Why Does Vector Norm Use "Double" Absolute Value?

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter SweatingBear
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Norm Notation Vector
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the notation used for the norm of a vector, specifically why it is represented with double absolute value signs, $||\vec{v}||$, rather than single absolute value signs, $|\vec{v}|$. Participants explore the implications of this notation in various mathematical contexts, including functional analysis and linear algebra.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the norm of a vector could be interpreted as its length or magnitude, similar to the absolute value in complex analysis.
  • Another participant explains that the notation originates from functional analysis, where the meaning of $\|f\|$ can differ significantly from $|f|$, and that using single bars could lead to confusion.
  • A further point is made regarding the equation $\|\alpha v\| = |\alpha|\cdot \|v\|$, highlighting the need to distinguish between different types of norms in vector spaces and their underlying fields.
  • It is noted that in some abstract treatments of linear algebra, single vertical bars are used, while double vertical bars are reserved for contexts with physical interpretations.
  • One participant mentions that while the complex modulus aligns with the absolute value on the real line, there is no natural line through the origin in $\mathbb{R}^n$ to make a similar distinction, except in certain special cases.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants present multiple viewpoints regarding the notation and its implications, indicating that there is no consensus on a singular interpretation or preference for the use of double versus single absolute value signs.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the implications of using different notations in various mathematical contexts, particularly in relation to functional analysis and linear algebra. There are also references to specific cases where distinctions may or may not apply.

SweatingBear
Messages
119
Reaction score
0
Why is it that the norm of a vector is written as a "double" absolute value sign instead of a single one? I.e. why is the norm written as $ || \vec{v} || $ and not $ | \vec{v} | $? I think $ | \vec{v} | $ is appropriate enough, why such emphasis on $ || \vec{v} || $? I think it's rather natural to interpret the "absolute value" of a vector as its length (magnitude), just like in complex analysis.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The notation comes from functional analysis, where you have "vectors" that might be functions. In that case, $\| \, f \|$ might have a very different meaning from $ \left| \,f \right|$. In fact, $ \left| \,f \right|$ might have no meaning at all. One definition is the 1-norm:
$$ \| \, f \|_{1}:=\int_{X} \left| \, f \right| \, d\mu.$$
It might be confusing if you used single bars on the LHS of this definition.
 
Another reason is this, we have the equation for a scalar [math]\alpha[/math] and a vector [math]v[/math]:

[math]\|\alpha v\| = |\alpha|\cdot \|v\|[/math]

where it makes sense to distinguish between the two types of "norms" being used on the vector space, and the underlying field.

Nevertheless, in many abstract treatments of linear algebra, only single vertical bars are used, with the double-vertical bar used for linear algebra with physical interpretations (where vectors and scalars represent different KINDS of entities).

In terms of complex numbers, the complex modulus turns out to BE the absolute value on the real line...the trouble is, in [math]\Bbb R^n[/math] there's no "natural" line through the origin to pick as "the real line" (there are certain exceptions for the special cases n = 1, 2, 4, 8 and 16, but these are too complicated to go into here).
 
Fair enough, thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
14K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K