With regard to distributive law of inner product in vector algebraWhy is the inner product between...
Why did the villain in the first Men in Black movie care about Earth's Cockroaches?
Dilemma of explaining to interviewer that he is the reason for declining second interview
How do you catch Smeargle in Pokemon Go?
Why would space fleets be aligned?
Alien invasion to probe us, why?
How to deal with possible delayed baggage?
Am I a Rude Number?
Which communication protocol is used in AdLib sound card?
How to remove the Data item from the Datasource selection
How to use Mathematica to do a complex integrate with poles in real axis?
How do I append a character to the end of every line in an Excel cell?
What is the difference between rolling more dice versus fewer dice?
What to look for when criticizing poetry?
Why is Agricola named as such?
Why are all my replica super soldiers young adults or old teenagers?
Clues on how to solve these types of problems within 2-3 minutes for competitive exams
Crontab: Ubuntu running script (noob)
Scripture(s) saying not to look at the sun during his rising and setting time
Can I announce prefix 161.117.25.0/24 even though I don't have all of /24 IPs?
Square Root Distance from Integers
Is it possible to grant users sftp access without shell access? If yes, how is it implemented?
A Missing Symbol for This Logo
Why does magnet wire need to be insulated?
Is a new Boolean field better than a null reference when a value can be meaningfully absent?
With regard to distributive law of inner product in vector algebra
Why is the inner product between divergence-free current $vec{J}$, and a gradient field$nabla varphi$ zero?How is the MHD magnetic field time evolution equation transformed to the vector potential time evolution equation?Probable mistake in the derivation of the vector form of Biot-Savart's LawWhat are the different definitions of torsion-free connections in GR?Inner product of k-covariant-tensors and inner product of k-formsComplex angle found in inner productIs it valid to construct a work tensor from force and displacement?Linear operators and the inner productWhy does this line integral give the wrong sign?Energy of continious charge distribution
$begingroup$
Consider the equality
begin{align*}
&vec{a}cdotvec{b}+c=0 \
implies &vec{a}cdot(vec{b}+frac{vec{a}}{vec{a}cdotvec{a}}c)=0.
end{align*}
If the above equation is valid for any $vec{a} $, can we say the following equation is valid?
begin{align*}
&vec{b}+frac{vec{a}}{vec{a}cdotvec{a}}c=0\
implies & vec{b}=-frac{c}{|vec{a}cdotvec{a}|}vec{a}
end{align*}
I feel something (in particular, with regard to sign) is wrong.
Can the above process be justified?
If not, let me know the reason.
vectors tensor-calculus vector-fields
asked 7 hours ago
SOQEHSOQEH
257
$endgroup$
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
Consider the equality
begin{align*}
&vec{a}cdotvec{b}+c=0 \
implies &vec{a}cdot(vec{b}+frac{vec{a}}{vec{a}cdotvec{a}}c)=0.
end{align*}
If the above equation is valid for any $vec{a} $, can we say the following equation is valid?
begin{align*}
&vec{b}+frac{vec{a}}{vec{a}cdotvec{a}}c=0\
implies & vec{b}=-frac{c}{|vec{a}cdotvec{a}|}vec{a}
end{align*}
I feel something (in particular, with regard to sign) is wrong.
Can the above process be justified?
If not, let me know the reason.
vectors tensor-calculus vector-fields
asked 7 hours ago
SOQEHSOQEH
257
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This seems to be a question for Mathematics SE.
$endgroup$
– Steeven
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's not valid for $vec{a}=vec{0}$ because $vec{a}cdotvec{a}=0$.
$endgroup$
– TheAverageHijano
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@TheAverageHijano Thanks. Right! If $vec{a}$ is not zero vector, is it valid?
$endgroup$
– SOQEH
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
It doesn't matter if $vec{a} = vec{0}$ if it's true for every vector $vec{a}$. The fact that it in particular holds for $vec{a} = vec{0}$ is of no consequence. At least if we begin at the second equality.
$endgroup$
– InertialObserver
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@InertialObserver, I didn't say that it holds for $vec{a}=vec{0}$, I said that it does not hold for that case.
