What is the definition of dividing vectors in R^2 using points P, Q, R, and S?

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Poirot1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Vectors
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on defining the division of vectors in R² represented by points P, Q, R, and S, specifically the expression $\frac{PQ}{RS}$. Participants clarify that PQ and RS denote the lengths of vectors from P to Q and R to S, respectively. The conversation highlights the distinction between scalar and vector inverses, emphasizing that scalar inverses can be defined but vector inverses present complications. Additionally, references to Ceva's and Menelaus' theorems illustrate the importance of signed lengths in vector division.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector notation and operations in R²
  • Familiarity with scalar and vector products
  • Knowledge of Menelaus' and Ceva's theorems
  • Basic concepts of signed lengths in geometry
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of scalar and vector products in detail
  • Research the applications of Menelaus' theorem in geometry
  • Explore the implications of signed lengths in vector analysis
  • Investigate alternative notations for vector representation in R²
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, geometry enthusiasts, and students studying vector analysis and geometric theorems will benefit from this discussion.

Poirot1
Messages
243
Reaction score
0
If P,Q,R,S are 4 points in R^2 then we have the lines PQ and RS. How do we define $\frac{PQ}{RS}$ ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Poirot said:
If P,Q,R,S are 4 points in R^2 then we have the lines PQ and RS. How do we define $\frac{PQ}{RS}$ ?

It is well known that there are two different vector products: the scalar product and the vectorial product. If we hypothise to define a sort of 'inverse vector' we must distinguish between 'scalar inverse' and 'vectorial inverse'. The scalar inverse seems to be reasonably comfortable to manage... the vectorial inverse probably is a little problematic to manage...Kind regards $\chi$ $\sigma$
 
Last edited:
The dot product of two vectors X and Y is defined as...

$\displaystyle X \cdot Y = |X|\ |Y|\ \cos \theta$ (1)

... where $\theta$ is the angle between vectors and |*| is the norm. Let's suppose that the 'scalar inverse' of a vector X can be defined as a vector $X^{-1}$ so that is...

$\displaystyle X \cdot X^{-1} = 1$ (2)

It is almost immediate that $X^{-1}$ in that case is not univocally defined because different combinations of $|X^{-1}|$ and $\theta$ can satisfy (2)... it seems that we are not on the right way! (Malthe)...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
look up ceva's theorem on wikipedia. That's what I'm on about.
 
Poirot said:
look up ceva's theorem on wikipedia. That's what I'm on about.
Wikipedia says the following about Menelaus' theorem, which is similar.
This equation uses signed lengths of segments, in other words the length AB is taken to be positive or negative according to whether A is to the left or right of B in some fixed orientation of the line. For example, AF/FB is defined as having positive value when F is between A and B and negative otherwise.
So, it involves ratios of signed segment lengths.
 
Poirot said:
If P,Q,R,S are 4 points in R^2 then we have the lines PQ and RS. How do we define $\frac{PQ}{RS}$ ?

Maybe I'm missing something here, but it looks to me like $PQ$ is the length of the vector from point $P$ to point $Q$, and $RS$ is the length of the vector from point $R$ to point $S$. Then the fraction $(PQ)/(RS)$ is normal real division: one length divided by another. $PQ$ is a common, though not, to my mind, the best, notation for the length of that line segment.

Is there more context to the problem?
 
In Menelaus' theorem, the product of ratios is -1, so these are directed lengths, not simple lengths.
 
Yes this is a simple misunderstanding of notation.
 
Poirot said:
Yes this is a simple misunderstanding of notation.

If you mean I'm misunderstanding the notation, then I would claim the notation is atrocious. I know for a fact that I have seen this notation used for the simple length of a line segment.

Perhaps you could use something like $\overset{\pm}{\overline{PQ}}$?
 
  • #10
You are misunderstanding now, I was referring to myself.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K