- #1

- 47

- 0

Can we divide two vector ? If we can't why

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter PhyHunter
- Start date

- #1

- 47

- 0

Can we divide two vector ? If we can't why

- #2

arildno

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

Gold Member

Dearly Missed

- 10,025

- 134

To understand that, remember that "division" is supposed to be the "opposite" of multiplication, so that if a/b=c, that simply means that it follows that a=b*c.

Furthermore, we want "c" to be a UNIQUE quantity, rather than that there exists lots of quantities that might be said to be the result of the division a/b.

So, to answer your question on vectors, we need to see what sort of vector multiplications we've got.

We have for example, the so-called cross product of vectors, but in a=b(cross)c, there are lots of c's we can use, that cross multiplied with "b" yields "a".

Thus, an "opposite" operation of cross multiplication does not provide us with a unique answer, and we choose therefore not to define such an operations.

There are other troubles with trying to define vectorial division as well, so it is typically not defined as an operation at all, at least to my knowledge.

- #3

MathematicalPhysicist

Gold Member

- 4,470

- 274

multiplication:

[tex](a,b,c)(d,e,f)= (ad,be,cf)[/tex]

divison when [tex]d,e,f\neq 0[/tex] :

[tex](a,b,c)/(d,e,f)=(a/d,b/e,c/f)[/tex]

Obviously, you will see this popping up in Functional Analysis, which is a generalization of linear algebra.

- #4

- 47

- 0

divison when [tex said:d,e,f\neq 0[/tex] :

[tex](a,b,c)/(d,e,f)=(a/d,b/e,c/f)[/tex]

Obviously, you will see this popping up in Functional Analysis, which is a generalization of linear algebra.

How do you prove it ?

- #5

- 22,129

- 3,297

- #6

- 807

- 23

How do you prove it ?

Prove what? He's giving you a definition.

- #7

jgens

Gold Member

- 1,583

- 50

Obviously, you will see this popping up in Functional Analysis, which is a generalization of linear algebra.

Really? The product you defined is not coordinate independent and since nearly all of the spaces arising in functional analysis have no natural choice of basis, it would surprise me to learn that component-wise products play an important role anywhere in functional analysis.

- #8

MathematicalPhysicist

Gold Member

- 4,470

- 274

- #9

jgens

Gold Member

- 1,583

- 50

I am familiar with Banach algebras, and while I get where you are coming from now, the claim that component-wise products are honestly studied in functional analysis still seems silly to me. As you certainly know, almost all of the Banach algebras that occur "in nature" have coordinate invariant products (i.e. they do not depend on a particular choice of basis) and as a result, are not given by component-wise multiplication. The examples you gave are certainly subsumed into the theory of Banach algebras, but as a matter of taste I would not really say they come up in functional analysis.

N.B. Since I do not intend to come across as argumentative, the one thing I want to make clear is that I do concede your point on this, just that I probably misinterpreted what you meant by "popping up in functional analysis"

- #10

- 47

- 0

(HERE a and b vector) and (2x1) or (2x2) is matrices)

( (2x1) matrice symbolize vector)

- #11

- 47

- 0

(HERE a and b vector) and (2x1) or (2x2) is matrices)

( (2x1) matrice symbolize vector)

- #12

- 778

- 0

(HERE a and b vector) and (2x1) or (2x2) is matrices)

( (2x1) matrice symbolize vector)

I don't quite understand what you mean. Can you rephrase?

The point others are making that you don't seem to be getting, however, is that there is no reason to have multiplication or division of vectors.

There are lots of operations on vectors which can seem like a form of multiplication (dot products, cross products etc...) but none of them are "one to one", meaning for a given output there is more than one possible input.

Now if you know that the input does not depend on the output, how are you going to define an inverse operation (akin to divison) that gives you the input based on the output?

- #13

- 47

- 0

(2x1) is one vector (2x2) is two vector system

[tex](2x2)x(2x1)=(2x1)[/tex]

so we can say

[tex](2x1)/(2x1)=(2x2)[/tex]

If we want write this in vector system

pointwise of vectors

[tex](a,b)/(c,d)=((a/c,0),(0,b/d))[/tex]

or [tex]a/b=((c,d))[/tex]

(a,b,c,d) vectors

- #14

Mark44

Mentor

- 35,128

- 6,873

In words: the product of a 2 x 2 matrix and a 2 x 1 matrix is a 2 x 1 matrix.Sure,we symbolize vector in matrix (2x1) so If we try divide two vectors in matrix system, (2x1)/(2x1) we get (2x2) so if we want control this,we will multiply (2x2)x(2x1) and we get (2x1)

(2x1) is one vector (2x2) is two vector system

[tex](2x2)x(2x1)=(2x1)[/tex]

I don't see how this makes sense. Matrix multiplication is defined if the multiplication is conformable. IOW, AB makes sense if the number of columns of A is the same as the number of rows of B.so we can say

[tex](2x1)/(2x1)=(2x2)[/tex]

However, there is no concept of dividing one matrix by another. The property you are showing about the equivalence of multiplication and division is one that applies to real numbers, not matrices.

If we want write this in vector system

pointwise of vectors

[tex](a,b)/(c,d)=((a/c,0),(0,b/d))[/tex]

or [tex]a/b=((c,d))[/tex]

(a,b,c,d) vectors

- #15

- 47

- 0

Share: