> That sort of relativism is trite, specious, and insincere.
It isn't. I don't think you understood what I wrote. What's important is the ends, not the means. As long as the OP got what he needed out of linear algebra, then that's what matters.
> If you don’t think it matters then why are you participating in the discussion?
What is this "it" you are talking about? Be more specific and precise otherwise you don't add anything to the discussion.
You're right that I was a bit rude, so I am sorry.
> My country curriculum introduces linear algebra through group theory and vector spaces. Matrices come later.
The OPs referring to an intellectually totally different approach to Linear Algebra. One coming firmly out of pure mathematics. Whereas Strang's notion that one should teach matrices first is aimed at students who are probably never going to conceptualize linear algebra in terms of abstract vector spaces and linear operations on them. So, I do still take issue with what you wrote. "Different strokes for different folks" really doesn't cut it here, IMO. Being tendentious, I'm tempted to say it's more like "If you're happy getting practical calculations right but never really understanding what mathematicians mean by linear algebra then Strang's approach might be OK for you." But the point is that the approach to linear algebra that the OP referred to, versus Strang's, are not just equally valid alternatives and whichever one works for you is the best by definition. They are routes to two different places.
I'm sorry, but I really dislike the "whatever works for you" sentiment. It's antithetical to the spirit of engineering / technical discussion, which are predicated on the idea that there are better and worse ways to do the thing in question.
> As long as the OP got what he needed out of linear algebra, then that's what matters.
I don't think I even agree with this. I might agree with
> As long as the method of teaching linear algebra improves the mean educational outcome in a statistically significant fashion then that's what matters.
But that's what Strang's getting at -- better and worse ways of teaching Linear Algebra. It's not the case that any method is OK just because it worked for some European dude on the internet with poorly concealed anti-American feelings (I'm from Europe, I'm allowed to say this :) ).
> I'm sorry, but I really dislike the "whatever works for you" sentiment.
It's your right. No need to apologize.
> It's antithetical to the spirit of engineering / technical discussion, which are predicated on the idea that there are better and worse ways to do the thing in question.
Sure. But that's the point. There are better ways ( as in plural ). Meaning there is more than one right way.
> It's not the case that any method is OK
Nowhere did I say any method is OK. You are building a strawman here. I didn't just write "Different strokes for different folks." I wrote "Different strokes for different folks. If it worked out for you that's all that matters." The key being "If it worked out for you that's all that matters."
> because it worked for some European dude on the internet with poorly concealed anti-American feelings
Nowhere did I sense any "anti-American" sentiment from OP.
> (I'm from Europe, I'm allowed to say this :)
So maybe it's a language issue. English as a second language is great but leaves open the possibility of misunderstanding. Honestly, I still don't know why you got so upset about such an innocuous comment. I think what we had here is a failure to communicate.
It isn't. I don't think you understood what I wrote. What's important is the ends, not the means. As long as the OP got what he needed out of linear algebra, then that's what matters.
> If you don’t think it matters then why are you participating in the discussion?
What is this "it" you are talking about? Be more specific and precise otherwise you don't add anything to the discussion.