Covariant Contravariant Dot product and Length












1












$begingroup$


So one thing that I find really interesting is that if I have a vector $vec V = V_x hat i + V_y hat j$ its length is just:



$$ |V|^2 = V_x^2 + V_y^2 $$



That is all well and good, but then if I transform the vector into a new basis, I can rewrite the vector in terms of a covariant basis as:



$$ vec V = V^1 vec b_1 + V^2 vec b_2 $$



Now of course, it is obvious that since $vec b_1 $ and $vec b_2$ are not necessarily orthogonormal, that $|V| ne sqrt{(V^1)^2 + (V^2)^2}$, that is all well and good:



Contravariant Basis



Now the usual way this goes is that we then define a new set of basis vectors: we define $b^1$ to be orthogonal to all $b_i$ when $ine 1$ but we define strangely that $b_1 cdot b^1 = 1$. Then we rinse and repeat for all other vectors.



We can then represent v in terms of this new basis directly as:



$$ vec V = V_1 vec b^1 + V_2 vec b^2 $$



Now this is also fine, but then something totally out of the blue happens:



The Dot Product



If we take the dot product of these two representations, we can get an alternative formula for the length:



$$ |V| ^2 = (V^1 vec b_1 + V^2 vec b_2) cdot (V_1 vec b^1 + V_2 vec b^2) = V_x^2 + V_y^2 $$




Now I can verify this by calculation, but I now realise that I have absolutely no understanding of why this should be true.




Any help would be most appreciated :) I don't see the connection here, why does defining this new basis with the rule that $b_j cdot b^k = delta_{jk}$ lead to such an elegant formula for length?






vectors coordinate-systems tensors







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I think you lack the correct terminology to deal with these things. Such correct terminology is the machinery of metric tensors. Try having a look at the book of Itskov "Tensor analysis and tensor algebra for engineers".
    $endgroup$
    – Giuseppe Negro
    Jan 12 '18 at 15:25










  • $begingroup$
    Well I am trying to learn this now. But I have found every explanation of this fact to be very hand wavy - and I haven't found a concrete explanation/proof for this fact in particular. I have started looking into the metric tensor, but I don't want to progress beyond this until I fundamentally understand why this should be true in general.
    $endgroup$
    – user2662833
    Jan 12 '18 at 15:30










  • $begingroup$
    I do appreciate the recommendation though; I will try to find it regardless :)
    $endgroup$
    – user2662833
    Jan 12 '18 at 15:31










  • $begingroup$
    Look here and subsequent discussion
    $endgroup$
    – Giuseppe Negro
    Jan 12 '18 at 15:47










  • $begingroup$
    Yep I found it, it goes through it before page 10, but as is the case with all books I've found; it doesn't prove this fact at all; it makes no connection between length and the definition of this dual basis. It just states that there exists a dual basis for every basis and that this formula should hold. What I'm looking for is a connection between the euclidean length and the length in another basis. I can definitely see that this formula is true; but the author here has glossed over why it should be true.
    $endgroup$
    – user2662833
    Jan 12 '18 at 15:52
















1












$begingroup$


So one thing that I find really interesting is that if I have a vector $vec V = V_x hat i + V_y hat j$ its length is just:



$$ |V|^2 = V_x^2 + V_y^2 $$



That is all well and good, but then if I transform the vector into a new basis, I can rewrite the vector in terms of a covariant basis as:



$$ vec V = V^1 vec b_1 + V^2 vec b_2 $$



Now of course, it is obvious that since $vec b_1 $ and $vec b_2$ are not necessarily orthogonormal, that $|V| ne sqrt{(V^1)^2 + (V^2)^2}$, that is all well and good:



Contravariant Basis



Now the usual way this goes is that we then define a new set of basis vectors: we define $b^1$ to be orthogonal to all $b_i$ when $ine 1$ but we define strangely that $b_1 cdot b^1 = 1$. Then we rinse and repeat for all other vectors.



We can then represent v in terms of this new basis directly as:



$$ vec V = V_1 vec b^1 + V_2 vec b^2 $$



Now this is also fine, but then something totally out of the blue happens:



The Dot Product



If we take the dot product of these two representations, we can get an alternative formula for the length:



$$ |V| ^2 = (V^1 vec b_1 + V^2 vec b_2) cdot (V_1 vec b^1 + V_2 vec b^2) = V_x^2 + V_y^2 $$




Now I can verify this by calculation, but I now realise that I have absolutely no understanding of why this should be true.




