Confused about dot product of a and b = |a||b| if theta = 0

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the dot product of two vectors, specifically questioning the relationship between the dot product and the magnitudes of the vectors when the angle between them is zero. Participants explore the definitions and calculations involved in the dot product, addressing potential misunderstandings and clarifying concepts related to vector alignment and definitions.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the calculation of the dot product, asserting that it does not equal the product of the magnitudes when the angle is zero.
  • Another participant clarifies that the dot product is defined as \( a \cdot b = ||a|| ||b|| \cos(\theta) \), emphasizing that the angle must be correctly interpreted.
  • Some participants note that one cannot assume the angle is zero without confirming that the vectors are parallel.
  • There are discussions about the two definitions of the dot product: the coordinate definition and the coordinate-free definition, with some participants pointing out potential typos in the original calculations.
  • One participant suggests that the confusion may arise from mixing up the dot product with the vector product, indicating a misunderstanding of the terms involved.
  • Another participant provides a mathematical breakdown showing that if \( \theta = 0 \), the relationship holds under certain conditions, specifically when one vector is a scalar multiple of the other.
  • Concerns are raised about the clarity and completeness of a referenced proof regarding the cosine formula for the dot product, with critiques on its presentation and assumptions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the initial confusion regarding the dot product calculation. Multiple competing views and interpretations of the definitions and conditions of the dot product remain present throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some participants point out potential typos in the original equations, and there are discussions about the assumptions regarding the vectors' definitions and their alignment. The discussion also highlights the need for clarity in mathematical proofs and definitions.

annamal
Messages
393
Reaction score
33
TL;DR
I am not sure what I am doing wrong but dot product of a and b =/= |a||b| when I am trying to calculate it
I am not sure what I am doing wrong but dot product of a and b =/= |a||b| when I am trying to calculate it. Theta = 0:
dot product(a and b) = ax*bx + ay*by
|a||b|= sqrt((ax^2+ay^2)*(ax^2 + by^2)) = sqrt((ax*bx)^2 + (ax*by)^2 + (ay*bx)^2 + (ay*by)^2) =/= ax*bx + ay*by

What am I doing wrong?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mcastillo356
Physics news on Phys.org
These aren't supposed to be equal.
$$a\cdot b = ||a|| ||b|| \cos(\theta)$$
Where ##\theta## is the angle between ##a## and ##b##.
 
Office_Shredder said:
These aren't supposed to be equal.
$$a\cdot b = ||a|| ||b|| \cos(\theta)$$
Where ##\theta## is the angle between ##a## and ##b##.
I'm not sure I get what you're saying.
a dot b = ||a|| ||b|| with theta = 0
 
annamal said:
Summary:: I am not sure what I am doing wrong but dot product of a and b =/= |a||b| when I am trying to calculate it

I am not sure what I am doing wrong but dot product of a and b =/= |a||b| when I am trying to calculate it. Theta = 0:
dot product(a and b) = ax*bx + ay*by
|a||b|= sqrt((ax^2+ay^2)*(ax^2 + by^2)) = sqrt((ax*bx)^2 + (ax*by)^2 + (ay*bx)^2 + (ay*by)^2) =/= ax*bx + ay*by
If theta = 0, a and b are in the same direction, so ax/ay = bx/by.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: annamal
The theta referred to in the dot product definition is the angle between the vectors when placed next to each other with the tails touching.

As mentioned in earlier posts, you can’t just pick two vectors and declare that theta is zero unless you know the two vectors are parallel ie point in the same direction.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
annamal said:
Summary:: I am not sure what I am doing wrong but dot product of a and b =/= |a||b| when I am trying to calculate it

dot product(a and b) = ax*bx + ay*by
There are two definitions for the dot product, assuming ##\vec a = <a_1, a_2>## and ##\vec b = <b_1, b_2>## .
Coordinate definition: ##\vec a \cdot \vec b = a_1b_1 + a_2b_2##
Coordinate-free definition: ##\vec a \cdot \vec b = |\vec a||\vec b|\cos(\theta)##, where ##\theta## is the angle between the two vectors, and ##|\vec a|, |\vec b|## are the magnitudes of the two vectors.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
Office_Shredder said:
These aren't supposed to be equal.
$$a\cdot b = ||a|| ||b|| \cos(\theta)$$
Where ##\theta## is the angle between ##a## and ##b##.
Did you mean "are supposed to be equal"? The equation above is one of the definitions of the dot product.
 
FactChecker said:
It is not a simple proof, even when the vectors are aligned. You can compare your steps to the proof in Case 2 here: https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Cosine_Formula_for_Dot_Product
On second thought, I think it should be simple. Since the theta is 0, one is a constant multiple of the other. Let ##b = ca##. Then
##a\cdot ca = a_xca_x+a_yca_y = c(a_x^2+a_y^2)##.
And ##|a||ca| = c|a|^2 = c(a_x^2+a_y^2)##.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mfb
  • #11
From post #1:
annamal said:
dot product(a and b) = ax*bx + ay*by
|a||b|= sqrt((ax^2+ay^2)*(ax^2 + by^2)) = sqrt((ax*bx)^2 + (ax*by)^2 + (ay*bx)^2 + (ay*by)^2) =/= ax*bx + ay*by

What am I doing wrong?
For one thing, there are typos in your equation that I don't think others have noticed. Also, it's unclear to me how your vectors are defined. I'm going to guess that ##\vec a = <a_x, a_y>## and ##\vec b = <b_x, b_y>##. If that's the case, then ##| \vec a| = \sqrt{a_x^2 + a_y^2}## and ##| \vec b| = \sqrt{b_x^2 + b_y^2}##.

Your expression |a||b|= sqrt((ax^2+ay^2)*(ax^2 + by^2)) has a typo. The second factor in your square root should be ##b_x^2 + b_y^2##, not ##a_x^2 + b_y^2##. This typo appears again in the equation I quoted.

mcastillo356 said:
I think your doubts come when unit vectors take place, and I think you are not asking about dot product, but vector product in components
I don't think either of the above is true. There's no indication that the vectors involve are unit vectors, nor is there any indication that I see that the vector product (AKA cross product) is intended, especially since the vectors are two-dimensional.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: nasu and mcastillo356
  • #12
I figured it out guys.
|a||b|= sqrt((ax^2+ay^2)*(bx^2 + by^2)) = sqrt((ax*bx)^2 + (ax*by)^2 + (ay*bx)^2 + (ay*by)^2) = ax*bx + ay*by since axaxbyby + ayaybxbx = axaxbyby + (axby/bx)^2*bx^2 = axaxbyby + (axby)^2 = 2axaxbyby due to ay/ax = by/bx
Thanks though.
 
  • #13
If ##\theta =0##, then ##\vec b = \alpha \vec a##, for some ##\alpha > 0##. And$$\vec a \cdot \vec b = \alpha(\vec a \cdot \vec a) =\alpha|\vec a|^2 = |\vec a||\alpha \vec a| = |\vec a||\vec b| $$Where$$\vec a \cdot \vec a = a_x^2 + a_y^2 = |\vec a|^2$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: SammyS
  • #14
FactChecker said:
It is not a simple proof, even when the vectors are aligned. You can compare your steps to the proof in Case 2 here: https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Cosine_Formula_for_Dot_Product
The second case is poorly written. At a quick glance, case 2 looks like a complete proof, which it is not. At the top of the page it says that it is for vectors that are scalar multiples of each other. Within the case, it says that without loss of generality that they are scalar multiples of each other. It also uses that the vectors are scalar multiples of each other to equate sgn(c) and cosθ by implication.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
caz said:
The second case is poorly written. At a quick glance, case 2 looks like a complete proof, which it is not. At the top of the page it says that it is for vectors that are scalar multiples of each other. Within the case, it says that without loss of generality that they are scalar multiples of each other. It also uses that the vectors are scalar multiples of each other to equate sgn(c) and cosθ.
The OP stipulated that the vectors were at an angle ##\theta=0##. So they are scalar multiples of each other.
 
  • #16
FactChecker said:
The OP stipulated that the vectors were at an angle ##\theta=0##. So they are scalar multiples of each other.
I am talking about the website proof. It is poorly written.
 
  • #17
caz said:
The second case is poorly written. At a quick glance, case 2 looks like a complete proof, which it is not. At the top of the page it says that it is for vectors that are scalar multiples of each other. Within the case, it says that without loss of generality that they are scalar multiples of each other. It also uses that the vectors are scalar multiples of each other to equate sgn(c) and cosθ by implication.
It doesn't say "Proof 2", it says "Case 2", the second case is that the vectors are scalar multiples of each other. So I read it as: Given that the vectors are scalar multiples of each other, wolog let ##v = cw##, where ##c## is some scalar. I thought that was sufficiently well-stated.

EDIT: I guess a good practice would have been to restate what the conditions of Case 2 were at the beginning of Case 2. (Maybe as a sort of header.)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K