Talk:Linear Algebra

New book conversion more or less finished, Current LMOS
The conversion form Jim Heffron's book to wikibooks is now more or less complete. There are still a number of pages from the old book which can be found at Linear Algebra/OLD/TOC. These pages should either be merged, or (I think) could be used as a seed for a more advanced book on linear algebra for Mathematics majors. In terms of a local MOS, all mathematics is contained between $$$$, regardless of inline or displayed. Theorems, lemmas, remarks, examples, exercises, etc. should be in a. The book is written in American English. Thenub314 (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate page
There is both a page http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Linear_Algebra/Eigenvalues_and_eigenvectors (no capital letter) and http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Linear_Algebra/Eigenvalues_and_Eigenvectors (with capital letter) But these are different pages. The table of contents of this book links to the latter, which seems to be the most maintained. But the wikipedia article about eigenvalues/vectors links to the former. Maybe the former should be removed and the wikipedia article changed? --87.65.116.226 (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggested points of discussion from failed WB:Featured books/Nominations
I think what happens next is discussion continues in the book's discussion pages by book contributors and those with issues with the book. Things to consider discussing more in the book's discussion pages might be: --dark lama  10:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Does the book need a new name?
 * 2) Does the scope and audience of the book need to be better defined?
 * 3) Do parts need to be rewritten to be easier to follow and understand?
 * 4) Can missing material be added to reduce or eliminate a need to depend on Wikipedia links?
 * 5) How can this book be made better?

Orphaned pages

 * Linear Algebra/Inner product spaces
 * Linear Algebra/Topic: Crystals/Solutions
 * Linear Algebra/Topic: Linear Recurrences/Solutions

These are not linked to by this book. Please mark them for deletion with, link to them, or merge them into another page and mark them with. – Adrignola talk 00:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Slip ups on my part, now linked where appropriate. Thenub314 (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Outdated
This is a great wikibook and I am very impressed by the work done on it; however, the book it is based off is updated very regularly, while this one is not. I question whether it might be better to just redirect readers to the original. InverseHypercube (discuss • contribs) 23:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How much has changed in the area of linear algebra? Is it just some of the applications sections? Or is it reorganization of the sections? Rgrasmus (discuss • contribs) 15:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, this is more a unsophisticated "young-Wikipedian" attitude I wouldn't expect to see much here on Wikibooks&mdash;it is a fallacy that all fields of knowledge are progressing at an breakneck pace rather than a recognition that things like mathematical theory or even physics fundamentals are rather stable and updating is hardly ever needed. A lot of the inflation of the cost of education could be eliminated by holding down the switching of texts for standard courses. For example, I have a physics text published in 1911, and 98% of it is still spot on, most of the rest is new theory-but for understanding fundamental mechanics and non-relativistic physics, Newtonian physics, the book is perfectly well suited.
 * Secondarily, if Mathematicians were good at having applications sections people would actually understand the topics. As an engineer, imho, the whole pedagogy mindset sucks. They do really poorly at relating math to the real world.
 * Next time, when tagging like these, please put the template in the edit summary. Finding when it was hung and by who would save others time, and have brought me to this note sooner. // Fra nkB 15:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Pages that need serious care
As I've been reading through this book, I've noticed some pages have more errors than others Lazauya (discuss • contribs) 05:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Linear_Algebra/Changing_Map_Representations This page has some big formatting errors that I tried to correct, but I simply do not know how Lazauya (discuss • contribs) 05:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Topics related to unitary transformations
I have noticed that unitary (aka orthonormal) transformations/matrices are given a very light treatment. I am creating a new section to describe important results such as the singular value decomposition and the spectral theorem, with possibly some references to quantum information applications. Feel free to assist and correct where necessary.

Math buff (discuss • contribs) 00:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

errors
Upon attempting to load, I am repeatedly getting the following error: "504 Gateway Time-out / nginx/1.11.13" (Part 2 loads okay). The single-file PDF generated from  also contains display errors. Is there a way that I can print-to-PDF or download this book as just one or two files without having to print each chapter individually? Nicole Sharp (discuss • contribs) 21:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thorough rework?
What do you have in mind to rework, about this book? --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In order to save the time of beginning students, I'll introduce the most general notions first, so that the theorems don't have to be repeated at a later stage in larger generality. In particular, determinants and matrix theory will be developed on the level of rings, elementaries on vector spaces will be stated on the level of modules (where of course the brief definition of modules gives a much finer mnemonic of the definition of vector spaces than the direct, "bare hands" definition that is pursued here). The rework will leave the current content as-is, until it is finished, and then the current wikibook will be moved somewhere else or deleted. --Mathmensch (discuss • contribs) 12:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Moore-Penrose inverse
Dear Wikibookians,

I have recently transwikified a page on the Moore-Penrose inverse from Wikipedia and polished it for inclusion in the linear algebra section of the Topics in Abstract Algebra Wikibook (User:Felix QW/Proofs involving the Moore–Penrose inverse). However, as I was reformatting it, it occurred to me that it would be a natural follow-on from the sections already present in Unitary Transformations here, and that the level of the material is not too high. Therefore I was wondering what the thoughts are on including it as a topic on Unitary Transformations V here? Of course, it would need to be reformatted (again) to meet the conventions of Linear Algebra.