I've always been puzzled by the discrepancy between several possible terminological uses for such a basic thing as "linear regression":
- A certain number of sources just say it corresponds to the computation of the best linear (or more accurately affine) map between known inputs $x$ in $X = \mathbb{R}^n$ to known outputs $y$ in $Y = \mathbb{R}$.
- Others consider almost no hypothesis on $X$ itself (it may not even have a "dimension"). They just suppose we are given $(\phi_i)_{i \in I}$ a family of independent scalar fields on $X$ (generally in some regular space like $C^k(X)$ or $L^2(X)$). Linearity only arise because one is looking for the best scalar field in the vector space $\textrm{span}((\phi_i)_{i \in I})$.
One can see that the second definition easily encompasses the first one by choosing $\phi_i(x) = x_i$ for $i \in 1..n$ and $\phi_0(x) = 1$ so this generic definition has always seemed far more natural for me. But I read so often that linear regression can only create linear boundaries on $X$ (which is obviously false if you take the second definition) that I am not sure it is sufficiently widespread to be considered as canonical.
NB: the same issue applies for linear classification as it is just an assignement of a category by comparing a linear regression output with a threshold.