How to Solve a Parametric Vector Problem Involving Perpendicular Vectors?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gomess
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Parametric Vector
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
3 replies · 2K views
gomess
Messages
14
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


attachment.php?attachmentid=67625&d=1394829803.jpg


Homework Equations


(x,y,z)=(x0,y0,z0) + t(m1,m2,m3)


The Attempt at a Solution


So at first I thought that since vector P1P2 is at right angles to both lines, both lines must be parallel. Quickly dismissed this idea since their direction vectors are not multiples of one another. Then I thought P1P2 could be the cross product of both direction vectors... crossed both vectors and got P1P2=(-1,3,1). Not sure if that's the right approach, and not sure what to do from here. Any help would be great!
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.jpg
    Untitled.jpg
    17.4 KB · Views: 494
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
gomess said:

Homework Statement


Attached thumbnail


Homework Equations


(x,y,z)=(x0,y0,z0) + t(m1,m2,m3)


The Attempt at a Solution


So at first I thought that since vector P1P2 is at right angles to both lines, both lines must be parallel. Quickly dismissed this idea since their direction vectors are not multiples of one another. Then I thought P1P2 could be the cross product of both direction vectors... crossed both vectors and got P1P2=(-1,3,1). Not sure if that's the right approach, and not sure what to do from here. Any help would be great!
Posting the image will make it more likely that your question will get attention:

attachment.php?attachmentid=67625&d=1394829803.jpg


I haven't worked through the problem, but it seems to me that the dot product (scalar product) may work better.
 
I'll try using the scalar product and see where it gets me.
Edit: No progress. I figured that since P1 lies on L1, some value of 't' would take me to P1 and from there, vector P1P2 would take me to P2 (assuming P1P2 is the cross product of the direction vectors).
 
Last edited:
gomess said:
I'll try using the scalar product and see where it gets me.
Edit: No progress. I figured that since P1 lies on L1, some value of 't' would take me to P1 and from there, vector P1P2 would take me to P2 (assuming P1P2 is the cross product of the direction vectors).

Oh! Yes, that should work for the direction of ##\displaystyle\vec{P_1P_2} \ .\ ## You were correct about the result of <-1, 3, 1>