Help with a vector proof about perpedndicular unit vectors

AI Thread Summary
To prove that the vector b(t) = da(t)/dt is perpendicular to the unit vector a(t), it is essential to start with the condition that 1 = f(t)^2 + g(t)^2, where a(t) = f(t)i + g(t)j. The derivative b(t) can be expressed as b(t) = f'(t)i + g'(t)j, and the dot product a(t) · b(t) must equal zero for perpendicularity. The discussion emphasizes the importance of expressing one function in terms of the other to simplify the differentiation process, specifically using the chain rule correctly. Ultimately, the key to resolving the issue lies in correctly applying these mathematical principles to demonstrate the perpendicular relationship.
vande060
Messages
180
Reaction score
0
Prove that if a(t) is a unit vector whose components are functions of t, then the vector b(t) = da(t)/dt is perpendicular to a(t)
here i have the parameters that make a(t) a unit vector:

1 = f(t)^2 + g(t)^2

i know of the example sinxi + cosxj = a(t)
but that is the only one i can get to work. I need a general proof though so:

a(t) = f(t)^2 i + g(t)^2 j

b(t) = f '(t) i + g '(t) j

(dot) product of a(t) and b(t) is:

f(t)*f '(t) + g(t)*g '(t)

i tried to take the derivative of a(t) and solve for both f'(t) and g'(t)

1 = f(t)^2 + g(t)^2

0 = 2*f(t)*f'(t) + 2*g(t)*g'(t)

i treated this like one big equation and solved each for g'(t) and f'(t)

f ' (t) = [-g(t)*g ' (t)]/ f(t)

g ' (t) = [-f(t)*f ' (t)]/ g(t)

when i carry out the dot product i still don't get zero, i need some advice, am i even on the right track.

the only other way i could think of was to setting each component equal to zero to solve for the derivative of the functions, but i did not know if this was mathematically legal

ex:

2*g(t)*g'(t) = 0

g'(t) = 0
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
vande060 said:
Prove that if a(t) is a unit vector whose components are functions of t, then the vector b(t) = da(t)/dt is perpendicular to a(t)
here i have the parameters that make a(t) a unit vector:

1 = f(t)^2 + g(t)^2

Use this expression to express g(t) in terms of f(t). That will help greatly.
vande060 said:
i know of the example sinxi + cosxj = a(t)
but that is the only one i can get to work. I need a general proof though so:

a(t) = f(t)^2 i + g(t)^2 j

b(t) = f '(t) i + g '(t) j



I don't understand the part in red. Why have you squared the functions? They should not be squared if your definition of a is to be consistent with your definition of b. The rest of what you have doesn't make sense either. See if following my advice above helps.
 
Use this expression to express g(t) in terms of f(t). That will help greatly.

did you mean this one: 1 = f(t)^2 + g(t)^2

so f(t) = (1 - g(t)^2)^1/2

and g(t) = (1- f(t)^2)^1/2

then the derivative of the above:

f ' (t) = -[g(t)*g ' (t)] / [1-g(t)^2]
g ' (t) = -[f(t)*f ' (t)] / [1-f(t)^2]

so then if i take the dot product

[f(t) * f ' (t)] + [ g(t) * g ' (t) ]

(1 - g(t)^2)^1/2 * -[g(t)*g ' (t)] / [1-g(t)^2] + (1- f(t)^2)^1/2 * -[f(t)*f ' (t)] / [1-f(t)^2]

simplified :

-[g(t)*g ' (t)] -[f(t)*f ' (t)]

still don't understand it, where is my error?? :confused:
 
vande060 said:
did you mean this one: 1 = f(t)^2 + g(t)^2

Yes.

vande060 said:
so f(t) = (1 - g(t)^2)^1/2

and g(t) = (1- f(t)^2)^1/2

You just need one of these. The whole point is to eliminate one by expressing it in terms of the other. For example, if you express g in terms of f, then henceforth everything is in terms of f and you don't need g anymore. Do you understand?

vande060 said:
then the derivative of the above:

f ' (t) = -[g(t)*g ' (t)] / [1-g(t)^2]
g ' (t) = -[f(t)*f ' (t)] / [1-f(t)^2]

Here is the problem. This differentiation is wrong. You need to use the chain rule since:

dg/dt = dg/df * df/dt

What is g(f), and what is its derivative with respect to f? That is the first step. The second step is to multiply that by df/dt.

Also, again, you only have to compute ONE of the above derivatives.
 
got it finished, thanks. i wasnt thinking of eliminating terms correctly, like you said
 
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top