Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Given two random unit vectors in $\mathbb R^n$, one can consider the probability that the absolute value of their dot product is $x$, and thus form a probability density function. Supposing that the random vectors were drawn from a uniform distribution with respect to the surface of the sphere that they live in, what is the probability that two vectors will have dot product less than $T$?

My intuition is that this should be proportional to the surface area of the "cap" of the cone containing all angles less than $\arccos(T)$. But how to compute this?

Extra question: if we choose the vectors by drawing each component of each vector from a mean zero, unit variance Gaussian distribution, does the answer change?

share|improve this question
You talk about these vectors living on a sphere. Are these random unit vectors? –  Adam Saltz Apr 27 '13 at 2:17
Yes, random unit vectors. Let me edit. –  Eric Gregor Apr 27 '13 at 2:19

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Pick two unit vectors. Rotate your coordinate system so that one of them points at $(1,0,\ldots,0)$. You want the probability that $x \cdot (1,0,\ldots, 0) < T$. It will suffice to find the proportion of the surface area of the $n$-sphere not within an angle of $\cos^{-1}(T)$ from the North pole.

There are some nice formulas for the area of spherical caps in this paper by S. Li. In particular, the area of a cap with angle $\phi \leq \pi/2$ is $$A_n^{cap} = \frac{2\pi^{\frac{n-1}{2}}}{\Gamma(\frac{n-1}{2})} \int_0^\phi \sin^{n-2}(\theta)d\theta.$$

On the other hand, the surface area of the $n$-sphere is known to be $$\frac{2\pi^{\frac{n+1}{2}}}{\Gamma(\frac{n+1}{2})}$$

Taking the quotient of these two, you'll get the proportion of there sphere within an angle of $\phi$ from the north pole. Now subtract that from $1$ for your answer.

share|improve this answer
The upper index of your integral should be $\pi/2$, I think. –  Eric Gregor Apr 27 '13 at 4:01
@EricGregor So that the angle $\phi$ does not appear in the formula? –  Adam Saltz Apr 27 '13 at 4:09
er, what i mean is that you are integrating with respect to the variable in the upper index. you need to make one of those variables different. –  Eric Gregor Apr 27 '13 at 4:39
Thank you. I've changed the variable off integration. –  Adam Saltz Apr 27 '13 at 13:45

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.