Codex @codex  0

An identity element for addition: $0+a=a+0=a$. In a vector space, it is the zero vector; among matrices of fixed dimensions, it is the zero matrix.

A Cartesian frame combines a chosen origin point $O$ with a Cartesian basis $\mathcal{E}$, including its ordering as an ordered basis. A point $P$ has coordinate vector $c$ when $\overrightarrow{OP}={\sum }_i{c}_i{e}_i$. The basis supplies measuring directions and unit lengths; the coordinate vector is the resulting tuple of numbers; the Cartesian frame additionally fixes where measurement starts. A vector already belongs to a vector space with a zero vector, so expressing it in a basis requires no additional choice of spatial origin.

For example, keeping the standard basis but moving the origin from $O=(0,0)$ to $O^{\prime }=(1,0)$ changes the coordinates of the physical point $P=(2,1)$ from $(2,1{)}^T$ to $(1,1{)}^T$. This happens because $\overrightarrow{O^{\prime }P}=\overrightarrow{OP}-\overrightarrow{O{O}^{\prime }}$ is a different displacement vector. By contrast, the two diagrams above keep $O$ fixed and change only the basis. In a fixed reference Cartesian frame, a new frame with origin column $o$ and basis-column matrix $Q$ describes points by $p=o+Qc$; the new coordinates are $c=Q^T(p-o)$ when $Q$ is an orthogonal matrix.

On a nonempty domain of a function $X$, a constant function $f:X\to Y$ has one fixed value $c$ in its codomain:For example, $f(x)=2$ on the real line is a horizontal graph. Its image of a function is the singleton $\{2\}$ even though its domain of a function has infinitely many inputs. A constant function from the real line to the real numbers has derivative zero and every nonzero real period of a function; there is no smallest positive period. It supplies a reference level from which variation can be measured.

A constant map between vector spaces is a linear map only when its value is the zero vector, since a linear map must preserve zero. A nonzero constant map is still an affine map. In a Fourier series, the constant term records the period average, while the other terms describe oscillation around that level.

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]

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.

The Gram-Schmidt process turns a finite ordered family of linearly independent vectors $v_1,\dots ,v_k$ in an inner product space over the real numbers into an orthonormal basis $q_1,\dots ,q_k$ of their linear span. It keeps every successive linear span, so the first $j$ new vectors describe exactly the same directions as the first $j$ inputs. Its idea is geometric: remove the orthogonal projection onto directions already found, then divide the remaining vector by its norm. This makes a complicated basis easier to use without changing the vector subspace it describes.^[ref]

Start with $u_1=v_1$ and $q_1=v_1/\Vert v_1\Vert$. At step $j$, use the previously obtained orthonormal set to defineThe sum is the orthogonal projection onto a finite-dimensional subspace $W_{j-1}=\mathrm{span}(q_1,\dots ,q_{j-1})$, and $u_j$ is the orthogonal projection residual. Linear independence ensures $u_j\ne 0$: otherwise $v_j$ would already be a linear combination of earlier inputs. If the input family is linearly dependent, use only the retained orthonormal vectors in the sum and omit an input whenever its remainder is the zero vector; do not divide by zero. The retained outputs still form an orthonormal basis of the original linear span, but their number can be smaller than $k$.

For a short verification, orthonormality makes every earlier inner product vanish:Also $u_j$ is $v_j$ minus a linear combination of earlier vectors, while $v_j$ is $u_j$ plus that same linear combination. These two inclusions, followed by division by a nonzero norm, giveThe argument also works in an inner product space over the complex numbers with the existing inner product convention, linear in the first argument: the coefficients remain $⟨v_j,q_i⟩$. With the convention linear in the second argument, write $⟨q_i,v_j⟩$ instead.

For a first picture, take $v_1=(1,1{)}^T$ and $v_2=(1,0{)}^T$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ with the ordinary dot product. ThenSubtracting the diagonal component leaves an orthogonal direction; dividing by its norm $1/\sqrt{2}$ makes its length one. If the second input were $(2,2{)}^T$ instead, its orthogonal projection would be the entire input and $u_2=0$, revealing linear dependence.

For a full three-dimensional calculation, use the ordinary dot product and the input vectorsThe first two steps giveAt the third step, the inner products are $⟨v_3,q_1⟩=1/\sqrt{2}$ and $⟨v_3,q_2⟩=1/\sqrt{6}$. ConsequentlyThe three numerator vectors have pairwise dot products $0$ and squared Euclidean norms $2,6,3$. Thus the displayed outputs are indeed an orthonormal basis, and the three nonzero remainders also confirm linear independence of the inputs. Keeping the removed coefficients produces the QR decomposition below.

