Finding norm of orthonormal basis?












0














enter image description hereI'm sorry i'm new here. I uploaded a pictures in order to make things simpler.



I have three linearly independent vectors:



v1= (1,1,0,0) v2=(1,-1,0,0) and v4=(0,2,0,0).



As you may see from the picture, the result for u3 is equal to the vector (0,0,1,0).



It says that since the norm of u3 is 1, which i found by square rooting the entries in this matrix, then the set {u1, u2, u3} is an orthonormal
basis of Span(v1, v2, v4).



I do not understand this statement.



Can somebody please explain why this is so? I do not understand the relation between this result, 1, and how it implies that {u1, u2, u3} is an orthonormal basis.



Thanks for the help, and sorry again for uploading the pic.enter image description here



(please give me a quite simple explanation . I have a form dyscalculia and it takes me a while to understand these processes.










share|cite|improve this question
























  • There is a small typo here$ v_4=(0,2,1,0)$.
    – gimusi
    Nov 29 '18 at 11:07
















0














enter image description hereI'm sorry i'm new here. I uploaded a pictures in order to make things simpler.



I have three linearly independent vectors:



v1= (1,1,0,0) v2=(1,-1,0,0) and v4=(0,2,0,0).



As you may see from the picture, the result for u3 is equal to the vector (0,0,1,0).



It says that since the norm of u3 is 1, which i found by square rooting the entries in this matrix, then the set {u1, u2, u3} is an orthonormal
basis of Span(v1, v2, v4).



I do not understand this statement.



Can somebody please explain why this is so? I do not understand the relation between this result, 1, and how it implies that {u1, u2, u3} is an orthonormal basis.



Thanks for the help, and sorry again for uploading the pic.enter image description here



(please give me a quite simple explanation . I have a form dyscalculia and it takes me a while to understand these processes.










share|cite|improve this question
























  • There is a small typo here$ v_4=(0,2,1,0)$.
    – gimusi
    Nov 29 '18 at 11:07














0












0








0


0





enter image description hereI'm sorry i'm new here. I uploaded a pictures in order to make things simpler.



I have three linearly independent vectors:



v1= (1,1,0,0) v2=(1,-1,0,0) and v4=(0,2,0,0).



As you may see from the picture, the result for u3 is equal to the vector (0,0,1,0).



It says that since the norm of u3 is 1, which i found by square rooting the entries in this matrix, then the set {u1, u2, u3} is an orthonormal
basis of Span(v1, v2, v4).



I do not understand this statement.



Can somebody please explain why this is so? I do not understand the relation between this result, 1, and how it implies that {u1, u2, u3} is an orthonormal basis.



Thanks for the help, and sorry again for uploading the pic.enter image description here



(please give me a quite simple explanation . I have a form dyscalculia and it takes me a while to understand these processes.










share|cite|improve this question















enter image description hereI'm sorry i'm new here. I uploaded a pictures in order to make things simpler.



I have three linearly independent vectors:



v1= (1,1,0,0) v2=(1,-1,0,0) and v4=(0,2,0,0).



As you may see from the picture, the result for u3 is equal to the vector (0,0,1,0).



It says that since the norm of u3 is 1, which i found by square rooting the entries in this matrix, then the set {u1, u2, u3} is an orthonormal
basis of Span(v1, v2, v4).



I do not understand this statement.



Can somebody please explain why this is so? I do not understand the relation between this result, 1, and how it implies that {u1, u2, u3} is an orthonormal basis.



Thanks for the help, and sorry again for uploading the pic.enter image description here



(please give me a quite simple explanation . I have a form dyscalculia and it takes me a while to understand these processes.







vector-spaces vectors norm inner-product-space






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 29 '18 at 11:07









José Carlos Santos

152k22123226




152k22123226










asked Nov 29 '18 at 10:58









GGGGGGGG

176




176












  • There is a small typo here$ v_4=(0,2,1,0)$.
    – gimusi
    Nov 29 '18 at 11:07


















  • There is a small typo here$ v_4=(0,2,1,0)$.
    – gimusi
    Nov 29 '18 at 11:07
















There is a small typo here$ v_4=(0,2,1,0)$.
– gimusi
Nov 29 '18 at 11:07




There is a small typo here$ v_4=(0,2,1,0)$.
– gimusi
Nov 29 '18 at 11:07










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















1














Asserting that $(u_1,u_2,u_3)$ is an orthonormal basis of that space consists in checking several things:




  • each $u_k$ has norm $1$;

  • each two distinct vectors are orthogonal.


