Is this an inner product on R3?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jacko_20
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The proposed definition of the inner product on R3, <u,v>=u2v2+u3v3, fails to satisfy the inner product axioms due to the exclusion of the first components u1 and v1. While the axioms of symmetry, linearity, and non-negativity appear to be satisfied, the fourth axiom is violated because it allows for non-zero vectors where u1 is arbitrary, leading to a contradiction. Specifically, if <u,u>=0 implies u2=0 and u3=0, then u1 can still be non-zero, which violates the requirement that the inner product of a non-zero vector must be positive. Therefore, this definition cannot be considered a valid inner product on R3. The discussion highlights the importance of including all vector components in defining inner products.
jacko_20
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
We define: <u,v>=u2v2+u3v3

For vectors u=(u1,u2,u3) and v=(v1,v2,v3) in R3.

Explain the reasons why this is not an inner product on R3.



I have completed the 4 axioms as below:

1. <u,v>= u2v3 + u3v3

=v2u2 + v3u3

=<v,u>



2.<cu,v> = cu1v2+cu2v2

= c(u2v2+u3v3)

= c<u,v>

3.<u,v+w>=u2(v2+w2)+u3(v3,w3)

= u2v2+u2w2+u3v3+u3w3

= <u,v>+<u,w>

4.a) <u,u>=u22 + u32

greater than or equal to zero as u2^2 greater than or equal to zero and u3^2 is greater than or equal to zero

b) <u,u>=0 then u2=0 and u3=0.



Somehow I've wrongly proved all the axioms :S I am assuming this does not define an inner product as it does not include u1 and v1 in the inner product, therefore cannot be an inner product in R^3. I would greatly appreciate anyone looking over my work to help me! Thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
your last step is wrong

proving u2 = u3=0 leaves u1 arbitrary and so the vector u = (u1, 0, 0) which is non-zero violates axiom 4 b).
 
Thanks mjsd! So it is correct that none of the other axioms apart from 4.b) depend on u1 or v1?
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top