MHB Help Needed: I'm Stuck on Steps and Not Sure If They're Correct

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joe20
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Stuck
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around a user seeking help with their steps in a mathematical problem involving vector cross products. An alternate method is suggested to simplify the process by using the equality p×q = 3p×r and applying the BAC-CAB identity to avoid tedious calculations. The user then continues the discussion by manipulating the equation and asking if their derived expression is correct. They inquire whether the term [(p.q) - (3p.r)] / (p.p) represents a scalar or lambda. The conversation emphasizes clarifying the correctness of the steps and the interpretation of the resulting expressions.
Joe20
Messages
53
Reaction score
1
I have done up some of the steps. I got stuck and not sure how to continue. I am not sure if those steps are correct. Need help on that.

View attachment 7976

View attachment 7975
 

Attachments

  • v.jpg
    v.jpg
    88.6 KB · Views: 127
  • Picture3.jpg
    Picture3.jpg
    11.8 KB · Views: 116
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hi, Alexis87.

Alexis87 said:
I have done up some of the steps. I got stuck and not sure how to continue. I am not sure if those steps are correct. Need help on that.

I did not check the details of the work you posted, so I am not suggesting that anything you did there is incorrect. The intent of this post is to suggest an alternate method that avoids the need for computing tedious cross products using vector components.

Using the equality $p\times q = 3p\times r,$ take the cross product on both left hand sides with $p$; i.e.,

$p\times q = 3p\times r\qquad\Longrightarrow\qquad p\times(p\times q)=3p\times(p\times r)$

and now use the "BAC-CAB" BAC-CAB Identity -- from Wolfram MathWorld rule and some algebra to get your desired result (noting that the various dot products you obtain from the BAC-CAB rule are constants).
 
GJA said:
Hi, Alexis87.
I did not check the details of the work you posted, so I am not suggesting that anything you did there is incorrect. The intent of this post is to suggest an alternate method that avoids the need for computing tedious cross products using vector components.

Using the equality $p\times q = 3p\times r,$ take the cross product on both left hand sides with $p$; i.e.,

$p\times q = 3p\times r\qquad\Longrightarrow\qquad p\times(p\times q)=3p\times(p\times r)$

and now use the "BAC-CAB" BAC-CAB Identity -- from Wolfram MathWorld rule and some algebra to get your desired result (noting that the various dot products you obtain from the BAC-CAB rule are constants).
Continuing from your advice:

p x (p x q) = 3p x (p x r)

p(p.q) - q(p.p) = p(3p.r) - r(3p.p)

p(p.q) - p(3p.r) = q(p.p) - 3r(p.p)

p[(p.q)-(3p.r)] = (q - 3r) (p.p)

p [(p.q)-(3p.r)] /(p.p) = q-3r => Is it correct ? then [(p.q)-(3p.r)] /(p.p) will be the scalar or lamda?
 
That's correct.
 
Here is a little puzzle from the book 100 Geometric Games by Pierre Berloquin. The side of a small square is one meter long and the side of a larger square one and a half meters long. One vertex of the large square is at the center of the small square. The side of the large square cuts two sides of the small square into one- third parts and two-thirds parts. What is the area where the squares overlap?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K