Whover wrote this is not claming that just because $lVert u_3rVert=1$, then $(u_1,u_2,u_3)$ is an orthonormal basis. That was just the last thing that had to be checked.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Aloizio Macedo
    Nov 29 '18 at 14:30



















0














It is an application of G-S process. Since $v_1$ and $v_2$ are orthogonal, we have already $2$ vectors for the orthonormal basis.



Then we proceed with the orthogonalization of $v_4=(0,2,1,0)$ with respect to $u_1$ and $u_2$.



By the construction the span of the two sets of vectors are identical.



Refer also to the related




  • Gram Schmidt-The arts behind it

  • Find orthonormal vectors for given vectors using Gram-Schmidt

  • Is there a more convenient method for converting a base to be orthogonal than Gram Schmidt?






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Aloizio Macedo
    Nov 29 '18 at 14:31



















0














As noted in the other answers and their discussions,
to show that a set of vectors is an orthonormal basis you have to show that each pair of vectors is orthogonal and each vector has unit length.



A useful fact about the Gram-Schmidt process, which the quoted material employed,
is that if you give it any set of $n$ vectors as input, there are only two possible
outcomes:
either at some point in the process one of the $mathbf u'$ vectors turns out to be the zero vector,
or you get a set of $n$ vectors that is an orthonormal basis of the space spanned by your input vectors.
Unless you encounter a zero vector,
each pair of vectors is automatically orthogonal due to the formulas that produced each vector,
and of course scaling each vector $mathbf u'$ by $1/lVertmathbf u'rVert$
guarantees that each vector in the result has unit length.
In short, it is mathematically impossible for Gram-Schmidt to turn $n$ input vectors into $n$ non-zero output vectors that are not an orthonormal basis.



In the quoted material, however, there are a couple of places where serendipity simplifies the calculations.
One such place is when computing $mathbf u_2',$
where it turns out that $mathbf v_2$ is already orthogonal to $mathbf u_1'.$
The other place is where it turns out that $mathbf u_3'$ already has unit length.
But if we ignored these two facts and just blindly applied Gram-Schmidt,
we would already know that all the checks for orthogonality and unit length would be satisfied.






share|cite|improve this answer





















    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',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    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%2f3018473%2ffinding-norm-of-orthonormal-basis%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    1














    Asserting that $(u_1,u_2,u_3)$ is an orthonormal basis of that space consists in checking several things:




    • each $u_k$ has norm $1$;

    • each two distinct vectors are orthogonal.


    Whover wrote this is not claming that just because $lVert u_3rVert=1$, then $(u_1,u_2,u_3)$ is an orthonormal basis. That was just the last thing that had to be checked.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
      – Aloizio Macedo
      Nov 29 '18 at 14:30
















    1














    Asserting that $(u_1,u_2,u_3)$ is an orthonormal basis of that space consists in checking several things:




    • each $u_k$ has norm $1$;

    • each two distinct vectors are orthogonal.


    Whover wrote this is not claming that just because $lVert u_3rVert=1$, then $(u_1,u_2,u_3)$ is an orthonormal basis. That was just the last thing that had to be checked.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
      – Aloizio Macedo
      Nov 29 '18 at 14:30














    1












    1








    1






    Asserting that $(u_1,u_2,u_3)$ is an orthonormal basis of that space consists in checking several things:




    • each $u_k$ has norm $1$;

    • each two distinct vectors are orthogonal.


    Whover wrote this is not claming that just because $lVert u_3rVert=1$, then $(u_1,u_2,u_3)$ is an orthonormal basis. That was just the last thing that had to be checked.






    share|cite|improve this answer












    Asserting that $(u_1,u_2,u_3)$ is an orthonormal basis of that space consists in checking several things:




    • each $u_k$ has norm $1$;

    • each two distinct vectors are orthogonal.


    Whover wrote this is not claming that just because $lVert u_3rVert=1$, then $(u_1,u_2,u_3)$ is an orthonormal basis. That was just the last thing that had to be checked.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Nov 29 '18 at 11:04









    José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos

    152k22123226




    152k22123226












    • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
      – Aloizio Macedo
      Nov 29 '18 at 14:30


















    • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
      – Aloizio Macedo
      Nov 29 '18 at 14:30
















    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Aloizio Macedo
    Nov 29 '18 at 14:30




    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Aloizio Macedo
    Nov 29 '18 at 14:30











    0














    It is an application of G-S process. Since $v_1$ and $v_2$ are orthogonal, we have already $2$ vectors for the orthonormal basis.



