Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Proof that Cross Product is not Associative using the definition of Cross Product

  1. #1
    Newbie
    Joined
    Mar 2015
    From
    USA
    Posts
    7

    Proof that Cross Product is not Associative using the definition of Cross Product

    Does this work as a direct proof?

    If the cross product is associative, then (A x B) x C = A x (B x C).

    Consider when A = B.

    One the left side we have:

    (A x A) x C = 0 x C = 0·C·sinθ·n(AxA)xC= 0, where θ is the angle between vector A and C and n(AxA)xC is the unit vector perpendicular to their plane.

    Then we have on the right side:

    A x (B x C) = A x BC·sinφ·n(BxC) = ABC·sinφ·sinω·n(Ax(BxC)

    , where φ is the angle between B and C in their plane, n(BxC) is the unit vector perpendicular to their plane, ω is the angle between A and the unit vector n(BxC) in their plane, and n(Ax(BxC) is the unit vector perpendicular to A and the unit vector n(BxC) in their plane.

    This can only be zero when at least one of φ, ω, A, B, or C = 0.


    Since there are cases where none of φ, ω, A, B, or C is equal to 0, the statement (A x B) x C = A x (B x C) is not true for all vectors A, B and C and therefore we can conclude that the cross product is not associative.



    Is this a valid proof? Would it be considered an attempt at a direct proof? I used a particular example, but I didn't use a contradiction, so I'm thinking yes, but I wouldn't know.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    19,337
    Thanks
    2859

    Re: Proof that Cross Product is not Associative using the definition of Cross Product

    Quote Originally Posted by FaradaysGlassBlock View Post
    Does this work as a direct proof?

    If the cross product is associative, then (A x B) x C = A x (B x C).

    Consider when A = B.

    One the left side we have:

    (A x A) x C = 0 x C = 0·C·sinθ·n(AxA)xC= 0, where θ is the angle between vector A and C and n(AxA)xC is the unit vector perpendicular to their plane.

    Then we have on the right side:

    A x (B x C) = A x BC·sinφ·n(BxC) = ABC·sinφ·sinω·n(Ax(BxC)
    Where have you used the fact that A= B?

    , where φ is the angle between B and C in their plane, n(BxC) is the unit vector perpendicular to their plane, ω is the angle between A and the unit vector n(BxC) in their plane, and n(Ax(BxC) is the unit vector perpendicular to A and the unit vector n(BxC) in their plane.

    This can only be zero when at least one of φ, ω, A, B, or C = 0.


    Since there are cases where none of φ, ω, A, B, or C is equal to 0, the statement (A x B) x C = A x (B x C) is not true for all vectors A, B and C and therefore we can conclude that the cross product is not associative.



    Is this a valid proof? Would it be considered an attempt at a direct proof? I used a particular example, but I didn't use a contradiction, so I'm thinking yes, but I wouldn't know.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    21,363
    Thanks
    2680
    Awards
    1

    Re: Proof that Cross Product is not Associative using the definition of Cross Product

    Quote Originally Posted by FaradaysGlassBlock View Post
    Does this work as a direct proof?

    If the cross product is associative, then (A x B) x C = A x (B x C).
    The cross product is NOT associative.

    Consider this fact: $P\times(Q\times S)= (P\cdot S)Q-(P\cdot Q)S~\&~P\times Q=-Q\times P$
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Newbie
    Joined
    Mar 2015
    From
    USA
    Posts
    7

    Re: Proof that Cross Product is not Associative using the definition of Cross Product

    Quote Originally Posted by HallsofIvy View Post
    Where have you used the fact that A= B?
    I'm sorry that was a type-o. I was really pressed for time and didn't get a chance to proof read due to getting kicked off the computer by my brother right when I was finishing. I wish I could edit the first post.

    In the first part, where I do the left side, A = B. In the second I forgot to include that change.



    Here is what my post should have looked like: (I also cleaned up the subscripts which were a bit ridiculous)

    Quote Originally Posted by FaradaysGlassBlock View Post

    If the cross product is associative, then (A x B) x C = A x (B x C).

