Proving $(bf xtimes ycdot N) z+(ytimes zcdot N) x+(ztimes x cdot N) y= 0$ when $bf x,y,z$ are coplanar and $bf N$ is a unit normal vectorNorm and Determinant relationProduct of reflections is a rotation, by elementary vector methodsComputing the unit vector for a generalised helixHow to rewrite this trigonometric formula in terms of scalar and vector products between vectors?Second derivative of the position vector in a spherical coordinate systemWhat is the logic/rationale behind the vector cross product?Simplify vector equation $2mathbf c - (mathbf a + mathbf b)times(mathbf a - mathbf b)$Unit Vectors ProblemIs this true, that the angle tangent betweem two vectors is equal to their cross product norm divided by it's inner product?Vector Cross Product.
How to get directions in deep space?
Has the laser at Magurele, Romania reached a tenth of the Sun's power?
Why should universal income be universal?
JIS and ISO square taper
How does electrical safety system work on ISS?
How do I fix the group tension caused by my character stealing and possibly killing without provocation?
Can I say "fingers" when referring to toes?
In movies, why do people move so slowly in zero gravity?
Multiplicative persistence
How to convince somebody that he is fit for something else, but not this job?
Does the reader need to like the PoV character?
Mysterious "Two documentclass or documentstyle commands."
"It doesn't matter" or "it won't matter"?
Devil Fruit Question
Review your own paper in Mathematics
Circuit Analysis: Obtaining Close Loop OP - AMP Transfer function
In a multiple cat home, how many litter boxes should you have?
What (the heck) is a Super Worm Equinox Moon?
What is the English pronunciation of "pain au chocolat"?
What is going on with gets(stdin) on the site coderbyte?
Which Article Helped Get Rid of Technobabble in RPGs?
US tourist/student visa
What is the difference between lands and mana?
Unable to get dependencies from jcenter with a new project
Proving $(bf xtimes ycdot N) z+(ytimes zcdot N) x+(ztimes x cdot N) y= 0$ when $bf x,y,z$ are coplanar and $bf N$ is a unit normal vector
Norm and Determinant relationProduct of reflections is a rotation, by elementary vector methodsComputing the unit vector for a generalised helixHow to rewrite this trigonometric formula in terms of scalar and vector products between vectors?Second derivative of the position vector in a spherical coordinate systemWhat is the logic/rationale behind the vector cross product?Simplify vector equation $2mathbf c - (mathbf a + mathbf b)times(mathbf a - mathbf b)$Unit Vectors ProblemIs this true, that the angle tangent betweem two vectors is equal to their cross product norm divided by it's inner product?Vector Cross Product.
$begingroup$
Prove that if $mathbfx,mathbfy,mathbfz in mathbbR^3$ are coplanar vectors and $mathbfN$ is a unit normal vector to the plane then $$(mathbfxtimesmathbfy cdot mathbfN) mathbfz + (mathbfytimesmathbfz cdot mathbfN) mathbfx + (mathbfztimesmathbfx cdot mathbfN) mathbfy=mathbf0.$$
This is an elementary identity involving cross products which is used in the proof of the Gauss-Bonnet Theorem and whose proof was left as an exercise. I've tried it unsuccessfully. Initially I tried writing $mathbfN=fracmathbfxtimesmathbfy mathbfxtimesmathbfy=fracmathbfytimesmathbfz mathbfytimesmathbfz=fracmathbfztimesmathbfx$ and substituting into the equation to get $| mathbfxtimesmathbfy|z +| mathbfytimesmathbfz|mathbfx+| mathbfztimesmathbfx|mathbfy=mathbf0$ but then I realised these terms are only correct up to $pm$ signs. You could write the norms in terms of sines of angles and divide by norms to get unit vectors with coefficients $sintheta,sinpsi,sin(theta+psi)$ (or $2pi -(theta+psi)$ I suppose) but I don't know what to do from there, especially when the terms are only correct up to sign. Any hints how to prove this identity? Perhaps there is a clever trick to it but I can't see it. Edit: Maybe writing $mathbfz=lambdamathbfx+mumathbfy$ will help.
linear-algebra vectors cross-product
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Prove that if $mathbfx,mathbfy,mathbfz in mathbbR^3$ are coplanar vectors and $mathbfN$ is a unit normal vector to the plane then $$(mathbfxtimesmathbfy cdot mathbfN) mathbfz + (mathbfytimesmathbfz cdot mathbfN) mathbfx + (mathbfztimesmathbfx cdot mathbfN) mathbfy=mathbf0.$$
This is an elementary identity involving cross products which is used in the proof of the Gauss-Bonnet Theorem and whose proof was left as an exercise. I've tried it unsuccessfully. Initially I tried writing $mathbfN=fracmathbfxtimesmathbfy mathbfxtimesmathbfy=fracmathbfytimesmathbfz mathbfytimesmathbfz=fracmathbfztimesmathbfx$ and substituting into the equation to get $| mathbfxtimesmathbfy|z +| mathbfytimesmathbfz|mathbfx+| mathbfztimesmathbfx|mathbfy=mathbf0$ but then I realised these terms are only correct up to $pm$ signs. You could write the norms in terms of sines of angles and divide by norms to get unit vectors with coefficients $sintheta,sinpsi,sin(theta+psi)$ (or $2pi -(theta+psi)$ I suppose) but I don't know what to do from there, especially when the terms are only correct up to sign. Any hints how to prove this identity? Perhaps there is a clever trick to it but I can't see it. Edit: Maybe writing $mathbfz=lambdamathbfx+mumathbfy$ will help.
linear-algebra vectors cross-product
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
What does $x times y cdot N$ mean? Dot product $(x times y) cdot N$ ?
