Mathematics desk
< March 3	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Mathematics Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 4

orthogonal component

Please pardon the low level of this question. Given two vectors u,v (in R3) how would you get the magnitude of the component of v that is perpendicular to u? The approaches that come to my mind are rather roundabout and I can't help thinking there must be a more direct way – perhaps one that I learned in my youth but never had occasion to use! —Tamfang (talk) 05:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would think there are infinitely many orthogonal components (in R³) unless you restrict your desired component to be in the same plane as u and v, or equivalently, such that the addition of this "orthogonal" component to the component along u is equal to v. If you do that, then we can use the Pythagorean theorem using the magnitude of v and the component of v along u and obtain the magnitude of that component. Or geometrically, multiply |v| by the sine of the angle between u and v.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those begin with normalizing at least one of the vectors, which I was rather hoping I might not need to do (given that the project I have in mind would involve finding this quantity many thousands of times). —Tamfang (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've also noticed that perhaps (this works in R³ and R⁷ only, interestingly) you could take a cross product and then divide the magnitude of that by the norm of u. But then again, this also relies on finding magnitudes of the vector, albeit only u in this case.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is called the vector rejection of u from v. See the article for a number of different approaches to computing it. --Mark viking (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! What a pleasure to learn a new word.

It occurred to me later that (for my purpose) I don't really need the magnitude of the rejection: its biggest Cartesian element ought to do. —Tamfang (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical proof as a source

Does a fully valid mathematical proof count as a proper source for citation purposes? 180.200.151.199 (talk) 06:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean whether you can use a mathematical proof that you yourself constructed? Wikipedia:No original research sets a limit on that. Naturally, a proof such as the fallacy relying on dividing by 0 is obviously not a reliable source for anything in mathematics.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not a proof, it just looks like one ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not in Wikipedia. In Wikipedia what is needed is a WP:Reliable source and one's own proof is counted as WP:Original research. It doesn't matter how good the proof is. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and tries to summarize notable things that are out there already. Dmcq (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, if you have constructed a valid proof that isn't cited anywhere else, you may get an article out of it :) OldTimeNESter (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Insertion_of_Original_research_in_several_articles YohanN7 (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is the business also that Wikipedia shouldn't normally be providing proofs anyway. A short explanation or outline might be fine but actual proofs should normally be left to cited references. An exception is where the proof itself has achieved notability. Dmcq (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rules we have here on Wikipedia are flexible per WP:IAR. One has to consider here that the rules we have have evolved since the creation of Wikipedia to deal with the typical editing conflicts, like the Israeli Palestinian conflict; the pros and cons of including a math proof and how to do that isn't such an issue that the rules like WP:NOR or WP:SYNTH have been fine tuned to deal with. Count Iblis (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]