[kaashif]

> author describes tensors as things behaving according to tensor transformation formula

Yeah, the idea that there are pre-existing things that we're trying to describe is somewhat weird to me when we're trying to come up with a definition of a tensor. The whole point of mathematics is that you come up with the definitions and theorems fall out.

In particular, this comment is funny and speaks to some difference in how I and the author view what we're doing when defining a tensor:

> But why that specific transformation law - why must tensors transform in that way in order to preserve whatever object the tensor represents?

Because we defined it like that! When you make the definition "a tensor is a thing that follows X laws", you don't get to ask why, you just defined it!

Just a funny bit of phrasing, I get what is meant :)

[edflsafoiewq]

> The whole point of mathematics is that you come up with the definitions and theorems fall out.

That's just how it's presented in textbooks. It's obviously not math is actually done.

[ravi-delia]

It's presented that way in textbooks because it's way easier to learn it that way (or it's Stockholm syndrome, which I won't deny is possible). The motivated way would require way, way, way more background knowledge.