What is the difference between zero scalar and zero vector?

Click For Summary
The discussion clarifies that a zero scalar is a single number, while a zero vector is a function or an array of numbers representing a vector in a vector space. In vector spaces, scalars and vectors belong to different sets, and no equality relation is defined between them. The zero scalar is simply the number zero, whereas the zero vector can be represented as a function that outputs zero for all inputs or as an array of zeros in finite dimensions. In specific cases, such as when considering real numbers as both scalars and vectors, the zero scalar and zero vector can be the same. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for grasping the properties of vector spaces.
dexterdev
Messages
194
Reaction score
1
Can anyone clarify the concepts of zero vector and zero scalar?

-Devanand T
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you familiar with reading mathematical definitions? By that, I mean do you interpret them as they are written rather than try to make up something "in your own words"?

The definition of a vectors space says it has a set of scalars and a set of vectors. It doesn't require these to be the same set. For example, we can have a vector space where the scalars are the set of rational numbers and the vectors are the set of all functions defined on the unit interval (defining addition of vectors to be the usual addition of functions). The zero of the scalars is the number zero. The zero of the vectors is the function defined by f(x) = 0 for each x in the unit interval. As you recall, a function is a special kind of set of ordered pairs of numbers. The number zero is a single number.

Another interesting observation is the non-universality of the meaning of "=". To say two scalars are equal doesn't mean the same thing as saying that two vectors are equal. If you think of the test for equality being implemented by a computer algorithm, testing the equality of two numbers is a different algorithm that testing the equality of two functions.

As to comparing scalars with vectors, the definition of vector space does not say that there is any "=" relation defined between a scalar and a vector. So technically you can't say a scalar is "not equal" to a vector either! You should simply say that no equality relation is defined (in the definition of a vector space) between scalars and vectors.

The definition of a vector space tells about properties that a vector space must have. It doesn't prohibit the vector space from having additional properties. Does it prohibit you from making an example where the scalars and vectors are the same set? I suppose we'd have to read the definition carefully to see. I don't think it does.
 
Last edited:
One is a scalar and the other is a vector?:-p You can add two vectors or add two scalars but you cannot add a vector and a scalar. If a and 0 are two scalars, then a+ 0= a. If \vec{v} and \vec{0} are vectors, then \vec{v}+ \vec{0}= \vec{v}. But neither a+ \vec{0} nor \vec{v}+ 0 are defined.

On a more practical note, in a finite dimensional vector space, of dimension n, say, with a given basis, we can represent any vector as a linear array of scalars: < a, b, c, ...>. The 0 vector would be represented as <0, 0, 0, ...> while the scalar 0 is just the single scalar.

In a function space, that might be of infinite dimension, the 0 vector is the function f(x)= 0 that is 0 for all x while, again, the 0 scalar is a single number.
 
If you're dealing with a vector space over ##\mathbb R## (i.e. if ##\mathbb R## is the set whose members will be called "scalars"), then the simple answer is that the 0 scalar is a member of ##\mathbb R##, and the 0 vector is a member of the vector space.

##\mathbb R## can actually be thought of as a vector space over ##\mathbb R##. When we're dealing with that specific vector space, the 0 scalar and the 0 vector are the same.
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K