Is Scalar Addition Equivalent to Adding Parallel Vectors?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether the addition of two scalars is equivalent to adding parallel vectors. Participants debate the interpretation of "equivalent" and "parallel," with some arguing that scalar addition and vector addition are analogous when vectors are in the same direction. Others point out that vector addition involves direction, which scalars lack, and question the validity of the statement if vectors are anti-parallel. The consensus leans towards the idea that the question is ambiguous and may not be well-formed. Overall, the participants suggest that the question might be better discarded due to its unclear terminology.
Tiven white
Messages
58
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


T/F: The addition of two scalars is equivalent to the addition of parallel vectors.
Select one:
a. False
b. True


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


i said true reason being the magnitude of vectors can be added if they are in the same direction by tail to tip method.
is this correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I wouldn't say so. Although the magnitudes may be the same, vector addition still has direction, scalars ahve none. What if the parallel vectors are in opposite directions?
 
I'd say it's true. I think by "equivalent" it means that the two are just analagous, so for scalars you just add the magnitudes, and for parallel vectors you also just add the magnitudes. I think by "parallel" it implies that they are both in the same direction, instead of being anti-parallel.
 
jackarms said:
I'd say it's true. I think by "equivalent" it means that the two are just analagous, so for scalars you just add the magnitudes, and for parallel vectors you also just add the magnitudes. I think by "parallel" it implies that they are both in the same direction, instead of being anti-parallel.

Maybe yes. But we have to guess what is meant by 'equivalent' and to a certain extent, 'parallel' vectors. I think the question needs to be tossed in the trash.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...

Similar threads

Back
Top