$endgroup$
– Widawensen
yesterday
4
$begingroup$
@Widawensen Yes, what else could it mean?
$endgroup$
– Marc van Leeuwen
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@MarcvanLeeuwen: that could mean a badly written problem. That happens here sometimes.
$endgroup$
– Taladris
18 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Prove that if $mathbfx,mathbfy,mathbfz in mathbbR^3$ are coplanar vectors and $mathbfN$ is a unit normal vector to the plane then $$(mathbfxtimesmathbfy cdot mathbfN) mathbfz + (mathbfytimesmathbfz cdot mathbfN) mathbfx + (mathbfztimesmathbfx cdot mathbfN) mathbfy=mathbf0.$$
This is an elementary identity involving cross products which is used in the proof of the Gauss-Bonnet Theorem and whose proof was left as an exercise. I've tried it unsuccessfully. Initially I tried writing $mathbfN=fracmathbfxtimesmathbfy mathbfxtimesmathbfy=fracmathbfytimesmathbfz mathbfytimesmathbfz=fracmathbfztimesmathbfx$ and substituting into the equation to get $| mathbfxtimesmathbfy|z +| mathbfytimesmathbfz|mathbfx+| mathbfztimesmathbfx|mathbfy=mathbf0$ but then I realised these terms are only correct up to $pm$ signs. You could write the norms in terms of sines of angles and divide by norms to get unit vectors with coefficients $sintheta,sinpsi,sin(theta+psi)$ (or $2pi -(theta+psi)$ I suppose) but I don't know what to do from there, especially when the terms are only correct up to sign. Any hints how to prove this identity? Perhaps there is a clever trick to it but I can't see it. Edit: Maybe writing $mathbfz=lambdamathbfx+mumathbfy$ will help.
linear-algebra vectors cross-product
$endgroup$
Prove that if $mathbfx,mathbfy,mathbfz in mathbbR^3$ are coplanar vectors and $mathbfN$ is a unit normal vector to the plane then $$(mathbfxtimesmathbfy cdot mathbfN) mathbfz + (mathbfytimesmathbfz cdot mathbfN) mathbfx + (mathbfztimesmathbfx cdot mathbfN) mathbfy=mathbf0.$$
This is an elementary identity involving cross products which is used in the proof of the Gauss-Bonnet Theorem and whose proof was left as an exercise. I've tried it unsuccessfully. Initially I tried writing $mathbfN=fracmathbfxtimesmathbfy mathbfxtimesmathbfy=fracmathbfytimesmathbfz mathbfytimesmathbfz=fracmathbfztimesmathbfx$ and substituting into the equation to get $| mathbfxtimesmathbfy|z +| mathbfytimesmathbfz|mathbfx+| mathbfztimesmathbfx|mathbfy=mathbf0$ but then I realised these terms are only correct up to $pm$ signs. You could write the norms in terms of sines of angles and divide by norms to get unit vectors with coefficients $sintheta,sinpsi,sin(theta+psi)$ (or $2pi -(theta+psi)$ I suppose) but I don't know what to do from there, especially when the terms are only correct up to sign. Any hints how to prove this identity? Perhaps there is a clever trick to it but I can't see it. Edit: Maybe writing $mathbfz=lambdamathbfx+mumathbfy$ will help.
linear-algebra vectors cross-product
linear-algebra vectors cross-product
edited 11 hours ago
Asaf Karagila♦
306k33438769
306k33438769
asked yesterday
AlephNullAlephNull
545110
545110
1
$begingroup$
What does $x times y cdot N$ mean? Dot product $(x times y) cdot N$ ?
$endgroup$
– Widawensen
yesterday
4
$begingroup$
@Widawensen Yes, what else could it mean?
$endgroup$
– Marc van Leeuwen
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@MarcvanLeeuwen: that could mean a badly written problem. That happens here sometimes.
$endgroup$
– Taladris
18 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
What does $x times y cdot N$ mean? Dot product $(x times y) cdot N$ ?
$endgroup$
– Widawensen
yesterday
4
$begingroup$
@Widawensen Yes, what else could it mean?
$endgroup$
– Marc van Leeuwen
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@MarcvanLeeuwen: that could mean a badly written problem. That happens here sometimes.
$endgroup$
– Taladris
18 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
What does $x times y cdot N$ mean? Dot product $(x times y) cdot N$ ?
$endgroup$
– Widawensen
yesterday
$begingroup$
What does $x times y cdot N$ mean? Dot product $(x times y) cdot N$ ?
$endgroup$
– Widawensen
yesterday
4
4
$begingroup$
@Widawensen Yes, what else could it mean?
$endgroup$
– Marc van Leeuwen
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Widawensen Yes, what else could it mean?
$endgroup$
– Marc van Leeuwen
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
@MarcvanLeeuwen: that could mean a badly written problem. That happens here sometimes.
$endgroup$
– Taladris
18 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MarcvanLeeuwen: that could mean a badly written problem. That happens here sometimes.
$endgroup$
– Taladris
18 hours ago
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Here's an observation: If $Q$ is a rotation matrix, then
$$
(Qx) times (Qy) = Q(x times y)
$$
You have to prove that, of course, but it's not too tough. Similarly,
$$
(Qx) cdot (Qy) = x cdot y
$$
and, for a scalar $alpha$, we have
$$
Q (alpha x) = alpha (Q x)
$$
Now suppose that for some vector $v$, we have
$$
(mathbfxtimesmathbfy cdot mathbfN) mathbfz + (mathbfytimesmathbfz cdot mathbfN) mathbfx + (mathbfztimesmathbfx cdot mathbfN) mathbfy=mathbfv.
$$
Key idea 1: You can apply the rules above to show that for any rotation matrix $Q$, you can apply $Q$ to all the elements on the left to get $Qv$.
