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

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the definitions of metrics in inner product spaces as presented by Mathworld and Wikipedia. Mathworld defines the metric as g(v,w) = , while Wikipedia states the distance as d(x,y) = ||y-x||, where ||x|| is defined as sqrt(). The participants conclude that Mathworld's definition appears to be the square of the Wikipedia definition, which does not satisfy the triangle inequality, indicating a potential error in Mathworld's interpretation. The distinction between "metric" as a general term and "distance" as a specific interpretation is also clarified.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of inner product spaces
  • Familiarity with metric spaces and distance functions
  • Knowledge of the triangle inequality in mathematics
  • Basic concepts of norms in vector spaces
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of inner product spaces and their metrics
  • Study the triangle inequality and its implications in metric spaces
  • Explore the differences between metrics and distance functions in mathematical contexts
  • Investigate the Hamming distance and its applications in various fields
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students studying linear algebra, and anyone interested in the theoretical foundations of metrics and distance functions in vector spaces.

nomadreid
Gold Member
Messages
1,765
Reaction score
250
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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: 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 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · 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
4K