Don't cover conj with vectors?

[Robsteranium]

One attendee asked:

What's the point of it?

Good question. I found it a bit tricky to explain conj without getting into the details. Perhaps it's best to let conj turn up when it's needed - i.e. in a practical context?

[Robsteranium]

NB: conj comes up later - if we decide to remove the example we should also remove the reference!

[daveliepmann]

Enormous +1. Conj is simple if it comes up in the context of a problem, and complex/confusing/odd if it comes up before then, in the context of "this is what a vector is".