Live data from Hacker News

What is the inverse of a vector?

mattferraro.dev

71–80 of 198 posts

Re: What is the inverse of a vector?

#71
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As vectors, obviously they have inverses, additive inverses. Since vectors don't have multiplication, there is no multiplicative inverse A vector is pretty much by definition also a matrix, and there is a standard way to multiply matrices. You can define several inverses of a vector that way, though you can't define a unique inverse. The standard inner product is of course also an exceptionally typical way to multi…

No, a vector is defined as an object that has certain properties, like addition and scalar multiplication. It's a very general, and abstract concept. There are vector spaces of functions, with infinite dimension, but there are also vector spaces with a finite number of elements. So only some vectors can even be written as 1xN matrices, if that is what you're referring to. But even if you write a vector that way, it d…

What you say is mostly correct, but only for a certain meaning of the word "vector", which has been used with 2 distinct meanings since its introduction in the first half of the 19th century.

The set of elements defined by certain properties of their addition and of their multiplication with the elements belonging to a set of scalars is named "vector space" by some and "linear space" by others.

According to the etymology of the word vector, "linear space" would be more appropriate. You have used "vector" with the meaning "element of a linear space", and what you have said is correct, except that for any "vector" as an element of a linear space, considered as a column vector, there exists a corresponding row vector, even in the infinite-dimensional case.

"Vector" means translation of the space, and this is what "vector" meant when the word was introduced by Hamilton. While the set of translations is a linear space a.k.a. a vector space in the generalized sense, the set of translations, i.e. vectors in the strict sense, has additional properties due to the multiplication operations that must be defined for "vectors" in their strict sense (which are needed e.g. to determine the angles between translations and the distances).

"Vectors" as elements of linear spaces are a very general notion, which appears in many domains, and for all linear spaces, including for those infinite-dimensional, you can define matrices, i.e. linear functions, and matrix multiplication, i.e. composition of linear functions, and also the correspondence between a 1xN vector and a Nx1 vector, more correctly between a vector and an associated linear form. The latter also exists for the infinite-dimensional case, even if it is less likely to use names like row vectors and column vectors (though the names bra vectors and ket vectors are still in use for the infinite-dimensional case).

For the infinite-dimensional case the vectors and the matrices become functions of 1 or of 2 parameters and the sums from the formulas of matrix multiplication become integrals.

While for most computer applications, "vectors" refer just to elements of linear spaces, most "vectors" used in models of physical systems are vectors in the original sense of the word, where not only the vector addition and the product with scalars matter, but the products of vectors also have an essential role and their meaning can be best understood in the context of the complete geometric algebra theory.

Re: What is the inverse of a vector?

#72
post #48
post #24

English/American style of explanation fascinates me. First, they show some algebra formulas and mention dot product and cross product. But then they start introducing a definition of a vector! With images! Why, oh why do you need to waste yours and reader's time to introduce basic definitions, if any reader of the article definitely knows that? If they haven't, they wouldn't be able to read the first paragraph at all…

There's an urban legend at Swedish universities that American text book authors get paid by the word, and that's why their books are so incredibly verbose.

When I studied physics at the university, our undergraduate textbooks where relatively thin volumes (e.g. Alonso&Finn I-III), whereas the engineering students had these massive textbooks (Young&Freedman etc.). When looking into these massive tomes, yes, they spend a lot of words, but also they apparently don't expect the reader to be able to apply calculus. So instead of showing, say, Coulomb's law, and assuming the reader is capable of integrating to calculate the interaction between a point charge and a line, they have a section describing the interaction between two point charges. Then an entirely separate section describing the interaction between a point charge and a line, with the formula as given without actually explaining that, hey, this formula, you know, results if we take the fundamental law and do this and that. Incredibly infuriating.

Re: What is the inverse of a vector?

#73
post #24

English/American style of explanation fascinates me. First, they show some algebra formulas and mention dot product and cross product. But then they start introducing a definition of a vector! With images! Why, oh why do you need to waste yours and reader's time to introduce basic definitions, if any reader of the article definitely knows that? If they haven't, they wouldn't be able to read the first paragraph at all…

When you are writing to a general audience you can't assume what the reader knows or does not know.