Key idea 2: You can choose $Q$ so that it takes $N$ to the vector $(0,0,1)$, and puts $x, y,$ and $z$ into the plane consisting of vectors of the form $(a, b, 0)$. And in that plane, it's easy to see that you get $0$, so $Qv = 0$. Hence $v = 0$, and you're done.
In short: by a change of basis, you can assume that $N$ is the vector $(0,0,1)$ and that the other vectors all lie in the $(a, b, 0)$ plane, and things get easy.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Ah so it is a clever approach with orthogonal matrices. I'm familiar with those identities. But I don't see how $Qv=0$. I can't see how we apply anything other than the third identity $Q(alpha x)=alpha (Qx)$.
$endgroup$
– AlephNull
yesterday
$begingroup$
Oh I see, you're talking about the elements, not the terms. I understand the solution now.
$endgroup$
– AlephNull
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
By the way, there's a general principle at work here, much loved by physicists, but worth remembering even if that's not your domain: "find the right coordinate system for your problem." (The math version is mostly "choose the right basis/generating set/...")
$endgroup$
– John Hughes
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If what is required is only to prove the validity of the given identity, there is another approach. Observe that if $x$ and $y$ are linearly dependent, i.e. for some $c$, $x=c y$ or $y=c x$, then the identity holds trivially because $wtimes v =-(vtimes w)$ and $v times v=0$ for all $v,w$. Thus, we may assume $x$ and $y$ are linearly independent and hence $z$ is a linear combination of $x$ and $y$, that is, $z=ax+by$ for some $a,b$. Now, since the given identity is linear in each variable and it holds for both $z=x$ and $z=y$, it is also true for $z=ax+by$. This proves the identity. It can be also noted that $N$ being perpendicular to the plane containing $x,y,z$ plays no role in this proof.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
very nice solution!
$endgroup$
– John Hughes
yesterday
$begingroup$
Indeed, this is very elegant. So my last remark had some significance!
$endgroup$
– AlephNull
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thank you both :-)
$endgroup$
– Song
13 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Writing $x=ahati+bhatj,,y=chati+dhatj,,z=ehati+fhatj,,N=Nhatk$ reduces the sum to $$N((ad-bc)(ehati+fhatj)+(cf-de)(ahati+bhatj)+(be-af)(chati+dhatj)).$$The $hati$ coefficient is $N(ade-bce+acf-ade+bce-acf)=0$. The $hatj$ coefficient can be handled similarly.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I accepted a different answer but +1 because I appreciate that this finishes off the solution in that answer.
$endgroup$
– AlephNull
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Since $bf x, bf y, bf z$ are coplanar, they are linearly dependent. Since the result to be proved is symmetric in $bf x, bf y, bf z$, withouht loss of generality we can write $bf z = lambda bf x + mu bf y$ for some scalars $lambda, mu$.
Now, $$beginalign
& (bf y times bf z cdot bf N); bf x \
= & (bf y times (lambda bf x + mu bf y) cdot bf N); bf x \
= & (bf y times lambda bf x cdot bf N); bf x \
= & (bf y times bf x cdot bf N), (lambda bf x)
endalign$$
and similarly $$beginalign
& (bf z times bf x cdot bf N); bf y \
= & (bf y times bf x cdot bf N), (mu bf y)
endalign$$
So $$beginalign
& (bf y times bf z cdot bf N); bf x +
(bf z times bf x cdot bf N); bf y \
= & (bf y times bf x cdot bf N), (lambda bf x + mu bf y)\
= & -(bf x times bf y cdot bf N);z
endalign $$
and the result follows.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If you know a little about the exterior algebra we can see this almost immediately, and in a way that generalizes substantially.
Pick any plane $Pi$ containing $bf x, bf y, bf z$. The map on $Pi$ defined by $$(bf a, bf b, bf c) mapsto [(bf a times bf b) cdot bf N] bf c + [(bf b times bf c) cdot bf N] bf a + [(bf c times bf a) cdot bf N] bf b$$
is visibly trilinear and totally skew in its arguments, so it is a (vector-valued) $3$-form on a $2$-dimensional vector space and hence is the zero map.
NB this argument doesn't use any properties of $bf N$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
By the properties of the triple product ( circluar shift) we can rearrange formula:
$ (mathbfxtimesmathbfy) cdot mathbfN) mathbfz + (mathbfytimesmathbfz) cdot mathbfN) mathbfx + (mathbfztimesmathbfx) cdot mathbfN) mathbfy \ =(mathbfNtimesmathbfx) cdot mathbfy) mathbfz + (mathbfNtimesmathbfy) cdot mathbfz) mathbfx + (mathbfNtimesmathbfz) cdot mathbfx) mathbfy $
All cross product vectors $$v_1=(mathbfNtimesmathbfx),v_2=(mathbfNtimesmathbfy), v_3=(mathbfNtimesmathbfz)$$
lie in the plane of coplanar vectors $mathbfx,mathbfy,mathbfz$ and they are vectors $mathbfx,mathbfy,mathbfz$ rotated by $pi/2$ in this plane.
So we can limit themselves to this plane and take any vectors with components $mathbfx=[ x_1 x_2]^T,mathbfy=[ y_1 y_2]^T,mathbfz =[ z_1 z_2]^T$.
Transform them with the rotation matrix $R=beginbmatrix 0 & -1 \ 1 & 0 endbmatrix$ , calculate appropriate dot products and finally check the formula with these assumed general components.
