Finding vector length for high dimensions

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












How do I find the vector length for high dimensions?.We can find vector length for 3d with the formula $sqrtv_1^2+v_2^2+v_3^2$
Likewise how to find the vector magnitude for high dimensions?







share|cite|improve this question


























    up vote
    0
    down vote

    favorite












    How do I find the vector length for high dimensions?.We can find vector length for 3d with the formula $sqrtv_1^2+v_2^2+v_3^2$
    Likewise how to find the vector magnitude for high dimensions?







    share|cite|improve this question
























      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite











      How do I find the vector length for high dimensions?.We can find vector length for 3d with the formula $sqrtv_1^2+v_2^2+v_3^2$
      Likewise how to find the vector magnitude for high dimensions?







      share|cite|improve this question














      How do I find the vector length for high dimensions?.We can find vector length for 3d with the formula $sqrtv_1^2+v_2^2+v_3^2$
      Likewise how to find the vector magnitude for high dimensions?









      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Aug 14 at 7:10









      Ingix

      2,215125




      2,215125










      asked Aug 14 at 7:02









      aneesh cool

      384




      384




















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted










          The same way:$$bigl|(x_1,ldots,x_n)bigr|=sqrtx_1^2+x_2^2+cdots+x_n^2.$$This is the usual norm in $mathbbR^n$.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • Thanks sir.But in higher dimensions the axes wont be orthogonal to each other.Is this correct?
            – aneesh cool
            Aug 14 at 7:16










          • @aneeshcool No, it is not.
            – José Carlos Santos
            Aug 14 at 7:16










          • Can you please explain it.iam new.In 3d the axes willl be orthogonal so this formula can be applied but in higher dimensions how will the axes be orthogonal to each other?
            – aneesh cool
            Aug 14 at 7:19










          • @aneeshcool In order for me to answer your question, please tell me: how do you define “orthogonal”?
            – José Carlos Santos
            Aug 14 at 7:21










          • it means perpendicularly
            – aneesh cool
            Aug 14 at 7:22

















          up vote
          1
          down vote













          Given a vector $vecv=(v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4,...,v_n)$ in $n$ dimensions, the formula for the magnitude (or length) remains the same: it the the square root of the sum of the squares of the components of the vector:$$|vecv|=sqrtv_1^2+v_2^2+v_3^2+v_4^2+...+v_n^2$$






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • Thanks a lot sir.But is this correct one in higher dimensions the axes wont be orthogonal to each other.
            – aneesh cool
            Aug 14 at 7:14










          • Of course they will.
            – Ivan Neretin
            Aug 14 at 7:16










          • How can they be orthogonal to each other in higher dimensions?.Iam new.Please explain
            – aneesh cool
            Aug 14 at 7:20

















          up vote
          0
          down vote













          As a side answer, since the OP do not understand how "orthogonal in high dimensions" can be represented...



          Well, it is normal. We are living in a seemingly 3D spatial dimensions world, so we can easily represent ourselves in such a space, and understand concepts with parallels in this 3D spatial world.



          However, it is, for our brain, much more difficult to have a spatial representation of something in 4D, 5D etc. This is why we are using more formalism in order to be able to go beyond the limits of our perception.



          Imagine you are a kind of microscopic worm living at the surface of a giant leaf. For you, everything is in 2D (remember that ourselves we believed that the earth - not our entire world - was 2D at some point in time, because when you are at the surface, you don't seeit otherwise). You can go forward, left, right, backward, but that's it... You don't know if there are other dimensions, and, should you have a brain caable of abstract thought, it would nevertheless be puzzling to think spatially about a space in 3D.



          When you want to do higher level mathematics (and in particular geometry), you need to distance yourself in a certain extent to the notions you gained with analogies with the real world. I say to a certain extent, for doing parallels to the 3D case sometimes can bring sometimes insight about a problem (and sometimes it is misleading).






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • Thanks for the explanation sir.
            – aneesh cool
            Aug 14 at 8:08










          Your Answer




          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          );
          );
          , "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          ;
          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',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: false,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          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%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2882145%2ffinding-vector-length-for-high-dimensions%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest






























          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes








          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted










          The same way:$$bigl|(x_1,ldots,x_n)bigr|=sqrtx_1^2+x_2^2+cdots+x_n^2.$$This is the usual norm in $mathbbR^n$.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • Thanks sir.But in higher dimensions the axes wont be orthogonal to each other.Is this correct?
            – aneesh cool
            Aug 14 at 7:16










          • @aneeshcool No, it is not.
            – José Carlos Santos
            Aug 14 at 7:16










