To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Comparison of vector algebra and geometric algebra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Geometric algebra is an extension of vector algebra, providing additional algebraic structures on vector spaces, with geometric interpretations.

Vector algebra uses all dimensions and signatures, as does geometric algebra, notably 3+1 spacetime as well as 2 dimensions.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    232 623
    620 463
    4 895
    970 607
    4 175
  • Dot and cross product comparison/intuition | Vectors and spaces | Linear Algebra | Khan Academy
  • Vector dot product and vector length | Vectors and spaces | Linear Algebra | Khan Academy
  • Quarks and leptons as ideals of the Clifford algebra CL(6) (Video 11/14)
  • Linear subspaces | Vectors and spaces | Linear Algebra | Khan Academy
  • Geometric Algebra in 3D - Fundamentals

Transcription

We've known for several videos now that the dot product of two nonzero vectors, a and b, is equal to the length of vector a times the length of vector b times the cosine of the angle between them. Let me draw a and b just to make it clear. If that's my vector a and that's my vector b right there, the angle between them is this angle. And we defined it in this way. And actually, if you ever want to solve-- if you have two vectors and you want to solve for that angle, and I've never done this before explicitly. And I thought, well, I might as well do it right now. You could just solve for your theta. So it would be a dot b divided by the lengths of your two vectors multiplied by each other is equal to the cosine of theta. And then to solve for theta you would have to take the inverse cosine of both sides, or the arc cosine of both sides, and you would get theta is equal to arc cosine of a dot b over the magnitudes or the lengths of the products of, or the lengths of each of those vectors, multiplied by each other. So if I give you two arbitrary vectors-- and the neat thing about it is, this might be pretty straightforward. If I just drew something in two dimensions right here, you could just take your protractor out and measure this angle. But if a and b each have a hundred components, it becomes hard to visualize the idea of an angle between the two vectors. But you don't need to visualize them anymore because you just have to calculate this thing right here. You just have to calculate this value right there. And then go to your calculator and then type in arc cosine, or the inverse cosine that are the equivalent functions, and it'll give you an angle. And that, by definition, is the angle between those two vectors, which is a very neat concept. And then you can start addressing issues of perpendicularity and whatever else. This was a bit of a tangent. But the other outcome that I painstakingly proved to you in the previous video was that the length of the cross product of two vectors is equal to-- it's a very similar expression. It's equal to the product of the two vectors' lengths, so the length of a times the length of b times the sine of the angle between them. Times the sign of the angle between them. So it's the same angle. So what I want to do is take these two ideas and this was a bit of a diversion there just to kind of show you how to solve for theta because I realized I've never done that for you before. But what I want to do is I want to take this expression up here and this expression up here and see if we can develop an intuition, at least in R3 because right now we've only defined our cross product. Or the cross product of two vectors is only defined in R3. Let's take these two ideas in R3 and see if we can develop an intuition. And I've done a very similar video in the physics playlist where I compare the dot product to the cross product. Now, if I'm talking about-- let me redraw my vectors. So the length of a-- so let me draw a. b, I want to do it bigger than that. So let me do it like that. So that is my vector b. So this is b. That is a. What is the length of a times the length of b times the cosine of the angle? So let me do that right there. So this is the angle. So the length of a if I were to draw these vectors is this length right here. This is the length of a. It's this distance right here, the way I've drawn this vector. So this is, literally, the length of vector a. And I'm doing it in R3 or maybe a version of it that I can fit onto my little blackboard right here. So it'll just be the length of this line right there. And then the length of b is the length of that line right there. So that is the length of b. Let me rewrite this thing up here. Let me write it as b, the length of b times the length-- and I want to be careful. I don't want to do the dot there because you'll think it's a dot product. Times a cosine of theta. All I did is I rearranged this thing here. It's the same thing as a dot b. Well what is a times the cosine of theta? Let's get out our basic trigonometry tools-- SOH CAH TOA. Cosine of theta is equal to adjacent over hypotenuse. So if I drop, if I create a right triangle here, and let me introduce some new colors just to ease the monotony. If I drop a right triangle right here and I create a right triangle right there, and this is theta, than what is the cosine of theta? It's equal to this. Let me do it another color. It's equal to this, the adjacent side. It's equal to this little magenta thing. Not all of b, just this part that goes up to my right angle. That's my adjacent. I want to do it a little bit bigger. It's equal to the adjacent side over the hypotenuse. So let me write this down. So cosine of theta is equal to this little adjacent side. I'm just going to write it like that. Is equal to