"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1106849198.488891.314880@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Androcles wrote:
>> "Timo Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
>> news:Pine.LNX.4.50.0501271444400.14575-100000@localhost...
>
> [snip]
>
>> >
>> > Do you know the difference between a vector and a component of a
>> > vector?
>>
>> There isn't a difference. Components of vectors are themselves
>> vectors.
>> Why do you ask? Did you imagine there was a difference?
>>
>
> No, they're not. Components are scalars.

Nonsense. The position of the component in the vector denotes a vector.
(0,0,0) is a vector, even if I mean (0z,0y,0x) , and z is a vector. 
Writing the scalars (1,2,3) is a conventional shorthand for 1x, 2y, 3z, 
but the x, y and z are still there.

> Components are the scalars you
> multiply by the basis vectors to compose a vector.

That's right. They have no meaning without the BASIS VECTORS, which are 
of course vectors, as you've stated.
Time is NOT a basis vector, it has no inverse, so if you want to call 
(x,y,z,t) an event, then do so, but don't call it a vector.

> The product of a
> component and a basis vector is a vector, but a component is not a
> vector.

Bullshit. You are an idiot. (1,1,1) is not a vector, (x,y,z) is. So is 
(z,x,y).
Just because we drop the symbols x,y and z out for brevity doesn't mean 
they are not there.
Next you'll be telling me (x,2,3) isn't a vector because I omitted the 
scalar, 1.

>
> V = Sum(i) [vi * ei]
> where V is a vector, vi are the components, and ei are the basis
> vectors.
> Do you want a math website reference to verify that?

No, I want a math website that says a scalar is a basis vector.
Idiot.

Androcles.