Difference between revisions of "Calc3.2.CrossProductProof"
DavidB4-bot (talk | contribs) (Spelling/Grammar Check, typos fixed: ie, → i.e., (3), a a → a) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | ==Theorem== | + | ==[[Theorem]]== |
| − | In Cartesian coordinates, the cross product, defined as having length equal to the area of the parallelogram bordered on two sides by <math>\vec{u} \ </math> and <math>\vec{w} \ </math>, and direction perpendicular to either vector, with a right handed orientation, is given by | + | In [[Coordinate plane|Cartesian coordinates]], the cross product, defined as having length equal to the area of the [[parallelogram]] bordered on two sides by <math>\vec{u} \ </math> and <math>\vec{w} \ </math>, and direction [[perpendicular]] to either [[vector]], with a right handed orientation, is given by |
<math>\vec{u}\times\vec{w}= \begin{pmatrix}u_1\\u_2\\u_3\end{pmatrix} \times\begin{pmatrix}w_1\\w_2\\w_3\end{pmatrix} =\begin{pmatrix}u_2 w_3 - u_3 w_2\\u_3w_1-u_1w_3\\u_1w_2-u_2w_1\end{pmatrix}</math> | <math>\vec{u}\times\vec{w}= \begin{pmatrix}u_1\\u_2\\u_3\end{pmatrix} \times\begin{pmatrix}w_1\\w_2\\w_3\end{pmatrix} =\begin{pmatrix}u_2 w_3 - u_3 w_2\\u_3w_1-u_1w_3\\u_1w_2-u_2w_1\end{pmatrix}</math> | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
Let's set out to prove these three. | Let's set out to prove these three. | ||
| − | The area of | + | The area of a parallelogram with sides <math>x,y \ </math> and interior [[acute angle|acute]]<ref>The acute descriptor is unnecessary, since the obtuse angle will then be <math>\pi-\theta \ </math>, and hence the sine will be equal.</ref> angle <math>\theta \ </math> is <math>xy\sin(\theta) \ </math>. Therefore, by definition, we have |
<math>\left\|{\vec{u} \times \vec{w}}\right\| = \left\|{\vec{u}}\right\| \left\|{\vec{w}}\right\| \sin(\theta)</math> | <math>\left\|{\vec{u} \times \vec{w}}\right\| = \left\|{\vec{u}}\right\| \left\|{\vec{w}}\right\| \sin(\theta)</math> | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
===First Identity=== | ===First Identity=== | ||
| − | This definitional equation for the magnitude of the cross product immediately gives us an identity - for scalar ( | + | This definitional [[equation]] for the magnitude of the cross product immediately gives us an identity - for [[scalar]] (i.e., non-vector) value ''c'', we have: |
<math>(c\vec{u})\times\vec{w}=c(\vec{u}\times\vec{w})</math> | <math>(c\vec{u})\times\vec{w}=c(\vec{u}\times\vec{w})</math> | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
===Third Identity=== | ===Third Identity=== | ||
| − | The final identity we will require takes a little bit more finesse. Suppose we have three vectors, <math>\vec{p},\vec{q},\vec{r} \ </math>. Suppose <math>\vec{p}\neq\vec{0} \ </math>. Let <math>P \ </math> be the plane through the origin which is perpendicular to <math>\vec{p} \ </math> ( | + | The final identity we will require takes a little bit more finesse. Suppose we have three vectors, <math>\vec{p},\vec{q},\vec{r} \ </math>. Suppose <math>\vec{p}\neq\vec{0} \ </math>. Let <math>P \ </math> be the plane through the origin which is perpendicular to <math>\vec{p} \ </math> (i.e., the plane <math>p_1x+p_2y+p_3z=0</math>). If <math>\vec{q} \ </math> is any vector, let <math>\vec{q}_*</math> be the projection of <math>\vec{q}</math> into <math>P \ </math>. Clearly, <math>\left\|{ \vec{q}_* }\right\|=\left\|{ \vec{q} \ }\right\|\sin(\theta) \ </math>, and so <math>\vec{p}\times\vec{q}=\vec{p}\times\vec{q}_* \ </math>. The reader may also assure themselves if they wish that <math>(\vec{q}+\vec{r})_* = \vec{q}_*+\vec{r}_* \ </math>. |
