Formal Definition of Dot ProductSpecial relativity: how to prove that $g = L^t g L$?More Vector Product Possibilities?Extension of Lami's theoremHow the Poisson bracket transform when we change coordinates?Definition of vector cross productWhat exactly is the Parity transformation? Parity in spherical coordinatesSimple question about change of coordinatesDefinition of velocity in classical mechanicsDefinition of inner product as in the case of workConfusion about Change in Integration Variable

Extracting sublists that contain similar elements

Why do I get two different answers when solving for arclength?

What are the holes in files created with fallocate?

Jumping frame contents with beamer and pgfplots

Effects of ~10atm pressure on engine design

Can't find the release for this wiring harness connector

What's tha name for when you write multiple voices on same staff? And are there any cons?

Program which behaves differently in/out of a debugger

What's the difference between "за ... от" and "в ... от"?

Loading Latex packages into Mathematica

Quote from Leibniz

Is Germany still exporting arms to countries involved in Yemen?

Why did the metro bus stop at each railway crossing, despite no warning indicating a train was coming?

Unexpected Netflix account registered to my Gmail address - any way it could be a hack attempt?

Does SQL Server allow (make visible) DDL inside a transaction to the transaction prior to commit?

German characters on US-International keyboard layout

Tikzpicture in figure problem

Do Life Drain attacks from wights stack?

What is the name of this Middle English letter?

Why does the headset man not get on the tractor?

What episode was being referenced by this part of Discovery's season 2 episode 13 recap?

What to do if SUS scores contradict qualitative feedback?

Missouri raptors have wild hairdos

Is this a security concern for ubuntu users?



Formal Definition of Dot Product


Special relativity: how to prove that $g = L^t g L$?More Vector Product Possibilities?Extension of Lami's theoremHow the Poisson bracket transform when we change coordinates?Definition of vector cross productWhat exactly is the Parity transformation? Parity in spherical coordinatesSimple question about change of coordinatesDefinition of velocity in classical mechanicsDefinition of inner product as in the case of workConfusion about Change in Integration Variable













1












$begingroup$


In most textbooks, dot product between two vectors is defined as:



$$langle x_1,x_2,x_3rangle cdot langle y_1,y_2,y_3rangle = x_1 y_1 + x_2 y_2 + x_3 y _3$$



I understand how this definition works most of the time. However, in this definition, there is no reference to coordinate system (i.e. no basis is included for the vector components). So, if I had two vectors in two different coordinate systems:



$$x_1 vece_1 + x_2 vece_2 + x_3 vece_3$$
$$y_1 vece_1' + y_2 vece_2' + y_3 vece_3'$$



How, would I compute their dot product? In particular, is there a more formal/abstract/generalized definition of the dot product (that would allow me to compute $vece_1 cdot vece_1'$ without converting the vectors to the same coordinate system)? Even if I did convert the vectors to the same coordinate system, why do we know that the result will be the same if I multiply the components in the primed system versus in the unprimed system?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$
















    1












    $begingroup$


    In most textbooks, dot product between two vectors is defined as:



    $$langle x_1,x_2,x_3rangle cdot langle y_1,y_2,y_3rangle = x_1 y_1 + x_2 y_2 + x_3 y _3$$



    I understand how this definition works most of the time. However, in this definition, there is no reference to coordinate system (i.e. no basis is included for the vector components). So, if I had two vectors in two different coordinate systems:



    $$x_1 vece_1 + x_2 vece_2 + x_3 vece_3$$
    $$y_1 vece_1' + y_2 vece_2' + y_3 vece_3'$$



    How, would I compute their dot product? In particular, is there a more formal/abstract/generalized definition of the dot product (that would allow me to compute $vece_1 cdot vece_1'$ without converting the vectors to the same coordinate system)? Even if I did convert the vectors to the same coordinate system, why do we know that the result will be the same if I multiply the components in the primed system versus in the unprimed system?










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$














      1












      1








      1





      $begingroup$


      In most textbooks, dot product between two vectors is defined as:



      $$langle x_1,x_2,x_3rangle cdot langle y_1,y_2,y_3rangle = x_1 y_1 + x_2 y_2 + x_3 y _3$$



      I understand how this definition works most of the time. However, in this definition, there is no reference to coordinate system (i.e. no basis is included for the vector components). So, if I had two vectors in two different coordinate systems:



      $$x_1 vece_1 + x_2 vece_2 + x_3 vece_3$$
      $$y_1 vece_1' + y_2 vece_2' + y_3 vece_3'$$



      How, would I compute their dot product? In particular, is there a more formal/abstract/generalized definition of the dot product (that would allow me to compute $vece_1 cdot vece_1'$ without converting the vectors to the same coordinate system)? Even if I did convert the vectors to the same coordinate system, why do we know that the result will be the same if I multiply the components in the primed system versus in the unprimed system?










