A quick question about scalar product of vectors

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the scalar product of vectors B and C, with the correct scalar product being 5. The user initially struggled with incorporating the factors of 2 and 3 into their calculations. After clarification, it was confirmed that multiplying vector C by 3 involves multiplying each of its components, resulting in a new vector. The final scalar product calculation yields 30 after applying the factor of 2 to the scalar product of the modified vector. The user expresses gratitude for the assistance and appears satisfied with the corrected result.
TA1068
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Attached is a .jpg of my problem.

I know how to find the scalar product of B*C (I think... 5, right?), but I don't really know where the 2 and 3 come into play. I've tried multiplying the values of C by 3 and then finding the scalar product, then multiplying the quantity by two, but that was incorrect.


I couldn't find it in my physics text. I guess it's probably something I should know, but I don't, so that's why I'm here! Any help would be greatly appreciated.
 

Attachments

  • Vector Q.jpg
    Vector Q.jpg
    4.5 KB · Views: 504
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Your attachment couldn't be displayed. Try something else.
 
Oops! Here it is:

img87.imageshack.us/img87/2452/vectorqqp8.jpg
 
TA1068 said:
I know how to find the scalar product of B*C (I think... 5, right?), but I don't really know where the 2 and 3 come into play. I've tried multiplying the values of C by 3 and then finding the scalar product, then multiplying the quantity by two, but that was incorrect.

Well this was correct. Unless you made a mistake in carrying out the calculations ...
Remember when you multiply the vector C by the number 3 you have to multiply each component of C by this number 3, giving you

3C = 3(-1,-1,2)=(-3,-3,6)

I suggest double-checking your calculations and if this doesn't help...show us what you have done and we can most likely find your mistake.:smile:


For the scalar product of B and C, five is correct.

B.C = (-3,0,1).(-1,-1,2)=3+0+2=5, well done.
 
So for my work...

B = (-3, 0, 1) and
C = (-3, -3, 6)

So... 9 + 0 + 6 = 15
15 * 2 = 30

...I could have sworn that's what I was doing all along, but for some reason I kept getting 60 for my answer. Hmm.

Anyways, thanks greatly for any and all help!
 
So are you content with 30 now? It seems corect to me.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top