MedVision ad

Cross product (1 Viewer)

leehuan

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 31, 2014
Messages
5,805
Gender
Male
HSC
2015
Question is easy but I cannot find my mistake.



Not sure if this is the standard method but this is according to the method I was taught.







Correct answer is 1/√2
 
Last edited:

Flop21

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 12, 2013
Messages
2,807
Gender
Female
HSC
2015
Question is easy but I cannot find my mistake.



Not sure if this is the standard method but this is according to the method I was taught.







Correct answer is 1/√2
First equation, you finding AB (the lambda part), looks like you have 1-1 = -2?
 

leehuan

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 31, 2014
Messages
5,805
Gender
Male
HSC
2015
Say I want equations for the plane through (1,2,-2) perpendicular to (-1,1,2)T

Cartesian and point-normal forms are easy
-x1+x2+x3 = dot product

(-1,1,2)T.(x-(1,2,-2)T)=0

All three forms are pretty easy. But what's the fastest way to go from any one of them to a parametric vector equation? (Just a simple answer will do, no need to finish the question)

Two methods I thought about:
1. Let x2 = lambda and x3 = mu
2. Cross (-1,1,2) with any arbitrary non-zero vector to get a right hand system and then take the two that aren't (-1,1,2)
 

InteGrand

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
6,109
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Say I want equations for the plane through (1,2,-2) perpendicular to (-1,1,2)T

Cartesian and point-normal forms are easy
-x1+x2+x3 = dot product

(-1,1,2)T.(x-(1,2,-2)T)=0

All three forms are pretty easy. But what's the fastest way to go from any one of them to a parametric vector equation? (Just a simple answer will do, no need to finish the question)

Two methods I thought about:
1. Let x2 = lambda and x3 = mu
2. Cross (-1,1,2) with any arbitrary non-zero vector to get a right hand system and then take the two that aren't (-1,1,2)
If you're in Cartesian form to start with, your first method is good. If you're in point-normal form to start with, we can convert it to Cartesian form and then use your first method.

The second method won't work unless the vector you use to cross with the normal is one that lies in the plane (as in, is "submerged" in the plane), so you'd need to choose the vector carefully (which can be done by taking another point on the plane, i.e. other than the given one, and then connecting these and taking this connecting vector as the vector). This second method would be useful if we wanted to obtain an orthonormal or orthogonal basis for the plane (well the subspace that is the corresponding plane through the origin).

You can try out both methods to see which you find easier and faster.
 
Last edited:

leehuan

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 31, 2014
Messages
5,805
Gender
Male
HSC
2015
Can't draw the link again











No idea where those vectors came from using part a
 
Last edited:

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Being orthogonal to the plane is the same as being parallel to the normal of the plane (our ambient space is three dimensional, so normals to a plane are uniquely defined up to scalar multiplication), so just apply a) using the normal to the plane.
 
Last edited:

leehuan

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 31, 2014
Messages
5,805
Gender
Male
HSC
2015
This could just be a dot product question but I'm too tired to understand the question right now so any advice please





Procedure:

 

InteGrand

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
6,109
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
This could just be a dot product question but I'm too tired to understand the question right now so any advice please





Procedure:

This is known as Gram-Schmidt orthogonalisation (or orthonormalisation if we normalise the vectors too). Basically the idea is that given a set of vectors, from this we create a new set that has the same span and the vectors are orthogonal (so we can obtain an orthogonal basis for a vector space in this way given a basis). You can read about it here and see an animation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gram–Schmidt_process#The_Gram.E2.80.93Schmidt_process

The proof will typically be by induction. So you may like to try induction and showing it for small cases to get a feel for it.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top