Is Wedge Product the Same as Cross Product?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter hideelo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cross Wedge
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between the wedge product and the cross product, exploring their definitions, properties, and potential equivalences in various dimensions. Participants examine theoretical aspects, mathematical definitions, and implications in different vector spaces.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that while the wedge product and cross product share properties like antisymmetry and area representation, they are fundamentally different due to the dependence of the cross product on the dimensionality of the vector space.
  • One participant argues that the wedge product can be interpreted as a vector in specific cases, particularly in 3-dimensional Euclidean space, where it corresponds to the area of a parallelogram.
  • Another participant introduces the concept that the wedge product is an element of Grassmann algebra, which does not inherently require a metric, thus lacking the notion of orthogonal complement without additional structure.
  • Some contributions discuss the existence of a generalized cross product in higher dimensions, specifically mentioning that 3 and 7 dimensions are unique in allowing a two-vector cross product.
  • There is a mention of a connection between the wedge product and the cross product through a specific mathematical characterization involving bilinearity and orientation.
  • One participant references a Wikipedia article discussing the existence of multiple cross products in 7 dimensions, suggesting a rich structure that warrants further exploration.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the equivalence of the wedge product and cross product, with no consensus reached. Some argue for their distinction based on dimensionality and mathematical structure, while others suggest potential equivalences under certain conditions.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in definitions and assumptions regarding metrics and dimensions, particularly in the context of higher-dimensional spaces and the implications for the properties of the wedge and cross products.

hideelo
Messages
88
Reaction score
15
I guess the title really says it all. I'm reading "space-time algebra" by David Hestenes, and he explains the properties of the wedge product (area of parallelogram, antisymmetric, etc.) and it sounds just like the cross product to me. He then says clearly however that this is not to be confused eith the cross product since the definition of the a X b depends on the dimensionality of the vector space in which the vectors are embedded whereas a ^ b does not. I don't see how this is the case since he want a ^ b to have an orientation in the space in which it is embedded, if so, does it not also depend on the dimensionality of the surrounding space?

P.S. If you have another way to show the distinction between them aside from his approach, I am open to, and interested in, hearing it.
Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I have published in well known journals using the a^b notation for axb, so for my money, they are the same thing.
 
The book "Geometric Algebra for Computer Science" by Dorst, Fontijne and Mann says that
a \times b = (a \wedge b)^*, which is the orthogonal complement of a \wedge b.

It isn't clear whether the question is "Is the cross product equivalent to the wedge product in 3-D euclidean space?" or "In a space of any given dimensions, is there a cross product equivalent to the wedge product ?".
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: MisterX
The wedge product of vectors is not a vector but is an element of a more general space called the Grassmann algebra of a vector space. It's definition does not require a metric so by itself it has no idea of orthogonal complement or area of a parallelogram. The Grassman algebra is defined for any dimension. A typical element is a wedge product of a finite number of vectors.

With a metric one can interpret the wedge product of two vectors as spanning the area of a parallelogram. But these areas are different for different metrics. Note also that this is an oriented area. a^b =-b^a.

Further,without a metric and an orientation there is no idea of orthogonal complement. In 3 space,with the Euclidean metric(actually any positve definite inner product will work) and an orientation, there is a unique vector that is perpendicular to the plane spanned by a and b such that a,b,axb is positively oriented and |axb| is the area of the parallelogram. So in this special case, a^b can be identified as a vector. This unique vector is written as axb mostly in Physics and Engineering books.

But in higher dimensions,there is no such vector naturally corresponding to a^b.. Even with a metric and an orientation,the orthogonal complement will be an element of the Grassman algebra, ie. it will be a wedge product of n-2 vectors where n is the dimension of the space.

The generalization of axb to n dimensions,that works for any n,is to start with the wedge product of n-1 vectors and then there will be a unique vector that is orthogonal to the n-1dimensional hyperplane that they span, is properly oriented and whose length is the volume of the parallelopiped that the vectors span.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: hideelo
the connection seems to be that in some sense, w is the cross product of v1,...,vn-1, if for all u, w.u = v1^...^vn-1^u, where this last wedge must be interpreted as a scalar, using the given metric.
 
The general and natural cross product that exists in any dimension above 2 is the one that uses n-1 vectors as described above and Mathwonk has elegantly characterized.

But this still leaves open the question of whether there are any possible ways to define 2 vector cross products in other dimensions. I didn't think of this at first but a web search for generalized cross product came up with this Wikipedia link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven-dimensional_cross_product

which shows that there is also a 2 vector cross product in 7 dimensions.
Apparently, 7 is the only other dimension possible.

- By cross product what is meant is that the following four conditions should be satisfied:

VxW is bilinear
The vector, VxW, is perpendicular to the plane spanned by V and W
|VxW| equals the area of the parallelogram spanned by V and W
VxW = - WxV

- If I understand the article right, the reason that 3 and 7 dimensions are the only possible for a 2 vector cross product is that whenever there is a 2 vector cross product on an n dimensional vector space there is a multiplication defined in n+1 dimensions by the rule,

(*) (a,V).(b,W) = (ab-V.W, aW + bV + VxW)

where V.W is the inner product of the n-1 dimensional vectors, V and W, and a and b are real numbers
And this defines what is called a normed division algebra.

For the usual cross product in 3 dimensions this 4 dimensional multiplication is the quaternions. In 8 dimensions it is the octonians.

A theorem of Hurwitz then states that the quaternions and the octonians are the only two possible examples of normed division algebras over the real numbers in dimensions greater than 2. Here is a link to the statement of the theorem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_algebra

- Equation (*) shows that the cross product can be retrieved from n+1 dimensional vectors whose first coordinate is zero. For quaternions this means that if one interprets two 3 dimensional vectors as pure quaternions, then the cross product is just their product as quaternions. For 7 dimensional vectors, one interprets them as pure octonians.

- According to the first article, the are 480 different cross products in 7 dimensions. Using the formula (*) each of them forms a normed division algebra that is isomorphic to the octonians.

- I am not sure what the orientation properties are of the various 7 dimensional cross products. It would be interesting to look at them.
 
Last edited:
so cool!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K