this adjacent side over the hypotenuse. But what is the hypotenuse? It is the length of vector a. It's this. That's my hypotenuse right there. So my hypotenuse is the length of vector a. And so if I multiply both sides by the length of vector a I get the length of vector a times the cosine of theta is equal to the adjacent side. I'll do that in magenta. So this expression right here, which was just a dot b can be rewritten as-- I just told you that the length of vector a times cosine of theta is equal to this little magenta adjacent side. So this is equal to the adjacent side. So you can view a dot b as being equal to the length of vector b-- that length-- times that adjacent side. And you're saying, Sal, what does that do for me? Well what it tells you is you're multiplying essentially, the length of vector b times the amount of vector a that's going in the same direction as vector b. You can kind of view this as the shadow of vector a. And I'll talk about projections in the future. And I'll more formally define them, but if the word projection helps you, just think of that word. If you have a light that shines down from above, this adjacent side is kind of like the shadow of a onto vector b. And you can imagine, if these two vectors-- if our two vectors looked more like this, if they were really going in the same direction. Let's say that's vector a and that's vector b, then the adjacent side that I care about is going to-- they're going to have a lot more in common. The part of a that is going in the same direction of b will be a lot larger. So this will have a larger dot product. Because the dot product is essentially saying, how much of those vectors are going in the same direction? But it's just a number, so it will just be this adjacent side times the length of b. And what if I had vectors that are pretty perpendicular to each other? So what if I had two vectors that were like this? What if my vector a looked like that and my vector b looked like that? Well now the adjacent, the way I define it here, if I had to make a right triangle like that, the adjacent side's very small. So you're dot product, even though a is still a reasonably large vector, is now much smaller because a and b have very little commonality in the same direction. And you can do it the other way. You could draw this down like that and you could do the adjacent the other way, but it doesn't matter because these a's and b's are arbitrary. So the take away is the fact that a dot b is equal to the lengths of each of those times the cosine of theta. To me it says that the dot product tells me how much are my vectors moving together? Or the product of the part of the vectors that are moving together. Product of the lengths of the vectors that are moving together or in the same direction. You could view this adjacent side here as the part of a that's going in the direction of b. That's the part of a that's going in the direction of b. So you're multiplying that times b itself. So that's what the dot product is. How much are two things going in the same direction. And notice, when two things are orthogonal or when they're perpendicular-- when a dot b is equal to 0, we say they're perpendicular. And that makes complete sense based on this kind of intuition of what the dot product is doing. Because that means that they're perfectly perpendicular. So that's b and that's a. And so the adjacent part of a, if I had to draw a right trianlge, it would come straight down. And if I were to say the projection of a and I haven't draw that. Or if I put a light shining down from above and I'd say what's the shadow of a onto b? You'd get nothing. You'd get 0. This arrow has no width, even though I've drawn it to have some width. It has no width. So you would have a 0 down here. The part of a that goes in the same direction as b. No part of this vector goes in the same direction as this vector. So you're going to have this 0 kind of adjacent side times b, so you're going to get something that's 0. So hopefully that makes a little sense. Now let's think about the cross product. The cross product tells us well, the length of a cross b, I painstakingly showed, you is equal to the length of a times the length of b times the sin of the angle between them. So let me do the same example. Let me draw my two vectors. That's my vector a and this is my vector b. And now sin-- SOH CAH TOA. So sin of theta, let me write that. Sin of theta-- SOH CAH TOA-- is equal to opposite over the hypotenuse. So if I were to draw a little right triangle here, so if I were to draw a perpendicular right there, this is theta. What is the sin of theta equal to in this context? The sin of theta is equal to what? It's equal to this side over here. Let me call that just the opposite. It's equal to the opposite side over the hypotenuse. So the hypotenuse is the length of this vector a right there. It's the length of this vector a. So the hypotenuse is the length over my vector a. So if I multiply both sides of this by my length of vector a, I get the length of vector a times the sin of theta is equal to the opposite side. So if we rearrange this a little bit, I can rewrite this as equal to-- I'm just going to swap them. I have to do the dot product as well. This is equal to b, the length of vector b, times the length of vector a sin of theta. Well this thing is just the opposite side as I've defined it right here. So this right here is just the opposite side, this side right there. So when we're taking the cross product, we're essentially multiplying the length of vector b times the part of a that's going perpendicular to b. This opposite side is the part of a that's going perpendicular to b. So they're kind of opposite ideas. The dot product, you're