Geometric proof for vector relation-

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving a vector relation geometrically, specifically the inequality mag(A.B) <= mag A * mag B, where A and B are vectors and "mag" denotes magnitude. The original poster has successfully proven this relation algebraically and seeks assistance in finding a geometric proof.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the nature of the dot product and its geometric interpretation, questioning how to extend algebraic proofs into geometric arguments. Some suggest using the law of cosines, while others express uncertainty about its applicability in higher dimensions.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants exploring different angles of the problem. Some guidance has been offered regarding the law of cosines, but there is no consensus on a definitive geometric proof. The original poster continues to seek clarification on how to relate the problem to geometric figures.

Contextual Notes

The original poster mentions that this is a classical mechanics problem and references a previous geometric proof related to the triangle inequality, indicating a desire to find a similar geometric statement for the current problem.

fahd
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
geometric proof for vector relation-please help!

hi there...
i am trying to prove the following relation from vectors geometrically however nothing comes to my mind..i have succeeded in proving it algebraically.
CAN ANYONE help me as to how do i prove this relation geometrically.

The relation is:

mag(A.B) <= mag A. mag B

where A and B are vectors
and mag stands for magnitude
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
fahd said:
hi there...
i am trying to prove the following relation from vectors geometrically however nothing comes to my mind..i have succeeded in proving it algebraically.
CAN ANYONE help me as to how do i prove this relation geometrically.

The relation is:

mag(A.B) <= mag A. mag B

where A and B are vectors
and mag stands for magnitude

you miss read the problem...

It's the inner or dot product of two vectors is less than or equal to the magnitude of the two vectors multiplied together. This is pretty easy to do if you have some information...

[tex] cos(\theta) = \frac{A.B}{||A||*||B||} [/tex]

Knowing the range of the cosine function allows you to say something about the fraction on the RHS of that equation...

Note that is the also known as the Cauchy inequality...
 
Townsend said:
you miss read the problem...

It's the inner or dot product of two vectors is less than or equal to the magnitude of the two vectors multiplied together. This is pretty easy to do if you have some information...

[tex] cos(\theta) = \frac{A.B}{||A||*||B||} [/tex]

Knowing the range of the cosine function allows you to say something about the fraction on the RHS of that equation...

Note that is the also known as the Cauchy inequality...


hi there..
the proof that u have told me is the algebraic proof which i already know of..I used the cos limits being below 1 to prove that..BuT THE QUESTION IS HOW DO I PROVE THE PROBLEM GEOMETRICALLY?
 
fahd said:
hi there..
the proof that u have told me is the algebraic proof which i already know of..I used the cos limits being below 1 to prove that..BuT THE QUESTION IS HOW DO I PROVE THE PROBLEM GEOMETRICALLY?

You could make a geometric argument with the law of cosines but I don't know how good of a proof that really is. I mean...can that be extended beyond R^3?

What class is this for? I'm not sure I can offer you much help beyond suggesting that you use the law of cosines...

In any case the Cauchy bound is true in R^n and I don't know how to do geometric proofs in R^n or if they can even be done...
 
Well, since you're only dealing with two vectors, you can always look at the plane they span, reducing it to a problem in R^2.

That being said, fahd, what are you using for the geometric meaning of the dot product?
 
this is my classical mechanics problem...there was another type of a question also better called the triangle inequality..which i geometrically proved by stating that the sum of sides of a triangle is always greater than the third side...however am confused as to what cud be a statement for this one to which i could relate a figure as well?>
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
5K