MHB Help Needed: I'm Stuck on Steps and Not Sure If They're Correct

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joe20
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Stuck
Joe20
Messages
53
Reaction score
1
I have done up some of the steps. I got stuck and not sure how to continue. I am not sure if those steps are correct. Need help on that.

View attachment 7976

View attachment 7975
 

Attachments

  • v.jpg
    v.jpg
    88.6 KB · Views: 114
  • Picture3.jpg
    Picture3.jpg
    11.8 KB · Views: 108
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hi, Alexis87.

Alexis87 said:
I have done up some of the steps. I got stuck and not sure how to continue. I am not sure if those steps are correct. Need help on that.

I did not check the details of the work you posted, so I am not suggesting that anything you did there is incorrect. The intent of this post is to suggest an alternate method that avoids the need for computing tedious cross products using vector components.

Using the equality $p\times q = 3p\times r,$ take the cross product on both left hand sides with $p$; i.e.,

$p\times q = 3p\times r\qquad\Longrightarrow\qquad p\times(p\times q)=3p\times(p\times r)$

and now use the "BAC-CAB" BAC-CAB Identity -- from Wolfram MathWorld rule and some algebra to get your desired result (noting that the various dot products you obtain from the BAC-CAB rule are constants).
 
GJA said:
Hi, Alexis87.
I did not check the details of the work you posted, so I am not suggesting that anything you did there is incorrect. The intent of this post is to suggest an alternate method that avoids the need for computing tedious cross products using vector components.

Using the equality $p\times q = 3p\times r,$ take the cross product on both left hand sides with $p$; i.e.,

$p\times q = 3p\times r\qquad\Longrightarrow\qquad p\times(p\times q)=3p\times(p\times r)$

and now use the "BAC-CAB" BAC-CAB Identity -- from Wolfram MathWorld rule and some algebra to get your desired result (noting that the various dot products you obtain from the BAC-CAB rule are constants).
Continuing from your advice:

p x (p x q) = 3p x (p x r)

p(p.q) - q(p.p) = p(3p.r) - r(3p.p)

p(p.q) - p(3p.r) = q(p.p) - 3r(p.p)

p[(p.q)-(3p.r)] = (q - 3r) (p.p)

p [(p.q)-(3p.r)] /(p.p) = q-3r => Is it correct ? then [(p.q)-(3p.r)] /(p.p) will be the scalar or lamda?
 
That's correct.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top