multiplying the part of a that's going in the same direction as b with b. While when you're taking the cross product, you're multiplying the part of a that's going in the perpendicular direction to b with the length of b. It's a measure, especially when you take the length of this, it's a measure of how perpendicular these two guys are. And this is, it's a measure of how much do they move in the same direction? And let's just look at a couple of examples. So if you take two right triangles. So if that's a and that's-- or if you take two vectors that are perpendicular to each other, the length of a cross b is going to be equal to-- if we just use this formula right there-- the length of a times the length of b. And what's the sin of 90 degrees? It's 1. So in this case you kind of have maximized the length of your cross product. This is as high as it can go. Because sin of theta, it's a maximum value. Sin of theta is always less than or equal to 1. So this is as good as you're ever going to get. This is the highest possible value when you have perfectly perpendicular vectors. Now, when is-- actually, just to kind of go back to make the same point here. When do you get the maximum value for your cosine of-- for your dot product? Well, it's when your two vectors are collinear. If my vector a looks like that and my vector b is essentially another vector that's going in the same direction, then theta is 0. There's no angle between them. And then you have a dot b is equal to the magnitude or the length of vector a times the length of vector b times the cosine of the angle between them. The cosine of the angle between them, the cosine of that angle is 0. Or the angle is 0, so the cosine of that is 1. So when you have two vectors that go exactly in the same direction or they're collinear, you kind of maximize your dot product. You maximize your cross product when they're perfectly perpendicular to each other. And just to make the analogy clear, when they're perpendicular to each other you've minimized-- or at least the magnitude of your dot product. You can get negative dot products, but the absolute size of your dot product, the absolute value of your dot product is minimized when they're perpendicular to each other. Similarly, if you were to take two vectors that are collinear and they're moving in the same direction, so if that's vector a, and then I have vector b that just is another vector that I want to draw them on top of each other. But I think you get the idea. Let's say vector b is like that. Then theta is 0. You can't even see it. It's been squeezed out. I've just brought these two things on top of each other. And then the cross product in this situation, a cross b is equal to-- well, the length of both of these things times the sin of theta. Sin of 0 is 0. So it's just 0. So two collinear vectors, the magnitude of their cross product is 0. But the magnitude of their dot product, the a dot b, is going to be maximized. It's going to be as high as you can get. It's going to be the length of a times the length of b. Now the opposite scenario is right here. When they're perpendicular to each other, the cross product is maximized because it's measuring on how much of the vectors-- how much of the perpendicular part of a is-- multiplying that times the length of b. And then when you have two orthogonal vectors, your dot product is minimized, or the absolute value of your dot product. So a dot b in this case, is equal to 0. Anyway, I wanted to make all of this clear because sometimes you kind of get into the formulas and the definitions and you lose the intuition about what are all of these ideas really for? And actually, before I move on, let me just make another kind of idea about what the cross product can be interpreted as. Because a cross product tends to give people more trouble. That's my a and that's my b. What if I wanted to figure out the area of this parallelogram? If I were to shift a and have that there and if I were to shift b and draw a line parallel to b, and if I wanted to figure out the area of this parallelogram right there, how would I do it just using regular geometry? Well I would drop a perpendicular right there. This is perpendicular and this length is h for height. Then the area of this, the area of the parallelogram is just equal to the length of my base, which is just the length of vector b times my height. But what is my height? Let me just draw a little theta there. Let me do a green theta, it's more visible. So theta. So we know already that the sin of this theta is equal to the opposite over the hypotenuse. So it's equal to the height over the hypotenuse. The hypotenuse is just the length of vector a. So it's just the length of vector a. Or we could just solve for height and we'd get the height is equal to the length of vector a times the sin of theta. So I can rewrite this here. I can replace it with that and I get the area of this parallelogram is equal to the length of vector b times the length of vector a sin theta. Well this is just the length of the cross product of the two vectors, a cross b. This is the same thing. I mean you can rearrange the a and the b. So we now have another way of thinking about what the cross product is. The cross product of two vectors, or at least the magnitude or the length of the cross product of two vectors-- obviously, the cross product you're going to get a third vector. But the length of that third vector is equal to the area of the parallelogram that's defined or that's kind of-- that you can create from those two vectors. Anyway, hopefully you found this a little bit intuitive and it'll give you a little bit more of kind of a sense of what the dot product and cross product are all about.

