Orthonormal Vectors Homework: Solution

  • Thread starter Thread starter roam
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Vectors
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the process of transforming a set of vectors into an orthonormal basis using the Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization method. The original poster presents their attempts to apply this method to the vectors w_1 and w_2, detailing their calculations for the vectors v_1 and v_2, and subsequently for the normalized vectors q_1 and q_2.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to apply the Gram-Schmidt process but expresses uncertainty about the correctness of their calculations and results. Some participants question the validity of the derived vectors and suggest checking the dot product for orthogonality. Others point out arithmetic mistakes and discuss simplification techniques for the normalization process.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing feedback on the original poster's calculations and suggesting areas for clarification. There is a mix of agreement on the general method while highlighting specific errors in execution. Participants are exploring different interpretations of the results and the implications of the Gram-Schmidt process.

Contextual Notes

Participants are addressing potential arithmetic mistakes and the implications of those errors on the orthonormality of the resulting vectors. There is also a focus on the conventional methods of simplification in the context of vector normalization.

roam
Messages
1,265
Reaction score
12

Homework Statement



http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/2217/49541511.gif


The Attempt at a Solution



I'm not sure how I need to start but I think I need to use the Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization process to first to transform this into an orthogonal basis, and then normalize them to obtain an orthonormal basis. So we have:

[tex]w_1=(1,1,1,0)^T[/tex]
[tex]w_2=(0,1,1,1)^T[/tex]

[tex]v_1=w_1=(1,1,1,0)^T[/tex]

[tex]v_2=w_2 - proj_{w_1}w_2 = (1,1,1,0)^T - \frac{w_2 . v_1}{\| v_1 \|}v_1[/tex]

[tex]= \left(\begin{array}{ccc}0\\1\\1\\1\end{array}\right) - \frac{\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0\\1\\1\\1\end{array}\right).\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1\\1\\1\\0\end{array}\right)}{\left\| \left(\begin{array}{ccc}1\\1\\1\\0\end{array}\right) \right\|} \left(\begin{array}{ccc}1\\1\\1\\0\end{array}\right)[/tex]

[tex]= \left(\begin{array}{ccc}0\\1\\1\\1\end{array}\right)- \frac{2}{3} \left(\begin{array}{ccc}1\\1\\1\\0\end{array}\right) = \left(\begin{array}{ccc}-2/3\\1/3\\1/3\\1/3\end{array}\right)[/tex]

Now I normalize the the vectors:

[tex]\left\| v_1 \right\| = \sqrt{3}[/tex]

[tex]\left\| v_2 \right\| = \sqrt{\left(\frac{-2}{3}\right)^2+\left(\frac{1}{3}\right)^2+\left(\frac{1}{3}\right)^2+\left(\frac{1}{3}\right)^2} = \sqrt{\frac{7}{9}}[/tex]

[tex]q_1 = \frac{v_1}{\|v_1 \|} = \left(\begin{array}{ccc}1/\sqrt{3}\\1/\sqrt{3}\\1/\sqrt{3}\\0\end{array}\right)[/tex]

[tex]q_2 = \frac{v_2}{\|v_2 \|} = \left(\begin{array}{ccc}-2/3 \div \sqrt{7/9}\\1/3 \div \sqrt{7/9}\\1/3 \div \sqrt{7/9}\\1/3\div \sqrt{7/9}\end{array}\right)[/tex]

I don't know if my method and my results are correct. Is there anything wrong with my working?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Your formula for v2 should say [itex]\| v_1 \|^2[/itex] on the bottom. That's actually how you did the calculation, though, so your answer is correct. You can simplify v2 by pulling the 9 out of the square root and canceling it with the 3 in the numerator.

You can always check your answer by finding the dot product of v1 and v2 and making sure it's zero, and double-checking to make sure the two vectors are normalized.
 
I don't think your answer is right. If the Gram-Schmidt procedure is carried out correctly, [itex]\{q_1,q_2\}[/itex] and [itex]\{w_1,w_2\}[/itex] should be bases for the same subspace. In particular, it should be possible to express [itex]w_2[/itex] as a linear combination of [itex]q_1[/itex] and [itex]q_2[/itex]. It's not hard to see that this is impossible with your [itex]q_1[/itex] and [itex]q_2[/itex].
 
jbunniii is right. I missed the arithmetic mistake you made when calculating the fourth component of v2. Your general method is correct, however, even if your execution of it wasn't perfect.
 
Thanks you everyone. :smile:

So,

[tex]v_2 = \left(\begin{array}{ccc}-2/3\\1/3\\1/3\\1\end{array}\right)[/tex]

Therefore

[tex]q_2 = \frac{v_2}{\|v_2 \|} = \left(\begin{array}{ccc}-2/3 \div \sqrt{7/9}\\1/3 \div \sqrt{7/9}\\1/3 \div \sqrt{7/9}\\1/ \sqrt{7/9}\end{array}\right)[/tex]

About the simplification, I'm not sure if I understand this properly:

vela said:
You can simplify v2 by pulling the 9 out of the square root and canceling it with the 3 in the numerator.

How can I pull the 9 out of the square root? :confused:
 
So, how should I simplify q2?
 
roam said:
So, how should I simplify q2?

As vela said, you can pull the 9 out of the square root since it's equal to [itex]3^2[/itex]:

[tex]\sqrt{\frac{7}{9}} = \frac{1}{3}\sqrt{7}[/tex]

Also, instead of DIVIDING by

[tex]\sqrt{\frac{7}{9}}[/tex]

it's more conventional to MULTIPLY by the reciprocal, which is

[tex]\sqrt{\frac{9}{7}} = \frac{3}{\sqrt{7}}[/tex]

and if you don't like square roots in the denominator (I personally think they're A-OK), this is equivalent to

[tex]\frac{3\sqrt{7}}{7}[/tex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
4K