Basic Multivariable Proof Equating Determinant to dot/cross product

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof that equates the determinant of three vectors A, B, and C to the dot product of vector A and the cross product of vectors B and C. The scope includes mathematical reasoning and exploration of notation in the context of linear algebra.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Mark expresses uncertainty about his understanding of the relationship between the determinant of vectors A, B, and C and the dot product of vector A with the cross product of vectors B and C.
  • One participant asserts that the equality $$\mathop{det} ( \vec{A} , \vec{B} , \vec{C} )=\vec{A} \cdot ( \vec{B} \times \vec{C})$$ holds due to the unique properties of determinants and the dot and cross products.
  • Another participant suggests that Mark's approach, while crude, is valid and can lead to the desired proof using the coordinate formula.
  • There is a clarification regarding the notation for rotation, with one participant noting that $$\tau$$ is not standard and suggesting that $$R$$ might be more common.
  • A later reply provides a detailed calculation of the determinant using the coordinate representation, linking it to the dot product with the cross product.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the validity of the relationship between the determinant and the dot/cross product, though there are differing views on the notation and the approach to the proof. The discussion remains open regarding the best notation and method for demonstrating the equality.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved aspects regarding the choice of notation for rotation and the clarity of the mathematical steps involved in the proof. Some participants express confusion about certain symbols and their meanings.

CubicFlunky77
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Hello folks! Just a concise introduction of myself before I get to the task at hand: I'm new to these forums although I have been surfing them frequently for the past 5 years! I am not a math major and quite frankly, my skills in the subject are limited. Be that as it may, my fascination for math has inspired me to pursue a career in either pure math or computational science. My name is Mark and I'm an undergrad Uni student.

K, now on to the task at hand: I am not familiar with symbolic/notation input on these forums so I apologize in advance for my crude way of displaying the question in a pictorial format. Simply put, my goal in the picture is to equate the determinant of vectors A, B and C to the dot product of vector A and (vector B cross-product vector C).

Wow that sounded stupid! Lol, please excuse my naïveté. I have a STRONG feeling I am doing something incorrectly. Can anyone please steer me in the right direction?:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Well clearly (using your notation)
$$\mathop{det} ( \vec{A} , \vec{B} , \vec{C} )=\vec{A} \cdot ( \vec{B} \times \vec{C})$$

as there is only one function that has the properties each side has, they must be equal.
This could be shown different ways, but I like.
$$\mathop{det} ( \tau \vec{A} , \tau \vec{B} , \tau \vec{C} )=\mathop{det} ( \vec{A} , \vec{B} , \vec{C} )$$
and
$$\mathop{det} ( \vec{i} , \vec{j} , \vec{k} )=1$$
where $$\tau$$ is any rotation
These properties determine det uniquely
since $$\vec{A} \cdot ( \vec{B} \times \vec{C})$$ has these properties as well the two are equal.
 
It looks like you are trying to prove it using the coordinate formula, that (while crude) will work also.
 
Well, blimey, that was simple enough! Looks like what I did was overkill:blushing:

Unfortunately, I did not know that [itex]\tau[/itex] stood for rotation.
 
Welcome to PF, Mark. Five years is a long to time to lurk without posting.

##\tau## is not a standard notation for rotation. I think R is the most common notation, but I'm not sure if it can be called "standard". Here I guess ##\tau## looks prettier, since you're using uppercase Latin letters for vectors.

Your own approach works, but the calculation ends much earlier. I didn't try to understand everything you did, but here's how I'd do it.
$$
\begin{vmatrix}a_1 & a_2 & a_3\\ b_1 & b_2 & b_3\\ c_1 & c_2 & c_3\\ \end{vmatrix} =a_1\underbrace{\begin{vmatrix}b_2 & b_3\\ c_2 & c_3\end{vmatrix}}_{\displaystyle=(\vec B\times\vec C)_1} -a_2\underbrace{\begin{vmatrix}b_1 & b_3\\ c_1 & c_3\end{vmatrix}}_{\displaystyle=-(\vec B\times\vec C)_2} +a_3\underbrace{\begin{vmatrix}b_1 & b_2\\ c_1 & c_2\end{vmatrix}}_{\displaystyle=(\vec B\times\vec C)_3} =\vec A\cdot(\vec B\times\vec C)
$$
This is the link to the FAQ post about how to make the math look pretty:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3977517&postcount=3

If you hit the quote button next to my post, you can see how I did what I did. Same thing with lurflurf's post.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K