I disagree -- whenever you write anything, you always assume something about your audience. In other words, there's no such thing as "general audience". E.g. in OP's article, people are already interested in Math, otherwise they wouldn't click to the article, yet alone got through the first paragraph.

Re: What is the inverse of a vector?

#75
post #8

While the article is written very nicely, It seems that this is written out of a perspective of some missing knowledge. The basic object that the author seems to be interested in is that of an "algebra over a field" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebra_over_a_field ). Specifically: Invertability of all elements with respect to the multiplication leads to the notion of division algebra and these have been studied f…

The object the author is actually interested in is known as a geometric algebra. One often sees it discussed as an alternative theory for computer graphics or physics as it works well for expressing things like rotations.

See here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_algebra

I think it is probably not so helpful to merely think of it like a division algebra, and it is better to stay focused on the geometry. Curiously I find it easier to relate “actual” linear algebra to geometry than the thing people often call “linear algebra” that involves writing columns or rows or grids of numbers and manipulating them.

Re: What is the inverse of a vector?

#76

The article begins: >In this post we will re-invent a form of math that is far superior to the one you learned in school. The ideas herein are nothing short of revolutionary. and concludes: > I firmly believe that in 100 years, Geometric Algebra will be the dominant way of introducing students to mathematical physics. In the same way that Newton's notation for Calculus is no longer the dominant one, or that Maxwell's…

I wish I would have been introduced to Geometric Algebra or calculus of forms or whatever it is called during my physics studies. We learned all the conventional things you need for classical mechanics and electromagnetism, like div and curl and BAC-CAB. But there were a couple of things that we were not tought well, which caused problems later. One thing is that at first, a vector was just an N-tuple. But in physics…

[deleted]

Re: What is the inverse of a vector?

#77
As a programmer it seems to me that the number one problem of math notation is that it's weakly typed. There's abuse and reuse of notation everywhere, which makes learning it needlessly difficult. I want a strongly typed fork of math notation. 90% of existing math notation would just be laughed at if it had to go through code review.

Re: What is the inverse of a vector?

#78
post #58
post #49

> The similarities are so striking that we might think of them as "pseudovpseudovectors". But I won't write them this way because I think that obscures their true nature. Written this way it looks like a bivector only encapsulates three degrees of freedom! > Instead, I will use: ... Because it forces us to remember what those coefficients are attached to. Knowing that a bivector contains five degrees of freedom, can…

Yes, only three. As defined, two bivectors are equal if their areas are equal and if their oriented planes are equal. Therefore two more degrees of freedom are absorbed by taking rotations of the two vectors in the plane.Along with the rescaling the author noted, we're down to three from six.

That makes complete sense to me. But then later on they say "The output is a Geometric with a scalar component s and a bivector component ⇒c, which has 1 + 5 = 6 degrees of freedom so this system is not lossy! It should permit an unambiguous inversion operation!" If a bivector only has 3 degrees of freedom then the total is 4, which seems like it would be lossy?

Re: What is the inverse of a vector?

#79
post #8

While the article is written very nicely, It seems that this is written out of a perspective of some missing knowledge. The basic object that the author seems to be interested in is that of an "algebra over a field" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebra_over_a_field ). Specifically: Invertability of all elements with respect to the multiplication leads to the notion of division algebra and these have been studied f…

No, this is wrong. Geometric algebras aren't division algebras in general: they usually have zero divisors. Objects that live in a single grade are invertible, but composite objects don't always have multiplicative inverses.

As a concrete example, consider the elements 1 + x and 1 - x. Their product is 1 + x - x - xx = 1 + x - x - 1 = 0. So certainly 1 + x doesn't have an inverse, either.

Re: What is the inverse of a vector?

#80

The article begins: >In this post we will re-invent a form of math that is far superior to the one you learned in school. The ideas herein are nothing short of revolutionary. and concludes: > I firmly believe that in 100 years, Geometric Algebra will be the dominant way of introducing students to mathematical physics. In the same way that Newton's notation for Calculus is no longer the dominant one, or that Maxwell's…

Maybe those are better for calculations but are they better for learning?

Most people need calculations to help them learn...
Post reply on HN