Proving the Zero Result of a Dot/Cross Product Equation

  • Thread starter Thread starter rock.freak667
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Product Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the equation p(q.rXs) - q(r.sXp) + r(s.pXq) - s(p.qXr) = 0, where p, q, r, and s are vectors, and X denotes the cross product. Participants utilized the vector triple product identity a x (b x c) = b(a.c) - c(b.a) to manipulate the expressions. The conclusion reached is that the expression F(p,q,r,s) is zero due to its antisymmetric properties and linearity in each argument, confirming the original equation holds true.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector algebra and properties of cross products
  • Familiarity with the vector triple product identity
  • Knowledge of antisymmetric functions in vector calculus
  • Basic proficiency in manipulating vector expressions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the vector triple product identity in detail
  • Explore antisymmetric properties of vector functions
  • Practice proving vector identities involving cross products
  • Learn about linear transformations in vector spaces
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in mathematics, particularly those focusing on vector calculus and linear algebra, as well as anyone interested in advanced vector manipulation techniques.

rock.freak667
Homework Helper
Messages
6,221
Reaction score
31

Homework Statement



Prove that p(q.rXs)-q(r.sXp)+r(s.pXq)-s(p.qXr)=0

Where p,q,r,s are vectors and X denotes the cross product.

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



So far all I have is this ( I can't get any further after)

q.rXs=r.sXq=s.qXr

r.sXp=p.sXr=s.rXp

s.pXq=q.sXp=p.qXs

p.qXr=r.pXq=q.rXp.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
rock.freak667 said:
Prove that p(q.rXs)-q(r.sXp)+r(s.pXq)-s(p.qXr)=0

Where p,q,r,s are vectors and X denotes the cross product.

Hi rock.freak667! :smile:

(please either use more brackets, or write the triple product as [q,r,s])

Use the only other relation you know for the cross-product …

a x (b x c) = b(a.c) - c(b.a) :wink:
 
tiny-tim said:
Use the only other relation you know for the cross-product …

a x (b x c) = b(a.c) - c(b.a) :wink:

But I do not have anything like b(a.c)-c(b.a) to convert back to a x (b x c) or vice versa
 
rock.freak667 said:
But I do not have anything like b(a.c)-c(b.a) to convert back to a x (b x c) or vice versa

D'oh! :rolleyes: forget reality … this is maths … use your imagination!

Big hint: what is (p x q) x (r x s) ? :wink:
 
Try this. Call your expression F(p,q,r,s). Can you show F(p,q,r,s)=-F(q,p,r,s)=-F(p,q,s,r)=-F(p,r,q,s)? It's not very hard if you rearrange the triple products. I.e. interchanging any two arguments flips the sign of F. That means, for example, F(p,p,r,s)=0. If any argument is repeated F is zero. It's also clear F is linear in each of it's arguments. That means we can figure out what F is by evaluating it on all combinations of the basis elements i,j,k. But in three dimensions we only have three basis elements. So F must vanish on all combinations. So F is zero. tiny-tim's suggestion sort of looks along the right lines, but (ixj)x(ixk) isn't zero. So (pxq)x(rxs) can't be the same as what you are looking at. It's not 'antisymmetric' enough.
 
Last edited:
tiny-tim said:
Big hint: what is (p x q) x (r x s) ? :wink:

:biggrin: thanks for this hint, finally got it out now!
 
rock.freak667 said:
:biggrin: thanks for this hint, finally got it out now!

So what did you do?
 
Dick said:
So what did you do?

Well if I did it correctly, I believe (s.pXq)-s(p.qXr) works out as (p x q) x (r x s).

And p(q.rXs)-q(r.sXp) works out as (r x s) x (p x q)
 
Yep, I think you did it correctly. I was trying to find a trick where I didn't have to do the general antisymmetric thing, and couldn't find one. You and tiny-tim did.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K