When I was taught Vector Calculus, we assumed the following properties of the dot product (without proof):
$$\vec{\mathbf{a}} \cdot \vec{\mathbf{b}} = \vec{\mathbf{b}} \cdot \vec{\mathbf{a}}$$
$$\vec{\mathbf{a}} \cdot (\vec{\mathbf{b}} + \vec{\mathbf{c}}) = \vec{\mathbf{a}} \cdot \vec{\mathbf{b}} + \vec{\mathbf{a}} \cdot \vec{\mathbf{c}}$$
And then derived the following component form of the Dot Product:
$$\vec{\mathbf{a}} \cdot \vec{\mathbf{b}} = a_1 b_1 + a_2 b_2 + a_3 b_3$$
In G. E. Hay's Vector and Tensor Analysis, this is done in exact reverse order. First, he derives $\vec{\mathbf{a}} \cdot \vec{\mathbf{b}} = a_1 b_1 + a_2 b_2 + a_3 b_3$ and then proves both the commutativity and the distributivity over vector addition properties of the Dot Product.
For deriving $\vec{\mathbf{a}} \cdot \vec{\mathbf{b}} = a_1 b_1 + a_2 b_2 + a_3 b_3$, he uses the formula that the cosine of the acute angle between two lines is the sum of the products of corresponding direction cosines of the two lines. He writes nearby: by a formula of analytic geometry.
Now, I was taught this formula in analytic geometry. But, the proof used the dot product in component form directly.
So, I want a proof for "cosine of the acute angle between two lines is the sum of the products of corresponding direction cosines of the two lines" that does not involve $\vec{\mathbf{a}} \cdot \vec{\mathbf{b}} = a_1 b_1 + a_2 b_2 + a_3 b_3$ because without such a proof the proof in G. E. Hay becomes circular reasoning.