$endgroup$
– TheAverageHijano
6 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
Consider the equality
begin{align*}
&vec{a}cdotvec{b}+c=0 \
implies &vec{a}cdot(vec{b}+frac{vec{a}}{vec{a}cdotvec{a}}c)=0.
end{align*}
If the above equation is valid for any $vec{a} $, can we say the following equation is valid?
begin{align*}
&vec{b}+frac{vec{a}}{vec{a}cdotvec{a}}c=0\
implies & vec{b}=-frac{c}{|vec{a}cdotvec{a}|}vec{a}
end{align*}
I feel something (in particular, with regard to sign) is wrong.
Can the above process be justified?
If not, let me know the reason.
vectors tensor-calculus vector-fields
asked 7 hours ago
SOQEHSOQEH
257
$endgroup$
Consider the equality
begin{align*}
&vec{a}cdotvec{b}+c=0 \
implies &vec{a}cdot(vec{b}+frac{vec{a}}{vec{a}cdotvec{a}}c)=0.
end{align*}
If the above equation is valid for any $vec{a} $, can we say the following equation is valid?
begin{align*}
&vec{b}+frac{vec{a}}{vec{a}cdotvec{a}}c=0\
implies & vec{b}=-frac{c}{|vec{a}cdotvec{a}|}vec{a}
end{align*}
I feel something (in particular, with regard to sign) is wrong.
Can the above process be justified?
If not, let me know the reason.
vectors tensor-calculus vector-fields
vectors tensor-calculus vector-fields
asked 7 hours ago
SOQEHSOQEH
257
asked 7 hours ago
SOQEHSOQEH
257
edited 2 hours ago
SOQEH
asked 7 hours ago
SOQEHSOQEH
257
asked 7 hours ago
SOQEHSOQEH
257
asked 7 hours ago
SOQEHSOQEH
257
257
$begingroup$
This seems to be a question for Mathematics SE.
$endgroup$
– Steeven
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's not valid for $vec{a}=vec{0}$ because $vec{a}cdotvec{a}=0$.
$endgroup$
– TheAverageHijano
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@TheAverageHijano Thanks. Right! If $vec{a}$ is not zero vector, is it valid?
$endgroup$
– SOQEH
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
It doesn't matter if $vec{a} = vec{0}$ if it's true for every vector $vec{a}$. The fact that it in particular holds for $vec{a} = vec{0}$ is of no consequence. At least if we begin at the second equality.
$endgroup$
– InertialObserver
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@InertialObserver, I didn't say that it holds for $vec{a}=vec{0}$, I said that it does not hold for that case.
$endgroup$
– TheAverageHijano
6 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
This seems to be a question for Mathematics SE.
$endgroup$
– Steeven
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's not valid for $vec{a}=vec{0}$ because $vec{a}cdotvec{a}=0$.
$endgroup$
– TheAverageHijano
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@TheAverageHijano Thanks. Right! If $vec{a}$ is not zero vector, is it valid?
$endgroup$
– SOQEH
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
It doesn't matter if $vec{a} = vec{0}$ if it's true for every vector $vec{a}$. The fact that it in particular holds for $vec{a} = vec{0}$ is of no consequence. At least if we begin at the second equality.
$endgroup$
– InertialObserver
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@InertialObserver, I didn't say that it holds for $vec{a}=vec{0}$, I said that it does not hold for that case.
$endgroup$
– TheAverageHijano
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
This seems to be a question for Mathematics SE.
$endgroup$
– Steeven
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
This seems to be a question for Mathematics SE.
$endgroup$
– Steeven
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's not valid for $vec{a}=vec{0}$ because $vec{a}cdotvec{a}=0$.
$endgroup$
– TheAverageHijano
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's not valid for $vec{a}=vec{0}$ because $vec{a}cdotvec{a}=0$.
$endgroup$
– TheAverageHijano
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@TheAverageHijano Thanks. Right! If $vec{a}$ is not zero vector, is it valid?
$endgroup$
– SOQEH
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@TheAverageHijano Thanks. Right! If $vec{a}$ is not zero vector, is it valid?
$endgroup$
– SOQEH
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
It doesn't matter if $vec{a} = vec{0}$ if it's true for every vector $vec{a}$. The fact that it in particular holds for $vec{a} = vec{0}$ is of no consequence. At least if we begin at the second equality.
$endgroup$
– InertialObserver
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
It doesn't matter if $vec{a} = vec{0}$ if it's true for every vector $vec{a}$. The fact that it in particular holds for $vec{a} = vec{0}$ is of no consequence. At least if we begin at the second equality.