          • Can you please explain it.iam new.In 3d the axes willl be orthogonal so this formula can be applied but in higher dimensions how will the axes be orthogonal to each other?
            – aneesh cool
            Aug 14 at 7:19










          • @aneeshcool In order for me to answer your question, please tell me: how do you define “orthogonal”?
            – José Carlos Santos
            Aug 14 at 7:21










          • it means perpendicularly
            – aneesh cool
            Aug 14 at 7:22














          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted










          The same way:$$bigl|(x_1,ldots,x_n)bigr|=sqrtx_1^2+x_2^2+cdots+x_n^2.$$This is the usual norm in $mathbbR^n$.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • Thanks sir.But in higher dimensions the axes wont be orthogonal to each other.Is this correct?
            – aneesh cool
            Aug 14 at 7:16










          • @aneeshcool No, it is not.
            – José Carlos Santos
            Aug 14 at 7:16










          • Can you please explain it.iam new.In 3d the axes willl be orthogonal so this formula can be applied but in higher dimensions how will the axes be orthogonal to each other?
            – aneesh cool
            Aug 14 at 7:19










          • @aneeshcool In order for me to answer your question, please tell me: how do you define “orthogonal”?
            – José Carlos Santos
            Aug 14 at 7:21










          • it means perpendicularly
            – aneesh cool
            Aug 14 at 7:22












          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted






          The same way:$$bigl|(x_1,ldots,x_n)bigr|=sqrtx_1^2+x_2^2+cdots+x_n^2.$$This is the usual norm in $mathbbR^n$.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          The same way:$$bigl|(x_1,ldots,x_n)bigr|=sqrtx_1^2+x_2^2+cdots+x_n^2.$$This is the usual norm in $mathbbR^n$.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Aug 14 at 7:11









          José Carlos Santos

          116k1699178




          116k1699178











          • Thanks sir.But in higher dimensions the axes wont be orthogonal to each other.Is this correct?
            – aneesh cool
            Aug 14 at 7:16










          • @aneeshcool No, it is not.
            – José Carlos Santos
            Aug 14 at 7:16










          • Can you please explain it.iam new.In 3d the axes willl be orthogonal so this formula can be applied but in higher dimensions how will the axes be orthogonal to each other?
            – aneesh cool
            Aug 14 at 7:19










          • @aneeshcool In order for me to answer your question, please tell me: how do you define “orthogonal”?
            – José Carlos Santos
            Aug 14 at 7:21










          • it means perpendicularly
            – aneesh cool
            Aug 14 at 7:22
















          • Thanks sir.But in higher dimensions the axes wont be orthogonal to each other.Is this correct?
            – aneesh cool
            Aug 14 at 7:16










          • @aneeshcool No, it is not.
            – José Carlos Santos
            Aug 14 at 7:16










          • Can you please explain it.iam new.In 3d the axes willl be orthogonal so this formula can be applied but in higher dimensions how will the axes be orthogonal to each other?
            – aneesh cool
            Aug 14 at 7:19










          • @aneeshcool In order for me to answer your question, please tell me: how do you define “orthogonal”?
            – José Carlos Santos
            Aug 14 at 7:21










          • it means perpendicularly
            – aneesh cool
            Aug 14 at 7:22















          Thanks sir.But in higher dimensions the axes wont be orthogonal to each other.Is this correct?
          – aneesh cool
          Aug 14 at 7:16




          Thanks sir.But in higher dimensions the axes wont be orthogonal to each other.Is this correct?
          – aneesh cool
          Aug 14 at 7:16












          @aneeshcool No, it is not.
          – José Carlos Santos
          Aug 14 at 7:16




          @aneeshcool No, it is not.
          – José Carlos Santos
          Aug 14 at 7:16












          Can you please explain it.iam new.In 3d the axes willl be orthogonal so this formula can be applied but in higher dimensions how will the axes be orthogonal to each other?
          – aneesh cool
          Aug 14 at 7:19




          Can you please explain it.iam new.In 3d the axes willl be orthogonal so this formula can be applied but in higher dimensions how will the axes be orthogonal to each other?
          – aneesh cool
          Aug 14 at 7:19












          @aneeshcool In order for me to answer your question, please tell me: how do you define “orthogonal”?
          – José Carlos Santos
          Aug 14 at 7:21