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      In most textbooks, dot product between two vectors is defined as:



      $$langle x_1,x_2,x_3rangle cdot langle y_1,y_2,y_3rangle = x_1 y_1 + x_2 y_2 + x_3 y _3$$



      I understand how this definition works most of the time. However, in this definition, there is no reference to coordinate system (i.e. no basis is included for the vector components). So, if I had two vectors in two different coordinate systems:



      $$x_1 vece_1 + x_2 vece_2 + x_3 vece_3$$
      $$y_1 vece_1' + y_2 vece_2' + y_3 vece_3'$$



      How, would I compute their dot product? In particular, is there a more formal/abstract/generalized definition of the dot product (that would allow me to compute $vece_1 cdot vece_1'$ without converting the vectors to the same coordinate system)? Even if I did convert the vectors to the same coordinate system, why do we know that the result will be the same if I multiply the components in the primed system versus in the unprimed system?







      vectors coordinate-systems linear-algebra






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 49 mins ago









      Gilbert

      5,195919




      5,195919










      asked 2 hours ago









      dtsdts

      333413




      333413




















          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3












          $begingroup$

          Your top-line question can be answered at many levels. Setting aside issues of forms and covariant/contravariant, the answer is:




          The dot product is the product of the magnitudes of the two vectors, times the cosine of the angle between them.




          No matter what basis you compute that in, you have to get the same answer because it's a physical quantity.



          The usual "sum of products of orthonormal components" is then a convenient computational approach, but as you've seen it's not the only way to compute them.



          The dot product's properties includes linear, commutative, distributive, etc. So when you expand the dot product



          $$(a_x hatx+a_y haty + a_z hatz) cdot (b_x hatX+b_y hatY + b_z hatZ)$$



          you get nine terms like $( a_x b_x hatxcdothatX) + (a_x b_y hatxcdothatY)+$ etc. In the usual orthonormal basis, the same-axis $hatxcdothatX$ factors just become 1, while the different-axis $hatxcdothatY$ et al factors are zero. That reduces to the formula you know.



          In a non-orthonormal basis, you have to figure out what those basis products are. To do that, you refer back to the definition: The product of the size of each, times the cosine of the angle between. Once you have all of those, you're again all set to compute. It just looks a bit more complicated...






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I don't think the dot product is associative.
            $endgroup$
            – eyeballfrog
            1 hour ago


















          2












          $begingroup$

          The dot product can be defined in a coordinate-independent way as



          $$vecacdotvecb=|veca||vecb|costheta$$



          where $theta$ is the angle between the two vectors. This involves only lengths and angles, not coordinates.



          To use your first formula, the coordinates must be in the same basis.



          You can convert between bases using a rotation matrix, and the fact that a rotation matrix preserves vector lengths is sufficient to show that it preserves the dot product. This is because



          $$vecacdotvecb=frac12left(|veca+vecb|^2-|veca|^2-|vecb|^2right).$$



          This formula is another purely-geometric, coordinate-free definition of the dot product.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Thank you! That makes sense. But what happens if you are dealing with a non-orthonormal system? Is the dot product's value preserved in making the coordinate transformation?
            $endgroup$
            – dts
            2 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            Yes, the value is preserved, but the coordinate-based formula in a non-orthonormal basis is more complicated than your first formula.
            $endgroup$
            – G. Smith
            2 hours ago


















          1












          $begingroup$

          The coordinate free definition of a dot product is:



          $$ vec a cdot vec b = frac 1 4 [(vec a + vec b)^2 - (vec a - vec b)^2]$$



          It's up to you to figure out what the norm is:



          $$ ||vec a|| = sqrt(vec a)^2$$






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$




















            0












            $begingroup$

            On computing the following matrix will give you the dot product $$beginbmatrix x_1 & x_2& x_3 endbmatrix.beginbmatrix e_1.e'_1 & e_1.e'_2 & e_1.e'_3 \ e_2.e'_1 & e_2.e'_2 & e_2.e'_3 \ e_3.e'_1 & e_3.e'_2 & e_3.e_3endbmatrix.beginbmatrixy_1\y_2\y_3endbmatrix$$ If we transform the cordinate of the a vector, only the components and basis of vector changes. The vector remains unchanged. Thus the dot product remain unchanged even if we compute dot product between primed and unprimed vectors.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$




















