Does Vector Projection Depend on the Magnitude of Both Vectors?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zorodius
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Projection
AI Thread Summary
The projection of vector U onto vector V is defined as U cos x, where U is the magnitude of vector U and x is the angle between the two vectors. It is established that this projection does not depend on the magnitude of vector V. The dot product, while related, does not represent a projection unless projecting onto a unit vector, as it yields a scalar rather than a vector. The dot product is influenced by the magnitudes of both vectors, calculated as the product of their lengths and the cosine of the angle between them. Therefore, while the scalar projection can be expressed using the dot product, the projection operation itself is distinct.
Zorodius
Messages
184
Reaction score
0
Meaning of "projection"

Suppose you have two vectors, U and V.

Is it correct that the "projection" of vector U onto vector V is equal to U cos x, where U is the magnitude of vector U, and x is the angle between the two vectors? Specifically, is it correct that the projection of one vector onto another vector does not depend on the magnitude of the vector you are projecting on to?

If yes, is it also correct to say that the dot product does not represent a projection, unless you are projecting onto the unit vector?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The projection of u onto v is

\begin{equation*}<br /> \begin{split}<br /> \textrm{proj}_{\mathbf v} \mathbf u &amp;= \frac{ \left| \mathbf u \cdot \mathbf v \right| }{ \left| \mathbf v \right|^2} \, \mathbf v\\<br /> &amp;= \frac{ \left| \mathbf u \right| \left| \mathbf v \right| \cos \theta}{ \left| \mathbf v \right|^2} \, \mathbf v<br /> \end{split}<br /> \end{equation*}

The projection does not depend on the length of the vector projected onto.

The dot product never represents a projection, because the dot product produces a scalar (number), while projection is an operation that produces a vector. I see what you're trying to say, however -- when the vector projected onto is a unit vector, its length is 1 and "disappears" from the denominators above.

- Warren
 
Last edited:
I believe that is correct for the scalar projection of U on V. I suppose you can say that the dot product is not exactly a projection, but a lot of the time you'll see the scalar projection of U on V given as U*V/|V|, where * represents the dot product operation.
 
Or, the dot product is the product of the magnitude of the projection and the magnitude of the vector onto which the projection is made.
 
The dot produkt depends on the lengths of both vectors.
The dot produkt gives the length of the first vector times the lenth of the second vector times the cosine of the angle between them:
v1 dot v2 = Length(v1) * length(v2) * cos(angle)
so if in Zorodius question the length of V is 1 than his dot produkt gives him U cos(x)
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
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...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...

Similar threads

Back
Top