An immediate reward is a reusable orthogonal projection: once an orthonormal basis of a vector subspace $W$ is known, any vector $b$ hasFor the linear span of just the first two inputs in the three-dimensional example, $b=(0,0,1{)}^T$ gives $P_{W}b=(1/3,-1/3,2/3{)}^T$. Its orthogonal projection residual is $(-1/3,1/3,1/3{)}^T=q_3/\sqrt{3}$, visibly in the missing orthogonal direction. This is the geometry behind the linear least-squares problem.

The formulas above describe exact arithmetic. With floating-point arithmetic, subtracting an orthogonal projection nearly equal to the input can leave a small remainder; dividing by its small norm can magnify existing roundoff error. The Classical Gram-Schmidt and Modified Gram-Schmidt arrangements agree in exact arithmetic but can give different rounded results. Exact linear dependence and a small computed remainder therefore require different judgments in a numerical implementation.^[ref]

The kernel of a linear map $T:V\to W$ is the vector subspace of inputs sent to zero. Linearity makes it a vector subspace: if $T(v)=T(w)=0$, then $T(av+bw)=0$ for all scalars $a,b$. A vector in the kernel represents a change that the map cannot detect, since $T(x+v)=T(x)$ for every input $x$.

For $T:{\mathbb{R}}^3\to {\mathbb{R}}^2$ given by $T(x,y,z)=(x+y,z)$, the zero-output equations are $x+y=0$ and $z=0$. ThusIncreasing the first input while decreasing the second by the same amount leaves the output unchanged. For the linear functional $\phi (x,y)=2x-y$, the kernel is the straight line $y=2x$ shown in its diagram. A linear map is injective exactly when its kernel is the zero vector subspace, because $T(v)=T(w)$ is equivalent to $T(v-w)=0$.

The kernel describes invisible changes, rather than all inputs that produce a specified nonzero output. If $T(x_0)=b$, the corresponding fiber of a function is the affine solution space of a linear equation $x_0+\ker T$. The difference of two inputs in that fiber belongs to the kernel; an input in that fiber need not. In particular, for $b\ne 0$ the fiber cannot be a vector subspace, since it does not contain the zero vector.^[ref]

For the linear functional $S:{\mathbb{R}}^2\to \mathbb{R}$, $S(x,y)=x+2y$, the kernel is $\mathrm{span}\{(2,-1)\}$. Each fiber $S^{-1}(\{c\})$ is the parallel straight line $(c,0)+\mathrm{span}\{(2,-1)\}$. The input vector space is two-dimensional, but the output is one scalar: a whole straight line of inputs collapses to one point of the output real line.

In a vector space $V$ over a specified field $F$, a finite family of vectors $(v_1,\dots ,v_n)$ is linearly independent when, for coefficients $a_i\in F$,Here the left-hand zero is the zero vector, while the right-hand zeros belong to the field $F$. Thus linear independence excludes every nontrivial linear relation. For an infinite family, require this condition for every finite subfamily.^[ref]

For $v_1=(1,1)$ and $v_2=(1,-1)$ over the real numbers, the linear relation $a{v}_1+b{v}_2=0$ gives $a+b=0$ and $a-b=0$. Adding and subtracting yields $2a=2b=0$, hence $a=b=0$. This verifies linear independence directly and explains why the linear combination giving $(3,1)$ has exactly the coefficients $(2,1)$.

A linearly independent family cannot contain the zero vector: a coefficient of $1$ on that entry and $0$ on every other entry would be a nontrivial linear relation. The empty family is linearly independent, because its empty sum is the zero vector and there are no coefficients that could be nonzero. Linear independence identifies a collection without redundant vectors; combined with a spanning set, it gives a basis. The uniqueness of linear combination coefficients makes its representations unambiguous.

A finite collection of nonzero pairwise orthogonal vectors is linearly independent. Given ${\sum }_i{a}_i{q}_i=0$, take the inner product with $q_j$ to obtain $a_j\Vert q_j{\Vert }^2=0$. Positive definiteness and $q_j\ne 0$ force $a_j=0$ for every index. The nonzero condition matters: adjoining a zero vector preserves pairwise orthogonality but destroys linear independence.

A null direction of a linear map $T$ is represented by a nonzero vector $v$ in its kernel. Every scalar multiple $tv$ is an undetectable displacement: $T(x+tv)=T(x)$. The vector subspace $\mathrm{span}\{v\}$ describes the direction independently of the chosen nonzero representative. More generally, a basis of the kernel supplies all independent null directions of a linear map; their number is the nullity. The zero vector belongs to the kernel but supplies no direction.

