I will surmise what I've learned from a couple of Wikipedia articles below:
The vector projection of a vector $\vec{a}$ onto a vector $\vec{b}$ (also known as the vector component or vector resolution of $\vec{a}$ in the direction of $\vec{b}$) is defined as the following:
$$\text{proj}_\vec{b}\vec{a}=\frac{\vec{a}\cdot \vec{b}}{|\vec{b}|}\hat b$$
, where $|\vec{b}|$ is the length of $\vec{b}$, $\hat{b}$ is the unit vector in the direction of $\vec{b}$, and the operator $\cdot$ denotes a dot product.
The scalar projection (also known as scalar component) of a vector $\vec{a}$ onto a vector $\vec{b}$ is given by the following:
$$s=|\vec{a}|\cos\theta$$
, where $|\vec{a}|$ is the length of $\vec{a}$, and $\theta$ is the angle between $\vec{a}$ and $\vec{b}$.
My question:
- Evidently, a vector projection/component is a vector and a scalar projection/component is a scalar. In this top answer, @RonGordon promulgates the component of $\vec{a}$ along $\vec{b}$ as a scalar. Is it a convention to assume that "component" means scalar component/projection, just as @RonGordon did, unless it is explicitly specified otherwise (by the writing of vector projection)? In other words, if I find "vector projection" written anywhere, it will be sufficiently clear what the author means. Similarly, if I find "scalar projection" written, it will be sufficiently clear what the author means as well. However, if I find only "component" written somewhere, what should I interpret it as?