              0












              $begingroup$

              Dot products, or inner products are defined axiomatically, or abstractly. An inner product on a vector space $V$ over $R$ is a pairing $Vtimes Vto R$, denoted by $ langle u,vrangle$, with properties $langle u,vrangle=langle v,urangle$, $langle u+cw,vrangle= langle u,vrangle+clangle w,vrangle$, and $ langle u,uranglegt0$ if $une0$. In general, a vector space can be endowed with an inner product in many ways. Notice here there is no reference to a basis/coordinate system.



              Using what is called the Gram-Schmidt process, one can then construct a basis $e_1,cdots e_n$ for $V$ in which the inner product takes the computational form which you stated in your question.



              In your question, you are actually starting with what is called an orthonormal basis for an inner product. The coordinate-free approach is to state the postulates that an inner product should obey, then after being given an explicit inner product, construct an orthonormal basis in which to do computations.



              In general, an orthonormal basis $e_1,e_2,e_3$ for one inner product on $V$ will not be an orthonormal basis for another inner product on $V$.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$













                Your Answer








                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
                );



                );













                draft saved

                draft discarded


















                StackExchange.ready(
                function ()
                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f479656%2fformal-definition-of-dot-product%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                );

                Post as a guest















                Required, but never shown

























                5 Answers
                5






                active

                oldest

                votes








                5 Answers
                5






                active

                oldest

                votes









                active

                oldest

                votes






                active

                oldest

                votes









                3












                $begingroup$

                Your top-line question can be answered at many levels. Setting aside issues of forms and covariant/contravariant, the answer is:




                The dot product is the product of the magnitudes of the two vectors, times the cosine of the angle between them.




                No matter what basis you compute that in, you have to get the same answer because it's a physical quantity.



                The usual "sum of products of orthonormal components" is then a convenient computational approach, but as you've seen it's not the only way to compute them.



                The dot product's properties includes linear, commutative, distributive, etc. So when you expand the dot product



                $$(a_x hatx+a_y haty + a_z hatz) cdot (b_x hatX+b_y hatY + b_z hatZ)$$



                you get nine terms like $( a_x b_x hatxcdothatX) + (a_x b_y hatxcdothatY)+$ etc. In the usual orthonormal basis, the same-axis $hatxcdothatX$ factors just become 1, while the different-axis $hatxcdothatY$ et al factors are zero. That reduces to the formula you know.



                In a non-orthonormal basis, you have to figure out what those basis products are. To do that, you refer back to the definition: The product of the size of each, times the cosine of the angle between. Once you have all of those, you're again all set to compute. It just looks a bit more complicated...






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$








                • 1




                  $begingroup$
                  I don't think the dot product is associative.
                  $endgroup$
                  – eyeballfrog
                  1 hour ago















                3












                $begingroup$

                Your top-line question can be answered at many levels. Setting aside issues of forms and covariant/contravariant, the answer is:




                The dot product is the product of the magnitudes of the two vectors, times the cosine of the angle between them.




                No matter what basis you compute that in, you have to get the same answer because it's a physical quantity.



                The usual "sum of products of orthonormal components" is then a convenient computational approach, but as you've seen it's not the only way to compute them.



                The dot product's properties includes linear, commutative, distributive, etc. So when you expand the dot product



                $$(a_x hatx+a_y haty + a_z hatz) cdot (b_x hatX+b_y hatY + b_z hatZ)$$



                you get nine terms like $( a_x b_x hatxcdothatX) + (a_x b_y hatxcdothatY)+$ etc. In the usual orthonormal basis, the same-axis $hatxcdothatX$ factors just become 1, while the different-axis $hatxcdothatY$ et al factors are zero. That reduces to the formula you know.



                In a non-orthonormal basis, you have to figure out what those basis products are. To do that, you refer back to the definition: The product of the size of each, times the cosine of the angle between. Once you have all of those, you're again all set to compute. It just looks a bit more complicated...






