Definition talk:Engineering Notation
Don't forget you need to link to wherever it is the notation $\langle a, b, c \rangle$ is defined. Presumably it's a vector but I can't see it anywhere. --prime mover 12:56, 29 January 2012 (EST)
- Definition:Ordered Tuple has occurrence of this in the alternative names section. I presume that is what is meant. I think it is disputable whether angled or round brackets should be used. --Lord_Farin 03:15, 30 January 2012 (EST)
- That was added after PM suggested it. You can change it if you like, I just am used to using angle brackets so that's what I picked intuitively. House style ruling? --GFauxPas 06:20, 30 January 2012 (EST)
- Don't know about house style. For me, there is not really a problem at the moment, so why fix what isn't broken? --Lord_Farin 06:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)
- Oh, then what did you mean that the usage of angle brackets is disputable? --GFauxPas 07:14, 30 January 2012 (EST)
- Don't know about house style. For me, there is not really a problem at the moment, so why fix what isn't broken? --Lord_Farin 06:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)
- That was added after PM suggested it. You can change it if you like, I just am used to using angle brackets so that's what I picked intuitively. House style ruling? --GFauxPas 06:20, 30 January 2012 (EST)
In all literature I have encountered, round brackets are used. However, my comprehension usually supersedes the strict interpretation of symbols in my framework, and therefore I immediately understood what was meant. But it is disputable nonetheless, as not everybody may be as flexible in notation. --Lord_Farin 07:23, 30 January 2012 (EST)
- Oh, did you mean that round brackets aren't broken, or this page isn't broken? I think you meant the former, but I understood you as the latter. --GFauxPas 07:24, 30 January 2012 (EST)
- I consider the page not broken, and I consider the decision to call it 'not broken' disputable (as well as whether angled or round brackets are preferred; that is, the house style on this matter). A lot of words to find out we agree ;). --Lord_Farin 07:31, 30 January 2012 (EST)
Component Form
When providing a redirect from a page which uses an entirely different name for something, it is a good idea on the page to which the redirect is being made to make some mention of the name speficied in the redirect.
That is, somewhere on this page should be said "Also known as component form." Presumably "component form" in this context is just another name for "engineering notation". Neither of these terms have I seen used before, by the way. --prime mover 08:02, 30 January 2012 (EST)
- Component form was a mistake, please delete the redirect page, but thanks for the tip. More commonly I've seen this called nothing at all than called engineering notation, but I had to name the page something. --GFauxPas 08:05, 30 January 2012 (EST)
- If it's not actually called "engineering notation" then best not to say that it is. Unfortunately I can not immediately think of a good name for this, so all we can do at the moment is flag this up as a "to do" unless someone has an immediate good idea for what to call it. --prime mover 08:11, 30 January 2012 (EST)
- It is called engineering notation, but it's not as common as not naming it, in my experience. I'm open to suggetions. --GFauxPas 08:14, 30 January 2012 (EST)
- If it's not actually called "engineering notation" then best not to say that it is. Unfortunately I can not immediately think of a good name for this, so all we can do at the moment is flag this up as a "to do" unless someone has an immediate good idea for what to call it. --prime mover 08:11, 30 January 2012 (EST)
- Intuition says this is just 'basis expansion', but indeed, normally this does not bear a name at all. I wouldn't say 'basis expansion' is a better name though. I suggest sticking with 'engineering notation'. --Lord_Farin 08:17, 30 January 2012 (EST)
- No worries then, leave it as is. --prime mover 08:58, 30 January 2012 (EST)