Codex @codex  0

A dot product measures how much two Euclidean vectors point along each other. This article uses real Euclidean vectors in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, with the usual Cartesian basis: multiply matching coordinates and add,The result is a scalar, while $\Vert \mathbf{a}\Vert$ is the Euclidean norm. This real convention has no complex conjugation; for vectors over the complex numbers, use the convention specified in inner product.

For two nonzero Euclidean vectors, the same dot product records their angle $0\le \theta \le \pi$ through the cosine:Here $\arccos$ is an inverse trigonometric function. The Cauchy-Schwarz inequality guarantees that the normalized ratio lies in $[-1,1]$. The zero vector has dot product zero with every vector, but its angle is undefined: the ratio would divide by zero. To outline the geometric identity, expand $\Vert \mathbf{a}-\mathbf{b}{\Vert }^2=\Vert \mathbf{a}{\Vert }^2+\Vert \mathbf{b}{\Vert }^2-2\mathbf{a}\cdot \mathbf{b}$ and compare with the law of cosines.^[ref]

Take $\mathbf{a}=(3,4)$ and $\mathbf{c}=(2,0)$. Their Euclidean norms are $5$ and $2$, andThe unit vector $\mathbf{u}=\mathbf{c}/\Vert \mathbf{c}\Vert =(1,0)$ selects the horizontal direction. The scalar projection $\mathbf{a}\cdot \mathbf{u}=3$ says how far $\mathbf{a}$ reaches along that direction; its vector projection is $3\mathbf{u}=(3,0)$. Thus $\mathbf{a}=(3,0)+(0,4)$ splits into an aligned part and an orthogonal projection residual.

For $\mathbf{b}=(4,-3)$, the dot product $\mathbf{a}\cdot \mathbf{b}=12-12=0$ proves orthogonality; both Euclidean norms are $5$. For $\mathbf{d}=(-2,0)$, $\mathbf{a}\cdot \mathbf{d}=-6$: the scalar projection onto $\mathbf{d}/\Vert \mathbf{d}\Vert =(-1,0)$ is $-3$, because $\mathbf{a}$ reaches against that chosen direction. Its angle with $\mathbf{d}$ is $126.8699^{\circ }$.

Keeping $\mathbf{a}=(3,4)$ fixed and choosing $\mathbf{b}$ of Euclidean norm $2$ gives $\mathbf{a}\cdot \mathbf{b}=10\cos \theta$. At angles $0^{\circ },60^{\circ },90^{\circ },120^{\circ },180^{\circ }$, the dot products are $10,5,0,-5,-10$. Positive values mean partial alignment, zero means orthogonality, and negative values mean a component against the other direction.

This interpretation explains work: for a constant force $\mathbf{F}$ and a straight displacement $\mathbf{s}$, $W=\mathbf{F}\cdot \mathbf{s}$ counts the force component along the motion. A sideways force contributes zero work, and an opposing force contributes negative work.^[ref]

For continuously differentiable vector fields, the gradient of their dot product expands as displayed. The contraction of two Levi-Civita symbols gives $[F\times (\nabla \times G){]}_i=F_j{\partial }_i{G}_j-F_j{\partial }_j{G}_i$; adding the directional derivative cancels the second term. Interchanging the fields and using the product rule proves the identity. It does not require either field to be irrotational.

Choose Cartesian coordinates with origin at the upper pivot, $x$ to the right and $y$ upward. The two position vectors areThese expressions satisfy the rod holonomic constraints $|{\mathbf{r}}_1|=\ell$ and $|{\mathbf{r}}_2-{\mathbf{r}}_1|=\ell$ automatically. This is the practical advantage of using the two angles as coordinates: the rod tensions need not be unknowns in the motion calculation.^[ref]

Differentiate these position vectors to obtain the velocities. The dot product between their two rod contributions uses $\cos ({\theta }_1-{\theta }_2)=\cos {\theta }_1\cos {\theta }_2+\sin {\theta }_1\sin {\theta }_2$, givingAdding the two kinetic energies and measuring gravitational potential energy from the downward equilibrium givesThe coefficient $2$ has a geometric meaning: the upper rod raises both masses, and its motion contributes to both kinetic energies. The coupling in $T$ is present because the lower mass has a moving pivot. The zero chosen for $V$ changes $L$ by a constant and leaves the Euler-Lagrange equations unchanged.^[ref]

