Orthagonal Sets Homework: Gram-Schmidt Algorithm in R4

  • Thread starter Thread starter theRukus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sets
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of the Gram-Schmidt algorithm to convert a set of vectors in R4 into an orthogonal set. The original poster presents a set of vectors and questions the orthogonality of the resulting vectors after applying the algorithm.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to apply the Gram-Schmidt algorithm and checks the orthogonality of the resulting vectors. They question whether a set of three vectors can be orthogonal without all three being pairwise orthogonal. Other participants suggest examining the calculations for potential errors and clarify the correct terminology.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing hints and asking for clarification on the calculations. The original poster has identified an error in their approach, indicating a productive direction in the conversation.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of a potential misunderstanding regarding the definition of orthogonality and the correct terminology used in the context of the problem.

theRukus
Messages
49
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Use the Gram-Schmidt algorithm to convert the set S={x1, x2, x3} to an orthagonal set, given x1 = [1 1 1 1]T, x2 = [6 0 0 2]T, x3 = [-1 -1 2 4]T.


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


I've used the algorithm to come up with the set of vectors {[1 1 1 1]T, [-2 -2 1 3]T, [10/3 -8/3 -5/3 3]T. I've triple checked that I have executed the algorithm correctly.

My first two vectors are orthagonal; their dot product is zero. The dot product of third vector with either of the other two vectors is non-zero. Is this an orthagonal set? By definition I'm assuming that it's not, but is there some way that a set of 3 vectors in R4 can be orthagonal without all three vectors themselves being orthagonal... ? I highly doubt it.. but can someone provide some insight?


Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
(Hint: the correct word is orthogonal, not orthagonal)

All three vecters should be pairswise orthogonal. I'm guessing that the last coordinate of the third vector should be 1...
Can you present how you found the third vector? Maybe we can find the mistake...
 
When finding the third vector, I already have set U = { [1 1 1 1]T, [-2 -2 1 3]T } as my SO FAR orthagonal set.

Use vector [6 0 0 2] from original set, and subtract from it its projection on the vectors in U:

[6 0 0 2]T - proj[1 1 1 1]T( [6 0 0 2]T ) - proj[-2 -2 1 3]( [6 0 0 2]T )

= [6 0 0 2]T - (8/4)[1 1 1 1]T - (-6/18)[-2 -2 1 3]T

= [6 0 0 2]T - [2 2 2 2]T - [2/3 2/3 -1/3 -3]T

= [10/3 -8/3 -5/3 3]T


Can anyone find an error here?

Thank you for your help
 
Haha. Uhm. Cancel that, I've found my error. It's quite obvious as well. I'll be more careful in my checking next time. Thank you for the help micromass!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
946
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K