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$








                • 1




                  $begingroup$
                  I don't think the dot product is associative.
                  $endgroup$
                  – eyeballfrog
                  1 hour ago













                3












                3








                3





                $begingroup$

                Your top-line question can be answered at many levels. Setting aside issues of forms and covariant/contravariant, the answer is:




                The dot product is the product of the magnitudes of the two vectors, times the cosine of the angle between them.




                No matter what basis you compute that in, you have to get the same answer because it's a physical quantity.



                The usual "sum of products of orthonormal components" is then a convenient computational approach, but as you've seen it's not the only way to compute them.



                The dot product's properties includes linear, commutative, distributive, etc. So when you expand the dot product



                $$(a_x hatx+a_y haty + a_z hatz) cdot (b_x hatX+b_y hatY + b_z hatZ)$$



                you get nine terms like $( a_x b_x hatxcdothatX) + (a_x b_y hatxcdothatY)+$ etc. In the usual orthonormal basis, the same-axis $hatxcdothatX$ factors just become 1, while the different-axis $hatxcdothatY$ et al factors are zero. That reduces to the formula you know.



                In a non-orthonormal basis, you have to figure out what those basis products are. To do that, you refer back to the definition: The product of the size of each, times the cosine of the angle between. Once you have all of those, you're again all set to compute. It just looks a bit more complicated...






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$



                Your top-line question can be answered at many levels. Setting aside issues of forms and covariant/contravariant, the answer is:




                The dot product is the product of the magnitudes of the two vectors, times the cosine of the angle between them.




                No matter what basis you compute that in, you have to get the same answer because it's a physical quantity.



                The usual "sum of products of orthonormal components" is then a convenient computational approach, but as you've seen it's not the only way to compute them.



                The dot product's properties includes linear, commutative, distributive, etc. So when you expand the dot product



                $$(a_x hatx+a_y haty + a_z hatz) cdot (b_x hatX+b_y hatY + b_z hatZ)$$



                you get nine terms like $( a_x b_x hatxcdothatX) + (a_x b_y hatxcdothatY)+$ etc. In the usual orthonormal basis, the same-axis $hatxcdothatX$ factors just become 1, while the different-axis $hatxcdothatY$ et al factors are zero. That reduces to the formula you know.



                In a non-orthonormal basis, you have to figure out what those basis products are. To do that, you refer back to the definition: The product of the size of each, times the cosine of the angle between. Once you have all of those, you're again all set to compute. It just looks a bit more complicated...







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited 1 hour ago

























                answered 2 hours ago









                Bob JacobsenBob Jacobsen

                5,7391018




                5,7391018







                • 1




                  $begingroup$
                  I don't think the dot product is associative.
                  $endgroup$
                  – eyeballfrog
                  1 hour ago












                • 1




                  $begingroup$
                  I don't think the dot product is associative.
                  $endgroup$
                  – eyeballfrog
                  1 hour ago







                1




                1




                $begingroup$
                I don't think the dot product is associative.
                $endgroup$
                – eyeballfrog
                1 hour ago




                $begingroup$
                I don't think the dot product is associative.
                $endgroup$
                – eyeballfrog
                1 hour ago











                2












                $begingroup$

                The dot product can be defined in a coordinate-independent way as



                $$vecacdotvecb=|veca||vecb|costheta$$



                where $theta$ is the angle between the two vectors. This involves only lengths and angles, not coordinates.



                To use your first formula, the coordinates must be in the same basis.



                You can convert between bases using a rotation matrix, and the fact that a rotation matrix preserves vector lengths is sufficient to show that it preserves the dot product. This is because



                $$vecacdotvecb=frac12left(|veca+vecb|^2-|veca|^2-|vecb|^2right).$$



                This formula is another purely-geometric, coordinate-free definition of the dot product.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$












                • $begingroup$
                  Thank you! That makes sense. But what happens if you are dealing with a non-orthonormal system? Is the dot product's value preserved in making the coordinate transformation?
                  $endgroup$
                  – dts
                  2 hours ago










                • $begingroup$
                  Yes, the value is preserved, but the coordinate-based formula in a non-orthonormal basis is more complicated than your first formula.
                  $endgroup$
                  – G. Smith
                  2 hours ago















                2












                $begingroup$

                The dot product can be defined in a coordinate-independent way as



                $$vecacdotvecb=|veca||vecb|costheta$$



                where $theta$ is the angle between the two vectors. This involves only lengths and angles, not coordinates.



                To use your first formula, the coordinates must be in the same basis.



