Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

There is a claim in my book Linear Algebra - Serge Lang that

Since the dot product of vectors with complex coordinates maybe equal to zero without vectors being equal to $0$, we must change something in the definition.

I don't understand it. Can anyone explain it with an example?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 4 down vote accepted

The length of a vector $v$, using the standard dot product, is supposed to be $\sqrt{v\cdot v}$. However, if we take $v=(1,i)$, then $v\cdot v=1^2+i^2=1-1=0$, so the length would be $0$. However, this is a non-zero vector, so it should have non-zero length. So we change the dot product so that:

$$v\cdot w=\sum_{i=1}^nv_i\overline{w_i}$$

Then $v\cdot v=1\times 1+i\times(-i)=2$, and the length is $\sqrt{2}$ as we expect.

share|cite|improve this answer
What would we get if we allowed $0$ length? – Berci Feb 5 '13 at 17:54
Nothing too horrible I suppose, but it shouldn't really be called length. Things would also be worse, in the sense that there would be vectors with $v\cdot v$ imaginary, and then it makes no sense to take a positive square root at all. Without knowing exactly what point Lang wants to make (the quoted sentence is extremely vague), it's hard to work out exactly what pathology he wants to avoid. – Matthew Pressland Feb 5 '13 at 18:06

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.