Can the Cross Product be Generalized Using the Dot Product?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between the cross product and the dot product, particularly in the context of generalizing the cross product from R³ to higher dimensions and other inner product spaces. Participants explore whether the cross product can be expressed solely in terms of the dot product and the implications of such a generalization.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions if the cross product can be calculated using only the dot product in R³ and seeks to understand its generalization in the context of inner product spaces.
  • Another participant proposes a generalization of the cross product in Rⁿ, suggesting that it can be defined using a determinant involving n-1 vectors, but notes that this definition requires multiple vectors.
  • A different participant expresses discomfort with the idea that the cross product does not generalize to other spaces like the dot product does, highlighting a perceived limitation.
  • One participant points out the fundamental difference between the cross product and dot product, noting that one results in a vector while the other results in a scalar.
  • Another participant argues against the generalization of the cross product by questioning the existence of a dimension that is perpendicular to all planes in higher dimensions, suggesting a limitation in defining the cross product beyond R³.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the generalizability of the cross product, with some suggesting possible definitions in higher dimensions while others assert that such generalization is not feasible. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the relationship between the cross product and the dot product.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the need for multiple vectors to define a generalized cross product in higher dimensions, and there is uncertainty regarding the definitions of Euclidean space in relation to inner products.

Damidami
Messages
93
Reaction score
0
I know the cross product and dot product of euclidean space R^3.

But I wanted to know if there is a way of thinking the cross product "in terms of" the dot product.
That is because the dot product can be generalized to an inner product, and from R^3 to an arbitrary inner vector space (and Hilbert space). In that process of generalization, where does the cross product fit?

(1) I mean, is there a way (at least in R^3) of calculating a cross product using only the dot product?

(2) Moreover, I want to know, the definition of euclidean space R^n, is the vector space along with the usual inner product (dot product), or with any other inner product also is considered an eucliden space?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
in Rn, one can generalize the cross product to be the unique vector z in Rn such that for all w:

[tex]\langle w,z\rangle = \det\begin{pmatrix}v_1\\ \vdots\\v_{n-1}\\w\end{pmatrix}[/tex]

note that this means we need n-1 "multiplicands" to define a cross product.

normally, we think of a product as a binary operation, so n-1 = 2 means that a "two-term" cross product can only be defined in R3.

in 3 dimensions the above formula becomes:

[tex]\bf{a}\cdot(\bf{b}\times\bf{c}) = \det\begin{pmatrix}\bf{a}\\ \bf{b}\\ \bf{c}\end{pmatrix}[/tex]
 
Hi Deveno,
Thanks, but that doesn't answer any of my questions.
Can (even in R^3) the cross product be defined using the inner product only?
What makes me unconfortable is that the dot product can be generalized to inner product spaces and hilbert spaces, while the cross product doesn't generalize to any kind of space?
 
How can you relate the cross product and the dot product? One gives a vector and the other gives a scalar...
 
You can't generalize the cross product. Ask yourself this simple question: which dimension is perpendicular to all x, y and z planes?

If you say which dimension is perpendicular to x and y planes, the answer is the z plane but there is no such analog for higher dimensions.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K