$endgroup$
– InertialObserver
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@InertialObserver, I didn't say that it holds for $vec{a}=vec{0}$, I said that it does not hold for that case.
$endgroup$
– TheAverageHijano
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@InertialObserver, I didn't say that it holds for $vec{a}=vec{0}$, I said that it does not hold for that case.
$endgroup$
– TheAverageHijano
6 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The answer is clearly wrong, because it says that $vec b$ is proportional to $vec a$, i.e. they must point in the same direction. But if you add to any such $vec b_0$ a vector $vec{b'}$ which is perpendicular to $vec a$, then the product $vec a . (vec b_0+vec{b'})$ is the same so your first equation still holds for any $vec b=vec b_0+vec b'$. This equation tells you the component of $vec b$ along $vec a$, but the component of $vec b$ perpendicular to $vec a$ is completely arbitrary.
The error comes in the step (which you rightly have a question mark against) that your second equation is true for all $vec a$, so the bracket must be zero. This works for
$a f(b,a)=0 forall a implies f(b,a)=0$ but not for $vec a.vec f=0 forall vec a implies vec f=0$. You cannot create 3 equations from 1 equation.
The glitch in @InertialObserver's proof is that their $vec b$ is a different $vec b$ for $i=1,2,3$.
answered 5 hours ago
RogerJBarlowRogerJBarlow
3,180518
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Yea, now that I think about it.. you’re right.. that’s what I get for answering questions at 2 am
$endgroup$
– InertialObserver
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Unfortunately my answer has been accepted so I can’t delete it to defer to this answer
$endgroup$
– InertialObserver
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's a very subtle point. Easy to go adrift. Specially at 2am.
$endgroup$
– RogerJBarlow
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RogerJBarlow Thank you for your answer. I want to write the equation in a form of $vec{b}= something $. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me what to do.
$endgroup$
– SOQEH
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Something like $vec b = -{c vec a over |a^2|} + vec d times vec a$, where $vec d$ is any arbitrary vector. The scalar triple product formula ensures $vec a .(vec d times vec a)=0$
$endgroup$
– RogerJBarlow
3 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Yes, the implication is true given that $vec{a}neq vec{0}$.
Proof: Suppose that the equality
$$ quad vec{a}cdot(vec{b}+frac{vec{a}}{vec{a}cdotvec{a}}c)=0 $$
holds for any $vec{a} neq vec{0}$.
Since we can choose any vector $vec{a}$, choose $vec{a} = vec{e}_i $ where $vec{e}_i$ is a unit basis vector along the axis $x_i$ (in $mathbb{R}^3$ these would be $hat{x}, hat{y}, hat{z}$). Then we have that
$$
vec{e}_icdot(vec{b}+frac{vec{a}}{vec{a}cdotvec{a}}c) = b_i + c frac{a_i}{|vec{a}|^2} = 0
$$
for each component $i$. Or written in vector notation
$$
vec{b} + cfrac{vec{a}}{|vec{a}|^2} = 0.
$$
Note that I have used the notation $vec{a}cdotvec{a} = |vec{a}|^2$.
answered 7 hours ago
InertialObserverInertialObserver
3,0301027
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
But the norm of $vec{a}=vec{0}$ is 0, and you are dividing by $|vec{a}|²$, which is not defined. In fact, if you take the limit of $vec{a}=(epsilon,0,0)$ when $epsilon$ tends to zero, $a_1/|vec{a}|²$ tends to infinity...
$endgroup$
– TheAverageHijano
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
It is obvious the OP's equality does not hold for any $vec a ne vec 0$. (if it holds for some $vec a$, it obviously doesn't also hold for $2vec a$ unless $c = 0$) So this entire argument is wrong - you can prove anything starting from a false premise.
$endgroup$
– alephzero
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f463232%2fwith-regard-to-distributive-law-of-inner-product-in-vector-algebra%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The answer is clearly wrong, because it says that $vec b$ is proportional to $vec a$, i.e. they must point in the same direction. But if you add to any such $vec b_0$ a vector $vec{b'}$ which is perpendicular to $vec a$, then the product $vec a . (vec b_0+vec{b'})$ is the same so your first equation still holds for any $vec b=vec b_0+vec b'$. This equation tells you the component of $vec b$ along $vec a$, but the component of $vec b$ perpendicular to $vec a$ is completely arbitrary.
