Finding norm of orthonormal basis?
I'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.
(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
add a comment |
I'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.
(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
There is a small typo here$ v_4=(0,2,1,0)$.
– gimusi
Nov 29 '18 at 11:07
add a comment |
I'm sorry i'm new here. I uploaded a pictures in order to make things simpler.
I have three linearly independent vectors:
v1= (1,1,0,0) v2=(1,-1,0,0) and v4=(0,2,0,0).
As you may see from the picture, the result for u3 is equal to the vector (0,0,1,0).
It says that since the norm of u3 is 1, which i found by square rooting the entries in this matrix, then the set {u1, u2, u3} is an orthonormal
basis of Span(v1, v2, v4).
I do not understand this statement.
Can somebody please explain why this is so? I do not understand the relation between this result, 1, and how it implies that {u1, u2, u3} is an orthonormal basis.
Thanks for the help, and sorry again for uploading the pic.
(please give me a quite simple explanation . I have a form dyscalculia and it takes me a while to understand these processes.
vector-spaces vectors norm inner-product-space
I'm sorry i'm new here. I uploaded a pictures in order to make things simpler.
I have three linearly independent vectors:
v1= (1,1,0,0) v2=(1,-1,0,0) and v4=(0,2,0,0).
As you may see from the picture, the result for u3 is equal to the vector (0,0,1,0).
It says that since the norm of u3 is 1, which i found by square rooting the entries in this matrix, then the set {u1, u2, u3} is an orthonormal
basis of Span(v1, v2, v4).
I do not understand this statement.
Can somebody please explain why this is so? I do not understand the relation between this result, 1, and how it implies that {u1, u2, u3} is an orthonormal basis.
Thanks for the help, and sorry again for uploading the pic.
(please give me a quite simple explanation . I have a form dyscalculia and it takes me a while to understand these processes.
vector-spaces vectors norm inner-product-space
vector-spaces vectors norm inner-product-space
edited Nov 29 '18 at 11:07
José Carlos Santos
152k22123226
152k22123226
asked Nov 29 '18 at 10:58
GGGGGGGG
176
176
There is a small typo here$ v_4=(0,2,1,0)$.
– gimusi
Nov 29 '18 at 11:07
add a comment |
There is a small typo here$ 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
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
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.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Aloizio Macedo♦
Nov 29 '18 at 14:30
add a comment |
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?
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Aloizio Macedo♦
Nov 29 '18 at 14:31
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
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
Required, but never shown
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
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.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Aloizio Macedo♦
Nov 29 '18 at 14:30
add a comment |
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.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Aloizio Macedo♦
Nov 29 '18 at 14:30
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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?
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Aloizio Macedo♦
Nov 29 '18 at 14:31
add a comment |
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?
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Aloizio Macedo♦
Nov 29 '18 at 14:31
add a comment |
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?
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?
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
answered Dec 9 '18 at 17:13
David KDavid K
52.7k340115
52.7k340115
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
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
Required, but never shown
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
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
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
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
There is a small typo here$ v_4=(0,2,1,0)$.
– gimusi
Nov 29 '18 at 11:07