Is there a vector that satisfies the property of the number 1 for cross product?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves exploring the existence of a vector ⃗e that satisfies the property ⃗e × ⃗x = ⃗x for all vectors ⃗x, specifically in the context of vector cross products.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss using a proof by contradiction, questioning the implications of assuming such a vector ⃗e exists. They explore the properties of the cross product and the conditions under which vectors can be perpendicular.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants examining the logical steps needed to demonstrate the contradiction. Some have noted specific properties of the cross product that may lead to insights.

Contextual Notes

There is an emphasis on the definitions and properties of the cross product, particularly regarding perpendicularity and the implications of a vector being perpendicular to itself.

hoopsmax25
Messages
13
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Show that there is no vector ⃗e that has the property of the number 1 for cross product, namely
that ⃗e × ⃗x = ⃗x for all ⃗x.

Homework Equations



I'm sort of stuck on how to show this.

The Attempt at a Solution


I set e=(e1,e2,e3) and x=(x1,x2,x3) and used cross product to multiply it out but got stuck there.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
cant you do this as a proof by contradiction using the definition of cross product?

a x b = c (c is then perpendicular to a) and (c is perpendicular to b)

so now you assume that e exists and then what do you get?
 
yeah i understand that. i think that's where i am stuck at. i don't know what the next step would be.
 
hoopsmax25 said:
yeah i understand that. i think that's where i am stuck at. i don't know what the next step would be.

well if e exists then e x x = x right which means that x is perpendicular to e and x perpendicular to x bt can x be perpendicular to itself?
 
Oh ok, so obviously it cannot. So is there a way to show that the contradiction by writing it out?
 
One might also note that if \vec{x} is any non-zero vector in the same direction as \vec{e}, then \vec{e}\times\vec{x}= \vec{0}\ne \vec{x}.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
8K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
8K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K