Can a vector be perpendicular to both skew lines?

  • Thread starter Thread starter knowLittle
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Conceptual Lines
AI Thread Summary
A non-zero vector can indeed be perpendicular to both skew lines L1 and L2. Skew lines do not intersect or lie in the same plane, allowing for the existence of such a vector. By using the position vectors of points on each line, one can derive equations that represent the perpendicular vector. Solving these equations simultaneously allows for the determination of the coordinates of the points on L1 and L2 that define the perpendicular vector. This geometric relationship confirms the possibility of a vector being perpendicular to both skew lines.
knowLittle
Messages
307
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement


Suppose L1 and L2 are skew lines. Is it possible for a non-zero vector to be perpendicular to both L1 and L2? Give reasons for your answers.


Homework Equations


I know that skew lines are not parallel or intersect. Also, they don't lie on the same plane.

The Attempt at a Solution


I say that it is possible.
Picture a line on the x-axis on (x,0,0) and a line on the y-axis exactly above the previous line but with height or z=5.
I can easily draw a vector that is perpendicular to both L1 and L2.

Am I correct?
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
yes you are correct
suppose you have the equations of two skew lines, you can always deduce the equation of the line passing through and perpendicular to them.
 
How?
 
Given <br /> \begin{array}{l}<br /> (l_1 ):r = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}<br /> {a_1 } \\<br /> {a_2 } \\<br /> {a_3 } \\<br /> \end{array}} \right) + t_1 \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}<br /> {b_1 } \\<br /> {b_2 } \\<br /> {b_3 } \\<br /> \end{array}} \right) \\ <br /> (l_2 ):r = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}<br /> {a^&#039; _1 } \\<br /> {a^&#039; _2 } \\<br /> {a^&#039; _3 } \\<br /> \end{array}} \right) + t_2 \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}<br /> {b^&#039; _1 } \\<br /> {b^&#039; _2 } \\<br /> {b^&#039; _3 } \\<br /> \end{array}} \right) \\ <br /> \end{array}
Let A, B be 2 arbitrary points lying on (l1) and (l2) respectively, then write the position vector of them.
Write the equation of <br /> \overrightarrow {AB}
Since AB is perpendicular to (l1) and (l2): <br /> \overrightarrow {AB} .\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}<br /> {b_1 } \\<br /> {b_2 } \\<br /> {b_3 } \\<br /> \end{array}} \right) = 0<br />
and <br /> \overrightarrow {AB} .\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}<br /> {b^&#039; _1 } \\<br /> {b^&#039; _2 } \\<br /> {b^&#039; _3 } \\<br /> \end{array}} \right) = 0<br />
Solving the equations simultaneously, you'll find t1 and t2, which are later be used to compute the coordinates of A and B. The vector <br /> \overrightarrow {AB} is what you're after.
 
What reasons can I give to my answer?
I know that it can be done, because it's geometrically possible to picture. But, how do I put it into academic words that can be considered a correct answer?

Also, I know how to find a point A and B in L1 and L2. It's just giving an arbitrary value to their parameters. In addition, I know how to find the segment uniting points AB perpendicular to both lines.
But, how do I solve the equations simultaneously?
Do you mean:
a1+(b1)t=a1'(b1')s
a2+(b2)t=a2'(b2')s
a3+(b3)t=a3'(b3')s

and then find "t" and "s"? How do I later find the coordinates of AB?
 
knowLittle said:
It's just giving an arbitrary value to their parameters.
It's not. You are supposed to write down the position vectors of them in terms of t1 and t2. Then you'll have 2 equations of 2 unknowns (t1 and t2), which is solvable. Finding the coordinates is just a matter of substitution now.

For example, given (l): r=(1 2 3) + t(3 2 1). For every point M lying on (l), its coordinate is of the form (1+3t, 2+2t, 3+t).
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top