The error comes in the step (which you rightly have a question mark against) that your second equation is true for all $vec a$, so the bracket must be zero. This works for
$a f(b,a)=0 forall a implies f(b,a)=0$ but not for $vec a.vec f=0 forall vec a implies vec f=0$. You cannot create 3 equations from 1 equation.
The glitch in @InertialObserver's proof is that their $vec b$ is a different $vec b$ for $i=1,2,3$.
answered 5 hours ago
RogerJBarlowRogerJBarlow
3,180518
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Yea, now that I think about it.. you’re right.. that’s what I get for answering questions at 2 am
$endgroup$
– InertialObserver
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Unfortunately my answer has been accepted so I can’t delete it to defer to this answer
$endgroup$
– InertialObserver
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's a very subtle point. Easy to go adrift. Specially at 2am.
$endgroup$
– RogerJBarlow
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RogerJBarlow Thank you for your answer. I want to write the equation in a form of $vec{b}= something $. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me what to do.
$endgroup$
– SOQEH
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Something like $vec b = -{c vec a over |a^2|} + vec d times vec a$, where $vec d$ is any arbitrary vector. The scalar triple product formula ensures $vec a .(vec d times vec a)=0$
$endgroup$
– RogerJBarlow
3 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
The answer is clearly wrong, because it says that $vec b$ is proportional to $vec a$, i.e. they must point in the same direction. But if you add to any such $vec b_0$ a vector $vec{b'}$ which is perpendicular to $vec a$, then the product $vec a . (vec b_0+vec{b'})$ is the same so your first equation still holds for any $vec b=vec b_0+vec b'$. This equation tells you the component of $vec b$ along $vec a$, but the component of $vec b$ perpendicular to $vec a$ is completely arbitrary.
The error comes in the step (which you rightly have a question mark against) that your second equation is true for all $vec a$, so the bracket must be zero. This works for
$a f(b,a)=0 forall a implies f(b,a)=0$ but not for $vec a.vec f=0 forall vec a implies vec f=0$. You cannot create 3 equations from 1 equation.
The glitch in @InertialObserver's proof is that their $vec b$ is a different $vec b$ for $i=1,2,3$.
answered 5 hours ago
RogerJBarlowRogerJBarlow
3,180518
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Yea, now that I think about it.. you’re right.. that’s what I get for answering questions at 2 am
$endgroup$
– InertialObserver
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Unfortunately my answer has been accepted so I can’t delete it to defer to this answer
$endgroup$
– InertialObserver
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's a very subtle point. Easy to go adrift. Specially at 2am.
$endgroup$
– RogerJBarlow
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RogerJBarlow Thank you for your answer. I want to write the equation in a form of $vec{b}= something $. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me what to do.
$endgroup$
– SOQEH
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Something like $vec b = -{c vec a over |a^2|} + vec d times vec a$, where $vec d$ is any arbitrary vector. The scalar triple product formula ensures $vec a .(vec d times vec a)=0$
$endgroup$
– RogerJBarlow
3 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
The answer is clearly wrong, because it says that $vec b$ is proportional to $vec a$, i.e. they must point in the same direction. But if you add to any such $vec b_0$ a vector $vec{b'}$ which is perpendicular to $vec a$, then the product $vec a . (vec b_0+vec{b'})$ is the same so your first equation still holds for any $vec b=vec b_0+vec b'$. This equation tells you the component of $vec b$ along $vec a$, but the component of $vec b$ perpendicular to $vec a$ is completely arbitrary.
The error comes in the step (which you rightly have a question mark against) that your second equation is true for all $vec a$, so the bracket must be zero. This works for
$a f(b,a)=0 forall a implies f(b,a)=0$ but not for $vec a.vec f=0 forall vec a implies vec f=0$. You cannot create 3 equations from 1 equation.
The glitch in @InertialObserver's proof is that their $vec b$ is a different $vec b$ for $i=1,2,3$.
answered 5 hours ago
RogerJBarlowRogerJBarlow
3,180518
$endgroup$
The answer is clearly wrong, because it says that $vec b$ is proportional to $vec a$, i.e. they must point in the same direction. But if you add to any such $vec b_0$ a vector $vec{b'}$ which is perpendicular to $vec a$, then the product $vec a . (vec b_0+vec{b'})$ is the same so your first equation still holds for any $vec b=vec b_0+vec b'$. This equation tells you the component of $vec b$ along $vec a$, but the component of $vec b$ perpendicular to $vec a$ is completely arbitrary.
