I have a few questions which a little research (searching the internet through Google) has not satiated. It seems that vectors are very important, even when considering them as the arrows which general physics textbooks do. For instance, they are very helpful when trying to prove geometric properties of, say, triangles.
At any rate, I have not been able to find any satisfying reading material that treats vectors as geometric arrows. I hope I am not being too vague; but as an example of one of my questions, does the geometric picture of vector addition follow from the way in which vectors are defined, or is picture built into the definition of a vector? I ask, because some sources I have read seem to suggest that it is built into the definition, while others do not.
The reason why I think I am having a fundamental difficulty with this, is that I am not a picture sort of fellow: I can not (very easily) deduce mathematical information from a picture, but prefer to start first principles when defining a concept, and then having the picture follow. Does this make sense? Is this a common problem?
Vector addition is defined to be component-wise. That meaning:
$$\textbf{x} + \textbf{y}=\begin{pmatrix}x_1&x_2&\cdots&x_n\end{pmatrix}+\begin{pmatrix}y_1&y_2&\cdots&y_n\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}x_1+y_1&x_2+y_2&\cdots&x_n+y_n\end{pmatrix}$$
Now if you were to consider the geometric interpretation of these vectors in $\mathbb{R}^n$, since each of the components are added in the addition, you can liken it to placing the vectors end-to-end (i.e. adding each of the components of $\textbf{x}$ to $\textbf{y}$.