Undergrad Shouldn't this definition of a metric include a square root?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the definitions of metrics in inner product spaces, highlighting a potential discrepancy between Mathworld and Wikipedia. Mathworld defines a metric using the inner product as g(v,w) = <v-w,v-w>, while Wikipedia defines it through the norm as d(x,y) = ||y-x||, which includes a square root. Participants question whether Mathworld's definition violates the triangle inequality, suggesting it may not be a valid metric. The conversation also differentiates between the terms "metric" and "distance," noting that while all metrics can be seen as distances, not all satisfy the triangle inequality. The conclusion leans towards the idea that Mathworld's definition may indeed be incorrect.
nomadreid
Gold Member
Messages
1,762
Reaction score
248
TL;DR
Mathworld.Wolfram says that there is a metric on an inner product space (with inner product <.,.>) defined by <v-w,v-w>. Shouldn't that be the square root of <v-w,v-w>?
In https://mathworld.wolfram.com/InnerProduct.html, it states
"Every inner product space is a metric space. The metric is given by
g(v,w)= <v-w,v-w>."
In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_product_space , on the other hand,
"As for every normed vector space, an inner product space is a metric space, for the distance defined by
d(x,y) = ||y-x||"
after it had defined ||x|| as sqrt(<x,x>)

(I am assuming that a metric is the same as a distance function.)

The Mathworld definition appears to be the square of the Wikipedia definition. Whereas one can have more than one metric on a vector space, the former definition would seem to violate the triangle inequality
[Example: take the inner product on the one-dimensional vector space (the number line) as the dot product (which reduces to multiplication of the coordinates of the representative vectors from the origin), and check the triangle inequality for the a=0, b=2, c=5: 4+9 < 25. ]

Did Wolfram make a mistake, or am I missing some elementary and obvious point?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
nomadreid said:
Did Wolfram make a mistake?
It looks like it.
 
  • Like
Likes nomadreid
I haven't checked the triangle identity, but isn't the square of the Euclidean metric a metric, too?
 
fresh_42 said:
I haven't checked the triangle identity, but isn't the square of the Euclidean metric a metric, too?
It doesn't obey the triangle inequality.
 
  • Like
Likes nomadreid
It looks metric is a general term, while distance is specific.
 
The only difference is, that metric is a technical term, and distance is a kind of interpretation. E.g. if we consider an ##L^2## space of functions, then we have a metric, and therewith a distance. However, there is no intuition of the distance between two functions, so people speak about norms and metrics.
 
Sometimes the term "distance" is also used as a technical term outside of the intuitive Euclidean distance: for example, the Hamming distance (which is a metric).
 
  • Like
Likes fresh_42
nomadreid said:
Sometimes the term "distance" is also used as a technical term outside of the intuitive Euclidean distance: for example, the Hamming distance (which is a metric).
I constructed a problem in one of my challenge threads that was the theorem of Thales disguised in the language of ##L^2## spaces.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
11K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
9K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
7K