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

Do I need to say 'o`clock'?

Smallest Guaranteed hash collision cycle length

German characters on US-International keyboard layout

Wireless headphones interfere with Wi-Fi signal on laptop

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

Why did I need to *reboot* to change my group membership

Safety when modifying old electrical work

What is the limit on how high you can fly up?

Jumping frame contents with beamer and pgfplots

Why do the lights go out when someone enters the dining room on this ship?

Can a tourist shoot a gun in the USA?

How do I tell my supervisor that he is choosing poor replacements for me while I am on maternity leave?

Can I say: "When was your train leaving?" if the train leaves in the future?

Solubility in different pressure conditions

Why is a set not a partition of itself?

51% attack - apparently very easy? refering to CZ's "rollback btc chain" - How to make sure such corruptible scenario can never happen so easily?

Would an 8% reduction in drag outweigh the weight addition from this custom CFD-tested winglet?

Could there be a material that inverts the colours seen through it?

How can a layman easily get the consensus view of what academia *thinks* about a subject?

What is the best way for a skeleton to impersonate human without using magic?

As programers say: Strive to be lazy

When a land becomes a creature, is it untapped?

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

How exactly does artificial gravity work?



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 9 mins ago









      Gilbert

      5,195919




      5,195919










      asked 1 hour ago









      dtsdts

      333413




      333413




















          4 Answers
          4






          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
            47 mins 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
            1 hour 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
            1 hour ago


















          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












            $begingroup$

            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









            $endgroup$













              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

























              4 Answers
              4






              active

              oldest

              votes








              4 Answers
              4






              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
                47 mins 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
                47 mins 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 29 mins ago

























              answered 1 hour ago









              Bob JacobsenBob Jacobsen

              5,7391018




              5,7391018







              • 1




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












              • 1




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







              1




              1




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




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

























              answered 1 hour 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
                1 hour 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
                1 hour 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
                1 hour 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
                1 hour 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
              1 hour 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
              1 hour 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
              1 hour 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
              1 hour ago











              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 43 mins ago

























                  answered 52 mins ago









                  walber97walber97

                  368110




                  368110





















                      0












                      $begingroup$

                      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












                        $begingroup$

                        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












                          0








                          0





                          $begingroup$

                          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 35 mins ago









                          JEBJEB

                          6,8971819




                          6,8971819



























                              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

                              19. јануар Садржај Догађаји Рођења Смрти Празници и дани сећања Види још Референце Мени за навигацијуу

