Vector components and its coordinate description in a given basis

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the representation of vectors in a given basis, specifically addressing the concept of vector components as coordinates relative to that basis. Participants explore the implications of ordering in bases and how it affects the interpretation of vector components in abstract vector spaces versus physical vectors in Euclidean space.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that vector components can be considered as coordinates of a vector relative to a basis, with the components corresponding to projections onto basis vectors.
  • Others question the necessity of an "ordered" basis for discussing coordinates, with some asserting that an ordered basis is essential for defining coordinates.
  • A participant suggests that rearranging elements of a basis results in a new basis, indicating that the order of basis vectors matters in the context of defining coordinates.
  • Some participants clarify that the concept of an ordered basis is commonly used in linear algebra, emphasizing that it is regarded as a sequence rather than just a set of vectors.
  • There is a suggestion that the ability to represent any set of basis vectors in the basis they define allows for a consistent interpretation of coordinates, with each basis vector defining a coordinate axis.
  • One participant emphasizes that while numerical calculations in linear algebra rely on ordered bases, the broader mathematics of linear algebra encompasses more than just vectors and matrices.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the concept of an ordered basis is relevant to the discussion of vector components as coordinates. However, there is disagreement regarding the necessity of ordering for defining coordinates, with some asserting it is required while others provide differing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying interpretations of what constitutes an "ordered" basis and its implications for vector representation. There are also references to the distinction between abstract vector spaces and physical vectors, indicating a potential limitation in the discussion's scope.

"Don't panic!"
Messages
600
Reaction score
8
Given a basis [itex]\mathfrak{B}=\lbrace\mathbf{e}_{i}\rbrace[/itex] it is possible to represent a vector [itex]\mathbf{v}[/itex] as a column vector

[itex]\left[\mathbf{v}\right]_{\mathfrak{B}}= \left(\begin{matrix}v^{1} \\ v^{2} \\ \vdots \\ v^{n}\end{matrix}\right)[/itex]

where the [itex]v_{i}[/itex] are the components of [itex]\mathbf{v}[/itex] relative to the basis [itex]\mathfrak{B}[/itex].

I understand that the components, [itex]v_{i}[/itex] correspond to the projection of [itex]\mathbf{v}[/itex] onto each basis vector, [itex]\mathbf{e}_{i}[/itex], but is it correct to say that we can consider them as coordinates of [itex]\mathbf{v}[/itex] relative to [itex]\mathfrak{B}[/itex] (where the [itex]\mathbf{e}_{i}[/itex] define the coordinate axes of the given basis), due to the fact that it is always possible to represent any set of basis vectors in the basis that they define, such that the resulting column vectors will `look like' the standard basis?
Or can one only talk about 'coordinates' of a vector relative to a given basis if that basis is 'ordered'?Sorry if this is wildly wrong, just starting to get the 'hang' (a bit) of the concept of abstract vector spaces, but still struggling to move away from the specific case of "physical" vectors in Euclidean space.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
What do you mean when you say a basis is "ordered"? The answer to your first question is yes.
 
mathman said:
What do you mean when you say a basis is "ordered"? The answer to your first question is yes.

Thanks.

By "ordered" I mean that there is a specific order to the elements of a given basis, such that rearranging any of the elements in a given basis results in a new (distinct) basis?!
 
"Don't panic!" said:
Thanks.

By "ordered" I mean that there is a specific order to the elements of a given basis, such that rearranging any of the elements in a given basis results in a new (distinct) basis?!
Define ##\mathfrak{B}'=\{\mathbf{e}_j'\}## as a basis, with ##\mathbf{e}_i'=\mathbf{e}_{n-i+1}##.

Then, ##\mathfrak{B}=\mathfrak{B}'##. I suspect you're thinking of "ordered pairs." As it turns out, we can order them for convenience, but the fact remains that vector spaces are abelian groups under addition, so ##\mathbf{e}_1+\mathbf{e}_2=\mathbf{e}_2+\mathbf{e}_1##.

Our notation with vectors in columns and rows acts like a function, sending an element of a field in an entry to a corresponding (predetermined) basis vector scalar-multiplied by that field element. Thus, when we talk of coordinates, we ARE talking about ordered sets.
 
Last edited:
Mandelbroth said:
Define ##\mathfrak{B}'=\{\mathbf{e}_j'\}## as a basis, with ##\mathbf{e}_i'=\mathbf{e}_{n-i+1}##.

Then, ##\mathfrak{B}=\mathfrak{B}'##. I suspect you're thinking of "ordered pairs." As it turns out, we can order them for convenience, but the fact remains that vector spaces are abelian groups under addition, so ##\mathbf{e}_1+\mathbf{e}_2=\mathbf{e}_2+\mathbf{e}_1##.

Our notation with vectors in columns and rows acts like a function, sending an element of a field in an entry to a corresponding (predetermined) basis vector scalar-multiplied by that field element. Thus, when we talk of coordinates, we ARE talking about ordered sets.

So is it correct then to say that the reason why we can consider the components of a vector as coordinates of that vector relative to a given basis because of the fact that it is always possible to represent any set of basis vectors in the basis that they define, such that the resulting column vectors will `look like' the standard basis? In this sense, is it correct to say the the elements of a given basis define a coordinate system, with each basis vector defining a particular coordinate axis within that system?
 
An ordered basis is the exact termination my linear algebra book uses, it is just a basis regarded as a sequence rather than a set of linearly dependent, space-generating vectors.

Just throwing that out there. I thought the term was common. I don't see how the concept isn't required, and I think the answer to the OP's question "can one only talk about 'coordinates' of a vector relative to a given basis if that basis is 'ordered'?" is yes.
 
1MileCrash said:
I don't see how the concept isn't required, and I think the answer to the OP's question "can one only talk about 'coordinates' of a vector relative to a given basis if that basis is 'ordered'?" is yes.

You can only use vector or matrix notation to do numerical calculations in linear algebra, using some specified ordered basis.

But there is a lot more to the mathematics of linear algebra than "vectors and matrices whose elements are real or complex numbers".
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
5K