As motivation, this exercise claims to be a way to gain intuition for the $BAC-CAB$ identity, but I'm gaining a sum total of zero intuition by doing it.

First and foremost, I have to lay out notation. In the title of this post, $A,B,C\in\mathbb{R}^3$ and $L:\mathbb{R}^3\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{3*}$. Furthermore, I'm using the dual metric for all of this: $L(A)(\cdot) = (A|\cdot)$. The empty slot in $(L(A),\cdot)$ is to emphasize that this is partial application of the $(0,2)$ tensor $B\wedge C$, defined by $(B\otimes C)(L(A),\cdot) = B(C(L(A))) = B(L(A)(C)) = B(A|C)$.

Now, having laid all of this out, and using the Euclidean metric $(A|B) = A\cdot B$, how am I supposed to see why $A\times(B\times C) = (B\wedge C)(L(A),\cdot)$? Carrying out the RHS, it's direct to show that

$$(B\wedge C)(L(A),\cdot) = (B\otimes C - C\otimes B)(L(A),\cdot) = B(A\cdot C) - C(A\cdot B)$$

thus yielding the familiar $BAC-CAB$ identity, but I fail to see why I would be able to make this association with that triple-cross in the first place. The route that would be clear to me would be the following. By considering an $\alpha\in\Lambda^2\mathbb{R}^3$ and defining $J:\Lambda^2\mathbb{R}^3\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^3$ to have it's i'th component as $(J(\alpha))^i = \frac{1}{2}\epsilon^i_{jk}\alpha^{jk}$, it follows that $A\times B = J(A\wedge B)$, so for this problem I would be more inclined to do

$$A\times(B\times C) = J(A\wedge J(B\wedge C))$$

and if, from there, I could somehow see that this is equivalent to $(B\wedge C)(L(A),\cdot)$, then I would gain the "intuition" that this exercise claims to be the motivation. Just showing both sides to be $BAC-CAB$ leaves me empty.

  • $\begingroup$ There are different conventions on the meaning of $B\wedge C$: either it's $(B\otimes C-C\otimes B)$; or it's $(B\otimes C-C\otimes B)/2$; or it's not a tensor at all, but a different type of object. $\endgroup$
    – mr_e_man
    Jan 1, 2020 at 21:54

2 Answers 2


Write $B\times C$ as $D$, then $D$ is a blade. Let $I$ be the unit pseudoscalar for right-hand rule. Then $J(B\times C)=-ID$. The equation is now written as $A\times(-ID)=D(L(A),\cdot)$.

I think the interpretation here is that both side compute the same quantity. This quantity is a form of dot product between vector $A$ and blade $D$, which is the result of canceling out the component of $D$ the direction along $A$ leaving only the scalar, while retaining the direction orthogonal to $A$. But they do it in different manner: the left hand side do it by representing $D$ with a vector using the right hand rule representation, the right hand side do it by projecting $A$ down onto $D$ and canceling.

So now to prove it. The claim is clearly true if $D=0$ so assume not, so $D$ represent an unique plane. By linearity, it's sufficient to check the claim for: $A$ orthogonal to $D$ plane, and $A$ parallel to $D$ plane. If $A$ is orthogonal to $D$ then both side are trivially $0$. So we assume $A$ is parallel to $D$ and not orthogonal, or in other word $A$ lie on $D$ plane and is nonzero.

Let $u=\frac{A}{|A|}$ then we can write $D=uv=u\wedge v$ for some $v$ orthogonal to $u$ and is on the plane represented by $D$; specifically $v=uD$.

Then $-ID=u\times v$. So $A\times(-ID)=A\times(u\times v)=|A|u\times(u\times v)=-|A|v$ because left multiplication by unit vector $u$ induce a right angle rotation on the plane orthogonal to it according to right hand rule. And $(u\wedge v)(L(A),\cdot)=|A|(u\otimes v-v\otimes u)(u,\cdot)=|A|u(u|v)-|A|v(u|u)=-|A|v$

One key property we are using here is how flexible it is to represent a blade using vectors on it, which is why since the beginning we are treating this as an equation between a vector $A$ and a blade $D$, ignoring $B$ and $C$ completely. Once you take wedge product, the only thing that matter is what blade does $B$ and $C$ form and not they are in particular (and same for cross product which is the result of wedge product times unit pseudoscalar).


I don't know exactly what you're looking for, but here are my thoughts anyway. I'll use multiplication (as defined here) instead of function notation which I find confusing and unnecessary.

With the unit trivector $I=e_1e_2e_3$, the cross product can be defined as

$$A\times B=-(A\wedge B)I=-(A\wedge B)\,\lrcorner\,I=-A\,\lrcorner\,(B\,\lrcorner\,I)=-A\,\lrcorner\,(BI).$$

(I have here a proof of the middle equation.) Thus the triple product is

$$A\times(B\times C)=-A\,\lrcorner\,\Big(\big(-(B\wedge C)I\big)I\Big)=A\,\lrcorner\,\big((B\wedge C)I^2\big)=-A\,\lrcorner\,(B\wedge C).$$

Contraction of a vector with a bivector is anticommutative, so this is $(B\wedge C)\,\llcorner\, A$.

To see that this is $(A\cdot C)B-(A\cdot B)C$, I would just verify that it's true for the basis vectors $e_i$ (which is easier because they're orthogonal, and the products reduce to the geometric product or $0$), and then it's true for all vectors because the expressions are multilinear. Indeed, I used this method for most identities when I was first learning geometric algebra. But it may be unsatisfying.

Alternatively, we can break $A$ into parts parallel and perpendicular to the $B\wedge C$ plane, as in @calcstudent's answer; or write the products as symmetric and antisymmetric parts of the geometric product:

$$B\wedge C=\frac12(BC-CB)$$

$$(B\wedge C)\,\llcorner\,A=\frac12\big((B\wedge C)A-A(B\wedge C)\big)$$



$$=\frac12\big(B(A\cdot C)+(A\cdot C)B-C(A\cdot B)-(A\cdot B)C\big)$$

$$=(A\cdot C)B-(A\cdot B)C.$$


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.