                You can convert between bases using a rotation matrix, and the fact that a rotation matrix preserves vector lengths is sufficient to show that it preserves the dot product. This is because



                $$vecacdotvecb=frac12left(|veca+vecb|^2-|veca|^2-|vecb|^2right).$$



                This formula is another purely-geometric, coordinate-free definition of the dot product.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$












                • $begingroup$
                  Thank you! That makes sense. But what happens if you are dealing with a non-orthonormal system? Is the dot product's value preserved in making the coordinate transformation?
                  $endgroup$
                  – dts
                  2 hours ago










                • $begingroup$
                  Yes, the value is preserved, but the coordinate-based formula in a non-orthonormal basis is more complicated than your first formula.
                  $endgroup$
                  – G. Smith
                  2 hours ago













                2












                2








                2





                $begingroup$

                The dot product can be defined in a coordinate-independent way as



                $$vecacdotvecb=|veca||vecb|costheta$$



                where $theta$ is the angle between the two vectors. This involves only lengths and angles, not coordinates.



                To use your first formula, the coordinates must be in the same basis.



                You can convert between bases using a rotation matrix, and the fact that a rotation matrix preserves vector lengths is sufficient to show that it preserves the dot product. This is because



                $$vecacdotvecb=frac12left(|veca+vecb|^2-|veca|^2-|vecb|^2right).$$



                This formula is another purely-geometric, coordinate-free definition of the dot product.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$



                The dot product can be defined in a coordinate-independent way as



                $$vecacdotvecb=|veca||vecb|costheta$$



                where $theta$ is the angle between the two vectors. This involves only lengths and angles, not coordinates.



                To use your first formula, the coordinates must be in the same basis.



                You can convert between bases using a rotation matrix, and the fact that a rotation matrix preserves vector lengths is sufficient to show that it preserves the dot product. This is because



                $$vecacdotvecb=frac12left(|veca+vecb|^2-|veca|^2-|vecb|^2right).$$



                This formula is another purely-geometric, coordinate-free definition of the dot product.







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited 2 hours ago

























                answered 2 hours ago









                G. SmithG. Smith

                12.7k12042




                12.7k12042











                • $begingroup$
                  Thank you! That makes sense. But what happens if you are dealing with a non-orthonormal system? Is the dot product's value preserved in making the coordinate transformation?
                  $endgroup$
                  – dts
                  2 hours ago










                • $begingroup$
                  Yes, the value is preserved, but the coordinate-based formula in a non-orthonormal basis is more complicated than your first formula.
                  $endgroup$
                  – G. Smith
                  2 hours ago
















                • $begingroup$
                  Thank you! That makes sense. But what happens if you are dealing with a non-orthonormal system? Is the dot product's value preserved in making the coordinate transformation?
                  $endgroup$
                  – dts
                  2 hours ago










                • $begingroup$
                  Yes, the value is preserved, but the coordinate-based formula in a non-orthonormal basis is more complicated than your first formula.
                  $endgroup$
                  – G. Smith
                  2 hours ago















                $begingroup$
                Thank you! That makes sense. But what happens if you are dealing with a non-orthonormal system? Is the dot product's value preserved in making the coordinate transformation?
                $endgroup$
                – dts
                2 hours ago




                $begingroup$
                Thank you! That makes sense. But what happens if you are dealing with a non-orthonormal system? Is the dot product's value preserved in making the coordinate transformation?
                $endgroup$
                – dts
                2 hours ago












                $begingroup$
                Yes, the value is preserved, but the coordinate-based formula in a non-orthonormal basis is more complicated than your first formula.
                $endgroup$
                – G. Smith
                2 hours ago




                $begingroup$
                Yes, the value is preserved, but the coordinate-based formula in a non-orthonormal basis is more complicated than your first formula.
                $endgroup$
                – G. Smith
                2 hours ago











