I Vector Division: An Explainer of Why It's Not Possible

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Atizaz Ahmed
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Division Vector
Atizaz Ahmed
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
why is vector division not possible?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What is vector division?
 
For two-dimensional vectors you can define division easily by representing a vector ##[a,b]## by a complex number ##a+bi## and using complex division:$$
\begin{bmatrix}
a\\
b
\end{bmatrix}/
\begin{bmatrix}
c\\
d
\end{bmatrix} := (a+bi)(c+di)^{-1}
$$
For a more general solution, any vector space with an inner product can be embedded (in a geometrically natural way) inside a larger structure called a Clifford Algebra in which you can divide by a vector ##v## provided ##v\cdot v \neq 0## (which happens often in special relativity!). The mathematics of these larger systems is known as Geometric Algebra.

Also keep in mind that whilst it is often possible (and kinda fun!) to define non-standard mathematical operations, the real question you need to ask is whether it is useful to do so; especially if the context is physics. It turns out that geometric algebra is an extremely valuable tool in almost every branch of physics.
 
Last edited:
Atizaz Ahmed said:
why is vector division not possible?
We must distinguish between "is not possible" and "is not defined". For example, in the standard definition of a "vector space", the division of vectors is not defined . Some teachers may present this fact by saying that the division of vectors "is not possible" in order to advise their students not to waste their time trying to divide vectors when doing homework problems.

From a very advanced point of view there can be examples of things that are both "vector spaces" and also more complicated mathematical structures. If you are told about the more complicated structure then you may also be told about a way to do division in it.
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...

Similar threads

Back
Top