I think I found a flaw in vector combination theory

BreezyLeaf
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
I've seen it often taught that the combination of two vectors is their graphical sum, but I think that there is a problem with this, in that if the vectors have opposite-facing components, then there are portions of the vectors completely neglected by the calculation. The idea seems to only be valid for parallel vectors, a case so narrow-in-applicability as to often be irrelevant.

Here's what I think is flawed about conventional vector combinations:

attachment.php?attachmentid=72400&stc=1&d=1408836408.jpg


Please let me know your impression. Thank you.
 

Attachments

  • posting2page1.jpg
    posting2page1.jpg
    15.9 KB · Views: 525
Physics news on Phys.org
"I think I found a flaw in vector combination theory"

No you didn't
 
Your second set of drawings shows perfectly well why your theory is flawed. You are correct up to that point then you wander off into lala land.

Your "preposterous" drawing is exactly right.
 
Think FEA not motion...

phinds said:
Your "preposterous" drawing is exactly right.

I know that that is the conventional assumption, but it's on a macro scale.
Assuming the vectors are forces, the 'preposterous' vector might be a theory in the sum force on the tendency of a piece as a system. But in terms of internal-force-equilibrium, the vectors are much different than just the assumed sum. While the assumption might work well in terms of continuum physics, in the realm of deformation-physics, it seems completely inadequate.

Let's take a ball for example: If there are 10-'forceunit' pushing up on the ball, and 10-'forceunit' pushing down. The vector would assume there is 0-'forceunit' on the ball. Preposterous, because in terms of FEA, Volume-Physics and rigidity, the ball has to withstand a lump input of '20' and the vector assumptions says '0'.
 
BreezyLeaf said:
I know that that is the conventional assumption, but it's on a macro scale.
It is not a "conventional assumption", it is the only way to add vectors that makes any sense.

If you add -1 and 1, the result is -1+1=1+(-1)=0, but you suggest that the result should be -2 or +2, depending on the order in which you add them (!). Sorry, that makes absolutely no sense.
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...
Back
Top