Does the triple product being zero guarantee coplanarity of vectors?

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter evinda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Conditions Product
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around whether the condition of the triple product being zero, specifically $a \cdot (b \times c) = 0$, is sufficient to guarantee that the vectors $a$, $b$, and $c$ are coplanar. Participants explore the implications of this condition in the context of vector relationships and linear independence.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that if $a \cdot (b \times c) = 0$, then $a$ is orthogonal to the vector $b \times c$, which is orthogonal to both $b$ and $c$. However, they question how this leads to the conclusion that the vectors are coplanar.
  • Others argue that if $b$ and $c$ are linearly independent, they span a plane, and thus $a$ must be a linear combination of $b$ and $c$, implying coplanarity.
  • There is a discussion about the three possibilities for the vectors: being on the same line, in the same plane, or spanning the whole 3-dimensional space, with some participants questioning the sufficiency of the zero triple product to determine these cases.
  • Some participants challenge the assertion that $a$ is parallel to $b$ and $c$, suggesting that this is not necessarily true and that $a$ could simply lie in the same plane as $b$ and $c$.
  • Questions arise regarding the conditions under which two vectors are linearly independent and the implications of their cross product being non-zero.
  • There is a clarification that a plane in $\mathbb{R}^3$ is not a subset of $\mathbb{R}^2$, but rather isomorphic to it, which adds complexity to the discussion about the nature of the vectors and their relationships.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the zero triple product, with no consensus reached on whether it definitively guarantees coplanarity. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the conditions under which the vectors can be classified into the proposed categories.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in their arguments, such as the dependence on definitions of linear independence and the implications of the cross product. There are also unresolved questions about the nature of the vectors and their relationships in three-dimensional space.

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: 109
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)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
813
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K