Namely we need to calculate:
$$(y^TRx)z+(z^TRy)x+(x^TRz)y$$
$endgroup$
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: "69"
;
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: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
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%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3155292%2fproving-bf-x-times-y-cdot-n-zy-times-z-cdot-n-xz-times-x-cdot-n-y%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Here's an observation: If $Q$ is a rotation matrix, then
$$
(Qx) times (Qy) = Q(x times y)
$$
You have to prove that, of course, but it's not too tough. Similarly,
$$
(Qx) cdot (Qy) = x cdot y
$$
and, for a scalar $alpha$, we have
$$
Q (alpha x) = alpha (Q x)
$$
Now suppose that for some vector $v$, we have
$$
(mathbfxtimesmathbfy cdot mathbfN) mathbfz + (mathbfytimesmathbfz cdot mathbfN) mathbfx + (mathbfztimesmathbfx cdot mathbfN) mathbfy=mathbfv.
$$
Key idea 1: You can apply the rules above to show that for any rotation matrix $Q$, you can apply $Q$ to all the elements on the left to get $Qv$.
Key idea 2: You can choose $Q$ so that it takes $N$ to the vector $(0,0,1)$, and puts $x, y,$ and $z$ into the plane consisting of vectors of the form $(a, b, 0)$. And in that plane, it's easy to see that you get $0$, so $Qv = 0$. Hence $v = 0$, and you're done.
In short: by a change of basis, you can assume that $N$ is the vector $(0,0,1)$ and that the other vectors all lie in the $(a, b, 0)$ plane, and things get easy.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Ah so it is a clever approach with orthogonal matrices. I'm familiar with those identities. But I don't see how $Qv=0$. I can't see how we apply anything other than the third identity $Q(alpha x)=alpha (Qx)$.
$endgroup$
– AlephNull
yesterday
$begingroup$
Oh I see, you're talking about the elements, not the terms. I understand the solution now.
$endgroup$
– AlephNull
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
By the way, there's a general principle at work here, much loved by physicists, but worth remembering even if that's not your domain: "find the right coordinate system for your problem." (The math version is mostly "choose the right basis/generating set/...")
$endgroup$
– John Hughes
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here's an observation: If $Q$ is a rotation matrix, then
$$
(Qx) times (Qy) = Q(x times y)
$$
You have to prove that, of course, but it's not too tough. Similarly,
$$
(Qx) cdot (Qy) = x cdot y
$$
and, for a scalar $alpha$, we have
$$
Q (alpha x) = alpha (Q x)
$$
Now suppose that for some vector $v$, we have
$$
(mathbfxtimesmathbfy cdot mathbfN) mathbfz + (mathbfytimesmathbfz cdot mathbfN) mathbfx + (mathbfztimesmathbfx cdot mathbfN) mathbfy=mathbfv.
$$
Key idea 1: You can apply the rules above to show that for any rotation matrix $Q$, you can apply $Q$ to all the elements on the left to get $Qv$.
Key idea 2: You can choose $Q$ so that it takes $N$ to the vector $(0,0,1)$, and puts $x, y,$ and $z$ into the plane consisting of vectors of the form $(a, b, 0)$. And in that plane, it's easy to see that you get $0$, so $Qv = 0$. Hence $v = 0$, and you're done.
In short: by a change of basis, you can assume that $N$ is the vector $(0,0,1)$ and that the other vectors all lie in the $(a, b, 0)$ plane, and things get easy.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Ah so it is a clever approach with orthogonal matrices. I'm familiar with those identities. But I don't see how $Qv=0$. I can't see how we apply anything other than the third identity $Q(alpha x)=alpha (Qx)$.
$endgroup$
– AlephNull
yesterday
$begingroup$
Oh I see, you're talking about the elements, not the terms. I understand the solution now.
$endgroup$
– AlephNull
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
By the way, there's a general principle at work here, much loved by physicists, but worth remembering even if that's not your domain: "find the right coordinate system for your problem." (The math version is mostly "choose the right basis/generating set/...")
$endgroup$
– John Hughes
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here's an observation: If $Q$ is a rotation matrix, then
$$
(Qx) times (Qy) = Q(x times y)
$$
You have to prove that, of course, but it's not too tough. Similarly,
$$
(Qx) cdot (Qy) = x cdot y
$$
and, for a scalar $alpha$, we have
$$
Q (alpha x) = alpha (Q x)
$$
Now suppose that for some vector $v$, we have
$$
(mathbfxtimesmathbfy cdot mathbfN) mathbfz + (mathbfytimesmathbfz cdot mathbfN) mathbfx + (mathbfztimesmathbfx cdot mathbfN) mathbfy=mathbfv.
$$
Key idea 1: You can apply the rules above to show that for any rotation matrix $Q$, you can apply $Q$ to all the elements on the left to get $Qv$.
Key idea 2: You can choose $Q$ so that it takes $N$ to the vector $(0,0,1)$, and puts $x, y,$ and $z$ into the plane consisting of vectors of the form $(a, b, 0)$. And in that plane, it's easy to see that you get $0$, so $Qv = 0$. Hence $v = 0$, and you're done.
In short: by a change of basis, you can assume that $N$ is the vector $(0,0,1)$ and that the other vectors all lie in the $(a, b, 0)$ plane, and things get easy.
$endgroup$
Here's an observation: If $Q$ is a rotation matrix, then
$$
(Qx) times (Qy) = Q(x times y)
$$
You have to prove that, of course, but it's not too tough. Similarly,
$$
(Qx) cdot (Qy) = x cdot y
$$
and, for a scalar $alpha$, we have
$$
Q (alpha x) = alpha (Q x)
$$
Now suppose that for some vector $v$, we have
$$
(mathbfxtimesmathbfy cdot mathbfN) mathbfz + (mathbfytimesmathbfz cdot mathbfN) mathbfx + (mathbfztimesmathbfx cdot mathbfN) mathbfy=mathbfv.
$$
Key idea 1: You can apply the rules above to show that for any rotation matrix $Q$, you can apply $Q$ to all the elements on the left to get $Qv$.