                              Israel Cuprins Etimologie | Istorie | Geografie | Politică | Demografie | Educație | Economie | Cultură | Note explicative | Note bibliografice | Bibliografie | Legături externe | Meniu de navigaresite web oficialfacebooktweeterGoogle+Instagramcanal YouTubeInstagramtextmodificaremodificarewww.technion.ac.ilnew.huji.ac.ilwww.weizmann.ac.ilwww1.biu.ac.ilenglish.tau.ac.ilwww.haifa.ac.ilin.bgu.ac.ilwww.openu.ac.ilwww.ariel.ac.ilCIA FactbookHarta Israelului"Negotiating Jerusalem," Palestine–Israel JournalThe Schizoid Nature of Modern Hebrew: A Slavic Language in Search of a Semitic Past„Arabic in Israel: an official language and a cultural bridge”„Latest Population Statistics for Israel”„Israel Population”„Tables”„Report for Selected Countries and Subjects”Human Development Report 2016: Human Development for Everyone„Distribution of family income - Gini index”The World FactbookJerusalem Law„Israel”„Israel”„Zionist Leaders: David Ben-Gurion 1886–1973”„The status of Jerusalem”„Analysis: Kadima's big plans”„Israel's Hard-Learned Lessons”„The Legacy of Undefined Borders, Tel Aviv Notes No. 40, 5 iunie 2002”„Israel Journal: A Land Without Borders”„Population”„Israel closes decade with population of 7.5 million”Time Series-DataBank„Selected Statistics on Jerusalem Day 2007 (Hebrew)”Golan belongs to Syria, Druze protestGlobal Survey 2006: Middle East Progress Amid Global Gains in FreedomWHO: Life expectancy in Israel among highest in the worldInternational Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, April 2011: Nominal GDP list of countries. Data for the year 2010.„Israel's accession to the OECD”Popular Opinion„On the Move”Hosea 12:5„Walking the Bible Timeline”„Palestine: History”„Return to Zion”An invention called 'the Jewish people' – Haaretz – Israel NewsoriginalJewish and Non-Jewish Population of Palestine-Israel (1517–2004)ImmigrationJewishvirtuallibrary.orgChapter One: The Heralders of Zionism„The birth of modern Israel: A scrap of paper that changed history”„League of Nations: The Mandate for Palestine, 24 iulie 1922”The Population of Palestine Prior to 1948originalBackground Paper No. 47 (ST/DPI/SER.A/47)History: Foreign DominationTwo Hundred and Seventh Plenary Meeting„Israel (Labor Zionism)”Population, by Religion and Population GroupThe Suez CrisisAdolf EichmannJustice Ministry Reply to Amnesty International Report„The Interregnum”Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs – The Palestinian National Covenant- July 1968Research on terrorism: trends, achievements & failuresThe Routledge Atlas of the Arab–Israeli conflict: The Complete History of the Struggle and the Efforts to Resolve It"George Habash, Palestinian Terrorism Tactician, Dies at 82."„1973: Arab states attack Israeli forces”Agranat Commission„Has Israel Annexed East Jerusalem?”original„After 4 Years, Intifada Still Smolders”From the End of the Cold War to 2001originalThe Oslo Accords, 1993Israel-PLO Recognition – Exchange of Letters between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat – Sept 9- 1993Foundation for Middle East PeaceSources of Population Growth: Total Israeli Population and Settler Population, 1991–2003original„Israel marks Rabin assassination”The Wye River Memorandumoriginal„West Bank barrier route disputed, Israeli missile kills 2”"Permanent Ceasefire to Be Based on Creation Of Buffer Zone Free of Armed Personnel Other than UN, Lebanese Forces"„Hezbollah kills 8 soldiers, kidnaps two in offensive on northern border”„Olmert confirms peace talks with Syria”„Battleground Gaza: Israeli ground forces invade the strip”„IDF begins Gaza troop withdrawal, hours after ending 3-week offensive”„THE LAND: Geography and Climate”„Area of districts, sub-districts, natural regions and lakes”„Israel - Geography”„Makhteshim Country”Israel and the Palestinian Territories„Makhtesh Ramon”„The Living Dead Sea”„Temperatures reach record high in Pakistan”„Climate Extremes In Israel”Israel in figures„Deuteronom”„JNF: 240 million trees planted since 1901”„Vegetation of Israel and Neighboring Countries”Environmental Law in Israel„Executive branch”„Israel's election process explained”„The Electoral System in Israel”„Constitution for Israel”„All 120 incoming Knesset members”„Statul ISRAEL”„The Judiciary: The Court System”„Israel's high court unique in region”„Israel and the International Criminal Court: A Legal Battlefield”„Localities and population, by population group, district, sub-district and natural region”„Israel: Districts, Major Cities, Urban Localities & Metropolitan Areas”„Israel-Egypt Relations: Background & Overview of Peace Treaty”„Solana to Haaretz: New Rules of War Needed for Age of Terror”„Israel's Announcement Regarding Settlements”„United Nations Security Council Resolution 497”„Security Council resolution 478 (1980) on the status of Jerusalem”„Arabs will ask U.N. to seek razing of Israeli wall”„Olmert: Willing to trade land for peace”„Mapping Peace between Syria and Israel”„Egypt: Israel must accept the land-for-peace formula”„Israel: Age structure from 2005 to 2015”„Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 306 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 188 countries, 1990–2013: quantifying the epidemiological transition”10.1016/S0140-6736(15)61340-X„World Health Statistics 2014”„Life expectancy for Israeli men world's 4th highest”„Family Structure and Well-Being Across Israel's Diverse Population”„Fertility among Jewish and Muslim Women in Israel, by Level of Religiosity, 1979-2009”„Israel leaders in birth rate, but poverty major challenge”„Ethnic Groups”„Israel's population: Over 8.5 million”„Israel - Ethnic groups”„Jews, by country of origin and age”„Minority Communities in Israel: Background & Overview”„Israel”„Language in Israel”„Selected Data from the 2011 Social Survey on Mastery of the Hebrew Language and Usage of Languages”„Religions”„5 facts about Israeli Druze, a unique religious and ethnic group”„Israël”Israel Country Study Guide„Haredi city in Negev – blessing or curse?”„New town Harish harbors hopes of being more than another Pleasantville”„List of localities, in alphabetical order”„Muncitorii români, doriți în Israel”„Prietenia româno-israeliană la nevoie se cunoaște”„The Higher Education System in Israel”„Middle East”„Academic Ranking of World Universities 2016”„Israel”„Israel”„Jewish Nobel Prize Winners”„All Nobel Prizes in Literature”„All Nobel Peace Prizes”„All Prizes in Economic Sciences”„All Nobel Prizes in Chemistry”„List of Fields Medallists”„Sakharov Prize”„Țara care și-a sfidat "destinul" și se bate umăr la umăr cu Silicon Valley”„Apple's R&D center in Israel grew to about 800 employees”„Tim Cook: Apple's Herzliya R&D center second-largest in world”„Lecții de economie de la Israel”„Land use”Israel Investment and Business GuideA Country Study: IsraelCentral Bureau of StatisticsFlorin Diaconu, „Kadima: Flexibilitate și pragmatism, dar nici un compromis în chestiuni vitale", în Revista Institutului Diplomatic Român, anul I, numărul I, semestrul I, 2006, pp. 71-72Florin Diaconu, „Likud: Dreapta israeliană constant opusă retrocedării teritoriilor cureite prin luptă în 1967", în Revista Institutului Diplomatic Român, anul I, numărul I, semestrul I, 2006, pp. 73-74MassadaIsraelul a crescut in 50 de ani cât alte state intr-un mileniuIsrael Government PortalIsraelIsraelIsraelmmmmmXX451232cb118646298(data)4027808-634110000 0004 0372 0767n7900328503691455-bb46-37e3-91d2-cb064a35ffcc1003570400564274ge1294033523775214929302638955X146498911146498911

                              Кастелфранко ди Сопра Становништво Референце Спољашње везе Мени за навигацију43°37′18″ СГШ; 11°33′32″ ИГД / 43.62156° СГШ; 11.55885° ИГД / 43.62156; 11.5588543°37′18″ СГШ; 11°33′32″ ИГД / 43.62156° СГШ; 11.55885° ИГД / 43.62156; 11.558853179688„The GeoNames geographical database”„Istituto Nazionale di Statistica”проширитиууWorldCat156923403n850174324558639-1cb14643287r(подаци)