    Consider when A = B.

    One the left side we have:

    (A x A) x C = 0 x C = 0·C·sinθ·n1= 0, where θ is the angle between vector A and C and n1is the unit vector perpendicular to their plane.

    Then we have on the right side:

    A x (A x C) = A x AC·sinφ·n2 = A2C·sinφ·sinω·n3

    , where φ is the angle between B and C in their plane, n2 is the unit vector perpendicular to their plane, ω is the angle between A and the unit vector n2 in their plane, and n3 is the unit vector perpendicular to A and the unit vector n2 in their plane.

    This can only be zero when at least one of φ, ω, A, or C = 0.


    Since there are cases where none of φ, ω, A, or C is equal to 0, the statement (A x A) x C = A x (A x C) is not true, and therefore the statement (A x B) x C = A x (B x C) is not true for all vectors A, B and C and therefore we can conclude that the cross product is not associative.




    Quote Originally Posted by Plato View Post
    The cross product is NOT associative.

    Consider this fact: $P\times(Q\times S)= (P\cdot S)Q-(P\cdot Q)S~\&~P\times Q=-Q\times P$
    Yeah that's what I was trying to show. I guess that WAS an attempt at a proof by contradiction. First I assumed that the cross product was associative, then I tried to show that it led to a contradiction by using the definition directly and substituting A for B.
    Last edited by FaradaysGlassBlock; Apr 29th 2015 at 05:16 PM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    21,363
    Thanks
    2680
    Awards
    1

    Re: Proof that Cross Product is not Associative using the definition of Cross Product

    Quote Originally Posted by FaradaysGlassBlock View Post
    Yeah that's what I was trying to show. I guess that WAS an attempt at a proof by contradiction. First I assumed that the cross product was associative, then I tried to show that it led to a contradiction by using the definition directly and substituting A for B.
    Do you really understand that, $P\times(Q\times S)= (P\cdot S)Q-(P\cdot Q)S~?$
    That says $P\times(Q\times S)$ is a linear combination of $Q~\&~S$. Do you get that?
    So $(P\times Q)\times S$ is a linear combination of $P~\&~Q$. Do you get that?

    So what does that mean?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2015
    From
    Somerset, England
    Posts
    254
    Thanks
    50

    Re: Proof that Cross Product is not Associative using the definition of Cross Product

    Yeah that's what I was trying to show. I guess that WAS an attempt at a proof by contradiction
    You have shown a counterexample, and one exception disproves the rule.

    In what context are you studying vector triple products, have you studied any linear algebra to understand what Plato is saying?

    Note that the vector triple product a x (b x c) lies in a plane parallel to b and c
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Newbie
    Joined
    Dec 2016
    From
    US
    Posts
    11

    Re: Proof that Cross Product is not Associative using the definition of Cross Product

    Can you explain how Q & S is a linear combination of P x (Q x S)?
    What is a linear combination and how did you get that answer?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    21,363
    Thanks
    2680
    Awards
    1

    Re: Proof that Cross Product is not Associative using the definition of Cross Product

    Quote Originally Posted by Hanache View Post
    Can you explain how Q & S is a linear combination of P x (Q x S)?
    What is a linear combination and how did you get that answer?
    That is a standard theorem. It should be proven in the text material.
    The proof is very very tedious! $A\times(B\times C)=(A\cdot C)B-(A\cdot B)C$.
    That is the same as $\alpha=(A\cdot C)~\&~beta=(A\cdot B)$ or $\alpha B-\beta C$, Where $\alpha=(A\cdot C)~\&~\beta=(A\cdot B)$
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. vector proof using cross product
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Feb 8th 2011, 05:14 PM
  2. Geometric Definition of Cross Product
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Feb 2nd 2011, 12:57 PM
  3. Cross Product proof?
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Jun 3rd 2010, 02:18 AM
  4. Proof with cross product
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 25th 2008, 03:42 PM
  5. A proof of cross product and det
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Jan 30th 2008, 05:34 AM

Search tags for this page

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum