Undergrad Define Dot Product: A.B = ||A|| ||B|| cos(theta)

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between the dot product and its properties, specifically the formula A.B = ||A|| ||B|| cos(theta). Participants highlight that proofs for this formula often rely on the distributive property of the dot product, while proofs for the distributive property assume the validity of the dot product itself, creating a circular reasoning issue. There is a suggestion that a clear definition of the dot product is necessary, whether in terms of the cosine formula or the component form A.B = a1a2 + b1b2 + c1c2. The inner product's distributive property is derived from its definition, which leads to further insights into vector relationships. The conversation emphasizes the need for a foundational understanding of the dot product to resolve these interdependencies.
parshyaa
Messages
307
Reaction score
19
I have seen a proof for the formula of A.B =
||A|| ||B|| cos(theta)[ proof using the diagram and cosine rule]. In the proof they have assumed that distributive property of dot product is right. diagram is given below
100px-Dot_product_cosine_rule.svg.png
c.c =(a-b).(a-b) = a^2 +b^2 -2(a.b) [ here they used distributive law]
  • I have seen another proof for the distributive property of dot product. There they have assumed that A.B = ||A|| ||B|| cos(theta),And used projections. They have used the diagram as given below.
1280px-Dot_product_distributive_law.svg.png

And projection of vector B on A is ||B||cos(theta) = B.a^ ( a^ is a unit vector in the direction of a vector)[ this is possible if the formula of dot product is assumed to be right.
  • How they can do this , for proving dot product A.B = ||A|| ||B|| cos(theta) they have assumed distributive property to be right and for prooving distributive property they have assumed dot product to be right.
Therefore I think that there will be a definition for dot product wether it is A.B = ||A|| ||B|| cos(theta) or A.B = a1a2 +b1b2 +c1c2 (component form). If its a definition then how they have defined it like this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The distributive property of inner product follows immediately from the basic definition of the standard inner product. Given two vectors ##\mathbf v## and ##\mathbf w##, their inner product is ##(\mathbf v, \mathbf w) = \overline v_1 w_1 + \overline v_2 w_2 + \ldots + \overline v_N w_N##. From this, it should be straight forward to see that ##(\mathbf v + \mathbf w,\mathbf z) = (\mathbf v,\mathbf z)+(\mathbf w,\mathbf z)##.
 
Hey parshyaa.

The cosine rule is done for the general proof and one uses the results for length in arbitrary R^n.
 
Here is a little puzzle from the book 100 Geometric Games by Pierre Berloquin. The side of a small square is one meter long and the side of a larger square one and a half meters long. One vertex of the large square is at the center of the small square. The side of the large square cuts two sides of the small square into one- third parts and two-thirds parts. What is the area where the squares overlap?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
780
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K