Hence, to prove the third identity, it would suffice to prove instead <math>\vec{p}\times(\vec{q}_*+\vec{r}_*) = \vec{p}\times\vec{q}_* + \vec{p}\times\vec{r}_* \ </math>. The advantage is that the vectors <math>\vec{q}_*, \vec{r}_*, \ </math> and <math>\vec{q}_*+\vec{r}_* \ </math> are all either <math>\vec{0}</math> or perpendicular to <math>\vec{p} \ </math>. | Hence, to prove the third identity, it would suffice to prove instead <math>\vec{p}\times(\vec{q}_*+\vec{r}_*) = \vec{p}\times\vec{q}_* + \vec{p}\times\vec{r}_* \ </math>. The advantage is that the vectors <math>\vec{q}_*, \vec{r}_*, \ </math> and <math>\vec{q}_*+\vec{r}_* \ </math> are all either <math>\vec{0}</math> or perpendicular to <math>\vec{p} \ </math>. | ||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
[[Image:Cross product plane.jpg|right|200px|thumb|We imagine <math>\vec{p}</math> sticking out of the screen towards the reader. You may need to enlarge this picture.]] | [[Image:Cross product plane.jpg|right|200px|thumb|We imagine <math>\vec{p}</math> sticking out of the screen towards the reader. You may need to enlarge this picture.]] | ||
| − | So, let us assume that <math>\vec{q}_*, \vec{r}_*</math> both have non-zero magnitude and are not collinear. If we imagine <math>\vec{p}</math> sticking out of our computer monitors, pointing towards the reader, then the vectors in questions all look something like the picture on the right. | + | So, let us assume that <math>\vec{q}_*, \vec{r}_*</math> both have non-zero magnitude and are not [[collinear]]. If we imagine <math>\vec{p}</math> sticking out of our computer monitors, pointing towards the reader, then the vectors in questions all look something like the picture on the right. |
| − | If <math>\vec{s}</math> is any vector in the plane of your screen ( | + | If <math>\vec{s}</math> is any vector in the plane of your screen (i.e., <math>p_1x+p_2y+p_3z=0</math>), then <math>\vec{p}\times\vec{s}</math> is ''also'' in the plane of your screen. It will make a <math>90^\circ=\pi/2</math> angle with <math>\vec{s}</math> and have magnitude <math>\left\|{ \vec{p} }\right\| \left\|{ \vec{s} }\right\|</math>, since <math>\sin(90^\circ)=1</math>. This gives rise to the picture at right. Letting <math>\vec{s}</math> be each of <math>\vec{q}_*, \vec{r}_*, \vec{q}_*+\vec{r}_*</math>, we see that the vectors <math>\vec{p}\times\vec{q}_*, \vec{p}\times\vec{r}_*, \vec{p}\times(\vec{q}_*+\vec{r}_*)</math> have the same configuration as <math>\vec{q}_*, \vec{r}_*, \vec{q}_*+\vec{r}_*</math>, just rotated <math>90^\circ</math> and multiplied by <math>\left\|{ \vec{p} \ }\right\|</math>. Convince yourself that this picture demonstrates <math>\vec{p}\times(\vec{q}_*+\vec{r}_*) = \vec{p}\times\vec{q}_* + \vec{p}\times\vec{r}_* \ </math>. |
===Putting it all together=== | ===Putting it all together=== | ||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
==Notes== | ==Notes== | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
| − | [[ | + | [[Category:Mathematics]] |
Latest revision as of 14:58, July 14, 2016
Theorem
In Cartesian coordinates, the cross product, defined as having length equal to the area of the parallelogram bordered on two sides by <math>\vec{u} \ </math> and <math>\vec{w} \ </math>, and direction perpendicular to either vector, with a right handed orientation, is given by
<math>\vec{u}\times\vec{w}= \begin{pmatrix}u_1\\u_2\\u_3\end{pmatrix} \times\begin{pmatrix}w_1\\w_2\\w_3\end{pmatrix} =\begin{pmatrix}u_2 w_3 - u_3 w_2\\u_3w_1-u_1w_3\\u_1w_2-u_2w_1\end{pmatrix}</math>
Proof
To prove this theorem, we will need several identities about the cross product:
<math>(c\vec{u})\times\vec{w}=c(\vec{u}\times\vec{w})</math>
<math>\vec{u} \times \vec{w} = -(\vec{w} \times \vec{u}) \ </math>
<math>\vec{p}\times(\vec{q}+\vec{r})=(\vec{p}\times\vec{q})+(\vec{p}\times\vec{r})</math>
Let's set out to prove these three.
The area of a parallelogram with sides <math>x,y \ </math> and interior acute[1] angle <math>\theta \ </math> is <math>xy\sin(\theta) \ </math>. Therefore, by definition, we have
<math>\left\|{\vec{u} \times \vec{w}}\right\| = \left\|{\vec{u}}\right\| \left\|{\vec{w}}\right\| \sin(\theta)</math>
where <math>\theta \ </math> is the angle between the two vectors.
