Geometric proof for vector relation-

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around proving the vector relation mag(A.B) <= mag A * mag B geometrically, after successfully proving it algebraically. Participants clarify that this relation represents the dot product of two vectors and reference the Cauchy inequality. Suggestions include using the law of cosines for a geometric proof, though its applicability beyond R^3 is questioned. The conversation highlights the challenge of creating a geometric interpretation for the dot product and suggests reducing the problem to R^2 by considering the plane spanned by the two vectors. Ultimately, the need for a clear geometric representation remains a focal point of the discussion.
fahd
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
geometric proof for vector relation-please help!

hi there...
i am trying to prove the following relation from vectors geometrically however nothing comes to my mind..i have succeeded in proving it algebraically.
CAN ANYONE help me as to how do i prove this relation geometrically.

The relation is:

mag(A.B) <= mag A. mag B

where A and B are vectors
and mag stands for magnitude
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
fahd said:
hi there...
i am trying to prove the following relation from vectors geometrically however nothing comes to my mind..i have succeeded in proving it algebraically.
CAN ANYONE help me as to how do i prove this relation geometrically.

The relation is:

mag(A.B) <= mag A. mag B

where A and B are vectors
and mag stands for magnitude

you miss read the problem...

It's the inner or dot product of two vectors is less than or equal to the magnitude of the two vectors multiplied together. This is pretty easy to do if you have some information...

<br /> cos(\theta) = \frac{A.B}{||A||*||B||} <br />

Knowing the range of the cosine function allows you to say something about the fraction on the RHS of that equation...

Note that is the also known as the Cauchy inequality...
 
Townsend said:
you miss read the problem...

It's the inner or dot product of two vectors is less than or equal to the magnitude of the two vectors multiplied together. This is pretty easy to do if you have some information...

<br /> cos(\theta) = \frac{A.B}{||A||*||B||} <br />

Knowing the range of the cosine function allows you to say something about the fraction on the RHS of that equation...

Note that is the also known as the Cauchy inequality...


hi there..
the proof that u have told me is the algebraic proof which i already know of..I used the cos limits being below 1 to prove that..BuT THE QUESTION IS HOW DO I PROVE THE PROBLEM GEOMETRICALLY?
 
fahd said:
hi there..
the proof that u have told me is the algebraic proof which i already know of..I used the cos limits being below 1 to prove that..BuT THE QUESTION IS HOW DO I PROVE THE PROBLEM GEOMETRICALLY?

You could make a geometric argument with the law of cosines but I don't know how good of a proof that really is. I mean...can that be extended beyond R^3?

What class is this for? I'm not sure I can offer you much help beyond suggesting that you use the law of cosines...

In any case the Cauchy bound is true in R^n and I don't know how to do geometric proofs in R^n or if they can even be done...
 
Well, since you're only dealing with two vectors, you can always look at the plane they span, reducing it to a problem in R^2.

That being said, fahd, what are you using for the geometric meaning of the dot product?
 
this is my classical mechanics problem...there was another type of a question also better called the triangle inequality..which i geometrically proved by stating that the sum of sides of a triangle is always greater than the third side...however am confused as to what cud be a statement for this one to which i could relate a figure as well?>
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top