Finding Angle Between Two Vectors Using Inner Products

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Cameron95
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Angle Vectors
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the use of inner products to determine the angle between two vectors, specifically in the context of a non-standard inner product. Participants explore the implications of different inner products on the definitions of angle and magnitude, and how these relate to traditional Euclidean concepts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion regarding the calculation of the angle between vectors using the provided inner product, questioning the result of π/3 versus the expected π/2.
  • Another participant clarifies that the inner product given is not the standard Euclidean inner product, which leads to different results for angle and magnitude.
  • It is noted that different inner products can yield different angles and magnitudes for the same vectors, emphasizing the dependence on the chosen inner product.
  • Participants discuss the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality and its role in defining angles in inner product spaces, suggesting that the angle is a generalization from Euclidean geometry.
  • Questions arise about the meaning of "angle with respect to the inner product," with some participants struggling to visualize this concept.
  • One participant suggests that the definitions of length and angle in different inner products are not the same as traditional notions, prompting further exploration of these ideas.
  • Another participant attempts to clarify that the concept of angle in this context is a definition rather than an empirical truth, linking it to broader mathematical principles.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the interpretation of angles in relation to inner products, with some expressing confusion and others providing clarifications. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the visualization and acceptance of these concepts.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight that the definitions of angle and magnitude are contingent on the specific inner product used, which may not align with traditional geometric interpretations. There is also a recognition of the limitations in visualizing these concepts within abstract vector spaces.

Cameron95
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Hi all, I am having trouble understanding inner products. Specifically, using inner products to find the angle between two vectors. Our lecturer has given an example, as follows;

(u,v)= 4u1v1 + u1v2 + u2v1 + u2v2, where u=(1,0) v=(0,1)

(u,v)=|u|.|v|cosθ

1=(√4)cosθ

θ=∏/3

Surely the angle between the two vectors is ∏/2? I can't understand why it is ∏/3.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Cameron95 said:
Hi all, I am having trouble understanding inner products. Specifically, using inner products to find the angle between two vectors. Our lecturer has given an example, as follows;

(u,v)= 4u1v1 + u1v2 + u2v1 + u2v2, where u=(1,0) v=(0,1)

(u,v)=|u|.|v|cosθ

1=(√4)cosθ

θ=∏/3

Surely the angle between the two vectors is ∏/2? I can't understand why it is ∏/3.

An abstract vector space only has notions of "parallel" and "not parallel"; it doesn't have a notion of "angle between" or "magnitude" unless you put an inner product on that space.

If \langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle is an inner product, then \|v\| = \sqrt{\langle v, v \rangle} defines the magnitude of a vector, and
<br /> \cos \theta = \frac{\langle u,v \rangle}{\|u\|\|v\|}<br />
defines the angle \theta \in [0, \frac12 \pi] between u and v. Different inner products on the same space may give different magnitudes for, and different angles between, the same vectors.

The Euclidean inner product on \mathbb{R}^2 is the dot product, (x_1,y_1) \cdot (x_2, y_2) = x_1 x_2 + y_1 y_2, with \|(x,y)\| = \sqrt{x^2 + y^2}, consistent with Pythagoras. With respect to that inner product (1,0) and (0,1) are indeed orthogonal and of unit length.

However, your inner product is not the Euclidean inner product, but is instead
<br /> \langle u,v \rangle = 4u_1v_1 + u_1v_2 + u_2v_1 + u_2v_2<br />
so \|u\| = \sqrt{4u_1^2 + 2u_1u_2 + u_2^2}. Thus in your example,
\langle (1,0), (0,1) \rangle = 1 and
\|(1,0)\| = 2 and
\|(0,1)\| = 1 so
<br /> \frac{\langle (1,0), (0,1) \rangle}{\|(1,0)\|\|(0,1)\|} = \frac{1}{2}<br />
so \theta = \pi/3.
 
