Notation for Vectors in Different Bases

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Philip Wood
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Notation Vectors
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the notation for vectors in different bases, particularly in the context of expressing vectors and their components when changing bases, such as during rotations in Euclidean space. Participants explore various notational conventions to clearly differentiate between a vector and its representation as a column vector in specific bases.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests using Einstein summation convention to express vectors and raises the issue of confusing notation when referring to column vectors in different bases.
  • Another participant mentions existing notations for matrices, such as A_\mathscr{B} or [A]_\mathscr{B}, as a potential model for vector notation.
  • A different viewpoint proposes using x for one vector and x' for the rotated vector, referencing common practices in 4-vector notation.
  • One participant emphasizes the need for notation that distinguishes between the base-independent vector and the column vectors representing the same vector in different bases.
  • Another participant suggests using xT and x'T as a notation for the column vectors.
  • A later reply discusses the notation x = x^i e_i and x' = {x^i}^\prime {e_i}^\prime, proposing x_i or x_i' for components without base vectors.
  • One participant cites their textbook, which uses bold for the actual vector and x or x' for the components in specific bases, highlighting a common distinction that may not always be made in texts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing opinions on the best notation to use, with no consensus reached on a specific notation that effectively distinguishes between the various representations of vectors and their components.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the distinction between geometrical entities and their representations in different bases can be misleading if not clearly defined, indicating a potential limitation in existing notational conventions.

Philip Wood
Gold Member
Messages
1,232
Reaction score
79
What I usually mean by a vector, x, is a quantity which can be written (using Einstein summation convention) as xi ei = xi' ei' and so on. In other words the scalar components {xi} change according to the set of base vectors {ei} I choose.

But occasionally, in the context of changing bases (e.g. when dealing with rotations on Euclidian space), I want to refer to the column vector [x1, x2...]T, and to the column vector [x1', x2'...]T. It would be very confusing to use x again as the name for anyone of these column vectors.

Is there any agreement as to different notations for a vector and for a column vector which expresses that vector on a particular basis. [I mean compact notations which don't show individual components.]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For matrices I've seen notations like
[tex]A_\mathscr{B}[/tex] or [tex][A]_\mathscr{B}[/tex]
for something like "the matrix representation of the linear form A with respect to basis [itex]\mathscr{B}[/itex]".
 
uh.. why don't you use x for one vector and x' for the rotated vector?
I think they often use this in the notation of 4-vectors, when doing a rotation.
 
CompuChip Thank you. I'd not seen this.

BruceW Thanks, but the transforms I'm concerned with are passive ones: the same vector expressed on different bases. If I use x and x'to distinguish the column vectors which give the components of the vectors on the two bases, what would I then use for the base-independent vector (what I called x in my original post)? That's what I'm concerned about, notation which distinguishes these two different types of vector, not notation which distinguishes one column vector of components from a column vector of components on a different basis.
 
xT and x'T ?

(as at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpose" )
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was talking about:
[tex]x = x^i \ e_i = {x^i}^\prime \ {e_i}^\prime = x^\prime[/tex]
If you're asking for a notation for just the components of a vector (without the base vectors), then I would just use: [itex]x_i[/itex] or [itex]x_i'[/itex]
The index is left over, like a dummy variable, so it is a notation which refers to anyone of the components.
 
Last edited:
I had a look in my textbook, and it says this:

"Thus, we use x and x' to denote different column matrices which, in different bases ei and ei' represent the same vector x. In many texts, however, this distinction is not made and x (rather than x) is equated to the corresponding column matrix ; if we regard x as the geometrical entity, however, this can be misleading and so we explicitly make the distinction."

So I guess in my textbook, they use bold for the actual vector, and x or x' to mean the components of the vector in a particular basis.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 124 ·
5
Replies
124
Views
10K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K