The error comes in the step (which you rightly have a question mark against) that your second equation is true for all $vec a$, so the bracket must be zero. This works for
$a f(b,a)=0 forall a implies f(b,a)=0$ but not for $vec a.vec f=0 forall vec a implies vec f=0$. You cannot create 3 equations from 1 equation.
The glitch in @InertialObserver's proof is that their $vec b$ is a different $vec b$ for $i=1,2,3$.
answered 5 hours ago
RogerJBarlowRogerJBarlow
3,180518
answered 5 hours ago
RogerJBarlowRogerJBarlow
3,180518
answered 5 hours ago
RogerJBarlowRogerJBarlow
3,180518
answered 5 hours ago
RogerJBarlowRogerJBarlow
3,180518
3,180518
$begingroup$
Yea, now that I think about it.. you’re right.. that’s what I get for answering questions at 2 am
$endgroup$
– InertialObserver
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Unfortunately my answer has been accepted so I can’t delete it to defer to this answer
$endgroup$
– InertialObserver
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's a very subtle point. Easy to go adrift. Specially at 2am.
$endgroup$
– RogerJBarlow
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RogerJBarlow Thank you for your answer. I want to write the equation in a form of $vec{b}= something $. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me what to do.
$endgroup$
– SOQEH
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Something like $vec b = -{c vec a over |a^2|} + vec d times vec a$, where $vec d$ is any arbitrary vector. The scalar triple product formula ensures $vec a .(vec d times vec a)=0$
$endgroup$
– RogerJBarlow
3 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Yea, now that I think about it.. you’re right.. that’s what I get for answering questions at 2 am
$endgroup$
– InertialObserver
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Unfortunately my answer has been accepted so I can’t delete it to defer to this answer
$endgroup$
– InertialObserver
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's a very subtle point. Easy to go adrift. Specially at 2am.
$endgroup$
– RogerJBarlow
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RogerJBarlow Thank you for your answer. I want to write the equation in a form of $vec{b}= something $. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me what to do.
$endgroup$
– SOQEH
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Something like $vec b = -{c vec a over |a^2|} + vec d times vec a$, where $vec d$ is any arbitrary vector. The scalar triple product formula ensures $vec a .(vec d times vec a)=0$
$endgroup$
– RogerJBarlow
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yea, now that I think about it.. you’re right.. that’s what I get for answering questions at 2 am
$endgroup$
– InertialObserver
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yea, now that I think about it.. you’re right.. that’s what I get for answering questions at 2 am
$endgroup$
– InertialObserver
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Unfortunately my answer has been accepted so I can’t delete it to defer to this answer
$endgroup$
– InertialObserver
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Unfortunately my answer has been accepted so I can’t delete it to defer to this answer
$endgroup$
– InertialObserver
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's a very subtle point. Easy to go adrift. Specially at 2am.
$endgroup$
– RogerJBarlow
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's a very subtle point. Easy to go adrift. Specially at 2am.
$endgroup$
– RogerJBarlow
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RogerJBarlow Thank you for your answer. I want to write the equation in a form of $vec{b}= something $. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me what to do.
$endgroup$
– SOQEH
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RogerJBarlow Thank you for your answer. I want to write the equation in a form of $vec{b}= something $. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me what to do.
$endgroup$
– SOQEH
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Something like $vec b = -{c vec a over |a^2|} + vec d times vec a$, where $vec d$ is any arbitrary vector. The scalar triple product formula ensures $vec a .(vec d times vec a)=0$
$endgroup$
– RogerJBarlow
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Something like $vec b = -{c vec a over |a^2|} + vec d times vec a$, where $vec d$ is any arbitrary vector. The scalar triple product formula ensures $vec a .(vec d times vec a)=0$
$endgroup$
– RogerJBarlow
3 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Yes, the implication is true given that $vec{a}neq vec{0}$.
Proof: Suppose that the equality
$$ quad vec{a}cdot(vec{b}+frac{vec{a}}{vec{a}cdotvec{a}}c)=0 $$
holds for any $vec{a} neq vec{0}$.
