Complex number sum that should be easy

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of the Gram-Schmidt process to complex vectors. The original poster is attempting to orthogonalize the vectors U1 = (i, -1, i) and U2 = (1, 1, 0) but is encountering discrepancies in the resulting vector V2.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster describes their calculation of V2 and expresses confusion over the resulting vector not being orthogonal. They question what might be missing in their approach.
  • Some participants suggest that the original poster may be overlooking the need to use the complex conjugate in the dot product of complex vectors.
  • Others point out the importance of the order in which the inner product is calculated, leading to different results.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging in clarifying the steps involved in the Gram-Schmidt process for complex vectors. Some guidance has been offered regarding the use of complex conjugates and the correct order of operations in the inner product, but no consensus has been reached on the fixed nature of these methods.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights potential confusion arising from the differences between handling complex and real vectors, particularly in the context of inner products and orthogonalization.

trap101
Messages
339
Reaction score
0
Hey,

So I have a sum of complex numbers that really should be easy, but I'm not getting the right solution. It is with respct to using the Gram Schmidt process

U1 = (i, -1, i) U2 = (1,1,0)

So I perform the Gram Schmidt with U1 being my initial vector selection and I get:

V2 = (1,1,0) - [(-1 + i)/3 ] (i, -1 , i)

and here is where the issue arises. Now I did regular subtraction w.r.t complex numbers and got:

[ (4 + i)/ 3, (2+i)/3 , (1+i)/3]

but the solution is:

[(2+i)/3 , (2-i)/3, (-1+i)/3 ]

my vector is not orthogonal, so my question is what am I missing with respect to this?

thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
trap101 said:
Hey,

So I have a sum of complex numbers that really should be easy, but I'm not getting the right solution. It is with respct to using the Gram Schmidt process

U1 = (i, -1, i) U2 = (1,1,0)

So I perform the Gram Schmidt with U1 being my initial vector selection and I get:

V2 = (1,1,0) - [(-1 + i)/3 ] (i, -1 , i)

and here is where the issue arises. Now I did regular subtraction w.r.t complex numbers and got:

[ (4 + i)/ 3, (2+i)/3 , (1+i)/3]

but the solution is:

[(2+i)/3 , (2-i)/3, (-1+i)/3 ]

my vector is not orthogonal, so my question is what am I missing with respect to this?

thanks

You are probably missing that dot product of complex vectors involves taking a complex conjugate of one of the vectors. And <u1,u2> is not necessarily equal to <u2,u1>. Do it again and be careful.
 
trap101 said:
Hey,

So I have a sum of complex numbers that really should be easy, but I'm not getting the right solution. It is with respct to using the Gram Schmidt process

U1 = (i, -1, i) U2 = (1,1,0)

So I perform the Gram Schmidt with U1 being my initial vector selection and I get:

V2 = (1,1,0) - [(-1 + i)/3 ] (i, -1 , i)

and here is where the issue arises. Now I did regular subtraction w.r.t complex numbers and got:

[ (4 + i)/ 3, (2+i)/3 , (1+i)/3]

but the solution is:

[(2+i)/3 , (2-i)/3, (-1+i)/3 ]

my vector is not orthogonal, so my question is what am I missing with respect to this?

thanks

I checked the solution vector by dotting u1 with (their) v2, and got a value of zero. Are you forgetting that if u and v are complex vectors, then ##u \cdot v = \sum u_i * \overline{v_i}##? IOW, you need to use the complex conjugate?

Show us how you calculated v2.
 
Also, you are dividing by "3" when you should be dividing by [itex]\sqrt{3}[/itex].
 
This is how I got my V2


V2 = U2 - {[<(i, -1 , i) , (1,1,0)>]/ [<(i, -1 , i), (i, -1 , i)>]} (i, -1, i)


ok, well I figured it out, and well I'm having a big conundrum here. Essentially it came down to the order in which I performed the hermitian inner product. But I had dubbed
U1 = (i, -1 , i) and when I used the GS formula I did my inner product as:

<V1, U2 >. Doing it that way I got the wrong result, but doing it <U2, V1> I got the right result. Which brings up the question, of which is the way it is supposed to be and is that way fixed? Because when doing the inner product w.r.t just the reals this problem doesn't arise.

Thanks for the help.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K