Talk:Scalar projection

Merge relevance

This merge is quite old. Is the merge still relevant as the article suggested for merge (vector resolute) is redirected to Vector projection. --mgarde (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has gravely misled me

This article has gravely misled me, and helped to make me look foolish, because I thought that on such a simple matter, an article like this could be trusted. Silly me. This article cites no source, reliable or otherwise.

I have now looked at a student textbook on my shelves that I forgot I had, till now. Bloom, D.M. (1979), Linear Algebra and Geometry, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, ISBN 0-521-21959-0, p. 98: "The uniquely determined scalars $c i$ ... are called the components of the vector $v$ ..."

The customary term for a 'scalar resolute' or 'scalar projection', so far as I now can tell, is 'component'. If so, there is a strong case to delete this present article. I will propose it for deletion unless someone here gives good reason why not, or something else turns up.Chjoaygame (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not a good article. However, "scalar projection" is the same as "component of a vector" only in the case of the scalar projection over a coordinate axis of an orthonormal basis. In all other cases, the concepts are different. I have edited the article for avoiding a misinterpretation of "scalar component". D.Lazard (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the new version is not ideal. I think the use of the word 'as' may be part of the trouble. I suggest you have another try. I have not had time to check this, but it seems that there are various forms of terminology. From where I am right now, it seems that this article is fundamentally misleading and should simply be deleted. The standard term should be the name of the article. I will look round a bit more.Chjoaygame (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are no references for this article. On a matter like this, a good survey of reliable sources is needed. Needed. Yes,,a survey of reliable sources. Yes, a survey. Forgive me for laboring the point, but it seems necessary.Chjoaygame (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OPD and SPD apply pay the grouse the are mproof cousin lae Eman muzamil (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced, outdated, misleading, ...

I unintentionally tumbled into this article, dealing with the scalar product with a unit wctor. Besides the title appearing quite idiosyncratic, there are other terms too, which are seemingly outdated and not worth mentioning in a separate article anymore, imho. I think mentioning "resolute" and "rejection" in a historical section under "Vector projection" (which is itself a poor article), would sufficiently exploit the encyclopedic task. Since the whole article appears completely unsourced, I am tempted to nominate it for deletion. -Purgy (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cursory history of this article

Feb. 2005: The article was created as a stub referring to scalar resolute. This term is beyond my math education, and I cannot reasonably judge if resolute fits to the property of being a scalar. I claim however that as of 2005 this term was already rarely used, if not outdated.
Apr. 2006: The article changed to the title of scalar projection. I claim that as of 2006 the term projection does not fit to a scalar, which is a defining property according to the article, and scalar projection is an -imho- idiosyncrasy.
Nov. 2008: The suggestion to merge this article to vector projection was instated, but not commented on any further.
Aug. 2009: The article was noted to cite no references and sources, but this remark was removed shortly by the reason of this article being marked as a stub, already.
Aug. 2011: The merge-suggestion, while still being uncommented, was removed.
Apr. 2013: An editor brutally (he has my sympathy) redirected the article to vector projection. The mainly contributing editor, who meanwhile -undisputedly!- had added some content to this here article, reverted this redirect and reinstated the merge-header.
Dec. 2013: The stub-qualification was removed under the comment of the article being start-class, or even better(sic!).
Apr. 2014: At this time the merge-header was removed again, again there having been no interest to discuss this against the defense of any single editor.
Jan. 2017: The total missing of references and sources has been discovered again.

As an aside, may I report about misconceptions, which this article instigates: one finds serious efforts to deal with the notion of components either as constituents of arbitrary vector decompositions, or as their use as scalar elements in some representing tuples, the whole matter spiced with the troubles of this article in dealing with an only vague notion of enclosed angle, and being not very explicit about length(=norm) and 1-dim component.

May I, furthermore, ask to have a look at the referred to article vector projection, which contains to my measures all of the relevant content of this here article, and therefore, to ponder if this here should not be simply converted to a redirect, so that efforts to improve the quality of the article can be focused there. Purgy (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added some citations.

I had added some citations for this article so it can become more reliable. If you need to get help ask me at ẞottalk. Thanks @Purgy for saying that this wasn't reliable and showing the history, and for @Chjoaygame saying there were no sources.
EẞotsEle^{ẞottalkẞotEdit} 21:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]