So I learned that if a vector (a(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); _{1}, a_{2}, a_{3}) is transformed to a different set of coordinates, and the components of the resulting vector are squared like so: (a_{1}'^{2}, a_{2}'^{2}, a_{3}'^{2}), this result is not itself a vector. The proof for this simply shows that each component a_{i}'^{2}does not transform to a_{i}^{2}when brought to the original coordinates.

I'm having a lot of trouble understanding this. Say the vector (1,0,0) is transformed by a 90^{O}rotation about the z-axis. It becomes (0,-1,0). The "square" of this is (0,1,0). Sure this doesn't transform back to (1,0,0) but if this triplet is considered in isolation, without any reference to the original vector, there doesn't seem to be any reason not to consider it a vector.

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# How is the square of a transformed vector not a vector?

Loading...

Similar Threads - square transformed vector | Date |
---|---|

I Can we construct a Lie algebra from the squares of SU(1,1) | Feb 24, 2018 |

Least Square basic problem | Jan 20, 2018 |

B ##AB = I \implies BA = I##, for square matricies ##A,B## | Jun 9, 2017 |

Area of figure, resulting from unit square transformation | May 29, 2015 |

Transforming between square matrices of different order | Aug 28, 2012 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**