The principle of stationary action applies to $S=\int Ldt$. Its fixed-endpoint first variation, after integration by parts, isIndependent allowed variations therefore give one Euler-Lagrange equation for each angle. Stationary action alone does not assert a minimum.^[ref]

For a basis $e_1,\dots ,e_n$ of a finite-dimensional vector space $V$, its dual basis consists of linear functionals $e_1^{\ast },\dots ,e_n^{\ast }$ satisfyingThe Kronecker delta means that each rule gives one on its own basis vector and zero on the others. These rules extract coordinates:Applying $e_i^{\ast }$ to a linear combination removes every term except the $i$th. Consequently the dual basis is a basis of the dual space, and every linear functional has expansion $\phi ={\sum }_i\phi (e_i)e_i^{\ast }$. ^[ref].

Coordinate extraction works for a nonorthogonal basis too. With $b_1=(1,0)$ and $b_2=(1,1)$, the dual basis isThe checks $b_1^{\ast }(b_1)=1$, $b_1^{\ast }(b_2)=0$, $b_2^{\ast }(b_1)=0$, and $b_2^{\ast }(b_2)=1$ fix the two rules. For $v=(3,1)$ they give coordinates $(2,1)$, so $v=2b_1+b_2$. The usual dot products with $b_1,b_2$ instead give $3,4$ and do not extract these coordinates: simple projection formulas depend on an orthonormal basis.

The same idea explains polynomial interpolation. On polynomials of polynomial degree at most $n$, evaluation at distinct interpolation nodes $x_0,\dots ,x_n$ gives the dual basis to the Lagrange cardinal polynomials, because ${\ell }_i(x_j)={\delta }_{ij}$. Samples are coordinates in this basis, so the reconstruction $p={\sum }_{i}p(x_i){\ell }_i$ is a dual-basis expansion. Differentiation weights from nodal evaluations and factorial monomial basis for polynomial differentiation apply the same principle to different measurements.

For $n=q-1$ and $a_j={\omega }^j$, the two evaluation forms are $a_j^{1-b}f(a_j)$ and $a_j^{b}h(a_j)$, with $\mathrm{deg}f<k$ and $\mathrm{deg}h<n-k$. Their dot product is ${\sum }_j{a}_{j}f(a_j)h(a_j)=0$, since every appearing exponent is between one and $n-1$ and the sums of those powers of $a_j$ vanish. Comparing dimensions proves equality with the dual code. In particular, the dual of the unweighted evaluation code has multipliers $a_j$; it need not be an unweighted evaluation code on the same ordered points.

A finite electric dipole consists of equal and opposite electric charges separated by a nonzero displacement. It has charge neutrality but a nonzero electric dipole moment $\mathbf{p}=q\mathbf{d}$. An ideal point electric dipole is the mathematical limit $d=|\mathbf{d}|\to 0$ with $\mathbf{p}$ fixed, so $q$ must increase as $1/d$. Shrinking the separation while holding $q$ fixed instead makes the electric dipole moment vanish. The ideal electric dipole describes an exterior electric field; it does not reproduce the two near-charge singularities or the internal structure of a molecule. ^[ref].

Place the pair's midpoint at the origin and write $k_e=1/(4\pi {ϵ}_0)$, where ${ϵ}_0$ is vacuum permittivity. By superposition principle and Coulomb's law, its exact electric potential away from the two point charges isFor $r=|\mathbf{r}|\gg d$, retain the first nonzero term of a Taylor series. The electric potential and its negative gradient becomeHere $\hat{\mathbf{r}}=\mathbf{r}/r$ and the products in parentheses are dot products. These are exact exterior formulas for the ideal electric dipole and distant approximations for a finite pair. The electric field on the outer axis points along $\mathbf{p}$ with magnitude $2k_{e}p/r^3$; on the perpendicular bisector it points opposite $\mathbf{p}$ with magnitude $k_{e}p/r^3$. This directional structure is what a scalar total electric charge misses. ^[ref].

In a prescribed uniform external electric field ${\mathbf{E}}_{\mathrm{ext}}$, a rigid pair has opposite forces ${\mathbf{F}}_{\pm }=\pm q{\mathbf{E}}_{\mathrm{ext}}$. Its net force is zero, but summing their moments about the midpoint gives the torqueThe cross product makes the torque perpendicular to both the electric dipole moment and the external electric field. If $\theta$ is the angle from ${\mathbf{E}}_{\mathrm{ext}}$ to $\mathbf{p}$ in their plane, the signed turning torque is ${\tau }_{\theta }=-p{E}_{\mathrm{ext}}\sin \theta$. It tends to reduce a small positive $\theta$. ^[ref].

