Confusion regarding dot product of vectors(row matrices)

mdnazmulh
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
I’ve got a confusion. We know a 1x3 row matrix is a 3-vector i.e.
x= [ a b c]
Matrix x can be written in vector notation like x= a i + b j + c k
where i, j, k are unit vectors along x,y & z axes.
For dot product of
x.x = a2 + b2 + c2 when x= a i + b j + c k

But according to the matrix multiplication rule, multiplication of two matrices is possible only when column of 1st matrix = row of the 2nd matrix.
So x.x = [ a b c] [ a b c] is not possible
My questions are :
(1) Both x= [ a b c] and x= a i + b j + c k are same vector.
Then why this discrepancy happens?
(2) Does really x.x exist when x = [ a b c]? Can we approach in any other way to define x.x when x = [ a b c] ?
I’m novice at linear algebra. So it would be helpful for me if you can explain elaborately. I’m really at a loss about that confusion.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mdnazmulh said:
For dot product of
x.x = a2 + b2 + c2 when x= a i + b j + c k

But according to the matrix multiplication rule, multiplication of two matrices is possible only when column of 1st matrix = row of the 2nd matrix.

Hi mdnazmulh! :smile:

Technically, the product for "matrix" vectors is an inner product, and one of the vectors must be a transpose vector (written as a column vector instead of a row vector, or abbreviated xT).

So the inner product is xxT.

For details, you could see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_product_space" …

but I wouldn't bother until your professor deals with it. :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for your reply. Actually in the book of introductory linear algebra by Bernard Kolman there is a question that if x is an n-vector then is it possible that x.x can have negative value? And part (b) of the question says that if x.x=0 , what is x=0?
Now I understand the author placed those questions in the exercise just to check our conception. Answer MUST BE that x.x is no way possible.
Thank u again
 
mdnazmulh said:
… Now I understand the author placed those questions in the exercise just to check our conception. Answer MUST BE that x.x is no way possible.

No, that's not what I meant.

For a vector that's just a vector, x.x is correct.

Only if a vector is considered as a matrix (which I called '"matrix" vectors'), does the product have to be xxT

that's what you originally asked about. :wink:
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...

Similar threads

Replies
33
Views
4K
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
18
Views
2K
Back
Top