Register to reply 
Closest approach of two skew lines in R3 
Share this thread: 
#1
Feb713, 02:06 PM

P: 66

Hello all, and thanks again to all the help I've been getting with this book. This is a two part problem in Advanced Calculus of Several Variables, C. H. Edwards Jr. I have the first part and the second part should be easy, but I find I'm stumped.
Since the second part builds on the solution of the first part, I'll give both problem statements and the proof of my first part. II.1.2a: Let [itex]f : \Re \to \Re^{n}[/itex] and [itex]g : \Re \to \Re^{n}[/itex] be two differentiable curves with f'(t) ≠ 0 and g'(t) ≠ 0 for all all [itex] t \in \Re [/itex]. Suppose the two points [itex] p = f(s_{0})[/itex] and [itex] q = g(t_{0}) [/itex] are closer than any other pair of points on the two curves. Then prove that the vector p  q is orthogonal to both velocity vectors [itex]f'(s_{0}), g'(t_{0})[/itex]. Hint: the point [itex] (s_{0}, t_{0}) [/itex] must be a critical point for the function [itex]\rho : \Re^{2} > \Re [/itex] defined by [itex] \rho(s, t) = \left \ f(s)  g(t) \right\^{2}[/itex] From an earlier problem I have proved three lemmas to my satisfaction: Lemma 1: [itex]<a,a>  <b,b> = <a+b, ab>[/itex] Lemma 2: If [itex] n(t) = <c, f(t)> [/itex] for some constant c, then [itex] n'(t) = <c, f'(t)>[/itex] Lemma 3: if [itex] n(t) = <f(t), f(t) > = \left \ f(t) \right \^{2}[/itex], then [itex] n'(t) = 2<f'(t), f(t)> [/itex]. Now the problem statement formally is that we must show that [itex] <pq, f'(t)> = 0[/itex], [itex] <pq, g'(t)> = 0[/itex]. This is just a matter of algebra and the observation that [itex]\rho`(s_{0}, t_{0}) = 0 [/itex] with respect to either partial derivative. We get this from the hint, but the hint was unnecessary. [itex] \rho = <f(s), f(s)> + <g(t), g(t)>  2<f(s), g(t)>[/itex] Applying lemmas 2 and 3, and differentiating first wrt s: [itex] \frac{d\rho}{ds}(s, t) = 2<f'(s), f(s)>  2<f'(s), g'(t)> \\ = 2<f(s)  g(t), f'(s)> \\ \frac{d\rho}{dt}(s, t) = 2<g'(t), g(t)>  2<f'(s), g'(t)> \\ = 2<f(s)  g(t), g'(t)>[/itex] When we plug in [itex](s_{0}, t_{0})[/itex] to these equations, we know that they are equal to 0 by observation that [itex](s_{0}, t_{0})[/itex] is a critical point. At the same time, the expression for [itex]f(s)  g(t)[/itex], which appears in both equations, turns into [itex]f(s_{0})  g(t_{0}) = p  q[/itex] and the equations become [itex] 0 = < p  q, g'(t_{0}) >[/itex] and [itex] 0 = < p  q, f'(s_{0})> [/itex], QED. Now the part I can't get is II.1.2b: Apply the result of (a) to find the closest pair of points on the "skew" straight lines in [itex] \Re^{3} [/itex] defined by [itex]f(s) = (s, 2s, s)[/itex] and [itex]g(t) = (t+1, t2, 2t+3)[/itex]. So far I just have some aimless restating of facts that I know. All of them are available as results of part A above, except for two: [itex] f'(s) = (1, 2, 1) \\ g'(t) = (1, 1, 2)[/itex] for all s and t. Somehow I've got to use these equations in reverse and solve for [itex]s_{0}[/itex] and [itex]t_{0}[/itex]. With that observation I have two equations of two unknowns: [itex] <f(s_{0})  g(t_{0}), (1, 2, 1)> = 0 = <f(s_{0})  g(t_{0}), (1, 1, 2)>[/itex]. But now I am truly stuck. I need to get these variables out of the functions, but g(t) is not linear, so I can't easily construct an inverse function for it. 


#2
Feb713, 04:49 PM

Homework
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 9,645

Can't you just substitute for f(s_{0}), g(t_{0}) in <f(s_{0})  g(t_{0}), (1,2,−1)> etc. and expand the inner products? That will give you two equations in two unknowns.



#3
Feb713, 05:10 PM

P: 66

Well, the thing is, he hasn't defined the inner product in the problem statement. In this book so far, <> has been a generalization of what he calls the "usual inner product", which I understand is what most people just call the inner product, defined as [itex]x \bullet y = x_{1}y_{1} + x_{2}y_{2} + ... + x_{n}y_{n} [/itex]. In fact he's mentioned nothing of an inner product in the problem statement at all, and the only reason I felt justified in assuming the existence of one is that the definition of orthogonality requires that an inner product be defined, and he's talking about orthogonality.
Would any inner product I chose to define give the same results in this problem? 


#4
Feb713, 05:19 PM

Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 25,251

Closest approach of two skew lines in R3
Yes, it will depend on the inner product. Whether two particular vectors are orthogonal depends on the inner product.



#5
Feb713, 05:22 PM

Homework
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 9,645




#6
Feb713, 05:46 PM

P: 66

Alright, thanks guys. I'll take it from here and see if I can finish it off. It should be easy now...



#7
Feb713, 07:11 PM

P: 66

I'm stuck again. If expand the dot product, I get these equations:
[itex] f_{1}(s_{1})  g_{1}(t_{1}) + 2( f_{2}(s_{2})g_{2}(t_{2}) )  f_{3}(s_{3})  g_{3}(t_{3}) = 0 \\ f_{1}(s_{1})  g_{1}(t_{1}) + f_{2}(s_{2})  g_{2}(t_{2}) + 2( f_{3}(s_{3})  g_{3}(t_{3})) = 0 \\[/itex] Which is six variables. I can undo f and g componentwise and have done so. But I simply don't have enough equations to solve this, do I? 


#8
Feb713, 07:34 PM

Homework
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 9,645

Why six? It's just s_{0} and t_{0} isn't it?
And you can't write out the inner product expansion until after you have substituted for f and g. If f(s)=(s,2s,−s) and v=(1,2,−1) then <f(s), v> = s+4s+s = 6s. 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Distance of Closest Approach  Advanced Physics Homework  3  
Closest Approach Problem, HELP!  Introductory Physics Homework  5  
Closest poing of approach  Introductory Physics Homework  3  
Closest possible points on skew lines  Calculus & Beyond Homework  2  
Find the shortest distance between 2 nonparalle lines (skew lines) in 3space  Calculus  4 