The distance formula in one dimension is

$$D_1 = |x_2-x_1|$$

From the Pythagorean theorem, the distance formula in two dimensions is

$$D_2 = \sqrt{|x_2-x_1|^2 + |y_2-y_1|^2}$$

Now, in three dimensions, a student might innocently suppose that

$$D_3 = \sqrt[3]{|x_2-x_1|^3 + |y_2-y_1|^3 + |z_2-z_1|^3}$$

yet the Pythagorean theorem shows otherwise. Is there any physical intuition behind distances defined by $D_3$? What strange type of ruler would be needed to measure such a thing?

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Brian, I have clarified this. $\endgroup$ – Doubt Feb 14 '13 at 22:27
  • $\begingroup$ Actually in finite dimensional vector spaces any two norms are equivalent (mathematically speaking). $\endgroup$ – Daniel Robert-Nicoud Feb 14 '13 at 22:30
  • $\begingroup$ @DanielRobert-Nicoud: The OP isn’t interested in the topology generated by such norms. Rather, he’s interested in their geometrical properties. $\endgroup$ – Haskell Curry Feb 14 '13 at 23:03
  • $\begingroup$ How about using $D_1 = \sqrt{(x_2-x_1)^2}$ instead of $D_1 = |x_2-x_1|$? $\endgroup$ – steven gregory Nov 23 '18 at 22:34

Instead of talking about distances $D(x,y)$ it is slightly easier to talk about norms $$N(x-y).$$

Your proposes $D_3$ is called the $L_3$ norm and is part of a family of norms $$\|x\|_p = \left(|x_1|^p + \ldots + |x_n|^p\right)^{1/p}$$ called the $L_p$ norms. For $p\geq1$ they obey all of the properties needed for a norm: positive for nonzero $x$, linear under multiplication by positive scalars, and satisfy the triangle inequality.

$p=2$ is the usual Euclidean norm and induces the usual Euclidean distance. In one dimension, all of the $L_p$ norms are equivalent, which is why you interpreted the $L_2$ norm as the $L_1$ norm.

So to answer your question, nothing goes wrong when you use the $L_3$ norm. You will get lengths that are somewhere between using the usual $L_2$ norm, and the $L_{\infty}$ or "max" norm which returns the magnitude of the largest component; as such, components of a vector that are small relative to the largest components will tend to get ignored by an $L_3$ ruler.

Here's what the unit circle would look like using such a norm:

enter image description here

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I suspect that the OP knows this. The question is whether this norm has any natural physical interpretation, in the same way that the $L^2$ norm is ordinary Euclidean distance. $\endgroup$ – Brian M. Scott Feb 14 '13 at 22:36
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ As the question brings up the $L_3$ norm in the context of three dimensions, I think this image might be more appropriate. :) $\endgroup$ – Rahul Feb 15 '13 at 1:07

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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