|
 |
Scalar values refer to scaling.
According to a citation in the Oxford English Dictionary the first recorded
usage of the term "scalar" in English came with W. R. Hamilton in 1846,
referring to the real part of a quaternion:
"The algebraically real part may receive, according to the question in which it
occurs, all values contained on the one scale of progression of numbers from
negative to positive infinity; we shall call it therefore the scalar part."
Scala is the latin word for ladder, the English word scale comes from it
and scalar is derivative from scalaris which is an adjective form of scala.
From comments here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNk_zzaMoSs&list=PLZHQObOWTQDPD3MizzM2xVFitgF8hE_ab
juicy tidbits:
https://github.com/3b1b
:O
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscape net> wrote:
> Scalar values refer to scaling.
>
> According to a citation in the Oxford English Dictionary the first recorded
> usage of the term "scalar" in English came with W. R. Hamilton in 1846,
> referring to the real part of a quaternion:
> "The algebraically real part may receive, according to the question in which it
> occurs, all values contained on the one scale of progression of numbers from
> negative to positive infinity; we shall call it therefore the scalar part."
>
> Scala is the latin word for ladder, the English word scale comes from it
> and scalar is derivative from scalaris which is an adjective form of scala.
>
I did 'O' level latin, but didn't know/remember about scalaris (ladderlike) so
thanks. I now know why it is called a scalar.
>
> From comments here:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNk_zzaMoSs&list=PLZHQObOWTQDPD3MizzM2xVFitgF8hE_ab
>
>
I'd worry about learning linear algebra from this series of films. I've only
looked at 2 minutes of the first one but some concepts seemed to be confused. In
particular, he didn't seem to want to distinguish between the co-ordinate (x,y)
which is in no way re-locatable and the vector [x,y]^T which is.
>
>
> juicy tidbits:
> https://github.com/3b1b
>
> :O
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
"JimT" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> I'd worry about learning linear algebra from this series of films. I've only
> looked at 2 minutes of the first one but some concepts seemed to be confused. In
> particular, he didn't seem to want to distinguish between the co-ordinate (x,y)
> which is in no way re-locatable and the vector [x,y]^T which is.
I think I see what you're trying to get at, but
(a) I don't know what you mean by [x,y]^T
(b) Grant Sanderson is primarily concerned with covering the topics in away
where you intuitively understand them, and you can have some sort of visual /
geometric understanding of what the linear algebra is DOING / what it's FOR.
So, he does on numerous occasions warn you that "this isn't _exactly_ what
happens or what this means..." or "I'm lying to you about this part - because
it's more complicated than this..."
But he gets very high praise in the comments section - from people who are
professionals and even teachers/professors who finally have it "click" for them
when they can see it all come together.
I should have probably made different choices and done something like math /
physics / physical chemistry, where I would have taken linear algebra, etc. in
college / grad school, but alas, I was seduced by the Black Art of synthetic
organic chemistry.
He does do a few videos which cover dot product and cross product, which I think
folks on here would really like and benefit from, as well as a lot of his other
videos. They're so well done, and his voice is so calm and soothing.
When I'm stressed, I can sit back with a beer and watch hours of 3B1B,
Clickspring and Mr.Chickadee...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
