in article <email@example.com>, david c. ullrich <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
|On Sun, 9 May 2004 20:43:01 +0000 (UTC), |email@example.com (James Dolan) wrote: | |>in article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, |>dave rusin <email@example.com> wrote: |> |>|>> The student should be able to give a rendition that is at least |>|>> equivalent to the one given in the book and that uses precise language. |>|> |>|> Let me try that one...independence means a group of vectors (in |>|> homogenous form???) such that if they all equal the zero vector, then |>|> the only possible way for that is the each coefficient of every vector |>|> has to equal 0 too. |>| |>|OK, now, jdolan and others who pooh-poohed the idea of memorizing |>|definitions: what say you to this student? Seems to me he has |>|made my point for me ... |> |> |>hi dave. i've been too busy to keep up with this thread lately, but i |>happened to glance at the new "linear algebra definitions" thread that |>the student in question started a couple of days ago, and it looks |>like he has unmade your point for you. |> |>anyway, i think it does students a great disservice to conflate the |>very important ability to engage in precise reasoning with the |>completely unimportant ability to memorize definitions. | |And you _really_ think that if he's saying things like "independence |means a group of vectors (in homogenous form???) such that if they |all equal the zero vector, then the only possible way for that is |the each coefficient of every vector has to equal 0 too" he's |going to be able to engage in precise reasoning about independence?
presumably if i thought that then i would have said something remotely like it. i'll take the fact that you're spewing nonsense like this now as your concession that you've lost the argument.