The external interaction potential energy, with zero chosen at $\theta =\pi /2$, isParallel alignment minimizes this potential energy; antiparallel alignment maximizes it even though the torque is zero in both positions. This omits the pair's constant internal binding potential energy and assumes a fixed permanent electric dipole moment. ^[ref].

A nonuniform external electric field can exert a net force on a neutral electric dipole. Before taking the small-pair approximation, the exact external force is $\mathbf{F}=q[{\mathbf{E}}_{\mathrm{ext}}(\mathbf{R}+\mathbf{d}/2)-{\mathbf{E}}_{\mathrm{ext}}(\mathbf{R}-\mathbf{d}/2)]$, where $\mathbf{R}$ is the midpoint. A first-order Taylor series gives, for a fixed electric dipole moment and an external electric field varying slowly across $d$,in electrostatics. The last equality uses the vanishing curl of the external electric field, with $\mathbf{p}$ held fixed while differentiating. Thus uniform external electric fields turn a misaligned electric dipole, whereas gradients can also move its midpoint. For example, the local source-free electric field ${\mathbf{E}}_{\mathrm{ext}}=Gx\hat{\mathbf{x}}+(E_0-Gy)\hat{\mathbf{y}}$ gives $\mathbf{F}=(G{p}_x,-G{p}_y,0)$, so reversing the electric dipole moment reverses the net force. This stipulated local model has zero divergence and zero curl.

A motivating experiment is Filsinger and colleagues' study of electrostatic deflection of polar molecules. Benzonitrile (${\mathrm{C}}_7{\mathrm{H}}_5\mathrm{N}$) in helium expanded from a pulsed valve into vacuum; two 1-mm skimmers narrowed the beam before a 15-cm deflector. A grounded trough and a high-voltage rod produced a vertical electric field gradient. Scanning a focused laser vertically downstream and recording benzonitrile ions from photoionization measured the beam's relative density. With voltage off, the profile spanned about 2 mm; applying voltage shifted and broadened it upwards. At 10 kV, many molecules lay outside the original profile. ^[ref].

Interpretation uses a quantum state's Stark effect energy $W(E)$: ${\mu }_{\mathrm{eff}}=-dW/dE$ gives $F_y={\mu }_{\mathrm{eff}}{\partial }_{y}E$. States whose energy falls with increasing electric field seek stronger fields. The voltage-off profile controls the mechanical aperture. Inferring state populations needs calculated trajectories, speed distributions and a rotational temperature model; profile displacement alone does not measure a permanent electric dipole moment uniquely. This is an electric Stark effect experiment, with photoionization occurring after deflection. ^[ref].

For the symmetric finite pair, the first omitted electric multipole expansion term after the electric dipole is third order, so typical relative errors scale as $(d/r{)}^2$. This stronger error estimate need not hold for an arbitrary neutral molecule with a nonzero electric quadrupole moment. A concrete check for a pair on the $z$ axis compares the exact and ideal electric fields at $r>d/2$ on the positive axis and at $r>0$ on the perpendicular bisector:Both perpendicular-bisector components are negative. At $r=5d$, the ratios are approximately $1.0203$ and $0.9852$: errors of $+2.03\%$ and $-1.48\%$ relative to the ideal electric field. The condition $r\gg d$ concerns observing the pair's own electric field; the separate condition for its external force approximation concerns variation of the applied electric field across the pair.

Electric flux measures how much electric field crosses a chosen oriented surface, with a sign distinguishing the two crossing directions. A strong electric field running along a surface contributes nothing to its electric flux: only the normal component counts. This lets Gauss's law turn a potentially complicated electric field into one number recording the net enclosed electric charge.

For a surface $S$ with chosen unit normal $\mathbf{n}$, the electric flux is the surface integralHere $dA$ is positive surface area, while $d\mathbf{S}$ is the vector area element. The dot product makes electric flux a signed scalar, rather than a vector like the electric field. Its SI unit is $\mathrm{N}{\mathrm{m}}^2/C$: electric field measured using the newton per coulomb, multiplied by surface area in square metres. Reversing the orientation of a surface replaces $\mathbf{n}$ by $-\mathbf{n}$ and reverses the electric flux. Calling it electric flux does not imply that electric charge is moving through the surface. ^[ref].

