Is the 'star' operation a vector operation for two-dimensional vectors?

  • Thread starter Thread starter w3390
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Vector
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a newly defined vector operation, 'star' (*), for two-dimensional vectors, expressed as A*B=(A1-B1,A2+B2). The original poster questions whether the result of this operation constitutes a vector.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the definition of vectors and the implications of the 'star' operation. There are attempts to clarify the concept of closure in operations and how it relates to vector spaces. Some participants suggest examining the properties of vector spaces to determine if the operation meets the criteria.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights into the definitions and properties relevant to the problem. There is a focus on understanding the implications of the operation and its relation to vector spaces, though no consensus has been reached on the outcome.

Contextual Notes

Participants are considering the requirements for an operation to define a vector space, noting that failing any one of the properties would disqualify it as such. There is an emphasis on the need for clarity regarding the definitions involved.

w3390
Messages
341
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Consider a new vector operation, 'star' (*), defined for two dimensional vectors by A*B=(A1-B1,A2+B2). Is the resultant object a vector?

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



I want to say that the resultant object would be a vector but I do not know how to start to go about proving it. Any help on where I should start?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


It's one of those proofs that's decievingly easy.
Start by defining two general vectors;
let a=<x1,y1>
and b=<x2,y2> where x and y are real.
 


Okay, but I get confused on what sort of operation I should be doing since it is some sort of made up (*) operation. I already had what you just said. I didn't know where to go from there.
 


My proof would be something like this:

We define a vector to be an ordered pair in the form of <a,b> where a,b are reals.

Consider the binary operation on vectors A*B =(A1-B1,A2+B2), where A = <A1,A2> and B=<B1,B2>.

A1,B1,A2,B2 are all reals by the definitions of vectors. A1-B1 is a real since addition is a closed operation. A2+B2 is in the reals since addition is a closed operation. Thus (A1-B1,A2+B2) satisfies the definition of a vector.

Or do you mean an operation on a vector space? That question is a bit more fun.
 


What do you mean by closed operation?
 


w3390 said:
What do you mean by closed operation?
Let ‘*’ be an operation defined over some space. Let a,b be ANY elements of the space. ‘*’ is said to be closed if a*b maps to a unique element in the space.

In normal human language: an operation is called closed over a set if it always produces exactly one element in the set.



But by vector do you mean an object in a vector space? If so there is a lot more to this proof.
 


Yes, I mean an object in vector space.
 


clarification: they want you to prove that * makes a vector space, or a subspace correct?

If so, this is much more fun then, but revolves around similar ideas. I would look up the definition of a vector space (should be about 8 properties) and show that the element A*B meets (or doesn’t meet) all 8 of these requirements. Remember it only has to fail one property with any elements in the set to not be a vector space.
 
Last edited:


Ok. Thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K