Whats the meaning of Parallel in Vectors

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Arman777
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Parallel Vectors
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the definition of parallel vectors, specifically in the context of the equation ##\vec u=c\vec r##, where c is a real constant. It is established that when c is a positive real number, the vectors ##\vec u## and ##\vec r## are definitively parallel. The conversation also explores the implications of c being negative, leading to the conclusion that parallelism is contingent upon the definition used, particularly in relation to metrics. The distinction between constant distance and constant distance greater than zero is highlighted as a critical factor in determining parallelism.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector mathematics and notation
  • Familiarity with Euclidean geometry concepts
  • Knowledge of metrics and their role in defining geometric properties
  • Basic algebraic manipulation of equations involving vectors
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the definition of parallel lines and vectors in various geometrical contexts
  • Study the concept of metrics in geometry and their applications
  • Explore the implications of negative scalar multiplication on vector orientation
  • Learn about Euclidean space and its properties related to vector parallelism
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mathematics, physics, and engineering who seek a deeper understanding of vector relationships and geometric definitions.

Arman777
Insights Author
Gold Member
Messages
2,163
Reaction score
191
Lets suppose we have a two vectors where ##\vec u=c\vec r## where c is just a reel constant number.Can we say ##\vec u## and ##\vec r## is parallel.

How can we define ""parallel" vectors ? Like in most general way.

I know that when c is positive real number they are definitely parallel.But when c is negative still can we call them "parallel".I am thinking yes we can but I need some solid proof

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Proof? It is a matter of definition ...
 
Orodruin said:
Proof? It is a matter of definition ...
Solid proof of definition.I don't even know that make sense or not but I mean like a definition comes from some general acceptable textbook or from some article etc.Not just an idea but I can show some referance.
 
  1. parallel vectors = parallel lines, defined by these vectors
  2. parallel lines = constant distance at each point
So now, you have to define the distance between two lines. It is here, were the definition plays a role, because there is no universally valid concept of distance. That's why we speak of metrics. Tell me your metric and I will tell you parallelism.
 
fresh_42 said:
ell me your metric and I will tell you parallelism.
Metric ? I don't know ...
 
Think like this for simple case. ##\vec u=(1,0,0)## and ##\vec r=(-1,0,0)## Are these vectors parallel ?
 
In Euclidean space, yes. However, you could either define "parallel" by "constant distance", which I prefer to use, or by "constant distance greater than zero", in which case they wouldn't be parallel. After my fancy, this is an ugly condition, but Euclid probably used this distinction.
 
fresh_42 said:
In Euclidean space, yes. However, you could either define "parallel" by "constant distance", which I prefer to use, or by "constant distance greater than zero", in which case they wouldn't be parallel. After my fancy, this is an ugly condition, but Euclid probably used this distinction.
Makea sense..I don't know that much of geometry/algebra sadly.But I understand.
Thanks :)
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K