Why Can't Vectors be Divided? - Exploring the Math Behind the Answer

  • MHB
  • Thread starter find_the_fun
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Vectors
In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of vector and matrix division. It is explained that vector division is not possible due to the lack of a "nice" way to divide vectors. However, it is possible to divide square matrices under certain circumstances. The reason for this is that in order for division to make sense, there must be a certain type of multiplication that is only possible in dimensions 1, 2, 4, 8, and 16. It is also noted that dividing by a matrix can lead to nonsensical results, similar to dividing by zero. The conversation ends with a mention of the programming language APL and its use of the ⌹ operator for matrix division.
  • #1
find_the_fun
148
0
I was reading my computer graphics textbook and under frequently asked questions one was "why is there no vector division?" and it said "it turns out there is no 'nice' way to divide vectors". That's not a very good explanation. Why is it that matrices can't be divided?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You can sort of divide square matrices. Suppose you have $Ax=b$, where $A$ is a matrix and $x,b$ are vectors. Then you left multiply both sides by $A^{-1}$ (assuming it exists, which it will so long as $\det(A)\not=0$). Then you get $A^{-1}Ax=A^{-1}b$, and since $A^{-1}A=I$, then you have $Ix=A^{-1}b$, or $x=A^{-1}b$. It is sometimes possible (though not the most efficient method) to solve a linear system this way.

However, this sort of inverse only works with square matrices, because you need $A^{-1}A$ to be the right size. Since a vector (aside from 1 x 1 matrices, also known as numbers) is not a square matrix, you cannot do this kind of inversion. The key here is that you're trying to achieve some sort of multiplicative identity, $I$ in this case. You can't do that with non-square matrices like vectors.
 
  • #3
The answer is: you CAN, but only in certain dimensions, under certain limited circumstances.

First of all, for "division" to even make sense, you need some kind of multiplication, first. And this multiplication has to be of the form:

vector times vector = same kind of vector.

It turns out that this is only possible in certain dimensions: 1,2,4 (and if you allow certain "strangenesses" 8 and 16). This is a very "deep" theorem, due to Frobenius, and requires a bit of high-powered algebra to prove.

Now matrices only have such a multiplication when they are nxn (otherwise we get:

matrix times matrix = matrix of different size, which turns out to matter).

However, it turns out we can have "bad matrices", like so:

$AB = 0$ where neither $A$ nor $B$ are the 0-matrix. For example:

$A = \begin{bmatrix}1&0\\0&0 \end{bmatrix}$

$B = \begin{bmatrix}0&0\\0&1 \end{bmatrix}$

Now suppose, just for the sake of argument, we had a matrix we could call:

$\dfrac{1}{A}$.

Such a matrix should satisfy:

$\dfrac{1}{A}A = I$, the identity matrix.

Then:

$B = IB = \left(\dfrac{1}{A}A\right)B = \dfrac{1}{A}(AB) = \dfrac{1}{A}0 = 0$

which is a contradiction, since $B \neq 0$

In other words, "dividing by such a matrix" is rather like dividing by zero, it leads to nonsense.

It turns out the the condtition:

$AB = 0, A,B \neq 0$

is equivalent to:

$Av = 0$ for some vector $v \neq 0$.

Let's see why this is important by comparing matrix multiplication with scalar multiplication:

If $rA = rB$, we have:

$\dfrac{1}{r}(rA) = \left(\dfrac{1}{r}r\right)A = 1A = A$

and also:

$\dfrac{1}{r}(rA) = \dfrac{1}{r}(rB) = \left(\dfrac{1}{r}r\right)B = 1B = B$

provided $r \neq 0$ (which is almost every scalar).

This allows us to conclude $A = B$, in other words, the assignment:

$A \to rA$ is one-to-one.

However, if we take matrices:

$RA = RB$ does NOT imply $A = B$, for example let

$R = \begin{bmatrix} 1&0\\0&0 \end{bmatrix}$

$A = \begin{bmatrix} 0&0\\0&1 \end{bmatrix}$

$B = \begin{bmatrix} 0&0\\0&2 \end{bmatrix}$

Then we see, $RA = RB = 0$, but clearly $A$ and $B$ are different matrices.

So "left-multiplication by a matrix" is no longer 1-1, we means we can't uniquely "undo" it (which is what, at its heart, "division" is: the "un-doing" of multiplication).

I hope this made sense to you.
 
  • #4
Deveno said:
The answer is: you CAN, but only in certain dimensions, under certain limited circumstances.

...

vector times vector = same kind of vector.

It turns out that this is only possible in certain dimensions: 1,2,4 (and if you allow certain "strangenesses" 8 and 16).

...

In other words, "dividing by such a matrix" is rather like dividing by zero, it leads to nonsense.

...

So "left-multiplication by a matrix" is no longer 1-1, we means we can't uniquely "undo" it (which is what, at its heart, "division" is: the "un-doing" of multiplication).
And despite all this, one can divide by almost all square matrices of any dimension, and not just having 1, 2, 4, 8 or 16 components.
 
  • #5
There's a programming language called APL, which was designed for applying math.

Regular division is denoted a÷b.
The same operator is used for the reciprocal: ÷b means 1/b.

Typically operations for matrices are denoted with a square block around the operator.
In particular the matrix inverse is ⌹B.
And matrix division is: A⌹B. This means A multiplied by the inverse of B.
 

FAQ: Why Can't Vectors be Divided? - Exploring the Math Behind the Answer

Why can't vectors be divided?

Vectors cannot be divided because division is not defined for vectors. Vectors are quantities that have both magnitude and direction, which means they cannot be divided or multiplied by other vectors. Instead, operations such as addition, subtraction, and scalar multiplication are used to manipulate vectors.

Can't vectors be divided in the same way as scalars?

No, vectors cannot be divided in the same way as scalars. Scalars are quantities that only have magnitude, so they can be divided by other scalars. However, vectors have both magnitude and direction, making division impossible.

What happens when we try to divide vectors?

When we try to divide vectors, we may get a mathematical error or an undefined result. This is because division is not defined for vectors, and trying to divide them may lead to contradictory or nonsensical outcomes.

Is there any context in which dividing vectors can be useful?

While dividing vectors is not a valid mathematical operation, there are some situations where dividing vectors can be conceptually useful. For example, in physics, we can think of dividing a displacement vector by time to calculate an average velocity vector. However, this is just a conceptual application and not a true division operation.

Are there any alternatives to dividing vectors?

Yes, there are several alternatives to dividing vectors, depending on the specific context. One alternative is to use vector operations such as scalar multiplication to manipulate vectors. Another option is to convert the vectors to a different form, such as polar coordinates, where division is defined for the magnitudes of the vectors.

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
6K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Back
Top