    Then we proceed with the orthogonalization of $v_4=(0,2,1,0)$ with respect to $u_1$ and $u_2$.



    By the construction the span of the two sets of vectors are identical.



    Refer also to the related




    • Gram Schmidt-The arts behind it

    • Find orthonormal vectors for given vectors using Gram-Schmidt

    • Is there a more convenient method for converting a base to be orthogonal than Gram Schmidt?






    share|cite|improve this answer























    • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
      – Aloizio Macedo
      Nov 29 '18 at 14:31
















    0














    It is an application of G-S process. Since $v_1$ and $v_2$ are orthogonal, we have already $2$ vectors for the orthonormal basis.



    Then we proceed with the orthogonalization of $v_4=(0,2,1,0)$ with respect to $u_1$ and $u_2$.



    By the construction the span of the two sets of vectors are identical.



    Refer also to the related




    • Gram Schmidt-The arts behind it

    • Find orthonormal vectors for given vectors using Gram-Schmidt

    • Is there a more convenient method for converting a base to be orthogonal than Gram Schmidt?






    share|cite|improve this answer























    • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
      – Aloizio Macedo
      Nov 29 '18 at 14:31














    0












    0








    0






    It is an application of G-S process. Since $v_1$ and $v_2$ are orthogonal, we have already $2$ vectors for the orthonormal basis.



    Then we proceed with the orthogonalization of $v_4=(0,2,1,0)$ with respect to $u_1$ and $u_2$.



    By the construction the span of the two sets of vectors are identical.



    Refer also to the related




    • Gram Schmidt-The arts behind it

    • Find orthonormal vectors for given vectors using Gram-Schmidt

    • Is there a more convenient method for converting a base to be orthogonal than Gram Schmidt?






    share|cite|improve this answer














    It is an application of G-S process. Since $v_1$ and $v_2$ are orthogonal, we have already $2$ vectors for the orthonormal basis.



    Then we proceed with the orthogonalization of $v_4=(0,2,1,0)$ with respect to $u_1$ and $u_2$.



    By the construction the span of the two sets of vectors are identical.



    Refer also to the related




    • Gram Schmidt-The arts behind it

    • Find orthonormal vectors for given vectors using Gram-Schmidt

    • Is there a more convenient method for converting a base to be orthogonal than Gram Schmidt?







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited Nov 29 '18 at 11:03

























    answered Nov 29 '18 at 11:02









    gimusigimusi

    1




    1












    • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
      – Aloizio Macedo
      Nov 29 '18 at 14:31


















    • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
      – Aloizio Macedo
      Nov 29 '18 at 14:31
















    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Aloizio Macedo
    Nov 29 '18 at 14:31




    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Aloizio Macedo
    Nov 29 '18 at 14:31











    0














    As noted in the other answers and their discussions,
    to show that a set of vectors is an orthonormal basis you have to show that each pair of vectors is orthogonal and each vector has unit length.



    A useful fact about the Gram-Schmidt process, which the quoted material employed,
    is that if you give it any set of $n$ vectors as input, there are only two possible
    outcomes:
    either at some point in the process one of the $mathbf u'$ vectors turns out to be the zero vector,
    or you get a set of $n$ vectors that is an orthonormal basis of the space spanned by your input vectors.
    Unless you encounter a zero vector,
    each pair of vectors is automatically orthogonal due to the formulas that produced each vector,
    and of course scaling each vector $mathbf u'$ by $1/lVertmathbf u'rVert$
    guarantees that each vector in the result has unit length.
    In short, it is mathematically impossible for Gram-Schmidt to turn $n$ input vectors into $n$ non-zero output vectors that are not an orthonormal basis.



    In the quoted material, however, there are a couple of places where serendipity simplifies the calculations.
    One such place is when computing $mathbf u_2',$
    where it turns out that $mathbf v_2$ is already orthogonal to $mathbf u_1'.$
    The other place is where it turns out that $mathbf u_3'$ already has unit length.
    But if we ignored these two facts and just blindly applied Gram-Schmidt,
    we would already know that all the checks for orthogonality and unit length would be satisfied.






    share|cite|improve this answer


























      0














      As noted in the other answers and their discussions,
      to show that a set of vectors is an orthonormal basis you have to show that each pair of vectors is orthogonal and each vector has unit length.



