Standard basis and other bases...

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter fog37
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    2d Basis Vectors
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of bases in 2D vector spaces, focusing on the standard basis and orthogonal versus non-orthogonal bases. Participants explore the implications of basis choice on vector representation and the uniqueness of vector coordinates relative to different bases.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that vectors in 2D can be visualized as arrows, but clarify that a vector is an equivalence class of arrows, not an arrow itself.
  • There is a discussion about the coordinates of basis vectors being relative to the chosen basis, with some asserting that basis vectors have specific coordinates in their own basis.
  • Participants mention that orthogonal bases provide concise representations of vectors, while non-orthogonal bases may require knowledge of other basis vectors to determine coefficients.
  • Some argue that the definition of an orthogonal basis needs to be clarified, as well as the concepts of inner products and uniqueness of vector representation.
  • There is a contention regarding the assertion that orthogonal bases allow for simpler calculations of coefficients compared to non-orthogonal bases, with some participants questioning the implications of this distinction.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definitions and implications of orthogonal versus non-orthogonal bases, with no consensus reached on certain foundational concepts such as the definition of a vector and the role of inner products.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note the need for definitions and clarifications regarding inner products and the unique properties of bases, indicating that assumptions about these concepts may not be universally understood.

fog37
Messages
1,566
Reaction score
108
Hello,
I am review some key linear algebra concepts. Let's keep the discussing to 2D.
Vectors in the 2D space can be simplistically visualized as arrows with a certain length and direction. Let's draw a single red arrow on the page representing vector ##X##, an entity that is independent of the basis choice:
1710594255052.png

We then can choose ANY pair of not collinear vectors to form a basis. Basis 1 has two basis vectors with coordinates ##a=(1,0)## and ##b=(0,1)##. The basis vectors ##a## and ##b## have coordinates....Their coordinates are exactly ##(1,0)## and ##(0,1)## ONLY under the implicit assumptions that the two vectors are the basis vectors or a specific basis, basis 1 in this case.
If we consider the different basis 2, the basis vector ##c## and ##d## will also have coordinates ##c=(1,0)## and ##d=(0,1)## as long as we are under the assumption that the are themselves the basis vectors of a specific basis.
1710595174237.png

So the coordinates of a vector are always relative (to the basis we choose): if we arbitrarily decide that the basis we want to use is basis 1, then vectors ##a## and ##b## will be the basis vectors themselves with coordinates ##(1,0)## and ##(0,1)## and vectors ##c##and ##d## will have different coordinates...Basis vectors always have coordinates ##(1,0)## and ##(0,1)## in their OWN basis and different coordinates in a different basis... This may seem obvious but I needed to flush it out to make sure I am indeed thinking correctly about it.

Orthogonal bases give concise representations of vectors in the vector space: every basis vector encodes a specific and independent piece of information about the vector. Some orthogonal bases provide more sparse representations that others...

Non-orthogonal bases can also be useful. To find the coefficients associated to a certain basis vector we need the vector itself, the basis vector, but also the other basis vectors....I am confused about that. In the case of orthogonal bases, we simply perform the dot product between the vector and the specific basis vector without involving other basis vectors....Involving them in what sense?

Thank YOU!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You have not defined an "orthogonal basis". Perhaps a less "wordy" explanation is useful. You need to define inner products and other stuff. What is the ultimate purpose of your review? What does review "concepts" mean? What level are you shooting for?
 
I suggest fleshing it out :).
But, yes, the basis ##\{(0,1),(1,0)\}## does have the unique property that a vector ##(a,b)## will be represented , precisely, as ##(a,b)##.
Is that what you were asking?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: fog37
I seem to remember that two vectors can (and do) form a basis if the decomposition in components of  any vector is unique. Needs things like inner product and null vector to be defined.
Orthogonality and orthonormality are subsequent embellishments.
 
WWGD said:
I suggest fleshing it out :).
But, yes, the basis ##\{(0,1),(1,0)\}## does have the unique property that a vector ##(a,b)## will be represented , precisely, as ##(a,b)##.
Is that what you were asking?
This may be obvious, but the basis vectors belonging to a particular basis always coordinates ##\{(0,1),(1,0)\}##. Basis vectors forming a different basis also have coordinates ##\{(0,1),(1,0)\}##.
 
This gets back to the generaldefinition of a vector space over a field.
The choice of the standard basis is one of book-keeping mostly as I recall. You have settled on the particular vector space ##{\mathbb R}^2##
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: fog37
notice that neither set of coordinates in either of your bases can tell you where your red arrow begins or ends. the difficulty is that you have defined a vector slightly incorrectly; i.e. a vector is not an arrow, but an equivalence class of arrows, all having then same length and direction, but beginning at any arbitrary point of the plane. thus an arrow is not a vector, but it does determine a vector, and perhaps this is what you meant.
 
every basis vector encodes a specific and independent piece of information about the vector
This is true for any basis not just an orthogonal one. Any vector has unique coordinates with respect to a given basis.
Some orthogonal bases provide more sparse representations that others
What does this mean?

In the case of orthogonal bases, we simply perform the dot product between the vector and the specific basis vector without involving other basis vectors....Involving them in what sense?
If ##\{e_i\}## is an orthonormal basis, then
<br /> x = \sum \langle x,e_i\rangle e_i<br />
You do "involve other basis vectors".
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: fog37 and hutchphd
nuuskur said:
This is true for any basis not just an orthogonal one. Any vector has unique coordinates with respect to a given basis.

What does this mean?


If ##\{e_i\}## is an orthonormal basis, then
<br /> x = \sum \langle x,e_i\rangle e_i<br />
You do "involve other basis vectors".
Yes, I was referring to the fact that, in the case of an orthogonal basis, the coefficient for a specific basis vectors is calculated using the vector ##x## and the only the basis vector itself....

In the case of a non-orthogonal basis, I think the coefficient for a specific basis vector requires knowledge of the other basis vectors...
 
  • #10
fog37 said:
Yes, I was referring to the fact that, in the case of an orthogonal basis, the coefficient for a specific basis vectors is calculated using the vector ##x## and the only the basis vector itself....

In the case of a non-orthogonal basis, I think the coefficient for a specific basis vector requires knowledge of the other basis vectors...

Yes, it is true if I tell you v is part of an orthogonal basis with inner product <,> and ask what the coefficient of v is when representing u, you can figure it out without knowing what the rest of the basis is, and this is not true if the basis is not orthogonal in general.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K