Basic concepts and operations

Geometric algebra (GA) is an extension or completion of vector algebra (VA).[1] The reader is herein assumed to be familiar with the basic concepts and operations of VA and this article will mainly concern itself with operations in the GA of 3D space (nor is this article intended to be mathematically rigorous). In GA, vectors are not normally written boldface as the meaning is usually clear from the context.

The fundamental difference is that GA provides a new product of vectors called the "geometric product". Elements of GA are graded multivectors: scalars are grade 0, usual vectors are grade 1, bivectors are grade 2 and the highest grade (3 in the 3D case) is traditionally called the pseudoscalar and designated .

The ungeneralized 3D vector form of the geometric product is:[2]

that is the sum of the usual dot (inner) product and the outer (exterior) product (this last is closely related to the cross product and will be explained below).

In VA, entities such as pseudovectors and pseudoscalars need to be bolted on, whereas in GA the equivalent bivector and pseudovector respectively exist naturally as subspaces of the algebra.

For example, applying vector calculus in 2 dimensions, such as to compute torque or curl, requires adding an artificial 3rd dimension and extending the vector field to be constant in that dimension, or alternately considering these to be scalars. The torque or curl is then a normal vector field in this 3rd dimension. By contrast, geometric algebra in 2 dimensions defines these as a pseudoscalar field (a bivector), without requiring a 3rd dimension. Similarly, the scalar triple product is ad hoc, and can instead be expressed uniformly using the exterior product and the geometric product.

Translations between formalisms

Here are some comparisons between standard vector relations and their corresponding exterior product and geometric product equivalents. All the exterior and geometric product equivalents here are good for more than three dimensions, and some also for two. In two dimensions the cross product is undefined even if what it describes (like torque) is perfectly well defined in a plane without introducing an arbitrary normal vector outside of the space.

Many of these relationships only require the introduction of the exterior product to generalize, but since that may not be familiar to somebody with only a background in vector algebra and calculus, some examples are given.

Cross and exterior products

The cross product in relation to the exterior product. In red are the orthogonal unit vector, and the "parallel" unit bivector.

is perpendicular to the plane containing and .
is an oriented representation of the same plane.

We have the pseudoscalar (right handed orthonormal frame) and so

returns a bivector and
returns a vector perpendicular to the plane.

This yields a convenient definition for the cross product of traditional vector algebra:

(this is antisymmetric). Relevant is the distinction between polar and axial vectors in vector algebra, which is natural in geometric algebra as the distinction between vectors and bivectors (elements of grade two).

The here is a unit pseudoscalar of Euclidean 3-space, which establishes a duality between the vectors and the bivectors, and is named so because of the expected property

The equivalence of the cross product and the exterior product expression above can be confirmed by direct multiplication of with a determinant expansion of the exterior product

See also Cross product as an exterior product. Essentially, the geometric product of a bivector and the pseudoscalar of Euclidean 3-space provides a method of calculation of the Hodge dual.

Cross and commutator products

The pseudovector/bivector subalgebra of the geometric algebra of Euclidean 3-dimensional space form a 3-dimensional vector space themselves. Let the standard unit pseudovectors/bivectors of the subalgebra be , , and , and the anti-commutative commutator product be defined as , where is the geometric product. The commutator product is distributive over addition and linear, as the geometric product is distributive over addition and linear.

From the definition of the commutator product, , and satisfy the following equalities:

which imply, by the anti-commutativity of the commutator product, that

The anti-commutativity of the commutator product also implies that

These equalities and properties are sufficient to determine the commutator product of any two pseudovectors/bivectors and . As the pseudovectors/bivectors form a vector space, each pseudovector/bivector can be defined as the sum of three orthogonal components parallel to the standard basis pseudovectors/bivectors:

Their commutator product can be expanded using its distributive property:

which is precisely the cross product in vector algebra for pseudovectors.

Norm of a vector

Ordinarily:

Making use of the geometric product and the fact that the exterior product of a vector with itself is zero:

Lagrange identity

In three dimensions the product of two vector lengths can be expressed in terms of the dot and cross products

The corresponding generalization expressed using the geometric product is

This follows from expanding the geometric product of a pair of vectors with its reverse

Determinant expansion of cross and wedge products

Linear algebra texts will often use the determinant for the solution of linear systems by Cramer's rule or for and matrix inversion.

An alternative treatment is to axiomatically introduce the wedge product, and then demonstrate that this can be used directly to solve linear systems. This is shown below, and does not require sophisticated math skills to understand.

