MHB Extend to an orthonormal basis for R^3

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around extending a set of vectors to an orthonormal basis in R^3 using the Gram-Schmidt process. The original poster questions the choice of basis vectors, suggesting an alternative that simplifies the process. Responses confirm that different orders in the Gram-Schmidt method yield valid orthonormal sets, as long as the vectors remain orthogonal. The conversation also touches on the implications of choosing standard basis vectors, noting that one method may lead to orientation-reversing results while the other preserves orientation. Ultimately, both approaches are valid and lead to correct outcomes in the context of singular value decomposition.
Petrus
Messages
702
Reaction score
0
Hello MHB,
(I Hope the picture is read able)
154unac.jpg

this is a exemple on My book ( i am supposed to find a singular value decomposition) well My question is in the book when they use gram-Schmidt to extand they use $$(u_1,u_2,e_3)$$ but I would use $$(u_1,u_2,e_1)$$ cause it is orthogonal against u_2 which make the gram-Schmidt easy!:) does My method works as well?
Edit: I am pretty sure it works cause it is orthonormal to the other! Just want confirmed:)!
Regards,
$$|\pi\rangle$$
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Re: Extend to a orthonornal basis for R^3

When you are asked to derive an orthonormal set from a set of vectors, different orders will give different results but they will all be orthonormal sets. Any of those would be a correct answer. (Unless the order is specifically mentioned in the problem.)
 
Re: Extend to a orthonornal basis for R^3

HallsofIvy said:
When you are asked to derive an orthonormal set from a set of vectors, different orders will give different results but they will all be orthonormal sets. Any of those would be a correct answer. (Unless the order is specifically mentioned in the problem.)
Thanks for the answer and thanks for taking your time! Have a nice day!:)

Regards,
$$|\pi\rangle$$
 
Petrus, what you say is true, but in the case of a standard basis vector we have:

$\text{proj}_{\mathbf{v}}(\mathbf{e}_j) = \dfrac{\mathbf{v}\cdot\mathbf{e}_j} {\mathbf{v}\cdot \mathbf{v}}\mathbf{v}$

If $\mathbf{v}$ is already a unit vector, this becomes:

$v_j\mathbf{v}$.

So if we pick $\mathbf{v}_3 = \mathbf{e}_3$ (as your text does), then Gram-Schmidt gives:

$\mathbf{u}_3 = \mathbf{e}_3 - \text{proj}_{\mathbf{u}_1}(\mathbf{e}_3) - \text{proj}_{\mathbf{u}_2}(\mathbf{e}_3)$

$= (0,0,1) -\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\left(\dfrac{2}{\sqrt{6}}, \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{6}},\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\right) - \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(0,\dfrac{-1}{\sqrt{2}},\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\right)$

$= (0,0,1) - \left(\dfrac{1}{3},\dfrac{1}{6},\dfrac{1}{6}\right) - \left(0,\dfrac{-1}{2},\dfrac{1}{2}\right)$

$= \left(\dfrac{-1}{3},\dfrac{1}{3},\dfrac{1}{3}\right)$

which upon normalization clearly becomes the $\mathbf{u}_3$ in your text.

Yes, you are correct that if we pick $\mathbf{v}_3 = \mathbf{e}_1$, then one of the projection terms we subtract is 0, and we get:

$\mathbf{u}_3 = (1,0,0) - \dfrac{2}{\sqrt{6}}\left(\dfrac{2}{\sqrt{6}}, \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{6}},\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\right)$

$= (1,0,0) - \left(\dfrac{2}{3},\dfrac{1}{3},\dfrac{1}{3}\right)$

$= \left(\dfrac{1}{3},\dfrac{-1}{3},\dfrac{-1}{3}\right)$

This is the negative (upon normalization) of the vector your book found, and is clearly also perpendicular to the plane spanned by $\{\mathbf{u}_1,\mathbf{u}_2\}$.

Now it's largely a matter of preference as to which $U$ you use, one will be orientation-preserving, and one will be orientation-reversing. I'm a bit surprised your text chose the orientation-reversing matrix, but as you can see, both methods work out (up to a sign difference) the same (and it turns out the sign of the 3rd column of $U$ doesn't matter, because the 3rd row of $\Sigma$ is 0).
 
Deveno said:
Petrus, what you say is true, but in the case of a standard basis vector we have:

$\text{proj}_{\mathbf{v}}(\mathbf{e}_j) = \dfrac{\mathbf{v}\cdot\mathbf{e}_j} {\mathbf{v}\cdot \mathbf{v}}\mathbf{v}$

If $\mathbf{v}$ is already a unit vector, this becomes:

$v_j\mathbf{v}$.

So if we pick $\mathbf{v}_3 = \mathbf{e}_3$ (as your text does), then Gram-Schmidt gives:

$\mathbf{u}_3 = \mathbf{e}_3 - \text{proj}_{\mathbf{u}_1}(\mathbf{e}_3) - \text{proj}_{\mathbf{u}_2}(\mathbf{e}_3)$

$= (0,0,1) -\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\left(\dfrac{2}{\sqrt{6}}, \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{6}},\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\right) - \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(0,\dfrac{-1}{\sqrt{2}},\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\right)$

$= (0,0,1) - \left(\dfrac{1}{3},\dfrac{1}{6},\dfrac{1}{6}\right) - \left(0,\dfrac{-1}{2},\dfrac{1}{2}\right)$

$= \left(\dfrac{-1}{3},\dfrac{1}{3},\dfrac{1}{3}\right)$

which upon normalization clearly becomes the $\mathbf{u}_3$ in your text.

Yes, you are correct that if we pick $\mathbf{v}_3 = \mathbf{e}_1$, then one of the projection terms we subtract is 0, and we get:

$\mathbf{u}_3 = (1,0,0) - \dfrac{2}{\sqrt{6}}\left(\dfrac{2}{\sqrt{6}}, \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{6}},\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\right)$

$= (1,0,0) - \left(\dfrac{2}{3},\dfrac{1}{3},\dfrac{1}{3}\right)$

$= \left(\dfrac{1}{3},\dfrac{-1}{3},\dfrac{-1}{3}\right)$

This is the negative (upon normalization) of the vector your book found, and is clearly also perpendicular to the plane spanned by $\{\mathbf{u}_1,\mathbf{u}_2\}$.

Now it's largely a matter of preference as to which $U$ you use, one will be orientation-preserving, and one will be orientation-reversing. I'm a bit surprised your text chose the orientation-reversing matrix, but as you can see, both methods work out (up to a sign difference) the same (and it turns out the sign of the 3rd column of $U$ doesn't matter, because the 3rd row of $\Sigma$ is 0).
Thanks a LOT I always like your post! Thanks for taking your time and have a nice day!:)

Regards,
$$|\pi\rangle$$
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K