Key idea 2: You can choose $Q$ so that it takes $N$ to the vector $(0,0,1)$, and puts $x, y,$ and $z$ into the plane consisting of vectors of the form $(a, b, 0)$. And in that plane, it's easy to see that you get $0$, so $Qv = 0$. Hence $v = 0$, and you're done.
In short: by a change of basis, you can assume that $N$ is the vector $(0,0,1)$ and that the other vectors all lie in the $(a, b, 0)$ plane, and things get easy.
answered yesterday
John HughesJohn Hughes
64.8k24191
64.8k24191
$begingroup$
Ah so it is a clever approach with orthogonal matrices. I'm familiar with those identities. But I don't see how $Qv=0$. I can't see how we apply anything other than the third identity $Q(alpha x)=alpha (Qx)$.
$endgroup$
– AlephNull
yesterday
$begingroup$
Oh I see, you're talking about the elements, not the terms. I understand the solution now.
$endgroup$
– AlephNull
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
By the way, there's a general principle at work here, much loved by physicists, but worth remembering even if that's not your domain: "find the right coordinate system for your problem." (The math version is mostly "choose the right basis/generating set/...")
$endgroup$
– John Hughes
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Ah so it is a clever approach with orthogonal matrices. I'm familiar with those identities. But I don't see how $Qv=0$. I can't see how we apply anything other than the third identity $Q(alpha x)=alpha (Qx)$.
$endgroup$
– AlephNull
yesterday
$begingroup$
Oh I see, you're talking about the elements, not the terms. I understand the solution now.
$endgroup$
– AlephNull
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
By the way, there's a general principle at work here, much loved by physicists, but worth remembering even if that's not your domain: "find the right coordinate system for your problem." (The math version is mostly "choose the right basis/generating set/...")
$endgroup$
– John Hughes
yesterday
$begingroup$
Ah so it is a clever approach with orthogonal matrices. I'm familiar with those identities. But I don't see how $Qv=0$. I can't see how we apply anything other than the third identity $Q(alpha x)=alpha (Qx)$.
$endgroup$
– AlephNull
yesterday
$begingroup$
Ah so it is a clever approach with orthogonal matrices. I'm familiar with those identities. But I don't see how $Qv=0$. I can't see how we apply anything other than the third identity $Q(alpha x)=alpha (Qx)$.
$endgroup$
– AlephNull
yesterday
$begingroup$
Oh I see, you're talking about the elements, not the terms. I understand the solution now.
$endgroup$
– AlephNull
yesterday
$begingroup$
Oh I see, you're talking about the elements, not the terms. I understand the solution now.
$endgroup$
– AlephNull
yesterday
2
2
$begingroup$
By the way, there's a general principle at work here, much loved by physicists, but worth remembering even if that's not your domain: "find the right coordinate system for your problem." (The math version is mostly "choose the right basis/generating set/...")
$endgroup$
– John Hughes
yesterday
$begingroup$
By the way, there's a general principle at work here, much loved by physicists, but worth remembering even if that's not your domain: "find the right coordinate system for your problem." (The math version is mostly "choose the right basis/generating set/...")
$endgroup$
– John Hughes
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If what is required is only to prove the validity of the given identity, there is another approach. Observe that if $x$ and $y$ are linearly dependent, i.e. for some $c$, $x=c y$ or $y=c x$, then the identity holds trivially because $wtimes v =-(vtimes w)$ and $v times v=0$ for all $v,w$. Thus, we may assume $x$ and $y$ are linearly independent and hence $z$ is a linear combination of $x$ and $y$, that is, $z=ax+by$ for some $a,b$. Now, since the given identity is linear in each variable and it holds for both $z=x$ and $z=y$, it is also true for $z=ax+by$. This proves the identity. It can be also noted that $N$ being perpendicular to the plane containing $x,y,z$ plays no role in this proof.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
very nice solution!
$endgroup$
– John Hughes
yesterday
$begingroup$
Indeed, this is very elegant. So my last remark had some significance!
$endgroup$
– AlephNull
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thank you both :-)
$endgroup$
– Song
13 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If what is required is only to prove the validity of the given identity, there is another approach. Observe that if $x$ and $y$ are linearly dependent, i.e. for some $c$, $x=c y$ or $y=c x$, then the identity holds trivially because $wtimes v =-(vtimes w)$ and $v times v=0$ for all $v,w$. Thus, we may assume $x$ and $y$ are linearly independent and hence $z$ is a linear combination of $x$ and $y$, that is, $z=ax+by$ for some $a,b$. Now, since the given identity is linear in each variable and it holds for both $z=x$ and $z=y$, it is also true for $z=ax+by$. This proves the identity. It can be also noted that $N$ being perpendicular to the plane containing $x,y,z$ plays no role in this proof.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
very nice solution!
$endgroup$
– John Hughes
yesterday
$begingroup$
Indeed, this is very elegant. So my last remark had some significance!
$endgroup$
– AlephNull
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thank you both :-)
$endgroup$
– Song
13 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If what is required is only to prove the validity of the given identity, there is another approach. Observe that if $x$ and $y$ are linearly dependent, i.e. for some $c$, $x=c y$ or $y=c x$, then the identity holds trivially because $wtimes v =-(vtimes w)$ and $v times v=0$ for all $v,w$. Thus, we may assume $x$ and $y$ are linearly independent and hence $z$ is a linear combination of $x$ and $y$, that is, $z=ax+by$ for some $a,b$. Now, since the given identity is linear in each variable and it holds for both $z=x$ and $z=y$, it is also true for $z=ax+by$. This proves the identity. It can be also noted that $N$ being perpendicular to the plane containing $x,y,z$ plays no role in this proof.