It is then possible to define determinants as nothing more than the coefficients of the wedge product in terms of "unit k-vectors" ( terms) expansions as above.

A one-by-one determinant is the coefficient of for an 1-vector.
A two-by-two determinant is the coefficient of for an bivector
A three-by-three determinant is the coefficient of for an trivector
...

When linear system solution is introduced via the wedge product, Cramer's rule follows as a side-effect, and there is no need to lead up to the end results with definitions of minors, matrices, matrix invertibility, adjoints, cofactors, Laplace expansions, theorems on determinant multiplication and row column exchanges, and so forth.

Matrix Related

Matrix inversion (Cramer's rule) and determinants can be naturally expressed in terms of the wedge product.

The use of the wedge product in the solution of linear equations can be quite useful for various geometric product calculations.

Traditionally, instead of using the wedge product, Cramer's rule is usually presented as a generic algorithm that can be used to solve linear equations of the form (or equivalently to invert a matrix). Namely

This is a useful theoretic result. For numerical problems row reduction with pivots and other methods are more stable and efficient.

When the wedge product is coupled with the Clifford product and put into a natural geometric context, the fact that the determinants are used in the expression of parallelogram area and parallelepiped volumes (and higher-dimensional generalizations thereof) also comes as a nice side-effect.

As is also shown below, results such as Cramer's rule also follow directly from the wedge product's selection of non-identical elements. The result is then simple enough that it could be derived easily if required instead of having to remember or look up a rule.

Two variables example

Pre- and post-multiplying by and ,

Provided the solution is

For , this is Cramer's rule since the factors of the wedge products

divide out.

Similarly, for three, or N variables, the same ideas hold

Again, for the three variable three equation case this is Cramer's rule since the factors of all the wedge products divide out, leaving the familiar determinants.

A numeric example with three equations and two unknowns: In case there are more equations than variables and the equations have a solution, then each of the k-vector quotients will be scalars.

To illustrate here is the solution of a simple example with three equations and two unknowns.

The right wedge product with solves for

and a left wedge product with solves for

Observe that both of these equations have the same factor, so one can compute this only once (if this was zero it would indicate the system of equations has no solution).

Collection of results for and yields a Cramer's rule-like form:

Writing , we have the result:

Equation of a plane

For the plane of all points through the plane passing through three independent points , , and , the normal form of the equation is

The equivalent wedge product equation is

Projection and rejection

Using the Gram–Schmidt process a single vector can be decomposed into two components with respect to a reference vector, namely the projection onto a unit vector in a reference direction, and the difference between the vector and that projection.

With, , the projection of onto is

Orthogonal to that vector is the difference, designated the rejection,

The rejection can be expressed as a single geometric algebraic product in a few different ways

The similarity in form between the projection and the rejection is notable. The sum of these recovers the original vector

Here the projection is in its customary vector form. An alternate formulation is possible that puts the projection in a form that differs from the usual vector formulation

Working backwards from the result, it can be observed that this orthogonal decomposition result can in fact follow more directly from the definition of the geometric product itself.

With this approach, the original geometrical consideration is not necessarily obvious, but it is a much quicker way to get at the same algebraic result.

However, the hint that one can work backwards, coupled with the knowledge that the wedge product can be used to solve sets of linear equations (see: [1] ), the problem of orthogonal decomposition can be posed directly,

Let , where . To discard the portions of that are colinear with , take the exterior product

Here the geometric product can be employed

Because the geometric product is invertible, this can be solved for x:

The same techniques can be applied to similar problems, such as calculation of the component of a vector in a plane and perpendicular to the plane.

For three dimensions the projective and rejective components of a vector with respect to an arbitrary non-zero unit vector, can be expressed in terms of the dot and cross product

For the general case the same result can be written in terms of the dot and wedge product and the geometric product of that and the unit vector

It's also worthwhile to point out that this result can also be expressed using right or left vector division as defined by the geometric product:

Like vector projection and rejection, higher-dimensional analogs of that calculation are also possible using the geometric product.

As an example, one can calculate the component of a vector perpendicular to a plane and the projection of that vector onto the plane.

Let , where . As above, to discard the portions of that are colinear with or , take the wedge product

Having done this calculation with a vector projection, one can guess that this quantity equals . One can also guess there is a vector and bivector dot product like quantity such that the allows the calculation of the component of a vector that is in the "direction of a plane". Both of these guesses are correct, and validating these facts is worthwhile. However, skipping ahead slightly, this to-be-proven fact allows for a nice closed form solution of the vector component outside of the plane:

Notice the similarities between this planar rejection result and the vector rejection result. To calculate the component of a vector outside of a plane we take the volume spanned by three vectors (trivector) and "divide out" the plane.

