How can I derive a three-variable function from two given points?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around deriving a three-variable function from two given points within the context of calculating a line integral in a vector field. Participants explore methods to express a path in terms of three variables (x, y, z) instead of a single parameter (u).

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes their approach to calculating a line integral along a vector field and expresses a desire to derive a path as a function of (x, y, z).
  • Another participant argues that a line cannot be expressed as a single equation of three variables, stating that a line is one-dimensional and can only define a two-dimensional surface when expressed in that form.
  • A later reply suggests substituting the parameter u with x to express the path in terms of x, y, and z, indicating a method to transition from one parameterization to another.
  • Some participants acknowledge misunderstandings in the initial interpretations of the question, leading to clarifications about the nature of the path and its representation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that a straight line cannot be represented as a single equation in three variables, but there is no consensus on the best method to derive the path in terms of (x, y, z). The discussion remains unresolved regarding the optimal approach to achieve this representation.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions about dimensionality and the representation of paths in three-dimensional space. The mathematical steps involved in the substitution process are not fully resolved.

schroder
Messages
369
Reaction score
1
Recently I was working through a problem involving a force field, and came up with a question I could not answer, so I thought I would post it here. I solved the problem using a vector representation and a line integral, and although I am sure the answer is correct, I would like to solve it by a slightly different method. My question is about the method.

Here is the original problem: I have a vector field x^3 i + 3zy^2 j + -x^2y k and I am calculating the line integral along the straight line segment passing through points (3,2,1) to (0,1,0)
I set this up in terms of u : (3-3u) i + (2-u) j + (1-u) k
Now I substituted into the vector field to get:
[(3 - 3u)^3 (-3)] + [3 (1 - u) (2 – u)^2 (-1) ] + [(3 -3u)^2 (2 – u) (-1)]
This is now integrated in respect to u between the limits 0 to 1 yielding: -19.25

So far so good. Now what I would like to do is integrate the same field in terms of (x,y,z) instead of u. To do that I need to derive a path as a function of (x,y,z) from the given points. That is my question! Of course, I know how to derive the function for two points given in (x,y) by using the point-slope formula. But it has somehow escaped my memory on how to derive a three variable function from the given points.

I’m sure someone here knows how to do this. Can you help?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
schroder said:
Recently I was working through a problem involving a force field, and came up with a question I could not answer, so I thought I would post it here. I solved the problem using a vector representation and a line integral, and although I am sure the answer is correct, I would like to solve it by a slightly different method. My question is about the method.

Here is the original problem: I have a vector field x^3 i + 3zy^2 j + -x^2y k and I am calculating the line integral along the straight line segment passing through points (3,2,1) to (0,1,0)
I set this up in terms of u : (3-3u) i + (2-u) j + (1-u) k
Now I substituted into the vector field to get:
[(3 - 3u)^3 (-3)] + [3 (1 - u) (2 – u)^2 (-1) ] + [(3 -3u)^2 (2 – u) (-1)]
This is now integrated in respect to u between the limits 0 to 1 yielding: -19.25

So far so good. Now what I would like to do is integrate the same field in terms of (x,y,z) instead of u. To do that I need to derive a path as a function of (x,y,z) from the given points. That is my question! Of course, I know how to derive the function for two points given in (x,y) by using the point-slope formula. But it has somehow escaped my memory on how to derive a three variable function from the given points.

I’m sure someone here knows how to do this. Can you help?
What do you mean by that? You can't write a line or curve as a single equation of 3 variables. A line is one-dimensional. If you were to write a single equation f(x,y,z)= 0 you could choose any two of those variables and solve for the third: that defines a two-dimensional surface.

This was typed first-then I realized I had misunderstood your question so I went back and changed- but I forgot to erase this:
You already have that [itex]\vec{r}(u)= (3-3u)\vec{i}+ (2-u)\vec{j}+ (1-u)\vec{k}[/itex][/itex] and now you want to use x itself as parameter? Let x= 3- 3u. Then 3u= 3- x so u= 1- x/3. Replace u by that in the formula: [/itex]\vec{r}(x)= x\vec{i}+ (5- x/3)/vec{j}+ (4- x/3)\vec{k}[/itex]
I thought when I started that that you were asking how to write the curve as a function of x, not as a function of "x, y, z".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HallsofIvy said:
What do you mean by that? You can't write a line or curve as a single equation of 3 variables. A line is one-dimensional. If you were to write a single equation f(x,y,z)= 0 you could choose any two of those variables and solve for the third: that defines a two-dimensional surface.
You already have that [itex]\vec{r}(u)= (3-3u)\vec{i}+ (2-u)\vec{j}+ (1-u)\vec{k}[/itex] and now you want to use

It seems you didn't quite finish what you started to say, but you told me what I needed to know; it can't be done by defining a path in (x,y,z) even though the path is in three dimensional space it is still a straight line. Thanks.
 
I have gone back and editted what I wrote before.
 
HallsofIvy said:
I have gone back and editted what I wrote before.

OK. I see it now. Apparently there is still something wrong with the LaTex, but I get the idea. All I need to do is a reverse sunstitution from terms of u to terms of x,y,z. Thank you.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K