hey pf!(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

so my question is how cramer's rule makes sense from a geometric perspective. i'm reading the following article:

http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/268994245608.pdf

and i am good with the logic of the entire article except one point: when they say $$x=\frac{ON}{OQ}$$ can someone please take a quick second and explain to me why this is the case? i thought from the coordinate transformation we would simply have $$x=ON$$

let me know what you think! i'd really appreciate it!

also, i do hate directing you all to another link but it is too much to put on this post, although it is pretty simple stuff.

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Cramer's Rule and Geometry

Loading...

Similar Threads - Cramer's Rule Geometry | Date |
---|---|

I Cramer's Rule and Dyadics(Menzel) | May 23, 2016 |

Weird failure of Cramers Rule | Aug 10, 2012 |

Cramers Rule and unique solutions | May 21, 2011 |

Cramer's rule | Jan 31, 2011 |

Cramer's rule | Sep 28, 2009 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**