# Cross prod

1. May 2, 2005

### quasar987

Simple question: is the cross product defined in R^n ? In my linear algebra textbook, they talk about the dot product in lenght but don't even mention the cross product.

2. May 2, 2005

### Data

No, in general it is not (and cannot be) defined for $\mathbb{R}^n$. An analogous product does exist in $\mathbb{R}^7$, though, constructed using the multiplication table for octonions.

3. May 2, 2005

### jcsd

No the cross product is only defined in R^3.

It's defintion doesn't lend itself well to generalizations other spaces of different dimenion (especially if you want a binary operation). Of course thta's not to say that generalizations are impossible.
$$a\times b = \left|\begin{array}{ccc}\hat{x}&\hat{y}&\hat{z}\\a_x&a_y&a_z\\b_x&b_y&b_z\end{array}\right|$$

Which matrix would you take the determinant of when n is not equal to 3?

Last edited: May 2, 2005
4. May 2, 2005

### quasar987

What is the easiest route to showing the equivalence of the algebraic and geometric definitions of the cross product?

5. May 2, 2005

### Galileo

That's a fairly difficult problem in general. Usually they start with the geometric definition, then show that the cross-product is distributive: A X (B+C)=(A X B)+(A X C)
Then you can derive the algebraic definition by writing the vectors out in components and use distributivity. Proving distributivity is not very easy, but certainly doable.

6. May 2, 2005

### dextercioby

The name "cross product" refers to the simple Euclidean 3D case.But since this "cross product" is nothing but a Hodge dual of a wedge product between two 1-forms,going to p-forms on arbitrary manifolds gives you the desired generalization...

Daniel.

7. May 2, 2005

### quasar987

That's exactly what I was trying. And I think I'm on the right track to proving distributivity.

8. May 2, 2005

### Galileo

Good luck

Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook