Flaw in 3D Vector Definition: Solving for t and x Step by Step

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter soandos
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    3d Vector
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition and properties of 3D vectors, specifically focusing on the parameterization of a vector equation and the implications of deriving an equation of a plane from it. Participants explore the transition from a line to a plane and question the validity of the steps taken in the algebraic manipulation.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a vector equation for a line in 3D and derives parametric equations from it, ultimately leading to an equation of a plane.
  • Another participant clarifies that the original equation represents a line, not a vector, and identifies the position and direction vectors involved.
  • Some participants argue that the derived plane equation does not contradict the existence of the line, suggesting that it merely describes a plane containing the line.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of solving for multiple values of a parameter, t, and how this relates to the existence of multiple planes containing the line.
  • One participant emphasizes that they believe they have derived a unique plane, questioning the existence of other planes.
  • Another participant suggests that the calculations are correct but may have introduced additional solutions that do not invalidate the original line.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the derived equation represents a unique plane or merely one of many planes containing the line. There is no consensus on the interpretation of the results or the validity of the steps taken in the algebraic process.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity of the algebra involved and the potential for multiple interpretations of the results, particularly regarding the relationship between the line and the derived plane equation.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals studying vector mathematics, particularly in the context of 3D geometry, as well as those exploring the implications of parameterization in vector equations.

soandos
Messages
166
Reaction score
0
where is the flaw in the following:
it is possible to define a 3d vector using the form:
(x,y,z) = (x_1,y_1,z_1)+t(a,b,c)
this can then be parameterized to become

x = x_1 + a*t
y = y_1 + b*t
z = z_1 +c*t

so, for example, given the vector (x,y,z) = (1,2,3) + t(5,6,7)
one can parametrize it to become:

x = 1 + 5t
y = 2 + 6t
z = 3 + 7t

solving the first equation for t gives
t = (x-1)/5

plugging that into the other two equations gives:

y = 2 + 6/5 * (x-1)
z = 3 + 7/5 * (x-1)

solving the second one for x gives:

x = (5*z-8)/7

changing y = 2 + 6/5 * (x-1) to y = 2 + 6/5 * (2x-x-1)
and in the -x spot putting -(5*z-8)/7 yeilds:

y = 2 + 6/5 * (2x-(5*z-8)/7-1)

simplifying gets:
76 = 35 y + 30 z - 84 x

which is the equation of a plane.
this cannot possibly be right as i started out with a 2-d object (the vector)

where did i mess up?
(p.s. i tried to do all of this algebraically but it got too ugly for me)

thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First of all, that is not the equation of a vector, it is a vector equation of a line.

In that equation there exists 2 vectors, the position vector r and direction vector v

so in your example

r = <1,2,3>
v = <5,6,7>

so your line starts at (1,2,3) and points in the direction <5,6,7>
 
sorry if i used the wrong words. the fact remains that i began with a line/line segment/vector and ended up with an equivalent plane. this is not possible. where is the mistake?
 
You think you have made a mistake where you haven't (except possibly a conceptual one).

You get the equation of a plane containing the line.

Your calculations are correct. All you have done is introduced extra solutions. What you have essentially proven is that if (x, y, z) = (1, 2, 3) + t(5, 6, 7) for some t, then 76 = 35y + 30z - 84x. It, of course, is not true that if 76 = 35y + 30z - 84x, then (x, y, z) = (1, 2, 3) + t(5, 6, 7) for some t, but you haven't proven this (which is good, since it's false).

I imagine with some slight variations, you will find an equation for a different plane. However, it will still be a plane containing the original line; the two planes you found would intersect at this line.
 
There are only 3 forms of a line in 3d. The vector, parametric and symmetric forms.

Taking your example gives:

vector form: [tex]\vec{r}=<1,2,3> + t<5,6,7>[/tex]

symmetric form: [tex]\frac{x-1}{5}=\frac{y-2}{6}=\frac{z-3}{7}[/tex]

parametric form: [tex]x = 1+5t[/tex] , [tex]y = 2+6t[/tex] , [tex]z = 3+7t[/tex]

Of course you can figure out how the line behaves in each plane (which I presume you are searching for) by solving the symmetric form gives you the trivial equation [tex]y=mx+c[/tex] on a particular plane. For example [tex]z=my+c[/tex] (zy plane) or [tex]z=mx+c[/tex] (zx plane) etc...

Edit I left out the 2 point form which looks like: [tex]\frac{x-x_{1}}{x_{2}-x_{1}}=\frac{y-y_{1}}{y_{2}-y_{1}}=\frac{z-z_{1}}{z_{2}-z_{1}}[/tex] so there are 4 (viewed at http://www.cs.fit.edu/~wds/classes/cse5255/thesis/lineEqn/lineEqn#2ptEqn)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
let me try to explain:
i got three parametric equations.
i simplified them into one equation
i got the equation of a plane.
therefore, i know something went wrong.
read the PDF to see exactly what i did.
 

Attachments

Read my post. Then read it again.
 
soandos said:
let me try to explain:
i got three parametric equations.
i simplified them into one equation
i got the equation of a plane.
therefore, i know something went wrong.
read the PDF to see exactly what i did.

adriank is correct. All you have shown is a plane that the line lies upon. There are infinitely many.
 
that is not the case, as i have locked it down to one plane. what happened to all of the others?
 
  • #10
soandos said:
that is not the case, as i have locked it down to one plane. what happened to all of the others?

I will answer you question with another, how many equations did you solve for t? I see 3 different solutions for t

Also, how many lines of the same slope and direction lie upon a single plane ?
 
  • #11
... and by the way if you want to visualize your vectors in 3D you could use this program http://www.bodurov.com/VectorVisualizer/"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
In response to djeitnstine, i only solved one.
doe that mean anything?
 
  • #13
show that the line containing the points (0,0,5) and (1,-1,4) is perpendicular to the line with equations:

x/7=y-3/4=z+9/3

i need help with this question..
 
  • #14
Find vectors parallel to each line, and show that their dot product is zero.
 
  • #15
thank you adriank:)
so;

x/7=y-3/4=z+9/3=t

solving the first equation for t gives;

x/7=t so x=7t

and other two:

y-3/4=t so y=4t+3.
z+9/3=t so z=3t-9.

u=(7,4,3) and P= (0,3,-9) is on l.
u is parallel to l.

then we find another point on l.
x=2 so y=29/7 and z= -57/7.

P1(2,29/7,-57/7)

as we have Q (0,0,5) and Q1 (1,-1,4) ; Q1-Q= (1,-1,-1).

P(0,0,-9) and P1( 2,29/7,-57/7) ; P1-P= (2,8/7,6/7)

P1P*Q1Q=2-8/7-6/7=0 so we can say Q1Q is perpendiclar to l.

is it true? could you pls explain? I'm not sure..
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
12K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K