Since we can choose any vector $vec{a}$, choose $vec{a} = vec{e}_i $ where $vec{e}_i$ is a unit basis vector along the axis $x_i$ (in $mathbb{R}^3$ these would be $hat{x}, hat{y}, hat{z}$). Then we have that
$$
vec{e}_icdot(vec{b}+frac{vec{a}}{vec{a}cdotvec{a}}c) = b_i + c frac{a_i}{|vec{a}|^2} = 0
$$
for each component $i$. Or written in vector notation
$$
vec{b} + cfrac{vec{a}}{|vec{a}|^2} = 0.
$$
Note that I have used the notation $vec{a}cdotvec{a} = |vec{a}|^2$.
answered 7 hours ago
InertialObserverInertialObserver
3,0301027
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
But the norm of $vec{a}=vec{0}$ is 0, and you are dividing by $|vec{a}|²$, which is not defined. In fact, if you take the limit of $vec{a}=(epsilon,0,0)$ when $epsilon$ tends to zero, $a_1/|vec{a}|²$ tends to infinity...
$endgroup$
– TheAverageHijano
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
It is obvious the OP's equality does not hold for any $vec a ne vec 0$. (if it holds for some $vec a$, it obviously doesn't also hold for $2vec a$ unless $c = 0$) So this entire argument is wrong - you can prove anything starting from a false premise.
$endgroup$
– alephzero
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, the implication is true given that $vec{a}neq vec{0}$.
Proof: Suppose that the equality
$$ quad vec{a}cdot(vec{b}+frac{vec{a}}{vec{a}cdotvec{a}}c)=0 $$
holds for any $vec{a} neq vec{0}$.
Since we can choose any vector $vec{a}$, choose $vec{a} = vec{e}_i $ where $vec{e}_i$ is a unit basis vector along the axis $x_i$ (in $mathbb{R}^3$ these would be $hat{x}, hat{y}, hat{z}$). Then we have that
$$
vec{e}_icdot(vec{b}+frac{vec{a}}{vec{a}cdotvec{a}}c) = b_i + c frac{a_i}{|vec{a}|^2} = 0
$$
for each component $i$. Or written in vector notation
$$
vec{b} + cfrac{vec{a}}{|vec{a}|^2} = 0.
$$
Note that I have used the notation $vec{a}cdotvec{a} = |vec{a}|^2$.
answered 7 hours ago
InertialObserverInertialObserver
3,0301027
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
But the norm of $vec{a}=vec{0}$ is 0, and you are dividing by $|vec{a}|²$, which is not defined. In fact, if you take the limit of $vec{a}=(epsilon,0,0)$ when $epsilon$ tends to zero, $a_1/|vec{a}|²$ tends to infinity...
$endgroup$
– TheAverageHijano
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
It is obvious the OP's equality does not hold for any $vec a ne vec 0$. (if it holds for some $vec a$, it obviously doesn't also hold for $2vec a$ unless $c = 0$) So this entire argument is wrong - you can prove anything starting from a false premise.
$endgroup$
– alephzero
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, the implication is true given that $vec{a}neq vec{0}$.
Proof: Suppose that the equality
$$ quad vec{a}cdot(vec{b}+frac{vec{a}}{vec{a}cdotvec{a}}c)=0 $$
holds for any $vec{a} neq vec{0}$.
Since we can choose any vector $vec{a}$, choose $vec{a} = vec{e}_i $ where $vec{e}_i$ is a unit basis vector along the axis $x_i$ (in $mathbb{R}^3$ these would be $hat{x}, hat{y}, hat{z}$). Then we have that
$$
vec{e}_icdot(vec{b}+frac{vec{a}}{vec{a}cdotvec{a}}c) = b_i + c frac{a_i}{|vec{a}|^2} = 0
$$
for each component $i$. Or written in vector notation
$$
vec{b} + cfrac{vec{a}}{|vec{a}|^2} = 0.
$$
Note that I have used the notation $vec{a}cdotvec{a} = |vec{a}|^2$.
answered 7 hours ago
InertialObserverInertialObserver
3,0301027
$endgroup$
Yes, the implication is true given that $vec{a}neq vec{0}$.
Proof: Suppose that the equality
$$ quad vec{a}cdot(vec{b}+frac{vec{a}}{vec{a}cdotvec{a}}c)=0 $$
holds for any $vec{a} neq vec{0}$.
