You already know distribution from arithmetic: a(b+c)=ab+ac — multiplication "spreads" over addition. The cross product obeys the same kind of rule, with one important twist: it is not commutative, so the order of the vectors must be respected.
Intuition
Put two vectors u and v at a common point; their sum u+v is the diagonal of the parallelogram they form. Crossing a third vector w with this sum, w×(u+v), gives the same result as crossing w with each piece separately and adding. This works because the cross product is bilinear — its geometry (parallelogram area, right-hand rule) is linear in each argument.
The Precise Statement
For any vectors a,b,c in R3 and any scalar k:
Left distributivity:a×(b+c)=a×b+a×c
Right distributivity:(b+c)×a=b×a+c×a
Scalar multiplication:(ka)×b=k(a×b)=a×(kb)
Watch out
The cross product is anti-commutative: a×b=−(b×a). So left and right distributivity are different statements — you may not swap the order across the × without flipping the sign. In particular,
a×(b+c)=a×b+a×c,
nota×b+c×a. Keep the left vector on the left.
Why It Matters
Distributivity lets you expand a product of sums term by term, exactly like FOIL in algebra:
(p+q)×(r+s)=p×r+p×s+q×r+q×s.
Every term keeps its left–right order intact. This is the routine behind expanding cross products in proofs (areas of triangles, testing collinearity, deriving vector identities). …
The cross product distributes over vector addition because each component of the result is built from linear combinations of the components — the algebra works out exactly like expanding brackets in arithmetic. The proof shows a×(b+c)=a×b+a×c by direct component calculation.
The distributive property of the cross product is not something to memorise blindly — it follows from the way the cross product is defined. When you see a×(b+c), think: "I am taking the cross product of a with the sum of two vectors." The cross product itself is built from the components using determinants, and determinants are linear in each row. That linearity is the real reason distribution works.
Mistake 1: Assuming the property instead of proving it.
Why it's wrong: the question asks to show distributivity, so quoting it is not enough. Correct approach: expand both sides in components (or via the determinant) and compare.
Mistake 2: Swapping the order while 'distributing'. …