Every inner product satisfies the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality ##\left|\langle u,v\rangle\right|\leq \|u\|\|v\|##, where the norm notation on the right is defined by ##\|x\|=\sqrt{\langle x,x\rangle}##. This means that when we're dealing with an inner product space over ##\mathbb R## (rather than ##\mathbb C##), we have
$$-1\leq\frac{\langle u,v\rangle}{\|u\|\|v\|}\leq 1,$$ for all u,v. This enables us to define the angle θ between u and v as in pasmith's post, i.e. by
$$\cos\theta =\frac{\langle u,v\rangle}{\|u\|\|v\|}.$$ This is how the idea of angles between vectors are generalized from ##\mathbb R^2## with the standard inner product, to arbitrary inner product spaces over ##\mathbb R##.
 
Ok, so what is meant by the angle 'with respect to the inner product'? Is it one of those things you must just accept is true, as I am having trouble visualising what is going on. Thanks for your responses.
 
Hi Cameron95! Welcome to PF! :smile:
Cameron95 said:
Ok, so what is meant by the angle 'with respect to the inner product'? … I am having trouble visualising what is going on.

The line y = 0 is orthogonal to the line x = -4y, as you can see by checking that the inner product of (a,0) and (b, -4b) is always zero.

So you could say that the angle between them is 90°

On that view, you have to adjust all the other angles to get them to fit!

(personally, i don't find the concept of the angle helpful :redface:)
 
Cameron95 said:
Ok, so what is meant by the angle 'with respect to the inner product'? Is it one of those things you must just accept is true, as I am having trouble visualising what is going on. Thanks for your responses.

You seemed to accept that the "length" of these vectors with the new inner product was not the regular length, so why the problem over angle?

It's not accepting it as "true", it's accepting it as "defined that way". If you have a different inner product, then you can still define "length" and "angle" in terms of this inner product, but these are not the same as the regular length and angle.

As you go further in maths, you will find many generalisations such as this. For example, you can define an inner product on sets of functions and treat these like vectors. This leads to the concept of "length" of functions and "distance" and "angle" between" functions.
 
Thank you all for your help; I think it's slightly clearer now!
 
Cameron95 said:
Ok, so what is meant by the angle 'with respect to the inner product'?
That is exactly the question that my post answered.

Cameron95 said:
Is it one of those things you must just accept is true, as I am having trouble visualising what is going on. Thanks for your responses.
It's just a definition, so there's nothing that you need to "accept as true", except that this is what the word "angle" means to a mathematician.

I'll try again. Forget about vector spaces for a second, and think about what you know about geometry in a plane (triangles and stuff). The law of cosines implies that the angle θ between two vectors x and y in ##\mathbb R^2## satisfies the equality ##x\cdot y=|x||y|\cos\theta##. This is a theorem, not a definition.

Now let's think about vector spaces. What if the elements of the vector space are e.g. matrices or functions? What is the angle between
##\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0\\ 0 & 1\end{pmatrix}## and ##\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0\\ 0 & -1\end{pmatrix}##? What is the angle between two polynomials? Such questions don't make sense as long as there's no definition of "angle" that can be used to answer these questions. So the question is, is there something, anything, that can be calculated from two arbitrary vectors x and y that somehow "deserves" to be called "the angle between x and y"?

The answer starts with the following observations:

* For all ##x,y\in\mathbb R^2##, we have ##x\cdot y=|x||y|\cos\theta##, where ##\theta## is the angle between x and y.
* The dot product on ##\mathbb R^2## is an inner product.
* The absolute value on ##\mathbb R^2## is a norm, and for all ##x\in\mathbb R^2##, we have ##|x|=\sqrt{x\cdot x}##.
* Let V be an arbitrary inner product space over ##\mathbb R##. The Cauchy-Schwarz inequality implies that for all ##x,y\in V##, we have $$-1\leq \frac{\langle x,y\rangle}{\|x\|\|y\|} \leq 1,$$ where ##\|x\|## is defined as ##\sqrt{\langle x,x\rangle}##. This means that there's a unique real number θ such that
$$\cos\theta=\frac{\langle x,y\rangle}{\|x\|\|y\|}.$$ The first observation tells us that when the inner product space is ##\mathbb R^2## with the standard inner product, this number is the angle between the vectors. So if we're dealing with some inner product space where there is no concept of angle yet, why not just call this number "the angle between x and y"?

The only claim that you have to "accept as true" is that mathematicians have chosen to do this.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K