Why is a 'cartesian vector' 3D and what about the (defining) coordinate system?

[Spammed]

Is the 'carthesion_vector' intended as a loose experiment or a rock-hard end product?

I ask because --for me-- a 'Carthesian vector' only exists as a vector in a 'Carthesian coordinate system'.

In other words: I think sooner or later one will have to consider the concepts of 'vector as coordinate tuple' and 'coordinate system' together, but separately.

Furthermore, the term 'Cartesian' is not only reserved for exactly 3 coordinate directions perpendicular to each other with the same basic dimension.

However, it is clear to me that the 3D 'Cartesian vector' is of outstanding practical relevance here.

[mpusz]

This is the initial version of the type that we've been discussing at #594. It is not supposed to be proposed for standardization (at least not in this form and not in the first release). However, I see a huge need for it in mp-units to be able to construct any vector quantities.

Contributions are welcome if someone sees areas for improvement, such as renaming the type, improving interfaces, etc. Just keep in mind that it should be a simple type used as a representation type for vector quantities and not a full-blown generic linear algebra thing.

[mpusz]

I used 3 coordinates as many quantities are defined in terms of vector product (cross product) in ISQ.

[mpusz]

I also consider adding spherical_vector later on, which will be convertible back and forth with cartesian_vector.

[Spammed]

That kind of thing makes one want more :-). See Discussion #491

[mpusz]

Well, we can try to build on top of that, and we will see where it will lead us 😉