Linear Algebra - Find unit vector orthogonal to 2, 4-space vectors?

In summary, the homework statement is to find any unit vector orthogonal to both vectors. Given that two vectors are orthogonal if their dot product is zero, the Attempt at a Solution found that the unit vector for one vector is the vector over its magnitude, but what about two of them? To find something that's orthogonal to both at the same time, the Gram-Schmidt Method is used. What else do you know about finding a unit vector orthogonal to two vectors? You can eliminate one of the variables to get three equations in matrix form, but what else do you know? If three equations and three unknowns are present, then solving for one variable is possible. Is it allowable to use zero as a
  • #1
twotaileddemon
260
0

Homework Statement

Given the vectors
u = (2, 0, 1, -4)
v = (2, 3, 0, 1)
Find any unit vector orthogonal to both of them

Homework Equations



I know that two vectors are orthogonal if their dot product is zero...

The Attempt at a Solution



I don't even know how to begin! I know the unit vector for one vector is the vector over its magnitude, but what about two of them? How do I find something that's orthogonal to both at the same time?

Please help ASAP! :) Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #3
I haven't learned that in class, but I did wikipedia it..
according to that, the answer wouldn't change since <u,v> = 0 and the GS method just uses u - projvu which would be <u,v>v/<v,v> with a 0 on top... giving only (2, 0, 1, -4) which would not work.

any other suggestions please? or advice? Thank you :)

edit: please consider helping me with this, even if just a tiny tiny bit of guidance. I have been trying to figure this out for hours.. it's over 2 am my time.. and I'm really tired :/

I will work hard and along with you! I need to understand this problem to do other problems in the HW too...

we haven't learned the method you mentioned in class... we have been talking about euclidean inner product and vectors in R^n space
 
Last edited:
  • #4
So you know you are looking for a unit vector, call it [itex]\vec{a}=<a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4> [/itex]. Since [itex]\vec{a}[/itex] is a unit vector we must have [itex]|\vec{a}|=a_1^2+a_2^2+a_3^2+a_4^2=1[/itex].

What else do you know?
 
  • #5
angryfaceofdr said:
So you know you are looking for a unit vector, call it [itex]\vec{a}=<a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4> [/itex]. Since [itex]\vec{a}[/itex] is a unit vector we must have [itex]|\vec{a}|=a_1^2+a_2^2+a_3^2+a_4^2=1[/itex].

What else do you know?

that 2a_1 + a_3 - 4a_4 = 0
and 2a_1 + 3a_2 + a_4 = 0
 
  • #6
True, what can you do with these three equations?
 
  • #7
put them in matrix form and try to eliminate one of the variables?
 
  • #8
See what happens
 
  • #9
angryfaceofdr said:
See what happens

I did that before.. but whenever I would eliminate one of the variables, another would "return"

like if I put it in the form

[2 0 1 -4 | 0]
[2 3 0 1 | 0]

lets say I subtracted row one (R1) from row two (R2) ... R2 - R1
then I get

[2 0 1 -4 | 0]
[0 3 -1 5 | 0]
.. which makes me lose a variable but gain another in the process.

this is where I got stuck before
 
Last edited:
  • #10
So we either need one more equation or to get 'rid' of one variable
 
  • #11
Suppose, [itex]\vec{a}=<b,c,d,0>[/itex]. How many equations and unkowns do we have now?
 
  • #12
I don't understand what I could eliminate or add though...

unless you mean solving for something like a_1 to get it in terms of the other three? but that seems kinda like we're I'm stuck at now...
 
  • #13
i mean, set a_4=0
 
  • #14
angryfaceofdr said:
Suppose, [itex]\vec{a}=<b,c,d,0>[/itex]. How many equations and unkowns do we have now?

If that is the case, then we have:

2b + d = 0
2b + 3c = 0
b + c + d = 1

...correct?

so three equations and 3 unknowns?
which I think I can actually solve...

is this allowable? and why so?
 
  • #15
Yes that's right. Well, the problem states to find any unit vector orthogonal to u and v
 
  • #16
And I guessed that we needed 4 equations and 4 unkowns or 3 eqns and 3 unknowns
 
  • #17
that's true.. so hypothetically, if I wanted to, I could make another variable 0?

