alt Hacker NewsI wasn't referring to anybody in particular. But, like: what is the point of calling out a blog post for not presenting the angle interpretation of the dot product? How would that have fit with the goals of this post? You presented it as a defect, but that logic also suggests Strang's explanation is defective.
> that logic also suggests Strang's explanation is defective
I haven't read Strang's book, so I can't comment on that. But yeah, if it never mentions the formula ||a||·||b||·cos(θ) or at least talks about how the dot product relates to parallel and orthogonal vectors, I would consider that a big hole in an introduction to the dot product.
> How would that have fit with the goals of this post?
Because the post is titled "an introduction to linear algebra... the dot product", and this is something that I believe should be in anything that considers itself an introduction to the dot product.
You seem to disagree, and I'd like to ask: why? I think this a fundamental aspect of the dot product, again, just as fundamental as the relationship between complex multiplication and rotation. I think my view is common.
> calling out a blog post
I didn't intend to do anything as strong as "call out" the blog post. I just wanted to express surprise at someone so strongly praising ("its sauce is stronger [than 3B1B's video series]") an alright post.