MHB Finding the Counter Clockwise Angle of Vector Difference B-A with the +x Axis

  • Thread starter Thread starter ashcash
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Trig Vectors
AI Thread Summary
To find the counterclockwise angle of the vector difference B-A with the +x axis, the correct approach involves using the tangent function with the components 2.77 and -5.95. The calculation should be tan(θ) = 5.95/2.77, leading to θ ≈ 65 degrees when using the inverse tangent. It's important to ensure that the calculator is set to degrees, not radians, to avoid confusion. The discussion clarifies that the signs of the components can be adjusted based on the quadrant, confirming that the vector indeed lies in the first quadrant after correcting the direction of vector A.
ashcash
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I have a question on finding the counter clockwise angle the vector difference B-A makes with the +x axis
I already have the components of vector difference for B-A and I have checked that they are correct they are 2.77,-5.95
I started with doing the tan function (opp/adj) which was -5.95/2.77
I got -2.148 which I found the tan(-2.148) to be -1.536
I then found the arctan to be 56.934
I then subtracted 360-56.93 and got an answer to be 303.07
This proved to be wrong and I am wondering if someone could help find where my mistake is.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I find that your question is a bit unclear, do you have the original question?

You got $2.77$ and $-5.95$; are those the lengths of the $x$ and $y$ components of the vector respectively?

$$\tan\left({\theta}\right)=\frac{5.95}{2.77}$$

I do not get $\theta$ the be $57$ degrees.
 
Sorry for the confusing question, the question word for word is
"Find the counterclockwise angle the vector difference B⃗ −A⃗ makes with the +x axis."
2.77 is for B and -5.95 is for A
So my math must be off, I am assuming I went wrong getting
tan(θ)=-5.95/2.77
First I took what I got from dividing the two which was -2.148, and plugged it in my calculator and like this (tan -2.148) and got 1.536
then I do arctan(1.536) am I right?
 
I see your mistake now.

For all intents and purposes, the signs don't don't matter since we're dealing with magnitudes here. We can just adjust accordingly depending on what quadrant we are on.

$$\tan\left({\theta}\right)=\frac{5.95}{2.77}$$

Theta is computed by the inverse tangent:

$$\tan^{-1}\left({\frac{5.95}{2.77}}\right)\approx65 \text{ degrees}$$

If your calculator is on radians, use the conversion factor $\frac{180}{\pi}$

- - - Updated - - -

Notice, however, that your question wants $\vec{B-A}$, so we need to flip the vector $\vec{A}$ in the opposite directions. Therefore, the vector lies on the first quadrant.
 
I understand my mistake now!
Thank you so much!
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
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 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top