          @aneeshcool In order for me to answer your question, please tell me: how do you define “orthogonal”?
          – José Carlos Santos
          Aug 14 at 7:21












          it means perpendicularly
          – aneesh cool
          Aug 14 at 7:22




          it means perpendicularly
          – aneesh cool
          Aug 14 at 7:22










          up vote
          1
          down vote













          Given a vector $vecv=(v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4,...,v_n)$ in $n$ dimensions, the formula for the magnitude (or length) remains the same: it the the square root of the sum of the squares of the components of the vector:$$|vecv|=sqrtv_1^2+v_2^2+v_3^2+v_4^2+...+v_n^2$$






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • Thanks a lot sir.But is this correct one in higher dimensions the axes wont be orthogonal to each other.
            – aneesh cool
            Aug 14 at 7:14










          • Of course they will.
            – Ivan Neretin
            Aug 14 at 7:16










          • How can they be orthogonal to each other in higher dimensions?.Iam new.Please explain
            – aneesh cool
            Aug 14 at 7:20














          up vote
          1
          down vote













          Given a vector $vecv=(v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4,...,v_n)$ in $n$ dimensions, the formula for the magnitude (or length) remains the same: it the the square root of the sum of the squares of the components of the vector:$$|vecv|=sqrtv_1^2+v_2^2+v_3^2+v_4^2+...+v_n^2$$






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • Thanks a lot sir.But is this correct one in higher dimensions the axes wont be orthogonal to each other.
            – aneesh cool
            Aug 14 at 7:14










          • Of course they will.
            – Ivan Neretin
            Aug 14 at 7:16










          • How can they be orthogonal to each other in higher dimensions?.Iam new.Please explain
            – aneesh cool
            Aug 14 at 7:20












          up vote
          1
          down vote










          up vote
          1
          down vote









          Given a vector $vecv=(v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4,...,v_n)$ in $n$ dimensions, the formula for the magnitude (or length) remains the same: it the the square root of the sum of the squares of the components of the vector:$$|vecv|=sqrtv_1^2+v_2^2+v_3^2+v_4^2+...+v_n^2$$






          share|cite|improve this answer












          Given a vector $vecv=(v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4,...,v_n)$ in $n$ dimensions, the formula for the magnitude (or length) remains the same: it the the square root of the sum of the squares of the components of the vector:$$|vecv|=sqrtv_1^2+v_2^2+v_3^2+v_4^2+...+v_n^2$$







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Aug 14 at 7:11









          coreyman317

          679218




          679218











          • Thanks a lot sir.But is this correct one in higher dimensions the axes wont be orthogonal to each other.
            – aneesh cool
            Aug 14 at 7:14










          • Of course they will.
            – Ivan Neretin
            Aug 14 at 7:16










          • How can they be orthogonal to each other in higher dimensions?.Iam new.Please explain
            – aneesh cool
            Aug 14 at 7:20
















          • Thanks a lot sir.But is this correct one in higher dimensions the axes wont be orthogonal to each other.
            – aneesh cool
            Aug 14 at 7:14










          • Of course they will.
            – Ivan Neretin
            Aug 14 at 7:16










          • How can they be orthogonal to each other in higher dimensions?.Iam new.Please explain
            – aneesh cool
            Aug 14 at 7:20















          Thanks a lot sir.But is this correct one in higher dimensions the axes wont be orthogonal to each other.
          – aneesh cool
          Aug 14 at 7:14




          Thanks a lot sir.But is this correct one in higher dimensions the axes wont be orthogonal to each other.
          – aneesh cool
          Aug 14 at 7:14












          Of course they will.
          – Ivan Neretin
          Aug 14 at 7:16




          Of course they will.
          – Ivan Neretin
          Aug 14 at 7:16












          How can they be orthogonal to each other in higher dimensions?.Iam new.Please explain
          – aneesh cool
          Aug 14 at 7:20




          How can they be orthogonal to each other in higher dimensions?.Iam new.Please explain
          – aneesh cool
          Aug 14 at 7:20










          up vote
          0
          down vote













          As a side answer, since the OP do not understand how "orthogonal in high dimensions" can be represented...



          Well, it is normal. We are living in a seemingly 3D spatial dimensions world, so we can easily represent ourselves in such a space, and understand concepts with parallels in this 3D spatial world.



          However, it is, for our brain, much more difficult to have a spatial representation of something in 4D, 5D etc. This is why we are using more formalism in order to be able to go beyond the limits of our perception.



          Imagine you are a kind of microscopic worm living at the surface of a giant leaf. For you, everything is in 2D (remember that ourselves we believed that the earth - not our entire world - was 2D at some point in time, because when you are at the surface, you don't seeit otherwise). You can go forward, left, right, backward, but that's it... You don't know if there are other dimensions, and, should you have a brain caable of abstract thought, it would nevertheless be puzzling to think spatially about a space in 3D.



