How to show u x v in R^n space is orthogonal to u and v?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter logan3
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Orthogonal Space
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of the cross product in R^n space, specifically addressing how to define it and demonstrate that the resulting vector is orthogonal to the original vectors involved. Participants explore both conceptual and numerical definitions of the cross product and its implications for orthogonality.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes they have shown that the cross product in R^3 is orthogonal to the original vectors and seeks a similar demonstration for R^n.
  • Another participant questions how to define the cross product in R^n and suggests that reasonable generalizations can allow for similar proofs as in R^3.
  • A participant explains that in R^n, the cross product is defined for n-1 vectors and is non-zero if those vectors are independent, serving as the oriented orthogonal complementary vector to their linear span.
  • Some participants emphasize that the definition of the cross product inherently includes orthogonality, which may not aid in providing a proof for the original poster's query.
  • There is a discussion about two possible definitions of the cross product: a conceptual one that includes orthogonality in its definition and a numerical one that requires calculation to demonstrate orthogonality.
  • One participant suggests using a determinant expression for the cross product, indicating that orthogonality can be derived from the properties of determinants.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definitions and implications of the cross product in R^n, with no consensus reached on a single approach or definition. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best method to demonstrate orthogonality in this context.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the dependence on definitions and the potential for multiple interpretations of the cross product in R^n, which may affect the demonstration of orthogonality.

logan3
Messages
83
Reaction score
2
I had a problem where I showed that [itex]u \times v[/itex] in [itex]R^3[/itex] was orthogonal to [itex]u[/itex] and [itex]v[/itex]. I was wondering how I could show it for an [itex]R^n[/itex] space? Like, what is the notation/expression to represent a cross product in an [itex]R^n[/itex] space and how would I show that [itex]n[/itex]-number of coordinates cancel out?

Thank-you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How do you define ##u \times v## in R^n?
With reasonable generalizations of the cross-product, you can show it in exactly the same way you do in R^3.
 
in n space one defines the cross product of n-1 vectors. It is non zero if and only if they are independent and then it is the oriented orthogonal complementary vector to their linear span, with length given by the volume of the block they span. thus if e1,...,en is an oriented orthonormal basis, the cross product of e1,...,en-1, is en.
 
mathwonk said:
in n space one defines the cross product of n-1 vectors. It is non zero if and only if they are independent and then it is the oriented orthogonal complementary vector to their linear span, with length given by the volume of the block they span. thus if e1,...,en is an oriented orthonormal basis, the cross product of e1,...,en-1, is en.

Notice however that this generalization has orthogonality explicitly being part of its definition. So this generalization probably doesn't help the OP except to give him the trivial answer (that it is so by definition).
 
It seemed to me he asked 2 questions, 1) define the n dimensional cross product, and 2) prove orthogonality. there are of course two possible definitions, one conceptual which explains the meaning of the construction, in which orthogonality is part of the definition, and second, a purely numerical definition, which conceals the meaning until one calculates the orthogonality by a dot product computation. I always prefer the conceptual definition as more helpful to understanding, but of course one should include a proof that it exists, which in this case seemed clear.

Nonetheless if you prefer a numerical expression, then you may use the usual determinant expression for the cross product, i.e. given n-1 vectors, v1,...,vn-1, define a linear function of a vector w by the determinant of the matrix with rows v1,...,vn-1,w. Then this function equals the dot product of w with a unique vector, called the cross product of the v's. The orthogonality then follows from the usual properties of the determinant, i.e. it is zero in this case if and only if w depends linearly on the v's.

(A purely numerical expression for the coefficients of the cross product in terms of the coefficients of the v's is obtained by expanding formally the determinant with the v's in the first n-1 rows and the unit vectors e1,...,en as entries in the last row. Only a masochist would prove the orthogonality by then taking the n-1 dot products.)
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K