MHB Why do you divide the components by the magnitude when finding a unit vector?

hatelove
Messages
101
Reaction score
1
Say for example v = <3,4>

I was taught to divide each component by the magnitude in order to get the unit vector, i.e.

3^2 + 4^2 = ||v||^2
5 = ||v||

So the unit vector of that vector is <3/5,4/5> or 1/5<3,4>

But if I forgot that I had to divide the components by the magnitude, I would not know how to get the unit vector. So I guess I am asking why you divide the components by the magnitude in order to get the unit vector?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
daigo said:
Say for example v = <3,4>

I was taught to divide each component by the magnitude in order to get the unit vector, i.e.

3^2 + 4^2 = ||v||^2
5 = ||v||

So the unit vector of that vector is <3/5,4/5> or 1/5<3,4>

But if I forgot that I had to divide the components by the magnitude, I would not know how to get the unit vector. So I guess I am asking why you divide the components by the magnitude in order to get the unit vector?

The unit vector in the same direction as \( {\bf{v}} \) is a scalar multiple of \({\bf{v}}\), call it \(\lambda {\bf{v}}\), then as it is a unit vector \[\lambda {\bf{v}}.\lambda {\bf{v}}=\lambda^2 {\bf{v}}. {\bf{v}}=\lambda^2 ||v||^2=1\]

etc

CB
 
daigo said:
Say for example v = <3,4>

I was taught to divide each component by the magnitude in order to get the unit vector, i.e.

3^2 + 4^2 = ||v||^2
5 = ||v||

So the unit vector of that vector is <3/5,4/5> or 1/5<3,4>

But if I forgot that I had to divide the components by the magnitude, I would not know how to get the unit vector. So I guess I am asking why you divide the components by the magnitude in order to get the unit vector?

This is the same thing CB wrote essentially, just added an example to see the steps.

Looking at the vector you provided we can derive the scalar with which we must divide to get a unit vector. If v = <3,4> then |v|=5 as you already posted. Now let's look at the vector [math]v_1=\frac{1}{S}<3,4>[/math]. When you multiply a vector by a scalar the magnitude changes but the direction does not so this is perfect for what we are trying to find.

So [math]|v_1|=\sqrt{ \left( \frac{3}{S} \right)^2+ \left( \frac{4}{S} \right)^2}[/math]. Now set the magnitude equal to one and solve for S.

[math]1^2 = \left( \frac{3}{S} \right)^2+ \left( \frac{4}{S} \right)^2[/math][math]1^2 = \left( \frac{9}{S^2} \right)+ \left( \frac{16}{S^2} \right)=\frac{9+16}{S^2}=\frac{25}{S^2}[/math]

[math]S^2=25[/math] thus [math]S= 5[/math]. Even though -5 is another choice if we divide by -5 we change the direction of the vector so it can't be the unit vector, thus 5 is our only option.

If you go back and change the vector <3,4> for a generalized vector <a,b> the same steps will lead to [math]S^2=a^2+b^2[/math] and when we take the square root of both sides we get that S is the same as the magnitude.

I don't believe I've committed any major errors that aren't allowed with scalars and vectors as the conclusion is correct so I hope this helps show where that formula comes from.
 
Last edited:
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...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
7K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Back
Top