Finding the point of intersection of two lines

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding the point of intersection of two lines represented in parametric form. The lines are defined by the equations R_1(λ) and R_2(μ), with participants exploring how to equate the two to find common values for the parameters λ and μ.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss setting up equations based on the individual x, y, and z coordinates derived from the parametric equations of the lines. There is an attempt to equate these coordinates to find relationships between λ and μ. Some participants express uncertainty about how to proceed after establishing the equations, particularly regarding the implications of having three equations for two unknowns.

Discussion Status

Some participants have successfully derived values for λ and μ that satisfy the equations, leading to a potential point of intersection. However, there remains a question about the reasoning behind why these values correspond to the intersection point, indicating ongoing exploration of the underlying concepts.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of the general case where two lines in three-dimensional space may be skew and not intersect, which adds complexity to the problem. Participants are also navigating the implications of their findings in relation to the geometry of the lines.

malty
Gold Member
Messages
163
Reaction score
0
[SOLVED]Finding the point of intersection of two lines

Hi, I would really, really appreciate it if someone could help me with this.

Homework Statement


Find the point of intersection between the lines:
[tex]R_1(\lambda)=[1,\hspace {4} 0 \hspace {4} ,-1] + \lambda[1, \hspace {4} 1,\hspace {4} 1][/tex]

[tex]R_2(\lambda)=[1, \hspace {4}2,\hspace {4} 1] +\mu[4, \hspace {4}2, \hspace {4}2,][/tex]







The Attempt at a Solution



I'm not really sure how to do this, my line of thought was that I need to somehow get rid of the constants variable [tex]\lambda and \mu[/tex] by equating

[tex]R_1(\lambda)=R_2(\mu)[/tex]
I got:

[tex]\mu[4,2,2]-\lambda[1,1,1]=[0,-2,-2][/tex]

This is Where I think I'm stuck. I think I need a second equation that relates lambda and mu but I can't seem to find one, I think that it may be something to do with the angles of two intersecting lines before and after the point of intersection being the same, but really I'm just grasping at straws.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Just set up the equations for the individual x, y, z, coordinates:

In [itex]R_1(\lambda)= [1, 0 ,-1] + \lambda[1, 1, 1][/itex]
[itex]x= 1+ \lambda[/itex], [itex]y= \lambda[/itex] and [itex]z= -1+ \lambda[/itex]

In [itex]R_2(\mu)= [1, 2, 1]+ \mu [4, 2, 2][/itex]
[itex]x= 1+ 4\mu[/itex], [itex]y= 2+ 2\mu[/itex],and [itex]z= 1+ 2\mu[/itex]
Now set those equal:
[itex]1+ \lambda= 1+ 4\mu[/itex], [itex]\lambda= 2+ 2\mu[/itex], and [itex]-1+\lambda= 1+ 2\mu[/itex].

That gives you three equations for the two unknown numbers [itex]\lambda[/itex] and [itex]\mu[/itex]. "In general", you can't solve three equations for two unknowns because, "in general" two lines in three dimensions are "skew"- they don't intersect. Go ahead and solve 2 of the equations for [itex]\lambda[/itex] and [itex]\mu[/itex], then put those values into the third equation to see if they satisfy that equation. If they do, those values of [itex]\lambda[/itex] and [itex]\mu[/itex] give the point of intersection. If they don't then the lines do not intersect.
 
HallsofIvy said:
Just set up the equations for the individual x, y, z, coordinates:

In [itex]R_1(\lambda)= [1, 0 ,-1] + \lambda[1, 1, 1][/itex]
[itex]x= 1+ \lambda[/itex], [itex]y= \lambda[/itex] and [itex]z= -1+ \lambda[/itex]

In [itex]R_2(\mu)= [1, 2, 1]+ \mu [4, 2, 2][/itex]
[itex]x= 1+ 4\mu[/itex], [itex]y= 2+ 2\mu[/itex],and [itex]z= 1+ 2\mu[/itex]
Now set those equal:
[itex]1+ \lambda= 1+ 4\mu[/itex], [itex]\lambda= 2+ 2\mu[/itex], and [itex]-1+\lambda= 1+ 2\mu[/itex].

That gives you three equations for the two unknown numbers [itex]\lambda[/itex] and [itex]\mu[/itex]. "In general", you can't solve three equations for two unknowns because, "in general" two lines in three dimensions are "skew"- they don't intersect. Go ahead and solve 2 of the equations for [itex]\lambda[/itex] and [itex]\mu[/itex], then put those values into the third equation to see if they satisfy that equation. If they do, those values of [itex]\lambda[/itex] and [itex]\mu[/itex] give the point of intersection. If they don't then the lines do not intersect.

Thanks a bundle!

I got them to [tex]\lambda = 4[/tex] and [tex]\mu = 1[/tex] and they satisfied the third equation. But I don't really understand why [tex]\lambda[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] give the point of intersection . . .
 
Last edited:
malty said:
Thanks a bundle!

I got them to [tex]\lambda = 4[/tex] and [tex]\mu = 1[/tex] and they satisfied the third equation. But I don't really understand why [tex]\lambda[/tex] and [tex]\mu[/tex] give the point of intersection . . .

You've found the values of [itex]\lambda[/itex] and [itex]\mu[/itex] such that [itex]R_1(\lambda)=R_2(\mu)[/itex], so plugging your value for [itex]\lambda[/itex] into R_1 will give you a point. Plugging your value for [itex]\mu[/itex] into R_2 will give you another point. But necessarily, these points will be the same. Hence this is the point of intersection.
 
cristo said:
You've found the values of [itex]\lambda[/itex] and [itex]\mu[/itex] such that [itex]R_1(\lambda)=R_2(\mu)[/itex], so plugging your value for [itex]\lambda[/itex] into R_1 will give you a point. Plugging your value for [itex]\mu[/itex] into R_2 will give you another point. But necessarily, these points will be the same. Hence this is the point of intersection.

Ah, I understand it now, thanks a million guys :D
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K