Finding the distance from a point to a plane using substitution

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around finding the distance from a point to a plane, specifically through various mathematical approaches and the implications of substituting variables. Participants explore the use of distance formulas, derivatives, and geometric interpretations related to points and planes in three-dimensional space.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a distance formula involving substitution of variables to express the distance from a point to a plane, questioning the validity of this approach.
  • Another participant challenges the initial distance formula, suggesting it does not accurately represent the distance from the specified point to the plane.
  • A different participant emphasizes the need to include the specific coordinates of the point in the distance formula rather than using arbitrary variables.
  • Some participants discuss the method of finding the distance using a perpendicular vector to the plane and the intersection of a line from the point to the plane.
  • There is mention of minimizing the distance function using calculus, with a focus on the square of the distance for simplification.
  • Concerns are raised about the applicability of the distance formula when dealing with tilted planes, suggesting that arbitrary x and y values may not yield valid points on the plane.
  • One participant questions the necessity of using calculus when a simpler method may suffice.
  • Another participant reiterates that the derived function for distance squared may only apply under certain conditions, particularly for flat planes.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of using substitution in distance calculations, the necessity of including specific point coordinates, and the appropriateness of calculus versus simpler methods. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views on the best approach to find the distance from a point to a plane.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations regarding the assumptions made about the plane's orientation and the implications of using arbitrary variables in the distance formula. There is also mention of the need for partial derivatives in the context of minimizing the distance function.

mrcleanhands
If I want to find the distance from a point to a plane.
E.g. (2,1,-1) to the plane x+y+z=1

I know that distance from one point to another is given by:
[itex]\sqrt{(x-2)^{2}+(y-1)^{2}+(z+1)^{2}}[/itex]

And in this case the solution is to substitute in z=x+y-1 which fits nicely giving us:
distance=[itex]\sqrt{(x-2)^{2}+(y-1)^{2}+(x+y)^{2}}[/itex]What I'm trying to work out in my own mind is why substituting that in will suddenly give us the distance from the plane to the point.

I think that x,y are still arbitrary points in 3D space but when we substitute in the stuff for Z (nice/formal way of saying this anyone?) now x,y are allowed to be arbitrary points in 3D space since if Z is forced to be on the plane then x,y should fall on the plane.

However, if you have a tilted plane I can visualize a case where z is on the level of the plane but x,y are running off somewhere else...and btw for those of you guys answering questions here. I can't tell you how much more enjoyable this forum has made maths for me (I was starting to dislike it a lot). I'm able to delve into all the little details I wasn't before. Thank you!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Where do those -1, -1, +1 come from? That is certainly not the formula for the distance of your point. You should use your specific point here, not something else.

What I'm trying to work out in my own mind is why substituting that in will suddenly give us the distance from the plane to the point.
It does not, you still have two variables there.
 
mrcleanhands said:
If I want to find the distance from a point to a plane.
E.g. (2,0,-3) to the plane x+y+z=1

I know that distance from one point to another is given by:
[itex]\sqrt{(x-1)^{2}+(y-1)^{2}+(z+1)^{2}}[/itex]
Your distance formula gives the distance from an arbitrary point P(x, y, z) to Q(1, 1, -1). There's nothing in your formula that pertains to the point (2, 0, -3), which needs to be in your distance formula.
 
It's 4AM here... I just edited the question.

I don't want to substitute in points from the plane for x,y,z because I want to be able to find the derivative of this Distance function and then minimize it. So I want to understand how I can make sure I'm minimizing the right distance...
 
In order to get the distance from a point to a plane, you need to do the following.
1) Define a vector perpendicular to the plane - in your case Q = (1,1,1) will do.
2) Get the intersection of a line starting at your given point, directed along the perpendicular. Let P be your original point. So the line is described by P + sQ.
3) Plug this into the equation for the plane. (2+s) + (1+s) + (-1+s) = 1.
4) Solve for s = -1/3. The distance is now |s|√3 = 1/√3.
 
mrcleanhands said:
It's 4AM here... I just edited the question.

I don't want to substitute in points from the plane for x,y,z because I want to be able to find the derivative of this Distance function and then minimize it. So I want to understand how I can make sure I'm minimizing the right distance...

mathman said:
In order to get the distance from a point to a plane, you need to do the following.
1) Define a vector perpendicular to the plane - in your case Q = (1,1,1) will do.
2) Get the intersection of a line starting at your given point, directed along the perpendicular. Let P be your original point. So the line is described by P + sQ.
3) Plug this into the equation for the plane. (2+s) + (1+s) + (-1+s) = 1.
4) Solve for s = -1/3. The distance is now |s|√3 = 1/√3.

The problem can also be worked using the approach that mrcleanhands suggests - by finding the minimum value through calculus of the distance between the specified point and an arbitrary point on the plane.

It's simpler to work with the square of the distance than with the distance itself. After all, the point that minimizes the distance also minimizes the square of the distance. You would want to minimize
f(x, y) = D2 = (x - 2)2 + (y - 1)2 + (1 - x - y + 1)2

Since this is a function of two variables, you'll need to use partial derivatives, and set both of them to zero.

The problem can also be done using a technique called Lagrange multipliers. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange_multiplier.
 
Just wondering. Why use a more roundabout approach, when the simple method (no calculus) will do?
 
In this case it's just a matter of learning about an application of partial derivatives.

So the thing I don't get here is why:
f(x, y) = D2 = (x - 2)2 + (y - 1)2 + (1 - x - y + 1)2 is going to give you the distance^2.
If you have a flat plane which is only on one value of Z then yes it will work, but if the plane is tilted then you can no longer just take any value of x,y as it won't necessarily be on the plane anymore even if it's the right Z value.
 
mrcleanhands said:
In this case it's just a matter of learning about an application of partial derivatives.

So the thing I don't get here is why:
f(x, y) = D2 = (x - 2)2 + (y - 1)2 + (1 - x - y + 1)2 is going to give you the distance^2.
If you have a flat plane which is only on one value of Z then yes it will work, but if the plane is tilted then you can no longer just take any value of x,y as it won't necessarily be on the plane anymore even if it's the right Z value.

This gives the distance to a particular point on the plane. The next step is to find the (x,y) pair which minimizes: ∂f/∂x = 0, ∂f/∂y = 0. Solve for x and y.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
52K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K