Am Mi., 14. Okt. 2020 um 07:45 Uhr schrieb Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
<xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de>:
>
> Am Di., 13. Okt. 2020 um 23:35 Uhr schrieb Arthur A. Gleckler
> <xxxxxx@speechcode.com>:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 1:00 PM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Nevertheless, when we impose a coordinate system on our space (which
> >> we usually do to do actual calculations) we can represent a vector by
> >> its coordinate vector because a coordinate system identifies the
> >> abstract space with, in the case of classical astronomy, R^3. By
> >> allowing arbitrary dimensions, a coordinate vector, therefore, matches
> >> a Scheme vector with real numbers as entries quite well.
> >
> >
> > Sure, but "a Scheme vector with real numbers as entries" is a small subset of the type of Scheme vector.  It's a very limited perspective.
>
> That's why my explanation didn't stop there.
>
> What is common with a Scheme vector and the usual meaning of a vector
> is that a "vector" is a fixed set of values whose meanings are
> determined separately (e.g. by a coordinate system, the algorithm,
> whatever convention, etc.). In other words, etymologically it makes
> sense to name a record whose fields are indexed by natural numbers a
> vector, which is exactly what Scheme has been doing.

PS And that's also why the random-access nature of a Scheme vector
makes so much sense. For coordinates, it is usually not enough to just
access them in sequence linearly.