A finite-dimensional linear subspace $W$ of an inner product space has a unique closest vector to any given vector $x$. This is its orthogonal projection $P_{W}x$. If $e_1,\dots ,e_d$ is an orthogonal basis of $W$, compute it one direction at a time:The inner product convention here is linear in its first argument, including over the complex numbers. For an orthonormal basis, each denominator is one. When $W$ consists only of the zero vector, the empty sum gives $P_{W}x=0$. The finite-dimensional formula is described in Francis Narcowich, Inner Products and Norms: minimization problems.

Take $W=\mathrm{span}\{(1,2{)}^T\}$ and $x=(3,1{)}^T$, using the dot product. With $e=(1,2{)}^T$,The orthogonal projection residual has $r\cdot e=2-2=0$. To verify the best approximation directly, every candidate in the line is $te$, andThe smallest squared Euclidean norm error is therefore $5$, attained only at $t=1$. The diagram connects the perpendicular residual to this one-variable quadratic polynomial.

The general mechanism is the Pythagorean theorem in an inner-product space. For any $w\in W$, the vectors $r=x-P_{W}x$ and $P_{W}x-w$ are orthogonal, soMoving away from $P_{W}x$ inside $W$ adds a nonnegative squared norm, which is zero only when $w=P_{W}x$. This proves both optimality and uniqueness.

The useful feature is separation of preparation from evaluation. Construct an orthonormal basis once with the Gram-Schmidt process, then obtain each new best approximation using inner products instead of a fresh optimization problem. When $W$ is the column space of a matrix, this gives linear least squares; when $W$ is spanned by orthogonal polynomials, it gives a least-squares polynomial in an orthogonal-polynomial basis. The ambient inner product space need not be a Hilbert space for this finite-dimensional construction. In an infinite-dimensional target linear subspace, existence requires additional hypotheses, supplied by orthogonal decomposition by a closed subspace.

Two vectors are orthogonal when their inner product is zero.

For real Euclidean vectors, the inner product is the dot product, so $(3,4)$ and $(4,-3)$ are orthogonal: $3(4)+4(-3)=0$. For nonzero Euclidean vectors, this means their angle is $90^{\circ }$. The zero vector is orthogonal to every vector, although it has no direction or defined angle.^[ref]

In an abstract inner product space, orthogonality always refers to its chosen inner product. For example, the weighted inner product $⟨u,v{⟩}_w=4u_1{v}_1+u_2{v}_2$ makes $(1,1)$ and $(1,-4)$ orthogonal, since $4-4=0$. Their ordinary dot product is $-3$, so their arrows are not perpendicular in the usual Cartesian coordinate system. The algebraic definition also applies to functions, where arrows need not be available.

With conjugation in its first slot, a complex inner product has conjugate symmetry, linearity in its second slot, and positive definiteness. For the proposed Hermitian inner product, direct expansion givesThe last expression vanishes exactly for the zero vector. Conjugate symmetry and linearity also give antilinearity in the first slot: $⟨\alpha z+\beta w,y⟩=\bar{\alpha }⟨z,y⟩+\bar{\beta }⟨w,y⟩$. These verify all three axioms and the associated first-slot consequence.

Under a smooth coordinate change $x\mapsto x^{\prime }$, a contravariant vector obeysThe scalar-contraction hypothesis gives $U_a^{\prime }(\partial x^{\prime a}/\partial x^b)T^b=U_b{T}^b$ for every choice of $T^b$. Equality of all coefficients and multiplication by the inverse Jacobian matrix give $\boxed{U_a^{\prime }=(\partial x^b/\partial x^{\prime a})U_b}$, the covector law.

Let $V^a=d{x}^a/ds$ be a timelike geodesic tangent. Metric compatibility and the geodesic equation giveA Killing vector therefore gives a conserved contraction. Conversely, if that contraction is conserved along every timelike geodesic, then at any point its symmetric tensor $S_{ab}={\nabla }_{(a}{T}_{b)}$ satisfies $S_{ab}{V}^a{V}^b=0$ for every unit timelike initial tangent. Homogeneity extends this to the entire timelike cone, an open set of tangent vectors. A quadratic polynomial vanishing on an open set has every coefficient zero, so $\boxed{{\nabla }_{(a}{T}_{b)}=0}$. Considering a single selected geodesic would not suffice. This is the Converse geodesic characterization of a Killing vector.

For the given exterior transformation, differentiating at fixed $r$ givesThe transformation also gives $UV=(2m-r)e^{r/(2m)}$. This determines $r$ smoothly for $r>0$ throughout $UV<2m$. The flow of the displayed vector field rescales $U\mapsto e^{-\lambda /(4m)}U$, $V\mapsto e^{\lambda /(4m)}V$. It leaves $UV$, $r$, $dUdV$ and the angular metric unchanged. Thus it preserves the full metric everywhere in that region and extends as a global Killing field, not merely by a formal exterior coordinate substitution.