I'm not going to in this case because I can solve the problem fine with the method you gave me.. but in the future I am allowed to put as many 0's as I'd like? Or is there some kind of limit?

thank you so much for your help and patience!
 
  • #18
Try it, and see if you get a suitable vector (unit length orthogonal to both)
 
  • #19
To tell you the truth, I don't know... I think you might lose too much information if you use too many zeros
 
  • #20
I usually just eliminate enough variables so that it fits with the number of equations i have (and pray it works)
 
  • #21
ok, I will try to finish the problem and let you know how it goes out!
even if it's not right, you took time to help me and that's really great! you are very nice and I'm sure that I can find a viable solution thanks to you.
 
  • #22
twotaileddemon said:
b + c + d = 1

...correct?

whooops should be b^2+c^2+d^2=1
 
  • #23
no problem, good luck!




HINT:
I get two solutions: <3/7,-2/7,-6/7,0>, <-3/7,2/7,6/7,0>
 
Last edited:
  • #24
I got

(1/3, -2/3, -2/3, 0) and (-1/3, 2/3, 2/3, 0) as my answers and checked the dot product with but U and V and got 0...
 
  • #25
which is what you want right ?
 
  • #26
means that the two vectors are orthogonal to each other
 
  • #27
wait mine only works for u not v.. let me try again.
 
  • #28
hmmm... so
2b+d=0 ----> d=-2b
2b+3c=0----> c=-(2/3)bb^2+c^2+d^2=1=(4/9)b^2+4b^2+b^2

b^2=9/49
 
  • #29
so b = +/- 7/3, d = +/- 14/3 and c = +/- 14/9

I think this one works.. just checked all possible 4 scenarios for u and v and got 0

thanks a lot!
 
  • #30
errr... I got b=+/- 3/7 = [tex] \pm \frac{3}{7} [/tex]

ahh okay cool
 
  • #31
yes yes, you are right once again!

I'm sorry, I make lots of mistakes at 4:40 am xD
I wanted to do this homework so badly so I must get it done!
 
  • #32
its fine, happens to everyone
 
  • #33
In order to solve for specific values of a, b, c, and d, you would need four equations. But the problem said "Find any unit vector orthogonal to both of them". Just as, in three dimensions, there are an infinite number of unit vectors orthogonal to a single vector, in four dimensions there are an infinite number of unit vectors orthogonal to two vectors.

In order that (a, b, c, d) be orthogonal to u = (2, 0, 1, -4) and v = (2, 3, 0, 1) we must have, as you say, 2a+ c- 4d= 0 and 2a+ 3b+ d= 0. Subtracting the first equation from the second, 3b- c+ 5d= 0 so c= 3b+ 5d. Put that back into either of the first two equations and you can solve for a in terms of b and d. That gives every vector that is orthogonal to u and v in terms of b and d.
 

FAQ: Linear Algebra - Find unit vector orthogonal to 2, 4-space vectors?

What is a unit vector?

A unit vector is a vector with a magnitude of 1, which means it has a length of 1 unit. It is often used to represent direction and is important in many mathematical and scientific applications.

How do you find a unit vector?

To find a unit vector, you first need to calculate the magnitude of the vector. Then, divide each component of the vector by the magnitude. The resulting vector will have a magnitude of 1 and will be in the same direction as the original vector.

What does it mean for a unit vector to be orthogonal?

A unit vector is orthogonal to another vector if it is perpendicular to that vector. This means that the dot product of the two vectors is equal to 0, indicating that they are at right angles to each other.

How do you find a unit vector orthogonal to two given vectors?

To find a unit vector orthogonal to two given vectors, you can use the cross product. The resulting vector will be perpendicular to both of the given vectors and will have a magnitude of 1, making it a unit vector.

Why is finding a unit vector orthogonal to two vectors important?

Finding a unit vector orthogonal to two vectors is important because it allows us to find a direction that is perpendicular to both of the given vectors. This can be useful in many applications, such as calculating forces in physics or finding the plane of best fit in linear regression.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
2K
Back
Top