3

How would we calculate the inverse of a $3$-vector $v$ like we would do with the matrix? Basically the inverse of $1\times3$ (?) matrix.

Would we get the negated value of the vector $-v$ or $1/v$? If we would get $-v$, what is correct term for $1/v$ in relation to $v$?

  • 2
    Depends on what sense you mean the inverse of a vector. For instance, a vector always has an additive inverse. Under the usual definition of multiplication of matrices, however, only square matrices have multiplicative inverses. – PrincessEev Jul 20 '20 at 04:01

3 Answers3

2

See Moore-Penrose inverse (for a vector). In particular, if $v \neq 0$ and $w=\lVert v \rVert^{-2} v $ then $\langle w, v \rangle = w^{\mathrm t} v = 1$ (i.e. it is a “left” inverse) and $w$ minimizes the Frobenius norm $\lVert v w^{\mathrm t} - 1 \rVert^2$ among all vectors (i.e. it is the best “right” inverse). In dimension $3$ this minimal square Frobenius norm is always $2$.

WimC
  • 33,414
  • 2
  • 52
  • 98
0

As @EeveeTrainer states, it makes sense to talk about additive inverses. Consider you're using a 1x3 vector to model displacement in $\mathbb{R}^3$. Specifically, suppose you're walking down a straight road and you move 3km east, disregarding sea-level elevation (assuming the road is perfectly flat). One might model this as the vector $\vec{v} = (3,0,0).$

Now consider you want to do the opposite. One interpretation could be that the inverse of this 1x3 vector is the 1x3 vector $-\vec{v} = (-3,0,0)$.

It is important to note that the sum of these two vectors is 0, the additive identity.

dan
  • 419
  • Thanks! Regarding $1/v$ can this be considered an inverse to a vector too? – Lenny White Jul 20 '20 at 04:52
  • It depends. If you define vectors as belonging to a vector space, then the additive inverse is the inverse of a vector. If you're speaking about linear maps (or transformations) between vector spaces, then an inverse to that (informally) "undoes" the map to yield the identity. Here is a good start. Otherwise, unfortunately, I'm having a hard time seeing how $1/v$ could be an inverse. Hope this helps. – dan Jul 20 '20 at 05:09
0

It all depends on what is meant in the question, I will propose a possible geometric interpretation which could be the following: given a certain vector $\vec{a}$, we intend to find the set of vectors $\vec{x}$ such that given

$$\vec{a} \cdot \vec{x} = 1$$

, then we can easily find that this set is given by the following decomposition along:

$$x = \frac{\vec{a}}{|a|^2}+\vec{v}$$

where $\vec{v}$ is a generic vector orthogonal to $\vec{a}$. For example, in $R^2$ we can define the set of vectors $\frac{1}{\vec{a}}$:

$$\frac{1}{\vec{a}} = \vec{x}(u) = \frac{\vec{a}}{|a|^2}+u\left[\begin{array}{cc}0&-1\\1&0\end{array}\right] \vec{a}$$ where u is a parameter.

That set describes an orthogonal line to $\vec{a}$ distant $1/|\vec{a}|$ from the origin.

As another example, in $R^3$ we would have (now $\vec{u}$ is a generic vector which operates as parameter):

$$\vec{x}(\vec{u})= \frac{\vec{a}}{|a|^2} + \vec{u} \wedge \vec{a}$$

that describes an orthogonal plane to $\vec{a}$ and distant $1/|a|$ from the origin. In general we could think that the operation $1/\vec{a}$ is a compact way to represent the hyperplane orthogonal to $\vec{a}$, distant from the origin $1/|\vec{a}|$ and in particular passing through the point $\vec{a}/|\vec{a}|^2 $.

PS: This concept seems similar to that discussed in What is vector division?. Indeed, could we think to decompose the division of two vectors as the inversion of the divisor vector [which produces a matrix] followed by the multiplication with the dividend vector?