9ae59ee
committed
Commits
Comments (0)
Files changed (2)

+1 0changes.txt

+1 1src/sectionVS.xml
changes.txt
src/sectionVS.xml
<p>Here's another one that sure looks obvious. But understand that we have chosen to use certain notation because it makes the theorem's conclusion look so nice. The theorem is not true because the notation looks so good, it still needs a proof. If we had really wanted to make this point, we might have defined the additive inverse of $\vect{u}$ as $\vect{u}^\sharp$. Then we would have written the defining property, <acroref type="property" acro="AI" />, as $\vect{u}+\vect{u}^\sharp=\zerovector$. This theorem would become $\vect{u}^\sharp=(1)\vect{u}$. Not really quite as pretty, is it?</p>
+<p>Here's another one that sure looks obvious. But understand that we have chosen to use certain notation because it makes the theorem's conclusion look so nice. The theorem is not true because the notation looks so good; it still needs a proof. If we had really wanted to make this point, we might have defined the additive inverse of $\vect{u}$ as $\vect{u}^\sharp$. Then we would have written the defining property, <acroref type="property" acro="AI" />, as $\vect{u}+\vect{u}^\sharp=\zerovector$. This theorem would become $\vect{u}^\sharp=(1)\vect{u}$. Not really quite as pretty, is it?</p>