Whats the meaning of Parallel in Vectors

  • Level: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Arman777
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Parallel Vectors
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
7 replies · 2K views
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
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.
 
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 :)