# Is the Shortest Distance Between P and F(x) Along a Perpendicular Line?

• Gear300
In summary, the statement that the shortest distance between a point and a function would be along a line perpendicular to the tangent at the point of intersection is true for a continuous function. However, for a discontinuous function, the shortest distance may not be along the perpendicular line.
Gear300
This is sort of a simple question.

If there is a point P near a function F(x), then, so long as F(x) is continuous, the shortest distance between P and F(x) would be along a line connecting P and F(x), in which it is perpendicular to the tangent of F(x) at the point of intersection.

Is this statement valid?

What do you think?

seems logical...or was that just a rhetorical question?

Are you saying that the line of shortest distance will be perpendicular, or the perpendicular will be the shortest? The former seems correct to me, but not the latter.

First of all, I have no idea what you mean by point being near a function! I assume you mean near the graph of the function but it is interesting that just defining "near" in this case requires that you know the answer to your question! Fortunately, it is not necessary to assume "near". It is easy to show that the shortest distanced from a point to a line is along the perpendicular from that point to that line. If a line from a point to a curve gives a 'local' minimum, then it must be perpendicular to the tangent line at the point where it meets the curve and so "perpendicular to the curve" since that is defined as "perpendicular to the tangent line".

For the global problem we have to be a little more careful! For example, suppose f(x) is defined by f(x)= x2- 4 if $-2\le x\le 2$ and not defined for other values of x (the graph is the parabola with vertex at (0,-4) and x-intercepts (-2,0) and (0,2) but not extending beyond x=-2 or x= 2). If p= (0, 2), then the nearest points on the graph to p are (-2, 0) and (0, 2) but the lines from p to those are not perpendicular to the graph. If we were to define f(x)= x2- 4 only for -2< x< 2, there wouldn't even be a "shortest distance"!

If you are talking about a graph without endpoints, which I suspect is what you intend, then all "global minima" are "local minima" and so are along lines perpendicular to the graph.

OK, assume the function is f(x). A general point on the function is (x, f(x)). So the gradient of the tangent at a general point is f'(x). Let the point be P(a, b). Now the distance d from P to the function is:
d = sqrt[(x-a)^2 + (f(x)-b)^2]
Now we want to minimise this distance. It is easier to minimise the square of the distance. We can do this because distance is positive. So minimise the square distance by setting its derivative =0, thus:
2(x-a) + 2.f'(x)[f(x)-b]= o
f'(x)[f(x)-b]= -(x-a)
f(x) = -(x-a)/f'(x) +b

So the point on the function f(x) that minimises the distance is (x, -(x-a)/f'(x) +b)
So the gradient from this point on the function to the point P is:
gradient = delta y/delta x = [-(x-a)/f'(x) + b -b]/[x-a] = -1/f'(x)

Thus we have proved they are perpendicular.

Yes, if the minimum occurs where the derivative is 0. That's the proviso I mentioned above.

Do you mean a minimum can occur where the derivative is not zero? This can only happen on closed intervals, am I correct? Oh yes, I guess you are correct, then, but I don't think the question warranted that, but yes, it was not stipulated explicitly in the question.

I see, I see...interesting. Makes sense. Thanks.

Last edited:
Depends upon exactly what the original question you are answering said!

If there is a point P near a (graph of a) function F(x), then, so long as F(x) is continuous, the shortest distance between P and F(x) would be along a line connecting P and F(x), in which it is perpendicular to the tangent of F(x) at the point of intersection.
Does not require that F(x) be defined for all x and so the example I gave before is a counterexample.

In fact, a simple counterexample where the graph is defined for all x just occurred to me:

Let F(x)= |x| and p= (0,-1). The shortest line from p to the graph of F is the line segment from p= (0,-1) to to (0,0) and that is not perpendicular to the graph.

If F(x) is differentiable (not just continuous) and the graph of F has no endpoints, then the shortest line segment from p to the graph of F must be perpendicular to the graph.

I don't really like the absolute value function- it just feels so contrived

## 1. What is the shortest distance between P and F(x)?

The shortest distance between point P and the curve F(x) is the length of the perpendicular line that connects the point P to the curve. This distance is also known as the normal distance.

## 2. How is the shortest distance between P and F(x) calculated?

The shortest distance between P and F(x) can be calculated using the formula d = |axP + byP + c| / √(a² + b²), where (xP, yP) is the coordinates of point P and the equation of the curve F(x) is ax + by + c = 0.

## 3. Can the shortest distance between P and F(x) be negative?

No, the shortest distance between P and F(x) cannot be negative. The distance is always a positive value as it is the length of a line segment.

## 4. How is the shortest distance between P and F(x) affected by the position of point P?

The shortest distance between P and F(x) is affected by the position of point P. If point P is located on the curve F(x), the distance is 0. If point P is located above or below the curve, the distance is positive. If point P is located on the other side of the curve, the distance is negative.

## 5. Is the shortest distance between P and F(x) always along a perpendicular line?

Yes, the shortest distance between P and F(x) is always along a perpendicular line. This is because the perpendicular distance is the shortest distance between any point and a line. Any other line connecting point P to the curve F(x) will be longer than the perpendicular line.

Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
649
Replies
11
Views
409
Replies
7
Views
420
Replies
7
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
848
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K