Its squared norm isIt is timelike for $UV<0$ ($r>2m$), spacelike for $0<UV<2m$ ($0<r<2m$), and a nonzero null vector on either horizon $UV=0$ away from $U=V=0$. At $U=V=0$ it is the zero vector, on the whole bifurcation surface of angular points. Zero must be distinguished from a nonzero null vector. This is the Schwarzschild time-translation Killing field in Kruskal coordinates.

Using the Levi-Civita symbol and Einstein summation convention, the scalar triple product isInterchange the dummy indices $i,j$. Antisymmetry gives $S=-a_j{\epsilon }_{ijk}{a}_i{b}_k=-S$, since $a_i{a}_j=a_j{a}_i$. Over the real numbers this proves

The normal vector to the first plane and the specified positive direction give $a=(1,1,1)$. Then $a\cdot m=3$ and $a\times m=(1,1,-2)$, soNext $a\times b=(-9,9,0)$. A vector perpendicular to both $a$ and $b$ is a scalar multiple of their cross product; the required length gives the two possibilities $c=(-2,2,0)$ and $c=(2,-2,0)$. The original PDF specifies approach to the x-axis. From $(4,4,-5)$ the original squared distance to that axis is $4^2+(-5{)}^2=41$. The two candidate endpoint squared distances are $6^2+(-5{)}^2=61$ and $2^2+(-5{)}^2=29$. Hence $c=(2,-2,0)$.

Adding the given $d$ yields $(7,0,-3)$. By the proved scalar triple product identity, $a\cdot b=3a\cdot (a\times m)=0$, so the only vector of the specified length for $e$ is the zero vector. Finally set $f=sm=(2s,0,s)$. The last point is $(7+2s,0,-3+s)$, and its plane condition becomes $2+8s=10$. Thus $s=1$ and $f=(2,0,1)$.

All waypoints, in the given distance units, areTherefore the final location is $(9,0,-2)$. The converted TeX omits two vector instructions and changes the axis; the computation above follows the original PDF.

No. For every $n\ge 2$, takein ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. These form a minimally dependent vector family: the full family is dependent because $a_n-{\sum }_{j=1}^{n-1}{a}_j=0$.

If the omitted vector is $a_n$, the remaining coordinate vectors are independent. If the omitted vector is $e_k$, a relation among the retained vectors has an $e_k$ coordinate coming only from $a_n$, so its coefficient must be zero; the coefficients of all retained coordinate vectors must then be zero. Thus every $(n-1)$-element subfamily is linearly independent, as required for a counterexample. When $n=1$, the empty subfamily is independent while the one-vector family consisting of the zero vector is not, so the answer remains negative.

For the linear map $T:V\to W$, its image of a linear map and kernel of a linear map areBoth contain the zero vector, since $T(0)=0$. If $y_1=T(v_1)$ and $y_2=T(v_2)$ belong to the image of a linear map, then for any real numbers $a,b$,Thus $\mathrm{im}T$ is a vector subspace of $W$. If $u_1,u_2\in \ker T$, thenso $\ker T$ is a vector subspace of $V$.

Write $u=(a,b{)}^T$, $v=(c,d{)}^T$ and $\Delta =ad-bc$. If $xu+yv=0$, thenEliminating $y$ gives $\Delta x=0$, and eliminating $x$ gives $\Delta y=0$. Hence $\Delta \ne 0$ implies linear independence.

For the converse, suppose $\Delta =0$. If $u=0$, the family already contains the zero vector and is linearly dependent. If $a\ne 0$, the equality $ad=bc$ gives $v=(c/a)u$. If $a=0$ but $u\ne 0$, then $b\ne 0$ and $bc=0$ forces $c=0$, so $v=(d/b)u$. Both cases give a nontrivial linear relation. ThereforeThis is the two-dimensional determinant criterion, proved directly without assuming that criterion.

For vectors $\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b},\mathbf{c}\in {\mathbb{R}}^3$, the scalar product, cross product and scalar triple product are respectivelyExpanding the dot product givesInterchanging $\mathbf{a}$ and $\mathbf{b}$ changes the sign of their cross product, so its dot product with $\mathbf{b}$ is also zero. Thus the cross product is orthogonal to both vectors, including when it is the zero vector.

The displayed scalar triple product is a determinant. A square matrix has nonzero determinant exactly when its rows are linearly independent. Hence

Over the finite field $F={\mathbb{Z}}_p$, a basis of the hyperplane has $n-1$ vectors by ii. Each vector on the hyperplane has a unique expression as a linear combination of that basis, and each coefficient has $p$ possibilities. ThusEquivalently, choose freely all coordinates except $x_j$, where $a_j\ne 0$, and solve uniquely for $x_j$. For $n=1$ this counts just the zero vector, consistently with $p^0=1$.