First Identity
This definitional equation for the magnitude of the cross product immediately gives us an identity - for scalar (i.e., non-vector) value c, we have:
<math>(c\vec{u})\times\vec{w}=c(\vec{u}\times\vec{w})</math>
Second Identity
Since our definitional equation for the magnitude of the cross product also has the property that <math>\left\|{\vec{u} \times \vec{w}}\right\| = \left\|{\vec{w} \times \vec{u}}\right\|</math>, we can combine this fact with the "right-handed orientation" part of the definition to get another identity:
<math>\vec{u} \times \vec{w} = -(\vec{w} \times \vec{u}) \ </math>
Third Identity
The final identity we will require takes a little bit more finesse. Suppose we have three vectors, <math>\vec{p},\vec{q},\vec{r} \ </math>. Suppose <math>\vec{p}\neq\vec{0} \ </math>. Let <math>P \ </math> be the plane through the origin which is perpendicular to <math>\vec{p} \ </math> (i.e., the plane <math>p_1x+p_2y+p_3z=0</math>). If <math>\vec{q} \ </math> is any vector, let <math>\vec{q}_*</math> be the projection of <math>\vec{q}</math> into <math>P \ </math>. Clearly, <math>\left\|{ \vec{q}_* }\right\|=\left\|{ \vec{q} \ }\right\|\sin(\theta) \ </math>, and so <math>\vec{p}\times\vec{q}=\vec{p}\times\vec{q}_* \ </math>. The reader may also assure themselves if they wish that <math>(\vec{q}+\vec{r})_* = \vec{q}_*+\vec{r}_* \ </math>.
Hence, to prove the third identity, it would suffice to prove instead <math>\vec{p}\times(\vec{q}_*+\vec{r}_*) = \vec{p}\times\vec{q}_* + \vec{p}\times\vec{r}_* \ </math>. The advantage is that the vectors <math>\vec{q}_*, \vec{r}_*, \ </math> and <math>\vec{q}_*+\vec{r}_* \ </math> are all either <math>\vec{0}</math> or perpendicular to <math>\vec{p} \ </math>.
If either <math>\vec{q}_*, \vec{r}_*=\vec{0}</math>, then the identity we seek is certainly true, and if they are collinear, then one is a multiple of the other and the identity we seek follows from application of our first two identities.
So, let us assume that <math>\vec{q}_*, \vec{r}_*</math> both have non-zero magnitude and are not collinear. If we imagine <math>\vec{p}</math> sticking out of our computer monitors, pointing towards the reader, then the vectors in questions all look something like the picture on the right.
If <math>\vec{s}</math> is any vector in the plane of your screen (i.e., <math>p_1x+p_2y+p_3z=0</math>), then <math>\vec{p}\times\vec{s}</math> is also in the plane of your screen. It will make a <math>90^\circ=\pi/2</math> angle with <math>\vec{s}</math> and have magnitude <math>\left\|{ \vec{p} }\right\| \left\|{ \vec{s} }\right\|</math>, since <math>\sin(90^\circ)=1</math>. This gives rise to the picture at right. Letting <math>\vec{s}</math> be each of <math>\vec{q}_*, \vec{r}_*, \vec{q}_*+\vec{r}_*</math>, we see that the vectors <math>\vec{p}\times\vec{q}_*, \vec{p}\times\vec{r}_*, \vec{p}\times(\vec{q}_*+\vec{r}_*)</math> have the same configuration as <math>\vec{q}_*, \vec{r}_*, \vec{q}_*+\vec{r}_*</math>, just rotated <math>90^\circ</math> and multiplied by <math>\left\|{ \vec{p} \ }\right\|</math>. Convince yourself that this picture demonstrates <math>\vec{p}\times(\vec{q}_*+\vec{r}_*) = \vec{p}\times\vec{q}_* + \vec{p}\times\vec{r}_* \ </math>.
Putting it all together
Since the vectors <math>\vec{i},\vec{j},\vec{k}</math> are all perpendicular to each other, their cross products are very easy to compute:
<math>\vec{i}\times\vec{i}=\vec{0} \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \vec{i}\times\vec{j}=\vec{k} \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \vec{i}\times\vec{k}=-\vec{j} </math>
<math>\vec{j}\times\vec{i}=-\vec{k} \ \ \ \ \ \ \vec{j}\times\vec{j}=\vec{0} \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \vec{j}\times\vec{k}=\vec{i} </math>
<math>\vec{k}\times\vec{i}=\vec{j} \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \vec{k}\times\vec{j}=-\vec{i} \ \ \ \ \ \vec{k}\times\vec{k}=\vec{0} </math>
Using these formulas, and our identities, we can break take two vectors given by their components, and obtain the formula for the cross product. We leave this simple task as an exercise.
Notes
- â The acute descriptor is unnecessary, since the obtuse angle will then be <math>\pi-\theta \ </math>, and hence the sine will be equal.