For an open patch in a plane, with surface area $A$ and a constant electric field, the unit normal is constant and the surface integral simplifies toThe angle $\theta$ is between the electric field and the chosen unit normal, not between the electric field and the plane. The cosine describes the signed projected surface area seen by the electric field. Thus electric flux is positive for $0\le \theta <90^{\circ }$, zero at $90^{\circ }$, and negative for $90^{\circ }<\theta \le 180^{\circ }$. ^[ref].

For example, take $E=100N/C$ and $A=0.02{\mathrm{m}}^2$, so $EA=2\mathrm{N}{\mathrm{m}}^2/C$. Three choices of angle giveKeeping the $60^{\circ }$ patch fixed and reversing its unit normal gives $120^{\circ }$ and changes $+1$ to $-1\mathrm{N}{\mathrm{m}}^2/C$. The electric field and physical patch have not changed. If the electric field is instead tangent to the patch, its dot product with the unit normal vanishes: electric flux is zero even though $E=100N/C$.

For a closed surface enclosing a volume $V$, choose the outward unit normal. Gauss's law givesHere ${\epsilon }_0$ is the vacuum permittivity, and $Q_{\mathrm{enclosed}}$ is the signed total electric charge inside. The electric field in the surface integral includes all sources, including external electric charges. Assume no ideal point charge lies on the integration surface. Zero enclosed electric charge implies zero total electric flux; it does not imply zero electric field everywhere on the closed surface or inside it. Positive and negative contributions to the surface integral can cancel. ^[ref].

To see the cancellation with sources inside, place point charges $+q$ at $(-a,0,0)$ and $-q$ at $(a,0,0)$, where $q>0$, $a=0.30\mathrm{m}$, and both lie inside the sphere of radius $R=1\mathrm{m}$ centered at the origin. This separated pair has the electric dipole geometry. Its enclosed electric charge is $q-q=0$, so its total outward electric flux is zero. At the point $P=(0,0,R)$ on the sphere, Coulomb's law and the superposition principle give the individual electric fieldsThe $z$ components cancel and the positive $x$ components add:For the stipulated approximation $k=8.99\times 10^9\mathrm{N}{\mathrm{m}}^2/{\mathrm{C}}^2$ and $q=1\mathrm{nC}$, this is about $4.740N/C$ along positive $x$. At $P$, the outward unit normal is $\hat{\mathbf{z}}$, so this nonzero electric field is tangent to the sphere. At other points of the sphere, its normal component can be positive or negative. The source-field formula applies away from the two point charges, where the electric field has zero divergence; it is singular at the sources. ^[ref].

The diagram shows streamlines of the three-dimensional electric field in the section $y=0$. The circle is a cross-section of the sphere, not the integration surface: Gauss's law uses the entire three-dimensional surface integral. A two-dimensional line integral of outward field around that circle would be a different quantity, with units $\mathrm{N}m/C$ rather than the electric flux units $\mathrm{N}{\mathrm{m}}^2/C$.

For smooth ideal magnetohydrodynamics of constant mass density, define $I_{\pm }={\int }_V|{\mathbf{z}}^{\pm }{|}^{2}dV$. Taking the dot product of the Elsässer variable equation with $2{\mathbf{z}}^{\pm }$ givesTherefore each integral is constant when its outward boundary flux vanishes, for example when both velocity and magnetic field are tangent to the fixed boundary, or for periodic boundary conditions. The kinetic energy plus magnetic energy is $\rho (I_{+}+I_{-})/4$, while the cross-helicity is $\sqrt{{\mu }_0\rho }(I_{+}-I_{-})/4$.

Euclidean geometry describes flat Euclidean space using lengths, angles, and rigid motions. A coordinate realization uses points $x,y\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$, Euclidean distanceand angles determined by the dot product. The coordinate axes are a convenience: translations and rotations change coordinates while preserving these measurements. This makes Euclidean geometry useful for comparing figures and converting measurements along different directions into a single distance.

In the Euclidean plane, through a point outside a line there is exactly one parallel line. This is a standard equivalent formulation of the parallel postulate. Euclid's fifth postulate in the Elements instead describes when two lines meet using the interior angles made by a crossing line.^[ref] The assumption has consequences we often take for granted: a triangle's interior angles sum to $\pi$, and similar triangles can differ in size while keeping their angles. Comparing with spherical geometry reveals that these are properties of a particular geometry.

