What is the meaning of i, j, k in vectors?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DB
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Vector
AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies that "i, j, k" are unit vectors representing the x, y, and z axes in vector notation, providing a standard way to express vectors without angles. The dot product of these vectors is explained, where i*i equals 1 (indicating the same direction) and i*j equals 0 (indicating orthogonality). This notation allows for easy calculation of vector components, such as expressing a force vector in terms of its x and y components. Additionally, the conversation touches on deriving velocity from position vectors expressed in unit vector notation. Understanding these concepts is essential for effectively working with vectors in physics.
DB
Messages
501
Reaction score
0
i've been reading on the internet about vectors and i keep seeing this stuff about "i, j, k". I am learning vectors in physics but my teacher hasnt mentioned any of this stuff. I've read that if "i, j, k" are the components of the x, y and z axis? and that when u multiply two different letters u get 0 and to like letters u get 1. basically what I am asking is can u help me understand wat these letter means n wat we use them for?

thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
That's correct. This form of vector expression is called unit vector notation. Vectors can be broken into i j and k, representing the x y and z axes, respectively. Basically it's a more standard way of expressing vectors without any relative angles.

For example, I can express "50 N at an angle of 30 degrees relative to the horizontal" in unit vector notation by finding the x and y components like usual using cos 30 and sin 30 times the magnitude, 50. With unit vector notation, you can just say 43.3i + 25j N (50 cos 30 = 43.3 & 50 sin 30 = 25).

Makes sense?
 
Last edited:
ya thanks z.c, so basically its like saying 43.3 units along the x axis, 25 units along the y?

wat about the fact that i*j=0 and i*i=1?
 
DB said:
wat about the fact that i*j=0 and i*i=1?

The "*" there stands for the "dot product", or "inner product" of the vectors. It is basically an orthogonal proyection; it returns the length of the "shadow" that one vector projects over the other one (where this "shadow" falls perpendicularly to the vector into which you are projecting).

Two vectors with similar direction will have large shadows, almost as long as they are. Two vectors with the same exact direction will have shadows exactly as long as they are (hence i*i=1); finally, vectors perpendicular to each other will not project any shadow on each other (i*j=0).

On intermediate directions, you need a cosine to saw this all together.
 
DB said:
ya thanks z.c, so basically its like saying 43.3 units along the x axis, 25 units along the y?
wat about the fact that i*j=0 and i*i=1?
That's right, and it's convenient to have this form of a combined resultant vector that shows the resultant x, y and z components all together. If we had a k term, we'd have the location along the z axis as well.

Knowing that v = \frac{dx}{dt} (velocity is equal to the derivative of position x with respect to time t), if we have a vector of position in terms of time, we can find velocity by deriving the unit vector.
For example, given x = 75t^{2}\hat{i} + 1.25t\hat{j},
Find velocity by: v = \frac{d(75t^{2}\hat{i} + 1.25t\hat{j})}{dt}
 
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...

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
312
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Back
Top