Dot Product Clarification (Kleppner & Kolenkow p.9)

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of the dot product as presented in Kleppner's "Introduction to Mechanics." Participants are exploring the relationship between vector representation and the resulting scalar from the dot product operation.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants express confusion regarding the transition from vector sums to a scalar result in the dot product. There are attempts to clarify the representation of vectors in terms of their components along coordinate axes.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights into the notation used by Kleppner, suggesting that he refers to expressing vectors as sums of their components rather than summing the vectors themselves. This has led to a more nuanced understanding of the dot product process.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of different educational contexts, with references to other texts like Stewart's Calculus, which may influence participants' interpretations of the dot product.

Von Neumann
Messages
101
Reaction score
4
Problem:

In Kleppner's book, Introduction to Mechanics, he states

"By writing [itex]\vec{A}[/itex] and [itex]\vec{B}[/itex] as the sums of vectors along each of the coordinate axes, you can verify that [itex]\vec{A} \cdot \vec{B} = A_{x}B_{x} + A_{y}B_{y} + A_{z}B_{z}[/itex]."

He suggests summing vectors, but since the sum of two vectors vectors [itex]\vec{A}[/itex] and [itex]\vec{B}[/itex] is a new vector [itex]\vec{C}[/itex], I don't understand how the result could be a scalar. Am I missing something?

When I was introduced to the dot product in Stewart's Calculus, he presents it as definition.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't get it either. What is the context in which Kleppner makes this statement?
 
Von Neumann said:
He suggests summing vectors, but since the sum of two vectors vectors [itex]\vec{A}[/itex] and [itex]\vec{B}[/itex] is a new vector [itex]\vec{C}[/itex], I don't understand how the result could be a scalar. Am I missing something?
He's not suggesting summing vectors but representing each vector as the sum of its components times unit vectors.

Like:
A = Ax i + Ay j + Az k

Then you can take the scalar product (of A and B) and see the result more easily.
 
I have the book as well. Does he not simply mean write: $$\mathbf{A} = A_x \hat{x} + A_y \hat{y} + A_z \hat{z}\,\,\,\,\text{and}\,\,\,\, \mathbf{B} = B_x \hat{x} + B_y \hat{y} + B_z \hat{z}$$ and then take dot product.

I assume by writing vectors A and B like this is what he means by 'sum of vectors along each of the coordinate axes'.

Edit: Doc Al said same thing.
 
The above are correct
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K