>> In the thread at hand, though, it's apparent why it sometimes serves
>> little purpose to infuse mathematical rigor when basic physical
>> relationships are misunderstood.
>
> Certainly. Even apart from this thread, I don't think it good to dump
> mathematical rigour on students in an introductory course. Good to 
> tell them that there is a rigorous definition, and, if they look closely
> enough, they might even be able to tell that a "physics student's 
> vector" is even a kind of "mathematician's vector".


Mathematicians know the axioms of a vector space, and KNOW that
(x,y,x,t) isnt a vector, there is  no (-t) + t = 0. Draper doesn't know 
that, and I don't think you do either.

Certainly Minkowski didn't


Androcles.