Is the 2-Dimensional Cross Product Equivalent to a 90-Degree Rotation?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the concept of the two-dimensional cross product and its relationship to a 90-degree rotation. Participants explore whether such a cross product exists in two dimensions and how it can be mathematically represented, including its implications in differential geometry.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express uncertainty about the existence of a two-dimensional cross product and propose that if it exists, it could be represented as a 90-degree counterclockwise rotation.
  • Others clarify that the two-dimensional equivalent of a cross product is a scalar, defined as the determinant of a 2x2 matrix formed by the vectors.
  • A participant introduces the concept of the Hodge dual and its relation to the wedge product of one-forms, suggesting that this is a more general framework for understanding the cross product in higher dimensions.
  • There is a contention regarding the generalizability of the cross product to higher dimensions, with some arguing that it cannot be geometrically generalized, while others challenge this view.
  • Participants discuss the nature of tensors and forms, debating the classification of exterior forms and their relationship to tensors, including whether they are merely equivalence classes or actual tensors.
  • One participant mentions the orthogonal complement in higher dimensions and how it relates to the concept of cross products, suggesting a more complex structure than in two dimensions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the existence and definition of the two-dimensional cross product, with multiple competing views and ongoing debate regarding its mathematical representation and implications in higher dimensions.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved issues regarding the definitions and assumptions related to tensors, forms, and the generalizability of the cross product, which may affect the clarity of the discussion.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying differential geometry, vector calculus, or mathematical physics, particularly in understanding the nuances of cross products and their applications in various dimensions.

Magos
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I'm not even sure such a thing exists :P.

Anyway, if it does, is it correct that it is:
Code:
Xc = -Y
Yc = X
(rotation 90 deg counter clockwise)

Couldn't find anything about it on google...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Magos said:
I'm not even sure such a thing exists :P.

Anyway, if it does, is it correct that it is:
Code:
Xc = -Y
Yc = X
(rotation 90 deg counter clockwise)

Couldn't find anything about it on google...

The two-dimensional equivalent of a cross product is a scalar:

[tex]\hat{x} \times \hat{y} = x_{1}y_{2}-x_{2}y_{1}[/tex]

It's also the determinant of the 2x2 row matrix formed by the vectors. I don't think it's usually used, though. Unlike dot products, cross products aren't geometrically generalizable to n dimensions.
 
Yes,it's a particular case of a more general statement.Since in a 2D euclidian space a 1form is a vector,then the cross-product of these vectors in,of course,the Hodge dual of the wedge product of the two 1forms,which,according to the general theory

[tex]\left[\ast\left(A\wedge B\right)\right]=\epsilon^{ij}A_{i}B_{j}=A_{1}B_{2}-A_{2}B_{1}[/tex]

Daniel.
 
SpaceTiger said:
The two-dimensional equivalent of a cross product is a scalar:

[tex]\hat{x} \times \hat{y} = x_{1}y_{2}-x_{2}y_{1}[/tex]

It's also the determinant of the 2x2 row matrix formed by the vectors. I don't think it's usually used, though. Unlike dot products, cross products aren't geometrically generalizable to n dimensions.

Okay,which part of "differential geometry" didn't u get...?? :rolleyes:

What is a dot product...?

Daniel.
 
dextercioby said:
Okay,which part of "differential geometry" didn't u get...?? :rolleyes:

In four dimensions or more, the "cross product" returns a matrix. Yes, you can come up with some geometrical object to describe this matrix, but you're no longer working with vectors, so the concept isn't the same. This is what I mean by "not geometrically generalizable". My apologies for not being more precise.


What is a dot product...?

I hope you're kidding. If not, check Mathworld.
 
There's no matrix...Consider a 6 dim manifold and compute the Hodge dual of a wedge product of two 1forms (which are actually covectors) and u'll end up with a 4 form...What matrix are u dreaming about...?

I wanted to know whether u know what a scalar product is...

Daniel.

P.S.It bears a name only for 3D euclidean space (in which 1forms=covectors-------->vectors),viz. cross product...
 
dextercioby said:
There's no matrix...Consider a 6 dim manifold and compute the Hodge dual of a wedge product of two 1forms (which are actually covectors) and u'll end up with a 4 form...

Yeah, I'll get right on that. You're right, though, I should have said "tensor", not matrix.
 
there is a rather lengthy discussion of these issues in the thread tom mattson is running on geometric interpretation of diff forms. probably located in the diff geom dept.
 
A 4-form is not a tensor, either, SpaceTiger. I'm afraid dexter has you on this one; he's right.

- Warren
 
  • #10
It is a (0,4) tensor on the manifold...:wink: "p" forms are (0,p) totally antisymmetric tensors .The em 4potential is a covector/1form,the em tensor (double covariant,antisymmetric tensor) is a 2form,its Hodge dual is a 2form as well,etc

I didn't like that "cross products aren't geometrically generalizable to n dimensions" part.Cross product needn't be generalized,other concepts in diff.geom.need to take particular values in order to find the cross product...

Daniel.
 
  • #11
Ouch. Dexter, can I borrow your brain for a few weeks? I won't hurt it, I promise.

- Warren
 
  • #12
isn't that a matter of terminology? i.e. exterior forms are often referred to as "alternating tensors".

i.e. for any module or vector space, its exterior algebra is a quotient of the tensor algebra by the homogeneous ideal generated by all squares of elements of degree one. no?

so in this sense an exterior form is an equivalence class of tensors.

there are skew - symmetric and well as symmetric tensors.

indeed if we think dually of a tensor as a field of multilinear functionals on the tangent spaces, as is usually done in differential geometry, then adding a condition like skew symmetry, merely restricts the class of tensors to a subclass.

in this sense antisymmetric tensors are actually a subfamily of the general tensors, hence they are actual tensors, and not just equivalence classes of them.
 
  • #13
as duscussed at length elsewhere, given a dot product, each vector subspace of R^n has an orthogonal complement, hence given a k plane in R^n, and a number, we can pass to the orthogonal complement paired with the same number.


this prthogonal dualization process is called cross products or hodge dual, or whatever you want in various contexts.

in oriented three space a plane and a number thought of as an oriented area, passes to a line perpendicular to that plane, and that number thought of as an oriented area, i.e. a vector in that line. that is called "cross product" of any two vectors in the original plane spanning the plane and spanniong a parallelogram with oriented area equal to the given number.


in higher dimensions, the orthogonal complement of a k plane is an (n-k) plane, so the cross product of two vectors would be an (n-2) dimensional object. it is simpler to just think of it as a 2 dimensional object, called the wedge product of the two vectors, i.e. essentially the plane they span, plus the oriented area of the parallelogram they span.

alternatively, one can take n-1 vectors instead of only 2, and say their cross product is the vector determined by the orthocomplement of the n-1 plane they span.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Thanks mathwonk. I never studied differential geometry, but your explanations make the issue a good bit clearer.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
25K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K