Prove Vector Projections Perpendicular in R3

  • Thread starter Thread starter tony873004
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Projections Vector
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving that the vector difference \(\overrightarrow{w} - \text{proj}_{\overrightarrow{v}} \overrightarrow{w}\) is perpendicular to the vector \(\overrightarrow{v}\) in \(\mathbb{R}^3\). The projection formula used is \(\text{proj}_{\overrightarrow{v}} \overrightarrow{w} = \frac{\overrightarrow{v} \cdot \overrightarrow{w}}{|\overrightarrow{v}|^2} \overrightarrow{v}\). The key conclusion is that demonstrating the dot product \(\overrightarrow{v} \cdot (\overrightarrow{w} - \text{proj}_{\overrightarrow{v}} \overrightarrow{w}) = 0\) confirms the perpendicularity. An alternative approach is suggested for simplification.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector operations in \(\mathbb{R}^3
  • Familiarity with the concept of vector projection
  • Knowledge of dot product calculations
  • Basic grasp of linear algebra principles
NEXT STEPS
  • Study vector projections in detail, focusing on geometric interpretations
  • Learn about the properties of dot products and their applications in geometry
  • Explore alternative methods for proving vector relationships in linear algebra
  • Investigate the implications of perpendicular vectors in higher dimensions
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mathematics, physics, and engineering who are working with vector analysis and linear algebra concepts.

tony873004
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
1,753
Reaction score
143
Let \overrightarrow v and \overrightarrow w be vectors in R3. Prove that \overrightarrow w - {\rm{proj}}_{\overrightarrow v } \overrightarrow w is perpendicular to \overrightarrow v .

Here's my attempt:
\begin{array}{l}<br /> \left( {\overrightarrow w - {\rm{proj}}_{\overrightarrow v } \overrightarrow w } \right) \cdot \overrightarrow v \mathop = \limits^? 0 \\ <br /> \\ <br /> {\rm{proj}}_{\overrightarrow v } \overrightarrow w = \frac{{\overrightarrow v \cdot \overrightarrow w }}{{\left| {\overrightarrow v } \right|^2 }}\overrightarrow v \\ <br /> \\ <br /> \overrightarrow v \cdot \overrightarrow w = v_1 w_1 + v_2 w_2 + v_3 w_3 \\ <br /> \\ <br /> \left| {\overrightarrow v } \right| = \sqrt {v_1^2 + v_2^2 + v_3^2 } \\ <br /> \left| {\overrightarrow v } \right|^2 = v_1^2 + v_2^2 + v_3^2 \\ <br /> \\ <br /> \frac{{\overrightarrow v \cdot \overrightarrow w }}{{\left| {\overrightarrow v } \right|^2 }} = \frac{{v_1 w_1 + v_2 w_2 + v_3 w_3 }}{{v_1^2 + v_2^2 + v_3^2 }} = \frac{{v_1 w_1 }}{{v_1^2 + v_2^2 + v_3^2 }} + \frac{{v_2 w_2 }}{{v_1^2 + v_2^2 + v_3^2 }} + \frac{{v_3 w_3 }}{{v_1^2 + v_2^2 + v_3^2 }} \\ <br /> \\ <br /> \frac{{\overrightarrow v \cdot \overrightarrow w }}{{\left| {\overrightarrow v } \right|^2 }}\overrightarrow v = \left( {\frac{{v_1 w_1 }}{{v_1^2 + v_2^2 + v_3^2 }} + \frac{{v_2 w_2 }}{{v_1^2 + v_2^2 + v_3^2 }} + \frac{{v_3 w_3 }}{{v_1^2 + v_2^2 + v_3^2 }}} \right)\left\langle {v_1 ,\,v_2 ,\,v_3 } \right\rangle \\ <br /> \\ <br /> \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, = \left( {\frac{{v_1 w_1 }}{{v_1^2 + v_2^2 + v_3^2 }} + \frac{{v_2 w_2 }}{{v_1^2 + v_2^2 + v_3^2 }} + \frac{{v_3 w_3 }}{{v_1^2 + v_2^2 + v_3^2 }}} \right)\left\langle {v_1 ,\,v_2 ,\,v_3 } \right\rangle \\ <br /> \end{array}

Things are starting to get real ugly. Am I missing an easier way?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, you are. You want to show v.(w-(v.w)*v/(v.v))=0. Just multiply the outer dot product through.
 

Similar threads

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