Any help would be most appreciated :) I don't see the connection here, why does defining this new basis with the rule that $b_j cdot b^k = delta_{jk}$ lead to such an elegant formula for length?






vectors coordinate-systems tensors







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I think you lack the correct terminology to deal with these things. Such correct terminology is the machinery of metric tensors. Try having a look at the book of Itskov "Tensor analysis and tensor algebra for engineers".
    $endgroup$
    – Giuseppe Negro
    Jan 12 '18 at 15:25










  • $begingroup$
    Well I am trying to learn this now. But I have found every explanation of this fact to be very hand wavy - and I haven't found a concrete explanation/proof for this fact in particular. I have started looking into the metric tensor, but I don't want to progress beyond this until I fundamentally understand why this should be true in general.
    $endgroup$
    – user2662833
    Jan 12 '18 at 15:30










  • $begingroup$
    I do appreciate the recommendation though; I will try to find it regardless :)
    $endgroup$
    – user2662833
    Jan 12 '18 at 15:31










  • $begingroup$
    Look here and subsequent discussion
    $endgroup$
    – Giuseppe Negro
    Jan 12 '18 at 15:47










  • $begingroup$
    Yep I found it, it goes through it before page 10, but as is the case with all books I've found; it doesn't prove this fact at all; it makes no connection between length and the definition of this dual basis. It just states that there exists a dual basis for every basis and that this formula should hold. What I'm looking for is a connection between the euclidean length and the length in another basis. I can definitely see that this formula is true; but the author here has glossed over why it should be true.
    $endgroup$
    – user2662833
    Jan 12 '18 at 15:52














1












1








1


1



$begingroup$


So one thing that I find really interesting is that if I have a vector $vec V = V_x hat i + V_y hat j$ its length is just:



$$ |V|^2 = V_x^2 + V_y^2 $$



That is all well and good, but then if I transform the vector into a new basis, I can rewrite the vector in terms of a covariant basis as:



$$ vec V = V^1 vec b_1 + V^2 vec b_2 $$



Now of course, it is obvious that since $vec b_1 $ and $vec b_2$ are not necessarily orthogonormal, that $|V| ne sqrt{(V^1)^2 + (V^2)^2}$, that is all well and good:



Contravariant Basis



Now the usual way this goes is that we then define a new set of basis vectors: we define $b^1$ to be orthogonal to all $b_i$ when $ine 1$ but we define strangely that $b_1 cdot b^1 = 1$. Then we rinse and repeat for all other vectors.



We can then represent v in terms of this new basis directly as:



$$ vec V = V_1 vec b^1 + V_2 vec b^2 $$



Now this is also fine, but then something totally out of the blue happens:



The Dot Product



If we take the dot product of these two representations, we can get an alternative formula for the length:



$$ |V| ^2 = (V^1 vec b_1 + V^2 vec b_2) cdot (V_1 vec b^1 + V_2 vec b^2) = V_x^2 + V_y^2 $$




Now I can verify this by calculation, but I now realise that I have absolutely no understanding of why this should be true.




Any help would be most appreciated :) I don't see the connection here, why does defining this new basis with the rule that $b_j cdot b^k = delta_{jk}$ lead to such an elegant formula for length?






vectors coordinate-systems tensors







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




So one thing that I find really interesting is that if I have a vector $vec V = V_x hat i + V_y hat j$ its length is just:



$$ |V|^2 = V_x^2 + V_y^2 $$



That is all well and good, but then if I transform the vector into a new basis, I can rewrite the vector in terms of a covariant basis as:



$$ vec V = V^1 vec b_1 + V^2 vec b_2 $$



Now of course, it is obvious that since $vec b_1 $ and $vec b_2$ are not necessarily orthogonormal, that $|V| ne sqrt{(V^1)^2 + (V^2)^2}$, that is all well and good:



Contravariant Basis



Now the usual way this goes is that we then define a new set of basis vectors: we define $b^1$ to be orthogonal to all $b_i$ when $ine 1$ but we define strangely that $b_1 cdot b^1 = 1$. Then we rinse and repeat for all other vectors.



We can then represent v in terms of this new basis directly as:



$$ vec V = V_1 vec b^1 + V_2 vec b^2 $$



Now this is also fine, but then something totally out of the blue happens:



The Dot Product



If we take the dot product of these two representations, we can get an alternative formula for the length:



$$ |V| ^2 = (V^1 vec b_1 + V^2 vec b_2) cdot (V_1 vec b^1 + V_2 vec b^2) = V_x^2 + V_y^2 $$




Now I can verify this by calculation, but I now realise that I have absolutely no understanding of why this should be true.




Any help would be most appreciated :) I don't see the connection here, why does defining this new basis with the rule that $b_j cdot b^k = delta_{jk}$ lead to such an elegant formula for length?






vectors coordinate-systems tensors




vectors coordinate-systems tensors






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Jan 12 '18 at 15:21









user2662833user2662833

1,068815




1,068815












  • $begingroup$
    I think you lack the correct terminology to deal with these things. Such correct terminology is the machinery of metric tensors. Try having a look at the book of Itskov "Tensor analysis and tensor algebra for engineers".
    $endgroup$
    – Giuseppe Negro
    Jan 12 '18 at 15:25










  • $begingroup$
    Well I am trying to learn this now. But I have found every explanation of this fact to be very hand wavy - and I haven't found a concrete explanation/proof for this fact in particular. I have started looking into the metric tensor, but I don't want to progress beyond this until I fundamentally understand why this should be true in general.
    $endgroup$
    – user2662833
    Jan 12 '18 at 15:30










  • $begingroup$
    I do appreciate the recommendation though; I will try to find it regardless :)
    $endgroup$
    – user2662833
    Jan 12 '18 at 15:31










  • $begingroup$
    Look here and subsequent discussion
    $endgroup$
    – Giuseppe Negro
    Jan 12 '18 at 15:47










  • $begingroup$
    Yep I found it, it goes through it before page 10, but as is the case with all books I've found; it doesn't prove this fact at all; it makes no connection between length and the definition of this dual basis. It just states that there exists a dual basis for every basis and that this formula should hold. What I'm looking for is a connection between the euclidean length and the length in another basis. I can definitely see that this formula is true; but the author here has glossed over why it should be true.
    $endgroup$
    – user2662833
    Jan 12 '18 at 15:52


















  • $begingroup$
    I think you lack the correct terminology to deal with these things. Such correct terminology is the machinery of metric tensors. Try having a look at the book of Itskov "Tensor analysis and tensor algebra for engineers".
    $endgroup$
    – Giuseppe Negro
    Jan 12 '18 at 15:25










  • $begingroup$
    Well I am trying to learn this now. But I have found every explanation of this fact to be very hand wavy - and I haven't found a concrete explanation/proof for this fact in particular. I have started looking into the metric tensor, but I don't want to progress beyond this until I fundamentally understand why this should be true in general.
    $endgroup$
    – user2662833
    Jan 12 '18 at 15:30










  • $begingroup$
    I do appreciate the recommendation though; I will try to find it regardless :)
    $endgroup$
    – user2662833
    Jan 12 '18 at 15:31










  • $begingroup$
    Look here and subsequent discussion
    $endgroup$
    – Giuseppe Negro
    Jan 12 '18 at 15:47










  • $begingroup$
    Yep I found it, it goes through it before page 10, but as is the case with all books I've found; it doesn't prove this fact at all; it makes no connection between length and the definition of this dual basis. It just states that there exists a dual basis for every basis and that this formula should hold. What I'm looking for is a connection between the euclidean length and the length in another basis. I can definitely see that this formula is true; but the author here has glossed over why it should be true.
    $endgroup$
    – user2662833
    Jan 12 '18 at 15:52
















$begingroup$
I think you lack the correct terminology to deal with these things. Such correct terminology is the machinery of metric tensors. Try having a look at the book of Itskov "Tensor analysis and tensor algebra for engineers".
$endgroup$
– Giuseppe Negro
Jan 12 '18 at 15:25




$begingroup$
I think you lack the correct terminology to deal with these things. Such correct terminology is the machinery of metric tensors. Try having a look at the book of Itskov "Tensor analysis and tensor algebra for engineers".
$endgroup$
– Giuseppe Negro
Jan 12 '18 at 15:25












$begingroup$
Well I am trying to learn this now. But I have found every explanation of this fact to be very hand wavy - and I haven't found a concrete explanation/proof for this fact in particular. I have started looking into the metric tensor, but I don't want to progress beyond this until I fundamentally understand why this should be true in general.
$endgroup$
– user2662833
Jan 12 '18 at 15:30




$begingroup$
Well I am trying to learn this now. But I have found every explanation of this fact to be very hand wavy - and I haven't found a concrete explanation/proof for this fact in particular. I have started looking into the metric tensor, but I don't want to progress beyond this until I fundamentally understand why this should be true in general.
$endgroup$
– user2662833
Jan 12 '18 at 15:30












$begingroup$
I do appreciate the recommendation though; I will try to find it regardless :)
$endgroup$
– user2662833
Jan 12 '18 at 15:31




$begingroup$
I do appreciate the recommendation though; I will try to find it regardless :)
$endgroup$
– user2662833
Jan 12 '18 at 15:31












$begingroup$
Look here and subsequent discussion
$endgroup$
– Giuseppe Negro
Jan 12 '18 at 15:47




$begingroup$
Look here and subsequent discussion
$endgroup$
– Giuseppe Negro
Jan 12 '18 at 15:47












$begingroup$
Yep I found it, it goes through it before page 10, but as is the case with all books I've found; it doesn't prove this fact at all; it makes no connection between length and the definition of this dual basis. It just states that there exists a dual basis for every basis and that this formula should hold. What I'm looking for is a connection between the euclidean length and the length in another basis. I can definitely see that this formula is true; but the author here has glossed over why it should be true.
$endgroup$
– user2662833
Jan 12 '18 at 15:52




$begingroup$
Yep I found it, it goes through it before page 10, but as is the case with all books I've found; it doesn't prove this fact at all; it makes no connection between length and the definition of this dual basis. It just states that there exists a dual basis for every basis and that this formula should hold. What I'm looking for is a connection between the euclidean length and the length in another basis. I can definitely see that this formula is true; but the author here has glossed over why it should be true.
$endgroup$
– user2662833
Jan 12 '18 at 15:52










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

The intuition here is as follows: we define the dual basis to "correct for" all the departures from orthonormality of the original basis. So if the angle between two basis vectors in the original basis was acute, the angle in the new basis will be obtuse; if one if the basis vectors was longer in the original basis, it will be shorter in the new basis. Then when we "average out" the two bases by taking the product of the coordinate in one basis with the coordinate in the other basis, all the departures from orthonormality are corrected for, and we get the appropriate length as if we had a single orthonormal basis.



Of course, to describe precisely how this "correction" is done and to prove that it works, you have to go through the math, as, e.g., the book Giuseppe Negro pointed you to does.



Did you have a particular problem with the proof there? Or were you looking for intuition?






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    0












    $begingroup$

    Okay, so I suppose its time I come back and answer my own question here. Its wasn't too
    complicated, but thats the beauty of learning isn't it!



    I was missing the fact that we define the dual basis as the basis that makes
    $bf{e_i} cdot bf{e^j} = delta_i^j$. Given this fact alone, it is possible to find
    all of the dual basis vectors $left{bf{e^j}right}$. So using my old notation,
    (but bolding instead of adding all those ugly hats), we always know that the squared magnitude equals the dot product of any vector with itself, so:



    $$ |V|^2 = bf{v} cdot bf{v} $$



    So we can write $bf{v}$ in terms of the original basis, and in terms of the dual basis as I've shown below:



    $$ |V| ^2 = (V^1 bf {b_1} + V^2 bf {b_2}) cdot (V_1 bf {b^1} + V_2 bf{b^2})$$



    Now if you expand this out, you'll get:



    $$ |V| ^2 = V^1 V_1 bf {b_1}cdotbf {b^1} + V^1 V_2 bf {b_1}cdotbf {b^2} +
    V^2 V_1 bf {b_2}cdotbf {b^1} + V^2 V_2 bf {b_2}cdotbf {b^2}$$



    Now just by using our definition, we can immediately say that $bf{b_1}cdotbf{b^1} = bf{b_2}cdotbf{b^2} = 1$. We have also stated that the dual basis vectors are perpendicular to all original basis vectors (except the one with the same index), so $bf{b_1}cdotbf{b^2} = bf{b_2}cdotbf{b^1} = 0$. If we make these substitutions, we get the simple formula:




    $$ |V| ^2 = V^1 V_1 + V^2 V_2 $$




    Which I was struggling to understand in the past.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













      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%2f2602448%2fcovariant-contravariant-dot-product-and-length%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      1












      $begingroup$

      The intuition here is as follows: we define the dual basis to "correct for" all the departures from orthonormality of the original basis. So if the angle between two basis vectors in the original basis was acute, the angle in the new basis will be obtuse; if one if the basis vectors was longer in the original basis, it will be shorter in the new basis. Then when we "average out" the two bases by taking the product of the coordinate in one basis with the coordinate in the other basis, all the departures from orthonormality are corrected for, and we get the appropriate length as if we had a single orthonormal basis.



      Of course, to describe precisely how this "correction" is done and to prove that it works, you have to go through the math, as, e.g., the book Giuseppe Negro pointed you to does.



      Did you have a particular problem with the proof there? Or were you looking for intuition?






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$


















        1












        $begingroup$

        The intuition here is as follows: we define the dual basis to "correct for" all the departures from orthonormality of the original basis. So if the angle between two basis vectors in the original basis was acute, the angle in the new basis will be obtuse; if one if the basis vectors was longer in the original basis, it will be shorter in the new basis. Then when we "average out" the two bases by taking the product of the coordinate in one basis with the coordinate in the other basis, all the departures from orthonormality are corrected for, and we get the appropriate length as if we had a single orthonormal basis.



        Of course, to describe precisely how this "correction" is done and to prove that it works, you have to go through the math, as, e.g., the book Giuseppe Negro pointed you to does.



        Did you have a particular problem with the proof there? Or were you looking for intuition?






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$
















          1












          1








          1





          $begingroup$

          The intuition here is as follows: we define the dual basis to "correct for" all the departures from orthonormality of the original basis. So if the angle between two basis vectors in the original basis was acute, the angle in the new basis will be obtuse; if one if the basis vectors was longer in the original basis, it will be shorter in the new basis. Then when we "average out" the two bases by taking the product of the coordinate in one basis with the coordinate in the other basis, all the departures from orthonormality are corrected for, and we get the appropriate length as if we had a single orthonormal basis.



          Of course, to describe precisely how this "correction" is done and to prove that it works, you have to go through the math, as, e.g., the book Giuseppe Negro pointed you to does.



          Did you have a particular problem with the proof there? Or were you looking for intuition?






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          The intuition here is as follows: we define the dual basis to "correct for" all the departures from orthonormality of the original basis. So if the angle between two basis vectors in the original basis was acute, the angle in the new basis will be obtuse; if one if the basis vectors was longer in the original basis, it will be shorter in the new basis. Then when we "average out" the two bases by taking the product of the coordinate in one basis with the coordinate in the other basis, all the departures from orthonormality are corrected for, and we get the appropriate length as if we had a single orthonormal basis.



          Of course, to describe precisely how this "correction" is done and to prove that it works, you have to go through the math, as, e.g., the book Giuseppe Negro pointed you to does.



          Did you have a particular problem with the proof there? Or were you looking for intuition?







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Jan 12 '18 at 16:33









          Y. FormanY. Forman

          11.5k523




          11.5k523























              0












              $begingroup$

              Okay, so I suppose its time I come back and answer my own question here. Its wasn't too
              complicated, but thats the beauty of learning isn't it!



              I was missing the fact that we define the dual basis as the basis that makes
              $bf{e_i} cdot bf{e^j} = delta_i^j$. Given this fact alone, it is possible to find
              all of the dual basis vectors $left{bf{e^j}right}$. So using my old notation,
              (but bolding instead of adding all those ugly hats), we always know that the squared magnitude equals the dot product of any vector with itself, so:



              $$ |V|^2 = bf{v} cdot bf{v} $$



              So we can write $bf{v}$ in terms of the original basis, and in terms of the dual basis as I've shown below:



              $$ |V| ^2 = (V^1 bf {b_1} + V^2 bf {b_2}) cdot (V_1 bf {b^1} + V_2 bf{b^2})$$



              Now if you expand this out, you'll get:



              $$ |V| ^2 = V^1 V_1 bf {b_1}cdotbf {b^1} + V^1 V_2 bf {b_1}cdotbf {b^2} +
              V^2 V_1 bf {b_2}cdotbf {b^1} + V^2 V_2 bf {b_2}cdotbf {b^2}$$



              Now just by using our definition, we can immediately say that $bf{b_1}cdotbf{b^1} = bf{b_2}cdotbf{b^2} = 1$. We have also stated that the dual basis vectors are perpendicular to all original basis vectors (except the one with the same index), so $bf{b_1}cdotbf{b^2} = bf{b_2}cdotbf{b^1} = 0$. If we make these substitutions, we get the simple formula:




              $$ |V| ^2 = V^1 V_1 + V^2 V_2 $$




              Which I was struggling to understand in the past.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                0












                $begingroup$

                Okay, so I suppose its time I come back and answer my own question here. Its wasn't too
                complicated, but thats the beauty of learning isn't it!



                I was missing the fact that we define the dual basis as the basis that makes
                $bf{e_i} cdot bf{e^j} = delta_i^j$. Given this fact alone, it is possible to find
                all of the dual basis vectors $left{bf{e^j}right}$. So using my old notation,
                (but bolding instead of adding all those ugly hats), we always know that the squared magnitude equals the dot product of any vector with itself, so:



                $$ |V|^2 = bf{v} cdot bf{v} $$



                So we can write $bf{v}$ in terms of the original basis, and in terms of the dual basis as I've shown below:



                $$ |V| ^2 = (V^1 bf {b_1} + V^2 bf {b_2}) cdot (V_1 bf {b^1} + V_2 bf{b^2})$$



                Now if you expand this out, you'll get:



                $$ |V| ^2 = V^1 V_1 bf {b_1}cdotbf {b^1} + V^1 V_2 bf {b_1}cdotbf {b^2} +
                V^2 V_1 bf {b_2}cdotbf {b^1} + V^2 V_2 bf {b_2}cdotbf {b^2}$$



                Now just by using our definition, we can immediately say that $bf{b_1}cdotbf{b^1} = bf{b_2}cdotbf{b^2} = 1$. We have also stated that the dual basis vectors are perpendicular to all original basis vectors (except the one with the same index), so $bf{b_1}cdotbf{b^2} = bf{b_2}cdotbf{b^1} = 0$. If we make these substitutions, we get the simple formula:




                $$ |V| ^2 = V^1 V_1 + V^2 V_2 $$




                Which I was struggling to understand in the past.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  0












                  0








                  0





                  $begingroup$

                  Okay, so I suppose its time I come back and answer my own question here. Its wasn't too
                  complicated, but thats the beauty of learning isn't it!



                  I was missing the fact that we define the dual basis as the basis that makes
                  $bf{e_i} cdot bf{e^j} = delta_i^j$. Given this fact alone, it is possible to find
                  all of the dual basis vectors $left{bf{e^j}right}$. So using my old notation,
                  (but bolding instead of adding all those ugly hats), we always know that the squared magnitude equals the dot product of any vector with itself, so:



                  $$ |V|^2 = bf{v} cdot bf{v} $$



                  So we can write $bf{v}$ in terms of the original basis, and in terms of the dual basis as I've shown below:



                  $$ |V| ^2 = (V^1 bf {b_1} + V^2 bf {b_2}) cdot (V_1 bf {b^1} + V_2 bf{b^2})$$



                  Now if you expand this out, you'll get:



                  $$ |V| ^2 = V^1 V_1 bf {b_1}cdotbf {b^1} + V^1 V_2 bf {b_1}cdotbf {b^2} +
                  V^2 V_1 bf {b_2}cdotbf {b^1} + V^2 V_2 bf {b_2}cdotbf {b^2}$$



                  Now just by using our definition, we can immediately say that $bf{b_1}cdotbf{b^1} = bf{b_2}cdotbf{b^2} = 1$. We have also stated that the dual basis vectors are perpendicular to all original basis vectors (except the one with the same index), so $bf{b_1}cdotbf{b^2} = bf{b_2}cdotbf{b^1} = 0$. If we make these substitutions, we get the simple formula:




                  $$ |V| ^2 = V^1 V_1 + V^2 V_2 $$




                  Which I was struggling to understand in the past.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  Okay, so I suppose its time I come back and answer my own question here. Its wasn't too
                  complicated, but thats the beauty of learning isn't it!



                  I was missing the fact that we define the dual basis as the basis that makes
                  $bf{e_i} cdot bf{e^j} = delta_i^j$. Given this fact alone, it is possible to find
                  all of the dual basis vectors $left{bf{e^j}right}$. So using my old notation,
                  (but bolding instead of adding all those ugly hats), we always know that the squared magnitude equals the dot product of any vector with itself, so:



                  $$ |V|^2 = bf{v} cdot bf{v} $$



                  So we can write $bf{v}$ in terms of the original basis, and in terms of the dual basis as I've shown below:



                  $$ |V| ^2 = (V^1 bf {b_1} + V^2 bf {b_2}) cdot (V_1 bf {b^1} + V_2 bf{b^2})$$



                  Now if you expand this out, you'll get:



                  $$ |V| ^2 = V^1 V_1 bf {b_1}cdotbf {b^1} + V^1 V_2 bf {b_1}cdotbf {b^2} +
                  V^2 V_1 bf {b_2}cdotbf {b^1} + V^2 V_2 bf {b_2}cdotbf {b^2}$$



                  Now just by using our definition, we can immediately say that $bf{b_1}cdotbf{b^1} = bf{b_2}cdotbf{b^2} = 1$. We have also stated that the dual basis vectors are perpendicular to all original basis vectors (except the one with the same index), so $bf{b_1}cdotbf{b^2} = bf{b_2}cdotbf{b^1} = 0$. If we make these substitutions, we get the simple formula:




                  $$ |V| ^2 = V^1 V_1 + V^2 V_2 $$




                  Which I was struggling to understand in the past.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Jan 14 at 11:37









                  user2662833user2662833

                  1,068815




                  1,068815






























                      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.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2602448%2fcovariant-contravariant-dot-product-and-length%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

                      Human spaceflight

                      Image
                      Human spaceflight From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search "Space traveler" redirects here. For other uses, see Space traveler (disambiguation). @media all and (max-width:720px){.mw-parser-output .tmulti>.thumbinner{width:100%!important;max-width:none!important}.mw-parser-output .tmulti .tsingle{float:none!important;max-width:none!important;width:100%!important;text-align:center}} Apollo 11 crewmember Buzz Aldrin on the Moon, 1969 International Space Station crewmember Tracy Caldwell Dyson views the Earth, 2010 Space Shuttle Discovery heads into space with a crew aboard, STS-121 in 2006 Inside a space suit on the Canadarm, 1993 Human spaceflight (also referred to as crewed spaceflight or manned spaceflight ) is space travel with a crew or passengers aboard the spacecraft. Spacecraft carrying people may be operated directly, by human crew, or it may be e
                      Read more

                      Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?

                      Image
                      0 1 What exactly does the error message beginning with E: mean? I assume it has to do with the file structure on Ubuntu-on-Windows, but what exactly? The following package was automatically installed and is no longer required: os-prober Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove it. The following extra packages will be installed: libxslt1.1 The following NEW packages will be installed: libxslt1.1 xmlstarlet 0 upgraded, 2 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 435 kB of archives. After this operation, 1023 kB of additional disk space will be used. Get:1 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty/main libxslt1.1 amd64 1.1.28-2build1 [145 kB] Get:2 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty/universe xmlstarlet amd64 1.5.0-1 [290 kB]
                      Read more

                      File:DeusFollowingSea.jpg

                      Image
                      File:DeusFollowingSea.jpg From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search File File history File usage No higher resolution available. DeusFollowingSea.jpg ‎ (238 × 211 pixels, file size: 12 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg ) Summary [ edit ] Media data and Non-free use rationale Description Cover art of the Deus CD Following Sea Author or copyright owner Deus Source (WP:NFCC#4) rocksucker.co.uk Date of publication 2012 Use in article (WP:NFCC#7) Following Sea Purpose of use in article (WP:NFCC#8) to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question. Not replaceable with free media because (WP:NFCC#1) n.a. Minimal use (WP:NFCC#3) Low res image used in infobox of the article on the album Respect for commercial opportunities (WP:NFCC#2) n.a. Fair use Fair use of co
                      Read more