Are A, B, and A+B Always Coplanar?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1MileCrash
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Vectors
AI Thread Summary
Two free vectors are always coplanar, and if A and B are free vectors, then A, B, and A+B are also coplanar. Any two vectors originating from the same point define a plane, and any linear combination of these vectors lies within that plane. Linear dependence among vectors indicates that if two are dependent, they are collinear and coplanar, while three dependent vectors remain coplanar as well. The discussion suggests a pattern where n linearly dependent vectors are co(n-1 space object) and co(n space object). There is no specific terminology beyond "coplanar" for three-dimensional relationships.
1MileCrash
Messages
1,338
Reaction score
41
Two free vectors are always coplanar.

Then if A and B are free vectors, are A, B, and A+B all coplanar in all cases?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
1MileCrash said:
Two free vectors are always coplanar.

Then if A and B are free vectors, are A, B, and A+B all coplanar in all cases?
Yes.
Any two vectors that start from the same point (you can assume that they start from the origin) determine a plane. Any linear combination of these vectors (including 1*A + 1*B) also lies in that same plane.
 
Cool.

How about this:

If two vectors are linearly dependent, they are collinear. They are always coplanar.

If three vectors are linearly dependent, they are coplanar. Three vectors are always all co"cubeular" (I don't know a word like coplanar for a three dimensional object.)

Based on this pattern, it correct to say that:

If n vectors are linearly dependent, then they are co(n-1 space object) and are always co(n space object).

Since for two vectors, an n-1 space object is a line, for three it is a plane, and so on.

Am I making sense?
 
Last edited:
1MileCrash said:
Cool.

How about this:

If two vectors are linearly dependent, they are collinear. They are always coplanar.
Yes. If two vectors are linearly dependent, then each is a nonzero scalar multiple of the other.
1MileCrash said:
If three vectors are linearly dependent, they are coplanar.
They could be collinear, depending on which vectors we're talking about.
1MileCrash said:
Three vectors are always all co"cubeular" (I don't know a word like coplanar for a three dimensional object.)
I don't believe there is any special terminalogy beyond coplanar.
1MileCrash said:
Based on this pattern, it correct to say that:

If n vectors are linearly dependent, then they are co(n-1 space object) and are always co(n space object).

Since for two vectors, an n-1 space object is a line, for three it is a plane, and so on.

Am I making sense?
Yes, I get what you're saying, but as I said, I don't believe there is any terminology beyond coplanar.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top