Calculus 3 introduction to cross product

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the concept of the cross product in three-dimensional vector mathematics. Participants explore its properties, relationships to other vector operations like the dot product, and the geometric interpretation of these concepts. The scope includes theoretical understanding and conceptual clarification of vector operations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the cross product can be thought of as a resultant vector or similar to displacement, seeking clarification on its orthogonality to the original vectors.
  • Another participant asserts that the cross product is not a resultant vector, defining resultant vectors as sums of other vectors and expressing uncertainty about its similarity to displacement.
  • It is noted that the cross product is defined to be orthogonal to the two vectors involved, and its magnitude can be interpreted as measuring the area of the parallelogram formed by those vectors.
  • One participant proposes an alternative definition of the cross product using specific unit vectors and describes its properties, including associativity, distributivity, and anti-commutativity.
  • Another participant suggests that while the dot product indicates how parallel two vectors are, the cross product indicates how perpendicular they are.
  • A later reply corrects an earlier claim about the properties of the cross product, stating that it is not associative and instead satisfies the Jacobi identity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of the cross product, particularly regarding its classification as a resultant vector and its relationship to displacement. There is no consensus on these points, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Some definitions and properties of vector operations are discussed, but there are unresolved assumptions about terms like "resultant vector" and "displacement." The discussion also highlights potential confusion regarding the associative property of the cross product.

lonewolf219
Messages
186
Reaction score
2
Just learning about vectors in 3 dimensions. Would it be correct to think of the cross product vector like a resultant vector? Is it similar to the displacement? If so, why is it always 90 degrees from both original vectors?

If anyone has some deeper insight into any of these vector topics I would appreciate it. Also, I'm wondering what the dot product is actually measuring. And what the relationship is beteen the cosine of dot product and the sine of cross product...

THANK YOU!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
lonewolf219 said:
Just learning about vectors in 3 dimensions. Would it be correct to think of the cross product vector like a resultant vector? Is it similar to the displacement? If so, why is it always 90 degrees from both original vectors?

If anyone has some deeper insight into any of these vector topics I would appreciate it. Also, I'm wondering what the dot product is actually measuring. And what the relationship is beteen the cosine of dot product and the sine of cross product...

THANK YOU!

In order...

No, the cross product is not a resultant vector, at least not as I understand the term. As I understand it, the resultant vector is a sum of two other vectors. Or more.

I'm not sure if it'd be similar to the displacement, myself. That depends on what you mean by displacement.

The cross product is always orthogonal to the two vectors being cross producted because that's how it's defined. As for what they're measuring...

The magnitude of the cross product can be thought of as measuring the area of the parallelogram defined by its two component vectors. Picture below:

220px-Cross_product_parallelogram.svg.png


As you can see, the cross product vector itself will always be orthogonal to that parallelogram.
 
Another way to define the cross product is to define
1) [itex]\vec{i}\times\vec{j}= \vec{k}[/itex]
2) [itex]\vec{j}\times\vec{k}= \vec{i}[/itex]
3) [itex]\vec{k}\times\vec{i}= \vec{k}[/itex]

and defining it to be associative, distributive, and anti-commutative so
that [itex](a\vec{i}+ b\vec{j}+ c\vec{k})\times(u\vec{i}+ v\vec{j}+ w\vec{k})= a\vec{i}\times(u\vec{i}+ v\vec{j}+ w\vec{k})+ b\vec{j}\times(u\vec{i}+ v\vec{j}+ w\vec{k})+ c\vec{k}(u\vec{i}+ v\vec{j}+ w\vec{k})[/itex]
 
Another way to think about it is that, while the (absolute value of the) dot product tells you "how parallel" two vectors are, the (magnitude of the) cross product tells you "how perpendicular" two vectors are.
 
Thanks for the replies, guys! Hmm, the angle of how parallel and the angle of how perpendicular. That's interesting!
 
HallsofIvy said:
Another way to define the cross product is to define
1) [itex]\vec{i}\times\vec{j}= \vec{k}[/itex]
2) [itex]\vec{j}\times\vec{k}= \vec{i}[/itex]
3) [itex]\vec{k}\times\vec{i}= \vec{k}[/itex]

and defining it to be [strike]associative[/strike], distributive, and anti-commutative so
that [itex](a\vec{i}+ b\vec{j}+ c\vec{k})\times(u\vec{i}+ v\vec{j}+ w\vec{k})= a\vec{i}\times(u\vec{i}+ v\vec{j}+ w\vec{k})+ b\vec{j}\times(u\vec{i}+ v\vec{j}+ w\vec{k})+ c\vec{k}(u\vec{i}+ v\vec{j}+ w\vec{k})[/itex]
There's one word too many in that sentence. The cross product isn't associative. It satisfies the Jacobi identity instead: a×(b×c)+b×(c×a)+c×(a×b)=0.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
21
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K