Learning vectors: the dot product of vectors

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding the dot product of vectors and the confusion surrounding its notation and operations. The first question addresses whether the expression a * b * c should be evaluated left to right or through a specific formula, concluding that a * b yields a scalar, which can then be multiplied by vector c. The second question clarifies that (a * b) * c results in a scalar multiple of vector c, emphasizing that the dot product is defined only between two vectors in the same space. Participants express frustration over the use of the same symbol for both dot products and scalar multiplication, leading to misunderstandings. Overall, the conversation highlights the need for clearer definitions and distinctions in mathematical notation.
singleton
Messages
119
Reaction score
0
Well, I've been attempting to learn dot products of vectors and in doing so have come upon some questions.

NOTE:
a, b, and c are to be regarded as vectors
Please regard '*' as the dot for multiplication, too.

Question 1:
a * b * c

When I see this, I am unaware how to approach it. Should I tackle it left to right as I would normally?

a * b will yield a scalar value using the dot product. Then if I take the result and * c, I will have a scalar multiple times a vector. So the result is a vector?

OR do I do a1*b1*c1 + a2*b2*c2 + a3*b3*c3 and the result is a scalar?


Question 2:
(a * b) * c
I would naturally attack the brackets first of all and the resulting value will be scalar. Then continuing on, I have a scalar result value times the vector c. So, the final result is a scalar multiple of vector c, correct?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
a.b.c makes no sense (a.b)c does as does a(b.c) and they are different. where does thsi come from? i mean who is using the same symbol for dot product (defined only on two vectors in the same vector space) and scalar mult?
 
They are from questions in the book I'm attempting to learn from.

So, the dot product symbol cannot be used to express multiplication between scalar and a vector?

(I am unaware, I had always thought the dot was general multiplication, interchangable with the "x" symbol).

The book asks you to categorize the results of the expressions.

One of the categories is undefined, so that is where a.b.c would end up.
 
yes the book is attempting to make you realize tht you can only form the dot product between two vectors (in the same space, so you can't dot a vector in R^2 with one in R^3)
 
Once i saw a*b*c [or (a,b,c)], and it was supposed to be mixed multiplication (\vec{a}\times\vec{b})*\vec{c} (or (\vec{a}*(\vec{b}\times\vec{c}), no difference) By x i mean vectorial multiplication.
 
Thanks. This cleared up the problems I was having :)

I had encountered the dot before and wrongly assumed that it meant general multiplication, just another symbol. I was wrong ;)

Unfortunately the book didn't give to much on the use of the symbol. It just introduced it as "here, this is the algebraic formula for dot products and this is the geometric formula". Then it asked me those questions. So I was confused to say the least...

thanks again!
 
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...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top