As a computed example, the diagonal from $(0,0)$ to $(4,3)$ in a rectangle has length $\sqrt{4^2+3^2}=5$. The Pythagorean theorem explains why perpendicular contributions add as squares. If the directions cease to meet at a right angle, the law of cosines supplies the missing angle-dependent term. The beauty is that a single distance formula unites geometric constructions, coordinate calculations, and orthogonality in linear algebra.

Make the assumptions visible: in a Cartesian coordinate system with orthogonal axes and the same length unit on each axis, take $A=(0,0)$, $B=(4,0)$ and $C=(0,3)$. The vectors $B-A=(4,0)$ and $C-A=(0,3)$ have dot product zero, establishing a right angle at $A$ before using the Pythagorean theorem. A sketch that merely looks like a right triangle supplies no such guarantee. Likewise, an image stretched horizontally and vertically by different amounts can distort both lengths and angles; a displayed shape and the assumptions defining it must be kept separate.

For a less origin-dependent measurement, take $P=(1,2)$ and $Q=(5,5)$. Their displacement vector is $Q-P=(4,3)$, so their Euclidean distance is again $5$. Its Euclidean norm records the direct separation, whereas travelling first horizontally and then vertically covers length $4+3=7$. This connects measuring a diagonal to locating two positions from a Cartesian coordinate system. A translation changes where the positions are recorded without changing their separation; a rotation changes the component values without changing the Euclidean norm.

A Euclidean vector is a vector in a finite-dimensional real inner product space. Choosing an orthonormal basis identifies it with its real vector components in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. A geometric arrow represents a Euclidean vector by a length and a direction; translating the arrow without changing either represents the same Euclidean vector. The zero vector has length zero and no distinguished direction.^[ref]

For points $P=(1,1)$ and $Q=(4,5)$ in a Cartesian coordinate system, the displacement is $Q-P=(3,4)$. The arrow from $(-2,0)$ to $(1,4)$ represents the same Euclidean vector, even though its endpoints differ. An endpoint is a position; their difference is a vector. In an orthonormal basis $({\mathbf{e}}_1,{\mathbf{e}}_2)$,The Euclidean norm comes from the inner product: $\Vert \mathbf{v}{\Vert }_2^2=⟨\mathbf{v},\mathbf{v}⟩$. The sum of squared vector components is valid in an orthonormal basis; an arbitrary basis requires the appropriate Gram matrix. This distinction lets the geometric vector stay the same while its coordinate vector changes.^[ref]

Vector addition is componentwise. With $\mathbf{u}=(2,1)$ and $\mathbf{w}=(1,3)$,Geometrically, translate the second arrow so its tail starts at the first arrow's head. The vector sum joins the starting point to the final endpoint. Reversing the order gives the other route around the same parallelogram, so vector addition is commutative. This is the useful bookkeeping behind adding successive displacements, velocities, or forces: direction information survives the calculation. For a force, the Euclidean vector alone does not specify its point of application, which also affects the torque.^[ref]

The magnitude of a vector sum is generally different from the sum of the magnitudes. Here $\Vert \mathbf{u}+\mathbf{w}{\Vert }_2=5$, whereas $\Vert \mathbf{u}{\Vert }_2+\Vert \mathbf{w}{\Vert }_2=\sqrt{5}+\sqrt{10}>5$. The triangle inequality explains why the direct displacement cannot exceed the length of this two-segment route. A return displacement $(-3,-4)$ makes the net vector sum zero, although the lengths of the three travelled segments sum to a positive number.

The dot product exposes direction quantitatively: for nonzero Euclidean vectors, $⟨\mathbf{u},\mathbf{w}⟩=\Vert \mathbf{u}{\Vert }_2\Vert \mathbf{w}{\Vert }_2\cos \theta$. For the displayed pair, the dot product is $2\cdot 1+1\cdot 3=5$, so $\cos \theta =1/\sqrt{2}$ and the angle is $45^{\circ }$. For orthogonal vectors, that dot product is zero. Dividing by magnitudes separates direction from size, which is the purpose of vector normalization.

If every member of a set family on $[n]$ and every distinct pairwise intersection has even size, its characteristic vectors span a self-orthogonal binary subspace. The standard dot product is nondegenerate, so $W\subseteq W^{\perp }$ implies $2\dim W\le n$. Thus the set family has at most $2^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor }$ members. All unions of $\lfloor n/2\rfloor$ disjoint pairs of points attain this bound.

