially confusing

[edit]

In terms of 3D visualization, the vector diagram 3D_Vector.svg can be a little confusing at first (it was for me) regarding the fact that vector j appears to end at component vector az. Since this is actually a static 2D picture, it's all too easy for a puny human brain to misinterpret that and thus perceive those two vectors as intersecting, and a, az, and j as all lying in the y,z plane, rather than perceiving vector a as jutting out towards the viewer. If the standard basis vectors were shortened a bit (or ay lengthened slightly) so that there was some space between az and the end of j, I think that would help vector a appear unambiguously 3D for most viewers, and thus make clearer what is going on in the diagram. — skoosh (háblame) 13:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply