Open study

is now brainly

With Brainly you can:

  • Get homework help from millions of students and moderators
  • Learn how to solve problems with step-by-step explanations
  • Share your knowledge and earn points by helping other students
  • Learn anywhere, anytime with the Brainly app!

A community for students.

Consider u=[2,3] and v=[-4,-6]. Find 2 unit vectors parallel to u.

Mathematics
See more answers at brainly.com
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Join Brainly to access

this expert answer

SIGN UP FOR FREE
I THINKING OF treating it as a parallel thing, but that's not correct, is it?
\[{\vec u\over||\vec u||}\]makes it a unit vector, did you know that?
what's that.

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question

Other answers:

dividing by the norm/magnitude of the vector
Unit vector parallel to \(\vec{u}\) is : \( \frac{1}{\sqrt{13}} <2,3> \)
ok... I don't understand, but I don't think I really need further explaination @TuringTest
Also, what did you type FFM? That looks...strange
But there is one one unique vector (parallel) isn't ?
uhhh...i dunno. Was just gunna treat this as collinear. NEver saw how to deal with parallels in my txtbook
FFM I think is pointing out that the other, \(\vec v\), is antiparallel I suppose... I just see it as i.e. magnitude is the length of the vector\[\vec u=<2,3>\] and the magnitude is\[||\vec u||=\sqrt{2^2+3^2}\]\(\vec v\) is parallel to \(\vec u\) so you should be able to do the same trick there
I think the equation editor is messing around with us. I see squares everywhere. Also, maybe I should skip to the chase. How would I get [0.55,0,83],[-0.55,-0.83]?
what is the magnitude of u ?
[2,3]
no, read what I wrote above magnitude is the \(length\) of the vector, which we can find with pythagorus\[||\vec u||=\sqrt{2^2+3^2}\] and the magnitude is
to amke a vector into a unit vector, divide by its magnitude
*make
aww...what exactly is a uni vector. I though the point [2,3] was a vector itself...
A unit vector is a vector that has a length (i.e. "magnitude) of 1
ok. um. gimme a moment to do the math here
so a vector \(\vec u=\) is a unit vector iff\[||\vec u||=\sqrt{x^2+y^2}=1\]after dividing a vector by its magnitude, it should make sense that it will become a unit vector (you are essentially dividing a vector by it's length, which will logically give 1)
wait, how do i divide [2,3] by sqrt 13?
do each component individually: it is a scalar multiplication
im really fuzzy on this. I divide 2 by sqrt 13, and then 3 by sqrt 13 right?
yep, and those will be you new components
umm.srry. pencil is breaking on me here...
try a calculator ;)
im going to get a new pencil. bak in a flash
\[{2\over\sqrt{13}}\]just requires a calculator!!!!
argh. srry. wat nxt now
got [0.55,0.83]
hooray
now for the next one, do the exact same trick ...or use a shortcut (which takes a little explanation) and get the answer in 2 seconds whichever you prefer
I guess you don't wanna explain both methods?
well they are really based on the same idea: multiplying a vector be a scalar will leave it parallel to the original...
wat do yu mean "exact same trick"
actually that was a poor choice of phrasing; upi need to regognize what I'm about to say either way: let's look at \(\vec u\) and \(\vec v\)|dw:1333605852213:dw|let's say that \[\vec v=c\vec u\]then what does \(\vec v\) look like?
let \(c=2\) and we double the length of \(\vec u\):|dw:1333606018155:dw|notice that they remain parallel
here we are doing the same thing: \(\vec v\) is a scalar multiple of \(\vec u\) with \(c=-1\) this will change the direction of the vector (hence the term :anti-parallel")
so wait, v and u are actually related? im suppose to use them both? i was just thinking of using u and random other vectrs
oohhh...i see. scalar multitplier of -2.
|dw:1333606190135:dw|yeah, sorry my drawing is wrong, it should be -2 but note: that won't change the \(unit\) \(vector\) because all unit vectors have length 1 so all we need to do is notice that \(\vec v\) is a scalar multiple of \(\vec u\), so it has the same unit vector, but the - sign changes the direction it is still parallel though, in the sense that they never intersect
ok.
so, v is parallel to u. actually. wait. we already got the answer. thats magical.
...another way to say it is that a unit vector has only one parallel vector to it: it's negative therefor no calculation is really needed. it's better to understand it the first way though, in my opinion
yeah you got it :)
wait...what's the "first" way.
that \(\vec v\) is a (negative) scalar multiple of \(\vec u\), and therefor has the same unit vector in the opposite direction
does that mean its parallel to u?
though sorry, now that I reread the question v isn't even important
but yes, as I said v is a scalar multiple of u when one vector is a scalar multiple of the other, they are parallel
yeah. i kidna just included every thing related to the question. given the chance, i would include the background info by the text too
scalar multiples only change the length of the vector
hence they do not change whether or not they are parallel
but it only asks for two unit vectors perpendicular to \(\vec u\), so \(\vec v\) has nothing to do with it; it's coincidentally parallel but is not needed to find the answer
so vector, wit ha scalar multiple of the original vector, is not actually parallel to it? man. we've taken up quite some time with this.
unit vectors parallel to*
I repeat: scalar multiples only change the length of the vector, hence they do not change whether or not they are parallel so in\[c\vec u=\vec v\] where \(c\) is a scalar, \(\vec u\) and \(\vec v\) are parallel
is there a situation when the vectors are not parallel, but are only different due to a scalar multiplier. many question i give
no, unless there is some huge exception that is slipping my mind...
scalar multiplication of a vector changes only \(direction\) and/or \(magnitude\) (i.e. length)
so i pick, say [3,2,6]. Then it is parallel to [6,4,12]?
yes. in higher math, like linear algebra, you will learn that vectors that can be written as scalar multiples of each other are called "linearly dependent" that means they are parallel, which is very important in setting up coordinate systems and such, which is what you do in linear algebra
look at it like slope
ok. thank you very much. all my questions have been cleared up, im not done my review, and i wish to take a nappy.
ok then, glad I could help rest well, a weary mind is not terribly useful in mathematics ;)
should i sleep now, and risk not studying later, or study, but not sleep ever?

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question