>>13196964I didn't complain about new concepts being hard for noobs. I said that giving unneccessarily alienating and foreign names to simple concepts makes them off-putting. And my comment has everything to do with the prefix eigen.
>You just mention that it means that the matrix is in the ownership of those vectors and therefore doesn't twist them.Yeah, that's not intuitive at all. Why shouldn't it twist the vectors it owns?
>, that is why you call the values inside the matrix its entries and its "own values" those that are obtained the way you get its own valuesYou see a matrix and ask, what are its own values? The only values that come to mind to someone unfamiliar with the theory eigenvectors are the entries of a matrix. And you yourself called them values of a matrix. It's not a big leap from its values to its own values.
>What name? If you weren't an illiterate, you'd notice I used that as an example of referring to the vectors without using any names.And it took many a word. That's why we use names, to make such references concise.
>Boohoo I refuse to use a foreign word!!!Not an argument.
>If you want to make eigenvectors called stable vectors, you will either start your cringy campaign for a name change or go back in time and translate them instead of letting people adopt the term "eigenvector".You're shifting the goalposts. This has never been the argument. Changing the term now is too unrealistic. My argument has always been that a stable vector is a better term than eigenvector.
>Wait? An English word is an English word? WowYes, you suggested using a german equivalent of an english word. My point was why not use the english word itself?
>What are definitions?A precise explanation of a meaning of a term. We want terms that intuitively correspond to their definition.
Your whole post is an irrational emotional tirade. I'm surprised you even know what an eigenvector is, given your intellectual maturity
