Finding vector length for high dimensions
Clash 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?
vector-spaces vectors
add a comment |Â
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?
vector-spaces vectors
add a comment |Â
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?
vector-spaces vectors
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?
vector-spaces vectors
edited Aug 14 at 7:10
Ingix
2,215125
2,215125
asked Aug 14 at 7:02
aneesh cool
384
384
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
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 $mathbbR^n$.
Thanks sir.But in higher dimensions the axes wont be orthogonal to each other.Is this correct?
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 7:16
@aneeshcool No, it is not.
â 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?
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 7:19
@aneeshcool In order for me to answer your question, please tell me: how do you define âÂÂorthogonalâÂÂ?
â José Carlos Santos
Aug 14 at 7:21
it means perpendicularly
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 7:22
 |Â
show 13 more comments
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:$$|vecv|=sqrtv_1^2+v_2^2+v_3^2+v_4^2+...+v_n^2$$
Thanks a lot sir.But is this correct one in higher dimensions the axes wont be orthogonal to each other.
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 7:14
Of course they will.
â Ivan Neretin
Aug 14 at 7:16
How can they be orthogonal to each other in higher dimensions?.Iam new.Please explain
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 7:20
add a comment |Â
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).
Thanks for the explanation sir.
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 8:08
add a comment |Â
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 $mathbbR^n$.
Thanks sir.But in higher dimensions the axes wont be orthogonal to each other.Is this correct?
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 7:16
@aneeshcool No, it is not.
â 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?
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 7:19
@aneeshcool In order for me to answer your question, please tell me: how do you define âÂÂorthogonalâÂÂ?
â José Carlos Santos
Aug 14 at 7:21
it means perpendicularly
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 7:22
 |Â
show 13 more comments
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 $mathbbR^n$.
Thanks sir.But in higher dimensions the axes wont be orthogonal to each other.Is this correct?
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 7:16
@aneeshcool No, it is not.
â 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?
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 7:19
@aneeshcool In order for me to answer your question, please tell me: how do you define âÂÂorthogonalâÂÂ?
â José Carlos Santos
Aug 14 at 7:21
it means perpendicularly
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 7:22
 |Â
show 13 more comments
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 $mathbbR^n$.
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 $mathbbR^n$.
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?
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 7:16
@aneeshcool No, it is not.
â 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?
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 7:19
@aneeshcool In order for me to answer your question, please tell me: how do you define âÂÂorthogonalâÂÂ?
â José Carlos Santos
Aug 14 at 7:21
it means perpendicularly
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 7:22
 |Â
show 13 more comments
Thanks sir.But in higher dimensions the axes wont be orthogonal to each other.Is this correct?
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 7:16
@aneeshcool No, it is not.
â 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?
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 7:19
@aneeshcool In order for me to answer your question, please tell me: how do you define âÂÂorthogonalâÂÂ?
â José Carlos Santos
Aug 14 at 7:21
it means perpendicularly
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 7:22
Thanks sir.But in higher dimensions the axes wont be orthogonal to each other.Is this correct?
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 7:16
Thanks sir.But in higher dimensions the axes wont be orthogonal to each other.Is this correct?
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 7:16
@aneeshcool No, it is not.
â José Carlos Santos
Aug 14 at 7:16
@aneeshcool No, it is not.
â 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?
â 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?
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 7:19
@aneeshcool In order for me to answer your question, please tell me: how do you define âÂÂorthogonalâÂÂ?
â José Carlos Santos
Aug 14 at 7:21
@aneeshcool In order for me to answer your question, please tell me: how do you define âÂÂorthogonalâÂÂ?
â José Carlos Santos
Aug 14 at 7:21
it means perpendicularly
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 7:22
it means perpendicularly
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 7:22
 |Â
show 13 more comments
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:$$|vecv|=sqrtv_1^2+v_2^2+v_3^2+v_4^2+...+v_n^2$$
Thanks a lot sir.But is this correct one in higher dimensions the axes wont be orthogonal to each other.
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 7:14
Of course they will.
â Ivan Neretin
Aug 14 at 7:16
How can they be orthogonal to each other in higher dimensions?.Iam new.Please explain
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 7:20
add a comment |Â
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:$$|vecv|=sqrtv_1^2+v_2^2+v_3^2+v_4^2+...+v_n^2$$
Thanks a lot sir.But is this correct one in higher dimensions the axes wont be orthogonal to each other.
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 7:14
Of course they will.
â Ivan Neretin
Aug 14 at 7:16
How can they be orthogonal to each other in higher dimensions?.Iam new.Please explain
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 7:20
add a comment |Â
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:$$|vecv|=sqrtv_1^2+v_2^2+v_3^2+v_4^2+...+v_n^2$$
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:$$|vecv|=sqrtv_1^2+v_2^2+v_3^2+v_4^2+...+v_n^2$$
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.
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 7:14
Of course they will.
â Ivan Neretin
Aug 14 at 7:16
How can they be orthogonal to each other in higher dimensions?.Iam new.Please explain
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 7:20
add a comment |Â
Thanks a lot sir.But is this correct one in higher dimensions the axes wont be orthogonal to each other.
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 7:14
Of course they will.
â Ivan Neretin
Aug 14 at 7:16
How can they be orthogonal to each other in higher dimensions?.Iam new.Please explain
â 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.
â 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.
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 7:14
Of course they will.
â Ivan Neretin
Aug 14 at 7:16
Of course they will.
â Ivan Neretin
Aug 14 at 7:16
How can they be orthogonal to each other in higher dimensions?.Iam new.Please explain
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 7:20
How can they be orthogonal to each other in higher dimensions?.Iam new.Please explain
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 7:20
add a comment |Â
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).
Thanks for the explanation sir.
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 8:08
add a comment |Â
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).
Thanks for the explanation sir.
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 8:08
add a comment |Â
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).
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).
answered Aug 14 at 8:01
Martigan
4,384714
4,384714
Thanks for the explanation sir.
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 8:08
add a comment |Â
Thanks for the explanation sir.
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 8:08
Thanks for the explanation sir.
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 8:08
Thanks for the explanation sir.
â aneesh cool
Aug 14 at 8:08
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password