Why Use i, j, and k as Unit Vectors Instead of x, y, and z?

[tony873004]

Why are i, j, and k perfered in many texts to represent the 3 spatial dimensions instead of (what seems to me to be more intuitive) x, y, and z?

 

[Nabeshin]

Searched up this thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=482111

 

[DrGreg]

Why are i, j, and k perfered in many texts to represent the 3 spatial dimensions instead of (what seems to me to be more intuitive) x, y, and z?

By convention, i, j, k are vectors. x, y, z are coordinates. So you might have (in a cartesian coordinate system)
\textbf{r} = x\textbf{i} + y\textbf{j} + z\textbf{k}
Follow Nabeshin's link for more.

 

[Superstring]

It's just a convention. There's no special reason for it, probably other than the fact that they are less confusing than using \mathbf{ \hat{x}} \mathbf{ \hat{y}} and \mathbf{ \hat{z}}

 

[Studiot]

By convention, i, j, k are vectors.

More than that, they are unit vectors.

x. y and z extend from minus infinity to plus infinity.

 

[tony873004]

More than that, they are unit vectors.

x. y and z extend from minus infinity to plus infinity.

Sorry, I kinda lost track of this thread, even thought it was my question. I was just tutoring someone in Physics, and her teacher used x-hat, y-hat, and z-hat. But unit vectors make total sense. Thanks everyone for the replies.