Cross Product in R^n: Defined or Undefined?

AI Thread Summary
The cross product is only defined in R^3 and does not generalize well to other dimensions, particularly due to the challenges in defining a determinant for matrices of different sizes. While generalizations of the cross product exist in specific contexts, such as in R^7 using octonions, they do not maintain the same properties as the traditional cross product. The discussion highlights the difficulty in proving the equivalence of algebraic and geometric definitions of the cross product, particularly through distributivity. Participants express interest in exploring these proofs, indicating a shared understanding of the complexities involved. Overall, the cross product remains a concept primarily tied to three-dimensional space.
quasar987
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Messages
4,796
Reaction score
32
Simple question: is the cross product defined in R^n ? In my linear algebra textbook, they talk about the dot product in length but don't even mention the cross product.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
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.
 
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:
What is the easiest route to showing the equivalence of the algebraic and geometric definitions of the cross product?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Galileo said:
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.
That's exactly what I was trying. And I think I'm on the right track to proving distributivity. :cool:
 
quasar987 said:
That's exactly what I was trying. And I think I'm on the right track to proving distributivity. :cool:
Good luck :biggrin:
 
Back
Top