I Understanding "Hat e" Notation

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter iDimension
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Notation
AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies that the notation \hat e represents a unit vector perpendicular to two vectors, \overrightarrow{u} and \overrightarrow{v}, using the cross product rather than the dot product. Participants note that the correct formulation should be \hat e = \frac{\overrightarrow{u} \times \overrightarrow{v}}{|| \overrightarrow{u} \times \overrightarrow{v}||} = -\frac{\overrightarrow{v} \times \overrightarrow{u}}{|| \overrightarrow{u} \times \overrightarrow{v}||}. The equation reflects the property that the cross product of two vectors is anti-commutative. The original question sought clarification on the notation and its definition, which is rooted in basic vector properties. Understanding this notation is essential for working with vector mathematics and geometry.
iDimension
Messages
108
Reaction score
4
Mathematics news on Phys.org
iDimension said:
Can someone tell me what this notation is

\hat e =\frac{\overrightarrow{u}\cdot \overrightarrow{v}}{|| \overrightarrow{u}\cdot \overrightarrow{v}||} = -\frac{\overrightarrow{v}\cdot \overrightarrow{u}}{|| \overrightarrow{u} \cdot \overrightarrow{v}||}

I saw it here https://socratic.org/questions/how-...t-is-perpendicular-to-both-2i-j-3k-and-i-j-2k

Thanks

Those should be vector cross products not dot products. What don't you understand about it?
 
iDimension said:
Can someone tell me what this notation is

\hat e =\frac{\overrightarrow{u}\cdot \overrightarrow{v}}{|| \overrightarrow{u}\cdot \overrightarrow{v}||} = -\frac{\overrightarrow{v}\cdot \overrightarrow{u}}{|| \overrightarrow{u} \cdot \overrightarrow{v}||}

I saw it here https://socratic.org/questions/how-...t-is-perpendicular-to-both-2i-j-3k-and-i-j-2k

Thanks
As PeroK noted already, the multiplications are cross products, not dot products. In the page you linked to, they they actually wrote was this:
##\hat e =\frac{\overrightarrow{u}\times \overrightarrow{v}}{|| \overrightarrow{u}\times \overrightarrow{v}||} = -\frac{\overrightarrow{v}\times \overrightarrow{u}}{|| \overrightarrow{u} \times \overrightarrow{v}||}##
 
Ah right, so it's cross product not dot product?

And what is the name of this definition or the name of this generalisation because looking on the wiki page I cannot see this format anywhere.
 
iDimension said:
Ah right, so it's cross product not dot product?

And what is the name of this definition or the name of this generalisation because looking on the wiki page I cannot see this format anywhere.
All they are doing is finding a unit vector (##\hat e##) that is perpendicular to both ##\vec u## and ##\vec v##. The equation itself uses the concept that ##\vec u \times \vec v = -(\vec v \times \vec u)##. These are very basic properties of vectors and the cross product.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top