1 vectors and 1 limits problem

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Icetray
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limits Vectors
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around two problems related to vectors and limits, focusing on the properties of perpendicular vectors and the differentiation of functions. The first problem involves showing that coefficients of a linear combination of vectors must be zero if the combination results in the zero vector. The second problem pertains to a limit involving a differentiable function and its relationship to the derivative at a specific point.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that if three non-zero vectors A, B, and C are perpendicular and their linear combination R = pA + qB + rC equals the zero vector, then the coefficients p, q, and r must be zero.
  • One participant questions the validity of using limits in the differentiation context, pointing out that the variable x is treated inconsistently between being a constant and a limit variable.
  • Another participant provides a hint involving the definition of the derivative to help clarify the differentiation problem.
  • One participant asserts that since R is the zero vector, the inner products R.A, R.B, and R.C must also equal zero, leading to the conclusion that p, q, and r must be zero.
  • Another participant challenges the interpretation of R.R = 0 and the notation used, emphasizing that R is a vector while p, q, and r are scalars.
  • There is a correction regarding the notation, clarifying that the statement should indicate p = q = r = 0 rather than equating R to the coefficients.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the treatment of variables in the limit problem and the implications of the vector problem. There is no consensus on the best approach to the differentiation problem, and participants are refining their arguments and clarifications without reaching a definitive conclusion.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the need for careful treatment of constants and variables in limits, indicating potential misunderstandings in the application of differentiation concepts. The discussion also reflects varying interpretations of vector properties and inner products.

Icetray
Messages
83
Reaction score
0
Hi guys,

Starting revision for my exams and I can't seem to solve these problems. ):

1. Given that three non zero vectors A, B and C are perpendicular to each other and that the vector R = pA + qB + rC is a zero vector, show that p = q = r = 0


2. In another question, given that f(x) is differenciatable at x = 0 and [itex]\frac{Lim}{x->0}[/itex] [itex]\frac{f(x) - f(kx)}{x}[/itex] = a, wjere a and k are constants.

b. Show that f'(0) = a/1-k

What I did was take the defination of differenciation:
[itex]\frac{Lim}{h->0}[/itex] [itex]\frac{f(x+h) - f(x)}{h}[/itex]

and I let x = kx, and h = (1-k)x,
[itex]\frac{Lim}{(1-k)x->0}[/itex] [itex]\frac{f(x) - f(kx)}{(1-k)x}[/itex]

and I did this (assuming that I can write [itex]\frac{Lim}{(1-k)x->0}[/itex] as [itex]\frac{Lim}{x->0}[/itex]

1/(1-k)[itex]\frac{Lim}{x->0}[/itex] [itex]\frac{f(x) - f(kx)}{x}[/itex] = a/1-k

Is this correct?

Thanks in advance for your help guys!

*Edit* Just realized that I misread the forum title and posted in the wrong one. ):
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Icetray said:
Hi guys,

Starting revision for my exams and I can't seem to solve these problems. ):

1. Given that three non zero vectors A, B and C are perpendicular to each other and that the vector R = pA + qB + rC is a zero vector, show that p = q = r = 0

What can you tell us about the inner products R.A, R.B and R.C??

2. In another question, given that f(x) is differenciatable at x = 0 and [itex]\frac{Lim}{x->0}[/itex] [itex]\frac{f(x) - f(kx)}{x}[/itex] = a, wjere a and k are constants.

b. Show that f'(0) = a/1-k

What I did was take the defination of differenciation:
[itex]\frac{Lim}{h->0}[/itex] [itex]\frac{f(x+h) - f(x)}{h}[/itex]

and I let x = kx, and h = (1-k)x,
[itex]\frac{Lim}{(1-k)x->0}[/itex] [itex]\frac{f(x) - f(kx)}{(1-k)x}[/itex]

and I did this (assuming that I can write [itex]\frac{Lim}{(1-k)x->0}[/itex] as [itex]\frac{Lim}{x->0}[/itex]

1/(1-k)[itex]\frac{Lim}{x->0}[/itex] [itex]\frac{f(x) - f(kx)}{x}[/itex] = a/1-k

Is this correct?

Thanks in advance for your help guys!

*Edit* Just realized that I misread the forum title and posted in the wrong one. ):
[/QUOTE]

No, you can't do that. You took

[itex]\frac{Lim}{h->0}[/itex] [itex]\frac{f(x+h) - f(x)}{h}[/itex]

but the x in there is a constant! But later

[itex]\frac{Lim}{(1-k)x->0}[/itex] [itex]\frac{f(x) - f(kx)}{(1-k)x}[/itex]

your x is suddenly a limit variable.

I'll illustrate it by taking x=2, then you write

[itex]\frac{Lim}{h->0}[/itex] [itex]\frac{f(2+h) - f(2)}{h}[/itex]

this is perfectly valid and it equals f'(2). But then you write

[itex]\frac{Lim}{(1-k)2->0}[/itex] [itex]\frac{f(2) - f(k2)}{(1-k)2}[/itex]

which obviously makes no sense. (1-k)2 -> 0 makes no sense!

I'll give you a hint on how to solve it:

\begin{align}
f^\prime(0)
&= \lim_{h\rightarrow 0}{\frac{f(h)-f(0)}{h}}\\
&= \lim_{h\rightarrow 0}{ \frac{\frac{f(h)-f(kh)}{h}}{ \frac{f(h)-f(kh)}{f(h)-f(0)}}}\\
&= \lim_{h\rightarrow 0}{ \frac{\frac{f(h)-f(kh)}{h}}{ \frac{(f(h)-f(0)) - (f(kh)-f(0))}{f(h)-f(0)}}}\\
\end{align}
 
micromass said:
What can you tell us about the inner products R.A, R.B and R.C??

Oh!

R.R = R.A + R.B + R.C
Since R.R = 0,
R= p = q = r?

micromass said:
I'll give you a hint on how to solve it:

\begin{align}
f^\prime(0)
&= \lim_{h\rightarrow 0}{\frac{f(h)-f(0)}{h}}\\
&= \lim_{h\rightarrow 0}{ \frac{\frac{f(h)-f(kh)}{h}}{ \frac{f(h)-f(kh)}{f(h)-f(0)}}}\\
&= \lim_{h\rightarrow 0}{ \frac{\frac{f(h)-f(kh)}{h}}{ \frac{(f(h)-f(0)) - (f(kh)-f(0))}{f(h)-f(0)}}}\\
\end{align}

How did you get from the first to the second step? )(Actually I'm lost from that step onwards also)

Anyway thanks for your help so far micromass!
 
R.A = pA.A Since R=0 then R.A=0, however A.A > 0, therefore p=0. Similarly for q and r.
 
Icetray said:
Oh!

R.R = R.A + R.B + R.C
Since R.R = 0,
R= p = q = r?
Why do you say "R.R= 0"?? And "R= p= q= r" makes no sense. R is a vector while p, q, and r are numbers.
 
HallsofIvy said:
Why do you say "R.R= 0"?? And "R= p= q= r" makes no sense. R is a vector while p, q, and r are numbers.

R=0, therefore R.R=0

The second line is a typo - I meant p=q=r=0.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K