$endgroup$
If what is required is only to prove the validity of the given identity, there is another approach. Observe that if $x$ and $y$ are linearly dependent, i.e. for some $c$, $x=c y$ or $y=c x$, then the identity holds trivially because $wtimes v =-(vtimes w)$ and $v times v=0$ for all $v,w$. Thus, we may assume $x$ and $y$ are linearly independent and hence $z$ is a linear combination of $x$ and $y$, that is, $z=ax+by$ for some $a,b$. Now, since the given identity is linear in each variable and it holds for both $z=x$ and $z=y$, it is also true for $z=ax+by$. This proves the identity. It can be also noted that $N$ being perpendicular to the plane containing $x,y,z$ plays no role in this proof.
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
SongSong
18.5k21550
18.5k21550
2
$begingroup$
very nice solution!
$endgroup$
– John Hughes
yesterday
$begingroup$
Indeed, this is very elegant. So my last remark had some significance!
$endgroup$
– AlephNull
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thank you both :-)
$endgroup$
– Song
13 hours ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
very nice solution!
$endgroup$
– John Hughes
yesterday
$begingroup$
Indeed, this is very elegant. So my last remark had some significance!
$endgroup$
– AlephNull
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thank you both :-)
$endgroup$
– Song
13 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
very nice solution!
$endgroup$
– John Hughes
yesterday
$begingroup$
very nice solution!
$endgroup$
– John Hughes
yesterday
$begingroup$
Indeed, this is very elegant. So my last remark had some significance!
$endgroup$
– AlephNull
yesterday
$begingroup$
Indeed, this is very elegant. So my last remark had some significance!
$endgroup$
– AlephNull
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thank you both :-)
$endgroup$
– Song
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thank you both :-)
$endgroup$
– Song
13 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Writing $x=ahati+bhatj,,y=chati+dhatj,,z=ehati+fhatj,,N=Nhatk$ reduces the sum to $$N((ad-bc)(ehati+fhatj)+(cf-de)(ahati+bhatj)+(be-af)(chati+dhatj)).$$The $hati$ coefficient is $N(ade-bce+acf-ade+bce-acf)=0$. The $hatj$ coefficient can be handled similarly.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I accepted a different answer but +1 because I appreciate that this finishes off the solution in that answer.
$endgroup$
– AlephNull
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Writing $x=ahati+bhatj,,y=chati+dhatj,,z=ehati+fhatj,,N=Nhatk$ reduces the sum to $$N((ad-bc)(ehati+fhatj)+(cf-de)(ahati+bhatj)+(be-af)(chati+dhatj)).$$The $hati$ coefficient is $N(ade-bce+acf-ade+bce-acf)=0$. The $hatj$ coefficient can be handled similarly.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I accepted a different answer but +1 because I appreciate that this finishes off the solution in that answer.
$endgroup$
– AlephNull
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Writing $x=ahati+bhatj,,y=chati+dhatj,,z=ehati+fhatj,,N=Nhatk$ reduces the sum to $$N((ad-bc)(ehati+fhatj)+(cf-de)(ahati+bhatj)+(be-af)(chati+dhatj)).$$The $hati$ coefficient is $N(ade-bce+acf-ade+bce-acf)=0$. The $hatj$ coefficient can be handled similarly.
$endgroup$
Writing $x=ahati+bhatj,,y=chati+dhatj,,z=ehati+fhatj,,N=Nhatk$ reduces the sum to $$N((ad-bc)(ehati+fhatj)+(cf-de)(ahati+bhatj)+(be-af)(chati+dhatj)).$$The $hati$ coefficient is $N(ade-bce+acf-ade+bce-acf)=0$. The $hatj$ coefficient can be handled similarly.
answered yesterday
J.G.J.G.
31k23149
31k23149
$begingroup$
I accepted a different answer but +1 because I appreciate that this finishes off the solution in that answer.
$endgroup$
– AlephNull
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I accepted a different answer but +1 because I appreciate that this finishes off the solution in that answer.
$endgroup$
– AlephNull
yesterday
$begingroup$
I accepted a different answer but +1 because I appreciate that this finishes off the solution in that answer.
$endgroup$
– AlephNull
yesterday
$begingroup$
I accepted a different answer but +1 because I appreciate that this finishes off the solution in that answer.
$endgroup$
– AlephNull
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Since $bf x, bf y, bf z$ are coplanar, they are linearly dependent. Since the result to be proved is symmetric in $bf x, bf y, bf z$, withouht loss of generality we can write $bf z = lambda bf x + mu bf y$ for some scalars $lambda, mu$.
Now, $$beginalign
& (bf y times bf z cdot bf N); bf x \
= & (bf y times (lambda bf x + mu bf y) cdot bf N); bf x \
= & (bf y times lambda bf x cdot bf N); bf x \
= & (bf y times bf x cdot bf N), (lambda bf x)
endalign$$
and similarly $$beginalign
& (bf z times bf x cdot bf N); bf y \
= & (bf y times bf x cdot bf N), (mu bf y)
endalign$$
So $$beginalign
& (bf y times bf z cdot bf N); bf x +
(bf z times bf x cdot bf N); bf y \
= & (bf y times bf x cdot bf N), (lambda bf x + mu bf y)\
= & -(bf x times bf y cdot bf N);z
endalign $$
and the result follows.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Since $bf x, bf y, bf z$ are coplanar, they are linearly dependent. Since the result to be proved is symmetric in $bf x, bf y, bf z$, withouht loss of generality we can write $bf z = lambda bf x + mu bf y$ for some scalars $lambda, mu$.
