Missing a step in the proof of the BAC-CAB rule

  • Thread starter Thread starter JulienB
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving the BAC-CAB rule, which states that a x (b x c) = b (a.c) - c(a.b), using basic vector operations. Participants analyze the orthogonality of vectors and the representation of the cross product in terms of vector components. The conversation highlights the importance of expressing vectors in a standard basis (i, j, k) and the necessity of confirming that a scalar factor in the proof equals one. The final consensus is that rewriting the expressions correctly leads to the desired proof.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector operations, specifically cross products.
  • Familiarity with vector notation in three-dimensional space.
  • Knowledge of scalar products and their properties.
  • Ability to manipulate algebraic expressions involving vectors.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of vector cross products in detail.
  • Learn how to express vectors in the standard basis (i, j, k).
  • Explore the geometric interpretation of the BAC-CAB rule.
  • Practice proving vector identities using component-wise calculations.
USEFUL FOR

Students studying vector calculus, mathematicians interested in vector identities, and educators teaching advanced physics or mathematics concepts.

JulienB
Messages
408
Reaction score
12

Homework Statement



Show that a x (b x c) = b (a.c) - c(a.b).

Homework Equations



Only using basic vector operations.

The Attempt at a Solution



I think I'm pretty close to the solution:

b x c involves that both b and c are orthogonal to (b x c), and d = a x (b x c) involves that d is orthogonal to (b x c). Therefore, d lies on the same plane as b and c, which means d can expressed in the form:
d = xb - yc.
If I multiply both sides of the equation by a, I get a.d = x(a.b) - y(a.c)
d = a x (b x c) involves that d is perpendicular to a, therefore a.d = 0, which leads to the equation:
x(a.b) - y(a.c) = 0
x(a.b) = y(a.c)
x = ∂a.c and y = ∂a.b
Replacing x and y in the previous expression of d, I reach that:
d = ∂(b(a.c) - c(a.b))

...which is almost what I want to prove, except that I must now show that ∂ = 1. Now I know from internet research and reading on this forum that one way to obtain this result is by using vectors i,j,k instead of a,b,c. My homework also says that I can use vectors which do not alter the universality of the formula, like c = c1e1 (which is equivalent as if I would say c = c1i, if I'm not confused yet). My guess is that I have to develop both a x (b x c) and ∂(b(a.c) - c(a.b)) until coming to the same expression on both sides, right?

I feel stupid, because this step looks like the easiest. However, I still do not fully understand the basic operation of replacing vectors, and it would help me for the future if someone could clarify this for me. Here is an attempt to illustrate my confusion (let's take a x (b x c)):

b x c = (b2c3 - b3c2)e1 + (b3c1 - b1c3)e2 + (b1c2 - b2c1)e3
a
x (b x c) = (a2(b1c2 - b2c1)e3 - a3(b3c1 - b1c3)e2) + a3(b2c3 - b3c2)e1 - a1(b1c2 - b2c1)e3) + (a1(b3c1 - b1c3)e2 - a2(b2c3 - b3c2)e1)
= (a2b1c2)e3 - (a2b2c1)e3 - (a3b3c1)e2 + (a3b1c3)e2 + (a3b2c3)e1 - (a3b3c2)e1 - (a1b1c2)e3 + (a1b2c1)e3 + (a1b3c1)e2 - (a1b1c3)e2 - (a2b2c3)e1 + (a1b3c2)e1
= (a3b2c3 - a3b3c2 - a2b2c3 + a1b3c2)e1 + (a3b1c3 -a3b3c1 + a1b3c1 - a1b1c3)e2 + (a2b1c2 - a2b2c1 - a1b1c2 + a1b2c1)e3

Ehem... :P I find myself very far from proving that ∂ = 1, and I am not even certain I didn't break any vector operation rules during my development!Thank you in advance for your advices.J.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I would look at it this way. Start from the end and rediscover what the cross products.
Assume we are working vectors in the ##\hat x, \hat y, \hat z## basis.
##\vec A = A_x \hat x + A_y \hat y + A_z \hat z ##. ##\vec B## and ##\vec C## can be similarly defined.
##\vec B ( \vec A \cdot \vec C ) - \vec C(\vec A \cdot \vec B) = \\
\qquad \qquad \left( [A_xB_xC_x +A_yB_xC_y+A_zB_xC_z]-[A_xB_xC_x +A_yB_yC_x+A_zB_zC_x]\right)\hat x \\
\qquad \qquad \left( [A_xB_yC_x +A_yB_yC_y+A_zB_yC_z]-[A_xB_xC_y +A_yB_yC_y+A_zB_zC_y]\right)\hat y \\
\qquad \qquad \left( [A_xB_zC_x +A_yB_zC_y+A_zB_zC_z]-[A_xB_xC_z +A_yB_yC_z+A_zB_zC_z]\right)\hat z ##
Which you will notice has once set of canceling terms in each row.
What you are left with is:
## \left( [A_yB_xC_y+A_zB_xC_z]-[A_yB_yC_x+A_zB_zC_x]\right)\hat x \\
\left( [A_xB_yC_x +A_zB_yC_z]-[A_xB_xC_y +A_zB_zC_y]\right)\hat y \\
\left( [A_xB_zC_x +A_yB_zC_y]-[A_xB_xC_z +A_yB_yC_z]\right)\hat z ##
Which can be rewritten as:
## \left( A_y [ B_xC_y-yB_yC_x]+A_z[B_xC_z-B_zC_x]\right)\hat x \\
\left( A_x[ B_yC_x -B_xC_y] +A_z[ B_yC_z-B_zC_y]\right)\hat y \\
\left( A_x [B_zC_x-B_xC_z] +A_y[B_zC_y-B_yC_z] \right)\hat z ##
From there, it should only be one or two more steps to see that you have a ##\vec A\times(\vec B \times \vec C) ## right in front of you.
 
To begin, thank you very much for your answer. It has been very helpful.

RUber said:
Which can be rewritten as:
## \left( A_y [ B_xC_y-yB_yC_x]+A_z[B_xC_z-B_zC_x]\right)\hat x \\
\left( A_x[ B_yC_x -B_xC_y] +A_z[ B_yC_z-B_zC_y]\right)\hat y \\
\left( A_x [B_zC_x-B_xC_z] +A_y[B_zC_y-B_yC_z] \right)\hat z ##

Which then can again be rewritten again as:
## \left( A_y [ B_xC_y-yB_yC_x]-A_z[B_zC_x-B_xC_z]\right)\hat x \\
\left( A_z[ B_yC_z -B_zC_y] -A_x[ B_xC_y-B_yC_x]\right)\hat y \\
\left( A_x [B_zC_x-B_xC_z] -A_y[B_yC_z-B_zC_y] \right)\hat z ##
...which is the development of ##\vec A\times(\vec B \times \vec C) ##. That's great, thanks a lot!

J.
 

Similar threads

Replies
20
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
10K