"Rigorous" definition of Cartesian coordinates I, like most, first learned about Cartesian coordinates very early on in my educational career, and so the most instructional way to think about them was that you place down some perpendicular lines and measure the perpendicular distance from each line to get your coordinates; in other words, an operational definition. Now that I'm much farther along in my education, though, I wonder whether or not there's another, more "rigorous" way to define Cartesian coordinates, perhaps using the idea of a coordinate system as a mapping? Or is my question a bit pointless, since we already have the operational definition?

Based on my experience superimposing Cartesian coordinate systems on a multitude of practical problems, these are the key elements in the process:
1) Units.  The coordinate numerics appeal to physical distances, so you must choose what physical distance your coordinate unit represents (and use the same units in all dimensions).
2) Origin.  You have to pin down the location for your origin.
3) Axes directions. You have to choose axis reference directions.
a) For a 2D system, you have to choose the + x-axis based on some reference beacon or marker.  The +y-axis will be 90 deg. CCW from the + x-axis.
b) For a 3D system, you have to choose 2 out of the 3 axis directions. The 3rd axis will depend on choice of the first two.  To follow convention, the 3 axes must be mutually orthogonal, and obey the right-hand rule:
 x_dir  x  y_dir  --> z_dir

Where x_dir and y_dir are axis direction vectors [ 1, 0, 0 ]  and [0, 1, 0 ]
and z_dir is [ 0, 0, 1 ] and "x" is the right-handed 3D vector cross product.
Before you can define a mapping, you must have some kind of reference coordinate system (to express the mapping in). 