Now, $$beginalign
& (bf y times bf z cdot bf N); bf x \
= & (bf y times (lambda bf x + mu bf y) cdot bf N); bf x \
= & (bf y times lambda bf x cdot bf N); bf x \
= & (bf y times bf x cdot bf N), (lambda bf x)
endalign$$
and similarly $$beginalign
& (bf z times bf x cdot bf N); bf y \
= & (bf y times bf x cdot bf N), (mu bf y)
endalign$$
So $$beginalign
& (bf y times bf z cdot bf N); bf x +
(bf z times bf x cdot bf N); bf y \
= & (bf y times bf x cdot bf N), (lambda bf x + mu bf y)\
= & -(bf x times bf y cdot bf N);z
endalign $$
and the result follows.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Since $bf x, bf y, bf z$ are coplanar, they are linearly dependent. Since the result to be proved is symmetric in $bf x, bf y, bf z$, withouht loss of generality we can write $bf z = lambda bf x + mu bf y$ for some scalars $lambda, mu$.
Now, $$beginalign
& (bf y times bf z cdot bf N); bf x \
= & (bf y times (lambda bf x + mu bf y) cdot bf N); bf x \
= & (bf y times lambda bf x cdot bf N); bf x \
= & (bf y times bf x cdot bf N), (lambda bf x)
endalign$$
and similarly $$beginalign
& (bf z times bf x cdot bf N); bf y \
= & (bf y times bf x cdot bf N), (mu bf y)
endalign$$
So $$beginalign
& (bf y times bf z cdot bf N); bf x +
(bf z times bf x cdot bf N); bf y \
= & (bf y times bf x cdot bf N), (lambda bf x + mu bf y)\
= & -(bf x times bf y cdot bf N);z
endalign $$
and the result follows.
$endgroup$
Since $bf x, bf y, bf z$ are coplanar, they are linearly dependent. Since the result to be proved is symmetric in $bf x, bf y, bf z$, withouht loss of generality we can write $bf z = lambda bf x + mu bf y$ for some scalars $lambda, mu$.
Now, $$beginalign
& (bf y times bf z cdot bf N); bf x \
= & (bf y times (lambda bf x + mu bf y) cdot bf N); bf x \
= & (bf y times lambda bf x cdot bf N); bf x \
= & (bf y times bf x cdot bf N), (lambda bf x)
endalign$$
and similarly $$beginalign
& (bf z times bf x cdot bf N); bf y \
= & (bf y times bf x cdot bf N), (mu bf y)
endalign$$
So $$beginalign
& (bf y times bf z cdot bf N); bf x +
(bf z times bf x cdot bf N); bf y \
= & (bf y times bf x cdot bf N), (lambda bf x + mu bf y)\
= & -(bf x times bf y cdot bf N);z
endalign $$
and the result follows.
answered yesterday
alephzeroalephzero
72037
72037
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If you know a little about the exterior algebra we can see this almost immediately, and in a way that generalizes substantially.
Pick any plane $Pi$ containing $bf x, bf y, bf z$. The map on $Pi$ defined by $$(bf a, bf b, bf c) mapsto [(bf a times bf b) cdot bf N] bf c + [(bf b times bf c) cdot bf N] bf a + [(bf c times bf a) cdot bf N] bf b$$
is visibly trilinear and totally skew in its arguments, so it is a (vector-valued) $3$-form on a $2$-dimensional vector space and hence is the zero map.
NB this argument doesn't use any properties of $bf N$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If you know a little about the exterior algebra we can see this almost immediately, and in a way that generalizes substantially.
Pick any plane $Pi$ containing $bf x, bf y, bf z$. The map on $Pi$ defined by $$(bf a, bf b, bf c) mapsto [(bf a times bf b) cdot bf N] bf c + [(bf b times bf c) cdot bf N] bf a + [(bf c times bf a) cdot bf N] bf b$$
is visibly trilinear and totally skew in its arguments, so it is a (vector-valued) $3$-form on a $2$-dimensional vector space and hence is the zero map.
NB this argument doesn't use any properties of $bf N$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If you know a little about the exterior algebra we can see this almost immediately, and in a way that generalizes substantially.
Pick any plane $Pi$ containing $bf x, bf y, bf z$. The map on $Pi$ defined by $$(bf a, bf b, bf c) mapsto [(bf a times bf b) cdot bf N] bf c + [(bf b times bf c) cdot bf N] bf a + [(bf c times bf a) cdot bf N] bf b$$
is visibly trilinear and totally skew in its arguments, so it is a (vector-valued) $3$-form on a $2$-dimensional vector space and hence is the zero map.
NB this argument doesn't use any properties of $bf N$.
$endgroup$
If you know a little about the exterior algebra we can see this almost immediately, and in a way that generalizes substantially.
Pick any plane $Pi$ containing $bf x, bf y, bf z$. The map on $Pi$ defined by $$(bf a, bf b, bf c) mapsto [(bf a times bf b) cdot bf N] bf c + [(bf b times bf c) cdot bf N] bf a + [(bf c times bf a) cdot bf N] bf b$$
is visibly trilinear and totally skew in its arguments, so it is a (vector-valued) $3$-form on a $2$-dimensional vector space and hence is the zero map.
NB this argument doesn't use any properties of $bf N$.
answered 15 hours ago
TravisTravis
63.6k769150
63.6k769150
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
By the properties of the triple product ( circluar shift) we can rearrange formula:
$ (mathbfxtimesmathbfy) cdot mathbfN) mathbfz + (mathbfytimesmathbfz) cdot mathbfN) mathbfx + (mathbfztimesmathbfx) cdot mathbfN) mathbfy \ =(mathbfNtimesmathbfx) cdot mathbfy) mathbfz + (mathbfNtimesmathbfy) cdot mathbfz) mathbfx + (mathbfNtimesmathbfz) cdot mathbfx) mathbfy $
All cross product vectors $$v_1=(mathbfNtimesmathbfx),v_2=(mathbfNtimesmathbfy), v_3=(mathbfNtimesmathbfz)$$
lie in the plane of coplanar vectors $mathbfx,mathbfy,mathbfz$ and they are vectors $mathbfx,mathbfy,mathbfz$ rotated by $pi/2$ in this plane.
