Proof of a dot product using sigma notation

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
19 replies · 3K views
happyparticle
Messages
490
Reaction score
24
Mentor note: Moved from a technical section, so is missing the homework template.
Hi,
I'm always not sure how to prove something in math and I'm wondering if this is enough.

##\vec r \cdot (\vec u + \vec v) ##

##\vec u + \vec v = (u_1+v_1, u_2+v_2,u_3+v_3) = \vec s##

##\vec r \cdot (\vec u + \vec v) = \vec r \cdot \vec s ##

## \sum_{i=1}^3 r_is_i = r_1s_1 + r_2s_2 + r_3s_3 = \vec r \cdot \vec s = \vec r \cdot (\vec u + \vec v)##
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Alright then I always don't know how where to begin. I have to prove I can distribute the dot product, but I have to use the sigma notation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
EpselonZero said:
I'm always not sure how to prove something in math and I'm wondering if this is enough.
EpselonZero said:
I have to prove I can distribute the dot product.
Start with ##\vec r \cdot (\vec u + \vec v) ##, and you should end up with ##\vec r \cdot \vec u + \vec r \cdot \vec v##. Each expression should be connected with '='.

You don't need ##\vec s##.

Is it given that these are vectors in ##\mathbb R^3##? Your summation seems to assume that.

Also, questions like this should be posted in the Homework & Coursework sections. I will move this thread.
 
Thanks guys for the tips. Can you tell me if this is correct?

##\vec r \cdot (\vec u + \vec v ) = ##

##\sum_{n=1}^3 r_i(u_i+v_i)=##

##(r_1u_1,r_2u_2,r_3u_3) + (r_1v_1,r_2v_2r_3,v_3) = ##

## (r_1, r_2, r_3) \cdot [(u_1,u_2,u_3) + (v_1,v_2,v_3)] =##

##\vec r \cdot \vec u + \vec r \cdot \vec v##
 
I think everything you wrote is a true statement, but doesn't seem to be particularly motivated as being obvious given what you are trying to prove. I think as a first question, to reiterate what mark asked, are these vectors in ##\mathbb{R}^3##?

I think you should try to never write down all the coordinates individually, given how the question is asked. What can you do with ##\sum r_i(u_i+v_i)##? Can you distribute that?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: happyparticle
These are vector in R³.
I don't see how I can do that if I don't have to write down the coordinates individually because I have to use
## \sum_{i=1}^3 u_iv_i##
else
## \sum_{i=1}^1 \vec r \cdot (\vec u + \vec v) ## , but that doesn't prove anything.
 
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure to understand.
The only thing I see is that
##\sum r_i(u_i + v_i) = r(u + v) = ru + rv##

However, in my mind that's not enough.
 
EpselonZero said:
Thanks guys for the tips. Can you tell me if this is correct?
No, it's not correct.

##\vec r \cdot (\vec u + \vec v )## is a number whereas ##(r_1u_1,r_2u_2,r_3u_3) + (r_1v_1,r_2v_2r_3,v_3)## is a vector. They can't possibly be equal.
 
EpselonZero said:
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure to understand.
The only thing I see is that
##\sum r_i(u_i + v_i) = r(u + v) = ru + rv##

However, in my mind that's not enough.
You're right that that's not enough. You're just asserting what you're being asked to prove.

One of the difficulties with these kinds of proofs is what you're supposed to prove seems obvious. You need to think like a mathematician. A mathematician would say ##r_i(u_i+v_i) = r_i u_i + r_i v_i## is axiomatically true because ##r_i##, ##u_i##, and ##v_i## are real numbers. ##\vec r \cdot (\vec u + \vec v)##, however, needs to be proved because you have new mathematical objects, namely, the vectors, and a different kind of addition and multiplication, vector addition and the dot product.

The idea here is to express the vector operation in terms of real numbers, according to its definition, working with the real quantities to massage the expression into a form where you can translate it back to vector notation, again according to the relevant definitions.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
Let me add that when you wrote
$$\vec r \cdot (\vec u + \vec v) = \sum_{i=1}^3 r_i(u_i+v_i),$$ you actually glossed over a step. It really should be
$$\vec r \cdot (\vec u + \vec v) = \sum_{i=1}^3 r_i(\vec u+\vec v)_i = \sum_{i=1}^3 r_i(u_i+v_i),$$ where the first equality comes from the definition of the dot product and the second equality is justified by the definition of vector addition. (Whether you need to be this nit-picky though depends on what your instructor requires.)

The next step would be what the Shredder suggested
$$\sum_{i=1}^3 r_i(u_i+v_i) = \sum_{i=1}^3 (r_i u_i+r_i v_i),$$ which you can justify as being true because of the distributive property of real numbers.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: happyparticle
As you said, one of my mistake was about the vectors and the real numbers.

## \vec r \cdot (\vec v + \vec u) = ##
## \sum_{i=1}^3 r_i(\vec v + \vec u)_i =##
## \sum_{i=1}^3 r_i( v_i + u_i) =##
##\sum_{i=1}^3 (r_iv_i + r_iu_i) =##
##(r_1v_1 + r_1u_1) + (r_2v_2 + r_2u_2) + (r_3v_3 + r_3u_3) =##
##(r_1v_1 + r_2v_2 + r_3v_3 ) + (r_1u_1 + r_2u_2 + r_3u_3) =##
## \vec r \cdot \vec v + \vec r \cdot \vec u##

I'm not sure ##(r_1 + r_2 + r_3 ) = \vec r ##
 
EpselonZero said:
As you said, one of my mistake was about the vectors and the real numbers.

## \vec r \cdot (\vec v + \vec u) = ##
## \sum_{i=1}^3 r_i(\vec v + \vec u)_i =##
## \sum_{i=1}^3 r_i( v_i + u_i) =##
##\sum_{i=1}^3 (r_iv_i + r_iu_i) =##
You don't need the two lines below. The above is equal to
##\sum_{i=1}^3 r_iv_i + \sum_{i=1}^3 r_iu_i##
The above can be rewritten as
## \vec r \cdot \vec v + \vec r \cdot \vec u##, which is what you are intended to show.
EpselonZero said:
##(r_1v_1 + r_1u_1) + (r_2v_2 + r_2u_2) + (r_3v_3 + r_3u_3) =##
##(r_1v_1 + r_2v_2 + r_3v_3 ) + (r_1u_1 + r_2u_2 + r_3u_3) =##
## \vec r \cdot \vec v + \vec r \cdot \vec u##

I'm not sure ##(r_1 + r_2 + r_3 ) = \vec r ##
They are not equal. The left side is a real number; the right side is a vector. A vector isn't equal to the sum of its components.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: happyparticle
Alright, thanks guys for your patience.
one more thing.

##r_1v_1 + r_2v_2 + r_3v_3 = \vec r \cdot \vec v## ?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
EpselonZero said:
Alright, thanks guys for your patience.
one more thing.

##r_1v_1 + r_2v_2 + r_3v_3 = \vec r \cdot \vec v## ?
Yes, because that's generally the definition of the dot product.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: happyparticle
EpselonZero said:
##r_1v_1 + r_2v_2 + r_3v_3 = \vec r \cdot \vec v## ?
PeroK said:
Yes, because that's generally the definition of the dot product.
Keep in mind that the above is the coordinate definition of the dot product (of vectors in ##\mathbb R^3##).
The coordinate-free definition uses the magnitudes of the vectors and the cosine of the angle between them.
## \vec u \cdot \vec v = |\vec u | |\vec v | \cos(\theta)##
 
Thanks a lot!