      A useful fact about the Gram-Schmidt process, which the quoted material employed,
      is that if you give it any set of $n$ vectors as input, there are only two possible
      outcomes:
      either at some point in the process one of the $mathbf u'$ vectors turns out to be the zero vector,
      or you get a set of $n$ vectors that is an orthonormal basis of the space spanned by your input vectors.
      Unless you encounter a zero vector,
      each pair of vectors is automatically orthogonal due to the formulas that produced each vector,
      and of course scaling each vector $mathbf u'$ by $1/lVertmathbf u'rVert$
      guarantees that each vector in the result has unit length.
      In short, it is mathematically impossible for Gram-Schmidt to turn $n$ input vectors into $n$ non-zero output vectors that are not an orthonormal basis.



      In the quoted material, however, there are a couple of places where serendipity simplifies the calculations.
      One such place is when computing $mathbf u_2',$
      where it turns out that $mathbf v_2$ is already orthogonal to $mathbf u_1'.$
      The other place is where it turns out that $mathbf u_3'$ already has unit length.
      But if we ignored these two facts and just blindly applied Gram-Schmidt,
      we would already know that all the checks for orthogonality and unit length would be satisfied.






      share|cite|improve this answer
























        0












        0








        0






        As noted in the other answers and their discussions,
        to show that a set of vectors is an orthonormal basis you have to show that each pair of vectors is orthogonal and each vector has unit length.



        A useful fact about the Gram-Schmidt process, which the quoted material employed,
        is that if you give it any set of $n$ vectors as input, there are only two possible
        outcomes:
        either at some point in the process one of the $mathbf u'$ vectors turns out to be the zero vector,
        or you get a set of $n$ vectors that is an orthonormal basis of the space spanned by your input vectors.
        Unless you encounter a zero vector,
        each pair of vectors is automatically orthogonal due to the formulas that produced each vector,
        and of course scaling each vector $mathbf u'$ by $1/lVertmathbf u'rVert$
        guarantees that each vector in the result has unit length.
        In short, it is mathematically impossible for Gram-Schmidt to turn $n$ input vectors into $n$ non-zero output vectors that are not an orthonormal basis.



        In the quoted material, however, there are a couple of places where serendipity simplifies the calculations.
        One such place is when computing $mathbf u_2',$
        where it turns out that $mathbf v_2$ is already orthogonal to $mathbf u_1'.$
        The other place is where it turns out that $mathbf u_3'$ already has unit length.
        But if we ignored these two facts and just blindly applied Gram-Schmidt,
        we would already know that all the checks for orthogonality and unit length would be satisfied.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        As noted in the other answers and their discussions,
        to show that a set of vectors is an orthonormal basis you have to show that each pair of vectors is orthogonal and each vector has unit length.



        A useful fact about the Gram-Schmidt process, which the quoted material employed,
        is that if you give it any set of $n$ vectors as input, there are only two possible
        outcomes:
        either at some point in the process one of the $mathbf u'$ vectors turns out to be the zero vector,
        or you get a set of $n$ vectors that is an orthonormal basis of the space spanned by your input vectors.
        Unless you encounter a zero vector,
        each pair of vectors is automatically orthogonal due to the formulas that produced each vector,
        and of course scaling each vector $mathbf u'$ by $1/lVertmathbf u'rVert$
        guarantees that each vector in the result has unit length.
        In short, it is mathematically impossible for Gram-Schmidt to turn $n$ input vectors into $n$ non-zero output vectors that are not an orthonormal basis.



        In the quoted material, however, there are a couple of places where serendipity simplifies the calculations.
        One such place is when computing $mathbf u_2',$
        where it turns out that $mathbf v_2$ is already orthogonal to $mathbf u_1'.$
        The other place is where it turns out that $mathbf u_3'$ already has unit length.
        But if we ignored these two facts and just blindly applied Gram-Schmidt,
        we would already know that all the checks for orthogonality and unit length would be satisfied.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Dec 9 '18 at 17:13









        David KDavid K

        52.7k340115




        52.7k340115






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3018473%2ffinding-norm-of-orthonormal-basis%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Bundesstraße 106

            Verónica Boquete

            Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten