Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T14:26:27.861Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Vectors: A Special Case?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2016

D.E. Mansfield
Affiliation:
10 Lyndhurst Drive, London,
M. Bruckheimer
Affiliation:
Northampton College of Advanced, Technology, St. John Street, London

Extract

J. Cable [1] suggests that if the word “vector” is going to be introduced into secondary school mathematics then it should at least be done properly Probably nobody would explicitly disagree with this, although there is a fair amount of evidence that implicitly many have and still do. But why must “vector” be introduced properly? Why the special fuss about vectors? The basic mathematics necessary to introduce vectors properly is common to many other mathematical ideas. (We wish to make it clear at the outset that our remarks in this article only refer to the printed text of the paper mentioned above. We do not wish to imply, for instance, that Mr. Cable does make a special fuss about vectors, but that the implication of his article is that vectors deserve special attention.)

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Mathematical Association 1966 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Cable, J., “What is a vector?”, Mathematical Gazette, 48, 1964, pp. 3436.Google Scholar
2. Mansfield, D. E. andThompson, D., Mathematics: A New Approach, Book 3, Chapters 1 and 9, Pupils’ Book and Teachers’ Book. Chatto and Windus, 1964.Google Scholar
3. Mansfield, D. E. and Bruckheimer, M., Background to Set and Group Theory, Chapter 3 et al. Chatto and Windus, 1965.Google Scholar