                1












                $begingroup$

                The coordinate free definition of a dot product is:



                $$ vec a cdot vec b = frac 1 4 [(vec a + vec b)^2 - (vec a - vec b)^2]$$



                It's up to you to figure out what the norm is:



                $$ ||vec a|| = sqrt(vec a)^2$$






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$

















                  1












                  $begingroup$

                  The coordinate free definition of a dot product is:



                  $$ vec a cdot vec b = frac 1 4 [(vec a + vec b)^2 - (vec a - vec b)^2]$$



                  It's up to you to figure out what the norm is:



                  $$ ||vec a|| = sqrt(vec a)^2$$






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$















                    1












                    1








                    1





                    $begingroup$

                    The coordinate free definition of a dot product is:



                    $$ vec a cdot vec b = frac 1 4 [(vec a + vec b)^2 - (vec a - vec b)^2]$$



                    It's up to you to figure out what the norm is:



                    $$ ||vec a|| = sqrt(vec a)^2$$






                    share|cite|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$



                    The coordinate free definition of a dot product is:



                    $$ vec a cdot vec b = frac 1 4 [(vec a + vec b)^2 - (vec a - vec b)^2]$$



                    It's up to you to figure out what the norm is:



                    $$ ||vec a|| = sqrt(vec a)^2$$







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered 1 hour ago









                    JEBJEB

                    6,9071819




                    6,9071819





















                        0












                        $begingroup$

                        On computing the following matrix will give you the dot product $$beginbmatrix x_1 & x_2& x_3 endbmatrix.beginbmatrix e_1.e'_1 & e_1.e'_2 & e_1.e'_3 \ e_2.e'_1 & e_2.e'_2 & e_2.e'_3 \ e_3.e'_1 & e_3.e'_2 & e_3.e_3endbmatrix.beginbmatrixy_1\y_2\y_3endbmatrix$$ If we transform the cordinate of the a vector, only the components and basis of vector changes. The vector remains unchanged. Thus the dot product remain unchanged even if we compute dot product between primed and unprimed vectors.






                        share|cite|improve this answer











                        $endgroup$

















                          0












                          $begingroup$

                          On computing the following matrix will give you the dot product $$beginbmatrix x_1 & x_2& x_3 endbmatrix.beginbmatrix e_1.e'_1 & e_1.e'_2 & e_1.e'_3 \ e_2.e'_1 & e_2.e'_2 & e_2.e'_3 \ e_3.e'_1 & e_3.e'_2 & e_3.e_3endbmatrix.beginbmatrixy_1\y_2\y_3endbmatrix$$ If we transform the cordinate of the a vector, only the components and basis of vector changes. The vector remains unchanged. Thus the dot product remain unchanged even if we compute dot product between primed and unprimed vectors.






                          share|cite|improve this answer











                          $endgroup$















                            0












                            0








                            0





                            $begingroup$

                            On computing the following matrix will give you the dot product $$beginbmatrix x_1 & x_2& x_3 endbmatrix.beginbmatrix e_1.e'_1 & e_1.e'_2 & e_1.e'_3 \ e_2.e'_1 & e_2.e'_2 & e_2.e'_3 \ e_3.e'_1 & e_3.e'_2 & e_3.e_3endbmatrix.beginbmatrixy_1\y_2\y_3endbmatrix$$ If we transform the cordinate of the a vector, only the components and basis of vector changes. The vector remains unchanged. Thus the dot product remain unchanged even if we compute dot product between primed and unprimed vectors.






                            share|cite|improve this answer











                            $endgroup$



                            On computing the following matrix will give you the dot product $$beginbmatrix x_1 & x_2& x_3 endbmatrix.beginbmatrix e_1.e'_1 & e_1.e'_2 & e_1.e'_3 \ e_2.e'_1 & e_2.e'_2 & e_2.e'_3 \ e_3.e'_1 & e_3.e'_2 & e_3.e_3endbmatrix.beginbmatrixy_1\y_2\y_3endbmatrix$$ If we transform the cordinate of the a vector, only the components and basis of vector changes. The vector remains unchanged. Thus the dot product remain unchanged even if we compute dot product between primed and unprimed vectors.







                            share|cite|improve this answer














                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer








                            edited 1 hour ago

























                            answered 1 hour ago









                            walber97walber97

                            368110




                            368110





















                                0












                                $begingroup$

                                Dot products, or inner products are defined axiomatically, or abstractly. An inner product on a vector space $V$ over $R$ is a pairing $Vtimes Vto R$, denoted by $ langle u,vrangle$, with properties $langle u,vrangle=langle v,urangle$, $langle u+cw,vrangle= langle u,vrangle+clangle w,vrangle$, and $ langle u,uranglegt0$ if $une0$. In general, a vector space can be endowed with an inner product in many ways. Notice here there is no reference to a basis/coordinate system.



                                Using what is called the Gram-Schmidt process, one can then construct a basis $e_1,cdots e_n$ for $V$ in which the inner product takes the computational form which you stated in your question.