So we can limit themselves to this plane and take any vectors with components $mathbfx=[ x_1 x_2]^T,mathbfy=[ y_1 y_2]^T,mathbfz =[ z_1 z_2]^T$.
Transform them with the rotation matrix $R=beginbmatrix 0 & -1 \ 1 & 0 endbmatrix$ , calculate appropriate dot products and finally check the formula with these assumed general components.
Namely we need to calculate:
$$(y^TRx)z+(z^TRy)x+(x^TRz)y$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
By the properties of the triple product ( circluar shift) we can rearrange formula:
$ (mathbfxtimesmathbfy) cdot mathbfN) mathbfz + (mathbfytimesmathbfz) cdot mathbfN) mathbfx + (mathbfztimesmathbfx) cdot mathbfN) mathbfy \ =(mathbfNtimesmathbfx) cdot mathbfy) mathbfz + (mathbfNtimesmathbfy) cdot mathbfz) mathbfx + (mathbfNtimesmathbfz) cdot mathbfx) mathbfy $
All cross product vectors $$v_1=(mathbfNtimesmathbfx),v_2=(mathbfNtimesmathbfy), v_3=(mathbfNtimesmathbfz)$$
lie in the plane of coplanar vectors $mathbfx,mathbfy,mathbfz$ and they are vectors $mathbfx,mathbfy,mathbfz$ rotated by $pi/2$ in this plane.
So we can limit themselves to this plane and take any vectors with components $mathbfx=[ x_1 x_2]^T,mathbfy=[ y_1 y_2]^T,mathbfz =[ z_1 z_2]^T$.
Transform them with the rotation matrix $R=beginbmatrix 0 & -1 \ 1 & 0 endbmatrix$ , calculate appropriate dot products and finally check the formula with these assumed general components.
Namely we need to calculate:
$$(y^TRx)z+(z^TRy)x+(x^TRz)y$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
By the properties of the triple product ( circluar shift) we can rearrange formula:
$ (mathbfxtimesmathbfy) cdot mathbfN) mathbfz + (mathbfytimesmathbfz) cdot mathbfN) mathbfx + (mathbfztimesmathbfx) cdot mathbfN) mathbfy \ =(mathbfNtimesmathbfx) cdot mathbfy) mathbfz + (mathbfNtimesmathbfy) cdot mathbfz) mathbfx + (mathbfNtimesmathbfz) cdot mathbfx) mathbfy $
All cross product vectors $$v_1=(mathbfNtimesmathbfx),v_2=(mathbfNtimesmathbfy), v_3=(mathbfNtimesmathbfz)$$
lie in the plane of coplanar vectors $mathbfx,mathbfy,mathbfz$ and they are vectors $mathbfx,mathbfy,mathbfz$ rotated by $pi/2$ in this plane.
So we can limit themselves to this plane and take any vectors with components $mathbfx=[ x_1 x_2]^T,mathbfy=[ y_1 y_2]^T,mathbfz =[ z_1 z_2]^T$.
Transform them with the rotation matrix $R=beginbmatrix 0 & -1 \ 1 & 0 endbmatrix$ , calculate appropriate dot products and finally check the formula with these assumed general components.
Namely we need to calculate:
$$(y^TRx)z+(z^TRy)x+(x^TRz)y$$
$endgroup$
By the properties of the triple product ( circluar shift) we can rearrange formula:
$ (mathbfxtimesmathbfy) cdot mathbfN) mathbfz + (mathbfytimesmathbfz) cdot mathbfN) mathbfx + (mathbfztimesmathbfx) cdot mathbfN) mathbfy \ =(mathbfNtimesmathbfx) cdot mathbfy) mathbfz + (mathbfNtimesmathbfy) cdot mathbfz) mathbfx + (mathbfNtimesmathbfz) cdot mathbfx) mathbfy $
All cross product vectors $$v_1=(mathbfNtimesmathbfx),v_2=(mathbfNtimesmathbfy), v_3=(mathbfNtimesmathbfz)$$
lie in the plane of coplanar vectors $mathbfx,mathbfy,mathbfz$ and they are vectors $mathbfx,mathbfy,mathbfz$ rotated by $pi/2$ in this plane.
So we can limit themselves to this plane and take any vectors with components $mathbfx=[ x_1 x_2]^T,mathbfy=[ y_1 y_2]^T,mathbfz =[ z_1 z_2]^T$.
Transform them with the rotation matrix $R=beginbmatrix 0 & -1 \ 1 & 0 endbmatrix$ , calculate appropriate dot products and finally check the formula with these assumed general components.
Namely we need to calculate:
$$(y^TRx)z+(z^TRy)x+(x^TRz)y$$
edited 11 hours ago
answered yesterday
WidawensenWidawensen
4,69321446
4,69321446
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics 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%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3155292%2fproving-bf-x-times-y-cdot-n-zy-times-z-cdot-n-xz-times-x-cdot-n-y%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
1
$begingroup$
What does $x times y cdot N$ mean? Dot product $(x times y) cdot N$ ?
$endgroup$
– Widawensen
yesterday
4
$begingroup$
@Widawensen Yes, what else could it mean?
$endgroup$
– Marc van Leeuwen
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@MarcvanLeeuwen: that could mean a badly written problem. That happens here sometimes.
$endgroup$
– Taladris
18 hours ago