Independent of any use of the geometric product it can be shown that this rejection in terms of the standard basis is

where

is the squared area of the parallelogram formed by , and .

The (squared) magnitude of is

Thus, the (squared) volume of the parallelopiped (base area times perpendicular height) is

Note the similarity in form to the w, u, v trivector itself

which, if you take the set of as a basis for the trivector space, suggests this is the natural way to define the measure of a trivector. Loosely speaking, the measure of a vector is a length, the measure of a bivector is an area, and the measure of a trivector is a volume.

If a vector is factored directly into projective and rejective terms using the geometric product , then it is not necessarily obvious that the rejection term, a product of vector and bivector is even a vector. Expansion of the vector bivector product in terms of the standard basis vectors has the following form

Let

It can be shown that

(a result that can be shown more easily straight from ).

The rejective term is perpendicular to , since implies .

The magnitude of is

So, the quantity

is the squared area of the parallelogram formed by and .

It is also noteworthy that the bivector can be expressed as

Thus is it natural, if one considers each term as a basis vector of the bivector space, to define the (squared) "length" of that bivector as the (squared) area.

Going back to the geometric product expression for the length of the rejection we see that the length of the quotient, a vector, is in this case is the "length" of the bivector divided by the length of the divisor.

This may not be a general result for the length of the product of two k-vectors, however it is a result that may help build some intuition about the significance of the algebraic operations. Namely,

When a vector is divided out of the plane (parallelogram span) formed from it and another vector, what remains is the perpendicular component of the remaining vector, and its length is the planar area divided by the length of the vector that was divided out.

Area of the parallelogram defined by u and v

If A is the area of the parallelogram defined by u and v, then

and

Note that this squared bivector is a geometric multiplication; this computation can alternatively be stated as the Gram determinant of the two vectors.

Angle between two vectors

Volume of the parallelopiped formed by three vectors

In vector algebra, the volume of a parallelopiped is given by the square root of the squared norm of the scalar triple product:

Product of a vector and a bivector

In order to justify the normal to a plane result above, a general examination of the product of a vector and bivector is required. Namely,

This has two parts, the vector part where or , and the trivector parts where no indexes equal. After some index summation trickery, and grouping terms and so forth, this is

The trivector term is . Expansion of yields the same trivector term (it is the completely symmetric part), and the vector term is negated. Like the geometric product of two vectors, this geometric product can be grouped into symmetric and antisymmetric parts, one of which is a pure k-vector. In analogy the antisymmetric part of this product can be called a generalized dot product, and is roughly speaking the dot product of a "plane" (bivector), and a vector.

The properties of this generalized dot product remain to be explored, but first here is a summary of the notation

Let , where , and . Expressing and the , products in terms of these components is

With the conditions and definitions above, and some manipulation, it can be shown that the term , which then justifies the previous solution of the normal to a plane problem. Since the vector term of the vector bivector product the name dot product is zero when the vector is perpendicular to the plane (bivector), and this vector, bivector "dot product" selects only the components that are in the plane, so in analogy to the vector-vector dot product this name itself is justified by more than the fact this is the non-wedge product term of the geometric vector-bivector product.

Derivative of a unit vector

It can be shown that a unit vector derivative can be expressed using the cross product

The equivalent geometric product generalization is

Thus this derivative is the component of in the direction perpendicular to . In other words, this is minus the projection of that vector onto .

This intuitively makes sense (but a picture would help) since a unit vector is constrained to circular motion, and any change to a unit vector due to a change in its generating vector has to be in the direction of the rejection of from . That rejection has to be scaled by 1/|r| to get the final result.

When the objective isn't comparing to the cross product, it's also notable that this unit vector derivative can be written

See also

Citations

References and further reading

  • Vold, Terje G. (1993), "An introduction to Geometric Algebra with an Application in Rigid Body mechanics" (PDF), American Journal of Physics, 61 (6): 491, Bibcode:1993AmJPh..61..491V, doi:10.1119/1.17201
  • Gull, S.F.; Lasenby, A.N; Doran, C:J:L (1993), Imaginary Numbers are not Real – the Geometric Algebra of Spacetime (PDF)
This page was last edited on 14 February 2024, at 23:43
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.