MHB Does the triple product being zero guarantee coplanarity of vectors?

evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hello! (Wave)

View attachment 5341

Does it suffice to show that the triple product is 0?

If we show that $a \cdot (b \times c)=0$ we will have that $a$ is orthogonal to $b \times c$. $b \times c$ is orthogonal to both $b$ and $c$, so we will have that $a$ will be parallel to $b$ and $c$.
Right? But why does this imply that the vectors are coplanar?
 

Attachments

  • cop.JPG
    cop.JPG
    6 KB · Views: 96
Physics news on Phys.org
evinda said:
Hello! (Wave)

Does it suffice to show that the triple product is 0?

If we show that $a \cdot (b \times c)=0$ we will have that $a$ is orthogonal to $b \times c$.

Hey evinda! (Smile)

If we have 3 non-zero vectors, there are 3 possibilities:
  1. They are on the same line (all pairs are parallel).
  2. They are in the same plane.
  3. They span the whole 3-dimensional space (independent of each other).

Let's start with $b$ and $c$.
If they are on the same line, their cross product is zero.
Then it doesn't matter what $a$ is, in all cases we will have $a \cdot (b \times c)=0$.
So we cannot immediately say that $a$ is orthogonal to $b\times c$. (Nerd)

Are $b$ and $c$ on the same line?
$b \times c$ is orthogonal to both $b$ and $c$, so we will have that $a$ will be parallel to $b$ and $c$

Let's assume that $b$ and $c$ are independent, then they span a plane, and $b \times c \ne 0$.

You seem to be saying that $a$ is parallel to $b$, but that is not true. (Worried)
We would have that $a$ is in the same plane as $b$ and $c$.
Or put otherwise, that $a$ is a linear combination of $b$ and $c$.
That is, coplanar. (Nerd)
 
I like Serena said:
If we have 3 non-zero vectors, there are 3 possibilities:
  1. They are on the same line (all pairs are parallel).
  2. They are in the same plane.
  3. They span the whole 3-dimensional space (independent of each other).

Why are there these possibilities? And why are these the only ones?
I like Serena said:
Let's start with $b$ and $c$.
If they are on the same line, their cross product is zero.
Then it doesn't matter what $a$ is, in all cases we will have $a \cdot (b \times c)=0$.
So we cannot immediately say that $a$ is orthogonal to $b\times c$. (Nerd)

Are $b$ and $c$ on the same line?

No, since the one isn't a multiple of the other. So we reject the first case, right?
I like Serena said:
Let's assume that $b$ and $c$ are independent, then they span a plane, and $b \times c \ne 0$.

Does it hold that two vectors $b$ and $c$ are linearly independent iff $b \times c \ne 0$ ?

Also would it hold that they span a plane because a plane is a subset of $\mathbb{R}^2$ and any two linearly independent vectors span a subspace of $\mathbb{R}^2$ ?

Also isn't the equation of a plane of the form $A(x-x_0)+B(y-y_0)+C(z-z_0)=0$ ? WHy can we say that it is a subset of $\mathbb{R}^2$ ?
I like Serena said:
You seem to be saying that $a$ is parallel to $b$, but that is not true. (Worried)
We would have that $a$ is in the same plane as $b$ and $c$.
Or put otherwise, that $a$ is a linear combination of $b$ and $c$.
That is, coplanar. (Nerd)

What would we deduce that $a$ is in the same plane as $b$ and $c$? (Sweating)
 
evinda said:
Why are there these possibilities? And why are these the only ones?

Not sure what you're looking for here... (Wondering)

Let's try this: each sub space of $\mathbb R^3$ must be isomorphic to one of $\mathbb R^0$ (a point), $\mathbb R^1$ (a line), $\mathbb R^2$ (a plane), or $\mathbb R^3$ (the whole space).
No, since the one isn't a multiple of the other. So we reject the first case, right?

Yep. (Nod)
Does it hold that two vectors $b$ and $c$ are linearly independent iff $b \times c \ne 0$ ?

Also would it hold that they span a plane because a plane is a subset of $\mathbb{R}^2$ and any two linearly independent vectors span a subspace of $\mathbb{R}^2$ ?

Also isn't the equation of a plane of the form $A(x-x_0)+B(y-y_0)+C(z-z_0)=0$ ? WHy can we say that it is a subset of $\mathbb{R}^2$ ?

It holds for non-zero vectors.

A plane in $\mathbb R^3$ is not a subset of $\mathbb{R}^2$.
Instead it's isomorphic to $\mathbb{R}^2$, implying there is a bijection between them.
What would we deduce that $a$ is in the same plane as $b$ and $c$? (Sweating)

If $b$ and $c$ are independent, they span a plane through the origin.
If the vector $(A,B,C)$ is normal to that plane, the equation of the plane is:
$$(A,B,C) \cdot (x,y,z) = Ax+By+Cz=0$$
Note that these are exactly all vectors that are perpendicular to $(A,B,C)$.
So if $a$ is perpendicular to a normal of the plane, it must therefore be in the plane. (Nerd)
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
Back
Top