          When you want to do higher level mathematics (and in particular geometry), you need to distance yourself in a certain extent to the notions you gained with analogies with the real world. I say to a certain extent, for doing parallels to the 3D case sometimes can bring sometimes insight about a problem (and sometimes it is misleading).






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • Thanks for the explanation sir.
            – aneesh cool
            Aug 14 at 8:08














          up vote
          0
          down vote













          As a side answer, since the OP do not understand how "orthogonal in high dimensions" can be represented...



          Well, it is normal. We are living in a seemingly 3D spatial dimensions world, so we can easily represent ourselves in such a space, and understand concepts with parallels in this 3D spatial world.



          However, it is, for our brain, much more difficult to have a spatial representation of something in 4D, 5D etc. This is why we are using more formalism in order to be able to go beyond the limits of our perception.



          Imagine you are a kind of microscopic worm living at the surface of a giant leaf. For you, everything is in 2D (remember that ourselves we believed that the earth - not our entire world - was 2D at some point in time, because when you are at the surface, you don't seeit otherwise). You can go forward, left, right, backward, but that's it... You don't know if there are other dimensions, and, should you have a brain caable of abstract thought, it would nevertheless be puzzling to think spatially about a space in 3D.



          When you want to do higher level mathematics (and in particular geometry), you need to distance yourself in a certain extent to the notions you gained with analogies with the real world. I say to a certain extent, for doing parallels to the 3D case sometimes can bring sometimes insight about a problem (and sometimes it is misleading).






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • Thanks for the explanation sir.
            – aneesh cool
            Aug 14 at 8:08












          up vote
          0
          down vote










          up vote
          0
          down vote









          As a side answer, since the OP do not understand how "orthogonal in high dimensions" can be represented...



          Well, it is normal. We are living in a seemingly 3D spatial dimensions world, so we can easily represent ourselves in such a space, and understand concepts with parallels in this 3D spatial world.



          However, it is, for our brain, much more difficult to have a spatial representation of something in 4D, 5D etc. This is why we are using more formalism in order to be able to go beyond the limits of our perception.



          Imagine you are a kind of microscopic worm living at the surface of a giant leaf. For you, everything is in 2D (remember that ourselves we believed that the earth - not our entire world - was 2D at some point in time, because when you are at the surface, you don't seeit otherwise). You can go forward, left, right, backward, but that's it... You don't know if there are other dimensions, and, should you have a brain caable of abstract thought, it would nevertheless be puzzling to think spatially about a space in 3D.



          When you want to do higher level mathematics (and in particular geometry), you need to distance yourself in a certain extent to the notions you gained with analogies with the real world. I say to a certain extent, for doing parallels to the 3D case sometimes can bring sometimes insight about a problem (and sometimes it is misleading).






          share|cite|improve this answer












          As a side answer, since the OP do not understand how "orthogonal in high dimensions" can be represented...



          Well, it is normal. We are living in a seemingly 3D spatial dimensions world, so we can easily represent ourselves in such a space, and understand concepts with parallels in this 3D spatial world.



          However, it is, for our brain, much more difficult to have a spatial representation of something in 4D, 5D etc. This is why we are using more formalism in order to be able to go beyond the limits of our perception.



          Imagine you are a kind of microscopic worm living at the surface of a giant leaf. For you, everything is in 2D (remember that ourselves we believed that the earth - not our entire world - was 2D at some point in time, because when you are at the surface, you don't seeit otherwise). You can go forward, left, right, backward, but that's it... You don't know if there are other dimensions, and, should you have a brain caable of abstract thought, it would nevertheless be puzzling to think spatially about a space in 3D.



          When you want to do higher level mathematics (and in particular geometry), you need to distance yourself in a certain extent to the notions you gained with analogies with the real world. I say to a certain extent, for doing parallels to the 3D case sometimes can bring sometimes insight about a problem (and sometimes it is misleading).







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Aug 14 at 8:01









          Martigan

          4,384714




          4,384714











          • Thanks for the explanation sir.
            – aneesh cool
            Aug 14 at 8:08
















          • Thanks for the explanation sir.
            – aneesh cool
            Aug 14 at 8:08















          Thanks for the explanation sir.
          – aneesh cool
          Aug 14 at 8:08




          Thanks for the explanation sir.
          – aneesh cool
          Aug 14 at 8:08












           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


























           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2882145%2ffinding-vector-length-for-high-dimensions%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest













































































          這個網誌中的熱門文章

          How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

          Carbon dioxide

          Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?