Does Changing Vector Components Affect Parallelepiped Volume?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the volume of a parallelepiped defined by vectors, specifically examining how changing one of the vectors affects the volume. The original poster questions whether the volume remains the same when substituting one vector with a modified version, prompting a mathematical exploration of this property.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the mathematical representation of the volume and its dependence on vector definitions. There are attempts to visualize the geometric implications of vector subtraction and its effect on volume. Questions arise regarding the validity of geometrical justifications and the interpretation of vector products.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants sharing insights and questioning each other's understanding. Some have provided mathematical expressions to illustrate their points, while others seek clarification on geometric interpretations. There is no explicit consensus yet, but various perspectives are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the complexities of vector manipulation and its implications for volume calculation, with references to external resources for further exploration. The discussion is framed within the constraints of homework help, emphasizing understanding over direct solutions.

Rotnort
Messages
5
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


The volume of a parallelepiped defined by the vectors w, u, \text{ and }v, \text{ where } w=u \times v is computed using:
V = w \cdot (u \times v)

However, if the parallelepiped is defined by the vectors w-u, u, \text{ and }v, \text{ where } w=u \times v instead, the volume remains the same. Why? Can this be proven mathematically?

The Attempt at a Solution


I can visualise the subtraction of the vector v as not modifying the magnitude of the length of the cross product, rather the horizontal span of the parallelepiped itself. However, I don't know how to prove this without numerical computation.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Rotnort said:

Homework Statement


The volume of a parallelepiped defined by the vectors w, u, \text{ and }v, \text{ where } w=u \times v is computed using:
V = w \cdot (u \times v)

However, if the parallelepiped is defined by the vectors w-u, u, \text{ and }v, \text{ where } w=u \times v instead, the volume remains the same. Why? Can this be proven mathematically?

The Attempt at a Solution


I can visualise the subtraction of the vector v as not modifying the magnitude of the length of the cross product, rather the horizontal span of the parallelepiped itself. However, I don't know how to prove this without numerical computation.
$$ \mathbf{(w-u) \cdot (u \times v)} = \mathbf{w \cdot (u \times v)} - \mathbf{ u \cdot (u \times v)}$$
What is ##\mathbf{u\cdot (u \times v)} ?##
 
Ray Vickson said:
$$ \mathbf{(w-u) \cdot (u \times v)} = \mathbf{w \cdot (u \times v)} - \mathbf{ u \cdot (u \times v)}$$
What is ##\mathbf{u\cdot (u \times v)} ?##
I see, very simple. Aside, is my geometrical justification valid?
 
Rotnort said:
I see, very simple. Aside, is my geometrical justification valid?
I don't know: I did not understand what you were saying or what you were trying to do.
 
Ray Vickson said:
I don't know: I did not understand what you were saying or what you were trying to do.
Ok. I am curious: how would you describe this property geometrically?
 
One way to look at it is ##\mathbf{w}\cdot(\mathbf{u}\times \mathbf{v})= \det(\mathbf{w},\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v})=\operatorname{Vol}(\mathbf{w},\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v})##.
Now your equation becomes ##\det(\mathbf{w},\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v}) = \det(\mathbf{w-u},\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v})## which is a simple column vector manipulation that doesn't change the linear equation system, esp. the determinant. Some insights on the various vector products can also be found here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.5935.pdf

Unfortunately, the English Wikipedia entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_product#Geometric_interpretation is a bit short on the geometric interpretation. The Spanish and German versions are better, if you like to switch languages and see if you can understand them. They basically derive the formula of the Volume by
$$
\operatorname{Vol}(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v},\mathbf{w}) = \operatorname{A}(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v}) \cdot h_\mathbf{w} = \operatorname{A}(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v}) \cdot |\mathbf{w}| \cdot \cos(\sphericalangle(\mathbf{u} \times \mathbf{v}), \mathbf{w}) = |\mathbf{u} \times \mathbf{v}| \cdot \mathfrak{n}_{\mathbf{u} \times \mathbf{v}}\cdot \mathbf{w} = |(\mathbf{u} \times \mathbf{v})\cdot \mathbf{w}|
$$
which is the geometric description.

If the vectors ##\{\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v},\mathbf{w}=\mathbf{u}\}## are coplanar, then ##\sphericalangle((\mathbf{u} \times \mathbf{v}),\mathbf{u}) = \frac{\pi}{2}##, because ##\mathbf{u} \times \mathbf{v}## is perpendicular to ##\mathbf{u}## and consequently ##\operatorname{Vol}(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v},\mathbf{u}) = 0##.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
11K