Do lines have to be intersecting in order to be perpendicular?

  • Thread starter Thread starter The Rev
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Geometry
AI Thread Summary
Lines do not need to intersect to be considered perpendicular, particularly in three-dimensional Euclidean geometry. A line that is perpendicular to a plane is perpendicular to all lines within that plane, regardless of whether they intersect. The definition of perpendicularity can vary, with some definitions applying to vectors rather than lines. Perpendicular lines can be defined based on their direction vectors, which may not require intersection. Ultimately, the interpretation of perpendicularity depends on the context and source being referenced.
The Rev
Messages
81
Reaction score
0
Do lines have to be intersecting in order to be perpendicular?

For example, is a line which is perpendicular to a plane perpendicular to only the lines on that plane which intersect with it, or ALL lines on that plane?

Thanks.

\pi

The Rev
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
No,of course not,once u consider euclidean geometry in 3 dimensions.I think u gave the answer yourself.A line perpendicular to a plane is perpendicular on any line from that plane.And obviously the 2 lines are not coplanar & don't intersect...

Daniel.
 
Like being parallel, there isn't really a standard way of defining perpendicular lines in 3-space. Some prefer them to be intersecting, others not.
 
Maybe it's just me but I always thought of perpendicular as being a term that applies to vectors not lines. So a plane is perpendicular to a vector x if all the vectors in the plane (not lines) were perpendicular the the vector x. Since vectors intersect at the origin there's no real confusion.

I guess it should be easy to extend this definition of lines just by saying two lines are perpendicular if their direction vectors are perpendicular. Or you could require intersection. I guess it depends on the source you are working with.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
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...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top