Since we can choose any vector $vec{a}$, choose $vec{a} = vec{e}_i $ where $vec{e}_i$ is a unit basis vector along the axis $x_i$ (in $mathbb{R}^3$ these would be $hat{x}, hat{y}, hat{z}$). Then we have that
$$
vec{e}_icdot(vec{b}+frac{vec{a}}{vec{a}cdotvec{a}}c) = b_i + c frac{a_i}{|vec{a}|^2} = 0
$$
for each component $i$. Or written in vector notation
$$
vec{b} + cfrac{vec{a}}{|vec{a}|^2} = 0.
$$
Note that I have used the notation $vec{a}cdotvec{a} = |vec{a}|^2$.
answered 7 hours ago
InertialObserverInertialObserver
3,0301027
edited 6 hours ago
answered 7 hours ago
InertialObserverInertialObserver
3,0301027
answered 7 hours ago
InertialObserverInertialObserver
3,0301027
answered 7 hours ago
InertialObserverInertialObserver
3,0301027
3,0301027
$begingroup$
But the norm of $vec{a}=vec{0}$ is 0, and you are dividing by $|vec{a}|²$, which is not defined. In fact, if you take the limit of $vec{a}=(epsilon,0,0)$ when $epsilon$ tends to zero, $a_1/|vec{a}|²$ tends to infinity...
$endgroup$
– TheAverageHijano
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
It is obvious the OP's equality does not hold for any $vec a ne vec 0$. (if it holds for some $vec a$, it obviously doesn't also hold for $2vec a$ unless $c = 0$) So this entire argument is wrong - you can prove anything starting from a false premise.
$endgroup$
– alephzero
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
But the norm of $vec{a}=vec{0}$ is 0, and you are dividing by $|vec{a}|²$, which is not defined. In fact, if you take the limit of $vec{a}=(epsilon,0,0)$ when $epsilon$ tends to zero, $a_1/|vec{a}|²$ tends to infinity...
$endgroup$
– TheAverageHijano
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
It is obvious the OP's equality does not hold for any $vec a ne vec 0$. (if it holds for some $vec a$, it obviously doesn't also hold for $2vec a$ unless $c = 0$) So this entire argument is wrong - you can prove anything starting from a false premise.
$endgroup$
– alephzero
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
But the norm of $vec{a}=vec{0}$ is 0, and you are dividing by $|vec{a}|²$, which is not defined. In fact, if you take the limit of $vec{a}=(epsilon,0,0)$ when $epsilon$ tends to zero, $a_1/|vec{a}|²$ tends to infinity...
$endgroup$
– TheAverageHijano
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
But the norm of $vec{a}=vec{0}$ is 0, and you are dividing by $|vec{a}|²$, which is not defined. In fact, if you take the limit of $vec{a}=(epsilon,0,0)$ when $epsilon$ tends to zero, $a_1/|vec{a}|²$ tends to infinity...
$endgroup$
– TheAverageHijano
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
It is obvious the OP's equality does not hold for any $vec a ne vec 0$. (if it holds for some $vec a$, it obviously doesn't also hold for $2vec a$ unless $c = 0$) So this entire argument is wrong - you can prove anything starting from a false premise.
$endgroup$
– alephzero
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
It is obvious the OP's equality does not hold for any $vec a ne vec 0$. (if it holds for some $vec a$, it obviously doesn't also hold for $2vec a$ unless $c = 0$) So this entire argument is wrong - you can prove anything starting from a false premise.
$endgroup$
– alephzero
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f463232%2fwith-regard-to-distributive-law-of-inner-product-in-vector-algebra%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
This seems to be a question for Mathematics SE.
$endgroup$
– Steeven
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's not valid for $vec{a}=vec{0}$ because $vec{a}cdotvec{a}=0$.
$endgroup$
– TheAverageHijano
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@TheAverageHijano Thanks. Right! If $vec{a}$ is not zero vector, is it valid?
$endgroup$
– SOQEH
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
It doesn't matter if $vec{a} = vec{0}$ if it's true for every vector $vec{a}$. The fact that it in particular holds for $vec{a} = vec{0}$ is of no consequence. At least if we begin at the second equality.
$endgroup$
– InertialObserver
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@InertialObserver, I didn't say that it holds for $vec{a}=vec{0}$, I said that it does not hold for that case.
$endgroup$
– TheAverageHijano
6 hours ago