Help with dot products - How can the dot product be a vector quantity?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the confusion regarding the dot product of vector-valued functions, specifically \(\overrightarrow{r}(t)\) defined as \(x(t)\overrightarrow{i} + y(t)\overrightarrow{j}\). Dan questions how the dot product of two vectors can yield another vector, asserting that the dot product is inherently a scalar quantity. The response clarifies that the expression \((\overrightarrow{r}(t) \cdot \overrightarrow{r}'(t))\) is indeed a scalar, and the confusion arises from a misinterpretation of the notation in the question.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector-valued functions
  • Familiarity with dot products in vector algebra
  • Knowledge of derivatives and their application to vector functions
  • Basic concepts of scalar vs vector quantities
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the properties of dot products in vector algebra
  • Study the differentiation of vector-valued functions
  • Explore examples of scalar and vector quantities in physics
  • Learn about the implications of vector calculus in real-world applications
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematics and physics, educators teaching vector calculus, and anyone seeking clarity on the properties of vector operations and their applications.

danago
Gold Member
Messages
1,118
Reaction score
4
[tex]\overrightarrow r (t)[/tex] is a vector valued function given by:

[tex] \overrightarrow r (t) = x(t)\overrightarrow i + y(t)\overrightarrow j [/tex]

if [tex]h(t) = \left| {\overrightarrow r (t)} \right|[/tex], show that the following is true:

[tex] \overrightarrow r (t) \bullet \overrightarrow r '(t) = x(t)\overrightarrow i + y(t)\overrightarrow j [/tex]


Now, my first question is: how can a dot product of two vectors possibly be another vector? Isnt the dot product always a scalar quanitity? Am i correct in saying this, and is there a typo in the question, or am i completely missing something?

Thanks in advance,
Dan.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If that's the question, it makes no sense. It is true that (r(t).r(t))'=2*r(t).r'(t), which is the only thing that that even sort of resembles.
 
Alright that's good to hear. I was going through some past exam questions which had been re-written and published into a book, and this one came up, and yea, it didnt look right to me. Well thanks very much for confirming that :smile:
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K