Formal Definition of Dot ProductSpecial relativity: how to prove that $g = L^t g L$?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 coordinatesDot product of two vectors in different frame of reference?Dot product and cross product IntuitionSimple question about change of coordinatesDefinition of velocity in classical mechanicsConfusion about Change in Integration Variable

Why is LOX on top in the Space Shuttle external tank instead of the other the way round?

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

correct spelling of "carruffel" (fuzz, hustle, all that jazz)

declared variable inside void setup is forgotten in void loop

Automatically anti-predictably assemble an alliterative aria

Why are solar panels kept tilted?

Is there any good reason to write "it is easy to see"?

Do I need to say 'o`clock'?

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

Jesus' words on the Jews

Developers demotivated due to working on same project for more than 2 years

As programers say: Strive to be lazy

Frame adjustment for engine

What is the largest number of identical satellites launched together?

Why is a set not a partition of itself?

Is the expression "To think you would stoop so low" often misused?

How does emacs `shell-mode` know to prompt for sudo?

Quote from Leibniz

Help in identifying a mystery wall socket

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

Do Life Drain attacks from wights stack?

What's tha name for when you write multiple voices on same staff? And are there any cons?

Ito`s Lemma problem

Loading Latex packages into Mathematica



Formal Definition of Dot Product


Special relativity: how to prove that $g = L^t g L$?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 coordinatesDot product of two vectors in different frame of reference?Dot product and cross product IntuitionSimple question about change of coordinatesDefinition of velocity in classical mechanicsConfusion about Change in Integration Variable













1












$begingroup$


In most textbooks, dot product between two vectors is defined as:



$$<x_1,x_2,x_3> cdot <y_1,y_2,y_3> = x_1 y_1 + x_2 y_2 + x_3 y _3$$



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:



    $$<x_1,x_2,x_3> cdot <y_1,y_2,y_3> = x_1 y_1 + x_2 y_2 + x_3 y _3$$



    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:



      $$<x_1,x_2,x_3> cdot <y_1,y_2,y_3> = x_1 y_1 + x_2 y_2 + x_3 y _3$$



      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:



      $$<x_1,x_2,x_3> cdot <y_1,y_2,y_3> = x_1 y_1 + x_2 y_2 + x_3 y _3$$



      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










      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
            28 mins ago


















          1












          $begingroup$

          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
                28 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
                28 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 9 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
                28 mins ago












              • 1




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







              1




              1




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




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











              1












              $begingroup$

              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















              1












              $begingroup$

              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













              1












              1








              1





              $begingroup$

              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 24 mins ago

























                  answered 32 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 15 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

                              Log på Navigationsmenu

                              Wonderful Copenhagen (sang) Eksterne henvisninger | NavigationsmenurSide på frankloesser.comWonderful Copenhagen

                              Detroit Tigers Spis treści Historia | Skład zespołu | Sukcesy | Członkowie Baseball Hall of Fame | Zastrzeżone numery | Przypisy | Menu nawigacyjneEncyclopedia of Detroit - Detroit TigersTigers Stadium, Detroit, MITigers Timeline 1900sDetroit Tigers Team History & EncyclopediaTigers Timeline 1910s1935 World Series1945 World Series1945 World Series1984 World SeriesComerica Park, Detroit, MI2006 World Series2012 World SeriesDetroit Tigers 40-Man RosterDetroit Tigers Coaching StaffTigers Hall of FamersTigers Retired Numberse