Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

What do you call a vector with a single component, e.g. $[a, 0, ..., 0]$ or $[0, b, 0, ..., 0]$, where $a, b$ are any non-zero number?

I'd like the language to differentiate from a vector with many components, e.g. $[a, b, 0, c, 0]$.

share|cite|improve this question
Still vectors, but they are parallel to your coordinate axes. – Frenzy Li Oct 28 '13 at 2:34
Some vectors of that form are called standard basis vectors, such as $\vec{i}=<1,0,0>$. – Sujaan Kunalan Oct 28 '13 at 2:35
Right, I'm interested in the general term, when the component is not necessarily equal to 1. – Luke Burns Oct 28 '13 at 2:53

I would call such vectors 'multiples of the standard basis vectors'. The standard basis vectors are normally written as $e_i=(0,0,\ldots,0,1,0,\ldots,0,0)$ where the $1$ appears in the $i$-th position, and so the vectors you are considering are equal to $ae_i=(0,0,\ldots,0,a,0,\ldots,0,0)$ for some $a$ and $i$.

share|cite|improve this answer
This is exactly what I came to after reading the comment of @SujaanKunalan – Frenzy Li Oct 28 '13 at 2:52

Having a single non-zero component, as do, e.g., $[a, 0, 0, . . ., o]$, $[0, b, 0, . . ., 0]$, etc., is a basis-dependent property, so it does not really reflect the coordinate independence which makes many abstract vector methods so powerful. It is easy to see that, under a suitable change of basis, these vectors will no longer have exactly one non-zero component. So, I think I would adopt a somewhat prosaic description, such as vectors with a single nonzero component in the such-and-such basis; here you can think of "such-and-such basis" as a verbal variable ranging over the domain consisting of any and all bases for the vector space under consideration! ;)

The notion of standard basis vectors, as mentioned by Daniel Rust in his answer, can be a helpful one here, but in many instances it is not clear exactly what the standard basis is; for example, when we are dealing with $\Bbb F^n$ for some field $\Bbb F$, the standard is clear: $[1, 0, 0, . . . , 0]$, $[0, 1, 0, . . . , 0]$ etc. But in some contexts, there really is no standard; I am thinking here of bases for the tangent spaces on a manifold; this is a situation is which adopting a standard is not necessarily possible or advantageous.

Hope this helps. Cheerio,

and as always,

Fiat Lux!!!

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.