Are vectors assumed to be with respect to a standard basis?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter chipotleaway
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Basis Standard Vectors
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the interpretation of vectors, specifically whether a vector like <5, 3, 1> is assumed to be with respect to a standard basis in R^3. Participants explore the implications of different bases and the definitions surrounding vectors and vector spaces.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that a vector like <5, 3, 1> can be interpreted without reference to any specific basis.
  • Others argue that while <5, 3, 1> can be represented in terms of any basis that spans R^3, there is a standard representation that is commonly used.
  • A participant points out that the definition of a vector is tied to the properties of vector spaces rather than a specific basis.
  • There is a discussion about whether the notation used for vectors implies a specific basis, with some suggesting that context is crucial for interpretation.
  • One participant raises a question about the distinction between coordinates and components of a vector, noting that this distinction may vary between linear algebra and physics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether vectors are inherently tied to a standard basis or if they exist independently of any basis. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing interpretations present.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight that the interpretation of vectors may depend on the context in which they are presented, and that the definitions of terms like "basis" may differ between fields such as linear algebra and physics.

chipotleaway
Messages
174
Reaction score
0
For example, if were given only a vector <5, 3, 1>, is this assumed to be respect with the standard basis of R^3?

And would this mean that any nonstandard basis is with respect to a standard basis?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are free to expand a vector against any basis set you like.
For your example, any set of three vectors that form a basis for R^3 is fine.

There is a standard representation though - from the rules for vector spaces.
 
The vector (5,3,1) is defined without reference to any basis at all. R3 is lists of three real numbers, and (5,3,1) is a list of three real numbers. It turns out that this is a vector space and that it has a basis for which (5,3,1) = 5e1 + 3e2 + 1e3 but that's totally incidental to the definition of (5,3,1)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
So (5,3,1) with no reference to a basis is NOT a vector? And the lists of R^3 happen to be vectors because R^3 satisfy the properties of a vector space?
 
There's no definition of what is/isn't a vector. There's a definition of a vector space, and given a vector space we call its elements "vectors".

It's exactly as Office_Shredder put it:
- We define the set \mathbb R^3 as the set of ordered triples of real numbers.
- For any real number c \in \mathbb R and any ordered triple x\in \mathbb R^3, we define what we mean by cx \in \mathbb R^3.
- For any two ordered triples x,y\in \mathbb R^3, we define what we mean by x+y \in \mathbb R^3.
Then it turns out that these things together satisfies what we call a vector space.

All of this makes sense without needing to define the word "vector".
 
A vector exists independent of any basis you choose to represent it in. If ##V## is a vector space then ##v\in V## is a vector, that's all. You can choose a basis ##(e_i)## for ##V## and represent ##v## as ##v = \sum v_i e_i## and further express ##v## relative to this basis in coordinate form ##[v]_{(e_i)} = (x_1,...,x_n)## by passing over to ##K^n## where ##K## is the field that ##V## is over.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
I'm wondering if this question is more about notation than basis sets.

if ##\small \{\vec{u},\vec{v},\vec{w}\}## is an arbitrary basis for ##\small \mathbb{R}^3##, then is ## \small <x,y,z>=x\vec{u}+y\vec{v}+z\vec{w}## ?

I don't know if I'm putting this well.

If you see <5,3,1> written down, with no other information but that it is a vector, it is safe to expand it as 5<1,0,0>+3<0,1,0>+<0,0,1>.

Another basis, written in terms of the standard one, may be {<1,1,0>,<1,-1,0>,<0,0,1>} ... we would not expect <5,3,1> to mean 5<1,1,0>+3<1,-1,0>+<0,0,1> unless we are told that it does.

However, three numbers written like that could be a list of data, or a spherical-polar position, or just a row of text characters - depending on context. If <5,3,1> is the only thing on the page, you have no information.

Does that answer the question?
 
For a bit of context, this arised from an example in Anton's linear algebra text; in the first part he showed how to find the coordinate vector of a given vector (I'm going to call it <5, 3, 1>) in terms of a given nonstandard basis S.
Next part, find a vector in R^3 whose coordinate vector with respect to S is <3, 2, 4>.

So a list of numbers in R^3, (5, 3, 1) exists independent of a basis but happens to have that same representation with respect to the standard basis of R^3 (and also happens to be a vector?)
 
chipotleaway said:
So a list of numbers in R^3, (5, 3, 1) exists independent of a basis but happens to have that same representation with respect to the standard basis of R^3 (and also happens to be a vector?)

This is correct.
 
  • #10
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
  • #11
Yep - I wondered if this could have been the motivation of the question.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K