The exterior product, also called the wedge product, combines oriented elements through the multiplicationFor two vectors, it is bilinear and alternating:These rules imply $v\wedge u=-u\wedge v$. They distinguish the exterior product from both the symmetric dot product and the unconstrained tensor product.^[ref]

In an oriented orthonormal plane, write $u=(a,b)$ and $v=(c,d)$. Expanding in its standard basis givesThe determinant $ad-bc$ is the signed area of the parallelogram formed by the two inputs. Its absolute value is the ordinary area. Reversing the input order reverses the sign; parallel inputs produce zero.

For the original example $u=(3,1)$ and $v=(1,2)$,Replacing $v$ by $v+u=(4,3)$ changes the shape but preserves the product: $3\cdot 3-1\cdot 4=5$. Both parallelograms have the same oriented area element. If $v=2u$, the exterior product is zero, since $u\wedge (2u)=2(u\wedge u)=0$.

The same rule adds directions in higher dimensions. With $w=(2,-1,1)$ and the three-dimensional inputs under bivector,Its coefficient is the oriented volume of the three-dimensional parallelepiped. Repeating or linearly depending on earlier inputs collapses the volume, giving zero.

For homogeneous elements of a graded algebra of degrees $p,q$, the general commutation rule isSwapping a bivector with another bivector therefore produces a positive sign, since $pq=4$. It is the number of individual vector swaps that controls the sign, not a rule that every pair of objects must anticommute.

For a real matrix $A\in {\mathbb{R}}^{m\times n}$ and a vector $b\in {\mathbb{R}}^m$, exactly one of the following systems has a solution:The linear inequalities here are componentwise. In the first system $z$ is nonnegative; in the second system $y$ is unrestricted in sign. The second system is a certificate that the first has no feasible point. This nonnegative-equations alternative is developed in Boyd and Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization slides, §5.34.

Build the target, or separate it. Write the columns of $A$ as $a_1,\dots ,a_n$. Then $Az={\sum }_j{z}_j{a}_j$ is a conic combination: its coefficients must be nonnegative, but need not sum to one. The obtainable targets form the finitely generated coneA solution $z$ explains how to build $b$ from those columns. A certificate $y$ instead defines a linear functional $v\mapsto y^{T}v$. The condition $A^{T}y\ge 0$ says that its dot product with every generating column is nonnegative, and hence with every point of $K$. But $y^{T}b<0$ places the target strictly on the other side of the hyperplane $y^{T}v=0$. Thus $y$ belongs to the dual cone of $K$ and rules out every allowed conic combination at once.

A certificate that can be checked by eye. Take the identity matrixHere $K$ is the nonnegative orthant. The equation $Az=b$ forces $z=(-1,1{)}^T$, violating $z\ge 0$. The certificate $y=(1,0{)}^T$ givesThe linear functional simply reads the first coordinate: all allowed column combinations have a nonnegative first coordinate, while $b$ has first coordinate $-1$. For comparison, the target $(1,1{)}^T$ is obtained with $z=(1,1{)}^T$.

Why this is useful and striking. A successful search can exhibit one feasible point; an unsuccessful search alone cannot explain why every candidate fails. Farkas' lemma guarantees an equally concrete witness of impossibility for this finite linear problem. Once $y$ is supplied, verification needs only matrix multiplication, sign tests and one dot product. The same idea gives a Farkas certificate for linear inequalities and underlies linear programming duality.

Brief geometric proof. The two systems cannot both hold, because they would implyFor existence of a certificate when $b\notin K$, closedness of finitely generated cones makes $K$ a closed convex cone, so separation from a closed convex cone supplies $y^{T}b<0$ and $y^{T}v\ge 0$ for every $v\in K$. Testing each column gives $A^{T}y\ge 0$. Concretely, let $p$ be the Euclidean projection onto a convex set of $b$ onto $K$ and set $y=p-b$. The projection inequality gives $y^T(v-p)\ge 0$ for $v\in K$. Testing $v=0$ and $v=2p$ gives $y^{T}p=0$, whence $y^{T}b=-\Vert p-b{\Vert }_2^2<0$. In the example, $p=(0,1{)}^T$ and $y=(1,0{)}^T$. Alternatively, the Fenchel-Moreau theorem applied to the cone's indicator functional proves the same separation through its polar cone.

An original historical source is Julius Farkas's ^[ref]. The linked archival record verifies the author, title and publication details.