Talk:Row vector

Questionable alternative notation
As I have read the convention to write collumn vector elements separated by commas, then the row vector:
 * $$\mathbf x = \big[ x_1, x_2, \dots, x_n \big].$$

is indeed a column vector. Another mistake is the transposed column vector (used commas), which is called column vector, but it appears to be row vector. I don't change the main text, just I am puzzled. I have never seen this comma/space notation, usually I think that the comma idea is "ugly", because it can slip from one's attention, exacly as is the case with the current Wikipedia entry. The same error is also made on the column vector entry. Danko Georgiev MD 02:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's a convention according to which elements separated by commas indicate a column vector. If there is, it is highly questionable, and conflicts with a non-standard notation for row vectors (see article). I edited the text to solve the problem. Alternative notations for column vectors should not be given here, but in the column vector article (see also Talk:Column vector). Paolo.dL (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Should simple vectors be distinguished?
Row vectors and Column vectors are rank 2 tensors. Simple vectors would be rank 1 tensors. And yet the discussion of row [and column] vectors doesn't even hint at this distinction -- wikipedia does not seem to have any discussion of the topic anywhere? (We have "coordinate vectors" but no basic discussion of the underlying concept of "vector" as a mathematical concept as distinct from the conventions of physics.)

Where does this discussion belong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.54.131.7 (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Preference over column vectors
Observations on matrix concatenation when applied to inputs of the row or column nature result in preference for row input. This substantial matter is under discussion at Talk:Shear mapping. Comments are invited on either of these discussion sites.Rgdboer (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)