Do lines have to be intersecting in order to be perpendicular?

  • Thread starter Thread starter The Rev
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Geometry
AI Thread Summary
Lines do not need to intersect to be considered perpendicular, particularly in three-dimensional Euclidean geometry. A line that is perpendicular to a plane is perpendicular to all lines within that plane, regardless of whether they intersect. The definition of perpendicularity can vary, with some definitions applying to vectors rather than lines. Perpendicular lines can be defined based on their direction vectors, which may not require intersection. Ultimately, the interpretation of perpendicularity depends on the context and source being referenced.
The Rev
Messages
81
Reaction score
0
Do lines have to be intersecting in order to be perpendicular?

For example, is a line which is perpendicular to a plane perpendicular to only the lines on that plane which intersect with it, or ALL lines on that plane?

Thanks.

\pi

The Rev
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
No,of course not,once u consider euclidean geometry in 3 dimensions.I think u gave the answer yourself.A line perpendicular to a plane is perpendicular on any line from that plane.And obviously the 2 lines are not coplanar & don't intersect...

Daniel.
 
Like being parallel, there isn't really a standard way of defining perpendicular lines in 3-space. Some prefer them to be intersecting, others not.
 
Maybe it's just me but I always thought of perpendicular as being a term that applies to vectors not lines. So a plane is perpendicular to a vector x if all the vectors in the plane (not lines) were perpendicular the the vector x. Since vectors intersect at the origin there's no real confusion.

I guess it should be easy to extend this definition of lines just by saying two lines are perpendicular if their direction vectors are perpendicular. Or you could require intersection. I guess it depends on the source you are working with.
 
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
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 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top