Vector Algebra - Vector Triple Product Proof

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
14 replies · 23K views
H2instinct
Messages
20
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Prove, by writing out in component form, that
[tex]\left(a \times b \right) \times c \equiv \left(a \bullet c\right) b - \left(b \bullet c\right) a[/tex]and deduce the result, [tex]\left(a \times b\right) \times c \neq a \times \left(b \times c\right)[/tex], that the operation of forming the vector product is non-associative.

The Attempt at a Solution


So I took the LHS and made it into component form:

[tex]LHS = \left(\left(\left(a_{z} \cdot b_{x} \cdot c_{z}\right) - \left(a_{x} \cdot b_{z} \cdot c_{z}\right)\right) - \left(\left(a_{x} \cdot b_{y} \cdot c_{y}\right) + \left(a_{y} \cdot b_{x} \cdot c_{y}\right)\right)\right) \hat{i} + \left(\left(\left(a_{x} \cdot b_{y} \cdot c_{x}\right) - \left(a_{y} \cdot b_{x} \cdot c_{x}\right)\right) - \left(\left(a_{y} \cdot b_{z} \cdot c_{z}\right) + \left(a_{z} \cdot b_{y} \cdot c_{z}\right)\right)\right) \hat{j}[/tex]
[tex]+ \left(\left(\left(a_{y} \cdot b_{z} \cdot c_{y}\right) - \left(a_{z} \cdot b_{y} \cdot c_{y}\right)\right) - \left(\left(a_{z} \cdot b_{x} \cdot c_{x}\right) + \left(a_{x} \cdot b_{z} \cdot c_{x}\right)\right)\right) \hat{k}[/tex]

[tex]RHS = \left(a_{x} \cdot b_{x} \cdot c_{x}\right) \hat{i} +\left(a_{y} \cdot b_{y} \cdot c_{y}\right) \hat{j} + \left(a_{z} \cdot b_{z} \cdot c_{z}\right) \hat{k} - \left(a_{x} \cdot b_{x} \cdot c_{x}\right) \hat{i} + \left(a_{y} \cdot b_{y} \cdot c_{y}\right) \hat{j} + \left(a_{z} \cdot b_{z} \cdot c_{z}\right) \hat{k}[/tex]

This doesn't seem very difficult to me, however, the algebra of it is all over the place. I believe I found the component form of each side properly, but I could have screwed up somewhere. I am definitely not getting the RHS = LHS, so I am either screwing up somewhere or am totally on the wrong path. Any help, either noticing what I have done wrong, or a fresh start is much appreciated. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Recheck your RHS, all important terms are missing. Notice that a, b, and c have 3 components each, be careful in the multiplication. Also, you have problems on the signs in your LHS.
 
Last edited:
one thing i find useful for thrse problems is working in subcript notation, where repeated indicies mean a sum is performed over that index. The dot products & cross products then become:

[tex]a \bullet b = a_i b_j \delta_{ij} = a_i b_i[/tex]
[tex](a \times b)_k = a_i b_j \epsilon_{ijk}[/tex]

where [itex]\delta_{ij}[/itex] is the kronecker delat & [itex]\epsilon_{ijk}[/itex] is the levi cevita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronecker_delta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levi-Civita_symbol

takes a little time to learn this notation to start, but i find they're an extra tool in the toolbox & can save a lot of time
 
rickz02 said:
Recheck your RHS, all important terms are missing. Notice that a, b, and c have 3 components each, be careful in the multiplication. Also, you have problems on the signs in your LHS.

I am not fully understanding the dot product multiplication rule because how I think it is supposed to be multiplied to show component form just keeps coming out as I have it shown above.

Also, I fixed the signs of the LHS, I believe that is now correct.

This is where I get stuck:

[tex]RHS = \left(a_{x} \cdot c_{x} + a_{y} \cdot c_{y} + a_{z} \cdot c_{z}\right) b - \left(b_{x} \cdot c_{x} + b_{y} \cdot c_{y} + b_{z} \cdot c_{z}\right) a[/tex]
 
Last edited:
In dot product multiplication you just have to multiply the components of the vectors with the same unit vectors (i.e. i to i, j to j, k to k).

I can see in your solution above that you don't have a problem with the dot product multiplication. You just confused it (indicated by a dot) with the ordinary multiplication (indicated by the the parentheses).
 
rickz02 said:
In dot product multiplication you just have to multiply the components of the vectors with the same unit vectors (i.e. i to i, j to j, k to k).

I can see in your solution above that you don't have a problem with the dot product multiplication. You just confused it (indicated by a dot) with the ordinary multiplication (indicated by the the parentheses).

You are correct... I confused regular multiplication with dot product. But what exactly is the parentheses multiplication of vectors? I though that was the dot product. Still confused...
 
Another thing, you have sign problems in your RHS as well, all the terms you have there should cancel out.
 
rickz02 said:
Another thing, you have sign problems in your RHS as well, all the terms you have there should cancel out.

Ya. Just don't understand from here...

[tex] RHS = \left(a_{x} \cdot c_{x} + a_{y} \cdot c_{y} + a_{z} \cdot c_{z}\right) b - \left(b_{x} \cdot c_{x} + b_{y} \cdot c_{y} + b_{z} \cdot c_{z}\right) a[/tex]

to the solution.
 
Just do the normal multiplication like (a+x)(b+y) = ab + bx + ay + xy.
 
Remember that b has three components; bx, by and bz. The same goes with a.
 
rickz02 said:
Remember that b has three components; bx, by and bz. The same goes with a.

If you are saying to multiply them like this...


[tex] <br /> RHS = \left((a_{x} \cdot c_{x} \cdot b) + (a_{y} \cdot c_{y} \cdot b) + (a_{z} \cdot c_{z} \cdot b) \right) - \left((b_{x} \cdot c_{x} \cdot a) + (b_{y} \cdot c_{y} \cdot a) + (b_{z} \cdot c_{z} \cdot a)\right)<br /> [/tex]

That really only makes me consider the same questions I was considering before -.-
 
Exactly, now your b = bx i + by j + bz k and your a = ax i + ay j + az k. Substitute and simplify again. Remove the dots so you won't be confused it with the dot product.
 
Actually an easy way to do this is suggested by lanedance, but it needs some more understanding of the tensor notations. Using the notations you're actually left working with indices.
 
Luckily the easy way to do this also involves more learning. It's still not making sense btw.
 
H2instinct said:
[tex] <br /> RHS = \left((a_{x} \cdot c_{x} \cdot b) + (a_{y} \cdot c_{y} \cdot b) + (a_{z} \cdot c_{z} \cdot b) \right) - \left((b_{x} \cdot c_{x} \cdot a) + (b_{y} \cdot c_{y} \cdot a) + (b_{z} \cdot c_{z} \cdot a)\right)<br /> [/tex]

This one is almost close to the proof. Just continue this.