> You do not see. If you think column space and row space are the same thing, then that's completely wrong. You were the one who wrote column space = row space

> You do not see. If you think column space and row space are the same thing, then that's completely wrong. You were the one who wrote column space = row space…? > If you want to call the mi the coefficients, what are you calling the ai? I'm calling them the coefficients because they're “part of the function” and don't change. They're the thing you'd naturally call a coefficient. Coefficient isn't as broad a term as you seem to think it is; In f(x) = x² + x + 3, the coefficients are 3, 1 and 1; not 1, x and x². > You should publish a book and clear it up for everyone. As soon as I have any actually original work, I plan to. But linear algebra isn't a specialism of mine, so I doubt I ever will. And no, I don't think the terminology I've used here is an improvement over the status quo; I'm not a complete imbecile. I just don't get why terminology is considered more important than understanding in mathematics education, and why it's practically impossible to use different words for things even when you do have an improvement.) > That you continue to debate this point is astounding and willful ignorance. I've given you why it's important. I've shown that in textbooks it indexed second only to dimension. I've given at least 5 places it shows up. I've explained how it's the dimension of extremely important items. If you think any of those are counterarguments, you were never addressing what I was trying to say. > You want to keep claiming your made up vocabulary and sloppy terms that miss important issues are superior. Where did I claim this? I believe I said I was “not wrong” (a weaker label than “correct”), and I identified some problems I have with the existing terminology, but I don't think I ever said my (inconsistent, ad-hoc) terminology was better.