                                In your question, you are actually starting with what is called an orthonormal basis for an inner product. The coordinate-free approach is to state the postulates that an inner product should obey, then after being given an explicit inner product, construct an orthonormal basis in which to do computations.



                                In general, an orthonormal basis $e_1,e_2,e_3$ for one inner product on $V$ will not be an orthonormal basis for another inner product on $V$.






                                share|cite|improve this answer









                                $endgroup$

















                                  0












                                  $begingroup$

                                  Dot products, or inner products are defined axiomatically, or abstractly. An inner product on a vector space $V$ over $R$ is a pairing $Vtimes Vto R$, denoted by $ langle u,vrangle$, with properties $langle u,vrangle=langle v,urangle$, $langle u+cw,vrangle= langle u,vrangle+clangle w,vrangle$, and $ langle u,uranglegt0$ if $une0$. In general, a vector space can be endowed with an inner product in many ways. Notice here there is no reference to a basis/coordinate system.



                                  Using what is called the Gram-Schmidt process, one can then construct a basis $e_1,cdots e_n$ for $V$ in which the inner product takes the computational form which you stated in your question.



                                  In your question, you are actually starting with what is called an orthonormal basis for an inner product. The coordinate-free approach is to state the postulates that an inner product should obey, then after being given an explicit inner product, construct an orthonormal basis in which to do computations.



                                  In general, an orthonormal basis $e_1,e_2,e_3$ for one inner product on $V$ will not be an orthonormal basis for another inner product on $V$.






                                  share|cite|improve this answer









                                  $endgroup$















                                    0












                                    0








                                    0





                                    $begingroup$

                                    Dot products, or inner products are defined axiomatically, or abstractly. An inner product on a vector space $V$ over $R$ is a pairing $Vtimes Vto R$, denoted by $ langle u,vrangle$, with properties $langle u,vrangle=langle v,urangle$, $langle u+cw,vrangle= langle u,vrangle+clangle w,vrangle$, and $ langle u,uranglegt0$ if $une0$. In general, a vector space can be endowed with an inner product in many ways. Notice here there is no reference to a basis/coordinate system.



                                    Using what is called the Gram-Schmidt process, one can then construct a basis $e_1,cdots e_n$ for $V$ in which the inner product takes the computational form which you stated in your question.



                                    In your question, you are actually starting with what is called an orthonormal basis for an inner product. The coordinate-free approach is to state the postulates that an inner product should obey, then after being given an explicit inner product, construct an orthonormal basis in which to do computations.



                                    In general, an orthonormal basis $e_1,e_2,e_3$ for one inner product on $V$ will not be an orthonormal basis for another inner product on $V$.






                                    share|cite|improve this answer









                                    $endgroup$



                                    Dot products, or inner products are defined axiomatically, or abstractly. An inner product on a vector space $V$ over $R$ is a pairing $Vtimes Vto R$, denoted by $ langle u,vrangle$, with properties $langle u,vrangle=langle v,urangle$, $langle u+cw,vrangle= langle u,vrangle+clangle w,vrangle$, and $ langle u,uranglegt0$ if $une0$. In general, a vector space can be endowed with an inner product in many ways. Notice here there is no reference to a basis/coordinate system.



                                    Using what is called the Gram-Schmidt process, one can then construct a basis $e_1,cdots e_n$ for $V$ in which the inner product takes the computational form which you stated in your question.



                                    In your question, you are actually starting with what is called an orthonormal basis for an inner product. The coordinate-free approach is to state the postulates that an inner product should obey, then after being given an explicit inner product, construct an orthonormal basis in which to do computations.



                                    In general, an orthonormal basis $e_1,e_2,e_3$ for one inner product on $V$ will not be an orthonormal basis for another inner product on $V$.







                                    share|cite|improve this answer












                                    share|cite|improve this answer



                                    share|cite|improve this answer










                                    answered 13 mins ago









                                    user52817user52817

                                    1311




                                    1311



























                                        draft saved

                                        draft discarded
















































                                        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.




                                        draft saved


                                        draft discarded














                                        StackExchange.ready(
                                        function ()
                                        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f479656%2fformal-definition-of-dot-product%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                                        );

                                        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







                                        Popular posts from this blog

                                        Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

                                        Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

                                        199年 目錄 大件事 到箇年出世嗰人 到箇年死嗰人 節慶、風俗習慣 導覽選單